>>> My favorite example is the bicycle rule. Everyone agrees there is no >> prohibition to riding a bike on shabbbos but you can't anyhow. Why? Well, >> what if the bike breaks and you have to fix it? That is right out of my >> grandmother's evil eye theory. What if a meteor strikes you down while >> walking to shul?
> BS"D
> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no > prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. There's > a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think everyone > here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if we > had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the > rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm not > concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the > rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic > principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are > questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over those > associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, how > much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, the > one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow > conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in fact, > it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are pointing out, that the > rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the tenets of conservative halacha, > even when it differs from orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the > orthodox posters saying they don' > t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the case, and > most people accept that as fact. But one would think that conservative > halacha would be followed, in fact and in principle, and this is being shown > not to be the case. And from what I've seen, the conservative posters, with > the possible exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, > because these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the > orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical > inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox halachic > principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the conservative body > has ruled differently, so why are the conservative rabbis not always even > attempting to follow the tenets of their own movement, and why is this > situation considered ok by so many of the defenders of conservative?
I raised the bike issue because we were talking about superstition and that seems a good example of the kind of illogic you can come up with that is almost indistinguishable from superstition. The chances of having your bike malfunction these days is only slightly greater than being hit by a meteor if you take care of your bike. That is not a rational fence. So why doesn't someone do away with it instead of cringing when the subject comes up?
You raised questions about C I don't know the answer to, in part because neither of us know the facts. I don't know how widespread the practice is for C rabbis to ignore the rules. I have anecdotes and the plural of anecdotes isn't data. The C rabbis I know do. Ravchaz, who was on this list before he got a real day job in Connecticut, certainly did, as does mine. I'm sure there are some who do not, but I don't know how many, or the circumstances.
It is absolutely true that the C rabbinate often is ineffective in its leadership role, in part because it is in the almost anti-clerical nature of the movement, and in part because they often are collectively confused. Our rabbi (a member of the law committee) recently described the current dispute over kashrut at the Iowa meat plant and the feeling that the C movement needs to come up with its own hechsher for situations like that. (We trust the OU et al to correctly decide what is kosher; we don't trust them to say what isn't). What they are doing can best be described as something out of Monty Python. In the "Life of Brian," Brian is captured by the Romans and readied for execution, and the People's Liberation Front of Judea (or is it the Judean People's Front?) are terribly upset and feel they must do something to save him. So they form a committee, send a stern protest note to the Romans and adjourn. Our rabbis are like that sometimes.
He, incidentally, asked our congregation at services how many in the synagogue would follow a C hechsher in a similar situation (in this case, the process used to slaughter animals was, it was felt, too cruel to be permitted), and the nearly-unanimous vote was that they would. He seemed surprised--and pleased. I suspect in many C synagogues, that would be true. I think C rabbis underestimate their congregants.
j
> Craig Winchell >> j
>> -- >> Joel Shurkin >> Baltimore, Maryland >> ---------------------------- >> "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and >> lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed >> against Macedon." >> Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
-- Joel Shurkin Baltimore, Maryland ---------------------------- "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed against Macedon." Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
On Feb 27, 6:55 am, m...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote: > > The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any > > definition of that term no matter how loose....
> You lost sight of the topic.
> It's not "Does Steve think it's okay to eat pizza in a non-kosher > restaurant?" Rather, it's "Do the 80-something percent of C rabbis who > do so think they are following C halakhah?"
> The CLJS does not, because the C process never did away with the need > to cook your meat and dairy on different surfaces. > -- > Micha Berger
Micha, are you saying that our forebearers had two stoves, or two burners or two fireplaces for the cooking of their foods? I would love to see the archeological, or historical evidence for this.
Even my grandmother only had one set of dishes for Passover, and a half-dozen bowls and spoons so the kids could have their matzo with milk in the morning.
I can understand the kashrut needs of the market today (our parents never had the variety of prepared foods available and marketed to us as forcefully), but the insistance on separating things further and further, so that the women won't mix something up and inadvertently cook oatmeal in a pot with milk on a burner where the beef stew spilled last night starts to sound like some old mysoginist looking for a way to get back at his wife for not doing everything _his_ way.
In <%SYEh.7188$Jl.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no >prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. There's >a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think everyone >here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if we >had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the >rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm not >concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the >rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic >principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are >questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over those >associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, how >much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, the >one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow >conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in fact,
A bit of a run-on paragraph here, Craig, but if I could interject -- given that you're O, do you follow every ruling of the Chief O Rabbi? Wait, you say there is no such person? But surely there's the "official book of all O rulings," right? There isn't? Hm, interesting. OK then -- at least you'll tell me that if an O Jew is ordained by a given yeshiva, then he is obligated to follow every official ruling put forth by that yeshiva? No?
So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization, why do you require C Jews to do so?
>it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are pointing out, that the >rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the tenets of conservative halacha, >even when it differs from orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the >orthodox posters saying they don' >t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the case, and >most people accept that as fact. But one would think that conservative >halacha would be followed, in fact and in principle, and this is being shown >not to be the case. And from what I've seen, the conservative posters, with >the possible exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, >because these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox halachic >principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the conservative body >has ruled differently, so why are the conservative rabbis not always even >attempting to follow the tenets of their own movement, and why is this >situation considered ok by so many of the defenders of conservative? >Craig Winchell >> j
>> -- >> Joel Shurkin >> Baltimore, Maryland >> ---------------------------- >> "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and >> lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed >> against Macedon." >> Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
> In <%SYEh.7188$Jl.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Craig Winchell" > <gane...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no >>prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. >>There's >>a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think everyone >>here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if we >>had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the >>rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm >>not >>concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the >>rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic >>principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are >>questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over >>those >>associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, how >>much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, >>the >>one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow >>conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in >>fact,
> A bit of a run-on paragraph here, Craig, but if I could interject -- given > that you're O, do you follow every ruling of the Chief O Rabbi? Wait, you > say there is no such person? But surely there's the "official book of all > O rulings," right? There isn't? Hm, interesting. OK then -- at least > you'll tell me that if an O Jew is ordained by a given yeshiva, then he is > obligated to follow every official ruling put forth by that yeshiva? No?
> So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere > to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization, > why do you require C Jews to do so?
