Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 184

Wed, 05 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Beyom Chasunaso (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Mi Sheberach for a Non-Jew (Meir Shinnar)
• 3. Re: Intuition - sources (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Mi Sheberach for a Non-Jew (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Hevel and bor (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 6. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Andy Levy-Stevenson)
• 7. Re: Intuition - sources (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 8. intuition in halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Intuition - sources (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Intuition - sources (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Intuition - sources (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 12. Re: Intuition - sources (Daniel Eidensohn)

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 10:17:15AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
:> 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".

The minhag is because she might overestimate the value and thus her
acceptance would be a meqach ta'us. (As the original poster, RMK,
guessed.)

But once it's a minhag, the fact that the rationale doesn't really apply
is irrelevent. Otherwise, I would have a wider menu for Pesach.

There was a time when Ashkenazi men gave their wives far from simple
and easy to price rings, with a house sculpted on top. Here is a 14th
cent example <http://tinyurl.com/2dxmzn>.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

> ch for a Non-Jew
> To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20070904011113.GC22569@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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".
>
We are entitled to ask hashem.  We don't have the right to expect  
that our requests be granted - that is (IIRC) the tosafot's pshat in  
distinguishing two different types of iyun tefilla - and the iyun  
tefilla that is condemned is one that one expects to be  
answered, .    Saying that we expect that hashem will be mevarech x  
ba'avur she'anu mitpalleleim ba'avuro seems a clear case of this type  
of iyun tefilla.
Your pshat is that the act of tefilla is a mitzva just like tzedaka -  
and therefore the two texts - both ba'avur she'anu mitpallelim and  
ba'avur she'eten tzedak - are congruent - but most understand ba'avur  
she'anu mitpallelim as reflecting the power of prayer - rather than  
just as a mitzva - and is therefore iyun tefilla.

Meir Shinnar

On 9/3/07, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:
>
>  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
>

Consensus of poskim as a form of  "peer review"  can  be valid & valuable
check and balance on taking :intution" too far.  Point? If  ruba deruba  [I
like to define  it as 2 standard deviations] view electricity as problematic
on Sahbbos then  it is.  Even though it could very well be a judgment call
that could have gone the other way.  Remember 49 reason to be metaheir and
49 reasons to be metamei...
-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070903/14a6573b/attachment.html 

On 9/3/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
> --
>
I concur AND would like to add:

> That the fact that a TZIBBUR is mispallel adds a level of Zechus and
> expectation.  Isn't there some source iirc that says something like "a
> Tzibbur is never completely denied a bakasha"?
>
> OTOH the silent portions of Yizkor that are said privately might NEED a
> nedava to get enough zechus...
>


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070904/949e6e92/attachment.htm 

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: [Avodah] Hevel and bor

> My father (CC-ed, kindly use "reply to all) asked me to ask the chevrah:
>
> According to the gemara, eg BK 50b-51a, a bor that is 10 tefachim deep
> or more contains hevel which is dangerous to breathe. And even if it's
> less than 10 tefachim, the air is still injurious.

10 tefachim, is at least 2 feet deep.

> My father was surprised that he couldn't find any rishonim or acharonim
> who compare this to the experimental data. Not whether to dismiss it or
> explain how it works -- no one seems to think it's intriguing and worth
> discussion?!

Here is a general one:

http://www.msha.gov/KIDS/ABANDON/UNDER.HTM

Bad Air (Lack of Oxygen or the Presence of Deadly Gases)
The normal atmosphere we breathe is composed of several gases. Oxygen, an 
important part of normal atmosphere, is the only gas that will support life. 
Mine atmosphere or mine air maybe contaminated with gases that are poisonous 
and may displace the necessary oxygen to support life.

Minerals and decaying timbers use up oxygen. Carbon dioxide is given off by 
decaying timbers. Some gases are also released from rocks and decaying 
vegetable matter. In active mines, it is necessary to keep fresh air coming 
in from the outside to ventilate the places where miners are working. When 
mines are deserted, air no longer may be circulating or air passages maybe 
completely blocked by fallen rock or timber. In many abandoned mines, no 
fresh air is present below the surface. Persons have lost their lives even 
in shallow pits and wells because of bad air. Some abandoned mines also 
contain explosive gases which are easily ignited.

OTOH, the discussion of Hevel (or Havla) is part of a discourse given by Rav 
Nechemia Goldberg on the question of stopping the breathing machine for a 
dying patient to save anther ill patient:

http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/ASSIA/Emek2/183.asp

This is a copy of a collection of articles from Assia. It is in Hebrew, and 
worth studying.

From reading the article, "Havla" appears to be Carbon Monoxide (poisoning) 
or Carbon Dioxide.  This actually matches what I saw in the quote I copied 
earlier in this post.

The articles contains Mareh Mekomot in the Rambam that discuss Havla and its 
dangers.

