July 13, 2009 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #650798
ROB: Stopping the flow of gas is very different from removing the source of fuel.July 13, 2009 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #650799
gavra-at-work- just one word: WHY?July 13, 2009 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #650800
Thank you for your kind words.
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?
Once again, a moshol.
After about 10 minutes, yours truly catches a whiff of the latkes.
Although latkes continue to emerge from the pan, from that point onward there is at most only one latke sitting on the plate, since the rate of consumption is equal to or greater than the rate of output. 🙂
Just wondering – would placing a pyrex bowl over the flame to smother it be considered the same as turning off the gas?July 13, 2009 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #650801
I can only try:
My guess would be yes, as suffocation from O2 (which does not flow from a source, but is just there) is different than the stopping of a “flow”. But the svorah is not mine (its Rav Moshe’s), and I will not dare to think that puny me can begin to understand the complete svorah of Rav Moshe other than what he actually said.July 13, 2009 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm #650802
PY: Thank you for bringing another 2 teshuvos from Reb Moshe, in addition to the one I quoted, where he clearly writes that one may not extinguish or even lower a gas flame on an oven even with a pilot light on YT unless it is clearly ochel nefesh such as preventing the food from burning. It is also obvious from these 3 teshuvos that Reb Moshe did NOT consider turning off the gas GRAM kibuyi, rather it is proper kibuyi. I did a little bit of research and found that the Machaze Avraham, Be’er Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, Agudas Aizov, Yabia Omer, Shmiras Shabbos K’Hilchaso and R’ TP Frank all write that turning off the gas to a stove is considered True kibuyi and NOT Gramma. I think we can add to this list the Magen Avraham and Mishna Berura 514:15 who only permit removing a solid piece of tallow from a lamp on YT if it is distant from the fire and has not yet begun to melt and become connected to the fire. This condition would clearly exclude a gas oven. I’m still waiting to hear ANY source that considers it grama.
Kibuyi is not ALWAYS aina tzricha l’gufa, although it usually is. The Mishna in Ba’meh Madlikin quotes Reb Yossi who says that one is only chayav for extinguishing a fire if he needs the wick. The Gemorra Shabbos 31B brings a machlokes if Reb Yossi holds like Rebbi Yehuda or Rebbi Shimon regarding MSHETLG. The Rambam paskens like the first answer that he agrees with RY, but the majority opinion is that he agrees with RS and only considers kibuyi deoraisa when it is done with the expressed intention to create coals.July 13, 2009 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #650803
GAW, cherry, ROB: I’m sorry but there does NOT seem to be any Reb Moshe who considers turning off the gas to be a grama. On the contrary he considers it a regular kibuyi.July 13, 2009 6:36 pm at 6:36 pm #650804
ROB: The Gemorra Beitza 22A writes that one who removes oil from a burning lamp on YT is chayav for kibuyi!!!July 13, 2009 6:55 pm at 6:55 pm #650805
I didn’t say he says its Muttar, all I said is that he is Mechalek between turning off the gas and actual Kiboyi (OC Chelek 1, forget actual Simin).
He does not say (in print, I have not heard him in person say otherwise) it is Muttar to turn off the gas.
Besides, Rav Moshe says (If memory serves) (I think in the Chelek Daled Teshuva) that Gas is considered to be “far away” & removed from the fire. Each “particle” of gas may (once again, its not my svorah, and I’m only giving my understanding, not Rav Moshe’s and I may be incorrect) be considered seperate, as its in the pipes, not even directed towards the flame in question; so its different than all of the other cases brought, where the source is already “attached” to the flame.
I don’t think anyone would suggest you should turn off or lower a flame not for Ochel Nefesh purposes on Yom Tov. But if your Rav does allow it, who am I to argue?July 13, 2009 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #650806
PM- thanks for your erudition and your exhasutive research. MAZEL TOV again on the birth of your child!
