Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 116

Thu, 20 Jun 2013

• 1. Admin: Sorry for Areivim Spammage (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Medicine on Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: ADHD and Havinenu (Micha Berger)
• 4. Kesiva and Tzovea (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Shelach Gems, Is DT an Authentic Jewish Notion? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 6. Re: Shelach Gems, Is DT an Authentic Jewish Notion? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kesiva and Tzovea (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Kesiva and Tzovea (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Landau's shul policy (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 10. Re: Landau's shul policy (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Shelach Gems, Is DT an Authentic Jewish Notion? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Kosher Agencies Deal with Annual Summer Issue: Slurpees (Akiva Blum)
• 13. Re: Kosher Agencies Deal with Annual Summer Issue: Slurpees (Micha Berger)

A couple of rewrites of rejected Areivim posts ended up on Avodah. I
resubmitted them to the right location, and any replies should go there.
However, as I'm Avodah's sole moderator, anything I accidentally send
to Avodah succeeds in getting there; my posts don't come back to me
for moderation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Zev Sero asked:

> So why in this case did they do the opposite, and make a
> gezera that prevents a person from relieving his distress,
> and thus from having oneg shabbos.  For surely nobody takes
> medicine who is not in distress, and surely oneg shabbos is
> severely impacted or completely prevented by being in distress,
> and more so by knowing that one could easily relieve it were it
> not Shabbos.
>
> So why did they make this gezeira in the first place?  Was the
> *risk* that one will come to compound drugs so high that it
> justified the *certainty* of partially or completely ruining
> people's shabbos?

I think we need to clarify exactly what is meant by "distress".

For a choleh she'AIN bo sakana, the issur does not apply, and he IS allowed
to take whatever medicine he needs. And there are some pretty liberal
definitions of "choleh she'ain bo sakana" out there. The Feldheim
translation of Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata 33:1c includes "an individual
who, although not confined to be, is suffering from pain to such an extent
that his whole body feels weakened, as in the case of a migraine attack."

The only person impacted by this issur is the person whose illness is less
serious than the above - the "miktzas choli" and the "michush b'alma". The
Feldheim SSK 34:1a gives examples "such as a toothache, a sore throat, a
headache, colds and coughs."

I think a comparison between a migraine and an ordinary headache is very
helpful. The former is totally disabling, the latter not so much. If one's
headache is so severe that he cannot distract himself from it, I'd imagine
that he would go to bed --- regardless of whether it fits the medical
definition of "migraine' or not --- and thus be considered a choleh she'ain
bo sakana who is allowed to take his medicine.

I think the answer to RZS's question might be that if one can distract
himself from the pain, then he must do so and beware of the issur d'rabanan
of tochain. And if he cannot distract himself, then Oneg Shabbos overrides
the issur d'rabanan.

I concede that this answer is not totally satisfying. As RZS wrote,

> Still, we see that Chazal took the obligation of oneg shabbos
> very seriously.  They relaxed many of their gezeiros for a
> choleh, or even bimkom tza`ar.  And they made other gezeiros
> for the express purpose of protecting oneg shabbos, by
> prohibiting things that might lead one to mental or physical
> distress.

Yes, they certainly did so, and I'm sure each of us can think of examples.
(There's no need to open the topic to debate by disputing the exact
examples one might bring.) The bottom line is that the prohibition against
taking medicine for a miktzas choli DOES impinge on one's Oneg Shabbos, and
there are many cases where d'rabanans are relaxed specifically to prevent
Oneg Shabbos from being impinged upon. Thus the apparent contradiction.

Personally, I'm satisfied with my point about distraction, but I can easily see why others might not be satisfied with that.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Political system upset?
Democrats BIG advantage in America about to completely vanish
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51c09a1f8c1de1a1f4e5cst04vuc

I posed the question last March about a blogger who confessed he
said Havineinu every day rather than stretch his ADHD impaired
attention span.

