Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 038

Thursday, December 2 2004

• Re: Ikkarim Redux
• Re: An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?
• Re: Asking Questions
• Re: Kavod Rabo
• Re: V'Sain Tal U'Matar in Southern Hemisphere
• Re: V'Sain Tal U'Matar in Southern Hemisphere
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Tal u'Matar and Birkat Kohanim
• Re: V'Sain Tal U'Matar in Southern Hemisphere
• V'Sain Tal U'Matar in Southern Hemisphere
• Re: minyan vs tzibbur
• minyan vs. tzibbur
• Re: minyan vs tzibbur
• Credit Cards
• Midrash Avkir
• Re: Asking Questions
• Re: Kuzari question
• RE: Torah and science (6 sheer assumptions in Big Bang Cosmology and MN II:17)
• Re: Chushim ben Dan
• Vayeishe Yaakov
• RE: Torah and science
• Re: Credit Cards

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> I don't have access now to the original. This is my translation from
> the source as cited by Yeshaya lebovits in emuna, historia va'arachim,
> p 100 from shut chatam sofer, yoreh deah 356
...
> Explicitly that emunah in mashiach is not viewed as an ikkar - even
> though its belief is binding.

The distinction you make is in terminology, not substance. If the belief
is a required part of being counted toward a minyan, then it's an ikkar
in the Rambam's sense of the word.

After all, the Seifer haIkkarim lists three ikkarim, but from them derives
the necessity to believe all of the Rambam's 13 and then some. To RYA, an
"ikar" is a postulate. To the Rambam, a belief necessary to be Yisrael
WRT "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". RYA ends up with fewer ikkarim,
but despite that he's /more/ machmir than the Rambam.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

RMYG wrote:
> To which I respond: Torah.org may have omitted the concluding lines
> of the Chafetz Chaim I:8:5-6. "The preceding applies if one directly
> heard the words of apikursus; but, if others told him of it, it is
> forbidden... This is if he just 'heard.' (Shmi'ah b'alma.) However,
> if they are established (muchzakin) in the city as apikorsim, it is as
> if he himself recognized it (their heretical behavior - MYG)." In which
> case, the Chafetz Chaim said that they are not included in "Amisecha"
> and it is a "mitzva to denigrate and embarrass them."

This has impact not only on the question on the table, but also GREATLY
reduces the number of people about whom Orthodox indifference would be
scandalous. IOW, even according to R' David Berger's condemnation of the
sub-movement, we can't simply make broad assumptions about membership
within it.

(I hope posting this doesn't prove a mistake.)

-mi

In HaRav MeBrisk, Vol2, the entire discussion re RCS and doubts is quoted
in a footnote around Pages 136-137.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

see the Aruch haShulchan YD 242 #1-#5 who as usual brings the sources.

KT
Josh

In Avodah V14 #37 dated 12/1/2004 "Markowitz, Chaim"
<cmarkowitz@scor.com> writes:
> I am interested in finding out when people in the Southern Hemisphere
> (Australia and South America) say V'Sain Tal U'Matar. I have seen the
> various teshuvos on this topic and I am just curious to know what people
> actually do.

I lived in South Africa (my husband's native country) for five years,
and in Australia for three. Every place we davened in said V'Sain Tal
U'Matar during the rainy season IN ERETZ YISRAEL. That is what we do
here in Miami too--even though the rainy season down here is actually
the summer.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

"Markowitz, Chaim" <cmarkowitz@scor.com> wrote:
> I am interested in finding out when people in the Southern Hemisphere
> (Australia and South America) say V'Sain Tal U'Matar. I have seen the
> various teshuvos on this topic and I am just curious to know what people
> actually do.

They start on the same day as everyone in Chu"L does, i.e. according to
the season in Iraq (as modified by the inaccuracy of Cheshbon Shmuel),
i.e. on 21-Nov Julian, or 4-Dec Gregorian (unless there's a leap year
coming up). This makes no less sense in Australia than it does in North
America or Europe; the Rosh already dealt with the question, and decided
it was better to let a sleeping minhag lie, however little sense it makes.

