Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 135

Wed, 24 Jul 2013

• 1. Re: Grape juice (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Grape Juice (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Traditional Methodologies (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 4. Re: Grape Juice (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Grape Juice (martin brody)
• 6. What does mevushal mean? (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Chazal's Temperatures (Ezra Chwat)
• 8. Re: Traditional Methodologies (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Grape juice (Micha Berger)
• 10. Geocentrism (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Geocentrism (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 12. Re: Geocentrism (Micha Berger)

At 05:59 PM 7/23/2013, martin brody wrote:
>"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

We drink all of the non-mevushal wine we use at the sedarim,  so 
there is no concern our non-Jewish cleaning lady might have access to 
the non-mevushal wine.  However,  this is not the case during the 
rest of the year.

It seems to me that it is preferable to use mevushal wine the rest of 
the year and not have to chance the gentile cleaning lady coming in 
contact with our wine.  If she did then I would have to throw the 
wine away.  Hence, by using mevushal wine I feel that I am avoiding 
the possibility of Baal Tashchis.

And then there are the instances where one has non observant guests 
for Shabbos.  Using mevushal wine avoids problems.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/58c843da/attachment-0001.htm>

I concede that the Gemara considers Yayin Mevushal problematic for ritual
purposes because of its inferior quality. But I don't recall ever seeing a
detailed description of the exact way in which it is inferior. Several
posters seem to be presuming that the inferiority lies in its worse flavor.
I'm not convinced of this, and I'd like to know if anyone can cite sources.

For comparison: If one added spices to his wine, that wine is now in a
suboptimal category, similar to yayin mevushal. But it could be argued that
the flavor has improved, not worsened, and if so, then what's wrong with
it? My guess would be that flavor is not the only important criterion: What
we want is pure, pristine, unadulterated WINE - and this no longer
qualifies.

Similarly, I have long suspected that the disqualification of yayin
mevushal is not because the flavor has worsened, but because the wine has
been tampered with.

Consider: The vine produces grapes, and the grapes produce wine. Or so one
might think, but the text of the bracha teaches us differently: The true
fruit of the vine is not the grape, but the wine. (We see this in hilchos
trumos umaasros as well.) The whole tachlis of the grape not its fleshy
meat, but its liquid extract. For whatever reason (and my point is that the
reason may or may *not* have been flavor) Chazal felt that cooking
constitutes tampering of the sort which renders the extract suboptimal or
even passul.

So: Does anyone know if the Gemara or poskim discuss the exact reasons why
mevushal is a problem (or than merely bucking the question back to whether
it could be used for korbanos)?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51efd01e492b1501e333fst03vuc

On 7/23/2013 2:25 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> 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?
>    

On 7/23/2013 3:25 PM, Lisa wrote:
>Get back to me when you have a time machine.

Actually, we can historically see that what was seen with the eyes has been
rejected by religious leadership. We read in Pesachim 94b that Rebbe
preferred the non-Jewish view of the solar system, but only because he
misunderstood their view of it (theirs was a geocentric round earth with
concentric circles going around it while his was a flat earth with the sun
and moon rolling on the underside of a "rakia" (dome) and going through and
rolling back over the top. I cover this more extensively at
http://eweirdness.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/a-proper-view-of-universe.html )

Despite his statement that "their view appears to me to be a better one" for
centuries you would have Rabbinical leaders say "He use 'appears', so he
would never have accepted their view of a round earth! The words of the
Rabbis are truth!"

You even had the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preferred to deny provable cosmology
and accepted the geocentric model of the Universe as Chazal did (I do not
know if the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the world was flat or if the sun
went around a "rakia" dome as Chazal did). 

Those who thought like the Rambam would certainly accept confirmable
evidence and rule otherwise, but would most likely have their words banned
by those who really have taken to heart "even if they say that right is left
and left is right, you accept their words. This happens today quite a lot.
 
