mangia!

[paj...@gmail.com]

Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt

[mm]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:22:54 +0000 (UTC), paj...@gmail.com wrote:

>Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.
>
>http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt

Why are you sorry? A great link.
--

Meir

[paj...@gmail.com]

For using Italian instead of Yiddish. I realize the recipes take some guesswork, like most old cookbooks. If you experiment with one and find out how to express it in modern measurements and oven temperature, let me know.

[mm]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:02:26 +0000 (UTC), paj...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:46:42 PM UTC-4, googy wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:22:54 +0000 (UTC), paj...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you sorry? A great link.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Meir
>
>For using Italian instead of Yiddish.

Oh, okay. I noticed that and thought it was funny, or it related to
the Italian recipes.

> I realize the recipes take some guesswork, like most old cookbooks. If you experiment with one and find out how to express it in modern measurements and oven temperature, let me know.

My idea of cooking is using 3 or more ingredients, even if one is
salt. So don't hold you're breath.
--

Meir

[mirjam]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:22:54 PM UTC+3, paj...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.
>
>
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt

It could be a LADINO term.
mirjam

[paj...@gmail.com]

I wish. I don't even really understand the Ladino broadcasts on IBA although I know some Spanish.

Anyway like I told Meir, if you experiment and get it to work, fill me in on the complete instructions. For example, I've seen Bola in two antique Jewish collections including this one, but I don't really get how you make it up before baking.

[lefty]

Real Gefilte Fish Milkyroad Recipe! געפילטע פיש Гефилте Фиш

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqBw97FRYV8

Real traditional Gefilte Fish video recipe by Milkyroad. Not fish balls from a supermarket! This video shows detailed and easy step by step instruction how to make real heimische gefilte fish. This recipe was passed down the generation to me through my grandmother (z''l) who was a wedding cook in her schtetl.

Gefilte Fish (yiddish גיפילטע פיש from German gefüllter Fisch) means STUFFED fish! So how can one call those fish balls gefilte fish?

Gefilte Fish is like the Yiddish language. You only open your mouth to find out that you're speaking the wrong way! :


<paj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f5bc965-1500-4d3f...@googlegroups.com...

[W. Baker]

lefty <n...@home.zzz> wrote:
: Real Gefilte Fish Milkyroad Recipe! ??????? ??? ??????? ???

: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqBw97FRYV8

: Real traditional Gefilte Fish video recipe by Milkyroad. Not fish balls from a supermarket! This video shows detailed and easy step by step instruction how to make real heimische gefilte fish. This recipe was passed down the generation to me through my grandmother (z''l) who was a wedding cook in her schtetl.

: Gefilte Fish (yiddish ??????? ??? from German gef?llter Fisch) means STUFFED fish! So how can one call those fish balls gefilte fish?

: Gefilte Fish is like the Yiddish language. You only open your mouth to find out that you're speaking the wrong way! :


: <paj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f5bc965-1500-4d3f...@googlegroups.com...
: On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:46:42 PM UTC-4, googy wrote:
: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:22:54 +0000 (UTC), paj...@gmail.com wrote:
: > >Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.
: >
: > >http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt
: >
: > Why are you sorry? A great link.

: > Meir

: For using Italian instead of Yiddish. I realize the recipes take some
guesswork, like most old cookbooks. If you experiment with one and find
out how to express it in modern measurements and oven temperature, let me
know.

removing the fish from the skin , while keeping it in tact is a difficult
adn slow process. Originally that was how it was done, remove fish,
remove bones from fish(the point of the who exercise so there were no bone
to deal with on Shabbat) chop and flavor fish( S&P, onions, sugar in
central Europe and no sugar, but lots fo pepper in Estern Europe in
general) put chopped fish back into skin adn shape like a fish. boil in
flavored brothwith bones so it will jell when cold. My mother never
stuffed the fish but she would put a belt of skin around as many balls of
fish as she could. No sugar(family from Russia)and lots of pepper.

Wendy

[mirjam]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:25:48 PM UTC+3, paj...@gmail.com wrote:
Being a vegetarian , i am not going to cook fish.
But i can read recipes
Amongst my collection of Ladino songs there are some Food recipes
wish you nice cooking times
mirjam

[mm]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:25:48 +0000 (UTC), paj...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:13:34 AM UTC-4, mirjam wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:22:54 PM UTC+3, paj...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> It could be a LADINO term.
>>
>> mirjam
>
>I wish. I don't even really understand the Ladino broadcasts on IBA although I know some Spanish.

Are we talking about the subject line, mangia. That's an Italian
command to eat. (Based on tv and movies, it is appartently used
mostly by mothers with children and anyone who visits, just like
"Es".) In Spanish it's come (KOH meh), and at least in Mexico and
Central America, I never heard anything else. Why they are
different, I don't know.

>Anyway like I told Meir, if you experiment and get it to work, fill me in on the complete instructions. For example, I've seen Bola in two antique Jewish collections including this one, but I don't really get how you make it up before baking.

--

Meir

[mm]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:43:29 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wba...@panix.com> wrote:

>lefty <n...@home.zzz> wrote:
>: Real Gefilte Fish Milkyroad Recipe! ??????? ??? ??????? ???
>
>: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqBw97FRYV8
>
>: Real traditional Gefilte Fish video recipe by Milkyroad. Not fish balls from a supermarket! This video shows detailed and easy step by step instruction how to make real heimische gefilte fish. This recipe was passed down the generation to me through my grandmother (z''l) who was a wedding cook in her schtetl.

Curious. Why the c in schtetl. By transliterating straight to
English and ignoriing German**, it's shtetl. The Hebrew shin I
always transliterate "sh", so why not the Yiddish shin?

**(a good thing imo unless there is a reason not to)

>
>: Gefilte Fish (yiddish ??????? ??? from German gef?llter Fisch) means STUFFED fish! So how can one call those fish balls gefilte fish?

I see your point, and I agree with you.

OTOH, I think it's some topology issue. We should ask in the math
newsgroup. It may have something to do with the moebius strip and
the Klein bottle. That is, maybe it's stuffed into itself. Or maybe
it's just the Manischevitz didnt' have bottles long or big enough to
hold the whole fish,

>: Gefilte Fish is like the Yiddish language. You only open your mouth to find out that you're speaking the wrong way! :
>
>
>: <paj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f5bc965-1500-4d3f...@googlegroups.com...
>: On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:46:42 PM UTC-4, googy wrote:
>: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:22:54 +0000 (UTC), paj...@gmail.com wrote:
>: > >Sorry. This is a 1909 or something cookbook and has the "gefilte" fish recipe where the fish really is stuffed, among other things.
>: >
>: > >http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12350/12350.txt
>: >
>: > Why are you sorry? A great link.
>: > Meir
>
>: For using Italian instead of Yiddish. I realize the recipes take some
>guesswork, like most old cookbooks. If you experiment with one and find
>out how to express it in modern measurements and oven temperature, let me
>know.
>
>removing the fish from the skin , while keeping it in tact is a difficult
>adn slow process. Originally that was how it was done, remove fish,

>remove bones from fish(the point of the whole exercise so there were no bone

>to deal with on Shabbat)

Worth emphasizng. Of course bones are okay but separating them from
the fish isn't.

> chop and flavor fish( S&P, onions, sugar in
>central Europe and no sugar, but lots fo pepper in Estern Europe in
>general) put chopped fish back into skin adn shape like a fish. boil in
>flavored brothwith bones so it will jell when cold. My mother never
>stuffed the fish but she would put a belt of skin around as many balls of
>fish as she could. No sugar(family from Russia)and lots of pepper.

I think my aunt made this, but I don't remembe my mother ever doing
so. Of course she was 39 when I met her. She may have done so when
she was a young bride.


>Wendy

--

Meir

[Arthur Kamlet]

In article <5l1iq8la06cro8eit...@4ax.com>,

mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:43:29 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
><wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>removing the fish from the skin , while keeping it in tact is a difficult
>>adn slow process. Originally that was how it was done, remove fish,
>>remove bones from fish(the point of the whole exercise so there were no bone
>>to deal with on Shabbat)
>
>Worth emphasizng. Of course bones are okay but separating them from
>the fish isn't.

Is it true that one may not remove the bones from the fish, but
it is OK to remove the fish from the bones?

--

ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

[Shelly]

Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?

--
Shelly

[cindys]

On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 01:25, Arthur Kamlet wrote:> In article <5l1iq8la06cro8eits5tjb9pdlmou6d...@4ax.com>,

> > mm  <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:43:29 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
> >> <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>> removing the fish from the skin , while keeping it in tact is a difficult
> >>> adn slow process.  Originally that was how it was done, remove fish,
> >>> remove bones from fish(the point of the whole exercise so there were no bone
> >>> to deal with on Shabbat)
> >> Worth emphasizng.   Of course bones are okay but separating them from
> >> the fish isn't.
>
> > Is it true that one may not remove the bones from the fish, but
> > it is OK to remove the fish from the bones?
>
> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?

-------------
Not at all. It's the prohibition of "selecting." You can't select out
something bad and remove it (the bones), but you can eat the fish.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Herman Rubin]

This is one of the Pharisaic misinterpretations of "m'lakhh".
The meaning of this word when Tanakh was compiled seems to have
been lost, among other things, so their leaders came up with a
weird ritualistic formulation.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[JJ]

"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnkqmuco...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...

Right. Like carrying (which was solved by placing a string on little
plastic thingies around your street, or neighborhood, or city. Would they
allow an eruv around a small country, like Luxembourg? ) and tearing toilet
paper on shabbat. In the 21st century, the best that the rabbis have been
able to come up with as a solution to the great Toilet Tissue issue was (1)
tear it up before shabbat or (2) buy pre-cut TP.

Jay

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:

> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?

Another nasty dig from someone entirely illiterate in even the
rudimentary essentials of Hilchos Shabbos. It's nice to see the
ignorant freely exposing thaeir ignorance.

GEK

[mm]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:

>On 2013-06-02, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2013 01:25, Arthur Kamlet wrote:> In article <5l1iq8la06cro8eits5tjb9pdlmou6d...@4ax.com>,
>>> > mm  <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:43:29 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
>>> >> <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> >>> removing the fish from the skin , while keeping it in tact is a difficult
>>> >>> adn slow process.  Originally that was how it was done, remove fish,
>>> >>> remove bones from fish(the point of the whole exercise so there were no bone
>>> >>> to deal with on Shabbat)
>>> >> Worth emphasizng.   Of course bones are okay but separating them from
>>> >> the fish isn't.
>
>>> > Is it true that one may not remove the bones from the fish, but
>>> > it is OK to remove the fish from the bones?
>
>>> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?
> -------------
>> Not at all. It's the prohibition of "selecting." You can't select out
>> something bad and remove it (the bones), but you can eat the fish.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>This is one of the Pharisaic misinterpretations of "m'lakhh".

ROTFLOL.

>The meaning of this word when Tanakh was compiled seems to have
>been lost, among other things, so their leaders came up with a
>weird ritualistic formulation.

WTIME.
--

Meir

[JJ]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:ta0nq8dask4vm7khi...@4ax.com...

