Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 135

Sun, 21 Sep 2014

• 1. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] ()
• 2. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Micha Berger)
• 4. Judaism is Not a Religion ()
• 5. Re: Daat Torah (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Daat Torah ()
• 7. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Daat Torah (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Toby Katz)
• 12. Judaism is not a Religion? (Prof. Levine)
• 13. ben sorer u'moreh (Simi Peters)
• 14. Re: ben sorer u'moreh (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: ben sorer u'moreh (Kenneth Miller)
• 16. Re: ben sorer u'moreh (Rich, Joel)

 
From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

[1] I got up to hatmanah in AhS, so now  I'm wondering....

A thicker stoneware mug holds in heat
better than a glass.  Hatmanah requires full inclosure, so let's say
the mug has a lid, like a bear  stein. Would that be a problem? 


[2] I just saw AhS OC 254:22 -  hatmanah is only in a keli rishon.





>>>>>
To clarify, even with a keli rishon, a lid on the pot is not  considered 
hatmanah.
 
In one of those English Shabbos books I did see the question raised as to  
whether a kishka wrapped in aluminum foil, inside the chulent pot, would be  
hatmanah.  There seem to be two opinions but the stricter opinion can be  
satisfied by making small holes in the foil with a fork so that the  chulent 
flavor can get inside the foil.
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140918/164a936b/attachment-0001.htm>

I thought that there was no issue of hatmanah in a kli sheni.

Ben

On 9/18/2014 10:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> As I mentioned on-list a few times now, I generally walk around
> carrying a cup of tea. For logical reasons, it is usually a travel
> mug with a closing lid of some sort. Usually, these are thermally
> insultated.
>
> Does that qualify as hatmanah?
>
> And if so, what's the line?

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:46pm EDT, RnTK wrote:
: To clarify, even with a keli rishon, a lid on the pot is not  considered 
: hatmanah.

But that wasn't the direction in which I asked the question.

IF we were to say that a cup, or now that we're talking about keli rishon,
a pot, designed to be thermal were hatmanah, what would be the line between
hatmanah and a simple lidded keli?

A typical pot made out of a sheet of metal is not hatmanah, even with a lid.

So what about points between them on the spectrum? Like a stoneware pot
with a similar lid? In a crockpot, or another slow cooker, the thermal
properties of the pot are a significant part of the design. ("Crockpot"
was originally a brand name, but I believe it's milashon crockery.) It's
not just a pot, it's a pot designed to heat up slow and reatin heat.

Crockpots generally have thin, see through, lifs. But what about a
crokery pot with a crokery lid? Is it hatmanah to close the lid, or is
it that the pot only has on layer and a thermos has two (nowadays with
vacuum between them)?

: In one of those English Shabbos books I did see the question raised as to  
: whether a kishka wrapped in aluminum foil, inside the chulent pot, would be  
: hatmanah.  There seem to be two opinions but the stricter opinion can be  
: satisfied by making small holes in the foil with a fork so that the  chulent 
: flavor can get inside the foil.

The AhS prohibits putting the kugel in a keli into the chulent.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

R? Montagu wrote:
Try searching Google for "is not a religion".

So I did what he suggested and voila:
If you read on in Google, the following will further support my argument that Judaism IS a religion.

The claim that "Christianity is not a religion", or its full version "Christianity is not a religion, 
but a relationship with God", is one made by some Christians, most typically by members of the evangelical Protestant brands. 
The claim is usually made as a form of special pleading, to claim a unique status for Christianity among the world's religions, 
or in an attempt to recruit seekers disillusioned with their previous religion.
Some advocates of this position, including Bill O'Reilly, take this line of argument so far as to claim that since Christianity is not actually a religion, 
there is no Constitutional or moral obstacle to establishing it by law or having it promoted by government.

So much for Google.

Rebbetzin Toby wrote:
Judaism is not JUST a religion.  It is so much MORE than just a  religion.

I think we all can go along with and accept that.
But to say Judaism is not a religion is inaccurate.

