Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 080

Sunday, July 2 2006

• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: rishonim vs. Chazal
• Re: rishonim vs. Chazal
• Fish
• Re: Bishul Akum
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: Bishul Akum
• Chesed Leumim Chatas
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: historical contingency and brachos

Based on a passuk (Shemot 23:5), the gemara (Shabbat 128b; Bava Metzia
32b) prohibits Tzaar Baalei Chayim and this prohibition was codified
by the Rambam (Hilchot Rotzeach 13:1) and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen
Mishpat 272:9). However, the Rema (Even HaEzer 5:14) indicates that
if there is any human need, the prohibition is overturned (see also:
Biur haGRA there s"k 40, and the Noda B'Yehuda Mahadura Tinyana Yoreh
Deah 10 as brought in the Pitchei Tshuva YD 28 s"k 10). See also: Shvut
Yaakov III 71, Chelkat Yaakov I 30, Sridei Eish III 7, Chiddushei Chatam
Sofer on Messechet Shabbat 154b, Binyan Tzion 108, Tzitz Eliezer XIV 68,
and the Trumat haDeshen Psakim uKtavim 105.

FORCE FEEDING GEESE FOR FOIE GRAS
It just so happens that force feeding geese may induce a state of
*neveila* rendering the animal not kosher (See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah,
Hilchot Treifot 33:3 re: "turbez ha'veshet" [perforation of the pharynx]
and YD 33:8 in the Rema. HOWEVER: the Rema in the next paragraph 33:8
rules leniently re: geese that are force fed since "it has been the custom
in our city [Krakow] to be lenient in the case of geese that are being fed
by hand for the purpose of fattening them because there is an ordinance
in the city which requires that geese be examined for perforations of
the esophagus..". The TAZ there explains why it is permitted to force
feed the geese. HOWEVER: he requires that only finely ground food is
fed to the geese to prevent any perforations.

BTW the Aruch haShulchan (YD 33 # 37) says, "u'miyamai lo shamati
bimkomoteinu she'yal'itu avazot v'im himatzei yimatzei makom she'osin
ken, yesh ligzor aleihem bechol tokef she'yivdeku ha'vashtot...". So
it seems that 120 years ago in Lita, no one force fed geese. I think
fattening geese was more a Galitzianer and Hungarian shtick.

KT
Josh 

R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> Based on a passuk (Shemot 23:5), the gemara (Shabbat 128b; Bava
> Metzia 32b) prohibits Tzaar Baalei Chayim and this prohibition was
> codified by the Rambam (Hilchot Rotzeach 13:1) and the Shulchan Aruch
> (Choshen Mishpat 272:9). However, the Rema (Even HaEzer 5:14) indicates
> that if there is any human need, the prohibition is overturned (see
> also: Biur haGRA there s"k 40, and the Noda  B'Yehuda Mahadura Tinyana
> Yoreh Deah 10 as brought in the Pitchei Tshuva YD 28 s"k 10). See also: ...

*Any* human need is somewhat ambiguous. Necessity as well as "serves
a purpose beneficial to people" are very different, but both can
be classified as Tzorekh haAdam. Profit, for example could be Tzorekh
haAdam according to some authorities, and not considered Tzorekh haAdam
according to others, WRT a leniency in TZBH.

I agree with RNS when he points out the difference in *need* between
now and 150 years ago in Europe, when geese were more of a staple, and
thus their treatment should be taken in a different context, as Tzorekh
is of necessity (at the very least, conceptually...)

R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> FORCE FEEDING GEESE FOR FOIE GRAS
> It just so happens that force feeding geese may induce a state
> of *neveila* rendering the animal not kosher (See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh
> Deah, Hilchot Treifot 33:3 re: "turbez ha'veshet" [perforation of the
> pharynx] and YD 33:8 in the Rema. HOWEVER: the Rema in the next
> paragraph 33:8 rules leniently re: geese that are force fed since "it
> has been the custom in our city [Krakow] to be lenient in the case of
> geese that are being fed by hand for the purpose of fattening them because
> there is an ordinance in the city which requires that geese be examined for
> perforations of the esophagus..". The TAZ there explains why it is permitted
> to force feed the geese. HOWEVER: he requires that only finely ground food
> is fed to the geese to prevent any perforations.

