Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 087

Wednesday, February 4 2004

• daf yomi & R. Chaninah
• Re: daf yomi & R. Chaninah
• Re: Hot pad selfheating footwarmer on Shabbos
• hot pad self-heating warmer on shabbat
• Re: Hot Pad selfheating footwarmer on Shabbos
• RE: Hot pad selfheating footwarmer on Shabbos
• Re: Mi Sheoson Nisim
• Parshas Hamon Seguloh
• Re:Mishna in Avos
• Re: Names of Avos
• Re: Direction of Tefillah
• Nesher
• Eretz Zavas Chalav uDevash
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• Re: Hasgachah Pratit/K'lalit
• Re: Mishna in Avos
• Re: Mishna in Avos
• Re: Mishna in Avos
• Re: zfardea=crocodile?
• FW: Guidelines for Rights to the Amud
• Direction of Tefiloh - Great Circle or Rhumb Line ?
• Re: Hasgachah Pratit/K'lalit
• Reversing a gazeira by Chazal? (Kilayim 9:2)
• Kilayim 9:7
• Airplane bathrooms
• Re: Nesher

In a recent daf Yomi R. Chaninah was not concerned about magic because it
does not affect tzaddikim. This implies like Rambam that only tzaddikim
are exempt from "ordinary" (magic) events.

However, in the very next gemara R. Chaninah states that everyone small
event comes from Heaven - against the Rambam.

How is this explained by the commentaries?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

At 12:13 PM 2/1/2004, you wrote:
>In a recent daf Yomi R. Chaninah was not concerned about magic because it
>does not affect tzaddikim. This implies like Rambam that only tzaddikim
>are exempt from "ordinary" (magic) events.

>However, in the very next gemara R. Chaninah states that everyone small
>event comes from Heaven - against the Rambam.

According to Reb Tzadok, that was R' Chanina' madreiga - he did not
consider himself a tzaddik, but that everything was a matnas chinam from
HKB"H - that's his name's basis (it is interesting that R' Yochanan is
also in that gemara). Since everything is a matnas chinam he was l'ma'alah
min ha'teva - me she'amar la'shemen v'yidlok etc. This is also reflected
in his mode of Kabbolas Shabbos.

BTW, I am reading Rabbi Chaim Sabbato's "Tium Kavanot" - which seems to
have made a big impact in EY. He takes as a davar pashut that Hashgocho
is on the Ummah, not the yachid - very unlike a sichah R' Tzuriel once
gave in Shaalvim that is very much in my memory based on the adage
"l'kol kadur yesh ketovet."

YGB 

IIRC, similar discussions ensued re solar heat and Bishul on Shabbos,
and whether one can melt ice .

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

The activation and use of heat producing materials on shabbat involves
the issues of nolad and hatmanah bedavar hamosif hevel (aish is,
presumably, not involved since there is, apparently, no glowing metal
involved in the reactions). I will let others comment on these halachic
issues with regard to their use in hand or foot warmers on shabbat.
I wish only to give a perspective on the chemistry involved - as best
as I can determine from the ingredients in such products that are listed
in the internet. Our questioner (or the maker of the particular product
that he has seen) has, apparently, not supplied all the ingredients.
A more complete listing of ingredients is iron powder, water, salt,
activated charcoal, cellulose, and vermiculite. Presumably, the plastic
bags with the above ingredients also contain air. However, the dominant
heat producing reaction is not direct oxidation of iron by the air since
that reaction would be slow for normal iron powder (It is rapid for very
pure unoxidized iron powder, but the associated heat production is then
great enough to cause the powder to become incandescent). Instead, the
dominant heat producing process is, I believe, the reaction with water
in the presence of chloride ions (salt solution) to form iron oxide
and hydrogen gas. The latter is absorbed by the activated charcoal.
The cellulose and vermiculite are insulator materials to help reduced
the rate of heat loss from the bag. With reference to the issue of nolad,
there may be a change in appearance of the iron powder after use in that
the used powder may be darker (less reflective) or even rust colored.
The change may not be obvious due to the presence of the black charcoal
powder. However, the iron powder can be separated from the mixture by
use of a magnet (unless the metal is completely oxidized). The product
is clearly one that is mosif hevel.

