Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 124

Wed, 26 May 2010

• 1. Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in Fish (Yitzchok Levine)
• 2. Re: Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in Fish (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in Fish (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: is there morality outside of the Torah? (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. women in office (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: everyone is a liar (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Pinui kevarim (Dov Kaiser)
• 8. Re: Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in Fish (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Response to the RCBC? (Rich, Joel)
• 10. shavuot and YK (Simon Wanderer)
• 11. Re: Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in Fish (Micha Berger)

 From http://tinyurl.com/2fe9fhx

<https://5tjt.com/international-news/7213-nationwide
-kashrus-gathering-on-worms-in-fish.html>Nationwide 
Kashrus Gathering on Worms in 
<https://5tjt.com/international-news/7213-nationwide
-kashrus-gathering-on-worms-in-fish.html>Fish

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
on Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Yesterday, Rabbis from Kashrus agencies across the country gathered 
in Brooklyn to see and hear how to remove the Anisakis worm from fish.

The seminar was sponsored by the Vaad HaKashrus of Flatbush, under 
the direction of its Rav HaMachshir, Rabbi Meir Goldberg.  The Vaad 
had flown in Rabbi Shneur Zalman Revach and his assistant Yehudah to 
demonstrate.  The event was videoed and projected so the hundreds of 
participants could better see.  Representatives from CRC in Chicago, 
Star K in Baltimore and Kashrus agencies across the country flew in 
to attend the seminar.  The OU, the Vaad of Queens, the Five Towns 
Vaad HaKashrus was also in attendance.

Please see the above URL for the list of those who were in attendance 
and for the 6 minute video showing the worms in fish.  It is not 
clear to me what kind of fish they were extracting the worms from.



Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100526/5b412b64/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:54:16AM -0400, R Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/2fe9fhx
: <https://5tjt.com/international-news/7213-nation
: wide-kashrus-gathering-on-worms-in-fish.html>
: Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in 
: By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
: on Tuesday, May 25, 2010
...
: Please see the above URL for the list of those who were in attendance 
: and for the 6 minute video showing the worms in fish.  It is not 
: clear to me what kind of fish they were extracting the worms from.

Swordfish. <g>

Seriously, though, the Hebrew speaker mentions swordfish among the ones
we get via China. Are there people who are meiqilim on swordfish but
machmirim on these tola'im?

And why was the OU there? Doesn't that cloud their official stance
<http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single_print/1377835> that
YD 84:16 applies, and the firsh are fine? Or are they actually changing
stance in light of his data about migrations?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:

> Seriously, though, the Hebrew speaker mentions swordfish among the ones
> we get via China. Are there people who are meiqilim on swordfish but
> machmirim on these tola'im?

There's no logical reason why such a position shouldn't exist, though
I've never heard of anyone taking it.

Champions of the extreme mesorah-trumps-metzius position (i.e. the ones
who will kill lice on Shabbos) will be mekil on both.  Those who allow
new discoveries about metzius a vote, if not a veto, in halacha, will
treat each case independently, depending on how strong the mesorah is,
and how sure we are of the metzius.  And certainly those who follow an
extreme elah-mah-she'enav-ro'ot position will follow the evidence
wherever it leads them, which may well be to permit swordfish but forbid
anisakis (even in a swordfish).


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Without responding to anything specific that anyone has said on this  
thread, I want to say one thing:
 
Derech eretz kadmah laTorah.
 

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100525/f244343a/attachment-0001.htm>

Can a woman be community secretary?

see

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3893054,00.html

-- 
Eli Turkel

RZs says:

>If a road is built, and then a grave is found on or near it, so that it is
now damaging the
> public it may be moved;

I may be misunderstanding the metzius here, but that is precisely the
situation as I understand it.  A hospital was built, and in is use by the
public, and then, when they wanted to expand the hospital, they dug up just
near it and found graves.  Ie this is not a case where they public
identified a greenfields site and decided to built a hospital, only to find
graves before the hospital was in existence.  Rather it is a case where
there is an existing hospital, and it turns out there are graves that are
samuch to it.


> how does that apply to a grave that is sitting quietly by itself, minding
its own business, until the public proposes
> to put a road over it? How can you possibly imagine that this law allows
> the public to move the grave and build the road? 
> On the contrary, I can prove that it is not so: if such a thing were
> permitted, then why doesn't the gemara (and ultimately the SA) say so,
> and we would know kal vachomer that if the road was already built the
> grave may be moved? Why does it choose to speak of a grave that was
> found after the road was long-established, instead of straightforwardly
> stating "mefanin et hakever la'asot derech larabim"?

