Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 8

Sat, 17 Jan 2015

• 1. Are ravens cruel to their young? ()
• 2. Re: measurement error (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: conquest of EY by Yehoshua (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Bris in the midbor (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Bris in the midbor (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Re: Bris in the midbor (Isaac Balbin)
• 7. Re: measurement error (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Beit Yosef's Algorithm (Rich, Joel)
• 9. conquest of EY by Yehoshua (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. The Laws of Ribbis: Everyday Cases by Rabbi D. Neustadt (Prof. Levine)

 


"Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and  wander 
about for lack of food?"
(Job 38:41)
 
I read in one of my Jewish books that ravens are cruel to their young and  
don't feed them but G-d provides for them by bringing insects to their 
mouths.  The source was a gemara based on this pasuk in Iyov but the pasuk 
doesn't  actually say that ravens as a rule don't feed their young, it only seems 
to  be saying that /when/ the birds lack food, then Hashem provides.
 
What do you know about this?
I saw that wiki says juvenile ravens band together, eat carrion and  push 
the adults out of the way!
 
Could  it be that this "cruel to their young" idea refers to young  ravens 
but not to newly-hatched fledgelings?


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




-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150114/dc28d200/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:37am GMT, R' Akiva Miller wrote:
: I suppose it is simple to argue that Hanetz is defined by astronomy:
: If clouds in the east prevent one from actually seeing the sun rise...

: But to me, Alos Hashachar and Misheyakir are both in a totally different
: class....

This gets back to the question of whether these descriptions are
prescriptive or descriptive; IOW, whether Chazal were giving names and
reasons for pre-existing shiurim, or creating the shiurim for the given
reasons (or the reason implied by the jargon used).

BTW, of the two: It's hard to relate the concept of alos hashachar to
the mitzvah compared to (some shitos in) misheyaqir. If misheyaqir is
defined by recognizing your friend at 4 amos, it seems equally unrelated
to the mitzvos in question. But if it's defined by bein techeiles
lelavan or leqarti, then the relationship to tzitzis is straightforward,
and tefillin an arguable derivative.

BUT, that connection would imply that misheyaqir's connection to Shema
is as derabbanan as the third pereq of Shema.

(And perhaps the friend test is offered as an equivalent to being able
to make out one's tekheiles, perhaps a different shitah.)

So, if misheyaqir is based on techeiles, I can see why whather would
matter. But then why wouldn't the availability of white or nearly white
artificial light?

Replying to RDR, RAM continues:
:> do you claim that "the halachic process" is capable of being
:> mafkia the kiyum d'oraysa of saying k"sh at 10 AM? What's
:> the mechanism that enables it to do this?

: Yes, it certainly can, IF one has a sufficiently convincing argument. The
: mechanism is called "consensus". If you can convince enough people that
: you are right, then your view will become mainstream. It may take decades,
: or even centuries, but it can happen, and it *has* happened. A very
: simple example is the beginning and ending times for Shabbos...

I said something similar about the evolving kezayis. If one holds
like R' Chaim Volozhiner and uses todays olives, all good and well,
But if one is using a modern olive because they feel convinced that
commonly accepted pesaq is historically wrong, I had problems with it.
Because such evolutions are proper halachic process.

Also the Chazon Ish's conception of the 2 millennia of Torah might be
relevant to s"z q"sh. The CI might argue that s"z q"sh is set by
the rabbanim of the 2,000 years of Torah, and therefore if sleeping
patterns have changed during the 2 millennia of mashiach, that wouldn't
change the pesaq.

A case of nishtaneh hatoveh that raises no questions about how laws
of nature do or don't work.

At 9:50am EST (I think that's 13 min later), R David Riceman added to
the discussion. He starts with something I consider a detour, a discussion
of Chazal and science and gezeiros:
:> RAYKook's answer (as we called it in early iterations, later
:> found to be the Gra's) is that we do not know if the reason we have
:> is the only sevarah; in fact it's nearly guaranteed to just be one
:> line of reasoning among many. So, when Chazal's science is an
:> argument lequlah, we now have a reason to be machmir. But when we
:> question their scientific basis of being machmir, we have to assume
:> that there are other reasons to be machmir that still stand...