I don't know what everyone does in the silent shmoneh esreh, but when I
lived there (and now when I visit), in the southern winter I would add
'vetein tal umatar livracha' in shomea tefilah.

And I believe that if someone accidentally says 'tal umatar' in birkat
hashanim in the southern winter (or at any other time and place when
the minhag is not to say it but the country actually does need rain)
they should not repeat the tefillah.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>> So Rashi answers, A.  He's not saying "Hashem, don't pass by"--he's  saying
>> to the apparent leader of the three men, "My lord, please don't pass by, stay
>> here a while and be my guest."

>> or, B.  He's speaking to Hashem but the pesukim are not in order--ein  mukdam
>> ume'uchar--and the actual order was, he saw the angels [presumably while  not
>> fully conscious], asked Hashem to please stick around, THEN ran to the  men.

>> Rashi certainly seems to be assuming that the events were real, not part of
>> a vision.  And he has anticipated your possible objections.

> You ignore the Rambam's shitah, which is presumably a legitimate
> alternative. But it's that shitah in particular that RZS has been
> discussing.

Actually I was discussing both sides, at different points:

1. According to the Rambam, who holds that all human-angel meetings are
visions, how does he explain the Lot story?

2. Let's assume the Rambam's wrong, angels can manifest physically and
interact with humans who are in a normal state of consciousness, and
therefore stories of human-angel meetings should in general be taken
literally; how does that explain *this* story, where it *must* at least
*begin* as a vision? My intention was to suggest that this story was a
vision lechol hade'ot.

RTK is addressing this second branch, and showing how it could have
started as a vision and switched to physical reality at a plausible
point - when Avraham sensed the mal'achim approaching.

> The Ramban asks the original question on the Rambam, the Abarbanel answers
> it. We've knocked this around a few times, not to mention my touching
> the question in MmD <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf>
> and related it to their approaches to the Kavod Nivrah.

I still haven't seen the Abarbanel, but the MmD isn't relevant. I had read
the MmD before I asked my question in the first place, and my question
already assumes what you had written there. Yes, something happening
'in a vision' doesn't mean it's just imaginary, hypothetical, made up;
it is actually and really happening, just not on the physical plane. But
to an observer watching a navi having a vision, all that can be seen is
a man having what appears to be an epileptic fit or something (cf the
episode when Shaul meets the bnei hanevi'im). This is fine for almost all
the angel stories I can think of - even the story of Manoach and his wife
can be understood that way, though it does seem a *bit* of a stretch. But
the one story I simply cannot accept as a vision is Lot; there's too
much interaction with other people and with the physical environment.

It just occured to me, though, that maybe the Rambam (or someone else
who holds like the Rambam) can say that Lot's mal'achim were not angels
but people, like Yaacov's mal'achim; that they were prophets sent on a
mission to deliver G-d's mercy and justice to Lot and Sedom respectively,
and that they 'destroyed' Sedom the same way that Moshe 'split' the sea,
i.e. they waved their hands and Hashem did the actual work. The Rambam
has no problem with miracle-working human prophets, does he?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I had written that I don't see how the whole visit of the malachim
can possibly have been just a vision. R' Zev Sero then pointed out to
me that at the beginning of that parsha, Hashem appears to Avraham,
so at least part of the parsha MUST be a nevuah. He then asked me at
what point in the parsha I thought prophetic vision segued to actual
occurrence--according to MY understanding.

He was not asking me to explain the parsha according to the Rambam, since
I had started by saying I did not see how the Rambam could fit the parsha!

I replied that according to my understanding, it seems that Rashi is
right. The first pasuk is nevuah--Hashem appears to Avraham, no content
of the nevuah is stated. Everything else in the parsha is actual events.

The Rambam has a natural question: if Hashem imparted a nevuah to
Avraham, what was its content? He deduces that the whole story of the
three malachim must be its content.

Rashi says there was no particular content; the appearance of Hashem
to Avraham was in the nature of bikur cholim. [If there is a specific
content ledoros, it is "Ma Hu rachum af atah rachum"--viz., that bikur
cholim is a mitzva and that this mitzva can be deduced by Imitatio Dei.]

