Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 1

Sun, 01 Jan 2017

• 1. Re: electronics on shabbat (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: electronics on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 3. Chillul Ha Shem (Professor L. Levine)
• 4. Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Chillul Ha Shem (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Chillul Ha Shem (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: electronics on shabbat (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: electronics on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 9. Teaching Children About Things That Are Not Specifically Jewish (Professor L. Levine)
• 10. Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk (Akiva Miller)

R' Marty Bluke wrote:

> There is no prohibition to create a light on Shabbat, the
> prohibition is to create a fire or heat metal until it glows.
> It just so happens that until recent times there was no way
> to create light without heat (e.g. incandescent bulbs).

I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is
exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for
Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat,
or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? RMBluke
seems to presume that the heat is the main factor, and the light merely
defines the shiur of heat, but I'd like to see this proven.

By the way, these LED bulbs aren't the only modern way to make light
without heat. We also have the phosphorescent chemicals in a glow stick. Do
such glow sticks constitute "aish"?

According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by
Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29):

> Activating any electrical device to generate either heat or
> light or increasing the setting on an electrical device to
> generate more heat or light is prohibited because of the
> Melacha D'oraisa of Mav'ir. Examples include intentionally
> 1) activating a heating pad, 2) activating a light, ...

Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice
of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer
opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without
light?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161228/59c465d4/attachment-0001.htm>

: 
: I agree that this ability did not exist until recent times, and that is
: exactly why they never asked the question: How do we define fire for
: Hilchos Shabbos? Is the glowing metal considered fire because of the heat,
: or because of the light, or because of some combination of the two? ...

Or neither, and heating metal until it glows is bishul, not havarah.

Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim is a tolsadah
    of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa)

Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul?

The gemara discusses gacheles shel matches twice, and both times it's
about kibui.

Shabbos 42a - Shemu'el permits extinguishing a gacheles shel mateches
    in a reshus harabim to avoid hezeq of the rabim, but not a real
    coal (gacheles shel eitz).

Rashi says this is because the GSM would only be kibui derabbanan.

Rashba quote R' Hai Gaon that it's because the coal glows red and
    provides its own warning, but hot metal can be an invisible danger.

Implied from the Rashba -- a GSM isn't even necessarily glowing.

Ritva: the GSM is a sakanas nefashos

To the Raavad, this lack of mechabeh shows that the problem of heating
metal is bishul, not hav'arah.

Yuma 34b - R Yehudah says that they would heat up asasios shel barzel from
    erev Yom Kippur to drop in the kohein gadol's miqvah to take the
    chill out of the water. Abayei says that even if they were heated
    higia letziruf, it's mutar as a davar she'ein miskavein that even
    intentionally would have only been derabbanan.

Magid Mishnah Shabbos 12:2 - we can derive from Yuma that in had the metal
    been put on the fire on YK itself, heating the metal would be assur
    deOraisa.

: According to Rav Moshe Heinemann (of the Star-K; in "Guide to Halachos" by
: Nachman Schachter, published by Feldheim, pg 29):
...
: Unfortunately, he does not offer any explanation or sources for his choice
: of words "heat OR light". Does anyone know of other poskim who offer
: opinions about technologies that make light without heat, or heat without
: light?

Since it is (AFAIK) impossible to have a maqor for answering this
question, and it's a safeiq deOraisa, I think RMH's pesaq is the only
possible one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

The is from from Rav Shimon Schwab's essay Chillul Ha Shem that appears in Selected Writings.  the entire article may be read at


http://tinyurl.com/goqh7ol


All this comes to mind at this time since some
perpetrators of Chillul Hashem are making the headlines of
our daily newspapers. Certainly we are not sitting in
judgment of the persons who are publicly accused and we
have to wait whether the indictments will be borne out by

irrefutable evidence. However, be it as it may, the Chillul
Hashem is there in the worst possible way. "Rabbi" so and so,
who sits in court with his velvet Yarmulka in full view of a
television audience composed of millions of viewers, is
accused of having ruthlessly enriched himself at the expense
of others, flaunting the laws of G-d and man, exploiting,
conniving and manipulating - in short, desecrating all the
fundamentals of Torah Judaism. And this sorry onslaught on
our Jewish sensitiveness is repeated by similar allegations,
proven or unproven, involving more prominent men who are
stigmatized as orthodox Jews, sometimes even with so-called
rabbinic diplomas.

