Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 140

Sunday, February 26 2006

• RE: the Mabul
• Re: the Mabul
• Zebu and turkey
• RE: Shiras HaYam
• Re: Zebu and turkey
• Kibbud Av v'em
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: About Kashrus
• Re: About Kashrus
• RE: Kashrus reliable enough
• RE: Kashrus reliable enough
• re: zebu and turkey
• creation & Allegory
• Re: Kashrus reliable enough
• Re: Kashrus reliable enough

On February 22, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> To apply this to our question: Is there a tzorekh ha'inyan -- other than
> biasing our bechirah -- to our experiencing the legacy of the nissim of
> parashas Noach? If not, we shouldn't expect to experience them.

But I thought you agreed that you overshot your mark. Obviously, the mabul
was a miracle felt by the entire world, aristocrat and plebe alike. Thus,
not only should we expect to find tell-tale signs of this miracle, it
would be problematic without it. I haven't done enough research on mabul
evidence but the Christians have. I'm not recommending you visit their
sites but I know of no Jewish site that has invested as much effort as
they have in this field. It's too bad. We should be leaders in this field,
not them.

Simcha Coffer

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:04:40PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: But I thought you agreed that you overshot your mark. Obviously, the mabul
: was a miracle felt by the entire world, aristocrat and plebe alike...

I wrote that I overshot my mark by making it all about perspective and
olamos, whereas REED somehow switches from a chapter that olam hagashmi
is non-absolute but rather based on perspective and olam to saying that
it's non-absolute but rather based on tzorech.

That doesn't mean it must be felt by us. There was a tzorech for the
plebe to experience the mabul -- "vehinei nishchasah". If there is no
tzorech to justify our contemporaries for feeling the effects of the
mabul, why should they? Again, compare to his comment about computing
the molad despite "shemesh beGiv'on dom".

:                                  I haven't done enough research on mabul
: evidence but the Christians have. I'm not recommending you visit their
: sites but I know of no Jewish site that has invested as much effort as
: they have in this field. It's too bad. We should be leaders in this field,
: not them.

Typically, these sites only make sense to people who don't know the
fields of science from which these proofs emereged. And sound ludicrous
to those who do. I only say "typically" to allow for the possibility of
an argument of this sort of which I am unaware.

Biblical archeology seems to me to be shakier than the other fields in
question. Even those in the field noticed that digs pretty consistently
find what the digger expected -- maximalists find proof of the Tanakh,
minimalists seem to find disproof. (Digs of Yericho are an interesting
example.)

Gut Voch!
-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"

RABlum wrote:
> The Netziv writes that the chochom compared it to a kosher goose (shenireh
> lo shehu min avaz hatohor), i.e. a known kosher bird. Also the tarnegolta
> d'agma of the Gemora, they compared it to a chicken (hoyu medumim shehu
> min tarnegol), i.e. they understood that what they had was the same as
> the type they had been eating up till now. In both cases, the heter is
> based on continuing a known mesorah and assuming that this is included
> within that mesorah.

But the point is that the chochom did not believe that there was a mesorah
for turkey itself (which is a New World bird, and therefore there cannot
have been a mesorah), just that a turkey can be compared with a goose.

A zebu is much closer to a cow than a turkey is to a goose!

[Email #2. -mi]

I wrote:
>> A zebu is much closer to a cow than a turkey is to a goose!

On 2/24/06, Akiva Blum <ydamyb@actcom.net.il> wrote:
> The Netziv does not mean a common goose. He means a type of [known to him]
> kosher goose. We have no idea what this bird was, except that it must have
> been very similar to a turkey.

Presumably, that type of goose is not extinct today. Does anyone
know whether there is any type of goose which is similar to a turkey?
For that matter is there any bird in the world closer to a turkey than
a zebu is to a cow?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On February 22, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> R Simcha Coffer wrote:
>> 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)

> Aren't all nissim written into ma'aseh bereishis? 

Perhaps the answer is that there are certain nissim that constitute such
a dramatic change to the course of teva which Hashem established for post
MB activity that Hashem had to kavayachol write them in to MB in advance
such that they could also subsequently be considered teva. This has a dual
effect. Firstly, it allows these things to occur in the olam haTeva. And
two, it makes them a necessary feature of the unfolding history of post
MB activity because Hashem already preordained that they would occur.

