Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 171

Fri, 04 Oct 2013

• 1. Re: Subject: Re: How many Korban Pesachs could be (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Which Witnesses are Liable? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. couple more questions (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: dishwasher on shabbos (Dov Weinstock)
• 6. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: Dishwasher on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 8. identity of Jews (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: identity of Jews (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Geshem or Gashem?! (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Midas Din, Midas Rachamim (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 12. Re: Midas Din, Midas Rachamim (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: identity of Jews (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: identity of Jews (Zev Sero)

On 2/10/2013 7:52 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> One o fthe other reasons brought for bnei Yisrael not bringing a
> korban pesach during the remaining period in the midbar (which
> Tosphos dovetails with this explanation of not being commanded, but
> which could stand on it own) is that the areilim were too numerous in
> subsequent years.  If they were too numerous in year 3 of the midbar,
> then presumably there would have been quite a lot of them by Year 2
> of the midbar (even though there should have been none at the time of
> Pesach mitzrayim - so that statement in iteself of the numerosity of
> the areilim would seem to bear some examination in the early years).

They started with no areilim, but every time a baby was born and not
circumcised, that excluded the father as well.   So the bulk of this
exclusion would have occurred during the first few years, as each family
had its first baby boy to be born after yetzias mitzrayim, and failed to
circumcise him.  Subsequent boys born in the same family would not add
to the number of excluded fathers.

-- 
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

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:29:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Being warned doesn't make a woman a sotah, and is not even a factor in making
> her a sotah...

To be brought up on charges of being a sotah, you need eidei qinui (Yad,
Sotah 1:2) and eidei setirah. So it's an overstatement to say the warning
isn't a factor. And as proof...

By "last eidim" the gemara in Sotah doesn't mean eidei setirah, but
whichever eidim arrive last. Say we first have eidei setirah, and then
eidei qinui, and it turns out all are zomemim, only the eidei qinui
are chayavim. Because at the time the eidei setirah testified, they
wouldn't have been mechayivim her in anything. Whereas, when the eidei
qinui opened their mouths, her punishment rested on their choosing
whether or not to perjure.

So the chiluq can't depend on eidei setirah being more really the eidim
than the eidei metzi'us.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I assume that he is using the dishwasher as a place to store
> dishes on Shabbos, which is permitted.  But if so, and during
> the week he is used to switch it on after loading it, then it
> may be a sensible precaution, maybe even an obligatory
> precaution, to cover it so he'll remember not to, just as people
> cover the bathroom light switch because switching it on as one
> enters and off as one leaves has often become an autonomic
> function.

(Just as an aside, I never heard of an obligation to cover light switches,
and in my home we do not cover them except when we have guests who aren't
Shomer Shabbos yet.)

While others are taking a very lomdish approach to this question, by
investigating gerifa and ketima and such, my own approach is more
practical. First, I asked myself what the difference is between the stove
and the hot water faucet. I reasoned that I *am* using the heat of the
stove (without actually cooking) and that's why it needs to be covered, in
contrast to the hot water faucet which I am not uusing at all.

But that would mean that if I am using the light of a bulb, then it too
needs to be covered even though I'm not doing any melacha with it, just
like the stove. So I looked for another case which might clarify the issue.

And I think I found it: a warming tray. My understanding is that a warming
tray does NOT need any sort of blech, and that the reason is because it
cannot be adjusted for greater or lesser heat. Another part of the reason
is that it is never used for actual cooking, but that's not relevant here.
Let me just point out that there's no requirement for the heat of the
warming tray to actually stay below yad soledes bo: A warming tray *could*
be used for bishul, but it's not usual to do so.

I will now point out that although a warming tray (of the type which
Hilchos Shabbos allows to stay uncovered) cannot be adjusted for greater or
lesser heat, it most certainly can be turned on and off. Some have a switch
for this purpose, and others are plugged in and unplugged. I am unaware of
any requirement for the on/off switch to be covered, or for the plug to be
secured to the wall socket.

All the above draws me to the conclusion that Chazal were very worried that
we'd accidentally ADJUST a fire for cooking, and instituted halachos of
covering the fire to protect us from that accident. But they were NOT
worried that we'd go so far as to light or extinguish a fire entirely.
Covering is required when the fear is adjustment, but not when the fear is
on/off.

