Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 141

Tue, 16 Oct 2012

• 1. Rav Elyashiv, Torah, and Science (Harry Maryles)
• 2. Qualifications to Give Hashgacha (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Az Yashir (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Bishul akum (martin brody)
• 5. Re: Bishul akum (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. Re Tomato Juice (martin brody)
• 7. Re: No "Nishmas" on Hoshanah Rabba (Poppers, Michael)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] web site on shabbat (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] web site on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Kashrus Supervision Required for Choshen Mishpat Reasons (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] web site on shabbat (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] web site on shabbat (Micha Berger)

One of the biggest issues that has arisen as a result of the Slifkin
controversy is the question of whether Chazal, the sages of the Talmud knew
the actuality of nature. There are those who say that they did. They say
that every statement recorded in the Gemarah with respect to science is an
accurate reflection of nature itself. The science redacted in the Talmud is
as valid as the Halacha - both being Mesorah.

There are others who say that Chazal did not know the actuality of nature
but knew it only via the best science of their era. Among them are Rishonim
like R? Avraham ben HaRambam.
For many of us who have studied both the Talmud and nature via science at
even a minor level the second opinion seems a lot more plausible. There are
too many scientifically based statements on nature in the Gemarah that are
clearly not accurate.
One of the more famous ones is the idea that lice do not sexually
reproduce. This fact impacts on Halacha. One of the 39 forbidden Melachos
on Shabbos is Netilas Neshama ? killing an animal. The Gemarah explains
that it is only forbidden to kill an animal that reproduces sexually. One
is however permitted to kill an animal that reproduces?asexually?. This is
the opinion of the Rabbanim (as apposed to R' Elazar) and this is the
Halacha today.
Lice, says the Gemarah, do not reproduce sexually and therefore one is permitted to kill them.
Rav Yitzchok Lamproti (Pachad Yitzchok) was around during the time the
microscope was invented. He said that now that we know that lice do
sexually reproduce, it is therefore forbidden to kill them on Shabbos. All
Achronim argue with him and say that since the Gemarah says it is
permitted, it stays permitted in spite of our new knowledge.
What is left unsaid in all of that discussion is the apparent assumption
Chazal were mistaken about the actual science. The only question is whether
this new information is relevant.
Now it should be said that there are still ways to allow for Chazal to not
be mistaken about this. One way is to say that the lice that the Gemarah
refers to is not the lice we know of today and that in fact it is that lice
which is permitted to kill. The lice that we know of that does sexually
reproduce is forbidden to kill.
Another way to look at it is that only lice that one can see with the naked
eye sexually reproducing is forbidden. If one needs a microscope to see it,
then for Halachic purposes it is still considered asexual reproduction.
But it seems to me that the most logical explanation is to say that they
did not know then what we know today simply because they did not have the
means to know it. Microscopes had not been invented yet.
There was a relatively recent Halacha Sefer published called Orchos Shabbos
that discusses this Halacha (14:30) and mentions the position of Rav
Elyashiv (note 47). Rav Elyashiv says that one should be Machmir and not
kill lice on Shabbos as a general rule. But he also says that according to
the strict letter of the law, one may kill lice on Shabbos.
Why be Machmir? It?s possible that the lice of the Gemarah are not our lice
and therefore killing our lice may actually be forbidden. But the fact that
he says that according to the strict letter of the law one may indeed kill
lice on Shabbos, that means that he believes the lice of the Gemarah are
indeed our lice. And yet we now know that they sexually reproduce.
Why then did Chazal say that they don?t? I think there is really only one
way to interpret it. Chazal simply didn?t know that because they had no way
of knowing it in their day. Rav Elyashiv may feels as Rav Eliyahu Dessler
did - that even though Chazal were wrong in their explanation, the Halacha
was indeed transmitted masoretically and remains in effect.
We may kill lice but for reasons other than those stated in the Gemarah.
The point for our purposes being that since Chazal did not have the means
to? know they made a mistake about the reality of nature in this case. One
can conclude that even R? Elyashiv concedes that microscopes have increased
our knowledge of nature beyond that of Chazal. Is there any other way to
interpret that? Even if we say that Halacha flows only what we can see with
the naked eye, the fact is that what they saw with the naked eye did not
reflect reality.
It therefore is very troubling that there are those who say insist that it
is forbidden to believe that Chazal were mistaken in matters of science.
There are just too many instances of nature quoted in the Gemarah that
contradict what we know today. That lice produce asexually is just one
error.
Avraham Ben HaRambam must have concluded that Chazal were mistaken for
similar reasons. But it isn?t only him. It appears that even R? Elyashiv
may have conceded this point. And yet it is said in his name that it is
forbidden to believe it.
In my view it is a gross error to say that it is heresy to say that Chazal
were mistaken in science. Not that one must have this view. But to say it
is forbidden to believe it is a huge mistake.
HM
Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 



Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121015/d7e07aa4/attachment-0001.htm>

At 09:50 AM 10/15/2012, Zev Sero  wrote:
>On 12/10/2012 10:01 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Someone who works in kashrus told me the following story...
>>          I think it was either the Chasam Sofer or the first Satmar rebbe.
>> ...   The rov said that he did need supervision on his butcher [shop].  When
>> it came to shechita,  it did not matter if the animal was found to be kosher
>> or not.  The shochet was paid for his work.  However, in the butcher store
>> he was nogeah b'davar since his parnassa was determined by how much money
>> the store made.  Therefore he needed supervision.

> It's a well-known story, but if phrased as a halachic requirement
> it's contrary both to Shulchan Aruch and to common practise in small
> communities until less than a generation ago.

This is simply not true. Please listen to the shiur by Rabbi Asher Weiss
at <http://tinyurl.com/8f3ufyd>. At about half was through he deals with
this issue.



At 09:50 AM 10/15/2012, R. Meir Rabi wrote:
> Hashgacha is required because of Mamonos...
> It is a question that has to do with evaluating the temptation of making
> huge profits versus the risk of detection and the consequences.

In light of this, how can we rely on private hashgachas in which money
is paid directly to the rabbi giving the supervision? After all, many
hashgachas are financially lucrative, are they not? Money matters for
those giving private hashgachas too.

To my mind and organizational hashgacha is different, because
organizations like the OU have rabbinic coordinators and administrators
that regularly check on their supervisions. The rabbonim are not paid
by the companies they oversee, but receive a salary from the OU.

Yitzchok Levine

I recently heard a speaker mention that R'YBS said that we stand for 10
commandments and az yashir as a reenactment.  I don't remember him saying
that about az yashir. Am I wrong and if so does anyone have a citation?
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/20121015/9ed71cc1/attachment-0001.htm>

"As for bishul aku"m, is he asserting that there are no canned foods in the
pantry in Buckingham Palace?
EMT"

Not sure if this a joke or not. But in case it isn't, the Queen's canned
food is not "cooked", but steamed. Same as the ones you peasants have.I
still can't think of a canned product that Bishul Akum would apply .
Cheers,

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121015/9a5fe327/attachment-0001.htm>

       I wrote,
>As for bishul aku"m, is he asserting that there are no canned foods in the pantry in Buckingham Palace?<

     RMartin Brody responded, >Not sure if this a joke or not. But in
     case it isn't, the Queen's canned food is not "cooked", but steamed.
     Same as the ones you peasants have.I still can't think of a canned
     product that Bishul Akum would apply.<	    The original statement
     began, ""And as for bishul akum, not sure what product he is talking
     about, not fit for a kings table or can be eaten raw take care of
     everything I can think of."     My remark was addressed to this
     comment.  If the queen's pantry does contain cans, then it would
     appear that there is canned food "fit for a king's table."     I lack
     the expertise to evaluate the assertion that no canned food is ever
     cooked by fire prior to canning or in the can. and would appreciate
     knowing the basis for that assertion.  I recall that several years
     ago, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel wanted to withhold its approval of 
     OU-supervised canned tuna fish because of bishul aku"m concerns. EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121015/77942e8f/attachment-0001.htm>

