Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 346

Sat, 27 Sep 2008

• 1. Pruzbul and Ribit (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 2. Esrogim and Kedushas Shevi'is (Daniel Israel)
• 3. Re: Feeding fish at Tashlich (menucha)
• 4. Re: Feeding fish at Tashlich (Zev Sero)
• 5. Atonement Erev Yom Kippur, Appeasing the Victim (Dov Kay)
• 6. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Conflicting Sources (Gershon Dubin)
• 8. Re: induction cooking (david guttmann)
• 9. induction cooking (M Cohen)
• 10. Re: induction cooking (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: induction cooking (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Conflicting Sources (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 14. Re: Pruzbul and Ribit (Gershon Dubin)

If a borrower comes to pay back a loan after the shemita has passed, and
the lender doesn't have a prozbul, then the lender has to tell him
that shemitta has cancelled the loan, and he doesn't owe anything. If
the borrower wants to pay anyway, he says "nevertheless, I wish to
give the money to you as a gift," and the lender can accept.

For the borrower to give a gift (or any other kind of additional
positive consideration) to a lender as the result of a loan is
forbidden because of ribit, so how is paying back a loan that has been
cancelled by shemitta not forbidden because of ribit?

--Chanoch

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080926/ec0cbc09/attachment-0001.pgp>

Can someone explain to me how this works?  I thought that peiros with
keshushas shevi'is were not supposed to be exported, but it sounds like
many of the esrogim available in chu"l this year are otzer beis din and
even heter mechira esrogim people are being told to treat them as having
kedushas shevi'is.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

Rav Moshe Harari in Mikrae Kodesh quotes it from Maaseh Rav siman 209
menucha

Danny Schoemann wrote:

>Interestingly enough I can't find Tashlich mentioned in the Oruch
>Hashulchon, and somebody told me that the Vilna Gaon was against it -
>but I haven't seen a source for that.
>
>  
>

Danny Schoemann wrote:

> I researched this quickly and found that while on Shabbos you clearly
> cannot feed animals that aren't dependent on you (except for stray
> dogs) as per SA OC 344, on Yom Tov it's not all that clear.

You mean 324.


> In OC 497:2 there's a machlokes if you can feed them if you throw the
> food at a distance; not directly in front of them. Feeding animals
> that you can't eat also seemsto be allowed.

That se'if, and the whole discussion that ensues, is about animals
that are your responsiblity.  This is in *addition* to the issur in
siman 324.

 
> More to the point: In 583:2 where the Remo mentions Tashlich, the
> Machazis Hashekel protests vehemently against the Maharil and Eliya
> Rabo who advocate feeding the fish.

Do they really advocate it?  That would surprise me, and I see
nothing in the Machtzis Hashekel to suggest that they do.  I haven't
got them to look inside; have you seen them, or their language
quoted elsewhere?


> Clearly feeding the fish is not a 21st century innovation.

Nobody has suggested that it's a 21st, or even a 20th century
innovation; it's an old amharatzus.

 
> Does anybody have a reliable psak, Minhag or Mesora regarding this?

The Magen Avraham (as explained by the Machtzis Hashekel) seems
reliable enough, in the absence of any authority that defends the
practise.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

<<Shulchan Oruch Siman 606 discusses the need to mollify those we
have hurt.Although the Siman is titled, "The Duty of Appeasing One's Friend
Before YomKippur" the Mechaber does not actually mention the timing. He
simplydescribes that YK alone will not remedy inter-personal sins until the
victimis mollified; and elaborates on how to go about achieving
that.>>
 
My understanding is that the titles of the simanim in the SA were not
written by the author (cf the Tur, which also has no titles).  The titles
were added by the printers, and changed from edition to edition.
 
For instance, see www.rabbiwolpoecomment.blogspot.com/2007/09/for
ward-kapporos-rationalism-and-titles.html  f for a discussion of the
title to the siman dealing with kapporos, which includes the words "minhag
sh'tus"!
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg?s & Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080926/9100f35b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger asked:
> The first problem is just defining Free Will. What is
> something that is neither deterministic, reducing people
> to robots, and not random like a set of dice? We're
> claiming some middle ground. RMKoppel proves that there
> are things that are neither describable in algorithms
> nor random, but what kind of such "middle ground" do we
> mean in this case? Can we narrow it down enough to know
> what it is we're trying to prove?

