Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 116

Wed, 12 May 2010

• 1. no smokers for my daughter (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: More on what constitutes chilul hashem (lo plug) (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: no smokers for my daughter (Zev Sero)
• 4. Borders of Israel (Micha Berger)
• 5. Length of Archeological Ammah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. churban kriyah (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should, dress (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Length of Archeological Ammah (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Gershon Dubin)
• 12. `Eruv hatzerot for hotel hallway? (Michael Makovi)
• 13. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should, dress (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: `Eruv hatzerot for hotel hallway? (Michael Makovi)
• 15. Re: `Eruv hatzerot for hotel hallway? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Zev Sero)
• 17. question regarding a Shach (Ben Waxman)

<<Sure, one *can* distinguish the two cases that way.  But must one?  Having
established that passively taking such a risk is permitted, where's the
proof that actively doing so is not?  Would one not be required to take
any action that avoids an unacceptable risk of immediate death?>>

The generally accepted psak is that one need not undergo great pain in order
to extend one's life. Thus, as R. Teitz says one need not accept chemotherapy
which is extremely unpleasant for a short extension of life.

There is nothing in this psak that one can endanger ones life for a pleasure
eg smoking.


-- 
Eli Turkel

 

From: Arie Folger _arie.folger@gmail.com_ (mailto:arie.fol...@gmail.com) 

There is a  simple resolution to your problem about whether or not the
violation of a  local secular law engenders a 'hillul haShem. I think
that we can pretty much  all agree that not putting a coin in the meter
while parking for 10 minutes  is generally not a chillul haShem, nor
double parking for thirty seconds  while offloading passengers in a
quiet street. It should also not be  difficult to accept that to
offload passengers on a busy street where such  stopping is disallowed,
and for which legions of people idling behind your  car suffer, is a
'hillul haShem.



....So, an action which is  either inherently inequitable or which, on
account of having become law  reflects a widely held standard of
appropriate behavior in a society, does,  when violated, engender a
'hillul haShem. However, minor infractions, which  the legislator
intends to overlook, which is generally not enforced, or  otherwise not
even considered a real nuisance, do not engender any 'hillul  haShem.
There are many borderline cases, and I don't think that incurring  a
parking violation for which you may sometimes be fined, since  traffic
wardens may fine people indiscriminately - lo plug ;-) -I don't  think
such infractions would engender a 'hillull haShem insofar as they  do
not contribute to a deterioration of societal standards.

....If the  idea of a common sense definition of a matter of halakhic
import offends your  sensibilities, I apologize.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie  Folger,

 
>>>>
Common sense not only does not offend my sensibilities, it quite appeals to 
 my....common sense.
 
I just want to comment on the "lo plug" and add that in addition to whether 
 it is a chillul Hashem to commit this or that parking infraction, one 
should  also take safety into consideration and therefore lo plug = do not park 
at a  plug.  IOW not at a fire hydrant -- even if other people don't  mind.
 
(It's possible that this was exactly what RAF had in mind with his "lo  
plug" and I apologize if I am stepping on  his punch line!  I try not  to step 
on other people at all, which reminds me:  pedestrians have  obligations of 
courtesy too!  Cue recent "midos" thread on  Areivim....)
 
 

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

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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100511/47e667d3/attachment-0001.htm>

Eli Turkel wrote:

> The generally accepted psak is that one need not undergo great pain in order
> to extend one's life. Thus, as R. Teitz says one need not accept chemotherapy
> which is extremely unpleasant for a short extension of life.
> 
> There is nothing in this psak that one can endanger ones life for a pleasure
> eg smoking.

Again, a distinction that is plausible, but far from muchrach.  The
burden of proof is on those who would forbid something, not on those
who would see it remain permitted.


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

The mishnah Demai 1:3 speaks of the Keziv onward, which was conqured in
the days of Yehoshua and not those of Ezra, as not being subject to demai.

Moreso, we lean a couple of blatt later at the begining of pere 2 of the
Y-mi, that lands that weren't conqured in the days of Ezra but were part
of EY by the days of the tannaim are also not subject to demai.

