Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 241

Sat, 03 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: ceremonies in Halacha (Micha Berger)
• 3. re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (martin brody)
• 4. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (martin brody)
• 6. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: davening on airplanes (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Brussel sprouts and halachic ramifications of vision strength (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Micha Berger)
• 11. Halachah keRabbi Akiva meiChaveiro (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Brussel sprouts and halachic ramifications of vision strength (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: ceremonies in Halacha (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Micha Berger)
• 16. vegetable peeler (shalomy...@comcast.net)

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:56:59AM -0500, Prof. Levine quoted
<http://www.ka.org.au>, The Kashrut Authority [of Australia, New Zealand
and the Asia Pacific Region]. One page says:
> These products are often published in lists with the notification that 
> indeed these are not certified products but endorsed products. Such  
> lists appear in Australia , South Africa and the United Kingdom as well 
> as other countries.10 According to the Noda B'Yehuda such products,  
> considering the particular circumstances, are as kosher for the final 
> consumer as formally certified products. The Ksav Sofer would concur  
> only when there was no similar product at the same price available.

But another page on the same site appears to cite that very page and
then contradict:
> Many might be tempted to say that the approved products are ?less kosher? 
> than certified products ? such a statement is in my opinion wrong. The 
> reality is that they fall under a different halachic paradigm.
...
> Similarly there are two distinct paradigms in relation to supervision of 
> kosher foods. The certification paradigm, when a company comes to you and 
> pays you for your services as well as markets also specifically to Jews; 
> and the approval paradigm, where you initiate the visit to the company, 
> you are not paid by the company and the company are not particularly 
> interested in the Kosher market.

I am startled that the latter page RYL quoted presumes we should ignore
the Kesav Sofer and take the Nodah biYhudah for granted.

I'm trying to understand the NbY's position. Assuming I have a choice
between two pieces of meat -- one is the famous piece from the 9 chanuyos,
the other I have been holding on to ever since its perfect shechitah and
kashering. Does the NbY really hold it doesn't make a difference which
I choose?

Wouldn't venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem mean that one mustn't risk
the 1 in 9 chance of timtum haleiv? Or did I find someone who actually
definitively holds thart it's violating the issur which causes timtum,
not something inherent in the cheftzah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:23:04AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> But a short while back, I encountered what appears to me to be a direct
:> contradiction to RYBS's position in the Y-mi. Yuma 2:1 (10b) we are told
:> that they held 4 separate lotteries to divide the avodah, "kedei laasos
:> pumpei bedavar", and again at 2:4 (13b), we are told that extra kohanim
:> were used to carry the ayil up the kevesh for the same reason.

:> Opening up http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pomp we learn that
:> the English "pomp" is from the Greek meaning "solemn procession,
:> display".
...

: While pomp, in its original use in Greek, may have connoted
: "solemn procession, display," in its adaptatiion into the Hebrew as
: pumpi -- together with its equivalent form, pumbi -- does not have
: the connotation of ceremonial, but of public; i.e., its meaning is one
: of pirsum. It is not done for ceremonial purposes, but to enhance the
: public's awareness of the matter.
...
: It is this meaning of the word which is given by all the
: commentaries in the places it is used, including the P'nei Moshe in the
: first citation RMB gave...

I was aware of its evolution in Babylonian Aramaic (Hebrew?), and thought
about it when learning 2:4 (13b) about using more kohanim than needed. But
had the Penei Moshe (which is on 2:2, a little down the amud from where
I was looking) not said it, it wouldn't have occured to me that this
was the meaning intended here. There is no enlarging of the audience
for hadlaqas hamenorah, as pirsum isn't really an issue in the heikhal.

(FWIW, I learned Zeraim with the PM and the Gra (getting two distant
points on the spectrum of willingness to question girsa), using other
sources only as needed. For Mo'ed, I found the Qorban haEdah more useful
as my havanah-check. (For the first part of Mo'ed, Lieberman was useful,
but he didn't get to Yuma.))


In any case, I think the discussion of RYBS's insistance of a lack of
"ceremony" requires first having a clear definition of what is meant by
"ceremony". I think that's the root of RDR's questions about har gerizim
and har eival, RET about omer, etc... (Although not RMYG's -- I would
agree that hakafos on Simchas Torah is an actual counterexample.)

