Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 306

Thursday, January 20 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:18:23 -0500
From: sambo@charm.net
Subject:
Re: sources


Carl M. Sherer quoted Rav Henkin shlita:



>         In a note there I expressed astonishment at Resp. Bach
>         haChadashot no. 55, who wrote, ?[when] only unmarried
>         adolescents (bachurim ubachurot) are at the feast, there are
>         no sinful thoughts, but only when married women (b?ulot ba?al)
>         are at the feast.? But perhaps a community can be imagined
>         where young adolescents, perhaps ages 13-15 before an early
>         marriage, are completely innocent of sexual knowledge and
>         therefore have no hirhur.



Why the astonishment? The thoughts of the adolescents are for permited
relationships. If there are married women present, the thoughts would be
for forbidden (adulterous) relationships.



---sam


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:30:55 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: sources


On 19 Jan 00, at 11:18, sambo@charm.net wrote:

> Carl M. Sherer quoted Rav Henkin shlita:
> 
> 
> 
> >         In a note there I expressed astonishment at Resp. Bach
> >         haChadashot no. 55, who wrote, ?[when] only unmarried
> >         adolescents (bachurim ubachurot) are at the feast, there are
> >         no sinful thoughts, but only when married women (b?ulot ba?al)
> >         are at the feast.? But perhaps a community can be imagined
> >         where young adolescents, perhaps ages 13-15 before an early
> >         marriage, are completely innocent of sexual knowledge and
> >         therefore have no hirhur.
> 
> 
> 
> Why the astonishment? The thoughts of the adolescents are for permited
> relationships. If there are married women present, the thoughts would be
> for forbidden (adulterous) relationships.

I think that hirhur is prohibited even for permitted relationships 
except in the context of an actual act. IIRC one of the things for 
which we ask for mechilla in Tfilla Zaka on Yom Kippur is "kishui 
shelo bimkom mitzva." That could come about from hirhur even 
about permitted relationships.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:42:47 -0500
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Internet


RG Dubin wrote:

>>Who volunteers to vet all the offensive sites to protect the rest of us? Vechi
omrim le'adam chateh bishvil sheyizkeh chaverecha?>>

Lehavin ulehoros seems to override the issur of lo sasuru acharei levavchem, so 
why not acharei eineichem also?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:52:28 EST
From: Tobrr111@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Rav Moshes teshuvot on gittin


In a message dated 1/19/00 10:37:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,Shoshana L. 
Boublil writes:
<< But I showed your question to an expert on Gittin in Israel and he
 said that what appears in these Shu"t is the Klal, for Kulei Alma, as
 you noted, but it is Muttar for the couple to have a written agreement
 (Heskem Geirushim, in local parlance) in which they Matneh that all
 financial matters will be resolved after the Get.  And this is common
 practice in most Batei Din, at least in Israel. 
 In fact some Dayanim encourage the practice of Tenai so that the Get
 will be given and so that financial issues won't delay it and leave
 one side Be'Igun. >>
Very interesting. Thank you for the clarification.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:55:39 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: mixed dancing


>>>Furthermore,   the argument that "none of these poskim ever saw the issue of women dancing in the same room as men as being assur because of histaklut."  or  "nobody combines them no one says that women should not dance with men"  is not a proof,  in my way of thinking.  They may just not have been addressing that issue.<<<

They were addressing the same issue you are - dancing.  Given the choice of saying its assur because of an issur d'oraysa of histaklus or creating a new takkanah or cherem, don't you think they would have referred to the already existing issur if they thought it was germane?   

>>>Similarly,  the fact that mixed dancing is osur because of chibuk venishuk does not in any way mean that histaklus is mutar. <<<

You don't need tshuvos from R' Moshe to establish an issur histaklus.  Everyone agress it is prohibited to gaze at a women for pleasure (i.e. erotically) - its a din in SA.  Everyone should also agree (though the list has taught me everything is debatable) that if you happen to see a properly dressed women you have not violated any issur.   The question is where are the spectrum do you place situations like walking down a street behind a women or seeing properly dressed women dancing.  It would seem, as M. Shimar mentioned, that social and cultural norma will influence how you approach those situations.  