Which would seem to put to rest ideas that growth of Israel's borders
today would impact the range of lands covered by mitzvos hateluyos
baaretz.

HOWEVER...

Demai 2:1 (8b vilna, near the bottom), gives R' Imi's (Alef-yud-mem-yud,
can't be "R Ami") shitah that "mema'alei masin kemi sheniskhavshu". Thus,
any city that pays taxes to Tzur is considered part of Tzur WRT demai.

Is this because R' Imi is choleiq the above, and holds that later kibush
-- and even implied kibush -- does extend borders?

Or perhaps -- just thinking out loud -- it's because the laws of which
vegetables you can assume are local depends on trade. The fact that
they taxes to Tzur imply being under their fiscal umbrella. Which would
imply that they get the same set of vegetables shipped in from the same
places. However, then what's "kemi sheniskhavshu"?

Thoughts?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

So, here's some of the data...

Yechezqel's tunnel:
    Measured: 537.6 m (Conder 1870)
    Inscription: 1200 ammah
    1 implied ammah = 44.8 cm = 17.64"

Admittedly 1200 ammah is clearly a rounded number. So we're dealing
with approximations.

The smallest shitah we have today is RCNaeh's 48 cm, or 1120 ammos for
the length of the tunnel. It's a stretch to say it was "rounded up"
to 1200 when 1100 would have been closer to the real value. Obviously
the CI's ammah is further from the measurement - 53.98cm would yeild a
tunnel of only 996 ammos.

More modern measurements of the tunnel, I should point, out are smaller.
    Gitt 2001:  525m implying 1 ammah = 43.75 cm
    Baker 1988: 533m    "     "   "   = 44.4  cm

However, Baker could have been prejudiced, since 44.4 cm is the length
of a Roman cubit, the source of the word we all use to translate "ammah"
into English.

In one of the sides of the presumed Even Shesiyah there are two holes
43.7 cm apart, and there is a niche in it that is 131 cm = 3 * 43.7 cm
long. Two slabs of rock used in the eastern wall are 2.6 m (6x) long,
six times 43.3 cm. And these, I am told, are only a few of many many
examples. Which would only make sense if 43.5 cm +/- 2mm were a standard
unit of measure -- an even smaller ammah!

For much of the BHMQ, the ammah was overestimated by 1/2 etzba (see
Pesachim 86a), as the workmen wanted to err on the side that would
avoid me'ilah.

In a small underground room under the north east corner of the current
platform, the recurring unit of measure is 42.8 cm. Implying that the
43.7 cm length was the overestimate, not the ammah.

All in all, you see the basic pattern... R' Chaim Na'eh's ammah is
slightly above the archeological range, but possibly within the margin
of error. The CI's shiurim are well beyond the evidence.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:

> Kedushas Levi to (Bereishis 24:63)

This doesn't seem to be at hebrewbooks.org.   Do you know whether it's
online anywhere?


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

> We are obligated to pray the shacharis prayer because Hashem returns our
> souls to us [in the morning], and in these prayers we say [before the
> Shemoneh Esrei] the prayer of Emes V?Yatziv (Hashem is true and steadfast),
> and we thank Hashem for all His many favors, such as the shining sun.
>
> We are obligated to pray the evening prayer because we are now giving over
> our soul to Hashem for safekeeping as a trust [when we sleep], and we
> believe that the Blessed Creator is faithful and trustworthy to return this
> soul with which He was entrusted, and therefore we say Emes VeEmunah (Hashem
> is true and faithful).
>
> However we are not obligated to pray minchah. It is voluntary, and
> therefore it is called ?minchah,? which means ?gift? or nedavah."
>

It is quite interesting that he is saying that Shacharit and Maariv are
obligatory because of Birchot Kriat Shema. Why is there any need to connect
the two? Obviously there is an obligation for Shema Beshachbecha u'vkumecha,
and the reasons we say those particular brachot there makes sense (although
the Gemarrah in brachot cites a pasuk for why we choose these).
The Rosh quotes R' Hai Gaon at the very beginning of Brachot who seems to
say that there is no connection at all between the Shema and Shmone Esrei,
and if the only minyan is davening before Tzeit, it may be best to daven
Shmone Esrei with them and then say Shma (presumably with it's brachot)
later.

