Avodah Mailing List

Volume 40: Number 73

Sat, 05 Nov 2022

• 1. further to R Lakish Annoyed with R Elazar (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Davening direction (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: further to R Lakish Annoyed with R Elazar (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Shailahs on Soup (Prof. L. Levine)

RMR writes:

<<this is the part that requires attention
Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, and said to him:
You heard a statement of bar Naphac?a [the blacksmith's son - an epithet
for Rabbi Yo?anan] and you did not say it to us in his name?

Lets say it was well known that RElazar was a close Talmid of R Yochanan
and RLakish ought to have known that it was said in the name of RYochanan
In that case why is he looking daggers at RE??
Besides what diff does it make? RLakish was often in disagreement with R
Yochanan?

He raised an objection; RLakish considered it and dismissed it.
Is one supposed to stop thinking when one's teacher raises an objection and
just accept it?>>

And RMB answered (inter alia):
>That said, R Shteinzaltz did assume that RL was saying that has he known it
was RY, he would have accepted the ruling. (Noticed when I looked the quote
up on Sepharia.)

Not just Shteinzaltz, but Rashi and the Ritva as well appear to assume the
Reish Lakish would have accepted it (but I do understand RMR's objection).

However it seems to me that even without saying he would have accepted it
(and/or he needs to accept it), there is a big difference.  If one knew that
something was said by someone whose learning one rated, surely one would
think harder about rejecting it and the reasons for doing so than one would
if it was said by someone who one has less respect for.  Initially Reish
Lakish was faced with a situation in which he was ruling, and his junior
makes what might seem to him in the heat of the moment like a silly
response.  Is it not reasonable though that if that junior had said - "I
heard R' Yochanan say this in exactly this kind of case", Reish Lakish would
have thought more deeply about the situation and whether or not he was going
to disagree - and that by not telling him he was robbed of that opportunity?
Also there is the Ritva's second point, which is that Reish Lakish would not
then have repeated this in front of R' Yochanan - or at least, one could
say, Reish Lakish would only have repeated it in front of R' Yochanan
knowing that he was going to get push back, and that he needed to have his
ducks in a row in terms of justification - rather than being blindsided by
R' Yochanan's response.  It seems to me that either of these rationales
would easily explain Reish Lakish's response to R' Elazar.

Further RMR writes:

<In other words - being called as first Oleh to the Torah is not adequate
proof. Proof is established if he is given the Cohen's gifts.
But Rabbi Yo?anan objected: And if there is no threshing floor there, does
the priesthood cease to exist?
Why and How is this an objection - if there is no evidence then there is NO
EVIDENCE
Is this somehow PROOF that being called as first Oleh is proof?
That seems to make no sense.>

None of this is about proof.  Prior to DNA testing, there was absolutely no
way of bringing proof to the matter (as the old quip says - "maternity is
fact, paternity is hearsay" - and even the maternity bit is mostly hearsay).
Rather it is about what is sufficient evidence to pass the threshold to deem
someone a kohen.  Set the bar too low, and you will have a lot more non
kohanim ending up being deemed kohanim.  Set the bar too high, and nobody
will end up being deemed a kohen (even those that really are kohanim) and
the priesthood will, as R' Yochanan says, cease to exist - and with it all
the mitzvot specific to the kehuna.  So it makes sense to try and strike the
best balance you can.  Giving the gifts is a better test as a) the
consequences to the false kohen are greater in terms of the issur, so one
might assume the kohen is likely to be more careful; and b) given that the
Yisrael is giving away his hard earned produce, he is going to want to be
more careful to ensure it goes to a fair dinkum kohen - whereas being called
up first to the Torah - is if anything more of a courtesy as it can happen
to a gadol too or if there is no kohen in the shul (so a false kohen might
be more tempted to say he is, because he wants the honour, and justifies it
on the basis that he is really a gadol) and the shul are likely to be less
careful to investigate.

>Meir G. Rabi


Regards

Chana

.
R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> Instinctively it seems silly to me davening north east towards
> Jerusalem even though that is the direction a plane would fly

Don't rely on your imagination. Get practical. Find a globe and put it in
your hands. Take a look at New York, and take a look at Eretz Yisrael.
Without knowing anything about geometry or air travel, draw a line with
your finger from NY to EY.

Please note that I have actually done this experiment with my
grandchildren, and invariably their finger goes northeast along the North
American coastline, and then southeast through Europe, without any
smart-guy analysis.

