Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

Go Back   Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk > Torah and Judaism > Halachah & Minhagim

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 02-24-2009, 05:26 PM   #1
chabadtalk
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 36
hearing aids-shabbos

Why is it that we don't find that people are careful not to speak to people with hearing aids on shabbos? what is the heter for deaf people to use hearing aids on shabbos? why is it any different then a micraphone that the Rebbe was clearly against?

There is a tshuvah about this from Reb Moshe though I did not yet have a chance to look at it, but according to my memory he is asser hearing aids on shabbos.
chabadtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-24-2009, 05:32 PM   #2
Kookoo Kabalist
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 425
Interesting. That would be real tricky in a case when the person has them installed permanently.
Kookoo Kabalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 08:31 AM   #3
MahTovChelkeinu
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Interesting. That would be real tricky in a case when the person has them installed permanently.
Is that done?
MahTovChelkeinu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 11:44 AM   #4
Remy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
It is done. I don't think G-d minds if you use a hearing aide on the sabbath.
Remy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 12:05 PM   #5
chossidnistar
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/j.../sandler-1.htm
chossidnistar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 02:28 PM   #6
ktonton
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by chossidnistar View Post
the only thing I'll say is i'm am astounded that the rabbis have not simply promulgated a takana that while electricity is not recognizable as one of teh 39 malochot, if it had existed in those days, it would have been used to make the mishkan, and therefore it is assur by rabbinic decree, for how could we permit it? everyone is in agreement that it is assur, why not simply declare it a rabbinic malacha?
ktonton is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 07:10 PM   #7
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
How does one declare something a גזירה דרבנן? We do not have the power to make new גזרות - it has to fit into existing Torah or Rabbonon decrees.

Unless you mean a takana of kehillos - but I doubt that would work these days. Even if yes, it would not have the strength of a Rabbinic malacha.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 07:47 PM   #8
chabadtalk
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
How does one declare something a גזירה דרבנן? We do not have the power to make new גזרות - it has to fit into existing Torah or Rabbonon decrees.

Unless you mean a takana of kehillos - but I doubt that would work these days. Even if yes, it would not have the strength of a Rabbinic malacha.
I was hoping that you would comment on the iker question.
chabadtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 11:36 PM   #9
chossidnistar
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabadtalk View Post
I was hoping that you would comment on the iker question.
Iggerot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:84 and 85.
Rabbi Feinstein maintains that if possible one should refrain from directly addressing a person wearing a hearing aid. He does state though, that little children, who obviously need to be communicated with in a direct manner, may be spoken to directly.
chossidnistar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-25-2009, 11:41 PM   #10
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabadtalk View Post
I was hoping that you would comment on the iker question.
I usually stay away from commenting on things I did not research.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 08:25 AM   #11
ktonton
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
How does one declare something a גזירה דרבנן? We do not have the power to make new גזרות - it has to fit into existing Torah or Rabbonon decrees.

Unless you mean a takana of kehillos - but I doubt that would work these days. Even if yes, it would not have the strength of a Rabbinic malacha.
well cherem d'rebbainu gershom came to mind. . .

as well as the tekana that we should no longer make kiddushin a year before nissuyin, I think (iirc) that decree was made in the rosh's time or so.

Likewise the tekana that singles couldn't go to mikvah because of busha... (actualy I think the rosh made that takanah)
ktonton is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 09:00 AM   #12
Majorthinker
Executive Diamond Member
 
Majorthinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,615
But of course, Chabad decided that the Rosh's takana didn't matter...
Oh- wait...was the single guys or single girls ()? I do remember hearing something weird....but don't turn the thread off-topic to remind me what it was that I heard.
__________________
!חסידים איין משפחה
One big happy family!

הוי כתלמידיו של אהרן הכהן!
Majorthinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 09:09 AM   #13
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktonton View Post
well cherem d'rebbainu gershom came to mind. . .
For ashkenazim.
Quote:

as well as the tekana that we should no longer make kiddushin a year before nissuyin, I think (iirc) that decree was made in the rosh's time or so.
No, that "minhog" existed earlier (in the Geonim's times already). I don't think there was an actual "takana". I may be wrong.
Quote:
Likewise the tekana that singles couldn't go to mikvah because of busha... (actualy I think the rosh made that takanah)
I don't think the reason was busha, but other reasons (michshol etc.). IIRC the source is a tshuvas Rivosh (andIi don't think it was a takana. I will haveto look it up).
In any case, even assuming these are all takanas - I actually hinted in my post that there is such a thing. But takanas by definition are localized.
A malacha derabbanan are things defined by Chazal. One cannot make up a new malacha derabanan - one can only fit new circumstance into the existing structure.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 10:16 AM   #14
ktonton
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
For ashkenazim.No, that "minhog" existed earlier (in the Geonim's times already). I don't think there was an actual "takana". I may be wrong.I don't think the reason was busha, but other reasons (michshol etc.). IIRC the source is a tshuvas Rivosh (andIi don't think it was a takana. I will haveto look it up).
In any case, even assuming these are all takanas - I actually hinted in my post that there is such a thing. But takanas by definition are localized.
A malacha derabbanan are things defined by Chazal. One cannot make up a new malacha derabanan - one can only fit new circumstance into the existing structure.
I think that were something clearly defies the particular categories we had before, but clearly fits into the general category, we have the reshut to catagorize it in this way. (rather then relying on imperfect categorizations.) (and one can find many, many such examples to support the point.)