While it is obvious that the vast majority of loyal and
observant Torah Jews deal honestly and correctly with their
fellow men, a very small minority of criminal perpetrators
suffices to cast sinister aspersions on all orthodox Jews and,
what is worse, on orthodox Judaism as a way of life. The
Chillul Hashem of a few individuals provides excuses for the

doubter, and encourages the desecration of Torah learning,
Torah education and Torah influence. To defraud and
exploit our fellowmen, Jew or gentile, to conspire, to betray
the Government, to associate with underworld elements all
these are hideous crimes by themselves. Yet to the outrage
committed there is added another dimension, namely the
profanation of the Divine Name and that means the
profanation of all that is supposed to be held sacred by us as
well as - in their heart of hearts - by the perpetrators
themselves. What a sorry picture that is.

Suppose I have cheated my neighbor or my Government
and then I stand in the midst of a congregation of honest and
decent men and women to recite the Kaddish which is the
prayer for Kiddush Hashem in the world. What audacity!
What a shame! Can there be a worse contradiction than the
strict Sabbath observer who may also be a stickler for
Kashrus and who at the same time violates the spirit of
Shabbos and Kashrus during the week with non-kosher
money manipulations?

Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators are

only a handful of unscrupulous people and we even hope
that some of them will be proved innocent. But it needs only
very few violators to give us all a rotten name, aiding and
abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few
friends.

Therefore, no white-washing, no condoning, no
apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear
that anyone who besmirches the sacred Name ceases to be
our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and
has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake.
And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has
become in orthodox Jewish circles the more obligated he
must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in
his dealings with the outside world.

__________________________________________________________

Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav Schwab considers
someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything, but who is accused
of a crime to be guilty of Chillul HaShem.  Apparently he feels that one
should conduct oneself in such a manner that one cannot even be accused of
a crime even if the accusation is false.


YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161229/931ceed3/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi Hershel Schachter
TorahWeb.org

EILU V'EILU

The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas
Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as
a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the
mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei
all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one
small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night.
Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue:
the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel
tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil
was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a
miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash?

Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is
binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his
position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is
obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because
each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The
story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second
Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that
generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash
are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the
period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in
the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly
be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to
come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that
sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu
divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu
was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe
Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various
cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him
that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur;
and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha,
with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the
judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on
their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter
outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse.

Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the
consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two
positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The
gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first
Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in
one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy
years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the
nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary
on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all
of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were
never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer
is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim
were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the
framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were
considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic
position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during
the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance
with the consensus of that era.

Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations
later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the
accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot
become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel
Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and
caused the nes to occur.

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

[1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110

[2] See Pesachim 16a

[3] See Sotah 4b

[4] Eruvin 13b

[5] Eruvin ibid

[6] Zevachim 61b

Copyright (c) 2016 by TorahWeb.org. All rights reserved.

On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav
> Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything,
> but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul
> HaShem.  Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a
> manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation
> is false.

That is impossible.

-- 
Zev Sero                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32:51PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 29/12/16 09:32, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: >Note that from the first paragraph it seems that Rav
: >Schwab considers someone who has not as yet been convicted of anything,
: >but who is accused of a crime to be guilty of Chillul
: >HaShem.  Apparently he feels that one should conduct oneself in such a
: >manner that one cannot even be accused of a crime even if the accusation
: >is false.
: 
: That is impossible.

One can try to minimize it, though. Raising cheshad and mar'is ayin
are real issurim.

Follow Rebbe in Avos 2:1 or R' Chanina ben Dosa in 3:10.

For that matter, RCBD said it's impossible to give the Borei "nachas ruach"
if one is not giving people nachas ruach.

The Tosafos YT on the Bartenura on 2:1 invokes Mishlei 2 "umatza chein
veseikhel tov be'eini E' ve'adam".

On 3:10 "vikhol she'ein", he explains that RCbD phrases it in both the
positive and the negative to exclude

1- the person who thinks that it is okay to offend people "shehu noteh
el qatzeh ha'acharon meihachasidus". Qa mashma lan that such behavior,
being over-frum at the expense of offending people, "Ruach" haMaqom is
not nocheh heimenu either. And
2- obviously someone who impresses others without being real, without
being good internaly and when in private, isn't giving nachas "Ruach"
to HQBH either.


Tangent: It's "chilul hasheim", not "chilul Hashem":
    1- One cannot be mechalel the Borei.
    2- The expression is older than using "Hashem" as a kinui.

(I've pointed it out before, but I find the use theologically annoying.)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

R' Micha Berger cited:

> Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim
> is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa)
>
> Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul?

In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my
edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find
something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One
who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he
is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I
lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha
she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish
is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather,
something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light,
exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if
anyone objects, please speak up.)

In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean
that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean
that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir?

Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea
that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that
heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul?

If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition
of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei
letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is
*not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other
does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir.

