Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 094

Thursday, January 17 2002

• Re: reproducibility
• Re: reproducibility
• Re: Mussar and chassidus
• Re: Eruvin in America - reconsidered
• Re: Eruvin in America - reconsidered
• Re: Flatbush and BP eruv
• Eid Mipi Eid BeIssurim
• ayin tachath ayin
• leining
• Fwd: SICHOT62 -15: Parashat Bo
• Re: CI and medical journals.
• Re: Shelo asani isha
• Halachik methodology - Minhag
• Re: Tosafos and Pilpul
• reproducility
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: CY
• Re: CY police - corrections and clarifications

Rena Freedenberg wrote:
> Is there any textual evidence at all to assume that two different people
> could ever really be in the "exact same" circumstances for purposes of
> giving a psak to a personal shailah? From what I have learned [which is
> obviously not everything there is to learn by a long shot] every single
> neshama is in this world to effect a unique and different tikkun and
> there are many complex things going on...

Perhaps some of the practicing rabbanim on the list might comment on this.
How does one go about determining exactly what tikkun a particular
neshama is here to effect? Why does the Shulhan Aruch not discuss this
more explicitly? This doesn't seem to fit neatly into categories like
hefsed mruba and shaath hadchak.

David Riceman

Here's my second example of something that looks to me as people arguing
only because they are speaking in different languages.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:23:12PM +0200, Rena Freedenberg wrote:
: I'm just not sure how it would be possible for any two people in the
: world to be "in exactly the same circumstances". Everyone's circumstance
: is a slight bit different and each person is in a different place with
: regard to his level of avodat Hashem. These slight differences are what
: I am assuming makes a sufficient difference to change the psak.

One can say that no two circumstances are the same.

Or that a person is /in/ a circumstance -- therefore two could be the
same, even if the person who faces each is different.

The first meaning of the word "circumstance" would leadf one to say that
a pesaq depends only on the situation.

The latter, because it doesn't include the person in the word
"circumstance", would lead one to say is depends on the situation AND
on the individual doing the asking.

***

More interesting to me: All the examples so far were of being more
machmir for a person who was "up to it" than for one who was not.

What about customizing a pesaq because of that person's derech?

So-and-so, a "BT", tends to follow Lubavitch minhagim. Should a poseiq
tell him what he would do, or what Lubavitchers hold?

Should a poseiq who sees both sides of the issue recommend to RRW that
he follow minhag Ashkenaz, and I follow minhag haGra?

Or tell an aspiring ba'al mussar to choose differently than an aspiring
chassid?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

> Both Chassidus and Mussar stress hanhagos that go beyond din. They therefore
> have a greater need for a rav who is also moreh derech. Both on the 
> individual level and on the communal one.

> By saying that proper behavior goes beyond halachah, one calls in the need
> for a rav on non-halachic questions. More stress to the idea, more need.

This strikes me as pretty circular. If one is required by halacha to
call in a rav for advice on non-halachic questions, then the questions
are ipso facto halachic. IOW, "halacha" embraces any human act subject to
rabbinical regulation. If the act is not subject to rabbinical regulation,
it isn't a matter of halacha -- but then there's no "need" to call in
a rav or advice or instruction. Mussar and chassidus expand halacha by
including notions of propriety implied but not expressly required by
narrower notions of law.

As many people understand DT, DT accepts the authority of gadolim to
treat these implied principles as creatures of halacha and to rule upon
them accordingly.

David Finch

On 15 Jan 2002 at 18:01, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> It is well known that RAS vociferously opposed any Eruv in Chicago for
> many years. RYBS was quoted in Mpineni Harav as also being against eruvim
> as well . 

Brisk b'shita doesn't hold from eiruvin around cities (the entire 
subject is a long Biur Halacha which brings twelve views in each 
direction and then says that a ba'al nefesh should be machmir). In 
Boston, IIRC, there was no eiruv built until RYBS was niftar. Chicago 
is another story and has been discussed on this list in the past. 

 I
> would suspect that part of the opposition to eruvim stemmed also from
> the fact that Shemiras Shabbos in the 1950s and 1960s was far from
> a given phenomemnon as it is today and that an eruv was not seen as
> important as a shul with a kosher mechitza, Shemiras Shabbos and building
> yeshivos. 

I think it may also have had a lot to do with the size of most 
communities. There's not much necessity for an eiruv (except to guard 
against accidental chilul Shabbos) until there are a sizeable number 
of families with young children. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> It is well known that RAS vociferously opposed any Eruv in Chicago for
> many years. 