: I don't recall our previous discussion.  I have heard this in the
: name of the Gaon, but only with respect to gezeiros...

RAYK also applies it to other dinim derabbanan and pesaqim as well.

:                                    It's certainly not the normative
: position of those of us who are Ashkenazim: Tosafos uses the stated
: reason of a gezeirah as a reason to be meikal quite often, e.g., in
: the cases of mayim aharonim and mayim megulim.

This is not an issue of Chazal legislating or pasqening based on
a misunderstanding of the metzi'us. But
the actual realia changed.

("Nishtaneh hateva" could refer to either: sometimes it's that theory
changed, sometimes it's an assertion of very rapid evolution, sometimes
it can be explained by changes in diet or breeding -- metzi'us.
And sometimes? What do you do when the claim is nishtaneh astronomy:
Theory changed? Radical philosophy-of-science?)

Assuming those examples are gezeiros, and not pesaqim. I would think both
are what Tosafos believe are pesaqim based on assessed risk. If Tosafos
believed that mayim acharonim were about tum'ah, it would be a taqanah,
but the line of reasoning doesn't work anyway.

But look at hand clapping on Shabbos. It would seem that Tosafos and
Ashkenazim in general hold that sevarah only impacts the periphery of
gezeiros. Hand clapping can be excused (by many/most), but not playing
a piano. (Even though "no one" gets in the habit of tuning a piano
when playing.)

Similarly, while it seems that there are numerous exceptions, Ashkenazim
do observe the basic gezeirah of refu'ah beshabbos.

It gets back to what I said about halachic process (kelalei pesaq).
A gezeira stands because it was legislated, and the reason may not
be in play any longer.

The machloqes on basar kafui is also arguably about whether the
halakhah of kashering is a pesaq, and therefore if the need for
washing the meat refularly doesn't apply neither does the halakhah
or if it's a gezeira, and therefore stands even when the blood
is frozwen solid.

: But in any case there's apparently no gezeirah here...

Nor is it a question of incorrect science. I was making a loose
comparison, suggesting a possible leshitasam, not suggesting that
Chazal's zemanim are an instance of the already-discussed issue of
halakhos based on discredited natural philosophy (or science, although
Chazal predate science).

Still, you raised points I don't quite agree to, so I continued on
the detour my comparison inadvertantly created.

:             ... uv'kumecha is a univeral measure and not an
: individualized measure, and explaining that it's to be interpreted
: as leniently as possible.  Notably it goes out of it's way to
: preclude the possibility that it's a gezeirah: "hakorei mikan
: va'eilach lo hifsid".

:> This, to my mind is a second topic, which is why I'm not sure I
:> agree with how RDR framed the problem. This is asking about our
:> ability to measure, the modern world's scientific bent and love of
:> measurement, and the current texutal emphasis to halachic
:> observance, and how that means being more comfortable with objective
:> standard than using how something feels as measurement.

: I don't think it's a second subject.  I cited SZKS as an example
: precisely because it's a clearly delineated Biblical standard, which
: Hazal translate into a different, easily measurable standard.

I think we need to be even finer grained:

1- Objective: such as haneitz. Even sheqi'ah, which is subject to
   machloqes, that machloqes is on identifying an astromical
   event that is objectively defined.

2- Normative: the shiur is not based on the individual who needs it,
   but on a statistical measure of his contemporaries.

3- Personal: one can carry 4 of one own's amos in a rh"r on Shabbos.
   Melo lugmav.

4- Situational: at this point we're not really talking about shiurim,
   so it'll fall out of the conversation soon, but parhaps the time
   or distance being given are cause and effect.

   A Qara'i could have taken "uvqumekha" to mean that one should say
   Shema in response to the event of waking up.

The first two are one issue: Is a given shiur e.g. s"z q"sh a fixed
time which Chazal post-facto explained using the princes of their day,
or is it a normative time, and would shift as wake-up times of the
late-waking class of people changes?

And 1,2 vs 3,4 is a second issue: S"z q"sh does not depend on my own
wakeup time. The time is universal rather than personal. But pashut
peshat of "uvqumekha" could certainly have been taken that way.

