Volume 37: Number 8
Thu, 31 Jan 2019
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:27:57 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] 613 mitzvos is from Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe
In the Chinukh, the Aseres haDiberos include mitzvos no.s 25 - 28,
14 mitzvos. So much for "10 Commandments". Kedarko, with only a couple
of exceptions, he follows the Rambam. So, #25 is "Anokhi".
R' Chesdai Crescas gave two cogent arguments against counting Anokhi:
1- He didn't understand how we can be commanded in something over whch we
have as little volition as what seems true to us.
2- How can you be commanded to believe in the One commanding? The very
existence of the mitzvah presupposes that one already got past it.
But even without Anokhi, there is no problem without getting to 10,
because there isn't a 1-to-1 from diberos to mitzvos anyway.
The bigger problem is that this whole thing of counting mitzvos is based
on R' Simlai, so the first two diberos, the ones heard directly miPi
haGevurah, have to be two mitzvos (plus the 611 tzivah lanu Moshe).
Judging from the parashah breaks, that means 20:2-6 and 20:7 includes
only two mitvos. (Interestingly, the break after the second diberah is
pesuchah. It is the only pesuach within the diberos. Fits the chazal
we're discussing.)
But... The first dibera includes Chinukh no.s 25-28 (Anokhi, Lo YihYeh,
Lo Sa'aseh, Lo Sishtachaveh), and the 2nd -- #29, lo lishava shav.
The Semag has a similar list for these pesuqim, except in his numbering,
it's Asei #1, followed by Lavin no.s 1, 20, 18, and 238.
So, if the Jews couldn't handle the first two diberos, that comes to 5
mitzvos heard miPi haGevurah + the 611 we received via Moshe!
(You would have to not count Anokhi AND count the three about AZ as one
mitzvah to get 2 + 611.)
How do rishonim who are trying to give peshat in R' Simlaei's 613
doing so in a way that contradicts his ra'ayah for the idea?
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
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
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Alexander Seinfeld
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:12:55 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] 10 Dibrot
The trop (cantillation) for the 10 Statements (Commandments) is different
when chanted in the congregation than when an individual is chanting on
his own.
What is the meaning or reason for this? How is the public trop supposed to
resonate with the listener differently?
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Alexander Seinfeld
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:16:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] nichum aveilim
>
>
>
>When one is physically distant from a friend who is sitting shiva, as a
>general rule, is it better to (pick one) call, text, or email during the
>shiva period? Or, is it better to wait until you actually see the person
>again?
>
>-----------------
>
>
>See Igros Moshe OC IV:40.11, where he talks about nichum aveilim via the
>phone. It seems clear to me that he's saying that someone who is unable to
>visit in person still has a mitzvah of nichum; if so, then it makes sense
>to
>say that whatever of the modalities you suggest would create the most
>nechamah (and it may be different from person to person) should be the one
>used.
It seems to me the thrust of the question is, better to use technology
DURING shiva, or do it face-to-face AFTER shiva.
Therefore, since there is a special need for and mitzvah to be nichum
during shiva, one should pick up the phone and call, if you can get
through, and if not, send a message letting them know you tried to call,
AND ASLO repeat your words of comfort when you see them face-to-face,
since they are presumably still mourning for at least 30 days, if not 12
months.
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:00:20 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Last Nochri Who Owned The Milk
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 09:57:46AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: You've forgotten the whole point of the teshuvah, and why he brings up
: cheese & butter at all. The question he's answering is how the "re'iya"
: at the company helps, when the company buys its milk from farms, and he
: explicitly says that there is no "re'iya" at nochri farms and that it's
: forbidden to buy milk there. So how can we buy from the companies?
: He uses the examples of cheese & butter to prove (1) that the issur
: is chal only when it comes leyad yisroel, and (2) that if there is no
: cheshash about the last nochri, who made the cheese or butter, then
: we don't care that he bought the milk from a nochri about whom there
: is a cheshash. We only care about the "akum sheni", not about the
: "akum rishon".
Just #1. You don't need #2, if it weren't for gevinas aku"m and straight
kashrus issues. Not Chasam Sofer's gezeira-of-CY issue.
To elaborate your #1:
Once you say the issur is only chal when it becomes a Jew's property,
and the gezeira was only made about milk, then items that the Jew doesn't
own until after the milk ceases to be milk aren't under the gezeira.
That says nothing about which aku"m the gezeira was made about, and yet
fully justifies his heter. There is no need for #2, which is consistent
with my belief that it was not intended. The idiom "akum sheini" is
yours, and I simply see no discussion of the idea -- again, aside from
gevinas aku"m -- in the teshuvah.
The gezeira, as everyone including the teshuvah in question (YD 2:49,
1:49 in Bar Ilan) describes it, is about "chalav sheCHALVO aku"m".
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:24:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Last Nochri Who Owned The Milk
On 28/1/19 4:00 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 09:57:46AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : You've forgotten the whole point of the teshuvah, and why he brings up
> : cheese & butter at all. The question he's answering is how the "re'iya"
> : at the company helps, when the company buys its milk from farms, and he
> : explicitly says that there is no "re'iya" at nochri farms and that it's
> : forbidden to buy milk there. So how can we buy from the companies?
>
> : He uses the examples of cheese & butter to prove (1) that the issur
> : is chal only when it comes leyad yisroel, and (2) that if there is no
> : cheshash about the last nochri, who made the cheese or butter, then
> : we don't care that he bought the milk from a nochri about whom there
> : is a cheshash. We only care about the "akum sheni", not about the
> : "akum rishon".
>
> Just #1. You don't need #2, if it weren't for gevinas aku"m and straight
> kashrus issues. Not Chasam Sofer's gezeira-of-CY issue.
That is not correct. You still need #2 to explain why the gezera on the
milk doesn't snap into existence as soon as you buy the cheese or milk,
since the cheshash for which the gezera was made still applies.
> To elaborate your #1:
> Once you say the issur is only chal when it becomes a Jew's property,
> and the gezeira was only made about milk,
No! Here may be your error. RMF does not believe any such thing. The
cheese or butter is made from milk; the gezera can't go away just
because it isn't milk any more. The reason cheese and (according to
those who permit it) butter are permitted is because the cheshash
doesn't exist -- or as RMF would put it, because we have "re'iyah" -- so
Chazal were not gozer on them. But when the cheese- or butter-maker
bought the milk from another nochri the cheshash *does* exist; so how
can we pretend it doesn't? RMF's answer is that Chazal were only gozer
when the cheshash exists with the "akum sheni"; if it doesn't, then we
don't care that it exists with the "akum rishon'.
> then items that the Jew doesn't
> own until after the milk ceases to be milk aren't under the gezeira.
That's a viable sevara but it's not RMF's.
> That says nothing about which aku"m the gezeira was made about, and yet
> fully justifies his heter. There is no need for #2, which is consistent
> with my belief that it was not intended. The idiom "akum sheini" is
> yours
No, it is not, it's RMF's words, which is why I put it in quotes. If it
were my own term I would have used "nochri", not "akum".
> The gezeira, as everyone including the teshuvah in question (YD 2:49,
> 1:49 in Bar Ilan) describes it, is about "chalav sheCHALVO aku"m".
Yes, if chalvo yisrael then we have no issue. But RMF says when chalvo
aku"m they were only gozer if there is a cheshash, since when there is
not then it's called "re'iyah", *and* that the presence or absence of th
cheshash is determined only at the moment that it comes leyad yisroel,
and only in relation to the nochri from whom it comes, the "akum sheni"
as RMF calls him.
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:30:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 613 mitzvos is from Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe
On 28/1/19 12:27 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But... The first dibera includes Chinukh no.s 25-28 (Anokhi, Lo YihYeh,
> Lo Sa'aseh, Lo Sishtachaveh), and the 2nd -- #29, lo lishava shav.
Not that this answers your question, but surely #29 is the *third* dibber.
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:54:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Wait, Is This Weird Duck Kosher Or Not?
On 28/1/19 11:45 am, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> From https://goo.gl/VyQGmj
Note that this is not a Jewish site, and the author gets quite a number
of things wrong and/or inconsistent with halacha.
In particular note that in this paragraph which RYL quoted:
> New Orleans Jews were familiar with the Muscovy, and told the new
> rabbi that there was indeed a history of eating this bird, therefore
> making it kosher, but Illowy arbitrarily declared, according to
> Kashrut.com, that he doubted the expertise of the rabbis who had
> allowed the eating of the Muscovy in the past.
the claim that R Illowy's declaration was arbitrary is neither true nor
supported by the linked article at kashrut.com (by our own RAZZ).
--
Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:04:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Common Kiddish Questions
.
R' Yitzchok Levine cited:
> From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5477
and he asked:
> I may have missed it, but I do not see any mention of making
> kiddush on Shabbos day using a shot glass of whiskey.
That is correct. My guess is that he did not shy away from that topic,
given how often he explains widely different practices.
More likely, since he did not get into the idea of alternative
beverages at all, it was simply out of place to get into the details
of specific drinks and shiurim.
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:12:06 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] What is ne?itza?
From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
Q. What is ne?itza?
A. Ne?itza is a procedure for cleaning a knife. The word ne?itza means
thrusting. If a knife was used even once to cut a hard non-kosher food,
such as non-kosher hard cheese, or if a knife was used repeatedly to cut
any non-kosher food, there is a concern that non-kosher residue will remain
on the surface of the knife. To remove this residue, it is not sufficient
to rinse the knife with water. Rather, Chazal instituted a method of
cleaning called ne?itza, whereby one thrusts the knife into the ground ten
times. The ground must be hard earth that had not been plowed (Chochmas
Adam 3:4). In practice, ne?itza is seldomly performed nowadays. Instead,
one can clean the knife by immersing it in boiling water (hagalah) or by
pouring hot soapy water over the knife, thereby melting away the residue.
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt?l (Emes L?Yaakov YD 89, footnote 38) maintains
that one may also rub the blade up and down (ten times) with steel wool. He
posits that this might be even better than ne?i
tza. Because steel wool scrapes the blade, it is similar to rubbing the
blade against a sharpening stone, which is an extremely effective method
to remove the non-kosher fat from the blade.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190129/b9364393/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:11:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Last Nochri Who Owned The Milk
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 08:24:55PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> To elaborate your #1:
:> Once you say the issur is only chal when it becomes a Jew's property,
:> and the gezeira was only made about milk,
: No! Here may be your error. RMF does not believe any such thing.
: The cheese or butter is made from milk; the gezera can't go away
: just because it isn't milk any more...
And yet that's what he says. It isn't that the gezeira "goas away", it is
that the gezeira isn't chal. The gezeira was made about on milk acquired
by a Jew, and not on items made of milk that are acquired by a Jew.
RMF tells you at the start that the gezeira was "ne'esar mishum chalav
sheCHALVO aku"m" (emphasis added). Worries about later adulteration is
a regular kashrus question, not the gezeira.
Here is the only accurance of "sheini" in the teshuvah (other than within
"keshenidon"), as found on Bar Ilan's copy:
??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???"? ?? ???? ???"? ???
???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????"? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???"?
???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??"? ???? ???"? ?????? ??
??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????.
But from the gezeira's side of things, they weren't gozerim
to prohibit when it's in the aku"m's posession, even if it is a
different aku"m. Therefore, since it was butter that reached the
posession of the Jew, even though it is from the second aku"m, we
only judge on the second aku"m -- that he wasn't crazy enough to mix
[anything in]. And we do not judge at all the first aku"m as all,
even according to Rabbeinu Tam, even though there is a cheshash that
he would mix it.