And to my mind it looks like some acharonim might permit, perhaps even
the SA, depending on how we read 110:1. But I came across something
that addresses a point RAMiller raised later in that thread:

> Now let's remember that for the entire winter, the inability to say Tal
> Umatar puts Havinenu out of reach, despite the significant advantage it
> provides. Amazing! Would it have been so difficult to add a word or two,
> to enable it for the winter? Why was this denied in the winter, to those
> who benefit from it in the summer?

The Y-mi (Berakhos 4:3 and Taanis 2:2) has a different version of
Havineinu. The Bavli (Berakhos 29a), which is basically the Rambam's
and Tur's nusach, has "vedashneinu bin'os artzekha". The Y-mi has
    bareikh shenoseinu ---
    R' Chagai says, if it's the rainy season we say: gishmei berakhah
    if it is in the dew season, we say: betalelei berakhah

Thus, the Rambam's pesaq (Tefilah 2:4) that it can only be said in yemos
hachamah isn't what the Y-mi held. And since the Bavli and accepted
nusach doesn't mention rain or dew altogether, would you need R' Chagai's
nusachos to hold like the Y-mi?

Alternatively, the Rambam has two very different nusachos for Birkhas
haShanim. So he might be saying that Havineinu replaces Borkheinu H'
E-lokeinu but not Bareikh Aleinu.

Perhaps an Ashkenazi who
(1) is davening a nusach more shaped by the Y-mi (although still basically
R' Amram's Bavli nusach), and
(2) says Bareikh Aleinu for the entire year,
would indeed be able to say Havinenu in the summer.

Also, while on the topic... The essense of the berakhah is its chasimah,
and if that needs more clarification, the body before "Barukh Atah"
ends with me'ein hachasimah. So, Birkhas haShanim is about "umevareikh
hashanim ... mevareikh hashanim". Or, reading from the Rambam, "kashanim
hatovos" ... mevareikh hashanim" -- regardless of the season. (And both
nusachos mention shanim earlier.)

And of course chazal call it Birkhas haShanim.

So why doesn't the Bavli's Havinenu mention time?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In the thread "electricity on Shabbat", R' Eli Turkel asked:

> Why isnt every writing (eg on parchment) tzovea?

A very intriguing question! I tried to take the approach that perhaps
there's a way to do kesiva without accomplishing tzovea in the process, but
the best I could come up with is writing with one's finger on a misty
glass, but that's only d'rabanan. Another idea was using ink or paint of
the same color as the surface, but mimah nafshach: If they are of identical
shades then it is neither kesiva nor tzovea, and if the shades are even
slightly different then it will be both kesiva and tzovea.

Rav Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melachos") discusses this question on page
739-740. It's not a short answer, but if I understand it correctly, one can
accomplish kesiva without tzovea if there is no surface which becomes
colored in the process. The examples he gives are cutting letters out of a
sheet of paper, or molding letters from a piece of clay.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Political system upset?
Democrats BIG advantage in America about to completely vanish
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51c0b149636d731492358st04vuc

Dr Balbin, Sun, 16 Jun 2013, has made a couple of observations that I
should like to address.

I wrote a comment on Reb Micha?s posting. Reb Micha said [or was he quoting
someone else?] that, Moshe Rabbenu was DaAs Torah. I observed - Yet Moshe
Rabbenu [not to mention HKBH, which we will soon mention] permitted the
Meraglim to go and return with a report, in spite of HKBHs obvious
displeasure with the proposal. That being the case, I don't think we can
say the Meraglims sin was that they contradicted Moshe, who was DT.

I rhetorically asked - Was their misdeed not that they spoke LH or were
Motzi Shem Ra?

But challenged that consideration - Did they not consider that it was
LeToEles and they ticked off all the necessary conditions?  In that case
are they not to disagree with DT?

Dr. Balbin asks whether my comments apply L'Halacha and L'Maaseh today? and
I presume he refers to the previous comment of mine - that if we see a
conflict between DT and Halacha that we are to abide the Halacha.

