Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 083

Saturday, July 8 2006

• RE: mtzius
• How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Working in Sderot
• Veal and RMF
• kiyem Avraham Avinu kol haTorah?
• RE: kiyem Avraham Avinu kol haTorah?
• war and danger
• Re: flags with crosses
• Re: Veal and RMF
• sushi
• Re: Working in Sderot
• Re: flags with crosses
• Re: How do Achronim become Rishonim?
• Re: historical contingency and brachos

[R Zvi Lampel:]
>:> In full agreement with using scientific clarifications to determine
>:> metsius (where metsius is relevant; metsios invisible to the naked eye,
>:> for instance is another issue, such as in kashrus). Computer scanning
>:> of sifrei Torah (plus human input) is an example. 

>> can you provide some further examples of cases which you would or 
>> wouldn't accept mtzius clarification(eg where would identification of 
>> deceased and cause of death by medical devices fall)

> Sorry I made it sound as if I was making such decisions. I was agreeing
> that I've heard of the noted decisions by recognized poskim.

Anyone know any general rules that they have used?

KT
Joel Rich

Dear List

Here is a minor query which I have puzzled over from time to time.

Today, it is usual to refer to Poskim who lived before R' Yosef Karo as
Rishonim, and those who lived later as Achronim, although I have seen
some contemporary writes who use a slightly earlier dividing line.

Clearly these goal`posts have moved over the centuries. To quote one
example from thousands, Rabbi Karo (d.1575) himself (Kesef Misneh -
Avodas Yom Hakippurim 2:2) refers to the Rashbo (d. 1310) as an Achron.

What I would like to know is how often the boundary was shifted and by
how much?
Was there an agreed common practice about this in earlier times?
When did today's usage become the norm?
A pointer to any published research on the is topic would be appreciated.

Elozor Reich

[From Areivim. -mi]

Rich, Joel wrote:
> R. Chaom Kanevsky paskens that one is not allowed to work in Sdeot 
> because it is dangerous and one needs to find a new job.
> http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART1/442/452.html......
> Did he advise the schoolchildren or their parents on the issue?

[RnRF:]
> The article says that schoolchildren [or their parents] came to Rav
> Kanievsky, but doesn't say what his advice to them was or if he gave
> any. It says that the children told him how hard it is to study there
> at this time.

Do poskim such as R' CK deal (in writing) with the macro implications
of such a psak (e.g. how does this reconcile with the halacha's treatment
of border towns not being allowed to be an ir hanidachat?)

KT
Joel Rich

Jacob Farkas wrote:
> It is pretty presumptuous IMHO to claim that RMF would issue a P'saq
> about veal, claiming that its flavor profile is not sufficient to call
> upon Tzorekh haAdam to override TZBH, and that RMF evidence is mere
> hearsay. The product is and always was somewhat popular. In my opinion
> RMF meant what he said, and was not mistaken in the facts influencing
> his P'saq.

I remember when RMF's psak came out. It was based on an article by his
son in law, R. Moshe Tendler, which asserted the tzaar baalei chaim point
based on his personal evaluation of the conditions in which veal are
raised. This is definitely a question of metziut, and per shochtim I know
who have familiarity with the industry, was not accurate. There is also
an element of human projection here. AFAIR, R. Tendler wrote that the
animals are "socially and emotionally deprived" by being kept in pens.
Free range chicken advocates sound similar themes, but to my mind, we
should not assume that animals so crave walks in the park and schmoozes
with other animals that deprivation of these rises to tzaar baalei chaim.

                           Shalom L. Kohn

Are we to take literaly the chazal on Yuma 28b (daf hayomi) that Avraham
Avinu a"h kept all the mitzvot including the Rabbanan?

In our shiur I suggested that perhaps this is an example of a "guzma"
of Chazal that is coming to convey a message.

The magid shiur was not happy with this idea and said that he knows of
no Rishon who suggests it.

Any suggestions?

Reuven Miller

[R Reuven Miller:]
> Are we to take literaly the chazal on Yuma 28b (daf hayomi) that Avraham
> Avinu a"h kept all the mitzvot including the Rabbanan?

Most do not take it literally. I can fax (or scan) you(or micha) a tikkun
leil shavuot I did with a myriad of sources.

KT
Joel Rich

[Searching the archive should also help. The question has come up before. -mi]

from areivim:
> Not necessarily. See the Minchat Chinuch 525 (and 604). It thus refers not
> only to soldiers but also to civilians.

The Minchat Chinuch in 52d ends up in a "zarach iyun" if going to war
overcomes the need for sakanat nefashot.

In the Machin Yerushalayim edition there is a note referring to a Griz on
the Torah in Beshalach. However, the note seems to counterdict itself. He
implies that war inherently includes danger but then explains the chinuch
as only talking about when we are attacjked.

Anyone know the shita of the Griz on war and danger?

 -- 
Eli Turkel

As phminden says "Showing flags is quite an American thing". We do not
have such a flag culture in England and I do not recall ever seeing
either a Union flag or English flag in a synagogue.

Until recently flying of flags was something one associated with fascist
and extreme Nationalists. At the same time in England, perhaps partly
as a result of devolution of government to Scotalnd and Wales there is
an increased awareness of "England" so that we have become more aware
that the English flag is not the Union flag which combines the crosses
of George, Andrew and Patrick but the flag of St George, the red cross
on a white background which I think of as a crusader cross.

In recent years we are seeing a great display of England flags at the
time of International football competitions. So now, with the World Cup
on and especially before England's exit in the quarter finals there have
been crosses of St George displayed everywhere. I have not seen Jews
displaying this flag. Since displaying this flag (unlike the secular
Stars and Stripes) would feel uncomfortable this is a small barrier to
patriotic involvement. Depending on your religious or Zionist point of
view this may be a good or a bad thing.