Yes he did based on the fact that Beis Brisk holds that Reshus HaRabim
equals 16 Amos. Beis Brisk does not require Shishim Rivah as do all other
Poskim. The Chicago Eruv was built by two respected Rabbonim here in
Chicago one representing the Lakewood Hashkafa (although the Eruv is not
used endorsed or used by that community) and one representing the Centrist
Hashkafa. They worked very diligently to construct the Tzros HaPesachim
and Mechitzos where required but incorported a street that had a Shailoh
about Shishim Rivah. There is a controversy about that street in what RMFs
Psak would have been. R, Dovd Feinstein was quoted as saying that his
father would've accepted that street as not including Shishim Rivah and
approved the Eruv. Ohter Poskim, including RAS understood RMFs Teshuvah
differently and held that RMF would NOT have approved the Eruv. RAS held
that anyone who uses the Eruv in Chicago is Mechlalel Shabbos B'Shogeg and
the Rabbonim who built the Eruv were Machti the Rabbim. RAS vigoriously
fought the Eruv, not because of the Brisker Shita about 16 Amos equaling
Reshus HaRabbim but because he beleived RMF would've Assured it. RAS lost.

Rav Wosner of Monsey was brought in as the Rav HaMachshir.

There is a recognized expert on Hilchos Eruvin right here on the list
who has published a book on the subject: RYGB. Perhaps he can weigh in
on the subject.

HM

RGD wrote:
> This was alluded to yesterday.  AIUI Rav Moshe was asked about the eruv,
>  and said he didn't want to pasken.  I did not hear why not.  When he was
> pressed (having RMF's hechsher does wonders for the acceptability of an
> eruv) he said if you insist, NO.

RMF had some pretty exclusive 'humrot in eiruvin, and refused to pasken
outside his turf. Although we can legitimately say that RMF's turf was kol
haTorah kulah, and all klal matters, he evidently didn't think so. His
son, rav Reuven, told me that RMF didn't want to pasken on the KGH eruv
(which he allowed) but he was with RMF at a breakfast presentation of
that eruv, and they essentially didn't let him leave until he paskened
-kosher. Rav Mordechai Tendler told me a similar story for the Flatbush
eruv, excluding the breakfast part, except that Brooklyn was, acc. to
RMF, as reshut harabim as you can get. Some say that RMF didn't even
allow block eruvin in B'klyn.

There is a disagreement between RHS and RRF (RMF"s son) as to whether
RMF thought Manhattan was a RhR deorayta (RRF) or merely derabanan
(RHS). Both these rabanim told me their point of view personally. RHS
tried to convince rav Shimon Schwab to fix up the all-Manhattan eruv
the latter agreed in theory, but refused because he wouldn't trust other
rabanim he would have to cooperate with.

As far as B'klyn, RHS told me that the situation changed, and he thinks
it may be a good eruv now, although since he didn't check it, he abstains
from paskening. A firend told me that rav Dovid Kohn told him that if
he finds he has something in his pocket on Shabbat, he should not feel
compelled to drop it (or in the case of valuables, leave them in shul)
but keep it until reaching home, because there is an eruv. This leads
credence to the theory that he merely abstains from paskening out of
honour for RMF.

Note that RHS does not accept all the 'humrot of RMF. For example,
RMF disagreed with a kulla that the CI confirmed, which is that when
you have attached/semi-attached houses, or that the houses are very
close to each other, such that for the perimeter of your eruv, total
linear facade length exceeds linear driveway and cross streets width,
then this constitutes 'omed merubah 'al haparuz, and the area is a
reshut haya'hid mideorayta. This means that a string on two poles is
sufficient for closing the gaps in the eruv, even if a major street
passes through the area. RHS was not clear about whether Ocean Parkway
would pose a problem, but suggested that it wouldn't according to most
poskim. Anyway, this means that according to RHS, the BP eruv had always
been a possibility. I asked rav Berel (RMF's grandson) why RMF rejected
this kulla, which was widely accepted in the interbellum in Europe and
used at least in Warsaw, and he told me RMF merely said "es kon nit zayn".

In all fairness, I should mention that RMF had some strange kullot, too,
such as saying that 600,000 relates not to the people in the reshut/city,
but to the number of people at any given time on the street. This balances
his 'humra that 600,000 is a density issue, and a place that is denser
than ma'hanei Israel (12x12 kilometres x 600,000 people) is by definition
a RhR.

