Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 057

Wednesday, July 3 2002

• Amazing Piaczesner, Personal Update
• Omer question
• RE: The MB and psaq
• The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• Re: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• The MB and psaq
• RE: Instinct for Moral Behavior
• Re: Halacha and Midrash
• Re: mesorah
• Tur organization
• Hallel on Pesach
• RE: The MB and psaq
• The MB and psaq
• Re: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• Re: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• About sturgeon

I had written:
>A correspondent noted to me last week that in the Bnei Machashava Tova the
>Piascezner justifies those whom the Ra'avad defends as having conceived G-d
>in bodily form as having done so in order to facilitate kavanah in tefilah
>- the P. says that if all else fails, it is still permissible to visualize
>Hashem as a merciful father sitting on a throne and one supplicating before
>Him , in order to focus properly during davening (p. 19)!!!

One correspondent wrote back to me:
>What would Rav Zalesnik have to say about you quoting such things?

Referring to my sainted third year Beis Medrash rebbe zt"l - I'm not sure
what he would say!

Another wrote:
>Wow!  Can I put an icon on my shtender too?

Which actually brings us to the question of whether Chassidus in general
has a component of "hisgashmus" - not in terms of HKB"H necessarily, but,
after all, a Rebbe is a form of an icon - I wonder how many Chassidim
are instructed to envisage their Rebbe as a tool for kavanna - and many
of the Chassidic accoutrements are certainly tools to make Avodah more
nefesh-intensive. PErhaps some of this explains the success of Chassidus.

Which, I think, relates directly to the following correspondent's profound
insight: >I was touched by this subject. I have often found myself
trying >explicitly to wipe out all such thoughts on the assumption that
any >attempt to characterize Hashem in this way diminishes His greatness.
It >is comforting to know this is not so terrible, and I'm sure it will
>actually help me elevate my relationship to/with Him by relieving a
little >of that guilt. I think a lot of people "feel" Hashem by davke
relating in >a personal way as they would to a relative or friend.
Others of us find >it very comforting to "know" Hashem davke by seeing
Him as above any known >form or human characteristic. I have found from
my very personal >perspective that I have moved (descended?) a bit from
camp 2 to camp 1 >davke because I have begun to see a clear reflection
of Hashem in those >tsaddikim I have had the privilege of meeting and
being around...

Another correspondent wrote:
>Lehavdil LEH, I have had an ongoing conversation with a very bright and very
>pious Catholic woman (who studies Tanach in the original and comes up with
>amazing gematrios, which she does lightning speed in her head - don't ask!)
>about the different shitos as to whether Xtianity is avodah zarah.  She has
>always objected to the objection that one person of the triune understanding
>of G-d in Xtianity (the son) is reprehensible to mainstream Judaism because
>we allow no possibility of hagshama.

>Her argument is frightenlingly similar:  Klal Yisrael was zocheh to a more
>refined and accurate understanding (if humans can be said to understand
>anything about Elokus) of the nature of HKBH.  The umos haolam needed
>something that would make G-d immediate enough to  relate  to.  The physical
>imagery of J made that happen, and opened the door to relating to a single
>G-d.

Which is a very interesting insight into why HKB"H, from our, Ashkenazic, 
perspective, allowed shittuf for non-Jews.

Another correspondent noted that there really is backing for the 
Piaczesner, at least to a certain extent, in the anthropomorphic qualities 
of nevu'os that are the very crux of the Ra'avad's argument:
>If the Neveim and the Torah anthropomorphosize, the Kaviyochel, obstensibly
>to help us relate to Hashem, Lesaber es HaOzen, so why can't we? Would the
>Rambam object? He might think less of your intelect (for needing this help),
>but not object, as long as you keep in mind that the visualization is not
>the emes, and is only a tool.

And, of course, we still cannot mitigate the potential pitfalls, as yet 
another correspondent wrote:
>One danger in attributing earthly qualities to G-d in order to
>facilitate Kavanah is that visualization becomes relative to
>one's own particular bias.

