Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 96

Wed, 18 Jul 2012

• 1. Kaddish Yatom by a non Yatom (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Nevuah and Knowing the Future (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: If you have an electronic water meter, can you turn on your faucet on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: If you have an electronic water meter, can you turn on your faucet on Shabbos? (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: If you have an electronic water meter, can you turn on your faucet on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Bnot tzlafchad (Liron Kopinsky)
• 7. Re: Bnot tzlafchad (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Nevuah and Knowing the Future (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Nevuah and Knowing the Future (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Lehadlik Ner (on tefilin) (hankman)
• 11. Re: Lehadlik Ner (on tefilin) (hankman)
• 12. Re: If you have an electronic water meter, can you turn on your faucet on Shabbos? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: If you have an electronic water meter, can you turn on your faucet on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Bnot tzlafchad (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Nevuah and Knowing the Future (Ben Waxman)

To make a long story short - S-I-L  whose both parents are alive (and wife
only has one brother -	who could not say kaddish that day) asked someone
else to say kaddish for M-I-L that day.

 The OU Vebbe Rebbe says "The main issue has to do with the Kaddish
 following Aleinu at the end of the tefilla (and in a few places, during
 Shacharit). That was instituted to give mourners who are not able to be
 the chazan the opportunity to recite at least that Kaddish and thereby
 elevate the souls of their departed parents. Thus, poskim write that when
 one whose parents are alive says Kaddish, it may look as if a parent has
 died, and we refrain from this in order to "not open our mouth to the
 Satan"."

However the Rama (132:2) requires  Kaddish after Aleinu, even if no mourner
is present. He also says if no mourner is present, someone else should say
it (even someone with parents, if the parents don't object).


So of course I said it but I wonder :
1) given that kaddish is a din in kavod and a s-i-l is chayav in kavod for in laws, wouldn't it be better for a s-i-l to say it?
2) how does al tiftach peh lsatan outweigh the massive schar of getting a kahal to say yhei shmei rabbah?
3)what advice would we give a parent who asks should they give permission?
4) why don't we say al tiftach if one parent is still alive?

KT
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/20120718/833ab2d7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:57:30PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote Areivim:
>> How do you explain the purpose of seifer Iyov, written by the Av haNeviim?

> The authorship of Iyov is a machloket.  I don't have to accept that it  
> was written by Moshe Rabbenu, and even if it was, it wasn't written  
> under the influence (so to speak) of Nevua, or it'd be in Nevi'im, at  
> the very least.

BB 14b does not record other shitos. On the next amud the subject of
Moshe's authorship is tied to the shitos that says that Iyov lived in
the days of Moshe -- either tying him to life in Mitzrayim or to the time
of the meraglim -- or all the way from Moshe's time through Ezra's. (R'
Elazar calls him one of the olei golah [15a] AND alive during the Shofetim
[15b].) This is also contrasted with R' Shemuel bar Nachmeini saying that
Iyov is mythical. But I don't see a shitah that places his birth after
MRAH's petirah, which would create a difficulty of a seifer kesuvim that
tells of the life of someone not born yet. (A difficulty overcome by
those who ascribe "Al Naharos Bavel" to David haMelekh.) I don't think
the connection is being made between authorship and any one shitah in
the machloqes about when/if Iyov lived.

In any case, you agree that the book is of a quality where amoraim
consider it debatable whether or not MRAH did. So what's in it should
be taken seriously, perhaps more so than books they wouldn't attribute
to MRAH, such as the rest of Nakh (minus some Tehillim). And the whole
message, raised from chapter 3 onward and explicitly stated at length for
multiple chapters, is that people can't know why Hashem brings tragedy.

I asked on Areivim how you understand it, since you seem to believe we
can and should know why. I am still curious what it is.

>> To answer your question: To give mussar. Neviim are to teach morality.

> We disagree.

You had asked:
>>> How would you explain the purpose of nevi'im?

