Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 175

Tue, 25 Aug 2009

• 1. Food Coloring and Product Labels (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: psak of the Rambam (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Lo Plug (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: lo plog (Micha Berger)
• 5. Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: lo plog (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: lo plog (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 11. LBD and Manchester BD Policy on soft drinks (Ben Waxman)
• 12. dudaim and Chutzpah? (Harvey Benton)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] being friendly (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: dudaim and Chutzpah? (Micha Berger)

There are those who maintain that one can determine the kashrus of a 
product by simply reading the ingredients listed on its label.  Rav 
Y. Belsky holds that this is not the case in the situations he deals 
with below.

The following is from the book Halachic Responsa from the Desk of 
Hagaon Harav Yisroel HaLevi Belsky, shlita. I think that it is clear 
from what he writes below that he paskens that one should not in 
general rely on the list of ingredients on a label, but stick as much 
as possible to products that have reliable hashgachos.  However, 
according to Rav Belsky, sugar is one product that does not need 
supervision. YL

Pages 86 - 87

   FOOD COLORINGS
Do all products containing food colorings require proper kosher certification?
ANSWER
Any product containing food colorings, even in small amounts, is 
potentially problematic. The Pri Megadim 17 maintains that if food 
contains a non-kosher ingredient that was less that one-sixtieth of 
the total volume, and would ordinarily be nullified (batul) by virtue 
of taste, it would still not be considered batul if it imparts color 
to the food (chazusah d'tarfus), and the mixture would be forbidden 
for consumption.

By purchasing only those products with proper kosher certification, 
one may be assured that all ingredients, including the colorings, are 
scrutinized to ensure their permissibility, When inspecting a product 
for certification, a kashrus agency will be on the lookout for 
specific food colorings that are known to be non-kosher and are 
therefore entirely unacceptable.

Carmine red: A bright red food coloring known as carmine is made from 
crushed beetles, and is, of course, non-kosher. Carmine can be 
distinguished from other red dyes because its color does not dissolve 
or run, and is a very bright red color. Maraschino cherries are 
usually colored by a cheaper variety of dye that can be identified by 
the telltale ring of red dye in the surrounding food. In contrast, 
fruit-cocktail cherries dyed with carmine will never leave any mark 
on adjacent food. Despite this difference, no one should judge for 
himself whether or not the red coloring is kosher. Hashgachah is required.

Enocianina: There is also a brownish-purple food coloring, known as 
enocianina, which is mainly produced in Italy. It is a forbidden 
derivative of the grape skins used in manufacturing non-kosher wine.

Other food dyes: 'The above dyes are used to produce red, purple, and 
brown colored food products. Any product containing these colors is 
therefore suspect. Other food dyes and colorings are usually kosher, 
and do not generally pose kashrus issues.

Some people are under the impression that natural coloring is kosher 
and that the only problem is with artificial coloring. This 
argument  can be easily refuted by pointing out that beetles, cows 
and grapes are all completely natural.

 From pages 104 -105

CHECKING PRODUCT LABELS

Can a person assume that packaged products usually bearing a kosher 
symbol, are kosher even without the symbol on the package?

ANSWER
Non-kosher runs: If the package does not have a kosher symbol, it was 
not made under supervision. The kosher consumer must always beware of 
changes in supermarket products. Even familiar products known to bear 
a kosher symbol can sometimes appear in anon-kosher variety, without 
the tell-tale kosher symbol on the label. While no supervising agency 
should allow a company to market a non-kosher batch of a usually 
kosher product, the consumer must keep in mind that things like this 
do happen inadvertently from time to time.

Different varieties: A different problem, one that rests squarely 
upon the shoulders of the consumer, is the appearance of a new 
version or flavor of a familiar product. While the old versions might 
have kosher certification, there is no reason to assume that 
something new is also certified. Therefore, any new product must be 
scrupulously examined for kashrus before being served. Only after it 
is clear that the package   bears a reliable kosher symbol should the 
consumer allow himself to partake of the new item.

The following from page 105 of this sefer deals with the question of 
the kashrus of sugar.

SUGAR
Is it true that plain sugar needs no kosher supervision? Does this 
also apply to the small, unlabeled packets of sugar available in 
hotels and restaurants?