Not that I think this is the issue here, as we have an existing, built
hospital, but there are even more gradations than you are suggesting.  In
any form of public road planning and building there is the stage of proposal
of the location (the first stage).  Once that is determined, then there is
the stage of acquiring and building (a second stage), and then there is the
stage of already built (the third stage).  A halacha that allowed  Mefanin
et hakever l'aasot derech larabim would clearly permit even the first stage.
That is, even if there was a known cemetery in existence, cemetery
considerations would be irrelevant when considering where to place the road.
That is a different case to a situation where there are no known grave
considerations, the plans are drawn up, the land is acquired, construction
is started (but the road is yet to be used by the public) and then the
graves are found (second stage), and yes, that is again different from the
situation in which the road is already built and in use when the graves are
found (the third stage). 

Now it is interesting that the Shulchan Aruch does specifically note, based
on the Yerushalmi, that the permission to dig up a grave found near a road
is even if the road was built after the grave was buried.  Now why should
this be?  Fine if somebody went and buried a body when there was an already
existing road there, they should not be able to cause problems for the
public by their act.  But why the other way around?  Surely it was the
responsibility of the public in building the road to check carefully enough
to ensure there were no graves under or near the road when they built it.
And if they didn't do their due diligence carefully enough, then they should
suffer the consequences.  But that does not seem to be the din.  In which
case it is not so easy to see why there should be a difference between the
situation where the public had already expended the money on purchasing the
land and paying for the construction and the builders had gone in onto the
land and started digging, to the minute the first person puts their foot
onto the road to use it for its public purpose.

BTW It would also seem from Rashi as then quoted by others that the
obligation not to disinter a grave and rebury is d'rabbanan (given that he
contrasts this, which is permitted when there is nezek harabbim, with the
issur hana'ah on the grave building, if there is a grave building which is a
d'orisa and which is not uprooted even if there is nezek rabim).  If that is
indeed the  case then one would assume questions of safek d'rabbanan l'kula
would come into play here as well.

And one does need to ask that in the case of a grave that is just near,
rather than under, a road surely one could almost always provide other
solutions.   One could shift the road or add an additional portion of it to
the other side away from the grave; or one could build walls and cavities
preventing the tumah escaping on to the road etc etc.  Yes these might be a
bit more expensive but why should all these options not be exhausted first
before uprooting the grave?  But the Shulchan Aruch does not say to do that.

And why even bring up the
> concept of "nezek"?

Yes, what is the concept of nezek being discussed here?  Rashi brings (and
so it would appear do pretty much everybody else) that the nezek is due to
the public potentially becoming tamei b'ohel due to this grave.  Now what is
going on here?  This grave was, as you say, quietly minding its own business
until some public planner went and built a road nearby.  What nezek is it
doing?  Surely the solution is to put up signposts for kohanim and anybody
else on beis hamikdash business to avoid the route and take another, or to
take necessary precautions (walk on the other side of the road perhaps if
that will do).  The nezek appears to be that it would force cohanim etc to
go some other way or take inconvenient precautions (or cost the community
money to build walls or the like and make sure there was no overshadowing by
trees).  Is that such a big deal?  And, certainly in the absence of the beis
hamikdash, with the rest of the community not worried about tumah and
tehara, is this really nezek harabbim, or nezek of a small section of the
rabbim?  And even if it is, it is surely nezek sheino nikar at absolute most
(becoming tamei).  And not really that, because so long as there are signs
the cohanim know to go another route, so the true nezek is the extra steps
that they are being made to take.  Is that really nezek?  If I make you as a
cohen go a long way round my property to get to my house to avoid becoming
tameh, is that nezek?  What damages could you claim?

So while I agree with you that nezek harabbim would seem to be different
from tzorchei tzibbur,  given the nezek that is being discussed here, most
cases of tzorchei tzibbur of would seem to be a lot stronger.  And indeed we
not infrequently push aside d'rabbanans for tzorchei tzibbur, so I can
understand why some people might well it out learn out as a kal v'chomer.
If we push aside the d'rabbanan of moving graves for the form of nezek
harabbim caused to the cohanim in the graves by the road case, then surely
we would push aside the d'rabbanan of moving graves for a genuine tzorchei
tzibbur. 

> --
> Zev Sero
> z...@sero.name

Regards

Chana

Eli Turkel wrote:
>>> Nope. The term "tzorchei rabbim" doesn't appear there even once.
>>> You are making up halachos out of thin air and attributing them to the
>>> Shulchan Aruch.
 