ROTFLOL I know. What is WTIME ?

Jay

[Shelly]

Duh! What is the end result difference if I remove all nickels from a
set of nickels and dimes and use the dimes that are left over. Or if I
remove all the dimes from that set and use the dimes that I removed.
Tbe end result is the same. They become two sets, one of nickels and
one of dimes and I use the dimes.

So, what is difference if I remove the bones from the fish and eat the
fish, or if I remove the fish from the bones and eat the fish. None!

However, it is nice to see someone freely exposing their ignorance of
simple Logic 101.

--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Jun 2, 5:45 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:

You don't want to keep Shabbos. Okay, I understand that. And you don't
want to admit to yourself that you are not keeping Shabbos. I
understand that too. So you pretend that you are a member of some
other sect, with a new definition of Shabbos, and then you feel good
pretending that you are keeping Shabbos. But that's not good enough
for you. So you have to take a dump on other people's Shabos. Does it
make you feel better? Okay, I'm glad you feel better.

The melacha of borer, like every other aspect of halacha, has exacting
technical definitions. That your early teachers in the Jewish school
you say you attended during what you claim was your Orthodox youth,
were ignoramuses is pitiable. More's the pity that now, when you could
learn if you wanted to, you prefer to wallow in your ignorance. So be
it.

I think I know what your problem is. You think Halacha has a spirit,
and is result oriented. The spirit is that fish and bones may not be
separated. But that makes life difficult. So the rabbis invented a
loophole: remove the fish from the bones, not the bones from the fish.
That's not how it works. But I am not going to explain to you what
every six year old child knows who has had a proper education.

And your logic is also flawed. If you want dilute sulfuric acid, it
makes a big difference whether you produce it by pouring acid into a
beaker of water, or water into a beaker of acid.

GEK

[Shelly]

If you can stop being a condescending (I won't say the word, but it is a
four letter word that begins with a "t"), you will see that it is really
a simple thing.
A. You begin with fish and bones together.
B, You end with bones and fish are separated into two parts.

Explain to me the difference between taking the bones out of the pair
and taking the fish out of the pair. Do you hold the fish in the left
hand and the bones in the right and that makes all the difference in the
world rather than the other way around? When you separate the two, you
separate the two.

You hide behind those "exacting definitions" as if they were some be all
and end all. Sir, you simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

BTW, I never said I keep Shabbat the way you do. I don't and make no
bones about it. I _do_ refrain from WORK, however.

--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Jun 2, 9:32 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 18:51, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:

You are focussing on the end result. The end result is irrelevant in
Hilchos Shabbos. it is the act that is relevant. Removing the unwanted
component from an admixture of wanted and unwanted things is
forbidden; removing the wanted component is permitted. This is not
just fish and bones. it is nutmeat and nutshell pieces in a recently
cracked nut. It is removing unwanted books from a pile of books to get
to the book you want. In all these cases it is the act of removing the
unwanted thing. It does not matter that either way you start with the
mixture and you end up with them separated. Removing the unwanted is
forbidden. Removing the wanted is permitted. What is so hard to
understand?

I will repeat my example and expand on it, drawing from the non-
halachic world. You have 250 cc of 12 normal sulfuric acid in a jar.
You have 250 cc of distilled water in another jar. You want 500 cc of
6 normal sulfuric acid in a beaker. You can pour the acid into the
beaker first and then add the water and stir. Or you can add the water
first, and then add the acid and stir. Is there a difference which way
you do it? Try it and see.

GEK

[JJ]

"Giorgies E Kepipesiom" <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:829ad45a-f23a-47fb...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

*********************************************

Your sulphuric acid example is not a very good one. In either case you are
ADDING something to something else, not taking anything away

I understand the ruling: hold the fish with a knife, and use your fork to
pull aside the fish you want to eat, rather than forking away the bones you
do not want to eat. Fine. Follow it if you believe it's important to your
life. It's minutiae. It's inane minutiae that makes no difference to anyone
except to the rabbis who ordained this, and many other rulings, and thus
attained a superior position in Judaism.

If I have a pile of 10 books and on shabbat I want to get the third one from
the bottom, I guess I'll have to remove the top 6, then take the one I want,
and then replace the 6 back on the pile, so I can pretend that I took away
the book I wanted and did not remove the 6 books I did not want. If that's
what makes you happy, gezinter heit. To me, it's the same fiction as heter
isska and eruv.

Jay

[Shelly]

Exactly. His analogy fails in another way besides adding. There is a
chemical reaction to consider. (The water will quickly boil if added to
sulphuric acid). Giorges, what CHEMICAL REACTION occurs with separating
fish and bones or the nut from the shell, or anything else like that?
Answer: none. Gop back to my nickels and dimes example to help you
understand the simple logic.

Now, I have nothing against anyone who want to keep Shabbat in ANY way
they want. I also have nothing against anyone who wants to follow
halacha to the letter. That is their business and their choice. I *DO*
have something against someone who ignores the forest -- simple logic --
*AND* tries to act all superior about it and that others are too
stupid/uneducated because they see the obvious logical fallacy. Remove
bones from fish and eat the bones or remove the fish from the bones and
eat the fish are the same LOGICAL thing. Forest/trees.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Here is another question for Giorges. You have an apple where the core
has been cut all around, but it still rests inside the apple. You now
take the apple in one hand and the stem (attached to the core in the
other. You can do one of three things:

(a) hold the apple hand steady and pull on the stem
(b) hold the stem hand steady and pull on the apple
(c) pull both hands apart

Are you seriously saying that (a) is forbidden and (b) is allowed and
something about (c) that I don;t know what you are saying?

If you are saying this, then I say, like Jay, go and be happy with your
illogical nonsense.

--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Jun 3, 6:51 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>
> Exactly.  His analogy fails in another way besides adding.  There is a
> chemical reaction to consider.  (The water will quickly boil if added to
> sulphuric acid).  Giorges, what CHEMICAL REACTION occurs with separating
> fish and bones or the nut from the shell, or anything else like that?
> Answer:  none. Gop back to my nickels and dimes example to help you
> understand the simple logic.

Let me try a different analogy: Bagels and Lox. (considered by many to
be a "Jewish food", though i won't enter a debate on that subject,
lest I earn the name of a character in a children's television
programme you are fond of calling me).

Yo start out with a bagel on a plate, creme cheese in it wrapper, and
slices of lox in a dish. You end up with bagel, cheese, and lox in
your stomache. You can cut the bagel open, spread the creme cheese on
it (either on one half, or on both halves, as you prefer), arrange
some slices of lox on the cheese-covered bagel halves, reassemble the
bagel, and eat the samdwitch. Or, you can eat it all separately. Take
a bite of bagel, then some cheese from a spoon, then a bit of lox from
the end of a fork; and then keep doing that - bite of bagel, spoon of
cheese, forkful of lox, untilo it is all gone. End result the same.
Does it make a difference? You tell me. I myself have not eaten such
foods in many years. hannies allows me no chreme cheese, no lox (or
any other smoked foods for that matter) though she probably would
allow a morsel of toasted bagel.

Now I understand you don't want to follow the halacha, and you have
rationalised it all in your mind so that you have a holistic
philosophy that makes you happy. Why do you find it necessary to make
a gratuitous insult ("What! another loophole"? or wtte) as your first
reaction upon encountering a concept of which you have not even the
most rudimentary understanding?

GEK
whishing you a pleasant day, and to enjoy your breakfast,
notwithstanding that in the end it makes no difference whether you
pour the maple syrup on your waffles, or eat the waffles dry and drink
your syrup separately from a whisky glass.

[Shelly]

Again, you are talking about adding things together to make something
new. I am surprised that you fail to see the difference between
building and separating. We were not talking about building at all, and
that is what creating a bagel with lox and cream cheese (and onion) is
all about. We were talking about *SEPARATING*. So. your attempted
analogy totally fails to be an analogy. (BTW, I feel sorry for you that
you no longer can eat it.)

Now "rationalized" is a *VERY* bad description of what I do concerning
Shabbat. Rationalizing is making excuses to yourself so that you not do
something you know to be right, or doing something you know to be
wrong. That simply is not the case here. I know no such thing. I
believe that what *I* do is right and proper. So "reasoned" is a much
better description -- because that is what it is. (BTW, I have
"rationalized" my eating shellfish by admitting that I am weak and love
it too much. See the difference?)

As for gratuitous insult, it is only that if you see it as such. If you
think that what you do is right and proper, then how I see it cannot
possibly be an insult. It is only an insult if you have "rationalized"
in your mind that the loophole is right and proper (while realizing that
it is logically ridiculous). In any event, no apology for calling 'em
as I sees 'em.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Side question:
Before your wife forbade you from eating a bagel with lox and cream
cheese, did you eat any on Shabbat. Did you spread the cream cheese on
an already sliced bagel and then put lox on it (whether on one or two)?
If you did, why were you allowed to build that sandwich on Shabbat?

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 03/06/2013 08:10, Shelly wrote:
> Let me try a different analogy: Bagels and Lox. (considered by many to
> be a "Jewish food", though i won't enter a debate on that subject,
> lest I earn the name of a character in a children's television
> programme you are fond of calling me).

Glad to see you found out who Oscar is. BTW, *this current* interchange
is different. It doesn't fit that characterization and is a real
discussion -- despite the attempts at personal putdowns and condescensions.

However, had you launched into the "Jewish food" diversion, it would
have been. Most of your posts can be characterized as "Mr.
Negativity". Hence, my calling you "Oscar". Whether or not something
is labeled as "Jewish food" is of such a level of triviality that going
negative on the classification would be nothing more than "Oh well,
that's Oscar for you".

Lastly, are you British? I noticed "programme", which is not the
American spelling of "program".

--
Shelly

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:45:04 PM UTC+1, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 13:32, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>
> >> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?
>
>

> Duh! What is the end result difference if I remove all nickels from a
> set of nickels and dimes and use the dimes that are left over. Or if I
> remove all the dimes from that set and use the dimes that I removed.
> Tbe end result is the same. They become two sets, one of nickels and
> one of dimes and I use the dimes.
>
> So, what is difference if I remove the bones from the fish and eat the
> fish, or if I remove the fish from the bones and eat the fish. None!
>
> However, it is nice to see someone freely exposing their ignorance of
> simple Logic 101.
>

There's a scene in Bugs Bunny where Bugs and Elmer get a cake. Elmer invites
Bugs to take a slice, and Bugs cuts himself a modest slice. Elmer nods.
Then Bugs take the whole cake, and leaves the remaining slice on the plate.

It's funny because, mathematically, Bugs is right. By psychology isn't
mathematical like that.

There's a difference between purifying something, or removing contaminants
from it, and taking or selecting something from a background. But you can
find a marginal case, such as where we mix two sorts of lentils and sort
them into red and green. If you're picking out some red lentils from a set
mainly of green, then you're selecting, if you're removing all the red lentils
from a set mainly of green with the intention of creating an all-green
set you're purifying, and if the number of green lentils approximates the
number of red, and you want two pure sets, you're sorting.

