Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 103

Tue, 28 May 2013

• 1. Re: 50 (David Riceman)
• 2. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch?s View of Secular Studies (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Personal Description of RSRH (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Interesting Sefiras Ha-Omer Advice (David Riceman)
• 5. nonJewish housekeeper (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Personal Description of RSRH (Chesky Salomon)
• 7. Bar Ilan Responsa on ipad (Meir Shinnar)
• 8. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: nonJewish housekeeper (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: nonJewish housekeeper (Eli Turkel)

REMT:

<<

The following two statements were made with regard to eved ivri:

       (1) The only eved who goes free after seven years is a thief who is unable to
repay what he has stolen and the kefel; why would thefts be more common in
the first year of shemitah than in any other year?

       (2) Shesh shanim doesn't apply at all to one who sells himself.

      I believe both statements are inaccurate.

 >>

A slight tangent.  I have a vague recollection that Rabbeinu Tam took 
"uvashvi'is" to mean shmittah.  I tried to find a source.  I found that 
his student, R. Yosef Bechor Shor, construes the pasuk that way in his 
peirush on Humash, but I didn't find any attribution to Rabbeinu Tam.

Is my memory going haywire?

Thanks,

David Riceman

There has been some discussion recently on 
Areivim if I recall correctly about the 
relationship between secular subjects and Torah.

The article at 
http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%207%20Pelta.pdf  deals 
with this topic to some extent.

Below are a two selections from this essay.

Rabbi Hirsch never tired of pointing out that the study of science
and history is necessary for a deeper understanding of the ways of
God and the Torah?s message? In one annual report of the high
school he founded (perhaps the first Yeshiva High School in
history), he demonstrates in considerable detail, using tens of
examples, how the study of natural science and world history
contributes to the student's understanding of the Torah and its
message. In the previous year?s report, he discusses the impact that
Torah study has on our understanding of general secular concepts:
?These two elements [general and special Jewish education] are in
truth nothing but the two complementary and closely related parts
of a complete and homogeneous education.? These quotations
should suffice to dispel any suggestion that ?[Rabbi] Hirsch posited
a coexistence, not a synthesis.?

This is most certainly not R? Hirsch?s philosophy. R? Hirsch was
of the belief that:

?any supporter of education and culture should deplore the fact
that when these secular studies are evaluated in terms of their
usefulness to the young, too much stress is often placed on so called
practical utility and necessity. Under such circumstances, the
young are in danger of losing the pure joy of acquiring knowledge
for its own sake, so that they will no longer take pleasure in the
moral and spiritual benefits to be obtained from study.26
In R? Hirsch?s formulation, secular knowledge is to be acquired
for its own sake and it should be ?deplored? when it is acquired only
for ?empirical and practical? purposes as wanted by R? Elias. This is a
key component of the Hirschian worldview which Hirsch himself
mentions more than once. Hence, he writes elsewhere:
The more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views
and aspirations, the less alien will he be to anything that is noble
and good, true and upright in the arts and sciences, in civilization
and culture? The more the Jew is a Jew, the more gladly will he
give himself to all that is true progress in civilization and culture ?
provided that in this new circumstance he will not only maintain
his Judaism, but will be able to bring it to ever more glorious
fulfillment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130527/cb531922/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine posted and article by Saemy Japhet, which included his
personal observations about Rav Hirsch. I found it quite interesting. But
one part in particular calls out for more information:

> ... later I became a student of the Frankfurt Handelsschule -
> according to Hirsch's views. The names of Maimonides, Spinoza,
> Mendelssohn and Graetz were never even mentioned. But in his
> writings Hirsch branded Graetz's History of the Jews as "a
> product of detestable wantonness and frivolous superficiality";

I am surprised to see the name of the Rambam together with those three apikorsim, l'havdil.

I considered the possibility that the Rambam was disrespected by Rav Hirsch
for some reason, but a quick look in the Index of RSRH's "Horeb" (Feldheim
translation) shows about twenty references to the Rambam. This causes me to
conclude that including his name in that list was an error on the author's
part. But if anyone else can offer another idea, I'm curious to hear it.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Run Background Checks on Anyone
Traffic violations, background checks. Your personal profile could be visible online.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51a350cabb74850ca1ec8st04vuc

Is anyone machmir on people who become bar mitzva during sefirah? The 
hakirah is well-known, but I've never heard of anyone actually 
refraining from making the beracha.

