Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 104

Thu, 10 May 2007

• 1. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. Re: Ahavat Yisrael (Samuel Svarc)
• 3. Re: chumrot of sefardim (was "sweet chalot") (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 4. Re: Davening Netz (sic) (Dov Bloom)
• 5. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: justifying hating the wicked (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 7. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: justifying hating the wicked (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY (Samuel Svarc)
• 10. Re: Ahavat Yisrael -- another point (Samuel Svarc)
• 11. Non Terief Cows for Milk - Why Not BP Cows? Even Better. (Dr. Josh Backon)

>From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@sibson.com>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society
>
>Is it correct that lshitatcha society has nothing to say in this
>decision and we assume that the unseen hand of the marketplace(HKB"H in
>disguise) will allocate the proper resources so that the sick are
>healed, the dead are buried...

I don't see where "society" comes into this. There are explicit halacha's
that deal with this, and one is supposed to make burial society's etc. If
the only people available to do this are people learning (a far-fetched
occurrence, which even in Lakewood - the town that most probably has the
highest percentage of full time learners - this doesn't occur...), then they
are the ones who need to take care of this, "Society" doesn't enter the
picture.

>Put another way do Roshei Yeshiva have an ethical responsibility to tell
>their major donors that HKB"H would prefer on a micro basis if they quit
>doing surgery and started learning full time?

If they are capable of this - learning full time - most definitely. I know
of at least one case where R' Ahron Kotler did that.

KT,
MSS

>From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
>Subject: [Avodah] Ahavat Yisrael

Now, that's a better subject line.

>Source: BeAhava U'VeEmuna, chapter 14 "Ahavat Yisrael".
>
>(thanks to Dov Goldstein, who produced the Rav Kook writings CD).
>
>> I am arguing that the post-Enlightenment reality has made such
>> judgments impossible. And therefore while there ideas out there that I
>> hate, I feel only pain for those who are doing them. I would not take
>> RtSLB's position that there is no such chiyuv.
>
>Actually, Rav Kook quotes the Chafetz Chaim in his book "Ahavat Chesed".
>The Chafetz Chaim quotes Rabbi Yehonatan Vohliner: The Din that it is
>allowed or a Mitzva to hate people that don't follow the straight path, is
>only after you reproved (Hochichuhu), but it is forbidden to hate him
>until
>all the options have been tried.

This next piece is not in Ahavas Chessed and must be R' Kook. If one looks
at Ahavas Chessed Chelek 1, Chapter 3, one will clearly see that the Chofetz
Chaim concludes the exact opposite.

>And, as the Tana'im have already
>informed
>us "Temeihani Im Yesh BaDor HaZeh SheYode'ah LeHochi'ach" (Arachin 16b)
>Mimeila, it is forbidden (!!!!-SLB) to hate anyone.

This is a fine 'd'rash', but it's not the halacha. For one, the redactors of
the Gemara - who lived after "Temeihani..." - saw fit to include Pesachim
113b without any qualification at all, thus showing that they held of it
l'halacha. Second of all, the Rishonim 'al h'daf' - Rashi and Tosfos - don't
qualify the statement or bring any Gemara to contradict, something Tosfos
does when they feel the Gemara is not l'halacha. Third of all, this din -
the Gemara in Pesachim 113b - has been brought down l'halacha throughout
sifrei halacha.

>Rav Kook continues that nowadays, we are not supposed to use the
>educational tools of Sin'a at all!

If R' Kook was referring to an educational setting - children, or a yeshiva
- who argues? You've misunderstood, everyone who is talking about hating
reshoim are referring to just that: Reshoim. 

KT,
MSS

In Avodah Digest V23#102, RET responded to me:
[old RET] >>> Again the major question for me is what do sefardim in 
practice when they
are invited out? <<<
[old me] >> Why assume that a guest in someone's home isn't permitted to 
follow the
practices of his host, assuming those practices are Halachically
legitimate?  More than that he is permitted, I would think he is 
*mandated*
to follow them unless his host explicitly allows or makes allowance for 
him
to "do his own thing." <<
> In his teshuva ROY states explicitly that as a guest one either requests 
the
host to provide non-sweetened challot or else brings ones own... <
(and, as part of our subsequent private dialogue, RET sent me the relevant 
e-mails from Halacha Yomit <info@halachayomit.co.il> which quoted ROY on 
this topic).

