Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 253

Mon, 14 Dec 2009

• 1. Ona'as D'varim re: the Departed (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: LBD Lists (Isaac Balbin)
• 5. Re: Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II (Micha Berger)
• 6. Using Psalms Liturgically (Arie Folger)
• 7. the teshuvah is from 1955 (Meir Rabi)
• 8. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Pirsumei Nisa (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

[For Background see 
Chofetz Chaim Daily Companion P. 29]

Given:
If ploni [say R Akiva] had a past as an "am ho'oretz", and then did
Teshuva, it is ona'ah to remind him of who he USED to be.

Same with any BT or Ger.

Question:
What about now? Is it OK to talk disparangingly about R Akiva's former
life before his teshuvah?

The following below came up in teaching history lessons.

Let's say "R. Pinchas" was a kanai against the Rambam and led the charge
against his books. This led to the "eino-yehudim" burning those books
[EG the Moreh]

Later "R. Pinchas" has harata and did Teshuva and became a defender
of the Rambam's right to write what he wrote, and "self-flagelated"
himself over his role in arousing the book-burnings.

Questions:
1 May historians note R. Pinchas' misdeeds at all?

2 I'm timzei lomar that it's OK to recall his former attitude, is it OK
to omit his later Harata?

3 Is it OK to STILL lump R. Pinchas amongst the anti-Maimonideans -
given his subsequent change-of-heart?

Gutn Hanukkah
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Here is one post in an earlier incarnation:

Avodah: Volume 6, Number 83
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n083.shtml

See posts by R Eli Clark and R Moshe Feldman...

Avodah: Volume 3, Number 63
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n063.shtml#13


Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:52:27 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <tur...@math.tau.ac.il>
> Everyone seems to agree that Chanukah today is based on the miracle
> of the oil. However, this is not true. Many have pointed out that Al
> Hanissim stresses the military battle. While many answers have been given
> one possibility is that different communities stressed various parts of
> Chanukah even in ancient days and Al Hanissim and the Gemara in shabbat
> represent two different outlooks.

Or AISI
    Two Eras

Hanukkah I
    Pre-hurban nationalistic and BhM-centric

Hanukaah II
    Post-hurban
    Spritual and Oil-centric

G Ch
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I wrote@
> 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? >

And RRW replied

> As per RYDS it's simply not yet bishul achar bishul?
> 
> Illustration life afterv death presumes death!
> 
> If a gpseis comes back it doesn't exactly count
> 
> So same here!  RYDS is saying the first bishul is ongoing and ergo no
> hazarah YET even below YSB until room temperature

So let's try and be a little clearer.

Going back to first principles - the idea is that when a (solid or dry)
object is cooked kol tzorko, all it needs, it is by means of this cooking
transformed into a state of "cooked".  If one wants to think of it as a form
of chemical transformation, one would say that it has been transformed from
state X to state Y, and the application of even more of the same, ie the
same kind of heat application that led to it being considered cooked, does
not do anything more to the item.  That is what is meant by ain bishul achar
bishul, which is what everybody agrees is the situation with a dry food.  If
you hold that yesh bishul achar afiya, then you say that while the
transformation is complete vis a vis baking, and no more baking can effect
any more change to the object, the application of bishul works to further
transform the object.  And if you hold ain bishul achar afiya, then you hold
that baking and cooking effect the same transformation, and no further
transformation takes place and hence no melacha of bishul takes place.

Now what is the situation with a liquid object.  The test that everybody
apparently agrees with to get it to its initial cooked stage is yad soledet
bo. Now the traditional Sephardi and Chazon Ish approach to what is meant by
ain bishul achar bishul vis a vis a dvar lach is to understand the test to
work the same way.  If it reaches yad soledet bo, then the transformation
from the status of uncooked to cooked is complete, and no matter how it
cools down the further application of heat does not achieve anything.  On
the other hand, if you hold yesh bishul achar bishul, then while once it
crosses the threshold of being yad soledet bo, it is the equivalent of kol
tzorko and no further application of heat while it remains above this
temperature achieves anything (ie if you wanted to you could say that ain
bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach above yad soledet bo, although we
normally don't have any particular need to draw attention to this), if it is
allowed to cool down to a temperature of below yad soledes bo, bringing it
back up over the threashold to over yad soledes bo amounts to cooking it
again.  Ie it is transformed from status X to Y when it crosses the
threshold of yad soledes bo, but then retransforms from Y to X as it drops
below that temperature again.  And hence the application of heat to boost it
up again over yad soledes bo makes it bishul yet again.

