Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 142

Thu, 18 Oct 2012

• 1. Re: No "Nishmas" on Hoshanah Rabba (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Hoshana (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: No "Nishmas" on Hoshanah Rabba (Zev Sero)
• 4. web site on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: web site on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 6. More on R. Chayim Ozer Grodzinski on the Writings of RSRH (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Az Yashir (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: web site on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 9. Kashrus Supervision Required for Choshen Mishpat Reasons, not the same as hundreds of years ago (Meir Rabi)
• 10. Re: web site on shabbat (Akiva Miller)
• 11. Re: web site on shabbat (Joe Slater)
• 12. Canned Foods (Jay F Shachter)
• 13. Geshem or Gashem (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Geshem or Gashem (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: web site on shabbat (Gershon Dubin)
• 16. Re: Unguarded Chalav Yisrael (Akiva Blum)

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:43:19AM -0400, Poppers, Michael wrote:
: IINM, we see from a sugya in BT M'gilah not to add to the Biblical
: "hagadol hagibor v'hanora" praises of hQbH (and that we have sanction to
: utter those words only because they're sourced in the words of MRAH and
: of Ezra haSofeir) -- I don't think one can make a logical leap to saying
: we therefore can't add piyutim to our t'filos. If any piyut goes beyond
: "hagadol hagibor v'hanora" in its praise of hQbH, by all means excise
: it from the davening :).

Which brings us back to the topic in the subject line... Nishmas itself
does:
    HaKel -- besaatzumos uzekha,
    haGadol -- bikhvod shemekha,
    haGibor -- lanetzakh,
    veHaNora -- benora'osekh,
    haMelekh hayosheiv al kisei ram venisa!

And in Birkhas Yotzer Or, "Es sheim haKeil, haMelekh, haGadol, haGibor,
vehaNora -- qadosh Hu".

It seems Melukhah gets special dispensation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:29:42PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I do not mean that as a joke.  Extra syllables make a difference in  
: poetry.  Tehillim is poetry...

You reminded me of something tangential...

The suffix "-am" and the more rare suffix "-mo" have the same meaning,
but differ in rhythm. MRAH, in composing Shiras haYam, used "yokhleimo"
"timlei'mo", "kosamo", etc... as far as I can tell purely to get the
poem to scan.

(Aside from whatever sheimos of HQBH are thereby encoded in that part
of the Torah, and any other nistar...)

For that matter, either suffix could be replaced by the word "osam", but
then Devei R' Aqiva would have more to darshen...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 16/10/2012 3:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> Which brings us back to the topic in the subject line... Nishmas itself
> does:
>      HaKel -- besaatzumos uzekha,
>      haGadol -- bikhvod shemekha,
>      haGibor -- lanetzakh,
>      veHaNora -- benora'osekh,
>      haMelekh hayosheiv al kisei ram venisa!
>
> And in Birkhas Yotzer Or, "Es sheim haKeil, haMelekh, haGadol, haGibor,
> vehaNora -- qadosh Hu".
> It seems Melukhah gets special dispensation.

Melech isn't an adjective or a praise, it's a title. When we address
Him in His capacity as King we should mention that.

-- 
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

<<R' Shmuel Rabinowitz (of the Kotel) and R' Yisrael Rozen (of Zomet)
differed. RYR at least knows the metzi'us to a different level than other
rabbanim. Both note that the issur side of RYSE's pesaq doesn't really
revolve around anything specific to the kotel, and there appears to be
general consensus that surveillance cameras are a not an issue.>>

Almost every shul in Europe has surveillance cameras on shabbat for safety.
IMHO R. Elyashiv is a daas yachid on this topic.

<<There is another problem with the KotelCam on Shabbos, but for the people
whose images are being captured on it. By moving in front of the camera,
they change which circuits are closed within it.>>

Can you please explain this. How is a camera effected by what occurs in
front of it?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121016/31e70a28/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:04:27PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> There is another problem with the KotelCam on Shabbos, but for the people
:> whose images are being captured on it. By moving in front of the camera,
:> they change which circuits are closed within it.

: Can you please explain this. How is a camera effected by what occurs in
: front of it?

The typical digital camera uses a Charge Coupled Device (CCD). The CCD
is a chip that has a grid of MOSFET capacitors set up to collect charge
exposed to light. Then, through a rpocess the interested can learn at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device#Basics_of_operation ,
these dots are linked in a bucket brigade and pass their charge on to
a charge amplifier where they get translated into a voltage, which then
flows to the rest of the circuit.

