Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 148

Tuesday, March 6 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:14:28 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: hana'ah


> The Mishna says ein bein hamudar hana'ah meichavero lamudar mimenu
> ma'achol elah kelim she'en osim bahem ochel nefesh. The mishna apparently
> relates all hana'ah back to whether or not that hana'ah can be used
> for food. If not, the mishna appears hard pressed to even consider
> it hana'ah.

If you are mudar hana'ah, then any and all hana'ah is prohibited,
whether it can be related to food or not. The chiddush of the Mishna is
that even if you are only mudar from food, one would have thought that
hana'ah not directly food related (e.g. borrowing a keli) is permissable,
kah mashma lan that what is usable to purchase food is also considered
hana'as ma'achal.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:22:31 -0600
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Subject:
[none]


<owner-avodah@aishdas.org> Received: (from mail@localhost)
	by heras.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA11906
	for aishdas@aishdas.org; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:29:16 -0600
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:11:16 -0600
Message-Id: <200103052311.RAA32196@majordomo1.host4u.net>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: BOUNCE avodah@aishdas.org: Approval required:     
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2524
Lines: 52
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Mar  5 17:11:15 2001
Received: from heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA32190
	for <avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:11:15 -0600
Received: from lmail.actcom.co.il (lmail.actcom.co.il [192.114.47.13])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11827
	for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:29:07 -0600
Received: from rina (p109.j2.actcom.co.il [192.117.121.13])
	by lmail.actcom.co.il (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f25LVPB06012
	for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:31:26 +0200
From: "Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: RE: How Far Are We Obligated to Use Technology for Precision in Halacha?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:29:52 +0200
Message-ID: <LPBBLHMHINLFPENCNMKBOECKDLAA.free@actcom.co.il>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <040701c0a51e$3126c440$cb2df7a5@wonwiije>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

> The recent detailed discussions of the different shitos for tseis
> hakochavim and astronomical observations made reminded of the issue of
> using computers to check sifrei torah, tefillin and mezuzos.

> I believe that those who don't require the use of computers argue that
> the halachos for b'dikas sta"m were given before computers and up until
> relatively recently we didn't have that technology available and that
> halacha does not require us to utilize the newest technologies for such
> exact precision.

Actually, I see the issue a bit differently. I had the chance to see one of
these computer programs in action when a sofer that we know asked me to put it
on my computer for him to use to see if he wished to buy the program. Well, the
program is nowhere near as accurate as the trained human eye and I would never
trust a mezuza or tefillin checked only by computer. The programs are a tool
[sort of like getting a second opinion], but cannot replace the trained human
eye for accuracy.

---Rena


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:31:38 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: Question on parashas zachor


Gershon Dubin:
> This may sound a little naive (my 12 year old asked me and I must admit
> I couldn't give him a good answer), but if we are commanded to erase
> Amalek, what will there be to remember? IOW can we separate the ma'aseh
> Amalek which we remember from the memory of Amalek which we must forget?

And if we have a mitzvah to eradicate Amalek how come we encourage every
child to pay specially close attention to the name of Haman each and
every time - IOW aren't we making Haman the focal point of the Megilah,
IOW by tellign children to drown out his name, aren't we in effect
promoting his name instead.

I believe that there was thread on the numerous paradoxes about Purim
and Amalek. Zachor - timche es Zecher - lo sishkach.

Good Purim
Rich Wolpoe 
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:39:07 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Cookies


R' Daniel sent me the following response,  apparently not cc'd to Avodah:

GD:
Please 'splain.  I refer only to tenaim in monetary transactions

RDW:
Apparently 'Harei at mekudeshes....al tenai shtitne li $1000' is not a
valid tnai.
But the question in our case where there is no monetary gain, how
 valid is the request for personal information

GD:
As valid as the person's ownership of the item or service you wish to
use. You want it, fulfill my conditions. No tickee, no shirtee.>>

RDW:
If so under what circumstances is one allowed to deceive? or write
anything less than the full truth?