>>>I think if we stack the sources brought by Rav Henkin on one side and Rav Moshe on the
other, clearly we need to go with Rav Moshe,  especially since there is no cholek who clearly permits histaklus,  which the Gemara and the SA say
is osur.<<<

Same misunderstanding.  R' Henkin is not c"v being matir issurim that are explicit in S"A.  The point to consider is whether one will not come to violate the prohibited type of histaklus by merely seeing properly clothed women dancing around in a circle, not whether histaklus is muttar or assur.

-Chaim 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:51:47 EST
From: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V4 #305-R.Gershuni zt'l


In a message dated 00-01-19 10:32:50 EST, you write:

<< 
 Is this the R. Gershuni who was a son-in-law of R. Eliezer Silver?
  >>
yes


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:54:51 -0500
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Mixed dancing


>

In response to my post, someone replied

>         Takanos from Chachmei Padua or from the radach (who is that?)Chida have
> little relevance,  since we don't know what they meant by dancing.

Actually, we do know, it is just not the same as today's.
The claim was made that watching women dance is inherently provocative, and the issur of histaklut automatically applies to the men in the room..  Clearly, these poskim disagree.  (The Radach is a major posek from 16th century Salonica.  )

>         Furthermore,   the argument that "none of these poskim ever saw the
> issue of women dancing in the same room as men as being assur because of
> histaklut."  or  "nobody combines them no one says that women should not
> dance with men"  is not a proof,  in my way of thinking.  They may just
> not have been addressing that issue.  Lo ra'inu eino rayoh.

then what is a ra'ayah?  If multiple poskim discuss a halachic issue, and never suggest that it involves a particular issur, it would seem that one who wants to be mechadesh that it involves that issur has to bring a ra'ayah why it applies.  Of course, makom hinichu lanu l'hitgader, but this is no longer pashut.

>         In a similar vein, in one of the rayos she'ainan tzrichos that I
> mentioned,  Rav Moshe Feinstein says quite clearly that although
> histaklus is not the reason for a mechitza,  it is clearly osur.  So you
> could infer from the fact that it is not the reason for a mechitza,  (or
> could have if he did not debunk that idea derech agav), that histaklus is
> permitted, but the inference would be wrong.

The issue is not whether histaklut is assur, it is whether you will necessarily be o`ver the issur of histaklut,  (which is why rav Moshe allowed glass mehitzot), and the parameters of how one defines histaklut..  rav Henkin allowed women and men to dance in the same room, but not for women to dance without men dancing, as then the
men would inevitably look.  Minhag haolam is to be far more mekil, perhaps relying on a more restrictive definition of the issur of histaklut (a different thread)

The issue here is that we have an issur (histaklut), and we have an activity that may cause someone to be o'ver it.    At what point do we think that the causal nexus is sufficiently tight that the activity itself is assur?  I would think that this requires an actual psak, rather than being pashut.  Otherwise, we can start assuring
everything, even the internet :)  Someone can have hirhurim from learning hilchot nidda.

>   I think if we
> stack the sources brought by Rav Henkin on one side and Rav Moshe on the
> other, clearly we need to go with Rav Moshe,  especially since there is
> no cholek who clearly permits histaklus,  which the Gemara and the SA say
> is osur.

See above.  This confusion of the issur of histaklut and activities that might lead to histaklut is the issue.

>         Finally,  the argument that  "until recently, these norms were not
> widely practiced, and categorizing them as d'oraita would impugn many
> yire shamaim."  has been bandied about forever.  I consider it a specious
> argument but for reasons of time will not go into it.  It's all in the
> archives.

As one who has frequently made these argument, I have never seen on avodah a convincing argument (saying it is specious does not count)  the issur of being motzi la'az is also an issur.  Again, it is one thing to argue for changed circumstances requiring a different psak, another to argue that the olam was over.

R Reisman suggested that in earlier litvishe weddings, the women did little dancing.  r maryles confirmed this, but said that there was  a little dancing in the corner (intrinsically, I don't see, for those who hold that it is pashut an issur of histaklut, the difference between much and little, but for the issue of a takana there
would be).  by the mid 70s and 80s, I think the situation was clearly different even in yeshivish weddings, and mehitzot did not come into their own until the mid 80s.  what happened in between?  Did the rashe yeshiva leave?

