Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 70

Thu, 14 Feb 2008

• 1. Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 for a boy (Gershon Seif)
• 2. biur (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 3. Re: Baruch Shelo Asani Eved (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Clever collector (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Jonathan Baker)
• 6. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 for a boy (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Baruch Shelo Asani Eved (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: What are we to learn from Bereishis? (Michael Poppers)
• 11. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (menucha)
• 13. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Michael Makovi)

Anyone ever see what the Sefer HaChinuch writes about why women who give birth to a boy are in Nidah for a week but for a girl it's 2 weeks?

I just got up to there last night. Mitzvah 166.

He says the following: We know that if the woman is mazriya first, she
becomes pregnant with a boy. Being mazriya indvolves heat. And we all know
(he says that it's basic logic) that heat removes excesses. Cold allows
excesses. Therefore when she gives birth to a boy were there was heat
invloved, there were less excess fluids for her body to release so the time
period is shorter.

Is there any basis for this in today's medical views? Is this simply based on the  medical knowledge of his time?

I assumed when reading this, that it was his view based on medical views of
his time. Since the sefer HaChinuch writes in the hakdama that he's just
trying to figure out reasons and he may be wrong at times, this didn't
bother me at all. Perhaps he tried his best and he was wrong. 

The problem is that he then quotes a Ramban and says that this is exactly
what the Ramban is saying too. - Now, the Ramban never said in his hakdama
he's approximating or guessing. He writes that there that he will often be
misunderstood because he alludes to kabbaIistic ideas. So I always thought
those hard to understand Rambans were really allusions to kabbalistic ideas
and I moved on. But it seems that the Chinuch learned that this particular
Ramban is just basic "common sense". 

So what happens if we find that modern science rejects the Chinuch's pshat?
Are we left saying the Ramban got it wrong? Or he meant something else and
we don't understand? Or the chinuch had a different approach to learning
Ramban? 

Or perhaps I'm misreading the whole piece in the Sefer HaChinuch????


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080213/9ceac7ee/attachment.html 

from hakhel---

?Question:
I have a bottle of Carmel wine in my house that has been sitting there for 
a few years now.  There is no hechsher on it, but says that it is ?yivul 
shevi?is, al pi heter mechira-Rabbanut Reishit.?  What can I do with it?
 
?Answer:
There is a mitzvah called ?bi?ur?.  This means that once produce is no 
longer available in the field in the Shemittah year, one must remove this 
type of food from his house.  With respect to wine, the time for bi?ur is 
Pesach of the eighth year (5769).  If a person receives or accidentally 
buys a bottle of heter mechirah wine after this time, he may not drink it 
or give it to anybody.  The forbidden wine should not be poured down the 
drain, as this degrades its sanctity.  Rather, it should be poured out 
over a non-fertile area far from trees and plants, in order not to benefit 
from it.  The wine you have is from last Shemittah, so the time of bi?ur 
has certainly arrived, and you must dispose of it properly, as set forth 
above.? 

question---  the wine that is past biur, it would be muttar if it was not 
hetter mechira?  why did they bring that in?  was it to say that it was 
assur both before AND  after biur?

are there any bnai tora [as oppossed to amcha or amaratzim] who are 
holding by hetter mechira?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080213/479e261a/attachment.htm 

On Feb 13, 2008 2:08 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 2008 2:24 AM,  <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I will ask a related question.
> > > If a Jew happens to find himself in a condition of slavery (e.g., working in
> > > a slave labor camp in Siberia under Stalin, or captured at sea and then sold
> > > in a slave market in medieval Egypt), does he still say this bracha or does
> > > he skip it?
> > >
>
> > This question was asked in the Kovno Ghetto, and Rav Ephraim Oshry's
> > psak was to say it. Shu"t Mima`amakim 3, 6
>
> So what was the logic?

It's quoted at http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/yomyom/q/q52.php.
Short version: the beracha doesn't refer to physical slavery. An
enslaved Jew is still a bar hiyuva, even if he is unable to perform
mitzvot because of ones.

