Volume 36 Number 60
Produced: Mon Jul 1 22:37:19 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
card operated locks
[Binyomin Segal]
Kiddush levono oysies
[Perets Mett]
Kosher food, but what about Shabbat in space (2)
[Akiva Miller, Eli Lansey]
Modesty and the Ari's comments
[Gershon Dubin]
Modesty by Avraham and Sara
[Akiva Miller]
Quotations in Torah
[Lefkowitz, Sanford]
Zmanim in Space
[David Cohen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:11:10 -0500
Subject: Re: card operated locks
Steve White's recent comments about card locks had a few points that I think
need clarification.
> First, if you stop and listen to such door locks, you will hear a delay
> while the system confirms that the key is the right one. So at most
> only the "confirmation" circuit is activated immediately, not the
> circuit activated by the lock mechanism itself, which is unquestionably
> "grama."
As I understand it, the difference between psik raisha and grama is more
than simply one of time delay. I recall reading that when they designed
the grama light switches for Sharei Tzedek they built in a level of
"imprecision" to insure it would be considered a grama. The causing
action would eventually turn on the light, but it might be in .1 second,
and it might be in .5 seconds. Hence there was no specific moment at
which it would definately happen - no psik raisha.
> Now, second, Rav Sh. Z. Auerbach,ztz"l, among others, holds that the the
> completion or opening of a circuit is in itself only a derabbanan. This
> suggests that under certain circumstances of great need, it might be
> treated more leniently than a "pesiq reishe."
While the completion of a circuit may be drabanan, there is also the
issue of the light that turns on to indicate that the key has/has not
been accepted. Some forms of light are considered by some drabanan
(flourescents for example) but as far as I know, everyone agrees that
incandecent bulbs are eish. I do not know if these lights are diodes,
and if they are what the status of led lights is.
> Third, it is understood in most cases that where passive devices cannot
> be avoided, one need not avoid them, even if one triggers a d'oreita.
> (Think motion-sensor light, not on your own property.)
This I think is a oversimplification. While it is true that you need not
avoid those sensors, the halachik principal is "mitasek". That
specifically requires a lack of consciousness. That is, I do not need to
remember that my next door neighbor has a sensor, so as to avoid
it. That is clearly not like our case where not only is the person
conscious of the act, he wants the result!
> possibly even "ones" (duress), as one cannot avoid it.
One can easily avoid it. Don't go to a hotel on shabbos. Now if there is
indeed a reason why you MUST be in the hotel on shabbos, then I might
grant that something akin to ones, or more likely something like "tzar
gadol" applies. But in the general case where the idea is to go to a
hotel for a vacation, I am not at all impressed with the "need" to open
the hotel door. (At some level it's like the argument to drive to shul
on shabbos, since I can't get to shul any other way. Who says you have
to go to shul in that case?)
Additionally, once I am writing on the subject, I might clarify the
issues of using a non-jew to open the door for you.
In general, having a non-jew do a melacha for you on shabbos includes
two seperate prohibitions. The first one is "amira l'akum". The second
one is "neheneh memelechas akum".
"amira l'akum" (saying to a non-jew) - based on a pasuk in nach
(yirmiyahu, right?) there is a rabbinic prohibition to talk about assur
things on shabbos. i can't say "I'll call you after shabbos" rather I
must say "I'll speak to you after shabbos" As part of that prohibition
then is a prohibition against directly asking a non-jew to do something
which is prohibited. I can't say "please turn on the light" rather (if
the only issue was this prohibition) i might say "it's dark in here, can
you help me out".
"neheneh memelechas akum" (benefitting from the creative action of a
non-jew) - there is however another rule. you may not benefit from an
action done by a non-jew on shabbos if it was either done for you, or if
by benefitting this time, the non-jew might do it for you in the future.
so, only if the non-jew did something that was clearly for himself (or
some other non-jew) and only if he does not know you, or does not know
you are benefitting, may you directly benefit from melacha that a
non-jew does on shabbos - EVEN IF YOU DID NOT ASK.
btw, in general, these rules apply to rabbinic issues as well. so even
if opening the door was rabbinic, without some other reason for
permitting it, you still could not benefit from the non-jews opening the
door for you.
As a result, avoiding directly asking the non-jew to open your door does
not really solve the problem.
I have consulted with a number of rabbis about this issue. NCSY in
chicago goes to hotels for shabbatons. the consensus I have heard is
that - if there is an important halachikly valid reason to be at the
hotel (eg kiruv, but maybe other things as well) then in fact using a
non-jew to open the door could be allowed because its a "shvus d'shvus
bmakom tzar gadol" or "shvus dshvus bmakom mitzvah" (a rabbinic on a
rabbinic in a situation of great need, or in a situation of a mitzvah).
binyomin
Contact me via my NEW address
<bsegal@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:02:30 +0100
Subject: Kiddush levono oysies
Gilad Gevaryahu wrote:
>I am in a complete agreement with Rabbi Dr. Wasserman above. Two
>exceptions come to mind:
>1. Otiyot shel "Morid Ha-Tal"
>2. Otiyot shel "Kiddush Levana"
>This two were intentionally written with a different fonts. The first
>with a smaller font so that the reader will not be confused during
>Shemone Esre, and because many do not say it at all. The second with
>very large font because it was read in the dark and the larger font
>alleviated the eye strain.
I am in no doubt that Gilad is right, and that Kiddush levono is printed
large in some sidurim because it is read in the semi-darkness.
But that is not the source of the old Yiddish expression "Kiddush levono
oysies" meaning large writing or large print.
The origin of the expression lies in the fact that it used to be the
custom for a large board to be affixed to the external wall of shuls
carrying the text of Kiddush levono. Naturally, since this was a wall
notice read at a great distance , the text was much larger than any
other text normally encountered. Hence the expression "Kiddush levono
oysies" meaning outsize text.
I recall such a Kiddush Levono noticeboard at the Sunderland Beth
Hamedrash, and I think I may have seen one too outside one of the old
shuls in Yerusholayim.
Perets Mett
London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:02:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Kosher food, but what about Shabbat in space
Eli Lansey sent in a great post. I've written about the opinion that in
orbit one simply follows the times of the location below him, but I had
forgotten that there are many locations below him, because the sun rises
and sets at a different time at each altitude.
He wrote <<< Say one were to go into orbit on the Shuttle on Sunday of
the week leading into parshat B'reishit. 630 minutes (10.5 hours) into
the flight - 7 'days' later - he would have to read parshat Noach, and
630 minutes later - etc. Thus one could create an even worse case than
the Chu"l-Eretz Yisrael problem of one week off- he could be half a year
off!!! >>>
Nope. You forgot that in each orbit, he'll cross the Halachic
International Date Line and bring the days back into sync. (There's a
machlokes on where the Date Line is located but everyone agrees that
there has to be one somewhere.)
<<< It could be that once one is outside of the Earth's atmosphere he is
no longer considered on Earth. >>>
I don't think so. Being on Mars is just an extreme case of being in
orbit; being in orbit is just an extreme case of high altitude flight;
high altitude flight is just an extreme case of living on the
mountaintop. I don't see any reason why lack of atmosphere should be
relevant. It seems pretty arbitrary to me.
What would be *very* relevant is when the altitude is so high that there
is no sunrise and sunset at all. This would never occur in an exactly
equatorial orbit, and it would happen at different altitudes depending
on how steeply the orbit is inclined. (Even the moon does occasionally
set behind the earth and then rise from it; we call it a lunar eclipse.)
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Lansey <elansey@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:01:47 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Kosher food, but what about Shabbat in space
Kenneth Miller raised a number of interesting points. The first
was regarding the Halachik relativity that I suggested:
> Nope. You forgot that in each orbit, he'll cross the Halachic
> International Date Line and bring the days back into sync. (There's a
> machlokes on where the Date Line is located but everyone agrees that
> there has to be one somewhere.)
You are right. The halchik dateline would prevent such relatavistic
things from happening.
Second:
> <<< It could be that once one is outside of the Earth's atmosphere he
> is no longer considered on Earth. >>>
>
> I don't think so. Being on Mars is just an extreme case of being in
> orbit; being in orbit is just an extreme case of high altitude flight;
> high altitude flight is just an extreme case of living on the
> mountaintop. I don't see any reason why lack of atmosphere should be
> relevant. It seems pretty arbitrary to me.
I disagree that being on Mars is just an extreme case of being in orbit.
Mars orbits the sun; we orbit, so to speak, the Earth. However, you are
right regarding orbit (especially Shuttle orbit) being high altitude
flight. I thought I mentioned that as well, but I was trying to come up
with a reason why Shuttle/space flight might be slightly different. So
I chose, as one option, the atmosphere border. It could be considered
that since one of the things that separates the Earth from outer-space
is in fact the atmosphere, the lack of it might be considered
'off-Earth'. It is still, however, a slightly arbitrary 'border' line.
My brother raised another option regarding being off the Earth. He
pointed out that, due to relativity, the orbiting astronaut can claim
that he is stationary and that the Earth, Moon, etc, are just orbiting
around him. Now, even though on a theoretical plane his claim might be
true, in the end he *sees* sunrise over the Earth's horizon. And he
will continue to *percieve* sunrises in relation to the Earth's horizon
until he is far enough away from the Earth so that whatever he is
traveling in would look bigger than the Earth (for example, if you put a
finger close to your eye, a car many feet away might *seem* dwarfed by
it...) in which case he might be considered off the Earth, and
disconnected from its halachik times. This would be based on both the
distance from the Earth and the size of the thing that the astronaut is
on. (This is all assuming that you follow what you see.)
Eli.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:12:02 GMT
Subject: Modesty and the Ari's comments
From: Elihu Turkel <turkel@...>
> The Nimukei Yosef (39a b'dapei HaRiff) states that we may derive from
> this that one should avoid such displays in public. But I am not aware
> of any other such opinion. Is the Nimukei Yosef a Da'as yachid or was
> it obvious to everyone else?
I think the fact that the Rema says this as halacha makes the answer to
this fairly clear.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:18:23 GMT
Subject: re: Modesty by Avraham and Sara
Someone wrote <<< I once researched this question, and found a halakhah
to that effect, which in turn cited a rather bizarre aggadah that
someone (Elijah?) once entered the tomb of Avraham and Sarah and found
them in an embrace, and a gloss saying that this was permitted because
thwere is no Yetzer Hara after death. >>>
Chaim Mateh asked <<< BTW, why is this Gemoro "bizarre"? >>>
I can't speak for the original poster, but I have two questions which
I'd like to ask about the story:
1) What are the circumstances which led to their bodies embracing even
after they died? (Remember, they did not die at the same time, so we
can't say that they were simply buried in that position.)
2) How does this story demonstrate that there is no Yetzer Hara after
death? Isn't the opposite true? Why would people be embracing if they
are in a place where there are no physical pleasures?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lefkowitz, Sanford <slefkowit@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:16:03 -0400
Subject: Quotations in Torah
A basic principle of Torah study is that the Torah does not have any
unnecessary words (or letters).
Does this also apply to text inside quotation marks (i.e. where the
Torah says "va-yomer someone or other")? When Moshe is speaking, we
might say he is at such a high spiritual level, that every word he uses
is carefully chosen. But would we say that people like Balak or Pharaoh
are also speaking with perfect efficiency and that every word they say
has meaning?
Could it be that G-d edited what they said? If so, are all quotes edited?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:09:26 -0400
Subject: Zmanim in Space
When I was a child, in the early 60's I recall a lecture by an Orthododx
Jewish chaplain (I believe his name was Rabbi Price, but I'm not sure)
who had been stationed for some time at Thule Air Force Base, which is
above the Arctic Circle in Alaska. The psak which he received at the
time (considering that many of the Jewish community at the base came
from different places) wa to be arbitrarily determine zmanim and Shabbat
based on a theoretical 6:00 a.m. "sunrise" and a 6:00 p.m. "sunset".
The same could apply in space.
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 36 Issue 60