If you are correct that all nissim have to be specifically written into
MB, then why did the Medrash pick only 10 things (pi habi'er, pi ha'ason
etc.) that were written in pre the culmination of MB? (granted kriyas
yam suf wasn't one of them but Rav Hutner has another source for that)

Simcha Coffer

Akiva Blum wrote:
> Slifkin misunderstood the tshuva of the Netziv. The Netziv was not
> mattir based simply on the fact that many people are doing it, and it 
> would be wrong to say all those people did avairos. The problem with 
> turkey is a lack of mesora, so he suggests that since many people are 
> eating it, they must have started based on a mesorah that we now are 
> not familiar with but did really exist.

I challenged RAB's claim that the Netziv states that people were eating
turkey based on an unknown mesorah, and he seemingly revised it as
follows:

> The Netziv writes that the chochom compared it to a kosher goose
> (shenireh lo shehu min avaz hatohor), i.e. a known kosher bird. Also
> the tarnegolta d'agma of the Gemora, they compared it to a chicken
> (hoyu medumim shehu min tarnegol), i.e. they understood that what
> they had was the same as the type they had been eating up till now.
> In both cases, the heter is based on continuing a known mesorah and
> assuming that this is included within that mesorah.

But the Netziv does *not* write that the chochom compared it to a kosher
goose. He writes that one can *presume* that a chochom compared it to a
kosher goose. Again, there is no difference in the case of zebu. There
is no reason not to make the same presumption with zebu - that people
ate it because they considered it to be a type of cow. So I still do not
see how RAB has backed up his assertion that I misunderstood the tshuva
of the Netziv and that it is not applicable to zebu.

R' Moshe Feldman then correctly pointed out that a zebu is much closer
to a cow than a turkey is to a goose. To which RAB responds:

> The Netziv does not mean a common goose. He means a type of 
> [known to him] kosher goose. We have no idea what this bird was, 
> except that it must have been very similar to a turkey. Whereas one 
> could argue that a zebu is close enough to a common cow to equate,
> one cannot claim that the CI would agree, or that  nowadays he would
> pasken any differently.

But *whatever* type of goose it was, it was less similar to a turkey than
a zebu is to a cow! There is *no* type of goose that is more similar to
a turkey than a zebu is to a cow.

In any case, this is not the point. The point of citing the Netziv is
that the Netziv argues that if there is a reasonable explanation for how a
community came to eat a particular creature, such as that they equated it
with a known kosher type, then you don't cast aspersions on this custom.
Such a reasonable explanation certainly exists with zebu.

Then there is the separate issue of whether the Chazon Ish would actually
consider the zebu to be a different type than the cow, which he writes
that he is not discussing since he is unfamiliar with the zebu. I
believe that it is reasonable to argue that he would not consider it
a different type. Of course, I cannot prove this, and one could argue
otherwise. But *if* one adopts the view of the Netziv, then since in
this case people have been eating the zebu for decades, (and there
is certainly a reasonable case to be made that this was because it is
sufficiently similar to a cow,) this provides an additional reason to
not prohibit it now.

Natan Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

RMF wrote:
>- - Many people make the mistake of viewing KAVE based on how they were
> taught in kindergarten-and think that the requirement of KAVE applies
> just to children. In fact, the ikkar of KAVE is with respect to aging
> parents, who are often more difficult to honor than parents who
> possess all their faculties.

As a young adult, I have seen another important way in which people
continue to see KAVE through the eyes of a kindergarten kid. Kids are
taught, "KAVE means you should listen to your Mommy and your Tatte
(or Abba and Imma, or Mom and Dad, etc.) and do whatever they say."

While this is an appropriate kiyum of KAVE for a 6-year old, it is not
for a teenager who needs to begin making his own decisions. The Rama says
clearly that if the kid wants to go to one yeshiva, and the parent wants
him to go to another, it's the kid's opinion that counts. One's parents
really have no say in what the kid does in life, or who he marries, or
what Derech he follows in yiddishkeit. I have seen many people restrain
themselves saying "My parents are MO/yeshivish/chassidish/whatever,
so I also have to be," when in reality they would do better following
a different path in life.

