Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 67

Tue, 09 Mar 2010

• 1. Haqdamah to MB (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Even More on the OU's Position on Worms in Fish (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. The Two Tablets (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Braces a Chatzitzah? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Who Said It First (Meir Rabi)
• 6. timtum halev (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: timtum halev (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Who Said It First (Micha Berger)
• 9. The Mission of the Jews (Richard Wolberg)
• 10. Re: Who Said It First (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: timtum halev (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: timtum halev (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

I find he says 4 reasons:
1 [starts with "ach"] The SA w/o Tur is a sefer Hasum
2 [sibba sh'niyya] Rabbu hadei'os in SA
3 [od ra'issis v'hisbonanti] the Ba'er Heitev was out-of-date
  (obsolescent)
4 [zos od v'acheres] People have to look hither, thither, and yon amongst
   numerous acharonim

One might say that #3 viz. giving more sheetos conflicts with #4
I.e. settling the issue.

If one's goal is to have a clear-cut answer, then a KItzur SA Chayei
Adam approach is best

If one's goal is to have a menu from which to select, then a Beis Yosef
survey approach is best.

I would think posqim would prefer the latter

And I would guess the average baal habayyis or student might prefer
the former

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I have been in touch with Rabbi Chaim Goldberg 
who heads the "OU Fish Desk."  He sent me the 
most recent Daf Hakashrus, a monthly newsletter 
for the OU Rabbinic Field Representative that is 
edited by Rabbi Yosef Grossman. This publication 
contains more detailed information regarding the 
OU's position on worms in fish.

Rabbi Goldberg kindly gave me permission to post 
this issue of the Daf Hakashrus on my web site, 
and I have posted it at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/daf18_5_10.pdf

Since this is pdf file and some may not be able 
to access it,  below is what this publication 
says specifically about the OU's policy on worms 
in fish. Rabbi Goldberg may be contacted via 
email at "Goldberg, Chaim" <goldbe...@ou.org>  or by phone at  212.613.8340.

Yitzchok Levine

OU Policy on Worms in Fish
By Rabbi Chaim Goldberg
RC Fish

The Gemarah in Chulin 67b states that darna,
a worm-like parasite, found in the flesh of
a fish is permissible because ?minei gavli? it
grows in the fish. The Shulchan Aruch, Y.D.
84:16, quotes this halacha, and adds that
worms found in the viscera (gut) are prohibited
while worms found in the fish are permitted.
Recently there has been considerable discussion
about worms in fish. Some Rabbonim
understand the halacha (as formulated in
Shulchan Aruch) to be that worms which hatch
in the flesh are permitted, while worms that are
swallowed whole and enter the viscera are prohibited.
Both of the worms migrate to the flesh.
Based on this understanding these Rabbonim
have stated that today, worms in fish are
prohibited. This is because scientists maintain
that contemporary worms known as anisakis
enter the flesh through the viscera and then
migrate to the flesh.
This is not a new issue and the question has
been raised repeatedly in recent years. The OU
has reviewed this matter and found it not to be
an issue. (Editor?s note)

Rav Belsky confirmed unequivocally
that OU policy remains that there is no
checking necessary and no prohibition of the
worms found in wild salmon and other fish,
in accordance with Y.D. 84:16 for the following
reasons: Shulchan Aruch does not limit
the permissibility of tolayim (parasites)
found in the flesh of fish to any species of
tolaas. The halacha states that a tolaas found
in the flesh of a fish is mutar because of the
rule of minei gavli [Chulin 67B], (that the
parasite found in the flesh of the fish is permissible
since it grew bigger in the fish) Rav
Belsky cited Rashi in the Gemara as using the
term gavul to mean that it ??became bigger??,
and he understood this to mean even if the
worm originated and was visible to the naked
eye outside of the fish, it would be permitted
if it grew in the fish flesh. Rav Belsky
felt there is no reason to believe the tolayim
present today are any different from the
tolayim discussed in Chulin and S.A. Rav
Belsky felt this reason itself was sufficient
to permit the matter, but added additional
reasons to permit as follows:

On his audio presentation for OURadio
last year (available for review at www.ou
radio.org/index.php/ouradio/comment/
9742/), Rav Belsky noted that Shulchan
Aruch did not require one to be an expert
in the tolayim found in the fish flesh to
know how they got into the flesh, either
from the viscera or from some other source.
Rav Belsky further feels that it is irrelevant
whether the tolaas entered from the viscera
or from some other way, whether it
happened when the fish was alive or after
it died. As proof, he notes that S.A. (ibid)
says that tolayim which come after the death
of the fish are permitted. Rav Belsky felt
these tolayim must have come from the
viscera, because there was no other reasonable
source for tolayim entering a fish after
death and yet they are permitted.

