Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 170

Wed, 02 Oct 2013

• 1. Re: Dimensions of a circular sukkah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: couple more questions (Zev Sero)
• 3. Dishwasher on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 4. evolution (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: couple more questions (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: evolution (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Eitan Levy)
• 8. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Dimensions of a circular sukkah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Which Witnesses are Liable? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Subject: Re: How many Korban Pesachs could be (Chana Luntz)
• 13. About who to ask (Yaakov Arye Abraham)
• 14. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Which Witnesses are Liable? (Zev Sero)

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 02:06:40AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: > Yes, because we hold a circular circle doesn't need to be large
: > enough to circumscribe a square sukkah. We hold it's needs to
: > be large enough to *approximately* circumscribe one.
...
: > It is only the idea that a Sukkah must fully contain a length
: > and width at the same time (and thus a 7 tef x 7 tef square)
: > that is approximate.

: This makes a certain amount of sense, if I'm understanding it right. I
: think what you're saying is that Chazal require 7 tefachim of width,
: and also 7 tefachim of length, but they don't really care about the four
: corners so much.

But they do care about it. My point was that Chazal allowed approximation,
and so the effective shiur is a shade less than the shiur justified by
theory -- because you only need to get close to the theory, not actually
match it.

You seemed unwilling to accept the whole approximation concept, so
I showed how limited its application is here.

: For the record, do any poskim discuss a sukkah which was found to
: measure 6.5 by 8 tefachim (52 sq.tef.)? ...

It's not square area, it's minimum side. 6.5 tefach sides would pasel
the sukkah.

If the shiur were area, our circular sukkah wouldn't need to approximate
circumscribing the square, but have an area of approximately 49, ie a
diameter of 8.1 tef. (radius = 8.08 / 2 = 4.04; 3 * 4.04^2 = 48.96)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 1/10/2013 1:36 PM, saul newman wrote:

> 2.  yamim noraim  leyning  nusach--- are  there different minhagim as to
> whether  the  maftir  and YK  mincha leyning  uses this tune  or not?

Yes.  There are many sources for not using the YT tune, but there are many
places that do, some maybe because they're unaware of the minhag not to,
but some because they have a genuine minhag to use it.



-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

A rebbe-chaver asked me the following:
> re you nohaig to cover over the controls of the dishwasher with foil
> for Shabbos?

> We've never done that but then my ... son said there's a chiyuv to. What
> do you know about this?

I initially replied in a manner that reflected my skepticism:
: Do you cover every electrical switch (those involving a glowing filament,
: at least; even your flashlights) and every hot water faucet?

: If not, then you clearly don't hold that every opportunity for bishul
: requires a blech. And so I can't see why your dishwasher would either.

: I can ask on Avodah, if you wish.

As you can tell by the existence of this post, he replied that he did
wish me to share it.

Of course, I'm not a poseiq, and many ideas sound really weird until you
hear the reasoning behind them. So perhaps my skepticism was rash. Your
thoughts?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@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

<<> R Schwab (in Mayan Bais shoaiva on breshis 2'23) says explicitly that
there
> were human like creatures alive before Adam who looked like pple, planted
> and harvested as pple do, could reproduce with Adam, etc, but did not have
> the neshama of Adam harishon.
>
> As I've mentioned previously, this approach still requires us to say that
> all these pple mysteriously died out somehow and the world is now only
> populated by Adam's descendants (all goyim are today are considered human,
> descendants of Adam, capable of converting and becoming Jewish, etc)
>

Is this different than the scientists saying there were human-like species
that dies
out while we homo - sapiens survived.
Last time I looked several years ago there was a discussion within the
scientific community if homo sapiens and neaderthals could cross breed

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131001/0229eb03/attachment-0001.htm>

I've been in enough homes to know that using honey for the entire period 
isn't a universal minhag.

Ben

On 10/1/2013 7:36 PM, saul newman wrote:
> 1. when do people switch back from honey to salt ?  is it  universally 
>  shmini atzeret? simchat tora? the next day?

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:46:02PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Is this different than the scientists saying there were human-like species
: that dies out while we homo - sapiens survived.

We're talking about the existence of homo sapiens before Adam that lacked
a ruach memalela (whatever we mean by that). Thus allowing for humans to
have evolved back 200,000 years ago or so to produce the two fossils found
in the Omo River in Ethiopia, while still having a historical Adam.

