Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 112

Mon, 12 Sep 2016

• 1. Re: Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Aveilus, abusive parent who's a Rasha, Chonef (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. money of the public (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: money of the public (Micha Berger)
• 5. Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. 13 middot (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak (H Lampel)
• 8. Re: Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Artscroll Question (Akiva Miller)
• 10. Ben Sorah Umoreh (Professor L. Levine)
• 11. Re: Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Micha Berger)

Rav Melamed has ruled that based on scientific studies, metal pots (or 
at least some types) could be used for both milk and meat, without 
kashering them. However, for reasons he gives in the article, he rules 
that kashering is still needed. However, if one did make a mistake and 
cook dairy food in a meat (ben yoma) pot, it (the food) would still be 
kosher.
--------------------------
I have heard R'H Scyhachter say that all the rabbis should get together and agree that the rule for stainless steel should change
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

We are not permitted to observe Aveilus for an abusive parent because one
thereby transgresses the Issur of Chanufa.

How does practicing Aveilus suggest the parent was a good person?

We are not permitted to show Aveilus for a Rasha. Suicide, if not for being
assessed as a temporary state of insanity, must be buried in a separate
part of the cemetery and the relatives must not sit Shiva (YD 345) because
the suicide is defined as a Rasha. Practising Aveilus for such a person,
quite clearly violates Rabbenu Yona, ShTeShuvah 189
category 2 by publicly showing this person was not a Rasha.
- "the Chonef who praises the Rasha be it in the presence of the Rasha or
not, even though he does not defend the evil ..
but simply says he's a good guy."

Keep in mind, the parent may not be a Rasha if they've shown even the
slightest remorse notwithstanding their refusal to even attempt to mollify
their victims. That's a very tough painful evaluation.

I also suspect that it may be prohibited to sit Shiva for an abusive parent
because it may well pose a V serious risk to the victim. Especially if they
are young, I mean less than 30, and perhaps even under 40, because their
perspectives about life and those who gave them Halachic guidance when they
were impressionable, will most likely change.

It is also an ongoing risk to this person's children, no matter what the
links, it is statistically significant that those who grew up under
domineering aggressive, even passive aggressive, parents are much more
likely to inflict some aggression and violence on their own children.
Denying the legitimacy of their experience, that their parent was a Rasha,
being coerced by community and rabbinic expectations, to pretend that
everything was normal in this person's tortured life, is just rubbing salt
into open wounds, unfeelingly, deliberately. It invalidates their life and
their trauma.

In Melbourne Australia we've had an official government public inquiry into
abuse in the Jewish Frum schools. It's not pretty. But the worst was not
the abuse, it was the attitude that the institution and the big names must
not be sullied, all the rest is just damage control.
And we wonder why we're still in Gallus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160911/a759e76d/attachment-0001.htm>

I saw one additional discussion of money of the public
Shut ben Porat siman 10 from R Yosef Engel

He quotes a Tzaddik that the money of the public is considered like
(mamash) like Pikuach Nefesh.
Thus in parshat "Ve-haya im shmoa" the language "u-ve-chol me-odechem"
doesn't apear since it is already included in "u-ve-chol nafshechem" . Only
in the parshah of "Ve-ahavta" that is in the singular does it mention
"u-vechol me-dekakah"

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160911/1ea49ba0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 01:26:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I saw one additional discussion of money of the public
: Shut ben Porat siman 10 from R Yosef Engel
: 
: He quotes a Tzaddik that the money of the public is considered like
: (mamash) like Pikuach Nefesh.
: Thus in parshat "Ve-haya im shmoa" the language "u-ve-chol me-odechem"
: doesn't apear since it is already included in "u-ve-chol nafshechem" . Only
: in the parshah of "Ve-ahavta" that is in the singular does it mention
: "u-vechol me-dekakah"

I had a different understanding.

On the national level, we can talk about the Tokhachos. The fate of the
Jewish People is more closely correlated to merit than the fact of any
individual.

And so, in Shema we speak of "uvekhol me'odekha." How do we utlize what
Hashem gave us?

But in Vehayah im shoma we speak of "im shamoa ... venasat metar
artzekhem..." How do our actions impact Hashem's involvement in the
enterprise?

And thus "me'odekha" is indeed there, but in a very different role.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: Ben Waxman via Avodah
> http://bit.ly/2bYuDoe <http://bit.ly/2bYuDoe>

> Rav Melamed has ruled that based on scientific studies, metal pots (or 
> at least some types) could be used for both milk and meat, without 
> kashering them. However, for reasons he gives in the article, he rules 
> that kashering is still needed. However, if one did make a mistake and 
> cook dairy food in a meat (ben yoma) pot, it (the food) would still be 
> kosher.

> Rav Lior has ruled this way in the past for stainless steel.

