Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 097

Monday, June 21 1999

• Re: Chazal and metzius
• Re: secular studies/ the Rama
• Rama on secukar studies/Birchas Shmuel
• Re: Rama on secukar studies/Birchas Shmuel
• Miracles
• David Berger
• Tosfos And Gezeiro
• Chazal And Science
• Re: Pesahim 94b -- Scientific Knowledge of Hazal
• R. Dessler's Attitudes
• Re: Chazal's science, Rav Soloveitchick's educational antecedents
• Secular Studies
• Re: Miracles
• Secular Studies
• Re: Secular Studies
• Nishtanu Hateva
• Re: secular studies/ the Rama
• Re: Rama on secukar studies/Birchas Shmuel
• Re: Nishtanu Hateva
• Mishnah B'rurah and Humrah

Having been away getting married, I am afraid I am a bit behind in
Avodah. However, at least the discussion i have seen on the topic if
killing maggots on shabbat has not explicitly brought the sources that
relate to that issue - and thus appear (at least to me) to be making
assumptions about the question that are not necessarily warranted.

So let us go back to the sources:

As far as I am aware - the *first* statement discussing the issue is the
Tosephta in Shabbas (17:14) - Rashbag omer : Beis Shammai omrim ain
horgin es hama'acholes b'shabbas v'beis Hillel matirin!

This tosephta is quoted on shabbas 12a intact, and without any
commentary as to reason, it is just used to explain the gezera in the
previous sugya (Rashi there defines maacholes as kina).  Further up the
gemorra makes it clear that Rabbi Eliezer holds like Beis Shammai in the
tosephta (ie that killing a kina is like killing a camel) (Rabbi Eliezer
elsewhere being referred to as Shammuti, ie a follower of Beis Shammai,
so this is not suprising).

The issue of pru 'urvu only comes up on daf 107b of Shabbas in the
dicussions of Amoraim:

The gemorra there derives a diyuk from the mishna that the tanna of the
mishna would hold that killing of the shratzim mentioned in the mishna
would render one chayav a korban, and Rav Yirmiya  posits that this
means that the tanna of the mishna is Rabbi Eliezer, who hold that
killing a kina is like killing a camel.  Rav Yosef objects to this
deduction, on the grounds that the Rabbanan do not disagree with Rabbi
Eliezer except in the case of a kina because it does not engage in pru
u'rvu but all other types of shzatim u'rumasim that do engage in pru
u'rvu they don't disagree [that it is forbidden to kill them, and hence
the mishna does not have to be following Rabbi Eliezer dspite the
validity of the diyuk].  Rav Yosef then goes on to explain that both
Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan derive their position from the eylim ie
the "rams" [Rashi explains that these were the rams that were shechted
in order to build the mishkan], because while both parties learn the
prohibition on killing an animal on shabbas from the melechos of
building the mishkan and in particular of killing the rams, Rabbi
Eliezer holds that "like rams" means just as the eylim have within them
"n'tilas neshama" also anything that has within it n'tilas neshama [it
is forbidden to kill on shabbas] while the rabbanan hold that "like
rams" means that just as rams engage in pru u'rvu, therefore anything
that engages in pru u'rvu [it is forbidden to kill on shabbas].  Abaya
then queries whether kinim do not in fact engage in pru u'rvu, by citing
a statement (from Avodah Zara 3b) which states that HKBH sustains the
entire world from the great beasts to the "betzei kinim" (which would
seem to translate as the eggs of kinim) - but the gemorra rejects this
by saying this is a species that is called betzei kinim. The gemorra
goes on to say, but a parosh [flea] engages in pru u'rvu and it states
in a brisa one who traps a flea on shabbas, Rabbi Eliezer mechayav and
Rabbi Yehoshua paturs - but this is answered by saying that the
machlokus between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is about what is
necessary for the melacha of hunting [ie do you need a species that is
usually hunted] and that there is no machlokus about killing (even Rabbi
Yehoshua would be modeh regarding killing a parosh).

