Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 177

Mon, 27 Aug 2007

• 1. Re: Rav Sternbuch's psak regarding kiruv of non-Jews (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. God Provides a Place to Flee... (R Wolberg)
• 3. Re: Bishul achar shelo bederekh bishul (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Is it better to have one person do a vadai mitzvah or a number do a safek mitzvah? (saul mashbaum)
• 5. Mi shberekh for the sick at a brit (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Lifnei Iver/Kanaus (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: Bishul achar shelo bederekh bishul (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Standing for Vayivarech David (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 9. Re: Bishul achar shelo bederekh bishul (Daniel Eidensohn)

I am confused as to which point you are trying to make. Are you arguing 
that since the Rambam permits discussing Torah with certain goyim that 
means that it is only a eitza tova to not teach them Torah? Rav Moshe in 
the teshuva I cited says it is prohibited to teach a goy Torah. The 
various views are nicely arranged by Rabbi Bleich.

_*R? J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halachic Problems 2:16 p311-340): 
*The prohibition against teaching Torah to non-Jews is well _known to 
students of Jewish Iaw. Equally well known is the role of Abraham as the 
?father of the multitude of nations? entrusted with the sacred task of 
carrying the teaching of monotheism to idolatrous peoplc? A person 
unfamiliar with the extensive rabbinical literature devoted to his topic 
may perceive a certain tension, and perhaps even contradiction, between 
a recognized need to disseminate religious truths and an almost 
xenophobic reluctance to share the greatest repository of such truth-the 
Torah. Yet even a cursory examination of the relevant sources dispels 
the notion that while the community of Israel jealously guards its 
spiritual wealth. It refuses to share these riches with others. On the 
contrary, it is unique among western religions in its willingness to 
share its teachings without seeking to impose its observances?. . 
Nevertheless in some contexts it is permissible to teach Torah to 
non-Jews, in others it is even praiseworthy to do so. The matter is 
greatly complicated by numerous disagreements between halakhic 
authorities with regard to the precise parameters of this prohibition. 
Thus numerous scholars permit the study or teaching of the Written Law, 
others permit forthright responses to inquiries with regard to any facet 
of Torah study and/or instruction to correct erroneous views, while 
still others permit the teaching of Torah but not of its ?secrets or 
reasons.? In the medieval period no less a personage than Rambam 
entirely excluded Christians from this prohibition, while in the last 
century R. Israel Salanter, the acclaimed founder of the Mussar 
movement, actually mounted a campaign for the incorporation of talmudic 
studies in the curricula of European schools and universities. With 
regard to some points there emerges a consensus; with regard to others, 
controversy remains. In order to understand properly how it may be that 
for some authorities and under conditions an act may constitute a 
violation of a divine command, while for other authorities or under 
other circumstances the deed may be meritorious, it is necessary to 
undertake a careful examination of the halakhic sources.



R' David Riceman wrote:
>
> Israelis sometime fail to distinguish between "X is halachically
> prohibited" and "I strongly advise against doing X".  If RMS means the
> latter he is persuasive; if he means the former how does he explain
> Tshuvos HaRambam, ed. Blau, #149?
>
>   

One of the lesser known roshei teivos of Elul appears in Shmos 21:13 "Eena
L'yado V'samti L'cho."  Even though a person has sinned, God provides for
him a place to flee. Elul is that place; and teshuva, which has the same
root and is related to "Shaiv" (sit, rest), Yeshiva, and Shabbos.
When we flee to where we're going, we must take time to sit and rest and
then learn (as in the Yeshiva) and finally our Shabbos will come once we've
"returned."
 
Richard Wolberg

  _____  

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 803 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>  for free now!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070826/5d04c34b/attachment-0001.html 

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I made a cup of tea on shabbos, green tea so it certainly
> started out raw, so I did so in a "keli shelishi". (There
> is no concept of keli shelishi, I mean I avoided irui keli
> rishon.) Now I wanted to make a second cup using the same
> leaves. Would it have been okay to rely on ein bishul achar
> bishul, or do we saw that the first lo kederekh bishul means
> that this is the first bishul?

From where did you get the phrase and concept of "shelo bederekh bishul"? If you made the first cup of tea in a manner you consider to be mutar, then the leaves were not cooked at all, and are still halachically raw.

If the water changed color, Rav Moshe Feinstein says that this proves nothing, since the tea leaves would have changed the water's color even if the water was cold; that the color change occurs more quickly if the water is warm, and even more quickly if the water is very warm, still proves nothing.