So if the process is harsh enough to lead the bird toward possible
Neveilah status, it could be argued that Akhzorios should be considered.
Should it be a household staple, one could say it is a necessary evil,
and if the intent isn't to harm the bird per se, but rather to deliver a
common day product, Akhzorios may be a non issue. Should the motivation
be to deliver a gourmet product, the motivation is purely profit and to
satisfy a small market of gourmands. Could one then ignore the Akhzorios
of the process?

R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> BTW the Aruch haShulchan (YD 33 # 37) says, "u'miyamai lo shamati bimkomoteinu
> she'yal'itu avazot v'im himatzei yimatzei makom she'osin ken, yesh ligzor 
> aleihem bechol tokef she'yivdeku ha'vashtot...". So it seems that 120 years
> ago in Lita, no one force fed geese. I think fattening geese was more
> a Galitzianer and Hungarian shtick. 

I am disturbed by this statement. It seems to imply that Lithuanian
Yidden are superior to Hungarian and Polish/Galician Yidden. The Arukh
HaShulkhan was merely Dan mah sh'einov ro'os, not judging the character
of other Yidden.

Jacob Farkas

At 11:21 AM 6/30/2006 -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
>*Any* human need is somewhat ambiguous. Necessity as well as "serves a
>purpose beneficial to people" are very different, but both can be
>classified as Tzorekh haAdam....
>I agree with RNS when he points out the difference in *need* between now
>and 150 years ago in Europe, when geese were more of a staple, and thus
>their treatment should be taken in a different context, as Tzorekh is of
>necessity (at the very least, conceptually...)

Indeed. I remember my grandmother a"h remark how at the turn of century
(100 years ago) in southern Poland (pure bred Galitzianer) each child
received a sandwich with goose shmaltz and goose liver to take to cheder.

...
>So if the process is harsh enough to lead the bird toward possible
>Neveilah status, it could be argued that Akhzorios should be considered.

No. The problem is one of possible neveila (the Aruch haShulchan
there brings down a shita from one of the rishonim that it is a
treifa). Achzariyut doesn't play any role/

>> BTW the Aruch haShulchan (YD 33 # 37) says, "u'miyamai lo shamati bimkomoteinu
>> she'yal'itu avazot v'im himatzei yimatzei makom she'osin ken, yesh ligzor
>> aleihem bechol tokef she'yivdeku ha'vashtot...". So it seems that 120 years
>> ago in Lita, no one force fed geese. I think fattening geese was more
>> a Galitzianer and Hungarian shtick.

>I am disturbed by this statement. It seems to imply that Lithuanian
>Yidden are superior to Hungarian and Polish/Galician Yidden. The Arukh
>HaShulkhan was merely Dan mah sh'einov ro'os, not judging the character
>of other Yidden.

I do find it strange on a sociological basis that fattening geese wasn't
carried out in Lithuania.

KT
Josh

R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> I do find it strange on a sociological basis that fattening geese wasn't
> carried out in Lithuania.

Were geese common in Lithuania? [They aren't in NYC...]

Jacob Farkas

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:47:59AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: Were geese common in Lithuania? [They aren't in NYC...]

Goosedown was often collected from meals and turned into quilts
and pillows for new couples. At least in Suvalk.

Gut Voch!
-mi

I'd recommend seeing the issue of Halacha Berurah on shechitah and
tza'ar ba'alei chaim, available online at
http://www.kehillah.com/torah/samples/HB0804_the_shechitah_crisis.pdf

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 07:15:45AM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: Yet how much of SA is about the empirical vs "soul, human experiences,
: etc"?

Even if r"l studied as a raw legal guide, it's about human experience,
our interaction with reality, not the empirical. Halakhah needn't create
a fixation on treating Tanakh as a history text.

: Our entire Jewish educational system is centered on the empirical,
: and has been for a long time.

Sad, isn't it. But we both agree (I presume) that halakhah is indeed about
soul and values. I'm reminded of RSWolbe's lament (in the beginning of the
ve'adim on Hislamdus <http://www.aishdas.org/as/translations/as_mp05.pdf>)
of the student who completes Rambam Hil' Nega'im and never realizes he's
really learning about the importance of shemiras halashon...

But still, that's not really empiricism. RYBS managed to be both Brisker
and neoKantian. Kant wasn't quite known as an empiricist.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

> Torah is not about the empirical. It's about the soul, human experience,
> values, etc...