I was not trying to prove Rashi correct over Rambam, only to say that that
is how I understand the pesukim. And I was answering RZS's question, "when
does vision end and actual events begin?" according to my understanding,
which is what he had asked me.

 -Toby Katz

Since we're once again talking about this:

IIRC, one of RTK's objections to saying that the whole story was a
vision was that in that case how could Sarah be blamed for laughing in
Avraham's vision. Of course, Sarah *didn't* laugh in Avraham's vision -
Avraham knew nothing about it until Hashem told him. This question is
indeed answered by RMB's article in MmD: the Rambam holds that events in
a nevuah are objectively happening, just not on the physical plane, so one
must be in an altered state of consciousness to see them. Therefore it is
perfectly plausible for two people to share a nevuah, just as two people
with night goggles, looking on the same scene, will see the same thing,
even though a third person without goggles will see nothing. Sarah was
just as capable as Avraham of entering this altered state - indeed, she
was a greater prophet than he was, and therefore perhaps better able to
do so - so it only stands to reason that she also participated in the
vision, and heard the angel speak just as Avraham did.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R. Markowitz wrote
> I am interested in finding out when people in the Southern Hemisphere
> (Australia and South America) say V'Sain Tal U'Matar. I have seen the
> various teshuvos on this topic and I am just curious to know what 
> people actually do.

Firstly it is interesting to note that New Zealand and South Africa do not
figure in the list of Southern Hemisphere countries. But I'll assume that
was an accident. In NZ, as in all Ashkenazi kehillot (to my knowledge)
we follow the rest of the Diaspora by starting around December 4th (as
per Rabbeinu Artscroll et al.) Having said, a more interesting question
is regarding the Sephardi and Edot HaMizrach Kehillot of those areas:
perhaps they follow the psak of R. Ovadia Yosef who is machria otherwise
(although even he recognises a strong case both ways).

That leads me to another question: do Edot HaMizrach in chu"l say
Birkat Kohanim every day? I know that according to the old Temanim at
my grandfather's shul they used to in Teman... and the SA would appear
to agree. I'm coming to YU for a year from January, so I'd like to find
a shul where I can duchen every day. Any ideas?

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@yahoo.com

RCM asked:
> I am interested in finding out when people in the Southern Hemisphere
> (Australia and South America) say V'Sain Tal U'Matar.

In Johannesburg, South Africa (even though you didn't ask) we kept to
the timing of the Northern Hemisphere for V'Sain Tal U'Matar.

This made sense as it rains in summer over there, and not too much in
Winter, IIRC.

:-)
 - Danny

cmarkowitz@scor.com
> I am interested in finding out when people in the Southern Hemisphere
> (Australia and South America) say V'Sain Tal U'Matar. I have seen the
> various teshuvos on this topic and I am just curious to know what people
> actually do.

Further to our off-list exchange, I remembered that a yungerman here -
a Reb Moshe Donnenbaum - published a booklet 10 years ago called Minchas
Geshomim - "Birur Hazkoras veShaalas Geshomim beMedinas Australia"

It has about 120 pages on the topic and brings [probably] all that
has been written on this subject - including a few recent Tshuvos by
'heintiger'.

It includes several pages of tshuvos from sefer Shu't Beis Avrohom -
by Rav Avrohom Eber Hirshovitz who was a rav in Melbourne 100 years
ago [published in Jerusalem 5668].
It has tsuvos from Reb Yitzvok Elchonon and Reb Shmuel Salant who all
agree -
after hearing from RAEH that rain is beneficial in Australia all year -
that we should say it as the rest of the world.

The sefer also quotes a letter from the Bureau of Meteorology confirming
that rain is necessary here ALL year.

SBA 

R. Riceman wrote:
> If you read the story (maaseh b'Cologne ...) it's clear that the paradigm
> is a shul where everyone attends every Shabbos. What, though, about 
> more marginal cases?