So yeah, even with a Tardis, you would have those who would refuse to accept
anything seen unless it locks in nicely with the words of his or her teacher
and all of those teachers who came before.

Eliyahu Grossman

RYL:

<<cooking wine in the time of Chazal may have spoiled it>>

RMB (Brody not Berger):

<<Chazal tell us to spoil it. How? By cooking it!>>

and

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

But this contradicts an explicit Mishna! See Trumos 11:1.

David Riceman

(Resend because of bad subject heading)

The modern flash mevushal process used by winemakers, does impair
the taste. I've been told by Joe, the Herzog Winery head winemaker,
that even on their finest wines, it lowers the quality by 3 points.

In the the fine wine rating, that is a lot!


> 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

Yes, and no but not all poskim permit it for kiddush anyway.. See Rambam
on any mevushal wine. If it's not fit for the altar it's not fit for
sacramental purposes.

Rashi says the bracha on mevushal wine is Shehekol.

R.SZ Aurbach has another twist. Flash pasteurised wine/grape juice is
NOT mevushal. (Prof Levine take note). And R.SZA further adds that the
bracha on grape juice from concentrate is NOT Hagefen.

Many great poskim permit mevushal wine and grape juice, if no non/mevushal
wine is available.See Magen Avraham and all those that agree, including
R.Soloveitchik

Many do not permit grape juice because it cannot become wine. See R.Henkin
for example.

Enough said.

I will repeat my original claim, that modern grape juice left to it's
own devices cannot become potable wine, and that it is a huge leniency
that is often used by people that are usually very strict and generally
had no idea that this was a leniency and that goes for mevushal wine too.
L'chaim, everybody.

-- 
Martin Brody

 From http://www.royalwine.com/frequently-asked-questions#5

Mevushal is perhaps the most misunderstood term in the kosher wine tradition.

In Hebrew, mevushal means literally boiled. 
However, mevushal wines are not heated to a 
boiling temperature. Thanks to modern-day 
technology, mevushal wines are flash-pasteurized 
to a temperature that meets the requirements of 
an overseeing rabbi. The technique does not 
noticeably harm the wine. In fact, 
flash-pasteurization is used at a number of very 
well known non-kosher wineries, where it is 
thought to improve certain aromatics.

For Jews, however, the technique simply alters 
the spiritual quality of a kosher wine, making it 
less susceptible to ritual proscription. That 
means anyone?whether kosher or not?can open a 
bottle of mevushal wine and have it retain its 
kosher status. Non-mevushal, wines are more 
sensitive to religious constraints and must be 
opened and poured only by Sabbath-observant Jews.

Note the statements "The technique does not 
noticeably harm the wine. In fact, 
flash-pasteurization is used at a number of very 
well known non-kosher wineries, where it is 
thought to improve certain aromatics."

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/d8896d81/attachment-0001.htm>

"Was the matzoh oven run by chazal?"

Consider this oven temperature:
Lechem Hapanim are baked two per batch (Mishanh Menahot 11:1), that's
20 X 10 tefah, 7 fingers deep (ibid 11:4, Rambam Maaseh Qorbanot 5:9),
to be (kneaded and) baked in under 18 minutes- other-wise it's Hametz
(Vayiqra 2:11; Mishnah ibid 5:2)

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:41:38PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: On 7/23/2013 3:25 PM, Lisa wrote:
: >Get back to me when you have a time machine.
: 
: Actually, we can historically see that what was seen with the eyes has been
: rejected by religious leadership. We read in Pesachim 94b that Rebbe
: preferred the non-Jewish view of the solar system, but only because he
: misunderstood their view of it (theirs was a geocentric round earth with
: concentric circles going around it while his was a flat earth with the sun
: and moon rolling on the underside of a "rakia" (dome) and going through and
: rolling back over the top. I cover this more extensively at
: http://eweirdness.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/a-proper-view-of-universe.
: html )
: 
: Despite his statement that "their view appears to me to be a better one" for
: centuries you would have Rabbinical leaders say "He use 'appears', so he
: would never have accepted their view of a round earth! The words of the
: Rabbis are truth!"

