Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 092

Thursday, July 20 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Israeli News on NY Erev Shabbos


R Gil Student wrote:
> R' Micha wrote:
>> This raised a general question: If someone holds that piqu'ach
>> nefesh is dokheh (as opposed to matir) Shabbos, may you get
>> ancillary hana'ah from side effects?
...

> It seems to me like a case of the gezeirah against ribbu'iy shi'urim
> and the question is whether the case is similar to that of shechitah,
> where there is no metzi'us of ribbu'iy shi'urim so a third party may
> benefit from the pikuach nefesh act, or bishul, where mi-de-rabbanan a
> third party may not benefit from it to avoid ribbu'iy shi'urim (Orach
> Chaim 318:2). IMHO, it seems similar to shechitah and one should be
> allowed to benefit from it. The politician isn't going to speak more
> for your sake.

OTOH, gezeiros overstep the logic behind them if that logic wasn't part
of the codified. (The famous case is medicine on Shabbos bizman hazeh.) So
now I can muddy the waters with two more questions:

1- Is using the microphone or telephone on Shabbos a case of bishul?

2- If so, does the gezeirah apply even though in this case of bishul,
ribui shiurim is impossible?

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:47:49 -0400
From: "Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Israeli News on NY Erev Shabbos


On 7/19/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Many communal eiruvim were built on the premise that one was preventing
> chilul shabbos by those who would carry either way. How is this different?

Building an Eruv for that reason alone is also controversial. But in
any case, being that there is an Eruv he didn't do a melacha at all,
but by Pikuach Nefesh a melacha was done the only question is whether
he is patur for doing it.

 -Shmuel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:34:26 -0400
From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
Subject:
RE: How do Achronim become Rishonim?


> R' MYG answered:
>> R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky clearly said that one can be m'dakdek in the
>> MB as in a Rishon, as I quoted earlier, "And I said, that the author of
>> the Chofetz Chaim Z"L, merited as a reward for guarding his speech that
>> his Mishneh Berurah is so nuanced in its language that it is possible to
>> infer from it as one does in the works of the Rishonim. This is Middah
>> K'neged Middah."

R' ELPhM:
> So how do you reconcile this? Unwillingly, the anecdote you relate seems
> to contradict R' Y. Kamenetsky's clear statement. Or was your point
> exactly that, namely a shift in perception, turning an awe-inspiring
> giant of Torah into a saint with supernatural forces?

The Ma'aseh L'stor doesn't change what RYK first said. Possibly, he
would have told you that the Chofetz Chaim would have subsequently
changed the offending passage himself.

KT,
MYG 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:59:48 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?


On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 11:34:26AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
: The Ma'aseh L'stor doesn't change what RYK first said. Possibly, he
: would have told you that the Chofetz Chaim would have subsequently
: changed the offending passage himself.

... Or, that the siyata came in a number of ways. For hilkhos Sukkah,
it was by setting everything up for  R' Dovid Leibowitz to be there
and catch it. In other places, other things.

As the famous story goes: ... "I warned you by radio, then I sent you
the rowboat, a door usable as a raft, and a helicopter. What more did
you want?"

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:02:32 -0400
From: "Lisa Liel" <lisa@starways.net>
Subject:
RE: MB/Yeshiva Communities


On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:43:53 -0400, "Moshe Yehuda Gluck"
<mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
> R' JR:
>> Is learning during chazarat hashatz prohibited in Yeshiva 
>> communities?

> Yes.

What about the interminable piyyutim during chazarat hashatz on Rosh
Hashana and Yom Kippur?  Are they prohibited?

Lisa


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:54:23 -0400
From: "Mike Wiesenberg" <torahmike@gmail.com>
Subject:
MB


> 2. I have heard it said in the name of a MB expert (I forgot who it was)
> that there aren't any contradictions in the MB that cannot be resolved.

The author's son points out a flat-out contradiction in MB (it was in
hilchos shabbos, iirc) in his biography of his father. He says there
are sometimes contradictions because the chafetz chaim didnt write the
entire thing - he had his son write some of it.

Mike


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:57:01 -0400
From: "Brown, Charles F" <charles.f.brown@gs.com>
Subject:
RE: heter pikuach nefesh for non-frum doctor to save life


> I remember hearing a pesak that given the choice of a frum vs not
> frum doctor for a pikuach nefesh situation, the frum doctor is
> preferable; the not frum doctor does not benefit from the heter of
> pikuach nefesh if he's not otherwise shomer shabbos.

