Avodah Mailing List

Volume 19: Number 8

Thu, 14 Sep 2006

• 1. Re: Henna parties (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Monsey chickens (Kohn, Shalom)
• 3. Chazal are Infallible (Kohn, Shalom)
• 4. Re: Sukkah GT 20 amot high (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Phantom Chazal? (joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com)
• 6. Re: Monsey kashrut problem (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Monsey scandal: 2 pages of a teshuva.. (SBA)
• 8. Re: Rhyming (Micha Berger)
• 9. AishDas Pre-Slichos Melave Malka (Jonathan Baker)
• 10. Monsey kashrut problem (Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts)

R"n Ilana Sober wrote:
> AFAIK, we can be lenient with hair dye because she
> is ainah makpedet - on the contrary, she wants her
> hair to be dyed, and also because the dye has no
> independent substance but is absorbed into the hair.
> (I imagine that the same principle would apply if
> one were matbil an item of dyed clothing for
> tumah/taharah purposes?) ... Acrylic nails or nail
> polish is a minority of her body about which she is
> not makpedet - in fact, the polish or acrylic is
> decorative and she wants it to remain in place.

If so, then why is it that women *do* remove their acrylic nails and 
nail polish prior to tevilah? I recall once hearing that this is 
*not* halacha, only a minhag of the women. The phrase "das yehudis" 
might have been applied to this.

Similar situations apply to tevilas keilim. No one suggests removing 
the paint from a keli prior to toveling it. I once purchased a spice 
rack, which included a few dozen glass jars for the spices, and each 
jar had a pretty paper label attached with the name of a spice. I 
asked my rav if the label is a chatzitzah, and he was surprised that 
I bothered to ask, as it is clearly for the betterment of the glass 
keli, and therefore part of it.

Akiva Miller

R. MYG wrote:

>We have previously discussed the Chamor of R' Pinchos ben Yair, and I
have
pointed out that entire "Tzadikim atzman lo kol she'kein" does not apply
B'zman Ha'zeh, as is clear in Chulin 5B, ToDH Tzadikim Atzman. 

Actually, the tosafot in question states that the rule about the Chamor
of R' Pinchos ben Yair applies only to food, and not other issurim.  The
end of the tosafot quotes a gemara that "anu ke-chamorim, ve-lo
ke-chamoro shel pinchas ben yair" which is the remark paraphrased in my
original post.  If the rule of "Tzadikim atzman lo kol she'kein" does
not apply
B'zman Ha'zeh, it is because nitkatnu hadorot (i.e., we are not
tzaddikim) and not that the rule has become passe.

Shalom L. Kohn 

Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 09/14/06, 09:37:48:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on such 
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

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

 
As I anticipated, various posters defended Chazal as to geometric
relationships on the ground (a) they were using approximations; (b) they
were writing for the "hamon am" (R. MYG). [Does anyone really think
tosafot was writing for the Hamon Am, as R. MYG says? And if tosafot did
so intend, would it have been a problem for tosafot to say, "we know the
relationship is as follows, and here how one can prove it?  This is to
R. Aryeh Folger's point that the tosafot is used in Israel to teach
geometry.  How much better would that lesson be if tosafot had declared
the mathematical relationship, and THEN brought the proof?)

Let me just say that I commend the gemara in Sukka to the list's
attention, and you will see that chazal, rashi and tosafot are
struggling with the relationships in a way that an elementary school
child today would not.  Further, the gemara reflects a desire for
precision (to establish shiurim for a kosher sukkah) which is belied by
the suggestion of our posters that the "rules" were only intended as
approximations.  
 
And of course, my comment about nishtaneh hatevah was, shall we say,
ironic.

More specifically, R. MYG wrote:

> Indeed, we find that Rishonim and Acharonim were familiar
with advanced geometry and trigonometry, e.g. the Rambam and the Vilna
Gaon.

I know the Vilna Gaon wrote a math book (which some posters have
suggested was not written by him because of the bitul torah involved,
and others -- incredibly -- suggested the Gaon wrote in the bathroom!!)
but exactly where in the Rambam do we see him discuss equations of pi,
x-squared, and the Pythagorean theorem?

R. Chaim Manaster wrote:

>Actual the Babylonians and Greeks had better values than the ones used
in shas. It is safe to assume that chazal knew these values that well
preceded the time of the mishna and gemara even if you choose to assume
that chazal only knew what the intelligencia of their day knew in
science. They chose to use these rounded values since these approx. were
sufficient halachakly and easier for the less sophisticated hamon am to
use. 

Why do we assume Chazal had a good "secular" education, and more
particularly, since we are dealing with shiurim to be yotzeh according
to halacha, why would chazal NOT be as precise as possible?  Again, see
the gemara I cited.


