Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 11

Wed, 22 Nov 2006

• 1. Re: taking off chalah from cake dough (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: taking 'halah from cake (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Prophets are infallible? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Noach and Lashon T'horah (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Holiness of Israel (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: Yishmael Text (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Distinguishing Peshat from Derash (Micha Berger)
• 10. Astounding Meshech Chochma, Parev Meat? (Rabbi Meir)
• 11. Re: Holiness of Israel (Simon Montagu)

RRKos wrote:
> Maybe by a duncan hines cake one would not make a b'racha, but why would
> one
> ? not make a bracha on a thicker dough- b'lila avah- yeast cakes and the
> sort?

In hakhi nami.

Arie Folger

It was reported that even though 'hallah should be separated from ckae, 
provided a large enough quantity was produced, the separation is made without 
a berakhah. That is based on the Shakh YD 329:9. However, that is a metter of 
dispute even among the A'haronim. Please see Pit'hei Teshuvah s"k 2 there, 
where he says that cake made with honey or another one of the 7 kinds of 
liquids that make foods become meqabel tum'a should have the 'hallah taken 
with a blessing. Now the oil that may be used in making cakes is likely not 
olive oil, and margarine, if used, is not a mashkeh (and neither are eggs one 
of the 7 mashkaot), so in usual cases, our cakes might still not be 
necessitating a berakhah, but he also writes:
veshelo kedin nahagu ha'olam shenotlim 'hallah min lekech (sponge cake) belo 
berakhah. (source is Mateh Efraim)

Thus, this matter seems in dispute. Since I don't own a Mateh Efraim, I'd 
appreciate someone posting an analysis of his argument.

KT

Arie Folger

R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
> Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn  Fri, 03 Nov 2006, wrote:
>
> "Sefer Haikarrim 3:17 says that prophets other than Moshe are fallible
> i.e. they can misunderstand what they are seeing.
>
> New ZL:
> But he also says in what sense the prophets misunderstood., and the sense is as 
> I stated. Again: They sometimes saw things that were false in their literal 
> sense, and in this sense "misunderstood," but were also perfectly aware that 
> what they saw was meant in a non-literal sense. What they lamented was the fact 
> that unlike Moshe Rabbeynu, they were not on the level to be priveleged to 
> perceive the prophecy in a non-metaphorical representation. This is clear from 
> the words of the Sefer HaIkarrim:
>
> "Yeshaya said ... ?Oy li that my eyes saw the King Hashem Tsevakos and /I know/ 
> that this is the work of the imaginative faculty, because it is without 
> question impossible to attribute any form to Him, Yisborach.?" The Sefer 
> Ikarrim is therefore clear that the prophet is /aware/ that the "literal" image 
> is false, and that the real message is solely in the nimshal to which that 
> imagery alludes (as RDE himself wrote: "He [Yeshaya] himself said that his 
> perception of Gd was in fact a mistake because of the involvement of his 
> imagination"). The Sefer Ikarrim clearly holds that the imagery the prophet 
> perceives is true in its message, although untrue in its "literal" sense.*
>
>   
IMHO your understanding of Sefer HaIkkarim is inaccurate.. In the 
section immediately before that which you cited above is:

"We know that the words of Moshe are true according to their literal 
meaning without any question. In contrast the words of Yeshaya -  who is 
on a lower level then Moshe -  are not correct. Therefore because of his 
lower level Yeshaya said, "I saw G-d." YESHAYA THOUGHT THAT HE WAS 
SEEING G-D - but it wasn't so. This image was the result of his 
imaginative faculty. .... But Yeshaya [in contrast to Moshe] utilized 
the imaginative faculty in his prophecy - that which is called by our 
Sages as "aspaklaria she'eino me'ira". He was brought to error and to 
imagine that he had actually seen Gd.

He is clearly saying that Yeshaya mistakenly thought - when he saw the 
vision - that it was literally true. It was only later that he realized 
it was a mistake.


Daniel Eidensohn




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061121/8472e2e9/attachment.html

RMB wrote:
> Not really applicable. You put it that lehatir agunah, being able to
> raise a 1:1000 doubt is enough to permit.

Nonononono. A 1 in a 999 doubt is too great to allow us to permit the 'agunah. 
Only when the error rate drops below 1/1000 do we have the necessary 
certainty to allow her. That level is definitely enough to create trouble for 
possible mamzerim.

In fact, most dinim wouldn't consider 1/1000 to be a doubt at all. Just in the 
case of defining definite evidence (when 'edut isn't available) for 'igun are 
we so strict.