Some are concerned that the tolayim found
in the flesh are actually the forbidden tolayim
originally found in the viscera (Shulchan
Aruch forbids the tolayim found in the
viscera). Rav Belsky felt this claim is not
based on any significant research. Rav Belsky
felt that his own inquiries from qualified
experts indicate that the opposite is true,
and that the tolayim in question are found
in the flesh while it was alive. Furthermore,
Rav Belsky feels even tolayim entering the
flesh from the viscera would be permitted as
per above.

Rav Belsky confirmed that the size of the
tolaas when it is swallowed by the fish is not
relevant (even if it is visible while swallowed
by the fish and visible when it migrates from
the viscera). He also felt that reports that the
tolaas is typically 5 mm is an exaggeration of
the larger end of the spectrum recorded. He
believes that nearly all of these tolayim when
they are swallowed are between 1-2 mm long
and quite thin (Rav Belsky felt they would be
considered ayno nireh l?aynayim [halachically
invisible]).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100308/c30595b3/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:

 > The first luach, that with the 5 mitzvos BALM, had far more words on
 > it than the second luach and its list of 5 mitzvos BALC. Assuming each
 > text was written to fill the space, this means that the letters on the
 > second luach were far larger and could be read from a further disance
 > than those on the first.

Zev Sero responded

Why would we make that assumption?  Surely it's more straightforward
to assume the writing was the same size throughout.

In his commentary of Shemos 32

15 Now Moshe turned and went down from the 
mountain with the two Tablets of the Testimony in 
his hand, tablets inscribed on both
their sides; on the one side and on the other side were they inscribed.

16 And the tablets were a work of God, and the 
writing was God?s writing, cut right through the tablets.

RSRH writes,

The foregoing offers insight into the various opinions cited in
Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1 regarding the Tablets. According to one opinion,
all ten commandments were written on each of the two tablets.
According to another opinion, twice ten were written on each tablet ?
ten on each side. According to yet another opinion, even four times
ten: on the front, on the back, and on each side. Thus, from the beginning,
there were two copies of the Commandments, and each of the
Tablets was inscribed on all sides. The Tablets of the Testimony thereby
demonstrated that the Torah is to be spread among the people throughout
all its ranks, and that Moshe had no exclusive or excluding position
as regards the Torah.

So it is not at all clear to me what was written 
where and in what size on the Luchos.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100308/f5694573/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3848598,00.html

 

Is this something new? Is this the generally accepted Halachah? Did R'
Elyashiv really say this?

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100308/259b9251/attachment-0001.htm>

This type of discussion (at least the parts of it that I have glimpsed) and
its tone does not do much to edify Yiddishkeit or dignify it.

Is our religion and our loyalty to HKBH built upon stories that are not part
of our Torah tradition but upon traditions that we have substituted with a
look-alike sound-alike system? And which can be conveniently reshaped and
interpreted as required? Or perhaps our loyalty is really to something else
other than HKBH?

I am reminded of a diagram I saw depicting the emergence of the Torah with
its consequential development Rishonim Acharonim etc.
And then the authors wished to indicate where the Zohar and Kabbalah emerged
from - so they have put a little box in which is boldly printed ZOHAR and
placed it just under the three big boxes at the top, you know the boxes
showing Torah NeViIm and Kesuvim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100309/9aa3b19e/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Which is why every time I see that our group of regulars shifted, I
manage to find a way to re-raise the question RETurkel asks:
: If some treif substance is batel is there any reason not to eat the
: combination because it contains some treif substance which will cause
: timtum halev. How because it is allowed to be eaten does it remove
: timtum halev

Similarly, the mezuzah that was hung and checked kedin, but kelapei
Shemaya galya there is a flaw in it. Why would it protect any less? >>

It would seem that the Kuzari would disagree. He gives the analogy
of medicine. If a doctor prescribes medicine and it was checked carefully
by the staff to ensure accuracy but still was the wrong medicine it won't
help/ Good intentions aren't enough to cure a patient and the same
goes for mitzvot. Someone whose tefillin are pasul has not done
the mitzva of wearing tefillin even though it is the sofer's fault.

