Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 23

Thu, 21 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Coat Room Mix-up (Richard Wolberg)
• 3. free will (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: free will (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: Public displays of affection, was [Areivim] (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: Public displays of affection, was [Areivim] (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: free will (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. When did Judaism begin? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: When did Judaism begin? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Coat Room Mix-up (Micha Berger)

R' Martin Brody wrote:
> It's not the European model. It's the laws of kashrut
> from the Gemara,Shulkan Aruch, Rishonim, Achronim ...

R' Micha Berger responded:
> We should also note that when it comes to beer, whiskey,
> tea, and a number of other established items, the rules
> did not get changed.

Examples of the "other established items" can include frozen and canned
fruits and vegetables. I remember, decades ago, learning which varieties
could be purchased without a hechsher, and which ones (such as beans and
tomatoes) were frequently cooked in the same utensils as other foods, and
therefore needed a hechsher. Even now, I pay extra attention to the many
kashrus publications when they tell us about these things, including the
latest information - from mumchim in the field - about which other
ingredients (such as sugar, juice, etc.) are problematic.

But we can go even further, and include *fresh* fruits and vegetables. Is
there anyone on the list who refrains from eating unpeeled apples or
cucumbers, for fear that the wax on them might be treif? Alternatively, is
there anyone who - for kashrus reasons - is makpid to purchase only apples
and cucumbers which do not have this wax?

RMB also pointed out:

> But in general, we made many more things efshar levareir by
> growing a large kashrus industry. The question no longer is
> whether we had to; but rather now that they are, can we
> really rely on the same rules of birur as before?

Excellent point. And, as R' Rich Wolpoe posted:

> See Rema YD 1
> "Kol d'efshar levarurei m'varinan"

Whatever we *can* clarify, we *do* clarify. (That Rema is not talking about
food ingredients, but about who is qualified to be a shochet. Still, it's a
great sound bite.) Of course, the limits of what we can practically
research will differ in different circumstances. For example, even in the
organized and regulated markets of major cities, it's just not practical to
supervise apples the way we do apple juice. We *do* have the clout to
supervise the juice, and to ensure that it is packaged with a hechsher,
which we can rely on because the government has an interest in protecting
us from fraud, and prosecuting the frauders.

But it was not always like this. And in many places, it is still not like
this. If someone leaves Brooklyn or Bnei Brak to do kiruv in Eastern
Europe, should he insist that every single thing he eats must be labeled
with the symbol of a heimishe hechsher? I don't think so. Rather, "Kol
d'efshar levarurei m'varinan", and he should find out what the local
situation is like.

And that's what we mean by the "European model". Not that Europeans are any
more meikil than the Americans or Israelis, chalilah, but only that the
limits of "Kol d'efshar levarurei m'varinan" are very different, simply
because we have less market clout in Europe. So the rabanim do their
research and make their lists, without any formal hashgacha. Because "Kol
d'efshar levarurei m'varinan".

Some products have always had a hechsher, or equivalent thereof: meat,
wine, milk, cheese. And as we said above, some products are still generally
accepted as not needing a hechsher. I would be very curious to see a study
which would analyze the transition from then to now. What sort of products
and got a hechsher very early in the game, and which sort of products are
more recent?

For example, I remember when Nabisco cookies got their hechsher about 13
years ago; there were articles in the newspapers about how they would have
become kosher sooner, but the food science was not yet advanced enough to
provide them with the qualities they were looking for without animal-based
ingredients. Those articles also pointed out that the growing kosher market
- and the growing vegetarian market - gave Nabisco the incentive they
needed to do the research for these advances.

That makes sense, but I can't help wondering: why is it that the kosher
consumer ate Hershey's chocolate without a hechsher all the way into the
1980s, but wanted a hechsher on Coca-Cola back in the 1930s?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Investing
Click here to find the right stock, bonds, and mutual funds.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=w012TTLXtX2oo9SFZ9YBSAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADZgAAAAA=

 R' Micha asks:  
I hadn't heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this
   situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally
   exchanged coat home.
What do you think?

