Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 092

Tuesday, January 15 2002

• Re: reproducibility
• Re: RHS and predicatability in psak
• Re: reproducibility
• Different Pesakim
• Re: Shelo shinu shemom..
• Re: Shelo shinu shemom..
• Re: halakhik methodology + gedolim, da'as Torah & etc. - a framework for study
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: CI and medical journals.
• Re: RAK and the Manhattan eruv, Real mechitzos vs Tzuras hapesach
• halachik methodology
• Re: A Fortiori Micha Berger
• Re: More on Multivalent Logic
• Sepharadic use of Chacham instead of Rabbi - background, reason(s), source(s)
• Re: Sepharadic use of Chacham instead of Rabbi - background, reason(s), source(s)
• Re: Bereshit 32:18 and the best Tanakh
• Re: CY police
• Single Girls and Hair Covering
• Aishdas Melaveh Malka 5762
• Re: CY police
• Re: CI and medical journals.
• RE: reproducibility

In a message dated 1/14/02 2:36:18pm EST, David Riceman dr@insight.att.com
writes:
> That seems shocking to me. One basic desideratum of any legal system
> is that it be predictable. ...

Many - though by no means all - poskim customize their psak by WHO
is asking.

For example, the Hasgacha on one place in Hartford was considered OK
for local ba'ale batim but one Rav told us Yeshiva Boys not to eat there

Another Example
It seems obvious to me from the afforementioned footnote in Reb Shrage
Feivel's bio that rabbonim searched harder to be mattir a poor person's
chicken than a rich person's...

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

<< What could RHS have had in mind? >>

WADR, I wasn't there . However, let's not think that halacha , as codified,
works in the same manner as common law or judicial interpretation of
statutes. First , of all, mesorah is not the same as just looking up a
source and making a comparison. It involves a lot of determining which
Gemaras, Rishonim, Acharonim , specially from those sefarim which have had
an influence on the posek are actually applicable to the case. Moreeover,
two people who ask the same question may be on different madregas ( BT
vs FFB, etc, shaas hadchak vs baal aliyah, adam chashuv) . Therefore, as
RHS has pointed out , what may be mutar for one generation may be assur
for another dor. Al achas kamah vkama -on the individual level as well.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@ao.com

Rena Freedenberg wrote:
>> As reported second hand, RHS said that it's possible for two people, in
>> exactly the same circumstances, on exactly the same day, to ask exactly
>> the same shaila of the same rabbi and receive two different answers.

> Halacha stays the same, but the situation of every single person is
> different. A rav will take into account who is asking the shaila and also
> what facts are presented to him when making a decision about what a given
> person should do.

I understood the condition "in exactly the same circumstances" to mean
that RHS was excluding the possibility you (and someone else, I forget
who) suggested. Any other suggestions?

David Riceman

From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
> As reported second hand, RHS said that it's possible for two people, in
> exactly the same circumstances, on exactly the same day, to ask exactly
> the same shaila of the same rabbi and receive two different answers.

> That seems shocking to me. One basic desideratum of any legal system
> is that it be predictable. I imagine that the "same day" clause was put
> there to avoid the possibility that the rabbi changed his mind in between.
>                     ... Does he randomize his psak (heads it's muttar,
> tails it's assur)? Is it merely a rhetorical flourish to avoid people
> adopting precedents they don't understand?

Do not be alarmed (or perhaps we all should be). There are areas in
Halacha where the lines are not very clear. I recently heard a Shiur
from a respected Rav who said that he was learning Hilchos Shabbos and
decided to analyze exactly what the Petur for a certain situation was
based on. Unfortunately I don't remember the case - I think it might
have been accidentally turning on the light or awakening to the sound
of a 3:00 AM phone call and lifting the receiver. In any case, this
Rav asked 4 different Roshei Yeshiva what category said activity fell
into - was it Ones, Aino Miskavein, Shogeg or MisAsek. Each RY picked a
different answer. Bear in mind that for Shogeg one is Mechuyav to bring
a Korban Chatas.

Besides, it used to be joked around years ago (and may very well still
be as true) that when one asked certain Poskim a Sheilah, if they asked
it in English they would get a (slightly) different response than they
might get if they asked it in Yiddish.

Stuart Goldstein

In a message dated 12/30/01 3:38:04pm EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> And WRT 'shelo shinu sh'mom" - he explains as per RGS - that in Mitzrayim
> they had nothing - no Torah, no Mitzvos - and that was the ONLY z'chus
> that helped them. Ma sh'ein ken, us...

