Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 29

Wed, 27 Jan 2010

• 1. Worms (Tolayim) in Fish (Yitzchok Levine)
• 2. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Micha Berger)
• 3. Changes Over the Years (was Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Prof. Levine)
• 4. (no subject) (Gershon Seif)
• 5. Re: (no subject) (Gershon Dubin)
• 6. tu beshvat in sa (Shlomo Pick)
• 7. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 8. Leading Children to Faithfully Observe the Torah (Yitzchok Levine)
• 9. The nature of the flow of Torah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Two kinds of humros (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Gershon Dubin)
• 12. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Aaron Miller)
• 13. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Gershon Seif)
• 14. Re: re Coca cola ingredients (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

Recently a document was posted about worms in fish that claims that 
most fish contain worms, and therefore one should refrain from eating 
many kinds of fish. See 
http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com/wp-content/uploads/mehadrinanisak
is.pdf 
Note that no one has signed his name to this document.  Indeed, I 
know nothing about Chevrah Mehadrin, Kashrus Advocacy of Rockland.

In addition, R. Yudel Shain has put a post 
at 
http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2008/12/fish-infested-with-worms-i
n-flesh.html 
under the heading 
<http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2008/12/fish-infested-with-worms-i
n-flesh.html>


<http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2008/12/fish-infested-with-worms-i
n-flesh.html>FISH 
INFESTED WITH WORMS IN THE FLESH-including canned salmon

Given this, I contacted the OU to get some information about this 
issue.  I have learned the following:

Rav Yisroel Belsky has issued a psak for the OU, stating that there 
is no need to check for worms and no prohibition of the worms found 
in wild salmon and other fish, in accordance with Shulchan Aruch  Y"D 
84:16. According to this psak, he states that the Shulchan Aruch does 
not limit the permissibility of Tolayim found in the flesh of fish to 
any species of tolaas. The halacha states that the tolaas found in 
the flesh of the fish is mutar, and there is no reason to believe 
present day Tolayim are any different from those found in the past.

There is an audio presentation made by Rav Belsky last year 
at  http://www.ouradio.org/index.php/ouradio/comment/9742/ In it he 
notes that the SA did not require one to be an expert in the Tolayim 
found in the fish flesh to know how they got into the flesh, either 
from the viscera [The internal organs of the body, specifically those 
within the chest (as the 
<http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3668>heart or 
<http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4209>lungs) 
or 
<http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2081>abdomen 
(as the 
<http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4179>liver, 
<http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4743>pancreas 
or intestines).] or from some other source. If the tolaas clearly 
came from the viscera after death,  the tolaas would indeed be forbidden.

He also said that the concern that the Tolayim found in the flesh of 
fish may have migrated from the viscera after the death of the fish 
and would be forbidden is not based on any scientific research. Based 
on his own inquiries of experts in the field, Rav Belsky feels that, 
in fact,  the opposite is true, and that the Tolayim in question are 
to be found in the flesh of the fish while it was 
alive.  Furthermore, Rav Belsky said  that the size of the tolaas 
when it is swallowed by the fish is not relevant.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100126/29d4c65e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 09:56:29AM -0800, Gershon Seif wrote:
: Someone who accepts the authority of chazal, the Geonim and Rishonim, but
: looks at all esoteric statements of even chazal as allegory, and uses the
: Mahartz Chajes as his reason for this, is not interested in hearing from
: the zohar as an expert about anything. This person wants sources from the
: halachic tradition itself stating that past the times of Nevuah, and
: Chagai, Zecharia and Malachi, Ruach haKodesh was imbued in chazal.
: Telling them about the experts of esoteric Torah is almost laughable to
: them. It is circular reasoning. They agree to be bound to Nevuah. That is
: the basis of the authority of the the Torah and halacha. But beyond that,
: they wonder and want proof.

