Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 101

Mon, 23 Jul 2012

• 1. Netillat Yadayim with no towel (Liron Kopinsky)
• 2. Holier Than Thou (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 3. iyov (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: iyov (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: iyov (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Holier Than Thou (Micha Berger)
• 7. Why is north above? (lreich)
• 8. Iyov (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Why is north above? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Iyov (Micha Berger)
• 11. magnets on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (D&E-H Bannett)
• 13. Re: LED "tealights" for Shabbos candles (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Nacheim (D&E-H Bannett)
• 15. tehillin (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: tehillin (menucha)
• 17. Re: magnets on Shabbat (Doron Beckerman)
• 18. Re: Holier Than Thou (menucha)
• 19. Re: magnets on Shabbat (Lisa Liel)

I was at a restaurant today and they had a washing station, but no towels.
They only had an electric hand dryer.

Does anyone know what one should do in such a situation?

Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120722/1fe71d54/attachment-0001.htm>

> Some people consider basketball or other exercise to be an unwarranted  
> waste of time when youngsters could be learning every moment of every day.   
> Others believe that a break from learning can help youngsters go back to their
> learning later refreshed and healthy, with a new enthusiasm.  I am with 
> the  latter group. 

So am I!  

> I reject completely the validity of this subject line:  "bittul torah  for 
> a talmid chochom's levaya." 

So do I. When I saw the subject to begin with, I couldn't believe
the nit picking. What often lacks in topics such as these is common
sense. Why is it that nobody raises the question of bittul Torah
regarding other mitzvot, such as hachnosess orchim, bikur cholim and
hachnosess kallah? Did you forget that l'vayas hameis is also a mitzvah,
(let alone one for a godol hador)?

What makes me laugh is that there is such irrationality regarding the
subject of this topic and yet you don't see discussions on the aveira
of overeating to the point of slowly killing yourself and the aveira of
smoking due to harming yourself. Also, anything done for your health,
such as youngsters exercising, is a mitzvah and yet there are those who
look upon it as bittul Torah.

In our recent discussion of how long Iyov lived in should be noted that
some opinions held that Iyov was nonJewish and others that he was Jewish
and so they cant all agree.

However, the discussion reminded me of a dvar torah I recently saw (Meorot
haDaf) about Og. It turns out that there are several versions of his history

1) Og held onto Noah's ark and was not burned by the waters because he was
a tzaddik. After the flood he became a slave to Noah and over the
generations eventually to Abraham and he is Eliezer the servant of Abraham
who informs Abraham that Lot is in danger. Later Eliezer/Og becomes king in
Bashan and eventually is killed by Moshe (Pirke de_rebbe Eliezer)

2)  Tosafot on the parsha says that if Og was a tzaddik how did he fight a
war against the Jews. Rather Tosafot argur that Og is a kingly name like
Paraoh and the Og killed by Moshe is a descendant of the Oq in the days of
Noah

3 )Derech Eretz Zuta lists 9 who entered Gad Eden in their lifetime
including Eliezer the servant of Abraham - so he couldn't be Og who was
killed by Moshe

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 07:15:50AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In our recent discussion of how long Iyov lived in should be noted that
: some opinions held that Iyov was nonJewish and others that he was Jewish
: and so they cant all agree.

And in one opinion he was fictional which is definitely a machloqes with
the ones who say he wasn't.

That gemara was quoted in reponse to my citing the gemara on the previous
amud which says Moshe wrote seifer Iyov. Some of the opinions place
Iyov well after Moshe in history. (Which would be a challenge, but not
an insurmountable one to those who attribute Al Naharos Bavel to David
haMelekh.) I just pointed out that the gemara says the discussion is
about how long he lived, since it was also darshened that he had the
lifetime of a tree.

From that perspective, each consequent opinion makes the neis of his
longevity longer and longer. Rather than saying they were disagreeing
that he lived in Moshe's day.

I think one should be making the default assumption that the uncontested
point on the prior amud remains unconstested unless the debate is actually
forced upon you. If nothing else, if there was a machloqes we couldn't
be sure of ourselves, why isn't it written out there? So, despite the
dispute whether Iyov was fictional, a non-Jew or a Jew, I think we should
be assuming they agree Moshe wrote seifer Iyov. And if that implies,
as RLbL says in the gemara, that Iyov was alive in Moshe's lifetime (or
a narrative set to take place in Moshe's lifetime), then I am assuming
they agree on that point until I'm forced to conclude otherwise.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:25:21AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If you go from the earliest time in the days of Yaakov to the return from
: Bavel
: it is much longer than 1000 years (I havent worked it out exactly). Hard to
: believe that some Jew lived through all of that without any hint in Tanach.

Isn't the whole gemara about hints in Tanakh?

And besides, how many people in a nation have historical impact? Why would
someone, no matter how long they lived, necessarily show up explicitly in
text describing the personal lives of kings and neviim and national-level
events?

: BTW if he did live some 1200 years when did the story of iyov occur in his
: lifetime?

