Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 242

Tue, 06 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Isaac Balbin)
• 2. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Au stralia (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Harry Weiss)
• 4. Halachic guidelines for kashrut (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Seudah shlishit on aharon shel Pesah (David Riceman)
• 6. Announcing Tal Umatar (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Monday Evening begin Prayer for Rain (Ari Meir Brodsky)
• 8. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Harry Weiss)
• 9. Re: re Halachic guidlines for kashrut (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Monday Evening begin Prayer for Rain (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Price of Non-glatt Meat versus Glatt (Mandel, Seth)
• 12. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority ofAustralia (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: Brussel Sprouts (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority ofAustralia (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Brussel Sprouts (Zev Sero)
• 16. Vegetable Peeler: Clarification (shalomy...@comcast.net)

It needs to be pointed out that whilst the authority is called "of Australia" one shouldn't conclude that this is THE authority for Australia.
There are indeed two standards/approaches, and they are effectively run by two different brothers in two States :-)

See the following post, for example

http://pitputim.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/sydney-kashrus-authority-r
esponds/

Melbourne, however, effectively mirrors the OU in standards.

R' Micha Berger asked:

> Wouldn't venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem mean that one mustn't
> risk the 1 in 9 chance of timtum haleiv? Or did I find someone
> who actually definitively holds that it's violating the issur
> which causes timtum, not something inherent in the cheftzah?

I once had a discussion with Rav Aharon Feldman, currently the Rosh Yeshiva
at Ner Yisrael in Baltimore, on this very subject, although I don't
remember whether his example was the 9-out-of-10 kosher butcher stores, or
the one piece of treif meat the got mixed up with two kosher ones. The
question on the table was: Is it, or is it not, a good idea to refrain from
such food.

He said it was a machlokes between the Shach and Taz. One said that - as
RMB suggests - one should avoid such food. The other view, he explained,
was that once the Torah has paskened on the situation, refraining
demonstrates a lack of confidence in the Torah, and so one should
specifically NOT AVOID eating the item in question. I think (but I'm not
sure; I can't find my notes right now) that he said that the treif food --
now that it is paskened to be kosher -- loses its identity, and no longer
causes the timtum that RMB asks about.

Alternatively, I would suggest that even if it does not lose its identity,
rebelling against the Torah's psak (to allow the food) might be even more
harmful to one's neshama than eating it would be. (Of course this is only
one side of the machlokes; the other side does advise one to avoid the item
in question.)

POSTSCRIPT: After writing the above, I found the following on pages 52-53 of Rabbi Binyamin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus", published by ArtScroll:

Note: In the opinion of most poskim[3], when a non-kosher food becomes
batel, the mixture may be eaten even by the most scrupulous[4]. Indeed,
some authorities soundly censure one who hesitates to eat the mixture, as
this shows a heretical reservation about the effectiveness of bitul[5].

[3] With the exception of Issur V'heter 57:15, who rules that it is a
meritorious act to refrain from eating a mixture containing non-kosher food
which became batel.
[4] See D.T. 116:109 who cites opposing views on this. See also B'nei
Yisaschar: Adar 2:7, who presents a Chassidic rationale that it is indeed a
meritorious act to eat the mixture. See also R' Zadok HaKohen: Machsheves
Charurtz p. 182.
[5] See Pischei Teshuvah 116:10, citing the Toras HaAsham. He cites opposing views as well.

On the other hand, the above would seem to apply only to eating PART of the
mixture. Pages 54-55 offer a very wide variety of opinions about eating ALL
of the mixture.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4edae1bbd2c02765bcdst06vuc

> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
>
> How could non-glatt meat be *less* expensive than glatt?  The labour
> involved in checking the lungs must surely make it *more* expensive.

There are other considerations in setting price for item, namely supply
and demand.

For many years there were numerous problems with the non glatt meat
available, which had nothing to do with the question "is no glatt
acceptable"

When Rubashkin was selling non glatt as David's it may have be more time
consuming to check the meat, but once it was determined non to be glatt it
was available either without further checking as trief or with checking as
possibly kosher but non glatt.   The plain kosher, which still had a
demand  to bring in higher prices than trief.

At 08:58 PM 12/3/2011, R. Martin Brody wrote:

>In fact we all have an obligation to learn halacha and not rely on a
>Rabbi's pronouncements what is kosher or not.

