Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 034

Monday, June 7 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:20:28 -0400
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Re: Shaitel

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 16:16 -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/wigRCYDW.pdf

much clearer version on my page

[See <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/sheitel/RavWeiss-1.pdf> and
<http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/sheitel/RavWeiss-2.pdf>. -mi]

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:36:52 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: being dressed

In a message dated 6/3/04 12:06:30 PM EDT, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> More than that the gemara tells of the rabbis walking publically naked 
> down to the river and purposely upright as kavod to the brit milah

See the Gemara Shabbos 41a (and brought Lhalacha OC 2) that is only
when not facing people, when facing people one should cover. WRT in a
Merchetz see S"A haRav Mahadura Tinyana 2:2 that if possible to cover
with garment to do so.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sholom Simon" <sholom@aishdas.org>
sheitels and AZ

>>I'm sorry, which Rambam are we referring to again? In Lulav 8:1 he says
>>that shel AZ lo yittol l'chatchila v'im nottal yatza. Is that the one?

> Yes. You're right. I got a little carried away, he doesn't use the word
> bedieved. But that doesn't matter. I don't see how on earth you could
> possibly take a Rambam that says 'don't do it' and make it say 'only
> if it doesn't cost you too much'. Had the Rambam wished to say that,
> he would have. I know of no place where the Rambam says 'don't do it
> unless it cost you too much'.

There are places where Rambam says "don't do it", and then, sometimes
in a different section altogether says, "you can do it if...."

I do not know if any of those places include "cost too much" -- but my
point is that "don't do it unless x" might be of the form "don't do it"
in section y and "when x happens do this" over in section z.

(I hope this is making sense).

 - Sholom

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:34:15 -0400
From: <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Disputing previous generations

On Jun 3, 2004,  
>Turkel: R Zvi Lampel wrote:
>> On the contrary, R' Yochonon himself was the one who
>> apparently introduced the idea that contradicting a Tanna is a
>> problem. In the Gemara Yerushalmi on Paya 2:6....

Turkel continues:
> However, in many places R. Yochanan does disagree with tanaim ...

Please cite a source. My CD-ROM search came up with no results for R'
Yochonon and HaT'nan, or V'Hatania, etc.

> The achranom always answer that he must have had a tannaic source that
> we don't know.

Again, source, please.

> However, to me that sounds forced.

Let's wait and see...

> In addition according to recent daf yomi his
> rebbe, Chizkiah (according to one girsah), explicitly disagreed with
> a Tanna.

1. Fits in perfectly with the thesis that R' Yochonon, not his rebbi
(a very early amora), introduced the policy of refraint.

2.Still, please provide this source.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:06:38 -0500
From: Elly Bachrach <ebachrach@engineeringintent.com>
Re: Shaital Burning notice

Perhaps I missed some discussion on this:
Earlier we heard of a gadol saying a bracha (without shem and malchus)
over burning. Where is the source for either burning or saying a bracha?
Or is burning just a way to avoid hanaah and the bracha story just an
urban legend?

I ask because over this past shabbos my brother showed me the Rambam in
hilchos AZ, ch. 7, halachos 1 and 2. In 1, he lists AZ, meshamsheha and
Kol HaNaase Bishvilo as requiring biur. In 2, he lists AZ, meshamsheha
takroves AZ, and Kol HaNaase Bishvilo as being assur b'hanaah. It seems
clear from there that acc. to the Rambam there is no chiyuv biur on
takroves AZ.

In ShuA YD 146:14, the mechaber only mentions the AZ itself requiring
biur, and the rema adds meshamsheha and Kol HaNaase Bishvilo, quoting
from the BY from the Rambam. Without looking at the original Rambam you
could have thought he is including takroves, but since that is his source,
it would seem unlikely that he means any more than the Rambam did.

Now the enclopeida talmudit (biur AZ) does list takroves as requiring
biur, but the footnote just says to look in the section on takroves a'z -
which hasn't been written yet!

Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:43:57 -0400
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Re: Shaitel

On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 12:20 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 16:16 -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>> www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/wigRCYDW.pdf

> much clearer version on my page

[And I added: -mi]
> [See <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/sheitel/RavWeiss-1.pdf> and
> <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/sheitel/RavWeiss-2.pdf>. -mi]

and <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/sheitel/Forum62.pdf>


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:38:01 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com>
Re: Water Issue - copepods (using water filters on Shabbos)

Apparently, the water controversy has done wonders for the sales of
filters (the kind that one installs on their kitchen faucet). Question -
doesn't this present a problem on Shabbos. IIRC, using a filter on Shabbos
is OK if one is not makpid on filtered water - IOW, if one would drink the
water without the filter, then he can use the filter on Shabbos. However,
if one *is* makpid on filtered water - which seems to be the case with
the people who are refraining from drinking unfiltered NYC tap water-
then isn't there a problem of borer on Shabbos?