To the matter at hand. i have the gemoro in front of me and, although you are of course right in what you wrote ( I was unsure as i ahd forgotten the sugya) look into the tosofos D’H “Umistapek” !!! Tosefos writes CLEARLY that it is GRAM KIBUI !!! Toseof gice another rason why taking oil(fuel0 out of a candle is ossur. So- we are back at the begnning that it can indeed be gram kibui.
I do not have your erudition (and your library) and i thank you for your indication of all those Poskim, but the question remains : why isn’t it gram kibui? Toseofs seems to have accepted this.
Kibui would generally mean a direct dousing of the flame,not withholding fuel.
Look, I realize that you have all these sources but the question remains: why???July 13, 2009 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #650807
GAW: But in the 3 teshuvos mentioned so far Reb Moshe seems to EQUATE turning off the gas with true kibuyi. I didn’t see anywhere he considers gas to be “far away” or “separate”.July 13, 2009 7:22 pm at 7:22 pm #650808
If you have the time, in between feedings, you will find with a little bit more research, that there is no question whatsoever about Rav Moshe’s shita concerning GAS ranges.July 13, 2009 7:27 pm at 7:27 pm #650809
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.July 13, 2009 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #650810
Chevra, after some research (and learning), allow me to pose the following question : the gemoro says (shabbos 123) that you can be “kofin kaarah al haner shelo teochez es hakoreh”- you can cover the candle with a cover so that the ceiling does not catch fire’ (there is your answer ICOT)as it is considered gram kibui (on shabbos nonetheless) The rambam paskens accordingly.
so , my question is simple: how is that gram kibbui? We got to say that it is because the fire is starved of oxygen and goes out by itself. how is that DIFFERENT than starving a stove from gas?Please elghten us because the more i eelve into this sugya the more i become convinced that shutting of fuel supply is only a gram and this applies to gas to the stove too.July 13, 2009 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #650811
ROB: Thank you for the best wishes, may you have much nachas from your family as well. Generally speaking “grama” refers to something that takes place with a significant time delay, not a situation where the result of your action is instant. I don’t know how Tosfos deals with this, but I see that the universally accepted Halacha is to consider turning off the gas true kibuyi.July 13, 2009 7:50 pm at 7:50 pm #650812
But it should not be put into print. I ask the Mod to delete the post.July 13, 2009 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #650813
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.July 13, 2009 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #650814
ROB: actually, the Rosh argues with Tosafos.
I don’t see how anyone can claim that Reb Moshe held that turning off the gas is a grama without bringing any source, when he wrote in 3 published teshuvos that it is kibuyi mamash. I don’t see how it qualifies as a “well accepted idea” when no one says so. Please bring a single published or quotable source.July 13, 2009 9:07 pm at 9:07 pm #650815
ROB: First of all it is a Mishna. Secondly it is 121A not 123. Thirdly and most importantly, Rashi writes “u’bilvad shelo yichabe” on condition that it does NOT extinguish the fire. So there is no heter here of gram kibuyi, just moving an object for the benefit of a muktza item.July 13, 2009 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm #650816
…the gemoro says (shabbos 123) that you can be “kofin kaarah al haner shelo teochez es hakoreh”- you can cover the candle with a cover so that the ceiling does not catch fire’ (there is your answer ICOT)…
So it would appear.
Generally speaking “grama” refers to something that takes place with a significant time delay, not a situation where the result of your action is instant. I don’t know how Tosfos deals with this, but I see that the universally accepted Halacha is to consider turning off the gas true kibuyi.
Based on this, cutting off the gas where it enters the house would be less problematic, since it would continue to flow from the burner until the gas lines in the entire house depressurized, which wouldn’t be instantaneous.July 13, 2009 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm #650817
BTW grama can’t be the reason oomis’s Rav “allowed” turning off the stove, because grama is the same with or w/o a pilot light.July 14, 2009 12:50 am at 12:50 am #650818
PM- I thank you for the correction.The Rosh, indeed, differs from tosefos and maintaisn it is kibui when you take oil from a light. He refers to the gemoro shabbos 29-2. “lo jikov odom shafoferes’ and the sugya there. From rashi (and the rosh’s understanding) they hold that by taking some oil from that container that supplies the oil would be mechabeh. in truth , this is a very tough shittah to undersatnd because the “kli” that contains the oil is suspended above the “ner’ and has no contact with the light. I fail to undersatnd how thsi could be, in any way,kibui.