Akiva Miller

RCL wrote 
>>>
If it is important that each man should get the chance merely to upgrade
his mitzvah from a lesser to a greater one, then one would have thought,
perhaps, how much more so, that each should have the chance of upgrading
his no mitzvah to a real mitzvah
>>
This statement is true, but does not take into account the *risk* involved in the two cases. As I pointed out, in the yibum case, the risk is relatively small, since even if we "lose our wager" and none of the brothers marries his yevama, each one has nevertheless performed a mitzvah min haTorah, chalitza. In the "general" case, there is a chance that, according to the procedure which favors the the safek, *no* mitzva will be done at all;  it is possible that this risk is unacceptible, given the alternative which *ensures* that a mitzva will be done.
Let's consider the following scenario, which illustrates the general case. On RH, someone with a shofar has a choice of going to one of two places. In place aleph, there is one person who would otherwise not be able to hear shofar; in place bet there are five. However, the person with the shofar can with almost certainty reach place aleph before shkia, but reaching place bet on time is uncertain, although possible. Are we mandated to apply the priciple of yibum, go for the max as RCL puts it, and go to place bet, favoring 5 safek mitzvot over one vadaui one? According to what I wrote, not necessarily. Unlike the yibum case, here there is achance that *no* mitzva will be done if the shofar is brought to place bet. Perhaps, under these circumstances, given that a mitzva in place aleph is vadai, going there is preferable. 
Again, I am not favoring one place or the other, just maintaining that the yibum case is not similar enough to this case to *dictate* our decision.
RCL:
>>
 Given that everyone will have done a mitzvah, either chalitza
or yibum, why not have one person who knows he has done the vadai
mitzvah of yibum, and four who know they have done the vadai mitzvah of
chalitza.  Instead, everybody will have done a safek mitzvah of yibum
and a safek mitzvah of chalitza - ie two sfekos.  Now agreed that one of
those sfekos has to come up trumps, ie if one has done yibum one has not
done chalitza, but if one has not done yibum, one has indeed done
chalitza, meaning everybody gets a mitzvah apiece, but it is equally
true that everybody gets a mitzvah apiece if you go the other way - and
at least that way, everybody knows which mitzvah he has performed
>>
This is a messy case, and the sfakot are indeed stronger than any certainty we can achieve. Even in the "vadai" procedure, in which one yavam marries all the y'vamot, although we know with certainty that he has performed mitzvat yibum, we don't know with whom! And, although he has definitely has done yibum, he is not yoresh the property of any of the five deceased childless men, since he cannot demonstrate conclusively that he is the brother of any given one of them (even though he must be the brother of one of them). Whichever procedure we follow,  we're left with plenty of question marks. 
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070827/33e54fd3/attachment-0001.htm 

If have read/heard about a new (revived) practice of having a mohel pray for 
the sick at a milah. The practice is reportedly ideally done by having 
thirteen mohalim recite it on the same day.

I am interested in investigating this practice. Can anyone provide some 
pointers and/or the nussa'h of the special mi sheberakh (or is it the garden 
variety MsB recited, for example, at qeriat haTorah?).

So far, google did not help.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

In Derech Sicha (discussions with R' Chaim Kanievsky arranged in the order
of the Parshiyos) pg. 369 the following is brought:

"I told the Rav Shlit"a what I heard about one Talmid Chacham zt"l, who once
went to a certain Gvir, and in the waiting room there was an immodest
picture, and he immediately ripped it. When he went into the Gvir, the Gvir
told him: You should have asked! He responded: "And when you hung up the
picture did you ask me?"

The Rav responded that he certainly did a good thing Al Pi Din, since this
is Lifnei Iver, but if it were a Goy he would have to ask permission, since
a Goy is not prohibited in Lifnei Iver."

On page 297, the following appears:
"Question: A Bachur has a radio in his room in Yeshiva, and his friend wants
to break it and pay for it. Maran HaRav Shach zt"l once said that it is
allowed for a child in his home to take his parents' radio and dispose of
it.

Answer: He can break it, and not pay. I don't know if he is obligated to do
so but there is an Inyan to do this. The Chazon Ish was once asked about a
Bachur who saw heretical material by his friend, and he told him to dispose
of it, and that he is absolved from having to pay."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070827/61d9f241/attachment.html 

I received the following reply to my post about making a second cup of
Temple of Heaven Gunpowder Tea. (Which, the star-K tells me, doesn't
need a hechsher as THGT is a traditional recipe which no gourmet tea
maker would risk its reputation tampering -- or making on used
equipment. See <http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-thirst-tea.htm>. But
back to the topic at hand...) I mention the kind of tea as I will
write below that the tea leaf does undergo a visible change during
brewing.

Here is the resulting dialogue:

I wrote:
> Does derekh bishul necessary to define bishul or the issur?

His reply:
: My gut reaction is to differentiate between the lav derekh bishul
: and ein bishul a'har bishul. Lacking 'irui keli rishon, the leaves
: merely swam in warm water and coloured it. From your description I
: assume you consider (as per what was baseline pessaq in RMF's opinion)
: that tea is a tavlin, which diesn't "cook" in a non keli rishon.
: Therefore, pouring scalding water on it ('irui keli rishon) should
: be considered different from that, which was done to it by putting
: them into a keli sheni or similar.

To which I wrote:
> But I'm not asking about recooking the water, I'm asking about
> recooking the leaves.

> You raise an interesting question, in that I do not know if making tea
> in nearly boiling yad soledes water is any different than using cold
> water -- other than speed. What is kema'achal ben derusa'i on such a
> tea leaf?

> Also, FWIW, the tea ... comes rolled in little gunpowder-like balls.
> (In addition, the name comes from a slight smoky flavor.) The leaves
> dance in the water as they unfurl. So there is some kind of shinui in
> the leaves -- but again, I do not know if it's from the heat, or even
> if it has meaning lehalakhah (or is just a change of shape).

