Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 252

Thu, 10 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: Beware: Glatt May Not Always Mean Kosher (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Mixed Singing (Mike Miller)
• 3. Re: Mixed Singing (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 4. Beware: Glatt May Not Always Mean Kosher (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Beware: Glatt May Not Always Mean Kosher (Zev Sero)
• 6. money and halakhah (bdcohen@optimum.net)
• 7. Re: money and halakhah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Mixed Singing (Harry Weiss)
• 9. Likut Atzomos (Akiva Blum)
• 10. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Likut Atzomos (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Likut Atzomos (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Likut Atzomos (Micha Berger)

I CC-ed RAZZ and RSM.

On Thu, July 10, 2008 9:43 am, RYLevine cut-n-pasted from RAZZ:
: 3. The lungs of fowl can have defects that render it treifa, but not
: the same kind of adhesions that occur in animals. There are those who
: feel that nowadays fowl lung problems are also becoming more
: prevalent and thus require a visual and tactile inspection of fowl
: lungs (Rav Moshe Sternbuch, Tshuvot v Hanhagot 2:369).

As RZS wrote, but changing the terminology to that I encountered in
shu"t (and I only intended to use but "fowled up"), there is no such
thing as non-glatt chicken (or tom turkeys) because fowl can't get
nirin, only sirchos. Thus, no machloqes SA vs the Rama, everyone
requires fully chalaq.

Terminology digression: "Glatt chicken" really is as Yinglish as
"glatt kosher milchigs" (unless the latter means the cows were killed
after milking and checked for sirchos). Mehadran is a less abused, but
still not quite right for its usage. There are sorts of hidurim other
than being chosheish for more chumros. The textbook case, neir
Chanukah, has nothing to do with being yotzei according to more
shitos.

I do not know if RMS was specifically including Newcastle Disease or
not. If it did, then RAZZ implies that there is a currently brewing
machloqes, and it is premature to worry about "glatt non-kosher".
Rather, it's a matter of relying on the meiqilim without realizing one
is. Just like one does for many other open machloqesin that we didn't
know existed.

If Newcastle Disease is in addition to RMS's worries, then the
question of whether others should be signing on to this innovation is
both new and real, and worrisome until it's resolved.

Which is a question for RSM, and not for us to run around about like
chickens without our heads.

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

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:21:00PM +0300, Mike Miller wrote:
> : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3565972,00.html
> : Assuming we ignore the Halachic (in?)appropriateness of a mixed group
> : in the first place, is there any halachic heter for a mixed singing
> : performance?
>
> The Seridei Eish (vol II #8) permitted just this very thing, a Bnei
> Akiva choir.
>
> 1- Terei kolei lo mishtama'ei -- as long as none of the girls are
> soloists, one isn't listening to the qol of an ishah, but the qol of the
> choir.

Is this a choir? Perhaps I misunderstood the original article; I
thought the _contest_ would involve individual voices (where one is
specifically trying to hear the singer). OTOH, rereading it, I noticed
that the picture shows girls with microphones (although do they really
put on a performance without any solos?)

> 2- The SE gives as a senif lehaqil (but usually, better not to rely upon)
> the Divrei Cheifetz (cited by the Sedei Chemed, Quf #42) holds that qol
> ishah (both din and its rationale) doesn't apply to zemiros, singing to
> children and qinos for the dead. (WADR to the DC, either I am atypical,
> or at least in the first two cases I have to question his assumption
> about the metzi'us.) E.g. Shiras Devorah which she sane with Baraq,
> even though bepashtus her husband was Lapidos.

Which is not this case.

> 3- Because its purpose is to tie children to Yahadus.

I find this to be somewhat of a stretch. This is hardly a group that
tries to attract public school kids to consider a frum lifestyle,
although it's true that some of their members probably are headed in
the DL-lite direction, and hopefully BA can affect that.

Given the quotes from the article [which I suppose is never the best
option], a (the?) justification offered is:

"According to Halacha, a mixed boys and girls singing contest can take
place because the rule stating that a voice of a singing woman equals
lewdness because it may distract one from prayer does not call for
completely divided performances."

Huh?

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:21:00PM +0300, Mike Miller wrote:
> : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3565972,00.html
> : Assuming we ignore the Halachic (in?)appropriateness of a mixed group
> : in the first place, is there any halachic heter for a mixed singing
> : performance?