Richard Wolberg

The example that you give (the Satmar Rebbe on the Medinah) is the exact 
opposite of boich (from the gut). He wrote a book filled with sources, 
arguments, proofs that the State of Israel is "what it is".  And in 
response Zionist rabbis have written their pieces, generating all the 
literature that one needs or could want.

Possibly one could claim that the Satmar Rebbe had his gut feeling about 
the Medinah (ya'ani his da'at Torah) and then found the sources 
supporting the feeling (his actual psak). However, the same could be 
true about a question regarding a lulav or an eruv.

Ben

On 9/18/2014 9:27 PM, Rebbbetzin Katz via Avodah wrote:
> Because he insists that a poseik should declare his reasoning and 
> sources -- not only in a halachic teshuva, but in a "da'as Torah" 
> opinion or psak -- he is implicitly denying that a Torah-steeped 
> personality has a sense "from the boich" of what the Torah would 
> require in an ambiguous, not-clearly-halachic, dilemma in one's 
> personal life or in a question of public policy.
> He is also suggesting that all da'as Torah decisions should be subject 
> to argument and counter-argument, sources and counter-sources, the 
> same way that halachic decisions are. That's why he demands that 
> "da'as Torah" should come with footnotes, the same way 
> straight halacha does.  PS Although I do believe in the concept of 
> da'as Torah, I do wish to categorically deny -- or head off at the 
> pass -- the notion that there is some ONE "da'as Torah" that all 
> charedim would agree on.  The Satmar Rebbe's boich is obviously 
> different from, say, the Gerrer Rebbe's boich, e.g., as regards how to 
> view the Medinah.  Nevertheless there are common threads.
> But da'as Torah usually doesn't come with sources and footnotes.
>
>

That is what I think.
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============



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

 
In a message dated 9/18/2014 11:11:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ben1...@zahav.net.il writes:

Possibly  one could claim that the Satmar Rebbe had his gut feeling about 
the  Medinah (ya'ani his da'at Torah) and then found the sources 
supporting the  feeling (his actual psak). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140918/921b37d2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:46 PM, RnTK wrote:
>> I just saw AhS OC 254:22 - hatmanah is only in a keli rishon.

> To clarify, even with a keli rishon, a lid on the pot is not considered
> hatmanah.

What about the kind of shabbat kettle which is basically a large thermos
flask with an element? Typically one sets it up before shabbat, but it
can happen that the lid opens during shabbat, or it turns out that the
lid wasn't fully closed before. Would it be hatmana to close it?

Possibly one could claim that the Satmar Rebbe had his gut feeling about 
the Medinah (ya'ani his da'at Torah) and then found the sources 
supporting the feeling (his actual psak). 
Ben
==================================
R" H Schachter has  said it is wrong (actually IIRC he uses stronger
language) to say that the position on heter mechirah is a result of how one
looks at the medina. 
R'HS position in this matter is not necessarily the only way to interpret the data.
KVCT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:372pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz wrote:
: In a message dated 9/19/2014 5:55am Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org writes:
:> The AhS prohibits putting the kugel in a keli into the chulent.

: Fine, but others permit, plus, as I said, if you poke holes in the
: aluminum foil that you wrapped the kishke in, it's not a keli anymore.

I just mentioned the AhS because this whole conversation started with
my AhS yomi. So, you mentioned the question, I shared what I know on
the topic.

But in any case, hatmanah doesn't require a keli. (If it did, I am not
sure foil wrapping is keli.) Rather, it needs to be fully enclosed.

The question is why the fork holes would allow more to permit.

I doubt the fork holes are enough to consider it insufficiently closed
to be considered insultated. However, it may be enough to consider it
adding foods rather than using one to heat the other.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

R' Micha Berger asked:
> IF we were to say that a cup, or now that we're talking about
> keli rishon, a pot, designed to be thermal were hatmanah, what
> would be the line between hatmanah and a simple lidded keli?

