Volume 36: Number 52
Sun, 29 Apr 2018
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:03:32 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Swordfish
From The Jewish Press
<www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/is-swordfish-kosher/2018/04/19>,
by RHSchachter, "Is Swordfish Kosher?", posted Apr 19th (5 Iyyar):
The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch say dag ha'cherev [literally,
"the fish of the sword"] is kasher.
Why is it widely considered to be not kosher, then?
Because around 60-70 years ago, they asked Rabbi [Moshe] Tendler if
he could make a list of which fish are kosher and which aren't. Rabbi
Tender decided to list swordfish as a treife fish because he called
up an expert who told him scales on a swordfish are a different
consistency - or something like that - from those of other fish. So
he decided it was a treife fish.
But that's absolutely not correct. The commentaries on the Shulchan
Aruch say dag hacherev is kasher. Professor [Shlomo] Sternberg, a big
genius in learning and math, published an essay maybe 20 years ago in
which he writes that Rabbi Soloveitchik asked him to conduct research
on the status of swordfish. He did. He showed Rabbi Soloveitchik the
scales of a swordfish and Rav Soloveitchik said, "It's a kashere fish!"
Professsor Sternberg writes that he still has the envelope with the
scales he showed Rav Soloveitchik in his Gemara Chullin.
If the commentaries on the Shuchan Aruch say dag ha'cherev is kosher,
how can Rabbi Tendler claim it isn't?
Rabbi Tendler claims "dag hacherev" is a different fish. It's not true.
But Rabbi Tendler did a service to the Orthodox Jewish community
because at the time there were Conservative rabbis who were giving
hashgachas, so he laughed them out of existence and said they don't
know what they're talking because [they were giving swordfish a
hechsher when] swordfish is really treif. So the Orthodox realized
you can't rely on the Conservatives.
L'maaseh, the Conservatives were right on this issue, but Rabbi
Tendler accomplished his goal.
Well, that's a lot of egg (roe?) on my face after what I said repeatedly
in the 1990s in soc.culture.jewish[.moderated] O/C/R Wars...
But I don't understand the basic content. The CLJS permitted swordfish
because while the adult does not have scales, it starts out with
scaled. No one is questioning the quality of the scales when the fish is
young (AFAIK), or the lack of scales on adult fish. (Wiki: Swordfish are
elongated, round-bodied, and lose all teeth and scales by adulthood.)
So how this sample of swordfish scales prove kashrus? The question
seems to be whether a fish needs to keep its scales for it to qualify
as qashqeshes, not what kind of scales swordfish has.
"L'maaseh, the Conservatives were right on this issue..." Wow!
There is a tie in here to what R JFSchachter posted here yesterday (?
no time zone) at 12:30:39 +0000 (WET DST) under the subject line
"Judging The Credibility Of The Sages":
> It is always dangerous to believe things that are not true.
> Not knowing something is an intellectual failing. Not knowing what
> you are talking about is a moral failing. Making up an answer when
> you do not know the answer is a moral failing. Knowing when our sages
> have displayed this moral failing makes you more able to see the same
> moral failing in yourself. It leads to self-awareness, and self-
> correction.
I was okay attributing ignorance to Chazal, but not violating epstemic
virtue like "making up an answer". I would think that by the end of the
period, subconsious biases wouldn't have made it into the final result.
> At the same time, and this is not a contradiction, knowing both the
> moral and the intellectual failings of our sages protects you from the
> dangerous and deadly doctrine of das Torah...
Except that daas Torah only requires belief that one is obligated to
listen to halachic leadership on social and personal issues where the
unknowns are not halachic (or even aggadic). Not that they are necessarily
right, nor even that they are more likely to be right.
(Infallibility was never Agudah doctrine; but you do find it among
the population.)
And I am not sure that when it comes to halakhah Chazal *can* be wrong.
It's like saying that the house john built is inconsistent with the house
John built. Pesaq is constitutive, not truth finding; expecially when
you are the nation's authoritative halachic source (eg the Sanhedrin or
shas as keSanhedrin, depending on when you think the Sanhedrin actually
closed its doors).
A pesaq made by CHazal based on incorrect science may still be correct
halakhah because they define correctness. We would need to revisit
our recurring tereifos discussion.
But in any case:
1- I refuse to believe Chazal "made up answers" of had other epistemic
moral failings (as a group, including peer review, what made it into
shas, etc...)
And I wonder how emunas chakhamim would work without that kind of
assertion.
2- And yet, that may have happened here, among our contemporary posqim.
No one is interested in fixing the science error (among those who
believe it is in error) because C loses this way.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme?
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:49:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R'YBS-Feminist/Talit Story
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:32:13AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
: > And the Frimers' article (Winter 1998, a half-year before) is at (pg 41
: > [37th of the PDF]) http://bit.ly/2FfK715
:
: Let me ask the obvious question here. According to the story, the Rav
: concluded: "It was obvious, therefore, that what generated her sense of
: 'religious high' was not an enhanced kiyum hamitzvah, but something else"
: and therefore was "an inappropriate use of the mitzvah".
...
: The more obvious question: doesn't one sometimes get a high because he is
: *thinking* that he is being mekayum a mitzvah? Is believing that one is
: doing ratzon HaShem, or believing that one is getting closer to Hashem, an
: inappropriate thought?
I think it's more that the high isn't from the halachic aspect of what
they're doing. Rather than it having to be halkhah qua halakhah. I am
not sure that "one is doing ratzon H'" is different than "being mequyam
a mitzvah" anyway. As for "getting closer to H'", Litvaks would talk
more about sheleimus than deveiqus.
IMHO this is part of RYBS being, fundamentally, a Brisker. Here's a
quote I feel is on a similar theme, from "The Rav: The World of Rabbi
Joseph B. Soloveitchik", starting on pg 54:
Judaism must be explained and expounded on a proper level. I have
read many pamphlets that have been published in the United States
with the purpose of bringing people closer to Judaism. There is
much foolishness and narrishkeit in some of these publications. For
instance, a recent booklet on the Sabbath stressed the importance
of a white tablecloth. A woman recently told me that the Sabbath is
wonderful, and that it enhances her spiritual joy when she places a
snow-white tablecloth on her table. Such pamphlets also speak about
a sparkling candelabra. Is this true Judaism? You cannot imbue real
and basic Judaism by utilizing cheap sentimentalism and stressing
empty ceremonies. Whoever attempts such an approach underestimates
the intelligence of the American Jew. If you reduce Judaism to
religious sentiments and ceremonies, then there is no role for
rabbis to discharge. Religious sentiments and ceremonies are not
solely posessed by Orthodox Jewry. All the branches of Judaism have
ceremonies and rituals.
This is not the only reason why we must negate such a superficial
approach. Today in the United States, American Jewish laymen are
achieving intellectual and metaphysical maturity. They wish to
discover their roots in depth. We will soon reach a point in time
where the majority of our congregants will have academic degrees.
Through the mediums of white tablecloths and polished candelabras,
you will not bring these people back to Judaism. It is forbidden to
publish pamphlets of this nature, which emphasize the emotional and
ceremonial approaches.
There is another reason why ceremony will not influence the American
Jew. In the Unitesd States today, the greatest master of ceremony
is Hollywood. If a Jew wants ceremony, all he has to do is turn on
the television set. If our approach stresses the ceremonial side
of Judaism rather than its moral, ethical, and religious teachings,
then our viewpoint will soon become bankrupt. The only proper course
is that of Ezekiel's program for the priests: "And they shall teach my
people the difference between the holy and the common, and cause them
to discern between the unclean and the clean" [Ezekiel 44:23] The
rabbi must teach his congregants. He must deepen their appreciation
of Judaism and not water it down. If we neutralize and compromise
our teachings, then we are no different than the other branches
of Judaism.
By RYBS's standards, being moved by music at a kumzitz is "ceremony".
Meanwhile, Chassidus, Mussar, RSRH, Qabbalah-influenced Sepharadim
(following the Chida and Ben Ish Hai) and numerous other derakhim have
no problem with ceremony.
For that matter, before it became minhag, specifying specific patterns
of hand washing (RLRLRL or RRLL) was also ritual once.
And many of those Academics that RYBS foresaw want their Nesivos Shalom,
Tish, kumzitz.... Neochassidus is a big thing in YU. This idea that
ceremonies that aren't defined by halakhah are inherently empty and
its sentimentalism is cheap rather than reinforcing the cognitive and
halachic, is, as I said, only something a Brisker would write.
Even within Brisk... RYBS went further in this direction than did the
Brisker Rav (R Velvel, his uncle). The BR holds that one makes berakhos
on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah
menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about
that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough
to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah.
This is a non-started for RYBS, who requires minhagim have a cheftzah
shel mitzvah or else they're ceremoial. RYBS even fit the minhagim of the
3 Weeks and 9 Days to fit this shitah by insisting they must follow
what was already established aveilus and sheloshim, respectively.
Oops. I just notied I'm repeating something I worte a decade ago. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n287.shtml#06>. At least the
berkhah-in-minhag part was posted in 2011, so that this post had the
value of combining the two earlier ones.
Beqitzur, I don't know of two many people (aside from our mutual
rebbe-chaver) who would agree with RYBS on this one.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme?
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:37:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Swordfish
On 25/04/18 17:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But I don't understand the basic content. The CLJS permitted swordfish
> because while the adult does not have scales, it starts out with
> scaled. No one is questioning the quality of the scales when the fish is
> young (AFAIK), or the lack of scales on adult fish. (Wiki: Swordfish are
> elongated, round-bodied, and lose all teeth and scales by adulthood.)
> So how this sample of swordfish scales prove kashrus? The question
> seems to be whether a fish needs to keep its scales for it to qualify
> as qashqeshes, not what kind of scales swordfish has.
There can be no question that a fish does *not* have to keep its scales
to remain kosher. The posuk says fish only have to have their scales in
the water, not when they leave the water. A fish that sheds its scales
when caught is kosher, and no rabbi has the right to say otherwise.
And I don't see a difference between shedding when caught and shedding
on reaching adulthood.
As I understand R Tendler's claim, it was that swordfish never have true
scales, that even the ones they have as juveniles are not kaskasim. And
this seems not to be true.
BTW R Ari G and R Ari Z dispute the claim that adults swordfish (or
landed swordfish) lose all their scales. They claim that this is the
result of not examining adult landed fish closely enough, and that if
one does one finds kosher scales still attached to the skin.
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Joseph Kaplan
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 23:33:33 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] R?YBS-Feminist/Talit Story
I simply note that (a) all the stories were published after the Rav died
and (b) all appear to be least first degree if not more hearsay. (It?s
unclear how R. Mandel knows the story. His article doesn?t say if he saw
it, heard it from the Rav, or heard it from someone else.) But the
difference between the two ways the story is told is striking and, I
believe, calls it into question. But I guess we?ll never know.
Joseph
Sent from my iPhone
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:25:12 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] sifrei torah
Can anyone point me to information concerning the history of the difference
between the physical element of Ashkenazi (atzei chaim) and Eidot Hamizrach
(containers) Sifrei Torah? The differences in the timing and physics of
hagba and glila ?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180426/64329b1a/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:06:01 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] The Unknown Days of the Jewish Calender
From https://goo.gl/NZ9BN1
This coming week, an unsuspecting person wishing to catch a minyan, who
walks into a random shul in many places around the world, might be in for a
surprise. After the Shemoneh Esrei prayer on Sunday there will be no
Tachanun. On Monday there will be Selichos; and on Thursday there again
won?t be Tachanun! Why would this be? No Tachanun generally signifies that
it is a festive day[1]<https://ohr.edu/5146#_edn1>; yet,
no other observances are readily noticeable. As for the reciting of
Selichos on Monday, they are usually reserved for a fast day; yet no one
seems to be fasting! What is going on?
See the above URL for more about this. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180426/4c4ce547/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 22:43:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R'YBS-Feminist/Talit Story
On 4/25/2018 11:32 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
>> And the Frimers' article (Winter 1998, a half-year before) is at
>> (pg 41 [37th of the PDF]) http://bit.ly/2FfK715
> Let me ask the obvious question here. According to the story, the Rav
> concluded: "It was obvious, therefore, that what generated her sense
> of 'religious high' was not an enhanced kiyum hamitzvah, but something
> else" and therefore was "an inappropriate use of the mitzvah".
> Does anybody here get a "religious high" from doing a new mitzvah?
...
> Now, suppose you got that "high" but later found out that the mitzvah
> was done incorrectly. Does that mean the "high" one felt was perforce
> inappropriate?
> The more obvious question: doesn't one sometimes get a high because he
> is thinking that he is being mekayum a mitzvah?...
For a Brisker, certainly inappropriate. For others, not so much of a
problem.
KT,
YGB
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:58:32 +1000
Subject: [Avodah] BinFol O'YivCha Al TisMach
Yeshayahu (15:5) My heart cries out over the destruction of Israels wicked
enemy, Moab.
Rashi understands, the prophet is expressing his own agony -
The prophets of Israel, unlike the prophets of the world, like Bilaam, seek
to destroy us without provocation.
