Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 88

Mon, 13 May 2013

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 09:16:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reading a Newspaper on Shabbos



I did not say anything to either of them,  but I am under the 
impression that one is not allowed to read a paper on Shabbos that is 
printed on Shabbos.  Is it not muktzah due to Nolaid?

Furthermore,  are there not opinions that one is not even allowed to 
read a paper that was printed before Shabbos if it has ads in it?

Any clarification will be appreciated.

YL

_______________________________________________

From audioroundup:

http://www.yutorah.org/lectur
es/lecture.cfm/761976/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Newspaper_o
n_Shabbos
Issues include:  Nolad, business, mlacha being done for you, Maaseh Shabbat.
R'Lebowitz thinks it's a big problem, doesn't know explanation why some are lenient.
[Personally, I stopped reading the newspaper on Shabbat years ago, but only
because I realized it generally just aggravated me.  I'm not sure it's
realistic to prohibit unless you're willing to prohibit other items (e.g.
how do you handle general leisure reading, old magazines and all those
parsha sheets with ads???)]

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Gil Student <gil.stud...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:03:39 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reading a Newspaper on Shabbos


This is a matter of machlokes. There are two (or three) issues: 1)
reading a newspaper regardless of when it was printed or delivered, 2)
reading something printed and delivered on Shabbos. All issues are
subject to debate.

On the first, I discuss it in this post:
http://torahmusings.com/2012/11/newspapers-on-shabbos/ And see
Shemiras Shabbos KeHilkhasah 29:46-47 for a lenient ruling with a
recommendation against following it.

On the second, see SSK 31:24 for a lenient ruling if most readers
aren't Jewish and you rely on the eruv.

Gil Student



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reading a Newspaper on Shabbos


--- On?Sun, 5/12/13, Prof. Levine?<llev...@stevens.edu>?wrote:
Yesterday two people asked me if I had seen the NY Times article about what happened at the Kosel on Friday.? I replied that I do not get the NY Times.

I did not say anything to either of them,? but I am under the impression
that one is not allowed to read a paper on Shabbos that is printed on
Shabbos.? Is it not muktzah due to Nolaid?

Furthermore,? are there not opinions that one is not even allowed to read a paper that was printed before Shabbos if it has ads in it?
-----------------------------
Many years ago a related Shaila was asked to me Rebbe, R' Ahron
Soloveichik. It was related to Amira L'Akum. If one orders a newspaper
delivered to one's house, then the paper that comes on Shabbos is there as
a result of Amira L'Akum. How then may we read it? He said that this is
indeed a problem.?
But he advised an Eitza for those of us who get the paper delivered. He
told us to call the Chicago Tribune and tell them to not?deliver?the paper
until after Shabbos. They will ignore it and delver the paper when it is
convenient to them.?
That takes it out of the Geder of Amira L'Akum and then you can read the paper on Shabbos.
Now the question of Nolad was not addressed?especially. But I have to
assume that it is not an issue or RAS would have brought it up. He was very
Machmir in Hilchos Shabbos
Why it is not... is a good question.
HM
Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 



Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130512/92cd0294/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 12:57:22 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reading a Newspaper on Shabbos


Someone sent me the following:

From: http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5765/shemini.html

QUESTION: Is it halachically permitted to read 
newspapers like the Yated on Shabbos [and Yom Tov]?

DISCUSSION: It depends which section of the paper one wishes to read:
? Business and classified advertisements, 
business news which bears on the reader's 
finances or shopping needs or plans, consumer 
columns, gardening and housekeeping advice, 
recipes and cooking instructions - are all 
strictly forbidden to be read on Shabbos.(9)
? Stories of personal or public tragedies, death 
notices or eulogies that could bring a person to 
tears, holocaust stories that sadden a person and 
detract from his oneg Shabbos - may not be read on Shabbos.(10)
? Divrei Torah - including all articles 
pertaining to Torah learning, essays on the 
weekly Parashah, Halachah, Mussar, Hashkafah, 
stories and pictures of gedolei Yisrael, stories 
of chizuk ha-Torah, middos tovos and yira'as 
shamayim - all of these are permitted to be read 
on Shabbos, provided that one makes a conscious 
effort not to read the forbidden parts of the newspaper.(11)
? General news - including news, politics or 
stories of general interest, and advertisement or 
business news that have no bearing on the 
finances or shopping needs or plans of the 
reader, are a subject of dispute among the 
poskim. We find three basic opinions:

1. Many hold that reading this type of material 
is included in the Rabbinical edict against 
reading non-business documents and is forbidden to be read.(12)
2. Others hold that if one enjoys reading these 
type of articles then it is permitted to do 
so.  These poskim maintain that the Rabbinical 
edict against reading non-business documents does 
not include enjoyable reading 
material.(13)  Mishnah Berurah, however, does not support this position.(14)
3. Some poskim hold that while it may be 
permitted to read certain parts of the newspaper, 
reading a newspaper should be strongly 
discouraged since it is extremely difficult to 
avoid the advertisements or other parts of the 
paper which are forbidden to be read.(15)  But 
other poskim, however, permit the reading of a 
newspaper as long as one makes a conscious effort 
to avoid the forbidden sections.(16)  The 
following is a free translation of guidelines 
given by Harav N. Karelitz(17) on this subject: 
?While a ben Torah and his family should avoid 
reading a newspaper on Shabbos altogether, we do 
not object to those who are lenient and read the 
permissible parts of the newspaper.  This is 
especially true with regard to women, children 
and those who do not engage in the study of Torah 
[who require a kosher alternative so that they 
will not come to engage in idle or forbidden talk 
or worse]; we definitely should not object to 
their reading the permissible parts of the 
newspaper.?  One should consult his halachic 
authority for guidance as to how he should conduct himself in this matter.

FOOTNOTES:
9 Mishnah Berurah 307:63.
  10 Mishnah Berurah 307:3; Ketzos ha-Shulchan 107:43.
  11 See Avnei Yashfei 1:76-3, quoting Harav S.Z. Auerbach; Az Nidberu 9:7.
  12 Many poskim, based on O.C. 307:16. See Minchas Shabbos 90:22.
  13 See Magen Avraham 301:4 and Peri Megadim; 
Ya'avatz 1:162; Kalkeles Shabbos 33; Tehillah 
l'David 301:1; Da'as Torah 307:15.
  14 Sha'ar ha-Tziyun 301:7.
  15 Mishnah Berurah 307:63.
  16 See Da'as Torah 307:16, Shemiras Shabbos 
K'hilchasah 29:46. See also Igros Moshe O.C. 
5:22-3 who writes that business newspapers should not be read.


 From the sefer ?Piskei Hilchos Shabbos? ? A 
compilation of Piskei Teshuvos of Rav Moshe 
Feinstein ztl and Rav Moshe Stern, the Debrecziner Rav ztl(1914-1997):

Vol. 2, Chapter 6, Reading a Newspaper on Shabbos:
3. a newspaper that was delivered to one?s door 
on Shabbos should not be read on Shabbos.
4. Even a newspaper that was bought or delivered 
before Shabbos, if the newspaper also contains 
business related advertisements or business 
related articles, it should not be read on Shabbos.

                 The footnote attributes this to 
both R? Stern and R? Feinstein.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130512/71b5e542/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:36:39 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Shloshet Yemei Hagbalah



V'Avraham zakein bah bayamim?.Bereishis 24:1; "And Abraham was old [and] came with his days."
A very enlightening comment by an unknown author suggests that bah bayamim actually refers
to beis yamim, TWO days. In this sense Abraham lived with two days constantly before his eyes:
yom hivaldo (day of his birth) and yom hamvaet (day of his death). The former motivated and 
encouraged him to search and probe into such perplexing questions as why man was born? Why
was he divinely endowed with a will to choose freely the type of life he will live? The latter, on the
other hand (yom hamavet), provoked thought on man's ultimate destiny and how man will face his
Maker? Hence, the day Abraham lived in was the first day plus the two days before him added up to
three.  It could be said that Abraham was constantly prepared to receive the Torah. 