Yitzchok Zlochower

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:04:33 +1300
>> Contents: iron dust, activated
>> charcoal powder, cellulose, zeolite. Made in Korea.
>> How does this process work with respect to hilchos Shabbas. It is
>> presumably not aish -- but what chemical process is it?

>A question which might help to shed light on this: If very finely divided
>iron dust is exposed to air, it will burst into flame. This is not a case
>of carbon combustion...
>The question is, what, at the fundamental level, defines the halachic
>concept of 'esh'. What about initiating other chemical reactions? ...

See Chullin 8a, regarding the difference between Shekhin (a boil) and
Mikhvah (a burn) regarding Tzara'at ("leprosy"). Shekhin is defined as
inflamation not caused by fire, mikhvah as that caused by fire. Included
in Shekhin are inflamation from a blow from a stick or stone, a scald
caused by the heat produced by the natural decay of the residue in an
olive press, a scald caused by a natural hotspring, such as Tiberias,
and a burn from freshly mined lead. Included in Mikhvah are a burn from
a coal or ashes, from hot lime or hot plaster, and a scald from water
heated by fire. Interestingly, according to R. Yossi (Shabbat 39a), a
natural hotspring is also considered caused by fire, since it is heated
by the fires of Gehinnom. But Tosafot (Chullin 8a) questions whether the
idea that Gehinnom is a fire applies only to Shabbat, or also to Mikhvah.

Moshe Sober

 From: jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz
> A question which might help to shed light on this: If very finely divided
> iron dust is exposed to air, it will burst into flame. This is not a case
> of carbon combustion, rather a very fast 'rusting' reaction which looks
> like a carbon fire. 

Thanks for your help. To further support your suggestion I found the
following.  <http://www.sugar-gliders.com/heat-pack.htm>
> These heat packs are "turned on" when removed from the plastic outer
> packaging and exposed to oxygen in the air. High grade iron powder
> contained within undergoes rapid rusting from which heat is a by-product.
> We recommend placing the heat pack under a shallow amount of aspen
> shavings and the sugar glider inside of a nest box or sleeping pouch.

Jonathan

Also, check out Vol 2 of Nsiv Bina ( pp 232-233) for a number of similar
explanations.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Now available on the net..

The segulah of saying Parshas Hamon - 
shnayim mikro ve'echod targum.

http://www.tefillos.com/parshas_hamon.asp

> Does anyone have a reasonable understanding of the mishna about the 10
> things that were created bein hashemashos?

Look at the pshat of the Chasid Yaavetz ZTL who suggests that the 10
items listed were in adddition to everything previously created in the
sense that Bein HaShmoshos was the sepcial zman for these items. I found
this in an edition of the Peirush HaGra Hamvuor al Maseces Avos in the
editor's notes on that Mishna ( Avos 5:6). The Rambam has a similar pshat
in his Perush ( see Shelat edition ) and in Moreh Nevuchim and Shemoneh
Prakim discussed in the footnotes of the Shelat edition.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com 

[Micha:]
> The rule as I was taught it is that they didn't use the names of any of
> the ushpizin, if one counts Shelomo rather than Yoseif keneged Malchus.

Yitzchak and Yaakov are certainly ushpizin, and they are two of the most
common names of Chaza"l and their fathers.

[R' Moshe Sober also asked, "What do you do with R. Yitzhak and R. Yaakov?"
I don't have an answer. I didn't think it through critically when I was told
this one. -mi]

SBA wrote
> Interesting note on this subject.
> Here in Melbourne I have noticed that the direction of davvening depends
> which Shul you are in. Thus one has a choice of davvening in any one of
> 4 directions(!).

Interesting... in Auckland, New Zealand, the community centre has a
small shul and a big shul, facing two different directions!

But really, surely there is a psak halachah meforeshet on this question.
I have been told for instance that one is not obliged to build your
shul facing at an angle to the street, in roughly the right direction is
fine if you have building constraints or parallel streets. However as
a yachid, surely there is a simple ruling...

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> Which makes the expression "al kanfei nesharim" interesting. Why is the
> mashal that of being saved by a tamei bird?

What's the problem with an oyf or behemo temeyo?
Except for the fact that we may not eat them - they are creations of
the RBSO and are not metameh bemaga any more than a tahor animal.