[Shelly]

You have a set of mixed lentils and they are mostly green with some red
(bitter) ones. Are you saying you are selecting if you remove all the
green lentils and purifying if you remove all the red lentils? Sorry,
your terminology may be accurate as to intent, but in both cases you are
sorting.

In fact, you can say that you are CREATING a "purified set" by
"selecting" only the green ones. Thus you are building something that
was not there before -- and I always thought that building something on
Shabbat was prohibited.

--
Shelly

[David Makowsky]

I have removed everything that precedes this.

The simplest way I have had it explained to me is that while you are allowed to take the "good" from the "bad", you cannot take the "bad" from the "good".

As has been alluded to what you end up with is not relevant. All that matters is how you got there.

If that does not make sense to some of you, all I can say is that it is one of the laws that we observe in order to serve G-d. We do this because we believe this is one of many things that is wanted of us to serve G-d and for no other reason (like does it make sense ...).

[Shelly]

That is fine for you and you are more than welcome to do it that way.
However, I am one that cannot close my mind off from simple logic -- so
that would not work for me.

--
Shelly

[mm]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No analogy is perfect, and in this case adding is not part of the
analogy. Rather, t's an example in which the order of things makes a
difference.

You shouldn't need an analogy the way Shelly does. Do you honestly
think that if the start and end result are the same, there is never a
difference between two different processes, just because they yield
the same result?

>I understand the ruling: hold the fish with a knife, and use your fork to
>pull aside the fish you want to eat, rather than forking away the bones you
>do not want to eat. Fine. Follow it if you believe it's important to your
>life. It's minutiae. It's inane minutiae that makes no difference to anyone
>except to the rabbis who ordained this,

Do you want to end up llike Shelly? Shelly has what I thought was a
unique combination of rudeness, ignorance, and malice towards Judaism.
In the past you had some of the first and the last, and afaict, didn't
post when ignorance would have applied. But now you seem to be trying
to catch up with Shelly on rudeness and malice. Do you really want
to do that?

> and many other rulings, and thus
>attained a superior position in Judaism.

Your cynicism about others is depressing. I wonder if the people who
know you personally are cynical about your motives and what you would
say to them if they told you.

It's also not true that such topics made/"make no difference to anyone
except the rabbis who ordained" them. They make a difference to a
million Jews now and made a difference to hundreds of millions over
the years.

>If I have a pile of 10 books and on shabbat I want to get the third one from
>the bottom, I guess I'll have to remove the top 6, then take the one I want,
>and then replace the 6 back on the pile, so I can pretend that I took away
>the book I wanted and did not remove the 6 books I did not want. If that's
>what makes you happy, gezinter heit. To me, it's the same fiction as heter
>isska and eruv.

Didn't I ask you once if you could explain eruv from a traditional
perspective? And you didn't reply? If I didn't, I'm asking now,
about all three of these including borer.. If you can't explain from
a traditional perspective the things you criticize, you're in no
position to criticize them.
>
>Jay
>
>

--

Meir

[mm]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:03:07 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>On Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:45:04 PM UTC+1, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>> On 02/06/2013 13:32, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?
>>
>>
>> Duh! What is the end result difference if I remove all nickels from a
>> set of nickels and dimes and use the dimes that are left over. Or if I
>> remove all the dimes from that set and use the dimes that I removed.
>> Tbe end result is the same. They become two sets, one of nickels and
>> one of dimes and I use the dimes.
>>
>> So, what is difference if I remove the bones from the fish and eat the
>> fish, or if I remove the fish from the bones and eat the fish. None!
>>
>> However, it is nice to see someone freely exposing their ignorance of
>> simple Logic 101.

The trouble seems to be that this poster took "simple Logic 101" and
remember what he heard there as being absolute, even though the
instructor never said that. And he never took "Advanced Logic 201 and
202" or "Applied Logic 301 and 302".
--

Meir

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

It depends how you do it.
If you say "take out all the red lentils", clearly you are purifying. If
you say "take out all the green ones", then there's a strong argument
that you're doing the same.
But what if you say "take a lentil that you like". Since the green ones
are nice and the red ones are nasty, a green one will always be taken.
But no-one would describe this as as "purifying". It's selecting one.

The issue is that fish is a marginal case. You can easily avoid the issue
by simply eating gefilte fish. But if you must have grilled fish, you
can remain within the parameters of the law, but only by rather artificially
pushing the flakes off with your fork instead of picking out the bones.

If we said "OK, eating fish is totally acceptable, but working in a fish
factory, picking out bones in an industrial fashion, is not" you just create
another marginal case. A woman can sit down to grilled fish. But what if
she has a small child, can she pick out the bones for him? What if it's not
her child, but one she's paid to look after? What if she has ten children?
What if she works at a nursery and the shift supervisor says "pick out
all the bones for the children?"
There'll always be some marginal case somewhere which creates a rule which
seems illogical.

[JJ]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:b8spq89fd430u775d...@4ax.com...

I do not think Shelly has any malice towards Judaism, and he is rude only
when people are rude to him first. I find Shelly to be very rational.

>> and many other rulings, and thus
>>attained a superior position in Judaism.
>
> Your cynicism about others is depressing. I wonder if the people who
> know you personally are cynical about your motives and what you would
> say to them if they told you.

Oh, I am far from cynical. But I am very cynical when it comes to the
Israeli rabbinate and to rabbis who believe that the more humrot, the more
authentic their Judaism. The only thing that really happens is that the
rabbis have more control over their flock.

>
> It's also not true that such topics made/"make no difference to anyone
> except the rabbis who ordained" them. They make a difference to a
> million Jews now and made a difference to hundreds of millions over
> the years.

And I don't think the lives of those Jews are better because they have to
pick the fish out of the bones rather than pick the bones out of the fish.
This is overreach. But, of course, if you wish to eat fish that way, it's a
free country.

>
>>If I have a pile of 10 books and on shabbat I want to get the third one
>>from
>>the bottom, I guess I'll have to remove the top 6, then take the one I
>>want,
>>and then replace the 6 back on the pile, so I can pretend that I took away
>>the book I wanted and did not remove the 6 books I did not want. If
>>that's
>>what makes you happy, gezinter heit. To me, it's the same fiction as heter
>>isska and eruv.
>
> Didn't I ask you once if you could explain eruv from a traditional
> perspective? And you didn't reply? If I didn't, I'm asking now,
> about all three of these including borer.. If you can't explain from
> a traditional perspective the things you criticize, you're in no
> position to criticize them.
>>

Sorry, like Shelly, I see the end result here. If I have to remove 24 heavy
books in order to get the one I want on shabbat, and then I have to put the
24 heavy tomes BACK on the pile, it would seem to me that I am creating more
work and sweat for myself rather than less. My solution: just remove the 24
books, and leave them where they are. I don't see the need to put them
back and pretend that I "removed" the one book I wanted rather than the 24 I
did not. But, again, I am secular. If this is what gives you joy in life, be
my guest.

And the eruv has been explained to me a hundred times in this ng. The Os
insist that it expands the area in which they can carry things, and I insist
that a bunch of plastic pegs with a string running between them is a
superstitious way of pretending that your living room has just become the
size of 14 square city blocks. Sorry, I just don't see it your way.


Jay

[Shelly]

On 03/06/2013 20:07, JJ wrote:
> I do not think Shelly has any malice towards Judaism, and he is rude only
> when people are rude to him first. I find Shelly to be very rational.

Thank you, but why do you even bother with such a .....<fill in the
blank>.....?

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:kojgd5$afp$1...@dont-email.me...

Because I don't like to see anyone maligned unjustly. And because although
we disagree sometimes, I think you are a very rational person.

Jay

[mm]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:07:54 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>>>

>>>I do not think Shelly has any malice towards Judaism,

Have you read what he says about (Ortrhodox) Judaism?

<snip>
The rest would require me to read his posts again for examples, and as
plentiful as they are, it's not worth it to me.

>
>> Your cynicism about others is depressing. I wonder if the people who
>> know you personally are cynical about your motives and what you would
>> say to them if they told you.
>
>Oh, I am far from cynical. But I am very cynical when it comes to the
>Israeli rabbinate

The laws of borer long precede the Israeli rabbinate.

>and to rabbis who believe that the more humrot, the more
>authentic their Judaism.

And long precede the rabbis you complain about.

> The only thing that really happens is that the
>rabbis have more control over their flock.

Are you talking about rabbis from 1500 years ago?

You do know that gefilte fish long precedes the state of Israel.

How are you manage to complain about living Israelis when the topic is
gefilte fish?

>
>>
>> It's also not true that such topics made/"make no difference to anyone
>> except the rabbis who ordained" them. They make a difference to a
>> million Jews now and made a difference to hundreds of millions over
>> the years.
>
>And I don't think the lives of those Jews are better because they have to

Now you're moving your own goal post. You said the rules of borer
"made no difference" to anyone but some rabbis, and when I showed
millioins more to whom it made a difference, without acknowledging
that you were wrong, you change the topic to whether you think it
makes their lives better. You don't think so. I think Shakespeare
is boring. What does it matter what I think. What does it matter
what you think here? It matters what those who care about it think.

>pick the fish out of the bones rather than pick the bones out of the fish.
>This is overreach. But, of course, if you wish to eat fish that way, it's a
>free country.

And it should be free without your insults.

I once asked someone who complained about eruv to explain eruv from a
traditional perspective? And he didn't reply. I'm asking you now,
about all three of these including borer, eruv, and heter iska.

If you can't explain from a traditional perspective the things you

criticize, you're in no position to criticize them, you don't
understand them well enough to criticize them.
--

Meir

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 1:07:54 AM UTC+1, JJ wrote:
> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b8spq89fd430u775d...@4ax.com...
>

> And the eruv has been explained to me a hundred times in this ng. The Os
> insist that it expands the area in which they can carry things, and I insist
> that a bunch of plastic pegs with a string running between them is a
> superstitious way of pretending that your living room has just become the
> size of 14 square city blocks. Sorry, I just don't see it your way.
>

To my mind, a superstition is an attempt to effect a change in something
by magical means. So drawing a magic circle is a superstition. If you're
inside the circle, supposedly demons can't get you. An eruv is more
like a "token chassis" on a caravan. The chassis is a little set of wheels
which mean that the caravan can be towed by a car for a few yards. But
in fact it is never used, if you want to move one, you place it on a flat
truck. But legally that makes it a "mobile carvan", so you don't need
planning permission for it. So the token chassis is a rational thing to
have.

[Arthur Kamlet]

While academic study of law is interesting and worthwhile, I prefer
practical halacha.


Without saying if this is an actual situation in our community,
suppose a young Jewish man decides to become a baal teshuvah.


His (O) rabbi is very encouraging, and during this process, it
comes out that the young man has some tattoos.


His rabbi suggests having them removed.


The process involves several treatments where a laser beam is used
to blast away the imbedded ink and markings.


Did the rabbi make a proper suggestion? Is this a case of removing
the bad stuff? Even if it is, do the ends jusify the means?

--

ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

[Harry Weiss]

It was a judgement call and there are responsa that go either way,

--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[Shelly]

As I said, thanks for saying what you did, but some people are best
simply ignored.

