Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 061

Wednesday, July 27 2005

• Re: Admin: Blogs
• Vat-Grown Meat & Bone: Tamei? Kosher?
• harry potter and kishuf
• Re: harry potter and kishuf
• Re: Covenant and Conversation - Pinchas
• Re: harry potter and kishuf
• Re: harry potter and kishuf
• Re: Covenant and Conversation - Pinchas
• Re: kishuf
• Fw: Re: harry potter and kishuf
• Re: harry potter and kishuf
• Re: harry potter and kishuf
• [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Yeshiva Tuition
• Re: [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Laws of Charity IV
• Re: The permissability of atypical shuckling...
• Re: The permissability of atypical shuckling...
• Re: Chasurei Mechasra
• Mechachmascha
• Rabbinic laws and spirituality
• Re: Rabbinic laws & spirituality
• Re: kishuf
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's halachic analysis of whether soldiers may refuse orders
• Re: [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Yeshiva Tuition
• More on Wireless, from the Der Alter Blog (deralter.blogspot.com)

Everyone has had a while to think about it, and we have had all of two
comments from people other than myself -- one pro and one con.

If people who have a preference could kindly email me <micha@aishdas.org>,
I'll take a head count.

-mi

Well, that's about it.

Note this item from Wired Magazine:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/start.html?pg=4>

Bone wedding rings, grown from bone cells taken from a live human.
Probably about the mass of a fingerbone. Would they convey tumat meit?

Similarly, recent news stories about meat grown from meat cells in vitro.
If the initial sample is too small to see, is the grown meat a pareve
davar chadash? Is kosher vat-grown pork in our future? Contrariwise,
would kosher vat meat have to come from shechted animals?

See, e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat> and links from
there.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> When I ask the mal'achim "Borkhuni leshalom", I view it the same way
> as if I would ask a tzadik "Please give me a brocha." In BOTH cases,
> I am merely ASKING someone to pray to Hashem on my behalf. Since the
> malach/tzadik has the option of not praying on my behalf, not to mention
> that Hashem is the option of not answering that prayer, I don't see
> where there's any kishuf.

When a witch/pagan casts a spell, it is a prayer that forces of nature
will do the witch's request. (That's what they've told me.) So are you
saying that if you bind/force one of these forces to do your will it
is kishuf, but if you merely ask them, it is not kishuf? So if you only
ask them and then they agree to do your will, no kishuf was done because
they acted on their own daas and weren't forced?

brent kaufman 

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:16:49PM -0500, brent wrote:
: When a witch/pagan casts a spell, it is a prayer that forces of nature
: will do the witch's request. (That's what they've told me.) So are you
: saying that if you bind/force one of these forces to do your will it
: is kishuf, but if you merely ask them, it is not kishuf? ...

Contemporary Wiccans and Pagans follow a fanciful reconstruction of
what they wish it were the originals had worshipped. It could well be
that what they're doing has a very different din than their classical
and medieval namesakes.

The example I gave, "Borkhuni leshalom", is non-trivial. It's mutar
according to nearly all pesaqim. The Gra and R' el-Qafeh ("Kapach")
prohibit such praying to intermediaries.

RAM wrote:
> When I ask the mal'achim "Borkhuni leshalom", I view it the same way as if
> I would ask a tzadik "Please give me a brocha." In BOTH cases, I am merely
> ASKING someone to pray to Hashem on my behalf. Since the malach/tzadik has
> the option of not praying on my behalf, not to mention that Hashem is the
> option of not answering that prayer, I don't see where there's any kishuf.

it would seem from the Rambam's ikkarim that asking somehting that can
be confused with being a middleman between oneself and HQBH is prohibited
for more fundamental reasons than kishuf. Or is kishuf a toladah?

But the mal'ach is unlike the tzaddiq until one elevates the tzadiq
to the role of middleman. Obviously L and Breslovers (and others with
that strain of belief about the role of the tzaddiq) would give a very
different answers.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In message , saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> writes
>It has long struck me that although much of masechet Sanhedrin is devoted
>to the relationship between the executive and judicial branches, there
>does not seem to be any legislative branch in rabbinic law at all....

Go read Menachem Elion's Mishpat Ivri, - the sections on takana and
gezera, and particularly the sections on takanot hakahal. It is a
complete eye opener and traces the legislative aspect through the tannaim,
amoraim, geonim,, rishonim etc.

