Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 307

Thursday, January 20 2000

• RE: Dud Shemesh
• Re: Hafleh vaFeleh - humor alert
• Re: Rabenu Tam
• Rav Lichtensteins article on Centrist Judaism
• mixed dancing
• mixed seating
• Re: Dud Shemesh
• RE: Dud Shemesh
• Re: Rabenu Tam
• Re: intrinsic value of mitzvos
• Re: Dud Shemesh
• Re[2]: Rabenu Tam
• Re[2]: Rabenu Tam
• Re: Re[2]: Rabenu Tam
• Re: Re[2]: Rabenu Tam
• Re: Re[2]: Rabenu Tam
• Re: Re[2]: Rabenu Tam

>
> 2) I seem to recall that in the first edition of the Shemiras
> Shabbos he was
> mattir a dud shemesh. Does anyone know what his sevarah was and why he
> changed his mind?

He changed his mind because several major poskim (who had given him
haskamas) objected to his ruling (and threatened to withdraw their
haskamas. )

>
> 3) Practically speaking, how does a dud shemesh work?
>

Water runs from a tank through black pipes exposed to the sun. The sun heats
up the pipe, which heats up the water inside. The hot water returns to the
tank.

When the user turns on the hot water, it takes hot water from the tank. Cold
water flows into the tank (and gets heated to above Yad Soledes Bo).

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

If this is indeed a replicatable neis, why not put in both Rashi and RT tefillin
and see which gets unscathed?  Trial by bomb ordeal!? <smile>

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Hafleh vaFeleh 
<snip>
 "The prayer book inside was turned to crumbs, as were the tefillin 
covers, but the tefillin themselves
[containing ritually-written Biblical passages] were untouched and looked 
as new as ever."  The bag was later found to belong to a boy who had 
arrived at the clinic with high fever and accidentally left it behind. The
boy's father said, "My son received a concrete lesson in the holiness of 
the tefillin."  Following a similar incident reported by Arutz-7 last 
June,
in which tefillin remained whole when a suspicious package was blown up 
at
a bus stop, the sapper told a bystander that he was not surprised, as in 
his six years on the job, "I've blown up many similar 'suspicious 
packages'
- and not once was the tefillin inside found damaged." 

In a message dated 1/20/00 7:49:45 AM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 And if my hypothesis holds true, there was no DEFINITIVE decision as to 
which 
 version was correct, iow there were until circa 1200  2 (or more?) competing 
 schools of thought on the matter.
 
 This kind of retro-active research is imho flawed when it superimposes 
current 
 pre-suppoistions on an era that probably worked with a differnet paradigm.
 
 Lemoshol, let's say that in 300 years ago everybody does not don Tephillin 
on 
 ChhM, and THEN arachaeologist show that people did it, would that change the 
 minhag as it will have become evolved?  it shouldn't. The point then would 
 become that the matter had varying shitos but it was resolved as one 
universal 
 hahnogo.
  >>

I agree absolutely. Not only do R'Wolpoe's comments put archeological and 
anthropological evidence of ancient Judaism into realistic context, they also 
make sense as an antidote to historicism.

Having said that, I wonder where R'Wolpoe's reference to the "evolution" of 
Jewish practice leaves us. Some practices have changed as a result of 
intellectual consensus, others because of various accidents of history. Some 
were wiped out when the Jews who embraced them were wiped out by various 
X-tian warriors. Given this, are we allowed to look back and adopt older 
practices that were once discarded but might, in view of contemporary 
realities, make sense again? Must we look to our dor's Gedolim and let them 
decide? Can we even raise the question? If archeology uncovers the ancient 
prevalence of a particular halachic practice, can we think about adopting 
that practice today? Can the possibility of using that practice be included 
in our dialectics? Must we ignore anything that comes from scientific as 
opposed to rabbinic analysis?