Avodah readers may be enlightened by a psak given verbally regarding by
R. Apple in Sydney for the community here in Auckland. We have a second
minyan affiliated with the main shul out in the suburbs (at a house
owned by the shul). We are a small affair comprising 10-20 men who live
in the area or like a cosy atmosphere and occasionally we have missed a
minyan on Shabbat morning. R. Apple ruled that we do not read a double
parasha the following week as we can be considered subsumed within the
larger community (the Chabad rabbi who davens with us felt otherwise,
but of course accepted the ruling). I don't know if this is an accurate
depiction of the precise question and answer, but that was my impression.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@yahoo.com

In Avodah 14:37, R' David Riceman gave several examples to illustrate
the question of how to define "tzibur" in the context of "a tzibur which
misses Krias HaTorah one Shabbos."

His examples are very interesting, and I'd like to offer another: What
of a shul where everyone went away one Shabbos, and the shul was empty,
but everyone heard the parsha at the places they visited? Is the *shul*
missing a laining, which would then need to be made up?

Akiva Miller

From: "Jonathan Cohen" <jcoh003@yahoo.com>
> We have a second minyan affiliated with the main shul out in the suburbs 
> (at a house owned by the shul).  We are a small affair comprising 10-20 
> men who live in the area or like a cosy atmosphere and occasionally we 
> have missed a minyan on Shabbat morning.  R. Apple ruled that we do not 
> read a double parasha the following week as we can be considered subsumed 
> within the larger community.

If krias hatorah is a hiyuv on the tzibbur and your minyan is not a tzibbur 
why read Torah at all?

David Riceman 

[From Haaretz] <http://tinyurl.com/6t4uh>:
> Leumi to launch credit card not useable on the Sabbath   

> Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI) is about to launch a credit card that observes
> the Sabbath.

> The new project, devised jointly by LeumiCard and a group of concerned
> individuals from the ultra-Orthodox sector, will be unveiled in the next
> few weeks.

> The new card will not useable on the Sabbath, and will only be honored
> in businesses that themselves are observant of the Jewish Sabbath.

This actually made me think of an interesting halachic question.
I believe that many charges are actually processed by the banks on the
following day, not the day that a charge is made. If you know that to
be the case, would one be prevented from making a purchase on a Friday?
Or would the day that the charge was processed be irrelevant--the key
ingredient being when the purchase was made.

There may be teshuvas on this subject--although I'm not aware of any.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

Who compiled Midrash Avkir that is quoted in Yalkut Shimoni, etc. Was
it published by itself? Is the sefer in print or in a library? available?

HG Schild
hgschild@yahoo.com

At 12:39 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
>In HaRav MeBrisk, Vol2, the entire discussion re RCS and doubts is quoted
>in a footnote around Pages 136-137.

Since I do not possess the second volume of the biography, might someone
(RSB?) please summarize briefly?

Thanks,
YGB 

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> I hope the above is an adequate summary of section 1:95. Our problem is
> that in 1:96, the king accepts all of this without challenge, while we
> see several clear logical flaws....

The answer lies partially in the rabbi's statement regarding who stayed
in Eretz Yisrael during the formative period of civilization, as it
seems to be an agreed upon assumption that Eretz Yisrael is a superior
land, while the other lands were inferior. This is one of the important
references to Eretz Yisrael in the text.

In addition, the rabbi was emphasizing our ability now to trace with
confidence the lineage in an uninterrupted way (a race-oriented version of
what the Rambam does in his hakdamah to the Yad regarding the "academic"
lineage), in contrast to other nations who were perhaps unable to look
back with such certainty. This second point is a particularly sensitive
point, and the king may have wanted to discover that such uncertainty
existed by the Jewish people as it did by other peoples. Consistently
throughout the text, the rabbi intends to appeal to Jews that our own
uncompromised confidence in our belief in who we are is an essential
ingredient in succeeding with any argument regarding faith.

R. Yitzchok Zlochower wrote:
> Paranthetically,
> the evidence for the age of the earth and the universe can be found on
> the internet at <www.talkorigins.org> and more briefly at the USGS site
> under the Google heading "age of the earth". You will note that much
> of the evidence is rather removed from issues of a possibly far greater
> speed of light early in creation that Jonathan has focussed on and
> which I hope to disprove in a subsequent post.