While one of the things that Americans are most proud of is the strict
division between the legislative, executive and judicial branches,
that is not necessarily true elsewhere. In England, for example,
the legislative and executive branches are intertwined, it is only the
judicial branch that is quite separate.

Within halacha, you have this fascinating interplay between the tovei
hair the kahal and the judicial sections in the creation of communal
wide legislation - and the halachic analysis indicates that indeed
there is a concept of legislature in rabbinic thought. The fact that
this halacha has not been developed in hundreds of years (and hence is
not that widely known) would seem to have more to do with the fact that
Jewish communities have not been permitted to be self governing in more
recent times than the absence of halachic frameworks.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 15:16 -0500, brent wrote:
> When a witch/pagan casts a spell, it is a prayer that forces of nature
> will do the witch's request. (That's what they've told me.) So are you
> saying that if you bind/force one of these forces to do your will it
> is kishuf, but if you merely ask them, it is not kishuf? So if you only
> ask them and then they agree to do your will, no kishuf was done because
> they acted on their own daas and weren't forced?

It depends, Pulleyn classified greek prayer into 4 categories, for
instance the Greeks believed that when one prayed to the gods (such
as through normal prayer or an offering), the god was required to
fulfill the request because of the principle that pulleyn states as
da-quia-dedi ("give because I have given"), because of the principle
of ?�?�?�?�?� ("reciprocity") that was very important in greek culture.
Basically prayer was about forming a reciprocal relationship w/ the god
that Pulleyn categorizes as ?�?� ?�???�?�.

My understanding would be, If one believes that their prayer is the
cause of some effect, that is avoda zara. I would say that perhaps we
don't (or shouldn't) believe our prayer can cause any outside effect,
but can only cause a change in ourselves that would cause the gezeirah
against us, or for instance make known that the gezeirah against plony
A also affects plony B...Z and hence isn't a fair gezeirah.

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 17:46 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
...
> It depends, Pulleyn classified greek prayer into 4 categories, for
> instance the Greeks believed that when one prayed to the gods (such
...

I wrote this email really quickly (and the greek didn't come through)
so it's not quite clear, but I should thank Moshe's father for this, as I
was the knowledge is from a term paper I was supposed to hand in for Dr.
Feldman's masterpiece's class and never did as I thought I needed the
class to graduate, but it turned out I didn't. Even with that, it was
one of the better classes I took in YU. :)

> While one of the things that Americans are most proud of is the strict
> division between the legislative, executive and judicial branches,
> that is not necessarily true elsewhere. In England, for example,
> the legislative and executive branches are intertwined, it is only the
> judicial branch that is quite separate.

Don't you mean the legislative and judicial branches are interwined, but
the executive is separate? Even so, I wouldn't say intertwined. The House
of Lords as a body is part of both the legislature (as second chamber
of parliament without much power) and the judiciary (as highest court),
but I don't know that they intertwine on other levels, and I don't think
that in practice the same people are deeply involved in both functions.

Or were you referrering to something else?

Americans should also be proud of how they teach Civics. My children
know more about the US government after living there for 2 years and
attending 4th and 5th grade than I know about the British after going
through the whole educational system.

R' Brent Kaufman wrote <<< I believe that a woman living in Geulah/Meah
Sharim could not maintain communal respect and be allowed to continue
living there let alone to continue practicing, there, a process/behavior
which the rest of that particular neighborhood believes to be wrong and
kishuf. ... If her practices did not have an actual positive result then
she could not have attained her reputation. That is my belief. >>>

You're entitled to believe that, but I tend to much more cynical
beliefs. I see too many people who do things for no reason other than
that they heard it to be a segulah. Do you (or any others of the chevrah)
know of anyone who personally experienced something which they feel to
be directly attributable to the red thread that they wear on their wrist?

Akiva Miller

From: "SBA" sba@sba2.com
> Shach in YD179:1 shittas allowing kishuf [the REAL thing] for a choleh.

> Also see the Be'er Hetev there quoting [Sh'ut N"Sh?]
> "...lo osro Torah elo kishuf shel zemanin kadmoniyos.
> Ochein atoh ein kishuf ba'olom vehakol hevel..."

An excellent comprehensive teshuva  Minchas Yitzchok vol 6:80.
See also Shevet Halevi vol. 3:107 and Betzel Hachohmo 4:13

SBA

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <>
> When I ask the mal'achim "Borkhuni leshalom", I view it the same way as if
> I would ask a tzadik "Please give me a brocha." In BOTH cases, I am merely
> ASKING someone to pray to Hashem on my behalf. 

