Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 252

Sun, 13 Dec 2009

• 1. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: LBD lists (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: LW MO (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Kashrus (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (I. Balbin)
• 6. I have read that it is the OU/LBD/??? policy (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Fwd: Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:18 (Meir Rabi)
• 8. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: Fwd: Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:18 (Zev Sero)
• 10. Where does Hashgakha Pratit express itself (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Believing companies - kashrus (Dov Kaiser)
• 12. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: Believing companies - kashrus (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Rabbi Jachter: The Bracha on One Slice of Pizza (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: Believing companies - kashrus (Zev Sero)

RIB writes:

> Thanks for your comments about Davar Lach and Sfardishe Hanhogos as
> well as the comments about R' Ovadya's method of psak.
> On the matter of Davar Lach, I recall R' Ovadya paskening that you
> could have cold soup on a plata and use a shabbos clock
> to warm it up if you put the soup on it while the plata was not
> working.

Err, where do you get that from?

I will quote you relevant bits of the Yalkut Yosef (which of course always
reflect his father's psak when appropriate).

This is from volume 4, Shabbat 3 Siman 318 "din bishul achar bishul"
paragraph 54:

"There is no bishul for a thing which is already nitvashel kol tzorcho.
With regard to what are we speaking, btavshil yaveish.  Aval tavish lach you
cannot return it or heat it on Shabbat unless you fulfil the conditions of
chazara that have  been explained above in siman 253, because for a tavshil
lach yesh bishul achar bishul.  [section about the permissibility of putting
dry foods from the refrigerator onto the platter sniped].  And it is
permitted to command an akum to put a tavshil lach mevashel kol tzorko on
the platter chashmalit Shabbat, since there are those who say that there is
no bishul achar bishul also for a dvar lach, so in relation to amira l'akum
we can rely on the lenient opinion in this.

Paragraph 56:

A Sephardi Yeshiva bocher who learns in a yeshiva of Ashkenazim who go after
the piskei Rema, and he sees that they return on Shabbat a tavshil lach onto
the platter hashmalit after the tavshil is no longer heated to the
temperature of yad soledet bo but it is still not nitztanen l'gamrei [and
they have fulfilled the other conditions of chazara] and even if they do
this for the needs of the Sephardi bochrim who learn in the yeshiva one does
not need to protest., because even though the opinion of Maran Hashulchan
Aruch if a tavshil is not warmed to yad soledet bo, it is forbidden to
return it onto the platter, in any event, after the opinion of the Rema that
all tashvshil that was not cooled completely it is permitted to return it
[when they fulfil the other conditions of chazara] you do not need to
protest that the Ashkenazi do this.  But a Sephardi cannot command an
Ashkenazi to return on Shabbat a tavshil where the majority is lach onto the
platter chashmalit after the heat of the tavshil has gone below yad soledet
bo/  Because one who is Sephardi needs to go according to the opinion of
Maran Hashulchan Aruch, and one may not be lenient and command another to do
for him a thing that for him is forbidden completely.  But rather if the
Ashkenazi does it by himself, even if he does it for the needs of a Sephardi
baal habayit it is not necessary to protest.

On the other hand in paragraph 16 he discusses whether it is permitted to
place milk or cold water which has been cooked from before Shabbat on the
platter in order to take the cold off (ie make it luke warm) so long as he
makes sure that he takes it off once it has become lukewarm and before it
gets to a temperature of yad soledet bo.  And while he comments that "that
if it gets to the temperature of yad soledet bo behold he is over on the
issur of bishul on Shabbat also with milk or cooked water because there is
bishul achar bishul b'dvar lach.  But meikar hadin there is place to be
lenient in this for any person [on a platter chashmalit] if one is is doing
this for the needs of a baby or elderly or similar [and there is not in this
a chashash of nirei kmevashel since behold it is not the derech of bishul on
platter].  But anyway if one is machmir in all this it seems to me in order
to be choshesh for the opinion of the machmirim, a blessing is upon him.

