rabbiofberlin

PM- we are going around a bit in a circle.As you can see from gavra-at-work and cherrybim, this idea that the shutting off of fuel is a gram and applies to a gas stove is a well accepted idea and it seesm that even r’Moshe himself agreed to it.

very of us here are actually issuing a psak but the discussion statred with oomis remembrances. In this whole thread, I tried to show that there are good reasons to be meikel and it seems that there are good precedents for this,until today.

As to your assertion that a grama only refers to something that takes place with a “significant time delay”, we are into important semantics again. What is “significant” ? a second? a minute? a foot? a yard? If yo ucannot measure, it cannot be effective.

Basically, if you accept the fact that kibbui only means DIRECT dousing of a flame (with cloth or water) then anything else is gram kibbui and you have a consistent way of thinking. This would also explain the “kofim kaarah al hanes”, to which I referred in the earlier note. Thiswhole matter has many ramifications and this thread sure does not suffice for a thorough analysis.

And- to all of you- thanks for thsi wonderful opportunity of learning this sugys again.

PM- I have continued alittle bit ofmy own research and many Rishonim agree with this tosefos. See Rosh, see hagohas maimonis (YOm tov Perek 4,mishna3). It is not clear from the rambam what his view is on this as he does nto give a reason for the issur of taking some oil from a candle.I have not had time to look at the Tur and others.

This matter is obviously extensive and it is not at all clear cut that this is not gram kibbui (see gavra at work one entry earlier).

i am indebted to gavra at work for his pointing out that R’Moshe himself may have considered shutting off gas a gram kibbui.

gavra-at-work- just one word: WHY?

ICOT- we are getting to an interesting point- thanks to your wonderful knowledge and explanaitons.

indeed, it seems that those stoves work exactly as yo udescribe. BTW- tge gases MUST expand-even if a little-. If i remember my HS days- this is elementary in any gas,although it may very well be that the gas in the stove gets there because of the pressure.

Where idisagree with you is in number 3. You correctly describe that the gas flowing from the burner gets ignited by the pilot and the lit gas travels back to the burner to light the other gases emanating from the holes in the burner. What makes you think that the flame “retreats’ to the burner? You yourself seem to agree that there may be a low flame in the pipelet, so why would it stop burning?

When we turn down the gas- even shutting off the supply totally- it is a function of the FUEL ,not the flame, that is being curtailed. As a matter of fact, once one shuts totally the gas to the burner, the pilot light remains lit because it has its OWN supply of fuel (gas).

Basically, the stoves seem to me to be much more a function of rrducing fuel- not actually dousing the fire. “Kibui” means -gnerally- dousing or extinguishing a fire. I think that the discussion on gas stoves is mouch more akin to taking away oil from a lit lamp or taking away logs from a fire (see pashute yid)than to actually extinguishing fire.

I don’t remember the halocho of taking oil from a lit lamp- I am pretty sure it is fully ossur on shabbos, so we have to know how it is on yom tov.

The more i think about it the more I think this is the right approach. Love to hear all your comments.

MAZEL TOV TO PM !!! boy or girl?

wonderful post and thanks to all the contributors ! before tackling pashute yid’s post- just a quick word to PM. I (truly) appreciate your erudition and all your insights. You are right in saying that ,as far as melocho goes, there does not sdeem to be a difference between total “kibui’ and lowering a flame- unless both were “oichel nefesh”. I’tll try to discuss the matter of what lowering a flam might be a bit later. I do quibble with your assertion that the Aruch Hashulchan did not know or see elctricity. He lived in Novarduk for 34 years -not exactly a small village and I am pretty sure that he knew all about electricity, in use since the 1880’s. I have not seen the teshuvo that Rabbi Shlom Klass refers to ,of course, so his words cannot be verified but he knew all about electricity. Thnak yo ufor your correction about my allusion to the “Mahrsham”, not the “Mahrashadam”.