My $0.02

(Please don't show this email to my parents. lol)

Michael Y. Kopinsky
m1@kopinsky.com

From: Shinnar, Meir <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
> It should be understood that the rambam views not merely that support
> of torah study is not a communal obligation, and that therefore our
> tzedaka money is better spent elsewhere - but rather the support of
> torah denigrates the ohr of torah - and that therefore the money should
> not be spent. While my obligation to support my poor family members is
> greater than my obligation to the general community, it doesn't override
> the fact that such support is viewed as forbidden (clearly an unpopular
> view today...)

I posted on thsi years ago but it's worth a re-run

In the Talmud, a rebbe gets more kavod than a father -because the Rebbe
brings the talmid to olm habbo while the father only brought the child
to olom hazeh.

Well things have changes since the Talmud's times. Guess what - this
statemen is rrarely true anymore. Why? Because the FATHER pays tution
indirectly to the Rebbe, the rebbe is NOW merely a shaliahc for the
Father!

The entire premise has changed since the Talmudic era!

In the time of the talmud, a talmid {at least after mikra} was a full
time apprecntice who was really indentured to serve his rebbbe. There
was zero monetary compensation but the Talmid was tanatmount to an
appreentice or squire - to use medeival terminology.

IF the rebbe received ANY money for this, the relationship would have been
batel! And the student would actually be a CON$UMER and CU$TOMER of the
rebbe's services. This is IMHO THE reason for the Talmudic prohibition
for the rebbe to accept any wages. It would simply comprosmise his
absolute authority. {Professor Agus called this "tutoriall authority"}
this system is still intact {l'havdil} in the Far East in India amonst
Hindu gurus and yogis and at eleat until recently in Japan/China/Korea/
amongst martial artists. When a martial artist was designated MASTER he
really WAS the master! The students paid zero tuition but were his de
facto serfs!

The whole nature of compensation has chagned this dynamic and that is
why rabbis today have little authority because they are really service
suppliers to consumers a lot like doctors. As Dr. Shinnar knows, patients
are advised to stick to a heart-healty diet but they are still FREE to
do what they want.

In order to implement the Rqmbam's model, the entire social structure
would need to be revamped and talmidim would revert to apprentice like
roles without tuition and rebbes would be like gurus whow would be served
on hand and foot. Talmididim would then be valets to their rebbes, etc.
This is not likely to happen and the issue of compensation is really
irrelvenat to today's reality except as a tiny vestige of ancient customs
and practices.

Restoring the Rambams' model would be tantamount to conducting one's
Seder in a circle on the {hasiba} ion the floor and LITERALLY reclining
next to tiny tables as in ancient timesl As Rabiya pointed out - as well
as Tosafos - our tables are not THEIR tables!

Or for a better analogy, it would be like reviing omo ivriya which, too,
was based upon ancient econmic realities.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
> In addition, one might analogize this book to Minhagei Maharil. IIRC,
> Dr. Haym Soloveitchik told us that this work was compiled by a talmid of
> his who was not a major talmid chacham, and that the work merely records
> the actions of the Maharil without necessarily understanding the basis
> for those actions. Nevertheless, poskim (notably Ramo) quote this work.

Caveat:

The Rema frequently cites the Maharil but is quite willing to dispute 
him, too.

The problem isn't with using these books as resources, the problem is 
not having enough knowledge to know when to take the statment with "a 
grain of salt".

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
> In addition, one might analogize this book to Minhagei Maharil. IIRC,
> Dr. Haym Soloveitchik told us that this work was compiled by a talmid of
> his who was not a major talmid chacham, and that the work merely records
> the actions of the Maharil without necessarily understanding the basis
> for those actions. Nevertheless, poskim (notably Ramo) quote this work.

Caveat:
The Rema frequently cites the Maharil but is quite willing to dispute 
him, too.

The problem isn't with using these books as resources, the problem
is not having enough knowledge to know when to take the statment with
"a grain of salt".

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

R' Chana Luntz wrote with respect to ROY's tshuvah:
> He shows from
> various sources that if it is possible to investigate a matter, then
> there is a rabbinic obligation to investigate and one cannot rely on a
> chazaka (including the chazaka that an animal that has been geshochten
> is kasher and not treif) (one of the key sources for this, it turns out,
> is the question of obtaining a property on erev pesach and having to
> check whether it has been searched for chametz or not - so as you can
> see, the discussion is quite wide ranging and covers a whole host of
> obligations). He then goes on to discuss the various limits on this
> obligation to check and investigate. 