I believe this boils downs to whether there is the physics of Halacha,
which is separate from Physics and Chemistry as we know it. Who;st
the wording of e.g. T'aam, can imply pure Science today, when it comes
to Bitul, and "special numbers" there is seemingly a separate system,
which Rav Hershel would likely refer to as Mesora which should not be
moved from, right or left. After hearing many of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Hershel
Schachter's Shiurim, whilst one can detect that he is less inclined to
be stringent on issues relating to "dangers" such as fish and milk, as we
are meant to seek the best medical advice of our time, which I believe I
heard him say many times is precisely what Tanoim (and the Rambam etc)
did. However, when it comes to Issur V'Hetter, this is not applicable,
and we must follow both the logical system and the physics/chemistry of
Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim in coming to a Psak. At the other end of
the spectrum, those who are more aligned with Kabbalah will also apply
all Chashahos to what is bad for one's health (I'm not sure they follow
the advice that X & Y is good for your health, though)

<< If he did, he attributed it to the 13 sheimos found in the pereq, which
correspond to the 13 Middos haRachamim.>>

The "joke" says that in the haggadah in echad me yodeah 13 is against 13
midayah.
The question is which 13 midot.

Chassidim say it is against the 13 Middos haRachamim
Briskers say it is against the 13 middot the Torah is learned with

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160911/b2a563ac/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/16/2016 5:21 PM, RMB wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam omitting sources and Rambam regarding Prophecy

> Do you agree with RMH, though, that they do described what 
> machloqes and pesaq are in very different ways? He provides 
> translations and
>
...

My response:

For clarity's sake, Here's his thesis:

There are three incompatible views about what G-d revealed regarding
the details of the mitzvos, each of which leads to different views as
to what Chazal thought they were doing when determining halacha:

1. Retrieval: G-d revealed every single detail about how to perform
mitzvos and/or the halachic status of things and people in every
conceivable situation, but over time some information was lost. Chazal's
job was to retrieve the lost information through argumentation (and also
attach unlost oral material to its source in the Written Torah). This
he attributes to the Geonim.

2. "Accumulative": G-d did not give complete instructions as to how to
decide the halachic status of things and people in all situations,or
how to perform the mitzvos. Chazal in each generation, by their own
reasoning and by utilizing drashos of pesukim determined the halachic
status of things and people and determined heretofore unknown and unstated
details and requirements as to how to perform the mitzvos. Each generation
accumulated new information. He claims this to be Maimonides' view, and
that Maimonides was the first to assert this, in a departure from the
Geonim. And associated to this is the view that in generating halachos
through darshonning pesukim, a Beis Din Gadol has the right to differ
any previous one, regardless of stature.

3. Constitutive: G-d did not reveal any details of mitzvah observance.
He only provided numerous "panim," legal principles some of which
would lead to one halachic conclusion in a given situation, and some
of which would lead to a different one. This he attributes to Ramban,
Ran and others.

I don't agree, and looking back at a previous thread,(Re: [Avodah] Daf
Yomi raises doubts about the mesorah) beginning at V32 #8, I see you are
also ambivalent/ conflicted over it. You accept that the Rambam denies
that anything G-d revealed at Sinai could have been lost (I don't accept
that) but, putting aside what Rambam's position was, you suggest that all
three views of what Chazal thought they were doing in determining halacha
are compatible with each other. I agree not only to the possibility, but
I maintain that the sources confirm it. The primary sources he cites are
scant and present only a partial representation of their authors' views.

To wit: According to the template, to whom would one attribute the
following two statements?

?

    1. [The sages of the Talmud] also had other ways in their talmudic
    ?teachings to show how [there are] chiddushim (new things) and ?anafim
    (branches)...and they darshonned verses and established ?new halachos
    and tolados... ?

    ?2. A Beis Din may actually nullify the words of its fellow Beis
    Din, ?even if it is not greater in wisdom and number....The Mishnah
    ?that states that a Beis Din may not nullify...is [only] talking
    about ?gezeyros and takkanos [but not interpretations of scripture,
    which ?a lesser Beis Din may overturn].?

Of these two quotes, both of which refer to laws newly derived by
?hermeneutical inferences, the first was written by Rav Sherira Gaon
(Iggeres) ??and the second by his son, Rav Hai Gaon.? ? The first is
no different in meaning ?from the Rambam's reference to "norms that
were innovated in each generation -- ?laws that were not received by
tradition -- but [were derived] through a midah of ?the thirteen midot."

Just as the Rambam taught that when the sages generated ?halachos through
darshonning pesukim and at times differed in their ?interpretations,
they were dealing only with halachos that are "anafim," ??"branches"
of what was received, so too Rav Sherirah Gaon taught that the sages
?produced "chiddushim (new things) and anafim (branches)...and they
darshonned ?verses and established new halachos and tolados." By no
means was the Rambam ??"the first to claim that alongside the received
tradition from Moses, the sages ?introduced new interpretations of the
Torah of their own invention."?

