Avodah Mailing List

Volume 37: Number 3

Sun, 13 Jan 2019

• 1. Re: The Mitzva of "To'ameha" -- Tasting Food on Erev Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Menachot Question 79a (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Menachot Question 79a (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Vaccinations - Rav Asher Weiss (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 5. Re: Menachot Question 79a (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Vaccinations - Rav Asher Weiss (Zev Sero)
• 7. Davar Seser (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 8. haftarah (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 07:48:59PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: I must admit that I had never heard of this until my wife returned
: from a visit to a number of kevarim in Europe with a group of Chassidic
: women. If you ask people about this, I think that you will find that
: in non-Chassidic circles this Mitzva is commonly unknown. YL

It's a "thing" among the Yeshivish too.

:> The Mitzva of "To'ameha" -- Tasting Food on Erev Shabbos

Who are you quoting?

In any case, all it means is that the cook shouldn't serve the food they
made for se'udos Shabbos without checking the taste themselve. It is
common when cooking to taste the dish anyway. You just ought to remember
to check (eg) the soup, even if you make the same recipe every week.

Chodesh Tov!
-Micha

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:47 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> According to the Tosefta ad loc 8:10
> <https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Menahot.8.10>, it's R' Meir who breings
> down the machloqes, and R' Yehudah who says lo nechliqu.
>
> Not saying I fully understand the sugya, just looks like a source for
> the Rambam having a different understanding of the sugya than our girsa
> of shas. (Not saying it's necessarily a girsa issue, just saying I can't
> insist it's necessarily what the Bavli said.)
>

That doesn't contradict what I reported; it is, in fact, exactly as
reported in the sugya.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190107/74e2cd8f/attachment-0001.html>

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:27:18PM +0100, R Arie Folger wrote:
:> According to the Tosefta ad loc 8:10
:> <https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Menahot.8.10>, it's R' Meir who breings
:> down the machloqes, and R' Yehudah who says lo nechliqu.
...
: That doesn't contradict what I reported; it is, in fact, exactly as
: reported in the sugya.

On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 08:35:53PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: The problem is that Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi Yehoshua' only disagree
: regarding the loaves of a Todah sacrificed chutz limkomo according to Rabbi
: Yehudah's analysis, while according to Rabbi Meir there ain't no such
: disagreement between them.

You typoed, and I got confused.

So, going by what the gemara and Tosefta actually say, let's go back to
your question with typoes corrected.

On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 08:35:53PM +0100, R Arie Folger wrote something like:
: Menachot 78b-79a deals with the question of the sanctity of the loaves of a
: todah sacrifice that was deficient in some way...

: Rambam's psak also accords with the two kelalim of halakha kestam mishna
: and also Rabbi Meir veRabbi Yehudah halakha keRabbi Meir.

: And yet, I find that here it is difficult, because... Towards the end of
: the sugya (on 79a), there is a disagreement between Rabba and Rava
: regarding what to do with a Chatat that had been slaughtered with the
: disqualifying intention of chutz limqomo and then erroneously brought up
: upon the altar. The Gemara explains the disagreement between them as
: flowing forth from the disagreement  between Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi
: Yehoshua' regarding a Todah sacrificed with that same disqualifying
: intention.

: The problem is that Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi Yehoshua' only disagree
: regarding the loaves of a Todah sacrificed chutz limkomo according to Rabbi
: [Meir]'s analysis, while according to Rabbi Yehudah there ain't no such
: disagreement between them.

: Hence, the conlcusion of the sugya, citing the disagreement between Rabba
: and Rava, seems to indicate that the correct interpretation is according to
: Rabbi [Meir].

... which is how the Rambam pasqens. So what's the question?


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

The Rav states:
> 
> However, in my humble opinion, this claim is completely and totally
> devoid of substance, because all studies that were done responsibly
> establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that, with the exception of
> mild side-effects, it is not at all common for vaccines to have severe
> ramifications, and there are no known cases where death was caused by
> vaccination for certain, even though hundreds of millions of children
> have been routinely vaccinated. On the other hand, as the number of people
> who do not vaccinate increases, danger increases as well; if many people
> refuse vaccination, there is a risk that epidemics will break out and
> cause mass fatalities, as happened before these vaccines were developed.

It would appear that his entire argument hinges on the factual claim that
?all studies that were done responsibly establish beyond the shadow of a
doubt that, with the exception of mild side-effects, it is not at all common
for vaccines to have severe ramifications, and there are no known cases
where death was caused by vaccination for certain?. He repeats this claim
later in the article:

> In any event, it is clear and obvious that nowadays it is not only
> permissible to vaccinate, but there is even an obligation, on order to
> prevent danger to the individual and the public. Even if in their time,
> hundreds of years ago, they vacillated, it was only because there were
> indeed children who died from the vaccine, as is evident from their
> words. This is not true of today's vaccines, so there is a bona fide
> obligation to vaccinate.
> 

But? this is exactly the point of fact in dispute by the anti-vexers.
According to the NIH, there have indeed been cases - roughly 1 in a million
- where the death can be attributed to the vaccination. See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

Now, even if you argue that the risk of death from the vaccine is tiny in
comparison to the risk of death from the disease, is that true?