I think your problem (like in so many other physics questions) lies in your choice of the frame of reference. You're only looking at the physical world.

My approach to this problem is to consider the metaphysical world -- in
which the neshama resides -- as part of this equation. The neshama makes a
decision, and interfaces with the physical world via the brain. If one
looks only at the physical world, the brain activity *appears* to be
random. (Random activity on a quantum level does not go against
deterministic physics.) But in the larger picture, its not really random,
because it was the causal result of a decision made in another part of the
system.

My problem is not with the determinism of brain neurons, but with the determinism of the neshama's decision-making process.

Consider this: A one-minute-old infant was not crying, and now starts to
cry. This is not the result of any decision he made, but is a
reflexive/instinctive reaction to certain influences. Now consider a
30-year-old, deciding to get out of bed. This is a very conscious choice,
based on many varied factors. Somewhere between these two events lies the
very first time he exercised his free will.

Let's examine this very first event: Up to this point, everything he did
was either reflex or instinct, or was perhaps resulting from learning that
certain behaviors caused specific reactions from the parents. In any case,
it was all automatic. But now he has matured, and two parts of his free
will are at odds with each other, one telling him to choose this, and the
other telling him to choose that.

How did this develop? Doesn't he realize that this choice will cause this
to happen, and that choice will cause something else to happen? Yesterday
the choice was automatic, but today he is actually thinking about it,
pondering which to choose. Where did this ability come from? Why isn't it
automatic anymore?

I'd like to suggest that what we see here is the Tzelem Elokim at work.
There is nothing in the physical world which can explain how a person has
the free will to make these choices. But there is a real miracle at work
here: Hashem has given us the ability to rise above the deterministic
physical world and actually choose what we want. Is there anything more
miraculous that this? Is there any greater gift He can give, or any greater
good that He can do?

My understanding of quantum mechanics is that all subatomic events follow
probability, not determinism. Thus, although it is incredibly unlikely for
the water molecules of the Yam Suf to part from each other, it is not
totally impossible. Thus, if it happens once or twice each eternity, the
laws of physics have not been broken. Thus, it is arguably NOT a miracle.

If so, are there miracles left to be enthralled by? Yes - the miracle of Free Will.

Akiva Miller
who reminds everyone: Half a brain is a very dangerous thing!


____________________________________________________________
Stuck in a dead end job?? Click to start living your dreams by earning an online degree.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3nNfaL3FW5r0oW04fqyBDHbdnuoGs0D9lC1Uu3hOxxyOkJNA/

<<There may be other more complex legalistic reasons, but the
simplest explanation is that the chain of transmission became confused over
the centuries and people forgot things>>

Did not Rashi instruct his grandson how to put tefilin together?  When exactly was the Rashi vs. Rabbenu Tam tefilin forgotten or confused?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Click here to find Medical Transcription Training programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3nFN8kxYbh5GYMy2IdLACeuvMGHvQWuOrFfgcDD9UscVYooq/

Is it possible that it is not considered Toldos Ha'esh/Ohr and rather
similar to toldos Chamo? Bishul would be Derabanan and Chimum may even be
Mutar? If I understand correctly there is no heating element per se but heat
is generated by interaction between the bottom of the pot and the stove.

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

RZS wrote ... But gerifa is *not* about covering anything.  It's about
making it impossible to adjust the flame.


Gerifa means removal of the source of heat (it is now impossible to adjust
the fire).
This is not possible on our stoves (covering the adjustment knob obviously
does not
constitute removal of the source of heat or make it impossible to adjust the
fire)

Our use of a blech is that it constitutes ketumah
See chayai Adam klal 20 Halacha 12, kisvai r henken pg 21, Imoshe chelek 1
siman 93

covering the knobs does NOT constitute ketumah 
see Imoshe chelek 1 siman 93, be'air Moshe chelek 7 simon 3&4

since Gerifa is not possible if the stove is still on, 
and covering the knobs does NOT constitute ketumah
I do not see a shihiyah/chazorah solution for induction stoves.

kesiva v'chasima tova,
mordechai cohen

M Cohen wrote:
> RZS wrote

>> ... But gerifa is *not* about covering anything.  It's about
>> making it impossible to adjust the flame.
 