That's how I would, it's what I learned in numerous places. See the
rishonim cited by the Shitah Mequbetzes BQ 2 (explaining the idiom
"divrei qabalah" as being from "qoveil"), and RYBS's Shiurim leZeikher
Abba Mori vol 2 pg 173. That latter has a humorous touch; it shows
RYBS's Brisk-keit that he had to ask what the point of nevu'ah was, if
"lo bashamayim hi" means they had no halachic import. He concludes, as I
wrote, that they were sent to give tokhachah, but still admits discomfort.

You do not say /why/ you disagree.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:28:33PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: In an interesting letter in yesterday's Yated Neeman a writer brought up
: this issue. He claimed that in some places in Israel they have installed
: electronic water meters and therefore you can't use the water on Shabbos....

Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei -- PRDNL.

 From notes on an essay "Motion Sensors and the Concept of P'sik Reishei"
by R' Josh Flug, here is what he has on the subject -- sorry, no mar'eh
meqomos (I don't have the back page[s] with the footnotes.)

The Arukh holds it's mutar.

Tosafos hold it's assur derabbanan, as a kind of melakhah she'einah tzerkhah
legufah.

The SA holds like Tosafos.

The Terumas haDeshen allows pesiq reishei delo nicha lei when the issur is
derabbanan.

The MA does not.

R' YE Spektor is meiqil like the Terumas haDeshen.

The MB holds like the MA, but does allow a double-derabbanan. Eg:
Closing a large box that has a bug of a sort not normally trapped
inside. Derabbanan 1: the box is large, so the bug still needs to
be cornered within the box if you wanted to hold it. Derabbanan 2:
it's not normally trapped. So, PRDNL would be mutar in this case.

Similarly, the more practical case of eating a cake that has lettering
on it.
Derabbanan 1: Mechilqah shelo al menas likhto
Derabbanan 2: Derekh achilah
So, PRDNL is permitted.

(Lately the local bakery is more machmir than the Rama and the MB,
and puts the frosting on a card which one can remove before cutting
the cake.)

ROY only requires one derabbanan.

Now the question is whether the water meter (or the motion sensor)
does anything that if done straightforwardly would be assur deoraisa.
Then you can ask your LOR if he holds like the Terumas haDeshen (and
RYES and ROY) or like the MA (and MB).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> In an interesting letter in yesterday's Yated Neeman a writer brought 
> up this issue. He claimed that in some places in Israel they have 
> installed electronic water meters and therefore you can't use the 
> water on Shabbos. He wanted to warn people who are planning a vacation 
> to keep this in mind when picking a destination.
>
> It would seem that the letter writer is right about the problems of 
> using water on Shabbos if you have an electronic water meter. Every 
> time you turn on the water you are directly causing the electronic 
> water meter to record your use which falls under the general rubric of 
> electricity.

I can't imagine that this should matter.  It's not b'ein, it's not nicha 
lei.  We might as well say that the Butterfly effect means we can't move 
at all on Shabbat because of the consequent effects our motions might have.

Lisa

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:12:27PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I can't imagine that this should matter.  It's not b'ein...

My answer presumed there was a running total on the meter, and thus
it was be'ein. But you're correct that I don't know enough about the
meter in question to assume that. The meter reader might have a display
to plug into the meter, or might even use a data connection to read it
from their office.

>       We might as well say that the Butterfly effect means we can't move  
> at all on Shabbat because of the consequent effects our motions might 
> have.

"Consequent" means gerama, not pesiq reishei, and "might" would make it
mutar. Like opening the door to a house that has a thermostat.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I have often heard about how much the Bnot tzlafchad loved the land of
Israel and so badly wanted to enter. But yet in the end they were
descendants of Machir Ben Menashe and their Nachala was meever layarden.

Why do we tend to focus on their love of the land when they may not have
ever even set foot in it? (presuming the women stayed behind in the
fortresses while the men went chalutzim.)

kol tuv,
Liron


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120718/92e129e0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:46:31PM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: Why do we tend to focus on their love of the land when they may not have
: ever even set foot in it? (presuming the women stayed behind in the
: fortresses while the men went chalutzim.)

1- You assume they knew this at the time. Didn't their petition predate
HQBH splitting the sheivet's nachalah?