Now what you appear to be suggesting as the shita of RYDS is that, while the
first time, in order to transform it from status X to status Y, it needs to
go above yad soledet bo (ie the transformation from X to Y occurs at yad
soledes bo), it then does not revert to status X until it is fully cold.
That, means that RYDS is distinguishing between - let's say a liquid of 35
degrees that has never been cooked to yad soledet bo, and a liquid of 35
degrees that has been cooked to yad soledet bo and cooled down but only so
far as 35 degrees - with the first it is still in status X and bishul is
involved if it is then boosted to yad soledes bo, with the second it is in
status Y and no bishul is involved regardless of how high it goes.  So far,
that is the same position as those who traditionally hold ain bishul achar
bishul vis a vis a liquid of 35 degrees.  It is only at the completely cold
point that RYDS says suddenly there is yesh bishul achar bishul, because
suddenly it is back in status X and hence boosting it to yad soledes bo is
bishul. Presumably however merely boosting it to 35 degrees is not in and of
itself bishul (leaving aside chatzi shiur considerations), that is just
taking the chill off, but then taking that same liquid and boosting it to
yad soledes bo would be bishul because it has reverted to status X.

That means that, while according to the Sephardi and Chazon Ish approach,
there is only ever one threshold that intrinsically matters vis a vis lach,
that of yad soledet bo (and the question just is, does this threshold only
work one way, going up, or two ways, up and down), according to RYDS there
is two, yad soledet for going up and completely cold for going down.

Then the Chazon Ish understands the Rema really as positing a kind of gezera
- either because people might get themselves confused, or they were actually
getting confused, and so one can understand that the people were noheg that
way, they saw a potential for confusion and they acted to avoid it, and
either the Rema is fundamentally commenting on what people do or
alternatively he is really positing a gezera as a good thing because people
tend to be confused between cold cooked liquids and uncooked liquids.

But RYDS is positing an intrinsic halachic distinction (something that
halachically happens).  Does he see this double threshold in the rishonim,
or does he understand this to be a chiddush of the Rema?  Who are the people
following when they are noheg like this?


> GCh
> RRW

Regards

Chana

> This is not "for sure". The Sha'Kh in YD 117, has a long section where he 
> talks about someone eating in the home of some who has different minhagim 
> and goes by different pskei halakha. He does say "well, if you don't eat 
> something because of a minhag you can eat it at your host's house". He gives 
> conditions when you can eat the food and when you can't.
> 
> Ben
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Isaac Balbin" <Isaac.Bal...@rmit.edu.au>
>> 
>> We know, for sure, that when one is faced with a situation where one is 
>> eating in someone's house and the food may be kosher but not necessarily 
>> mehadrin that it's better to not insult the bein adom lamokom. I'm not 
>> aware that this requires hatoras nedarim either. Similarly in Hilchos 
>> Shabbos. If you go to a Sefardi house where they, for example, rely on Ain 
>> Bishul after Bishul even on a Davar Lach, and you are presented with 
>> something warmed and lach, that you are permitted to eat it, as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:58:58 +0200
> From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
> 
> 
> Correction. The Sha"kh is in YD 119:19.

