Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 048

Wednesday, July 13 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:34:54 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Regarding the most recent issue of "Mesora" Jewish Times - The Weekly Journal on Jewish Thought

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:34:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: As well, when Shlomo Hamelech built the Beis Hamikdash in Yerushalayim,
: he specifically asked God to heed the prayer of non-Jews who come to
: the Temple (1-Kings 8:41-43). The Temple was the universal center of
: spirituality, which the prophet Yishayahu referred to as a "House for
: ALL nations."

There is a more explicit pasuq that makes your point about Torah in
    "Ki miTziyon teitzei Torah,
    udvar H' miYrushalayim."

And yet, teaching Torah to non-Jews is assur. At least some parts of
Torah, which parts is a matter of dicussion. An issur that is explained
as deriving from either geneivah (theft of our yerushah) or eishes ish
(using the marital metaphor for maamad Har Sinai).

The Torah that is for all humanity is not the Torah that is for Jews.
Rather, that Torah is us. Which is why both of the prophecies we named
are about the messianic era. Until then, our embodiment of the Divine
Truth is imperfect. That is how we will be an Or laGoyim. "Or" is a
classic metaphor for Torah. The comparison is:
	    our Torah : BY :: BY : humanity.

This is the essence of the Jewish mission. Yahadus is to set us on the
track of being humanity's priesthood. The complete human is one who keeps
the 7 mitzvos benei Noach, fulfilling the purpose of a universe created
in a week. We have a second mission beyond that (one that goes beyond
the week into the 8th day for a beris, Shemini Atzeres, the 8 string of
tzitzis, etc...) for the purpose of enabling the core mission for all.

"Yisrael, ve'Oraisa, veQBH chad."


Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:08:49 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: REED and Ahavas HaShem

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:08:08PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: My understanding of Rav Dessler is that love is not a sort of gratitude
: which I feel to the one who has given me something. Rather, it is related
: to the emotional investment when I give *TO* someone: Because I have
: given to the other, I want him to succeed, and I feel good when things
: go good for him.

Not just R' Dessler, it's also a major theme in the introduction to
Shaarei Yosher and comes up a couple of times in Or Yisrael.

: I guess my question might be phrased like this: I know that HaShem
: wants and appreciates the mitzvos that we do. But this knowledge is an
: intellectual knowledge. How can I transform it into an emotional feeling?

You're looking for a route to get from the action to the mind to the
heart. However, I think the proper route is from the action directly to
the heart. The experience shapes the emotion, not our contemplating or
thinking about what it is we're doing and the signifigance thereof.

Thought is also an experience; you experience thinking about X. Repeated
thought causes emotion. Not through effort, or yet another conscious
thought, just by each time incrementally changing you by minute
amounts. The Sefas Emes writes on Shema, "vesamtem es devarai eileh *al*
levakhem": Pile them up *on* your heart, eventually they sink in. Don't
try working on *making* them sink in. Change is through repeated
experience, not thought itself.

IOW, you're seeking an intellectual way of crossing beyond the
intellectual. Isn't that inherently paradoxical?


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: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:14:23 +0300 (IDT)
From: Efraim Yawitz <fyawitz@actcom.co.il>
RAF letter (Torah and science)

Rav Aharon Feldman, in his letter about the Slifkin affair, seems to make
one very dubious assumption, i.e., that people believe that Hazal made
errors in scientific matters because they read it in the words of Rav
Avraham ben ha-Rambam or anywhere else. Based on this, he attempts to
prove that this opinion is not accepted l'halacha, etc. The truth is,
those of us who are convinced that Hazal did not have anything like
modern scientific knowledge think this way because it is obvious to
us from the Gemara itself that Hazal did not have anything like modern
scientific knowledge. The statements of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam and
others only serve to make this obvious fact less problematic for us,
but it would be just as true even if no Rishon said it. I sincerely doubt
that even one person questions Hazal's scientific knowledge only because
they read this point of view in Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam or elsewhere.
All this makes Rav Feldman's halachic discussion rather irrelevant.

