Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 111

Sun, 09 Jun 2013

• 1. electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: nonJewish housekeeper (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Chana Luntz)
• 7. ascribing motives (saul newman)
• 8. Re: partnership minyanim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (David Riceman)
• 10. Korach Cabochons (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 11. Re: Korach Cabochons (Allan Engel)
• 12. biological computer (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: 20th of Sivan (CMB)
• 14. Beards (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Re: Why did Moshe only daven for Yehoshua? (CMB)

RCL:

<<Our modern shabbas candles are symbolic, designed, much like candles 
in restaurants, for atmosphere rather than reading and working by. We 
don't use the other sort anymore, since we all have electric lights. But 
the idea of being able to (passively) read your scroll on a Friday 
night, is, to my mind, programmed into the original idea (fabric) of 
shabbas.>>

So when Hazal decreed "lo yikra l'or haner" they were violating "the 
original fabric of shabbos"?

I think your post emphasises how much shabbos has changed since electric 
lights, and how little we notice.  Otherwise how could you possibly 
attribute a clear issur d'rabbanan to previous generations?

David Riceman

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:29:36PM +0100, Rn Chana Luntz replied to my
impression of how the Y-mi viewed melakhah:
:> It isn't just this one quote, but a general vague impression. Like when
:> with the discussion of each melakhah, >it lists a bunch of tolados and then
:> often concludes with "and X is mb"p" (either lekhol hadei'os or it's a
:> machloqes).

: 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.

Why is this different than a rav today determining that killing someone
with a gun is assur deOraisa?

Well there is one difference, but I'll get to it next.

...
: RAW makes the point (in teshuva 31) that all the gedolim forbad the use of
: electricity when it came out....

As far as I can tell, RAW's point is that it's all about feel. And in fact,
I've made a parallel argument here in the past. 4-Jan-2010
<www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n005.shtml#11>:
> Given the number of other shitos, and the fact that they are all less
> than airtight when dealing with devices with no sound, internal glowing
> filaments or near-certain sparking that either don't plug in or are
> already plugged in, I would be more comfortable going the meta-level.

> How is it so many posqim reached the same conclusion through such
> different routes? Is halakhah ends-driven? Or, is it that that the truly
> great posqim have an inarticulatable notion of what Shabbos ought to
> include, and it's only in trying to articulate a decision that is really
> based on the whole gestalt that these numerous weak reasons get presented?

> While some of us question the existence of daas Torah WRT decisions
> where the open question isn't halakhah or even what's the best AYH,
> do any of us doubt the concept of daas Torah within the domain of pesaq?

[AYH fell into disuse lately: "Ahavas veYir'as Hashem" and then grew to
include whatever is appropriate on the aggadic level in general (hilkhos
dei'os, lifnim mishuras hadin, etc...).

> And if so, how do you explain this "mysterious" convergance of
> conclusions (in a way that still justifies following the pesaq)?

Just because we don't know the criteria, and perhaps (if my impression
of RAW's mehalekh is also correct) they can't even be articulated,
it doesn't mean that there weren't actually given to Moshe, and being
applied as per HQBH required.

On a less theoretical note:

: But, 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...

Actually, the circuit that includes the motor or solonoid that operates
the door (or the air pump in the case of a pneumatic door) is being
created. Otherwise, the door would be in constant motion.

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:53pm +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I am not - because of the increasing uses for LEDs to replace incandescent
: light bulbs. If you allow LEDs, bang goes the one thing that everybody
: agreed was actually an issur d'orisa in this new technology. We have
: already heard rumours of people who keep "half shabbas", ie who can't
: manage to stop themselves texting on shabbas. A d'orisa LED ban firmly
: stops this, being wishy washy on LEDs and microchips risks opening the
: gates to this. Do you believe that shabbas would be shabbas if we all
: kept our phones on?

I already dropped the concept of uvda dechol into the conversation. Isn't
the definition of uvda dechol an act that would cause Shabbos to no longer
be Shabbos if we all did it?

Wouldn't this therefore be a textbook and extreme uvda dechol, as per
RnCL's description?

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:39:48AM +0300, R Marty Bluke replied to my
post:
:> I don't think those Israeli chareidi poseqim are sufficiently aligned with
:> the American versions of chareidi, never mind MO, to assume their pesaq
:> would be the one we follow.

: I agree with your point that they aren't aligned but the fact is that the
: American Charedi poskim are almost completely subservient to the Israeli
: poskim nowadays (just take a look at the statements coming from the
: American Moetzes about just about any issue).

:> The Star-K negotiated a solution with the proper authorities in Baltimore
:> to allow an option that does not defy halakhah as they see it.

