Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 103

Tue, 22 Aug 2017

• 1. Solar Eclipses in Judaism (Ben Rothke)
• 2. Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: IVF and the Rabbinate (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story ()
• 8. Re: Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya (Zev Sero)
• 9. In its mother's milk (Akiva Miller)
• 10. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse (Professor L. Levine)
• 11. Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Solar Eclipses and Maaseh Bereshis (Zev Sero)

R' Gil Student has an interesting piece on the topic at
http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/08/solar-eclipses-in-judaism/


He shared that Hakira has a early and free release of: The Great American
Eclipse of 2017:
Halachic and Philosophical Aspects at http://www.hakirah.org/vol23brown.pdf.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170818/78d4ad3c/attachment-0001.htm>

.
On Areivim, there's a discussion about some Hindus (whose religion
forbids beef) who discovered that some Kellogg's cereals (not the ones
under hashgacha for kashrus) contain beef gelatin. They are very
upset, despite the fact that gelatin IS listed among the ingredients.

I referred to Aruch Hashulchan YD 115:6, which has a similar story
about the cream in a certain coffee shop. R' Zev Sero responded:

> Not a coffee shop.  They bought milk from a grocery, ...

Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I
don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks.

> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient
> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the
> well-known reasons.  In other words they "didn't keep cholov
> yisroel", just like many people today.

And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then
what did they do wrong?

The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are
"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".
(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good
description of it, I'd appreciate it.)

The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to
what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk. It was a prepared food
that even went by another name. And the very first time that they
asked the proprietor about it, he told them exactly what it contained.
In my view, this shows that until that day, they made not the
slightest effort to determine the kashrus of that product.

Perhaps someone will tell me that in that time and place, it was
common knowledge that smant has no non-kosher ingredients, and that
this case was an exception to that rule. If so, I refer you to what I
wrote here 15 years ago:
(http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n098.shtml#03)

> Suppose you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free
> breakfast in the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored
> liquid. Can one presume that it is plain orange juice, which I
> understand to not need a hechsher? Perhaps one can make that
> assumption, but to me, the point of the Aruch Hashulchan is that
> one should at least make a minimal effort to ask one of the staff,
> and verify that it really is orange juice, and not some cheap
> orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure orange juice,
> isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did?

Akiva Miller

On 8/18/2017 8:02 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> : I can easily imagine Rav Yosef saying "My psak deals with procedural
> : errors, not someone doing it intentionally." Would that have any
> : effect to the actual din? I can't see how the rabbinate can give a
> : legal objection based on "not wanting to have more yotomim". A
> : single woman is allowed to get IVF.
>
> I know that Beis Hillel eventually agreed with Beis Shammai, "ashrei
> mi shelo nivra". But...

I don't know why you think "noach l'adam she'nivra mi-shelo nivra" was 
Beit Hillel.? The beraita doesn't say who held which view.

> This child can't exist except as a "yasom". Is growing up fatherless
> worse than never existing at all?

Ask my daughter.? I'm glad she exists, and she's glad she exists, and 
all of the people in her life whose lives she has improved by being 
around are glad she exists.? What an awful question to ask.

Lisa

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats.
So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes,
Cheilev
and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly think
you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares.

Is this correct?

Can anyone offer some illumination?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170820/13e8f749/attachment-0001.htm>

On 18/08/17 17:10, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>> Not a coffee shop.  They bought milk from a grocery, ...

> Good point. "Chenvani" does not refer to any specific type of shop. I
> don't know why I always presumed it to be a coffeehouse. Thanks.

It can't be a coffeehouse, because they weren't drinking their coffee 
there, they were buying cream to add to the coffee they were drinking at 
their lodgings.   Now what sort of shop sells milk and cream?  A grocery.


>> ... relying on the poskim (e.g. Pri Chadash) who are lenient
>> with chalav akum in modern Western societies for all the
>> well-known reasons.  In other words they "didn't keep cholov
>> yisroel", just like many people today.

