Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 130

Tuesday, February 14 2006

• Re: Shiras HaYam
• Re: Avodah V16 #127
• uMorid haGeshem
• Identity of Arneves and Shafan
• Cold Cuts - kashrus question
• Re: Cold Cuts - kashrus question
• Re: Enzymes in Honey & Cheese
• Re: Ikkar Ha Din an Chezkas Kashrus
• Re: Creation & allegory
• Re: Re: Rape- Sources?
• RE: Killing kinim on shabbat
• Re: Killing kinim on shabbat
• Re: Killing kinim on shabbat
• RE: Shiras HaYam
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel

When the B'nay Yisroel were trapped at the Yam Suf on all sides they
cried out to Hashem. Moshe Rabbeynu tells them to be silent and wait
for the salvation from Hashem. Then Hashem says to Moshe, "Mah Titz'ak
Ay-ly! Tell the b'nay Yisroel to travel into the sea!

If "Mah Titz-ak Ayly" means "Why are you praying to Me, when it's a time
for action," it's very perplexing. As the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh puts it,
who else should they cry to? What more important time is there to daven
to Hashem for help? What else were they to do, without being told there
would be a nes? Attack the Egyptians? Fly over the mountains? Drown
themselves in the sea?

The Ohr HaChaim gives a beautiful explanation, but it still does not
entirely fit the words. I came up with a teretz of my own, but I admit
that it's weird:

Moshe Rabbeynu told the people "V'attem tacharishune," "you should be
silent." Hashem says, "Mah?!" What?! They should be silent?! No! "Titz-ak
Ay-li!" Pray to me, and I will perform a nes!

I said it's weird. It doesn't fit the trop. And (although the word "mah"
is used as an exclamation, as in "Mah rabbu ma'asecha Hashem," "How great
are Your deeds, Hashem,") I don't think we will find anywhere in the Torah
that the word "mah" is used in the sense of "What are you talking about?!"

But doesn't it make sense?

Crackpot Torah?

Zvi Lampel

Here is a link to a very good article about this whole issue
<http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm>

He discusses among all the other issues the fascinating question of what
do you do in the Southern Hemisphere where the seasons are reversed.

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:11:43PM -0500, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: FWIW The Rosh notes that the 60 day criteria is Bavel-centric and the
: reason it was not altered in Europe is inertia.

Simpler reason:
The berakhah presumes a climate where the dominant seasons are rainy vs
dry. Doesn't really work in the US or Eastern Europe, where most of the
year's water can fall from the sky from Nissan to Tishrei.

So what's there to adjust it to?

-mi

 From http://www.northhendon.co.uk/sedra/pages/5765/reeh5765.pdf
> However, in a fascinating article in a journal called "Intercom"
> (published in 1973 by the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists)
> Rabbi Meyer Lubin argues that the correct translations of Shofon and
> Arneves have been lost. With assistance from zoologists, he explains
> that what disqualifies the cud-chewing camel from being kosher is that
> it has an undivided cushion-like pad at the bottom of its hoof on which
> it gets its foot hold in the sand. Animals with this feature are called
> "Tylopada" (meaning "pad and hoof") and there are only six kinds in the
> world - two kinds of camel and four kinds of llama. We don't have space
> here to go into detail, but he deduces that the Gomol is the one humped
> camel (Dromedary) found in Egypt and Israel, Arneves is the two humped
> (Bactrian) camel found further to the east in Central Asia (where Avrohom
> originated from), and Shofon is the Llama, found only in South America
> (unknown by our civilisation until the sixteenth century).

> If these are the true translations it would solve another puzzle which
> is not convincingly answered by the classical commentators of Rashi's
> time. In Shemini, (although not in the briefer version in Re'eh) for
> Gomol the verb describing non-splitting of the hoof is in the present
> tense (Mafris), for Shofon the verb is in the future tense (Yafris) and
> for Arneves is in the past tense (Hifrisoh). It is as though Moshe in
> giving over these laws to the Jewish people is referring separately to
> the kind of animals that they used to know where they previously lived;
> that they know now in the Sinai desert; and that they will only discover
> in the future. It illustrates graphically how the laws of Kashrus (and
> by extension all the laws of the Torah) are to be observed everywhere
> in the world and for all time.

Comments?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Yitzchok Levine <>
I got the following from someone. Does anyone have any further
information about this issue?

"Rabbi Shlomo Miller of Toronto is issuing a teshuva... The issue seems
to be that they are using newly deemed kosher animals & he says I think
that without a kabolo they can't be used. My friend in the OU says many
hold you only need a kabolo for birds not animals."

AND

myb@yeshivanet.com wrote:
>What R' Shlomo Miller probably refers to is the shittas haChazon Ish
>that b'heimos tehoros also need a mesora. There was a major
>controversy in EY a couple of years  ago regarding a breed of double
>humped cattle (I think it's called sabu), that some claimed that
>there is no mesora about it, and would therefore be ossur according
>to the Chazon Ish.

