Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
bored: yes, the one who was niftar. do you want a recommendation for a good doctor?
DY: any comment???
Sam: “You’re assuming there’s no issue of Boneh either”
So, while I understand how a superficial reading of the Shulchan Aruch could lead one to this conclusion, and the Chida is a reliable Posek, the consensus of the majority of the Poskim would not allow turning on electric lights even when they could not be kindled prior to YT. Furthermore, permitting turning on lights on YT is clearly a big step down the slippery slope that could lead uninformed individuals to much, much worse; ?????? ????.
Dayan Fisher sent people to Sataf. The husband should catch the water from the spring in his mouth and spit it into his wife’s mouth.
However, he also told people that it only works if you tell him in advance you are going so he can daven for you.
I suggest zahava’s solution. Did it last month and worked fine.
No. See Kaf HaChaim 502:2 and Minchas Yitzchok 4:99.
Accepted.
I think almost all of your points can be resolved by rectifying two misconceptions.
Consequently, the rules of which type of Siman are effective at removing the Issur of Milchig bread are not relevant to determining how to avoid Ein Mevatlin. While the photo you linked illustrates that Goyim may eat meat with English muffins, the OU-D designation will preempt this with frum Jews. Numerous Poskim in Siman 87 as well as in 89 mention ?”? ????? ?? ???. If you wish to propose otherwise, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
True that Milchig bread is Assur, but this bread is NOT Milchig!!!
The OU is Machmir, the Star-K, as mentioned previously, is Meikil. My opinion is that one may be lenient.
HOWEVER, as APY stated, it must have a reliable Pesach Hechsher or it may contain stray wheat grains or be processed on non-Kosher equiptment.
DY: “If it’s assur to be m’vatel milk into bread…”
Only bread likely to be eaten with meat.
“it would have the status of not batel”
Not true. The Issur b’DiEved on one who was MEvatel Issur is ony a Knas.
Have you ever learned YD 87? Mixing fleishig rennet with milk itself is not an issue of Ma’amid if the meat is intrinsically Muttar. Bread intended to eat with meat cannot be worse than the meat tself!!!
“Then why your comment to yitayningwut?”
The Shulchan Aruch and Rema in YD 134:13 DO Pasken the Rashba. This should be sufficient to give one pause before relying on the supposed absence of problematic ingredients on the label even if the Nodah b’Yehuda and others do not.
The Rashba is not relevant here. His limitation is based on its similarity to a Ma’amid, and as we know from YD 87 regarding rennet, Ma’amid is only applicable to Issur and not Milchigs or Fleishigs.
In truth, see the Pischei Teshuva towards the end of YD 134 that the Halacha likely doe snot follow the Rashba.
DY: “Do I need to cite a source that a siman only works during the baking?
Do I need to cite a source that intention isn’t sufficient?”
Can you cite any sources that the above restrictions apply to Bitul Issur l’Chatchila and not solely to the prohibition of creating bread withperceptibleble Milchig flavor.
marbehshalom: sorry for the delay. It’s Siman 10 Anaf 2, Amud 127
DY: I understand that you feel that way, but you have neither cited a source nor a reasoning to assume so.
DY: Yes, but only a dough one is likely to eat with meat.
uneeq: The Shulchan Aruch informs us that fleishig bread requires either a conclusive siman or a minimal quantity. PBA’s corn-bread meets neither of these qualifications.
DY: Rather than relying on the Gilyon Maharsha or the Badei HaShulchan, I suggest you look up the Tzemach Tzeddek (HaKadmon) inside. It’s been a couple of years, but I’m pretty sure he writes what I said in his name.
I don’t understand that point from Rav Shachter either, though I would be uncomfortable telling someone to eat it with a hamburger because it lead to Takala. One could anticipate that rumors will abound that all Entenman’s products are really Pareve, which is presumably not true.
It would be Batel because it is only a Ta’am Kalush, and only Milsa d’Avida l’Ta’ama is Assur when less than 1/60. Reb Chaim (Brisker) brings a beautiful illustration of Ta’am Kalush. If I made a stew with 61 ingredients apportioned evenly, would it be tasteless? Each individual flavor has 60 against it, and the end result should be water. Obviously Bitul b’Shishim does not mean it imparts NO flavor, just that whatever it contributes is Halachically insignificant.
uneeq: “I think pretty much anyone who doesn’t know the proper shape of borekas makes sure to check inside first”
Maybe they should, but I was just asked a sheila today about someone who heated cheese bourekas on a fleishig pan in his fleishig oven. It happens all the time.
“Being that most borekas have cheese oozing out of them, the chumras of the rabbinate is probably for naught”
I didn’t say they are forbidden, I said the siman of a triangle is inconsequential. In my opinion they do not need any heker at all for various reasons.
uneeq: “You would have to prove that the issur also applies to other things aside for bread”
First of all, bourekas are bread. Secondly, the Tzemach Tzedek who applied Ein Mevatlin was discussin wine and the Taz forbids a spice grinder, clearly not bread foods. The bottom line according to their opinion is that anything eaten with both meat and dairy must remain pareve, and this would apply to bourekas as well.
“This doesn’t apply to borakas unless you can prove that borekas are eaten with (directly, it’s not enough in the same meal) meat and dairy.”
In EY they are commonly easten as a side dish with the main course, which could easily be meat.
uneeq: “If I live in a house where home made corn bread is regarded as a questionable product, I am fine according to the Rashba, because I will come to ask someone and will get the right answer.”
“if one changed the appearance of the bread it is permitted, because one who sees it will know that its appearance was only changed to make a noticeable difference (heker) and will ask and be told”
You emphasised the wrong words. My point is that noone will ask “why did you make corn-bread, is it fleishig?”, they will assume it was done for the taste, just like an English muffin. Therefore, the siman is inconsequential.
uneeq: “Well the chavos da’as says that putting siman after the baking doesn’t help as the pas is already ossur, and making a siman only works before the bread is finish being baked. I saw this in other achronim too.”
What I answered DY answers your question as well.
DY: the letter you quoted was in response to my questions, the dates match precisely.
DY: “The motive of Shishim seems logical to me
Not to me, since ein m’vatlin issur l’chatchilah, which the poskim do apply to milchig bread.”
As above, there is no bitul issur unless it is likely to be eaten with meat, which is unlikely considering the OU-D designation.
DY: “Except that, as you noted in your letter, a siman after the fact, especially on packaging, is ineffectual.”
You are confusing two different sugyos. Milchig bread requires a Siman prior to the baking, and the Hechsher’s symbol iineffectiveve. however, here the issue is being mevatel milk to eat with meat, and practically speaking noone will eat Thomas English Muffins with meat due to the OU-D designation. Hence, there is no bitul issur.
pba: you are initially correct. There was a three month delay before the final email. I later got a hold of internal OU documents that attest that there was serious debate between Rav Belsky and Rav Schachter during that time whether or not to withdraw the hechsher from Thomas English Muffins. The motive of Shishim seems logical to me, and was the issue they discussed. The small size is ridiculous, as the dough mixed is huge, and that would be the issue.
uneeq: “hello: It seems to me that the uniqueness of corn-bread would not meet the criteria of the Rashba, as a consumer would not see it as an indication of the corn-bread’s fleishig status, but rather of the uniqueness of corn-bread.
For consumers you are right. That would be in line with the Maharit brought down in the Pischei Tshuva. But for households it would be fine if everyone knows that the homemade corn-bread is fleishigs”
I disagree. When produced commercially no Siman is effective, as per the Maharit. The Rashba is referring to circumstances where a Siman is a valid solution, namely in the home, and even there its uniqueness must conclusively indicate its status.
BTW, according to this Maharit (and common sense experience), the practice in Israel of making cheese bourekas triangular is ineffective.
uneeq: the Tzemach Tzedek would not be an issue here. His sole problem is because wine is gnerally consumed with Fleishigs, so adding minute quantities of milk would be Bittul Issur. Once the OU adds “D” to the label of the the muffins, it is no longer likely that a frum Jew would eat them with meat, and there is no issue of Bittul Issur.
BTW, Thomas is owned by Entenman’s, which I suspect is Jewish owned.
Dear Webbe Rebbe,
Thank you very much,
Hello99
Dear Hello99,
Thank you for checking with the OU regarding your Kashruth question.
The OU does not endorse breads that are dairy. However, an exception is made for Thomas English muffins, which because of their unique shape and appearance, will not be confused or mixed together with other breads, which would cause problems.
With best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous spring season, we remain
Sincerely,
The Web (be) Rebbe Team
Thank you very much for your quick response. I really appreciate your help. However, I am still a little confused.
Again, thank you very much for your help, and I hope you will be able to continue to assist me.
Hello99
Dear Rabbi Hello99:
Thank you for checking with the OU on your Kashruth question.