>I would, for instance visualize G-d to look like my uncle Seymour.
>Others may pick George Burns as their visual image! Some, OTOH, might
>pick the image depicted on the Sistine Chapel. But even more
>dangerous is the image becoming G-d Himself!  Isn't this a form of
>Avodah Zarah?

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

P.S. As many of you know, Beis Medrash Harav Shmuel Yaakov will not be
continuing at IDT next academic year. There are some efforts to re-create
the program - a unique one! - elsewhere, but nothing definite has yet come
to fruition. This summer, in the meantime, I am editing Mishnayos Terumos
for Artscroll/Mesorah (which B"H entails much Yerushalmi work!) and doing
some teaching at Ohr Somayach here in Monsey. I did send off, B"H, the
edited manuscript of my sefer on Shoftim to the publishers recently, but
Feldheim is interested in reprinting the out-of-print 'The Contemporary
Eruv" - as I have told you already - so I have to write some addenda and
corrigenda for that as well. Thus, I am somewhat busy, so please forgive
me if I do not get around to e-mail in as timely a fashion as usual!

I've received a couple of conflicting answers to this shaila, so I
figured I'd throw it out to the Avodah/Areivim chevra.

A guy counting sefira forgets to count on a Thursday night. He doesn't
realize he has forgotten, and in his community they bring in Shabbos
early at 7PM. He says Kabalas Shabbos, and suddenly realizes he forgot
to count the night before. Can he count without a bracha for that day,
and then proceed to count later that evening with a bracha, or does the
fact that he has already has brought in Shabbos negate the possibility
of him counting without a bracha for the previous night he missed?
Finally, if he also davened maariv, and then remembered he didn't count,
and it still is before shkia, would that change the answer?

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

From: Seth Mandel [mailto:sethm37@hotmail.com]
> The practice of reading introductions seems to be a lost art. 
<snip>
> I have written an explanation to the SA that is sufficient in my 
> opinion... and explained each din in the SA with its reasons and logic from 
> the g'moro and posqim... and in each matter where there are disagreements 
> among the posqim I have presented the conclusions of the acharonim (gathered 
> from the BaH, the D'risha, the Elya Rabba, the G'Ro the P'ri M'godim...)"
> Notice that nowhere does he mention presenting his conclusion about the 
> halokho as one of his intentions.  

I reviewed the introduction of the Shach last night. The peirush was
written when he was 24 and he wrote that he didn't intend to pasken, just
to rigorously analyze each din so that a moreh hora'a could consider
his arguments and decide whatever the latter decides. Nevertheless,
the Shach became a classic sefer psak on YD.

How would you differentiate the Shach from the MB? Does anyone know
whether the Shach was actively paskening she'elos at that age? (I looked
at the haskamos to the Shach and one wasn't clear as to whether the
Shach or his father was on a beis din.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>R' Sholom Simon wrote <<< There are plenty (tons) of places where the
>MB does make a psaq. He paskens all over the place... So while in
>the introduction he claims he is not -- he most certainly is! So the
>MB paskens. How are we, then, not supposed to view it as something that
>can legitimately be followed? >>>

>My understanding is that the Chofetz Chayim did not yet have semicha
>when he wrote the Mishnah Berurah. This makes it likely (or at least
>possible) that his intention was not to pasken for anyone...

Whether he had smicha or not, whether he intended to pasken or not . . .

isn't it true that it sure _looks_ like he intended to pasken?

Note: I am familiar mostly only the M'B on hilchos shabbos -- but it
sure _looks_ like he was paskening. Doesn't it?

-- Sholom

R. Moshe Feldman: <I reviewed the introduction of the Shach last night.
The peirush was written when he was 24 and he wrote that he didn't intend
to pasken, just to rigorously analyze each din so that a moreh hora'a
could consider his arguments and decide whatever the latter decides.
Nevertheless, the Shach became a classic sefer psak on YD. How would
you differentiate the Shach from the MB?>

To me the difference is clear. In Europe, as many other posters have
written, a t'shuva became accepted not necessarily because of the name
of the author, but because of the strength of his reasoning and his
handling of the sources. The Rov of the community would pasken, not the
book; the ShaCh was NOT a book of psaq, but rabbonim always consulted
it in paskening. The ShaCh was accepted exactly as the author intended,
to quote you: "so that a moreh hora'a could consider his arguments..."

