Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 240

Tue, 29 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: reality (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Halachic Guidelines for kashrut (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: ceremonies in halacha (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Chabad and Putting on Tefillin on Chol Moed (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: ceremonies in halacha (David Riceman)
• 7. Speaking in a Beis Avel (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Speaking in a Beis Avel (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: ceremonies in halacha (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Re: ceremonies in Halacha (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 11. ceremonies in halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Halachic Guidelines for kashrut (martin brody)
• 13. Re: Speaking in a Beis Avel (Micha Berger)
• 14. A Woman Mashgiach? (Prof. Levine)

RMB:

<<Which the Maharal meant, IMHO, depends on is how events in higher 
olamos are connected to ones in ours.>>

While there are hints of "higher olamos" much earlier than the Ari (cf. 
Iyov 1:6-12), I don't think the concept was of much importance to the 
Maharal (he was born before and died after the Ari, but I don't know of 
any evidence that he read R. Hayyim Vital's works).  I don't think this 
question is one that fits neatly into the Maharal's world view.

I explained the Maharal's view of what Hazal were talking about when 
they discussed science in an earlier post.  Neither "real world" nor 
"reality as we are able to experience it directly" are accurate 
descriptions.

Consider the example (the source is in a previous post) of Hazal's list 
of sins which induce solar eclipses.  The Maharal explains that Hazal 
knew perfectly well that solar eclipses can be predicted, and are 
explained by astronomical phenomena.  What they meant was that God 
designed human nature and the stellar bodies in parallel: the ability to 
have solar eclipses and the ability to commit those certain sins are 
parallel capacities.  I can't imagine how to fit that example into 
either of your descriptions.

Incidentally, the Maharal cites the pasuk "v'chofrah halevanah ubosha 
hahama" (Is. 24:23) to demonstrate that the same capacity can parallel 
something entirely different in eschatalogical time.

I suspect you were thinking of an entirely different type of example.  
It might be helpful if you mention it explicitly.

David Riceman

When I lived in Northern California, where getting kosher food was a 
challenge (it was an hour and a quarter each way to Molly Stone's in 
Palo Alto, where we could get kosher cheese), we were told that we could 
rely on Triangle-K.  When we moved to Chicago, where you trip over 
kosher marts, we were told that Triangle-K isn't up to community standards.

There are basic standards of kashrut, which are community based, and 
there are kulot and chumrot.  Ultimately, we are not Karaites, and we 
aren't Talmudites or Rambamites or ShulchanAruchites.  Torah she'b'al 
peh means that the Torah comes to us through rabbis who have the 
authority to make rulings.  It does not come to use via books where we 
can always look things up ourselves.  That would reduce the Torah to a 
non-living Torah, subject to the interpretation of every Tom, Dick and 
Shlomo who can read.

That's frustrating for a lot of people, particularly people in the 
modern world, where personal empowerment is such a high value.  (I can't 
say that I feel all that comfortable with the idea of community 
standards standing in the way of my eating Fritos, particularly when 
many would say that I'm not up to community standards myself.)

But that's the way it is.  If you (general you; not R' Martin in 
particular) disagree with the way in which the halakha is being 
determined in your community, you can leave that community, or you can 
learn to the point where you are involved in the decision making.  What 
you *can't* do is say that your understanding of this or that sefer 
overrides the decisions of those with the authority to decide the halakha.

Lisa



On 11/28/2011 12:27 PM, martin brody wrote:
> "See the above URL for the rest of these articles.
>  From this articles it should be clear why there
> are differences between kashrus in the US and
> Israel and the rest of the world and why one
> should not extrapolate from the standards of one
> organization in a given country to the situation in other countries.
> YL"
>
> Sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
> A jar of Polish jam that is kosher in Sainsbury's, Golders Green, is 
> just as kosher in Trader Joes in Westwood, California.
> That there are kashrut agences that have standards that are meta 
> halachic,(none of the majors permit batel, for example) and differ 
> amongst themselves in many cases, is irrelevant to the kashrut of a 
> product, including that lovely vegetable, Brussel sprouts that started 
> this whole thing off. Don't want to rely on those guidlines? Then 
> don't, but please do not suggest that the products are not kosher.
> Kind regards,
>
> Martin Brody
> 310 474 1856
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111128/80082a98/attachment-0001.htm>

At 01:27 PM 11/28/2011, martin brody wrote:
>"See the above URL for the rest of these articles.
>  From this articles it should be clear why there
>are differences between kashrus in the US and
>Israel and the rest of the world and why one
>should not extrapolate from the standards of one
>organization in a given country to the situation in other countries.
>YL"
>
>Sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
>A jar of Polish jam that is kosher in Sainsbury's, Golders Green, is 
>just as kosher in Trader Joes in Westwood, California.
>That there are kashrut agences that have standards that are meta 
>halachic,(none of the majors permit batel, for example) and differ 
>amongst themselves in many cases, is irrelevant to the kashrut of a 
>product, including that lovely vegetable, Brussel sprouts that 
>started this whole thing off. Don't want to rely on those guidlines? 
>Then don't, but please do not suggest that the products are not kosher.
>Kind regards,

Did you see anything in what I wrote about being 
non-kosher?   (However, you seem to have forgotten the Rabbi Simon of 
the LBD said they do not approve Brussels sprouts without supervision.)