1, Try telling that to the parents of those 5 kids who died from
vaccination-induced anaphylaxis. I?m not sure they would agree with this
cheshbone. It?s like playing Russian roulette - only instead of 6 bullets,
there are a million. Someone?s going to get that bullet, hope it?s not my
kid. 

2, How effective is the MMR? According to the CDC, about 98%. That means
that 1 in 50 kids are getting the shots with the small but real risk
thereof, and not being protected. Moreover, the immunity appears to wane
over time (again, according to the CDC -
https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-vaccine-effective
ness.aspx )

3, Now that most kids are vaccinated, how risky is it really not to
vaccinate? His argument that ?if many people refuse vaccination, there is a
risk that epidemics will break out? doesn?t seem strong enough to compel
parents to impose this risk of death on their child which does not even have
a 100% effectiveness rate.

He uses the example of a makaa (fence around a place where one could fall).
How effective is this fence, assuming it is built and used correctly? Can we
agree that it is 100% effective at its job of preventing falls? (Excluding
building errors or misuse such as climbing over it)? The vaccination is not
like that ? even when made and used correctly, we still expect about 1 in
1,000,000 children to die from it. That?s pretty scary, and the ma'aka
mitzvah does not readily and obviously apply here. The essence of a ma?aka
is that it is a 100% protection against a possible danger (nobody knows the
level of danger without a ma?aka, I propose 1 in a thousand (.1% percent as
a good-faith estimate). To repeat, a 100% protection against a 0.1% risk.
But as I?ve already shown, a vaccination is not a 100% protection and the
risk is low but not zero.

His main argument:

> if we allow these parents not
> to vaccinate their children, the results would be entirely predictable:
> many would refrain from vaccinating their children, motivated by maternal
> compassion and paternal love, and then the great danger of outbreaks of
> diseases would emerge once again. Therefore, refraining from vaccination
> is not permitted in any way.
> 
The way I understand community-immunity is that there are some people whom
vaccines won?t protect (such as the 2 percent mentioned above). Therefore,
if everyone in the community is vaccinated, those 2 percent will be less
likely to be exposed to someone with the disease. So if my child is one of
the 98% who is protected, it?s a chesed toward those 2%. However, if I
decide not to vaccinate, I?m exposing my own child to possible risk, and by
extension, those 2% who might be exposed to my child. But I?m not putting
the 90% at risk ? they have immunity from the disease.Yet he doesn?t seem
concerned merely about the 2%, he seems to think that the 98% are also
somehow at risk, which I don?t think is true. Therefore, his argument needs
to be narrowed to the idea that we could theoretically allow a small number
of anti-vaxers, but not too many because then there?s a chance their kids
will get sick. The problem with this argument is that the parents know the
risk when they decide not to vax, it?s a risk they are willing to take for
their own kids, compared to the risk of vaccinating.

Based on his reasoning, I would assume that Rav Weiss shlita requires all
available vaccinations (flu, chicken pox, cholera, hepatitis, etc)? If not,
how does he determine which ones to require?

(There are 26 currently available and another 24 in the pipeline -
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/en/ )
 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190108/631d9f61/attachment-0001.html>

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 23:22 Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org wrote:
> So, going by what the gemara and Tosefta actually say, let's go back to
> your question with typoes corrected.
>: Hence, the conlcusion of the sugya, citing the disagreement between Rabba
>: and Rava, seems to indicate that the correct interpretation is according to
>: Rabbi [Meir].
>
> ... which is how the Rambam pasqens. So what's the question?

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah both agree that there is a disagreement; they
disagree about what the disagreement is about.

My problem is that through the disagreement between Rabba and Rava, we get
a sense that the Gemara rules like Rabbi Yehudah; otherwise the Gemara's
interpretation of their disagreement makes little sense.

Which either means that the Gemara contradicts the later ruling of Rambam,
or that the Gemara is difficult, or that I missed some nuance.

--
Mit freundlichen Gren,
Yours sincerely,

Arie Folger
Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net

On 8/1/19 12:59 am, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote:
> He uses the example of a makaa (fence around a place where one could 
> fall). How effective is this fence, assuming it is built and used 
> correctly? Can we agree that it is 100% effective at its job of 
> preventing falls? (Excluding building errors or misuse such as climbing 
> over it)? The vaccination is not like that ? even when made and used 
> correctly, we still expect about 1 in 1,000,000 children to die from it. 
> That?s pretty scary, and the ma'aka mitzvah does not readily and 
> obviously apply here. The essence of a ma?aka is that it is a 100% 
> protection against a possible danger (nobody knows the level of danger 
> without a ma?aka, I propose 1 in a thousand (.1% percent as a good-faith 
> estimate). To repeat, a 100% protection against a 0.1% risk. But as I?ve 
> already shown, a vaccination is not a 100% protection and the risk is 
> low but not zero.

