Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 26

Sat, 19 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: The letter ayyin (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: chemotherapy (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Roast lamb (from areivim) (saul mashbaum)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (Zev Sero)
• 6. Love of gerim for each other (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Re: Fasting on YK (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. [Areivim] Kol B'Ishah and Halachic methodology (Michael Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: The Gaon/Medicine (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Snake or Dragon? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (T613K@aol.com)

RMMakovi wrote:
> Oh, and to make a het, make it halfway between a hay and a chet. The
> best way I've found, is to blow air across your palate, as if you're
> wearing an orthodontic retainer and have food stuck between it and the
> palate; to dislodge the food, I used to force air into that area. The
> end result should sound something like a cat hissing, except not quite
> so strong. It should thus be stronger than a fully aired hay, but not
> as strong as a totally unaired chet.

That sounds like a soft khaf, not a 'het. The 'het is produced the same way as 
the heh, in the throat (Sefer Yetzirah), while constricting it with one's 
throat muscles.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

 
 
From: R' Akiva Miller


>>I would suggest that a good  example of this Horaas Shaah might be Rav YB 
Soloveitchik's stand on  mixed-seating synagogues: That even if one's only 
opportunity to hear the shofar  is to enter a mixed-seating synagogue, it is 
better not to go. ("The Sanctity of  the Synagogue", page 115)<<






>>>>>
I don't think that was a hora'as sha'ah.  ("Just until everyone  understands 
that a C congregation is not kosher, we will temporarily suspend  shofar 
blowing.")  I think it was a statement of halacha, that if you hear  a shofar blown 
by an apikores in a tiflah, you haven't been yotzei the mitzva of  shofar at 
all.  I also think he didn't say "it's better not to go" but  "it's assur to 
go."


--Toby  Katz
=============
Romney -- good values, good family, good  hair
Best hope against Hillary



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080117/4f036a38/attachment-0001.htm 

RTKatz wrote on areivim: 
>>
..... I wonder if we will be allowed to doctor the lamb recipes when the Third BHM'K is built?  I'm not looking forward to eating roast lamb on a spit -- maybe if it's thoroughly burnt and heavily salted it'll be OK -- would it be permissible, do you think, to make ground lamb meatballs in marinara sauce?  (i.e., can you grind it after you've roasted it, and can you add other ingredients?)
>>
This is discussed in the Rambam Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:8. 
It is forbidden to cook the KP in any liquid (not only water) even  if the KP is also roasted before or after the cooking. So the KP cannot simmer in any sauce which cooks it.
OTOH , you can add condiments and other ingredients to the KP after it is thoroughly roasted. Ketchup and mustard, garlic powder, soy sauce etc. all should be fine.Also, the KP can be smeared with  oil, or another ingredients, before roasting. Thus, barbeque sauce, applied before the roasting,  should be ok
I don't see any reason the KP cannot be be ground (chopped) after roasting, although it must be roasted whole. The roasting must be thorough; eating the meat too rare is forbidden.
Some poskim apply some of these principles, somewhat in reverse, to our present practice of not eating roast meat at the seder. This minhag is the subject of OCh 476. The MB there indicates that one should not use meat which was  cooked and then roasted (even pan roasted) at the seder, but one may use meat which was roasted and then cooked.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080117/9d5c1ddf/attachment-0001.html 

On Sun, January 13, 2008 9:20 am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What is unclear is how wer they effective? if they had a certain :
Tefillah or affirmation [e.g. this amulet wil bring a refuah shleima :
to its wearer ...] then it might not have worked by means of "magic" :
but rather by means of "positive thinking" similar to a pacebo...

It might even working by creating hirhurei tefillah, and thus
generating zechuyos in the sechar/va'onesh plane. (As I suggested
earlier on this thread.)

...
: I don't know if the above is fact.  It is simply my understanding that
: a lot of spiritual practices work on the conscious and subconscious
: mind of the individual = maybe on the neshama level if you will
...

I feel like I should invite people to follow me down the rabbit hole
before subjecting them to the following. (An "Alice in Wonderland"
reference.)

According to REED (extrapolated from the Maharal), the difference
between 5bn years, 6 days, and the 6 millenia subsequent to those very
6 days is a matter of perception. The difference between blood and
water during maqas dam has to do with the plane the person's
perceptions are on. Very little of what we call reality is contributed
by what's objectively "out there". It's primarily what being a human
being with human perceptions imposes on how we read what's "out
there".