Take misheyaqir... It could be any of the the first three:

1- It could be an astronomical event, which we were given a way (or ways)
to measure, but more precise ways could be invented later.

2- It could be a normative event, subject to when most people could make
the requisite recognition on that day.

3- It could be a personal experience, when can I -- the person who wants
to put on my tzitzis -- make the distinction that morning. (With special
cases for the blind and someone who wakes up with pink-eye.)

4- I can't see it being situational; that someone who got themselves
locked into an unlit closet are peturim from Shema because they have
no start time. Saying that that man would be patur from tzitzis because
he never reches misheyaqir would be theoretically more arguable, but I
don't think anyone holds that way.

And then there is the issue of precision of measurement, a "third
subject":

a- There is a precise measure, and since we're not mal'akhim there is
   always safeiq.

The AhS argues pretty conclusively that no one holds (a), because all
the primary sources use the more machmir version of the shiur even on
derabbanans. Rather, they discuss what level of consistancy is necessary
in measurement that would mean at times being meiqil in less significant
ways than the chumerah.

b- The measure as defined by halakhah is defined as a range.

c- The measure is personal.

How the AhS combines 1,2 vs 3 (universal vs persional shiurim) and b vs c
(universal vs personal measurement against those shiurim) confuses me.
I do not understand how he combines a known and rather small range for
the ammah (1/2 etzba variation) with asserting that the range is due to
subjectivity. He seems to be identifying personal shiurim (3, using the
example of tiltul 4 amos) with personal measuring (c). And that the only
time a measure is universal (although he may not be discussing zemanim)
is when we have to make something for the community (eg eruv).

But even if RYME and everyone else say that some of my distinctions
always overlap, I found that spelling out the issues to be resolved
to be useful.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 02:06:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: The gemara in Ketubot 25 talks about 7 years of conquest and 7 years of
: dividing the land
: (about the halachot of Challah)
: 
: I am bothering by several questions:
: 1) What takes 7 years to divide the land above and beyond conquest
: 2) A reading of sefer shoftim and melachim shows that in fact much of EY
: was not fully conquered until many years later

I think they answer each other.

After 7 years of conquering, Yehoshua got to the point where the
individual shevatim should have been ready to focus on their own
land.

After all, there was no intent to expel all the Canaanites, and there
would be a slow progression from conquest to suppressing rebellion to
policing. And at some point along that spectrum, the shevatim should
have be ready to accept some autonomy.

I do not know if one can entirely blame Dan (who end up in a totally
different area) and Shim'on (who end up living in an enclave within
Yehudah) or if Yehoshua made the hand-off too early. I would guess the
former, only because we tend to be told about nevi'im making mistakes.

Yehudah's late conquest of Y-m, or the holes in the other shevatim
were holes in a territory that was basically held.

: So the question is what happened at the end of the 14 years that brought
: the biblical law of terumah when in fact much of the land was still not
: conquered while beforehand the Jews were in EY but it was not "fully"
: conquered.

Rov.

: This might effect the status of terumah today

Terumah deOraisa requires division by shevatim. Which is why it didn't
begin until *after* the second set of 7 years. So, no problem today.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On 01/12/2015 07:02 PM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> I'm travelling and without seforim but from what I remembered in Yevamos
> Rashi implied a spiritual danger something which I don't see in Shulchan
> Aruch or Rambam and therefore it had to be a Psak for that generation
> by the Novi Moshe

Again, if it was a psak from Moshe Rabbenu then why didn't shevet Levi
follow it?  And it it were a hora'ah from Moshe Hanavi, then how did
shevet Levi *dare* not follow it?

The fundamental assumption RMR seems to be making is that those who didn't
circumcise their children did right, and I see no basis for that.  (The Radak
at your link assumes it from the fact that we don't find them chastised for
it, but we don't have everything that happened, so we don't know what Moshe
told them.  Malbim assumes to the contrary, that they did wrong, and explains
why Moshe couldn't just force them to do it.)

