Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 5

Fri, 15 Jan 2016

• 1. Musical instruments in shul (Sholom Simon)
• 2. musical instruments in shul (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Musical instruments in shul (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: tinok shenishba (Zev Sero)
• 5. tinok shenishba (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: How big was Og Melech Habashan? [was: takanot by chazal] ()
• 7. Re: How big was Og Melech Habashan? [was: takanot by chazal] (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: tinok shenishba (Akiva Miller)
• 9. calendar (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: calendar (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: tinok shenishba (Micha Berger)
• 12. Multiple Shiva Locations (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Inifinite Value of Human Life (Micha Berger)

>: Someone sent me a video showing that when his minyan sang Hallel this
>: morning in shul, the leader was using a guitar.
>
>: I thought that because klei shir were used in the Beis Hamikdash, there is
>: a specific halacha or minhag not to use them in shul nowadays. Am I
>: mistaken?
>
>I thought it was one of the gezeiros against making shuls that are too
>similar to a Reform temple. So I took a look around...

If I recall correctly, the gezeiro was against paying a non-Jew to 
make music on shabbos (see S"A 338:2 which "yesh omrim" permit at a 
wedding feast, since it's a shevus d'shevus, and it's for a mitzvah 
purpose), because Reform were using this idea to justify having an 
organ playing at shabbos services.

Before that time, many weddings were on Fridays, and celebrations 
would go into Friday night, with non-Jewish music makers.

And so, I'm answering/clarifying the last point (the gezeiro) but not 
dealing with the initial subject (klei shir in shul).

-- Sholom

<<I thought that because klei shir were used in the Beis Hamikdash, there is
a specific halacha or minhag not to use them in shul nowadays. Am I mistaken?
>>

Many large shuls in western Europe have organs in the shul. These are
remnants from the days of the reform. Today many of these synagogues still
have the organs but of course don't use them on shabbat,
However, I have been on occasions where the organs (with a choir) are used
on special occasions during the week including weddings, yom haazmaut or
other special events

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160114/f1adbb64/attachment-0001.htm>

On 01/13/2016 09:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
> See the Melameid leHo'il (vol I, OC 16); R' Dovid Zvi Hoffman mentions
> its inclusion in a collection titled Eileh Divrei haBeris published
> in 1819 by the Hamburg BD, and prohibited by R' Avraham Lowenstein (av
> BD of Emden) in 1820. And in 1863, Hildesheimer's made their semichah
> conditional on not taking a job in a synagogue with an organ.
> But in any case, the MlH argues it's a derekh emori issue.

But that's only with an organ, not a guitar.   Almost all the
authorities he cites permit using other instruments during the week,
and one even explicitly writes about shuls that did a musical kabbolas
shabbos (no R S Carlebach didn't invent that!).

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 01/13/2016 09:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Tinoq shenishba isn't really a halachic category. The gemara (Shabbos
> 68a) uses it as an example of a broader principle -- the person who is
> even less than a mechalel 2 Shabbosos behe'elem achas. (He'elem requires
> once knowing, and then forgetting.) He is thus oneis, not shogeig.

On the contrary, the gemara says that one who never knew about any of
the mitzvos is shogeg, *not* oneis, and must bring one chatas for each
issur that he violated.   And that is the halacha.   I haven't got
Yabia Omer online, but I can't imagine he says something different from
the gemara and the Rambam.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

: R' Saul Newman wrote:
: > in an offline conversation, a list member included a remark
: > that 'the tinok shenishba excuse is wearing thin' ...

I have been told that this is in effect the opinion of R Elyashiv who in
general would not
use that argument on behalf of sinners. OTOH I know of other rabbis who
felt that they were
not willing to put such a wedge between the religious and non-religious in
EY.
I have heard shiurim from major figures who basically said that perhaps in
reality the
excuse is wearing thin but we need to use as a formailsm for not driving
out the chilonim.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160114/34a9fafb/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

: 2) How often did measures turn on the  individual in question vs. "the
: average Yossi"? (e.g. how we determine for  an individual if he has eaten
: sviah (enough to be full)).

About  shiurim in particular, I have been chasing the same question. When
are 4 amos  an average, and when is it that person's amos? Obviously for
a group's eruv,  you cannot say it's kosher for one person because it
qualifies by the length  of his arm, but not for another....


-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         




>>>>>
 
This reminds me of a question I've always had about Og Melech  Habashan.  
See Devarim 3:11.  "Only Og was left....his bed was nine  amos in length and 
four amos in width, by the amah of a man."
 
If "amas ish -- by the amah of a man" means an average amah then we can say 
 -- taking an amah as around 18 inches -- that his bed was around 13 and a 
half  feet long and around six feet wide.  If he needed a bed that big he  
was indeed monstrously tall and wide -- let's say twelve feet tall (we'll 
leave  part of his bed empty for his pillows and teddy bear).  
 
