Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 111

Thursday, January 25 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:33:55 +0200
From: "Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
RE: RHS vs RSZA & societal changes


>> On a different topic I saw in the name of RSZA that the Gemara's definitions
>> of proper behavior (derech eretz) apply today even though society's norms
>> have changed....

> Did this mean what is proper behavior lchatchila or was he referring to the
> psul-edus of acting in a way that shows he has no self-respect? ...

Why? What is the difference? If one is supposed to act in a way that shows he
has self-respect, acting that way is just one example of proper behavior
l'chatchila, no?

--Rena Freedenberg

ps. Say hello to Shoshana from me...


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:18:59 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
shabbat elevator


> Engineers are not qualified to decide what is the "right" kind. My
> personal habit, one that has no halakhic significance for others, is that
> I do not use any elevator not approved or that would not be approved by
> the Institute for Science and Halakha in Jerusalem.

Is this R. Halperin's institute?
Does Zomet also have shabbat elevators?

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:16:31 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: shabbat elevator


In a message dated 01/24/2001 7:48:31am EST, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
>> Engineers are not qualified to decide what is the "right" kind...
>> I do not use any elevator not approved or that would not be approved by
>> the Institute for Science and Halakha in Jerusalem.
 
> Is this R. Halperin's institute? Does Zomet also have shabbat elevators?
 
Are the considerations different for a manually operated elevator (run by a 
non-jew)?

KT
Joel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:37:45 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: shabbat elevator


On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:16:31AM -0500, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Are the considerations different for a manually operated elevator (run by a 
: non-jew)?

Your question boils down to asking "are any of the issues in an elevator
only diRabbanan, so as to permit amirah la'akum?" No?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:18:15 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
hefsed mrubah


Appears much more in Rama than Shulchan Aruch.  Anyone heard any explanations.

KT
Joel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:48:34 -0500
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: hefsed mrubah


Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Appears much more in Rama than Shulchan Aruch. Anyone heard any explanations.

Check the Rama's introduction. He is codifying local custom, which often
is "nohagin l'hachmir", and because it was recognised by the initiators
of the custom as not ikkar hadin, they did not include certain extreme
situations as part of the customary stringency.

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:56:49 -0000
From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Heicha Kedusha


R. Micha Berger:
> What do you do if you're saying kedushah along with the chazon and he
> says "ledor vador"? Would you say "Atah Kadosh" to yourself anyway?

RYGB:
> Don't think so.

B'ferush not. Not according to the Rambam, not according to the ReMo', not
according to the nos'ei kelim. The MB mentions this: if you are late (e.g.
for minha) and are davening together with the shatz, you say l'dor vador.

In regard to what people actually do in heikhe kedusha, I wrote to Amihai 
Bannett:
RYBS said that one should follow the ReMo'. First of all, in Brisk
they always paskened like rishonim when the aharonim have no source;
second of all, this is almost (like the Rambam says) that you don't
lose much: you have tefilla b'tzibbur and hazarat hashatz according
to Rashi and Tosfot, where you are allowed to "cut it in a pieces"
("pores"). I was with him several times when they davened a heikhe
kedusha (because someone had to leave or some other sha'as had'hak),
and not only did he tell people who asked that it is proper to do it
that way, for everyone to start together with the shatz milla b'milla,
but also he himself ALWAYS did it that way, even if he was not with his
talmidim and everyone else started after the shatz said haKel haQadosh. If
you do it that way and someone asks why you are not following the MB
("supposedly" following: the MB is just quoting the Be'er Heitev and
there is no particular reason to think this represents his own opinion),
you can always say that you are following the ReMo.

But I believe that the minhag in Slabodka, where they davened, for better
or worse, heikhe kedusha every day, was like the Be'er Heitev.

The Jewish Observer just published a piece by my friend R. Matis Blum
about why people should try not to daven with a heikhe kedusha. Before
he sent it in, he went over it with us in shul to see whether anyone had
comments or corrections. I told him at that time I thought it was fine,
but he had omitted the main reason why, IMHO, people should avoid it. As I
have made clear in my posts on the issue, it is a mahloqes rishonim about
how to do it (Rambam vs. Rashi and Tos. on the definition of "pores"),
and the minhag follows neither opinion. In such cases I believe avoidance
is the best policy.

All the best,
Seth Mandel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:11:35 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Heicha Kedusha


On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 02:56:49PM -0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
:> What do you do if you're saying kedushah along with the chazon and he
:> says "ledor vador"? Would you say "Atah Kadosh" to yourself anyway?