ANSWER

All regular white sugar is produced using processes that are standard 
throughout the industry, and there are no additives. There is no need 
for kosher supervision for year-round use. Even small, unlabeled 
packets are fine.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090823/afa8e069/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel:
> Just read an interesting article where the author shows that early in
> his career Rambam relied heavily on the psakim of the Gaonim. Later
> in life he severely attacked those who rely on the psak of the Gaonim
> without thinking in through and disagreed with many psakim of the Gaonim

Rabbi Kanarfogel wrote an article on progress and tradition in Ashkenaz

He quoted a Ri Migash who recommended that [most] rabbis ought to follow
Gaonic pesaq and NOT pasqen from Shas

Now obviously Ri Migash disregarded his own advice! One Hilluq is
obvious: to pasqen from Shas one needs to master all of Shas. But most
Rabbsi who lack such mastery ought to rely upon Gaonic secondary sources.

This hilluq explains the above Rambam! When young he relied upon
secondary sources, as he himself became a master, he went directly to
the original sources.

Re: The Rambam's method of using shaqla v'tarya, see Bach Even Ho'ezer 6.

If anyone knows the location of the GRA on the Rambam's method I would be
interested in more details. I'm told that Professor Feldblum published
an article saying much the same - but I have not seen that article either.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RET:
> To my mind one of the strangest gezerot is that of Rabbah not to blow
> shofar when RH fals on shabbat (as this year) and so we dont keep shofar
> from the Torah and similarly in EY there will be no lulav on yomtov

IIRC Rabbah made no such gzeira!

Follow Wolpoe's rule #1

In Megillah the Gmara deduced there is no Megillah on Shabbas and uses
Rabba's S'vara to explain it

I need to review inside but I suspect that is true of Shofar and Lulav.
They were all axiomaticcally refrained from on Shabbas already. Then.
Rabbah only provided the WHY for a pre-existing WHAT. I suspect that
perhaps Rabbah's reason is not THE definitive reason.

FWIW The Y-lmi gives the passuq "zichron tru'ah" to explain no Shofar
on Shabbos - mashma d'oraisso or at least an asmachta.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 09:19:27PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Don't think so - that would be reproducible - i.e. if we knew what
: the practice at the time was, we would come up with the same result.
: I'm talking about examples where in case A we say Lo Plug but not
: in B which seems the same "stretch". Even more recently (where your
: explanation would be less likely) why do we sometimes see poskim saying
: things like, "in this case we're choshesh for the deiah of X" wheras in
: other cases X is dismissed as a daas yachid?

I'm saying that history could very well distinguish A from B, even though
they are the same "stretch". E.g. the taqanah in case A was made at a
time when we were fighting the general zeitgeist, but in case B were
were not. Therefore, they rounded the corners to be machmir in more cases.

We also have things like the rule to follow shitas Beis Hillel because
of the middos of the people who articulated that shitah. Again, it is
very hard to reproduce without knowing the history. Would the MB have
the gravitas the current generation gives it if the CC wasn't the CC?

And you need to know the culture of the yeshiva in question. When a
Brisker comes up with a chiddush (eg standing feet together for Shemoneh
Esrei), there are now talmidim scattered in every shul doing it. This
creates a "presence" for X's dei'ah that might not exist for other
dei'os yechidim.

IOW, because of all of the above, reproducing halakhah would require
knowing more history than is possible to.

And last, you need to have daas Torah, that absorbtion in the Torah
Weltanschaunng to the extent of being able to fill in the gaps between the
rules of pesaq, to go from conflicting sevaros and shitos to lemasseh. Is
that reproducible?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:30:36AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:>                         I think the only way to understand which things
:> get a gezeirah is to assume that in practice at the time when there was a
:> Sanhedrin that /could/ make a gezeira, those were the things that people
:> actually did err on.

> : Just to nitpik - it is not only the Sanhedrin. To my mind one
> : of the strangest gezerot is that of Rabbah not to blow shofar when RH fals
> : on shabbat (as this year) and so we dont keep shofar from the Torah
> : and similarly in EY there will be no lulav on yomtov.

(I think you mean Rava, as it's called gezeira deRava.)

