Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 077

Monday, August 19 2002

• Birchas Hashem
• Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Re: Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• RAS on Conservative Rabbis
• Re: aveilus questions
• Question in Eilu Metzios
• Question in Eilu Metzios
• eilu v'eilu and Rashi
• Re: Birchas Hashem
• Re: smicha requirement
• Re: smicha requirement
• Re: Question in Eilu Metzios (private)
• Re: Question in Eilu Metzios (private)

#1:Mecharef umegadef, maybe?

#2:Doesn't that require the use of a sheim sheeino nimchak?

#3 (myself):Mecharef umegadef has nothing to do with a sheim sheeino
nimchak. sheim sheeino nimchak has to do with Birchas Hashem to Chayov
Meesa. Birchas Hashem (originally I wrote here "sheim sheeino nimchak"
- in error) can be in any form of speech etc.

#4 (David Riceman): I don't understand your point.  How is mecharef Umegadef
different from  Birkas haShem? I thought they were synonyms.

You are correct as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Avodah Zoro Chap. 2:11.
However my point that I was trying to make (even though I botched it up)
was as the Rambam continues in that chapter especially (but not limited
to) Halocho 14 The Issur of Birchas Hashem in itself has nothing to do
with Sheim Hamyuchod Yisboreich.

The concept of the use of Sheim Hamyuchod Yisboreich is only to make
the sinner Chayov Skilah.

kol tuv
yosef stern

>So if one finds a pot of Cholant in the street (on Shabbos) he may eat it?

>I don't know that one would any more than one would eat meat found on the
>ground in front of a kosher butcher. But lichora it should be mutar like
>the case of teisha chanuyos.

I wrote:
: See SA YD 63 where it says that Min Hatorah there is the Chazoko of Tisha
: Chanuyois, but the Chachomim were Gozer that it's no good because it was
: Nisaleim Min Hoayin.

Gil Student wrote:
> And the Rama there is meikel like the sevara acharonah.

If I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that according
to the Rama the whole Din of Bosor Shenisaleim Min Hoayin is Botul
Umvutol. However see the Taz on the spot and Darkei T'shuva there #46,
and Siman 118 in Ba'eir Heitev #1 & 31. (in the latter he brings about
a Cholent :) and much more).

kol tuv
yosef stern

Yosef Stern wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that according to the
> Rama the whole Din of Bosor Shenisaleim Min Hoayin is Botul Umvutol.  However
> see the Taz on the spot and Darkei T'shuva there #46, and Siman 118 in
> Ba'eir Heitev #1 & 31. (in the latter he brings about a Cholent :) and much
> more).

Which goes to the issue in my original post
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n071.shtml#04> that some are machmir
regarding the Rama's kulla.  But see the Rashi in Chullin 95b and Aruch
HaShulchan.

Gil Student

I wrote:
>However see the Taz on the spot and Darkei T'shuva there #46, and Siman
> 118 in Ba'eir >Heitev #1 & 31...

Correction the "31" reffered to the Darkei Tshuvah #31

Gil Student wrote :
> Which goes to the issue in my original post
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n071.shtml#04> that some are machmir
> regarding the Rama's kulla.  But see the Rashi in Chullin 95b and Aruch
> HaShulchan.

In your original post you were trying to draw the conclusion based
on the Rama, that Cholent has no problem and in your own words "is not
cholent in itself a siman that the meat is kosher? How often is non-kosher
cholent made?"

However, if you will see the DT 118:31 at length (the argument between
the Prach and everyone else concerning Cholent) no-one came up with your
idea that Cholent is a Simman.

kol tuv
yosef stern

I came across a summary of a relevant article by R' Ahron Soloveitchik
which I am reporting without comment or implied agreement.

 R. J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 3 p. 106

"In a separate responsum addressing another matter, appearing in
/Ha-Pardes/, Heshvan 5747, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik argues that even a
Conservative clergyman who is not only scrupulously observant but also
'believes with absolute faith in the Written Law and the Oral Law... and
is highly knowledgeable, proficient in Talmud and Codes' is disqualified
from serving on a /Bet Din/. The Gemara, /Sanhedrin/ 26a, relates that
Resh Lakish sought to disqualify R. Hiyya bar Zarnuki and R. Shimon ben
Yehozadak from serving on a /Bet Din/ convened to add an intercalary
month to the year. Resh Lakish criticized a number of individuals
whom he observed performing acts which, ostensibly, were violations
of restrictions pertaining to the observance of the sabbatical year.
R. Hiyaa bar Zarnuki and R. Shimon ben Yehozadak attempted to defend the
actions of those persons. Thereupon Resh Lakish sought to disqualify
those scholars from serving on the /Bet Din/ on the grounds that,
in defending sinners, they had entered into a '/kesher resha'im/,'
a confederacy of transgressors. Rabbi Soloveichik opines that the
Gemara herein posits an otherwise unidentified disqualification from
holding judicial office, viz., defense of, and hence identification with,
transgressors. Accordingly, concludes Rabbi Soloveichik, even assuming
the Conservative clergyman in question to be a person of exemplary faith
and piety, he is disqualified on the grounds that his identification with
the Conservative movement and its ideology constitutes participation in a
'/kesher resha'im/.' However, since none of the codifiers of the Halakhah
cite identification with transgressors /per se/ as a disqualification
for holding judicial office, Rabbi Soloveichik's interpretation must be
regarded as novel..."

