Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 69

Mon, 24 Aug 2020

• 1. Re: Blowing shofar with a mask on the end (Saul Guberman)
• 2. Re: Blowing shofar with a mask on the end (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Blowing shofar with a mask on the end (Micha Berger)
• 4. It's not our fault (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: It's not our fault (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: It's not our fault (Zev Sero)
• 7. Going swimming with your sister (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Concern of bishul akum with coffee (Prof. L. Levine)
• 9. Re: Concern of bishul akum with coffee (Zalman Alpert)
• 10. Re: Concern of bishul akum with coffee (Micha Berger)

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM Micha Berger wrote:
>> What are the halachic implications of putting a mask on the end of the
>> shofar? Does it affect the sound?

> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does
> not affect the sound.
> But I don't know how they are publishing a single answer ...
> The typical shul can judge for itself whether the mask changes the sound
> of the shofar. (Although maybe if you have a piano tuner or someone else
> with sensitive hearing in the minyan...

> But it's unlikely that every shul has the resources to measure the
> resulting potential virus spray given their choice of mask / cloth to use.
> Some of the other solutions -- such as pointing the shofar away from
> the congregation and toward a nearby window -- may be more safer choices.

I blow shofar for my shul. I have placed a surgical mask on the shofar
and blew the shofar for the Rav both on and off without him looking at
the shofar. He did not hear a real difference and I concurred. You can
get a different sound from the shofar depending on how you place it on
your lips and the amount of air used.

Rav Shulman of YU / YI Midwood suggests blowing under your tallit or at
a door without a mask on the shofar.

On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does
> not affect the sound.

No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound, and is 
therefore permissible.  I have no idea whether they're right, but this 
is what they say, and they know the halacha, so I assume they've done 
whatever is necessary to determine the metzius.

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

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 04:04:56AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> On 21/8/20 3:07 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>> As Zev already posted, the OU considers it permissible if the mask does
>> not affect the sound.

> No, the OU states as a fact that it does not affect the sound...

As per the rest of the post you're quoting:

My comment was that they take it for granted that the mask(s) they tested
with are indicative of the mask a member shul may be using. I would not.
(Had I been in the OU, I would have been more specific about which brand
mask.) But I'm not questioning their pesaq that listening on the other
side of the mask is the original qol and not a "qol havarah". ("Hatoqeia
lesokh habor, mishnah RH, on top of 27b in Vilna Bavli)

I therefore isolated their halachic stance which from their depiction
of the mtzi'us. Because I wanted to raise the question whether, even
leshitasam, is a piano tuner or other person with sensitive hearing can
hear a difference the rest of us can't, would he be yotzei.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 You want to know how to paint a perfect
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   painting?  It's easy.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Make yourself perfect and then just paint
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    naturally.              -Robert Pirsig

.
At the Eglah Arufa, the zekeinim declare, "Our hands did not spill this
blood! Our eyes did not see!"

I've heard the same explanation of this many times from many sources. In
the words of "The Midrash Says", Devarim pg 242:

> The Elders were declaring that they were not even indirectly
> responsible for the crime: "We have never dismissed any
> stranger from our city without food (so that he might have
> been forced to steal for food and was killed in return), or
> without accompaniment (so that he might have gone unprotected
> on a dangerous road)."

How can the zekeinim have been so sure?

Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed
through unnoticed?

We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever learned
points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We don't know what
happened, but clearly, the system broke down somewhere. This man fell
through the cracks, and we must all share the responsibility, and try to
improve." How can the Torah tell the leadership to publicly deny
responsibility, and literally wash their hands of the incident?

I considered the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only done
when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the Beis
Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas Orchim
organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever occur.
But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been listed on
Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never will happen.
(The three listed there, if I read it correctly, are Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ir
Hanidachas, and a house getting tzaraas.) But it's *not* listed there, so I
suppose it might have happened, or at least, *could* happen.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200822/f07df981/attachment-0001.html>

> 
> How can the zekeinim have been so sure?
> 
> Is it really beyond their imagination that some stranger might have passed through unnoticed?
> 
> We're dealing with an unsolved murder. All the mussar I've ever
> learned points to the proper reaction being along the lines of, "We
> don't know what happened, but clearly, the system broke down
> somewhere. This man fell through the cracks, and we must all share the
> responsibility, and try to improve." How can the Torah tell the
> leadership to publicly deny responsibility, and literally wash their
> hands of the incident?
> 
> ??????-
I?m not sure these are Mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are saying that the
fault is not systemic and of course we have to see where we fell short and
try to improve on it
Kt
Joel RichTHIS 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 22/8/20 10:45 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> 
> I considered?the possibility that this Eglah Arufah procedure is only 
> done when certain very specific criteria are met - for example, that the 
> Beis Din of the city has such an incredibly effective Hachnasas?Orchim 
> organization that it would be impossible for such a murder to ever 
> occur. But if that were the case, then Eglah Arufah would have been 
> listed on Sanhedrin 71a among the things that never happened, and never 
> will happen.

The answer seems very simple.  Not even the most thorough hachnassas 
orchim will ever prevent all murders, because most crimes are *not* 
committed out of need.  The idea that the victim was actually a robber 
who was killed in legitimate self-defence, but in a further plot twist 
he only robbed out of desperate need, and had the city's elders done 
their job this would never have happened, is very far-fetched.

The overwhelming likelihood is that he was an innocent person who was 
killed by a robber who was acting out of greed or sheer wickedness, as 
*most* robbers do.  The Zekeinim are merely ruling out that far-fetched 
scenario in which they would bear some responsibility.

And if you ask why, in that case, do they have to go through this whole 
rigmarole to rule it out, I suggest that it's so that this possibility 
is always on their minds, and they do their utmost to make sure that in 
the unlikely even that a body is ever found they should be *able* to 
make this declaration.

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

I always thought that brothers and sisters (even teenagers) could go mixed
swimming privately just the immediate family because we assume that there
are no hirhurim among immediate family members. However, I listened to the
Headlines podcast where he interviewed an Israeli posek from Machon Puah
who claimed that it was forbidden.

Anyone have any sources? Piskei Halacha from modern poskim?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200823/aa1e8bfd/attachment-0001.html>

 From https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/i-will-be-travelling-and-would-like-to-know-if-there-is-a-concern-of-bishul-akum-with-coffee-a-consumers-question
    I will be travelling and would like to know if there is a concern
    of bishul akum with coffee? (A consumer's question)
    OU Kosher Certification

    Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As
    previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is
    "oleh al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul
    Yisroel. Raw coffee beans are inedible, a...

See the above URL for more.

> Ostensibly, the prohibition of bishul akum should apply to coffee. As
> previously explained, a cooked food which cannot be eaten raw and is "oleh
> al shulchan melachim" (served at fancy dinners) requires bishul Yisroel.
> Raw coffee beans are inedible, a...

Great example of what DR Hayym Soloveitchik wrote about in his seminal
essay Rupture and Reconstruction.

Bishul aku"m only applies to foods that are olim al shulchan melakhim.
Qiddush can be made on chamar medinah. Seems to be a lower standard,
when it comes to drinks, as the masses are unlikely to be pickier than
their kings.

The AhS (OC 272:12) ranks yayin and then sheikhar ahead of other drinks,
but does include sweetened tea among the things one may make qiddush
on. Similarly, IM OC 2:75.

(Likely an indication of the price of sugar, RYME names tei matoq
in particular as chamar medinah, not just writing "tei". Another measure
of their poverty is his discussing their general use of raisin wine,
as a reason why they were allowed to choose sheikhar even if wine was
available. Meaning, I don't know if the AhS would allow this choice
for us today.)

But I am wondering benogei'ah to our original topic is whether it's
possible to formulate a consistent shitah in which coffee can not be
used for Qiddush and also cannot be used if bishul aku"m.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Every child comes with the message
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   that God is not yet discouraged with
Author: Widen Your Tent      humanity.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Rabindranath Tagore


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



_______________________________________________
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.)