Here is one example of what I mean which I noticed many years ago, and
I think it is particularly significant because it is based on a Gemara
where Hazal do use some kind of scientific method and reach a conclusion
which is entirely in accordance with present-day understanding, and
nonetheless illustrates quite clearly that Hazal's understanding of the
physical world was on the level of their times rather than ours.

The Gemara in Nazir 39a-b discusses the question of whether hair grows
from the roots or from the ends, and brings various proofs to this
question, finally deciding the issue that the hair grows from the roots
based on the fact that people who dye their beards have undyed hair
growing in at the roots. As I said, this is a quite correct conclusion
based on valid reasoning, but what does it tell us about the level of
Hazal's knowledge of physiology? Obviously, they were not aware of the
existence of the hair follicles or of the fact that hair is a strand of
protein fibers not containing any living, growing cells. We should be duly
impressed with the clear, inquisitive thinking of Hazal on this issue,
and of course with the lamdus involved in the original question and the
'nafka mina', but we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that Hazal had
anything approaching a modern grasp of physiology. I think there are
many other examples like this; this is just the one which impressed me
enough to make me remember it.

Perhaps those who ascribe superhuman knowledge to Hazal will explain this
and similar Gemaras as being allegories to deep ideas or as intentionally
hiding their 'secret' knowledge, but I'm afraid that I just can't take
such interpretations seriously in the context of the Gemara, a purely
halachic discussion which no one forced Hazal to include at all, and
which could have been decided by a simple assertion of fact without
any proofs. I think it is exactly Gemaras like this, where Hazal are at
their scientific best, which illustrate just what that best performance
was and what it wasn't.

Of course, none of this is intended to denigrate Hazal, c"v, nor does it
actually do so. It is very sad that some people today feel it necessary
to portray Hazal as something other than what they were in order to have
respect for them. It is worth remembering how much of our modern knowledge
is based on technology which didn't exist at all even a century or two
ago, and to realize that the people of that time were not to blame for
not knowing things which they couldn't possibly know. For example, a huge
amount of modern biochemistry is based on the existence of radioactive
tracers, which of course couldn't be used before radioactivity was
discovered in the 1890's, and almost all modern scientific equipment is
electrical or electronic, precluding its existence before the advent of
electrical technology in the 1800's.

All this is so obvious that it sounds kind of silly to even say it, but
it seems that there are those who need to hear it (and unfortunately,
probably aren't listening.) In any case, Hazal's own words are quite
enough to show us what the caliber of their knowledge was, and everything
which is being quoted by Rabbi Slifkin and others from Rishonim and
Achronim only serves the purpose of assuaging our loneliness a bit.

Kol Tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 04:04:44 -0500
From: "brent" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
Yeridas Hadoros

> The question is the permissibility of accepting the Besht against
> Rishonim.

There is no prohibition against disagreeing with a Rishon. It is
something which has evolved and accepted as a "general" rule, but no
halacha is recorded about it, at least not one that is meforsum in
Klal Yisrael. The Gra, Besht, Ohr Sameyach, and RMF all disagreed with
Rishonim at some point. Any rav that one asks today as to whether it is
permissable to disagree with a Rishon will be disagreeing with the Gra,
Besht, Ohr Sameyach and RMF and in a machlokess between a current rav
and one of them, it seems safe to hold by what those Achronim believed.

But that brings up a question that I have sought for years and never
been given an answer to. What is "Yeridas HaDoros"? Can anyone define
it? What were they greater in? Intelligence? Spirituality? Such a
huge emphasis is put upon this concept yet I've never found anyone that
could put their finger upon what exactly yerida entails. Was the average
Jew really so much different and greater than we are? What was greater
about them? If so, how did that parallel throughout the world? Were the
non-Jews also greater than now? What about rashayim? Were they greater
than us now and really they were only rashayim on their madrega? Or was
their rishus magnified to be more evil than rashayim now? There needs
to be a balance if our chachamim were greater in some way, then that
had to echo throughout the beriyah.

