Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 109

Thursday, February 20 2003

• [none]
• [none]
• Re:fanaticism
• Re: Philosophy of RSRH, and MM & Philosophy of Mitzvos
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun
• Re: Half a pasuk/savrei moronon
• Toward a Jewish Aesthetic
• Re: Half a pasuk/savrei moronon
• edah conf--agunot panel
• Re: edah conf--agunot panel
• Subject: Re: Self Evident Apikorsus
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus
• RE: Self evident apikorsut
• Kefirah
• Kefirah
• Re: Re:fanaticism
• assigning a shaliach via telephone/mail
• Rambam and Yissachar-Zevulun
• Re:
• Re: assigning a shaliach via telephone/mail
• Re: Half a pasuk
• RE: [Areivim] Milk Discussion
• RE: [Areivim] Milk Discussion

That's why I pointed you to H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:13 : "They (halachoth)
are the great good which God poured out in order to enable habitation
of this world (shehishpia l'yishuv haolam hazeh) so that we can inherit
the world to come."

In other words, schar mitzvoth enables yishuv haolam hazeh, which in
turn enables yediath hashem (e.g. H. Tshuva 9:1), which in turn enables
chayei olam haba (H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:9). Compare H. Deoth 3:1-2.

In With all you heart: The Shema in Jewish worship, practice and life,
I discuss this issue extensively in a separate chapter. In brief, the
mitsvos earn Olam Habo; however, you need the 13 ikarim so as not to
invalidate their performance by performing them lshem a "foreigh god". So
that one who does mitvos for a God who in his opinion is material etc,
invalidates them for he does them lshem a different diety.

M. Levin

Now what do we do with Torah Codes, gmatiras, and other remazim? if we
do not have a 100% accurate picture of hte Sinaitic Torah, what good is
all of our drashos based upon an even slightly altered text?

This is even a bigger problem if we realize that R. Yehuda Hachosid's
derech was in large part based on gematrios.

R. Dovid Hojda suggested to me in a private conversation that R. Yehuda
Hachasid held that the limited changes were also introduced under the
guidance of Ruach Hakkodosh. This will allow using gematrios and even
codes.

See Netsiv's first Rina shel Torah on Shir Hashirim and especially the
reference he makes to the commentary on the Sheiltos were he suggests that
second editing under ruach hakoddesh was the rule in neviim and ksuvim.

M. Levin

RYBG wrote:
>1. As anyone who has heard of the Izhbitzer knows, his main nekudah
>is mesinus - and he is none too pleased, ka'yaduah, even with Pinchas,
>so excessive enthusias is not so pashut either.

>2. As we know from RSW, Hashkafa is not a good thing. Kana'us for Hashkafa
>is kol she'kein a bad thing. It leads to all sorts of negative phenomena,
>from the extreme right hashkofos to the extreme left hashkofos, vekm"l.

Regarding Rav Wolbe. In Alei Shur, helek 2, pg 141, Rav Wolbe opposses
the term hashkafa. Hashkafa implies a worldview and philosophy of life
independent of torah. That does not mean that Rav Wolbe would say that
the Torah has no opinion about the various issues and approaches you
mentioned. He could very well reject some of them entirely.

The Izhbitzer you quoted stresses yishuv hadaas. I fail to see how
yishuv hadaas contradicts enthusiasm. Once a person has decided metoch
yishuv hadaas upon a course of action, then perhaps a fanatical response
would be appropriate.

motya

In a message dated 1/22/2003 9:09:48 PM EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com
wrote:
:peculiar ceremonial laws? MM's answer was that executing such ceremonial
:duties had an educative vector, performing mitzvos have symbolic meanings
:and values which made it much more likely that the Jews were going to
:properly ratiocinate their way to the true religion that was in theory
:open to all. The non-Jews, without this "cheat sheet" were less likely
:reason their way to home plate....

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 03:14:45PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: IIRC, Dayan Grunfeld's hakdamah to Horeb says something similar.
: Jews need mitzvos as a Mamleches Kohanim v'goy kadosh
: Gentiles need few mitzvos, just 7.  

AISI, it's very different. RSRH asserts that Jews have a higher calling,
and this calling requires further educational experience. MM asserts that
mitzvos are tools to get to the same truth everyone else is supposed to
reach.

