Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 151

Thu, 17 Nov 2016

• 1. Re: Minhag Shtus (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Brewing coffee on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Borrer Brewing Coffee Shabbos (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. What's Minhag (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. Brewing coffee on Shabbos (M Cohen)
• 6. Re: Brewing coffee on Shabbos (Isaac Balbin)
• 7. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. Re: What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Brewing coffee on Shabbos (Michael Poppers)
• 10. Re: Minhag Shtus (Michael Poppers)
• 11. logic (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Brewing coffee on Shabbos (Akiva Miller)
• 13. Re: logic (Lisa Liel)

On 15/11/16 17:43, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> At 05:14 PM 11/15/2016, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 15/11/16 16:37, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
>>> I distinctly remember when R. Avigdor Miller learned the gemara that
>>> says that one does not make a bracha on the succah on Shemini Atzeres,
>>> but one should eat in the succah on ST. A fellow who was at the shiur
>>> raised his hand and said,  "What about the minhag to not eat in the
>>> succah on ST?"  R Miller responded categorically,  "There is no such
>>> minhag!" The fellow was taken aback and again asked the same question,
>>> and the response was the same.
>>
>> There clearly *is* such a minhag.  That he was unaware of it doesn't
>> change that fact.  aiui those who follow it hold, and have a
>> tradition, that the halacha is not like that psak (of the rabanan
>> sevora'i).
>
> He knew that some people do not eat in the succah on ST.  His point was
> that there is no basis for not eating in the succah on ST in chutz
> l'aretz.  This is what he meant when he said, "There is no such minhag."

That was his opinion.  He was unaware that there *is* such a basis, with 
rabbinic backing.  Therefore it *is* a genuine minhag.  The basis is the 
opinion that this psak in the gemara is not operative.


-- 
Zev Sero                Hit the road, Jack
z...@sero.name           but please come back once more

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:42:04PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Are you saying that this is muttar simply because you don't push it all the
: way down? That because the leaves are still mixed into some of the tea, it
: is okay that you have isolated clear tea above the filter?
: 
: If that were so, then I would be allowed to remove the peas from the north
: side of my peas-and-carrots, because they are still mixed on the south
: side...

What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making sure
to remove tea with the bag?

Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel.

Removing the teabag with team is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel.

Which is this?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Borrer is not getting the mixture to be separated, there are ways to
separate without transgressing.

Borrer is the process of separation, of sorting through the mixture to
identify and remove the unwanted.

A Pullke, a drumstick, lost in a large pot of Cholent, poses a Borrer issue
because we need to sort through the Cholent in order to locate it.
If it is at the top of the Cholent, there's no problem.

If we've tied a string to it, and the end the string hangs outside the pot,
we may remove the Pullke by pulling the string.

Similarly a tea bag may be removed from a tea cup with the string in the
normal everyday manner. There's no Borrer because there is no mixture. The
only mixture is the liquid that remains in the leaves inside the bag, which
prevents us from squeezing the bag.

Depressing the plunger when making coffee only presents a problem if it
squeezes the liquid out of the dregs, otherwise it's equivalent to removing
a tea bag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161116/9d0b0e0a/attachment-0001.htm>

Minhag, meaning it has some Halachic significance, must reflect an aspect
of Halacha.

As Rav Hershel Schachter wrote in response to my pointing out to him that
the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan and ShA HaRav all quote the MAvraham
re soft Matza; to suggest we now are bound to a Minhag of eating hard Matza
is like suggesting we are bound to have the Paroches a certain colour,
which is plain stupid. The colour has naught to do with Halacha.

Yet some propose that a practice which even violates Halacha can somehow
become Minhag and has some Halachic substance. Surely they jest.

It is most likely that sleeping in the Sukkah was dangerous or most
uncomfortable. In order to persuade the uneducated masses to do what was
Halachically correct, it was necessary to camouflage the apparently non
Halachic activity as ultra-Halachic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161116/2931a301/attachment-0001.htm>

Btw, my chavrusa told me that he asked r Dovid Pam of Toronto (Rav of
Zichron shneir and son the r avraham Pam zl) and r Forscheimer (posek in
Lakewood) about making drip coffee on Shabbos.

Both said it was mutar.

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/
=======

I looked into this here

https://pitputim.me/2011/05/18/plunger-coffee-on-shabbos

Re: Rav Schachter, he wasn't convinced by the Chazon Ish's point.

The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. What?s the proper procedure for netilas yadayim before eating bread?


Q. One should pour at least one revi?is (about four ounces), all at once,
on the right hand, allowing water to flow over one?s entire hand, both the
front and back and between the fingers (this can be done by simply rotating
one?s hand). When water is plentiful the Mishnah Berurah writes that one
should ideally pour a second time on the right hand (162:21). The cup
should then be transferred to one?s right hand and this procedure should
then be repeated for the left hand.

One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called shifshuf
(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, zt?l felt is too often
overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b)

One should then make the blessing al netilas yadayim and then dry them (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161116/ebd3dc78/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/11/16 09:49, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> One should then rub one?s hands together, a process called /shifshuf
> /(Shulchan Aruch, 162:2), a practice Rav Belsky, /zt?l/ felt is too
> often overlooked (Shulchan Halevi, chapter 3:1b)
>
> One should then make the blessing /al netilas yadayim/ and then dry them
> (Mishnah Berurah, 158:42).
>

Aren't these instructions in the wrong order?  The bracha is *before*
the shifshuf, isn't it?

-- 
Zev Sero                Hit the road, Jack
z...@sero.name           but please come back once more

In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha responded to R'Akiva re the French press.  Just
to clarify RAH's position, published in the previous digest, he forbade the
French press on Shabbos because it's a *k'li*, even though one is still
obtaining *ochel mitoch p'soles*.