David Finch

Some members of the list expressed interest in reading Rav Aharon 
Lichtensteins recent article on Centrist Judaism that was posted on Yeshivat 
Har Etzion's VBM. Having just read the article, I would just like to inform 
everyone that (at least this first part) has really nothing new in it at all. 
In fact, the article is based on a transcript by Rav Eli Clark and was 
originally delivered at a conference of the Educators' Council of America in 
November 1985. Furthermore, Rav Lichtinsteins article in "Judaism's 
Encounters with other cultures" (put out by the Torah Umadda project of YU in 
1997) brings up all the same points and is far more comprehensive. In fact, I 
counted at least 6 points in the recent article that Rav Lichtinstein 
previously made almost word for word in this volume. So anyone who read this 
volume will find nothing new, and for anyone who did not, I recommend this 
volume which is far more comprehensive. (Of course the book cost $ while 
reading from a website doesn't.) 

<<would be).  by the mid 70s and 80s, I think the situation was clearly
different even in yeshivish weddings, and mehitzot did not come into
their own until the mid 80s.  what happened in between? >>

	I got married in 1974;  the issue of mechitza/no mechitza was quite
active at the time.  Unless,  of course,  my environment was atypical of
yeshivos or my memory is going.

<<Did the rashe yeshiva leave?>>

	Some did.

Gershon

> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 22:09:42 +0200
> From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
> Subject: Re: mixed seating

> As to leshon hara', please note that my posting did not mention the
name of the rosh 
> yeshiva or of the yeshiva. Perhaps R' Gershon had heard the story 
before and inserted 
> the names as he read.>>

	The discussion of the topic on this list referred to a specific Rosh
Yeshiva.  If I inserted his name into your story erroneously,  I am
sorry,  but it was from the immediately preceding discussion,  not from
some story I once heard.  (My memory isn't that far gone <g>)

<<is it leshon hara' to state that a rosh yeshiva had mixed seating at
his wedding.>>

	This is where *your*  kri diverges from the ksiv.  My positing it as a
possible lashon hara was based on the R"Y "caving in"  against his
principles when confronted with his own "sordid past" as described in the
story.  No, I personally do not consider having mixed seating as L"H.

Gershon

RC Markowitz asked about using a dud shemesh on Shabbos.


I have a tape of R. Hershel Schachter talking about a dud shemesh which you are 
welcome to borrow.

In theory, the dud shemesh is 100% toldos hachamah which should be mutar to use.
However, there is a Magen Avraham who states that if the heating element is 
still connected to the sun (e.g. using a frying pan which is still in the sun) 
then it is considered chamah and not toldos hachamah.  Since the dud shemesh is 
still "connected" to the sun it should be assur miderabanan.

Others want to assur for a different reason.  Rashi says that toldos hachamah is
mutar because it is not derech bishul.  Since a dud shemesh clearly is derech 
bishul it would still be assur [R. Moshe Feinstein has a teshuvah on this and I 
think he offers this sevara].  R. Schachter disagreed with this sevara based on 
a Chazon Ish in hilchos treifus.  The gemara says that the world will have 2000 
years tohu, 2000 years Torah, and 2000 mashiach.  The Chazon Ish explains that 
the 2000 years Torah means that Torah is nikva during that time period.  The 
various chazakos and "derech"s are determined then.  Since at that time toldos 
hachamah was not derech bishul it is and will always be mutar.  I found that 
fascinating.

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6368.1249807E
Content-Type: text/plain


	>> In theory, the dud shemesh is 100% toldos hachamah which should
be mutar to use.
> However, there is a Magen Avraham who states that if the heating element
> is 
> still connected to the sun (e.g. using a frying pan which is still in the
> sun) 
> then it is considered chamah and not toldos hachamah.  Since the dud
> shemesh is 
> still "connected" to the sun it should be assur miderabanan.
> 
	The only problem is that the gemara says Toldos Chamah is assur
gezairah atu toldos ohr and Chamah is mutar because it is not derech bishul.



	>>Others want to assur for a different reason.  Rashi says that
toldos hachamah is
> mutar because it is not derech bishul.  
> 
	Rashi actually says chamah is mutar because it is not derech bishul.

