Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 108

Mon, 08 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 2. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Re: goy vs chiloni (Eli Turkel)
• 4. goy vs chiloni (Saul Mashbaum)
• 5. Re: goy vs chiloni (Arie Folger)
• 6. understanding nevuah (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Yeast isn't chameitz (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Re: missing nun (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: understanding nevuah (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 10. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Learning on Shavuos - Two Scenarios (Marty Bluke)
• 12. Birkas Kohanim (Yitzchok Levine)
• 13. Re: goy vs chiloni (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: goy vs chiloni (Arie Folger)
• 15. Re: goy vs chiloni (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: goy vs chiloni (Chana Luntz)
• 17. Fwd: goy or chiloni (Saul Mashbaum)
• 18. can a navi make a mistake (hankman)
• 19. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Micha Berger)
• 20. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM, David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

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

Mipnei Kotzer Hazman I will leave this for after Shabbos bl"n.

Just to throw out some food for thought there is a concept of "Neboh vlo
yoda ma neboh", will also discuss bl"n after Shabbos.

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090605/ecf12545/attachment-0001.htm>

> Are these people following the halachot of amira l'akum correctly to
> begin with, or do they see it as a loophole large enough to drive a
> truck through? Amira l'akum is an area of halacha that I'm scared to
> touch or take advantage of because it's so easily abused.

Good question. I don't know.

To use a gentile, a pureblood gentile, is a real serious question of
amira l'akum. But to use someone doing giyur is moreover an averah
bein adam l'havero.

As for using yayin mevushal: the problem is that students bring in
their own wine on Shabbat, and the rabbis aren't around to say
anything. Actually, the rabbis aren't very concerned with the shame
caused to the giyur candidates. (Believe you me, the candidates DO
feel great shame at this, but no one but them seems to care. Even the
rabbis don't seem to care when I discuss this with them. I never said
I like the rabbis at my yeshiva.)

Michael Makovi

Just to get the facts right I assume R. Zilberstein is referring to
the usual door in
Israeli apartment building. These doors are basically manual and can
be opened from
the outside with a key and from the inside with a handle. In ADDITION
they can be
opened from the outside electronically by pushing the correct combination and
(the case he is discussing) from inside every apartment by pushing a buzzer.
His heter is based on the act that the person on the inside could have
gone down to the door
and opened in manually.

My assumption is that the halacha would be different if it could only
be opened electronically
ie a hotel room that has only electronic access from the outside
without any manual override

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

RAFolger

>>
(b) The real thing to compare the question of a Chul Jew asking an EY
Jew in EY to do a melakha on YT sheni is whether one Jew who began
Shabbat early may ask another Jew who begins Shabbat with the zman, to
do a melakha for the former.
>>

This is explicitly permitted by the m'chaber on OC 263;17. The Rama
there concurs, and says "kal vachomer" one still keeping Shabbat
motzaei Shabbat may ask one who is not to do m'lacha for him. The
Mishna Brura cites this halacha as authoritative in OC 261 sk 18.

However, the comparison of this to the question of a Chul Jew asking an EY
Jew in EY to do a melakha on YT sheni is not so clear. The basis of
the permissibility in the case of early/after Shabbat seems to be that
the action the person is asking to be done is essentially permitted to
the person himself, but he voluntarily undertook not to allow himself
not to do it. The case of the chu"l Jew is not the same, since he is
forbidden to do the m'lacha himself on YT sheni me-ikkarhadin.

Saul Mashbaum

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Saul Mashbaum<saul.mashb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is explicitly permitted by the m'chaber on OC 263;17. The Rama
> there concurs, and says "kal vachomer" one still keeping Shabbat
> motzaei Shabbat may ask one who is not to do m'lacha for him. The
> Mishna Brura cites this halacha as authoritative in OC 261 sk 18.

That's right.

> However, the comparison of this to the question of a Chul Jew asking an EY
> Jew in EY to do a melakha on YT sheni is not so clear. The basis of
> the permissibility in the case of early/after Shabbat seems to be that
> the action the person is asking to be done is essentially permitted to
> the person himself, but he voluntarily undertook not to allow himself
> not to do it. The case of the chu"l Jew is not the same, since he is
> forbidden to do the m'lacha himself on YT sheni me-ikkarhadin.

