Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 248

Wed, 09 Dec 2009

• 1. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: kosher lists (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: kosher lists (Micha Berger)
• 4. LBD lists (martin brody)
• 5. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: LBD lists (Samuel Svarc)
• 7. Re: Seeking Source for Quote from R Eliezer (Akiva Blum)
• 8. Re: LBD lists (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: How is one Qoneh Emunah (Micha Berger)
• 10. LW MO (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 11. Re: LW MO (Harry Maryles)
• 12. Re: LBD lists (Samuel Svarc)
• 13. Re: LBD lists (Micha Berger)

Akiva
> But how do you know when you have cooked something to the point that
> *Chazal* would have considered it cooked?

So how do we judge mevushal kol tzorko nowadays? Mitztameik v'yafeh lo?
And by derivation - maachal ben drosai?

Ela mai? rabbis and chemists confer and do their best to ascertain as
to what's going on.

> Let's remember the famous discussion between the Aruch Hashulchan and
> Rav Moshe Feinstein:

Your talking about kalei habishul which is after all a different context
then bishul of beef and chickens

Now about eggs - try boiling an egg (iirc mechabeir lumps this amongst the
kalei habishul) and see how long it takes to boil at various temperatures. Can
you leave it at room temp in Sunlight for 6 hours and get a cooked egg?
OTOH You can with many teas

You can also try frying an egg by sunlight and measure the temperature.

++++++++++++++

Tangentially
Is YSB mamash the threshold of cooking temperature? Or is it a proxy to
judge it halachicaly when we cannot determine that temperature

Lemashal bittul b'60.
Let's say butter falls into chikcen soup and it is determined to be less
than 1/60. Then you taste it and lo and behold the buttery taste is there -
just like in popcorn!

Do we throw nosein ta'am out and rely solely upon 60 even l'hakeil?

Rather 60 in "min beshe'eino minno" is but a proxy for nosein ta'am.
Rambam and Mechabeir still hold from nosein ta'am lechatchilah.

[If you want: you can say 1/60 is not necessarily a blanket heter to
eat mamash rather it's a heter for a Jew to taste test]

Now I'm not sure if YSB is also a proxy or not. But my chavrusa's
experiments were designed to provide more data to help us make more
informed decisions halachically speaking

If Hazal knew about thermometers it is likely we'd have a temperature
based upon that scale instead of YSB.

Probably similar for k'zayis, etc. After all re'viis is no proxy,
it's mamash a measurement.

[Email #2. -mi]

Akiva:
> Let's remember the famous discussion between the Aruch Hashulchan and
> Rav Moshe Feinstein:
> Aruch Hashulchan O"C 318:28 - "Tea, which we pour hot water upon, and
> it is common knowledge that it cooks easily, and it gets cooked even in
> a kli sheni, as our eyes can see. ... Our eyes can see that it cooks in
> a kli sheni and kli shlishi, because it cooks easily ..."

> Igros Moshe O"C 4:74, Bishil 15 (pg 136) - "That's not
> understandable. Granted that our eyes can see the water get red, but
> that has nothing to do with bishul. Even in totally cold water it will
> get red over time! And even more so in warm water which is below yad
> soledes, and this does not constitute bishul...."

Mah hatzad hashaveh?

That both posqim did hands-on observation in addition to book-learning
in order to arrive at a p'saq and - did NOT stop with book-learning
and s'vara

Mussar heskel: sometimes one needs to roll up their sleaves and "get
their hands dirty to know Torah better"

Kakkasuv: "vayeired Hashem lir'os..."

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha:
> The cleaned-in-place issue is observable -- there are remains
> left be'ein. The question sounds to me more like allowing nachriim commit
> bitul lechat-khilah. Which is where I entered the thread.

Has that been verified that there is mamashus b'ayin left in place?

Lich'ora at least with allergens [such as dairy, peanuts, soy, etc.] that
should not be so as per USDA standards

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


Paskecz Chocolate Hanukkah Gelt states the following

?Pure Chocolate Coins
Kosher Parve

[Other Side:]
- Made in a Nut Free Plant.
0 Contains Soy.
...

- Made in a plant that processes products made with milk. This does not
  affect the product's Kosher-Parve Status?

Peirush:
For allergic reasons it's nut free
But not dairy free
But for Halachic reasons it is diary free

Peirush lefeirushi:
That is because bittul of allergens for dairy is a higher threshold than
for Halachah
Or
That any potential dairy has been otherwise nifsal or paggum.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:35:10PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Has that been verified that there is mamashus b'ayin left in place?