On 15 Jan 2015, at 8:55 am, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 07:02 PM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>> I'm travelling and without seforim but from what I remembered in Yevamos
>> Rashi implied a spiritual danger something which I don't see in Shulchan
>> Aruch or Rambam and therefore it had to be a Psak for that generation
>> by the Novi Moshe

> Again, if it was a psak from Moshe Rabbenu then why didn't shevet Levi
> follow it?  And it it were a hora'ah from Moshe Hanavi, then how did
> shevet Levi *dare* not follow it?

> The fundamental assumption RMR seems to be making is that those who didn't
> circumcise their children did right, and I see no basis for that.  (The Radak
> at your link assumes it from the fact that we don't find them chastised for
> it, but we don't have everything that happened, so we don't know what Moshe
> told them.  Malbim assumes to the contrary, that they did wrong, and explains
> why Moshe couldn't just force them to do it.)

My problem is how a Halacha reacts to a machalo which is seemingly
ruchniyusdike

Why wasn't the dorayso countered by Moshe speaking to HaShem on behalf
of the Ois Bris

One assumes he did but Hashem was unmoved and it wasn't a
physical/rational Sakono

But as someone told me I'm dipping my toes into dangerous waters


On 15 Jan 2015, at 8:11 am, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> But not necessarily a hora'as sha'ah. It would be a risk that is real
> that in any generation it would exist would be equally a matir. You're
> invoking a navi as need to identify that risk, which is different
> than a temporary override of halakhah.

Is a Ruchniyusdike temporal thing anything more than requiring a
horoas shooh?

Maybe Moshe should have pleaded so they could do Priya or whatever?

shedim don't somehow fit in my rationalist world

On 15 Jan 2015, at 8:55 am, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 07:02 PM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>> I'm travelling and without seforim but from what I remembered in Yevamos
>> Rashi implied a spiritual danger something which I don't see in Shulchan
>> Aruch or Rambam and therefore it had to be a Psak for that generation
>> by the Novi Moshe

> Again, if it was a psak from Moshe Rabbenu then why didn't shevet Levi
> follow it?  And it it were a hora'ah from Moshe Hanavi, then how did
> shevet Levi *dare* not follow it?

> The fundamental assumption RMR seems to be making is that those who didn't
> circumcise their children did right, and I see no basis for that.  (The Radak
> at your link assumes it from the fact that we don't find them chastised for
> it, but we don't have everything that happened, so we don't know what Moshe
> told them.  Malbim assumes to the contrary, that they did wrong, and explains
> why Moshe couldn't just force them to do it.)

My problem is how a Halacha reacts to a machalo which is seemingly
ruchniyusdike

Why wasn't the dorayso countered by Moshe speaking to HaShem on behalf
of the Ois Bris

One assumes he did but Hashem was unmoved and it wasn't a
physical/rational Sakono

But as someone told me I'm dipping my toes into dangerous waters


On 15 Jan 2015, at 8:11 am, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> But not necessarily a hora'as sha'ah. It would be a risk that is real
> that in any generation it would exist would be equally a matir. You're
> invoking a navi as need to identify that risk, which is different
> than a temporary override of halakhah.

Is a Ruchniyusdike temporal thing anything more than requiring a
horoas shooh?

Maybe Moshe should have pleaded so they could do Priya or whatever?

shedim don't somehow fit in my rationalist world

RAM:

<<Any specific examples?>>

Shabbos 6:9 "Bnei mlachim yotzin b'zugim", 128a "bnei mlachim sachin al 
makoseihem shemen vered".

RMB:

<<BUT, that connection would imply that misheyaqir's connection to Shema 
is as derabbanan as the third pereq of Shema.>>

Or that people don't get up until they can see their way around 
outside.  Which could well imply (I think RAM <not Auntie Mame!> alluded 
to this but I couldn't find the citation) that before electric lights 
people did get up later on foggy days.