Good point. I have to think about this and do some research here.

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

In this weeks haftarah (in EY next week in chul). Zecharya sees the menorah
but says he doesnt understand the message. Thus the angel must be more explicit.

-- 
Eli Turkel

> What is the proposed alternative to oats in the 5 species?

I forget where Rambam says this, but I do remember that he says
two-row barley. (I believe two-row barley is basically wild barley.)
My gut is saying his perush to Mishna Kilayim, but don't hold me to
it,

Michael Makovi

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:22:23 -0700
Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:

> http://www.avakesh.com/2009/06/an-exchange-about-ashrei.html
> in ashrei

And see:

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-nun-in-ashrei.html

And, for good measure:

http://elucidation-not-translation.blogspot.
com/2007/08/no-hint-of-textual-criticism-of-bible.html

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In this weeks haftarah (in EY next week in chul). Zecharya sees the menorah
> but says he doesnt understand the message. Thus the angel must be more
> explicit.
>

Already discussed.

Kol Tuv,

Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090607/487879bb/attachment-0001.htm>

Then the problem is more basic than the wine. The students are not given 
basic info which they require. At a conversion seminary for women which I 
know the women are told right away the basics of the basics of what they can 
and (more importantly) what they can't do. One thing that they are told is 
no pouring wine.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
>
> As for using yayin mevushal: the problem is that students bring in
> their own wine on Shabbat, and the rabbis aren't around to say
> anything. (>
> Michael Makovi
> 

The Mishna Berura in Siman 527 Sif Katan 3 writes that the minhag was
to make early Shabbos specifically when Yom Tov falls out on Friday.
The reason is as follows.

The Gemara in Pesachim (46a) has a machlokes Rabba and R' Chisda, is
there an issur d'oraysa if you cook on Yom Tov for a weekday. Rabba
says no and R' Chisda says yes. Rabba says no because of ho'eel, since
guests can come and eat the food it falls under the heter of ochel
nefesh. R' Chisda disagrees. Rabba asks R' Chisda according to you how
do we cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos? R' Chisda answers that tzorchei
shabbos naasim, b'ytom tov, that you are allowed to prepare from
Shabbos to Yom Tov.

There is a big nafka mina between the 2 opinions. What happens if you
finish cooking very late in the day right before Shabbos? According to
Rabba you are in trouble, the heter of ho'eel does not apply as there
was not time for guests to come and eat the food on Yom Tov while
according to R' Chisda there is no problem as you are allowed to
prepare from Yom Tov to Shabbos.

It is not clear who we pasken like, Rabba or R' Chisda. Based on this
the Mishna Berura writes that we should be choshesh for Rabba's
opinion and finish cooking early in the day. Therefore the Mishna
Berura writes the minhag was to make early shabbos.

The question is how does the minhag help. There are 2 possibilities:
1. It is a pyschological thing. If you make early shabbos then you
will prepare earlier in the day.
2. It is a din.

There is a a big nafka mina, many people will finish their preparation
2 minutes before candle lighting whenever it is, therefore if early
shabbos is because of 1 you gain nothing as people will finish cooking
2 minutes before lighting candles for early shabbos.

What is pshat that it is a din? The answer may be as follows. When you
make early shabbos, you are turning a day of chol into Shabbos, you
are adding kedusha. However, when that day is also Yom Tov, you cannot
take away the kedushas Yom Tov, you can only add kedusha. Therefore,
that time period of early shabbos has both kedushas. If this is true,
if you finish cooking before early shabbos, then there is still time
for ho'eel to kick in, until Yom Tov is actually over. Any food eaten
before shkia will be a kiyum of simchas Yom Tov as well and therefore
the heter of ochel nefesh would apply as well as the sevara of ho'eel.

I have posted RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 6: 23 - 27 at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/birkas_kohanim.pdf

In his commentary Rav Hirsch gives many insights in Birkas Kohanim 
and explains the differences in the way Birkas Kohanim is done today 
and how it was done in the Bais Hamikdash. He provides reasons for 
these differences.

