Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 168

Sat, 20 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: shelo asani isha (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Dov Weinstock)
• 5. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Rich, Joel)
• 8. shelo asani isha (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 10. Question on Covering the Challah (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Re: Question on Covering the Challah (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Prof. Levine)
• 15. Re: See-Through Challah Cover (Lisa Liel)
• 16. clawing of cats (Eli Turkel)

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:15:13AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=3287
...
> Is a see-through clear plastic challah cover considered covering the  
> Challah?  The Shemiras Shabbos KiHilchoso says (47 footnote 116) in the 
> name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that even though you can see through 
> it, it is considered covered.  Since the Challah is covered it is not an 
> embarrassment to the challah that you are making Borei Pri HaGofen first. 
>  Others hold, says the Piskei Tshuvos (271:4), that you should be machmir 
> even not to use woven covers that have holes that let you see through.

I take it the same machloqes would hold WRT the berakhah. RSZA would require
that even the challah you're not opening should be taken out of its plastic
bag for the berakhah, whereas the PT would hold you still have mishneh
lekhem if you don't.

I'm curious to know if others think this sevara is flawed.

Although I don't know how the PT makes this compartison... The holes you
can see through are gaps in the covering. And if you can't see through them,
perhaps they don't have a chalos sheim of "gap". A transparent plastic
doesn't have this issue.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:01:54PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> I don't understand the question. I'm talking about violating an issur
:> or chiyuv deOraisa. Is there a chiyuv to collect your loans?

: No, but if collecting the loan is mutar d'orisa, then by enacting shmitta
: d'rabbanan, the rabbis are forbidding somebody acting on his Torah given
: right to collect his loan.  Now the gemora (not me, the gemora) on Gitten
: 36b raises this as a problem with the rabbis enacting shmitta d'rabbanan,
: and Abaye gives the answer "shev v'al ta'aseh hu".

But we're talking about when Chazal can tell you to violate a
deOraisa. Not when they tell you not to excercise a right. 17 beTamuz
tells me I can't eat at a time when halakhah permits. Pretty much every
deRabbanan involves my giving up something that al pi deOraisa I would
have gotten. (Even if it is "just" time...)

: Now you said, in the name of R' J Sachs of YU that rabbis can only enact
: enactments which rely on shev v'al ta'aseh in the case where they are
: protecting more chamur mitzvos (the case presumably you were thinking of is
: shabbas vis a vis shofar).  But Abaye says that they are relying on shev
: v'al ta'aseh to enact shmitta d'rabbanan.  What more chamur mitzvah is being
: protected here like shabbas is being protected vis a vis shofar?   It
: therefore seems to me that you (or RJS if this is really his argument) are
: arguing with Abaye on the nature of shev v'al ta'seh.  

Rabbi Yonasan Sachs. He does not use the same first name as CR Lord
Jonathan Sacks (although I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's on
his US birth certificate), nor the same spelling for the surname.

He spoke about shehiyah vs chazarah. I was repeating what he said when
discussing the chiluq between gezeiros and other dinim derabbanan (DDR),
that a gezeirah can call for violating a deOraisa besheiv ve'al ta'aseh,
but other DDR cannot.

You brought in shemittah, not I.

I still don't think shemittah is even applicable, since there are no lavin
or chiyuvin deOraisa that the deRabbanan tells you to violate. They tell
you to forgo a debt.

And besides, within dinei mamunus and dinei ishus, beis din has powers
other than the general ones -- hefqer BD hefqer and kol demeqadeish al
daas derabbanan meqadeish, respectively.

Again, I was just trying to be more specific about what you wrote
about when chazal can order a shev ve'al ta'aseh. Not in a din built
on trying to implement an idea from the Torah (eg turning pirsumei nisa
into neir Chanukah or Megillah), but only when making a gezeirah (which
is legislation that prevents accidental violation of another deOraisa).
Obviously, if one is calling for the violation of one deOraisa as part
of a new law to protect another, it would only make sense if the one
being protected is more chamur.

: > Which would seem to indicate that either
: > 1- Kavod haBerios is deOraisa, but not as high of a priority as to
: >    justify a qum va'asei. Or,
: > 2- Laws protecting Kavod haBerios are gezeiros. (Which by RYS's rules, as
: >    I understood them, would require that there is a deOraisa which the
: >    kavod haberios legislation is protecting from violation. Ie back to
: >    #1.)

: Or of course RYS's rule is not true, ie there are principles such a kavod
: haberios which don't have the status of full fledged d'orisas but shev v'al
: ta'aseh is allowed to be used anyway.