Yes, the representative of the national kashrus agency that won't use
triangle-K whose statements I've been repeating said that when it came
to oils in particular, yes, they found oils be'ein (be'ayin, for the
grammatically pedantic).

: Lich'ora at least with allergens [such as dairy, peanuts, soy, etc.] that
: should not be so as per USDA standards

Not sure they would use the same cleaning process in that case. I would
presume, given that we trust his eidus about the evidence, that it is not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@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

R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> > The article you quoted gives one very strong argument in
> > favor of hechsherim as opposed to lists:  if a company is
> > under contract with a kashrus agency, it can't change the
> > ingredients in its supervised products without informing
> > the kashrus agency.
>
>
"This can also be true where there is no direct supervision. AFAIK the LBD
has commercial agreements in place with producers that appear on their list
that they will not change ingredients or production practices without
informing the LBD."

That is correct, but only for the products they directly supervise( that
have their hecksher) or that they have investigated and are listed as such
in their publication.
However, there are the thousands of products that are permitted relying on
the ingredient list and no concern for manufacturing methods.
I will list the categories.
Most notable to me is
" Kosher species of fish, canned, or in jars, in water, brine or vegetable
are approved"
This in itself answers nearly all of the issues brought up in this
discussion. Bishul Akum ha factories, keilim, suffeik ben yomo, yad soledas
bo, batel b'shishim, ingredient lists, vegetable oils etc.etc.

And all smoked kosher fish  as long as some skin is attached.

All smoked salmon, with or w/ skin.

"All jams. jellies,marmalades, preserves as long as they do not contain
non-kosher ingredients"

Same with Yoghurts ( they list gelatine, cochineal, grape juice and certain
emulsifiers an example of non-kopsher ingredients).

All frozen vegetables are permitted.

All plain canned vegetables in water or brine are permitted, including
beans.

All vegetables ( and olives) pickled in brine or lactic acid are permitted(
the only exception is wine vinegar, of course)
(BTW, FDA and EU rules, vinegars have to be listed with their source, grain,
wine etc. One exception is when it says just vinegar, the vast majority,
then that is from apples.

All canned fruit in sugar syrup, or fruit juice, except grape juice,
permitted.

Same with fruit and vegetable juices.And sodas, etc.

All dried fruit, but advise looking at ingredient list to make sure if any
oil release agent coating is mineral or vegetable.

All dried pastas including egg, but excluding black pasta as they suggest it
is dyed with squid ink (ugh!)

There's more but I'm even boring myself now.!

As someone said elsewhere, this is not bdi eved  or lenient. It is a
legitimate approach to kashrut and was the norm until the proliferation of
kahrut agencies and the desire to get stricter.Whilst those who take on
extra personal stringencies should be commended, it should not be at the
expense of those that don't, and are in fact observing kashrut, stringently.



Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091208/6e5cb435/attachment-0001.htm>

> I wrote:
> > While you no doubt could have an argument about what the
> > state is that Chazal were referring to regarding a baby's
> > tummy, surely what we classify as a burn must fit within
> > that, and so anything that is deemed to cause a first
> > degree burn surely that would fit within the definition?

And RAM replied:
> Surely? Surely not. Or maybe. The above would make just as much sense
> if you had written "second degree" or "third degree". I have no idea
> which kind of burn Chazal were referring to, and the length of this thread
would suggest that no one else does either.

What I was trying to say was that I would have thought *any* type of burn
should fall within the gemora test (ie even the most limited kind that could
be classified as a burn).  The test in the gemora (well the Bavli anyway
Shabbas 40b) is kol shecreiso shel tinok nichveis".  That is, the point at
which the tummy of a baby (or small child) "nichveis".  Now Rashi explains
that the reason why Rachva gives this test is because the hand test is less
precise, there are some whose hands recoil at lesser temperatures and some
whose hands recoil at greater temperatures (something that seems pretty
obvious, and has been raised on this list - certainly in my anecdotal
experience skin toughens with exposure, not just with heat but hard things
such as stones if you go barefoot a lot etc). 

So given that, at least according to Rashi, the point of Rachva giving his
test was to provide a more definitive test, it seems somewhat improbable to
me that Rachva was talking about distinguishing between different kinds of
burns and the level at which the skin has been damaged (which is what I, as
a layperson, understand by the differences between types of burns).  If
something is a burn, as I understand it, the skin has been damaged and will
be marked due to the heat.  Is it possible that Rachva could be saying that
a baby with a burn on its tummy was not nichveis?

