Volume 36: Number 75
Sun, 01 Jul 2018
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:07:36 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] What type of kosher supervision is needed for hard
From OU Kosher Yomis
Q. What type of kosher supervision is needed for hard cheese?
A. Chazal, the Talmudic Sages, prohibited cheese that is not made under the
special supervision of a Jew (Avodah Zarah 29b, 35a-b). Various reasons are
advanced for this rabbinic prohibition, but the reason accepted by most
halachic authorities is the concern for the use of rennet enzymes from the
stomach flesh of neveilah/non-kosher animals. Unsupervised cheese is termed
Gevinas Akum.
Cheese is only permitted if it is Gevinas Yisroel ? Jewish-supervised
cheese (Yoreh Deah 115:2). This rule is unrelated to the rules of Cholov
Yisroel (Jewish-supervised milk) and Cholov Akum/Cholov Stam (milk not
under Jewish supervision). Therefore, even if a person eats Cholov Stam
dairy products, he may only eat Gevinas Yisroel cheese.
According to the Rama (Yoreh Deah 115:2) and many other poskim, Gevinas
Yisroel is obtained by the mashgiach visually supervising the incorporation
of the enzymes into each vat of milk in the cheese-making process; this
way, the mashgiach will verify that the enzymes are kosher.
According to the Shach (ibid. 20) and many other poskim, the mashgiach must
manually add the enzymes to each vat of milk in the cheese-making process.
The Vilna Gaon (ibid. s. 14) provides the rationale for this: Gevinas
Yisroel is similar to Pas Yisroel (bread with onsite Jewish involvement) ?
just like Pas Yisroel means that a Jew actually participated in the baking
process, so too does Gevinas Yisroel mean that a Jew actually participated
in the cheese-making process.
Contemporary poskim rule that the basic halacha follows the Rama, although kashrus agencies typically endeavor to fulfill the Shach?s requirement as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180629/af4d7349/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:49:17 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Migo vs Chazakah
AhS 82:18 is a qunterus on migo. Looking at #6 (within se'if 18), RYMEpstein
looks at two gemaros that discuss migo bemaqom rov -- BB 5a and Qiddushin 64.
In BB, Raza"l say that while rov adif meichazaqah, this is not true for
every chazaqah. Chezqas mamon outranks rov (you don't make someone pay
up on a "probably"), because the mi'ut yeshno ba'olam, so we can't take
something out of his hands -- maybe he is of the mi'ut.
This is true even though chezas haguf adif mechezqas mamon and
migo adif meichezqas haguf.
So chazaq
IOW:
rov > migo
rov > chezaqa
chezqas haguf > chezqas mamon
So
rov > chezqas haguf > chezqas mamon
But
chezqas mamon > rov -- where mi'ut yeshno be'olam, without bitul
Acharei rabim lehatos is a case of bitul, so if the majority of dayanim
rule that the nit'an has to pay up, that rov does trump chezqas mamon.
Hoserver the gemara in R' Nasan says:
"Mah li leshaqer?" ki chazaqah dami.
Lo asi chazaqah ve'aqrah chazaqah legamrei.
(R' Nasan shows up in two of my posts in a row!)
Migo doesn't trump chazaqah, because assuming a person wouldn't give
that particular lie is itself a chazaqah.
Which is it?
Another related issue that confuses me is what kind of chazaqah is
a chezqas mamon:
One could say it's a chazaqah demei'iqara -- preserving the status quo
of who has the money.
One could say it's a chazaqah disvara -- normally property belongs to
the person holding it.
Now, say the to'ein is tofeis the money he claims. This can at times
work, because it shifts which is hamotzi meichaveiro when they get
to BD. However, we know this is a normal case of the person holding
the money, we know how he got it. So how would my chazaqah disvara
apply? OTOH, it's not your usual case of presrving the old halachic
state, because everyone agrees that before the dispute, the property
was the nitan's.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger How wonderful it is that
mi...@aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment
http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:00:56 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Game Theory and Bankruptcy
Nobel Laureate R/Dr Robert Aumann famously (in our circles) explained
the distribution of funds in the mishnah on Kesuvos 93a. In that
mishnah, a man left behind 3 wives -- but the case works for 3
debts in general. Whatever wife 1's kesuvah is worth in the mishnah
would be the same as if 1 of 3 creditors were owed the same amount.
