Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 056

Sunday, January 9 2005

• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Chartumim
• Kissing tzitzis during Shema
• RE: Torah and Science (age of the universe and the psak of R. Moshe zt"l)
• Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Re:chartumim
• Re: standing for kaddish
• Re: brewing tea on Shabbos
• Re: brewing tea on Shabbos
• Re: Mishpatim Sequence
• Re: Torah and Science (age of the universe and the psak of R. Moshe zt"l)
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Re: brewing tea on Shabbos
• brewing tea on Shabbos

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/3/05 4:22:44pm EST,  micha@aishdas.org writes:
>> FWIW, the solar year is a shade below 365.2422, which is as RSMontagu
>> writes, closer to the Gregorian calendar than ours. This error means that
>> Pesach is drifting later in the season and the rule that the equinox must
>> be either in the first half of Nissan or in Adar II could be violated.

> This was already discussed on Avoda long time ago, as per the Pirush
> on Hil. Kiddush Hachodesh.

Since our discussion in v5n42, 44, I learned Rashi's take on Rav Huna
on RH 21a. Leshitaso, the equinox must be as I just posted -- in the
first half of nissan (Tosafos are choleiq machloqes about whether the
15th itself is too late) or in Adar II (when there is one).

When I posted then, there were shanos me'ubaros that I mistakenly thought
were "failures".

Still, the opinions of Rashi and Baalei Tosafos seem to be far more
restrictive than what you posted then:
> The problem won't accure untill after Bias Goel Tzedek (which won't be a
> problem as we will have Sanhedrin), as Chodesh Hoviv could include even the
> last day, (Al Achas Kamoh Vkamoh before Pessach).

It can ONLY be if the equinox is in the first half of the month. BTW,
when I speak of failure, I'm speaking about it serving its purpose,
not its rule. IOW, when does the cumulative error in tequfas Rav Ada
add up to the point when the equinox is at the wrong time.

Rav Ada implies a year of 365 days, 5:55:25. (Sorry, I didn't find a
source for the number in chalaqim, so I'm doing seconds.) This number is
quite close to the estimate used by tequfas Shemu'el and in the Julian
calendar, 365d 6:00:00, but closer to the real value of 365d 5:48:46. So,
while the Julian calendar drifted 13 days, our calendar is only later
in the season than it used to be by a week. However, to do it right,
I have to see how close the extrema of the 19 year cycle get, plus/minus
one day for Cheshban and Kislev. Every date moved by a week, but what's
the range that moved? How close does the earliest year in the cycle
(-1 day if necessary) get to putting the molad before R"Ch Nissan? Then
I would know how much drift it could handle.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On the question of the sachar for the chartumim's saying etzbah Elokim
hee, my wife remembers that the sachar was a quick death in the Yam Suf.
Does this jog anyone's memory (she doesn't remember the source)?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RDBannett wrote:
> BTW, kissing on the words tzitzit is evidently relatively new and
> probably a mistake. 18th century sources speak of kissing three times
> but not on the words tzitzit. People saw some chakhamim kissing three
> times and decided that it must be on the word tzitzit, which it wasn't.
> And so customs change. In the last fifty years there seems to be a
> reversal in litvak circles as they go back to one single kissing upon
> release as per the Gr"a and CC. This phenomenon would be explained by R'
> Chayyim Soloveichik.

I think you mean R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik, not his
greatgrandfather. Although looking at how R' Chaim Brisker treated
halakhah would explain the phenomenon by example...

I don't know why anyone would case what I do, since it's not like I have
a basis or even asked a poseiq, but...

I kiss the lavan of my tzitzis after "ve'asu lahem tzitzis", and "al
tzitzis hakanaf" (not in the middle of the semichut!), the maybe-techeiles
after "pesil techeiles", and the entire tassle after the third occurance
of the word "tzitzis", "emes", and right before putting them down.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

[JSO]
>  Sanhedrin [38b] Rebbe Yochanan ben Chanina said: 
> The [6th] day consisted of twelve hours. 
> In the first hour, his [Adam's] dust was gathered; 
> in the second, it was kneaded into a shapeless mass. In the third ...