> And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, then
> what did they do wrong?

This is precisely the AhS's point.  He strongly rejects the view of 
those poskim who permit it, and decries the fact that so many people 
rely on them, and then brings this horror story to show what happens 
when one does so.


> 
> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk. That AhS's word's are
> "chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that is called "smant".
> (If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this word, and a good
> description of it, I'd appreciate it.)

It's schmant in German.   https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmand says the 
usual meaning is sour cream, but in some regions it also means sweet 
cream for coffee.   Cf smetana, which according to 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smetana_(dairy_product) is a type of sour 
cream, but in Yiddish shmetene or smetene simply means cream, and sour 
cream is zoyer shmetene.


> The issue here is not Chalav Yisrael, but simply paying attention to
> what you're eating. It wasn't just plain milk.

No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel.  Schmant *is* a type of milk, 
and according to those who permit cholov akum in Western countries one 
may buy it without question (or at least one could before modern food 
technology made everything complicated).  There is no halachic 
difference, according to *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, 
half-and-half, etc.  Either one can buy them all, or one can not.

RMF, by the way, explicitly rules that we do *not* accept the Pri 
Chodosh, and we pasken like the Chasam Sofer that the requirement of 
cholov yisroel still applies, but then gives his chiddush that 
commercial milk counts as cholov yisroel.  (This is why the term "cholov 
stam" is so misleading, and IMO should never be used.  RMF rejects the 
idea that there is a category of milk to which the gezera of CY doesn't 
apply. Instead he says the gezera applies, and commercial milk fulfils 
its requirements.)

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

'
R' Zev Sero wrote:

> No, the issue is exactly cholov yisroel. Schmant *is* a type
> of milk, and according to those who permit cholov akum in
> Western countries one may buy it without question (or at least
> one could before modern food technology made everything
> complicated).  There is no halachic difference, according to
> *anyone*, between plain milk, cream, skim milk, half-and-half,
> etc.  Either one can buy them all, or one can not.

Summary: I concede.

Longer version:

I think RZS is writing from the Aruch Hashulchan's perspective, back
in the 5600s. I have polluted the conversation with my perspective as
a resident of the 5700s.

I still maintain that Cholov Yisroel is NOT the issue here, in the
sense that the kashrus problems did not result from the type of milk
that was used, but from the other ingredients that were added to that
milk. But I do concede that the AhS included this story to teach us
that IF those people had been makpid on cholov yisroel, they would
have looked for a Jewish grocery, and as a *side* benefit, they would
have been protected from those other ingredients. Alas, they didn't
even realize that there might be other ingredients, and I think RZS
and I agree that they were halachically entitled to not be concerned
about such things.

I wonder exactly when it was that this started to change. Back the,
there were many items that were considered innocuous, and no one
considered them to be problematic. In my memory, pickles were a
typical example. RZS includes cream and half-and-half; while I
remember warnings about additives to these in the 1970s, I freely
concede that it probably wasn't a problem in the AhS's day. Clearly,
there was no cutoff date to all this, but it developed along with
developments in food manufacture and our awareness of them.

There was a long and slow educational program over the past hundred
years. (The OU's first certification, Heinz Vegetarian Beans, was in
1923.) We've been taught about how foods are manufactured, and about
which ones need hashgacha, and about which ones don't. I'd like to
think that the incident recorded in the Aruch Hashulchan was among the
drivers for this change.

Akiva Miller

>And if their posek said that it is okay to rely on such milk, thenwhat
>did they do wrong?> The problem is that it was NOT just plain milk.
>That AhS's word's are"chalav shamen shekorin smant" - fatty milk that
>is called "smant".(If anyone knows the proper pronunciation of this
>word, and a gooddescription of it, I'd appreciate it.)See the Syif
>before. The story is cited in context of Chalav Akum, and the
>AruchHashulchan is explicitly arguing on the Pri Chadash (which he
>cites without name,just as "one of the Gedolei HaAchronim") 
.

