Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 80

Tue, 27 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Kashrus Question (Prof. Levine)
• 2. The Holy Aleph (Richard Wolberg)
• 3. Re: Apikores? (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 4. Re: Kashrus Question (Saul Guberman)
• 5. Re: Hashgacha Pratis (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: Hashgacha Pratis (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: What is Mindfulness and does Judaism have it (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: "Watch Whom You Marry" (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: hasgacha pratit (Micha Berger)
• 10. "Richard Wolpoe" (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Kashrus Question Chametz sh'avar alav haPesach (Elliott Shevin)
• 12. Re: Kashrus Question (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Fables and Lies (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Micha Berger)

At 06:26 PM 11/26/2007, Richard Wolpoe wrote:

>What is the kashrus status of donuts sold during Pesach at such a store?
>
>
>A gentile owned enterprsiee NEVER needs to sell its hametz!  The 
>only issue it MIGHT have is if it BUYS after Passover  hametz that 
>had been owned by Jews during the course of Passover!
>

My question was about donuts certified as kosher by a rabbi or an 
organization that are being sold on Pesach. What does the 
certification on Pesach mean , given that chometz is assur on 
Pesach.  The donuts are kosher for whom? For gentiles who do not 
require any supervision on the donuts?


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/c21ae110/attachment-0001.html 

The letter aleph has three parts: the top, bottom and the line that
connects. If you look at it carefully, there's a "yud" on top, a "yud" on
the bottom and there's a line in between. So yud is ten and the second yud
is 10, the line in the middle is a vov which is six, so you have 26 which is
the gematria of God's Name. 

 

So therefore, aleph always represents HaShem Echod, (26 for God and aleph
for one). It has also been taught that the aleph can be seen in another
profound way: the yud at the top refers to God; the yud at the bottom refers
to the Jew and the line in between is the level of yiras shamayim that
connects God and the Jew. So the aleph itself has a special kedusha.

 

Best regards/Kol tuv,

ri

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/ed7c4b2e/attachment-0001.htm 

There is a famous statement of the Chazon Ish that we don't rely onmanuscripts of Rishonim to overturn psikei halacha. In other words,even if we know for sure that the psak is based on an erroneous girsait doesn't matter, that version was accepted by the mesora. __

and the chazon ish based this position on ?Ktjoel rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Nov 27, 2007 6:01 AM, Prof. Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:


> My question was about donuts certified as kosher by a rabbi or an
> organization that are being sold on Pesach. What does the certification on
> Pesach mean , given that chometz is assur on Pesach.  The donuts are kosher
> for whom? For gentiles who do not require any supervision on the donuts?
>

I would think that if the hechser was removed for Pesach, than you would not
be able to eat the products immediately after Pesach as the certification
process would have to start over.  This would not be good for the certifier,
the business owner nor the consumer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/164d45ef/attachment.html 

Steven J Scher wrote:
> If HaShem has individual attention to each of us, couldn't it be that He
> is controling things for what ever grand scheme plans He has -- not 
> necessarily for the _individual's_ outcome, but for the overall outcome 
> for the olam.
>   
This is a variant of Rabbi Dessler's position (see Michtav Me'Eliyahu, 
vol. 4, pp. 98-102, cf. KlaH Pithchei Hochmah #86 and Iyov chapter 38).  
Rabbi Dessler also emphasises that the grand scheme also rebounds for 
the best for each individual, but this is plausible only if you accept 
that Rabbi Dessler's relentlessly spiritual perspective (yafeh sha'ah 
ahas shel tshuva uma'asim tovim mikol hayyei ha'olam haba) is really 
everyone's proper perspective.

David Riceman

David Riceman wrote:
> but this is plausible only if you accept that Rabbi Dessler's 
> relentlessly spiritual perspective (yafeh sha'ah ahas shel tshuva 
> uma'asim tovim mikol hayyei ha'olam haba) is really everyone's proper 
> perspective.
As a contrast see Dov Katz, Tenuath HaMussar, vol. 1, pp. 295-296 and 
pp. 213-215.

David Riceman

On Nov 20, 2007 10:51 PM, Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org> wrote:

>  Even if the challah *does* know -- we're not doing it for the sake of the
> Challah, al pi RambaN, right?  After all, if shiluach haKen is not for the
> sake of the bird, then, it would seem to me kal v'chomer that covering the
> challah is not for the sake of the challah.  The Rabman was far from an
> ultra-rationalist.
>
> And then there's the many-told story of the Chofetz Chaim, who witnessed a
> man embarrassing his wife for not covering the challah.  Whether the story
> is accurate or not, it certainly doesn't work if the C"C didn't think the
> mitzvah was, al pi Ramban, to inculcate values among ourselves.
> -- Sholom
>
> See the Hinuch Mitzva 41:
v'hakol yod'im she'ho'avanim lo yakpidu seshum bizayon...
and all know that the stones couldn't care less re: any manner of
emabarassment;

Ela hainyon laseis taziyur belibeinu
Rather it is to be mindful :-) in our hearts  of the Awe of G-d ...