I further observed, that Rashi, with his Mashal, teaches that Gd did not
want us to simply accept His word and enter the Land without questioning
and exploring the offer of the Land of Israel. From Rashi and the Mashal he
offers, we see that in the minds of Chazal the fault was that when we
engage in a business transaction with a trusted business acquaintance, with
whom we have already had a positive experience in such transactions, that
once we are given permission to "test drive" the product in whichever way
we like, it is insulting to actually take the product for the "test drive".

And I concluded - So this is not about not trusting Gd. It is about not
being a Mentsch. And thats where I concluded my original remarks.

As mentioned, Dr. Balbin asks whether my comments apply L'Halacha and
L'Maaseh today?

My response - I maintain that every interpretation of the Torah, well at
least by those who deem it of Divine Authority, is to be taken seriously.
If not, we, those who proclaim that the Torah is DeVar HaShem, are
hypocrites and destroyers of HaShem?s Torah. DeVar HaShem is not some
plaything to be used for entertainment and saying cute VerTeLech at the
Shabbos Tish to spice up the atmosphere and make our guests laugh and
contemplate how clever we are. Was that not the trouble with the old
fashion process of Pilpul; fantastic BeKiUs that linked unrelated threads
of argument to arrive at a fantastic conclusion - and made the Torah
infinitely elastic?

Dr. Balbin asks two further questions - Who are the Meraglei HaTorah today
who are punished for not following DERECH Hashem U'Mitzvosov?

And also - Was this has Hor'aas Sho'oh or was it brought by Poskim as they
way to go?

I have not yet been able to figure out his meaning. Dr. Balbin would you
please elaborate?

I also have not understood Dr Balbins query - where did I get the idea that
Moshe was Daas Torah in the sense that some use it today? I must claim my
innocence, I am just the piano player, playing whats on the music sheet. I
was simply taking up the thread of the discussion as I understood it; or
did I misunderstand it? Reb Micha in fact was marshalling an argument that
DT is a new concept and alien even to authentic Torah values. I was
approaching a similar end from a different angle.

Best,

Rabbi Meir G. Rabi


*Its Kosher* <http://www.kosherveyosher.com> and *Exodus
Matza<http://www.exodusmatza.com>
*
*
*

*it's kosher Authority Pty Ltd    ****ABN: *77 160 144 374


ra...@itskosher.com.au    +61 0423 207 837


kal...@itskosher.com.au    +61 0431 559 695
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/54a10177/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:35:33AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! wrote:
: I wrote a comment on Reb Micha?s posting. Reb Micha said [or was he quoting
: someone else?] that, Moshe Rabbenu was DaAs Torah...

My argument didn't involve MRAH nor the decision to send them.

It was (I thought) kind of straightforward. Chazal (as quoted by Rashi
13:3, "kulam anashim") say that the meraglim were the greats of the
generation.

Therefore, I asked, wouldn't someone who believes that Daas Torah is
a real thing have to conclude that the masses weren't blameworthy for
listening to the reports of the majority of the meraglim?

And this even would be a question for R' Dovid Cohen and Agudah-era RYBS's
shitah, that DT is saught because the the rabbanim of today inherited
leadership from the Sanhrdrin who in turn inherited it from the melukhah
when each ended. The question doesn't revolve around how they could make
such an error, but how the masses could be blamed for following it.

If one did believe that DT involved a low probability of error due to
the mind being honed and shaped by Torah study or due to siyata diShmaya
[or both, or maybe they aren't fully separate things], one could ask how
they -- or any other gadol -- could ever sin. One would have to explain
their cheit as a minor mistake judged kechut hasa'arah, which is the norm
when gedolei olam are described in Tanakh as having messed up big time.
("Kol ha'omer David chatah...") And then we're back to asking why the
hamon am could be judged so harshly for falling for their subtle error.

But in any case, accepting DT would -- to my mind -- mean that until Moshe
spoke up, the masses were obligated to listen to the majority of the
gedolim over the two wippersnappers.

And I raised the question expecting someone to point out how DT doesn't
compell this impossible conclusion.