And, indeed, I refer you to the Rambam (Hilchos shabbos 6, mishne 12) who gives a different reason for that mishne (mukzoh) and the lechem mishneh there, who clearly writes that the rambam holds this is not ‘mechabeh” because the oil is NOT in the actual “kli’ that is burning.
Clearly, there are various shittos and , in our case, this being gas that has molecules that are not bound together, makes it even more problematic to ascertain that it is absolutely “kibbui”.
It is a lot more complicated rthan it looks at first blush. there are even gemoros that contradict each other on that and certainly the poskim have many different approachs on this.July 14, 2009 1:26 am at 1:26 am #650819
PM- thank you for the small corrections. Rashi indeed writes what you wrote, although I’d like to see how any candle continues burning when it is covered fully. Additionally, the Rambam writes this halocho without any qualifications and it seems that he relies for this upon the hetter of gram kibbui (Hilchos shabbos perek 12 halocho 4 )as he includes this halocho in the same mishnah as the “mechitzah of keilim” to protect from a fire.
But, back to rashi, to some extent “ikker chosser min hasfer’ if this is what rashi means. I submit that when rashi says ‘shelo jechabeh’ he may mean that by putting the kli directly on the fire, he extinguishes it. That, of course, is kibbui. However, just by covering it, rashi may agree it is gram kibbui. I am saying that because it is physically impossible that the flame continues to burn after it is covered. Try it once.July 14, 2009 6:46 am at 6:46 am #650820
ROB: I actually got to sleep in a bed last night, after spending Sunday night on the floor of the hospital, and now my head is clearer regarding Tosafos. If you read Tosafos and the Gemorra he is explaining which says one who removes oil from a lamp is chayav kibuyi, it is clear he does NOT consider removing fuel grama. Rather Tosafos is rejecting the option that the kibuyi is merely causing the fire to burn less time, say there was oil for 4 hours and now only enough for 3 remains, because if that was the only issue it would be grama. Therefore Tosafos explains that when removing oil it IMEDIATELY causes the fire to become smaller, which is true kibuyi. Certainly the same applies with turning off the gas, and even Tosafos would consider this kibuyi mamash. The Rosh disagrees and considers removing fuel to be true kibuyi even if the flame is not affected instantly, merely it will burn less time. This is because the oil is already “connected” to the fire even if it is in a separate container. This would certainly apply to gas as well. While I understand your difficulty with Rashi and the Rosh’s logic, I don’t think we can change the Halacha based on that.
Re Rashi: I think the simplest explanation for Rashi is that we are talking about a kli with holes on the sides or suspended in the air above the fire in a manner that will not cause the fire to be diminished at all but will insulate the beam from its heat. Why do you assume it will go out at all when Rashi seems to indicate otherwise?
Re grama in general: One of the main sources for grama is the case of removing a dam from a river where effect of the initial flow is considered your direct action and the continuation is grama. Reb Shlomo Zalmam Auerbach considers 5 seconds to be certainly a delayed reaction, hence many of the Grama innovation he pioneered for medical uses.July 14, 2009 6:49 am at 6:49 am #650821
ICOT: an excellent point. However the pressure and therefore intensity of the flame would be reduced instantly, therefore qualifying as true kibuyi even like Tosafos. Actually, the laundry list of seforim I mentioned who consider turning off the gas kibuyi mamash were talking about specifically your case. Turning of the gas at the stove was not even an issue for discussion.July 14, 2009 6:52 am at 6:52 am #650822
ROB: I want to thank you for calming down the discussion and returning it to a calmer discussion of the Halachos.July 14, 2009 10:37 am at 10:37 am #650823
ROB: The Magen Avraham explains Rashi exactly as I wrote, that one must leave a gap for air circulation so the fire will not go out. His pshat is brought in Mishna Berura, Pri Megadim, Shulchan Aruch HaRav, etc, and no one seems to argue.