I use a similar argument for mamzerim. I always heard the argument that
it is not fair that mamzerim get punished for the sin of their parents. My
answer is that it is not fair that children get AIDS because of the sin
of their parents or get genetic diseases because of their parents.
Mamzerut is a spiritual disease and life is not always fair.
Good intentions does not save someone from diseases or punishments

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 11:01:26AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: It would seem that the Kuzari would disagree. He gives the analogy
: of medicine. If a doctor prescribes medicine and it was checked carefully
: by the staff to ensure accuracy but still was the wrong medicine it won't
: help/ Good intentions aren't enough to cure a patient and the same
: goes for mitzvot...
: I use a similar argument for mamzerim. I always heard the argument that
: it is not fair that mamzerim get punished for the sin of their parents. My
: answer is that it is not fair that children get AIDS because of the sin
: of their parents or get genetic diseases because of their parents....

And this analogy is apt, particularly for the Kuzari. He writes that
geirim are not the same metaphysically as ezrachim, they only share
the same halakhos. He has a very strong sense of metaphysical "stuff"
and causality.

I also repeated in the past RARakeffet's discussion of a machloqes as
to whether eating an issur derabbanan would cause timtum, or is this
is why safeiq derabbanan lequlah? Similarly, does keeping shemittah
derabbanan cause the berakhah of having enough, or not? If you feel that
de'oraisos are dangerous or powerful but derabbanans are merely law,
then that explains why one is safeiq lechumera, but the other not.

However, let's go back to timtum haleiv... Why would the RBSO and then
Chazal matir something that is damaging? Where is the sekhar va'onesh
aspect of things if every mitzvah has power other than lefum tza'arah?

This isn't like mamzeirus, which is a single pegam in life, possibly
none in olam haba, and doesn't get in the way of getting siyata diShmaya
(including but not necessarily limited to sekhar va'onesh) in other
venues. The dinim of mamzer talmid chakham, etc...

IOW, the problem becomes a problem only if it's a general approach, so
that event after event in one's life becomes the dictate of metaphysical
causality rather than a straightforward "letav avad".

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:39:39PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: This type of discussion (at least the parts of it that I have glimpsed) and
: its tone does not do much to edify Yiddishkeit or dignify it.

: Is our religion and our loyalty to HKBH built upon stories that are not part
: of our Torah tradition but upon traditions that we have substituted with a
: look-alike sound-alike system? And which can be conveniently reshaped and
: interpreted as required? Or perhaps our loyalty is really to something else
: other than HKBH?

I think the point RRW is trying to make us realize is how much halakhah
evolved since Chazal. IMHO, this isn't fealty to something other than HQBH;
it's why He gave us a legal system rather than a fixed set of laws.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Truth be told, ours has always been a missionary religion. Just start with
Avraham ovinu. He made it his life's work to communicate to his fellow-men
the truth about God which he had acquired. That was, indeed, the task set
him: v'nivr'chu v'cho kol mishp'chos ha-a-damah. The novi Yishayahu set
Israel the ideal of becoming or goyim, and thereby brocho b'kerev ha-aretz.
In the 8th chapter of Zechariah there is the remarkable prophecy: "In those
days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the
languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is
a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with
you." Throughout the Torah the conception of Israel is of a people with a
mission, to transmit to others the teachings which had been entrusted to
its care. 
Granted all that, the question remains: how is it we have made no active
attempts to practice that ideal? The answer is given by history. The
literature of ancient Rome and Greece affords abundant evidence that Jews
were then zealous in making gerim and were often successful. Josephus made
this statement: 'The multitude have for a long time a great inclination to
follow our religious observances, for there is not in any city of the
Grecians nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our
customs had not come. So that if any one will but reflect on his own
country and his own family, he will have reason to give credit to what I
say.'
He would not have dared to write these words if it had not been a well-known fact that such was indeed the case. 
The position was, however, changed when Xristianity became the dominant
religious power in Europe. It made it a crime for a Jew to convert anyon e,
and yet the activity continued. Here is the verdict on the point by the
eminent Xristian scholar (Moore, Judiasm, I, p.353) : 'For the proselyte
maker the legislation went on to equate the crime to laesa maiestas
(treason), and finally made it simply capital, whether the convert was
freeman or slave. Against all such attempts of pagan or Xristian rulers to
shut up Judaism in itself and prevent its spread, the Jews persisted in
their missionary efforts to make the religion God had revealed to their
fathers the religion of all mankind.' 
Missionary activity went on to such an extent that the church authorities
grew alarmed and had to think out measures to prevent the religion of their
adherents from being contaminated by Jewish influence. They found the
principal solution in the institution of the Ghetto. Jews and Xristians
were prevented from mingling, for the 'protection' of the Xristian. Non
Jews were not allowed to reside in a Jewish house; a Xristian servant could
not live with Jews. In spite of such restrictions there are records of
conversion to Judaism. More stringent steps were then resorted to in order
to put a stop to this. A case of proselytizing was often followed by a
wholesale massacre of Jews or the expulsion of the entire community. In the
face of this danger, the Jewish leaders were forced to put a check upon the
missionary enthusiasm of their own people. From the 9th century onwards we
hear of ordinances being promulgated in the synagogues forbidding a Jew to
try to convert a Xristian, and 
 the extreme measure was resorted to by rabbis of denouncing to the
 government those who were suspected of leaning towards Judaism. This had
 to be done for self-protection. All this is historical fact; therefore it
 is an exhibition of ignorance when Xristian writers in the past taunted
 Jews with the lack of missionary zeal and attribute it to the narrow,
 tribal character of Judaism. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100309/95292378/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha:
> I think the point RRW is trying to make us realize is how much halakhah
> evolved since Chazal. IMHO, this isn't fealty to something other than HQBH;
> it's why He gave us a legal system rather than a fixed set of laws.

