Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 80

Tue, 30 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Eel DNA (Isaac Kotlicky)
• 2. Re: Eel DNA (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Lag B'omer (Poppers, Michael)
• 4. Re: Lag B'omer (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Eel DNA (Isaac Kotlicky)
• 6. Re: Eel DNA (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Lag B'omer (Poppers, Michael)
• 8. Re: Pesach Sheni (Isaac Kotlicky)
• 9. Re: V'el bnei yisrael tomar (Isaac Kotlicky)
• 10. Re: Eel DNA (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Eel DNA (Isaac Kotlicky)
• 12. Re: Eel DNA (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Micha Berger)

The problem of chamor sheyaldah parah is only an issue because the animal
is physically carried in the same manner as a mammal. Since a fish lays
eggs, you cannot assume that the concept still holds since there is no
"leidah" occurring.

For a proof of this, look at chickens - an egg inside of a slaughtered
chicken is fleish because it's considered one with the mother, but once it
is laid, it is considered a separate entity. Similarly, once the eel were
to lay the egg, it would be considered distinct from whatever animal laid
it, and would this be kosher if it has the proper simanim.

Another point is that the tumah of sheyaldah only applies to that first
generation: the child of THAT parah IS kosher regardless of who the
grandparent was. In any case, we're talking about a parah sheyaldah chamor,
which is the opposite scenario.

Regarding the concern of kilayim, the possuk uses the term "tarbi'ah,"
which is specific to cross breeding physically/sexually two different
animals, instead of "ta'aseh," which would apply to any crossbreed
regardless of the method of production.

As an interesting side note: there is a distinction between possession
(which is muttar) and the act of breeding itself. If one were to have a non
Jew breed them on your behalf (even as an employee), would you be shielded
due to "ain shaliach lidavar aveirah?" Or, since it is not prohibited for a
non Jew, is the shlichus still valid and, therefore, an issur for the
Jewish mishale'ach?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130429/559fc7c8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/04/2013 2:06 PM, Isaac Kotlicky wrote:
> As an interesting side note: there is a distinction between
> possession (which is muttar) and the act of breeding itself. If one
> were to have a non Jew breed them on your behalf (even as an
> employee), would you be shielded due to "ain shaliach lidavar
> aveirah?" Or, since it is not prohibited for a non Jew, is the
> shlichus still valid and, therefore, an issur for the Jewish
> mishale'ach?

Whether crossbreeding animals is muttar for bnei noach is a machlokes
rishonim.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

In Avodah V31n78, RMC responded to RMYG:
>> Does anyone have an
>> explanation as to why the ?olam? is meikil tonight?

> ..R Reisman echos your concerns....

> "...For those of us who keep Sefirah only until Lag B'omer, which is
> the prevalent Minhag certainly among Ashkenazim, we keep Sefirah until
> Lag B'omer and after that we hold that music, haircuts, and weddings
> are Muttar, we are prohibited from music and dancing the night of Lag
> B'omer that is on Motzoei Shabbos...."

R'Reisman seemingly is writing for those who uphold minhagei aveilus on
"the first days," i.e. the first 33 days of the Omer count. Does his
logic apply also to those who uphold those minhagim on "the second days"
(roughly, from R'Ch'Iyyar until shloshes y'mei hagbalah)? One would
think so, and R'Micha (who wrote "There is a problem with music on Lag
Ba'Omer night according to most shitos" in the subsequent digest) would
apparently agree. Thanks.

In Avodah V31n79, RZS responded to R'Micha (forgive me for extracting
quotes from multiple responses):
>> "vehata'am samach Rashbi beyom Lag baOmer ki hu mitalmidei R' Aqiva
>> hana"l shemeisu besefiras ha'omer hana"l"

> But "shemeisu" isn't. He was mitalmidei R Akiva, but not of the
> ones who died; he came later. The gemara says that. So the "shemeisu"
> girsa is incorrect.

I think R'Micha is not including "hu" in "shemeisu", i.e. RaShBY was
one of the talmidim but not one of the talmidim shemeisu biS'firas haOmer.

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 07:16:47PM -0400, Poppers, Michael wrote:
:                                                             Does his
: logic apply also to those who uphold those minhagim on "the second days"
: (roughly, from R'Ch'Iyyar until shloshes y'mei hagbalah)?

This is addressed explicitly if you see my 12 column version of RAM's
chart of shitos.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/05/mourning-during-omer-2.shtml
(Or his original.) Only those two already mentioned do not include
the night of Lag baOmer. One is attributed by RMF to Minhag Frankfurt,
so it should be of interest to you personally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 34th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  and maintain a stable relationship?

: >> http://ph.yhb.org.il/09-12-05/
That's... very strange. That link makes it seem as though EVERYONE
accepts that this isn't explicitly one of the sheva mitzvos bnei Noah, but
rather is derived, according to some, from "chukosai tishmoru?" That
there's a retroactively an eighth mitzvah? But what about every other
location in which it uses those terms - chukosai, mitzvosai, torosai,
mishpatai? Are all of those now retroactively added to the obligations of
the bnei noah?
What about "shabsosai tishmoru," which CLEARLY existed prior to the
giving of the Torah, as its mekor is briyat ha'olam itself? Do they say
that goyim are also obligated in some level of shabbos observance? But we
know "goy sheshavas chayiv misah!"