> The Talmud allows for reinterment when the grave causes public damage
> (Sanhedrin 47a),
 
47b, actually.
 
> such as when it is found next to a public road (YD 364:5).
 
R. Zev Sero replied:
 
And yet you claimed that this se'if permitted moving a grave for "tzorchei
rabim". Now you quote it saying something quite different. Surely you are
not expecting anyone to accept that "mazik et harabim" and "tzorchei rabim"
are in some way synonymous, or even remotely similar! There is no honest
way to get from one to the other. If a road is built, and then a grave is
found on or near it, so that it is now damaging the public it may be moved;
how does that apply to a grave that is sitting quietly by itself, minding
its own business, until the public proposes to put a road over it? How can
you possibly imagine that this law allows the public to move the grave and
build the road?
 
On the contrary, I can prove that it is not so: if such a thing were
permitted, then why doesn't the gemara (and ultimately the SA) say so, and
we would know kal vachomer that if the road was already built the grave may
be moved? Why does it choose to speak of a grave that was found after the
road was long-established, instead of straightforwardly stating "mefanin et
hakever la'asot derech larabim"? And why even bring up the concept of
"nezek"?

 
 

<<Surely you are not expecting anyone to accept that "mazik et
harabim" and "tzorchei rabim" are in some way synonymous, or even remotely
similar!>>

Well, R. Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos thought so.  In a teshuva to the Nesivos (Psakim, 45), R. Akiva Eiger he wrote: 
                    
*with respect to disinterring graves, it is obvious (hadavar pashut), as
his honour [the Nesivos] wrote, that there is no greater mazik rabim than
this.  Even if it were already a public cemetery and with public consent
(midaas rabbim), nevertheless it is permitted to disinter [the graves] for
the needs of the public (l?tzorech horabim), as HaGaon R. Dovid Oppenheim
zt'l wrote in his teshuva, which is printed in Responsa Chavos Yair*.  
 
Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the case at hand.	But as R.
Rosen points out in the article I have already cited on Areivim (see http://www.zomet.org.il/
?CategoryID=263&;ArticleID=597), it is clear from this teshuva that
both R. Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos held that *hezek rabbim* in YD 364:5
encompasses *tzorchei rabbim*, and therefore one may disinter graves, even
of a public cemetery, in order to enlarge a road or some other public need
(not just if the road was there already and the graves were discovered
later).  
 
You are certainly entitled to read the Gemara and SA differently from R.
Dovid Oppenheim, the Nesivos and R. Akiva Eiger, but others might choose to
favour their reading over yours.  As we have discussed many times, when it
comes to psak halacha (as opposed to lomdus), there is something slightly
unorthodox (even unOrthodox) about jumping from the Gemara to the SA to
psak halacha, while ignoring the voluminous halachic literature written
since then, especially when it emanates from such greats as R. Akiva Eiger.
 And even if you think it is a legitimate approach to disregard Acharonim
in formulating halacha, you certainly can?t accuse those who follow the
mainstream approach of making things up.  Language such as *How can you
possibly imagine that this law allows the public to move the grave and
build the road?* appears just a bit over the top when great Acharonim
imagined just such a thing.  Also, as I have pointed out before in this
forum, I think this sort of language on A
 /A creates more heat than light, to use a cliche, and lowers the tone of discussion.
 
Getting back to the substantive argument, I concede that the original
teshuva of R. Dovid Oppenheim is arguably distinguishable from our case. 
In that case, a shul had collapsed, and bones of nochri corpses were found
in the ground during rebuilding works.	You could argue that the rebuilding
of a shul is a bigger tzorech horabbim than the building of an emergency
room in Ashkelon.  On the other hand, you could also argue the other way. 
R. Rosen quotes a teshuva of R. Shaul Yisraeli, who refers to Bava Metzia
24b, which permits lopping a tree next to a city, even if the tree was
there first.  Rashi there explains *sheyesh noi l?ihr k?sheyesh merchav
panui lefaneha.*  R. Yisraeli uses this to show that even something which
aimpinges on the aesthetic quality of a city is a hezek d?rabbim.  How much
more so something which prevents the construction of an emergency room!
 
