Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 84

Thu, 28 May 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:58:13 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Even More on Who Wrote the Mishnah Brurah


Someone on my email list spoke to a well-known Flatbush Rov and sent 
me the following:

Reb Yitzchok

I spoke to Rabbi XX this morning, and he did indeed confirm that the 
MB was not written only by the Chofetz Chaim. He said R. Moshe 
Feinstein told him that it is a work of a rabbim, not only a yochid. 
It seems that R. Arye Leib was not the only one to work on 
it.   According to what R.  XX heard the team also consisted of the 
CC's son in law and the mashgiach Rav Londinski.  R.  XX  also told 
me that R. Henoch Liebowitz, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Chofetz 
Chaim in Queens told him that his father Reb Dovid, who was a nephew 
of the CC, also wrote portions of the MB.

So thank you for leading me towards this information.


llev...@stevens.edu 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150527/a40aae06/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: H Lampel
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:38:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin




Micha Berger:

>> Rabbi Akiva said, ... "Even as a house proclaims its builder,a garment
>> >     its weaver or a door its carpenter, so does the world proclaim the
>> >     Holy Blessed One Who created it.
>> >
>> >Not very rigorous. Rabbi Aqiva's reply revolves around giving a parable
>> >to make the conclusion self-evident. Not contructing a deductive argument.
>> >
>> > ...there are truths that can
>> be justified even when they are not amenable to formal proofs.
>> ... I'll quote Qovetz Maamariv par 5-7 from a translation
>> provided by Pirchei Shoshanim. You'll notice it's nothing like the
>> Rambam's attempt to formally prove an Argument from Design in Moreh
>> sec. II.

Indeed, the Rambam himself in the Moreh Nevuchim recognizes this 
distinction and supports the superior validity of the non-formal 
approach. Chapters after he devotes chapters to formal philosophic 
proofs for Creation ex nihilo, he describes how a healthy (and unbiased) 
mind thinks:

    And know that one of the strongest proofs for Creation ex nihilo,
    /for one who is  modeh al ha-ememmes/ (Ibn Tibbon; KPCH: /baal
    tsedek/; Pines: an equitable man) [contra Aristotle?see 2:20-23], is
    his confirming the fact that every one of all natural entities
    serves a specific purpose, with each one benefiting still another;
    and that this fact is a proof for the purposeful intent of an
    intender, and that such purposeful intent necessarily implies the
    production of something new [and not something that always existed
    along with the one who bears the purposeful intention for its
    existence]. (MN 3:13)

Aristotle agreed to the premise that everything in Nature serves a 
certain purpose, and that every being contributes to the existence of 
still another being, but he refused to concede to the conclusion the 
Rambam considers something a /modeh al ha-emmess/baal tsedek/ is 
naturally convinced of.

Zvi Lampel




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150527/c240ec23/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 16:54:40 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin


On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:38:12PM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
: Indeed, the Rambam himself in the Moreh Nevuchim recognizes this
: distinction and supports the superior validity of the non-formal
: approach. Chapters after he devotes chapters to formal philosophic
: proofs for Creation ex nihilo, he describes how a healthy (and
: unbiased) mind thinks:
: 
:    And know that one of the strongest proofs for Creation ex nihilo, ...
:    is his confirming the fact that every one of all natural entities
:    serves a specific purpose, with each one benefiting still another;
:    and that this fact is a proof for the purposeful intent of an
:    intender, and that such purposeful intent necessarily implies the
:    production of something new [and not something that always existed
:    along with the one who bears the purposeful intention for its
:    existence]. (MN 3:13)

There is here an actually a reference to a formal proof. The Rambam recaps
a point made in 2:19-20.

And for that matter, if the Rambam was talking about not really needing
formal proof, despite spending much of sec. II on just that, why would it
be buried in a chapter that focuses on something else? 3:13 is about how
the universe has its own purpose. It is not just an arena designed for
the purpose of humans. He argues here with Aristo who says that plants
exist for the purpose of animals, and in general, that things exist for
the purpose of other things.

Besides, the Rambam writes in 3:51 in the mashal of the palace, that
people who believe because of tradition without having proof are like
those who wander around the chatzer, whereas someone with a proof is
like one who entered the prozdor.