	>> Since a dud shemesh clearly is derech 
> bishul it would still be assur [R. Moshe Feinstein has a teshuvah on this
> and I 
> think he offers this sevara
> 
	The Shemiras Shabbos actually brings this sevara also-that bzman
hazeh chamah is considered derech bishul. He brings Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l
who rejects this sevara for a different reason than Rav Shachter. (I don't
remember the sevara off hand so ayin sham)

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6368.1249807E
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Dud Shemesh</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<UL>
<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt;&gt;</FONT> =
<FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">In theory, the dud shemesh is 100% toldos =
hachamah which should be mutar to use.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">However, there is a Magen Avraham who =
states that if the heating element is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">still connected to the sun (e.g. =
using a frying pan which is still in the sun) </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">then it is considered chamah and not =
toldos hachamah.&nbsp; Since the dud shemesh is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">still &quot;connected&quot; to the =
sun it should be assur miderabanan.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The only problem is =
that the gemara says Toldos Chamah is assur gezairah atu toldos ohr and =
Chamah is mutar because it is not derech bishul. </FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt;&gt;</FONT><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Others want to assur for a different =
reason.&nbsp; Rashi says that toldos hachamah is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">mutar because it is not derech =
bishul.&nbsp;</FONT>=20
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Rashi actually says =
chamah is mutar because it is not derech bishul.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt;&gt;</FONT> =
<FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Since a dud shemesh clearly is derech =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">bishul it would still be assur [R. =
Moshe Feinstein has a teshuvah on this and I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">think he offers this sevara</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The Shemiras Shabbos =
actually brings this sevara also-that bzman hazeh chamah is considered =
derech bishul. He brings Rav Shlomo Zalman zt&quot;l who rejects this =
sevara for a different reason than Rav Shachter. (I don't remember the =
sevara off hand so ayin sham)</FONT></P>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6368.1249807E--

On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 08:49:45AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: I would re-prhase taht to say, the Tephillin foudn in the 1st Century matched 
: that of RT.  

A less important point than RRW's (which I largely snipped) but critical to
understanding the origin of the Rashi vs R"T split:

The Beraisa in Menachos requires that the parshios from Shemos be on the
right, and those from Devarim on the left. What was found in Qumran were:

1- Like Rashi, putting the parshios from Shemos on the right, and those from
   Devarim on the left: (from right to left)
       Kadesh, Vehayah ki Yevi'acha, Shema, Vehayah im Shamo'a

2- Like R"T, those from Dev are not only on the left, but are also order from
   left to right: 
	Kadesh, Vehayah k"Y, Vehaya i"S, Shema

3- A defunct shitah, perhaps one never followed by Perushim. First Shemos,
   then Dev to the left of it, then Shemos, then Dev to its left:
	Kadesh, Shema, Vehayah k"Y, Vehayah i"S


: "Correctness" is a function of psak not of archaeology.  

Which brings us back to one of our perennial debates, as to whether p'sak
is "correct" regardless of the scientific data, or is the role of p'sak
is limited to choosing which accurate shitah (which from among the "eilu
vi'eilu") is to be followed lihalachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Jan-00: Chamishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 102a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

>>>Tefillin before Sinai -  what would be written on the parshios?<<<

Mai d'hava hava - l'mai nafka minah?

>>Re Pesach-  Is Pesach connected only to Yetziat Mitzrayim or is it an optimum time for Geula in general?

B'nisan asidin ligael. 

>>>We see that Avraham and Sarah kept the Matzot aspect of Pesach,but what about the maror and the korban Pesach? <<<

Rashi on shnei g'dayei izim by ya'akov - for korban pesach/chagigah. Yesh lachkor whether they kept maror as althogh korban pesach was eaten, there was no chovas hagavra.

>>>Did they have knowledge of Yetziat Mitzrayim as a future event or did they have da'as of the concepts on which yetzias mitzrayim is based?<<<

Avraham was told in bris bein abesarim his children will go into galus and emerge b'rechush gadol. 