Yitzchok Levine 

RET writes:

> Just to get the facts right I assume R. Zilberstein is 
> referring to the usual door in Israeli apartment building. 
> These doors are basically manual and can be opened from the 
> outside with a key and from the inside with a handle. In 
> ADDITION they can be opened from the outside electronically 
> by pushing the correct combination and (the case he is 
> discussing) from inside every apartment by pushing a buzzer. 
> His heter is based on the act that the person on the inside 
> could have gone down to the door and opened in manually.

I don't think this can be right.

The reason I say that is that thousands of frum Jews in Israel have been
living with these door systems for decades.  The accepted situation is that
those who live in the apartments have keys, and enter with the keys.  If
inviting guests, they either prop the door ajar, or the guests stand outside
and yell until they attract the attention of the residents, who come down
and open the door for them. 

Even if there are chilonim in the appartment block, which there often are,
there is no need to rely on the actions of a chiloni to get into one's
appartment, and hence absolutely no need for this heter.  Why would anybody
be seeking what is clearly a more problematic halachic reliance if he could
wait until the chiloni closed the door, and then use his own key?  In such a
circumstance he would clearly not be getting any benefit from the action of
the chiloni, and the guf of the d'var, ie the door, has been changed back to
what it was.

Hence this teshuva would seem to be predicated on a scenario where the
fellow in question cannot in fact get into his apartment without utilising
the act which is done b'issur by the chiloni.  If he could beg or borrow a
key, then what is the question?  If he could stand outside and yell for
assistance from the inside, again what is the question?  I certainly did not
get the impression that this teshuva was based on the scenario where he had
forgotten his key.  And in fact the very analogy to the lion would seem to
be against this interpretation.  After all, whether somebody scares away a
lion, whether by shooting it or not, it is hard to see how one truly could
be said to benefit from that act, if there is a derech achrina that one
could comfortably take that avoids the lion.  OK one can now take this path
rather than that, ie it gives one options, but unless the derech achrina is
truly much more onerous or difficult, can one even say that one has really
got a "benefit" from the absence of the lion?
 
> My assumption is that the halacha would be different if it 
> could only be opened electronically ie a hotel room that has 
> only electronic access from the outside without any manual override

One of the things that the hotel door in Malta has made me think about is
whether in fact the classic Israeli doors are truly as manual as we think
they are.  As mentioned, the hotel door in the hotel in Malta, had an
electronic swipe, that when it worked successfully, changed the light from
yellow to green, and allowed the door to be pushed open.  It also had a key
mechanism, and it was only by examining it closely that one noticed that
when one inserted and turned the key, it also changed the light from yellow
to green.  But what if there had not been a light?  The light was only there
for the user's, convenience, to know whether or not the action had worked
successfully - but it seems to me that that without the light, it still may
well have been true that the action of the key was triggering some
electronic reaction in the door (presumably not to set off the alarm or some
such).  Is it necessarily true that even if you have what appears to be a
completely manual operation, by means of a key, you are not in fact
disconnecting some sort of circuit?  Now the hotel was a very modern hotel,
and I am pretty sure its technology was streets ahead of the old style
Israeli doors, which are probably fine.  But newer doors?  

> kol tuv
> 
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana
> 

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Chana Luntz<Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> Why would anybody
> be seeking what is clearly a more problematic halachic reliance if he could
> wait until the chiloni closed the door, and then use his own key?

On the contrary, the reason one would want to rely on this hetter in a
regular apartment building is so that when a chiloni happens to ring
the doorbell of your host's neighbour, and the former's host buzzes
him in, do you need to let the door close and wait for another way to
enter, or can you enter with him? That is a lot more common than
entering a building through sliding electric doors, like in a
hospital. In fact, I would think that in Israel, hospitals are
designed to avoid such problems for shomer shabbat visitors, so the
sliding doors are probably a lot less common there than what we are
used to. (I assume that no one wants to go to the office on Shabbat).