RGS - R. Gedalyah Shorr???

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
>> And WRT 'shelo shinu sh'mom" - he explains as per RGS - that in Mitzrayim
>> they had nothing - no Torah, no Mitzvos - and that was the ONLY z'chus
>> that helped them. Ma sh'ein ken, us...

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> RGS - R. Gedalyah Shorr???<<<<

Reb Gil Student made this comment...which now I see someone posted also
bshem RY Kaminetzky z'l.
(Reb Gil you're in good company - the SR and RYK!!)

SBA

On Monday 14 January 2002 17:35, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> DT by Experts in Psak ought by right to carry more weight than just a stam
> informed opinion.  After all, when one is immersed in a subject over time
> and truly masters it, he can form a highly authoritative opinion...

> FWIW this is qualitatively different than a Gadol forming an opinion in
> areas such as politics and economics.

I was talking about DT on say politics by TCs who are experts in politics, or 
the equivalent in any non obviously psak discipline.

Arie Folger

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:40:19PM +0200, Shlomoh Taitelbaum wrote:
: I see da'as torah as coming to fill in the Litvishe need for a Rebbe...
:          What qualifies a Litvishe gadol (another term being discussed)
: to make decisions, since they shy away from quasi-mystic ruh"k? Answer:
: Da'as Torah! (and a gadol is one who possess da'as torah, which leads
: me to believe the "gadol phenomena" started with the mussar movement
: when R"Y Salanter introduced the concept of da'as torah).

I argued similarly back when Avodah was young.

Both Chassidus and Mussar stress hanhagos that go beyond din. They therefore
have a greater need for a rav who is also moreh derech. Both on the individual
level and on the communal one.

By saying that proper behavior goes beyond halachah, one calls in the need
for a rav on non-halachic questions. More stress to the idea, more need.

I still don't see how that would justify asking career advice from a rav
if the question is knowing which is more prone to hatzlachah in getting
a parnasah rather than which is more prone to growth as an oveid Hashem.

(My example is consciously chosen to tie into the topic of our upcoming
Melaveh Malka: Finding Spiritual Meaning in the Workplace.)

You assert that there is a "need for a rebbe" but do not explain why.
My "why" doesn't fully explain the need.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> Instead, I offer before you a twist which is attributed rav Gedalye Nadel
> (or is it Nader?), that CI read medical journals in German, and so was on
> aware of latest research. This is very similar to medical poskim ...
 
> Needless to say, if this story is to say anything about CI, I find CI
> much much greater now that I heard the 2nd twist. It does take a lot of
> punch to read medical journals without the benefit of biology for poets,
> and withhout German 101 (as I said, the journals where in German).

A fascinating revelation. anything published in English and on the Web
about this issue? Is the article contained in a sefer somewhere?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

> I have heard from a very good source that RAK a"h had told RMF never to
> build an eiruv in Manhatten or in Brooklyn

R Norman Lamm at an OU Convention in honor of RYBS related that when he
built the first Manhattan Eruv, that he was summoned by RAK to explain why
he did it. R Lamm spoke to RYBS who advised him that he was a musmach and
that he should explain the mkoros to RAK. R Lamm discussed the ins and out
of the eruv with RAK. According to R Lamm, RAK advised him that he had not
learned Eruvin in many years and that he would not issue a cherem against
those who used it, regardless of any public opinions that he had issued
against it. RMF and many other Poskim had many objections to the Eruv
which were based on the lack of real mechitzos, as opposed to Shishim
Ribo, mavui mfulash , etc. IIRC, the rav haMachshir of the Manhattan
Eruv was R MM Kasher ZTL. I also recall that when R Kenneth Brander(
Boca Raton) was on the UWS,he raised funds among many prominent Baale
Batim to provide for the upgrading of the Eruv so that proper mechitzos
would be installed. Others on line from the UWS can elaborate on the
Manhattan Eruv, its supporters and critics.

I heard once from RHS that if Manhattan had proper mechitzos, that hje
would have no hesitation to use it. Although many of his atlmidim are
choshesh for the Yerushalmi quoted by the MB/BH that one should not use a
tzuras hapesach when the streets are more than 15 amos wide, RHS pointed
out that this one of many shitos in the Yerushalmi that the Rambam had
quoted and that if one was a tzadik like R Chaim Brisker or R Herzog ZTL,
( His lashon !), then one could hold from this chumrah.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

>: If it was only the Gaonim/Rif/Rambam/Mechaber, then what you suggest 
>: makes sense.  The reason why I (naively) didn't consider that was that 
>: the Rosh and Rema _also_ agreed, and so it didn't occur to me to be a 
>: Ashk/Sef split. 