This would seem to contradict an explicit gemara in Menachos 64
regarding one who casts his fishing net into the sea on Shabbos (i.e.
chilul shabbos) and catches in the net along with the fish a baby who
fell into the water, saving the baby's life. Machlokes whether we look
at the kavanah (chilul shabbos) or the result (pikuach nefesh) - Rambam
(Shabbos 2:16) paskens patur because the net result (no pun intended :)
was pikuach nefesh.

 -Chaim B.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:17:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steven J Scher <sjscher@eiu.edu>
Subject:
Broken Windows Theory


R'Zev Sero wrote:
> I'm sorry, your point is going right past me. Why the distinction between
> violent and non-violent crimes? Why would the "broken windows" theory
> not work equally well for chilul shabbat as for murder? If people see
> that the batei din take the law seriously, and enforce it consistently,
> then they will pay more attention to it themselves, and not commit the
> more serious crimes.

I don't think this accurately represents the broken windows theory.
The theory does not base its psychology on the idea that the law is being
taken seriously or enforced consistently. What the theory proposes is
that people will be less likely to commit crimes in an orderly community.
Here is a quote from the original article on the theory (quoted in this
case at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows):

"Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are
not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows.
Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied,
perhaps become squatters or light fires inside."

To stop this, the solution is to fix the broken windows. The people
who broke them don't need to be arrested in order for this to work
(according to the theory. As discussed on Areivim, I don't think the
data support this theory).

Kol Tuv,
Steve

***************************************************************************
Steven J. Scher              sjscher@eiu.edu         Listen to WEFT 90.1FM
Department of Psychology 
Eastern Illinois University


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:56:41 -0400
From: rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?


From: micha@aishdas.org
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:42:35PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
>: I don't think that it would be particularly wild to mark the beginning
>: of the current era after the printing of the Mishna Berurah.

> This would be along the lines that a well-accepted summarizing text
> defines the end of an era. The need for a text would explain why rishonim
> respect the precedent of amoraim, but are willing to dispute geonim.

> Akin to the Gra's notion (which didn't catch on, obviously) that the
> Shach and Taz were "sof hora'ah", ie the end of their era.
> The mishnah, shas, the SA (w/ Rama) and now, perhaps, the MB? The MB
> lacks 3/4 of the turf, though.

This topic desrves a PhD thesis.

I am not sure HOW the Bavli got to be so per-eminent. 

We understand that even a bona fide Sanhadrein is not infallbile so is
it that the Bavli is?

I am guessing that Rabbinates rallied aroundthe Bavli opposition to
the Karaites.

IOW, the Bavli would have had about the authority as the Mishanh DID
and The Shulchan Aruch has were it not for Karaism.

I can't PROVE this, but I cannot explain it otherwise.

Caveat, Th Aggadic passages in the Bavli were not conisdered normative
by most Rishonim, but even that is changing nowadays...?

[Email #2. -mi]

From: fallingstar613@hotmail.com
>> The deaths of RMF and R' Yaakov Kamineyzky probably did more to define
>> the end of an era than anything else. As the death of Rebbe defined the
>> end of the Tanoim, etc

> Rav Volbe ztz"l, never one to say something that wasn't thought out well
> in advance, said at R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's shloshim in Lakewood East,
> that people have to a large degree forgotten what a "Gadol b'Torah" is and
> that there are no longer any Gedolim in the US. This obviously caused an
> uproar and after the talk everyone rushed around him to ask what he meant...

I agree that the deaths of RMF, RYK, RYBS etc. ended an era of European
trained Gedolim in America.
I don't see anyone around on their Madreiga anymore...

OTOH, given the midgets on teh shoulder of giants model, it is easier
today to research a torah topic in depth and gain a really meaningful
perspectve. Not since the Beis Yoseph accesed his library has there been
teh opportunity to really know something from many angles.

E.G. ROY's teshuvos are a gold mine of quotable resources...

The RJJ articles tackle some modern controversial issues using classic
sources and modern language that are clearer than 99% of the old Teshuvos
were...

[Email #3. -mi]

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
>  R' Dov Kay wrote:
>> It is now almost universal, in accordance with the MB, for the
>> tzibbur to recite the b'racha immediately preceding k'rias sh'ma
>> together with the shat"z in order to avoid the safek whether one
>> is permitted to respond amen to the shat"z's b'racha.