> However, if tea is tavlin, then the issue wouldn't be derekh bishul
> but bishul itself. And so, I would be forced to agree.

In reply to the last quoted paragraph, he wrote:
: I believe that it is obvious that tea is tavlin [but am aware that -
: le'humra - it isn't always treated in this way; but to be meikil by
: not calling it tavlin?], and also believe that maakhal ben drosai is
: a very difficult shiur to use in such cases. Ignoring experimentally
: assessing this shiur in the case at hand, I believe that if keli
sheni : eino mevashel, then pouring 'irui keli rishon on it will bring
about
: the minimal but nonetheless prohibited amount of bishul.

We both agreed that it would be interesting to hear what the chevrah
thinks, particularly RDE's opinion of how the IM is being read. So,
even though this chaver is reluctant to put his name on halachic
guesswork in public, I got his permission to post on list.

Another thought that just hit me, and wasn't sent off-list to that
chaver. The second cup of tea is more astringent in taste and has 20%
of the caffeine of the first. Again, we do not know if this is
specific to tea made in hot water, but it could mean bishul. But one
can tell real difference in taste between green tea made cold, made at
160deg F or so (which is ideal), or made with boiling water. Even
between tea dropped in the hot water vs the product of irui. A layman
can do it, given the opportunity for a side-by-side taste test.
Perhaps this is enough to claim that the water being yad soledes does
make a measurable change on the leaf?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In Avodah Digest V23#176, RMK wrote:
> On a total tangent: The minhag seems to be to stand when the chazan says
birchos hashachar.  I could not find a reference to this in either the
Artscroll siddur or the MB.  Is there a source for this? <
Maybe the minhag should be not to sit from when one enters the BhK until
[at least] after birchos hashachar ;-).

> Is it similar to
Shochein Ad, when many people naturally stand up for some reason, even
though it is clearly not recognized as a minhag? <
Similarly ;-), I'm standing from [after] "Baruch H' l'olam" until after
"Bar'chu," whether or not "Nishmas" is said in between.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070827/6b3ffeda/attachment.htm 

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> We both agreed that it would be interesting to hear what the chevrah
> thinks, particularly RDE's opinion of how the IM is being read. So,
> even though this chaver is reluctant to put his name on halachic
> guesswork in public, I got his permission to post on list.
>
>
>   
There are several places in the Igros Moshe which might be helpful

O.H. II #85 page 276; O.H. IV #74.7 page 135; OH.IV #74.18 page 137
 *??"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ??*

????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?"? ???? ?? ???"?. ??"? 
????? ????? ??"? ?' ????? ???? ????"?.

??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? 
???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? 
????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??"? ???? ?', ??? 
?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????. ??? ???"? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? 
???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???"? ??"?, ?"? ?? ???? ????? 
????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??. ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? 
?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?"? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? 
???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????. ????? ??? ???? ?? ?' ????? ?"? 
????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? 
??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? 
????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?"? ???? ????? ?? ???? 
???? ?"? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????, ??"? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? 
?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?"? ???? 
??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? 
???? ??. ??? ?????"? ?"? ???? ?"? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? 
???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? 
???? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??"? ?? ?????? 
?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??"?, ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? 
?? ???? ???. ???? ?? ???? ???? ??"? ????? ?????? ??"? /??' ??"?/ ?"? ?"? 
???"?. ?????, ??? ?????????. ??"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ??
 
*
*
*??"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? *


(?) ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? 
????? ?????.

?????: ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????? 
????, ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???"? ????? ??"? ????"? ???"? 
????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??, ???? ?? ????? ???? 
????? ????? ?? ???"? /??"?/ ???? ??"? ???? ?' ??' ?????? ?????? ???? ?? 
?? ????? ??? ?????.

??? ??"? ??"? ?"? ?"? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? /?? ????/ ????? 
????? ??"? =???? ???= ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? 
??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????, ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????, 
?????? ??"? ???"? ??"? ??? ?????? ??"? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????, 
??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????, 
??"? ???? ???????? ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??, ????? ??? ???? ????? 
???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????, ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ??????. 
????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????

*??"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? *

(??) ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????.

?????: ????? ????? ???"? ???? ?"? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???, ???"? ?"? 
?"? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???"? 
???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?"? ?"? ???? ??? ???? ???. ?? 
???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ????' ??? ?? ?' ?"? 
?"? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? 
???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????, ??"? ???? ?????? ?????' ???? ????? 
????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? 
???"? ??? ?? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???, 
??? ???? ????? ????. ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????.

??? ???? /???/ ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? 
???? ???? ??? ????? ??"? ????? ?????' ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???? 
??????, ????? ?? ?? ???"? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????, ??? ???? 
??"? ?"? ?"? ????? ?? ????? /???/ ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? 
???????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???. ????? ???? ??? 
???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? 
??????' ????? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? 
????? ??????' ????? ??? ??"?. ?????? ???? ??"? ?????? ???? ??? ????? 
???? ?????.

.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070828/6d52ce83/attachment.html 

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 177
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."