>I suggested a different line: not Ash/Seph but rishon vs pre-rishon.
>The general rule (before getting into any Avodah lomdus) is that rishonim
>feel free to argue with ge'onim and other rishonim, but not with tanna'im,
>amora'im or savora'im. As all the rabbanim cited are ge'onim or rishonim,
>the baalei Tosafos can consider them peers, not binding sources.

OK.  Your hypothesis is consistent with the facts I presented.  But I must
express surprise at the hypothesis!  I mean, the Geonim sat in the same
buildings, the same walls!, as the Amoraim, didn't they?  I would think
that their mesora is so much stronger than rishonim of western Europe.

-- Shalom

> In Yiddish, that kind of double negative (such as "it's not bad") is quite
> normal. Perhaps because our culture is based on a multivalent logic.
> We're used to the notion that "not bad" is different than "good" as it
> includes all the points along the middle of the spectrum.

> I also noticed while exploring the topic that the Britannica claims
> that the a fortiori argument was first formalized in the medieval
> period. (Formalized as opposed to claiming it was first used then.
> It's likely people used it without studying the form itself.)

These are excellent points, as far as they go. There is more, however:

First, the Ashkenazic notion "not bad" has has no purely literal
expression. To be fully communicated, the spoken idea must be accompanied
by appropriate hand, arm, and other body gestures. "Not bad" with a shrug
of both shoulders and a palms-up gesture means something different than
"not bad" with a sideward tilt of the head and a cross-eyed look. (Cf. the
phrase "not so good," which is a universally valid Jewish response to
almost any known question on any subject, including a question that does
not call for an expression of one's opinion.)

As for a fortiori reasoning, the Jewish version is more or less as
follows: X and Y are slightly different logical or theological constructs,
and I favor X instead of Y, then anyone who favors Y instead of X is a
dummy or worse, depending on how upset I am at the moment. If I favor X
and someone else also favors X, then my response to this fact is the
statement, "Not bad," accompanied with a shrug and a slight nod of
the head.

David Finch

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:53:59PM +0200, Shlomoh Taitelbaum wrote:
: Qal vachomer is in the Torah itself (see last weeks parsha)--in case that
: makes a difference...

Medrash Rabba lists 10 cases in Tanach. (Although I thought I found other
examples. More on that when it's more than half-baked.)

In any case, even "dayo" appears in Baha'losecha 12:14 (see BQ
25a). Miriam is punished for 7 days from a qal vachomer on how a father
would protecxt his kavod. A father would punish her for 7 days -- and
HQBH's Kavod is not presented as reason to give more.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
<snip>
> it occurs to me that a s'faradi might be repelled by the ashkenazi R -- as was
> the abarbanel

Could you please elaborate on this and give mareh moqom(os)?

TIA.

Mordechai

From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
>>it occurs to me that a s'faradi might be repelled by the ashkenazi R
>>-- as was the abarbanel

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> Could you please elaborate on this and give mareh moqom(os)?

sure. try nachalas ovos 6:1. Consider the following excerpt. "histaqqel
imru ra... ki elu haim has'sheimos she'ro'ui shey'yiqqor'u bein
chakhmei yisroel bag'golus, loa rav v'loa rabbon......v'khein hoyoh
ham'minhog b'khol s'farad b'hiyos anshei hag'goloh shomoh al tillom
loa hoyoh beineihem s'mikhoh l'shum odom........ omnom, acharei bo'ie
b'italia motzosi shen'nisppasheit ham'minhog.....loa yodati may'ayin
lohem ha'hetter haz'zeh im loa sheq'qon'u mi'dar'chei hag'goyim ho'osim
"doktori" vay'ya'asu gam haim..."

I'd call that contemptous disapproval -- and he even managed to slip
in a swipe at the academics! Maybe the torah-plus crowd who are always
looking for respectable forerunners (a feeling of insecurity?) ought to
rethink the usual post-doption of abrabanel to our ranks.