Maybe he is saying that m'doraisa we have some chiyuv to daven *something*
(not necessarily Shmone Esrei) in the morning and at night, and that the
addition of a mincha prayer, unconnected to any biblical prayer demand is
our "gift" to Hashem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100511/f595b024/attachment-0001.htm>

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2010/05/kriah-at-kotel.html#more
please see this article and comments  at r' gil's site on the range of 
opinions on the current  chiyuvim and kulahs  in re  kriyah  over the 
churban---   ranging from  no  chiyuv anymore to kriyah over anything 
zionists control...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100511/1aa9b86c/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB:
<<what do we see from Abba Chilkiyah's wife? That it's okay to dress

up for one's husband even when he brings home guests, or that she didn't
expect guests?>>

We see that she went to (in the immortal words of AA Milne) "the edge of the town" while dressed up.

David Riceman

Micha Berger wrote:

> All in all, you see the basic pattern... R' Chaim Na'eh's ammah is
> slightly above the archeological range, but possibly within the margin
> of error. The CI's shiurim are well beyond the evidence.

Which conforms with the fact that he assumed the Rambam's dirhams
were the same as the Ottoman dirham in use in EY in his time.
Which in turn conformed with the minhag of Y'm Sefardim in his time.
But in fact the Egyptian dirham was slightly smaller, which puts all
of his calculations slightly over.  The Ottoman dirham weighed 3.205 g,
but the Rambam's dirham was probably more like 2.85g.  R Chaim Palache
wrote that the dirham of his day weighed 72 grains of barley, whereas
the Rambam wrote that it was 64 grains, and in PHM he wrote 61, which
is also what the Bartenura wrote.  RCP assumed that barley had shrunk
between the Rambam's day and his, but in fact it's the dirham that grew.

Taking a dirham of 64/72 of 3.205 g, or 2.85 g, yields a revi'is of
77 ml, and therefore an etzba of 1.924 cm and an amah of 46.176 cm.
If we take the dirham to be 61/72 of the Ottoman one, or 2.71 g, we
get a revi'is of 73.3 ml, an etzba of 1.893 cm, and an amah of 45.443 cm.

This still doesn't get us down to 43.5, let alone 42.8.   43.5 means
an etzba of 1.8125, a revi'is of 64.3 ml, and a dirham of 2.38 g.
42.8 means 1.783, 61.25, and 2.27.   That seems unrealistically small.

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

http://hebrewbooks.org/42516

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 08:47:05 -0400

Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
> Kedushas Levi to (Bereishis 24:63)

This doesn't seem to be at hebrewbooks.org.   Do you know whether it's
online anywhere?

Random question. I'll be asking my rabbi about this, but I thought it
would be interesting to hear what others have to say.

If you stay in a hotel during Shabbat, in a place without an `eruv, do
you have to make an `eruv hatzerot in order to be able to walk through
the hallways? Hazal decreed that a common courtyard - which is a reshut
ha-yahid - might be confused with a reshut ha-rabim / karmelit, and that
therefore, the courtyard must have an `eruv (by which I mean the sharing
of food, not the walls, since the courtyard already has walls). But
did Hazal include hotels in their decree? A hotel is OBVIOUSLY a reshut
ha-yahid, since it is OBVIOUSLY privately-owned, and it even has ceilings,
unlike the common courtyard. I mean, the hotel is one contiguous building,
unlike a courtyard, which kind of does look like a public area outside
your house. So must one treat a hotel like a courtyard and make an
`eruv hatzerot? (And if there are gentiles in the hotel, then one must
simply avoid carrying, since one cannot make an `eruv with gentiles.) Or
is the hotel exempt from all this?


[Email #2. -micha]

> If you stay in a hotel during Shabbat, in a place without an `eruv, do
> you have to make an `eruv hatzerot in order to be able to walk through
> the hallways?