Sources? Because what I see here is an example of Rebbe shifting from
Persian to Greek cosmology because of empirical evidence, and some
anonymous rabbis being cited as denying its import, and you're pointing
to the latter group as indicative rather than Rebbe as per the more
straightforward understanding of the gemara. Since I don't know who they
are, I don't know the import.

: You even had the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preferred to deny provable cosmology
: and accepted the geocentric model of the Universe as Chazal did (I do not
: know if the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the world was flat or if the sun
: went around a "rakia" dome as Chazal did). 

This is inaccurate.

RMMS noted that under general relativity, the universe could be analyzed
from a geocentric frame of reference. And therefore geocentrism vs
heliocentrism. (And vs the sun also revolving around the center of
the galaxy which is revolving around the center of a galaxy cluster,
which is...)

However, General Relativity is based on the identity between acceleration
and gravity. So the effects we see because the earth spins would in this
frame of reference would be the product of a universal gravitational
field centered in the middle of the earth, and not in a line -- in a
curve equal and opposite the spin. BUT:

1- The resulting physics does not have a conservation of angular momentum,
which is (according to Noethe's Theorem) another way of saying there is
no rotational symmetry to space. But then, the gravitational field already
said that.

2- Unlike gravitational fields caused by normal matter, it wouldn't
fall off with distance. (Gravity is stronger on the ground than in the
International Space Station.) So your physicists would really wonder
why the shape of space was so odd.

IOW, there is a reason why inertial frames of reference are preferred
over ones that involve acceleration or gravity.

...
: Those who thought like the Rambam would certainly accept confirmable
: evidence and rule otherwise, but would most likely have their words banned
: by those who really have taken to heart "even if they say that right is left
: and left is right, you accept their words. This happens today quite a lot.

But the Rambam rejects Aristo's Eternity for two reasons: (1) it wasn't
sufficiently proven, (2) to accept it, and the assumption that Hashem
couldn't override nature upon which it is based, would overturn the
entire Torah.

#2 applies here too. Especially according to the man who made dogma out
of Moshe Rabbeinu's reception of the Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 07:24:57AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> We drink all of the non-mevushal wine we use at the sedarim,  so there is 
> no concern our non-Jewish cleaning lady might have access to the 
> non-mevushal wine.  However,  this is not the case during the rest of the 
> year.

In terms of the purpose of the seder, recall that using non-mevushal
wine means either not inviting non-observant Jews to join and learn about
Yetzias Mitzrayim, or on a kulah WRT stam yeinam of a tinoq shenishba.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I recently wrote on the thread "Traditional Methodologies"

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:41:38PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
...
:: You even had the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preferred to deny provable cosmology
:: and accepted the geocentric model of the Universe as Chazal did (I do not
:: know if the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the world was flat or if the sun
:: went around a "rakia" dome as Chazal did). 
...
: RMMS noted that under general relativity, the universe could be analyzed
: from a geocentric frame of reference. And therefore geocentrism vs
: heliocentrism. (And vs the sun also revolving around the center of
: the galaxy which is revolving around the center of a galaxy cluster,
: which is...)

... are not mutually exclusive, just different ways of describing the same
thing. (Never finished that thought!)

: However, General Relativity is based on the identity between acceleration
: and gravity. So the effects we see because the earth spins would in this
: frame of reference would be the product of a universal gravitational
: field centered in the middle of the earth...

IOW, geocentrism is just as true in principle, but a way of looking at
reality that makes computing anything much harder.

Well, I found someone who did a better job explaining it, the author
of Discovery Magazine's "Bad Astronomy" column
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geoce
ntrism-seriously

    Geocentrism is a valid frame, but not the only one

    I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism
    is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any
    more or less correct.

