Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 54

Thu, 02 Jul 2020

• 1. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 2. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Re: FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Micha Berger)
• 4. Something to Ponder (cantorwolberg)
• 5. Latecomers to shul on Friday night (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Re: FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Chana Luntz)

https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/467/shattered-dre
ams/
... What is induction cooking?  Induction cooking is a revolutionary energy
efficient way of cooking without heat.  How do you cook without heat?  The
answer is with electro-magnetic energy.  The conventional burner is replaced
with a coil of tightly wound copper wire under the glass cooktop.  Turning
on the "burner" sends electro-magnetic energy through the coil.  If you
placed your hand on the coil area, you would feel nothing.  If you placed an
aluminum pan on the same area you would still feel nothing.  However, by
placing an iron skillet or a pot with an iron core or magnetized stainless
steel on the cooktop, the magnetized skillet completes the magnetic
connection and the electro-magnetic field of energy transfers directly into
the pan.  This causes the iron molecules to move very rapidly, giving off
heat.  In turn, the cookware cooks the food.  Lifting the pan off of the
cooktop breaks the magnetic connection, and you will no longer be cooking.
The cooktop will be heated by the "magnetic" pot or pan, but it does not get
hot from the coil.  Consequently, any spill onto the ceramic cooktop surface
will be a result of an irui kli rishon, spillage from a hot pot, not a
heated cooktop as you would have in conventional cooking.  Hence, if one
would want to kasher the cooktop, it could be accomplished by a lesser means
of kasherization, irui kli rishon.10

Although induction cooking offers a koshering benefit, the cooktop cannot be
used on Shabbos or Yom Yov because the cooking connection is made once the
pot is put onto the coil area.  Similarly, one would not be able to remove
the pot from the cooktop on Shabbos or Yom Tov because one would be
"disconnecting" the magnetic field by removing the pot.  While the ability
to kasher an induction cooktop is an advantage, the disadvantage of not
being able to use it on Shabbos or Yom Tov makes this cooktop impractical,
unless one has more than one cooktop in the kitchen (an induction for during
the week, and a non-induction for Shabbos and Yom Tov).
As with every new advent of technology, one balabusta's dream is another
balabusta's nightmare.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM Zev Sero via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
wrote:

>
> But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was
> forbidden.  So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not
> exist.  Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut.
>
>
I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and
pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh"
it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking with an electric
hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either.

That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a
Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for
the gezeira seem to apply. Even for Sephardim, since the SA is meikel in
seif 4 in the case of servants in a beit yisrael.


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&;utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&;utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200702/b3ef130f/attachment-0001.html>

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:27:08AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> RMB writes:
>> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that
>> the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino
>> chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done.

> So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b:

> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:  Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav
> Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.  R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar:
> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov?

People practice like REbY. Why?
R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example
    of BY chalaq
R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt
R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah

I presume you would say something like:
R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq
R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq

And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He
can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is
"al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine
or something entirely different?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 I always give much away,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
Author: Widen Your Tent              -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

To paraphrase this profound statement below by R? Yitzchok from the Talmud R.H. (16b)
which is quite timely: Any year that begins without the straightforward,
clear and unequivocal tekiya, will sadly end with the wavering sound of
defeat ? the terua.

??"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? 
??? ?????? ??? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200702/ef928b7d/attachment-0001.html>

.
In their "Halacha Yomis" yesterday, the OU gave the following explanation
of why Mei'ein Sheva (also known by its middle section, Magen Avos) was
added to the Friday night service. (They gave a second reason too, but this
is the one I want to ask about.)

> The Babalonian Talmud (Shabbos 24b) relates that the recitation
> of Mei'ein Sheva was instituted to prevent a potential sakana
> (danger). Rashi (Shabbos 24b) explains that in the days of the
> Mishnah, shuls were located outside of the cities where it was
> not safe to be alone at night. The Rabbis were concerned that
> people who came late to shul might be left alone while finishing
> to daven. To give latecomers a chance to catch up and finish
> davening with everyone else, Chazal extended the davening by
> adding Mei'ein Sheva.

I've heard this same explanation many times from many sources, but I've
never understood it. Mei'ein Sheva is shorter than a single page in most
siddurim - does its presence really lengthen the service significantly?

