Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 101

Thu, 25 Aug 2016

• 1. Re: How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (Zev Sero)
• 2. How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (M Cohen)
• 3. Re: How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Re: How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: How do we evaluate nezeq nowadays of a person? (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Using an oven for both fleishigs and milchigs (Professor L. Levine)
• 9. Re: Legions (H Lampel)
• 10. Use of One Microwave (Professor L. Levine)
• 11. Status of Pareve Soup cooked in Fleishigs microwave (Professor L. Levine)

On 22/08/16 14:20, Marty Bluke wrote:
> The mechaber does not pasken halachos because he had semicha.

I don't know what you mean by this.  He had semicha, therefore he could
judge dinei chavalos.  I don't know whether he ever did, but the fact
that he could means that these dinim were halacha lemaaseh for him and
his colleagues, and for anyone who would receive smicha from them.


> In any
> case the Tur and other piston including the Aruch Hashulchan who most
> definitely did not have semicha bring this lhalacha in Siman 420.

The Aruch Hashulchan is not a question, since he discusses many halachos
that were not lemaaseh in his day.   As for the Tur, perhaps the Spanish
rabbonim of his father's day, just as they judged dinei nefashos by the
government's authority, also judged dinei chavalos.  Or perhaps he
anticipated the renewal of smicha, or even didn't know that the smicha
no longer existed in EY.  (There are historians who claim that it survived
in Damascus all the way until the Crusades; they would cross the border
into EY to give smicha.)   I don't know.

But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter why the Tur brought these
halachos, the fact is that only musmachim can apply them, and by the time
slavery disappeared there were definitely no musmachim.  Therefore the
question how a beis din of musmachim today would assess nezek is moot.



-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

RZS wrote... Since our batei din without semicha have no authority to judge
dinei chavalos anyway, the issue is moot.

Not true. 
Even if we don't judge chavalos, an important n'mina w be how much should
you pay in order to l'ztais y'dei shamayim.

Mordechai cohen




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240)
http://free.pctools.com/
=======

On Monday, August 22, 2016, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> In any
>> case the Tur and other piston including the Aruch Hashulchan who most
>> definitely did not have semicha bring this lhalacha in Siman 420.

> The Aruch Hashulchan is not a question, since he discusses many halachos
> that were not lemaaseh in his day.   As for the Tur, perhaps the Spanish
> rabbonim of his father's day, just as they judged dinei nefashos by the
> government's authority, also judged dinei chavalos.  Or perhaps he
> anticipated the renewal of smicha, or even didn't know that the smicha
> no longer existed in EY....

If the din only applied to semuchim he wouldn't write it stam.

The truth is that the mechaber writes in Siman 1 that we aren't dan nezeq
today except semuchim in Israel. At the end of Siman 420 he references
this. So it would seem that even though there is a whole Siman about nezeq
it doesn't apply today.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:46:58PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: The Aruch Hashulchan is not a question, since he discusses many halachos
: that were not lemaaseh in his day...

And not just in haAsid. The AhS discusses sugyos, not individual dinim.
So if some of the sugyah is lemaaseh but it also involves questions that
are not, he is likely to discuss it.

...
: But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter why the Tur brought these
: halachos, the fact is that only musmachim can apply them, and by the time
: slavery disappeared there were definitely no musmachim.  Therefore the
: question how a beis din of musmachim today would assess nezek is moot.

IMHO, a
BD should still have some idea of what the din require if we were able
to fulfil it, so that they can help reach a meaningful pesharah.

I assume that in yemos haoshiach, accidents that lead to injury will
still be possible, but theft and poverty (post tzedaqah) would be too
rare to support a real ever Ivri market.

So, it's likely we will have neziqim, musmachim to adjudicate them,
and no market price.

Anyone want to guess what ideas the Sanhedrin would invoke?

BTW, one magid shiur asked on FB about nezeq being determined by current
loss of value, not future earnings lost. Just in case the question was
bothering any of our chevrah here...

On Wall Street, the value of a stock reflects expectations of the
company's future earnings.

I would assume that similarly, the value of an eved is a function of the
utility the eved will provide future owners. (Rentors? employers? eved
ivri is of limited duration; "owner" is not 100% accurate of a term.)
IOW, among two avadim of equal strength, the younger one who has more
years of that strength ahead of him would be worth more. Similarly, an
eved who knows how to manage retirement investments would bring a
hypothetical rav far more money for the rest of the yovel

The biger problem is just that -- yovel. Should somone who is injured
in Elul of year 49 receive next to nothing because the market is down to
1 month employments?