David Riceman

Chana wrote

<<I don't know if you are aware but Rav Ovadiah Yosef has written
extensively
(well, for him, relatively shortly, but extensively for anybody else) on
this problem.  In Yechave Daat chelek 5 siman 54, in the second half of the
teshuva he discusses this question. The first bit of the teshuva  and the
conclusion is dedicated to whether a Sephardi can go to a hotel where the
mashgiach lights the fire and eat there, given Sephardi definitions of
bishul akum, but a goodly portion of the teshuva is given over to quoting
rishonim and achronim who do not include in bishul akum cooking which is
done by a goy in the house of a Jew, and especially if they are hired help -
see for example at the bottom of page 245 "ulam b'goy she hu sachir
etzleinu, nireh sheyesh makom l'hakel ..." and other places throughout the
teshuva where he appears to lean towards leniency in this regard.  Indeed
this may be strengthened by the situation where the help is live in, putting
them more towards the eved/shifcha understanding that is one of the
arguments for leniency.  (There is also a bit more from ROY on this in
Yabiat Omer Chelek 10 siman Yorech Deah 7, in the last solid paragraph.)>>

On the issue of a sefardi eating in a restaurant etc. R. Abba-Shaul (Ohr
Letzion
chelek bet mavoh - anaf bet se-if 5) disagrees with ROY. Basically he
doesnt understand how
you can use the Rama as part of a sfek-sfeka against the Mechaber. The
mechaber
requires that the Jew do a substantial part of the cooking and not just
light the fire.

As to the original question of a non-Jewish housekeeper the Schach is
machmir with our modern day servants. As Chana points out that if the
elderly lady or gentleman can do something that is
enough (at least for ashkezaim subject to previous discussion) that is the
best solution.
Besides the wheel-chair bound patient the more prevalant problem is that
many people just simply arent aware or care about bishul akum.

Separate from this issue my experience is that when many O people eat out
in a nonkosher restaurant they worry about about kashrut problems and
ignore bishul akum halachot.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130527/174457ea/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Kenneth Miller <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:
> Prof. Levine posted and article by Saemy Japhet, which included his
> personal observations about Rav Hirsch. I found it quite interesting.
> But one part in particular calls out for more information:
>
>> ... later I became a student of the Frankfurt Handelsschule -
>> according to Hirsch's views. The names of Maimonides, Spinoza,
>> Mendelssohn and Graetz were never even mentioned. But in his
>> writings Hirsch branded Graetz's History of the Jews as "a
>> product of detestable wantonness and frivolous superficiality";
>
> I am surprised to see the name of the Rambam together with those three apikorsim, l'havdil.
>
> I considered the possibility that the Rambam was disrespected by Rav
> Hirsch for some reason, but a quick look in the Index of RSRH's
> "Horeb" (Feldheim translation) shows about twenty references to the
> Rambam. This causes me to conclude that including his name in that
> list was an error on the author's part. But if anyone else can offer
> another idea, I'm curious to hear it.

Speculation: Rambam the posek might have been taught, but Maimonides
the philosopher might not have been mentioned, given Rav Hirsch's
opinions of the Rambam's synthesis of Judaism and Aristotelian
philosophy.

?Chesky

Does anyone have any experience using the online bar ilan responsa project on an ipad?
Meir Shinnar

I must begin by thanking R' Ben Waxman for sending me a copy of the
three teshuvos in question here, and I urge him to send a copy to R'
Micha Berger as well, so that it can be posted at Aishdas for the rest
of the chevra.

[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/electricityMinchatAsher.docx>
-micha]

I think that I now have a slightly better grasp of Rav Weiss' views,
due not only to reading his words inside, but also to the comments of
R"n Chana Luntz and others here on Avodah. For example, I now see that my
suggestion that kinyan might be a melacha (because it is a "significant
action") is way off base. And many of the questions I wanted to raise
on his views have been amply stated by RCL, so I will limit this post
to points which I don't think have been mentioned yet.

RCL wrote:

> But there is a huge leap from saying that the concept of
> melacha is primary and the assignment of an action to a
> particular melacha is secondary, to saying that actually
> Chazal were tasked with the job of coming up with the melachos,
> and that job has been further passed over to the Chachamim of
> today - to whit, a d'orisa applies to something that we know
> Chazal neither had a mesorah on, or could identify, because it
> hadn't yet been invented - but that our modern day Chachamim
> identify as a significant action.

RAW is quite aware of how very great this leap is, and he even mentions
this awareness several times. I'd just like to point out that in his
last paragraph, he stresses that he's not paskening for anyone, and is
merely telling his personal views. Further, throughout the body of the
three teshuvos, he never refers to electricity as a melacha d'Oraisa,
but rather, he quite consistently refers to it as a CHASHASH d'Oraisa. He
is confident in his logic, and adamant against any kulos on the grounds
of it being a mere "chashash", but nevertheless, he is very careful with
his wording.