: B'ferush not. Not according to the Rambam, not according to the ReMo', not
: according to the nos'ei kelim. The MB mentions this: if you are late (e.g.
: for minha) and are davening together with the shatz, you say l'dor vador.

Then my question would be in the reverse, would you say "ledor vador"
even if the shatz is saying "atah kadosh"?

IOW, are you saying it with the chazan to the extent that the chazan's
nusash is relevent?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:35:52 -0000
From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
RE: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz


R. Micha Berger:
> Notice that in proving nothing is lost, the Rambam only addresses
> the role of chazaras hasha"tz in aiding someone who doesn't know the
> words. He does not address the concept R' Chaim Brisker is medayeik from
> the Rambam's lashon, that of tefillas HAtzibbur.

R. Moshe Feldman:
> Going one step further: historians of halacha have often cast doubt on
> whether R. Chaim's interpretations of the Rambam truly reflect the Rambam's
> intent....

> It would seem that R. Chaim's pshat in tefillas HAtzibbur is incorrect,
> given the language of the Rambam's tshuvah--"I think that there is
> [almost] nothing lost thereby." ...

I was confused about what "R. Chaim's pshat in tefillas Hatzibbur" was being
referred to, so I asked R. Micha, and he responded:
> There is a Brisker chumrah, one followed by the Rav, to stand with feet
> together for all of chazaras hashatz. The reason the Rav gave was that R'
> Chaim noted that the Rambam not only requires tefillah betzibbur (that
> of an individual who is davening within a kehillah), but also tefillat
> hatzibbur (the corporate entity's tefillah). This creates tzvei dinim
> in chazaras hashatz: 1 -- to daven for those who can't; 2 -- to provide
> the tzibbur's tefillah. Since he wasn't yet mekayeim tefillat hatzibbur,
> R' Chaim stood as for amidah for it.

Now I am really confused. Yes, RYBS stood during the entire hazoras
hashatz with his feet together. But to refer to this as a "Brisker humra"
I think is incorrect. First of all, the ReMo' himself in OH 124:4 says
"and some say that the entire congregation should stand" during hazoras
hashatz. The MB in s'k 20 quotes the Pri M'godim quotes the reason
"k'ilu mitpall'lim b'atzman damya v'khen haya minhag haqadmonim." It is
clear that that would mean that everyone should stand just as if he were
davening himself, i.e. with feet together and facing east.

But rather than discussing who among the aharonim actually held that
way l'ma'aseh, let us look at the Rambam himself.

Hil. T'filla 8:1: T'fillat haTzibbur nishma'at tamid... l'fikakh
tzarikh adam l'shattef 'atzmo 'im hatzibbur... 8:4: Keitzad hi t'fillat
haTzibbur, yihye ehad mitpallel b'qol ram v'hakol shom'in... 9:1: Seder
t'fillot haTzibbur kakh hu... 9:2: v'hakol 'omdin miyyad umitpall'lim
b'lahash... sh'liah tzibbur... mat'hil umitpallel b'qol ram mitt'hillat
habb'rakhot... v'hakol 'omdin v'shom'in v'onin amen ahar kol b'rakha
uv'rakha, bein elu shelo yatz'u y'dei hovatan bein elu shek'var yatz'u
y'dei hovatan.

1) The Rambam only talks about t'fillat haTzibbur. The expression
"t'filla b'tzibbur" is not in his lexicon at all.

2) The whole importance of davening b'tzibbur, as explained in Chapter 8,
is to have t'fillat haTzibbur, which the Rambam uses as a defined term:
"yihye ehad mitpallel b'qol ram v'hakol shom'in..." Even those who know
how to daven b'lahash come to shul so that they can listen to t'fillat
haTzibbur, according to him. Once they are davening in shul there are
other things that they will benefit from, but the reason to come to shul
is to hear t'fillat hatzibbur.

3) As far as what those who have already davened b'lahash do during
t'fillat haTzibbur, the Rambam is crystal clear: EVERYONE stands and
answers amen, whether you have davened b'lahash or not. Just like those
who don't know how to daven stand with their feet together, so do those
who have davened. I don't see any other way of reading him. And just in
case you will argue that the Rambam doesn't mean what he says and is
using inexact language (the RAMBAM, whom everyone says is a master of
clear language!), look at the t'shuvot that I quoted on which R. MichaB
and R. MosheF are commenting. The Rambam decries there the hillul haShem
caused by "during hazarat haShatz, everyone who has already davened
starts talking or doing other things, and turns away from the heikhal
[i.e. mizrah]." B'ferush: the Rambam holds everyone should be standing
and facing mizrah (just like those who did not daven yet).