The MB was not rigorously analyzing each din for a moreh hora'ah, but, as
he states, for people who don't have the time or cannot learn through the
Tur, the BY, the Darkhei Moshe, and the acharonim. Any rov fit to pasken
would do those things, and not rely on the MB -- or, for that matter,
on the AhS. As I said, I believe that the CC is getting 'ogmas nefesh,
not from the fact that everyone uses his book, for which he is getting
incalculable s'khar, but from the fact that misguided rabbonim think
they can pasken halokho from his book, a purpose for which he never
intended it.

Seth Mandel

From: Seth Mandel [mailto:sethm37@hotmail.com]
> The MB was not rigorously analyzing each din for a moreh 
> hora'ah, but, as he 
> states, for people who don't have the time or cannot learn 
> through the Tur, 
> the BY, the Darkhei Moshe, and the acharonim.  Any rov fit to 
> pasken would 
> do those things, and not rely on the MB -- or, for that 
> matter, on the AhS. 

1. Wasn't the AhS rigorously analyzing each din for a moreh hora'ah?

2. Of course a rav shouldn't just open a MB and pasken. But should
he go through the sugyah and then say "the MB felt that the halacha is
like X so this carries a lot of weight with me" (just as he would say,
"the Shach...carries a lot of weight with me")?

3. Is there any sefer that a rav could just read and pasken?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>Someone asked me offlist whether the publication of Shmiras Halashon and 
>Ahavas Chesed would imply that he did intend to pasken. I would answer (but 
>invite public comment, as I have no proof) that those works were meant to 
>m'orer people to learn the issues, but were not meant as definitive psak.

I find it hard to believe that Shemiras HaLashon and Ahavas Chesed were
intended only to be me'orer issues and not pasken halachah. The entire
style is one of stating the halachah! This does not mean that the author
intended his book to be the final word on the matter. But I can't imagine
that someone with that much forethought would write books with the stated
halachah with the intention of them not being for pesak halachah.

Gil Student

R. Moshe Feldman: <1. Wasn't the AhS rigorously analyzing each din for
a moreh hora'ah?>

Read his introduction for what he thought he was doing.

<2. Of course a rav shouldn't just open a MB and pasken. But should
he go through the sugyah and then say "the MB felt that the halacha is
like X so this carries a lot of weight with me" (just as he would say,
"the Shach...carries a lot of weight with me")?>

The CC never intended for rabbonim to use the MB, and in many cases what
people assume is the 'psaq' of the MB was not that in the eyes of the
CC, who did not follow many of the MB's supposed psaqim. Only in a small
number of cases can any rational person regard what the MB says as the
CC's psaq, and in such cases what you suggest would indeed be reasonable.
However, to know which cases those are, you have to learn through the
Tur, the BY, the acharonim, etc. to understand where the MB is actually
paskening, so it doesn't make difference in terms of the rov's obligation.

<3. Is there any sefer that a rav could just read and pasken?>

Not really. As RYBS used to say, the job of the rov is not supposed to be
an index/table of contents to the SA. His job is to understand the halokho
and apply it. However, if a person were to read the SA/R'mo and pasken
from them, he is at least not contravening the intention of the authors.

Do you give kovod to a talmid chochom -- including the CC -- by
contravening his words?

Seth Mandel

From: Seth Mandel [mailto:sethm37@hotmail.com]
> and in many cases what 
> people assume is the 'psaq' of the MB was not that in the eyes of the CC, 
> who did not follow many of the MB's supposed psaqim.  

1. Could you give some examples where the CC did not follow the MB's
supposed psakim?

2. Does it make sense to say that the CC is paskening in Biur Halachah on
345:7 (dealing with eruvin in large cities, which we have been discussing
on Areivim), when he says "kol y'rei shamayim b'vadai yesh l'hachamir
l'atzmo?" Can one determine from the language the CC uses as to whether
he is just summarizing or paskening?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
:My understanding is that the Chofetz Chayim did not yet have semicha
:when he wrote the Mishnah Berurah. This makes it likely (or at least
:possible) that his intention was not to pasken for anyone...

