Volume 46 Number 55
Produced: Sun Jan 9 14:12:44 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cake Substituting for Bread (2)
[Eitan Fiorino, Mark Steiner]
City Harvest and unused food from Simcha's
[W. Baker]
French Press for Coffee on Shabbos
[Norman Seif]
Occam's razor (2)
[Yitzchak Moran, Shayna Kravetz]
Ockham's Razor
[Chana Luntz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:53:35 -0500
Subject: RE: Cake Substituting for Bread
> From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
> Restating something I have confirmed with my LORs: if one is
> "kovei'a seudah", one purposefully substitutes cake for
> bread, that is, like with seudah shlishit, one washes and
> says Birkat HaMazon in any case.
Doesn't one still have to eat more than 6 or 8 oz. of mezonot (in the
appropriate amount of time) to be obligated in netilat yadayim and
birkat hamazon? If so, it is unclear that if eats a small piece of cake
with the intent to thereby fulfill the mitzva of seudat shlishit, one
would not simply recite mezonot and me'ein shalosh.
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:42:48 +0200
Subject: RE: Cake Substituting for Bread
> Restating something I have confirmed with my LORs: if one is "kovei'a
> seudah", one purposefully substitutes cake for bread, that is, like
> with seudah shlishit, one washes and says Birkat HaMazon in any case.
(1) This is true of what is called "pat haba'ah bekisanin." (Below,
PHB.) There are many definitions of this concept, and I doubt that
every kind of cake fits them.
(2) The concept of "keviat seudah" is a tricky one. I would appreciate
sources for the ruling that eating a kezayit for seudah shlishit is a
keviat seudah. (I don't deny there are sources, but I am not familiar
with them.)
(3) The usual definition of kevi`at seudah for PHB is much more than
kezayit, 4 "eggs" or 8 "zeytim" is the classical definition.
(4) Some say, however, that the amount in question is only if the entire
meal is PHB (i.e. the PHB is "kovei seudah" for itself)--if other foods
are eaten as well, then the amount goes down drastically.
(5) If I am not mistaken, therefore, eating a piece of cake in the
amount of kezayit does not require washing at all, even if the cake is
designated as PHB. (As above, if there is a teshuva that says that even
a kezayit on shabbat is k'viat seudah, I'd appreciate learning about
it.)
(6) Since I'm on the subject of cake, I will issue the following
advisory which is relevant also to the current discussion of
gluttonous/glutinous weddings: recently a custom has developed,
primarily in the U. S. but also sometimes in Israel (where the parties
are from the U. S.) of bringing out a "Viennese Coffee Table" instead of
serving dessert. The tables are cleared, the guests run to grab cakes,
puddings, and then (to salve their conscience) fruit. Many don't even
sit down again, lest they miss one of the desserts. It seems to me
clear that according to the plain meaning of O.H. 197 this constitutes a
"meal after the meal" and that therefore everything eaten at a VCT (even
PHB, because of the silence of the mehaber, not making any
distinctions)requires not only a brakha before, but also a brakha after,
what is eaten--even if birkat hamazon will be recited on what has been
eaten (or rather as they say in Yiddish, "gefressn") before. It is true
that the shulhan arukh goes on to state that the law of a meal after the
meal does not apply "to us," but the reason that he gives does not apply
to a VCT. (See also the Bi'ur Halacha for a really wonderful analysis
of this point, which could easily be missed, because the Chofetz Chaim,
because his analysis seems to contradict the shulchan arukh and other
poskim, did not want to put the results of his analysis into the Mishnah
Berurah.) In fact the Tur, as the Beit Yosef (written by the author of
the Shulhan Arukh) without comment, states almost explicitly that at
"large meals" where they clear the tables (the Tur goes on to describe
what looks like a VCT) the law of "a meal at the end of a meal" does in
fact apply. (Footnote: There is some literature on what might be
regarded as a contradiction between the Beit Yosef and the Shulhan
Arukh, cf. Magen Avraham, and Biur Halacha, op. cit. who also comes up
with a list of geonim and rishonim who would be lenient about saying al
hamihya on cake at a VCT, i.e. who oppose the ruling of the Shulhan
Arukh at least in part. Eating grapes, dates, or figs at a VCT would
require a beracha aharona even according to those rishonim however.)