It was also gavra-at-work who mentioned that Igros Moshe,see his post. I , myself, am familiar with this approach to a gas line -callin the cutting off of the gas a grama-since the 1960’s. I am not sure that it has penetrated the general discussion but the logic has soem solid ground. I am-BTW- talking about cutting off the supply at the edge of the stove-at the moment of entry.This is how older stoves functioned.It had a line going into the stove and you could turn a bracket to shut off the supply. The logic for calling it gramma is that you are not extinguishing the fireljust starving it of its supply. Not unlike taking away logs on the side of a fire (Pashute yid’s entry)that is clearly a gram kibui.If gacra at work could indicate the place in Igros Moshe, it would be useful. anyway- I’ll try to add to the discussion in a later wntry,as I had the opportunity to review thr Aruch Hashulchan over shabbos. More of that later.

PM- i tried to answer your ‘thread’ about electricity in an earlier entry but it didn’t go through.

it is pretty clear that Poskim in the early days of eelctricity did not know how to handle this new phenomenom. (BTW- why do you assume that the Aruch Hashulchan did not have electricity? If my memory proves me right, he lived into the twentieth century)

This is why we had different attempts at explaining why it should be ossur or not.

I would submit that the actual flow of current has no rerason to be ossur-just like oxygen, wihout which no fire is possible- is not “ossur”. Only the RESULTS of this current- or, as the Chazzon Ish maintains, the formation of the current- can be ascertained.This is where the whole hullabalo started. The early mattirim did not believe that it fell under any prohibition for yom tov ,same as fire. (shabbos is different) This is what, I presume, Rabbi Klass wrote in his writings,relying upon some Poskim.

Today, we don’t use the current but it is far from clear why this is so. For every ‘melocho’ under which it may fall, there is a mitoch and I still don’t understand why it should be “ossur’ on yomtov. I’d love to be enlightened.

to ICOT- We must have different stoves. In the stoves that oomis is talking about and that i remember from my youth, the pilot light (often two) was at the edge of the burner and the gas intake of the burner was at the side. By opening the gas intake the pressure of gas spread into th burner and expnaded to the side ,catching the pilot light and catching fire. there was no “ignitor” at all, as you put it. the ignitor was the pilot light.the pilot light did have its own minute gas pipe-otherwise it woudl not continue lighting and-as you wrote- if it got extinguished it was dangerous because the gas continued to seep through the opening.

so, my point is simple. the gas comes in under pressure and does get ignited by the pilot when it travels back-through the pipelet-into the burner.

when you cut the gas intake, the flame then retreats and loses its sustenance but if you consider that the original fire was STARTED by the pilot light -this is incontrovertible, then all you have left is a smaller flame.

This- I am pretty sure- is what happens and this is- i submit- the basis of the meikilim.

I think this whole discussion is based on how you consider a fire, is one side of a fire distinct from the other side or are they all part of one big flame? Afer all, a fire isd made of of a multitude of flames. are al lthe flames individual fires or are they one big fire/ Think abouit it and you will see why there are two different opinions on this.

ICOT- You have forgotten a critical component- where is the gas coming from?

actually, the gas is piped in THROUGH the pilot light and runs to the burner. So, it is ignited by the pilot BEFORE it even reaches the burner (by sheer pressure) and the actual source of the fire is at the pilot light-not at the burner. When you reduce the gas intake the fire RETREATS from the burner and remains in the pilot light.

so-your conclusion is WRONG and one can easily assume that this is only one light that is made smaller.

well, PM, I am not sure how I scored political points in my reply. Check my most recent entry re: civility. I suggest that your original entry in reference to Rabbi klass totally lacked in that.Your last entry concerning Rabbi Klass falls in the same category. I am pretty sure that many Poskim have written similar , possibly faulty teshuvos without incurring your or other people’s wrath. As I never saw the teshuvah you are writing about, I cannot claim to know what Rabbi Klass wrote. Hence, I can only restrict myself to what I know. However, just a few remarks about this last entry (before I turn to the earlier one).

