Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 183

Mon, 03 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: What was actually written on the luchosr? (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] Beyom Chasunaso (Danny Schoemann)
• 5. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. Re: Is it better to have one person do a vadai (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: What was actually written on the luchos? (D&E-H Bannett)
• 8. Re: Intuition - sources (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 182-Mi shebeirach (JoshHoff@aol.com)
• 10. Printing email to read on Shabbos (Zvi Lampel)
• 11. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Mi Sheberach for a Non-Jew (Micha Berger)

 
 
R' Phil Silverman writes:


>>If we are to consider this theory, and if we want to get rid of  that
pesky problem which RnTK astutely pointed out of having one  very
sparsely written tablet and one very wordy tablet, then I might  propose
that the tablets could've had the 10 Commandments structured like  this:

2 1
3 4
6 5
7 8
10 9

Using the Yisro  version, it turns out that the number of words on each
tablet would be  exactly the same -- and a "nice" gematria to boot. (I'll
let the reader  figure out what word I had in mind.) This idea of mine is
admittedly based  on nothing but aesthetics, and would surely demand an
explanation for the  serpentine pattern.<<







>>>>>
Actually, as I wrote at the time, it was my husband who pointed out the  
imbalance.
 
Your solution is elegant and aesthetically pleasing but if there is no  
support for it -- there's no support for it


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070903/192df658/attachment-0001.html 

 
 

From: R' Micha Berger


>>Is one permitted to read  discussion group email on Shabbos? Or, is it a
problem of hakhanah, since one  will plan replies to be typed after
Shabbos?

And would it make a  difference if the group is Avodah or Areivim?<<


>>>>>
Why ask about reading the print-out on Shabbos?  What about  reading 
something online before Shabbos and then discussing it at the  Shabbos table and 
asking people what they think about the issues -- with the  intention of posting to 
the group after Shabbos?
 
And why only email groups?  What about discussing at the Shabbos table  
something that came up in a conversation with another friend, with the  intention 
of getting back to that friend with an answer?  Intuitively I  doubt there is 
any problem with any of these scenarios, actually.



--Toby  Katz
=============




************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070903/81ac71ef/attachment-0001.htm 

 From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: [Avodah] Printing email to read on Shabbos

> Is one permitted to read discussion group email on Shabbos? Or, is it a
> problem of hakhanah, since one will plan replies to be typed after
> Shabbos?
>
> And would it make a difference if the group is Avodah or Areivim?

I believe that this issue is a question of Kavanah.

If the only purpose of the download is to do research and post responses, 
that raises some doubt, but I'm still not sure it would be Assur, but a 
Ba'al Nefesh Yirchak... but when Limud Torah is involved, especially with a 
Torah based group like Avodah, I doubt that there is a problem.

For example, when a topic I find interesting has come up, I may print out 
several vol. of Avodah so that I have all the material.  This is then part 
of our Shabbat discussion on this topic.

While it's true that we probably would write something based on the 
discussion, on Motza'ei Shabbat, the intention is to study Torah. Otherwise 
the same question can be raised for all teachers, rabbis and people who 
study Torah on Shabbat, and then write books, essays or lesson plans based 
on this limud.

I don't recall a passage in a book saying: "I learned this wonderful Dvar 
Torah on Shabbat, but I can't write it down now b/c of safek Hachana...".

Shoshana L. Boublil

>> With a fancy ring she may assume it's worth a fortune and reckon she's
>> being given more than is true.

> How much of this makes sense if the kallah picked out the ring and
> knows *exactly* how much it cost her chasan?

True, but then it becomes the norm; "everybody" will do it, and you're
back at the original problem. One could argue "lo plug".

- Danny, who used a "fancy ring"

RMB asked:
> Is one permitted to read discussion group email on Shabbos? Or, is it a
> problem of hakhanah, since one will plan replies to be typed after Shabbos?

One could argue that there's a serious risk of picking up a pen to make notes.

- Danny

RSM wrote:

> RCL wrote 
> >>>
> If it is important that each man should get the chance merely 
> to upgrade his mitzvah from a lesser to a greater one, then 
> one would have thought, perhaps, how much more so, that each 
> should have the chance of upgrading his no mitzvah to a real mitzvah
> >>
> This statement is true, but does not take into account the 
> *risk* involved in the two cases. As I pointed out, in the 
> yibum case, the risk is relatively small, since even if we 
> "lose our wager" and none of the brothers marries his yevama, 
> each one has nevertheless performed a mitzvah min haTorah, 
> chalitza.  