>Or could it be that R' SM's problem is with the nikur at [XYZ], which
>is according to minhag (some kehillos in) Hungary, and bepashtus
>would be ossur to yotzei Galcia, Poland, Lita and especially
>sefardim ... hence cold cuts, which contain an assortment of odd fats,
>should be of a particular problem.

Down Under Jewry has just had the privilege and pleasure of hosting
former Areivim luminary Reb Seth Mandel - who since approx 2 years ago
is the Rabbinic Co-ordinator of the OU Shechitah division.

In that capacity he works hand in hand with most of the major hashgochos
including the Nirbator Rav at Alle, and is very impressed with the
Kashrus standards.

As RSM left Melbourne yesterday to check out a plant in the wilds of NSW,
I called him there for his opinion about the above.

He hadn't heard about any such comment by RSMiller but told me if the
issue is the 'zebu', [which BTW, RSM says is absolutely no issue], then
one should lechoreh not eat ANY meat coming from South America or Israel
[and indeed Australia] where the zebu has been around for decades.
It is approved by major all poskim. [RSM actually discussed this in
one of the 5 [!] speeches he was asked to deliver here.]

IIRC [also from RSM 's speeches] the same applies to the nikkur issue.

I am CCing him and hope he will find the time to reply on-list when he
returns to NY at the end of the week.

SBA

On 2/13/06, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> , myb@yeshivanet.com wrote:
> >What R' Shlomo Miller probably refers to is the shittas haChazon Ish
> >that b'heimos tehoros also need a mesora. There was a major
> >controversy in EY a couple of years  ago regarding a breed of double
> >humped cattle (I think it's called sabu), that some claimed that
> >there is no mesora about it, and would therefore be ossur according
> >to the Chazon Ish.
<snip>
> Down Under Jewry has just had the privilege and pleasure of hosting
> former Areivim luminary Reb Seth Mandel - who since approx 2 years ago
> is the Rabbinic Co-ordinator of the OU Shechitah division.
<snip>
> He hadn't heard about any such comment by RSMiller but told me if the issue is
> the 'zebu', [which BTW, RSM says is absolutely no issue], then one should
> lechoreh not eat ANY  meat coming from South America or Israel
> [and indeed Australia] where the zebu has been around for decades.
> It is approved by major all poskim.

Here are some articles about this issue:

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ (article by R. Ari Zivotofsky
which appeared in RJJ Journal) states:
> There is an additional factor that in my opinion renders the debate
> between those who require a tradition and those who don't of little
> relevance to either the zebu or bison (American "buffalo") questions.
> With regard to quadrupeds, the Talmud offers an irrefutable, undisputed
> test of the kashrut of an animal that cannot be the challenged on
> subjective grounds. Bechorot 7a declares that kosher and non-kosher
> species cannot cross-breed. Thus, if two species can hybridize, and one
> is known to be kosher it is proof positive that the other is kosher as
> well. This is cited (Rambam, Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13) as an halachikally
> valid means of distinguishing between kosher and non-kosher animals,
> and should obviate any need for a mesorah, when it can be applied.

The zebu not only passes this "hybridization test", but produces live,
fertile offspring with other domesticated cattle (Bos taurus; family -
Bovidae).

http://zootorah.com/essays/mainframezebu.html (article by R. Nosson
Slifkin), states:
> A further point to consider is that at this point, many Jews have
> already been eating zebu for many years. This itself provides cause
> not to prohibit its consumption - or to realize the implications of
> prohibiting it. After all, there is no mesorah whatsoever for turkey,
> which was unknown to Jews before discovered in America. For reasons
> that are not entirely clear (click here to learn more), Jews began to
> eat turkey. If turkey were discovered today for the first time, nobody
> would permit its consumption. But now that Jews have been eating it for
> many years, nobody will now declare it forbidden and thereby indict
> the many people who already ate it, especially since it is certainly
> not actually a non-kosher bird (see Netziv, Meshiv Davar, Y.D. 22). By
> the same token, it can be argued that we should not begin to prohibit
> zebu, an animal that many people have been eating for a long time. It
> is certainly not clear that, given the current reality, the Chazon Ish
> would prohibit its consumption.

Can anyone explain why one who eats turkey would not eat the zebu?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Friday, 10. February 2006 17:55, Avodah wrote:
> For the same reason, I don't understand why there is a problem for Pesach
> in using products grown on chametz-derived enzymes, or year-round for
> products grown on animal-derived enzymes. So long as the chametz or
> n'veilah is only an enzyme, it may allow a process to take place, but
> it contributes nothing of its substance to the finished product.

