Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 134

Wed, 24 Jul 2013

• 1. Re: Grape Juice (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Self Cleaning Oven (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Grape Juice (martin brody)
• 4. Re: Grape Juice (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Grape juice (martin brody)
• 6. Re: Grape Juice (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Grape Juice (Eitan Levy)
• 8. Chazal's Temperatures (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 9. Re: Self Cleaning Oven (Eitan Levy)
• 10. Re: Grape Juice (Joe Slater)
• 11. Re: Traditional Methodologies (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: Grape Juice (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Zev Sero)

At 02:41 PM 7/23/2013, martin brody wrote:
>All "best wine" is of course personally subjective, but it cannot be 
>something that has been deliberately spoiled by cooking. Therefore, 
>the best wine is non-mevushal. That's what it means

I normally use Kedem's mevushal Concord Kal for 
Kiddush.  However,  for the Sedarim I use the same wine,  but it is 
not mevushal.  I taste no difference between the two,  so I fail to 
understand how at least for this variety you can say that the 
mevushal type is "spoiled" by cooking.

Furthermore,  there have been times when I have cooked wine that was 
not mevushal.  (See below for the reason.)  Once it cools and is 
refrigerated,  I taste no difference.

Of course, I am not a connoisseur when it comes to wine.

There is another good reason to use mevushal wine.  It prevents 
problems when one has non-Jewish help like cleaning ladies.

>There are many fine sweet and semi sweet wines that are non-mevushal.

True,  but in light of the above regarding gentile help,  it seems to 
me that mevushal wine is to be preferred from a "kashrus" standpoint. .

>Pasteurised Grape juice is NOT wine. It cannot ferment into a 
>potable product. That people enjoy that taste does not magically 
>make it wine. That it is permitted by poskim for sacramental 
>purposes still doesn't make it wine.

True.  I never claimed that grape juice is considered wine.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130723/ed4cbd6a/attachment-0001.htm>

At 04:30 PM 7/23/2013, R Turkel wrote:

>Was the matzoh oven run by chazal? Todays ovens also use modern technology

In what way?  See http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=42416

I am copying Ari Zivotofsky on this reply.  I am sure he can supply 
information about how hot matza ovens were in the past and if and how 
things have changed today.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130723/f3e10697/attachment-0001.htm>

"I normally use Kedem's mevushal Concord Kal for Kiddush.  However,  for
the Sedarim I use the same wine,  but it is not mevushal.  I taste no
difference between the two,  so I fail to understand how at least for this
variety you can say that the mevushal type is "spoiled" by cooking.
 YL"

Because Chazal tell us to spoil it. How? By cooking it!
Also are you sure that the non-mevushal variety is not cooked at all? Maybe
like the grape juice non-mevushal it is cooked at a lower temperature that
their posek suggests would qualify for mevushal?
And also, no disrespect meant but Concord Kal is not considered a quality
wine.
It is interesting why you reserve the non-mevushal for Pesach and not
Shabbat. Any reason for that?
Martin Brody


> "Furthermore,  there have been times when I have cooked wine that was not
> mevushal.  (See below for the reason.)  Once it cools and is refrigerated,
> I taste no difference.
>
> Of course, I am not a connoisseur when it comes to wine.
>
YL"

Clearly!

Martin Brody

>
> "There is another good reason to use mevushal wine.  It prevents problems
> when one has non-Jewish help like cleaning ladies.
>
YL"

Maybe.
But there are different shittas regarding non-mevushal wine and gentiles.
I take a lenient approach to this as I do everything else, except grape
juice for Kiddush!

>
>
>
> "True,  but in light of the above regarding gentile help,  it seems to me
> that mevushal wine is to be preferred from a "kashrus" standpoint.
>
YL"

I can see why you would say that but I disagree.
In the United States, it probably now impossible to get non-mevushal wines
in restaurants or catered functions.There seems to be no such problem in
London, Paris and Antwerp for example, let alone Israel.
Martin Brody

>
>
>


-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130723/3d7ec9f7/attachment-0001.htm>

At 05:13 PM 7/23/2013, martin brody wrote:
>Because Chazal tell us to spoil it. How? By cooking it!

Is wine made today the same way it was made in the time of 
Chazal?  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wine it seems 
not.  Also,  the kind of grapes used clearly play a key role in the 
kind of wine produced.

While cooking wine in the time of Chazal may have spoiled it,  it is 
not at all clear to me that the wine that we have today is spoiled by 
cooking.  My limited experience with boiling non-mevushal wine is one 
counter example.