I find it very hard to accept that the lack of semicha (which, the story
goes, he only got when he needed it for government purposes related to
passport/visa something or other) would have influenced the CC's derech
halimud/pesak.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> The analogy is quite good. The Kuzari (echoing Plato) points out that
> even a band of thieves has a form of morality. It is the particular
> implementation of morality that must be taught.

Good point.

I was refering to an absolute morality -- the kuzari (IMO) is referring
to a relative morality.

Akiva

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 04:16:18PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
:> All of the above begs the more fundamental question, which came first
:> the Halachah or the Midrash?

: R'Wolpoe's fundamental question ...

: What makes the Disputation at Barcelona relevant to the discussion
: at hand, I think, is the way the Ramban treated midrash. One infers
: from the Disputation (and other historical materials) that midrashic
: storytelling was a major -- perhaps the major -- means by which Jews
: of that time and place understood Torah, including halacha...

Woah Nelly!

First, RRW and I were discussing derashah, hemeneutics, not aggadic
stories.

Second, the connection between stories and metaphors and halachah is
minimal. The mashal is an aggadic tool, not a halachic one. Although
there are times where Chazal presume that the aggadic story wouldn't
have a hero violate halachah, so tangentially a halachic conclusion can
be conveyed by the story. (Thus my "minimal" rather than "none".)

If you recieved a different impression from the Ramban's viku'ach,
perhaps we should be discussing what gave you that impression rather
than accept this idea as a given.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 08:36:43AM +0200, S Goldstein quotes RDF and
replies:
:> Psak is psak. But we're still free -- even obligated -- to think about
:> the issues implicated by psak through whatever intellectual tools that
:> promote emes. Emes is broader and more elusive.
...

: Where does the Ramban explain halacha as not being definitive emes?
: It seems to me very non-Brisk to have a hashkafa against halacha.

Some disjoint thoughts:

1- I am perfectly happy being non-Brisk.

2- I would say it is quite Brisk to say halachah is determined only by
the halachic process, regardless of other explorations of truth. Our
discussions here of R' Chaim's position on Radziner techeiles as a case
in point.

3- the bas qol tells us that divrei E-lokim chaim is a broader concept
than halachic pesaq. Pisqei Beis Shammai are emes without being halachah.
Would we then not be able to derive aggadic points from them?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
: Efshar this is a very deep statement. Perhaps because ribis isn't dinei
: mamunos, but rather a din of "achicha".

The raya is that it's not subject to mechila. If two people agree to
virtually anything, they can write an enforceable shetar on it which is
governed by CM. Except ribis; machlokes if even the keren can be paid.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>>> The reasons given by Chazal for not saying (the complete) Hallel
after the first day(s) of Pesach, as contrasted with Succot, seem
problematic. Why should the lack of a different number of holiday
sacrafices (olot) on the days of Pesach lead to a diminshed joy and a
diminished need to say shira?<<<

An additional hesber (to the one offered in vol. 9 # 15 that the # of
korbanos is a siman to each day being an independent mechayev of simcha)
is given by Netziv in last week's parsha. The mechayev of hallel is the
shem chag. Netziv is medayek that by Pesach only the first day is called
chag (28:16); by Sukkot all 7 days are called chag (29:12).

(It makes for a very difficult reading of the gemara in archin, which
he tries to address).

-Chaim

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> I find it hard to believe that Shemiras HaLashon and Ahavas 
> Chesed were
> intended only to be me'orer issues and not pasken halachah. The entire
> style is one of stating the halachah! 

Does the style differ from that of the MB?  If you accept RSM's contention
that the MB was not meant to be psak halacha, should these works be any
different?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I once discussed this issue with Rav Yosef Soleveitchik - son of Rav Aaron
and he pointed out the following Biur Halacha (688:5) "Nevertheless I
request from the reader not to rely on me concerning the beracha..."  He
noted that if the Mishna Berura is saying don't rely on me concerning this
particular point, he meant that elsewhere he can be relied upon halacha
l'maaseh.