Doesn't the Torah compare Yehuda - Aryeh, Binyomin -Ze'ev etc.?
Don't we call our sons by these names?
For centuries shuls decorated the poroyches on the oron hakodesh with
depictions of lions?

I never understood why the LR z'l told his chassidim not to let their
children play with toy animals of the non-kosher type.
I would have thought that naming a child after such an animal would be
much more serious. But 2 of his predecessors had the name Ber, and his
brother was Arye.

SBA

From: Micha Berger micha@aishdas.org
<<Why does the Torah bedavqa choose these two things to praise EY? Aren't
there other items that could equally well be used to show its bounty?>>

Rav Shelomo Carlebach, in the aforementioned sefer Maskil Lishelomo, first
notes that the first mention of zovas cholov udevash is at the seneh.
Moshe Rabbeinu in his beracha to Yosef, gave him the beracha of mevoreches
Hashem artzo, and refers to HKB"H as the Shochni Seneh, such that Yosef
is the source of chibas ha'aretz and of the reversal of the kelala of
Adam harishon (this last part he quotes from Ibn Ezra). In the process
of explaining this, he characterizes these two things (cholov and devash)
as being without worry, without tircha, and without pesoles. Both require
little if any cultivation, certainly in contrast to grain or fruit
crops, and little investment of money or time. Both come ready to eat
and don't need the tirchos associated with other crops. Both are rich
in nutrients besides being flavorful, and have been traditional foods
of babies who are not able to digest heavier fare; associated with this
is the relatively low amount of pesoles that they generate.

The mon, as the interim food between the seneh and bi'as ha'aretz, had
the same three characteristics, dok vetishkach. He goes further into
why Yosef in particular was the conduit for this, and why it was not
promised to the Avos as eretz zch"udv, ayen sham.

At 12:05 AM 2/1/2004, you wrote:
>The following list is from a late night reading of MmE I, pg 311. Please
>check yourself and post corrections:
>1- The 10 sefiros are how Hashem's actions look to us according to
>our stance.
>2- Even in nevuah one could not see His middos to their full extent.
>3- In nevu'ah one sees from our perspective deep spiritual things in
>physical forms.
>4- Since what one comprehends from nevu'ah is from our perspective,
>it is not a mashal at all. Rather, it is mamash the metzi'us as it
>relates to us.

In vol. 4 he describes the sefiros as a ladder for personal growth (of 
course me'ta'ta'ah l'eilah).

YGB 

[R' Jonathan Cohen:]
>I heard an interesting vort which got me thinking about these concepts -
>just wanted to throw out an idea that others and I thought of - I'm sure
>it's no chiddush but maybe someone can point me in the right direction.
>The vort was about the distinction between 'kol man d'avid rachamana
>l'tova avideh' and Nachum Ish-Gamzu's 'gam zu l'tova'.

I believe the Toldos YY makes this point - Yishai Chasida cites it in
Beuri HaChassidus LaShas.

YGB 

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Does anyone have a reasonable understanding of the mishna about the 10
> things that were created bein hashemashos?

See the Rambam in his Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos 5:5) that these miracles
were programmed into nature during Creation so that they would not violate
the laws of nature. See also Moreh Nevuchim 2:29.

See also Bereishis Rabbah 1:4 - "Six things were created before the
world, some which were created and others which arose in thought to be
created." In other words, being "created" at that time can mean arising
in thought to be created at a later time. See also Shitah Mekubetzes,
Nedarim 39b sv. uvnei.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

"Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> See the Rambam in his Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos 5:5) that these miracles
> were programmed into nature during Creation so that they would not
> violate the laws of nature. See also Moreh Nevuchim 2:29.

> See also Bereishis Rabbah 1:4 - "Six things were created before the
> world, some which were created and others which arose in thought to be
> created." In other words, being "created" at that time can mean arising
> in thought to be created at a later time. See also Shitah Mekubetzes,
> Nedarim 39b sv. uvnei.

I saw the Rambam, at least in the PhM. Why bein hashemashos? And why
each of those things? Can you summarize the other mareh mekomos if they
impact on these two questions?

Tzevas bitzevas asuya?  How do you understand that?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:11:26PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I saw the Rambam, at least in the PhM. Why bein hashemashos? And why
: each of those things? Can you summarize the other mareh mekomos if they
: impact on these two questions?