1. Filling out IRS forms....do you declare absolutely everything or do
you
hide things to get a tax rebate or pay less tax.

2. I create Internet pages for my work. Often I copy the good aethtetic
looking pages, and make subtle changes to make sure it doesn't look like
the original and thus not landing up with copywrite problems. Is there an
element of gnaiva here also even though the new page has no resemblance
to
the old page?

3. Xeroxing a sizable proportion of copywrite articles or books for
class.

GD:
Unless, of course, midas sedom applies, in which case my ownership of
a commercially valueless property requires me to share it.

RDW:
I am not with you. Could you explain your understanding of midas sodom?

Intellectual Property has very wide connotations both in civil law and
halacha. I'm not so sure that in absolutely every case 'No tickee, no
shirtee' applies. We learn that if a flood washes away a person's
personal
object which can be readily identified, that same person is presumed to
have Iyush and thus the finder has no duty to return it to the original
owner (except for perhaps middas chassidus).

When a person uploads a site to the internet, he surely must have iyush
on
maintaining complete ownership since he knows we are living in a world of
deceivers and thieves.


A follow up letter contained the following:

RDW:
Apparently 'Harei at mekudeshes....al tenai shtitne li $1000' is not a
valid tnai.

GD:
First of all, I think that is a good tenai. But that is irrelevant,
since I specified tenai shebemamon and you brought a tenai bekidushin.
My reference was to tenaim in strictly monetary transactions.

RDW:
If so under what circumstances is one allowed to deceive? or write
anything less than the full truth?
<snip>

GD: 
I can't answer any of those,  since I'm at an equal loss to know the
gedarim.

RDW:
I am not with you. Could you explain your understanding of midas sodom?

GD:
The Gemara's case is someone hadar bebeiso shel chavero, when the
house is not normally rented out. Therefore, since there is no loss
(as opposed to squatting in someone's hotel room where not renting or
not collecting rent is a loss)(which is what I meant by commercially
valueless transactions), shelo bireshus, eino ma'aleh lo sachar. I don't
recall if the Gemara or the poskim call it kofin al midas sedom. However,
this kefiya is not lechatchila, so I cannot go lechatchila and squat in
your otherwise-unrented apartment. It's only a petur le'achar ma'aseh.

RDW:
When a person uploads a site to the internet, he surely must have iyush
on maintaining complete ownership since he knows we are living in a
world of deceivers and thieves.

GD:
I'm not sure if that fits the definition of yi'ush. Especially for a
site dedicated exclusively to daf yomi learners.

In closing, let me share with you the response of the site-owner who,
as I mentioned, is a friend, and my response to him:
"Reb Gershon, I believe a person does not have aright to access our site
without giving us the correct information we ask for. If a person fears
that we might disclose his information let him not use our site. But to
do what some are doing is unethical"

To which I responded (no answer to me yet):
"Unethical in what (Halachic sense)?"

All are welcome to add light to this discussion.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:36:53 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject:
Fwd: RAV -11: Torah and Humility Part 2


another part of this series.
                     Steve Brizel
                     Zeliglaw@aol.com

			      YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
		  ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
	       INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAV SOLOVEITCHIK
		     LECTURE #11: Torah and Humility Part 2

				       B

Knowledge does not naturally contribute to humility. Normally, the greater
the intellectual achievement, the greater the sense of arrogance. But
Chazal demand that the acquisition of Torah be associated with humility -
pride and Torah are mutually exclusive. The transition from Torah to
humility is effected by the idea of kedusha. Kedusha logically should
be associated with pride; it is rooted in human greatness, the potential
for man to come close to the Almighty. How does the experience of being
close to God lead to the experience of humility and human abnegation,
which is man's remoteness from God? What is the bridge between these
two contradictory states of mind? The bridge is defeat, which inevitably
must accompany kedusha.

