Avodah Mailing List

Volume 19: Number 12

Tue, 26 Sep 2006

• 1. corningware (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] Chicken Scandal (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Spheres and Tosfos Yom Tov (hankman)
• 4. Re: How Many Kolot (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 5. Re: Chazal are Infallible (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] Are You Partially Responsible for the Shevach (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. washing towels on chol hamoed (Gershon Seif)
• 8. Re: asher yatzar (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Chicken Scandal (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: washing towels on chol hamoed (Zev Sero)
• 11. Movie Popcorn (Harry Maryles)
• 12. How Many Kolot (Arie Folger)

> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:44:48 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: [Avodah] Kashering Corningware
> > Corningware by the way, is not made by Corning, as their Consumer Product
> > Division was sold several years ago.
> 
> So, why /is/ kashering Corningware considered so difficult? If it has
> a very high surface tension, I wouldn't think it absorbs ta'am.
> 
> -mi

I think the following source gives the answer:

http://www.corningware.com/index.asp?pageId=99

"...The original CorningWare? bakeware which was first introduced in 1958, was made of a glass-ceramic material that could be used on the stove, in the oven and under the broiler. After World Kitchen acquired the brand in the late 1990's, CorningWare products were switched to ceramic stoneware production. "

Shoshana L. Boublil

RZS writes:

> The Raavad/Mechaber position is that all we need to know 
> about someone is that he is a Jew, and that we *not* know 
> anything negative about him. If his name is Cohen and we've 
> never heard of him before, and he tells us the food he's 
> selling is kosher, we can believe that he's telling the truth 
> to the best of his knowledge.  (We still have to worry about 
> how far his knowledge extends; but if he says he bought 
> everything as raw ingredients, or with a good hechsher, that 
> he bought his kelim new and has never used them for anything 
> else, etc, we don't need to worry that he's lying.)

On what basis do you understand the Raavad in this manner?  The Raavad's
language is that we can eat by him even if he is an am ha'aretz.  I
would have thought that one of the potential issues with an am ha'aretz
has to be that he is not knowledgeable.  Once you have to start
investigating his level of knowledge, then surely whole idea that simply
knowing his name is Cohen is enough falls by the wayside? 

And isn't this precisely the contrast discussed at length vis a vis
shechita?  One of the reasons specifically given eg by the Shach that we
do not automatically trust a butcher who himself shechts is because the
laws of shechita are so complex.  The implication of that surely is that
in relation to  areas of kashrus other than shechita we do not worry
about how far his knowledge extends.  Hence the argument today ie that
"because of all the additives and the industrialisation of the food
industry kashrus has become so complex that you need haschgacha" seems
to me in effect to be an argument that what once applied vis a vis
shechita only is now to be applied more generally, or in other words, we
should no longer posken like the Shulchan Aruch.

> -- 
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with 

Regards

Chana

In my review of mishnayos RH (on RH) I noted the apparent belief by the Tosfos Yom Tov of the reality of the Ptolemaic celestial spheres in his pirush on the 8th mishna in perek 2. I found this interesting as he was a contemporary of Kepler and Galileo (and could have heard of their results) and just shortly preceded Newton. He lived during the final transition from celestial spheres. I googled about on the net for the following historic data:

Tosfos Yom Tov (1579 - 1654)
Yohannes Kepler (1571 - 1630)
Kepler publishes Astonomia Nova (first and second laws of planetary motion)  - 1609
Kepler publishes Harmonices Mundi (third  law of planetary motion)  - 1619
Kepler abandoned his pet theory of a relationship between the Platonic Solids and the planets.
Galileo Galilei (1564 -- 1642)
Galileo publishes telescopic observations, Sidereus Nuncius  (1610)
Galileo's problem with the church (1614 - 1633). (I presume this made his ideas well know in his time).
Sir Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727)
Newton publishes Principia (1687)

GCT

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060925/3dc6ce76/attachment.html