> Michael Makovi

My rabbi said this situation is more like a gigantic house with one
ba'al ha-bayit in which you are renting one room, rather than like a
common courtyard with multiple houses. As such, no `eruv is necessary.
His answer is so obvious that I feel like an idiot now. :P

Michael Makovi

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:02:35AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:>what do we see from Abba Chilkiyah's wife? That it's okay to dress
:> up for one's husband even when he brings home guests, or that she didn't
:> expect guests?

: We see that she went to (in the immortal words of AA Milne) "the edge of 
: the town" while dressed up.

(We're discussing Taanis 23b, the maaseh begins on amud A.)

The words are "ki mata lemasa". While "masa" does sometimes mean
"hometown", it usually means one's estate (home and yards). The meaning
you presume is a derived one, and the it would have been more natural to
call the town a kefar or an ir (depending on how urban Aba Chilkiyah's
town was). So, one can't "see" from this quote that she went beyond the
gate of their property.

BTW, see Aramaic wiktionary entry at
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%90>. I found its
existence amazing. There is also an online Jastrow at
<http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

> What's the question?
>
> Walking the hallway is not an issue
>
> Don't you mean "transporting"
> ?via the hallway?
>
> Kt
> RRW

Yes, sorry, I meant transporting, not merely walking. Gaa!

Michael Makovi

Michael Makovi wrote:

> If you stay in a hotel during Shabbat, in a place without an `eruv, do
> you have to make an `eruv hatzerot in order to be able to walk through
> the hallways?

No, but not for the reason you first offer.


> Hazal decreed that a common courtyard - which is a reshut
> ha-yahid - might be confused with a reshut ha-rabim / karmelit [...]
> A hotel is OBVIOUSLY a reshut ha-yahid, since it is OBVIOUSLY privately-
> owned, and it even has ceilings, unlike the common courtyard. 

This is not sufficient.  For instance, a block of flats/apartments is
the equivalent of a chatzer, and needs an eruv.  So does a shopping mall.



> My rabbi said this situation is more like a gigantic house with one
> ba'al ha-bayit in which you are renting one room, rather than like a
> common courtyard with multiple houses.

Not quite.  If you were actually renting your room, so that it was
your temporary property, then it would be no different from a block
of flats.  But the metzius of a hotel is quite different: you are not
a tenant, you are a guest, albeit a paying guest.  You have no baalus
over the room that has been assigned to you.  The owner's agents not
only have a key and the right to enter whenever they like, but they
do in fact enter at least once a day to clean, restock, etc.  The
owner can also move you to another room.  And the owner not only has
the right to store his goods in the room, but in fact does so -- all
the fittings, furniture, supplies, etc. that are in the room belong
to him, and he can retrieve and replace them any time he likes.

So your situation is the same as that of a guest in someone's house,
where there is only one baal habayis and therefore no eruv is needed.
The fact that you pay for the privilege of living there doesn't
change anything in this regard.  (It does mean that you have an
obligation of lighting nerot shabbat, and are not yotze with the
hotel owner's own lighting, even if he is Jewish and lights.
Hence if you do want to be yotze with his lighting you have to pay
him a prutah for a share in his candles.  When you are a non-paying
guest in someone's home, and your host is providing all your needs,
you are yotze with his lighting and have no chiyuv of your own at all.)


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

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:

>> Kedushas Levi to (Bereishis 24:63)
 
> This doesn't seem to be at hebrewbooks.org.   Do you know whether it's
> online anywhere?

> http://hebrewbooks.org/42516

That's not it.   I looked through that one before posting.  Not only
isn't it on chumash, so the reference ("to Bereishis 24:63") makes no
sense, but I searched for the words "shacharis" "mincha" and "arvis"
and didn't find this anywhere.  Therefore the reference must be to
a sefer that isn't at hebrewbooks.org

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

This question has come up before but I'd like to get your input. The Schach
in YD 119:20 writes that someone who does not eat something because of
minhag avotav/haqpada can eat it when being hosted by someone who does eat
if "he sees a heter b'devar". What does that phrase mean? I learned this
with a friend and he thought that it meant something which we all know is
muttar, but have accepted not to eat it out of minhag (e.g. kitniot). On
this list, someone thought that it meant "not insulting the host".

Any other ideas?

Thanks

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100512/5509c215/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 116
***************************************

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..."