Alan Rubin

> Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> It is pretty presumptuous IMHO to claim that RMF would issue a P'saq
>> about veal, claiming that its flavor profile is not sufficient to call
>> upon Tzorekh haAdam to override TZBH, and that RMF evidence is mere
>> hearsay. The product is and always was somewhat popular. In my opinion
>> RMF meant what he said, and was not mistaken in the facts influencing
>> his P'saq.

R' Shalom Kohn wrote:
> I remember when RMF's psak came out. It was based on an article by his
> son in law, R. Moshe Tendler, which asserted the tzaar baalei chaim point
> based on his personal evaluation of the conditions in which veal are
> raised. This is definitely a question of metziut, and per shochtim I know
> who have familiarity with the industry, was not accurate. There is also
> an element of human projection here. AFAIR, R. Tendler wrote that the
> animals are "socially and emotionally deprived" by being kept in pens.
> Free range chicken advocates sound similar themes, but to my mind, we
> should not assume that animals so crave walks in the park and schmoozes
> with other animals that deprivation of these rises to tzaar baalei chaim.

Pardon me for pointing out that testimony from Shokhtim on this matter
is the fairness equivalent of my using PETA as a source that veal calves
are mistreated....

In any case, reports about the mistreatment of calves is not R' Tendler's
Hiddush, it is well known, and has been a cause of great controversy
between cattle farmers and animal welfare advocates for years.

The greater question is your argument against human projection in the
evaluation of TZBH. See an earlier discussion:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n166.shtml#09>

Inasmuch as the Torah asked to intervene on behalf of animals we perceive
are suffering, it is only human projection that can determine or estimate
an animal's pain. Animals don't communicate, so how do we know that
Roveitz Tahas Masa'o is TZBH, only because we perceive it to be so,
based on our own experience given in that situation. Cramped quarters,
in human estimation, do not appear to be ta'anug Ba'alei Hayyim, and thus
the assumption of TZBH is not so far fetched, and perhaps accurate, IMHO.

On another note, this isn't the first instance where I hear of T'shuvos
in Igros Moshe being challenged on RMF mistake of fact (according to
those challenging his p'saq on that given matter, of course). Is this a
common challenge to Posqim, and RMF in particular, when all other logical
approaches fail, or was RMF often misled? Should the latter be true,
what does that say about the Siyata Dishmaya of a Poseq, particularly
one who is crowned as Poseq haDor?

Jacob Farkas

Eli Turkel wrote:
> In my small town several Sushi restaurants have recently opened up.
> At what point is it considered a significant minority?

It is possible that even if a large number of people started eating
sushi (i have been a eater of that stuff for years!) fish would still
have a din of bishul akum. There is a big difference (I think) between
the status of the small sliver of tuna wrapped in rice and seaweed,
eaten as an appetizer, and the big piece of tuna served as the main
course. The first is eaten raw, the second simply is not.

However maybe I am wrong. I have never been to Japan - do they eaten tuna,
served as the main course, raw?

Btw - I make it myself. It is extremely easy to prepare and is perfect
dish to serve at kiddush. Bon appetit.

skype user name: benwaxman

> Do poskim such as R' CK deal (in writing) with the macro implications
> of such a psak (e.g. how does this reconcile with the halacha's treatment
> of border towns not being allowed to be an ir hanidachat?)

I am sure that if he was asked to he certainly has the ability do so.
There are many situations today in which no one has asked, so no one
has felt that it is their duty to give unsolicited advice.

 --Rena

CBK wrote:
> While creating clipart of flags from around the world I
> realized how many have christian crosses on them (in other words the
> crosses aren't just designs they are there representing the xianity of
> that country). Does anyone know how Jews in those countries (England for
> example) deal with that problem?

To avoid this problem, we generally don't fly flags, including the Israeli 
flag.

Arie Folger ,
Basel, Switzerland

From: countrywide@tiscali.co.uk
> Today, it is usual to refer to Poskim who lived before R' Yosef Karo as
> Rishonim, and those who lived later as Achronim, although I have seen
> some contemporary writes who use a slightly earlier dividing line.
> Clearly these goal`posts have moved over the centuries....
> What I would like to know is how often the boundary was shifted and by
> how much?

Achcaronim referred to in Maggid Mishne re: bracha on LIghting Shabbas
candles was probably Ramban and Rashba. To the Maggid Mishenh those
WERE Acharonim.

These are relative tearms that have been set in stone later on.

When Hashem created the world is was gasrous and liquid until HE
commanded that they take form. This happens a lot even after the 6 days
of creation. What USED TO BE amorphous and in flux takes on a solid form
later on.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   

From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
> Only the fertile crescent had the range of easily domesticatable wild
> cereal crops that made a transition to intensive agriculture easy.  In
> particular, he singles out eincorn wheat, emmer wheat and barley.  This
> is because:

> High productivity:<snip>
> - the wheats offer the additional advantage of a high protein content <snip>
> Because of the high productivity there was a corresponding ease of
> domestication:<snip>

This strikes me as a very attractive theory, but I'm not convinced that
it fits the facts. Consider four areas: China, Mesopotamia, Peru, and
Mexico. The first two had functioning literate civilizations by the time
of Matan Torah, even though rice has lower protein content than wheat.
As far as I know potatos (the basis of the Inca's civilization) also
have high protein content and, I imagine, they are easily domesticated.
Yet the Mayas had a functioning civilization before the Incas, and the
Incas lagged several thousand years behind Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China.

David Riceman 

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


[ 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         ]