Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 262

Thu, 24 Dec 2009

• 1. Re: Pirsumei Nisa (David Riceman)
• 2. Reciting Shir haMa'alot or 'Al Naharot Bavel before Bentching (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Chana Luntz)
• 4. HebrewBooks.org (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Nekudas haBechirah (by RDK) (Michael Poppers)
• 8. Re: anarchy/libertarianism (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere 2 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere 2 (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere 2 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

Me:
> : I don't recall hearing arba kosos related to pirsumei nisa.
RMB:
> Pesachim 112a gives this as the reason why one should accept tzedaqah
> to pay for the kosos.
Thanks for the source.  See, however, Dikdukei Sofrim ad. loc.  Minor 
support is that (in a very short scurry in my bookcases) I did not find 
this cited by rishonim.

David Riceman

The Mishnah Verurah, following Peri Megadim, following Magen Avraham,
quotes the SheLaH, that since it is befitting G"d feaRing people to
recall daily the destruction  of the Beit haMiqdashand be saddened by
it ()from Shul'han 'Arukh Ora'h 'Hayim 1:4, apparently based on Zohar,
at least that is what seems from the SheLaH), therefore it is
customary to recite 'Al Naharot Bavel before Birkat haMazon, and on
days when Ta'hanun is not recited, to say Shir haMa'alot.

The SheLaH, which is in the Sha'ar haOtiot section of the SheLaH,
quotes the Zoharic support for the SA's contention, and says therefore
nohagim to say ...

Was the practice of reciting Shir haMa'alot or 'Al  Naharot Bavel
instituted by the SheLaH, or was it a preexisting minhag? From the
SheLaH's wording ("nohagim"), it seems that we are dealing with a
preexisting minhag. However, I cannot find any sources citing this
minhag, which predate teh SheLaH.

So which is it? Is it teh SheLaH's, or older?

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

I wrote:
> 
> <In some ways you can see this most clearly from this interpretation of
> RYDS that you find so appealing.  If you had a soup that had been fully
> cooked, and then in case A it was cooled fully down and in case B it was
made
> only luke warm  (or whatever is the lowest temperature that RYDS would
allow
> chazara).  If you were then to return these two liquids to identical
> fires, the chemical changes or cooking would be, I would warrant,
absolutely
> identical.  And yet RYDS would say that case A involved halachic bishul
> and> case B did not. >
> 
And RRW replied

> Dear Rn Chana
> 
> WADR You are conflating the mlacha of bishul
> With the g'zeira of hazarra!  Thr g'zeira of hazzara is about nireh
> kimvashel, not about chemical changes!!!

The issue we were discussing was, when the Rema allowed the chazara of luke
warm soup, did he intrinsically hold that ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar
lach, and we were just concerned with issues such as nireh kimvashel (this
you cited as the Chazon Ish's approach, and it was, as I understood it, the
simple pshat) or did he really hold yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach
- which you cited in the name of RYDS, but only if the soup was allowed to
become fully cold.  Yesh bishul achar bishul or ain bishul achar bishul on a
dvar lach is, as the words clearly state, not about nire kimvashel but about
bishul mamash.  If you hold yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach, you are
holding that *bishul* as defined halachically occurs.  I agree, there seems
to be no difference in chemical changes - but that is precisely the point I
was making.

> <Because you are understanding "bishul" to be the equivalent of a
> physical concept of cooking, which is then measurable in terms of changes
of
> chemistry.  But bishul is a halachic definition, which may or may not
> correspond to what any chemist might identify as cooking.>
> 
> See Rambam shabbos 9:6
> 
> "Any heat process that hardens the soft or softens the hard is
> ...bishul!"

And of course this includes loads of things that would not necessarily fall
within the definition of the English word "cooking".

 
> I say chemistry is at work here, And if so - then measuring
> demonstrable chemical. Changes is paramount

Maybe and maybe not.  Firstly, I do not believe that the Rambam's definition
is exhaustive.  As in, if I produce a food where the heat process neither
hardens the soft nor softens the hard, there is no bishul?  That would seem
to suggest that there cannot be any form of bishul on a dvar lach, since it
neither becomes harder or softer by means of being cooked.