[RMB]
> As we already gave mar'eh meqomos in the Ramban, the Maharal, the TY
> and REED, and parts of RYmA was quoted, all of which well enough to have
> had discussions of their positions, what's the point?
> REED explicitly and unamiguously understands the Ramban to speak speaking
> of 6 literal days that are also something else. RYmA explicitly and
> unamibuously believed that many of the nivra'im come from a time well
> before (even if we can argue RAK's 15billion) those 6 days. 

I believe that this matter is important enough for me to continue to
raise it. This is yesodos ha-emunah, and I have yet to see one *explicit*
quote denying a *real-time* 24-hour creation day.

At about Rosh Hashana time, I objected to RNS's interpretation of Rav
Dessler zt"l and pointed out that the interpretation given was not only
wrong but incoherent *in context*.

I am not sure to what extent RMB agrees to RNS. I will try once more to
state the matter as concisely and plainly as I can. R. Dessler and the
Ramban state that Maaseh Beraishis consisted of 6 actual 24 hour days of
historical/physical flow of real-time precisely like our flow of time on
earth now where a day is approximately 24 hours, and those 6 days occurred
less than 6000 years ago (prior to which time had not yet been created).
Would *we* have been there on the 6th day, we would have measured a single
24 hour day of precisely one evening followed by precisely one morning.

R. Dessler writes that our *perception* ("havchana") of time (rather
than the actual flow of historical/physical real-time) is measured by the
"chidush" that results from the constant application of our "bechira". His
"moshel" is that a year is the same historical real-time flow -- for both
the adult and a child -- yet a child experiences so many chidushim over
that period that his *perception* of a year is much longer than the adult
perception. Don't confuse perceived time with real-time. Rav Dessler is
speaking specifically about Adam Ha'rishon's *perception* of time. This
follows Rav Dessler's shita that time has no perceived meaning without
hischadshus. Since Adam Harishon's bechira was concentrated on one area
alone, his feeling of hischadshus was dramatically reduced consequently
making his awareness of time "weaker" than ours. Adam Ha'rishon basically
lived in near absolute dveikus to the emes and therefore his havchana of
time differed from ours. Therefore, the Ramban asserts that the historical
"peshat" is a regular day of 24 hours of actual real-time, but the
deeper "sod" meaning of that intense devekus experience are the mystical
"sefiros", a level of perception beyond our ability to understand.

As I don't have the expertise I would rather not deal with mystical
texts as there is a real possibility of c"v being "megaleh panin shelo
kehalacha". Despite what has been stated on Avodah, R. Yitzchak of Akko
is a devoted talmid of the Ramban, i.e. I believe there is a strong
argument to be made that he is consistent with less than 6000 years
real-time! My first intimation of this came when, a few months ago,
R. Ari Kahn identified various misunderstandings in R. Yitzchak of Akko
(which I am still investigating). To add to that, my chevrusa (R. Simcha
Coffer) has demonstrated that the words "kiyum haolam" in RYmA has been
incorrectly translated as "has existed" (page 14 in "Immortality"). *In
context*, the correct translation is "the existence of the world",
i.e. the world will exist for a total 49,000 by 365,250 years into
the future, not that it has already existed for that period. This is
why RYmA speaks of a total existence of seven cycles of 49,000 years
(not six cycles of 42,000 past years as incorrectly stated on page 9 of
"Immortality"). The maths on page 9 does not match the text on page
13! R. Simcha Coffer has offered, iy"h, to explain this all in great
detail as a coming attraction on Avodah. Again, we need to consult those
who have the expertise and tzidkus to confirm the correct reading.

I restate my position. I have not yet seen a quote on Avodah of a single
Chazal or one of the classical meforshim *explicitly* state that the 6th
day of creation was more than 24 hours *real-time*. That this has to do
with yesodos of our emunah as a serious halachic issue may be gleaned
from the psak of R. Moshe Feinstein's zt"l:

[Igros Moshe, YDIII, at the end of siman 73 p323]
And the "sifrei limudei chol" which contain "kefira be'brias haolam"
are certainly "sifrei minus she-assur lilmod bahem" ...

KT ... JSO

I quoted Rabbeynu Saadiah Gaon's "[HaNivchar B']Emunos V'Deyyos," (III:6):
"...So it is with everyone who claims to be a prophet. If he tells us,
'Hashem... created Heaven and Earth in one year,' we shall not not ask
him for a sign because he brings us a message which is not sanctioned
by Reason or Mesorah."