In the footnote there, footnote sixteen he gives a very clear picture of the
kind of way his father works on these things:

" I have already explained in paragraph 14 that the opinion of Maran is to
hold like Tosphot and the Rosh, and with water that has not cooked at all,
it is forbidden to place them on a heat source, lest he forget and it comes
to bishul.  But all this is with regard to a thing that was not cooked, but
for a thing that was cooked and it is a dvar lach, behold there is in this a
safek sfeka, perhaps the halacha is like the Rambam and the Rashba and the
Ran that ain bishul achar bishul l'dvar lach and even if it does come to
cook there is nothing in it.  And if you want to say that the halacha is
like Rashi and Rabbanu Yona and the Rosh that yesh bishul achar bishul
b'dvar lach, and like poskens Maran Hashulchan Aruch, perhaps the halacha is
like the one who holds that we are not concerned lest one forget it and it
comes to the temperature of yad soledet bo, and according to this therefore
there is to be lenient in this for anyone who stands there to guard that
immediately it is luke warm he will take it from there .. etc

With regard to a platter that is put on via a time clock, he says in siman
253 paragraph 11:

"There are those who say that it is permitted to put from erev Shabbat a
tavshil tzonen sheyesh bo marak on a platter chashmalit that is not working,
and that during Shabbat the platter will ignite by way of a shabbat clock
and the tavshil will be heated on Shabbat.  And there are those who disagree
and forbid even when he puts the tavshil on erev Shabbat, and the ikar hadin
is to be makil like the first opinion, and in any event one who is machmir
tavo alav bracha."

And the footnote discusses the question as to whether one considers putting
the food on erev Shabbat on the platter that will later come on is analogous
to the situation discussed in the Rema of placing a pot where one knows a
goy will later come and light a fire, or the case in the gemora which
discusses the one who brings the sticks to enable cooking, which is deemed
patur avul assur.

Ie the essential discussion is not about whether or not there is bishul
achar bishul for a d'var lach, but whether it can be considered an act of
bishul on shabbas if everything is set up from before shabbas.  I certainly
don't get the impression from this paragraph and the footnotes that ROY
would be in favour of placing a dvar lach onto a platter mamash on Shabbat,
even if it was not working at the time.  Do you have a sources for your
recollection?
 
> > To say that something that is a safek d'rabbanan is
> > metame es halev (as has been suggested here) I suspect would be
> considered
> > as of necessity undermining the whole principle of safek d'rabbanan
> l'kula
> > (given that safek d'rabbanan l'kula is also a rabbinic principle) and
> hence
> > I don't imagine he would have much truck with it.
> 
> A nice summary of the issue of Timtum Halev is here
> 
> http://www.badatz.biz/ShowArticle.aspx?ArticleId=176=

But although Sephardi, and deferential to Rav Ovadiah, he doesn't operate or
think like him (note his comments regarding things that are assur to
Sephardim and mutar to Ashkenazim).  After all, even in the discussion you
can see above from the Yalkut Yosef, you can see that ROY allows a Sephardi
Yeshiva bocher (somebody one would expect to be a baal nefesh and the sort
of person to be particularly concerned about being metame et halev) eating
soup which according the psak he follows was mevashel on shabbas, and
possibly even done for him.  Given that we hold that an issur d'rabbanan
makes machalot assurot also metame et halev, you can even see from this, and
it can been seen even more clearly from some of his other psakim concerning
kashrus (shabbas I agree you can drey as slightly different), that once
there is a safek as to how to pasken, then there appears to be no issue of
metame et halev.

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

Micha Berger wrote:

> Recall how many chassidishe maiselakh involve eating eggs in unknown
> inns.

I'm not sure what stories you're referring to; I can't recall any.
But in any case, what makes you think the inns in question were run by
goyim?   Innkeeping was a Jewish business, after all.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha:
> but given the
> trend in Academic O circles toward mininizing dogma (eg R Marc Shapiro's
> book), it might not.

I'm not sure where Shapiro stands.

