Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 107

Fri, 05 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: goy vs chiloni (Saul Mashbaum)
• 2. (no subject) (Shlomo Pick)
• 3. Re: eruv tavshilin (Saul Mashbaum)
• 4. goy vs chiloni (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: goy vs chiloni (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: goy vs chiloni (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: goy vs chiloni (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Re: goy vs chiloni (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: goy vs chiloni (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: goy vs chiloni (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: goy vs chiloni (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: eruv tavshilin (menucha)
• 13. Re: eruv tavshilin (Arie Folger)
• 14. can a navi make a mistake (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 17. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)

RETurkel

> The question was if a chiloni opened the front door by pushing an
> electronic button could one enter the building? (lets assume CI for
> electricity)
> He answer was that yes because one did not have direct benefit from
> the chillul shabbat but what he call "mavriach ari",

RCLunz

<<.  The term mavriach ari I am
familiar with as a concept within Baba Kama and the laws of compensation, ie
if somebody chases a lion away from your property , do you have to pay
them or not?,
What does this have to do with hilchos shabbas?  Where is it found used it
in hilchos shabbas?  >>

The concept  is hasarat hamoneah, a form of gramma.
This basic idea is that of preventing something from preventing
something else. Two negatives make a positive, and the desired action
is performed, albeit very indirectly. In the case cited, the chiloni
prevented the door from preventing the person's entry.

This concept is the basis of the gramma instruments of Machon Zomet.
For example, a photoelectric beam periodically prevents current from
flowing  in an instrument. Blocking the beam, in and of itself a
non-melacha, will (inderectly) enable the current to flow after  short
time, enabling the instrument to function.
Poskim of Machon Zomet consider this "negative gramma" the ideal form
of gramma for the instruments it designs for hospital and military
use, where there is ample halachic basis for leniency in HS.

This subject is discussed in considerable  halachic and technical
detail by R. Dr. Mordechai Halperin, and others, of Machon Zomet in
many books and articles.


Saul Mashbaum

David Riceman asked 

What did he say about yom tov sheini shel galuyot? Wouldn't there be a
problem of hachana miyom tov l'yom tov?

It goes without saying that no melacha can be done on yom tov rishon for yom
tov sheini which is really chol.

Shabbat shalom

Shlomo

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090605/dfc2444c/attachment-0001.htm>

RAMiller asks:

> Hmmm... Are there any other *optional* acts which are *forbidden*
> unless a certain mitzvah-procedure is done beforehand?


The mitzva-procedures of  sh'chitah and hafrashat trumut umaasrot,
which I thought of, have been mentioned.

What about t'vilat nashim, over which a bracha is made?
The nature of "mitzvat tvila" seems similar to that of sh'chitah and
hafrashat trumut umaasrot, a matir of a subsequent activity. It seems
that even if the subsequent activity is not engaged in for any reason,
the t'villa itself warrrents a bracha ( a bit like sh'chita of an
animal which is later found out to be treif; the bracha on the
sh'chita is perfectly legitimate. Similarly n'tilat yadayim and not
eating bread).

In our practice, a woman who has no intention of engaging in the
subsequent activity (ie, an unmarried woman) does not perform this
mitzva.
I wonder if, in the time of the BhM, when unmarried women practiced
tvila, a bracha would be recited. This question can be asked about men
in the time of the BhM as well.

If an unmarried woman nowadays does t'villa (not an entirely
theoretical question, in this day and age , vd"l), does she make the
bracha? This seems to me  knotty question.
On the face of things, m'ikkar hadin, the answer would seem to be be
yes, but I wouldn't want to be the poseq (or yoetzet) to whom this
question was addressed.

Going back to n'tilat yadayim, it is the Rashba who says that if one
washed intending to eat bread, and then changed his mind and didn't
eat bread, the bracha he said al n'tilat yadayim is not a bracha
l'vatala. I have a question. Someone washed and made the bracha at
work, and then discovered that he left his sandwich at home, and had
nothing to make hamotzi on.  Does the Rashba's psak cover this case as
well, or is this a b'racha l'vatala according to the Rashba? I am
inclined to believe that this is not a bracha l'vatala, since at the
time of the bracha the person  fully intended to eat bread, but  I am
unsure on this point.