I understand the need for, ceteris paribus, maintaining one's Halachah 
even while in the domain of someone whose Halachah is legitimately 
different.  However, as I implied (perhaps not clearly enough) before, the 
situation of being a guest in that someone/host's home involves the host's 
sensibilities.  As RET noted privately, ROY's p'saq (which, after writing 
"v'lachein min harauy sheyodia' l'ma'archo meirosh shel'minhag haS'faradim 
din challah m'suqah k'din ugah," adds "o shey'da-eig l'havi imo challos 
r'gilos v'yochal meihen v'yatza y'dei chovaso" [any errors in 
transliteration are mine]) might change if there is a possibility that the 
host would be insulted by the actions of a guest following his own 
Halachah if that guest wasn't able to previously speak with his host about 
the issue.  Well, a guest often doesn't know whether or not his host would 
be insulted!  The resultant Q is whether the guest should take a chance on 
insulting rather than definitely follow the Halachah of his host, and, 
again, I would think he should not take such a chance and only follow his 
own Halachah if he knows the host will be OK with his actions.  Perhaps 
the Chevra can pitch in with any SHuT, either from ROY or from another 
poseiq who holds similar views re "sweet challot," that deal with the bein 
adam lachaveiro aspect of being an orach -- in the meantime, I think ROY's 
words imply that we're dealing with someone who received the invitation 
far enough in advance that he could bring his own "challos r'gilos" (and, 
accordingly, should make every effort to clear such an action with his 
host ahead of the appointed time) and not with a spur-of-the-moment 
invitee (which, IMHO, better fits the definition of hachnasas orchim, but 
that's a subject for another time...).

Shabbas Shalom and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070510/070f0784/attachment.html 

Netz would be a non-kosher bird, he-netz hachama would be the sunrise, the letter heh would be a crucial part of the form of this bird/oops/word. Netz hachama is I believe a common misnomer.

ME-OLD
>Is it correct that lshitatcha society has nothing to say in this 
>decision and we assume that the unseen hand of the marketplace(HKB"H in
>disguise) will allocate the proper resources so that the sick are 
>healed, the dead are buried...
========================================================================
============
MSS-Response

I don't see where "society" comes into this. There are explicit
halacha's that deal with this, and one is supposed to make burial
society's etc. If the only people available to do this are people
learning (a far-fetched occurrence, which even in Lakewood - the town
that most probably has the highest percentage of full time learners -
this doesn't occur...), then they are the ones who need to take care of
this, "Society" doesn't enter the picture.
===============================================================
Me-New
Society doesn't necessarily come into it but in your "far fetched"
example who decides who stays in the beit medrash and who goes out to
bury the dead?   IIRC there's a gemara like this that doesn't look to
favorably on those who hesitate (but I may be making it up)  Who decides
whether to tax people to build a hospital or let infant mortality
increase because of lack of resources because no doctors are
available.......
========================================================

ME- OLD->Put another way do Roshei Yeshiva have an ethical
responsibility to 
>tell their major donors that HKB"H would prefer on a micro basis if 
>they quit doing surgery and started learning full time?
====================================================

MSS- Response
If they are capable of this - learning full time - most definitely. I
know of at least one case where R' Ahron Kotler did that.

KT,
MSS
======================================================
ME-NEW
I have not heard of two many cases such as this and we're talking about
professionals who have the ability - so I would assume (but am willing
to be disproven) that the R"Y do not advise this as a matter of course.
KT
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.

[Copied from AREIVIM at the request of the moderators]


> >Which, again, excludes anyone not raised O, and according to the CI,
> >anyone raised O in today's heterogeneous world.
>
>Kindly provide a source for this assertion in the name of the CI on Avodah.
>He, IIRC, quite clearly doesn't say this.
>
> >The MB lived in a world where Isms drew people away from O in large
> >numbers. We live in its aftermath. I do not see many people left that
> >the MB's words would apply to.
>
>Anyone who fights against Torah. There are plenty of people who think O Jews
>are insane, but they leave them alone. The ones who don't, and the sight of
>a religious Jew sets their blood on boil, who make it their life's work to
>fight against Torah (unfortunately, these types of people still exist, just
>as they have in every generation), they qualify handily.

