Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 37

Tue, 05 Apr 2016

• 1. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos ()
• 2. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Re: Black on black tefillin retzuos (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Re: Black on black tefillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Black on black tefillin retzuos (D Rubin)
• 7. 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Evidence of the United Monarchy (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Evidence of the United Monarchy (Lisa Liel)

 
From: Akiva Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>> There seems to be an idea that  Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible 
actions,
but in my experience this idea is  very new. ....
Let's say that there is a posek
who rules leniently on  these devices, and he bases his ruling on this
principle that tiny things can  be ignored. What precedent is there? What
lenient rulings existed 25 or 50  years ago, based on that same principle?

Akiva Miller

 
>>>>>
 
I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been 
 mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be 
 stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't 
mean to  kill.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20160403/35675977/attachment.html>

This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos.
The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos
is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have
all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs
here:
http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electroni
c-water-meters-on-shabbos.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160403/0b0be751/attachment-0001.htm>

I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to
expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the
story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white
(traditional retzuos):
1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part
(even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this
will pasul the retzua
2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as
well.

The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are
made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time
and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an
additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the
above 2 issues.
1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't
peel off or crack, it stays black
2. The sides are black as well.

The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush,  this is not the
traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't
the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the
gedolim today use black on black retzuos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160403/2871980f/attachment-0001.htm>

Another advantage of black-on-black:  Al pi din only the loop that
holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out.  The rest
of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the
kesher can face any way.  But if you have the white showing, inevitably
someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it
around themselves.  With black-on-black this won't happen.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no 
guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital 
world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some 
circuits somewhere.

Ben

On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote:
> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always 
> been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you 
> might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice 
> and didn't mean to kill.

Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT
From: Zev Sero
> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim?
> Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side?
> If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros.

Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit -
whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced
the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede
with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness
was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah
were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red,
as in Poroh Adumoh.)

Dovid Rubin

Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev 
started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah 
this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, 
unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or 
more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son 
started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion 
not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand 
why, some background about Double Adars is in order...

To understand why, read the article 
"<http://sable.madmimi.com/click?id=10500.20497.236.1.8fcf8d
da0d18b2461b6f223fc27b9a16>Insights 
Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah 
Observance in a Double Adar".

For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask.
<http://sable.madmimi.com/click?id=10500.20497.237.1.37a18e
36388c71430b8f09a83b7e2bff>Insights 
Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If 
you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To 
sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me.

kol tuv and Good Shabbos!
Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim
<mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>ysp...@ohr.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160403/ac09554e/attachment-0001.htm>

By Dr Lawrence Fishman
<http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-united-mo
narchy-rereading-the-bible-and-the-archaeological-evidence>
or <http://j.mp/1YcZHhB>. Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com:

   In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet
   Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of
   a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries
   BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient
   Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected....

   Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period]
   in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet
   properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to
   the construction of a historical picture of our period....

   The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a
   limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest.
   Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal
   (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled
   for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead,
   the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of
   Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years
   until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as
   a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his
   kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base,
   he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel....

Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree 
with his identifications.  The Iron II remains he's talking about are 
not from the United Monarchy.  Rather, they are from the Assyrian 
occupation and Samaritan settlement.  And in fact, they *match* the 
Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way 
match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that:

/The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period 
of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic 
or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the 
archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken 
together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be 
melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence 
from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, 
therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and 
archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken 
together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a 
sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions 
that we have received.//
/
This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the 
biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the 
remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy.  He also says:

/In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout 
Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city 
gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are 
very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used 
for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public 
buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./

Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is 
understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local 
governors from the same Assyrian empire.  But of course, the 
architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II 
buildings.  Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city 
gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas 
conquered by Assyria.  He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, 
and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the 
time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their 
withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem.

Lisa

On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> By Dr Lawrence Fishman
> <http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the
> -united-monarchy-rereading-the-bible-and-the-archaeological-evidence>
> or <http://j.mp/1YcZHhB>. Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com:
>
>



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



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


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


**************************************

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.)