Avodah Mailing List

Volume 37: Number 4

Tue, 15 Jan 2019

• 1. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Vaccinations - Rav Asher Weiss (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 4. Re: Vaccinations - Rav Asher Weiss (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: haftarah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: haftarah (Saul Guberman)
• 7. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 11. Using an Automatic Toilet on Shabbos (Professor L. Levine)
• 12. Re: Vaccinations - Rav Asher Weiss (Akiva Miller)

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:53:28PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote:
: 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.

To recap:

The Chasam Sofar holds that CY was a taqanah, and therefore would hold
even when the rationale doesn't.

The Peri Chadash hholds it's a pesaq, and therefore whereever the cheshash
is ignoribly small, there is no problem drinking chalav stam. The PC
himself drank chalav stam when he was in Amsterdam.

For over a generation before the Igeros Moshe, most Americans drank chalav
stam. We don't know why. The AhS assumed wthey were just sinning. But
this included some notable rabbis. The natural assumption is that they
held like the Peri Chadash. But since nothing is in writing, it's all
guesswork.

Everyone discusses this in terms of RMG's teshuvos in the Igeros Moshe.
But that's his post-facto rationale for an existing heter. RMF couldn't
believe that the final pesaq wasn't like the Chasam Sofer. Think how
often we cite the CS, and how often we even mention the Peri Chadash.

And so R Moshe comes up with a sevara by which we could hold like the
CS and yet stil could be meiqil. It strike me as dachuq, as though RMF
was looking for a way not to overturn a well supported pesaq while still
holding like the CS. Of course, that's just more guesswork.

But it means that the CS's taqanah requiring re'iyah means requiring
more certainty than usual birur, whereas the PC says it *is* just regular
birur. So, the nafqa mina lema'aseh boils down to measuring probability --
in a legal system that isn't that rigorous about probabilities?

Second, as the AhS notes, one only needs to have a Jew attend part of the
milking. This is his ra'ayah for the CS's position. But meanwhile, O don't
see how that fits RMF's position -- CY that was only watch for the first
2 out of a 15 min milking session isn't certainly unadulterated. So how
does RMF take "rei'yah" here for means "or as sure as if it were seen"
(as it does in other places)?

Lo zakhisi lehavin RMF's shitah.

And I am not sure we're actually relying on it lemaaseh.


Meanwhile, Zev mentioned my errors in metzi'us. The USDA not the FDA is
responsible for milk. And the inspection is at bottling, not the farm.
I have gotten conflicting reports about whether the USDA or a state
agency does those inspections.

All in all, I am surprised none of the national hashgachos have chimed
in to reassure people yet.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On 11/1/19 2:53 pm, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote:
> 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.

Which is really the Radvaz.   I don't understand why everyone attributes 
it to the Pri Chadash, when he merely quotes the Radvaz.   But that's 
fine if you're sefardi.  At least according to RMF, we Ashkenazim 
universally reject this shita, and hold like the Chasam Sofer that there 
was a gezera, which was a davar shebeminyan.  The AhS so despised this 
shita that he wouldn't even name those who hold it, and pretty much 
calls them machti'ei harabim.


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

Zev Sero wrote:


>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.

They are not comparable. By the parapet, no one is at risk from the
parapet itself. 

On 13/1/19 10:23 pm, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote:
>> 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.

> They are not comparable. By the parapet, no one is at risk from the
> parapet itself.

Sure they are.  If the parapet were not there, someone striking his head 
at the space it occupies would not be injured.  It's a minuscule risk, 
but higher than the risk of being injured by 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

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:12:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: 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?

There are a number of shuls in Passaic where this is done. My own shul
shul has a ba'al qeri'ah reading from a printed Tanakh codex every week.

I prefer it, as I feel so nervous about how my slow meticulous reading
is going to annoy mispallelim who would prefer more haste.

