Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 023

Thursday, April 19 2001

• Re: changes in ritual
• Re: rashi and history
• RE: Josippon/Josephus (was rashi and history)
• Re: Rishonim
• RE: Electricity on Yom Tov
• RE: Yom Tov fire
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64: Summary
• Voss Iz Der Chilluk #8: MC vol. 2 p. 136
• formalizing tefillah
• RE: Changes in ritual/WPGs
• Re; Az Yashir
• Re: when to remove tefillin on rosh chodesh and chol haMoed
• FW: kula-shopping
• Re: Yom Tov fire
• Zachar vs Pakad
• RE: kula-shopping
• RE: Yom Tov fire
• RE: ovens on shabbos

On 19 Apr 2001, at 11:00, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I disagree at least with my understanding of Daas Torah. The way it is
> aplied today is that some gadol or group of gedolim issue a psak in the
> name of daas Torah and everyone is commanded to follow it.

> My personal idea is that one should follow one's personal Rav and not
> these announcements.

I think that depends on whether you're talking about a personal or
communal level. Clearly if one has a Rav, and one asks one's own Rav,
that is daas Torah and he is not required to go ask the "gedolim." OTOH,
the odds are, at least in the Charedi world in Yerushalayim today,
that one's own Rav will ultimately ask the same "gedolim" when he gets
a shaila that he is reluctant to pasken on his own.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:58:59AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: There are gemaras that refer to Yishmael Cohen Gadol with the title of Rabbi
: which is also historically inappropriate.

Why? While the term didn't exist, the role did. There were people other
than kohanim offering pesak and hora'ah on questions that didn't merit
a beis din's attention.

If Yishma'el Kohein Gadol took halachic question from the masses and
answered them, didn't he act as rav? In which case, isn't it easier
to use the word "rabbi" rather than requiring an entire phrase that
describes some aspect the role (as I just did)?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: jjbaker@panix.com [mailto:jjbaker@panix.com]
> The Hebrew paraphrase of the Hegesippus, composed in southern Italy in
> the tenth century and generally known as Josippon, is sometimes referred
> to as the Pseudo-Josephus. Of the various editions and abstracts of the
> work published before modern times, this edition by Sebastian Münster, to
> which he added an incomplete Latin translation and notes, is the only one
> based on the original text of the incunabular editio princeps. 

Just to make it clear: Sabastian Münster is the author of the 16th century
edition, not the author of Josippon.

> And here's someone who quoted Moshe's honorable Father, in discussing
> various pseudo-Josephi:

> <http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/CRRS/Pub/censures_of_sigonio/2.7.Josephus-Philo.html>

Thanks for the plug.

Here's a quote from that article:
> Josippon is a medieval work dealing with the traditions of Jewish history,
> and written in Hebrew by an Italian Jew of uncertain identity. The textual
> and authorial problems are manifold: in some texts the author is called
> Joseph ben Gorion, thus he is sometimes called Gorionides. The writer used
> Ps.-Hegesippus and Josephus, and has been identified with the latter;
> indeed, the identification of Josippon with Josephus was conventional in the
> middle ages, and into the sixteenth century. I have used the partial
> translation into Latin published at Basel by the noted Christian Hebraist
> Sebastian Münster in 1541, in which Münster specifically defends the
> attribution of authorship to Josephus: 
...
> Feldman states: "The amazing sixteenth-century Italian Jewish scholar
> Azariah dei Rossi . . . was the first who noted differences between the
> texts of Josephus and Josippon. He discovered large interpolations in the
> text, and concluded that the work was by an author other than Josephus"
> (Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 7.3, p. 62). 

Kol tuv,
Moshe

The following is taken from Daniel Sperber's article in the Orthodox Forum 
book on Modern Scholarship In The study Of Torah (p. 210 n. 41).

R. Ovadiah Yosef has written that if acharonim had seen certain hidden 
rishonim (e.g. Meiri, R. Avraham ben HaRambam) they would have paskened 
differently and therefore he paskened differently.  See Yabia Omer, vol. 4 
OC 5:1; vol. 5 OC 24:11.

See also R. Shimon Shkop's Sha'arei Yosher 5:11 regardng the Ramah and the 
Rema in Choshen Mishpat 25:2 from the Maharik.

Don't forget the ubiquitous comment that had certain poskim learned kabbalah 
they would have paskened differently.

There were two Tradition articles about this general topic - R. Moshe 
Bleich's in Tradition 27 (1993) and R. Shnayer Leiman's in Tradition 19:4 
(1981).

Gil Student

R M Feldman asked:
>> examples: use of electricity on [yom tov]

> I vaguely recall hearing that the Aruch Hashulchan permitted it too.
> Anybody know the source?  Are there any other poskim who permitted it?

R Shlush of Netanya permits it too. and his reasoning is like you said:

"...the assumption that electricity is aish, but one is not being molid
aish mechadash (rather it is transmitted...." To maavir eish is allowed
on Yom Tov. He obviously doesn't hold that there is "Bone" in closing
an electrical circuit.

[Nor makeh bipatish. -mi]

K"T,
Amihai.

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>> I was told to look at Yecheh Daas on this.

> Who? ROY?

Yes

> RSZA became famous through his first sefer, Meorei Aish, in the 1920s
> assering electricity on Yom Tov.

I would appreciate it if someone could summarize RSZA's reasoning.  I would
have thought that RSZA, who believed that electricity is not aish and not
boneh and should have been permitted even on Shabbos if not for minhag
yisrael (which was based on a dimyon to fire), would have permitted it on
Yom Tov since based on the dimyon to fire it should permissible, and based
on a true understanding of electricity it should be permitted anyway.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 05:20 PM 4/18/01 +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>Then how is the yoresh zocheh after Pesach? Is this like a zchiya min
>ha'hefker? Does the mishmush suddenly re-appear and zing the chometz to
>the yoresh? Or is the mishmush taluy v'omed throughout Pesach (as opposed
>to being finally resolved)? And if it's toluy v'omed, why wouldn't the
>chometz be assur as chometz she'avar alav ha'Pesach?

The NbY evidently (I looked inside) holds that the children are zocheh min 
ha'hefker after Pesach, and Mishmush has been disrupted by Pesach.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

The Rambam paskens in Nizkei Mamon 10:7 that a Shor (Ox) that itself was a 
Tereifah or owned by a person that is a Tereifah, that gored a person to 
death, is not stoned, because it says in Mishpatim "V'gam Ba'alav Yumos" - 
as is the death of the owner so is the death of the ox. Since, in the case 
of a murderer that is a Tereifah there is no death penalty, that halacha 
pertains to the ox and its owner as well.

The Ohr Somei'ach there asks why is this case any different than the case 
of an ox owned by minor orphans - there too the owner is exempt from the 
death penalty, because kettanim that murder are pattur - yet their ox, if 
it gored a person to death, is itself then executed.

Voss Iz Der Chilluk?

What derachim have you employed to reach that chilluk?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I had written:
> The braisa on Brachos 26b that talks about "tefillos avos tiknum" is clearly
> in the midrashic or homiletic style.  It's a nice story to illustrate the
> idea of 3x daily prayer, but it's not enough to create an obligation.
> "Eino ela..." when the words are clearly used in other contexts to mean 
> other things than just the context that works for this example.
> Anyway, it doesn't even demonstrate at all that the times the avos "decreed"
> were additive.  All it shows is that Avraham liked to daven at this time,
> Yitzchak at that time, Yaakov at the other.
 
> So no, I don't think the gemara proves that either 3x daily prayer, or 
> a fixed text, was mandated by the Avos.

Another datum (now that I'm at the office where I keep my Yerushalmi,
a facsimile of the Venice first edition):

it appears that the Y'mi disagrees with the Bavli on this argument of
where tefillah comes from.  It cites both braisos, but cites the opinion
that the tefillos come from the korbanos in the name of *rabbanan*, rather
than in the name of RYbL.  So, instead of being yachid vs. yachid, it's
yachid vs. rabbim, and it doesn't have the little postscript that the 
Bavli has which attempts to "prove" that it's Avos rather than Temidim.

Given the common pattern of the last opinion being the Gemara's opinion,
the gemara in Y. Brachos 4:1 seems to hold like the poskim/codes that
the tefillos come from the korbanos, rather than from the avos.

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> I just wanted to point out that the Beis Yosef and Shach argue about "lo 
> ra'inu" regarding women being shochtim in the first siman of Yoreh Deah.

FYI, the phrase lo ra'inu einah ra'yah is the psak of Chachamim in Mishnah
Eduyos 2:2.

I just wanted to point out that that machlokes is not relevant to the
establishment of WPGs.  The machlokes WRT to women shochtim is that the BY
says lo ra'inu ainah rayah and that Shach quotes Ramo Choshen Mishpat 37:22,
quoting Maharik shoresh 172, that WRT to minhagim, lo ra'inu rayah.
Therefore, because women have not been shochtim for hundreds/thousands of
years, despite their apparent eligibility to shecht, it is a rayah that the
minhag is not to have them shecht.

But, here we are talking about the establishment of a *new* minhag.  New
minhagim arise in each generation; no one has to my knowledge ever advanced
the argument that because a certain minhag didn't arise in the past, it is a
ra'yah that there is a minhag against establishing such a minhag.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R. Moshe Feldman:
> Little known fact.  Comments?

> Rosenfeld's Kinot p. 64 footnote 1 says: AY was chanted by the Leviim
> on Shabbat, when the Minchah offering was brought towards the evening
> (R Hash. 31a). After the churban, it was chanted on Shabbat in Israel,
> but not in Babylon. Afterwards it was recited every day in Israel, and
> in some parts of Italy. Cites Manhig, and Rambam Hil Tefillah 7:13,
> which says "there are places which have the custom to read every day
> shirat hayam after Yishtabach."

I'm not sure which among the several statements made by Rosenfeld you
are saying is little known.

If it is the latter, that the Rambam says only some places have the
custom, that is known from R Amram and R. Sa'adya, that the custom
of saying Az Yashir with p'suqei d'zimra was not part of the original
taqqono of Hazal. If it is the fact that the Rambam says the custom,
for the places that have it, is to say it after Yishtabbah, that is
tied to another issue. The brokhos of p'suqei d'zimra are specifically
on "shirei Dovid ben Yishai." This issue is raised by rishonim both in
regard to how can Az Yashir be included in the brokhos (which is probably
the reason for the minhag the Rambam mentions, to be said after), and
whether any t'hillim that are said should not be included in the b'rokhos
(raised by the Tur as an objection to the S'faradi custom of saying the
extra kappitlekh added on shabbos before Borukh She'omar). RYBS spoke
about this several times, and said in the name of R. Hayyim that the
Tur is correct, that all t'hillim of haMelekh Dovid should be preceded
and followed by the b'rokhos.

As RYBS pointed out, the common minhag Ashk'naz is a tartei d'satrei:
we include all the extra kappitlekh of shabbos inside the b'rokhos,
but when it comes to kappitlekh added 'al pi qabbolo, Mimma'amaqim on
Aseres Y'mei T'shuva, and Mizmor Shir Hanukkas HaBayis, we say them
outside the b'rokhos.

For that reason, in Boston he had us say Mimma'amaqim before yishtabbah
or nishmas. That also prevents Mimma'amaqim from being a hesfeq between
yishtabbah and yotzer, which the Rambam apparently does not consider to
be a problem.

Seth

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> I believe the current custom of some comes from a sort of compromise
> with Sepharadic custom.

From:    gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
> Maybe more than a compromise.  IIRC, the reason for removing tefilin before
> musaf is not to be wearing them when saying kedushas keser.  This has no
> meaning for nusach ashkenaz (unless one of our scholars will come up with
> a nusach ashkenaz keser).

Pardon my ignorance, but what clash exists between wearing tefillin and 
kesser (for those who say it)? 

I did some more research on the topic and here is some info I found. 

In 'Gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhog Ashkenaz' (Bnei Beraq 5754 edition, 
p.102) R. Binyomin Shlomo Homburger writes that the old minhog in Worms was 
to take off tefillin after musaf-not before, but when migrants came from 
Poland after gezeiros Ta"ch (1648 app. limisparam) they brought with them the 
Sepharadi custom, to remove them before musaf. In 'Minhogei Vermaiza' p. 
samach gimmel (not 63) notes 10 and 11, he brings various gedolim that said 
to keep tefillin on until after musaf, including the Mahari"l, Tosfos Yom 
tov, Divrei Chamudos, chachmei Italia, etc. He also directs the reader to see 
the Ta"z OC 25 seif koton 16. I looked up that Ta"z and he says that there is 
no teluna on someone who keeps his tefillin on until after musaf. Ayin shom 
for more details. I recall seeing people in the past keep the tefillin on 
until after musaf - then I just assumed they didn't know what they were 
doing....but actually perhaps they really knew better than others....Of late 
I have started keeping my tefillin on until after musaf myself....

Mordechai

>It is my opinion that chazal were not looking for chumros in the way that
>some people do today.  They wanted to do ikar hadin.  Rabbi Yishmael, who
>paskened that machshirei milah are docheh Shabbos, wasn't machmir for
>himself even though all his chaveirim paskened against him.

A.- You are definitely correct that chazal were not interested in finding
chumros, but in defining the halachah. This has always been the approach of
Gedolei Horaah in all generations. I agree with you that there is a
tendency today in some circles to try to be machmir. In my opinion, it is
generated by two shortcomings:

1. a lack of confidence in willing to be decisive about halachic issues.

2. An attempt to express one's yiddishkeit in terms of "I am frummer".

Both approaches are harmful. The problems with the first approach need to
be addressed at length in a different forum.

The problem with the second is that it is a distortion of what yiddishkeit
is. I refer people to Rav Dessler's comments in Michtav M'Eliyahu vol 3. p.
294

Incidentally, The Tanna who disagreed with the others about machshirei
mitzvah was R' Eliezer, not R' Yishmael.

>> The gemara in Avoda Zara 7a discusses the issue in which there are two
>> opinions, one lenient and one stringent. The ruling cited by this Gemara is
>> the final word on what to do about such a case- According to
>> the halacha the halacha follows the stringent
>> opinion in a Torah law, and the lenient opinion in a rabbinic issue. (There
>> is a question among poskim whether this rule is also followed when one of
>> the two halachic authorities has a greater following or is the greater
>> scholar.)

>1.  Almost always, the issue is rabbinic, not d'oraissa.  The issues we have
>been discussing, such as chometz b'pesach or hilchos shabbos, almost always
>have some reason there is no actual d'oraisa involved.

A. I do not know what specific issues were previously discussed.- Akiva
sent me some position statements that were dreadfully in error that I felt
compelled to respond to. If you would like my opinion on other issues, feel
free to ask.

Incidentally, both topics you mentioned are d'oraisa.

>2.  The Rambam, Hil. Mamrim 1:5, when he quotes this halacha, adds an
>important qualification to it--it applies "im aincha yodei l'heichan hadin
>noteh."  I was talking in a situation where a posek's kulah makes a lot of
>sense to you (and you're a talmid chacham), or it is clear that klal yisrael
>has been following the mekil shitah.

Your statement is accurate. If indeed, a person is skilled enough in
learning and halachah to research the subject THOROUGHLY and he is
convinced of one side of the argument, he follows that approach himself.

But this has nothing to do with "Kula shopping" [I must admit, that the
term gets me nauseous.) He must work through the sugya objectively and
carefully. If he concludes that the stringent side is the correct side,
that is the one he follows. There is no halachic basis for "shopping"
for "kulos".

Certainly, in a case of a dispute among poskim, the custom is used as a
basis for determining the final halachah.

>> Although it is true that one who is a Torah scholar has the right to decide
>> a halachic issue on its own merits and thus to determine what the halacha
>> is, this applies only to .001% or less of people who can be called poskim.
>> I refer the readers to what the gemara in Sotah 22a says about a Talmid
>> chochom who is not qualified to paskin shaylos and does. Certainly, anyone
>> rendering an opinion on the subject at hand, who does not make any
>> reference to the Gemara in Avoda Zara above mentioned and the poskim that
>> discuss it qualifies as someone who is paskining shaylos and should not be.

>But I have been told that deciding what to do for oneself is not considered
>hora'ah.  Hora'ah is paskening for others.  I was personally told by Rav
>Michael Rosensweig, Rosh Yeshiva at YU, that ideally I should learn through
>a given sugyah and be machree'yah for myself among the poskim what I should
>do.  From the style of limud at Yeshivat Har Etzion, I would guess that
>RMR's rebbe, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, has the same shitah.

A. I do not know either Rav Rosenzweig or Rav Lichtenstein personally. I
did have extensive contact with Rav Lichtenstein's late father-in-law, Rav
Soleveichek, obm, and learned a great deal from him both in learning and
approach to learning.

However, when posting such statements as general information to the public,
one must realize that many people  who are reading these statements may
take this as authorization to make their own halachic judgments when they
are totally unqualified to do so. My assumption is that very few
individuals are qualified to make their own halachic decisions.
Note also that there is a vast difference between a Rosh Yeshiva who is
encouraging his students to excel in their learning, and a computer
bulletin board list, which has totally different objectives. Also- as the
gemara says many times - what is said in the course of a learning
discussion may not necessarily be the final conclusion in halachah.

Kol Tuv
Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

>> RSZA became famous through his first sefer, Meorei Aish, in the 1920s
>> assering electricity on Yom Tov.

RMF>
> I would appreciate it if someone could summarize RSZA's reasoning. I would
>have thought that RSZA, who believed that electricity is not aish and not
>boneh and should have been permitted even on Shabbos if not for minhag
>yisrael (which was based on a dimyon to fire), would have permitted it on
>Yom Tov since based on the dimyon to fire it should permissible, and based
>on a true understanding of electricity it should be permitted anyway.

The original discussion was about incandescent light bulbs etc.  where the
use of electricity resulted in a "fire" application.  I don't remember there
a discussion of pure electricity.  I'll try to find a copy to see if I'm
simply forgetting.

Shlomo Goldstein

Eric Simon asked me the following in private email. As the answer is
my own conjecture, I invice others' opinions and corrections.

: Can you tell me the difference, in a nutshell, between "zachar" and "pakad"?

The basic definitions are both memory. The difference in connotation is
a matter of opinion.

Lifkod is also to appoint, and parashas pekudei uses the same root to mean
accounting or bookkeeping. When Hashem "pakad es Sarah ka'asher amar" --
H' pakad Sarah, as He said he would, "vatahar bateiled ben" -- she got
pregnant and gave birth to a son.

Related to lifkod (to remember, to appoint, or to count) one has lispor,
which is to tell (sefer, sippur [story]), to cut (misparayim are scissors)
and to count (mispar is a number). The latter triad of meanings is a point
made in the Kuzari, in reference to Seifer haYetzirah and the concept of
sefiros.

"Zachor es yom hashabas likadsho" is remembering Shabbos to sanctify it.
When we speak of "zocheir chasdei avos" we aren't asking H' to remember
the kindness of our forefathers -- He doesn't forget. We're asking
Him to act on that memory. Similarly, Hashem heard the cries in Mitzrayim,
"vayizkor E-lokim".

In sum, my personal opinion is that pakad is to remember something for
the sake inherent in that thing. Which is why counting each item out,
giving someone a task, are also pakad.

Zachor is to remember something for the purpose of acting on that memory.

Related to this somehow ought to be the relationship between zachor and
zachor (male).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: ykaganoff@barak-online.net [mailto:ykaganoff@barak-online.net]
> A.- You are definitely correct that chazal were not interested in finding
> chumros, but in defining the halachah. This has always been the approach of
> Gedolei Horaah in all generations. I agree with you that there is a
> tendency today in some circles to try to be machmir. In my opinion, it is
> generated by two shortcomings:
> 1. a lack of confidence in willing to be decisive about halachic issues.
> 2. An attempt to express one's yiddishkeit in terms of "I am frummer".
> 
> Both approaches are harmful. The problems with the first approach need to
> be addressed at length in a different forum.
> The problem with the second is that it is a distortion of what yiddishkeit
> is. I refer people to Rav Dessler's comments in Michtav M'Eliyahu vol 3. p.
> 294

In that case, we do not disagree at all.

> Incidentally, The Tanna who disagreed with the others about machshirei
> mitzvah was R' Eliezer, not R' Yishmael.

Of course, you're right. It's perek R. Eliezer d'Milah. I forgot.

>>> The gemara in Avoda Zara 7a ... the final word on what to do about such a
>>> case- According to the halacha the halacha follows the stringent opinion
>>> in a Torah law, and the lenient opinion in a rabbinic issue. (There is
>>> a question among poskim whether this rule is also followed when one of
>>> the two halachic authorities has a greater following or is the greater
>>> scholar.)

>> 1.  Almost always, the issue is rabbinic, not d'oraissa. The issues we have
>> been discussing, such as chometz b'pesach or hilchos shabbos, almost always
>> have some reason there is no actual d'oraisa involved.

> A. I do not know what specific issues were previously discussed.- Akiva
> sent me some position statements that were dreadfully in error that I felt
> compelled to respond to. If you would like my opinion on other issues, feel
> free to ask.

> Incidentally, both topics you mentioned are d'oraisa.

Chometz b'Pesach and Hilchos Shabbos can be either d'oraisa or d'rabbanan.
Issues which we've discussed on our list (which Akiva Atwood may not have
forwarded to you) more often than not have a reason why the issur will be
d'rabbanan rather than d'oraisa.  In Hilchos Shabbos, it's quite easy make
an issur into a d'rabbanan; e.g., k'l'achar yad, melacha she'aina tzricha
legufa.  In Hilchos Chometz, there is a greater possibility of d'oraissa,
but with regard to issues we've dealt with, such as unflavored pills or
deoderant, it's probably at worst d'rabbanan.  Pills--probably not derech
achilah; both cases--probably nifsal m'achilas kelev.

>> 2.  The Rambam, Hil. Mamrim 1:5, when he quotes this halacha, adds an
>> important qualification to it--it applies "im aincha yodei l'heichan hadin
>> noteh."  I was talking in a situation where a posek's kulah makes a lot of
>> sense to you (and you're a talmid chacham), or it is clear that klal yisrael
>> has been following the mekil shitah.

> Your statement is accurate. If indeed, a person is skilled enough in
> learning and halachah to research the subject THOROUGHLY and he is
> convinced of one side of the argument, he follows that approach himself.
> But this has nothing to do with "Kula shopping"...

FYI, the way things work on our list is that many of us try not to change
the subject header.  Therefore the title kula shopping is used despite the
fact that I did not pick it and do not endorse kula shopping in a blanket
fashion.  If it were up to me, the thread would be called "appreciating
legitimate kulos" (or, if I were in the mood: "Who's afraid of the big, bad
kulah?")

>> But I have been told that deciding what to do for oneself is not considered
>> hora'ah.  Hora'ah is paskening for others.  I was personally told by Rav
>> Michael Rosensweig, Rosh Yeshiva at YU, that ideally I should learn through
>> a given sugyah and be machree'yah for myself among the poskim what I should
>> do.  From the style of limud at Yeshivat Har Etzion, I would guess that
>> RMR's rebbe, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, has the same shitah.

>      ... when posting such statements as general information to the public,
> one must realize that many people  who are reading these statements may
> take this as authorization to make their own halachic judgments when they
> are totally unqualified to do so.   My assumption is that very few
> individuals are qualified to make their own halachic decisions. 

I doubt that Rav Lichtenstein (or at least rabbeim in his yeshiva) agrees
with you.  I specifically recall a shiur being given to shanah aleph guys
soon after they had arrived in yeshiva (i.e., they were far from being
talmidei chachamim at the time) in order to let each one decide whether to
keep two days or "one and a half days" (i.e., act like an Israeli, but
keeping issurei melacha) of Yom Tov.