Eating bread together with the Boston Cream Pie at a VCT solves
the problem according to almost all poskim (but not all! Names on
request). Many will hold that this "solution" is worse than the
problem. Better yet might be simply to "bensh" before the VCT. Best
would be to listen to your doctor and not eat anything at a VCT.
As a president of a shul in Kew Gardens Hills, Queens put it, in
wishing a "tseyskhem lesholem" to a member travelling to Vienna: "When
you get there, why don't you check to see if they have Boro Park Tables
at their weddings."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:11:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: City Harvest and unused food from Simcha's
City Harvest will take food that has been on the smorgasbord table, but
not food from individual plates, even if "untouched" for obvious health
reasons. It takes kiddush and buffet dinner leftovers from my shul.
It did take a while to convince many caterers that this was OK and
wouldn't cost them much in overtime. City Harvest now has a kosher
division that sees that kosher leftovers get delivered to kosher places
that can use them.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman Seif <nusseif@...>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:51:54 -0500
Subject: French Press for Coffee on Shabbos
4 years ago there was a question on this board (never answered) re: a
French Press for coffee on Shabbos......I have asked several shaylos re:
a timer with a coffee maker capresso that goes on and shuts off with a
timer and was given a heter for various reasons.....one that coffee is
pre-cooked......Why should a french press be different ? Am I straining
with the plunger?? Borer? Any answers
Nuss
<Nusseif@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchak Moran <dougom@...>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:33:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Occam's razor
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote:
>I recently claimed that Judaism does not believe in Occam's razor.
>Yeshoshua Berkowitz disagreed and also didnt think it appropriate it to
>make statements of the form: Judaism does not...
>
>If a person has spent his whole life doing good and then goes to visit a
>prostitute then the simplest explanation is not that he wanted to sin
>but rather that he was trying to redeem captives.
>
>True we have used occams simplests explanation criteria, but the point I
>was making was that it is not well defined: Simplest with respect to
>what---to his visitation or to his life. Relative to the visitation if
>you see someone with a prostitute he wants to sin. But relative to his
>life, the simplest explanation is that he was trying to help captives.
I've been reading this thread with interest and would like to say
respectfully that I think that Russell is misunderstanding the
application of "Occam's Razor."
Occam said, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," which
translates to "plurality should not be posited without necessity." A
less didactic way of putting it might be "do not make any more
assumptions than needed," or "don't make things more complicated if you
don't have to." Interestingly, while many philosophers have tried to
use Occam's Razor to postulate the preferability of Atheism over a
God-created universe, it seems likely to me that William himself (who
has a Franciscan Monk) would have been appalled. But I digress.
(Many in a modern context extrapolate Occam's Razor to mean, "all things
being equal, when looking at the explanation for an event, the simplest
explanation is likely to be the correct one." At least, that is my
experience.)
So where does this leave us with regard to Russell's statement? Well,
in my opinion, his example is a good *demonstration* of Occam's
principal. We have here an obviously-Orthodox Jew entering a
whorehouse. What would William say? Or Sherlock Holmes? Heck, I can
hear Holmes in my head right now: "If an Orthodox Jew -- a faith known
for being pious and not straying outside of marriage -- is seen openly
visiting a house of ill repute, what can one conclude? Consider the
situation; Watson. If such a man wanted to visit a prostitute, would he
knowingly occasion the opprobrium of his fellows by openly visiting such
a place? No; I deduce that he is much more likely to visit as
inconspicuously as possible--late at night, perhaps, or in disguise. So
what can we conclude? That this man was there for another reason.