In any case, Benos Tzelafchad ended up marrying "livnei doeihen
lenashim. Mimishpechos benei Menasheh ben Yoseif hayu lenashim." (Bamidbar
36:11-12) Is it possible that peshat here is that the girls didn't inded
want to settle, and thus married from [the other] families of Menasheh,
ones that got land from the territory promised to the Avos?

2- You demote eiver hayardein more than I would. It has all the laws of
maaser, terumah, shemittah, arei miqlat. In fact, shemittah deOraisa
ended with the exile of the shevatim from eiver hayardein even before
any of the other shevatim were dislocated.

On a Brisker level, looking at halakhah to the exclusion of abstract
notions of qedushah, the two lands are the same.

3- Perhaps this is even why He chose sheivet Menasheh in particular.
Re'uvein and Gad choose the fertile plains over land in EY. Hashem then
adds to them half a sheivet, thereby guaranteeing that the new sheivet
won't lose ties to the original promised land, AND placing in their midst
an influence which has such ties. Thinking out loud now, wouldn't it make
the most sense, then, to choose the people who produced Benos Tzelafchad?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On 7/18/2012 2:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> And the whole message, raised from chapter 3 onward and explicitly
> stated at length for multiple chapters, is that people can't
[necessarily --inserted by LL]
> know why Hashem brings tragedy.

I fixed that for you.

> I asked on Areivim how you understand it, since you seem to believe we
> can and should know why. I am still curious what it is.

I think there's a difference between "a reason" and "the reason". I think
that Hashem's actions are far too beyond us to be able to ever say what
"the reason" is, but I also think that we are obligated to look for
"a reason".



>>> To answer your question: To give mussar. Neviim are to teach morality.

>> We disagree.

> You had asked:
>>>> How would you explain the purpose of nevi'im?

> That's how I would, it's what I learned in numerous places. See the
> rishonim cited by the Shitah Mequbetzes BQ 2 (explaining the idiom
> "divrei qabalah" as being from "qoveil"), and RYBS's Shiurim leZeikher
> Abba Mori vol 2 pg 173. That latter has a humorous touch; it shows
> RYBS's Brisk-keit that he had to ask what the point of nevu'ah was, if
> "lo bashamayim hi" means they had no halachic import. He concludes, as I
> wrote, that they were sent to give tokhachah, but still admits discomfort.

> You do not say /why/ you disagree.

It's similar to my answer above. When you say "to give mussar" and
"to teach morality", you're limiting things unnecessarily, and in my
opinion, incorrectly. I'll grant you that this is one of their roles.
But I think the primary role of nevua is this. No matter how Hashem
would have written the Torah she'bichtav and no matter how He would have
communicated the Torah she'b'al peh to us, there's no way to make clear
to us exactly what mitzvot have what priority relative to each other.
There's other information that couldn't have been included, but based
on the content of the sifrei Nevi'im, it's apparently the most critical.

You can't say, "Listen, being good and kind is more important than
bringing the korbanot that Hashem commanded." For one thing, it isn't
true. Both are commanded. For another thing, while Hashem isn't bound
by time, we certainly are. And we can't be warned about putting too much
emphasis on one thing in favor of another before we've actually *put*
too much emphasis on one thing in favor of another. If the Torah had
said that chesed was paramount, we'd have wound up with early Reform.
Just as an example. So the nevi'im were a correction factor. Fine tuning
on the Torah. But that doesn't always express itself as teaching mussar.
It only does in cases where mussar is the end result of that fine tuning,
which it isn't always.

Lisa

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:42:23PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> I asked on Areivim how you understand it, since you seem to believe we
>> can and should know why. I am still curious what it is.
>
> I think there's a difference between "a reason" and "the reason". I think
> that Hashem's actions are far too beyond us to be able to ever say what
> "the reason" is, but I also think that we are obligated to look for
> "a reason".

Whereas I'm offering one step even further removed. Not "the" or even "a
reason", but the obligation is to take a lesson. HQBH gave us a chance
to be shaken out of our ruts, we must use it constructively while the
emotional drive is there. But that doesn't mean insisting on any causal
link between the lesson taken and the tragedy.

