Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 4

Tue, 26 Jan 2021

• 1. Re: Can a besula become pregnant? (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: Why do they break a plate and glass? (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Kibud Av v'Aim Pointers (Prof. L. Levine)
• 4. Re: Targumim from Sinai (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Targumim from Sinai (Simon Montagu)
• 6. Re: Responses to "Why do they break a plate and a glass at a chasunah?" (Mendel Singer)
• 7. Would Seforno be Comfortable with Evolution? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Would Seforno be Comfortable with Evolution? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Would Seforno be Comfortable with Evolution? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Would Seforno be Comfortable with Evolution? (Zev Sero)
• 11. May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos? (Prof. L. Levine)
• 12. Re: May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Secular Studies and Torah Learning (Prof. L. Levine)
• 14. Re: Secular Studies and Torah Learning (Rich, Joel)
• 15. May one pour cold water into hot soup to cool it down? (Prof. L. Levine)
• 16. Re: May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos? (Prof. Levine)
• 18. Re: May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos? (Zev Sero)
• 19. Cooking in a Kli Shlishi (Prof. Levine)
• 20. Re: May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 21. Making Tea on Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 22. Re: Making Tea on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 23. May one make ices on Shabbos? (Prof. L. Levine)

.

(Many thanks to R' Joel Rich and R' Moshe Gluck for sending me valuable
sources on this topic.)



Yevamos 34a (near the bottom) states that "ain isha mis'aberes b'biah
rishona - a woman does not get pregnant from (her) first relations."



On 35b, the Gemara challenges this idea, pointing out that in Bereshis 38,
Tamar got pregnant from first relations, which were with Yehuda. The answer
is that Tamar had damaged her besulim beforehand, so that she would be able
to conceive from Yehuda. (The Gemara adds that although Er and Onan had
relations with Tamar, they deliberately did it in such a way that her
besulim was not damaged.)



On Bereshis 19:36, Rashi gives a similar answer regarding Lot's daughters.
Rashi accepts the principle that "a woman does not get pregnant from (her)
first relations," and so he says that they did something which enabled them
to conceive. (Rashi's wording is different from that in Yevamos, so it's
not clear to me whether he's describing the same procedure. And for the
purposes of this thread, the exact procedure doesn;t really matter anyway.)



I would like to ask about another case where a woman seems to have
conceived from her first relations, and that woman is Leah Imenu.



According to Rashi on Bereshis 49:3, Reuven was conceived from Yaakov
Avinu's very first drop of semen. How can this be? Did Leah have relations
with someone else prior to marrying Yaakov? Did Yaakov have prior relations
with Leah, rendering her non-besulah, without emitting?



Those ideas are *not* very appealing. The alternative would be to suggest
that she did something medically that enabled her to conceive Reuven, but
whereas Tamar and Bnos Lot had strong incentives to get pregnant
immediately, I don't know what Leah's motivation might have been. Perhaps
she was afraid that Yaakov would divorce her when Rachel became available,
so she tried to lock him in by getting pregnant?


Before clicking "send", I searched for an answer yet again, and this time I
found it. The Ohr Hachayim on this pasuk (Bereshis 49:3) is very long, and
near the very end (paragraph beginning "Gam ramaz") he quotes Rashi and
writes:  "From this you learn that [Yaakov] did not have relations with
[her] besulim, rather he removed [her] besulim with a finger, so that he
would not waste that drop. So you have learned that even during the act,
physical desire did not overpower him, and his act was a totally holy
thing."


Alternatively, https://mg.alhatorah.org/Parshan/Rid/Bereshit/49.1#m7e0n6 gives
the perush of Rav Yeshaya of Trani (Ri"d) on this pasuk, who answers that
according to the Yerushalmi, *all* of the Imahos damaged their besulim. He
doesn't states where this Yerushalmi can be found, nor does he explain
*why* the Imahos would do that, but I suppose it's reasonable to presume
that their logic was the same as the Ohr Hachayim has assigned to Yaakov -
to prevent wasted seed.


Conclusion: I do not know where Chazal got this idea that "a woman does not
get pregnant from (her) first relations," nor have I seen any proof or
evidence for it. We do have three stories in the Torah - Lot's daughters,
Tamar, and Leah - which *seem* to disprove it, but all three can be
understood in a way that does *not* disprove it.


Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210105/042e553f/attachment.html>

At 08:36 AM 1/5/2021, Joel Rich wrote:

>Glass-see brachot 30b at bottom

This gemara does not speak about the Chosson breaking a glass under 
the chuppah.  It talks about breaking an expensive  vessel to 
decrease the levity of those at the chasanah.

Once the glass (that is not expensive) is broken by the chosson, all 
sorts of "joy"  breaks out to the extent that some rabbonim have 
called for eliminating this practice.  See Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky's 
article that I posted a link to.

