Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 197

Sun, 04 Oct 2009

• 1. treifot (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: psak and rationality (Isaac Balbin)
• 3. Re: psak and rationality (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Re: psak and rationality (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. R' Elyashiv and Crocs, etc. (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. R' Elyashiv (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. lulav on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 8. psak and rationality (Eli Turkel)
• 9. psak and rationality (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: R' Elyashiv (Zev Sero)
• 11. Innuy vs. Aveilus - was R' Elyashiv and Crocs, etc. (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: lulav on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Innuy vs. Aveilus - was R' Elyashiv and Crocs, etc. (Samuel Svarc)
• 14. Re: "Hashem" as God's name (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Interesting Gematria (Cantor Wolberg)
• 16. Re: "Hashem" as God's name (Micha Berger)
• 17. berachos 7a; schena and nevuah??? (Harvey Benton)

Interesting is the language of the Rambam shechitah 10:13 - "vchol eilu
shemanu vamru shehein treifa af al pi sheyireh bdarchei harefuah
shebiyadeinu shemiktzatan einan mmitin vefshar shetichyeh meihen, ein lcha
ela mah shemanu chachamim shenemar al pi hatorah asher yorucha"  Were
miktzatan and efshar lav davka (i.e. what if it was kulan and vadai - e.g.
a surgical procedure that 99.9% survived)
GT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090930/eb1da706/attachment-0001.htm>

On 01/10/2009, at 9:23 AM, avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org wrote:

> The CI is used by RHSchachter to permit the use of toledos hachamah  
> for
> non-bishul <g> on Shabbos. It wasn't derekh bishul during the  
> millennia
> of Torah, so it's not derekh bishul even in the days where a dud  
> shemesh
> is common.

I heard RHS explain that both RMF and the Rav, RYDS, both held that  
where Toledos HaChamah is from a device specifically manufactured for  
this purpose that even though such a device wasn't at Har Sinai, it's  
now a "bishul device" where companies make a comfortable profit from  
such a device and should be assur. He mentioned that some argued with  
RMF and RYDS and said "it wasn't at Sinai" but that RMF & RYDS stood  
by their views.

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:

> Hazal had access to advanced science 
> But they were not scientifically omniscient 
 > I have no reason to believe that there were zero gaps in their knowledge.
 > Just at times they knew about advanced conecpts, too .
> They might have know that their is such a thing as a radio,
> or space travel, or powerful bombs, w/o knowing the specifics
> of how to engineer them.

Space travel? Undoubtedly. One could make a case that even the Dor Haflagah had that concept.

But radio? Well, I suppose one might argue that the way Moshe Rabenu heard Hashem could be compared to radio.

But seriously, even l'shitas'cha, they lacked the *engineering* knowledge.
We're not talking here about concepts or abilities in a science fictiony
sort of way. The title of the thread mentions "psak", and you can't pasken
on a device without knowing how it works. Unless one concedes that they had
the engineering knowledge, then whatever knowledge they did have is
irrelevant.

And if someone feels that they DID have the engineering knowledge, I'd love to know where they got it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Instant Medical Insurance
Get fast, free medical insurance quotes online now in 2 minutes.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=R4HZTu74fg-fvgtz9_7HxAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAANmT0z0AAANSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgBgAAAAA=

> The CI is used by RHSchachter to permit the use of toledos hachamah
> for
> non-bishul <g> on Shabbos. It wasn't derekh bishul during the
> millennia
> of Torah, so it's not derekh bishul even in the days where a dud
> shemesh
> is common.?

I don't get it! I eman this thread!

Toldos hamma is assur gzreia atu toldos eish
Only hammah directly is muttar! Al pi rashi there is no need for gzeira
ayein sham.

