The Case of The Fallen Spoon - A GESHMAKKKKEEEE Discussion About A Geshmakkkkeeeeeee Dinner

לזכות ר' משה מרדכי בן חנה לבריאת השלמה!!

A woman is in the kitchen [not because a woman's place is in the kitchen but because she is preparing dinner for her family:-)] cooking both chicken and meat [deeeliicious!!] in two separate pots. She has two milchig spoons nearby, one is a ben yomo [it has been used within the last 24 hours for hot milchig and imparts good flavor] and one is not a ben yomo [and imparts bad flavor and doesn't cause meat to be treif]. One of the spoons - she doesn't know if it is the ben yomo or the non ben yomo - fell into the pot of chicken and the woman took it out and then used it to stir the pot of meat. Then, to her horror, she realized that the spoon is milchig. 

Uh oh! 

The question is, does the spoon treif up the food? 

This question was presented to Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank and he goes to town with it.

לאמיר זעהן - Let's see: Since it first fell into the pot of chicken which is only a di-rabanan, we should be meikel and kasher the food. On the other hand, since she is asking about both pots at once including the meat which is di-oraisa, we should be machmir and assume it was the ben yomo that fell in and both pots are treif. We can't be machmir about the meat pot and lenient about the chicken pot because that would lead one to treat di-rabanan with disrespect. We find this idea when a person is not sure whether or not he bentched [which is a safek di-oraisa]. The halacha is that he must repeat the whole bentching including the fourth di-rabanan bracha in order that people don't lost respect for di-rabanans [זלזול]. Here too, maybe we will be machmir about the chicken as well in order that people don't see that we are only strict about di-oraisa. Or maybe we can differentiate between the cases and say that here there will be no זלזול for dirabanans because there are two separate doubts and two separate questions unlike bentching which is one unit and we must be machmir about the di-rabanan as well. 

Is it possible, however, to say that the chicken pot is kosher and the meat pot is treif even though the question is about the very same spoon?? This would be an inherently contradictory psak. When we pasken about the chicken pot we say that it was the non ben yomo spoon and when we pasken about the meat pot we say that the very same spoon was in fact ben yomo. Can't be, because it was the same spoon!!

There is a famous-famous-famous case where a butcher schechted 7 animals and sold half of one animal and the other half remained in the slaughter house. Then ...... one of the stomachs was found to be treif meaning that now we have a sefeik on each animal. So the rule is that all of the animals that left the slaughter house are kosher because the majority of animals are kosher and כל דפריש מרובא פריש - whatever separated is assumed to be from the majority. Whatever stayed in the same place is assumed to be treif because כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי - Whatever is in a set place is assumed to be 50-50 [even if there is a majority] and we are machmir on the safek. 

But what about the animal that was cut in half? Can we say that the half that separated is kosher and the other half that remained in a set place is treif. Can the same animal be kosher and treif?? This echoes are spoon question. Can we say about the same spoon that when it fell into the chicken pot it was a non ben yomo and then when it fell into the meat pot it was a ben yomo? 

There are 3 opinions about the animal - both kosher, both treif, half and half. 

Can we distinguish between the animal question and our spoon question? We can. Think about it....

What is the conclusion??

BOTH KOSHER!!!!

Why?

Says Rav Frank a BRILLIANT CHAP!!

Read on....

שפתיים ישק ודברי פי חכם חן!

Working Hard

Rav Mordechai Greenberg 

Midrash Tanchuma begins its comments on this week's Torah portion with the choice of Yisrael and the giving of the Torah. "And He gave us the Written Torah with hidden and ambiguous hints, which have been explained in the Oral Torah." The Midrash discusses the great value of the Oral Torah, which can only be obtained by one who "puts himself to death" over it. The Midrash adds that "The covenant which the Almighty made with Bnei Yisrael was in reference to the Oral Torah, as is written, 'For by these words I have made a covenant with you' [Shemot 34:27], that the Torah will not be forgotten by the people and by their offspring until the end of the generations... Therefore it was established that two sessions were required by Yisrael, for them to study by day and by night." The Midrash continues at length on the subject of the importance of the labor and the exertion to be expended in studying, "And whoever loves wealth and pleasure cannot study the Oral Torah, because its study requires great suffering and a lack of sleep." Commentators have noted about this statement that they are not sure exactly why this discussion is relevant at this point.