Nothing has zero risk, or a zero failure rate.

As you point out parapets have two modes of failure: defective 
construction, and people climbing over them; however uncommon these are, 
that's a non-zero failure rate; not the 2% of the MMR vaccine, but let's 
suppose 0.02%. (Against that, consider that the risk to the person whom 
the remedy fails is much higher for the parapet than the vaccine; the 2% 
whom the vaccine fails to protect will, *if exposed*, catch one or more 
of the three diseases, with a >99% chance that they will survive with no 
lasting injury, whereas the 0.02% -- or whatever the true number is -- 
whom the parapet fails stand a >99% chance of injury or death.)

Parapets also carry a minuscule risk, e.g. from people striking their 
heads against them, which is almost certainly significantly *higher* 
than the corresponding 1/1M risk from the MMR vaccine.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

There is an in-depth halacha sefer called Davar Seser on the subject of
sexual relations (between husband and wife)

Has anyone heard any authoritative opinions on the sefer and its (very
lenient) halachic conclusions?

(email me offline if you w like a copy)

Mordechai Cohen

I recently was in a Shul in Aretz where they said the haftara from a
Chumash yet the baal korei read it for the oleh. Apparently this is
standard practice in this Shul - has anyone seen this done elsewhere?
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/20190110/fd649061/attachment-0001.html>

Here in the US, we've had a govenrment shutdown, in which non-essential
services are not operating until our elected officials can agree on a
budget. (And people in essential services are working, but not paid until
all this is resolved.)

The US FDA is one of the non-essential services that are not operating.
And this has been true since December 21. Meaning that for the past
20 days, dairy farmers knew that no one from the FDA will be checking
their milk.

At what point do we say the assumptions behind allowing chalav stam
broke down, and one needs to buy chalav yisrael?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 11/1/19 5:52 am, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:

> For the past 20 days, dairy farmers knew that no one from the FDA
> will be checking their milk.>> At what point do we say the assumptions behind 
allowing chalav stam
> broke down, and one needs to buy chalav yisrael?

First of all, the FDA does not inspect dairy farms or plants.  Neither 
does any other federal agency.  So in metzius your question doesn't 
begin.   However, let's suppose this was a state government that shut 
down, and the state inspectors were not making their rounds, and proceed 
from there.

If you're referring to RMF's heter for commercial milk, it does not 
depend on government inspection of farms; on the contrary, RMF assumed 
that there is no effective supervision of farms, since inspectors only 
come occasionally and the farmers are not afraid of them.   His heter 
originally focused on the regular presence of inspectors at the 
*processing plants*, and thus the need to bribe them if anything needed 
covering up, as well as the need to bribe plant workers not to report 
what they saw; this ensures that it would only be done if a large profit 
can be anticipated, which is not the case for adulterating cow milk with 
that of a tamei animal.

But by the end of the long teshuvah that ends the series dealing with 
this, RMF had moved away from even that requirement.  In explaining why 
it doesn't matter that there is no "yedi`a berura which is like seeing" 
about what the farmers are doing, he sets out the real core of his 
chiddush, which is that the whole gezera only applies to the last nochri 
who owned the milk before it passed into the hands of a Yisroel. 
Assuming there is no real worry about treife milk (in which case no 
gezera would be needed because it would be a safek de'oraisa), so long 
as we have "yisrael ro'eihu" (which he defines as yedi`a berura) that 
this last nochri didn't tamper with the milk, it is cholov yisroel and 
we don't care about the previous owners. Thus, he says, since we have 
this "re'iyah" at the plant we don't need it at the farm.

But once we accept this argument we can dispense with the plant 
inspectors too.   If we buy a sealed tamper-proof container of milk from 
our local bodega, leshitas RMF we have all we need.  We know as if we 
personally witnessed it that nothing happened to the milk from the time 
it passed into the bodega owner's hands until he sold it to us. 
Therefore according to RMF this is cholov yisroel even if the plant that 
processed and bottled or packaged it has no supervision at all, just as 
milk from an supervised plant is cholov yisroel even though it comes 
from an unsupervised farm.  So any interruption in the state inspection 
system, whether at the plants or at the farms, becomes irrelevant. 
Again, provided that there is no sofek de'oraisa, because if there is 
one then RMF says we are no longer talking about the gezera of cholov 
yisroel in the first place.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On 1/11/2019 5:52 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> At what point do we say the assumptions behind allowing chalav stam
> broke down, and one needs to buy chalav yisrael?

I always preferred the Pri Chadash's heter.


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



_______________________________________________
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.)