Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 26

Tue, 31 Oct 2006

• 1. What is the source of Chasidim to have hakafos on SA night? (Dov Kay)
• 2. Kashrus of bee honey (Mike Wiesenberg)
• 3. Re: honey [was: Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret] (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Lighting Neros on Yom Tov (Ken Bloom)
• 5. Re: Lighting Neros on Yom Tov (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: honey (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: honey (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: honey (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: What is the source of Chasidim to have hakafos on SA night? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: honey [was: Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret] (Akiva Blum)
• 11. Re: DNA testing (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 12. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 13. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 14. My Noah Problem (Jonathan Baker)
• 15. Re: Lighting Neros on Yom Tov (Jacob Farkas)

<<I don't even own a copy not to find. However, I recall seeing a long list 
of
ta'uyos soferim, and around 10% or so lead to differences lema'aseh. Perhaps
someone who owns a copy can fill in the gaps in my memory.>>

I have not seen this sefer, but isn't the custom of refraining from eating 
milk and fish together based on a to'us soferim in the Shulchan Aruch.  I 
understand that some Chasidim are quite makpid about this. Is this not an 
example of a minhag Yisroel being based on a to'us soferim?

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

Am I reading this correctly? That bee honey is kosher is an explicit gemora,
bechoros 7b. Are you saying that chazzal made
a mistake??
                                       Mike

>>Other well-known halachot based on "mistakes": the kashrut of bee-honey<<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061030/387490c8/attachment.htm

Jonathan Baker wrote:

>> Shimshon and Yonasan both ate bee honey.  Not a mistake,  obviously.

> Yes, but interestingly, both were assur.  One for being eaten from
> the innards of a dead non-kosher animal

Why is this assur?


> the other for being eaten in contravention of an oath.

He didn't take the neder, so why was he bound by it (even had he found
out about it before eating)?  Can a person be bound by a neder that
other people took in his absence, without his consent?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Monday 30 October 2006 00:36, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> Rav Ovadia Yosef (I don't have the source) states that on Yom Tov,
> first we have to say the Beracha and only then light the candles (on
> Shabbat we light first).

Yalkut Yosef (263:33) says that even on Shabbat, the beracha comes 
before lighting the candles. First, we don't bring in Shabbat by 
lighting the candles (we make a tanai to that effect once each year to 
be sure). Second, even if we did, Shabbat doesn't start until after 
we've lit the last candle.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061030/1c486c42/attachment-0001.pgp

R"n Boublil wrote:
> To continue, according to Rav Chaim David HaLevy, the more
> lights the merrier.  Following his ruling and explanations,
> I have made a point of actually having more electric lights
> on than in the past.

I easily can see how additional electric lights will accomplish this. 
But candles? If all you have is candles, then for sure, more candles 
means more light. But if even two or three electric lights are on, 
then the candle light is ineffective and negligible.

However, perhaps we can distinguish two concepts: the light which the 
candles provide, and the beauty of having lit candles burning.

If a person truly appreciates the beauty of having candles, then 
perhaps that can justify the melacha, just as one can cook a large 
pot of food even though it won't taste any better than a small pot, 
but it would *look* better when on the serving plate.

On the other hand, that example is allowed only when no extra acts of 
melacha are being performed. To do additional acts of melacha 
(lighting extra candles) when they only add esthetic beauty but zero 
practical light, could be problematic.

Rabbi Halevy is certainly of a stature to disagree with Rabbi 
Auerbach if he sees fit. But it seems to me that if Rabbi Auerbach is 
hesitant to allow lighting a blazing avukah for havdala, he would 
also be hesitant to allow lighting for the beauty of candles in an 
electrically-lit room. He seems to require a level of tzorech which 
rises above esthetics to the level of practicality.

Akiva Miller

 
 

TK: > Shimshon and Yonasan both ate bee honey.  Not a mistake,  obviously. 

From: R' Zev Sero:

>>Shimshon, yes.  But Yonatan?  IIRC, Metzudot David  translates it as
cane sugar; that's anachronistic, since sugar wasn't  introduced into
the Mediterranean until the early Moslem period, but the  Metzudot
would probably still say it was the sweet sap of some other  plant.<<

.
>>>>
Rashi says, quoting Targum, that "ya'aros devash" is to be  translated as 
"kinim of honey."  Rashi understands the word "kinim" to  be something like 
"kaneh" -- cane, sugar cane.  Rashi even says "In the  language of Yishmael they 
call that sap/honey sukaria."
 