Thinking about this some more (and doing some research), I now wonder
can we indeed say this at all?  Is not the general principle that - even
though chalitza is a mitzva, b'mkom yibum aino mitzva.  Because if the
yevama is forbidden to the yavam by way of a lav, yibum can still be
performed, on the basis that aseh docheh lo ta'ase, and we do *not* say
that since it is possible to do chalitza and it is not as though he will
not do a mitzvah at all, since he will perform chalitza, and it is
merely not a mitzva min hamuvcha, we should be mevatel the mitzvah of
yibum in favour of the mitzvah of chalitza  (for the sources on all of
this, see the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry on Chalitza first section,
fifth perek).  If in the case of being doche a lav, we cannot say what
you are saying, on what basis can we say it when a mere safek is
involved - or are we not similarly required to treat the case as if
there was no mitzvah of chalitza waiting in the wings? 

>In the "general" case, there is a chance that, 
> according to the procedure which favors the the safek, *no* 
> mitzva will be done at all;  it is possible that this risk is 
> unacceptible, given the alternative which *ensures* that a 
> mitzva will be done. Let's consider the following scenario, 
> which illustrates the general case. On RH, someone with a 
> shofar has a choice of going to one of two places. In place 
> aleph, there is one person who would otherwise not be able to 
> hear shofar; in place bet there are five. However, the person 
> with the shofar can with almost certainty reach place aleph 
> before shkia, but reaching place bet on time is uncertain, 
> although possible. Are we mandated to apply the priciple of 
> yibum, go for the max as RCL puts it, and go to place bet, 
> favoring 5 safek mitzvot over one vadaui one? According to 
> what I wrote, not necessarily. Unlike the yibum case, here 
> there is achance that *no* mitzva will be done if the shofar 
> is brought to place bet. Perhaps, under these circumstances, 
> given that a mitzva in place aleph is vadai, going there is 
> preferable. 

I do like your case here - I was racking my brains to think of such a
case, and really struggling, it is a nice counterpoint.   I guess the
question in essence really boils down to the relationship of chalitza to
yibum and to the extent that it is deemed "counted" as an alternative.
Otherwise, while there may be some scope for my earlier argument, which
is actually a form of kal v'chomer, I tend to agree it doesn't dictate.
It is still interesting though that even if ones says that the risk is
smaller than the normal case, that the pshat of the Mishna would seem to
suggest that the halacha should take this stance.
> Saul Mashbaum

RER writes:

> Others have added to the discussion, prompting me to pull out 
> some notes which I compiled many, many years ago following my 
> amateurish mathematical examination.
> 
> I stand to be corrected if I erred, but my findings were that 
> if each man  performed one Yibum there were 120 possible 
> outcomes as follows:-
> 
> 5     Yibumim      1     possibility
> 3     Yibumim    10     possiblities
> 2     Yibumim    19     possibilites
> 1      Yibum       46     possibilities
> 0     Yibumim     44     possibilities
> 
> We see that out of the 120 there are 76 cases (120-44), i.e a 
> 63%+ possibility that will be at least one Yibum and 30 cases 
> (1 + 10 +19), i.e. a 25% possibilty that there be more than one.

I have now had an opportunity to brush up on my probability theory
(which is a much simpler way of doing this kind of analysis) and which
gives the probability of getting five actual yibums at 1/5 x 1/5 x 1/5 x
1/5 x 1/5 = 0.00032 while of getting five chalitzas at 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x
4/5 x 4/5 = 0.32768.  That means that the probability of getting one or
more cases of yibum (ie of equalling or bettering the situation where
you have one brother marry all the women) is 1 - 0.32768 = 0.67232.

On the other hand, if you run the calculation with six women the
equivalent figures for six chalitzos is: 0.334897 and the chance of
equalling or bettering the situation is: - 0.665102.  

So it would seem that in the case of five, the chances or equallying or
bettering getting one yibum are just over two thirds, and for six, it is
just under two thirds (and reducing, so that seven will be less than 6
etc).  Is that a significant number?

> Elozor Reich, Manchester

Regards

Chana

Re: RRW"s query <<How are the 10 commandments to be ... 
enumerated into different commandments according to:

   1.  Hazal?
   2. The Masoretic text - [2 different answers?]
   3.  Wolf Heidenheim?>>

As you want to count ten commandments separated into ten 
sentences rather than have conveneient reading without 
unusually long or short sentences, you must choose the ta'am 
elyon.

If you want to follow what you term "masoretic text", you 
would have more than two answers as there are many versions 
including those that do not have ten p'sukim.

R' Mordekhai Breuer z"l has analyzed the history of the 
changes to get to what he calls the correct or original 
version of the ta'amim and sentences for both ta'am elyon 
and ta'am tachton. I think, therefore, that his version is 
the best.