Mechy Frankel 			W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com 	H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

I wrote:
>In the end, however, I'm not sure that the exact pronunciation makes a big 
>difference. There is a Tosafos in Avodah Zarah (I think on 20a but I can't 
>find it right now) that says that minor differences in pronunciation do not 
>make a difference in leining.

Tosafos, Avodah Zarah 22b sv ragla. My rav told me that the Terumas
HaDeshen, Sefer HaManhig, and Bach agree.

As for who is my rav, come to the melaveh malka because he will be
speaking at it. (Reb Gershon can feel free to stop by the shul on
any Shabbos)

Gil Student

Reb Akiva Atwood wrote:
> Depends on your definition of "kulla". For centuries CY was normative
> halacha, and then ChC was ruled to be acceptable. Does anyone say meforash
> that ChC IS CY? Or do they say that we may rely on it. If the former, then
> you are correct (according to those who equate the two). If the latter,
> then it is a kulla.

Here is a quick overview of the issues. Nobody in his right mind consumes
'halav akum when thre is a choice. The question is about the nature of
the gezeirah.

There are two types of mashgia'h requirements in kashrut: liverurei milta
and 'hatnut. Thus, we are prohibited from enjoying pat ba'al habayit akum
lest we excessively socialize with him and eventually assimilate. Ditto
for stam yeynam and bishul akum. OTOH, when it comes to other products,
such as those that do not fall under the above prohibitions (pat palter
according to many minhaggim, cooked foods that is commonly eaten raw,
and cooked foods that is eino oleh'al shul'han melakhim, raw products
such as fish, staples, some say bishul akum that was made in factories,
in same vein as pat palter, foods that were cooked with halakhikally
non-cooking methods such as in double boilers, microwaves, etc.) we are
just looking for assurances that said food is free of maakhalot assurot.

The $64k question is what is the nature of the requirement for CY? If it
is merely liverurei milta, why make a gezeirah at all, we'll apply the
usual criteria of when we need hashga'hah (Talmud says milk of temeiah
is "green", so visual inspection should be OK)? OTOH, milk is a strange
vehicle for anti assimilationist takanot.

Ramo states that butter, in Europe [where there are no camels] needs no
hashga'hah, because can't make butter from hog's or horse's milk. This
shows that the issue is not 'hatnut, but birurei milta, and the reason
for the takkanah is that in a mixture, the visual inspection method
breaks down, so we need superior supervision for milk.
At this point, the question is whether the takkanah was merely to have
above habitual supervision or davkah Yisrael roeh? This is the crux of
the CY ChC debate. Problem is, if you need davka Yisrael roeh, why did
Ramo permit butter? It seems Ramo hined at ChC.

Rav Aryeh Ralbag told me that the explicit (as opposed to claiming that
Ramo's position makes implicitly the heter obvious) ChC heter came from
the Pnei Yehoshuah. I doubt he had any high quality FDA-like body in his
neck of the woods, but he considered at least the theoretical question,
and considered it muttar. All others merely followed in his footsteps.

Yotzeh mikol mah shekatavti that NOBODY consumes 'halav akum. Reb
Vekara-shemo-beYisrael-MoneyChest's (as he doesn't like to sign his posts
;-)) worry about timtum halev is a non issue for those who believe the
hetter. The question is merely whether ChC is 'halav Yisrael or not.

As for the anecdotal disdain of some CY-onlies for ChC-consumers, I tell
them the following. Ba'al haTanya writes in siman 32 of OhH that one is
not allowed to be ma'hmir beshittah on anything unless he feels/there
is a real 'hashash. Maharshal is quoted by Shakh somewhere in YD (sorry
I forgot where, but shall BN post it bekarov) to same effect. So I
ask them "there was no 'hashash in RMF's eyes, the Pnei Yehoshuah,
and apparently the Ramo. The supervision of the FDA is better than
that of many hashga'ot. Are you prepared to say that there is a real
'hashash of maakhalot assurot in ChC?" I then give them the option of
saying they don't know but rely on their rebbi, and then tell them, if
you believe there is a real 'hashash and that is why you stay away from
ChC, ashrekhah, otherwise, you are not allowed, not allowed, acc. to
the above sources, to keep such a 'humrah.

We may debate the merit of my reasoning in light RMF's suggestion that
non ChC is lifnim meshurat hadin, but my argument seems to silent most
if not all ChC bashers.

