Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 93

Mon, 20 May 2013

• 1. Re: 50 (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: 50 (Arie Folger)
• 3. Yovel (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Fw: More on Rabbi Riskin Permits Women to Read Ruth for Men (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 7. Re: Fw: More on Rabbi Riskin Permits Women to Read Ruth for Men (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Electricity on Shabbas - R' Asher Weiss (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Electricity on Shabbas - R' Asher Weiss (Chana Luntz)

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:08:26PM EDT, I responded to Lisa (quoted in
full, since over a month is "forever ago" in email list time):
:> I may have missed that.  What do you mean it doesn't count towards  
:> shmitta?  I thought the only question was whether Yovel is also the  
:> first year of the next shmitta cycle or not.

: That *is* what I mean.

: Say one yovel is the year after shemittah.

: According to the Chakhamim, we count 7 shemittos after it, adding up to
: 49 years, and the 50th yr is yovel again.

: According to R' Yehudah, yovel is also the first year toward the next
: shemitah; ie the next shemittah is only the 6th yr toward the yovel cycle
: and the 7th shemittah is only 48 years after yovel. Thus, the next yovel
: would be year 2 of the 8th cycle.

: And the one after that -- yr 3 of the 15th cycle, etc...

This idea that according to RY, yovel would drift against shamittah was
argued against, so I backed down. I now think I did so overly hastily.
Today's Y-mi Yomi, Qiddushin 6a-b (1:2) explicitly understands one side
of the machloqes as I did.

The gemara entertains the possibility that being freed on the 7th year
means the 7th year since sale.

R Chiya asks, if it meant the 7th year in terms of the world, who
is being freed by yovel? (All the avadim were freed the year before,
during shemittah?)

R' Yochanan b Maryyah answers that this question is according to the
one who says ein hayoveil oleh min haminyan.

    beram, keman de'amar hayoveil oleh miminyan shenei shavua
    pe'amim hu ba be'emtza sheni shavua.

Rather than assume this is a machloqes between the Y-mi and the Bavli,
I return to my original understanding of Rashi "mikan umikan" -- that
the year of yovel counts both toward yovel's 50 and shemittah's 7. And
NOT that it counts toward both the first and second yovel cycles.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Rather than assume this is a machloqes between the Y-mi and the Bavli,
> I return to my original understanding of Rashi "mikan umikan" -- that
> the year of yovel counts both toward yovel's 50 and shemittah's 7. And
> NOT that it counts toward both the first and second yovel cycles.
>

Fascinating. But I do think that if anything, this really rather looks like
a machloqet between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi.


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/8241e3ce/attachment-0001.htm>

As part of the discussion about Yovel I have a separate question:

Rambam paskens that the Torah law of Yovel ended when the 2 1/2
trobes were exiled in the middle of the first Temple era. For terumah the
Rambam paskens that it
is only rabbinical today since one needs "everyone" (kol) in Israel (not
clear what the word "kol" means). Nevertheless, he seems to imply that only
from the days of Ezra is terumah rabbinical and doesnt mention what he
mentioned in Yovel that it ceased from when the 2 1/2 tribes were exiled or
at least when the 10 tribes were exiled when certainly only a minority of
Jews lived in EY.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/7e819ac7/attachment-0001.htm>

R'nCL inquired about R'Asher Weiss' definition of significant action in
electronic and electric devices.

Almost two years ago, I heard him present this idea, and I fear that R'nCL
fundamentally misunderstands him by conflating his thinking with that of
the Chazon Ish. For RAW, there is nothing fundamentally assur with closing
an electric circuit on Shabbat, , that'snot a melakha, and prima facie any
comparison with water and plumbing is out of place.

What RAW considers a melakha is the fact that by operating electronic
circuits, the device comes alive, so to speak, and performs meaningful
tasks. If you want to probe, a better comparison would be what he would
think about a hydraulic or mechanical computer, like a Babbage engine:
http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/.