But I do want to point out that the Ben Ish Chai's test is far far higher
than a simple tummy burn.  I have a friend and she and her family were at
the airport about to go on a holiday.  But the husband bought himself a cup
of tea, and somehow her toddler managed to pull it over herself (the major
damage was, as it happened on her torso, even though she was wearing
clothes).  And so instead of going on holiday they spent the next week in
the burns unit of the local hospital with numerous outpatient visits
thereafter.  And my friend commented that pretty much all the children in
there were there due to coffee and tea accidents.  Were these coffee and
teas all at the temperature that a person would withdraw from drinking from
them because of the heat (the Ben Ish Chai's test)?  Almost certainly not.
And yet we are talking about the level of damage to a baby's tummy that will
land said baby in hospital for a week or more.  Is it possible that Rachva
could have been talking about that level of damage to a baby's torso?

> Akiva Miller

I also wrote:
> > The one in common use is to point out that the knife used for shchita
> > is deemed cold (ie does not need to be treated as though it was cooked
> > by the blood of the animal it schechted), even though it is in contact
with
> >the body temperature of an animal (43 degrees or so, although others have

And RMB replied:

> But for how long? Does the actually knife heat up? (I would think that
> if it does, pressure and friction might have more to do with it.)

The key thing is that you need to look at the gemora in Chullin 8b. The
discussion there is regarding the knife of an akum and whether if such a
knife was used for shchita what remedies you need to take in order to use at
least the majority of the meat (just wash it or remove a layer of the meat).
And the gemora there initially postulates that the machlokus between Rav and
Raba bar bar Chana is that one holds "beis haschita tzonen" and the other
holds "beis haschita roseach" - ie that the place at which the slaughter is
done on the animal is considered halachically "cold" or "boiling" (the
difference being whether the meat at the place of slaughtering is capable of
being bolea the issur contained in the knife).  And then it goes on to give
alternatives where both hold that the beis hashchita is tzonen and both hold
that beis haschita is roseach.  Ie it is the gemora that suggests that a key
factor is whether one deems the beis hashchita sufficiently hot.  And my
understanding is (and the Yalkut Yosef states explicitly in bringing the
argument) is that we hold that beis hashchita is tzonen, and that that fact
makes a difference as to whether the meat is bolea from the knife or not.

That is not to say that pressure and friction do not come into it.  In the
explanation as to how to understand this maklokus between Rav and Raba bar
bar Chana in the light of them both holding that the beis hashchita is
tzonen, it explains that the one who holds that one must cut away a portion
of the meat that is because of the pressure of the knife will cause some
absorption despite the beis haschita being tzonen.

What is not discussed is a time factor.  My knowledge of shchita is
extremely rudimentary, but I believe that it is possible to perform a kosher
shchita which involves moving the knife back and forth a number of times, ie
that the time period can be extended and still result in a kosher shchita.
Clearly while the discussion has to be around a kosher shchita (otherwise
what part of the meat can be preserved is irrelevant),  if I am right then
time would not seem to be relevant. At least here.

Nor, it seems to me, would time seem to be a key factor in Rachva's
definition regarding a baby's tummy, - otherwise surely we would have needed
a further "and for how long" question.

However time may be a factor in the test in the Yerushalmi.

I have been pointed in the direction of an extremely interesting discussion
of the various girsos found in the rishonim for the Yerushalmi test of Yad
Soledes bo in the first volume of Shut Bnei Banim Ma'amar 2 (ois aleph and
beis).  R' Henkin analyses the different girsos and concludes that some
versions appears to use the term soledes in the opposite sense to the Bavli,
but the ultimate halacha is the same, and other versions appear to use the
term soledes in the same way as the Bavli, but the halacha ends up being
different.  But part of the discussion involves girsos which do seem to
suggest a time factor - ie that there is a level at which the hand can
endure the heat always, and a level where the threshold is immediately met,
and an intermediate level where their appears to be a time shiur.  

But while very interesting, I am not sure it gets me any closer to
understanding the Ben Ish Chai.

