Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 14

Mon, 11 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: electricity on shabbat (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Even More on Granola Bars (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: electricity on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. burning bush (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: New Brachos (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: electricity on shabbat (D&E-H Bannett)
• 10. Avodah] New Brachos (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: electricity on shabbat (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: electricity on shabbat (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: New Brachos (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: John Locke and Tzedaqa (t6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: burning bush (Ben Waxman)
• 16. Re: electricity on shabbat (Micha Berger)

6- Last, to me what is more interesting is what it says about halachic process that there was such broad concensus le'esor and so little consensus over why.

RRW suggested that this showed that electricity was a matter of societal taqanah.

I would instead suggest that it illustrates the role of "daas Torah",
thinking from the gestalt, using "gefeel" or however it should be labeled
-- in producing pesaq. There was an instinctive "this couldn't fit Shabbos"
which those who have a more reliable insinct about such things all felt in
common. What they couldn't converge on is the formal justification.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- ================

R' Asher Weiss says explicitly that what you describe is IIRC makeh
bpatish-anything chazal "felt" was "not shabbatdik" falls into a single
category.  The challenge is imho that we present, at least to the masses
(yes we've discussed this before), halacha as an algorithmic, objective
process  . I wonder if that is the reason why there is such an effort to
fit electricity (and others) into a neat micro-halachic category?

KT
Joel Rich

In late February 2010,  our NY Office is moving to:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.

The following is from today's Hakhel Email Bulletin. YL

>Special Note One:  One more important point 
>regarding our, by now, old friend, the granola 
>bar.  As we discussed over the last two days, 
>one would not be making a Borei Nefashos over 
>the toasted whole grains of the granola bar if 
>he ate less than 1 ? bars within two (or 
>according to some opinions, up to five) 
>minutes.  There are, however, other ingredients 
>in the granola bar which would require a Borei 
>Nefashos lechatchila.  In reviewing the matter 
>with a Rabbinic coordinator at the OU, we 
>concluded that if one consumed one whole granola 
>bar in less than two minutes, he should make a 
>Borei Nefashos on the bar, based on his 
>consumption of a kezayis of non-toasted whole 
>grain content within a Kidei Achilas Pras.  At 
>this time, we do not plan to continue our 
>discussion on this topic.  Instead, we provide 
>the entire article as it appeared in the Daf 
>Hakashrus, by the following link -- http://tinyurl.com/ykd5e5x   Enjoy!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100108/6ebcb0ee/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha:
> According to the Rambam, shas is basically a BD; there is no room for
> exceptions.

First where did the Rambam say it? He clearly says in haqdamah that the
hilluq between talmud and post-Talmud is that Talmud was accepted by all
of Israel. Now he may have stated otherwise elsewhere, but where is it?

Second we can show dozens if. Not hundreds of exceptions to Rambam
slavishly following Bavli.

[Funny - we're savvy enough to know BY does not rigidly follow his BD,
but weh haven't figured out that Rambam doesn't follow his own [alleged]
program rigorously?]

Instead of watching what he says, just watch what he does instead.


At Any rate - except for one point in his haqdamah - Rambam Terms talmud
as including:
    Mishnah 
    Tosefta 
    Y-lmi
    Sifra
    Sifrei
[Don't ask me where m'chilta went - also see Maran's haqdamah to SA]


> In Ashkenaz, there are numerous exceptions.

Ashkenaz adds to the above list
    Midrashim [EG Rabbah]
    P'sikta
    Qallir et al.
And some mimetic minhaggim that never made it into writing. Also,
Westerners never accepted Bavli in quite the same way Bavel did.
[See haqdama in Rema for a hint of this.]

> I don't know if the parallel could be made between berakhos and all three
> of the Rambam's categories.

No anology is perfect.
I wouldn't call a microphone a musical instrument either! But some do.
Go figure!

I'm illustrating a pattern - not laying out a concrete foundation.

As I explain it, Taz, Maggid Mishneh, et al. Have a similar approach
to what is Talmudic and Post-talmudic. And as far as I'm concerned The
Taz's read of Rosh is far more of a stretch than my read of the Rambam.