And just as the Rambam famously stated that a Beis Din Gadol could
disagree with the drash of an earlier one, and posken differently,
even if it was inferior Beis Din, Rav Hai Gaon stated the same, and was
probably the Rambam's source.

And according to the template, to whom would one attribute the four
following statements?

1)Together with every mitzvah that /HaKadosh Baruch Hu/ gave to Moshe
Rabbeynu, He gave its /payrush/...and everything included in the
posuk...This is the meaning of the statement, "The general principles,
the particulars, and the details of the entire Torah were spoken on
Sinai" (/Sifra, Vayikra /25:1)," namely, that those matters which may
be extracted through the interpretive rule of "the general reference
written in the Torah followed by a particular reference," or through
any of the other interpretive rules, "were received by us through Moshe
[who received them from God] on Sinai."

2)Every /halacha/ Rebbi wrote [in the Mishnah] without attribution
consists of the words of other sages. And those other sages were speaking
not their own minds, but [reporting] from the mouths of others, and the
others from others, until Moshe Rabbeynu....the law is not the words
of the individual mentioned in the Talmud, such as Abbaya or Rava,
but is from multitudes, from the mouth of multitudes... [not as is
claimed by the] /Minnim/, who accuse us of basing ourselves upon the
words of individuals.

3)/Temura/states "1,700/kal vachomers /and /gezeyra shavvos /and /dikdukei
soferim /became forgotten during the days of mourning for Moshe, but
even so, Othniel ben Kenaz retrieved them through his /pilpul/...

4)Because of the long years and exile, the correct /teruah/ sound of the
shofar [required by the Torah] became doubtful to us, and we therefore
do it several ways.

Contrary to what one would suppose from the proposed template, ?all four
passages, which refer to every detail being revealed to Moshe, ?the laws
stated by the sages of the Talmud originating with Moshe Rabbeynu, ?and
to eventually lost details being retrieved or made up for, were written
not by ?any of the Geonim, but by the Rambam. It is simply untrue that
"according to the ?Maimonidean accumulative view, the role of legal
reasoning is ?not to retrieve but to derive."

As for the third view attributed to Ramban and the Ran, it is simply false
to say that either of them held that since the court ?defines "what is
right and what is left" these rishonim held Chazal do "not recognize
an a-priori right and left.?" On the contrary, both rishonim refer
to an original intent by Hashem as to the halachic status of objects,
and of course itis that intent that Chazal strove to uncover. A complete
reading of the Ramban (Devarim 17:11) and the Drashos HaRan 11 will show
that they held that the obligation to obey Beis Din rests in the supreme
confidence that in a given situation and time, the Beis Din is correctly
corresponding to the original intent.

One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's
position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further
qualifications. This is especially so when the statement is responding
to an opposing opinion (such as that of the Karaites) that entailed
strongly-expressed verbiage. The Karaites accused Chazal of fabricating
"mi-libam" halachos and methods of scriptural interpretation. They
understood that a legitimate interpretation of pesukim, and that a
legitimate maintenance and analysis of the statements of past authorities
would not constitute fabrication. The response of the Geonim and Rishonim
was that the latter was the case with Chazal, and in that sense, what
Chazal said was not fabrication, but indeed the revealing of the original
intent of the revelation.

The Rambam begins the fifth chapter of Hilchos Teshuva with the
broadly-worded principle that Hashem never, ever, ever interferes with a
person's free will, yet goes on to qualify this in the seventh chapter.
In Moreh Nevuchim (the 7 kinds of contradictions), he explains such
methodology as a necessary educational tool.

We should not be simplistic in understanding the position of either
the Geonim, the Rambam, or Ran or any rishon, based upon an incomplete
collection of their broadly-expressed statements.

Zvi Lampel

R' Ben Waxman posted:

> http://bit.ly/2bYuDoe
>
> Rav Melamed has ruled that based on scientific studies, metal pots
> (or at least some types) could be used for both milk and meat,
> without kashering them. However, for reasons he gives in the
> article, he rules that kashering is still needed. However, if one
> did make a mistake and cook dairy food in a meat (ben yoma) pot,
> it (the food) would still be kosher.
>
> Rav Lior has ruled this way in the past for stainless steel.

My Ivrit isn't good enough to follow that entire article, but I got the
feeling that his reasoning is based on experimentation, and he found that
if a pot is cleaned properly, the tastes of the first food simply don't
exist in the second food. So my first question is: Is that indeed his
argument?

My second question is to understand how that experimentation was performed.
Clearly, Chazal felt that the tastes of the first food *do* appear when the
pot is used later. So what has changed? Is the chemical composition of the
metal a factor? Does the thickness of the walls matter? Is it the
smoothness of the finished product? Does it have something to do with how
the pot is cleaned between uses?