I don't know if the hinuch aualifies as  an ultra-rationalist. he states
that the point of these mitzvos is our character development -  [and as I
hold this too is in order to make the society holy and just e.g. see Hinuch
7]
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/5d690177/attachment-0001.htm 

On Tue, November 27, 2007 12:36am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On Nov 21, 2007 5:20 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> Yaaqov avinu  to justify the claim "vetaryag mitzvos shamarti". - MI

: So how did Ya'akov avinu keep 613 mitzvos when it is impossible for
: any individual to keep all 613 anyway?

I tried to answer that in the rest of my post... There is no claim
being made that YA kept all 613 mitzvos. Rather, that he was shomeir
them. Shemirah is associated with lavin because it connotes guarding
oneself against violating something. More so, a doctor (or, to praise
him again, R' Gershon Dubin and the other guys of Hatzolah) can be
shomer Shabbos despite frequently doing melakhos.

However, I agreed with what was cited besheim a Ram in NIRC, and I
brought support from the LR -- Yaaqov avinu's definition of duties to
guard reflected his knowledge of what his neshamah and the beri'ah
needed.

And so, combining all three (didn't choose to violate; violations
because of overriding reasons don't count; and we're talking about
purpose of laws, not letter), what Yaaqov said was:
Despite being with Lavan, I did not violate the point of any issurim
(or an asei) without a justifying reason among all of the future 613.
Nothing about keeping mitzvos he had no possibility of keeping.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Mon, November 26, 2007 9:54 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: maybe what the BESHT meant is the G-d decreed gravity and therefore
: that no leaf falls unless it is obedient of G-d's law

Given that he was explicitly speaking of HP as opposed to hashgachah
minis, I do not see how that could have been his intent.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Mon, November 26, 2007 10:52 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> Maybe when RSBG's was beheaded, his head or his body fell touching
:> R' Yishmael, so R' Yishmael wasn't increasing to Negiah.

: Maybe R. Yishmael was in a state of shock and unable not to respond
: rationally and responded emotionally instead.

Nah, too sensible. <g>

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

In answer to: 
 
> >> As well, the purchase of bread immediately> >> after Pesach from a non Jewish establishment is forbidden if it were baked> >> during Pesach.> >> > Huh? Since when? And why?
 
R. Harry Weiss wrote:
> >> On Motzei Pesach it was the custom of the Yiddim for generations to buy > bread from the non Jews. That is behind the famous story... of the plan by
> the antisemites to kill the Jews by poisoning the bread they would buy on Motzei > Peaach.
> 
I'm not sure which side of the argument R. Weiss is on--establishing that 
Jews buying bread from non-Jews immediately after Pesach is a long-
standing practice, or that the story is a reason not to do so. But 
I don't suppose the antisemitic bakers were under haschgacha as 
our Dunkin' Donuts shops are.
 
Elly
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/43e6a4f2/attachment-0001.html 

At 10:47 AM 11/27/2007, Saul Guberman wrote:
>I would think that if the hechser was removed for Pesach, than you 
>would not be able to eat the products immediately after Pesach as 
>the certification process would have to start over.  This would not 
>be good for the certifier, the business owner nor the consumer.

One person who is involved in the supervision of a donut store told 
me that they actually visit the store on Pesach. If they did not, 
then they would have to kasher the place after Pesach, he wrote.

So I have to ask (again), "These donuts that are manufactured on 
Pesach under supervision are kosher for whom? What does this 
supervision on Pesach mean?" I presume that the sign saying the store 
is under supervision is not removed on Pesach.


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/6b750b36/attachment-0001.htm 

RAM writes:

> So it's not just the Christians. We too have fables, 
> fictions, and lies. Perhaps it is only this one solitary 
> example. But one is not zero.
> 
> My heart is still not fully healed from the pain of this 
> disillusionment. And I apologize if this post has 
> disillusioned any others. But I think that it is very 
> relevant to the question which was asked in the previous 
> thread. And given RBW's comment, I figured it might be 
> worthwhile to spin it off into a new thread.
> 
> To repeat his question:
> > the people who are motivated to repent will basing their 
> avodat Hashem 
> > based on a fable, and maybe even on a lie. Do we really want that?
> 
> My gut reaction is to scream, "No! It is too dangerous! How 
> will they react when the lie is discovered!" But that 
> consideration does not seem to have bothered those who chose 
> to include Ayleh Ezk'rah in the machzor.