Let's not forget Yaakov Ovinu forcing the Malach battling him to give
him a brocho..?

SBA

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 12:08:51AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:> RZS, kinly look at the portion I highlighted and explain why singing
:> "Borkhuni leshalom" as part of Shalom Aleikhem doesn't qualify as
:> kishuf by your definition. TIA!

: Because a blessing isn't *doing* anything...

Aside from the aforementioned mi'ut who do assur Borkhuni leshalom...

According to NhC ch. 2, making a berakhah is connecting the mevorakh to
the Shoresh of all shefa. It's very much a metaphysical "something".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

About 10 years ago, I think in '94, R. Feivel Cohen (author of the
Badei Ha-Shulhan) returned from a convention of Agudath Israel of
America somewhat upset. It seems that there was a big discussion at
the convention about what some were calling a "tuition crisis." R.
Cohen pointed out that the Gemara in Beitzah 16a states the following:
    All of one's livelihood is determined from Rosh Hashanah through
    Yom Kippur except for what one spends on Shabbos, on holidays, and
    one's children's Torah education because [for these three things]
    if one reduces [the expense] they reduce [one's income] and if one
    adds [to the expense] they add to one's income.

Clearly, said R. Cohen, there cannot be a tuition crisis. The more you
pay for tuition, the more one receives as income to make up for that
expense. At least according to the Gemara and "We know what we call
people who do not believe what the Gemara says."

I suggested out to him that secular education, transportation and
other incidental items are probably not covered by this promise but he
disagreed. Because they are necessary for the Torah education, they are
also included in this promise.

R. Hershel Schachter, via TorahWeb
<http://torahweb.org/torah/2005/parsha/rsch_matos.html>, makes the same
point. Pay the tuitions and have faith. If you need to reduce other
expenses, that would have happened anyway.

While he does not say this, I would say that the Torah education of
one's children is so important that one should make do without what are
considered necessities in today's world. Sell your furniture to pay
for tuition; eat tuna from a can for 7 days a week; wear second-hand
clothing. Nothing should come before giving your children the best
Torah education possible. Our grandparents understood this importance
of education. How did we forget it?

--
Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/26/2005 09:11:00 PM

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 07:29:37PM -0700, Gil Student wrote:
: Ch. 251
...
: 3. It is considered to be tzedakah to give money to one's over-age
: children (over the age of six--Shakh) in order to pay for their Torah
: education for the boys or proper guidance for the girls...

So, according to the Shakh, would it be appropriate to count all of
one's tuition as maaser money? I've heard arguments about the tosefes
needed to carry children who do not pay full tuition. But never before
the idea that one's own children should also count as tzedakah. Why not?

Second, can I argue with the scholarship committee that it's assur to
make me pay more than chomesh for post-preschool? <half-joking>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: Micha Berger <>
> Tzeni'us isn't primarily about sexuality. Again, my example of turning
> down the role of sha"tz.

Where does it mention this is for tzenius reasons?

SBA

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:03:39PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: Where does it mention this is for tzenius reasons?

RHS made the argument in a devar Torah we've discussed here twice. See
<http://torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_dvorim2.html>. It is from
there that I got my thesis. Here's a very small snippet from a vort
worth seeing just to put one's own middos in order:
> Why was it so obvious to the tanaim that we can not have women
> rabbis? After all, Tosfos (Bava Kama 15a) raises the possibility of giving
> semicha to women, and having them serve on a beth din. So if women can
> possibly receive semicha, why can't they serve the community as rabbis?

> The answer is obvious. Although we must sometimes compromise on our
> midas hatznius and do certain mitzvos befarhesia (in public), this is
> not required of women. Women are not being discriminated against. They
> alone, unlike men, are given the opportunity to maintain their midas
> hahistatrus at all times.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 04:13:11AM -0500, brent wrote:
:> Then how is it mutar for men? Tzeni'us is not a gender specific value.

: Sure it is. What attracts men to women is not the same thing as what
: attracts women to men.

So the obvious next step would be to treat this as an ervah question,
a parallel to qol be'ishah ervah.

I would think that RBK's argument would make it MORE muchrach that men
can't shukl in such a way than women. Gender norms (AIUI) are such that
women give MORE weight to what a man stands for than his appearance than
men do when assessing the attractiveness of women.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

I recently posted that The Encyclopedia of Gedolei Yisrael, by leaving
out a key point, leaves one with an inaccurate impression of the P'as
HaShulchan's understanding of the Gra's intepretation of "Chasurei
Michsara." The first link below reproduces the page from the EGD, and
the second the page from P'as HaShulchan.