: That is quite surprising but great, but I fear that Baltimore is a unique
: situation which will not be duplicated in most other places certainly not
: in smaller Jewish communities or in communities where there is little unity.

I meant these two paragraphs as a unit. I think that due to need, more
American kehilos will follow Baltimore's lead than Israeli chareidi pesaq.
I was citing the Star-K as an existence proof to that effect.

:> #3 is interesting. Because it discusses two nearly identical outcomes --
:> "dials or numbers on a wheel that are mechanically powered by a water
:> turbine", vs ones that aren't "mechanically powered by a water turbine".
:> What would R Asher Weiss say? How is one a more "significant action"
:> than the other? Not in outcome.

: To the best of my knowledge that is how all mechanical water meters work
: today, the flow of the water turns the dials or numbers. I have not heard
: of any poskim who have any problems with mechanical water meters.

That's my question, exactly. RAW says that turning on any machine so that
it starts doing something significant is makeh bepatish. If that's true
for an electronic meter, why /not/ a mechanical one? Alternatively,
if a mechnical meter is accepted as mutar, then how can the use of
electricity to get the same effect assur?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RCL:

<<Our modern shabbas candles are symbolic, designed, much like candles in
restaurants, for atmosphere rather than reading and working by. We don't use
the other sort anymore, since we all have electric lights. But the idea of
being able to (passively) read your scroll on a Friday night, is, to my
mind, programmed into the original idea (fabric) of shabbas.>>

And RDL replied:

>So when Hazal decreed "lo yikra l'or haner" they were violating "the
original fabric of shabbos"?

No, because it was not normal to read at home, in small cramped quarters
(private tents in the midbar are not exactly going to be big, and even once
they moved into the land, multi-roomed solidly built dwellings were not
exactly the norm - and who could afford expensive scrolls at home?).  It was
normal to read in the shul/beis medrish/public gathering place, which would
be properly lit (with expensive, what I have described as "working", candles
provided by the community as a whole) where there would be access to such
scrolls.   When people started reading at home (presumably their houses were
getting bigger, and written scrolls got cheaper), Chazal banned such reading
on shabbas for an explicit reason, lest they come to tilt the candle in the
privacy of their house- but they also gave a solution, read with somebody
else, who would remind them not to tilt the candle.  This latter solution
re-approximated (at least somewhat) the original nature of learning as being
something that was at least semi public, somewhere in the corner of the beis
medrish/shul, if not completely public.

>I think your post emphasises how much shabbos has changed since electric
lights, and how little we notice.  Otherwise how could you possibly
attribute a >clear issur d'rabbanan to previous generations?

I don't think that it is electric lights only that has generated the
enormous shift from public to private in a whole range of areas. Whole
swathes of human interaction has shifted from public to private, with
learning being only one of them.  One of the ones that I use frequently to
illustrate the point, is the shift from laundry being a public activity
(usually done by the entire female community on a single wash day once a
week down by the river) to a completely private activity.  This one is,
compared to the shift to reading privately, extremely recent, and clearly
linked to very modern technology.  But while the level of easy access we
have to seforim is probably more related to the printing press than to the
electric light, the fact that Chazal were worried about the tilting the
candle issue shows that already by their time there was a certain move
towards private learning.

>David Riceman

Regards

Chana

RCL:

<<No, because it was not normal to read at home, in small cramped 
quarters (private tents in the midbar are not exactly going to be big, 
and even once they moved into the land, multi-roomed solidly built 
dwellings were not exactly the norm - and who could afford expensive 
scrolls at home?). It was normal to read in the shul/beis medrish/public 
gathering place, which would be properly lit (with expensive, what I 
have described as "working", candles provided by the community as a 
whole) where there would be access to such scrolls. When people started 
reading at home (presumably their houses were getting bigger, and 
written scrolls got cheaper), Chazal banned such reading on shabbas for 
an explicit reason, lest they come to tilt the candle in the privacy of 
their house- but they also gave a solution, read with somebody else, who 
would remind them not to tilt the candle. This latter solution 
re-approximated (at least somewhat) the original nature of learning as 
being something that was at least semi public, somewhere in the corner 
of the beis medrish/shul, if not completely public.>>

Do you have a source for this? Certainly being in a public place is not 
sufficient.  Rama OH 275:2 "vlachen assur lomar piyuttim b'leil YT 
shehal lihyos b'shabbas bveis hakneses [sic] ...."  Similarly OH 275:8 
gives the exception "nohagim likros bleil YHK bmahzorim mipnei she'eimas 
YHK aleihem".  The loophole you cite is for two people sharing a book 
(ibid. 2), not simply for being in a public place.