BS"D
Great question! I guess that I perceive the nature of orthodox halacha to be different than the nature of conservative halacha. In orthodox halacha, any rabbi can write any teshuva, and the status of that teshuva in defining halacha is left up to whoever wishes to adopt the opinion illustrated by within the teshuva. On the other hand, conservative teshuvas must go through the official committee on Jewish law in order to define the status of the opinion within conservative halacha. Thus, I perceive a central defining body in conservative which simply doesn't exist within orthodoxy. I perceive it that way because that's what actually does exist. It seems to be part and parcel of the official institution of conservative.
>>it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are pointing out, that the >>rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the tenets of conservative >>halacha, >>even when it differs from orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the >>orthodox posters saying they don' >>t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the case, and >>most people accept that as fact. But one would think that conservative >>halacha would be followed, in fact and in principle, and this is being >>shown >>not to be the case. And from what I've seen, the conservative posters, >>with >>the possible exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, >>because these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >>orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >>inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox >>halachic >>principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the conservative body >>has ruled differently, so why are the conservative rabbis not always even >>attempting to follow the tenets of their own movement, and why is this >>situation considered ok by so many of the defenders of conservative?
>>Craig Winchell >>> j
>>> -- >>> Joel Shurkin >>> Baltimore, Maryland >>> ---------------------------- >>> "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice >>> and >>> lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed >>> against Macedon." >>> Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's > no prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to > shul. There's a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on > Shabbos.
There can't possibly be a rabbinic prohibition specifically against riding a bike on Shabbat, because today's rabbis (for centuries, and therefore certainly since the invention of the bicycle) don't have the power to make gezeirot that could prohibit a bicycle. R' Ovadia Yosef in Liviat Chen also shoots down all reasons why it might be prohibited d'oraita, and the Ben Ish Chai permits it outright in Rav Pealim.
> I'd > be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic principles. > We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are questioning > how much control the institution of conservative has over those > associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, > how much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the > rabbis, the one group where there would be a presupposition that > they would follow conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be > "not much", since in fact, it is coming out now, and the orthodox > posters are pointing out, that the rabbis don't seem to necessarily > follow the tenets of conservative halacha, even when it differs from > orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the orthodox posters saying > they don' t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be > the case, and most people accept that as fact. But one would think > that conservative halacha would be followed, in fact and in > principle, and this is being shown not to be the case. And from > what I've seen, the conservative posters, with the possible > exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, because > these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the > orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical > inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox > halachic principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the > conservative body has ruled differently, so why are the conservative > rabbis not always even attempting to follow the tenets of their own > movement, and why is this situation considered ok by so many of the > defenders of conservative?
> Craig Winchell
-- Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory. Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology. http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Joel Shurkin <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2007-02-27 11:27:19 -0500, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> said:
>> BS"D
>> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's >> no prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to >> shul. There's a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on >> Shabbos. I think everyone here understands how farfetched this >> fence is, and I'm not sure that if we had our druthers, the >> orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the rabbonim, have >> come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm not >> concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by >> the rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight >> halachic principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the >> posters are questioning how much control the institution of >> conservative has over those associating themselves strongly with >> the institution. Specifically, how much control does the >> halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, the one group >> where there would be a presupposition that they would follow >> conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since >> in fact, it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are >> pointing out, that the rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the >> tenets of conservative halacha, even when it differs from orthodox >> halacha. It's not a matter of the orthodox posters saying they >> don' t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the >> case, and most people accept that as fact. But one would think >> that conservative halacha would be followed, in fact and in >> principle, and this is being shown not to be the case. And from >> what I've seen, the conservative posters, with the possible >> exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, because >> these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >> orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >> inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox >> halachic principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the >> conservative body has ruled differently, so why are the >> conservative rabbis not always even attempting to follow the tenets >> of their own movement, and why is this situation considered ok by >> so many of the defenders of conservative?
> I raised the bike issue because we were talking about superstition > and that seems a good example of the kind of illogic you can come up > with that is almost indistinguishable from superstition. The chances > of having your bike malfunction these days is only slightly greater > than being hit by a meteor if you take care of your bike. That is > not a rational fence. So why doesn't someone do away with it instead > of cringing when the subject comes up?
Someone did. If some halachic ruling is clearly wrong, some rabbi will come along and say so, as the Ben Ish Chai did with bicycles. So stop setting up the bicycle strawman, becuase your inventing aproblem that doesn't exist so you can attack it and make it look stupid.
> You raised questions about C I don't know the answer to, in part > because neither of us know the facts. I don't know how widespread > the practice is for C rabbis to ignore the rules. I have anecdotes > and the plural of anecdotes isn't data. The C rabbis I know do. > Ravchaz, who was on this list before he got a real day job in > Connecticut, certainly did, as does mine. I'm sure there are some > who do not, but I don't know how many, or the circumstances.
Somewhere around here, someone was citing a study.
--Ken
-- Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory. Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology. http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
> Joel Shurkin <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2007-02-27 11:27:19 -0500, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> said:
>>> BS"D
>>> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's >>> no prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to >>> shul. There's a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on >>> Shabbos. I think everyone here understands how farfetched this >>> fence is, and I'm not sure that if we had our druthers, the >>> orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the rabbonim, have >>> come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm not >>> concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by >>> the rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight >>> halachic principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the >>> posters are questioning how much control the institution of >>> conservative has over those associating themselves strongly with >>> the institution. Specifically, how much control does the >>> halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, the one group >>> where there would be a presupposition that they would follow >>> conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since >>> in fact, it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are >>> pointing out, that the rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the >>> tenets of conservative halacha, even when it differs from orthodox >>> halacha. It's not a matter of the orthodox posters saying they >>> don' t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the >>> case, and most people accept that as fact. But one would think >>> that conservative halacha would be followed, in fact and in >>> principle, and this is being shown not to be the case. And from >>> what I've seen, the conservative posters, with the possible >>> exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, because >>> these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >>> orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >>> inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox >>> halachic principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the >>> conservative body has ruled differently, so why are the >>> conservative rabbis not always even attempting to follow the tenets >>> of their own movement, and why is this situation considered ok by >>> so many of the defenders of conservative?
>> I raised the bike issue because we were talking about superstition >> and that seems a good example of the kind of illogic you can come up >> with that is almost indistinguishable from superstition. The chances >> of having your bike malfunction these days is only slightly greater >> than being hit by a meteor if you take care of your bike. That is >> not a rational fence. So why doesn't someone do away with it instead >> of cringing when the subject comes up?