: Last time I looked several years ago there was a discussion within the
: scientific community if homo sapiens and neaderthals could cross breed

It's now taken as a given that they did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/s
cience/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html
Neanderthal genes are found most often among Europeans, but also quite a bit
among Asians (1% - 4% of the DNA). Very little among sub-Sahara Africans.

(This second bit is off topic. Sorry.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

R' Micha Berger wrote, about covering dishwasher dials on Shabbat:
"Do you cover every electrical switch (those involving a glowing filament,
: at least; even your flashlights) and every hot water faucet?"

The logic for covering the stove with a Blech (and covering the dials) is, 
as I understand it, to prevent one from using it in the normal way he would 
on a weekday. Since one normally turns the dials on his dishwasher when 
using it, it would seem a natural extension of the same logic to cover those 
dials IF one is going to use the dishwasher, on a timer, on Shabbat. That 
is, if you're loading it, etc., and doing the actions which you would 
normally follow by turning a dial and pressing the on button, I can see 
saying that perhaps one should cover those to prevent making that mistake.
--
B'ahavat Yisrael,
-Eitan Levy 

On 1/10/2013 8:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> A rebbe-chaver asked me the following:

>> Are you nohaig to cover over the controls of the dishwasher with
>> foil for Shabbos? We've never done that but then my ... son said
>> there's a chiyuv to. What do you know about this?

> I initially replied in a manner that reflected my skepticism:
> : Do you cover every electrical switch (those involving a glowing filament,
> : at least; even your flashlights) and every hot water faucet?
> : If not, then you clearly don't hold that every opportunity for bishul
> : requires a blech. And so I can't see why your dishwasher would either.


I assume that he is using the dishwasher as a place to store dishes on
Shabbos, which is permitted.  But if so, and during the week he is used
to switch it on after loading it, then it may be a sensible precaution,
maybe even an obligatory precaution, to cover it so he'll remember not
to, just as people cover the bathroom light switch because switching it
on as one enters and off as one leaves has often become an autonomic
function.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:25:23AM +0300, Eitan Levy wrote:
> The logic for covering the stove with a Blech (and covering the dials) 
> is, as I understand it, to prevent one from using it in the normal way he 
> would on a weekday...

It's shema yachteh begechalim. The question of how to translate stirring
coals to 20th cent cooking was tackled by numerous poseqim. Three examples
that show the range of opinions.

The MB (253:81) bases himself on the MA and says that the point of katum
(having rhe fire covered with ashes) is to not see the flame. Then you're
not going to see the fire is low or high, and therefore not be tempted
to adjust it. This is is the most common ruling, and a blech covers
the fire.

R Aharon Kotler (cf R' Eider's Hilkhos Shabbos) holds that the point of
katum is that you can't adjust the flame without being reminded that it's
Shabbos. So, he holds the iqar is covering the knob, and one needn't
worry about covering the flame.

RMF (IM OC 1:93) says that covering the flame all that is really is
necessary but it's better to cover the knobs too.

RMWillig (word of mouth from R Howard Jachter) holds that covering knobs
is never sufficient, and therefore questions the use of a crockpot on
Shabbos.

(Paraphrased from <http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/bishul5.htm>, by RHJ.)

Now, back to our question...

> when using it, it would seem a natural extension of the same logic to 
> cover those dials IF one is going to use the dishwasher, on a timer, on 
> Shabbat...

But the point of my reply is that we don't in general extend the logic
beyond cases of trying to cook food. Zev notes that many of us try to
cover our light switches, but AFAIK no one holds you can't read in a
room where the switches aren't covered. (And as discussed here a nuber of
times, flourescent bulbs also involve glowing filaments, and we use the
heat of those filaments in the light production. Including backlighting
on many tablets; although some use LED backlights.) We don't cover the
knobs on our hot water taps. Etc...

My guess at a sevara as to why:
These aren't cases of shehiyah or chazarah, so whlie the logic might
make sense, they aren't covered by the gezeira and thus don't require
the gezeira's loophole.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Here's something I noticed because of learning BB 4:1 on the heels of this
conversation. Selling a house with an attached entry-room, a yetzia (with a
trailing ayin) does not include the yetzia. The Y-mi (13a) spells out that
this is only if the yetzia is 4 amos x 4 amos x 10 tefachim high. Like for
requiring a mezuzah, a room is only a bayis when it's 4 amos x 4 amos.

At a minimal shiur of only 7 tef x 7 tef, a sukkah doesn't have to be
a bayis, despite being a "diras arui" and "teishvu ke'ein taduru."