Thanks for that Sha"kh which I took to be YD:119:20

My reading of it would indicate that where the person has reason to think
there is a "hetter" to be found in consuming food which he is not noheg to
normally eat, and he normally resides in a place which isn't noheg to
consume that food item and is now in a place that is noheg to consume that
food item, that he is able to eat it? I take it then that the Sha"kh is
saying that as long as the person doesn't simply hold that that food is
"Assur" then it is ok to have it. He doesn't seem to require hatoras
nedarim explicitly. I assume that this is because it can be assumed that
the Neder Lechatchila (implicit) was bound/influenced by a
locale/environment where it wasn't consumed but it never held that it was
inherently Assur to eat (issur cheftza is limited to a geographical
locale?). Accordingly, I would have assumed that if it's an ?approved as
kosher' item, by an official and accepted list, but isn't listed as
mehadrin by that same list/authority, then bemokom tzorech (such as 
 Eyva --- yes, that word is sometimes used even with Yidden) one seemingly
 can eat the "plain" Kosher foods. Whether one could or could not would
 seem to depend on a din of Nedarim in the sense of what he (or his locale)
 may have had/have in mind. To be sure, for some people, it's almost
 Yehoreg Velo Ya'avor on any food that isn't "mehadrin". For such people,
 you are right that they wouldn't be permitted to eat there (and if the
 host knew this, the host must make sure not to feed them such food lest
 they be over lifnei iver). That being said, my point was premised on the
 notion that the list itself is the definition of hetter and within that
 list there are foods which have a different level of supervision
 (mehadrin). 

Maybe I hang around the wrong circles :-) but if I was at a friend's house
and noticed, for example, that they had cooked their main dish with a
tomato paste that was considered kosher but wasn't mehadrin-supervised
(assume it's a case where it's not botel), that I wouldn't make them feel
uncomfortable by not eating the dish they had prepared for me as their
guest. 

Any of our resident Rabbonim have a view on this? Another item for me to look further into over summer (here in oz)


I've just remembered that there is also a Tshuva in the Tzitz Eliezer about
eating those things which are "together" with a food that you wouldn't
normally eat. Eg some cooked potatoes next lumped with something else you
wouldn't normally eat. If my memory serves me correctly, he allows one to
eat the potatoes. Yes, I know that's a different sheyla but it will have
some good relevant discussion perhaps.

RZS mentioned the mishnayos that refer to Chanukah. Looking at them, we
know from Mes RH that they sent shelukhim to Bavel for Rosh Chodesh
Kisleiv so that people would know when Chanukah was. This would appear
to still have been true in Rebbe's day, as the word is "yotz'im", not
"yatz'u". And, Rebbe records that we lein the nesiim on Chanukah.

So there are dinei Chanukah in the mishnah -- a day that people needed
to know when it was that had its own leining is pretty clearly a being
observed as a chag. The question isn't why Chanukah isn't assumed to be
a chag in the mishnah. The question is why it lacks an entire discussion
of its dinim.

I also do not feel I got a satisfactory answer to my original questions:
1- Which BD had the wherewithall to retire a mitzvah derabbanan? After
all, the dinim of ner chanukah appear in a codicil to Megilas Taanis
written before the mishnah -- thus the mitzvah dates back to Chanukah I.
Retiring Chanukah I would mean having a beis din capable of taking a
mitzvah off the books. Possible, but unlikely, since it would mean a
post-churban beis din (post BH and BS and their machloqes about how many
neiros to light) that was gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan from a beis
din from the days of the first zug.

(It's likely Yosi ben Yoezer was among the "chassidim" who were crucified
by Bachhides in Makabiim I 7:16, as he is titled "chasid shebikehunah" in
Chagiga 2:7. He was killed by the Yevanim according to Ber' Rabba 1:65.
The relationship between this and the Chassidim haRishonim who spent
three hours on each tefillah is an idea that intrigues me. Did Bachhides
y"sh end that movement by killing off their rabbeim?)

2- Once Chanukah was retired, why did they feel a need to restore it to
the level of din? Chanukah couldn't have remained minhag?

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

Rabosai,

One of the basic building blocks of our liturgy is Tehillim. They are
also used as ad hoc tefillot. On a simple level, they cultivate the
worshipper's relationship to G"d, and thus, any recitation, even
thematically unrelated to whatever one wants to express at the moment,
is good. However, it may be even more meaningful to express ourselves
through Tehillim, which requires an awareness of the underlying
themes.

this is not only important for ad hoc tefillot, but also to understand
what we are doing during our tefillot qevu'ot.

In this spirit, I have written a blog post exploring the themes of
Mizmor 20, ya'ankha HASHEM beyom tzarah, particularly in light of (a)
its inclusion in the weekday morning liturgy, and (b) as being
appropriate for women in labor.

