Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 090

Tuesday, July 18 2006

• Re: Israeli News on NY Erev Shabbos
• Yoma Daf 29 - What is Parsa, Mil, Ama?
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• historical contingency and brachos
• MB/Yeshiva Communities
• RE: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Ir haSemuchah laSfar and pikuach nefesh
• Re: Israeli News on NY Erev Shabbos
• Re: Capital punishment
• Capital punishment
• Re: Chesed Leumim
• RE: MB/Yeshiva Communities
• RE: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: Capital punishment

RMB wrote 
>This raised a general question: If someone holds that piqu'ach nefesh
>is dokheh (as opposed to matir) Shabbos, may you get ancillary hana'ah
>from side effects?

AIUI:

1. In general, it is permitted to benefit from permitted melacha done
for a chole sheyesh bo sakana (ChShYBS) . Thus if one turned on a light
(or a heater or fan) for a ChShYBS, a bari may enjoy the light, heat, or
coolness. The SSK says that if a refrigerator light was left on, and the
door was permissibly opened to remove food for a ChShYBS, additional food
may be removed for everyone, even though this is clearly benefitting from
the melacha done for the ChSYBS. (This has tremendous implications for
the use of electricity on Shabbat in Israel; Jewish workers are involved
in its production, but ChShYBS need and use the electricity produced).

2. As above, for melacha permissibly done by a non-Jew for a chole shein
bo sakana; everyone may benefit from it

3. However, there is a special gzeira on cooking; one may not eat
from food cooked for a ChShYBS. This gzeira was made "shema yarbe
bishvilo". Even a chole shein bo sakana may not benefit from food cooked
for a ChShYBS on Shabbat.

4. In light of the above, it seems to me that if one permissibly made
a broadcast for a Jew in sakana on Shabbat, everyone may listen to it.

Saul Mashbaum

"galsaba" wrote on soc.culture.jewish.moderated and was quoted by RMB:
> I know that a Parsa is 4 Mils, and a Mil is 2000 Ama.
...
> between Jerusalem to Jericho.
> It said there that the distance is 40 parsa, and eventhough the sound
> of the Beit Mikdash doors can be heard all the way to there.

> It makes sense, that if they talk about sound, then the distance they
> refer to, is air distance.
> I cheked. Air distance is 8. miles.
> This is too short to describe 40 Parsa. So may be earth distance.
> Checking few sources, depends on the road you chose it is 12 to 17 miles.
> All too short even according to the convrsion table of Harav Benish.

While RGD gave us very learned answers, I would like to suggest some 
additional points.
1) the distance in teh gemara isn't 40 parsa, but 10 parsa, i.e.,
about 40km or 25mi.
2) that distance seems to be over the roads, not in straight line, as
Rabbah Bar Bar 'Hannah immediately continues to say that the sound of the
door hinges was heard for a distance of 8x te'hum Shabbat =~ 8km or 5mi.
3) That shorter distance was only somewhat short of the distance to
Yeri'ho, somewhat only (even though 8000 amah is much less than 10
parsaot), as is indicated by RBB'H's contrast of the distance to Yeri'ho
and that which was only heard 8000 amah away.
4) Hence, it seems likely to say that the distance of 10 parsaot is travel
distance, while the implied distance of slightly over 8000 amah is in
straight line, thus explaining how we could have two measures of distance
between Y-M and Yeri'ho and that both be correct.
5) Even so, hearing hinges creak over a distance of 4km or 2.5mi is
highly unusual, so that the answer the Raavad gives in the name of his
master (brought to us by RGD) is undoubtedly correct, we are talking
about ma'asseh nissim.

Kind regards,
Arie Folger

RMB wrote:
> I think our difference of opinion is that you and I are approaching this
> from opposite directions.

Keen observation.

> You are writing as though things started out uniform, and therefore the
> question is how far the shevatim could diverge.

Correct, because ...

> My assumption is that the reason for localizing the shevatim, and for each
> having its own derekh and its own legal system is to foster diversity.
> They are described by Chazal as having very distinct lifestyles; and
> a seafarer doesn't approach the world the way a farmer would. I am
> looking at it from the assumption that the differences are inherent in
> the nachalah system, and that it's conformity that would have to develop.

... as R'nLL summoned you, I shall too: please demonstrate why you
are so confident that in serious matters (deOraita) there would be
significant differences between the Shevatim. I don't deny that there
were differences, which were greater than we would ordinarily fashion -
after all, we are children of the current conservative uniformist system -
however, I fail to see why there would be fundamental differences. Tell
me, before entering and settling EY, did Moshe Rabbenu pasqen very
differently for each of the shevatim, or was there a more uniform
pessaq? If the latter, why would a significant, intended divergence
appear later?