R. Mich Berger (micha@aishdas.org on: Dec 31, 2004 posted:
> As for your quote from RSG, it doesn't rule out the other definition of 
> the word "yom". Yes, there's a lefi tumo, but if RSG didn't even consider 
> the question directly, it's hard to say that he is taking a position.

RSG talking about saying that ma'seh b'raishis took a year rather than
six days is not addressing the question (of whether the six days can be
taken to mean a longer period of time than six days) directly?

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:27:30PM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: RSG talking about saying that ma'seh b'raishis took a year rather than
: six days is not addressing the question (of whether the six days can be
: taken to mean a longer period of time than six days) directly?

RSG is talking about a navi sheqer denying ma'aseh bereishis. As you
wrote, it's a lefi tomu. But RSG doesn't discuss the possibility of 6
yamim that aren't days. Rather, a navi who contradicts 6 yamim altogether.

Gut Voch!
-mi

This discussion reminds me of a story my great-uncle told about his
mother and grandmother. My great-great-grandmother was a great believer
in ayinhoras and such things, while my great-grandmother was a modern
woman, who wore sheitels, ran her own coat factory, and didn't believe in
such superstitions. One day, my great-uncle overheard an argument between
mother and daughter. The mother had been baking bread and something went
wrong with it. She remembered that the neighbour had stopped by while
the bread was being made, and she must have given an ayinhora, and that's
why the bread failed. The daughter said no, that's ridiculous; probably
a poor person came to the door, and when you gave him you weren't nice
enough to him (sever panim yafot), and that's why this happened to you.
The argument went on, the mother insisting that it was an ayinhora,
and the daughter saying it was because of a deficiency in tzedakah.

Eventually, the daughter said: Mother, suppose you are right, what will
be the result? You will now regard the neighbour as your enemy, and
the next time she comes over you will hurry her out, when she talks to
you on the street you'll cut the conversation short, and in general you
won't be engaging in ahavat yisrael. But what if I'm right? Then the
next time a poor person comes to the door you'll be nicer to him, you'll
give him better food, you'll give him a bigger smile, and you'll have a
better mitzvah. So regardless of what the actual truth is, what Hashem's
cheshbonot are, whom is it better to believe, you or me?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

RGD gershon.dubin@juno.com wrote
>I seem to recall some sachar being given to the Chartumim for saying
>"etzbah Elokim hee". Anyone?

One mahalach in chazal: 

The chartumim not only came to a spiritual conclusion, but acted on it:
they joined the Jews. They became leaders of the eirev rav, and left
Egypt with the Jews.

However, their spritual awakening was apparently both shallow and
short-lived. The chartumim, whose names were Yonos and Yombros,
instigated the creation of the golden calf. Not only that, but they took
an active part in its creation, invoking a incantation which allowed the
gold cast into the furnace to form itself magically into the golden calf.
In another source the chartumim are called Yochai and Mamre.
The Zohar states that  Yonos and Yombros were the sons of Bilam.
See Midrash Tanchuma Shmot, Ki Tissa 19.
See also R. Eliyahu Kitov, Sefer HaParshiot Vaera p. 142, Ki Tissa pp322-4. 
See also Zohar Shmot 12

Saul Mashbaum

> Without going into the practical halakhic aspects, I can't think of
> a reason why even the person who says kaddish should have to stand to
> say it.

The one saying the kaddish is functioning as a shaliach tzibbur.
As such, k'vod hatzibbur dictates that he should stand, as does every
shaliach tzibbur.

> Qaddish is a davar shebiqdushah, which is why it requires a minyan.
> We always stand for a davar shebiqdushah.

If this is intended as an explanation for why the one saying kaddish
should stand, agreed. If for the kahal, it is not only not a reason,
the halacha itself is not that they must stand. Current custom
notwithstanding, the din is that one need not stand for kaddish; the
only requirement is that if he is standing when kaddish is begun, he
should not sit down.