I doubt that, since he built his kelal using far more examples than I
recall. But yes, it is possible RYS erred. (It's more probable we did,
though. WADR to your formidable knowledge, a RY at YU with photographic
memory is less likely to err than we are. And I mean that comment about
his memory literally; I have seen RYS "read" pages without the book in
front of him.)

...
: > Which is the second assumption that something is derabbanan. (Kavod
: > haberios and now mishum eivah.)

: Kovod Habriyos I am mesupik about, it runs very close to allowing violating
: d'orisas.  Mishum eiva is, as far as I know, treated throughout as a
: construct of the rabbis, and I had never thought about it as a d'orisa.  You
: see, if you abandon RYS's principle, then the rabbis have the power to use
: shev v'al ta'aseh and hefker beis din to forward aims that we cannot
: necessarily pin directly on a pasuk (although they are much in evidence in
: Nach, and seem fit as part of the moral underpinning of the Torah).

Lo sisna would make eivah between two shomerei Torah uMitvos ("achikha")
to be a deOraisa. Ben Zoma says "Eileh toledos Adam" is the greatest
kelal gadol. Isn't he using a pasuq to prove an obligation that eivah
toward any human being would violate?

And yet that obligation wouldn't be in the Rambam's count, because it's
too broad to stand bifnei atzmah (shoresh 4).

:> I'm arguing that preserving human dignity and avoiding enmity are both
:> chiyuvim deOraisa. (At least there is a consistent trend emerging to
:> my madness.)

: Interesting, I wonder if we can link this up to the other thread we are
: debating.  How about the principle of emes, which seems to share some
: aspects with human dignity and avoiding enmity (in particular there are
: specific sources that enable it to get pushed aside for these two - think
: about Yosef and his brothers).  Of course there is a clear d'orisa source
: for that - m'd'var sheker, but that only strengthens the case.

It is interesting. Too much so for me to comment yet.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:23:57AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> Perhaps we shouldn't aske whether or not we hold that avadim would be
:> chayavim in more mitzvos than women, and simply take the berakhah's
:> continued existence in the siddur as a raayah that we do.

: But that is a huge leap about a very complicated issue...

Perhaps. When you first pointed out that I was making this assumption, I
realized I did so because it feels like standard lomdus, to derive a baal
mesorah's sevara based on whether or not he has you say a berakhah.

Still, inertia would make me believe that the burden of proof is on the
one claiming we now say the same words but are really making new berakhos.
Who is the earliest source for positing another reason for these three
berakhos *to the exclusion of* the number of mitzvos? (Rashi gives two
sevaros, including this one.)

...
:> Why? These are birkhos shevach. The notion that you can't praise HQBH
:> in zu ve'ein tzarikh lomar zu format isn't necessarily a given.

: Not with a repetition of shem and malchut!  Look, you can't even say the
: bracha over thunder twice in the same thunderstorm, and that is
: unquestionably a bracha  of shevach....

I have made this misspeech in the past on another thread. (In Feb
2010, when we were discussing violations of the Rosh's rule about
new berakhos.)

I mean birkhos shevach that are part of the siddur in particular, not
in response to an event. Liturgy is by nature repetitious. So perhaps
once we moved birkhos hashachar into Shacharis, we have more reason to
preserve saying berakhos that are redundant.

Within birkhos hashachar itself, the Ari (as quoted by the Ben Ish Chai)
has us omit "she'asa li kol tzorki" on 9 beAv and Yom Kippur, since we
don't wear shoes. ROY (Otzeros Yoseif III #11) says one does. And what
about saying "oteir Yisrael besif'arah" without a hat, or "ozer Yisrael
begevrah" when you're not putting on a belt?

These could be explained in terms of berakhos in the siddur being
liturgical enough not to require their proper cause in order to be
said. Such as thanking G-d for a set of mitzvos after you already defused
that cause by having already thanked him for a superset of those mitzvos.

Maybe not. Just thinking out loud.

:                                          ...Note of course that the GRA is
: the one who most famously recommended saying sheasani yisroel...

Maaseh Rav and the appendant sefarim usually bound with it don't mention
a shinui nusach here at all. The Perushim say "shelo asani nakhri/ah",
which is an old Ashkenaz variant, thereby avoiding members of the "goy
qadosh" saying "shelo asani goy".

...
: The alternative to the GRA's position on the question of emes that you seem
: to be taking is that if the rabbis introduced a matbeiah, then it does not
: actually matter if it is true or false...

True or false? Redundant/superfluous or not!