> Someone did. If some halachic ruling is clearly wrong, some rabbi will > come along and say so, as the Ben Ish Chai did with bicycles. So stop > setting up the bicycle strawman, becuase your inventing aproblem that > doesn't exist so you can attack it and make it look stupid.
I'm glad. One source did it. Virtually every other source says no and Os don't bike to shul. I'm not making it up and it hardly qualifies as a strawman. You bike to shul? When you do, we can talk about it.
>> You raised questions about C I don't know the answer to, in part >> because neither of us know the facts. I don't know how widespread >> the practice is for C rabbis to ignore the rules. I have anecdotes >> and the plural of anecdotes isn't data. The C rabbis I know do. >> Ravchaz, who was on this list before he got a real day job in >> Connecticut, certainly did, as does mine. I'm sure there are some >> who do not, but I don't know how many, or the circumstances.
> Somewhere around here, someone was citing a study.
It was an informal, non-scientific study with a very few respondents. Even the rabbi who made the study agrees. The fact is, we don't know.
j
> --Ken
-- Joel Shurkin Baltimore, Maryland ---------------------------- "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed against Macedon." Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message > news:es1qn4$c5l$1@reader2.panix.com... >> In <%SYEh.7188$Jl.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Craig Winchell" >> <gane...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no >>> prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. >>> There's >>> a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think everyone >>> here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if we >>> had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the >>> rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm >>> not >>> concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the >>> rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic >>> principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are >>> questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over >>> those >>> associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, how >>> much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, >>> the >>> one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow >>> conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in >>> fact,
>> A bit of a run-on paragraph here, Craig, but if I could interject -- given >> that you're O, do you follow every ruling of the Chief O Rabbi? Wait, you >> say there is no such person? But surely there's the "official book of all >> O rulings," right? There isn't? Hm, interesting. OK then -- at least >> you'll tell me that if an O Jew is ordained by a given yeshiva, then he is >> obligated to follow every official ruling put forth by that yeshiva? No?
>> So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere >> to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization, >> why do you require C Jews to do so?
> BS"D
> Great question! I guess that I perceive the nature of orthodox halacha to > be different than the nature of conservative halacha. In orthodox halacha, > any rabbi can write any teshuva, and the status of that teshuva in defining > halacha is left up to whoever wishes to adopt the opinion illustrated by > within the teshuva. On the other hand, conservative teshuvas must go > through the official committee on Jewish law in order to define the status > of the opinion within conservative halacha. Thus, I perceive a central > defining body in conservative which simply doesn't exist within orthodoxy. > I perceive it that way because that's what actually does exist. It seems to > be part and parcel of the official institution of conservative.
> Craig Winchell
But then the central body (the CSL guys) issue rulings, they do so almost always with dissenting opinions, and rabbis out in the field who disagree with the majority but have a minority they can fall back on, do so.
And as to Os not having a central structure, it is more fragmented. But OU speaks for OU rabbis and Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel rabbis and Agudath for Agudath rabbis and so forth. We're just more centralized.
>>> it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are pointing out, that the >>> rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the tenets of conservative >>> halacha, >>> even when it differs from orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the >>> orthodox posters saying they don' >>> t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the case, and >>> most people accept that as fact. But one would think that conservative >>> halacha would be followed, in fact and in principle, and this is being >>> shown >>> not to be the case. And from what I've seen, the conservative posters, >>> with >>> the possible exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, >>> because these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >>> orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >>> inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox >>> halachic >>> principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the conservative body >>> has ruled differently, so why are the conservative rabbis not always even >>> attempting to follow the tenets of their own movement, and why is this >>> situation considered ok by so many of the defenders of conservative?
>>> Craig Winchell >>>> j
>>>> -- >>>> Joel Shurkin >>>> Baltimore, Maryland >>>> ---------------------------- >>>> "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice >>>> and >>>> lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed >>>> against Macedon." >>>> Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
>> --
-- Joel Shurkin Baltimore, Maryland ---------------------------- "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed against Macedon." Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
On 2007-02-27 14:15:21 -0500, Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> said:
> Craig Winchell <gane...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's >> no prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to >> shul. There's a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on >> Shabbos.
> There can't possibly be a rabbinic prohibition specifically against > riding a bike on Shabbat, because today's rabbis (for centuries, and > therefore certainly since the invention of the bicycle) don't have the > power to make gezeirot that could prohibit a bicycle. R' Ovadia Yosef > in Liviat Chen also shoots down all reasons why it might be prohibited > d'oraita, and the Ben Ish Chai permits it outright in Rav Pealim.
I repeat: Do you bike to shul? Does anyone at your shul bike in? What would the reaction be if someone did? I'm not making this stuff up and I'm glad there are sources that permit it, but the vast majority of authorities do not and O Jews don't do bicycle on shabbos.
When the weather clears I'm going to bike to shul passed Shomrei Emunah (increasingly black hat) and Agudath (off-the wall) with my tallit bag and a kepot and I'll tell you the reaction I get. j
>> I'd >> be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic principles. >> We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are questioning >> how much control the institution of conservative has over those >> associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, >> how much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the >> rabbis, the one group where there would be a presupposition that >> they would follow conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be >> "not much", since in fact, it is coming out now, and the orthodox >> posters are pointing out, that the rabbis don't seem to necessarily >> follow the tenets of conservative halacha, even when it differs from >> orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the orthodox posters saying >> they don' t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be >> the case, and most people accept that as fact. But one would think >> that conservative halacha would be followed, in fact and in >> principle, and this is being shown not to be the case. And from >> what I've seen, the conservative posters, with the possible >> exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, because >> these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >> orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >> inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox >> halachic principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the >> conservative body has ruled differently, so why are the conservative >> rabbis not always even attempting to follow the tenets of their own >> movement, and why is this situation considered ok by so many of the >> defenders of conservative?
>> Craig Winchell
-- Joel Shurkin Baltimore, Maryland ---------------------------- "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed against Macedon." Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
On Feb 27, 6:46 am, Joel Shurkin <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > --s
> My favorite example is the bicycle rule. Everyone agrees there is no > prohibition to riding a bike on shabbbos but you can't anyhow. Why? > Well, what if the bike breaks and you have to fix it? That is right out > of my grandmother's evil eye theory. What if a meteor strikes you down > while walking to shul?