The whole idea of having a baal qeriah to begin with was to level the
playing field so that no one is too embarrassed when he is given an
aliyah. In todays world, there are many men who lack the Jewish education
to know haftara trop, so that original rationale should extend to cover
haftarah from a printed and fully pointed book too.

For that matter, my father reads the berakhos out of a siddur (or the
sheet on the shulchan, if there is one), for the same reason as having
the ba'al qeri'ah. Why should people who dont know the berakhos by heart
feel uncomfortable by being the only ones who need to look at the text?

(I wonder if Passaic's high percentage of baalei teshuvah, people with
less practice reading with trop, is why it's more common in my neck
of the woods. That is the population my father is concerned about WRT
the berakhos.)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rich, Joel via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
It has happened a few times when either the person prepared the wrong
haftorah or they are not capable of leining but would like the aliyah.
Saul

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190114/20512fb2/attachment-0001.html>

On 13/1/19 8:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 
> Meanwhile, Zev mentioned my errors in metzi'us. The USDA not the FDA is
> responsible for milk. And the inspection is at bottling, not the farm.
> I have gotten conflicting reports about whether the USDA or a state
> agency does those inspections.

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service does not inspect milk for 
safety.   It inspects meat, poultry, and egg products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Safety_and_Inspection_Service
"Food products that are under the jurisdiction of the FSIS, and thus 
subject to inspection, are those that contain more than 3% meat or 2% 
poultry products, with several exceptions, and egg products (liquid, 
frozen or dried)."

As I understand it plants that produce dairy products can voluntarily 
sign up for a "hechsher" from the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, 
which inspects its clients and grades them for quality.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/dairy-program

However, unlike a hechsher, there is nothing on a bottle of retail milk 
to show directly that it comes from an inspected plant.  Therefore I 
doubt any plant producing bottled milk for the retail market would sign 
up for this inspection, since it would not generate extra sales.  It 
seems to be designed for plants selling to industrial customers, who 
wish to know that the ingredients in their own products are of good quality.


Dairy safety inspection is a state matter.   (I can personally testify 
that the inspectors who come to NY dairy farms are from the state.  I 
have no personal knowledge of who comes to the plants, but my 
understanding is that it's the same people.)


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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 03:04:09PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
...
: Dairy safety inspection is a state matter.   (I can personally
: testify that the inspectors who come to NY dairy farms are from the
: state.  I have no personal knowledge of who comes to the plants, but
: my understanding is that it's the same people.)

According to the OU as well, the inspection is actually done by state
agencies. The USDA has standard that at minimum the state agency must
comply to.

So, a shutdown of the relevant state government may be an issue, but
if the dairy would then have to ship across state lines to reach you,
the USDA would have to get involved anyway.

The call in which I obtained that info led to me speaking to a few people
at OU kosher about the chaos and conflicting claims I've seen on-line,
and I was told that they will be putting up a statement about it. Check
their Facebook page or web site, I guess.

All of which is off-topic for this list, I just wanted to wrap up
the halakhah lemaaseh, since I did speak to an institution most of the
chalav stam consuming public would follow.

In terms of the theory, see my prior post on this thread
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2019q1/043511.html>.
I think that if inspections would be temporarily halted (say, in case of
that state shut-down), it would really depend on whether we follow RMF
that all Ashkenazim really follow the Chasam Sofer, or if the rabbanim
who were meiqilim before the Igeros Moshe were really setting up a norm
to follow the Peri Chadash.

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 14/1/19 3:14 pm, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 03:04:09PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> ...
> : Dairy safety inspection is a state matter.   (I can personally
> : testify that the inspectors who come to NY dairy farms are from the
> : state.  I have no personal knowledge of who comes to the plants, but
> : my understanding is that it's the same people.)
> 
> According to the OU as well, the inspection is actually done by state
> agencies. The USDA has standard that at minimum the state agency must
> comply to.

I doubt this claim's validity.  From what I can see on the USDA's own 
site and on other sites about it, its food safety inspection service has 
no jurisdiction over, or interest in, milk or dairy products, and its 
marketing service's inspections are voluntary and probably do not cover 
retail milk producers.

