Avodah Mailing List

Volume 44: Number 3

Thu, 15 Jan 2026

• 1. hashmaat kol (Joel Rich)
• 2. Re: Normal People Don't Care About Those Things (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: hashmaat kol (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Normal People Don't Care About Those Things (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. intravenous feeding on yom kippur (Joel Rich)
• 6. Re: AI appliances and shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Normal People Don't Care About Those Things (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Choices (Micha Berger)

What?s your understanding of the trigger level for noise which
evaluating hashmaat kol on shabbat?
KT
Joel Rich

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 01:11:14PM -0500, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote:
> Wrt discussion about role of belief in determining Orthodoxy, I know of
> many classics tshuvot discussing status of mechallel shabbat befarhsia..
> There are not that many early tshuvot discussing belief as determining
> status, even though the Rambam clearly believes it does.

I though this discussion was about which things people care about when
making a religious decision.

And so the limits we were discussing were the limits of the Ism, which
ideas are withint the conceptual range we call Orthodoxy.

That is different than judging who is within the Orthodoxy community. You
cite a teshuvas haRadvaz:

> the tshuva of the Radvaz (4:187) ...
>                             argues that any position that we may think
> erroneous, even if violates the 13 ikkarim -- but is reached through
> one's thought, does not render one a kofer -- and does not violate one's
> hezkat kashrut --

But it does not change the limits of O ideas, it just says that there
are people who believe things beyond those limits but are still part of
the Orthodox community.

For that matter, the Radvaz assumes there are limits to belief, and then
pardons someone who gets beyond those limits through honest and unbiased
intellectual explorations. His statement makes no sense if he denied
the concept of iqarei emunah or somesuch.

So if you want to say that it wasn't Reform who first claimed that
Judaism -- again the Ism -- is about behavior to the exclusion of being
about belief, you have to point elsewhere.

The Radvaz, by writing about the status of a Jew who believes the wrong
thing but for the right reasons, presumes that the concept of "believes
the wrong thing" has meaning.


-----


doesn't distract attention away from my thesis (above):

> Rav Chaim disagrees (nebbish gofer),

We don't have the phrase from R Chaim directly, but according to R
Velvel (Haggadas Beis Brisk), it's his description of the Rambam's
position. Since the Rambam in his haqdamah to Mishnah Pereq Cheileq (MB:
and in the Moreh) says that correct belief is the cause of nitzchiyus,
not surviving into olam haba is not a function of why one doesn't believe.

It isn't clear that R Chaim holds like the Rambam he was explaining.
All I can say is that the expression being an idiom does make it far
more likely that people repeat it thinking he does.

But let's assume for a moment (*as a hypothetical*) that he did mean he
himself thinks that apiqursus excludes one from gen eden. That still
doesn't mean the same person qualifies as an "apiqoreis" in halachic
halachic rulings about how to treat them. One can accept the Rambam's
hashkafah about yedi'ah about The Nitchi causing nitzchiyus and
still accept the Radvaz's ruling that such a person could still be
part of the community.

R Aharon Soloveitchik doesn't necessarily hold like his grandfather, and
his grandfather doesn't necessarily hold like the Rambam he was explaning.
But RAS did rule that one could count a tinoq shenishba who was raised to
embrace kefirah toward a minyan -- but for reasons specific to minyan,
only if his beliefs leave the concept of tefillah meaningful. I.e.
in principle, the nebich an apiqoreis is are part of the O community in
general. And the Rambam could still say they can't survive in gan eden.

--



As far as I know, denying that Judaism has mandatory doctorines is
indeed a Reform canard. And actually contradicted, not supported,
by the Radvaz.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The day you were born is the day G-d decided
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   that the world could not exist without you.
Author: Widen Your Tent                  - Rav Nachman of Breslov
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 06:14:00AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> What's your understanding of the trigger level for noise which
> evaluating hashmaat kol on shabbat?

Igeros Moshe vol 6 / OC 4:60.6 says hashma'as qol is about sounding
like a melakhah was done on Shabbos. If by "trigger level" you
mean volume, he says there that if an alarm clock cannot be heard
outside the sleeper's room, or if anyone who heard it would know
from the kind of alarm that it wasn't necessarily set the night before,
it would be permissable. (Which is any alarm clock nowadays,
but that's tangential.)

So it sounds like (sorry!) RMF holds that the volume is anything
loud enough to cause someone to be chosheish you.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   if only because it offers us the opportunity of
Author: Widen Your Tent      self-fulfilling prophecy.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                            - Arthur C. Clarke

Several points

1. the first person I know who is explicit about actions being primary is
Mendelson. While he is viewed now by many as Reform,in his lifetime he was
viewed by most to be Orthodox.

