Volume 37 Number 76
Produced: Sun Nov 10 11:48:50 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Hamar Medina (2)
[David Ziants, Binyomin Segal]
Krias Shema
[Ben Katz]
Maarit Ayin
[Carl Singer]
More requests for Sources on Idolatry of Shituf (2)
[Russell J Hendel, Avi Feldblum]
talking before HaMapil
[Tzadik Vanderhoof]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 21:38:37 +0200
Subject: Re: Hamar Medina
"Ira L. Jacobson" wrote regarding whether or not it is permissible
to make havdala on milk:
>> The Mishna Berura goes on to quote from Sha`arei Teshuva, who quotes
>> Birkei Yosef that one may not make havdala on milk or oil. And he
>> restates that in Mishna Berura 272:25 ... Snipped ...
> At or about 19:57, 23/10/02 +0200, David Ziants wrote:
> ... Snipped ... The point is that the Birkei Yosef is referring
> to *his* country and time, as milk then was generally not drunk.
> He did not mean this as a general fixture of law.
"Ira L. Jacobson" responded:
> I would like to understand this. On the one hand, the Mishna Berura
> quotes the Sha`arei Teshuva, which quotes the Birkei Yosef to the effect
> that one may not make havdala on milk.
It is the Maharsham who clarifies that the Birkei Yosef is talking of
his locale and generation.
If the gemara concludes by permitting milk, then unless one follows the
Rambam who only allows alcoholic drinks (and the milk in the g'mara had
an alcoholic nature), anything which is stated by rishonim and achronim
concerning milk and hamar medina ought to be appertaining to time and
place.
In the time and place of the Chafetz Chaim, milk wasn't drunk in the
same way as it is today. In his locale, not many people drank milk and
it was mainly just given to children. Thus the Mishneh Berura states
concerning milk and oil: "sh'ain r'gilin lishtoto lamashke" = "that this
is not usually drank as a drink" (M.B.9 on 296:2). This is what was
explained to me by an older person.
> Each of these posqim applied it without clearly limiting his pesaq in
> time or location.
Poskim often quote former poskim who have ruled on the issue. They
don't relate to the time or location, because they cannot, always
envisage that there will be change in social circumstances, and prefer
just to relate to their own world view and issue the p'sak in this
context. (See Mishneh Berura's reaction to Chayei Adam permitting
certain juices.)
I would like to make up a parallel example of today, so this is more
understood:
Let us say a contemporary ashkenazi posek were asked today "Is olive oil
hamar medina?"
His first reaction to himself would possibly be "who on earth drinks
olive oil!? People put it on their salads; people fry with it; but
drink...."
When stating the answer in his responsa book, he might write: "no, as
people don't usually drink this". He would probably not explicitly give
his time and place, because as far as he is concerned no one on earth
drinks olive oil. He would probably quote the Mishna Berura, and
others. Even if there are remote places where people do drink olive oil
as a drink, this isn't part of this posek's mind set and he is not
likely to relate to this.
It is a theoretical possibility that in a future generation, people
could go to the restaurant and order a glass of oil to drink with their
meal. (Is there anyone on this list who knows a country where this can
be done today?) A posek of that generation then would have to decide the
halacha, whether this is hamar medina, but this is not the job of
today's posek.
Milk in time of the Chafetz Chaim is like oil of today.
If there are early sources that disallow oil for other reasons (apart
from the alcoholic issue of the Rambam), my example will be pulled
apart. I am assuming that there are not.
>> So I wonder how it was that one can conclude that each of these
>> gentlemen, in his land and at his time, intended the exact
>> opposite of what he wrote. ... Snipped ...
I do not disagree that there are poskim today who may not want to say
that milk is hamar medina and be seen in contradiction to the Mishna
Berura words. That is their prerogative.
Those who do rule, that today milk is hamar medina, have many achronim
to rely on and also should not have a problem with the Mishna Berura and
others, as explained above.