I feel obliged to restate on Avodah something which I already posted on
Areivim.  The issue of pinui kevarim has become one of those *red rag to a
bull* issues which, like heter mechira, has left the realm of civilized
halachic discourse (at least for some ? and I am not referring to R.ZS
here) and become a catalyst for machlokes of a different kind.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser
Rehovot, Israel                                           
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100526/ae990112/attachment-0001.htm>

Champions of the extreme mesorah-trumps-metzius position (i.e. the ones who
will kill lice on Shabbos) will be mekil on both.  Those who allow new
discoveries about metzius a vote, if not a veto, in halacha, will treat
each case independently, depending on how strong the mesorah is, and how
sure we are of the metzius.  And certainly those who follow an extreme
elah-mah-she'enav-ro'ot position will follow the evidence wherever it leads
them, which may well be to permit swordfish but forbid anisakis (even in a
swordfish).


-- 
Zev Sero                
==============================
IIRC when we discussed this last, the most common position was to rely on mtziut when it was lchumrah but not lkulah 
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.

Shut She'eilat Shlomo -  Questions of Jewish Law
Tzedakah Priorities
Question: I received an e-mail message from a Rabbinic group in my former
community in the States, the substance of which was to urge the Jews in
that area to give 75% of their Tzedekah money to local causes.	While a
good deal of the funds raised there are for worthwhile causes, many
millions of dollars are being raised and spent to make shuls a little
larger and a lot fancier.  As the future of the Jewish people is here in
Israel, would it not be more useful to invest more of the money here?
Answer: Both are important, and one who lives there should divide his money according to his wisdom and desire.
=============================

FWIW IIRC R'HS spoke of giving where one feels "close"


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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100526/9e3886ac/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB Wrote:<<A different question -- was the Torah received on Shavuos, or on
Yom

Kippur?

 

Why are we celebrating zeman matan Toraseinu is we weren't ready to

truly accept it until the 2nd luchos -- on Yom Kippur? And don't chazal

say that the Torah associated with the first luchos was different in

kind, tht the whole concept of TSBP starts with the 2nd luchos? (R'

Chaim Brisker famously discusses this notion.) So the Torah as we have

is isn't even what was given on Shavuos!>>

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

Indeed, Rashi on the mishna at the end of taanis says matan torah is YK
?shenitnu bo luchos ho?acharonos?.

 

I recall the suggestion that Shavuos principally celebrates TSBP ? SA HaRav
says of staying up Shavuos night ?ikar ha?eisek yihye b?TSBP?. This is
related to the point made earlier in this thread that the original Matan
Torah was the day after Shavuos:

-Moshe?s adding 1 day ?mida?ato? is TSBP in action

-MA relates this to YT sheni, which on the surface appears a dochak.
However, the observance of this din derabanan is again TSBP-related.

 

BTW, the aruch hashulchan offer a beautiful interpretation of the MA. He
says that the Torah is of universal relevance and application. For this
reason the Torah doesn?t call Shavuos z?man matan torah, as it?s not right
to limit the Torah to one specific day. That?s the link to YT Sheni; the
Torah applies to Chutz La?aretz as well as Eretz Yisrael, just like it was
given in the midbar, not Eretz Yisrael.

 

Having written the last paragraph, it occurs to me that the Aruch
Hashulchan?s point boils down to the same thing. It is the inherent
adaptability of TSBP that means it can operate in all places and at all
times.

KT

SW

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100526/8c2a7b94/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:04:15PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: IIRC when we discussed this last, the most common position was to rely
: on mtziut when it was lchumrah but not lkulah

I don't think so. I think the most common position is to deal with
the issue casewise. You have to determin if the scientific explanation
caused the pesaq, or was an after-the-fact explanation. And it also is
possible that the science that caused the pesaq is wrong, but you can
find a way in which the error isn't relevent. (My oft-repeated example
of Rav Dovid Lifshitz's approach to beitzei kinim.) Notice the second
point presumes a preference not to change pesaq, as one is hunting for
a way to fit existing pesaq to new science.

Only AFTER the above two searches find that the scientific theory caused
the pesaq and a sevara for existing pesaq can't be built from current
theory, would you apply the above rule.

The kelal is given by the Gra. His sevara is that for every reason we
are given for a particular din, there could be (and usually are) many
other reasons. Thus, eliminating the one published reason lehachmir
doesn't rule out the existence of other sufficient reasons. However,
eliminating one reason lehaqeil makes the existance of other reasons moot.

With the caveat that safeiq piquach nefesh may shift "lechumrah" to a
possibly non-obvious definition. (I'm thinking of 8th month babies.)

See RGS's essay at <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html>
for a survey.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 124
***************************************

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..."