I just wanted to point out that when ROY talks about the need to
investigate, he is talking about an investigation which would be able to
determine the true halachic status of the item. IOW, in the case of meat,
the investigation would not be to find out whether or not the kashrus
was glatt, but whether or not the meat is glatt. Even if the kashrus is
not promising you that the meat is glatt, the meat may very well be glatt.

Therefore, this should be applied to the issue that we have been
discussing for the past couple of weeks as follows: If you are a guest at
the house of someone whom you know to be a yirei Shamayim but probably is
not machmir and requires just ikkar ha'din, asking him the names of the
kashrus organizations he relies upon would not constitute investigation
according to ROY. After all, even if he relies upon kashrus organizations
which require just ikkar ha'din, the actual food that they supervise in
most cases is perfectly all right.

Also, ROY makes the following comment in the situation where one cannot
investigate to determine the true halachic status of the meat which
comes from a non-glatt kashrus: "There would be a [violation] of kavod
ha'briyos if he holds back from eating there. Also, in many cases,
there is a chashash of eiva and discord. Therefore, we may rely on
sfeik sfeika to be meikil."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 06:31 AM 02/26/2006, Moshe Feldman wrote:
>  If you are a guest at the house of someone whom you know to be a 
> yirei Shamayim

How is one supposed to "know" this? On what basis does one make this
determination? What is the definition of a yirei Shamayim? Is the average
person capable of making this determination?

Yitzchok Levine 

RABlum wrote:
> Whereas one could argue that a zebu is close enough to a common cow to
> equate, one cannot claim that the CI would agree, or that nowadays he
> would pasken any differently.

Actually, the CI wasn't sure. He reportedly stated that *if* it is a
different species, it shouldn't be eaten. It follows that if the zebu
is demonstrably the same species as the garden variety cow, it would be
allowed even according to CI.

RNS wrote about that, IIRC, and so did my predecessor, one of the world's
great experts on animal kashrut, Rav Israel Meir Levinger. The latter
was called upon by many prominent posqim when the zebu story broke. (from
personal conversations)

Regards,
Arie Folger

RDE wrote quoting Rambam:
> The solution of what seemed obscure to both of them will soon become
> clear to you;

I know that as a new reader I am jumping in at the end of a long
discussion, I was just struck by the debate of whether Rambam agrees with
R.Yehuda ben R.Shimon and R.Abahu. The above quote of Rambam defining
the question has to be tied with his own answer to the question which
is different than the two Rabbis (Tana and Amora?). It appears a little
further on page 350 (Pines)- Ii is according to this opinion which is
indubitably correct, that the doubt that impelled Rabbi Judah the son
of Rabbi Shimon to say what he said may be resolved.It was difficult
for him to understand whereby the first day..

Clearly (at least as I read it) Rambam offered an alternate answer to
his question .

David Guttmann

I wrote:
>  If you are a guest at the house of someone whom you know to be a yirei
> Shamayim

On 2/26/06, Prof. Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:
> How is one supposed to "know" this? On what basis does one make this
> determination? What is the definition of a yirei Shamayim?

I really should have used the term "muchzak b'kashrus."
See what I wrote at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n127.shtml#02
> Aruch Hashulachan YD
> 119:11 states that one is "muchzak b'kashrus" even if not known to be a
> "yirei Elokim," so long as one puts on tefillin and davens every day,
> makes sure to eat kosher and generally follows halacha even if there
> are a couple of (presumably non-kashrus-related) halachos which he is
> lax about because he doesn't realize their severity. (See his proof.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 01:29 PM 02/26/2006, Moshe Feldman wrote:
>I really should have used the term "muchzak b'kashrus."
...

I must say that this confuses me. He is "muchzak b'kashrus," if he eats
kosher. According to whose standards?

How can we know if he eats kosher unless we set up standards to judge
this. And who is to determine what these standards are to be? Is each
person to be investigated? If yes, then by whom?

Yitzchok Levine 

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


[ 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         ]