Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 81

Thu, 21 May 2015

• 1. Re: Why didn't the other nations accept the Torah? (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: Why didn't the other nations accept the Torah? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Ways to find non-meat or non-milk (Micha Berger)
• 4. Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Zilzul Shabbos (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Zilzul Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 13. What do Chazal mean when they refer to "pashtei d'kra?" (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula (Zev Sero)
• 15. The Shulchan Aruch's "Beis Din" (Micha Berger)

I think the obvious answer is that midrash is midrash.  One midrash 
doesn't have to be consistent with another.  It's there to learn from, 
and the message of this one comes through regardless of the Noachide laws.

On 5/20/2015 9:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> There is a famous Medrash that before offering the Torah to the Jewish 
> people Hashem offered it to the other nations of the world.
>

<snip>

> However, the Medrash has an obvious question. All of the examples of 
> Torah prohibitions given by the Medrash, are also prohibited by the 7 
> mitzvos of Bnei Noach. The Bnei Eisav were already prohibited from 
> murder so how would accepting the Torah make things worse for them? 
> The same goes for arayos and stealing, these were already prohibited 
> to them anyway so why does the medrash specifically pick these as 
> examples for Torah prohibitions?
>

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 08:57:21PM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: I think the obvious answer is that midrash is midrash.  One midrash
: doesn't have to be consistent with another.  It's there to learn
: from, and the message of this one comes through regardless of the
: Noachide laws.

I believe the question was finding internal consistency in a single
medrash from the Yalqut Shim'oni. The medrash that says the nations were
offered the Torah itself says the example mitzvos were ones they were
already obligated in, and ones their ancestor was known for.

So, what does that tell us about the message?

To me, it says that the offer was more about testing one's willingness
to change. Therefore, each is asked if they would be willing to refrain
from something that they should already be avoiding, but is part of
their current culture.

And that, in turn, speaks to seeing the Torah as a tool for
self-transformation. Which I mean in a manner vague enough to include
both Chassidim and Litvaks.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

From the founder of Machon Zomer, RYRosen, on possible ways to eat
kosher meat and milk together without violating basar bechalav.

-micha

Shabbat B'Shabbato
Translated by Moshe Goldberg

Point Of View
Bit of Reality from Sinai
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen
Dean of the Zomet Institute

"This teaches you that scripture, the Mishna, halacha, tosefta, hagadda,
and whatever a veteran scholar will teach in the future already exists,
and it was all given as halacha to Moshe at Sinai" [Kohellet Rabba 1].
...
Recipes with Meat and Milk

In honor of the holiday, we have pieced together for you, from the
newest volume, some juicy samples of dairy halachot, as is fitting
for the holiday of Shavuot, in order to fulfill the verse, "Honey and
milk are under your tongue" [Shir Hashirim 4:11]. We will capture your
interest for halachic sophistication by offering you, from this new
volume of Techumin, a serving of meat cooked in milk (yes, you read that
right!). Compare this to Rav Nachman, who gave his wife an udder soaked
in milk in order to satisfy her desire to taste a combination of milk
and meat (Chulin 109b). And what is our enticing menu item that fits
this requirement? See below...

(1) "Ben Pekua" -- It is an accepted halacha (admittedly quite odd)
that if a cow is slaughtered in the eighth month of her pregnancy and
the calf is found to be alive, it is called a "Ben Pekua" and there is
no need to slaughter it. It can be eaten in any manner, including even
taking off a limb while it is still alive (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Dei'ah
13), even many years later, and there is no need to check if it has
one of the faults that would render a normal animal unkosher. And now,
here is the most surprising part: The offspring of a male and female
"Ben Pekua" (both of the "parents must be of this type) will never
require kosher slaughtering either, and this includes all subsequent
generations. (However, if only one parent is a "Ben Pekua," the offspring
cannot be made kosher, even by slaughtering!)

Rabbi Meir Rabi from Australia published a dramatic article where he
claims that by definition a Ben Pekua is not cattle (but is rather the
same as fish), and therefore not only is there no need to remove the veins
in the hind quarter, one is even permitted to cook it and eat it together
with milk! To come to this conclusion, the rabbi bases his ruling on a
Torah insight by the Meshech Chochma, that our Patriarch Avraham served
his guests, the angels, "a calf (literally, the son of cattle, or a ben
pekua!) that was tender and good," from the womb of a pregnant cow, and he
gave them "butter and milk, and the calf" [Bereishit 18:8]. Rabbi Rabi
went further, and acted on his ruling. Using this method he created male
and female "sheep" and grew flocks from them, and he now has a culinary
and halachic declaration -- these animals do not need to be slaughtered,
their veins do not have to be removed, their fat is not prohibited -- 
and the rabbi has a long list of other benefits.