That's something I've wondered about as a cycling enthusiast. With all the great technological developments in Shabbat-compliant appliances and equipment -- everything from stoves to electric wheelchairs and telephones that can be used on Shabbat -- why is it so hard to make a bicycle that would satisfy the rabbinical authorities? Take, for instance, my old track bike. No gears, no brakes, just direct chain drive without a freewheel, and the addition of some non-pneumatic tires could eliminate the risk of a flat tire. There's also a company making a shaft-driven bicycle on the market which would eliminate the extremely-slight possibility of a broken chain. (I've never had a broken chain in nearly fifty years of cycling.) There is the concern that applying brakes constitutes a sort of "grinding" [again, no brakes on the track bike, so it isn't an issue there], but it shouldn't be hard to invent a brake that doesn't violate this prohibition. So, what would it take to build a bicycle with a hechsher?
> On 2007-02-27 14:03:00 -0500, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> > said:
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:es1qn4$c5l$1@reader2.panix.com... >>> In <%SYEh.7188$Jl.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Craig >>> Winchell" >>> <gane...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no >>>> prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. >>>> There's >>>> a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think >>>> everyone >>>> here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if >>>> we >>>> had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were >>>> the >>>> rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm >>>> not >>>> concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the >>>> rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic >>>> principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are >>>> questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over >>>> those >>>> associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, >>>> how >>>> much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the >>>> rabbis, >>>> the >>>> one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow >>>> conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in >>>> fact,
>>> A bit of a run-on paragraph here, Craig, but if I could interject -- >>> given >>> that you're O, do you follow every ruling of the Chief O Rabbi? Wait, >>> you >>> say there is no such person? But surely there's the "official book of >>> all >>> O rulings," right? There isn't? Hm, interesting. OK then -- at least >>> you'll tell me that if an O Jew is ordained by a given yeshiva, then he >>> is >>> obligated to follow every official ruling put forth by that yeshiva? No?
>>> So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to >>> adhere >>> to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization, >>> why do you require C Jews to do so?
>> BS"D
>> Great question! I guess that I perceive the nature of orthodox halacha >> to >> be different than the nature of conservative halacha. In orthodox >> halacha, >> any rabbi can write any teshuva, and the status of that teshuva in >> defining >> halacha is left up to whoever wishes to adopt the opinion illustrated by >> within the teshuva. On the other hand, conservative teshuvas must go >> through the official committee on Jewish law in order to define the >> status >> of the opinion within conservative halacha. Thus, I perceive a central >> defining body in conservative which simply doesn't exist within >> orthodoxy. >> I perceive it that way because that's what actually does exist. It seems >> to >> be part and parcel of the official institution of conservative.
>> Craig Winchell
> But then the central body (the CSL guys) issue rulings, they do so almost > always with dissenting opinions, and rabbis out in the field who disagree > with the majority but have a minority they can fall back on, do so.
But the central committee can evidently ratify dissenting teshuvos, but the teshuvos must be ratified through them, as I understand it, not published willy-nilly by just any rabbi with a halachic opinion.
> And as to Os not having a central structure, it is more fragmented. But OU > speaks for OU rabbis and Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel rabbis and > Agudath for Agudath rabbis and so forth. We're just more centralized.
The OU speaks for the OU, not OU-affiliated rabbis. Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel, not necessarily for rabbis given semicha from Ner Israel. And Agudah speaks for Agudah, not for Agudah affiliated rabbis. The rabbis presumably have the ability to make informed decisions in terms of halacha, based upon their own understandings and those of their own rav and their perception of propriety. Yes, conservative is more centralized. Indeed orthodoxy in the standard Ashkenazic model is totally decentralized.
>>>> it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are pointing out, that >>>> the >>>> rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the tenets of conservative >>>> halacha, >>>> even when it differs from orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the >>>> orthodox posters saying they don' >>>> t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the case, >>>> and >>>> most people accept that as fact. But one would think that conservative >>>> halacha would be followed, in fact and in principle, and this is being >>>> shown >>>> not to be the case. And from what I've seen, the conservative posters, >>>> with >>>> the possible exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok, >>>> because these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the >>>> orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical >>>> inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox >>>> halachic >>>> principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the conservative >>>> body >>>> has ruled differently, so why are the conservative rabbis not always >>>> even >>>> attempting to follow the tenets of their own movement, and why is this >>>> situation considered ok by so many of the defenders of conservative?
>>>> Craig Winchell >>>>> j
>>>>> -- >>>>> Joel Shurkin >>>>> Baltimore, Maryland >>>>> ---------------------------- >>>>> "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice >>>>> and >>>>> lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed >>>>> against Macedon." >>>>> Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
>>> --
> -- > Joel Shurkin > Baltimore, Maryland > ---------------------------- > "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and > lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed > against Macedon." > Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
On Feb 27, 5:34 am, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote in message > > I am form Missouri, so do not be offended if I do not take your > > conclusory word for it. This is not at all what the OU told me when I > > called (3x) and asked. So I face a contradiction in what you say here > > and what the OU told me. The OU's story was corroborated by another > > kashruth certification company.
> The other certification company is incorrect. Call Rav Belsky and ask. > They you'll get the real story.
I asked YOU.
You thus far are full of conclusions. No facts.
> > Who exactly makes this wine, how do you know what you are saying, and > > what do you mean "made by Jews"? No gentile touches this wine from > > the picking of the grapes?
> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements for > wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the picking > of the grapes.
That is the law Sorry.
> There is only a requirement that the wine not be touched. > grapes are not wine. Crushed grapes are not wine.
Bull. MY Judaism is based on Talmudic law. Yours seems ot be some "faith" in certain OU rabbis Never the two Judaisms can ever meet, sir.
> Typically, the grapes > are delivered and after delivery are handled only by Jews until the wine is > mevushal, after which they can be handled by anyone. There are shittas that > allow the grapes themselves to be cooked, and the wine derived from these > cooked grapes be considered mevushal. So there are plenty of ways to get > mevushal kosher wine with a minimum of Jewish interaction. I don't know the > exact way things are done, but I have been involved in the OU with wine for > over 20 years, so I have a veryu good understanding of what they allow.
And yet you have NO FACTS WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
Your reststement of certain legal theories is interesting, but entirely unresponsive.