The only other pshat I found in the Gemorra is the Meiri who explains on 107A that the Mishna is brought there in the context of ??? ????? ??????/?????, which certainly would not apply to turning off the gas intentionally.July 14, 2009 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm #650824
Your explanation of the issue with cutting off a house’s the main gas line makes sense. I don’t know how quickly a burner’s fire would be reduced in that case, since I never tried it (and don’t intend to).
As I said before, I have zero doubt that there were people who were matir turning off piloted stovetop burners, because I myself know of people who did so. I have no way of knowing if they were mistaken due to lack of knowledge regarding how the stove worked, or there was some other reason they felt it was OK.
It seems to me that Rav Auerbach zatzal is saying that in order to be considered a grama, as opposed to a direct act, two things are required:
2) Non-immediate results (five seconds is about toich kidei dibbur – is this coincidental?)
Are the above conclusions correct?
Is there a consensus that agrees, disagrees, both, or is this a question that is not widely addressed?
Thanks to all who presented their svoros with mekoros. I, for one, did some extra learning just reading thru this thread and (in some cases) opening the seforim (e-daf) and seeing for myself.July 14, 2009 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm #650825
ICOT: You are correct about R’ SZ Auerbach’s shita. However it is not universally agreed upon. What is??? Rav Elyashiv disagrees and holds that anything that works in the manner it was specifically designed to function an not be grama and is automatically a true melacha no matter how indirect the result and even after an extended delay. Rav Shlomo Miller seems to agree with Rav Elyashiv, and this appears to be the crux of his disagreement with Rav Heinemann regarding the Shabbos oven’s suitability for YT use. I think it was before Peasach that YWN posted a link to an mp3 of Rav Heineman’s shiur defending his position on the topic. It is highly recommended to anyone interested, as he tries to explain the different possibilities and sources for the machmirim and why he disagrees with each specific point. If someone could find and post the link it would be very helpful.July 14, 2009 1:03 pm at 1:03 pm #650826
I’m not following everything 100%, but something stepped out at me.
If gas main work is being done in the street, and a Jewish person is responsible for turning off the gas there, wouldn’t that be causing him to do melacha on shabbos? (granted he is working in the street anyway, but this seems to be adding to it). After all, if the street valve is operated, and the internal house piping is sufficiently small, there would be less than a 5 second delay.July 14, 2009 2:06 pm at 2:06 pm #650827
Rav Heinemann’s response to the Kol Koreh regarding raising or lowering temperatures on Yom Tov on ovens equipped with the Sabbath Mode feature:
Written T’shuva (Note the first letter of every paragraph in T’shuva):July 14, 2009 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #650828
PM- thanks for your kind compliment and again, MAZEL TOV on your new family addition!
i reviewed the tosefos again and , with great respect to your interpretation, I take a slightly different view. Clearly, tosefos calls gram kibbui if you reduce the amount of fuel ,as in a long candle that is cut to shorter the time of burning that tosefos explicitly calls gram kibbui. In the case of taking oil from a lamp ,tosefos say that, in the moment of taking the oil, it reduces the flame and this tosefos considers kibbui. This must be conclusively understood from the story upon which this tosefos is based ( the gabbai of ulloh tiltied the lamp to draw the oil away from the canlde,see rashi)
so, tosefos view -“lefi anyas daati”- is that, when, in the actual act, the fuel to the light is diminished on the spot and the light dimmed, this should be considered kibbui. cutting off the supply-and at that moment disturbing the light, is still gram kibbui. The qestion before us is what is the shutting off of a gas line. And I must say that-if you accept this view- reducing the gas by reducing the pressure of the gas may very well be considered kibbui according to these views.
However, I did mention the rambam and the lechem mishneh and if yo uwould cut off the gasl ine at another source (say, at the entrance into the house),which has no immediate influence on the gas fire, this would be considered gram kibbui.
I saw the Mogen Avroho you mention and I will gracefully acknoweldge that it seems that the Mogen Avrohom would consider kibbui if the light gets starved from oxygen and this actually dovetails with your understanding of the gas supply cutoff.
