Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 141

Thu, 15 Jul 2010

• 1. Re: Rashi in Devarim (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 2. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Jacob Farkas)
• 3. Milchig Bread with Corresponding Labeling (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Milchig Bread with Corresponding Labeling (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Be Careful of Looking Frum (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: ethics outside of Torah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: sevara vs. psak (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Jacob Farkas)
• 10. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (Jay F Shachter)
• 12. Re: Milchig Bread with Corresponding Labeling (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Milchig Bread (Jacob Farkas)
• 14. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Jacob Farkas)
• 15. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Milchig Bread (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (menucha)
• 18. Re: sevara vs. psak (Rich, Joel)

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>wrote:
> Does anyone have a good explanation for the order of the tochachos,
> according to Rashi, that are represented in the first pasuk of Devarim?

I don't know what you call good :-) But many Mforshei Rashi deal with it,
see Gur Arye with a very Baleh Batishe answer that Moshe RO"H wanted to
be Mochiach only with Remez if they would be listed in order it would
be obvious, and the Tzeidah LaDerech with a very elaborate answer, and
ends off quoting Mforshim that he enumirated them in the order of the
the lesser to the stricter issue.

--
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

R Micha Berger:
> I was arguing that given the low threshold for the definition of
> unnecessary pain in the din of tzaar baalei chaim, the fact that we
> are already worried about stretched budgets may mean that no, there is
> no such chiyuv. The point is not being pointlessly cruel. Keeping meat
> affordable, particulary given the dinim and minhagim of Shabbos and YT,
> would appear to make any additional pain to be cruelty with a purpose.

I respectfully disagree. People have been eating pasture fed beef and
chicken up until the last few decades. This form of meat has not
become less affordable in its own right. Factory Farming has the
intended result of an inexpensive product, so meat has actually become
a lot cheaper. This of course, allows for increased consumption within
the same budget. In order to afford buying meat at the pasture-raised
prices, you would just have to purchase less product. On what basis is
it permitted to increase consumption at the animals expense, and then
turn around and uphold the practice because otherwise we won't be able
to afford continuing to do so ???

</snip>
>
> On Sun Jul 11 19:25:57 PDT, Jacob Farkas replied:
>>: 1) While Judaism mandates that people should be very careful about
>>: preserving their health and their lives...
>>: 2) While Judaism forbids tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, inflicting unnecessary pain
>>: on animals...
>>: 4) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit..
>
>> I will agree that argument #1 (and to some degree #3,#4,#5, and #6)
>> cited is hyperbole, argument #2 is mostly accurate. The key issue is
>> factory farming though, and not necessarily the eating of meat. The
>> overwhelming majority of meat in this country is available through
>> this channel, and Kosher meat is no different.
>
R Micha Berger:
> There appears to be a mismatch between my discussion of the relatively
> small size of necessary benefit to man, and RJF's response addressing
> of the amount of avoidable pain to the animals being greater than most
> people assume.
>
> As I wrote above, I think that one can establish that factory farming
> is needful.

It is nearly impossible to prove the imperative to keep consumption at
current levels. Otherwise, you can't argue 'needful.'

>
> Ideal as a lifnim mishuras hadin? Perhaps not. But in terms of issur,
> I would (if I were a poseiq) argue that cost is sufficient for the tzaar
> not to be simply assur as cruelty.

Cost (including profit motive) is most certainly a factor in weighing
the merits of any animal-related practice against unnecessary cruelty.
But there is an alternative, tried and true, that allows for a pound
of Fleisch without a drop of Tza'ar.

--Jacob Farkas

RZS asked on Areivim for my source for where the AhS says that
bread sold in packaging labeling it as dairy is outside of the
taqanah.

Of course, I heard it 2nd-hand, from sources quoting RYS.

Rather than do my own research, I'll take the lazy way out, and point
you to R' H Jachter's article at
http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/Dairy%20Bread.htm
He didn't hear it from RYBS himself either, and instead cites the eidus
of R' Herschel Schachter and R' Menachem Genack. It appears RYBS based
himself on YD 97:7-8. If someone has access to ROY's Yalqut Yosef, pg
845 should be interesting, where he explicitly rejects their ruling.

