Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 97

Tue, 13 Apr 2010

• 1. Our Attitude Toward Mitzvos (Yitzchok Levine)
• 2. Haleiv HaCompanies (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: re Popcorn (martin brody)
• 12. poor yoledes (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 13. Tiqun Layl HaSeder vs. Tiqun Layl Shavuos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (Michael Poppers)

What should our attitude toward observing mitzvos be?  I have at 
times heard people say, "I do this and that, but such and such I do 
not believe that I have to do."

Rav Dr. Breuer in his essay Chorev: One Hundred Years that appears in 
the new book A Unique Perspective writes

To him who is imbued with such an unshakeable emunah, Rav
Hirsch addresses the theme of his interpretive essays with these
powerful words:

Even if every Divine precept were a riddle to us and
presented us with a thousand unsolved and insoluble problems,
the obligatory character of the commandments would
not in the slightest degree be impaired by this. Whatever
command or prohibition of God it may be that prompts one
to ask why one should do this and not that, there is always
but one and the same answer: Because it is the Will of God,
and it is your duty to be the servant of God with all your
powers and resources and with every breath of your life. This
answer is not only adequate; it is essentially the only one
possible, and it would remain so if we were ourselves able to
penetrate into the reason for every commandment, or if God
Himself had disclosed to us the reason for His commandments.
We should have to perform them, not because there
was such-and-such a reason for any commandment, but because
God had ordained it. How else could we be servants of
God? How else could we obey God?

For him [Rav Hirsch] there is only one possible and adequate answer, and
that is: service to God. How else could we, whose lives are determined
by God's Will, be servants of God, if we did not let God give
direction to our lives and submit to Him in humble obedience? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100411/0227501c/attachment-0001.htm>

Here is a simple approach to what I've been trying to say

First
Toss aside any "idea framing" and examine the sources w/o any subsequent
embellishment

-- Begin Digression--
EG my host Friday night chol hamoed insisted upon preaching to me that
the Mah Nishtaneh was NEVER intended for the children to recite and
proceeded to paraphrase Rashi/Rashbam and the Mishnah itself to make
his point!

--Begin Sarcasm --
HMMMM Where have I heard this point before ;-) 

At any rate being stubbornly commited to having the youngest recite the
shebchal halaylos, why should anyone re-examine to see how it used to
be done? Let's simply presume that it's ALWAYS been so!
--end sarcasm--
--end digression --

Second
The Mishnah and Talmud tells us about permitted milk

Mishnah:
Milk milked by a Gentile with "a Jew seeing him.."

Braisso - "with a Jew sitting there"

Gmara - with a Jew sitting there w/o seeing but who COULD
see. Why? Intimidation [mirsas]

Issue
Hazal were chosheish for a Gentile using some or all milk from a
non-kosher animal [EG pig]

Two points - 1 explicit
1 implicit.

Explicit -
If the Gentile is intimidated goodbye ch'shash

Implicit - 
If no non-kosher animals are there it's also OK

Dynamic:
Hazal have a ch'shash Intimidation OR the absence of contaminants removes
this ch'shash.

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


the Shu"t inside again]

USDA successfully imposes the same amount of intimidation as an Israelite
in the vicinity who may or may not be seeing. So usda equates to
Yisroel Yosheiv.

Corollary - video cameras can also provide sufficient intimidation.  

+++++++++++++++

Wolpoe's confusion
Why is Anan Sahadi needed?

I don't see it as helping or hurting. Maybe the Anan Sahadi IS that the
USDA is an intimidator. I'm not sure why a simple judgment by a poseiq
can't accomplish this. I would suppose video cameras would work even
w/o a field test - so long as the Gentiles are sufficiently informed
that they are - or even MIGHT BE - observed.