I accept your view of gram by R”Shlomo Zalman zz’l but it gets on shaky ground when you start dealing in seconds or the like. Gram is gram regardless of the time lapse, but who am I to argue with R’Shlomo Zalman?July 14, 2009 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #650830
ICOT- just one quick comment. “toch kedei dibbur’ is a LOT less than five seconds-more like a second and a half. Just time yourself.
I am surely not a possek or anything close to it but my interpretation of gram would be simple: anything that is not a direct result of an act. This is the translation of “Gram”, an indirect causity. I fail to see how time has any place in this matter. A split second or a half an hour does not any difference in the concept of “gram”.July 14, 2009 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #650831
Neat roshei taivos! I never would’ve noticed.
Two seconds, when spoken conversationally (and strange looks from co-workers within earshot).July 14, 2009 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #650832
cherrybim- i just reviewed Rav heinemann’s teshuva and it touches upon many of the things we have been discussing. Amongst these is that gram is measured as per ‘toch kedei dibbur” and also that , if you don’t disturb the light , it is gram kibbui and not kibbui mamash. Additioally, he brings down the discussion between ther Chazon ish and R’Shlomo Zalman concerning electricity- with R’ Shlomo Zalman wanting to be mattir ,as it is no different than opneing or closing a door. the chazon ish response was that a door is made to be functional both while open (to enter the room) and closed (to protect from the wind,etc) whereas a shut circuit has no other purpose. Rav Heinemann deduces frmo this that, in case there is a real purpose for the shutting of the current, it is muttor. This is how he allows adjusting the thermostat on yom tov because obviously, the heat in an oven (or the cold in a fridge) has to be shut off if you want a normal cooking (or cooling) and hence, the shutoff has a purpose and is also needed.
Anyway- the more one delves into these matters, the more one sees that there are so many variables that you just cannot draw universal conclusions and each case is unique.July 14, 2009 9:18 pm at 9:18 pm #650833
cherry: thank you.
ROB: The Rambam does not say that covering the fire is gram kibuyi, although he does put it next to the halachos of gram kibuyi. There is no Lechem Mishna on this Rambam, so I’m not sure what you are referring to. It’s true that Tosafos only mentions removing oil from the container, not cutting off the flow into the container. However we have yet to see that there is any distinction in Halacha. So we have a certain kibuyi according to Rashi and the Rosh, and probably also according to Tosafos. Turning off the gas line would probably have an immediate effect on the flame, but its not really the issue under discussion. The issue of boneh with electricity is a fascinating and often misunderstood topic, but not relevant to the issue at hand.July 14, 2009 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #650834
1) NO ONE DISAGREES that kibuyi on YT is assur, even when done to prevent loss, except when it can be categorized as ochel nefesh.
2) NO ONE DISAGREES that the same applies to lowering the flame even if part of it, such as a pilot light, remains lit.
3) NO ONE DISAGREES that removing fuel from a fire that causes an immediate change in the intensity of the fire is kibuyi.
4) NO ONE DISAGREES that we have numerous Poskim including 3 published teshuvos from Reb Moshe that kibuyi would also apply to blocking the flow of gas into the fire, and we have not yet found any source to differentiate. Rumors of anonymous “talmidim and family members” do NOT count as a source.
Draw your own conclusions.July 14, 2009 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #650835
PM- before I respond, I truly am thankful to you and the others. This has been an exhilarating few days, bringing me back to delve into sugyas…”tirdas hazman’ clearly prevets us to do this sommtime…
The Rambam and subsequebt lechem mishne ins in hilchos shabbos perek 5 ,nishne 12, dealing with “li jiten odom shafoferes”. The lechem mishne is pretty clear about his interpretation of the Rambam. This is, of course, because the oil is in a different kli.
The shulchan aruch (265-1),on the other hand, considers this a real kibbui,although the oil is in a different kli. As said, it strains my logic to understand how it could be kibbui if the oil is not at all in touch with either fire or other fuel…but “mah e-eseh?”
