Volume 35: Number 38
Wed, 22 Mar 2017
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:12:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] kavua/Rov
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:54:42PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote:
: R Micha suggests that my analysis is flawed because the Halachos of Rov
: differ WRT TaAroves
: and Kol DeParish, and even WRT Parish, between Ruba Deleisa KaMan and Ruba
: DeLeisa KaMan.
: R Micha, please give some examples to illustrate what you mean.
First, a ruba deleisa leqaman is not a ta'aroves, so examples shouldn't
be necessary to disprove your formulation.
See Zevachim 73a, which asks why a beraisa invokes kol deparish rather
than having each animal batel to the herd. A berya isn't batel, but is
still parish. Rishonim ad loc discuss the nafqa mina.
There is no parallel -- or need for a parallel -- for mi'ut hamtzui or
qasheh levareir for a ruba de'iusa leqaman. Every mi'ut is matzui, because
it's isa leqaman.
...
: Honestly, R Micha - these are such complicated confusing guidelines
R Shimon Shkop is quite apologetic at the opening of Shaarei Yosher,
because there is no way to make the kelalei birur simple. To quote
my translation (NOT from the hashkafic part of the haqdamah, found in
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf>):
I know that this book of mine will not be acceptable to all, because
many who study aren't acclimated to contemplate in an in-depth manner,
in the deep way that surrounds and goes through the many topics spoken
of in this book of mine. For there are many approaches to the Torah
and each person finds meaning according to what he is used to. ALSO,
IN THAT MOST OF THE TOPICS EXPLAINED IN IT ARE TOPICS THAT DEMAND
DEPTH AND CONTEMPLATION, AND THEY WILL NOT GRASP THE HEART THAT
UNDERSTANDS ONLY IN A MERE GLIMPSE. Not all people want to face the
deficiency in himself [he may find] due to the depth of the concept
and the deficiency of the conceiver.
I would therefore assert that any simple explanation can be ruled out as
oversimplified to the point of error.
But I think R' Aqiva Eiger's (shu"t #146) / R Gedalia Nadel's (Betoraso
shel R' Gedaliah pg 52
<http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/Hebrewbooks_org_37016.pdf#page=31
>)
shitah is not as bad as all that:
Qavua is where we had a known entity with a known din, and now we don't
know that din. Parish is where we encounter an unknown entity. Safeiq
in the din -- qavua; safeiq in the metzi'us -- parish.
RGN (pg 53 fn 3) gave the same ta'am hamitzvah for this as I used to
explain RAE: The role of mitzvos is to refine demuso hamusaris. Therefore,
what is halaachically significant is human perception, and not the
thing-in-itself. This is why rov is a factor in resolving a question
of metzi'us.
However, once the din already exists and the safeiq is in what is was,
the case of 9 chaniyos, one has a different perception of the meat
because one knows there is a real issur hanging about.
Until that footnote, RGN's talk about qavua revolves around the caution
one would have / should have around something that has a real issur. Which
sounds like R/Nobel Laureate/Prof Uri ("Robert") Aumann's (RAU) "Moral
Hazard Theory". But I see now he is really going in a different direction.
RRA defined the term Moral Hazard to RYGB
<http://rygb.blogspot.in/2011/07/kavua-redux-ii-respnse-from-prof-a
umann.html>
as "We say that a situation with an uncertain outcome is fraught with
"moral hazard" if an *interested* party -- one that stands to gain
or lose from the outcome -- can influence it." more reason to play
it safe.
And then, as RYGB summarized in an earlier post:
even if you are perfectly willing to pay double the premiums,
an insurer will not issue you a second identical policy on your
car. This is because you now have an incentive to disregard your
normal parameters of morality and arrange to have your car stolen --
after all, you will make a tidy profit on the theft. You might not
even make such arrangements -- you are, of course, a /very/ moral
person -- but you may be more negligent about removing your keys
from the ignition and locking the door. It might not even be a
conscious reaction.
Kol d'parish eliminates any "moral hazard." I was not active in
generating the safek, and neither my conscious nor subconscious issues
bear on the scenario.
In a case of kavua, however, I was active in creating the safek. I
went into the store, I threw the rock, etc. Therefore, my issues bear
on the scenario. For example, I might have a subconscious drive to
eat treif which impels me to a non-kosher store - of which I myself
am not conscious.
