Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 26

Sun, 24 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: When did Judaism begin? (Micha Berger)
• 2. re. Coca Cola ingredients (martin brody)
• 3. Re: Coca Cola's ingredient list (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: re. Coca Cola ingredients (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Two kinds of humros (t6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Daniel Israel)
• 8. Re: Aveil as Sha"tz on Shabbos (Daniel Israel)
• 9. Re: Aveil as Sha"tz on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 10. More on the Kashrus of Muscovy Duck (Yitzchok Levine)
• 11. Re: Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Aveil as Sha"tz on Shabbos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: Two kinds of humros (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: Two kinds of humros (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Ben Waxman)
• 17. Re: Two kinds of humros (David Riceman)
• 18. Re: Two kinds of humros (Micha Berger)

Thinking about it, really, more thinking about offlist comments by
RRW...

The whole question has more to do with what does the word "Jewish" mean
in contemporary O usage than anything actually Torah.

There was a beris adam, which was supplanted by the beris Noach.
Then there was the beris avos, which may have been supplanted by beris
    Sinai, or embellished by a second beris.
Then there is the beris mei'eiver hanahar, which the Torah in Devarim
    says is "milvad" the first -- IOW definitely in addition.

Gid hanahsheh is the case where the question between whther beris avos
was replaced or added to may be relevent. Are we following the same
issur as Yaaqov and his sons, or a different one given at Sinai? RRW
already describes the machloqes, I'm going to recast it into these
terms: Rashi says that it is the same issur, and thus beris sinai is a
layer atop beris avos, and the Rambam holds that our issur is from sinai
-- beris avos is thus replaced.

The word "Judaism" means the beris Sinai as developed by the people who
survived the fall of Malkhus Yehudah. It's after the loss of the 10
shevatim that we are first called "Yehudim" -- in Daniel and in Esteir.
When we speak of Hashem taking "the Jews" out of Egypt, we are therefore
using the term anachronistically, as most of the Yotz'ei Mitzrayim
aren't the ancestors of the survivors of Malkhus Yehudah. It's a
colloquialism.

The discussion we're having therefore boils down to: When we speak of
this anachronistic colloquial "Judaism" are we using it to refer to
members of beris sinai or even of beris avos? And how much does that
depend on the machloqes Rashi and the Rambam? AND, since it is a
colloquialism rather than a technical term -- do we even know if we're
using it consistantly?

Framing the question this way removes it from being on-topic for Avodah.
Although the machloqes itself would be appropriate, as is the question of
whether or not it is on-topic, ie whether or not there is a Torah-based
difference between whether or not we call Yosef a "Jew".

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

martin brody wrote:

> I'm not sure what significant is to the FDA, but I'm certain it's way
> less than shishim, probably hundreds of a part.
"This is pure speculation on your part.  There is no limit given on how
big an insignificant ingredient can be.  I see no reason why it might not
be as much as 3% or 5%."

No speculation. I just don't remember the amount. It's tiny. 3 or 5% by
definition is significant.
> But I do agree that those that reject the concept of nullification by
> shishim
"[ZS: of deliberately added ingredients that are part of the recipe]
You mean like the Rashba?"

The Rashba would agree that accidental shishim is batel, not deliberate.
But we don't pasken like him do we, anyway. Besides those that reject bittul
do it for mystical reasons, not because of the Rashba
MB

-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100123/094503c9/attachment-0001.htm>

Martin Brody:
> But I do agree that those that reject the concept of nullification by
> shishim, should only buy products with a hecksher of their choice.

> Nothing to do with Judaism of course, but that's a different thread.

Actually this is TERRIBLY misleading! As Rav Weiss mocked those who
make bateil beshishim as a kind of catch-all mantra w/o learning the
details of YD!

The actual key phrase is "Nosein Ta'am" and that may include texture. EG A
small amount of butter in a fat-free chicken soup may be quite significant

[We pasqen taam k'iqqar is d'oraisso, and a therefore a safeilk is a
s'feik d'oraisso]

Also the issue of being m'vateil issur l'chathcila comes to mind.
Bateil b'shishim [or more properly insufficient to give ta'am] is strictly
a b'di'avad. Surely an incidental bittul is OK not an ongoing one as
previosly posted.

As one Senior Kashrus Adminsitrator explained to me, any ingredient
-consciously placed there for its taste -can never be bateil.