                                    Daniel Eidensohn

RDEidensohn wrote:
> he pointed out the following Biur Halacha (688:5) "Nevertheless I
> request from the reader not to rely on me concerning the beracha..."
> He noted that if the Mishna Berura is saying don't rely on me concerning
> this particular point, he meant that elsewhere he can be relied upon
> halacha l'maaseh.

On the contrary, this Biur Halacha strengthens RSM's argument that the
MB is merely a summary of the conclusions of the achronim as to what the
halacha is (not MB's own opinion of what the halacha is). In this BH,
immediately before the segment you quote, he apologizes for not being able
to summarize the entire inyan in the MB (and just citing Rashi's position,
and even that is "b'kitzur nimratz") because it has too many branches,
and then says: don't rely on my summary but look in the Pri Megadim.

This has nothing to do with a reluctance to pasken the issue and
everything to do with whether the CC felt he was adequately summarizing
the achronim.

Speculation: perhaps because only a tiny fraction of klal yisrael lived
in EY at the time, he didn't feel it necessary to go into the detail
necessary to properly summarize the Pri Megadim.

As to whether the MB believed that people could rely on his summary of the
achronim's conclusions: I would think so, but that doesn't make this psak.
By definition, almost, a summary of achronim will be correct but machmir
(not taking into account minhag or balancing the written halacha against
practicality--compare with AhS' comments on whether there is borer
for silverware).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
>> I find it hard to believe that Shemiras HaLashon and Ahavas Chesed were
>> intended only to be me'orer issues and not pasken halachah. The entire
>> style is one of stating the halachah!

R. Moshe Feldman:
>Does the style differ from that of the MB?  If you accept RSM's contention
>that the MB was not meant to be psak halacha, should these works be any
>different?

Why should this depend on style? I noted that from the MB itself it is
almost impossible to tell where the CC is adding something and where
he is just quoting; the only real way to tell is to look up and learn
through all of his sources.

I would never have argued my point based on my view of the CC's style. But
if the CC himself says what he intends the book for, and I heard the
same from R. Mendel Zaks and other g'dolim who were alive when he was,
that shoud be enough evidence.

Seth

RSM:
> R. Moshe Feldman: <1. Wasn't the AhS rigorously analyzing each din for
> a moreh hora'ah?>

> Read his introduction for what he thought he was doing.

Unfortunately my copy of the AhS (and some other copies I've seen) comes w/o
the intro.  What does he say?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> I find it very hard to accept that the lack of semicha ...
> would have influenced the CC's derech halimud/pesak.

Agreed. But it would mean that as a practical matter, he was not
paskening she'elos for people. That would make it more likely that he
would not write a sefer paskening she'elos and instead write a sefer of
learning summarizing the conclusions of achronim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

The Noda' BiYhudah (NBY) in Mahadurah Qama Yoreh De'ah #26 is a t'shuva
about isinglass. As the erudite readers of AishDas know, isinglass was
an industrial ingredient of major importance in the Middle Ages. It
is a particularly pure form of fibrous gelatin, derived from the air
bladders of certain fish. It was used the production of beer, mead,
and wine, since the fibrous gelatin bound itself to the impurities and
precipitated them out, thus removing the objectionable cloudiness from
the drink. It was also used in a multitude of other cases, even to give
luster to ribbons. The English name isinglass, attested going back to the
16th century, is supposedly a corruption of the Dutch huisenblas, and the
Noda' BiYhudah uses the Jewish German form, hoisenblasen (hausenblasen in
hoch Deutsch). It was originally made from the bladder of the sturgeon,
but people very quickly began manufacturing it from other fish.

At any rate, the question presented to the NBY was not whether the fish
was kosher, but as follows: there is this material made from the bladder
of a non-kosher fish, which is then dried, and is used in Ashk'naz in the
production of wine and other drinks. The isinglass remains in the barrel
at the bottom, and some rabbonim assered its use, since kovush kim'vushal,
and even if it was less than shisshim, ein m'vatt'lim issuer l'khat'hilla.