RYBS pairs ceremony with sentiment consistently, eg Divrei Hashkafah pg
78, and we already saw (1) he considers focusing on the white tablecloth
and silver candlesticks of the shabbos table rather than its dinim to
be ceremonial, and (2) that minhag must conform to the structures of halakhah
or else it too would be merely ceremonial.

Here's a longer quote for #1, to perhaps give more of a feel for the
intended usage, from "The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik" vol II
pg 228:
    This is exactly what many Orthodox Jews wish to do in New York. They
    want Judaism to be built on ceremony and beautiful sentiments. For
    example, they stress the lighting of the Sabbath candles, the white
    tablecloth for the Sabbath table, the decorating of the sukkah,
    and transporting the etrog in a silver case. They desire a decorous
    prayer service and insist that all the worshipers sing together when
    the Torah scroll is removed from the ark!

And for #2, from
<http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/Rav_Showering_During_the_N
ine_Days>
"By Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik (adapted from lectures)":
    ...
    Rav Moshe Soloveichik explained that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah
    381:1) records the original Ashkenazic custom not to shower or bathe
    for the entire Shloshim period. Therefore, the custom was to similarly
    refrain from showering or bathing during the Nine Days. However,
    since nowadays the custom is to shower immediately after Shivah
    and not to be stringent in this regard during the Shloshim period,
    therefore there is no reason to refrain from bathing during the
    Nine Days. The old Nine Days custom no longer applies because it
    was based on a mourning custom that is no longer observed.

This only works if one insists that minhag must be consistent with din. And
it's invoked lemaaseh.

RYBS is a Brisker; he wants halakhah, not emotional or experiential
factors, to define one's Yahadus. I agree the line is blurry. "Beveis
E-lokim nehaleikh beragesh" is a sentiment, it's also the Penei Moshe's
source for the need for pirsum.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> When I lived in Northern California, where getting kosher food was a
> challenge (it was an hour and a quarter each way to Molly Stone's in
> Palo Alto, where we could get kosher cheese), we were told that we could
> rely on Triangle-K. When we moved to Chicago, where you trip over
> kosher marts, we were told that Triangle-K isn't up to community standards.

> There are basic standards of kashrut, which are community based, and
> there are kulot and chumrot....

>That's frustrating for a lot of people, particularly people in the
>modern world, where personal empowerment is such a high value....

I'm sorry, Lisa, but I disagree with you. "Community" standards may be
relevant to a shteitel in Poland, but in a city like Los Angeles with
hundreds of thousands of Jews, which community standards? Whose community
standards?

In fact we all have an obligation to learn halacha and not rely on a
Rabbi's pronouncements what is kosher or not. The fact that many have spent
years studying Talmud and can't figure out whether something is kosher or
not does not speak well.

Plus we have a mimetic tradition, or should have!

Are you aware that gelatine from pig was considered kosher by many a Posek
until a what if question was sent to Rav Moshe Feinstein some 50 years ago
or so?

On 11/29/2011 4:22 PM, martin brody wrote:
> I'm sorry, Lisa, but I disagree with you. "Community" standards may be 
> relevant to a shteitel in Poland, but in a city like Los Angeles with 
> hundreds of thousands of Jews, which community standards? Whose 
> community standards?

> In fact we all have an obligation to learn halacha and not rely on a 
> Rabbi's pronouncements what is kosher or not. The fact that many have 
> spent years studying Talmud and can't figure out whether something is 
> kosher or not does not speak well.

Which community standards? The community you identify with. And I'm 
sorry, but you aren't entitled to disagree about this. Not within the 
bounds of Orthodox Judaism.

I'm aware of any number of annoying stories like the gelatin one. I'm 
aware that Rav Moshe pasked that peanuts were not kitniyot and could be 
eaten on Pesach and that it was an attitude of creeping chumraism that 
resulted in his being effectively ignored. I'm aware of the problem and 
it is a problem. But the solution isn't to throw it all away, which is 
what you are suggesting, whether you think so or not.

Lisa

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> Which community standards? The community you identify with. And I'm
> sorry, but you aren't entitled to disagree about this. Not within the
> bounds of Orthodox Judaism.

Which community? My Synagogue? Is that what you mean? We have Ashkenazim
from all over the place.Sephardim from Iran to Crete to Morocco to Buenos
Aires. We should get them to change their kashrut customs for the little
community in Westwood?

Don't think so. Or did you mean Los Angeles in general? Where the RCC have
basically outlawed non-glatt meat. The less expensive option, especially
in these hard economic times. That sort of community standard? Try buying
a bottle of non-mevushal wine in a restaurant. No chance.

regards,
Martin Brody

I'm trying to understand the NbY's position. Assuming I have a choice
between two pieces of meat -- one is the famous piece from the 9 chanuyos,
the other I have been holding on to ever since its perfect shechitah and
kashering. Does the NbY really hold it doesn't make a difference which
I choose?

Wouldn't venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem mean that one mustn't risk
the 1 in 9 chance of timtum haleiv? Or did I find someone who actually
definitively holds thart it's violating the issur which causes timtum,
not something inherent in the cheftzah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

==================================
Otoh we might say there is no risk, once halacha has determined the meat's
status , it's 100% (of course [perhaps :-)]then one hasn't attained the
level of not eating meat that a shailah has been asked on-another can of
worms as to what that level means)
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.

R' Eli Turkel asked:

> I am confused by the whole issue of davening on airplanes. ...
> I completely agree with Chana that at the root we have the demand
> to (assumedly) daven more properly vs many prohibitions bein adam
> le-chavero, safek pikuach nefesh, less kavanah staying in the
> back etc and somehow this all gets trumped by standing for the
> Amidah and having a minyan against the poskim

I too am confused by these mixed-up priorities. Yet, sad to say, I'm no
longer surprised by it. My mind told me that this phenomenon is all too
common, but no other examples came to mind.

and then I was rescued by R' Yitzchok Levine, who asked (in the thread titled "A Woman Mashgiach?") - and I presume he asked it sarcastically:

> What is the basis for the assertion that "the woman's place is
> in the home." Are not most kollel wives engaged in working 
> outside of their homes? And, is this not considered laudable?
> If kollel wives did not work, would this not mean that the
> kollels would have to empty out, because the men would have
> to go to work?

If I may, I'd like to add a third example. Has anyone noticed that the
complaint we're making about airplanes is all too common in our shuls? So
many people seem to prefer davening in the aisle, even when it seems to me
that there is plenty of room by the seats.

For reasons which I don't understand, it seems that certain halachos have
received undue attention and allegiance. In the examples above, they are
davening with a minyan, learning Torah, and stepping back and forth for the
Shemoneh Esreh. Far too little attention is given to being a nuisance to
the plane's non-daveners; our wives and mothers are taking on far too much
of the family's financial responsibility; people are making themselves into
a literal michshol against those who need to enter or leave the shul.

I'm sorry that I don't have any practical solutions to this mess. What I
*have* done is to offer illustrations of other cases where the same problem
seems to be manifesting itself. My hope is that someone else might see the
tzad hashaveh, and offer some suggestions.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
The New "Skinny" Fruit
How This Strange 62-Cent African Fruit Is Making Americans Skinny.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ed5a2235cb46637baest02vuc

RMB writes (on Areivim):
> One of my suggested resolutions is that the definition of "visible bug"
> actually changes with improvements in lighting and eye health. That
> whatever excludes magnification doesn't exclude changes we can make to
> the context that further empowers naked human senses.

And R'n CL responds (also on Areivim):
> I find this suggestion difficult. I don't know of any sources that
> suggests that a Torah issur changes with improvements that we make in
> science, ie that bug X was mutar to them, but assur to us. There are
> ideas around that the teva changes - but our ability to view the
> world? This is very different from saying that what the Torah assured
> were visible bugs. I think you need some sort of source for such a
> radical idea. And the other problem is that the boundary is very fuzzy.
> Some people even in those days had better eyesight than others. Does it
> vary from person to person? Can Rachel eat a fruit checked by Rachel,
> but not by Leah, and does Leah have to check that Rachel has at least
> as good eyesight as she does before she eats in her house? What about
> husband and wife?

You could be mechaleik (wasn't that an old Avodah meme - VIDC? Something
like that?), but I do have one situation in which the halachah changes
based on vision - the Biur Halachah in Siman 79 (DH Oy SheHu Suma) says
that a person has to distance himself from Tzoah when saying Shema at
night based on how well he sees during the day. One who sees farther
will have to make sure he's farther away. (A blind person, though,
evaluates the distance based on the vision of an average person. 20/20,
maybe? Or is the average _uncorrected_ vision?)

KT,
MYG

On 29/11/2011 5:44 PM, martin brody wrote:
> Don't think so. Or did you mean Los Angeles in general? Where the RCC have
> basically outlawed non-glatt meat. The less expensive option, especially
> in these hard economic times.

How could non-glatt meat be *less* expensive than glatt?  The labour
involved in checking the lungs must surely make it *more* expensive.


> Try buying a bottle of non-mevushal wine in a restaurant. No chance.

That's a matter of practicality, not a standard of kashrut; no rabbi
in LA will tell you that you can't have non-mevushal wine at home.
In a restaurant, where they are responsible for the kashrut of what you
eat, and where it would be all too easy for non-mevushal wine to become
treif, they don't want to assume the risk.  It's exactly the same as not
allowing milk & meat in the same kitchen in a restaurant, even though
every home does have them both.

-- 
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

                    
                

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:47:44PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> How could non-glatt meat be *less* expensive than glatt?  The labour
> involved in checking the lungs must surely make it *more* expensive.

Because fewer cows pass inspection, and that cost outweighs the labor
time.

I'm also not sure if checking there are no sirchos at all is all that
much faster than checking if the sirchah can be peeled.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

There were two schools of midrashei halakhah. Devei R' Yishma'el produced
    - the Mekhilta on Shemos,
    - the Sifrei on Vayiqra (lost),
    - the Sifrei on Bamidbar, and
    - the Mekhilta on Devarim (largely lost).

Devei Rabbi Aqiva:
    - Mekhilta deRashbi on Shemos,
    - Toras Kohanim (a/k/a Sifra) on Vayiqra
    - Sifrei Zuta on Bamidbar, and
    - the Sifrei on Devarim.

Final redaction appears to have been by amoraim.

The traditional publication of the medrashei halakhah includes four books,
mixing the two schools: Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifrei (on Bamidbar) and Sifrei
(on Devarim). In fact, the two Sifrei's often get published as a single
volume, despite the differnce in style that makes their different origin
obvious (once you know to look for it).

Their older contemporary, R' Eliezer, while a talmid of R' Yochanan
ben Zakkai and thus of BH, went over the the Shammuti side, of the last
holdouts. So just as that machloqes ended, the tannaim again split into
two schools.

Meanwhile, R' Aqiva started work on this new idea -- organizing quotable
halakhah by topic rather than following the chumash. His talmid, R'
Meir composed many of them, and finally Rebbe finished the project.
So that the acceptance of the mishnah means that R' Aqiva's beis medrash
"won" over devei RY, the way BH won out over Beis Shammai.

The rule in Eruvin 46b is "R' Yaaqov veR' Zeriqa amru: halakhah keR'
Aqiva mechaveiro."

Meaning, by our accepting the mishnah as authoritative, we sided with
R' Aqiva's tilin tilin shel halakhos off each qotz, each "es" and not
strictly necessary word, over R' Yishma'el's dibera Torah belashon
benei adam.

We see this in Rashi as well, as recently pointed out by Dr. Avigail Rock
in a Gush mailing available at
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/parshanut/05parshanut.htm>. 
Rn Rock lists what she considers 4 distinct reasons Rashi would have for
choosing to quote a medrash. The second is lo diberah haTorah belashon
benei adam. And so, when the pasuq (Bereishis 24:10) says that Avraham's
eved took "10 gemalim migemalei adonav", Rashi quotes Bereishis Rabba
that "gemalei adonav" has special meaning, they are unique camels,
they are muzzled. (There are other examples.)

The Torah is given omnisignificance, rather than assuming there are
throwaway words in the way a person would write.