Kedusha is ceaseless in its motion, in its spreading, searching over the
vastness, yearning for the infinite. There can be no final fulfillment
in the quest for kedusha, because perfect union is not possible; it
can never be realized. Man wants to be more, not for the sake of his
own honor, but in order to reach out further, to understand more.
The unique character of the "masmid" (diligent Talmud student) is
based on this ideal - the incessant pursuit of an unattainable goal,
of a fugitive vision, which springs not from intellectual curiosity but
rather from the kedusha imbedded in the human personality. The yearning
for God can never be satisfied. Tehillim (2:3) asks, "Who shall climb on
the mountain of God?" (not "who shall climb to the top of the mountain"
- "mi ya'aleh le- har HaShem"; but "mi ya'aleh BE-har HaShem") - man
is engaged in climbing the mountain but never reaches the peak. This
interminable quest for kedusha is portrayed in Shir HaShirim (the
Song of Songs), a never-ending search for "that which my soul loves,"
searching and not finding. Kedusha is a hierarchy, a pyramid, which
many can enter at the base, but whose apex no one can reach.

The drive is never terminated until man is finally defeated. Every man,
no matter how great and powerful, must experience frustration, even -
no, especially - in the battle he most wants to win. Even Moshe had his
most ardent desire denied him. The Sages explain that had Moshe entered
the Land of Israel, it would never have fallen to its enemies, the Temple
would never have been destroyed. In other words, Moshe's crossing of the
Jordan would have ushered in the messianic era, and Moshe would have
been the mashiach. He would have succeeded in climbing to the apex of
kedusha, combining the crowns of Torah, kingship, and priesthood (keter
Torah, malkhut, kehuna) in their fullest expression, with nothing left
to achieve. But that can never be. Moshe had to be defeated. God told
him, No. You must stop. You will remain the greatest leader of Israel,
the standard of Torah scholarship, but you will not be crowned with the
crown of the messiah. You are human, you must lose. You must be defeated.

Now we understand how kedusha and humility merge into one. In the very
movement where kedusha exults, "I am near God, I am a great being,"
it decrees its defeat. Being close to God awakens in me the desire to
be closer yet, and that itself informs me that complete fulfillment of
my desire is impossible, because I am but a small being. I am near God
because I am great; I am not as near as I would want to be, because I
am small.

                             C

The awareness of defeat, the path to humility, has five steps. The first
is the feeling of dependence. A ben- Torah must realize he is dependent
on the advice, guidance, and instruction of someone who has come a few
inches closer to the summit of the mountain. The more one knows, the
greater the perplexity; the closer one is to one's Creator, the clearer
the awareness of one's inadequacy and failure. Someone else will know
more than I. Sometimes it will be a great scholar, sometimes even a small
child or a pupil. If you ask me, "Who may lay claim to kedusha?" I will
answer, "One who feels the need for a teacher, one who says, 'Make for
yourself a teacher and acquire a companion'" - and a teacher can be even a
little child. When Korach said, "For the entire people is holy, and God is
in their midst" (Bemidbar 16:3), he was correct. But when he continued,
"So why do you (Moshe and Aharon) elevate yourselves above the people
of God?" he committed a fatal error. He thought that since everyone
was sanctified, endowed with kedusha, there was no need for Moshe, for
a teacher. Actually, precisely the opposite is true. Because they are
endowed with kedusha, there is need for a teacher, for a master guide.

The awareness of dependence is expressed through gratitude and
loyalty. Judaism believes that man is never self-sufficient; he always
needs help, not only from God, but from his fellow man. Tanakh gives us
the figure of Naval HaCarmeli (I Shemuel 23). When Naval denied David's
request, he said, "Shall I give MY bread, and MY water, MY slaughter that
I have slaughtered from MY flocks, and give to men whom I know not?" He is
expressing the mentality of a man who thinks everything is his by virtue
of his own unaided efforts, the self-made man. He feels he owes nothing
to anyone. The Torah begins the story of Avraham, in contrast, when he is
seventy-five. We want to know more about Avraham, how he discovered the
eternal truths, why he was chosen. Instead, the Torah tells us about his
kinsman Lot. Why is the story of Lot narrated in such detail? It is not
because he was a history-making or destiny-shaping individual. The story
of Lot tells us that Avraham's main virtue was loyalty and gratitude.
When Avraham told the Egyptians that Sarah was his sister, the Sages
point out that Lot did not betray him. Avraham is committed to Lot,
is going to save him even after Lot has turned his back on Avraham,
because Avraham's central virtues were loyalty and gratitude.