Saul Mashbaum

<<By the way, (a) I disagree that by operating an electric door, the
building becomes changed, according to Chazon Ish. Only the circuit
changed, and even the circuit, was broken before and after the door's
opening; it was only open (changed) while the door was in the process
of opening. Hence, I find it very unconvincing to claim that the
building should become assur on account of the door's opening.>>

In fact one of RSZA's questions against CI is that according to CI every
opening and closing a door should be boneh of completing a circuit.
Obviously CI must differentiate between the cases. In particular CI stressed
that closing an electric circuit made it "alive" in contadistinction to
opening and closing doors

shabbat shalom

-- 
Eli Turkel

This is the curious confluence of closing doors and circuits, when
doors are electrically operated.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <<By the way, (a) I disagree that by operating an electric door, the
> building becomes changed, according to Chazon Ish. Only the circuit
> changed, and even the circuit, was broken before and after the door's
> opening; it was only open (changed) while the door was in the process
> of opening. Hence, I find it very unconvincing to claim that the
> building should become assur on account of the door's opening.>>
>
> In fact one of RSZA's questions against CI is that according to CI every
> opening and closing a door should be boneh of completing a circuit.
> Obviously CI must differentiate between the cases. In particular CI stressed
> that closing an electric circuit made it "alive" in contadistinction to
> opening and closing doors



-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

In the cases I know the electric buzzer only releases a switch
but does not physically open the door which is done manually.
I guess Arie is thinking more of a sliding door where the electricity actually
opens the door.
I have no idea if R. Zilberstein would have distinguished between the two cases.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Arie Folger<arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the curious confluence of closing doors and circuits, when
> doors are electrically operated.
>


-- 
Eli Turkel

RAF writes:

> The difference between asking a NJ and asking another Jew is that when
> asking another Jew, we are not commanded (except through lifnei iver
> and arvus) regarding the other Jew's shemiras Shabbos; every Jew has
> his own mitzvah. 

But we are commanded - via lifnei iver and arvus, these are d'orisa
prohibitions.  We are also forbidden to have a benefit from any violation of
shabbas that a Jew does, certainly b'mazid, and as we generally hold,
b'shogeg.  Why were these gezeros instituted if we were supposed to live in
a bubble?  That is why, it seems to me, both the Magen Avraham and the Taz
are bothered by the distinction between a NJ and a Jew, in the form of
bichdei sheyasu

>However, one source for the prohibition of amira
> le'aku"m is in the verse, kol melacha lo ye'aseh 


While it is a nice asmuchta, the generally accepted position is that amira
l'akum is a shvus, ie d'rabbanan.  An enormous amount of halacha is based on
that fact - what we allow vis a vis the sick and the community and l'ztorech
mitzvah in particular.  As I have been alluding to in other posts - this
would seem *not* to be true vis a vis a ger toshav - who is included in the
posuk.  It seems to me that if we were dealing gerei toshav, a lot of what
we currently allow would in fact be forbidden.

> By the way, (a) I disagree that by operating an electric door, the
> building becomes changed, according to Chazon Ish. Only the circuit
> changed, and even the circuit, was broken before and after the door's
> opening; it was only open (changed) while the door was in the process
> of opening. Hence, I find it very unconvincing to claim that the
> building should become assur on account of the door's opening.
> 

Perhaps I was not being precise enough.  Clearly if somebody climbed in the
window, the fact that the door was open would be irrelevant and that person
could use the full length of the building.  

If the door was opened and then shut by a chiloni, and the frum Jew then
came and opened it in some shabbas permissible manner (eg it also had a key
mechanism that somehow did not trigger the circuit), then I would think that
the fact that it had several times during the day been opened and shut by
the chiloni would be irrelevant - because he had then changed it back to the
way it was, and the frum Jew would not be benefitting from the guf hadavar.

If we had a situation where the door could be opened both ways, and the
person happened to come upon it when it was open - maybe it might be OK,
because of the fact that there was an alternative permissible way of doing
it (this I guess would get into questions of lo ichpat lei - because he
could have done it a permissible way - but does it render the object
assur?).