Reading the above sources cold, it would seem to me that you come to
several conclusions:

 - if you hold that killing a ma'acholes is assur on shabbas, you are
poskening beis shammai against beis hillel (tosephta then quoted
straight in bavli gemorra)
- this is even though no reason in relation to pru u'rvu is given in
such a tosephta
- if you hold that on knowing that kinim do in fact engage in pru u'rvu,
the Rabbanan (as understood by Rav Yosef) would have changed their mind
and said that killing them is assur, you are saying that the Rabbanan
would then have agreed to the practical position of Rabbi Eliezer.  But
they did not need any question of science to agree with Rabbi Eliezer.
That is, for some reason the Rabbanan rejected Rabbi Eliezer's
explanation of derivation from the rams for the mishkan.  They could
have, like him, held that any creature in which there was "n'tilas
neshama" was included in the analogy to rams.  For some reason they were
*not* comfortable with this derivation.  And yet the *only* nafka mina
between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is kinim (just as the only nafka
mina between the positions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai are
maacholos).  Thus make the killing of kinim assur and you, for all
practical purposes, take the analogy of rams back to that with which the
Rabbanan were not comfortable.  To use more classic talmudic
terminology, the Rabbanan held that the reference to rams was a mi'ut of
a greater quality than that held by Rabbi Eliezer, it it did not just
limit the prohibition to those with a "n'tilas neshama", but further as
well.  Now, this means the question isn't just about science (in fact,
cannot be only about science), because we are talking here about the
darshening of a pasuk from which we derive what is the scope of a
melacha for shabbas arising out of the description of the avoda of the
mishkan - Thus by saying that a change in our knowledge of science means
we should change the psak (even l'chumra), we are challenging the
interpretation of Torah  of beis Hillel of the essential nature of the
melacha of the mishkan as it is brought to teach us about shabbas (in
this case reducing it to that of Beis Shammai). If, on the other hand,
you hold like R' Lifshitz (or some similar explanation), then you
maintain the machlokus between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai and Rabbi
Eliezer and the Rabbanan, and also the concept that that the link to the
melacha of shechting rams is not inclusive of all animals, but also
contains one exclusion, namely kinim (for whatever reason, all you do is
alter somewhat the understanding of why it is that kinim are the odd
animal out - or you even can say, I don't understand why kinim are the
odd animal out, but there you are).

To my mind taking the first position is a pretty radical and far
reaching step - far more radical and far reaching than it appears to be
at first glance, and my sense is that focussing on the metzius is
paradoxically obscuring that fact.


Regards

Chana
..
-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

>>>Although I usually do not have time to write to avodah but anticipating
all the "right -wing" bashing<<<

Gee, and I anticipated left wing bashing from the discussion, which I guess 
says something in itself!.

 >>>it is an explicit Rama in Yoreh Deah 246:4 who
prohibits secular studies until one is a talmid chacham. I never
understood how the less right wing groups deal with this Rama <<<

Assuming we operate strictly within the parameters of the Rama, you omit the 
key line: it is permitted to learn other disciplines 'b'akrai'  - that leaves 
plenty room for interpretation.  Isn't the student who learns a 6 hour 
morning seder+3 hours night seder and attends 3 hours of classes a day simply 
engaging in limud of other subjects b'akrai?  I would also suggest that just 
as the term keva can mean one's *primary* interest in terms of attention and 
value, so to akrai may be measured in terms of value and attention.  Although 
I work 8-10 hours a day I still consider limud haTorah my primary focus in 
life (I hope!).  Do you consider R' Hirsch in the 'right' camp, and if so, 
how would you suggest he read the Rama?

More to the point, aderaba, the Rama is a bigger kashe on the right wing.  
How do they justify attending college and pursuing professional careers (all 
of which require some training, be it college, vocational school, etc.) in 
light of your understanding of Rama?  

>>>This of course is without mentioning other  problems with secular studies
of heretical ideas which would seem to include most of philosophy <<<

I would suggest you read the response of Dr. Berger and Dr. Carmy to R' 
Parnes in the Torah U'Mada journal on this point.  I would also suggest that 
philosphy and most secular disciplines are a-religious and not 
anti-religious, but I the catch-22 is that you have to do some reading to 
appreciate that fact, but if you presuppose that its assur, you will have a 
problem. 

Derech agav, I appreciated the tone of your posting.  Hope we are both wrong 
about the discussion degenerating.