In practice, such people are rare among O. You would be talking about
someone who doesn't alternate hands three times when washing neigl vasr,
which he doesn't necessarily wash until right before Shacharis. Washing
before haMotzi would be equally vanilla.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 08:02 AM 1/27/2010, RRW wrote:
>
>Think of the machloqes SA haRav and Siddur Harav re: tefillin on ChhM. If
>one's ancestors were Ashkenazim they all wore t'fillin during ChhM until
>Hasssidism and GRA changed it
>
>Here's another for S'phardim re: N'filas apayim
>Hida opposes the Rema's requirement of Sefer Torah and claims n'filat
>apayim does not require a Sefer Torah. But nowadays most edot mizrach
>don't do n'filat apayim at all.
>
>There are probably dozens of similar changes over the years.
>
>KT
>RRW

For more on this, I suggest that people listen to Rabbi Binyamin 
Hamburger's talk <http://www.yiwb.org/Rabbi%20Hamburger.mp3>Rabbi 
Hamburger-Ashkenaz/Sfard  There you will hear some things that I 
found most interesting. For example, that Rav Shach put on tefillin 
at home during Chol Moed when he lived in EY;  saying Kaddish Yasim 
more than once a day may be problematic; more than one person saying 
kaddish has it problems, etc.

There have indeed been many changes over the years.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100127/5d6fb361/attachment-0001.htm>

<<You could add the Raavad saying "kefar hofiya Ruach Hakodesh beveis midrashenu>>

Do you know where this Raavad can be found?

"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100127/68bdde05/attachment-0001.htm>

I didn't but Bar Ilan is my friend <g>  Hilchos Shofar Sukka velulav Perek 8 Halacha 5.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Gershon Seif <gershons...@yahoo.com>
To: gershon.du...@juno.com
Cc: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:26:28 -0800 (PST)

<<You could add the Raavad saying "kefar hofiya Ruach Hakodesh beveis midrashenu>>

Do you know where this Raavad can be found?

"
____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=l728y61LDsXYn_QSmvdwwwAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100127/9447aa39/attachment-0001.htm>

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are 18 references to tu beshvat in the
mechaber's shulchan aruch (btw how often did rav dovid zvi hoffman quote mb
[16 times] or oh [28 times]? - the rav referred to r. dz hoffman's exam).

Orach chayim: 131:6 for tachanum

572:3 twice - hil. Ta'aniyot

Yd 294:4 (orla) 4 times

Yd. 294:5

Yd 331:57 (twice), terumot uma'asrot 

Yd 331:125 (4 times)

Yd 331:126 (3 times)

Yd 331:127 

A total of 18 times and thanks to the responsa project.

Shlomo 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100127/ebc28525/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW:
?the Zohar would be a great barometer for judging this - regardless of its origins.?

Gershon:
?skeptics would likely not agree?.

I'm skeptical about that observation! ;-) 
Why would skeptics doubt the zohar's word regarding the realm of the esoteric?
Unless they are just being contrary...?


RRW:
Tangentially, IIRC an early Ashk'nazi Rishon commented that the Hilchos Alfasi were written b'ruach haqodesh....?

Gershon:
?it would be nice to have more specific details about that?

Google 
RIF rabbi isaac alfasi and ruach hakodesh and see what you get

Here's one - hope you read portueguese!

Magazine Morash? - Articles 
http://
translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&;sl=pt&u=http://www.morasha.com.br/conteudo/artigos/artigos_view.asp%3
Fa%3D643%26p%3D3&;prev=/search%3Fq%3Drabbi%2Bisaac%2Balfasi%2Brif%2B
%252B%2Bruach%
[or http://bit.ly/cJ4GdA
The original Portugese is at
http://www.morasha.com.br/conteudo/artigos/artigos_view.asp?a=643&;p=3
-micha]

> Rabbi Isaac ben Shmuel haZaken, wise in the 11th century, has commented
> on the RIF as follows: "A man does not work in vain to produce a work of
> this template, unless the Spirit of God hovers over it." In light of such
> a declaration, we conclude with a story that demonstrates that the IFA
> had not only extraordinary mind, but Ruach HaKodesh - the Divine Spirit.

[Email #2. -micha]

Gershon:
> So to say to a skeptic "The Zohar of questionable authorship to you,
> is the expert on matter of the esoteric which you don't understand or
> comprehend and have no way of validating by using your reasoning you
> must trust us when we say this book knows about that stuff the best"
> means very little.

But that's not what I said

I said regardless of the question of authorship Zohar IS accepted as a
reliable expert on the esoteric!

Read Gershom Scholem! He brings to bear all kinds of opinions on the
Zohar's origins but AFAIK does not question its expertise on Qabbalah!