RMLevin pointed out in a previous iteration
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n003.shtml#04> that the Mateh Dan
(who he was translating at the time, now published by Yashar) sets out to
prove that yes, the amei haaretz in those days were often ignorant enough
to make such a mistake, and the possitility wasn't that rare after all



As for whether this gezeirah was made by Rava...

The Y-mi sais it's de'oraisa, from "yom *zikhron* teru'ah" (RH 4:1). Not
a gezeirah at all! Our machzor appears to leverage that idea. At least
the Ashk machzor, I have no idea whether Sepharadim say "yom zikhron
teru'ah" in RH Shabbos qiddush, etc...

According to the Bavli...

It starts out like the Y-mi, but when pushed to explain why then the
mishnah says it is blown in the Miqdash, we get gezeirah deRava about
hotza'ah.

But before that, RYBZ only allowed shofar blowing before a beis din. If
Rava made a second taqanah, it was that he found RYBZ's position to
be too loose, and there was still too much of a risk of hotza'ah.
Alternatively, he could have been pasqening that without a Sanhedrin
in the lishqas hagazis, none of the batei din qualified for RYBZ's
permission. (Much like their loss of authority WRT dinei nefashos.)



But to get back to the wider point, about gezeiros without a Sanhedrin...

Even if we take the idiom at face value and Rava made a second gezeirah,
that doesn't rule out it being made by a Sanhedrin.

The last Sanhedrin was either that of R' Hillel II, in something like
358 CE (if we take the traditional explanation for his standardizing
the calendar), or R' Gamliel IV who was executed in 425 CE. With his
execution, the Romans (under Theodosius II, a Nestorian Christian)
also banned the institution.

Rava lived 270-350 CE, and could very well have submitted a proposal to
the Sanhedrin. His friend R' Zeira made aliyah, so we know travel from
Bavel to Maaravah was done. Rava also had a say in picking the next nasi
(along with R' Zeira and Rabah bar Masnah) after R' Yoseif (Horiyos 14b),
indicating that he did have some kind of remote role in the running of
the Sanhedrin.

I understand legislation -- gezeiros and dinim derabbanan -- to be solely
the purview of a Beis Din haGadol. I would point to Hil' Mamrim pereq 2,
but we don't follow that WRT considering a pesaq or minhag binding. We
seem to follow anything that was nispasheit, even if it didn't pass
through a Sanhedrin. Therefore, how can I use it to buttress my point
WRT new gezeiros and dinim?

But my understanding was that the need for a Beis Din haGadol is why
Rabbeinu Gershom's laws needed to be snuck in as charamim against someone
who did X, Y or Z, rather than direct issurim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:16:52PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: As for whether this gezeirah was made by Rava...
...
: But before that, RYBZ only allowed shofar blowing before a beis din. If
: Rava made a second taqanah, it was that he found RYBZ's position to
: be too loose, and there was still too much of a risk of hotza'ah.
: Alternatively, he could have been pasqening that without a Sanhedrin
: in the lishqas hagazis, none of the batei din qualified for RYBZ's
: permission. (Much like their loss of authority WRT dinei nefashos.)

At RRW's prodding, I rechecked the gemara. Rava gives Rabba's gezeirah.
RH 29b.

Which makes my answer even easier. Rather than prove from his role in
selecting R' Yoseif' replacement that Rava was in communication with the
Sanhedrin, we are dealing with Rabba, who was R' Yoseif's predecessor
as nasi.

R' Yoseif was supposed to be first, because he was Sinai, which is a
more fundamental need than Rabba, the oqier harim. That said, R' Yoseif
refused the position until Raba's petirah.

So, Rabah's gezeirah was enacted by the nasi, just as R' Yochanan ben
Zakkai's was, and there is every reason to assume the Sanhedrin

And even that's not muchrakh, as Rava's words are "verabanan hu degazar
beih *kede*Rabah", implying that Rabah could indeed have been reporting
an already existing gezeirah.

There is still the gezeira deRava WRT taba'as sheyeish aleha chotam
(Shabbos 62a). So my dochaq may still be needed there if one wants to
relegate the rights of making a formal gezeirah only to the Sanhedrin..

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@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

> Just to nitpik - it is not only the Sanhedrin.

AIUI from Rambam's haqdama to MT, any community can make gzeiros.