Correct. Please add to that - that our interpretations and understandings
have evolved - sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

And so there is a bit of "Asni'el ben K'naz" here trying to restore
atares torah l'yoshnah AT LEAST on the havannah level.

IOW it's OK for us to continue having the youngest to chant Mah Nishtaneh
but let's not mis-understand the mishnah as a result!

We see that virtually everyone tends to interpret old texts based upon
current realia. At times we can fall into mis-interpretations.

Example from another list

Q: if g'lilah is most important aliya, why give it to a child?

A: What rishonim meant by g'lilah is what WE call hagbah. IOW the
terminology morphed! [See MB who explains this clearly]. So our g'lilah
is really the assistant to the real gollel who is the magbiah...

One of my missions is to clarify this so we don't fall into the "mayyim
shelanu = unzerer vasser" syndrome - which is a mis-understanding
documented by Shas.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha Berger wrote:

> However, let's go back to timtum haleiv... Why would the RBSO and then
> Chazal matir something that is damaging?

If we're still talking about cases of safek, then they permitted it
for the same reason that other acceptable risks are permitted.  If you
cross the road in the middle, without looking, you were "mischayev
benafsho" even if you were lucky enough not to get hit.  But if you
cross at the lights, taking every reasonable precaution, and get hit
anyway, your injuries will in no way be mitigated by the fact that you
had every moral right to act as you did.  When halacha permits a case
of safek, it is turning whatever issur is there into heter, or is it
simply saying "this is an acceptable risk, and if harm comes to you
it won't be your fault"?

Note that this is entirely consistent with saying that the harm comes
from the issur, not from the food's essential nature.  If the Torah
were to permit the food, the harm would go away; but in the case of
safek perhaps it has not permitted the food itself, but rather it has
permitted risking the issur.   Ditto with the protection that comes
from having a kosher mezuzah properly installed. One needn't say that
there's something magical in the mezuzah itself; rather, the protection
is the reward for doing the mitzvah, but if despite your best efforts
you were not zocheh to do the mitzvah you don't get the reward.
Putting up a mezuzah that you carefully inspected a minute ago, but
somehow missed something, is no different from living in Siberia and
being unable to obtain a mezuzah despite making every possible effort.
Keman de'avad lo amrinan.

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

RZS:
> If we're still talking about cases of safek, then they permitted it
> for the same reason that other acceptable risks are permitted.

This is actually supported by a certain p'shat of "t'imas k'feila"

That once the k'fielah has tasted only THEN are we permitted to taste. And
aiui, if subsequently WE detect a ta'am issur or BbCh then it would be
assur. So the k'fiela permits risking this ta'am.

Also some Rishonim would also learn that shishim gives permission
to TASTE not to definitely eat. And if subsequentally the ta'am is
nevertheless detectible, it would indeed be still assur.

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 67
**************************************

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..."