Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 143

Sun, 18 Jul 2010

• 1. Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Cholov Yisroel (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Jacob Farkas)
• 6. Re: Milchig Bread (Akiva Blum)
• 7. Re: Milchig Bread (Jacob Farkas)
• 8. Re: Milchig Bread (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Milchig Bread (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Milchig Bread (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Milchig Bread (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 14. Re: Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (T6...@aol.com)
• 16. Re: Milchig Bread (Akiva Blum)
• 17. Re: Milchig Bread (Jacob Farkas)
• 18. Re: Milchig Bread (Zev Sero)
• 19. Machshirin 2:4 (Chana Luntz)

I think most of us have the impression, perhaps correctly, that kelayim
are evil, which is why it's assur to make or use them.

To justify this opinion, R' Shimon ben Elazaqr defines shaatnez as
"naluz umeiliz es Aviv shebashayim alav." (Mishnah Kelayim 9:8, 9:5
in the Vilna ed Y-mi)

And if we look at R' Dessler on shaatnez, he draws from Qabbalah about
rachamim and gevurah. Rachamim is appropiate with others, gevurah is
used internally (hakoveish es yitzro). Shaatnez represents an admixture,
cutting yourself slack but being harsh with others. He also discusses
Kayin's flax and Hevel's sheep. As did Rabbeinu Bachya well before him.
According to R' Bachya, shaatnez enables the combination of kochos
that brought about Kayin and Hevel's ruin.

The Moreh places shatnez in the "Wean away from error" category, saying
it was used for magic and to communicate with demons. (Both of which he
held were trickery.)


OTOH, all through Mes' Kelayim, the prohibition is "maqdish" the
resulting combination. The lashon implies that the problem is that
mixtures of species or of shaatnez is too much for this world.

And the avneit is made from shaatnez (sheish and techeiles) as was the
kohein gadol's kusones tashbeitz.

So, what is it -- is kelayim a negative, or is it altogether the reverse:
too positive for daily use? And what does that say about the Torah's
attitude WRT "tampering" with the order of nature?

Is the creation of a mule simply too G-d-like / Qodesh to be done, or is
it a bad thing?

-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 15, 2010 at 12:22:58AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: RMF discusses this regarding veal. See our discussion from a few years back:
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n079.shtml#08

RMF's line, after looking in IM EH 4:92, appears to be between luxury
and common staple. If I could borrow an idiom from elsewhere, he would
permit a "davar hashaveh lekhol nefesh".

The approach I gave in my previous post on this thread if roughly that
of the Terumas haDeshen II #105. There is an akhzariyus issue, but no
actual violation of TBC. However, his justifying philosophy is not based
on making a chiluq between pain and suffering, which I tried to do,
but rather because animals were created for the purpose of man, and
therefore it doesn't take much pain to justify TBC. Even "just" profit.

-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

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:

>      Speaking of censors and akum, there were censors who were very 
> careful to replace "goy" by "akum."  As a result, there was a siddur 
> printed which read "Shomer akum echad, sh'mor sh'eiris akum echad, v'al 
> yovad akum echad," and "umi k'amcha Yisraeil akum echad ba'aretz."

There was also a siddur that read "Avinu Malkenu, ein lanu melech
*bashamayim* ela Ata".
-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:

> OTOH, all through Mes' Kelayim, the prohibition is "maqdish" the
> resulting combination.

It's "mekadesh", not "makdish", for what that's worth.

> The lashon implies that the problem is that
> mixtures of species or of shaatnez is too much for this world.

I believe the translation of the word in that context is "separated",
i.e. you are separated from it and must not have anything to do with
it: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5210.htm#7

Or else it means "burned" as in "tukad esh" (Kiddushin 56b)


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

> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:22:58AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> : RMF discusses this regarding veal. See our discussion from a few years back:
> : http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n079.shtml#08
>
> RMF's line, after looking in IM EH 4:92, appears to be between luxury
> and common staple. If I could borrow an idiom from elsewhere, he would
> permit a "davar hashaveh lekhol nefesh".

It is possible that he would permit factory farming. I'm merely
pointing out that his rationale includes a limited definition of
Tzorekh. In this model, there is room to argue that if possible to
raise cattle without Tza'ar, the method of raising with Tza'ar could
be challenged because there is no Tzorekh to do the cheaper process.
While in the Teshuva his limit of Tzorekh is on limited to category of
product, the reasoning can just as easily be applied against shifting
to a process that has Tza'ar, even if the product is a staple.