--
Shelly

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

Good question.
Case one, he's got a swastika tattooed on his forehead. It's visible,
it's a constant reminder that he once threw his lot in with anti-
Semites, it's small and would be simple to remove.

Case two, he's got a hunting scene tattooed over his back, all perfectly
tasteful, and similar to ones often sported by gentiles. It's not visible,
and would cost a fortune to remove and be extremely painful.

Case three, he's got a quite from scriptures, in Hebrew, tattooed on
his neck. It's visible but can be hidden, it would cost a medium
amount to remove.

You're not going to have an ancient source on tattoo removal, since
the technology is modern.

Case one, he's obviously got to remove that tattoo, even if the laser
treatment is technically tattooing or self mutilation. You simply
can't walk around looking like that. Case two, pretty obviously the
request is unreasonable, you can't demand extreme measures to correct
a law which is considered minor. Case three, extremely difficult.
If the tattoo contains the name of God, it's forbidden to erase it,
which could be another complication. Supposing it doesn't, keeping the
tattoo tends to suggest that tattooing is something Jews should be doing.
On the other hand, you are demanding a painful and expensive treatment,
which doesn't objectively restore anything to an injured third party.

So you've got to balance precedent and logic with common sense.

[Herman Rubin]

A substantial portion of Jews, and I do not mean only Jews by
inheritance, do not accept that this is from God.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-06-03, malcolm...@btinternet.com

This is on Shabbath. Working in a fish factory or anywhere
else is prohibited, unless needed for saving lives or similar.

Picking out all of the bones for the children would be similar
to keeping the children from injury; this might qualify.

[Herman Rubin]

I have not read the precise reasoning about these, but I
am somewhat familiar with the type of reasoning, and the
type of assumptions, made here. It is that of a philosopher,
who is looking for a black cat, in a totally dark room,
which isn't there, and finds it.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

Really? Can you cite the responsa that say the tattoo should be
removed, and give a synopsis of the logic and precedent given in those
responsa? I have never heard of that. I personally know of numerous
BT's who have tattoos, and I have never known anyone to require any of
them to remove same. On the occassion when I attend the mikwa on
Friday, I often see them, some with numorous tattoos all over the
body. None have removed them.

GEK

[Yisroel Markov]

Shelly, IMHO you're committing your usual fallacy of assuming that
your logic and assumptions are universal and are the only true ones.

The Sages' "forest" was different from yours. I assure you, they saw
it very well.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:07:54 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>

said:

[snip]

>And the eruv has been explained to me a hundred times in this ng. The Os
>insist that it expands the area in which they can carry things, and I insist
>that a bunch of plastic pegs with a string running between them is a
>superstitious way of pretending that your living room has just become the
>size of 14 square city blocks. Sorry, I just don't see it your way.

It's not about "seeing it our way," although that's desirable for
understanding. (Understanding is not the same as agreeing.) It's about
understanding, period. And your characterization proves conclusively
that you have failed to understand what an eruv hatzerot is, each of
the "hundred times" it was explained to you. Since you're not stupid,
I have to conclude that you don't want to understand. Either way, this
condition disqualifies you from judging.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 03:30:22 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> said:

[snip]

>You do know that gefilte fish long precedes the state of Israel.
>
>How are you manage to complain about living Israelis when the topic is
>gefilte fish?

I believe it's called an "overriding agenda."

Or, as a Russian proverb goes: "A hungry person can only think about
food."

[snip]

[Yisroel Markov]

What are the counter-indications to this treatment? Is it dangerous?
If not, I don't understand the question.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2013-06-02, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2013 01:25, Arthur Kamlet wrote:> In article <5l1iq8la06cro8eits5tjb9pdlmou6d...@4ax.com>,
>>> > mm  <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:43:29 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
>>> >> <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> >>> removing the fish from the skin , while keeping it in tact is a difficult
>>> >>> adn slow process.  Originally that was how it was done, remove fish,
>>> >>> remove bones from fish(the point of the whole exercise so there were no bone
>>> >>> to deal with on Shabbat)
>>> >> Worth emphasizng.   Of course bones are okay but separating them from
>>> >> the fish isn't.
>
>>> > Is it true that one may not remove the bones from the fish, but
>>> > it is OK to remove the fish from the bones?

>
>>> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?

> -------------
>> Not at all. It's the prohibition of "selecting." You can't select out
>> something bad and remove it (the bones), but you can eat the fish.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>This is one of the Pharisaic misinterpretations of "m'lakhh".

You, of course, are the supreme authority on what the "right"
interpretation is.

>The meaning of this word when Tanakh was compiled seems to have
>been lost, among other things, so their leaders came up with a
>weird ritualistic formulation.

Can you please show me what is at all "ritualistic" about the
formulation? What is the formulation in question, anyway?

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 01:32:22 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 02/06/2013 18:51, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:

>> On Jun 2, 5:45 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>
>> You don't want to keep Shabbos. Okay, I understand that. And you don't
>> want to admit to yourself that you are not keeping Shabbos. I
>> understand that too. So you pretend that you are a member of some
>> other sect, with a new definition of Shabbos, and then you feel good
>> pretending that you are keeping Shabbos. But that's not good enough
>> for you. So you have to take a dump on other people's Shabos. Does it
>> make you feel better? Okay, I'm glad you feel better.
>>
>> The melacha of borer, like every other aspect of halacha, has exacting
>> technical definitions. That your early teachers in the Jewish school
>> you say you attended during what you claim was your Orthodox youth,
>> were ignoramuses is pitiable. More's the pity that now, when you could
>> learn if you wanted to, you prefer to wallow in your ignorance. So be
>> it.
>>
>> I think I know what your problem is. You think Halacha has a spirit,
>> and is result oriented. The spirit is that fish and bones may not be
>> separated. But that makes life difficult. So the rabbis invented a
>> loophole: remove the fish from the bones, not the bones from the fish.
>> That's not how it works. But I am not going to explain to you what
>> every six year old child knows who has had a proper education.
>>
>> And your logic is also flawed. If you want dilute sulfuric acid, it
>> makes a big difference whether you produce it by pouring acid into a
>> beaker of water, or water into a beaker of acid.
>>
>> GEK
>If you can stop being a condescending (I won't say the word, but it is a
>four letter word that begins with a "t"), you will see that it is really
>a simple thing.
>A. You begin with fish and bones together.
>B, You end with bones and fish are separated into two parts.

No. You end with the fish consumed and the bones discarded. See the
difference?

You end your review of the situation at an arbitrary point. Our
arbitrary point is different. This is much more about assumptions and
outlook than logic.

[snip]

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 04:38:11 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 1:07:54 AM UTC+1, JJ wrote:
>> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b8spq89fd430u775d...@4ax.com...
>>
>> And the eruv has been explained to me a hundred times in this ng. The Os
>> insist that it expands the area in which they can carry things, and I insist
>> that a bunch of plastic pegs with a string running between them is a
>> superstitious way of pretending that your living room has just become the
>> size of 14 square city blocks. Sorry, I just don't see it your way.
>>
>To my mind, a superstition is an attempt to effect a change in something
>by magical means. So drawing a magic circle is a superstition. If you're
>inside the circle, supposedly demons can't get you.

Very good point. The Sages combatted magical thinking with all they
had.

>An eruv is more
>like a "token chassis" on a caravan. The chassis is a little set of wheels
>which mean that the caravan can be towed by a car for a few yards. But
>in fact it is never used, if you want to move one, you place it on a flat
>truck. But legally that makes it a "mobile carvan", so you don't need
>planning permission for it. So the token chassis is a rational thing to
>have.

That's a pretty good analogy. There are no zoning rules in nature. Men
came and established zoning rules. Then men created exceptions,
hopefully for good and sufficient reasons.

Likewise, a valid eruv hatzerot re-creates permission to carry in
places where the Tora never took it away, but the Sages did. It never
ceases to amaze me that people like Jay have a problem with that, but
(presumably) not with zoning laws.

I have a friend who owns a single-family house. However, it is
registered as a condominium, because there's an otherwise
non-functional piece of wood joining it to an adjacent house. This was
the solution to the problem that there's not enough of a gap between
the two houses, the minimum size of said gap being - what else? - a
mandate of the law.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:36:21 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 03/06/2013 13:03, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:45:04 PM UTC+1, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:

>>> On 02/06/2013 13:32, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 7:48 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>>>> Another "loophole" or "legal fiction"?
>>>

>>> Duh! What is the end result difference if I remove all nickels from a
>>> set of nickels and dimes and use the dimes that are left over. Or if I
>>> remove all the dimes from that set and use the dimes that I removed.
>>> Tbe end result is the same. They become two sets, one of nickels and
>>> one of dimes and I use the dimes.
>>>
>>> So, what is difference if I remove the bones from the fish and eat the
>>> fish, or if I remove the fish from the bones and eat the fish. None!
>>>
>>> However, it is nice to see someone freely exposing their ignorance of
>>> simple Logic 101.
>>>

>> There's a scene in Bugs Bunny where Bugs and Elmer get a cake. Elmer invites
>> Bugs to take a slice, and Bugs cuts himself a modest slice. Elmer nods.
>> Then Bugs take the whole cake, and leaves the remaining slice on the plate.
>>
>> It's funny because, mathematically, Bugs is right. By psychology isn't
>> mathematical like that.
>>
>> There's a difference between purifying something, or removing contaminants
>> from it, and taking or selecting something from a background. But you can
>> find a marginal case, such as where we mix two sorts of lentils and sort
>> them into red and green. If you're picking out some red lentils from a set
>> mainly of green, then you're selecting, if you're removing all the red lentils
>> from a set mainly of green with the intention of creating an all-green
>> set you're purifying, and if the number of green lentils approximates the
>> number of red, and you want two pure sets, you're sorting.

>You have a set of mixed lentils and they are mostly green with some red
>(bitter) ones. Are you saying you are selecting if you remove all the
>green lentils and purifying if you remove all the red lentils? Sorry,
>your terminology may be accurate as to intent, but in both cases you are
>sorting.

IMHO Malcolm has provided an excellent example of how terminology
matters, and how it doesn't always map exactly onto reality, and how
sometimes the choice of terms is a matter of judgment. And what if the
terminology is in a foreign language? This trips you up again and
again, Shelly.

>In fact, you can say that you are CREATING a "purified set" by
>"selecting" only the green ones.

Yes, you can. But should you? What's your criteria for that?

>Thus you are building something that
>was not there before -- and I always thought that building something on
>Shabbat was prohibited.

Any "something"? What about building a sandwich? Do you think we
observant Jews should avoid that? Why or why not?

[Shelly]

On 04/06/2013 12:03, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:09:22 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 03/06/2013 13:57, David Makowsky wrote:
>>> I have removed everything that precedes this.
>>>
>>> The simplest way I have had it explained to me is that while you are allowed to take the "good" from the "bad", you cannot take the "bad" from the "good".
>>>
>>> As has been alluded to what you end up with is not relevant. All that matters is how you got there.
>>>
>>> If that does not make sense to some of you, all I can say is that it is one of the laws that we observe in order to serve G-d. We do this because we believe this is one of many things that is wanted of us to serve G-d and for no other reason (like does it make sense ...).
>> That is fine for you and you are more than welcome to do it that way.
>> However, I am one that cannot close my mind off from simple logic -- so
>> that would not work for me.
> Shelly, IMHO you're committing your usual fallacy of assuming that
> your logic and assumptions are universal and are the only true ones.
>
> The Sages' "forest" was different from yours. I assure you, they saw
> it very well.