So now I understand Beis Shammai and Rebbi. And our pesaq seems more of
a chiddush.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Sotah 6a, we learn that when multiple witnesses' stories combine
to produce a finding (eg separate eidim on the warning and on the setirah),
and they are found zomemim, the penalty is carried by the last pair. After
all, until they spoke she wasn't a sotah.

But today's Y-mi Yomi, BB 3:6 vilna 11a (most mishnayos have it as 3:4),
says that if three sets of eidim each testify that someone worked a field
for one year, so that combined they establish chazaqah, if all are found
zomemim, they divide the cost into thirds.

As we used to say, VIDC -- vas is der chiluq?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

 Either RMarty Bluke or R?n Chana Lutz wrote:
>
> It was me.


> ?Maybe they held like Rabbi Natan (Pesachim 78b) ......? (about one Pesach
> for all of klal Yisrael),
>
> Chaim Manaster notes:
> That only means that they were yotzei the bringing of the Pesach so that
> they would not be chayov kareis, but they where not all yotzei achilas
> Pesach (an asei) unless they actually ate a kezayis of the Pesach. Clearly
> you still need a large number of korbonos.
>
> Bringing the Korban Pesach in the midbar only occurred once in all the
years they were there,  - during the second year.  And according (at least)
to Tosphos (Kiddushin 37b) d"h "hoeil" - in fact the bringing of the korban
pesach (which would of necessity include your aseh of eating a kezais)
only became obligatatory on Bnei Yisrael after they entered Eretz Yisrael,
and the only reason they brought the korban pesach in the second year of
the midbar was "al pi hadibur" - ie it was a hora'as sha'ah specifically
commanded by HKBH for that year.  GIven that, how is it clear that
this "dibur" included the aseh of eating a kezayis? Maybe it only included
the bringing of the korban and the requirement that it be eaten - not the
requirement that each person for whom it was brought must eat a kezayis.
That interpretation does give a slightly different spin to those who asked
for Pesach sheni though - ie one would have to say that they still wanted
to be "in on the pesach" even if they were not going to do anything such as
eating a kezayis - and perhaps one could then see Pesach sheni as an even
bigger reward - ie not only did they get to bring a Pesach, but since it
was probably only a relatively few who were included here, they would have
been able to eat of it also.

Of course the other answer to R' Marty Bluke's question is perhaps that
there were not nearly as many people who were subject to the korban pesach
during the second year as he has assumed.  One o fthe other reasons brought
for bnei Yisrael not bringing a korban pesach during the remaining period
in the midbar (which Tosphos dovetails with this explanation of not being
commanded, but which could stand on it own) is that the areilim were too
numerous in subsequent years.  If they were too numerous in year 3 of the
midbar, then presumably there would have been quite a lot of them by Year 2
of the midbar (even though there should have been none at the time of
Pesach mitzrayim - so that statement in iteself of the numerosity of the
areilim would seem to bear some examination in the early years).   But
assuming true, that would bring down the numbers of those eligible
considerably amongst the men.

In addition, in any year you will always be excluding large numbers of the
women on the basis of nida, zava and yoledes - so the numbers
aren't anywhere as high as originally suggested.  And if there is no huge
effort to prevent the children hugging and kissing their mothers (or
sitting on their beds or whatever), then most of them can be eliminated too
as eligible to partake in the korban.  Plus the various parents who might
hug and kiss their adult daughters on a regular basis, take things from
them, have them assist in personal care etc, and you can start to see why
actually there might only be a reasonably small percentage of bnei Yisrael
that can actually be counted in a korban pesach, over and above those who
were tameh meis and were pushed to pesach sheni.


>Kol tuv
>Chaim Manaster
Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131002/606a10b7/attachment-0001.htm>

I have a English Sefer by R' Manasseh Ben Israel-translated from Spanish from the Kest-Lebovitz foundation called "The Concilliator"
He brings from everyone Tzadikim from all generations many Jews and secular sources like:Aristotle, Anaxgoras, Fulgentius, Solomon Marcian among many others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131002/90024500/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/10/2013 12:25 AM, Eitan Levy wrote:
> The logic for covering the stove with a Blech (and covering the
> dials) is, as I understand it, to prevent one from using it in the
> normal way he would on a weekday.