>Also are you sure that the non-mevushal variety is not cooked at 
>all? Maybe like the grape juice non-mevushal it is cooked at a lower 
>temperature that their posek suggests would qualify for mevushal?
>And also, no disrespect meant but Concord Kal is not considered a 
>quality wine.
>It is interesting why you reserve the non-mevushal for Pesach and 
>not Shabbat. Any reason for that?

My understanding is that non-mevushal wine is preferable for Arba 
Kosos at the Seder,  so that is why we use it.   Red wine is also 
preferable for the Sedarim,  even though many might argue that 
certain white wines are considered better wines.  Thus,  "best" may 
not be the end all and be all when it comes to wine for kiddush.

Again,  I am not expert.  I am simply speaking from my own very 
limited experience.

(I still remember the heavy Concord and Malaga kosher wine that was 
used in the sixties.  It was all that was available.  Cooking 
definitely did not spoil this wine,  since it was "spoiled"  from the 
get go! :-))

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130723/26f4630a/attachment-0001.htm>

"My understanding is that non-mevushal wine is preferable for Arba Kosos at
the Seder,  so that is why we use it.
YL"

Exactly! And why do you think that is?

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130723/9a29aeca/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Martin Brody wrote:

> All "best wine" is of course personally subjective, but
> it cannot be something that has been deliberately spoiled
> by cooking.

Why not? Do you deny that the Rama 272:8 explicitly allows mevushal wine, if it is better than the non-mevushal?

> That people enjoy that taste does not magically make it
> wine. That it is permitted by poskim for sacramental
> purposes still doesn't make it wine.

Okay, fine. Let's not discuss the meaning of the English word "wine". Would
you agree that those poskim who allow it for sacramental purposes also hold
that the bracha is Hagafen (or Hagefen)?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Stand With Our President
Show your support for raising the minimum wage. Sign the petition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51ef04ff1abc24fe6ee0st01vuc

At 02:41 PM 7/23/2013, martin brody wrote:
?I normally use Kedem's mevushal Concord Kal for Kiddush.  However,  for
the Sedarim I use the same wine,  but it is not mevushal.  I taste no
difference between the two,  so I fail to understand how at least for this
variety you can say that the mevushal type is "spoiled" by cooking.

Furthermore,  there have been times when I have cooked wine that was not
mevushal.  (See below for the reason.)	Once it cools and is refrigerated, 
I taste no difference.

Of course, I am not a connoisseur when it comes to wine. 

There is another good reason to use mevushal wine.  It prevents problems when one has non-Jewish help like cleaning ladies.?  

-I am confused by what your point is here. If you are arguing that
?cooking? wine/juice does not in fact change the flavor and therefore it is
not a problem at all for it to be used as is ?uncooked? wine for Kiddush
etc., then this should preclude it being helpful for dealing with issues of
non-Jews handling wine, no? The entire argument in the Gemara is that
cooking the wine ?ruins? it and therefore it is not fitting to be used in
avodah zarah. If we say it is OK (l?hatchila) to use ?ruined? wine for
Kiddush while categorically rejecting the possibility of its use in serving
foreign gods, that strikes me as very strange to say the least.
--
B?ahavat Yisrael,
-Eitan Levy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/0a61c7ba/attachment-0001.htm>

>>Was the matzoh oven run by chazal? Todays ovens also use modern technology 

It doesn't take modern technology to get high temperatures. A simple wood-burning oven is heated 
by lighting a fire in a structure, letting it get heated up, and then sweeping out the ash. The degree to 
which the structure retains heat is the sign of a good oven, but the initial firing will be the heat of a fire. 

According to this source (http://www.ask.c
om/question/how-hot-is-a-wood-fire) a wood fire can get as 
hot as 1600F. 

Here's a source for making your own wood fired oven out of mud, if you're
so inclined: http://www.motherearthnews.com/diy/build-your-own-wo
od-fired-earth-oven.aspx#axzz2ZviKp12s 

SYS 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/ef086f28/attachment-0001.htm>

At 04:30 PM 7/23/2013, R Turkel wrote:

  Was the matzoh oven run by chazal? Todays ovens also use modern technology

I don?t know about matzoh ovens specifically in the time of Chazal,
however, as a tour guide with an archaeological bent I know that pottery
was fired well over a thousand years earlier at temperatures of at least
900C (~1600F). So they were certainly capable of reaching such temperatures
if so desired.
--
B?ahavat Yisrael,
-Eitan Levy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/027830d9/attachment-0001.htm>

> R' Martin Brody wrote:
> Pasteurised Grape juice is NOT
> wine. It cannot ferment into a potable product.
>

Sure it can. I have made  wine from grape juice (Kedem, as I recall)
myself. You just need to add yeast - or, I suppose, the skins of a few
grapes with their natural yeasts. It didn't make great wine: it tasted like
alcoholic grape juice. But it *was* wine.