But Rashi says or implies that he was much bigger than that.  He says  that 
"amas ish" means "the amah of that particular man, Og."  If the man  was a 
giant then his personal amah, the length of his forearm, was much longer  
than the average man's forearm.  But just /how/ long was his personal  amah?
 
What always bothers me about this Rashi is that the measurements are so  
circular.  How tall was Og?  Nine amos tall -- measured by his  own amos!   
How long was his personal amah?  Who  knows?  But his bed was nine times the 
length of it.
 
For some comparison, a six-foot tall man would be about four amos tall,  
about four times the length of his forearm (approximating an amah as 18  
inches).
 
(Another curious point:  I have read, maybe here on Avodah, that  a 12-foot 
tall man, guessing that was Og's height, would be physically  unable to 
function very well because of the force of gravity on Planet  Earth.)
 
Was Rashi trying to give us some sense of Og's size or just saying "VERY  
VERY BIG"?
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160113/1959cbd1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:16:44PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: This reminds me of a question I've always had about Og Melech  Habashan.  
: See Devarim 3:11.  "Only Og was left....his bed was nine  amos in length and 
: four amos in width, by the amah of a man."
...
: But Rashi says or implies that he was much bigger than that.  He says  that 
: "amas ish" means "the amah of that particular man, Og." ...
: What always bothers me about this Rashi is that the measurements are so  
: circular.  How tall was Og?  Nine amos tall -- measured by his  own amos!   
: How long was his personal amah?  Who  knows?  But his bed was nine times the 
: length of it.

If that was the intent, then Og was a disproportionate freak, or perhaps
not a homo-sapiens at all. Given that he was a strong warrior, maybe
this suggests he was an alien? But I don't think that's the intent.

The quoted medrash doesn't say anything about the size of Og. Just that
his bed was much much bigger than he was, it was a proportionally huge
bed. I believe that medrash was explaining the pasuq as discussing how
big of a menuval Og was. He needed all that room to fit his night-time
"company".

: (Another curious point: I have read, maybe here on Avodah, that a 12-foot 
: tall man, guessing that was Og's height, would be physically unable to 
: function very well because of the force of gravity on Planet Earth.)

True. The world's tallest men in the Guiness Book of Records tend to
die young do to heart issues. When you double something's height, but
keep everything proportionate, the volume goes up 8 (2x2x2) times, but
all the areas go up 4 (2x2). It's called the Cube-Squared law.
The bane of engineers, who cannot just make a model of a proposed
bridge and expect it to behave just like the bridge itself would.

Weight will therefore go up by the cube of the ratio between his height
and the average (weight is going to be linked to volume, if we are all
made of the same stuff). But the support of Og's legs would only improve
by its square, since the key measure is the area of a cross-section of
his leg.

(Similarly, blood volume would increase by the cube of the lenght,
whereas heart strength would go up by the square. Thus the early deaths
of overly tall people.

This is why elephants not only have thick legs, their legs are even
thicker than other mammals in proportion to their size. And why ants
have lots of very skinny legs.

So, maybe Og was not a huge homo sapien after al.

: Was Rashi trying to give us some sense of Og's size or just saying "VERY  
: VERY BIG"?

The gemara, Berakhos 54a, requires making a berakhah on seeing the stone
Og lifted and attempted to throw on top of the Jewish People. Implying he
could pick up a stone comparable in size to the encampent in the Midbar,
3 parsa'os by 3 parsa'os.

And on the next amud (54b) we learn that Moshe was 10 amos high, held a
axe 10 amos long, jumped 10 amos high -- meaning a total height of some 30
amos (give or take Moshe's arm holding the axe) -- and he hit Og's *ankle*
taking him down. Something in the ballpark of 45 feet above the ground!

According to NASA <http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm>,
we would have to then multiply that by 12.6 or so to get Og's height --
566 ft tall. (Unless he held like the Chazon Ish...)

The human body plan would not survive.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I had asked why there's a significant difference between how we treat a
Mechalel Shabbos B'farhesya and a Mechalel Shabbos B'tzin'a. R' Micha
Berger responded about the M"C B'tzina:

> Well it means that he isn't willing to leave the community. And
> perhaps that is a big enough step to tell the community not to
> shun him. After all, the rasha of the Hagaddah is famously called
> a heretic for exactly this -- lefi shehotzi es atzmo min hakelal,
> kafar be'iqar.

The rasha of the Hagaddah is a great example, because we do *not* shun him
as a consequence of his actions. Rather, "hotzi es atzmo min hakelal," he
excluded *himself*: "Mah havodah hazos laCHEM?" He denies his Jewishness in
a manner more forceful than merely violating any particular mitzvah.