Kind regards,
Arie Folger

> There are a number of yeshiva comunities that give psak like the MB.

I think this is accurate. It is now almost universal, in accordance
with the MB, for the tzibbur to recite the b'racha immediately preceding
k'rias sh'ma together with the shat"z in order to avoid the safek whether
one is permitted to respond amen to the shat"z's b'racha. This, despite
the fact that the Rema and the Gra pasken that one may respond amen,
and this seems to have been the minhag in Germany and Lita, if not
other parts of Europe (see R. Hamburger's Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz).
Even Golders Green Beth Hamedrash Congregation in London (otherwise
known as Munk's, after its first Rav) follows the p'sak of the MB,
even though it mainly follows minhag Hamburg.

I have been told by a Rav here in Manchester that, when he attended
Gateshead Yeshiva many years ago, the minhag was like the Rema and Gra,
but that now "minhag MB" prevails in Gateshead. Sad, I think.

Incidentally, in the Lakewood Kollel in Melbourne where I used to daven,
the minhag was to respond amen before KS like the Gra. I assume that this
is still the minhag in Lakewood, unless this is one of those minhagim
that got lost at home but was carried on by the Australian satellite
(cf. Quebecois French is apparently more like 18th century French,
while the variety spoken in France has since evolved).

I have never understood why it is minhag Chabad is for the shat"z to
finish the b'racha before KS silently, whereas the SA HaRav paskens that
one may respond amen. I believe there are quite a few anomalies between
minhag Chabad and the p'sak the SA HaRav.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

R' Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
> When eating bread you feel a different type of satiation
> than when eating cake or crackers.

I can't argue with your experience, but I haven't noticed any such 
difference. I will concede, though, that bread has a very different 
texture than most forms of pas habaa b'kisnin -- most crackers and 
cakes tend to crumble more easily than breads do. This feature makes 
bread well suited for sandwiches in our era, and well suited for 
wiping up gravy and other dips in other eras. 

My main point in this thread has been that bread's role has never 
appeared to *me* as the ikar of the meal, but as an accompaniment to 
the other foods. I am willing to accept that in other cultures, bread 
was the ikar of the meal, and the meat was eaten to enhance the 
bread, but to me such logic seems somewhat bizarre.

He also wrote:
> The Torah does give a special status to bread on Pesach. If
> something does not become chametz, then it is not bread.

Not exactly. If something does not become chometz, then it is not 
matza. But it could still be Hamotzi, if one made a meal of it. And 
plenty of things can become chometz yet still be mezonos.

A dough made with some water but a lot of juice is both chometz and 
PBK. A dough made with only water and stuffed with fruit is both 
chometz and PBK. A dough made with only water but rolled thin and 
baked into a cracker is both chometz and PBK.

A food does not even enter the Hamotzi/Mezonos question unless it 
both (a) contains flour of the 5 minim, and (b) is baked. Once those 
criteria are met, the Hamotzi/Mezonos question is resolved, as I 
understand it, PURELY on the basis of whether this food is a meal-
food or a snack-food. More precisely, if this food is used in this 
community as something which the meal is based on, then it is Hamotzi 
even if one eats a tiny crumb of it.  If this food is *not* used in 
this community as something which the meal is based on, then it is 
Hamotzi if he is basing a meal on it in this instance, and Mezonos if 
he is not basing a meal on it in this instance.

Other than the requirement for flour of the 5 minim, ingredients are 
totally irrelevant. This is seen most clearly in the case of a small 
frankfurter wrapped in a flour-water dough, for which the consensus 
seems to hold that it is mezonos.

So, perhaps I can rephrase my question this way, and address it to 
the "bread is always the ikar of the seudah" crowd: In the case of 
the above-mentioned frankfurter, or a small piece of water-dough 
pizza, why would you make a mezonos on it? Or would you (like the 
Mechaber) say Hamotzi even on a small piece eaten explicitly as a 
snack?

Akiva Miller

[The Metzi'us where I live is also that pizza is something you grab
for a quick lunch or a light supper. Not a snack. -mi]

> (PIZZA) But now since most people are koveiah seudah on it,

Who says? MOST people?

cbk

[R Dov Kay:]
> There are a number of yeshiva comunities that give psak like the MB.