To make a UNIVERSAL g'zeira would indeed require a Sanhedrin
EXCEPT that
Another mechanism would be acceptance. AIUI qitniyyos was accepted as
a g'zeira throughout Ashkenaz - albeit there was scattered opposition.

Thus "knesses yisroel" can ratify a local g'zeiro and make it more
widespread.

Several Post-Talmudic Gaonic G'zeiros are codified [even] by Rambam,
and some he deemed widespread.

Thus, since Qitniyos did not stem from a bona fide Sanhedrin, it is not
binding upon Sephardim. (Although Qitniyos may be binding absent any
g'zeira at all :-). See Beis Yosef.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha:
> And last, you need to have daas Torah, that absorbtion in the Torah
> Weltanschaunng to the extent of being able to fill in the gaps between the
> rules of pesaq, to go from conflicting sevaros and shitos to lemasseh. Is
> that reproducible?

I'm ok with "gestalt" being a decisive factor. But at least a poseik
should endeavor to use it objectively or consistently

Background:
One shul has incorporated several nusach Separad practices

In my experience latecomers to ma'ariv used to come to bima to say a late
barchu. But In the aformentioned shul someone shouts it from the seats

As A Yekke, I find such spontaneous informal bar'chus distrubing. :-)

So I asked the Rav, "Nu why not add a permanent late bar'chu just as
Sephardim have already? (And nusach sepharad on Shabbos?)"

I got a dismissive "nah"

To me it seems so arbitrary! If ever there was compelling svara to
add a change - and onethat already exists in other minhaggim - this was
it. And Yet they have altered nusach for a lot less compelling reasons.

Tannaim and Amoraim are presumed to be consisten in their svaros -
unless a logical hilluq is provided.

Here, too, I would expect a poseiq to either be consistent or provide
a svara to be mechaleiq, and not to be arbitrary about it

My 2 cents.
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

IOW, because of all of the above, reproducing halakhah would require knowing more history than is possible to.

And last, you need to have daas Torah, that absorbtion in the Torah
Weltanschaunng to the extent of being able to fill in the gaps between the
rules of pesaq, to go from conflicting sevaros and shitos to lemasseh. Is
that reproducible?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
#1 is a technical point, I would guess that in theory in an oral tradition
world you would do the best you could to understand the "history" to
determine if change in the new world was necessary.

#2 is the point I've been getting at for a while- that the baalei mesorah
have tremendous flexibility and go on "instinct".  So who determines who is
a baal mesorah?  In the end is it the Jewish people choose their leaders
and thus leaders need to stay within a certain range?

KT
Joel 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 Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:46:09AM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
: To take a (hopefully good) concrete example.  I heard somewhere 
: that R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky would use a thalet rather than a dalet 
: in the echad of shema...

I assume the intended sound is the /dh/ of "that" not the /th/ of
"thing". The latter would be a thav.

: OTOH, to the best of my knowledge, there is very little purely 
: halachic material on which one could decide to use a thalet.  It is 
: consistent with certain halachic sources, such as the SA's ruling 
: that it needs to be drawn out.  And it is consistent with Temani 
: pronunciation....


Doesn't the seifa answer the reisha? R' Acha bar Yaaqov, the SA and
beyond presume you're supposed to lengthen the dalet. And no one on
Berachos 13b argues with RABY; R' Ashi merely adds a warning not to
be so intent on the dhalet that one rushes the ches.

Some translations:
plosive: a sound made by suddenly allowing the outlet of air. E.g. the
bege"d kefe"t letters when degeishot, tes, and quph. You can't stretch
out these sounds because they are made at the moment the air goes from
stopped to moving.

aspirated: adding a strong burst of air to the sound. Like the /wh/
of "who" (which almost has an "h" going simultaneous with the "w" as
opposed to the /w/ of "win".

aspirated plosive: combine the above two. The vocal chord begin to vibrate
perceivably later than the release of the stop. This allows the listener
to hear that near-"h" sound.

It's impossible to lengthen a plosive very far, and there is only one
mesorah that has a non-plosive dalet.

I mention all this because in Bavli accent of the 20th cent, the bege"d
kefe"t refuyot are aspirated plosives. IOW, sound of the letter "bhet"
is like that of a "bet" but breathier. There is reason to believe this
is ancient, like the gemara's caution against stringing together "eisev
besadekha", which is a real issue with "eisebh besedekha", but not with a
"vet".

Which means that we need to understand R' Acha bar Yaaqov. It seems he
himself -- like nearly all of us (any Teimanim in the chevrah?) -- spoke
a Hebrew in which there was no dalet that can be stretched out. It would
therefore be easily arguable that he was saying that the dalet of echadh
was an exception even for those of us who do not normally use that sound.

But in any case, I fail to see how a gemara can be "very little purely
halachic material".

(That said, I don't.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

 OC 468 is talking about someone who has a particular practice which is
based on minhag. That halakha
 would not apply to anyone whose practice is based on din. For what to do in
that situation one has to look at other sources, like YD 119, YD 64, YD 112.

Ben

> Ben
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> I would like to conclude with the following. Each Rav or community are
> entitled to take positions on Halachic policy based on sound Halachic
> principles. However when one travels from community to community Halacha
> requires us to be especially cognizant of the customs of that community
both
> in terms of stringencies and leniencies in order to avoid any machloket.
At
> times one is obliged to be strict and at times one is even obliged to be
> lenient in order to avoid machloket. (See Shulchan Aruch OC Siman 468 and
> elsewhere). As such one should contact their personal Rav for guidance
when
> travelling between our two communities.
>
>

how dare Leah answr Rachel, that not only did u take my husband but also u
want my son's dudaim? Did she forget the History of Her Own
Marriage? Yaakovs true Wife was Rochel, not Leah, was Leah thus blinded by
Jealousy when she made that stmt?

From Areivim.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:59:26AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:57:28 +0300 Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > ...
: > > Just saying shabbat shalom is not entering a deep conversation with women.
: > > Just being friendly

: > Beruriah famously called R. Yosi Ha'Geleli a 'shoteh' for asking her
: > "be'ezeh derech nelech le'Lud" rather than "be'ezeh le'Lud", based on
: > the interdiction of "al tarbeh sihah im ha'ishah"
: > Eruvin 53b -
: > http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=3&;daf=53b&format=text

: But who says the halacha is like Beruriah? (I thought I had read this in
: Shu"t Benei Banim, but I can't find the reference)

And yet the gemara also has numerous maasos that include non-essential
conversations with Beruriah, Rebbe's housekeeper, Helena haMalka,
Rufina, and other women. It would seem difficult to me to support the
interpretations above, since they would be two quotes in counter to
numerous others.

We don't have the word "sichah" very often; "ledabeir" would have been
the usual turn of phrase. And given that it includes one's wife, can it
possibly be saying that a proper halachic marriage is based on a *lack*
of communication? Does sichah in that mishnah include all speech, or
only flirtation?

If the latter, then perhaps this story is an exception to the norm
in the gemara becaause Bruriah thought R' Yosi haGelili was battling a
crush on her.

Recall how Yitzchaq's name is used in telling the story when he and
Rivqah encounter Avimelech. It would seem to me that we're being told
his name refers to a Shir haShirim-esque approach to avodas Hashem.
Did Yitzchaq go "lasu'ach basadah" to chat with HQBH, or to have a
romantic talk with his Beloved?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:15:07AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: how dare Leah answr Rachel, that not only did u take my husband but
: also u want my son's dudaim? Did she forget the History of Her Own
: Marriage? Yaakovs true Wife was Rochel, not Leah, was Leah thus blinded
: by Jealousy when she made that stmt?

Of course not. Once Yaaqov married Leah, he crossed what would later be
halakhah to marry Racheil. Who then is the real wife?

BTW, who said that Leah wasn't Yaaqov's true wife? Reflect on how Yaaqov's
life actually went. Racheil died young. For the vast majority of his life,
it was him, Leah, and the shefachos.

IIRC, it's the Tiqunei Zohar who has a long peice on how Eisav was
supposed to be part of kelal Yisrael, the breadbasket, to be specific,
and that's why Leah was to marry him. When Eisav sent off the derekh,
Yaaqov then had to assume the dual role: both Yaaqov and Yisrael, both
Racheil's husband's and Leah's.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 175
***************************************

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..."