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

>
> I don't think this can be right.
>
> The reason I say that is that thousands of frum Jews in Israel have been
> living with these door systems for decades. ?The accepted situation is that
> those who live in the apartments have keys, and enter with the keys. ?If
> inviting guests, they either prop the door ajar, or the guests stand outside
> and yell until they attract the attention of the residents, who come down
> and open the door for them.
>
> Even if there are chilonim in the appartment block, which there often are,
> there is no need to rely on the actions of a chiloni to get into one's
> appartment, and hence absolutely no need for this heter. ?Why would anybody
> be seeking what is clearly a more problematic halachic reliance if he could
> wait until the chiloni closed the door, and then use his own key? ?In such a
> circumstance he would clearly not be getting any benefit from the action of
> the chiloni, and the guf of the d'var, ie the door, has been changed back to
> what it was.
>

I will reread the teshuva however my assumption was that the chiloni opened
the door with a buzzer on his own to be nice and the question was
whether one could enter
or had to wait for someone to walk down and open the door manually

A related question that often arises is when is walking up the stairs
in the dark and the
chiloni neighbor decides to be nice and turns on the lights what one should do?


-- 
Eli Turkel

Ret writes:

> I will reread the teshuva however my assumption was that the 
> chiloni opened the door with a buzzer on his own to be nice 
> and the question was whether one could enter or had to wait 
> for someone to walk down and open the door manually

Well the teshuva opens with the words - sheila adam shelo haya yachol
l'hikanes l'beito mishum delet haknisa hayita neula - doesn't sound to me
like there was much option even to wait.
 
> A related question that often arises is when is walking up 
> the stairs in the dark and the chiloni neighbor decides to be 
> nice and turns on the lights what one should do?

With most Israeli stairwells, the lights turn themselves off after a
relatively short time - so arguably if you stand still you get no benefit
from the light, and you keep going after it goes out.  If the lights are
more permanent, however, then it is even more problematic - surely though
you are an ones, certainly if you are in the midst of the stairwell.

> 
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Saul Mashbaum <saul.mashb...@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 7, 2009 8:13 PM
Subject: re: goy or chiloni
To: Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


RAFolger
>>

(b) The real thing to compare the question of a Chul Jew asking an EY
Jew in EY to do a melakha on YT sheni is whether one Jew who began
Shabbat early may ask another Jew who begins Shabbat with the zman, to
do a melakha for the former.
>>

I wish to  expand on my previous posting, which cited SA OC 263;17,
which explicitly permits "one Jew who began  Shabbat early to ask
another Jew who begins Shabbat with the zman, to do a melakha for the
former."

There is a dispute as to whether the basis of this heter is the
potential permissibility of the action in question to the asker (since
he didn't have to accept early Shabbat) or the actual permissibility
to the person being asked. The Taz holds the latter, and would most
probably permit a chu"l Jew to ask an Israeli Jew to do m'lacha for
him on YT sheni, such work being entirely permissible to the Israeli
Jew.

For those who hold the former (most poskim) the question is a very
knotty one, depending on the exact nature of the prohibition for a
chu"l Jew to do m'lacha in EY on YT sheni, a matter of considerable
dispute.This question is directly addressed in the Shaarei Tshuva to
OC 496:3, who cites tshuvot of achronim, some of whom are lenient and
some of whom are stringent.

See IM OC III, 73. RMF cites the above Shaarei Tshuva, notes that he
does not have access to the tshuvot cited therein, and on the basis of
his own reasoning favors the position that the activity in question is
forbidden (since asker is forbidden to do the m'lacha m'ikkar hadin).
He explicitly rejects the comparison to SA OC 263:17.

The Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 31:33 also says a chu"l Jew may not ask
an Israeli Jew to do m'lacha for him on YT sheni. In footnote 80*
there he cites the above-mentioned IM. He also says RSZA forbids this.
 Having said this, he concludes "however, in practice many are lenient
on this, based on the fact that issur m'lechet YT sheni in EY is only
an minhag, b'tziruf shitat haChacham Tzvi (who says that one need not
observe YT sheni in Israel at all (SM) )"

All this relates to explicitly asking an Israei to do m'lacha on YT
sheni. All poskim agree that a chu"lJew may benefit from m'lacha done
for him on YT sheni by an Israeli Jew of his own volition. In
practice, here in Israel , even for those who are stringent regarding
a direct request, the chu"l Jew simply hints at what it is he would be
very happy if it were done for him, and the Israeli goes ahead and
does it. The chu"l Jew may benefit from this action without qualms.