With our sincerest wishes for a healthy and pleasant fall season, we remain,
Sincerely,
The Web (be) Rebbe Team
Thomas English Muffins are less than 1/60 milk. I once had an email exchange with the OU on this subjuct and will try to dig it up and post it.
I checked into it about 25 years ago, and Bosch then was a Jewish-owned company
Health: “I’m actually surprised at your answer”
Which part of it?
“You know how Psak works -does a Machlokes Achronim make it into a Safek D’oraysa?”
It depends if there is a resolution to the Machlokes or not. Reb Moshe writes in Dibros Moshe on Shabbos that if one knows there is a Machlokes and is unqualified to Pasken personally and does not ask a Rav, he must follow Safek d’Oraisa l’Hachmir.
yitay: well, everyone who only eats Kosher food 😉
Has anyone ever had an emergency while davening shemonei esray??? I bet no one ever has!
Last Rosh HaShana I was in the middle of Musaf Shmona Esrei when a Hatzala volunteer tapped me on the shoulder that my wife was outside in the ambulance.
Health: Why are you asking me, you consider me a compulsive Machmir? 😉
Honestly, my opinion is that while it is praiseworthy to be Machmir when feasible, on a true medicine it is permitted. I am not lenient on dietary supplements unless they are treating a deficiency or other condition where there therapeutic benefit is documented and not just speculation.
copied:
Chazal inform us that the primary cause for the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash was Sinas Chinam. In this context, the Gemara in Gitin famously ascribes partial blame to the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. I think most of us are familiar with the incident where an unnamed individual threw a celebration and mistakenly invited his rival Bar Kamtza in place of his friend Kamtza. When the error was discovered, he insisted on ejecting Bar Kamtza despite repeated entreaties. In revenge, Bar Kamtza incited the Roman Emperor on a path that ultimately led to the siege of Yerushalaim and the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash.
The question arises, why does Kamtza share the responsibility equally with Bar Kamtza; he had absolutely no stated role in the events? And why is the host whose rigid hate and stubbornness to humiliate Bar Kamtza not named?
Chazal tell us that one do did not merit the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash in his days is as if it was destroyed in his days. The implication being that if we had eradicated the Sinas Chinam that led to the Churban, we would immediately merit its rebuilding, and we are held accountable for not doing our part.
May we all deserve to see the Third Beis HaMikdash soon.
hamotzi
Sam: “That’s the Eivah I’m talking about and it’s quite direct”
That doesn’t qualify as “direct Sakana”. Would you permit Chillul Shabbos etc because maybe some Goy in Europe might think that all Jews _ (fill in the blank)?
The bottom line is that while a position permitting organ donation after cardiac death is not inconceivable, it is by no means a given, and your rant against Gedolei HaPoskim was WAY out of line!!!
Chacham: “See teshuvos Maharil siman 5 ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ????, ??”? ???? ???? ??”? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????
“
yitay: while it is true that pure tea leaves are intrinsically Kosher, Argo teas are often flavored. The additional flavorings can pose serious Kashrus issues.
OK, so you vehemently accused the Gedolei HaPoskim of recklessly endangering Jewish lives due to ignorance, while you were personally uninformed regarding both the Metzius and the Halacha.
We certainly know that anti-Semitism exists, but where do you see that an Eiva that leads to Sakana is caused by lack of Jewish organ donors??? That is the threshold cited by the Chasam Sofer; his Heter is more accurately termed Sakana than Eiva. Anti-Semitism long preceded organ transplants, and no one permitted Issurim due to a vague resentment.
Are you suggesting that the Arabs would cease their terrorist attacks and skin-heads would leave us alone if we merely started donating organs??? If you can prove that, I will grant you that the Chasam Sofer would likely permit organ donation after cardiac death.
Reb Moshe OC 4:79 also favors the Chasam Sofer over the Mishna Berura; however, he interprets it as I did to require a concrete concern of Sakana.
Sam: OK, I found it. The Chasam Sofer is YD 131 and CM 194. However, he does not allow Chilul Shabbos for any ordinary Eiva, he requires a concrete risk of Sakana to abstain from saving the Goy. In his words ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????. So, you still have no source that would permit an Issur d’Oraisa due to some vague risk of resentment at a lower rate of Jewish organ donors. Furthermore, the Mishna Berura 330:8 disagrees even with this very limited leniency and writes that the doctors who save non-Jews on Shabbos are ????? ??? ?????? ?????.
Sam: So, you meant to accuse the Poskim in the USA of creating Sakana for the Yidden of EY??? I find that hard to believe.