Not Aristo's epistomology didn't analyze issues of proof vs other
justification. But clearly Reliabilism, trusting an idea found in a
source that has already been found to be reliable (hama'aminim ... derekh
qabalah), is not being considered good enough justification to fully
accomplish life's goal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:39:45 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zilzul shabbat


On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:25:26AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> I think the problem is more than just avoiding the issur, but making
:> it trivial to entirely avoid it.
: 
: In that case how about a "dud shemesh" according to the poskim that it is
: allowed because it uses the sun

I don't know. Maybe because you still can't boil hot water if you wanted
it, say, for your tea.

:> The textbook case would be on Shabbos 6a: situating someone in a meqom
:> petur so that someone in a reshus hayachid can hand items to them so
:> that they could then hand it over to someone in a reshus harabim.
:> Rashi ad loc explains "demezalzel be'isurei Shabbos".>>

: would there be a difference between doing this once and making this a
: standard procedure?

Good question. I don't see "standard procedure" in the gemara, it looks
like a one-off.

It depends if we're talking about zilzul of kevod Shabbos, or zilzul
of the melakhah, the latter being more of a "threat of slippery slope"
problem. Rashi has "mezalzel be'isurei Shabbos".

BH 337:2 "shelo yishtaberu" uses the same turn of phrase.

Why would you be afraid of cheapening the issur if we aren't talking
about that opening the door to future violation?

The Tur OC 315, Beiur Halakah 344 and elsewhere talk about not doing
things "shelo yavo'u lezalzel bo". Which clearly invokes a slippery
slope argument; but not that zilzul is itself a slippery slope, rather
than zilzul is such a problem, we avoid things that will slide us there.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:49:03 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Lifnei Iveir


On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:03:32PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger answered:
:> On a technical level, it would be mesayeia, not lifnei iver, and
:> I'm not sure that mesayeia applies to 7 mitzvos benei Noach.

: Really? Perhaps I need a better understanding of the difference between
: the two. I thought that mesayeia was when the other person is going to
: violate the halacha anyway and I am merely helping him to do it...

My understanding is that mesayeia is when the person was capable of doing
the aveirah without you. Not "would" but "could". Whereas lifnei iveir
is when the nazir is mei'eivar hanahar and you're giving him passage.

The sugya is on AZ 6a-b.

But, I see the Ran does say mesayeia apply to preventing a nakhri from
violating the 7MBN.

The Rama *YD 151:2) says we are meiqil and allow selling AZ items
to nakhriim if they already own similar items or can buy them elsewhere,
but there are machmirim.

See the Shach YD 151:6-7, who discusses this machloqes rishonim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:33:24 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] measurement error


The topic I got caught up in has been the AhS and standard shiurim.

The story so far....

Jan 8, when this thread was current,  I wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n004.shtml#13>:
> BTW, carrying 4 amos bereshus harabbim is 4 of one's own amos, assuming
> they have mainstream bone structure. It's where I am in AhS Yomi.
> But notice that we would naturally assume "amah" as unit of length, not
> as a function of how far that particular person can reach.

On Jan 11, I hit the topic again WRT eiruvin AhS OC 363:32-35, and wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n006.shtml#01>:
> But then in se'if 34 he says something I do not follow, but key to
> our discussion.

> When dealing with mavui, where there is only one mavui and therefore one
> measuring process to be used for everyone, the above applies. However,
> when the measurement is only for one person's use, tbey should be
> measuring for himself, with his own norms.

> And here he adds a touch of subjectivity: a person should measure how
> far he himself could walk. And the rule of carrying in rh"r a distance
> of no more 4 of one's own amos is brought into that umbrella.

> The reason for the general rule is to cover the personal amos of the
> people who will be using the measuring.

> BUT, and this is why I do not follow, he opened se'if 32 by telling us
> the variability is 1/48 of the total (1/24 of an etzba per ammah). Which
> is far less than the variability in forearm lengths in most groups of
> people. For example, my own sukkah is used by Yoni, who stands 6'3" and by
> my own 5'3" -- and my arms are on the shorter side, even proportionally.
> When we hold up elbows together, my ammah ends just past his wrist. Not
> within 47/48 of eachother.