It is the creditor version that is the topic of AhS CM 104:15. But
it only holds in cases where the assets aren't real estate, or if
the debts are loans without certified contracts, if all the debts'
contracts have the same date -- in other words, in cases where one
doesn't pay the oldest loan fast.
Creditor A is owed 100 zuz, creditor B is owed 200 zuz, and creditor C,
300. And the debtor has left than 600 zuz to divide.
The AhS notes that there is a minority opinion that would have them divide
as we today would probably consider more intuitive -- proportionally.
A gets 1/6 of the assets, B gets 1/3 (ie 2/6) and C gets 1/2 (=3/6).
And in his day this was a common practice. So, while one may say this
became minhag hamaqom and thus a tenai implicitly accepted when doing
business or lending money, the AhS recommends that if the creditors
assume this division, beis din seek pesharah and divide this way.
However, iqar hadin is as per the mishnah. Which the gemara tells us
is R' Nasan, and R' Yehudah haNasi disagrees. (Stam mishnah, and the
redactor of mishnayos doesn't mention his own opinion???)
The first 100z has three claims on it and is divided in thirds.
The second 100z has two claims on it, and is divided equally between B & C.
And whatever is left is given to C.
What this means is that whomever has the biggest loan is most likely
to absorb the loss.
RRA explains this case in two papers. The first, aimed more at
mathematicians, invokes the Game Theoretic concept of nucleolus.
(R.J. Aumann and M. Maschler, Game Theoretic Analysis of a Bankruptcy
Problem from the Talmud, Journal of Economic Theory 36, no. 2 (1985),
195-213.) In the second, written for people who learn gemara, he avoids
all the technical talk. ("On the Matter of the Man with Three Wives,"
Moriah 22 (1999), 98- 107.)
The second paper compares this mishnah to the gemara at the opening of BM,
and derives a general rule, RAR saying that no other division in Qiddushin
would follow the same principles as the 2 person division in BM.
Here is an explanatory blog post <http://bit.ly/2IEmi4H> on Talmudology
blog ("Judaism, Science and Medicine"), by R/Dr Jeremy Brown.
(The blog would particularly be interesting to someone learning daf
who is interested in science or math.)
The aforementioned AhS gives two sevaras for R' Nasan's position:
The first is that the first division is taken from the
beinonis (mid-quality property) of the debtor's or the estate's
holdings. Therefore, it has to be divided separately from the rest of B &
C's debt. Each has claim to the full 100z, so each gets equally.
The second division is taken from the beinonis of what the person owned
that the time he started owing B & C money, and if there is non left,
from the ziburis (lesser quality). Again, different material, so it
is divided without consideration to the remainder of the debt to C.
merchandise. Therefore, it is accounted for separately
The second explanation focuses on why this case is different than
shutefus, where the shutefim do divide proportionally to their
investments.
The debtor's assets are entirely meshubadim to A just as much as to B
or C. C can't get his 300z until A's 100z is accounted for, no less than
the other way around -- each has full power to halt distribution of any
of the man's assets. So the division is by shibud, which is equal.
But with shutefim, the profit is clearcut.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:01:59 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Was Bil'am Jewish?
Naaah, of course he was not Jewish. The subject line was just to get
your attention. But then again....
I would not have surprised me if Bil'am had said, "I can't do what my
god doesn't let me do." After all, religious people of *any* religion
generally refrain from going against the will of their god. Likewise,
I would not have been surprised if he said, "I can't do what Hashem
doesn't let me do." He is a professional, and he knows the rules of
the game (most clearly seen in maftir). He knows who he is dealing
with, and if he is trying to curse the Jews, it would be a good idea
to follow the rules of the Jewish God. But Bil'am didn't say either of
those things.
What Bil'am said was, "I can't do what HASHEM MY GOD doesn't let me
do." (B'midbar 22:18) I was very surprised by this phrase. There have
been plenty of polytheists who accept the idea that there are many
gods, One of them being Hashem, the God of the Jews. But in this
pasuk, we see that Bil'am goes beyond accepting Hashem as *a* god - he
accepts Him as "my God".
