בשו"ת עמק הלכה ה"א סי' מ"ג כתב מו"ז הכ"מ זצ"ל ליישב מחלוקת המג"א והגמ"י בענין קבורת נפל ביו"ט שני של גלויות, ואמר שם אשר בעיה הגמ' בגמ' סנהדרין דמ"ו ע"ב בענין קבורה אי הוי כפרה אי בזיון דלרוב הפוסקים דס"ל הקבורה מן התורה דע"כ סוגיא זו כר' שמעון אתיא דדריש טעמא דקרא, דיש קרא דקבר תקברנו והגמ' מיבעיא אי משום כפרה אי משום בזיון. וא"כ המג"א ס"ל דכיון דאגן לא ס"ל כר"ש לענין דרשינן טעמא דקרא ממילא הוי נפל כשאר מתים להקבר ביו"ט שני, והגמ"י בשיטת הרמב"ם אזיל דב"ל כר"ש כמוכח מדבריו

An analytic inquiry with the reasons and broad bases of the Jewish philosophical system with regard to capital punishment will reveal that three factors determine the moral sight, a preferably – the legal imperative, to take the life of a human being who has been found guilty of certain major crimes. Each of these factors plays a significant, major and independent role in the rationalization and justification of the punishment. Ethical, social and metaphysical – all independent as anti-reasons to arguments on capt. puni.

In attempting to introduce some semblance of order, from the critical point of view of modern technology, into the current Polemics in the world of Halacha concerning the use of the incandescent bulb on the Shabbat, we must bear in mind, at the very outset, one important fact: that, at the present stage of the game we can come to no definitive conclusion. The entire problem is exceptionally delicate, because of the great stress laid in the Halacha on the laws of Shabbat and particularly on the laws concerning fire, and we must not forget that we are, figuratively as well as literally, playing with fire. Let no one be "moreh heter"—act lightly, because of the conclusions of one Rabbi or one authority. Let me briefly review for you the fundamentals of the laws of Shabbat as delineated by the Sages of the Mishna and the Talmud. The מלאכות שבת, the types of "work" which are forbidden on Shabbat (and the term "work" is used here in a technical sense, not in the layman's sense, just as the term "work" has a special technical meaning for the physicist) are derived from the types of work needed for the building of the Mishkan, since both passages—relating to Shabbat and Mishkan—are סמוכות, next to each other. The number of such categories of work is 39, the ל״ט מלאכות שבת. These 39 major categories are known as אדות, and each אד is subdivided into minor categories known as תולדות, the requirement being that each Toladah be similar to its Av in some certain specified manner. Let us now single out four of these Avot which will be of special interest to us. We have הדערה, making a fire, and extinguishing a fire. On הדערה the Torah issued a special prohibition, aside from the general sentence. "Thou shalt not make a fire in any of thy dwelling places on the day of the Shabbat!" Another Av Melachah is __________, which literally means "cooking", but, as we shall see later, has certain other and more inclusive connotations. The fourth Av Melachah I wish to mention is __________,…

The problem was approached solely from the point of view of an איסור דאורייתא, a Biblical interdiction, since even if it can be shown that there is no איסור דאורייתא, the lighting of the incandescent bulb on Shabbat is most certainly forbidden by Rabbinic interdiction. The act of lighting the bulb on Shabbat can be assigned to one or more of three אבות מלאכה (major categories of "work"): a) הבערה and כבוי ("burning" and "extinguishing") b) מכה בפטיש ("striking with a hammer", i.e., completion

תוכן השאלה. נשתרשה המנהג בק"ק שלנו שמסדרים התפילות כשעתיים או שלש שעות אחרי השקיעה בלילי שבת בכדי לאפשר לאלה שאין פוסקים מעבודתם עד אחרי קידוש היום להתפלל בביהכנ"ס. והספק הוא אם עי"ז שאנחנו מסדרים תפילות היום לאלה מחללי שבת, אם אני מסייעים להם בתלולם או לפחות אם אין בזה משום לפע, כי יעשו מלאכה עד זמן התפילה אע"פ שהוא ודאי אסור מהת בסקילה. תוכן התשובה. ברכות דף כ"ז ע"ב אר"י אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של מיצש בשבת ואמר הבדלה על הכוס. וכן איפסק לדינא.

מובא בילקוט שזכות בידי בני קרח שבשעה שהיו יושבין אצל קרח אביהם רואין את משה וכובשין פניהן בקרקע, אמרו אם נעמוד בפני מ"ר נוהגין בזיון באבינו וכבר נצטוינו על כיבוד או"א, ואם לא נעמד כבר כתיב מפני שיבה תקום, מוטב שנעמד מפני משה רבנו אע"פ שאני נוהגין בזיון באבינו. ע"כ, ולכאורה לפי"ז צריך תלמיד זה להזניח מרות הוריו וללמד כאוות נפשו. אבל באמת רק בבני קרח כן דשם הדין נותן לקום בפני משה, כי כבוד או"א הוא רק בעושה מעשה עמיו, כמבואר בכמה מקומות בש"ס, וכאשר קרח התרעם על משה הלא חטא ולא עשה מעשה עמיו ולכן היו פטורין מלכבדו.

Introduction. In addition to the various categories of labor (מלאכה) subsumed under the general prohibition of work on the Sabbath, Jews during the Second Commonwealth observed yet another prohibition, which we shall refer to by the Amoraic name of "Muktsa," although, as we shall later point out, the term is technically more restrictive than the sense in which we shall use it. An article characterized as Muktsa may not be moved (or eaten or touched, see later) on the Sabbath. While we cannot find explicit mention of this prohibition in Scripture, we do have some Biblical warrant for it in Exodus XVI, 5 and 23: והי' ביום הששי והכינו את אשר יביאו... ויאמר אליהם הוא אשר דבר ד' שבתון שבת קודש לד' מתר, את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בלשי...