> Which also sheds light on the idea that it was not an open and shut yes/no
> issue.  Perhaps RYGB, if he's still aboard,  can comment?

According to the above, it was complicated because RMF had some exclusive
'humrot in addition to the special issues of Brooklyn. Also, rav Mordechai
Tendler has some pretty extreme hings to say about the B'klyn eruv. He
says that the case against it is clear cut, but RMF didn't want to
pasken because he knew they wouldn't listen to him, as in deed they
built the eruv without his haskamah. RMF prefered sheyihyu shogegim,
apparently. The account, though, is a little strange, and anybody who
attended the shiur in question noticed just a little, tiny, bitsy bias
that is not representative of commonly accepted psak and hashkafah
principles, so use with care. This is, BTW no disapproval of RMT, 'has
milehazkir, he is a great talmid 'hakham and cares about the klal. He did,
however, basically propose that nobody who has received a gadol club
membership card in the last 70-80 years made into the executive club,
of which rav Moshe was the only member. A little like the assertion that
the Gra was an anachronism, and was really a rishon, except that this
thought is not so popularly known WRT RMF.

I wonder indeed, whether RYGB will enlighten us on this topic.

Arie Folger

I have this vague recollection that eid mipi eid is kasher be'issurin.
For example, if Shimon gives me food and tells me that Reuven said it
is kosher, we believe this eid mipi eid because it is betoras ne'emanus.
I thought it was in a Ketzos but I could not find it.

Hu hadin that I could tell someone that Rav Reuven told me that Rav Shimon
was matir something and I could be believed despite being an eid mipi eid.

Is this correct?

Gil Student

The din is that if the Sanhedrin paskens against something explicitly
in humash they are not liable to bring a karban.  The reason is "zil
karei bei rav hu", which I would render as "you should have read it in
kindergarten," i.e., the true halacha is so well known because it's in
humash, that anyone who followed the Sanhedrin rather than the humash is
himself culpable, and therefore the Sanhedrin is not culpable.

Imagine the following situation.  Shimon blinds Reuven.  Reuven comes
to the town beith din and asks them to blind Shimon.  They say "no,no,
we have it direct from the Sanhedrin that we can only fine Shimon."  He
says "But I learned in kindergarten that the humash says ayin tachath
ayin, and you yourself told me that the humash trumps the Sanhedrin."

What's wrong with Reuven's argument?

David Riceman

>In the end, however, I'm not sure that the exact pronunciation makes
>a big difference. There is a Tosafos in Avodah Zarah (I think on 20a
>but I can't find it right now) that says that minor differences in
>pronunciation do not make a difference in leining. >

In Brisk RCS made the baal koreh repeat because of mistakes in trop

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 1/16/2002

Note R Amital's divrei mussar for all of us who don't remember what a
sefer looked like before the age of the CD Rom. Think of it this way-if
all you do is read Parasha sheets and Arevim off the web, how do you
function on Shabbos and Yom Tov without actual limud haTorah from a sefer?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com
__________________________________________________________________________

Sichot
Sicha of HaRav Yehuda Amital Shlit"a
Summarized by Dov Karoll
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Appreciating Borrowed Values

In this week's parasha, G-d commands Moshe that Bnei Yisrael should
"borrow" gold and silver from their Egyptian neighbors (Shemot
11:2). Rashi (ibid.) comments that G-d wanted Moshe to make sure that
the Jews leave Egypt with wealth so that Avraham will not have any claims
against G-d. Otherwise, Avraham could complain that while G-d fulfilled
the promise of slavery in berit bein ha-betarim (Bereishit 15:13-14),
He did not fulfill the promise of remuneration ("ve-acharei chen yetz'u
bi- rekhush gadol").

Why would Avraham care so much that his descendants leave Egypt with
wealth? Furthermore, why would G-d command Moshe to have the people borrow
these utensils, when they had no intention of returning them? The Ar"i
says that Bnei Yisrael were supposed to take out the nitzotzot, the sparks
of holiness, from Egypt. In other words, they were supposed to take those
positive elements of their experience in Egypt -- both what they learned
from their experience as slaves, and what they gained from the society
around them. Egypt was the most developed culture at the time, and they
were supposed to draw out those positive values which they learned there.
For this reason, G-d wanted to make sure that while the people should
take these values, they should realize that they are borrowed values,
and not elements original to Judaism.