The blog post may be accessed here:

http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/the-warmongering-labor
ing-amazons/

Your comments are most welcome.

Good 'Hanukah,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag
* How Trustworthy is the Fish Monger or Fish Restaurant?

R Zev Sero wrote: Another thing to bear in mind, though, is that the
teshuvah is from 1955, and a lot has changed in food manufacturing since
then.  Rabbonim who pasken as if it's still 1955 are likely sooner or later
to be machshil people in serious issurim.

I understand that part of RZS concern is that the companies are no longer
able to identify where their ingresients come from but will nevertheless
answer questions misleadingly to best suit their own ambitions.
Is there anyone who can support the contention that there is far less reason
to rely on a letter provided by a food manufacturer today than there was 50
years ago.
Does Reb Moshe Teshuvah expire since it is 50 odd years old?

Are there any Poskim who have expressed such a concern?
I would have thought that today, providing misleading information is an
actionable event and there are more litigious people about than in previous
years. Furthermore consumers are far more vigilant and companies are far
more cautious, just look at all the allergen warnings.
If anything one would be justified in thinking that today the info from food
amnufacturers is much more reliable than it was some years ago.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091215/047b088a/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW wrote:

> The following is all wrong!

I'm sorry, you will have to be a little more explicit as to what is "all
wrong" as I don't really understand.

> RYDS says  that as per the Rema the gzeiro against hazara doesn't begin
> until it cools down period!

Not just RYDS, it is explicit from the Rema himself, according to how
everybody understand the Rema, that until it cools down it can be returned
(I think that is what you mean by the gezera of hazara).  

What I understood from you and from the source you cited was the reason
given by RYDS.  The straightforward read IMHO, is the read that the article
you quoted gave in the name of the Chazon Ish, which is that fundamentally
the Rema holds ain bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach, just that there is
concern if something has completely cooled down (the Chazon Ish says because
it might be confused with a liquid which had never been cooked).  So to
avoid that concern regarding confusion, even though there is no bishul going
on, we do not allow the returning of a lach that has completely cooled down.

According to you and the source cited, RYDS holds that the Rema in fact
holds yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach.  Just that that the "yesh
bishul" part does not and cannot kick in until the lach has completely
cooled after the first cooking.  So what about the paragraph I wrote (which
you quoted) is completely wrong:

Namely
I wrote:
> <Now what you appear to be suggesting as the shita of RYDS is that,
> while the first time, in order to transform it from status X to status Y,
it
> needs to go above yad soledet bo (ie the transformation from X to Y occurs
at
> yad soledes bo), it then does not revert to status X until it is fully
> cold. That, means that RYDS is distinguishing between - let's say a liquid
of
> 35 degrees that has never been cooked to yad soledet bo, and a liquid of
> 35 degrees that has been cooked to yad soledet bo and cooled down but only
> so far as 35 degrees - with the first it is still in status X and bishul
> is involved if it is then boosted to yad soledes bo, with the second it is
> in status Y and no bishul is involved regardless of how high it goes.  So
> far, that is the same position as those who traditionally hold ain bishul
> achar bishul vis a vis a liquid of 35 degrees.  It is only at the
completely
> cold point that RYDS says suddenly there is yesh bishul achar bishul,
> because suddenly it is back in status X and hence boosting it to yad
soledes bo
> is bishul. Presumably however merely boosting it to 35 degrees is not in
> and of itself bishul (leaving aside chatzi shiur considerations), that is
just
> taking the chill off, but then taking that same liquid and boosting it
> to yad soledes bo would be bishul because it has reverted to status X.>

And RRW responded:

> This is about hazarah as long as some heat remains Rema permits it.

But there is no dispute about that.  The question is why does the Rema
permit it, not whether he does or not.  

Second email from RRW:

> I taught the Jachter article in class when teaching Maseches Shabbos
> 
> I don't always see RYDS' read as convincing
> 
> Here I was so convinced that I frankly think the other reads are dochak
> 
> RYDS makes the entire matter simple and consistent.  I find the MGA
> quite forced in comparison.  I find it hard to believe that this is a
> radical read at all EG My students at that time bought it w/o any
> pikpuk.
> 
> So much so that I had put the other read out of my mind.