Yet how much of SA is about the empirical vs "soul, human experiences,
etc"?

Our entire Jewish educational system is centered on the empirical,
and has been for a long time.

Akiva

Jacob Sasson <jsasson@nyu.edu> wrote:
> David Riceman asked:
>> I recently read a biography of Yaakov Herzog where it's mentioned that
>> he would eat fish in non-kosher North American restaurants. How did he
>> avoid the problem of bishul akum? ...

> Bishul Akum only applies to foods which are not regularly eaten raw.
> Nowadays, fish is regularly eaten raw in the form of sushi.

But we're not discussing nowadays. In RYH's day sushi was certainly
not common in America or in EY, or in any Western country.

Before you ask about bishul akum, how about basic kashrut? One may
certainly not walk into a treife restaurant and order fish off the menu.
What one may do is have them double-wrap a kosher fish in foil, with
seasoning, and put it in the oven. I assume that is what RYH did.
If so, the bishul problem is easily solved by personally participating
in the cooking.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

David  Riceman asked:
>I recently read a biography of Yaakov Herzog where it's  mentioned that
>he would eat fish in non-kosher North American  restaurants. How did he
>avoid the problem of bishul akum?  ...

Jacob Sasson wrote:
>Bishul Akum only applies to foods which are not regularly eaten raw.
>Nowadays, fish is regularly eaten raw in the form of sushi.

First of all, is sushi really "raw"? Isn't it pickled like herring
and lox? Second of all, was there such a thing as sushi when Yakov
Herzog was looking for something to eat in a restaurant?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

R' Micha Berger quoted his blog at 
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/04/what-is-judaism.shtml>
> Each sheivet had the opportunity to forge very distinct 
> implementations of the covenant of Sinai. Each evolved according 
> to the rules of halakhah,  ... and therefore all within the 
> covenant ... It's mind-stretching to think how different their 
> expressions of Torah would be. Perhaps they would even seem like 
> different religions.

With all due respect to R' Micha, I don't see any reason to imagine that
they would have any halakhic differences whatsoever. Different customs,
to be sure. Along the lines, perhaps, of the Mimouna celebration.

R' Micha writes that "In fact, most questions must not have gone forward
to the central beis din in Yerushalayim, the Sanhedrin." But I think the
Rambam disagrees on this and makes it clear that halakhic questions must
have been answered based on knowledge, or they went to the Sanhedrin.
The "creativity" so desired by certain movements was the sole province
of the Sanhedrin.

Lisa

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:08:28PM -0400, Lisa Liel wrote:
: R' Micha writes that "In fact, most questions must not have gone forward
: to the central beis din in Yerushalayim, the Sanhedrin." But I think the
: Rambam disagrees on this and makes it clear that halakhic questions must
: have been answered based on knowledge, or they went to the Sanhedrin.
: The "creativity" so desired by certain movements was the sole province
: of the Sanhedrin.

By your understanding, there is no reason for shevatim to have local
batei din.

I do not see, though, where the Rambam requires that every question be
resolved by the national beis din. Yes, as you write, questions that can't
be answered by knowledge (presumably those of local rabbanim or batei din)
did go to the Sanhedrin, but many questions couldn't have. For example,
there is archeological evidence that both "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam"
tefillin were in use during bayis sheini, that Sanhedrin didn't resolve
*every* divergence of opinion. Which would allow room for regional
pesaq and differences, which during bayis rishon would translate into
differences by sheivet. We already established that havaros differed by
sheivet (sh/siboles) as well as nusach (our opening topic).

Questions also get more detailed with time; the bigger questions would
arise earlier and get a pesaq then. Second, the world was bigger during
bayis rishon than sheini (particularly after roman harness technology
and roads), also making larger differences more probable.

gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
micha@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

[Rn Toby  Katz:]
> First of all, is sushi really "raw"? Isn't it pickled like herring
> and lox?
> Second of all, was there such a thing as sushi when Yakov Herzog
> was  looking for something to eat in a restaurant?

1. Sushi is raw.
2. Sushi is ancient. You probably meant to ask if he knew of sushi.
While I can conceive of many different scenarios under which Yaakov Herzog
came to be aware of the practice of eating raw fish, I will admit that
I do not know (not having read the book) whether or not he knew that
fish could be eaten raw. I merely responded to the implication that
his action was objectively problematic.

jacob

I missed most of the conversation on this issue on Areivim, but I would
like to bring up what I believe is an important nekudah that may not
have been discussed that I would like to see archived (BTW, RCB and RYZ
touched on this issue back in '99 - vol. 2 nos. 106-107).