> I think this is accurate. 
...
> Incidentally, in the Lakewood Kollel in Melbourne where I used to daven,
> the minhag was to respond amen before KS like the Gra. 

Is learning during chazarat hashatz prohibited in Yeshiva communities?

KT
Joel Rich

> R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky clearly said that one can be m'dakdek in the MB
> as in a Rishon,

OTOH there are examples of contradictions between various simanim in
the MB.

How do they fit into the above paradigm?

 - Danny

On 7/18/06, <joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com> wrote:
>> There are a number of yeshiva comunities that give psak like the MB.

> I think this is accurate. It is now almost universal, in accordance
> with the MB, for the tzibbur to recite the b'racha immediately preceding
> k'rias sh'ma together with the shat"z in order to avoid the safek whether
> one is permitted to respond amen to the shat"z's b'racha. This, despite
> the fact that the Rema and the Gra pasken that one may respond amen,
> and this seems to have been the minhag in Germany and Lita, if not
> other parts of Europe (see R. Hamburger's Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz).
> Even Golders Green Beth Hamedrash Congregation in London (otherwise
> known as Munk's, after its first Rav) follows the p'sak of the MB,
> even though it mainly follows minhag Hamburg.

I was under the impression that it was because it is a Chassidishe
minhag to finish with the chazzan that people finish with him, and
because many of the talmidim in Litvishe yeshivos come from a
chassidishe background. I suppose it could be a combination.

 -Shmuel

The Rogachover z"l wrote in Shu"t Tzafnat Paaneach (edition 5725) no. 105
that Ir haSemuchah laSfar's reason is pikuach nefesh and, emphatically,
not because of kivush Eretz Israel. The teshuvah dates from 5690 and
apparently retracts what he commented earlier on the Rambam; see Bnei
Banim vol. 3, end of no. 45.

Kiryat Sefer on the Rambam and, among the rishonim, Raavan, Or Zarua and
others write that the reason for Ir haSemuchah laSfar is pikuach nefesh
and applies even in chutz laAretz, see Bnei Banim vol. 2 no. 20 at length.

    With Torah blessings,    
    Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

R' Micha wrote:
> This raised a general question: If someone holds that piqu'ach
> nefesh is dokheh (as opposed to matir) Shabbos, may you get
> ancillary hana'ah
> from side effects?
>
> In our case, even if the politician is allowed to give hasbarah on
> Shabbos, if it's because it is dokheh Shabbos, it is still chilul
> Shabbos -- just of a permitted sort. Thus, may I get hana'ah?

It seems to me like a case of the gezeirah against ribbu'iy shi'urim
and the question is whether the case is similar to that of shechitah,
where there is no metzi'us of ribbu'iy shi'urim so a third party may
benefit from the pikuach nefesh act, or bishul, where mi-de-rabbanan a
third party may not benefit from it to avoid ribbu'iy shi'urim (Orach
Chaim 318:2). IMHO, it seems similar to shechitah and one should be
allowed to benefit from it. The politician isn't going to speak more
for your sake.

This is assuming that hasbarah is a form of psychological warfare or
otherwise necessary function and is permitted on Shabbos. I wonder if
the Chief or IDF Rabbinate has issued any rulings on this subject.


Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

"Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that Beis Din felt guilty as well, for their inability
> to prevent the murders from happening as well, because otherwise why
> would they punish themselves by going into galus?

Punish themselves? Where do you see the idea that they had any such
intention or purpose? They moved a few dozen metres at most -- some
punishment! No, the purpose was to make it against the halacha for any
BD in the country to sentence anyone to death, and thereby to relieve
themselves of an obligation that they were unable to fulfill.

It was exactly the same as selling a behema mevakeret to a goy, so as to
avoid the obligation to bring the bechor as a korban: bizman habayit,
when we were able to fulfill that obligation, it was assur to avoid
it by such a stratagem, but now that it's impossible to fulfill it,
avoiding it has become a mitzvah and standard practise.

[Email #2. -mi]

Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
> How could/would BD enforce Muqtzah?

I don't understand your point. The same way they enforce any other
issur derabbanan. When someone deliberately violates it they impose
makat mardut.

> My point was that had Misas BD been applied solely for violent crimes,
> it would be possible to apply his S'vara that Hovlanis is because they
> weren't protecting society properly be failing to be tough on lesser
> crimes and thus avoid having people commit worse crimes, but as MBD
> can be applied to non-criminal activities, such as Hilul Shabbos, and
> should BD have killed 1 in 7 years it would considered Hovlanis, even
> in an event that violent crimes were not committed at all, this proves
> that Hovlanis is because BD was overly punitive and not creative enough
> in finding ways to avoid punishing with death.