And most importantly, did those experiments include a control group? In
other words, did they run the same experiments with pots of the same type
that Chazal used, and if so, did they find that the taste of the first food
*was* present? Because if not, then how do they know what sort of "taste"
to be looking for?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160911/829cd8dc/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Joel Rich asked:

> Anyone know why in the standard daily Artscroll siddur they
> moved the "chazan's stop" right after kriat shma from before
> l'dor v'dor to after it by al avoteinu, while leaving it
> there in the all Hebrew version (Tifferet Yaakov)?

I am looking at my "First edition - First impression - August 1984" of
their Hebrew-English version. This is the one that is so old that Duchaning
begins with "V'se'erav Alecha", and ArtScroll had not yet changed it to
"V'say'arev L'fanecha". In this edition, they have BOTH of the Chazan Stops
that you are asking about.

So you might be mistaken that they *moved* it. They might simply have
*removed* the first one. In any case, I do not know their reasons, and I
really wish that they would publish a siddur which would explain these
things. (But such a volume would probably invite even more questions and
complaints than they get now.)

But I will say this: I have noticed many differences between the
Hebrew-English and All-Hebrew versions, and I cannot help but suspect that
they are tailoring the editions towards what they think the customer wants
and expects. At the risk of generalizing, the Hebrew-English version seems
tailored for the "balabatish" crowd, and the All-Hebrew seems more
"yeshivish". I will give just two examples:

1) On Shabbos morning, after Yekum Purkan, all editions of the
Hebrew-English version has a short instruction that reads "In many
congregations, a prayer for the welfare of the State is recited by the
Rabbi, chazzan, or gabbai at this point." Now, please consider: The siddur
does not specify a text for this prayer. It does not say "all"
congregations. It does not even specify which "State" it is referring to!
Yet even such an instruction is omitted from every All-Hebrew edition. Why?

2) Here's a less political example: In their Hebrew-English siddur, the
text for each night's Sefirah counting ends with "La'omer", though recent
editions include a note that some say "Ba'omer". The All-Hebrew version is
reversed: The main text ends with "Ba'omer", and there is a note that some
say "La'omer". Why the reversal?

(After writing the above, I saw that the Schottenstein Interlinear version
for Shabbos and Yom Tov has Baomer withOUT any note about other minhagim,
which fits neither of the two patterns I listed above, leaving me even more
puzzled.)

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160912/743f352e/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see the article


Ben Sorar Umoreh<https
://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/ben_sorar_moreh.pdf> by RSRH
(Collected Writing VII)


for many deep insights into Chinuch by Rav Hirsch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160912/f45ecb0e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:32:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: My second question is to understand how that experimentation was performed.
: Clearly, Chazal felt that the tastes of the first food *do* appear when the
: pot is used later. So what has changed? Is the chemical composition of the
: metal a factor? Does the thickness of the walls matter? Is it the
: smoothness of the finished product? Does it have something to do with how
: the pot is cleaned between uses?

This assumes ta'am even means "taste" in the literal sense. Taamei
hamitzvos aren't about tastes. Yes, it's clear from rules like kefeila
that there is some connection to actual taste. But it could be about
the expectation of a taste rather than the taste itself.

For that matter, even look at the rule of kefila. A machloqes about
whether it means that there is no bitul beshishim when a chef can taste
the minority substance (Beis Yoseif, I think based on the Ramban), or
whether it means there is bitul of even greater proportions when the chef
can't (Ri). (And, the AhS adds, what a chef might taste of a 1:60 minority
is so weakened it's not real ta'am.) Rashi only allows bitul beshishim
when either confirmed by kefeila or there are no chef's available.
And the Rambam allows eating the food if batul beshishim OR kefeilah!

Notice how many opinions would ban a food even if an expert epicurian
found no taste -- because it wasn't batel. And how the AhS distinguishes
between tastes that qualify as ta'am and those that don't. So somehow,
even the din of kefeilah doesn't necessitate defining ta'am in chemical
presence or even biological terms.

I became very suspicious of a chemist's / physicist's definition of nosein
ta'am when I realized how absurd of an over-estimate it is to require
bitul beshishim of the whole keli. I mean, it's impossible anyone thinks
the pot possibly absorbed nearly it's own volume of gravy from that last
fleishig dish. Even with 3rd cent iron pots.

But then again, I am sure many here have grown tired of my theorizing
that since halakhah has to do with impacting souls, it is more related
to psychology and existentialism than physics and ontology.

I do think the smoothness of the pot is a big factor. Today's polishing
leaves a lot fewer cracks for gravy to hide in than anything that could
have been madde in Rebbe's or even Rabbeinu Tam's day.

The thickness of the walls matter, but since it's proportional, bitul
beshishim takes that into account without wondering what ta'am means.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
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


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


***************************************

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.)