But that is clearly not the case being described here.  The case being
described here is one where there is no other way into the building (the
door circuit being compared to a crouching lion preventing entry) and the
chiloni opened the door and left it open.  That is, the only way to make
this door (and hence the building which is why I was using this term)
useable is by means of the chillul shabbas.  That is, the door has been
changed by the chillul shabbas - it was closed and is now open.  And the
object that the frum Jew now wants to use is that door.  This is why I was
trying to draw the analogy with bishul. Because if you were to use your way
of thinking, you would say - well before the food was off the fire, and now
the food is off the fire, and the fact that it was on the fire in between
shouldn't matter.  But the point is that the object, the food, has been
changed by being on the fire (it has gone from an inedible state to an
edible state, its molecules have changed by being heated etc) and it is that
change that is the source of the benefit to you on eating (that is precisely
why you want it).  This door has changed from closed to open, by means of
the door circuit (and this is the sole and only purpose of the door circuit,
which is why even separating them is a bit meaningless, what we actually
have is an electronic door), and it is this change that the frum Jew is
benefiting from - by now being able to enter the building when he could not
before.  The fact that the door circuit part of the door has now finished
its work, and is now back to where it was before, doesn't seem to me to be
relevant.

> Arie Folger

Regards

Chana

Regarding the fact that lo teasseh melakha is an asmakhta - sure, but
that can serve as a reason for 'Hazal to institute different rules in
one case and the other. An asmakhta tells us how 'Hazal framed that
particular phenomenon.

Regarding lifnei 'iver and 'arvut, let me just state that there is
AFAIK no prohibition of kedei sheya'assu regarding the product of
lifnei 'iver and 'arvut.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Chana Luntz <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> If we had a situation where the door could be opened both ways, and the
> person happened to come upon it when it was open - maybe it might be OK,
> because of the fact that there was an alternative permissible way of doing
> it (this I guess would get into questions of lo ichpat lei - because he
> could have done it a permissible way - but does it render the object
> assur?).

But isn't almost every door like this? Now that RET [correctly]
pointed out that I was thinking about sliding doors, while he was
talking about buzzers, I must ask, isn't almost every such door one
that can be opened both ways, provided certain conditions are met
(usually either when one has a key, or when someone opens it from the
inside).

In addition, the door and building are still not modified begufam by
the operation of the electric circuit. hence it should be easy to see
the difference between that and a steak that was broiled on Shabbat.

however, your comparison with opening a letter is very correct; they
surely look completely alike (well, you can't tear open the building,
and the lack of letters to cut through is irrelevant, but you get my
point).

--
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com



-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RET writes:

> In the cases I know the electric buzzer only releases a switch
> but does not physically open the door which is done manually.
> I guess Arie is thinking more of a sliding door where the electricity
> actually opens the door.

I confess, so was I, I assumed that the electricity opened the door (not
necessarily sliding), and there was no practical means of it being done any
other way.

They do seem to me to be different.  The one where there is a buzzer that
deactivates the door, really does seem more like the letter inside the
envelope case (or the objects in the pit case) ie two separate objects, the
one which is enclosing the other.  The major difference, it would seem to
me, is that the envelope remains torn, where as the circuit is, as RAF says,
reset.  Still at the time the door was opened, it was not reset.

In the case of the electrically operated door, I really find it hard to see
the circuit as separate from the door itself - ie the nature of this door is
that it is a door which works by means of a live circuit.

RET has now kindly sent me the teshuva from Rav Zilberstein.  It is
extremely interesting.

He indeed brings the envelope/letter case, and brings from the Mishna Brura
case that the kriya is not consided hana'ah because he is not nehene m'gufa
shel melacha and if so, in our case he is not being nehene m'guf hama'ase of
the opening of the door, because he goes on the ground, which has not been
changed by the melacha.

He also states that while in the pit case, it would also be assur if a Jew
did it, it is because it is similar to a bayit stom u'betocho perot v'kol
deletotav naalot v'tzarich l'frotz derech chadasha d'havei bone v'nehene
mehabinya v'havig shaper ma'aseh Shabbat, masheain ken delet hasuya l'pitcha
v'na'ala, v'ain ba asiyat derech chadasha dohavi mevarech ari v'mutar.

