Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 370

Tuesday, February 15 2000

• Re: video cameras
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: science and halakha (treifa/drusa)
• Re: Rov and chazaka
• Changes in the Siddur
• RE: video cameras
• Marc Shapiro's book on R. Weinberg
• Re: diyukim
• Re: shituf (was gezel akum)
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• RE: my response regarding video cameras. pass it on as you see fit.
• RE: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: baruch shepatrani
• Re: anu v'amru
• Re: kaddish
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: anu v'amru
• Re: anu v'amru

Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> quoted me and asked:
:> Notice also that their rav
:> confirms my assumption
:> that changing the state of a transistor could qualify as
:> boneh.

: Where in the post do you see this?

Where he asks:
> 2) But isn't it still a problem for the people at the Wall who are being
> photographed? The camera takes a digital picture, and the color of the
> clothes one is wearing affects the compression and the transmission time of
> the picture....

And the resolution doesn't involve assuming that there's no problem in
what a bunch of chips do. Rather:
> That is also no problem. A person's movement activates nothing; the camera
> merely takes still shots - receiving the rays of light reflected off the
> person every fraction of a second.

RYGB's anonymous correspondant also commented on my statements:
:     3. Rabbi Berger questions whether the Chazon Ish's shittah on
: electricity would "apply to activity within chips, where everything is going
: on microscopically".
:     Since the issue here is not one of "nireh l'einayim" but of a technical
: reality, I don't see why there should be and difference.

First, I'm not sure that something that could never be nir'eh li'einayim EVER
has halachic mamashus.

However, I wasn't clear on the chakira I was trying to make. There are two
ideas in making a circuit: closing a physical loop, and creating a path that
electricity can travel. Here we have the latter without the former. It's
not even a microscopic change, it's a change in the quantum state of a bunch
of electrons.

:     I must confess that in my discussion with Rav Moshe I directly asked him
: about effecting fluctuations in current that are so small and so short that
: they can only be measured by an oscilloscope or other, more sensitive
: device, rather than a standard volt-meter. He responded that there was no
: difference -- its assur either way.

However, a binary circuit isn't off vs on. A zero is anything below some
cutoff (depending upon the type of gate used - CMOS vs ECL...) and a one
is any voltage above another value. If R' Moshe feels that ANY current has
significance, then it's hard to argue that the circuit is ever off. It's
closer to tuning than constructing.

-mi

--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.

In a message dated 2/15/00 1:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> On a different note, would the Rambam hold that belief a god that had human
>  form is shutfus?

See Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 1:7, and the famous Hil. Tshuvah 3:7.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:

<<<
My point was that even within the 8 Treifois Drusoh is Mfurosh in the Possuk, 
what the Nafko Mina is Lhalacha see Klei Nosim begining of Hil. Treifois.
>>>

But drusa is not m'furash in the pasuk, unless it is nat'ta la-mut mahmat
makoteha, in which case it is irrelevant whether the cause was drusa or
some other makah.  The Halakhah comes to teach us that drusah is 
among the treifot for which one would violate the issur assei of haya
tokhal even if it is not nat'tah la-must.  But there would be no makot.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

All of what I write below is a rehash of <http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf>

In v4n362, Sholem Berger <sholemberger@hotmail.com> writes:
: Please cite sources according to which halacha is binary oser/muter. I find 
: this difficult to believe. For one thing, the SA is full of halachic 
: qualifications like "mitsve min hamuvkhar" or that something is mutar, but 
: one would not receive a skhar for it (e.g., work on Purim). For another, 
: what's mutar in one place can be assur in another. To distinguish between 
: them is the job of the posek, right?

Wrong domain. You're talking about preference, and I'm talking about whether
the state of a cheftza or situation includes "gray". And I assert that yes it
does include gray -- but only when the situation isn't kavu'ah. IOW, I'm
only speaking of ruling a particular instance, when the halachah is already
kavu'ah.

Using R' Akivei Eiger's explanation for the difference in dynamic caused by
kavu'ah, I want to extend that basic principle to cases of eidus. Trei utrei,
because we assume one kat is honest and correct, includes a statement that
the halachah was kavu'ah, and therefore rov doesn't apply. T'rei kimei'ah
is a natural consequence.

When I say halachah can be boolean, I mean that in the case of kavu'ah we
don't deal with "maybe" -- in the case of di'Oraisa we prove heter or assur
the food; in the case of diRabbanan we prove issur or matir it.