RCL wrote:

> [RAW] was pointing out that in the course of defining the
> lancing of a boil as makeh b'patish, the Rambam used the
> language that it was makeh b'patish because it was a melacha of
> the doctors - ie, what doctors do is a significant action, and
> therefore anything they do falls within the category or makeh
> b'patish. 

That does indeed seem to be his point. In fact, in Siman 30 paragraph
"umvuar" he says that the Rambam is rejecting Tosfos' argument (Shabbos
3a) that the makeh b'patish is because the lanced boil now allows entry
and exit - exactly the sort of makeh b'patish that we're familiar with
and which I expected this case to be.

But Rav Weiss is emphatic that the Rambam rejects this in favor
of the Yerushalmi, and it seems that this is a critical part of his
argument. Without the Rambam rejecting the Tosfos, I imagine that we'd
chalk this up to just another case of where we pasken like the Bavli over
the Yerushalmi. But it seems that if the Rambam holds like the Yerushalmi,
then we must be choshesh for it as well. I have to wonder: Are there ANY
other precedents for defining Makeh B'Patish in this totally novel manner?

And here is another problem: If "what doctors do is a significant
action, and therefore anything they do falls within the category or makeh
b'patish", then what's left? Is he saying that any medical procedure is
by definition a melacha? And if he does say that, then how can a doctor
care for a choleh she'EIN bo sakana? Is an intramuscular injection now a
d'Oraisa of makeh b'patish? What of a doctor who combines the precisely
correct mixture of pre-ground medicines - is that now d'Oraisa too?

RCL also wrote:

> the second teshuva of the group (no 31) from RAW deals with a
> questioner who tried to argue to RAW that one could use
> electronic doors (like the kind one finds in the entrance ways
> of hospitals) according to the Chazon Ish. In the case of such
> doors, the doors are wired and live the whole time, whether
> open or shut - no new circuit is necessarily being created,
> they are only being used.

I don't follow this at all. I understand that there are many mechanisms
to determine that a person has arrived at the door - a weight-sensitive
doormat, or an infrared motion detector, among others. But don't ALL
such systems close a switch that powers a motor which opens the door? One
might say that the switch itself is not visible, but surely the *effect*
of the switch is *very* visible! How can one say that no circuit is
being created?

(I admit that I have heard of wheelchairs whose motors are always running,
and that no switch ever turns them on or off. The rider merely changes
the power level from where the motor is giving too little power to mover
the chair, to a higher level which *is* able to move the chair. But these
wheelchairs are specifically designed for the Shomer Shabbos market. Even
if some frum hospitals have incorporated this technology into their doors,
I doubt that they all have. Certainly not the doors of my pharmacy here
in Chu"l.)

Akiva Miller

RET writes:

 

>On the issue of a sefardi eating in a restaurant etc. R. Abba-Shaul (Ohr Letzion chelek bet mavoh - anaf bet se-if 5) disagrees with ROY.

 

Obviously he is free to disagree, but ROY?s logic is pretty straightforward.

 

>Basically he doesnt understand how you can use the Rama as part of a sfek-sfeka against the Mechaber. The mechaber

>requires that the Jew do a substantial part of the cooking and not just light the fire.

 

Yes, that is how the Mechaber rules, which is why ROY needs a safek sfeka,
and not just a machlokus haposkim.  Basically you have a large number of
rishonim lining up on both sides.  The Shulchan Aruch went with the more
machmir group of rishonim, the Rema went with the more makil group.  So,
rules ROY, Sephardim when faced with a classic case of bishul akum, ie a
non Jew cooking in the non Jew?s premises, in order to matir the bishul
akum, need the Jew to take part in a more substantial aspect of the cooking
(eg stirring) and not just lighting the fire.

 

But  you have yet another halachic safek.  In this case about a hired non
Jew cooking in the house of a Jew.  Now again, there is a substantial line
up of rishonim on both sides, and again, the Shulchan Aruch went with the
more machmir group of rishonim.

 

But the group of rishonim who allow in case (a) aren?t necessarily the same
as the group who allow in case (b), so if you have a situation where you
have both (a) and (b) , there will be one group of rishonim who allow
because they allow in all cases of (a) and yet another group who allow,
because they allow in all cases of (b) and you are left with a much smaller
group of rishonim that are the intersection of (a) and (b), ie that assur
both in case (a) and in case (b) and so would assur where both occur.