I'm sorry, your point is going right past me. Why the distinction between
violent and non-violent crimes? Why would the "broken windows" theory
not work equally well for chilul shabbat as for murder? If people see
that the batei din take the law seriously, and enforce it consistently,
then they will pay more attention to it themselves, and not commit the
more serious crimes.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

>> 2)Why did the Sanhedrin leave the Lishkas HaGazis because there were
>> too many capital cases, as is commonly learned?

> Precisely because of that. There were a lot of murderers who had to be
> executed, and the Romans wouldn't let them do so; their only choice was
> to remove the obligation.

This doesn't seem to answer the question precisely, because if it was
all about the Romans not letting them carry out the death penalty,
then even one case would be enough for them to leave. If that is the
reasoning. Why does the Gemara give the reason as being the amount of
cases and not that the Romans interfered?

> It seems to me that Beis Din felt guilty as well, for their inability
> to prevent the murders from happening as well, because otherwise why
> would they punish themselves by going into galus?

This still goes back to previous posts in which it was stated that it
would be wrong to not fulfill the mitzvah of putting these cases to death
if that were what was deserved. Guilt on behalf of the leaders does not
abdicate their responsibility to carry out the mitzvos that are upon them.

cbk

 From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
> WADR, these episodes indicate that Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim
> did not hesitate to evaluate the actions of the Avos, Imahos and Moshe
> Rabbeinu. In fact, if one views many Sifrei Drush such as RYBS's Chamesh
> Drashos and Teshuvah Drashos, one find this POV utilized with respect
> to Chazal also ( i.e. especially with regard to the pivotal Tannaim
> of R Yochanan Ben Zakkai and R Akiva).

IMHO while this is somewaht true it is nevertheless a bit mis-leading.

How about restating this as follows:
> WADR, these episodes indicate that Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim did
> not hesitate to teach valualbe lessons in proper behavior and ehtical
> truths using the actions of the Avos, Imahos and Moshe Rabbeinu as straw
> men for pusposes of illustration; without reqard to the actual peshat
> or historical accuracy.

Aggadic Drush is to fill in that void not included - or better not obvious
from Halachah... 

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   

R' JR:
> Is learning during chazarat hashatz prohibited in Yeshiva communities?

Yes.

KT,
MYG

R' Danny Schoemann:
>> R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky clearly said that one can be m'dakdek in the MB
>> as in a Rishon,

> OTOH there are examples of contradictions between various simanim in
> the MB.
> How do they fit into the above paradigm?

Two points:
1. There are examples of contradictions among various Rishonim. The
Mehalech is you try to reconcile them - same thing here.

2. I have heard it said in the name of a MB expert (I forgot who it was)
that there aren't any contradictions in the MB that cannot be resolved.

KT,
MYG

> Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
>> How could/would BD enforce Muqtzah?

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I don't understand your point. The same way they enforce any other
> issur derabbanan. When someone deliberately violates it they impose
> makat mardut.

Fair.

>> My point was that had Misas BD been applied solely for violent crimes,
>> it would be possible to apply his S'vara that Hovlanis is because they
>> weren't protecting society properly be failing to be tough on lesser
>> crimes and thus avoid having people commit worse crimes, but as MBD
>> can be applied to non-criminal activities, such as Hilul Shabbos, and
>> should BD have killed 1 in 7 years it would considered Hovlanis, even
>> in an event that violent crimes were not committed at all, this proves
>> that Hovlanis is because BD was overly punitive and not creative enough
>> in finding ways to avoid punishing with death.

> I'm sorry, your point is going right past me. Why the distinction between
> violent and non-violent crimes? Why would the "broken windows" theory
> not work equally well for chilul shabbat as for murder? If people see
> that the batei din take the law seriously, and enforce it consistently,
> then they will pay more attention to it themselves, and not commit the
> more serious crimes.

"Broken windows" (assuming that it is even effective...) does not
suggest that punishing white collar crimes or other violations of law
(i.e. those that aren't really 'crimes' but are against the law, such
as removing pillow tags) would bring to a reduction in violent crimes.

Also, "broken windows" only works when there are Shotrim to witness
lesser crimes so they can testify in court. This would be strange and
invasive WRT to Sh'miras Shabbos. So the theory that strict enforcement
of Shabbos would translate into fewer murders sounds far fetched.

Jacob Farkas

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]