So I don't know what R. Hayyim Brisker or anyone else has to do with it.
The Rambam himself says the most important thing in shul as "t'fillat
haTzibbur," defines that as hazoras haShatz, and says everyone should
be standing facing mizrah (and so with feet together as well). If you
don't want to follow the Rambam, fine, but don't argue that this is
not what the Rambam meant. And it is precisely because this is what the
Rambam says that R. Hayyim Brisker insisted on the importance of doing
this. Someone once asked RYBS about standing during q'rias haTorah. He
answered that it is just a minhag (giving the same reason as other
aharomin), but standing during hazoras haShatz was me'iqqar hadin.

So when R. Micha says
> Notice that in proving nothing is lost, the Rambam only addresses
> the role of chazaras hasha"tz in aiding someone who doesn't know the
> words. He does not address the concept R' Chaim Brisker is medayeik from
> the Rambam's lashon, that of tefillas HAtzibbur.

That is true, he does not address that there, but his stance is implicit
in his words in the t'shuva (because of the issue of standing and facing
mizrah), that he is referring to t'fillas hatzibbur, i.e. hazoras hashatz,
and this is not something R. Hayyim was m'dayyeq, but something the
Rambam himself says.

And I am bewildered about how you can prove from the fact that he
says nothing is lost that he doesn't hold that t'fillas haTzibbur is
the important issue. The Mishne Torah op. cit. proves that the Rambam
holds t'fillas hatzibbur fulfills two functions: a) the t'filla of
the entire tzibbur, which is "nishma'at tamid," b) l'hotzi mi she'einu
baqi. R. Hayyim saw that, but so will anyone else reading the Rambam
carefully. Since t'fillas hatzibbur fulfills both functions, the Rambam
can claim that you lose nothing by his taqqono, because there was full
t'fillas hatzibbur.

So far, this is b'ferush. But I do have a diyyuq in the Rambam, and I
cannot remember if I heard it from RYBS or I developed it myself based on
the y'sodos I learned from him: t'fillas hatzibbur works precisely because
one mouth is saying the prayers for a minyan, and a minyan (tokh -- tokh,
'edah -- 'edah) represents klal Yisroel. So klal Yisroel is saying its
t'fillo, with one mouth saying it for all. I think that the Rambam holds
that that is precisely why someone who is not baqi can only be yotzei this
way, and not by listening to someone else daven his own t'filla. After
all, the mitzva of t'filla is that every individual should pour out
his heart to HQB'H, and everyone's heart is different. So how can one
person say t'filla for another one? The answer is he can't, but everyone
is part of the t'filla of klal Yisroel. And that also is how the Rambam
will explain taqqonas Hazal that everyone should daven b'lahash before
t'fillas hatzibbur, that everyone should be pouring out his own heart,
and it is easier to do that when you don't have to keep up with the shatz.

This is all based on the sources. But as far as s'voro would go, my
question is farkehrt: logically, I understand why a person would be
standing with his feet together and facing mizrah during hazoras hashatz:
it is as he is mispallel, and prevents embarrassing those who are not
baqi. But why would a person just stand, with feet not together and not
facing mizrah?

What does that accomplish? This is not one of the places where there
is a minhag just to stand, like borukh she'omar? I think it is common
precisely because most people in Ashkenaz in recent generations used to
sit, and now it is considered a "yeshiveshe humro" to stand. So those
who stand feel they are being mahmir on themselves, and not doing it
me'iqqar hadin. I even know people who stand and learn gemoro; that is
clearly not accomplishing anything, since they are not counted among
the minyan that must be listening to hazoras hashatz.

All the best,
Seth Mandel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:16:53 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz


On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 02:35:52PM -0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
: Now I am really confused. Yes, RYBS stood during the entire hazoras
: hashatz with his feet together. But to refer to this as a "Brisker humra"
: I think is incorrect....

I called it a Brisker chumrah because of an anecdote told about RYBS. One
charas hashatz RYBS walked away from his spot in order to be in front of
the kohanim during duchaning. When one of his talmidim asked him why, RYBS
replied, "It's my chumrah, I can override it when I want to." (or something
of that sort)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:35:52 -0000
From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
RE: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz


R. Micha Berger:
> Notice that in proving nothing is lost, the Rambam only addresses
> the role of chazaras hasha"tz in aiding someone who doesn't know the
> words. He does not address the concept R' Chaim Brisker is medayeik from
> the Rambam's lashon, that of tefillas HAtzibbur.