YL

From today's Hakel Bulletin

KIBUD AV V?AIM POINTERS
A. Unless a parent is knowingly mochel, it is forbidden to refer to your
father or mother by their first name (even when requested for
identification purposes) without a title of honor preceding the first name,
whether or not they are present and whether or not they are alive. When
being called to the Torah, one must refer to his father as Reb or Avi Mori.
Whenever referring to one?s mother, one can use the title HaIsha or Moras
(Yoreh Deah 240:2)

B. When honoring parents, very special care and concern must be taken to do
it b?sever ponim yofos?pleasantly (Yorah Deah 240:4). The Sefer Chareidim
(Mitzvos Asei of the Heart 1:35) and Rav Chaim Shmulevitz (Sichos Mussar
5731:22) both explain that in order to properly perform the mitzvah, one
must mentally gain a true appreciation and honor of their parents and
literally view them as royalty. Indeed, the Chayei Adom (67:3) known for
his succinctness in recording Halacha, writes that the ?Ikar Kibud??the
most important [aspect of] Kibud is that ?He should view his parents as
GREAT personages and important dignitaries of the land
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210106/6450b4f0/attachment.html>

I was under the impression that Unqelus was credited with recreating
through ruach haqodesh the Aramaic translation of the Torah that Ezra
had offered. "Shakechum vechazar veyasdum".

See Megillah 3a https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.3a.7-8

I said "Ezra offered because I presumed that the version the gemara
refers to from Nechemiah was the same as in Sanhedrin 21b (and the Y-mi
Megillah 10a). That the Torah was given originally in Kesav Ivri and
Lashon haQodesh, and given again in the days of Ezra in Kesav Ashuris
and Lashon Arami. And the Jews selected Ashuris and LhQ.

So that Unqelus was chazar veyasad a veritable second giving of the Torah.

Which explains why the Tur holds that Shenayim Miqra veEchad Targum
means specifically Targum Unqelus. (Not the only shitah, but it does
explain the shitah.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   I do, then I understand." - Confucius
Author: Widen Your Tent      "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 8:41 PM Akiva Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> .
> About 11 1/2 years ago, R' Simon Montagu started this thread, exploring
> how authoritative the targumim are.
>

Since then I've gone into the topic a bit more. Recommended reading:

Menahem Kasher "Targum Misinai" in vol. 17 of Tora Shelema (on HebrewBooks
starting at https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51490&;st=&pgnum=325)
Refael Posen "Targum Misinai" in Sidra 15 (
https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=32781)
and, lehavdil, my own "'Targum Onkelos is from Sinai': Origins and
Interpretations of a Tradition',
https://www.academia.edu/44849107/_Targum_Onkelos_is_from_Sinai_Origins_and_Interpretations_of_a_Tradition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210106/84f5ca6e/attachment.html>

My answer: So when one of the couple drops and breaks a glass or a china 
plate they can associate it with happy memories and not fight! (Sure, 
right).

?

mendel

Seforno on Shenmos 4:11:
    "Mi sam peh le'adam -- Who gave man a mouth?":
    Mi nasan hahakhanos hativ'iyos bekoach teva ha'adam?

Notice "nasan" is lashon avar, and "sam" -- to give, and what was given
was the natural preconditions that make teva ha'adam, things like a
mouth that speaks.

It is an interesting circumlocution by the Seforno that seems to say
that a person's biology wasn't created directly, but via processes
Hashem put into place.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Be happy not because everything is good,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but because you can see the good side
Author: Widen Your Tent      of everything.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On 7/1/21 6:10 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Seforno on Shenmos 4:11:
>      "Mi sam peh le'adam -- Who gave man a mouth?":
>      Mi nasan hahakhanos hativ'iyos bekoach teva ha'adam?
> 
> Notice "nasan" is lashon avar, and "sam" -- to give, and what was given
> was the natural preconditions that make teva ha'adam, things like a
> mouth that speaks.
> 
> It is an interesting circumlocution by the Seforno that seems to say
> that a person's biology wasn't created directly, but via processes
> Hashem put into place.

I don't see the circumlocution.  He's saying that Hashem, when He 
created the human species, gave it a nature of being able to talk.  The 
human nature is to have all the necessary natural equipment, physical 
and neurological, for talking.

About sam (past) vs yasim (future), see Malbim.  Moshe's hava amina was 
that a person by default has no power of speech, and Hashem has to put 
in each person such a power.  Therefore since he wasn't given this power 
it follows that his shlichus in the world doesn't need it.  Therefore 
jobs that do need it, such as leading the people, aren't for him.

Hashem tells him his premise is wrong.  The power of speech was given to 
Man at creation, and is baked in to the specification for the whole 
species. "Mi sam peh."  The fact that a person can speak is not the 
result of an individual decision by Hashem.  But as people are born, 
"yasum ilem", Hashem makes some of them dumb.  It's dumbness that's 
unnatural, and therefore the result of an individual decision.  So 
Moshe's dumbness, rather than indicating that his shlichus simply 
doesn't involve speech, actually indicates that his shlichus *does* 
include dumbness. It's precisely because he is well-known to be dumb 
that his eloquence on this occasion will be regarded as a miracle and 
will make people listen to him.