I think I am still not comfortable in the case of a door that operates
electronically.  If you cannot open a door except by use of a circuit going
live, I can't see why it is not considered a new act of building each time,
if connecting a circuit is building, because the door and the circuit are
instrinsically one and the same.  And I think a door is made up of a door
and a door lintel, nobody provides a door without one, and the person goes
over that lintel, so I am not convinced by the going on the ground argument
either.  So I confess I still really can't see the distinction between this
case and the closed up house or the changed object.

If you are just talking about a buzzer release, which then allows the door
to be opened manually, then I think I agree it is like the letter case, you
have got rid of something external to the door and building, and the door
itself is not changed, and assuming it would be OK to read a letter opened
by a Jew b'mazid on shabbas, then I would have thought this case was the
same - based on not being nehene mguf hadavar, ie as per the Chai Adam.
Still not convinced we totally need the lion in here though.

> --
> Eli Turkel

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Chana Luntz<ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> I think I am still not comfortable in the case of a door that operates
> electronically. ?If you cannot open a door except by use of a circuit going
> live, I can't see why it is not considered a new act of building each time,
> if connecting a circuit is building, because the door and the circuit are
> instrinsically one and the same. ?And I think a door is made up of a door
> and a door lintel, nobody provides a door without one, and the person goes
> over that lintel, so I am not convinced by the going on the ground argument
> either. ?So I confess I still really can't see the distinction between this
> case and the closed up house or the changed object.

No, the circuit does not visibly modify the door. The act of boneh (as
per CI) is not on the door, but on the invisible circuit. The door
changes place, but remains as it always was.

> If you are just talking about a buzzer release, which then allows the door
> to be opened manually, then I think I agree it is like the letter case, you
> have got rid of something external to the door and building, and the door
> itself is not changed, and assuming it would be OK to read a letter opened
> by a Jew b'mazid on shabbas, then I would have thought this case was the
> same - based on not being nehene mguf hadavar, ie as per the Chai Adam.
> Still not convinced we totally need the lion in here though.

No, that should be better than reading a letter that was opened on
Shabbat, because the door could have been opened otherwise; the letter
could only be opened by ripping the envelope.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RAF writes:

> No, the circuit does not visibly modify the door. The act of boneh (as
> per CI) is not on the door, but on the invisible circuit. The door
> changes place, but remains as it always was.

In the case of a door which is meant to operate electronically, and only
ever operated manually in emergency situations (often by breaking
something), I don't think that is the case.  The electronic circuit is a
part and parcel of the door and is what makes it function.  I do agree in
the case where a buzzer arranges for a release of a circuit, which then
allows the door to be opened manually - the electronic circuit is just put
there to protect the door and would seem more analogous to an envelope.  But
an electronic door is "live", that is how it works. If, for example, you
take the lift door on our lift at home (which we had modified by tzomet so
as to allow for grama operated switches for shabbas - as you probably know
my son is very disabled, and needs such a thing) - it gets *very* upset if
it gets opened or shut manually, and it takes a few pushes to reset itself
(it just won't go until you do that, ie you reopen the door electronically
and shut it electronically a few times). The manual operation in fact messes
up the electronic circuits. There is indeed a mechanism for operating it
manually, in case the electricity fails or there is some problem, but it is
not straightforward, and certainly not the way it is meant to be done. And
no question, if the circuit fails to respond, the door is considered broken,
and a technician would be called to fix it.  Nobody would say "oh the
circuit is broken but the door is fine", they would say, "the door is
broken". Thus to my mind the door and the circuit are part and parcel of
each other. That is how they were made, as an integrated whole, and the
electricity runs throughout the door.  In most cases if you touch the door
or the opening or closing space during the time it is opening and closing,
it triggers some sort of electrical reaction (you see this most obviously in
the sliding doors where if you put your hand in the gap, even if it is
closing it will reopen).

So I don't see the visibility aspect of it being relevant (well not if you
hold that an invisible circuit is in itself considered to involve binyan and
stira). 