However, Radak explains Targum -- "kinim" -- to be saying that ya'aros are  
honeycombs, made of "kinim, kinim" -- many cells.  To me Radak is  obviously 
correct in this case.  
 
Metzudas Dovid says it's "honey that grows from kinim" but it is not clear  
to me whether he is saying it's honey from canes or honey from  honeycombs.
 
I don't know what problem in the pasuk would cause Rashi to translate  
"ya'aros devash" as anything other than honey.  See Shmuel I,  14:27.



--Toby  Katz
=============

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061030/2a160d7e/attachment.htm

 
 
RJB: > >>Other  well-known halachot based on "mistakes":  the kashrut of 
bee-honey
> > (when the  text meant date-honey)  <<

TK: > Shimshon and Yonasan both ate bee honey.  Not a  mistake,  obviously.

RJB: >>Yes, but interestingly, both were  assur.  One for being eaten from
the innards of a dead non-kosher  animal, the other for being eaten
in contravention of an oath.

So yes,  linguistically, devash can be bee-honey, there's still no
evidence that as  bee-honey, it's muttar.<<

.
>>>>
The evidence is what you yourself wrote -- in both cases, the honey was  
forbidden for a particular reason.  In neither case does ANYONE suggest  that it 
was a problem to eat bee honey.  
 
NO ONE asks, "How could Yonasan have thought bee honey was kosher?" or  "Why 
did Yonasan eat non-kosher honey?"  
 
It is obvious from the spontaneous actions of both Shimshon (and his  
parents, let's not forget) and Yonasan that they took it for granted you can eat  bee 
honey.  I don't even know what there is to argue about.  
 
IIRC the Gemara itself says honey is mutar "migezeiras hakasuv" --  possibly 
contradicting other statements of Chazal which take "Eretz zavas cholov  
u'devash" to be referring to date honey, but nevertheless clearly understanding  
bee honey to be mutar.  This is not a "mistake" that somehow crept into the  
Gemara.  



--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061030/f58acaeb/attachment.html

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> I don't know what problem in the pasuk would cause Rashi to translate 
> "ya'aros devash" as anything other than honey.  See Shmuel I, 14:27.

Probably the "yaarot".  A thicket of sugar canes could be called a
"forest", but it's hard to see the connection between a honeycomb
and a forest.  As far as I can see, the only problem with translating
it as sugar cane is that it was not known in the area at the time
(something that Rashi would not have known).  But why not some other
tree or wood with a sweet sap?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Dov Kay wrote:
> <<I don't even own a copy not to find. However, I recall seeing a long list 
> of
> ta'uyos soferim, and around 10% or so lead to differences lema'aseh. Perhaps
> someone who owns a copy can fill in the gaps in my memory.>>
> 
> I have not seen this sefer, but isn't the custom of refraining from eating 
> milk and fish together based on a to'us soferim in the Shulchan Aruch.  I 
> understand that some Chasidim are quite makpid about this. Is this not an 
> example of a minhag Yisroel being based on a to'us soferim?

It's definitely not a transcription mistake.  The Bet Yosef definitely
wrote and meant it.  The question is whether he made a mistake.  The
Darkei Moshe says, in effect, that the BY got confused, and "nitchalfa
lo basar bechalav", and therefore most Ashkenazim don't follow this BY.
But the Pachad Yitzchak says that it was no mistake, and the BY knew
about a danger connected with mixing fish and milk, not the same one
as the fish/meat danger, and he referrred to the fish/meat danger only
as an example.  Accordingly some Sefardic and Chassidic communities
follow this to one extent or another (see Ben Ish Chai, for instance).

Meanwhile, it's possible that the fish/meat danger *is* the result of
an "error" in transmission.  The gemara says not to eat "binta" with
meat, and everyone translates "binta" as "fish", but there's good
reason to suppose that in fact it's not "fish" in general, but a
specific species of fish which was known in Bavel.  When Jews moved out
of Bavel, and their children learning the gemara asked them what
"binta" was, they told them it was a fish they had back in Bavel;
the children told the grandchildren "it's a fish", and the grandchildren
told the great-grandchildren "it means fish".