Concerning this subject, I stated in a previous posting:
> It might still be in dispute that milk is allowed
> for my locale today (Israel) or other places around the world,
> and it is the sensitivity to this issue, that by adding sugar
> and cocoa, we are making a drink which would not be in
> dispute for most countries around the world where we live.
Having discussed this with Rav Y. Ka"tz (the author of the article which
started me off on this discussion), I have to clarify that according to
his opinion milk is definitely hamar medina today. He still sees shoko
as the better option (no doubt because of the addition of sugar and
cocoa). The way I previously stated this point (that milk was in
dispute) was because of my misunderstanding and trying to do my own
filling in of what he wrote.
David Ziants
<dziants@...>
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:25:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Hamar Medina
Ira L. Jacobson asks a good question. The Mishna Brura, Shaarei Teshuva
and Birkei Yosef make a statement of law (milk is not chamar medina) Yet
David Ziants suggests that these are only the law within their
place/time
> I would like to understand this. On the one hand, the Mishna Berura
> quotes the Sha`arei Teshuva, which quotes the Birkei Yosef to the effect
> that one may not make havdala on milk. Each of these posqim applied it
> without clearly limiting his pesaq in time or location.
>
> So I wonder how it was that one can conclude that each of these
> gentlemen, in his land and at his time, intended the exact opposite of
> what he wrote.
A couple of points (that may or may not be related) and that may or may
not satisfy Ira.
1. In general, halacha has tended to be stated as case law, rather than
theory. As a result, at some level it is true of every halacha that the
particular statement of the law is only true at this place/time. Of
course the future scholar would need to defend why the particular social
difference he notes is relevant to this specific halachic principal in
order to justify the change. So while the assumption is that things
don't change, the secondary assumption is that when things do change,
the halacha might change as well. These ideas are rarely stated
explicity
The reason these are implicit rather than explicit may have to do with
point 2.
2. Until this last generation or two, people assumed that things would
stay - at least mostly - as they had been in the past. If milk was not
chamar medina in place a, it is likely that it would not be chamar
medina in place b in time b. The factors were not likely to change
much. The industrial, technical, computer revolutions have changed all
that. Milk is now drinkable because there is refrigeration,
pasterization, mass transport, etc. Because things change more quickly,
we expect things to change (we know somone will take our cheese) and
therefore expect that things be stated as principles rather than as
examples. But that bias is as new as the computer.
Therefore - it seems to me that the fact that these sources do not
explicitly mention the possibility of change is not a very compelling
piece of evidence re the variability of the law. Of course they did not
mention it. It was totally unexpected.
binyomin segal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:40:14 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Krias Shema
>From: <Aronio@...>
>I have always been perplexed by what happens when you say Shema with
>Hamapil and then you cannot fall asleep. So you just give up and go
>read your email on mail.jewish, or read pr learn, or watch t.v. - ok.
>
>But, can you call a chavrusa several timezones away who is still awake
>to learn? You are not supposed to talk, right? How long does this
>prohibition last? If you cannot sleep the entire night when can you
>start talking?
This seems that it should be more of a common sense than a halachic
issue. If your intent was to fall asleep but could not (just as if your
intent was to eat something after a beracha but somehow the food is
inedible or taken away) you do the best you can. You wait a reasonable
period of time (most people fall asleep when after they are tired and
lie down in 7-20 min.) and then get on with your life.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226, Voicemail and Pager: 3034
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:08:18 EST
Subject: Re: Maarit Ayin
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
There has been a considerable discussion regarding the Maarit Ayin
issue when in a treyf restaurant. People have referred to only
having a drink etc. In the nices places, particularly hotel
restaurants, there is another possilbity. I have been a meeting
expecting to only have a drink, when the host says they made
arrangements for me, and sure enough, I get served a TV dinner,
similar to airline meals, double wrapped with plastic utensils.
(The directions for the staff are on the package). Does that fact
that many places have the kosher meals available make it better,
or the fact that people see that one is eating make it worse.