This statement flies in the face of the oft stated,  "When in doubt, 
consult your local Orthodox rabbi."   (CYLOR )

From 
http://koshermaven.blogspot.com/2006/02/kosher-kitchen-part-3-kashru
s.html

Consulting A Rabbi: When a question regarding a utensil or food 
arises, consult an Orthodox Rabbi as soon as possible.

 From http://bit.ly/rMBa8s

The complexities of Jewish Kosher law are such that questions about 
what is and what is not kosher or other aspects of the halacha arise 
at all times, not only from those who currently keep kosher, but also 
from those who are considering doing so. Even rabbis, with their deep 
grounding in Jewish texts, need advice at times from the experts on 
the finer points of kashrut.

I note that at www.oukosher.org/index.php/learn/faq  it says, "If you 
can't find a Kosher substitute, consult your local learned Orthodox 
Rabbi for other suggestions.  Am I to deduce from this that there are 
local O rabbis who are not learned?  >:-}

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111204/045223cc/attachment-0001.htm>

RAZ, in his recent article in Jewish Action, writes "there is a custom 
to have a third meal on the last day of Pesah".  I had hoped he would 
cite sources; the followers of both the Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov have 
this custom, but they cite very different reasons for it.  Were they 
both relying on a single earlier source, or did they develop the custom 
independently?

David Riceman

(I have tried to phrase this post so that it applies equally well to
Ashkenazim who begin Tal Umatar on Cheshvan 7 and those who begin around
Dec 5. My apologies if there are significant differences among the halachot
of the Edot Hamizrach.)

When it comes time to begin saying Mashiv Haruach, there are several
halachos which seem to place a great deal of importance on announcing it to
the community. Among these halachos are:

- the choice of beginning it at Musaf rather than another tefila
- the requirement of some kind of verbal announcement
- poskim who address what a person at home should do
- not a halacha, but the minhag has developed an elaborate poem for the shaliach tzibur for the occasion.

(Most of the above relates to the *end* of Mashiv Haruach as well, except
that there are complications resulting from the question of how to announce
that we should stop praising HaShem for something. But it is still a major
event.)

To my knowledge, absolutely none of this attends the beginning of Tal
Umatar, and I'm curious why there is such a striking difference between
these two interrelated tefilos.

Tal Umatar begins on a specific calendar date which is not a holiday in any
sense of the word. It begins at Maariv, rather than the better-attended
Shaharis. Someone will generally remind the tzibur to begin saying it, but
this announcement is not mandated by halacha, and we would say Tal Umatar
even if that announcement was forgotten.

I do understand that Tal Umatar is said *only* on weekdays. It cannot even
be moved to the Shabbos before or after, because it would still have to be
placed in Mincha Erev Shabbos or in Maariv Motzaei Shabbos, neither of
which is as well attended as Shabbos morning. But why does that mean that
it shouldn't have halachos similar to the start of Mashiv Haruach?

Let's keep in mind that an incorrect omission of Tal Umatar DOES require
one to repeat his Shemoneh Esreh. Why do Chazal trust us to remember it,
while insisting on such elaborate rituals for Mashiv Haruach?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4edb61d7b569a778a1est06vuc

Dear Friends,

        This is a friendly reminder to Jews outside of Israel that our daily
prayers should include the request for rain, beginning with Maariv this
Monday evening, December 5, 2011, corresponding to the evening of 10 Kislev,
5772.  The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us
dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the
weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach.  I encourage everyone to
remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may
not be in shul at that time.

        We begin requesting rain in the Diaspora on the 60th day of the fall
season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a).
For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a
fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish
calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we
do: 
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for
providing the link.)

        Also, here is a number-theoretic explanation of why Yaakov sent Esav
220 goats in this week's Torah portion: 
http://cheshbon.weeklyshtikle.com/2010/11/goats-and-amicable-numbers.
html


Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka,
-Ari Brodsky.

-----------------------
Ari M. Brodsky
ari.brod...@utoronto.ca

> From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
> I'm aware of any number of annoying stories like the gelatin one. I'm
> aware that Rav Moshe pasked that peanuts were not kitniyot and could be
> eaten on Pesach and that it was an attitude of creeping chumraism that
> resulted in his being effectively ignored. I'm aware of the problem and

On minor quip, what Reb Moshe ztl allowed was peanut oil, with Mei
Kitniyot being an additional leniency.

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 10:51:57PM -0500, Harry Weiss wrote:
: On minor quip, what Reb Moshe ztl allowed was peanut oil, with Mei
: Kitniyot being an additional leniency.