Why do we traditionally not disagree with them? Is it because we could
never really be able fathom their thoughts and therefore it is truly
wrong? Or is it just a convention that the Torah world has created in
order to establish a system of Torah transmission? The first time that
we see the concept of not disagreeing with a previous era is when the
Amora'im would not disagree with Tanna'im unless a previous Tanna held
that opinion. When were the next decisions made that it was forbiden
to argue?\

brent kaufman 

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:51:58 -0400
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Re: [Hirhurim - Musings] Shaking Hands With Women

In Avodah V15 #46, Akiva Miller wrote:
> Or perhaps contact is not assur at all, or is only a minor issur as
> compared to hana'ah. But it is very difficult to define and legislate
> against hanaah, while contact is a much more objective point to define
> and legislate.

I think that hana-ah is at least part of the idea, and what you write
segues with the "derech chibah" criterion (as well as with how some
Jews greet non-"q'rovim" relatives ;-)). The internal issue of hirhurim
and SZ l'vatala, with the external (what you called "objective") point
being ervah (including the avoidance of seeing or hearing it), may not
fit nearly as well, but the concept of defining the externalities in
order to avoid the internal effects seems to be similar.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:02:47 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Re: Hogwarts Shabbos

>   a. One may use on Shabbath the contents of a parcel delivered that
>   day by a non-Jewish mailman.
>   b. This is so provided that the sender was not particular that the
>   parcel should be delivered on Shabbath.

Why is it the sender's intent that is important here? It's physically
possible for the delivery service to deliver the book on Friday, and the
reason they won't do so is not for my benefit but because the publisher
insists on it. Mitzidi, I'd be perfectly happy for them to deliver it
on Friday - in fact, I'd be more than happy :-) So why should I care
whether it's the postman himself who decided to deliver on Shabbos, or
his employer, or the employer's customer (the supplier), or the customer's
business partner (the publisher)? The net result is that they delivered
on Shabbos rather than Friday for their own reasons, not for mine.

Zev Sero

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:44:02 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Re: chronology [was: David Rohl]

[I am forwarding comments written to me by Lisa Liel --TK]

In Avodah V15 #46 dated 7/11/2005 "Aryeh Englander"
<iarwain1@earthlink.net> writes:
>I would just like to point out something that might be of considerable  
>interest to this discussion group:

>There has been  considerable talk amongst historians, specifically 
>Egyptologists, about  revisions that should be made to the standard 
>"othodox" chronology of  history. The "new" chronologies range from a 
>revision of about 70 years,  to revisions of up to 350 years. Obviously, 
>this would change the timing  for Yetzias Mitzrayim and possibly many other 
>things as  well.

I'm not sure how you mean this. The date of Yetziat Mitzrayim is
determined by Torah sources. So revisions of ancient history wouldn't
change when it happened. It would only change which period of ancient
history lines up with Yetziat Mitzrayim.

> The most well-known chronology revisions are those of  of Professor David 
> Rohl.

Well, to be precise, the most well known revision is probably that of Dr.
Immanuel Velikovsky. And his work is about as widely accepted as Rohl's.

David Rohl stands out mostly because he is a skilled self-promoter.
His work originated in Velikovskian journals, and he managed to turn
it into 3 books (so far), a television miniseries, and a fan base that
seems more appropriate to a rock and roll musician than a historian.

>(His theories were recently described  briefly in a Mishpacha article but 
>the article did not do him justice  IMO.) His book is called "Pharaohs and 
>Kings: A Biblical Quest" in  America and "A Test of Time" in the UK. Be 
>warned that the book can get  very technical (but, IMO, it's much more 
>interesting and MUCH more  intellectually stimulating because of that). 
>Other books are "Legend:  Genesis of Civilization" (a more speculative book 
>on identifying the  people and places in Beraishis) and "The Lost 
>Testament". Another famous  book with an alternative chronology is 
>"Centuries of Darkness" by Peter  James.

James and Rohl worked out their revision model together in the
Velikovskian journals I mentioned, although their revisions later
diverged slightly. /Centuries of Darkness/, which is more difficult
to obtain, James being less skilled at the publicity game than Rohl,
is a far better book, and the level of scholarship is far higher.

That said, neither revision is any improvement over the conventional
chronology. Both retain highly cultured "Canaanites" who spoke Biblical
Hebrew and left writings behind that look suspiciously like things
in Tehillim. Both lack any serious remains of King Solomon's empire.
Both move the only match in the archaeological history of Israel for
Solomon's empire into the period of the Judges.