Rather, I think everybody would agree that the Rambam's definition is only
one strand of what is meant by halachic bishul.

Secondly, while it has been a long time since I learnt any chemistry,
substances that become soft on heat being applied and then when the heat is
taken away reform with precisely the same chemical structure are not
unknown.  For that matter, going from a solid to a liquid or vice versa is a
change of state, not necessarily of chemical form.  There strikes me as a
fair bit of chemical confusion going on here and you are going to need a
whole mishmash of physical tests (not just chemical tests) to get any
approximation of what we know as halachic bishul and the only way to do that
is to keep referring back to the definitions of halachic bishul that are
given to us, yad soledet bo, kol tzorko etc etc.  The gemora is fully
willing to entertain the idea that there are different forms of bishul for
different things. The whole discussion in the gemora in which the definition
of yad soledet bo is to be found as kriso shel tinok is in the context of a
discussion about whether or not the definition of bishul for water and oil
is the same or different (and indeed whether or not the concept of bishul
can be applied to oil at all).

> Cooking an egg is the most graphic.  I need no body parts such as "yad
> or keres" to see the difference between a raw egg and a cooked egg!
> Rather eyes or tongue will do!

Agreed, and that is why the Rambam's definition of hardening and softening
is not the one that is used, but rather the most standard definition, in
terms of a dvar yaves is in terms of what people eat (whether it be robber
people ie machal ben drosai or others).

> Obviously this halachic construct is related to visibility

Well, slightly deeper than that, what is socially accepted as edible - which
fascinatingly would seem like it is probably culturally dependent,
regardless of visibility.  If the French all eat their meat medium rare,
then while cooking more might (arguably, but arguably not) be meztamek
v'yafe lo, it is, to the French, fully cooked at medium rare.  While if you
come from Eastern Europe where the only good steak is practically burnt,
then medium rare might be machal ben drosai, but it could hardly be
considered kol tzorko.

And even in the case of an egg.  If culturally nobody ate soft boiled eggs,
then the definition of kol tzorko would surely have to be hard boiled.  But
if nobody ate hard boiled eggs, they were considered overcooked, then soft
boiled eggs would be kol tzorko and anything above that would be mitzamek
v'ra lo. And if people ate both, then a soft boiled egg would be considered
kol tzorko and from there to a hard boiled egg would be mitztamek v'tov lo
and only after that would it be mitztamek v'ra lo, ie at the point it was
considered overcooked.

The halachic test is actually extremely subtle, far subtler than a chemical
test.

 > Are you saying EG that steam distilled water is mevushal once it's
> cooled off because it HAS been halachically cooked already?  And
> therefore ein bishul achar bishul?

Yes *if you hold that ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach*.  If you hold
yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach, then obviously the fact that it has
been previously heated is irrelevant, because reheating it is cooking it.
The fact that water after it has been heated and cooled appears identical to
the way it was before has a lot to do with the whole machlokus that we
started out with, whether in fact yesh bishul achar bishul or ain bishul
achar bishul on a dvar lach.

Of course if you were using a chemical test there are differences, in terms
of getting rid of impurities and bugs.  In fact, I spend a significant
portion of my life making sure that we have bottles of cooled boiled water
around.  One of the side effects of having a very disabled son who has a
gastrostomy (peg in his stomach) is that they recommend that we do not just
use tap water to flush the gastrostomy, or with his medicines etc but rather
cooled boiled water.  Of course at some point the tap water might also have
been cooked, who knows, but certainly not recently.

> Or EG halachos re: melting ice or snow on shabbos shouldn't use EG 0C
> or 32F to determine its frozen status?

Well given that impurities alter the precise temperature at which something
freezes and melts, I think you would be very rash to use precisely 0 degrees
C or 32 F anywhere outside the laboratory.  Not sure what halachos you refer
to, but I would have thought that any halachos would be determined by the
actual temperature that the substance in question froze or melted at,
impurities and all, and not the theoretical chemistry, and I am not sure why
the theoretical chemistry would be relevant.

