Volume 28 Number 82
Produced: Thu Jun 17 20:20:18 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath (5)
[Zev Sero, Moshe Feldman, Rose Landowne, Moshe Goldberg, Ari
Kahn]
Keeping One's Feet Together
[Stan Tenen]
Mehitsah
[Avraham Reiss]
Some More Laining Customs
[Russell Hendel]
Source for Luach haShemos haShalem
[Reuben Rudman]
Tefillin on Chol HaMoed (2)
[Eliyahu Teitz, Moshe Feldman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:17:16 -0400
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
Ari Kahn <kahnar@...> wrote:
> the sefer Piski Teshuvot (by Rav Simcha Rabinovitz volume 3 section
> 252:7 he cites Responsa Choshav Haephod (3:86) Kinyan Torah (6:17)
> prohibiting both receiving faxes from non-Jews or Jews from a time
> zone which is not Shabbat because of Shvitat Kelim.
He *prohibits* it because of shevitat kelim? Does he rule like Bet
Shammai against Bet Hillel?
> In general it is well known that Rav Moshe Feinstein was quite hesitant
> to allow use of electric timers on shabbat for similar concerns. His
> logic was, that had chazal known about these devises they would have
> prohibited them, as they did work by animals and non-Jews (in situations
> where the Torah did not prohibit the usage). I have heard Rav Aharon
> Lichtenstien use the same logic in a response to a query regarding the
> permissibility of using a VCR on shabbat (where it is set prior to
> shabbat and the person will watch after shabbat). As the use of machines
> becomes more complex, it is easy to imagine a time when due to complete
> automation factories can function on Shabbat without any external input,
> clearly Chazal would have disallowed this.
It's also well known that we don't make new decrees that Chazal didn't
make, because we think that they `would have'. And in this case we
know that Bet Hillel explicitly refused to ban the setting of devices
before shabbat that would do work on shabbat, unless there's a reasonable
fear that it will lead to an actual breach of shabbat (e.g. they banned
putting food on an open fire before shabbat, for fear that one may come
to turn the fire up on shabbat).
> If the machines make noise there may also be a concern of "Hashmaat
> Kol".
On whose part? The person who's sending the fax is not in shabbat,
and the person on the receiving end is not doing anything. Surely
he isn't suggesting that if someone rings ones doorbell on shabbat
one is guilty of `making a noise' for not having disabled the bell
before shabbat!
> The paper which comes out may very well be Nolad, and
> therefore muktza, (though here the reasoning would be circular).
We've already discussed this. I can't understand how anyone could
consider a piece of paper to have been `born' merely by having ink
applied to it.
> A separate question would be receiving faxes (or email) in Israel after
> shabbat, from time zones where it is still shabbat.
I assume you mean from a Jewish sender. The rules here would presumably
be similar to those for food cooked by a Jew on shabbat (cf OC 318).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Feldman <moshefeldman@...>
Date: 15 Jun 99 14:18:40 EDT
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
Ari Kahn wrote:
<<In the sefer Piski Teshuvot (by Rav Simcha Rabinovitz).
<snip>
> he cites Responsa
> Choshav Haephod (3:86) Kinyan Torah (6:17) prohibiting both receiving
> faxes from non-Jews or Jews from a time zone which is not Shabbat
> because of Shvitat Kelim.
I thought that the issue of shvitat kelim is disputed by Bet Shammai and
Bet Hillel in the third perek of Shabbat and we follow Bet Hillel, who
is lenient.
That is why we are permitted to put various appliances on timers.
<<In general it is well known that Rav Moshe Feinstein was quite hesitant
to allow use of electric timers on shabbat for similar concerns. His
logic was, that had chazal known about these devises they would have
prohibited them, as they did work by animals and non-Jews (in situations
where the Torah did not prohibit the usage).>>
My understanding is that Rav Moshe prohibited electric timers for most
electrical appliances because of the issue of me'arat ayin. (I'll admit
I haven't seen Rav Moshe's tshuvah inside. Do you know where it is?)
He permitted timers for lights because at this point everyone knows that
people use timers for lights. If there were a problem of shvitat kelim,
lights would be prohibited as well.
<< I have heard Rav Aharon
Lichtenstien use the same logic in a response to a query regarding the
permissibility of using a VCR on shabbat (where it is set prior to
shabbat and the person will watch after shabbat). >>
The classic reason given for not watching TV on Shabbat is uvdah d'chol.