R. Moshe Feldman:
> Going one step further: historians of halacha have often cast doubt on
> whether R. Chaim's interpretations of the Rambam truly reflect the Rambam's
> intent....

> It would seem that R. Chaim's pshat in tefillas HAtzibbur is incorrect,
> given the language of the Rambam's tshuvah--"I think that there is
> [almost] nothing lost thereby." ...

I was confused about what "R. Chaim's pshat in tefillas Hatzibbur" was being
referred to, so I asked R. Micha, and he responded:
> There is a Brisker chumrah, one followed by the Rav, to stand with feet
> together for all of chazaras hashatz. The reason the Rav gave was that R'
> Chaim noted that the Rambam not only requires tefillah betzibbur (that
> of an individual who is davening within a kehillah), but also tefillat
> hatzibbur (the corporate entity's tefillah). This creates tzvei dinim
> in chazaras hashatz: 1 -- to daven for those who can't; 2 -- to provide
> the tzibbur's tefillah. Since he wasn't yet mekayeim tefillat hatzibbur,
> R' Chaim stood as for amidah for it.

Now I am really confused. Yes, RYBS stood during the entire hazoras
hashatz with his feet together. But to refer to this as a "Brisker humra"
I think is incorrect. First of all, the ReMo' himself in OH 124:4 says
"and some say that the entire congregation should stand" during hazoras
hashatz. The MB in s'k 20 quotes the Pri M'godim quotes the reason
"k'ilu mitpall'lim b'atzman damya v'khen haya minhag haqadmonim." It is
clear that that would mean that everyone should stand just as if he were
davening himself, i.e. with feet together and facing east.

But rather than discussing who among the aharonim actually held that
way l'ma'aseh, let us look at the Rambam himself.

Hil. T'filla 8:1: T'fillat haTzibbur nishma'at tamid... l'fikakh
tzarikh adam l'shattef 'atzmo 'im hatzibbur... 8:4: Keitzad hi t'fillat
haTzibbur, yihye ehad mitpallel b'qol ram v'hakol shom'in... 9:1: Seder
t'fillot haTzibbur kakh hu... 9:2: v'hakol 'omdin miyyad umitpall'lim
b'lahash... sh'liah tzibbur... mat'hil umitpallel b'qol ram mitt'hillat
habb'rakhot... v'hakol 'omdin v'shom'in v'onin amen ahar kol b'rakha
uv'rakha, bein elu shelo yatz'u y'dei hovatan bein elu shek'var yatz'u
y'dei hovatan.

1) The Rambam only talks about t'fillat haTzibbur. The expression
"t'filla b'tzibbur" is not in his lexicon at all.

2) The whole importance of davening b'tzibbur, as explained in Chapter 8,
is to have t'fillat haTzibbur, which the Rambam uses as a defined term:
"yihye ehad mitpallel b'qol ram v'hakol shom'in..." Even those who know
how to daven b'lahash come to shul so that they can listen to t'fillat
haTzibbur, according to him. Once they are davening in shul there are
other things that they will benefit from, but the reason to come to shul
is to hear t'fillat hatzibbur.

3) As far as what those who have already davened b'lahash do during
t'fillat haTzibbur, the Rambam is crystal clear: EVERYONE stands and
answers amen, whether you have davened b'lahash or not. Just like those
who don't know how to daven stand with their feet together, so do those
who have davened. I don't see any other way of reading him. And just in
case you will argue that the Rambam doesn't mean what he says and is
using inexact language (the RAMBAM, whom everyone says is a master of
clear language!), look at the t'shuvot that I quoted on which R. MichaB
and R. MosheF are commenting. The Rambam decries there the hillul haShem
caused by "during hazarat haShatz, everyone who has already davened
starts talking or doing other things, and turns away from the heikhal
[i.e. mizrah]." B'ferush: the Rambam holds everyone should be standing
and facing mizrah (just like those who did not daven yet).

So I don't know what R. Hayyim Brisker or anyone else has to do with it.
The Rambam himself says the most important thing in shul as "t'fillat
haTzibbur," defines that as hazoras haShatz, and says everyone should
be standing facing mizrah (and so with feet together as well). If you
don't want to follow the Rambam, fine, but don't argue that this is
not what the Rambam meant. And it is precisely because this is what the
Rambam says that R. Hayyim Brisker insisted on the importance of doing
this. Someone once asked RYBS about standing during q'rias haTorah. He
answered that it is just a minhag (giving the same reason as other
aharomin), but standing during hazoras haShatz was me'iqqar hadin.