*Tinok shenishba* is discussed in the gemara in Shevuot 5a
and Shabbat 68a,b; Rambam Hilchot Shegagot 7:2 and Hilchot
Mamrim 3:3.

Carefully read the definition of *tinok shenishba* as
codified by the Rema YD (Hilchot Ribit) 159:3 "she'eino yode'a mitorat
yisrael KLAL" [emphasis mine}; the Chazon Ish YD 2 s"k 16; the
Binyan Tzion 23; the Melamed l'Ho'il Orach Chaim 5; and even the
Iggrot Moshe OC 33 [the last three deal with Mechalel Shabbat
b'Farhesia and concede that today it may be considered
b'Tzin'a rather than b'farhesia if it's done for $$$].  But a very
careful reading of all the above does NOT include the one who
intermarries as *tinok shenishba*. And the Chazon Ish simply refers to
not carrying out (20th Century) of *moridim velo ma'alin*

And even with regard to a *tinok shenishba*, there is no prohibition
of *ona'at devarim* [Rema in Choshen Mishpat 228;1]; there is
permission to denigrate him [Chafetz Chaim 4:7]; there is no concern
for his degradation [Chochmat Shlomo ORACH CHAIM 311]; and there
is a prohibition to honor him [Shaarei Tshuva 3:189].

And that's for a *tinok shenishba* [someone who grew up without ANY
knowledge of Judaism whatsoever].

Now we come to the heavy artillery: the definition of an *apikorus*.
The Meiri in Sanhedrin 90a defines an apikorus as one who doesn't follow
the Oral Law and one whose rulings cause others to sin ["v'chen
machti'im ha'rabbim afilu l'dvarim kalim"]. He also explains the
phrase *megaleh panim batorah shelo k'halacha"  as one who uproots
a mitzva by explaining it allegorically. The Yerushalmi in Peah 5a
explains the phrase as someone who denies TORAH MIN HA'SHAMAYIM
[God giving the Chumash  verbatim to Moses at Sinai].

The Tshuvat HA'RASHBA VII 179 in the name of Rabbenu Yonah states that
someone who willfully volates the sabbath or who doesn't believe in
*divrei Chazal* [the Oral Torah] is a MIN and his touching wine places
it in the category of Yayin Nesech [prohibited to drink] (see also
the Nekudot haKesef YOREH DEAH 124]. The Mishna Brura 55 #47 writes
that anyone who doesn't beleive in the authority of the Oral Law can't
make a *minyan* or can't serve as a chazan [Mishna Brura 126 #2] (see
also the Biur Halacha 216 d"h "hamevarech apikorus").

See the gemara in Sanhedrin 99a: "v'afilu amar, 'kol hatorah kula min
hashamayim chutz m'pasuik zeh shelo amar ha'kadosh baruch hu elah
moshe mi'pi atzmo" is an apikorus. [even one who says the entire Torah
is from Hashem except for one verse (a line below uses the expression: "even
a grammatical change") but that Moses wrote it himself is an apikorus who
has no share in the World to Come]. See also the gemara in Avoda Zara 18a.

This what the Rambam writes about Apikorsim:

Hilchot Rotzeach U'Shmirat haNefesh 4:10:

"Heretics (ha'apikorsim), they are idolators or those who transgress
spitefully, even eating "nevelah" or wearing "sha'atnez" deliberately,
behold, this is a heretic (apikorus), and those who deny the Torah and
prophecy, it is a mitzvah to kill them (mitzvah l'hargan).  If there is
in one's power the strength/opportunity (koach) to kill them by sword,
one kills [him/her]..."