R' MB:
> The Seridei Eish (vol II #8) permitted just this very thing, a Bnei
> Akiva choir.
> 
> 1- Terei kolei lo mishtama'ei -- as long as none of the girls are
> soloists, one isn't listening to the qol of an ishah, but the qol of the
> choir.

This is a singing contest, not a choir. The article didn't say so
explicitly, but we can probably assume that a singing contest will include
soloists.

KT,
MYG

At 08:47 AM 7/10/2008, Zev Sero wrote:

>Micha Berger wrote:
>
> > Glatt chicken? There is no problem of sirchos in an owf. Why is anyone
> > worrying about checked lungs? I AM SO confused!
>
>On the contrary, an off with sirchos is treif lechol hadeos.

In the U.S., lung adhesions usually do not occur on fowl; hence the 
rest of this discussion concerns only meat, not 
chicken.<http://www.kashrut.com/articles/glatt/#3>3

3. The lungs of fowl can have defects that render it treifa, but not 
the same kind of adhesions that occur in animals. There are those who 
feel that nowadays fowl lung problems are also becoming more 
prevalent and thus require a visual and tactile inspection of fowl 
lungs (Rav Moshe Sternbuch, Tshuvot v Hanhagot 2:369).

 From http://www.kashrut.com/articles/glatt/#3 by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky



Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080710/85174710/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:

> In the U.S., lung adhesions usually do not occur on fowl; hence the rest 
> of this discussion concerns only meat, not chicken. ^3 
> <http://www.kashrut.com/articles/glatt/#3>

AIUI this isn't true with regard to male turkeys.

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

Zev Sero wrote:
 
"But that brings up another question: today it is very common to sell debts, without
the debtor's knowledge or consent.  Would a beit din not enforce the
purchaser's right to collect, or would it do so only on the basis of
dina demalchuta/minhag hatagarim?"
 
Although not my field, I believe that most 
promissory notes have some language allowing them to be transferred without
the consent of the debtor. Thus the debtor has consented ahead of time, so
there would be no need for a maamad shloshtam.
 
David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080710/398d9b78/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> 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.

I honestly don't see why fiat money is less of a shaveh kesef than baked beans.

On the contrary, I could easily make a kal vachomer: Just as one can be
mekadesh with baked beans (which some people might decline), certainly one
can be mekadesh with fiat money (which no one would decline).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Enter for Your Chance to WIN*
The TotalBeauty.com Summer Spa Sweepstakes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/JKFkuJi7UfhkSV45YCc9cMDt535zg1JKw4OUnBD10P6J3dV9jhcY8S/

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:21:00PM +0300, Mike Miller wrote:
> : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3565972,00.html
> : Assuming we ignore the Halachic (in?)appropriateness of a mixed group
> : in the first place, is there any halachic heter for a mixed singing
> : performance?
>
> The Seridei Eish (vol II #8) permitted just this very thing, a Bnei
> Akiva choir.
>
> 1- Terei kolei lo mishtama'ei -- as long as none of the girls are
> soloists, one isn't listening to the qol of an ishah, but the qol of the
> choir.


That does not seem to be the situation here.  It is more of a woman 
singing alone to a mixed audience.  The ynet article seems to indicate 
that it is was the women first and then the men that would perform.

There of course is the issue of zimort etc. that you also raised, but 
would that only apply in a setting that zmirot are normally sang such as a 
Shabbat Table vs. as part of a perfromance.  The ariticle also does not 
say what the songs were.


Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com

The Mishna in pesachim perek 8 mishna 8 mention someone who is melaket
atzmos oviv, gathering bones, as tomeh. This also appears in perek 1 of
moed katan. The Tiferes Yisroel in pesachim says that people would bury
their dead in a temporary grave, and after the meat had rotted, the bones
would be reinterned in their ancestral cemetery. Can anyone point to a
source, and perhaps also an explanation for this practice?

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:02:04AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: The raya brura for this is that one of our earliest post Talmudic sources -
: the BEHAG - claims that the Sder should have 2 matzso except Friday night.
: This is a very strong indication that in his day:
:    1. There was no ISSUR of having 3 matzos re: lechem oni
:    2. There was not NEED to have lechem Mishna on YT
:    3. There WAS a need to have lechem Mishna on Shabbos

: Tosafos/Rosh take it for a davar pashut that lechem mishna is need on YT,
: too - hence the 3 matzos.