And I am coming from the opposite pole.  I find the Chazon Ish's and the
Magen Avraham's read very convincing, and while, like my experience with a
number of RYDS's reads, this does hold together, when you dig deeper it
seems problematic, far more problematic than the Chazon Ish read.

> And I have had 2nd hand experience where a cholent pot's fire went out
> and the local [yekke] poseiq allow hazarah as long as any heat remained
> whatsoever even if not YSB - halacha lemaaseh.

I don't understand how this helps though, because this would most likely be
true according to the Chazon Ish read as well, ie he does not need to choose
in order to reach this psak.  In fact, I would have thought it even easier
to reach this psak based on the Chazon Ish, because after all, according to
the Chazon Ish, there is no risk of bishul at all, because ain bishul achar
bishul on a dvar lach according to the Rema, the only potential risk is
confusion.  Whereas, as you have explained RYDS, if it did reach whatever
temperature is deemed to be completely cold, we are suddenly in bishul
territory and we may have an issur d'orisa on our hands.

> But lechatchila he would prefer if it was still YSB.

If you hold that YSB is (or is at least at one end) 80 degrees celcius, and
that there is bishul achar bishul on a d'var lach once it drops below yad
soledes bo, ie there is an issur d'orisa at stake, then as the Kaf Hachaim
holds, it is almost impossible to ever put a dvar lach back, because the
likelihood is that it may have fallen below yad soledes once it is taken off
and the stakes are too high.  You don't get to lechatchila he would prefer
if you are following the Mechaber.  The way the Chazon Ish would understand
this was that he was, being Ashkenazi, legitimately following the Rema, who
was relying fundamentally on the rishonim who hold ain bishul achar bishul
on a dvar lach, but understandably he would be happier if he could follow
all the rishonim, even those who held yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar
lach (the ones the Mechaber follows).

It is not so much that there is going to be a huge difference in halacha
l'ma'aase in this difference of reading, as I see it. The major difference
halacha l'ma'ase, it seems to me would mostly centre on whether a korban
chatas would need to be brought if one did cook a liquid that had been let
go completely cold (Chazon Ish, no, RYDS yes).  And in theoretical terms, it
must somehow involve a different reading of at least some rishonim (but
since I don't understand on which rishonim RYDS applies his analysis, I am
not sure which ones) and, depending on which rishonim are read differently,
it might involve a different reading of the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch
(in my previous post I thought that was a certainty, but on reflection, it
seems to me that it might not be a certainty, it might be that RYDS hold
that the Mechaber and the Rema read the rishonim differently, not that the
rishonim themselves are definitely to be read differently).

Regards

Chana

> R' Micha Berger commented on "kol shecreiso shel tinok nichveis":
> 
> > Which is an odd test, since I'd be much less likely to
> > actually try that on a baby or toddler than to actually
> > see if an adult's hand would recoil. ...
> > Even with Rashi's explanation of added precision, since
> > it's assur to burn someone, but it is mutar to make your
> > own hand recoil, how could that more accurate measurement
> > ever be obtained? You would end up using an approximation
> > ... and thus losing the precision anyway.

And RAM responded:

> My understanding is that Chazal did not decide, on the basis of
> scientific experimentation, how to define bishul. Rather, the
> definition of bishul is a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, just like for all
> other shiurim.
> 
> The true definition of the critical temperature is "kol shecreiso shel
> tinok nichveis", and to say otherwise would be a falsification of the
> Torah, chalilah. Chazal had no choice but to point out that this is the
> technical definition.
> 
> But that was, as we say, "L'Halacha". They understood also that in the
> "L'Maaseh", the above was a rather useless definition, for exactly the
> reasons that RMB points out. So they also specified that for practical
> purposes, "yad soledes bo" is an adequate approximation.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the phrase "yad soledes bo" is used so
> frequently, and in such contexts as would lead us to believe that it is
> the true definition. But it is not. It is only a reliable
> approximation.