So when R. Micha says
> Notice that in proving nothing is lost, the Rambam only addresses
> the role of chazaras hasha"tz in aiding someone who doesn't know the
> words. He does not address the concept R' Chaim Brisker is medayeik from
> the Rambam's lashon, that of tefillas HAtzibbur.

That is true, he does not address that there, but his stance is implicit
in his words in the t'shuva (because of the issue of standing and facing
mizrah), that he is referring to t'fillas hatzibbur, i.e. hazoras hashatz,
and this is not something R. Hayyim was m'dayyeq, but something the
Rambam himself says.

And I am bewildered about how you can prove from the fact that he
says nothing is lost that he doesn't hold that t'fillas haTzibbur is
the important issue. The Mishne Torah op. cit. proves that the Rambam
holds t'fillas hatzibbur fulfills two functions: a) the t'filla of
the entire tzibbur, which is "nishma'at tamid," b) l'hotzi mi she'einu
baqi. R. Hayyim saw that, but so will anyone else reading the Rambam
carefully. Since t'fillas hatzibbur fulfills both functions, the Rambam
can claim that you lose nothing by his taqqono, because there was full
t'fillas hatzibbur.

So far, this is b'ferush. But I do have a diyyuq in the Rambam, and I
cannot remember if I heard it from RYBS or I developed it myself based on
the y'sodos I learned from him: t'fillas hatzibbur works precisely because
one mouth is saying the prayers for a minyan, and a minyan (tokh -- tokh,
'edah -- 'edah) represents klal Yisroel. So klal Yisroel is saying its
t'fillo, with one mouth saying it for all. I think that the Rambam holds
that that is precisely why someone who is not baqi can only be yotzei this
way, and not by listening to someone else daven his own t'filla. After
all, the mitzva of t'filla is that every individual should pour out
his heart to HQB'H, and everyone's heart is different. So how can one
person say t'filla for another one? The answer is he can't, but everyone
is part of the t'filla of klal Yisroel. And that also is how the Rambam
will explain taqqonas Hazal that everyone should daven b'lahash before
t'fillas hatzibbur, that everyone should be pouring out his own heart,
and it is easier to do that when you don't have to keep up with the shatz.

This is all based on the sources. But as far as s'voro would go, my
question is farkehrt: logically, I understand why a person would be
standing with his feet together and facing mizrah during hazoras hashatz:
it is as he is mispallel, and prevents embarrassing those who are not
baqi. But why would a person just stand, with feet not together and not
facing mizrah?

What does that accomplish? This is not one of the places where there
is a minhag just to stand, like borukh she'omar? I think it is common
precisely because most people in Ashkenaz in recent generations used to
sit, and now it is considered a "yeshiveshe humro" to stand. So those
who stand feel they are being mahmir on themselves, and not doing it
me'iqqar hadin. I even know people who stand and learn gemoro; that is
clearly not accomplishing anything, since they are not counted among
the minyan that must be listening to hazoras hashatz.

All the best,
Seth Mandel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:45:49 -0500
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Tzelem Elokim


janet rosenbaum wrote:
> Given Torah, we can say that we do have free will because
> reward/punishment presumes that

I believe the Ralbag's understanding of reward and punishment (similar to
Skinner's, if I understand them correctly) need not imply free will.

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:01:19 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Non-Jews prohibited by rabbinic law?


Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Rav Gustman  (Bava Metzia 12.6) raises the question of whether rabbinic laws 
> apply to those not governed by Torah laws.  "The Lechem Mishna (Melachim 10:9)
> states that the prohibition of a non-Jew studying Torah is only rabbinic. This
> means that it is possible to have a rabbinic prohibition without the Torah 
> obligation to listen to the rabbonim because obeying rabbinic laws is not one 
> of the seven mitzvos...

See also the Brisker Rav's chiddushim on the Rambam on the last page (in a 
letter) and R. Elchanan Wasserman's Kovetz Shiurim, vol. 2, Kuntres Divrei 
Sofrim 1:21-22 where they both imply that rabbinic prohibitions apply to 
gentiles.

I'm not sure if the Brisker Rav discusses this or if I saw it elsewhere, but 
there are poskim who hold that according to the Rambam that benei keturah are 
obligated in milah, they are also obligated in the dinim derabbanan of milah.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:13:26 -0500
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
Subject:
manadatory divorce


From several recent postings, I have gotten the impression that there are
certain situations where a husband is required to divorce his wife,
simply because she refuses to go to the mikveh. Is this true, and can
anyone explain why it should be so?

