Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 185

Wed, 05 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: Printing email to read on Shabbos (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kanaus (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kanaus (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kanaus (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Re: Mi SheBerach for a Non-Jew (Zeliglaw@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Beyom Chasunaso (Minden)
• 7. Re: Intuition - sources (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: intuition in halacha (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. experimental data (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: experimental data (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Intuition - sources (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 12. Re: Beyom Chasunaso (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

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

To which R' Moshe Y. Gluck responded:
: One can prohibit - based on that argument - all Torah learning from a text
: on Shabbos.

I clearly recall learning that galley proofs are muktza  as there's a
serious risk of picking up a pen to make corrections.

One could argue that the whole point of reading galley proofs and
email threads is to "make notes" which may not be the case when
learning from a text on Shabbos.

On second thought, if that's your style of learning (to make notes
about everything) or you're trying to put together a "pshetl" then
maybe you do have a problem...

I quick look at the SA:

- 307:12-15. There's a problem reading lists of invitees lest one
erase. No mention of writing, interestingly enough. Reading books (as
opposed to seforim) is forbidden, but not because of "editing".
Reading snail-mail is problematic, but not because of fear-of-editing.

- 339:4. Court cases are forbidden because one may come to write.

- 340: 5. One may make a line with ones fingernail on a sefer. MB:
Only a line as a reminder OR TO MARK AN ERROR, but not a letter - and
only with ones fingernail, not with an object. Caveat: only parchment;
paper may be forbidden because the mark becomes permanent. (MB,
Achronim.)

Nothing conclusive, from what I can tell...

- Danny

RDB writes:
> 
> In Derech Sicha (discussions with R' Chaim Kanievsky arranged 
> in the order of the Parshiyos) pg. 369 the following is brought:
> 
> "I told the Rav Shlit"a what I heard about one Talmid Chacham 
> zt"l, who once went to a certain Gvir, and in the waiting 
> room there was an immodest picture, and he immediately ripped 
> it. When he went into the Gvir, the Gvir told him: You should 
> have asked! He responded: "And when you hung up the picture 
> did you ask me?"
> 
> The Rav responded that he certainly did a good thing Al Pi 
> Din, since this is Lifnei Iver, but if it were a Goy he would 
> have to ask permission, since a Goy is not prohibited in Lifnei Iver."
> 
> On page 297, the following appears:
> "Question: A Bachur has a radio in his room in Yeshiva, and 
> his friend wants to break it and pay for it. Maran HaRav 
> Shach zt"l once said that it is allowed for a child in his 
> home to take his parents' radio and dispose of it.
> 
> Answer: He can break it, and not pay. I don't know if he is 
> obligated to do so but there is an Inyan to do this. The 
> Chazon Ish was once asked about a Bachur who saw heretical 
> material by his friend, and he told him to dispose of it, and 
> that he is absolved from having to pay."

I note that Rav Henkin in Benei Banim (chelek sheni siman 47) has a teshuva
on whether a school is permitted to take away objects from their talmidim
and only return them after a number of days or weeks or if they improve
their ways and he comes out very strongly against the practice, on the
grounds that it is a violation of lo signov.  And he holds that neither the
justification that a) it is done for the good of the talmid nor that b) the
object will be returned at the end of some days is a valid excuse.  

On the other hand all this is applied to objects which are not intrinsically
assur.  He goes on to distinguish (albeit in  a single paragraph, and this
paragraph, unlike the rest of the teshuva, is not sourced - on the rest of
the teshuva, there is extensive, particularly rishonic, material quoted)
between chaftezim which are intrisically assur (assurim b'etzim) for which
he gives the examples of sifrei toeva or destructive weapons where it is not
good that such an object is in the reshut of the student at all, and where
he seems to indicate that it is a mitzva to take such objects away, and
chafetzim which are not intrisically assur (and he states in a footnote that
a radio is not intrinsically assur and that those mashgichim in a few
institutions who throw the radios of their talmidim into the garbage will in
the future be called to judgement on gezela.)  The prime example (which
brings into focus the essence of his teshuva) is of a student who plays with
a ball and is late for shiur, where he holds that while he can be required
to stay late or punished in other ways, taking away the ball, which is not
an intrinsically assur object, is not permitted, even for a few days.

Of course a school would seem to be in a bit of a different position from
some stam individual, as it would a) appear to have been entrusted by the
father with his mitzvah of chinuch (even if the methods that the school
chooses to use might not necessarily be in accordance with the wishes of the
father - eg in this case of confiscation of property) and b) arguably might
be considered to be some sort of shaliach of beis din as well (and of course
beis din is specifically entrusted to separate a child from a vadai issur -
although  that is really about what is required when dealing with a minor,
who may or may not be capable of understanding, and not an adult who is
chayav in mitzvos).