> The approach I gave in my previous post on this thread if roughly that
> of the Terumas haDeshen II #105. There is an akhzariyus issue, but no
> actual violation of TBC. However, his justifying philosophy is not based
> on making a chiluq between pain and suffering, which I tried to do,
> but rather because animals were created for the purpose of man, and
> therefore it doesn't take much pain to justify TBC. Even "just" profit.
>

I agree. In the TH model, profit and/or luxury is totally acceptable.

I totally appreciate your distinction between pain and suffering. It
is consistent with my understanding of TBC as our roles in advocating
animal welfare as they cannot fend for themselves. In both our models,
the pain is not the Issur in its own right, allowing an animal to
experience avoidable pain is the issue. (except in cases of Tzorekh-
which ever way you define it)

--Jacob Farkas

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Farkas

> >> 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.
> 



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.


The Chavas Daas states that the identification must be at the time of baking.
After baking, one cannot change the shape or size of the bread. It is already
ossur. Bread which is baked in a recognizable milchik shape already declares its
status at the time of baking. Once it becomes ossur, it cannot become muttar.

Nothing in the words of the AhS contradicts this Chavas Daas. The bread has
signs, widely known signs - at the time of baking. The AhS speaks only about
simanim that are evident at the time of baking.

Akiva

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Akiva Blum <yda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing in the words of the AhS contradicts this Chavas Daas. The bread has
> signs, widely known signs - at the time of baking. The AhS speaks only about
> simanim that are evident at the time of baking.

See AhS 97:6-97:8. Yes, the AhS concludes differently from Chavas Da'as.

--Jacob Farkas

R' Jacob Farkas wrote:
> In practice (I am referring to Brroklyn, NY), you can purchase
> milchig pound cake most anywhere ... You can find bakeries selling
> milchig goods that will have a sticker on them stating that the
> item is milchig, again without any other obvious shinui on the item.

Yes, you can indeed. But you seem to be using this fact as evidence to
support the idea that milchig *bread* is okay as long as the packaging
reflects that status.

I draw the opposite conclusion. Mezonos is generally not eaten during the
meal, except as dessert. The ramifications of having milchig cake at one's
fleishig meal are far less severe than if one had milchig bread, which
could well be eaten together with the meat. To me, the easy availability of
milchig cake is evidence that there is no technical obligation for it to
have a siman the way bread does. (Note my words: "technical obligation". If
a community chooses to standardize their cheese and potato borekas in
triangle and rectangle shapes, that is great; I just haven't seen a halacha
which requires it.)

I do understand that bread and cake are both called "pas", and this has
ramifications for Hilchos Challah, and Pas Yisrael, and other halachos. But
if someone wants to say that "Having a 'dairy' sticker on my dairy cake
shows that it is okay to make dairy challah with such a sticker", then I
want him to first show me a posek who says that "The halachos against
making dairy bread also apply to making dairy cake."

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:15:08PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: ... then I want him to first show me a posek who says that "The halachos
: against making dairy bread also apply to making dairy cake."

Isn't that implied by the AhS's discussion of dairy cookies?

-Micha

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 03:18:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> OTOH, all through Mes' Kelayim, the prohibition is "maqdish" the
>> resulting combination.

> It's "mekadesh", not "makdish", for what that's worth.

Actually, I doubt either of us know Northern Aramaic well enough to
insist. The word in the gemara on 2:5 (10a in vilna ed.) is spelled
malei with a yud after the dalet, similarly 4:5 22b, 5:5 27a, etc, etc....

(I guess I should have mentioned that Y-mi daf yomi just completed
Kelayim, which is what triggered my asking.)

>> The lashon implies that the problem is that
>> mixtures of species or of shaatnez is too much for this world.

> I believe the translation of the word in that context is "separated",
> i.e. you are separated from it and must not have anything to do with
> it: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5210.htm#7

> Or else it means "burned" as in "tukad esh" (Kiddushin 56b)

That would certainly make "ein adam maqdish davar she'eino shelo"
self-evident, but I really doubt that would be the topic of a
machloqes. <gr>

I guess it could in theory mean "something that is omeid for burning".
But in general, when chazal say "qodesh" they mean "consecrated for
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

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:15:08PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> : ... then I want him to first show me a posek who says that "The halachos
> : against making dairy bread also apply to making dairy cake."
> 
> Isn't that implied by the AhS's discussion of dairy cookies?

What discussion of cookies?  Where is this?

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

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 06:40:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> What discussion of cookies?  Where is this?

97:6, and already mentioned by RYFarkas at 
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n142.shtml#03>. Admittedly I called
sukhariki a kind of cookie, and RYF identifies them as "(a
Russian, unsweetened version of biscotti". Since they are loaded in
fat (as mentioned there) I pictured something more like mandelbroit
than dry biscotti.

-Micha

I had posted:
> Chalilah to think that the London Beis Din ... would ever say
> that "Non-Jewish milk is allowed." They would never suggest that
> this halacha, however one chooses to name it, can be ignored.

But then R' Allan Engel posted "From the London Beth Din site:"

> Key:
> ...
> *D* - Dairy product containing *Chalav Akum *(non-supervised
> milk).
> ...
> Perhaps they need to be apprised of ... the terminological
> inexactitudes ...

Yikes! I am very surprised by this! Yes, indeed, someone -- or even better,
*several* people -- should point this out to them! If I can find the exact
web page, I will certainly try to tell them myself!

You can see the above quote yourself in their "Kosher Nosh Guide", at http://www.kosher
.org.uk/documents/NoshGuide5M.pdf  It appears on page 5 of the printed
version, or page 3 of the PDF file.

(I had hoped that their use of "chalav akum" might be limited to powdered
milk, following the psak of some (such as Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, IIRC) who
hold that tamei milk cannot become powder. But the listings of ice creams,
and milkshakes, and yoghurts would seem to knock that idea down.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Business Analyst Skills
Learn Critical Business Analyst Skills - 100% Online Certificate!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c3f82342dcc13381cast01vuc

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 03:18:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

>> It's "mekadesh", not "makdish", for what that's worth.
> 
> Actually, I doubt either of us know Northern Aramaic well enough to
> insist. The word in the gemara on 2:5 (10a in vilna ed.) is spelled
> malei with a yud after the dalet, similarly 4:5 22b, 5:5 27a, etc, etc....

I don't think that spelling is found in Mishnayos or Bavli.


>> I believe the translation of the word in that context is "separated",
>> i.e. you are separated from it and must not have anything to do with
>> it: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5210.htm#7
> 
>> Or else it means "burned" as in "tukad esh" (Kiddushin 56b)
 
> That would certainly make "ein adam maqdish davar she'eino shelo"
> self-evident, but I really doubt that would be the topic of a
> machloqes. <gr>

And yet that is what the gemara says it means.  The Rambam says the
same thing in PHM on Kilayim.

 
> I guess it could in theory mean "something that is omeid for burning".
> But in general, when chazal say "qodesh" they mean "consecrated for
> avodas Hashem".

In general, yes.  But not in the context of kil'ei hakerem.  See
Devorim 22:9.  Unkelus translates the word "tikdash" as "tisto'av",
and Rashi explains that "any thing that is repulsive to a person,
whether in a good way such as hekdesh, or in a bad way such as an
issur, is called kodesh, as in (Yeshaya 65:5) 'Don't approach me
ki kidashticha'".


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

 

From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 

On Thu, Jul 15,  2010, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Whether they are or are not "aware of  their own mental state" seems
: irrelevant to me. They can and do feel pain,  don't they?

RMB responded:
 
>>But they don't feel themselves feeling pain. There is no "I"  as in
"I am in pain". There are chemical and neurological events, yes,  but
not suffering as we think of the concept.

:> 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?

: Are you saying that  there's no real suffering going on?

Exactly, because an animal doesn't  have a ruach, and therefore there is
no one to suffer. There is stimulus and  response, with no awareness or
bechirah in between. IOW, I am saying that  Skinner and all the other
Radical Behaviorists were totally off in explaining  the human metzi'us,
but their kind of analysis does yield a complete  description of animals. <<






>>>>
 
I don't believe that's true and I don't believe that Skinner's  
"explanations" actually explain any vertebrate behavior, certainly not  mammals'.
 
I enter into evidence the following two exhibits:
 
a.  Bilaam's donkey
 
b. The calf who ran away because it didn't want to be shechted and the  
tanna said, "You have to go and be shechted because lekach notzarta."  (and  
then -- if I am not confusing two different stories -- he suffered terribly  
himself because of his lack of compassion for his animal, until he told the 
maid  to be nice and not sweep away his chipmunks or squirrels or kittens or  
something)
 
 
Now the mitzva of shiluach hakan (and also of not shechting an animal and  
its child on the same day) may be there in order to train humans not to have 
the  midah of achzarius.   It is questionable whether birds and animals  
suffer emotional distress at seeing their children captured or killed -- 
beyond  instinct.  Once their children are grown -- often in a matter of weeks -- 
 they no longer even recognize their own children.  But it is  indisputable 
that they suffer physical pain, and the notion that they don't  suffer 
because there is no "I" there is just wrong.  
 
 

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

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100715/c914a873/attachment-0001.htm>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Farkas
 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Akiva Blum <yda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nothing in the words of the AhS contradicts this Chavas 
> Daas. The bread has
> > signs, widely known signs - at the time of baking. The AhS 
> speaks only about
> > simanim that are evident at the time of baking.
> 
> See AhS 97:6-97:8. Yes, the AhS concludes differently from 
> Chavas Da'as.
> 

The chiddush in the AhS is that even though the bread has no unique signs, it is
kosher because it is widely recognized. The recognition is however already
existant at the time of baking.

Akiva

R' Akiva Blum:
>> > Nothing in the words of the AhS contradicts this Chavas
>> Daas. The bread has
>> > signs, widely known signs - at the time of baking. The AhS
>> speaks only about
>> > simanim that are evident at the time of baking.

Jacob Farkas:
>> See AhS 97:6-97:8. Yes, the AhS concludes differently from
>> Chavas Da'as.
>>

R' Akiva Blum:
> The chiddush in the AhS is that even though the bread has no unique signs, it is
> kosher because it is widely recognized. The recognition is however already
> existant at the time of baking.

AhS has 3 justifications for Milchig Sukhariki, after he claims that
they do not differ in appearance from their pareve counterparts. 1)
The baker's claim that they do look significantly different. 2) People
buy for immediate consumption, and we can be lenient like Rema who
permits baking for immediate consumption. 3) Derived from Teshuvas
Maharit, that when an object is declared and thus known as Milchig, it
does not need any external modification.

#3 should apply when one bakes items that will be placed in packages
that have external notifiers declaring that said object is Milchig.

The Chavas Daas would not agree to this, because he specifically
states that declaration is not sufficient. AhS, who is of the opinion
that declaration and public knowledge is sufficient, would not have an
issue with someone baking a Milchig bread that may look pareve when
everyone knows that this bread will be milchig. Justification #3 work
even in the absence of justification #1.

--Jacob Farkas

Jacob Farkas wrote:

> AhS has 3 justifications for Milchig Sukhariki [...]
> 3) Derived from Teshuvas
> Maharit, that when an object is declared and thus known as Milchig, it
> does not need any external modification.

Hang on, what word are you translating as "declared"?  The AhS says
nothing about anything being declared.



> #3 should apply when one bakes items that will be placed in packages
> that have external notifiers declaring that said object is Milchig.

If there were something about "declaration" in the AhS, then you
could argue that.  But there isn't.


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

RSS writes:

> In Machshirin 2:4, the Mishna talks about a case where one is
> laundering b'gadim in tamei water.  The footnote (Reb Artscroll)
> discusses why somebody would ever do that, and they note that: "A
> rishon doesn't have the capacity to convey tumah to people or
> utensils (including garments)," only food and other liquids.  OK.
> 
> We know that's true with a rishon in general, but we also know that a
> _liquid_ rishon _is_ m'tamei people or keilim.
> 
> And, in fact, in Machshirin 4:10 the Mishna warns about accidentally
> putting tamei wet logs into an oven, davka for the reason that the
> wetness on the logs might be m'tamei the earthenware oven (because,
> d'rabbanan, tamei liquids are m'tamei keilim).
> 
> So, what am I missing?  How do we explain 2:4?

Well I don't understand Reb Artscroll (as you have quoted him), but my
assumption regarding the intent of the Mishna in Machshirin 2:4 would be
that the begadim were already tamei before they got washed (eg they had
kesamim and the like on them or had been worn by an av hatumah) and that is
why the water was necessarily tamei (even if it hadn't been before, although
maybe it would be sensible to use already tamei water to wash a beged that
is tamei).  Why would one assume that the begadim were tahor prior to their
washing?

But I agree, I can't explain Reb Artscroll, unless for some reasons they
were talking d'orisa, because I believe that a liquid rishon being metamei
people or keilim is only d'rabbanan.  But I can't understand why they would
be only talking on that level (unless it has something to do with the bitel
that is going on in this Mishna vis a vis the mei geshamim -but even so, I
don't understand the relevance of the comment).  However, as I am not seeing
it inside, and relying on your citation, so I may be missing something.

> -- Sholom

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 143
***************************************

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..."