Um, Ayleh Rzk'rah is a myth, not a lie.  I realise that the modern (or
should I say "postmodern") study of myth is probably not most people's
normal territory, and indeed most of the texts involved probably can be
considered apikorsis, but to give you a flavour I quote from "A short
History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong p7-8:

"Today the word "myth" is often used to describe something that is
simply not true. ... Since the eighteenth century, we have developed a
scientific view of history; we are concerned above all with what
actually happened.  But in the pre-modern world, when people wrote about
the past they were more concerned with what an event had meant. A myth
was an event which, in some sense, had happened once, but which also
happened all the time.  Because of our strictly chronological view of
history, we have no word for such an occurrence, but mythology is an art
form that points beyond history to what is timeless in human existence,
helping us to get beyond the chaotic flux of random events, and glimpse
the core reality.
An experience of trancendence has always been part of the human
experience.  We seek out moments of ecstasy, when we feel deeply touched
within and lifted momentarily beyond ourselves.  At such times it seems
we are living more intensely than usual, firing on all cylinders, and
inhabiting the whole of our humanity. ... Like poetry and music,
mythology should awaken us to rapture, even in the face of death and the
dispair we may feel at the prospect of annihiliation.  If a myth ceases
to do that, it has died and outlived its usefulness.
 It is therefore mistaken to regard myth as an inferior mode of thought,
which can be cast aside when human beings have attained the age of
reason.  Mythology is not an early attempt at history, and does not
claim that its tales are objective fact. ...

And P9 ... " A myth, therefore is true because it is effective, not
because it gives us factual information.  If, however, it does not give
us new insight into the deeper meaning of life, it has failed.  If it
*works*, that is, if it  forces us to change our minds and hearts, gives
us new hope, and compels us to live more fully, it is a valid myth.
Mythology will only transform us if we follow its directives.  A myth is
essentially a guide; it tells us what we must do in order to live more
richly.  If we do not apply it to our own situation and make the myth a
reality in our own lives, it will remain as incomprehensible and remote
as the rules of a board game, which often seem confusing and boring
until we start to play.
  Our modern alienation from myth is unprecedented.  In the pre-modern
world, mythology was indispensible.  It not only helped people make
sense of their lives but also revealed regions of the human mind that
would otherwise have remained inaccessible ... "

I would probably add that of course there are life giving, life
affirming, myths, and destructive, death myths, and some of the
(post)modern studies of mythology do not, to my mind, sufficiently
distinguish between the two (I was not joking about the apikorsis).  But
I tend to think there is still quite a bit of value in these studies,
because they are able to explain in modern language something that I
think we moderns sometimes forget, which is how to more fully understand
some of our own texts.

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

On Sat, November 17, 2007 12:46 pm, R Arie Folger wrote:
: Lavan benefited from an experience we all strive for, but know that,
: living in times of hester panim, we cannot expect: direct revelation.
: Before reaching Ya'aqov's camp, G"d appeared to Lavan...
: However, moments after relating that incident to Ya'aqov, he asks
: "lamah ganavta et elohai?!" Is Lavan out of his mind?...
: I believe that the answer is obvious: reshaim, afilu 'al pit'hah shel
: gehinnam einam 'hozrim bitshuvah. If Lavan wants AZ, he will justify
: AZ no matter what the proofs against it, including miraculous
: revelation.

I am not sure I agree. Yes, someone could explain away proofs. And
someone could after time (say, 40 days) start questioning the validity
of revelation.

However, beshe'as ma'aseh, it would seem that nevu'ah is an
incontravertably real experience. This is how a number of rishonim
explain Avraham's certainty that he was told by the RBSO to kill his
son, despite it being more likely to come from the Satan or being out
in the sun too long, or a dream of some other sort.

It is hard for me to believe that an experience strong enough to
convince Avraham Avinu that Hashem wanted human sacrifice -- despite
his knowing the beri'ah well enough to deduce all 613 mitzvos, never
mind something this big of an anathema -- was not strong enough to
convince Lavan. Especially since at the time of the retelling, Lavan
apparently still believed the experience was real.

I am therefore inclined to agree with the earlier posters who
suggested that to a polytheist or henotheist like Lavan, accepting
Yaaqov's G-d didn't have anything to do with rejecting his own
deities.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 80
**************************************

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..."