RAU's explanation works well for the case I brought from the AhS,
the difference between whether a man goes to the woman, in which case
we assume the man is from rov of the city; or if she goes to him, in
which case qol deparish -- even a mi'ut of pesulim could pasl her to
marry a kohein.
But I don't think it works in general. RYGB ad loc mentions Zevachim 73b,
top of the amud, where chasing animal away would qualify as kol deparish,
even though the person doing the chasing is an interested party.
Someone in RYGB's comment chain asked a question, which he addresses in
a third post:
The gemara (9b) discusses a scenario where nine piles of matza and
one pile of chametz are lying around before Pesach. A mouse comes and
takes a piece from one of the piles and enters a house. However, we do
not know if it took chametz or matza and thus are in doubt whether the
house must be checked once again for chametz. The gemara distinguishes
between a case where the mouse is seen taking a piece directly from
one of the piles ["kavu'a"] and an instance where the piece snatched
by the mouse was first isolated from the piles ["parish"]. These two
cases are said to be analogous, respectively, to two cases considered
in Ketubot (15a): "If there are nine stores which sell kosher meat
and one which sells non-kosher meat and someone took [meat] from
one of them but he doesn't know from which one he took, the meat
is forbidden. But if [a piece of meat] is found [not in a store],
follow the majority." Thus if the majority of stores from which the
meat might have originated are kosher, the meat is permitted.
RYGB suggests answers. In Zevachim he says there may be one in Tosafos,
in antoher he points to "neini'ach" in the Rambam (Chameitz uMatza 2:10)
-- the acting interested party is the one who put the pile where mice
could get at it.
But I find it really dachuq to say we're being machmir to avoid people from
leaving chameitz laying around in case a mouse takes it ONLY IF HE IS
SEEN, because then it's qavua.
Wearer argument, but I am throwing it in anyway: I also find it
unrealistic for this kind of cheshash-based pesaq to be behind a din
deOraisa, like qavua, rather than deRabbanan. Not a strong argument,
just part of why I don't feel at home with RAU's shitah.
(Okay, to be honest, we know the real reason why: I already had a pet
theory before I learned his well enough to realize it differed. But the
notion of saying a deOraisa exists because of a cheshash fits my bias.)
Last, what about qol qavua where the issur is derabbanan, and kemechtza
al mechtza is more meiqil than rov?
Last, there is R/Prof Moshe Koppel's theory. in which the distinction
See <http://etzion.org.il/en/principle-kavua>, or better -- his article
in the first edition of Higayon (put out by Bar Ilan, edited by RMK)
which I think was the same as or at least very similar to
<http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/rov-25.5.pdf>:
When do we assign a status to an item as an individual and when do we
assign a status to an item as part of a set? If prior to the raising
of the issue of status, the item in question is an undistinguished
element of some set (kavu'a), then the item is assigned the status of
the set. If, however, the item is in some way distinct from the set
(parish), it is assigned its own status.
Consider the case of the stores mentioned above, of which nine out
of ten sell kosher meat (Ketubot 15a). The critical moment for our
purposes is the moment immediately preceding the initial encounter
with the piece of meat in question. If this initial encounter occurs
while the meat is in the store, the meat is regarded simply as
an undistinguished member of a mixed set and its status is thus
indeterminate (mechtza al mechtza). If the initial encounter
occurs while the meat is on the street and is thus not associated
with one of the elements of the set of stores, it must be assigned
its own status. Unlike a mixed set of pieces of meat, an individual
piece of meat is either kosher or non-kosher; its status is not
indeterminate, but rather unknown. In such a case, we must choose
between the two possibilities -- kosher or non-kosher -- and we use
the majority principle in order to do so.
But he doesn't give the taam hamitzvah for it that RGN does. Instead he
explains it in terms of sample spaces -- when do we count the stores to
determine rov stores, and when do we count the meat to determine rov
meat?
... In fact, the difference between the way a kavu'a case is handled
and the way a parish case is handled can be neatly expressed in
terms of sample spaces. In the case of parish, some natural sample
space is chosen, e.g., the set of stores. (What makes a particular
sample space "natural" is an interesting question which I won't
attempt to answer here.) In the case of kavu'a, the chosen sample
space consists of the SINGLE element consisting of the entire set,
which is neither kosher nor non-kosher.
But aside from sactificing RGN's tie to the big picture, I find
it difficult to wrap my head around the idea that the parish, the
differentiated member of the sample space, is the one that uses the
natural sample space, and the one that is qavua within that space is not.
(And again, my natural bias for my pet theory probably has my mind pretty
closed regardless of attempts to be fair.)
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:01:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is any meat today kosher?
On 21/03/17 18:47, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> This isn't true. Tza'ar baalei chaim does not make an animal treif.
> Where does he say it does? His whole point is that "kashrut" is a larger
> concept that whether a specific animal is treif or not.
Which is something he just made up.
On 21/03/17 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But his implication is still that there is an issur cheftza on the
> resulting meat. That hast yet to be proven. There might be an
> issur derabbanan if there is a communal notion of mesayeiah -- if
> the frum community supporting the white veal industry is en mass
> mesayeia ZBC.
That could only be an issue if we were the only people eating this, or
at least a significant sector of those who eat it. Instead we're a
completely insignificant sector, except in EY. If we were to asser it
the farmers wouldn't even notice.
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:24:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is any meat today kosher?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:01:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: That could only be an issue if we were the only people eating this,
: or at least a significant sector of those who eat it. Instead we're
: a completely insignificant sector, except in EY. If we were to
: asser it the farmers wouldn't even notice.
The reason why Tav haYashar and the like make sense is because we own
an entire industry. If the kosher industry boycotted white veal, it
would be noticed. Not in the income dept, in marketing.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Michael Poppers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:00:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] fruit tree
In Avodah V35n35, R'Micha noted:
> The Har Zvi (OC 118) says that if in your country tree bloom before
Nissan, you can say the berakhah then. <
And see BH 226:1 <http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9729&;pgnum=725>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170321/8dc88fa4/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:58:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate
R' Zev Sero wrote:
<<< Exactly. Therefore the days when it was a simple product are long gone.
Though with a pasteuriser one could argue that it never processes anything
but milk, so it's not a problem. But bottling equipment is used for all
sorts of things, especially nowadays when efficiency is key and equipment
is never allowed to lie idle >>>
Your point (from this post and previous ones in this thread) seems to be
that throughout the 20th century, when it was very difficult in many places
to find milk that was supervised for Pesach, and so it was common for
rabbis to advise us to purchase our milk before pesach, that they were
wrong for doing so? Is the point you are making, or did I misunderstand you?
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170321/3f463f57/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:58:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is any meat today kosher?
On 21/03/17 19:24, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:01:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : That could only be an issue if we were the only people eating this,
> : or at least a significant sector of those who eat it. Instead we're
> : a completely insignificant sector, except in EY. If we were to
> : asser it the farmers wouldn't even notice.
>
> The reason why Tav haYashar and the like make sense is because we own
> an entire industry. If the kosher industry boycotted white veal, it
> would be noticed. Not in the income dept, in marketing.
What does "it would be noticed" mean? Simply that someone, somewhere,
would be aware we were doing it? What would be the point of that?
Unless we were a big enough sector to harm the bottom line of those who
are doing whatever it is we might object to, they would have no reason
to stop doing it.
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:04:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is any meat today kosher?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:58:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >The reason why Tav haYashar and the like make sense is because we own
: >an entire industry. If the kosher industry boycotted white veal, it
: >would be noticed. Not in the income dept, in marketing.
:
:
: What does "it would be noticed" mean?
Noticed by marketing departments, as in the next sentence. Hey, we lost
our contract with Mendy's Heimishe Shlachthois!
When you vote as a block, you get disproportionate say.
Not that I think further discussion of this metzi'us is particularly
productive either.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:51:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pikudei
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
: Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the
: 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged,"
: in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to
: deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). [Ashamnu, Bagadnu] What is
: this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used
: improperly is a betrayal to what's right.
Another possibility: A uniform allows the person to hide so that one
focuses on the office. Uniforms thus allow something like kehunah,
where the office is gained by inheritance rather than merit.
A kohein without his begadim violates zar haqareiv yumas -- he is
in this sense in the same class as a non-kohein who tries to serve.
In contrast, during the 8 days of milu'im, Moshe Rabbeinu served
without the special uniform. Because he served as being what it
took to be a kohein, not just someone in the office of kohein.
Thus a uniform is a beged, in that it hides the individual to present
you with something else. Thus similarly to livgod, the person who
hides being foe by pretending to be friend.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:46:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ?Bikeish Yaakov leishev b?shalva.?
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: "Bikeish Yaakov leishev b'shalva." Yaakov wanted to sit in tranquility. Is
: the message of this medrasah that this is not a proper goal? Why then
: did Yaakov seek it?
Who doesn't?
Besides, before Yaaqov tried for shalvah, who was going to set the
example or illicit the medrash that teaches us that we can't have it all?
Yaaqov had more years of strife than his father or grandfather -- his
examples of successful avos. Is it so surprising that he could have
thought that at this point he paid his dues?
(Similarly the next post by RBW: How would David have known that counting
Jews is an eternal, as opposed to one specific to the dor hamidbar
without haaving Chazal discussing their own mistake?)
In short, many things are obvious in hindsight.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:23:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate
On 21/03/17 22:58, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> Exactly. Therefore the days when it was a simple product are long gone.
>>
>> Though with a pasteuriser one could argue that it never processes
>> anything but milk, so it's not a problem. But bottling equipment is
>> used for all sorts of things, especially nowadays when efficiency is key
>> and equipment is never allowed to lie idle >>>
> Your point (from this post and previous ones in this thread) seems to
> be that throughout the 20th century, when it was very difficult in many
> places to find milk that was supervised for Pesach, and so it was common
> for rabbis to advise us to purchase our milk before pesach, that they
> were wrong for doing so? Is the point you are making, or did I
> misunderstand you?
1. Did the milk have a hechsher for pesach? That is to say, did someone
investigate its manufacture and determine that the ingredients and
equipment were such that it was OK to drink it on Pesach? If so, that's
all most K-P products get even now. They don't have a mashgiach to
prevent something inadvertently getting in. So long as you know that
there isn't a *known problem*, you can assume it's OK. Buying before
Pesach takes care of inadvertent mixtures, which will be batel lach belach.
2. If it's not known, how do you know it's even kosher? If it's because
it has a hechsher for the whole year, why doesn't the machshir say
whether it's also good for Pesach. Still, if you don't know you can
probably rely on the majority of milk being OK, and buy it before
Pesach just in case there is something in it, so it should be batel.
Is the same thing true of chocolate? Is the majority of chocolate
chamets-free?
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:24:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is any meat today kosher?
On 21/03/17 23:04, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:58:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >The reason why Tav haYashar and the like make sense is because we own
> : >an entire industry. If the kosher industry boycotted white veal, it
> : >would be noticed. Not in the income dept, in marketing.
> :
> :
> : What does "it would be noticed" mean?
>
> Noticed by marketing departments, as in the next sentence. Hey, we lost
> our contract with Mendy's Heimishe Shlachthois!
But why would they care, if we're not a significant sector?
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:50:45 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Rav Yoel Ben Nun on kinyiot
https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1716376748390917
Rac Yoni Rosensweig quoting Rav Yoel Ben Nun on kinyiot.
Summary: The primary reason for the gezira is to prevent people from
mistakenly eating chametz. Finding chametz in the kitniyot is a
secondary reason only. Therefore the irony of today's world in which the
market is flooded with chametz substitutes is tremendous. The rabbinate
actually had to put out a warning about certain wafflim (wafers) that
were chameitz but were put in KLP packaging.
The upshot of this mistaken approach is:
*kitniyot products (eg oils) should be kosher
* no one should touch the substitutes
I would add that the need for the chameitz substitutes adds fuel to the
anti-kitnyiot fire (See? even you people can't go a week based on a real
KLP diet).
Ben
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:21:46 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is any meat today kosher?
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:47:32AM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
> : Where does he say it does? His whole point is that "kashrut" is a larger
> : concept that whether a specific animal is treif or not.
>
> So you say he's not talking about ksharus when he says the word kashrus.
>
No, I'm saying there are trei dinim in the Hebrew word "kashrut" -- the
technical sense, equivalent to "kashrus", and a larger sense, equivalent to
"right" (as in "let right be done").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170322/68e8799e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:26:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Can one add water to a hot water urn on yom tov
WADR, I question the metzius of the two-heater system described by Rav
Belsky. Is the smaller heater really on constantly? There's no thermostat?
And if there *IS* a thermostat (which there must be, because without one,
the water would either boil away or never get hot) then why bother with two
separate heating elements?
And if he is correct, is it true of ALL urns?
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170322/0db58ba9/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/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://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..."
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.)