 

So the fact that the Mechaber rules stringently in (a) by itself and (b) by
itself doesn?t necessarily tell you how he would poskin if faced with both
of these sfakos coming together.   Of course, if you are saying that the
Mechaber is a rishon, who makes up his own mind on each issue and is
counted, then you would then say that the Mechaber falls within the
intersection of those who prohibit in both cases (a) and (b).  But that is
not how the Shulchan Aruch is generally understood, and that is certainly
not how ROY understands him to rule in the Shulchan Aruch.  In the Beis
Yosef he might give his own opinion, in the Shulchan Aruch he rules based
on the majority of key rishonim as he sees it (given certain weightings). 
Ie it is a form of majority rule.  Hence, if faced with both (a) and (b)
the Shulchan Aruch  might well feel comfortable saying that the halachic
position has shifted to leniency, based on the fact that one can now add
the numbers of rishonim who permit in (a
 ) to the numbers of rishonim who permit in (b) even if he would say that if (a) occurs on its own, or (b) occurs on its own, one has to be machmir.

 

>As to the original question of a non-Jewish housekeeper the Schach is machmir with our modern day servants. 

 

Not everybody appears to read the Shach that way, see  Sde Chemed in Pe?at
HaSadeh (Marechet Bishulei Goyim siman 1), but even if you do,	the reason
I cited ROY was to enable anybody who wanted to look it up to see the
fairly substantial dissent that exists on the topic.

 

>As Chana points out that if the elderly lady or gentleman can do
>something that is enough (at least for ashkezaim subject to previous
>discussion) that is the best solution.

>Besides the wheel-chair bound patient the more prevalant problem is that many people just simply arent aware or care about bishul akum.

 

Well the extent that you regard it is as a problem depends on your attitude
to ?mutav yihu shogegin? in a concept d?rabbanan, where, when push comes to
shove, one can find quite significant rishonim and achronim to rely on that
matir (even if not the Shach, or the Mechaber or the people you may regard
as of the heaviest weight) and where you have statements such that of the
Sde Chemed that ?and so we are accustomed to be lenient [regarding hired
servants in the home of a Jew] like their words and minhag is halacha?.  
It is not always clear that the halacha requires one to ride in like a
white knight brandishing the truth and ensuring that the ignorant unwashed
out there learn it, even if, again to quote one of ROY?s favourite catch
phrases, it is also true that hamachmir al atzmo tavo alav bracha.

 

>Separate from this issue my experience is that when many O people eat
>out in a nonkosher restaurant they worry about about kashrut problems
>and ignore bishul akum >halachot.

 

Again the same comments but slightly more nuanced.  The situation with the
elderly lady or gentleman is clearly one of shas hadchak, and in addition,
we know that the primary concern of such cases for which Chazal instituted
the issur (that of intermarriage), doesn?t really apply.  An elderly
gentleman or lady, who is incapacitated, is highly unlikely to marry the,
almost invariably same sex, non Jewish live in care worker.  Ie the
application of bishul akum to such a situation is really a lo plug in a
gezera, ie Chazal didn?t differentiate, so we do not have the authority to
do so.	In the case of a non kosher restaurant, there is often a question
about exactly how shas hadchak it is ? it may be very, but it may not
actually be very difficult to arrange things in a way that is mutar
according to all opinions.  And the reason for being in such a restaurant
may also come a lot closer to the reason Chazal instituted the gezera in
the first place (although it may not).	 In such
  a context I can see far greater reason to try and ensure that people know
  about potential problems of this nature, and hence are in a position to
  ask shialas, to enable things to be much more l?chatchila.  In such a
  context I would be a lot less comfortable that mutav yihu shogegin is the
  right approach, instead of trying to ensure that people are better
  Jewishly educated.  But, like so many of these things, while it may be
  important for people to be better Jewishly educated, that really needs to
  mean a full Jewish education ? ie knowing not only that there is a bishul
  akum problem, but all the sources out there that ROY quotes that matir as
  well as assur in a variety of different circumstances.  If people don?t
  have that, they may have a great l?chatchila position on bishul akum, but
  are badly over on the d?orisa issur of judging other Jews unfavourably
  due to their ignorance as to the leniencies that other people may be
  legitimately relying on.

 

>Eli Turkel

 

Regards

 

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130528/fdc181d0/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Yes, that is how the Mechaber rules, which is why ROY needs a safek
sfeka, and not just a machlokus haposkim.  Basically you have a large
number of rishonim lining up on both sides.  The Shulchan Aruch went with
the more machmir group of rishonim, the Rema went with the more makil
group.  So, rules ROY, Sephardim when faced with a classic case of bishul
akum, ie a non Jew cooking in the non Jew?s premises, in order to matir the
bishul akum, need the Jew to take part in a more substantial aspect of the
cooking (eg stirring) and not just lighting the fire.>>

The problem is that ROY is usual very insistent that sefardim pasken like
the mechaber no ifs or buts. Hence Ohr LeZion discounts this a safek. The
machaber paskens le-chumra end of story.
I wonder if there are other places that ROY combines a Rama with another
safek to make it sfek-sefeka

kol tuv

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130528/39786b69/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 103
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)