EMT

R' Micha Berger posted:
> See the following about how tea is made from a FAQ by Celstial
> Seasonings (a tea manufacturer in the US) <http://tinyurl.com/6zycc>:
>> ... In Green Tea, the leaves are steamed and/or pan fired, then they are
>> rolled and dried. Leaves for Oolong Tea are partially oxidized (more
>> than Green Tea, less than Black Tea), then dried. Black Tea is fully
>> oxidized. This processing--all from the leaves of the same plant--is
>> what gives tea types their differences in names and flavors.

I am fascinated. It never dawned on me that tea leaves might be
precooked. But there are several points that I'd like to point out:

1) That site was dealing only with regular tea. Herbal tea, especially
with the many varied ingredients in each flavor, is a whole 'nother story.

2) What is the halachic status of "steaming"? Does steaming suffice to
render the teabag as already-cooked for Ain Bishul Achar Bishul purposes,
or is it too mild a form of cooking?

I vaguely recall some discussions of whether or not kelim can be kashered
by steaming (as opposed to using a boiling-hot liquid), but even if
that's acceptable, might we be stricter on Hilchos Shabbos (just like
there are other cases where a Keli Sheni is considered not-cooking in
Kashrus but is-cooking in Shabbos).

3) As I read that page, it says that white tea is lightly steamed,
green tea is steamed, oolong is partially oxidized, and black tea is
fully oxidized. Doea anyone here know the difference between "steaming"
and "oxidizing"?

Akiva Miller

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:27:22PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: 3) As I read that page, it says that white tea is lightly steamed,
: green tea is steamed, oolong is partially oxidized, and black tea is
: fully oxidized. Doea anyone here know the difference between "steaming"
: and "oxidizing"?

My understaning is that streaming (or pan roasting, as some green teas
are) are the means of oxidizing. That's why the page I sent you (and other
manufacturers have such explanations) talks about the primary difference
between tees being how they're oxidized, and the when discussing "in
particular", it speaks of steaming.

Whether herbal teas are oxydized depends on the ingrediant. Cinnamon,
for example, doesn't need help before it could flavor hot water. So, a
tea with cinnamon in it would raise a problem of kalei bishul. But that
just makes such a tea as difficult to deal with as cold sense.

Keli shelishi would work either way.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:55:24PM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Several commentators have attempted to find a logic behind the
: sequence of subjects covered in parashas Mishpatim...

:                        The cases are going from the most grave ways of
: depriving another's life to the less grave, in the categories of damage
: done to (a) man, (b) animal, (c) vegetation, and (d) inanimate objects.

ZGG.

...
: If I'm not mistaken, the popular view is that the "man animal,
: vegetable, mineral" (or ba'al chai medaber, ba'al chai, chai and do'mame)
: classification was coined by the Greek philosophers...

TSBP leaves no paper trail. Add that to the historian priding himself on
skepticism adding up to a contrarian attitude toward the Notri tradition
-- as well as ours, before the Notzrim branched off from Yahadus.

One finds the same thing WRT the concept of messiah. There is no indication
that Zoroastranism gave it to us rather than learning it from us. For
that matter, we see from Sefer Daniel that they hired us to teach them,
not the other way around. But what's the default assumption?

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:34:06PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: At about Rosh Hashana time, I objected to RNS's interpretation of Rav
: Dessler zt"l and pointed out that the interpretation given was not only
: wrong but incoherent *in context*.

: I am not sure to what extent RMB agrees to RNS...

I translated the relevent quote from REED, and even RZL, who doesn't
understand how REED gets this conclusion from the Ramban agrees that
he does.

...
: R. Dessler writes that our *perception* ("havchana") of time (rather
: than the actual flow of historical/physical real-time) is measured by the
: "chidush" that results from the constant application of our "bechira"...

REED's argument is that in reality time doesn't flow, and that one can
experience the same duration of time more than once, and in more than
one way. His mashal of a map which you're looking at through a paper
with a small hole, which you can only see one city at a time, is quite
similar to the "four dimensional sculpture" metaphors of contemporary
physicists. The universe is not a 3D movie, but a 4D sculpture. The
human condition creates a flow of time. But that's us -- not time.
to say it's ours.

You caution "Don't confuse perceived time with real-time." Exactly!
according to REED, real time is something we can't quite unederstand.

And so, the best we can say is that creation, in a way, took a week.
In another way.... who knows?

You also don't touch the Maharal.