-Chaim

After suggesting that the heter of learning secular studies lies in the fact 
that they occupy less significance than Torah within our value system, and 
that is the definition of akrai, I reread the tshuvah of the Birchas Shmuel 
(end of Kiddushin).  I think R' Baruch Ber learned the Rama as I did - of 
course, my excerpt is no substitute for a full rereading of the tshuvah (esp. 
ois 8 where he comments specifically on the Rama).

"...Even one who cannot learn at all or who is occupied with his parnasa, 
nonetheless, he assumes the yoke of subservience to Torah and [the 
relationship] is like Yissachar and Zevulun.  Therefore this is not c"v 
abandoning Torah but walking in its ways.  However, one who says let me go 
learn secular wisdom, and studies b'kviyus *and it is significant to him as a 
measure of importance (l'hitpaer bah)*, this is called abandoning Torah...for 
that individual has [substituted] another item of importance in his heart".

IOW: the Rama is talking about how we value what we study.

I would just add my own chakirah: are we prohibited from assigning any value 
to secular study (other than perhaps parnasah), or is the prohibition to 
value it on the same level as Torah, but ain hachi nami, it might be valuable 
as a source of wisdom?  That is where I think the split between right and 
left will play out - not in the basic reading of the Rama.

-Chaim

In a message dated 6/20/99 9:36:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

<< 
 I would just add my own chakirah: are we prohibited from assigning any value 
 to secular study (other than perhaps parnasah), or is the prohibition to 
 value it on the same level as Torah, but ain hachi nami, it might be 
valuable 
 as a source of wisdom?  That is where I think the split between right and 
 left will play out - not in the basic reading of the Rama.
 
 -Chaim
  >>
The Rabbis in the talmud clearly had at least some "secular" knowledge (eg 
medicine , math, astrology...) I don't think anyone would accuse them of 
bitul torah or spending time on something of no value  since this 
"secular"(BTW I think this is often an extremely artificial distinction) 
knowledge was actually part of tora. Each derech in this area has its 
distinct advantages and disadvantages. Lfi Aniyat daati(and its very ani) the 
real difference "between" the left and the right is how to weigh the pros and 
cons.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

This past Shabbos evening, fellow listmember Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz spoke at
a Shalom Zachar (for the son of Rabbi Binyamin Blau, by the way), and
delivered a message that I felt was very insightful and powerful. I have
his permission to repeat his *main* point here (he said many other things
too, which I am not mentioning), but he has not reviewed my choice of
words here, and if there is any error, it is mine alone.

He began by pointing out a question asked often by many people, whether
religious or not, whether Jewish or not: Why is G-d silent? Why can't he
do just one miracle for us? Just one miracle, please, Hashem, a big one
like in the old days, and we will surely all see You, acknowledge You,
and obey You.

Why doesn't He do it? The answer is very simple: IT DOESN'T WORK!!!

Throughout the Chumash, and the rest of Tanach, Hashem has indeed done
great and amazing miracles of all sorts, and we did acknowledge Him at
those times. But [almost? - a.m.] invariably, we returned to our old
ways, sometimes within a few weeks, often merely a few *days* later.
Whether the Egyptians and their plagues, or the Bnai Yisrael in the
Midbar, or countless other examples -- we ask Hashem to move Heaven and
Earth for us, but then He does so, and we forget almost immediately.

Those who can see Hashem in the everyday miracles don't need the
earthshaking ones. And those who cannot see Him in the everyday will not
be convinced by anything bigger.

[[ Afterwards, my friends and I asked each other, If these demonstrations
are so futile, then why did Hashem bother doing it again and again for
centuries? We noted that in fact, they *are* effective, but for
tragically short durations. So then, to repeat Rabbi Teitz's original
question, Why has Hashem stopped? Why doesn't he do it again for us? So
we retreated to the standard answer, that the post-Biblical generations
are unworthy of such miracles. But this does not detract from Rabbi
Teitz's point that a nes galuy *tends* to do not much for general Torah
observance in the long run. ]]

Akiva Miller

P.S. I am posting the above to Avodah, because (1) I find it to be a
humbling piece of mussar, for those times when I too ask Hashem to make
Himself more visible, and because (2) it can be a helpful response for
other listmembers to use when people ask them this question. I did NOT
post it to provide fodder for the current "To have a State or not to have
a State" debate. It seems to me that while the miracles of the State have
inspired people to teshuva, those miracles are in Nes Mistar category,
and an old-time Biblical style miracle would not have been much more
effective.