Im saying that being part of our siddur is enough reason to say it, and
therefore even if you had said other berakhos to already cover whatever
you're thanking/praising HQBH for, is is not levatalah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

It occurs to me that the level of detail dealt with by the poskim here
seems absurd. The topic is perhaps appropriate for the intellectual
exercise of a talmudic chakira as to the nature of a covering (although it
seems to me that the answer is obvious, given the objective). But as a
practical matter, what if they just pointed out the reason for covering the
challah and let people make their own judgments? 

Dov Weinstock
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

On 8/19/2011 6:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Is a see-through clear plastic challah cover considered covering the
> Challah? The Shemiras Shabbos KiHilchoso says (47 footnote 116) in the
> name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that even though you can see through
> it, it is considered covered. Since the Challah is covered it is not an
> embarrassment to the challah that you are making Borei Pri HaGofen
> first.

Is that even a real thing?  I thought that was a bubbe mayse that people 
made up to explain covering the challah.  I thought it was a matter of 
avoiding a safek and hiding the challah so that you can say borei pri 
hagafen before hamotzi.  Do we honestly worry about the feelings of a 
loaf of bread?

Lisa

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:32:19AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Is that even a real thing?  I thought that was a bubbe mayse that people  
> made up to explain covering the challah.  I thought it was a matter of  
> avoiding a safek and hiding the challah so that you can say borei pri  
> hagafen before hamotzi.  Do we honestly worry about the feelings of a  
> loaf of bread?

Did MRAH really have to worry about hakaras hatov to the Nile and the
Egyptian sand? Of course not. Yet Rashi on Shemos 7:19 quotes Chazal
that this is why Aharon was the one to do the acts that initiated the
first makkos.

It's important to excercise the middah, regardless of the "recipient".

(BTW, we had pretty much the same exchange on scj in May 1999.)

:-)BBii!
-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

Is that even a real thing?  I thought that was a bubbe mayse that people
made up to explain covering the challah.  I thought it was a matter of
avoiding a safek and hiding the challah so that you can say borei pri
hagafen before hamotzi.  Do we honestly worry about the feelings of a loaf
of bread?

Lisa
_______________________________________________
Perhaps the correct answer is yes and yes.  But is seeing the issue for the
first safeik? (i.e. if I can see the bread through an impenetrable force
field, assumedly I could make the borei pri hagafen with no qualms, what if
I had the bread under an invisibility cloak a micron thick but I could feel
it in my hand, would I still make borei pri hagafen first?)

In any event sensitivity to inanimate objects has a history (e.g. Moshe to the Nile)
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.

At 09:30 AM 8/19/2011, R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:

>Now, this is the same Reb Yisroel who got up in shul in Vilna on the Yom
>Kippur during a cholera outbreak, made kiddush and ate mezonos publicly.
>
>Voss is dehr chilluk?
>
>The answer to that question is the reason why this incident makes me queasy.
>
>V'ha'mayvin yavin.

This story is reported in at least 3 ways and one of them says that 
he personally did not make kiddush and eat.

 From http://tinyurl.com/3t4uq2v

Akiva Miller <kgmil...@datacorinc.com> said:
 >Several posters have been puzzled about the apparent contradiction
 >between (A) the fact that the great majority of poskim seem to say that
 >kiddush is NOT said on Yom Kippur under any circumstances, not to
 >mention the fact that absolutely no one offers a text for such a
 >kiddush, and (B) the widely accepted story of Rav Yisroel Salanter
 >actually saying kiddush on Yom Kippur in order to impress upon his
 >people how important it was to eat during the cholera epidemic.

I read once in a Feldheim book (I think) on Gedolim that (B) listed above
was not the case. It quoted from someone who was there (apparently) and
the case was that R' Yisroel Salanter told people that if they felt weak
that they should go into a back room where they should eat from some
food which was less than a kezayis in size etc.

Binyomin Altman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110819/7b4a38f3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 00:14 +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
>         On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Yosef Gavriel
>         Bechhofer <r...@aishdas.org> wrote: you often see Catholic
>         priests holding their hands in that manner - ha'lo davar hu.
> 
> 
> Do any of the poskim who bring this down as halocho offer this reason?
> Surely that would come under the heading of Bechukoseihem Lo
> Seileichu or something similar, rather than Sakono?
> 
> 
> In any event, I'm not sure anyone has addressed my original query, by
> what right or mechanism can new Issurim be enacted after Ravina and
> Rav Ashi? If there is no source in the Torah, Mishna or Gemoro, why
> doesn't it transgress the prohibition against adding Mitsvos? (One
> could also ask the same question about the Tzavo'o of Reb Yehuda
> Hechosid.)