This is a point RYBS makes in Qol Dodi Dofeiq. He writes that the Jewish
question WRT tragedy is not "Why?" but "How does G-d call on me to respond?"

>
>>> We disagree.
>
>> You had asked:
>>>>> How would you explain the purpose of nevi'im?

To which I replied: To give mussar. Neviim are to teach morality.

[Sources deleted.]

> It's similar to my answer above. When you say "to give mussar" and
> "to teach morality", you're limiting things unnecessarily, and in my
> opinion, incorrectly. I'll grant you that this is one of their roles.
> But I think the primary role of nevua is this. No matter how Hashem
> would have written the Torah she'bichtav and no matter how He would have
> communicated the Torah she'b'al peh to us, there's no way to make clear
> to us exactly what mitzvot have what priority relative to each other.
> There's other information that couldn't have been included, but based
> on the content of the sifrei Nevi'im, it's apparently the most critical.

1- I would also agree to toning down my answer to "primary role", but
I would include this role is both necesssary and sufficient explanation
for why Hashem would grant nevu'ah.

2- I'm not sure what "the relative priority of mitzvos" means. You
don't mean halachic rules of precedence, since nevi'im can't provide
knew halakhah. The only other thing that comes to mind that tells us
how to prioritize conflicting values is morality, which was the answer
you objected to.

> You can't say, "Listen, being good and kind is more important than
> bringing the korbanot that Hashem commanded." For one thing, it isn't
> true. Both are commanded. For another thing, while Hashem isn't bound
> by time, we certainly are. And we can't be warned about putting too much
> emphasis on one thing in favor of another before we've actually *put*
> too much emphasis on one thing in favor of another. If the Torah had
> said that chesed was paramount, we'd have wound up with early Reform.

But Hillel may have according to one opinion in Rashi, and R' Aqiva and
Ben Azzai more clearly did. So I disagree with the notion that "both are
commanded" tells us much other than saying both rise above some threshold
to be necessary.

IMHO, Reform's problem isn't its placing BALC first. And even if you
don't find R' Shimon's or the Meshekh Chokhmah's derakhim to be a good
fit, one shouldn't be saying they are inherently R. R goes wrong in
their belief that they don't need the rest of Torah to tell them what
"tov" means and to maximize their ability to be tov to others.

They forget Hillel's "zil gemor", thinking they can follow moral instinct
alone.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RAE wrote:
> The mitzva is to wear tefillin, but the brocho is 'Lehoniach Tefillin'
> - to 'put them on'. The 'putting on' is merely the process by which
> the mitzva is achieved, not the mitzva itself, unlike, say, 'Al
> Achilas Matza'.

RZS reponded:
Is it? The mitzvah is "ukshartam".

CM responds:
Well the pasuk could mean these things: 1) As RZS wrote: the mizvah is the
keshira as the pasuk says (and not the subsequent wearing or perhaps that
too) or 2) the Torah is telling us the mitzvah is to wear the tefilin
derech keshira, ie., the way to wear the tefilin and keep them on is by
binding them to your arm, but not that the mitzvah itself is the binding.
This could be RAE?s interpretation of the pasuk. OR 3) We could consider
the rest of the pasuk ?l?os al yadecha? so that they be an ?os? on your
arm, which would then (also) imply a mitzvah of wearing them after they are
bound to your arm. Perhaps both RAE and RZS agree with 3) in combination
with either 1) or 2).

According to 1) you would seemingly be be better off not to wear the shel
yad all day, but to bind them to  you and then take them off so that you
could bind them to you once again doing the mitzvah once again, but there
would not be much of a hidur in keeping them on all day since wearing them
is not necessarily the mitzvah in 1).  2) and 3) do not have this problem.

On further thought, it would seem that as for the shel rosh there is no
keshira thus there the mitzvah is only the wearing, and since we have a
drasha of kol zeman shebein einecha yiyu shetayim therefore there must also
be a mitzvah to wear the shell yad which would be consistent with 2) and 3)
but not 1).