In the same digest, in response to my writing
> Neither he nor RAH mentioned
> /tzoveya <http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Tzoveya#Liquids>/.  I
> brought that up to RAH after Ma'ariv of that night, and he noted that
> Rav Teitz [REMT] was /machmir/ on [at least, IIUC]
> culinary-liquids /tzoveya/.
R'Zev asked, "Is there any dispute that ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin?"  REMT
clarified for me tonight that the practice of his father *z'l'* was to be
*machmir* re liquids, *pace* the settled "ein tzvi'ah be'ochlin" *halachah*.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161116/74991f1e/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V34n150, R'Micha wrote:
> Well, I think we would agree that a minhag that contradicts halakhah is
a minhag shetus, and not a real minhag. <
OK, so from BT Sukah 42a
<http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=succah&;daf=42a&go=Go> and ?RaMBaM
H.Tzitzis 3 <http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/2403n.htm>:8-10 all the way
through MB 17:10 (who misunderstood MaHaRYL, but that's a different
conversation :)), shouldn't we conclude that the prevalent *minhag* among
non-Yekke Ashk'nazim to not wear a *talis gadol* (and thereby fulfill *ituf*)
until marriage is *shtus*?

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161116/f4fa2cd4/attachment-0001.htm>

<<the three laws:

1- The Law of Identity:
    Whatever is, is.
    A = A.

2- Law of Non-Contradition
   2 or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same
   sense at the same time
   not (A and not-A)

3- The Law of Excluded Middle
   Everything must either be or not be
   A or not-A >>

As Micha points out these laws of logic apply to some idea universe. Rules
2 and 3 don't apply to a "real" world

R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points
(1) The laws of logic were obviously used before Aristotle. What Aristotle
did was to formulate the rules explicitly while before him they were
assumed without being stated. Among other results is that after Aristotle
we can discuss the rules themselves

(2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today there
is a field called fuzzy logic to study this.

RMA's favorite example is to define a heap.
(A) one object is not a heap
(B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap
The conclusion would be that a million objects don't constitute a heap
The answer is that being a heap is not binary having 5 objects is a partial
heap while 10 objects is larger partial heap

Similarly for the definition of being bald. One hair is still bald and
adding a single hair can't change someone from bald to not bald.




-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161117/84ed8e8c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger raised several points:

> What about removing a teabag with a spoon, so that one is making
> sure to remove tea with the bag?
>
> Removing peas is doing boreir on only part of the okhel.
>
> Removing the teabag with tea is pesoles-ve'okhel mitokh okhel.

I concede that I was stumped by these questions. So I want back to the
books to review these halachos. I found this on page 136 of Rav Eider's
Halachos of Shabbos. Please note that this is paragraph A10 in the chapter
on Borer:

>>> Many poskim hold that the melacha of Borer is an issur of "selection"
not of "removal". Removal of p'soles from ochel (or ochel from p'soles with
a utensil, or not for immediate use) without selecting is permissible.
Therefore, where the ochel and the p'soles are not mixed together, but
stand apart from each other and are discernibly separate or are clearly
distinguishable so that there is no need to search for that which he is
selecting, there is no issur of Borer.

He gives examples of this on page 161. (This is 25 pages later, but the
"A10" makes the reference unmistakable.)

>>> We have learned (see A10) that one may remove large objects from water
or any other liquid - where they are not considered mixed. Since there is
no need to search for that which he is removing, he is not considered as
selecting. Examples: Removing eggs from a pot of water, large pieces of
fish or chicken from a pot of soup. This is permissible even from Shabbos
morning for the Seudah Shlishis, even with a spoon.

Based on that, it is clear to me that a teabag is not considered as mixed
in the tea, and there is no Borer in removing it. (I must point out that
some may look at his examples of eggs, fish, and chicken, and think that
they are all selecting Ochel Mitoch P'soles. Not so! By telling us that one
can do this even for later on that day, such actions are not *selecting* at
all.)

Conclusions:

If a small insect is in one's drink, that is considered a mixture, and one
must be wary of Borer when he figures out how to remove the insect. Using a
spoon and taking the insect together with some liquid is one of several
strategies. (See Rav Eider pg 160 for other ideas.) But a teabag is a large
object, and the teabag and tea are not a mixture. Therefore, removing the
teabag is not Borer at all, and one may remove the teabag *without* taking
some tea with it.

BUT the tea that is *inside* the the bag *is* mixed into the leaves.
Therefore, letting the tea drip out from the bag *is* problematic. And that
is why we use a spoon to remove the teabag: simply to prevent dripping.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161116/bae445fd/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/17/2016 1:11 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> R Michael Avraham (RMA) makes 2 similar points
...
> (2) Most things in the world are continuous rather than binary. Today 
> there is a field called fuzzy logic to study this.
>
> RMA's favorite example is to define a heap.
> (A) one object is not a heap
> (B) adding an object to a heap can't change it to a heap

The examples you give only exists as artifacts of vague language. Bald 
isn't rigorously defined.  If it were, we'd be back to excluded middle.  
If we define bald as meaning no hair whatsoever, adding a single hair 
*does* change someone from bald to not bald.  If we define bald as 
meaning fewer than 10 hairs, again, adding or subtracting a hair can 
only change the person from bald to not-bald or vice versa at the 
boundary.  Because there /is/ a boundary.

A heap is not rigorously defined.  Nor is a crumb.  Half a crumb is a 
crumb.  The only things that aren't binary in the sense you seem to be 
using the word are linguistic constructs.  Real things have attributes 
that can be defined rigorously.  Vague language does not equal the thing 
being described.

Lisa


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



_______________________________________________
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.)