: As I don't have the expertise I would rather not deal with mystical
: texts as there is a real possibility of c"v being "megaleh panin shelo
: kehalacha". Despite what has been stated on Avodah, R. Yitzchak of Akko
: is a devoted talmid of the Ramban, i.e. I believe there is a strong
: argument to be made that he is consistent with less than 6000 years
: real-time! ...

If we combine their opinions, we get that RYmA is describing years
before the week of creation that are not the previous worlds and their
distruction. (Since the Ramban denies their relevence.) This fits the
Ramban's dual-creation stance.

So not only does REED say the Ramban doesn't hold that the days were
days in the same sense as the ones we experience today, but RYmA says
that creation started before the week!

: I restate my position. I have not yet seen a quote on Avodah of a single
: Chazal or one of the classical meforshim *explicitly* state that the 6th
: day of creation was more than 24 hours *real-time*....

And the only one who makes a point of saying that it was literal hours,
rather than simply reusing the pasuq's term "days", is the Ramban. But
after analysis, subequent baalei mesorah show how little to value even
that statement.

See: pointless!

Not only that, but you goaded me into repeating points made around a
dozen times in the last quarter.

This thread is bitul zeman.

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:51:03PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: IIRC, RJSO's explanation of speed of light is that there is an increase
: by orders of magnitude greater speed than the speed constant everyone
: is familiar as you go back further in time...

:                          Acccording to RJSO, the time is reduced becuase
: thespeed of light increases at some point as we get closer to the moment
: of creation. What I have difficulty with is accelarting the speed of
: light by orders of magnitude that would get that light to travel that
: distance in a mere 5765 years.

Why? Why would any speed bother you? Light's speed could have been
infinite, for all we knew 500 years ago. The laws of nature that we have
now weren't in place. Of course reality wouldn't match your expectation.

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:28:19AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: We start from very different presuppositions. I differentiate between
: what I believe to be true, and what is halachically required to believe
: to be true (and hopefully the first at least encompasses the second.)
: The second set is actually quite small (remember the ikkarim debate -
: and even accepting the ikkarim, allegorizing ma'ase breshit (or even
: yetziat mitzraim) is not forbidden.

Allegorizing yetzi'as mitzrayim would make zeicher leyitzi'as mitzrayim
impossible. Allegorizing ma'aseh bereishis to the extent that you don't
believe that there's a creation would similarly make zeicher lema'aseh
bereishis impossible, as well as monotheism altogether.

As for the duty not to interpret a naarative in a manner that runs counter
to Chazal, see the condemnation of the Ralbag made by the Maharal in the
2nd haqdamah to Gevuros H'. There he discusses the Ralbag which says that
the sun did not stand still for Yehushua. Rather, Yehoshua was poetically
prophecying that the war would end before sunset. The Ralbag takes this
position because he doesn't believe in lema'alah min hateva nisim. (As
opposed to the Rambam, who can't believe that Yehoshua was the vehicle
for a greater neis than any of Moshe's.) The Maharal objects, since one
can't do exactly what you're trying to do -- use science to compell new
interpretations that have no mesoretic basis.

Before saying that therefore the Ralbag himself is your source, R' Bleich
had an article (I believe in tradition) that shows that the condemnation
is pretty universal.

You're right that this discussion revolves around the same issues as our
disagreement over the ikkarim. You define Yahadus far too exclusively
halachically for my stomach. As far as I can tell, you really have no
answer to the question in the medrash Rashi quotes in Ber 1:1.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:17:12PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I guess I don't understand your distinction between looking for a causal
: relationship and taking a lesson...

Taking a lesson is using the event and the feelings it engenders to
motivate change. Yefashpeish bema'asav doesn't mean that one feels
they can identify which sin caused which punishment. Rather, they can
identify candidates, they are awoken from their slumber, and they have
new opportunities for mitzvos than in the pre-tragedy world.

...
: They apparently were only diasagreeing what the prime cause was.
: They didn't merely take a lesson. Furthermore I don't see a source
: justifying your viewpoint.

I don't agree with your "apparently". As for sources, RYBS and RAL feel
it's the only supportable position. While I may not know their meqoros,
I'm not worried about their existance.

IOW, I find your question of theoretical interest, I am not worried
about it to the point where I feel my approach to tragedy is threatened.