Well the biggest problem with this analysis is that kol shecreiso shel tinok
nichveis is the test brought in the Bavli to explain yad soledes bo, but it
is *not* brought in the Yerushalmi.  The Yerushalmi deals with either "yad
soledes" or "yad sholetes" and this is where the whole question of girses
that Rav Henkin discusses in the Ma'amer in Benei Banim I cited arises - for
example the Nusach in the Tosphos HaRosh is "mutar lehafshir b'makom
shehayad soledes v'asur lehafshir bemakom she ain hayad sholetes" but the
Rabbanu Chananel and the Aruch appear to have different girsos which say
that soledes equals sholetes.

If it was a halacha Moshe misinai that it was kol shecreiso shel tinok
nichveis why does this test get no mention in the Yerushalmi?  And if
anything the use of the terminology of yad soledes/yad sholetes in the
Yerushalmi would seem to suggest that some form of this is more likely to be
the halacha Moshe miSinai and the other is an explanation, albeit the
explanation that has been accepted as halacha l'ma'ase.

Regarding RMB's question about a more accurate measurement - the point that
I was trying to make in an earlier post is that while in the days of the
gemora, I agree it was almost impossible to have a reasonably accurate
measurement as nobody was going to try testing on a baby. Today however,
when we have medical literature to peruse, and thermometers, I would have
thought that by accessing the medical literature we would indeed be able to
arrive at a reasonably accurate measurement.  Not because the doctors have
done any testing on babies, but because there have been enough accidents
with coffee and tea and bathwater etc for them to have been able to piece
together a reasonably accurate picture, for good medical reasons.

I agree it does seem strange that the gemora would propose a test that would
take 2000 years or so to be able to properly develop.  But if it is in fact
true that this is now the case, should we be taking advantage of that
literature and honing our knowledge of what indeed is kol shecreiso shel
tinok nichveis?

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

I'd like to get to better understanding of the concept of Pirsumei Nisa. I
know for example that it applies to three mitzvos: Ner Chanukah, Mikra
Megillah, and Arba Kosos. I also know that it is a very important concept,
so important that the usual 20% spending limit for a mitzva aseh does not
apply.

What I'm not clear about is how much leeway we have for publicizing the miracle one way or another way.

For example, if someone cannot afford wine for the Arba Kosos, but he does
have enough matzo, isn't that an adequate way of publicizing the miracle?
Matzo very clearly commemorates both the slavery and the liberation. The
four cups commemorate freedom only for those who are familiar with the
drash and the pasukim, which makes it appear (to me) like a rather poor way
of publicizing the miracle.

So if a person has matzo, but has no money for wine, why should he have to sell his shirt for wine? Why isn't the matza good enough?

Please note: This is not a practical question, and I'm not interested in
answers along the lines of "This is the way Chazal set it up." I'm just
trying to understand what Pirsumei Nisa is all about.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Stock Options
Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=GoMu7bjrIjqmn3HvtwTflAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQlgAAAAA=

Micha's objections:
> 1- Which BD had the wherewithall to retire a mitzvah derabbanan? After
> all, the dinim of ner chanukah appear in a codicil to Megilas Taanis
> written before the mishnah -- thus the mitzvah dates back to Chanukah I.
> Retiring Chanukah I would mean having a beis din capable of taking a
> mitzvah off the books.

Point by point
> 1- Which BD had the wherewithall to retire a mitzvah derabbanan?

Hanukkah I
A not a mitzva derabbanan as WE know it that was much later. Rather we
have Hanukkah II as OUR derabbanan from Bavli

B it was batteil with megillas taanis

C it was tied to 
    I. The victory
    II. Hanukas mamizbeiach

Hence it became obsolete. It was not repealed any more than nissuch
hamayin or simchas beis hasho'eiva was repealed. It was simply
inoperative.

> After
> all, the dinim of ner chanukah appear in a codicil to Megilas Taanis
> written before the mishnah -- thus the mitzvah dates back to Chanukah I.

Your seem to be referring to the Hebrew Schollion on the Aramaic megillas
taanis. This is much after Mishnah AFAIK
If you have evidence to the contrary please produce it.



> 2- Once Chanukah was retired, why did they feel a need to restore it to
> the level of din? Chanukah couldn't have remained minhag?

I don't know all the WHY's I'm producing WHAT's

It wasn't retired, it collapsed with the loss of independence and loss
of BhM.