So, you are causing circuits to pass electricity or not depending on
which capacitors in the CCD by moving around in front of it. As both
of us noted, it seems that the consensus of posqim, barring RYSE, do
not consider this a problem. But that's where issues can come from.

Given the complexity of semiconductor circuits, I trust R' Yisrael
Rozen's opinion. Getting the relationship between CCDs and existing
pesaq right is a much much harder question than the pesaq itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

See what R. Chayim Ozer Grodzinski wrote about RSRH in the original 
at 
<http:/
/www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/metavhigayon/metavhigayon01.pdf>http:/
/www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/metavhigayon/metavhigayon01.pdf 
on pages 3-4.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121016/8073e4cd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:13:59AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I recently heard a speaker mention that R'YBS said that we stand for 10
: commandments and az yashir as a reenactment. I don't remember him saying
: that about az yashir. Am I wrong...

RMF links the revelation at Sinai and "ra'asah shifchah al hayam" in IM
OC 4:22. But I don't think RYBS would say the two parallel.

RYBS buttresses his argument that we stand for the reenactment of maamad
Har Sinai by explaining that this is also why we lein it in ta'am elyon.
We don't have a ta'am elyon for Az Yashir. (We sing the usual trop,
albeit most of it to a different tune.) BTW, because of this, RYBS
said that a shl which follows the Chizquni and only use Taam Elyon on
Shavuos, the minhag would only be to stand on Shavuos (and not when
reading parshiyos Yisro and vaEschanon).

(I learned the above from R' Mordechai Kornfeld, later of Kolel Iyun
haDaf.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> Can you please explain this. How is a camera effected by what occurs in
> front of it?

A camera that wasn't affected by what happens in front of it wouldn't be
much use, would it?

-- 
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

Meir Rabi wrote:
Hashgacha is required because of Mamonos, money matters. It just happens to
be that the money is acquired through various foods which is a matter of
Issur VeHetter. It is a question that has to do with evaluating the
temptation of making huge profits versus the risk of detection and the
consequences.

R Zev S responded:
You are entitled to recommend policies to people.  You are not entitled to
make your own gezeros and demand that everyone in the world follow them.

MR responds:
dont shoot me I am only the Piano Player. I am just playing the notes on
the sheet; i.e. the Halacha as it is. The Halacha determines that where a
serious threat compromises Kashrus integrity, we require reliable
verifiable systems to confirm. Eid Echad is not sufficient.

R Zev S argues that if the Monsey Meat Scandal is NOT a YD issue but only a
ChM issue, then why was it any concern of ours?  The CM issue is between
the cheat and the people he cheated.

MR responds:
I dont follow your logic R Zev. You appear to be saying that the Kashrus
issue is 100% OK since Eid Echad NeEman BeIssuRim makes it Kosher; so all
the meat was Kosher even though it was not Shechted. The only issue that
requires addressing, you claim, is that the vendor unjustifiably charged
exorbitant prices for fake product. [the fake product being a cheaper
EENBeIssuRim-KOSHER rather than the more expensive regular-KOSHER product].
I think you need to run your argument past a friend for verification. It
does not seem to make any sense to me.

R Zev also argues that the response from the various Rabbonim in the
HaModia Magazine article, who said there has been no change, are actually
saying that there is no need for change. [because Eid Echad NeEman]
I urge R Zev to read the article before making such preposterous claims.

R Zev labels those who made a fuss about Monsey as, scaremongers.
R Zev takes comfort from the fact that this has happened hundreds of years
ago and the Poskim at that time, who were far more learned and competent
than our Rabbonim today, saw no need to change the halacha.

If this is comfort for Reb Zev, then let him not foist this upon the
Rabbonim and the public who are concerned about these issues

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121017/6731f553/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> There is another problem with the KotelCam on Shabbos, but for
> the people whose images are being captured on it. By moving in
> front of the camera, they change which circuits are closed
> within it.

As I recall, we (on Avodah) reached a consensus a few years back that video recording is very different than audio in this regard.

When one speaks into an audio device, there is a clear "push" from the
person to the electronics, in which the voice affects the current. One can
discuss grama and such, and whether the effect is direct or not, but the
"push" is clear.

In contrast, there's no such "push" for video. A video camera takes a
number of photos per second, and each photo is static and motionless. No
one pushes the electrons in a camera in the same way as they do to the
electrons in a microphone. Rather, wherever I happen to be at any given
moment, that will determine what will be recorded in that part of the
photo. And then, a fraction of a second later, my motion (of lack of
motion) will determine whether that portion of the next photo will contain
my face or some other image. But never did I actively push anything into
the camera; or at least, the pushing is much less than the pushing of sound
waves (air pressure) into a microphone.