 Gil Student

Another aveilus question: when saying kaddish for a non-parent, on what
basis do some say kaddish for the entire yud-bes chodesh?

Any willing to answer some questions in Eilu Metzios? They relate to
the mishna where the "care and feeding" of metzios, such as clothes and
keilim, letzorchom and letzorcho, are discussed.


Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Any willing to answer some questions in Eilu Metzios? They relate to
the mishna where the "care and feeding" of metzios, such as clothes and
keilim, letzorchom and letzorcho, are discussed.


Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rashi Kesubos 57 agrees with a Western concept of one truth. Yet, eilu
v'eilu status is awarded simultaneously to two contradictory statements
which each contain "some" truth. This means that according to Rashi:
Torah and divrei Elokim match the Ritva's multiple-truth system.

Shlomo Goldstein

yosef stern wrote:
> However my point ... was
> as the Rambam continues in that chapter especially (but not limited to)
> Halocho 14

I think you mean halacha 7.

> The Issur of Birchas Hashem in itself has nothing to do with
> Sheim Hamyuchod Yisboreich.

The Rambam uses the term shear kinuyin. The naive reading is the seven
shemos sheein nimchakim, as I wrote several posts ago. Even if you
believe, as you seem to, that it applies to the English word "God",
I don't understand why you believe that maligning God is the same as
cursing God.

David Riceman

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:21:35AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I would draw it at the difference between something that is explicit 
: in the Shulchan Aruch and/or poskim (without machlokos) as being 
: simple and obvious, as opposed to any case where to know the answer 
: you would have to derive the halacha from something else that is 
: writtten explicitly (not simple and obvious). 

This is akin to our conversation about given women semichah and
how hora'ah or pesak differ from relying on my wife's decisions
when she prepares food while I'm out at the office.

-mi

On 16 Aug 2002 at 0:19, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:21:35AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>: I would draw it at the difference between something that is explicit
>: in the Shulchan Aruch and/or poskim (without machlokos) as being
>: simple and obvious, as opposed to any case where to know the answer
>: you would have to derive the halacha from something else that is
>: writtten explicitly (not simple and obvious). 

> This is akin to our conversation about given women semichah and
> how hora'ah or pesak differ from relying on my wife's decisions
> when she prepares food while I'm out at the office.

Correct. In fact, what I had in mind when I wrote that was the 
yoatzot and Rav Henkin's definitions of what they are and are not 
allowed to tell people. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

<<Why not just post the questions, what's there to lose, if I have an
answer I will BLN respond. >>

        I sent them from work, so I can't even cut and paste.  Anyway,
the mishna discusses caring for an aveida letzorcha and letzorcho.  The
Gemara discusses if both purposes are present, if that can be done. 
Then, the Gemara moves on to utensils.  The Gemara says that wooden
utensils should be used lest they rot.  Then follows advice:  don't use
silver for hot, don't put copper on the fire.

1.  The Gemara does not mention that non-wooden utensils need, for their
own benefit, to be used.  Why is this not shelichus yad, to use it for
tzorcho only?
 
2.  Regardless of the answer to #1, why didn't the Gemara use the din of
utensils (at least wooden ones) to bring a proof that letzorcha
uletzorcho is mutar?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 8/16/02 2:41:58pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 1.  The Gemara does not mention that non-wooden utensils need, for their
> own benefit, to be used.  Why is this not shelichus yad, to use it for
> tzorcho only?

Rashi on the Mishna explains this to be the case, and while not all
say that silver was hidden in the ground (which would imply that if
not it would be Ossur) see SM"A CM 267 S"K 24, nonetheless Mashmous
of the Rishonim is that there is a need for Keilim to be used to avoid
rusting etc.

> 2.  Regardless of the answer to #1, why didn't the Gemara use the din of
> utensils (at least wooden ones) to bring a proof that letzorcha
> uletzorcho is mutar?

This question is actually what Tos. asks so do most of the Rishonim, with
different Shitos as to why the question is only by Vilon, and the Shitos
range from the opinion that the Hetter for Klei Kesef is only for it's own
need, to the opinion that it should be used Ltzorcha ultzarchoi, to the
opinion of Tos. that it may be used Ltzorchoi it self, (with the reason
as explained in Rishonim, that otherwise he will not tend to it properly,
and it doesn't get ruined by this use, and see Nsivos (Biurim Ois 4)).

Kol Tuv, Yitzchok Zirkind

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]