Toward the beginning, if RLbL assumes the overlap between Iyov's life
and MRAH's supports the idea that Moshe wrote the book. It would imply
that the events described didn't require miraculous foreknowledge to be
recorded in Moshe's day.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 07:18:22AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
:        Why is it that nobody raises the question of bittul Torah
: regarding other mitzvot, such as hachnosess orchim, bikur cholim and
: hachnosess kallah? Did you forget that l'vayas hameis is also a mitzvah,
: (let alone one for a godol hador)?

I think the question begins when speaking of the levayah for someone
who himself wouldn't go to too many levayos because of bitul Torah. Or
at least, that's how the anonymous "they" portray him.

As for basketball and Torah... I think that someone who strikes the
right balance between excercise and mitzvos will end up being capable
of more mitzvos over the course of his lifetime, anyway.

-Micha

Rashi on Bamidbar 34:11 and Devarim 3:1 says  that North is upwards.

Nowadays the prevailing convention is for maps to be printed with north on 
top.
In earlier times this was not so; often east was so favored.

So what is  the origin of Rashi's assumption.

Is there any connection with the Pole star being nearly overhead?

Leslie Reich 

>
>
> <<That gemara was quoted in reponse to my citing the gemara on the previous
> amud which says Moshe wrote seifer Iyov. Some of the opinions place
> Iyov well after Moshe in history.  I just pointed out that the gemara says
> the discussion is
> about how long he lived, since it was also darshened that he had the
> lifetime of a tree. From that perspective, each consequent opinion makes
> the neis of his
> longevity longer and longer. Rather than saying they were disagreeing
> that he lived in Moshe's day.>>


As I understand it Micha and I have a basic disagreement. He is trying to
limit the machloket in the gemara while I am more disturbed by claims that
people lived extraordinarily long lives (over 1000 years) . While others
take the gemara literally that Pinchas was Eliyahu I prefer
the interpretations that the gemara is pointing out similarities between
the two. Similarly the gemara identifies calev ben yefune with calev ben
chetzron and others have remarked about the problem. In addition I am not
happy about Moshe writing about an event centuries after his life when we
are not talking about nevuah.
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120723/ddb1d6e7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:14:36AM +0100, lreich wrote:
> Rashi on Bamidbar 34:11 and Devarim 3:1 says  that North is upwards.
> Nowadays the prevailing convention is for maps to be printed with north 
> on top.
> In earlier times this was not so; often east was so favored.

In fact, we see this in leshon haqodesh.

While east and west are usually the places where the sun rises (mizarach)
and sets (maarav) respectively, the east is also qadimah, in front of
you in your mental image. And when you face east, teiman is on your yemin.

(It's also true of the English "orientation", where you learn which way
is up, from the Middle English "orient" -- east, which in turn is from
the Latin "oriens", "rising" as in sunrise.)

So, good question.

..
> Is there any connection with the Pole star being nearly overhead?

Polaris's angle above the horizon is equal to your lattitude. So, for
Rashi living in Troyes (and Vermaiza/Worms would be little different),
the north star would be 48.3deg, or a liggle more than half-way up.
More relevent to aggadic thinking, at the Har haBayis it would be just
under 32deg above the horizon -- not much more than a third.

I don't see how that would be thought of as "overhead".

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 01:41:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: limit the machloket in the gemara while I am more disturbed by claims that
: people lived extraordinarily long lives (over 1000 years) . While others
: take the gemara literally that Pinchas was Eliyahu I prefer
: the interpretations that the gemara is pointing out similarities between
: the two...

I think the difference between us is more than I'm keeping two different
layers separate. When the gemara says that Pinchas was Eliyahu, we
don't take this to mean the gemara didn't really say that. Rather,
we explain it as a metaphoric statement emphasizing their similarity.

There is also a difference in that you insist such stories must be
metaphoric, whereas I try to remain agnostic. LAD, the question of
historicity is tangetial to talmud Torah. But that really doesn't
separate our positions here.

Here I believe there are two strong reasons to believe the gemara is
talking about long age:

1- The gemara itself says it's talking about long lives, comparing
Iyov's lifespan to a tree.

2- On the previous amud Iyov is attributed to Moshe. Here, there is a
linkage made between that and Iyov being alive in Moshe's day. There is
nothing in the gemara explicating that anyone disagrees with the stam
gemara, so why not read the gemara so that *everyone* has Iyov alive
in Moshe's day?

Therefore, I would not take the claims of Iyov's tree-like age as anything
but claims of Iyov's long age. If that means the gemara may be metaphoric,
then AFTER we get peshat we can explore what the metaphor is. That's
what I mean by keeping the layers separate. The gemara says Pinechas is
Eliyahu; THEN you can peel away the historical or mythical claim to get
to what Torah they're trying to relay. The gemara says Iyov lived a
long time; THEN you can peel away the historical or mythical claim to
get to what Torah they're trying to relay.

And for that matter, I would say that's true whether Eliyahu really was
Pinechas or not and whether Iyov really existed and lived a millennium
or more or not. Or whether the historical/mythical claim is a common
occurance or abnormally miraculous. I think worrying about historicity
is a modern problem. Chazal only repeated naarative about the past for
their messages. If it happened to also be historical, that's tangential
and pretty irrelevent.