I am finding this line of drasha EXTREMELY hard to swallow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130429/c4adbc53/attachment-0001.htm>

On 4/29/2013 5:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 29/04/2013 2:06 PM, Isaac Kotlicky wrote:
>> As an interesting side note: there is a distinction between
>> possession (which is muttar) and the act of breeding itself. If one
>> were to have a non Jew breed them on your behalf (even as an
>> employee), would you be shielded due to "ain shaliach lidavar
>> aveirah?" Or, since it is not prohibited for a non Jew, is the
>> shlichus still valid and, therefore, an issur for the Jewish
>> mishale'ach?
>
> Whether crossbreeding animals is muttar for bnei noach is a machlokes
> rishonim.

I'm not convinced that gene splicing is the same thing as crossbreeding, 
l'halakha.

Lisa

R'Micha replied to me:
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/05/mourning-during-omer-2.shtml
> .... Only those two already mentioned do not include the night of Lag
> baOmer. One is attributed by RMF to Minhag Frankfurt,
so it should be of interest to you personally. <
The chart calls Minhag FFdM "F" and says it includes part of Nisan.
Minhagei Y'shurun (minhagim of KAJ/"Breuer's") says, "The dinim of S'firah,
which prohibit weddings and haircuts[,] apply from the day after R'Ch'Iyyar
until the day before R'Ch'Sivan, with the exception of LaG BaOmer." 
Minhagei Frankfurt (R'Tz'Y'Leitner) quotes Seifer Yoseif Ometz as writing
that "issur giluach ulvishas malbushim chadashim ein nohagin raq
meiR'Ch'Iyyar v'eilech."

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

>I think the best example of this might be Lechem Mishne, which actually fell from Shamayim on **Erev** Shabbos.
>Logically, we ought to use double loaves for our Friday meals.

On the contrary - your math is off. They would eat either two or three
times per day, and each meal would consist of its own loaf. Only on
Pesach do we see the concept of using a partial loaf due to the
principal of "lechem oni" - everyone else would nominally use a whole
loaf of bread.

The use of two whole loafs on Friday night is therefore indicative of
the fact that AFTER having eaten their (2 or 3) loaves for the day,
they will still have more left over - it is the presence of the second
loaf that indicates lechem mishne, not some conjunction of the two
together. Similarly, there may not be an obligation (though many
people do it anyhow) of lechem mishne by seudas shlishit because
you've already eaten the other loaf for the day during seudas shniyah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130430/25a97185/attachment-0001.htm>

And lest we forget - the molech process is ALSO the source of the myth of
Achilles. Who wouldn't want their child to be an nigh-immortal hero? That
it seems strange to us know is more indicative of how different our culture
is. We may no longer worship *idols*, but plenty of people still worship *
gold*...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130430/286f5833/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/04/2013 6:39 PM, Isaac Kotlicky wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:

>> http://ph.yhb.org.il/09-12-05/

> That's... very strange. That link makes it seem as though EVERYONE
> accepts that this isn't one of the sheva mitzvos bnei Noah

No, see the footnote. R Eliezer in the gemara says it is one of the seven.
And while most learn the Rambam as disagreeing with that, the GRA seems
to say that the Rambam does agree with it.


> but rather is derived, according to some, from "chukosai tishmoru?" That
> there's a retroactively an eighth mitzvah? But what about every other
> location in which it uses those terms - chukosai, mitzvosai, torosai,
> mishpatai? Are all of those now retroactively added to the
> obligations of the bnei noah?

I don't think there are any other locations where we find this expression
about a specific mitzvah.


> What about "shabsosai tishmoru," which CLEARLY existed prior to the giving
>  of the Torah, as its mekor is briyat ha'olam itself?

No, it didn't.  Hashem never decreed Shabbos on anyone until Marah.  One
of the two *reasons* for Shabbos is brias ho'olom, but the mitzvah didn't
exist.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

>
> No, see the footnote. R Eliezer in the gemara says it is one of the seven.
> And while most learn the Rambam as disagreeing with that, the GRA seems
> to say that the Rambam does agree with it.


 I looked in Sanhedrin - your link is mistaken - Rav Eliezer says they are
chayiv, but DOES NOT say that it is part of the sheva mitzvos. I searched,
but couldn't find the Ran that supposedly says it's from sheva mitzvos, and
most of the meforshim don't even bother paying any attention to R'
Eliezer's statement . It's a bit of a glaring omission. The Rambam himself,
as the footnote says, holds like the chachamim according to nearly everyone
other than the GRA.