Cheers!

Joe Slater
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/b8d285dc/attachment-0001.htm>

On 7/23/2013 2:25 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
>> It should be noted that Dr. Farber's Academic Bible studies at Hebrew U,
>> at which point he had already rejected the traditional understanding
>> of Torah min HaShamayim (by his own admission), took place BEFORE he
>> entered YCT.
>>      
>
>    
>> Lisa
>>      
>
> Is it the contention that simply by studying Academic Bible one has
> rejected the traditional understanding of Torah Min Hashamayim?
>    

It depends on how one does it.  Most (not all, but most) academic Bible 
study starts from the /a priori/ assumption that the Torah was /not/ 
given by God in its current form.  Further, most academic Bible study is 
entirely closed to that as so much as a possibility.

Engaging in that sort of study as a kind of thought experiment is one 
thing.  But accepting it is certainly a rejection of Torah min 
ha-Shamayim.  Sort of by its very definition.

> On a related (in my mind) topic -- if time viewing were invented so that
> one could observe (but not impact) prior events, would we accept the
> "testimony" of the tannaim and amorayim as to what was actually said or
> would this be considered a nontraditional methodology?
>    

Get back to me when you have a time machine.

Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130723/655f9432/attachment-0001.htm>

On 7/23/2013 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:25:44PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
> : Is it the contention that simply by studying Academic Bible one has
> : rejected the traditional understanding of Torah Min Hashamayim?
>
> Actually, it's in the bio included in the paper I linked to, in
> the section http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-part-3
>    

[snip]

>      At that point I made a fundamental methodological decision:
>      I would compartmentalize my thinking for a while. When I studied
>      history and text I would do so without any preconceived notions,
>      no matter what the conclusion, and I would not let that effect my
>      religious thinking until I felt I had a real grasp of the subject.
>    

And I think it's apparent what the result of this methodological 
decision has been.  And I think it would be a tragic result were he a 
private individual. But as a leader, questions of his influence on 
others have to be asked, and determinations have to take the good of 
those others into account.

As the Conservative movement slipped, gradually but inevitably, further 
and further away from the Torah once they breached the basic line which 
differentiates Orthodox Judaism from the heterodox movements, this 
methodology is slipping just as inevitably, but not quite as gradually.

Lisa

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 05:38:19PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 05:13 PM 7/23/2013, martin brody wrote:
>> Because Chazal tell us to spoil it. How? By cooking it!

> Is wine made today the same way it was made in the time of Chazal?  From 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wine it seems not.  Also,  the 
> kind of grapes used clearly play a key role in the kind of wine produced.

You would be arguing, though, that the loophole of yayin mevushal is no
longer valid. Perhaps lives on because the taqanah against stam yeinam
was legislated that way, so today's no-worse-than-regular mevushal simply
isn'tpart of the taqanah. "Bemaqom shelo gazru chakhamim."

Our wine isn't syrupy that it requires mezigas hakos. Nor is its taste
of the sort that people would spice it to make it more palatable.
Taste-wise, no conclusions could be drawn from Chazal's wine to ours
without checking if its true experimentally, I'll agree.

But it is at least halachically inferior, since chazal declare mevushal
to be by definition not-quite-real-wine. As you yourself later put it:
>                               Thus,  "best" may not be the end all and be 
> all when it comes to wine for kiddush.

Or, best may end up being by criteria other than "do I enjoy the taste
the most"?

R' Chaim Brisker avoided yayin mevushal for the 4 kosos. It seems RMBrody
adopted a similar chumerah. But then, you note the preference for 4 kosos,
so why can't you understand someone wanting to apply the same preference
across the board for the same reasons?

> While cooking wine in the time of Chazal may have spoiled it,  it is not 
> at all clear to me that the wine that we have today is spoiled by  
> cooking.  My limited experience with boiling non-mevushal wine is one  
> counter example.

Mevushal grape juice does taste more astringent. I don't think it's
"ruined", because I only noticed last pesach by intentionally doing a
taste test. But it's there.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

On 7/23/2013 11:30 PM, Micha Berger [quoted the article under discussion]:
>      As I began my studies, I started to learn Tanakh with the
>      historical-critical approach. As I deepened my facility with this
>      methodology, I realized that I was constantly engaged in apologetics
>      with myself, subscribing to readings of texts and theories that I
>      would not be included to subscribe to if it were any other subject
>      and if my beliefs were not at stake.

This story demonstrates EXACTLY why Rav Lichtenstein says that people 
simply shouldn't go there (meaning reading Biblical Criticism).