> Note also that there is a vast difference between a Rosh Yeshiva who is
> encouraging his students to excel in their learning, and a computer
> bulletin board list, which has totally different objectives. 

> Also- as the
> gemara says many times - what is said in the course of a learning
> discussion may not necessarily be the final conclusion in halachah.

Rav Rosensweig's advice to me, personally, was not in the context of a
learning discussion.  He was giving me guidance as to how I should lead my
life.  You are correct though, that his advice would not necessarily be the
same to others, if he didn't feel they had reached a certain level of
learning.  I should have made that clear to the list, and I do so now.

Kol tuv,
Moshe Feldman

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>>> RSZA became famous through his first sefer, Meorei Aish, in the 1920s
> >> assering electricity on Yom Tov.
<snip>
> The original discussion was about incandescent light bulbs etc.  where the
> use of electricity resulted in a "fire" application.  I don't remember there
> a discussion of pure electricity.  I'll try to find a copy to see if I'm
> simply forgetting.

I assume that the reason to forbid incandescent bulbs, though not
electricity, on Yom Tov is that electricity causes the metal to
become so hot that it glows. The Rambam and Raavad argue as to whether
gacheles shel mateches is forbidden on Shabbos mishum hav'arah or mishum
bishul. According to the view mishum hav'arah, it would be prohibited on
Yom Tov too because of molid aish m'chadash--there is no transference of
a fire from one object to another, as electricity is not fire. Did RSZA
use this sevarah? If he did, is there any reason to assume that he would
prohibit "cold" electricity on Yom Tov?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From Meir Shinnar:
>>> I know one talmid who specifically asked and got instructions (for MIT 
>>> students) and was told that any solid item that was hot at the beginning of 
>>> shabbat could be returned to the stove top on shabbat.  This seems to be  
>>> followed by many talmidim of the rav, including much of the Boston kehilla, 
>>> but I know that this one  got a specific psak (and it was not limited to
>>> the specifics of MIT)

From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be> 
>> I received the same psak but including the oven. I did not believe
>> it and sent back my chavrusah to recheck about the oven.
>>  He got yelled at on the grounds that he doesn't need to answer
>> the same question twice and reaffirming that the psak included the
>> oven as well as the stove top.

From: jjbaker@panix.com [mailto:jjbaker@panix.com] 
> Parallel anecdote:  R' Joshua Lookstein told his father R' Haskel 
> Lookstein that they were about to start hilchot Shabbat at YU. His
> father told him, "Just remember, We Reheat.  No matter what they
> tell you, We Reheat."

I moved to Somerville/Cambridge, MA the year after I had learned
Maseches Shabbos with RHS. In Cambridge, I found to my surprise that
the custom was to return food to the blech, as recorded by R. Turkel.
I consulted with RHS and got the impression that RYBS was mekil for his
baalei batim like the Ramo in OC 253:2, despite the fact that the Ramo
concluded "v'tov l'hachmir," because the Ramo permitted people to rely
on the minhag l'hakel. RYBS' chiddush was that even though the Ramo
limits the kula to the case where the food wasn't nitztanen l'gamrei,
the source of the din--the Ran--implies otherwise.

RHS' advice to me was to be machmir, as the Ramo writes v'tov l'hachmir
(see MB explaining that many disagree with the Ran's view). The feeling
I got (and it's been some time, so I may be hazy on this) is that RHS
believed that RYBS was mekil for his baalei batim because he didn't
want Shabbos to be too onerous for them and they had the right to
rely on Ramo, but RYBS would be maskim that it's better to be machmir.
RHS even advised me not to let my roomates, who were doing the cooking
(I was on the cleaning detail!), return the food to the fire if I would
be neh'neh from it.

I am surprised that RYBS permitted returning food to inside the oven.
Isn't an oven considered not garuf v'katum? I thought that hachzara was
permitted only if the heating source is grufa u'ktuma.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]