Similarly, there are many things in general society through which Torah
study can be improved. When the Mishna was compiled, it was intentionally
written unclearly so people would need to learn from a Rebbe, and not
be able to understand it on their own. It was meant to be learned by
heart in a Beit Midrash. In a similar manner, nowadays one can learn
from a computer which has stored in its memory all of Tanakh, Gemara,
etc., without ever opening a book. However, one should realize that this
is not the way one is meant to learn, and that learning should be done
primarily from books and teachers.

Another example is the photocopy machine, through which people can
read texts without having the book in their library, and without even
borrowing it. However, there is a danger in these advancements. While it
is very helpful to people who cannot otherwise learn from the original,
it is still not ideal to go through life learning only from computers
and xerox copies. There is some advantage to learning in a Beit Midrash,
from a Rebbe, with a book -- the way it was learned for hundreds of
years. While it is proper to use these technological advancements for the
advancement of Torah, it still must be recognized that they are borrowed
techniques, and not the primary, original mode of Torah study. Nothing
can compare with the experience of becoming familiar with a book, of
interacting with a teacher, and of debating with a chavruta. And only
by putting in the effort and mastering large amounts of material will
we truly become talmidei chakhamim.

(Originally delivered Shabbat Parashat Bo 5757.)

Copyright (c) 2001 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved.

I wrote:
>>> Instead, I offer before you a twist which is attributed rav Gedalye
>>> Nadel (or is it Nader?), that CI read medical journals in German, and so
>>> was on aware of latest research. This is very similar to medical poskim

Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>> A fascinating revelation. anything published in English and on the Web
>> about this issue? Is the article contained in a sefer somewhere?

Reb David Riceman:
> I don't know about English, but R. Zevin in Ishim V'Sheetoth has similar
> examples.

I will definitely look this sefer up. However, the story came to me as
TSBP. My preYU 'havruta told me that he heard it from rav X (whom I met
but can't remember his name. He lives on Ocean Parkway) and I understood
that rav X heard it from rav Gedalya Nader (or is it Nadel?) who new it
firsthand (from CI himself?).

The story does not have anymore credibility than other unconfirmed gedolim
legends, but merits investigation, as it is a radical twist and makes
a lot more sense than the learn-brain-surgery-from-hilkhot-treifot line.

Arie Folger

Here's another reply I often use on scjm. (My apologies for subjecting
you to another religion's scriptures.)

</reprint>

The blessings are attributed to R' Meir. (R Meir was ...)

R Meir had a famous contemporary who left the fold, a fellow who came to
call himself Paul. In a letter to the Galacians 3:38, he writes, "Now that
faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law... There
is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female..."

I suggested that these blessings were actually composed in rebuttal to
Paul's attempt to do away with the law. R Dr David Berger thought it was
a cute idea, but too big of a leap to take without more proof. In either
case, the fact that halachah divides mankind into these categories was
on people's minds at the time.

I find the idea that bringing a proof from outside our tradition will
convince more of my liberal bretheran than citing texts written by our
sages distressing. Still, as it is the situation, I am glad I have
a heretic at my disposal on this one.

</reprint>

Someone then pointed out that it was more likely Paul was rebutting
R' Meir. After which I noted:

<reprint>

Paul was allegedly a student of Rabban Gamliel who in turn was a pupil
of R Akiva's. R' Meir was also a student of R' Akiva. He was older than
Paul. So yes, it is quite possible that the blessings came into common
usage just before Galatians was written. More likely than my guess in
both sequence and in terms of the likelihood -- Paul was more likely to
hear of these new blessings being said in synagogues across Judea than
Rabban Gamliel would have heard or cared about some heretic's letter
to a nation of non-Jews.

</reprint>

Of course, it depends if I got the right R' Gamliel.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 I wrote:
>> The elevation of a SEFER to being an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE that must be 
>> considered in Pesak, however is quite another matter involving, it 
>> appears, widespread acceptance by Chachmei Yisrael over an extended 
>> period of time.
>> So this example illustrates that the process of Pesak requires 
>> deliberation by the Dayan/Posek and therefore it follows, IIUC, that 
>> even if a Sefer has become authoritative by reason of widespread 
>> acceptance, a Dayan/Posek cannot merely rely on such authority 
>> without first considering the specific Halachic issues involved in 
>> the case before him, as Horaah emanates from the Dayan/Posek, not 
>> from the Sefer.

and RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>The questions remainsing to me are
>A)  can (e.g.:)
>1) the Rema  2) Mishna Brura 3) Aruch haShulchan  or  4)  R. Moshe 
>Feinstein pasken based upon a Minhag or precedent that is in conflict 
>with the Gmara?
>
>And
>B) When they pasken a Halachah based upon a Post-Talmudic minhag or 
>precedent only - e.g. Kitniyos - what status does THAT have?

and On Wed 9 Jan 2002 RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
...
>Bottom line:
>According to this, When we have a  Minhag
>A) that is nispashet
>and
>B) is in conflict with extablished texts

>We PRESUME that it is based upon
>X) Contemporary {albeit anonymous} authority
>Y) To be normative
...
>As someone noted that Minhag devloped FROM the people.  AISI this cannot 
>be enough WHEN it is conflict with Classic normative Authortitative Texts 
>such as Mishnah, Gmara, and even Shulchan Aruch.  For a Minhag to 
>over-rule established Halachah we must presume it is a remnant of an 
>anonymous Psak.
>And we then do our best to re-constitute the underlying premise.  This is 
>IIRC the Aruch Hashulchan's method in defending those who do NOT sit in 
>the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres.

The above comments by Rabbi Wolpoe are quite helpful and I add the
following as to my understanding of how Minhag affects Halacha, in the
area of Dinei Issur Ve-Heter:

1. In the event of a Machloket Ha-Poskim, when a Minhag has developed in a
locality based upon the horaah of the Rav of that locality; a new Rav may
change the practice whether le-chumrah OR le-kulah (see SA,CM 25:2 (RAMA)
and SHACH s.k. 20 there (be-shem Ha-BACH))and see also Teshuvot Ha-Rosh
55:10 and Egrot Moshe OH V.3,siman 64 and Egrot Moshe YD V.1, siman 13).

2. However, if a Minhag has developed as a Siyag Ve-Geder to correct
some michshol, and that Siyag Ve-Geder was effected by a Chacham and
then it was ratified by being popularly adopted as the Minhag (i.e. the
Minhag did NOT evolve from a Machloket in Halacha but from some weakness
in Mitvah performance) then a new Chacham may not nullify that Minhag
(see above references in Teshuvot Ha-Rosh and Egrot Moshe). [unless,
AIUI, such was based upon some erroneous assumption ("Minhag Tauut")
or it is contrary to the Halacha ("Minhag Stut") ].

Minhag is also discussed in A.H. Rabinowitz, The Jewish Mind...
(Jerusalem:1978, now republished by Jason Aronson) c.12, p. 209-225,
where the author stresses the importance of popular acceptance (kiblu
aleihu). He explains "kiblu aleihu" as being both by the general populace
as to a Minhag (that must be begun by a chacham) and kiblu aleihu by
chachamim as to the acceptance of a Halachic position (I think that this
is the same as Sugya De-Alma) or kiblu aleihu by Chachamim of a Sefer
as being authoritative.

Having written the above, I have still not dealt with the situation of a 
complete change in the circumstances that a Minhag was effected to alleviate 
(in the case a Minhag effected as a Siyag Ve-Geder) and as to whether the 
Minhag may then be changed; but that is another matter upon which I would 
appreciate comment and which I will attempt to research.

KT
Eliyahu

In a message dated 1/16/2002 3:32:30pm CST, owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:
> Question: why doesn' Tosafos come out and say:
> We don't pasken like this gmara because our Minhag shows that we do pasken 
> otherwise - instead of pilupilistcally trying to make the Text fir the 
> Minhag somehow?

I don't either, but it seems that Tosafos wasn't really acquainted the
with idea of minhag, at least as that term has since evolved. The pilpul
of Tosafos was frequently designed to reconcile the irreconcilable --
and often it succeeded in doing exactly that. I've often thought that
the real difference between the Platonic process of dialectic and the
Judaic process of machlokess lies exactly at the point: Jews need to
preserve the unity of Torah as an article of the Oneness of HaShem.

David Finch

From: "Rena Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
> Halacha stays the same, but the situation of every single person is
> different. A rav will take into account who is asking the shaila and also
> what facts are presented to him when making a decision about what a given
> person should do.

> I know that Rav Eliashiv generally holds a certain way on a certain issue,
> but I have had him give me a different psak on the issue because of facts
> that I presented and the way that I presented my position on the issue.