> As I say, the wine is mevushal, so it would be considered yayin yisrael > without all of the employees being Jewish. Only those handling the pressed > wine prior to the mevashaling
The word is "bishul."
> > a kosher wine company that is owned by gentiles? Is it a particular > > line of kosher wine made by a regular wine company?
> The latter. > > I need details.
> Ask someone in a position of responsibility in the OU, such as Rav Belsky or > Rabbi Genack. I don't have details. I only know that what you are > describing simply wouldn't happen with the OU,
well it did. Your reasoning from patterns does not trump my direct experience. Goddamn, man.
> and I have 20 years of wine > experience with them so I know what I say to be true.
This is exactly how the priests convince people to be faithful Christinas.
>> The CLJS does not, because the C process never did away with the need >> to cook your meat and dairy on different surfaces. > Micha, are you saying that our forebearers had two stoves, or two > burners or two fireplaces for the cooking of their foods? I would > love to see the archeological, or historical evidence for this.
> He, incidentally, asked our congregation at services how many in the > synagogue would follow a C hechsher in a similar situation (in this > case, the process used to slaughter animals was, it was felt, too cruel > to be permitted), and the nearly-unanimous vote was that they would. He > seemed surprised--and pleased. I suspect in many C synagogues, that > would be true. I think C rabbis underestimate their congregants.
I wonder. I suspect that the reason he got such a vote was that cruelty to animals is a "popular" issue. They can "feel good" about themselves if they avoid it. But would your congregation feel good about knowing there were no adhesions to the lungs of the animals they were eating? Would they have any _idea_ what was the signifigance, kashrus-wise, of that fact? Would all the rabbis? I'm sure yours would, but the rest?
Moshe Schorr It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue. Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote: > So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere > to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization, > why do you require C Jews to do so?
Who was the one who took him to task for assuming C Jews should follow halakhah as we O understand it? Now you're taking him to task for assuming C Jews should follow halakhah as /you/ understand it??
C does have a CLJS with rules about changes in law that were never voted on or don't garner 6 votes.
Tir'u baTov! -mi
-- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Joel Shurkin <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote: > And as to Os not having a central structure, it is more fragmented. But > OU speaks for OU rabbis and Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel rabbis and > Agudath for Agudath rabbis and so forth. We're just more centralized.
Ummm... No.
Does anyone within the Jewish community think the NY Board of Rabbis speaks for us? They're just someone the media goes to when they need something that sounds like an official Jewish statement.
Aside from that, the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) is the rabbinic organization, the OU is a congregational one. Agudath Israel is usually shortened to "Agudah", without the "-as" meaning "of", or pronounced in Ashkenazi Hebrew "Agudas Yisroel". And it's not an umbrella of either sort, just something lots of people join. Ner Israel is "just" an ordaining school. Not an organization.
Outside of Chassidus, O affiliations with organizations aren't mandatory enough that people define their positions by them. Unlike C's RA and USCJ, which /define/ who is a C rabbi or a C-nagogue, and thus can speak for the whole.
Tir'u baTov! -mi
-- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
>> He, incidentally, asked our congregation at services how many in the >> synagogue would follow a C hechsher in a similar situation (in this >> case, the process used to slaughter animals was, it was felt, too cruel >> to be permitted), and the nearly-unanimous vote was that they would. He >> seemed surprised--and pleased. I suspect in many C synagogues, that >> would be true. I think C rabbis underestimate their congregants.
> I wonder. I suspect that the reason he got such a vote was that > cruelty to animals is a "popular" issue. They can "feel good" about > themselves if they avoid it. But would your congregation feel good > about knowing there were no adhesions to the lungs of the animals > they were eating? Would they have any _idea_ what was the > signifigance, kashrus-wise, of that fact? Would all the rabbis? I'm > sure yours would, but the rest?
I doubt it.
j
> Moshe Schorr > It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov > The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue. > Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
-- Joel Shurkin Baltimore, Maryland ---------------------------- "The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed against Macedon." Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
>> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements for >> wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the picking >> of the grapes. > That is the law Sorry.
What is the source for that?
Looking at MT ma'achaloth assuroth 11:8[11], I don't see the the gentile may not touch the *grapes*, but rather after the "derichah", or crushing of the grapes they become a problem. And in fact, 11:9 and 10 there further bolster Craig's statement.
> On Feb 27, 5:34 am, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote in message >> > I am form Missouri, so do not be offended if I do not take your >> > conclusory word for it. This is not at all what the OU told me when I >> > called (3x) and asked. So I face a contradiction in what you say here >> > and what the OU told me. The OU's story was corroborated by another >> > kashruth certification company.
>> The other certification company is incorrect. Call Rav Belsky and ask. >> They you'll get the real story.
> I asked YOU.
> You thus far are full of conclusions. No facts.
>> > Who exactly makes this wine, how do you know what you are saying, and >> > what do you mean "made by Jews"? No gentile touches this wine from >> > the picking of the grapes?
>> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements >> for >> wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the >> picking >> of the grapes.
> That is the law Sorry.
BS"D
As that is not the law, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about, it's not worth discussing this with you. Kerplunk.
>> There is only a requirement that the wine not be touched. >> grapes are not wine. Crushed grapes are not wine.
> Bull. MY Judaism is based on Talmudic law. > Yours seems ot be some "faith" in certain OU rabbis Never the two > Judaisms can ever meet, sir.
>> Typically, the grapes >> are delivered and after delivery are handled only by Jews until the wine >> is >> mevushal, after which they can be handled by anyone. There are shittas >> that >> allow the grapes themselves to be cooked, and the wine derived from these >> cooked grapes be considered mevushal. So there are plenty of ways to get >> mevushal kosher wine with a minimum of Jewish interaction. I don't know >> the >> exact way things are done, but I have been involved in the OU with wine >> for >> over 20 years, so I have a veryu good understanding of what they allow.
> And yet you have NO FACTS WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
> Your reststement of certain legal theories is interesting, but > entirely unresponsive.
>> As I say, the wine is mevushal, so it would be considered yayin yisrael >> without all of the employees being Jewish. Only those handling the >> pressed >> wine prior to the mevashaling
> The word is "bishul."
>> > a kosher wine company that is owned by gentiles? Is it a particular >> > line of kosher wine made by a regular wine company?
>> The latter.
>> > I need details.