Maybe "nothing to do with Judaism" is a nice slogan but these principles
have everything to do with Yore Dei'ah! ;-)

GV
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

martin brody wrote:
> martin brody wrote:
> 
>  > I'm not sure what significant is to the FDA, but I'm certain it's way
>  > less than shishim, probably hundreds of a part.
> 
> "This is pure speculation on your part.  There is no limit given on how
> big an insignificant ingredient can be.  I see no reason why it might not
> be as much as 3% or 5%."
>  
> No speculation. I just don't remember the amount. It's tiny. 3 or 5% by 
> definition is significant.

Are you saying that the FDA actually specifies a maximum percentage for
insignificant ingredients?  You saw this somewhere?  Or are you just
guessing?


>  > But I do agree that those that reject the concept of nullification by
>  > shishim

> "[ZS: of deliberately added ingredients that are part of the recipe]
> You mean like the Rashba?"

> The Rashba would agree that accidental shishim is batel, not deliberate. 
> But we don't pasken like him do we, anyway.

Don't we?  That depends who "we" are, doesn't it?  After all, it's
quite unusual for an acharon to argue with a rishon; did anyone learn
the Rambam like the Noda Biyhuda before the NB did so?


> Besides those that reject 
> bittul do it for mystical reasons, not because of the Rashba

?! The teshuvah we are discussing *specifically* cites the Rashba.


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

TTBOMK Lo ye'uneh letzadik kol aven is not in the Shulhan Aruch, while 
minhag yisrael, which is what your story illustrates, is found in the SA on 
page after page.

Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>


Lo ye'uneh letzadik kol aven.   If you know someone ate something, and
you maintain that it's treif, then you're saying that he has no such
protection.  This is even stronger if, as in this case, he deliberately
ate it in order to demonstrate its kashrut.

I'm reminded of a story about a machlokes between the Ksav Sofer and
the Divrei Chaim over a mikveh that the KS supported and the DC proclaimed
to be pasul.  It ended when the KS wrote to the DC that "I was born from
such a mikveh". 

 
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
>> So what's  the function of the gzeirah of shniyos?

The Maharal's answer is that  shniyos are inherently immoral, but less 
immoral that Biblical prohibitions,  so the Torah left it to the Rabbis 
to prohibit them.  But according to  the normal explanation, that this 
somehow prevents violations of Biblical  law, how does the decree work? <<

David Riceman

 
>>>>>
It doesn't work like having separate pots for milchig and  fleishig.  It 
works more in a community-wide, cosmic way.  It makes  people in general aware 
that there a lot of people you can't marry and  especially that you can't 
marry most of the people with whom you have close,  family relationships, the 
people you run into all the time and  have a  degree of emotional 
connection with -- aunts and uncles, in-laws, whatnot.   That generalized awareness 
of "can't marry relatives" makes people a little more  wary in an 
incest-taboo kind of way about getting themselves involved  romantically with MOTOS 
with whom they have more than passing contact (precisely  because they /are/ 
"family").
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100123/c73c2ef5/attachment-0001.htm>

As far as your request for distinctions between the two cases, I can 
think of several.

For one thing, people are more makpid about loaning shirts than coats. 
Shirts are more seen as personal items.  I would readily lend a guest a 
coat.  I'd feel funny about a shirt.

Another is that most people have more shirts than coats.  If I'm missing 
one shirt, I'll just wear another.  I may not have another coat. 
(Actually, in Europe it was possible I had only one shirt, but I almost 
certainly had only one coat.  B'zman hazeh we are more fortunate.)

OTOH, a coat is more valuable.

Of course, s'varas are a dime a dozen, I'm just throwing a few out for 
others to work with or not.

I would point out that this is an advantage of living somewhere without 
an eruv.  At least on Shabbos, you have no choice but to continue 
wearing the coat!

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Teaneck Carlebach Minyan is hosting Shacharis-Mussaf. The ONLY
> Sha"tz around who knows the Carlebach Nusach is an aveil.
> 
> Q:
> Since "bemakom she'ein ish" would lich'ora be operable, does he step up
> and would now be construed as a "pro" in this context - and therefore
> be permitted to be Sha"tz?

I'm not sure I understand the case.  What is "hosting"?  Do they have a 
regular Shabbos minyan, or is this a special event, and if so, what is 
its purpose?

The reason I ask, is because I don't see why the Carlebach nusach is 
m'akev.  IOW, while ther sha"tz is required to daven the nusach of the 
shul, does that even extend to singing the Carlebach niggunim?  (And 
even if it did, what would be the din in a case where the shul was 
nusach Ashkenaz and the only person qualified to lead the davening was 
an aveil and someone who could only daven Sephard?)

That's why I'm assuming there is some other purpose, such as kiruv, 
which is driving the significance being given to the niggunim.  In which 
case the question is not in the sugya you are raising at all, it is 
whether that other factor (whatever it is) outweighs aveilus.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:05:55PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
: The reason I ask, is because I don't see why the Carlebach nusach is 
: m'akev...
: That's why I'm assuming there is some other purpose, such as kiruv, 
: which is driving the significance being given to the niggunim...

Is kiruv of others a more significant factor than hiskarvus of
ourselves?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Please see the discussion starting on page 9 of the publication I 
have posted at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/chomas_hadas_bo.pdf

Note that according to page 9 of this article RSRH was one of those 
who paskened that Muscovy duck is not kosher.

You might want to read or reread the article

The Halachic Tale of Three American Birds: Turkey, Prairie Chicken, 
and Muscovy Duck by at
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/
by Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky, Ph.D. and Zohar Amar, Ph.D.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 08:55 PM 1/23/2010, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I know nothing about this organization save that it is located in
>> Williamsburg.

>> The bottom line - they have paskened that Muscovy ducks are not kosher.

>So they're willing to say that R Shmuel Salant ate treif?

I am willing to bet good money that they never read the article at 
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/  How could they? They 
most probably do not have access to the Internet.

YL

Ben Waxman wrote:
> TTBOMK Lo ye'uneh letzadik kol aven is not in the Shulhan Aruch

It's not in the shulchan aruch because it's not a mandate to *do*
anything, but it's in the gemara and taken absolutely literally by
the rishonim.


> while minhag yisrael, which is what your story illustrates, is found
> in the SA on page after page. 

Huh?  I'm not sure what you mean by this.  What does the story have to
do with minhag yisrael?  The point of the story is that the Divrei Chaim
was unwilling to call the Chasam Sofer a boel nidah.

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

I regret using "Carlebach". It set off an unintended reaction

I probably could have said, the local "Belzer shtibble" has only one
amateur Shatz who knows their traditional niggunim and R"L he became
an aveil. And that they only gather for shacharis about once a month,
otherwise they daven only Qabbalas Shabbos.

I cannot tell you how much "noise" the term Carlebach generated.

I know that my old yekkisher shul was VERY uncomfortable with a shatz
who did not know the Yekke Nusash. I won't go into the entire history
but even a guest shatz was expected to have a sensibility of the peculiar
minhaggim etc.

While We WERE tolerant of non-Yekke Lainers on occasion, but not so much
so for baalei t'fillah

I would assume that certain other groups have a similarly "canned" nusach.

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


aveil only davened mincha erev Shabbos
The ba'al shacharis was a newbie and so he only knew the nusach so-so
but was quite OK anyway. The ba'al musaph was a bit more knowledgable.

So B"H it all worked out OK.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The source for the Kitzur is the SA Choshen Mishpat 136:1.

The Be'er Hagola traces it to a Braisa in Bava Basra 46 and adds a few
words to the effect that it's not unheard of for somebody to sell
their clothes to the cleaners.

That would explain why the SA has a longer version than the Kitzur:

"Somebody whose clothes get switched at the workman can use them until
the owner comes and asks for them - but only if the artisan gave them
to him. If his wife/kids gave them to him then he can't use them. And
even then, only if the artisan says "take these clothes" but if he
says "these YOUR clothes" he may not use them."

- Danny

Rn Toby
> It makes people in general aware that there a lot of people you can't
> marry and especially that you can't marry most of the people with whom
> you have close, family relationships, the people you run into all the
> time and have a degree of emotional connection with -- aunts and uncles,
> in-laws, whatnot. That generalized awareness of "can't marry relatives"
> makes people a little more wary in an incest-taboo kind of way about
> getting themselves involved romantically with MOTOS with whom they have
> more than passing contact (precisely because they /are/ "family"). --
 
AIUI this is also the rationale for issur MZ 
 
It ALL ties in to a feeling of safety from "sexual predatory behavior". 
 
IOW the Torah is concerned that family memebers should not feel
threatened, nor the males going to a mikvah or public bath.
 
To me that is the common denominator underlying social-spirtual-psychological 
Hashqafah of much of these "taboos". 
 
KT 
TTW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

t6...@aol.com wrote:
> From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
>  >> So what's the function of the gzeirah of shniyos?

>> The Maharal's answer is that shniyos are inherently immoral, but less
>> immoral that Biblical prohibitions, so the Torah left it to the Rabbis
>> to prohibit them.  But according to the normal explanation, that this
>> somehow prevents violations of Biblical law, how does the decree work? <<

> It doesn't work like having separate pots for milchig and fleishig.  It 
> works more in a community-wide, cosmic way.  It makes people in general 
> aware that there a lot of people you can't marry and especially that you 
> can't marry most of the people with whom you have close, family 
> relationships, the people you run into all the time and  have a degree 
> of emotional connection with -- aunts and uncles, in-laws, whatnot.  
> That generalized awareness of "can't marry relatives" makes people a 
> little more wary in an incest-taboo kind of way about getting themselves 
> involved romantically with MOTOS with whom they have more than passing 
> contact (precisely because they /are/ "family").

So then why didn't they ban uncles marrying their nieces, and in fact
encouraged it?  And why not ban cousin marriages too?  Surely they are
at least as emotionally close as some of the shniyos which they did ban.

This also goes to those who have claimed that when the outside world
comes to regard something as immoral, we should adopt that value and
not do it either.  The Xian world, at least, has long banned uncle-niece
marriages, and much of it has banned first-cousin marriages; many USAns
seem to have a deep-seated revulsion for cousin marriages.  And yet Jews
have not changed our ways, and continue to see nothing wrong with them
(though demographic changes have made them less common than they used to
be ~100 years ago).

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

I never heard the story but from the quote you gave all the CS is saying is 
that my community uses such a mikveh, this is a community of Torah learners, 
and since this is our minhag, it must be kosher. But not that "I am a 
tzaddik (or my father was a tzaddik) and therefore the mikvah must be 
kosher.

I have no doubt that the Beit Yosef would indeed say that the Rema ate treif 
if the Rema ate non-glatt meat.

Ben 

t6...@aol.com wrote:
> It doesn't work like having separate pots for milchig and fleishig.  
> It works more in a community-wide, cosmic way.  It makes people in 
> general aware that there a lot of people you can't marry and 
> especially that you can't marry most of the people with whom you have 
> close, family relationships, the people you run into all the time and  
> have a degree of emotional connection with -- aunts and uncles, 
> in-laws, whatnot.
But you can marry your uncle even though you can't marry your aunt (or, 
to put it another way, a man may marry his niece but not his aunt, and a 
woman may marry her uncle but not her nephew).  How is normative halacha 
easier to comprehend than the d'orayysas would be if we didn't have the 
d'rabbanans?
>   That generalized awareness of "can't marry relatives" makes people a 
> little more wary in an incest-taboo kind of way about getting 
> themselves involved romantically with MOTOS with whom they have more 
> than passing contact (precisely because they /are/ "family").
>  
David Riceman

We were once called Perushim because of how Chazal kept us separated
from issurim. So perhaps the way to understand dinim derabbanan is to
look at perishus.

See Meslias Yesharim ch 13. The following is from R' Shraga Silverstein's
translation, available at <http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm>
(the link in the corner will bring you to the Hebrew original):

    If you look into the matter you will perceive three distinct levels
    -- the forbidden things themselves, their fences (the edicts and
    safeguards that our Sages of blessed memory made binding on all of
    Israel), and the "withdrawals" that those committed to Separation
    must create for themselves by circumscribing themselves and building
    fences for themselves; that is, by abstaining from things which were
    permitted, which were not proscribed to all of Israel, and separating
    themselves from them so as to be far removed from evil.

IOW, chumros are like issurim derabbanan, but not generalizable to the
masses. So, perhaps we can take the taxonomy of perishus given in ch 14
and read it back to gezeiros:

    THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving
    pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively.

    Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the
    previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what
    is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything
    which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the
    pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls,
    conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such
    times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah.

    Separation in relation to laws consists in one's being stringent
    with himself to the extent of taking cognizance of even a sole
    dissenting view in a controversy if there is justice to it, even if
    the law is not decided in accordance with it (if the more stringent
    view is not actually more lenient relative to his situation), and in
    one's not taking the easier alternative in cases of doubt, though
    permitted to do so....

    Separation in relation to conduct consists in one's secluding and
    separating himself from society in order to turn his heart to Divine
    service and to proper reflection upon it. In this, though, one must
    be careful to avoid the other extreme; ... The proper course to
    follow is to associate with reputable persons for as long as may be
    necessary in the interest of Torah study or of earning a livelihood
    and then to seclude oneself for the purpose of communing with God
    and attaining to ways of righteousness and to true Divine service.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 26
**************************************

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..."