"Behold I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give, I give myself."  Walt Whitman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130512/a3b73d65/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!" <ra...@itskosher.com.au>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 07:50:02 +1000
Subject:
[Avodah] Whey (Was: [Areivim] How the OU Kashrus Division


It would be better to discuss the arguments and proofs of the Poskim rather
than make various statements expressing broad political inclinations. I
think I even read on this thread, someone saying that Reb Moshe did not
answer or explain certain components of his position.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130513/dbe5b763/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 00:50:33 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] yeush on land


R' Zev Sero wrote:

> 3. Kibush and yi'ush are two unrelated concepts. Even if kibush
> works, it's not because of yi'ush, vehara'aya that even if the
> owner is shouting that he is not meya'esh, and even if his lack
> of yi'ush is not at all unrealistic (so that we should say it's
> zuto shel yam), it doesn't change the fact of kibush.  If he
> conquers it back it will be again because of kibush, not because
> of his previous ownership.

Over the years, I have many recollections of times when we (Am Yisrael,
collectively) made a very big deal out of the fact that Avraham Avinu paid
cash for the Machpelah, and that we still own it on that basis. (And David
Hamelech purchased Har Habayis, and I think there was a third case too.)

If those memories are correct, then it would seem that kibush does *not*
give one ownership to that land, because if it did, we would have lost our
claims to these places long ago. I suppose that it is possible that kibush
does work, but only in conjunction with yiush, which does not apply in our
case, because we were never meya'esh on these areas.

Another possibility is that kibush works, and that our pointing to
Avraham's purchase is intended only as an emotional rallying cry, and not
as a true legal claim. (I am currently in the process of collecting
examples of where Chazal said something which was not intended to be taken
literally. I hope that I will not have to add this to that list.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Gold scam victim?
Must see video exposes massive ???gold scam.??? Investors beware.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51903902ed6c139022605st01vuc



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 20:42:10 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] venus fly catchers


There are three categories of animals: animals suitable for sacrifice, 
animals permitted as food but not as sacrifice, and animals prohibited 
as food.  Fish and plants have only two of those categories: no fish are 
suitable for sacrifice, and no plants are prohibited as food.

Why not?

David Riceman




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 21:35:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] yeush on land


On 12/05/2013 8:50 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> 3. Kibush and yi'ush are two unrelated concepts. Even if kibush
>> works, it's not because of yi'ush, vehara'aya that even if the
>> owner is shouting that he is not meya'esh, and even if his lack
>> of yi'ush is not at all unrealistic (so that we should say it's
>> zuto shel yam), it doesn't change the fact of kibush.  If he
>> conquers it back it will be again because of kibush, not because
>> of his previous ownership.
>
> Over the years, I have many recollections of times when we (Am
> Yisrael, collectively) made a very big deal out of the fact that
> Avraham Avinu paid cash for the Machpelah, and that we still own it
> on that basis. (And David Hamelech purchased Har Habayis, and I think
> there was a third case too.)

Indeed.  The third site is Kever Yosef.


> If those memories are correct, then it would seem that kibush does
> *not* give one ownership to that land, because if it did, we would
> have lost our claims to these places long ago.

1. I've been maintaining all along that kibush milchama does not apply
to EY, because Hashem gave it to us permanently.

2. However this isn't really a proof for that position, because the
maamar chazal is countering a claim that doesn't recognise kibbush or
regards it as unfair.   It assumes a situation in which we already have
kibbush, and it says that even if they claim that our occupation of the
rest of EY is illegitimate, they can't dispute these three sites,
because we paid for them.   It's ironic that nowadays these three are
davka the sites in the most contention.   Additionally, the most
contentious "settlement" is Chevron, where every square centimetre was
bought and paid for, not 3700 years ago but within documented time.
I believe this is Hashem's way of demonstrating to any honest observer
that their claims are completely without merit.


