Volume 33 Number 28
Produced: Mon Aug 28 10:16:32 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"A Famous Rashi"
[Chaim Shapiro]
Baby Intercom on Shabbat?
[Mark Dratch]
Electric lights on Yom Tov
[Anthony S Fiorino]
Electricity (3)
[Carl Singer, Lawrence Kaplan, Berl Nabutovsky]
Psak Based on Faulty Technical Information
[Art Roth]
A Psak from the CHAZON ISH on ALiyah
[Russell Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:45:57 EDT
Subject: "A Famous Rashi"
I must have heard that quote a thousand times. Whether from a Rav
giving a Drasha, or at a Davar Torah around the Shabbos table, it seems
that some Rashis are referred to as "Famous Rashis." And while it is
true that some Rashis are more well known than others, I must wonder;
does the fact that some Rashis are more often learned and quoted, more
accurately reflect us as a people, or the perspective of Rashi himself.
I do not know how many Rashis there are on the Five Books. Thousands
probably. Why is it that some are so well known and others aren't? Is
it possible those teaching Rashi chose certain Rashis because they felt
the lesson was more to their liking? Is it possible that we, as a
community have chosen certain messages that better reflect us, than they
do the standard position of Rashi on certain issues?
I have no problem with the choice to highlight certain Rashis over
others. I do think, however, that it would be incredibly intriguing for
someone to study the similarities or disparities in "famous" well known
Rashis versus the rest of Rashis work. What messages are we choosing to
highlight. Do the lessons learned reflect a need in the Frum community?
How well do those messages represent the overall perspective of all
Rashis in the Torah?
Chaim Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Dratch <MSDratch@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:12:02 EDT
Subject: Re: Baby Intercom on Shabbat?
In mail-jewish Vol. 33 #22 Digest Gershon Dubin writes "There is a
considerable body of halachic discussion related to hearing aids on
Shabbos, which appears to have the same parameters as the baby intercom.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wrote one of his first sefarim on this, and
contemporary/later poskim deal with it."
Actually, there is a fundamental difference--the concerns of hashma'at
kol and avsha milta (making noise): The hearing aid is heard by no one
but the wearer, the intercom amplifies and projects the sound. Now,
there are poskim who may permit this, but hearing aids and intercoms are
not the same.
Mark Dratch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony S Fiorino <fiorino_anthony@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:07:19 -0400
Subject: Electric lights on Yom Tov
Dovid Oratz wrote:
> 2) There is no fire transferred through the wires, nor even any heat.
> If there were, one would easily feel the heat through the slight
> amount of plastic insulation on the wires -- which would melt.
The claim that no heat is transferred through the wire is clearly wrong.
Wires do get warm - you can feel them - because there is resistance to
the flow of electrons. I believe there are substances that at certain
temperatures become nearly perfect conductors, but home wiring is not
one of these.
> 3) The equivalent of fire is produced when a circuit is closed,
> thereby allowing electrons to flow through a resistor (if it does not
> flow through a resistor, no fire is produced). The friction caused by
> the resistance produces heat and light -- and the glow in a light
> bulb. In a flourescent bulb a spark is produced to ignite the gas in
> the bulb.
Perhaps one of the physicists on the list can enlighten us as to the
physical differences between the processes of incandescence (electrons
passing through a filament to produce light and heat) and combustion
(i.e. fire) - but I think the process by which electricity is converted
to light and heat (incandescence) differs from that by which the energy
stored in chemical bonds of the substance that is burning is liberated
as light and heat (combustion).
Whether any differences in the physics of incandescence vs. combustion
have implications for the halchaic issues is a different question - if
the poskim tell us that turning on an incandescent bulb is eish, then
the physics don't really matter. This leaves aside any non-eish issues
that would prohibit turning on lights on shabbat and yom tov.
Another point - the gas in a fluorescent bulb is not ignited - rather
the molecules are excited by the passage of current through the gas and,
based on particular chemical properties of the gas, fluoresce - a
process that is distinctly not eish.
> If the facts of Electricity are as I have presented them here, then
> there can be no heter whatsoever for turning lights on on YomTov,
> regardless of family minhagim (which presumably were based on the same
> Information that R' Epstein posessed).
I wouldn't make this claim so quickly. I haved asked questions
regarding the minhag that some have (apparently from an old psak that
similarly was based on a misunderstanding of how electricity works) to
turn on stoves on yom tov that have auto-pilot lights - that is, a
starter that generates a spark when the gas is turned on. In this case
a communal rav was still issuing this psak to his congregants, and I
asked whether (1) I was permitted to eat the food and (2) whether I
should insist that the family in question change its yom tov practice.
I was told that since the behavior was based on the psak of their rav,
even though the psak was mistaken, the food was mutar and I should not
insist that the family change its practice. As an aside, gentle
education over a year or so was successful in changing the practice.
-Eitan Fiorino
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:28:56 EDT
Subject: Electricity
<< 1) Electricity can be generated by cold Hydroelectric (water) power
with absolutely no fire -- or even heat.
2) There is no fire transferred through the wires, nor even any heat.
If there were, one would easily feel the heat through the slight
amount of plastic insulation on the wires -- which would melt. >>
I'm not quite sure what basis for the metziah (technical finding) we
have here. Was someone familiar with either hydroelectric generation or
high-voltage power transshipment consulted.
I'm over 30 years away from engineering school but there is heat
involved, not fire or flame, per se, but heat of mechanical friction in
the hydroelectric generation process, and heat of electrical
transmission -- on a much smaller scale, consider that an extension cord
can overheat and has v'halilah cause a fire if amount of current flowing
through it is greater than it's capacity.
Granted, some p'sak halacha re: electricity (and other "technical"
topics) were based on limited or potentially inaccurate understanding of
the physics or the phenomena involved.
Kol Tov
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Kaplan <lkapla@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:13:35 -0500
Subject: Electricity
Regarding electricity: I remember reading some time ago a lengthy
responsum in English on the subject by the noted mathematician and
talmudic scholar Rabbi Dr.Shlomo Sternberg of Harvard which he wrote in
connection with the question as to whether it is permitted to use
magnetic cards to open doors on Shabbos and Yom Tov. The question was
posed to him by the Harvard administration which wishd to install this
system in its dorms, and, at the same time, wished to respect the
religious sensibilities of its halakhically observant students.
I don't remember the details of the responsum, but I do remember that he
discussed at some both the halakhic and scientific aspects of the issue.
He completely demolished the analysis of the `Arukh ha-Shulhan, showing
that it was scientifically flawed. He also agreed with Rabbi Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach in his critique of the views of the Hazon Ish. If I
remember correctly, he warned against basing one's halakhic analysis on
scientific theories as to the nature of electricity, since such theories
have changed over the course of time. His final conclusion was to permit
the use of such cards.
Does any one know about this responsum, or could anyone get access to
it? Obviously, Professor Sternberg's views are open to discussion and
debate, but we would have a learned presentation from some one who knows
what he is talking about regarding both the scientific and halakhic
aspects of the question, something that unfortunately can be said about
only a few people.
Lawrence Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Berl Nabutovsky <berln@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:25:39 -0400
Subject: RE: Electricity
BS"D
Here some comments on what you wrote about electricity...
> But it just ain't so! I am not an electrical engineer, but I'm sure that
> the electrical engineers on the list will bear out the following points:
> 1) Electricity can be generated by cold Hydroelectric (water) power
> with absolutely no fire -- or even heat.
That's true. Also, chemical reactions that generate electricity don't
produce much heat, which is obvious to anyone who uses batteries (i.e.
everyone).
> 2) There is no fire transferred through the wires, nor even any heat.
> If there were, one would easily feel the heat through the slight
> amount of plastic insulation on the wires -- which would melt.
In fact, the wires do heat ever so slightly because they also have some
measure of resistance. When a circuit is closed, the electrons do
travel through the wire the same way as they travel through a resistor
(such as a coil in a light bulb). When the circuit is open the wires
have the POTENTIAL (which is another term used for voltage) for
producing work, be it heat or some sort of mechanical work, such as
moving a train).
> 3) The equivalent of fire is produced when a circuit is closed,
> thereby allowing electrons to flow through a resistor (if it does not
> flow through a resistor, no fire is produced).
It's not really an equivalent of fire, as there is no chemical reaction.
> The friction caused by
> the resistance produces heat and light -- and the glow in a light
> bulb.
I think you understand the concept correctly, but the reason a resistor
heats up is not friction, we can't apply the concept of friction to
something as small as an electron.
> In a flourescent bulb a spark is produced to ignite the gas in
> the bulb.
That's not true. The gas in the bulb doesn't "BURN", it emits
particles, but the chemical composition of the gas does not change. If
it did, you'd have to add fuel to your fluorescent bulbs once in a
while.
> (Incidentally, electricity "fries" a person not because of its
> intrinsic heat, but because of the resistance of the human body to
> the flow of electricity).
Right, the same way it works with the coil in a light bulb, except the
coil doesn't actually burn.
Berl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Roth <AJROTH@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:15:35 -0500
Subject: Psak Based on Faulty Technical Information
From: Dovid Oratz <dovid@...>
> No Rabbi, no matter how great he is, can issue an unflawed ruling when
> presented with flawed information. If you read R' Epstein's Psak on turning
> on lights on Yom Tov, you will see that he cites the accepted law that on Yom
> Tov it is permitted to transfer fire from one place to another. Then he says
> that there is fire in the electricity generating plant which is transferred
> through the wires to the light bulb. Accordingly, he concludes that turning
> the light on on Yom Tov is permitted.
>
> But it just ain't so! I am not an electrical engineer, but I'm sure that
> the electrical engineers on the list will bear out the following points:
> [ technical arguments deleted]
I agree 100% that reliable poskim have reached flawed conclusions based
on flawed technical input. And I agree that any such flawed psak should
not be relied upon. But I find it disturbing that this argument is
typically used to justify ignoring only a flawed lenient psak, but not a
flawed strict psak.
I can think of several examples of the latter, but one good one is Rav
Moshe's psak prohibiting the use of toothpaste on Shabbat on the grounds
that the state of the toothpaste changes from a solid to a liquid while
the teeth are being brushed. In the same psak, Rav Moshe allowed
brushing with tooth powder, so he obviously saw no problems with
brushing teeth on Shabbat other than the change of state in the
toothpaste (e.g., one might have thought that s"xita could be a
potential issue). The problem is that Rav Moshe's psak is based on
incorrect physics, i.e., the toothpaste is still a solid even after it
has been used. I wonder whether Dovid and others on this list would be
as quick to dismiss Rav Moshe's psak and brush their teeth using
toothpaste on Shabbat as they would be to dismiss Rav Epstein's psak and
refuse to turn on their lights on Yom Tov.
Art Roth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: A Psak from the CHAZON ISH on ALiyah
Reuben Tekoa in v33n9 makes an eloquent analogy between on the one hand
people who "continuously profess love for a woman and never do anything
about it" and on the other hand people who "continuously profess love
for Israel and never do anything about it (ie visit it infrequently)"
But continuing the Aliyah thread we have had on Mail Jewish for the past
2-3 volumes I would **simply** answer by supplying a reason:
A person (eg teenager) who cannot affor to marry a woman is certainly
"better off" praising her continuously and NOT visiting with her till he
can afford it.
Furthermore (really), I am sure we would all advise this teenager
**not** to walk into an early marriage on the grounds that it is having
"Faith in God" and hope that "things work out".
So I reiterate the point I (and others) have been making on mail jewish:
It would be wrong to jump into aliyah unless you can really afford it.
Most people do not realize what it feels like to go to a lower standard
of living--such a descent can really offset all the advantages of
aliyah.
Finally (for what is worth) I have finally recalled a PSAK on this
issue. My uncle when he was 13 went with my grandparents to Israel. It
was love at 1st sight and my uncle did not want to go back (this was in
the 50s). My grandparents did not know what to do. They finally all
agreed to abide by a psak of the CHAZON ISH who spent a half hour with
my uncle and convinced him to go home.
The point is, that Aliyah with the wrong preparations can do more harm
than good.
Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Dept of Math Towson; <rhendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com NEW NEW IMPROVED
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 28