Denial of Mosaic (Divine) authorship of the Chumash is the putative
criterion of the KOFER BA'TORAH (one who denies the Torah). The Rambam
in Hilchot Tshuva 3:8 defines the KOFER BA'TORAH as one who  denies
that even one letter of the Chumash wasn't dictated by Moses directly from
Hashem. The punishment of the MIN, APIKORUS and KOFER BA'TORAH are delineated
by the Rambam in Hilchot Tshuva 3:6 (ein lo chelek l'olam ha'ba ela nichratim
v'ovdin v'nidonin al godel rish'am v'chatotam l'olam ul'olmei olamim [he has
no place in the World to Come; instead he is cut off and destroyed and
judged for his heinous crime for all eternity).

KT

Josh

I wrote:
> Hamotzi fails on thin-crust fruit pie (which meets all 3
> criteria for Pas Habaa BKisnin, and so is vadai Mezonos)
> the way Haetz fails on a carrot. But cake is different.
> Under certain conditions, the proper bracha for cake is
> indeed Hamotzi, even for a Sefaradi who would eat enough 
> of it, and it is therefore conceivable that Hamotzi might
> work (b'dieved) even for smaller amounts.

Upon further thought, I now realize that I was not as precise as I 
should have been.

It not only cake that could be Hamotzi when enough is eaten, but the 
thin-crust fruit pie could also be Hamotzi if enough is eaten. (I 
concede that it is somewhat easier to eat enough cake, and much more 
difficult to eat enough pie, because of all the extra stuffing.)

Therefore, from this perspective, cake and pie are both items which 
are indeed "Lechem", and to which the bracha of "Hamotzi" can be seen 
as relevant. Yes, they are an unusual kind of lechem, a sort of 
lechem which is generally eaten as a snack food, but they *are* 
nevertheless lechem.

But there is another factor which, according to some poskim, may make 
cake more hamotzi-ish than pie. Namely: According to most poskim, all 
three kinds of Pas Habaa B'Kisnin are *vadai* PHBK, so that the same 
Mezonos can cover both a piece of cake and also a piece of waterdough 
pizza. But I think there are other poskim who hold that each of the 
three types are merely *safek* PHBK, and once one says mezonos on one 
type, it would be a tartei d'sasrei to eat another type with it. 
According to this view, each type of PHBK actually has a safek-PHBK / 
safek-Hamotzi status, and if so, this would be an additional reason 
to allow saying Hamotzi on cake in a bdieved situation (which would 
not appply to a thin-crust apple pie).

Akiva Miller

On Thu, May 10, 2007 3:22 pm, Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
: *Tinok shenishba* is discussed in the gemara in Shevuot 5a
: and Shabbat 68a,b; Rambam Hilchot Shegagot 7:2 and Hilchot
: Mamrim 3:3.
:

As I said, this would be more daunting if we didn't hash it out
already in vol 2 and again in vol 5-6.

RDJB cites Mamrim 3:3. Mamrim explicitly includes those raised in
non-mesoretic beliefs. Probably the intent is to discuss Qaraim, which
is a pretty good precedent for looking for how the rishonim would have
dealt with today's issues. Even if they have contact to real Yahadus
they are influenced by their upbringing and are anusim and tinoqos
shenishbe'u. Therefore, the Rambam says it is ra'ui to bring them to
teshuvah VELIMSHOKH OSAM BEDARKHEI SHALOM ad sheyachzehu le'itan
haTorah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

>From: David Riceman <driceman@att.net>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY
>
>Zvi Lampel wrote:
>> It is not so poshut to go from the classical cases of temporarily
>> interrupting one's learning for doing an immediately necessary deed
>> that required no training, to the kind of training and more permanent
>> time commitment that preparing for Zaka requires, and certainly to
>> the time and effort needed to become a medic in preparation for
>> situations not yet in existence (although of course predictably they
>> will be). In the first case, Talmud Torah remains the kevius, as
>> opposed to in the other two cases.
>
>The Shulhan Arukh requires (YD 245:1) kvias ittim day and night.  It
>recommends (ibid. 21, especially in the Rama) that in order for divrei
>Torah to be "miskayymim" that one make them ikkar and other occupations
>tafel.  It is this second form of kevius that you are recommending, yet,
>as far as I can tell, there's no halachic requirement for a person to
>ensure that his divrei Torah be "miskayymim".
>
>Furthermore the prohibition of interrupting Talmud Torah is expressed as
>"hayah l'fanav" (ibid. 18). which seems to mean interrupting ittim
>kevuim rather than any potential opportunity to learn.

