Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 30

Mon, 21 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: FW: chemotherapy (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Re: Snake or Dragon? (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Court System Models (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Fasting on YK (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Love of gerim for each other (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Derech Eretz Kadmah L'Torah (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Court System Models (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Shabbos Candles in Askenaz - circa 11th Century (Ytzik Aranov)
• 11. Re: Court System Models (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Roast lamb (from areivim) (T613K@aol.com)

In Avodah 25:27, R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Pan roasted is considered cooked and NOT roasted at
> all in YD. IOW For all halachic purposes it is bishul
> mamash not zli 

In Avodah 25:28, he clarified that to read:
> Roasting in a pot is not halachically roasting at all
> in Yorei Dei'ah even w/o any added water. [the meat
> will ooze its juices soon enough].

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. Suppose a plain piece of raw meat was placed in a keli (such as our pots or our pans), without any water or oil or other liquid, and then that keli was placed on a stovetop, and the fire was turned on, and it was kept like that until the meat became fit to eat. Then it turned out that the keli had been a dairy one.

Are you saying that this keli can be kashered by hagalah, and that libun is not required?

If that's not what you mean, then please clarify further. If that IS what you mean, I do follow your logic, but it is quite a chiddush to me, and I'd love to see your source. (OTOH, I never really learned YD in depth, so it being a chiddush proves nothing.)

Thanks
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on real estate schools and make up to $150K/ year
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m7Mpjr6kGjT3UA4tzAMTKjdROpTokwhPYxPbexvV6VaNNXs/

Michael Makovi wrote:
> Also see
> Rav Kook's Midbar Shur (also in Eng trans.) on the topic of offerings
> in the future - I believe he says that only the mincha will be
> brought, in keeping with what we say after the Amidah.

It's not possible that he says that.  AIUI he says that whereas in the
pre-geulah era the animal was the main part of the korban, and the
mincha was merely an accompaniment, in the future era the roles will
be reversed.  The mincha will be regarded as the main component, and
the animals as an accompaniment.

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

>
> If the Gaonim are considered orthodox then they "went against" Mishna and
> Talmud in many places.
>
> They even were mevateil entire realms of the talmud [e.g. medical] as
> non-operative.
>
> Tosafos says the Mishna in Beitza re: Dancing/Slapping/Clapping is not
> operative in our society [see IM cited below for an explanation of this]
>
>[more examples...]
>
> There are dozens if not hundreds of more cases.
>
> --
>
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com


Regarding science and medicine, the question is, did the science
create the halacha (and so if the science changes, so does the
halacha), or did the halacha create a post-facto scientific
justification (so if the science changes, we need a new
justification). R' Gil has a great essay on this that I really need to
study sometime.

Regarding other laws, I think the difference is whether

a) Chazal said, because of such-and-such a situation, we are laying
down a law, period. Even if the situation passes, the law remains.

b) Chazal said, such-and-such a law is being made with the assumption
of a certain situation prevailing. If the situation ceases to prevail,
so does the law.

Obviously, to distinguish these is a task for the posek.

And regarding many of the cases you mentioned, I have never learned
them and don't have time now. So perhaps seeing them would alter what
I say; I don't know.

Mikha'el Makovi

RMMakovi wrote:
> I can't remember exactly, but I remember Rabbi Slifkin objecting to
> this, that the taninim are definitely sea creatures, which the
> dinosaurs were certainly not. But perhaps one could fit the
> plesiasaurs (sp?) in.

FYI, FWIW, Schroeder thinks that the taninim are the dinosaurs.

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

It just occured to me this week that the US court system is almost
exactly Yitro's advice. The more high-profile (and big) a court case is,
the higher it gets pushed in the courts until it could reach the supreme
court. Contrast this with the Halachik process, where the average person
asks their rabbi who, if he doesn't know the answer ask his rav etc. 

Kol Tuv,
~Liron Kopinsky
 ====================================
 
What I wonder is what was the mechanism for issues moving up the food
chain.  Where could different "states" (shvatim, localities) have
differing psak and when did the sanhedrin have the right and or duty to
unify? Or would a local bet din not give psak if it weren't 100% sure?

KT

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080120/97f5a5d1/attachment.htm 

Chana Luntz wrote:

> But in the case RIS is bringing, the woman, at the start of Yom Kippur,
> cannot be said to be in the situation of a choleh sheyesh bo sakana.
> And, it would seem, if she does not run around after her children, she
> will not find herself in that state.  So if the man stays home from shul
> and instead does that running around after the children, he is
> preventing the woman from ever getting into the position of a choleh she
> yesh bo sakana, which would then force her to eat.  Only if he does not
> stay home, and she runs around after the children, will she put herself
> into the state in which she is then required to eat.  So is not this
> case if anything more like the case of al tamod al dam re'echa?  If the
> husband does not step in (or hire help, or whatever) he is letting his
> wife slip into a situation of being a choleh she yesh bo sakana (with,
> inter alia, the consequence that she will have to eat on yom kippur).
> It seems to me that mere tzar in this latter case would not be enough to
> allow the husband to patur himself from preventing such an occurrence -
> in a similar way that if she was at risk of being put in the matzav of a
> choleh she yesh bo sakana by a river or a rodef or whatever, mere tzar
> on behalf of the neighbour or husband would not be enough to patur him
> or them from acting.