If the shuls were outside the cities, it must have taken a certain amount
of time to get home, and even to get to the outskirts of the city. Were the
latecomers unable to catch up to their neighbors? Were the on-time people
unwilling to stay in shul for the one or two minutes needed for the
latecomers to finish?

If this problem was sufficiently significant for Chazal to enact this
measure, there were probably several latecomers every week, not just a
single latecomer now and then. If so, couldn't the latecomers simply wait
for each other, even if the on-time people rushed to get home?

There's something that I'm missing about the realities of how those
minyanim were organized, the speed they davened at, and/or the dangers
lurking about. Can anyone explain the story better? Thank you in advance.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200702/e8632403/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> > But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was
> > forbidden....
> > exist.  Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut.
> 
> I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking and
> pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul shel esh"
> it includes any form of cooking by heat...

Or, any form of cooking by fire, whether broiling, roasting or boiling
or frying in water or oil that are heated by fire. For an example that
predates the taqaah, solar cooking. Does a rishon deal with the question
of eating an egg cooked in the sand that was placed there by a non-Jew?

And, as I opened in my first response, it's not just the Rama; "al
ha'eish" and variants are common in the discussion. I don't think it's
an Ashkenazi thing, just because the SA doesn't use the idiom himself.

> That said, I really don't understand why BA is an issue at all in a
> Jewish-owned restaurant with kosher supervision. None of the reasons for
> the gezeira seem to apply....

The reason for the gezeira against playing music on Shabbos doesn't
apply to pianos, but the gezeira does. In theory, the same is true for
refu'ah beShabbos.

Both of the points you make revolve around deciding the limits of the
gezeira by its function. But it could be chazal, regardless of their
motive, framed the law to only include cooking via fire and all cooking
via fire.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Mussar is like oil put in water,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   eventually it will rise to the top.
Author: Widen Your Tent                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

> RMB wrote:
>> My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and 
>> that the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / 
>> minhag she'eino chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done.

And I wrote:
> So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b:

> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:  Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, 
> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.  R' Rabbi Yochanan
Amar:
> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov?

<<People practice like REbY. Why?
R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example
    of BY chalaq>>

Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim.  It is not
what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim.  If you were having a shiur about
the halacha of meat, it would be remiss of you to mention the one, and not
the other.  And if you were giving a shiur to both Ashkenazim and Sephardim,
I hope you would say - CYLOR [the L of course standing for "local"], rather
than saying "we pasken" one way or the other.

Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we
pasken, full stop.  If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel,
you would  be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben
Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like.   There are other
opinions, and they might have been brought, but the end of the shiur would
say - follow R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whereas I would hope that would not be
what you would say regarding BY chalaq.

<<R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt>> 

But didn't you say Previously that  << Minag chashuv = common religious
practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>.  Glatt is a tricky one, because of
the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin.  And
the question then comes down to, why is it that someone keeps glatt, is it
because he wants to be machmir for those who think it is really following
the BY's iqur hadin, or is it because that is what his community does.   If
he is just doing it because he lives with other Hungarians so does it, but
he really thinks the Rema is right, and it is a chumra that the people came
up with (which you can argue it is, particularly because glatt is not the
same as BY chalak) then it is a minhag garua.  But if the community does it
because they are really holding like the BY (at least to an extent), despite
the Rema, I would say it is a minhag chashuv.  I thought the  better example
of what you were saying is milchigs on Shavuos, which has no Rav psak behind
it, but which has Rabbinic approval in the form of the Rema.  That shows the
distinction between what I thought you were arguing and what I am much more
clearly.  Ie that according to you minhag chashuv has no Rabbinic psak
source, it is something the people came up with, but it is a religious
practice that the Rabbis then approved, whereas I am saying that for a
minhag chashuv to be a minhag chashuv, there needs to be a rabbinic psak
that the people are relying on, even if other communities hold differently.

And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely
and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi
Meir, and the community then followed.  It is not some religious idea, like
milchigs on Shavuos, that the community came up with independently and then
was approved.  If R' Eliezer or Rabbi Meir had never paskened the way they
did, then the minhag would never have arisen.

That, I thought, was the fundamental distinction between what I am saying
and you are saying.  That I was saying to be a minhag chashuv, it has to be
originally Rav psak derived, that people then followed.  Whereas I
understood you as saying that a psak is a psak, and different from a minhag
chashuv, which had to be people derived, ie bottom up, albeit with Rav
approval post fact.