Does anyone else question its esoteric pronouncements?

One may reject esoterica completely as invalid but that would STILL not
imply the Zohar is THE leading source of Jewish esoterica!

Illustration:
Would a Qaraite even question that the Talmud is the primary text of
Rabbinic Judaism? I think not!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RSRH writes the following in his commentary on Shemos 13

8 And then you shall tell your child on that day: 
It is because of this that God acted for me when I came out from Egypt.

As already noted at the outset (v. 3), Pesach is the festival that is to
mark the upbuilding of the Jewish home, an upbuilding to be continually
renewed on the basis of the redemption from Egypt. Here, in
commanding us in regard to the festival, Scripture also delineates the
task of Jewish education:

Not through unthinking habit, nor through mere moralizing, should
our children be led to faithfully observe the Torah?s commandments;
those methods will not suffice. Rather, we must show them the way by
our own enthusiastic example, and at the same time awaken their hearts
and minds by explaining to them what it is we are doing, so that they
learn to practice the mitzvos with intelligence and awareness, and become
excited about and fascinated by the task of Judaism.

B'avoor ze ? because of these practices, and because of all such practices
that you see me perform. When I went forth from slavery to freedom,
my sole contribution toward the attainment of this freedom was
my commitment to observe these commandments as an obligation for
all time. This commitment was the sole reason for my deliverance, and
my fulfillment of the commitment was the sole purpose of my redemption.
Everything else, God did for me. From this you can understand
the incalculable significance of these practices. It is on them that our
whole existence, based on God and dependent upon Him, rests. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100124/dd811294/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:15pm GMT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote
on the thread "When did Judaism begin?":
: This dovetails with the "split" between Ashkenazic approach to Halachah
: and the Andalusian-Sephardic approach

I'm not sure one can speak of "the Andalusian-Sepharadic" approach.
Reasons to follow...

: Ashk'naz - Torah is treated like "common law" and is based upon precedent,
: etc.
...
: Rambam holds Torah is legislated
: First @ Sinai
: Then Bd Hagadol in Y-layim
...

I think this is uniquely Rambam. As I already quoted a few times
recently, the Rambam explicitly says he is breaking from someone --
probably the Rif -- on this very issue. The standard approach, taken
by the Rif and R' Avraham ben haRambam, aside from people not on either
side of his chain of mesorah (eg Rashi) is that a the most relevent
element of a tanna's statement is how it's developed by amora'im,
which in turn is binding in terms of how it was understood by the
geonim. The Rambam himself explicitly states that he used to do the
same (following someone who isn't named; probably the Rif)
but changed his mind before the Yad. For the rest of his life, the
Rambam aspired to understand maamarim from a clean slate.

But that's distinctly Rambam, not Andalusian in general.

Just as neither the IE nor R' Avraham b' haRambam were rationists,
regardless of their being no less Sepharadi than the Rambam. (The IE
was an astrologer from Tudela, in Narvonne, but he too fled the Almohads
and spent most of his life in Northern Africa, Egypt and EY.)

Personally, I think it all flows from his Aristotilian attitude toward
the role of knowledge, and thus Truth. The Rambam sees ethical perfection
as secondary, a side-effect of man's primary quest of yedi'ah.

And so it's unsurprising that he concluded that TSBP is something to be
known, with a single Truth, rather than a redemptive process for
creating law.

But I think he was a daas yachid, and it wasn't too long after that even
the Andalusians were ripe for adhering to the SA, written by a mequbal
no less, rather than the Yad.

: It's top-down. Authoritarian.
: More Sinai like
: 
: EG You don't see a lot of "yeish omrims" in Mishnah Torah, because there
: is ONE way.

OTOH, the Bavli is sevara oriented, but has less of a variety of shitos
than the Y-mi. And the Y-mi tends to resolve things based on who had
meqoros in tannaim instead of that sevara. I think it's because the
Rambam isn't about Authority -- that would be establishing law, not
finding truth. "Qabel es ha'emes mimi she'omro" gives reason to defy
authority in a quest for emes.

The reason why there is only ONE way is again because he is seeking
truth. Law or technique could have multiple right answers. That is
harder to say about Truth (particularly when you only have classic
logics).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 04:44:23PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >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.

: This doesn't help with respect to shniyos ba'arayos.  They don't 
: restrict marriage in any way; they restrict only the choice of whom to 
: marry.

My comparison was to the taxonomy in Mesilas Yesharim ch 14.

I was just suggesting that gezeiros and dinim derabbanan also come in
three flavors, depending on whether they keep us away from what HQBH is
telling us is wrong, whether they prevent violations by procedurally
distancing ourselves from the act (gezeiros), or whether they place
us in the proper society.

I'm not sure it works. But it's an intriguing parallel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

<<Gershon:
> So to say to a skeptic "The Zohar of questionable authorship to you,
> is the expert on matter of the esoteric which you don't understand or
> comprehend and have no way of validating by using your reasoning you
> must trust us when we say this book knows about that stuff the best"
> means very little.

But that's not what I said>>
Neither did I <g>

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=_57QZi3OAJSgsqUPEK2gNgAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100127/874e8358/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha,
You think those people are rare?!  I would disagree, what do you guys think?

Aaron

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 09:56:29AM -0800, Gershon Seif wrote:
> : Someone who accepts the authority of chazal, the Geonim and Rishonim, but
> looks at all esoteric statements of even chazal as allegory, and uses the
> Mahartz Chajes as his reason for this, is not interested in hearing from the
> zohar as an expert about anything. This person wants sources from the
> halachic tradition itself stating that past the times of Nevuah, and Chagai,
> Zecharia and Malachi, Ruach haKodesh was imbued in chazal. Telling them
> about the experts of esoteric Torah is almost laughable to them. It is
> circular reasoning. They agree to be bound to Nevuah. That is the basis of
> the authority of the the Torah and halacha. But beyond that, they wonder and
> want proof.
>
> In practice, such people are rare among O. You would be talking about
> someone who doesn't alternate hands three times when washing neigl vasr,
> which he doesn't necessarily wash until right before Shacharis. Washing
> before haMotzi would be equally vanilla.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
> mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100127/3dbc668c/attachment-0001.htm>

<<the Zohar would be a great barometer for judging this - regardless of
its origins.>>

skeptics would likely not agree.

<<Tangentially, IIRC an early Ashk'nazi Rishon commented that the Hilchos
Alfasi were written b'ruach haqodesh....>>

it would be nice to have more specific details about that

[Email #2. -mi]

Someone who accepts the authority of chazal, the Geonim and Rishonim,
but looks at all esoteric statements of even chazal as allegory, and
uses the Mahartz Chajes as his reason for this, is not interested in
hearing from the zohar as an expert about anything. This person wants
sources from the halachic tradition itself stating that past the times
of Nevuah, and Chagai, Zecharia and Malachi, Ruach haKodesh was imbued
in chazal. Telling them about the experts of esoteric Torah is almost
laughable to them. It is circular reasoning. They agree to be bound
to Nevuah. That is the basis of the authority of the the Torah and
halacha. But beyond that, they wonder and want proof.

[Email #3. -mi]

[Micha:]
> In practice, such people are rare among O. You would be talking about
> someone who doesn't alternate hands three times when washing neigl vasr,
> which he doesn't necessarily wash until right before Shacharis. Washing
> before haMotzi would be equally vanilla.

Your point about negel vasser is a good point and I was also wondering
about that. The person I'm talking to certainly washes neigel vasser and
I assume he would never stop doing so. It's in the mishna b'rura but I
wonder why he would feel bound to the mishna berura if he is doubting
these fundamentals the mishna berura assumes are fact.

(Not that this would mean much to him, but as I recall, there's a story
in Shivchei HaBesh"t where the baal shem tov met up with a frog who was
a gilgul stuck in the body of this frog. He revealed to the BS"T that
all his sins started when he became lax in netilas Yadayim. Maybe it's
connected to this question of yours.)

As for your point about Hamotzi though, isn't washing before hamotzi a
takkana of chazal atu tumma with truma? Why would someone who accepts
the authority of chazal have a problem with that?

[Email #4. -mi]

Skeptics have a hard time dealing with the esoteric. So to say to a
skeptic "The Zohar, of questionable authorship to you, is the expert on
matter of the esoteric, which you don't understand or comprehend and
have no way of validating by using your reasoning, you must trust us
when we say this book knows about that stuff the best", means very little.

[Email #5. -mi]

Thank you Rabbi Eidensohn for your list of sources.

Of course the person that I am discussing this with will reject the Leshem
unless he considers his point to be absolutely convincing, which he will
not. The same goes for the letters of the Chazon Ish which don't show
us why he knows this, theyjust say these are ikarim and to not believe
this if kefira.

<<Bava Basra (12a): See *Ramban and Chasam Sofer>> looking forward to
learning this up.

<<*Sanhedrin (11a):**With *the death of the last prophets?Chagai,
Zechariah and Malachi?ruach hakodesh left the Jews. Nevertheless, they
still were able to utilize Bas Kol>>

Is Bas Kol the equivalent or greater than Ruach Hakodesh? Is there a
source for that?

<<*Chasam Sofer (1:208):*

*Meshech Chochma (Vayikra 26:44):*>>

I will look those up and get back to you if I have some questions.

Thanks again

[Email #6. -mi]

<<See the Hakdama of Rav Reuvein Margoliyas to his edition of the Sefer
"Shu"t Min HaShomayim">>

Sounds intriguing. It's not the kind of sefer you see in most Batei
Medrash. I might just order one. Is there a long list of what I'm after
in there?

R' Arie Folger wrote:

> Flavorings are some of the most complex food additives and can
> have dozens or even over a hundred ingredients.
> ...
> But none of the individual ingredients are felt, when tasting
> the mixture, kal va'homer when tasting the final product that
> merely contains the mixture.

I've often pondered this concept. I may not actually taste any given
ingredient, but that doesn't mean that its presence doesn't impact on the
taste which I do perceive.

In RAF's example of strawberry flavoring. If one of those hundred
components would be left out, we might very well say that, "This doesn't
really taste like strawberry" or "The flavor is off" or "Did this spoil?"
or something like that. And the proof is that the manufacturers would not
bother to include ingredient ABC unless there's a good reason to include
it.

What is the threshold for halachic significance of an ingredient? Suppose I
have two products, and they are identical in every way, except that a
certain ingredient is present in one but absent in the other. Further
suppose that where it is present, it is in a proportion less than 1/60.
Further suppose that if someone were to taste these two items, he would
tell us that he CAN perceive a difference, but cannot identify what that
difference is. Is that "significant"?

These are the ingredients, in the same sequence as printed on the package, of French's brand Classic Yellow Mustard:

- distilled vinegar
- water
- #1 grade mustard seed
- salt
- turmeric
- paprika
- spice
- natural flavors
- and garlic powder

I would be very surprised if any of us would taste this mustard and remark,
"Mmm! The garlic makes this great!" I doubt any of us would even be able to
tell that there is any garlic in there at all. Even so, I'm confident that
French's would not put it in there unless they felt it was important.

Going back to what RAF wrote:
> But none of the individual ingredients are felt, ...

What is the "shiur" of "being felt"? Suppose that instead of garlic powder,
there was a non-kosher ingredient used? Do we consider it batel unless the
taste-tester says, "I can taste the lard in this"? Or is it NOT batel
unless the taste-tester can't tell the difference?

In the classic Bitul B'Shishim case, we know exactly which ingredient fell
into the pot by mistake, so it is easy to ask the taste-tester (yeah, yeah,
I know we don't use a tester nowadays, let's talk theoretically...) whether
or not he can taste any of the food that fell into the pot. But that's not
our case. In our case, we don't even know whether or not any of the
ingredients are non-kosher to begin with; much less do we know which flavor
to ask the tester about.

So how does Bitul work in this case? On the one hand, we know that the
non-Jew did put these ingredients into the food deliberately. On the other
hand, even the non-Jew doesn't know their kashrus status, because he had no
reason or desire to investigate such a thing.

I suspect that this is one of those things which cannot be answered Al
Regel Achas. Rather, the answer requires a thorough study of Hilchos
Taaruvos. Too many subjects are mixed together here. The ingredient was
added deliberately, but by a non-Jew, so does it count as L'chatchila or
B'diavad? And so on...

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=jc_8XIPIlKt2HC-1KmsyzQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 29
**************************************

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..."