> IOW, by agunah we're saying that the test is accurate more often than
> one in a thoudand. By mamzeirus would we have to say it isn't wrong even
> one time in a thousand. Very different claims.

eheh. I fear that this is a misunderstanding. One cannot permit a married 
woman to marry because there is a 1/1000 chance that we proved her husband 
died. It's the opposite, when there is less than 1/1000 uncertainty, only 
then do we accept evidence as definite (muvhak).


Arie Folger

RJFarkas wrote:
> Considering that Rov suggests it doesn't occur via IUF/IVF, wouldn't we
> assume that Rov, especially since it is Ifshar leVareir if IUF/IVF
> occurred?

In mamzerut, we consider unlikely events sufficient to void the mamzerut, such 
as when a woman last cohabited with her husband 352 days earlier, nishtaheh 
hazera'.

Additionally, see below...

> While DNA can establish a positive relationship between the child and
> the child's "biological father," it does not address the method of
> conception in any way, so all it does is place the Bo'el in the picture,
> it identifies that he is the party. Any discussion of method of
> conception is immaterial to the testimony of DNA, and is open to
> standard methods of Birur, e.g. Rov, Hazaqah, Eidus.
>
> So assuming that Rov conceptions are conventional, and DNA places the
> Bo'el as the father, that could lead to identification of Mamzeirus. The
> fact that a mi'ut could suggest an alternative is not a Rei'usa in the
> Birur of DNA, it is its own question. We assume Mamzeirut if a woman
> remarries without first obtaining a Get, and has a child. Maybe the
> child was born of IUF/IVF?

The speaker I criticize (along with most participants at the said conference) 
claimed that the reason for rejecting DNA evidence was that, even though it 
is correct in establishing rov, the error rate is greater than 1/1000. This 
statistic is obviously wrong by a large margin (atual error rate is easy to 
find on the net, it is estimated in the so many in a million or even in a 
billion range, depending on method used). His stated fear was also the 
identification of mamzerim. However, given that he agrees that DNA is almost 
failsafe (he basically admits to 99%+ accuracy), IVF isn't any less likely 
than the presumed error rate.

Plus, the possibility of IUF/IVF is sufficient to let the woman claim that the 
child is no mamzer. Furthermore, if the woman can thus claim, so can we claim 
for her (essentially applying the reasoning of nishtaheh hazera').

So, I am puzzled.

KT,

Arie Folger

R' Saul Mashbaum wrote:
<To this we may add the process of the para adumah; in order to effect this
tahara, the Kohen himself had to become tamei.I think that the haskafic
implications of the fact that the Kohen had to defile himself in a minor way
in order to effect a major purification of many people is obvious.

This is actually a common fallacy that most people believe but is not true.
Although the pasuk says "umazeh mei hanida yechabes begadav" seemingly
saying that the Kohen who sprinkles becomes Tamei, Rashi there quotes the
Gemara in Nidda that the Kohen who is Mazeh is actually tahor and only the
nosey (the one who carries it) becomes tamei. In other words, the Kohen who
performs the Tahara process on the person who is tamei does NOT himself
become tamei.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/701b2649/attachment.htm

R. MYG wrote (re: the Israel as a Jewish state):

<Not so Poshut. See Rambam Bais HaBechira 6:14-16 and the Ra'avad there. It
is at least a Machlokes Rishonim, and I'd like to see a source for a clear
P'sak B'zman Hazeh.

The Mishna Berura in Siman 561 sif katan 5 paskens explicitly like the
Rambam that the first kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash is still extant
and anyone who goes on to the makom hamikdash today is chayav kares.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/924717b5/attachment.html

 
 
R' Yisrael Medad writes:

 

>>Toby suggests that
"the Torah almost never puts in one  extra  word...You find  examples of this
all over Chumash...An  example that comes to mind is with Dena and Shechem.
Not until  we read  that her brothers took her from Shechem's home (after
killing all the   men of the city) do we realize that she has been held
captive during all the  preceding conversations and negotiations"

.

Well, I am not sure of that and I;m not referring to Parshat Nasso,  for
example).  Verse 1 of Chapt. 34 states plainly "and he took  her",
physically, i.e., absconded away with her, removed here from her  previous
location - this "taking" cannot be the sexual act for that is  described such
"and lay with her".  No, we surely can realize she was  being held against
her will all this time.<<

.
>>>>
"He took her" tells us that he took her against her will.  It  doesn't tell 
us that he kept her captive and didn't let her go, during all his  sweet talk 
about how much he loved her and really wanted to marry her.   That, we only 
learn when her brothers free her.