-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> RZS asked on Areivim for my source for where the AhS says that
> bread sold in packaging labeling it as dairy is outside of the
> taqanah.
> 
> Of course, I heard it 2nd-hand, from sources quoting RYS.
> 
> Rather than do my own research, I'll take the lazy way out, and point
> you to R' H Jachter's article at
> http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/Dairy%20Bread.htm
> He didn't hear it from RYBS himself either, and instead cites the eidus
> of R' Herschel Schachter and R' Menachem Genack. It appears RYBS based
> himself on YD 97:7-8. If someone has access to ROY's Yalqut Yosef, pg
> 845 should be interesting, where he explicitly rejects their ruling.

R Jachter may call the logic of RYBS's heter (as reported indirectly)
"impeccable", but I don't see it at all.  He earlier reports RHS as
saying that the sign must be a "dead giveaway"; I don't see how any
mark on the bag the bread came in could qualify for that, and I certainly
don't see how one can derive such a heter from the ChA or the AhS.
(BTW, R Jachter cites the relevant AhS as 97:8, but it's actually 97:9;
in both se'ifim, though, he's talking about unmistakable simanim in the
bread itself, not on external packaging.)

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

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:49:17AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: I respectfully disagree. People have been eating pasture fed beef and
: chicken up until the last few decades. This form of meat has not
: become less affordable in its own right...

Are you sure? Demand has gone up, the number of farmers and the space
on which they can raise poultry are cattle has declined.

But still, as you yourself write:
:                This of course, allows for increased consumption within
: the same budget...

So yes, it is cheaper today. The criteria for avoiding tzaar baalei
chayim are so low, that alone is enough to brand it something other than
pointless cruelty to animals.

TBC isn't a blanket call to compassion on animals. There is easily
arguable lifnim mishuras hadin calls for such compassion. Or even within
the dinim of hilkhos dei'os. But not TBC, which is about avoiding cruelty
for its own sake only.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 07:08:18AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I believe that this is what R' Wolbe calls Frumkeit - which he is
: absolutely opposed to. When one pursues Chumros in order to look Frum,
: they are doing it for the wrong reasons and it becomes counterproductive.

I didn't understand RSW's definition that way. His definition of frumkeit
(Alei Shur II pg 152) is more about "culture and thoughtless habit"
than making an external show. He calls it instinctual, and like all
instincts ends up being about satisfying personal needs, not lishmah.

Rather than being about yuhara and in contrast to tzeni'us and anavah,
RSW develops frumkeit as a contrast to da'as, thoughtfull avodas Hashem.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 07:52:02PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> This is the Shoel uMeishiv's position (see 1:44). He holds that (1)
>> there is ownership of ideas because of common morality, and (2) that
>> barring a qinyan, that ownership is eternal, as halakhah recognizes
>> eternal baalus...

> I'm puzzled by this (perhaps some lawyer on the list will correct me if  
> I'm wrong).  AIUI copyright applies not to ideas, but to their  
> expression...

If his argument were more about the law itself, you would need a lawyer
with an expertise in early to mid 19th cent CE Galician or Polish law.
But I don't think that's his point. More that the law shows a general
moral tendency to respect the desires of the author. This is why it's
not just a case of DDD -- it's about a moral right identified by general
society that is reflected in the law, not the law itself.

Which is how I thought of the SuM in the context of the original topic
of this thread, as per the subject line, about the relationship between
halakhah and our natural built-in sense of morality.

Actually, the thrust of the teshuvah is about a time- (or country-)
limited reservation of rights, which the SuM takes to mean the willing
relinquishment of a right after the stated time that the author would
otherwise hold into perpetuity. And then when can we assume that the
author would have wanted the republishing of his book once it is out
of print. The text is available at
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1422&;st=&pgnum=35>.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> I've posted about this previously, but my post was very confusing
:> and no one responded. Here's the same problem expounded very clearly
:> in the context of American constitutional law:
:> http://volokh.com/2010/07/07/mcdonald-and-the-voting-paradox/

: Isn't this the classic knock on the supposed S"A algorithm of taking
: best 2 out of 3 (Rambam,Rosh and Rif)?