Particularly since one of the issues under discussion is universalism
vs particularism, the difference is significant.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

RRW wrote:
>> Poskim do not make up their own halachos. If they poskin a certain way in
>> the Rambam, it is because they sincerely believe, with all intellectual
>> honesty, that the Rambam meant it that way.

> Have you ever asked a poseik this personally?

> Better, have you ever asked a poseik the following
> How did you read the Rambam this way when it goes completely against
> your own shita on the matter?

Until now you have accussed poskim of perverting the pshat in the Rambam
and, consequently, the psak (what is the psak based upon if not the pshat
in the rambam). Now you are implying that they perverted the pshat because
of personal negiyos. I refer you to the end of perek gimel of the Chazon
Ish's Emuna V'Bitachon. There he states that a person who accuses poskim
of being influenced by negiyos is considered a mevazeh talmid chacham,
and thereby, an apikores.

motya

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:16:17PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: The Otzar Hatefilos in Iyun Tefila brings the CS OC-10 who explains to
: those who have a problem with half a posuk when beginning VEVV saying
: that the RT of Yom Hashishi Veyechulu Hashomayim is the Shem Havayeh.
: But as it would make no sense in just saying the words 'Yom Hashishi'
: [sh'ein bo mashmo'us klum], therefore they added the VHVV.

LAD, this is VERY close to RRW's "esnachta" proposal.

-mi

Here's something from "Daf Hashavua", United Synagoge of London's
parashah email <daf-hashavua@shamash.org>. It's descributed by
BriJNet, the British arm of Shamash, by Rafael Salasnik.

The author of this DT, RGS, quotes Rav Kook about the importance
of reclaiming a Jewish aesthetic as part of capturing the ru'ach
of qedushah we all strive for.


-mi

PORTRAIT OF AN ARTIST AS A SPIRITUAL HERO
By Rabbi Gideon Sylvester

How much do we value artists and creative people? This week's Sidra
introduces Bezalel the architect of the portable Temple. The Gemara
(Berachot 55a) points out that he was not only a talented craftsman,
but also someone who was blessed with special spiritual gifts and an
understanding of how the world was created. His name identifies him as a
man who lived in the shadow of G-d. Bezalel the extraordinary artist was
uniquely qualified for his task. But how about the work of other artists.
Does it have religious merit?

Often creative people live on the periphery of the community. They find
it hard to adjust to a highly structured society and they are sometimes
written off by those who are more conventional.

Rav Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel felt that
the failure of some within the religious community to recognise the
deep spiritual value of the arts and sciences was a distortion of true
religious faith. He recognised that not all artistic works are spiritually
elevated and that when the creators abuse their talents, they can be
crude and vulgar. Nevertheless, he felt that creative artists, writers
and musicians can be particularly sensitive to the beauty, majesty and
spirituality of the world and they have the ability to point it out to
the rest of us. Through their creative work, we can appreciate G-d's
world more profoundly.

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Rav Kook reminisced how
he would take regular trips to the National Gallery simply to see the
masterpieces of Rembrandt whom he considered to be a saint with a deep
understanding of divine light.

I find Rav Kook's teaching inspirational, not only because it reminds me
of the importance of appreciating the world around us, but also because
it reminds me how important it is to value everyone for the different
contributions that they make to the world. As our Rabbis put it: Who is
wise? Someone who can learn from everyone (Avot IV:1)

In Avodah V10 #108, SBAbeles wrote:
> Re the meaning of 'Savrei Rabonon' - see the OH siddur and also the
> peirush in siddur Avodas Yisroel. Rav Yaakov Emden writes that even
> 'beyochid' one should say 'savrei' - but not 'moronon'....And what about
> if the only person/people at the table are women or children - do we say
> 'moronon' ??

Is there something wrong with always (i.e. even not biychidus, whether the
listeners are men or not) saying only "savri" before the b'rocho, given
that attention by all concerned to the b'rocho is somewhat important?