I know that for this past shmitta, Rav Elyashiv poskined for She'eris
Yisroel not to use matzaim menutakim and for the va'ad hashmitta of the
local kehilla (I also think he poskined the same way for Rav Efrati)
he poskined that they could use matzaim menutakim.

reuven

Shlomoh Taitelbaum wrote:
:>: I see da'as torah as coming to fill in the Litvishe need for a Rebbe...
:>:          What qualifies a Litvishe gadol (another term being discussed)
:>: to make decisions, since they shy away from quasi-mystic ruh"k? Answer:
:>: Da'as Torah! (and a gadol is one who possess da'as torah, which leads
:>: me to believe the "gadol phenomena" started with the mussar movement
:>: when R"Y Salanter introduced the concept of da'as torah).

I replied
: > You assert that there is a "need for a rebbe" but do not explain why.
: > My "why" doesn't fully explain the need.

To which he said:
: By "why" I was thinking more in terms of a emotional need, not a
: chiyuv. Of course this just gets back to the question does one need to
: have a mentor, and in all aspects of his life...

I also meant non-halachically. However, not as "emotional need" but as
part of a general program to improve oneself and one's avodas H'. Neither
Chassidus nor Mussar limits that general program to following halachah
and minhag.

Which means that both need a rav/rebbe who does more than pasken.

: Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim does not mention the idea of a mentor at all...
:                          In the introduction to his Ma'amar haVikuach he
: writes how the understanding of sifrei kabbalah cannot be gotten from the
: sefarim themselves, requiring "mipi sofrim vlo mipi sefarim"; however, due
: to all those who tried to learn only from sefarim there aren't many sofrim
: around and therefore he is writing his sefer "eis la'asos laHashem."

: He clearly is saying that his sefer is to replace the sofrim...

Lehefech! He is saying you DO need a sofeir. But there aren't any -- or
at least none of a quality worth the title. Niskatnu hadoros. Therefore
one can lose less by using his sefer. But he nowhere says that the sefer
should replace all attempts at using a human being!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

In a message dated 1/16/02 4:21:09pm EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Also, rabenu Tam is the reason why the Israeli chief rabbinate will not
> allow ChC, but will allow straight out 'halav 'akum made milk powder, as
> they hold that the latter is not under the gezeirah. Kakh sham'ati. Can
> anyone confirm/deny?

The reason for this as well as the entire CY can be found in the Encyclopedia 
Talmudis Vol. 15 Erech Cholov Shel Goy.

Relying on ones Rav or Rebbe who says that one may not rely on this Heter 
does not go IMHO against the S"A Horav 32:5 (see also 63:2). 

[Email #2 -mi]

In a message dated 1/15/02 8:55:31pm EST, Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:
> The issue is then whether
> the heter spelled out by RMF is an across the board lchatchila, or a
> more limited one that is limited to circumstances such as travel and the

IMHO there is no difference (other where gets into the problem of the farmers 
mentioned in IGM), it is evident from what he writes WRT Hataras Ndorim.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

At 12:24 AM 1/16/02 -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
>This was a reference to the points ahead. I did not say nobody prefers
>ChC over CY, I merely hinted at the fact that those who consume ChC
>maintain it is CY, because nobody in his right mind is discussing the
>abrogation of the gezeirah .

Frankly, I believe they drink the ChC for some strange "idealistic" point 
that escapes me.

>> And yet the Chasam Sofer held that is precisely the case.

>When I say "strange" I don't mean definitely not. I am 'halilah not taking
>away the CS's right to intepret CY gezeirah as an issue of 'hatnut. And even
>if I wanted to do just that, would CS care? I am unfortunately many
>lightyears away from his league of gedolim.

So perhaps you would like to revoke your usage of the word "strange" 
vis-a-vis the CS?

>Also, rabenu Tam is the reason why the Israeli chief rabbinate will not
>allow ChC, but will allow straight out 'halav 'akum made milk powder, as
>they hold that the latter is not under the gezeirah. Kakh sham'ati. Can
>anyone confirm/deny?

The heter of the CR and others is based on the assumption of RZPF and 
others, notably R' Ruderman, that milk powder was not under the gezeirah 
because it did not exist at the time of Chazal. The CI does not like this 
heter, although he proposes the PC as an alternative.

>This is interesting. Can you elaborate? Even according to my coverage of
>the hetter, it is obvious that milk requires a higher level of supervision
>than other products. What does FDA rely on if they avoid individual farms?

They rely on the potential spot-checking of companies that in turn will 
cause the companies, perhaps, to spot-check the farmers. Even RMF concedes 
that this, in practice, does not happen, and he must therefore propose a 
very great chiddush, ayain sham.


Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]