Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 106

Thu, 31 Aug 2017

• 1. Re: Is it Assur to eat Neveilah? (Micha Berger)
• 2. MA - by Name or by appearances (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. Issur to Eat Neveilah Limited to Kosher Species - Is the Preemie a Kosher Species? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. Zeh VeZeh Gorem (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. nature of torah sheb`al peh (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: MA - by Name or by appearances (Zev Sero)
• 7. Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (M Cohen)
• 8. Re: Zeh VeZeh Gorem (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: nature of torah sheb`al peh (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: MA - by Name or by appearances (Micha Berger)
• 11. Rav Kook on searching for cause of punishments (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Professor L. Levine)

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:47:22AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: And the Mishneh concludes with the astonishing observation that a premature
: calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the union of a cow
: and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as Bakar nor as
: Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted.
...
: But my original Q remains - what is the status of this premature non-Bakar
: and non-Tzon, this non-animal?
: Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat? Hence
: my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah?

It took me a while before I gave up trying to understand this post. You
went over my head.

I am totally confused. I don't think you were asking whether the Rambam's
lav #180, Chinukh #472 exists, or whether it's separate from the issur of
eating a tereifah -- lav #181, Chinukh #73.

So what are you asking?

...
: Now the problem is - how is there an Issur of eating BBCh with the Shellil,
: the non-fully gestated prematurely born cow which will be a Neveilah even
: if it Shechted - if it is already Assur to eat then Ein Issur Chul Al Issur
: will prevent there being a secondary Issur of eating BBCh?

Since BBCh is an issur hana'ah, it is greater than an issur neveilah and
CAN be chal on it.

As for cheilev... Is any of the fat of the shelil cheilev? Is this a lack
of issur on the cheilev of a shelil, or a biological lack of cheilev-type
fatty deposits?

Where this question is coming from:
My understanding is that chayos have no cheilev. Not that the cheilev of
a chayah is permissible.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis.

He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding
of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined
by the names we use to identify things.

But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only
because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer
which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as
far as I can tell, has not been addressed.

Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a
decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the
facts of the Halacha.

I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82.
I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by.

We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of
applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino,
is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste?

Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the
misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my
picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop
- stop trying to force the round peg.

I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would
construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined.

= = = = =
Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked
with milk from the Pesikta he quotes.

Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing
new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict
one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk
together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally,
it must still be Halachically coherent.

Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it
with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that
in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women
processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats.

- - - -
Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED
Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained
why there is no MA to cook these with dairy.
He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and
Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different
substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different
names even in English.

Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that
MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And
now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are.

Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert
that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a
BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a
BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi.

Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when
HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until
they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and
not let Moshe go down with the second set?
I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb
Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just
the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim,
take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is
explaining.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170829/74b55ecf/attachment-0001.htm>

The Mishneh, Chullin 72b, concludes with the astonishing observation that a
prematurely born calf is Ein BeMino Shechitah. Although it is born from the
union of a cow and a bull, it is - as Rashi explains - not categorised as
Bakar nor as Tzon. It cannot ever be Shechted.

What is the status of this premature non-Bakar and non-Tzon, this
non-animal?
Certainly however we kill it it is a Neveilah BUT is it Assur to eat?
Hence my Q - is there an Issur to eat Neveilah?

The answer is Yes and also No
There is an Issur to eat Neveila
but only on those beasts that CAN BE SHECHTED and made Kosher to eat -
RaMBaM MAssuros 4:2

Here is what looks to be for all intents and purposes, a cow, which cannot
be Shechted. So howsoever it dies it will be a Neveilah.
Is it Assur to eat this Neveilah like a Neveialh cow, or is there no Issur
Neveileh when eating it because it is like a horse?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170829/216d7a07/attachment-0001.htm>

The principle of ZVZGo is illustrated in the following case described by
the Gemara, Chullin 58a.

A chicken with a broken wing for example, is a Tereifah even though it
continues to live. When a chicken becomes Tereif all the eggs within it are
also Tereif. Rashi explains this is based upon the principle that an Ubbar,
a foetus, is part of - is an extension of - its mother, Ubbar Yerech Imo.