And then on May 18 I hit AhS OC 586:14 and tried reviving this thread
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n080.shtml#04>. The topic
was the minimum length for a shofar -- long enough to be seen on
either side when being held in one hand.

> So the shiur is neither personal nor really the standard tefach. It is
> literally as the gemara says, what can be held and still seen. Which is
> why there is a machloqes about where the tefach stands in relation to the
> real shiur. But, visible if hypothetically held by an average hand. And
> if the tqoei'ah has wide hands, he could hold a minimal shofar without
> it being visible, and it would still be kosher.
...
> What I find even more interesting is that there is no chiluq being drawn
> between someone who blows in shul and someone who blows just for himself.
> Wouldn't the rule from OC 363 mean that someone in the latter situation
> should use what is visible when their own hand holds it?

But today I seem to have hit an AhS which deals with shiurim that aren't
human: revi'is, kezayis. According to OC 612:8, the shiur of drinking
on YK is not a revi'is, but melo lugmav. And unlike akhilah, where there
is one kezayis for everyone, melo lugmav is literally his own cheek. So
it would seem that kezayis, and perhaps revi'is and other shiurim (beis
se'ah) are not subjective. Which makes sense, since I can't figure out
how to make a kezayis correspond to the person...

Except RCVolozhiner's position, where it's the average kezayis then and
there, and not a static shiur. Which could, literally, be the same shiur
for all people (living there and then) and thus may be within the AhS's
intent.

Can't I get anyone else intrigued by this problem?





Back on Jan 11, I was in hil' eiruvin, and hit upn the AhS's discussion
of an ammah just as we were discussing the topic 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:12:53 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] zilzul


Micha wrote:
The Tur OC 315, Beiur Halakah 344 and elsewhere talk about not doing
things "shelo yavo'u lezalzel bo". Which clearly invokes a slippery
slope argument; but not that zilzul is itself a slippery slope, rather
than zilzul is such a problem, we avoid things that will slide us there. >>

My apologies but I am still completely confused when one applies zilzul and
when one says something is allowed as an exception to the rule. No purpose
in giving examples as there are myriads of exceptions that are allowed.

I have the same problem with "lo plug" sometimes something that would be
allowed is prohibited because of "lo plug" and sometimes we simply say it
is an exception.

Perhaps the most famous example is lighting candles on leil yom tov. The
wife of the Prisha says one should say the bracha first and then light
since lighting (preexisting flame) is allowed on tomtov. The MA calls her
names and says this is an obvious "lo plug".
My impression is that most women follow the wife of the prisha.

The question is what is the basis of the machloket either when do we say
"lo plug" and when do we apply "zilzul" and when do we ignore these
arguments

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150528/66ef70f4/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 04:04:33 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Lifnei Iveir


R' Micha Berger wrote:

> My understanding is that mesayeia is when the person was capable
> of doing the aveirah without you. Not "would" but "could". Whereas
> lifnei iveir is when the nazir is mei'eivar hanahar and you're
> giving him passage.
>
> The sugya is on AZ 6a-b.
>
> ...

I will be the first to point out that Lifnei Iveir is one the many topics
where my learning and expertise is severely lacking. Even so, I suspect
that there is something missing from RMB's definition. In the simplest
reading of the pasuk (Vayikra 19:14), Rashi says that Lifnei Iveir forbids
one to give bad advice to another person. It is difficult to imagine a
worse piece of advice than telling Ruth to follow Orpah back her her
previous god.