> I suppose that it is
> possible that kibush does work, but only in conjunction with yiush,
> which does not apply in our case, because we were never meya'esh on
> these areas.

No, it's very clear that kibush, where it applies, does not depend at all
on the previous owner's state of mind.  he is irrelevant.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Nachum Binyamin Klafter, MD" <doctorklaf...@cinci.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:39:21 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Segulot, Practical Kabbala


Zev Sero writes:  "Then what do you make of the Chacham Tzvi's casual, 
matter-of-fact reference to the golem that his great-grandfather R Eliyahu 
of Chelm made?"

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say "What do you make of...?" 
If you are asking me how it was possible for the Chacham Tzvi to believe 
such things, then the following is my answer:  I think that the intellectual 
world of the Chacham Tzvi was Medieval, pre-Enlightenment, and based on 
metaphysics rather than on scientific observation.  Astrology, alchemy, and 
magic were accepted by the vast majority of people as being real phenomena. 
Ba'alei Shem were reported to work miracles, including the creation of 
golems.  I don't know who invented the legend about his grandfather, but the 
Chacham Tzvi accepted this legend

In the 800's, Eldad Ha-Dani appeared and told fantastic, absurd stories 
about how the lost tribes of Israel, along with the Moshiach, were alive and 
well in some remote Asian province.  They were, as of yet, prevented from 
bringing the redemption because their kingdom was trapped behind a river or 
rocks which would kill anyone who attempted to traverse it.  This miraculous 
river of rocks would stop flowing every Sabbath, but then the lost tribes 
were  unable to pass because it would involve walking outside the techum. 
It seems that the vast majority of the Jewish world believed Eldad, who 
claimed to descend from the Tribe of Dan.  Even many ba'alei tosafot, 
centuries later, believed his story was legitimate.  No one can take such 
stories seriously nowadays because we know this is not how the world works. 
If we lived then, we'd believe those stories as well.

If you are asking what I think of the veracity of this report simply because 
a great godol such as the Chacham Tzvi also repeated a story he was told, 
then the following is my answer.  Obviously he did not make a golem.  No one 
has ever made a golem.  It is, simply, impossible to sculpt a form out of 
mud and bring it to life with Kabbalistic incantatoins.  Honestly, you 
believe such a thing is possible then we live in different  universes and I 
don't know we can have a meaningful dialogue about this.  To me it is no 
different than the well known story from several years ago involving a fish 
that spoke, in Yiddish, to a cook in a restaurant in Monsey stating he was a 
gilgul of the soul of a deceased Jew, in need of a tikkun.  Talking dead 
fish and golems share the same status.  A similar contemporary phenomenon 
would be people who believe they've been abducted by aliens.

Micha Berger:

In my opinion you misunderstand the relevance for us of those passages from 
the Moreh Nevhuchim .  First of all, the real point of that passage is that 
angels are actually the forces of nature.  Yes, the Rambam still believed in 
the Aristotelian model of our universe which involved a the Hylar Matter 
("Hiyuli" in Hebrew), and he believed that "angels" described in Tanakh and 
chazal were their way of describing the system of spheres which he lays out 
at the beginning of Hilchot Yesodei Ha-Torah, which comes directly from 
Aristotle and has no source whatsoever in our mesorah.  All of this is 
"science" according to the Rambam.  It would similar to someone in our times 
writing a handbook of Jewish belief which starts off with the best, 
contemporary scientific account of the Big Bang and the expansion of the 
universe.  But to actually focus on the specific content of what the Rambam 
describes, which is ancient metaphysics really misses the point. 




Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <r...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:54:43 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Segulot, Practical Kabbala


I'm coming in late on this conversation, but I would like to ask: What 
about Chazals about Giluyei Eliyahu, the Amoraim who created the goat 
Erev Shabbos, etc.?