It would seem to me to be hypothetical, estimating what he would fetch
right after yovel.

And once you're talking hypothetical pricing, you are headed in the
direction of our answer.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 22/08/16 15:15, Marty Bluke wrote:
> If the din only applied to semuchim he wouldn't write it stam.
>
> The truth is that the mechaber writes in Siman 1 that we aren't dan
> nezeq today except semuchim in Israel. At the end of Siman 420 he
> references this. So it would seem that even though there is a whole
> Siman about nezeq it doesn't apply today.

Again, in his day there were smuchim, and he himself was one, so it did
apply.  And there were slave markets so there was no practical problem.



On 22/08/16 15:33, M Cohen wrote:
> RZS wrote...
>>  Since our batei din without semicha have no authority to judge
>> dinei chavalos anyway, the issue is moot.

> Not true.
> Even if we don't judge chavalos, an important n'mina w be how much should
> you pay in order to l'ztais y'dei shamayim.

1. Ad sheyefayes es chavero

2. Nowadays we have more sophisticated methods of determining appropriate
compensation, which have been worked out by the civil courts. I think
a beis din today, setting the limit on "ad sheyefayes" as described in
CM 1, would say it's whatever he could have got in civil court had he
sued there.

-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

On 22/08/16 17:32, Micha Berger wrote:
> I assume that in yemos haoshiach, accidents that lead to injury will
> still be possible, but theft and poverty (post tzedaqah) would be too
> rare to support a real ever Ivri market.
>
> So, it's likely we will have neziqim, musmachim to adjudicate them,
> and no market price.

It should be obvious that nezek is estimated as the reduction in the
victim's value as an eved kenaani, i.e. kinyan haguf rather than kinyan
mamon.   And that market may well return in yemos hamoshiach.


> Anyone want to guess what ideas the Sanhedrin would invoke?

Perhaps they will adopt the system civil courts use today.


> BTW, one magid shiur asked on FB about nezeq being determined by current
> loss of value, not future earnings lost.

As you say, current value includes projected future earnings.  That's why
sheves is not paid according to his old job but according to what he could
have earned now if he were not in a hospital bed.  The loss of his old
earning capacity was already covered by nezek.


> I would assume that similarly, the value of an eved is a function of the
> utility the eved will provide future owners. (Rentors? employers? eved
> ivri is of limited duration; "owner" is not 100% accurate of a term.)

Eved kenaani, and therefore "owner" is accurate.   An indenture holder or
employer doesn't enjoy the full value of the person, and therefore the
price he pays doesn't reflect it.


> The biger problem is just that -- yovel. Should somone who is injured
> in Elul of year 49 receive next to nothing because the market is down to
> 1 month employments?

Again, this is why it has to be eved kenaani.  We're concerned with the
loss of value *to the victim*, who has no intention of selling himself!


> It would seem to me to be hypothetical, estimating what he would fetch
> right after yovel.  And once you're talking hypothetical pricing, you are
> headed in the direction of our answer.

Even if your premise were correct, it wouldn't help answer this question,
because in the absence of a functioning slave market there's no basis for
a hypothetical valuation.  Given a functioning market for avadim ivriyim
an expert could predict what someone's value will be next year.  But with
no market there can't be any experts.  They have nothing to base their
expertise on.  They'd be like xenobiologists, and under the standards used
by the secular courts today they would not be allowed to testify.




-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I assume that in yemos haoshiach, accidents that lead to injury will
> still be possible, but theft and poverty (post tzedaqah) would be too
> rare to support a real ever Ivri market.
...
> The biger problem is just that -- yovel. Should somone who is injured
> in Elul of year 49 receive next to nothing because the market is down to
> 1 month employments?

Nezeq is calculated based on an eved cnaani not an eved ivri, see the Rosh
at the beginning of Hachovel.

From today's OU Halacha Yomis


Q. I only have one oven which I use for fleishigs, and occasionally, when I
need to bake something dairy, I kasher it. When I am finished, I kasher it
again to use for fleishigs. Is this permitted?


A. We have previously seen that a microwave oven should not be kashered
back and forth from milchigs to fleishigs, since we are concerned that one
may forget the status of the microwave and might inadvertently cook dairy
in it after using it for meat. However, Rav Schachter said that there is
reason to be lenient with regard to kashering a conventional oven. In a
conventional oven, the food is always placed in pans and does not directly
touch the surfaces of the oven. Additionally, an oven will not fill with
steam to the same degree as a microwave. Therefore, according to some
opinions, if one did not kasher a fleishigs oven before using it for dairy,
the food would be still be permitted. (If one actually did so, they should
discuss with a rabbi.) The Beis Yosef (Yoreh De'ah siman 2) writes that we
are not concerned that one will forget to remedy a situation if even in the
event that they were to forget, the food would still be permitted.
Therefore, Rav Schachter said that si
 nce many people do not have the luxury of owning two ovens, they may rely
 on the lenient opinion in regards to kashering the oven between meat and
 dairy. Furthermore, Rav Schachter said that one may do the same with their
 microwave oven if they are careful to always place the food inside a bowl
 and place a cover on top. This way there is no direct contact with the
 microwave, and the cover will keep most of the steam contained inside the
 bowl.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160823/9a9637d5/attachment-0001.htm>

Regarding my collection of words that ostensibly are exceptions to the
rule that the plural of nouns ending in "on," although masculine, are
usually formed by adding -oth rather than -im, REMT wrote to me offlist
(but then gave me permission to cite him by name) that the only words
on my list that are exceptions are esronim, rimonim, and armonim meaning
chestnuts, spelled with an ayin (not with an alef, meaning castles.

The rule is stated for nouns, such as gilayon, and not for adjectives
such as rishon, acharon, kadmon, nor verbs such as nidon.

He also pointed out that at least one of my examples is not a plural
at all -- sh'monim -- it doesn't mean "more than than one sh'mon" --
and many are not plurals of "on-ending" words: onim is the plural of
oneh (and is a verb, to boot); beinonim is a plural of beinoni; almonim
is the plural of almoni; shonim, of shoneh; bonim, of boneh; Tzidonim,
of Tzidoni -- not of Tzidon (as RTK also noted). Finally, the plural
of aron is aronos, not aronim.

Regarding the last, another which was also picked up by RTK, my mistake
was taking the word aronim in Gemara RH 23 as an example of a plural,
which it is not.

All this goes to demonstrate that doing clever data searches is
no substitute for knowledge. But being a glutton for punishment,
here's another try for an exception to the rule: Chalonim (windows,
from chalon) (Yechezkiel 41:16, Yoel 2:9), although most often it's
pluralized chalonos.

From today's OU Halacha Yomis


Q. I only have one microwave oven. How can I use it for both milchigs and fleishigs?


A. Best of course is to have two microwaves, one for milchigs and one for
fleishigs. But if that is not possible, one should designate the microwave
for one use or the other. Then, if for example, one needs to warm something
milchigs in their fleishig microwave, they should double wrap the food.
Unfortunately, this is not advisable for heating liquids in a microwave,
because the buildup of steam will often cause the wrappings to burst. But
dry items can be double wrapped, and even liquids can be double wrapped so
long as they are only warmed. One may use two plastic wraps or even a
plastic wrap and a paper wrap. For example, one may place the plate of food
into a Ziploc bag and then place that bag inside a paper bag. It is
preferable that the microwave be wiped clean first. Similarly, in a
non-kosher environment, i.e. an office, double wrapping a kosher product
before using the microwave is the only way to guarantee the kosher
integrity of the food.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160824/c9920e3c/attachment-0001.htm>

From today's OU Halacha Yomis.


Q. I cooked a pareve soup in a pareve bowl in my fleishigs microwave. Is
the food now fleishig? Can I still serve it at a milchig meal? What is the
status of the bowl?


A. If a pareve soup is cooked in a pareve pot and a clean fleishig pot
cover would be placed on the pot, we would consider the soup to be a nat
bar nat (secondary taste) of fleishigs. The minhag of Ashkenazim is that we
will not eat this food directly with dairy, but it may be eaten before or
after dairy. The same would hold true in our case with the microwave. Since
the steam from the food connects the bowl and the microwave, we would view
the microwave as the "pot lid" on the bowl of soup. Regarding the bowl
itself, it would remain pareve, provided it had been placed on a clean
surface that did not have any meat residue.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160825/9c7bc53f/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)