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/encycOnGraOnChasurei.jpg>

And <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/peiasOnGraOnChasurei.pdf>

Zvi Lampel 

From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
> Second try-anyone have a source for or explanation of the piece we say
> after putting on the shel rosh?

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> ..However I just looked up the Likutei Maharich and he explains [bederech
> efshar] that the first part refers to the Zohar calling the 4 battim
> of the tefilin shel rosh Chochmo, Bina, Chesed, Gevuro, while "veshemen
> hatov" refers to the gemoro Shabbos 153a "veshemen al roshcho al yechsar -
> elu tefilin sheberosh.."

This morning someone in shul showed me the siddur 'Avodas Hashem'
published by Belz which quotes Kitzur Sheloh mentioning this piece
'besheim sefer Heichak Hakodesh'

SBA 

Re the request for sources on whether there are any spiritual consequences
such as loss of Olam HaBah and damage to the neshama when a rabbinic
law is transgressed:

With regard to Olam HaBah, see Shaarei Teshuva le-Rabbenu Yonah, Shaar 3,
towards the end of section 8, where he says that people who disregard
issurim de-rabbanan are "porshim mi-darchei tzibbur" and hence "yordim
le-gehinnom ve-niddonim sham le-dorei doros." One might construe this
principle narrowly, and it has less to do with the intrinsic nature of
any particular issur de-rabbanan than with the general attitude towards
such issurim, but I believe it is nonetheless a propos of the question.
Note that the entire aim of Rabbenu Yonah in this shaar is to show a
person the consequences of transgression at each level of mitzvah (i.e.,
de-rabbanan, asei, lav she-nitak la-asei, lo sa'asei she-ein bo maaseh,
etc.) as a spur and an aid to doing teshuva.

With regard to damage to the neshama, a source that comes to mind --
although not a perfect fit -- is Yoreh Deah 81:7 in the Rema. Also,
see Mesilas Yesharim 11, in the discussion of maachalos assuros, where
he talks about timtum halev after an introduction on forbidden foods
that includes things that are assur mi-de-rabbanan like bishul akkum
and stam yeynam.

Yitzchok Brandriss

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 11:11:22PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: We all know that if one transgresses the Torah there are consequences 
: which include spiritual dimensions such as loss of Olam HaBah and damage 
: to the neshama. What happens when a rabbinic law is transgressed?...

First, I can see a difference between gezeiros and other dinim derabbanan.
Gezeiros exist not to create new halachic realities, but to protect us
from already existing ones. Unless, the violating the gezeirah too has
negative impact on the neshamah, but to such a small scale compared to
the deOraisa, it still pays to create them. Still this new spiritual
entity doesn't seem to be in concert with the idea of gezeira.

Despite that, I think it's a necessary conclusion from Nefesh haChaim I ch
18. He writes that the avos kept kol haTorah kulah by being sufficiently
aware of their own pegamim that they could intuit what they needed to
do. The gemara he quotes includes dinim derabban in what they observed.
It would seem, then, that he reads the gemara as making a point of
including dinim derabbanan as things which have a chalos on the neshamah.
This presumably includes gezeiros, unless someone can figure out a diyuq
halashon for me.

(The NhC might agree with the idea in the L Rebbe's igeres that they
didn't actually keep each and every halakhah, but the reality behind
them. Tzarich iyun.)

Also, one of the few times (the only one, quite possibly) that SA haRav
discusses ta'am hamitzvah is WRT Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos. He writes
that the actual supernal Pesach is timeless, as there is no time in
Shamayim. (What then about neshamos spending less than 12 months in
gehenom WRT qaddish?) HQBH gave us a connection to the supernal Pesach
on a given day. The Rabbanan gave us a connection on another. The etzem
davar is the same, it's the connection that is deRabbanan. This shitah
clearly assigns a particular deRabbanan, a "minhag avoseihem beyadeihem"
even, a spiritual chalos.