It was restored as normative to celebrate the miracle of the oil davka.
It morphed

And I never said its observance ceased - I'm only addressing its absence
from Mishnah as stating it was not normative - just like dreidel or
latkes is now.

[Due to ceasless offline debates I came up with another model for HOW
it got suspended
Alt. To bateil- underground:
Just like Shofar was a threat to Roman hegemenony perhaps so was Hanukkah.
So it was a sha'as sakkanah in a sense it went underground.]

Tangentially:
Why wasn't Purim batteil?
Whereas Purim was no threat, it celebrated survival not revolution.
It was also rooted in galus, hurban BhM could have no impact.

The bottom line for it not being normative is how could Rebbe have
neglected tannaitic sources otherwise?

There is also the Eli Clark model

VIZM Some kittim observed Hanukkah I and others Hanukkah II
co-temperaneously.

And with the Hurban only Hanukkah II survived

That fails to answer:
A The absence of Halachah in the mishnah
B the shift from victory-hanukkas mizbei"ach dynamic to oil dynamic in
the sources themselves

Remember NO early source has the oil miracle - which is strange!
Even missing from beemay matisyahu.

This hypothesis does not presume that the oil miracle never happened
only that it didn't count for much until later on.

Why did Hazal revive it?

I don't know for sure
Here are several
Possibilities:

A It was being observed anyway. Bavli commissioned several minaggim
into Halachah

B. The people needed to recall the yeshuah when things looked bleak

C. While in EY the lack of BhM was embedded in society, in Bavel it
really impacted them very little one way or the other.

D. Hazal moved various observances from the material to the spiritual

E. It was revived zecher l'miqdash - like s'firas ho'omer.

Bottom line:
How to explain
A absence from Mishnah
B morphing the underlying reason

Let's assume alternatively that it was indeed continuously normative -
Then hadra kushta leduchta why no Mishnah?!

If the existing teirutzim on no Mishnah saisfy you, then you may dismiss
this hypothesis as not adding much value

OTOH if you find those teirutzim as"dochaq" then this provides another
approach

Gut'n
Hanukkah

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 05:13:46PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Point by point
: > 1- Which BD had the wherewithall to retire a mitzvah derabbanan?

: Hanukkah I
: A not a mitzva derabbanan as WE know it that was much later. Rather we
: have Hanukkah II as OUR derabbanan from Bavli

We have a machloqes BH and Beis Shammai about how many neiros to light
which day. Clearly neir Chanukah was part of Chanukah 1. A mitzvah
derabbanan that would have had to be retired.

Regardless of when you date the schollion on Megillas Taanis. As for
saying it's older than the mishnah, that's not my idea, that's the
Seifer haMaskil's answer to why there is no Mesechtes Menorah -- there
was no reason to document the dinim a second time, as they already
appears in Megilas Taanis. The Behag says that zignei Beis Shammai uBH
wrote these laws in megillas taanis. But this is tangential, as we have
other evidence of a mitzvah in Chanukah I that would have had to be
retired.

You also don't address the fact that Rebbe refers to both leining and
sheluchim, and thus your original reason to assume it wasn't lemaaseh
during that period doesn't exist.

The question of 

: C it was tied to 
:     I. The victory
:     II. Hanukas mamizbeiach

: Hence it became obsolete. It was not repealed any more than nissuch
: hamayin or simchas beis hasho'eiva was repealed. It was simply
: inoperative.

Ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. Your comparing dinim that became
physically impossible to do (no techeiles for the kohein's avneit, issues of
tum'ah huterah betzibur, no mizbei'ach, no hole to pour the water into,
etc...) with dinim that became pointless. We have many dinim that became
pointless that are still on the books.

Yes, this explains the need to shift the focus of Chanukah, and why
it became the only time we celebrate a miracle that was only seen by a
small group. We take pride in our relatively unique notion of national
revelation and how we don't celebrate things a cabal could have made up --
except the oil of chanukas hamenorah doesn't fit that pattern. It makes
the most sense that it was presented as a post-facto rationale. It's
hard to believe the neis shemen was an important part of Chanukah when
Al haNissim was written. So, seems to justify assuming "Mai Chanukah?"
was explicitly a recording of the dialog in which the meaning shifted.
"Today, without a BHMQ, without autonomy, what is Chanukah for?"