Someone forwarded this to me, and I thought it might be of general interest:

Question:
A collector from an organization was nudging a gvir for a nice donation. 
Exasperated, he writes out a $100,000 check and hands it to him. Later, when
the collector discussed this nice donation with another future prospect, the
fellow laughed and said, I know for certain that there is no more than
$80,000 in that account at any given time, so you may as well throw the
check away for it's not worth the paper it's written on, never mind
$100,000!
Immediately, the collector called up his organization, who deposited $20,000
into the man's account and then presented the check for $100,000 and
withdrew all the money. Quite clever.
?
Question is: who's right?
?

KT,
MYG
?

 
A friend mentioned that they do mac & cheese for Shabbat lunch.  With
the stipulation that one may reheat (I know many don't) dry food, is
mac-and-cheese considered dry or wet for reheating purposes?  Pointers
to sources?  If it's reasonable, we may try it.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On Wed, February 13, 2008 3:54 pm, R Jonathan Baker wrote:
: A friend mentioned that they do mac & cheese for Shabbat lunch.  With
: the stipulation that one may reheat (I know many don't) dry food, is
: mac-and-cheese considered dry or wet for reheating purposes?  Pointers
: to sources?  If it's reasonable, we may try it.

A more common example that I think would parallel the bishul issue...
Would you reheat chicken in a pan which also contains the congealed
chicken fat, or does the fact that it will melt when reheated make it
a daver lach?

The MB and Shemiras Shabbos keHilkhasah prohibit.

Another question would be the definition of liquid. Is the melted
cheese lach even once melted? There seems to be two definitions
current: wet to the touch and will drip off on its own. (I use the
latter definition WRT choosing toothpastes for Shabbos. The newer gels
that are too thin for traditional toothpaste tubes and instead come in
a squeeze bottle drip off the brush.)

Here one might be able to distinguish between mac and cheese and
chicken fat. Melted cheese is gooey, not wet to the touch. And some
cheeses won't simply fall off the noodles. Think of mozzarella making
strings to your fork...

Last, I leave as an exercise to the reader exactly how much you have
to enjoy mac-n-cheese more than fleishig to overrule ein simchah ela
bebasar.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Gershon Seif wrote:

> The problem is that he then quotes a Ramban and says that this is 
> exactly what the Ramban is saying too. - Now, the Ramban never said in 
> his hakdama he's approximating or guessing. He writes that there that he 
> will often be misunderstood because he alludes to kabbaIistic ideas. So 
> I always thought those hard to understand Rambans were really allusions 
> to kabbalistic ideas and I moved on. But it seems that the Chinuch 
> learned that this particular Ramban is just basic "common sense".
> 
> So what happens if we find that modern science rejects the Chinuch's 
> pshat? Are we left saying the Ramban got it wrong? Or he meant something 
> else and we don't understand? Or the chinuch had a different approach to 
> learning Ramban?

Perhaps the Chinuch misunderstood the Ramban.  I haven't got either one
in front of me, so I wonder how muchrach his pshat is in the Ramban;
maybe he was just reading the Ramban in light of his scientific knowledge,
and we can read it differently.

But the truth is that it doesn't bother me if the Ramban was also
based on the science of his times.  Because the preface you cite seems
to provide for exactly that.  The Ramban says he's hiding allusions
to high concepts; but in what is he hiding them?  The most obvious
way to hide such illusions is precisely in the terms that his readers
will most readily understand, i.e. the science that they know.  If that
science proves to be mistaken, then the mashal is no longer appropriate
for modern ears; but the nimshal remains the same, and just as valid.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Micha Berger wrote:

> Last, I leave as an exercise to the reader exactly how much you have
> to enjoy mac-n-cheese more than fleishig to overrule ein simchah ela
> bebasar.