After these Tereifah eggs have all been laid, the eggs that follow might be
Kosher notwithstanding that the hen is still a Tereifah, if we can apply
the principle of ZVZGo. Eggs if fertilised by a Kosher rooster, have two
Gormim, two energies contributing to their development, one being Kosher
the other being Tereif. The rule of ZVZGo determines that the eggs will be
Kosher. Notwithstanding that the Kosher Gorem is utterly unrecognisable in
the egg that has been laid. Fertilised eggs are indistinguishable [before
being incubated] from unfertilised eggs.

Upon closer observation, there is an obvious problem - the eggs in the
chicken which becomes a Tereifa ought to be Kosher as they too are
fertilised by a Kosher rooster. Why does the rule of ZVZGo not apply? Why
does the Gemara differ between eggs that are conceived before and those
that are conceived after the hen becomes a Tereifa? It seems there is a
contradiction between the principles of ZVZGo [which indicates it is
Kosher] and Ubbar Yerech Imo [which indicates it is Tereif].

Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they are
nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were
growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the eggs
are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset]

The guideline appears to be that it is the moment when a Halachic decision
must be made that determines how we make that decision. At the moment the
hen becomes a Tereifah we must determine the status of the eggs inside it.
What happened in the past is not relevant. So we apply the rule of Ubbar
Yerech Imo. On the other hand, when new eggs are formed within this
Tereifah hen, it is at their moment of conception that a Halachic decision
must be made, which is ZVZGo.

BTW this too points to the principle that if it is not discernible Halacha
deems it non-existent - as all the eggs that the chicken will ever lay are
already in existence in the ovaries of the hen, yet we do not apply the
rule of UYImo to them when the hen becomes a Tereifa.
Alternatively, they perhaps do become Tereifa but undergo a significant
transformation and therefore lose their connection to their previous
identity - as we see from the Tereifa fertilised eggs which produce Kosher
chickens when they hatch.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170829/1a119298/attachment-0001.htm>

I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression that 
mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may disagree 
with it.  "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no one argues 
otherwise.  But while Gemara is encompassed within the rubric of the 
oral law, it is fundamentally different from Mishnah.  It is comprised 
of debate and dispute and assertions made without backup and incorrect 
statements and statements that seem problematic to our minds."

Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively, assuming 
he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so?   Recommended 
reading?   I gather this person, who identifies as Orthodox, studies daf 
yomi in English but isn't very fluent in Hebrew.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 28/08/17 20:25, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:


 > Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to
 > assert that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat.

Ah, so this is your own supposition, *not* a given from which 
conclusions may be drawn.


> Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when 
> HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until 
> they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection 
> and not let Moshe go down with the second set?

I refer to the medrash that compares Moshe Rabbenu to the shushvin who 
rips up the kesubah and claims that the queen was not yet married when 
she strained; so too Moshe Rabbenu claimed that since the Jews had not 
yet received the luchos they were still Bnei Noach, and thus shituf was 
permitted to them.

But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold that 
our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the status of 
Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan according to 
the Rambam).  The avos were Bnei Noach, and their keeping of mitzvos was 
merely a chumra.  Otherwise we'd have the absurd situation that Moshe 
Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all kohanim to this day, and so was 
Dovid Hamelech and all his descendants!

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 28/08/17 15:18, Micha Berger wrote:
> I have wondered about this for a while.... Why doesn't this translate
> into an issur of chalav haneelam min ha'ayin?
> 
> For example, say my office-mate buys CY and leaves it in the company
> kitchen fridge, as a service for his CY-drinking co workers. (Not really
> a service, in the real world we all take our turns.) The milk is left
> unattanded. Why is that milk still CY when I take some?


I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min
ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger
(ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat)

In this case, someone who takes your milk will not replace it 
(and if they are drinkers of CS, they will use the CS milk instead)

However, I do apply your kasha to the common case of a starbucks etc in a
kosher neighborhood that wants to attract CY customers.
They put a bottle of both CS & CY out, and let pple take as they wish.

Here clearly they do have a financial incentive to refill the CY container
with CS.

How can you use the CY (unless you were there when the opened it)?

(they c solve this issue if they put out little single serving CY milk for
coffee as they have for coffeerich etc. but I don't know if they exist)

Mordechai Cohen




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240)
http://free.pctools.com/
=======

On 28/08/17 21:29, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> 
> Furthermore, even if the first clutch of eggs are not fertilised, they 
> are nevertheless not just the growth of the hen as a Tereifah; they were 
> growing inside that same hen before it became a Tereifah. So all the 
> eggs are ZVZGo from BT [before Tereifah onset] and AT [after Tereifah onset]

Then why not say the same of the hen's meat?  It too was mostly grown 
before it became a tereifah!