All the best from
            Michael

But while many participants interviewed spoke to the importance of being
surrounded by hundreds of others interested in the issues discussed,
some expressed frustration with the fact that many of the same problems
remain. Perhaps most troubling is the subject of agunot, which was
dealt with by a panel of three widely respected rabbis: Shlomo Riskin
of Efrat, Israel; Michael Broyde of Atlanta and the Beth Din of America,
and Emanuel Rackman, of Bar-Ilan University, as well as a female scholar,
Michelle Greenberg Kobrin. Each spoke about a different approach that
can be used to free women from husbands who abuse the Orthodox legal
system by refusing to grant them religious divorces.

One is the prenuptial agreement, signed by both the bride and groom,
which obligates both to abide by the decisions of a religious court if
they ever seek a divorce or face stiff financial penalties for as long
as they refuse. Though they received the stamp of rabbinic approval
several years ago, prenuptials are not widely used in even the modern
Orthodox community.

Many objections come from young Orthodox women themselves -- though the
document is designed to protect them -- who say that "it's unromantic,
that it's feminist, which is considered a dirty word, that it's not frum,"
or properly religious, said Greenberg Kobrin, who has studied the issue.

"It's our ethical responsibility as a community to demand the use of
pre-nuptial agreements," she said. "Our community needs to make it
something that's just done" as a matter of course.

Rabbi Riskin advocated increased use of the annulment of marriages --
hafka'at kiddushin -- by a religious court, something rarely employed
today, a time when most of the courts say they are powerless to stop
husbands from abusing the system.

Rabbi Broyde presented a concept called kiddushei ta'ut, or "error in
the creation of a marriage," which can be employed by a religious court
to dissolve a marriage when one partner's serious defect has been hidden
from the other until after their wedding.

It was first applied by the early rabbinic commentators about 1,000
years ago. "It's not unusual for kiddushei taut to play a role in the
ending of many marriages, and it's an ever-expanding doctrine," he said.

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, who convenes a beit din every month or so in
Manhattan to annul the marriages of wives whose husbands have made them
agunot, has officiated at hundreds of such dissolutions since he began
doing it in 1997, he said.

Though his approach has been castigated in the haredi press and disputed
by most Modern Orthodox scholars as well, he was warmly welcomed with
a standing ovation at the Edah conference.

"In the U.S. there is no excuse for any fear of annulling marriages," he
said. "There is enough authority in the rabbinate of every major city to
establish a bet din to relieve women of the evils committed against them."

On 20 Feb 2003 at 7:51, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> Rabbi Riskin advocated increased use of the annulment of marriages --
> hafka'at kiddushin -- by a religious court...
> Rabbi Broyde presented a concept called kiddushei ta'ut...

> Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, who convenes a beit din every month or so in
> Manhattan to annul the marriages of wives whose husbands have made
> them agunot, has officiated at hundreds of such dissolutions since he
> began doing it in 1997, he said. 

Can someone please explain to me the difference between Rav Riskin and Rav
Broyde's approaches, on the one hand, and Rav Rackman's on the other? Rav
Rackman has been condemned pretty much across the board (on this list and
elsewhere). But unless I'm misunderstanding, there's not much difference
between what he's doing and what the others are proposing to do. Why is
what they're proposing to do any more acceptable halachically than what
he's been doing?

Since I know that several people on this list have it, please feel free
to forward this to Rav Broyde.

And I own an "Ain Tnai b'Nissuin" if anyone wants to give references
to it.

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

>Or is it much better and healthier to be a kosher Jew according to all
> the shittos

without denying the validity of this point, would this be then the makor
to write off all doxies/praxies to ones left. so eg MO would be an
unacceptable derech because it's not kosher to all etc.

RWalpoe: << suggested. BTW one of these was R. Moshe Feinstein who
was so incredulous ..And that is certainly a defensible interpretation
though it does not seem to me reflective of a straightforward reading
of the rashi. >> <<I agree that this may be construed as a form of
apologetics. But I find it unlikely that Rashi would have meant it
literally and RMF apparently found that hard to believe also...>>

i regret if i was unclear. the point of RMF's rejection was not of the
"literal p'shat" of that rashi. RMF accepted that is precisely what rashi
says in the posuq. i.e. a phyical change to the text. it didn't even
occur to him (now i'm mind reading too, hanging around this list may
yet do wonders for my psi quotient) to suggest the kind of non-literal
peirush favored by R. feldblum. Instead RMF simply rejected the notion
that rashi here was really "rashi". i.e. we're reading a forgery which
of course can write any old apikorsus that it wants.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
Michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

RML
> Granted taht there are isolated views other than the Rambam that mitigate
> the holder of that views from being called an apikoros.