I have some more thoughts on the subject, but I really need to check some
references before I post them, and it is very late, and I am tired and very
busy, so maybe more when I have a chance to open some more sforim.

Regards

Chana

> RnCL writes:





I note that Rav Henkin in Benei Banim (chelek sheni siman 47) has a teshuva
> on whether a school is permitted to take away objects from their talmidim
> and only return them after a number of days or weeks or if they improve
> their ways and he comes out very strongly against the practice, on the
> grounds that it is a violation of lo signov.  And he holds that neither
> the
> justification that a) it is done for the good of the talmid nor that b)
> the
> object will be returned at the end of some days is a valid excuse.



In the "Halachos of other people's money" (Rabbi Bodner) he quotes R' Zalman
Nechemia Goldberg, Pischei Choshen, as well as Shu"t Mishne Halachos as
holding that since the Rebbe has license to strike a Talmid (Yoreh Deah
245,10), it is a fortiori that he may confiscate his property. If the
desired Chinuch effect can be achieved if returned later, that should be
done. But if the effectivity is only through permanent confiscation, this is
allowed as well (R' Zalman Nechemia).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070905/c6e23f1f/attachment-0001.html 

RDB writes:

> RnCL writes:
> >I note that Rav Henkin in Benei Banim (chelek sheni siman 47) 
> >has a teshuva on whether a school is permitted to take away 
> >objects from their talmidim  and only return them after a number of
days or weeks or if 
> >they improve their ways and he comes out very strongly 
> >against the practice, on the grounds that it is a violation 
> >of lo signov.  And he holds that neither the 
> >justification that a) it is done for the good of the talmid 
> >nor that b) the object will be returned at the end of some 
> >days is a valid excuse.
> 
> 
> In the "Halachos of other people's money" (Rabbi Bodner) he 
> quotes R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Pischei Choshen, as well 
> as Shu"t Mishne Halachos as holding that since the Rebbe has 
> license to strike a Talmid (Yoreh Deah 245,10), it is a 
> fortiori that he may confiscate his property. If the desired 
> Chinuch effect can be achieved if returned later, that should 
> be done. But if the effectivity is only through permanent 
> confiscation, this is allowed as well (R' Zalman Nechemia). 

Rav Henkin rejects this argument in the teshuva immediately following
(siman 48 of Chelek Sheni of Benei Banim) (clearly his correspondent had
responded to this effect) holding that in his view the one has nothing
to do with the other.  Starting from the language of the Torah (where
the one prohibition is phrased as lo signov stam, while the other is pen
yosif) and working through the various sources that discuss hitting a
talmid, he holds that while striking a talmid is mutar m'dina and its
justification, when done appropriately, can be found throughout the
sources, the taking of property has no source to permit (and he deems it
noteworthy that wherever the permission to strike a talmid is brought
down in the various sources, this is not anywhere coupled with a comment
that the halacha of lo signov can as a kal v'chomer be waived). 

Regards

Chana

 
In a message dated 9/5/2007 10:38:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

We are  entitled to ask hashem.  We don't have the right to expect  
that  our requests be granted


I would underscore and bold this comment. "Shomea Tefilah" means that  HaShem 
always hears Tefilah. It by no means that our tefilos are always answered  in 
the manner that we seek when we utter them-even with the maximum amount of  
Kavanah. Here is a simple example- RYBS related that he once prayed that he had 
 hoped to stay in Europe pre WW2 because that was the center of the Torah 
world.  However, RYBS emigrated to the US. RYBS commented that he realized that 
despite  his tefilos, he understood in retrospect that such a prayer, even with 
the  upmost kavanah, was not destined to have been answered in the way that 
he had  intended. 
 
Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com



************************************** 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/20070905/a552794f/attachment.htm 

RMB wrote:
> There was a time when Ashkenazi men gave their wives far from simple and easy to price rings, with a house sculpted on top.

Live action shot: http://tinyurl.com/ysgqta

Kvch"t,

Lipman Phillip Minden

RDE wrote:
> 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.
<SNIP>
> In contrast the Tzitz Eliezar started with the text and by logical
> reasoning tried to determine whether abortion was murder.
<SNIP>
> The Tzitz Eliezar got upset and said 
> that is not an acceptable approach to Torah learning."

And:

> 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..."

Eh... doesn't it seem, at first sight, like RMF seemingly contradicts himself? 
OT1H he uses his intuition, OTOH text. There must be a more subtle way to 
state this, without making either REW or the Stamarer Rebbe into one who is 
not in the know.