Is that our only recourse?

Ben

On 23/07/2013 9:54 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> 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.

> Do you have a source for this (other than the gemora/Rambam regarding an
> uber)? One might want to argue that of the Rambam's three categories of
> those who kill without kavana (perek 6 of hilchos rotzeach), at least those
> who are considered karov to meizid should be within this category (but where
> do you find it?) - but to take the extreme case of the shogeg karov l'ones -
> wouldn't a more standard halachic analysis be shev v'al ta'aseh adif. The
> pasuk of al ta'amod al dam re'echa is described in the gemora (Sanhedrin
> 73a) using the examples of drowning in a river or being attacked by wild
> beasts or by bandits (who can surely be assumed to have intent). On what
> basis are you able to extend this to somebody who inadvertently falls off a
> roof, or otherwise is about to kill without intent? - ie situations where if
> brought to beis din, the person would at most be exile to the irei miklat,
> or even be deemed patur.

My source is Rambam Hil' Rotzeach 1:6 http://mechon-mamre.org/i/b501.htm#6
"One who is chasing someone else to kill him, even if the chaser is a
minor, all Israel are commanded to rescue the victim from the chaser,
even [if necessary] at the expense of the chaser's life." The law about
the foetus follows directly from this: "*Therefore* the chachamim directed
that if a woman is having difficulties giving birth it is permitted to cut
the foetus in her belly." The only heter is because of the din of rodef,
and because it applies even to a minor. If not for this, the Rambam says,
there would be no heter.

That it applies to a minor proves that it doesn't depend at all on the
endangerer's culpability. It doesn't matter how culpable or innocent he
is, because it's not about him, it's about the person he's endangering.
That's why one may not use more force than necessary, even if he is full
of malicious intent; it's also why one may use as much force as necessary
even if he's completely innocent. All that's required is that one person
is endangering another. When the danger can't be said to emanate from
one person but from the situation as a whole, so that one can't point to
one person as the rodef and the other as the nirdaf, then "this is the
nature of the world", and one can't save one at the expense of the other.

There's an incident in R Oshry's ShuT Mimaamakim, where some Jews were
hiding and a baby started crying. They put a pillow over it to prevent
the sound from getting out, and when the danger passed they discovered
that they'd killed the baby. R Oshry ruled that the baby was a rodef,
innocently bringing the Nazis to them, and thus they had done the
right thing.


On 23/07/2013 9:54 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> 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.

> The Rambam (the same Rambam you are holding up as the halacha for a BN)
> doesn't agree with you (assuming you read him as regarding abortion as
> murder, as you have been doing up until now). He says in Hilchot Melachim
> perek 9 halacha 4:
...
> A Ben Noach who kills a soul even a fetus in his mother?s womb is put to
> death for it, and so if he kills a treifa or he captures him and puts him in
> front of a lion or he places him in a [situation of] starvation until he
> dies, since one who causes death in any event is killed...

> You can't have it both ways. If, according to the Rambam, abortion is
> murder, then so too is the putting of someone in front of a lion, or placing
> them in a situation of starvation, or allowing them to be cast into a fiery
> furnace when one word could have released them.

No.  Murder is murder, no matter how one does it. But failing to
rescue someone is *not* murder. Jews are commanded "lo sa`amod al dam
re`echa"; but even so, if they fail to do this they are not murderers.
We do not find that Bnei Noach are commanded "lo sa`amod" (and for that
matter we are only commanded regarding "dam re`echa", not anyone else).
A Ben Noach is entitled, if he chooses, to stand by and allow someone
to die, and no court can touch him. If he chooses to save a life he is
a hero, but if he chooses not to he may be a coward and a villain but
he is not a criminal. As I pointed out, if it were otherwise then
how could Tamar have been willing to allow *herself* to be killed?
According to you that would be the same as committing suicide.


> I am sure that abortions could be arranged (if they are not already
> done this way) by some sort of causation mechanism (the giving of
> drugs, the cutting of the umbilical cord or something) - following
> the Rambam, that would still be a problem, but it would seem from
> your defence of Tamar, that it would not be to you.

No, these are all acts that directly cause the death, and therefore murder
(though if done by a Ben Yisrael, even to an adult, they are not within
the jurisdiction of BD Shel Matta). They are not at all similar to a
failure to rescue someone from death.


On 23/07/2013 11:02 AM, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
> One position is that they have to while the other is that they can
> create their own rule-system within the general category of Sheva Mitzvos
> Bnei Noach as long as such a system is just. I believe that the former
> is the position Rambam and the latter is the position of the Ramah.

Where is this Rama?

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


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


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 134
***************************************

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.)