>
>> I don't think there are any other locations where we find this expression
> about a specific mitzvah.
>
> No, it didn't.  Hashem never decreed Shabbos on anyone until Marah.  One
> of the two *reasons* for Shabbos is brias ho'olom, but the mitzvah didn't
> exist.
>

I beg to differ- the term chukosai is used numerous times in the torah.
Look in the previous perek (18) for one example of its connections to
arayos and in the next perek by avoda zara and molech. It also is used by
Avraham. If the Rambam is claiming that ALL instances of the specific word
were hearkening back to sheva mitzvos, then this would make sense, but he
doesn't. He seems to darshin out the juxtaposition in the possuk "es
chukosai tishmoru -  behemtecha lo tarbia kilayim."
 If that's the case, than ANY similar juxtaposition of a "my x + law" would
be open for an identical drasha as a standing command, such as the
aforementioned shabbos, which is conjoined to the command of shmirah. That
you claim the mitzvah of shabbos didn't de facto exist until Marah is *
exactly* the point - kilayim doesn't exist in the Torah up until Vayikra as
well, and yet we are retroactively ascribing it to the B'nei Noach as a
result of language that would be equally applicable to shabbos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130429/a376c70c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/04/2013 11:49 PM, Isaac Kotlicky wrote:
>> No, see the footnote. R Eliezer in the gemara says it is one of the seven.

> I looked in Sanhedrin - your link is mistaken - Rav Eliezer says they
> are chayiv, but DOES NOT say that it is part of the sheva mitzvos. I
> searched, but couldn't find the Ran that supposedly says it's from
> sheva mitzvos,

Thank you.  I'm constantly reminded of RSBA's quote from his rebbe: "hastu
nachgeschaut?"  I usually do do the work of "nachschauen", and very often
find that a cited source has been misquoted, but I was busy today so I just
grabbed a credible-looking article and trusted it.


>> I don't think there are any other locations where we find this expression
>> about a specific mitzvah.

> I beg to differ- the term chukosai is used numerous times in the
> torah. Look in the previous perek (18) for one example of its
> connections to arayos and in the next perek by avoda zara and
> molech.

That is not the point.  Of course the word chukosai appears many times in
the Torah.  But where else is it used of a specific mitzvah?


> If the Rambam is claiming that ALL instances of the specific word were
>  harking back to sheva mitzvos, then this would make sense, but he doesn't.

Doesn't he?  Not specifically to the 7 mitzvos, but to laws that already
exist.   That's what the drasha seems to be: "es chukosai tishmoru" always
refers laws that you already know about, that I've already told you in the
past; otherwise how can I expect you to keep them?  Here (and AIUI only here)
the pasuk tells us specifically which laws it has in mind, so those must have
been told earlier.  But there's no record in the Chumash of this, so it must
have been told long ago, to Adam or Noach.   At least that's what I think
he's saying.


> If that's the case, than ANY similar juxtaposition of a "my x + law"
> would be open for an identical drasha as a standing command, such as
> the aforementioned shabbos, which is conjoined to the command of
> shmirah.

Where is this expression used for Shabbos?  I can't find it.


> That you claim the mitzvah of shabbos didn't de facto exist until
> Marah is exactly the point - kilayim doesn't exist in the Torah up
> until Vayikra as well, and yet we are retroactively ascribing it to
> the B'nei Noach

Not de facto.  I'm saying that it didn't exist, at all.  Not because it's
not mentioned, but because we know that it was commanded at Marah.  Kilayim
we don't know anything about; we don't know when it was commanded, so this
language hints to us that it's an old law.

> as a result of language that would be equally applicable to shabbos.

Again, I agree this would be a problem *if* that language existed.  Where
is it?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

At 02:57 PM 4/28/2013, R. Micha wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 02:57:48PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> > According to RSRH there is a major difference between the way the uses
> > the terminology un-Jewish and non-Jewish.  Un-Jewish things are things
> > that are incompatible with Yahadus, whereas non-Jewish things are things
> > of non-Jewish origin that are compatible with Yahadus.  YL
...
>WADR to RSM, bonfires aren't un-Jewish, non-Jewish or Jewish, they are
>primal. They instigate an emotional response for reasons universal to
>all humans. It's like discussing the origins of making a big meal to
>celebrate a happy occasions.

R. Seth Mandel sent me the following response to this post and asked me
to send it to Avodah.

That is NOT the point. Things may be "primal," but if a specific custom
is borrowed from AZ, it is osur. Otherwise, what is wrong with Chanukkah
trees? Trees are primal, too.

Or why did RYBS forbid stained glass in shul, but not at home?

Micha may disagree, but I think he (RYBS) was right.

Rabbi Seth Mandel

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 06:12:51PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: That is NOT the point. Things may be "primal," but if a specific custom
: is borrowed from AZ, it is osur. Otherwise, what is wrong with Chanukkah
: trees? Trees are primal, too.

I think you missed my argument entirely:
If a practice moves people on a primal level, RSM's post hoc ergo propter
hoc is insufficient to prove such borrowing occured. There is strong
enough common cause to justify the practice on its own. And indeed
singing around a pyre or a campfire is found in many cultures.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 80
**************************************

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 at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)