Volume 36 Number 93
Produced: Tue Aug 20 18:50:04 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew (3)
[Daniel M Wells, Gershon Dubin, Zev Sero]
BIN NUN vs BEN NUN
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Question re the Maharal and John Dee
[Stan Tenen]
shir shel yom revi'i additions
[Mordechai]
A trop question
[Art Werschulz]
Wine vs Grape Juice
[Shimon Lebowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:55:16 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
> Not so.If he did it for himself, or for another goy, then anyone may
> use it.The prohibition is only when his purpose was for the Jews.
> Thus, if a goy comes into a room, turns on the light, and stays there,
> it is clear that his intent was for himself, because *he* didn't want
> to sit in the dark, and so it's OK to benefit.But if he sees a dark
> room, turns on the light, and leaves, so that he obviously didit for
> the people who were in the room, then we must look further to decide
> for whom specifically he did it; in the absence of any other evidence,
> we assume that he did it for the majority of the people in the room,
> and if the majority is Jewish theymay not use the light.
My point and it was endorsed by our Rav that even if he does it for
himself, if he is aware that that a Jew may benefit from his action (and
in most cases the goy knows this is the reason for the invitation) then
there is a distinct possibility that the Jew may not benefit.
> In the case where you invite him for a drink in a dark room, it is
> obvious that he turns on the light because *he* doesn't want to drink
> in the dark, not because he has read your mind and knows that *you*
> don't want to be in the dark.
As above most goyim are not that stupid. He has read your mind even if
he also gets a benefit.
> It's even permitted to tell him that he is not obligated to drink in the
> dark, that the reason the light is off is not because you like it that
> way but because you can't turn it on on shabbat, and that if he prefers
> it on he should feel free to turn it on himself.And once the light is
> on, it is of course perfectly OK to tell him not to switch it off when
> he leaves.
So tell him straight out that you are not allowed to turn on the
electricity...
There are two main issurim involved here: - amira (asking the goy) and
hanaah (benefit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:25:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
Daniel M Wells <wells@...> writes:
> Asking a gentile to ask a second gentile is a "Shvus de Shvus" which
> according to some is allowed.
> Most poskim only allow it
> What? Shvus deShvus?
Yes.
> But perhaps the mitzvah delayed and/or the public need dispensed with.
> Who says its a mitzvah or public need to turn the air conditioners back
> on after a power outage. Did people not daven 50 years ago w/o air
> conditioners?
Sure. They also davened a hundred years ago without electric lights
(and therefore with none, late Shabbos afternoon). Many places do not
have an eruv; who says it's permitted to repair an eruv for the benefit
of the public (it is)?
Public benefit is determined by time and place, not in the absolute.
> No. Light by its nature is for everyone (ner l'echad ner lemae'ah)
> Where is this stated as a halacha?
It's a mishna in Shabbos with no opposing view. I cannot give you
chapter and verse in Shulchan Aruch since I have no sefarim with me, but
if you cannot find it I'll get it to you.
> 'Having you in mind ALSO' is davka the problem. He is turning on the
> light for YOU (as well as himself) and thus he is like your servant who
> is not supposed to work.
No, he's doing an act which by its nature cannot be done part way.
There is no way he could light a light (or construct a ramp to go off a
ship, to use the mishna's other example) for one person and it not be
available for others. Ner l'echad, ner lemai'ah; kevesh l'echad,
kevesh lemai'ah.
Under those (limited) circumstances, there is no possibility that he
might do extra work specifically for you (shemah yarbeh bishvilo) and
it's permitted.
In circumstances where he _might_ do extra for you, he cannot do it
for the both of you.
He is NOT your servant unless he's your servant; shevisas avadim has
nothing to do with this issue.
> According to this our Rav also holds that if a goy is
> walking by an unlit Jewish house and realizing that the lights have
> failed, and without asking he restores the power out of the goodness of
> his heart, the Jewish owner is not allowed to benefit.
This is correct and does not contradict what I have written. In the
case you cite, there is no benefit to the nonJew (except a good feeling,
which does not count in this situation) from turning the lights on in
your house and proceeding down the street. When he derives physical
benefit from the act, AND it's the type as described where there's no
chashash shemah yarbeh bishvilo, you may use the light or ramp.
> There are two main issurs involved: that of asking (amira) and that of
> benefit (hanaah)
Again, correct but does not contradict what I wrote. One may not
benefit from a melacha which a goy does unless:
1. He too derives physical benefit from it
2. It could not be done in a greater/smaller fashion, similar to
lighting a light or building a ramp.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:38:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
Daniel M Wells <wells@...> wrote:
> My point and it was endorsed by our Rav that even if he does it for
> himself, if he is aware that that a Jew may benefit from his
> action (and in most cases the goy knows this is the reason for the
> invitation) then there is a distinct possibility that the Jew may not
> benefit.
On what basis?
So long as it's not a case where next time he might make more so as to
have enough for himself and you too, there is no problem at all with
benefiting from his actions which he did for his own benefit, *even if
he knew and intended* that you would also benefit. The operative rule
here is `ner le'echad, ner leme'ah' - the same light is needed for one
person or 100, so when he lit the light for his own use, he did no extra
work for the 99 other people, all Jews, who he knew would benefit.
>> In the case where you invite him for a drink in a dark room, it is
>> obvious that he turns on the light because *he* doesn't want to drink
>> in the dark, not because he has read your mind and knows that *you*
>> don't want to be in the dark.
> As above most goyim are not that stupid. He has read your
> mind even if he also gets a benefit.