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:13:51 +0200
From: "Mrs. Gila Atwood" <gatwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
intrinsic value of mitzvot


Concerning tefillin & Pesach:

Tefillin before Sinai -  what would be written on the parshios?

Re Pesach-  Is Pesach connected only to Yetziat Mitzrayim or is it an
optimum time for Geula in general?  In other words,  is there an intrinsic
value in this time of year which predisposes it to events such as Yetziat
Mitzrayim?  We see that Avraham and Sarah kept the Matzot aspect of Pesach,
but what about the maror and the korban Pesach? Is this (baking matza) a
nevuah, or are these mitzvot intrinsic to this point in the annual cycle?
(I'm talking about spiritual, not agricultural cycle, though there could be
links)  I've definitely heard this idea- does anyone out there remember a
source?

The name "Pesach" refers directly to Macas bechoros, but also has other
meanings. "Peh sach"  expressing the co'ach hadibbur.  Yetziat Mitzrayim
signifying personal Geula- emergence from constricted to enlarged
consciousness.  Chometz signifies the yetzer hara of gaiva and matza
signifies the freedom from this yetzer. These concepts predate the event of
Yetziat Mitzrayim itself and were probably understood at a profound level by
Avraham Avinu. Did they have knowledge of Yetziat Mitzrayim as a future
event or did they have da'as of the concepts on which yetzias mitzrayim is
based? Do we take that ma'amar chazal absolutely literally-  i.e. all
mitzvot are kept in the same form we know them now, or were they kept in a
form which is valid Torah from Avraham and G-d's perspective but would not
all be recognizable to us?
Bear in mind the first set of luchos consisted of a higher form of Torah
than the second. (Shammai vs Hillel?) We keep the second. (cf concept of
Torah written b'dmaot) Which did Avraham Avinu keep?
To really press the point,  did Avraham Avinu have a set of Rashi and a set
of Rabeinu Tam tefilin, and if not, why not?   Points to ponder.

Mrs. GA


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:54:24 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Mixed dancing


In a message dated 1/19/00 1:58:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shinname@UMDNJ.EDU writes:

> As one who has frequently made these argument, I have never seen on avodah 
a 
> convincing argument (saying it is specious does not count)  the issur of 
> being motzi la'az is also an issur.  Again, it is one thing to argue for 
> changed circumstances requiring a different psak, another to argue that the 
> olam was over.

See Arichus on the issue of Motzee Laz Al Horishonim in Sdei Chemed.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:54:57 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Internet


RG Dubin wrote:
  
>Who volunteers to vet all the offensive sites to protect the rest of us? 
> Vechi omrim le'adam chateh bishvil sheyizkeh chaverecha?

Can't it be done by software?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:55:02 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: sources


In a message dated 1/19/00 11:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

> I think that hirhur is prohibited even for permitted relationships 
>  except in the context of an actual act. IIRC one of the things for 
>  which we ask for mechilla in Tfilla Zaka on Yom Kippur is "kishui 
>  shelo bimkom mitzva." That could come about from hirhur even 
>  about permitted relationships.
>  
See at lentgh in Choisen Yeshu'ois (from the auther of the Misgeres 
Hashulchan, and printed in the back of (some) Kitzur S"A) chapter 151 (page 
90).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:55:05 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: sources


In a message dated 1/19/00 11:17:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, sambo@charm.net 
writes:

> Why the astonishment? The thoughts of the adolescents are for permited
>  relationships. If there are married women present, the thoughts would be
>  for forbidden (adulterous) relationships.
>  

While RCS asks that Lhalacha any Hirhur is Ossur, there may be room for your 
distinction WRT not saying "Shasimcha Bimoinoi", a Shitchius reading of the 
Shut haBach, shows that he (and likewise the Lvush in his Minhagim at the end 
of O"C), had a different wording in the Sefer Chassidim which says "Hirhurei 
Aveira" (vs. our Girsa "HIrhurim"), this can be further anchored by the 
stages of Issur Yichud, however the Loshon of "Hihurei Aveira" brought i.e. 
B"B 164b. likewise the distinction of age which could be supported by the 
Gemara why Ben Shmonei Esrei Lchupah, "Tipach Atzmoisom" is also problematic 
based on the Halacha of up to what age is a Katan/Ktana considered a Shomeir 
WRT Yichud.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:54:25 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Mixed dancing