2. One has to define what one means by the Orthodox community carefully. In
my daughter's dayschool in Philadelphia, I was told that denying gilgul
neshamot was kfira. Bringing source such [Saadia Gaon was not relevant.
However, if you go to, say, the Israeli religious academic community, the
definition of what is acceptable would be vastly different. Eg, American
Orthodoxy struggles with its response to biblical criticism. For most, if
they knew of, say response of people such as Mordechai Breuer z"l or Yehuda
Brandes, they would be shocked ( eg, see the Orthodox forum volume on
Modern Scholarship in the study of Torah)

?3. Yeshaya Leibowitz comes closest, as for him the content is one is
shomer Mitzvot - not any specific credo. He is accepted as Orthodox by most
of the non haredi Orthodox in Israel. Even though most disagree with him

4. WRT radbaz, in the end, he is relevant. Yes, he recognizes some belief
as necessary, but in the end, it is fundamentally not a major criteria. Eg,
if I know someone is a kofer, but does not teach or preach- he remains a
part of the community. If he publicly violates Halacha - he is not. So
belief is not a criteria of belonging - but the action of teaching wrong
beliefs is.

5.Menachem Keller ?has a book on Must a Jew believe anything that might be
relevant?as well as Marc Shapiro?s book on the rambam?s ikarei emunah-
where he shows that the actual required belief , which he agrees does exist
- is far smaller than most of the orthodox community now accepts

In the end, the Orthodox tent is far broader than most of the Orthodox community realizes?

Meir Shinnar
On Jan 14, 2026 at 07:29 -0500, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>, wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 01:11:14PM -0500, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote:
> > Wrt discussion about role of belief in determining Orthodoxy, I know of
> > many classics tshuvot discussing status of mechallel shabbat befarhsia..
> > There are not that many early tshuvot discussing belief as determining
> > status, even though the Rambam clearly believes it does.
>
> I though this discussion was about which things people care about when
> making a religious decision.
>
> And so the limits we were discussing were the limits of the Ism, which
> ideas are withint the conceptual range we call Orthodoxy.
>
> That is different than judging who is within the Orthodoxy community. You
> cite a teshuvas haRadvaz:
>
> > the tshuva of the Radvaz (4:187) ...
> > argues that any position that we may think
> > erroneous, even if violates the 13 ikkarim -- but is reached through
> > one's thought, does not render one a kofer -- and does not violate one's
> > hezkat kashrut --
>
> But it does not change the limits of O ideas, it just says that there
> are people who believe things beyond those limits but are still part of
> the Orthodox community.
>
> For that matter, the Radvaz assumes there are limits to belief, and then
> pardons someone who gets beyond those limits through honest and unbiased
> intellectual explorations. His statement makes no sense if he denied
> the concept of iqarei emunah or somesuch.
>
> So if you want to say that it wasn't Reform who first claimed that
> Judaism -- again the Ism -- is about behavior to the exclusion of being
> about belief, you have to point elsewhere.
>
> The Radvaz, by writing about the status of a Jew who believes the wrong
> thing but for the right reasons, presumes that the concept of "believes
> the wrong thing" has meaning.
>
>
> -----
>
> That's may take away point. But I want to discuss this too, if it
> doesn't distract attention away from my thesis (above):
>
> > Rav Chaim disagrees (nebbish gofer),
>
> We don't have the phrase from R Chaim directly, but according to R
> Velvel (Haggadas Beis Brisk), it's his description of the Rambam's
> position. Since the Rambam in his haqdamah to Mishnah Pereq Cheileq (MB:
> and in the Moreh) says that correct belief is the cause of nitzchiyus,
> not surviving into olam haba is not a function of why one doesn't believe.
>
> It isn't clear that R Chaim holds like the Rambam he was explaining.
> All I can say is that the expression being an idiom does make it far
> more likely that people repeat it thinking he does.
>
> But let's assume for a moment (*as a hypothetical*) that he did mean he
> himself thinks that apiqursus excludes one from gen eden. That still
> doesn't mean the same person qualifies as an "apiqoreis" in halachic
> halachic rulings about how to treat them. One can accept the Rambam's
> hashkafah about yedi'ah about The Nitchi causing nitzchiyus and
> still accept the Radvaz's ruling that such a person could still be
> part of the community.
>
> R Aharon Soloveitchik doesn't necessarily hold like his grandfather, and
> his grandfather doesn't necessarily hold like the Rambam he was explaning.
> But RAS did rule that one could count a tinoq shenishba who was raised to
> embrace kefirah toward a minyan -- but for reasons specific to minyan,
> only if his beliefs leave the concept of tefillah meaningful. I.e.
> in principle, the nebich an apiqoreis is are part of the O community in
> general. And the Rambam could still say they can't survive in gan eden.
>
> --
>
> But back to reinforce what I intended to be the thesis of this post:
>
> As far as I know, denying that Judaism has mandatory doctorines is
> indeed a Reform canard. And actually contradicted, not supported,
> by the Radvaz.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger The day you were born is the day G-d decided
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp that the world could not exist without you.
> Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Nachman of Breslov
> - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20260114/ac2affe9/attachment-0001.htm>

There are authorities who allow intravenous feeding for yom kippur and
those who discourage it. While it is certainly not mandated, all other
things being equal, what would you tell someone who came to you with a
concern that they would not be able to make it through the whole fast
and asked what you thought the ratzon hashem was for them?
KT
Joel Rich

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 08:36:02PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
...
> At CES, I expect to see a wave of new smart devices that step back from
> direct sensors and instead use tiny disruptions in Wi-Fi and similar
> frequencies to gauge activity around the home. They can sense human
> presence and movement patterns, but that's about it. The approach adds a
> bit more privacy while allowing lights, security systems and more to
> respond to human movement.
> 
> I've already seen this kind of presence sensing in the newest Philips Hue
> smart bulbs...
...
> what about shabbat?