I mean, arguing with the fact that it should be a malacha is rather difficult. . .

Everyone is of the opinion that it is and should be a malacha, the only problem is which one. But its so different from everything that chazal had that it's difficult to classify.

i think it would be hard to find a similar situation to this one.

the fact that is a malacha is not the subject of the question, the question is where it fits, which it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. . . and I think you would be hard pressed to find such a radically different example in the history of halacha.

I think that the only reason why modern rabanim did not do this is because they are afraid of reform. . . before reform came along I suspect, based on past examples, that they would have done exactly that. Personaly I think that the concern is silly, as the difference between the changes the reform made (changes to well established practice) and this "change" (which is not so much a change but an extention of the logical consquences of what a malacha is) and especialy the unique characteristics of the case clearly distinguish it in the minds of any reasonable person.
ktonton is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 10:28 AM   #15
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
I can see it now: A bunch of Rabbi's get together, and "proclaim" it a mlocho, and 1) Some disagree and ask (rightfully so) how can one invent a mlocho? 2) Some say "Oh, another made up thing that the rabbis decided to forbid without sources in the early texts" (something like...covering up anything besides "shok"...).

Whatever.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 10:34 AM   #16
ktonton
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
I can see it now: A bunch of Rabbi's get together, and "proclaim" it a mlocho, and 1) Some disagree and ask (rightfully so) how can one invent a mlocho? 2) Some say "Oh, another made up thing that the rabbis decided to forbid without sources in the early texts" (something like...covering up anything besides "shok"...).

Whatever.
well, there was nothing remotely like electricity in chazal's time.

but the arguments that it is in fact a malacha are very very very strong.

we're not proclaiming it a molocho, thats allready well accepted, we're only deciding that it will be considered from here on out in its own category.

the point is that we should be focusing on its thematic resemblence to all other malochot, rather than trying to force it into categories that it does not fit.
ktonton is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 10:35 AM   #17
Majorthinker
Executive Diamond Member
 
Majorthinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
I can see it now: A bunch of Rabbi's get together, and "proclaim" it a mlocho,
"Rabbis", not "Rabbi's"
Quote:
and 1) Some disagree and ask (rightfully so) how can one invent a mlocho? 2) Some say "Oh, another made up thing that the rabbis decided to forbid without sources in the early texts"
LOL.

Quote:
(something like...covering up anything besides "shok"...).

Whatever.
Oy vey.
Blessed be the cynics.
__________________
!חסידים איין משפחה
One big happy family!

הוי כתלמידיו של אהרן הכהן!
Majorthinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 10:45 AM   #18
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktonton View Post
well, there was nothing remotely like electricity in chazal's time.

but the arguments that it is in fact a malacha are very very very strong.

we're not proclaiming it a molocho, thats allready well accepted, we're only deciding that it will be considered from here on out in its own category.
Find me an example of such a thing in Hilchos Shabbas - a malacha in its own "category", especially after the time of Chazal.
Obviously the poskim didn't feel like you do.
Like I said before - Whatever.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 02-26-2009, 02:30 PM   #19
ktonton
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
Find me an example of such a thing in Hilchos Shabbas - a malacha in its own "category", especially after the time of Chazal.
Obviously the poskim didn't feel like you do.
Like I said before - Whatever.
not with regards to malochot, but with malochot, they really didn't need one, so it means basicaly nothing.

but with regards to other things you find this.

the problem is that it IS a molocho in everything, but cannot be defensibly put into any extant category of molocho.

further edit: perhaps we should start a thread on the general central idea behind the melachot, with sources. that might be helpful in demostrating the point.

(edit and just for the record, I don't like doing this anymore than you do, but the way we're currently asigning electricity is a HUGE problem. The categories it has been placed in these days are simply not defensible, according to any objective standard, and it therefore opens us up to alot of criticism. It is simply not a tenable position.

However, declaring (because of the extreme novelty that electricity presents) that on account of the total lack of precedent for this innovation, and therefore the total derth of classical material that deals with it (which is, in actuality, non existent until its invention somewhat less than 200 years ago), we therefore require an innovation to deal with it*, is a wholy defensible possition, even more than it is defensible, it is one that would be extremely difficult to open up gates to further reform. This argument would not open the door to, for instance, women being included in a minyan, or choirs in shul, or women rabbis or any other such thing. (situations that have been resolved already.)

I am going to point out that ALL reasonable people who look at this declaration, even if they resent it, are going to be modeh that it is a logical, internaly coherent, and defensible position. Those who do not, are more than likely going to be of the sort who insist that what right do we have to "innovate" such a thing.**

but any current melacha that you attempt to include it under is going to be a failure, and highly disputed. (but it is a melacha for certain, even a cursory glance at the thematic similarities is going to be sufficient to convince you on that point.)

*(in accordance with already accepted rabbinic attitudes, namely that is certainly a melocho, the only question is what) is
**(its really not an innovation, its just applying the klalim to a new prat, and recognizing that while it fits in the klal, it doesn't have a prat mentioned to cover it because it is not similar to any other form of melacha.)

Last edited by ktonton; 02-26-2009 at 03:11 PM. Reason: addition and further addition
ktonton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AIDS Epidemic noahidelaws General 39 07-31-2009 05:49 AM
Hearing the FR at the Ohel? Yankel Nosson Chassidus 13 01-11-2008 09:32 AM
Hearing about Mashiach's arrival from a newspaper? Intrigued Discussion on Sichos of 5751-5752 50 06-29-2006 11:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com