On 19 Jan 00, at 13:54, meir shinnar wrote:

> The issue is not whether histaklut is assur, it is whether you will
> necessarily be o`ver the issur of histaklut,  (which is why rav Moshe
> allowed glass mehitzot), and the parameters of how one defines
> histaklut..  rav Henkin allowed women and men to dance in the same
> room, but not for women to dance without men dancing, as then the men
> would inevitably look.  Minhag haolam is to be far more mekil, perhaps
> relying on a more restrictive definition of the issur of histaklut (a
> different thread)

I think that what you refer to as "minhag haolam" depends on 
which olam is involved. Certainly not in the more yeshivish olam 
where the mechitza would functionally make a separate room (and 
I have even been at weddings where there is a separate room and 
not only a mechitza). What one often sees at MO weddings in the 
States - that the first dance after the main course is one where the 
women do a "real" dance (as opposed to just walking around in a 
circle) that takes up the entire dance floor and is generally to 
somewhat quieter music - is unheard of in the Yeshiva velt. (Phew - 
lucky I went to an MO wedding in the States last month or I never 
would have rememberd that :-).

> The issue here is that we have an issur (histaklut), and we have an
> activity that may cause someone to be o'ver it.    At what point do we
> think that the causal nexus is sufficiently tight that the activity
> itself is assur?  I would think that this requires an actual psak,
> rather than being pashut.  Otherwise, we can start assuring
> everything, even the internet :)  Someone can have hirhurim from
> learning hilchot nidda.

True. Which is why we don't teach hilchos nida to teenage boys 
whose hormones aren't under control yet. But the question is do 
we plan weddings for "someones" or do we plan them for the 
average person (and if so, how do we characterize the average 
person). I think nearly all of the yeshivishe velt today has decided 
to err on the side of planning for the "someones." 

> R Reisman suggested that in earlier litvishe weddings, the women did
> little dancing.  r maryles confirmed this, but said that there was  a
> little dancing in the corner (intrinsically, I don't see, for those
> who hold that it is pashut an issur of histaklut, the difference
> between much and little, but for the issue of a takana there would
> be).  

I have no idea what age bracket you fall into, but as someone 
whose friends got married in the early '80's for the most part, I can 
tell you that when R. Maryles refers to "a little dancing in the 
corner," that can be taken quite literally. It was often the case that 
men had the entire dance floor.

by the mid 70s and 80s, I think the situation was clearly
> different even in yeshivish weddings, and mehitzot did not come into
> their own until the mid 80s.  

I don't know about that either. I got married in 1981 and we 
discussed whether to have a mechitza. So did most of our friends. 
Some did and some did not. But mechitzot at weddings had 
certainly come into their own by then. 

what happened in between?  Did the rashe
> yeshiva leave?

Depends which yeshiva :-) 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:03:56 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: intrinsic value of mitzvot


I recall my rebbe in Ner Yisroel circa 1966 in discussing HOW the Avos kept teh 
mitzvos...

1) They werf mechavein to the needs of the mitzvos, they were sensitive of the 
chesronos and tikkunim that were fuliffled by doing mitzvos

2) The forms of the mitzvos were in flux (my words not his)

3) Pre-mattan Torah there wer some flexibilities for individuals.  EG Yaakov 
marrying 2 sisters (slightly different than the Ramban who held outsiide EY ok 
inside not)  rather it was ossur in general, but individuals could get 
exemptions (patiarchal dispensations? <smile>).  Similarly, Yehuda desired tamar
becaue al pi rauch hakodesh he felt led to her - even though consioluly he might
not have realized her true identity.  So pre-matan torah, it was "ok" or even 
desirable to be flexible when guided by ruach hakodesh.  Such flexibilities were
no longer operative after Matan Torah - somehwat like bamos being ossur after 
binyan beis hamikdosh

It is also similar to the kehuna being in flux until calime by Aaron uvonov and 
Malchus until claimed by David, and mekom hakimkdosh when claimed by 
Yerushalayim.  (remeber that for about 200 years one would have referred to 
Shiloh as a makom hamikdosh but it never earned a permanent kedusho)

This seems to be the pattern, that things are created first and solidifed later,
a pattern started by Maaseh Breishis in which the klal was created day one and 
it "solidifed" during the rest of the 6 days.