Rather than "supposed SA algorithm" I would instead have written "the
SA's sometimes-overridden rule-of-thumb". Pesaq isn't algorithmic,
as per RRW and my multi-year going in circles on the subject. (Which
turned out to be more misunderstanding than substance.)

I don't think the difficulty of defining "fair" when it comes to voting
among more than two options is really at the heart of things.

The problem you raise is the lumping together of one conclusion reached by
two different means as a single pool of votes. For this to be a problem,
you would have to assume that acharei rabim lehatos means among sevaros,
rather than among pesaqim. Judging how nimnu vegamru worked when a
Sanhedrin had the relevent parties in one place, it just means we follow
the rov WRT chayav/patur or assur/mutar regardless of reasoning. And
in fact each of the dayanim -- or in the SA's case, each of the earlier
codifiers -- themselves may have had multiple overlapping reasoning.

IOW, you are discussing the case where rov hold X over Y, but only a
mi'ut hold X because of sevara A and only a mi'ut hold X because of
sevara B. If the vote were on sevaros, we would say that neither A nor
B should become din, and therefore lemaaseh we shoul do Y. However:
(1) the vote is on outcomes; and (2) dayanim don't hold A to the exclusion
of B, C or D, nor even to the exclusion of not-A -- a dayan could hold
X because maybe-A and if not, maybe-B ... and all the other complicated
ways multiple reasons come together to convince someone. The vote
couldn't be about who holds which sevara because that's uncountable.

but since the votes i
so that if we were voting
if we look 

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:49:17AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> : I respectfully disagree. People have been eating pasture fed beef and
> : chicken up until the last few decades. This form of meat has not
> : become less affordable in its own right...
>
R Micha Berger:
> Are you sure? Demand has gone up, the number of farmers and the space
> on which they can raise poultry are cattle has declined.

This is effect masquerading as cause. The increase of demand is
undoubtedly influenced by the cheaper product. Shift to factory
farming and the cost to produce a pound of meat decreases. Small
farmers will always get squeezed out of the game when the big players
show up. If you can't make it as a small farmer, your farmland has no
value as farmland anymore. This was true with agriculture, as well.

R Micha Berger:
>
> But still, as you yourself write:
> : ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?This of course, allows for increased consumption within
> : the same budget...
>
> So yes, it is cheaper today. The criteria for avoiding tzaar baalei
> chayim are so low, that alone is enough to brand it something other than
> pointless cruelty to animals.

As I pointed out, there is no precedent in avoiding TBC regarding meat
production, and with good reason. In pasture raised animals and
poultry, there is no Tza'ar factor. So while it isn't pointless
cruelty like dogfighting, the entire shift in production from a method
that yields no Tza'ar, to a method that includes these horrible
conditions, is a shift based in higher regard for profits than animal
welfare.

It is a borderline call whether the conditions created via Factory
Farming are justified as avoiding the issur of TBC under the rubric of
Tzorekh. On the one hand, it is a valid, industry-wide practice that
produces food for people. On the other hand, how can we ignore that
process A produces Tza'ar when process B doesn't? Shouldn't the laws
of TBC steer us towards process B?

R Micha Berger:
>
> TBC isn't a blanket call to compassion on animals. There is easily
> arguable lifnim mishuras hadin calls for such compassion. Or even within
> the dinim of hilkhos dei'os. But not TBC, which is about avoiding cruelty
> for its own sake only.
>

Veal is undoubtedly cheaper if produced in factory farmed settings. We
already discussed RMF position regarding veal. Veal producers are not
sadists looking to inflict pain on calves, for its own sake. They just
ignore the conditions, because they are trying to produce veal at a
cheaper clip. Yes, this makes the product more affordable, yes, this
is a profit center for the companies. TBC is still acknowledged by
RMF, as it doesn't satisfy his understanding as Tzorekh.

--Jacob Farkas

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:50:28PM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: As I pointed out, there is no precedent in avoiding TBC regarding meat
: production, and with good reason. In pasture raised animals and
: poultry, there is no Tza'ar factor. So while it isn't pointless
: cruelty like dogfighting, the entire shift in production from a method
: that yields no Tza'ar, to a method that includes these horrible
: conditions, is a shift based in higher regard for profits than animal
: welfare.

