Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 7

Fri, 16 Jan 2015

• 1. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Marty Bluke)
• 2. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Listening to a Rav HaMuvhak (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. conquest of EY by Yehoshua (Eli Turkel)
• 7. kiddush hashem (Eli Turkel)
• 8. How Does a Heter Iska Work? (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Bris in the midbor (Isaac Balbin)
• 10. Re: conquest of EY by Yehoshua (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Metzitza on Shabbos (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 12. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: kiddush hashem (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Bris in the midbor (Micha Berger)

Regarding kli sheini ayno mevashel, there are 2 possible approaches:

1. It is a din. In other words the halacha states that cooking in a kli
sheini is not called cooking. We find for example that bishul bechama is
permitted.
2. It is a fact/reality, the gemara is telling us an empirical fact, that
in general a kli sheini doesn't cook.

Many of the Rishonim state explicitly that kli sheini ayno mevashel is an
empirical fact. The Rashba there in Shabbos, the Yeraim quoted by many
other rishonim and others. Tosafos there also seems to say this because
they explain the difference between a kli rishon and a ili sheini based on
facts, that a kli rishon has hot walls while a kli sheini doesn't.

The gemara about kalei habishul seems to support this position. The simple
reading of the gemara (39a and other places) is that there are certain
things that are easily cooked and you are chayav if you cook them in a kli
sheini. If it was a din then how wcould you be chayav by kalei habishul?

None of the Rishonim (that I saw) say explicitly that it is a din (however
see Tosafos shabbos 42a where they discuss a hot bath and other Rishonim
(Ramban, Ritva) which could be interpreted this way). However the Ohr
Sameach (hilchos shabbos perek 9) goes with this idea explicitly, and
explains it as follows. He says that the gemara states that cooking in
halacha is defined as by fire or the result of a fire. He says that a kli
sheini is so far removed from the fire that it can't be called toldos
haeish and therefore is not considered cooking in halacha. This is similar
to the din that cooking in the sun is not considered cooking. He explains
that kalei habishul is a gezera because people do cook kalei habishul in a
kli sheini therefore they prohibited it m'drabbanan.

There are a number of practical differences in halacha regarding this
question, I will mention 2 of them:
1. If the kli sheini is really hot. The Chayei Adam based on a Rambam in
Maaser Sheni holds that if the kli sheini is boiling hot (if you touch it
you will get burned) then the rule of kli sheini ayno mevashel doesn't
apply. This is clearly going with 2, that it is a fact/reality, according
to the ohr sameach it shouldn't matter.
2. Is there a kula of kli shlishi? The Mishna Berura quotes a Pri megadim
who is lenient by a kli shlishi by kalei habishul, that you would be
permitted to put them in a kli shlishi  The Chazon Ish and others disagree.
they hold that there is no difference between a kli sheini and a kli
shlishi based on Tosafos, both have cold walls and both have the same
amount of heat. If you hold like 2 then the kula of kli shlishi makes no
sense. However according to the Ohr Sameach that kli sheini ayno mevashel
is a din and the humra by kalei habishul is only a din drabbanan, then it
makes sense to say that the gezera was only made on a kli sheini and not on
a kli shlishi.

Interestingly enough, the Mishna Berura quotes both of these dinim. He is
machmir like the Chayei Adam which is based on fact/reality and lenient
like the Pri Megadim which seems to be based on the fact that it is a din
and not a fact/reality.

At first glance opinion 1 (din) seems much more logical then 2. It seems
very difficult to say that the gemara is telling us a fact/reality without
qualifying it. If the Chayei Adam is right how come the gemara didn't warn
us about it. The Chayei Adam's scenario is not so uncommon and leads to an
issur d'oraysa. The gemara's statement lends itself to be interpreted as a
general principle in halacha not a fact/reality. Therefore I was very happy
to see the Ohr Sameach expound the position of din explicitly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150112/f3653600/attachment.htm>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 02:51:10PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: And in case you still think "barzel" in this pasuk could mean any metal,
: the Rambam also writes "barzel", and there can be no question that by his
: time that had no meaning but "iron". When he means "matechet" he says so.
: http://mechon-mamre.org/i/8101.htm

I find this argument weak. We generally look for reasons why the Rambam
changed the wording of his sources. The default is that if the source says
"barzel", he would too.