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana

In the thread "Kashrus and Shabbas", R"n Chana Luntz wrote:
> You would need to read eg the Tzitz Eliezer to see whether
> you agreed (the cite is chelek 2 siman 6) that what he
> seemed to be doing was imposing a new gezera rather than
> applying an existing one. 

R' Rich Wolpoe responded:
> FWIW I don't have a Tzitz Eliezer

Yes you do!

It's amazing how much can be found at http://hebrewbooks.org

And it is so simple to use! I placed my cursor in the box titled "Koter -
Title", and used the "Virtual Keyboard" to type "Tzitz Eliezer". (The
button between the Tav and the quotes, which looks like an underscore, is
actually for typing a blank space.) Then I pressed the "Chipus - Search"
button (the one on the left, not the one on top), and instantly - links to
nineteen volumes!

Just click on the volume you want, and then you can either read it online,
oor download the entire pdf file. If anyone is interested in the teshuva
that RCL cited, it is on daf mem-ches of the sefer, but that is page 75 in
the file. (Daf aleph comes after the separately-numbered hakdama.)

And in "Pirsumei Nisa", R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Perhaps RDE (or someone else) has a copy of R' Moshe
> Shernbuch's Moadim uZemanim VII, and gan summarize his
> discussion of the topic on p 97.

Bingo! They have this too! At first, it looked like they only had volumes
1, 3, and 6, but it turns out that if you click on the link to Vol 6,
you'll see that Vol 7 starts on page 183. The piece RMB refers to is on
pages 277-278.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyer
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=D_Ny-MPtvpFTif34WDHevQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA=

Dear Readers, 
You will likely fall into a range of opinions,

1 most negative - IOW it's all wrong
2 centrist - some right some wrong
3 most positive - Aha NOW I see this pattern for the last 1400 years
  following the tallmud
4 indifferent - you still may hang on as a spectator enjoying the
  spectacle!

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


"g'zeira". Now I'm seeing them everywhere ai even at yam suf!

Before I post a list of what *I* term different g'zeiros, I'm going to
give some background and caveats

The fictional Rabbi "Elizur". [REZ] allegedly said that prohibitting
riding a bicycle on shabbos is manufacturing a new g'zeira which may
not be done.

I'm not sure if he means after talmud or after the hurban BD hagadol
or what.

Nevertheless I will argue with that premise

Caveat 1.
Please do not bring MT Hilchos Mamrim into the fray. It is IMHO a very
speicific form of g'zeira that I'm really not addressing. My g'zeira
is more analogous to Qitnoyos or to the case found in Rambam MT
Hil. Hametz 5:3

Caveat 2. I will at times use 
- some brand new "taqqanos" or 
- newly minted institutions or
- sometimes newly minted alterations of institutions
to support my general hypothesis.

Even I know that certain taqqanos are truly not g'zeiros, but I will
conflate them anyway - mostly in order to show the ko'ach of Rabbinic
Judaism as it should be, even w/o a Sanhedrin.

Some Terminology:
I will use Catholic Israel [Ca-I]to refer to the amcha when something
is nispasheit

I will use terms like consensus or nimnu v'gamru when a "body" or college
of posqim are involved, even if it is a virtual one.

I will not have time to check out every source again. So some errors of
memory may creep in. Nevertheless I plan BEH to supply useful food for
thought as well as sources.

Generally a g'zeira is framed in Shas and posqim as follows:

X is assur shema/lest one does Y
Or
G'zeira X atu Y

OK let's first go hypothetical

H1 Can a Poseiq or. A BD today ban cigarette smoking? IOW W/O any
speficie whereases such as "v'Nishmartem m'od l'nafshoseichem"?

_________________

Here are bans that I personally see as modern day g'zeiros.
[I'm focusing on the modern times Post SA era]

Of course few may actually agree with me.]. I will not give my reasons,
I will just give the pattern. Then the reader may discern inductively
how they fit in as g'zeiros.