-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:57:06PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> >      Mi nasan hahakhanos hativ'iyos bekoach teva ha'adam?

> I don't see the circumlocution.  He's saying that Hashem, when He created
> the human species, gave it a nature of being able to talk..

He didn't say nasan koach hadibur. Hashem gave the natural prep in order for
humans to have a power of speach. The wordiness, and the need to instroduce
"hahakhanos" is what I was commenting on.

> Hashem tells him his premise is wrong.  The power of speech was given to Man
> at creation, and is baked in to the specification for the whole species. "Mi
> sam peh."  The fact that a person can speak is not the result of an
> individual decision by Hashem....

Yotzeir or, not yatzar or. Hamchadeish betuvo. As someone with a Chabad
background, you know the Besh"t on this better than I do. 10 maamaros
implies that unlike the printed word, which exists after the writing is
done, creation is like the spoken word -- Hashem is creating as long as
the thing exists.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Problems are not stop signs,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   they are guidelines.
Author: Widen Your Tent              - Robert H. Schuller
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On 8/1/21 3:57 pm, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:57:06PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>>>       Mi nasan hahakhanos hativ'iyos bekoach teva ha'adam?
> 
>> I don't see the circumlocution.  He's saying that Hashem, when He created
>> the human species, gave it a nature of being able to talk..
> 
> He didn't say nasan koach hadibur. Hashem gave the natural prep in order for
> humans to have a power of speach. The wordiness, and the need to instroduce
> "hahakhanos" is what I was commenting on.

Because he's talking about human nature, not about individual humans. 
He didn't give humans a "power of speech", He made human nature such 
that humans can naturally speak.


>> Hashem tells him his premise is wrong.  The power of speech was given to Man
>> at creation, and is baked in to the specification for the whole species. "Mi
>> sam peh."  The fact that a person can speak is not the result of an
>> individual decision by Hashem....
> 
> Yotzeir or, not yatzar or. Hamchadeish betuvo. As someone with a Chabad
> background, you know the Besh"t on this better than I do. 10 maamaros
> implies that unlike the printed word, which exists after the writing is
> done, creation is like the spoken word -- Hashem is creating as long as
> the thing exists.

First of all, the Malbim was not a chassid, so he's not necessarily 
consistent with the Baal Shem Tov's ideas.  And in fact he does not seem 
to subscribe to the Baal Shem Tov's shita in Hashgacha Pratis.  He often 
writes that the punishment for not doing mitzvos is that Hashgacha 
Pratis is withdrawn and one is left to the mercy of the random forces of 
nature.

But in this instance there's no contradiction.  He's referring to when 
the decision was/is made that a person should be speaking or dumb. 
Hashem tells Moshe that He long ago made the decision that human nature 
would be to be able to speak, so the fact that an individual can speak 
doesn't mean anything.  It's the default human condition.  But "yasum 
ilem", as He creates each individual, He makes certain individuals 
deviate from the norm and be dumb, and that is always a deliberate 
decision regarding that individual, and therefore must be meaningful.

The fact that each person, whether speaking or dumb, is being constantly 
created isn't relevant to this point.


-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup on Shabbos?

A. A general principal in halacha is ?ain bishul achar bishul? (a cooked
food cannot be recooked) and it is permissible to reheat cooked food on
Shabbos. Nonetheless, there are situations where this does not apply:

  *   Food may not be put on a stove top or in an oven on Shabbos, even if
  fully cooked, either because it has the appearance of cooking or because
  one might adjust the flame. This is known as chazara (returning).
  *   According to most opinions, ain bishul achar bishul applies only to solid food and not to liquids.
  *   To qualify for ain bishul achar bishul, the food must be fully cooked.
  *   According to some (Shulchan Aruch OC 318:5), ain bishul achar bishul
  does not apply to cooking (with liquid) a food that was previously baked
  or roasted (without liquid) or vice versa. This is because baking and
  cooking are different modes and doing one after the other may constitute
  bishul.

As such, matzah meal or bread should not be placed in a bowl of hot soup
that is yad soldes. Yad soledes is a halachic term which refers to the
temperature at which cooking occurs. The exact temperature of yad soledes
is open to debate, but it is generally assumed to be higher than 113 F.

The Rema rules that one may not even put bread into a kli sheini, a second
vessel. (Liquid that was heated on a fire is known as a kli rishon. If that
liquid was transferred to another vessel it is referred to as a kli sheini-
a second vessel.) However, the Mishnah Berurah (318:47) writes that one may
add bread to a kli shelishi (liquid transferred to a third vessel) because
the temperature is diminished. Moreover, the Mishnah Berurah (318:45)
writes that if a ladle was used, the ladle may be viewed as the kli sheini,
and the bowl is treated as a kli shelishi. As such, bread or matzah meal
may be added to soup that was placed in a bowl with a ladle.

