Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 40

Tue, 27 Apr 2021

• 1. Language Acquisition (Jay F. Shachter)
• 2. Why does the OU certify kosher beef gelatin as pareve? (Prof. L. Levine)
• 3. More on Nowadays, there is no 'pope' in Jewish life (Prof. L. Levine)
• 4. Re: More on Nowadays, there is no 'pope' in Jewish life (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: More on Nowadays, there is no 'pope' in Jewish life (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Moshe Rabenu got rich from the shivrei luchos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Are We Trying to Grow? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Nowadays there is no 'pope' in Jewish life. (Prof. Levine)

> 
> Except that the midrashic Yitzchaq keeps all 613 mitzvos.  Yaaqov's
> "out", whatever it was, wouldn't apply.  Especially if the
> limitation is that they keep halakhah as it will be given in Sinai
> only when in EY, as Yitzchaq never leaves EY.
> 
> ......................................................................
> 
> But what I was wondering was, why did you assume that Kenaani
> language was more comprehensible to Yitzchaq than the Aramaic of his
> own clan?  There was less cross-pollenation with the language of the
> Ivri that early on, but more, Yitzchaq likely was intentionally
> taught the language of Avraham's past.

> 

Because that's not how language acquisition works.

(You realize, that whether Yitzxaq's native language was Hebrew, was a
peripheral point, of a peripheral point, in the article to which you
are responding?  I'm not complaining -- I like pedantic digressions --
I'm just wondering whether this particular pedantic digression, with
its changed subject, still belongs on Avodah.  But I'll leave that
decision to the Avodah editors.)

In English, and in French, and in Yiddish, and probably in many other
languages that I do not speak, there is an expression, "mother tongue"
(actually, in French you say "maternal tongue", but that's close
enough).  The fact is, however, that your native language is not the
language that your mother spoke to you.  Your native language is the
language that you picked up from the children you played with.

Every reader of this mailing list probably knows one or more
English-speaking couples who have made `aliya, and who spoke to their
Israeli children only in English.  They may have done this because it
was easier for them, or they may have done this to make sure that
their children would grow up fluent in English.  And these children
do, indeed, end up fluent in both English and Hebrew.  But, unless
they grew up in an entirely English-speaking neighborhood -- and there
are not many of those in Israel -- they speak English with a Hebrew
accent.  Moreover, if you listen to them carefully, you will discover
that their English, fluent though it be, is a little off.  Like,
sometimes they use English idioms that are translations of Hebrew
idioms (e.g., "to make fun", la`asot kef) instead of native English
idioms ("to have fun").  The fact is, that despite having grown up in
a home where they heard only English, they are more at home in Hebrew
than in English.  Your mother tongue is not the language that your
mother spoke to you.

"But surely", you may be thinking, "there are counterexamples".
Surely there are immigrant enclaves that have preserved their
languages of origin, and not just for a generation, but sometimes for
hundreds of years, like the (misnamed) Pennsylvania Dutch.  Well, yes.
But only when an entire community came from one place, and settled in
another place, so that the chain of linguistic acquisition -- which
passes from village to child, not from mother to child -- was not
broken.

We see this in our own history.  When Jews settled in German-speaking
countries, they quickly abandoned their former languages, and started
speaking German.  But 600 years after Jews settled in Poland, they
were still speaking a Germanic language (true, they incorporated many
Slavic words into their language, and even, albeit rarely, Slavic
grammatical forms -- "es khulemt zikh mir a vayser khanikke" is not a
sentence that our estemmed colleague Arie Folger would be comfortable
with -- but Yiddish is unquestionably a Germanic language, in both
grammar and vocabulary).  This is not because, as some of you may
wrongly think, the Jews were more ghettoized in Poland than in
Germany.  In fact, the reverse was probably true.  It is because the
immigration of Jews into Germany was not an immigration en masse,
entire communities traveling intact from one place to another place.
In contrast, the immigration of Jews into Poland was an immigration en
masse, triggered by a specific event.  In 1264, King Boleslaw invited
the Jews into Poland, enacting a statute that guaranteed them minimal
humane treatment; and in 1334, during a time of unprecedented
persecutions in German-speaking countries, King Casimir reaffirmed
King Boleslaw's statute.  Jews immigrated en masse from German
territories into Poland, entire communities leaving one place and
settling into another place.  That is why the Jews who immigrated into
Germany very quickly started speaking German, whereas the Jews who
immigrated into Poland did not start speaking Polish.

Now, we know that the descendants of Avraham eventually switched from
speaking Aramaic to speaking the Hebrew of the Cannanites.  So the
only question that you are raising, is when it happened.  It couldn't
have happened in Egypt.  So it must have happened before they went to
Egypt, sometime within the first three generations.  I think it's most
likely -- in fact, almost certain -- that it happened in the first
generation, like it usually does.  Avram was a wealthy sheikh, but
he was still just one man, with a childless wife, and a nephew, plus
some servants.  Even if he had not been given a Divine command to
leave his land, his birthplace, and his father's house, he just didn't
have enough of a community with him, to raise a child fluent in the
Aramaic of his land, his birthplace, and his father's house, in a
Hebrew-speaking country.  I don't much care whether I am wrong, but I
truly don't see how you can disagree.  Especially since you love
Midrashim so much.  How much of an Aramaic-speaking community could he
have brought with him into Canaan?  It is true that Genesis 12:5
speaks of the people whom he acquired in Xaran.  Oh wait -- the
Midrash says that that was just one person.  And it is true that,
later on, Genesis 14:14 tells us that Avram's household was so large
that he had a private army of 318 people.  Oh wait -- the Midrash says
that that was just one person.

But even if the midrashim are not literally true, and even if Avraham
had enough of an Aramaic-speaking household with him that he could
have raised his son to be fluent in the Aramaic of his land, his
birthplace, and his father's house -- if Yitzxaq wasn't the generation
that switched over from Aramaic to Hebrew, then who was?  Was it
Ya`aqov, even though he, too, had an Aramaic-speaking mother?  We know
that it couldn't have been later than that, because Genesis 31:47
tells us that Ya`aqov was already speaking Hebrew.  We haven't much of
a range to choose from.  If it wasn't Yitzxaq, it was Ya`aqov.  I
don't much care if I am wrong, but I think it's more likely that it
happened earlier, when the household was smaller, than that it
happened later, when the household was larger.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. Why does the OU certify kosher beef gelatin as pareve?

A. The OU follows the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l (Igros Moshe Y.D.
2:27) and Rav Aharon Kotler zt?l (Shu?t Mishnas Reb Aharon 1:17) that
gelatin, made from the hides of properly slaughtered and kashered (salted)
cows, is not only kosher but is also pareve. Since unprocessed cowhide is
inedible, it is not classified as meat. However, Pri Megadim (Y.D. 87:22)
writes that while on a Biblical level cowhides are pareve, there is
nonetheless a rabbinic injunction against eating cowhide cooked with milk.
Even so, since gelatin is extracted from the hides by means of strong
chemicals, Igeros Moshe proves that this is a sufficient change to make it
completely lose its meat status. Thus, gelatin is pareve and may be cooked
with milk.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210426/c71cd286/attachment-0001.html>

Yesterday I sent out an email in which I quoted Rav Shimon Schwab who wrote
"Nowadays, there is no 'pope' in Jewish life." He pointed out that the
Chofetz Chaim had written a pamphlet extolling the virtues and importance
of growing a beard called, ?Tiferes Adam?. (Rav Schwab did not name this
pamphlet.

Rav Schwab would point out that "It was well known that the Chafetz Chaim
came out with a psak that all yeshivah bachurim should have beards.
He even wrote a sefer on this topic. He held that a yeshivah bachur
should identify himself as a ben Torah by growing a beard. The roshei
yeshivas at that time were opposed to this position. They felt that if it
were required, the yeshivas would lose bachurim. History shows that as
great as the Chafetz Chaim was, his opinion did not prevail, since it did
not have the support of other gedolei Torah at that time."

Here is another example where people did not follow the Chafetz Chaim.

From https://thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol16Issue10.pdf  Tzitzis In or Out?

Mishnah Berurah on This IssueThe Mishnah Berurah25 uses choice words on
this topic, which we will paraphrase below : ?It is bad enough that those
who place their tzitzis in their pants close their eyes from the fact that
one should see the tzitzis.26 They disgrace the mitzvah of Hashem and will
give a judgment on this. The claim that this should be an exception because
we live among the nations of the world is not valid. If a king of flesh and
blood would give you a present, you would flaunt it wherever you go. How
much more so with one?s tzitzis.? It is out of character for the Mishnah
Berurah to use such words in relation to a mitzvah. Many maintain that when
saying one will give a judgment, the Mishnah Berurah was referring to the
fact that people put their tzitzis in their pants T:because they are
embarrassed to keep them out. However, many Sefardim keep them in, as well
as others, and the Mishnah Berurah was not talking about these people. One
who wishes to put his tzitzis out i
 s not considered to be showing off.

Did people in Lithuania follow the Chofetz Chaim's directive regarding tzitzis? The answer is a resounding "No".

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Poliakoff, a native of Baltimore, MD who studied in
Lithuania?s Telshe yeshiva for eight years in the 1930s wrote in his book
Minhagei Lita: Customs of Lithuanian Jewry that  yeshivish batei midrash
and communities constantly and consistently deviate from pre-war European
tradition. For instance, on page 63 of Minhagei Lita, Rabbi Poliakoff
writes, ?No one in Lithuania wore his tzitzis hanging out as people do
today ? not even the Rabbonim, not even in Radin.?

IIRC someone once pointed out that not even the Chofetz Chaim wore his tzitzis out as people do today?!

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210426/50ba2bc8/attachment-0001.html>

At 05:16 PM 4/26/2021, Micha Berger wrote:
>RYMhK didn't say Berikh Shemeih when the Torah is taken out.

I assume that RYMhK is the Chofetz Chaim.

Nusach Frankfurt does not say Berich Shemeh,  and there are good 
reasons why no one should say it. Indeed, I do not think that anyone 
should say it.

See  https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/brich_shmei.pdf

YL

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 05:55:13PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 05:16 PM 4/26/2021, Micha Berger wrote:
> > RYMhK didn't say Berikh Shemeih when the Torah is taken out.
> 
> I assume that RYMhK is the Chofetz Chaim.

R Yisrael Meir haKohein is the Chafeitz Chaim, yes. A couple of lines
earlier I did refer to him as R Yisrael Meir Kagan. (Which was pronounced
Kahan, just there is no "H" in the Cyrillic alphabet. So they use a "Ge",
which looks like a gamma. In Lithuanian, they'd put a tilde over the
"ge" to transliterate an /h/ sound.)

> Nusach Frankfurt does not say Berich Shemeh,  and there are good reasons why
> no one should say it. Indeed, I do not think that anyone should say it.
> See  https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/brich_shmei.pdf

The CC's reason was that he thought announcing "ana avda deQBH" is
hubris. Listed on the last page of that PDF besheim the CC as #6 (of
13).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 29th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                     an act of kindness?

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 07:00:14PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:47:35PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
>>> Once you construe shivrei luchos as a metaphor shouldn't you also construe
>>> wealth as a metaphor (Avos 4:1)?

> > But then what's the message?...

> The message is that it applies to spiritual goods as well as physical
> goods. MR (RMR?) got luchos rishonos -- Torah -- only for the benefit
> of klal yisroel. If they didn't deserve he should have been willing to
> continue without it. As indeed he was.

That veered from our topic. We are discussing the maamar Chazal that
says that Moshe Rabbeinu only got rich through selling the pieces of
sapir he chiseled to make the luchos sheniyos.