Of course there's an obvious problem with your approach: Rasha vetov
lo. If one feels capable of tziduq hadin, how does one explain why far
worse people fair much better?

The truth is that many people have given G-d sufficient cause for the
direst of tragedies. Through His Mercy, having sufficient cause doesn't
mean it's necessary cause. Finding one of many sufficient causes for
tragedy wouldn't explain why HQBH chose to express His Wrath with this
one and not that.

Lama li qera, sevarah hi!

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:17:12PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>: I guess I don't understand your distinction between looking for a causal
>: relationship and taking a lesson...

> Taking a lesson is using the event and the feelings it engenders to
> motivate change. Yefashpeish bema'asav doesn't mean that one feels
> they can identify which sin caused which punishment. Rather, they can
> identify candidates, they are awoken from their slumber, and they have
> new opportunities for mitzvos than in the pre-tragedy world.

I simply don't understand how you can read Rashi Berachos 5a according 
to your viewpoint. "If a person searches for the cause of his suffering 
and doesn't find that he has committed a sin which deserves this 
punishment". According to you Rashi should say:"If a person doesn't get 
motivated to do teshuva by the possible candidates he should assume that 
it was because of bitul Torah"

Are you asserting that we simply are not spiritually sensitive enough 
today to understand causal links as prescribed by the gemora. Or perhaps 
like the Ramban that if you simply want to avoid thinking and analysis - 
it is second rate but still legitimate? Or are you saying the genuine 
search and ascription of causal linkage is not relevant and never was?

[email #2. -mi]

Just came across the Beis Elokim of the Mabit

Beis Elokim (Shaar Teshuva #9): It is necessary that one should know
what sin caused the suffering for which it is an atonement. If this
causal link is not known when he starts suffering ג€" he should examine
his deeds to determine the cause. This principle is stated in Berachos
(5a). "If a person sees that he is being afflicted he should examine his
deeds..." Rashi explains that if he investigates and can not find a sin
which warrants this suffering, he should ascribe it to neglect of Torah.
It appears that the gemora requires one to try and find the sin which is
actually causing this suffering. Only afterwards should he repent. It
doesn't say that if a person sees that he is suffering that he should
repent. It clearly requires that a person know that the suffering is
fully and justly deserved because of his sins... On the other hand, if a
person just knows that in general that suffering is related to sin it is
not helpful, since there is no one who is free of sin. Therefore there
would be no need for any investigation to determine that he is not free
of sin. However, from the fact that the gemora requires investigation,
it must be to determine the specific sin which is causing his present
suffering.... By knowing the actual cause of his suffering through
investigation, he is able to properly repent for that sin. It is obvious
that repentance is not identical for all sins. Therefore by knowing the
causal link, he can repent properly until the atonement reaches G-d's
throne of glory. It is only if he can't determine the cause that he
should ascribe the suffering to neglect of Torah study. That is because
the Torah encompasses the many types of sins which it mentions. Thus
Torah study can be a general atonement for many types of sins.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:20:04AM -0500, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
:                                       Adding cold sense to a kli sheni
: certainly should not be worse than adding cold pasteurized milk. And
: being machmir on milk (as you seem to be advocating?) would be pretty
: hard on some coffee and tea drinkers.

Actually, I'm advocating simply using a keli shelishi, and therefore not
having to worry about irui keli rishon, kal levasheil, or any of the
other cooking tea/coffee issues.

I was saying that sense doesn't eliminate all problems anyway, and in
fact is more problematic for regular tea, so why bother?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RMB:
> But if one makes tea sense and the sense is not left
> on the blech (something that is quite common amongst homes I've visited)
> or otherwise kept about yad soledes bo, the one definitely has problems
> of bishul bedavar lach to avoid.

> So, I've been in homes where the sense was nowhere near yad soledes,
> and I asked if they could instead bring me a tea bag as it would pose
> fewer bishul beshabas issues!

I am not very expert on hilchot shabbat, but I seem to recall that one
can add already-cooked cold liquids to a kli sheni. So first you put
in the hot water, and then the sense. Adding cold sense to a kli sheni
certainly should not be worse than adding cold pasteurized milk. And
being machmir on milk (as you seem to be advocating?) would be pretty
hard on some coffee and tea drinkers.

 - Ilana

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


[ 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         ]