Googling the question "What is Lifnei Iveir" brought me to an interesting
article by Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff (bio at http://rabbikaganoff.com/about)
The full article is at http://tinyurl.com/ka3pwq6 and I
would like to quote the part where he gives three different categories of
Lifnei Iveir:

> I. Inciting ? maiseis
>
> This occurs when a person was not even considering doing an
> aveirah until someone encouraged him. Thus, the instigator incited
> the performing of the aveirah and is therefore a maiseis.
>
> II. Encouraging ? chanufah
>
> One violates this prohibition by complimenting someone for doing a
> sin, thus implying that sinning is acceptable.
>
> III. Enabling ? lifnei iveir
>
> One violates this prohibition if the sinner wanted to do the
> aveirah, but was unable to do so without assistance. The person
> who enables the performing of the aveirah violates lifnei iveir.
>
> IV. Even when none of these Torah prohibitions are involved,
> helping the sinner do the aveirah sometimes violates the rabbinic
> prohibition of mesaya?a y?dei ovrei aveirah, assisting someone who
> is sinning.

(It is unfortunate that the article did not cite a source or precedent for these categories, but please bear with me.)

It seems to me that RMB is giving a useful tool to distinguish between
category 3 and category 4, but that tool is useful only in the case where a
person already has the *desire* to commit a sin, but it lacking the
*ability* to some degree. If a person has only a mild inability to sin,
then the enabler is merely mesayeia; but if the person has a severe
inability, then the enabler is placing a real michshol.

But what of the case where a person does *not* yet have a desire to sin?
Rabbi Kaganoff is saying that one who incites or encourages him to do it is
violating Lifnei Iveir. Even if the person already has the ability to do
the sin, it was below his "bechirah point" until he was egged on to do it.
Rabbi Kaganoff offers an example:

> Inciting Someone to Sin ? maiseis
>
> The classic case of maiseis is when the nachash encouraged Chavah
> to eat the forbidden fruit. Even though the nachash itself did
> not eat, Hashem punished it for inciting Chavah to sin (Gemara
> Sanhedrin 29a). Similarly, if Reuven incites Shimon to sin in a
> way that Shimon had not considered, Reuven is a maiseis.

And so my question can be rephrased: If the nachash was wrong to tell Chava to eat the fruit, wasn't Naami wrong to tell Ruth to follow Orpah back to her god?

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/556694205dac4141e6338st02vuc



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:07:24 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Re various shofar-blowing minhagim


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 07:14:36PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
: When I davened in KAJ/"Breuer's", the minhag was:
: -- 30 **dim'yushav**
: -- 10 **dim'umad**
: -- 60 sandwiched around post-Musaf "Aleinu" (30 just before, 30 after the
R' Micha Berger asked:
"How does that work? You have three points in Chazaras HaShatz in which to
blow. How do you do less than 10 **each**?"

Many Rishonim (quoted by the Beis Yosef in Siman 592) hold that during
Chazaras Hashatz in Musaf you blow Tashrat for malchiyos, Tashat for
zichronos and Tarat for shofaros.

In all of the Nusach Ashkenaz shuls that I have davened in they blew
30 before Musaf, 30 during chazaras hashatz and then 40 after Musaf
adding up to 100.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150528/22069ccd/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:33:43 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin


Micha wrote
<<But my point was that there are things other than proof.
Nu, so they're wrong. We may not be able to prove to them they're wrong, but
they are.
Somewhere "out there" is a real objective definition. Regardless of
someone's ability to know what they are, or to accept it if they did.
We're talking about how I justify my believing in something, not how I
prove it to others
REW says that if it were not for ulterior motive, G-d's existence would be
as self evident >>

Well Micha and I agree on several points but still disagree on others.
Agreed that people in real life don't use formal mathematical proofs. A
sanhedrin can kill on a majority vote (OK there a little more than 50%)
I also agree that if one is talking about oneself then feelings count.
Saying they are wrong but I cant prove it works perfectly OK with regard to
your own beliefs.
It doesnt work when trying to convince others.

Example:
Your child comes home and says he learned that the world is billions of
years old not about 5700 years. Or else your teenager tells you he doesn't
believe G-d is loving because of the Holocaust or because of Amalek.

You can tell him that whatever is in the Torah or Chazal is truth and its
not open to discussion. That might work with some children. Alternatively
you can give him/her one of the many answers that have been discussed on
this list. That may or not convince him. There are no proofs that G-d
exists or that G-d rules the universe or that G-d is just or loving. You
can convince yourself but doing that to others is difficult,

We have already argued about REW and I still can't accept it. The argument
is that if someone else tells you why he doesn't accept G-d or that G-d
rules the world whether for rational or emotional reasons the answer is
that we don't believe him and say he is making up reasons.
Of course he will say the same about your acceptance of Torah and mitzvot.