I just did a quick Google search and found the following
questions and answers from the Star-K and Orh Sameach (predating
the current controversy) which seems to confirm my suspicions:

> Q. Are you allowed to filter tap water on Shabbos, or is it borer?

> A. Assuming that there is no electrical process involved, water
> may generally be filtered on Shabbos. There is no concern for borer
> (separating) because the water could be imbibed even without the filtering
> and the filtering is only for added purity. Additionally, the filtering
> of tap water is usually only for chemicals invisible to the eye and does
> not violate the prohibition of borer.

> Ira Rosen from Rutgers asked: 
>> May one use a tap on Shabbat that has a water filter attached to it,
>> given that it separates certain items from the water? The filter is
>> permanently attached. Does it make a difference if the filter must be
>> turned on? Thank you for your time.

> Dear Ira, 

> It is permitted to use the filters you have described on Shabbat as
> long as the water is potable even without the use of the filter --
> and the filter is there "just to be extra safe." I assume that is the
> case where you live. In terms of "turning it on," as long as you did not
> need to throw an electrical switch, it would be permitted to "redirect"
> the water to the filter from the spigot.

> Source: 
> Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth - Shemirath Shabbath 3:56. 

I suppose that people can turn the filters off before shabbos and make
sure to bottle a lot of water on Erev Shabbos.

KT and Gut Shabbos

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:58:37 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #11, MC vo. 1 p. 100; #12, MC vol. 1 p. 99

At 02:56 PM 5/25/2004, we asked:

>The Shev Shmaitsa 1:1 writes that even though we hold safek orlah in Chu"l
>is permissible, nevertheless, if there is a rov l'issur we follow the rov,
>as that is not considered a safek. He cites Tosafos BB 24a as evidence,
>as Tos. there write that were karov to be superior to rov we would be
>required to follow its ramifications l'chumrah even in orlas Chu"l.

>This seems difficult, as at the end of the first perek of Kiddushin we
>learn that kol ha'meikel b'orlah, even though when it comes to EY if he
>is a yachid k'neged rabbim we reject his position, we can rely on him
>in Chu"l - but according to the SS why do we not follow the rov poskim
>even when it comes to Chu"l.


I think Micha got the MC's answer (not surprising, since it's Reb Shimon
based), and others pretty much did as well:

There is a great question as to whether rubba d'issa kamman is a gezeiras
ha'kasuv and not a birrur or a logical birrur just as is rubba d'leisa
kamman. The Shaarei Yosher Sha'ar 3 holds that rubba d'issa kamman is NOT
a logical birrur. Accordingly, the rov in the ruling of a Beis Din is not
a birrur. Hence, the safek remains intact - it is overriden by the psak,
but not eliminated. As a result, since we have a halachah by orlah that
even a remote safek suffices to be mattir, so long as a formal Beis Din
(or the kabboloh of the nation) has not decreed a definitive halachah,
halachah k'meikel b'Chu"l applies.

Karov, OTOH, is also subject to the question of whether it is a gezeiras
ha'kasuv and not a birrur or a logical birrur (see R' Elchonon to BB #78,
and, of course, the Bigdei Shesh to BB #9 - at length!). If it IS a
birrur then Tosafos is correct - it not only overrides, but eliminates
the safek, thus rendering the principle of halachah k'meikel inoperative.

Rabbosai, however, I think I have a great Hungarian resolution:

Since Orlas EY is forbidden b'hana'ah even b'makom safek, the owner has
no din mammon in it and therefore dinei mammonos are irrelevant. Its
status is purely a Yoreh Deah issue. A case of safek in Orlas Chu"l,
however, is muttar b'hana'ah and therefore the owner does have a din
mammon in the orlah. Me'meilah, since the halachah is that ein holchin
b'mammon achar ha'rov and that ha'motzi mei'chaveiro alav ha'ra'ayah
and that therefore a litigant can say say kim li like the meikel -
even if the meikel is a da'as yachid - the concept of rov poskim is not
relevant here. Were karov superior to rov, however - as Tosafos suggest -
then it would be like a "kol" (as in "all") - otherwise, how would it
be superior to rov? The owner therefore would not be able to say kim li...

I think that's not bad!