In any case, this doesn't resolve my problem... Why would HQBH tell Moshe
that Betzalel's crew cannot use specifically iron on the grounds that
people kill echother with iron. At the time, *more* people were killing
eachother with bronze. Why would HQBH permit them the use of bronze?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 01/12/2015 04:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 02:51:10PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : And in case you still think "barzel" in this pasuk could mean any metal,
> : the Rambam also writes "barzel", and there can be no question that by his
> : time that had no meaning but "iron". When he means "matechet" he says so.
> : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/8101.htm
>
> I find this argument weak. We generally look for reasons why the Rambam
> changed the wording of his sources. The default is that if the source says
> "barzel", he would too.

The Rambam wrote clearly and unanbiguously, halacha lema'aseh.  He had no
problem changing a pasuk's word, if it didn't mean what the halacha was.
And he uses "matechet" hundreds of times, when he means metal.  Here he
clearly didn't.


> In any case, this doesn't resolve my problem... Why would HQBH tell Moshe
> that Betzalel's crew cannot use specifically iron on the grounds that
> people kill echother with iron. At the time, *more* people were killing
> each other with bronze. Why would HQBH permit them the use of bronze?

Perhaps this proves that swords, by that time, were already made of iron.
They may have been imported.

On 01/12/2015 03:13 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> However the Ohr Sameach (hilchos shabbos perek 9) goes with this idea
> explicitly, and explains it as follows. He says that the gemara
> states that cooking in halacha is defined as by fire or the result of
> a fire. He says that a kli sheini is so far removed from the fire
> that it can't be called toldos haeish and therefore is not considered
> cooking in halacha. This is similar to the din that cooking in the
> sun is not considered cooking. He explains that kalei habishul is a
> gezera because people do cook kalei habishul in a kli sheini
> therefore they prohibited it m'drabbanan.

WHat about cham ke'ambati?  Does he say that is also mid'rabanan?


> 1. If the kli sheini is really hot. The Chayei Adam based on a Rambam
> in Maaser Sheni holds that if the kli sheini is boiling hot (if you
> touch it you will get burned) then the rule of kli sheini ayno
> mevashel doesn't apply.

Why go to Maaser Sheni, when we already have the clear din in Shabbos
that a kli sheni which is cham ke'ambati does cook?


> 2. Is there a kula of kli shlishi? [...] If you hold like 2 then the kula
> of kli shlishi makes no sense.

Why not?  Just because keli sheni is sometimes mevashel, that
doesn't mean the same must be true about keli shlishi.

>  If the Chayei Adam is right how come the gemara didn't warn us about it.

It did, in the case of ambati.

Again I'm travelling, but I very recently heard a shiur maybe two from Mori
R Schachter where he differentiates someone with Smicha and no Shimush and
having to abide by Rubom shel Gedolay Horo-oh unless ones Rav is his Rav
HaMuvhak who is himself a Posek Muvhak with Shimush as opposed to the type
of LOR or Rabbi who knows WHEN to ask (as per the intention of R Moshe and
the last Lubavitcher Rebbe)

What isn't a halachic approach in my opinion is a LOR who shops opinions from a range of important Rabonim and then decides for himself

The gemara in Ketubot 25 talks about 7 years of conquest and 7 years of
dividing the land
(about the halachot of Challah)

I am bothering by several questions:

1) What takes 7 years to divide the land above and beyond conquest
2) A reading of sefer shoftim and melachim shows that in fact much of EY
was not fully conquered until many years later

examples:  The most famous is that Jerusalem was only conquered by King
David from the Jebusites.

Menashe did not conquer Bet Shean, Taanach, Dor, Yavlaem and Megiddo.
In modern terms this is most of the lower Galilee.
Note that Devorah was confronted by 900 chariots in Emek Yizrael near
Megiddo.
Even in victory the Caaninites paid taxes but were not exprelled.