There is discussion in the meforshim if the mitzvoh of wearing tefilin the
whole day is daureisa or if a keshira kol dehu is sufficient min hatorah
(they bring an apparent  stira in the levush on this).

I have done a quick search on my computer and various meforshim discuss these different mehalechim in the mitzvah of tefilin.

On a tangent:
I also came across something new to me during this search. In the sefer
Mishnas Chaim from R. Chaim Shteinberg he discusses whether in fact the
mitzvah applied during the 40 years in the midbor. He discusses 3 different
possibilities (based on different answers of a Rashba). The difficulty is
that 2 of the four parshios do not appear until devarim 6 and 11 which is
at the end of the 40 years. The Rashba discussing something else suggests
in one answer that although the last two parshios were not yet written in
the Torah until the 40th year, but  they were already ONLY available for
derashos, in his other answer he writes that we must say that although they
only appear in Devarim ALL FOUR PARSHIOS were already given right after
leaving Egypt. So RCS describes 3 possibilities wrt to tefilin during the
forty years. 1) they had tefilin like ours if the for parshios were already
available at the start of the 40 years. 2) Their tefilin only used the two
available parshios for most 
 of the 40 years until the 40th year when the last 2 parshios were given,
 3) Since tefilin require 4 parshios, they had no mitzvo of tefilin for the
 first 39 years until the final 2 parshios were given and then they made
 tefilin like ours.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120718/2cc1fa8f/attachment-0001.htm>

[Addendum: -micha]

Also wrt to RZS comment: 'The mitzvah is "ukshartam".' They ask why the
bracha is not "likshor tefilin"? The Maharit answers that "ukshartam"
is not a reference to the daily keshira of putting on tefilin, but
to require the kesher made on the tefilin iin making the tefilin. The
Bach answers the same question because if that were the brocho we might
mistakenly think that the mitzvo is only the keshira and not the wearing
of the tefilin.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

On 18/07/2012 4:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Similarly, the more practical case of eating a cake that has lettering
> on it.
> Derabbanan 1: Mechilqah shelo al menas likhto
> Derabbanan 2: Derekh achilah
> So, PRDNL is permitted.

Where's the "lo nicha leih"?  In you first case I understand the LNL
because it's a *bug*, and doesn't *want* it in his box, and he would
let it out if he could.  But here, what's his objection to erasing the
writing on the cake?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:16:35PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Similarly, the more practical case of eating a cake that has lettering
>> on it.
>> Derabbanan 1: Mechilqah shelo al menas likhto
>> Derabbanan 2: Derekh achilah
>> So, PRDNL is permitted.

> Where's the "lo nicha leih"?  In you first case I understand the LNL
> because it's a *bug*, and doesn't *want* it in his box, and he would
> let it out if he could.  But here, what's his objection to erasing the
> writing on the cake?

You are defining lo nicha lei as something that is bad for him.

The MB assumes the Rama defines lo nicha lei as something that is not good
for him. IOW, it includes neutral. I'm not sure anyone disagrees. See
R Meir Levin's Feb 2005 post
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n072.shtml#04>, where he cites
Tosafos (and the Beiur Halakhah).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 18/07/2012 5:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> In any case, Benos Tzelafchad ended up marrying "livnei doeihen
> lenashim. Mimishpechos benei Menasheh ben Yoseif hayu lenashim." (Bamidbar
> 36:11-12) Is it possible that peshat here is that the girls didn't inded
> want to settle, and thus married from [the other] families of Menasheh,
> ones that got land from the territory promised to the Avos?

"Bnei dodeihen" means they were machmir, and married not just within the
tribe but within their clan.  Beside which, if they married men whose
portion was on the west bank, what would they do with their land which
was on the east bank?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

But people weren't keeping the Torah, period. Worshiping the Ba'al or 
not freeing slaves is not a problem of fine tuning any more than eating 
ham on Yom Kippur would be.

Ben

On 7/19/2012 12:42 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> So the nevi'im were a correction factor. Fine tuning
> on the Torah. But that doesn't always express itself as teaching mussar.
> It only does in cases where mussar is the end result of that fine tuning,
> which it isn't always.
>
> Lisa



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 96
**************************************

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..."