: Also, I think it's a mistake to characterize rov as a quantum state merely 
: because it's sort of an "in-between." Quantum states are precisely as 
: well-specified as macroscopic states are, it's just that we are doomed 
: (probabilistically speaking) to average everything out via observation to 
: fractional states. Rov is different: the observation IS a fractional 
: (proportional) one -- it's not our probabilistic measurements that make it 
: that way.

That's exactly the point I'm denying. Halachah applies not to the physical
reality, but to the "probabilistic measurement". Which is why rov resembles
(and I intentionally do not suggest that they're identical, merely similar)
a quantum superposition of states. RYBS suggested that "bein hashmashos" is
part of both days, and explicitely said that this is possible because halachic
logic *has no law of excluded middle*.

My inovation is to suggest that in the case of kavu'ah, it does.

I raised the question of two chatichos shuman and one of cheilev to address the
question of whether halachic logic is closer to quantum logic or probability
theory. You are permitted to eat all three -- assuming it's not a case of
kavu'ah (and ruling out our discussion of assuring unhealthy food). It's
even possible you could eat the three bivas achas (as a stew, perhaps).

The p'sak WRT the pieces of fat isn't due to the probability each is mutar,
because otherwise eating the second one would be assur, as it would bring
your cumulative probability up to 2/3. It's more like we treat each peice
as though its cheilev-ness has a truth value of 1/3. Therefore each peice
is mutar.

The grounds to assur our stew (according to those rishonim who would), would
be to ask how these truth values recombine -- defining the appropriate
operator.

Another non-probabilistic situation: mi'ut bimakom safeik lo amrinan. While
a s'feik s'feika has they same din as rov, if you have a safeik and a mi'ut,
you don't add the mi'ut to the 50:50 to get a rov.

Third, s'feik s'feika she'einah mishapeches. Those who hold it's a valid
s'feik s'feika are treating two strongly correlated variables as though they
are independent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

It's a sociological and historical fact that a suggested change in
nusach is most likely to be accepted if it is approved or advocated by a
recognized gadol/posek.  But if someone like Birnbaum or De Sola Pool
says that an alternate nusach is better, they are probably relying on
some source.  We may believe that their preferred source should be given
less weight.
There are also many changes advocated by Gedolim that did not become
widespread (RYBS comes to mind here--how many of his talmidim skip
Mizmor Shir Chanukat Habayit in the morning?).
Furthermore, a person can become great as a ba'al dikduk, and be relied
upon by gedolim in his area of expertise.  Micha may wish to correct me
on this, but conventionally we do not ascribe da'as Torah to Dunash ben
Labrat, Menachem ben Saruk, Ibn Ezra, Rav Shlomo Nortzi (author of
Minchat Shai), Rav Shabtai Sofer or Rav Wolf Heidenheim.  But they had
great influence on the mesorah of the chumash and siddur.   Perhaps the
greatest influence on the siddur was the Ari, but I think that most
advocates of Da'as Torah would say that he had it, although he was not
famous as a halachist.
The most practical question we can ask is what changes, if any, have
been introduced by Artscroll.  Even if they asked a gadol whenever a
difficulty arose (they probably did), we can still debate whether or not
that nusach is the most correct.

Daniel Schiffman

>
> And the resolution doesn't involve assuming that there's no problem in
> what a bunch of chips do. Rather:

I see your point -- I hadn't made that conclusion.

> First, I'm not sure that something that could never be nir'eh
> li'einayim EVER has halachic mamashus.

Does anyone know of any areas (except for Ta'am)?

> former. It's
> not even a microscopic change, it's a change in the quantum
> state of a bunch of electrons.

Exactly -- and once you want to assur that, you can come up with a *long*
list of problem actions (moving a metal fork through the air, for example,
might be assur, since the movement of metal through the earth's magnetic
field causes changes)

>
>
> However, a binary circuit isn't off vs on. A zero is anything
> below some
> cutoff (depending upon the type of gate used - CMOS vs
> ECL...) and a one
> is any voltage above another value. If R' Moshe feels that
> ANY current has
> significance, then it's hard to argue that the circuit is
> ever off. It's closer to tuning than constructing.

Exactly -- and therefore the original shaila was flawed. This is a problem
with technological shailot when the Rov is not an expert in the technology,
or where the technology has changed since the original shaila.