I have to respect your erudition and if that is the case, you would know that R”Moshe zz’l was a meikel in most cases EXCEPT in hilchos shabbos. For whatever reason, in that realm he was not meikel. Do you use liquid soap on shabbos? Well, r’Moshe says it is ossur. There are other examples (eiruv is one of them)but I will not dwell on them.

i daresay that there is not “pessul’ in basing a hetter on one possek, it is done all the time,especially ‘beshaas hadchak”. I don’t know the circumstances of Rabbi Klass’ writing so i cannot say this was the case but you cannot just dismiss a hetter because only one possek says it is so. The two Poskim you mentioned were giants in their time (the Aruch HASHULCHAN AND R’zzi pessach frank)and one can certainly rely upon them if needed. After all, you are relying upon the Chazon Ish for a chumro. isn’t he one solitary possek?

I can certainly add the Maharashdam to this list of mattirim and he was the greatest Possek in the early twentieh century in galicia and romania. not good enough for the Lithuanians maybe but good enough for me. I’ll be glad to refer you to the relevant people on that.

Lastly- on this matter- until today no one can claim to tell me or anyone that you know today how electricity works,especially in relation to melochos. Where is it stored? Does it disappear? how does the connection of a circuit suddenly make it come alight? and if thomas edison would not have invented the electric bulb, how would we even know where it went? i am not asking this just to be ‘mekanter’ but if you speak to scientists they will all tell you that what we think about electricty in connection with ‘melochos’ makes no sense. I am not here to pasken according to scientists but then again, you cannot just dismiss the Poskim who though using electricity did not contravene any halochos.

As far as your earlier entry on yom tov, at least you allow the fact that one can lower a flame to let the food simmer- well, can you lower the flame to the point that only the pilot is on? And if you say no, why not? there is still heat emanating from that source and you can actually heat up food on a pilot light ( I have done it)

Lastly- what makes the melocho of “mechabeh’ different than ANY other melocho so that you suggest that you cannot use mitoch??? jelamdenu rabbeinu, with some cogent sources.

sjsnyc-you have hit it on the head. this is not a case of issur vehetter. oomis clearly has the acceptance of many poskim and i can vouchsafe for that. What yo usee on the other side is intolerance for a halchci decision that goes agaisnt the “chumro’ grain. This is becoming such a major cause of rift in our jewish world (just look what is being said now in israel in the question of geirim and the viulent machlokes it has borught about)) that it is truly frighteneing. Virtually anyone coming up with a hetter nowadays gets insulted, accused of the worst sins of israel and slung out of the machane. That is unaccetable. For two thousand years ‘koach de-heteira odif’ was the norm. for whatever reason, this generation has chosen otherwise.

squeak- you are confusing apples and oranges….lowering the flame on shabbos is a melocho. However, oomis was saying that- in case of zorech- on YOM TOV you can lower the flame. Now, that, I imagine, you will not dispute. All I added was that in lowering the flame to the point of it only including the pilot light-it comes under that hetter because you are not “extinguishing’ (mechabeh)the flame. You maintain (as you write)that the pilot light is another flame and hence you have extinghished a flame. The poskim that oomis quotes disagreed.

I see no disservice to anyone to quote acceptable hetterim. What is a disservice is to claim that there is only one valid halacha view.NOW that is something that brings us to the sinas chinom that stems from ‘machlokes korach ve-adosoi”

your reply to oomis shows your mistake and let me explain.

the hetter of using fire on yom tov comes from ‘zorech ochel nefesh” that implies cooking. EXTINGUISHING A FLAME is not considered the need for cooking and hence, “mechabeh” is ossur. HOWEVER, if you need the lowering of the flame to conitnue cooking, it is ALLOWED as per ochel nefesh. Oomis is saying that, in previous times, you could lower the flame- in the PROCESS of cooking-until only the pilot light was lit. As long as there was some fire, it was not considerd mechabeh. That is the gist of her words.