REED might even agree with the Tanya that "ein od milvado" is an
ontological statement; that nothing else exists but Him. Tzimtzum is
an illusion by which people think that other things exist -- including
ourselves. However, it's possible REED believes in an actual,
non-illusory beri'ah, but one that is so unlike what we think is out
there that something could be both wine and water, depending upon who
is imposing their structure on it.

In fact, the difference between the different olamos is entirely one
of where the person is holding, and how that influences their
perception of what's around them. (See MmE vol. I pp 304-312, vol IV p
113, or at least <http://tinyurl.com/2rw5ya> from Aspaqlaria blog.)


A blog I enjoy greatly <plug, plug>, "Believing is Knowing"
<http://yediah.blogspot.com> by RDGuttmann, recently had a series on
what he believes is a fundamental chiluq between the Rambam's and
Ramban's notions of spirituality. I invite you to read his position
there, particularly <http://tinyurl.com/29z4ms>.

However, I do not believe that he, nor R' Asher Buchman (one of his
primary sources <http://hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf>) are
consistent with Yesodei haTorah 2:5. The describes an ontology in
which there is a chain of mal'achim, each one less contingent than the
ones below it, running from HQBH (who is the ultimate Mamtzi, and
Whose Existence isn't contingent on anything) to the physical world
(1:1-4).

This chain of causality is already associated with the galgalos in 1:5.

Although I must apologize to RZL (did I say it here, or in person?)
for the wild goose chase. This is identical in content to what a
mequbal (eg the Tanya) would say about Or Ein Sof and olamos, but the
Rambam doesn't use the word "olamos" for it. He speaks of them having
different "things" (mal'achim) in higher levels, but not of the levels
themselves. (His only use of olamos is for olam hazeh and olam haba,
Hil Teshuvah 9:6, which explicitly speaks of "shenei ha'olamos",
implying only 2. (What to do with the gemara promising 310 per tzadiq?
I presume the Rambam would say: Allegory!)

But the subtle points of layers of existence vs layers of planes of
existence aside, even the Rambam signs onto the notion of non-material
existences above ours.

However, according to the Rambam, mal'akhim are tzurah beli chomer
(2:3) and sichliim nivdalim (MN I:37, II:6,10). Thus, what exists on
higher planes are intellectual. (And, it would seem, that ideas are
forms.)


A third piece to the puzzle. RCVilozhiner, in Nefesh haChaim I
expounds at length about how man alone is a combination of all the
forces drawing from all the worlds. How only man, through mitzvos (or
their opposite, ch"v), can cause metaphysical changes.


Altogether, I think we can construct an argument that there is no
difference between asking if qabbalistic entities are symbolic or
"actual forces". The higher levels are themselves thought (Rambam).
They are products of our perception -- but then, everything is (REED).
And the changes in our perception and our state are the only lever for
changing the olamos (RCV).

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

Also remember that the KP doesn't have to be a lamb.  It could be a kid.
I've never had kid, and I'm sure RTK hasn't either, but perhaps she'd
like it more than lamb.

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

There is a cryptic statement in Pesachim regarding the love of gerim for 
each other. Can't find any commentary. Suggestions would be appreciated

*
*

*Pesachim[1] <#_ftn1>(113b): *Our Rabbis taught: There are three who 
love each other. They are gerim, slaves and ravens.


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


?????, ??????, ???????.

R' Yitzhak Grossman brought several sources and then wrote:
> The principle is that I am not obligated to suffer in order
> to prevent hilul Shabbos on behalf of a holeh she'yesh bo
> sakkanah; one could therefor argue that a husband who
> really minded missing YK prayers would not be obligated to
> miss them in order to save his wife from the necessity of
> eating.

I think RYG is making a very good point, but I suspect that it might only apply when talking about a person and his neighbor. If the topic of the question is a man and his wife, then I'd hope that RYG's presumption is that the wife does not mind eating on YK. Or at least, that the wife would not mind eating as much as her husband would mind missing shul.

My point is that -- depending on the personalities involved -- it could easily be the case that the husband would not get much tzaar from having to help his wife at home, whereas the wife might get a great deal of tzaar from having to eat on YK. In such a case, I suggest that despite what RYG wrote, the husband WOULD be obligated to miss shul in order to save his wife from the necessity of eating.

On the other hand, one could ask: If Akiva Miller is correct, then why wouldn't it also apply between a man and his neighbor? If my neighbor would suffer over the chillul shabbos that is being done for him, maybe I *should* be obligated to go out of my way for him, so that my small tzaar will save him from a greater tzaar? After all, doesn't "V'Ahavta L'Rayacha Kamocha" teach that I should treat my neighbor's tzaar as seriously as my own?