I hope that RYZ does not take <www.talkorigins.org>
too seriously. Consider the following gem :-) at
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html> (accessed
Dec. 1, 04) on RYZ's topic of supernova SN1987A:
> Many creationists would have you believe that the speed of light was
> once very high and has been slowing down ever since. ... ... To this one
> might say, "Get an education!" Relativity is central to modern science
> and the speed of light is a fundamental constant. Light can't go faster
> than about 186,000 miles a second and that's that. One could then recite
> volumes of laboratory studies, experiments, and observations to impress
> the reader with the power and reliability of special relativity.

But, contra <talkorigins.org>, we now know that many recognized
cosmologists are speculating about changes to relativity and to the
speed of light by up to 60 orders of magnitude (see my earlier posts for
the archival journal references). Do these recognized cosmologists at
Cambridge University and Imperial College also need to "get an education"
in basic physics?

 ===
It is not just the speed of light. Consider RYZ's confident assertion
that:

(*) "We have no real basis for doubting the various lines of evidence
that the earth and solar system are some 4.5 billion years old, while
the universe is some 14 billion years."

But, contra RYZ, there are at least six unproven assumptions needed for
the big bang cosmology figure of 14 billion years. The assumptions are
numbered (a) to (f) below. These assumptions have not been experimentally
demonstrated. Two of the assumptions are foundational, three of the
assumptions involve the need to postulate hypothetical entities that have
never been experimentally observed, without which the big bang would
be in contradiction of experimental observations. The last assumption
involves experimentally observed anomalies that flatly contradict big bang
cosmology even in the presence of the postulated hypothetical entities.

Here they are in brief:

(a) The big bang Friedmann-Lemaitre space-time solution to Einstein's
field equations assumes the Cosmological Principle. This is a "sheer
assumption" that hangs like a "dark cloud" over the theory (Hubble,
Weinberg and Hawking).

(b) The Friedmann-Lemaitre space-time solution to Einstein's
field equations assumes a relation between the expansion factor and
redshift. This is an assumption as the expansion factor has never been
experimentally measured (Wheeler).

The following is provided by Arp, Bondi and Gold:

(d) Big bang cosmology assumes an inflation field to explain isotropic
CBR.
(d) Big bang cosmology assumes the existence of dark matter otherwise
inflation's density prediction is wrong by 20 orders of magnitude.
(e) Big bang cosmology assumes dark energy, otherwise the universe is
only 8 billions years old, younger than some starts in our galaxy.

The inflation field, dark matter and energy have never been experimentally
observed despite many attempts over the last 20 years (Arp, Bondi
and Gold).

(f) Big bang cosmology assumes that redshift anomalies involving order
of magnitude discrepancies of z-factors (involving billions of years
discrepancies) can be resolved and explained -- otherwise the experimental
evidence for Hubble's Law is called into question (Arp and Hoyle).

As a non-expert in the field I could very well be mistaken about
the above. Therefore, if RYZ does not agree to the factuality of
(a) to (f), I would be very grateful if he would please consult
<http://ca.geocities.com/torah@rogers.com/science/big-bang.pdf> where
appropriate quotes of recognized cosmologists are used to confirm the
problems. Please let us know which of (a) to (f) are not (currently)
factual, and please provide the appropriate sources in the professional
literature.

If RYZ agrees that assumptions (a) to (f) are unverified by direct
experimental evidence, then how can his confident assertion (*) of a 14
billion year be correct? -- in fact, we have every reason to doubt the
whole basis of this figure.

KT. JSO

===
"No inference can be drawn in any respect from the nature of a thing after
it has been generated, has attained its final state, and has achieved
stability in its most perfect state, to the state of that thing while it
is moved towards being generated. . Whenever you err in this and draw an
inference from the nature of a thing that has achieved actuality to its
nature when it was only in potential, grave doubts are aroused in you."
(Rambam, MN II:17)

In a message dated 11/30/2004 3:06:55pm EST, hgschild@yahoo.com writes:
> Bereshis Rabbah 93:7, YAlkut Shimoni Bereshis 44 Remez 150 imply that
> Chushim ben Dan had good enough hearing to hear Uncle Yehudah far
> away...etc..
> whereas Pirke D'Rebbe Eliezer Chapter (38 or 39), Yalkut Shimoni
> Tehillim Perek 58, #776 say he was hard of hearing / deaf and thus
> killed Esav...etc..