Regards

Chana

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM, martin brody <martinlbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> R"n Toby Katz wrote:
>> > The article you quoted gives one very strong argument in
>> > favor of hechsherim as opposed to lists:? if a company is
>> > under contract with a kashrus agency, it can't change the
>> > ingredients in its supervised products without informing
>> > the kashrus agency.
>>
>>
> "This can also be true where there is no direct supervision. AFAIK the LBD
> has commercial agreements in place with producers that appear on their list
> that they will not change ingredients or production practices without
> informing the LBD."
>
> That is correct, but only for the products they directly supervise( that
> have their hecksher) or that they have investigated and are listed as such
> in their publication.
> However, there are the thousands of products that are permitted relying on
> the ingredient list and no concern for manufacturing methods.
> I will list the categories.
> Most notable to me is
> " Kosher species of fish, canned, or in jars, in water, brine or vegetable
> are approved"
> This in itself answers nearly all of the issues brought up in this
> discussion. Bishul Akum ha factories, keilim, suffeik ben yomo,?yad soledas
> bo, batel b'shishim, ingredient lists, vegetable oils etc.etc.
>
><SNIP>

But look at that. There are numerous issues involved, at times
multiple issues for the same product. E.g. A canned fish product that
contains oil could feasibly have issues of a) relying on ingredient
lists, b) keilim, c) Bishul Akum ha factories, d) sufiek ben yomo, e)
yad soledas bo, f) batel b'shishim d) vegetable oils (admittedly
repetitious but I'm hoping clearer). While not all issues increase the
problems, there are many that are stand alones. These do increase the
problems with each one added, as you only need to strike out on one to
be eating problematic food.

While some, like RMB, might be willing to be 'm'tztaref' lenient
position upon lenient position, others, like myself, upon hearing the
formidable issues, such as constant use in a commercial environment
removing ben yomo, failure of CIP to remove beins, the heter of bishul
akum ha companies not being used by the vast majority of poskim
rendering it a daas yachid, and on and on, feel the view expressed by
R' Schwab ("I'm a l'chatchila yid") seems most sensible.

I wonder as well at the sentiment expressed, that this is "observing
kashrut, stringently". It would appear that a more objective
evaluation would term it "observing kashrut, utilizing lenient
positions, at times relying on daas yochids". While one might be
allowed, halachically, to do so, to me it appears to be dangerously
close to an attitude of 'novil b'rishus haTorah'.

And is it really only 'baalie nefesh' who would want their food to not
be considered bishul akum by more then one solitary posek? Or who
wouldn't want to rely on adjudicating correctly major machlokes
achronim, but would want to l'chatchila cover both sides? And if
someone, avidly following the thread on Yad soledes bo and seeing the
many divergent ranges and the multiple factors involved, thinks its
best to not rely on the most meik'l shuir is he really being machmir,
or is he rather resisting becoming someone who accepts the most meikl
position just because it exists? IOW, not knowing which shuir of YSB
is correct, he won't automatically use the most lenient position with
the deciding factor being its very leniency, because he's worried not
so much as being a 'baal nefesh' but afraid of being a 'novol'.

KT,
MSS

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 1:07 AM
> In Chofetz Chaim Daily companion P. 259 R. Eliezer Hagadol is quoted
> advising his son:
> "Do not sit with groups that talk about the faults of others..."

> Where can this be found?

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21278&;st=&pgnum=54

 

While some, like RMB, might be willing to be 'm'tztaref' lenient position
upon lenient position, others, like myself, upon hearing the formidable
issues, such as constant use in a commercial environment removing ben yomo,
failure of CIP to remove beins, the heter of bishul akum ha companies not
being used by the vast majority of poskim rendering it a daas yachid, and
on and on, feel the view expressed by R' Schwab ("I'm a l'chatchila yid")
seems most sensible.

I wonder as well at the sentiment expressed, that this is "observing
kashrut, stringently". It would appear that a more objective evaluation
would term it "observing kashrut, utilizing lenient positions, at times
relying on daas yochids". While one might be allowed, halachically, to do
so, to me it appears to be dangerously close to an attitude of 'novil
b'rishus haTorah'.

And is it really only 'baalie nefesh' who would want their food to not be
considered bishul akum by more then one solitary posek? Or who wouldn't
want to rely on adjudicating correctly major machlokes achronim, but would
want to l'chatchila cover both sides? And if someone, avidly following the
thread on Yad soledes bo and seeing the many divergent ranges and the
multiple factors involved, thinks its best to not rely on the most meik'l
shuir is he really being machmir, or is he rather resisting becoming
someone who accepts the most meikl position just because it exists? IOW,
not knowing which shuir of YSB is correct, he won't automatically use the
most lenient position with the deciding factor being its very leniency,
because he's worried not so much as being a 'baal nefesh' but afraid of
being a 'novol'.