>>> Which did Avraham Avinu keep?<<<

Both.  Zachor and shamor are both in taryag mitzvos.

>>>To really press the point,  did Avraham Avinu have a set of Rashi and a set of Rabeinu Tam tefilin, and if not, why not?   Points to ponder.<<<

Again - mai d'hava hava, lmai nafka minah?  
I am not being facitious when I write that.  See R' Shach's comments in Avi Ezri on the Rambam of bikeish ya'akov avinu l'galos es a keitz in Hil K'Sh. If Chazal can ask the kashe of mai d'hava hava, I think it has to be borne in mind in directing our limud and havanah.  If you tell me that knowing whether Avraham wore Rashi or R"T tefillin will increase your appreciation of middas hachessed for you to emulate, m'meila I can hear this line of inquiry, but just for the sake of speculation, I don't see it.  

So, revising my earlier post based on RC Markowitz's points:

A dud shemesh should be mutar based on the Magen Avraham that it is still 
connected to the sun.

Some want to assur because it is derech bishul.  R. Schachter disagrees with 
this sevara.

I'm pretty sure he ended up assuring them but now I can't remember why.

Sorry for the mistakes.

the short answer is that I enshrine Minhag Avoseinu beyodein as the single best 
bulwark against Reform/Cosnervative forms of revisionsim

This barrier allwos me the intellectual freed om to investiage ANYTHING and 
EVERTYHING so long as I refrain from altering the halacho lemasse aspects, and 
only the theorical ones

I don't have a sophisticated system worked out on this.  I adapted this when my 
frum professors at Revel seemed to espouse "apikorsus" (at least they wer so 
accused) yet remaiend loyal to halacha and the halachic process.

When Professor Feldblum was accused by rumbling after class that im kein the 
shulcahn Aruch was botel - I went stright to him and asked, NU how do YOU asnwer
these guys who are accuing you fo "dethroing the SA?"

He replied that even if his research shows a halacha is based upon a fualty 
premise, the halahca has its own wieght and must be respected. 

I then ferred this: But intellecually it is wrong just to suport a 
per-suppositing that would defend the SA.

R. Dr. E. Kanarfogel and I have ciscussed his and we conculded there is an old 
so-called"litvisher" traidtion of distinguishing and discerning between lomdus 
and lemasse.

EG Lomuds teaches us that kitniyos is a questionable gezerio based upon the TB 
etc.  Lemaase and/or minhag avoseinu tells us that we do NOT necesarily foolow 
the implications of our reasearch into the realm of overturning accepted 
practice

Same for giving women aliyos, same for RT/Rashi tephillin, same for re-visting 
electricity onShabbos etc.  IOW if I could PROVE to you in a physics lab that 
electricity and eish wer totally differnt genre, I would still respect the 
halachos based upon the older assumption - as long as the issue is considere 
closed and no longer in flux.

I believe the CI says the same more-or-less.

This shito permits an Orthodx Jew to leave the practical side of Hlacha alone 
and still have a no-holds-bar investiagtion of history, and archaeology w/o 
resorting to any compormises on intellectual honesty.

I think halivni feels the saem. Taht no matter how far he has deviated from teh 
conventional wisdom wrt Troah misinai, he still would like to see Judaims 
practiced lhalacha.  My impression is that he considers his academic purusits as
honest investigations of some very serous questions, yet he shudders to think 
taht therefore one can now give a heter  to ride on Shabbos beasue of his 
academic research!

The other school is to regard "chochmas Yisroel" as off-limits.  I unfortunately
have gone too far down that road at BRGS to buy that.

I sense that many have struggled with this, and this is my best effort at 
reconciling both halacah and freedom of inquiry.

Again, this is the SHORT answer.

Rich Wolpoe 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I agree absolutely. Not only do R'Wolpoe's comments put archeological and 
anthropological evidence of ancient Judaism into realistic context, they also 
make sense as an antidote to historicism.