In addition, doesn't his obligation to heal his wife extend to
preventing her from getting sick in the first place?  The principle that
"hakol cholim heim etzel tzina" allows us to get a goy to light a fire
on Shabbat so that we won't become sick in the first place.  That implies
that a person who is likely to become sick if something isn't done
already has a status of "choleh" for the purpose of getting that thing
done, at least when dealing with derabanans such as Amira Lenochri.
Surely then this woman is already a cholah, and he has the duty to
"heal" her by preventing her from getting so sick that she needs to eat.

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

 
 
From: R' Mikha'el Makovi


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

>>The ger part and the  slave part is simple. The raven part I don't  
understand.<<






>>>>>
 
For a truly fascinating article about ravens, see 
_http://www.shamans-sf.org/raven/index.html_ (http://www.shamans-sf.org/raven/index.html) 
 
It's about a particular family of ravens in a San Francisco park, that have  
forged relationships with certain humans whom they know and recognize, but it  
also talks a lot about ravens in general.
 
"Ravens are one of the few creatures on the planet that mate for life. They  
have sophisticated family/clan systems. And, the clan joins together for 
mutual  gain. Ravens also have been observed making tools, engaging in play with 
each  other and have a language of over 75 calls."
 


--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/20080120/4119234b/attachment.html 

To continue the discussion of last Nov and Dec
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n051.shtml#01>...

I found an exact source, Derekh Eretz Qodmah laTorah is in Vayiqra Rabba
9:3 -- it's a real maamar chazal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

R' Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> It just occured to me this week that the US court system is
> almost exactly Yitro's advice. The more high-profile (and
> big) a court case is, the higher it gets pushed in the courts
> until it could reach the supreme court. Contrast this with
> the Halachik process, where the average person asks their
> rabbi who, if he doesn't know the answer ask his rav etc.

Your understanding of the system is very different than mine. I never heard of a case in the US which gets pushed higher and higher through the system simply because it is a high-profile case.

On the contrary, my understanding is that the US court system is very much like Moshe Rabenu's: Any infraction, whether high-profile or low-profile, is judged by the lowest court of whatever jurisdiction is relevant.

In the US system, the low courts do not have an option of saying "We don't know the answer and we are referring the matter to a higher court." Rather, in the US system, the higher courts are used when one party or the other feels that the lower court judged the case improperly, for example by allowing invalid evidence, or by disqualifying valid evidence. In such cases, the function of the higher court is NOT to re-judge the case itself, but to judge whether or not the case was judged properly. And this can go back and forth through the system, up several levels of courts. (I must point out that this is more likely to happen when the defendant can afford lawyers who are better able to make these sort of claims, and this might be why many people percieve it as a "high-profile" situation.)

HOWEVER, it is very notable that there are exceptions to the above, in which both Torah Law and (l'havdil) US law follow Yisro's system of sending a high-profile case straight to the highest court. And that is where the Melech or President is accused of a crime, which is then judged by the Sanhedrin or by the Senate or Supreme Court.

(My apologies for not citing any sources in this post. I hope I got it all right. If not, I apologize in advance, and look forward to being corrected.)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Get the sign you need for the impact you want. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3oB4dYE6cn3PRLUCq3VmJx2j2gOKfkf0IYctQBBN8ji5iY2W/

Shalom to All Reading:

There seems to be some record of an old German Ashkenazic custom during the
time of Rashi  (circa 11th century) whereby women were instructed to light
Shabbos candles without a Bracha or, alternatively, did not light Shabbos
candles at all.  It seems amazing to me especially after researching the
halachos back through the Tur and then back to Gemara Shabbos 23, 25 and 27
(and the Rosh on these pages) and especially since the commentaries and
Rashi himself  quotes that lighting candles is a Chova ? Obligation.  The
Mishna Brura, Biur Halacha, etc., all have no mention of this minhag and
treat it as a Rabbinical, generally accepted Mitzva with an equally binding
Bracha.

It could be possible that the Yeshivos of Vormaiza and Magentza might have
taught this but it never travelled beyond Ashkenaz.  By the time the Tur was
written (3 centuries later), it became globally accepted to indeed light
with a Bracha.  Apparently at the time, the minhag in Provence was the
opposite - to light with a Bracha as is accepted today.

 

Has anyone heard of this Ashkenazic custom?  

If anyone can clear this up, it would be greatly appreciated.

Ytzik Aranov ? ytzik@aranov.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080120/e6a0d49a/attachment.htm 

> Or would a local bet din not give psak if it weren't 100% sure? <
To my understanding, one of the few mitzvot in the Torah that never had to
be enforced is that of a Zakein who refused to change his psak to match with
the Sanhedrin. After being warned numerous times he would eventually be
chayav mita.
This seems to suggest that Rabbanim do have some autonomy with their
halachik decisions until the Sanhedrin unify.

~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080120/57a093b2/attachment.html 

 
 
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> also, what was the point of  Hevel sacrificing animals to Hashem, if they 
> weren't even allowed to  slaughter animals [and/or weren't allowed to eat 
> animals] until after  the Mabul? [--TK]

>>Not sure what your point is.  They weren't  allowed to eat meat, so he
wouldn't have brought a korban shlamim, but then a  Ben Noach can only
bring an olah anyway.  And since it was an olah, his  not being allowed
to eat it wasn't a  problem.<<

>>>>>
Was he allowed to kill animals?





--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/20080121/0aaac088/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 30
**************************************

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..."