And imho this is waht happend with tefillin RT and Rashi, the issue was in flux,
one could follow one poseik or the other but slightly after the era of the 
Rambam, it was paskened and solidified.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: intrinsic value of mitzvot 


Concerning tefillin & Pesach:

Tefillin before Sinai -  what would be written on the parshios?

Re Pesach-  Is Pesach connected only to Yetziat Mitzrayim or is it an 
optimum time for Geula in general?  
<snip>

 i.e. all mitzvot are kept in the same form we know them now, or were they 
kept in a form which is valid Torah from Avraham and G-d's perspective but 
would not all be recognizable to us?
<snip>
?   Points to ponder.

Mrs. GA


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 22:09:42 +0200
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
Subject:
Re: mixed seating


 In response to << He  told his son to tell the Rosh Yeshiva that he agreed to have 
separate seating if at the Rosh Yeshiva's wedding there was separate seating. He 
had mixed seating and the Rosh Yeshiva came.? 
Who says that times haven't changed?>>,
R' Gershon Dubin questions whether the point of the story was leshon hara or that 
the Rosh Yeshiva is a mentsch?

Neither. You ignored the last line, "Who says times haven't changed.". Times have 
changed.  At  the time of  the rosh yeshiva's marriage mixed seating was the norm. 
Today, the rosh yeshiva has accepted the new norm.

His appearance proves he is a mentsch -  but that was derekh agav, not the point of 
the story.

As to leshon hara', please note that my posting did not mention the name of the rosh 
yeshiva or of the yeshiva. Perhaps R' Gershon had heard the story before and inserted 
the names as he read.  Is this an example of the kri being different from the ketiv?

And, btw, is there leshon hara' against A. Nony Mous.  And, with a bit less of a smile, 
is it leshon hara' to state that a rosh yeshiva had mixed 
seating at his wedding.

D.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 22:26:36 -0500
From: sambo@charm.net
Subject:
Re: sources


You wrote:



> While RCS asks that Lhalacha any Hirhur is Ossur, there may be room for your
> distinction WRT not saying "Shasimcha Bimoinoi", a Shitchius reading of the
> Shut haBach, shows that he (and likewise the Lvush in his Minhagim at the end
> of O"C), had a different wording in the Sefer Chassidim which says "Hirhurei
> Aveira" (vs. our Girsa "HIrhurim"), this can be further anchored by the
> stages of Issur Yichud, however the Loshon of "Hihurei Aveira" brought i.e.
> B"B 164b. likewise the distinction of age which could be supported by the
> Gemara why Ben Shmonei Esrei Lchupah, "Tipach Atzmoisom" is also problematic
> based on the Halacha of up to what age is a Katan/Ktana considered a Shomeir
> WRT Yichud.


Thank you.


---sam


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:57:57 +0200
From: Robert Werman <rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject:
Rabenu Tam


. . . and the tephillin found from the first century C.E. at the Dead Sea
[Israel]
contained the order that Rabenu Tam held to be correct.

__Bob Werman
rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il
Jerusalem
__Bob [Robert]
Werman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:35:51 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Lashon Hara (was Re: mixed seating)


On 19 Jan 00, at 22:09, D & E-H Bannett wrote:

> And, btw, is there leshon hara' against A. Nony Mous.  

I think that depends on how likely the listener is to figure out who 
Anon E. Mouse is.

And, with a bit
> less of a smile, is it leshon hara' to state that a rosh yeshiva had
> mixed seating at his wedding.