Dud shemesh according to many posqim is toldas hama and assur
miderabbanan. That is because the hama heats an intermediary.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Regarding the excellent points made by R' Micha including the halachic  
issues regarding
defining the mechitza, giluach for men vs. women, "teeth" in a Jewish  
or non-Jewish mouth,
Shabbos elevators and dirt-mice, I remind you of the famous "Tanur  
Shel Achnai" (Bava Metzia 59b).
It reminds me of "Jury Nullification." If, for instance, a jury  
actually believes one to be guilty but for
whatever reasons decides to find the person Not-Guilty, the verdict  
stands. The converse, however,
is not true. On appeal, a guilty verdict, can be overturned.

Talking about teeth (in a Jewish mouth), I have the following shailah.  
If one develops a very bad toothache
on Shabbos or Yom Tov and is suffering intractable pain, would that  
qualify for being m'challel Shabbos or
Yom Tov and would the person have the halachic right to seek  
professional treatment?  Bear in mind that
a serious abscess can be quite dangerous and need immediate treatment.  
Assuming one did not know the
reason for the excruciating pain, waiting may be harmful. The same  
question can be asked if someone
developed a serious stomach ache -- not knowing if it was a  
gastroenteritis or an appendicitis, or whatever.

Any opinions?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091001/8ccc2431/attachment-0001.htm>

> According to his ruling, sneakers should also not be allowed.

    R' Zev wrote:  Ein hochi nami; who said otherwise?
In many O. Shuls the Rabbonim wore sneakers. I vividly recall this as  
a child.


Y"K is not a day of mourning. I would like to understand where this
> idea  of suffering comes from.

R' Zev responded:    Vayikra 16:29,31

Excuse me but "Inui" is not "Aveilus."  I may be afflicted but I am  
not in mourning. However, if I'm in mourning, I probably
feel afflicted. The pasuk says nothing about "aveilus."

ri 

> However, this is exactly the later takanah when there was no longer a
> safek that Jews outside EY do keep 2 days. So they did institute a
> "kum aseh" when they wanted to.

That wasn't an order to start doing something, it was an order not to
stop something they were already doing.  >>

I have two difficulties with Zev's interesting answer.
Shortcut:
EraI = time when 2 days was a safek
EraII = time after the gezerah to keep 2 days in Beitzah

1. The groups keeping 2 days in eraI and eraII are not necessarily the same.
In eraI it depended on where the messengers actually reached. In fact
there could be a
difference between Tishre and Nisan because the messengers didnt
travel on Yom Kippur.
In eraII it depends only ony on the boundaries of EY. Thus someone living across
the Jordan from Jericho keeps 2 days though it is a short ride to Jerusalem.
According to many poskim one keeps 2 days in Eilat since it is ouside
halachic EY
even though it is not that far away.
(not according to Rambam even today it depends on where the messengers
used to reach
however we dont pasken like this Rambam although the story goes that
CI and the Griz kept 2nd
day lechumra)

Similarly in EraI a Babylonian visiting Jerusalem kept 1 day while in
EraII he would keep
2 days (not like Yavetz)

2. I am having difficulty accepting that telling one to make kiddush
like he did last year
is a "shev va-al taaseh" . Even though it is a continuation the rabbis
are telling the
people to go ahead and observe a second day yomtov even though now there is
a fixed calendar. I would still consider this a "kum va-aseh"

<<Micha asks
When was "lo ad"u Rosh" instituted? Is it possible that the calendar
was being modified during the third generation of amora'im?>>

It is obvious that it wasn't done at the same time. In fact from the
sugya it is clear
that not having Rosh Hashana on wednesday so Hoshana Rabbah wouldn't
be on shabbat is a much later gezerah

Reminds me of additional question. Why were Chazal so worried about
missing hoshanot
and they weren't concerned about losing shofar when RH fell on shabbat
especially in
eras where there was only 1 day RH and similarly for lulav.
The answer that occurs to me is that to avoid RH on shabbat it would
require that
RH cant fall out on a friday, shabbat or sunday which is demanding too much,
ie if it should fall out on friday it would require a 3 day change