The one thing I thought was "vayilonu al Moshe ve'al Aharon" was beyond
DT either way. But "vayivku ha'am balaylah hahu" the night before was
already condemned, and set up 9 beAv ledoros as a night of crying!

: My response - I maintain that every interpretation of the Torah, well at
: least by those who deem it of Divine Authority, is to be taken seriously.
...

I'm discussing Daas Torah, the notions (and indeed there are two) that
rabbis are to be followed on questions of civil leadership or personal
advice on chol matters.

Not halakhah, not aggadah, not interpretation of Torah altogether.

What you're discussing is the classical idea of emunas chakhamim, trusting
that the baalei mesorah didn't warp it to fit their own ends. Without
which, there can't be any acceptance of TSBP.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Kenneth Miller <kennethgmil...@juno.com>wrote:
> In the thread "electricity on Shabbat", R' Eli Turkel asked:
>> Why isnt every writing (eg on parchment) tzovea?
...
> Rav Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melachos") discusses this question on page
> 739-740. It's not a short answer, but if I understand it correctly, one can
> accomplish kesiva without tzovea if there is no surface which becomes
> colored in the process. The examples he gives are cutting letters out of a
> sheet of paper, or molding letters from a piece of clay.

What about carving letters in stone or wood?

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 09:28:49AM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote:
: What about carving letters in stone or wood?

Or, according to some posqim, putting Scrabble letters down in a board
that holds the pieces in place. (E.g. the Deluxe Scrabble edition.)
Although that's probably only derabbanan, and therefore not helpful
for our discussion of how the avos melakhos are uniquely defined.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 6/14/2013 1:50 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> We are haivng a conversation on Areivim about shuls with rules that
> try to minimize interruptions to one's kavanah during davening by
> excluding tzedaqah collectors....

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:21:17PM +0000, eli.neuber...@gmail.com wrote...
>: I was privileged to daven with ...

> I wonder what prioritization R Yisael Salanter would have given. Would
> he say that there are enough opportunities to collect at the entrance,
> during other parts of davening, or by going to the rav / gabbai from
> money from the shul's "tzorkhei tzibur" pushka for this exclusion to be
> valid? Or would RYS wonder how one can say Bareikh Aleinu while keeping
> those pressed for cashflow out of the shul?

> I'm reminded of one of mussar's foundation stories: ...

> But in that case, the interrupted kavanah was for something that could
> NOT have been done otherwise.

I do not think the contemporary category of meshulachim can be viewed in 
the same manner as the truly impoverished of yesteryear.

KT,
YGB

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:15:51PM EST, RYGB wrote:
> I do not think the contemporary category of meshulachim can be viewed in  
> the same manner as the truly impoverished of yesteryear.

Because they're meshulachim, or because few people today are as desperate?
What would you say about someone collecting for themselves, not a
shaliach for a mosad? Would you say that his need isn't likely to be
pressing enough to justify interrupting davening either?

Or does "dei machsero" mean that we recognize that desperation is
sociologically defined?

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

On 19/06/2013 1:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It was (I thought) kind of straightforward. Chazal (as quoted by Rashi
> 13:3, "kulam anashim") say that the meraglim were the greats of the
> generation.

> Therefore, I asked, wouldn't someone who believes that Daas Torah is
> a real thing have to conclude that the masses weren't blameworthy for
> listening to the reports of the majority of the meraglim?

I don't understand the question.   They were openly opposing Moshe Rabbenu,
who had *the* Daas Torah, therefore it was clear to everyone that their claims
were by definition not DT.   Those who listened to them were opposing DT,
they were going "acharei rabbim lera'os", rather than sticking with DT,
no matter how many the opposition, nor how good their credentials seem, or
how persuasive their arguments.   They transgressed "vayaaminu BaH' uvMoshe
avdo", while undoubtedly saying things like "kabel es ho'emes mimi she'amoro"
and "ein somchin al haneis".

[Email #2. -micha]


On 19/06/2013 1:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But in any case, accepting DT would -- to my mind -- mean that until Moshe
> spoke up, the masses were obligated to listen to the majority of the
> gedolim over the two wippersnappers.

