Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 144

Wed, 21 Jul 2010

• 1. Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (M Cohen)
• 2. Re: Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Kelayim - Holy or Evil? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. post chatzot learning (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 5. Re: Kilayim - Holy or Evil? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. Re: Kilayim - Holy or Evil? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: sevara vs. psak (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] kosher cabbage (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Bein hashemashot: A Reevaluation of the Texts Part III (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: kosher cabbage (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: kosher cabbage (Ben Waxman)
• 12. kosher cabbage (Eli Turkel)
• 13. ee itmar hachi itmar (Eli Turkel)
• 14. minhagei 9 av (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: [Areivim] kosher cabbage (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: minhagei 9 av (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: minhagei 9 av (Micha Berger)

Kelayim in the bigdai kahuna

similar to an avaira lishmah?

R' Micha Berger asked:

> So, what is it -- is kelayim a negative, or is it altogether the
> reverse: too positive for daily use? And what does that say about
> the Torah's attitude WRT "tampering" with the order of nature?

I never learned mishnayos Kilayim, and this thread is way above my head,
but I can't help asking: Isn't kilayim a classic chok? Are you sure you
(plural) want to put so much effort into this question, when you've already
seen its self-contradictory nature?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Earn a Master Certificate
In Software Testing 100% Online & Prepare for ISTQB&#174 Certification.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c436ee2a08862f2fd6st04vuc

A few hours ago, I sent in a post suggesting this we shouldn't bother trying to understand chukim.

I apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. Of *course* this sort of learning is important!

Even if a *full* understanding is beyond reach, there is certainly much
value in a partial understanding, and even in the *attempt* at
understanding, regardless of how much we actually accomplish.

Moderators: If that post hasn't been sent out yet, please retract it. Otherwise, this can be a followup. Thanks.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Free Credit Score
A bad credit score is below 598. Click here to see yours for $0. Checking won't affect your score. By Experian&#174
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c43a2161cbd42e7e07st03vuc

i wonder about what heterim there are to liberalize tora learning of a 
non-mourning variety  post  chatzot on 9 av  . now chabad has  a minhag to 
say  Chitas daily, and they do so post  chatzot , but  not  learning 
Rambam.  i wonder  if maybe the saying of  Chitas is  a 'saying' rather 
than a learning  [ in the sense that they are noheig to  say pirkei avos [ 
rather than learn it  ie those who are not  fluent in teh  meaning of 
pirkeiavos  read it  on shabbos as their chiyuv, with no inyan to have a 
peirush in order to understand it]. 

so i wonder if  anyone knows if the  saying  of  Chitas is considered 
tfila,  or  seder hayom like  korbanos ; or , if there is a tzad leheter 
to  'learn' Chitas in the pm.   do  other  communities  liberalize  tora 
study post  chatzot?    [ i thought  the general custom is  daf yomi  just 
after  the fast ends....] 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100719/f975fee5/attachment-0001.htm>

RMicha Berger writes:
> I think most of us have the impression, perhaps correctly, that kelayim
> are evil, which is why it's assur to make or use them.
> To justify this opinion, R' Shimon ben Elazaqr defines shaatnez as
> "naluz umeiliz es Aviv shebashayim alav." (Mishnah Kelayim 9:8, 9:5
> in the Vilna ed Y-mi)
(snip)
>OTOH, all through Mes' Kelayim, the prohibition is "maqdish" the
>resulting combination. The lashon implies that the problem is that
>mixtures of species or of shaatnez is too much for this world.

>And the avneit is made from shaatnez (sheish and techeiles) as was the
>kohein gadol's kusones tashbeitz.

>So, what is it -- is kelayim a negative, or is it altogether the reverse:
>too positive for daily use? And what does that say about the Torah's
>attitude WRT "tampering" with the order of nature?

Although the avneit is germane to the question, the use of the verb
kuf-daled-shin is not. It is never used in conjunction with shatnez,
nor for that matter with harba'a, kilei z'ra'im or harkava. It is
used exclusively regarding kilei hakerem, and means exclusively that
the resulting crops are asur b'hana'a. Thus, RZev Sero is correct in
his statement that "the translation of the word in that context is
'separated,' i.e. you are separated from it and must not have anything
to do with it."

EMT      

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 05:52:17AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: Although the avneit is germane to the question, the use of the verb
: kuf-daled-shin is not. It is never used in conjunction with shatnez,
: nor for that matter with harba'a, kilei z'ra'im or harkava. It is
: used exclusively regarding kilei hakerem, and means exclusively that
: the resulting crops are asur b'hana'a...