> Will those with a firmer grasp of chemistry please either validate or
> explain the fallacy of the above?

Well, AFAIK, rennet is a catalyst, yet there is a problem with cheese
set with non-kosher animal rennet. Farvus? Vos iz der chiluk?

I must conclude that enzymes are a class of ma'amidim.

Arie Folger

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> We are talking about a rav ha'machshir who is a talmid chacham and yirei
> shamayim (but is known to require only ikkar ha'din, not chumros on
> hashgachos given by his kashrus organization). Would such a person not
> qualify as a chaver in the time of the mishnah? I note that the Rambam

1. How do we know he is a TC? I know several respected rabbis who are
Amei Ha'aretz in regard to Eruvin.

2. How are you measuring Yiras Shomayim?

3. The Gemaros consider cases of b'yado - is that applicable ba'zman
ha'zeh?

Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> Sent  2/12/2006:
>Zvi Lampel wrote:
>> ... I'm afraid Rabbi Eidensohn, whose works I truly admire, missed an
>> important clause in the passage he is quoting (from MN II:30).

>I appreciate that you admire my works but the bottom line is that my 
>explanation was incorrect. Thank you for pointing out my error.

What?? How am I supposed to deal with this kind of a response?? --
Just kidding. RDE, you are obviously a mentch. But just to be a little
nit-picky...

RDE clarified:
>... according to Shem Tov the Rambam held that the days were 
>in fact allegorical. His explanation is coherent and consistent with 
>what the Rambam states - however it raises huge problems - some of which 
>are discussed in Abarbanel.. The view of Shem Tov is an expansion of the 
>views of Moshe Narboni."

I don't think this explanation "is coherent and consistent with what
the Rambam states." And I'm not sure the Shem Tov meant that days 2-6
were allegorical, either. He does not use the word "mashal," and later
(p. 61, 5th wide line), when Rambam discusses Adam and Chava, Gan Eden,
etc., he states "ki af sheh-ma'aseh Bresihis kulo ke-mash-ma-o, yesh
bo remez, --even though Maaseh Beraishis is entirely mk-mash-ma-o,
it possesses a remez.

But in any case, since:
>However it is also possible to read this [the passage of MN, I
>assume? --ZL] as saying that there were in fact 6 historical days
> ..." (and I would say that not only is it possible, but this is the
> clear meaning --ZL), then it means little >that:

>"There are readings" of the Moreh Nevuchim [i.e., by Shem Tov and
>Narboni MAYBE] which "can" be understood to mean that the days of
>creation were allegorical descriptions rather than historical reality.

Why give credence to an interpretation that attributes an idea to the
Rambam that is obviously off the derech, when his own words indicate no
such thing? So even if Shem Tov and Narboni /did/ have this take on the
Rambam, I mean, /lots/ of people, with only far-fetched speculations as
a basis, like to attribute off-the-derech ideas to the Rambam, such as
those academia you have noted in your post. It really shouldn't be of
much concern.

In admiration of your middos,
Zvi Lampel

[Micha:]
> I was wondering if underlying this is a very "modern" idea: Psychologists
> who specialize in this field found that rape is about violence and
> control, not lust.

Truth is, there is a debate among the moderns as to how to categorize
rape.

While this definition of rape is useful from both legal and political
perspectives (the general public responds to violence and it removes
much of the onus from the victims who "ask for it!"), many argue that it
is insufficient and problematic as well. While the "rape as violence"
theory places the blame where it belongs -- on the rapist -- it ignores the
fact that a sexual act take place and it ignores the impact of this
unique violation on the victim. It does not distinguish between sexual
violence and non-sexual violence. For the victim, being sexually molested
is qualitatively different than being punched in the nose. And for the
perpetrator, he chose to act in a sexual manner and not in any other
physically hostile way.

Others talk about rape as: lack of consent, lack of mutuality, theft and 
even as a sexual crime. 

As for being influenced by the modern idea -- "kabel et ha-emet
mi-mi she-amaro" no? If their insights help us understand the Torah
better... isn't the Vilna Goan quoted as saying that whatever a person
lacks in chochmah he is missing out on that much more of Torah...

    "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.)

Mark Dratch

On February 13, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> My point is that chazal would have attributed mamashus to nits, since
> they are visible by the unaided but attentive eye. But what does that
> have to do with attributing mamashus to maggot eggs, which are not?

Nothing. Who says it has anything to do with maggots? Chazal mention
betzey kinim not betzey zevuvim. I suspect you are flying (pun intended)
over my head. Sorry for being so thick but please explain again (R'
Eliezer tried 400 times).