Keep in mind that the technology of video has changed since the original
question was asked -- today we use devices that are more solid-state.

Akiva

A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

My book was published months ago. You can order direct from the
publisher by calling 1-800-944-6190. Best bet is to go to the YU
seforim sale since they supposedly will have 40 more copies
tomorrow and you save $20. You can indeed order from BN (ignore
what the web site says -- Iknow they have sold many copies
already) -- and if doing so plug in "books discount coupons" to
your search engine and you will find $10 BN coupons.

       All the best,

        Marc Shapiro

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 at 09:36, R. Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
wrote:

<<We're really back into the territory of why people with greater
gedulah
in da'as Torah (i.e. "gedolim") can produce piskei halachah of greater
weight. I'm not talking about your own research and your own tephillos.
We're discussing what's right for a community. And communal nusach
shouldn't be overturned by just anyone.>>

R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein, in the Mekor Baruch, lists a number of
fascinating insights that he had into the nuschaos of our siddur, based
on which he felt the texts should be emended.  He argues, very well for
most of them, that the present texts are simply ta'us soferim's (sic),
suggests how they came about, and infers the correct texts.  All this
based on an obviously oceanic breadth of knowledge, and certainly a good
amount of depth too.  For each one, one after the other, he retells that
after "discovering" the truth he presented his ideas to his father (the
Aruch HaShulchan), and his father responded (paraphrase): "...beautiful,
wonderful, I love it, must be the truth..., but nevertheless mesorah
yesh lanu and we should not change our nusach."  Pretty big guns here;
certainly could have spoken for the community if they wished.  Maybe we
should learn from their hesitation.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

One further thought about reconciling the apparent contradiction between
disclaimers printed in s'forim that references to idolators do not 
encompass believers in Christianity with the p'sakim of many halakhic
authorities that Christians do have the halakhic status of idolators.  It
seems to me that one could argue that, given a doubt about the nature
of Christian belief and whether it technically qualfies as idolatry, a posek
might, on the one hand, resolve the doubt l'humra as regards their
halakhic status even though in assessing their moral status and the
manner in which Jews ought to relate to Christians, the same posek
could take the view that they are not truly idolators and we should not
think of them as such, except on those purely halakhic questions
where their status must be resolved l'humra.  As to whether this could be
supported by the actual treponsa on the subject, I make no claim.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov	

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:56:26PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:> On a different note, would the Rambam hold that belief a god that had human
:> form is shutfus?

: See Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 1:7, and the famous Hil. Tshuvah 3:7.

Neither answer my question. The first says the belief is false, the second
says the believer is a min. I specifically asked about shutfus, and added that
I wanted to know the status of a *non-Jew* who has such a belief.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:46:43PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: The Bracha is that the responsibility of someone else's welfare is off, (As 
: an aside that is also why a Katan doesn't make Gomeil).

And the child isn't culpable until 20. (See, for example, the famous Rashi
on Chayei Sarah, "Vi'esrim shanah".) Almost as though halachah realizes that
*no one* could be held accountable for the actions of a teenager. <grin>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

YZirkind responded:
> The Bracha is that the responsibility of someone else's welfare is off...
<
I don't understand: "shep'torani" is in the *1st* person and refers to the
person making the b'rocho, not someone else.
> ...As
an aside that is also why a Katan doesn't make Gomeil <
However, the Bar Mitzva is now a Bar Mitzva (that's why he's called a Bar
Mitzva! AFAIK, the b'rocho is not recited by whomever until he's a BM...)
and, if the circumstances called for it, he (rather than his father) could
recite birchas haGomel.  Please explain -- thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

MBerger replied:
> And the child isn't culpable until 20. <
M'mo nafshach!  If you're trying to answer for the L'vush, then the father
also shouldn't be making this b'rocho (i.e. neither his son nor his
daughter would be culpable for his sins at their respective "graduating"
ages of 13 and 12, respectively).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

> > What proof is there -- and one should have to
> > prove this before being mattir a potential de'oraisa --
> that this is not boneh/makeh b'patish.

I find this problematic -- How can one prove a negative as regards a
melacha?

> >
> >     6. I believe that the distinction between LEDs and LCDs
> is a technical
> > issue that I believe has no halachic import. The point is
> that, depending on
> > the image, different areas receive power; or at least
> different amounts of power.

One emits light, one doesn't -- I would think that would have *major*
halachic import.