> Gerifa means removal of the source of heat (it is now impossible to
> adjust the fire).   This is not possible on our stoves (covering the
> adjustment knob obviously does not constitute removal of the source
> of heat or make it impossible to adjust the fire)

Huh?  How can you adjust the fire if you can't get at the knobs?
(The fact that you could lift up the blech to get at the knobs shouldn't
matter, on the same principle by which one doesn't have to get rid of
chametz which is buried where you need a "mara vachatzina" to get at it,
because by the time you get them you'll remember that it's Pesach.
The same principle applies here - by the time you lift up the blech to
get at the knobs, you'll remember why the blech is there in the first
place.  Al achas kama vekama if the knobs are taped, or actually removed.)


> Our use of a blech is that it constitutes ketumah

Agreed, as to the top of the blech.


> covering the knobs does NOT constitute ketumah 

That's right, it constitutes gerifa, not ketima.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:19:31AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> : If I understand you correctly, you would not require a blech on a hot
> : plate or crock pot, because no flame is visible in those devices.
> 
> I was saying more that I don't understand why we require a blech. (As
> opposed to a declaration.) Given that pre-modern poseqim write, as RZS
> said, that it's either or, why does the SSK and R' Eider require covering
> the controls when one can't see a flame? Shouldn't the crockpot hiding
> from me the glow of its coils, or the induction plate avoiding glow
> altogether, be just as good as if there was a flame and I covered it
> and NOT the controls?

Because AIUI ketimah is not about making the flame invisible, but about
deliberately taking an act that slows the cooking from its usual rate,
thus demonstrating a lack of interest in getting it cooked quickly.
Using a crock pot that *always* hides its coils, or an induction plate
that has no flame in the first place, doesn't do that.  So you have no
ketimah; which leaves us with gerifah, which can be achieved by covering
the knobs (or by removing them altogether, if you want a more literal
correspondence).

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

<<There may be other more complex legalistic reasons, but the simplest
explanation is that the chain of transmission became confused over the
centuries and people forgot things>>

Did not Rashi instruct his grandson how to put tefilin together?  When
exactly was the Rashi vs. Rabbenu Tam tefilin forgotten or confused?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
2 possible answers
1. both were acceptable for a certain time (like why we now blow
shevarim and truah according to some)

2. Gemara records tfillin as a mitzvah that was weakly held

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:42:58 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> The first problem is just defining Free Will. What is something that is
> neither deterministic, reducing people to robots, and not random like
> a set of dice? We're claiming some middle ground. RMKoppel proves that
> there are things that are neither describable in algorithms nor random,
> but what kind of such "middle ground" do we mean in this case? Can we
> narrow it down enough to know what it is we're trying to prove?

...

I think that you are conflating the concepts of 'algorithmic' and
'deterministic'.  Something can be noncomputable but perfectly
deterministic, as Turing showed.  Consider a hypothetical universe
whose laws of 'physics' imply that all 'events' are specified by the
outcome of arbitrary (in the sense of unconstrained, not in the sense
of random) Turing machines.  Such a universe would be absolutely
deterministic, but noncomputable, as a consequence of Turing's having
shown the Halting Problem to be noncomputable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

N.B. For anyone actually interested in these topics, I highly recommend
Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".  I am aware that his views
are quite iconoclastic, but he is a world class mathematician and
physicist, and it's a wonderful and (relatively) accessible discussion
of these and many other related fascinating topics.  He tries to argue,
based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, that human intelligence must
involve some sort of noncomputable physics, and he attempts to suggest,
there and in his subsequent books, what that might be.  Again, I am
aware that his work is speculative and controversial, but he is
wonderfully lucid and honest, and he clearly distinguishes between
accepted science and speculation, between consensus and his personal
views and conjectures.  He is also candid and charming, and he strikes
an excellent balance between faithfulness to the math and physics on
the one hand (at least as far as I, an untrained layman, can tell), and
accessibility on the other, and he lacks the arrogance or defensiveness
of some scientists that can be so off putting.

> Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:36 -0500 "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom"
<kbl...@gmail.com> writes:

<<For the borrower to give a gift (or any other kind of additional
> positive consideration) to a lender as the result of a loan >>

As a result, in addition to.  If the loan is not paid, then anything up
to
the value of the loan cannot be ribis.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Save on Trade Schools - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3oLavmfyHL3u2bKpGyeu32VTghKvJKu27SL7METIL6cHIAw6/


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 346
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."