And FWIW I've already quoted several peers who read the Rambam the way I
would. I consulted with one offline before pushing my point on g'zeira,
because I know he would have reined me in if I were on the wrong track.

> A pesaq can be nispasheit and accepted, even after Ravina veR' Ashi sof
> hora'ah.

Not only that - but a moreh d'asra can be moreh halachah after Ravina
and rav Ashi sof hora'ah!

[And now go ask yourself - how did ashkenaz use the title "moreinu"?
A worthwhile pursuit pursuant to this thread.]

Anyway Tosafos did not see the Talmud as quite so closed - because
they kept doing what the Amoraim did. Only the Amoraim mostly did it
to tannaic material - or to early Amoraic material - while Tosafos did
so to Amoraic material and occasionaly Gaonic. Non- tosafists not only
closed the Talmud, they wanted to close the method.

Tosafos said aderabba. It's lav davka the p'saq of Talmud that has been
enshrined, rather it's the METHOD that has [also] been enshrined.

Some say Tosafos went too far. In my experience I have only found about
3-6 cases where I would concede tosafos went too far. The MAHARAL
[notice the moreinu!] felt otherwise

For sample of method
See Tosafos in Arachin [iirc 3a] re: women megilah tosefta and behag.
Tosafos presumes Behag is making an Aromaic style dialectic on R Yehsohua
Ben Levi based upon the tosefta. Thus, tosafos seems to say that at
least Gaonim - if not later - can still play the game of dialecting
amoraim by means of Tannaim - even though the Talmud does not

So to Tosafos the method is still alive

To others, if the Talmud failed to bring in a tosefta, it's too late.

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



+ Tosafos will play "games" and dialetcially alter the sources and create
  a new synthesis. [EG See behag above re: mishma miqra megillah]

+ Rambam will simply go and take the other text as is and ignore a
  Bavli EG see Rambam on lanochi tiggos is a positive obligation {Sifrei},
  or a lav haba miklall asei {Bavli} where Rambam bypasses Bavli
  altogether.

GS
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Responding to RAM quickly 

+ Al mitzvas tefillin is in talmud. The machloqes is how to apply it 

+ Al mitzvas tzitzis is new -- yishar kochecha 

+ Ner Shabbos is Gaonic. AISi [unlike Rosh] chasimas hanusach is post
  Rav Ashi and that the Gaonim were still redacting a lot of liturgy. So I
  would NOT term this late. Rather I would say that "hashimas Hatalmud" got
  an extension in liturgical mattets. FWIW This is old stuff on this list.

+ Re: ashk vs. Seph. Ben Ish Chay and Kaf Hachayim say the s'feiq brachos
  l'haqeil does NOT apply when the minhag IS to say.
  In fact Ben Ish Chay often relates both methods saying seph. Do this
  ashk do that.

[Rant: My picque is against less tolerant Sephardim who [nowadays?] are
m'vazeh minhag Ashkenaz WRT these brachos and FWIW I'm not found of
Ashk. picking on Seph. either. Remember lo kibdu zeh es zeh?]

GS 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:19:28AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: R' Asher Weiss says explicitly that what you describe is IIRC makeh
: bpatish-anything chazal "felt" was "not shabbatdik" falls into a single
: category...

Where it's not a shevus. There is a category for *constructive activity*
that is simply "not Shabbosdik", and thus deOraisa, and then there is
shevus.

> (yes we've discussed this before), halacha as an algorithmic, objective
> process . I wonder if that is the reason why there is such an effort
> to fit electricity (and others) into a neat micro-halachic category?

1- Talmud Torah

2- By knowing the category, we may know more detail than intuition can
   tell us.

3- *Perhaps* to make sure we're not fooling ourselves? Without the rules
   (albeit many of them are loose rules) of halachic process, what keeps
   the system from decaying into an anti-nomian religion like R? IOW,
   what keeps the gestalt view of the posqim we're relying on in sync
   with actual daas Torah?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

ben1...@zahav.net.il
> Or if I can say this differently:
> What is the havamina that I have to change the way I eat in order not
> to have the safeiq?

[After all]
> Toasted whole grains have. been around for awhile, a long time. Has
> anyone ever brought up this issue before?

yes I did - several times! ;-)

It's called post-talmudic g'zeira/ban/policy ;-)

To wit:
"Don't eat X shema you make the wrong bracha. - Schoen!"

And if is this a local "g'zeira"


+ If we successfully resist this, it won't be nispasheit
and
+ If we accept it -- and it becomes as assur as EG bicycles on Shabbos
  have become -- then it will be considered assur "forever" :-)

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I was asked a question over shabbat

If someone were near Moshe when he came to the burning burn:
1. Would he also have seen it was burning but not consumed
2. Would he have heard G-d talking to Moshe Rabbenu rl would
have thought Moshe is talking to a bush

-- 
Eli Turkel

After reading the article, I see that it is indeed a real safeiq and I 
withdrawal my question.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Waxman" <ben1...@zahav.net.il>


> Or if I can say this differently: What is the havamina that I have to 
> change the way I eat in order not to have the safeiq? Toasted whole grains 
> have been around for awhile, a long time. Has anyone ever brought up this 
> issue before?

Re: elevators and RET's posting:

Rabbi Halperin's decision is that a person is responsible 
for actions influenced by his weight in a descending 
elevator. Prof. Lev's (z"l) counter argument is the fact 
that the rabbanim sailed in steamships during Shabbat 
without fearing that their weight would lower the vessel and 
cause greater fuel consumption.  This argument would be a 
strong one if Rabbi Halperin had assered ascent on Shabbat 
which does require additional electrical current to raise 
the additional load.  But, Rabbi Halperin permits ascent!

On descent, the person's weight is a downward force that 
replaces some of the current.  Only Rabbi Halperin's 
permitted ascent despite the extra load is similar to Prof. 
Lev's steamship.


David 

RAM writes:

> I want to know why these Ashkenazi practices don't count as Bracha
> L'vatala.

The starting point for this would seem to be the Tosphos on Rosh Hashana 33a
"dha rabbi Yehuda v'Rabbi Yosi" - which states, inter alia, that the drasha
of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish on Brochas 33a is only an asmachta.  That
drasha is that one which says a brocha sheaino tzricha is over on lo tisa
[es hashem Hashem l'shav].

The Rosh says similarly (Kiddushin perek 1 siman 49).

However the standard Sephardi approach appears to view a brocha sheino
tzricha as in violation of the d'orisa of lo tisa.

> Or, better phrased: How do the Ashkenazim define of Bracha L'vatala?
> Their definition, whatever it is, must surely exempt these many cases,
> right?

I think the base line is that a brocha which is not necessary is not defined
as equivalent to a bracha l'vatala (ie an issur d'orisa).  The classic case
of a brocha sheaino tzricha is saying an extra brocha over a food during the
course of the meal which is not necessary because of the earlier brochos
said at the beginning of the meal.   

As I understand Tosphos and the Rosh, they are saying that such brochos are
not actually forbidden d'orisa, not real brochos l'vatala, but are only
forbidden d'rabbanan.  And that the further kinds of brochos you are
discussing are not even brochos sheino tzricha (it is not as though they are
covered by other brochos) and hence they are allowed.  Note the Tosphos
quoted above is specifically discussing women saying brochos on mitzvos aseh
shehazman grama as is the Rosh.  The point of this would seem to be that if
you had a mitzvah, any mitzvah, there would be no problem you making up a
brocha from a d'orisa or even d'rabbanan point of view, were it not for the
additional rule that we cannot institute new kinds of brochos post Talmud.  

> The second exception was mentioned in the thread about the Bracha
> Acharona on granola bars. Namely, the possibility that we might have to
> say an unheard-of bracha. Now, this is not a new halacha; I learned it
> -- and the Tosfos it is based on -- decades ago in regard to Puffed
> Wheat cereal. But I never understood it. What is the havamina to say
> such a bracha?
> 
> Even further: What is the havamina that I might be OBLIGATED to say
> such a bracha? Let rephrase that: What is the havamina  that there
> might possibly exist a law which requires me to do something which no
> law has ever prescribed? What were Tosfos thinking? Where did this
> bracha ("Al Ha'adamah, v'al pri haadamah") come from?

And RRW writes:

> R Zev Sero:
> > If you're collecting post-talmudic brochos, here's another one:
> > R Akiva Eiger, who was surely aware of the rule against post-talmudic
> > brochos, holds that if one moves into a house that already has
> mezuzos,
> > and so one can't say "likboa mezuzah", then one says "lodur bevayis
> > sheyesh bo mezuzah".  That bracha is surely not mentioned in the
> gemara.
> > Now I've never heard of anyone actually following this psak of RAE,
> but
> > that is how he paskens, despite the rule.
> 
> And even the Ro"Sh himself - who as per Ta"Z apparently decries adding
> brachos after "siddur Rav Ashi" - adds "al n'qiyyus yadayim" when one
> has no water. And this is pasqened by the Tur

I just wanted to note, and I am not sure if this is an answer (and certainly
whether it is the whole answer) but in the two last cases mentioned here,
"lodur bvayis sheyesh bo mezuzah" and "al n'qiyyus yadayim" - we are dealing
with a situation where under the rules there ought to be a brocha except
that the metzius of the situation means that if one said the normal expected
brocha, one would actually be saying a sheker - because you are not affixing
the mezuzah, it is there already, and you are unable to wash the hands with
water as there is none.  What it seems to me is going on here in these two
cases is a tension between the need/requirement to say the brocha, and the
need/requirement to tell the truth (backed up by things such as mdvar sheker
tirchoq) - with the additional wrinkle that it would then involve
associating the shem Hashem with a lie.  I therefore wonder if the Rosh
would not explain the al niqyiuus yadayim as not being a new brocha, but
rather that it is *really* an old brocha that just has to be changed the
minimum possible to retain its truth.

And (and perhaps this is a further stretch) maybe you could say the same
thing about the Granola bar.  Its nature is of the nature of something
Chazal were metaken, just that one cannot say the particular words that
Chazal were metaken because it does not fit the metzius, so it has to be
changed.  But that this is different from creating a new kind of brocha, or
a new circumstance in which brochos are required.

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

Micha: 
> RRW suggested that this showed that electricity was a matter of societal 
> taqanah. 

> I would instead suggest that it illustrates the role of "daas Torah",
> thinking from the gestalt, using "gefeel" or however it should be
> labeled -- in producing pesaq. There was an instinctive "this couldn't
> fit Shabbos" which those who have a more reliable insinct about such
> things all felt in common. What they couldn't converge on is the formal 
> justification. 

I'm not so sure about electricity in general. 

My current position, [which is not firm] is 
Redhot electric filaments ARE eish vaday 
.Maybe all electricals producing light and heat are also hav'ara. 

I don't get CI's point re: boneh 

Electricity stam might be a policy shema one does light or heat. To
me it's a perfectly legit ch'shash or "policy" or s'yag. It's not a
societal Tagqanah like RMF and timers! It's don't do any electiricty
shema one does hav'ara -- a d'oraissa.

I agree there is a consensus and that means a lot to my way methodology.

But the more s'varos given, the less likely that any one is the definitive
s'vara.

And we can punt to Potter Stewart's -- "I know it when I see it" thinking.

Ideally aisi a policy to prevent a d'oraisso fits "asu s'yag l'torah"
best. It's very "traditional"

To me strict constructionism could lead to making electiricty mamash mutar

And gefeel could lead to prohibitng electric watches or to. A svara that
opening a faucet into a "water circuit" and therefore assur.

Personal Note: I'm going to be under a lot of time pressure for a while
and I may be reducing my volume for several weeks.

GV 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha Berger wrote:
> 2- don't think the CI's boneh was about battery devices; only those that
> plug into an ohel.
>   
If I correctly understand Rabbi Auerbach's description of Rabbi 
Karelitz's opinion (which I sincerely doubt I do) it is that electric 
current induces a qualitative change in the wire it flows through.  I 
don't see how the current being drawn from a battery would affect that.

David Riceman

RAM pontificated on post-Talmudic berakhot, and how those who say them
understand the concept of berakhah levatalah.

While I cannot answer the above conundrum, he also wrote:

> The second exception was mentioned in the thread about the Bracha
> Acharona on granola bars. Namely, the possibility that we might have
> to say an unheard-of bracha. Now, this is not a new halacha; I learned
> it -- and the Tosfos it is based on -- decades ago in regard to Puffed
> Wheat cereal. But I never understood it. What is the havamina to say
> such a bracha?