> But, is it a good position to be in to say " I am an apikoros only
> according to some shittos but not others::
> Or is it much better and healthier to be a kosher Jew according to all
> the shittos

Post raises several issues:

1) There is a great difference between what we think is the best
lecatchila shitta, and what we think is possul even bdiavad. This also
applies to hilchot deot. You may hold that this shitta is only bdiavad,
and not wish to follow it - but it is another thing to label a talmid
chacham a kofer on this basis. The issue being discussed was not whether
we should embrace Rav HaLivny's position - but whether he has the status
of a kofer unworthy of kavod.

2) This principle is selectively applied. For a well known example,
simple pshat in the rambam would be that any piyyut with an appeal to
a malach (eg machnise rachamim) is avoda zara. While some people are
machmir, most are not - why not apply your principle there? (Why be not
an oved avoda zara only according to some shittot..) There were some
who held that the entire torat hasefirot was epikorsut (no difference
between torat hashilush and torat haaasara..) - would you apply your
rationale there?

3) One principle that is lurking in the background is the power we are
willing to give human reason - there is a famous tshuva of the radbaz
(4:187)that someone who rejects an ikkar because his reason forced him
to is not an epikoros (not even a nebech epikoros...) but an anus -
and I suspect most on this list would find it difficult to classify the
results of intellectual inquiry as a form of coercion...

4) Another subtext is precisely the fact that the issue is being raised
- there were many shittot that people disagreed on and questions about
the best way of avodat hashem. Intermittently, historically, there
have been outbreaks where differing shittot, even though held by people
who were clearly shomre mitzvot, were labeled as epikorsut - and most
of them did not increase avodat hashem veyirato. If one were to say
that shitta x is one that I disagree with, or that I don't think is the
best or consonant with much of traditional values - that is one thing
(we have such frequent disagreements - eg over the mussar movement). It
is the extra step - not only do I disagree with this shitta, but its
holder is an epikoros, that is itself problematic.

Meir Shinnar 

MLevin: Or is it much better and healthier to be a kosher Jew according
to all the shittos?

Me: The point was not whether one should believe the safest set of
theological postulates, it is whether it is appropriate to call someone a
heretic (I'm trying to avoid the Rambam's classification system from H'T)
if his belief system is the same or "frummer" than that of universally
accepted rishonim.

More to the point, I think that this statement confuses 'belief' with
'accept as true regardless of lack of conviction,' which seems like
a good approach for people not philosophically inclined, but it does
little to address the issues raised by (presumably sincere) scholars.

Meyer

Just a quick question on the logistics of the point Micha raised regarding
p'sakim involving kefirah.

If contemporary poskim universally use the Rambam's ikkarim as the
definition of appropriate belief, then does that delegitimise current
adherents of, say, the beliefs of the ibn Ezra (or any other rishonim
such as those listed by Dr. Frankel)?

Meyer

"gofman" <mgofman@zahav.net.il> writes on Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:24:29 +0200: 
> Regarding Rav Wolbe. In Alei Shur, helek 2, pg 141, Rav Wolbe opposses 
> the term hashkafa. Hashkafa implies a worldview and philosophy of life 
> independent of torah. That does not mean that Rav Wolbe would say that 
> the Torah has no opinion about the various issues and approaches you 
> mentioned. He could very well reject some of them entirely. 

True, but the Torah's opinions are not "haskofos." They are becnmarks of 
theology or halacha. 

Thus the irony, that matters that *DO* concern what is coonly called Hashkafa, 
such as attitude to the State, pro or con, etc., provoke the most fanatical 
responses. 

> The Izhbitzer you quoted stresses yishuv hadaas. I fail to see how 
> yishuv hadaas contradicts enthusiasm. Once a person has decided metoch 
> yishuv hadaas upon a course of action, then perhaps a fanatical response 
> would be appropriate. 

Enthusiasm is not fanaticalness! 

YGB 

The following question arose in a recent discussion:

can one assign a shaliach (for mechirat chametz, for example, or kiddushin
or a get) via telephone or via a letter?