LAD:

Bein haShemashos is a time when both days overlap. To be created bein
hashemashos at the end of ma'aseh bereishis means to me that it straddles
the fence between a beryah chadashah and part of teva. Fitting the Rambam's
description.

Note though, that this implies that these particular neis-related objects
behavied in a different way than other nissim. Tzarich iyun.

Perhaps this is related to the two types of nissim described in Pachad
Yitzchoq ma'amaros 24 and 40, that I tried to summarize in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n017.shtml#15>.

: Tzevas bitzevas asuya?  How do you understand that?

In order for nature to get started, there had to be a first natural
cause, something that bridges the gap from ma'aseh bereishis to
"life as usual". As with a tzevas, it's hard to picture how the first
*natural* consequence got started.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

I assume RNSlifkin's objection to this identification is also because
he considers tanin to be a more likely candidate for crocodile. See his
article at <http://www.zootorah.org/essays/crocodile.html>.

However, he leaves one major qushya unanswered, IMHO. As he notes,
the mateh turned into a nachash at the seneh, and into a sanin before
Par'oh. However, one setumah away (Shemos 7:15 as opposed to 7:10)
the staff is the one that turned into a nachash. Are there two matos?

The ra'ayah RNS brings there:
> "It shall become a crocodile" -- Why did God tell him that it would be a
> miracle involving a crocodile? Because Pharaoh is compared to a crocodile, as
> it says, "the great crocodile crouching in the river" (Ezekiel 29:3). When
> Moses would depart from Pharaoh, he would say, "If Moses comes back to me, I
> will kill him, I will impale him, and I will burn him"; and when Moses
> entered, Pharaoh instantly became as mute as a stick. (Midrash Shemos Rabbah
> 9:2)

... be'einai also works if we assume the medrash rabba is referring to
a water snake. Perhaps even better, since venom is considered a form
of sereifah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

this is probably of general interest...
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/shulGuidelines.pdf> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Waxman, Mayer [mailto:waxmanm@ou.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:03 AM
To: 'Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org'
Cc: Harris, Batya
Subject: Guidelines for Rights to the Amud

From: Newman,Saul Z [mailto:Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org] 
> if anyone has sources and psak on the following issue 

> can [should] a shul limit the right to do the following to only 
> members--- 
> a. daven in the shul shabbat 
> b. "         "       weekdays 
> c.daven before the amud at any time 
> d.participate in any other shul activities- shiurim , trips, book 
> sales etc 

> does it matter if the person has financial resources to be a member [ 
> i e IS a paying member somewhere else] 

Dear Mr. Newman,

The attached document outlines the way the Agudah in Baltimore hands out
rights to the Amud. It does not provide Mareh M'komot, but considering
the source, it is assumable that all Halachic considerations were taken.
These guidelines were submitted several years ago; you can feel free
to contact the shul directly [contact information is on the sheets]
for updates, or to locate Halachic resource material.

I hope this is helpful.

Keep in touch, and do not hesitate to call on the OU for all your
synagogue matters.

Rabbi Mayer Waxman
(212) 613-8285

Further to recent discussion on this topic an article I compiled not so
long ago has now been posted at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/articles/mizrach.htm>

Although the article attempts to give a precise solution to the
nearest degree, it was researched at the behest of a local Rav of
Germanic background, who wanted (& now has, I believe) precision in the
"orientation" of his new Schule. In practical Halachic terms, such dikduk
is, I believe, spurious. I share a similar attitude towards a group of
local friends for whom I provided an algorithm for the calculation of
precise time for sunrise for the pursuit of tfilas vasikin. enuf sed.

ER

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 05:33:06PM +1300, jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
: The vort was about the distinction between 'kol man d'avid rachamana
: l'tova avideh' and Nachum Ish-Gamzu's 'gam zu l'tova'.

: The idea was that 'gam zu l'tova' represents a higher 'lishmah' version,
: because it states that the event in question is itself of worth, rather
: than 'l'tova avideh' ie rather than saying that even though it might
: not be worthwhile in and of itself it will lead to good results.