Again from the Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of 
Australia http://bit.ly/t04ow7

Similarly there are two distinct paradigms in relation to supervision 
of kosher foods. The certification paradigm, when a company comes to 
you and pays you for your services as well as markets also 
specifically to Jews; and the approval paradigm, where you initiate 
the visit to the company, you are not paid by the company and the 
company are not particularly interested in the Kosher market.

and

3. We have a third level (that does not exist in the USA). These are 
what we have called "approved" products manufactured by persons not 
of the Jewish faith. I have written a detailed article explaining the 
halachic rationale and resultant differences as well as our current 
policies in that regard and you may find it on our website 
www.ka.org.au in the halachic policies section. It is in relation to 
this "level" that we indeed follow the London Beth Din, The 
Manchester Beth Din, The Johannesburg Beth Din, and all who currently 
list "approved" products.

Note the following from the same URL

Kosher Australia based in Victoria has announced that it is moving to 
only use the certification paradigm, and as such in their most recent 
update they have removed products such as Sanitarium So Good. That 
policy change is of course their choice, and we emphasise that it 
should be fully respected by those under their jurisdiction. However, 
the rabbis of The Kashrut Authority (comprising the rabbis of The 
Sydney Beth Din and the Yeshiva Rabbinate with over forty years' 
experience in Kashrut in NSW) are of the view that it is *still 
necessary for us to retain the approvals paradigm*.

 From this I get the impression that if they could move away from the 
approvals paradigm they would.  YL





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/c45dc880/attachment-0001.htm>

I don't understand how "ceremony" and "mitzvah" could be mutually 
exclusive categories? What is vidui ma'aser? Why does marriage, unlike 
other contracts, require eidei kiyum to be valid? Aren't they ceremonies 
as well as mitzvos?

David Riceman

RZS:

<<highly visible differences such as which way around Baruch She'amar 
and Hodu go would have been known earlier.>>

The history is fairly complicated, and it predates, not only the author 
of the Tanya, but the Baal Shem Tov.  See R. Daniel Goldschmidt's short 
essay ""Al Nusah HaTefilah shel Kehillot haHasidim", reprinted in his 
"Mehkrei Tefilah UPiyut" for some of the details.

David Riceman

Me:
> I don't understand how "ceremony" and "mitzvah" could be mutually 
> exclusive categories? What is vidui ma'aser? Why does marriage, unlike 
> other contracts, require eidei kiyum to be valid? Aren't they 
> ceremonies as well as mitzvos?
And what about "v'nasata es habracha al Har Grizim v'es haklalah al Har 
Eival"?

David Riceman

At 04:26 PM 11/28/2011, R. Micha wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:55:52AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote to Areivim:
> > Is it not the minhag that one does not say anything to the person
> > sitting Shiva unless s/he speaks to you first?
>
>YD 376 is named "Minhag haMenachanim veDin Meis sheEin Lo Menachamim". It
>opens, "Ein hamenachamim resha'im liftoach, ad sheyiftach ha'avel
>techilah."
>
>So, is this one rule minhag? Is the whole concept of nichum aveilim
>"only" minhag? And if either, why does se'if 4 begin "achshav nohagim"
>if the prior 3 se'ifim are also minhag?

The following is from Mourning in Halachah, Chapter 17, Consoling Mourners.

1. To console mourners is a major precept.  Some consider this 
mitzvah to be Scripturally ordained (deOraysa).

2.  It is not enough merely to console the mourner; one must also say 
good things to him until one makes him happy, and his face becomes cheerful.

Please see 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/consoling_mourners.pdf  for the 
relevant pages.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/dae4dbd3/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from Mourning in Halachah, Chapter 17, Consoling Mourners.

1. To console mourners is a major precept.  Some consider this mitzvah to be Scripturally ordained (deOraysa).

2.  It is not enough merely to console the mourner; one must also say good things to him until one makes him happy, and his face becomes cheerful.