It is written, "Moshe commanded the Torah to us, a heritage for the community of Yaacov" [Devarim 33:4]. The Talmud Yerushalmi notes that "morashah" – a heritage – indicates a situation of doubt and weakness. And it asks, what is doubtful about the Torah? The answer is that when one begins to study the Torah there is indeed great doubt which is cleared up only after a great effort. But we may ask: Why was the Torah given in this way, leading to difficulty and rejection?

The Midrash teaches us that after the Two Tablets were shattered the Holy One, Blessed be He, taught Moshe the Torah and the Mishna, halacha and aggada, and everything that a scholar might want to ask in the future. Moshe wanted to write everything down, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, replied, "I wrote down for them the main elements of My Torah, and they treated them as alien material" [Hoshaya 8:12]. In the future the other nations would try to take possession of the Torah, as the Christians did. He therefore wrote down only the written parts, while the Oral Torah was not written on tablets but in the hearts of Yisrael, as is written, "I will write it on their hearts" [Yirmiyahu 31:32]. This means that Yisrael serves as the parchment on which the Torah is written. "He planted eternal life within us – this refers to the Oral Torah" [TUR]. In order for the Torah to be engraved on the heart, labor and great effort are needed, since whatever is achieved with little effort will easily be removed. And from that moment on, "Yisrael and the Torah is one and the same thing." [Zohar, volume 2, 90b].

"'Squeezing milk produces butter' [Mishlei 30:33]. In which people can the butter of Torah be found? It is in those who spit out the milk which they drank from their mother's breast." [Berachot 63b]. Rav Kook explains that there is an evil trait of pedagogues who want to lighten the burden of study, but that the result is that the material is not incorporated into the souls of the students. The "butter" of the Torah, the choicest part, is obtained when the students are disgusted by easily obtained knowledge and who desire to work hard and achieve the results by their own labors, like a growing child who becomes disgusted with nursing, even though mother's milk is good, easily digested, and easy to obtain.

It may be that the Tanchuma brings these ideas in the Torah portion of Noach since this is the first Shabbat of the winter session in the yeshivot. Many students would encounter difficulties in learning the Oral Torah, and they might ask why all this trouble was necessary. Why are there such difficult issues which make it hard for us to "bind" with the Gemarra? And the Midrash provides an answer: Without the proper effort, the Torah will not become firmly established in the souls of the individuals and the nation, and what comes easily can be lost with ease. And that is the essence of the covenant between Bnei Yisrael and G-d.

The Peace Of Shabbos

R' Yoni Lavie

There you are, driving along a highway. Your foot is pressed hard on the gas pedal, and your car cuts through the wind like a red-hot knife. Your hands caress the wheel hard, and your eyes are glued to the road, which weaves left and right like a wild snake.

The speed indicator long ago crossed the 100 km/hr mark, while you left behind a long colored line of cars which could not keep up your pace. You glance at the clock in your control panel, and you see that you have less than twenty minutes to make it to your very important meeting. You say to yourself, "I will not be late this time. I must get there on time!"

You press the accelerator to the floor, and the motor reacts with a roar, reminding you of a horse which hears the gun at the start of a race.

And then...

Suddenly, there it is. You see an annoying green light begin to flash, which changes to yellow in two seconds, a warning that a red light will soon follow.

Within a fraction of a second, your brain begins to analyze the fateful dilemma: Will I manage to get through this irritating delay if I get the car to go faster, or is it too late? Will I have to give up and waste two precious minutes with an unnecessary wait at a red light?

Unfortunately, this time there is no choice. You move your foot from the gas to the brakes, and your new tires screech and leave a black mark on the road. You are the first one in line at the light. In the few seconds before the other cars line up behind you, you open the window and try to get some idea of what is going on outside.