I wonder, given a similar rationale to the one RHW suggests, why we
avoid corn syrup -- liquid from a source that we couldn't have been
using when the minhag started.

But that's not that RMF actually wrote about peanuts. From
<http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=172> R' Berel Levy of OK Labs,
a translation of IM OC 3:63:
    Concerning peanuts, which were called stashkes in Europe --
    they have been accepted as being permitted on Pesach and are not
    considered kitniyos (legumes that are forbidden on Pesach) because
    all the reasons for the prohibition of kitniyos do not apply to
    peanuts. Peanuts are not sown in fields (with grain), and even if
    they were there is no fear that grain would be mixed together with
    the peanuts; bread is not baked from peanuts; and generally speaking
    though they are vegetables they have the appearance of nuts rather
    than kitniyos. And even though I have heard that in some places they
    were considered kitniyos, peanuts should not be forbidden in places
    where it is not known for certain what the custom had been in their
    city, because, with reference to kitniyos, when in doubt one should
    be lenient.

    Therefore you may give certification for peanuts and the oil
    derived from them, and they will be permissible to the majority of
    persons. Those who know for certain that the custom of their city
    was not to eat peanuts on Passover should not eat them; others are
    permitted to eat them.

Not specifically the oil; no need for a second tzad heter. However,
RMF acknowledged that some (minority) forms of the minhag of qitniyos
do prohibit peanuts.

There was a long period in US O history when peanut oil was the oil most
homes used for Pesach.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 4/12/2011 3:53 PM, Ari Meir Brodsky wrote:
> For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a
> fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish
> calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we
> do:
> http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm  (Thanks to Russell Levy for
> providing the link.)

The article linked contains a serious error.  It claims that the psak
that Rabbi Chaim Shabbetai of Salonica sent to the Recife community in
1637 "set the precedent by which most of the Jews of South America and
Australia abide to this very day".  This is certainly not the case in
Australia, and I would be astounded if it is the case in South America
either.  To the best of my knowledge all communities in the Southern
Hemisphere follow the same minhag Bavel that the rest of chu"l does,
for the same reason, which boils down to: "We know it makes no sense
but this is what we do, and if the Rosh couldn't change it then you
[whoever asks the question] are certainly not going to."


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

The difference is between cost and price.

It costs more to produce plain kosher. And even more to keep glatt and
plain kosher separate.

Price is determined by supply and demand. There is much less demand
for plain kosher nowadays (vs 60 years ago). The number of Cons. and
Refo. Jews buying only kosher meat has and is dropping. Most O. now
buy only glatt.

The ^fewer cows^ is not the determining factor, since all meat goes to
the treifene factory owner, and the Jewish company only buys the kosher
or glatt. The issue is just dividing the costs of the shu`bim between
the kosher animals. The bigger the production, the less it matters.
Yes, fewer kosh'er'glatt, the higher the cost per animal. Butthe other
factors balance that out.

Excuse the punctuation. Keyboards down here in S. America work funny.

Rabbi Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union

RMB writes:

> I am startled that the latter page RYL quoted presumes we should ignore
> the Kesav Sofer and take the Nodah biYhudah for granted.
> 
> I'm trying to understand the NbY's position. Assuming I have a choice
> between two pieces of meat -- one is the famous piece from the 9
> chanuyos, the other I have been holding on to ever since its perfect
shechitah
> and kashering. Does the NbY really hold it doesn't make a difference which
> I choose?
> 
> Wouldn't venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem mean that one mustn't risk
> the 1 in 9 chance of timtum haleiv? Or did I find someone who actually
> definitively holds thart it's violating the issur which causes timtum,
> not something inherent in the cheftzah?

As we do not have the cite to either the Kesav Sofer and the Nodah BiYehuda,
it is hard to be sure exactly what is being referred to, but I think you are
jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  The dinim under discussion here are
clearly not those of the piece from the nine chanuyos, but that of bittel in
some form.

So the question you really appear to be posing is - if you have a situation
where a drop of milk gets accidently mixed into a meat stew and becomes
batel, not only d'orisa but d'rabbanan, in today's society when none of us
would starve if we threw the stew out and made a new stew (ie it is hard to
argue hefsed meruba), do we ignore the din of bittel and worry about timtum
halev and throw the stew out?  What about if you had made two pots of stew,
just to be safe and because you always overcater, and one of them had this
unfortunate drop of milk accident, should you throw the second one out on
the grounds that you clearly have enough and it is better that people not be
exposed to timtum halev?  Or do you hold that the cheftzah of a mutar
tarovos is as mutar as one about which there was no tarovos, because the
Torah who defined what is a cheftza of issur, defined that a tarovos that
includes mixed in it some amount of what was once issur but which is batel
is not a cheftza of issur, period. The alternative being that it is a sort
of cheftza of issur, in that it is sort of mutar but if stacked against
something about which no shialas needed to be asked it is relatively assur.

So it might be (without seeing the NbY and the Kesav Sofer inside) that the
NbY's position is that bittel works, period, and what you now have is a
cheftza of heter.  While the Ksav Sofer is not so sure, he seems to be
suggesting that it only really works in a kind of shas hadchak siuation- or
perhaps a baal nefesh should be machmir (bit like not eating meat from an
animal about which shialas have  been asked).

Of course I am guessing here - the machlokus might not be in the general
case, ie where a drop of milk falls into a meat stew, but in the din of ain
mevatlin issur l'chatchila as applied when a non Jew does it.  Which might
depend on whether one held that ain mevaltin issur l'chatchila is a d'orisa
or d'rabbanan - although that is probably be right, since isn't it the Noda
B'Yehuda who holds that ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila, at least when a Jew
does it, is assur d'orisa for things that are d'orisa, but then if the Ksav
Sofer holds likewise, which he may well do, then the machlokus might be
about, assuming that to be the case, if it is done by a non Jew kind of for
the benefit of the Jew, since he is one of the ultimate consumers (even if
it is unlikely that the non Jew had him in mind), does it fall within the
definition of ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila, or at least to the extent of
not relying on it when given a choice.

But this is all very different to the nine shops case, where we do have,
somewhere in there, a cheftza that is, according to everybody assur, we just
don't know which, and I do not see how can extrapolate from the case under
discussion vis a vis hashgacha to the case of the nine shops.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

RMB wrote (on Areivim, but the discussion has moved to Avodah, and I think
this post belongs there):

> I do too. If you recall, I put my money on a different horse -- that we
> changed the insect ecosystem in a way that makes borderline-visible
> bugs more numerous.

Well I have now done some hunting around in the Achronim, and I think it is
fair to say based on what I have seen, that this position is untenable.

While the achronim do divide into machmirim and makilim, both sides
acknowledge that it is a huge problem - and they were writing in Europe
before the advent of pesticides.

I am going to quote the Aruch HaShulchan here, as he articulates the reality
very clearly:
???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ? ???? ??
??? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???
?????? ??????? ?????"? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????"? ?????
??"? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???
????? ??"? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????
????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???...


Aruch HaShulchan Yoreh Deah hilchot ta?aroves siman 100 Si?if 13
"And know that in all the countries that are known to us in the days of the
summer the creeping things are common in all types of food and especially
these ants which are called Milbin which are found in many species of flour
and all species of growing things(?), and it is almost that it is not
possible to escape from this and indeed there are those who are careful and
strict in all that it is possible to escape from this and still all these
are, and perhaps kol v?chomer all the regular people of the house of Israel
are not strict and eat all that comes to their hand when they do not see
explicitly the Milbin and chalila to say that all of Israel stumbles in a
great issur like this..."

Now the Aruch HaShulchan is among the mekilim in relation to this, and goes
on to bring a number of limudei zechut, but the machmirim also acknowledge
it as a huge problem.

For example, the Pri Chadash (Yoreh Deah siman 84 si'if katan 53) says that
even the Chachamim and Yechidim are not careful as is fitting .. and the
issur is very commonly found in fruit, in vegetables, in small things and in
the majority of types of foodstuff and it is not possible to be prevented
from stumbling in them without great care.  And thus every man shall be
careful to prevent himself from stumbling in this issur, and also to doresh
b'rabim on the severity of this issur in order to separate them from issur.

And the Chatam Sofer writes in relation to maror on pesach (Orech Chaim
simin 132) that I regularly give my drosha on shabbas hagadol about the need
to check well and clean the lettuce from the creeping little teloyim which
are found in it very very much *which are not recognisable to those with
weak eyesight* - and better one should take maror from that which is called
chrein ..

And I could now cite at least half a dozen more (thanks to the Yalkut Yosef
who has so nicely gathered them in his Issur V'Heter Krach 2 daf 182-184 in
my edition, under the heading of Azheros HaAchronim m'issur teloyim).

So I don't think it is possible to say that there has been some change in
the insect ecosystem in a way that makes borderline-visible bugs more
numerous.

However, it seems to me on reading these various sources that there are two
schools of thought here.  While everybody agrees and holds by the gemora in
Makkos 16b that one who ate a small water creature (putisa) he is chayav
four sets of lashes from the Torah, if he ate an n'mala (ie small land
creature) he is chayav five sets and a small airborne creature (tzira) he is
chayav six sets.  Where I think they differ is in relation what is going on
when one eats lettuce and the like which happens to have bugs in it.
According to the machmir school of thought, it seems clear they read the
gemora there that one is still liable min HaTorah for each bug that is eaten
- eg the Chatam Sofer says how can you be over on lavin from the Torah in
order to perform the mitzvah of maror which is today d'rabanan.

However the makilim, it seems to me, understand things differently.  I think
they are understanding the issur min HaTorah as being when you eat eg
chocolate covered ants, or witchety grubbs [Aboriginal delicacy] or snails
or the like, even if these are small.  But in the case of eating lettuce,
you are not eating "bugs" you are eating a mixture, a tarovos, with the vast
majority of the tarovos being lettuce, but with some bugs mixed in.  On this
basis they understand that *min HaTorah* there is no issur, the bugs being
batel.  Therefore the issur, to the extent it exists, is d'rabbanan, and is
based on the gezera of the Chachamim that a beriya [whole creature] is not
batel - at least according to the straight language of the Shulchan Aruch
afilu b'elef.  That means that the whole checking for bugs is, at most,
d'rabbanan.

Now this answers the question I asked on here last week, at least if you
follow the makilim.  Because that means checking vegetables for bugs is very
much like bedikas chometz, the obligation is d'rabbanan (because bittel
works) and hence something that can more reasonably be left to the hamon am.

And it is on this basis, ie that eating lettuce with a tarovos of bugs is
only d'rabbanan, that the Aruch HaShulchan learns out his various heterim
(this is a summary of Yoreh Deah siman 100 si'ifim 14-18):

a) According to the Cresy u'Plecy, the Rashba, the Or Zarua, the Rif, the
Ra'avid, Rabbi Shimshon baal HaTosphos and possibly also Rashi hold, not
that a beriya is not nullified even in a thousand, but that a beriya is
nullified in around a thousand (slightly different shiurim between the
different rishonim, but around there).  This, according to the Cresy u'Plecy
and the Aruch haShulchan is thus enough to deal with the tiny wheeny bugs
(presumably these Milbin, whatever they are), since the are sufficiently
small to be nullified in 1000.

b) the Mishkanot Ya'akov learns out an additional heter, being that this din
of beriya is compared to a chaticha haruiya l'hitchaved (both being rabbinic
dinim in which something that would d'orisa be batel is decreed not batel by
the Chachamim) and he says that therefore the kind of beriya in question has
to be such that one would consider it chashuv, and it has a status and
independent identity, but that these bugs which are so small that they
really just get lost in the edible substance are not within this definition.
[The Aruch HaShulchan doesn't like this one so much, because he says that
min HaTorah, if one eats one of these very small creatures, there is lashes,
and the Chachamim modelled their definition of what is a beriya on what the
Torah gave lashes for, and he quotes the reference in Makos to eating a
n'mala and being lashed five times.  But I confess I don't understand the
Aruch HaShulchan's objection, because how does he know that the n'mala
referred to in Makos was as small as these Milbin.  Maybe it was the size of
one of our ants today - that would indeed make it a lot smaller that the
k'zayis which is generally the shiur for malkos, except for these kinds of
creatures, but way bigger than the Milbin, or aphids or the like, that you
can only just see.  People (and by this I mean non Jewish people) do eat
things like chocolate covered ants (or at least I assume so, as otherwise
how to explain this little book of my mother's when I was growing up that,
in order to help her lose weight, listed out the calorific content of
numerous foods, and which us little girls found hilarious because it listed
such items as chocolate covered ants).  Nobody sets out to eat tiny weenie
creatures like aphids or these Milbin, nobody would dream of including them
in a calorie counter, and that, it seems to me, is the Mishkanot Ya'akov's
distinction between a kind of insect that can be considered chashuv and one
that is not].

c) that the concept of beriya does not apply to things that are disgusting
to a person.  The Aruch HaShulchan he bases this on a Beis Yosef at the end
of siman 104 and the Rema in siman 103:1 - and holds that even though one
would get lashes from the Torah if one ate them as independent items, in
terms of the gezera of the Chachamim regarding beriya, that it not be batel,
they were never gozer on ants and flies and the like that people
instinctively find repulsive, and that therefore regular bittel applies with
such creatures, so in fact you do not need to go to a thousand, but sixty or
the usual rules apply.

This whole discussion takes place without going anywhere near the question
of the mutar types of shratzim found in fruit which is talush, or certain
types of mutar shratzim in flour.  Maybe that is because these Milbin flew
or moved around sufficiently much which would clearly rule them out. Or
perhaps precisely because the problem was so widespread that merely allowing
mutar shratzim in fruit and vegetables would not be enough. There do seem to
be some discussion in the achronim about the mutar shratzim category, and
whether one can rely on the Shulchan Aruch saying that the shratzim inside
beans and peas are fine, or whether one needs to look out for black spots
and dig the shratzim out from beneath the surface.  And also lots and lots
of discussions about drinking from water sources that clearly have toloyim
in them and where you will get the toloyim along with your water (this one
was clearly a huge issue, and the greatest leniencies, even amongst the
people who line up as the machmirim, seem to me to come in relation to this
- although by doing so specifically in relation to this category, and saying
that these are mutar shratzim, they then are able to be more machmir
elsewhere).  There are also additional heterim such as the after 12 months
heter, which doesn't seem to get much play today (maybe all our food is
consumed before then).  But I think it safe to say that based on the
descriptions provided by the achronim as to the extent of the problem, to
the extent there has been any ecosystem change, it would have to be to
diminish the numbers of tiny bugs, rather than to cause them to increase.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:08:07AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But this is all very different to the nine shops case, where we do have,
: somewhere in there, a cheftza that is, according to everybody assur, we just
: don't know which, and I do not see how can extrapolate from the case under
: discussion vis a vis hashgacha to the case of the nine shops.

9 chanuyos (the non-qavua instance) is bitul berov. It's not a mixture
but the words "bitul" and even "taaroves" are still involved. We could
make a second chiluq between bitulim -- maybe even if you say that bitul
in a mixture avoids timtum haleiv, that bitul beruba de'iqah leqaman does
not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 5/12/2011 8:25 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> and all species of growing things(?),

"Groipen" means groats, i.e. hulled grain ready for cooking.  Kashe
is cooked groipen.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

I posted earlier a question about a rumor that Rav Moshe held that a vegetable peeler is not 
a special device for borer, and therefore can be used derech achila. I suggested that because this 
was based on the idea that the peel and the fruit are of one kind (a la the Pri Megadim), but also added 
that if that were so, then it was irrelevant whether the peeler was or wasn't a device designed for sorting. 

Rav Naftali Rothstein (RNR), whose shiur I was transmitting (although filtered through my somewhat faulty memory and 
understanding), clarifies: 

" The logic I was using to explain the peeler not being a special utensil for sorting was based 
upon something I saw in a book explaining R? O. Yoseph?s position. However, I do not know if 
this is R? Moshe?s logic, even if the rumor is correct. The reason why it is relevant is because 
the Pri megadim says that it?s considered one ?min? (type) only when the peel is regularly 
eaten with the fruit (i.e. an apple) but if the peel is not eaten (i.e. a carrot) then it?s not 
considered one ?min? rather it becomes ?2 minim? and could be an issue of borer unless 
it is pealed in the ?derech achila? fashion (right before eating and without a special utensil). 
So, in the case that you want to peel a carrot, you could not use a peeler unless you say that 
the peeler is considered just like a regular knife and therefore it is still considered the 
?derech achila? fashion." 

Now, I'm not sure I completely understand. If at least sometimes the peel and the 
vegetable are considered two minim (RNR's carrot), then the peeler is specifically 
for separating. Does the fact that it is only SOMETIMES separating two minim, and 
other times not, mean it takes the status of not a special tool. 

Suppose there were a type of beans that came with some very small ones and some 
larger ones. -- and I only wanted the larger ones. If I sometimes use my colander to separate 
out the smaller ones, that doesn't mean the colander loses its status as a sorting device 
for cases that are really borer. In other words, I still can't use it to strain spaghetti, can I? 


- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111206/a006f162/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 242
***************************************

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..."