I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without
light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the
halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve
the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat".
We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under
what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even
under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst
one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not
aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper
Hatmana would violate Mav'ir.

My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove.
I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we
might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those
ideas. Have at it!

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161229/3162c6a3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:50:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean
: that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean
: that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir?

I think that bishul and mav'ir are mutually exclusive by
definition. Because if they were not, every case of mav'ir that involves
heat -- every case Chazal or rishonim knew of -- would be both. There
is no way to set fire to something without heat causing a change in it.

But in any case, I think the Ra'avad's point in 2:2 is that we see
that putting out the gacheles shel mateches is not mechabeh deOraisa,
and therfore the inverse isn't hav'arah. So yes, I believe he is saying
"and not mav'ir".

: I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without
: light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the
: halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve
: the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat".

They do not necessarily generate heat, though. Hatmanah with a hot item
is "mosif hevel" for the food by sharing their heat. Salt is motif hevel
because it dries out meat like roasting does. (Pesachim 76a, Meiri ad loc;
H/T R Yaakov Montrose, Kollel Iyun haDaf.) It is possible that melakh sedomis is
prone to some exothermic reaction when exposed to a common biochemical,
adding heat. But meliach keroseiach has to be true of kashering salt
too.

BTW, hevel is closer to steam than heat. Like the hevel that comes out
of pots that might infiltrate another food in the same enclosed space.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

In some Orthodox circles the secular is denigrated as a matter of course.  RSRH says that this approach is dangerous.  The following is from his essay


 Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko <https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_dar
 co.pdf>  (Collected Writings VII)


Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to
instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth,
for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts
and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a
negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the
scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind. It is true, of
course, that the results of secular research and study will not always

coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do
not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth. But the
reality is that our children will move in circles influenced and shaped
by these results. Your children will come within the radius of this secular
human wisdom, whether it be in the lecture halls of academia or in
the pages of literature. And if they discover that our own Sages, whose
teachings embody the truth, have taught us she'nasan

meichochmaso l'basor va'dom that it
is God Who has given of His own wisdom to mortals, they will come
to overrate secular studies in the same measure in which they have
been taught to despise them. You will then see that your simpleminded
calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse.
Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order
to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path
upon which your own Sages have preceded you and beckoned you to
follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely
the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. For now your child,
suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer
the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you
and your conduct to all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the
Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance.
Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so,

at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the
night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the
minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish.

Things would have turned out differently if you had educated and
raised your child al pi darko;  if you had educated him to be a Jew, and
to love and observe his Judaism together with the clear light of general
human culture and knowledge;  if, from the very beginning, you would
have taught him to study, to love, to value and to revere Judaism,
undiluted and unabridged, and Jewish wisdom and scholarship, likewise
unadulterated, in its relation to the totality of secular human wisdom
and scholarship. Your child would have become a different person
if you had taught him to discern the true value of secular wisdom
and scholarship by measuring it against the standard of the Divinely given
truths of Judaism; if, in making this comparison, you would

have noted the fact that is obvious even to the dullest eye, namely, that
the knowledge offered by Judaism is the original source of all that is
genuinely true, good and pure in secular wisdom, and that secular

learning is merely a preliminary, a road leading to the ultimate, more
widespread dissemination of the truths of Judaism. If you had opened
your child's eyes to genuine, thorough knowledge in both fields of
study, then you would have taught him to love and cherish Judaism
and Jewish knowledge all the more.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161230/aa8b7d90/attachment-0001.htm>

The main factor in establishing the time to light Ner Chanuka is NOT
calendar-based. That is, unlike all other special days, we don't care so
much about when the calendar flips from one day to the next. Rather, the
critical factor is when the marketplace empties out.

Sure, there are many associated questions, like how long the lights should
be lit, or what if one misses the proper zman, or when this emptying of the
marketplace actually occurs. But the starting point for all of this is
Tichleh Regel Min Hashuk.

It seems to me that this criterion applies to all eight nights, without
exception. In other words, it applies even on Shabbos.

That seems odd to me. Is there any shita anywhere who uses a different zman
on Friday night? Please note that I am NOT referring to the practical
problem of lighting the neros when Shabbos has already started. I am
referring to the time that the neros ought to be burning.

Why do we care about what time people come home from the market on Friday
night? People DON'T come home from the market on Friday night; they come
home from the market on Friday *afternoon*.

Unless, of course, the people we're talking about aren't Jewish. Over the
years, I've heard some suggest that the main target audience for this
pirsumei nisa is the non-Jews (especially among those who light outside).
This would seems to support that view.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20161231/832518a5/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)