I would think that the same reasoning should apply to VCRs. The
question is whether the issur should spread to all electrical appliances
(as your reasoning would indicate.) I do know, for example, that Rav
Moshe Tendler, the son-in-law of R. Moshe Feinstein, does permit his
congregants to put dishwashers on timers for Shabbat (provided that they
get an electrician to disable the locking mechanism).
<<As the use of machines
becomes more complex, it is easy to imagine a time when due to complete
automation factories can function on Shabbat without any external input,
clearly Chazal would have disallowed this.
>>
The problem I have with all this is "ein anu gozrin gzeirot
me'atzmeinu"-- given the fact that we no longer have a Sanhedrin, we
cannot create new gzeirot. In fact, (I seem to recall that) R. Moshe
Feinstein himself notes this in his tshuvah permitting sheitels.
Kol tuv,
Moshe Feldman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rose Landowne <ROSELANDOW@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:39:36 EDT
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
Just as a point of information, the Orthodox Union has some sort of automatic
fax set-up, and we often receive faxes from them , in the same time zone,
when it is already Shabbat.
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Goldberg <mgold@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:48:41 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
> As the use of machines
> becomes more complex, it is easy to imagine a time when due to complete
> automation factories can function on Shabbat without any external input,
> clearly Chazal would have disallowed this.
What is the basis for this statement? If shevitat keilim [rest of
utensils] is not prohibited, what is wrong with letting an automated
factory continue to work?
Moshe Goldberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Kahn <kahnar@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:00:42 +0300
Subject: Re: FAXES and Eggs Born on Shabbath
Please see Rav Moshe Feinstein`s Iggrot Moshe O.H. volume 4 section 60,
where Rav Moshe write concerning a shabbas clock (see the source for the
specific case)
"In my humble opinion one can not permit that, for by virtue of a
shabbas clock you would be able to perform every prohibited activity on
shabbas - entire factories would function - there can be no greater
diminishing of the aura (ZILZUL) of shabbas than this. It is clear that
had this technology been available during the time of the Tannaim, and
Amaraim they would have prohibited it, as they prohibited asking a non
Jew to perform work (Amira laakum) for the same reason. Perhaps in
reality it is included in that prohibition already for the legislation
includes work done for a Jew - by the Jews speech, certainly by the Jews
action."
As I said in my "post" I have heard Rav Aharon Lichtenstein employ the same
logical argument.
Ari Kahn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:18:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Keeping One's Feet Together
Avraham Reiss and others have commented on "keeping one's feet together"
during prayer. I'm grateful for the references to Rashi and the Shulchan
Aruch, etc. But of course, there is a deeper Kabbalah under every Halacha
and minhag.
In the case of keeping one's feet together so that they "appear as one
foot" (Rashi), and because a person is emulating angels who have "one
foot", there is a deep Kabbalistic meaning.
Did you ever notice that we have two hands, and two feet, but that when we
make a choice by pointing with our hands, or moving with our feet, we go in
one direction only? The reason for this is simple (from a mathematician's
or Kabbalist's point of view <smile>). Our conscious will, the free will
we receive from Hashem when he withdraws a bit of his Will to create the
universe, is a four-dimensional entity. We make one choice at a time,
based on our single will in four dimensions. But when something that is
single in four-dimensions is projected into three-dimensional reality, it
must split left and right, or inside-outside -- because there isn't enough
room for 4-D entities in 3-D (unless we resort to left-right symmetry or
self-embedment).
When we are in prayer, we are to some extent in the "world to come," in 4-D
consciousness. Thus, our hands and our feet -- and angels' hands and feet
-- are singular. That's why we emulate a single "foot" when we're praying.
Our will is in four dimensions; the abnegation of our will (bittul) is in
four dimensions, and our prayers are in four dimensions. Thus, we make our
physical selves "single-footed" because that's the best match for our
single-minded (Hashem-minded) prayer.
There's an additional reason. The first verse of B'reshit at the letter
level draws a little picture (not an idol; a process) of Adam Kadmon. Adam
Kadmon, in the model produced by the letter-sequences of Genesis, "stands
on one foot." That foot rests on the Makom and on the Temple Mount, where
Hashem is said to be located (in this model). When we are deep in prayer,
we too stand with one foot on the Makom, and on the Temple Mount
(metaphorically).