I think that depends whom you're saying it to and how and why you 
are saying it. In some circles I think it's the equivalent of saying 
"there's always a fire in so-and-so's house" (the classic case of 
something that is subject to duel interpretations), while in other 
cases it is lehavdil like calling someone a mechalel Shabbos.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:49:45 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: Rabenu Tam


I would re-prhase taht to say, the Tephillin foudn in the 1st Century matched 
that of RT.  

"Correctness" is a function of psak not of archaeology.  

And if my hypothesis holds true, there was no DEFINITIVE decision as to which 
version was correct, iow there were until circa 1200  2 (or more?) competing 
schools of thought on the matter.

This kind of retro-active research is imho flawed when it superimposes current 
pre-suppoistions on an era that probably worked with a differnet paradigm.

Lemoshol, let's say that in 300 years ago everybody does not don Tephillin on 
ChhM, and THEN arachaeologist show that people did it, would that change the 
minhag as it will have become evolved?  it shouldn't. The point then would 
become that the matter had varying shitos but it was resolved as one universal 
hahnogo.

the same may hold true SOMEDAY for other issues curently in flux, to wit, 
techeiles, the direction one winds their Tephillin, pre-nups, even mixed seating
at weddings!

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Rabenu Tam 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/20/2000 2:25 AM


 . . and the tephillin found from the first century C.E. at the Dead Sea 
[Israel]
contained the order that Rabenu Tam held to be correct.

__Bob Werman
rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il
Jerusalem
__Bob [Robert]
Werman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:11:34 -0500
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
Subject:
Dud Shemesh


I had a few quesions about the use of the Dud shemesh on shabbos.
The Shemiras Shabbos in 1:45 says that it is better to refrain from using
water heated up by a Dud Shemesh on Shabbos. The reason he brings is that
since on a cloudy day the water will sometimes be heated up by electricity,
a person might use the water heated up by electricity and this falls under
the gezairah of toldos chamah atu toldos ohr.

My questions are as follows.

1) Assuming the Shemiras Shabbos understands that a dud shemesh is toldos
chamah , why does he need such a "fancy" hesber to explain why the gezairah
of toldos chamah atu toldos ohr applies. On the other hand, if the Shemiras
Shabbos holds a dud shemesh is bishul al yidei hachamah it still doesn't
make sense. From my understanding of the gemara in Shabbos, bishul al yidei
chamah is mutar because it's not derech bishul. How can we just say that a
particular case (dud shemesh) falls under the gezairah of toldos chamah atu
toldos ohr. The gemarah isn't mechalaik between different types of bishul al
yidei hachamah. 

2) I seem to recall that in the first edition of the Shemiras Shabbos he was
mattir a dud shemesh. Does anyone know what his sevarah was and why he
changed his mind?

3) Practically speaking, how does a dud shemesh work?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:31:16 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Dud Shemesh


On 20 Jan 00, at 10:11, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:

> 3) Practically speaking, how does a dud shemesh work?

There is more than one kind of dud shemesh (for the non-Israelis, a 
dud shemesh is a solar heater). I remember hearing that the newer 
ones are mutar to use on Shabbos but the older ones (which is 
what he is discussing in Shmiras Shabbos - the second and 
current edition came out in 1979) are assur to use on Shabbos. 
But I do not remember why.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:44:08 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Hafleh vaFeleh


From today's Arutz-7 news:

8. DIVINE PROTEKTZIA
It happened last week in the northern town of Rosh Pina:  HaTzofeh
reported
that a police sapper was called to the local health clinic to deal with a
suspicious package and feared that it might be a bomb.  He was forced to
blow it up, and later recounted excitedly, "The prayer book inside was
turned to crumbs, as were the tefillin covers, but the tefillin
themselves
[containing ritually-written Biblical passages] were untouched and looked
as new as ever."  The bag was later found to belong to a boy who had
arrived at the clinic with high fever and accidentally left it behind. 
The
boy's father said, "My son received a concrete lesson in the holiness of
the tefillin."  Following a similar incident reported by Arutz-7 last
June,
in which tefillin remained whole when a suspicious package was blown up
at
a bus stop, the sapper told a bystander that he was not surprised, as in
his six years on the job, "I've blown up many similar 'suspicious
packages'
- and not once was the tefillin inside found damaged." 


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >