Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 105

Mon, 28 Aug 2017

• 1. Moshe and aharon (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. Re: Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Maris Ayin, Kidney Fats of a Chaya; BP meat is not named Bassar .... (Micha Berger)
• 5. Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog (MorrisIsaacson)
• 6. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Seeking sources on the symbolism of the hedgehog (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Should a bracha be recited on a solar eclipse? (Micha Berger)

Rashi (Bamidbar 27:13) states that the Torah?s continual pointing to
Moshe?s and Aaron?s punishment (an earlier demise) for not being mkadish
sheim shamayim (sanctifying HKB?H?s name) was at Moshe?s request so that no
one think they were punished for not being believers but rather the lack of
Kiddush hashem was their only sin. Rashi compares it to ( see Yoma 86b )
two sinners being lashed, one for adultery and one for eating unripened
shivit fruits.[the exact nature of the sins and lashes is subject to
debate]
Two questions: (1) How does this analogy (or the statement of sin) ensure
that repetition would communicate that this was their only sin? (2) If the
punishment for two sins is equal, why is one considered worse
Kt
Joel richTHIS 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.

It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin
 presented in an earlier message.

The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters.

The outline suggested that Chazal applied their Gezeirah pretty much to
those cases
where the NAME identifies it as a product similar to the prohibited product.

Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev.
Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev
Red coloured liquids that are also NAMED blood are prohibited
White coloured liquids that are also NAMED milk are prohibited

Soy sausages and burgers etc. are not NAMED meat
Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat


It may be helpful to digress momentarily - is it not true that requesting -
please explain - is more dignified that asking - since when?

Ever since I first noticed the Meshech Chochmah [beginning Sedra Vayera,
see below] asserting that Avraham Avinu cooked Ben PeKuAh meat with milk
and then having this confirmed with both HaRav Ch Kanievsky [who said its -
Kosher VeYosher, and wrote that when eating for the first time BP meat that
has been cooked in milk to take a Peri Chadash for the Beracha of
SheHeChiYaNu] and HaRav M Sternbuch [who wrote about the Meshech CHochmah
in his MoAdim UzeManim, Shavuos, and also said about the suggestion that
this may be a DaAs Yachic - Vehr Dingst Zech - no one argues]

R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the
application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct.
Would you please explain how and/or why?

= = = = = =

Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors;
feeding them goat meat cooked with milk. Generations later, when the angels
protested that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, they were silenced
by being reminded of their meat and milk meal with Avraham Avinu. There are
3 issues that require clarification:

   1.

   Let?s say the angels sinned by eating meat cooked with milk [which seems
   to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their
   protests?

Furthermore, meat cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests:

   1.

   Avraham Avinu did not cook meat with milk since he adhered to all
   Mitzvos of the Torah.
   2.

   Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the
   visitors since no benefit may be derived from it.

Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was
transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk. The
angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was
Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, he
would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be performed by a Jew.  Thus
Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was
able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. SInce the angels already accepted
Avraham Avinu?s inalienable connection to the Torah, they can no longer
question nor protest his selected children?s rights to those privileges.

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/20170828/52b232d0/attachment-0001.htm>

On 27/08/17 21:53, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:

> Chaya does not have anything NAMED Cheilev.
> Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev

Once again I dispute that this is the only (and therefore must be the 
important) distinction.   I don't know how similar they look on the 
surface, but I do know they are physically different substances, with 
different names even in English.


> Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat

Once again, I object.  Who says so?


> The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham
> Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him
> not Jewish, he would not be able to Shecht as Shechitah must be
> performed by a Jew. Thus Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to
> the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP.

So what happened when Hashem finally resolved that machlokes after the 
Chet haEgel, and agreed that they were Bnei Noach until they got the 
luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and not let 
Moshe go down with the second set?

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

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: It seems that all agree with the outline re application of Maris Ayin
:  presented in an earlier message.
: The counter arguments/responses seem to be addressing peripheral matters.

Except my intent was to argue with your central thesis.

As in:
: R Micha seems to be saying that the outline suggested to describe the
: application of Maris Ayin seems to be an artificial construct.
: Would you please explain how and/or why?

This doesn't fit the very definition of mar'is ayin. Start with the words
themselves, which have nothing to do with dividing the world by the labels
we give things, and entirely about how the act looks or would look to an
observer.

See IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82.

In 2:40 RMF draws our attention to the distinction between mar'is ayin and
cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone may think that what you're doing is
indeed the issur, and therefore concludes that if someone as upstanding
as you are doing it, it must either not be assur or even if assur,
not a big deal. Reassassing the issur. Cheshad is where they realize
that what it looks like you're doing is assur, and they reassess you
downward because of what they think you did. Neither logically depend
on how we name things. Unless we're worried that someone may see half
of the label on the "almond milk".

But here you aren't even discussing common naming, but halachic
categorization. How does the idea that PQ not having a chalos sheim of
meat WRT basar bechalav (as per the Or Sameiach) change whether people
will think they saw you eating milk with regular meat?

Tangent:

: Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was
: transgressed since it was BP meat, which may be cooked with milk...

WADR to the MC, I don't understand where he gets the idea that the goats
and the milk were cooked together.

As the Baalei Tosafos and Chizquni ad loc note, the pasuq (18:8) can
easily be read as Avraham having served them a two course meal. The first
course being chem'ah and chalav, and the second being the ben habaqar.
After all, shechting and kashering the animals would take time, and so
the DZBT explains that the milchigs was to that they wouldn't have to
wait to eat.

The Baalei Tosafos note the contradiction between that explanation and the
one you mentioned, about them having eaten basar bechalav at Avraham's.
(My 2 cents: And what 3 angels do, they all have to pay for?)

Radaq ad loc says that Avraham gave them a choice of milchigs or fleishigs.

But if there is no proof they ate meat and milk together -- which as
non-Jews they could -- where is the MC's indication that Avraham cooked
them together?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated
with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.)

Thank you,

Moshe Isaacson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170828/1e5b2bac/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: 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...

This is clear from his words. But you know me, I am not nice enough to
publically support someone with a "me too" post. I wrote to point out
something else...

According to the AhS, CY isn't about kashrus. Even in a circumstance
where there are no pigs nearby, and say the cheapest milk around is
that of kosher  species and the whole risk of adulteration makes no
economic sense, the AhS would still require a Jew watch some of
the milking.

Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent
adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still
applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched
by a Yisrael.

Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the
milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it.

He is also very specific about which dairy products the gezeira was made
on. Eg butter (AhS YD 115:20) is outside the geziera. More complicatedly,
neither is cheese (19), although since it is still subject to gevinas
aku"m, if the milking wasn't CY but the cheesemaking was supervised, the
cheese is kosher bedi'eved. Assuming a situation where the fundamental
kashrus concern of adulteration doesn't apply, and you had to satisfy
more than chazal's taqanah.

For this reason, I would guess the AhS would have agreed with RZPFrank's
ruling exempting powdered milk.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 28/08/17 11:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Leshitaso, CY is a gezeira. The reason for the gezeira is to prevent
> adulteration. But even if the fear is eliminated, the gezeira still
> applies, and at least some part of the milking run needs to be watched
> by a Yisrael.
> 
> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the
> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it.

And RMF agrees.  He points out that if there were an actual cheshash 
then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa lechumra.

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

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the
:> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it.

: And RMF agrees.  He points out that if there were an actual cheshash
: then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa
: lechumra.

Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal
visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing
"chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it.
So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines
right above your comment.

(Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF
held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus
inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.)

BTW, the same argument could be said about demai. Most amei ha'aretz
must have separated tu"m. Because there would have been no point to
the gezira of demai if there were a safeiq we would have to worry about
without the gezeira.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:06:12AM -0400, MorrisIsaacson via Avodah wrote:
: Hello, I am seeking Jewish sources which discuss any symbolism associated
: with the hedgehog (eg a Hart is swift, a Lion is regal etc.)

I don't know any, and couldn't find any on Sefaria. (Which is why I didn't
resplond when you asked on another forum.)

Assuming that the Tanakhi word qipod really means hedgehog and/or
porcupine (as per Modern Hebrew), it is hard to miss that it looks
like the same shoresh (albeit a different language) as being maqpid.

The word appears three times in Tanakh: Yeshaiah 14:23, 34:11; and
Tzefaniah 2:14.

But the Metzudas Tzion and Malbim (Yesh 34) say the qa'as and
qefod is kinds of desert birds. So I can't even assume we would know
Chazal were talking about hedgehogs even if they did ascribe a symbol
to it.

The IE (Yesh 14) says the word come from a shoresh meaning "to roll",
because it rolls itself up. Which does fit the hedgehog. But that breaks
the idea that there is a cognate in maqpid. And on Zefaniah he invokes
the Arabic word "qafidh". which is a hedgehog. The Radaq there says
it's qanafadh in Arabic (which is indeed hedgehog, according to Google
translate) and tartuga'ah (?) in French.

Interesting, a qanafadh is also an urchin. Wonder if Chazal would
share that metaphor.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> :> Vehara'ayah it's not directly about adulteration -- only part of the
> :> milking needs supervision, not yotzei venichnas for all of it.
> 
> : And RMF agrees.  He points out that if there were an actual cheshash
> : then no gezera would have been necessary, because safek d'oraisa
> : lechumra.

> Except that RMF holds that the gezeira requires knowledge, not literal
> visual observation. Which is the grounds for his famous teshuvah allowing
> "chalav hacompany". Which doesn't map to just watching part of it.
> So yes, both hold CY was a gezeira, but RMF doesn't agree with the lines
> right above your comment.

He holds that absolutely certain knowledge *is* visual observation, as 
evidenced by the eidim for kidushei biah.

And that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose 
possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need 
observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have done.

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

On 28/08/17 13:52, Micha Berger wrote:
> (Personally I believe that most who permitted CY in the US before RMF
> held it was a pesaq; that CY was merely an instance where kashrus
> inspection was needed that dates back to chazal.)

IOW they held like the Pri Chodosh, which both the AhSh and RMF 
absolutely reject, with RMF saying it's illegitimate to speak of "those 
who keep cholov yisroel" because one who doesn't keep it isn't keeping 
kashrus.

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

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose
: possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need
: observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have
: done.

I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate
into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin?

For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company
kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really
a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left
unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : [RMF holds] that the gezera only applies to the last nochri from whose
> : possession it passes to the possession of a yid, so we don't need
> : observation *or* certain knowledge of what previous owners have
> : done.
> 
> I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate
> into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin?
> 
> For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company
> kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really
> a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left
> unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some?

I think RMF would say that since (according to him) all that matters is 
the transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel, and what's needed 
is re'iyas yisroel throughout its possession by that last nochri, 
therefore once it's in reshus yisroel it remains CY and no further 
supervision is needed.

I think those who are cholek on RMF would say all that matters is the 
instant of literal milking, therefore once you had yisroel ro'eihu at 
that moment no further supervision is necessary, and they don't care 
about reshus.

What I wonder is, according to RMF, what if a nochri buys milk (either 
ordinary commercial milk which he holds is CY for non-mehadrin, or 
certified CY lim'hadrin) for the benefit of his  employees or guests. 
The passage from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel is when the Jew pours 
from the bottle into his cup.  And there was no re'iyas yisroel (even in 
the sense of "anan sahadi") while it was in this nochri's possession. 
So what makes it CY?

This can be further split into two scenarios:

(1) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a non-Jewish grocery, 
which bought it from a non-Jewish company with supervision, which bought 
it from a non-Jewish farm with supervision.  It was CY lim'hadrin from 
the moment of milking until this nochri bought it.  But now it isn't.

(2) The nochri bought certified CY lim'hadrin from a Jewish grocery, or 
from a non-Jewish grocery that bought it from a Jewish dairy, so that at 
one point it was already in reshus yisroel.  In other words, there was 
more than one transition from reshus nochri to reshus yisroel: (a) when 
the dairy bought it from the farmer, and (b) when the yid pours it from 
the bottle.  Do we say that the gezera only applies to the first such 
transition, and once it's in reshus yisroel with a status of CY that 
status is frozen in forever, even if it subsequently goes back to reshus 
nochri?

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

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:11:06AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
: 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...

The Steipler's students wrote (Orekhos Rabbeinu I pg 93) that the Steipler
held that the reason is that we do not make berakhos on things that
bode bad news. (Igeros haQodah 15:1079) I think you personally would
find it unsurprising that this is true even though the the bad omen of
an eclipse is for others, not Jews.

BTW, those who understand likui chamma in the gemara to refer to solar
flares rather than eclipses... Do they hold one would make a berakhah?
Or do they give a different explanation for why no berakhah is said?

I see the LR mentions just to dismiss as insufficient the idea that the
the reason why an eclipse is a bad omen for aku"m and Jewish chot'im
(mentioned on-list last week) is because they should be moved to see
Creation in it but can't.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)