> I readily concede that I'm not positive that there is the
> completion
> > of new circuits [not so much in the sense of and on-and-off
> switch, but in
> > the sense I mentioned in #5), but that would require
> establishing the exact "metzius."

How can one ask a shaila if one doesn't know *exactly* what one is asking?

> > Mishnah Berurah and knowing Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa is one thing.
> Having all of Shas and Poskim at your fingertips is quite another.

I agree -- but to posken on technological issues, the posek *must* be
familiar with the technology involved -- he must know how and why it works.

This is one reason why centers like Rav Halprin's Center for Torah and
Technology in Bait V'gan are so important.


> >     The gedolei haposkim did not pasken sheilos lightly,
> and they gave
> > careful consideration to both the halachah and the metzius


> And is the reasoning doesn't make sense
> > to our small minds, so be it -- I'd rather throw my lot
> with their psak than
> > with the well-researched scholarly e-mail from the local
> shtibel-Rav.

Even if the original psak was flawed by a basic misunderstanding of the
technology?

For example -- there are (were) *many* gedolei poskim here who said it was
mutar to copy commercial software. Their reasoning was based on a faulty
understanding of what software is, how it's written and sold, the license
agreement under which it's sold, etc. These gedolim had never looked at a
license agreement (I know that, because I went into several with a license
agreement and discussed it with them -- after which they changed their
psak).

(As an aside, I am not including those poskim who hold b'shita that there is
no such thing as copyright on non-Torah intellectual property).

Akiva

> I think what makes most Christian religions complex to
> analyze in this regard
> is that they embrace a paradox, refusing to deal with the
> contradiction
> inherent in 3 = 1 by considering it beyond human reason.

The standard answer (as taught by my Jesuit professor) is that they are
manifestations of attributes -- l'havdil like HaShem vs Elokim.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Is it baruch shepatrani, as has been going around Avodah lately, or baruch 
she'petarani?

In Avodah 4#369, MBerger responded:
> I don't understand what you're describing. For a case
like "anu vi'amru" vs "potzu feh vi'amru" you can show
that "anu" NEED not refer to the previous clause.
But you can't show that it does not.... <
This thread started when AEStein unintentionally labeled
Rav Henkin's "pause before v'o'm'ru" position as "the
right way."  My goal was explaining a reasonable alternative,
i.e. that "onu v'om'ru'" can go together.  Once we consider these
two words an [to use your word] "idiom," the idiom could
refer to "zeh Kaili" (as I proposed privately) or, as Rabbi EMTeitz
proposed, it could stand on its own -- did either of us try to
"show that it does not [refer to 'zeh Kaili']"??
>                                                     ...The machlokes
between the nusachos could include the change
in phraseology. In this case, perhaps we're goreis
"anu" so that "Zeh Kaili" can have a verb. <
Perhaps there is a machlokes, perhaps there isn't (i.e. they are
complementary, not contradictory) -- I prefer the latter
alternative.  In any case, "onu v'o'm'ru" is an idiom in
TaNaCh -- "potzu feh" isn't -- so I'll throw a question
back at you: why are you so insistent on breaking the
idiom up?
> To put it more tritely: When analyzing various
differences in nusachos, how do you know when
to compare and when to contrast? <
We're doing both...and I don't see what your difficulty is
in understanding the process.  I won't quote from your
private message(s) except to ask whether you still
disagree with me as to what the ikkar should be in parsing
this or any other portion of the davening.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 4#369, MBerger wrote:
> BTW, when Chazan, I prefer saying "shmei diKudsha B'rich Hu" rather than
"shmei diKudshah, b'rich Hu" -- IOW, acknowledging that Kudsha B'rich Hu is
an idiom, even though Ashekanzim have the kahal reply "B'rich Hu" alone. <
Actually, I think you're correct in reciting them together (does anyone
posit a pause?) -- that an Ash'k'naz minyan responds "b'rich Hu" is, I
believe, an echo of what the kaddish-reciter is saying rather than
indicative of a split between "Kudsha" and "b'rich Hu."

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NY

On 15 Feb 00, at 13:46, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/15/00 12:48:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:
> 
> > > The Kaf HaChayim discusses the Levush's explanation of the reason for
> >  this blessing.  The Levush cites Chazal's statement that a young child may
> >  be subject to punishment for his fathers sins. <
> >  Based on this explanation, shouldn't the L'vush hold that the *son* say the
> >  b'rocho?
> >  
> The Bracha is that the responsibility of someone else's welfare is off, (As 
> an aside that is also why a Katan doesn't make Gomeil).