In Avodah Digest V2#11, RJJB wrote:
> Breuers still does 70. <
I grew up in WH (and attended KAJ/"Breuer's" from the early '70s through
1994).  Trust me, 100 kolos are blown there (as per my earlier message,
which is based on what I recorded in my Roedelheim-print machzor after RhSh
one of those years, probably in the late '80s or early '90s), not 70.
Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060925/d4a7cea2/attachment-0001.htm

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<In vol 13, RJSO quoted Tosafos haRosh, who makes the argument about the
shiur of pi rather than pi itself. I added that fit the recollection I had
of how Iwas taught the gemara. RZS objected to the plausibility of this
reading, and in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n076.shtml#11><http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n076.shtml#11>RJSO
gives a line by line explanation of the gemara as he presumed the ThR
understood it.

I wonder how the Tosafos Harosh would read the Gemara in bava Basra 14a-14b
which discusses the size of the aron and how the luchos and the sefer torah
fit in. The Gemara seems pretty clear that the measurements are exact,
otherwise the question doesn't even begin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060926/7da009fd/attachment-0001.html

Regarding popcorn in a movie theater, where one can ascartain that 
the oil they're using today is kosher, someone in R"n Chana Luntz's 
chain of quotes asked:

> why does not the principle of noten tam lifgam for
> anything older than a day come into play?  Ie why
> is the fact that he may indeed have used treif oil
> the day before not irrelevant (at least m'ikkar
> hadin)?

My understanding is that nosen taam lifgam is useful only where the 
only potential problem is taam. In other words, you first have to 
ascertain that there's no b'en, no mamashus, no actual nonkosher 
food. And in this situation, how do you know that the popcorn maker 
was cleaned last night? Even better, how do you know that it was even 
*emptied* last night? As I see it, there is a reasonable fear that 
some of yesterday's oil was left in the popcorn maker, and even so 
much of it so as not to be batel in today's kosher oil.

OTOH, one can ask a different question: Unless there's a real chance 
that they were actually using animal fat yesterday, then the whole 
shaalah is NOT about <<< treif oil the day before >>>, but it is 
about unhechshered vegetable oil, which is a whole 'nother story. 
(Again, not that I'd eat it, but we're asking about me'ikar hadin.)

Akiva Miller

This past pesach a posek in my neighborhood (Rav
Efraim Friedman) was giving a shiur and said that it's
assur to launder hand towels on chol hamoed. We had
been doing otherwise for years and my wife was
surprised to hear about this. My wife just found in
the english version of Halichos Bas Yisroel
(Fuchs/Domby) where it says that it is permitted. The
footnote on the bottom says it's from SA 534 siman
alef (also citing MB 4)[it actually had a typo and
stated it was siman 537]

That siman says mitpichos yadayim are muttar to
launder on chol hamoed. But the misna brura there
quotes the Mogen Avrohom who says that nowadays we
don't change our mitpachos yadayim that frequently and
even if we have only one or two, that should be enough
to get by for the week.

Assuming that mitpachos yadayim are towels, I wondered
why the MB is saying that the laundry customs of the
MO, well over 100 years before the CC, whould
determine our laundry habits. And even if they were
the same for the CC, are they the same for us? And
what if my wife washes hand towels more than most
others? Do we say botlo daytah?

I spoke to that posek about this and he asked me why I
was so sure that mitpichos yodayim are towels for
drying hands. He learned that they were towels for
wiping off dirt. He also told me that he's spoken with
Rav Zucker who wrote the Chol Hamoed sefer and he's
pretty sure that's how Rav Zucker learned as well.

Anyone hear anything about this?

On Mon, September 25, 2006 5:24 pm, Rt Chana Luntz wrote:
: Yes this is true, but: - the gemora in Yoma 75b states that the mon was
: absorbed directly into the 248 limbs of the body and even elevated all
: other food stuffs so they too resulted in no waste, meaning that no
: waste was produced.  And the gemora explains, it was only after the Bnei
: Yisroel complained...

: So, if relieving oneself is (or can be seen as) a form of punishment,
: and it is possible to provide food that does not result in waste (I know
: it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics - but I am not sure what
: the Torah view is or should be on the second law of thermodynamics, with
: its bleak view of things) why, to perhaps rephrase RDR (or his son's)
: question, are we indeed making a bracha?  Even if the current design is
: complex, would not having the situation in the midbar pre complaint as
: standard be the desirable scenario?