It should be noted that in general it is questionable if raw food may be
added to a kli shelishi on Shabbos. Nonetheless, bread may be placed in a
kli shelishi because there is a confluence of two uncertainties: a) does
cooking occur in a kli shelishi and b) does ain bishul achar bishul apply
to a baked food added to a kli rishon?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210111/0ab6d494/attachment.html>

However bagels would be OK, since they have already been boiled.


-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

Secular Studies and Torah Learning
The following is from pages 148-149 of Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration?

Given what the GRA said below, one can only wonder why music is not taught in all of our yeshivas.

R. Israel of Shklov (d. 1839) wrote:

I cannot refrain from repeating a true and astonishing story that I heard
from the Gaon?s disciple R. Menahem Mendel.  It took place when the Gaon of
Vilna celebrated the completion of his commentary on Song of Songs. . . .
He raised his eyes toward heaven and with great devotion began blessing and
thanking God for endowing him with the ability to comprehend the light of
the entire Torah. This included its inner and outer manifestations. He
explained: All secular wisdom is essential for our holy Torah and is
included in it. He indicated that he had mastered all the branches of
secular wisdom, including algebra, trigonometry, geometry, and music. He
especially praised music, explaining that most of the Torah accents, the
secrets of the Levitical songs, and  the secrets of the Tikkunei Zohar
could not be comprehended without mastering it. . .  He explained the
significance of the various secular disciplines, and noted that  he had
mastered them all. Regarding the discipline of medicine
 , he stated that he had  mastered anatomy, but not pharmacology. Indeed,
 he had wanted to study pharmacology with practicing physicians, but his
 father prevented him from undertaking its study,  fearing that upon
 mastering it he would be forced to curtail his Torah study whenever it
 would become necessary for him to save a life. . . . He also stated that
 he had  mastered all of philosophy, but that he had derived only two
 matters of significance from  his study of it. . . . The rest of it, he
 said, should be discarded.? [11]

[11.] Pe?at ha-Shulhan, ed. Abraham M. Luncz (Jerusalem, 1911), 5a.
?When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav,
the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of
the exile, the renowned pious one (may Hashem protect and save him) Rav
Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy
mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the ?other
wisdoms,? correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the
wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the ?other wisdoms? are
inextricably linked together ??

(From the Introduction to the Hebrew translation of Euclid?s book on
geometry, Sefer Uklidos [The Hague, 1780] by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov,
one of the main talmidim of the Vilna Gaon.)

R. Yhonason Eybeschutz in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science   pages 24-25) writes:

"For all the sciences are 'condiments' and are necessary for our Torah,
such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements
and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very
essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah
and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refuge as well as the
Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics]
is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are
used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary
for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests;
furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with
examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene,
to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The
science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to
know the paths of the constellations and t
 o sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science
 of medicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of
 the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ? and how much more is it
 necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether
 the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for
 what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is
 the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too
 we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and
 chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the
 tabernacle, etc."

In light of the above,	I simply do not understand why some yeshiva boys do
not receive an adequate secular education and why secular subjects are
disparaged in some circles.
On Shabbos I showed these quotes to a 16-year-old yeshiva bochur.  He said,
"But everything is in the Torah."  I replied, "Show me where the
Pythagorean theorem is in the Torah."  Needless to say,  he had no reply.?
YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210111/365fa88c/attachment.html>

On Shabbos I showed these quotes to a 16-year-old yeshiva bochur.  He said,
"But everything is in the Torah."  I replied, "Show me where the
Pythagorean theorem is in the Torah."  Needless to say,  he had no reply.
=======================================
1. Difficult to convince someone whose whole education has been devoted to a different approach AND has been told it is the only acceptable approach.
2. I?ve said , I agree it?s all derivable from Torah but isn?t it a more efficient use of time to get it direct rather than derive it?
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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210112/9e4075e7/attachment.html>

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. May one pour cold water into hot soup to cool it down?

A. A hot pot of soup is a kli rishon (primary source of heat) and one may
not add cold water to the pot, since this will cook the water. However, a
bowl of soup is a kli sheini (secondary source of heat), and water does not
cook in a kli sheini. It would therefore seem that one may add cold water
to a bowl of soup. Still, the halacha is not so obvious, since there are
also pieces of meat or vegetables in the soup. A solid food transferred to
a secondary vessel retains the status of a kli rishon according to some
poskim. Perhaps we need be concerned that the hot pieces of vegetable or
meat may cook the water. The Pri Megadim (253: Aishel Avrohom 32) writes
that it is possible that all agree that hot pieces of meat that are
submerged in liquid in a kli sheini have the status of a kli sheini and
cannot cook. This appears to be the consensus of many poskim (see Pischei
Teshuva YD 94:7 and Kitzos Hashulchan 124:39). Therefore, one may add cold
water to soup.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210112/1c2d3d44/attachment.html>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:08:05PM +0000, Prof. L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

>> Q. May one add matzah meal or pieces of bread to a bowl of hot soup
>> on Shabbos?
...
>> As such, matzah meal or bread should not be placed in a bowl of hot soup
>> that is yad soldes. Yad soledes is a halachic term which refers to the
>> temperature at which cooking occurs. The exact temperature of yad soledes
>> is open to debate, but it is generally assumed to be higher than 113 F.