M. Mendelsohnn, Isaac Leeser and other "modernists" wanted to reduce
dogma and to untie us from being too rigid etc.

Now I do agree with Micha, that AFAIK no one of that chevra posits a
complete Orthopraxy devoid of any dogma!
They just want to chip away at the calcification or ossification that
took place in the ghetto.

Lemashal: Let's concede that Spinoza went way overboard. Could we have
salvaged his soul with a more liberal set of dogma that allowed for
greater exploration.

[And then think of Einstein, too.]

I wanted to set aside iqqarim or dogma in favor of "axioms" instead.
Some beliefs are sine qua non to be a Jew, and I think Rambam's list is
a bit dated.

Illustration:
The first axiom I would posit is
"That Hashem rescued Israel from Egypt"
Corollary
"And gave us the Torah at Sinai"

[This is mamash addressing the k'fira of the Exodus by R David Wolpe -
no relation AFAIK]

To me this embraces
    1 Hashem's role in history
    2 Our relationship to Hashem as HIS avodim
    3 Election of Israel
    4. Divine Nature of the Torah

I haven't come up with a definitive list yet, but this is my iqqar axiom -
to mix metaphors. ;-)

The problem we have had is that some dogmas have fossilized our minds.
It's not just about intolerance either! It's about overlooking our own
noses because of conditioning.

EG many cannot except or even visualize the Miracle of the ReBirth of
Israel due to dogmatic pre-conceptions!

You ask them
"Tzipisa leeshua?"
They say "yes - BUT it MUST dogmatically look THIS way and not that
way." And this disables their eyes from being makkir tov!

So I think Shapiro et al. are trying not to jettison all beliefs, just
jettison the rigidity.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

There are several very different reasons why I might not trust the kashrus of the food that someone gives to me. Let me list a few:

- He might be trustworthy, but I cannot rely on him because technically his edus is pasul.

- He might be trustworthy, but his lack of knowledge makes it likely that he will make mistakes.

- He might have a reputation for being *not* trustworthy.

When trying to decide whether or not to rely on someone, he should
carefully consider exactly what his reasons are. And then, he should ask
himself, "Are these fears reasonable or not? Am I exercising an appropriate
amount of caution, or am I going overboard?" I'm not saying that an
abundance of caution is a bad thing, but a person should be honest with
himself and try to know the difference between what is required and what is
not.

Rav Moshe Feinstein has an interesting teshuva in Igros Moshe YD 1:54,
where he discusses a situation regarding whether or not to trust the
kashrus of a well-intentioned, but non-frum, person. I found it very
interesting that he approached this question ONLY from the perspectives of
ne'emanus and trust, and never once did he worry about the mistakes that
this person might make.

I wrote much more on this topic in Avodah Digest 9:68, at http://www.aish
das.org/avodah/vol09/v09n068.shtml#07

DISCLAIMER: some people have misunderstood my position, so I must
emphasize: I do not advocate that we should all follow bare-bones minimum
halachos. Doing more than is required is very often recommended or even
actually required (despite the apparent contradiction). The main point
which I'm trying to make is that we should all learn the difference between
what is required and what is more than required, and that we not look down
on others who choose to do only the minimum requirement.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=QbqewoyF_rEgFPQUL-uaXAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

On 12/12/2009, at 2:19 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:

> RIB writes:
> 
>> Thanks for your comments about Davar Lach and Sfardishe Hanhogos as
>> well as the comments about R' Ovadya's method of psak.
>> On the matter of Davar Lach, I recall R' Ovadya paskening that you
>> could have cold soup on a plata and use a shabbos clock
>> to warm it up if you put the soup on it while the plata was not
>> working.
> 
> Err, where do you get that from?

http://www.halachayomit.co.il/Default.asp?PageIndex=2&;HalachaID=614

Someone wrote on a recent posting; I have read that it is the OU policy

I wonder why there is so much speculation about the Kashrus policies that
are being discussed.
Are these policies not readily available? or should we be asking WHY are
these polocies/principles not published and readily available.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091213/23530645/attachment-0001.htm>

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> See Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:18
and Zev Sero responded
Not relevant, because there is a siman recognisable by the customers, i.e.
the packaging, so they are not dependent on the shopkeeper's word that the
meat is kosher.