> In terms of the theory, see my prior post on this thread
> <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2019q1/043511.html>.
> I think that if inspections would be temporarily halted (say, in case of
> that state shut-down), it would really depend on whether we follow RMF
> that all Ashkenazim really follow the Chasam Sofer, or if the rabbanim
> who were meiqilim before the Igeros Moshe were really setting up a norm
> to follow the Peri Chadash.

And as I wrote earlier, I don't see it.  According to RMF's shita, the 
plant inspectors (whoever they are) turn out to be irrelevant.  The 
certainty that the retailer from whom you bought the bottle did not 
tamper with it is *greater* than the certainty that there is no funny 
business going on at an inspected bottling plant. So according to RMF it 
doesn't matter if the plant is never inspected at all.  We don't need 
"re'iyah", however defined, at the plant, but only at the retailer, and 
by RMF's standards we have it.

That is, unless you buy your non-Jewish milk at a Jewish retailer.  I 
suppose that in RMF's day it was common for Jewish-owned corner shop to 
sell non-Jewish milk.  Nowadays it seems to me this is not common; where 
you have Jewish shops they sell Jewish milk, and where you don't have 
Jewish milk you also don't have Jewish shops.


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

On 13/1/19 8:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> And so R Moshe comes up with a sevara by which we could hold like the
> CS and yet stil could be meiqil. It strike me as dachuq, as though RMF
> was looking for a way not to overturn a well supported pesaq while still
> holding like the CS. Of course, that's just more guesswork.

If he thought it was dachuk I doubt he would repeatedly say that it's a 
solid heter on which anyone may rely, and that one who has been keeping 
strict CY because he thought it was halachically required doesn't need 
hataras nedarim to stop.  I also doubt he would let his wife and 
children eat something that he thought could be permitted only through a 
sevara dechuka.   It seems more like he was intellectually convinced 
that he had hit upon the true halacha, but didn't think people ought to 
jump on newfangled heterim if they didn't have to, no matter how solid.


> But it means that the CS's taqanah requiring re'iyah means requiring
> more certainty than usual birur, whereas the PC says it *is*  just regular
> birur. So, the nafqa mina lema'aseh boils down to measuring probability --
> in a legal system that isn't that rigorous about probabilities?

He says we need the same degree of "absolute certainty" that we get from 
eidus.  And his proof is from eidei kidushei biah.   This is not birur 
hametzius, it's anan literally sahadi; it's as if we personally saw it.


> Second, as the AhS notes, one only needs to have a Jew attend part of the
> milking. This is his ra'ayah for the CS's position.

Could you please point out where in the AhS you are seeing this?


> But meanwhile, O don't
> see how that fits RMF's position -- CY that was only watch for the first
> 2 out of a 15 min milking session isn't certainly unadulterated. So how
> does RMF take "rei'yah" here for means "or as sure as if it were seen"
> (as it does in other places)?

Are you referring to the fact that the mashgiach can be sitting outside? 
  If so not even 2 minutes of direct viewing are required.  His sitting 
outside, combined with the fact that either there is no tamei animal 
available (and he'd see if someone brought one in) or there is one but 
the nochri will not milk it because he knows the mashgiach is sitting 
just outside, constitutes re'iyah, giving us the necessary certainty.

Basically the difference between the Radvaz and RMF's view of the CS is 
that the Radvaz assumes that in Chazal's time there was a real cheshash, 
so they warned us of it.  If there is no cheshash then there is no 
problem.  RMF assumes that in Chazal's day there was *no* cheshash, or 
at least there wasn't always one, because if there was always one then 
there would be no need for a gezera. Therefore having no cheshash is not 
enough.