From Peninei Halakhah 10.11 "Cooking after Baking" at
<https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-10-11/>:

    Following the custom of most Jewish communities who are stringent
    in this regard, one who wishes to dip a cookie in tea or coffee must
    make certain that the teacup or coffee cup is a kli shlishi, since a
    kli shlishi definitely does not cook. One who wishes to dip bread in
    a bowl of soup may do so, as the ladle used to serve the soup can be
    considered a kli sheni and the bowl can be considered a kli shlishi
    (MB 318:45)[10].

Before I share footnote #10, which is long and may lose people's
attention, let me cite AhS 318:25 who acknowledges that some are machmir
WRT bread, but doesn't consider it iqar. And the Rama, who holds like
the Raaviyah, that there is no bishul achar afiyah.

So, what the OU says "should not" should really be a CYLOR.

Now, back to the PH:

    [10] Those who do not allow dipping bread into hot soup in a kli
    sheni follow two stringencies: a) They prohibit cooking after baking;
    b) they defer to the opinion that many foods are considered kalei
    ha-bishul and thus can become cooked in a kli sheni.

    Nevertheless, when serving soup using a ladle, according to
    Maharil, Pri Hadash, and others, the ladle is considered a kli
    sheni. Accordingly, the soup bowl is a kli shlishi, and in a kli
    shlishi there is definitely no prohibition.

    While Taz and Shakh maintain that the ladle is a kli rishon and
    MB 318:87 follows this approach, nevertheless this is a case of a
    twofold doubt, and thus one may be lenient (MB 318:45) as long as
    the ladle does not remain in the kli rishon long enough to reach
    the same heat as the vessel itself.

    Soup nuts may be added to a kli sheni even le-khathila, since they are
    deep fried and are considered cooked rather than baked (SSK 1:70).
    Furthermore, this further cooking is not desired, as people do not
    want the soup nuts to get soggy.

    According to those who maintain that ein bishul ahar afiya (there
    is no prohibition of cooking something that has already been baked),
    one may definitely toast challah. Additionally, MA 318:17, Mahatzit
    Ha-shekel, and Hayei Adam (Zikhru Torat Moshe 24:7) would permit
    this even for those who are stringent about bishul ahar afiya,
    since they maintain that baking and roasting are the same.

    In contrast, some are stringent because they maintain that roasting
    is different from baking (Pri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav 318:7; SSK
    1:71; Kaf Ha-hayim 318:78; Or Le-Tziyon 2:30:6; Menuhat Ahava vol. 2
    ch. 10 n. 154). There is even one opinion that expresses concern that
    this is considered Makeh Be-fatish (applying the finishing touch)
    (Rav Pe'alim, OH 2:52).

    In practice, the lenient position (that roasting and baking are the
    same) seems the more reasonable one, since if one continues to bake
    food it dries out, and essentially becomes toasted. Nevertheless,
    one who chooses to be stringent is commendable. This is the case
    when it comes to completely toasting the bread, but even those who
    are stringent would allow warming up bread - even to the point that
    the surface crisps - because doing so does not make a significant
    change to the baked state. Rav Pe'alim indeed states this in OH 2:52,
    and Nishmat Shabbat 318:26 states similarly.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The greatest discovery of all time is that
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   a person can change their future
Author: Widen Your Tent      by merely changing their attitude.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Oprah Winfrey

I have never understood the assertion that "a kli shlishi definitely
does not cook."

When I make a coffee on Shabbos morning, I take the water from the
urn and put it into a cup.  I then pour this water into another cup
which is then a kli shlishi.  However, the temperature of the water
in the second cup is still very hot.  Indeed, if I poured it onto my
hand I would get scalded.

How much difference can there be between the temperature of the water
in the urn and the temperature of the water in the second cup,  the
kli shlishi? Not very much.  The temperature of the water in the
second cup is certainly well over 113 F. So why do they say it does not cook?

At 05:05 PM 1/12/2021, Micha Berger wrote:

 > From Peninei Halakhah 10.11 "Cooking after Baking" at
 ><https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-10-11/>:
 >
 >     Following the custom of most Jewish communities who are stringent
 >     in this regard, one who wishes to dip a cookie in tea or coffee must
 >     make certain that the teacup or coffee cup is a kli shlishi, since a
 >     kli shlishi definitely does not cook. One who wishes to dip bread in
 >     a bowl of soup may do so, as the ladle used to serve the soup can be
 >     considered a kli sheni and the bowl can be considered a kli shlishi
 >     (MB 318:45)[10].
 >

On 13/1/21 7:55 am, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> 
> How much difference can there be between the temperature of the water
> in the urn and the temperature of the water in the second cup,? the
> kli shlishi? Not very much.? The temperature of the water in the
> second cup is certainly well over 113 F. So why do they say it does not 
> cook?