Agudist:
1 the ban on intermingling with non-ortho institutions [RAK's version
  of Austritt in America]

From RMF
2 the ban that considers one using a microphone on Shabbos as not a
  shomer shabbos [even despite relying upon a lenient teshuva]
3 the ban on performing burials on YT Sheini
4 the ban against any eruv using the streets in Manhattan, [iow excluding
  apartment buildings]

Kashrus Agencies
5 the ban against certifying peanut oil despite the heter of RMF and
  minhag avos permitting them [g'zeira s'feiq qitniyyos atu vaday qitniyyos]
6 the ban against labelling DE and using D instead [lest people be confused]
7 Shuls w/o mechitzos - although Tosafos claims that Mehitzah is for
  "tz'niussa b'alma" organizations banned admitting non-mehitzah shuls
  circa 1970. [Note I'm NOT addressing mixed seating, merely "non-mehitza"
  shuls, which at least there is a dei'ah upon which to be someich]

R Henkin
8 thou shalt no longer rely upon the talmud or posqim for kidra hayssa.  

GRA
9 moshav yeqaro - morphed into v'chise ch'vodo. [Yekaro had an
  undesirable g'matriya]
10 no trees in shuls EG on Shavuos - [despite any minhag avos] - because
   other religions use trees as religious objects
11 Bans against Hassidim
12 Hirsch's Austritt
13 Bans against studying Qabbalah before a certain age
14 Bans against Moreh N'vuchim etc.
15 Bans against Mendelsohnn"s Bei'ur
16 Bans against preaching in the vernacular [even in the USA!]
17 Kitzur SA banned mixed seating at weddings.
18 Bans against weddings in shuls
19 Bans against singing Hatiqvah
20 [new requirement] read both zecher and zeicher in parshas zachor.

I am not familiar with the details of the vaad of 4 lands or the vaad
of Lita. I know from Wikipedia that the Taz was approved by the Vaad-of-4
- even though most pasqen like Shach anyway

Of course most will say Rabbi Wolpoe this are P'saq halachah - not
g'zeiros!

I say these are g'zeiros and not really P'saq halachah, but we've been
conditioned to see them as p'saq! This is AIUI due to a faulty ani
maamim that rabbis lack the authority to issue bans. But in reality d'u
na rabbosai - they do NOT lack this authority at all! But due to anivus
or whatever, it seems that way. Aderabba, rabbis have the authority
to issue g'zeiros, but I will BEH be coy as to the parameters of those
g'zeiros until my list is fairly robust. [Note I will respond to any
hypotheses/theories offline that show in clear black-and-white that such
authority still exists or vice versa]

BEH I will add more from earlier eras.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course most will say Rabbi Wolpoe this are P'saq halachah - not
> g'zeiros!
>
> I say these are g'zeiros and not really P'saq halachah, but we've been
> conditioned to see them as p'saq! This is AIUI due to a faulty ani
> maamim that rabbis lack the authority to issue bans. But in reality d'u
> na rabbosai - they do NOT lack this authority at all!
Kehillos have the authority to issue bans for the members of their 
kehillos (e.g. HM 231:27 in. re. "b'nei ha'ir", YD 228:25 in. re. 
"hakahal"). Rabbis are not kehillos (though see HM 231:28 and see 
Pithchei Tshuva ad. loc. SK 6 who discusses the machloketh about this at 
some length).  See HM 163:1 and Pithchei Tshuva ad. loc. SK 1 (where 
there's no mention of rabbis).

It's not clear to me how the rules for autonomous kehillos translate for 
citizens of secular democracies.  I would hope that contemporary poskim 
discuss this, but I'm not up on the modern literature.  Someone on this 
list should be.

David Riceman

In Avodah V26#260, as part of summarizing a d'var Torah by RDK, R'Micha
wrote:
> If the temptation isn't at my
nequdas habekhirah, so that I'm likely to fail, deciding to avoid the
situation still is. <
And IMHO this can be seen from the "tzricha" logic of "v'lo sasuru acharei
l'vavchem v'acharei eineichem" (i.e. the need for the pasuq to list both
"l'vavchem" and "eineichem").

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091224/c4327923/attachment-0001.htm>

WRT whether "ein melech b'yisrael" is good or bad,  I recently 
encountered a midrash which addresses the issue, though I have no idea 
what it means.  See Sefer Shoftim 8:22-23, Yalkut Simoni ad. loc., and 
(the apparent source) Tanhuma Buber VaYera #29.

David Riceman

RRW writes:

> But that's not what I said
> 
> I said there was no issue of hazara so long as it was still warm so
> bringing this up to me was in a sense off point.
> 
> I don't get what bishul has to do with it since the jachter articlr
> points to Rema as machmir on lach so since he's meikil on p'saq it's
> NOT about bishul but hazzara.  I don't see how it can make any sense
> any other way!?

And then:

> 
> <as the words clearly state, not about nire kimvashel but about
> bishul mamash.>
> 
> I just reviewed 253 and 318 again
> 
> Where are these "words that clearly state?!"
> 
> Rema 318 mentions a yeish meikiln which allows hazara when cooled down
> which he then rejects based on 253.
> 
> I don't see any mention in his own da'as about bishul mamash.
 

Go back and look at the Jachter article you cited me
(http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/bishul3.htm) as I don't think I can say it any
clearer than that articles says it.  Note that it is headed "Ein Bishul
Achar Bishul"  And the first topic is headed "Liquids" and continues: The
Rishonim debate if the Ein Bishul Achar Bishul rule applies only to solids
or even to liquids."

It then goes on to say:

"Rav Yosef Karo (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 318:4 and 15) rules in
accordance with the strict opinion. The Rama (O.C. 318:15), however, cites
the lenient view. The Rama records the commonly accepted Ashkenazic practice
to adopt a compromise view. The practice is to follow the lenient opinion if
the liquid "has not completely cooled down." Acharonim debate what the Rama
refers to when he states "not completely cooled down." ...

Acharonim also debate the reasoning of this compromise. At first glance, the
compromise appears difficult since reheating a liquid that is below the
temperature of Yad Soledet Bo constitutes an act of Bishul according to the
strict opinion. On the other hand, the lenient opinion permits reheating a
liquid even if it has completely cooled down. The Halacha appears to attach
no significance to the fact that the liquid has completely cooled down.

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."

As you can see, R' Jachter clearly understands the discussion to be in terms
of bishul ("reheating a liquid that is below the temperature of Yad Soledet
Bo constitutes an act of Bishul according to the strict opinion").  If, as
this article states, RYDS believes that "the Rema fundamentally accepts the
strict opinion as normative" then that means that he believes reheating a
liquid constitutes an act of bishul (so long as it is from cold).  Not nirei
k'mevashul, bishul.

Of course these words are not clearly in the Rema.  If they were clearly in
the Rema, there is no way that the Chazon Ish and RYDS could have a
machlokus about what the Rema meant.  If the Rema had helpfully said either,
well there is no bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach and hence this is why
the custom arose to do chazara on a luke warm liquid, because there is no
actual risk of bishul here, then we would know the Chazon Ish was right.  If
on the other hand he had said, there is indeed bishul achar bishul on a dvar
lach, but only once it has fully cooled down and that is why the custom has
arisen to do chazara on a not fully cooled down liquid, then we would know
that RYDS was right.  He didn't say either, hence the machlokus.  But the
machlokus is about whether or not the Rema holds there is really a risk of
bishul here and, as the Jachter Article clearly states, the machlokus is all
sourced in Siman 318:15.

Regards

Chana

RRW writes:

> <Yes.  But Rav Ovadiah in many earlier teshuvos spends a lot of time
> arguing
> (or demonstrating, depending on whether you accept his view or not)
> that
> this is the correct position halacha l'ma'ase, ie that we posken like
> those
> rishonim who hold that safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan. >
> 
> If ROY himself is the source for this decision then
> I would call this a form of bootstrapping!  If it has already been
> established so, I'm curious to know the precedent because
> If it is indeed a Pre-existing "kayma lan" then I'm unaware of it.
> AFAIK EG the shach on s'feiqos does not make a call one way or the
> other

Well this is ROY (in lots of places).  Here is one example where it seems to
be nicely grouped together in a slightly easier way, it is from Yabiat Omer
Chelek 5 siman 19 oit 7 (it is about half way down).   "In any event, since
the opinion of the Rambam (perek 9 of hilchos  Tumat met) that the chumra of
safekot in issurei torah is only d'rabbanan, and so is the opinion of the
Ra'avid (perek 10 of Hilchot Kelaim halacha 27) and so is the opinion of the
Ramban which is brought in the Ran and in the teshuvot of the Radvaz.  And
according to what is written in the Beit Yosef in teshuvot Even Haezer and
so is the opinion of the Rif in the first perek of kiddushin.   And so is
the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaChassid in sefer Chassidim (siman 262) and
which is brought in the Aruch Hashulchan (siman 608 si'if katan 2).  And the
Machzik Bracha writes (siman 589 si'if katan 6) in the name of the Achronim
that this we teach in accordance with the Rambam that safek d'orita l'chumra
drabaanan ... And so is written explicitly in the Pri Chadash Yoreh Deah
(siman 55 si'ifkatan 16) ... And so writes the Aruch Hashulchan in Yoreh
Deah siman 62 si'if katan 6... And see in the teshuvot Chakrei Lev chelek 1
of Yoreh Deah siman 118 ...

If you go to some of the other places, you can find  other lists of
achronim, where ROY shows that various positions that they have taken
demonstrate that they must hold safek d'orisa l'chumra is a derabbanan (the
issue at hand in the teshuva in question had to do with issues of kelayim by
way of a benei noach, so these were the kinds of places he takes you in the
achronim in this particular teshuva).

The irony of your response is that the usual criticism of ROY is that he is
*not* innovative, only encyclopaedic.  This is a classic example of why I
(personally) don't agree with the "usual criticism", but I do agree that
unless you have a completely encylopaedic knowledge of the rishonim and
achronim it would be much harder to have teased this out as a basic
principle and be able to demonstrate the extent to which it is actually a
guiding principle that underlies a whole host of responsa, even where it may
not have been explicitly articulated.

> I will try to see Yerushalmi BEH
> 
> But if so that this is a ruling from Y-lmi then all the subsequent
> g'zeiros in bavel - both by Bavli and G'onim licho'ra would also be
> transgressing this!
> 
> But first, what poseiq - previous to ROY - cites this Y-lmi as an
> active precedent and I wonder how ROY inderstands the Rambam's haqdama?

I think RMB has been addressing this much more fully, but I would note that
this statement by ROY does not come as a surprise to a lot of people on the
list. To my mind it is a bit ho hum really, and it is you that are odd for
questioning it.  Not that you are not entitled to question, but I think most
people knew of this as a principle, and are not the least bit surprised to
see it.  I think if ROY had really felt that it was something that needed
defending he would have given his usual ten pages on it, and I am absolutely
sure he could find enough material to support that.  But I would not have
expected him to have gone to those lengths because I did not expect anybody
to question it, and clearly, neither did he.

And I agree with RMB that most of your examples seem to be confusions
between minhag, takana, psak and gezera, with the first three something in
operation today and the last one something that is not.  And since I gather
from RMB that precisely the same set of arguments took place right at the
beginning of Avodah, there doesn't seem a lot of point in rehashing it.  

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana

RDR:
> It's not clear to me how the rules for autonomous kehillos translate for 
> citizens of secular democracies.  I would hope that contemporary poskim 
> discuss this, but I'm not up on the modern literature.  Someone on this 
> list should be.

My point in this thread is to avoid pontificating any klalil or klalos
;-) until a robust corpus of examples can be presented and then we may
make taxonomies as appropriate.

However, the best read I know on this is Menachem Elon's Mishpat ha'Ivri
[full disclosure a friend translated this]

AFAIK it is the definitive work.

Just as Minhag is an elusive word, so is g'zeira. And So is the word
doctor, it might mean physician, it might be a dentist, it might be a
professor or it might be a former Met and Yankee pitcher!

My tachlis is to rid people of rigid beliefs that fail to map reality
correctly. Marc Shapiro found gazillions of exceptions to how people
see the iqqarei emunah. His legitimate point is aisi that they are more
fluid than we think

The move to calicification and rigidty is IMHO counter-productive except
perhaps for children and adolescents.

If HKBH wanted to, HE could have created a Shulchan Aruch Himself and
handed it to us.

Instead RY Karo did one via the Maggid and the Rema and hundreds of nos'ei
Keilim quibble virtually - despite The mechabeir's other-wordly rebbe!

The Dibros were written in stone

Miqra on parchment

TSBP not at all.

As Rebbe often did in the mishnah he cites case law before "zeh haklal". I
ask people to read and research, but like a jury suspend judgment until
a week or 2 goes by "havvu m'sunnim badin" IOW don't jump to conclusions

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Several more "modern" g'zeiros 
 
21 no kosher animal gelatin in USA [afaik acceptable in Israel and Europe]
 
22 restrictions on not eating before hadalqas ner hanukkah [not in SA-Rema
   AFAIK but in R S Eider's Sefer -- extrapolated from b'diqas Hametz]
 
23 Nit'ei Gavriel: no noshing before Megillas Esther. This nit'ei
   Gavriel overrules Magen Avraham who claims Rema was prohibiting ONLY
   eating a Q'vius
   And against Kitzur SA who permits a cup of coffee. 
 
24 no women at burial sites
   It's origins are unbeknownst to me but enforced in some communities
 
25 taqanos in some communities against excessive spending on Simchos 
 
26 kashrus agencies not permitting selling broiled livers after 3 days
   lest purchasers cook them later
 
27 Brooklyn Syrian g'zeira agianst admitting geirim 
 
28 various sanctions against saevanim 
 
29 g'dolim cllaing for fasts [gozrin taanis] EG on YK Qatan 
 
30 bans by kashrus agencies against non-Glatt meat -- although once
   deemed acceptable even by R Breuer OBM
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Several more "modern" g'zeiros 
>  
> 21 no kosher animal gelatin in USA [afaik acceptable in Israel and Europe]

This example is particularly inappropriate.  This is not any kind of
gezera/takana.  According to RMF and RAK it is completely assur and always
has been, and the poskim who permit it are simply wrong.  The USA agencies
that forbid it are paskening like them.  That's no different than ROY
paskening like the Mechaber, or Temanim paskening like the Rambam.  In
Europe and EY they pasken otherwise.

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

> 21 no kosher animal gelatin in USA [afaik acceptable in Israel and Europe]

> This example is particularly inappropriate. This is not any kind
> of gezera/takana. According to RMF and RAK it is completely assur and
> always has been, and the poskim who permit it are simply wrong. The USA
> agencies that forbid it are paskening like them. That's no different than
> ROY paskening like the Mechaber, or Temanim paskening like the Rambam.
> In Europe and EY they pasken otherwise.
> Zev Sero

Havvu m'sunnim baddin

There is not enough information yet to make that call IMHO so jumping
to conclusions will but hinder the process.
Consider this a jigsaw puzzle about 15% complete

If people wish to pontificate, fine! It's a free country. But if
one wants to learn a mishnah, then finish the mishnah before reaching
conclusions

Mussar Haskeil
Offlist I exclaimed that Mamrim 2:2 dealt with ANY bd not just BD hagadol

But I was wrong because I was too quick on the draw. In full context
my error was obvious

Zev has not sufficient data to say correct or wrong because the label
and taxonomy is nascent and not fully formed. It would be like saying
the Sun looks wrong during Day One when it was not finished until Day
Four. Only then may one judge tov or ra

KT
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 262
***************************************

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..."