That was no help since you didn't even try to explain what their
"forest" was like.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:30:13 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2013-06-03, David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have removed everything that precedes this.
>
>> The simplest way I have had it explained to me is that while you are
>allowed to take the "good" from the "bad", you cannot take the "bad"
>from the "good".
>
>> As has been alluded to what you end up with is not relevant. All that
>matters is how you got there.
>
>> If that does not make sense to some of you, all I can say is that it
>is one of the laws that we observe in order to serve G-d. We do this
>because we believe this is one of many things that is wanted of us to
>serve G-d and for no other reason (like does it make sense ...).
>
>A substantial portion of Jews, and I do not mean only Jews by
>inheritance, do not accept that this is from God.

I don't either. So? It's still the law.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2013-06-04, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> I once asked someone who complained about eruv to explain eruv from a
>> traditional perspective? And he didn't reply. I'm asking you now,
>> about all three of these including borer, eruv, and heter iska.
>> If you can't explain from a traditional perspective the things you
>> criticize, you're in no position to criticize them, you don't
>> understand them well enough to criticize them.
>
>I have not read the precise reasoning about these, but I
>am somewhat familiar with the type of reasoning, and the
>type of assumptions, made here.

And the "somewhat familiar" level is, apparently, sufficient grounds
to utter the following:

>It is that of a philosopher,
>who is looking for a black cat, in a totally dark room,
>which isn't there, and finds it.

Which is, frankly, offensive patronizing nonsense uttered by an
unqualified outsider.

(Let's at least get the quote right: "A philosopher is a blind man in
a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is
the man who finds it." - H.L. Mencken.)

[Shelly]

No, there are two paths that diverge and then come together. They start
together with a separation of the fish and the bones and they end when
that is done. After the end, the fish is eaten, or the process at which
they are joined again is a continuous one. I am discussing the
difference between taking the bones from the fish or taking the fish
from the bones. There is none and it results in two sets, one of which
is either eaten later or eaten during the process. I see no difference
between the two. Look at my apple and apple core example.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 04/06/2013 12:04, Yisroel Markov wrote:

I really don't care one way or the other. Whichever way makes you happy
is fine with me. It just occurred to me that it is, indeed, building.
It was one of his examples (I don't remember which one) that put that
thought into my head.

--
Shelly

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2013-06-03, malcolm...@btinternet.com

>
> This is on Shabbath. Working in a fish factory or anywhere
> else is prohibited, unless needed for saving lives or similar.
>
> Picking out all of the bones for the children would be similar
> to keeping the children from injury; this might qualify.
>

If you're employed to look after children, say in a boarding school,
you can carry out duties on Shabbat. It's unworkable otherwise.
So we can construct a marginal case.
That's the only point I'm making. If you have a marginal case, and
people must act up to the margin, then almost inevitably you get rules
which seem absurd and illogical, such as it's OK to push flakes of
fish from the carcass with your fork, but not OK to push the bones away.

[mm]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin

If you havent' read it, you can't know what type of reasoning it is.

>and the
>type of assumptions, made here. It is that of a philosopher,
>who is looking for a black cat, in a totally dark room,
>which isn't there, and finds it.

Wow. Such a snarky description coming from someone who "has not
read** the precise reasoning about these" ** let alone remember,

Try to imagine how you would feel is someone who knew no more about
statistics than you do about these three areas attempted to ridicule
statistics like you attempt to ridicule these three.

Plus everything Yisroel said.
--

Meir

[mm]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:07:54 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:b8spq89fd430u775d...@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>>>If that's
>>>what makes you happy, gezinter heit. To me, it's the same fiction as heter
>>>isska and eruv.
>>
>> Didn't I ask you once if you could explain eruv from a traditional
>> perspective? And you didn't reply? If I didn't, I'm asking now,
>> about all three of these including borer.. If you can't explain from

>> a traditional perspective the things you criticize, you're in no

>> position to criticize them.
>>>
>
>Sorry, like Shelly, I see the end result here. If I have to remove 24 heavy
>books in order to get the one I want on shabbat, and then I have to put the
>24 heavy tomes BACK on the pile, it would seem to me that I am creating more
>work and sweat for myself rather than less. My solution: just remove the 24
>books, and leave them where they are. I don't see the need to put them
>back and pretend that I "removed" the one book I wanted rather than the 24 I
>did not. But, again, I am secular. If this is what gives you joy in life, be
>my guest.

>
>And the eruv has been explained to me a hundred times in this ng. The Os

So you should be qualified to explain it back to us.

>insist that it expands the area in which they can carry things,

This is the last line of a much longer explanation. To show that you
understand it, you have to go step by step, the way it was explained
to you, at least a few of those 100 times. It's pretty clear to me
that you can't do that, that you don't understand eruv, borer, or
heter iska, and you're in no position -- you don't have enough, you
haven't retained enough information -- to criticize any of them.

>and I insist
>that a bunch of plastic pegs with a string running between them is a
>superstitious way of pretending that your living room has just become the
>size of 14 square city blocks. Sorry, I just don't see it your way.

I didnt' ask you to see it my way. I asked you to explain eruv from a
traditional perspective. If a non-communist (who doesn't see it the
way communists do) writes a book on communism, don't you still expect
him to understand communism before he criticizes it?
>
>Jay
>
>
>

--

Meir

[JJ]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:ed8sq8lhog62kudl3...@4ax.com...

I have read enough about eruv to know about the need for "joint ownership",
eruv chatzerot, the need for door frames (utility poles will suffice) the
need for common consent, and the various other restrictions and
requirements.

To me, this is still a legal fiction. Just as heter isska is a legal
fiction. Just as selling all of Israel's chametz on Pesach to an Israeli
Arab (who sells it right back after Pesach) is a fiction. You want to do
it, be my guest. It's still taking something forbidden (carrying on
shabbat) and turning it fictitiously into something permitted. Mind you, I
support allowing people to carry a book or a baby on shabbat; but I do not
see the need for creating a fictitious courtyard which encompasses an entire
city with little plastic pegs on utility poles.

Back to the fish and the bones: pick the fish out of the bones any way you
like. The result is the same. If you think you're supposed to pull the fish
away from the bones, rather than the bones from the fish, be my guest. If
this adds to the quality of your religious life, I am all for your using it.
For me, it's still fiction, and the result is still the same. You eat the
fish, you throw away the bones. If it matters to you HOW you get the fish
off the bones, it's a free country.

Jay

[Shelly]

Well said, but again -- why waste your time?

--
Shelly

[Harry Weiss]

Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 4, 1:14?am, Harry Weiss <hjwe...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Arthur Kamlet <kam...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > While academic study of law is interesting and worthwhile, I prefer
> > > practical halacha.
> > > Without saying if this is an actual situation in our community,
> > > suppose a young Jewish man decides to become a baal teshuvah.
> > > His (O) rabbi is very encouraging, and during this process, it
> > > comes out that the young man has some tattoos.
> > > His rabbi suggests having them removed.
> > > The process involves several treatments where a laser beam is used
> > > to blast away the imbedded ink and markings.

> > > Did the rabbi make a proper suggestion? ?Is this a case of removing
> > > the bad stuff? ? ?Even if it is, do the ends jusify the means?
> > > --
> > > ArtKamlet ?at ?a o l dot c o m ?Columbus OH ?K2PZH

> >
> > It was a judgement call and there are responsa that go either way,

> Really? Can you cite the responsa that say the tattoo should be
> removed, and give a synopsis of the logic and precedent given in those
> responsa? I have never heard of that. I personally know of numerous
> BT's who have tattoos, and I have never known anyone to require any of
> them to remove same. On the occassion when I attend the mikwa on
> Friday, I often see them, some with numorous tattoos all over the
> body. None have removed them.

> GEK

You can check Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 3:11 or from Rabbi Bakshi Doron
Techumin 22:387.

Normally I do not respond to your questions, just like I don't to those of
JJ or Shelly whose purpose is to mock and not to learn,

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Jun 4, 3:59 pm, Harry Weiss <hjwe...@panix.com> wrote:

Where do you see mocking here? You said there were teshuvos that
required removing tattoos. I asked who and why, because it is entirely
contrary to my experience, with numerous BT's who follow the advice
and p'sak of their respective g'dolim.

I do not have these s'forim available, nor do I know where to get
them. Can you briefly summarise what they say? Many thanks.

GEK

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:56:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

To use Shelly's expression, you aren't seeing the forest for the
trees. The "forest" is that an eruv hatzerot can only allow carrying
in domains where such carrying is *not* forbidden by the Tora, but
only by rabbinic decree.

What, exactly, is your problem with the lawmakers saying "for good and
sufficient reason, we will forbid individuals from performing a
certain activity unless s/he complies with the following rules"? You
don't oppose zoning, licensing, etc., do you?

>Just as heter isska is a legal
>fiction. Just as selling all of Israel's chametz on Pesach to an Israeli
>Arab (who sells it right back after Pesach) is a fiction. You want to do
>it, be my guest. It's still taking something forbidden (carrying on
>shabbat) and turning it fictitiously into something permitted. Mind you, I
>support allowing people to carry a book or a baby on shabbat; but I do not
>see the need for creating a fictitious courtyard which encompasses an entire
>city with little plastic pegs on utility poles.
>
>Back to the fish and the bones: pick the fish out of the bones any way you
>like. The result is the same.

You've been told: the process isn't.

>If you think you're supposed to pull the fish
>away from the bones, rather than the bones from the fish, be my guest. If
>this adds to the quality of your religious life, I am all for your using it.
>For me, it's still fiction, and the result is still the same.

What's "fictional" about it?

>You eat the
>fish, you throw away the bones. If it matters to you HOW you get the fish
>off the bones, it's a free country.

[Shelly]

Dictionary according to Harry:

mock
1. Disagree with my point of view
2. Rely on logic rather than the dogma I follow

Harry, why don't you petition www.m-w.com to insert your definitions
into their database?

Oh, and Harry, this is a discussion forum where opposing views are
enunciated. It is not a classroom.

--
Shelly

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:04:07 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 04:39:48 +0000 (UTC), kam...@panix.com (Arthur
>

> What are the counter-indications to this treatment? Is it dangerous?
>
> If not, I don't understand the question.
>

It's expensive, it's painful. And any intervention like that is going
to carry risks, scarring is one. The area is also vulnerable to infection.
So far it hasn't been linked with skin cancer, but that's an obvious concern.

You would be very foolish to get a tattoo on the basis that, if you change
your mind, removal is possible.

[Harry Weiss]

Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Where did I say anything about REQUIRING, what I saoid was they could go
either way. Thshuvot allow that for various reasons such as reminding a
person of their past or embbarasing,

A Rabbi who is making an individual psak needs to look at the details of
the situation for the individual inovlved.

