Volume 28: Number 11
Thu, 20 Jan 2011
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:41:15 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Brain Death
R' David Riceman wrote:
> I want to quibble a little. Hazal were not defining the moment
> of death; they were clarifying that lack of a heart beat
> establishes a hazakah of death. As proof I'll point out that
> no one permits murdering people who have had heart transplants.
Your proof (if I understand it correctly) works on the presumption that if
someone had a heart transplant, then he is already dead, and so it would be
allowed to "kill" him. "Ayn k'tila achar k'tila", as it were.
But I believe that this is *not* the case. Torah Jews *do* believe in Techiyas HaMeisim. It *is* possible for one who is dead to live again.
However, please recall what I quoted from Igros Moshe regarding a
decapitation. He wrote that such a person is "meis mamash", even though
there *is* a method by which he can be brought back to life.
On the other hand, halacha does acknowledge that a person might lack a
pulse for a while and not really be dead. We do need to be careful between
identifying the things which merely establish a chazaka and the things
which truly define death.
(I want to stress that I am in no way qualified to offer opinions about defining life and death. My only point was to suggest problems with RDR's "proof".)
He also asked:
> I noticed that wikipedia defines brain death as "irreversible
> cessation ...." Is it possible to measure irreversibility, ...
My guess is that it is impossible to prove a negative. How can one be SURE
that the cessation is totally irreversible? The most one can possibly say
(it seems to me) is that with current medical knowledge and technology, we
are unable to reverse it, and we can't even imagine such an ability in the
future. - But Who knows?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Increase Your $ Potential
Go back to school. Online degrees available in MBA, Education and more
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d376892620dad54d45st01vuc
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:58:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Brain Death
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:26:02AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Natan Slifkin and R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, in their discussion
: of the halachic view on brain death, seem to be disagreeing about the
: roles of the heart, the kidneys, the mind, and similar topics...
Actually, RYGB is quite clear that his objection is more about what is
halachic process than whether or not RNS got Chazal's understanding of
the roles of the kelayos valeiv vs the moach is correct.
...
: Actually, a definition of "life" is irrelevant. What we need is
: definitions "chayim" and "mavess". "Life" may or may not be the same
: thing as "chayim". If a person is clearly "alive", that does not prove
: that he is "chai". We presume these words to mean the same thing, but
: I think I can prove that they are not:...
Quibble: I don't think "alive" is a specitic enough term to speak about
whether or not they mean the same thing. Thus we can speak of brain death,
heart death, death as defined by the AMA or by US Law, etc...
But I agree with the primary thesis here, and was planning on making
the same point. My way of framing what I believe is the same thesis
is different enough that I'll do so anyway:
The issue is not whether someone is a meis when his heart stops ch"v
or when his brain will never again be able to support consciousness
or never again be able to support his heartbeat. (I think RMTendler's
position is the third -- a kind of brain death that is a derivative of
the classical heart death.)
All science can do is describe in great detail various medical states.
Halakhah tells us which of those states are in the set we call "chai", and
which are in the set we call "meis". The machloqes is in the definition of
the chalos sheim chai. Once we know what quality a physical state must
have (or qualities) to qualify for the chalos sheim, then we can use
medicine to decide how determine whether a given person/body qualifies.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Brain Death
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:46:44PM -0500, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
: You hit the point IMO: we need a definition of living human being for
: the purposes of retzichah/donation. I think that RNS's main point is that
: we shouldn't assume that Chazal's practical definition is an absolute
: definition, rather that it was based upon the lifesaving possibilities
: of the time, and that we should adjust the practical definition for our
: time. Whether that's true is out of my grasp.
RNS's argument isn't one found in shu"t. Even among those (RMTendler,
ROY, etc...) who reach the same conclusion that someone without brain-step
activity is a meis don't use this argument. So, the question may well be
out of your and my grasp; for that matter, RNS isn't a poseiq either.
But those who are more capable of pesaq than us consistently (AFAIK)
find his thesis false.
It's also circular. He's defining chai/alive in terms of our ability to
lifesave; but the concept lifesaving presumes knowing what chai/alive
is...
Frankly, I think some people who were angered by the ban against his books
are confusing fame-through-victimhood with stature. RNS is a great guy and
in his day a wonderful contributor to Avodah. But he's not a bar pelugta
of any of the posqim we're talking about in the rest of the conversation.
As I wrote above, he's not even a poseiq of the LOR sort. The amount of
conversation his writing generated is out of proportion with his lack
of expertise in the area of pesaq.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:27:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Brain Death
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:48:32AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> I want to quibble a little. Hazal were not defining the moment of
> death; they were clarifying that lack of a heart beat establishes a
> hazakah of death...