: Gra Attacks Rosh as not reading the Gmara properly, but it is clear that the
: sugya was not aliba dehilchesa [for the Rosh on this point]. Either the Rosh
: held:

:    1. Once the Ga'onim required lechem mishan the sugya had to be
:    retrofitted to match noramtive Halacha AS PRACTICED  OR
:    2. The Rosh [and others} might have realized that the Talmud never
:    EXPLICITLY required lechem Mishan on YT, but it was always assumed to be
:    there -  albeit IMPLICITLY. This Sugya must have not held it to be
:    noramtive, and Behag would have concurred.  But the sense of Shab as awhole
:    might have beeen otherwise

I want to draw attention to the words RRW capitalized in possibility #1.

There are two kinds of precedent: mimetic and textual. IOW,
    1- the weight of halakhah as it has been practiced by centuries vs
    2- the weight of halakhah as sefarim have described it for centuries.
The latter would usually / always? intersect with a third issue:
    3- an informal azlinan basar ruba -- the long history of pesaq
    means that a poseiq-counter is bound to find that the majority hold
    that way.

(In previous posts I tried to use the term "minhag avos" for mimetic
precedent, since I hate the academic sound of the polysyllabic English.
But since that caused confusion that I meant actual minhagim, English
it is.)

When dealing with the question of throwbacks, we need to speak of all 3.

1- The Gra only violated mimetic precedent when he believed it to
be provably wrong. I earlier stated "wrong" on the halachic level, ie
assur, but as my examples showed, it also included other kinds of wrong.
Such as the paradox of pasqening on lekhem mishneh at the seider such
that the concept of lekhem oni means MORE loaves than a Shabbos meal.

It would seem he holds that mimetic precedent really only has enough
weight to stick with existing practice even if the practice seems valid,
but weaker than the one you would otherwise choose.

2- If it's possible for someone to be assessed at being at a rishon's
level, then the textual precedent issue is null. Moreso, it's entirely
reversed -- he would be like a later rishon, and halakhah kebasrai.

3- There isn't really a rule of rov poseqim when no one enters the room
for nimnu vegameru. Some poseqim chose to follow one, such as whatever
weight the SA gave his triumverate of codifiers. But one can't say that
every poseiq must give the concept all that much consideration.


On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:33:11PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: The GRA did not jsut rule against minhag he ruled against widely accepted
: P'sak. This is tantamount to What R. Eliezer Hagaodl did with his rayos. I
: fail to see any hilluk in how the GRA rejected the consensus of Posqim and
: Rabbi Eliezer rejecting the consensus of his peers.

R' Eliezer's raayos weren't formal process vs precedent, it was miracle
vs formal process. The tanur shel achnai story speaks to the inviobility
of process -- even HQBH doesn't trump the rules. Not the relative importance
of two elements of that process.

...
:> One could attribute this to today's poseiq not being a throwback. Thus,
:> he has neither lesser wisdom nor precedent to confine him.

: So who syas WHO is a throwback.  I s RAmbam a Trhowaback? Tosafos? Tosafos
: essentially jsut did waht the Talmud did, except in France. They
: dialectically threw texts together ina eiseive and urminhu style.  Soes
: folowing Amoraic Style give Tosafos Amoraic power?  some say yes!  That is
: how Tsoafos can be mevateil mayyim acharonim and the issur of clapping on
: Shabbos

We don't refrain from mayim acharonim because of Tosafos. Tosafos
post-date and try to justify the practice as being derived from some
(unknown) pesaq, by showing it isn't necessarily a minhag ta'us

Consensus tells us who is a throwback. The same concept of consensus
you're worried about protecting on a practice-by-practice level.

...
:>: Nah.  Gra dies 1797, Napoleon invades Russian Emptire in  1812 The ghettoes
:>: only BEGAN collapsing 15 years after Gra's passing.

:>: Gra knew his pesakkim were private.  He never even tried to popularize
:>: them.  Those who reached back to the GRA to create a new Halachic norm
:>: really wer quite radical to abandon Minhag Avos.

:> These two paragraphs largely cancel

: How?

: #1 GRA stil had a ghetto
: #2 Gra never pushed his minhaggim or psaqim

Because you're still maintaining that the Gra's practices became
halakhah after the fall of the ghetto. So, your #1 fails to argue
against the fall of the ghetto as a cause because your #2 moves
the halachic change until later, after the ghetto.