The humble man is indebted to his fellow. To whom should we give
loyalty? To many. Firstly, to parents. Secondly, to teachers. My students
owe me loyalty, though I can get along without it. A student should not
close the door after the final exam and walk out. Loyalty to teachers,
gratitude, is an essential part of Torah, because it is the basis
of humility. Thirdly, we owe loyalty to the countless generations of
Torah scholars, to the chain of thinkers and dreamers who formulated
the methodology, analyzed the ideas, interpreted the difficult tracts,
and communicated all this in a living personal way to us. You owe loyalty
to Jewish history, to those who sacrificed temporal things to the eternal
masora (tradition).

The second step is intellectual circumspection and caution. A talmid
chakham is careful in the rendering of halakha. Only ignorant and arrogant
people think that all questions are answerable. The humble talmid chakham
does not proclaim high-sounding theories, sweeping statements about
ethics and philosophy. The humble person will not boast that Judaism is
commodious enough to embrace any theory, any trend in modern culture. A
new idea, a new problem, must be treated with circumspection, carefully,
and with trepidation.

The third step is ethical modesty. There is not only intellectual
dependence, but moral inadequacy as well. Moral complacency, so repugnant
in a proper framework of kedusha, is all too prevalent in the Orthodox
community, both in the diaspora and in Israel. A talmid chakham is
very wary of such "pious" people, who condemn and judge mortal man
from a position of assumed moral supremacy. Here too, the endowment
with kedusha must be accompanied by a sense of inadequacy and modesty,
a readiness to admit errors and understand the view of others, rather
than one of self-satisfaction.

The fourth step is called "tzimtzum." The humble man must know how to
recoil, to retreat; he must know the art of self-contraction, even
when not required by the letter of the law. This is true first all
in the physiological sphere - the Rambam describes in Hilkhot De'ot
(ch. 5) the necessity for a wise man to control his appetite, to forego
many common pleasures, even though they are not strictly forbidden.
Indulgence in luxury manifests pride and vanity. This continues in
the social arena as well; he does not attract attention to himself.
The attribute of tzimtzum belongs, according to the Kabbala, to God
Himself. Here too, we are commanded to imitate God, about whom it is
written, "Truly You are a God who hides" (Yeshayahu 45:15). This is
expressed in dress and public behavior. It applies to his emotions as
well - when he succeeds, the talmid chakham praises God, but does not
boast or brag to others. The more one succeeds in the realm of kedusha,
the less the outside world will know of it. If he is in distress, he
will pray to God, but not cry out loud hysterically. The greater the
wise man, the more he controls, limits, his emotions. Torah, thought,
must be spread to others; emotions are not meant for others. Here,
retreat is called for. My father, Rav Moshe zt"l, referring to the verse,
"The covering shall separate the Holy from the Holy of Holies," explained
that man's intellect is his Holy, but the emotional life, his love, pity,
compassion, anguish, exultation, joy and sadness, is his Holy of Holies,
and no one is allowed into the inner sanctum. Emotional life should
remain the secret of the Torah personality.

The fifth and final step is "chesed," generosity. We are interdependent.
The same way I expect and depend on others to help me, I must extend help
to others. I must open myself up to embrace the other. When man steps
out of his egocentric solitude, chesed is realized. Kedusha cannot
be expressed only by acquisition. To give to others is the necessary
counterpoint to the receiving of love. Chesed is an overflow of kindness,
love, enthusiasm, which cannot be contained within, like a river which
overflows its banks and inundates the environs.