    Surprise! Of course, the details are important.

    Look, I'm human: I say "The Sun rose in the east today", and not "the
    rotation of the Earth relative to the rest of the Universe carried me
    around to a geometric vantage point where the horizon as seen from my
    location dropped below the Sun's apparent position in space." To us,
    sitting here on the surface of a planet, geocentrism is a perfectly
    valid frame of reference. Heck, astronomers use it all the time to
    point our telescopes. We map the sky using a projected latitude and
    longitude, and we talk about things rising and setting. That's not
    only natural, but a very easy way to do those sorts of things. In
    that case, thinking geocentrically makes sense.

    However, as soon as you want to send a space probe to another planet,
    geocentrism becomes cumbersome. In that case, it's far easier to use
    the Sun as the center of the Universe and measure the rotating and
    revolving Earth as just another planet. The math works out better,
    and in fact it makes more common sense.

    However, this frame of reference, called heliocentrism, still is not
    the best frame for everything. Astronomers who study other galaxies
    use a galactic coordinate system based on our Milky Way galaxy, and
    the Sun is just another star inside it. Call it galactocentrism,
    if you want, and it's just as useful as geo -- or heliocentrism
    in its limited way. And none of those systems work if I want to
    know turn-by-turn directions while driving; in that case I use a
    carcentric system (specifically a Volvocentric one).

    You use coordinate systems depending on what you need.

    So really, there is no one true center to anything. I suppose
    you could say the Universe is polycentric, or more realistically
    acentric. You picks your frame of reference and you takes your
    chances.

    Relatively speaking, you're still wrong

    So geocentrism is valid, but so is every other frame. This is the very
    basis of relativity! One of the guiding principles used by Einstein
    in formulating it is that there is no One True Frame. If there were,
    the Universe would behave very, very differently.

    That's where Geocentrism trips up. Note the upper case G there;
    I use that to distinguish it from little-g geocentrism, which is
    just another frame of reference among many. Capital-G Geocentrism
    is the belief that geocentrism is the only frame, the real one.

    Geocentrists, at this point, fall into two cases: those who use
    relativity to bolster their claim, and those who deny it.

    Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and
    is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That's
    correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition
    means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity
    to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you're wrong. You're
    using self-contradictory arguments.
    ...

But RMMS was only defending what he calls lower-case-g geocentrism.
That Chazal were not wrong, not that they were more right than today's
scientific theory.

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.

Yes, Chazal were wrong. They held:

 

1)  The earth was flat and approximately 15,000 miles long.

2)  There is a dome (rakia) that is about 9 miles high, which there is 1-2
species of birds that can reach it. This dome is 1000 miles thick.

3) At night, the sun goes through the dome, where it cannot be seen. The
moon is brought inside and the stars follow.

4) The sun goes around the earth (well, over the upper flat part). 

 

We now know:

1)      The earth is a sphere (more or less)

2)      There is no "rakia"

3)      The earth is not stationary, and the disappearing sun is from the
spinning of the Earth. The same with the moon.

 

And there are those who are trying really, really, hard to keep #4 alive.
It's all that they have left.

 

I am certain, that while you can find those who want #4 to be true, and will
use scientific jargon (or rather, misuse it) to make a point, that Galileo
was wrong.

 

You see, he was monitoring Mars. And because of the non-circular orbit that
all planets make, which defines their origin of axis, and because the Church
demanded that the Earth be the center, Galileo noticed that, periodically,
mars went backwards for a while and then moved forward again.

 

This is what the geocentricsts continue to ignore - that so long as you put
the earth at the center, planets go backwards and forward! Yes, it would be
lovely to make #4 be true, and to hang onto that, and so they bring in the
theory of general relativity and misuse it. The theory concerns objects at
rest that have no external means of relating what is going on. For example,
if you are in a car that is not moving, and one moves beside you, it FELLS
LIKE that car is moving to your perception. But once you look at a tree
beyond the car, you have a general frame of reference, and relativism no
longer applies. 

