Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 250

Wed, 09 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Modim D'Rabbanan (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 4. Re: T'uM (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: T'uM (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Fiat Money & Halachah (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: T'uM (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Beware: Glatt May Not Always Mean Kosher (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Micha Berger)
• 10. Techeiles: definition (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:

> > From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> >
>
> > How does this argument exclude R (or, as RRW pointed out, even
> > non-Austritt O), but not Schiller?
>
> Because reading Schiller doesn't dispute the supremacy of Torah, while the
> other two do.
>
>
> KT,
> MSS
>


Dislaimer, I am in NO way questioning RSRH's decision inf 19th Cnetruy
Frankfort nor do I think the Wurzburger RAv should have medllled in a local
affair. I am merely adressing our society here and now:
I still don't get it.


   1. if one can filter society in order to use TIDE on Genral Culture why
   can't this same filter helpe with non-Observant communties with in Judaism?
   Rabbi Mei'ri di it!  Who says that this is diffcicult?  IF it is OK to
   confront Yaphet why not some imperfcect Sheimim?  And didn't NCSY evolve out
   of looking at USY for alterantive ideas of what to do?
   2. Austritt at KAJ implies that no offical of the kehillah may dine at an
   OU Glatt hotel or restaurant.
   3. Working with Non-O's does not necesarrily convery any legitimacy. {see
   below]  The Red Sox come to Yankee Stadium, does any Yankee Fan have
   anyDesire to Ausrtitt   the hated enemy by not letting him to play in  the
   very Holy of Holies that is Yankee STadium!  And to do so  w/o any fear that
   one will confuse the visting grays with the hometown pinstripes.  I don't
   see how joining the Bosox on the field confers legitimacy to them.  True
   when the lines were not drawn things wer differnt. This is no longer the
   case anyomre.
   4. Austritt has brought out such convoluted siutations such  that two
   noted Roshei Yeshiva who were "buddies" in Poland [either roommates of
   havrusas I forget which] - and then lived lived about 0.5 a miles away from
   each other in the USA - but would not even talk to each other merely because
   of Asutritt. Is Austritt a frontal asault on eilu v'eilu?  Beth Hillell and
   Beth Shammai got along much better even over the issue of Mamzeirus mamash.
   5. In the post Holocaust world it is realyl troubling to see that we can
   jsut forget about how precarious a situation we have as a people?
   6. Didn't the deaths Talmidei R. Akiva teach us a bit about the danger of
   lack of mutual respect? {at least between AAsustritt O's and non-Asutritt
   O's]
   7. No Ta''anis Tzibbur can esit without a Rasha. It seems taht trhowing
   Resha'im out is a new idae. At the Seder we remonstrate wtih them, but we
   don't evict them. Aderabbah, the fact that the rash ais at the seder says
   sometihng about "aggadic hashkafa" as Micha would say.  Is having the Rasha
   at the Seder legitimziing his life-style? we let him join in and if he
   geahves we don't even start up with him, only when he brings up leitzanus we
   push back.


-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080709/c836984a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Alan Krinsky <adkrinsky@pop.netzero.net>
wrote:

>  Two questions were raised this evening about the Modim D'Rabbanan recited
> by the kehillah during the repetition of the Amidah.
>
> (1) As in many shuls, on the wall hangs a poster of the Modim D'Rabbanan.
> However, the text of the poster differs by one word from the text in all of
> the siddurim. Where the siddurim read "us-kay-me-nu"/"ut-kay-me-nu" the
> poster reads "us-cha-ne-nu"/"ut-cha-ne-nu." The issue came up, in part,
> because apparently the Daf Yomi just learned Daf Mem, Amud Alef of Sotah,
> where this prayer is discussed--and the text of the Gemara is the text of
> the poster and not the siddurim. So, does anyone know why our siddurim
> differ from the posters and the Gemara, and how this came about? Alan
>
>

parallels:
Just as YOU [G-d}    did X and Y
So should YOU {G-d} do X and Z

Does that make literary sense

So here is how Ashkenaz reads:

al          shehechiyasanu vkiyamtanu
Kine      Techayenu         usekaymeinu

The paralells are X & Y twice and This is a form of the bracah
shehecheyanu.  Techaneinu looks to be a lacuna.

-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080709/a2b5ee72/attachment-0001.htm>

MYG:
> > And see also Maharitz Chiyus on Berachos 27b.
R' YG:
> I checked it; he cites the same Ya'aros Dvash (Rav Yonasan Eibushutz)
>  that Pis'hei Teshuvah cites.

Whoops, sorry! I actually didn't review the Maharitz Chiyus (or look up the
Pischei Teshuvah) before posting the Mareh Makom, as my point was just that
this issue played in the story of R' Elazar Ben Azariah's Nesiyus. Which, of
course, is a direct quote from R' Yonasan Eibshitz...

KT,
MYG

R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
> So how did Golden Acres get around the issue of
> Muktzeh with scrip?

Perhaps they relied on Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 29:25. See note 64 there,
which quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that "these coupons are merely a
siman that the item was bought and paid for prior to Shabbos."