Because the Zohar is considered a Tannitic text, similar to the
midrashei halachah. (Though I understand some dispute this, those who
pasken by the Zohar accept it as a Tannitic text.) So the issue that's
really at question here is what gives us the right to pasken like the
Zohar against or in addition to the Bavli. But then you could ask the
same question about halachot that come from the Yerushalmi or from the
midrashei halachah (Ma'aser Kesafim is one such example, quoted from the
Sifrei by Tosafot Ta'anit 9a).

--Ken

My post today from http://revach.net/article.php?id=3287

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: See-Through Challah Cover

"The Shulchan Aruch says (OC 271:9) that you need to cover the 
challah at the shabbos meal."

People say that we do this in order not to "embarrass the Challah."

My understanding is that the reason for covering the Challah has to 
do with which bracha to make first.  If one has bread and wine in 
front of one, should one not make the bracha on the bread first and 
then on the wine?  Since we need kiddush before we make Hamotzie, we 
cover the challah.

I am not sure if I saw this somewhere or if this is simply a figment 
of my imagination.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110819/8b754768/attachment-0001.htm>

In a message dated 8/19/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:

Is a  see-through clear plastic challah cover considered covering the  
Challah? 
 
 
>>>>
 
 
I know that some people say it's OK but to me it seems that a see-through  
cover would be like a woman wearing a see-through dress.  It's not  
"covered" in any meaningful sense if you can still see it.  What is it that  
"embarrasses" the challah when you make kiddush right in front of it?  IF  the 
challah feels chilly and just wants to be cozy and warm, then a plastic  cover 
will accomplish that.  But if the challah wants people to not ignore  it when 
they see it, then a see-through plastic bag is the same as no  cover.  
 

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




_____________________  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110819/4c6c3b13/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> In any event, I'm not sure anyone has addressed my original query, by
>> what right or mechanism can new Issurim be enacted after Ravina and
>> Rav Ashi? If there is no source in the Torah, Mishna or Gemoro, why
>> doesn't it transgress the prohibition against adding Mitsvos? (One
>> could also ask the same question about the Tzavo'o of Reb Yehuda
>> Hechosid.)

> Because the Zohar is considered a Tannitic text, similar to the
> midrashei halachah. (Though I understand some dispute this, those who
> pasken by the Zohar accept it as a Tannitic text.) So the issue that's
> really at question here is what gives us the right to pasken like the
> Zohar against or in addition to the Bavli. But then you could ask the
> same question about halachot that come from the Yerushalmi or from the
> midrashei halachah (Ma'aser Kesafim is one such example, quoted from the
> Sifrei by Tosafot Ta'anit 9a).

http://revach.net/article.php?id=4871

The Aruch HaShulchan brings L'Halacha (OC 91:7) that in times of Za'am or
raging tzorus, one should daven with his hands clasped together and his
fingers interlocking. However says the Aruch HaShulchan in times of peace
you should not do so because it causes Din Shamayim to be brought down on
you.

The Piskei Tshuvos (95:5) brings that Arizal was makpid that you should
never hold your hands in that manner and it is bad Mazal. Rav Chaim Palagi
writes that one should stop his wife or children from doing this, ever, and
especially in times of sickness or the Aseres Yimei Tshuva.

The Aruch HaShulchan says that although placing one hand inside the other is
the best way to hold your hands by davening, each person is different and
should keep his hands the way he feels comfortable, like on a Shtender or
holding on to a shelf. However he says, make sure not to daven wearing
gloves.


[Email #2. -micha]

Anyone who wants to prohibit should view this video of Rav Eliashiv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dKkwC2YiOw

On 19/08/2011 1:06 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:

> People say that we do this in order not to "embarrass the Challah."
>
> My understanding is that the reason for covering the Challah has to do
> with which bracha to make first. If one has bread and wine in front of
> one, should one not make the bracha on the bread first and then on the
> wine? Since we need kiddush before we make Hamotzie, we cover the
> challah.

Hainu hach.  This is the same reason.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

At 02:39 PM 8/19/2011, you wrote:
>I know that some people say it's OK but to me it seems that a 
>see-through cover would be like a woman wearing a see-through 
>dress.  It's not "covered" in any meaningful sense if you can still 
>see it.  What is it that "embarrasses" the challah when you make 
>kiddush right in front of it?  IF the challah feels chilly and just 
>wants to be cozy and warm, then a plastic cover will accomplish 
>that.  But if the challah wants people to not ignore it when they 
>see it, then a see-through plastic bag is the same as no cover.
>

To the best of my knowledge, inanimate objects do not have 
feelings.  Thus, I find it strange for anyone to ascribe any feelings 
to a challah or any other inanimate object.