A father's desire for a child is usually based on his fear of death;
it is a desire for continuation, for immortality. A mother wishes to
have a child out of a desire to love, to give love. Chana, childless,
goes to pray to God. The verse says she was "middaberet al liba"
(lit., speaking ON her heart). Chazal explain the phrase to mean,
"about matters of the heart." She wanted someone upon whom she could
center and focus her love, her capacity to care and give. Prophecy, too,
is described as bursting forth to others, incapable of remaining in the
mind of the prophet. Yirmiyahu says, "The word of God was a fire within
my bones." The wise man must turn not only to those who are above him,
but also to those who are below who require his teaching. He has no
choice; he is overflowing. It is a condition of learning that we give
a hand to those below even as we climb higher ourselves. It is just
as dignified to teach aleph-bet as to teach Talmud. Chazal say that
children who die before they have begun to receive an education are
taught by God. Here too, we must imitate God.

Kedushat HaTorah is based on the certainty that all the congregation of
God is holy, that all can achieve sanctity. The Rambam writes that the
Torah guarantees that the Jews will repent and come closer to God. The
humble, generous ben-Torah must have confidence and faith in Klal Yisrael,
the Jewish community as a whole. He cannot belong to a sect, concerned
only with itself. Every Jew has the capacity for kedusha and a desire for
sanctity, even if he is unaware of it, and none shall be expelled. We
shall never give up on a single Jew, we have faith in "the lost in the
land of Edom and the oppressed in the land of Egypt," the assimilated
and the downtrodden, even as we believe in the words of the prophet,
"Peace, peace, says God, to the far and the near, and I shall heal them."


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:46:43 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74


In a message dated 3/5/01 10:10:24am EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> Hana'ah is sufficient by kiddushin where the shiur is a shava pertuta.  
> However, it does not meet the shiur for mishloach manos, which must be a 

Al Achas KV"K "Shnei Monos"

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 23:38:49 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74: Initial Summary


We asked:

This time, the issue is mei'inyana d'yoma. (BTW, I was tempted to pose the
issue of the chilluk between Mechiyas Shiva Amamaim and Mechiyas Amalek,
as concerning the former the Rambam writes "Kvar Ovad Zichrom", but not
concerning the latter - the diyuk of the alleged R' Chaim Brisker - as
this is an issue discussed by many of the Acharonim we are surveying -
check the Frankel Hil. Melochim Chap. 5 - but I am keeping to issues
discussed by the MC. Do it for extra credit :-) .)

The Piskei Teshuva OC 140 wants to be mechaddesh that an Odom Choshuv
is yotzei the mitzvah of Mishlo'ach Manos if someone else sends him
Mishlo'ach Manos and he accepts it - just as in Kiddushin 7a, if a
woman gives and Odom Choshuv a gift he can be mekkadesh her thereby,
as his acceptance of a gift from another is regarded in Halocho as if
he provided the other person with hano'oh. And, although the mitzvah
of Mishlo'ach Manos is to give another person not hano'oh, but food or
drink, the PT claims that hano'oh achieved via food and drink equals
delivery of food and drink (and, of course, we might add, there is no
chiyuv for the giver to ascertain that the recipient of his Mishlo'ach
Manos in fact ate and enjoyed the gift).

Yet no other Poskim make this comparison.

Why not?
Voss Iz Der Chilluk?
What Derech have you used to resolve that Chilluk?

Again, many excellent answers came in - many mechavein to one or more
of RCPS's own answers, and even more lomdishely put. RCPS gives three
answers himself:

1. By transactions hano'oh suffices. By Mishlo'ach Manos (MM) you need
not hano'as manos but manos mamash.

2. By MM perhaps in theory hano'oh would suffice, but you need two manos,
and there is no way to differentiate two distinct hano'os in the po'al
yotzei of a gift to an Odom choshuv (OC).

3. By the gift to the OC, the OC is not giving hano'oh - the giver
receives hano'oh via the OC. That suffices by Kiddushin, etc., just like
Mekkudeshes me'din Areiv or Eved Kena'ani - but by MM you must give/send
manos - receiving is immaterial, as noted by the Remo some of you quoted.

These answers can be recast into several different formats, as some of
you have done.