Notice that for the aku"m who made the butter, we aren't chosheish that
maybe he was nuts. Even though in the case that we had bought directly
from the first aku"m milk that he produced in order to have drinking
milk, we would have been. This is because mitzad hagezeira, they didn't
prohibit buying butter, only milk. (Or with cheese, mitzad this particular
gezeira doesn't cover cheese either.) So now we're just judging the kashrus
risk of the 2nd aku"m, not the gezeira.
However, for the gezeira's purposes, we have to rely on gov't inspection.
This was the whole she'eilah -- companies buy a mi'ut of their milk
meiha-farmers she'aleihem ein hashgachas hamemshalah kol kakh
ki ein shoterim ba'im betemidus.
For that matter, if the aku"m milked the cows intending to make cheese,
and a Jew buys that pre-cheese milk to make his own cheese, that too
is mutar (quoting the Shakh a"q 18). Because the gezeira isn't chal on
that milk either. There is no need for the milk to change hands before
a Jew buys it for RMF's reasoning to hold.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Joshua Meisner
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:37:10 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 613 mitzvos is from Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 1:13 PM Micha Berger via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> The bigger problem is that this whole thing of counting mitzvos is based
> on R' Simlai, so the first two diberos, the ones heard directly miPi
> haGevurah, have to be two mitzvos (plus the 611 tzivah lanu Moshe).
> Judging from the parashah breaks, that means 20:2-6 and 20:7 includes
> only two mitvos. (Interestingly, the break after the second diberah is
> pesuchah. It is the only pesuach within the diberos. Fits the chazal
> we're discussing.)
>
> But... The first dibera includes Chinukh no.s 25-28 (Anokhi, Lo YihYeh,
> Lo Sa'aseh, Lo Sishtachaveh), and the 2nd -- #29, lo lishava shav.
> The Semag has a similar list for these pesuqim, except in his numbering,
> it's Asei #1, followed by Lavin no.s 1, 20, 18, and 238.
>
> So, if the Jews couldn't handle the first two diberos, that comes to 5
> mitzvos heard miPi haGevurah + the 611 we received via Moshe!
>
> (You would have to not count Anokhi AND count the three about AZ as one
> mitzvah to get 2 + 611.)
>
> How do rishonim who are trying to give peshat in R' Simlaei's 613
> doing so in a way that contradicts his ra'ayah for the idea?
> -Micha
>
The Ramban on the Sefer HaMitzvos asks the same question on the Rambam -
how can the Rambam count 4 lavin of avodah zarah in the second dibra if R'
Simlai only leaves room for 1?
The Meshech Chochma (20:3) suggests that the Rambam is l'shitaso in Moreh
Nevuchim that Klal Yisroel did not hear any individual words from Hashem;
rather, all they heard was a Kol Elokim. In this light, R Simlai does not
mean that they heard the words "Anochi..." and "Lo Yihyeh?" from Hashem in
the same manner that they heard the other mitzvos word-for-word from
Moshe. Rather, they heard a Kol Elokim. And once they heard this Kol
Elokim, they knew, beyond any shadow of the doubt, that 1) there exists a
Borei and that 2) there was nothing else in the world that can compare to
this Borei.
Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190129/db673f5e/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:51:22 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Is the Superbowl Kosher?
And I'm not talking about watching the half-time show or the cheerleaders.
In fact, my question would apply even more to HS football.
Should O Jews be capable of enjoying watching people play a support that
involves pounding each other until Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE)
is commonplace. CTE used to be called dementia pugilistia ("punch drunk"),
but now pugilists aren't the most common sufferers.
The stam beraisa (AZ 18b) prohibited going to itztadinin (stadia) mipenei
moshav leivim. R' Nasan permits, because he may be able to scream and
save someone, or at least prevent his widow from becoming an agunah.
But aside from halakhah, from a straight mussar point of view; shouldn't
knowing the amount of danger people are subjecting themselves to for my
entertainment shterr my ability to enjoy it?
(Assuming I personally enjoyed spectator sports to begin with.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)