Level 1: Can you go into a dark room knowing you will trigger a motion
sensor which will turn the light on? Pesiq reishei denicha lei.

Level 2: What if the causality is more complicated, such that you
don't know how long after your entry the light goes on?

Shabbos scooters by Tzomet and the like rely on the second case
being permissable for a choleh she'ein bo saqanah. Not for the
rest of us.

Why would an AI response to something you did not be another case of
this same category?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
http://www.aishdas.org/asp               ... but you're the pilot.
Author: Widen Your Tent                          - R' Zelig Pliskin
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 04:02:02PM -0500, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote:
> 1. the first person I know who is explicit about actions being primary
> is Mendelson. While he is viewed now by many as Reform,in his lifetime
> he was viewed by most to be Orthodox.

So much so, that when they had to post their curriculum, Volozhin told
the Russian government they learned Chumash with his Biur. Certainly
not something they would claim if they thought he was treif. Even if
you think they were lying to / exagerating to the government to sound
more worldly.
(I translated the curriculum from R/Dr Stampfer's book at:
https://michaberger.substack.com/p/the-curriculum-at-volozhin )

a- "Actions being primary" still stays there is a limit on belief.

b- In retrospect, his ideas did get cantilevered into R. One cannot
say with 

> 2. One has to define what one means by the Orthodox community
> carefully. In my daughter's dayschool in Philadelphia, I was told that
> denying gilgul neshamot was kfira...

These two lines seem to ignore the whole point of my previous post.
"What is kefirah?" and "Who is a kofeir?" are two different questions.
The Radvaz you cited (and cited also years ago, when I looked inside,
thank you!) says that only a subset of those who believe kefirah should
be labeled koferim.

The Rambam, by making the relationship between yedi'ah and olam haba
causal, creates the possibility to discuss something other than an
apiqories whom halakhah requires we treat differently. He has the the
lack of belief as inherently changing the person because they lack a
cheileq le'olam haba. R Chaim Brisker's "nebich an apiroqeis." But there
is no indication the Rambam, R Chaim, or R Velvel (our source for R Chaim
using this idiom) actually said that everyone who couldn't get into gan
eden and olam haba is the halachic min, apiqoreis or kofeir whom we must
treat as an outsider.

Also, in one way, this dayschool is closer to your position than to
mine.

I would argue that the halachic definition of who is a kofeir has been
decided by subsequent minhag Yisrael to be someone whose beliefs don't
fit the 13 iqarim. And if we are to hold like the Radvaz, he reached
that conclusion the wrong way.

It is only someone who does not believe there has been a pesaq about
which beliefs are under discussion who can slip in gilgul, 10 sefiros,
Daas Torah, or whatever. (To throw in 2 examples I've experienced.)

----



First, because it means that olam haba is more about ideas than middos or
behavior. The latter he sees more as consequences of ideas than ideas as
consequences of emotion and need. I don't know of any Modern philosophers
or schools of psychology that would agree. And I don't know how many of
us built our own belief systems in a way that makes morality the 2nd-best
perfection to perfection of knowledge. (Last chapter of the Moreh.)

So I wouldn't personally worry about this Rambam too much, or about
a R Chaim based on that Rambam. Interesting theory to discuss, but
likely no one in the discussion would put money on that pony.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Strength does not come from winning. Your
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   struggles develop your strength When you go
Author: Widen Your Tent      through hardship and decide not to surrender,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 06:14:52PM -0500, RMY Gluck via Avodah wrote:
> RJR:
> > Dr. can switch to be off first 2 days of sukkot shift for a prior
> > Friday 10 AM to 10 PM. There are a number of halachic issues but I'd
> > like to focus on two:

I would have stuck with Shabbos vs Shabbos, as it is possible that this
is the wrong choice because Melekhes Shabbos is an issur kareis while
the same act on YB is a regular lav.

....
> On the context of the question -- are we talking about someone with a
> heter to work on Shabbos, or someone who may not? If he may, then it
> isn't chillul Shabbos; if he may not, then why should we allow him to
> be makdim the issur? Maybe, like you're saying, the hospital will close
> down and he'll end up not working on Sukkos.

Doesn't hutera vs dechuya comes to play? Because it could be that is *is*
chillul Shabbos, and we are asking whether one should stall on dechiyah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The day you were born is the day G-d decided
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   that the world could not exist without you.
Author: Widen Your Tent                  - Rav Nachman of Breslov
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)