Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 49

Thu, 18 Jun 2020

• 1. Re: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Chana Luntz)
• 2. : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: sakanta/issura (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: BAmidbar or BEmidbar? (Michael Poppers)
• 7. Akum and Nochri (Akiva Miller)
• 8. : Yehareig? (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: : Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov (Zev Sero)
• 10. Just walk away (Joseph Kaplan)

RJR asks:

<<Where does "not a custom" as in:

In contrast look at the Yerushalmi Pesachim perek 4 halacha 1 which has a
whole list of things that people were doing, and it goes through going
"custom" "not a custom", "custom", "not a custom

Fit into:

It seems to me from that essay and some of the other rishonim that you end
up with a topology of minhagim that is threefold:

a)      A minhag chashuv - an important custom;

b)      A minhag [garua] - a [lesser] custom; and

c)      A minhag taus - a mistaken custom, which is sometimes called, even
more strongly, a minhag shtus>>

Category c), a minhag taus.  That is how the Meiri understands this
Yerushalmi - explaining that a custom that, inter alia, is one derived from
excessive piety is a minhag taus, and uses this Yerushalmi's "not a custom"
as an illustration.  As opposed to the ones that either "are a custom" in
the Yerushalmi, or the ones that the Rabbonim tolerated in the Bavli (eg
where Rabban Gamliel got off the non-Jewish bench that the people of the
town of Akko were accustomed not to sit on on Shabbas (Bavli Pesachim 51a).

KT
Joel Rich

Regards

Chana

RZS writes:

<<Having seen his words I don't think you are interpreting them correctly. 
  He doesn't say that it's forbidden just because the line goes through some
areas where the majority are Jews.  He's talking about the whole line, and
in fact the whole area in which the line operates.>>

The key language (which is why I posted it) are the words  that one can only
travel in these electric wagons on shabbat if  they are driven by non-Jews "
ub'rechovot sherov toshevim hem lo Yehudim".  That does not say that the
majority of the streets they pass through must have a majority non-Jews., or
some of the streets they pass through must have majority non-Jews, but that
for taking these these wagons (or buses) to be acceptable, they must solely
be driven in streets where the majority of the inhabitants are not Jews.
Otherwise it looks like they are being driven down those streets for the
Jews. 

Perhaps it is clearer in his summary (the original quote was from the body
of the teshuva, where he gave his reasons):

???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??
?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ??? ???? - ????? ?????
??????? ??? ???????? ???????. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? - ?????? ????

It is forbidden to travel in these wagons even if they belong to non-Jews,
and are driven by non-Jews, if they go and stop in a place in which there is
a Jewish settlement, then for sure it is that the non-Jew is intending in
his journey that Jews should travel.  But in a place where all the dwellers
are non-Jews, it is permitted.

  <<If the line exists to serve Jews (as it would in EY), then the fact that
there happen also to be nochrim living along it doesn't save it (unless the
circumstances show that it really and truly is designed primarily to serve
that nochri minority).  But I doubt that metziut exists anywhere in chu"l,
and I doubt R Uziel had chu"l in mind.>>

If the line exists to serve Jews, then it is not a non-Jewish line.  Rav
Uzziel has three conditions: a) it must be owned by non-Jews; b) it must be
driven by non-Jews, and c) it must go through streets in which the majority
are non-Jews (or possibly all the dwellers are non-Jews, as per the summary,
where he uses the words "aval b'mkom shekol hatoshvim hem lo yehudim").  Rav
Uzziel was chief rabbi in, inter alia, Salonika, he spent a lot of time in
chutz l'aretz, and the suggestion that he was discussing Palestinian or
Jordanian transport in Arab areas when he was permitting travel on Shabbas
(for the mitzvah of going to shul and similar only) seems highly unlikely.
Most people wouldn't use that transport for pikuach nefesh reasons, not ask
shialas about whether they can use it on Shabbas to get to shul.  This is a
chutz l'aretz shiala about chutz l'aretz situations.

And specifically he doesn't say that the whole line has to be there to serve
Jews, just if it goes and stops in (one) Jewish settlement, then the non-Jew
intends for Jews to use the line, and that is enough.  