You turn to the left. A spectacular blue carpet of the Mediterranean Sea is spread out before your eyes. There is white foam at the edges, and the blue water is peppered with pesky waves. On your right, there is spring in the air. Everything is colored with fresh green, spiced with carpets of red "kalaniot" - anemone flowers. A light breeze with a scent of the ocean wafts through the open window, gently petting your cheek.

You react out loud. "What wonderful weather. It is a waste to run the air conditioner on such a day, and it is a shame to be riding in a car. Look how nice it is outside..."

A white family car of an old model stops to your right, and you can hear the children and their laughter. The sound excites a hidden chord within you.

You begin to think. "When you fly along on the road, you are so alone. You are an individual surrounded by a lot of other metal boxes on wheels. And then, suddenly, at the traffic light, you discover that the boxes are full of life. There are children inside."

They are just like your own children... The four precious little ones that are waiting at home to see you. How much you miss them. Just as in the past, today too they will probably not have the privilege of seeing their father. They will all be asleep when he gets home, you can merely hope to exchange a few words with your yawning wife, both of you almost totally asleep...

There is only one thing that helps you in this situation. Today is Thursday. Only one more day is left before this crazy week will release you from its clutches, and will let you get away from it all. You think, "Whoever thought of this idea of Shabbat is a genius. What would I do without it?"

Once a week you get an opportunity to look at your own children straight in the eyes, and to gulp down their childish laughter, like a fresh drink. Once a week you have an opportunity to meet live people and not moving boxes of metal, or screens full of data and Excel tables full of numbers.

Once every week you have an opportunity to look at the sky, to breathe the fresh scent of the flowers, and to listen to the pulse of nature, and your own pulse too...

This is one day every week when you can exist and not only perform, when you can experience life and not only do things, when you can "recalculate the route" and not only push the gas pedal down to the floor and speed forward without seeing anybody else around you.

You get one day a week when you can ask yourself all those questions that you don't have time to ask (or perhaps that you are afraid to ask...): Am I happy with the way I am? Is this what I always hoped for? One day, when I reach the end of my journey, will I be sorry about the way I lived my life?

What a wondrous thing this special day of the week is! If only it could last a bit longer. If only we could continue to taste its charm for more than one day...

You could have continued in your daydreaming for much longer, but the horn blowing in the car behind you made you lose your train of thought. You open your eyes to discover that the traffic light is no longer on your side. It has changed, and your sweet moment of reflection has evaporated.

You put your foot on the gas pedal, and your car jumps forward, back into the daily routine. All that remains with you is a sense of yearning and the feeling of a brief pinch on your face.

"What a shame. The light changed. Shabbat is over..."

Link

One perek from an upcoming sefer I HOPE G-D WILLING!!

Admiration And Awe

Two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily reflection is occupied with them: the starry heaven above me and the moral law within me.

-Immanuel Kant

The Nature Of Sfeikos Di-oraisa And Their Brachos

לזכות ר' משה מרדכי בן חנה לבריאות השלימה 

The Rambam says that an אנדורגינוס requires a bris milah מספק but no bracha is made. The Raavad differs and says that a bracha must be made.

The Acharonim [such as Rav Berel Kroizer ztz"l in his Shiurei Dvar Hamelech and Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel in his Darkei Moshe] learn that they are arguing about the nature of the obligation to fulfill mitzvos out of doubt. The Rambam holds that even when we are required to fulfill a mitzva out of doubt, nevertheless the obligation remains doubtful. So we tell the person to fulfill the mitzva but not to make a bracha in order to avoid a bracha li-vatala. The Ra'avad argues with the Rambam [that is what he did for a living:-)] and says that when a person has a doubt as to whether he must fulfill a mitzva, the Rabbis placed upon him an absolute, clear obligation to fulfill the mitzva. This doubt creates a NEW obligation thus necessitating a bracha.

In summation - the Rambam holds that a safek mitzva mitzva must be done מתורת ספק while the Raavad holds that a safek mitzva must be done מתורת ודאי.    