Please see http://w
ww.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/consoling_mourners.pdf  for the relevant
pages.

YL
====================
IIRC there is also a school of thought that it's to get the aveil to say baruch dayan emet, not to make him happy per se.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111128/1983f3dd/attachment-0001.htm>

R' SG:
Would these qualify as pure ceremony?? Marching the sifrie torah around
before Kol Nidrie or holding the torah for various misheberachs & rosh
chodesh bentching.? 
--------------------


to satisfy the minhag; the singing, dancing, extended hakafos are certainly
ceremonial.

KT,
MYG

RMicha Berger wrote:

<<But a short while back, I encountered what appears to me to be a direct
contradiction to RYBS's position in the Y-mi. Yuma 2:1 (10b) we are told
that they held 4 separate lotteries to divide the avodah, "kedei laasos
pumpei bedavar", and again at 2:4 (13b), we are told that extra kohanim
were used to carry the ayil up the kevesh for the same reason.

Opening up http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pomp we learn that
the English "pomp" is from the Greek meaning "solemn procession,
display".

So, "kedei laasos pumpei bedeavar" means that these things were
NOT halachic, and in fact practices done in the BHMQ only for their
ceremonial value.>>

     While pomp, in its original use in Greek, may have connoted "solemn
     procession, display,"  in its adaptatiion into the Hebrew as pumpi --
     together with its equivalent form, pumbi -- does not have the
     connotation of ceremonial, but of public; i.e., its meaning is one of
     pirsum.  It is not done for ceremonial purposes, but to enhance the
     public's awareness of the matter.	

     It is this meaning of the word which is given by all the commentaries
     in the places it is used, including the P'nei Moshe in the first
     citation RMB gave.  Indeed, the Aruch cites a midrash in which the
     term b'fumbi is used as an antonym for b'tzin'a.  If this is its
     sense, then it would appear that it has no relevance to RYBS' position
     on ceremony in Jewish life.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals $3 Wrinkle Trick Angering Doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ed44227ccce81ca80d1st01vuc

<<: We also have the ceremony of cutting the Omer done to show up the
Saducees.

Is that ceremony?>>

The Mishna describes in detail the ceremony of cutting the Omer, repeating
phrases 3 times etc.
none of this is needed for the mitzva of cutting the Omer. It was done
explicitly to make a ceremony stressing the timing of the event.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111129/8c719ce1/attachment-0001.htm>

"Did you see anything in what I wrote about being non-kosher?   (However,
you seem to have forgotten the Rabbi Simon of the LBD said they do not
approve Brussels sprouts without supervision.)
The suggestion that certain products were not kosher was not aimed at you
in particular but a generalization. However I was talking about all
products and not specifically Brussel sprouts.
As for R.Simon, I am awaiting his confirmation of that fact. His comments
contradict those written in the booklet.At least in the edition that I
have.There is a new one just recently released. the language may have been
changed in that issue.
Martin Brody.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  At 01:27 PM 11/28/2011, martin brody wrote:
>
> "See the above URL for the rest of these articles.
>  From this articles it should be clear why there
> are differences between kashrus in the US and
> Israel and the rest of the world and why one
> should not extrapolate from the standards of one
> organization in a given country to the situation in other countries.
> YL"
>
> Sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
> A jar of Polish jam that is kosher in Sainsbury's, Golders Green, is just
> as kosher in Trader Joes in Westwood, California.
> That there are kashrut agences that have standards that are meta
> halachic,(none of the majors permit batel, for example) and differ amongst
> themselves in many cases, is irrelevant to the kashrut of a product,
> including that lovely vegetable, Brussel sprouts that started this whole
> thing off. Don't want to rely on those guidlines? Then don't, but please do
> not suggest that the products are not kosher.
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Did you see anything in what I wrote about being non-kosher?   (However,
> you seem to have forgotten the Rabbi Simon of the LBD said they do not
> approve Brussels sprouts without supervision.)
>
> Again from the Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of
> Australia http://bit.ly/t04ow7
>
> Similarly there are two distinct paradigms in relation to supervision of
> kosher foods. The *certification* paradigm, when a company comes to you
> and pays you for your services as well as markets also specifically to
> Jews; and the *approval* paradigm, where you initiate the visit to the
> company, you are not paid by the company and the company are not
> particularly interested in the Kosher market.
>
> and
>
> 3. We have a third level (that does not exist in the USA). These are what
> we have called ?approved? products manufactured by persons not of the
> Jewish faith. I have written a detailed article explaining the halachic
> rationale and resultant differences as well as our current policies in that
> regard and you may find it on our website www.ka.org.au in the halachic
> policies section. It is in relation to this ?level? that we indeed follow
> the London Beth Din, The Manchester Beth Din, The Johannesburg Beth Din,
> and all who currently list ?approved? products.
>
> Note the following from the same URL
>
> Kosher Australia based in Victoria has announced that it is moving to only
> use the certification paradigm, and as such in their most recent update
> they have removed products such as Sanitarium So Good. That policy change
> is of course their choice, and we emphasise that it should be fully
> respected by those under their jurisdiction. However, the rabbis of The
> Kashrut Authority (comprising the rabbis of The Sydney Beth Din and the
> Yeshiva Rabbinate with over forty years? experience in Kashrut in NSW) are
> of the view that it is *still necessary for us to retain the approvals
> paradigm*.
>
> From this I get the impression that if they could move away from the
> approvals paradigm they would.  YL
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111129/5d6c5ff2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:54:03PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> So, is this one rule minhag? Is the whole concept of nichum aveilim
>> "only" minhag? And if either, why does se'if 4 begin "achshav nohagim"
>> if the prior 3 se'ifim are also minhag?

> The following is from Mourning in Halachah, Chapter 17, Consoling Mourners.
> 1. To console mourners is a major precept.  Some consider this mitzvah to 
> be Scripturally ordained (deOraysa).
...
> Please see http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/consoling_mourners.pdf  
> for the relevant pages.

In his footnote, the author cites R' Yonah as saying deOraisa, and the
Rambam as saying derabbanan, and doesn't give the mechaber's position. So,
I still do not know what "minhag" is being referred to in the title of
the siman.

In any case, I don't even think the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah disagree.
RY says it's part of the deOraisa of "es haderekh asher yelkhu vahh"
(Shemos 18:20), ie gemilus chesed in general. The mitzvos of Purim and
Chanukah are part of the fundamental concepts of hallel for a yeshu'ah
and pirsumei nisa, but megillah (et al) and neir Chanukah are mitzvos
derabbanan giving a specific way to fulfil that general chiyuv. So too
the Rambam could speak of nichum aveilim being derabbana without denying
RY's point that it is under the general umbrella of a deOraisa.

Skipping back:
> 2.  It is not enough merely to console the mourner; one must also say  
> good things to him until one makes him happy, and his face becomes 
> cheerful.

WADR to the author, the Shelah (cited as his source) defines nichum
aveilim as just being there, "lehar'os lo panim". Then he adds, "shelo
dai benichum levad, elea gam kein yedabeir nechumim, veyedabeir la'avel
devarim tovim ad sheyismechu, veyihyu panim yafos."

So, it's not "one must", it's a second layer (nichum, then simchah)
after nichumim beyond the mitzvah itself -- the comfort of just showing
your face.

But lemaaseh common practice is to hold like the Tur, and not to take
lead in the conversation as these two add-ons would as times require.
*Perhaps* that's why they're add ons -- only attempt them when the
avel's lead implies they would be appropriate.

BTW, 5.5 is Ashkenazocentric. Sepharadim generally say "Tenachamu min
haShamayim", rather than "HaMaqom".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4155

Rav Moshe Shternbuch: A Woman Mashgiach?

The world of hashgachos today is an all man's world.  Yet when it 
comes to the home it is the women of the house who is the Rav 
haMachshir.  Is a woman halachicly qualified to be a mashgiach in a 
commercial operation?  This was the question asked to Rav Moshe 
Shternbuch (1:426)

He says that whether the issur is Min HaTorah or MiDiRabbanan is not 
the issue.  The issue is, first how difficult the task is and second 
whether there is certainly an issur that must be dealt with or only a 
safek whether there is any issur in the first place.

Rav Shternbuch distinguishes between being a Mashgiach in an 
establishment where the owner is a Michalel Shabbos and is capable of 
trying to outsmart the mashgiach.  In this case a woman should not be 
directly responsible for the Kashrus but can work under a 
man.  However in a Shomer Shabbos establishment where only minimal 
Hashgacha is needed, it would be okay to have a woman mashgiach and 
she is trusted just like she is in her own home.

Despite all this, says Rav Shternbuch, if there is a choice between a 
male mashgiach who is not so midakdek in mitzvos or taking a woman is 
more ehrliche and is shrewd, then the woman is 
preferable.  Nevertheless he says it is better to try to find a man, 
because the woman's place is in the home.

----------
Question:  What is the basis for the assertion that "the woman's 
place is in the home."   Are not most kollel wives engaged in working 
outside of their homes?  And, is this not considered laudable?  If 
kollel wives did not work,  would this not mean that the kollels 
would have to empty out, because the men would have to go to work?

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111129/79901e70/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 240
***************************************

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..."