R' Riceman is confusing the chiyuvim of Talmud Torah, something that we were
not discussing, with the preference of Talmud Torah over other Mitzvos, the
topic we were discussing. So, one might not be obligated to learn all day (a
topic we will leave for another time), but it definitely is preferred over
other Mitzvos. R' Lampel was pointing out that the obligation to interrupt
Talmud Torah for an immediate necessary deed, does not extent to training
for that necessary deed. So one can't interrupt Talmud Torah to train for
Zaka. If one is not learning full time, like R' Riceman's doctor, then we
all agree that it's "admirable" to volunteer for gemilas chasadim.

KT,
MSS

>From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
>Subject: [Avodah] Ahavat Yisrael -- another point
>
>I would like to move the Ahavat Yisrael/ hating thread in another
>direction - more machshava related.

While I'm in favor in discussing the machshava as well, I think there is
more value to be had in first clarifying the practical aspect.

>When we talk about Ahava, Rav Dessler and many others before him make it
>clear that there are 2 kinds of Ahava.
>
>a) I love a banana
>b) I love Hashem.
>
>Both use the same verb, but with regard to the banana, "I" am the focus of
>the love. It is a type of self-love. Loving Hashem, OTOH, is something
>totally different it is "Ko'ach HaNetina" the potential force of giving/
>the
>will to give... <SNIP>
>...
>It teaches us that Ahava is something completely different from the
>every-day colloquial usage of the word love, le'ehov.
>
>My question was whether it's possible that when the term hate comes up, it
>also has several meanings and intentions.  From what I've been reading, it
>appears so.
>
>There is the regular hate: "I hate bananas; I hate beans; I hate
>terrorists".  All these hates are based on self: what I like; what I
>suffer
>from. They are external manifestations of our most basic needs and fears.
>They are the opposite of the self-interest of loving a banana discussed
>above.

It's true that you hear "hate" being applied to things like food, but I
never understood it. I try to use the terminology "I strongly dislike" as I
feel that it gives the right mindset.

>When discussing a Sonei that one is supposed to help, we see some elements
>of this issue.  The Sonei is someone you hate, yet you are supposed to
>assist him, which is a manifestation of Ahava, an aspect of Ahavat Hashem.

But not a personal ahava; rather I'll do this in order to keep the Mitzvos
of Hashem whom I love.

<SNIP>
>
>But the pasuk, and Tosefot in Pesachim note that if we don't have anything
>to do with this Sonei, and note that the Sonei is defined by everyone
>(incl.
>the Mishna Berura) as someone who [by you personally?] was told off and
>shown the error of his ways, and he continued them.  The hatred here is
>not
>b/c "you don't like him".  It is something else.  And Tosefot says that if
>you were to turn you back on him, this would increase Sin'a -- AND THIS IS
>UNACCEPTABLE!!!  If we were talking about regular hate, this sentence
>would
>not make sense!

Why? You hate this person because he is slapping your Father. He then hates
you based on the dictum "K'mayim ponim al ponim". You, in turn, will now
acquire a hatred for him merely because he hates you, based on the same
dictum. This is not allowed, as one is not allowed to hate someone because
he is hated. In order to stop this from occurring, the Torah commanded you
to do an act of chessed, thus keeping your hatred limited to only the Torah
mandated one. This is what Tosfos says, and it makes eminent sense. Kindly
explain your difficulty. 

>But, if the Sin'a here is, as many sources note, an educational device; a
>way to make it clear to the transgressor how far he has moved off the
>path,
>then things come together.  You make it clear that you disaprove of his
>actions, but as you are Oheiv Yisrael, in the higher level of the concept,
>and b/c you are not allowed to Lisno Achicha Bil'Vavcha, you therefore aid
>him/his donkey when they need it.

