Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 071

Thursday, February 3 2005

• Re: Mussar and Kabbalah
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Metronome on Shabbos?
• Re: Seudat Purim on Friday
• Re: A Chiddush about Kabbalah
• Re: A Chiddush about Kabbalah
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: Alternative Medicine and AZ
• Re: standing for kaddish
• Re: Seudat Purim on Friday
• Re: Seudat Purim on Friday
• A of the U
• Re: Age of the U
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Mezuzah as Protection
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Electricity on Shabbat
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat

In a message dated 1/23/2005 6:56:34pm EST, llevine@stevens.edu writes:
> On pages 12 -121 he writes, "In the theoretical realm, Salanter's
> innovation was expressed first and foremost in the fact that he removed
> himself from the conceptual world of Kabbalah, not that he doubted
> the authenticity or sanctity of Jewish esoteric teaching, but that
> he rejected study of some kabbalistic works, but that Kabbalah had no
> significant influence upon his teaching..."

the problem with Kabbalah is not Kabbalah but that 99% of the people
dealing with it - inlcuding myself for sure - grossly misconstrue many
factes of it.

It's tough enough to really get the peshat in Talmud and Midrash withot
relying upon a lot of educated guesses and honest - yet no well-informed
-supositions and hypotheses. etc.

Kabbalah was written to be obscure in the first place.

OTOH, Many Gdolim have "pre-digested" Kabbalah and written 2ndary works
for the public. AIUI a lot of RSR Hirsch's symbolism is based upon the
Zohar. By learning this 2ndary sources that have been pre-processed
for the masses, one is on a lot safer ground. My guess is that is a bit
like chassidus that gives an indirect view of Kabbalah, but here I am
merely speculating.

Personally I would recommend that most people stay out of Kabbalah until
they have mastered Talmudic Aggadah {e.g En Yaakov} and Midrashim such
as Midrash Rabba and Tanchuma, Yalkut etc. Once one can plumb the real
peshat of those stories than lich'ora one is ready for Kabbalah, too.

If you want good mussar how about starting out with various masechots
K'tanos such as Avos D'rabi Nosson, Pirkei R. Eliezer, Derech Eretz,
Kallah etc. the

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

You wrote back:
>>"Assuming He did this for a reason, but we are not supposed to guess at
>>that reason, essentially means He did it for no reason."

>There is a glaring flaw in the logic of this statement. Just because
>we can't understand something, doesn't make it not so. You are saying
>"Assuming He did this for a reason" means that He did it "for no reason"
>if "we are not supposed to guess at that reason." All I can say is
>"Wow!" That would be like saying: "Assuming G-d created the world, but
>we don't believe he created the world, essentially means he didn't create
>the world." That makes no sense. One is not contingent upon the other.

My apologies for not making myself clear. I don't quite follow your line
of reasoning, mo matter how often I re-read the paragraph.

 From each person's own perspective, everything Hashem does, needs to
have a purpose. As the mishna says "the world was created for me".

To decide that an act of G-d as public and "earth shattering" as a tsunami
cannot teach me - or anybody - a lesson, means that from my point of view
it was done for no reason. That cannot be - everything He does is for a
purpose. (One of the few compelling reasons list members have given me
for not taking the first chapter of Breishis literally is the "evidence"
of age-old fossils. They cannot accept that He put them there for no
reason, or even for a banal reason like "making the world look old".)

Once we've established there must be a reason, we have to find out what
it is. Hiding behind [false?] modesty, not wanting to insult the memory
of the victims, these are all excuses for not wanting to face reality:
We are being sent a message.

"Assuming He did this for a reason, but we are not supposed to guess at
that reason, essentially means He did it for no reason" - from my point
of view. This cannot be.

>This very issue is dealt with in the book of Iyov <cut a long fascinating
>analysis of sefer Iyov>

I am far from an expert in Iyov, but I understand the sefer differently.

Iyov believes that everything He does has a purpose, and is frustrated
when he cannot explain his own misfortunes. He did nothing to deserve
this trouble and Hashem cannot do injustice.

His friends assume that Iyov is kidding himself - he cannot be as sin-free
as he claims.

Hashem eventually solves the problem: Live is not only a series of rewards
and punishments, but sometimes it includes tests. This possibility hadn't
occurred to anybody.

Sure we cannot fathom the depths of Hashem actions, but we have to try
understand what's in it for us, just like Iyov tried.

Thus I come to the opposite conclusion you do:
>In other words, this is saying just the opposite of those who posit G-d's
>reasons for the Tsunami, the shoah, etc. etc. 

>One of the most damaging
>and outrageous statements made by a talmid chakham was several years ago
>when a busload of children were killed in Israel and the reason given was
>that their parents' mezuzot were not kosher. Did this rabbi consider the
>pain, anguish and agmas nefesh he needlessly caused the family members
>and friends!

If his statements are based in fact, then why not say them? 
If not, then he's not a "talmid chakham".

One of the novelties of the 21st century is to never blame anybody. Just
sue the company. Claim madness. What's wrong with calling a spade a spade,
assuming you conform to the halachot of Ona'as Devorim?

For some reason you think it's better for the parents to wonder for the
rest of their lives if Hashem did them an injustice, as long as they
don't feel guilty. If they were guilty then let them know about it and
give them a chance to do tshuva.

>I believe we are treading on very dangerous ground once we start to speak
>for G-d. Yes, we are supposed to search our ways and to constantly perform
>a cheshbon nefesh, but it is foolish to assume that we must guess at the
>reasons for G-d's behaviour. We have more than enough to worry about our
>own behavior.

Agreed. We should stop blaming the next guy for everything - as somebody
else already wrote.
But you agree that we have to worry about our own behaviour.
So do I - and I try to listen when He send messages, on the assumption the
message is for me, and I'm sure it's decipherable if I try hard enough.

As RMB summed up:
IOW, I would argue that value is in finding possible answers and doing
teshuvah. However, one can never go from "possible answers" found while
encountering the problem to actually know why G-d does anything.

 - Danny

From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
> Regarding b) the fundamental problem I have with the sins that keep
> being identified are that they tend to be of a divisive nature.
                                            <snip>
> I think if somebody got up and said, "I am (at least partially) to blame,
> I did not learn enough Torah, do enough chessed, acting tzniusdikly
> enough, talked in shul" or whatever "and this and this is what *I* am
> going to do to improve the situation" - that would indeed be different and
> is the approach you are advocating above.
                                               <snip>
> But, if you want to make a linkage to Yisroel, as so many people do -
> it seemed to me that we don't need to look very far to see a pretty
> obvious linkage to what I have referred to above. Especially with the
> scary reality that a primary school girl from England was able to save
> her whole beach because she paid attention during the science class that
> probably none of our kids get, because they are sent to schools where
> that kind of science is not taught. And why is that science not taught?
> Because we are scared about risking the emunah of our children. And
> we are scared about the emunah of our adults so we don't teach them
> that kind science either, because they might come to doubt.

Why isn't this an example of "a sin of a divisive nature"?

David Riceman 

Quoting David Riceman <driceman@worldnet.att.net>:
>> But, if you want to make a linkage to Yisroel, as so many people do -
>> it seemed to me that we don't need to look very far to see a pretty
>> obvious linkage to what I have referred to above. Especially with the
>> scary reality that a primary school girl from England was able to save
>> her whole beach because she paid attention during the science class that
>> probably none of our kids get, because they are sent to schools where
>> that kind of science is not taught. And why is that science not taught?
>> Because we are scared about risking the emunah of our children. And
>> we are scared about the emunah of our adults so we don't teach them
>> that kind science either, because they might come to doubt.

> Why isn't this an example of "a sin of a divisive nature"?

I think it can run the risk of being so - which is why I pressaged both
this message and the one in which I originally discussed it with concerns
about how these things can be mishandled.

However, except for a very small minority, I think none of us were
really focussed on this issue. I certainly was skipping through all the
posts on Avodah on Torah and Science on the grounds that they were not
important or interesting to me. And while the school we have put our
son down for told us in our interview that they followed the national
curriculum for secular subjects, we weren't paying a lot of attention;
I hadn't thought to investigate too hard regarding the quality of that
education, particularly in science - and I would assume that, like most
Orthodox Jewish schools, the education skirts around those areas deemed
problematic. I don't know of any Orthodox Jewish schools that act to
the contrary, although perhaps others do. If we are discussing something
that impacts throughout the Orthodox Jewish community, to a greater or
lesser extent, and causes us to change the way we act, that, it seems
to me, is an indication that we are talking less about a "divisive"
sin and more about a more pervasive one.

A thorough evaluation of our attitudes towards emes, would, it seems to
me, also fall within the first category rather than the second.

The other scary thing about this whole evaluation is the way it turns
things on its head in terms of our divisiveness. In general the more
towards the charedi end of the spectrum you are, the more you are
willing to accept that G-d sends messages to Yisroel through tragedies
(even non Jewish tragedies) while the more towards the modern end of
the spectrum you are, the more you tend to take the attitude that it is
wrong or inappropriate to seek to find these messages. But, on the other
hand, the more toward the modern end of the spectrum you are the more,
willing in general you are to embrace science and the more towards the
charedi spectrum you are, the more reticent you get about engaging with
science for fear of damaging emunah.

So, if in fact (lets suspect disbelief for a second) Hashem was trying to
send a message of this nature, it turns out He would in fact be targeting
precisely those to whom the message is addressed - because those who
tend to be comfortable and involved in science generally are not looking
for these messages, and those who are looking for these messages are, in
general, those to whom the message is addressed. Thus, extraordinarily,
it would be using our divisiveness to target the message, rather than
playing on that divisiveness. That's pretty subtle.

Regards
Chana

This reminds me: I read somewhere recently (maybe on Avoda?) that Yekkes
(used to) check their mezuzoth every Adar Rishon.

Using the leap year served a dual purpose: As an "automated" reminder
as well as making sure to do it twice in 7 years, as per the SA.

Yes, I know the mathematicians out there will quibble on the 2nd point,
but they'll have a hard time coming up with a better reminder system. :-)

 - Danny.

Follow up: 
A quick peek into the Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchoso in 28:30 and 28:34
would seem to imply that a metronome is muktza machmas issur because it
generates noise.

 - Danny

In a message dated 2/2/2005 5:30:16am EST, joseph.mosseri@verizon.net writes:
> Purim this year is on Friday March 25th, less than 2 months away. When
> Purim falls out on Friday when is the proper time to have seudat Purim?
> Morning?

Fine IIRC Kitzur SA endorses this idea

>          Afternoon?

 -Probably OK. Since we do NOT pasken like R. Yehudah in Arvei P'sachim
re: Erev Shabbos you can make a good case for eating up to Shkia...

>                     Or closer to Shabbat and combine both meals into one?

 -In this scenario be certain to daven Mincha first. Since rossing the
Shabbas boundary is highly problematic therefore I do not recommend this
approach although AIUI the halacha is like R. Yose in Arvei P'sachim
and it COULD be done...

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

At 05:29 AM 2/2/2005, [RMPlaut] wrote:
>In signing a recent letter, HaRav Yaakov Hillel...
>"                    And I add that in bringing proofs to their mistaken
>opinion from the works of the Mekubalim, they include themselves among
>the megalei ponim baTorah shelo kehalochoh veshelo beKabbalah ha'amitis,
>and they distort divrei Elokim chaim to make them conform to their
>invalid opinion."

To the best of my knowleage Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan zt"l zy"a was a great
Mekubbal.

I imagine that the Tiferes Yisroel was as well.

YGB 

Mordechai Plaut wrote:
>In signing a recent letter, HaRav Yaakov Hillel....

I would be most interested to know if R. Yaakov Hillel has seen the
Michtav Me-Eliyahu and whether he considers R. Eliyahu Dessler to be a
megaleh panim ba-Torah she-lo ka-halacha.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
Phone: (718) 951-1254  Fax: (718) 228-5150
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

>>>OTOH, assuming (that like me) he never heard of East Timor, I don't see 
>>>why that would disqualify his conclusion.

Indonesia and East Timor are tightly coupled.

Not knowing about East Timor and making decisions on why bad things
happen to Indonesians, is in my opinion akin to a color-blind Rav
paskening ma'aros shelios.

In a message dated 1/28/2005 11:59:46am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Yes ki could be reinterpreted to be non-pantheistic. But not in your
> rationalist approch to Reiki. Ki is described as a universal force, and
> the Reiki practitioner is guiding that force's flow in, out and within
> the person.

> The O'Sensei of Aikido (roughly: the founding teacher of the martial
> art whose name means "The Way of Harmony of Key) Morihei Ueshiba, is the
> subject of wonder stories in many Aikido dojos about his use of ki to do
> the miraculous....
> I said it could be reinterpreted, because that's not the understanding
> from which it and Reiki emerged. Reiki emerged from pantheism, and
> therefore can be arguably be described as a pantheistic ritual.

OK let's explain this simply

Let's say the Sun heals the sick.
Let's say that varous idol worrshippers worship the Sun.
May I use a magnifying glass to intesnisy the Suns own rays for the
purpose of healing?
And if the Sun Heals could this magnifying glass effect an even more
powerful and intense healing.

If you hold that using this magnifying glass is AZ because some people
use hyperbole to describe its effects then ein hachi name. But taking
Vitamin C is not AZ simply because Linus Pauling went overboard in its
praise! Nor is Vitamin D.

The fact that Reiki was discoeverd by a pantheist - so what? so what if
a worshipper of Asheira found a better way to plant trees - does that
make his technique unkosher?!

IIRC many Frum women's groups have incroporated some form of hatha yoga.
If you isolate the techinque from the ritual I don't see a problem.

> A big part of the problem is that the line between religion and philsophy
> is clearer in the west than in the areas we're speaking of.

How about astrology! Some Poskim condemn it and some utilize it! Are its
origins the issue?

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:06:07am EST, schoemann@lucent.com writes:
> To which RRW responded:
>> Indeed, this is the position of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 35:6

> Actually it's in 15:6 and it's the 1st Y"O. The 2nd Y"O insists you stand
> up - as we learn from Old King Eglon - "and so one should be machmir".
> An argument could thus be made that the kitzur's position is that one
> should stand up.

Indeed you are correct. I should have said this is the 1st opinion
brought down by Kitzur in 15:6

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In Avodah V14 #70 dated 2/2/2005 "JosephMosseri"
<joseph.mosseri@verizon.net> writes:
> Purim this year is on Friday March 25th, less than 2 months away. When
> Purim falls out on Friday when is the proper time to have seudat Purim?

What I remember from my childhood is that the seudah was late morning,
lunch. The Friday night meal, however, included more drinking and more
hilarity than the usual Shabbos seudah.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

>Purim this year is on Friday March 25th, less than 2 months away.
>When Purim falls out on Friday when is the proper time to have seudat
>Purim?  Morning? Afternoon? Or closer to Shabbat and combine both
>meals into one?

This happened four years ago in 2001 and the instructions
given were to *begin* the meal before midday. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n146.shtml>

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
Phone: (718) 951-1254  Fax: (718) 228-5150
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

[RYGB's unnamed correspondant:]
>>Why? Don't you care to know the truth? Do you not think that when
>>considering the ancillary properties of one of the ikray ha'emunah, one
>>should strive to reach the absolute truth without compromise? IMO, when
>>pursuing Torah subjects, one should be animated by one desire alone; to
>>reach the amita shel Torah. Not to make as many shittos as possible
>>legitimate: for two reasons.

>>First of all, this approach is dangerous because it can cause its adherents
>>to read things into Chazal and Rishonim that are not there in order to
>>satisfy their mandate of legitimizing. And second, we follow our great
>>teachers in their approach to milchamto shel Torah. When it comes to
>>legitimizing, Rashi and Tosafos didn't do it. They fought tooth and nail.
>>Rava and Abaye didn't do it. R' Meir and R' Yehuda didn't do it. Beis
>>Shammai and Bais Hillel didn't do it. Neither should we.

I confess what continues to surprise me about the whole discussion of
the age of the universe and Breishis is that it seems so common to treat
it just as any other part of the Torah (as this quote seems to me to do)
when the Torah she baal peh tells us pretty explicitly, it seems to me,
that this is not the right approach.

The mishna in chagiga (11b) states that we don't darshan in relation to
ariyos before three, not in relation to ma'aseh b'reshis before two and
not in relation to ma'aseh merkava before one ...

This would, it seems to me, pretty straightforwardly put us on notice
that ma'ase breishis does not fall into the normal category of Torah,
but that it is and should be regarded as something difficult and not
necessarily easily comprehensible (not quite on the level of m'aseh
merkava, but closer to that than the vast majority of Torah).

And however one reads the gemora that follows about what one may or may
not ask about while learning ma'aseh b'reshis, surely the point must still
stand. This is esoteric high level stuff, not for your average student.

So why is it that suddenly, in this day and age, there seems to be an
assumption that ma'aseh breshis is something that can be straightforwardly
understood by any schoolchild merely by reading the psukim and something
about which milchemet shel Torah should be waged to maintain that simple
reading. Surely we do not say the same thing about ma'aseh merkava?
Why is this different?

I just don't understand why *this* needs to trigger a crisis of faith
when we have Torah she baal peh, long before any of this science,
telling us that none of this is straightforward (sure the Xtian's
problem I understand, but they don't have TSBP). Isn't that enough?
What more do you all want?

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

RYGB
>My interest is in making as many shittos as
>possible legitimate options within Orthodox dogma.

Something RYGB and I actually agree over..

Meir Shinnar

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> As my Doctor friends say - when you hear hoof beats don't suspect
> Zebras (unless you're in Zebraland or have ruled out all other animals) One
> who has their mzuzot checked kdin would likely be better off serching for
> other root causes. For example, given the gemora in Sotah 21a describes
> the power of learning to defend one against travails as greater than
> that of a mitzvah - so why not start there?

That's precisely the point: one who has checked them recently and
found them to be fine may consider that it would be better to look for
other causes, rather than waste time checking them again - though it
shouldn't need saying that a mezuzah going bad between checks, or a check
missing something, is far more common than zebras in an area where that
saying applies. And that may explain the view cited in the name of RAM.
But that's not what we're talking about here. When someone has no mezuzot
at all, or bought them who knows where and hasn't had them checked in
years, that sounds more like a horse than a zebra.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:53:51PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: If the mezuzah is pasul, then he *hasn't* fulfilled the mitzvah, no matter
: how many times he checked it. If he has checked it properly, then his
: failure to keep the mitzvah is not due to his fault or negligence, and he
: is an anus. If there were a punishment for neglecting this mitzvah, then
: he would certainly escape it, because anus rachamana patreih. But keman
: de'avad lo amrinan - the fact is that he did not have a kosher mezuzah,
: and he did not fulfil the mitzvah, and he does not get the reward - in
: this case special physical protection - that the mitzvah brings with it.

First, I do not expect to convince you of a position different than
RMMS's.

Second, Rav Moshe Feinstein has a problem with thinking of mezuzah as
a tool for protection. He discusses this at length in IM YD 2:141. See
also AhS YD 285:3, the Sedei Chemed Mem #114, and the Kesef Mishnah on
the aforementioned Rambam (Hil' Mezuzah 5:4).

But saying one ought not think of mezuzah in those terms is different than
saying it doesn't work in those terms. Letter 18 of RSRH's 19 Letters
is quite explicit about rejecting the idea that the mezuzah protects,
rather than the the mitzvah of mezuzah being rewarded with protection.

In any case, the question before us is whether someone who fulfilled all
the required actions but whose mezuzah happened to break was yotzei or an
anoos. This was discussed in v4n68 onward, from which I get the following.

There is a concept of an anoos for violating a lav, but not for performing
an asei. For example, the Rambam's argument that a mandatory get can not
be a get anoos even if compelled. RSZA quotes shu"t Rav Poalim 4:2 that
an oneis WRT kosher tefillin was yotzei. See also the Rif on Qiddushin 25
(dafei haRan), Rav Elchanan at the begining of Kesuvos, and the Gemara
Kiddushin 55b on "bareikh H' cheilo". As R' Chaim Markowitz argued,
oneis rachamanah patrei would mean that the anoos gets the same sechar.

Interestingly, RYZ quotes his father, a sofeir, who brings numerous
meqoros that a person would get shemirah in our case. Doubly interesting,
once one considers that RYZ is L.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:06:35PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
: It is to be assumed that together with the sod ha'ibbur the period of the
: average molad was given to Moshe at the time of Yetzias Mitzrayim. It
: is relatively easy to compute with and without the 165y and see which
: one works.

One needs two things to do the calculation: the average molad, and two
known moladim. Then one can apply n copies of the average molad to one,
and compare the result with the other known molad.

The point I was trying to make is that molad tohu is unlikely to be
miSinai. We're told that the molad Moshe Rabbeinu was given was the one
before yetzi'as Mitzrayim, when HQBH says to him "hachodesh HAZEH lachem".

So the question is when did someone compute backward to molad tohu? If
it was someone who used the SOR and worked backwards, or even predated
SOR but was after any alleged missing 168 years then his computed molad
tohu would compute forward correctly. (And if you take 6 days literally
with the timeline starting at the subsequent Elul 25th, molad tohu never
could have occured!) Regardless of whether the molad of that Tishrei
before ma'aseh bereishis would have been / was actually at the time we
call molad tohu, counting molados backward and forward again will get
to the right number.

Being able to do the math doesn't help.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

RRL:
> And my conclusion is,
> In normal situations, use of this elevator would be prohibited
> (ignoring all other possible problems with using a shabbos elevator).

Prohibiting use of the Shabbos elevator is not so simple, and would
create extreme hardship for a number of tenants in this building. It
has been widely known for years that the electric eye works on Shabbos
(if you enter the door when it has started to close, it reopens). Despite
this, Rabbanim allow it to be used when necessary and many frum tenants
do use it.

It would be reasonable for you to have concluded that "there are good
grounds to be machmir regarding this elevator," and to restrict yourself
to the stairs. But not everyone has this option, and you should be aware
that there are grounds to be mekel as well.

 - Ilana

Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
>Prohibiting use of the Shabbos elevator is not so simple, and would create
>extreme hardship for a number of tenants in this building. It has been
>widely known for years that the electric eye works on Shabbos (if you enter
>the door when it has started to close, it reopens). Despite this, Rabbanim
>allow it to be used when necessary and many frum tenants do use it.

Which is why I said, "In normal situations". I would think that those
tenants who do not have the option to restrict themselves to the stairs
would not be considered to be in a "normal" situation.

I'm trying to understand the reasons for being mekel, because I see that
is the minhag. I'm not trying to assur this elevator specifically, or
any elevator in general. I just don't understand the heter this is for
a person who is in reasonable health to take the elevator, because they
don't want to walk up 10 flights of stairs, when there is an infrared
sensor. RMB mentioned one, that it is possible that the sensor is using
solid state electronics. From what I understand, RSZA was the most mekel
with regard to it, but he was only willing to matir it with a tzorech
gadol; I can't imagine that being out of breath for a couple minutes
is a tzorech gadol (Minchat Shlomo 74 I think). If that is the case,
then solid state electronics should still be assur.

 -Russell

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


[ 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         ]