Our prophets however, mourn for our persecutors when they suffer Divine
punishments.
As stated previously on this forum - we mourn for the loss of 80% of
descendants of YaAkov who perished during the plague of darkness, that is
certainly more of an intense and personal loss than the millions of
Egyptians who perished - but we mourn them all from the perspective of lost
potential, lost opportunity to be loyal to HKBH, and HKBH's failure to
successfully persuade them to open their eyes and do what is right.
That is why we spill wine from the cup we use for Hallel - HKBH's praise is
incomplete, He was not fully successful - the gift He gave humanity, free
choice, can, and was, used against Him. Obviously the cup should not be
topped up. Each plague was a lesson and a plea from HKBH to all who
witnessed these astonishing events - do the right thing, reconise that I am
the King of all kings, The Master of the universe.
Every Yid deserves 600,000 to attend his funeral. The Gemara explains - As
it was given So it is taken away. Every Y, even the most Poshut or
unlearned, is a potential recipient of the entire Torah and we must
visualise their departure as the loss of that tremendous potential.
Best,
Meir G. Rabi
0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180427/b0116186/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:35:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] BinFol O'YivCha Al TisMach
On 26/04/18 18:58, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> As stated previously on this forum - we mourn for the loss of 80% of
> descendants of YaAkov who perished during the plague of darkness
Where is this written?
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:04:10 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R'YBS-Feminist/Talit Story
When I was in yeshiva, one of my rabbanim told us that we should dance
when we "get" a Rabbi Akiva Eiger.
Ben
On 4/26/2018 4:43 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote:
> For a Brisker, certainly inappropriate. For others, not so much of a
> problem.
>
> KT,
> YGB
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:49:48 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Farfetched Ukimtas
A while ago we had a discussion about farfetched ukimtas. In yesterday's
daf (Zevachim 15) the Gemara made a very startling statement about
farfetched ukimtas. The Gemara has a question about whether Holachah
without walking is Pasul or not. The Gemara brought a proof from a braisa
If blood fell from the Keli on the floor and it was gathered, it is Kosher
(even though when it spills, some if it spreads out towards the Mizbeach,
i.e. Holachah without walking). The Gemara answered that none of the blood
spread towards the Mizbeach.The Gemara then asked, surely, it spreads in
all directions! The Gemara gave 3 answers
1: It fell on an incline.
2: It fell in a crevice.
3: The blood was very thick, and almost congealed. It did not spread at all.
Then the Gemara made the following startling statement to reject these
answers: It is UNREASONABLE to say that the Tana taught about such unusual
cases
The question is why specifically here does the Gemara object to farfetched
ukimtas? There are far fetched ukimtas all over shas and yet for some
reason this ukimta was considered so farfetched that it was rejected. What
does this say about far fetched ukimtas elsewhere? Does the Gemara anywhere
else reject a farfetched ukimta like this? I brought an example from Bava
Basra 19-20 which had at least as farfetched ukimtas and yet the Gemara
didn't think they were unreasonable. Here is the example that I quoted from
Bava Basra
A Baraisa states that the following block Tumah, grass that was detached
and placed in a window, or grew there by itself; rags smaller than three
fingers by three fingers; a dangling limb or flesh of an animal; a bird
that rested there; a Nochri who sat there, a (i.e. stillborn) baby born in
the eighth month; salt; earthenware Kelim; and a Sefer Torah. The Gemara
then proceeds to ask questions on each one that it is only there
temporarily and the Gemara gives ukimtas, qualifications, for each thing to
explain why it is not there temporarily.
1. Grass
The grass is poisonous.
The wall is ruined (so the grass will not destory it)
The grass is 3 tefachim from the wall and does not harm the wall but bends
into the window
2. Rags
The material is too thick to be used for a patch
It's sackcloth which is rough and would scratch the skin.
It's not sackcloth, it's just rough like sacklocth
3. Dangling limb of an animal
The animal is tied up and can't move.
It's a non-kosher animal.
It's a weak animal.
3. Bird
The bird is tied down.
It's a non-kosher bird.
It's a Kalanisa (a very lean bird).
It's not really a kalanisa, it's just lean like a kalanisa.
4. A non-Jew
He is tied up.
He is a ?????.
He is a prisoner of the king
5. Salt
The salt is bitter.
There are thorns in it.
It's resting on earthernware so it does not harm the wall.
5. Sefer Torah
It's worn out.
It's burial will be in the window.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180429/b8f0ed3a/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/
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.)