Is this a hypothetical? Which universe are you speaking of? You begin
with the proposition that "If a cup or pot designed to be thermal were
hatmanah", but as far as I know, being designed to be thermal (i.e.,
a very good insulator) does NOT define hatmana.

> A typical pot made out of a sheet of metal is not hatmanah, even
> with a lid. So what about points between them on the spectrum?
> Like a stoneware pot with a similar lid? ... [A crockpot is] a
> pot designed to heat up slow and retain heat.

So what? A kli is a kli is a kli. No distinction is made between
single-walled or double-walled. No distinction is made based on the
material that the keli is made of. If such a distinction were made, we'd
ask about foam coffee cups too. But we don't. Unless you can make a case
for Mosif Hevel (which is how the kugel chulent got dragged into this),
the question of Hatmana in a Kli Sheni doesn't even start.



R' Simon Montagu asked:
> What about the kind of shabbat kettle which is basically a large
> thermos flask with an element? Typically one sets it up before
> shabbat, but it can happen that the lid opens during shabbat, or
> it turns out that the lid wasn't fully closed before. Would it be
> hatmana to close it?

I suspect that this is exactly the sort of device mentioned in the new
(5770) 3rd edition of the Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata. Paragraph 1:83
there corresponds to 1:70 of the 2nd edition, which allows a Thermos
bottle on account of it being a ki sheni, but the 3rd edition adds an
entirely new paragraph:

"It is mutar to use an electric Maycham-Thermos, where the heat of
its water is maintained after boiling, but be careful to use only the
manual pump and not the electric pump. The halacha of this Thermos is
like the halacha of a Kli Rishon Which Is On The Fire, for which see
above paragraph 12."

I'd point out that the SSK addresses only the actual *use* of such a
pot. RSM's question of closing the lid is not addressed directly. But
in the section about stirring the food in a Kli Rishon On The Fire (1:39
in the 3rd edition, 1:33 in the 2nd), the SSK holds that we ARE allowed
to use a ladle to remove fully-cooked water from a pot even while it is
still on the fire. The last paragraph in that section (1:41 or 1:35)
suggests (but is not explicit) that we may also put the cover back on
that pot of water. If so, then I'd think that closing the cover of RSM's
kettle should also be okay.

Akiva Miller
(who plans to purchase exactly this sort of pot later today)

In a message dated 9/19/2014 6:19am EDT, simon.mont...@gmail.com writes:
> What  about the kind of shabbat kettle which is basically a large
> thermos flask  with an element? Typically one sets it up before
> shabbat, but it can happen  that the lid opens during shabbat, or it
> turns out that the lid wasn't  fully closed before. Would it be hatmana
> to close  it?

I don't think so but the halachic experts here will know for sure.
If you have a teakettle on the blech -- the kind that has a "trigger"
you pull with your finger, and a hinged little cover opens so you can
pour water from the spout -- is it hatmanah to take away your finger
and let that cover close, after you poured your water? I don't think so.



In a message dated 9/19/2014 5:55am Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org writes:
> The AhS prohibits putting the kugel in a keli into the chulent.

Fine, but others permit, plus, as I said, if you poke holes in the
aluminum foil that you wrapped the kishke in, it's not a keli anymore.

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com

At 05:25 PM 9/18/2014, Cantor R. Wolberg wrote:
>"Judaism is not a religion, the synagogue is not a church, and the
>rabbi is not a priest. Judaism is not a mere adjunct to life: it
>comprises all of life."

>Rav Hirsch is not the only one to assert that Judaism is not a
>religion.  The following is from today's Hakhel email bulletin.

>To say Judaism is not a religion flies in the face of everything
>we?ve been taught about ?religion.

>In the following accepted definition, I would like to know how WE
>are NOT included:

>Religion is the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that 
>define the relations between human being and sacred or divinity.

RSRH points out that all religion is based on man's view of 
HaShem.  Judaism is HaShem's view of man.  There is a world of difference.

Based on this he correctly assets that Judaism is not a religion.