First, to the matter at hand. Asher Yatzar isn't a berakhah about defecation
in particular. Many have the nusach "afilu sha'ah echas" -- and yet a healthy
person needn't defecate more than daily. The Avudraham detours in explaining
the berakhah to go through a biology lesson and the wonders of the entire
body, including the reichayim and the leiv (which one does need working "afilu
sha'ah echas").

I limited my discussion to defacation because had the mon not even caused
urination, it would defy the law of the conservation of matter, not just
thermodynamics. Or did people get steadily bigger in the midbar as the mass
went in?

But since mon isn't a natural thing, why assume it obeys any natural law? This
touches upon our earlier debate about the mabul -- need I minimize the number
of miraculous effects involved in something that requires at least one anyway?
(And since it's after Rosh haShanah, the ban expired on that, BTW. Please
let's not abuse that fact...)

As for the broader queastion... In a way, the law of thermodynamics does fit
along with many parts of Jewish thought. First, it's a physical law. The fact
that matter tends to degrade, and it takes spirituality and human effort to
fight that isn't particularly startling. If one isn't progressing, they're
generally regressing. A lack of construction is a form of destuction.

Also, what is the equilibrium state to which history progresses? "Umal'ah
ha'aretz dei'ah es Hashem" -- full entropy of the idea of Hashem. From the
single point of Avraham to the nation at Har Sinai until the drop of sky-blue
ink is defused throughout the waters of human potential.

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

RZS writes (responding to a post of mine that it would seem was never
published, at least as of the time of my writing):

> > 
> >> The Raavad/Mechaber position is that all we need to know
> >> about someone is that he is a Jew, and that we *not* know 
> >> anything negative about him. If his name is Cohen and we've 
> >> never heard of him before, and he tells us the food he's 
> >> selling is kosher, we can believe that he's telling the truth 
> >> to the best of his knowledge.  (We still have to worry about 
> >> how far his knowledge extends; but if he says he bought 
> >> everything as raw ingredients, or with a good hechsher, that 
> >> he bought his kelim new and has never used them for anything 
> >> else, etc, we don't need to worry that he's lying.)
> > 
> > On what basis do you understand the Raavad in this manner?
> 
> It's obvious.  No matter how trustworthy he is, he can only 
> know as much as he knows.  If he admits that he doesn't know 
> what he's talking about, can you possibly imagine that the 
> Raavad, or the Mechaber, would say that we can believe that 
> what he says is true? What if he honestly doesn't know that 
> pork is not kosher?  
> 

But if you know that he does not know (eg that pork is kosher) then he
has taken himself out of the chazaka, in a similar way to somebody who
had demonstrated his non trustworthyness takes himself out of the
chazaka (a spectacular example of which is the incident referred to in
the heading of this thread).  And while I agree that knowledge and
trustworthyness are two different things, as far as I can see the
principle behind chezkas kashrus as understood by the Mechaber/Raavad is
that one does not have to inquire to determine whether or not the person
is trustworthy *or knowledgeable*.  We rely on the basic chazaka that
Jewish people are trustworthy and sufficiently knowledgeable unless and
until they as individuals are shown not to be worthy of our trust and
reliance.  We are not required to faher him as to his knowledgeableness.
The chezkas kashrus is, according to some, based on the principle of rov
(ie that the majority of Jews do indeed know that pork is not kosher as
well as not being suspected of selling pork) or alternatively upon a
basic principle that this is (ie a basic level of knowledgeableness)
what constitutes a Jew.

> 
> >  The Raavad's
> > language is that we can eat by him even if he is an am ha'aretz. I 
> > would have thought that one of the potential issues with an am 
> > ha'aretz has to be that he is not knowledgeable.
> 
> In those days every Jew, even an am haaretz, knew basic 
> things, such as that meat must come from a shochet or a 
> kosher butcher, and it must be salted, that meat and milk 
> don't mix, etc., and that shaylos must be asked of a rov.  
> One could assume that if a Jew claimed that something was 
> kosher he knew what that meant, and therefore the only thing 
> one needed to worry about was that he might be dishonest.