+++++++++++++++

The issue of having a Jew literlally and physically SEE [IE Roeihu]
is in the mishnah but not in the Halachah. I am told that al pi sod
some require physically SEEING. Al pi sod perhaps, but AFAICT not al
pi Shas and Posqim

+++++++++++++++

Why doesn't KAJ EG accept this heter?  Perhaps

A. KAJ sees USDA as NOT so intimidating so it's a machloqes in shiqqul
hadda'as [or in metzius]

Or 

B KAJ has many Europeans. USDA is insufficient because of a "lo plug"
that we want a single GLOBAL standard of Haleiv Yisroel - and NOT to
Be subject to the vagaries of local gov't agencies.

+++++++++++++++

If my approach appears overly simplistic. Perhaps so. I'm not pasqening
- I'm being M'vareir [pun intended] how the USDA factor can work ICW
the words of Shas - w/o any embellishment by EG Acharonim.

Q: Dear Rabbi Wolpoe: Might there be external factors in the halachic
universe NOT addressed by this sugya alone?

A: Perhaps so. So far I haven't seen anything convincing yet.

Homework to me:
I need to re-read the first RMF/IM Shu"t on this

Homework to the readers:
If any rishonim add embellishments to this sugya that would trigger the
NEED for " EG anan sahadi" plz post them

After drafting this before posting it, I was informed that the Pri
Chadash indeed does have such a concern of Birur.

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



While learning SA, I came across this related issue of Mirsas

See SA-YD 68:12
Re: a Gentile doing m'ligah w/o an Israelite supervising... 

Even when a naar or naara are there who understand [or are capable of
understanding] it's muttar.

Be'er Hagolah 20
Shach 34 
Creisi 21 
mishum d'mirsas
Ba'er Hetev 23 quotes shach
GRA 36
Just like sh'chita and yayn nesech, yotzei v'nichnas m'hani

Re: Meisi'ach lefi sumo
It's a machloqes Shach and other acharonim

AISI - this aspect of Birur is gray, but mirsas is not - because again
AISI it's NOT birur but ch'shash removal

See Darchei T'shuva et al. who discuss what if the Gentile was
disobedient, this AIUI restores ch'shash by removing mirsas.

Good Voch
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Actually a giyorit who raised pigs in her former farm told me that there is
absolutely no need to worry about pig milk being in your cow milk. Anyone
who tries to milk a pig will very quickly find the pigs teeth biting their
hand.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
>
> Issue
> Hazal were chosheish for a Gentile using some or all milk from a
> non-kosher animal [EG pig]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 03:55:09PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Actually a giyorit who raised pigs in her former farm told me that there is
: absolutely no need to worry about pig milk being in your cow milk. Anyone
: who tries to milk a pig will very quickly find the pigs teeth biting their
: hand.

OTOH, many cultures drink mare's milk and camel milk.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Just a side comment, to help see the issue in a larger historical context...

Regarding Rav Moshe Feinstein's position, R' Zev Sero wrote:

> he says were it not for the gezerah we wouldn't need to worry
> about anything.  We could drink the milk just as we eat all
> sorts of things that we assume there are no problems with. (e.g.
> everyone makes fun of the need for a hechsher on bottled water,
> even though it is theoretically possible that the bottling
> machine could have been used for clam juice or something.)

I think that an even better example would be eggs. We are very aware not to
buy a filleted fish without reliable eidus of its species. But we buy eggs
from anyone.

If an eggs is round at both ends, or pointy at both ends, that is a siman
that the eggs is from a nonkosher bird. But if the egg is poited at one end
and round at the other, that is NOT a siman of kashrus, because both kosher
and nonkosher birds produce such eggs.

The reason generic eggs are accepted as kosher with no further
investigation is that in our society, selling eggs other than chicken eggs
is simply not done (unless they are labeled as such) - YD 86:2. It seems to
me that this is an excellent example of where Chazal could have made a
gezera, but they simply saw no need to do so. Milk and fish are different
from eggs, but only because nonkosher milk and nonkosher fish do get sold
in the marketplace while nonkosher eggs don't.