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Can anyone help me with an e-mail address for David Berger at Brooklyn
College?

thank You
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

>>I wonder how you would classify the gemara and Tosaphos in Beitza 30a 
"One cannot clap, slap thighs or dance on Shabbat and Yom Tov". Rashi explains 
that it's a gezeira for fear of mitaken kli shir. Tosphos (T'nan) that during 
their time this gezeira no longer applied, since in Tosphos's time individuals 
were no longer experts in fixing musical instruments. This is a clear change in 
the halacha due to sociological change. How is this instance different from 
others where "minhag avosaynu b'yadeinu" applies? Did the Tosphos have the 
ability to make changes based on their societal norms, but at some point in time
after that, we're frozen? What's the cut-off point? Who decided? 
Shabbat Shalom 
David I. Cohen<<

Or how about Tosfos discontinuing Maayim Acharonim because Melach Sdomis no 
longer exitsts.

I do NOT know the sugyos in depth.  My superficial approach is that Tosfos was 
explaining something he already knew to be true.

Rashi/Tosfos/Maharm Mirothenburg/Maharil, etc. were "trustees" of the Minhag 
Ahskenaza, and where they conflict with the Bavli, I would tend to attribute 
this conflict to that Mesorah.  

This is how IMHO Rishonim are "better" than Acharonim.  Not a function of 
superior intelligence, just a more reliable Mesorah re: when TB is binding and 
whn it can be overriden.  

Rich Wolpoe

>>Well, let me step up and advance the notion that indeed doubts Chazal's
capability to have advanced insight into science, and i don't feel very
foolish in the process .   (Capability of course quite separate from
ability.  doubtless they were supremely able to absorb whatever - so long as
someone was around to teach them, but nobody was).  The plain fact is that
there was no "advanced science" in that era - if by advanced you mean
anything associated with current insights and understandings.  They (at
least those that specialized in such - not every chazal was cognizant of sod
ha'ibur) were apparantly fully cognizant and conversant with the best
science of the day - there are many proofs of this latter claim - but that
is all.  To paraphrase R. Shrira gaon (responding to a question re the
efficacy of talmudic nostrums) Chazal were simply not scientists, just like
they were not doctors. The plain sense of R. Shrira is compelling to me,
though clearly not to everybody (e.g. RYZB reference to R. Tam, another
great non scientist BTW whose views on such matters needn't - from my and r.
Shrira's perspective - be taken seriously). So RRW suggestion that we "give
Chazal the benefit of the doubt" seems  misplaced to me<<

Question: Do you accept or reject that Tannoim such as R. Akivo and RSBY had 
aceess to estoreric wisdom?

Question: When Elisha sent Naaman to the Yarden to cure his tzoraas was this a 
neis nigleh?  If it was a Nise nigleh, how is it that the pousk makes no mention
of a Dvar Hashem prior? IOW how did this work?

Clarification: if you re-read my quote, I said it was MISTAKEN to doubt Chazal's
capabilities, and it was FOOLISH to always take them literally.


Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 6/20/99 2:28:30 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> I was once severely rebuked by one of RAS's sons for saying RT was
>  "wrong". They farenfer the RT like the Tos. Rid, that the Western horizon
>  must be as dark as overhead.
>  
See Klei Nos'sim O"C Reish Simon 455

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Arnie Lustiger writes:
<These teshuvos are firmly grounded in a teshuva by R. Diskin which "assurs"
secular subjects because secular pursuits could interest students who might
otherwise become Gedolei Torah. R. Diskin goes on to state that the only
legitimate "extra Torah" profession is e.g. a storekeeper, a job which would
not otherwise entice those destined for greatness in Torah. This teshuvah
forms the basis for contemporary ("right wing") Yeshiva education. College
is therefore not assur only because of the widespread "Tum'ah" in that
enviroment: it is assur because it is forbidden "be'en" - the very option to
pursue a secular career will reduce the godol pool. And although, as R.
Diskin states, only 1 out of a thousand have any hope of entering this
"pool", the other 999 must sacrifice for its creation.>