I have to add my few ‘shekels’ again to support oomis. I myself remember very clearly that virtually ALL previous generations did exactly as she writes. Neither PM nor squeak have lived a life long enough to know that. The fact that today we have all succumbed to “chumros” does not make earlier hetterim invalid. oomis is not “mistaken” at all. Nowadays, everyone seems to think that we all have to live according to the chumros of the chazon ish. For thousand years, we have ahd differetn opinions and people lived and acted as per their Posske. The view espoused by PM and squeak-that there is only one legitimate halachic view- leads to sinas chinom and huge machlokes- see eiruv in Boro park and London.

to pashute yid- thanks again for this subect. BTW- your description of electricity is exactly why some poskim think that it is not a melocho- it is like opening or shutting a water faucet and ,clearly, it cannot be the meloch of boneh. Incidentally, even if you accept this view that it is boneh, it si muttar on yom tov, see Shabbos 95-1 and tosofos “Horodeh”

moderator- gateshead was/is a very poor community (very working class) regardless of the Jews there. Northwest Engalnd is poor in general. It is not an idyllic place like lakewood- with trees, parks, etc. Hence, people in general left gateshead as soon as they could. It just isn’t a great place to live.Compare it to Gary, Indiana which is a ghost town today.

So, the few families who stayed were either people attached to the yeshiva or the few who accepted the local rules.

This approach would be virtusally impossible in Lakewood where everyone can settle and is actually a nice place to live in.

i don’t know the author of this long diatribe but does he realize that without all of these newcomers that he so dislikes, he would not have a cent to live on? These “baalei batim’ (and others like them) are the ones who keep the yesivah going. Waht happened to hakoras hatov?

jothar-thanks for your input. Again, no one is denying what you are saying that there has to be an acceptance of the mitzvos -kabbalat ol mitzvot- in its entirety. This is the principle. But how does that relate in the details? As I asked you, say the prospective ger says that he fully accepts the mitzvos and becomes a ger. He goes out and is famished. He eats a cheeseburger. Does that invalidate his geirus? His sin is clearly “leteovon” and it is a backslide but he/she still proclaims his adherence to mitzvos. Does that invalidate his geirus?

May I also point out that R’Moshe was replying to other Rabbonim/Poskim who thought differently. This is Russia,late 1920’s(actual date Sept 21,1928). The other Poskim were most probably as authoritative as R’Moshe, yet, they had a different view. Does their view count for nothing? At that time, R,Moshe was an obscure Rav in Lubian.

As far as the question of geirus for ulterior motives- whatever the facts, if it is done, they are full geirim, so this is a moot point.You can point fingers at the bais din who did it but the actual geirus stands.

And what do you mean a “jewish Orthodox lifestyle”. What happens if the geir carries on Shabbos in Boro Park? According to some respected Poskim he is a mechallel shabos.

What if , as a female ger, she does not cover her hair? Does that invalidate her geirus? Which “mikzas mitzvos’ do we teach the ger?

I am being as polite and sensible here because simply put, the rigidity of inflexibility of the approach to geirus that you advocate is nonsensical. Every geirus is individual and should be treated as such. Rav Sherman tried to invalidate ALL the thousands of geirim made by Rav Druckman- without having a clue who they were or how they lived.

Edited to read: “Something does not seem right”

jaymatt::::: HUH? I don’t remember that at all!!! I will have to review the four (I think) teshuvos on artificial examination but i am pretty convinced that this was not an “after the fact” question but an actual question for a hetter. I think you are erroneous in how you describe it. I don’t know where you have your info from.

jothar- if you don’t understand that teshuvos do depend on when they are written, then you have no understanding of halacha.The gemoro sets down principles and so does the shulchan aruch. Teshuvos interpret thses principles and rule according to the requirements of the time. After WW2 there were thousands and thousands of agunos and the Rabbonim (chareidi all) used every kulloh in the book to allow them to remarry. in different circumstances, clearly, they would not have ruled similarly. THAT is why the date of a teshuvo is important.

Even R’Moshe himself accepts this. see his teshuvos on whether the shulchan has to be in the middle of the bais hamedrash and his comments on the chassm sofer’s psak on this.