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/b115cd5e/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:

> According to Rav Weiss, the Yerushalmi holds - followed by
> Rambam - that any important accomplishment of purpose has to
> be melachah, even if it does not seem to fall into one of
> the categories in Perek Klal Gadol. It will perforce be
> subsumed by the melachah of makeh bepatish.

How does he define "important"? What is an "accomplishment of purpose"?

Makeh b'patish (as I was taught) is a catch-all, but only in regards to the
*manufacture* of some object.  If it can apply to using* an object, then
what becomes of folding tables and mechanical locks?

Let's take the example of a battery-operated solid-state microphone and
loudspeaker, which creates neither heat nor light, and merely produces an
amplification of the voice spoken. If this is an "important accomplishment
of purpose" and hence a melacha, then what would we say about a simple
megaphone made of a cone-shaped piece of paper or plastic? Doesn't it
perform the exact same "important accomplishment of purpose"? Would using
this megaphone also be a melacha?

I do NOT intend this example as a reductio ad absurdum, but as an ordinary
practical example of the concept being suggested: Exactly what does
"important accomplishment of purpose" mean?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Weird spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/519a0cda4ee4bcd96669st02vuc

Posted on Areivim


 From http://tinyurl.com/b7lnnwa

"The Efrat Rabbi answered that while men cannot keep the mitzvah of 
hearing the Esther Megillah by listening to a woman's reading, it 
would be allowable with other megillahs (Ecclesiastics, Song of 
Songs, Ruth and Lamentations)."

From the Efrat Discussion Group
[efrat] Response from Rav Riskin regarding women reading Megillat Rut on Shavuot 
 Q. May women read Megillat Rut from behind the mechitza on Shavuot morning? 


  A. Let us first analyze the one megillah which every individual is
  obligated to hear, men and women: Megillat Esther. The Talmud (Arakhin
  2b,3a) teaches that "Everyone is obligated to read Megillat Esther  and
  everyone is "kosher" to read the Megillah, including women." Rashi
  explains that "women's reading may fulfill the obligation for men" (ibid
  3a), and Maimonides agrees (Laws of the Megilla, Chapter 1, Law 1). The
  Sdei Hemed (Rabbi Hizkiyahu Medini 1832-1904) derives from this that the
  prohibition of Kol Isha does not apply to a sacred text, since women
  would therefore be permitted to read the megillah with the musical
  cantillations! 


  The Baalei Hatosafot (Arakhin 3a) bring down the view of the BeHaG (Baal
  Halakhot Gedolot,  Simeon Kayyara, 9th century) who maintains that women
  who read Megillat Esther cannot fulfill the obligation for men because
  men and women have differing obligations regarding the Scroll of Esther:
  the men are obligated to read the megillah whereas women are obligated
  only to hear the megillah. Therefore, most Ashkenaz congregations
  (including all the synagogues in Efrat) would not allow women to read
  Megillat Esther except for other women, but clearly this exception only
  pertains to the Scroll of Esther where there are different obligations
  between the sexes. 

   The Scroll of Ruth is not a personal obligation on the part of each
   individual, but is rather a communal obligation which devolves upon the
   entire community. Hence there is no distinction between men and women;
   so women can certainly read it for the entire congregation. 

   I truly believe that in the 21st century whatever it is permissible for
   women to do on halakhic grounds should be allowed for those women who
   wish to do them and in those congregations which are willing to
   accommodate them. The Lubavitcher Rebbe said very clearly to me that the
   greatest challenge facing 20th century Orthodox Jewry is making women
   feel included as much as possible within our religious ritual. The
   Talmud went even further when it overrode the hermeneutic teaching which
   excluded women from the activity of laying their hands upon a
   sacrificial offering to the Temple during the Festival; the Talmud
   insisted that women be allowed to do this ritual act "to give religious
   satisfaction to women." (Babylonian Talmud Hagiga 16b and Tosafot ad
   loc).  



R. Riskin ignores Tosaphot Sukah 38a explaining the Behag, Semag Esin
Derabbanan 4, and Magen Avraham 689:5, who maintain that the problem of
women reading Megilat Esther  for men is Kevod Hatzibbur ? which would
apply equally for Ruth as it would for Esther!

  
--------------------------------
Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/ece6abbe/attachment-0001.htm>

 I truly believe that in the 21st century whatever it is permissible for
 women to do on halakhic grounds should be allowed for those women who wish
 to do them and in those congregations which are willing to accommodate
 them. The Lubavitcher Rebbe said very clearly to me that the greatest
 challenge facing 20th century Orthodox Jewry is making women feel included
 as much as possible within our religious ritual. The Talmud went even
 further when it overrode the hermeneutic teaching which excluded women
 from the activity of laying their hands upon a sacrificial offering to the
 Temple during the Festival; the Talmud insisted that women be allowed to
 do this ritual act "to give religious satisfaction to women." (Babylonian
 Talmud Hagiga 16b and Tosafot ad loc).
------------------------------------------------
I wonder whether the 2 halves of this statement are aligned.  Is the
concept of "to give religious satisfaction to women" mentioned elsewhere in
the Talmud support of a leniency?  When tosfot says  "ein mmachin byadan"
is it a blanket assertion to encourage these activities?  Just wondering.
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/98b65a13/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/05/2013 10:19 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> What I did not know is that the recitation of
> Kaddish by more than one person at a time in Ashkenaz shuls was first
> introduced in the 19th century by the Reform movement.

Your quoted source does not say this.

It is true that it's relatively recent -- maybe not 19th century but
surely no earlier than 17th -- but it had nothing to do with Reform,
which on the contrary wanted to make the tefilos more orderly and
"German", with more performance and less participation.

> (Sephardim apparently have a tradition of reciting Kaddish this way due
> to the fact that they say all of the davening together.)

This makes no sense, because they *don't* all say kaddish together;
the kadeishim for the ShaTz are said only by the ShaTz, and the ones
for the aveilim are said only by the aveilim. And even in davening,
Sefardim don't just all say it in unison, like the joint kaddish; rather,
there is at all points one clear leader who davens in a loud voice while
everyone else says it along with him.


>  To effect such a change, Ettlinger adds, is "to walk in the footsteps
> of the Reformers of our time who have changed the form of prayer and
>  have introduced this custom."

So R Ettlinger did *not* claim that it was a Reform thing at all.
Where, then, did you get the idea that it was?

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 19/05/2013 10:19 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>   What I did not know is that the recitation of
> Kaddish by more than one person at a time in Ashkenaz shuls was first
> introduced in the 19th century by the Reform movement. (Sephardim
> apparently have a tradition of reciting Kaddish this way due to the fact
> that they say all of the davening together.)

I think you have misunderstood your quoted source in two ways.

1. "He *does not know* the reason for the Sephardic custom".  He does *not*
claim that it is due to their mode of davening, or has any connection to that.
He merely points out that since they're used to hearing more than one voice
at a time they're better able to distinguish them, and thus his objection
might not apply to them.

2. He does not claim that this change comes from the Reformers, but that to
adopt it at a time when we (the German Orthodox) are battling their changes
would weaken our position.

My *guess* is that the practise first came into Ashkenazi communities in
Eastern Europe from the Sefardim, by way of the general spread of Sefardi
customs among the proto-chassidim (i.e. those who were into kabalistic
things, who adopted the ShaLaH's siddur in whole or part, and were thus
the most open to and likely to adopt the Baal Shem Tov's teachings when
he came along).  From there it would have spread west, and might have hit
Germany in the 19th century, at about the same time as the Reform were
getting started, and thus at a time when the Orthodox were resisting all
change.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

RAF writes:
> R'nCL inquired about R'Asher Weiss' definition of significant action
> in electronic and electric devices.

> Almost two years ago, I heard him present this idea, and I fear that
> R'nCL fundamentally misunderstands him by conflating his thinking with
> that of the Chazon Ish.

I am somewhat surprised that you think I was conflating his thinking
with the Chazon Ish, as I thought I was contrasting them.

> For RAW, there is nothing fundamentally assur with closing an electric
> circuit on Shabbat, , that'snot a melakha,

That is what I understood from RYA's description, although since I was
going only on his summary, I was keen to check that this was indeed
a fundamental distinction between him and the Chazon Ish (to whom I
thought I was contrasting).

> and prima facie any comparison with water and plumbing is out of place.

I think here you are not understanding my analogy, which was not
(as I thought I stressed to RYA) to water and regular plumbing, but
specifically to the toilet flushing mechanism. A toilet is a machine
that is specifically designed to achieve a certain result, that of
flushing away waste. It harnesses water in order to do so. The fact
that, by discussing water, there is a linkage to RSZA's critque of the
Chazon Ish, may have made me think of the example, but otherwise it is
completely coincidental.

> What RAW considers a melakha is the fact that by operating electronic
> circuits, the device comes alive, so to speak, and performs meaningful
> tasks. If you want to probe, a better comparison >would be what he would
> think about a hydraulic or mechanical computer, like a Babbage engine:
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ .

But a toilet is a simple hydraulic system -- the difference is that
while a hydraulic or mechanical computer is not something in everyday
use, a toilet is. Thus a toilet is a case where by operating the flush
mechanism, you cause it to come alive and perform an extremely meaningful
task, that of washing away waste.

I am also not totally sure why a baby buggy is not in the same
category. After all, folded, it can perform no meaningful task. Once
unfolded it can perform the extremely meaningful task of holding a baby
and allowing it to be transported easily. In order to allow the baby
buggy using this definition, you presumably have to define providing a
receptacle as a non meaningful task or else say that turning it from a
folded thing into something that looks like a live buggy is not called
coming alive". But then how do you define either meaningful task or
coming alive?

>Arie Folger

Regards

Chana

RAF writes:
> R'nCL inquired about R'Asher Weiss' definition of significant action
> in electronic and electric devices.

> Almost two years ago, I heard him present this idea, and I fear that
> R'nCL fundamentally misunderstands him by conflating his thinking with
> that of the Chazon Ish.

I am somewhat surprised that you think I was conflating his thinking
with the Chazon Ish, as I thought I was contrasting them.

> For RAW, there is nothing fundamentally assur with closing an electric
> circuit on Shabbat, , that'snot a melakha,

That is what I understood from RYA's description, although since I was
going only on his summary, I was keen to check that this was indeed
a fundamental distinction between him and the Chazon Ish (to whom I
thought I was contrasting).

> and prima facie any comparison with water and plumbing is out of place.

I think here you are not understanding my analogy, which was not
(as I thought I stressed to RYA) to water and regular plumbing, but
specifically to the toilet flushing mechanism. A toilet is a machine
that is specifically designed to achieve a certain result, that of
flushing away waste. It harnesses water in order to do so. The fact
that, by discussing water, there is a linkage to RSZA's critque of the
Chazon Ish, may have made me think of the example, but otherwise it is
completely coincidental.

> What RAW considers a melakha is the fact that by operating electronic
> circuits, the device comes alive, so to speak, and performs meaningful
> tasks. If you want to probe, a better comparison >would be what he would
> think about a hydraulic or mechanical computer, like a Babbage engine:
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ .

But a toilet is a simple hydraulic system -- the difference is that
while a hydraulic or mechanical computer is not something in everyday
use, a toilet is. Thus a toilet is a case where by operating the flush
mechanism, you cause it to come alive and perform an extremely meaningful
task, that of washing away waste.

I am also not totally sure why a baby buggy is not in the same
category. After all, folded, it can perform no meaningful task. Once
unfolded it can perform the extremely meaningful task of holding a baby
and allowing it to be transported easily. In order to allow the baby
buggy using this definition, you presumably have to define providing a
receptacle as a non meaningful task or else say that turning it from a
folded thing into something that looks like a live buggy is not called
coming alive". But then how do you define either meaningful task or
coming alive?

>Arie Folger

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 93
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)