If one would ask that, this is what I'd answer: But the halacha is in fact the way RYG wrote; I *don't* have to go so far to help my neighbor. But I *do* have to go that far to help my spouse.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to learn how to make millions with hedge funds. 
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mJwNI4bdHQDSgyW8Tea5B1G7PqwJM5RjoXX9gWEeZLVsBbs/

 On Jan 17, 2008 5:34 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>  Doron Beckerman wrote:
> > A column from a Rabbi who teaches at  Machon Herzog, an adjunct of
> > Yeshivat Har Etzion/Gush.
> > http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3495628,00.html
>
> > This seems to smack of C Hashkafah. (Never mind that he didn't quote
> > that Ritva in full, which would have clarified that there are limits to
> > what he is talking about).
>
> This article is an extract of the original, which is at
> http://www.kolech.org/show.asp?id=25318
> Before drawing conclusions about the author read what he actually wrote,
> not some ynet editor's extract, which does sound bad.  For one thing,
> the quote from the Ritva is cited at greater length, and in a footnote
> the author acknowledges an important caveat in the Ritva, none of which
> made it into the ynet extract.
>
This summer, in preparation for returning to secular college, I did quite a
comprehensive study of hilchos tznius.  My conclusions were similar to some
of his - that the halacha of "tzarich l'hisracheik min hanashim meod meod"
is based on a totally different societal basis, one where men and women by
default were entirely separate, and any contact between the sexes was
dangerous.  Nowadays, when society is in any case so mixed, I don't think
the halacha expects me (or wants me) to be anti-social and davka avoid
sitting at a table where a girl is sitting.  (More on that at another time,
maybe.)

I have not yet read the whole article, and am whether I am comfortable with
his extension of this idea to Kol B'Isha.

As for selectively quoting the Ritva, this is nothing new.  Many poskim
(Nosei keilim on Shulchan Aruch, Aruch Hashulchan (21:8 -
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/root/data/pdfs/SA2/aruchhashulchanoc6sa.pdf
 page 153-154), and others have all done that.  The fact that he included it
in a footnote puts him one step ahead of those poskim, in that regard.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080118/f6956ba4/attachment-0001.htm 

On Jan 17, 2008 2:21 PM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:

>  Here or on the blogs there has been discussion that the Gaon's father
> told him not to study medicine because then he would have to heal people
> (take time away from learning)
>
> I was just listening to a shiur from R' HS where he said the gaon's shita
>

For hismelf or for everyone?f


> was that one did not go to doctors but prayed for a refuah.
>
> KT
> Joel Rich
>

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080118/11dd4087/attachment.html 

On Jan 15, 2008 8:46 PM, <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:

> When in Shemos (7:8-13) Moshe and Aharon appear before Paroah and Aharon
> throws down his staff and it turns into a "Sanin" not "Nochosh." Could the
> term sanin refer to a dragon rather than the traditional snake?
>



>
> The word sanin also appears in Bereshis (1:21), "taninim hagedolim.."
> usually translated as great sea giants.
>

I translate this as simply dinosaurs [literally great lizards] which were
both in the water and on land.  OTOH a reptile is after all a reptile!

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080118/929f360c/attachment.htm 

 
 
RRW wrote:

 
 
>>Pan roasted is considered cooked and  NOT roasted at all in YD. IOW For all 
halachic purposes it is bishul mamash  not zli   Forbidding a pot roast 
outside the Mikdash just because it  SOUNDS like it is roasted makes no sense to 
me.   <<






>>>>
I thought the hakpada was not to use meat cooked without water, regardless  
of whether it's roasted on a spit or in a pot, on top of the stove or in the  
oven.  Pot roast is mostly without water.  Nothing to do with "sounds  like 
roast." It's called pot "roast" because it's cooked with little water and  most 
of the meat sticks up above the water level, not because it's a slab  of meat 
"like" a roast.

 


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good hair
Best hope against  Hillary



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080118/d0759ba6/attachment.html 

 
 


 
 
>>Pan roasted is considered cooked and  NOT roasted at all in YD. IOW For all 
halachic purposes it is bishul mamash  not zli   Forbidding a pot roast 
outside the Mikdash just because it  SOUNDS like it is roasted makes no sense to 
me.   <<







>>>>
I should have added:
 
You are no doubt correct that it isn't actually against the halacha to use  
pot roast at the seder.  
 


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good hair
Best hope against  Hillary



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080118/9bf64226/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 26
**************************************

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..."