[Harry Weiss]

I agree that you can say what you want, but I am saying that I don;t want
to participate in those discussions.

> --
> Shelly

[Shelly]

What I find so hard to understand is women getting tattoos. A woman's
body is a thing of beauty. (Well, yes, there *are* exceptions). That
is why it is the subject of so many paintings and sculptures. Why would
someone voluntarily stain it with a brand on the skin? Along with that
I will add nose rings and tongue pins. At lease, though, those are
easily removed.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

I have no objection in the slightest to your not wanting to
participate. That is your prerogative, just as mine is to killfile a
certain individual. What I objected to was your poor classification.

Oh, and my last reply to which you just responded is a good example of
the proper meaning of "mock" (which I did with full intention in this case).

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
news:ubmsq81uaccjkpg0c...@4ax.com...

Zoning and licensing are fine. So are religious rules, if you wish to follow
them. I will tell you what my problem is with the following caveat: these
are MY problems with what you said. I do not, and never have, told anyone
else what to do. When it comes to religion, do as you wish and believe
whatever you wish. I am all pro-choice and "live and let live".

My problem, however, is that the religious laws have been sanctified and
fossilized and frozen and may not be changed. A zoning law will be changed
if the area is zoned for agriculture but no one grows anything on it and it
can sold to a developer. Then you change the zoning. You do not change
halacha. No matter how inconvenient, or ancient, or difficult, all the
rabbis can say is that some rabbi 1,500 years ago decreed something and now
we have to follow it. So you have a whole to do about fish and bones,
providing plenty of employment, obviously, to the people who mandate these
rules. Except, of course, when it is personally so inconvenient that they
DON'T follow it (the haredim in Israel not working in spite of what the
Rambam and others have said). The contortions and the incessant dealing in
the minutiae of fish bones and toilet paper and plastic thingies on utility
poles really turn me off. You want to change something, go and change it.
Don't invent all manner of new rules which supposedly do not contradict the
old rules but actually do. You're not supposed to change rules, so you go
around them and invent creative ways to circumvent them,. all the while
claiming that no change was made. What happened to "no charging of interest"
? It became "heter isska". What happened to "shmitat chovot" (the dropping
of debts) in the Torah? It became a tangle of laws which ultimately ended
that ruling. I don't object to the change. I object to the way it's
presented, supposedly making no halachic change. But we all know the change
was indeed made. Some of those rabbis would have made great lawyers, I'm
sure.

>>Just as heter isska is a legal
>>fiction. Just as selling all of Israel's chametz on Pesach to an Israeli
>>Arab (who sells it right back after Pesach) is a fiction. You want to do
>>it, be my guest. It's still taking something forbidden (carrying on
>>shabbat) and turning it fictitiously into something permitted. Mind you, I
>>support allowing people to carry a book or a baby on shabbat; but I do not
>>see the need for creating a fictitious courtyard which encompasses an
>>entire
>>city with little plastic pegs on utility poles.
>>
>>Back to the fish and the bones: pick the fish out of the bones any way you
>>like. The result is the same.
>
> You've been told: the process isn't.

OK, so as I said above, if the process is so important to you, follow your
heart. But to me it sounds like a fiction.

>
>>If you think you're supposed to pull the fish
>>away from the bones, rather than the bones from the fish, be my guest. If
>>this adds to the quality of your religious life, I am all for your using
>>it.
>>For me, it's still fiction, and the result is still the same.
>
> What's "fictional" about it?
>

The fact that we're dealing in "pretend". If you really feel that pulling
the meat off the bones is better than taking the bones out, you will not
understand what I am talking about. To me, either you may separate the fish
from the bones on shabbat or you can't. If you and I eat together on
shabbat, and you take the meat off the bones and I do the reverse, the
result is the same, but you will believe that yours is the right way. It's a
"let's pretend" that "my way" is the correct way situation.

No offense intended towards anyone who feels differently or who follows this
issur melacha the way he deems fit.

Jay

[Shelly]

Do you remember the episode between Archie and Meathead about shoes and
socks on. They argued about whether to put on two socks and then two
shoes, or to put on a sock and a shoe and then the other sock and shoe.
This fish bit reminds me of that. In the end, both have on two socks
and two shoes.

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:kom5qu$c11$1...@dont-email.me...

Shelly, I was thinking the same thing yesterday. It was the sequence that
changed. They were arguing over "a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe"
vs. " a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe".

Great minds etc!

Jay

[Ron Aaron]

On 06/04/2013 08:56 PM, JJ wrote:> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in
message

> It's still taking something forbidden (carrying on shabbat) and
turning it
> fictitiously into something permitted.

No it is not, at all, in any way.

What it is, is a ruling *by the sages*, taking something the *sages
themselves* forbade (carrying from a private or public domain into a
karmelit and vice versa) and making it permissible (but only if done in
a certain way).

Carrying from a private to a public domain (or vice versa) is forbidden
*by the Torah*, and no poseq whatever makes it permissible (nor could he).

Perhaps now you can see why it is not what you assert?

[Shelly]

OK, Ron, please explain to me where I am wrong, if you can.

1 - The rabbis/sages took an area that would have been part of a public
domain and defined a new domain and called it a karmelit.
2 - Since it is a separate domain, and now not a public domain, you are
allowed to carry in it and are allowed to carry from a private or
public domain into the karmelit and vice versa.
3 - They established rules as to what is a karmelit. (An eruv made by
string hooked to poles so serves as such.)
4 - Had they *NOT* so defined this area as a karmelit, or new type of
domain, the Torah would have forbidden carrying within it.

As I see it, they took an area that was prohibited by Torah to carry
within it and made it permissible to carry within it. It is only their
own definition of not calling a public domain as a public domain that
made it permissible (if done in a certain way). Absent their
definition, and it would not have been allowed -- even with the string
in place.

How is this *NOT* just what Jay said? By this very same type of logic
they could, for an extreme example, have taken a slab of pork, covered
it with salt, let it sit for four hours, and say it is no longer pork
but is something new called "bloof" and "bloof" is not forbidden to be
eaten.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
-- the Bard

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:43:07 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

I know. That's not the topic.

>It just occurred to me that it is, indeed, building.
>It was one of his examples (I don't remember which one) that put that
>thought into my head.

So am I a hypocrite if I "build" a sandwich on Shabbat?

[Shelly]

On 05/06/2013 08:56, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>> In fact, you can say that you are CREATING a "purified set" by
>>>> >>>"selecting" only the green ones.
>>> >>Yes, you can. But should you? What's your criteria for that?
>>> >>
>>>> >>>Thus you are building something that
>>>> >>>was not there before -- and I always thought that building something on
>>>> >>>Shabbat was prohibited.
>>> >>Any "something"? What about building a sandwich? Do you think we
>>> >>observant Jews should avoid that? Why or why not?
>> >I really don't care one way or the other. Whichever way makes you happy
>> >is fine with me.
> I know. That's not the topic.
>
>> >It just occurred to me that it is, indeed, building.
>> >It was one of his examples (I don't remember which one) that put that
>> >thought into my head.
> So am I a hypocrite if I "build" a sandwich on Shabbat?

I would never call you that. I asked a question. So far, there has
been no answer. The question was, essentially, what constitutes
building. Malcolm was giving out definitions and using selecting and
purifying. I asked if that isn't also building.

--
Shelly

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:30:34 PM UTC-5, JJ wrote:

[ Snip ]

> The fact that we're dealing in "pretend". If you really feel that pulling
> the meat off the bones is better than taking the bones out, you will not
> understand what I am talking about. To me, either you may separate the fish
> from the bones on shabbat or you can't. If you and I eat together on
> shabbat, and you take the meat off the bones and I do the reverse, the
> result is the same, but you will believe that yours is the right way. It's a
> "let's pretend" that "my way" is the correct way situation.

There is no prohibition of separating the fish from the bones. There are prohibitions regarding how one may separate any two things. That is the issue.

As I mentioned before, that there may not be a logic to these laws is entirely not relevant. This is how we believe we are serving G-d based on the Torah (including the obligation to follow the sages). It may seem like "Let's pretend". That is also entirely not relevant.

Do you know the concept of Na'aseh v'nishmah?

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:30:34 AM UTC+1, JJ wrote:
> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
>
>

> My problem, however, is that the religious laws have been sanctified and
> fossilized and frozen and may not be changed. A zoning law will be changed
> if the area is zoned for agriculture but no one grows anything on it and it
> can sold to a developer. Then you change the zoning. You do not change
> halacha.
>

That's the real issue. If an area is zoned for agriculture, and no-one
actually wants to grow anything there, then the people in authority just
say "our predecessors made a mistake, henceforth Fred's field shall be
zoned for housing". If halachically, Fred's field is declared "zoned for
agriculture", you've got to grow carrots on the roofs of the houses or
something.

[Ron Aaron]

On 06/05/2013 02:25 PM, Shelly wrote:


> OK, Ron, please explain to me where I am wrong, if you can.
>
> 1 - The rabbis/sages took an area that would have been part of a public
> domain and defined a new domain and called it a karmelit.

Wrong. A "karmelit" is not an area which "would have been part of a
public domain".

> 2 - Since it is a separate domain, and now not a public domain, you are
> allowed to carry in it and are allowed to carry from a private or
> public domain into the karmelit and vice versa.

Right and yet wrong. "wrong" in that it was never a public domain.
However, by Torah law it is permitted to carry into and out from it, so
"right".

> 3 - They established rules as to what is a karmelit. (An eruv made by
> string hooked to poles so serves as such.)

Wrong. An `eruv is not a karmelit.

> 4 - Had they *NOT* so defined this area as a karmelit, or new type of
> domain, the Torah would have forbidden carrying within it.

Wrong. As I said, carrying in a karmelit is permitted by Torah law.

There's a lot of law related to what is or is not a particular type of
domain, and what is or is not permitted and why. Worthwhile learning it.

> As I see it, they took an area that was prohibited by Torah to carry
> within it and made it permissible to carry within it.

You see incorrectly. The prohibition of carrying in the karmelit is
*rabbinic*.

> How is this *NOT* just what Jay said? By this very same type of logic
> they could, for an extreme example, have taken a slab of pork, covered
> it with salt, let it sit for four hours, and say it is no longer pork
> but is something new called "bloof" and "bloof" is not forbidden to be
> eaten.

Now you're just being silly. Torah is a system of jurisprudence among
other things. Definitions matter, and understanding the definitions is
crucial.

[JJ]

<malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:f52bc675-baa8-4772...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:30:34 AM UTC+1, JJ wrote:
>> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> My problem, however, is that the religious laws have been sanctified and
>> fossilized and frozen and may not be changed. A zoning law will be
>> changed
>> if the area is zoned for agriculture but no one grows anything on it and
>> it
>> can sold to a developer. Then you change the zoning. You do not change
>> halacha.
>>
> That's the real issue. If an area is zoned for agriculture, and no-one
> actually wants to grow anything there, then the people in authority just
> say "our predecessors made a mistake, henceforth Fred's field shall be
> zoned for housing".