This isn't correct. The hatred isn't an "educational device", it is a bona
fide hatred. (Tehilim 139:21-2) says 'I hate those who hate You and I will
fight against those who rebel against You and I hate them with pure hatred.
(Translation courtesy of RDE) No hint of educational anger. And someone that
you are mandated to hate doesn't full under the rubric of "Achicha", so I
fail to see the connection.

>I would like to finish with the thought that insulting the other is a
>human condition.  Hashem does not "get insulted".  The fact is that Hashem
>appears not to mind if people are Ovrei Aveira even and including Avodah
Zara --
>if they express Ahavat Yisrael to ALL members of Yisrael, and live their
>lives as one nation.  The Nach and Midreshei Chazal discuss this in many
cases,
>and not just the famous one at the time of Omri.

This is utterly not true! Chazal clearly say, "Kol h'omeir sh'hakodesh
borchu vadrin, vadrin al chayov". Quite clearly, Hashem does seem to mind if
people do aveiros. Unity of Klal Yisroel is a virtue, and it does protect by
a milchama, but this is no excuse for aveiros and Chazal use harsh language
(see above) for people who excuse aveiros.

As well, it's factually incorrect to present only unbiased ahavas Yisroel as
a virtue that protects from danger. In the beginning of parshas Pinchos we
find that Hashem was ready to wipe out Klal Yisroel - a real danger - and
only the act of Pinchos saved them. Although Pinchos had true ahavas
yisroel, that is not how his action was viewed by most of Klal Yisreol, who
didn't know in how much danger they were. Pinchos was rewarded with "brisi
Sholom", showing us how our un-halachically-informed perceptions of actions
are not always the best barometer. While Pinchos' actions are reserved for
special people, true kanoim, the lesson isn't. Not giving tochocha, etc.,
things that the Torah mandates for ALL Jews, exposes Klal Yisroel to great
danger.   

>So, perhaps, instead of taking Sin'a down to its lowest level, we should
>take Ahava up to its highest.

As I've shown above, true Ahavas Yisroel consists of also being concerned
with their relationship with their Father in Heaven and making sure His
happy with them as well. Not keeping His Mitzvos (discussed above) sunders
this relationship.

KT,
MSS

>There is an additional benefit. The Acharonim argue about the status of a
>Ben Pekuah's milk; is it Chalav Shechuta and therefore Pareve or is it
>Chalav of a "mother", an Eim (as in Lo SeVuShel BeChalav Imo) and therefore
>"normal" milk? At least the ShaAr HaMelech and R Akiva Eiger consider BP
>milk to be pareve.
>
>I believe that Rabbi Moshe Heinemann was once toying with the notion of
>setting up a Ben Pekuah Kosher herd for meat production. Has anyone heard of
>such a thing?

This could be done only on a deserted island where there is NO 
possibility whatsoever
of mating a Ben Pekuah herd with "normal" cows [see Aruch haShulchan YD 13 #12
"oto ha'vlad ein la takana b'shechita "  and Aruch haShulchan YD 13 # 15]

[From a post I had on this topic on another group]

Re: mixing meat of a Ben Pekuah with milk:

a) "tzarich iyun" (needs further examination) [R. Akiva Eiger]
b) Only due to SAFEK (doubt) may it be forbidden (Meshivat Nefesh YD]
c) Nodah B'Yehuda: prohibited


Although according to Torah law this animal when grown
doesn't require shechita (Yoreh Deah 13:2) Chazal prohibited this
and even in the case of mating a male *ben pekuah* with a female *ben
[bat] pekuah* (YD 13:4) the offspring of which wouldn't have the halachic
category of meat according to Toraitic law.

BTW a more intriguing possibility would be a *ben pekuah* found in a
*chaya* (deer, or other kosher wild animal YD 87:3). Eating a CHAYA with
milk is only a rabbinic prohibition. But if one could mate a male ben
pekuah of a chaya with a female ben (bat) pekuah of a chaya, the offspring
wouldn't even be prohibited rabbinically (as meat) especially if this
"meat" were then fried in butter made from deer milk and cooked by solar
heat.

But kids, don't do this at home :-)
KT

Josh






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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 104
***************************************

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..."