Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 131

Sat, 22 Oct 2016

• 1. Re: Waterproof S'chach? Really? (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: A quantum of time (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: A quantum of time (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Waterproof S'chach? Really? (Akiva Miller)
• 5. CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? (Professor L. Levine)
• 6. Re: CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: CARRYING ON YOM TOV: IS IT ALWAYS PERMITTED? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: teshuva (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Waterproof S'chach? Really? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Waterproof S'chach? Really? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Waterproof S'chach? Really? (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: Waterproof S'chach? Really? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Shva na (saul newman)

PS My LOR pointed out that this should be posul even according to the 
Rosh, because the half-pipes in the bottom layer, which were sawn in 
half *for the purpose* of inserting the half-pipes of the top layer, are 
klei kibul and thus mekabel tum'ah.


-- 
Zev Sero                Wishing everyone a good aquittal
z...@sero.name

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time.
> Any two statements made within that span is close enough to
> simultaneous as to make no difference.

That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal
established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he
change his mind?" In other words, if one corrected his words fast enough,
we presume it to be an uninterrupted flow of thoughts, and the second
speech is a automatic correction kicking in. But if the delay was longer
than TKD, then there is room to question what's happening, because he may
have changed his mind in the interim.

I think this makes a *lot* of sense in the context of testimony in court.
But I think that it might apply even in a case where one corrected himself
in davening ("HaKel HaKado--- HaMelech HaKadosh"). The immediate correction
might be seen On High as a plea to ignore the first speech, because the
second one is what he had intended to say.

> Now, if someone greets their rebbe at the respectful speed of a
> mere 3 syllables per second, then the 10 syllables of "Shalom
> eilekha rebbe umori" would take approximately 3-1/3 sec, or 1
> cheileq. And I suggest that this one indeed the intent, because
> a cheileq is the quantum of time when it comes to computing the
> calendar.
>
> The two uses of time are quite different, so the quanta needn't
> be equal. But it would be elegant if tokh kedei dibbur was a
> way to estimate out a cheileq, that both did indeed describe
> the same unit.

It would indeed be elegant. I have vague memories of a sefer that defined
the length of a TKD as a certain fraction of a mil. Unfortunately I do not
remember what it said nor which sefer it was. (In contrast, it is trivial
to calculate a Kedei Hiluch Daled Amos, as it is exactly 1/500 of a mil.)

I am intrigued by this notion of a halachic quantum of time. I would like
to offer another argument in favor of this, which I think is even stronger
than RMB's example. And then I will argue that TKD is *not* a halachic
quantum of time.

Pro:

Mishne Brura 55:4 -- "The Halachos Ketanos 48 writes that when two or three
people are saying kaddish together and one precedes the other, if they each
come within a TKD, then one may respond Amen with the first or with the
last, and it counts for them all. But if there is a pause, he should answer
to each one."

I would have expected the halacha to tell us that we should answer the last
Kaddish, and that the Amen would count even for the first, because, after
all, the Amen was said less than a TKD after the first Kaddish. But that's
*not* what the MB says; he says that one may respond in between the two.
Imagine that! One may answer Amen *before* the second Kaddish, and it
counts!

Apparently, his logic is that the two Kaddishes are viewed as simultaneous,
because only where the two Kaddishes are separated by a TKD does he concede
the existence of a "pause" - or, in his words, a "hefsek".

Con:

I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is
the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10
syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer
than it takes to say an average word.

In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is
"one should not cut it off, and rush to answer before the blesser completes
it." Mishne Brurah 124:30 explains more fully: "One should wait until the
Shatz totally completes every last word. There are some people who begin to
answer while the Shatz is still standing in the last half-word, and this is
assur."

Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than
a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for
Kaddish, it is not so for brachos.

This MB reminds of a riddle from when I grew up, in the era before sushi
and General Cho's chicken:

Q: What's the bracha on Chinese food?
A: (sung with great chazzanus) Hamevarech Es Amo Yisrael Ba-Chowmein.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161021/07466e8c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:10:22AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
: 
: > I think tokh kedei dibbur works because it's a quantum of time.
: > Any two statements made within that span is close enough to
: > simultaneous as to make no difference.
: 
: That's possible, but I think that a much simpler explanation is that Chazal
: established Tokh Kedei Dibbur (hereafter TKD) as the shiur for "Did he
: change his mind?"...

I would consider that cause-and-effect.

IOW, the reason why those two statements are close enough to simultaneous
as to make no difference is because you wouldn't have changed your mind
so quickly.

Recall, I believe halakhah is based on the world-as-experienced, not
the objective reality science studies.

And so if we retain mental state for roughly 3-1/3 sec, that would be
our halachic quantum of time.

: I begin by reminding the chevre that there's a machlokes whether a TKD is
: the time it takes to say the 7 syllables "shalom alecha rebbe", or the 10
: syllables "shalom alecha rebbe umori". But either way, it's much longer
: than it takes to say an average word.

Well, my argument was that they're debating the best way to estimate
a cheileq. In which case they are more debating how deliberate and
stately one must be when greeting a rebbe than the size of the time
inteval.

: In OC 128:8, the Mechaber that one should not say an Amen Chatufa, which is
...
: Please note that in most cases, this "last half-word" is much shorter than
: a TKD. It seems that even if a TKD is a quantum of time (=simultaneous) for
: Kaddish, it is not so for brachos.

But then again, that works from the perceptual basis I would give the
cheileq = quantum of time idea. The brain experiences time intervals in a
number of ways. Saying that a sequence that happens in less than x time
is simultaneous enough is one about when the sequence stand out as two
events. But if the sequences were in the wrong order, we would notice,
and it does matter. Even if we say event memory would remember the end
of the berakhah and the amein as one event, it would be the wrong event
if the sequence were wrong.

Note that in the other direction, an amein yesomah, is measured by KDD.

(Dyslexics are weak on the sequencing side. If someone would recite a
ohone number to me verbally, I am more likely to remember or it write down
in the wrong order than people in the middle of that bell curve would.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com:

> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha?levi
> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be
> trying to ?outsmart? Halacha by devising creative strategies,
> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been
> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha?Torah maintained
> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically
> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach.

I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa?

If a posek holds that s'chach *must* allow some rain in, and that if the
s'chach keeps the rain out then it is pasul (as R' Zev Sero cited Rabenu
Tam) - that is a position I can understand. But the two cited here do not
seem to hold that way; they say to use "traditional s'chach", but they
don't passel this new one.

It seems to me that if one has a choice between (a) a traditional sukkah
that will probably force me to eat in the house part of the time, and (b) a
non-traditional sukkah that is kosher and which I can use all week long,
it's really no contest.

Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable for
other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for
reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person who
insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161021/12564e44/attachment-0001.htm>

From

http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z


QUESTION: Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people install
combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and unlock their
homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it is permitted to
carry under certain circumstances, many people carry their house-keys and
do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a house-key permitted on
Yom Tov when one has a combination lock?

DISCUSSION: It is forbidden according to all views and could be a violation
of Torah Law. There is a common misconception concerning the Labor of
Carrying on Yom Tov; many people are under the assumption that all carrying
is permitted. In fact, this is not true. To better understand the specifics
of this halachah, we need to distinguish between three different types of
carrying, each with its own set of halachos:

1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted
2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited
3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable

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/20161021/58b05c1a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:35:22AM +0000, R/Prof YL quoted Rabbi Doniel
Neustadt from torah.org <http://tinyurl.com/h7s3g2z>:
: 1)-Carrying for a positive Yom Tov purpose - permitted
: 2)-Carrying for no purpose - prohibited
: 3)-Carrying for a "preventive" purpose - questionable

Same question, chol hamo'ed? I assume preventative purpose would be
okay, as would a positive ChM or YT purpose, including ChM trips and
other entertainment as positive. But it struck me when reading this --
need I be careful about even carrying (a melakhah garua) on ChM?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 21/10/16 07:35, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> *QUESTION:* Since it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, some people
> install combination locks on their doors so that they can lock and
> unlock their homes without carrying a key. On Yom Tov, however, when it
> is permitted to carry under certain circumstances, many people carry
> their house-keys and do not use their combination locks. Is carrying a
> house-key permitted on Yom Tov when one has a combination lock?
>
> *DISCUSSION:* It is forbidden according to all views and could be a
> violation of Torah Law.
> [...]
> But even when all poskim agree that carrying a house key is a genuine
> Yom Tov need, carrying a key is permitted only when no other option
> is available. If the house can be locked and then reopened without
> carrying a key, all poskim would agree that it is prohibited to carry
> the key. Carrying under such circumstances falls into the category of
> carrying for "no purpose", which is strictly forbidden(15).

This seems to me completely wrong and without any source. (Footnote 15, 
even after applying the obvious correction, does not support this claim 
at all.   I believe that the writer never bothered looking his alleged 
sources up, or he would not have given the same incorrect chapter number 
*eight times*.)

Just because one *has* a combination lock doesn't mean one must use it. 
If one doesn't use it during the week it's obviously because there is 
some reason not to, and that same reason would apply with equal force on 
yomtov.  But even if there were no reason at all not to use it, I see no 
reason why one may not make this choice simply on a whim; and once one 
has made this choice, carrying the key serves a purpose and is therefore 
permitted.

According to the writer's reasoning, if one has a shul in the same 
building, but chooses -- even completely on a whim -- to daven somewhere 
else, one would not be allowed to carry a talis or siddur!  Also, 
according to the writer's reasoning, one should never be allowed to 
carry a siddur to shul if they have equivalent siddurim there!  Both of 
these are obvious nonsense, and should be enough to dismiss the writer's 
position.

-- 
Zev Sero                Wishing everyone a good aquittal
z...@sero.name

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:08:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I recently a quote from ROY that is based on the comparison of teshuva to a
: mikvah...

RYBS, OTOH, famously described two kind of teshuvah, utilizing the mishnah
quoting R' Aqiva.
1- Lifnei Mi atam metaharim, where a person purifies themself.
2- uMi mitaher eschem, where HQBH provides the taharah.

The metaphor being just this -- taharah via miqvah, a person can do himself.
Taharah by parah adumuh requires a mitaheir.

I see I touched on this before (May 2003), when writing about RYBS's
identification of tum'ah with the objectification of man
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n007.shtml#08>:

> ... The bifurcation of man into nosei (actor) and nisah (acted upon)
> is caused by cheit. The mishnah of R' Aqiva that begins "ashreichem
> Yisra'el, lifnei Mi atem metaharim umi metaheir eschem" refers to two
> levels of objectification. (See the actual mishnah, Avos 8:9; the song
> lyrics skip a bit that is important to this vort.)

> R' Akiva then brings two ra'ayos. The first (Yechezkel 36:25) is "Zeraqti
> aleikhem mayim tehorim..." This is the taharah of the parah adumah, where
> man so objectified himself that he needs HQBH to be the Actor. The second
> (Yirmiyahu 17:35), "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" is man immersing himself,
> not being purified by another.

> This notion of the tum'ah of cheit being objectification is also found in
> another Shabbos Shuvah derashah (included in R' A Lustiger in his sefer,
> and he's invited to elaborate or correct). The following is a snippet
> from my post in v6n161:
...

And it could be that leshitaso, uMi mitaher eskhem is possible with a
chatzitzah, as long as we don't think of it as a sheretz beyado.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:27:42AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger cited the DailyHalacha.com:
:> Several other Poskim, however, disagreed. The Shebet Ha'levi
:> (Rav Shemuel Wosner, contemporary) wrote that we should not be
:> trying to "outsmart" Halacha by devising creative strategies,
:> and we should use the same kind of Sechach that Jews have been
:> using for generations. Likewise, the Kinyan Ha'Torah maintained
:> that although rainproof Sechach might be technically
:> permissible, one should use the traditional Sechach.

: I don't understand. Why does sentimentality trump a d'Oraisa?
...

We have to know more about the idea DailyHalacha.com described as
"outsmarting halachah". Personally, I read it as an appeal to mimeticism.
But whatever RSW was driving at, the blogger's use of this particular
idiom sounds to my ear as being more about how halachic process works
than sentiment / nostalgia.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 21/10/16 06:27, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> Such s'chach might be beyond the budget of many people, or unavailable
> for other reasons. But if one does have the option, then avoiding it for
> reasons of "not traditional" sounds to me very much like the ill person
> who insisting on fasting on Yom Kippur.

To me it sounds more like an ill person who insists on *eating* on Yom 
Kippur, rather than taking advantage of some advance in medical 
technology that would allow him to fast, on the grounds that his father 
and grandfather did without such measures and simply ate when they had to.

-- 
Zev Sero                Wishing everyone a good aquittal
z...@sero.name

Yes, I meant to write "fasting". Thanks to R' Zev for catching it.

As regards the example you gave, I must admit that it started me thinking.
My intention was about an ordinary guy who is simply going to eat even
though he is so ill that he should fast. Using modern medical techniques is
a whole different story. If a choleh is paskened to eat, but he can get
intravenous nutrition instead, should he do it? As I recall, the poskim say
no.

I suddenly have a new appreciation for the viewpoint that had criticized
before. If it's raining, then we are patur from the sukkah. End of story.

It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular
house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it
either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the
Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ...

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161021/3a6c8324/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: It hurts when the rain comes down and we need to go back into the regular
: house. No one looks forward to that. But perhaps we should not fight it
: either, if that's what Hashem has decreed. Somehow, I am reminded of the
: Ma'apilim (B'midbar 14:40-45) ...

OTOH, the same Rav Who threw the wine over the eved's head by making it
rain was the same One who made this new sekhakh design available.

I am reminded of the old saw about the True Believer who drowns in a
local flood. At the end, when he has a chance to ask why, G-d replies,
"I sent you the rowboat, the Coast Guard cutter and the helecopter,
what more did you expect Me to do?"

I don't think you can make a solid hashkafic case either way on this one.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Davening on yomkippur with tehillas hashem and artscroll open
simultaneously on the Binah , it seems that there are differences in the
designation of shva na , in that there were a lot more of these in the L
tradition( or else the mark designated something else.  ).  Is there
variations across communities in the tefilot as to which Shvas are na
versus nach?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20161021/f6acbf62/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)