Volume 64 Number 47
Produced: Wed, 22 Jan 20 07:12:51 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Coronation of a new rabbi
[Yisrael Medad]
Does the food stay parev or become meaty?
[David Ziants]
Giving rebuke
[Joel Rich]
Halachic accidents?
[Michael Mirsky]
The Chinese New Year
[Martin Stern]
The geulah atidah
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 12,2020 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Coronation of a new rabbi
Perets Mett asks (MJ 64#46):
> Perhaps we should look for another translation of the word hachtoro into
> English
Might I suggest "being invested", from investiture - the act of establishing
someone in office.
--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Thu, Jan 16,2020 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Does the food stay parev or become meaty?
Only later in life did I understand that a lot of the things we do in the
kitchen to separate meat, milk and parev are for logistic purposes and are not
always strictly needed according to halacha. I am sure there are some people on
this list who have heard the joke that a husband comes home with a full set of
the Shulchan Aruch and tells his wife that he is going to be learning for
semicha. The wife has a glance through the relevant sections of the Shulchan
Aruch and retorts: "if you follow this - you will traif up my kitchen!".
So, I want to present a scenario and hear opinions concerning the technical
halacha (and I apologise if any parts of my questions show ignorance or half
ignorance with respect to how I word this):-
I have two (meaty) pots, one containing parev food (pasta in tomato sauce if it
matters) and another containing kuba cooking in boiling water with a thick dough
with meat inside and the the dough does not seem to be punctured in anyway. Also
the fork used is meaty. Assuming none of these were "ben yomo" - i.e. not used
for meat in last 24 hours.
Question 1: Is the dough covering the meat in the kuba considered a "klipa"
["skin"] and is the dough boleya [absorb taste] as it is part of the meat food
and if it does, is it polait [give out taste] into the water? Is it considered
that thgeere is a meat taste in the water of the kuba?
Question 2: If there is a meat taste in the water, does the kuba then turn this
pot into a "ben yomo" - i.e. does it now have the status of a pot that was used
for meat within 24 hours and "absorbed" the taste of the meat inside the kuba?
Question 3: If I put a fork into the kuba pot to stir the kuba and take it out,
does the fork turn into a "ben yomo" (if there is such a status for cutlery used
for cooking) ?
Question 4: Immediately after I take that fork out of the kuba pot, without
washing it, and put it in the pasta pot to stir this. Does the pasta become:-
a) Completely meaty, i.e before drinking milk, I would need to wait after eating
this pasta as if I had eaten fully fledged meat.
b) B'chezkat b'sari, i.e. a status that I do not need to wait (a substantial
time) before drinking milk, but should not eat this at the same time with milk
food and should wash mouth out before partaking of something milky?
c) Completely parev, maybe because the fork is not a ben yomo, or maybe, if
there is meat taste in the water of the kuba, or even if a bit of meat even fell
on the fork - it becomes batel b'shishim when this is placed in the pasta? (Or
does a bit of meat that fell on the fork turn this into status b?)
Question 5: Does the pot containing the parev food become a ben yomo with
respect to meat?
(This was a real life scenario, but I am not looking for a p'sak, because if
there really becomes an issue that has ramifications, I would ask my Rav.)
Looking forward to responses.
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
<dziants@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, Jan 15,2020 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Giving rebuke
The trouble IMHO with a hilchot hochacha (laws of giving rebuke) shiur is that
it is an example of trying to codify something that is primarily mimetic. 100
shiurim can't take the place of role models who demonstrate how to know when it
will be accepted, how time and place define when, and on what issues, to dig in
one's heels.
Also how to evaluate the impact on the individual vs. the community.
Thoughts?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Mirsky <mirskym@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 13,2020 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Halachic accidents?
David Tzohar questioned (MJ 64#46) why LED lights are not allowed on Shabbat even
though they may not have a halachic problem. My understanding is that rabanan
are concerned that the layman may get confused between electric devices which
are permitted and those which aren't and accidentally turn on a device which is
forbidden de'oraita (such as an incandescent bulb).
I agree that there is also the uvda d'chol question as in the phenomenon of
those teenagers who text but otherwise observe Shabbat and describe themselves
as 'keeping half Shabbat'.
Michael Mirsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 20,2020 at 10:01 AM
Subject: The Chinese New Year
I noticed that the Chinese New Year is always on or around a Rosh Chodesh in
January or February each year, so I did a bit of research on how their
calendar works. It seems that, like us, the Chinese have alternatively 29
and 30 day lunar months fitted to a 365 1/4 day solar year which means they
also have to add an extra month from time to time.
The way they solve this problem would appear to be that their New Year
begins on the second new moon after the Winter Solstice. It struck me that
this was a much simpler way of dealing with the approximately 11 days
missing in 12 lunar months than our Metonic cycle.