I do not see the argument from Shaarei Yosher as compelling.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 07:48:34PM +0300, Moshe Feldman wrote:
: R. Shimon Shkop in Shaarei Yosher 1:7 (s.v. u'v'ha d'hiksha ha'Ramban;
: see also 1:2 and 1:3) argues that the reason that safek de'oraisa is
: l'chumra while safek drabbanan is l'kulah-despite the existence of the
: Torah prohibition of lo sasur-is that if there is a de'oraisa issur and
: you are violate it b'safek, you did an act which is assur (therefore,
: eating treif damages you even if you didn't realize it was treif).
: But if there is a safek issur d'rabbanan and you violate it, you did
: not do anything which is intrinsically assur; you also didn't violate lo
: sasur because that is violated only when you deliberately disregard the
: chachamim's commands, not when you do so unknowingly. In other words,
: an issur de'oraisa creates a chefzah of issur which damages a person
: even if he violates the issur unknowingly, but an issur d'rabbanan is an
: issur gavra-forbidding a person to knowingly act against the chachamim's
: commands, but the act is not intrinsically assur....

Many issurei de'oraisa are issurei gavra. Your argument would eliminate
inuyei Yom Kippur as much as a derabbanan. It also makes dinim derabbanan
(gezeiros aside for the moment) pointless observances. Done because the
Sanhedrin makes us do it, with no gain in their minds when they passed
the law.

Last, I wonder if we haven't found the root of the machloqes between
the Smag counting mitzvos deRabbanan amongst the 613, and the Rambam not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Therefore I believe that since it's true she is allowed to remain doing
> what she does in Meah Sharim, and her reputation continues to spread
> and people continue to go to her that she is in fact creating positive
> effects/results. I dont' know what those results are or how to measure
> them. But that is what I call "working".

The above comment reminds me of a course I took in college called "Medical
Anthropology" in which we compared systems of healing in many different
cultures. The professor (Cliff Barnett) began on the first day with
an important yesod: 90% of human diseases are self-limiting. Meaning,
any healing system, from Western medicine to Voodoo, will naturally be
successful at least 90% of the time! Makes you think.

Therefore, he concluded, the psychological and social affects of
disease and healing are as important, if not more important, than the
physiological. He was really setting us up for a critique of scientific
western medicine that typically ignores the soul and only treats the body.

Rabbi Alexander Seinfeld
The Art of Amazement: Judaism�s Forgotten Spirituality
"Do you believe you have a soul? If you answered "yes" you had better
read this book!"

From: "David Cohen" <ddcohen@verizon.net>
> Is Medinat Yisra'el "reishit tsemichat ge'ulateinu"? Some are certain that
> it is, and others are certain that it can't be. I hope and pray that it
> will be, but I believe that the answer may as of yet be undetermined,
> and contingent on whether or not we can pull it together and build a
> society that is worthy of it.

I personally agree. However, I get the impression that much of the
DL world is influenced by the kabbalistic-oriented perspective that
we are in the time of "b'itah" rather than "achi'she'na"--IOW, we are
not worthy of the geulah and nevertheless HKBH is bringing the geulah
because he promised that he would eventually do so, despite our sins.
Certainly, no one thinks that am yisrael since 1948 is that much more
righteous than pre-1948, so the fact that Hashem is bringing the geulah
(according to this view) is that we have reached the stage of "bi'itah."
AIUI, there are passages in the Zohar which support this understanding
(although that probably could have been said at the time of Shabbetai
Zvi too).

> The thought that we may, c"v, be expelled from Erets Yisra'el again
> before the ge'ulah sheleimah, may be "unthinkable" in the sense that
> we dread the thought, but I think that we dare not regard it as an
> impossibility.

Agreed. Reminds me of the Jews in the time of Yirmiyahu said "Heichal
Hashem, Heichal Hashem"-that Hashem would never allow His House to
be destroyed.

From: "brent" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
> I don't know how the DL
> world poskens on this matter but I did have to sit through a few months
> of shiurim from R. Riskin (Efrat) giving his basis for holding that Rabin
> had a din of Melech. I can't say that I agreed with his conclusion but
> his reasons based upon Rishonim and poskim was really interesting.

Lots of DL poskim consider the prime minister (or perhaps the entire
Israeli gov't) to have the din of melech. This view is found in Rav
Kook's Mishpat Kohein 144:15 (I can email this tshuva to whomever is
interested). I have heard that this was R. Aharon Soloveitchik's view
as well.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Gil Student wrote:
> About 10 years ago, I think in '94, R. Feivel Cohen (author of the
> Badei Ha-Shulhan) returned from a convention of Agudath Israel of
> America somewhat upset. It seems that there was a big discussion at
> the convention about what some were calling a "tuition crisis." R.
> Cohen pointed out that the Gemara in Beitzah 16a states the following:
>    All of one's livelihood is determined from Rosh Hashanah.....
>    Yom Kippur except for what one spends on Shabbos, on holidays, and
>    one's children's Torah education because [for these three things]
>    if one reduces [the expense] they reduce [one's income] and if one
>    adds [to the expense] they add to one's income.
> Clearly, said R. Cohen, there cannot be a tuition crisis. The more
> you pay for tuition, the more one receives as income to make up
> for that expense.

