Volume 36: Number 14
Sun, 28 Jan 2018
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote:
: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at
: odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days
: on Avodah.
I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial
discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew"
and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using
RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused,
"USFDA milk".)
But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof
Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael
The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the
claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of
a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe
was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating
avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur.
Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within
a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important.
Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin.
Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual
violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial
Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial
use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little
information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.")
The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or
who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's
teshuvah.
An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of
R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah
on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on
RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been
referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track...
I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a
trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not
even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel
example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity
due to travel a "she'as hadechaq".
But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that
would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan.
To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full
violation of a gezeira.
In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying
only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black
wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement
of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY"
(Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually
practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of
noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY",
ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now.
Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those
who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms...
I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with
yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to
add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri
Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses
any nafqa mina lemaaseh.
Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the
source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because
of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur
deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah
temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before
the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote:
: AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any
: gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern
: about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore
: where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed.
: The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern
: Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no
: serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a
: serious concern no gezera was necessary.
How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is
unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious"
or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional
case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have
to ask you to explain further.
: AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the
: Radbaz/Pri Chadash...
I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a
chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all,
I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote:
> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek
> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that
> is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach
> nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum.
That is not my understanding.
AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera,
but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife
milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern
exists, no supervision is needed.
The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal
made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious
concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious
concern no gezera was necessary.
AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the
Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that
of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk
*is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the
published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no
such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who
drink commercial milk are relying on his psak.
On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with
> yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to
> add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri
> Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses
> any nafqa mina lemaaseh.
Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there
is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then
whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds
safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is
the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern
Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah
berurah, anan sahadi.
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our
: circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The
: Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such
: decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS.
Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at.
Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that
it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change
which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required
for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between
someone following RMF and someone following the PC?
Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to
hold like the Radbaz?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote:
> : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any
> : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern
> : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore
> : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed.
>
> : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern
> : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no
> : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a
> : serious concern no gezera was necessary.
> How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is
> unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious"
> or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional
> case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have
> to ask you to explain further.
In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife
milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy
it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore
the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was
the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries
the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which
we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our
homes leaving venom in open containers.
The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances
Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says
this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds
like the CS.
> : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the
> : Radbaz/Pri Chadash...
>
> I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a
> chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all,
> I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing.
He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly
his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers
to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on
the fear of government inspection, is his own.
(This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't
chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the
last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from
the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were
personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the
carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm
and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer.
Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't
add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah
berurah that *they* didn't add anything.)
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
R' Teitz wrote:
"As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek
that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that
is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach
nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum."
There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority
opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk
(chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes (
https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html):
"It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and
continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume
non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. "
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180125/6685e8aa/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Rabbi Meir Rabi
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants
Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which
normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of
Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B]
the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he
wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is
reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically
correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present.
[the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are
not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y
to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the
factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not
using Keilim that have not been Kashered]
So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the
circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or
tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this
special run.
The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may
even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe
makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job
security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not
determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how
do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading.
However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business,
as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for
????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this
does not makes HKBH happy.
This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants.
Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the
integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant.
And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision
of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus
is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we
have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can
and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed,
clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get
away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on
edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no
heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when
they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach.
Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE
HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge
them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our
suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system
that is supposed to provide guarantees.
Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking
their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in
the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions]
misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated
kitchen staff who resent Kashrus.
I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one
wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly
what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb
Moshe did not recant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180126/f7222cc9/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: R' Teitz wrote:
:> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek
:> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that
: is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach
: nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum.
:
: There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority
: opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk
: (chalav akum) is permitted...
It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means
milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of
safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance.
So they do agre it's an absolute issur.
And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the
Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's.
Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority.
That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private
email:
- textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen?
- mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice?
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to
It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces
another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this
Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh
So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was
why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh
when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this?
However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair
price] the sale is legitimate and binding.
Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha
prescribes about a forced sale?
Best,
Meir G. Rabi
0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180128/d89a776c/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree -
I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in
cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the
cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding
that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk.
It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter
this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does
not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk.
So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak
of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position.
The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher
rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY
This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made
with non-ChY is Kosher.
[Email #2. -micha]
Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says
the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese
but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because
he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk
from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals.
Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that
the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a
possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking
milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make
cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern.
Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made
with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly,
there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very
small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal,
the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering
that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret.
So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited
it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation
[even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to
frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far
more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone]
Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because
rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those
times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is
Pirsha - rubbish.
Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach
itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the
stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and
a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated
within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which
they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban -
the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT.
In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more
than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet,
not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal
and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata
Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us
through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden.
[Email #3. -micha]
There is a contradiction in the Rama -
115:1
Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese
[and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited
115:2
cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk
that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink
that milk.
The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is
not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this
is the foundation of R Moshe.
Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS
KOSHER as CHEESE.
Best,
Meir G. Rabi
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for
I am moving this discussion to Avodah.
At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim:
>Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you
>absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and
>end all?? I
>Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the
>point.
I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example,
there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in
most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was
instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine
with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together.
However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person
at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled
his obligation to say Kaddish.
>In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the
>standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange,
>requires an apology, second best?
We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of
Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos.
(From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II)
After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend
of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my
attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates,
in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was
related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon
Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab,
and thank him for his time and input.
A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel.
Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around
her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter
why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was
a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel
seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah
for a shidduch and other things.
When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner -
asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it.
The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he
responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav
Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing
the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had
felt that it should be removed.
"If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should
daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with
tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of
our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable.
There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah
and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely
a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable."
At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge.
After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam
ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may
believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most
basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times.
See the above URL for more.
Part I is at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html
Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to
Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus.
This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus
is simply not correct.
YL
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for
On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of
> Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos.
> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II)
It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav
Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and
Reconstruction.
I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However,
if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism
that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone
else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that
I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to
tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're
absolutely right".
On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For
example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish.
Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time.
This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish.
I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it
together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with
each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has
fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish.
If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis
and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are
halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a
whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as
he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially
when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper
Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege.
Ben
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)