On 19/08/17 20:30, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> I believe there is no Maris Ayin banning eating deer kidney with its fats.
> So there you sit eating what looks to be for all intents and purposes, 
> Cheilev
> and you may eat it without any fear that a passerby will mistakenly 
> think you are transgressing a Chiyuv Kares.


My understanding is that chelev and shuman are physically different 
substances, and chayos simply do not have chelev.   I don't know whether 
deer have no kidney fat at all, or if they have shuman around their 
kidneys instead of chelev, but either way one is not eating something 
that is identical to chelev so there is no question.  (The difference 
may not be visible to the undiscerning eye, but in that case you could 
ask the same question about beef shuman; why don't we worry that someone 
will think it's chelev?  Obviously we don't worry about that because an 
observer has no reason to suspect it's chelev, so why should he jump to 
that conclusion?)


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

.
Pop quiz: How do we know that cooking chicken and milk is "only"
d'rabanan? It's because the pasuk says, "Don't cook a kid in its
mother's milk," and chickens don't have milk, right?

Wrong! The above would be correct according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili,
but we don't hold like him.

In yesterday's parsha, we have the third occurrence of "Lo s'vashel
g'di b'chalev imo", in Devarim 14:21. Rashi on this pasuk (as
explained by Sifsei Chachamim) says that the three occurrences of "lo
s'vashel" teach that there are actually three prohibitions (cooking,
eating, and benefitting), and that the three occurrences of "g'di"
come to exclude tamei animals, chayos, and birds.

Rashi doesn't say so, but he is actually quoting Rabbi Akiva, from
Mishnayos Chullin 8:4. This mishna appears in the gemara on 113a -

<<< Rabbi Akiva says chayos and birds are not Min HaTorah, as the
pasuk says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo" three times, to exclude
chayos, and birds, and tamei animals. Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there's
a pasuk [Devarim 14:21] "Don't Eat Any Nevela" and the [same] pasuk
says "Lo S'vashel G'di B'chalev Imo," so whatever [species] is assur
from nevelah is also assur to cook in milk. [R' Yosi continues:] Birds
are assur from neveilah, so you'd think that birds are assur to cook
in milk, but the pasuk specifies "B'chaleiv Imo", to exclude birds,
who don't have mother's milk. >>>

Gemara Chullin 116a asks what practical difference there might be
between R' Akiva and R' Yosi, and the simple answer is that R' Yosi
says it is assur d'Oraisa to cook a chaya in milk, while R' Akiva says
it's d'rabanan.

We hold the halacha to follow Rabbi Akiva in this. I got that from
Bartenura, Kehati, and ArtScroll, not to mention the many kashrus
seforim that tell us that chayos are only d'rbanan. And I think it's
significant that Rashi on this pasuk does NOT mention Rabbi Akiva,
suggesting that this is indeed the halacha.

So here's my question: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the word "imo"?

Suppose this pasuk had been written "Lo s'vashel g'di b'chalav",
WITHOUT the word "imo", in all three cases. Wouldn't the halacha be
exactly as we have it now? The three times "lo s'vashel" would still
teach us about cooking, eating, and hanaah. And the three times "g'di"
would still exclude tamei, chaya, and birds. So what is it that we
learn from the word "imo"?

Akiva Miller

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so which bracha should be said?


A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for which the bracha
of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the acts of creation') is recited,
such as lightening, thunder and great winds. However, an eclipse is not
included in this list. It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not
recited. Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe
inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning?

Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and Yaffo, suggests
in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' is only
recited for natural events, which are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The
Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a
response to man's sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign.
Many commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses. As
such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses are not part of
the natural sequence and order of creation.