There's no mitzvah of simcha on Shabbos.  There's only oneg, and it
seems obvious that that depends entirely on ones subjective tastes,
including transient moods.  If one happens right now to be in the mood
for mac-and-cheese, I can't see why that wouldn't be a complete
fulfilment of mitzvas oneg.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Galsaba asked:
> In birchot HaShachar, the phase "Baruch Shelo Asani
> Eved" does it refer to an Eved Kenani, or Eved Ivri?

And R"n Toby Katz asked a related question:
> If a Jew happens to find himself in a condition of
> slavery ... does he still say this bracha or does
> he skip it?

To which R' Simon Montagu responded:
> This question was asked in the Kovno Ghetto, and Rav
> Ephraim Oshry's psak was to say it.

I cannot pretend that I know Rav Oshry's reasoning, but to me, the logic is pretty simple, without even resorting to the logic of being obligated in mitzvos.

The bracha must refer to an Eved Kenaani. The proof is in the text of the
bracha itself -- "He did not make me a slave" -- which refers to the status
I had when I was made.

NO ONE comes into this world as an Eved Ivri. A Jew can be born free, and then get sold into being an Eved Ivri, but he is never a slave from the beginning.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to find local singles for dating, romance and fun
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3ngyDLvWPyjQK84kGoHPZsgbCe9JrwwtlmEmSgPNuAArHAx0/

In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 69, RnTK wrote:
> For the entire article, please see
_http://w
ww.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfmmode=a&;sectionid=61&co
ntentid=29737&contentName=First%20Things%20First_

(http://w
ww.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfmmode=a&;sectionid=61&co
ntentid=29737&contentName=First%20Things%20First)
 <
That URL didn't work for me, nor could I find the article by 'Search'ing at
the JP Website.  Google was my friend, and it found a link which worked for
me:
http://www.thejewishpress.com/displaycontent_new.cfm?contentid=29737&a
mp;contentname=First%20Things%20First&sectionid=14&mode=a&r
ecnum=0
 .  I then went to TinyURL and created (pun intended)
http://tinyurl.com/yoh7km .

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080213/705a9925/attachment.html 

It would obviously count as Mat'amim, but the zemir says "Basar, v'Dagim"
first.
~Liron

On Feb 13, 2008 2:17 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Micha Berger wrote:
>
> > Last, I leave as an exercise to the reader exactly how much you have
> > to enjoy mac-n-cheese more than fleishig to overrule ein simchah ela
> > bebasar.
>
> There's no mitzvah of simcha on Shabbos.  There's only oneg, and it
> seems obvious that that depends entirely on ones subjective tastes,
> including transient moods.  If one happens right now to be in the mood
> for mac-and-cheese, I can't see why that wouldn't be a complete
> fulfilment of mitzvas oneg.
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
> zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
>                                                  - Clarence Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080213/8c5e4846/attachment.htm 

Considering that there are 3 Shabbat meals,. one could definitely work 
in basar, dagim, and mac-n-cheese, especially if davening kevatikin.
menucha

>
>     Micha Berger wrote:
>
>     > Last, I leave as an exercise to the reader exactly how much you have
>     > to enjoy mac-n-cheese more than fleishig to overrule ein simchah ela
>     > bebasar.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080214/dd125f46/attachment-0001.html 

Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> It would obviously count as Mat'amim, but the zemir says "Basar, 
> v'Dagim" first.

And the other zemer says "taanugim" before "barburim, slav", and
only after that "dagim".  And yet another one puts "lechem" before
"yayin tov", and "basar" before "dagim".  Indeed, even the one you
cite puts "basar" before "dagim"!  What a dilemma this presents us
with!  Fortunately the zemiros have not been added to the sources of
halacha, and "ein mukdam um'uchar" in poetry.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

>And yet another one puts "lechem" before "yayin tov"

Ahh! He practices like Beit Shammai, and deserves to die like the
Mishna in Berachot! Ahh! (Or maybe he was a Yekke.)

Mikh'ael Makovi


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 70
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."