There are a couple of scenarios here as I see it.
If the last coat left is not yours, then it is probably likely that someone else took yours.
If the weather is cold, then for your own health, you should wear it.
But then you should try to get the word out, either through the shul bulletin or word of mouth, that your coat was mistakenly taken
and you have someone else's.
Even if the weather is not bad, since your intention of taking someone else's coat is based on the belief that they have taken yours,
your intention is not g'eivus, but it could be looked upon as borrowing. And since the borrowing is based on someone else "borrowing"
your coat, it would seem to be mutar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100120/7274ce37/attachment-0001.htm>

In the beginning og this weeks parsha, Bo, It says that G-d hardened the
hearts of Pharoh and all his servants.
I understand Pharoh in that he had a chance to repent until now and so
he has "gone over the edge"
However, it is harder to say that the all the servants of Pharoh were on
such a low level with no exceptions

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:10:05AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: That makes sense, but I can't help wondering: why is it that the
: kosher consumer ate Hershey's chocolate without a hechsher all the way
: into the 1980s, but wanted a hechsher on Coca-Cola back in the 1930s?

MAYBE, because the ingrediants were a secret. There are things in Coke
in quantities of more than 1/60 that aren't specified on the ingrediants
list. Hershey's is more up-front.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:41:40PM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Even if the weather is not bad, since your intention of taking someone
: else's coat is based on the belief that they have taken yours,
: your intention is not g'eivus, but it could be looked upon as
: borrowing. And since the borrowing is based on someone else "borrowing"
: your coat, it would seem to be mutar.

First, they are doing it by accident, so it's not like they implicitly
gave you permission to borrow their coat.

Second, your rationale would indicate that in the Qitzur's case of the
laundry service mixing up your shirts, and you needed your only good
shirt, you would be allowed to borrow his. But that's NOT his ruling.

What I'm looking for is either the distinction between the two cases, or
a source who disagrees with the QSA that we hold like.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:29:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I understand Pharoh in that he had a chance to repent until now and so
: he has "gone over the edge"
: However, it is harder to say that the all the servants of Pharoh were on
: such a low level with no exceptions

Which is why I like the Seforno's (on Shemos 9:35) answer.

Having one's mind made up by nissim would be tampering with their
bechirah. What HQBH did was include in the neis an element that it
wouldn't pursuade them.

In http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/bo.pdf pp 1-2 I contrasted this
with R' Chanina ben Dosa, for whom Hashem did numerous nissim. But he
had a "He who ordered oil to burn can order vinegar to burn" attitude.
The nissim didn't prove anything to RCBD any more than teva -- he already
firmly viewed reality that way.

(I also discuss the difference in stubbornness implied by vayechezaq vs
vayachbeid, and why this happens specifically at shechin, when the
magicians are stumped.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Second, your rationale would indicate that in the Qitzur's case of the
> laundry service mixing up your shirts, and you needed your only good
> shirt, you would be allowed to borrow his. But that's NOT his ruling.
>
> What I'm looking for is either the distinction between the two cases, or
> a source who disagrees with the QSA that we hold like.
>
>
How about this for a distinction: in the laundry case Reuven, who has
Shim`on's shirt, can assume that Shim`on (who presumably has his shirt) is
in exactly the same situation as he is. Therefore neither one has the right
to initiate a swap by wearing the other's shirt.

In the cloakroom case, Reuven can assume that Shimon has *already* worn his
coat home, even though unintentionally, so turn about is fair play and he
can wear Shimon's coat at least to get home.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/4e9252bd/attachment-0001.htm>

See Igros Moshe V 9.7-8 page 15

Micha Berger wrote:
> >
> Personal observation:
>
>     This situation comes up in shul pretty often. There aren't that
>     many different styles of men coat, and it sometimes happens that
>     someone looks through the coat room and realizes that the only
>     remaining coat was one similar to theirs. Someone who left already
>     took with the wrong coat.
>
>     I hadn't heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this
>     situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally
>     exchanged coat home.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>   

The orginal source is the Mordechai. The Beit Yosef felt this must be ta'ut
sofer. The Drisha rejects this interpretation. and states that what the
Mordechai wrote about is washing the entire body. In his view, washing the
filth off someone's body is not inherently arousing. If someone has a
problem, that is something else. But in general, only the washing of a
man's hands and feet are actions of affection, and therefore those are the
khiddush. But having a non-Jew wash a Jewish man should not be a problem
and that was the minhag.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tal Moshe Zwecker 
  To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org ; Ben Waxman 
  Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Avodah] Public displays of affection, was [Areivim]


  The Rema from SA, EH 21:5 does not permit a sponge bath of the body if
  you see the lashon of the Mechaber it is clear that rechitzah refers to
  panav yadav veraglav (face hands and feet) see for example GRA 20 who
  explains that this was a custom of servants and maids the example given
  is Avigail washing Adoniyah's feet.

