Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 166

Thu, 06 Dec 2012

• 1. Rabbis say observant Jews can eat in secular homes (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Sevara Hu: What was the nature of Yosef's bad reports about his brothers (Meir Rabi)
• 3. What is the word ?Macabi? an acronym for ? (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: What is the word ?Macabi? an acronym for ? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: HaKafos (was HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH etc) (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Re: Goebekli Tepe (David Riceman)
• 9. yosef's role (saul newman)
• 10. Re: Goebekli Tepe (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Rabbis say observant Jews can eat in secular homes (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Rabbis say observant Jews can eat in secular homes (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Insights into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah Hullabaloo (Prof. Levine)

R. Ben Waxman asked me if I read the article 
about this or only his summary.  (I deleted his message to me.)

The article I read is at 
http://tinyurl.com/cof59m6  It does not give any 
of the details you gave.  Thus I responded to 
your post.   This article says in part

The ruling also eases restrictions on the 
consumption of fruits, vegetables and dairy 
products in the home of someone who does not keep kosher.

"Beit Hillel has rabbinical leaders who are 
attuned to the public," Rabbi Ronen Neubert, the 
director-general of Beit Hillel, said. "The 
organization was founded with the mission of 
giving a voice to tolerant, level-headed and 
welcoming Judaism whose ways are pleasant and 
non-coercive. Judaism's House of Hillel provides 
religious answers to contemporary theological 
issues as well. The first issue we discussed is 
particularly relevant; we are confident that the 
religious ruling will allow those who keep kosher 
? routinely or just occasionally ? be guests at 
the home of those who do not keep kosher. This 
will increase the unity and love amongst the people of Israel."

According to its press release, the Beit Hillel 
organization comprises more than 150 national 
religious rabbis. It strives to see the moderate 
and attentive rabbinical leadership return to the 
forefront of Judaism, to address the growing need 
of Israelis for a more tolerant Judaism. It lists 
three main issue on which it plans to focus: 
reconciling democracy and Jewish law, 
safeguarding the rights of women in society, and 
allowing Israelis to enjoy an education that 
combines both Halachic Judaism and secular fields 
of study. "We seek to enlist open-minded people 
to join our cause and take part in this effort by 
making their voice heard," the statement said.

I have no idea what being attuned to the public 
means nor do I know what part of the public R. 
Neubert is referring to.  It seems to me from 
what I read the being "attuned to the public" trumps halacha.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121206/76a533ab/attachment-0001.htm>

According to Seforno, Yosef reported to YaAkov that the brothers were not
running the family business at maximum profit.
Why was this so important? Why would it have been of any concern to YaAkov?
It was not as though they were not being meticulous in their Avodas HaShem.

Seforno explains that "at that time their main focus and energies were
devoted to accumulating great wealth"

I am unaware of any Gemara or Medrash that proposes or alludes to such an
interpretation.

I propose that this too falls within the rubric of Lama Li Kera Sevara Hu.
Yes, I know this is Drush etc. but Drush is normally constructed upon
Medrash or Gemara and is there to fill in the blanks - to join the dots.
This interpretation by Seforno though takes a new direction based on what
he sees the Pesukim. And he is entitled and we accept the Seforno as
mainstream orthodox and I believe quite Yeshivishe Mussar.   Sevara Hu

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121206/0c3c9b96/attachment-0001.htm>