Others claimed that since it was completely dried before it was added
and was inedible at that point, and had no taste, it would be like the
skin of the keiva that the g'moro permits. And others said there is no
issur of ein m'vatt'lim issuer l'khat'hilla if your intention is not to
be m'vattel but rather to use it to clarify the drink. Since its use was
widespread in Ashk'naz and Poylin, and different rabbonim were giving
different decisions, the NBY was asked for his p'saq.

He concludes that there is no reason to avoid using it, 1) since it
was completely dry and inedible at one point, it loses its status of
issur according to most, and halokho should be k'divrei hameiqil; 2)
since isinglass is not edible by itself, even the mahmirim would permit
it, even d'rabbonon; 3) the juice of non-kosher fishes is only osur
d'rabbonon, only the flesh itself is osur, and kovush with an issur
d'rabbonon only asers k'dei q'lippa, so there could never be any ta'am,
and so it is like a keli that is always filled with a lot of liquid and
a small amount of issur was nivla', where Hazal say you can use it.

A crucial point to note is that the NBY was not asked about the kashrus
of the fish. He was informed that the fish was not kosher, and assumes
that for the discussion. He does not discuss which fish is the source
of the isinglass; there may have been several different fish used in
the production.

In contrast, in Mahadura Tinyana Yoreh De'ah #28 he was sent an actual
fish together with a shaylo from a R. Tzvi Hirsch Segal, who said that
he was told by the Jewish inhabitants of the place where the fish came
from that they ate the fish, and can they be relied on.

The NBY said that he examined the fish and it had two rows of qasqasim,
one on each side. The scales could not be removed by hand, but could
be cut off with a knife, and after he soaked the fish in lye the scales
could be pulled off by hand. He says that there is no source in the g'moro
that scales have to be removable, that is a humra invented by the Ramban,
and even though we must listen to the Ramban, especially since the SA
brings his view, we certainly do not have to go beyond what the Ramban
himself said, and he never said that they have to be removable by hand
without soaking. So as long as the scales are removable in any way,
it is a kosher fish, and so he instructs R. Tzvi Hirsch that the fish
he sent him is kosher without any doubt whatsoever.


The next t'shuva is written after the death of the NBY, in 1825, by
his son and replacement as rosh yeshiva in Prague, R. Sh'muel, to a
R. Yitzhaq. R. Sh'muel is respectful, always addressing said R. Yitzhaq
as "ma'aloso" (his highness, literally), but is obviously very upset,
because said R. Yitzhaq has been telling everyone near and far that the
NBY changed his minded and told him that he made a mistake. R. Sh'muel
says this is a complete fabrication ("sheqer muhlat") and that he should
shveik shtill. First, R. Tzvi Hirsch was a close friend of the NBY and
had stayed with them many times; if the NBY indeed changed his mind,
why would he not have written R. Tzvi Hirsch, instead of purportedly
sending R. Yitzhaq to tell him? Second, the NBY would have himself
written letters to near and far if he thought that people could come
to eat a non-kosher fish and violate an issur d'orayso because of him,
and yet neither R. Shmuel nor R. Tzvi Hirsch had heard that the NBY
had changed his mind. Third, the NBY was careful to keep copies of all
of his t'shuvos for publication, and this t'shuva (aforementioned #28)
was there in the group for publication, without any crossouts or notes
on the side (as the NBY occasionally did to the copies of the letters, so
that they would be ready for publication). Fourth, R. Yitzhaq of course
has conveniently lost his only copy of the letter the NBY purportedly
wrote him admitting his mistake, and no one else ever saw the letter.

Next R. Sh'muel goes through the arguments R. Yitzhaq has
presented that the fish should not be kosher and knocks them down
convincingly. Interestingly, he says that the peh she'osar scales that
cannot be peeled off -- the Ramban -- is the peh she'hittir, since
the Ramban and Rabbenu Tam say that the "esturian" fish is kosher. So
actually no rishon assered the sturgeon.