I agree that printing was revolutionary, but the subject of our thread 
was revolutions in the celebration of Shabbos.  Printing didn't do that, 
but electric lights (and possibly gas lights and kerosene lamps ... I 
don't know when the gezeirah of lo yikra fell into disuse) did.

So, in the context of this thread, your remark about <<the enormous 
shift from public to private in a whole range of areas>> is a red 
herring.  I think my initial point is valid: the nature of Shabbos 
changed drastically when the gezeirah of lo yikra fell into disuse.  Do 
we find opposition to reading based on that rather than on cogent 
halachic argument? I certainly am unaware of any.

David Riceman

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:16:12AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: BTW it seems that ROY is much more willing to use sfek-sfeka to be mekil
: then many other poskim (though I dont understand why others do not tend to
: use it very much)

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:23:45PM +0300, R Ben Waxman replied to RET's post:
> One of the chakirot that Rav Henkin does in his bug book is when a sfek  
> sfeka can be used, in this case to enable eating food that is may be  
> infested....

I am inclined to agree with RBW. From what I've seen of YD and EhE,
it's actually pretty common. Not so much in OC or CM but in EhE and YD
cases of hefseid meruba or the like.

For example, RARakeffetR noted repeatedly over the past year in his shiur
on shu"t that the typical means of being matir agunah is to first find
a way to reduce it to a derabbanan and then combine senifim lehaqeil --
sefeiqos, shitos we wouldn't rely on by themselves, etc...

As for making it a safeiq derabbanan... Mayim she'ein lahem sof is a
derabbanan to be chosheish for a small but realy mi'ut who might survive
a ship sinking, but end up beyond the horizon and unable to return.

R YE Spektor was meiqil in cases of mayim she'ein lahem sof, because if
the couple were happily married (shalom lo veshalom lah) he certainly
would have contacted her by telegraph or postal service. Today, even
more so. So, unless his plane went down in someplace like the Amazon
rainforest, a wife whose husband isn't a flight risk can be considered
an agunah at most derabbanan.

See also R Jachter's essay at <http://koltorah.org/ravj/Agunot%204.htm>,
about the WTC and agunos. He cites the Beis Shemu'el, the AhS, RMFeinstein
and others making such arguments.

But it seems to me there is a philosophical difference between adding
senifim lehaqeil and treating shitos as a sefeiq sefeiqa. If you're
thinking in terms of senifim, then you're she'eilah as something to be
reasoned out by weighing arguments, and a few weak arguments can add up to
the same level of compelling-ness (compulsion?) as one strong argument. If
you're talking of sefeiq sefeiqa, then you're saying the she'eilah is
inherently unsolvable on the pesaq level, and thus we're using rules of
birur to decide what the halachic chalos is, or at least what to do.

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:20:07PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I think it is unreasonable to assume that the non-Jews in relation to whom
: Chazal made the gezera were of a completely different socio-economic class
: from the Jews they were dealing with and who Chazal were concerned they
: might marry.  We know that slaves (maidservants) were sufficiently common in
: the times of the Mishna and the Gemora for the Mishna to state (Kesubos
: 59b): and this is the work that a woman does for her husband, grind, bake,
: launder, cook, nurse her child, make his bed and work with wool.   If she
: brought into the marriage one maidservant...
...
: Which in the time of the Mishna seems pretty clearly to include the middle
: class in Chazal's society (the very rich had four or more - if this was a
: completely unrealistic expectation, like Rabbi Eliezer's 100 maidservants,
: it would hardly be codified in the Mishna like this).  Thus you are saying
: that Chazal made their gezera fundamentally against the very poor non-Jews,
: ones of a socio-economic class very different to many, many of the Jews of
: the Mishna.

I'm not sure how common it has to be. The nasi would have to decide what
his own family would have to do. Why does it have to be a full middle
class? The nasi's household would need a pesaq, and if there were any
chance of a future tiny wealthy class that might need that pesaq in the
future, that would be sufficient to warrant inclusion in the mishnah.

