Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 62

Thu, 22 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: Pesach Alert - Hilfiger perfume not kosher lePesach (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Samuel Svarc)
• 3. Re: Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Samuel Svarc)
• 4. Re: Electricity on Shabbos (Elliott Shevin)
• 5. Re: Sparks and motors (D&E-H Bannett)
• 6. Re: Russian Roulette (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] Tommy Hilfiger (Zev Sero)
• 8. Candles (Zev Sero)
• 9. baking matzot by a goy/katan (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: matzot baked by a goy (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Kitnyos (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] Kitnyos (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] Kitnyos (Zev Sero)

 
 
From: Shmuel Zajac _s.zajac@verizon.net_ (mailto:s.zajac@verizon.net)  [on  
Areivim]

>>What's different for Hilfiger  perfumes?<<

>>Because perfumes are apparently, Ra'u  le'achilas kelev.  Certainly, it is 
known that alcoholics will drink  cologne and perfume if that's all they can 
get at.<<

--  Kayza


 
>>>>>
A lot of products have Pesach hechsherim even though no one would ever  eat 
them -- cleaning products especially.  But how come no one gives a  hechsher to 
the ink in pens and markers?  Is there a halachik reason we  don't have to 
worry about ink, or is it just that no one ever thought about  it?



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



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070321/504c55ce/attachment-0001.htm 

I spoke today to one of the finest minds in Lakewood in CM (if not in other
areas as well). He told me that the author got it right. Since the kallah's
side would not be interested in having someone else impersonate Chaim ben
Zundel after they had gone to the expense of hiring the real deal, the
chosson is considered an oneis. Oneis, I was told, is not only "eey efshar"
physically, it is also when it is "eey efshar" practically. The Trumas
HaDeshen, I was informed, says that a case where a man's wife falls ill is
considered an oneis, even though the man can hire someone to take care of
his wife. Since practically speaking that is not an option it is considered
oneis.

The clincher? The author chose this scenario based on a real story: A
chosson had hired a popular Jewish singer to sing at his chasunah. At the
chasunah, his father-in-law informed him that either the singer goes, or he
(the f-i-l-) goes.

KT,
MSS

>From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch"
>
>
>I think you are missing my point here.  While I agree with you that we
>need to look at the combination and not ignore the effect of the kala
>(which is why I referred to the derech of Devorah later in that post) -
>the question that this particular piece raises is whether the fact that
>they were married made a difference.  Ishto k'gufo is a technical
>halachic term which results in real halachic differences in psak.

I don't think one can apply Ishto k'gufo here. We're dealing with knowledge
here, and regardless of what halachic realities is created by this concept
it does not create knowledge of what the other spouse thinks.

>But in general I think some of the critism of what the book is trying to
>do is misguided.  In this particular case, I do not agree with the
>analysis of the applicability of the si'if in the Shulchan Aruch.  But
>it is very normal to have a system of technical law onto which is
>layered more moral (and yet legal considerations) - the common law
>system works exactly this way, with its division between law and equity.
>
>For the last couple of days I have been hoping to respond to the last
>point in RMK's post about middus chassidus, which in this case is
>probably more correctly called lifnin meshuras hadin - but have not had
>a chance, and as I have a very wriggly baby on my lap at the moment, it
>is not going to happen now, maybe tonight.   Not that I think you need
>it in this case, but it is arguably the equivalent of equity (especially
>if you follow the side of the machlokus brought by the Rema in Hoshen
>Mishpat 12;2 that a judge can impose lifnin meshuras hadin).  But you
>need to know law first before you can apply equity correctly, and the
>same here.

The author himself makes this last point in his halachic forward. I quoted
it in full in Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 59. I'll requote the relevant
paragraph or two again.