>> Ask someone in a position of responsibility in the OU, such as Rav Belsky >> or >> Rabbi Genack. I don't have details. I only know that what you are >> describing simply wouldn't happen with the OU,
> well it did. Your reasoning from patterns does not trump my direct > experience. Goddamn, man.
>> and I have 20 years of wine >> experience with them so I know what I say to be true.
> This is exactly how the priests convince people to be faithful > Christinas.
In <es3okp$m0...@falcon.steinthal.us> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote: >> So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere >> to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization, >> why do you require C Jews to do so? >Who was the one who took him to task for assuming C Jews should follow >halakhah as we O understand it? Now you're taking him to task for >assuming C Jews should follow halakhah as /you/ understand it??
I am suggesting that perhaps a C Rabbi ought to follow halacha as he himself understands it, just as an O Rabbi would. You don't have any problems with O Rabbis doing this, why do you object to C Rabbis doing so?
--s
>C does have a CLJS with rules about changes in law that were never voted >on or don't garner 6 votes. >Tir'u baTov! >-mi >-- >Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, >mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. >http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
>>> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements >>> for >>> wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the >>> picking >>> of the grapes.
>> That is the law Sorry.
> What is the source for that?
> Looking at MT ma'achaloth assuroth 11:8[11], I don't see the the > gentile may not touch the *grapes*, but rather after the "derichah", > or crushing of the grapes they become a problem. And in fact, 11:9 > and 10 there further bolster Craig's statement.
BS"D
The fact is that whether intact or crushed, grapes are grapes. It is only with an intentional separation of the skins and seeds from the juice that both the skins and seeds, on the one side, and the juice on the other side, are halachically considered to be wine. Thus, the transportation of grapes to and from the winery can be done by nonJews. Furthermore, the removal of the grapes from the transportation vessels, even though juicing occurred during transportation, may be done by nonJews, though in practice the OU and other hashgacha organizations like to see it being done by Jews, mainly to avoid lashon hara by people who don't know the halacha. Then the pumping or other transportation of the crushed grapes, since these are nothing more than grapes which are not intact, is not required halachically to be done by Jews, though in practice, the OU and other hashgacha organizations do require these operations to be controlled (when pumps are used) or done (when other more direct means are used) by Jews due to the proximity to the press and possible lashon hara ramifications, but the essence of the operation is still simply transporting of grapes, not wine.
Jacko also claims that he has direct experience with the OU producing this wine for Grey Poupon, yet he has admitted only to some less-than-firsthand experience in discussing Grey Poupon with a non-OU hashgacha organization. It seems his only direct experience derives from his being from Missouri. Calling something direct experience does not make it so, and changing definitions to suit one's own purposes is one of the oldest tricks in the book for winning arguments. But in this case, it didn't work.
>>>> Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you >>>> might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully >>>> lest something bad happen?
>>>> That's the difference between following principles and just being >>>> superstitious.
>>> Don't see how superstition enters the picture.
>> Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague >> sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition. >> I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God >> commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior >> is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe >> than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is >> "stringent."
>> --s
>My favorite example is the bicycle rule. Everyone agrees there is no >prohibition to riding a bike on shabbbos but you can't anyhow. Why? >Well, what if the bike breaks and you have to fix it? That is right out >of my grandmother's evil eye theory.
No, IMHO it's something quite different - making the law fit a preconceived notion. No, there are no d'oraita problems with bike riding on Shabbat. But that is not widely known. Most people's gut feeling is "how can such an activity not be forbidden? Carrying! Too weekday!" And then the rabbis pick up on that perception and attempt to find justification for it. Is it any wonder that the explanations are contrived?
(I can tell you as a long-time bike commuter - to work and shul, on weekdays - that I wouldn't want to ride to shul in my Shabbat finery anyhow. Especially on a hot day.)
>What if a meteor strikes you down >while walking to shul?
Irrelevant. Different states of commandment.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
>>>>Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to >>>>the volume of metal in the oven itself.
>>>How is that being "stringent" necessarily? Why not just assume that all >>>meat is assur, for example? Or that all cooked food is assur?
>>How does that follow?
>The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any >definition of that term no matter how loose.
Semantics strikes again. The supposed transfer of absorbed taste from the oven to the pizza (and if you've been reading Jacko's contributions to this thread, this transfer is by no means a given) is called "mixture" only for lack of a better term. Bringing in the definition of the English word "mixture" is useless.
>So, to me the relationship >between a piece of food in an oven, and that piece of food and the pulled >pork sandwich in the shop next door are the same -- no mixture is no >mixture. It's a divide by zero error. If you're going to say the volume of >the oven itself (meaning the oven not the airspace within, which might be >relevant) then you might as well say that the price of tea in china is >relevant.
>Given any piece of cooked food, there is some chance that it's been >contaminated with treif molecules. I'm asserting that this chance is >higher overall than the specific chance that any given piece of food will >somehow become contaminated by being cooked in an oven with stuff on the >walls.
I don't see how this can possibly be. Proximity, heat, convection...
>Thus, if you're concerned about that probability, then you if >you're truly stringent you won't eat any cooked food whatsover. Or raw >food, for that matter, because there is a non-zero chance that it contains >bugs.
>>>To say it another way, as I've said previously, given that the law says >>>one may not exceed 55 MPH on the highway, if someone decided based on that >>>law to not drive at all, lest they exceed 55 mph, would you consider that >>>to be "stringent" or something else?
>>Probably something else. Stringency would be driving 45-50.
>Would it? How do you know that? Perhaps it's actually less safe to drive >45-50 when everyone else is going 70? You have no basis for this >conclusion of yours that it's better to drive 45-50, although at least in >that case you can try it out and see what happens.
That depends on the goal - is it compliance with the law, or maximization of safety? As you point out, these may conflict.
>But here you don't know >the outcome - you have no way of knowing which is "more stringent."
A baseless assertion. The law can deal with the observed physical reality (albeit on its own terms).
>>>My ultimate issue is, I suppose, that if you really are so confident in >>>halacha, that is, that you truly "have it right," then there shouldn't be >>>a need for such stringencies. Stringencies betray a lack of confidence.
>>Agreed.
>>>If you aren't confident in halacha, then why should we suppose that this >>>"stringency" actually renders your behavior more likely to be "correct?"
>>To me it's obvious. Not sure why it isn't to you.