Because that's what the halacha says.  E.g. see SA Harav 551:34 who 
explicitly says that the heat of a keli shlishi or revi'i, even if it is 
yad soledes bo, has no power to cook, although according to some it 
still has the power to cause absorption and expulsion.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

 From https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-10-07/

There is a third type of vessel known as a kli 
shlishi. If one pours hot water or hot food from 
the pot in which it was cooked into another 
vessel, and from that vessel into a third one, 
that final container is a kli shlishi. The poskim 
agree that a kli shlishi is unable to cook 
anything.<https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-10-07/#_ze05ftn10_6>[6]


<https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-10-07/#_ze05ftnref10_6>[6]. 
In truth, some Acharonim were inclined to be 
stringent and avoid putting anything raw and 
easily cooked into a kli shlishi that is yad 
soledet bo. Thus states Shevitat Ha-Shabbat, 
Mevashel 23, based on Yere?im. This is also the 
position of azon Ish regarding kalei ha-bishul ( 
Hazon Ish, O 52:19). He maintains that as long as 
the water is hot, no matter how many times 
removed the vessel is from the original kli 
rishon, kalei ha-bishul become cooked. AHS 318:28 
states this specifically with regard to tea. 
According to Chayei Adam 20:4, any vessel whose 
contents are so hot that they would burn someone 
is capable of cooking. However, according to most 
poskim, the principle that Bishul does not apply 
in a kli shlishi is absolute, and any kind of raw 
food may be introduced into a kli shlishi. MB 
318:47 records this based on Pri Megadim. The 
accepted explanation is that this was the Sages? 
assumption ? cooking is inconceivable in a kli 
shlishi. Further, it seems to me that cooking in 
a vessel that people do not generally use for 
cooking would not be prohibited by Torah law, 
since the Torah prohibition applies only to 
cooking in the usual manner. Since one normally 
does not cook in a kli sheni, there is no Torah 
prohibition of putting raw food into a kli sheni. 
However, foods that cook easily are often cooked 
in a kli sheni or even by irui from a kli sheni. 
Therefore, if one places these foods in a kli 
sheni or pours water on them from a kli sheni, he 
transgresses a Torah prohibition. However, not 
even kalei ha-bishul are generally cooked in a 
kli shlishi, so there is never a Torah 
prohibition involved. And since in the vast 
majority of cases one cannot cook in a kli 
shlishi, the Sages did not prohibit cooking in 
one in any case.MA, MB 318:34, and Kaf Ha- chayim 
?70 state that the halakha follows the first 
opinion presented in Tosafot, Shabbat 39a. This 
opinion states that even though a kli sheni does 
not cook, one may not place raw food into such a 
vessel because it resembles cooking. One may, 
however, add spices, since that does not resemble 
cooking. This is also the position of Or 
Le-Tziyon 2:30:5. In contrast, R. Ovadia Yosef, 
basing himself on a number of Rishonim and 
Acharonim, writes that the halakha follows the 
second opinion in Tosafot, according to which 
there is never a concern of resembling cooking in 
a kli sheni (Ye aveh Da?at 6:22).

Some maintain that since we do not know what 
foods are considered kalei ha-bishul, we must be 
stringent and refrain from putting any foods into 
a kli sheni except those that we know are not 
kalei bishul (Yere?im; Smag). Others maintain 
that only specific foods that are known to be 
kalei ha-bishul are a concern (Ran; Tur). Rema 
318:5 states that the custom is to be stringent, 
as do MA 318:18; SAH 318:12; ayei Adam 20:4; MB 
318:42; SSK 1:59. SA 318:5 cites both opinions 
and seems inclined to be lenient. This was the 
inclination of a number of poskim ? that one need 
be stringent only with foods that are known to 
cook easily ( azon Ish, O 52:18; Or Le-Tziyon 
2:30:3). Yalkut Yosef 318:47 also records this as 
the position of Rambam and Maharam ibn abib.

To simplify the matter, I wrote to be 
consistently stringent in the case of a kli 
sheni, and consistently lenient in the case of a 
kli shlishi. Even though it is agreed that one 
may not pour from a kli sheni onto kalei 
ha-bishul, nevertheless we have seen that 
according to most poskim, most foods are not 
kalei ha-bishul. Moreover, even those who are 
stringent consider the prohibition rabbinic, 
since one does not intend to cook. Additionally, 
pouring will only cook the outer layer of the 
food, which is less than the amount required to 
transgress a Torah prohibition, and according to 
Rashbam this is not considered cooking at all. 
Therefore, one should only be stringent and 
refrain from pouring from a kli sheni in the case 
of foods that are known to be kalei ha-bishul.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210113/52ccfdda/attachment.html>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 07:55:09AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> I have never understood the assertion that "a kli shlishi definitely
> does not cook."