Can someone elaborate on that Teshuvah; Reb Moshe says that the Takana not
to purchase K meat applies even where there is Halachic foundation to trust
the sellers and even where an independant Gd fearing mashgiach is present.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091213/22b38ab8/attachment-0001.htm>

I asked:

> > Err, where do you get that from?

And RIB writes:

> http://www.halachayomit.co.il/Default.asp?PageIndex=2&;HalachaID=614

I confess this is extraordinary (the writer of this teshuva claims that yesh
aitza sheyachol la'asot ken llo chashash" by using a shabbas clock and that
at the time that the platter is off "yachol l'haniach algabah kol ma
sheirotzeh, afilu marak".)  I had a poke around the site and it claims that
the teshuvot were written by Rav Ovadiah's grandson (Ya'akov Sasson),
although they do claim they have Rav Ovadiah's guidance.  But I checked both
Yachave Daat and Yabiat Omer and I can't see anything like this in his main
teshuvot.

And certainly my experience is that wherever Rav Ovadiah has a specific
teshuva, the exact wording of the conclusion is included in the Yalkut Yosef
in one of his main paragraphs - which suggests to me that at least at the
time that the Yalkut Yosef was published there was nothing from Rav Ovadiah
saying this.

And the teshuva really doesn't read to me like a Rav Ovadiah teshuva.  After
all, as the Yalkut Yosef brings quite clearly, even if you were to hold that
a Shabbat clock is mutar to use with a platter meikar hadin, "llo chashash"
is decidedly strong - given all the issues that the Yalkut Yosef raises in
the paragraph and footnote I cited.  And "kol ma sheirotzeh" would seem to
suggest even if the food in question had not already been cooked (ie it is
not just bishul achar bishul that this teshuva would seem on the face of it
to allow, but initial bishul (other than water) as well so long as you used
a platter Shabbat and a time clock).

It seems really very odd to me that Rav Ovadiah would come out with a major
heter like this without one of his fully sourced and thoroughly argued
teshuvot.  There are no sources in this at all.  And while other people
often summarise him and his conclusions without sources, it doesn't really
seem to fit with Rav Ovadiah's writings to have nothing in writing to refer
to that is full sourced.  In addition, it seems to me that the Yalkut Yosef
holds differently, otherwise he would not need to mention specifically
leaving the item on from erev shabbas.

And note that even this teshuva writer acknowledges that the din is that
yesh bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach, that is why he has to suggest this
"eitza" regarding the shabbas clock, to enable warm soup.  If there was no
bishul achar bishul, like with yavesh, none of this would be necessary.  So
really this teshuva is about what may be permitted by way of a shabbas
platter and a time clock.

Shavuah tov

Chana

Meir Rabi wrote:
> Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> See Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:18
 
> and Zev Sero responded
>> Not relevant, because there is a siman recognisable by the customers, 
>> i.e. the packaging, so they are not dependent on the shopkeeper's word 
>> that the meat is kosher.
  
> Can someone elaborate on that Teshuvah; Reb Moshe says that the Takana 
> not to purchase K meat applies even where there is Halachic foundation 
> to trust the sellers and even where an independant Gd fearing mashgiach 
> is present.

I believe he is referring to a takanah by the Agudas Horabonim (the Union
of Orthodox Rabbis of the USA and Canada), of which RMF was the president,
against allowing a butcher shop to sell both kosher and treif.  I assume
the reason for the takanah was fear of confusion, and/or because it would
be too easy for the butcher to cheat without being detected.  But from the
teshuvah it would seem that this only applies if there is no way for the
customer to tell the difference between kosher and treif, so that he has
to rely on the owner or mashgiach.  If there is a siman recognisable by
the customer, as there is when the meat is in a sealed package with a
label indicating its status, then RMF would seem to have no objection.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

In the Guide, Part 3 Chapter 18, when discussing the various ideas of
Hashgakha Pratit, the Rambam uses example after example of being saved from
something bad - drowning in a ship caught in a storm, being saved from a
fire, etc. He never talks about something good - finding money, having a
child, etc. Can I conclude from this that HP only works in saving people
from the bad or am I reading too much into the examples used?