Just to be clear, I am not paskening that there's no problem with getting a
photo (electronic or chemical, I don't see much difference) taken on
Shabbos. After all, the picture *is* different than it would have been if I
was not in it, and perhaps that's a problem.

All I'm saying is that some might read RMB's comment, "By moving in front
of the camera, they change which circuits are closed," to mean that they
are *actively* changing the circuits, when in reality, the circuits are
different than otherwise, but are not being actively changed.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/507e171fd7c37171f5b43st02vuc

R'n Toby Katz wrote:

>Suppose I had a way of not only making their  phone
> ring, but also of turning their lights on and off or doing some other
> melacha that would be of use to them and not just an irritation like a ringing
> phone.  Would that be mutar?

R' Zev Sero responded:
> Definitely.  Shabbos applies to people and animals, not objects.  "I ata
> metzuveh al shvisas keilim."  For you it isn't Shabbos so you may work;
> the object you're manipulating is working on Shabbos, but there's nothing
> wrong with that.

R' Zev may well be right, but I don't think he has analysed the
problem correctly. We say that we are not commanded about shvisas
keilim when the work of the keilim has been set in motion before
Shabbos occurs. The same principle does not apply to setting keilim in
motion during Shabbos. Who is to say whether we are concerned with the
jurisdiction of the keilim or the jurisdiction of the person setting
them in motion? Perhaps setting them in motion is forbidden regardless
of where the operator is, so long as the keli is experiencing Shabbos.
Certainly the *appearance* of impropriety at the moment of activation
may exist, regardless of where the actual activation takes place, so
it seems inappropriate to compare this to keilim which are already
activated before Shabbos.

Furthermore, we are already rabbinically forbidden from using a
non-Jew to perform labour for us. Why should a Jew "outside Shabbos"
be in a privileged position with respect to a non-Jew "within
Shabbos"? For that matter, would we be able to instruct a non-Jew  in
a time zone "outside Shabbos" to perform labour for us "within
Shabbos"? The rationales for forbidding amira l'akum (instructing a
non-Jew) seem to apply no matter where the non-Jew is located; why
would the same rationales no apply to a Jew?

Joe Slater

> "As for bishul aku"m, is he asserting that there are no canned foods
> in the pantry in Buckingham Palace?"

First of all, the correct term is bishul nokhri, not bishul `aqum.
To insist on the distinction is more than pedantry: if you call it bishul
`aqum you are telling people that the law does not apply to Muslims or
atheists, and you are being mgalleh fanim battorah shelo k'halakha.

(Parenthetically, those of you who are learning the Daf Yomi will be
discussing this topic in a few days, when you get to Shabbath 20; make
sure your maggid shi`ur gets it right.)

Second of all, I am certain that there are no canned foods in Buckingham
Palace. In Buckingham Palace there may be foods in tins, but I am
certain that there are no canned foods.

                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"

See http://tinyurl.com/bt99r6q for a discussion of this issue.  YL

n Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:45:22PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> See http://tinyurl.com/bt99r6q for a discussion of this issue.  YL

I had an exchange with the author.

Me:
> There is another possible reason for "geshem".... Is one davening in
> biblical Hebrew? In mishnaic Hebrew, there are no pausal forms. This is
> why Ashkenazim and Teimanim have "borei peri hagafen" (or: hajafen),
> but Sepharadim say "hagefen". So that a Sepharadi ought to be saying
> "umorid hageshem" whether or not there is an esnachta-level comma there.

> On the other hand, there are exceptions to the rule that post R' Shlomo
> Zalman Hannau Ashkenazim daven in biblical Hebrew. "Modim anakhnu Lakh,
> shaAtah..." is an amalgam of both. "Lakh" for lashon zakhar is Leshon
> Chazal. But "sha-" (rather than "she-") is from the earlier nevi'im. The
> Torah only has "asher", no shin prefix; Gid'on uses "sha'atah" (or
> "shaAtah", depending if he was talking to the mal'akh or through the
> mal'akh to the One Who sent him); but by the time we get to Shelomo
> haMelekh's sefarim, he uses "she-". It may be that we are intentionally
> breaking the norm in order to invoke Gid'on. Or perhaps we are calling
> HQBH "The You".

> But if it's that there are exceptions to the Leshon haQodesh rule, then
> "geshem" might not mean we are mid-stream.