Me neither. But the melakhah is bishul, not cooking.

For example, you have two eggs at the same temperature, one heated by
a frying pan that used to be on the fire (toledos ha'ur), the other
cooking in the sun (toledos hachamah). One is bishul, the other isn't.

Or the hot springs of Teveriah. Chazal knew what they were and how hot
the waters are. What they didn't know is whether they were warm from
the volcanic processes in the ground of from the sun's heat. And despite
the water being in a known resulting state, using the hot water to cook
something else may or may not be bishul depending on what heated it.


In general, our culture is too fixated on science to "get" halakhah. I've
been saying this for a while on my own say-so, but R' David Lapin's
"Matmanim" podcast had a few shiurim on this topic as well.

(RDL is not to be confused with his older brother, R Daniel. R David
studied under his uncle, R Elya Lopian, has semicha from R Unterman,
founded the South African Instute of Business Ethics, and came in second
in the hunt for a successor for the CR of the UK when R/D/L Sacks z"l
retired. Matmanim is a daily 15 min shiur (6:45-7am) in the Raanana
Kollel. He finds a hashkafic point, "buried trasure", in the
day's daf. https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/1528778.rss Back to the point... )

I phrased it in terms of halakhah being about observed and observable
reality. As it's our first-hand experiences -- those we had and those we
can be held accountable for if we don't bother checking -- that impact
us on the gut level, the deeper places of our psyche where decisions
are made. RDLapin talks about Torah dealing with relationships, how we
relate to an item, rather than facts about the item. When I emailed RDL
about it, neither of us were sure whether we are saying the same thing
or if there are subtle differences.

Either way, we live in an era where progress is so tied to science
and technology, that when we hear a word like "bishul" we look for a
scientific definition of cooking. Rather, as Rashi says about cooking
toledos hachamah, derekh bishul is part of the definition of the
melakhah. But it would never be part of a scientific definition of
cooking.

To support that broad point with another example -- tal and mayim are
two diferent of the 7 liquids. Both are H2O, though. Our leap to a
physics or chemistry explanation when the relevant sciences may be more
psychology and sociology gets in the way of understanding halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   how can he appreciate the worth of another?
Author: Widen Your Tent                - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

In response to my email about making coffee on 
Shabbos I received the following query:

I have seen many people use a tea bag in a Kli 
Shelishi on Shabbos. Is this Allowed???

From
<https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/08/making-tea-and-coffee-on-shabbos/>https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/08/making-tea-and-coffee-on-shabbos/

Instant tea:

Some authorities permit using pre-cooked tea 
leaves. For example, it would be permitted to 
pour hot water onto the tea leaves before Shabbos 
and then to pour more hot water onto the same dry 
leaves to make tea on Shabbos. Some halachic 
authorities [14] apply the rule that there is no 
prohibition of cooking something that has already 
been cooked completely. The Aruch Ha???Shulchan 
[15] accepts this as well, but adds that when one 
pre-cooks the tea before Shabbos, he must leave 
the hot water on the tea for a while to make sure 
that it is fully cooked. However, some halachic 
authorities [16] forbid this practice because the 
tea leaves are used purely to extract their 
taste.  Therefore, as long as the tea leaves 
continue to emit taste, they are not considered already cooked.

Keli Sheini and Keli Shelishi

As a general rule, a keli sheini (a secondary 
vessel, not the one which was on the fire) does 
not cook for Hilchos Shabbos purposes. [17] 
Tosafos [18] explain that since a keli sheini was 
never on the fire, its walls are cooler and it cannot cook.

However, if something is considered mi???kalei 
ha???bishul (easy to cook), it will cook even in 
a keli sheini. [19] The Ran, [20] Magen Avraham, 
[21] Mishna Berura, [22] and R. Moshe Feinstein 
[23] rule that we do not know what foods are 
mi???kalei ha???bishul, and therefore we need to 
be concerned that all foods fall into this 
category unless explicitly excluded in the 
Talmud. [24] According to this view, one is 
forbidden to put tea leaves even in a keli 
sheini, because they might be mi???kalei 
ha???bishul. The Aruch Ha???Shulchan [25] is 
certain that tea is mi???kalei ha???bishul. 
However, the Chazon Ish [26] argues that one need 
not be concerned that a given food is mi???kalei 
ha???bishul unless an explicit source says that 
it is. [27] R. Hershel Schachter writes that R. 
Joseph B. Soloveitchik made tea in a keli sheini 
because he did not consider tea leaves to be 
mi???kalei ha???bishul, [28] and R. Schachter 
himself rules this way as well. [29]

