tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post3307702475118261695..comments2024-03-20T18:38:31.327-05:00Comments on Havolim: Is Light קבוע or פריש?Eliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-37628110278183312952012-10-10T14:06:04.026-05:002012-10-10T14:06:04.026-05:00Eli sent me the following comment, which I then in...Eli sent me the following comment, which I then incorporated into the post:<br /><br />Choref Tov.<br /><br />Fascinating MA. The connection to R. Yakar was first (?) made by the Beis-Efraim, as noted by R. Akiva Eiger in Shu"A, and also by the Machtzis Hashekel ibid. Yet, hard to comprehend: the usual pshat in R. Yakar is that by Beis-din we do not count heads, we count opinions. Opinions are never Kavu'a, as they have no physical location. However, here we need Shalheves, not just the diffused light.<br /><br />Chazon Ish Y"D 37 (3 lines from the end) proves from this Gemara like the Chavas Da'as (YD 110:6), that Kavu'a need to be Nikkar BeMekomo to the person who is mesupak.<br /><br />However, the Platy who argues with that Chv"D could say that be'etzem a candle of non-Jew is not passul vaddai, maybe it was lit before/after Shabbos. Maybe 95% of the non-jewish candles are passul, but still it's not Nikkar BeMekomo, not only to the person in doubt, but to the whole world.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-24803841847028818862012-10-05T11:22:11.464-05:002012-10-05T11:22:11.464-05:00Oh no we're not, by the meat we're paskeni...Oh no we're not, by the meat we're paskening on the chaticha in front of us. We already know the status of that particular store, and there's nothing to pasken. We're klerring which store it came from, true, but what we want to know is whether this piece is kosher or not. Here we're klerring on the torch itself, not on the light that came from it.<br /><br />I appreciate your comments. It's a fascinating MA, and I'm glad I had a chance to clarify the discussion.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-91375317281298827562012-10-05T10:05:39.192-05:002012-10-05T10:05:39.192-05:00>>>Second, we're not paskening on the...>>>Second, we're not paskening on the light, we're deciding whether the source is ra'ui to make a bracha on it.<br /><br />And in the case of meat which is parish, we are deciding whether it's source (which is kavu'a) is kosher or treif. What's the difference?<br /><br />You only say the bracha if you have hana'ah from the light. If the bracha was on the source, who cares if you benefit from the light -- the source is there in either case? You are drawing a very, very subtle distinction to answer this MG"A.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-49629587938507584152012-10-04T12:27:19.905-05:002012-10-04T12:27:19.905-05:00You're right, I was conflating two things that...You're right, I was conflating two things that were bothering me. <br /><br />First, I think that the light, at least conceptually, is connected to its source. The source and the light are one thing- it's more like an expansion of the source than a propulsion from the source. So if the source is kavua, the light has a din kavua too. <br /><br />Second, we're not paskening on the light, we're deciding whether the source is ra'ui to make a bracha on it. Even if we're making the bracha on the light that reaches us, it's only on the basis of what we decide is the nature of the source. It doesn't make sense to take off the rule of kavua from the source that we're paskening on because the light that came to us is piresh. <br /><br />Third, as I say in the next sentence, I don't believe we're making the bracha on the light that is reaching us. We're making the bracha on the source itself.<br /><br />I'm going to have to fix this up in the post.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-57710625310868904342012-10-04T09:45:29.814-05:002012-10-04T09:45:29.814-05:00>>>To me it seems that light is a manifes...>>>To me it seems that light is a manifestation of its source, and if the source is kavu'a, then the light, wherever it is, should have a din of kavua as well. <br /><br />Can you clarify this a bit because I don't grasp the chiluk you are trying to make. Compare with the case of basar which is parish where there are 9 kosher butchers and one treif one. Using your same reasoning, why not say that since the meat which is parish had to come from a cow in one of the butcher stores, which are by definition kavua, therefore the parish piece should be treated as kavu'a as well based on its source?chaim b.noreply@blogger.com