Based on my recent investigation into these matters, I believe that we
do not generally hold that Chazal legislated the exact wording of
blessings. Rather, they decreed particular forms we must observe.

Thus, there is a discussion in the gemara about whether one says motzi
le'hem min ha-aretz or *ha*motzi...

Likewise Magen Avraham and others suggest that since a convert cannot
say shelo 'assani goy, since he wasn't made Jewish; he made himself,
therefore he should say she'assani ger or shehikhnissani ta'hat kanfei
hashekhinah. They do not have any source for this, and it seems that
they understand there to be an obligation to recite three shelo
'assani blessings (women 2, and indeed, they seem to be completing the
triad by adding she'assani kirtzono). Since the standard blessing
cannot be recited, a variant will do just fine. (To be fair, Mishnah
Verurah, which quotes the two views, also suggest not saying anything,
so this is no slam dunk reasoning.)

That also seems to be the reasoning behinds those who accept Vaye'etar
Yits'haq's correction of shelo 'assani goy to shelo 'assani nokhri,
based on the reasoning that lashon miqra 'adif. Why would that matter,
how can they correct blessings, when the Talmud and Tosefta and all
ancient sources have shelo 'assani goy? Probably for the same reason.

This same reasoning may be what prompts the 'al neqiyut yadayim and
'al peirot haadamah. Well founded hypercorrections, which ought to be
permissible, as they are in the spirit of the original rabbinic
enactment.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Newsflash: King David had Literate Servants
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons

 
From: Michael Makovi _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com) 

>>  The following question has occurred to me, and while I doubt any prior
Jewish  authorities ever thought about this issue, it still seems valid
to me. After  all, a sevara is d'oraita.

If you carefully read things like John Locke,  Cato's Letters [etc]
one constantly recurring principle is that the
government has only  those powers which the people grant it. ...
 


Now, I cannot go to my neighbor's house and take his money to feed  the
poor. Therefore, I cannot grant the government that power  either...


.... I'm sure that everything I've said so far is  utterly
foreign to the Tanakh, Gemara, Rambam, etc....
Nevertheless, the  Tanakh tells us that the PEOPLE choose a king.
.... And as I said, a  sevara is d'oraita. Everything I've said so
far, sounds perfectly logical on  paper.....



.....So my question is: given that we know that historically, the  Jewish
communities would assess tzedaqa like a tax, how could they do  this?

Michael Makovi

 
 
>>>>>
 
I'm guessing that they could do it because, in your case, a sevara is not a 
 de'oraisa after all.
 
You seem to think that if, in your own eyes, your logic is impeccable --  
then your logic has the full status of a de'oraisa.  But I'm guessing that  
your logic is peccable. 
 
For example -- who says that a government is "only a people's proxy"?   
Cato, Locke, Thomas Jefferson?   Are they Torah authorities?   Maybe a Torah 
government is G-d's proxy?
 

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100111/33a4becb/attachment-0001.htm>

My guess is that he wouldn't see or hear a thing. Nevua is not a physical 
sensation so why would anyone but the navi experience it?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>

>I was asked a question over shabbat
>
> If someone were near Moshe when he came to the burning burn:
> 1. Would he also have seen it was burning but not consumed
> 2. Would he have heard G-d talking to Moshe Rabbenu rl would
> have thought Moshe is talking to a bush

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:52:54PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >2- don't think the CI's boneh was about battery devices; only those that
: >plug into an ohel.

: If I correctly understand Rabbi Auerbach's description of Rabbi 
: Karelitz's opinion (which I sincerely doubt I do) it is that electric 
: current induces a qualitative change in the wire it flows through.  I 
: don't see how the current being drawn from a battery would affect that.

I thought that was the "bishul" argument. In any case, most batteries to
not push 120v, and therefore what it does to the wire is less significaant
-- barring wires designed for it, like a flashlight bulb filament.

I understood the CI as considering plugging something into the wall to
be adding to your home, thus the assumption that we're dealing with
plugs only.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 14
**************************************

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..."