Again a door that is meant to be opened both manually and electronically (eg
from the inside manually, and from the outside electronically) may be
different - but even then, that is not necessarily the case.  For example,
went away for Pesach year before last (held at a fancy hotel in Malta).  The
usual means of opening the doors from the outside was by electronic swipe,
the usual means on the inside by the handle.  The doors did however, also
have key locks and they gave us a key for use on shabbas/yom tov.  However
being of a suspicious mind, I carefully tried it a few times before
shabbas/yom tov, and it became clear that when I turned the key in the lock,
the light on the door switched from yellow to green (just as it did when one
successfully swiped the electronic swipe).  We jumped up and down (a lot!)
and in the end (after it went all the way to the top of the caterer and the
hotel and everything) they sent a specialised electronic technician to
change it.  And he had to pull out the whole door lock (I think even the
bits on both sides, the one part in the door jam and the other in door
itself - but certainly the bit in the actual door part that does the
moving), take out various bits and pieces that were part and parcel of it
and then reinsert the lock - at which point there was no longer a light
(green or yellow) at all - and the electronic swipe no longer worked, the
only way to operate it was with the manual key.  I just don't see how you
can say that the electronic circuit the lock was separate from the door in
such a case - even though it had a key option, and so, if the electricity
had failed, it could have been operated quite happily on the key alone as a
back up method.

> No, that should be better than reading a letter that was opened on
> Shabbat, because the door could have been opened otherwise; the letter
> could only be opened by ripping the envelope.

Well as I said off list, in Rav Zilberstein's teshuva, which RET kindly sent
me, he refers, as a sniff l'heter, to the safek of the Pri Megadim in siman
319 si'if katan 1 as to whether, in the case of an item produced by borer,
perhaps the item was permissible since it was possible to produce the same
item by a mutar method.  What this shows, however, is that the Pri Megadim
had a safek about this, ie it is not so pashut that even if the door could
have been opened otherwise, if it was done in a forbidden manner, it might
still make the door assur.

 And as I have indicated above, the fact that there appears to be a manual
method of opening the door, does not necessarily mean that circuits are not
of necessity being triggered by the use of that manual method.  I did not
really investigate what happened when the door was opened from the inside in
our hotel case, - but it would not surprise me if the light had gone from
yellow to green when the door was opened from the inside as well, despite
the fact that, from the inside, one did not, and probably could not, see
this.  In circumstances like the hotel case,  really find it very hard to
see the circuit(s) as somehow independent of the door - this was an
electronic door made up of a number of circuits (and other parts) that
needed as special technician to turn it into a manual door.  

> Arie Folger

Shabbat Shalom (and now I really must sign off until motzei shabbas)

Chana

Don't have to go back so far.  The question exists about those who go up 
to Har Habayit today. (How's that for opening a can of worms :-) )
There is a machloket poskim whether men going to Har Habayit make the 
bracha over the tevila.  Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon writes 
http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/10-halak/16alia.rtf in the name of 
RAL that a man should make the bracha if he had seen a keri or been with 
his wife since his last tevila.  Rav Dov Lior says that meikar hadin one 
should make a bracha on the tevilla but since in  circumstances  the man 
would be stopped from going up to Har Habayit we today are noheg not to.
shabbat shalom
menucha

Saul Mashbaum wrote:

>
>
>I wonder if, in the time of the BhM, when unmarried women practiced
>tvila, a bracha would be recited. This question can be asked about men
>in the time of the BhM as well.
>
>
>  
>

RAM wrote:
> (a) Shechita - If one shechts an animal, and says the bracha on it, even though the plan is for this animal to go uneaten, was that a bracha l'vatala?

This is discussed in Hil. Shechitah, regarding someone who slaughters
for a non-Jew. Answer: skip the blessing, IIRC.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

We must first distinguish between private actions of a navi and receiving a
prophecy. Obviously a Navi can make personal mistakes.

Some obvious examples: When King David wanted to build the bet hamikdash
Natan told him it was a great idea. Next morning he came and retracted and
said that G-d told him last night not to build the Temple
(why is not clear differences between Shmuel and Divrei Hayamim)

Another famous case is Yonah where he runs away for whatever reason.
As Yonah himself mentions although he prophesied the destruction of Ninveh
their teshuva overrode his nevuah. So in the end he was "wrong"

As others have pointed out it also depends on the nav's interpretation of
the nevuah and at times he is corrected.
-- 
Eli Turkel

RCM and RYZ have left me more confused than before.  So I'll review a bit.