RAM (cited by RMB):

<<Yes, it certainly can, IF one has a sufficiently convincing argument. 
The mechanism is called "consensus".>>

But consensus doesn't appear suddenly; it develops over time.  To take 
another example - - the earliest time for KS at night.  The mishna says 
"misha'ah shehacohanim nichnasim ..."  The braysa adds "siman ladava 
tzeis hakochavim".  The poskim say "tzeis hakochavim".  But I've 
certainly never seen any laments of the type "when I was a boy we used 
to watch the cohanim go eat trumah, and that's how we knew when to say 
KS, but now that there's no more trumah ba'avonoseinu harabim we have to 
look at the stars."  I've never seen any indication that before the 
consensus there were differing customs.  I've never seen any arguments 
about when SZKS should be in the absence of princes.  So where's the 
evidence that there was a process which "may take decades, or even 
centuries, but it can happen, and it *has* happened"?

RMB:

<<RAYK also applies it to other dinim derabbanan and pesaqim as well.>>

Where does he say this?

<<This is not an issue of Chazal legislating or pasqening based on a 
misunderstanding of the metzi'us. But the actual realia changed. >>

I don't know why you mention misunderstanding.  Your claim was that the 
stated reason for a gezeirah could be one of many possible reasons.  I 
cited the examples of Tosafos (and the Rambam using "taam" in the 
singular) as evidence that they did not agree with that.

But what bothers me about the claim that SZKS is a gezeirah is that it 
is a vacuous gezeirah.  You're allowed to say KS with the brachos after 
9 AM.  So what's the content of the gezeirah? And, in spite of what RAM 
wrote, I am aware of many synagogues which recite KS on Shabbos after 9 
AM.  So where is the consensus?

David Riceman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150115/4210cbd7/attachment.htm>

Some time ago I asked:
The Beit Yosef in his introduction provides his algorithm for arriving at
psak. The first step is to look at Rambam, Rif and Rosh and go by the
majority.  He then states what to do in cases where one of the 3 has no
opinion etc.   I was wondering if anyone has ever done a study of all or a
subset of the Beit Yosef's rulings to see what percentage of the rulings
support the claimed algorithm.	 I have a specific example in mind where
all 3 of the amudim omit a particular requirement/ruling and yet the Beit
Yosef follows the Tur who does quote/require  the ruling.

As a follow up issue: If you always reach a conclusion on an issue based on
a vote of 3 authorities (assuming the only choices are permitted or
forbidden), if you then codify the results without the reasoning and then
try to produce a function to project results in other cases, won't this
data set of results yield a function which is likely to project results in
some other cases which differs from what the 2 out of 3 authorities'
algorithms of Psak would have resulted in and which does not have a
consistent theoretical basis?



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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150115/e5d5670a/attachment.htm>

<<After all, there was no intent to expel all the Canaanites, and there
would be a slow progression from conquest to suppressing rebellion to
policing. And at some point along that spectrum, the shevatim should
have be ready to accept some autonomy.>>

I always understood that the mitzva was to remove all the Caanainites, see
the story with the Giveonites. Certainly Sefer Shoftim seems to fault the
Jews for not expelling the Caananites.

As I pointed out in the previous post there were parts that were conquered
by Pharoh in the time of Shlomo.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150116/709ad0e5/attachment.htm>

R' Micha Berger asked:

> "Shabbos hi miliz'oq" makes sense to you in general? How
> does saying "I know this is inappropriate" make it any more
> appropriate to make a personal baqashah on Shabbos?
>
> The thought crossed my mind that it MIGHT be related to
> permitting a shevus dishvus for a nofel lamitah who is a
> choleh she'ein bo saqanah. Could the exclamation serve the
> role of a shinui, perhaps?

I'll respond in a moment, but first I'd like to take a little detour to comment on something R' Micha wrote in a concurrent thread:

> But if it's defined by bein techeiles lelavan or leqarti, then
> the relationship to tzitzis is straightforward, and tefillin
> an arguable derivative.

I love that word, "arguable". I take it to mean: "I don't necessarily
believe what I'm proposing, and either you or I could argue for or against
it, but it is helpful for the current discussion, and that's why I'm saying
it."

I raise this point merely to say a Mi Sheberach is "arguably" NOT a bakasha, even WITHOUT the words "Shabbos hee miliz'ok".