<<Ravin wasn't arguing with Bar Hedya, he was giving a later snapshot
of the changing of the rules then in progress.>>

However, its going in the wrong direction. Bar Hedya says Hoshana Rabbah does
not fall on shabbat while the later Ravin says it does.
I dont have dates but the sugya reads that Bar Hedya first gave
evidence but then came Ravin and
al those who accompanied him
Since today it cant fall come on shabbat it would be several flip-flops from
yes to no to yes to no

chag sameach

-- 
Eli Turkel

<The CI held that the Torah was determined during the middle 2
millenia, and any errors in science were siyata diShmaya in producing
the Torah we have. In which case, the poseiq would be correct in
working as if the statement is true even if he knows it isn't.>>

Sounds way too strong to me.
There is a difference between the gemara and modern anatomy about the
urinary and sperm
tubes meeting. The CI answers that nature has changed (hard to believe
but thats another story)
and doesnt simply ignore science and say we work with what the gemara says.
Almost no posek says we should treat a 8 month fetus as mukzah and not
save him/her
on shabbat. So in real life we alwas take modern science into account

Reminds me of a shiur of R. Zilberstein in which he discussed the
gemara that Goliath had 2 fathers
as the sperm entered simultaneously. He was asked that it was against
modern science.
His answer was that modern science only shows that 2 sperm from the
same father can't
simultaneously enter the egg but science doesnt investigate the sperm
from two different
males (again I dont believe his science but thats another story).
So we see he tries to explain that Chazal dont contradict modern
science (it had
practical applications) and not simply say that we work with chazal
even if we know
it isnt true

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<Another variant of this idea is in the Yad, Hil Shechitah 10:12-13,
which invokes "asher yorukha" to say that the list of tereifos is
binding regardless of science. That's more similar to my presentation.>>

To be more exact terefot in animals are not bound by science but
trefot in humans is !

-- 
Eli Turkel

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
>> According to his ruling, sneakers should also not be allowed.
 
> R' Zev wrote:  Ein hochi nami; who said otherwise?

> In many O. Shuls the Rabbonim wore sneakers. I vividly recall this
> as a child.

So?  Nobody has ever suggested that it's assur!  But what makes
anyone think that there's a difference between crocs and sneakers,
or that RYSE's statement about crocs does not apply to sneakers?


 
>> Y"K is not a day of mourning. I would like to understand where this
>> idea  of suffering comes from.

> R' Zev responded:    Vayikra 16:29,31

> Excuse me but "Inui" is not "Aveilus."

And nobody suggested that it was.  But it does mean suffering, and
you asked where that idea came from.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

I heard RYDS in Boston on 9 Av (1977 or 1979) contrast the 5 innuyim on
9 av with the identical innuyim on YK

Briefly
9 Av - Mishum aveilus
YK - Mishum Teshuva

Same ritual, different goal or intent.

Note on YK no need to sit low to the ground!


Tangent:
Note that Rules of Chol Hamoed and Aveilus overlap - both are in Elu
Megalchin! - yet their goals differ.

Yet the not shaving on ChhM allows it to be counted towards shloshim,
even though the reason is completely different!

Back to niddan didan:
Even though the dynamics differ, the halachic implementation of the 5
Innuyim seem to be virtually identical
[with the caveat of YK as d'oraisso for some or all, while 9 Av is
derabbanan.]

GT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Eli Turkel wrote:
> EraI = time when 2 days was a safek
> EraII = time after the gezerah to keep 2 days in Beitzah
> 
> 1. The groups keeping 2 days in eraI and eraII are not necessarily
> the same.  In eraI it depended on where the messengers actually
> reached. In fact there could be a difference between Tishre and Nisan
> because the messengers didnt travel on Yom Kippur.
> In eraII it depends only ony on the boundaries of EY.

Who says so?


> Thus someone living across the Jordan from Jericho keeps 2 days
> though it is a short ride to Jerusalem.

How do you know this wasn't the case in era 1?  I.e., how do you know
that shluchim went there?