Hotels and such will provide a kosher meal. It's part of there service
to their guests. I know here at IBM Palisade's learning center -- a
hotel / dining & classroom facility (run, btw, by a professional hotel /
conference management firm) and similar facilities, you can pre-arrange
for kosher meals. They provide airline-like "TV dinners" for employees
but actually got to a local kosher resturant and provide very high
quality meals for hotel guests. I also know that although there is no
extra charge for such meals, the hotel loses money on them -- and is
especially put out when someone orders such a meal and is a "no-show."
Most traif (non-hotel) restuarants will not be so inclined and cannot be
bothered -- They don't have the contacts, most kosher TV dinner
suppliers require bulk purchase (often 12 dinners to a box, etc.) First
of all, if you're not travelling (that is you're commuting to work and
having a meal) you can either bring your own food (what do you do on a
"normal, non-meeting day?" if you're on the road then you've had to
make some meal arrangements (take with or buy locally) and again, you
can bring with to many restuarants. You may get charged a cover charge
as you are taking up resources.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:31:54 -0500
Subject: More requests for Sources on Idolatry of Shituf
David Waxman in v37n64 writes that
>Jews. The avoda zara issue, however, is not simple. I have heard it
>said that this was a point of machloketh between the Rambam and the
>ba'alei tosfoth. The Rambam paskened that the trinity is a.z., while
>the ba'alei tosfoth paskened that 'shituf' is permissible for the goyim.
>Circumstantial evidence indicates that Rashi held that it was OK for the
I too, like David, would like to see EXPLICIT sources. However even
without the sources I can ask harsh questions: How would an opinion that
Shituf is PERMISSABLE for non-jews deal with such verses as Ex20-02
THERE SHALL BE TO YOU NO OTHER GODS or verses in VethChanan YOU HAVE
SEEN NO PHYSICAL ITEM
Let me make my question stronger by pointing out that the above verses
were said at the revelation at Sinai. Now there is a controversy whether
the non-jewish obligation to have monetary law is satisfied only by
non-jews adopting jewish law or may they have their own civil code. It
would seem to me that we have never heard that Non-Jews can have their
own idolatry code. The Talmud does state that certain sexual
prohibitions (eg menstruants) do not apply to non-jews. But we have
never heard that there are two IDOLATRY standards in the Talmud.
To summarize: In light of (a) the talmudic silence on two idolatry codes
(b) despite the possibility of two sexual and civil codes and in light
of (c) the explicit Biblical verses, I think we have a strong question
on those who would posit that Shituf is permissable to Goyim.
Let me put it another way: The issue is not just whether we can find an
AUTHORITY to support Shituf. The issue is also whether we can DEFEND
that authority as consistent with Biblical and talmudic excerpts.
Again (to echo David) I would like to see some explicit sources (and
supporting defenses)
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 04:07:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: More requests for Sources on Idolatry of Shituf
Re: Russell J Hendel submission above,
> How would an opinion that Shituf is PERMISSABLE for non-jews deal with
> such verses as Ex20-02 THERE SHALL BE TO YOU NO OTHER GODS or verses
> in VethChanan YOU HAVE SEEN NO PHYSICAL ITEM
> ...
> in light of the explicit Biblical verses, I think we have a strong
> question on those who would posit that Shituf is permissable to Goyim.
I totally do not understand the above comment. The two pesukim listed
above each clearly use the language "you", which is the ideal hook to
distinguish between disallowing shituf for "you", i.e. Jews and allowing
it for non-Jews. Obviously, I would not be making this drash myself, the
critical issue to identify the sources for the distinction in the
reshonim and where their sources are.
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadikv@...>
Subject: talking before HaMapil
I remember hearing a story of a gadol (or actually a boy who was going
to become a gadol) who said HaMapil, then unexpectedly a girl showed up
at his house who he was supposed to meet (I forget the details of
exactly what mishap caused that awkward chain of events) and some other
Rav (maybe his father) told him to just lie down in bed for a few
moments, then it would be OK to come out and talk to her. Of course he
ended up marrying this girl. Sorry if the details are a bit fuzzy...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 76