To wit, the Gemara clearly refers to pagans. The basic premise of
paganism is that the gods are capricious and unpredictable, let's try
to appease them so they are not mad at us, and perhaps might even give
us a gift. A true pagan is essentially egotistical. His service to his
gods is because it is in his own best interests. If you are medayek in
the Gemara, this is pashut pshat - that the tzedakah is "L'Hisgedel" or
"She'Teemasheich malchusan."

It is conceivable that a pagan can overcome this egoism and serve Hashem
altruistically - at least temporarily - but to try and ensure that, we
may sure there's nothing in it for him - we are only mekabel his Olah,
not his Shelamim.

Monotheists are different in essence. The basic premise of monotheism
is that God is the ultimate good and it is good to connect to good.

Hence, I do not believe that this Gemara is automatically applicable
to Christians, Moslems, et al. It was written concerning pagans and
concerns pagans.

YGB

R' Jacob Farkas wrote:
> Major difference. Pizza is baked with sauce and toppings, hot dog
> buns aren't. Therefore, pizza or other Pashtida ... became PBHK at 
> the time of baking, as it was baked with the topping. The hot dug
> buns are standard bread, [again we will ignore the *Mezonos* rolls
> sold because they have different ingredients and are another
> discussion altogether] baked as standard bread. You choose to eat
> it as a snack, that is no different than snacking on a small piece
> of bread.

I should have anticipated this question. You are focusing on the idea that
ingredients can determine halachic status. My point is that ingredients
do NOT determine halachic status; standard usage of the product is what
determines the halachic status.

I beleive that when chazal (or whoever) said "a baked mixture of flour and
water gets Hamotzi and Benching, but a baked mixture of flour and juice
gets Mezonos and Al Hamichya", they were not citing a halacha. Rather,
they were giving AN EXAMPLE of the halacha that "baked flour products
which are commonly used as the ikkar of a meal get Hamotzi and Benching,
but baked flour products which are commonly eaten as snacks get Mezonos
and Al Hamichya".

My first proof for the above is that the Mechaber cites three different
definitions of Pas Habaa BKisnin, which are often mutually exclusive,
and the concluding halacha is to accept all three of them, provided
that in the current culture and situation such a food is accepted as
only for snacking. (The exception proves the rule: Matza is clearly a
cracker according to Definition #3 of PBK, but on Pesach one would make
Hamotzi even on less than keviyus seudah of it.)

My second proof is the whole Pashtida business, which again refuses to
accept the psak of the Mechaber as definitive, but insists on going back
to the simple question of "Is this food a snack or not?"

Therefore, it is my contention that modern society has lost -- perhaps
even rejected b'yadayim -- the concept of bread having any special
status. We cannot deny that the Torah does give bread a special status,
and so we will always have to say Birkas Hamzaon on a bread-based
meal. But each society reserves for itself the right (and obligation)
of defining which foods and situations constitute "a bread-based meal."

I look around, and I see people snacking on whatever happens to
be convenient. Some can (and should) launch into a big mussar about
our midos and how we really ought to act, and whether this is or isn't
appropriate behavior. But that's not the point. The point is that until
(and unless) the behavior changes, it is a legimitate question to ask.

A person had a lunch, and plans on having a supper. But at 3 PM,
for whatever reason, he wants a snack. If he walks into a pizza shop
for one slice of pizza, we'd all agree that it is mezonos. Despite the
Mechaber about bread baked with cheese, we all say, "Yeah, but it's only
a snack!" So why don't we react the same way if he chooses to stop by
a kiosk for a half falafel, or gets a hot dog on a bun at the ballpark?

Because of inertia. We are so used to thinking in terms of "bread is
bread" that we don't stop to question our definition. What is bread?

It was pointed out to me that the halacha is very clear that even for
less than a kezayis, one must say hamotzi on bread. All would agree
that this situation can be referred to as a "snack", and one can infer
from this that bread is always hamotzi, even when eaten as a snack. My
point is that this is (or might be) true only in cultures where bread
has a high status, and only in a exceptional case would one eat it as
a snack. This parallels the halacha that if one eats PBK as a snack,
but in a manner which is typical in that culture of a meal, it gets
hamotzi. But our culture is one in which it is common to eat even more
than a kezayis of bread as a snack, and so the whole system falls apart.