> I'm glad you included the "almost". The practice in Elizabeth NJ is to
> finish the bracha before the shatz, and to then answer Amen to the shatz.

> Now that this subject has been raised, I'd like to address the following
> question to any listmembers who really consider themselves to be choshesh
> for this "safek": If for some reason you were davening without a minyan,
> would you (or would you not) say "Kel Melech Neeman" between the bracha
> and the Shma? ...

My 2 cents:

Here is a Hypothetical klal {or a klala <smile> depending on your
perspective}

If you are answering Amen to the Bracha you are working on yourself,
it is NEVER a hefsek!

This is loosely based upon The Rema saying Amen on Go'all Yisroel before
Shmoneh Esrei on a weekday.

And even someone who is listening to Chazaras Hashatz to be yotzei Amidah
says Amen to the individual brachos.
Extend that to saying amen on someone else's l'haniach Tefillin even
though any other amen is a hefsek until the shel Rosh is on.

If you say Hamotzi and have not yet eaten the bread, any amen would be
a hefsek EXCEPT on aonther hamotzi.

So answering Amen to Habocher or Oheiv Amo is NEVER a hefsek if that is
where you yourself are holding, kal vachomer from the above Rema.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:01:00 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject:
Re: Capital punishment


"Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com>
> They are punishing themselves in any case. Whatever their primary purpose
> of moving away from the Lishka was, it is a pesichas hakovod for Beis
> Din to not sit in the Lishka, and they were undoubtedly conscious of it
> when they moved. And being that they were subjected to this bizayon they
> were undoubtedly deserving of it. And it seems to me that the simplest
> explanation for why they were deserving of galus is because they should
> have somehow prevented the situation in which they found themselves
> from happening.

It seems to me that this logic is somewhat circular. I don't understand
where you're getting this whole idea of punishment. Nor do I agree that
their kavod was in any way diminished; they were the same Sanhedrin with
the same prestige whether they sat in the LHG or next door. "The place
does not honour the person, the person honours his place."

If they had moved because the roof was leaking, or because the LHG
needed painting, would you call that too a punishment, and conclude that
they therefore must have done a cheshbon hanefesh to determine why they
were being punished, and then come up with the explanation they "must"
have found?

[Email #2. -mi]

"Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com> wrote:
> If they are not sitting in the Lishka, then they no longer have a mitzvah
> to judge capital crimes. The question then changes to: How did they know
> that they were allowed to remove that responsibility from themselves.

It's a simple sevara.  If you foresee an obligation coming up and know
you will have no way to fulfill it, but you're able to avoid incurring
it in the first place, isn't it obvious that you may and should do so?

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:10:08 -0400
From: rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: MB/Yeshiva Communities


From: mgluck@gmail.com
> R' JR:
>> Is learning during chazarat hashatz prohibited in Yeshiva communities?

> Yes.

how about catching up on skipped pieces of pesukei dezimra? 

[Email #2. -mi]

From: lisa@starways.net
> What about the interminable piyyutim during chazarat hashatz on Rosh
> Hashana and Yom Kippur?  Are they prohibited?

A friend of mine cam up with a pretty elegant compromise.

Have the Shatz say ONLY the pieces of the Amidah and have a 2nd shatz lead
the tzibbur in piyyutim while the first shatz remains silent, thus the
first shatz is not really mafsik his tefillah except by silent hefsek -
which is itself a potential problem but not quite as big.

[Email #3. -mi]

From: ezrawax@gmail.com
> When I was in Yeshiva it was an open question and it seemed like the
> better answer was to not learn. But I have seen a well known posek
> learning during Chazaras Hashatz, and ever since, I've been less careful
> not to. Now that I think about it, though, he might have had a pressing
> reason at that moment to look something up.

My 2 cents:

If you learn anything BEFORE davening it is supposed to be halacha
p'sukkah and not something b'iyyun.

By analogy if you are going to learn during chazratz hashatz then it
should be something "ligh" so that you can answer Amen and Modim w/o
distraction.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:19:04 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject:
Re: Israeli News on NY Erev Shabbos


"Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com> wrote:
> If somebody would have been mechalel Shabbos even if what he was doing
> was not for pikuach nefesh and it happened to be that it was for pikuach
> nefesh, is he patur?