--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/e6cb1cf2/attachment.htm

R' Henken writes:
> Derash, aggadic and homiletic exposition, constitutes the main non-legal
> exegetical activity of the rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash. Contrary to
> misconception, derash usually relies on some textual reading. An example is
> the Midrash Rabbah to Bereishit 25:22. On the verse describing Rivkah's
> pregnancy...

I share R Zev Sero's surprise that RYHH doesn't discuss medrashei halakhah,
and the whole concept of middos shehaTorah nidreshes bahen. It would seem that
RYHH defined derash as medrashei aggadah and the stories by which their truths
are conveyed.

As for the role of medrashei halakhah, I agree with RZS that:
> "Non-legal"?  AIUI, derash is the primary mode of halacha, and overrides
> peshat.

I would suggest the following.

Why do we have seifer Bereishis, Shemos up to "haChodesh haZeh", and all of
Nakh? Basically, for mussar reasons. Bereishis teaches biqur cholim, halvashas
arumim, halvayas hameis, etc... The stories of Tanakh give us examples to
follow and cautionary tales of what to avoid.

Efshar lomar this is a general rule WRT peshat in the pasuq even when
discussing din. For example, a number of rishonim on "ayin tachas ayin", that
the person deserves it being implemented literally, but since there is no way
to do it equitably (no two people's eyesight is of equal value), halakhah
settles for a fine. So, the peshat is the mussar shmuess.

Derash, as in my example, gives the din.

Usually, the two -- the values and the din -- coincide. But where they don't,
peshat of any pasuq in Tanakh seems to be about mussar, whereas derashos give
the implementation of those values as din.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Rabbosay,

 

Has anyone noticed the Meshech Chochma [opening P VaYera] discussing the
angels eating bassar BeChaLav under AA supervision?

He appears to consider that meat of a Ben Pekuah is not flieshig.

 

In explaining the exchange between Moshe"R and the Malochim, when they
protested MosheR taking the Torah, the response of M"R was that the Malochim
had already accepted Avraham as a Yisroel who could therefore exercise the
din [power] of Shechita to produce a Ben Pekuah which is not flieshig and
that's why the Malochim could eat and why A"A could cook and benefit from
what would otherwise have been Bassar BeChalav.

Had he been considered by the Malochim as a Ben Noach it would have been
assur as Bassar BeChalav, to cook, eat or benefit since they had undertaken
keeping all 613 Mitzvos (voluntarily?) and without Kedushas Yisroel the
cutting of the throat would not be Shechita and could not produce a BP.

 

The M"Ch save for referring to the ShaAr HaMelech who maintains that the
MILK of a BP is not milchig brings no proof for this.  One is tempted to
read the M"Ch's proposal as the MILK was of a BP but I feel that is forced.
He, in the first instance is discussing the "ben habokor" ie the meat AA
prepared for his visitors and says, that was BP meat upon which there is no
prohibition of Bassar BeChalav.

 

A friend showed me a Sefer, Kosnos Or, which on the title page is named
MeOrey Eish, by Elozor Av BD of KK Zablodova [also author of Shut Panim
Me'iros - could someone please tell me more about him]: who suggests that
from the Mishnah Chullin 113; those things that have Tum'as Neveilo i.e.
including birds, are within the prohibition of BBeChalav. He argues that
BPekuah can not be Neveilo and may therefore be cooked with milk. He says
this is written explicitly in the Sefer Mem Aleph [who is that?] and is
possibly agreed to by all.

 

 

 

meir

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061123/29ff9114/attachment.html

On 11/22/06, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> R. MYG wrote (re: the Israel as a Jewish state):
>
> <Not so Poshut. See Rambam Bais HaBechira 6:14-16 and the Ra'avad there. It
> is at least a Machlokes Rishonim, and I'd like to see a source for a clear
> P'sak B'zman Hazeh.
>
>
> The Mishna Berura in Siman 561 sif katan 5 paskens explicitly like the Rambam that the first kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash is still extant and anyone who goes on to the makom hamikdash today is chayav kares.
>
>
So also ROY in Yehhave Da`at vol 1 siman 25 (citing 20 rishonim and
ahharonim and himself in Yabia` Omer vol 5 Yoreh De`ah siman 26, which
probably cites even more)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/1f0bffcd/attachment.htm

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 11
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

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..."