As above, I think this is incorrect. They are stating at what point does
a person's medical system lose whatever propert(ies) are necessary to
have a chalos sheim "chai".
...
> We can't actually observe cessation of brain activity, we can only
> define "brain death" using complex machinery. Are there any examples in
> Hazal of hazakot which can be established only through machinery?
Nor halachic status. Do you check your food for microscopic mites?
It could well be that the chalos sheim "chai" is only lost if the body
makes a transition that cannot be naturally reversed (techiyas hameisim
aside -- that's "techiyah" for a reason). Then one needs a chazaqah
to determine when you can assume the transition won't be reversed.
But I don't think that's the central issue. IMHO, the question is
whether halakhah's definition of "chai" resembles the definition of
"alive" as defined by the law (and medical umbrella organizations)
in most Western countries.
For all we know, the soul hangs around a body incapable of supporting
sentience for some reason, and therefore the body is still chai regardless
of losing the capacity. Or not. (I'm not suggesting a position, just
showing why the questions aren't necessarily correlated.)
> Incidentally, to support RYGB's main point, see chapter 6 of Sa'adyah's
> commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (R. Kafih's edition; the one printed in the
> standard edition is a different book, apparently by someone else).
As above, he is clear his main point isn't that RNS's description of
chazal's position is wrong. That's RYGB's example of how the methodology
is flawed. The problem RYGB raises is with the methodology.
To quote
http://rygb.blogspot.com/2011/01/chazal-brain-death-and-rabbi-natan.html
This past Thursday, my friend Rabbi Natan Slifkin posted on his blog
(http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/summary-of-lifede
ath-issue.html),
a "Summary of the Life/Death Issue."
Rabbi Slifkin's post is an important one, as it goes to the heart
of what many of us find unacceptable with our colleague's approach.
...
When Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler proposed that "brain stem death" be the
criterion by which halachic death be established, he staked out a
controversial position (see the details of the current re-opening
of the controversy at
http://torahmusings.com/2010/12/brain-death-in-the-news/).
Nevertheless, his position was at no time and under no circumstances
predicated on an assumption that Chazal's views and rulings on
life and death were fundamentally related both to the mistaken
beliefs of the era about physiology as well as the limited medical
possibilities. Rabbi Tendler based his argument on a Mishnah in
Ohalos and other sources...
...
Rabbi Slifkin is quite bold in his assertions. He purports to know --
and to tell us -- when an aggadic legend intended to be understood
metaphorically. And he informs us categorically that these prooftexts
are (notwithstanding their Midrashic sourcing!) not metaphorical.
But who designated my friend the arbiter of these matters? ...
[Source texts that historically "kelayos valeiv" was taken as a metaphor
deleted.]
The point is that if you start by assumign you can 2nd-guess the mesorah,
what you're doing isn't pesaq. It's one thing when dealing with an
8th month baby and you're cornered into pasqening differently than did
Chazal. Then you come up with uqimtos to distinguish the two cases. It's
another when you're so sure of your 2nd-guessing what what Chazal said and
why that you can comfortably say "Chazal were mistaken in this regard.
That should be self-evident." Halakhah can't be made by people who that
easily declare Chazal wrong.
IIUC, *THAT* is RYGB's central thesis. And if not, it's mine.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:37:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R Chiya Raba
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 08:34:50PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: > As I understand him, the CI (YD, Hilkhos Tereifos 5:3; Yevamos
: > 57:3) is saying there was an exact time of transition from the
: > era of Torah to the era of Geulah. That's different than saying
: > that time was the year 4000 AM on the nose...
:
: According to Gemara Avoda Zara 9a, in answering this very question, the
: year 2000 marked the pasuk "v'es hanefesh asher asu b'charan." (Bereshis
: 12:5)
Whether or not the CI CI agreed and took 2000 AM exactly, he could not
have taken 4000 AM as well. Rebbe lived from 135 - 188 CE or 219 CE.
Lemisparim she'anu monim kan, that's 3895 - 3948 or 3979 CE.
We have no reason to believe the CI had any notion of missing years or
questioning the counting of the Seder Olam. So I continue insisting he
didn't mean the year 4000 exactly, even though he apparently meant the
moment of the siyum hamishnah, precisely.
Taking this idea even further to its logical conclusion... Not only could
R' Chiya argue with Rebbe one day, but not make the same argument if he
waited a year before speaking up -- Rebbe himself couldn't change his
mind from what he said before finishing the mishnah! That too would be
an amora -- a statement from the alpayim yemos hage'ulah arguing with
with one from the alapayim leTorah.
