Volume 30: Number 40
Sat, 12 May 2012
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:46:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
RZS wrote:
What about water and salt? Where did the Torah permit those to be
consumed?
CM responds:
I think the most straight forward approach would be a kal vechomer from the
permit to eat vegetation. Since man was granted permission to eat
vegetation, then certainly that would include any substances that are
indeed consumed by the vegetation in order for them to grow and thus become
food for man.
I should point out that this was not quite as obvious as I originally
imagined. Water is pretty clear but I had to google around a bit before I
found that plants do need chlorine (as in sodium chloride) in small
quantity to enable cellular metabolism. Just a cursory search turns up that
salt can be harmful to most plant life. Anybody familiar with the details
of the need (all be it small) for chlorine for cellular metabolism in plant
life?
Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120511/4542490f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:53:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
On 11/05/2012 1:46 PM, hankman wrote:
> Since man was granted permission to eat vegetation, then certainly
> that would include any substances that are indeed consumed by the
> vegetation in order for them to grow and thus become food for man.
Kosher birds and fish eat treife animals. (For that matter, so do
kosher mammals.) Would your kal vachomer mean that we can eat whatever
a chicken eats?!
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:59:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Daas Torah Rerere...redux - Pesachim 112a
On 11/05/2012 2:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:58:05AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> Yes, knowing HOW to govern or WHO he is governing. Rashi uses a pair of
>>> matching clauses -- milei degirsa and milei detzibura. It seems compelling
>>> to me that he is comparing knowledge vs knowledge. Espesially since the
>>> word in repetition ("milei") literally means "words of".
>
>> On the contrary. It means "things of". Or "issues of". Lomdus issues
>> vs public issues.
>
> That could well be the tanslation, but not "on the countrary" -- /mll/
> is the shoresh and "words" is the primary meaning from which others
> derive. Don't see how that changes the basic meaning of the phrase
> or the masqanah. I don't see Rashi as giving an argument specific to
> disqualifying a TC as mayor and not devalue his ability to advise a mayor.
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:24:37PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Rashi uses a pair of matching clauses -- milei degirsa and milei detzibura.
>
>> No, he doesn't.
>
>>> It seems compelling
>>> to me that he is comparing knowledge vs knowledge. Espesially since the
>>> word in repetition ("milei") literally means "words of".
>
>> Turn that around. Since he *doesn't* use the language you claim, your
>> own logic shows that he means the actual work of administration.
>
> You gave a converse, not a contrapositive, so while you defused my argument,
> your counter-argument doesn't work.
I think it does. Rashi contrasts "his learning" with "public matters".
"His learning" is something that is he is doing now, not gathering
knowledge so he can learn at some other time. So also "public matters"
is something that he is neglecting to do now, when it needs to be done;
i.e. it's the actual fixing of potholes, not gaining the wisdom to know
that potholes need to be fixed.
> On this topic, see Igeros haQodesh 8:2342 (14-Teves-5714)
> <http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/ig/
> 8/2342>
> where the LR draws the distinction between Rashi: velo bemilei detzibura,
> and Rashbam: velo tatid bemilei detzibura. And says he wishes to be
> maqayim perush Rashi and not ch"v peirush Rashbam.
I don't understand the chiluk either, but I think you've misunderstood
the letter; it's not what he *wishes* to fulfil, it's what *has* been
fulfilled. He writes that due to lack of time he was unable to prevent
mistakes in a project he was managing (milei detzibura), and so the
maamar chazal has been fulfilled, but only according to Rashi; the maamar
as Rashbam understands it has BH not been fulfilled.
So what is the difference? I see two differences in the text: Rashi
says "begirseih", while Rashbam says "begirsa". Is that a significant
difference? Is Rashi referring only to his own private learning, while
Rashbam means all learning, even giving shiurim for others? I don't
know. The other difference is Rashi's omission of the parallel "tarid";
but surely it's implied. *Maybe* the Rebbe means that the Rashbam says
a TC completely neglects his public duties, while Rashi says he does
them, but not as well as a non-TC would. So the Rebbe says he did
devote time to the project, but not as much as it needed, so the result
was flawed. But it's a very fine distinction, and maybe there's
something more obvious that we're both missing. I'll ask R Berel Levin,
the editor of the Igros, for his opinion.
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:10:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On 11/05/2012 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 01:57:31PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 1:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> But for a milkhemes mitzvah, no one can stay home -- Misnah Sotah
>>> 8:7. "Bameh devarim amurim, bemilchemes reshus. Aval bemilchemes mitzvah,
>>> hekol yotzei."
>
>> How do you know that includes the full-time TC?
>
> Like on the Peng Peng thread... If there is nothing saying otherwise,
> why would you invent exclusions. We have nothing saying that "hakol"
> dosen't literally mean "hakol".
But we know from elsewhere that TC are not supposed to be conscripted.
So as not to create an unnecessary contradiction we should read here
that they aren't subject to conscription in the first place, and are
therefore not included in those who are (or in milchemes mitzvah are not)
released from service.
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:17:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> But we know from elsewhere that TC are not supposed to be conscripted.
Specifying a milkhemes mitzvah? The mishnah at the end of the pereq
listing exemptions is "Bameh devarim amurim, bemilchemes reshus. Aval
bemilchemes mitzvah..."
:-)BBii!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:04:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Daas Torah Rerere...redux - Pesachim 112a
On 5/11/2012 11:24 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 11:34 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I pointed to
>> Rashi because his rationale about not having invested the time to master
>> milei detzibura
>
> But that's not what Rashi says. That's what *you* say.
Correct.
> Rashi uses a pair of matching clauses -- milei degirsa and milei
> detzibura.
>
> No, he doesn't.
Also correct. Rashi says "d'tarud b'girsei v'lo b'milei d'tzibura."
The clauses don't match at all, and the word "tarud" is stative, or
present passive, and does not -- cannot -- be talking about what he has
or has not done in the past.
>
>> It seems compelling
>> to me that he is comparing knowledge vs knowledge. Espesially since the
>> word in repetition ("milei") literally means "words of".
>
> Turn that around. Since he *doesn't* use the language you claim, your
> own logic shows that he means the actual work of administration.
Tiyuvta l'Rav Micha, tiyuvta.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:06:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
On 5/11/2012 12:46 PM, hankman wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> What about water and salt? Where did the Torah permit those to be
>> consumed?
> I think the most straight forward approach would be a kal vechomer
> from the permit to eat vegetation. Since man was granted permission
> to eat vegetation, then certainly that would include any substances
> that are indeed consumed by the vegetation in order for them to grow
> and thus become food for man.
> I should point out that this was not quite as obvious as I originally
> imagined. Water is pretty clear but I had to google around a bit
> before I found that plants do need chlorine (as in sodium chloride)...
That's irrelevant. No human being was aware of any need for salt, and
therefore could not have deduced by kal v'chomer that salt is permissible.
Salt is permissible for a very simple reason. It was never forbidden.
On 5/11/2012 12:53 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 1:46 PM, hankman wrote:
>> Since man was granted permission to eat vegetation, then certainly
>> that would include any substances that are indeed consumed by the
>> vegetation in order for them to grow and thus become food for man.
> Kosher birds and fish eat treife animals. (For that matter, so do
> kosher mammals.) Would your kal vachomer mean that we can eat whatever
> a chicken eats?!
Not meaning to dilute your point, which is an excellent one, I'd question
your parenthetical addition. I can't think of a single kosher mammal
that's carnivorous. In fact, when cows had meat snuck into their food,
they wound up with Mad Cow Disease.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:17:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
R?nLL wrote:
I disagree. Ha-motzi me-chaveiro, alav ha-raaya. If you're going to declare
that people (even people at the time of maaseh bereishit) didn't have the
right to eat without being granted the right explicitly, you have to prove
it. Not just assert it and wait for others to disprove your assertion.
Hashem says "pru urvu." Does that mean that procreation was forbidden until
He said that? And what's your distinction between eating and lifting your
hand? Both are natural to the form and character that Hashem gave us.
Hashem owns everything, including us, so when I lift my hand, am I not
using something of His? Should I not have to get permission? That's the
implication of what you're saying, and I don't see any justification for
it.
CM responds:
I will respond phrase by phrase to the above as much of it makes no sense to me at all.
LL: I disagree
CM: Your prerogative. But is merely your assertion. You present no proof of your assertion.
LL: Ha-motzi me-chaveiro, alav ha-raaya.
CM: Total non sequitor ? not even as a metaphor. This is a rule in dinei
momonus and not meaningful in a philosophical discussion of defaults at the
time of masei bereishis. Besides I am not being ?motzi? and you are not a
?muchzak? in anything except your own assertion.
LL: you have to prove it. Not just assert it and wait for others to disprove your assertion
CM: As I already said above ? no more and no less than you have to prove
your assertion. I did provide some authority and logic. You provided
nothing but your assertion. I would be happy to hear your ?proof.?
LL: Hashem says "pru urvu." Does that mean that procreation was forbidden until He said that?
CM: I have no idea, but why would it bother you if that was the case?
LL: And what's your distinction between eating and lifting your hand? Both
are natural to the form and character that Hashem gave us. Hashem owns
everything, including us, so when I lift my hand, am I not using something
of His? Should I not have to get permission?
CM: It?s kol hanehneh .... not kol ha?oseh ....
LL: I don't see any justification for it.
CM: That?s just your assertion again.
Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120511/0f4a5b56/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:21:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
On 11/05/2012 3:08 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> Not meaning to dilute your point, which is an excellent one, I'd
> question your parenthetical addition. I can't think of a single
> kosher mammal that's carnivorous. In fact, when cows had meat snuck
> into their food, they wound up with Mad Cow Disease.
Cows naturally eat meat, just not a lot of it. Cows got BSE because
cows were fed meat from *diseased* sheep, just as (the theory goes)
humans got nvCJD because they were fed meat from diseased cows. That
doesn't mean it's not natural or healthy for humans to eat meat, and
nor does it mean it's not natural or healthy for cows to eat meat.
It is natural and healthy, unless the meat is infected with something.
For that matter, both cows and humans can get sick from eating
contaminated vegetables, but that doesn't mean it's not natural or
healthy for them to eat vegetables!
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:22:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On 11/05/2012 3:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> But we know from elsewhere that TC are not supposed to be conscripted.
>
> Specifying a milkhemes mitzvah? The mishnah at the end of the pereq
> listing exemptions is "Bameh devarim amurim, bemilchemes reshus. Aval
> bemilchemes mitzvah..."
Avraham's war was not a milchemes mitzvah?
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:28:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:22:11PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Specifying a milkhemes mitzvah? The mishnah at the end of the pereq
>> listing exemptions is "Bameh devarim amurim, bemilchemes reshus. Aval
>> bemilchemes mitzvah..."
> Avraham's war was not a milchemes mitzvah?
Perhaps not. Maybe because Lot could have been freed in other ways,
it was a milkhemes reshus. Also, what about Avraham not getting blamed
for his own fighting?
Besides, you're arguing with a stam mishnah by quoting an aggadita.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:25:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
On 11/05/2012 1:46 PM, hankman wrote:
> Since man was granted permission to eat vegetation, then certainly that
> would include any substances that are indeed consumed by the vegetation in
> order for them to grow and thus become food for man.
RZS responded:
Kosher birds and fish eat treife animals. (For that matter, so do
kosher mammals.) Would your kal vachomer mean that we can eat whatever
a chicken eats?!
CM responds:
Of course not - since the shekatzim and remashim that I assume you are
referring to are explicitly made asur by the Torah. Ie., the kal vechomer
(as you seem to agree) is there but it is trumped by the explicit issur
given in the Torah.
Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:29:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On 11/05/2012 3:28 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Besides, you're arguing with a stam mishnah by quoting an aggadita.
No, I'm reading the mishneh in a way that doesn't conflict with the
agadeta.
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:41:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On 5/11/2012 2:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 01:57:31PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2012 1:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>>> But for a milkhemes mitzvah, no one can stay home -- Misnah Sotah
>>>> 8:7. "Bameh devarim amurim, bemilchemes reshus. Aval bemilchemes
>>>> mitzvah,
>>>> hekol yotzei."
>>
>>> How do you know that includes the full-time TC?
>>
>> Like on the Peng Peng thread... If there is nothing saying otherwise,
>> why would you invent exclusions. We have nothing saying that "hakol"
>> dosen't literally mean "hakol".
>
> But we know from elsewhere that TC are not supposed to be conscripted.
Where do we know that from?
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:32:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?
RZS wrote:
What about water and salt? Where did the Torah permit those to be
consumed?
CM responds:
I think the most straight forward approach would be a kal vechomer from
the permit to eat vegetation. Since man was granted permission to eat
vegetation, then certainly that would include any substances that are
indeed consumed by the vegetation in order for them to grow and thus
become food for man.
I should point out that this was not quite as obvious as I originally
imagined. Water is pretty clear but I had to google around a bit before I
found that plants do need chlorine (as in sodium chloride) in small
quantity to enable cellular metabolism. Just a cursory search turns up
that salt can be harmful to most plant life. Anybody familiar with the
details of the need (all be it small) for chlorine for cellular
metabolism in plant life?
R?nLL responded:
That's irrelevant. No human being was aware of any need for salt, and
therefore could not have deduced by kal v'chomer that salt is permissible.
Salt is permissible for a very simple reason. It was never forbidden.
CM responds:
Do you really have any idea of what Adam Harishon knew or did not know?
Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120511/9940321b/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:03:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:41:06PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> But we know from elsewhere that TC are not supposed to be conscripted.
>
> Where do we know that from?
This is way afield. There is a kelal in kol haTorah kulah (and English
law) that anything not prohibited (presumably onlu after we take into
account the chiyuv of Qedoshim tihyu and avoiding being a menuval birshus
haTorah) is permitted. Silence means reshus, not chiyuv or issur. Both
RZS and Lisa mentioned this days ago. Arguing details based on ignoring
it seems pointless.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Joseph Kaplan <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:06:44 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
" Meanwhile the
full-time TC are back home building up zechuyos for them."
What's the source for this?
Joseph Kaplan
Go to top.
Message: 18
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:58:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom
> " Meanwhile the
> full-time TC are back home building up zechuyos for them."
>
> What's the source for this?
For one thing, Sanhedrin 49a. David did not go to war; he stayed home
and learned Torah, while Yoav fought. And if not for David's learning
Yoav would not have been successful.
Bava Batra 7b, TCh don't need protecting, and therefore don't pay taxes
towards a town's defence needs.
And of course the gemara Nedarim 32b that RMB has already cited, that
Avraham was punished for recruiting TCh.
Moshe Rabbenu assigned 1/3 of his army to learn.
Rambam Hil' Shmita Veyovel says Shevet Levi does not wage war like the
rest of Israel, and then says that anyone can join Shevet Levi.
More sources can be found here:
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/forum/print.asp?id=91437
--
Zev Sero "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
are expanding through human ingenuity."
- Julian Simon
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 40
**************************************
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..."