 From today's Hakhel email Bulletin

Special Note Four:  What is the word "Macabi" an acronym for?  Many 
of us may be familiar with its acronym of "Mi Chamocha BaAililm 
Hashem--who is like You among the strong ones, Hashem?"--for the 
victory of the Chashmonaim was based upon their utter reliance on 
Hashem for victory against humanly impossible odds.  The Chasam 
Sofer, however, teaches that Macabi is also an acronym for "Matisyahu 
Kohen ben Yochanan," referring specifically to Matisyahu, as the 
leader of the Chashmonaim.  What is the lesson for us in this term 
according to the Chasam Sofer?  We may suggest that it demonstrates 
the importance of mesiras nefesh by one individual.  Matisyahu, 
according to many, was not the Kohen Gadol (but the son of the Kohen 
Gadol, Yochanan), and did not have a leadership position.  He simply 
determined that action had to be taken, for the Jewish people faced 
defilement not only for that generation but for all future 
generations, as well.  He started with his five sons, who risked, and 
in some instances gave, their lives for salvation, and ended with a 
Kiddush Hashem of such proportions that the Sanhedrin decided to 
commemorate the nissim that resulted from this one man's actions 
forever and ever.  We cannot underestimate the force--and the 
effect--that each one of us can have, not only upon ourselves and our 
families, but also on all of K'lal Yisroel.  Did Matisyahu realize 
that he and his tiny group of Talmidei Chachomim would bring down the 
Greek Army?  Did he realize that his single-handed actions would save 
Jewry from the reform movement of those days?  Quite possibly, he did 
not realize these effects--but he did what Hashem expected of him, 
for that was right.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121206/be6463f1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:38:51AM -0500, Prof. Levine quoted today's
Hakhel email Bulletin:
> Special Note Four:  What is the word "Macabi" an acronym for?  Many of us 
> may be familiar with its acronym of "Mi Chamocha BaAililm Hashem...
>                                   The Chasam Sofer, however, teaches that 
> Macabi is also an acronym for "Matisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan," referring 
> specifically to Matisyahu, as the leader of the Chashmonaim...

Fine al pi derush. One could argue that's why BQBH worked it out so that
Beis Chashmonai eventually got that nickname.

Al pi peshat and causality, it doesn't work. Makabiim I 2 opens:

    1 In those days Matisyahu ben Yochanan ben Shim'on, a kohein from
    benei Yoariv from Yerushalayim, got up and went to Modiin. (Or: got
    up from Y-m and went to Modiim -- I'm at the mercy of consensus of
    Xian translations.)

    2 He had 5 sons: Yochanan who was called Gaddis/Caddis,
    3     Shim'on who was called Thassi,
    4     Yehudah who was called Maccabeus,
    4     Elazar who was called Avaron/Abaron, and
          Yonasan who was called Apphus.

Thassi looks to be Greek, meaning "director" or "guide". Avaran also
looks Greek; it could be "the piercer", referring to Elazar's stabbing an
elephant, which then killed him when it died (1 Mac 6:43-46). Similarly,
Yonasan, who led the Jews between Matisyahu and Yehudah, has the
name Apphus which may be Greek for "the diplomat" (in the sense of
smooth-talker, not in a complementary way). None of these etymologies
are certain, as not all the letters involved are. But it doess seem to
be a collection of nicknames that may have even been chosen by the enemy.

So, according to this book, originally written in Hebrew by a Jew
(could be a min, though) under Malkhus Chashmonai (2nd cent BCE),
"Makabi" was originally a name for Yehudah alone. It didn't become a
family name until after Yehudah took over from Yonasan who took over
from Matisyahu. Which makes the CS's rashei teivos unlikely to be peshat.

(For that matter, the "mi kamokha" origin would mean that Maccabeus
was picked by his supporters, even though his brothers' were picked by
Misyavnim, or at least Greek-speakers, and who were likely trying to
belittle them.)



A list of possible etymologies for either Makabi (w/ a kaf), Maqabi (w/
a quf -- and here kaf vs quf is useful, "q" haters beware!), or even
Machba'ei (with a cheis-alef, which I understand best fits the Greek
transliteration):

Acronyms:
    Mi kamokha ba'eilim, H'!
    Matisyahu Kohein b Yochanah (if you hold that a shetar is signed
        "A eid ben B", otherwise, "kohein" would be at the end referring
        to either/both Matsiyahu or/and Ychanan)
    avrahaM, yitzchaQ, yaaqoV -- and taken from the banner of Sheivet Gad
        (where Modiin is located)

Maqabi: hammer (Aramaic, although the shoresh is also Hebrew)
Manqav: general (Aramaic)
Makabi: from /kbh/ to extingush.
Machba'ei: one who hides, which they did in caves

At least Chanukah / Chanukkah / Hanukkah / .... we know how to spell in
Hebrew!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I asked to R' Zev Sero --

> There are many poskim who say, "There is no RHR nowadays."
> Are you suggesting that they are NOT referring to population
> patterns or road construction styles, but rather they're
> referring to "nowadays when we hold that 600K is a
> requirement"?

and RZS responded:

> No, of course not.  Either 600K is a requirement or it isn't.
> Those who hold that it is hold that it was always one.  They
> *have* to; we have no authority to change the definition of a
> RHR.  I don't understand how you could read such a suggestion
> into the words you quote above.

My apologies. My admittedly-extreme guess was based mostly on the very odd
lack of explanations of WHY there is no reshus harabim nowadays. Many
poskim make this assertion with no explanation whatsoever, and this is
compounded when later poskim quote them unquestioningly.

In other words: If Posek ABC claims that "there is no reshus harabim
nowadays", then I am willing and eager to accept that p'sak for the time in
which he lived, and for the places with which he is familiar. But it leaves
me in a barren quandary when I want to know the halacha for other times and
other places.

Some have made the claim that a number of reshuyos harabim DO exist today.
It seems to me that they can do this only if they either (A) disagreeing
with the other poskim (which they *are* entitled to do, but their
credibility would be enhanced if they'd point out the precise points of
disagreement), or (B) by claiming that the earlier p'sak no longer applies
(in which case they *must* specify exactly which circumstances have
changed.

It's quite possible that I simply haven't looked hard enough, but given
that I have not seen any such explanations, that's what drove me to "grasp
at straws" with my guess about the 600K.

ON THE OTHER HAND, despite RZS's comment that

> Either 600K is a requirement or it isn't.

halacha can and does change when the poskim say so. We do melacha so early
on Saturday night that those of earlier generations would be absolutely
appalled. And *we* would be similarly appalled to see how late *they* did
melacha on Friday.

We can quibble about terminology, and whether or not this constitutes a
"change" in halacha, but the halachic ramifications are many. For example,
calculate Plag Hamincha according to Magen Avraham, and then ask whether
our L'hadlik Ner on Erev Shabbos is a bracha l'vatala. [In Gateshead, for
example, sunset today is at 3:40 pm, and MA's plag is not until 3:50!] So
too, I (and R' Micha, according to a recent post of his) am not bothered
(much) by the idea that "nowadays" could mean "now that the 600K is
accepted".

By the way, many in this thread have wondered: if indeed it is so difficult
to have a real reshus harabim, then why were Chazal so machmir on Hotzaah?
Isn't it a gezera to a gezera? My understanding is that there is a simple
answer, namely that Shabbos is an exception to the "no gezera to a gezera"
rule.

Think about it: There's a gezera not to do melacha with a shinui, but the
halacha goes far beyond that: We can't even do a psik reisha of a melacha
she'ein tzricha l'gufa with a shinui -- and that's a 3rd or 4th level
"gezera to a gezera"! (DISCLAIMER: Okay, I didn't actually look that up.
Maybe there IS a posek somewhere who says that we *CAN* do a "psik reisha
of a melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa with a shinui". But I will bet that
this posek allows it only b'shaas had'chak -- which is yet another level
down! -- and not lechatchila.)
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Ready to Soar
How You Can Own a $1 BILLION Company for Pennies of the Dollar.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50c0b5aabba5c35aa40e9st01vuc

RMB writes:

>However, Rebbe spends over 1/3 (guesstimating) of the space on hilkhos
>Shabbos (mesechtos Shabbos and Eiruvin) discussing hotza'ah.
>Disporportionately huge, if you think there are not only 28 other
>melakhos, there is some mention of muqtzah (aside from Mes' Beitzah),
>shevus, mitzvos asei of Shabbos, etc... It makes it hard for me to
>believe hotza'ah wasn't a big part of their Shabbos experience in his
>day.

Actually, that can be argued to be a proof the other way.  

I went looking for a shita that I remembered being cited (but couldn't
remember in the name of who) regarding why is there no Mishna on Chanukah,
or for that matter on Tephillin and Tallis, and found it on the web quoted
in the name of the Lubavitcher Rebbe:

 
http://www.chabad.org/holidays/chanukah/article_cdo/aid/1067385/je
wish/What-
Happened-to-Tractate-Chanukah.htm

teh answer given is that, given the gezera on writing down torah she baal
peh, and the fact that the only reason it was permitted to be written down
was because it was a horas sha'ah, because otherwise it might be forgotten -
therefore Rebbe did not write down those aspects of halacha that everybody
knew and were in no danger of being forgotten - like tephillin and tallis
(which people wore every day, and for many, all day every day) and Chanukah,
which people remembered.  

In which case, one could argue that the reason so much was written on
hotza'ah is because indeed it was not common in those days, and in fact the
primary candidate to be forgotten(I know this goes against Rabbanu Tam in
the first tosphos of Shabbas but there are other reasons given there, and
indeed on might suggest this as the opposite of Rabbanu Tam, the reason that
the mesechta starts off with hotza'ah is because it is the melacha most
likely to be forgotten were it not to be done this way) .


>-Micha

Regards

Chana

[Sorry for the delay getting this out. Rn Chana and I couldn't decide
whether the discussion was enough about how we relate to minhag to belong
here. I finally decided that when in doubt, inertia (and ease of following
the discussion) would mean it should stay on Avodah where RZS posted.

-micha]


RZS writes:
> Indeed, in the communities where this occurs, why don't the women organise
> something for themselves?  Whether it's dancing in the women's section, or
> if there's not enough room then in another place, or a women's kiddush with
> speakers, etc.  I'm not talking about women's hakafos with a sefer torah,
> which is controversial, though I don't really understand why; I'm talking
> about things that are surely acceptable in even the most conservative
> circles.

I have seen various attempts at it - from the coffee and chat morning at
the house of the lady member, to the organised yom iyun. Dancing in the
women's section doesn't work where the women's section is the traditional
form with a balcony and tiered steps, so for most places that is out.
It is generally only the overflow/alternative minyanim that have flat
areas without fixed seats that can allow for it. But even where some
girls attempt to get something going, it does tend to feel very flat.

The Yom Iyun day is another alternative. One of the shuls here in London
(in fact, to give it context, the shul of the Rav who at the moment
is being spoken about as the one remaining candidate for Chief Rabbi)
flies in some women from Stern for Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah, who
then give back to back divrei torah - a la Shavuos night, but for women
and mostly during the day. In a lot of ways it is a nice idea - but,
it doesn't feel like Simchas Torah, it feels like a kind of Shavuos.
Does it matter? I dunno. It depends how important you think minhag is.
Simchas Torah has for at least a millennium meant one thing to the Jewish
people, and Shavuos another, and now there is a serious attempt to make
the one like the other. In the situation where the women do nothing -
Simchas Torah still conjures up ideas of hakafos, and exuberant dancing
and singing in honour of the Torah, even though half the population are
doing nothing and not participating. But once you set up something like
this, then it does threaten to seriously undermine the minhag. Is this
a problem? - clearly not for those on the men's side who do not like
the minhag as it is. But it is very ahistorical. Yom Tov was davka the
time that they did not do Targum and expounding (see Beitza 4a), and
yet the solution to "not" being radical and letting women engage with
the Sifri Torah in the way men do (eg dancing, layning to one another),
is to do something that Chazal specifically ruled not to do, so that
one should not come to do something that Chazal did not comment on.
It is very odd really, but there you go.

I have heard of other places where women learn something during the year
so as to have a siyum on Simchas Torah, which they then hold somewhere
separate. Again of course, very odd. Simchas Torah is supposed to be
the siyum on having learnt through the entire Chumash during the year.
And the point is that this is a universal siyum. So women (who are not
obligated in learning Torah anyway) step away from the universal siyum
(which embraces those who are obligated), so as to hold a private siyum
on something (which is sometimes a bit of Chumash, but sometimes Nach
or Mishna or a perek of gemora or what have you). And nobody worries
about ain marvin simcha b'simcha, or about being porush min hatzibbur,
or about imitating the men, or the other things that set red flags waving
when it comes to dancing with sifrei torah.

The most inventive idea I have seen practiced is by a group of single
professional girls of my acquaintance (one of the ringleaders happens
to live across the road from us, which is how I know). The import of
being both single and professional is that a) being singles they don't
have families to look after or worry about; and b) being professionals,
they have both money to spend, and very limited holiday, which is
why spending one of their enforced holidays doing very little is more
frustrating than for others. So this group (girls only, frum homes, I
think they must all have their parents, so no Yizkor issues) takes foreign
holidays over Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah - such as going to Venice.
They pick somewhere where the sightseeing can be done by walking, and
where, I think, there is some form of rudimentary Jewish infrastructure
(Chabad house or the like) to give some support, although they take most
everything with them, and off they go for a long weekend, have Yom Tov
meals together, and then go out and sightsee. Of all of these, definitely
the most fun, but I am not sure it is very Yomtovdik or even very Jewish,
even though no halachos are being broken. On the other hand it is the
one option that doesn't feel apologetic. Boys couldn't do this, because
they need to be in shul, and they need a sukkah for Shmini Atzeres etc
etc, ie the freedom is only there because they are all girls, and there
are no expectations on them to be participants in the Jewish goings on.
In that sense I can see why this genuinely feels liberating.

> (For the younger girls, who are just old enough to have been denied the
> men's section, their own hakafos with toy sifrei torah would probably
> be a good idea, and neither scandalous nor demeaning; but of course
> past a certain age it would be terribly demeaning.)

Younger girls can't keep that sort of thing going without lots of older
girls and adult support. The thing about the men's side is that it is
not just the little boys dancing, they couldn't keep it up either, but
it is the men of all ages, that make the little boys (and bigger boys)
feel part of something much bigger. You cannot create that sense with
just little girls, so while it does sometimes start for a bit, it soon
peters out. And indeed seeing that sort of thing really sets up a trigger
for older girls to simply walk away, on the grounds that she is clearly
"too old" for it (and perhaps Yiddishkeit in general) and not wanted.
Probably not serious if there is enough other stuff the rest of the year
to hold them, but enough to cause pretty serious rupture if not.

And yes, if people want to be creative, there are options - how about
a women's only singing and dancing talent show? (OK, the music would
be missed, it would all have to be acapella, and no microphones, but
more difficult things have been achieved) - pledges for charity anyone
for attending? (the men do it when auctioning of the aliyos, so why not
the women?). But if something about this twists your gut because of how
non YomTovdik it feels, then you can see a lot of the problems inherent
in the idea of deliberately searching for something else for women to do,
anything else, so long as it is not what the men do.

Regards
Chana

RMB:

<<In my own life, I am an absolutist on mesorah. Not on literalism or 
maximalism, but on not questioning historical claims made in the mesorah 
on the basis of anything but questions raised by studying the mesorah.>>

Let's take a concrete example.  The Ramban in Sha'ar HaGmul demonstrates 
that Gehennom is a real place by citing R. Yosi's opinion in Masseches 
Shabbas that Hamei Tveriah are toldos ha'eish because they are heated by 
the fires of hell.  The Ramban argues that this can't be an allegory 
since it's used to establish a pragmatic halacha.

Now it seems to me that what's interesting about this Hazal is that it 
addresses the halachic question about the status of a source of heat 
which is neither the sun nor a fire.  But this analysis presupposes that 
R. Yosi's expression "the fires of hell" is a metaphor for magma, rather 
than a literal description, as the Ramban, and, apparently, you, hold.

My only reason for questioning R. Yosi's intent is external to the 
mesorah.  How do you deal with this gemara?

David Riceman

what did  yaakov  expect yosef's role  to be when all is said and done?
    a 4th Av ? a Super -brother ?   a  king for the moment ?  a vehicle to
ultimate slavery? yosef melech [al kol] yisrael?  just a favorite
dad-always-liked-you-best son?

in the end does he not endow  malchus to  yehuda?   in his  bracha he
 basically says  yosef you're great and  my beloved and everyone loves you
 [which is debatable]

and in the end ,    malchut  came  via  his  2 brothers [binyamin and
yehuda] , except that forbidden breakaway malchut comes thru ephraim, and
we know how that worked out, so that ultimately the yosephites are lost to
history....

if  this is election, what is it worth?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121206/d0e59012/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:58:47AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> Now it seems to me that what's interesting about this Hazal is that it  
> addresses the halachic question about the status of a source of heat  
> which is neither the sun nor a fire.  But this analysis presupposes that  
> R. Yosi's expression "the fires of hell" is a metaphor for magma, rather  
> than a literal description, as the Ramban, and, apparently, you, hold.

> My only reason for questioning R. Yosi's intent is external to the  
> mesorah.  How do you deal with this gemara?

I do not question R' Yosi's intent. On the matter of hashkafah, I side
with the choleqim who place gehenom outside of the physical realm. I
do not feel a need to metaphorize R' Yosi. But they provide mesoteric
basis for my not buying into R' Yosi's literal words; it's not *only*
due to knowledge of geology.

On the matter of halakhah, R' Yosi ends up giving us a ruling about a
hypothetical we don't find in reality. But still, this tells us that he
holds that cooking on Shabbos by heat that is not fire is mutar. How
we apply this bizman hazeh to cooking in a hot spring with current
understanding that the heat is neither the sun's nor fire's, is a
slightly different recurring issue -- halakhah lemaaseh and science.


My position is that it's okay to say "I didn't understand the opinions
of chazal, the rishonim, etc..." But I don't feel comfortable saying
"I understood their opinions, but not one of them got the TSBP correct,
and I, using scientific, philosophical, or other outside data, know
better." It smacks of leaving the stream down the ages that is mesorah.
It also implies that one considers the other sources of data more reliable
than the mesorah, such that the mesorah is asked to retreat on every
issue of confrontation.

Which is why I asked how this methodology protects belief in Torah miSinai
(or any other iqar) or yetzi'as Mitzrayim (because of all the mitzvos
one can't fulfil without believing there is something to remember)
from archeological claims.

Going back to whether my position stems from a correct understanding of
the second section of the Moreh, I want to look at his introductin to
pereq Cheileq <http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37969&;st=&pgnum=268>,
the 9th iqar emunah:

    The Ninth Fundamental Principle

    ... is the transcription. That is, that this Torah was transcribed
    from Hashem yisbarakh and no one else. And to it ONE MAY NOT ADD or
    remove, neither the tsb"k nor TO THE TORAH SHEBE'AL PEH. As it says,
    "lo sosif alav, velo gigra mimenu." [Devarim 13:1]

    We have already sufficiently explained this principle in our
    introduction to this work [Peirush haMishnayos].

As is clear from my emphasis, I do not believe the Rambam is okay with
modifying TSBP based on one's philosophy (or today, one's science).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

The entire psak starts from an assumption: Eating is a social activity 
that binds (or can bind) people together. Kashrut, an extremely 
important mitzvah, is not something which should divide the divide the 
Jewish people. The opposite: we have to make effort to keep the Ahm 
unified. Therefore we must try and see if there are ways of keeping both 
mitzvot. While hosting people is the ideal solution, it isn't always 
possible and telling someone "You can eat with me but I can't eat at 
your place" can be insulting and divisive.

The psak mainly deals with food that was bought somewhere else and 
reheated or something which doesn't require cooking (I didn't mention 
that point). Yes they talk about home cooked food, but they advise 
against unless you can really investigate what went into the dish.

I am not going to argue every point you made. Suffice to say, they go 
the qula.  For example, your point about buying meat from a reliable 
heksher. First of all they say that food has to have a heksher. More 
importantly,  I have no doubt that you and they would disagree as to 
what constitutes a reliable hesker (they would be OK with the 
rabbinate).   They bring sources for their opinions, including eating 
salad, drinking non-mevushal wine, microwave, etc.

Ben


On 12/6/2012 1:20 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> R. Ben Waxman asked me if I read the article about this or only his 
> summary.  (I deleted his message to me.)
>
>
> I have no idea what being attuned to the public means nor do I know 
> what part of the public R. Neubert is referring to.  It seems to me 
> from what I read the being "attuned to the public" trumps halacha.
>
> YL
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121206/227ff1b1/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:28 PM 12/6/2012, Ben Waxman wrote:
>The entire psak starts from an assumption: Eating is a social 
>activity that binds (or can bind) people together. Kashrut, an 
>extremely important mitzvah, is not something which should divide 
>the divide the Jewish people. The opposite: we have to make effort 
>to keep the Ahm unified. Therefore we must try and see if there are 
>ways of keeping both mitzvot. While hosting people is the ideal 
>solution, it isn't always possible and telling someone "You can eat 
>with me but I can't eat at your place" can be insulting and divisive.

I think that people who are not observant will understand since they 
do not keep kosher, then religious people will not eat in their 
homes.  I fail to see "You can eat with me but I can't eat at your 
place" being insulting.  It is simple a fact of life.


>The psak mainly deals with food that was bought somewhere else and 
>reheated or something which doesn't require cooking (I didn't 
>mention that point). Yes they talk about home cooked food, but they 
>advise against unless you can really investigate what went into the dish.

Then how is one supposed to know that the food was bought from a 
place that has reliable hashgacha?  Is the secular person supposed to 
show the religious person the sales slip and kashrus certificate?  Is 
he or she not supposed to break the seals until the religious person 
arrives. All of this does not sound to me like it will make for Achdus.


>I am not going to argue every point you made. Suffice to say, they 
>go the qula.  For example, your point about buying meat from a 
>reliable heksher. First of all they say that food has to have a 
>heksher. More importantly,  I have no doubt that you and they would 
>disagree as to what constitutes a reliable hesker (they would be OK 
>with the rabbinate).   They bring sources for their opinions, 
>including eating salad, drinking non-mevushal wine, microwave, etc.

There is another issue here to keep in mind - Tzinius.  What if the 
secular lady of the house is wearing a sleeveless and/or low cut 
dress or blouse.  What are the men supposed to do about making a 
bracha or, indeed,  even looking at her.  Is this issue dealt with. 
(Note that I did not mention if her hair is uncovered,  because I 
assume that they would tell you to rely on the heter of the Aruch HaShulchan.)

YL

Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos 
Chanuka?  This year, 5773, with two Motzei Shabbasos Chanuka (but 
only one actual Shabbos Chanuka), this halachic dispute, simmering 
since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up...

Read the Full Article ... "<http://ohr.edu/5308>The Chanuka Candle / 
Havdalah Hullabaloo".



I welcome your questions or comments by email.  For all of the Mareh 
Mekomos / sources, just ask.

"<http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/>Insights Into 
<http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/>Halacha" is a weekly 
series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you 
enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign 
up to receive weekly articles simply email me.

kol tuv,

Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim

<mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>ysp...@ohr.edu






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121206/1948573a/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 166
***************************************

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..."