R' Yishma'el's diberah Torah belashon benei adam is not the same as the
Rambam's, even though the Rambam borrows the turn of phrase. The Rambam
uses it to explain the use of anthropomorphic idiom. That doesn't rob
the Torah of omnisiginificance the way R Yishmael dismissed the notion
of darshening "es"; "yad Hashem" is still important.

To touch on an open discussion.... The Torah could have made the same
point as RnCL believes it is making about the scope of the mabul without
the repeated use of "kol". It would mean the same thing to Noach or the
dor hamidbar whether the words were "al penei haaretz" or "al penei kol
haaretz", "umachisi es hayequm" or "es kol hayequm", "vayechasu heharim"
or "kol heharim", "vayigva basar" or "kol basar", etc...

Since R' Aqiva's approach to parshanus won the day, we would need to
know why Hashem repeatedly through in the word "all" when He meant "all
that you know about", rather than "all, even what you don't yet know
about" or "all, even those landmasses you know you are ignorant of but
are out there" (people knew there would be future discoveries of some
sort).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 30/11/2011 1:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:47:44PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> How could non-glatt meat be *less* expensive than glatt?  The labour
>> involved in checking the lungs must surely make it *more* expensive.

> Because fewer cows pass inspection, and that cost outweighs the labor
> time.

Rejecting cows costs very little, because they just go over to the
treif side of the plant.  The labour of shechting and inspecting this
animal has already been spent.


> I'm also not sure if checking there are no sirchos at all is all that
> much faster than checking if the sirchah can be peeled.

That's not glatt v non-glatt, that's Bet Yosef v ordinary glatt.
Once a lung has a definite sircha, checking it involves inflating the
lung in water, which is more work; and until this is done the animal
can't be butchered so it must be held intact in some holding zone
which involves more cost.  I don't see how it can possibly come out
cheaper to do this than to just reject it and move on to the next
animal.  Non-glatt meat only makes sense when labour is cheap, and/or
you have no ready treife market for your rejects (such as in EY).

-- 
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

                    
                

RMYG wrote:
> You could be mechaleik (wasn't that an old Avodah meme - VIDC?
> Something like that?), but I do have one situation in which the halachah
changes
> based on vision - the Biur Halachah in Siman 79 (DH Oy SheHu Suma) says
that
> a person has to distance himself from Tzoah when saying Shema at night
> based on how well he sees during the day. One who sees farther will have
to
> make sure he's farther away. (A blind person, though, evaluates the
distance
> based on the vision of an average person. 20/20, maybe? Or is the
> average _uncorrected_ vision?)

Yes I hear that, but it is, as you suggest, not that difficult to be
mechaleik.   Saying Shema is a mitzvah on the gavra.  Not surprisingly,
therefore, the halachos that relate to it are dependent on the nature of the
particular gavra - and indeed many of them are completely subjective, eg in
relation to smell.  So even with tzoah, which is a cheftza, the key aspect
is the impact on the gavra saying the Shema.

But in the case of bugs, the issur is clearly an issur cheftza.

Somebody suggested to me privately that in the case of a Rav paskening
ma'aros, we do not insist on the Rav with the sharpest eyesight.  But, it
seems to me, we do insist on the Rav being an expert in ma'aros (and many
rabbaim will not posken these precisely because they do not feel confident
in doing so), and that falls within the rubric of going to the judge that is
in your times - ie it is a specific heter to allow for the fact that the
person doing the judging today might not be up to Moshe rabbanu's standards,
and yet it is mutar for me to rely on him anyway.

But where else do we see, when it comes to an issur d'orisa, that we just
let any Tom, Dick or Harry - or really any Rochel or Leah determine whether
such an issur exists or not, where it is reliant on skill and judgement.
When it comes to shechita, we insist on having an expert, and a yiras
shamayim and all the rest of it.  Why have we not had, from time immemorial
a "bug checker" or "bug checkers" appointed by the community and certified
as an expert to whom all vegetables and fruit must be submitted, and who
will posken accordingly? I know that is what people are trying to achieve by
way of hechsherim on vegetables today, but this is, as has been pointed out,
a totally new thing, something that never happened in history.  In the case
of bedikas chametz, the only reason they were prepared to let the hoi polloi
do bedikas chametz was because, because of bittel, thus any chametz that
could be found (or missed) via bedikas chametz is only d'rabbanan - as
bittel will work to nullify the d'orisa.  Why have Chazal from time
immemorial permitted vegetables and fruit without a hechsher if we are
dealing with various issurei d'orisa, and given that detection is based on
time, effort and ability (eyesight and other skills) and the availability of
sunlight or water and the like?  

> KT,
> MYG

Regards

Chana

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:23:04AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: While pomp, in its original use in Greek, may have connoted
: "solemn procession, display," in its adaptatiion into the Hebrew as
: pumpi -- together with its equivalent form, pumbi -- does not have
: the connotation of ceremonial, but of public; i.e., its meaning is one
: of pirsum. It is not done for ceremonial purposes, but to enhance the
: public's awareness of the matter.
...
: It is this meaning of the word which is given by all the
: commentaries in the places it is used, including the P'nei Moshe in the
: first citation RMB gave...

To which I replied:
: I was aware of its evolution in Babylonian Aramaic (Hebrew?), and thought
: about it when learning [Yuma 2:4 (13b) about using more kohanim than
: needed. But had the Penei Moshe ... not said it [on 2:2], ... There
: is no enlarging of the audience for hadlaqas hamenorah, as pirsum
: isn't really an issue in the heikhal.

Here's another case of pumbi (with a beis, but that doesn't mean much
in Y-mi, where hefqer and hevqer are identical), Yuma 4:1 (20a), where
we are told that the use of a wooden bowl rather than a basket to hold
the two goralos is "kedei laasos pumbi".

That has strong parallel to RYBS's white tablecloths and silver shabbos
lechter. But in any case I don't see how it could possibly be explained
as being pirsum / more public.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On 11/29/2011 4:22 PM, R Martin Brody wrote:
> I'm sorry, Lisa, but I disagree with you. "Community" standards may be 
> relevant to a shteitel in Poland, but in a city like Los Angeles with 
> hundreds of thousands of Jews, which community standards? Whose 
> community standards?

Well, this is a real question... when are you bound by communal pesaq or
minhag, and when not? I think the answer is "always", but today (until
minhagim catch up with the WWII population shifts) we live in communities
that on some issues have a clear minhag hamaqom, on others parallel a
town with two batei din, and on yet others have no minhag hamaqom.

WRT relying on rules of bitul in your typical American city, we would
seem to be clearly in the first category.

I would think the place to start is pesachim, pereq 4 ("Maqom
Shanohaghu"). Like the end of 50a (yes, I'm quoting Bavli for a
change... <grin>) "holeukh mimaqom... lemaqom... nosenim alav chumrei
maqom sheyatza misham, vechumerei maqom shehalakh misham." No safeiq
derabbanan lequla, even.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rav Naftali Rothstein -- who is the JLIC (Jewish Learning on Campus) rabbi at the University 
of Illinois Hillel, where I usually daven -- gives a short shiur on hilchos Shabbos each Shabbat. 
Today's topic was whether peeling with a vegetable peeler is borer. 

R'Rothstein mentioned that there is a "rumor" that Rav Moshe Feinstein held that a vegetable 
peeler is not a special utensil for sorting, so therefore peeling with a peeler is ok. 

(Acc. to Rav Rothstein, Rabbi Dovid Ribiat mentions this rumor in his 39 Melachos books, without 
mentioning a source). 

Does anyone in the chevra know anything about this? 

Thanks, 

Shalom Yitz (Steve Scher) 

ps - If I understood and remember R'Rothstein correctly, Rav Moshe's position follows from the 
Pri M'gadim's position that removing peel is not sorting, because the peel is not a different kind 
from the rest of the fruit or vegetable. Therefore, a peeler is no different from a knife. (I believe 
R'Rothstein also mentioned that ROY holds this way). But, of course, if you hold by the Pri M'Gadim's 
position, then isn't it irrelevant whether the peeler is or isn't a peeling instrument?) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111204/2385ffd7/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 241
***************************************

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..."