Arie Folger

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 09:04:41AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: ...                My impression is that it's much easier to understand
: the gemaras on hair covering if one adopts the Tur's position that
: it's required even for unmarried women. Nonetheless if someone asked
: me I would tell them that the clear halachic tradition is like Rashi,
: that the din applies only to married women....

IIRC, ROY holds like the Tur, and would prefer the girls in Shas-run
schools to cover their hair. (A question for Areivim: is this being
done lema'aseh?)

Recall that in the Edot haMizrach, the local law (if not fashion) often
required such covering. It is therefore hard to know whether there was
also a mesorah that required it, or if it was only done to comply.

-mi

			      The AishDas Society
				      and
			      Cong. Shaarei Shalom

			invite the community to attend a
				 Melaveh Malka

			 to take place, b'ezras Hashem,
		  Motzaei Shabbos, 14 Shevat, Jan. 26, 2002 at
			      Cong. Shaarei Shalom
			 Yeshiva Ahavas Torah building
			2961 Nostrand Ave (near Ave. P)
				  Brooklyn, NY

			      Starting at 8:00 PM

		  The exciting program includes a symposium on
		   Finding Spiritual Meaning in the Workplace

			   The speakers will IY"H be:

			 Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhoffer
		Rosh Yeshiva, Beis Medrash Harav Shmuel Yaakov -
		    The IDT Center for Torah and Technology

			       Rabbi Shalom Carmy
	 Professor of Jewish Studies and Philosophy, Yeshiva University

			      Rabbi Yisroel Hirsch
		       Moro De'asra, Cong. Shaarei Shalom

				Reb Micha Berger
			    Member, AishDas Society

		      A kumsitz will follow the symposium.

		Dairy food will be served. The program is free.

	     For directions, see Cong. Shaarei Shalom's website at
		       <http://shaareishalom.tripod.com>
	     For more information about Aishdas, see its website at
			    <http://www.aishdas.org>

For a printable text of this announcement, see 
<http://www.aishdas.org/mm5762.html>.  Please print the sign and hang it in 
shuls, libraries, etc.

Gil Student

At 10:40 AM 1/15/02 -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
>Reb Akiva Atwood wrote:
> > Depends on your definition of "kulla". For centuries CY was normative
> > halacha, and then ChC was ruled to be acceptable. Does anyone say meforash
> > that ChC IS CY? Or do they say that we may rely on it. If the former, then
> > you are correct (according to those who equate the two). If the latter,
> > then it is a kulla.
>
>Here is a quick overview of the issues. Nobody in his right mind consumes
>'halav akum when thre is a choice. The question is about the nature of
>the gezeirah.

Not true, unfortunately. I have a classmate who is now one of the most
distinguished YU musmachim, cited, in another context, not long ago,
on this very list, who b'shitta - given the choice at YU for the same
price and same availability - drank ChC.

>There are two types of mashgia'h requirements in kashrut: liverurei milta
>and 'hatnut. ...

>The $64k question is what is the nature of the requirement for CY? If it
>is merely liverurei milta, why make a gezeirah at all, we'll apply the
>usual criteria of when we need hashga'hah (Talmud says milk of temeiah
>is "green", so visual inspection should be OK)? OTOH, milk is a strange
>vehicle for anti assimilationist takanot.

And yet the Chasam Sofer held that is precisely the case.

>Ramo states that butter, in Europe [where there are no camels] needs no
>hashga'hah, because can't make butter from hog's or horse's milk. This
>shows that the issue is not 'hatnut, but birurei milta, and the reason
>for the takkanah is that in a mixture, the visual inspection method
>breaks down, so we need superior supervision for milk.

Nope. It shows that the gezeirah was on liquid milk, not butter (or cream, 
for that matter). Rabbeinu Tam's heter on chlav he'asui l'gabbein is based 
on the same premise.

>At this point, the question is whether the takkanah was merely to have
>above habitual supervision or davkah Yisrael roeh? This is the crux of
>the CY ChC debate. Problem is, if you need davka Yisrael roeh, why did
>Ramo permit butter? It seems Ramo hined at ChC.

Nope again - the crux is gezeirah (a la cS) or hashgocho (a la RMF).

>Rav Aryeh Ralbag told me that the explicit (as opposed to claiming that
>Ramo's position makes implicitly the heter obvious) ChC heter came from
>the Pnei Yehoshuah. I doubt he had any high quality FDA-like body in his
>neck of the woods, but he considered at least the theoretical question,
>and considered it muttar. All others merely followed in his footsteps.