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 07:57:11AM -0500, reinforced this idea:
: I believe the Toldos YY makes this point - Yishai Chasida cites it in
: Beuri HaChassidus LaShas.

But I don't understand this chiluq for two reasons:

First, how does "letovah" differ from "letav avad"? Both use the
preposition "le-". If one means to include the consequences (which is
nishmah from the "le-") wouldn't the other?

Second, how do you divorce the question of worth of an activity from that
of its consequences, or a choice from its purposes? What does "worthwhile
in and of itself" mean once divorced from "lead[ing] to good results"?

I saw a different chiluq. NIG assumes that "gam zu letovah" applies
to every zu, to every act in his life. He takes as a given hashgachah
peratis in every facet of his life.

Rabbi Aqiva (who was a talmid of NIG's) formulation doesn't insist on
that. The event may be (using the Kuzari's taxonomy) avad enosh, avad
teva or miqreh. (In which case, the only letav guaranteed is that Hashem
values the existance of these others factors enough to choose inaction.)

: This idea effectively demolishes any kind of defence of tragedy in
: the world which relies on saying that it was for a good purpose in
: the end (even to increase isurin so that the righteous might merit a
: greater reward in Olam HaBa). Rather the tragedy must be of worth in
: and of itself....

To return to my 2nd problem with this peshat: How does one measure
worth? I assume it obvious that pointless tragedy is not letovah. And, if
you assume "gam zu litovah" is divorced from consequence, then point-full
tragedy can't be any more litovah than the pointless kind (even if it is
"letav avad").

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905      It is two who look in the same direction.

In Kilayim 9:2 we read "Hashirayim v'hakalach ain bahem mishum kilayim, 
aval asurim mipnei maris ayin."  (Kehati's translators write this as "silk 
and silk blast are not kilayim, but are assur b/c of maris ayin."

The Bartenura seems to say that nowadays, since everyone can distinguish 
these from cotton or linen, it is muter.

Is this reversing a gazeria from Chazal?

It seems the Chidushi Maharich (sp?) (on my page of Mishna) addresses this, 
but I can't really figure out what he is saying.  (And he ends it with 
quf"yud -- does that mean "this is difficult for me" ?)

Thoughts?  Comments?

 -- Sholom

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|   Sholom Simon     | sholom@aishdas.org               |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua Ari  4/18/93 - 27 Nissan 5753   |
|        and Eliana Rebekah  3/12/95 - 11 Adar-2 5755   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

And a question on Kilayim 9:7

The restrictions on benefiting from Kilayim seem pretty strict.  Not only 
can one not wear it, but one also can not use them to protect oneself from 
the rain or sun (see Kilayim 9:5 and 9:6)

And yet, in 9:7, Kehati notes that Rambam (Hilchos Kilayim 10:15) allows 
one to wear kilayim on one's foot (a special heal-less shoe) because the 
foot is less sensitive to pleasure than the rest of the body.

But isn't this still for the user's benefit?

Can anyone explain the Rambam to me?

Thanks.
 - Sholom

We seem to be taking for granted that our bathrooms (in houses) are not
beis hakisei, and, IIRC someone quoted the CI to that effect.

The Shearim Metzuyanim Behalocho (5:2) brings all the svaros to be maykil
and a list of machmirim and maykilim.
The CI is quoted as Nochon Lehachmir.
Ayin shom WRT airplanes where he discusses toilets on trains.

Akiva B.

SBA wrote:
>> Which makes the expression "al kanfei nesharim" interesting. Why is the
>> mashal that of being saved by a tamei bird?

> What's the problem with an oyf or behemo temeyo?
> Except for the fact that we may not eat them - they are creations of the
> RBSO and are not metameh bemaga any more than a tahor animal.

REMT wrote me privately, reminding me of the Rashi that explains "al kanfei
nesharim". If no other bird carries its young on their wings, and that's not
muchrach from Rashi, then it has to be "nesher".

But both replies indicate I didn't quite make my point. It can't be
coincidence that the *archetypal* owf temei is used for this promise. 
Something about it seems to say that the tum'ah is important in understanding
the role of nesharim in nevu'ah. IOW, I'm not asking "why a nesher?" or even
"why an owf tamei?" But rather, "why such a bird that is significant in its
being an owf tamei?"

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

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


[ 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         ]