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

> From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> >>Other  well-known halachot based on "mistakes": the kashrut of bee-honey
> > (when the  text meant date-honey) <<

Isn't this a mefurash gemorah?
Bechoros 7b

Akiva Blum

> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:17:04 +0300
> From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] DNA testing

> Strangely blood testing is more of a problem than DNA testing because of
> the gemara that various properties of the child come from each parent. 

Has anyone run a comparison between this G'mara and what we know about Mitochondrial DNA and the fact that there are indeed sources of DNA in the human body that are maternal alone?

Also, as R' Micha reminded me, there are factors that are inherited specifically via the Y chromozome, which are paternal alone.

For example, there is  a project in Israel attempting to check all the Kohanim for a specific Y chromozome related trait that is more prevalent among Kohanim.

Thus,
> if the blood comes from the mother it cannot be used to establish paternity.
 
> DNA is better since there are no gemaras that deny its validity.
> hence.

Unless we decide that "HaDam Hu HaNefesh" can be used to re-read this G'mara about the blood as discussing DNA.


Shoshana L. Boublil

I had written: 
> Rav Wosner is rather inclined to accept DNA evidence against igun.

RMYG wrote:
> That's what I said (although I wasn't clear). R' Wosner holds that DNA can
> help as a Siman against Igun. The context of our discussion is Yichus, and
> that's what my post focused on.

I didn't mean as an additional siman, but rather as sufficient proof on its 
own, period. Hence, it would be good enough for yichus, too. In fact, that 
was cleary at the center of the first speaker's presentation: siman muvhaq 
for 'igun = siman muvhaq for yichus.

Arie Folger

RJRich wrote:
> Let's try a different case. 1 piece of treif meat which has a
> radioactive signature falls into 2 pieces of kosher meat. ?Do I need to
> test the piece I take or rely on rov?

Why not test? We generally accept Tosefot's idea that wherever we can find 
out, we don't rely on rov. In practice, though, that would depend on the 
soundness of the science behind it and the feasibility of testing. There is 
no obligation to test people for mamzerut.

Arie Folger

So, any of you religious minds have any thoughts on 
my Noach problem?  http://thanbook.blogspot.com

How do I reconcile the God who keeps saying "oops"
in the Flood story: "oops I shouldn't have created
Man", "oops I went too far in destroying", with
the common medieval God-images of the omnipotent,
omniscient God?  It's the "etz pri -> etz oseh pri"
problem writ large.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

R' Akiva Miller wrote:

> 
> We know that when melacha is allowed on Yom Tov, it is not a blanket 
> heter. The melacha is allowed only if there is a *need* for that 
> action. The poskim discuss which needs are legitimate, and which 
> needs are insufficient to allow the melacha to be done. This post 
> will discuss an application of this principle.
> 
> In Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa, perek 62 note 31, Rav Shlomo Zalman 
> Auerbach is quoted as questioning whether an avukah may be lit on for 
> havdalah when Yom Tov falls on Motzaei Shabbos. He explains that this 
> action is being done only for Hidur Mitzvah, not for Hanaah. He 
> leaves it as a Tzarich Iyun.
> 
> That same footnote points to Shaar Hatziyun 435:9, which tells of a 
> case where a person did not do Bedikas Chometz, and did not do a 
> Bitul Chometz either, and it is now Yom Tov. Even though there's no 
> question that such a person must now do a full Bedikah, including use 
> of a Ner, he asks whether a ner may be lit specifically for this 
> purpose if it is during the daytime. My guess is that the problem is 
> that because it is daytime, he's not really getting any use from the 
> candle's light. He leaves this question as a Tzarich Iyun.
> 
> So we have two cases about lighting a fire on Yom Tov specifically 
> for a mitzvah, not for actual use. Both are left as a "Tzarich Iyun". 
> This leads me to wonder about yet another case of lighting a candle 
> on Yom Tov only for a mitzvah, not for personal use:
> 
> Namely, the Yom Tov candles themselves. Sometimes they are lit before 
> Yom Tov, but sometimes we light them on Yom Tov itself. (See footnote 
> 1 for more details.)
> 
> In virtually all of our homes, the room is already full of electric 
> light. I really do not need any more light. Unless I had a timer turn 
> off the electric lights for the time period when the Neros are 
> scheduled to be lit, the only reason I'm lighting is because of the 
> mitzvah.
> 
> Is this melacha mutar? To me, this case seems similar to the other 
> two cases, a Tzarich Iyun. 
> 

Lighting candles is Tzorekh Yomtov, as it is obligatory. Not lighting 
them is problematic.