I mean, how many kohanim gedolim had a brother who dies married and
childless? Or a kohein engaged to an alumanah is elected to become kohein
gadol? (Just to take the mishnayos off Yevamos 61a.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

RCL:

<<No, because it was not normal to read at home, in small cramped quarters
(private tents in the midbar are not exactly going to be big, and even once
they moved into the land, multi-roomed solidly built dwellings were not
exactly the norm - and who could afford expensive scrolls at home?). It was
normal to read in the shul/beis medrish/public gathering place, which would
be properly lit (with expensive, what I have described as "working", candles
provided by the community as a
whole) where there would be access to such scrolls. When people started
reading at home (presumably their houses were getting bigger, and written
scrolls got cheaper), Chazal banned such reading on shabbas for an explicit
reason, lest they come to tilt the candle in the privacy of their house- but
they also gave a solution, read with somebody else, who would remind them
not to tilt the candle. This latter solution re-approximated (at least
somewhat) the original nature of learning as being something that was at
least semi public, somewhere in the corner of the beis medrish/shul, if not
completely public.>>

And RDL replied:

>Do you have a source for this?

While the gezera for not reading by the light of a candle is specifically
lest he tilt the candle (Shabbat 12a), there is an even more fascinating
gezera on reading from Chazal, that found on Shabbas 115a - namely a ban was
placed on reading Kesuvim on Shabbas - mipnei bitul beis hamidrash.  On the
other hand reading from the Torah and haftorah in public was specifically
instituted on Shabbas.  And it is quite clear that there was an expectation
that people were in a lit beis hamedrish as shabbas drew out - see for
example Brochos 53a which discusses the case where people were sitting in
the Beis Medrish when shabbas went out and the havdala light was brought in
(where Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai disagree as to whether each one makes
the bracha themselves or they all make it together).  Beis Shammai's concern
about everybody making the bracha together is it will cause bitul beis
hamedrish (and similarly even saying - marpeh as per the household of Rabban
Gamliel).  I don't believe there was any assumption that all this learning
was taking place in the dark.

Rather it seems to me, the emphasis, from Moshe Rabbanu through to Chazal
was to make shabbas a day in which learning occurred in public fora.  At the
point at which there was a shift towards private fora, Chazal instituted
various gezeros to protect against issues that arose from learning privately
- learning by the light of a candle was one of these, coupled with serious
d'orisa concerns, kesuvim (where there were none of those concerns, so the
underlying issues are clearer) was another.  But once the ability to learn
publically was curtailed by oppression and the like, the ban on kesuvim
seems itself to have fallen into abeyance, and the only purpose for the ban
on learning by the light of the candle was the technical tilting question.

BTW one of the questions that periodically I wonder about is the extent to
which Bnei Yisrael on leaving Mitzrayim could all read.  In Egypt, as far as
I know, only the priestly class were taught to read, and so why it was
probably reasonable for Moshe to have been schooled in pharoah's palace,
what about everybody else.  A priestly class of Leviim who were studying and
reading maybe that the Egyptians would have understood, but everybody else?
I have half wondered whether bnei Yisrael would have understood the
requirement to be a mamlechet kohanim as meaning they needed to get schooled
(since that is what happened in Egypt) - but it was a pretty unusual
universal skill for the ancient world, was it not?   Seems more likely that
at least in the initial years it was those who could read reading publically
out of the limited and centrally held scroll resources for those who
couldn't.

>David Riceman

Regards

Chana

http://torahmusings.com/2013/06/rav-soloveitchik-and-tradition-bearers/

RYBS  on the concept of ascribing bad motives to torah leaders= heresy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130606/36bcc260/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:04pm EST, I wrote:
: I am not sure I get this "either"... The berakhah after Pesuqei deZimra
: can't be more part of Tefillah beTzibbur than PdZ itself. PdZ is from the
: geonic period. RSG is the first source of opening it with Barukh sheAmar,
: but his siddur has it specifically for Shabbos and YT. Yishtabach can't
: be any earlier than this custom of saying BsA; it was written to be
: semuchah to it -- which is why it doesn't open with "Barukh".

Correction:

The BY (OC 54:3) cites Hagahos Maimoniyos Hil Tefillah 7:70, that the kind
of sin one would fear enough to return mei'orkhei hamilchamah would be
speaking between Yishtabach and Yotzeir Or. We don't have this Y-mi, even
though we have the most probable location for it, the last pereq of Sotah.

So we see Yishtabach was added to Pesuqei deZimra even before it became
de rigeur to say PdZ. Which fits; the point is to show how minor of a
sin it could be to justify mortal fear.

(Incidentally, this lost Y-mi defuses one question people have on the
antiquity of all of the Zohar. If the Y-mi refers to Yishtabach, it is
not a proven anachronism to claim that R' Shimon bar Yochai did.)