I checked my concordance and found about 50 cases in Tanach of the
phrase "Hashem Elokai", spelling "Elokai" with either a patach or a
kamatz. It seems that this was the ONLY case where this phrase was
used by a non-Jew.
Very unusual. There must be something going on here. My understanding
has been that Bil'am was a rasha, but nevertheless he was a deeply
spiritual rasha, and that spirituality enabled him to nevuah. But now
it seems that on top of all that, he was a monotheist. It must not
have been easy to be a non-Jewish monotheist in those days. But I
guess cognitive dissonance is a useful tool for reshaim of all kinds.
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 01:44:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Was Bil'am Jewish?
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:01:59AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: What Bil'am said was, "I can't do what HASHEM MY GOD doesn't let me
: do." (B'midbar 22:18) I was very surprised by this phrase...
: Very unusual. There must be something going on here. My understanding
: has been that Bil'am was a rasha, but nevertheless he was a deeply
: spiritual rasha, and that spirituality enabled him to nevuah. But now
: it seems that on top of all that, he was a monotheist. It must not
: have been easy to be a non-Jewish monotheist in those days. But I
: guess cognitive dissonance is a useful tool for reshaim of all kinds.
This works well with my recent (few minute old) blog post.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/bilam-frum>
I argue that the whole point of Bil'am might have been to illustrate
how monotheism and deveiqus don't guarantee being good people.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Aspaqlaria
Bil'am the Frummy
by micha ? Published 18 Tammuz 5778 - Sun, Jul 1, 2018
Sun, Jul 1, 2018
The Medrash Tankhuma (Balaq 1) says:
And if you ask: Why did the Holy One blessed be He, let his Shechinah
rest upon so wicked a non-Jew? So that the [other] peoples would have
no excuse to say, `If we had nevi'im, we would have changed for the
better', He established for then nevi'im. Yet they [these nevi'im]
broke down the moral fence of the world...
For that matter, the Sifrei says on the last pasuq of the Torah:
And another navi did not arise again in Israel like Moshe: In Israel,
[another] one did not arise, but among the nations of the world,
one did arise. And who was it? Bil'am ben Be'or.
So here you have a prophet with the abilities of Moshe (whatever they
meant by that) and yet he was no paragon of moral virtue. He didn't
teach them how to lift themselves up, but how to corrupt the Jews.
So how does that address the complaint of the nations? They had their
navi, but they said it was unfair that they didn't have nev'i'im to
give moral instruction -- and Bil'am wasn't capable of leading them in
that way.
Perhaps Bil'am stood for them as an example to teach them just that
point. The nations are described as complaining that if they only had a
navi they would have been as good as the Jews. But Bil'am was there to
show them nevu'ah wasn't the answer. Even being a navi and having the
Shechinah rest upon them is not sufficient to make an ideal person.
The whole detour into telling us about an event in the lives of Balaq and
Bil'am is such a departure from the rest of the Torah, it is considered
a separate book. "Moshe wrote his book and Parashas Bil'am" (Bava Basra
14b) So why it it included?
Based on the above suggestion, the section teaches us about the dangers
of frumkeit. We can get so caught up in the pursuit of deveiqus, one's
personal relationship with G-d, one can end up as self-centered and
honor-seeking as Bil'am. We need to start out pursuing moral and ethical
behavior, ehrlachkeit, and then the connection with the Divine can be
harnessed to reach those goals.
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Cantor Wolberg
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:01:27 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas
?Pinhas? has turned back Chamasi, my wrath, from the people of Israel.? (Num.25:11)
Pinhas has proven his unusual power to turn back God?s wrath from Israel through a very courageous,
difficult and controversial act. The Vilna Gaon brilliantly observes that in the word chamasi (my wrath),
the two outside letters ches and yud read chai ? life ? while the inside letters mem and sav read meit ? death.
The hidden meaning is that by Pinchos facing squarely what has taken place on the outside, he has miraculously
turned back the wrath of the Almighty. In doing so, he has removed death (meis) from the inside, replacing it with life (chai).