" Synonymous with such an approach are the barometers of moral correctness,
ehrlichkeit and mentchlichkeit. It is erroneous to pursue a regimen of
strict halachic adherence without considering these platitudes, as evidenced
by the Talmud's statement, "Jerusalem was only destroyed because of halachic
exactitude in money matters." (Baba Metzia 30b)

However, it must be emphasized that to base an approach to monetary dispute
solely upon one's moral inclinations is woefully inadequate. On the
contrary, such an outlook lends itself to halachic abuse, for "every man is
just in his own eyes" (Mishlei, chap.21 v.2) - by process of elimination
disputants will inevitably blame the conflicting party for not being
ehrlich. Under this 'noble' banner, a vociferous, well-connected and
charismatic litigant can engineer a coercive social atmosphere to demonize
the opponent, from which the only escape is capitulation. This is certainly
not consonant with halacha. The truly moral path first requires an
appreciation of the halacha, and only afterwards considers what is ehrlich
and mentchlich and what not. "

Marty Bluke wrote:
 
> ... including the opinion of the Chazon Ish that creating a circuit is 
> Boneh min hatorah, 
 
.. and plugging in an appliance adds on to the wiring in the building. (It's the CI's idea, 
not mine!)
 
> R' Willig told me that if you get locked out you> can ask a non-Jew to open it as it is a shvus d'shvus b'makom kitzva.
 
My rav suggested leaving an envelope with a token amount of cash in the room, 
reserved for the non-Jew who opens the door as a benefit for him. 
I did that at my last motel stay, promising the clerk the money as a payment, 
but he opened the door gratis all the same. 
> Security cameras
 
A problem because light bounces off you and registers on a sensing device? 
 
> ... We are rapidly reaching a point where we will be unable to do> anything on Shabbos in a modern home. The poskim need to come up with> some kind of balance, given what is going on in the Jewish world I am> not optimistic.
 
Alas, true. Elly"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
Take a break and play crossword puzzles - FREE!
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_ wlmemailtaglinemarch07
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070321/d3f0fe24/attachment.html 

R' Micha asked for my comment on his statement:
 <<I think that for many motors, the sparks are pesiq 
reishei. For most cheap motors, unless they get their RPM 
rate off the voltage cycle of the AC line, they have brushes 
and therefore spark quite frequently.>>

How can I refuse R' Micha?   So:
The cheapest motor to manufacture is the a-c induction 
motor. It does not have brushes or rotor coils. It is, 
therefore, the motor used whenever possible, a large 
majority of motors.  Only when continuous variation of motor 
speed is required is a brush motor used.  Of late, using 
feedback and modern electronics, it is possible to get 
continuous control of speed from induction motors. This is 
making brush motors even less common.

Of course with mechanical contacts there are usually sparks 
at the moment that a motor is disconnected and to a lesser 
extent when connected. By modern electronic methods, 
connection and disconnection can be made without sparks.

RSZA makes a strong case for the sparks being p'sik reisha 
d'lo nicha lei d'rabbanan and eino mitkaven, kil'achar yad, 
and u'mkalkel and, therefore, mutar.
R" L.Y. Halperin makes a weaker case, but in my 35 years of 
working with him, he never assered any device because of 
unavoidable sparks.

Something that is usually not considered by the poskim is 
that the electric spark is a completely different phenomenon 
from the spark mentioned in historic halakha. The "halakhic" 
spark is the oxidation or destruction of material. The 
electric spark is the result of the movement of quantities 
of electrons through the air.  Both cause light. Can one 
learn the halakhic category of the electric spark, assur or 
mutar, from comparison with the other phenomenon?


k"t,

David 

_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Areivim@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

R' Daniel Israel suggested:
> First, in this case the connection between the risk and
> the reward is artificial. That is, working in construction
> on a skyscraper entails a risk of falling, but there is a
> constructive purpose and the risk incidental to it.

This makes sense to me, thanks. Now, here are a few more occupations, 
where the risk is not as incidental as for the construction worker. 
These examples can be used to help fine-tune these distinctions.

Namely: circus acrobat, test pilot, stunt driver.

Akiva Miller

On Areivim, Elliott Shevin <eshevin@hotmail.com> wrote:
> TorahMike wrote:
 
>  > This is likely based on a teshuva of R'MF that perfumes with alcohol are
>  > considered raooey leachila since some desperate alcoholics will drink
>  > them for the alcoholol.

> Surely those desperate enough to drink perfume represent a minuscule 
> portion
> of the population. At the risk of being accused of monumental chutzpah for
> challenging R'MF: why don't we pasken batar rov in this case?  