Your conclusions are correct. However, no one in this thread 9not even oomis0 said that yo ucna lower the flame to the pilot light gratuitiously. I said that, when finishing cooking, you cna lower the flame anyway to preserve the food and ,while doing that, then you can turn it down to the pilot light.The kibbui is oichel nefesh but you still have a flame if yo uant to use afterwards again for warming or cooking. All this, even if you do not consider it gram kibbui.July 14, 2009 10:32 pm at 10:32 pm #650836
ROB: If the food is completely finished cooking, where is the ochel nefesh? If the food still needs to simmer, how will turning the burner down all the way to the pilot accomplish this?July 15, 2009 3:20 pm at 3:20 pm #650837
PM- it seems that we have exhausted most people on this thread. Your last question is valid and, as of now, your arguments have the upper hand, although I am pretty sure that there may be other views out there. Nonetheless, I thank you for your many contribtutions here and giving me the opportunity of delving into this sugya again.July 15, 2009 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #650838
I very much enjoyed the discussion and you certainly kept me on my toes. One thing I did find is that Rabbi Ribiyat in his encyclopedia on the 39 Melachos writes in an endnote in meleches mechabe that he discusses whether turning off gas is kibuyi or gram kibuyi in an endnote to the Halachos of YT in Volume 5. Unfortunately, to date he has only printed the first 4 volumes.July 15, 2009 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #650839
“Rumors of anonymous “talmidim and family members” do NOT count as a source.”
I think that is an uncalled for remark. If the family members are ehrliche talmidei chachamim and rabbanim to boot, that is a little insulting on your part. Rabbanim certainly do count as a source for their families’ religious upbringing and hashkafa, particularly since they are their poskim. It is clear that there is still something that is not being understood here, regarding the workings of the older stoves, as entire communities in New York’s five boroughs followed a different shitta than the one which you present. So obviously there was a good reason that their rabbonim felt it was permitted then. My son’s friend asked his rebbie about this, specifically on my behalf, and he said, “M’ikkar hadin, it is 100% muttar, but most people DO NOT DO IT THIS WAY TODAY.” (emphasis is mine, and this is his direct quote). The reason for this being that because all stoves are made differently for the last 20-30 years, people might mistakenly believe that you are mav-ir (igniting) the fire with an electric ignition, and that pesky old Morris Ayin will be around.
Maybe what you could be asking about is not what you understand to be the halacha based on your sources (all excellent, and I am truly happy that so much Torah has been discussed as a direct result of this issue), but rather, what was done in previous generations and why it was acceptable then? Then ask yourself, if it was acceptable to substantial numbers of ehrliche frum people and the EXACT conditions still remain in a given household, what would make what was muttar then, assur now? I am still waiting for my present rov to come home, so I can ask him this shailah, and if he tells me I have been doing something wrong (which I am still hearing is not the case), then I will have to adjust my thinking on this matter and do things differently from now on.July 15, 2009 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #650840
oomis” You must’ve missed the “anonymous” part of PM’s sentence.July 15, 2009 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #650841
oomis: it’s unfortunate that you are resorting to attacking me, when for the past couple of days we have managed to keep this thread civil. It is cynical to portray yourself as a victim, while not hesitating to insult others.
My remark was completely valid on a number of points. We don’t know what Reb Moshe’s “family and Talmidim” really hold other than one poster’s unfounded assertion. We don’t know who is included in “family and Talmidim”, if ANYONE ever said such a thing. How do you know we are referring to “ehrliche talmidei chachamim and rabbanim to boot”? We have no way of confirming such RUMORS, since the poster did not mention specific name, and information that can not be confirmed or denied is always suspect. Especially when it contradicts 3 written psakim of Reb Moshe himself. Give me one verifiable source, a Rav I can call up and ask if its true he said it is muttar and why. I think we have clearly demonstrated that the technical details of the older stoves are IRRELEVANT, no matter how they were made they could not possibly have ever been muttar to extinguish. If there is a misunderstanding here, which I have clearly written that I think there is and you attacked me for saying it, it is either on the part of the baalei batim who misunderstood their Rabbonim or on the part of the Rabbonim who misunderstood the Halacha. I think the first is the more attractive option, if you insist you can NOT possibly make a mistake you are shifting the blame to the Rabbonim. Mavir and electric ignition are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, we are discussing kibuyi when turning the oven off. I can’t argue about what was done in previous generations, but I still have not heard any indication that it was acceptable to any Rabbonim.