To simply accuse the other of simply rationalizing his beliefs is simply
not true. I have had enough lectures on why the Bible was written very late
by many scribes to be convinced they really mean it. You may disagree but
you can't accuse them of merely rationalizing their non-belief.
In one class the professor said he would willing debate anyone who has a
different opinion objectively. However, if you start that the Torah is from
Sinai because of your belief then there is nothing to discuss.

What is self-evident to you is self-evidently false to someone else. Again
it is legitimate to disagree with that person but I claim it is not
legitimate to state that he doesn't really believe in his own position.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150528/423b0f98/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:57:05 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] More on Who Wrote the Mishna Brura


<<And many of the books we consider the Gra's are students' records of his
teachings. For that matter, people talk about what the Ari says in Peri
Eitz Chaim or others of R' Chaim Vital's works.>>

They state clearly these are things they heard from the Gra, Ari etc. No
misleading.
No different than RHS writing what he heard from RYBS and many other such
seforim.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150528/263e0062/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 05:55:59 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zilzul


On 05/28/2015 05:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>
> Perhaps the most famous example is lighting candles on leil yom tov.
> The wife of the Prisha

The MA's girsa in the Prisha is "mother", and the Machtzis Hashekel confirms
that this is not a typo in the MA.


> says one should say the bracha first and then
> light since lighting (preexisting flame) is allowed on tomtov.


> The MA calls her names

He does not!  He merely quotes the gemara Yoma 66b that "women only have
wisdom with the spindle".   Machtzis Hashekel says he is not even referring
to the Drisha's mother, but to most women, who will not understand the
distinction between Shabbos and Yomtov.


> and says this is an obvious "lo plug".

He doesn't just assert it, he cites clear sources that when a bracha must
sometimes be said after the deed, we apply lo plug and always say it after
the deed.  Thus, he says, the same thing must apply here.  (But see Dagul
Mervava, who distinguishes this case because the bracha is different, and
points out that if not for this distinction then the same should apply to
the Chanukah lights).


> My impression is that most women follow the wife of the prisha.

Really?  I'm surrprised.  I'm also surprised that you've surveyed enough women
to form an impression one way or the other.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:19:04 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] More on Who Wrote the Mishna Brura


On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:57:05PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> <<And many of the books we consider the Gra's are students' records of his
:> teachings. For that matter, people talk about what the Ari says in Peri
:> Eitz Chaim or others of R' Chaim Vital's works.>>

: They state clearly these are things they heard from the Gra, Ari etc. No
: misleading.

I'm not sure about such disclaimers on the Gra's talmidim's writings,
aside from Maaseh Rav.

And if so, lo kol shekein in our case! Here we have the author of Shemiras
haLashon -- someone known for thinking about what he said -- calling
the MB "beiuri", "od tzarafti" "ki bo biarti", "upo hir'eisi", and "kol
eileh chbarti..." on the title page. How can one argue he didn't oversee
the entire work and checked the content? Nothing about parts being by

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:33:39 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zilzul


On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:12:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: My apologies but I am still completely confused when one applies zilzul and
: when one says something is allowed as an exception to the rule. No purpose
: in giving examples as there are myriads of exceptions that are allowed.

I think the reverse: the norm is to allow valid loopholes to the din,
and it's only when the poseiq decides that the loophole would destroy
some significant part of the feel of Shabbos (whether qedushas Shabbos or
an entire melakhah) that we call it zilzul.

...
: Perhaps the most famous example is lighting candles on leil yom tov. The
: wife of the Prisha says one should say the bracha first and then light
: since lighting (preexisting flame) is allowed on tomtov. The MA calls her
: names and says this is an obvious "lo plug".
: My impression is that most women follow the wife of the prisha.

The AhS OC 263:3 does, citing the Perishah. Then he quotes the MA (s"q 12)
and says "and many were choliq on him... vekhein iqar ledina."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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



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


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


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

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.)


< Previous Next >