It sounds to me like one does not use the scrip as money, to make a new
kinyan, exchanging the scrip for the food. Rather, the scrip is merely
evidence that the kinyan (in a breira way, I suppose, not knowing exactly
which package one would take on Shabbos) was already done before Shabbos.

Following the distinction I pointed out in previous posts, it seems to me
that this logic would solve the problem of the scrip being money and
Muktzeh Machmas Gufo. But I do not see how it would solve the Muktzeh
Machmas Chisaron Kis aspect, since one would be very careful with such
scrip, just with other receipts - or even more so.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Search competitive auto warranty quotes and get protection you can trust.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3nd2KphSvPFf9PqG17687Dt0cBJxh63K9NdELdOM7xKBmE2G/

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>     Richard Wolpoe wrote:

>>> From a strictly puritanical vewi once the US governmetn stopped
>>> paying gold or silver for paper miny it is ARGUABKLE that all w
>>> have is US Scrip instead of Golden Acres Scrip.

>> No, it isn't arguable.  It's nonsense.

> So how did Golden Acres get around the issue of Muktzeh with scrip? What 
> about  those rabbis who instituted this procedure?  Waht did they gain?

I express no opinion on this Golden Acres scheme; I have no idea where
it is, or what rabbanim came up with this scheme, or how exactly it
worked.  If I were called on to actually participate in such a scheme
I'd have several questions.  But my point here is that whatever the
status of that scheme, it has no bearing on Federal Reserve Notes,
which are *not* scrip at all, but actual money.  Perhaps not for all
halachic purposes, but in law and in reality.


> When is shava kessef kessef?

That's not the question.  Especially with regard to kiddushin, since
shveh kesef *is* good for kiddushin, and indeed that is what we use!
A ring is shveh kesef, not actual kesef.  You could be mekadesh just
as easily with a can of baked beans.  But perhaps not with fiat money.


> Is a shtar chov the same as money because it has value?

For muktzeh, yes.  For kiddushin, no.  But fiat money is *not* a
shtar chov.

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

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Everyone ASSUMES because something IS therefore it is valid.
> Fiat money is essentially a 20th Century phenomenon. It is not claer to 
> me that fiat money has the halachic status of Money.

It's not clear at all - that is my point.  It's a shayla that the
19th- and 20th-century poskim discuss.  It seems generally agreed that
it is definitely money in private transactions, bein adam lachavero,
but perhaps not in transactions that are really bein adam lamakom,
with a person acting merely as Hashem's agent (kohanim mishulchan
gavoah ka-zachu).  The question is how to categorise each transaction.


> think of it tis way, do stock options have the same function as stock?

Irrelevant, since modern money does not have the relation to, well,
anything, that stock options have to stock.


> Fiat money is lgeal tender in the USA NOW, but that dos nto mean th 
> Talmud would cosntrue it so, unless someone can muster some soures to 
> state otherwise.

Well, it's certainly legal tender as regards bein adam lachavero; both
dina demalchuta and minhag hatagarim make it so.  If you owe me $100,
and you give me a $100 note in payment but I refuse to accept it, I
don't think any beit din in the world would make you pay me again.
The question arises because Hashem is neither a subject of the kingdom
nor a tagar.

 
> Fiat money, like life insruance is an astraction.

No more than silver-as-money was an abstraction in Chazal's time and
through most of history.

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

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
>> So how did Golden Acres get around the issue of
>> Muktzeh with scrip?
> 
> Perhaps they relied on Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa 29:25. See note 64
> there, which quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that "these coupons
> are merely a siman that the item was bought and paid for prior to
> Shabbos."
> 
> It sounds to me like one does not use the scrip as money, to make a
> new kinyan, exchanging the scrip for the food. Rather, the scrip is
> merely evidence that the kinyan (in a breira way, I suppose, not
> knowing exactly which package one would take on Shabbos) was already
> done before Shabbos.

That would only work if these were coupons that could only be exchanged
for one specific kind of thing.  From RRW's description it sounds like
we are talking about actual scrip, not tokens, i.e. it could be exchanged
for *anything*, both in the canteen and in private transactions between
people; the examples he gave were "extra wine" and "a baby sitter".
I don't see how that could work.  But I don't know the details of the
metziut, let alone of the heter, or who stood behind it.


> Following the distinction I pointed out in previous posts, it seems to
> me that this logic would solve the problem of the scrip being money and
> Muktzeh Machmas Gufo. But I do not see how it would solve the Muktzeh
> Machmas Chisaron Kis aspect, since one would be very careful with such
> scrip, just with other receipts - or even more so.

*If* we're talking about a coupon that can only be exchanged for a bottle
of wine, then perhaps we can say that it should be no more muktzeh than
that bottle itself would be.  Imagine if someone invented a way to
compress a bottle of wine into a shape, size, and weight that could
conveniently be carried in ones pocket, only to be unfolded and expanded
into its normal form when it was wanted.  The small bottle would not be
muktzeh any more than the big one.  Such a coupon system essentially
does that.  But that doesn't seem to be what we're talking about here.