And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as
expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R'
Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario,
and yet it has the definition of minhag?

<<R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah>>

But I thought if it was a <<hanhaga tova>> - according to you it was a
minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good
thing.  Especially as we discussing what are needed for an eruv (a halachic
device), or whether the kohanim should duchan during Mincha and nei'ila of
Yom Kippur.  These aren't things like going around with baskets on your
head, or squeezing fruit.  They are religious acts.

<<I presume you would say something like:
R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: it'r universal pesaq>>

Yes.

<< R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), i.e. a local pesaq>>

Yes, although I prefer to phrase it the psak that the people as a community
[I prefer that to the term "local" as it sounds limited, while communities
can be large or small] have adopted following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, or
Rabbi Meir [out of the options available], making it the minhag chashuv.  

<<And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He
can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi
talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something
entirely different?>>

I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact
something closer to your  "any other practice, religious or even a
non-religious norm  that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in
certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are
accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim).  The point being here, is
that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in
psak.  To the point where their psak is not a valid psak.  The problem
being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and
have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there.

Regarding R' Yochanan I believe I am following Rashi.  Both Rashi, Tosfos
and the Rosh refer us to Ta'anis 26b where it explains that if it is the
halacha, you teach it "b'pirka" - ie you learn it out in the public halachic
discussions.  If it is minhag, you don't teach it  b'pirka, but if someone
comes to you and asks, you posken that way, and where it says nahagu - one
does not rule this way, just "I avid, avid, v'lo mehadrinan lei".  And Rashi
in Ta'anis, says:

U'man d'amar nahagu [ie Rabbi Yochanan] - mashma: hen nohagu me'alehen, aval
aino ikar.  Uminhag mashmar - Torat minhag yesh b'davar, uminhag kosher hu.

The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice
with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher.  That
rather sounds like either it is a minhag taus [which in Yerushalmi speak is
aino minhag, such as not working all motzei shabbas, even though this is
clearly a religious practice] or a norm that has halachic impact.  But it
should not be dignified with the name minhag.

However over in Eruvin Rashi (quoted approvingly there by Tosfos and the
Rosh) uses the language - aval i avide lo machinan byadayhu - ie if they do
it, we don't protest.  That sounds much more like the minhagim that the
Tosfos and the Rosh were discussing in Pesachim as being minhag lo chasuv
(ie tolerated, and not gone against in front of, ie you are not to rule
publically in front of them, but you don't actually have to keep), which is
contrasted to a minhag chasuv.    

Tosfos in Brachos 52b (d"h nahagu ha'am) draws a different distinction
between the situation over in Ta'anis and in Eruvin (and elsewhere, such as
Rosh Hashana) and the situation in Brachos where Rabbi Yochanan again says
nahagu ha'am [like Beis Hillel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda - the subject
matter being whether we say the blessing over the spices before or after the
blessing over the flame in havdala].  Because we [and I think we all in
fact, as Tosfos says] l'chatchila go according to this R' Yochanan that we
make the blessing over the spices before the flame, and yet it would seem
from Eruvin 62b (as understood by Ta'anis) that l'chatchila one shouldn't
follow  where it says nahagu ha'am, just that where the people are so
accustomed, we don't make them go back if they did it wrong (so in the case
of the havdala, one would think one should really bless the flame first, and
then the spices, just if people did it the other way around, we wouldn't
make them repeat havdala).  And Tosfos'  answer there in Brochos is that
over in Eruvin, the nahagu ha'am is contrasted to someone saying "halacha"
which means "halacha l'chatchila u'morin ken" and therefore when somebody
else says nahagu they are meaning bideved, "aval hacha yachol l'hios d'ain
kan ele nahagu greida".

Note however that in the case in Brachos everybody agrees the halacha is
like Beis Hillel (versus Beis Shammai).  The issue at stake is how to
understand Beis Hillel - like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Meir.  And while
Rabbi Meir would seem to be the stam mishna, we follow Rabbi Yehuda.  That
feels to me less "al pi Talmud chacham" - it is more how the relevant Talmud
Chacham understood another set of talmudei chachamim.  Whereas the case in
Eruvin 62b is regarding what R' Eliezer ben Yaa'kov himself held (regarding
non-Jews assuring a courtyard for eruv purposes, if there was only one Jew)
versus Rabbi Meir, or in Eruvin 72 (do you need a shituf and an eruv), or
Ta'anis (whether on Yom Kippur the Kohanim should bless at Mincha and
ne'ila) ie is a matter of direct psak versus psak.  With the sense that
according to Rabbi Yochanan the psak in question is plain wrong, and
knowledgeable people should ignore it.