I think we're being overly precise. The fall of ghetto life started well
before the actual fall of the ghetto. which was the motivation for the
birth of Chassidus. Similarly, the shift to Gra-style or Besh"t-style
pesaq etc... also took a span of time. Overlapping and slightly behind
the span in which the culture shifted.


:> That's not the question. The question is whether what the Gra said still
:> within the eilu va'eilu of halakhah.

: Wlle whose eilu v'eilu do you accept?

My rebbe's. Like any other matter of pesaq.

: Rabbi Backman's hafka'as Qiddushin?  Arguably not as radical as you would
: think.

Sidenote:
Who before RER had a case-by-case hafqa'as qidushin with no maaseh? All
the precedent cases were:
1- taqanos, a general rule "we invalidate any marriage where the chasan
does does XYZ" and
2- involved a maaseh related to qiddushin (that otherwise would be
valid, eg meqadeish bashuq) or gittin (that otherwise wouldn't, such as
if he renegs on the get before the shaliach leholakha gives it)

...

: But you are missing my entire point.  I am not saying the Gra created yesih
: mei'ayin I AM saying he opened a can of worms /p[androa's box/ slipery slope
: etc. ready-made for future abuse against the system.

: Even if every arguemnt is 100% trued ,he destabilized it.

It seems the potential for that seems to also go into the consensus,
That the person in question is so clearly sui generis that they had no
such fear.

And in practice, giving the Gra authority in this way didn't leave us,
300 yrs later, with an unstable system.

In fact C, the "halachic" movement that is outside of normative pesaq,
needed to turn to Historical School, an offshoot of German R, for its
historical underpinnings. It couldn't find anything within O.

...
: But the GRA is a somebody. and by showing that nto dozens but operhaps
: hundreds of minhaggim, psesaqqim and mietmietcs are questionable if not
: wrong is even MORE disturbing.

Dozens. Maaseh Rav isn't that big.

: Maybe in 200 years from now, my proposals wil seem like old hat too!

Of course they will. We will have a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah
uveminyan, and all the authority of real nimnu vegamru of a body sitting
on Har haBayis that can make binding taqanos etc... BB"A!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Akiva Blum wrote:
> The Mishna in pesachim perek 8 mishna 8 mention someone who is melaket
> atzmos oviv, gathering bones, as tomeh. This also appears in perek 1
> of moed katan. The Tiferes Yisroel in pesachim says that people would
> bury their dead in a temporary grave, and after the meat had rotted,
> the bones would be reinterned in their ancestral cemetery. Can anyone
> point to a source, and perhaps also an explanation for this practice?
>   
See Martin Goodman, "Rome and Jerusalem", p. 248.  It's well documented 
archaeologically and in literature.  Goodman says "there is no certain 
explanation."

David Riceman

Akiva Blum wrote:
> The Mishna in pesachim perek 8 mishna 8 mention someone who is melaket
> atzmos oviv, gathering bones, as tomeh. This also appears in perek 1 of
> moed katan. The Tiferes Yisroel in pesachim says that people would bury
> their dead in a temporary grave, and after the meat had rotted, the
> bones would be reinterred in their ancestral cemetery. Can anyone point
> to a source, and perhaps also an explanation for this practice?

An explicit source that sets out the procedure, I don't know, but it's
well known and undisputed.  The kuchin and bone depositories are to be
found all over Eretz Yisrael.   As for why they did this, the kuchin
were drilled into stone, and doing so was a lot of work.  So a burial
cave would have several kuchin, enough to hold a year's worth of meitim.
A body would be put into the kuch, and the cave sealed up with a rolling
stone (the golel).  After a year the bones would be removed from the kuch
and put in the ancestral bone collection, either in an individual ossuary
or just in a heap together with everyone else, and the kuch would be
available for the next meit.


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

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 04:13:09PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: See Martin Goodman, "Rome and Jerusalem", p. 248.  It's well documented
: archaeologically and in literature....

More than well documented, they're commmonplace. Most tourists encounter
them in a number of places that they visit, including some of the earlier
tannaim. Google "Israel ossuary" (without the quotes) for numerous
pictures. (An "ossuary" is an aron for bones.)

:                                 Goodman says "there is no certain
: explanation."

The uncertain one I was left thinking was the standard is that they
wanted to minimize tum'ah in EY. Liqut atzamos minimizes burial space.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
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 252
***************************************

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..."