No, this is not a mistake. It WAS used for agriculture up until 10 0r 12
years ago. Now the farms are gone and no one wants to grow anything on it.
This is not a mistake. It was a regulation which was excellent for its time,
and now its time has gone and it is time for a change.

Whereas according to you, if halacha zoned it for agriculture we need to
grow carrots on the roof to PRETEND it's still an agricultural use, although
the people who live in what is now a highrise have no interest in carrots or
in growing anything on the roof except a swimming pool.

Jay

[Shelly]

On 05/06/2013 11:28, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 02:25 PM, Shelly wrote:
>
>
>> OK, Ron, please explain to me where I am wrong, if you can.
>>
>> 1 - The rabbis/sages took an area that would have been part of a public
>> domain and defined a new domain and called it a karmelit.
>
> Wrong. A "karmelit" is not an area which "would have been part of a
> public domain".

Argue with these people -- from
http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=866

"The Sages introduced the concept of a “Karmelit” – an object in a
public domain which, on the level of Torah law, is included as part of
the public domain, but which is considered a separate domain on the
level of Rabbinic enactment."

I looked up karmelit before responding to the prior post of yours.

>
>> 2 - Since it is a separate domain, and now not a public domain, you are
>> allowed to carry in it and are allowed to carry from a private or
>> public domain into the karmelit and vice versa.
>
> Right and yet wrong. "wrong" in that it was never a public domain.
> However, by Torah law it is permitted to carry into and out from it,
> so "right".

See above.

>
>> 3 - They established rules as to what is a karmelit. (An eruv made by
>> string hooked to poles so serves as such.)
>
> Wrong. An `eruv is not a karmelit.

Why not?

>
>> 4 - Had they *NOT* so defined this area as a karmelit, or new type of
>> domain, the Torah would have forbidden carrying within it.
>
> Wrong. As I said, carrying in a karmelit is permitted by Torah law.
>
> There's a lot of law related to what is or is not a particular type of
> domain, and what is or is not permitted and why. Worthwhile learning it.
>
>> As I see it, they took an area that was prohibited by Torah to carry
>> within it and made it permissible to carry within it.
>
> You see incorrectly. The prohibition of carrying in the karmelit is
> *rabbinic*.

See above.

>
>> How is this *NOT* just what Jay said? By this very same type of logic
>> they could, for an extreme example, have taken a slab of pork, covered
>> it with salt, let it sit for four hours, and say it is no longer pork
>> but is something new called "bloof" and "bloof" is not forbidden to be
>> eaten.
>
> Now you're just being silly. Torah is a system of jurisprudence among
> other things. Definitions matter, and understanding the definitions
> is crucial.
>

How am I being silly? Granted it is a ridiculous example. However, the
methodology is exactly the same, as are the results -- taking something
forbidden, doing something to it, calling it something else, and making
it allowable.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:25:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 05/06/2013 04:58, Ron Aaron wrote:
>> On 06/04/2013 08:56 PM, JJ wrote:> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
>> > It's still taking something forbidden (carrying on shabbat) and
>> turning it
>> > fictitiously into something permitted.
>>
>> No it is not, at all, in any way.
>>
>> What it is, is a ruling *by the sages*, taking something the *sages
>> themselves* forbade (carrying from a private or public domain into a
>> karmelit and vice versa) and making it permissible (but only if done
>> in a certain way).
>>
>> Carrying from a private to a public domain (or vice versa) is
>> forbidden *by the Torah*, and no poseq whatever makes it permissible
>> (nor could he).
>>
>> Perhaps now you can see why it is not what you assert?
>
>OK, Ron, please explain to me where I am wrong, if you can.
>
>1 - The rabbis/sages took an area that would have been part of a public
>domain and defined a new domain and called it a karmelit.

You have it exactly backwards. As I, and several others, have stated
on many occasions (including yesterday), the Sages took an area in
which carrying *is* permitted, and forbade it - unless certain rules
(known, depending on the situation, as "eruv hatzerot" or "shituf
mavoi") are followed.

The rest of your deduction therefore fails.

>2 - Since it is a separate domain, and now not a public domain, you are
>allowed to carry in it and are allowed to carry from a private or
>public domain into the karmelit and vice versa.
>3 - They established rules as to what is a karmelit. (An eruv made by
>string hooked to poles so serves as such.)
>4 - Had they *NOT* so defined this area as a karmelit, or new type of
>domain, the Torah would have forbidden carrying within it.
>
>As I see it, they took an area that was prohibited by Torah to carry
>within it and made it permissible to carry within it. It is only their
>own definition of not calling a public domain as a public domain that
>made it permissible (if done in a certain way). Absent their
>definition, and it would not have been allowed -- even with the string
>in place.
>
>How is this *NOT* just what Jay said? By this very same type of logic
>they could, for an extreme example, have taken a slab of pork, covered
>it with salt, let it sit for four hours, and say it is no longer pork
>but is something new called "bloof" and "bloof" is not forbidden to be
>eaten.
>
>"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
>By any other name would smell as sweet."
>-- the Bard
--

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

You can eat on Shabbat, but you can't "make the dinner" on Shabbat.
So cutting is not allowed, unless it's cutting food as part of the
process of eating. Basically you can cut up lettuce leaves with your
knife and fork as you beat them, but you can't cut cloth. I think
you also can't cut up lettuce leaves for eating later, but, despite
being accused of claiming to be a rabbi, I don't know every detail,
and that's another marginal case.
Similarly with building sandwiches. The basic idea is that if people
would normally call it "eating" it's allowed and if they'd normally
call it "making dinner" it's not allowed. But it's just another example
of finding a marginal case.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Jun 5, 12:09 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:

> Argue with these people -- fromhttp://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=866

>
> "The Sages introduced the concept of a “Karmelit” – an object in a
> public domain which, on the level of Torah law, is included as part of
> the public domain, but which is considered a separate domain on the
> level of Rabbinic enactment."

There is nothing to argue. They simply have it wrong. A Karmelis on
the Torah level is neither Public Domain nor Private Domain. Carrying
in a Carmelis, and transferring from Carmelis to Public or Private
Domain or vice versa, is permitted. The Rabbis introduced Carmelis as
a separate class, which under rabbinic enactment is treated as if it
were a Public Domain, and the rabbis forbade carrying in the Carmelis.
However, they made an exception to their newly-invented prohibition,
allowing an eruv to be constructed in a carmelis, in which case their
prohibition of carrying in the carmelis does not apply.

The reason for the rabbinic prohibition of Carmelis: since the
carmelis is an open area, and the public uses it freely, the unlearned
people (such as yourself, and whoever wrote the "Daily Halacha" blog)
do not understand the difference between Carmelis and true Public
Domain, and if carrying were freely permitted in the Carmelis (i.e.,
without requiring eruv), people would also carry in the real public
domain without appreciating the technical difference. But since an
eruv is required to permit carrying in the Carmelis, the public
(including the halachically illiterate) realises that it is the eruv
that permits the carrying, and in a real Public Domain where there is
no eruv, carrying is forbidden. There is no way to permit carrying in
a real Public Domain, eruv or no.

For an introductory synopsys of the Shabbos Domains, see
http://www.ou.org/shabbat/5766/rsteinsaltz/100705ervintro.htm


Begin Quote:
The laws of Shabbat recognize four basic domains:
· A private domain (Reshut ha-Yahid)
· A public domain (Reshut ha-Rabim)
· A Carmelit, which is neither “public” nor “private”
· A Makom Petur, a “free space,” which is not really a domain,
at all
In effect, there are only three domains on Shabbat: private and
public, both of which are Biblically defined, and the Carmelit, which
is defined by the Rabbis. All other areas are really in the category
of “free spaces.”
End Quote (but see the complete article (correctly spelt this time)

> I looked up karmelit before responding to the prior post of yours.

You looked at an article written by someone who either does not
understand the subject, or is inarticulate in explaining things in
English. Not your fault.

>
> >> 3 - They established rules as to what is a karmelit.  (An eruv made by
> >> string hooked to poles so serves as such.)
>
> > Wrong.  An `eruv is not a karmelit.
>
> Why not?

As has been explained, the Carmelis is a rabbinically-invented domain
where carrying is rabbinically forbidden. The eruv is a means,
invented by those same rabbis, to permit carrying in the Carmelis.

> >> 4 - Had they *NOT* so defined this area as a karmelit, or new type of
> >> domain, the Torah would have forbidden carrying within it.

> > Wrong.  As I said, carrying in a karmelit is permitted by Torah law.
> > There's a lot of law related to what is or is not a particular type of
> > domain, and what is or is not permitted and why. Worthwhile learning it.
>
> >> As I see it, they took an area that was prohibited by Torah to carry
> >> within it and made it permissible to carry within it.
>
> > You see incorrectly.  The prohibition of carrying in the karmelit is
> > *rabbinic*.
>
> See above.

Which is wrong, as I have endeavoured to explain.

> >> How is this *NOT* just what Jay said?  By this very same type of logic
> >> they could, for an extreme example, have taken a slab of pork, covered
> >> it with salt, let it sit for four hours, and say it is no longer pork
> >> but is something new called "bloof" and "bloof" is not forbidden to be
> >> eaten.
>
> > Now you're just being silly.  Torah is a system of jurisprudence among
> > other things.  Definitions matter, and understanding the definitions
> > is crucial.
>
> How am I being silly?  Granted it is a ridiculous example.  However, the
> methodology is exactly the same, as are the results -- taking something
> forbidden, doing something to it, calling it something else, and making
> it allowable.

Well, now you ought see that it is silly. Pork is forbidden by Torah
law. No rabbinic manipulation can make it permitted. Carrying in
Carmelis is forbidden by rabbinic enactment, and the same rabbis who
farbade it said that with an eruv, the prohibition does not apply.
Eruv will NOT permit carrying in a genuine Public Domain, where the
Torah forbids carrying.

The public streets in most modern cities and towns are technically
Carmelis according to Ashkanasi poskim, and so an eruv will permit
carrying. Sapharadic poskim consider most public streets to be Public
Domain, and so Sapharadim (at least those who know the law) are not
permitted to carry in public streets even where there is an eruv. It
should be noted that many Ashkanasic poskim also discourage relying on
an eruv in a public street. Put it is not withing their power to
actually forbid it for ashkanasim, and the overwhelming majority of
opinion is that it is permitted, assuming that the eruv was
constructed properly (which itself is quite complex, not merely "some
pegs with a string on top").

GEK

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:11:56 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 05/06/2013 08:56, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>>> In fact, you can say that you are CREATING a "purified set" by
>>>>> >>>"selecting" only the green ones.
>>>> >>Yes, you can. But should you? What's your criteria for that?
>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>Thus you are building something that
>>>>> >>>was not there before -- and I always thought that building something on
>>>>> >>>Shabbat was prohibited.
>>>> >>Any "something"? What about building a sandwich? Do you think we
>>>> >>observant Jews should avoid that? Why or why not?
>>> >I really don't care one way or the other. Whichever way makes you happy
>>> >is fine with me.
>> I know. That's not the topic.
>>
>>> >It just occurred to me that it is, indeed, building.
>>> >It was one of his examples (I don't remember which one) that put that
>>> >thought into my head.
>> So am I a hypocrite if I "build" a sandwich on Shabbat?
>I would never call you that. I asked a question.