I think you could thus alternatively argue that Brachos is a classic minhag
garua that happened to accord with how Rabbi Yehuda understood Beis Hillel,
which in the absence of a clear psak either way, we follow the order the
people decided upon, for their own reasons, whereas in the other cases, it
is a minhag taus, that the psak is clearly wrong in halachic terms, but
because there is this da'as yachid position out there, the hachamim were not
prepared, in bideved situations, to make people go back and redo.  Or you
can say that actually over in Brachos Rabbi Yochanan, while using the term
nahagu ha'am, given that it was not used in contrast to minhag k', meant
really to say minhag k' - making it a minhag chashuv.  Or maybe in fact we
just ignore Rabbi Yochanan's expression.  And what we are actually following
is the ma'ase shehaya of Rava.

In any event, for me the key fact is the Rav Huna defines minhag explicitly
as going according to a psak, something you, I believe, said couldn't
happen.  How you understand Rabbi Yochanan, who specifically does not use
the term minhag, just nagu ha'am for something which (leaving aside the
situation in Brachos) he disapproves of, is secondary.

-Micha


Regards

Chana

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:  Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, 
>> v'Rav Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.  R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar:
>> Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov?

>> <<People practice like REbY. Why?
>> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example
>>     of BY chalaq

> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim.  It is not
> what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim...

You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim
or Separadim.

...
> Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is what we
> pasken, full stop.  If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda amar Shemuel,
> you would  be left in no doubt that you ought to follow R' Eliezer ben
> Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like...

We are in agreement.

>> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like glatt

> But didn't you say Previously that  << Minag chashuv = common religious
> practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>...

Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is
lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY,
and the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's
a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag
chashuv.

>                                            Glatt is a tricky one, because of
> the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar hadin...

Still, Hungarians are following it as minhag, and are more lenient than
the Sepharadi half of the world BECAUSE it is "just" minhag. To them.

The issue you raise is a distraction from explaining the gemara.

> And yet here, R' Huna is a case where the origin of the idea came completely
> and totally from a psak of a Rav - namely R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi
> Meir, and the community then followed...

> And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as
> expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R'
> Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated scenario,
> and yet it has the definition of minhag?

After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is "bottom
up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic.

>> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah

> But I thought if it was a <<hanhaga tova>> - according to you it was a
> minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a good
> thing....

By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag.
Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night
on Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890.

But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would
hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it?

And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write:

>> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? He
>> can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY is "al pi
>> talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to mine or something
>> entirely different?

> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact
> something closer to your  "any other practice, religious or even a
> non-religious norm  that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish people in
> certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things people are
> accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim).  The point being here, is
> that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is actually flat out wrong in
> psak.  To the point where their psak is not a valid psak.  The problem
> being, according to R' Yochanan is that the people have seized on it and
> have used it as the basis for what they do, because this idea was out there.

R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor
even an actual minhag.

> The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this practice
> with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag kosher...

Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means.

Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is
not calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh.

So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to call
each position.

To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking
about minhag chashuv. To you there are.

R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the
people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a
minhag garua.

And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that
level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much.

It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim.
That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the
/nhg/ shoresh.

The rest of your post argues for something we agree about.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 None of us will leave this place alive.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   All that is left to us is
Author: Widen Your Tent      to be as human as possible while we are here.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF          - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

On 2/7/20 6:43 am, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> 
> I don't think this is what the Ramo means. The context is that smoking 
> and pickling are not considered BA, and I think when he says "bishul 
> shel esh" it includes any form of cooking by heat. Otherwise cooking 
> with an electric hob or deep-fryer wouldn't be BA either.

Glowing hot metal is included in "fire".  Here there is no fire at all. 
The pot simply gets hot of its own accord, just as in a microwave the 
food gets hot of its own accord.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

RMB wrote:
>> <<People practice like REbY. Why?
>> R Yehudah amar Shemu'el: that's what we pasqen -- parallel to my example
>>     of BY chalaq

> Hold on, but it is only what "we" pasken if "we" are Sephardim.  It is 
> not what "we" pasken if "we" are Ashkenazim...

<<You totally lost me. Neither Shemu'el's nor R Yehudah's "we" are Askenazim
or Separadim. >>

You wrote the words "parallel to my example of BT chalaq"  - see above.  I
responded to *your* example of BY chalaq - because you said that "R' Yehuda
amar Shemuel: that's what we pasken  - is parallel to my example of BY
chalaq"

I totally agree that neither Shemuel's nor  R' Yehuda's "we" are Ashenazim
or Sephardim - but *you* said that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is parallel to your
example of BY chalaq (which you contrasted to glatt), and BY chalaq versus
glatt is about Ashkenazim and Sephardim.  If you agree that BY chalaq is not
a parallel, then there is no need for this discussion.
 
But because of the parallel that you brought, I couldn't (and can't) see how
you can make the statement below (which you say you agree with):

> Whereas my understanding of R' Yehuda amar Shemuel is that this is 
> what we pasken, full stop.  If you came out of a shiur with R' Yehuda 
> amar Shemuel, you would  be left in no doubt that you ought to follow 
> R' Eliezer ben Ya'akov (or Rabbi Meir) or whoever the halacha is like...

If we agree that R' Yehuda amar Shmuel is *not* parallel to BY chalaq, then
we can agree we understand R'Yehuda amar Shmuel the same.

>> R Huna: that's the minhag (chashuv), but not iqar haddin -- like 
>> glatt

> But didn't you say Previously that  << Minag chashuv = common 
> religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval>>...

<<Which is exactly what I have R Huna saying here. The actual halakhah is
lenient, the hamon am in practice are nohagim to be stringent like REbY, and
the rabbis are happy with the stringency. It's not din, but it's a common
religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval -- a minhag chashuv.>>

Err, ReBY is actually the lenient one (he says you need two Jews living in a
chatzer to assur it for carrying).  Rabbi Meir is the stringent one (he says
you only need one Jew and the chatzer is assur).  So transposing your
explanation, but with the correct way round, do you agree that, "the actual
halacha is strict, the hamon am are in practice nohagim to be lenient like
REbY, and the rabbis are happy with the leniency.  It is not din, but it is
a common religious practice, blessed by rabbinic approval - a minhag
chasuv"?

Now do you think that if the people did not have ReBY to rely on, but had
just come up with this by themselves, against the halacha of Rabbi Meir, Rav
Huna would be so tolerant?  If yes, then why did he phrase it as minhag
k'RebY? Why didn't he say that if there is only one Jew in the courtyard,
the minhag is to carry (because it doesn't' matter whether ReBY said so or
not)?  But if it *does* matter that ReBY said so, then you need more than
just the people coming up with this idea of only one Jew living on the
chatzer themselves.  You need ReBY, or some other Rav, to have said so,
followed by community acceptance to have it become a minhag.

>                                            Glatt is a tricky one, 
> because of the reality that half the world paskens it as related to ikar
hadin...

> And yet here are you not agreeing with me that the original idea, as 
> expressed by R Huna, is derived from a Rav - in these cases either R'
> Eliezer ben Ya'akov or Rabbi Meir, it is not a bottom up generated 
> scenario, and yet it has the definition of minhag?

<<After the rabbinate said you didn't have to. So in that sense it is
"bottom up". The masses chose to do something extrahalachic.>>

There were two different piskei halacha out there.  ReBY (the lenient one)
and R' Meir (the stringent one).  R' Yehuda amar Shmuel states emphatically
that ReBY is right, Halachically, and that the halacha is like him.  R' Huna
appears not to agree, otherwise he would have said what R' Yehuda amar
Shemuel said.  Rather, he accepts that the people having made the choice to
go for the lenient position as a valid minhag.  It is partially bottom up in
that the people have made a choice between Psak A and Psak B, and decided to
follow Psak A, in this case the lenient psak, but I do not believe they have
decided to do something extrahalachic independent of there being two piskei
halacha out there.  It is the same scenario as following  R' Yossi for milk
and chicken, or Rabbi Eliezer for cutting the wood to make the knife to do
the bris on shabbas.  Or moving a lit candle on shabbas.  Or working or not
working erev pesach morning.  Each case is the same underlying scenario:
there were a range of piskei halacha out there.  And certain communities, or
sometimes the whole people, decided to follow one psak over another (even
though in pure halachic terms that isn't necessarily the halacha).  That is
what makes it a minhag chasuv, as articulated by the Ri and the Rosh, ie
that it is al pi Talmud chacham, and not just something the people came up
with on their own, even where the people can provide religious
justification.