Professor Israel Finkelstein, who has gotten everyone hysterical with
his claims that David and Solomon never existed, points out, correctly,
that there are only three points in the history of Ancient Israel when a
new national group, culturally distinct, appeared. Once at the beginning
of the Early Bronze Age. Once at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.
And once at the beginning of the Iron Age. Recognizing these as the
Canaanites, Israel, and the Samaritans who were settled in the ruins of
the northern kingdom of Israel brings the entirety of the archaeological
record of Israel into complete harmony with the history we find in
Tanakh. Neither the James nor the Rohl revision do anything of the sort.

>Might Rohl's chronology revision affect Sumerian  history as well, thereby 
>removing 350 years from the accepted chronology  of Ancient Mesopotamia? 
>This would have the very interesting effect of  placing the date of the 
>Sumerian flood story 350 years closer to us than  previously assumed. 
>Historians (at least, I've heard it said b'shmom)  think that the Sumerian 
>flood happened around 2900 BCE. We say it  happened around 2200 BCE. That's 
>a difference of 700 years and a bit  shver (especially since we have very 
>detailed records of events around  2200 BCE, and there's no mention of a 
>Mabul). But with this chronology  change it's only 350 years, which may be 
>a lot easier to work with. And  especially if you believe the 163-year 
>discrepancy in Persian  chronology, then the difference between our records 
>and the Sumerian  records is only about 200 years.<<

You need to leave the absolute dates alone. When historians say
"2900 BCE", they mean "the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, which we
currently date to around 2900 BCE". When they say "1200 BCE", they mean
"the end of the Late Bronze Age, which we currently date to around 1200
BCE". It's shorthand. There are no actual documents dated "2900 BCE".

The Mabul almost certainly happened before any written records that
have been discovered. It's pretty useless to go looking for it that way.
As far as the Mesopotamian flood is concerned, our tradition records a
local Mesopotamian flood that wiped out a majority of the 70 nations
at the time of Dor HaPalga (the Tower of Babel). Their flood epic is
either referring to that flood, or it is mixing that flood and the
Mabul together.

> (Also note that,  according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the first 
> really historical  personality in Mesopotamia is dated to only about 2700, 
> so dates that  far back are very variable anyway.)

>On the other hand, I think  Sumerian chronology is mainly based on an 
>independant  Assyrian/Babylonian chronology that would be mostly unaffected 
>by Rohl's  revision,

Not the least of Rohl's problems.

>so  perhaps the revision won't help at all. (The NewChronology group has 
>had  numerous discussions in regard to the affect of the different 
>revisions  on other chronologies, but I haven't gotten around to reading 
>through  them all.)

With all respect, Aryeh, there are better uses of your  time.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:20 +0300
Re: tinok shenishba

The svara of the Chazon Ish (that "moridin velo maalin" is only when
miracles are common and all hear the Bat Kol) is confusing. How does he
explain Rambam Hilchot Chovel u'Mazik 8:11, the Tshuvot haROSH 17:1,
the Tshuvot Maharam mi Lublin 138 ? The dozens of executions by batei
din in the past 1000 years of mosrim and other low life [Zichron Yehuda
75, Tshuvot haRosh 17:2, Zekan Aharon 95, Tshuvot haRosh 32:4, Tshuvot
haRivash 79] ? How about the Ri MiGash who had a moser executed in shul
on Yom Kippur ? How about the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 388:10 ? People
in Krakow had miracles every montag and donnerstag ? :-)


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:34:22 -0500
From: "Gershon Seif" <gershonseif@yahoo.com>

Gershon Dubin wote:
> I'm looking for MM on dibur as the defining element of mankind. Those
> based on the Rema about Asher Yatzar as relates to dibur also of interest.

I would start with the famous Unkelos in the beginning of Beraishis
(2:7) where he says nefesh chayah means "Ruach M'Mallah" - A spirit that
speaks. Sure sounds like he's saying speaking defines our most central
human element. (hmmm... just noticed Micha Berger beat me to that one...