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:16:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively,
: assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not so?
: Recommended reading?   I gather this person, who identifies as
: Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent in
: Hebrew.

TSBP is be'al peh so that it can have gemara. And the resulting ability
to grow as new issues arise or situations change. I find this error
tragic; I wonder if it's common.

I don't have a good answer to your question, but partial answers:
    Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11, and the dividing one's learning in thirds...
    until one is proficient enough to focus on talmud.

    Similarly, the Rambam's haqdamah to the Yad.

    The Ramban's viquach, sec "al ha'agados".

    The AhS's haqdamah (found before CM) sec. "vezehu hamishnah".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:54:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: But whether you follow this medrash or not, lechol hade'os we hold
: that our ancestors before matan torah were Bnei Noach, and the
: status of Yisrael began only around that time (on the 4th of Sivan
: according to the Rambam).  The avos were Bnei Noach, and their
: keeping of mitzvos was merely a chumra.  Otherwise we'd have the
: absurd situation that Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer -- and so are all
: kohanim to this day, and so was Dovid Hamelech and all his
: descendants!

Not to mention all benei Racheil.

Chullin 101b says this explicitly, in a discussion of whether gid
hanasheh is an issur kollel, since it included Benei Yaaqov before
we were true Benei Yisrael.


Also, while posting on this topic, the Rambam on Kerisus 3:4 says
that neveilah mixed with chalav is mutar behana'ah. He calls this a
"nequdah nifla'ah". His reasoning is that "lo sevasheil" is used to
describe basar vechalav for both hana'ah and akhilah. And so, if there
is no issur akhilah, there is no issur hana'ah. Here there is no issur
akhilah -- ein issur chal al issur -- so there is no issur hana'ah.

Contrary to what I posted, BBCh is not an issur mosif according to the
Rambam. It's two issurim, each a precondition for the other.

Tosafos (Chullin 101a "issur") say BBCh is not an issur mosif as much as
an issur chamur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

A newspaper article from Rav Kook (my translation) written in August 1933:

As we approach the new year, with hope and encouragement despite the 
depressing events of the past year (Me: Hitler's rise to power) . . . 
(Rav Kook gives a bracha for the new year and continues)

We need to search our actions and bring ourselves closer to the type of 
tshuva that will bring geula and healing to the world, looking at our 
situation in the world in general and in Israel in particular. In doing 
so, we need to specify exactly what is the issue that we need to address.

It seems to us that we are divided into divided into two camps. We are 
used to using two names that generalize our camps, the "chareidim" and 
the "free" (chofshim). These are two new names which we never? used at 
all in the past. We knew that people aren't equal in their 
characteristics, in particular regarding spiritual matters (which are 
the base of life). But that there should be a name for a particular 
group that describes factions and parties, this we never heard of. In 
this sphere (meaning, the lack of division), we can say that the past 
was better than the present and I wish that we could lose those two 
names. These names act as an accuser (a satan) blocking a strong, pure 
way of life that would bring us to God's light.

The prominence that we give these names and the false agreement that 
binds individuals of each camp to say: "I'm in this camp" and the others 
say "I'm in this camp", with everyone satisfied in his position, this 
blocks the tikkun and perfection of both camps.

Rav Kook then goes on to show how both sides suffer from the split.

A couple of notes:

1) Rav Kook felt that particular events are connected to our actions and 
that we can figure out what actions (sins) are the root cause.

2) The punishment is related to the crime.? A national sin brings a 
punishment that threatens the clal. When Rav Sherki said that the knife 
intifada was due to national weakness (and not tzinuit or some other 
personal sin), he had this in mind.

3) Rav Kook didn't try to blame the other guy, he put himself squarely 
within the Clal doing the sin.

I have never understood the reason given by the Tur,  since to me it sounds like "original sin."  YL


From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles?


A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to
fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule
that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves
(mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do
not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah
because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The
Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened
Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava
extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev
Shabbos to atone for that act.

Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12)
writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna
Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should
light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros
the wicks will easily catch fire.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170831/0094c3f5/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)