The latter comments including what you quote rom R’Moshe’s teshuvo,have no place in the realm of halacha. It is a ‘feeling’ and things sure look different from which angle you look at it. R’moshe zz’l ,himself, did not heed these SAME kind of arguments when he paskened that artifical insemination is allowed.

for whatever reason, the moderator has not published a couplf of my answers. i have no idea why, as they were measured. Anyway- in answer to jothar and chaverim.The article from cross-currents clearly discusses different ways of looking at halacha- which has been the way of Poskim for thousands of years. To a large extent, this is part of the arguments that underlie today’s different approaches. There is nothing imperative to accept one particular view as the normative one.

It is also clear from the author on whose side he stands, which is his privilege. He is clearly wrong in assuming that ‘it is not novel” (his words)to invalidate retroactively a ‘geirus”. Anything ‘retroactive” (whether in marriages, divorces, geirus) MUST have ironclad reasons to do so. Otherwise, there would never be any finality to anything. The laws of ‘chazokoh” obviously accpet this.

If -for example- we would know that there was no tevilah, clearly, it is an ironclad reason to invalidate a geirus. The question of ‘kabolas ol mitzvos’ is much more nuamced, thougth, as you can clearly see from the fact that the rambam and the Shulchan Aruch both accept a geirus that occurred under doubtful circumstances.

So, the author may want to accept Rabbi Sherman’s psak but then others can refuse to accept it. Remember that the outcry over the psak had more to do that Rabbi Sherman invalidated ALL the geirim of rav Druckman, which is preposterous.

so, halacha is not all on your side and ,as always, there are different views. This my main argument, that one is not bound to follow certain chareidi Poskim just because they say so.There are plety of poskim who disagree with the psak of rabbi Sherman.

As far as R” Moshe’ zz’l teshuvah. No on disputes the fact of “kabolos ol mitzvos”. This is why reform and conservative geirim are not accepted. If a geir comes to an orthodox bais din and says that he accepts the ‘OL”, how does one dispute it?

R’Moshe zz’l adds the phrase of ‘anan sahadi’ and in this , there is miles of latitude.How does “anan sahadi” work? is it one mitzvah? is it any mitzvah? how about if it is “leteovon”? The teshuvo is unbelievably short and does not give any explanation, a rarity for R’Moshe zz’l.

Most importantly, no one here noted the DATE of the teshuvo, which is 1929 !!! On can certainly assume that R’Moshe’s psak (and his father’s years earlier) dealt with a certain set of circumstances that would certainly have changed in other times. Do you think that R’Moshe’s psak on ‘cholov akum’ would have been the same in 1929??

I know that nothing I say here will change your mind but don’t assume that everyone has to bow and just accept any psak from whatever source you choose.

in answer to gavra and jothar….I don’t question poskim if they want to issue certain piskei halocho. My main argument is that there are many answers to these questions, often depending on the circumstances of the time. My argument is with the so-called ‘absoluteness” of authority vested in certain rabbonim, to the total exclusion of all others.

This is a long sugya but if start looking at the Rambam and shulchan aruch hilchos gerim, it expressly says that you teach the prospective ger “mikzas mitzvos”. In other words, he does not have to know (and practice) all mitzvos. This is clear. He does have to accept toe “principle’ of Toirah and the ultimate acceptance of mitzvos but it is crystal clear that , at hte moent of acceptance to become a ger, he does not have to know everything or practice all.

Secondly, in the same hilchos geirim, it states explicitly that if a geir goes through the mechanical process of geirus (tevilah and milah for a male), EVEN IF AFTERWARDS, it transpires that he became a ger for a specific purpose (i.e. to get married) he is a ger “lekol dovor”.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no mention ANYWHERE that, if one becomes a ger, you can cancel it retroactively. “Punkt farkert” in the acharonim, they mention the gemoro in shabbos where hillel ACCEPTED a ger even though he said he did it for a purpose and woudl not accept all miztvos at the time and tosefos says hillel di it because he knew (and hoped) that he would keep ALL mitzvos as he learned more of yiddishkeit!