I’ll have to look for this Chasam Sofer myself since you seem unconcered to find any sources to support your besmirching Gedolei HaPoskim.
You haven’t addressed the other issues, that even if Eiva existed on a d’Oraisa it wouldn’t be relevant in the case of an organ donor.
Sam: “we allow people to be Mechalel Shabbos Mishum Eivah, even in cases where the Poskim mention possible good excuses that can be given”
Can you bring a source for this statement that contradicts Mishna Berura and other sources that I cited?
“And I already amended to say that I only did this in America, not Israel”
You ammended it only after your tirade against “this is Machshil es Harabbim and Gorem Sakanas Nefashos for many Jews, especially those in Eretz Yisrael”. You are not being honest to claim “so I didn’t accuse the Poskim in Israel of anything”
Sam: I still must disagree with you from both a Halachic and practical perspective.
Furthermore, your definition of Eiva is excessively broad. All of the cases mentioned in Shas and Poskim are where the Yid is refusing to assist a Goy purely due to the fact that he is not Jewish. We only find concern of Eiva when confronted with this blatant discrimination; however, here we are not suggesting that one donate his organs to Jews and not Goyim. When a Jew declines to donate his organs in general to anyone for religious reasons, there is no indication that a concern of Eiva exists. In fact, Rashi Bava Metzia 32b s.v. ?? ???? ??? ???????? clearly states that when one can explain that he cannot assist the non-Jew to load his donkey with Yayin Nesech for religious reasons, Eiva no longer applies. This is cited in the Beis Yosef CM 272.
In fact, it is clear from the Gemara Avoda Zara 26a and Shulchan Aruch OC 330:2 that one may even discriminate between Jews and non-Jews when a credible excuse is given.
Additionally, we only find Eiva when a Yid refuses a direct request for assistance. Merely failing to sign an organ donor card is not comparable.
On the practical angle, I have not seen an organ donor card that allows one to specify that one ONLY wishes to donate after cardiac death. Most do not differentiate at all, and once one has signed there is no guarantee that they will not murder the brain-dead signatory to use his organs.
In fact, the secular world considers brain death the more reliable indicator of the cessation of life. Many states and hospitals do not accept cardiac death from their moral perspective and will refuse to remove organs from a patient who has suffered cardiac arrest. They would understand any stipulation of cardiac death in a living will as including EVEN an individual who has merely undergone cardiac death, and not as excluding a brain dead person.
By way of illustration, less than 5% of deaths are brain deaths, but they comprise 92% of organ donations. Most US hospitals cannot, or will not, accept organs from one who has suffered cardiac death. They will ONLY accept organs from a brain dead, but Halachically alive, patient.
In conclusion, anyone who signs consent to donate his organs is asking to be murdered, and there is no Heter due to Eiva even when truly dead.
Sam: After you accused the Gedolei HaPoskim in EY of reckless endangering Jewish lives due to their ignorance, and it was subsequently proven that you were the misinformed party; I would expect to see a little contrition on your part.
SAM: “my argument still stands here”
Not at all. Since less than 2% of the USA is Jewish, there is no consideration of Pikuach Nefesh. Consequently, the issues of ????? ??? ?????? ???? are huge problems to your argument.
Sam: But your entire rant against the Gedolei HaPoskim was based on Pikuach Nefesh and the unwillingness of European countries to send organs “any Posek who refuses to let people do this is Machshil es Harabbim and Gorem Sakanas Nefashos for many Jews, especially those in Eretz Yisrael where European countries won’t send organs” and “I just feel (very, very, strongly) that they have missed the point, are not completely aware of the physical facts, and have therefore created a situation where Israel is denied organs to save Jewish lives because too many Jews won’t be organ donors”.
Now you are admitting that you had no idea what you were talking about and YOU are the one who is unaware of the facts!!! Does that trouble you???
Sam: it bothers me that you write so vehemently about an issue you are unfamiliar with. The discussion is organ donations in EY and you wrote previously “Those posters are wrong. Every organ is usable nowadays if harvested within an hour of death, sometimes more. It was true 10 years ago that they needed organs from a live person. It’s not true today”
however, you are incorrect. While the NEJM writes that theoretically this is true, it is not the case in EY.
these quotes from ADI- the official Israeli government transplant Center
So unless you can convince the transplant surgeons in EY to change their policy, it is impossible for someone to donate organs without being murdered according to Gedolei HaPoskim!!!