Or does it require personal contact?

Akiva
================================
"We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and
therefore we have no cause for complaint."
Robert Falcon Scott

R David Riceman wrote:
> See Hagahoth Maymonioth H. Talmud Torah 1:7 (seif katan 6) who understands
> the halacha in Shekalim as sechar battalah.
...
> That's why I pointed you to H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:13 : "They (halachoth)
> are the great good which God poured out in order to enable habitation
> of this world (shehishpia l'yishuv haolam hazeh) so that we can inherit
> the world to come."

> In other words, schar mitzvoth enables yishuv haolam hazeh, which in
> turn enables yediath hashem (e.g. H. Tshuva 9:1), which in turn enables
> chayei olam haba (H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:9). Compare H. Deoth 3:1-2.

I did not argue that schar batalah was not a poss. pshat in the gemara.
The question is whether the rambam himself interpreted the gemara that
way. Consequently, my point remains that in the RAMBAM HIMSELF there is
no indication that the money was for schar batala.

Secondly, you have misread the rambam at the end of the fourth perek of
yesodei hatorah. The rambam is referring specifically to learning about
the mitzvos. The entire point of the halacha is that learning nigleh-
i.e., gemara- takes precedence over learning nistar. The rambam is NOT
referring to the fulfillment of mitzvos. In contrast, in hilchos teshuva
he is speaking about the fulfillment of mitzvos as a source of olam haba.

motya

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> In With all you heart: The Shema in Jewish worship, practice and life,
> I discuss this issue extensively in a separate chapter. In brief, the
> mitsvos earn Olam Habo; however, you need the 13 ikarim so as not to
> invalidate their performance by performing them lshem a "foreigh god".

I don't have access to your book, so the reference does me no good.
Perhaps you can post some mareh mekomos here. Is your book an attempt
to interpret the Rambam, as this thread is, or is it someone else's
opinion? Do you take into account the discussions of hishaauth hanefesh
in the Moreh Nevuchim? As I indicated in an earlier post, the Rambam,
like some but not all rishonim, believes that there is a natural mechanism
ensuring one's access to olam haba, and, as far as I know, nowhere does
he indicate how schar mitzva can enable this mechanism.

David Riceman

Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes on Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:49:47 
+0200: 
> can one assign a shaliach (for mechirat chametz, for example, or kiddushin 
> or a get) via telephone or via a letter? 
> Or does it require personal contact? 

Yes. 

It's done when necessary, although a kinyan on the shelichus is preferable. 

YGB 

Kol Psuka D'Lo Paski Moshe, Anan Lo Paski.

This is a Gemmarah in Taanis 27B wherein there is a Machlokes between
Rav and Shmuel and we Paskin like Rav, that we are not allowed to
read segments of Pesukim that Moshe Rabbenu has not segmented (per
the Rambam Hilchos Teffilah13:4 and The SA 423:2.)

The Magen Avraham near the end of Chapter 51 wonders about the
practice during a Bris Milah about saying the partial Pasuk "VeKarus
Imo HaBris". The Rokeach woders about our practice during the
returning of a Sefer Torah to the Aron we say tha partial Pasuk of
"YeHallelu Es Shem" and the utterance at Kedusha of the partial
pasuk, "VeKarah Zeh el Zeh V'Amar:"

At the begining of Chapter 282 the MA tries to answer based on a
Zohar that perhaps the Issur of dividing P'sukim is only applies to
Krias HaTorah which has to do with the Halacha of not dividing the
Parshios differently than Moshe... and does not apply to Tefffila or
perhaps other recitings of P'sukim. But then he asks (with a Tzarich
Iyun) how do we then explain Kriyas HaTroah on Mondays and Thrusdays
wwhere we most certainly do not devide Parshios based on Moshe's
divisions? 

The Chaye Adam 5:2 interjects and is inclined to Paskin that during
Kriyas HaTorah it is Mutar to say half of a Pasuk, even if you are
Mazkir the Shem HaShem, such as in instances where you are correcting
a mistake because of the fact that you will be finishing the Pasuk.
BUT he Paskins that it is Assur to say a half Pasuk outside of this
context whether it be Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim. 