The institution of Late Friday Services in American Synagogues, even in a number of otherwise strongly Orthodox ones, is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is for that reason that, to my knowledge, the matter has not yet been analyzed with a view to testing its Halachic permissibility and, as a result, recommending either its acceptance, rejection or modification. Yet the introduction of this innovation into our own synagogues places upon us the responsibility, which we cannot escape, of developing just such a critique. This problem to which we address ourselves, like others of its kind on the contemporary scene, must be treated on two levels: the purely Halachic and the “trans-nalachic.” By the latter term I mean those matters which cut across technical lines, and are questions of policy that are primarily subjective value judgements in which we look at the picture in its totality, and take into consideration such elements of basic principle and public psychology as Pritzas Geder, Eis Laasois the comparative worth of Tefiloh Betzibor and שינוי מטבע שטבעו חכמים. While the purely Halachic issues require more scholarship, these trans-halachic matters call for more wisdom, and will ultimately be as decisive as the purely Halachic in determining our future practice. Of course, this dichotomy cannot be taken too literally, for the Halacha must necessarily deal with these larger “gestalt” issues as well, in the formulation of a final decision. But in this study I shall attempt to concentrate, insofar as possible, on the Halachic material per se. I shall do so, of course, without attempting to be comprehensive or presuming to offer my Psak. This is merely a first attempt to present some of the aspects of the problem for consideration. Description and Origin of Problem: The Late Friday Service is usually held during the winter months, when candle lighting takes place in the early afternoon. At about 8 or 8:30 P.M., the Kabolas Shabos and Maariv is held. This may be eith…

The Time Element B: The next phase of our analysis of the time-element does not involve the matter of Tosefes Shabos and the fear that a Late Service will result in its violation, but concerns a totally different though less severe question. And that is the subject of Orach Arah or Derech Eretz. The source of this argument is Shabos 23b where the Talmud relates that the wife of R. Joseph was late in kindling the candles. Her husband rebuked her for her negligence, on the basis of a Breisoh that: לא ימוש עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה מלמד שעמוד ענן משלים לעמוד אש – רש"י אלמא אורח ארעא בהכי His wife then began to kindle the lights much earlier when, we read, אמר לה ההוא סבא תנינא ובלבד שלא יקדים ולא יאחר. The following should be mentioned with regard to this thesis: 1) As stated, Rashi refers to it as Orach Arah, and it is thus of a lower level of severity, since it does not inherently involve the essential laws of Shabos. Further evidence in support of Rashi that this does not touch on the question of Kdooshas Hayoim can be adduced from Yalkut Shimoni (Bshalach 230) where we read as follows: בא הכתוב ללמדך דרך ארץ מן התורה על ערבי שבתות עד שעמוד הענן קיים יהי עמוד האש צמח 2) Even more important in this connection is the possibility that this entire episode of R. Joseph and his wife, and the dictum of Hahoo Sava, does not refer to the Sabbath candles but to the Chanukah candles. Such is the reading of Bahag, Hilchos Chanukah. A similar conclusion may be derived from a study of the text of R. Asher (assuming that all references to Ner on that folio are consistent – cf. text of Alfasi), although the Vilno Gaon emends the text with the word שבת indicating that the entire discourse refers to both Shabos and Chanukah. Maimonides mentions the prohibition of Loi Yakdim Vloi Yaacher as a unit only with regard to Chanukah in Hilchos Chanukah Perek 5, Halacha 5, and not in regard to Shabos; in the laws of the latter (Perek 8 Halacha 3), he only mentions the prohibition of late…

I am grateful to the Editors of CHAVRUSA for giving me this opportunity to bring the discussions on the Late Friday Service to a close conclusion by responding briefly to the comments of Rabbis Weiss, Shoham, and Wolf published in the last issue. I am indebted to Rabbi Weiss for his thoughtful past article in which he supports my contentions in part, and particularly for bringing to my attention the Halachic dimension of the Kabbalat Shabbat psalms and hymns.Insofar as the Halachic criticism of my thesis is concerned, Rabbis Weiss and Shoham agree in disputing my equation of the Talmudic case of a prevenient Saturday night Maariv and our current problem of the Late Friday Service. They argue, essentially, that an early Saturday Maariv necessarily precludes Tossefet Shabbat, which is not the case with the Friday late service. There is no question that they are right — provided we remember that is only if we speak of an occasional delay in the Friday Maariv, so that Tossefet Shabbat is observed as usual. We, however, are discussing a case of, as I put it originally, "normalizing" the Friday Maariv at a late hour. There is no secret as to why we do so — it is because not only Tossefet Shabbat but even Shabbat itself will not be observed until that hour. It is an accommodation provided for those who do not observe the Shabbat. And I maintain that a regular and set Late Service necessarily precludes Tossefet Shabbat, by its very nature and cause and purpose, and gives rise to the legitimate fear of its inspiring actual desecration of the Sabbath proper. When we accept these realities in their practical context, we may justifiably entertain this equivalence between the early Saturday Maariv and the Late Friday service.I fail to understand why Rabbi Shoham seems amused by my attempts to find authority in Talmud and Rishonim for a peculiarly modern problem. If we indeed believe that the Halacha is always relevant and not just fossil material for dissection by legal antiqu…