While i have little truck, in fact a good deal of personal moral aversion,
to the attitudes so clearly articulated by r. dessler z"l in this famous
letter (included at the back of vol 3 of mikhtov m'eliyohu), it must also be
said that the circumstances of the case do not actually support the broader
generalizations detailed above.  While it may in fact be true (and i do not
know) that R. dessler 'assurs' secular studies or even that the <only
legitimate "extra Torah" profession is e.g. a storekeeper, a job which would
not otherwise entice those destined for greatness in Torah> you could not
prove such from his letter which was directing a response to a particular
circumstance - which is the permissibility of opening a 'competing"
educational institute which would combine both limudei qodesh and limudei
chol in the immediate vicinity of a pre-existing "real" yeshivoh. Under
those circumstances, he replied it was osur. His suggestion that non-torah
professions be limited to something menial, or basically unattractive, was
likewise highly specific and constrained -directed only towards "real"
yeshivoh drop-outs, who should be helped by their former roshei yeshivoh to
find some parnosoh, but not one so attractrive that it might seduce his
former school-mates and chaveirim who were still trying to climb the
lamdon's pyramid.  What R. dessler's attitudes were in general would need to
be brought from elsewhere.

Mechy Frankel				H:(301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		W:(703) 325-1277

In a message dated 6/20/99 9:04:20 AM EST, Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil writes:

> Thus RYZ refers us to the Rebbe's (I presume we're talking lubavich here?)
>  remark re the amqus of chazal's intent ligabei the machloqes in pisochim
>  about the cause of night and day.  With all due respect for the L rebbe(s) 
-
>  and i'm an active admirer of a number of them - this "mayseh rav" does not
>  pass for a reasoned argument for anybody outside the L-camp. simply chalk
>  the rebbe down as, surprise, someone who resonates to the nistoros which
>  others may not have any eiseq with.  which doesn't mean he's right and
>  others are wrong.
> 
The quote was from the *Ragitchover* (in a response to the Rebbe), and my 
point was to bring out that there are later day Poskim who do (may) hold like 
the RT, and I pointed out that it is a matter of Machlokes (even Lhalacha see 
O"C 455).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Paul Rothbart writes:

>Although I usually do not have time to write to avodah but anticipating
>all the "right -wing" bashing that will soon happen I could not resist.
>All of this negativity against secular studies is not merely based upon a
>teshuva by Maharil Diskin, it is an explicit Rama in Yoreh Deah 246:4 who
>prohibits secular studies until one is a talmid chacham. I never
>understood how the less right wing groups deal with this Rama since to
>the best of my knowledge no one argues with him. 

I think that it is necessary to draw a conceptual distinction between
secular studies for the sake of parnassa, and secular studies "lishma" (e.g.
Torah U'madda). Although the latter may perhaps be in conflict with the
Rama's opinion as cited (an obviously contentious issue on which I won't
comment), the Rama was not addressing studying limudei chol for the sake of
parnassa. Yet it is precisely  parnassa-study that R. Dessler explicitly
prohibits for largely sociological reasons:  the enticing of potential
gedolim away from Torah.

Arnie Lustiger

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan discusses this point in his book "If you were G-d" 
E.G.

>>
From: Paul Rothbart <sroth4@juno.com>


Although I usually do not have time to write to avodah but anticipating
all the "right -wing" bashing that will soon happen I could not resist.
All of this negativity against secular studies is not merely based upon a
teshuva by Maharil Diskin, it is an explicit Rama in Yoreh Deah 246:4 who
prohibits secular studies until one is a talmid chacham. I never
understood how the less right wing groups deal with this Rama since to
the best of my knowledge no one argues with him. (THat distinction by the
way is th e answer to people like th e Rambam, Seforno, Gra  etc. that
was pointed to. Pretty  obvious distinction. By the  way someone made
referrence to Rashi's involvement in secular subjects, please clarify
since I was not aware of this)<<

A few points:
Mikol Melamdai Hiskalti and Yofeh Talmud torah im Derech Eretz (particularly as 
RSR Hirsch elaborates) would be 2 valid reasons to engage in secular studies.