I note with approval R' Carl's Sefardi approach as well!

I would just like to add my own Polish, Hungarian, Rogatchover and
Telzer approaches:

Polish: This one requires a Hakdomo (preliminary assumption - a hallmark
of Pilpul): The Binyan Tzion holds that MM must be performed davka
via shelichus. Well, you cannot be sholei'ach hano'oh - it is provided
directly by the OC to the giver.

Hungarian (my favorite, you'll like it as well): By Kiddushin, the woman
gives to a man, by MM, men give to men and women to women. By a woman
to a man, the chashivus of the male over the female is an objective
springboard (the Gemoro in Hori'os about who you save first), so you can
assume sufficient hano'oh in his kabboloh to create kiddushin. By MM,
from one man to another man, there is no objective barometer of chashivus
so you cannot ensure sufficient hano'oh to br yotzei the mitzvah.

Rogatchover: (Also requires an hakdomo, but a Rogatchoverish one): The
Ri Ha'Zaken says the ikkar of kiddushin is the amira, the kesef only a
vehicle for its effect. Thus, the kesef is the mikreh (coincidental or
secondary component) and the amira the etzem (primary component). Where
kesef is only needed as a mikreh component, a substitute (hano'oh) will
do. By MM the manos are the etzem, and therefore no substitution is
allowed (not great, R' Sholem's mahalach might be better, but I wanted
to shtup in the Ri!).

Telzer: Get into two types of hano'oh (several of you went along
these lines, but I just wanted to stress what would drive a Brisker
nuts!): Hano'oh for a kinyan (consideration) vs. Hano'oh for Rei'us
(conviviality).

Yasher ko'ach for some great shakla v'tarya!

I still crave feedback!

A Freilichen Purim!

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:19:06 -0000
From: "Leon Manel" <leonmanel@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Washing for Megilla


Is any one Machmir to wash before touching the Megillah like it says in OC
147 in the Rama and MB?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:53:02 -0500 (EST)
From: jjbaker@panix.com
Subject:
Washing for Megillah


Leon Manel said on Areivim, and i thought it might want to go to Avodah:
> Is any one Machmir to wash before touching the Megillah like it says in OC 
> 147 in the Rama and MB?

I don't know.  See the Biur Halacha there.  Actually, I think Rema
records the minhag, but is lenient on it.  Biur Halacha brings a lot
of sources, from the Mordechai to the Ridbaz, to be lenient, especially
on non-Sifrei-Torah.  As far as they say, the minhag is not to bother
washing.  MB encourages washing if the hands are dirty.

So basically, the Chofetz Chaim is ambivalent on the whole thing, 
comparing his BH vs his MB.

    Jonathan Baker        |  Don't worry, be happy, it's Adar!
    jjbaker@panix.com     |  Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
      Web page update: Rambam's 13 Principles, all 3 major versions


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:29:52 +0200
From: "Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
RE: How Far Are We Obligated to Use Technology for Precision in Halacha?


> The recent detailed discussions of the different shitos for tseis
> hakochavim and astronomical observations made reminded of the issue of
> using computers to check sifrei torah, tefillin and mezuzos.

> I believe that those who don't require the use of computers argue that
> the halachos for b'dikas sta"m were given before computers and up until
> relatively recently we didn't have that technology available and that
> halacha does not require us to utilize the newest technologies for such
> exact precision.

Actually, I see the issue a bit differently. I had the chance to see one
of these computer programs in action when a sofer that we know asked me
to put it on my computer for him to use to see if he wished to buy the
program. Well, the program is nowhere near as accurate as the trained
human eye and I would never trust a mezuza or tefillin checked only by
computer. The programs are a tool [sort of like getting a second opinion],
but cannot replace the trained human eye for accuracy.

---Rena


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:21:25 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
RE: RTam and Astronomical Tables-Not


Michael Frankel:
> When I was a kid, we used to just eyeball the sky and decide that three
> medium stars were visible to decide when to end shabbos (a "geonic" shittoh
> to be sure)....