RMB:
>> R Yochanan: it's but a common hanhagah tovah

Chana:
> But I thought if it was a <<hanhaga tova>> - according to you it was a 
> minhag chasuv - since it is blessed by rabbinic approval as being a 
> good thing....

<<By "common" hanhagah tovah I meant in contrast to any kind of minhag.
Something many pious people do, not the masses. Like learning all night on
Shavuos in Lithuania circa 1890.

But in principle, even if R Huna meant everyone was doing it: Why would
hanhagah tovah mean that the rabbis endorsed it?>>

*Hanhaga tova* is *your* language, not mine.  I assume you mean R'  Yochanan
here, not R' Huna, because you are the one who applied the words hanhaga
tova to R' Yochanan in a previous post.  I don't at all think that R'
Yochanan is describing what he thinks of as a "hanhaga tova".  I think (and
I believe Rashi and Tosfos agree with me) that in this context if you have
to use the term hanhaga, then he believes he is describing a hanhaga ra.

<<And I think you then agree with this "in princple, when you write:>>

No idea what you mean here.

>> And if that is correct, or not, what do you have R Yochanan saying? 
>> He can't be referring to a minhag garua, since something said by REbY 
>> is "al pi talmid chakham"? Is your take for R Yochanan similar to 
>> mine or something entirely different?

> I think it could be either a minhag garua or a minhag taus or in fact 
> something closer to your  "any other practice, religious or even a 
> non-religious norm  that has halachic impact" (ie like non-Jewish 
> people in certain places carrying things on their heads, ie things 
> people are accustomed to do, but are not halachic minhagim).  The 
> point being here, is that R' Yochanan holds that ReBY (or R' Meir) is 
> actually flat out wrong in psak.  To the point where their psak is not 
> a valid psak.  The problem being, according to R' Yochanan is that the 
> people have seized on it and have used it as the basis for what they do,
because this idea was out there.

<<R Yochanan can say something is a hanhagah tovah and not a pesaq nor even
an actual minhag.>>

He could, but in the context, where he is dealing with a situation where
there is a lenient psak and a stringent psak, and where the people are going
according to the lenient psak, he is clearly not saying that.  He is saying
it wrong what the people are doing, but if you come across somebody who has
done it, they either don't have to reverse what they have done, or you don't
need to create a fuss (as they have what he considers a da'as yachid to rely
on).  Depending on which Rashi you follow (and presumably Rashi/Tosfos in
Eruvin had a different girsa in Ta'anis, given that they don't quote "not
reversing", but "not protesting").

> The point being that Rabbi Yochanan doesn't want to dignify this 
> practice with the term minhag, which would suggest it is a minhag
kosher...

<<Which according to me is what "minhag garua" means.

Whereas you're saying that R Yochanan refers to it as a hanhagah, but is not
calling it a minhag garua. Despite the common shoresh.>>

Hanhaga was, as mentioned, your language, not mine.  I said that one
interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan is a minhag garua - that is if you hold
that it is something that one shouldn't protest.  Just like all the other
cases in Pesachim where the rabbis said not to protest the minhagim.
However if it is something one should protest, just that one doesn't make
people do things again (ie our girsa in Ta'anis), then that appears to be
less than a minhag garua (more like a minhag taus).

<<So we agree on w to understand this machloqes, we disagree with what to
call each position.>>

No, I don't think so.

<<To me, Shemu'el and R Yehudah, by talking about pesaq aren't talking about
minhag chashuv. To you there are.>>

No, I never said that, and I don't think so.  In the case of Shmuel and R
Yehuda we are talking about psak.