Just for curiosity, with the missing 168 years, Rebbe lived from 4063
to... Makes no difference; Rebbe would have been born too late. There is
little motivation IMHO to assume missing years that don't line up Persian
dates (and the astronomical events they record using those year numbers)
with ours.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:43:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar . yemach shmo on a
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:01:10AM -0500, M Cohen wrote:
: Tu BiShvat seder controversy
: Rabbi Yoel Lieberman
...
: Rav Ya'akov Emden zt"l disqualifies the book Chemdat Hayamim as being
: written by Nathan of Gaza. ... However, Rav Moshe
: Tzuriel Shlita wrote a long article on the subject and showed eighty "Gedolei
: Yisrael" who either praised the book or quoted from it. Rabbi Chaim Palagi,
: (1788-1868, Izmir ,Turkey) for example, gave great acclaim to the book.
I don't see this as a contradiction. It could well be that a meshumad
happened not to write anything we disagree with when he authored one
particular book.
This would also explain why the minhag (as well as that of saying LeDavid
in Ellul and 10 Yemei Teshuvah) has such legs. Regardless of the source,
the content makes sense to gedolei harabbanim who know real, kosher,
qabbalah.
(That said, I'm not making a seder this evening.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:11:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar . yemach shmo on a
The saying of LeDovid H' Ori VeYishi apparently predates the Chemdas Yamim,
according to R' SZ Leiman.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> This would also explain why the minhag (as well as that of saying LeDavid
> in Ellul and 10 Yemei Teshuvah) has such legs. Regardless of the source,
> the content makes sense to gedolei harabbanim who know real, kosher,
> qabbalah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110120/9bedceca/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:53:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar . yemach shmo on a
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:11:07AM +0000, Allan Engel wrote:
: The saying of LeDovid H' Ori VeYishi apparently predates the Chemdas Yamim,
: according to R' SZ Leiman.
The association, yes. The minhag of saying it twice-a-day after Shacharis
and Minchah/Maariv, no.
We discussed this 2 years ago, in which R' Dov Kaiser wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n190.shtml#05>:
> The last sentence is incorrect, at least insofar as there are earlier
> sources for saying L'Dovid in Elul than Chemdas Yomim - listen to R.
> Shnayer Leiman's recent shiur at http://tinyurl.com/njgzmd
> where he notes that a non-Sabbatean kabbalistic sefer published at the
> beginning of the 1700s, before the first publication of Chemdas Yomim,
> already advised saying l'Dovid in Elul.
You replied that RSZL questioned the conclusion that CY was written
by a Sabbatean after all.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <r...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:18:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Brain Death
That is indeed the point!
If you have a strong stomach, check out the comments on
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/popular-misconce
ptions-and-my-mistake.html
KT,
YGB
On 1/19/2011 7:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> The point is that if you start by assumign you can 2nd-guess the mesorah,
> what you're doing isn't pesaq. It's one thing when dealing with an
> 8th month baby and you're cornered into pasqening differently than did
> Chazal. Then you come up with uqimtos to distinguish the two cases. It's
> another when you're so sure of your 2nd-guessing what what Chazal said and
> why that you can comfortably say "Chazal were mistaken in this regard.
> That should be self-evident." Halakhah can't be made by people who that
> easily declare Chazal wrong.
>
> IIUC, *THAT* is RYGB's central thesis. And if not, it's mine.
>
>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:08:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] There was no mechitzah at the Kotel
R' Joel Rich:
Raises an interesting (to me) question - we know there is an "inyan" of
davening in a shul, even byichidut, versus davening elsewhere.(sidepoint
-IIRC R'HS has said that a mechitza is required for a minyan (or makom)
kavua, but not strictly required for an arai minyan) What would the shikul
hadaat be for davening in a shul alone where the moveable mechitza is not
up and there is a woman in the back far corner of the room, properly dressed
and reading a tanach vs. davening at home alone?
---------------------
circumstances - see Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 5, 12:2.
KT,
MYG
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@bezeqint.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:24:27 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar
> From: "M Cohen" <mco...@touchlogic.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar . yemach shmo on a Jew
>
> The reliablility of the book Chemdat Yamim has been discussed on Avodah
> before.
> I was unaware that the sefer Pri Eitz Hadar is of the same source (see
> below)
> Is this well known? (true?)
[SLB writes] Rabbi Rakah ZT"L, one of the Gedolim of the Libyan community
prepared the book Pri Etz Hadar.