One caveat on the eyeball technique
aiui one may not consider the planets. So three stars are davka stars and
not planets, something which was probably really easy for the ancients
to discern but not so simple for most of us moderns.

Planets - similar to the moon - can at times be quite visible even
during daylight.

Good Purim
Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:28:36 +0100
From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
Subject:
RT


> Could this be the same issue w/ regard to z'manim? That many argue that
> it is sufficient for us to rely on shitos that gedolei Yisroel relied
> on for centuries and that we don't need to worry about differences that
> astronomical precision would suggest?
> 
If we are arguing seconds or even one or two minutes I agree as Chazal did
not own watches. However, the difference between the Gra and RT is half an
hour and upwards which is way beyond astronomical precision.

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:49:38 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: RTam and Astronomical Tables-Not


The K'vasikin minyan that I sometimes attend (when haneitz happens to fit
my commute schedule) have bought a radio clock that is accurate to
1% of a second by using a radio signal from ANSI's atomic clock in
Washington. They map haneitz to 1 sec accuracy.

This isn't k'vasikin, though -- the vasikin were unable to be that accurate.

R' Marc Angel, in his "The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A Sephardic Approach"
suggests that a major part of k'vasikin (aside from "zerizim makdimin")
is being in tune with rhythm of teva. Much like the Torah's linking of
the regalim to the agricultural year. This distances you from that, because
you are davening based on a clock and a chart, not the sun.

-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: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 01:55:11 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Purim seudah on Friday


On 5 Mar 01, at 10:46, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> From: Gil Student <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>>> How do you understand this. Does this mean one should start before chatzos
>>> or does it mean most of the seudah should be before chatzos.

>> There is a sign in the Agudah of Ave. L (Agudas Yisroel Bais Binyomin) that 
>> says to START the seudah by 12:07 pm.

> I agree with RGS.  I learned this MB in tandem with the MB dealing with erev
> shabbos meals in general (in hilchos shabbos) and think that the language
> supports this view.

Isn't there something about being oker the Shulchan when Shabbos starts,
making Kiddush and resuming the meal? IIRC there were two ways to make
Purim Seudah on Friday - one the way I just described and the other to
start before Chatzos and finish enough before Shabbos to be able to eat
the Shabbos meal without feeling like a davar acheir. It hasn't happened
here in the last couple of years, but when it comes out on Friday (happens
to us more often than to you), we usually start to eat before Chatzos.

By the way, you think you got halachic problems this year - you should
hear our issues:

1. Our Megilla reading is considered "she'lo b'zmano," which means my
wife has to find a way to hear Megilla in a minyan with the 19-month old
(normally I read for her at home - we're hoping the "women's readings"
will have a minyan this year).

2. There are three deos when to be Yotzei Mishloach Manos: Friday (Chazon
Ish), Shabbos (Maharam Chaviv IIRC) and Sunday (Mishna Brura). The velt
paskens like the MB but is chosesh for the others.

3. You're supposed to be marbeh b'seuda on Shabbos. How one measures
this ribbui seuda, I have not yet figured out. Maybe I'll tell my wife
we should have an extra cake for dessert :-) (This last happened seven
years ago and I don't remember what we did).

4. We say Al HaNisim only on Shabbos. We read vaYavo Amalek on Shabbos,
and we read the Haftorah for Parshas Zachor (AFAIK the only time you
read the same Haftorah two weeks in a row, except I think there might be
a m'an d'amar who holds that when Acharei Mos and Kdoshim are separate
you read HaLo k'Bnei Kushiyim on both).

5. Purim Seudah is on Sunday. Matanos la'Evyonim is on Friday.

6. I saw brought down that if a boy becomes Bar Mitzva on Shabbos he
has to read the Megilla on Shabbos. Why is this not a Shema Yaaveerenu
problem? I guess because there's no choice, since the alternative would
be to mevatel the mitzva altogether. It's good our calendar doesn't
allow the second day of Rosh HaShana to come on Shabbos or we could
theoretically have the same problem....

Did I leave anything out? 

-- Carl

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

mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


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 >