And it is helpful to contrast the rasha with the chacham. The chacham's
question seems similar to that of the rasha, until one realizes that the
chacham did NOT ask, "What are the mitzvos that your G-d commanded you?"
What the chacham did ask was, "What are the mitzvos that OUR G-d commanded
you?"

Despite using the word "you", the chacham includes himself in the klal. He
asks the same question that the rasha did, but the chacham asks, "I'm
Jewish too; tell me about this," in contrast to the rasha's defiant, "What
is it with you people?"

So my question is about two guys: They are both well-known for their denial
of the Torah and their violations of it. But they have different levels of
sociability, and different tolerances for being ostracized. So one of them
flaunts his violations publicly, not caring who knows and who sees. The
other keeps his violations quiet, but only to prevent sanctions from being
imposed on him.

> (RMR did posit that there was a measure of respect for Shabbos
> in his knowing its violation is something shameful.)

Who is RMR and which post are you referring to? In any case, this comment
underscores the point I'm trying to make, which is that the violations of
the Mechalel Shabbos B'tzin'a do NOT show any respect for Shabbos, and it
does NOT necessarily demonstrate that he knows its violation to be
shameful. Some might say that his policy of "violations only in private"
shows his desire to be part of the community, but I say that it only shows
a social or economic desire not to be shunned by the community.

Everything I've written here applies to the distinctions between B'tzin'a
and B'farhesya, but NOT to the distinctions between L'tayavon and L'hach'is.

It seems to me that the distinctions between L'tayavon and L'hach'is are
very sensitive towards attracting people back to Hashem. We understand that
some mitzvos can be very difficult, and we will put sanctions only against
the rebel, and not against the weak-willed. It seems to me that this is a
totally different mindset than the distinctions between B'tzin'a and
B'farhesya, which, to be honest, seem designed to attract people to Public
Orthopraxy, and are unconcerned with how people act in private or what
their beliefs are. Why would that be?

So I guess I can reformulate my question and address it to the history
buffs: At what point in our history were sanctions imposed on the violator
B'farhesya, and at what point on the violator L'hach'is? Which one came
first and which second? What were the circumstances that brought them
about? If they both came at the same time, that seems strange, but if they
came at different times, then the history might shed great light on my
questions.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160114/e9b5673d/attachment-0001.htm>

I have always assumed that the various rules for the calendar (eg lo adu
rosh) came over a period of time during the amoraic era. Thus in various
sugyot various rules are being implicitly used.

I received the following message from a ceratin well known rabbi

None of these rules were made part of a permanent calendar until Hillel
Hanasi did so. When Kiddush hachodesh was al pi re?iyah, there was no rule
of lo adu rosh. This psak is certainly the opinion of the Rambam.

Can anyone give me any sources on either side of this issue

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160114/3d8f4b3a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:32PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I received the following message from a ceratin well known rabbi
:> None of these rules were made part of a permanent calendar until Hillel
:> Hanasi did so. When Kiddush hachodesh was al pi re?iyah, there was no rule
:> of lo adu rosh. This psak is certainly the opinion of the Rambam.

According to Rabbeinu Chananel and R' Bachayei, "al pi re'iyah" was
always pro forma, "just" part of qiddush hachodesh and the date
of RC rosh chodesh was computed. See REMT's post
at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n229.shtml#01
(where he corrects my assumption that "al pi cheshbon"
meant an algorithm).

I revived the thread when I got to the topic in Y-mi yomi, see
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol32/v32n026.shtml#01
for a discussion of a few Y-mi's and TB Shabbos 87b.

But it comes down to just this point: does al pi cheshbon mean that the
rules accumulated over time, finalizing when R' Hillel Nesia established a
predictable calendar? (+/- one rule of dechiyah that came under machloqes
in R' Saadia Gaon's time) Or just that they compared RC to the expected
molad.

Recall that Abayei tells benei chu"l to continue keeping 2 days YT. He
was nifar 5 years into R' Hillel becoing nasi. So it would seem that RC
was not predictable before RHN's BD, and only no it became minhag avos.

However, lo adu rosh in particular is discussed by Tosafos (Pesachim 58b
"ke'ilu") who say that it was practiced during al pi re'iyah.

Since the rules that finalize in the algorithm when taken as a set
need not be all or nothing, Rambam Qiddush haChodesh 5:3 need not be
referring to lo adu rosh in particular. However, the Or Sameiach there
notes (among other things) Taanis 29b. Abayei experienced a Fri 9 beAv.

Ymi AZ 1:1 (vilna 2b) talks about lo adu rosh when asking a question
about something in Nechemia. It would seem that Tosafos do not hold like
the amora in question, R Yochanan bar Madaya.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:39:43AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On the contrary, the gemara says that one who never knew about any of
: the mitzvos is shogeg, *not* oneis, and must bring one chatas for each
: issur that he violated.   And that is the halacha.   I haven't got
: Yabia Omer online, but I can't imagine he says something different from
: the gemara and the Rambam.