KT,
MSS
_______________________________________________
WADR this is a very subjective measurement based on the time and place.  I
don't hear anyone advocating that we MRI all animals for all possible
treifot prior to shechita.  Why take a chance?	Bittul b'rov- why take a
chance on timtum?Why not just simplify everything by taking the most
machmir position articulated throughout halachic history?

 IMHO the current trend to chumrah is at least somewhat due to our material
 society allowing us to afford it, and what people will accept.  That's
 fine but we should consider the cost to our society and the trade-offs
 (e.g. if food costs 5% more due to taking a more machmir standard, where
 is that being taken away from?)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:11:58AM -0600, Neil Harris wrote:
: This [see subject line, asked by RRW] is the million dollar question.

: I'm sure that someone will post an answer. Until then here's a few
: reading suggestions:
...

Good reading list, but learning about *emunah* isn't necessarily going
to get you emunah.

As R' Elya Lopan put it: Mussar is a matter of moving something one
ammah -- from your seikhel to your leiv. The Sefas Emes says something
similar on "veyadata hayom, vehasheivosa el levavekha". You can know
something already and STILL need to answer your heart. Internalization
is probably the harder part of emunah, not the knowing.

I would also divide emunah into two, along a related by not identical
line:

Machashavah -- knowing about Hashem
Emunah peshutah -- knowing Hashem

In terms of Hashem being both Transcendent and Immanent (baShamayim mimaal
and melo kol haaretz), our relationship to Hashem as Transcendent is only
through maschashavah. By the definitions I'm using, emunah peshutah can
only be with Immanence, since if I know Him the way I know family members,
that there is a desk before me, etc... I'm dealing with Immanence. Emunah
peshutah relies on "Hashem is here" for me to relate to Him.

Tevya the milkman, in Fiddler on the Roof, is portrayed with deep emunah
peshutah. He is never alone. When no one else is around, Tevya chats with
the A-lmighty. Taking from a translation of Shalom Aleikhem's original
version of Tevya's words, "As the good book says... but why do *I*
need to tell *You* what the good book says?"

The Rambam plays down emunah peshutah. To him, the focus of emunah is
all about knowing what Hashem isn't. A focus on Transcendence means that
the Rambam can only operate on the level of machashavah.

One can internalize machashavah or not. They're ideas. Either you keep
them in your head, or hasheivosa el levavekha.

Emunah peshuta is more of a relationship. Emunah peshutah is a middah
more than a belief.

So, if I would get down to the hardest part of RRW's question, I would
ask how someone gets emunah peshutah.

And for that, reading won't cut it.

Total immersion would, spending significant time on it. To continue
the Sefas Emes's vort, "vesamtem es devarai eileh al levavekhem". If
they don't enter the heart, keep on piling them up atop the heart.
Eventually, through repeated exposure, it sinks in.

I'm sitting a block away from Madison Ave, where this idea is the
centerpiece of an entire industry.

Hispaalus. IOW, learning one idea, dwelling on it, comparing it to my
life, saying the words over and over again out loud. In short,
maximizing the experiential aspect of learning rather than just
acquiring information.

But the essence of my answer inheres in my calling emunah peshutah a
middah. How do we change any middah? Excercises -- haadam nif'al lefi
peulaso. The usual litany of mussar tools that some AishDas committee
will actually produce a handbook for some day.

That said, emunah also includes machashavah, and besides many of the
beliefs we absorbed osmotically don't really hold water when compared to
life experience. Without the learning, I don't think the further steps
will get you very far anyway.


BTW, not that I'm advocating this method, but in my experience, being in
an eis tzara makes gaining emunah much easier. The second problem is, it
too easily wears off when things get better.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/item/the_ever
-narrowing_orthodox_mind_39091208/

one of the leaders of the new  liberal O  branch , lists a few  exemplary 
issues of  dogma , that people to the right in O  might  have trouble 
with.
i wonder if anyone wants to take a stab at whether any of these issues 
would be deemed not  compatible  with O ...  maybe the efficacy of prayer 
in a non-O  setting?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091209/90c37fe7/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Wed, 12/9/09, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:



http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/item/the_ever
-narrowing_orthodox_mind_39091208/ 