<<R Huna is definitely talking about a common practice performed by the
people without a pesaq. Which to me is a minhag chashuv and to you a minhag
garua.>>

No.  To me what R' Huna is talking about is also minhag chashuv.  I didn't
think you agreed with that, but am fine if you do.  If you agree that this
is a minhag chashuv, then it would seem that what we disagree about is
whether or not Rav Huna is "talking about a common practice performed by the
people without a pesaq".  You say definitely, ie "definitely talking about a
common practice performed by the people without a pesaq".  I don't think
this is right at all.  I believe Rav Huna is talking about a common practice
performed by the people *in light of ReBY's psak*  Which is precisely why he
phrases it as "minhag k'ReBY".  Because the fact that there was a psak from
ReBY is critical to his understanding.  It is what makes it a minhag choshuv
(and not a minhag garua).  Just as the Ri and the Rosh and the Shach say
that the definition of a minhag chasuv is that it is "al pi talmid chacham".
This is "al pi talmid chacham" - the psak of ReBY, which is key to what
drove the people.  No ReBY, no such minhag.  And R' Huna is expressing this
clearly by linking the minhag with the psak of ReBY.

<<And R Yochanan is talking about a practies that doesn't rise up to that
level. Which to me is a minhag garua and to you not even that much.>>

Not quite.  If we didn't have the girsa we do in Ta'anis, ie we had the
girsa that Rashi and Tosfos in Eruvin seem to have had, I would say this was
a minhag garua.  Problem is, our girsa in Ta'anis doesn't just say, we don't
protest, but we don't make them do over again or go back (given that in
Ta'anis we are talking about kohanim duchaning at nei'lah, presumably that
means we don't have the Shatz resay the non duchaning language, after the
kohanim have ostensibly duchened, or make the kohanim sit down once they
have said the bracha).  That suggests that we do in fact protest if we can
get to them before they get started duchening.  I don't think something that
the chachamim were prepared to protest, even if the view they are protesting
is based on the psak of a Talmud Chacham, can be considered any kind of
minhag, except perhaps a minhag taus. 

<<It's all just in the labels, but that changes how we read the rishonim.
That is why I ignored all the gemaras you cited that don't use the /nhg/
shoresh.>>

I agree it is all in the labels, but I thought there was something more
fundamental here.  My understanding of your position was that if the people
were following a particular psak (such as the people following the psak of
ReBY or the people following the psak of Rabbi Yehuda not to work on the
morning of erev pesach), that could not be called minhag.  Rathein your view
minhag, including minhag choshuv, had to be something that was generated by
the people themselves, like milchigs on Shavuos, ie completely bottom up.
That is why I could not see how you characterised what R' Huna said, of
minhag k'ReBY as minhag, as it didn't seem to fit.

Whereas my understanding of a minhag chashuv was that it needed to have at
its root a psak of a Rav, with the bottom up aspect of it being the
people's, or a community of people's, decision to take on that particular
psak, even in the face of disagreement from other Rabbonim.   That seems to
fit perfectly with Rav Huna's statement of minhag k'ReBY.

 I thus understand a completely bottom up minhag as falling within the
category of minhag garua (or just minhag)- although even within that
category, there are those that have strong rabbinic approval, and those that
have weak to non-existent rabbinic approval (depending on how garua they
are).  But like your minhag chashuv, my minhag garua does have to relate to
something religious/halachic, even though  at some point one reaches a
situation where the rabbis come out full force against what the people are
doing. The reason I am so vague about the line between minhag garua and
minhag taus, is that this line seems very difficult to define, Ie at what
point does a minhag which is very garua tip into a minhag taus seems hard
for me to pinpoint (I have been looking at two cases of very dodgy minhagim,
namely women in states of tuma'ah - both involving, inter alia, women not
going to shul - one during their periods, and one in the period after giving
birth, and the attitudes towards them couldn't be more different.  The one
is reasonably accepted as something of an acceptable minhag, with some
rabbinic blessing, even though the origins are difficult, and it is clear it
is solely women generated, while the other gets the full minhag taus, must
be stamped out, treatment, at least amongst some.  Even though on first
glance they would seem to be directly parallel).

While you, I thought given that you characterised what I called minhag garua
as being minhag chasuv, understood minhag garua as being something done even
by non-Jews that had halachic impact, which didn't seem to me to be what was
being discussed in the gemora in Pesachim at any point, and hence not the
subject of the Ri and Rosh's distinction there.

-Micha

Regards

Chana



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



_______________________________________________
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.)