I didn't ask about shaatnez, I asked about kelayim in general.

Yes, I took it for granted that if the notion that mixing kelayim was
bad was true for zeraim, beheimos and shaatnez, it woudl be true
for kerem. Not that we use the same term for a mixture that is avoided
because it's evil and one that's avoided because it's for qedushah only.
I never considered the possibility the answers would differ depending upon
type of kelayim. Which is why my followup question was:
:>                            And what does that say about the Torah's
:> attitude WRT "tampering" with the order of nature?

Again, my presumption of a single meta-question.

It was a presumption, by which I mean, the alternative never crossed my
mind that I would ask and have an answer for why they should be similar
in motive. So I don't have a justification for it. But now that the topic
is raised...

In leshon haTanakh we have cases of /q-d-sh/ meaning separated in a sense
other than holiness. Do we find this in other places in leshon chazal?
RZS's citation from Qidushin 56b that "pen tuqdash" WRT kela'ei kerem
is "pen tuqad eish" is Chizqiyah's derashah of a pasuq. It does not
rule out qedushah; it rules out pidyon.

Admittedly RZS's read is more straightforward. However, I wish to argue
(from my own ignorance, not some encyclopedic knowledge of worse usage)
that the usage of the shoresh /q-d-sh/ was limited to refering to
sanctity by Chazal's day. Do chazal ever call a qedeishah by that term,
except when discussing a pasuq? The times I encountered the subject,
the term used for someone who violates "lo sihyeh qedeishah" is "zonah"
(eg Qidushin 41a). If Chazal thought that kela'ei kerem were "tuqad eish"
for reasons other than qedushah, I don't think they would have used what
appears to be archaic usage, rather than just "assur benaah". Discussions
of chameitz appear to parallel; issur hanaah rather than "omeid leva'eir"
are the norm.

Also, I would wonder why they would assume we learn dinim from
kelayei kerem to zera and to shaatnez (see Y-mi 1:1, 1a) if they were
diametrically opposite in motivation.

Again, I just took it for granted that the issurim for mixtures that used
the same term for mixture were all subtypes of a single concept. I didn't
get into this thinking I had some major justification for the notion.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:16:12PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> The problem you raise is the lumping together of one conclusion reached by
>> two different means as a single pool of votes. For this to be a problem,
>> you would have to assume that acharei rabim lehatos means among sevaros,
>> rather than among pesaqim.

> A naive reading of the gemara indicates that it does mean the
> majority of sevaros. See Sanhedrin 34a; the drasha doesn't indicate
> any restriction to dinei nefashos, and see Ramabm H. Sanhedrin 10:5.

I think you meant to say the sevara that received the majority
of dayanim. (As opposed to the pesaq that had the most supporting
sevaros.) To me (after loojing at the Shakh) it looked like a third
possibility...

The pesaq and sevara combined have to get a majority, not either alone.
E.g. Two people who believe X, but one is machmir and the other also
believes in mitigating factor Y and is meiqil would not count together
as two votes for X.

> OTOH Shach HM 25 SK 19 subsection 2 emends the text(!) in order to avoid
> this conclusion.

I noted from the Shakh that the Rambam's shitah may be related to his
believe that pesaq is about finding emes. As he puts it, how can you
count both if one of them is certainly wrong? However, those who take
a more literal approach to eilu va'eilu don't need to assert that one
being right means the other is wrong.

Also, I noticed by looking at the Shakh... I'm not sure "2 miqra'os" is
the same as "2 sevaros". It looks to be more fundamental -- 2 issurim.
The Shakh's example of "miqra achas" is whether or not the nidon is oveir
"lo sirtzach". Perhaps even in an unmodified version of the Rambam,
finding two different understandings of the same issur would count
together.

Last, we're assuming that a rule WRT giving a particlar person a
particular onesh would apply to voting to resolve a machloqes in setting
the law.

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:41:50PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> you are discussing the case where rov hold X over Y, but only a
>> mi'ut hold X because of sevara A and only a mi'ut hold X because of
>> sevara B. If the vote were on sevaros, we would say that neither A nor
>> B should become din, and therefore lemaaseh we shoul do Y. However:
>> (1) the vote is on outcomes...                   -- a dayan could hold
>> X because maybe-A and if not, maybe-B ... and all the other complicated
>> ways multiple reasons come together to convince someone. The vote
>> couldn't be about who holds which sevara because that's uncountable.