Paraphrasing a speach I once gave, there are 2 justifications for secular 
studies:

1)  For career purposes - as exemplified by the Rambam who becaem a physician.
2)  To advance one's understanding of the Torah, as exemplified by the Gro when 
he studied geometry etc.

Of course, neither case precludes the possibility of becoming a Talmid chochom 
first and then engaging in secular studies, and therefore the above examples 
Could be consistent with the Remo.

Rich Wolpoe 

In a message dated 6/21/99 1:48:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 2)  To advance one's understanding of the Torah, as exemplified by the Gro 
when 
 he studied geometry etc.
 
 Of course, neither case precludes the possibility of becoming a Talmid 
chochom 
 first and then engaging in secular studies, and therefore the above examples 
 Could be consistent with the Remo.
 
 Rich Wolpoe 
  >>
Can one be a talmid chochom without understanding geometry??  I suppose it 
depends on definitional issues. 
A simple reading of your 2 categories(BTW- are we sure that the Rambam became 
a doctor only for parnassa reasons) implies that studying subatomic physics 
would be bitul zman since it seems halacha only deals with macroscopic 
phenomena(note to myself - how does this square with closing a circuit being 
boneh?). I would think that such study falls into the category of 
understanding (even if no practical nafka mina lhalacha) HKBH's creation, 
bringing one closer to HKBH etc.
I assume that the school of thought that excludes secular studies assumes 
that we should be outstanding in tora to the exclusion of "non-tora" (I'm not 
sure I really know what this category is)areas. 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

See SA 4 and MB 4:27, etc.

Here is a possible case of nishtanu hateva.

Yodayim Askoniyos.. ubvadday nogea bemokom Tinuf

One could say the following:
That chazoko of touching tinuf while sleeping applied bizman that people slept 
w/o any covering (except for a blanket).

While today, those who sleep with pajamas, etc. might be different.  (see Beiur 
Halocho re: Gloves.)

And therefore this Shinuy hateva would be social/socilogical,in that sleeping 
uncovered is not so much in vogue as it used to be, and therefore the metzius of
touching makom tinuf may no longer apply in the same fashion as it used to. (and
not a case of soem physical evolution)

Rich Wolpoe

See S"O Horav Hil. T"T 3:7, also Tanya end of Perek 8.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/20/99 9:11:32 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> 
>  The Rabbis in the talmud clearly had at least some "secular" knowledge (eg 
>  medicine , math, astrology...) I don't think anyone would accuse them of 
>  bitul torah or spending time on something of no value  since this 
>  "secular"(BTW I think this is often an extremely artificial distinction) 
>  knowledge was actually part of tora. 

In addition to the Heter for gaining knowledge and Yiras Shomayim, it is 
intersting to note that Shmuel that was Bokee Bshvilei Drokia said that he 
looked at the stars on his way to the out house.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/21/99 1:53:19 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Here is a possible case of nishtanu hateva.
>  
>  Yodayim Askoniyos.. ubvadday nogea bemokom Tinuf
>  
That hasn't changed when one wears gloves V'kadomeh, he definitely touched 
Bemokom Tinuf with hefsek of glove etc.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Just to revive a thread that some may have hoped had petered out, my attention was recently drawn to Orah Haim 319 near the end of the siman where there is a discussion of separating the egg yolk from the egg white on Shabbat.  Without going into a summary of the disucssion, the Mishnah B'rurah concludes his halachic review of a particular case by mentioning that there are lenient opinions (Aruch Ha-Shulhan and Magen Avraham or the BaH, I believe) by saying v'nakhon l'hahmir.  When the Mishnah B'rurah says "v'nahon l'hahmir" is that a p'sak or is it something else?  There are some cases (not here) in which the Mishnah B'rurah indicates that although he does not agree with a lenient opinion, one should not criticize those who follow that lenient opinion because "yesh la-hem al mi lismokh."  How does the presence or absence of that caveat affect the p'sak-like character of his recommendation of the more stringent opinion?

Finally, a question to Rabbi Bechhoffer and other CD-enabled list-members, how often does the phrase "v'nahon l'hahmir" occur in the Mishnah B'rurah, and how often does it occur in other comparable works that are available electronically (that is assuming that the answers to these questions require electronic study aids)? 

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

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


[ 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         ]