I'm not certain, but I seem to recall sometime in the recent past
having a discussion similar to this one. Basically, the question is,
can we take certain promises or assurances of chazal as literal and
absolute guarantees? It's plainly evident to me that we can't. Aren't
there plenty of sayings in the gemara that are disproven every day (and
I'm not talking here about scientific issues)? For instance: "Shluchei
mitzvah aino nizakin", all the many examples of promises of long life,
"meshane makom, meshane mazal", etc. I'm sure many others can think of
more examples.

I don't believe that these sayings should just be taken as cute little
aphorisms like Benjamin Franklin's many quotes, but I don't think it's
proper to base decisions on them with absolute conviction that they
can be relied upon. I'm very surprised that R' Cohen would use such an
example as "proof" that there CAN'T be a tuition crisis. Would he also
say that someone who died while doing a mitzvah really didn't die?

Avi Burstein

[First, an email from RYGB via the blog:]

I would like to suggest to steg and to mar gavriel that there is a basic
dichotomy between occasional use and regular use. This distinction is an
"old" one, going back to the days of copying tapes: Were one to otherwise
pay for access, the use of someone else's wireless is then saving a
person expenditure. This is called in the Gemara "mishtarshei lei,"
and may be a reason to require payment, or at least reshus. OTOH, use
for which I would not pay, but make use of "because it is there," such
as at a doctor's office etc., entails no mishtarshei lei and therefore
remains zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir.

--
Posted by YGB to Der Alter at 7/27/2005 11:20:33 AM

[Email #2. -mi]

"Reuven" said...

    When you use someone else's wireless, you're making more traffic on
    their connection, which slows it down.
    In my last apartment, i made use of a neighbor's wireless for the
    first month or so until i got my own Internet connection set up. A
    few months later, i got a wireless router and left it 'unlocked' so
    that anyone could piggyback on it as a kind of tiqun.

    1:04 PM

"Shimon" said...

    If someone is really makpid about not letting others use his or her
    wireless, isn't it safe to assume that he or she would lock it?

    It seems to me that this is like a case where someone leaves a pen
    in the /beis medrosh/, and I want to use it in that person's
    absence, even though my usage will use up some of the ink in the
    pen. I asked someone about this (I think that it was either Rav
    Dovid Fink in Eretz Yisroel or Rav Yankev Love in Nyu York), and he
    said: "It's fine, because people aren't makpid."

    For the record, I am mooching off someone's wireless right now. I
    don't know whose it is, but, unless someone can find a good argument
    against mine, I have no intention of stopping my use of it until I
    move out of this apartment.

    And yes, if I owned a wireless router (which I obviously don't), I
    would not be makpid about letting people use it. If the traffic
    became so heavy as to make the slowness unbearable, I would merely
    lock the router. If my anonymous neighbor does not like my use of
    his or her router, will he or she not lock it?

    10:55 PM

YGB said...

    I would like to suggest to *"Reuven"* and to *"Shimon"* that there
    is a basic dichotomy between occasional use and regular use. This
    distinction is an "old" one, going back to the days of copying
    tapes: Were one to otherwise pay for access, the use of someone
    else's wireless is then saving a person expenditure. This is called
    in the Gemara "mishtarshei lei," and may be a reason to require
    payment, or at least reshus. OTOH, use for which I would not pay,
    but make use of "because it is there," such as at a doctor's office
    etc., entails no mishtarshei lei and therefore remains zeh neheneh
    v'zeh lo chaseir.

And, from a private correspondence:

    /As I don't have much time lately to get involved and do selective
    reading, I am not responding to the list, but let's think about the
    use of someone's flat rate phone (or free nights etc.) where there
    is a Choseir, while not exactly alike Yodua that one of the Gdolim
    (Kimdumani the Chofeitz Chayim) would tear a stamp for a hand
    delivered letter./

    *
    My response:

    But the Chofetz Chaim's case was one of mishtarshei lei (al pi
    middas Chassidus). I do not think this is similar.*

    10:51 AM

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]