Now he is assuming that the esturian referred to by the Ramban and
Rabbenu Tam is the sturgeon of today. It is certainly the same word, but
as a linguist I would never feel safe in asserting that 400 years ago a
word means what it means today without convincing evidence (refer to our
t'kheles imbroglio a while back). So what he takes as a elementary fact
I would take with a grain of fish eggs. But there is no question that the
fish that the NBY and his son are referring to is what we refer to today
as sturgeon. Not only is the description of the two rows of qasqasim
(OK, not real scales, but scutes) telling evidence, but R. Shmuel also
tells us the following:

Said R. Yitzhaq apparently was claiming that the Latin esturian
corresponded to some other fish, and R. Shmuel says "I searched in the
books of the naturalists and I saw a certain book written by a Jewish
doctor who lives in Berliin in which all the different kinds of fish
are drawn, in accurate colors and lifelike, and the book also records
facts about the fish, where they live, and the different names they are
called by. I saw in that book that the ersturian fish is called sturia
in Latin, and storione in Italian and esturian in French and Stör in
German and kecseni in magyarul (see that, R. SBA, the son of the NBY
mentioning magyarul in a t'shuva!). And this fish grows veryu large,
and can reach a weight of 150 litras when it is adult... and it has a
snout like a pipe." Whereas, he continues, the fish that said R. Yitzhaq
is talking about, has a different name in latin and never grows so large.

Not only are the names that R. Shmuel records as being the names of the
fish that he saw in his father's house the exact names for a sturgeon
in those languages nowadays (except that I cannot attest to kecseni,
my Hungarian being sadly lacking in a word for that fish), but it is
another characteristic that of all fresh water fish, the sturgeon grows
extremely large, as befits a fish that goes back to the Cretaceous period
when large sauruses roamed the habitat.

This is by no means the end of R. Shmuel's discussion of the matter,
and he had to write yet another letter to R. Yitzhaq who was very
upset that the NBY and his son should dare to suggest that sturgeon are
indeed kosher. Personally, after reading the t'shuvos, I do not believe
that anyone can refute their arguments; I have gone over the relevant
g'moros and rishonim. But for my purposes here the above is enough;
those interested in learning the Torah involved are invited to read the
actual text.

As far as R. Josh's attempt to marginalize the NBY's opinion by calling
it a shitas yohid, I must protest. Nobody treated the NBY's t'shuvos
cavalierly in Europe, and if you disagreed, you had better have good
reasons for doing so. As we have said on another thread, t'shuvos were
judged by their content, the strength of their proofs, and their ability
to deal with all the relevant poskim. That was why the NBY's t'shuvos
were taken so seriously, just as in our time RMF's were and not because
he was the godol hador in Europe (when he came here, he was not). The
t'shuvos also bring stong evidence that several rishonim and acharonim
also paskened that the fish is kosher.

The NBY does not address swordfish, but after going through his raayos
it is clear that he would have koshered it as well.

As I said in a previous post on Areivim, I personally have little
interest in eating caviar, other than what the g'moro says about being
neheneh from everything that is muttar in this world. Nor do I have the
slightest desire to convince others that they can eat sturgeon and caviar
(although, R. Ari, perhaps some nice caviar on the grasshoppers you serve
might go well). One of the only two rabbonim that I found knew about the
whole matter said that no one will push the matter now that C rabbis
have staked out the territory as being their own. Be that as it may,
I consider it a bizzayon haTorah for people to state unequivocally that
sturgeon is not kosher without so much as a footnote mentioning the NBY,
the Ramban, and Rabbeinu Tam. The argument that this is C territory I
also personally find less than convincing. If C rabbis, in response to
some scandal and hillul haShem in the O community, were self-righteously
to come out and preach how Judaism considers honesty in business more
important than t'fillin, would that then pater O rabbis from preaching
about erlikhkeit? Do we not seek to serve G-d and learn his Torah, not
just do what is politically correct? Are important shittos in what is
muttar and what is osur not part of Torah? The rishonim and acharonim
certainly thought they are.

Seth Mandel

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


[ 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         ]