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

At the request of a moderator I am transferring this discussion to Avodah.

At 09:47 AM 7/9/2008, Aryeh Stein wrote on Areivim:
>While, according to the Star-K, every chicken in the United States
>must be glatt in order to be considered kosher, this does not hold
>true in Israel:
>
> >>>In Israel, the lungs of the chickens are 
> checked due to the prevalence of Newcastle 
> Disease.  Indeed, there are two types of 
> chicken that are sold in Israel ? Mehadrin and 
> non-Mehadrin.  Mehadrin chickens, whose lungs 
> are checked, are considered glatt while the 
> non-Mehadrin chickens would only be considered regular non-glatt.>>>
>
>(from the same URL posted above)
>
>Just wanted to clarify this....
>
>KT,
>Aryeh

I replied on Areivim,

For information on what Newcastle Disease is, see 
http://tinyurl.com/6enk2y and 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct99/front1099.htm

After thinking about this a bit, I then sent the 
following to Areivim, which is now redirected to Avodah.

At  http://tinyurl.com/6enk2y  it says

What are the symptoms?
The severity of the clinical signs is influenced 
by the strain of virus and the age, condition and 
species of the bird. Clinical signs in poultry 
range from a mild, almost inapparent respiratory 
disease to a very severe depression, drop in egg 
production, increased respiration, profuse 
diarrhea followed by collapse, or long-term 
nervous signs (such as twisted necks) if the 
birds survive. Death rate can be up to 100 per 
cent in severe forms of the disease. The 
incubation period is usually 5?6 days, but can vary from 2?15 days.

These is absolutely no mention of the lungs of 
the bird on this web site. My understanding is 
that saying an animal is Glatt kosher means that 
its lungs where found to be entirely free of all 
adhesions. ("For Ashkenazim, there is a tradition 
that a small, easily removable adhesion is 
defined as a lower class of adhesion, known as 
rir, and that the presence of up to two such 
small, easily removable adhesions still qualifies 
the animal as glatt according to Ashkenazic 
tradition."  http://www.kashrut.com/articles/glatt/ )

Thus, I fail to understand the statement on the 
Star-K web site, "Mehadrin chickens, whose lungs 
are checked, are considered glatt while the 
non-Mehadrin chickens would only be considered 
regular non-glatt." Israeli chickens whose lungs 
were checked may be called Mehadrin, but why call 
them Glatt?  Is this yet another misuse of the word Glatt?

I admit up front that I know virtually nothing 
about the lungs of either animals or fowl.


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080709/8af1fff9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
: Are any women in Tanach described as loving their husbands?

R' Joshua Meisner Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:21 PM
: Michal bas Shaul, although technically it was before she married him (Sh"A
: 18:20).  

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 08:19:28PM -0400, R Stuart Feldhamer wrote:
: Great example - see Sh"B 6:16 : )

A marriage with no anger and fighting isn't a healthy marriage.

I used this idea to explain Avraham's argument with the RBSO WRT Sedom,
and Moshe's battle to save Kelal Yisrael. I suggested that even when it
comes to the RBSO, He expects a real relationship from us. And since
we're human beings, that includes times of anger and argument.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/10/angry-at-g-d.shtml> which closes:
> By getting angry one is participating in a personal connection to the
> Creator. Hashem is real, I am relating to Him. He is the Cause of
> something I didn?t want to happen. If as part of a healthy
> relationship, it could be a positive thing. Far more troubling would
> be the distance from Hashem implied by apathy.

> After all, we are the Benei Yisrael. How did we get the name Yisrael?
> Because Yaaqov avinu battled an angel, and the angel responded: "[Hebrew
> ellided] ... And he said, "No longer will they call you Yaaqov, but
> rather Yisrael; for you have struggled with G-d and with people,
> and succeeded."

> Anger at G-d may seem inappropriate. But not being motivated to struggle
> with our unanswerable questions about His Actions is far, far worse.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

It seems from a conversation on Areivim that many are unaware of the
definition of the word "techeiles".

Techeiles isn't a color or even a specific dye. It's lambswool dyed a
particular shade of blue with a colorfast dye; according to most
shitos a specific colorfast dye. The dye without the wool isn't
techeiles.

This is how the Torah simply says "pesil techeiles" and we know that
it must be wool, to the extent that asei docheh lav and it's wool even
when the garment is linen.

For this reason, Amutat Petil Tekehelet dye the raw wool before
spinning it into strings. This way one has a pesil techeiles, a thread
made from techeiles, without running any risks of violating "'ta'aseh'
- velo min ha'asui". When dealing with "Rambam strings", where 1/2 is
blue, 1/2 white, this means changing the color of the yarn being fed
into the spinner mid-string. Because the strings are kaful

Radzin is not maqpid on this chumrah, and they dye 1/2 of a finished
string.

Similarly, argaman and tola'as shani are kinds of dyed wool, not
colors or dyes.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 250
***************************************

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..."