The Pri Megadim [Orach Chaim 17/2] says that according to the Rambam who holds that ספיקא דאורייתא is לקולא according to the Torah [and there is now only a Rabbinic obligation] a woman may be מוציא a טומטום in bentching because her דרבנן is מוציא his דרבנן. But wait a minute!! Maybe this טומטום is really a man and is חייב מדאורייתא and the woman is really a woman [she is!] and might only be חייבת מדרבנן so how can she be מוציא him?

We are compelled to say [and so said the sefer חדוותא דשמעתתא] that the Pri Megadim holds that according to the Rambam, if one is not sure about a חיוב דאורייתא there is no longer a חיוב. He is off the hook completely because ספק דאורייתא לקולא מן התורה. Now the Rabbis came along and said that there is a new Rabbinic obligation to do the mitzva. So we have no doubt anymore - a woman can be מוציא a טומטום because they both have an absolute Rabbinic obligation. 

But that is not consistent with our understanding of the Rambam! We said that he holds that when one has a doubt about a מצוה דאורייתא then he must fulfill the mitzva [מדרבנן] out of doubt. However no bracha is made because maybe he is not חייב at all. According to the Rambam there is no new, absolute חיוב מדרבן [as we said מתורת ודאי] to fulfill a ספק דאורייתא. If there were - then a bracha would be made on the Bris Milah of an אנדרוגינוס.

Problem. 

I had this problem for the longest time but today - בסייעתא דשמיא - I think I may have found a solution. 

The Rambam says that if a person is not sure whether or not he read Shema then not only does he say שמע out of doubt but repeats the brachos as well. How does that dovetail with his opinion that a bracha is not made on the Bris of an אנדרוגינוס? Here also we should read the Shema but skip the [מדרבנן] brachos and save ourselves brachos li-vatala. 

The Kesef Mishna was bothered by this and answered in the name of the Rashba that birchos Krias Shema must be read with Shema.

What does THAT mean?

Rav Soloveitchik explained that according to the Rambam there is a special rabbinic decree that birchos Krias Shema are part and parcel of Krias Shema. Thus, we must say the brachos together with Shema. This is in contrast to all other mitzvos where the brachos are separate from the actual mitzva. This separation enables us to do the safek mitzva without the bracha. The Raavad argues and holds that the mitzva and bracha are one unit and if you must do the mitzva out of doubt then you also must make a bracha as well. 

So their argument about מילת אנדרוגינוס is not whether the mitzva must be done מתורת ספק [Rambam] or מתורת ודאי [Raavad] but as to whether the bracha is one unit with the mitzva or a separate entity. But maybe EVERYBODY holds that the mitza must be done מתורת ודאי. 

If everything I said until now is true then we have a strong defense of the Pri Megadim. A woman can be מוציא a טומטום because this טומטום is completely not obligated מדאורייתא [because ספק דאורייתא לקולא] and has a new חיוב מדרבנן which is מתורת ודאי. So both the טומטום and the woman have the same level חיוב מדרבנן and she can thus be מוציא the טומטום. 

שפתיים ישק!

PLEASE tell me if I am wrong!

Boundaries

One of the great rules of life is boundaries. In all of our relationships we need to know what the proper boundaries are. We want to be close to our spouses but everybody needs space. On the other hand allowing for too much space creates an unnecessary distance. We want to be good parents but we have to know that children ALSO need space. The older they get, the more space they need. On the other hand, having a lassiez faire attitude and letting everything go and letting the child live as he or she pleases is also harmful. Boundaries are crucial.

Goyim are not allowed to keep Shabbos. If they do then they are חייב מיתה!! Why? If Shabbos is so good then why don't we allow the Goyim to enjoy it also?? All they have is Sunday which is a pathetic day of watching ballgames and engaging in other leisure activities. Doesn't compare to Shabbos - not even close. 

The answer the Maharal gives is that we have borders and when a Goy keeps Shabbos he enters into our domain. As the sign goes "Trespassers will be shot upon sight...." [I thank Rabbi Elie Schwartz, my overseas Maharal chavrusa with whom I clarified ideas about boundaries in life and Avodas Hashem]. 