See Menachot 64a, machloket Raba and Rava.
The Rambam (Shabbat 2:16) paskens that he is patur, the Raavad (who
appears to have had a different girsa in the gemara) disagrees.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:11:22 GMT
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: historical contingency and brachos


R' Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
> I think you will find at most restaurants that bread is put on
> the table automatically even before you have ordered anything.
> And although I only know that this is so at kosher restaurants,
> I never got the impression that this was done because they were
> kosher.

I can testify that it is indeed done at non-kosher restaurants. But not
all of them. In both kosher and non-kosher, it depends on the style of
the restaurant. I don't think you'll ever see it at a fast- food place,
only where there is waiter service. (This will be relevant to the next
paragraph.)

We need to look at how this bread is eaten. In my opinion, the way people
relate to that breadbasket is *not* that "this is the ikar of the meal",
but rather they relate to it as an *appetizer* of the meal, and/or as
something to keep busy with while waiting for the ikar to be cooked
and served. My evidence is that (from what I've seen) the bread-eating
suffers a noticable drop-off once the ordered food arrives at the table,
and that at a fast-food restaurant (where the person and the food arrive
at the table simulataneously) there's no such bread at all.

One can be kovea a meal on French Toast. One can be kovea a meal on
Pizza and Calzone. One can certainly be kovea a meal on fresh bread
from the oven, together with whatever toppings he wants to put on it.
But in most other cases, as I see it, one is kovea his meal on whatever
food he would refer to as "the main course". Not the bread.

> I also think that the lack of chashivus that is shown to bread
> nowadays is because we have so much. When you have so many extras,
> you lose sight of what the basics are. You can see that from the
> famous "Let them eat cake" quote.

I have no argument with that. My question has been: If we do perceive
bread to have less chashivus nowadays, for whatever reason, does this
cause changes to its brachos?

> The gemara talks about what people should eat depending on what
> they can afford. Whether people should eat yerakos or basar. It
> also seems that people have become weaker and the gemara says that
> even though previously only wealthy people should eat basar,
> nowadays even poor people should eat it because it is necessary
> nutritionally. Also I think our society is simply skewed. Our
> values have been artificially changed from what they really ought
> to be, and what they would naturally be.

Again, whatever the ideal is, and whatever the reason might be for
artificially changing it, isn't it true that Hilchos Brachos follows
the actual practice?

> I think that the gedarim of mezonos are there to tell you whether it
> changes the bread in such a way that it is difficult to make a meal
> out of it.

No way. The three different kinds of PBK prove that it goes in the other
direction. We don't have a halacha which tells us that this particular
kind of food is a snack food. Rather, we had three independent comments
that "This kind of food is a snack", and we accept them ALL. On the
contrary, the gedarim of mezonos are the *result* of whether it is
uncommon to make a meal out of it.

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:37:24 -0400
From: "Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Capital punishment


On 7/19/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Nor do I agree that
> their kavod was in any way diminished; they were the same Sanhedrin with
> the same prestige whether they sat in the LHG or next door.

Certainly they had diminished prestige. Before they were able to judge
Capital crimes and afterwards they weren't. Before they were in their
official place and afterwards they weren't. When we are in Galus, don't we
have diminished prestige and isn't it a punishment for us? Why wouldn't
you apply your same "The place does not honour the person vechulu"?

> If they had moved because the roof was leaking, or because the LHG
> needed painting, would you call that too a punishment, and conclude that
> they therefore must have done a cheshbon hanefesh to determine why they
> were being punished, and then come up with the explanation they "must"
> have found?

Of course. It's the same as If somebody intended to take out two coins
and he took out three. We constantly find Chazal trying to decide why they
were subjected to something untoward. Just because you don't normally try
to figure out what you did wrong to deserve every little inconvenience,
does not mean that if you tried you couldn't come up with good answers.

I just saw a story where the Chasam Sofer was accused by a person who
invited him to stay over for not keeping the Torah. It came out that he
saw him eating on Shabbos without making Kiddush not realizing that he
had made Kiddush earlier. And the Chasam Sofer decided that he deserved
this bizayon for staying at the house of an am haaretz.

>It's a simple sevara.  If you foresee an obligation coming up and know
>you will have no way to fulfill it, but you're able to avoid incurring
>it in the first place, isn't it obvious that you may and should do so?

Not necessarily. If you won't be able to fill it, then you're an anus.
Perhaps you're required to go as far as possible instead of avoiding
the obligation completely.

 -Shmuel>


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 >