 "For example, isn't it
possible that the factory had processed hot clam-flavored tomato juice
on the same equipment, and less than 24 hours previously? How would an
ordinary individual know that, unless he worked in this field?
Akiva Miller"

Actually, no.
No experience in the field necessary Just a little knowledge of Jewish Law .
Unless you know for sure that the equipment was used for hot treif within
24 hours, the pure tomato juice is perfectly kosher.
Suffeik ben yomo is aino ben yomo.
(Clammed tomato juice is a red herring.Excuse the puns.But clams are an
allergen. there is no way a manufacturer is not going to properly
clean,sterilise, and in essence kasher his equipment between such runs.)
Best,
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121015/fb3203b6/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V30n140, RAMiller wrote:
> As I recall, we are specifically told to limit the praises in the first bracha of the Amidah to the standard list, and to
not add to them. Despite that, there are situations where additions *are*
made -- the piyutim added by many shuls on certain special occasions,
and by almost all (Ashkenazi) shuls on Yamim Noraim.... <
IINM, we see from a sugya in BT M'gilah not to add to the Biblical "hagadol
hagibor v'hanora" praises of hQbH (and that we have sanction to utter those
words only because they're sourced in the words of MRAH and of Ezra
haSofeir) -- I don't think one can make a logical leap to saying we
therefore can't add piyutim to our t'filos.  If any piyut goes beyond
"hagadol hagibor v'hanora" in its praise of hQbH, by all means excise it
from the davening :). 

He then wrote:
> (An important distinction would be that I don't know of any limitation
on the praises of Pesukei D'Zimra, whereas IIRC the first bracha of
Amidah is limited to the praises which appear in Chumash (or is it in
Tanach?)....) <
Again, the distinction relates specifically to describing hQbH (and it's
worth noting RaMBaM's "we can't say what hQbH is, just what He isn't"), not
to a particular methodology of praise. 

R'Micha replied:
> They aren't additional praises in the gemara's sense (Berakhos 33b). R'
Chanina's talmid called G-d "haKel, haGadol, haGibor, vehaNora, vehaAdir,
vehaIzuz, vehaYir'ui, haChazaq, vehaAmitz, vehaVadai vehaNikhbad."... <
I was recalling BT M'gilah 25a's "ee lav d'kasvinhu...anan la amrinan l'hu,
v'at amart kulei hai!" (which, essentially, is what is written in the sugya
R'Micha notes). 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

 
 
On Areivim dated 10/15/2012 Ben Waxman <_ben1...@zahav.net.il_ 
(mailto:ben1...@zahav.net.il) >
writes:


>> Do the chu"l poskim tell people not to view Israeli  web sites when it is
Shabbat here, especially dynamic ones that are updated  on Shabbat? <<

Ben




>>>>>
 
I don't know the answer to that question but it reminds me of something  
I've meant to ask for a while.  There's a link to a live webcam that  shows 
continuous feed from the Kosel. 
 <<_http://english.thekotel.org/cameras.asp_ 
(http://english.thekotel.org/cameras.asp)   >>
I don't know whether this webcam is live on Shabbos too, but if it is,  
could I go to it on Friday afternoon here in Florida and watch all those  
people davening Kabbalas Shabbos in Y-m? 
 
And here's another question.  I can phone somebody in Israel when it  is 
not yet Shabbos here and make their phone ring over there on Shabbos.  I  have 
thought of doing that -- just let it ring twice -- as a way of signaling  
"Good Shabbos" to a friend or relative in Israel -- but never did it because 
it  seemed to me that even if mutar (is it?), it would not be Shabbosdig for 
them to  have the phone ringing.
 
But here's a question.  Suppose I had a way of not only making their  phone 
ring, but also of turning their lights on and off or doing some other  
melacha that would be of use to them and not just an irritation like a ringing  
phone.  Would that be mutar?
 

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



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121016/bb7a4566/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/10/2012 12:04 AM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> And here's another question.  I can phone somebody in Israel when it
> is not yet Shabbos here and make their phone ring over there on
> Shabbos.  I have thought of doing that -- just let it ring twice -- as
> a way of signaling "Good Shabbos" to a friend or relative in Israel --
> but never did it because it seemed to me that even if mutar (is it?),
> it would not be Shabbosdig for them to have the phone ringing.
> But here's a question.  Suppose I had a way of not only making their
> phone ring, but also of turning their lights on and off or doing some
> other melacha that would be of use to them and not just an irritation
> like a ringing phone.  Would that be mutar?

Definitely.  Shabbos applies to people and animals, not objects.  "I ata
metzuveh al shvisas keilim."  For you it isn't Shabbos so you may work;
the object you're manipulating is working on Shabbos, but there's nothing
wrong with that.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 15/10/2012 8:27 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> Hashgacha is required because of Mamonos, money matters. It just happens
> to be that the money is acquired through various foods which is a matter
> of Issur VeHetter.
>
> It is a question that has to do with evaluating the temptation of making
> huge profits versus the risk of detection and the consequences.

You are entitled to recommend policies to people.  You are not entitled
to make your own gezeros and demand that everyone in the world follow them.


> The Monsey Meat Scandal was not a question of YD. It was a Choshen
> Mishpat issue. A long article in the Hamodia magazine one year after
> the Monsey Fiasco, interviewed about 8 rabbonim from various Kashrus
> orgs and printed their responses. Most said, NOTHING has changed; a
> couple said things have absolutely changed and this will never happen
> again. included below.

Then why was it any concern of ours?  The CM issue is between the cheat
and the people he cheated.  What upset everyone was the YD issue.


> The HaModia magazine [Section 9 Ellul 5767, August 23 2007] interviewed
> rabbis of various Kashrut organisations one year following the Monsey
> meat scandal and published their responses.  Most said, NOTHING has changed

That's right, because nothing has to change.  The scaremongers acted
as if this has never happened before.  We all know that it happened
before, at least one famous incident from centuries ago got extensive
publicity at the time, and the poskim of the time, beside whom today's
rabbonim are as nothing, saw no need to change the halacha.  They wrote
it off as an aberration, prescribed tikkunim for those who had been
nichshal, and life went on.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 10/16/2012 6:04 AM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>                                           There's a link to a live 
> webcam that shows continuous feed from the Kosel.
> <http://english.thekotel.org/cameras.asp>
> I don't know whether this webcam is live on Shabbos too, but if it is, 
> could I go to it on Friday afternoon here in Florida and watch all 
> those people davening Kabbalas Shabbos in Y-m?

Is the cam fully automatic and you are simply watching or does someone
have to do anything to maintain the site on Shabbat? When you read Ynet,
someone actually uploaded the article on Shabbat. That would be the issue.

Ben

There is another problem with the KotelCam on Shabbos, but for the people
whose images are being captured on it. By moving in front of the camera,
they change which circuits are closed within it.

Fortunately, the ones at http://www.aish.com/w and
http://www.thekotel.org/cameras.asp are not on on Shabbos. But
the Mishtara's cameras are, and I don't know who else has cameras set
up permanently.

In Dec 2010, RYSE pasqened that unless one can make sure the police's
Mabat-2000 program is running, one may not visit the kotel on Shabbos
for this reason. And he said that there is insufficient supervision to
insure that it is. That's the police camera, not Kotel Cam (if it were
on).

The various Kotel Cams would lack this matir.

R' Shmuel Rabinowitz (of the Kotel) and R' Yisrael Rozen (of Zomet)
differed. RYR at least knows the metzi'us to a different level than other
rabbanim. Both note that the issur side of RYSE's pesaq doesn't really
revolve around anything specific to the kotel, and there appears to be
general consensus that surveillance camteras are a not an issue.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 141
***************************************

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..."