Boundaries. 

Here is an article written by a Goya who appreciates this idea. 

From the blog First Things

It has been some time since I gave thought to the day my soon-to-be husband and I bought our wedding rings.....

Our wedding date was set. It was time to pick a ring. But where to look for one? How to shop? The two of us were young, broke, and scrappy. It would be some years yet before we could afford to pay retail. Besides, my intended was a combative shopper, born to hondel. He did not believe in fixed prices. There were only asking prices begging to be negotiated.

We started in Manhattan’s diamond district in the west Forties. No diamonds were on our shopping list. But 47th Street was a place to haggle, draw swords, dicker away until the doomed asking price dropped in exhaustion. His ring was easy. A plain gold band was all. It was mine that took hunting for. I wanted something chaste and spare, low keyed but rich with symbolism. No glitz. Modest but not severe. It had to be unembellished but eloquent.

I had no idea what my adjectives might look like in the concrete. So we trooped from stall to stall in the Exchange scouting for . . . what, exactly? Then, finally, there it was. In the showcase of an older jeweler, forearm tattooed with his identification number from a concentration camp, were simple gold bands embossed with phrases from the Tanakh.

The graphic beauty of the Hebrew characters—heightened by our inability to read them—seemed a visible link to Him in Whom we would marry. One square letter followed another, spacing calculated to encircle the band with no marked beginning or end. The indissolubility of marriage seemed imprinted in the very design. Add the romance of indecipherability. This was my ring!

Next came the contest over cost. The groom-to-be went into gladiatorial mode. The seller was good at the game. It was a lengthy, spirited match. Eventually the two settled on a price. All that was left was to decide on the phrase from a sheet of suggested lines. My heart set on a passage from the Book of Ruth that reads in full:

Ruth said: “Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest I will go, where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people and thy God my God. Only the central portion (“whither thou goest . . .”) could fit around the ring but the entire antiphon is implicit in the fragment. Ruth’s pledge to Naomi is the purest and most stirring statement of friendship I have ever known. I ached to claim it for myself and wear it for the rest of my life. 

Was one of us Jewish? The jeweler wanted to know. Was either of us leaving another religion to become Jewish? No, we were not. Well then, he was sorry but he would not give us that particular quotation. The point was non-negotiable. [See Rashi and Malbim on the pasuk - E.E.]. 

The rebuff was a sore let-down but we did not press. We deferred to his prohibition because, in some unspoken way, we understood. The story of Ruth is one of conversion that affirms the Jewish nation. It testifies to peoplehood. The intensity of this man’s concern to honor the sacred core of the text moved us. Here was a man who had suffered the unspeakable for no other reason than he was part of the people Ruth pledged herself to.

There was grace in his refusal. Had he granted me the words I craved, he would, in conscience, have violated the grandeur of them. Ruth’s commitment was not simply to another person but to a covenanted community bound together since the call of Abraham. Her words were his inheritance; he was not free to extend them to us.

Disappointed, I settled for words from the Song of Songs: “I found him whom my soul loveth.” Over the years, my second choice proved to be the better one. The ring is dearer to me than anything else I possess. But I did not feel that then.

What innocents we were. It never entered our minds to challenge the denial. We took for granted the man’s moral right to refuse us; any legal issue, then, was irrelevant. But by today’s lights, we gave in too readily. We could have raised a stink. Demanded our rights as consumers. Bullied the vendor with accusations of anti-Christian bigotry. We did not have to submit to the discomfort of being told we were ineligible for what we desired.

“Something there is that does not love a wall, / That wants it down.” Pace Frost, not every barrier should be cleared away. Not everything is permeable. A nation cannot survive without borders; no culture endures without limits. Walls provide a bulwark against chaos and dissolution. That day in the Diamond Exchange, we stumbled against the very wall a man had clung to in the camps. It was the same one that had kept Jewry from disappearing centuries before modern nation states existed. 

Had we been noisy enough, I might have gotten the thing I wanted at the time. But at what price to the commonweal?

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

What this Gentile woman understands - many Jews, sadly, do not...