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091212/05608e4b/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote: > That being the case, on whom does KOF-K rely to be machmir on this question? 


R. Wolpoe wrote:  <<RDK seems to say that it is more than permitted
to be someich upon RMF, that absent another dei'ah one MUST be someich on
RMF!>>


I'll admit that I was being a bit cheeky framing my question as I did (i.e.
implying that you need to find a source to be machmir).  However, to quote
R. Micha from an earlier post, I did mean it as a question, not as a
challenge.

 

Of course, RMF was known for his chiddushim, much like the AhS, and I
understand very well that if his position in this teshuva was a daas
yachid, it would not be relied on by the organisations that issue
hechsherim.  My question was really whether RMF's opinion in this teshuva
is a daas yachid. Answers to this question have already been provided,
including RZS's answer that things have changed since 1955.  The metzius
trumps chazakos any day.  I suppose that is why RMF's teshuva puzzles me,
in that he jumps straight to halachic principles without having any regard
to the metzius at hand.  Maybe he was assuming that the questioner, who was
himself also a posek with a particular case before him, was aware of the
metzuis himself, and was only seeking clarification of the barebones
halachic issues.

 

There is another issue which I think might lurk behind these issues.  I
have seen somewhere, probably here in Avodah, that one of RMF's sons was
once asked to explain why his father advised schools not to rely on his
hetter for chalev hacompanies.	The answer was that principles like yediah
k'r'iya are all very well, but the reality is that we don't really know
whether milk was milked from a cow unless someone saw it with his eyes.  He
seemed to draw a, dare I say, baalabatish distinction between halachic
reality and actual reality, implying that to rely on the former is, nebech,
a kula.  Perhaps this is what underlies some of the discussion we are
having about reliance on lists, hechsherim, etc.

 

Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser

 
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091213/e71ca88b/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:

<In fact, the
Ashkenazi position (of doing chazara when soup is still warm) is based on
the position of ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as the ikar hadin>

And RRW replied:

> http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/bishul3.htm
> 
> 
> <The Chazon Ish (ibid.) explains that the Rama fundamentally accepts
> the lenient view as normative. However, there is concern that if an
> item has completely cooled down it will be difficult to distinguish
> between the cooled down liquid and liquid that has never been heated.
> The common practice seeks to avoid this potential confusion.
> 
>  Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (cited by Rav Mordechai Willig, Bait
> Yitzchak 21:181), on the other hand, suggests that the Rama
> fundamentally accepts the stringent opinion as normative. The Rav
> notes, though, that the reasoning of the strict view is that when a
> liquid cools down, no impact remains from of the cooking. Accordingly,
> as long as the liquid has not completely cooled down, some of the
> effect on the original cooking remains.>
> 
> IIRC when I taught this sugya I was quite convinced of RYDS's p'shat in
> Rema.

But doesn't that mean, according to RYDS, that even the strict view holds
that ain bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach at any point above completely
cool - so even according to him my statement is not exactly unture?  

I confess I do have difficulty with RYDS's pshat.  Because that means not so
much reinterpreting the Rema, but reinterpreting the Shulchan Aruch (as
meaning that to the extent he holds yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach
he also means only really once it has become completely cold).

Which of course would mean that you would need to reinterpret the rishonim
that the Shulchan Aruch relies upon as saying this as well (because as per
usual, the Shulchan Aruch did not come up with his position himself, he just
relied on certain rishonim as against other rishonim).

In addition, why does the Rema need to bring those who are makil completely
before effectively reverting to the stringent position if it has no effect
on the psak?

Of course, my bias is probably showing here.  The entire Sephardi world
understands the Mechaber (and hence the rishonim on which he relies) as
holding yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as meaning that once the
item drops below yad soledet bo, then there is bishul in getting it up
again.  And they have poskened like this halacha l'ma'aseh for generations.
And obviously RYDS's pshat is against this (while the Chazon Ish is in
accordance with the Sephardi position of understanding the Shulchan Aruch,
with the Rema disagreeing).  I suppose I have significant problems with an
interpretation that effectively says that half the rest of the world is
wrong in their understanding of the person upon whom they rely halacha
l'ma'ase when it isn't necessary to hold that way - but arguably that is
Brisk for you.

 
> KT
> RRW
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Regards

Chana

RDK:
> I suppose that is why RMF's teshuva puzzles me, in that he jumps
> straight to halachic principles without having any regard to the metzius
> at hand. Maybe he was assuming that the questioner, who was himself also a
> posek with a particular case before him, was aware of the metzuis himself,
> and was only seeking clarification of the barebones halachic issues.

Tangnetial: And Perhaps RDE can elaborate...

I Find I-M to be NOT user-friendly to beginners. I've heard that RMF
expected it to be read by talmidei chachamim.

For an average rabbi [like myself] the only way I feel comfortable with
I-M is when I'm holding in the sugya or it's a very straightforward
T'shuva. Otherwise RMF presumes the reader has a lot of yedios and lamdus.

Or to put it another way, if you want to go from being a good poseiqi to
a great poseiq [like from master's to Phd] it's a very valuable sefer.
But aisi it's largely over the head of the beginner. [Like from bachelor's
to masters]

A gutn Chanukkah RRW Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> Many people recite Mezonot on one slice of pizza based on Rav Moshe
> Feinstein's reported ruling that pizza is Pat Habaah BeKisnin. Rav Moshe
> is reported to have asserted that pizza is a snack type food and that one
> does not establish a meal when he eats only one slice of pizza. Other
> Poskim disagree. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai page 99) rules
> that Hamotzi should be recited even on one slice of pizza because most
> often pizza is consumed on the context of a meal and not as a snack. This
> argument might hinge on what is meant as a "meal." Rav Moshe might respond
> that the Halacha refers to a full meal such as dinner and not lunch,
> which in America is regarded as a light meal (see Rav Forst, The Laws
> of Berachos page 249 footnote 77 who advances a similar argument). Rav
> Ovadia Yosef (cited in Yalkut Yosef, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, page 223
> in the 5760 edition) and Rav Yisroel Belsky (Mesora 1:40) also rule
> that one should recite Hamotzi even on one slice of pizza. Rav Zalman
> Nechemia Goldberg and Rav Hershel Schachter also told this author that
> Hamotzi is the appropriate Bracha even for one slice of pizza.

And based upon the SA re: Pashtida, I concur that pizza always triggers
hamotzi


See
Halacha File: The Bracha on One Slice of Pizza
http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/14-38_The_Bracha_on_One_Slice_of_Pizza.htm

Good Chanukkah
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Dov Kaiser wrote:
> I suppose that is why RMF's 
> teshuva puzzles me, in that he jumps straight to halachic principles 
> without having any regard to the metzius at hand.

Actually RMF spends the bulk of the teshuvah *weakening* the case for
the heter.  A brief summary of the teshuvah is "yes, you're right to
permit this, but your argument isn't quite as good as you make it out
to be for the following reasons: [....] Nevertheless, at the end of the
day you're right to permit it".


> Maybe he was assuming 
> that the questioner, who was himself also a posek with a particular case 
> before him, was aware of the metzuis himself, and was only seeking 
> clarification of the barebones halachic issues.

Exactly.  The teshuvah is about the lomdus.

  
> one of RMF's sons was 
> once asked to explain why his father advised schools not to rely on his 
> hetter for chalev hacompanies.

What's the question?  He explained it clearly in the teshuvah where he
wrote this.  Since a school's mission is to educate children to be
mehader bemizvos, it has to demonstrate that principle by example.
When a child hears in the classroom that one must be careful with mitzvos
and not rely on every heter that comes down the pike, and then in the
lunchroom he sees how little the school itself abides by that principle,
the whole chinuch is wasted and the school may as well close down.
This is what RMF writes in that very teshuvah, so why look for other
explanations?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, 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..."