You can find the issue of using this book on Tu Bishvat in the following
d'var yomi from Rav Ovadya Yosef:
http://www.halachayomit.co.il/DisplayRead.asp?readID=363
I couldn't find a biography of Rabbi Rakah ZT"L, but he was a known Gadol
and here is an example of a shu"t concerning Rabbi Rakah's shu"t on Tefilla:
http://ravsharki.org/content/view/719/741/
Shoshana L. Boublil
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:49:05 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Hard Matza is not Mezonot because ......
In the Sefer Shalmey MoEd on page 344, quoting R SZ Aurbach, it is explained
that Matza is HaMotzi on all days of the year (and not Mezonos) since it
does not crumble - "MitPoRerr" in ones mouth.
I presume he means that bread we are familiar with does not crumble in the
mouth unlike biscuits crackers wafers pretzels etc.
But I dont understand - Matza crumbles in my mouth and also in the mouth of
all those I have consulted.
Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110120/55d4af9d/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:58:06 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] yayin mevushal
<<> There is an opinion(and I'll try to find the
> source) that that if the cooking process does not actually affect the
> wine/grape juice, making it noticeably inferior, it cannot be touched by a
> non-Jew. According to this opinion it probably applies to grape juice,
which
> cannot be produced w/o cooking/pasteurizing, and many other flash cooked
> wines.
If that is the Halacha, there is no point to Yayin Mevushal as currently
done.>>
RSZA paskens that pasteurization is not enough to make wine yayin mevushal
as it doesnt affect the taste of the wine.
RMF says it is yayin mevushal and that is the heter these wine companies
use.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110120/19eb0864/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:03:02 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] worst aveirah
<<See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n010.shtml#11
>
RYGB introduces to a discussion of tinoq shenishba (TsN) mention of
R SZ Aurbach's uncertainty whether a TsN who is machalel Shabbos is
applicable. The TE holds that a TsN is not mechalal Shabbos, so one apply
RSbM's derashah. But both would apparently agree that a true rebelious
mumar. IOW, "veshameru", not "vechai bahem" currently carries the day. >>
On a slightly different topic there is a machloket what if a machallel
shabbat
violates shabbat in order to save a life. It has applications whether it is
preferable to have a mechallel shabbat be the doctor on duty on
shabbat or a shomer shabbat doctor.
(from memory) RMF says that as long as one is saving a life it is not
considered
chillul shabbat and so the nonreligious doctor is not being mechallel
shabbat.
RSZA argues that since the person would be mechallel shabbat anyway at home
it doesnt help that he is in the hospital saving someone
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110120/67a83e89/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:49:59 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Yizkor/Hazkarat Nefashot
The Rama in 3 places (O"C 621:6(yom kippur),Y"D 249:16(tzedaka) and O"C
284:7(shabbat)) mentions the custom of hazkarat nefashot. The S"A is
silent on the matter but the Bet Yosef -O"C 621:6(yom kippur)-gives all the
sources for it(mordechai, rokeach) even though the Tur has no mention. Any
thoughts on the significance of the mechaber's not bringing this down in
the shulchan aruch even though he documents it in the beit yosef?
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/20110120/5f70e4b5/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:36:55 -0800
Subject: [Avodah] paskening mashiach
can the gdolim 'force ' the geula?
http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-was-buried-wit
h-rav-mordechai.html
http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2011/01/rav-elyashiv-we-can
not-pasken-that.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110120/c202307f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:14:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] paskening mashiach
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:36:55PM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: can the gdolim 'force ' the geula?
Tzadiq gozeir veE-lokim meqayeim. "Gozeir" is beis din terminology,
albeit not pesaq.
That said, do we have anyone of that stature so as to gozeir something
this big and expect Hashem to be meqayeim? And even if we do, I would
think that this kind of theurgy is not the way a Litvak would view
avodas Hashem. Which could very well be R' YS Elyashiv's point, rather
than denying that it's (even theoretically) doable.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 18
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:28:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] yayin mevushal
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:58:06AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: RSZA paskens that pasteurization is not enough to make wine yayin mevushal
: as it doesnt affect the taste of the wine.
: RMF says it is yayin mevushal and that is the heter these wine companies
: use.
RMF is at IM YD 2:25, 3:31.
AIUI, ROY (Yabia Omer 8 YD 15) and RSZA (Minchas Shelomo 1:25) are
arguing bedavqa because pasturization is in a sealed vat. So that not
only doesn't the taste change, but the wine vapor returns to the wine
and no volume is lost. It would seem the Shach defines mevushal by that
change of volume, not taste. RSZA mentions WRT taste that the fact that
wine connoseurs can tell the difference is insufficient. Which means that
today, with finer kosher wines and people who learned to appreciate them,
there is a question as to whether enough people became vinophiles for
RSZA's uqimta not to hold. But again, if you aren't concerned about the
Shach and volume.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 11
**************************************
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..."