:-)BBii!
-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

I wanted to clarify my main point.  Several people have suggested that, 
because portable electronic devices will have a huge effect on the 
social experience of Shabbos, we should be particularly strict and wary 
of any attempt to permit them.  As a counterexample I cited reading on 
Friday night, for which no such effort was made.  Despite RCL's heroic 
attempts to deny it, I think it undeniable that it did have a huge 
effect on the social experience of Shabbos, and yet I have seen no 
evidence that the Rabbis of the time were particularly strict and wary 
about it.

I didn't state my conclusion clearly.  I think being strict and wary 
about permitting things because they will have a huge effect on the 
social experience of Shabbos, rather than for normative halachic 
reasons, will have a huge effect on the social experience of psak, and 
we should be strict and wary before even considering going down that route.

David Riceman

Why would the Torah name a portion after a rasha (same question with Balak)?
We have the same element with the Four Sons on Pesach.
One answer is that the Torah is reality and part of reality is evil.

Conversely, among the ancestors of Korach listed at the beginning of the Sedra, 
the name of Yaakov is conspicuously omitted, "because he sought mercy for himself 
that his name be not mentioned in connection with the strife" (Rashi). This is to teach
how to stifle quarrelsome arguments by keeping away from them.

The Torah never named 'portions' after anyone.

On 7 June 2013 16:34, <cantorwolb...@cox.net> wrote:

> Why would the Torah name a portion after a rasha (same question with
> Balak)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130607/4886b291/attachment-0001.htm>

A biological computer based on DNA

http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Technion-
scientists-create-biological-computer-315871

Is this allowed on shabbat (deoraisa or derabban)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130609/358147fd/attachment-0001.htm>

After seeing all the postings about 20th of Sivan,
I thought the *olam *might appreciate this excellent and thorough article I
just saw on topic:

http://rabbikaganoff.com/archives/1919


All the best,
CMB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130609/6b5e0aab/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:50:46PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago the FJJ ran an ad that claimed that the Chazon Ish
> said that when he saw a man without a beard, he wanted to vomit.  There
> was a good deal of reaction to this ad in the letters to the editor last
> week

Over shabbat I read parts of the new sefer Mesoret MOshe, teshuvot of RMF
by his grandson.
He brings a story that someone wrote a sefer that one has to grow a beard
and came to RMF for a haskamah. RMF gave the author that there is no such
halacha. Even if one says it is based on kabala he quoted a Chatam Sofer
that brings that R Menachem of Pano was a great kabbalist and neither he
nor his students had beards.

RMF is most upset that the talmidim in the musar yeshivot and later the
yeshivot in Vilna did not have beards and the rebbeim did not insist they
grow beards. Hence, RMF felt that such a sefer was making fun (motzi laaz)
on previous generations of talmidei chachamim.

On another topic topic they showed RMF a psak from CI  that no modern city
is a reshut ha-rabim because all streets have houses on both sides of the
street with more built up then empty. RMF was upset at this psak again
because he felt that it was a chiddush that no one else had mentioned. In
all the discussions of eruvim for cities in Europe no teshuva brought this
idea. RMF also assumed that the streets in old Jerusalem had buildings on
both sides and the gemara doesnt mention it.

In several other teshuvot RMF upholds traditions from Europe and doesnt
like ideas, whether for chumra or kulah that go against previous accepted
practice

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130608/233239ca/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

I saw an excellent pshat in the Chofetz Chaim al HaTorah.
Basically (if i remember correctly) he explains that there are two distinct
types of rebellions against a majority- each with pros and cons.
1. confrontational - I will not go along with this, I will stand in your
way etc.
2. secret - like a spy - they think you are really on their side until you
reveal your true feelings.

Pros of #1 - They know there is no way to sway you. Cons - They could
easily kill you [its a big land lots of cliffs...]
Pros of #2 - Since they think your on their side they won't harm you, but
Con - you can eventually get swayed to their way of thinking.

The C.C. maintains that Yehoshua was the first type and Calev the latter.
Hence Moshe's tefilla was that he should be saved from the meraglim -
meaning saved from physical harm. The meraglim knew that Moshe's prime
pupil would never get swayed to their cause. Therefore he was in real clear
and present danger. Calev otoh needed his own internal strength - that is
why he privately snuck off and davened in CHevron [not the gas station[?]].
There was no need for tefillos for his personal safety.
The C.C. concludes that Calev's rebellion took more strength and thats why
he was singled out for praise by the Torah - he had "Ruach acheres Imo".

In fact that became his whole essence. His father's name was really
Chetzron - yet he was known throughout the Torah as ben yefuneh - ben
shemefaneh me'aitzas hameraglim - see Gemara Sota 11b.

all the best,
CMB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130609/9710f43c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 96 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130609/9710f43c/attachment.gif>

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


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 111
***************************************

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.)