 

Furthermore, while Chazal held that the planet was at rest, we know that is
not true.

 

And since we are posting links here, here is one that might be enlightening:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was
-galileo-w
rong/

 

In short, did Reb Shneerson hold that #1-#4 was right? My guess - no. So
it's time to give up on #4, which, really had nothing to do with science at
all, but is trying to create a proof to fit the answer.

 

All the best,

 

Eliyahu Grossman

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Micha Berger [mailto:mi...@aishdas.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:48 PM
To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group
Cc: eliy...@kosherjudaism.com
Subject: Geocentrism

 

I recently wrote on the thread "Traditional Methodologies"

 

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:

: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:41:38PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:

...

:: You even had the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preferred to deny provable
cosmology

:: and accepted the geocentric model of the Universe as Chazal did (I do not

:: know if the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the world was flat or if the sun

:: went around a "rakia" dome as Chazal did). 

...

: RMMS noted that under general relativity, the universe could be analyzed

: from a geocentric frame of reference. And therefore geocentrism vs

: heliocentrism. (And vs the sun also revolving around the center of

: the galaxy which is revolving around the center of a galaxy cluster,

: which is...)

 

... are not mutually exclusive, just different ways of describing the same
thing. (Never finished that thought!)

 

: However, General Relativity is based on the identity between acceleration

: and gravity. So the effects we see because the earth spins would in this

: frame of reference would be the product of a universal gravitational

: field centered in the middle of the earth...

 

IOW, geocentrism is just as true in principle, but a way of looking at
reality that makes computing anything much harder.

 

Well, I found someone who did a better job explaining it, the author of
Discovery Magazine's "Bad Astronomy" column
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentri
sm-serio
usly>
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentr
ism-seriou
sly

 

[snip]

 

But RMMS was only defending what he calls lower-case-g geocentrism.

That Chazal were not wrong, not that they were more right than today's
scientific theory.

 

Tir'u baTov!

-Micha

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/9d375723/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:28:50PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: Yes, Chazal were wrong. They held:
: 1)  The earth was flat and approximately 15,000 miles long.

I meant, they weren't wrong on geocentrism.

But you're giving the views of Chazal before Rebbe. The amoraim of EY
agreed the tannaim were wrong. I don't know about Amoraei Bavel, since
the dome sky thing is Persian and because I'm too "frum" to know where
various amoraim lived. It would take more research than I took the time
for, so far.

: 3) At night, the sun goes through the dome, where it cannot be seen. The
: moon is brought inside and the stars follow.

Actually, this is a pretty clever explanation of something that they
couldn't understand without knowing more about the atmosphere and about
refraction. It explains why the sun appears to slow down and flatten
at sunset -- it's heading across the thickness of the raqia!

In any case, it allowed them to match observation, the then-current
science, and halakhah.

: We now know:
: 2)      There is no "rakia"

I dunno about that. Just that whatever HQBH was talking about, it wasn't
the shell the Persians wrote about, nor the spheres the Greeks believe in.

: 3)      The earth is not stationary, and the disappearing sun is from the
: spinning of the Earth. The same with the moon.

Again, this part is where we disagree. This is by far the simplest way of
describing the universe. But the universe revolving around a stationary
universe does produce a description that fits the self-same laws of physics.

That's why I googled for a third party, one without a religious message,
who wrote the same thing.

: And since we are posting links here, here is one that might be enlightening:
: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocen
: trism-was-galileo-wrong/

Who doesn't discuss relativity, and argues against the position that
geocentrism is the sole accurate description, not that one can describe
the exact same universe using two different languages.

WRT RMMS's claim, it's a strawman.

What recommends heliocentrism (plus the sun's, galaxy's, etc... motions)
is the elegence of the model and its ability to more easily get more correct
answers. Not right vs wrong.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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 135
***************************************

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.)