<<Further, my recollection is that very few people live on that road anyway;
it's all shops, and the bus stops are to serve not only the Jews who live in
the surrounding streets but also all the people who live elsewhere on the
route and are using the shops, which means even those stops are servicing
mostly nochrim.>>

There are a fair number of shops, but there are a fair number of houses too
(and some blocks of flats, definitely majority Jewish).  We know people who
live in a couple of the houses right on Golders Green road. Also Sage, a
charedi old age home (where my MIL was niftar), and Jewish Care, which has a
lot of Jewish elderly (many with dementia, but others without) are both
located directly on that road, and I believe the one bus stop is sited where
it is because it stops right outside Jewish Care, as there are often very
frail elderly people getting on and off there.  If there were no people
living there that the bus serviced, they would get from Hampstead to Hendon
down the Watford Way, a much bigger road.  

<<But in any case I don't see how it matters for whom the stop is designed;
the bus *actually* stops only for the first passenger who signalled that he
wants to get off, or for the passengers who are 
waiting at the stop to board.   Even if the location had been designated 
for the benefit of all the thousands of *potential* Jewish passengers, the
bus isn't stopping for them.  And the bus is running in the first place for
all the passengers who use it anywhere along the line, or who might one day
want to use it, the majority of whom are nochrim.>>

That is not Rav Uzziel's view. Your view works exactly the same if you say -
well it doesn't matter if the bath house was located where it is for all the
thousands of *potential* Jewish users, the bath house owners aren't heating
the baths for them on shabbas, they are heating them for the non-Jewish bath
house users.  Especially if they have demonstrably done this by heating up
the bath house on shabbas morning when no Jews ever attend it on shabbas.
And yet, the halacha, as per the Rema, is that if the majority of potential
users of the bath house (ie dwellers in the city) are Jewish, then you
cannot even use the bath house right after shabbas.  Even though the bath
house owner might well decide it was worth heating the bath house for just
one non-Jewish customer. And Rav Uzziel holds that this bath house case is
directly relevant to this one of taking buses on shabbat.  

I think one could perhaps distinguish the bath house case, but Rav Uzziel
doesn't, he sees it as relevant, and his use of terms like "in streets where
the majority of dwellers are non-Jews" , or "all the dwellers are non-Jews"
is predicated on understanding the bath house case as relevant, and
defining.

<<In fact GG is proof, since as I understand it the Jews who live in that
area don't use the bus on Shabbos, and yet they still run, and still stop in
the same places as they do during the week.  That shows that they're running
for the nochrim. And if so, it should be permitted for an individual Jew to
ride along, so long as he doesn't cause the driver to stop and start again
for him.>>

That is the bath house argument - that since the owners are still heating
the bath houses for the non-Jews in the community (even from the morning),
then it should be fine to use the bath house straight after Shabbas.  But
the halacha is that if the majority of the potential customers are Jews,
even if none of them use it on shabbas, it is still forbidden to use the
bath house straight after Shabbas, and Rav Uzziel applies this to using
public transport in our case.

I suggested that one might argue differently, based on the candle in a room
case, which is based on who is actually in the room, not who potentially
could be in the room. But even there, the question is not who is the "first"
person in the room, everybody who is in the room benefits from the light,
and everybody who is waiting at the stop or on the bus benefits from the
bus.  If the majority of people at the stop are Jewish, even if the person
who sticks out their hand isn't, they are benefiting from the melacha of the
bus driver stopping, and he is stopping for their benefit, along with the
person whose hand was put out.  I can't see how that is not like the non-Jew
lighting the candle for everybody in the room.  And similarly, once the bus
driver starts the bus again, he is doing so for the benefit of every person
on the bus at that particular time.  Not just the one who is non-Jewish who
may have stuck out his hand, and if a majority on that bus at that time are
Jewish, then the halacha regarding the candle would seem to apply, they
cannot benefit from the melacha of the bus driver.  To argue otherwise is to
argue that if there is one non-Jew in a room who will benefit, then the
majority Jews can benefit from the light of the candle that was lit for the
benefit of all the people in the room, and that is not the halacha.

Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer

Regards

Chana

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:23:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> The Chatam Sofer (Chulin 9b) says that it's pashut why sakanta is
> different from issura since by issura its hkb"h who made the rules so if
> he said we can rely on rov it's fine whereas by sakanta even a minority
> endangered can't be brought back from the dead.
...
> 1. How does this square with strong form of timtum haleiv?

> 2. How do you explain to amcha the difference between halachic reality
> and reality reality?
...

Well, amkha is heavily influenced by Chassidish philosophies. The Chasam
Sofer was no fan of Chassidus. No reason to assume that the CS's hashkafah
would be consistent.

But one could take a middle approach... HQBH allows rov when it comes
to issur not because it's better to play the odds when it comes to
metaphysical safety, but because only violating certainties is dangerous.

When it comes to bitul, this idea is invoked within a fully Chassidic
framework. By eating something in which the issur was batul, you can
release the nitzotzos that were in the davar ha'asur that had no other
way of release. More tiqun is brought to the world than eating something
that didn't require bitul.

So... if metaphysical risk is not statistically ignored but batul and
rendered non-exitant, one could still have a causal approach to these
things and still justify chamira saqanta mei'issura.

But as you know from the timtum haleiv and protection-of-mezuzah
discussions of the past 22 years, I'm more of the "violating the rules
has consequences" camp than believing the rules exist to protect from
dangerous metaphysical entities.

And as I said, I would be kind of surprised if the Chasam Sofer wasn't
too.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The true measure of a man
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   is how he treats someone
Author: Widen Your Tent      who can do him absolutely no good.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Samuel Johnson

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 06:59:03PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> Category c), a minhag taus. That is how the Meiri understands this
> Yerushalmi - explaining that a custom that, inter alia, is one derived
> from excessive piety is a minhag taus, and uses this Yerushalmi's "not
> a custom" as an illustration....

Related is the chamor who follows the chumeros of both Beis Shammai and
Beis Hillel. A similar mistake.

The Meiri, if we're talking about the same quote, is only referring to
minhagim that have no maqor. A personal minhag that does have a maqor
requires hataras nedarim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I wrote:
> Category c), a minhag taus. That is how the Meiri understands this 
> Yerushalmi - explaining that a custom that, inter alia, is one derived 
> from excessive piety is a minhag taus, and uses this Yerushalmi's "not 
> a custom" as an illustration....

And RMS replied:

<<Related is the chamor who follows the chumeros of both Beis Shammai and
Beis Hillel. A similar mistake.>>

I don't think that is really the same as that is specifically about
poskening, this is about customs (although I agree they are related, as
following the poskening of your local Rav seems to be about minhag).  It
seems more to be considering it a mistake to take an attitude that if a bit
extra is good, a lot extra must be better.  So that if it is good to add a
bit of kodesh onto chol, then it is even better to add a lot of kodesh onto
chol.  

<<The Meiri, if we're talking about the same quote, is only referring to
minhagim that have no maqor. A personal minhag that does have a maqor
requires hataras nedarim.>>

Two responses to this: a) Yes, although here he is talking about communal
minhagim, not personal ones.  But agreed he says they need some sort of
maqor - and if ain bo shoresh v'lo ta'am then they are merely mistaken and
should be uprooted.  That seems to be the definition of what I have called
minhag [garua], ie ones with some sort of maqor, even though it is deemed a
lesser form of minhag than following the Rav in your local place.

b) regarding personal minhagim  there are two opinions brought in the
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah hilchot Nedarim siman 214 Si?if 1, but the key
seems to be whether or not the person knew that it was being done as a
custom, or thought that it was being done because halacha mandated it, even
if there is a maqor.  One opinion is that if the person did not know it was
a custom, and thought it was halacha, the person does not need hataras
nedarim, and the second is that he does.  And Rema suggests "the custom" is
that we follow the first opinion. 

And it seems to me that when the Rema is using custom in this last comment
- he is using it in the form of "following the Rav in your local place" - ie
minhag chashuv.  And that when the Aruch haShulchan refers, in your earlier
piece, to the authority of the Shulchan Aruch, I tend to agree that this is
about the Rav's authority having been established.  Ie just as the
inhabitants of Rabbi Yossi's town could eat chicken and milk, and that was a
minhag chashuv, so it is a minhag chashuv to follow the authority of the
Shulchan Aruch.

Although fascinatingly the Rema in his introduction to his comments on the
Shulchan Aruch, assumes that following the custom, which is what he says
inter alia his comments are to bring (but not exclusively this as  I said in
my post on Street Minyanim/sh'as hadchak ), is only for those people who do
not have the capacity to Halachically reason for themselves:

??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????, ???
??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????,

"and one who has the ability to engage in halachic reasoning will discern
the reasons by himself, and he will not rely on others, and one who has not
reached this level will not move from the custom"

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

Whilst ShMOT'ing (shout-out to RSBA :)) baChutz, noticed RaShY's last 13:21
phrase ("b'farashas 'Eileh Mas-ei'"). Granted, "mas-ei" wouldn't change
even without the "eileh", but this implies RaShY would label the first
sedra of the fourth chumash as "b'midbar Sinai" (i.e. with the full phrase,
not just one word).

All the best from
--Michael via phone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200617/0bb3a8f3/attachment-0001.html>

.
In the thread "Just walk away", R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:

> Also, you should not have written "idol worshiper" above,
> because this is not a din 'aku"m.  Our printed texts have been
> censored by the goyim, because there are some places where we
> say uncomplimentary things about them, and the censors insisted
> on globally changing nokhri to 'aku"m, because they did not
> consider themselves to be idolators so now the uncomplimentary
> things are not about them.  The result is that many uneducated
> Jews now do not know when something is a din nokhri and when it
> is a din 'aku"m.

Count me among those who "do not know when something is a din nokhri and
when it is a din 'aku"m." And I WOULD like to know which is which.

Does anyone know if there's a sefer concerned with this question, which
systematically goes through various halachos, identifying which are about
an aku'm and which are about a nochri? There are so many areas where I feel
that I'm misunderstanding the halacha (in practice and/or in theory)
because of this confusion.

Let's take Stam Yaynam as an example. If Stam Yaynam is a protective fence
around Yayin Nesech, for fear of what was going through the person's mind
when he handled the wine, then I can't imagine why we would forbid wine
that was simply handled by a nochri who is *not* an idolator.

So perhaps Stam Yaynam is not about nesech, but it's about chasunos - our
fear that it might lead to our marrying one of "them". Well, then, for a
proper understanding of this, we'd have to know exactly who "they" are. To
put it plainly: Are we more afraid of a Jew marrying an idolator than of a
Jew marrying an ordinary nochri, or are the two fears equal/similar? Of
course it is a tragedy when a Jew abandons Torah. But suppose he abandons
Torah without accepting Avoda Zara? Does that lessen it to being only a
minor tragedy in comparison, or maybe we don't distinguish between the two?
Or maybe it is indeed only a "minor" tragedy (conceptually), but still
serious enough to create the issur (practically).

I could tell you that "I have my opinions about this but I'd prefer to hear
what Chazal say", but the truth is that I *don't* have any clear opinions
about this. I'm confused and ambivalent and eager to know what Chazal say.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200617/cef892b2/attachment-0001.html>

If  a ben noach (noahide) Is being forced to abrogate one of their 7
mitzvot, does He have a requirement To give up his life rather than
abrogate?  Assumedly he is not directly covered by vchay bahem (you shall
live in them). If in general he doesn?t have to give up his life what about
for murder whose exception for Jews is based on a logical inference
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.

On 17/6/20 3:20 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:

> The key language (which is why I posted it) are the words  that one can only
> travel in these electric wagons on shabbat if  they are driven by non-Jews "
> ub'rechovot sherov toshevim hem lo Yehudim".  That does not say that the
> majority of the streets they pass through must have a majority non-Jews., or
> some of the streets they pass through must have majority non-Jews, but that
> for taking these these wagons (or buses) to be acceptable, they must solely
> be driven in streets where the majority of the inhabitants are not Jews.
> Otherwise it looks like they are being driven down those streets for the
> Jews.

Nor does he say "*only* in streets...".  I think the expression "in 
streets" refers to the whole line, not to each individual stretch of 
road along it.  Because I don't see how it matters why the bus is going 
along that stretch of road when it could have been rerouted to go along 
a parallel road; what matters is why the bus is running from the 
beginning of the line to the end of the line at all, and that is for all 
the people who have occasion to travel along any part of it.



> Perhaps it is clearer in his summary (the original quote was from the body
> of the teshuva, where he gave his reasons):
> 
> ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??
> ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ??? ???? - ????? ?????
> ??????? ??? ???????? ???????. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? - ?????? ????
> 
> It is forbidden to travel in these wagons even if they belong to non-Jews,
> and are driven by non-Jews, if they go and stop in a place in which there is
> a Jewish settlement, then for sure it is that the non-Jew is intending in
> his journey that Jews should travel.  But in a place where all the dwellers
> are non-Jews, it is permitted.

Wait a minute. He doesn't say anything about where it stops.  Just where 
it goes.  There's nothing about stopping in that passage, or in anything 
you've quoted.  And by  ???? ????? I think he means a Jewish population. 
That's why it's certain that the bus must be running for that 
population.  Also when he says "all the residents are not Jewish" I 
don't think he can possibly mean that literally; he means the majority.


> If the line exists to serve Jews, then it is not a non-Jewish line.

Sure it is.  If it's owned and run by non-Jews, as is the case 
everywhere in chu"l (except the frum community buses, which obviously 
don't run on Shabbos so they're not an issue), then it's a non-Jewish 
line, even if it exists primarily to serve Jews.



> Rav Uzziel was chief rabbi in, inter alia, Salonika, he spent a lot
> of time in chutz l'aretz,
Other than his two years in Salonika (which he took while on temporary 
leave from his rabbanut in Yaffo) and a brief period of forcible exile 
in Damascus, when did he live in chu"l?


> and the suggestion that he was discussing Palestinian or Jordanian
> transport in Arab areas when he was permitting travel on Shabbas (for
> the mitzvah of going to shul and similar only) seems highly
> unlikely. Most people wouldn't use that transport for pikuach nefesh
> reasons, not ask shialas about whether they can use it on Shabbas to
> get to shul.
My understanding is that this was not the case for a long time.  There 
was relative safety, at least as much as there is on public transport in 
some chu"l cities.



-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

> But here
> you're putting your ruchnius above his ruchnius. Stealing a bracha is
> worth 10 gold coins; how much is stealing a (literally) once in a
> lifetime mitzvah

In the given situation we obviously don't know what he wants; if we did,
we'd simply follow it. So the bystander has two choices: assume he wants
you to stay which will result in his death or assume he wants you to leave
which will result in his living. You may want to, and may have the right,
to give up your life in such a situation. I don't think you have the
right to give up someone else's life. And if I were in that situation,
I'd rather defend myself after 120 years if I left and made the wrong
assumption than if I stayed and I made the wrong assumption.


[Email #2. -micha]

>> Yes, I think you have an obligation to
>> save a Jew's life, by depriving him of the obligation to die.  I know
>> I would thank you for it.  Do you think you are doing a Jew a favor by
>> requiring him to martyr himself?  Let him live and do other mitzvoth.

> What gives you the right to deprive him of this rare mitzvah, for which
> Rabbi Akiva longed all his life, and which the Bet Yosef was promised
> and then for some reason was deprived of?

> It seems to me that you should leave only if it appears that the person
> is going to fail the test, or if he explicitly asks you to.

We're not all R. Akivas. Indeed, almost none of us are. I think we should
be able to take what in my profession is called judicial notice that most,
if not almost all, if not all, Jews would prefer not to die under such
circumstances if possible. If the person is actually R. Akiva, then all
bets are off.

Joseph

Sent from my iPhone


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)