R' Yehudah Spitz:
: You make valid points; several of them were addressed in the footnotes. I
: will copy relevant ones here:

: 1. The Levushei Mordechai (Shu"t Levushei Mordechai vol. 4, 213) simply
: states that "Ge shem" seems proper, and even though it seems that there
: should be a pause after that word, nevertheless, it seems unclear whether
: the pronunciation of tefillos were established beholden to the rules
: of dikduk.

Interrupting for a second to give the part of my 2nd email which
addressed this comment:
> That's why I mentioned R SZ Hannau. We may well be using hypercorrected
> siddurim. R' Dr Seth Mandel...          davens in what is nearly Nusach
> Ashkenaz, but in Chazal's Hebrew: ".... qadsheinu bemitzvosakh, vesein
> chelqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." etc. under the belief that
> the 18th cent grammarians lack the authority to change the nusach. He is
> so loyal to mesorah (as he understands it), RSM davens with a Litvisher
> cheilem, as per his ancestry. In other words, he sees this as restoring
> minhag Yisrael Saba, not innovating.

Back to RYS's email:
: 2. The Rivevos Efraim (Shu"t Rivevos Efraim vol, 3, 68) writes that
: although many Tzaddikim including the Chozeh m'Lublin and the Maggid
: of Koznitz said "Ge shem", nevertheless, al pi dikduk, the proper
: pronunciation should be"Ga shem". I have heard an interesting explanation
: in the name of Rav Aryeh Kaplan, as well as Rav Chaim Halpern of London,
: as to why many Chassidim say "Ge shem", even if not necessarily correct
: grammatically. The word "kamatz" is also the root for the Hebrew word
: for constraining or miserliness. When praying for material livelihood
: (gashmius -- related to Geshem) one wants to use a segol (eh sound)
: instead of a kamatz (uh sound), as the segol has openings to allow
: the shefa (overabundance) of gashmiusto flow through, and not to put
: constraints on this bracha of parnassa.

: Following either of those two explanations would mean that one is not
: beholden to Biblical Hebrew rules in Tefillah.

: 3. Although some posit that "Ge shem" is correct based on the Sefardic
: pronunciation of the bracha on wine, "Borei Pri haGe fen", even though
: it is the end of the bracha, see however Chazon Ovadia vol. 2 -- Haggada
: shel Pesach, Kadesh, pg. 128, that Sefardim hold that the "Amen" is
: actually the end of the bracha; thus disproving any comparison. Although
: Sefardim generally do say "Ge shem", the congregation immediately responds
: "lvracha", thereby making that the end of the sentence and not "Geshem".

To which I commented:
> If this were true, then someone who has no one around to answer the
> berakhah would either say "geshem" or closer their own berakhah with
> "amein".

> Anyway, they have "Modim anakhnu lakh sheAtah", with a segol, and
> all those "-akh" suffixes where we Ashkenazim have "-ekha". There is
> no reason to think that unlike the rest of their nusach (and in RSM's
> opinion, pre-18th cent Ashkenaz as well) the berakhah is intended to be
> in Leshon Tanakh, but with a later closing word.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From: Joe Slater <avod...@slatermold.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:58 +1100
> Furthermore, we are already rabbinically forbidden from using a
> non-Jew to perform labour for us. Why should a Jew "outside Shabbos"
> be in a privileged position with respect to a non-Jew "within
> Shabbos"? For that matter, would we be able to instruct a non-Jew  in
> a time zone "outside Shabbos" to perform labour for us "within
> Shabbos"? The rationales for forbidding amira l'akum (instructing a
> non-Jew) seem to apply no matter where the non-Jew is located; why
> would the same rationales no apply to a Jew?

I can't cite a source right now, but I was told a clear pesak that
someone who made "early" Shabbos can ask someone who did not to do
melacha for him. So the analogy to amira l'akum does not hold.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> A co worker stores his Chalav Yisrael milk in the office kitchen. It got
> me wondering....
>
> The problem with CY can happen any time after milking. But I never heard
> of someone saying that chalav haneelam min ha'ayin loses its CY status.
> And this is after the milk left FDA (or your local equivalent), so those
> of us who drink chalav hacompanies would be equally impacted.
>
> I don't think "highly unlikely for anyone to bring mare milk to work"
> is sufficient, since we're talking about a taqanah, not a pesaq based
> on rov. I don't think it was ever a cheshash that the fraction of milk
> that got adulterated was close enough to 50:50 to qualify as a safeiq.
> The taqanah is beyond the requirements of the pesaq deOraisa.
>

The gemara (AZ 39b) demands chosom echad for chalav. This is clearly about
storage and transportation, not milking.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121018/d4255dc5/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 142
***************************************

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..."