I'm not sure I understand your aside. If you are commenting on the 
fact that a katan doesn't bentch gomel, AFAIK that is not because 
the son's problems R"L come from the father but because for the 
son to say "hagomel lechayavim tovos" would be disrespectful to 
the father. And if you're talking about the son bentching gomel at 
his Bar Mitzva for things that happened before the Bar Mitzva, it is 
my understanding that he does (or can) if he would have had a 
reason to bentch gomel when he was a katan. If you have sources 
that say otherwise, please let me know, because IY"H this is going 
to be the subject of Baruch Yosef's Bar Mitzva drasha :-) 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:12:18PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: > To put it more tritely: When analyzing various
: differences in nusachos, how do you know when
: to compare and when to contrast? <

: We're doing both...and I don't see what your difficulty is
: in understanding the process.

If the decision when to compare and when to contrast is arbitrary, you can't
use the system to decide phraseology (or pretty much anything else). I don't
know if the choice of words differ because of a difference in phrasing, or
if the difference in words should teach me something about the phrasing
in my own nusach.

:                                I won't quote from your
: private message(s) except to ask whether you still
: disagree with me as to what the ikkar should be in parsing
: this or any other portion of the davening.

I still think the first iteration should be translation. And whichever
grammatical structure supports that translation. The second approximation
should take into account citations and other motivations that would break
from the straightforward to add greater meaning from the text. You only
see those things in full relief once you have a norm to contrast from anyway.
But you still, bottom line, daven to communicate. And when speaking to anyone,
even the Bochein kilayos valeiv, the plain meaning of your words is critical.
So even after that second layer, you still need to go back and have something
that parses and can be translated.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

MBerger responded:
> If the decision when to compare and when to contrast is arbitrary... <
It's not -- it's logical (as in "zeh Kaili" matches up with "zeh Tzur
yish'ainu," yet one is a quote from the Shira and the other isn't; as in
"onu v'o'm'ru" matches up with "potzu feh v'o'm'ru," yet the former is an
idiom from TaNaCh and the latter isn't; as in "...u'vin'imah, k'dushah..."
is saying something different from "u'vin'imah k'doshah"; as in "yisgadal
v'yiskadash..." matches up with "al hakol yisgadal v'yiskadash" [substitute
tzaireh for patach, if you're following the opinion of the GRA] and "b'alma
di-v'ra" matches up with "bo'olomos sheboro," so why shouldn't we say
"kir'u'sai" and match up with "kirtzono"; need I continue?!).
> ...you can't use the system to decide phraseology (or pretty much
anything else). <
What system would that be?  The only theory I've proposed
is that "onu v'o'm'ru" is an idiom from TaNaCh, so let's see
if the various passages in the davening make sense when we
insist on not breaking it up...and your challenge to
it -- solely based on properly translating one passage,
"zeh Kaili..." -- has been no more than the proposing
of an alternative reading; are you speaking of your
own system, and have I challenged that system in
asserting that translation is *not* the ikkar of davening
in general or of that passage in particular?

Let's be clear.  Examining various nus'cha'os in order to
better understand one's own nussach is a labor of love,
not a system, and going back to the primary sources
(e.g. in Baer's case, kisvai yad) is a matter of seeking Emes,
not a system.

> I still think the first iteration should be translation. <
I humbly disagree.  The words we use have meanings beyond p'shat
(as has been pointed out by ARI HaKodosh and others), and p'shat
itself is not the same as translation.
> But you still, bottom line, daven to communicate. <
Should we endeavor to understand what it is we're saying?  Without
a doubt.  Should we be so familiar with the primary sources, so rogil
baMikra, that the intent behind "onu v'o'm'ru" becomes at one with our
human need to associate a verbal phrase with "zeh Kaili"?  I'll let
you answer that one.
> So even after that second layer, you still need to go back and have
something that parses and can be translated. <
WADR, I believe you're beating a horse to death.  If you
are so strongly opposed to the parsing proposed by Rabbi EMTeitz
that you insist on breaking "onu" from "v'o'm'ru," do so in good
health, but please stop implying that a translation is not possible
when "onu v'o'm'ru" are kept together.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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         ]