> (a) You have presented no evidence that voting for sevaros would be
> uncountable...

I meant that as a consequence of the previous line.

People reach conclusions from a multiplicity of reasons. And sometimes it's
80% this and 20% that. For that matter, there are times when the dayan will
consciously think it's primarily one factor, but his emotions were really
swayed by the other. That is why I don't think the counting of who
believes which sevara is really doable.

> (b) It is true that voting is about the outcome of a particular case.
> The problem is precedent: in order for a case to become a precedent we
> need to be able to generalize it, and that requires reasoning by analogy,
> and that requires sevara.

Then you are saying you agree with the Shakh's reading?

> Paradoxes can sometimes result.

As they can from ein adam meisim atzmo rasha and palginan dibura. Just
saying, this isn't a unique feature.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From Areivim:

R'ZS:
> Hmm.  It's halacha leMoshe miSinai that sfek orlah in chutz la'aretz
> is muttar; does it matter where the fruit came from?  And what about
> fruit from chu"l imported into EY?

I might be remembering incorrectly, but I think I just saw in the Piskei
Chazon Ish (which can be found at the back of some Kitzur Shulchan Aruchs
[Or is it Kitzurei Shulchan Aruch?]) that any food from EY is chayav in
all T/M/Orlah etc. even if the fruit itself is outside the land currently.

Kol Tuv,
Liron

Please see http://tinyurl.com/335zb64  for the entire article.

Bein hashemashot: A Reevaluation of the Texts Part III
by: Dr. William Gewirtz

This is the third of four posts, from a draft of a forthcoming 
monograph by Dr. William Gewirtz that addresses the period of bein 
hashemashot, the most fundamental area of dispute in the area of 
zemanim. What is proposed is an astronomically accurate hybrid 
position between the diametrically opposed conceptual views of the 
geonim and Rabbeinu Tam. That position justifies, to varying degrees, 
the practice of countless generations of European Jewry that started 
Shabbat well after sunset on Friday evening. Though often ignored in 
modern times, practical equivalents of this hybrid position have had 
major adherents throughout the generations. Our goal is to 
demonstrate that such a position is not just plausible, but in fact 
the preferred reading of the gemara in Shabbat, the primary text 
concerning bein hashemashot.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100721/eb15ba0d/attachment-0001.htm>

At the suggestion of one of the areivim moderators I am posting this 
to Avodah. YL

At 10:06 AM 7/21/2010, Eli Turkel wrote:
><<Do you kosher your own meat and poultry?  I certainly do not, yet it
>is a mitzva. >>
>
>Is there any mitzva to kasher meat? It is necessary (ie a mattir) but that
>doesnt mean one did a mitzva. There certainly is no bracha over
>kashering meat while there are berachot over separating terumah and maaser

I really do not know about kashering meat, but there are mitzvos that 
one does not make a bracha on. Tzadakah is one comes to 
mind.  Hachnosos Orchim is another mitzva that one does not make a 
bracha on. I am sure that there are others that people can come up with.

Indeed, I would be interested in a list of mitzvos that have no 
bracha associated with them.

Settling in EY is a mitzva. Is there a bracha one makes? I really do not know.

Is repairing the parshios in tefillin or a mezuzah a mitzva? I have 
seen my sofer do this without making a bracha.  He does say something 
like L'shem mitzvos tefillin when he repairs a broken letter.

YL




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100721/78ce2260/attachment-0001.htm>

It has been a long time since I saw the source, but there are rules of when
you make a bracha on a mitzvah. If the mitzva is dependent on another
person, then one does not make a bracha. Therefore one doesn't make a
bracha on giving tzedaqa.

The lack of a bracha does not prove that something is not a mitzva, but the making of a bracha does.

Repairing tefillin is probably a heksher miztva, not a mitzva in of itself. 

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Prof. Levine 

  I really do not know about kashering meat, but there are mitzvos that one
  does not make a bracha on. Tzadakah is one comes to mind.  Hachnosos
  Orchim is another mitzva that one does not make a bracha on. I am sure
  that there are others that people can come up with. 

  Indeed, I would be interested in a list of mitzvos that have no bracha associated with them. 

  Settling in EY is a mitzva. Is there a bracha one makes? I really do not know. 

  Is repairing the parshios in tefillin or a mezuzah a mitzva? I have seen
  my sofer do this without making a bracha.  He does say something like
  L'shem mitzvos tefillin when he repairs a broken letter. 