>Because the law is the law -- there's no such thing as "stringent" in that >context. It's black and white - legal or illegal. If you eat food that God >has prohibited, then you've sinned. If you don't eat food that God hasn't >prohibited, then you've done nothing. If you do eat food that God hasn't >prhohibited, then once again you've done nothing. No harm, no benefit. So, >there's no benefit to this so-called stringency.
This is true, but only insofar as there are no uncertainties.
>Is there a harm? Well, >there's an opportunity cost - there's lost time and effort, energy that >could have been dedicated to, perhaps, performing a positive mitzvah. So >yeah, there's harm, but no benefit - so how is that "more stringent?"
>>>Perhaps you've got it 180 degrees wrong and you're making it worse. See >>>what I mean?
>>No. The direction is usually (not always) known, so the 180-degree >>risk is minimal.
>How is the direction known? You think it's known, but you're supposed to >do what God commanded, not make stuff up. Particularly when one of the >principles is to maintain the integrity of the principles. These so-called >stringencies violate that principle, by muddying what is and is not a >commandment, and by setting up barriers to following the commandments.
True of many humrot. Nu, so you better know what you're doing and why. Do you remember, a couple of years ago around this time, I posted about how liberating it was to actually learn what were the laws of cleaning for Pesakh, and what were the humrot?
>To say that another way, let's say that kashrus, for example, is actually >supposed to be much, much simpler than you've made it. So, there might be >millions of Jews over the millenia who would have chosen keep kosher, had >it not become muddied with so-called stringencies. Instead, all these Jews >recognized the chaff and therefore rejected the entire bushel, wheat and >all. Isn't that a harm? This is not a hypothetical, it's happening as we >watch, and probably has been happening for 1,000 years. You guys are going >to "stringency" yourselves right out of existence. Any harm there, you >think, in a little stringency?
Could very well be. (This could launch me on a rant about how many kiruv workers, not knowing much themselves, present humrot as law.)
>>>Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you >>>might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully >>>lest something bad happen?
>>>That's the difference between following principles and just being >>>superstitious.
>>Don't see how superstition enters the picture.
>Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague >sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition.
No, the definition is: 1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Many humrot do result from ignorance. But a legitimate uncertainty in the determination of application of the law is not that. (Note that I'm not saying that this particular case - pizza in a non-kosher oven - is uncertain. I don't know that.)
>I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God >commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior >is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe >than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is >"stringent."
Semantics. Whatever. It may very well be an inexact use of language.
Main Entry: strin·gent 1 : TIGHT, CONSTRICTED 2 : marked by rigor, strictness , or severity especially with regard to rule or standard <stringent decontamination procedures> 3 : marked by money scarcity and credit strictness <a stringent budget>
So what do you want to call it? "Extra care?"
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In <lmq8u25ij9uidk0ttjv86bnhsquvro7...@4ax.com> Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
>>The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any >>definition of that term no matter how loose. >Semantics strikes again. The supposed transfer of absorbed taste from >the oven to the pizza (and if you've been reading Jacko's >contributions to this thread, this transfer is by no means a given) is >called "mixture" only for lack of a better term. Bringing in the >definition of the English word "mixture" is useless.
No no no, think about what you're saying. It's a logic mistake not a semantic mistake. I agree that a mixture might form - but it would be a mixture of the food with the taste that was absorbed into the oven walls and then *re-emitted* -- it's this re-emitted taste that forms the mixture, not the oven walls themselves. The oven walls don't form a mixture with the food. Thus, it's the volume of the re-emitted taste that ought to be subject to the 1/60th nullification rule (as well as the if it can't be detected on a macro level then it doesn't exist halachically rule) not the volume of the oven walls.
>>Given any piece of cooked food, there is some chance that it's been >>contaminated with treif molecules. I'm asserting that this chance is >>higher overall than the specific chance that any given piece of food will >>somehow become contaminated by being cooked in an oven with stuff on the >>walls. >I don't see how this can possibly be. Proximity, heat, convection...
You are underestimating the probability of other forms of contamination. Let's stipulate that there's some chance that a molecule or two of treif food will be transported from the oven walls into the cooking food. Call it 1 in n. I'm saying that there are plenty of other possibilities for contamination, despite the efforts of the most attentive mashgiach -- accidents happen, especially in these high volume processes. I'm asserting that the odds that some accident happened to your food during processing are higher than the 1 in n probablity that your food was contaminated during cooking, so if 1 in n is a high enough probability that you would avoid this food, then you ought to avoid ALL food.
>>>Probably something else. Stringency would be driving 45-50.
>>Would it? How do you know that? Perhaps it's actually less safe to drive >>45-50 when everyone else is going 70? You have no basis for this >>conclusion of yours that it's better to drive 45-50, although at least in >>that case you can try it out and see what happens. >That depends on the goal - is it compliance with the law, or >maximization of safety? As you point out, these may conflict.
It has been asserted time and again that the goal is to follow the rules. Period end of story.
>>But here you don't know >>the outcome - you have no way of knowing which is "more stringent." >A baseless assertion. The law can deal with the observed physical >reality (albeit on its own terms).
Two different points - 1) you don't know the goal, so you can't observe the harm as you can with driving, and 2) the law could deal with observed physical reality, but it chooses not to, so your point is irrelevant.
>>How is the direction known? You think it's known, but you're supposed to >>do what God commanded, not make stuff up. Particularly when one of the >>principles is to maintain the integrity of the principles. These so-called >>stringencies violate that principle, by muddying what is and is not a >>commandment, and by setting up barriers to following the commandments. >True of many humrot. Nu, so you better know what you're doing and why. >Do you remember, a couple of years ago around this time, I posted >about how liberating it was to actually learn what were the laws of >cleaning for Pesakh, and what were the humrot?
>>To say that another way, let's say that kashrus, for example, is actually >>supposed to be much, much simpler than you've made it. So, there might be >>millions of Jews over the millenia who would have chosen keep kosher, had >>it not become muddied with so-called stringencies. Instead, all these Jews >>recognized the chaff and therefore rejected the entire bushel, wheat and >>all. Isn't that a harm? This is not a hypothetical, it's happening as we >>watch, and probably has been happening for 1,000 years. You guys are going >>to "stringency" yourselves right out of existence. Any harm there, you >>think, in a little stringency? >Could very well be. (This could launch me on a rant about how many >kiruv workers, not knowing much themselves, present humrot as law.) >>Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague >>sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition. >No, the definition is: >1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the >unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation >b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, >nature, or God resulting from superstition >2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary >Many humrot do result from ignorance. But a legitimate uncertainty in >the determination of application of the law is not that. (Note that >I'm not saying that this particular case - pizza in a non-kosher oven >- is uncertain. I don't know that.)