Naftali did not conquer Katron and Nehalul and the Caananites remained
there and Asher and Naftali lived amongst the Caananites
Dan never conquered their portion and had to move (Ayalon ad Shaalavim)
even then they lived amongst the Caananites and only collected taxes

Perhaps the extreme case is Gezer. This was conqurered by the Egyptians who
burnt the city
and finally was given to the daughter of Paro who married King Solomon
(hundreds of years after Yehoshua and many years after the shoftim)


NOTE: This actually has an effect on practical halacha. The gemara learns
that taking challah and terumah on a biblical level applies only when ALL
of Israel is on their land.
So the question is what happened at the end of the 14 years that brought
the biblical law of terumah when in fact much of the land was still not
conquered while beforehand the Jews were in EY but it was not "fully"
conquered.
This might effect the status of terumah today
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150113/8365384a/attachment-0001.htm>

Given the recent tragic events I wish to quote some things from Rav
Zilberstein's recent shiur on the murder of the 4 in the shul in Har Nof

1) He quotes R. Elyashiv that anyone killed because he is Jewish is a
"kadosh" He quotes a story about R Grinboim who was killed in Switzerland
by an Arab who didnt take any money. Rav Elyashiv paskened to be on his
tombstone "kadosh" . The Swiss authorities insisted the Arab was crazy and
it was not anti-semitic. Later the Swiss authorities admitted that it was
an anti-semitic act justifying Rav Elyashiv.

2) The main shiur was whther Hatzala workers could enter the shul during
the shooting to save the wounded while putting themselves at risk. Rav
Elyashiv insists it is allowed (not required) based on a gemara in Ketubot
61a. Rav Elyashiv admitted that others disagree but insists that he is
right based on that gemara.

Police are required to enter since that is part of their job
Times of war have different halachot  and today in Israel it is considered
a time of war.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150113/2bacdcf3/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=13712

R Meir Rabi asked about the horoas shooh

I'm travelling and without seforim but from what I remembered in Yevamos
Rashi implied a spiritual danger something which I don't see in Shulchan
Aruch or Rambam and therefore it had to be a Psak for that generation
by the Novi Moshe

As I recall (it's been years) the Rishonim shemipihem onu Chayim were
certainly quoting the pirkei DRabbi Eliezer

I did find these enlightening mekoros which will be of interest to many

http://www.aspakl
aria.info/004_DALET/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%20%
20%20%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94.htm

[Hebrew deleted: Nishlach me-iPhone HAMA"ALH QELIPAT NOGAH []   -micha]

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> The gemara learns that taking challah and terumah on a biblical
> level applies only when ALL of Israel is on their land.
>
> So the question is what happened at the end of the 14 years that
> brought the biblical law of terumah when in fact much of the land
> was still not conquered while beforehand the Jews were in EY but
> it was not "fully" conquered. This might effect the status of
> terumah today.

This is a machlokes. Rambam (Trumos 1:26) holds the trumah today is only
d'rabanan, as RET wrote. But the Raavad (there) says that this requirement
does not apply, and that it is therefore d'Oraisa today. Much more on this
question can be found in Yoreh Deah 331:2.

But in recent years I have heard that in this context, "all" really means
"most" (as it is said, "rubo k'kulo"), and that many halachos will take on
d'Oraisa aspects in the very near future - even according to the Rambam -
when most of the world's Jews will live in Israel. IF this is true, then
*perhaps* the answer two RET's question is that even conquering *most* of
the Land was sufficient for these halachos to apply.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Man, 63, Avoids Wrinkles
63 Yr Old Man Shares Simple DIY Skin Tightening Method He Uses At Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b65748ab72d57482b5dst04vuc

The steps of Beris Mila are listed in the Mishnah and include the process
of applying suction to remove blood. There is no dispute that this is for
the health of the baby and is permitted on Shabbos because the baby's life
is at risk.

I have proposed that since we now know that applying suction provides no
medical benefit, it is prohibited on Shabbos since one is causing a wound
which is an Issur DeOraysa where there is no medical need. This has evoked
a response, on this board, that is heated but without substance.

The best attempt to rebuff my argument is - suction is required for two
reasons: A) it's part of the Mitzvah, B) medical benefit. So, although I am
correct re medical benefit, suction is still required by Torah Law because
it is part of the Mitzvah of Beris Milah.

This however, makes no sense.

1) Beris is clearly identified in the the Torah as removal of the foreskin.

1.1) Suction is in no way related to removal of the foreskin.