Eh, regarding the Rishonim, let me clearly state the opposite. There are

elements in the Israeli education scene that want to make Tosafot's
proof 
(which is actually from an earlier Jewish source, I believe) standard in

teaching geometry, because students can more readily grasp it than the
usualy 
calculations. That this beautiful and simple proof comes from our
masters, 
the Rishonim, is of course an important benefit. The secular Israeli
teenager 
will be somewhat exposed to their greatness through a subject matter he 
understands.

I would restate your speculation, saying that 'Hazal were interested in 
stating things in such a way that a non-scientifically trained person
could 
apply halakhah. RMB stated the same thing regarding the height of the
sukkah, 
IIRC.

It is only nowadays, when many people have the benefit of a science
education, 
that we look at these statements askance, because we cannot remember
that 
almost nobody among the common folk would have know how to apply the 
halakhah, had the gemeara stated that "sukkah 'agulah, midatah ``pi''
Yevanit 
pe'am shoresh shel shetayim kaful arba' amot." Come to think of it, even

nowadays most people wouldn't know what to do with this, once they are
out of 
high school.

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 2, Issue 7
************************************


Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 09/14/06, 09:41:09:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on such 
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

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

I wrote:
> "sitting in the shade of the s'chach" ... means "sitting
> in a place which WOULD be in the shade of the s'chach 
> IF the sun were directly overhead."

Micha Berger responded
> If the sun were perfectly overhead, walls wouldn't block
> it at all. And thus there would be no shiur.

Yes, and R' Chaim Manaster (and others?) wrote similarly. I think I'm 
missing something. Is there a posek somewhere who says that even if 
you are directly under kosher sechach, you're not yotzay if you're 
too close to the wall and in the shade of the wall? That sounds quite 
bizarre, for the reasons that I've written, yet some posts seem to 
say that such a shita exists. Is it possible that such writings are 
actually about sitting under a slanted wall, so that he is actually 
not under the sechach at all? Makoros greatly appreciated. Thanks, 
everyone.

Akiva Miller

<<R Moshe Yehuda Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com <mailto:mgluck@gmail.com>> writes: 

"One who prohibits the permitted will end up permitting the prohibited." :
 
Any takers? I never heard it before. To me it sounds like a conflation of kol hamosif gorei'ah and kol hameracheim al ha'achzarim... >>

The closest I found is at the end of Yerushalmi, Terumos, ch. 5: "Just as it is forbidden to declare pure the impure, so it is forbidden to declare impure the pure" (see here http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/r/r1605.htm).

This reference comes from R. A.Z. Zivitofsky, "What's the truth about...nikkur achorayim", Jewish Action, Fall 2006, footnote 17 (see link here:
http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5767/fall67/58-63.pdf)

Kol tuv
Dov Kay



This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then immediately permanently delete it.

Addleshaw Goddard is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC318149) and is regulated by the Law Society. A list of members' names is open to inspection at our registered office, 150 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4EJ.

Additional terms and conditions are available on our Web site - http://www.addleshawgoddard.com

==============================================================================

R' Micha Berger asked:
> Is this oneis or shogeig?

I don't see how shogeg enters into it. Shogeg requires some degree of 
awareness, which seems (to be) missing here. I'd phrase the question 
as "Is this oneis or mis'asek?" (to which I suspect the answer is 
misasek)

> isn't there a principle that misgalgelim chov
> al yedei chayav, ... someone who sees a sotah
> beqilqulah should become a nazir ... etc... IOW,
> that the incident shows a pegam elsewhere.

I totally agree, and that's why I have trouble even understanding the 
point of this thread.

And by the way, according to this logic, I believe that it is not 
only the Monsey residents who purchased that meat who need to do some 
soul-searching, but it becomes extended to all who have even heard of 
the incident. I base this on the sotah that R' Micha mentioned. It is 
hard for me to imagine that it applies only to those who actually saw 
the sotah with their eyes, and it is easy for me to imagine that it 
also applies (albeit perhaps to a lesser extent) to those who heard 
of the sotah.

Akiva Miller

...from Shu'T  Divrei Yoel re a similar situation:
http://masoret.hevre.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=2035243

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 00:17:06 +1000, RSBA <sba@sba2.com> forwarded from R'
"Yossi Aron":
: Not that I can think of but at least two places play with sounds:
: 1. re Nechash hanechoshet -- im noshach hanachash etc

Nachash nechoshes is not necessarily sound play, but word play. Like our
earlier discussion of "vehanachash harah arum" and "ki arumim heim".

For that matter, there is a reason why these words have a shared root. If we
knew them, we would see that it's not merely play, but there is a logical
point. A logical or causal connection between the nachash's craftiness and
their nudity.