But there are many many pratim that go into the keeping of kashrus over
and above those you have mentioned.

I suspect that what you are grappling with is the fact that today, we
have non religious Jews who are indeed so ignorant that they do not know
"that meat must come from a shochet or a kosher butcher, and it must be
salted, that meat and milk don't mix, etc., and that shaylos must be
asked of a rov."  But I doubt that you will find anybody who could be
defined as a "frum Jew" who has that level of ignorance.

Now the Aruch Hashulchan already had this part of the modern problem (ie
non religious Jews who are extraordinarily ignorant), although during
those times he probably did not have the second modern problem, that of
industrialisation and modern chemical technology.  The way the Aruch
Hashulchan dealt with it was to define the chezkas kashrus as only
applying to those Jews who were accustomed to going al pi das yisroel,
who put on tallis and tephillin, davened three times a day, washed his
hands for eating and instructed his household to do likewise (see Yoreh
Deah siman 119:11).  But he stresses that the person need not be a
talmid chacham or a tzadik just keep the basicis. 

Once you redefine the set to exclude those people who do not follow a
minimum amount of observance, then I think you will be hard placed to
find anybody who does not know "that meat must come from a shochet or a
kosher butcher, and it must be salted, that meat and milk don't mix,
etc., and that shaylos must be asked of a rov".  Ie you are back to your
classic am ha'aretz definition and the situation to which the rishonim
were referring.  If you find the rare person who does the basics but (as
per your example) lefi tumo says that he killed the chicken himself or
that he cooked it in milk, then that individual has taken himself out of
the chazaka.  But you do not have to, and are not required to, go asking
questions in order to elicit this information - or even to elicit the
information that indeed he understands that meat must come from a
shochet or kosher butcher and/or was cooked in milk.  You are to assume
he does until it is shown to be otherwise.


  To 
> that, the Raavad/Mechaber say that we needn't worry about 
> dishonesty, every Jew has a chezkat kashrut.  But if this 
> presumptively honest Jew says lefi tumo that he killed the 
> chicken himself, or that he cooked it in milk, then it is 
> simply impossible that the Raavad or the Mechaber would 
> permit eating it, simply because a Jew put it in front of 
> one, or said that it was "kosher".
> 
> 
> > Once you have to start investigating his level of knowledge, then 
> > surely whole idea that simply knowing his name is Cohen is enough 
> > falls by the wayside?
> 
> No, because the issue they're dealing with is his 
> trustworthiness, not his knowledge.  They say that any Jew 
> should be presumed to be telling the truth *as he knows it*, 
> so long as we don't have a specific reason to suspect 
> otherwise, and that the mere fact that he could profit by 
> lying doesn't count as a reason to suspect him.
>

But the language of the various sources is not about trusting or not
trusting his statement of "kosher".  It is about eating from him or not
eating from him.  Ie nowhere do we have a statement from him that
something is (or is not) kosher, it is just implicit in terms of the
interaction (ie giving to eat or buying).  And until he is established
as falling into the category of one who is chashud it is OK to eat from
him or buy from him (at least according to the Mechaber/Ravaad).  Now
one might be chashud with respect to an issur due to untrustworthyness
or it might equally well be due to ignorance, but at the end of the day,
that person is suspected of an issur or not, as the case may be.  With
the principle that we do not suspect until we have reason to do so, and
therefore we do not go out and investigate in order to establish him as
being trustworthy and knowledgeable.

This is specifically contrasted to the situation of shechita and related
(nikur etc) (and according to the Rambam, various other issurim) where
it is important that one buys from or has a shochet mumcha.  The point
about of a mumcha is that he is knowledgeable as well as G-d fearing-
and while we have a different principle, ie that rov mitzuim etzel
shechita mumchim hem", this is much weaker than the general principle.
It is indeed appriopriate to faher a shochet to check he knows his stuff
before allowing him to shecht and not just rely on the fact that his
name is Cohen (or as per the Aruch HaShulchan, his name is Cohen and he
appears to follow basic observance).