You do not list R' Breuer as a source. Although Breuer 
points out the errors in Heidenheim's analysis, his version 
for the ta'am elyon is the same as Breuer's so, if you 
prefer him, you can appoint Heidenheim as your commandment 
divider.


k"t,

David

Which in yet another thread (#4) I
argued was the real basis for banning electricity on Shabbos. There is
more consensus that it simply doesn't intuitively fit the idea of 
Shabbos than figuring out the mechanics of the issur.



Tir'u baTov!
-mi

 ======================
R' Asher Weiss based on the Yerushalmi says that this is what chazal did
in general on w/r/t shabbat - anything that they felt s/b asser went
into makeh bpatish. IIRC When I looked at the Yerusahlami it seemed to
me (and I am less than dust to him) like they were talking about actions
that there was already a mesora on.  OTOH R' AW frequently says "libi
omer li" which I think fits nicely with your general theory.  IIRC I
heard that  a posek will often "know" the answer and then build the
case.  The problem imho  is that they probably could have built an
equally convincing case the other way and where does the boundary line
to divrei neviut fall (or put another way, the process fails the
repeatability test)?

KVCT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070903/5859e447/attachment-0001.html 

 
In a message dated 9/3/2007 3:19:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

I don't  understand the whole "baavur shemispelelim baadam".  I've heard
>  > it in various shuls, but it makes no sense to me.  "Baavur" is meant  to
> > give Hashem, kiveyachol, a reason to do as we ask; we ask that  our
> > request be fulfilled in the merit of tzedaka that we've  pledged, or
> > some other mitzvah that we've done or will do.   But what are we saying
> > here? "Please do this in the merit of the  fact that we asked You"?



Both Rav Henkin and Rav Y.D. Soloveitchik had this objection,and ruled  that 
one should not make such a 'mi shebeirach.' Rather, he should be nodeir  
tzedakah, and the  chazan or gabai  should say 'ba'avur shenadav  tzedakah.' I 
think that this is discussed by R.Shachter in his Nefesh  HoRav.



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070903/b0d28b1b/attachment-0001.htm 

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

>Is one permitted to read discussion group email on Shabbos? Or, is it a
problem of hakhanah, since one will plan replies to be typed after
Shabbos?<

Is one permitted to read a letter on Shabbos, or a sefer, since he may very well plan to respond or write his chiddushim after Shabbos? I think so.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070903/f0d43aa5/attachment-0001.html 

> RMB asked:
> > Is one permitted to read discussion group email on Shabbos? Or, is it
> a
> > problem of hakhanah, since one will plan replies to be typed after
> Shabbos?
R' Danny Schoemann: 
> One could argue that there's a serious risk of picking up a pen to make
> notes.


One can prohibit - based on that argument - all Torah learning from a text
on Shabbos. 

KT,
MYG

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:08:50AM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: If the only purpose of the download is to do research and post responses, 
: that raises some doubt, but I'm still not sure it would be Assur, but a 
: Ba'al Nefesh Yirchak... but when Limud Torah is involved, especially with a 
: Torah based group like Avodah, I doubt that there is a problem.

I also doubt it would be a problem for Avodah, so let's stick to
Areivim.

Areivim is a discussion group. Many people read it in order to participate
in the back-and-forth. This is what makes it different than RHL's or
RMYG's parallel of learning from a seifer. (Asider from the leniency of
hakhanah WRT mitzvos.)

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 06:42:55PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' Danny Schoemann: 
:> One could argue that there's a serious risk of picking up a pen to make
:> notes.

: One can prohibit - based on that argument - all Torah learning from a text
: on Shabbos. 

Except that we can't make our own gezeiros.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:56:49PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: I don't understand the whole "baavur shemispelelim baadam".  I've heard
: it in various shuls, but it makes no sense to me.  "Baavur" is meant to
: give Hashem, kiveyachol, a reason to do as we ask; we ask that our
: request be fulfilled in the merit of tzedaka that we've pledged, or
: some other mitzvah that we've done or will do.  But what are we saying
: here? "Please do this in the merit of the fact that we asked You"?

I don't understand RZS's (or should I say RYBS's and R' Hutner's)
problem.

Isn't /every/ tefillah granted because of the zekhus of the tefillah
itself? It's not like we can wheedle or beg Hashem to give anything but
"gam zu letovah".

Rather, as RYBS and RSRH write, tefillah changes the mispallel into
someone who warrants different treatment. Thus the hitpa'el conjugation
of "lehispalel".

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 183
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."