I really think that the reason for covering the challah is avoid a 
question as to which bracha to make first - the one on the wine or 
the one on the challah.

I have also heard the following.  The challah is to have a cover on 
top and something underneath it, like a challah tray.  This is to 
serve as a reminder of the mon, that covered on top and bottom.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110819/2261e8d9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/19/2011 10:31 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:32:19AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Is that even a real thing?  I thought that was a bubbe mayse that people
>> made up to explain covering the challah.  I thought it was a matter of
>> avoiding a safek and hiding the challah so that you can say borei pri
>> hagafen before hamotzi.  Do we honestly worry about the feelings of a
>> loaf of bread?
>
> Did MRAH really have to worry about hakaras hatov to the Nile and the
> Egyptian sand? Of course not. Yet Rashi on Shemos 7:19 quotes Chazal
> that this is why Aharon was the one to do the acts that initiated the
> first makkos.

Oh, come on.  That's midrash.  We don't pasken from that.

> It's important to excercise the middah, regardless of the "recipient".

Fine.  Where do we get the idea that challah feels embarrassment?  Maybe 
the challah is an anav and wants to defer to the wine.

> (BTW, we had pretty much the same exchange on scj in May 1999.)

Ah, but I'm guessing it wasn't as civil.

Lisa

I response to comments on areivim I quote from parts of Michtav MeEliyahu:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view of Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler. In a
footnote to Michtav Me-Eliyahu, Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, one of Rabbi
Dessler?s foremost students, writes as follows:

   I have seen fit to note here that which I heard explicitly from
Rav Dessler, zt?l, when he was asked about certain laws for which the
reasons that have been given for them are inconsistent with the
reality determined by scientists of later generations, and they are
now in the category of that which the Gemara asks in many places, ?But
surely we see that it is not so!?

   Three examples were considered:

   - It is ruled that there is derusah with a cat and not with a dog,
and the Gemara gives the reason that a cat exudes poison from its
claws (Chullin 53a).

   - It is ruled that we may only knead matzos with water that has
been in our possession overnight, and the reason, according to several
Rishonim, is that at night the sun passes beneath the Earth and heats
up the springs (Pesachim 94b).

   - It is ruled that one may kill a louse on Shabbos because the
louse does not reproduce by way of cohabitation (but spontaneously
generates) (Shabbos 107b).

   Rav Dessler said that with these and similar cases the law is
never changed, even though the reason is not initially understandable
to us. Rather, we must firmly grasp the law with both hands, whether
for stringent or lenient ramifications.


   The reason for this, explained Rav Dessler, is that Chazal knew
the law as a tradition from earlier generations. They also knew from
experience that, for example, maulings by cats are more likely to
result in deaths than maulings by dogs, and that water drawn from
springs in the mornings are warmer. But with regard to scientific
explanations, it is not that the explanation mandates the law, but
rather the opposite: that the law mandates an explanation. The reason
given in the Gemara is not the sole possible reason. And if, on
occasion, they gave an explanation according to the scientific
knowledge of their day, we are obligated to search for other
explanations which establish the law on its basis according to the
scientific knowledge of our day.

   Thus I heard from Rav Dessler, zt?l. According to this principle,
we can perhaps say, for example, as follows:

   The poison of which Chazal spoke is poisonous matter which
accumulates under a cat?s claws from rotting remnants of flesh that
remain from earlier prey. Note that a cat?s claws differ to a dog?s
claws, in that a cat?s claws are composed of two sections, and when a
cat swipes in order to kill it extends its claws to penetrate into the
flesh, and when it withdraws them, some of the poisonous matter
remains, to cause damage. All of the particulars of this law are
thereby explained, for we find there: ?Derusah is only with the front
legs, to exclude the hind legs; derusah is only with the claws, to
exclude the teeth; derusah is only when done intentionally etc.?; and
it is only when done in anger (Rashi, Chullin 52b, s.v. aval). All of
this is explained according to that which we have written.

   Similarly with water - we can easily explain why our water is
colder than that which is drawn from the well in the morning. During
the night, the air cools rapidly, and therefore the water that is in
our vessels also cools. But the ground cools at a slower rate, because
of the heat that has accumulated in it during the day (and is
insulated). Therefore, in the morning, the water that is drawn from
wells, which has been in the ground, is likely to be warmer than water
which has been standing in the night air.

   With regard to the matter of the louse, the explanation is a
little more difficult. However, it is a known principle that the
halachah only considers that which can be detected by the senses.
According to this, perhaps we can say that since the egg of a louse is
extremely small, so much so that at the time of the giving of the
Torah it could not be detected at all, the halachah does not consider

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 168
***************************************

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..."