Rav Shimon Shkop offered the nimshal that we too should see making money
as a side-effect of the work on our middos that is necessary to turn
our neshamos into an effective "writing surface" for the Torah.

You challenged that nimshal, saying MRAH's wealth too should be open to be
treated as a mashal. And so I read your earlier reference to Ben Zoma's
"eizehu ashir" as saying that the nimshal should be "Just as Moshe only
learned to be sameiach bechelko through whatever it is chiseling the
2nd luchos means..."

If you kept R Shimon's "whatever it is chiseling means" then you just
have a self-evident truth: One can only learn to be happy with their
lot by working n their middos.

But we weren't discussing the first luchos or being willing to give
it up. (I like the Meshekh Chokhmah's idea: Because from the way they
related to Moshe as evidenced by replacing him with the Eigel, they would
be idolatrous in their veneration of the luchos too!) We were discussing
specifically getting rich by selling the extras off the 2nd luchos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 29th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                     an act of kindness?

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:59:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> The point is that RMB is correct, but only in the vast majority of cases.
> 99.9% of the time, 99.9% of the people will carry on their lives unchanged
> from previously. But here and there, tiny improvements WILL occur. It is
> very important to avoid getting discouraged by the *apparent* lack of
> success.

I was not trying to say: The rabbi's sermon doesn't promote growth, so
why have them?

My thesis was about how to make a shul more growth oriented. (With my
Litvisher bias; most people who try these things end up exploring Chassidic
or O Neo-Chassidic modalities.) And here, I was trying to say: The typical
rabbi's sermon of today doesn't do much to promote growth, so let's figure
out how to improve them to make them more growth oriented.

In other words, how do we enlarge the percentage of people who do change,
and the pace and amount of change the person is likely to take on?

In contrast to the opening idea that we should omit sermmons because they
bore and they stretch out the service to little purpose, I am arguing we
should therefore make them more effective, increase that purpose.

> RMB closed his post with several concrete suggestions, all of which I
> endorse. The critical factor is to keep expectations low and slow, and not
> get depressed by any *apparent* lack of success.

I think we won't get the same kind of growth from people who aren't
defining their Judaism in terms fo growth. And that, to my mind, is a
shul's step one.

If the rabbi sees that people are coming late, and or talking in shul,
and or tallises are being folded up by Ein kEilokeinu (on Shabbos) or
right after taking off tefillin, during the Qaddish after UVa leTzion
(weekdays), he has two potential approaches:

What tends to happen is that he scolds the congregation. (I would say
"give them mussar", but I really don't want more negative associations
with the word Mussar. <grin>, cause I just did so anyway.)

However, the problem is that the minyan has a number of bored people
in it. So the rabbi *could* be working on how to get more of them more
interested in davening, and the others more interested in not ruining
the experience for those who are getting more into it.


Truth is, I have a lot of concrete ideas for improving the shul
experience. What I don't have is a shul willing to try them. Which
is a pity, because it would have been nice to be able to utilize the
inflection point in our relationship to shul that the Author of history
is currently giving us.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 29th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                     an act of kindness?

The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash:

Vayikra 19:10

And thou shalt not glean thy kerem (vineyard), neither shalt thou 
gather every grape of thy kerem; thou shalt leave them for the oni 
(poor) and ger (stranger); I am Hashem Eloheichem.

If ninety-nine poor people want one thing and one young man wants 
another because
he can move quickly and grab the most produce, why do we defer to him? Why
don't we follow the general rule of follow the majority?

The Toras Kohanim is telling us that even when it is permissible to override a
halachah, we do not do so based on a majority. All of the parties 
must agree to the
compromise. Any individual in the dispute can insist that the letter 
of the law be
carried out, even though he may be demonstrating bad character and 
bad judgment.