Having said that, I wonder where R'Wolpoe's reference to the "evolution" of 
Jewish practice leaves us. Some practices have changed as a result of 
intellectual consensus, others because of various accidents of history. Some 
were wiped out when the Jews who embraced them were wiped out by various 
X-tian warriors. Given this, are we allowed to look back and adopt older 
practices that were once discarded but might, in view of contemporary 
realities, make sense again? Must we look to our dor's Gedolim and let them 
decide? Can we even raise the question? If archeology uncovers the ancient 
prevalence of a particular halachic practice, can we think about adopting 
that practice today? Can the possibility of using that practice be included 
in our dialectics? Must we ignore anything that comes from scientific as 
opposed to rabbinic analysis?

David Finch

I would say this:

Before the halacho was nispashet and became universally accpeted we can 
certainly muster evidence - even of the archaeoligcal variety.

My objection is undoing a done deal - because this is - imho - a popluar 
technique of conservatives to overturn accepted hanhogo by re-visintg issues 
long ago settled.

And imho it would not serve us well to do the same even if it were a leitiamte 
halahcic technique to do so - at least UNTIL we have a bona fide Sanedrin.

This also goes with my shito (based largely on what I learned from Porfessor 
Agus) that since the curban, we rely on a system of mesorah and precedent and we
no longer have the authority to do din al pi a "lesgislative" model.

and you can rightfully aanswer me backtaht if a consensu of gbedolim (and 
perhaps a "knesses Yisreol") went ahead and DID re-pasken that we would follow 
that NEW psak.  And then I would tell you every C theorist woudl go AHA, see you
O's can do it why can't we do it too!

And in fact I was told the following by C' thoerists: Well if Chassidim revised 
the nusah hatefillo circa BESHT why can't we?

To which I would respond ein hochi nami, R. Schwab v'sayoso would tell you it is
imprper to abandon the minhag avoesinu and to cahnge one's minhag. But I would 
allow for individuals (not masses) to migrate from group A to B.

And this led me to posit that the proposed changes by the Besht ( for that mater
the Gro) were intended for a closed school and not for the masses - adn I have 
no proof for this.  But when R. Nosson Adler advocated duchaning daily in 
Frankfort they threw him out of town (so I am told by KAJ people).

Publicly breakign with the prevaling minhag was a big no no, adn I suspect 
Reform made it even the more compelling not to allows "new" ways of doing 
business. IOW once the minhag was fixed no to ducahn (and this minhag has 
admittedly shaky foundations) we will not permit it's re-isntitution hundres of 
years later.

I rest my case at least for now

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


: "Correctness" is a function of psak not of archaeology.  

Which brings us back to one of our perennial debates, as to whether p'sak 
is "correct" regardless of the scientific data, or is the role of p'sak 
is limited to choosing which accurate shitah (which from among the "eilu 
vi'eilu") is to be followed lihalachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Jan-00: Chamishi, Beshalach 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 102a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 1/20/00 11:53:52 AM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< the short answer is that I enshrine Minhag Avoseinu beyodein as the single 
best 
 bulwark against Reform/Cosnervative forms of revisionsim
 
 This barrier allwos me the intellectual freed om to investiage ANYTHING and 
 EVERTYHING so long as I refrain from altering the halacho lemasse aspects, 
and 
 only the theorical ones
  >>

I know this subject is big enough to encompass everything, and that even 
raising it opens up too many cans of worms (or Worms, were we to focus on the 
writings of certain early Acharonim).

Just a couple of points: As you point out, Halivni is a great example of 
someone who's wrestled with these problems. Reading his book, "Peshat & 
Derash," on rabbinical exegesis helped define the questions, although it's 
hard to be entirely satisfied with his answers. 