  YL







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


  _______________________________________________
  Avodah mailing list
  Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
  http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100721/7e408a6c/attachment-0001.htm>

Certainly not every mitzva has a beracha and mefarshim discuss why.
In general mitzvot between people dont have a bracha as it is dependent
on someone else.
I dont know why setlling in EY does not have a bracha according to the Ramban.

Again fixing tefillin and tzizit requires kavanah but that doesnt make
it into a mitzvah similarly for baking matza. It is the eating of
matzah and the wearing
of tefillin and tzizit that is the mitzvah. Everything else is a preparation and
is a hechsher mitzvah but not a mitzvah even though it requires kavannah

Eli Turkel

I am now learning a sugya in shabbat (44) and twice in a row the
gemara quotes an amora
and then says it is impossible because of a beraita and then rephrases the amora
"ee itmar hachi itmar"
literally if he indeed said something this is what he said

To me it sounds like their was a mesorah which turned out to be wrong.
The gemara then without a source but based on logic changes the quotation to
conform with the known halacha

Somehow I find this not completely satisfying.
Any better translations?

-- 
Eli Turkel

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/devarim/are.html 

is  any group other  than L  , who throw beans during the proceedings , 
and who make  siyumim daily [including  9 av to my knowledge], doing 
something  similar  to decrease  mourning?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100721/21a9f424/attachment-0001.htm>

Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>>From Areivim:
> 
> R'ZS:
>> Hmm.  It's halacha leMoshe miSinai that sfek orlah in chutz la'aretz
>> is muttar; does it matter where the fruit came from?  And what about
>> fruit from chu"l imported into EY?
> 
> I might be remembering incorrectly, but I think I just saw in the Piskei
> Chazon Ish (which can be found at the back of some Kitzur Shulchan Aruchs
> [Or is it Kitzurei Shulchan Aruch?]) that any food from EY is chayav in
> all T/M/Orlah etc. even if the fruit itself is outside the land currently.

Trumos and maasros, for sure.  And *all* fruit is subject to orlah,
regardless of where it's from.   The question is whether the rule that
sfek orlah is assur in EY and muttar in chu"l depends on where the
fruit was grown, or where the person making the determination is
standing.  I don't see any implication of an answer in the psak you
quote.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> 
> _http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/devarim/are.html_
> 
> is  any group other than L, who throw beans during the proceedings

Beans?!  Where do beans come from?  The minhag is to throw "berelach"
(I don't know the English name); perhaps someone misread this as
"beblach"!

As you can see in the article, it was a very common minhag in White
Russia and the Ukraine; if you want to know who still does it you
should probably look at communities from those countries.  Since the
Mishne Burura disapproves of it, you should exclude those communities
who take him as a posek achron. 


> and who make  siyumim daily [including  9 av to my knowledge]

This is a modern minhag L, introduced by the LR in the late '70s
or early '80s.  On 9 Av the siyum is on Moed Katan, which is one of
the gemaras one may learn on that day. 


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 01:50:49PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Beans?!  Where do beans come from?  The minhag is to throw "berelach"
> (I don't know the English name); perhaps someone misread this as
> "beblach"!

Which is weird, because the whole point is the name. It's a reference
to Eikhah 3:10, "Dov oreiv hu li..." Dov = ber, thus throwing berelach
(which could be taken as "little bears") as a reminder of an enemy
bursting from ambush?

That said, I personally feel the minhag is too fun for kids to be in the
spirit of the day, and minhagim in which chldren annoy adults aren't a
great idea altogether (such as tying tallisos together on Simchas Torah).

As for the translation: it's a seed not that different than an acorn or
filbert, no?

>> and who make  siyumim daily [including  9 av to my knowledge]
>
> This is a modern minhag L, introduced by the LR in the late '70s
> or early '80s.  On 9 Av the siyum is on Moed Katan, which is one of
> the gemaras one may learn on that day. 

In Camp Munk, they made sure to have one night without a siyum. R' Yechiel
Aryeh ("Michael") Munk z"l (the camp's founder and father of the R's Munk
who ran the camp in my day, author of ArtScroll's seifer on the Alef-Beis,
student of Slabodka, PhD from U of Wurzberg, fought anti-shechitah laws,
founder of Cong Henden Adass, principal of BY of Boro Park, DP camp
volunteer, etc, etc, etc...) justified the frequent use of siyumim to
offer fleishig dinners. After all, he said, what can better heal the
damage of sin'as chinam than people joining together to celebrate another
Jew's completion of a seifer?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 144
***************************************

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..."