KT,
YGB

On 5/12/2013 4:39 PM, Nachum Binyamin Klafter, MD wrote:
> I don't know exactly what you mean when you say "What do you make 
> of...?" If you are asking me how it was possible for the Chacham Tzvi 
> to believe such things, then the following is my answer:  I think that 
> the intellectual world of the Chacham Tzvi was Medieval, 
> pre-Enlightenment, and based on metaphysics rather than on scientific 
> observation.  Astrology, alchemy, and magic were accepted by the vast 
> majority of people as being real phenomena. Ba'alei Shem were reported 
> to work miracles, including the creation of golems.  I don't know who 
> invented the legend about his grandfather, but the Chacham Tzvi 
> accepted this legend 




Go to top.

Message: 12
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:29:38 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Shavuos and Simchas Torah


The question is asked why there is a need for Shavuos AND Simchas Torah, as they basically 
have the same function. L'havdil, Xtians claim the New Testament is the fulfillment of the
Old.  In Judaism, the holiday of Simchas Torah might be seen as the fulfillment of Shavuos.




Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:17:58 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav SR Hirsch and the Raavad on Anthropomorphism


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:21:39PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
>>    I also don't understand what the Ra'avad means when he argues that
>>    those who disagree with the Rambam were led down that road by their
>>    reading of "mikra." What does that have to do with the intuitive
>>    sense of G-d that comes from hakara?...
>>    I just don't see how it fits the words.

> I agree to RCBrown's objection. Also, the way R'Amiel is using  
> "hakara" seems to me to fit more closely under the Rambam's categories  
> of ahavas v'yiras Hashem, rather than y'dios Hashem...

Although, the Rambam believes that ahavah and yir'ah are consequences of
yedi'ah. As per Yesodei haTorah 2:1. And in fact leshitaso, all middos
come from knowledge and opinion. Which is why he attributes akrasia (why
people make decisions they know are bad) to having formed a wrong opinion.

RSRH, in 19 Letters (Letter 18) makes an argument against the mesoretic
nature of the Rambam's position. And no theory of psychology since
Aristotle's would give it much credance either.

As for those who disagree being based on miqra, I'm not sure what
the perplexity is. The pasuq says "Yad Hashem", "Charon Apo", "Etzba
E-lokim", etc... and it's natural to take that to mean He has a hand,
finger, flares His Nose in anger, etc...

Useful also is to see the seifer most assume the Raavad is defending, R
Moshe Taqu's "Ketav Tamim", which we have only a piece of from manuscript,
and another long keta quoted in Arugas haBosem. I wrote my take on what
he says last Sep, on our current thread
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml#01>.

Anyway, haqarah isn't to my mind taken as an intuitive knowledge of G-d.
As I wrote then, RMT feels he is being more loyal to the notion that we
can't intuit about HQBH than the Rambam was. The Rambam at least believes
that we can use reason to rule out claims about Him. RMT says we cannot,
and therefore if miqra speaks of Yad Hashem, or Charon Apo, by what
tool can we question the nevu'ah?

BUT, it is an acceptance of Hashem as He is encountered and described
by nevi'im. Not knowing about G-d through abstract reasoning, but knowing
G-d in the same sense one knows their father, rebbe, friend or beloved.
Lehakir. Acknowledging His Personhood.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:33:50 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reading a Newspaper on Shabbos


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:07:19AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Now the question of Nolad was not addressed especially. But I have to
: assume that it is not an issue or RAS would have brought it up. He was
: very Machmir in Hilchos Shabbos

What was nolad?

Generally we consider something a new object when it undergoes a shinui
sheim. This was an argument employed to prohibit reading a fax on
Shabbos. And even that's not a given, see R JDBleich's article in
Tradition 35:1 (behind a paywall at
<http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104901>).

But newspaper doesn't lose the sheim "paper", so it would be even less
of a nolad issue.

BTW, the notion that an object is new when it has a new name fits my
phenomenology / existential view of halakhah far better than one that
insists halakhah relates to what's really there objectively.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 88
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >