Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 131

Sun, 21 Jul 2013

• 1. Re: Abortion is not Murder (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: the 7 nations (Lisa Liel)
• 3. self cleaning ovens (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: boiling water (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: boiling water (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Zev Sero)
• 7. arithmetic question (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: arithmetic question (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: arithmetic question (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: the 7 nations (Jay F Shachter)
• 11. Grape Juice (martin brody)
• 12. Re: Grape Juice (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: Grape Juice (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Grape Juice (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: self cleaning oven (Kenneth Miller)

On 20/07/2013 4:51 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote:
> The proof that HaAdam is a descriptor and not a definition is
> compelling from other parts of Shas, AniYim BeMaKom Echod ?... they
> have already been elaborated in this discussion. Does anyone suggest
> that a Y who dispatches a foetus is tried by BD as a Rotzeach?

No, but exactly the same is true if the victim is a ben noach.  I put it
to you that their status is exactly the same.  It is a kind of murder
which, if a BY does it, is in the jurisdiction of BD shel maaalah, while
if a BN does it it's in the jurisdiction of BD shel mata.


> Or even before it is 30 days old?

Absolutely.  One second after birth, jurisdiction belongs to BD shel Mata.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 7/19/2013 4:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:38:18AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> : Well, there's a midrash that explains why the Girgashi are missing
> : from so many of those. They got Yehoshua's letters and fled to Africa.
> : I don't know about the rest.
>
> Rashi Shemos 32:2, 34:11.
>
>
> How does that line up with the date Carthage (Kart Chadasht --
> Newburg?) was founded by the Phoenicians? (Descendents of Kenaanim who
> were living on what would be Zevulun or so -- they build Tzidon and Tzur.)
> Does it fit any of the more discussed chronologies (or your own) to
> place the building of Carthage contemporary to Yehoshua?
>    

Most scholars put Carthage's founding around the time of Eliyahu or 
Elisha.  And I agree with that.  The only chronological information we 
have for dating it is from Josephus, who quotes Menander (a Phoenician 
author) to give a Tyrian king's list.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Tyre#Kings_of_the_Sidonians_.28with_Tyre_as_capit
al.29.2C_990.E2.80.93785_BC

Lisa

I forgot to mention in my previous post that I need sources that one can
put a pot
in the self-cleaning oven for libun chamur on the pot.
My rabbi is not satisfied with rumors

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130720/d06d32ec/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/07/2013 1:24 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> My daughter learned in seminary that you're not allowed to (or should
> not) drink water that has been heated but not to the point of boiling.
>  If it was boiled and then cooled off that's OK but you can't pour
> yourself a cup of coffee from the kettle before the water boils.  I
> told her I had never heard of this and would ask my learned friends on
> Avodah.  Anybody?

She was told this was a matter of Torah or halacha, rather than health or
water quality?

If you're in a place where you have to boil the water, then it has to boil.
Also I find that making instant coffee with unboiled water causes white stuff
to go to the top, I really don't know why, but it's not attractive.

So I think this is why someone told your daughter this, not for any reason to
do with yiddishkeit.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

This psak has been reported a lot over the last few weeks, as part of an 
advertisement for some new book.

http://www.ateret4u.com/online/f_01355_part_15.html#HtmpReportNum0004_L2

Here Rav Ovadia says that one should allow the coffee or tea to cool a 
bit before saying the bracha. If someone says the bracha and only then 
allows the coffee to cool, that passes b'diavad.

However on the same page, 
http://www.ateret4u.com/online/f_01355_part_15.html#HtmpReportNum0005_
L2 
he writes that one doesn't say a bracha achrona on coffee which is hot 
because one drinks it very slowly.

So it would seem that at least b'diavad one can say a bracha on a piping 
hot cup of tea.

Ben

On 7/19/2013 8:24 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> My daughter learned in seminary that you're not allowed to (or should 
> not) drink water that has been heated but not to the point of 
> boiling.  If it was boiled and then cooled off that's OK but you can't 
> pour yourself a cup of coffee from the kettle before the water boils.  
> I told her I had never heard of this and would ask my learned friends 
> on Avodah.  Anybody?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130720/19b0da4a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 20/07/2013 8:17 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>   (Although I do confess that while it seems pashut to me
> that the uber is a k'rodef, and not rodef mamash, that seems to me to have
> little to do with the question at hand.  A rodef mamash has to have intend
> to kill (or rape or whatever).  If I chase after you to kill you, I am a
> rodef.  If I accidently fall out of a tall building, or are pushed by
> somebody wanting to hurt me, and you happen to be underneath where I am
> falling, you might get killed, but I can't see how you can say that I am a
> rodef mamash.  A baby has no intent to kill its mother, quite the opposite,
> if it had an intent, it would be to save her.  Therefore it cannot be
> described it as a rodef mamash, the most it might have is a halachic status
> like a rodef).

A literal rodef is someone who is chasing the victim. Someone standing
in one place and shooting is not literally rodef, but he is "kerodef",
i.e. he has the same halacha as a rodef, since the actual chasing is
irrelevant. "Rodef" is just an example Chazal gave of the underlying
halacha.

And the *law* of rodef (or "kerodef" if you want to be hypercorrect)
does not require intent. The person falling off the roof and about to
fall on a person and kill him is kerodef and may be killed.


> Note also, getting back to Tamar, that even were you correct in your
> position regarding the gmar din falling also on the uber vis a vis Yehuda
> (who believed she was guilty and hence would therefore be justified in
> putting her and the two ubarim to death, since the gmar din fell on them
> too), but that doesn't work for Tamar herself.  Tamar knows she is innocent,
> and hence her deliberately putting Peretz and Zerach into the fire (via
> herself) to be killed, would clearly be a violation of the issur of rechitza
> if indeed issur of rechitza there was.

She wouldn't be deliberately putting anyone into the fire. If she were,
then forget about her children, she would be murdering herself, which is
just as bad as murdering someone else. She would merely be failing to
prevent others from killing them, and she had no more duty to prevent them
from killing her children than she did to prevent them from killing her.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Chesky supplied the following numbers

* one-sixth of the starting price --
    1/6 * 210 = 35, so both 210 + 35 = 175 and 210 - 35 = 245 are ona'ah.

* one-sixth of the final price --
    6/5 * 210 = 252 --> 1/6 * 252 = 42 = 252 - 210, so 252 is ona'ah; and
    6/7 * 210 = 180 --> 1/6 * 180 = 30 = 210 - 180, so 180 is ona'ah.

Using his figures let me rephrase my question. For simplicity assume we are
talking about an overcharge. The situation is similar for an undercharge

As Chelsky assumes the "real" price is 210
Based on the starting price onaah is 245 based on the final price it is 252.

Question what happens if the price charged is 250
This is greater than 1/6 based on the starting price and so the deal is off
(mekhat taut)
This is less than 1/6 based on the final price and so the deal stands as is

It cant be both - which one is correct?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130721/12ac4715/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:01:02AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: * one-sixth of the starting price --
:     1/6 * 210 = 35, so both 210 + 35 = 175 and 210 - 35 = 245 are ona'ah.
: 
: * one-sixth of the final price --
:     6/5 * 210 = 252 --> 1/6 * 252 = 42 = 252 - 210, so 252 is ona'ah; and
:     6/7 * 210 = 180 --> 1/6 * 180 = 30 = 210 - 180, so 180 is ona'ah.
...
: Question what happens if the price charged is 250
: This is greater than 1/6 based on the starting price and so the deal is off
: (mekhat taut)
: This is less than 1/6 based on the final price and so the deal stands as is

To phrase it as the SMA would:
There was ona'ah in the exhange of money, but not the exchange of product.

I think that means the deal is on, but the extra money has to be refunded.
The buyer owns the grain, and gets the overcharge back.

The deal is on, because he underreceived by 21/25, which is more than
5/6 of the PRODUCT paid for.
But the exchange of the extra money isn't binding, because he overpaid
by 25/21 or which is more than +1/6 of the MONEY he should have for
that product.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> To phrase it as the SMA would:
> There was ona'ah in the exhange of money, but not the exchange of product.
>
> I think that means the deal is on, but the extra money has to be refunded.
> The buyer owns the grain, and gets the overcharge back.
>
> The deal is on, because he underreceived by 21/25, which is more than
> 5/6 of the PRODUCT paid for.
> But the exchange of the extra money isn't binding, because he overpaid
> by 25/21 or which is more than +1/6 of the MONEY he should have for
> that product.

This is exactly the halacha had the overcharge been exactly 1/6 that the
deal is on but the overcharge gets returned.
Nevertheless SA stresses that 1/6 means that exactly and a change of one
"penny" would change the halacha.
Yet according to the SMA (as Micha intreprets it) actually this halacha
applies for a range between 1/6 of the starting price and 1/6 of the
final price.

Personally I am disturbed at defrining Onaah as exactly 1/6 to the penny,
meaning it is very improbably.
So from my viewpoint I am happy with this intreperation. Nevertheless
it doesnt seem to agree with SA.

kol tuv
Eli

-- 
Eli Turkel

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:38:18AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Well, there's a midrash that explains why the Girgashi are missing
>> from so many of those. They got Yehoshua's letters and fled to
>> Africa.  I don't know about the rest.
>
> Rashi Shemos 32:2, 34:11.
> 
> How does that line up with the date Carthage (Kart Chadasht --
> Newburg?) was founded by the Phoenicians? ...
> -Micha

The question is not when Carthage was built.  If the Phoenicians did
colonize North Africa in response to our arrival in Canaan, Carthage
in any event would not have been the first colony that they built.
Utica would have to be older than Carthage, for simple etymological
reasons.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                            j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                            http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

> Could you please provide me with a mar'eh maqom of a halachic
> source that holds pasteurization would make wine mevushal?
> Micha Berger

Shulkan Aruch YD. 123 Yad Soledos Bo. Say 125 degrees?
That's  considerably below FDA pasteurization temperatures

Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi concurs.

 ---

> Then perhaps you should call it "cooked" or "pasteurized". But to call it
> "mevushal" is to invoke halachic factors which you have not proven. It is
> similar to saying that carrying a piece of paper in the street is not a
> melacha; it very well might not be "work", but "melacha" is something else
> entirely.

> Akiva Miller

Being a bit picky are you?
Mevushal is Hebrew for cooked, but I'm sure you know that.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I was posting factual information, that
most are unaware of.
You can do what you like with the information.

It would be nice if now again somebody said that's interesting and
thank you instead of coming back at me with pilpulistic or should I say
pugilistic comments

Cheers
Martin Brody

R' Martin Brody wrote:
> ... by FDA law and Kedem's own admission it is cooked at the
> regulatary minimum which I think is 160 degrees.

I will begin by apologizing, and saying something that I should have
written earlier: The above is indeed interesting, and news to me. I
had thought that the grape juice labeled by Kedem as "non-mevushal"
was totally raw. Now I know that it is actually pasteurized, but at a
temperature which even Rav Moshe Feinstein considers insufficient to
qualify as "mevushal". Thank you.

Now I'll review that line in its larger context:
> Kedem's claim that it does produce non-mevushal grape juice
> is a bit lame, because by FDA law and Kedem's own admission
> it is cooked at the regulatary minimum which I think is 160
> degrees. Yes, I'm aware of the mevushal/temperature arguements)
> ... So modern day cooked grape juice for kiddush/havdala/
> weddings/britim/4 cups is a huge heter., and not permitted
> in my very strict house.

If we were writing in Hebrew, this MIGHT not have bothered me, because
in Hebrew the same word "mevushal" can mean different things in varied
contexts. But we're NOT writing in Hebrew. This forum is in English
(or perhaps a Jewish dialect thereof), in which "cooked" and "mevushal"
mean distinctly different things. I tried to point this out by writing:

> "Then perhaps you should call it "cooked" or "pasteurized".
> But to call it "mevushal" is to invoke halachic factors which
> you have not proven. It is similar to saying that carrying a
> piece of paper in the street is not a melacha; it very well
> might not be "work", but "melacha" is something else entirely.

His response:
> Being a bit picky are you? Mevushal is Hebrew for cooked, but
> I'm sure you know that. I'm not trying to prove anything. I
> was posting factual information, that most are unaware of. You
> can do what you like with the information. It would be nice if
> now again somebody said that's interesting and thank you
> instead of coming back at me with pilpulistic or should I
> say pugilistic comments

**I'M** the one being pilpulistic/pugilistic???!!!

No, sir, I disagree. Despite your disclaimer, you most certainly ARE
trying to prove something. Specifically, you are trying to prove to
us that WE should consider ALL of Kedem's grape juice to be mevushal,
even when the label explicitly says that it is not.

Your exact words were:
> Kedem's claim that it does produce non-mevushal grape juice
> is a bit lame, ... So modern day cooked grape juice for
> kiddush/havdala/weddings/britim/4 cups is a huge heter, and
> not permitted in my very strict house.

Your basis for the above, as far as I can tell, is based purely and
deliberately on trying to convince us that if the FDA required grape juice
to be pasteurized, then the juice must count as halachically mevushal,
regardless of what the poskim say.

I have tried to be dan l'kaf zechus, but I cannot imagine why a learned
person such as yourself would so deliberately blur the line between
government requirements and halachic requirements. Please explain
yourself.

As a side point, I'd like to repeat the *first* question I had raised
in that post, which you have not yet responded to:

> What is your source that being the fruit of the grape is
> insufficient, and that the fermentation process needs to
> have begun?

In other words, regardless of how we would define "mevushal", it seems
from your post that "modern day cooked grape juice" is not permitted in
your home for kiddush and other rituals, because the cooking is done
in a manner which prevents the fermentation from even beginning. I am
curious from where you know that this is a halachic requirement.

My understanding is that the chashivus of wine comes simply from it being
the liquid extract of the grape. I get this from Brachos 35b, where
the special brachos for wine and olive oil are discussed together. I
know of no requirements placed on olive extract (other than it not be
harmful, as shown in that gemara), and so I conclude that there are no
requirements for grape extract.

You seem to hold that this is insufficient, and that the mere beginning
of the fermentation is also required (without requiring the fermentation
to be complete). Please show me your sources, I'd love to learn more
about this. Thank you.

Akiva Miller

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:56:43PM -0700, martin brody wrote:
:> Could you please provide me with a mar'eh maqom of a halachic
:> source that holds pasteurization would make wine mevushal?
:> Micha Berger

: Shulkan Aruch YD. 123 Yad Soledos Bo. Say 125 degrees?
: That's  considerably below FDA pasteurization temperatures

As I clarified later, my problem was only partly about temperature.
Although it's more like 165 or 170 F.

But there are problems calling pasteurized wine mevushal given the speed
and efforts taken not to boil away any product. I'm really just stalling
for Chana to do my research for me -- ROY has a teshuvah, and thus an
encyclopedic list of sources, on the subject.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

On 21/07/2013 7:09 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> I had thought that the grape juice labeled by Kedem as "non-mevushal"
> was totally raw. Now I know that it is actually pasteurized

If it wasn't pasteurised, how would it remain juice?  By the time it got
to you it would either be wine or vinegar.


> but at a temperature which even Rav Moshe Feinstein considers insufficient
> to qualify as "mevushal". Thank you.

I don't think so.  I don't think they produce any juice that RMF would not
consider mevushal; AFAIK the "non-mevushal" is by the standards of their
primary hechsher, the Tzeilemer Rov.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

R' Eli Turkel asked:

> From what I have seen the consensus is that one can kasher a
> self cleaning oven by putting it through its cycle. This also
> applies to the racks inside the oven.
>
> Question: If one puts a pot that needs libun inside the self
> cleaning oven during its clean cycle is that also ok?

It is unfortunate that too often, people speak about "libun", and forget to distinguish between "libun gamur" and "libun kal".

Here is what Rav Shimon Eider writes, in "Halachos of Pesach", page 180-181:

"2. Many Poskim hold that our ovens require libun gamur, that is, the walls of the oven must get red hot... ...

"3. Other Poskim hold that libun gamur is required only where the issur makes direct contact with the oven (e.g. baker's oven) ...

"4. Most Poskim hold that a self cleaning oven may be kashered by running
it through the self cleaning cycle. According to the view of many Poskim
(see 2) who hold that libun gamur is required for gas and electric ovens,
the door must be covered with aluminum foil and the like for Pesach.
According to the view of the other Poskim (see 3) who hold that libun kal
is sufficient, the amount of heat which reaches the door during the self
cleaning process is sufficient."

It is clear to me from the above that a pot would require libun gamur, and being inside a self-cleaning oven would NOT be sufficient.

For more details, *please* see the portions of paragraphs 2 and 3 which I omitted.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
New BlackBerry&#174 Z10
Discover the BlackBerry Z10, built to keep you moving. Get it today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51ebcb3c9d06a4b3c6f0est02vuc


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 131
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)