I have no problem with noting the shift in focus. This thread started
with my attempt to preserve this without making assertions that stretch
the range of the halachic process.

In any case, RH 19b explicitly says that Chanukah and Purim were the two
holidays not anulled when megillas taanis was. So, how can you say
Chanukah was anulled, but reinstated?

...
:> 2- Once Chanukah was retired, why did they feel a need to restore it to
:> the level of din? Chanukah couldn't have remained minhag?

: I don't know all the WHY's I'm producing WHAT's

But you can't make theory about the "what"s in which the why's don't
work. Perry Mason wouldn't get too far on arguable evidence and no
motive.

...
: Alt. To bateil- underground:
: Just like Shofar was a threat to Roman hegemenony perhaps so was Hanukkah.
: So it was a sha'as sakkanah in a sense it went underground.]
...

And /that/ wouldn't have bothered me, since there is no assertion of a
post-Beis Hillel BD that anulled a mitzvah ratified by the zugos.

: Why wasn't Purim batteil?
: Whereas Purim was no threat, it celebrated survival not revolution.
: It was also rooted in galus, hurban BhM could have no impact.

And the book was already canonized, making it kind of awkward. But the
halachic reason: we didn't have a beis din greater than AKhG, so it
wasn't even an option!

: The bottom line for it not being normative is how could Rebbe have
: neglected tannaitic sources otherwise?

The Behag says that the dinim in Megillas Taanis were written by zignei
Beis Shammai uBH, which would make it older than the mishnah. Thus the
notion that Mesechtes Chanukah would have been redundant.

OTOH, R' Avraham ben haGra (Rav uPoalim 8a, also in his intro to Medrash
Aggadah Bereishis) has his father naming the lost mesechtos qetanos as:
Tefillin, Chanukah and Mezuzah.

There are numerous other answers, some of which I posted last time: Rebbe
didn't want to have the book banned by the Romans for lauding rebellion,
Rebbe didn't want to reflect too positively on beis Chashmonai (which
I agree is weak, but it also shows how reluctant those who faced the
question before us were to assume a mitzvah could be ended), the CS's
idea that there weren't enough dinim of Chanukah only known to experts
(interestingly to of his other examples are mentioned by the Gra as
being lost mesechtos), etc...

...
: That fails to answer:
: A The absence of Halachah in the mishnah
: B the shift from victory-hanukkas mizbei"ach dynamic to oil dynamic in
: the sources themselves

Except that A isn't true. It's the oblique references rather than full
discussion that is odd. But it's not missing. There is no reason to
think it was missing from the generation's notion of din, because dinim
of Chanukah ARE mentioned.

: Remember NO early source has the oil miracle - which is strange!

And that shift was never under dispute.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Rn Chana:
> Regarding RMB's question about a more accurate measurement - the point that
> I was trying to make in an earlier post is that while in the days of the
> gemora, I agree it was almost impossible to have a reasonably accurate
> measurement as nobody was going to try testing on a baby. Today however,
> when we have medical literature to peruse, and thermometers, I would have
> thought that by accessing the medical literature we would indeed be able to
> arrive at a reasonably accurate measurement.  Not because the doctors have
> done any testing on babies, but because there have been enough accidents
> with coffee and tea and bathwater etc for them to have been able to piece
> together a reasonably accurate picture, for good medical reasons.

If YSB or kreiso shell  tinoq is a mere proxy for the threshold of bishul

Why not test "bishul" DIRECTLY!

Lemashal

Coal miners used canaries to test the air quality in the mine

Would you design a scientific measurement to emulate the canary or would
you desing it to measure the air quality directly?

Nimshal
So: Why measure an indirect proxy when we now have the technology to
test the threshold of cooking the food directly!

The main reason we use batteil beshishim instead of nosein ta'am is
that the Rema says the minhag is to no longer rely upon the testimony
of te'imas eino-yehudi.

Otherwise he would have AFAIK concured with the Rambam, Mechabeir et
al. To continue testing directly instead of indirectly.

Gutn Hanukkah
RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 253
***************************************

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..."