If the rabbis are afraid that a very lengthy nida period might be too
much of a temptation, wouldn't an issur yichud suffice? Let him move to
another bedroom, or another house. Why would he have to divorce her, if
he is hopeful that she might someday change her mind?

If your response is that they can remarry if she does ever go to the
mikveh, would this requirement to divorce still apply if the husband is a
kohen?

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:39:36 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Tzelem Elokim


David Riceman wrote:
     
> I believe the Ralbag's understanding of reward and punishment (similar to 
> Skinner's, if I understand them correctly) need not imply free will.
     
I find it difficult, as did the Maharal, to see how the Ralbag's view of this 
issue (and divine providence and knowledge) fit into Judaism.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:32:54 -0500 (EST)
From: jjbaker@panix.com
Subject:
Kosher birds


So, we were learning the mishna in Chullin 3:6 which gives the simanim
of a kosher bird.  I had always heard that we don't eat birds about
which we don't have a tradition that they're kosher.  But if we have
simanim, why do we need this?  If we have simanim, why the whole question
about turkey?  I guess the same goes by bugs (3:7): we have simanim in 
the mishna, but we say we don't eat them unless we have a tradition
about them.  And then we say we don't even trust those who have a
tradition, namely the Teimanim.  Is this just revulsion at the idea
of eating bugs, or Ashkenazic superiority, or what - if there's both
a tradition and a law giving simanim in the name of the chachomim,
what more do we need?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:57:27 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Kosher birds


JJ Baker wrote:
> So, we were learning the mishna in Chullin 3:6 which gives the simanim of a 
> kosher bird.  I had always heard that we don't eat birds about which we don't 
> have a tradition that they're kosher.  But if we have
> simanim, why do we need this?  If we have simanim, why the whole question 
> about turkey?

Our chaver R. Ari Zivotofsky discusses this in his article on
turkeys. He quotes Rashi on Chullin 92a who says that based solely
on physical characteristics, we can never know for sure whether
a bird is dores. Here is a link to this section of his article:
<http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_part3/>

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:28:24 +0200
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Suma puter from mitzvos?


RDE:

>This is in a discussion as to whether a blind person - who is exempt from
>Torah laws - 1) can he be obligated by rabbinic law and 2) is he  still
>obligated in the 7 mitzvos [Minchas Chinuch #26] or did he lose that
>obligation at Sinai?

I haven't researched this past Tosafos, but according to them, d'rabbonon, 
a suma is chaiv in Torah laws: "... even though Rebbi Yehudah paters a suma 
from all the mitzvos, nevertheless, d'rabbonon, he is chaiv."

Eli


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:59:11 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: shabbat elevator


In a message dated 01/24/2001 8:43:30am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: Are the considerations different for a manually operated elevator (run by 
>: a non-jew)?
 
> Your question boils down to asking "are any of the issues in an elevator
> only diRabbanan, so as to permit amirah la'akum?" No?
 
Perhaps, but would it be relevant that someone else's action is needed to 
start any motion(vs an automatic elevator)

KT
Joel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:01:18 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: hefsed mrubah


In a message dated 01/24/2001 11:15:07am EST, David Riceman
dr@insight.att.com writes:
> Check the Rama's introduction. He is codifying local custom, which often
> is "nohagin l'hachmir", and because it was recognised by the initiators
> of the custom as not ikkar hadin, they did not include certain extreme
> situations as part of the customary stringency.
 
True, but sometimes he says that bmkom hefsed mrubah we can rely on a 
minority opinion.  Would you still say that the "chumra" is not meikkar hadin?

KT
Joel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:59:04 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Parsha


I thought maybe the reason the Torah stresses the fact that the fish died
by makkas dam (7:21) is because 'ain ayen hara sholet b'dagim' and therefore
the mitzrim knew it was not because of an ayen hara by Moshe - it had to be
the yad Hashem.

In last week's parsha the Brisker Rav points out that Moshe's killing of
the mitzri b'shem was misa b'dei shamayim, and in misa b'dei shamayim you
can make cheshbonos of effects on others and future doros. That is why
Moshe was concerned whether a descendent of that mitzri might be m'gayeir.
I thought that fits with Sota 46 where the gemara asks 'dilma b'zaraihu hava'
[shomei mitzvos] - Elisha was mekalel the ne'arim b'shem Hashem as well.

-Chaim B.  


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 >