Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 60

Tue, 20 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 59 (Elliott Shevin)
• 2. Electricity on Shabbos (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Re: donating blood (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. donating blood (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Russian Roulette (Rich, Joel)
• 6. [Areivim] Amen (SBA)
• 7. Retzei (Jonathan Baker)
• 8. Retzei (Jonathan Baker)
• 9. Re: Amen (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Each tribe had different Torah? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Vashti's tail (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Ikkarim Redux (Zeliglaw@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Ikkarim Redux (Zeliglaw@aol.com)

Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:> There's at least one other in Tefillah: Hamelech B'chvodo Tamid Yimloch> Aleinu, V'al Kol Ma'asav. Thanks, Moshe, but I don't think that's what I'm looking for. "Kol Ma'asav" is an object, not a subject here: "The King in His glory will enternally reign over us and over all his works."
 
Micha Berger wrote:> The first one in Tanakh that caught my eye:
> Es hama'aor hagadol lememsheles bayomve'es hama'or haqaton lememsheles balaylah,ve'es 
> hakochavim. "Ve'es hakochavim" seems much like "ve'ishei yisrael".
 
Perhaps, if you figure the kochavim are also "to rule the night" as the "smaller luminary" is.
The search continues!
 
Cheers,
Elly
_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference.?Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. Join Now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=wlmailtagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070320/401f3c4a/attachment-0001.html 

Not using electricity on Shabbos is becoming more and more of a
problem. These days it is a big problem to stay in a hotel for Shabbos
because almost all hotels have switched over exclusively to electronic
keys. Electronic keys use electricity and therefore are prohibited to
use on Shabbos for whatever reason electricity is prohibited (there
are a number of reasons given including the opinion of the Chazon Ish
that creating a circuit is Boneh min hatorah, RSZA holds that there is
no issur whatsoever however, it is prohibited based on minhag). The
bottom line is we assume that electricity on Shabbos is prohibited at
least m'drabbanon.

The advice that I got was to tape up the lock and leave the door
unlocked on Shabbos when I go out, I did this and while it worked it
made me very nervous. R' Willig told me that if you get locked out you
can ask a non-Jew to open it as it is a shvus d'shvus b'makom kitzva.

This illustrates the problem that electricity poses for us and is
going to pose for us in the near future. Everything is going
electronic. Soon it will be very hard to find anything that doesn't
have some kind of electronic sensor on it. If you go to a hotel you
can see some of them for example:

Electronic keys
Motion sensors which shut off the lights and air conditioning if there
is no movement
Faucets that go on and off based on motion sensors
Toilets with sensors
Automatic doors
Security cameras
...

Household appliances are changing as well. New refrigerators all have
sensors that are put into action when you open the door etc. (even if
you tape down the light switch). Modern burglar alarms have sensors on
the door and register when the door opens even if the alarm is off.
There are surveillance cameras everywhere.

The point is that electronics and sensors are becoming ubiquitous,
they are going to be everywhere. It will soon reach a point that we
will not be able to do anything without causing some reaction in some
sensor.

The question is what will the reaction from the poskim be? RSZA
opinion that there really is no issur seems to be very well reasoned
and I believe is generally accepted. The question is will anyone have
the courage to run with it and say that in the modern world where
circumstances have changed we need to allow certain things (like
electronic locks, refrigerator sensors etc.) The fact is that in the
next 10 years the incandescent light bulb will go the way of the dodo
which will remove the only issur doraysa related to electricity. I
know that there is a very fine line it is clear that we don't want
people using computers, tv's, mp3 players on shabbos, on the other
hand we are rapidly reaching a point where we will be unable to do
anything on Shabbos in a modern home. The poskim need to come up with
some kind of balance, given what is going on in the Jewish world I am
not optimistic.

>> I've often wondered if donating blood or getting a blood test is like
>> Hakazas Dam and therefore requires Netilas Yadayim afterwards.

I wrote:
> I have seen Rabonim go "out of their way" to do so, in both cases.

I looked it up in Nekiyus V'Kavod Tefilo (by a R' Yair Yissachar
Yanai). In 2:27 he writes that R Chaim Kanievsky requires washing
after both donating blood and blood tests.

In the footnotes he mentions that RSZA (in Nishmas Adam 4:4) doesn't
require washing after a blood test as it's only a "segula" whereas
Chazal's requirement was for Refu'a, and we don't add to Chazal.

He also mentions that the Toras Hayoledes 2:2 (R Zilberstein) requires
it for blood tests also.

- Danny

>I've often wondered if donating blood or getting a blood test is like
>Hakazas Dam and therefore requires Netilas Yadayim afterwards.

I have seen Rabonim go "out of their way" to do so, in both cases. >>

I recently saw a psak that one does NOT have to wash ones hands after
donating blood. Hakazas Dam is (or was) for ones own medical health
while donating blood is not (or at least not the main reason even if
one accepts that giving blood is healthy)


-- 
Eli Turkel

Is one allowed to play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in a 5 chamber
gun to win $1?
What about 1 in 10 for $1million?
Vchen Halah?

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070320/2d3c11fd/attachment.htm 

From: Yitzchok Levine <>
http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/ravkook/thisweek.htm
. Please note the section A Quiet Amen.

I recall Rav A. Miller learning a Tosephos in a
shiur that I attended many years ago that said
something similar. When I asked him,  "In light
of this Tosephos, why do some people say Amen
very loudly?"  he gave me one of his knowing smiles, but did not comment.
:-)
>>>

The halocho is clear that one should not say Amen louder than the Shatz.
But in a case where there is noise or some of the mispallelim are talking 
etc,
 I thought it would be OK.

Tonight I saw that the MB (124:47) indeed paskens so.
"Nireh de'im kavonosoy beharimo koloy kedei lezarez ha'am
sheyaanu gam hem - mutar..."

SBA 

RMi:

> I also wonder when Retzei was written. Was it during AKG, at a time when there
> was a chanukas hamizbei'ach and ishei Yisrael, but no Devir built yet? In
> which case, perhaps the tefillah was originally written to be read one way
> (vehasheiv as ha'avodah lidvir beisekha. Ve'ishei Yisrael usfilasam...), but
> period was moved rather than changing the nusach outright.
 
> The problem with that idea is that there would have been no reason to keep the
> line "vehasheiv es ha'avodah" all the time of Bayis Sheini. The two versions
> make sense in their respective epochs, but what about the time in between?

Baer talks about this.  He says that it was originally the bracha made
by the kohanim over the daily korbanot (tamid/musaf/etc.), but that 
after the Destruction, extra phrases were added to make it into a memorial.
The original ending was that which we use for Duchaning ...ot'cha naavod.
The old nusach of EY still said it this way, although they had some other
phrases added to make it into a memorial.  I hope to put up a blog post
about this sometime today.
 
--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
> *On Fri, March 16, 2007 12:39 pm, Elliott Shevin wrote:
> *: I find the latter awkward; "return the service to... and the fire-
> *offerings?"

> *: Nonetheless, I[STR seeing this construct elsewhere,] with
> *: a subject of a prepositional phrase added after the phrase ends, is used
> *: elsewhere in liturgy and/or Tanach, but can't recall any examples and
> *: would enjoy seeing one or two.
 
> There's at least one other in Tefillah: Hamelech B'chvodo Tamid Yimloch
> Aleinu, V'al Kol Ma'asav.
 
Nope, that doesn't work, because they're both objects of the verb Yimloch:

  1. Al-einu (on us)
  2. Al col ma'asav (on all His works)

Aleinu is just a contraction of "al anachnu".

Micha's example of sun-moon-stars also fails to be this kind of afterthought,
because each object is prefaced by an "et", indicating direct object status
and thus that all three objects are parallel.  Sun and moon get dependent
clauses because they rule something.  It's a little clunky, but not really
an afterthought: The Professor assigned this to Jane, because she is into
nussach, and to Bob, because he likes grammar, and to Bill.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

The halocho is clear that one should not say Amen louder than the Shatz.
But in a case where there is noise or some of the mispallelim are
talking etc,  I thought it would be OK.

Tonight I saw that the MB (124:47) indeed paskens so.
"Nireh de'im kavonosoy beharimo koloy kedei lezarez ha'am sheyaanu gam
hem - mutar..."

SBA 

_______________________________________________
Very interesting that it's only dependent on his intent rather then on a
shikul hadaat as to whether it will be successful (although Nireh is not
a particularly strong endorsement)

Also interesting that releasing his own emotion is not grounds for being
louder.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

RMK writes:

> This is exactly comparable to the case in the Gemara - I 
> hired poalim to irrigate my field, and then it rained or the 
> river irrigated the fields for me.  The poalim certainly 
> could have, if they were bored, carried water to my field 
> from the well, but it would have served no benefit. 

Actually, the si'if in the Shulchan Aruch cited by RMSS as being given
by the book (CM siman 334 si'if 1) is a case where the river stopped (ie
the worker was unable to water the field because there was suddenly no
water in the river to do it).  Interestingly, the case that you bring
here, ie where the river watered the field by itself is to be found in
si'if 2, and in that case indeed the baal habayis does have to pay
(although if the rain came and watered the field by itself, in general
he does not).  What is the difference?  The Sefer Merit Enayim explains
there that in the case of the river stopping flowing, this is something
that the people of that town are likely to know about just as much as
the baal habayis, as it will affect the whole town.  The same with rain.
However, in the case of the river breaking its banks and watering the
field, that requires a detailed knowledge of the location of the field,
something you would expect the baal habayis to have over and above the
poel. (Note that there are potential wrinkles with regard to this if the
workers inspected the field before agreeing to take on the work).  So
the key is, the extent to which the baal habayis and the workers are
genuinely on the same level of knowledge.  If the baal habayis has a
slight knowledge advantage, even if only slight (he did not know the
river would break its banks either) then it would seem he does indeed
have to pay.

Regards

Chana

RMK writes:
: This is exactly comparable to the case in the Gemara - I
: hired poalim to irrigate my field, and then it rained or the
: river irrigated the fields for me....

Not really, because the kallah isn't rain or a river.

I think people are so focused on the chasan and the singer that they forget
there is another party here. One who had some reason to expect that her
gesture might cause someone a loss; after all, entertainment is usually
covered by the chasan's side. What if the band came with their own front man?

I would therefore think that the chiyuvim would go as follows:

The chasan would have to pay Chaim ben Zundel the money he set aside for
entertainment. The rest of CbZ's fee should be covered by the kallah, since
the increased expense was her idea, not his. It was the kallah who stole
Davidi's evening, so she should pay his fee, which exactly equals the money
she thought she would pay CbZ but hadn't.

Whatever dissemblance the chasan had to pull of to preserve his (smaller)
surprise just shifts guilt from him to her. But between the two, which is one
kis anyway, there is assignable blame for the wasted evening. Even if
beshogeig.


On another note: I think RMS raises a good question about this genre of
sefarim. There is a real taaveh to provide an interesting and unexpected
answer. A push away from the intuitive or local civil law that has nothing to
do with din. Which means that you must assess each sefer to know if it really
reflects meaningful pesaq. I am not saying anything about this particular
sefer -- I have never seen it.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

Cc: RDHojda in light of last year's JA article at
<http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5766/winter66/PersIntegrity.pdf>. RDH recommended
using such bein adam lachaveiro sefarim of "Scruples" at the Shabbos table. It
would both make for interesting conversation and broaden the range of mitzvos
your children think of as core Yahadus.

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, March 16, 2007 1:39 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Pesikta DeRav Cahane[via RDE -mi]: *R' Huna sated that
:> Moshe wrote 13 Sefer Torahs. Twelve were for the 12 Tribes and one was
:> given to Levi'im so that if one of Tribes wanted to elminate anything
:> from the Torah -- the Levi'im would be able to produce their Sefer Torah
:> and correct the false text.

: What if Shevet Levi decided to change their Torah?

I like RJJB's suggestion based on R' Hunah's sheivet.

However, why not simply say that he was stating the more probably situation?
Levi was entrusted with teaching and preserving the Torah. Throughout Bayis
Rishon, they were overwhelmingly the rabbinic leadership as well as their
roles in the BHMQ. (As they lived off terumos umaaseros, they probably were
the vast majority of people with time to learn safrus as well.)

Frankly, had sheivet Levi had wanted to subterfuge the mesorah, they could
have done enough to TSBP for any changes they could slip into TSBK to be of
little political difference.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, March 18, 2007 7:40 am, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: Note two things about this.  In neither case does this seem to suggest
: that the invocation of Gavriel means that there was an out and out
: performance of a miracle...

Actually, I would have bedavka associated Gavriel with teva. Gevurah is
restraint, sharing with Din the property of being used as an antonym to
Chessed. Divine Restraint, Divine Law make me think of natural law. Now, had
the mal'akh been Micha'el, given the name of roughly "Mi keKeil", I would
think of HaGadol veHanorah, and nissim geluyim.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

 
In a message dated 3/20/2007 7:08:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

Of  course, I agree with RSB - my point was  that someone who makes   
kiddush "and" (emphasis now added - but was in original) is being   
me'id by words and actions - not that saying kiddush makes one  shomer  
shabbat..- but that edut is sufficient proof unless one has  specfic  
proof otherwise


Thanks for the clarification
 
Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070320/36265717/attachment.html 

 
In a message dated 3/20/2007 7:08:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:

the  question of the  
proper response to those who we think fail to  measure up


WADR, why isn't kiruv/chizuk  viewed as the optimal  response?
 
Steve Brizel
_Zeliglaw@aol.com_ (mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com) 



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070320/f83640ca/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 60
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."