New one for this week:

In BK 56b we learn the law of "Perutah d'Rav Yosef" - viz. that a
shomeir aveidah is exempt from giving food to a pauper because he is
osek b'mitzvah (hashavas aveidah) and therefore pattur min ha'mitzvah
(of gemilus chesed or tzedakah). This would seem difficult, as osek
b'mitzvah pattur min ha'mitzvah (OBMPMHM) applies only when two mitzvos
aseh conflict - not when a mitzvas lo ta'aseh is involved. If so, how can
the shomeir aveidah be exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah - by not giving
tzedakah does he not transgress the lav of "Lo te'ametz es levavecha?"


See if you can come up with at least two resolutions!


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:34:06 +0200
From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>

>Recent daf yomi mentions the mating of some dis-similar anaimals and
>concludes that it is a miracle,

>If this a constant occurence how can it be a miracle?
>i.e. the geamara postulates laws of nature and when nature doesn't behave
>that way it is deemed a continuosly miracle (that such mating does not
>occur is not relevant to this discussion)

The Gemara said the natural mating observed of a snake with a "tzav"
yielding an "arvad" was miraculous.

Do you think this is a "constant occurence"?  If so, please present
Do you think the Gemara said this is a "constant occurence"?

If this is not a constant occurence, you seem to have no objection to it
being miraculous. You would seem to support this by your statement,
"that such mating does not occur." If you still have a question,
please explain.

Shlomo Goldstein

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:27:09 +0300
From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>

Shlomo Goldstein writes
> The Gemara said the natural mating observed of a snake with a "tzav"
> yielding an "arvad" was miraculous.
> Do you think this is a "constant occurence"?If so, please present
> evidence.

My "proof" that this is a constant occurence is the Artscroll 127a4
that says so!
If this mating happened only once in history that is the meaning of a
miracle - something outside of nature

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 01:53:57 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Miriam and Lashon HaRah?

I would appreciate a clarification of why Miriam was punished for speaking
about Moshe.

1) If Miriam was upset with Moshe because she felt that his separation
from his wife was bad - than speaking to Aaron to consult with him
should have been legitimate and thus not lashon harah? See Chazon Ish
(Letters 2:133). Thus she should not have been punished.

2) She claimed that since they were all prophets - if Gd had notified
Moshe to separate from his wife she would have heard about through her
prophetic powers - seems to be justification for her to conclude that he
had not been authorized to separate from his wife. The gemora Shabbos(87a)
in fact states that it was something Moshe decided on his own and that
G-d agreed to later.

"For it was taught, Three things did Moses do of his own understanding,
and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval:6 he added one day
of his own understanding, he separated himself from his wife,7 and he
broke the Tables. ‘He added one day of his own understanding’: what
[verse] did he interpret? To-day and to-morrow: ‘to-day’ [must be] like
‘tomorrow: just as to-morrow includes the [previous] night, so ‘to-day’
[must] include the [previous] night, but the night of to-day has already
passed! Hence it must be two days exclusive of to-day. And how do we know
that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave his approval? — Since the Shechinah
did not rest [upon Mount Sinal] until the morning of the Sabbath.8 And
‘he separated himself from his wife’: What did he interpret? He applied
an a minori . argument to himself, reasoning: If the Israelites, with
whom the Shechinah spoke only on one occasion and He appointed them
a time [thereof], yet the Torah said, Be ready against the third day:
come not near a woman: I, with whom the Shechinah speaks at all times
and does not appoint me a [definite] time, how much more so! And how do
we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave his approval? Because it
is written, Go say to them, Return to your tents,9 which is followed
by, But as for thee, stand thou here by me. Some there are who quote,
with him [sc. Moses] will I speak mouth to mouth...."

3) Was Miriam's sin that she did realize that her brother was superior to
her? Or was it speaking lashon harah? There are sources in chazal that
tzaras is the result of chilul HaShem as well as lashon harah. Thus the
punishment does not necessarily answer this question.

4) Was the problem that she didn't consult with Moshe to hear his side of
the story and perhaps to chastise him? According to the Choftetz Chaim one
can not say something negative about another without first chastising him.
I have found no commentary suggesting this. As a side point - are there
any discussion in the halachic literature as to whether the poskim agree
with the Chofetz Chaim that one should chastise before communicating
negative information to others. I assume there must be a dispute because
I have not seen observed that this is what talmidei chachomim actually do.

In sum - what is the lesson one is supposed to derive from these verses
in the Torah and how is it actually derived from the classic sources?
The Chofetz Chaim clearly states that it is a mitzva to remember what
happened to Miriam. My problem is I don't understand what actually
happened and why.

Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:48:58 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Miriam and Lashon HaRah?

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:53:57AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: 1) If Miriam was upset with Moshe because she felt that his separation
: from his wife was bad...

I was asked two relatively obvious questions in shul today....

1- Given that this was the complaint, then why does the Torah even mention
"ki ishah Kushis laqach"? Is it worse somehow because he was neglecting a
(formerly) Kushis woman than someone who was born into the Benei Yisrael?

2- This week's parashah, Hashem punishes Benei Yisrael "yom leshanah".
However, the BY only "carried their sin" for the next 38 or so years. How
can time spent in the midbar before the cheit be considered part of
"tis'u es avonaschem"?

Gut Voch!

Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:03:40 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Miriam and Lashon HaRah?

Not directly to your questions but I can't resist:
from R'YBS - the complete text can be found at

"On the other hand, Moshe had no right to give any preference, or to give
an additional second to his son, because he was the father of every child
within the Jewish community. So Moshe lost his children. He became the
Omein, the nursing mother, of K'lal Yisrael. And that is exactly what
God told him at the time of Mattan Torah:

You say to them, return to your tents, to your private lives, but you,
stay here.

Moshe realized it during the incident of the Mit'onenim. And that is
what Miriam, the true, loyal sister, resented. Does prophecy require
of Man alienation of his family? Does God require of the prophet that
he should forget his sister and brother, his children and wife, and
dedicate himself only to the people?

...Has he not spoken through us also?

And we live a beautiful life with our husbands and children and relatives.
And it doesn't interfere with our devotion to the people. That's exactly
what God resented and told her: There is a difference between you
and Moshe. An ordinary prophet does not have to sacrifice his private
interest, his selfish concern, his family, his father, mother children,
brother, sister; he can be a prophet, communicate with God, and at the
same time be a devoted father, a loving brother, and a helpful head
of the family. "Not so my servant Moshe." He's consecrated fully and
wholly to me. And that's how the Parasha of B'haalot'kha concludes its
long story - it's one story, this story - of a great march which could
have led us into the Messianic era,

On that day, God will be one and His Name one.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 09:06:41 +0200
From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Re: Miracles

From: "eli turkel" <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
>> The Gemara said the natural mating observed of a snake with a "tzav"
>> yielding an "arvad" was miraculous.
>> Do you think this is a "constant occurence"?If so, please present
>> evidence.

> My "proof" that this is a constant occurence is the Artscroll 127a4
> that says so!

did ArtScroll provide a source?

Shlomo Goldstein

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:08:07 +0300
From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
ArtScroll and Tiferes Yisrael

Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
<<In looking at the artscroll on recent daf yomi I noticed that the
English and Hebrew versions on Chullin IV seem to be considerably
different. I thought at one point the Hebrew was a translation of the
English. In the recent gemara (126b) on the half mouse - half dirt they
both mention the Tifferet Yisrael quoting Link that this exists. In
the English they mention that modern scholarship (ie Shnayer Leiman)
has shown that Link was misunderstood. This last part is omitted in the
Hebrew version. OTOH the Hebrew gives a reference to RSRH not mentioned
in the English!>>

I made some contributions to the ArtScroll Chullin (in the zoological
areas), and from what I understand, the Hebrew is more-or-less a
translation of the English, but not exactly. They start with the English
as their basis, but then they modify it. My guess is that the Hebrew
is a more conservative, charedi-politically-correct version. Aside from
the example you cite, which is upsetting (I had sent them my Mysterious
Creatures book, with a chapter on Prof. Leiman and the dirt-mouse, and
I had assumed that since they mentioned it in the English, it would also
be in the Hebrew!), I had another such case. In connection to the Gemara
about the animals with one kosher sign, their original manuscript cited
the oft-used proof of the Torah's divinity based on this topic. When I
reviewed the manuscript, I sent them my book The Camel, The Hare, And
The Hyrax, which shows in great detail that the proof does not actually
work at all, and they took it out of the English. But then I noticed
that the Hebrew version includes it!

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:27:27 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: ArtScroll and Tiferes Yisrael

In a message dated 06/06/2004 10:19:24 AM EDT, zoorabbi@zootorah.com writes:
> I had another such case. In connection to the Gemara
> about the animals with one kosher sign, their original manuscript cited
> the oft-used proof of the Torah's divinity based on this topic. When I
> reviewed the manuscript, I sent them my book The Camel, The Hare, And
> The Hyrax, which shows in great detail that the proof does not actually
> work at all...

Could you summarize bkitzur why the proof doesn't work?

Joel Rich

Go to top.


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >