Volume 57 Number 69
Produced: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:34:59 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chareidi Internet (2)
[Orrin Tilevitz Alex Heppenheimer]
Elevators on Shabbos
[Steven Oppenheimer]
Refrigerators (2)
[Ira L. Jacobson Carl Singer]
Vigilante Judaism (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Alex Heppenheimer]
Xmas in Israel
[Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 12:11 AM
Subject: Chareidi Internet
>From Stuart Wise
> A rav once told me (and maybe others have heard the same) that it takes
> nothing to be machmir to assur something; what is really difficult is to
> find how something can be muttar k;halachah.
The gemara's phrase, in several places, is "kocha d'heteira adif". I don't have
sources handy, but if nobody else posts them you can find the phrase in Jastrow.
My recollection is that in context, the phrase means that if a rabbinic
statement can be interpreted either as a heteir (permissive) or an issur
(forbidding), the former is presumed to be intended. The rationale is
essentially as you state: anyone can say something is forbidden , but it takes a
gadol to be willing to stick his neck out and say it's permitted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Chareidi Internet
In MJ 57:62, Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...> replied to me:
>> When keeping mitzvos is viewed as a burden - when we forget Who gave these
>> mitzvos, and Who gave the Rabbis the authority to apply it to contemporary
>> situations - then even one mitzvah is too many.
>What mitzvah here are you talking about exactly? Part of your response is
>headed in the wrong direction. Here are group of rabbonim who have taken
>upon themselves to impose a prohibition that may or may not have anything to
>do with keeping the mitzvos. Adding chumros when not linked to a mitzvah
>and at the same time taking away a person's choice, to me, weakens those with
>authority.
There are indeed mitzvos involved here.
1.If the ban was about the Internet in general, then the associated mitzvos
might include:
a. "Guard yourself from any evil thing" (Deut. 23:10)- which the Gemara (Avodah
Zarah 20b) explains to mean, "one should not think [improper thoughts] by day,
which would lead to seminal emission that night."
b. "Do not go astray after your heart and your eyes" (Num. 15:39) - which the
Gemara (Berachos 12b) explains to mean reading and considering thoughts of
idolatry or heresy.
c. The mitzvos involving lashon hara, as below.
2. If the focus of these rabbanim is specifically on the "Chareidi" news and
discussion websites, then:
a. You get into the whole issue of lashon hara, which (perSefer Chofetz Chaim)
involves as many as 31 mitzvos.
b. As R' Mordechai Torczyner eloquently expresses it
(http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-tropper-scandal-scares-me.html), "we
are trained (Pirkei Avot 4:18) not to look at others bish'as kalkalasan, at the
time of their corruption. We have nothing to gain, and much sensitivity to lose,
by such voyeurism."
You could argue, true, that these sites are performing a valuable service by
exposing various problems in the Jewish world that demand correction. But can
the average person who reads them honestly say that they are reading about the
issue in order to do something about it, rather than just - and I include myself
in this - to satisfy idle curiosity or to reinforce their prejudices about other
Jewish groups?
It is true that all of this is not necessarily dispositive; and the fact remains
that this ban is not binding on the entire Jewish world, nor could it be (there
has been no body with sanction to do that since the closing of the Talmud, as
Sammy Finkelman noted in 57:64). But the rabbanim who issued this ruling are
certainly entitled to their "shikkul hadaas" (judgement) in deciding that the
above concerns - and probably others - are sufficiently weighty to justify a
blanket condemnation, and ruling accordingly for their communities.
>Look at the guidelines Agudah introduced for weddings and how
>much they are disregarded. Is it not a principle not to impose a prohibition
>when most people are not likely to abide by it?
I'm not familiar with those guidelines. But issuing such directives has indeed
long been the norm in Jewish communities; see
http://www.answers.com/topic/sumptuary-law. It is true that in modern society
Agudah, or almost any other Jewish body, lacks the power to enforce these
rulings; but then to pursue that logic to its conclusion, no halachic rulings
should ever be issued in any democratic society(since there is no guarantee that
anyone will follow them), and "each person should do what is right in his (or
her) eyes." Which is a state of affairs to be decried, not celebrated.
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Elevators on Shabbos
chips@eskimo wrote:
> If going into or coming out of an elevator causes the elevator to
> automatically adjust its "motor" due to change of weight (easy way to
> tell: if elevator takes longer to move with more people in it than the
> "motor" is not get adjusted) than a posek needs to look into it. The
> people getting off probably wouldn't care that the elevator is not going
> to go faster but people getting on probably do care that the elevator is
> not going to go slower - and therefore it would be problematic.
One of the reasons Rav Auerbach, zt"l permitted riding an elevator on
Shabbos was that the passengers weight and the elevator motor are both
working to brake the elevator car. This is an example of zeh ve'zeh goreim
which is permitted even rabbinically since there is no issue of mesaye'ah
yedei aveirah (aiding a fellow Jew to commit a sin) - the motor is not a
person. See Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata.
There have been Rabbonim who have been machmir when it comes to using
elevators on Shabbos. There have also been Rabbonim who have been meikil.
If there are readers who are interested in understanding the issues, Rabbi
Michael Broyde wrote an article in English on the subject (Journal of
Halacha) and Rabbi Yisroel Rosen and Prof. Zev Lev each wrote articles in
Hebrew (Techumin) explaining the lenient view as well as defending this
position against Rabbi Halperin's book "Elevators on Shabbat."
Recently, Rabbi Rosen wrote a letter reaffirming Rav Auerbach's position and
explaining the recent developments, concluding that the halachic issues
remain the same, Rav Auerbach did not change his mind, and his lenient
position still stands.. The letter may be found on the Techumin website.
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Refrigerators
Sammy Finkelman wrote in mail-jewish Vol.57 #35 Digest:
>The problem with that concept is that that would apply to a lot of
>other things too. Not just elevators, but also refrigerators for
>instance. Opening and clsoing the door could cause the motor to work
>harder and also putting in food.
But in addition to these older considerations, I understand that the
technology that has been introduced in refrigerators of late makes it
(almost) impossible to open the doors at any time without at least
violating a derabbanan. I leave the details for someone more
familiar with the technology, but I have seen articles that raise the problem.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Refrigerators
>I am not aware of any posek who allows one to open the refrigerator if the
>motor is not running for those refrigerator's which have motors that
>automatically rev up when a door is opened.
Just a quick clarification -- most refrigerators work with via a temperature
sensitive control. Opening the refrigerator allows warmer air from the room
to enter and thus hastens the next "on" cycle of the "motor" (the compressor
which provides cold air ....) The only control hard-wired to the opening
and closing of the door is the light switch for the interior light(s) within
the refrigerator - -these can be defeated in several ways.
There are those who wait for the motor to be "on" before they'll open the
refrigerator on Shabbos.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 12:11 AM
Subject: Vigilante Judaism
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
>> For that matter, and apropos of the holiday we've just finished celebrating,
>> consider Matisyahu's killing of the Jew who was about to bring an idolatrous
>> sacrifice. Were that to happen nowadays, no doubt the headlines would all be
>> screaming about the fanatic, murderous Taliban-like Jew, and many solemn
>> editorials would be written about the importance of religious tolerance! And
>> no
>> doubt quite a few Jews would also be uncomfortable at being tarred with this
>> same brush. Yet Matisyahu's action was fully in keeping with Torah ideals, >> and
>> it sparked the Chanukah revolt and saved Judaism for all time; so we recall
>> his
>> action gratefully, just as we do with Pinchas' killing of Zimri and other
>> "vigilante" Jews.
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
> Matisyahu "saved" Judaism for the relatively brief reign of the
> Hashmonaim--Rabbinic Judaism saved Judaism for the long term. Pinchas' act was
> never enshrined in halacha, wherein the Rabbis created and promoted a strict
> legal system of due process. Alex's reference to the Taliban is instructive:
> they, like the Ayatollahs of Iran, feel that they are fully justified in
> jailing, maiming, and killing those who don't accept their view of their
> "torah", all without any true legal process. The Jews gave the idea of due
> process to the world as enshrined in the Talmud--why would we yearn to emulate
> the Taliban and the Ayatollahs?
It appears as if you misunderstood what you read. Alex did not compare
Matisyahu to the Taliban, he stated that a Matisyahu (or a Pinchas)
would be compared to the Taliban by the world press who would condemn
all religious Jews and pretend that the action was wrong. The point is
that there are times when immediate action is needed. It is true that
it must be followed by the proper actions to consolidate the gains and
ensure that the results are correct. The medrash that it required
Hashem to explicitly state that Pinchas was correct in order to
validate what he did shows that it was indeed a unique situation.
Similarly Matisyahu was correct at that time in order to set up
Chanuka and in order to allow the Chachamim (Rabbis) to maintain the
Jewish people.
The fact that the Chashmonaim forgot and slid into the wrong behavior
does not invalidate what Matisyahu did. It just shows how careful one
must be to continue in the proper path.
Yehu killed all the worshippers of the avodas zara (idol) and is
condemned because he later succumbed to idol worship himself. As a
result, all those he killed (at the command of the navi) were regarded
as having been murdered and he was punished. Had he not fallen into
idol worship, those deaths would have been justified.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<SabbaHillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 12:11 AM
Subject: Vigilante Judaism
In MJ 57:67, Bernard Raab <beraab@...> replied to me:
>> For that matter, and apropos of the holiday we've just finished celebrating,
>> consider Matisyahu's killing of the Jew who was about to bring an idolatrous
>> sacrifice. Were that to happen nowadays, no doubt the headlines would all be
>> screaming about the fanatic, murderous Taliban-like Jew, and many solemn
>> editorials would be writtenl about the importance of religious tolerance! And no
>> doubt quite a few Jews would also be uncomfortable at being tarred with this
>> same brush. Yet Matisyahu's action was fully in keeping with Torah ideals, and
>> it sparked the Chanukah revolt and saved Judaism for all time; so we recall his
>> action gratefully, just as we do with Pinchas' killing of Zimri and other
>> "vigilante" Jews.
>Matisyahu "saved" Judaism for the relatively brief reign of the
>Hashmonaim--Rabbinic Judaism saved Judaism for the long term.
Each of them saved Judaism in a different way. It is true that we need the
fences provided by the Sages, and without them Judaism would be much weaker.
(Though one wonders whether people in those times decried them too as
unnecessary infringements on their freedom!)
But Matisyahu's action, and the rebellion that it sparked,had ramifications far
beyond the century of Hasmonean rule. Imagine the counterfactual:that the
Seleucid Greeks, and their Jewish collaborators, had continued to run riot in
Eretz Yisrael, to prohibit the practice of certain key mitzvos, and to recreate
the rest of Jewish law and practice in the mold of Hellenism. How long would
Judaism have been able to survive under those circumstances? Wouldn't its
practitioners have eventually become like the Marranos of a millennium and a
half later - gradually weakening in their knowledge and practice, to the point
of eventual assimilation?
>Pinchas' act was
>never enshrined in halacha, wherein the Rabbis created and promoted a strict
>legal system of due process.
Actually, it is indeed part of halachah - see Sanhedrin 81b ff, and Rambam, Hil.
Issurei Biah 12:4-5.
>Alex's reference to the Taliban is instructive:
>they, like the Ayatollahs of Iran, feel that they are fully justified in
>jailing, maiming, and killing those who don't accept their view of their
>"torah", all without any true legal process. The Jews gave the idea of due
>process to the world as enshrined in the Talmud--why would we yearn to emulate
>the Taliban and the Ayatollahs?
My reference to the Taliban was based on Stuart Wise's original posting, in
which he argued that the "Chareidi Internet" ban "feels like something the
Taliban would do." So my point was not that we want to emulate them, but rather,
as I wrote in my original posting (57:57): "saying that 'it feels like something
the Taliban would do' is, frankly, neither here nor there: halachah is a
self-sufficient system, and isn't determined on the basis of what other groups
do or don't do." There is precedent for this approach in the Gemara,Sanhedrin
52b: "since the Torah speaks of [ceremonially] burning [a king's personal
articles at his funeral], then we are not copying the non-Jews in doing so;
similarly, since the Torah speaks of using a sword [to behead people condemned
for certain sins], then we are not copying the non-Jews in doing so."
So yes, of course in general halachah does mandate a legal process, indeed one
with a very strict standard of evidence, in order to take a human life. (And of
course this is all in abeyance nowadays anyway, since we don't have a Sanhedrin
headquartered in the Holy Temple.) But we still need to recognize that the same
halachah does carve out some exceptions, and that decrying those as
"Taliban-like" is not an argument that holds any water Jewishly.
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 31,2009 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Xmas in Israel
Yisrael Medad stated in mail-Jewish Vol. 57 #68 Digest:
>The country contains almost 20% non-Jews as citizens.
Actually slightly over 20 percent. Yes, but 90 percent of them are
Muslims and not Xtians. They are about as interested in Xmas music as we are.
>Is there not a principle of "midarchi shalom" that could be used?
Darkhei shalom to justify playing Xtian music to Jews (80 percent of
the population) and Muslims (18 percent of the population and nearly
all Sunni)? I don't think so. If Galei Zahal chose to play muezzin
calls five times a day, perhaps one could use that argument, but not
in the present case.
(I hope no one from Galei Zahal is reading this; not to open the
mouth to . . . .)
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 57 Issue 69