Why do we pray with a set text? An opinion recorded in the Talmud states that prayers correspond to the daily
sacrifices offered in the Temple which are mentioned in this coming week's portion of Pinchas. (Numbers 28:4)
It has been argued that this opinion may be the conceptual base for our standardized prayer.
Since sacrifices had detailed structure, so too do our prayers have a set text.
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180701/85268c66/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Cantor Wolberg
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 08:29:00 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Shiva Asar B'Tamuz "A FAST WITH A DIFFERENT SLANT"
The 17th of Tamuz is a fast day commemorating several catastrophes which occurred throughout our
history. Most notably, on this day in 70 CE the Roman army broke through the walls of Jerusalem prior
to destroying the Second Temple. The 17th of Tamuz has always been a calamitous day for the Jewish people,
for it was on this day that Moses broke the first tablets. Moses descended from Mount Sinai, and upon seeing the people
dancing around the Golden Calf, smashed the tablets onto the ground.
The two sets of tablets contain the same laws, with slightly different wording. The first tablet of each set contains the laws
of our relationship to God, which are represented by the verse, "You shall love Hashem, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul,
and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:5) ,The second tablet contains the laws of our relationship with other people, which are represented
by the verse, "You shall love your fellow as yourself, I am Hashem." (Leviticus 19:18).
What is interesting is that both verses have a key phrase with the same gematria, 907. These are the laws between 'man and God?
(Deut.6:5) "V'ahavta et Adonai Elohekha" (You shall love the Lord, your God); and laws between 'man and man?
(Lev.19:18) "V'ahavta l'rayekha kamokha; Ani Adonai" (You shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am Hashem). Both phrases have
the exact numerical value of 907. This shows in a mystical fashion that laws towards other people carry an equal worth as the laws of
how we should act towards God. [After all, it was God who created the other people]. (The Torah also reminds us that both are necessary,
by pointing out that the word for tablets, Luchot, is written incomplete in the Torah. This reminds us that neither tablet is whole on its own,
and that a person must follow both sets of laws).
The Talmud says that after the future redemption of Israel and the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash, these fast days will be re-dedicated
as days of rejoicing and festivity. For as the prophet Zechariah says: the 17th of Tammuz will become a day of "joy to the House of Judah,
and gladness and cheerful feasts."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180701/4b083693/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:10:40 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Admin: 22 Tammuz 5758
July 16 1998 / 22 Tammuz 5758, Avodah took over from RYGB's Beis Tefillah
group.
Meaning... Avodah is approaching its 20th anniversary!
Amazing!
I wuld like to organize a get-together -- or two, one in the US, on in
Israel -- if the auspicious occasion would move people to come. Mutliple
locations are also an option, with a video open so that we can at least
wave to eachother.
(Apologies to R Arie Folger -- Vienna is lamentably not on the list of
likely venues.)
I would like replies by private email (please don't flood the moderation
queues!) to mi...@aishdas.org with answers to the tune of:
+ I would try my best to attend a get-together if it were in
- Yerushalayim
- Bet Shemesh
- New York
- Chicago
+ I would also like to help in the planning.
Kindly share thie email with any of our old regulars as well.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Richard Fiedler
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 20:39:17 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] The Molad of Tamuz
On Shabbat Mevorchim prior to the start of Tamuz the Molad was announced as
Wednesday 6:05 PM and 7 chalakim in many shuls throughout the world. Such
is as it is listed on Chabad?s Molad Times website.
In other shuls the Molad was announced as Thursday, 0 hours and 97 chalakim. Such is the traditional way the Molad was announced. Minutes are not used.
Now I doubt that many would say Elu v?Elu here. One of these announcements was wrong.
Everyone should agree that the Molad occurred on Wednesday, June 13.
According to the Rambam "When you know the time of the molad for any
particular month, and add 1 - 12 - 793, you will arrive at the time of the
Molad of the following month. Thus, you will be able to determine on which
day of the week and at which hour it will take place, and how many units of
that hour will have passed.? The hour in the Rambam refers to the hours
after the start of the day. Since each hour contains 1080 chalakim then 97
chalakim would be the equivalent of (90/1080)x60 or 5 minutes plus 7
chalakim. In the Hebrew Calendar the new day starts at sunset which in the
Chabad calculation an assumption is made of 6:00 PM making the Molad 6:05
PM plus 7 chalakim.