However, modern rabbis do not accept this idea! In the new volume of
Techumin, Rabbi Zev Vitman, the rabbi of Tenuvah (which sells milk, meat,
and fish) vigorously opposes the novel ruling. Aside from the release
from the requirement of ritual slaughtering (which is carried over from
the mother or the grandmother of the calf), Rabbi Vitman disagrees with
(almost) all the other conclusions. He finds no justification for defining
the Ben Pekua as a "new and separate species." In addition, in volume 19
of Techumin, sixteen years ago, Sephardi Chief Rabbi Bakshi-Doron rejected
a similar proposal that was sent to him by meat farmers on the Golan,
fearing that it would lead to serious problems. Other prominent rabbis,
such as Rabbi Shmuel Vazner and Rabbi Asher Weiss, warned against getting
involved in this sophisticated and complex halachic problem.

(2) We are thus left to search elsewhere for a combination of meat and
milk: meat that has been cloned from stem cells! In a previous volume,
Rev Tvi Reizman (a well-known businessman from Los Angeles who is also
a Torah scholar well versed in matters of halacha and actuality) writes
about an "artificial hamburger" which was created two years ago. This
is produced from artificial meat made from stem cells of a cow which was
not slaughtered or which was declared unkosher ("tereifa"). In principle,
he concludes that clone meat is not real meat, and that it can therefore
be cooked and eaten with milk! (The summary of the article includes many
details which will not be repeated here. For example, the problem of
appearances can be solved by proper packaging and declarations, as is
done for soya milk.)

However, my friends, I doubt that you should rush out after the holiday
to search for an "artificial hamburger," in order to season it with honey
and dip it in milk. Rabbi Yaacov Ariel opposes the idea in the new volume
of Techumin. He concludes that such artificial meat can only be produced
from a kosher animal, and that then "it will be considered meat for
all intents and purposes, including the matter of cooking with milk."

So, in the end we are left with the solution in the Talmud: Does anybody
want some milk-saturated udders?

In OC 196:1, the Rama mentions the minhag of blowing 30 qolos at the
end of RH mussaf. "Ule'achar sheyatze'u bazeh, shuv ein litqua od
bechinam."

(Although a qatan, even higia lechinuch, may.)

So, if in your shul, people stay late to hear other varations of the
qolos -- Rashi, Brisker, shevarim-ter'uah beneshimah achas or 2 neshimos,
etc... -- they are actually being meiqil as well.

As for being yotzei... Mitzvas shofar only requires tashra"t, tasha"t
OR tara"t, 3 times. A point the AhS makes besheim the Rash besheim R'
Hai Gaon (Shilhei RH), "delav sefeiqos gemuros hein", that Rav Avahu
was mesaqein in order for everyone to do the same thing, not because
otherwise you're not yotzei shemie'as qol shofar. The AhS criptically
adds, "(ulevad zeh yeish bazeh inyan gadol)." So the question is whether
you have to blow in numerous ways few other people use in order to fulfil
a taqanah created to create uniformity of practice.

But enough of the tirade, and back to the point: Being machmir in hilkhos
shofar this way involves a qulah in hilkhos yom tov.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 02:46:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 05/21/2015 11:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> In OC 196:1, the Rama mentions the minhag of blowing 30 qolos at the
:> end of RH mussaf. "Ule'achar sheyatze'u bazeh, shuv ein litqua od
:> bechinam."

:> (Although a qatan, even higia lechinuch, may.)
: 
: Not bechinam; for practice, so that he may one day blow for real.

That's not what the Rama says, though. He says "you're allowed to
tell him to blow (HaMagid, Hil' Shofar, pereq 2) and it's
mutar to for him to blow all day (Or Zarua dRH)."

The mishnah says "any me'qvim es hatinoqos militqoa, aval mis'asqim
imahem ad sheyilmedu", which implies they are not stopped even
after yilmedu.

The gemara ad loc (RH 33a-b) says that a qatan higia' lechinukh is
encouraged to blow to learn, but any child is not prevented from blowing.

So I think  the Rama is paralleling the gemara, and not saying the
seifa is only for chinukh, or for a child who doesn't need to be
stopped because he isn't ready yet.

The AhS's wording is even further from your deduction.

:> So, if in your shul, people stay late to hear other varations of the
:> qolos -- Rashi, Brisker, shevarim-ter'uah beneshimah achas or 2 neshimos,
:> etc... -- they are actually being meiqil as well.

: No, they're not.  None of these tekios are "bechinam", any more than the
: last 30 kolos "le`arvev es hasatan", or a katan blowing for practice.

They aren't to fulfill minhag. Hey, I didn't outright assur the practice,
I said it relies on being meiqil, such as calling wanting to be chosheish
for some minority opinion shitah a need to blow.

In general, I'm increasingly uncomfortable with this concept of being
machmir to be chosheish for ... It seems to reflect a lack of emunah
in kelalei pesaq and the authority of pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

On 05/21/2015 11:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> In OC 196:1, the Rama mentions the minhag of blowing 30 qolos at the
> end of RH mussaf. "Ule'achar sheyatze'u bazeh, shuv ein litqua od
> bechinam."
>
> (Although a qatan, even higia lechinuch, may.)

Not bechinam; for practice, so that he may one day blow for real.


> So, if in your shul, people stay late to hear other varations of the
> qolos -- Rashi, Brisker, shevarim-ter'uah beneshimah achas or 2 neshimos,
> etc... -- they are actually being meiqil as well.

No, they're not.  None of these tekios are "bechinam", any more than the
last 30 kolos "le`arvev es hasatan", or a katan blowing for practice.



-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

RMB wrote:
> Yes, that explains why it's nothing clearer cut than zilzul Shabbos.
> AIUI, worrying about zilzul means that the mechanism is mutar, but
> the goal is one that cheapens Shabbos, removes some of the feeling
> of its qedushah.
>
> Like taking the pre-existing concept of eiruv as a way to have a
> reshus that was no included in Shelomo ubeis dino's original issur
> hotza'ah  and stretching it to a much bigger area than ever before,
> so that most people never have reason to leave it most weeks. So
> that the entire issur goes from being one of the dominant features
> of Shabbos (judging just in blatt of discussion) to barely ever
> experienced.

RAW actually deals with this explicitly by citing IIRC Rambam on why Chazal
legislated mutze. We are not all farmers or builders, not even cooks and
bakers. Hence, many of us hardly ever come close to deoraitot of Shabbat.
However, Shabbaton requires shevita hanikeret,so Chazal legislated muktze
to create a shevita hanikeret. Says RAW, even if he is wrong on electricity
being a deoraita (but he doesn't think he is wrong), nonetheless, the
consensus of poskim on elecricity makes it into something akin to muktze.

That never happened regarding gefillte fish [which outside Hungary hardly
anyone ever ate except on Yom Tov, since what passes for gefillte fish is
just the filling. <ducking and running>]. No one ever suggested it is
chillul Shabbos to eat gevldige Sushi. At worst, some puerile yeshive
boocher called it goiyishe maakhoolim.


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Kann man die Religion des anderen korrekt wahrnehmen? ? Zur Woche der
Br?derlichkeit
* ???? ???? ????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???
* Ist Pessach f?r die Vergangenheit oder die Zukunft?
* Frag den Rabbi ? Wie backte man Mazzot in der Bibel?
* Frag den Rabbi ? Seit wann und warum bedecken j?dische m?nner beim gebet
ihr haupt?
* A Critique of Liberal Orthodox Approach to Halacha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150521/90feca32/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 02:46:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No, they're not.  None of these tekios are "bechinam", any more than the
: last 30 kolos "le`arvev es hasatan", or a katan blowing for practice.

Having 100 qolos as learned from Eim Sisera's 100 cries is a minhag
recorded already in the Arukh, and is mentioned by Todafos and the
Rosh in RH pereq 4. (AhS OC 596:1)

The Tur that R' Amram Gaon mentions of minhag of a single teru'ah gedolah
without a teqi'ah kedei le'arbeiv hasatan, but we do not have this minhag.

The the AhS continues (se'if 2) with the already mentioned Rama,
"ke'achar sheyatz'u bazeh, ein litqoa od bechinam". Which is why I said
that blowing more than 100 qolos for reasons less than minhag requires
a qula-dik reading of "chinam".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

On 05/21/2015 04:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
>:> So, if in your shul, people stay late to hear other varations of the
>:> qolos -- Rashi, Brisker, shevarim-ter'uah beneshimah achas or 2 neshimos,
>:> etc... -- they are actually being meiqil as well.

>: No, they're not.  None of these tekios are "bechinam", any more than the
>: last 30 kolos "le`arvev es hasatan", or a katan blowing for practice.

> They aren't to fulfill minhag. Hey, I didn't outright assur the practice,
> I said it relies on being meiqil, such as calling wanting to be chosheish
> for some minority opinion shitah a need to blow.

That's not a kulah, because the issur is davka when it's bechinam, and
so long as there's a reason it's not chinam. Their wish to hear shofar
the way this rishon or that one wanted it heard is at least as good a
reason as our "le`arvev es hasoton", or giving women a "nachas ruach".

[Email #2. -micha]

Follow-up:

However, your chashash brings up an interesting suggestion. if they
are worried about all possible chashshos, then maybe they should worry
about yours too, and they can easily solve it: let them go on mivtzo'im
and find Jews who have not yet heard shofar at all, and blow for them
according to these opinions. That way, not only will they have heard
shofar according to all possible opinions, and not only will they have
the zechus of those Jews having heard shofar according to at least
one opinion (which is certainly kosher, as you correctly point out),
but their "extra" tekios will be with a bracha!

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

On 05/21/2015 04:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 02:46:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : No, they're not.  None of these tekios are "bechinam", any more than the
> : last 30 kolos "le`arvev es hasatan", or a katan blowing for practice.
>
> Having 100 qolos as learned from Eim Sisera's 100 cries is a minhag
> recorded already in the Arukh, and is mentioned by Todafos and the
> Rosh in RH pereq 4. (AhS OC 596:1)

Yes, but what of the extra 30 kolos after davening?  Those are not in the
100 kolos, they're just le'arvev es hasoton, and yet nobody seems to raise
this objection to them.


> The the AhS continues (se'if 2) with the already mentioned Rama,
> "ke'achar sheyatz'u bazeh, ein litqoa od bechinam". Which is why I said
> that blowing more than 100 qolos for reasons less than minhag requires
> a qula-dik reading of "chinam".

No, it's not kuladig, it's just what the word means.  Any valid reason
is not chinam.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:51:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Yes, but what of the extra 30 kolos after davening?  Those are not in the
: 100 kolos, they're just le'arvev es hasoton, and yet nobody seems to raise
: this objection to them.

Actually, they were part of the 100 qolos, and in nusach Ashkenaz they
still are. It's only because y'all starting blowing during chazaras
hashatz that it's not obvious.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 05/21/2015 08:09 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
> No one ever suggested it is chillul Shabbos to eat gevldige Sushi. At worst, some puerile yeshive boocher called it goiyishe maakhoolim.

Chilul Shabbos, no, but I have heard people seriously claim that it's
forbidden to eat milchigs on Shabbos because it's "not shabbosdik",
and specifically citing as "obviously" ridiculous the idea of eating
lasagna on Shabbos.  Which struck me as funny, since I recall one Rosh
Hashana, no less, being confronted with an excellent milchig lasagna,
made with fake meat, and having to wait to eat it because I was still
fleishig from lunch.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

Maybe one of you could help R' CHaim Brown, even if he did leave us
over a decade ago. A recent blog post on his "Divrei Chaim" at
<http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2015/05/what-do-chazal-mean
-when-they-refer-to.html>
or <http://j.mp/1FFwtTZ>.

I mean, we talk about different definitions of the concept of "peshat"
often enough, perhaps maybe someone had something.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Divrei Chaim
Wednesday, May 20, 2015

what do Chazal mean when they refer to "pashtei d'kra?"

   The gemara Archin 8b darshens that "tzikascha k'harerei E-l" refers
   to nigei adam, which Hashem in his mercy limits to affecting a person
   for a week. The continuation of the pasuk, "mishpatecha tehom rabbah,"
   refers to nigei batim, where the punishment is more severe in that
   it can stretch out for three weeks.

   The gemara then asks, "Pashtei d'kra b'mai?" and brings two similar
   explanations to the pasuk that read it as saying that G-d shows great
   mercy in tempering and mitigating the verdict that strict justice
   would call for.

   What do Chazal mean when they refer to "pashtei d'kra?" Despite the
   word "pashtei" in there, it does not seem to mean what the Rishonim
   like Rashi call "pshat," because if you look at Rashi or the Metzudas
   David, they don't simply quote this gemara. It seems that the gemara's
   "pashtei d'kra" is itself a derasha, albeit a derasha that is closer
   to the plain meaning of the words than the derasha that links the
   pasuk to nega'im. So are there different levels of derashos? The
   term "pashtei d'kra" is not all that common, so are these isolated
   exceptional cases, or in general are there different levels of derash?
   Does it make any nafka minah (except in our understanding of things?)

Posted by Chaim B. at 9:40 AM

On 05/21/2015 04:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:51:26PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

> : Yes, but what of the extra 30 kolos after davening?  Those are not in the
> : 100 kolos, they're just le'arvev es hasoton, and yet nobody seems to raise
> : this objection to them.
>
> Actually, they were part of the 100 qolos, and in nusach Ashkenaz they
> still are. It's only because y'all starting blowing during chazaras
> hashatz that it's not obvious.

No, these kolos are not part of the 100.  These are an extra 30, *after*
the 100, and their only purpose is le'arvev es hasoton.  And yet that
doesn't count as "bechinam".


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

We discussed a number of times the fact that the SA doesn't follow the
rule in his haqdamah to OC about following the majority of the Rif, the
Rambam and the Rosh. Less often, peoeple mention actual examples. So,
in case you were looking for one, the AhS mentions on OC 606:8-9 the
machloqes about whetherit's a mitzbvah to eat on erev YK.

In se'if 8 we learn the the Rif, the Ramnam and the Smag omit this idea,
and in se'if 9 he says the Rosh, Tur and SA (se'if 1) hold that it's
a mitzvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)