...
> 
> >Hence the argument today ie that "because of all the additives and
the 
> >industrialisation of the food industry kashrus has become so complex
that you need 
> >haschgacha"  seems to me in effect to be an argument that what once 
> >applied vis a vis shechita only is now to be applied more generally
> 
> Yes, that is indeed what makes our times different than those 
> of the Shulchan Aruch.

And that as, I understand it, is the argument that today we should
pasken like the Rambam rather than the Shulchan Aruch.

There are of course various counter arguments.  The one I have brought
up on this list, however is that, while indeed food technology is more
complex than it used to be, kashrus has always been complex, and the
amei ha'aretz have historically not been very knowledgeable.  What they
have always known, however, is the basic essentials - particularly in
relation to issurei d'orisa.  And where (as in the case of shechita)
there was a risk of ignorance leading to a violation of an fundamental
issur d'orisa, then the chachamim acted to require a mumcha (or a
chaver).  To the extent that additives and industrialisation has led to
clear cut issurei d'orisa then maybe it would be appropriate to imitate
the actions of the chachamim (although the question of our ability to
institute gezeros might be raised).  But to the extent that we are
talking about anything less than that, maybe we should be hesitant to
tamper with community dynamics as valued by the majority poskim.

> -- 
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with 

Regards

Chana

Gershon Seif wrote:

> I spoke to that posek about this and he asked me why I
> was so sure that mitpichos yodayim are towels for
> drying hands. He learned that they were towels for
> wiping off dirt. He also told me that he's spoken with
> Rav Zucker who wrote the Chol Hamoed sefer and he's
> pretty sure that's how Rav Zucker learned as well.

Try translating it into the Yiddish that was the CC's and the MA's
native language.  They are talking about hant-tacher (towels),
as opposed to tish-tacher (tablecloths) or noz-tacher (handkerchiefs).
As far as I know, any kind of towel is a hant-tach, even if it's
actually a bath towel or a dish towel.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

--- "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

> Regarding popcorn in a movie theater, ...

This reminds me of a circumstance that ocurred in Chicago many years
ago. The CRC had certified several movie theaters as having Kosher
Popcorn. We movie goers were elated. We could now sit and watch a
movie while enjoying a bucket of delicious hot buttered popcorn.

That joy was short lived. Some of the more RW elements were aghast at
the idea that a Hechsher organization was providing a Hechsher for
food in an establshement that they considered Hashkafically
"Unkosher". To my chagrin the CRC succumbed to the pressure and
withdrew their Hechsher.

That raises a question. Is it appropriate to give Hechsehrim to food
in establishements that are by their nature controversial? What if
they are only controversial to a segment of the public? Is it OK for
one segmnent to put pressure on a Hechsher organization and thereby
deny those with different Hashkafos the pleasure of enjoying the
benefits of their Hechsher in an environemt that is OK for them? Why
after all, should the CRC be pressured into denying me movie popcorn?

Lest someone say that there is no such thing as Kosher movies, I beg
to differ. There are many movies produced each year that are geared
for children... cartoons and the like. There are also movies like
"March of the Penguins", a very successful movie. 

The bottom line is that if one segment can exert pressure this way
effectivly, the will of the few is then forced upon the many. Is this
right? Should the CRC have succumbed? 

I'm sure that had the CRC not given in to the demands of those RW
protestors their Hashgacha status would have been lowered in the eyes
of many on the right. And that would have been a blow to the relative
Achdus in Chicago vis-a-vis Kashrus agencies... something I support
and appreciate. But does that make it right? 

HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

RJB wrote:
<<In short, "old Ashkenazi minhag" isn't just 60, it can also be 40, 42 or
70.  100 only became "almost universal" in the 20th century, but Breuers
still does 70.>>

So do we (70).

Arie Folger, Rabbi,
Israelitische Gemeinde Basel
(est. ca. 1805)


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 2, Issue 12
*************************************

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..."