This sheds light on the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, on which the
destruction of the Beis Hamikdash is blamed. The Gemara (Gittin 56a) 
relates that
Bar Kamtza blemished an animal sent by the Roman emperor Nero to be brought as
a korban. He did this as an act of revenge for the public humiliation 
he had suffered
in the presence of many great rabbis, who didn't bother to come to 
his defense. As
a result, he incited the emperor against the Jews, proving to him 
that they wouldn't
even accept his animal for a sacrifice in their Temple.

Though it is a Torah violation to sacrifice a blemished animal, most 
of the Sages
held that this would have to be done, as refusing the emperor's gift 
would endanger
Klal Yisrael. Rabbi Zecharya ben Avkilas, however, insisted that this 
korban not be
brought, lest people conclude that a blemished animal is permitted as 
a sacrifice.
The Sages then suggested that perhaps they should kill Bar Kamtza so that he
would not return to Nero and report that the Jews had refused to 
bring his animal
as a korban. Again, Rabbi Zecharya hen Avkilas protested, saying that 
people might
conclude that one who blemishes a sacrificial animal is liable for 
the death penalty.

Rabbi Yochanan comments that, ultimately, the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed
and we were exiled from our Land because of Rabbi Zecharya hen 
Avkilas's insistence
on this position. One wonders why the Sages heeded Rabbi Zecharya instead of
following the majority opinion. On the other hand, if the other Sages 
agreed with
Rabbi Zecharya, why does Rabbi Yochanan blame him for the destruction of the
Beis Hamikdash?

In truth, with the entire Jewish People in danger at that time, the 
Sages agreed
that, in order to avert a tragedy, it was necessary to either 
sacrifice the blemished
animal or kill Bar Kamtza. Either of those options would have been halachically
permissible had all of the Sages agreed. However, Rabbi Zecharya's position
prevented his peers on the Sanhedrin from taking either of these 
actions. As the
Toras Kohanim says, in order to override a halachah, only unanimous agreement
will suffice.

Nevertheless, we see that the lone dissenter is blamed for whatever damage is
caused by his insistence that the letter of the law be followed. Rabbi Yochanan
therefore claims that Rabbi Zecharya was to blame for the Beis Hamikdash's
destruction and Klal Yisrael's exile. Rabbi Zecharya had a right to 
insist that the
halachah be obeyed. Nevertheless, since all of the other Sages 
determined that this
was a special situation, requiring a temporary dispensation, he was
held responsible for the tragic consequences.

The Rav would point out how true this has been throughout the ages,
and how it has played out so many times in history. He used to say,
"Nowadays, there is no 'pope' in Jewish life. There is no one posek who
can impose his opinion on all of Klal Yisrael without the agreement of
other gedolei Torah."

He gave two examples: It was well known that the Chafetz Chaim
came out with a psak that all yeshivah bachurim should have beards.
He even wrote a sefer on this topic. He held that a yeshivah bachur
should identify himself as a ben Torah by growing a beard. The roshei
yeshivas at that time were opposed to this position. They felt that if it
were required, the yeshivas would lose bachurim. History shows that as
great as the Chafetz Chaim was, his opinion did not prevail, since it did
not have the support of other gedolei Torah at that time.

As another example, the Rav cited Rav Chaim Ozer's heter for gelatin
from non-kosher animals. Most poskim disagreed with this psak. When
Rav Schwab met the Chazon lsh, he asked him about this.

(It was Rav Chaim Ozer who had made the Jewish public aware of the
Chazon lsh's greatness. Before the Chazon lsh moved from Lithuania to
Eretz Yisrael, Rav Chaim Ozer sent letters extolling his virtues, paving
the way for him to become the leader of his generation.)

When Rav Schwab mentioned to the Chazon lsh that Rav Chaim Ozer
discusses, in his sefer Achiezer, the rationale for permitting gelatin, the
Chazon lsh answered tersely, "S'iz fort assur [It is still forbidden]." Unless
there is acceptance by other gedolem, the greatest gadol's opinion is still
only one opinion.

YL





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



_______________________________________________
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.)