I disagree, I think chumrot fit your definition of superstition perfectly.
>>I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God >>commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior >>is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe >>than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is >>"stringent." >Semantics. Whatever. It may very well be an inexact use of language. >Main Entry: strin·gent >1 : TIGHT, CONSTRICTED >2 : marked by rigor, strictness , or severity especially with regard >to rule or standard <stringent decontamination procedures> >3 : marked by money scarcity and credit strictness <a stringent >budget> >So what do you want to call it? "Extra care?"
In <es09hg$r4...@reader2.panix.com> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>In <ervkjv$56...@reader2.panix.com> "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjba...@panix.com> writes: >>>Why? Speaking purely physically, that is, in terms of actual physical >>>residues. >>How often do you clean your oven? Even without worrying about balua >>(absorbed; and in unglazed ceramic or brick walls which might have >>been used in the pre-modern period, or in cast-iron, both of which >>have lots of cracks/holes, it's a real concern), there's real b'en >>(stuff stuck on the walls). I don't know if we assume it's been >>denatured by heat or not, but it's still there on the oven walls. >Well, we weren't talking about my oven but about a 450+ pizza oven, and >what difference does it make if there's stuff stuck to the walls, unless >that stuff is mixed into the food? Even if there's a mixture it still >might not be a problem, but if there's no mixture then there's certainly >no problem is there?
There are issues of "steam", and what if the gunk falls off onto the top of your open pizza? The gunk is sure to contain bits of meat-grease and cheese-grease.
>>>I am certain that I can eat pizza out, but I don't contend that you would >>>consider that pizza to be kosher. I was making a different point. >>"You are certain that you can eat pizza out". Who did you ask? What >>halachic source told you, source that actually learned the halachot >>inside in the Shulchan Aruch or in the Gemara? >I don't need to ask anyone's permission to eat any food. Except maybe my >wife's.
Well, as long as you want to ignore halacha, you don't need to ask.
Is it any wonder that many see little difference between C and R?
>>>No, I have to disagree -- it would NOT be "without reference to Halacha." >>>It would DEFINITELY be WITH reference to Halacha. Which is different from >>>saying it meets your standards of halacha, but I never claimed that it >>>did. >>You need to demonstrate, from halacha, whether "my standards" or Conservative >>standards, that it's permissible. I think what happened is that a lot of >>people do stuff without checking what's real. "It has no active treif" so >>it must be OK. I ate that way too, for a long time, but I knew it was less >>than ideal. I just wasn't ready to give up the convenience of walking into >>any old pizza place or sandwich place, and getting a tuna sub or plain pizza. >No, I don't have to demonstrate it's PERMISSIBLE in order to demonstrate >that it's WITH REFERENCE. You see what I'm saying? You're claiming it's >completely disassociated from halacha - it's without reference. I'm >agreeing that it doesn't meet your standard of halacha, but I'm saying >there are many reference lines one could draw that would not be your >standard of halacha, and so perhaps could not be called "halachic," but >nevertheless could be said to be "with reference to halacha." You probably >consider that a meaningless distinction but I don't think it is.
No, what I'm saying is that it's not MY standard of halacha that it's dis- associated from, but the standard of halacha that the CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT claims to hold. So it is indeed "without reference to halacha". There is no Conservative teshuva allowing one to eat pizza cooked in a non-kosher pizza place. That doesn't mean that 90-95% of Conservative Jews don't eat it, but it means that they're wrong BY THEIR OWN MOVEMENT'S STANDARDS.
>>Did you read the Jewish Week article that seems to have started this thread? >>According to them, the teshuva Conservatives rely on for this "eating fish >>out" talks about grilled fish and cooked vegetables, only. Fish is cooked >>in a pan, on top of the stove, and vegetables are cooked in a closed pot, >>again on top of the stove. None of this permits, or even justifies, cooking >>uncovered food in an oven at the same time as other, treif, uncovered food. >I didn't, and I'm not even sure of how I got to where I got to anymore. I >think, though, it's regarding a question of consistency. You (and others) >seem to be asserting that C (or any practice other than O) is inherently >inconsistent. I don't think that's the case, I think a person could >establish certain consistent principles that he or she chose to live by, >referenced to halacha in some consistent manner. I agree that this would >not be O (by definition) but it wouldn't have to be some crippled form of >O, it could be something else. It wouldn't be Karaism either.
I'm not saying it's inconsistent - no system as huge as halacha could be consistent. I'm saying that the practice of Conservative Jews bears little relation to the standards of their own movement.
>For example, someone might say "I choose not to eat non-kosher meat, but I >don't accept that 'mixtures' are anything but actual physical mixtures, >and the category of forbidden meat applies only to actual 'food,' not >products derived from food, and therefore I will eat vegetarian pizza in a >non-kosher restaurant" and that person would be holding a consistent >position. They would not necessarily be someone who just wanted to eat the >pizza and therefore came up with some justification to let them do it, as >I think has been implied here.
Sure, it's consistent, as long as one doesn't check against halacha. But since Conservative Jews are supposed to observe halacha as specified in the Shulchan Aruch, except where modified by the CJLS, it's not consistent with Conservative ideals.
As I said, I used to eat that way, but I knew it was less than ideal. Conservatives seem to have lost the sense that what they're doing is less than ideal, needs improvement, etc. The sense that all life involves growth. And growth, in a religio-legal system like Judaism, means improving one's observance of halacha, as well as one's knowledge of God. The two go hand in hand - as one gains knowledge of God, one sees more how the rules of the system, the discipline as it were, are part and parcel of the growth process.
Now, if one is Reform, then one can develop one's own ethic and behavior rules without reference to halacha, because individual autonomy rules (and even they have some absolute limits, such as not more than one God, no murder, etc.). But Conservative pays lip-service to halacha. And as a human being, continuing to grow, one should try to give greater service than lip-service. I know the Conservative prayerbook is 99-44/100% the same as the Orthodox, and it speaks of concepts such as mitzvot, immersion in Torah, performance of mitzvot and study for the sake of God's Name, etc. Surely you don't want that just to be empty words.
-- Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who? jjba...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah. Blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com Featuring: Rav Movie
|