To me the situation is analogous to someone eating cheeseburgers because his Rav said that meat and milk are permitted. However the Rav didn’t say “together” of course, and only meant there is no obligation to be a “vegan”.July 16, 2009 12:38 am at 12:38 am #650842
It would be a real shame if either of you came away from this discussion having taken offense.
A “private psak” can sometimes be issued for a specific case, and not as a blanket statement for public consumption in all circumstances. I have asked shailos to (among others) Rav Feivel Cohen, Rav Belsky, and Rav Scheinberg. In cases where I thought it might be useful to pass their answers on to others, I always asked if I could repeat what they had said in their names. In at least one case it was something that was not for repetition and attribution, because “technically it’s allowed, but you shouldn’t”.
Lehavdil, civil law also has instances where the court specifically states that its ruling is not to set precedent, but is only for this narrow set of circumstances.July 16, 2009 3:29 am at 3:29 am #650843
“oomis: it’s unfortunate that you are resorting to attacking me”
I did no such thing. The opposite, however, has been true quite often on this thread, and there was no reason for it. I do not attack, although I might point out that something that is said is offensive to me. I have that right, and instead of getting upset, maybe you should re-read your own words, as it is very clear who the “anonymous” rabbis and family members are (that was actually a response to Joseph). This thread has been very civil for the last couple of days, so can we keep it that way? Accusing me of posting rumors, is almost the same as calling me a liar, btw, so who is insulting whom? I never said I cannot make a mistake (I make plenty), but this inyan was not one of them, because obviously there was never an issue of being mechallel yom tov in our family or in our neighborhood. And having asked an opinion of a rov (not my rov, so I did not ask for a p’sak), I was told that what I describe is completely muttar, though people generally do not do so today, and as I explained, it is more for maris ayin than any other reason, because most people have a differnet type of stove now.
BTW, “the poster” who is clearly myself, cannot tell you who the family rabbonim and members are, because that would identify me on this forum. So that, too, was an unnecessary remark. And I am not attacking you by saying that. And you still do not get the fact that the older stoves are NOT being extinguished (or perhaps you believe that this is kibui, even though the flame remains lit). The fire never goes out completely, and that is why it was always muttar.In East New York, there were no families in the shtiebel where we davened that did not cook the same way my family did, and my relatives in Boro Park did the same. Nowadays this does not hold true for most stoves. They ALL go out (except a few like mine). So they clearly are not muttar.
Do you always feel attacked when someone does not agree with you? I am still waiting to speak with my Rov, and I will clear this matter up then, and tell you what he says. As I said earlier, if I come to discover that I have been wrong all my life, I will have to make some changes, and I have NO problem with making those changes. But I do not think it will prove to be the case. My rov is a musmach of Torah Vadaas. Will what he says be acceptable to you and forestall any further comment? I run the risk of hearing, “I told you so,” from you, but I am prepared to hear the p’sak from my rov whether it supports my statement or yours. But if he supports my claim, will you please stop arguing with me about it? I really feel that especially going into the Nine Days, arguing is not a good thing. This whole inyan started with an innocent remark on my part, and it was turned into a cause celebre, and it should not have been.July 16, 2009 3:51 am at 3:51 am #650844
“1) NO ONE DISAGREES that kibuyi on YT is assur, even when done to prevent loss,”
“except when it can be categorized as ochel nefesh.”
“2) NO ONE DISAGREES that the same applies to lowering the flame even if part of it, such as a pilot light, remains lit.”
“3) NO ONE DISAGREES that removing fuel from a fire that causes an immediate change in the intensity of the fire is kibuyi.”