A keli shelishi (a tertiary vessel, from which 
something was poured from a keli sheini) may 
provide a solution to those who are concerned 
that tea may cook in a keli sheini. Talmudic 
sources do not mention such a concept, nor do 
Rishonim (early authorities) distinguish between 
keli sheini and keli shelishi. To the best of my 
knowledge, the only Rishon who talks about a keli 
shelishi is R. Eliezer of Metz, [30] who 
explicitly says that a keli shelishi is the same 
as a keli sheini. Nevertheless, many Achronim 
(later authorities) [31] rule that a keli 
shelishi does not cook even food that is 
mi???kalei ha???bishul, or that one need not be 
concerned that something is mi???kalei 
ha???bishul when using a keli shelishi (but they 
hold that in a keli sheini one should be 
concerned). However, many halachic authorities 
[32] disagree. The Chazon Ish [33] argues that 
there is no basis to distinguish in theory 
between a keli sheini and a keli shelishi. 
However, he continues, there may be a practical 
distinction: the Chayei Adam [34] rules that a 
keli sheini that is extremely hot (yad nichveis 
bo) will cook. Based on this, the Chazon Ish says 
that we use a keli shelishi because by the time 
the item has been transferred twice, it is 
probably no longer as hot, and therefore one does 
not need to be concerned for this opinion of the Chayei Adam. [35]

Making Tea Using Essence

Mishna Berura [36] states that the best way to 
make tea on Shabbos is to make essence, meaning a 
very strong tea, before Shabbos. When one wants 
to drink tea on Shabbos, he can put hot water in 
the cup, and then add the cold essence. This 
solution works according to all views because 
everyone agrees that water is not mi???kalei 
ha???bishul and therefore will not cook in a keli sheini.
______________
Let me add the caveat that the Jewish Press often 
added when it came to matters of Halacha.  "One 
should consult one's local competent Orthodox rabbi."

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210115/8132edd6/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> I have seen many people use a tea bag in a Kli 
> Shelishi on Shabbos. Is this Allowed???
> 
> From
> <https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/08/making-tea-and-coffee-on-shabbos/>
...
> As a general rule, a keli sheini (a secondary 
> vessel, not the one which was on the fire) does 
> not cook for Hilchos Shabbos purposes. [17] 
> Tosafos [18] explain that since a keli sheini was 
> never on the fire, its walls are cooler and it cannot cook.

> However, if something is considered mikalei 
> habishul (easy to cook), it will cook even in 
> a keli sheini. [19] The Ran, [20] Magen Avraham, 
> [21] Mishna Berura, [22] and R. Moshe Feinstein 
> [23] rule that we do not know what foods are 
> mikalei habishul, and therefore we need to 
> be concerned that all foods fall into this 
> category unless explicitly excluded in the 
> Talmud. [24] According to this view, one is 
> forbidden to put tea leaves even in a keli 
> sheini, because they might be mikalei 
> habishul...

This interestingly touches on the topic I raised in my earlier email
about the difference between the halachic concept of "bishul", which is
defined by a set of experiences, and the scientific concept of cooking.

Tea leaves don't cook easily. I spoke to importers. Making tea doesn't
cook the tea leaves. Never mind "easily cooked", they don't cook at all.
Which is why one can cold brew tea or make sun tea, without the water
being warm, nowhere near yad soledes bo.

One could make an argument that tea leaves are tavlin, flavorings that
don't cook. After all, when it comes to halakhos like drinking before
davening, tea is just flavored water.

And from a scientific perspective, what is happening isn't cooking.

BUT, is it bishul? Without a rigorous definition of bishul, we cannot
rule out the idea that it includes the speed-up of making tea from hours
to minutes that is caused by the water's heat. And for all I know, that
as-yet-unspecified defining feature of bishul happens easily with tea
leaves. (Or at least the crumbs of those leaves found in tea bags.)

So, even while the tea experts say that making tea doesn't cook the
leaves, that is not enough to force the conclusion that they aren't
qalei bishul!

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and he wants to sleep well that night too."
Author: Widen Your Tent            - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. May one make ices on Shabbos?

A. The Dovev Meisharim (siman 55) writes that changing water into ice is
forbidden on Shabbos. Moreover, he writes that even if the water was placed
in the freezer before Shabbos, if it freezes on Shabbos, the ice would
still be forbidden because of muktza. The change in form from liquid to
solid turns it into a new entity which is muktza. The Chelkas Yaakov (OC
128) and many other poskim disagree on both these points. Not only is ice
that forms on Shabbos not muktza, but it is not clear that there is any
prohibition to make ice. This is because one does not actually make ice.
All one does is place water in a cold environment and the ice forms on its
own. Although one may not chop ice with your hands to actively melt it into
water, one may place ice in a bowl and let it melt on its own into water.
The same should be allowed in reverse. Water should be allowed to freeze
into ice on its own. The Chelkas Yaakov is unsure of this last point, and
therefore recommends not making ice on Sha
 bbos unless there is a pressing need.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210115/7b106b17/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)