Including ascribing authorship of Iyov to Moshe Rabbeinu. It too is an
aggadita and thus is a message relayed via a story that may or may not
be historical. We don't care too much as a historical point who wrote
Iyov. Rather, Chazal are making a statement about how seriously to take
the implications of the book -- it is something worthy of Moshe.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Shmirat Shabbat prohibits putting or removing magnets from a refrigerator
(if they will be there for a long time) on shabbat

I dont really understand the coonection to sewing (tofer) and in my
experience people are not careful.
Any opinions?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120723/34f7dd67/attachment-0001.htm>

Re: <<whether you can make a Beracha or not on electric 
lights
and specifically fluorescent bulbs (the same would apply to 
LEDs).>>

Sorry, LEDs are not the same as fluorescents.  LEDs are cold 
light and therefore not eish which requires heat and light. 
The light from the fluorescent material that coats the tube 
is cold light. Every fluorescent, however, includes two 
sources of bright white incandescent light at the 
electrodes, one at each end of the tube. So, turning on a 
fluorescent is halakhically equivalent to turning on two 
incandescent bulbs and one LED.


David 

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 06:02:53PM +0300, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> Re: <<whether you can make a Beracha or not on electric lights
> and specifically fluorescent bulbs (the same would apply to LEDs).>>
...
>                                                         Every 
> fluorescent, however, includes two sources of bright white incandescent 
> light at the electrodes, one at each end of the tube. So, turning on a  
> fluorescent is halakhically equivalent to turning on two incandescent 
> bulbs and one LED.

Yes, but we're not talking about melekhes Shabbos, we're talking about
neir Shabbos. And the light you're using to make your meal brighter it
the flourescent, not the filaments that cause it to flouresce.

I did think of one possible way the issur melakhah could be connected
to derabbanan of neir Shabbos. The purpose of the gezeira is to make
sure there is light at the meal even though you can't light anything
once Shabbos began. So it is possible that the taqanah explicitly only
includes lighting something that is assur deOraisa to light after sheqiah.

But even so, in a flourescent the thing your using as neir is not the
actual glowing filament.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Re: <<What is the halachic objection to changing the text of 
Necheim on Tisha B'Av?>>

As one does not change matbeia shekav'u chakhamim, the only 
person who should change the text is one who does not want 
his tefila to contain untruths and prefers that its peshat 
makes sense.


David 

Micha wrote
<<  (Which would be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one to those who
attribute Al Naharos Bavel to David haMelekh.) >>

Another question is tehillim 79 which begins "mizmor le-asaf" and talks
about the destruction of the Temple.
The midrash asks why start with mizmor which indicates a song and answers
that G-d spent his wrath on stones rather than destroying the nation.

The question is why or how is Asaf writing a chapter in tehillin about the
future destruction of the temple
not clear who asaf was see for example
http://intro.teachtorah.org/<;http://tro.teachtorah.org/*>Tehillim
Authorship.ppt
where most hold he is contemporaneous with king David.  see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_of_Asaph

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120723/3168269b/attachment-0001.htm>

> Micha wrote
> (Which would be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one to 
> those who attribute Al Naharos Bavel to David haMelekh.)

Gittin 57b "hirahu HKBH leDavid churban Bayit Rishon vechurban Bayit
Sheni. Which gives us an easy answer as far as Al Naharot Bavel, but
not one which can necessarily be extrapolated to other cases.

menucha

I don't see how it fits in with either definition of Tofer in Igros Moshe
(Orach Chaim II:84) - either it has to become one unit, or you have to do
an act that people would view as "keri'ah" to separate the two items. Also,
Terumas Hadeshen 296 says that if it separates easily it is not considered
a Chibbur vis-a-vis Tofer.

The English books on Muktzeh (Rabbis Bodner and Cohen) both classify
magnets as kli shemelachto lehetter, and Orchos Shabbos only raises a hava
amina regarding boneh, not tofeir.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120723/8fae35e7/attachment-0001.htm>

cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>>I reject completely the validity of this subject line:  "bittul torah  for 
>>a talmid chochom's levaya." 

>So am I!  

The subject line is using the wording of the Shulchan Aruch YD361
Halvayat hamet ubitul Talmud Torah lehalvayato.

menucha

Some fridge magnets, if you keep them on the fridge for too long, really 
get stuck.  To the point that they pull off a little finish if you take 
them off.  The rubbery kind, at least.  Maybe that's what he was 
referring to?

On 7/23/2012 12:11 PM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
> I don't see how it fits in with either definition of Tofer in Igros 
> Moshe (Orach Chaim II:84) - either it has to become one unit, or you 
> have to do an act that people would view as "keri'ah" to separate the 
> two items. Also, Terumas Hadeshen 296 says that if it separates easily 
> it is not considered a Chibbur vis-a-vis Tofer.
> The English books on Muktzeh (Rabbis Bodner and Cohen) both classify 
> magnets as kli shemelachto lehetter, and Orchos Shabbos only raises a 
> hava amina regarding boneh, not tofeir.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120723/6f2be9b4/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 101
***************************************

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..."