-mi
http://www.aishdas.org/asp

AishDas Pre-Selichos Panel: Teshuvah from Love - Convert Sins to Merits

    Featuring R' Dr. Moshe Sokol, R' Micha Berger, R' Gil Student

1277 East 14th St. in Brooklyn
Between Avenues L & M, in the Shulamith School.

This Motza'ei Shabbat, September 16, 2006
                       9:30-11:30 pm. 

                Cost $25; Yavneh members $18.

  Come meet your fellow list-members in a relaxed setting, with
  refreshments.

    Questions: Jonathan Baker, jjbaker@panix.com, 718-825-6713

>>>>R' Shalom Kohn:
>In one of the circulars about the Monsey problem, signed by what I presume to be a broad >swatch of the notable rabbanim in town, there was the phrase that "as to kashering pots >and kapara, consult your local rabbi."

>I'd like to raise the hashkafa aspect of this "kapparah" line for discussion among the >assemblage.

>I am puzzled why anyone would think "kapparah" is in order.  Clearly, oness rachmana >patray, and unless someone who relied on the kosher supermarket knew of a problem or >was negligent, this is clearly an oness.  Further, since chezkat kashrut is a halacha -- and >here, I assume there was in addition to that, some kind of hashgacha which was deceived >-- where is the blame necessary to require "kapparah"?  Is there a suggestion that anyone >in the community, except those perpetuating the fraud, was at fault?

>I understand that one ingesting non-kosher may need some kind of "tahara" on the >principle that non-kosher is me-tamteim es halev, and that one properly feels violated for >eating non-kosher, even b'oness.  But "kaparah"?

>Thoughts?
>Shalom L. Kohn



The Rambam in Hilchos Shgogos 2:6 says that a tinok shenishboh, who had no knowledge that he was even a yid must bring a chatos for every single aveira he committed.

 

There's also an interesting Nesivos discussing a situation where someone sold food to his friend (I assume with a chezkas kashrus)  that was non-kosher mid'rabonon.  The Nesivos says that we do not consider this person to have committed a sin or require kapara.

 

However, if the food was non-kosher midoraisa, then the one who consumed the food requires atonement.

 

Seemingly, we have a precedent for this in Yevamos (87b) where a woman who remarries after two witnesses testified falsely that her husband died must bring a sacrifice as a Kapara even though she followed the Torah by trusting these kosher witnesses.

 

The Lubavitcher Rebbe in L'kutei Sichos (Volume 2 pg 623) discusses the reason why a Shogeg needs Kapara (Rashi, Shavuos 2:1) from punishment because not only the neshama of a Jew needs to be sensitive to the dangers of a sin but also the body should be trained to instinctively distance itself from sin as an animal will not accidentally jump into fire (Choshen Mishpat 383).

 

The Rebbe cites Tanya to explain:

The root of this insensitivity is from the "strengthening of the animal soul" (which is the cause for inadvertent sins for which sacrifices of atonement are required) (Tanya, Igros Kodesh end of ch. 28)

 

"with the passing of time it has gained strength because the man has indulged it considerably, in eating and drinking and other mundane pursuits" (Tanya Chapter 13)

 

The following story of Reb Shmuel Munkes, a chossid of the Alter Rebbe, R' Schneur Zalman of Lubavitch, comes to mind to shed light on this subject:

 

One Shabbos afternoon, the chassidim had gathered for a farbrengen around a table stocked with a variety of cakes and pies.  Reb Nosson, the local butcher,  arrived with a hot pie made from flour, oil, and meat and handed it to Reb Shmuel Munkes to give out portions to everyone. Much to the surprise of the chassidim , Reb Shmuel did not give out any of the food. Instead, he started to dance and jump around while holding the pie. The chassidim, who wanted some of this appetizing food, begged him to stop, but he would not listen. Suddenly he ran outside and threw the pie into the garbage!  The chassidim began yelling at Reb Shmuel for being so wasteful when suddenly the butcher came running into the hall screaming that no one should eat the pie because it is not kosher! The butcher explained that he had just found out that his wife had sold some non-kosher liver to the Beis Midrash by mistake. He had put the meat to one side to be sold to a goy and his wife had then sold it, no
 t realiz
 ing that there was anything wrong with it.  

When the chassidim accused Reb Shmuel of flaunting such ruach hakodesh publicly, he flatly denied any knowledge that the pie was made from non-kosher meat.  Nevertheless, he said that when the pie arrived, he remembered his first yechidus (private audience) with the Alter Rebbe.  Before entering into the Rebbe's chamber, for the first time, he resolved that no material desire would ever dictate to him and trained himself not to allow anything physical to overly attract him.

 

When the pie arrived he found that his appetite was most powerfully roused and also noticed that the same was true of many around the table.  To be so strongly drawn by a mere piece of meat?  He understood that something was not right and decided to do away with it.



May all our zedonos etc. become zochiyos and merit a KVT.


Zvi Konikov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060914/1591445b/attachment.html

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 2, Issue 8
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."