He is probably confusing the PY with the Pri Chodosh.

>Yotzeh mikol mah shekatavti that NOBODY consumes 'halav akum. Reb
>Vekara-shemo-beYisrael-MoneyChest's (as he doesn't like to sign his posts
>;-)) worry about timtum halev is a non issue for those who believe the
>hetter. The question is merely whether ChC is 'halav Yisrael or not.

No again, according to the CS it is "kosher," but not CY.

>As for the anecdotal disdain of some CY-onlies for ChC-consumers, I tell
>them the following. Ba'al haTanya writes in siman 32 of OhH that one is
>not allowed to be ma'hmir beshittah on anything unless he feels/there
>is a real 'hashash. Maharshal is quoted by Shakh somewhere in YD (sorry
>I forgot where, but shall BN post it bekarov) to same effect. So I
>ask them "there was no 'hashash in RMF's eyes, the Pnei Yehoshuah,
>and apparently the Ramo. The supervision of the FDA is better than
>that of many hashga'ot. Are you prepared to say that there is a real
>'hashash of maakhalot assurot in ChC?" I then give them the option of
>saying they don't know but rely on their rebbi, and then tell them, if
>you believe there is a real 'hashash and that is why you stay away from
>ChC, ashrekhah, otherwise, you are not allowed, not allowed, acc. to
>the above sources, to keep such a 'humrah.

Incorrect again (do you really take those of us who are machmir for such 
utter - udder :-) - fools?!). According to the CS u'd'immei there is no 
Ma'acholos Assuros issue, but rather a pure, simple gezeirah, no 
qualifications allowed.

>We may debate the merit of my reasoning in light RMF's suggestion that
>non ChC is lifnim meshurat hadin, but my argument seems to silent most
>if not all ChC bashers.

Indeed, RMF's teshuva in and of itself is difficult, for in the final 
analysis there is no FDA piku'ach on individual farmes, and the companies 
do not generally check the product they receive from the farms for tameh 
content. RMF has to come on to a pretty big chiddush to resolve this one, 
and an individual who sees RMF as the sole basis for leniency and has the 
halachic acumen to read the teshuvos inside better think again.

BTW, we have not touched on the critical controversy of 5754, a collateral 
but pertinent issue. To quote an acquaintance on another list:
>It is now well known that a certain percentage of cows undergo a surgical
>procedure for a condition known as displaced obamasum. This procedure
>renders the cow treifo. In many instances the percentage is so high that
>there is definitely not shishim of the non-treifo milk.

>In addition (and I am shocked at the fact that I have not found this
>discussed) there is a considerable amount of cows (I believe more than
>15%) which give birth through c section, which again renders the cow
>treifo. Between the two we are talking about a very high percentage of
>treifo. With various procedures changing, there is a very strong
>likelihood that we will one day be faced with a situation (if we are not
>yet) that there be a rubo dminkar of treifo cows on non Cholov Yisroel
>farms.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>> Instead, I offer before you a twist which is attributed rav Gedalye Nadel
>> (or is it Nader?), that CI read medical journals in German, and so was on
>> aware of latest research. This is very similar to medical poskim ...

> A fascinating revelation. anything published in English and on the Web
> about this issue? Is the article contained in a sefer somewhere?

I don't know about English, but R. Zevin in Ishim V'Sheetoth has similar
examples.

David Riceman

>> Halacha stays the same, but the situation of every single person is
>> different. A rav will take into account who is asking the shaila and also
>> what facts are presented to him when making a decision about what a given
>> person should do.

> I understood the condition "in exactly the same circumstances" to mean
> that RHS was excluding the possibility you (and someone else, I forget
> who) suggested. Any other suggestions?

I'm just not sure how it would be possible for any two people in the
world to be "in exactly the same circumstances". Everyone's circumstance
is a slight bit different and each person is in a different place with
regard to his level of avodat Hashem. These slight differences are what
I am assuming makes a sufficient difference to change the psak.

Besides, even two people in very similar circumstances can describe a
question differently or seem to be holding in two different places.

Is there any textual evidence at all to assume that two different people
could ever really be in the "exact same" circumstances for purposes of
giving a psak to a personal shailah? From what I have learned [which is
obviously not everything there is to learn by a long shot] every single
neshama is in this world to effect a unique and different tikkun and
there are many complex things going on to consider when giving psak to
someone as to what he/she must do.

-Rena

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


[ 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         ]