Simcha Coffer 

[Micha:]
>Nits are lice larva. Maggot eggs are something different  entirely.<<

Nits are not larva, they are eggs. They CONTAIN larva. When the
nit has hatched you can squeeze it with a fingernail and see that it
is empty. Each nit is glued to a hair so that it can't fall off,
nor can it easily be taken off -- the only way is to slide it all the
way down to the bottom of the hair, or to take a tiny pair of scissors
(like embroidery scissors) and snip off the hair. As R' Simcha Coffer
mentioned, nits are visible to the naked eye in good light, though on
dark hair in dim light they may be virtually invisible. The lice are
actually harder to see than the nits, because the nits stay put, while
the live lice hide and burrow under the hair, and you tend not to see
them at all until there is a major (and majorly gross) infestation.

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

On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:59:47AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Nits are not larva, they are eggs.  They CONTAIN larva...

Similarly, RCS writes:
> Nothing. Who says it has anything to do with maggots? Chazal mention
> betzey kinim not betzey zevuvim....

I actually looked up the word in the dictionary. It means "larva, or
sometimes, egg ...". My guess is that the language amongst Jewish moms
isn't the technical usage, and that's why a couple of people called RnTK
on using the word "nit".

All of this is still irrelevent. The thing which lives in human hair isn't
the thing which infests rotting meat. When chazal speak of abiogenesis,
among the cases is rotting meat, and that such bugs would be kosher
(if found within the meat, not at the edge, etc...) RCS, that's what
I use the word "maggots". But even if my entomology is wrong, whatever
that particular bug is, it isn't a louse. Questions about being able to
see any part of the louse's life cycle would have nothing to do with it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On February 13, 2006 Zvi Lampel wrote:
> When the B'nay Yisroel were trapped at the Yam Suf on all sides they
> cried out to Hashem. Moshe Rabbeynu tells them to be silent and wait
> for the salvation from Hashem. Then Hashem says to Moshe, "Mah Titz'ak
> Ay-ly! Tell the b'nay Yisroel to travel into the sea!

> If "Mah Titz-ak Ayly" means "Why are you praying to Me, when it's a time
> for action," it's very perplexing. As the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh puts it,
> who else should they cry to? ...
> The Ohr HaChaim gives a beautiful explanation, but it still does not
> entirely fit the words. I came up with a teretz of my own, but I admit
> that it's weird:

> Moshe Rabbeynu told the people "V'attem tacharishune," "you should be
> silent." Hashem says, "Mah?!" What?! They should be silent?! No! "Titz-ak
> Ay-li!" Pray to me, and I will perform a nes!

> I said it's weird. It doesn't fit the trop. And (although the word "mah"
> is used as an exclamation, as in "Mah rabbu ma'asecha Hashem," "How great
> are Your deeds, Hashem,") I don't think we will find anywhere in the Torah
> that the word "mah" is used in the sense of "What are you talking about?!"

Sorry R' Zvi... you know I'm your biggest fan but the above seems like
a major exegetical faux pas.

Here's a mehalech. Tefila is chal on items that can be changed such
as banei chayey u'mizonee. Tefila is not chal, and is inappropriate,
as regards to things that are unchangeable. One does not pray that the
sun should rise the next day. One gives shvach v'hoda'ah for the sun,
not tefila.

Now, Chazal say that the splitting of the yam suf was one of the tinaaim
of Maaseh Bereishis (vayashav haYam liEisano...litna'o haRishon). That is,
Hashem decreed during the creative process of MB that the yam suf would
split when it "saw" klal yisrael trapped in the desert. Consequently,
the yam suf was merely following its natural mandate for that day based
on its pre-programmed directive. Accordingly, Hashem said to Moshe
"mah titz'ak elay"...why are you praying? The yam suf is *programmed*
to split... tefila is inappropriate.... (The preceding was based on a
maamar of Rav Hutner)

Simcha Coffer

RZL wrote:
> My reply:
> Statements made by Lavan can indeed be deceiving <g>. "Li" means "to me"
> or "for me." "Lo" means "to him" or "for him." "Li" and "Lo" do not mean
> "mine" and "his," neither in lashon chachamim nor in lashon mikreh. When
> joined with a verb of being, as in "lo yihyu" and "li hu," it means
> "it will be to him," and "it is to me," which is the equivalent of "it
> will be his" and "it is mine." But "mammon li" means "money for me,"
> not "my money."

Teh language uveyado mammon rav li sounds like a strange expression,
if what he meant was that his brother supported him. You see, support
is something given and received, but generally not owed. The words
"uveyado mammon rav li" rather imply that he was bringing back monies
which belonged rightfully to Rambam, even as they had not reached him
yet. Therefore, I think that it may imply that he was bringing back money
some debtor owed him, or ... the profits from what had been traded. Rambam
is capable of having worded it that way, as he was generally very precise
in his manner of writing, and since the money being brought back wasn?Ÿt
the money that had been invested, but rather the new money earned,
the phraseology used would be more correct.

Arie Folger

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


[ 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         ]