Schonoh tauwoh,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On 9/4/07, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <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.
>
>
> --
> Eli Turkel


My guess is that electricity in general is still in flux.  That said some
preattim

   1. It is my personal conviction that incandescent light is 100% kosher
   light lekulla and lechumra e.g you can use it for havdallah and neros
   Shabbas.  {Ner Hanukkah is trickier]
   2. Most Halachic principles are pretty much fixed. What is new must be
   analyzed and teh usual method - aisi - is by analogy. If an incandescent
   light behaves more or less like a kerosene lamp - then by analogy it gets
   the same Halahcic properties. What happens on the molecular level is not
   quite so relevant.
   3. I am also convinced that electric convection oven is 100% bishul
   both for issur Shabbos and eqaully kosher for "broiling" liver.
   1. Would any serious poesik think that the issur of bishul basar
      bechalav via electricity is not a true d'orraisso?
      2. If you completely cooked a chicken erev Shabbos via
      electricity, would  it  be Bishul to re-heat it during Shabbos on a gas
      blech?
      4. Current LED's etc. I am not convinced about anything;
   5. Given: CI posits that closing a circuit is bone;  So, Is it so that
   putting a magnet back on the Refrgerator door also bone?  Is taking a magnet
   off Stirah?



-- 
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/20070905/31bd2c03/attachment-0001.html 

> 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.
> 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?!

Why is this more problematical then myriads of other gemarot that dont
compare to
experimental data. An example from recent daf yomi  (Yevamot 120).
Chachamim don't rely on "shuma" for personal identification while
R. Elazar ben Mehavai does
1. argument is whether most people born in the same "Mazal"  have similar
"shuma"
2. argument is whether "shuma" changes after death

either explanation sounds like it could be easily checked by experiment, ie
are they
arguing about facts?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070905/5d78b392/attachment-0001.htm 

On Wed, September 5, 2007 12:31 pm, R Eli Turkel wrote:
:> According to the gemara, eg BK 50b-51a, a bor that is 10 tefachim
:> deep or more contains hevel which is dangerous to breathe....
:> My father was surprised that he couldn't find any rishonim or
:> acharonim who compare this to the experimental data....
:
: Why is this more problematical then myriads of other gemarot that dont
: compare to experimental data....

I didn't mean to imply it was.

Rather, my father asked me to sound the chevrah out about the inyan he
is currently learning.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

R' Arie Folger wrote:
> RDE wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> <SNIP>
>   
>> In contrast the Tzitz Eliezar started with the text and by logical
>> reasoning tried to determine whether abortion was murder.
>>     
> <SNIP>
>   
>> The Tzitz Eliezar got upset and said 
>> that is not an acceptable approach to Torah learning."
>>     
>
> And:
>
>   
>> 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..."
>>     
>
> Eh... doesn't it seem, at first sight, like RMF seemingly contradicts himself? 
> OT1H he uses his intuition, OTOH text. There must be a more subtle way to 
> state this, without making either REW or the Stamarer Rebbe into one who is 
> not in the know.
>
> Schonoh tauwoh,
>   
I don't see the contradiction. Rav Moshe apparently first reacted on an 
intuitive level which was based on his Torah learning. That intution was 
supported by marshaling texts and sevoras. But the starting point was 
the intution. This apparently was also the approach of the Chasam Sofer. 
On the other hand the Tzitz Eliezar is saying that he doesn't have an 
answer until he has examined the text and based on induction and 
deductions from the text he will discover what the answer is. The psak 
concerning artificial insemination was not text based since there is in 
fact very little text on the subject. He was simply objecting to a 
talmid chochom being concerned or even noting what the goyim say.

In sum. It is a  major bifurcation as to whether you start from the 
Torah trained intuition - some would call it Daas Torah or whether you 
start with the text. Both are legitimate. There is a similar split of 
the relevance of nature law or universal reasoning. As one of Rav 
Moshe's closest talmidim told me. "People say that Rav Moshe paskened 
from the gemora - but that is wrong. Rav Moshe poskened from shamayim."

kesivah v'chasimah tovah

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> The minhag is because she might overestimate the value and
> thus her acceptance would be a meqach ta'us. ... 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>.

Thanks for that picture, but what I'm REALLY interested in, is an example of a ring which *IS* "simple and easy to price". Making the ring just a tiny bit thinner or thicker can make a huge difference in the price. As can a different alloy (14k vs 18 k, for example).

In other words, if we are going to ban certain kinds of rings because they are difficult for an amateur to appraise, then I cannot imagine what sort of rings would be exempt from that ban. Honestly, can someone show me a ring which most women would appraise accurately? Or close to accurately? Or even somewhat accurately? Or even somewhat better than a wild guess.

(PS: I just asked my wife and daughter about this, to see if maybe I'm just a stupid male. Nope. One said, "I have no idea what a piece of jewelry is worth." The other said, "If the kallah cares what it is worth, she can just ask her chosson, or they can pick it out together.")

Akiva Miller



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 185
***************************************

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..."