Because if we are dealing with actual chametz, rather than merely
taarovet chametz, then it doesn't matter what most people would eat,
the only question is whether it is *possible* to eat it.  If it's
simply not possible to eat it, so that not even a "dog" (a proxy for
a creature with an undiscriminating palate) would do so, then it's
no longer food, and not subject to the laws of chametz.  But if it's
still food, and the only reason most people don't eat it is because
it doesn't taste good, then it's still assur.

If it's merely a taarovet, however, then you're right, what matters
is whether it's "maachal benei adam haberi'im".  If normal people
wouldn't eat it, then one may keep it and derive benefit from it.

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

On Areivim, Ilana Sober wrote:

> Second, it seems to me that even if our grandparents and greatgrandparents
> in Europe used a candle, Chazal did not. "Ner" means an oil lamp, a little
> earthenware vessel with a wick, which was invented thousands of years before
> those newfangled wax candles.

Chazal certainly had both beeswax and tallow candles, and called them
"nerot".


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

The woman in question was rolling the matzos.  This job is not
halachically necessary at all.  One could just take a lump of dough,
of the size that is distributed to each roller (which is usually
thinner than a tefach), punch a few holes in it, and put it straight
in the oven, and it would be a kosher matzah.  The rolling is done,
not to make it a kosher matzah, but to make it a nice and useful
and edible one, and to avoid the possibility that the inside didn't
bake completely and could become chametz.  So even if this matzah
was rolled by that woman, and she is a goy, no real harm has been done.>>

I am currently learning shoneh halachot from RCK. He says that
lechatchila even the water drawn for the matzot (mayim she-lanu)
should be by an adult Jew, not a ghoy or a minor/chesh/shoteh.
All melachot connected with the baking of the matzo after cutting
the wheat should be done by an adult Jew.
Again this is lechatchila.

For the mitzvat matzah at the seder even standing over the goy and
warning them is not enough
Similarly if the mitzvah starts from grinding then the grinding cannot
be done by a goy or a minor even if someone is watching them.
According to the opinion that shmira starts from the cutting then the
cutting of the wheat has to be done by an adult Jew.


--
Eli Turkel

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Areivim, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> The woman in question was rolling the matzos.  This job is not
>> halachically necessary at all.  One could just take a lump of dough,
>> of the size that is distributed to each roller (which is usually
>> thinner than a tefach), punch a few holes in it, and put it straight
>> in the oven, and it would be a kosher matzah.  The rolling is done,
>> not to make it a kosher matzah, but to make it a nice and useful
>> and edible one, and to avoid the possibility that the inside didn't
>> bake completely and could become chametz.  So even if this matzah
>> was rolled by that woman, and she is a goy, no real harm has been done.>>

> I am currently learning shoneh halachot from RCK. He says that
> lechatchila even the water drawn for the matzot (mayim she-lanu)
> should be by an adult Jew, not a ghoy or a minor/chesh/shoteh.
> All melachot connected with the baking of the matzo after cutting
> the wheat should be done by an adult Jew.
> Again this is lechatchila.

Lechatchila, yes.  But we are talking bediavad.  The matzah has already
been baked, and the question is whether the yichus of the person who
did the rolling matters.

In any case, drawing the water, cutting the wheat, etc., are all
halachically necessary jobs.  You don't get matzot if you don't do
them.  But rolling is *not* necessary; the matzot would be just as
kosher without it.  And it's not listed by name among the jobs that
have to be done lishmah.  We can add it in from our own sevara, but
perhaps there's a reason why it's not mentioned.




> For the mitzvat matzah at the seder

Which is all we're talking about, because for the rest of Pesach
the whole thing can be done by goyim.


> even standing over the goy and warning them is not enough

According to this opinion.  There is another opinion that even
lechatchila all the work can be done by goyim, because it's only
the *shemira* that must be done lishmah, and that is done by the
mashgiach.



> Similarly if the mitzvah starts from grinding then the grinding cannot
> be done by a goy or a minor even if someone is watching them.
> According to the opinion that shmira starts from the cutting then the
> cutting of the wheat has to be done by an adult Jew.

Once again, according to the other opinion, these can be done by a
goy so long as there is a Jewish mashgiach, who is doing the mitzvah
of "ushemartem et hamatzot".
 