It's a machloqes in the gemara (Shabbos 68b-69a). Rav and Shemu'el (based
on Munvaz in a beraisa) say a TsN is a kind of shobeig; R' Yochanan and
Reish Laqish (following R' Aqiva in the same beraisa) say it is an oneis.

Abayei in Shevu'os 5a gives the TsN as an example of someone who cannot be
a shogeig because to be beshogeig means one once knew the din and forgot.

(Makkos 9a says an "omer mutar" is be'oneis. Doesn't mention TsN, but
seems relevant WRT the people under discussion anyway.)

Lemaaseh we hold like Abayei, and thus RY and RL, and R' Aqiva. That's
what I was referring to. I was just speaking beqitzur since we did
this topic in 2012.

Yabia Omer (EH 8:12.2) cites the Rambam (Mamrim 3:3), who says "harei
hu ke'oneis". Not shogeig.

As for finding the YO, RDE's translation is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n119.shtml#01

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot

The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my
community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to
New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an
interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like
the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred or does someone
know that this has been done historically and there are sources?

KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160115/820d410f/attachment-0001.htm>

(After writing this letter, I decided that since it said nothing
personal and I think could be understood by someone who didn't hear the
question, and it took me time to write, and the topic may be of general
interest.... I decided to CC the chevrah on Avodah.)


RMT, I was listening to some year-old shiurim of yours on medical
ethics. I do not recall which ones, but to more than one audience,
when you discussed saving chayei sha'ah on Shabbos, I believe it was
besheim R' Henkin that you said that human life has infinite value. And
therefore there is no less reason for chilul Shabbos for chayei sha'ah
than for chayei olam.

So there's the more classical question: But piquach nefesh docheh Shabbos
is not framed in terms of the value of life being greater than that of
Shabbos, but because chalal alav Shabbos achas... Which is why we then
get into discussing mishum eivah for a non-Jew or a machalel Shabbos.

In terms of implied values, it would seem shemiras Shabbos and bringing
harmony to the world (to phrase mishum eivah in positive terms) would
each be of higher value than life.


BTW, I just realized another proof that mishum eivah couldn't mean a
pragmatic concern for not wanting to create a murderous hatred. (Aside
from the other uses of mishum eivah, like why a kohein gets the first
aliyah.) The gemara's only got this far by not assuming that life is a
higher value than Shabbos. One would therefore have to prove that the
lives saved by avoiding eivah are any more sufficient grounds for saving
someone than the life of a shomer Shabbos is (rather than the value of
the shomer Shabbos's future shemiras Shabbos).

I am not sure that asserting that bringing harmony to the world is more
valuable than life is a challenge to an Other-Focused Orthodoxy, but
placing Shabbos ahead of life is a question needing answering. After
all, you repeatedly quote R Yitzchaq Volozhiner's recollection that
RCV would frequently tell him, ?this is the entirety of a person: he
was not created for himself, rather leho'il le'achrini." I assume you
follow some sort of OFO...

Now for the less classical question: You then go on to discuss triage
considerations, and chayei olam get precedence over chayei sha'ah. But
that would require finding one infinity of greater value than another! Is
is that the value of human life is renormalizable?

(See http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19351 for the easiest explanation
I could find for renormalization in QM, at least, it's the first
explanation I understood. And I had to do renormalization back in college
for a solid state physics class.)

Or do we mean lav davqa infinity, just "very very large"?

I want to experiment with invoking the infinite value of life to explain
why when attackers say "Pick someone to turn over (or according to Reish
Laqish, also "Turn over Re'uvein" where Re'uvein is innocent of any chiyuv
misah) "or else we will kill you all", we do not turn over one victim --
even though the victim himself is going to die either way.

So, one approach could be to say that one infinity is no less than 100,
and there is no greater import to saving everyone over saving him.

Which would justify deontology (an ethics that places value on doing the
right thing) over consequentialism (maximizing the positive outcome)
when it comes to piquach nefesh. After all, all outcomes are equally
infinite. And it could mean that this machloqes in the gemara does
not prove that halakhah is deontological in general, when the outcomes
aren't life-and-death.

Deontology, in turn, links directly to the question of hashgachah
peratis. If everyone whose experiences have moral import, IOW, if
all people are subject to HP, then of course it's not for me to worry
about outcomes. If, like in the Or haChaim's explanation of why the
brother's threw Yosef in the pit, another's bechirah can change the life
I experience, then why aren't we consequentialists?

At least, in cases not involving the infinite value of human life. If
it truly is infinite...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



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


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


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

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.)