one of the leaders of the new ?liberal O ?branch , lists a few ?exemplary ?issues of ?dogma , that people to the right in O ?might ?have trouble with. 
i wonder if anyone wants to take a stab at whether any of these issues
would be deemed not ?compatible ?with O ... ?maybe the efficacy of prayer
in a non-O ?setting?
------------------------------------
?
I think they?have a point. Are all the dogmas they list imperitives for O
Jews? Or can one be an O Jew without accepting one or more of them??I think
the latter is true. The question is whether the RW thinks so or not.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091209/88e8c4ce/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
>
>
<SNIP>>
> And is it really only 'baalie nefesh' who would want their food to not
> be considered bishul akum by more then one solitary posek? Or who
> wouldn't want to rely on adjudicating correctly major machlokes
> achronim, but would want to l'chatchila cover both sides? And if
> someone, avidly following the thread on Yad soledes bo and seeing the
> many divergent ranges and the multiple factors involved, thinks its
> best to not rely on the most meik'l shuir is he really being machmir,
> or is he rather resisting becoming someone who accepts the most meikl
> position just because it exists? IOW, not knowing which shuir of YSB
> is correct, he won't automatically use the most lenient position with
> the deciding factor being its very leniency, because he's worried not
> so much as being a 'baal nefesh' but afraid of being a 'novol'.
>
> KT,
> MSS
> _______________________________________________
> WADR this is a very subjective measurement based on the time and
> place. ?I don't hear anyone advocating that we MRI all animals for all
> possible treifot prior to shechita. ?Why take a chance? ?Bittul b'rov-
> why take a chance on timtum?Why not just simplify everything by taking
> the most machmir position articulated throughout halachic history?
>
> ?IMHO the current trend to chumrah is at least somewhat due to our
> material society allowing us to afford it, and what people will
> accept. ?That's fine but we should consider the cost to our society
> and the trade-offs (e.g. if food costs 5% more due to taking a more
> machmir standard, where is that being taken away from?)

While this might be true, there are a couple of points.

A) One way to discern is to see what the consensus haposkim of ones
era hold like. At the current time, they do not hold, pasken,
advocate, or approve of the positions RMBrody has informed us about.

B) If one has greater means shouldn't he rely less on heterim? Isn't
this the classical position of 'hefsed meruba', IOW, as the 'hefsed'
decreases, the 'heter' is less applicable?

C) My point of not choosing leniency's precisely for leniency's sake
still stands.

KT,
MSS

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: But look at that. There are numerous issues involved, at times
: multiple issues for the same product...

"Numerous issues involved", but are resolved as mutar lekhat-chilah
(eg bitul by a nachri). "Involved" therefore doesn't necessarily mean
much. It appears to often mean that the "mutar lekhat-chilah" result was not
self-evident without discussion. But that discussion doesn't make it
assur.

But before someone stops eating in my home for this (rather than perhaps
a more valid reason):
: While some, like RMB, might be willing to be 'm'tztaref' lenient
: position upon lenient position...

First, I don't see it as a lenient position.

But more to the point, lemaaseh, I'm not willing. Here, speaking on a
theoretical plane, I'm asking why what seems to me to be redundant is
not.

I recently mentioned my belief that the AhS was mistaken in his knowledge
of what happens when you brew tea, so that the umdena he pasqens on
isn't what we actually brew. Still, I make tea in a keli shelishi, and
use a filter that is both derekh achila and okhel mitokh pesoles rather
than a bag -- even though taking out the bag with some tea is mutar
lekhat-chilah. But I don't see how such "two steps away from issur" is
really any better than one. I just do it when possible because "that's
what we do". (Which is why I don't use hot tea sense, it's not what Ima
did when I was growing up -- or AFAIK still does.)

If you aren't sure about eating in my home, we could discuss heterim
I actually do feel comfortable relying on lemaaseh. But the approach I'm
describing is my own intellect's, not my poseiq's, nor even my gut's.
I wouldn't actually follow it.

: I wonder as well at the sentiment expressed, that this is "observing
: kashrut, stringently". It would appear that a more objective
: evaluation would term it "observing kashrut, utilizing lenient
: positions, at times relying on daas yochids"...

What dei'os yachid? You're confusing a question with a universally
accepted pesaq lehatir that we now avoid even asking with that pesaq
being a da'as yachid.

(BTW, we're now discussing the very issues I was hoping to get to when I
decided to allow a thread that for much of its body was only borderline
on topic for Avodah.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 248
***************************************

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..."