> And I raised the question expecting someone to point out how DT doesn't
> compell this impossible conclusion.

> The one thing I thought was "vayilonu al Moshe ve'al Aharon" was beyond
> DT either way. But "vayivku ha'am balaylah hahu" the night before was
> already condemned, and set up 9 beAv ledoros as a night of crying!

Moshe had already spoken, long before the delegation had been sent.
They already knew Daas Torah that they were to go, and nothing the
returning tourists reported ought to have changed that. Even if they
believed the tourists' report about the military strength of the enemy,
at most it should have produced a grim resolve to do what was necessary
to carry out Hashem's will despite the cost.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

From: Prof. Levine
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June, 2013 1:44 PM
To:   General Discussion Area for Avodah <arei...@aishdas.org>

> From http://tinyurl.com/mgq6rla

> Some rabbis have suggested that while the Slurpees products may be kosher,
> the machinery may not be. But Rabbi Sholem Fishbane, Kashrus Administrator
> cRc (Chicago Rabbinical Council) explains it this way: "7-Eleven franchises,
> independently owned and operated, are allowed to contract the use of
> generic-brand syrups for their Slurpees." Owners might want to do this in
> order to save a few dollars. 

> Rest easy, kosher consumers-the franchises have a contract with corporate
> 7-Eleven: if an independently owned and operated franchise uses generic
> brand syrups, they must place a hand-written flavor sign on the machine.
> This alerts consumers and corporate representatives, who visit regularly,
> that the particular store is adhering to its contract with corporate
> 7-Eleven. If it is not in keeping with the contract, that franchise has much
> greater problems than kosher." 

I don't understand this. This question was on the machines. If a different
flavor WAS in the machine (for more than 24 hours), but isn't now,
the machine is still treif. The new kosher syrup absorbs he issur after
24 hours.

Akiva

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:13:23AM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
: I don't understand this. This question was on the machines. If a different
: flavor WAS in the machine (for more than 24 hours), but isn't now,
: the machine is still treif. The new kosher syrup absorbs he issur after
: 24 hours.

From the cRc <http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/slurpees.php>:
> Operating with the knowledge that almost all known Slurpee syrups
> are kosher, it is still important to relay that the minute amount
> of dairy or non-kosher in the flavors would not change a machine's
> status to dairy or non-kosher. Not only is the machine itself set at
> 28? Fahrenheit, it is highly unlikely that the Slurpees would sit in
> the machine for anything close to the 24 hour kosher deadline of when,
> at that point, flavors may be absorbed into the walls of the utensil
> holding it. Here's why: the barrel of the machines holds 92 ounces of
> finished Slurpee product, and 7-Eleven's top-selling Slurpee cup is
> 22 ounces, which means that approximately 4.5 large cups of Slurpee
> are held in the machines. Obviously, the Slurpees in the machines are
> replaced constantly. Consequently, the cRc can safely and confidently
> announce that there are no problems with the Slurpee machines.

> Now, what if 7-Eleven puts a kosher pareve flavor in a machine that
> previously held a non-kosher or dairy flavor? What if leftover non-kosher
> or dairy syrup infiltrates my pareve flavor? While certainly not the
> common occurrence, it is a possibility because, generally, stores do not
> clean the machines between flavors. As a matter of fact, they claim that
> kids love getting mixed flavors. While this might happen on occasion,
> the many poskim that I spoke to on this matter all agreed, for various
> Halachik reasons, one does not have to worry about the small amount of
> leftover dairy or non-kosher flavor.

"For various halachic reasons" is an annoying avoidance of a good chunk
of the question being asked. But in any case, the answer to RAB's question
appears to be that it's unlikely enough for product to be in the machine
for 24 hours that we don't need to be chosheshim for it.

The COR (Kashruth Council of Canada) gives a similar answer at
<http://cor.ca/view/126/are_slurpees_kosher.html>.

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


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


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 116
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


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.)