If you can’t look these halochos I’ll be happy to point you to the actual sources.

There is also a whole sugya about ketanim that can and should be used for the children of mixed marriages.

These are just the sources that, to mnay Poskim, maes it possible to be “meikel”. This is my whole point- that flexibility in halocho has totally disappeared in some quarters and this was not the norm in past centuries. (before you jump on me for the term flexibility- I am specifically talking about finding soruces in halocho that would permit an easier path-yes, koach de-hetira odif)

chaverim- who decided that I lost the argument on halachic grounds? First of all, it is not my argument to lose, there are many bigger people than me who espoused the same view. Secondly, the ‘consensus” in the coffee room doesn’t make it the truth.

to gavra at work- I’ll bring you the quotes from the rambam and the shulchan aruch- on the particular needs of geirim and i will quote to you some interesting teshuvos of recent vintage that may surprise you. I daresay that many of the ‘coffee room” participants will not accept these arguments but it dosn’t mean that they are erroneous. give me a day or two.

I was not going to comment on this whole web thread- too many lunatics around here but I’ll just say this- none of us knows the truth- you can argue till you are blue and green in the face- the medinah is here and jews are prospering there. there are problems, for sure, but at a certain moment in our history- a whole people was condemend to die in the desert…because they slandered eretz ysroel…

For now -the existence of the medinah is enough for me. Maybe in five hundred years- the view of the anti-zionists may prevail- till then, i’ll trust my eyes before trusting some lunatics.

it’s been some weeks since i looked at this trhead….just an answer to ashrechu yisroel, concerning the shas. First of all- the vilna shas is a latecomer to printed shasim. The firsat ones were printed in the late 1400’s (secular date)and were printed primarily in italy. (defus venezia is well known). there actually were different paginations but I think that the pagination stretd in that time. I am not aware that there were any gedolim who gave their input in this. there is a wonderful book called,”the printing of the talmud” (there are some other books too) that explains the historical context of printing the gemoror.

For the sake of memory, the pagination was accpeted as it was in the early days.for your information- even the counting of “kapitels” (chapters) is also not of Jewish origin. It was accepted around the 1200’s so that everyone could know where to find things.

feif un and bemused….I just had the opportunity to see the teshuva that you indicated. (Orach Chaim chelek alef, 166). Actually, with the greatest respect to you, the whole teshuvo has nothing to do with sefira, but with music all year round. As I indicated, there is an old-standing prohibition about playing music all year round- “zecher lechurbon-” (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 160-3) but, as you probabaly know, it is generally not enforced today. This is what R’Moshe discusses in this teshuvo UNTIL the LAST line of the teshuvo-where he says (I quote): ” and in the days of sefira, music with instruments (Zimro demano) should be prohibited, even according to the meikilim all year round”.

So- the teshuvo has nothing to do with general music in the sefira and actually only prohibits- at best- music with actual instruments.

And now the revelation- just before this line R’Moshe writes (actual quote):”if it is on the radio-actual quote- singing by voice is allowed -all year round- but music with instruments is prohibited”. R’Moshe EXPLICITLY allows voice singing on the radio, even if you think music all year round is prohibited.

So- “bemechilas kevod toroschem” there is still no inkling of recorded music of songs(like radio) being prohibited in sefira days (or all year round, for that matter).This is why I think R’Moshe allowed “chazanut” in the “jemei hasefira” because it is purely vocal.

Please note-bemused-that the putative gezeira of MAYBE dancing with fast music is nowhere to be found.So, I think that your harsh words towards me were not appropriate.

If there is another teshuvo by R’Moshe on this subject, please advise. As of now, I stand by my original opinion that recorded music in the sefira is not prohibited, a psak that you have heard from many Poskim.

feif un, thanks for your post. Why is fast music not allowed? if the “issur’ is dancing (rikuddim umecholos)then why is music forbidden ? As I wrote- you just made a new gezeira- no fast music because MAYBE you would dance. There is no real rationale to add gezeiros.