2) the Gemara does not ever tell us that it IS part of the Mitzvah

2,1) the Rishonim do not ever tell us that it IS part of the Mitzvah

3) EVERY Gemara discussion about suction relates EXCLUSIVELY to its medical
value

4) the Gemara has discussions and disputes which could be readily resolved
by disclosing that suction is an integral part of the mitzvah. Yet the
Gemara NEVER make this disclosure.

4.1) The Rishonim who usually point out such anomalies are all silent in
this case.


- but we are urged to believe that lurking in the background is the fact
that it is also part of the Mitzvah proper.

I suggest you see this,
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/12/metzizah-and-rav-part-ii.html


The question that needs to be answered is - why are we permitted to cut
non-essential flaps [NE flaps] on Shabbos?

When explaining this all the Rishonim use the expression - Tzarchey Milah,
whilst one is engaged in the performance of Milah - NE flaps may be cut.
But Tzarchey Milah is not the same as Mitzvahs Milah, it is broader, more
encompassing and must be so - because we otherwise cannot understand why
one may trim the NE flaps that are not part of the Mitzvah but whose
removal is Chillul Shabbos.

In fact their reluctance to say Mitvahs Milah proves that Metzitza is not
part of Beris Milah - it is only Tzarchey Milah, and even that somehow
permits NE flaps on Shabbos.
Reb Elchonon explains that it is Hiddur Mitzvah - a Chiddush but
reasonable, and clearly his position excludes Metz as part of the Mitzvah.

here is the Ran

"??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????, ???? ?????? ??????? ???????, ??
???? ????, ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????, ??
?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ????? ?????. ??????
?????? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????. ????? ?????? ????? ?????
??? ???? ???? ???, ????? ????".

The Ran at base level says what every other Rishon says - whilst engaged in
Tzarchey Milah one may trim NE flaps on Shabbos.

The secondary part of the Ran, which is not seen in other Rishonim,
proposes that Metz is perhaps NOT EVEN part of Tzarchey Milah and one
accordingly not be permitted to trim those NE flaps as soon as Periah is
concluded EVEN THOUGH Metz has NOT YET been performed.

Those who suggest a Diyuk in RaMBaM [??? ????? ????"? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???
?????? ???? "?? ???? ????", ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????] are wrong,
there is NOTHING in RaMBaM that is not to be found in the other Rishonim.
Still being engaged in the procedure IS NOT part of the Mitzvah, in fact
the Diyuk is to the contrary - RaMBaM and other Rishonim should, but do not
use the phrase Chelek MeHaMitzvah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150115/ebc1c069/attachment.htm>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:13:26AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: The view of MB 288:28 is not clear to me. At first he clarifies the
: Rama, that one may make a bracha for the health of a choleh ...  on
: Shabbos, but only if the choleh is in sakanah. And then he goes on to
: say that when one says a Mi Sheberach [now identified specifically by
: that name] for a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah, he must include the words
: "Shabbos hee miliz'ok".

"Shabbos hi miliz'oq" makes sense to you in general? How does saying
"I know this is inappropriate" make it any more appropriate to make a
personal baqashah on Shabbos?

The thought crossed my mind that it MIGHT be related to permitting a
shevus dishvus for a nofel lamitah who is a choleh she'ein bo saqanah.
Could the exclamation serve the role of a shinui, perhaps?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 05:23:36PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: 1) He quotes R. Elyashiv that anyone killed because he is Jewish is a
: "kadosh" ...

I want to repeat R' Michael Poppers' point because getting this wrong
might get people wrongly labeled mamzeirim.

He might be "a qadosh", but he didn't necessarily die "al qiddush
hasheim". The latter would require his widow to remain unmarried, and
no one suggested that of Shoah survivors.

To die "al qiddush hasheim" requires the person *choosing* Torah over
life in a situation that requires it. (E.g. The 3 yeihareig ve'al ya'avor,
or beshe'as hashemad.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:02:33PM -0500, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
: I'm travelling and without seforim but from what I remembered in Yevamos
: Rashi implied a spiritual danger something which I don't see in Shulchan
: Aruch or Rambam and therefore it had to be a Psak for that generation
: by the Novi Moshe

But not necessarily a hora'as sha'ah. It would be a risk that is real
that in any generation it would exist would be equally a matir. You're
invoking a navi as need to identify that risk, which is different
than a temporary override of halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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



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


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


*************************************

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.)