Perhaps an illness of one of the fallen ladies, and he is attending her.
Perhaps he heard an alarm that we did not, as we were farther away, and
he was going in to render aid. But we can be sure, my good fellow, that
such a man would not walk into a bawdy-house in broad daylight for an
assignation!"
How is the principle applied in this case? Well, the observer cannot
stop at the simple fact of "a man enters a whorehouse;" he must add a
few facts to reach a conclusion, i.e. plurality in this case *must* be
posited, and the additional facts ("it's not *any* man, it's an Orthodox
Jew entering in broad daylight!") must be considered.
While I agree that in any number of cases all the pertinent facts cannot
be known, and thus one will attempt to apply Occam's Razor incompletely
or inappropriately, this does not mean that the principle itself is
incompatible with Judaism. If you find a charred tree on the ground,
it's more likely to be there as a result of a lightening strike rather
than an alien landing. (Don't make the explanation more complicated
unnecessarily.) If you hear hoofbeats, expect horses, not zebras. (But
if you're where zebras are common, you *should* expect zebras--the
assumption about zebras must be added due to conditions.) Etc.
Yitzchak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:25:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Occam's razor
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> concludes:
>If a person has spent his whole life doing good and then goes to visit a
>prostitute then the simplest explanation is not that he wanted to sin
>but rather that he was trying to redeem captives.
>
>True we have used Occams simplests explanation criteria, but the point I
>was making was that it is not well defined: Simplest with respect to
>what---to his visitation or to his life. Relative to the visitation if
>you see someone with a prostitute he wants to sin. But relative to his
>life, the simplest explanation is that he was trying to help captives.
Precisely. Occam's razor has two sides: it requires us 1) to use the
simplest hypothesis 2) that explains the largest number of known
factors. In this example, the factors to be explained are the character
of the actor + the nature of the action observed. A hypothesis that
explains one but not the other does not survive the razor.
To use a less contentious example: when we didn't have systematic
observations of astronomical motions, we could ignore what we didn't
know and have a 'simpler' system of fixed spheres surrounding the earth
and bearing the various observable astronomic bodies. However, as we
assembled more data from which patterns emerged, our hypothesis had to
change to explain the expanding number of known factors. Perforce, we
had to move to a system which no longer had earth as its center with the
sun moving around us in its fixed sphere. Although the celestial
spheres system worked perfectly for a more limited set of knowledge,
expanding knowledge meant that it no longer was the simplest hypothesis
to explain /all/ known factors.
The real problems in applying Occam's razor to human behaviour are
defining simplicity and deciding when someone's character is 'known'
enough to become a factor within #2 above. As the psalmist might have
said, "Who can know the human heart?" This is, perhaps, the point at
which "dan le-kaf z'chut" is operant: we lower our expectation of proof
of the goodness of the actor and accept 'weaker' evidence if it is
favourable.
Kol tuv from
Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:55:15 +0000
Subject: Ockham's Razor
Bernard Katz <bkatz@...> writes:
>Ockham's Razor, as it is usually formulated, is the principle that
> entities are not to multiplied beyond necessity (Entia non sunt
> multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). This is a doctrine of ontological
> parsimony, which says, in effect, that one should refrain from positing
> entities (or kinds of entities) in the absence of compelling reasons
> for doing so. In other words, one should not affirm the existence of
> something unless one has sufficient positive grounds for doing so.
Goodness, does that mean that what R' Seth Farber refers to as the "Rule
of conservation of biblical personalities" is a form of Ockham's Razor?
[The "Rule of conservation of biblical personalities" as formulated by
R' Seth Faber reflects the tendency of the midrash to identify unknown
personalities in Tanach with known personalities in Tanach (eg Shifra
and Puah are Yochevet and Miriam etc etc).]
Regards
Chana Luntz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 46 Issue 55