It's more than that. Covering the fire is ketima; covering the dials
is gerifa. One of these two is required by Chazal, not so much as a
practical measure to prevent unconscious use, but as a visible sign that
one is not interested in having the food cooked as soon as possible,
so one will not try to hurry it up by turning up the flame. And it's
required even if one is 100% certain that one will not forget.

Covering the controls of a dishwasher isn't the same thing; it seems to
me more like taping a light switch in position, which is not a technical
halachic requirement, but a practical measure.

[Email #2. -micha]

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> RMWillig (word of mouth from R Howard Jachter) holds that covering knobs
> is never sufficient, and therefore questions the use of a crockpot on
> Shabbos.

I don't understand that; I understand that the reasons you offered why
it might be compared to ketima may be invalid, but surely it is gerifa.

[Email #3. -micha]

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> These aren't cases of shehiyah or chazarah, so whlie the logic might
> make sense, they aren't covered by the gezeira and thus don't require
> the gezeira's loophole.

I agree, but I don't think that gezeira is relevant here. It's a matter
of practical precautions, based on the person's own habits. *If* you find
yourself, shabbos after shabbos, switching a particular light on or off,
then you probably have an obligation to cover that switch. If you only
do it occasionally, then you probably don't *have* to cover it, but you
probably should. And if you never use a particular switch on Shabbos,
perhaps because it's in a position where using it is not autonomic,
then there's no reason to cover it except perhaps for extra kevod shabbos.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 02:01:55AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> RMWillig (word of mouth from R Howard Jachter) holds that covering knobs
>> is never sufficient, and therefore questions the use of a crockpot on
>> Shabbos.

> I don't understand that; I understand that the reasons you offered why
> it might be compared to ketima may be invalid, but surely it is gerifa.

Gereifah requires removing the mosif hevel. The parallel to sweeping out
the coals isn't covering the knobs, it's heating up the crockpot and then
taking the elements out.

We did this exchange in Sep '08 too, subject line "induction cooking".
You made the same statement about gereifa then and R Mordechai Cohen
questioned it <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n346.shtml#09>.
In the following email in the digest, you reassert the point without
addressing his "covering the adjustment knob obviously does not constitute
removal of the source of heat".

Also, we find there another post from RMCohen
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n108.shtml#06> which reports:
: RS miller of Toronto also expressed to me that YT adjustment, and chazara on
: Shabbos w/be problems with induction cooking
: (although he did not mention a prob with 'disconnecting the magnetic field')

(Gereifa? Gerifa?)

> I agree, but I don't think that gezeira is relevant here. It's a matter
> of practical precautions...

The story, if we can darshen the words of an email, was that the author's
"son said there's a CHIYUV" (emph added) "to cover over the controls of
the dishwasher with foil". If the people using the kitchen think this
is an overly-easy mistake to make I would agree with you that it makes
sense, like a light-switch cover. But like the permissibility of using
a bathroom with no cover on the light-switch, I wouldn't say there is
a halachic problem with not covering the controls.

So I was treating the terms of the gezeira as relevant. We're simply
answering different questions, and actually agree to the answer of each:
(1) could be a good idea, (2) but not mandatory.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On 2/10/2013 3:33 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sotah 6a, we learn that when multiple witnesses' stories combine
> to produce a finding (eg separate eidim on the warning and on the setirah),
> and they are found zomemim, the penalty is carried by the last pair. After
> all, until they spoke she wasn't a sotah.
>
> But today's Y-mi Yomi, BB 3:6 vilna 11a (most mishnayos have it as 3:4),
> says that if three sets of eidim each testify that someone worked a field
> for one year, so that combined they establish chazaqah, if all are found
> zomemim, they divide the cost into thirds.
>
> As we used to say, VIDC -- vas is der chiluq?

Being warned doesn't make a woman a sotah, and is not even a factor in making
her a sotah.  Going into seclusion with another man is makes her a sotah,
but only a woman who has been warned is forbidden to do so.  For that matter,
only a married woman can become a sotah, but you wouldn't say that this makes
the marriage a part of the process of becoming a sotah, and make the eidim on
the marriage share in the liability!

But a chazakah is created, not by the third in a sequence of years of
open, notorious, and uncontested use, but by three such years.  Each year
is a factor in the chazakah.  It's the fact that the owner knew about this
going on for three years and didn't contest it that makes it likely that
he had no legitimate reason to contest it.  The third year is no more
special than the first or second.  So it makes sense that all three sets of
eidim share the liability (assuming, of course, that they're all zomemim).


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 170
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)