RCM:
> it has been my understanding (Although I can not cite a specific 
> mekor) that the understanding by a Novi of his Nevuha is in fact 
> infallible. The infallibility stems from the infallibility of Hashem 
> to communicate the exact message he wishes to impart to the Novi, not 
> metsad the Novi himself.
RCM again:
<<If the intent of the mareh is not intended to be understood then the 
nevuoh is the metaphor without the pisron. I do not see why this 
contradicts what I said. If the intent was not to transmit a pisron, 
then what is left (the entire nevuoh in such a case) is the metaphor 
alone.>>

Every nevuah is meant to be understood eventually.  If Avraham had 
initially understood the nevuah there would have been no nisayon; if 
Avraham had never understood the nevuah there would have been no Jewish 
people.  So the nevuah can't be the mareh alone; it has to include the 
pitaron, and the prophet does not invariably understand it correctly.

RYZ:
<<See Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 7:1-3>>

But this can't be meant literally, since there are exceptions, as we've 
seen.  See Igeret Teiman, ed. Sheilat, pp. 341 pp. 341-343, where he 
explains that philosophical concepts appear in his halachic works as 
brief, introductory notes, and see the fifth reason for contradictions 
in the introduction to MN, where he says that one reason for 
contradictions in introductory works is the desire to eschew 
complications until the student has acquired more information.

RYZ again:
<<I beleive it is Muchrach due to the fact that Nvuah is a Yesod Hadas 
and from the 13 Ikkorim, as well as from the fact that there is 
punishment to a Novi Sheker, and there are ways to test a Novi (if he 
can make mistakes, there is no way of testing and no punishment can be 
given)>>

These arguments fail to distinguish between a nevuah and its pitaron; 
that the nevuah is correct need not imply that the navi understands it 
correctly.  A navi should know when he has received the pitaron and when 
he hasn't.  We can test only some nevuot - - how would Yeshayahu's 
contemporaries have tested nevuot about the Messianic era?

The first argument proves too much.  For example, it is also a yesod 
hadas that the interpretation of the Torah that we have is authentic, 
and yet the Rambam rules (Mamrim 2:1) that Sanhedrin may overrule a 
previous Sanhedrin's deductions from the Torah.  Similarly the 
authenticity of prophecy can be distinguished from the authenticity of 
its interpretation.

David Riceman

RYZ wrote:
WRT Vyeda Ma Hu IMHO it includes everything in that Nvuoh unless specified
in the Nvuoh otherwise, why he didn't give over it's meaning is Bdugma to
what the Rambam says at the end of Halacha 3, that times he reveals moshol
and Pisron times just one of the two, perhaps times he only gives the Pisron
to part of the Moshol [emphasis mine].

CM comments:
This must be the case. In fact one must say that part and parcel of the
message (understood part of the nevuoh)  must always be which part of the
nevuoh is intended for repetition to others, otherwise the novi who for
example tells others only the moshol but not the pisron (assuming he
himself has the pisron) would be over the issur of kovesh nevuoso.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090605/4f1eef66/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM, hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:

>  This must be the case. In fact one must say that part and parcel of the
> message (understood part of the nevuoh)  must always be which part of the
> nevuoh is intended for repetition to others, otherwise the novi who for
> example tells others only the moshol but not the pisron (assuming he himself
> has the pisron) would be over the issur of kovesh nevuoso.
>
>
The Rambam  in Halacha 3 begins by saying that the revelation to the Novie
is Derech Mashal uMiyad Yechokeik Bliboi Pisron...he concludes Yesh Sheim
Omrim Moshol Pisron or both, I don't see here that when the Moshol itself is
said that it is because the meaning was not revealed to him.

I think such a big  difference that would come from Aspaklaryoh Sheina
Meiroh would have been said Mfurosh both here (and in Halacha 6) and in
Hakdama to Chelek,  II would tend to think that the Novie understands what
is meant to him to relate Moshol Pisron or both, Koveish Nvuosoi is when he
says nothing (or not saying the Pisron or both when that was the intention
of HKB"H).

Further according to your reasoning a Novie that was Kovesh a Nvuoh witout a
Pisron would not be Over.  Also all nvous that were given witout Pisron
would have to be from such a class,  and they could have not been said?!

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090605/7b1ffaf8/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 107
***************************************

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..."