  Either way it should be clear from Beis Shmuel and Chelkas Mechokek that whoever's yetzer hara will be aroused must distance himself from this.

  Lets not get carried away folks :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/14ed2c34/attachment-0001.htm>

BTW during the time of Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, there was an attempt to open a
bathhouse using women to wash men, and of course Rav Frank would not allow
this in any form what so ever.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ben Waxman 
  To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org 
  Cc: Tal Moshe Zwecker 
  Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Avodah] Public displays of affection, was [Areivim]


  The orginal source is the Mordechai. The Beit Yosef felt this must be
  ta'ut sofer. The Drisha rejects this interpretation. and states that what
  the Mordechai wrote about is washing the entire body. In his view,
  washing the filth off someone's body is not inherently arousing. If
  someone has a problem, that is something else. But in general, only the
  washing of a man's hands and feet are actions of affection, and therefore
  those are the khiddush. But having a non-Jew wash a Jewish man should not
  be a problem and that was the minhag.

  Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/ce99747a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the beginning og this weeks parsha, Bo, It says that G-d hardened the
> hearts of Pharoh and all his servants.
> I understand Pharoh in that he had a chance to repent until now and so
> he has "gone over the edge"
> However, it is harder to say that the all the servants of Pharoh were on
> such a low level with no exceptions
>

I hear a pshat last year that part of the Makkot was to teach the Egyptians
that all of their gods are worthless. Since Pharoh made himself into a god,
his free will had to be removed as part of the plagues - even when all
common sense said otherwise - to teach the mitzrim that he too is subject to
Hashem.
This doesn't answer the servants. but shows how Pharoh didn't necessarily
even need to go over the edge.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/c5479dc2/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM
>>> See Rema YD 1
>>> "Kol d'efshar levarurei m'varinan"

>> Whatever we *can* clarify, we *do* clarify. (That Rema is not talking
>> about food ingredients, but about who is qualified to be a shochet. Still,
>> it's a great sound bite.)

> It's more than a sound-bite if Posqim consider this a fundamental
> principle in issur v'heter.
> Especially if they are applying it as an "unconscious" axiom.

"Es hatai ani mazkir"

I always pooh-poohed learning Hilchos sh'chita as a waste of time for
most rabbinical students. [Especially when NOT learning hilchos treifos
with it.]

Many rabbanim insisted that it taught the student fundamental elements
of p'saq

B"H I have become enlightened [the hard way] and I see that a number of
POLICIES are embedded in hilchos sh'chita.

EG Talmudic Halachah requires no "s'micha" or "Qabbalah" for sh'chita,
but Ashkenazic practice DOES!

It is simple to see how that gets extended to formal hashgachah for
many areas of Kashrus - especially when chemicals have made the industry
highly sophisticated.

KT
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:23:40PM EDT, R Zev Sero wrote to Areivim
about the avos through our ancestors up to matan Torah:
:                We consider all those people to have been practising
: Judaism, whether with the legal status of Bnei Noach or of Yisrael.
: They were serving Hashem, learning Torah, and doing mitzvos, albeit
: as "einam metzuvim"....

I think we hold lehalakhah they weren't "Jewish". IIRC, we pasqen that
gid hanaseh fried in cheilev would require two qorbanos. Usually we
would say ein issur chal al issur, but since gid hanasheh once applied
to non-Jews, it is a different kind of issur than kashrus.

See Chullin 89, and the rishonim on Beitzah 12a-b, the discussion of
cooking gid hanasheh bechalav on YT. (How do you get 5 issurim if gid
hanesheh were to block basar bechalav from being chal?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

So, I looked up RDE's mar'eh maqom, which after some clarification is
IM vol 8 (a/k/a OC vol 5), #9 sec 7-8, pg 15 (I'm looking at Bar Ilan's
copy, so I won't swear I remembered the pg # correctly).