> It is undeniable that the whole world *does* light under these 
> conditions, and has been doing so for decades. But what is the heter?

Mitokh [Shehuterah l'tzorekh okhel nefesh huterah shelo l'tzorekh] 
allows for lighting candles even when there is no "real" need at all. 
There is a Mahloqes Rishonim as to whether Tzorekh Ketzas is needed, 
Rashi is of the opinion that it is unnecessary, Tosfos and the Rosh 
require that there be at least Tzorekh Ketzas. So according to Rashi, 
there is no question, (even when ignoring the obligation to light as a 
neccesity), according to Tosfos and the Rosh, there could be a question, 
if not for the aforementioned obligation, which would at the very least 
constitute Tzorekh Ketzas.

> 
> Are there any other poskim who deal with this question? In light of 
> Shaar Hatziyun 435:9, how do we light Neros Yom Tov when the room is 
> already full of electric light? Perhaps we must arrange things so 
> that they are lit only in a dark room?

I have yet to see any posqim deal with a hypothetical case of frying an 
egg on Yomtov when there is a fridge full of prepared food, either.

> I do not mean to accuse Klal Yisroel of doing issurim for the past 
> few decades. I'm only asking if anyone knows of any poskim who have 
> discussed it. Perhaps the answer will be that this very case proves 
> that such mitzvos DO constitute adequate tzorech for this halacha, 
> thus resolving the "tzorech iyun" for Avukah for Yaknehaz, and of Ner 
> for Bedikas Chometz as well.

The "tzorich iyun" is actually understandable, even when considering 
that Ner Shel Yom Tov is necessary in a room full of light. Borei 
me'orei ha'eish does not 'need' 2 flames, having a second flame is not 
even tzorekh ketzas, unlike the first flame, which RSZA would agree has 
Tzorekh ketzas, so it is a good sha'aloh, whether the Hiddur of having 
Avuqah is enough to satisfy Tzorekh ketzas. Bediqas Hametz is fine 
without Ner as well, even though it is min hamuvhar to use a Ner, 
specifically, so the question would also be, is that enough to 
constitute Tzorekh Ketzas.

> 
> Akiva Miller
> 
> (Footnote 1: Some have the minhag to always light Neros Yom Tov after 
> Yom Tov has already started, so this question always applies to them. 
> Others usually light beforehand (like on Shabbos) but even they often 
> light on Yom Tov itself: Second night of Rosh Hashana, second night 
> in galus, or when any night of Yom Tov is on Motzaei Shabbos. This 
> question also applies to everyone regarding Ner Shabbos when Yom Tov 
> is on Friday afternoon.)
> 
> (Footnote 2: I should point out that in Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa, 
> perek 43 note 171, Rav Auerbach focuses on this exact case, but he 
> asks an entirely different question about it: He asks how the bracha 
> may be said on such a lighting, since no hanaah will be gotten from 
> those candles. He suggests, for several reasons, that the bracha may 
> be said, but as I see it, this makes the Melacha L'Tzorech question 
> even sharper. He explicitly writes that "leika klal shum simcha 
> yeseira mizeh" - there is no extra simcha whatsoever from the neros, 
> and the women light them only because it is an important mitzvah. So 
> why is it more "l'tzorech" than bedikas chometz? His conclusion is 
> unclear to me: He ends with both "ul'dvareinu nicha" and "v'adayin 
> tzarich iyun" -- "according to our explanation it's okay" and "but it 
> still needs more research".)

I don't have the sefer in front of me now, but I am unsure what the 
Brakhah on Ner Yom Tov has to do with Hana'ah altogether.

Jacob Farkas


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 26
*************************************

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..."