However, the Nishmas Adam states in the name of the MA who states in
the name of the Kol Bo that in Teffilah where there are often half
Pesukim, perforce we must say that the Issur must only apply to the
reading of a Pasuk OUTSIDE the context of Kriyas HaTorah or Teffilah.

This brings us to the questionable but almost universal Minhag of
Kiddush on Friday night, where it is common practice to say, "Vayehi
Erev Vayehi Boker Yom HaShishi". This is most certainly a half Pasuk.
 (Perhaps we should start from, "VaYar Elokim Es Kol Asher Asah
VeHinei Tov Meod Vayehi Erev etc.") 

The Chasam Sofer tries to explain this common practice in the
following way. The desire to begin with Yom Ha Shish Vayichulu
HaShamayim is because of the Roshe Tevos of HaVayah, the Roshei Tevos
being the same letters as that of God's name. But, says the CS it is
not correct to just begin Yom HaShishi, since there is no substantive
meaning to those two words by themselves. We therefore add "Vayehi
Erev Vayehi Boker" to give context to the words "Yom Hashishi".  The
CS continues that we also do not begin with the words "VaYar
Elokim... Tov Meod" because of a Drasha made by Chazal that the words
"Tov Meod" is a euphemism for "death" and we do not want to begin
Shabbos this way. so, he concludes, we have no choice but to split up
the Pasuk.

Then there is the Kidusha Rabbah of Shabbos morning. Many people have
the Minhag to begin with the words "Al Ken Berach". This was in fact
my father's Minhag, and I have seen RAS do this as well, although
most of the time he just said "HaGofen" without any Pesukim. The
Mishna Brurah (289:2) says that this practice does not follow
Halacha. But the Aruch HaShulchan (239:3) permits it. The Mahram
Schick (OC 424) explains (counterintuitively) that the Issur of
reciting a half Pasuk applies only if you are trying to fulfil a
Chiuv or making a Drasha. But if you are simply stating it witout any
Halachic are Drashic implications then it is Mutar to say half a
Pasuk. So when one says "Al Ken Berach" only in order to preface
Kiddush as a means of a "heads up" to concentrate on being Yotze
Kiddush it is certainly permissible as then there no actual Mitzva or
Drasha in it's usage.

HM

From: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu on Areivim
> BTW, the milk in Sha'alvim, once mehadrin became readily 
> available, was 
> mehadrin. The RY even gave shiur on this to us once. 

Could you please summarize his reasoning for (1) allowing non-mehadrin
milk before it was readily available (presumably, it could have been
imported from Bnei Beraq--and in fact, I assume that the yeshiva had a
van going from Benei Beraq as it did a few years later) and (2) getting
mehadrin milk once it was readily available (was it that the additional
cost was negligible)?

Also, am I correct in presuming that the reasoning for (1) would argue
in favor of getting non-mehadrin 0% milk over getting mehadrin 1% milk?
After all, v'nishmartem m'od l'nafshoseichem is a deoraisa while the
mehadrin benefits are drabbanan or minhag. (And yes, for those who
drink 1-2 quarts a day of milk, as I do, the 20 grams of fat per 8
oz. are not negligible.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 03:14 PM 2/20/03 -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>From: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu on Areivim
> > BTW, the milk in Sha'alvim, once mehadrin became readily available, was
> > mehadrin. The RY even gave shiur on this to us once.

>Could you please summarize his reasoning for (1) allowing non-mehadrin milk
>before it was readily available (presumably, it could have been imported from
>Bnei Beraq--and in fact, I assume that the yeshiva had a van going from Benei
>Beraq as it did a few years later) and (2) getting mehadrin milk once it was
>readily available (was it that the additional cost was negligible)?
>
>Also, am I correct in presuming that the reasoning for (1) would argue in
>favor of getting non-mehadrin 0% milk over getting mehadrin 1% milk?  After
>all, v'nishmartem m'od l'nafshoseichem is a deoraisa while the mehadrin
>benefits are drabbanan or minhag.  (And yes, for those who drink 1-2 quarts a
>day of milk, as I do, the 20 grams of fat per 8 oz. are not negligible.)

  I honestly do not remember very much except that he said that 
non-mehadrin milk relies on bittul and the milk powder hetter and that when 
possible it is kedai not to rely on these.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

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


[ 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         ]