On June 13 the sun set at 7:45 PM Israel Summer Time which is actually 6:45
PM but certainly the Molad occurred before sunset so Wednesday would seem
to be the correct day. The logical error here is that we are using both an
assumed sunset time of 6:00 PM and an actual sunset time of 6:45 PM in the
same calculation.
The source of the problem is the non-traditional and erroneous addition of conversion to minutes into the discussion.
From the Rambam the Molad of Tamuz was 0 hours and 97 chalakim which means
97 chalakim after sunset which clearly is Thursday. If I would want to say
this as a real time that people could relate to I would state this in
Israel Summer time of 7:50 PM and 7 chalakim.
Though only occasionally is there a conflict in the day of the week as
happened for Tamuz. But only when the sun sets in Jerusalem exactly at 6:00
PM is the announcement of the Molad correct in the Chabad and other
commonly used tables.
One final question which I am curious as to the opinions of the members of this forum, why do we announce the Molad at all?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180701/95d534b5/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 16:59:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Molad of Tamuz
On 01/07/18 13:39, Richard Fiedler via Avodah wrote:
>
> In other shuls the Molad was announced as _*Thursday*_, 0 hours and 97
> chalakim. Such is the traditional way the Molad was announced. Minutes
> are not used. >
> Now I doubt that many would say ?Elu?v?Elu here. One of these
> announcements was wrong.
If they said "Thursday" they were wrong. If they said "Leil Chamishi"
they were not wrong, and they were saying exactly the same thing as the
first ones, but needlessly confusingly. 0 hours and 97 parts is 6:05:7
PM, (or 6:05:23 PM if one wishes to use seconds).
Your entire discourse about sunset is irrelevant. Sunset has absolutely
nothing to do with *any* calculation of the molad. The period between
one molad and the next is always the same, therefore it should be
obvious that there are no variable factors in its calculation, such as
sunset. The "day" for the calculation as the sources give it (starting
with Molad BaHaRaD) begins *not* at sunset but at precisely 6:00 PM.
But 6:00 PM real time, not Standard Time, which is an invention of the
US railroads.
> From the Rambam the Molad of Tamuz was 0 hours and 97 chalakim which
> means 97 chalakim after sunset which clearly is Thursday. If I would
> want to say this as a real time that people could relate to I would
> state this in Israel Summer time of 7:50 PM and 7 chalakim.
This is incorrect. In Israeli Standard Time it would be 5:44:27, and in
Summer Time 6:44:27. You have not only added a spurious adjustment for
the actual time of sunset, but have forgotten the 00:20:57 adjustment
for Standard Time, which is every bit as artificial as the one-hour
adjustment for Summer Time.
--
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: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:50:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Molad of Tamuz
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 04:59:14PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: In Israeli Standard Time it would be 5:44:27,
: and in Summer Time 6:44:27. You have not only added a spurious
: adjustment for the actual time of sunset, but have forgotten the
: 00:20:57 adjustment for Standard Time, which is every bit as
: artificial as the one-hour adjustment for Summer Time.
Actually, I am not convinced the times we announce really are
Jerusalem Mean Time.
The molad is lengthening, and was most accurate about 1650 years
ago.
(I noted the incredible siyata diShmaya involved, since the first
time this value was recorded was by the Bavliim or Meton of Athens,
a millennium before its peak accuracy. And yet, when the Sanhedrin was
falling apart and we needed numbers to build a calendar on, it ws at its
most accurate. Led me to believe the value is MiSinai, and Bavel got it
from us. But even if not, Divine intervention of some sort lays beyond
such a "coincidence".)
We can therefore go back 1650 years and see when the molad was.
Turns out that back when the time between lunations was most clsely the
molad, the actually time of the molad would have been most accurate if
the time we were announcing were something closer to Ur Kasdim time,
than Y-m time.
To better justify that idea... More accurate at a meridian that runs
down the middle of Jewish Settlement from Bavel to Alexandria.
Or, a correction of around 44 min from IST, not appx. 21.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)