IIRC, Rav Yerucham (sefer Daas Torah) has a piece on that posuk expanding
on this idea.

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Re: RAF letter (Torah and science)

Efraim Yawitz <fyawitz@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> Rav Aharon Feldman, in his letter about the Slifkin affair, seems to make
> one very dubious assumption, i.e., that people believe that Hazal made
> errors in scientific matters because they read it in the words of Rav
> Avraham ben ha-Rambam or anywhere else. Based on this, he attempts to
> prove that this opinion is not accepted l'halacha, etc. The truth is,
> those of us who are convinced that Hazal did not have anything like
> modern scientific knowledge think this way because it is obvious to
> us from the Gemara itself that Hazal did not have anything like modern
> scientific knowledge. The statements of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam and
> others only serve to make this obvious fact less problematic for us....

I totally agree with your asessment but... just to be devil's advocate,
those who say Chazal were infallible do not mean that they know what
we know today. What they mean is that everything recorded in Shas on
every subject is true and that it is based on the belief that Chazal
did not record their opinions, or their understandings of the science
of the day. They only recorded the received information ...the Mesorah
going all the way back to Mamid Har Sinai which includes information
on every subject discussed in Shas. This, they hold is irrefutable by
modern science. They therefore hold that science is either wrong, or
that we do not have a proper understnding of the Gemarah


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gil Student <simcha365@hotmail.com>
[hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Hogwarts Shabbos II

I retract my conclusion from
<http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/07/hogwarts-shabbos.html>. As was
pointed out to me, the problem is that the delivery is on behalf of
the sender. When a Jew sends a package, the mailman is acting on his
behalf. If the package arrives on Shabbos, then the mailman is delivering
it on Shabbos on behalf of a Jew, which is prohibited. But if a non-Jew
sends it, then the delivery is permissible in itself.

However, when a Jew orders something to be delivered specifically
on Shabbos, then the delivery is also on behalf of the orderer and is
forbidden. That might be the case here. However, the majority of orderers
are not Jewish, so perhaps the deliveries are on behalf of a group that
is mostly not Jewish.

So my revised conclusion is that I'm not sure whether it is permissible
to open the packages of Harry Potter. Ask your rabbi.

ANOTHER POINT: I neglected to mention that you are not allowed to take
a package directly from the hand of a mail carrier. Ask him to put it
down. From experience, I can say that mail carriers in Brooklyn are used
to this and don't think twice about it.

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:13:30 -0400
From: ephraim.stulberg@utoronto.ca
Re: Rashi and Ein Mukdam uM'uchar

From: Russell Levy <russlevy@gmail.com>
> Siftei Chachamim says on Bamidbar 13:1 that Rashi holds that shlach
> happened AFTER korach (I guess like Ibn Ezra), and that's why he asks the
> "lama nism'cha".

> Throughout Korach, Rashi seems to make reference to the meraglim happening
> in the past (16:4, 16:14, etc). Ein Mukdam means there is still a real
> order, not that everything is one big mishmash*. So what's going on
> here? I can't imagine that the Siftei Chachamim just missed these psukim.

Hi Russell,

The Gur Aryeh (Num. 13:1) asks your question. He basically answers that
Rashi will often cite conflicting midrashim in his commentary on the
Torah, and that it would be a mistake to attempt to reconcile all of
the various midrashim he cites into a coherent, unified version of what
actually happened according to Rashi.

Rashi's "commentary" is really mainly a digest of midrashic literature
that most closely conforms with p'shat.

That being said, in this case your objection seems reasonable, and it
certainly raises a red flag against the explanation of Rashi's words
offered by R. E. Mizrachi, the originator of the idea cited in Sifsei


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:02:55 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Re: a way to understand chazal/science/halacha?

Shaya Potter <spotter@cs.columbia.edu> posted on Fri, 08 Jul 2005
>  What I would
> say, their psak was giving over their tradition of how they understood
> the halacha, and giving a reasoning for it (as they didn't assume it was
> a "Chok") based on the science of their day.  This would be similar to
> those that try to explain torah concepts based on the science of our
> day. ... any thoughts?

This seems like an interesting use of Ramchal's position that Chazal's
statements about science are not meant for their scientific content.