Saul Mashbaum

RET wrote:
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
...
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"

CM comments:
You are of course correct to say that "We must first distinguish between private actions of a navi and receiving a
prophecy. Obviously a Navi can make personal mistakes." That is exactly the
situation you cite with Dovid hamelech and Noson hanovi. the novi's
personal (and incorrect) evaluation was that Dovid's desire to build the
Mikdosh was well founded and timely (but no nevuoh was involved). This was
subsequently corrected by a nevuoh to the novi.

However, the case of Yona is not a parallel. When Yona runs away he did not
misunderstand the nevuoh, he was kovesh nevuoso - not at all the same. When
you write "So in the end he was "wrong"," this too, has nothing to do with
misunderstanding the nevuoh. Whether the nevuoh comes to pass as the novi
predicts is another parsha and is not an indicator as to whether the novi
misinterpreted his nevuoh. (as you state here by Yona as a consequence of
teshuva).

Kol Tuv 

Chaim Manaster




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090607/8464f7bf/attachment-0001.htm>

I think that in this discussion we need to distinguish the Rambam and
Ramban at one step before. I believe they disagree about what nevu'ah
is, and thus of course they would disagree about what imperfections can
creep ito a nevu'ah.

This matter involves the Ramban's questioning the Rambam saying that
much of parashas Vayeira was a nevu'ah. The Rambam famously writes in
the Moreh that it must have been so, since mal'akhim are incorpoeral and
therefore whenever they are seen it must be the description of nevu'ah.
The Ramban asks, were Sodom et al then not destroyed, and Lot not saved?
The Abarbanel answers that the Rambam would say that the mal'akhim saved
Lot AND they were only seen bederekh nevu'ah. Nevu'ah according to the
Rambam is seeing things going on on higher planes of reality. Thus,
Avraham and Lot only saw the mal'akhim bederekh nevu'ah because they
were actually there. The Ramban seems to assume that nevu'ah is a
message relayed to the navi, and thus the things in it are metaphors,
not real entities.

There is also a machloqes about the end of parashas Mishpatim: who
was the man on the throne? The Rambam says it was the Kavod Nivra,
whereas the Ramban says it was Hashem Himself. This is leshitasam. The
Rambam can't understand the 70 zeqeinim to see HQBH, nor that they
saw something that didn't exist, and so Hashem created something that
could be seen. According to the Ramban, there is no problem, since the
metaphor of the vision could have a representation of anything, even HQBH,
without violating "lo yir'ani adam".

I wrote about this at greater length, including R' Saadia Gaon's shitah,
at <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf>.

I see what's being discusssed here as also lesitasam.

The Rambam wouldn't question the accuracy of a nevu'ah any more than
what he sees physically. Therefore, his notion of an imperfect nevu'ah is
getting fewer details. The Ramban's shitah, OTOH, more readily supports
the possibillity of the navi misunderstanding parts of the message.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

RDR wrote:
So the nevuah can't be the mareh alone; it has to include the 
pitaron, and the prophet does not invariably understand it correctly.

CM responds:
I do not agree with these assertions you make.
Why not; why; absolutely not.

So the nevuah can't be the mareh alone; why not?
it has to include the pitaron, why?
and the prophet does not invariably understand it correctly. abolutely not.

RDR writes: (CM response in bold)
These arguments fail to distinguish between a nevuah and its pitaron; (they are both a part of the total nevuoh)
that the nevuah is correct need not imply that the navi understands it correctly. (the novi can not misunderstand the nevuoh!)
 A navi should know when he has received the pitaron and when he hasn't. (correct, he always does.)

RDR wrote:
We can test only some nevuot - - how would Yeshayahu's 
contemporaries have tested nevuot about the Messianic era?

CM responds:
I think you misunderstand RYZ's point. If mistake is admissible in nevuoh,
then you could NEVER punish a novi sheker, so why would the Torah provide
such a punishment. But in the instance of your query, perhaps not every
nevuoh (from a novi muchzok) must be subject to test and punishable.

RDR wrote:
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.

CM responds:
You are mixing apples and oranges. One does not follow from the other.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090607/25c3d2d7/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 108
***************************************

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..."