RMF starts by saying that using the other guys coat is assur.
"UPASHUT shehu hadin bebeis hekeneses". See BM 46a and SA CM 136:2 --
"vekhein ifsaq bekhol haposqim". (Those quotes are not in sequence.)

Then RMF cites AhS at the end of 136. The AhS writes that since wearing
the other person's galoshes or coat is the customary response, one can
assume that the owner implicitly gave permission.

RMF then sets limits. Like the fact that if the baal were to demand
repayment for the value of coat rental, you're chayav to pay it.

I wonder if that's on Shabbos too.

And RMF notes that since we only see this in the AhS means there must
be communities where this is not the minhag. And therefore shuls that
have this practice should announce it (and put up a sign, say so in the
stickers in the front of shul siddurim, etc...)

Sec. 8 is less on topic, dealing with property forgotten in shul. I lost
numerous sefarim that way. Not on topic enough for summarizing here. If
you're curious, look it up!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:23:40PM EDT, R Zev Sero wrote to Areivim
> about the avos through our ancestors up to matan Torah:
> :                We consider all those people to have been practising
> : Judaism, whether with the legal status of Bnei Noach or of Yisrael.
> : They were serving Hashem, learning Torah, and doing mitzvos, albeit
> : as "einam metzuvim"....
> 
> I think we hold lehalakhah they weren't "Jewish".

Yes.  Lehalacha that is how we hold.  But it's a matter for discussion.
It isn't immediately obvious and universally agreed.  And while they had
the halachic status of Bnei Noach, they weren't exactly the same as them
either.  My point, though, was that no matter what their legal *personal*
status, what they were practising, to the extent that they did, was
Judaism.

In the same sense, a Ben Noach today who accepts the truth of the Torah
and keeps the 7 mitzvos because Hashem told Moshe that he has to, and
also keeps additional mitzvos of his choosing, is clearly a follower of
the Jewish religion, and thus in English he is a "Jew" in the same sense
that a Xian is a Xian or a Moslem is a Moslem.  What he isn't is a Ben
Yisrael, which is what *we* mean by a "Jew".  (This is the issue that
lies at the heart of the recent UK court case.)


> IIRC, we pasqen that
> gid hanaseh fried in cheilev would require two qorbanos. Usually we
> would say ein issur chal al issur, but since gid hanasheh once applied
> to non-Jews, it is a different kind of issur than kashrus.

Though according to the opinion that they only kept mitzvot asei this
wouldn't be a question; they could easily have been Jewish, but gid
hanashe was forbidden to them and chelev was permitted.

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> Second, your rationale would indicate that in the Qitzur's case of the
> laundry service mixing up your shirts, and you needed your only good
> shirt, you would be allowed to borrow his. But that's NOT his ruling.

A plain reading of the kitzur's case is that the owner of the shirt you
got may *not* have got yours in return; rather, the assumption is that
the laundress lost a shirt altogether, which she thinks was his but in
fact was yours.  That's why the expected resolution is for her to pay
the other person for his shirt, thus making it her property, and thus
enabling her to give it to you.

In our case, it's clear that your coat didn't just "get lost", but was
taken by the very person whose coat you now hold.  (Or by someone else
whose coat was in turn taken by a third party whose coat you hold, etc.)


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

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:14:03PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: A plain reading of the kitzur's case is that the owner of the shirt you
: got may *not* have got yours in return; rather, the assumption is that
: the laundress lost a shirt altogether, which she thinks was his but in
: fact was yours.  That's why the expected resolution is for her to pay
: the other person for his shirt, thus making it her property, and thus
: enabling her to give it to you.

I posted my straight translation of the QSA, and I didn't read it as you
did.

I saw three cases:

1- You come home from the pub with the wrong item. This is phrased as
   "mi shenischalfu lo".

2- "Vekhein" getting the wrong shirt back from the laundry. So that's also
   "nischalfu lo", no? But moreso, in case I'm reading too much into
   "chiluf", RSGanzfried continues "af al "af al pi sheshelo ne'evad"
   -- not *only* if it's lost, but *even* if it's lost.

3- Like case 2, but enough time has since passed that we could assume
   the owner would have complained and gotten recompensated by then.


BTW, se'if 13 prohibits using your firend's item without permission
even if you are sure the owner is a close and dear friend who would be
thrilled that he had an opportunity to give you hana'ah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 23
**************************************

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..."