(But don't get me wrong: They're statements about the Torah's presentation
about history and Creation stand regardless of any disagreements by any
era's academia.)

Zvi Lampel 

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:43:45 -0400
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Re: [Hirhurim - Musings] Hogwarts Shabbos

In Avodah V15#47, RGS quoted from the official English translation of SSK,
"Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath"
(31:23, p. 495):
> a. One may use on Shabbath the contents of a parcel delivered that day by
> a non-Jewish mailman.
> b. This is so provided that the sender was not particular that the parcel
> should be delivered on Shabbath.

> In my estimation, the bookstores are very particular that this book
> be delivered on Saturday, July 16.... Given this point, it seems to me
> that one may not open the Harry Potter package on Shabbos....

Even if the sender is a non-Jew and/or if he's endeavoring to deliver the
book on Shabbos because he previously promised that date to all prospective
purchasers without regard to their Shabbos observance and now wants to
remain in the purchasers' good graces?

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gil Student <simcha365@hotmail.com>
[Hirhurim - Musings] Hogwarts Shabbos III

I spoke with one of my rabbe'im who is a recognized posek. He does not
want to be associated with Harry Potter so I agreed not to publicize
his name. He thinks that from the standpoint of the laws of Shabbos,
it is permissible to cut the tape on the box, remove the book and read
it. However, he does not necessarily recommend reading Harry Potter on
Shabbos or during the week, and he points out that there are posekim who
would rule strictly. But as he said, if this were a box of napkins that
came in the mail, he'd allow it to be opened.

Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/12/2005 09:47:00 PM

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:15:25 -0500
From: Elly Bachrach <ebachrach@engineeringintent.com>
Re: The halachos of "borrowing" wireless access

I think an important element that affects these arguments is the fact
that any user on the network is allowed, at their own risk, to create
a home network. This network allows any number of computers to use
the service. With this in mind, some comments below

Micha Berger wrote:
>The first question involves the permissability in terms of getting free
>service from the cable or DSL provider. I see this as a variation on
>the theme of copying music raised by RGS on Hirhurim recently (forwarded
>here as well.)

Since anyone paying for service is allowed to let any computer they want 
into their network, I don't see the comparison.  Unless you think it 
would not be allowed for a subscriber to let a friend come over and hook 
into the network?  That doesn't seem likely; if nothing else, the friend 
could be makneh me his machine, and then I am certainly entitled to hook 
it up to my home network.

>The second, the loss of service from the person with the WiFi network
>in his home.

>My feeling was that the person who paid for the access is already sharing
>bandwidth. ...
>because it is so rare that anyone needs the full bandwidth available,
>and moreso, that two people will be using significant bandwidth at the
>same time.

>So, one could say that nearly always, it would be a zeh lo neheneh,
>vezeh lo chaseir. Can one rely on that rov?

I would say yes, but my reason is that the kind of person who would 
really need and use this full bandwith would almost certainly be the 
kind who protects his network from this kind of borrowing.

>What about the fact that this person chose not to "lock the door"? Does
>this imply that he cared more about ease of use than denying reshus? If
>it did, this yeilds a third question: The other people on that hub who
>are also affected -- and at least one of them probably did make sure
>to encrypt, not to use wireless, or otherwise lock-up his network. What
>about needing to get their reshus? I think therefore we can ignore this
>implied reshus on the part of one person.

Two points. One, as I noted above, any one person has every right to
build his own network , despite the detrimental affect this might have
on the other users of the hub. That means that permission from this
one user - assuming we accept that it exists here - is all you need.

Also , the whole problem of many people on the hub applies more to
cable than to DSL, Originally, when cable companies did not have enough
bandwidth for a location, you could see service lags resulting from the
addition of new customers. But today, it is my understanding that the
affect of one computer negligible on the rest of users.

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

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:28:24 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Vchen haminhag vein lshanot

This language, or something like it, appears frequently in the Rama. On
other occasions he says just vchen haminhag.

Does anyone know a reason for or implication of the different formulations?