How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170821/b540b8bb/attachment-0001.htm>

.
Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis reads:

> Q. Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse, and if so
> which bracha should be said?
>
> A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 227:1) lists many natural events for
> which the bracha of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Breishis' ('He performs the
> acts of creation') is recited, such as lightning, thunder and
> great winds. However, an eclipse is not included in this list.
> It therefore may be presumed that a blessing is not recited.
> Why should this be? Isn't an eclipse an incredible and awe-
> inspiring event, as much so as thunder and lightning?
>
> Rav Chaim David Halevi, former Av Beis Din of Tel Aviv and
> Yaffo, suggests in Teshuvos Asei Licha Rav (5:7) that 'Oseh
> Ma'aseh Breishis' is only recited for natural events, which
> are part of 'Ma'aseh Breishis'. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) states
> that the likui chama, sun diminutions, is a response to man's
> sinful behavior. It is a punishment and ominous sign. Many
> commentaries assume that likui chama refers to solar eclipses.
> As such, 'Ma'aseh Breishis' cannot be recited, since eclipses
> are not part of the natural sequence and order of creation.
>
> How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses
> occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah
> 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a).

Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of
anyone else who comments on this question?

Thanks!

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: > How can an eclipse be a response to human conduct when eclipses
: > occur at predictable points in time? See Maharal, Be'er Hagolah
: > 6 and Aruch L'ner (Sukkah 29a).
: 
: Can anyone offer a synopsis of this Maharal and/or Aruch L'ner? Or of
: anyone else who comments on this question?

The Maharal syas that it's not that a given eclipse happens at a time
when people are sinning. Rather, the gemara is saying that it's the
human capacity for sin which created the possibility of eclipses.

The system in which eclipses can occur is a product of human
sin. Wholesale, not retail.

The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a
lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer
to the question in his words.

The CC believed that a solar eclipse is such a clear indicator of
Yad Hashem that it's bound to be followed by bad times for aku"m, who
continue ignoring such signs.

In modern terms, isn't it interesting that just as there are humans
around to witness it, the moon's orbit is at just the right distance
to EXACTLY compensate for the difference in size between it and the
sun? The fact that the moon blocks everything but the corona during
a total solar eclipse is an amazing "concidence".

At to that intellectual experience the emotional impact of experiencing
an imperfect sun, and yes, one can wonder how there are people who
aren't religiously moved by it.

Some local news reporters I just heard tried avoiding talking religion on
the air by using the "mother nature" personification rather than one the
listener might take as more than the mashal. But still, they naturally
used language of Wisdom and Intent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> The AlN says that a solar eclipse is a bad sign for non-Jews, and a
> lunar eclipse a bad sign for "son'eihem shel" Yisrael. I don't see an answer
> to the question in his words.

That's not the Aruch Laner, that's the gemara.   The Aruch Laner points 
out that the gemara does not say, as it could easily have done, that 
eclipses are bad signs, but instead says *at the time* when the sun or 
moon is eclipsed it's a bad sign for the appropriate people.  This means 
that the (well-understood and predictable) time when an eclipse happens 
is a time of judgement, just as there are other times of judgement or 
mercy.  E.g. Chazal also said that Wednesdays are a time of judgement, 
even though they certainly knew that Wednesdays come with very precise 
and predictable regularity!  So also a solar eclipse marks a time when 
Hashem sits in judgement on those nations to whom it is visible.

This is just as the Ramban wrote about the rainbow, which is a natural 
phenomenon that used to occur regularly long before the flood, but 
Hashem said that from now on whenever there is a rainbow it will remind 
Him of His promise, whereas before that it didn't have that function.

This also explains why Chazal used the example of a king who, when angry 
at his subjects tells his servant to remove the lamp from before them 
and let them sit in the dark.  Who is the servant here?  And why didn't 
they have the king simply order the light extinguished?  Why have it 
removed from before them?  This shows that they were aware that the sun 
is not extinguished in an eclipse but is merely hidden by Hashem's 
servant, the moon.



-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)