> According to many poskim one keeps 2 days in Eilat since it is ouside
> halachic EY even though it is not that far away.

*And* shluchim didn't go there.


> (not according to Rambam even today it depends on where the messengers
> used to reach however we dont pasken like this Rambam

Do you know who paskens against it, exactly?  Especially with regard
to places outside EY that did get shluchim?


> although the story goes that CI and the Griz kept 2nd day lechumra)

Was this chumra because they held the halacha *might* be like the
Rambam, or was it because they held the halacha is *definitely* like
the Rambam and therefore they had a safek whether shluchim came to
the site of modern Bnei Brak?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:39 PM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I heard RYDS in Boston on 9 Av (1977 or 1979) contrast the 5 innuyim on
> 9 av with the identical innuyim on YK
>
> Briefly
> 9 Av - Mishum aveilus
> YK - Mishum Teshuva
>
> Same ritual, different goal or intent.
>
<SNIP>
>
> Back to niddan didan:
> Even though the dynamics differ, the halachic implementation of the 5
> Innuyim seem to be virtually identical
> [with the caveat of YK as d'oraisso for some or all, while 9 Av is
> derabbanan.]

All of which misses the mark completely. There is a 'inyan' of 'inui'
on YK, the Torah says so explicitly, and wondering why a posek might
find something as inappropriate with this concept speaks more to the
questioner's preconceived halachic framework then to it correctness.

KT,
MSS

 
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
> See Ki Tavo  28:58 " ... l'yirah es hashem ..." spelled as heh-shin-mem.  
[--RDR]

 
>>>>>>
The pasuk there does not mean "to fear G-d" but "to fear/have  reverence 
for the Name of G-d."  One small example of having reverence for  His Name is 
that hyphen in the word "G-d."




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



_____________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091002/8fb583d4/attachment-0001.htm>

The Ba'al HaTurim points out: "V'Zos HaBrochah:
This has the gematria of zu hee HaTorah-this is the
Torah-because in the merit of Torah he blessed them."
(Ba'al HaTurim, Devarim 33:1)

The Gematria of Succah is 91 (samech 60; vov 6; kaf 20; hay 5) which  
is the same
as the gematria for HaShem spelled out (aleph 1; daled 4; nun 50; yud  
10; PLUS
the tetragrammaton: Yud 10; hay 5; vov 6; hay 5), which mystically  
indicates how
God is a the center of the Succah.

Hag sameach. May the inner warmth of the Succah protect you from the  
outside temperature.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091002/d01b67da/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:59:58AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: The pasuk there does not mean "to fear G-d" but "to fear/have  reverence 
: for the Name of G-d."  One small example of having reverence for  His Name is 
: that hyphen in the word "G-d."

Or reputation, as in "keser sheim tov". A "chilul hasheim" doesn't
desecrate any of the 7 actual words, rather, it is a desecration of Hir
reputation among people.

However, yir'as Hashem appears to be neither. The Ramchal defines
shenayim sheheim shalosh forms of yir'ah in the beginning of the MY's
discussion of the middah:

Yir'as ha'Onesh -- not sinning so as to avoid punishment. This isn't
    THE yir'ah, but it has value
Yir'as Shamayim: this comes in two flavors:
    Yir'as haCheit -- fear of sinning, of doing something Hashem doesn't
        want to happen. Unlike yir'as ha'onesh, it a fear of causing
        the sin itself
    Yir'as haRomemus -- awe of Hashem's grandeur

Are you saying that yir'as hashem and yir'as Shamayim are different
things (as is reflected in my capitalization)?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@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

Berachos 7a says moshe requested that the scheina reside only with yisrael. 
1. was this request before the episode of bilaam? 2. does this request include prophecy? E.g are the scheina and nevua related? 
Does one need one for the other??
 3. Can we learn out kal v'chomer that if the shechina resides only with israel, then for sure nevuah does??? HB


      



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 197
***************************************

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..."