I've mentioned a few times that I enjoy translating Lashon Hakodesh to
English. It helps me to insure that I really understand the words and their
nuances. In this vein, I've often pondered the meaning of the imperfect
tense of Hebrew verbs. In ordinary speech, it is usually translated as
English's future tense, but occasionally as a command. (I think that this
might be present somewhat even in English itself, especially a very formal
or old-fashioned English.)

An excellent example of what I'm talking about is in the Mi Sheberach
itself. Exactly what do we mean when we say "Yivorech viyrapeh"?
Linguistically, it might be a simple declarative statement about the
future: "He will bless and heal..." But that's not how most translators
take it. Hertz, Birnbaum, ArtScroll, and Sacks all write: "May He bless and
heal..." - a hope, a request, a prayer: a bakasha.

It seems that RMB, too, takes it as a given that these words are bakasha.
But it is my suspicion and suggestion that they are arguably not. I will
take my evidence from something which I think we'll all agree *IS* bakasha:
the 13 middle brachos of the weekday Shmoneh Esreh.

I will now list a few words from each of those 13 paragraphs. Consider the
meanings of these words. If your dikduk skills are better than mine, try to
pin down exactly what tense each word has. But even if your dikduk skills
aren't that great, you can still consider which ones are closer to the
future tense ("you will do it") and which ones are requests ("please do
it") and which ones are commands ("do it!")

Chanenu
Hashiveinu, Karveinu, Hachazireinu
S'lach, M'chal
R'eh, Riva, G'aleinu
(Aneinu, Heyeh)
R'fa'einu, Hoshi'einu
Barech, Tein, Sab'einu
T'ka, Sa, Kab'tzeinu
Hashiva, Haseir, M'loch
Al T'hee
Yehemu, Tein, Sim
B'neih
Tarum
Sh'ma, Chus, Kabel

Arguably, some of those might be in a tense other than the imperative
command. But even so, the Thirteen Middle Brachos as a group are clearly
and unequivocally requests. But the Mi Sheberach, not so much.

By comparison, the Mi Sheberach can be seen less as a request, and more as
a declaration of faith: "He Who blessed the avos *will* bless and heal this
choleh, because of the tzedaka which he/we will donate..."

In this light, the phrase "Shabbos hee miliz'ok" is NOT a magical
dispensation (like "nisht Shabbos geredt"), but is a serious underscore to
what the whole paragraph means: "We are not begging. We are not even
asking. We have the confidence and faith that He will make it better."

Now, to give a direct answer to RMB's question, I propose that this
declaration of faith is the true meaning of the Mi Sheberach, even without
the extra phrase. And therefore, there's actually no problem at all with
saying it on Shabbos. On the other hand, the poskim are aware that the
average person is a bit unclear about the words "yivorech viyrapeh", as I
wrote above, and so the Rama requires the version of the text which
clarifies the *lack* of bakasha. (But he only requires that phrase for a
choleh sheAIN bo sakana, probably because even melacha would be allowed for
a seriously ill patient, so even real bakashos would be okay too, as
explained in Igros Moshe O"C 1:105.)

Arguably.

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Skin Tightening For Men
Men, reduce the look of wrinkles and sagging skin without leaving home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b882dba86742db4627st03vuc

 From http://tinyurl.com/px96eyf

EVERYDAY CASES INVOLVING INTEREST

Although the Biblical prohibition against charging interest (ribbis) 
on a loan is well-known, few people are aware of the many 
applications and ramifications of the laws of interest. Transgressing 
these laws could result in the violation of up to six negative 
commandments according to the Rambam(1), so it is imperative that we 
examine some everyday situations where the laws of interest apply.

SOME FORBIDDEN FORMS OF BORROWING:

A loan may not be made with conditions which will benefit the lender. 
He may not stipulate that in exchange for the loan, the borrower 
should patronize him, refer others to his or another person's 
business(2), be given a job(3), or make a donation to tzedakah(4). It 
is permitted, however, to lend money with the stipulation that the 
borrower will accept a job offer or take a course, etc., if the 
lender's aim is solely to benefit the borrower or to ensure that his 
loan will be repaid(5).

It is forbidden to lend money to a handyman on condition that he will 
work for the lender at a lower wage(6).

See the above URL for more. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150115/6d8faeec/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)