What's stupidity got to do with it? After all, if you wanted the light
on you would have lit it yourself, no? Only if he knows that Jews can't
switch on lights on shabbat will he guess that that's what you want him
to do, and even then, since his primary intention is for himself (*he*
certainly doesn't want to drink in the dark, no matter *what* you want),
it makes absolutely no difference if he knows that you want him to turn
on the light, and even that he intends you to benefit *as well*.
>> It's even permitted to tell him that he is not obligated to drink in
>> the dark, that the reason the light is off is not because you like it
>> that way but because you can't turn it on on shabbat, and that if he
>> prefers it on he should feel free to turn it on himself.And once the
>> light is on, it is of course perfectly OK to tell him not to switch
>> it off when he leaves.
> So tell him straight out that you are not allowed to turn on the
> electricity...
That's what I said - that you can tell him the reason the light is off
is not because you like it that way but because you can't turn it on on
shabbat, and that if he prefers it on he should feel free to turn it on
himself.
> There are two main issurim involved here: - amira (asking the goy) and
> hanaah (benefit)
Benefiting is not a separate prohibition, it's a penalty for telling
him, or a guarantee that you won't tell him in future. Since there is
no prohibition on a goy working for himeslf - or even on a Jew telling a
goy to work for himself - there is also no prohibition on a Jew
benefiting when he does.
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:18:40 -0400
Subject: RE: BIN NUN vs BEN NUN
Jack Stroh in v36n77 asks why it is Joshua BIN NUn vs Joshua BEN NUN.
This was answered by me in the email group Bais Tefillah #131 and
repeated on the email group Torah Forum. Allow me to summarize the gist
of the answer.
1) I suggest that the Hebrew BIN is a VERB / CONSTRUCT and means either
BYN(To understand) or BNH(To build). In fact BYN (meaning understand)
occurs several times in Tenach (Usually it is written full with the
Yud). Many 3 letter words with a middle yud and a chirik (ee sound) come
from verbs
2) I then analyze the half dozen verses where BYN occurs--they include
Dt25-02, Jon04-10, Prv30-01, Prv23-01 and 2 occurences in Daniel Other
verses are discussed as well
3) To make a long story short I suggest the following translations --3a)
Prv23-01 when you confront a leader UNDERSTAND (BYN) what is before you
(This BYN is spelled with a yud)
--3b) Jon04-10 You Jonah had pity on this plant which was a ONE NIGHT
CONSTRUCTION (BIN LAYLAH from BNH to build) and was a ONE NIGHT
DEMOLITION (In the above posting I discuss 5 variant Rashi texts and
show that minor variations in some Rashi texts would be consistent with
the above)
--Dt25-02 And if the wicked person is MEDICALLY EXAMINED (literally
UNDERSTOOD) to be able to withstand lashes then you lash him up to 40
(Again: this is based on BN=UNDERSTOOD; it is consistent with the
halachah)
4) Finally I suggest that Joshua BIN NUN means Joshua who was the CHILD
(NUN) of UNDERSTANDING (BIN)--this is consistent with many verses (eg
and Joshua was full of wisdom Dt34-09). The use of NUN (literally
grandchild) to denote have an ATTRIBUTE (..CHILD of UNDERSTANDING) is
consistent with the way the Hebrew language uses the word CHILD (e.g. as
in Job30-08 --The CHILDREN of DISGUST and the CHILDREN of NO-NAME--
refering to despicable people, that is, people who have the attribute of
DISGUST or no-name)
The above should be considered a possible suggestion --- the above
points show how related verses and issues would be understood
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 08:36:25 -0400
Subject: Question re the Maharal and John Dee
The question below came from a scholar-friend in England. Since I don't
know the answer I said I'd ask around.
>is there any evidence that the Maharal ever met John Dee?
If anyone has any information, feel free to email me privately (unless
there's reason to post your answer on m-j). Thanks.
Best,
Stan
Meru Foundation http://www.meru.org <meru1@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:59:33 EDT
Subject: shir shel yom revi'i additions
I have read the various explanations given for the pesukim added by some,
with interest.
However, the bottom line is - did the leviyim say it in the beis
hamikdosh ? If not, I don't think it should be added as part of the
shir shel yom. Doing such seemingly it makes the recitation different
from what we are trying to commemorate / recreate, which doesn't make
too much sense to me. If people feel they must add it, it should be kept
noticeably separate from the shir, IMHO.
Another thing - some posters have tried to say that it ends on a bad
note, therefore additional verses were added. To that I say 1) who says
that the destruction of evil people is considered bad (despite a common
belief about shevi'i shel Pesach, which is not as simple as it seems to
some) ? and 2) If that is such an important consideration, why was it
not operative in the beis hamikdosh ? If the leviyim in the beis
hamikdosh were not concerned about such, must we be ?
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:24:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: A trop question
Hi.
A. W. Binder's book "Biblical Cantillation" does munax before mahpakh
as follows:
munax: C (8th) C-A (16ths)-C (8th tied to 8th)
mahpakh: A (8th) A-C-F (16ths)
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: <agw@...><a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:38:41 +0200
Subject: Wine vs Grape Juice
In the "Havdoloh in the 9 days" thread, the comment was made that:
> Why grape juice? I've never heard any claim that grape juice is
> HALAKHICALLY different from wine. Thus, wherever grape juice is permitted
> so is wine, and wherever wine is forbidden so is graire juice (thus grape
> juice requires a hekhsher to assure that it's not stam yainam).
However, I *have* heard of at least one opinion, which I unfortunately
do not remember the author of, but will attempt to track down, that the
four cups at the Pesach Seder must be specifically *wine*, and NOT grape
juice.
The reasoning I remember was that drinking intoxicating wine is a sign
of freemen, but juice is not.
Be"H I will get back to the list with a source.
Shimon Lebowitz mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel PGP: http://shimonl.findhere.org/PGP/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 36 Issue 93