“4) NO ONE DISAGREES that we have numerous Poskim including 3 published teshuvos from Reb Moshe that kibuyi would also apply to blocking the flow of gas into the fire, and we have not yet found any source to differentiate.”
“Rumors of anonymous “talmidim and family members” do NOT count as a source.”July 16, 2009 4:30 am at 4:30 am #650845
oomis: PM’s comment regarding “anonymous rabbis and family members” was a response to cherrybim, NOT YOU.
cherrybim: We have been cited several times in this thread the chapter of the Igros Moshe supporting PM’s statement. Where is your citations of the Igros Moshe regarding your claims of Reb Moshe ZT’L? PM is certainly correct that you cannot rely on anonymous sources. At minimum you need to cite a verifiable Rav/Posek who will agree with your assertions regarding an unwritten psak of Reb Moshe. Who are these (still anonymous) “talmidim and family members” who are in accordance with your assertions?July 16, 2009 10:09 am at 10:09 am #650846
Joseph: I know you’re pretty smart, know how to research, and also kmow the right people. Please, let’s not be lazy.
Again, what I stated is very well known, but in all honesty, it bothers Rabbonim and they don’t like to talk about it. There are many Rabbonim who are great admirers of Rav Moshe ZT”L and are awed of his t’shuvos, its length and breath of Kol Hatorah Kulo.
But, comes a place where either Rav Moshe is machmir, i.e., the use of electric timers on Shabbos with the exception of timers for lights; Or where Rav Moshe in meikel, i.e., in our case of turning the gas off on gas ranges, than it’s suddenly “we don’t fir zich azoi” (we don’t follow this ruling).
We had a similar discussion in the Cholov Yisroel thread regarding Rav Moshe’s kula. But after all the d’rashas and shakle v’tarye; l’maise “seeing is believing” and the clincher is what the Godol Hador and his family actually do.July 16, 2009 10:48 am at 10:48 am #650847
1) I long ago brought the Rema regarding a house fire who clearly holds that even complete kibuyi is permitted when it can be classified as ochel nefesh.
2) Reb Moshe writes EXPLICITLY that there is no difference between partial and complete kibuyi. Who are your, again anonymous, “Poskim”?
3) Reb Moshe EXPLICITLY forbids turning off the gas to a stove when it is not ochel nefesh. Who are your, again anonymous, “Poskim”?
4) While it is certainly true that Igros Moshe does not contain every psak Reb Moshe rendered during his lifetime, you can not ignore 3 explicit printed psakim where he forbids turning off a stove. Certainly Reb Moshe’s family and talmidim count, but only for what they really said. So far you are the only person in the world privy to the knowledge that Reb Moshe’s “talmidim and family members” heard from him differently then he wrote in Igros. Please submit the names and phone numbers of these “talmidim and family members” as well as the “POSKIM” to whom this contradictory psak is well know so I can call them to confirm and hear the reasoning.July 16, 2009 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm #650848
oomis: I will continue to refrain from answering your personal insults and stick to the Halachic issue.
If you would have read what I have posted carefully, you would have seen that I am referring to cherrybim’s rumors that Reb Moshe’s anonymous “talmidim and family members” heard from him differently then he wrote in Igros”.
“And you still do not get the fact that the older stoves are NOT being extinguished (or perhaps you believe that this is kibuyi, even though the flame remains lit).”
Actually you are the one who does not get it. I have repeatedly quoted the Rema, Mishna Berura and Reb Moshe that there is NO DIFFERENCE.
Why don’t you at least post the name and phone number of your son’s friend’s Rebbie, the “other Rav” you asked so we can confirm and hear his reasoning.
I look forward to hearing your Rav’s opinion, but I can’t commit to accept whatever an unknown person says, and I don’t judge people based on the Yeshiva they learned in, for better or for worse. I’m sure your Rav is a wonderful person, but I can’t know his scholarship or if there was a miscommunication without seeing a detailed, written psak or speaking to him personally.
BTW, do you think it would be wrong to tell someone not to eat a cheeseburger???
- The topic ‘Melacha Sh’einah Tzricha L’gufa’ is closed to new replies.