It's all about "How do I get there? Am I facing Eretz Yisrael, or not? The
direction I am facing, is EY straight ahead or isn't it?"

RET continued:

> Gut feeling is that south east is reasonable even that is based on a flat
earth

To me, *south east* is not at all reasonable. If you leave NY and head
southeast, you'll miss the Middle East entirely, and you'll even miss
Africa. I think you'll end up off the coast of Brazil.

Or rather, it had never *before* been reasonable in my eyes, but then R'
Micha Berger explained it. After all, whether your map is Mercator or not,
it is a very simple matter to know that EY is south of NY, and EY is east
of NY. Therefore, EY is southeast of NY, as R' Micha explained so very
simply:

> (Queue up my bit about halakhahh being about reality as percieved,
> not objective reality. Play it in your head -- I'm sure the
> majority of you know it by heart by now, now continue reading...)

Touche, sir. I needed very much to hear that. I have applied it to many
other situations - and now to this as well. I just need to keep on
repeating it until it becomes more instinctual.

On a related matter, it seems to me (from his first post) that RET presumes
the correct direction is "towards Jerusalem". This is slightly inaccurate;
the actual correct direction is "towards Eretz Yisrael". I concede that the
two are virtually identical for those in the US, but there are other
locations where this distinction is important. For my proof, I will begin
by quoting Orach Chayim 94:1-

[begin quote]
When one gets up to daven, if he was standing in Chutz Laaretz, he should
turn his face towards Eretz Yisrael, and have kavana also for Yerushalayim
and the Mikdash and the Kodesh Kadashim.
If he was standing in Eretz Yisrael, he should turn his face towards
Yerushalayim, and have kavana also for the Mikdash and the Kodesh Kadashim.
If he was standing in Yerushalayim, he should turn his face towards the
Mikdash, and have kavana also for the Kodesh Kadashim...
[end quote]

Now, how is this applied in actual practice at the Kotel? The people are
standing in Yerushalayim, and the Shulchan Aruch instructs them to face the
*Mikdash*, and *not* to face the Kodesh Hakadashim. And what do we see Klal
Yisrael doing instinctively? They face the Mikdash (i.e., Har Habayis)
directly, perpendicular to the Kotel. If anyone at the Kotel would choose
to face the Kodesh Hakadashim, this would require them to turn to the left,
at a noticeable angle of about 45 degrees, and I don't recall ever seeing
anyone do that.

The same, I presume, would apply if someone were in a location in Chutz
Laaretz, but close to the border of Eretz Yisrael, and the closest part of
EY was in a different direction than Yerushalayim.

It is true that this point will rarely - if ever - yield a practical
difference in the direction one faces for davening. But there is a very
important mussar lesson here: Don't bite off too much. Whatever level you
are on, aim to go ONE level higher at a time. When you get there, THEN you
can go one level further.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20221101/d408b75e/attachment-0001.htm>

And yet another aspect to consider.  Disagreeing with one's Rebbe is
different to ruling halacha l'ma'ase differently to one's Rebbe.  There is
quite a lot of detail in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 242 on the
interplay between Rav and talmid in terms of their relationship - with
definitions of what it means to be "cholek" (see si'if 3) and what is meant
by "hora'ah" (see si'if 7). It is quite possible that while Reish Lakish was
permitted by R' Yochanan and we know did disagree with him, that was by
arguing with him in person (indeed it is clear that was encouraged by R'
Yochanan), but it might not be so clear that he was permitted by R' Yochanan
to rule halacha l'ma'ase directly against him, especially if they were
living in the same area, as that would result in there being different rules
for different people depending on which judge they got.  In such a
situation, it might be that both R' Yochanan and indeed Reish Lakish would
hold that Reish Lakish needs to follow R' Yochanan's psak, even if he
disagreed with it, unless he was able to persuade R' Yochanan to change his
mind.

Regards

Chana

From

https://www.kosher.com/lifestyle/soup-week-shailahs-on-soup-2141


By: Halacha Yomis Team of OU KOSHER



On Shabbat, may I prepare a cup of noodles from an instant soup by pouring hot water from an urn onto them?



Unlike regular pasta which is still raw, Instant soup noodles are fully
cooked. The reason they are hard and brittle is because they are
dehydrated, and they can be rehydrated simply by soaking them in warm
water. Therefore, it would seem logical to assume that the rule of ?ain
bishul achar bishul? (it is permitted to cook something that has already
been cooked) should apply and it should be permissible to pour hot water
onto soup noodles. However, it is important to note that some instant
noodles are cooked at the factory with steam, not water.

Live steam is sprayed at the noodles as they pass through a tunnel. Cooking
with a steam is a different process than cooking with water and yields a
different taste. Just as rewarming baked items in hot water is not
permissible for Ashkenazim because ?yeish bishul achar afiya? (a baked item
may not be boiled), so too, one may not pour hot water from the urn onto
the noodles. However, Mishnah Berurah (318:47) writes that it is
permissible to place bread into a kli shlishi (third vessel). The same
would apply here as well.

(It should be noted that the flavor packets that come with the instant
soups may contain uncooked spices and the dehydrated vegetables that are
not fully cooked.)

At the end of the Friday night seuda, I often have leftover soup. I would like to store the leftovers in the freezer so it will stay fresh. Is this permitted?

The Minchas Yitzchak (8:24) discusses this question. He writes that if
there is a shortage of room in the refrigerator and if one does not put it
in the freezer the food will spoil or will not be as fresh, then one may
put the soup in the freezer even though it will turn into a block of ice.
Although many poskim write that it is not proper to make ice on Shabbat,
however when there is a pressing need they are lenient. Protecting the soup
that it does not spoil and become wasted, qualifies as a valid need. This
is also not a concern of hachanah (preparing on Shabbat for after Shabbat).
Putting soup in the freezer does not prepare it for use during the week,
but rather

it protects it from becoming spoiled. This is permitted to be done on Shabbat.



May one add an ice cube to hot soup to cool it down for a child?



In a previous halacha it was noted that one may add cold water to a hot
bowl of soup. However, regarding an ice cube there is an additional issue.
By placing the ice cube into the hot soup, one is melting the ice and
changing it into water. Is one permitted to do this on Shabbat? Shulchan
Aruch (OC 320:9) writes that one may not crush ice on Shabbat to create
water. However, one may add ice to a cup of wine or water, and let it melt
on its own. Similarly, adding ice to a hot beverage is not considered to be
actively melting the ice. Furthermore, since the melting ice is not
visible, it mixes with the soup, it is not viewed as though a new entity
was created. The Mishnah Berurah (320:34) writes that there is even a basis
to allow crushing or stirring the ice inside the soup to make it melt
faster. However, elsewhere the Mishnah Berurah (Shaar Hatziyun 318:146)
cautions against doing this. One may add ice to soup, but it would be best
not to stir it around so as not to make it melt fas
 ter.


May I Put Challah Into A Bowl Of Hot Soup On Shabbat?



Challah is a baked dry food, and the principle of ?ain bishul achar bishul?
(there is no cooking after cooking) should apply. Nonetheless, Shulchan
Aruch (OC 318:5) cites the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer Mi?Metz that it is
forbidden to put challah into a bowl of hot soup (or by the same token to
reheat a baked or roasted item by placing it in hot water on Shabbat).
Since baking is a different form of food preparation than cooking in water,
when challah is placed in soup it is cooked for the first time, and we say
?yesh bishul achar afiya? (cooking occurs after baking) and this is
prohibited.



The Shulchan Aruch notes that other poskim do not agree with Rebbi Eliezer
Mi?Metz and they allow putting challah in soup. The Rema (ibid) also cites
both positions. In the opinion of Rav Ovadya Yosef zt?l (Yebia Omer OC
8:35), the conclusion of Shulchan Aruch is to be lenient (though it is
praiseworthy to be stringent), and that is the position followed by
Sephardim. In contrast, the conclusion of the Rema is to follow the
stringent opinion of Rebbi Eliezer Mi?Metz, and this is the position
followed by Ashkenazim. Accordingly, one may not place bread into soup,
even if the soup is in a kli sheini (secondary vessel, such as a bowl that
was filled from a heated pot). If the bread was already put in the kli
sheini, Mishnah Berurah (318:46) writes that we may rely on the lenient
opinion and eat the food. Furthermore, Mishnah Berurah (318:47) writes that
it is permissible to place bread into a kli shlishi, and for these purposes
a bowl of soup can be viewed as a kli shlishi, provided tha
 t a ladle was used to serve the soup.


Professor Yitzchok Levine




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20221104/c38180fe/attachment-0001.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)