Shoshana L. Boublil

> From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>

> 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...".

I believe I've read, on occasion, divrei torah that were originally given on
Shabbat. Talmidim, or other interested listeners, have the task of recalling
the speech/lecture/shmuess for distribution at a later date.

I have a hazy recollection of reading about this very thing in a book about
Chabad. IIRC, the author was a guest of some Chabadniks in NY, and attended
a tisch on Friday night. Again, IIRC, she mentioned in passing that the
husband of the house was a scholar of some note and was thus one of those
charged with writing up the Rebbe's remarks after Shabbat.

I don't have it to hand, but I suspect the book was Liz Harris' "Holy Days".

--
Andy Levy-Stevenson
andy@levy-stevenson.com
Home:  02-930-9326
Cell:  054-313-5221
USA#:  952-920-6217
Skype: andy_levy-stevenson 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007
9:31 AM
 

In Avodah Digest V23#182, RRW wrote:
> I am doing  Sefer Mitavos hakatzar and the Rosh is quoted as eqauting
buying Sefraim on Shas and poskim to k'sivas Sefer Torah.  This kind of
intuition by a novice would probably have little to no value, but given the
mastery of Shas that the Rosh had, it carries a lot of weight even when he
does not muster specific citations to support his thesis.  It is like
Tevius Ayin, i.e. a function of experience and mastery. <
Would such a comparison apply nowadays, when printed s'farim are obtainable
by the masses?  If not, is the comparison affected more by the printing
press or by the relative [to writing a ST or having one written] ease of
obtaining s'farim?  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070904/01168631/attachment.html 

<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.>

<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.>

I am now thoroughly confused are we taking about a de0raisa, derabban or
less
than that.  According to R. Asher Weiss did they classify things as from the
Torah
based on their intuition? Even according to Micha the mechanics determine
the
level of the issur. This is most important with regard to modern (non heat)
appliances.

According to the way i understand RSZA electricity is prohibited on shabbat
mainly as
being inappropriate. According to CI it is boneh (others as molid).  Things
make a big
difference when we talk about more devices like LED, wireless etc. Does one
analyze
each device and decide does it fit into one of the categories or is there a
general
"intuition" that prohibits everything independent of the details.
This is less of a problem under ordinary situations in which most of us
would feel any
electrical device is not "shabbosdik". It is more of a problem in places
like hotels
with electronic keys and LED lights and possibly electronic/automatic lights
and toilets,
electronic detection devices etc.
If it is a real Torah obligation then one has to struggle to hobble together
(if possible)
various heterim. If it is rabbinic then two derabbanans in a place of a
mitzva (oneg shabbat)
can be used to use electronic devices in an unusual manner. If it is only
"intuition" maybe
even that is not needed.
R. Wosner uses a similar argument to allow walking somewhere where one might
set
off a detetction device as long as it is not of use to him.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070904/2c8483d0/attachment.htm 

On Mon, September 3, 2007 3:38 pm, Rich, R Joel wrote:
:> 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.

: 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....

I do not see this as the same thing. By Shabbos, there is a catchall
category -- all forms of melakhah not otherwise prohibited are still
constructive and thus bakeh bepatish.

I'm talking about the sort of reasoning used to reach a pesaq,
regardless of whether the din is in hilkhos Shabbos.

We usually think of pesaq in terms of logical argument -- given that
X, Y and Z, we can conclude the din should be...

I am suggesting that often pesaq is so tied to gefil that the logical
argument comes after.


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


Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

I hit "send" too soon. To continue:

I'm talking about the sort of reasoning used to reach a pesaq,
regardless of whether the din is in hilkhos Shabbos. We usually think
of pesaq in terms of logical argument -- given that X, Y and Z, we can
conclude the din should be... I am suggesting that often pesaq is so
tied to gefeel that the logical argument comes after.

More along the lines of:
: OTOH R' AW frequently says "libi
: omer li" which I think fits nicely with your general theory...

Like the idea that there is no way to upshlug one of the Rambam's "li
nir'eh"s. If he gives a specific argument, you can find another
argument more convincing. But if he reaches a conclusion from the
entire worldview built from years of learning and a picture of how the
inyan works, the conclusion reflects all of that.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your
grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> I am interested in sources which say to rely on intution to know answers 
> for spiritual and existential issues.
>
> Have the following so far:
> The Seridei Aish says that faith is intuitive rather than rational
> Chovas HaLevavos (4:3) says that one knows which is the correct job 
> because it is enjoyable.
> Avoda Zara (19a) One should learn that which the heart desires
> Gra in Mishlei says theoretically we know intuitively what our avodas 
> Hashem is but since we are not spiritual refined enough we can't rely on it.
>
>   
To add to the list. Rav Wolbe in Alei Shor has an extensive discussion 
of the Gra in Alei Shor I page 167 and Alei Shor II page 550