I hope everyone understands that I write all the above as conjecture
and question, and as an extension of R' David Riceman's OP, which asked:
> why should that period of time be priviliged over other periods? Why
> have a special bracha on bread because of ancient dietary customs?

Akiva Miller

Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> Major difference. Pizza is baked with sauce and toppings, hot dog
>> buns aren't. Therefore, pizza or other Pashtida ... became PBHK at 
>> the time of baking, as it was baked with the topping. The hot dug
>> buns are standard bread, [again we will ignore the *Mezonos* rolls
>> sold because they have different ingredients and are another
>> discussion altogether] baked as standard bread. You choose to eat
>> it as a snack, that is no different than snacking on a small piece
>> of bread.

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
> I should have anticipated this question. You are focusing on the idea that
> ingredients can determine halachic status. My point is that ingredients
> do NOT determine halachic status; standard usage of the product is what
> determines the halachic status.

I totally agree with your point. That is the position of the MA and the
Mishnah B'rurah when they saw the Mehabeir WRT Pashtida. They opined
as do you, that he was making a distinction between snack and meal,
and that his exception to Pashtida was due to its snack status.

> I beleive that when chazal (or whoever) said "a baked mixture of flour and
> water gets Hamotzi and Benching, but a baked mixture of flour and juice
> gets Mezonos and Al Hamichya", they were not citing a halacha. Rather,
> they were giving AN EXAMPLE of the halacha that "baked flour products
> which are commonly used as the ikkar of a meal get Hamotzi and Benching,
> but baked flour products which are commonly eaten as snacks get Mezonos
> and Al Hamichya".

> My first proof for the above is that the Mechaber cites three different
> definitions of Pas Habaa BKisnin, which are often mutually exclusive,
> and the concluding halacha is to accept all three of them, provided
> that in the current culture and situation such a food is accepted as
> only for snacking. (The exception proves the rule: Matza is clearly a
> cracker according to Definition #3 of PBK, but on Pesach one would make
> Hamotzi even on less than keviyus seudah of it.)

> My second proof is the whole Pashtida business, which again refuses to
> accept the psak of the Mechaber as definitive, but insists on going back
> to the simple question of "Is this food a snack or not?"

Taz says that the Mehabeir could not have possibly meant pashtida this
way, rather insisting that Pashtida is PHBK as well as the other 3
definitions. MA and other aharonim do agree with your premise.

> Therefore, it is my contention that modern society has lost -- perhaps
> even rejected b'yadayim -- the concept of bread having any special
> status. We cannot deny that the Torah does give bread a special status,
> and so we will always have to say Birkas Hamzaon on a bread-based
> meal. But each society reserves for itself the right (and obligation)
> of defining which foods and situations constitute "a bread-based meal."

Modern society or otherwise, Yidden will always insist on having bread
present at every Se'udas Mitzvah. There is no other constant. The special
status stands, IMHO.

...
> A person had a lunch, and plans on having a supper. But at 3 PM,
> for whatever reason, he wants a snack. If he walks into a pizza shop
> for one slice of pizza, we'd all agree that it is mezonos. Despite the
> Mechaber about bread baked with cheese, we all say, "Yeah, but it's only
> a snack!" So why don't we react the same way if he chooses to stop by
> a kiosk for a half falafel, or gets a hot dog on a bun at the ballpark?

You are right. Should he follow the MA and/or the MB he should rightfully
wash even for that one slice. The velt actively paskens like the Taz in
this matter, so Mezonos for the Pizza, haMotzi for Pita and Hot dog.

> Because of inertia. We are so used to thinking in terms of "bread is
> bread" that we don't stop to question our definition. What is bread?

Bread is a product made with mostly flour and water, baked, without
toppings. Its significance lies in its simplicity and ubiquity, people
relied on it for sustenance all year round and thus its role in q'vias
seudah.

...
> I hope everyone understands that I write all the above as conjecture
> and question, and as an extension of R' David Riceman's OP, which asked:
>> why should that period of time be priviliged over other periods? Why
>> have a special bracha on bread because of ancient dietary customs?

Because the B'rakha is for the seudah. Nothing represents seudah more
than its constant participant, bread.

Jacob Farkas

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


[ 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         ]