This is the same one-foot that Hillel tells us we stand on when we
understand Torah as "not doing to others what we would not have done to
ourselves."
So, we follow Halacha, and we follow halachic references, but the _reason_
behind the halacha is the one-foot that Halacha stands on -- Kabbalah.
Best,
Tenen
PS While it's not labeled that way, you can see the "one foot" illustrated
in my "Continuous Creation" poster, at <http://www.meru.org/contin.html>.
But to understand the poster, which is very compact, much more information
is required -- so ask if you want to know. If you want to know "who holds
by this," ask also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Reiss <areiss@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:53:15 +0300
Subject: Re: Mehitsah
From: Aryeh A. Frimer
" .. . none of the poskim deal with the issue of mehitsah
at Hakhel which is biblical, at which women were obligated
to attend, ... Any sources or thoughts? One presumes they
were all in the same area (azarah). But there is no evidence
that there was any separation of the sexes."
If they stood as families, with a space between each family, segregation
might not have been required. Was tephillah involved here?
If the men stood in one group all facing one direction, and the women
all stood behind them, no mechitza would have been required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Some More Laining Customs
Dan Werlin raises the question of whether the triplets of verses with
the same initial letter should be sung as one verse in Aycha 3.
While I have followed this custom it seems to go against the principle
that we don't change the cantillations.
If anyone knows a source and reason I would be appreciative. There
are several other similar customs where a source would be welcome
* The custom to link together the JOURNEYS in Masay in groups of 2 sentences
* The custom (well established!!) to read the 10 commandments as 10 verses
(But...this goes against the established principle that we have no
right to make into sentences verses that Moses did not make into
sentences..so why do we follow this)
* The custom (in some places) to link together pairs of verses denoting
journeys in the 5th aliyah of Behaalothchah.
Russell Jay Hendel Phd ASA RHendel @ mcs drexel edu
Math & Comp Science Drexel
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Reuben Rudman <rudman@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:37:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Source for Luach haShemos haShalem
As of Tuesday, June 15, 1999, Eichler's Seforim Store on Coney Island
Avenue in Brooklyn had 6 copies of this volume on their 'Closeout'
shelves. They are marked $5.50 but charged me $3.00.
Reuben Rudman
Adelphi University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliyahu Teitz <EDTeitz@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:10:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Tefillin on Chol HaMoed
<<
Our shoul has the mechitza running down the length of the shull (to the
side). On chol hamoed (since there are usually not enough people for
two minyanim (one of each type), the tefillin wearers will daven on the
other side of the mechitzah so as not to have a problem of lo tisgod'du
and then come back into the main area when they take off their tefillin.
>>
The issue of lo sisgodedu is not that the two groups not see each other.
It is that there not be competing minhagim in the same city, or for
those who have many different shuls in one city, perhaps to not have
competing minhagim in one shul, even at different times. The basis
statement in the g'mara, if memory serves me correctly, deals with 2
Batei Din in the same town, where there might be differing halachic
rulings. It has nothing to do with physically being in the same
building at the same time. It has to do with uniformity in the town
itself.
Hiding a competing minhag behind a mechitza hardly seems to work.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center, Elizabeth, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Feldman <moshefeldman@...>
Date: 15 Jun 99 11:08:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Tefillin on Chol HaMoed
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote:
<<Our shul has the mechitza running down the length of the shull (to the
side). On chol hamoed (since there are usually not enough people for
two minyanim (one of each type), the tefillin wearers will daven on the
other side of the mechitzah so as not to have a problem of lo tisgod'du
and then come back into the main area when they take off their tefillin.
>>
I would think if the tefillin wearers can be seen by the non-tefillin
wearers, then you have even a greater violation of lo titgod'du. The
prohibition is "lo ta'asu agudot agudot"--do not make yourselves into
separate groups. The extension of this halacha is that there is a
prohibition even where a single group contains members with varying
minhagim. In the case of the mechitzah, surely you have formed separate
groups!
OTOH, if the tefillin wearers cannot be seen by the non-wearers, this
would be a good solution. I myself wore tefillin on chol hamoed in
Israel and davened in the women's section. In Israel, it is very clear
that there is a lo titgod'du problem in wearing tefillin publicly.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 28 Issue 82