Another way to look at it:  The OU tells us we need a hechsher on milk, 
not to assure us that it doesn't contain horse milk but to assure us 
that it doesn't contain shark cartilage.   The Radvaz says the standard 
for the two is the same; we need the same assurance about horse milk 
that we do about shark cartilage, no more.  The normal OU standards, 
which fall far short of re'iyah, suffice for both.   RMF says no; for 
shark cartilage it's sufficient to have the company agree it won't put 
any in and to do bimonthly inspections and audits to make sure they're 
keeping it.  For horse milk we need, *in addition to that*, something 
that counts as re'iyah, *but only for the last nochri*.  For the 
previous nochrim the regular standard is OK.

In any case it follows that when the last nochri is a retailer who 
received it in a tamper-proof bottle, then according to RMF we have our 
re'iyah, and now it's like any other product, needing only the same 
birur that we rely on for everything else.  In the case of milk, as the 
Radvaz points out, we have that birur automatically, so we're good.

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

The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. Some toilets have an optical sensor and flush automatically when one
walks away from the toilet. What should a person do if they find themselves
on Shabbos in a place that only has automatic toilets?



A. Rav Belsky, zt?l (Shulchan HaLevi 7:7) discusses this question and rules
that if there is no other option, it is permitted to use such a toilet. He
explains that activating the toilet by movement of one?s body is referred
to in halacha as kocho (literally, one?s power.) For example, if one tears
a cloth with their hands, that is a direct melacha, but if one shoots an
arrow through a cloth, that is kocho. On a Torah level, one is liable in
both cases, but regarding Rabbinic prohibitions there is a difference. The
Gemara (Shabbos 100b) permits pouring waste water onto the side of a boat
and letting it run off into the sea (kocho). The Ritva (Shabbos 100b)
explains that pouring waste water directly into the sea is a rabbinic
violation (carrying from a private domain to a karmalis). Nonetheless,
Chazal permitted this due to the consideration of ?kavod habriyos? (human
dignity), so long as it is done indirectly, by means of kocho. Similarly,
in the case of one who must use an automatic
  toilet, it is permitted because of kavod habriyos, since it is activated
  indirectly by means of kocho. One must be mindful that if lights turn on
  when one enters the bathroom, then it is forbidden to do so. One cannot
  violate a Torah prohibition even in a situation of kavod habriyos.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190115/f3d68cdc/attachment-0001.html>

.
R' Alexander Seinfeld quoted Rav Asher Weiss, and explained Rav Weiss
to be distinguishing between vaccination and ma'akeh:

> He uses the example of a maaka (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.

R' Zev Sero disagrees with the claim that maakeh offers a 100% guarantee:

> 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%. ...
>
> Parapets also carry a minuscule risk, e.g. from people striking
> their heads against them, ...

I would agree with RZS's basic point, but I would go much much farther
than he went. The risks of a maakeh are not merely from when the
maakeh was built incorrectly (in which case it's not really a maakeh
at all), or from when someone deliberately defeats its safety features
(like when climbing over it), or from "oness"-type collateral damage
(like hitting one's head against it, in which case he'd have been
better off if there had been no maakeh at all).

Rather, I would argue that the maakeh is inherently a less-than-100%
protection, and doesn't even claim to offer 100% protection.

Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 427:5 writes, "The maakeh must be no less
than 10 tefachim high, so that a faller will not fall from it. And the
wall must be strong so that a person who leans on it will not fall."

The criterion of "leaning" seems rather weak to me. I can easily
imagine many situations where a just-barely-kosher maakeh will NOT
give 100% protection: When people are running or fighting, their
momentum is that much greater, and a maakeh that would have protected
someone leaning will be inadequate. Even a person who is walking
backwards (for some legitimate reason) may not realize that he is
close to the edge and the maakeh MIGHT fail to stop him. This will be
especially dangerous if the person is tall and/or a small shiur of
"tefach" was used for the construction.

No. A maakeh is NOT a 100% protection. It might offer 100% protection
to the typical cases, but not to the unusual ones.

Akiva Miller


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



_______________________________________________
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.)