*Alei Shor (2:550): *G?d judges every single individual according to 
what he is ? that means according to his true nature ? and who can 
survive that judgment? When G?d created  man he planted in the source of 
his soul ? that means ?his true nature? ? the rules that govern his 
life. In other words the guidelines for his unique existence. Therefore 
each man was sent into this world to fufill the mission in this world 
that he alone is able to fulfill. That mission is implanted into the 
source of each man?s soul. This is allluded to in Mishlei (22:20)? When 
a person returns to G?d at the end of his life this is the basis of his 
judgment ? did he in fact act truly in accord with his mission ? 
?according to what he is.? It seems from the Maharal that the true 
essence of a person is ascertained through experience if not ? G?d 
forbid! ? through suffering. Bereishis Rabbah (32:3), ??G?d tests the 
tzadik?, The artisan  does not test a bad container which is not strong 
enough to withstand a blow without breaking. What does he test? Only the 
good containers that even if they are hit many times they do not break. 
So it is with G?d. He does not test the wicked but  only the righteous 
as it says, ?G?d tests the tzadik? and it says ?G?d tested Avraham.?? It 
is only in regards to what has been implanted in the essence of his 
being that a person is tested because that is what he has the ability to 
withstand. It it hadn?t been that Avraham had learned the entire Torah 
on his own in his youth, G?d would not have tested him by means of the 
Akeidah in his old age. (This that we  typically call ?tests? are in 
fact only the difficulties that we bring on ourselves through our sins. 
In truth they are not truly tests which G?d brings ? chas v?shalom). 
This is the reason for the beracha of ?the true judge?. That means that 
G?d judges man justly according to his true essence  and according to 
man?s true essence brings on him the events of his life and his 
death.However these matters are too theortical and abstract. One?s true 
self is so concealed in a person that a person likes ourselves is not 
able to determine what it actually means. Who amongst us is capable of 
knowing what the principles of our lives actually are? Nevertheless 
despite our apparent inability to ascertain our intrinsic life 
principles we are judged specifically on whether we accomplished them. 
Obviously then a person is expected to determine what his personal life 
principles are. The Gra reveals to us an amazing approach to 
understanding this profound mattter and many important things are 
learned from his holy words in his explanation of Mishlei(16:1-4)...

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm talking about the sort of reasoning used to reach a pesaq,
> regardless of whether the din is in hilkhos Shabbos.
>
> We usually think of pesaq in terms of logical argument -- given that
> X, Y and Z, we can conclude the din should be...
>
> I am suggesting that often pesaq is so tied to gefil that the logical
> argument comes after.
>
>   
One talmid chocham who was very close to Rav Moshe Feinstein told me 
concerning the disagreement between Rav Moshe and the Tzitz Eliezar on 
abortion. "Rav Moshe knew that abortion is murder. Anyone living in the 
Torah atmosphere that he had would simply know that it was murder. The 
textual proof was only to support that which he knew already. In 
contrast the Tzitz Eliezar started with the text and by logical 
reasoning tried to determine whether abortion was murder. Thus he got 
upset when Rav Moshe changed the text of Tosfos in two places in order 
"prove" that abortion is murder. The Tzitz Eliezar got upset and said 
that is not an acceptable approach to Torah learning."

Similarly concerning artificial insemination, Satmar argued that even 
the Catholic bishop knew that it was disgusting and therefore it was 
obviously prohibited. In response Rav Moshe (E.H. 11 page 322): "I thank 
G-d am not from them and not from the masses. All of my hashkofa is only 
from my knowledge of Torah without any contamination from external 
ideas. The Torah's  judgments are true whether they are harsh or 
lenient. The ideas from alien hashkofa or those which spontaneously 
appear in a man's heart are all of no significance - even if they are to 
be conservative and strict. It is simply a false illusion to view these 
alien ideas as being more pure and holy..."

In addition this idea of Torah trained intuition also seems to be  R' 
Elchonon Wasserman's understanding of Daas Torah

*Rav Elchonon Wasserman**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Kovetz Mamarim): *All of us have 
Daas Torah (Torah minds) to a certain degree. Some have perhaps 50%, 
others 15% and the rest of the person?s mind is not Daas Torah but 
perhaps a business mind or his wife?s or children?s opinion or some 
other type of understanding? Daas Torah of 100% is only found amongst 
gedolei Torah who have cast off the transient vanities of this world and 
are loyal only to the Torah perspective.


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


????. ??? ???????. ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????, ????? ?????? ?????, ??????? 
????? ??? ????, ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????, ?? 
?? ???? ?????, ??? ?????, ??? ????, ??? ???? ????? ??????. ??? ???? ???? 
???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? 
??? ???? ????, ...





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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 184
***************************************

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..."