The Shulchan Aruch is also a good example of a different sort. When one tries 
to juggle contemporary intellectual analysis with the concept of "evolving" 
halacha, the work of medieval posekim is far more forbidding than that of 
mefareshim. Talmud seems to me to be a pathway to HaShem -- lengthy and 
tortured, but it'll get you there, one day, if you stay with it and make it 
part of your life. The codes and responsa are different. They state the 
rules; we must follow the rules. But, as R'Wolpoe makes clear, sometimes we 
have to do so blindly. We have to suspend disbelief, just as one does when 
one watches a play or reads a novel. 

Call me sentimental, but I *like* the Tofafists. SA scares me. It scared tens 
of thousands of Jews straight out the religion (at least in its "kitzur" 
abbreviation) a hundred years ago. 

Maybe these are typical growing-pains of a would-be ba'al teshuva.

David Finch

In a message dated 1/20/00 11:53:52 AM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< the short answer is that I enshrine Minhag Avoseinu beyodein as the single 
best 
 bulwark against Reform/Cosnervative forms of revisionsim
 
 This barrier allwos me the intellectual freed om to investiage ANYTHING and 
 EVERTYHING so long as I refrain from altering the halacho lemasse aspects, 
and 
 only the theorical ones
  >>

I know this subject is big enough to encompass everything, and that even 
raising it opens up too many cans of worms (or Worms, were we to focus on the 
writings of certain early Acharonim).

Just a couple of points: As you point out, Halivni is a great example of 
someone who's wrestled with these problems. Reading his book, "Peshat & 
Derash," on rabbinical exegesis helped define the questions, although it's 
hard to be entirely satisfied with his answers. 

The Shulchan Aruch is also a good example of a different sort. When one tries 
to juggle contemporary intellectual analysis with the concept of "evolving" 
halacha, the work of medieval posekim is far more forbidding than that of 
mefareshim. Talmud seems to me to be a pathway to HaShem -- lengthy and 
tortured, but it'll get you there, one day, if you stay with it and make it 
part of your life. The codes and responsa are different. They state the 
rules; we must follow the rules. But, as R'Wolpoe makes clear, sometimes we 
have to do so blindly. We have to suspend disbelief, just as one does when 
one watches a play or reads a novel. 

Call me sentimental, but I *like* the Tofafists. SA scares me. It scared tens 
of thousands of Jews straight out the religion (at least in its "kitzur" 
abbreviation) a hundred years ago. 

Maybe these are typical growing-pains of a would-be ba'al teshuva.

David Finch

In a message dated 1/20/00 1:49:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 My objection is undoing a done deal - because this is - imho - a popluar 
 technique of conservatives to overturn accepted hanhogo by re-visintg issues 
 long ago settled.
  >>
I believe we've previously discussed this issue. My recollection is that the 
practical outcome was that many are willing to revisit lchumra but not lkulah 
and did not feel any dissonance with this approach.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 02:24:06PM -0500, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: I believe we've previously discussed this issue. My recollection is that the 
: practical outcome was that many are willing to revisit lchumra but not lkulah 
: and did not feel any dissonance with this approach.

I also mentioned that this subject is an Avodah perennial. But our last
full run was nearly 1-1/2 years ago. I'd be thrilled if any of the newer
members have anything to add.

What you recall is what R' Kook states WRT the kashrus of beitzei kinim, that
we must rule lechumrah now despite the gemara in light of the discovery of
maggot eggs. It fits the Gr"a's statement (WRT not being mevatel gezeiros,
not our question of piskei halachah) that every gezeirah has reasons that
we don't know of in addition to the one that we do.

I also noted that R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l interpreted the current science to
fit the old p'sak. I have no idea if this was belief in the correctness of
the p'sak to the extent that he believes that si'ata diShmaya made sure the
conclusion fits reality; if he believes that p'sak need not correspond to
what science tells us about reality, or if this one case happened not to
raise the question because it just happened to fit.

Speaking of which, there's a techinah for parnasa that mentions beitzei kinim
(included in ArtScroll). How old is it, in comparison to the discussion of
reopening the question of the kashrus of their hatchings?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Jan-00: Chamishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 102a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]