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:17:53 -0500
From: "brent" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
shaking hands with a woman

> In other words #1: We may be misunderstanding the cause-and-effect
> relationship of what's going on here. We presume that contact is assur
> in order to prevent hana'ah. But perhaps it is also assur in order to
> prevent becoming desensitized.

I disagree completely. There is no issur involved with being desensitized.
Therefore why would there be a syug to keep away from it? However,
Hana'ah from a woman is where the issurim of Even Ha'Ezer come from. A
gezerah is created in order to keep one away from an issur, not a... (how
would you even classify "lack of sensitivity"?

brent kaufman

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: YGB <rygb@aishdas.org>
[YGB] Daf Halachah - Shabbos 73b

Smelling Growing Fruit

-a  !-a ש-a ף ע/
ר ר פפ   ש פ! ק -aר -aר 
ש-a -a ש -aש -a ש פרק ר ש ר 
ר -aש   ר פרק .

Rav Pappa said: A person who threw a clump [of dirt] at a date-palm,
and dates fell, is liable for two [sin-offerings], one for apluckinga
and one for aextracting.a Rav Ashi said: This is not the normal manner of
plucking and this is not the normal manner of extracting. [Hence, he is
not in violation of these melachos, and does not bring any sin offerings.]

Shulchan Aruch1 rules that one may smell a hadas (myrtle) while it is
still attached to the ground, but one may not smell an esrog or an apple
or any edible fruit that is still attached to the ground, lest he come
to sever [or pluck] it from the ground in order to eat it. Magen Avraham
(cited in Mishnah Berurah)2 asks why we must be afraid lest he come to
pluck th fruit from the ground - perhaps he may just bite it out of the
ground, which would not be a Torah violation (and hence not necessitate
a rabbinic prohibition to smell the fruit). In answer, he quotes Rashi3
who states that biting is an even more severe form of plucking!

Magen Avraham himself, however, suggests that the melachah of plucking
is only violated according to Torah law when the fruit is plucked from
the tree by hand or by a tool. His proof is from our Gemara, in which we
see that even the highly effective means of plucking the dates from the
palm by throwing something at them is not considered a violation of Torah
law. Ra Akiva Eiger brings further proof that biting a fruit out of the
ground cannot be considered true plucking, as the Gemara in Menachos4
regards eating something right out of the ground as aberrant behavior.

Nevertheless, regardless of whether the prohibition of biting a fruit
out of the ground is Torah law or a rabbinic decree, it is forbidden
to do so, and forbidden to smell fruit that is still connected to the
ground lest one come to pluck it from the ground in whatever way. On
this basis, Pri Megadim5 suggests a novel ruling: If one enters and
orchard on Shabbos he does not make a blessing over the fragrance of
the fruit, because it is forbidden to smell the fruit! Eliyahu Rabbah
distinguishes between a person close to the orchard, who should not make
a blessing and deliberately smell the fruit, lest he come to pluck it;
and a person at a distance from the orchard, who is unlikely to come pluck
the sweet-smelling fruit, and who may, therefore, pronounce the blessing.

Tosafos Chaim suggests that it is only on Shabbos, and even on Yom
Kippur that falls on Shabbos that one may not smell the fruit attached
to the ground lest he come to pluck it (even on Yom Kippur, since it is
also Shabbos, we are afraid that he may forget it is also Yom Kippur,
and come to pluck the fruit). However, on a Yom Kippur that falls on a
weekday one is permitted to smell th fruit, for we assume he will remain
aware of the prohibition to eat and not come to pluck the fruit.


ש"ע ר  ! ש" !עף ': ! ר -aר ר 
 -aר -aפ  ר ר  !ר ר  ר
ש קץ -a :


ש  רר ! ש" !"ק ": קץ -a  - "-a 
    ש פ  ר   -aש    ש
-a  ע   -a ש-a " קפ פר-a
 ר ... ע"ע שער צ !"ק ".


רש" ! ף " ע":  -aר  ק -  ר  
ש -aש  , ף   ר   -aש  :


 -a ף ע' ע":     ע-a צ  :


ש שצ-a  !"ק '. פ"  -aר פ!ק צ 
ש  שר-a ש-a -a פ" ער ע", ע"ש.

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 >