You have yet to prove that's a halachic problem. My whole point is that
TBC doesn't take much to be mutar -- who said increased profits isn't
sufficient justification?

Here's my take on TBC. Animals have no "I", no awareness of their own
mental states. This appears to be true based on brain anatomy (they
lack a prefrontal cortex, which is where the job gets done in us),
in their not being attributed with bechirah chafshi (and therefore
have no need to monitor and edit their thoughts), nor a ruach
memalela (the aspect of the soul the Gra assigns the functions of
ego and bechirah to).
See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n091.shtml#14>.

Thus TBC is an excercise in not getting used to cruelty, but isn't
actually about avoiding cruelty in the real sense of the word. TBC is
because we anthropomorphise animal pain, and could ch"v get used to
ignoring another's suffering.

You are setting a threshold based on the notion that there is real
suffering going on that carries a moral burden to avoid. Who said?

Like the Ramban's explanation of why a chazan cannot say "al kan
tzipor yagi'u Rakhamekha", that shiluach haqen is a gezeirah to teach
us compassion, not compassion on the bird itself, similarly TBC. An
animal can have pain, but without meta-awareness of that pain, it
can not suffer.

Therefore, as long as the person has a real point, why would it be
iqar hadin to harm an animal? Even if that point is to eat more meat
than absolutely necessary, or earn more money. As long as the focus
isn't about being mean to another.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Someone on the Areivim mailing list wrote:

>
> And still, AFAIK, the LBD approves chalav akum products.
> 

to which Elazar M. Teitz <r...@juno.com> replied:

> 
> Chalila v'chas to say that RMF was mattir chaleiv akum; that is
> hotza'as la'az of the worst kind.  What he said was that the milk
> involved _is_ chaleiv Yisrael.  One may not accept his p'sak, but
> should not ascribe to him what he did not do.  The comment should
> have been that the LBD approves what _some_ consider to be chaleiv
> akum, but obviously they do not so consider it.
> 

This is correct, and well put.  Let me add two more points.

The first point was made implicitly by Rabbi Teitz, but not stated
explicitly.  One does not properly speak of xalav `akum, or of xalav
yisrael.  It is xalev `akum (the milk of an idolater) and xalev
yisrael (the milk of a Jew).  "Xalav" means "milk"; "xalev" means "the
milk of", as in, "lo thvashel gdi baxalev immo", do not cook a kid in
the milk of his mother.

If a Jewish man says "xalav yisrael", it is not just a matter of his
never having been taught to speak Hebrew properly.  That is his
parents' fault, not his.  But the above-cited words appear three times
in the Torah, in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21.
That means that a Jewish man, unless he converted to Judaism in
adulthood, has read those words at least six times a year since he was
13 years old.  If he can read those words six times a year since he
was 13 years old, and still say, "xalav yisrael", it means he is a man
who can read the Torah without paying attention to what he is reading.

Some people on this mailing list are old enough to remember when
George W. Bush was the President of the United States (he was the
President before Barack Obama).  People used to say of him that they
would feel more comfortable with his being in control of nuclear
bombs, if he could pronounce "nuclear" correctly.  Similarly, I feel
more confident in what someone tells me about xalev yisrael, if he
knows how to pronounce it correctly.

It is perhaps possible that a man can not pay attention to the Torah
when he reads it, and still know something about halakha.  But
wouldn't you rather get your halakha from a man who thinks that the
words of the Torah are important enough to pay attention to them?

The second point is that "xalev `akum" is not the correct term.  It is
an incorrect term, which appears in our texts because of non-Jewish
censors.  Our texts contain some disparaging statements about
non-Jews.  Because of those disparaging statements, non-Jewish censors
forced us to change the word "nokhri" (Gentile) in our texts to the
acronym "`akum" (literally, one who worships the stars and planets --
it is a legal term that denotes an idolater).  In this way, the
non-Jewish censors, who did not think of themselves as idolaters,
satisfied themselves that none of the disparaging statements were
about them.

The substitution of "`akum" for "nokhri" was so complete, and
continued for so long, that today there are some people who are truly
confused about whether a law applies to non-Jews in general, or only
to idolaters.  That is why there are some otherwise religious Jews who
will keep extra change mistakenly given to them by a non-Jewish
shopkeeper, because they think they are allowed to.

The law of xalev nokhri, however, is not a law about which any
educated Jew can be confused.  The law obviously has nothing to do
with idolatry.  Rather, it is a law that has to do with whether a
Gentile dairyman, who is not subject to any supervision, can be a
reliable witness regarding the contents of his milk.  There are some
matters regarding which our Sages have told us that a Gentile, who is
a professional, and who stands to lose business if he is caught in a
lie, is a reliable witness.  Our Sages have decreed that a Gentile
dairyman, who is not subject to any supervision, is not to be placed
into this category.  It has nothing to do with whether he is an
idolater.  A Muslim dairyman, or an atheist dairyman, is no different
from a Christian dairyman, or a Hindu dairyman, in this regard.
Therefore, the term "xalev `akum" is clearly wrong, and it is the
worst kind of wrong, the kind of wrong that can lead people to making
incorrect conclusions about halakha, and it must therefore be
corrected, in public, whenever it is heard.  The correct term is
"xalev nokhri" (and, mutatis mutandis, path nokhri, gvinath nokhri).


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> If someone has access to ROY's Yalqut Yosef, pg
> 845 should be interesting, where he explicitly rejects their ruling.

YY is online at <http://toratemetfreeware.com/kitsur_yalkut_yossef.htm>.
There are no page numbers, but the reference seems to be to seif 12 in
"`od mehilchot basar behalav" at
http://toratemetfreeware.com/kitsur
_yalkut_yossef.htm#%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%9FB%D7%A6%D7%91B%D7%A2%D7%93B%D7%A
1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%9FB%D7%A6%D7%97B-B%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93B%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%9C%D7
%9B%D7%95%D7%AAB%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A8B%D7%91%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%91-%D7%99%D7%91
or http://tinyurl.com/2u57oo6


[Email #2. -micha]

Warning: the site has the whole book in one flat HTML document, so it
may take a very long time to load.

[From Areivim]

R Micha Berger wrote:
>
>> The OU and star-K used to give hechsheirim to bread that says dairy
>> on the label, relying on RYBS following his father, who in turn held
>> like the Chokhmas Adam and AhS that an external label is sufficient.
>
R Zev Sero
> Where does the AhS say this? ?I'm looking at it now and I don't see
> any such heter.

AhS YD 97:8 states that if it is made public knowledge that the item
is dairy, then the item is permissible without the otherwise required
shape modification. I can totally see how an external label on a
packaged item would satisfy this criteria.

--Jacob Farkas

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:50:28PM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> : As I pointed out, there is no precedent in avoiding TBC regarding meat
> : production, and with good reason. In pasture raised animals and
> : poultry, there is no Tza'ar factor. So while it isn't pointless
> : cruelty like dogfighting, the entire shift in production from a method
> : that yields no Tza'ar, to a method that includes these horrible
> : conditions, is a shift based in higher regard for profits than animal
> : welfare.

R' Micha Berger:
> You have yet to prove that's a halachic problem. My whole point is that
> TBC doesn't take much to be mutar -- who said increased profits isn't
> sufficient justification?

RMF discusses this regarding veal. See our discussion from a few years back:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n079.shtml#08

>
> Here's my take on TBC. Animals have no "I", no awareness of their own
> mental states. This appears to be true based on brain anatomy (they
> lack a prefrontal cortex, which is where the job gets done in us),
> in their not being attributed with bechirah chafshi (and therefore
> have no need to monitor and edit their thoughts), nor a ruach
> memalela (the aspect of the soul the Gra assigns the functions of
> ego and bechirah to).
> See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n091.shtml#14>.
>
> Thus TBC is an excercise in not getting used to cruelty, but isn't
> actually about avoiding cruelty in the real sense of the word. TBC is
> because we anthropomorphise animal pain, and could ch"v get used to
> ignoring another's suffering.
>
> You are setting a threshold based on the notion that there is real
> suffering going on that carries a moral burden to avoid. Who said?

I am assuming nothing of the sort. My understanding is that TBC is our
call to intervene on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. See
my post about the subject:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n166.shtml#09

> Therefore, as long as the person has a real point, why would it be
> iqar hadin to harm an animal? Even if that point is to eat more meat
> than absolutely necessary, or earn more money. As long as the focus
> isn't about being mean to another.

This is consistent with your position that the prohibition of TBC is
negated by Tzorekh haAdam, defined as any human benefit. Some would
require that there needs to be a benefit to human necessity before we
discount animal welfare.

--Jacob Farkas

Jay F Shachter wrote:

> The first point was made implicitly by Rabbi Teitz, but not stated
> explicitly.  One does not properly speak of xalav `akum, or of xalav
> yisrael.  It is xalev `akum (the milk of an idolater) and xalev
> yisrael (the milk of a Jew).

I don't believe so.  What matters is not who owns the milk, but who
milked it.  Thus it's "chalav [shechalavo] akum", and "chalav
[shechalavo] yisrael" either literally or through the yisrael having
seen the akum do it.


> Some people on this mailing list are old enough to remember when
> George W. Bush was the President of the United States (he was the
> President before Barack Obama).  People used to say of him that they
> would feel more comfortable with his being in control of nuclear
> bombs, if he could pronounce "nuclear" correctly.

Those were stupid people.  He *did* pronounce it correctly, for his
region of the USA.  Jimmy Carter pronounced it the same way, and I
don't think anyone felt uncomfortable about that.


> Similarly, I feel
> more confident in what someone tells me about xalev yisrael, if he
> knows how to pronounce it correctly.

IMHO that is a foolish attitude.  RMF himself undoubtedly pronounced
it "cholov", not "chaleiv", and surely he knew more about it than
most people who pronounce it "chaleiv".


> The substitution of "`akum" for "nokhri" was so complete, and
> continued for so long, that today there are some people who are truly
> confused about whether a law applies to non-Jews in general, or only
> to idolaters.  That is why there are some otherwise religious Jews who
> will keep extra change mistakenly given to them by a non-Jewish
> shopkeeper, because they think they are allowed to.

They are.  No akum is "achicha", regardless of which god/s he does or
doesn't worship.



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

Jacob Farkas wrote:
> [From Areivim]
> 
> R Micha Berger wrote:
>>> The OU and star-K used to give hechsheirim to bread that says dairy
>>> on the label, relying on RYBS following his father, who in turn held
>>> like the Chokhmas Adam and AhS that an external label is sufficient.
> R Zev Sero
>> Where does the AhS say this?  I'm looking at it now and I don't see
>> any such heter.
> 
> AhS YD 97:8 states that if it is made public knowledge that the item
> is dairy, then the item is permissible without the otherwise required
> shape modification. I can totally see how an external label on a
> packaged item would satisfy this criteria.

Absolutely not.  Read it more carefully.  That is almost the exact
opposite of what he says.

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

Rav Zeev Viteman, the Rav of Tnuva,  says "chalav yisrael".  He is 
makpid on his wording as to what RMF permitted.  He quoted that when RMF 
heard that people said "RMF was matir chalav akum" his response was 
"next they'll say I was matir eishes ish"
menucha

> Jay F Shachter wrote:
>
>> .  One does not properly speak of xalav `akum, or of xalav
>> yisrael.  It is xalev `akum (the milk of an idolater) and xalev
>> yisrael (the milk of a Jew).Similarly, I feel
>
>> more confident in what someone tells me about xalev yisrael, if he
>> knows how to pronounce it correctly.
>
>

 



: Isn't this the classic knock on the supposed S"A algorithm of taking
: best 2 out of 3 (Rambam,Rosh and Rif)?

Rather than "supposed SA algorithm" I would instead have written "the SA's
sometimes-overridden rule-of-thumb". Pesaq isn't algorithmic, as per RRW
and my multi-year going in circles on the subject. (Which turned out to be
more misunderstanding than substance.)


-Micha

-- 

This goes, at least partially, back to my question concerning klalei horaah
- was Rav vs. Shmuel algorithmic or not.  It appears from what I have found
that it was, either because of area of specialty or sinai vs. oker harim as
applied to mamonot vs. issurin.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 141
***************************************

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..."