> Does anyone resolve this contradiction?

In the Medrosh Hamvuor he Teitches that even though he was hard of
hearing (as per Soteh 13a) nonetheless he heard his shout. According to
the RaDaL on the PDR"E (end of 39) he Teitches that according to the
PDR"E he was deaf not just as in Soteh, according to his Pshat in the
PDR"E it would be a Stira, but Shelo Lafushei Machlokes and avoid Stira
Lichoreh we can learn the PDR"E like the Shas.

[Email #2. -mi]

Just to add that for Yalkut Shimonee the above is no answer, there it
his hard to interpert as hard of hearing.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

There's a well known Rashi on the title pasuq of Vayeishev, in which he
quotes a Chazal that says that it's unfair for tzadiqim to expect a
quiet life in olam hazeh. They are getting olam haba, and they expect
olam hazeh too?

Philosophically, this is mistabeir -- the path to olam haba takes work,
not yeshivah beshalvah.

However, as we say every morning "Eilu devarim she'adam ocheil peiroseihem
ba'olam hazeh, vehaqeren qayemes lo li'olam haba..." Olam hazeh need
not be at the expence of olam haba. Or conversely, why couldn't Yaaqov
avinu expect to enjoy those peiros?

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> ...contra <talkorigins.org>, we now know that many recognized
> cosmologists are speculating about changes to relativity and to the
> speed of light by up to 60 orders of magnitude (see my earlier posts for
> the archival journal references). Do these recognized cosmologists at
> Cambridge University and Imperial College also need to "get an education"
> in basic physics?

Why is it that when it comes to practical applications of scientific
knowledge we so totally rely on it that we virtually bet our lives
on that knowledge? If science can be so wrong how is it Halachicly
permissible to ever board an aircraft? How can we ever undergo open
heart surgery if scientists may be wrong? After all there are respected
scientists who quarrel with established medical practices all the time.
If scientists are so wrong about the age of the universe what makes anyone
think they aren't wrong about a quadruple by-pass operation? Should we
be putting our lives in the hands of doctors who rely on the scientitsts
who pioneered such operations?

Can scientific study be wrong? Most certainly. That is a fundamental
principle of science, as I have stated many times. To science, nothing
is sacred, not even scientific fact. Because the very nature of science
is to keep testing those facts with newer methods and in the light of
newer information to see if those "facts" are truely facts.

It is hypocritical in my mind to accept scientific discovery and
advancement when it comes to our health and welfare while automatically
rejecting the very same methods when they are applied to study of the
origins or age of the universe. If you accept one you must accep the
other. You cannot select one "truth" and reject another just because it
contradicts a singular pre-conceived religious notion.

To keep saying that the universe is only 5765 years old in the face of
the massive evidence that it is older with much corroboration by various
Chazal, Rishonim, and Achronim as well as many modern day Talmidei
Chachamim is to be completely biased, IMHO. Now it is OK to have such
bias. It is OK to believe that the universe is 5765 years old. If that's
what you want to believe, you are halachicly in good company. But please
do not so quickly condemn those of us who do not share this view with
you. There is a lot more scientific eveidence for our views that there
is for yours.

HM

MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:
>This actually made me think of an interesting halachic question.
>I believe that many charges are actually processed by the banks on the
>following day, not the day that a charge is made. If you know that to
>be the case, would one be prevented from making a purchase on a Friday?
>Or would the day that the charge was processed be irrelevant--the key
>ingredient being when the purchase was made.
>There may be teshuvas on this subject--although I'm not aware of any.

See related issue Igros Moshe OH 4 #59 page 91 and OH 5 #38.9 page 123 
concerning ribis on Shabbos

Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]