Another point: since the issue is kavanah, it's not clear why the
person's technical yichus matters so much.  Does anyone really imagine
that this woman's kavanah depends on whether her mother's mother was
Jewish?  She has the same level of kavanah or lack thereof, whether
she's technically Jewish or not.  She says "leshem matzos mitzvah"
because the mashgiach tells her to say it, just like all the other
women at the table, many of whom are no more shomrei mitzvot than
she is.  So even if it turns out that she's not Jewish, how are her
matzot any worse than theirs?  If the roller's own kavanah is
required, then only shomrei mitzvot should be allowed to roll; since
the practise at all the bakeries is not so, and these women are
allowed to roll the matzot, with a mashgiach supervising their work,
obviously the bakeries are relying on a psak that it's not so
important for this work to be done by a person who can be relied on
to have a true kavanah lishmah.  So replacing her matzah with one
done by her neighbour, or by a similar woman at another bakery,
doesn't really achieve anything.

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

On Areivim, Eli Turkel wrote:

> In nay case I understand RMF that it all is determined by minhag. I
> don't understand the other poskim that what counts is whether it is
> technically kitniyot for kilyaim even if it was never used for any
> food products until now.
> Given the rule that safek of a rabbinical halacha is allowed many
> poskim take a minhag like kitniyot and add levels of chumrot to it.

And yet the Rema clearly prohibits mustard, because it grows in a pod
like other kitniyot.  Certainly nobody cooks mustard seeds like a grain,
or bakes with it like flour, nor do any of the other supposed reasons
for the gezera seem to apply; according to the same logic that permits
peanuts, mustard should also be allowed, and yet it is not.

I also don't understand those who allow oil of kitniyot, when the Rema
clearly forbids it.  When he permits lighting with kitniyot oil, he says
that we are not worried that some will get into the food, because even
if that happens it will be batel berov.  If it's permitted to add the
oil deliberately to the food, then of course there's no worry that that
will happen accidentally!  The question wouldn't even occur to anyone!




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

I also don't understand those who allow oil of kitniyot, when the Rema
clearly forbids it.  When he permits lighting with kitniyot oil, he says
that we are not worried that some will get into the food, because even
if that happens it will be batel berov.  If it's permitted to add the
oil deliberately to the food, then of course there's no worry that that
will happen accidentally!  The question wouldn't even occur to anyone!>>

The heter for kitniyot oil is based on the assumption that no water is added
in the process. In this case even wheat would not become chametz! The
strange thing is that kitniyot is treated stricter than chametz!
As for mustrad wants that becomes the minhag it is included. RMF and other say
that anything not included in the original custom like peanuts is not
included later even if it is technically kitniyot

Then we get to the doubtful issues like cottenseed ooil or safflower oil etc.
Instead of the usual safek lekulah after this is a custom which many rishonim
objected to, then the question of liquid kitmiyot and then the 3rd level of
the status of these oils some poskim come out with guns blazing about
the need to avoid these products at all costs



-- 
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> I also don't understand those who allow oil of kitniyot, when the Rema
>> clearly forbids it.  When he permits lighting with kitniyot oil, he says
>> that we are not worried that some will get into the food, because even
>> if that happens it will be batel berov.  If it's permitted to add the
>> oil deliberately to the food, then of course there's no worry that that
>> will happen accidentally!  The question wouldn't even occur to anyone!

> The heter for kitniyot oil is based on the assumption that no water
> is added in the process. In this case even wheat would not become
> chametz! The strange thing is that kitniyot is treated stricter than
> chametz!

Once again, the Rema was just as aware of this as we are, and yet
he clearly held that kitniyot oil is forbidden.  And who says that
no water is used in the production of oil?  I find it a bit hard
to believe that *all* kitniyot oil, or even most, is produced
without the kitniyot coming into contact with water.


> As for mustrad wants that becomes the minhag it is included.
> RMF and  other say that anything not included in the original custom
> like peanuts is not included later even if it is technically kitniyot

That can't be true, because corn was not in the original gezera,
and yet everyone agrees that "terkishe veitz" is forbidden.  The
same goes for soybeans: unknown in Europe at the time of the original
gezera, and yet clearly included.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 62
**************************************

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..."