If tamei milk was as rare back then as tamei eggs were, then the gezera of Haleiv Yisrael would never have been instituted.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
PMP Certification Prep
100% Online PMP Exam Prep course from Villanova University. Learn More.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4bc1e5cf7d3da1cd507st04vuc

Akiva Miller kennethgmil...@juno.com
> If tamei milk was as rare back then as tamei eggs were, then the gezera
> of Haleiv Yisrael would never have been instituted.

Especially when the cheshash was mostly about the ADDING of tamei milk
to otherwise kosher milk - something less likely with fish and eggs
[Though one might say that some unkosher eggs or fish might have been
sold together in a solid mixture]

Also IIRC certain tamei milk [pig's?] had a Greenish tinge

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I wrote earlier:
> A few quick points
> What situations have the following factors
> - Limited M'lacha
> - Issur Taspores
> - Issur Nisuin?

> While There are perhaps a number of valid answers Moed Qatan has two
> that primarily fits our bill viz.

> Chol Haoed
> And
> Aveilus

> This is a hint to my sheeta on how this may have developed and evolved
> over time

> I concur with Micha that this is Gaonic. ...

> Add to this the not-so-popular sheeta of the Arizal that all 49 days
> are assur b'taspores

NB: RZS emended the above to say: 
- Up to but not including 49 and
- And when Erev Shavuos is Shabbos even a day earlier is mutar --


RRW continues
> and maybe we can reconstruct the history a bit
> Before I post my hypothesis I would like to check out a Ramban on Humash

This "Ramban" is apparently a Red Herring. I seem to have mis-remembered...

*******************

Given: 
Tur O"Ch 493[:4] says "sheva shabassos" suggests a slight limitation of
m'lachah during s'fira
[Echoed in KSA 120:10 where AISI his phrasing is more Tur than SA]

Hypothesis:

Originally these minhagim of S'fira were
A. Observed Throughout S'fira [As Per Zohar - Arizal ]
B. Were NOT about aveilus 
C. Rather they were really about a quasi-hol hamoed Minhag ending in
the Atzeres that is Shavuous

D. This quasi hol hamoed was observed via issurim of
1. Tapsores
2 Nissuin
3 m'lachah [partial]
[But not other practices]

E. Issur Taspores was exempted Erev YT Shavuous as an exception [see
elu m'glachin for other hol hamoed exceptions]

What Happened?

F. Eventually Gaonim favored seeing these observances as aveilus for
Talmidei R Akiva, and limited the scope to 33 days
[Pras Shavuos] out of 49 - about two-thirds

Digression:
A Recent Passover guest told me he observes the FIRST 33 days so that
during Chol Hamoed he may listen to music

I pointed out
"AHA so you're NOT mourning the entire first 33 days after all!" IOW he
is in effect using Hol HaMoed to reduce his mourning observence.

G. In Ashkenaz, due to the massacres during the Crusades - the last part
of sefira became emphasized - and so the last 33 days were assigned.

The issurim recorded were as above

Future thread BEH - 
"Who First Said It? 9 - Issur Music during Sefirah"

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RRW
> While learning SA, I came across this related issue of Mirsas

> See SA-YD 68:12
> Re: a Gentile doing m'ligah w/o an Israelite supervising... 

> Even when a naar or naara are there who understand [or are capable of
> understanding] it's muttar. [Shach et al. - Due to Mirsas] ...

More on dynamic of Mirsas

Also See SA YD 69:10
Re:
A  a Gentile servant
B  Hadachah acharona after M'lichah
C  Yotzei v'nichnas
D  Shum qatan ben da'as
E  Meisi'ach lefi tumo

See GRA 46
Same sh'chita and yayn nesech as above

Shach 42
Meisiach lefi tumo NOT OK - as before
Lefi hamchabeir
[AISI an element of birur]
However
"Davka Mirsas Mehani" [intimidation]

Rema here is meiqel
Either ML"T or Mirsas
Where Mirsas includes the above
C  Yotzei v'nichnas
D  Shum qatan ben da'as

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RZS
> The Zohar compares the preparation for mattan torah to a nidah rising
> out of her tum'ah and preparing for her chosson.  It specifically refers
> to the hair grown during her time of tum'ah being cut in order to become
> tahor.

OK let's grant that this Zohar and Arizal address the taspores aspect

What-about the nissuin aspect?

All 48 days?
33 days?
Other??

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> RZS
>> The Zohar compares the preparation for mattan torah to a nidah rising
>> out of her tum'ah and preparing for her chosson.  It specifically refers
>> to the hair grown during her time of tum'ah being cut in order to become
>> tahor.
> 
> OK let's grant that this Zohar and Arizal address the taspores aspect
> 
> What-about the nissuin aspect?
> 
> All 48 days?
> 33 days?
> Other??

AFAIK there is nobody who does not permit weddings on Lag Ba'omer.


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

Bit late, but although I said I learned it via Rav Kook, it appears that his
source was the Shulchan Aruch HaRav *4*53:5, and I presume the prevalent
custom.
Hope that helps.
Martin Brody

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, martin brody <martinlbr...@gmail.com>wrote:

> martin brody wrote:
> > Not only is popcorn not a problem, but nor is corn on the cob as long as
> > it is roasted on a bar b q for example and not boiled, for example.
> Tinned
> > corn kernels would be a problem too, of course.
>
> Source?
>
> --
> Daniel M. Israel
> d...@cornell.edu
>
> Source for what?
> Corn not being Kitnyot? R.Yitzchak Abadi, amongst others.Besides, it was
> discovered after the original proscriptions. I think the Chaye Adam added
> potatoes too, but does anybody agree with that?
>
> For it being somewhat kitnyot but OK to eat as long as it isn't quasi
> chumetz? Rav Kook.
> Hope that was what you were asking.
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Brody
>
>


-- 
Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100411/50af03c9/attachment-0001.htm>

saw  in a sefer  that r shalom of  belz [?sar shalom]   asks  why does zos 
toras hayoledes precede the poor yoledes'  korban?  ---- answer-  because 
it's not the normal for  the yoledes  to be  poor.
i just need some help with this , since it would seem to be the general 
tenor to say that   poverty is exceptional abnormal--doesnt sound like 
chassidshe tora......


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100412/20751e03/attachment-0001.htm>

Given we have a minhag to stay up all night Shavuos. And There are
reasons given - EG at Mattan Torah Bnei Yisrael were caught sleeping

OTOH we have maasim in the Haggadah and in Talmudic literature suggesting
staying up all night of the Seder until vassiqin! [Vkch hamarbeh... Harei
zeh m'shubach]

Wouldn't it seem obvious that we have a stronger imperiative to say up
all Seder night and be oseiq in
SYM, or 
Hilchos Pesach or 
Shir Hashirim - as the case may be - as opposed to Layl Shavuos which
seems to have a later origin?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In Avodah V27#96 (which I jumped into w/out reading the preceding few dozen
digests), RAM wrote:
> In the English phrase, the knowledge is the ikar, and seeing it is merely
a means to acquire that knowledge. In RMF's view (AIUI) seeing is the ikar,
and knowledge of the event is an acceptable substitute.
> I get the feeling that I've pointed to a difference between Jewish and
nonJewish ways of looking at the world. I suppose it has something to do
with the importance of eidus and testimony, but I sense that it goes beyond
that. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? <
Halachah seems to be based on what we can see (e.g. "spontaneous
generation" and our drinking water, to name two sheretz-related issues) or
not see (e.g. the "20 amos" criterion). The relationship with "knowledge"
(e.g. the odds of there being a worrisome sheretz in that cup of water even
though the average individual can't see any problem with his eyes) is worth
exploring :).  Perhaps the rules governing what we should be machmir on
(the level of eidus required in dinei n'fashos; issurei Torah like
ingesting a sheretz) come into play.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100413/0ee37295/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 97
**************************************

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..."