Why did we not adopt a similar method, though based on the Vernal Equinox so
that Pesach should always fall in the Spring, at least when an extra month
was intercalated on the basis of observation?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 21,2020 at 05:01 PM
Subject: The geulah atidah
Haim Snyder wrote (MJ 64#46):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 64#45):
>
>> ...
>> At the end of Beshallach (Ex. 17:16), we find that Hashem declares "Ki-yad
>> al-keis Y"H milchamah Lashem ba'Amalek midor dor [Hashem, from His throne,
>> will wage war on Amalek in every generation]".
>>
>> There are two strange spellings in this verse: the normal word for throne,
>> kisei, is spelled keis without its final alef, and the for letter name of
>> Hashem is abbreviated by omitting its two final letters - vav and heh. Rashi
>> (ad loc.) notes these omissions and comments "The Holy One, Blessed is He
>> swore that His name is not complete, nor His throne complete, until the name
>> of Amalek [the embodiment of evil] will be completely eradicated ..."
>> ...
>> In the berachah after kriat shema in the morning "Emet veyatsiv", there is a
>> passage "Ledor vador Hu kayam ushemo kayam vechiso nachon umalchuto
>> ve'emunato la'ad kayemet [throughout all generations He endures and His name
>> endures, His throne is established and His kingdom and faithfulness endure
>> for ever]" which Rav Bamberger linked to Hashem's promise in Beshallach.
>>
>> Altogether three letters had been omitted which, when read backwards, heh vav
>> alef, spell out the word Hu thus making Chazal's formulation allude to the
>> idea that these omitted letters would endure and ensure that His complete
>> name would also endure, despite its current abbreviated form, and, also, His
>> throne would be established in full for ever. That the letters had to be
>> read backwards to learn this lesson may also be significant in that we will
>> only be able to appreciate it with hindsight once it has happened ...
>
> I became aware of the missing letters in the last verse of Beshallach many
> years ago. However, the reason for the passage in "Emet veyatsiv" that was
> given was different. It is there to help us fulfill the commandment to keep in
> mind the battle with Amalek every day.
IMHO Haim's explanation is not really very different from that of Rav Bamberger.
In my book, A Time to Speak, I noted (p.72):
> The custom is to hold the tzitzit until one reaches the word la'ad, forever,
> in the berachah after the morning Shema, after which they are kissed and
> released. This word could be vocalised to read le'ed, for a witness,
> developing the above idea that we should be the evidence of the truth of the
> concepts contained in the Shema (Isaiah 43:10). Interestingly this is done at
> the second time the word la'ad appears in this paragraph, which might be a
> hint that "by the word of two witnesses shall a matter be confirmed" (Deut.
> 15:19).
>
> Following this line of thought, one might see a similar hint in the conclusion
> of the hashkivenu blessing after the recital of the evening Shema. The words
> "shomer amo yisrael la'ad" meaning "who protects His people Israel for ever"
> might be read as "who protects His people as a witness". That this formula is
> changed on Shabbat and Yom Tov fits in with their special nature as witness to
> Him.
Perhaps the idea that letting go of the tzitzit after the second time
la'ad is said might hint to the halachic rule "by the word of two witnesses
shall a matter be confirmed" might, itself, be connected to Rav
Bamberger's insight that the berachah "Emet veyatsiv" might be alluding to
the Messianic era when Amalek will be destroyed and Hashem and His throne
will be once again complete.
At the end of Makkot (24b), the incident is narrated where R. Akiva and some
other Sages visited the Har HaBayit and saw a fox coming out from the ruins
of Kodesh Kodeshim, and the latter cried whereas R. Akiva smiled. When they
remonstrated with him about his apparent lack of concern, he told them that
precisely this was a sign that eventually the Beit Hamikdash would be
rebuilt, quoting the Navi (Isaiah 8:2) "I will summon trustworthy witnesses
for Myself, Uriyah Hakohen and Zechariyah ben Yeverechiyah". He explained
that though the former lived in the time of the First Temple and the latter
of the Second Temple, their prophecies are connected. Uriyah prophesied
(Michah 3:12) "Therefore, because of you, Tzion will be ploughed over like a
field, Yerushalayim will become heaps of rubble and the Har HaBayit will
become like heaps of stones in the forest". Zechariyah prophesied (8:4) "Old
men and old women will once again sit in the streets of Yerushalayim". As
long as Uriyah's prophecy had not been fulfilled, I feared that Zechariyah's
would also remain unfulfilled, but now that I see that the former had been
fulfilled, I am certain that the latter will also be fulfilled.
Might one suggest that by only letting go of the tzitzit after the second
mention of la'ad might refer to the two prophecies of the two witnesses,
Uriyah and Zechariyah.
Any comments?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 64 Issue 47