And that, I suggest, is what makes light switches and dishwashers and hot water faucets different from stoves.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/524ccc3ab9fcf4c3a2b4est03vuc

<<> 2.  yamim noraim  leyning  nusach--- are  there different minhagim as to
> whether  the  maftir  and YK  mincha leyning  uses this tune  or not?>>


from dailyhalacha

The Shulhan Aruch, in discussing the laws of fast days (Orah Haim 566),
rules that somebody who must eat on a fast day may not receive an Aliya to
the Torah. The question arises as to whether this applies also on Yom
Kippur, if a patient or elderly person is advised by doctors that he must
eat or drink, and, after consulting with his Rabbi, he eats or drinks
?Pahot Pahot Mi?ke?shi?ur? ? meaning, small amounts at a time, as required
by Halacha. Such a person clearly acts in full accordance with the Halacha,
as he is allowed (and in fact required) to eat to maintain his health. If,
for example, such a person purchased an Aliya in the synagogue, may he be
called to the Torah? This question also arises in the case of somebody who
requires medication, and takes a sip of water to swallow his pill on Yom
Kippur. May he receive an Aliya to the Torah on Yom Kippur?

Rav Haim Palachi (Izmir, Turkey, 1788-1869), in several places in his
writings (Leb Haim, vol. 3 Siman 134; Mo?ed Le?chol Hai, Siman Tob, #8),
rules that one who eats or drinks on Yom Kippur may not be called for an
Aliya, even though he eats or drinks in accordance with the Halacha, just
like on other fasts. Rav Haim Palachi notes that the Yom Kippur Torah
reading speaks of the requirement of Inui (afflicting oneself), and it is
therefore inappropriate for a person who is not observing this command ?
even if he is legitimately exempt ? to receive an Aliya to the Torah.

However, the Hatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer of Pressburg, 1762-1839), in
his responsa (157), as well as Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837), in his
Hiddushim (24), rule leniently on this issue. They note a fundamental
distinction between the Torah reading on ordinary fast days and the reading
on Yom Kippur. On ordinary fast days, the Torah is read solely because of
the fast; it is the observance of a fast day that obligates the
congregation to read the Torah. Therefore, it stands to reason that a
person who, even for legitimate reasons, is not participating in the fast
may not participate in the congregational Torah reading by receiving an
Aliya to the Torah. On Yom Kippur, however, the Torah reading is required
by force of the day?s status as a Yom Tob. Just as we read the Torah on
Shabbat, Pesah and other Yamim Tobim, we read the Torah on Yom Kippur, as
well. On Yom Kippur, then, the Torah reading is not dependent upon the fast
specifically; it is required due to the occasion of the Yom Tob. Therefore,
on Yom Kippur, somebody who does not fast may nevertheless receive an Aliya
to the Torah.


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


someone not fasting for health reasons can get an aliyah on YK for mincha.

 RYBS connects this question as to whether the layning on mincha of YK is a
halacha of YK or a halacha of a regular fast day.
What niggun to use would also depend whether the mincha YK layning is
because it is YK or because it is a regular fasr day

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131003/ffb8c6d7/attachment-0001.htm>

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:25:23AM +0300, Eitan Levy wrote:
> > The logic for covering the stove with a Blech (and covering the dials)
> > is, as I understand it, to prevent one from using it in the normal way he
> > would on a weekday..
>


> There's a critical piece of info that has so far been left out of the
> discussion...the blech is 'on' (i.e.generating heat that would cause
> bishul), the dishwasher is not 'on'! If you think it's still a problem,
> then you should not be allowed to place the soup that you remove from the
> blech onto the stovetop which is off.



> I'm sure some would think that this is a wise thing to (not) do, and I
> would not argue with anyone who considers this a risk for themselves. But
> to suggest that the halakha requires this, based on bishul/garuf ve-katum,
> seems (IMHO) to lack any basis.



>
> Dov Weinstock
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131003/385d2a46/attachment-0001.htm>

AIUI the worry was that the food wouldn't be ready for Friday night and 
that the cook would stir the coals to speed things up. There is no worry 
about this for Saturday morning food.

It isn't accidents that we worried about, but panic attacks.

Ben

On 10/3/2013 3:44 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
>
> All the above draws me to the conclusion that Chazal were very worried
> that we'd accidentally ADJUST a fire for cooking, and instituted
> halachos of covering the fire to protect us from that accident. But
> they were NOT worried that we'd go so far as to light or extinguish a
> fire entirely. Covering is required when the fear is adjustment, but
> not when the fear is on/off.

On 2/10/2013 9:44 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> (Just as an aside, I never heard of an obligation to cover light
> switches, and in my home we do not cover them except when we have
> guests who aren't Shomer Shabbos yet.)

I'm not talking about a formal gezeira, or an obligation specific to that
situation; I'm suggesting that there is a general obligation to avoid
inadvertent chilul shabbos, and therefore *if* at least one member of the
household automatically turns the bathroom light on when he enters and
off when he leaves, without thinking about it (i.e. "mis`asek"), then there
is an obligation to prevent it by covering that switch.  If this is not the
case in that household, then there would be no need to cover it.  And there
would certainly be no obligation to cover a switch that people don't
automatically switch on or off.

And I'm suggesting that this may be what the original person meant by a
chiyuv to cover the dishwasher dials.  It makes sense to me that such a
chiyuv may exist, *if* the person finds that when they load the washer,
their hands automatically switch it on.


-- 
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

(got this question in Israel so I dropped the US -)

I was asked this morning if na Jew whose parents and later himeself
consciously did not have a brit milah was Jewish and could marry a Jew.

Halachically I only know about korban Pesach. However, obviously in his
mind there was a serious question.

My gut reaction was that not having a brit is not worse than chillul
shabbat but would like to hear possible other opinions. (The questioneer
felt that since milah is a brit it might have more implications)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131004/ee008f19/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Kook has a tsheuva where he forbids performing a chuppa for someone 
who refuses to have a brit mila.

Ben
>
>
> My gut reaction was that not having a brit is not worse than chillul 
> shabbat but would like to hear possible other opinions. (The 
> questioneer felt that since milah is a brit it might have more 
> implications)
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131004/dcfed785/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903

This past week, on Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction[1] 
and codified by the Shulchan Aruch[2], world Jewry started reciting 
"Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic 
insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid HaGashem", in the second bracha of 
Shmoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by 
mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and 
ability to make rain, is considered so imperative, that one who 
forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shmoneh Esrei[3].

As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an 
interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the 
Hebrew word for rain ( )in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol 
under the letter Gimmel) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the 
letter Gimmel)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when 
saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be 
changed when part of a sentence.

See the above URL for more.  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131004/574144a0/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from Yad Avraham Institute.
I have a question that has bothered me for years
and goes to the basis of our theology:

The Torah states regarding Creation, ?
Bereishis bara Elokeem ais hashemayim v?ais haaretz
? In the  beginning G?d created the heaven and the earth??
Rashi cites Chazal who explain that the Torah refers to
G?d with the appellation of ? Elokeem.?  ?Elokeem?
connotes the Attribute of Justice. This indicates that G?d?s
initial intent was to bring about Creation within the context
of the Attribute of Justice. Creation was to exist within the
context of exacting and precise judgment with no tolerance
for any deviation. However, after G?d created man, the
Torah refers to G?d as ?Hashem Elokeem (Hashem G?d).?
The appellation ?Hashem ? (YKVK) connotes G?d?s
Attribute of Mercy. G?d understood that world could not
exist within the context of the Attribute of Justice, because
Man is prone to fail. He therefore, coalesced His Attribute
of Mercy into the Attribute of Justice for the sake of the
continuation of existence. Although the Attribute of
Mercy would be in effect it is only to mitigate G?d?s Justice.

The above has been taught a thousand and one times.
Here is my question.
Simply put:
Didn't G-d know from the beginning (pardon the pun) that
the world could not exist alone on the strict attribute of justice?!
Why did it take him a few verses to realize this? I know about 
anthropomorphism, etc. But the inference is that G-d realized 
His creation was doomed NOT from the start. Along the same 
thread, I don't know the source exactly, but I do remember learning
that according to some sources (possibly the gemara), G-d created
and destroyed several worlds prior to ours. And the reason was that
they were not satisfactory. Would you think G-d knew this? It's basically
the same theological question.

I think the point to remember is that all of what you're mentioning is 
midrashic in character.  And midrashically, we can talk about Hashem 
trying something and then trying something else, when the underlying 
reality is Hashem *not* doing things one way because He knew that they 
were non-starters.  In other words, the use of Elokim and Hashem Elokim 
in those chapters is an answer to the question: Why isn't the world one 
of simple cause and effect?  Natural laws playing out a mechanistic 
universe?  Just because Hashem created the world doesn't mean that He 
couldn't have done so and then ignored us, as the Deists claimed to 
believe.  The Torah answers that you can think of Hashem *as* having 
done that initially, (even though He didn't really) and then adding 
rachamim in because the world couldn't survive with nothing but a 
mechanistic universe (even though the reality is that the rachamim was 
there from the get-go).

The same thing applies to the many universes that were destroyed before 
ours was created.  Those are metaphorical, and teach us (among other 
things) that the universe we live in needn't have been the way that it 
is.  That Hashem could have created it differently.  But that the way He 
actually *did* create it, He did so because that was the version that 
could survive.

These are easier questions because they predate human bechirah.  Once 
that enters in, we have the thornier question of how we can reconcile 
our bechirah with Hashem's omniscience.  But I don't think you were 
asking about that.

Lisa

On 10/3/2013 11:20 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> The following is from Yad Avraham Institute.
> I have a question that has bothered me for years
> and goes to the basis of our theology:
>
> The Torah states regarding Creation, ?
> Bereishis bara Elokeem ais hashemayim v?ais haaretz
> ? In the  beginning G?d created the heaven and the earth??
> Rashi cites Chazal who explain that the Torah refers to
> G?d with the appellation of ? Elokeem.?  ?Elokeem?
> connotes the Attribute of Justice. This indicates that G?d?s
> initial intent was to bring about Creation within the context
> of the Attribute of Justice. Creation was to exist within the
> context of exacting and precise judgment with no tolerance
> for any deviation. However, after G?d created man, the
> Torah refers to G?d as ?Hashem Elokeem (Hashem G?d).?
> The appellation ?Hashem ? (YKVK) connotes G?d?s
> Attribute of Mercy. G?d understood that world could not
> exist within the context of the Attribute of Justice, because
> Man is prone to fail. He therefore, coalesced His Attribute
> of Mercy into the Attribute of Justice for the sake of the
> continuation of existence. Although the Attribute of
> Mercy would be in effect it is only to mitigate G?d?s Justice.
>
> The above has been taught a thousand and one times.
> Here is my question.
> Simply put:
> Didn't G-d know from the beginning (pardon the pun) that
> the world could not exist alone on the strict attribute of justice?!
> Why did it take him a few verses to realize this? I know about
> anthropomorphism, etc. But the inference is that G-d realized
> His creation was doomed NOT from the start. Along the same
> thread, I don't know the source exactly, but I do remember learning
> that according to some sources (possibly the gemara), G-d created
> and destroyed several worlds prior to ours. And the reason was that
> they were not satisfactory. Would you think G-d knew this? It's basically
> the same theological question.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>    

Not having a brit seems clearly to be worse than chillul Shabbat, at 
least in some ways.  It's one of only two mitzvot asei whose 
non-performance carries a chiyuv kareit.  Both are associated with the 
basic formation of our national identity in a way that few, if any, 
other mitzvot do.

As far as refusing to allow a mesarev brit milah to marry another Jew... 
the person himself is certainly still Jewish.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be 
a transgression for him to refuse the brit.  And disallowing his 
marriage to another Jew would also be a tacit encouragement for him to 
marry a non-Jew, which is itself forbidden.  Though I can see a rav 
doing so in certain cases.

And there's always the potential for teshuva.  Perhaps he'll change his 
mind.  Perhaps his wife will change his mind.

Lisa


On 10/4/2013 4:05 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> (got this question in Israel so I dropped the US -)
>
> I was asked this morning if na Jew whose parents and later himeself
> consciously did not have a brit milah was Jewish and could marry a Jew.
>
> Halachically I only know about korban Pesach. However, obviously in his
> mind there was a serious question.
>
> My gut reaction was that not having a brit is not worse than chillul 
> shabbat but would like to hear possible other opinions. (The 
> questioneer felt that since milah is a brit it might have more 
> implications)
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131004/a7404641/attachment-0001.htm>

On 4/10/2013 5:05 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I was asked this morning if na Jew whose parents and later himeself
> consciously did not have a brit milah was Jewish and could marry a Jew.

Of course he is.  Even a meshumad, from a long line of meshumadim, is
Jewish.   The minhag of requiring tevilah and kabalas hamitzvos is just
a medieval takanah to drive home to people the seriousness of shmad;
obviously it can't override the Torah law that the person is and remains
a Jew.

-- 
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


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


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 171
***************************************

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.)