See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/sivan_1.pdf


At 05:25 PM 9/18/2014, Rn T. Katz wrote:
>Hirsch was clearly contrasting Judaism -- which suffuses every waking
>moment of a Jew's life, eating, sleeping, at work and at play -- with the kind
>of religion that imposes minimal obligations...

There is much more to Judaism not being a religion than This.  Please 
see my response to Cantor Wolberg and the essay I referred him to.

YL

One way to account for the concept of ben sorer u'moreh that solves the
problem of behira (with our concomitant belief that everyone can do
teshuva) is to think of the halakha as describing a child who is a
psychopath or sociopath.  If I am not mistaken--and I might be--the
consensus of the psychiatric profession is pretty clear that a true
psychopath or sociopath is damaged (probably born damaged) in such a way
that he cannot be educated to feel empathy and is therefore, inevitably,
extremely and irreversibly dangerous to society.

This may explain why we get two conflicting statements in Hazal as to the
possibility of designating such a case.  One opinion is "lo haya ve'lo
nivra" which points to the extreme difficulty of determining that someone
is indeed a ben sorer u'moreh/true psychopath or sociopath (and hence
irredeemable, unfixable, untreatable--pick your adjective).  Diagnosing
something like that definitively is close to impossible.

The other opinion is "rakadeti al kivro" (a rather surprising reaction to
the death sentence on a young person) which indicates that if someone is
indeed a ben sorer u'moreh/true psychopath or sociopath, both he and
society are better off with him dead and buried, rather than alive to reach
the nadir to which is more than likely to sink.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140920/b481869a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 20/09/2014 4:40 PM, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote:
> The other opinion is "rakadeti al kivro" (a rather surprising
> reaction to the death sentence on a young person) which indicates
> that if someone is indeed a ben sorer u'moreh/true psychopath or
> sociopath, both he and society are better off with him dead and
> buried, rather than alive to reach the nadir to which is more than
> likely to sink.

R Yonoson *sat* on the BSuM's grave, not danced on it!  I have never heard
of any girsa that he danced!

There's no "machlokes" here.  R Shimon didn't mean to claim that he knew with
ruach hakodesh that such a thing will never happen; he just meant that the
probability of it ever happening over the course of the world's history is
so small that one can say with confidence that it will never happen.  R
Yonoson informed him that, despite the odds, it actually happened at least once.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

R' Zev Sero wrote:

<<< There's no "machlokes" here.  R Shimon didn't mean to claim that he knew with
ruach hakodesh that such a thing will never happen; he just meant that the
probability of it ever happening over the course of the world's history is
so small that one can say with confidence that it will never happen.  R
Yonoson informed him that, despite the odds, it actually happened at least once. >>>

And if so, then we have yet another example of how we can misunderstand
Chazal when they make a statement which appears to be absolute, but is in
fact merely an exaggeration.

I wish I knew of a good way to protect myself against such
misunderstandings when other absolutist statements are made. This sort of
thing makes it very easy - TOO easy - to say about other situations, "He
couldn't have meant that," but beware, for that way lies apikorsus.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar &#40;Don&#39;t Eat This!&#41;
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/541edf7059fbd5f70209dst02vuc

There's no "machlokes" here.  R Shimon didn't mean to claim that he knew with
ruach hakodesh that such a thing will never happen; he just meant that the
probability of it ever happening over the course of the world's history is
so small that one can say with confidence that it will never happen.  R
Yonoson informed him that, despite the odds, it actually happened at least once.

-- 
That's an interesting approach-are there any sources that I might look at
that state/expand on this.  Do they say the same thing for ir hanidachat
where this same issue appears?
I also think the language doesn't support the low probability explanation: saying it will never be-the law of really big numbers would likely 
The law of truly large numbers, attributed to Persi Diaconis and Frederick
Mosteller, states that with a sample size large enough, any outrageous
thing is likely to happen.[1] Because we never find it notable when likely
events occur, we highlight unlikely events and notice them more. 
KVCT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.


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



_______________________________________________
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/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)