Erm, you said regarding sandwiches: "It just occurred to me that it
is, indeed, building." "Indeed." That's an assertion. So I asked my
question regarding an obvious derivation of this assertion.

BTW, should it be forbidden to build confidence on Shabbat?

>So far, there has
>been no answer. The question was, essentially, what constitutes
>building.

I only saw questions about selecting, not building.

>Malcolm was giving out definitions and using selecting and
>purifying. I asked if that isn't also building.

B"n I'll respond in another post.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 00:30:34 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>

said:

>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
>news:ubmsq81uaccjkpg0c...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:56:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>> said:

[snip]

>>>I have read enough about eruv to know about the need for "joint
>>>ownership",
>>>eruv chatzerot, the need for door frames (utility poles will suffice) the
>>>need for common consent, and the various other restrictions and
>>>requirements.
>>>
>>>To me, this is still a legal fiction.
>>
>> To use Shelly's expression, you aren't seeing the forest for the
>> trees. The "forest" is that an eruv hatzerot can only allow carrying
>> in domains where such carrying is *not* forbidden by the Tora, but
>> only by rabbinic decree.
>>
>> What, exactly, is your problem with the lawmakers saying "for good and
>> sufficient reason, we will forbid individuals from performing a
>> certain activity unless s/he complies with the following rules"? You
>> don't oppose zoning, licensing, etc., do you?

Jay, first off I want to thank you for writing a candid and fairly
long post.

>Zoning and licensing are fine. So are religious rules, if you wish to follow
>them. I will tell you what my problem is with the following caveat: these
>are MY problems with what you said. I do not, and never have, told anyone
>else what to do. When it comes to religion, do as you wish and believe
>whatever you wish. I am all pro-choice and "live and let live".

So far so good.

>My problem, however, is that the religious laws have been sanctified and
>fossilized and frozen and may not be changed.

But why? How are you affected by those laws?

Please note also that this doesn't answer my question of why you have
a problem davka with the eruv hatzerot. The answer to that ought not
to hinge on how changeable the law is.

>A zoning law will be changed
>if the area is zoned for agriculture but no one grows anything on it and it
>can sold to a developer. Then you change the zoning. You do not change
>halacha.

So now you have a problem with observant Jews following their own
rules. Not very productive or open-minded, IMHO. Halakha can change,
but like with any system, there are rules and procedures on how that's
done. ISTM that changing a zoning designation is actually much harder
than it is for a Sanhedrin to change halakha. But we don't have a
Sanhedrin, so we can't change much. For a Jew who cares about the
system - which is supposedly fine with you - that regrettable
condition is not a sufficient reason to chuck the system. So, again,
why do you have a problem with that?

>No matter how inconvenient, or ancient, or difficult, all the
>rabbis can say is that some rabbi

No, a properly empowered court. An individual rabbi can't do anything
and expect it to stick.

>1,500 years ago decreed something and now
>we have to follow it. So you have a whole to do about fish and bones,
>providing plenty of employment, obviously, to the people who mandate these
>rules.

Sorry, but that's nonsense ("obviously"). Rules of borer provide
employment? I think you're confusing the forest of halakha with a glen
of kashrut.

>Except, of course, when it is personally so inconvenient that they
>DON'T follow it (the haredim in Israel not working in spite of what the
>Rambam and others have said). The contortions and the incessant dealing in
>the minutiae of fish bones and toilet paper and plastic thingies on utility
>poles really turn me off.

Why? What's the relevance to your life?

>You want to change something, go and change it.

Who says we want to?

>Don't invent all manner of new rules which supposedly do not contradict the
>old rules but actually do.

Sorry, but you're not qualified to judge that. Obviously.

>You're not supposed to change rules, so you go
>around them and invent creative ways to circumvent them,. all the while
>claiming that no change was made.

Did you see my example of how my friend had to comply with the zoning
demand his town made? It's true that we're reduced to doing that. It's
an unfortunate situation, sure. But again, we won't junk what we like
because of it.

>What happened to "no charging of interest"
>? It became "heter isska". What happened to "shmitat chovot" (the dropping
>of debts) in the Torah? It became a tangle of laws which ultimately ended
>that ruling. I don't object to the change. I object to the way it's
>presented, supposedly making no halachic change. But we all know the change
>was indeed made. Some of those rabbis would have made great lawyers, I'm
>sure.

Exactly! And I really don't understand why this is such a problem for
you. What you present above as some sort of bad or hypocritical thing
is evidence of legal genius and an honest desire to make the best of a
bad situation (no court) on the part of the Sages to me.

>>>Just as heter isska is a legal
>>>fiction. Just as selling all of Israel's chametz on Pesach to an Israeli
>>>Arab (who sells it right back after Pesach) is a fiction. You want to do
>>>it, be my guest. It's still taking something forbidden (carrying on
>>>shabbat) and turning it fictitiously into something permitted. Mind you, I
>>>support allowing people to carry a book or a baby on shabbat; but I do not
>>>see the need for creating a fictitious courtyard which encompasses an
>>>entire
>>>city with little plastic pegs on utility poles.
>>>
>>>Back to the fish and the bones: pick the fish out of the bones any way you
>>>like. The result is the same.
>>
>> You've been told: the process isn't.
>
>OK, so as I said above, if the process is so important to you, follow your
>heart. But to me it sounds like a fiction.
>
>>
>>>If you think you're supposed to pull the fish
>>>away from the bones, rather than the bones from the fish, be my guest. If
>>>this adds to the quality of your religious life, I am all for your using
>>>it.
>>>For me, it's still fiction, and the result is still the same.
>>
>> What's "fictional" about it?
>>
>
>The fact that we're dealing in "pretend".

That's no fact, it's an opinion. I opine that there's no "pretend."
What are we pretending? There's a rule, which I follow, which says
that the manner of selection matters, regardless of the result. To
you, the result is king; can you appreciate a position to which it is
not? Feel free to disagree, but what grounds could you possibly have
to label my position "fiction" or "pretend"?

>If you really feel that pulling
>the meat off the bones is better than taking the bones out, you will not
>understand what I am talking about.

Maybe this is the crux. This isn't about feelings, Jay! It's about
being able to have respect for the other person's outlook, which
influences their assumptions.

>To me, either you may separate the fish
>from the bones on shabbat or you can't.

And to me, it's not about fish bones. It's about being able to
separate/select/sort objects on Shabbat, of which fish bones is but a
subset.

>If you and I eat together on
>shabbat, and you take the meat off the bones and I do the reverse, the
>result is the same, but you will believe that yours is the right way. It's a
>"let's pretend" that "my way" is the correct way situation.

Again, where's the pretense? I believe A, you believe B. Neither one
of us is pretending.

>No offense intended towards anyone who feels differently or who follows this
>issur melacha the way he deems fit.

My problem, Jay, is that while you intend no offense (which is great),
you apparently don't intend any understanding, either. Otherwise your
tolerance wouldn't be of the "I affirm your right to be stupid"
variety.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:39:56 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 04/06/2013 12:04, Yisroel Markov wrote:

>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 01:32:22 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>
>>> On 02/06/2013 18:51, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>>> On Jun 2, 5:45 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You don't want to keep Shabbos. Okay, I understand that. And you don't
>>>> want to admit to yourself that you are not keeping Shabbos. I
>>>> understand that too. So you pretend that you are a member of some
>>>> other sect, with a new definition of Shabbos, and then you feel good
>>>> pretending that you are keeping Shabbos. But that's not good enough
>>>> for you. So you have to take a dump on other people's Shabos. Does it
>>>> make you feel better? Okay, I'm glad you feel better.
>>>>
>>>> The melacha of borer, like every other aspect of halacha, has exacting
>>>> technical definitions. That your early teachers in the Jewish school
>>>> you say you attended during what you claim was your Orthodox youth,
>>>> were ignoramuses is pitiable. More's the pity that now, when you could
>>>> learn if you wanted to, you prefer to wallow in your ignorance. So be
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I think I know what your problem is. You think Halacha has a spirit,
>>>> and is result oriented. The spirit is that fish and bones may not be
>>>> separated. But that makes life difficult. So the rabbis invented a
>>>> loophole: remove the fish from the bones, not the bones from the fish.
>>>> That's not how it works. But I am not going to explain to you what
>>>> every six year old child knows who has had a proper education.
>>>>
>>>> And your logic is also flawed. If you want dilute sulfuric acid, it
>>>> makes a big difference whether you produce it by pouring acid into a
>>>> beaker of water, or water into a beaker of acid.
>>>>
>>>> GEK
>>> If you can stop being a condescending (I won't say the word, but it is a
>>> four letter word that begins with a "t"), you will see that it is really
>>> a simple thing.
>>> A. You begin with fish and bones together.
>>> B, You end with bones and fish are separated into two parts.
>> No. You end with the fish consumed and the bones discarded. See the
>> difference?
>>
>> You end your review of the situation at an arbitrary point. Our
>> arbitrary point is different. This is much more about assumptions and
>> outlook than logic.
>>
>> [snip]
>No, there are two paths that diverge and then come together. They start
>together with a separation of the fish and the bones and they end when
>that is done. After the end, the fish is eaten, or the process at which
>they are joined again is a continuous one. I am discussing the
>difference between taking the bones from the fish or taking the fish
>from the bones. There is none

That's an assertion that hinges on a specific assumption, which we
don't share.

>and it results in two sets, one of which
>is either eaten later or eaten during the process.

BTW, in the halakhic framework the timing matters, too.

>I see no difference
>between the two. Look at my apple and apple core example.

Frankly, I didn't understand the apple core example, but whatever.
I'll try to explain "the forest" that we're dealing with here.

There are several ways to implement the directive "perform no melakha
on Shabbat." The choices will reflect one's personality, culture, etc.
The first choice to make is whether to adopt a principle-based or a
rules-based approach. As an aside, this can be observed in the world
at large: in general, European cultures prefer principle-based (PBA),
while the American culture prefers a rules-based approach (RBA). This
is reflected in such things as bills of rights (European "do not
violate people's freedom" vs. American "Congress shall make no law
regarding...") and my own area of expertise, accounting.

IMHO it's obvious that the PBA allows a lot more flexibility to
whoever the interpreting body is than RBA, but also more
arbitrariness. Both approaches have pros and cons, and for better or
for worse, Rabbinic Jews have chosen the latter, "American" way.

Once you adopt RBA, next comes the choice of paradigm for the specific
area. In Rabbinic Judaism the paradigm for Shabbat prohibitions is
"melakhot of the mishkan" ("labors of the portable sanctuary" in loose
translation. You have been told many times by many posters that
English has no precise equivalent for the term "melakha."). Those are
defined as 39 broad categories of processes. Since the Shabbat
prohibitions are presumably relevant for all Jews anywhere and anywhen
(a rebuttable presumption), the key aspect is the process, rather than
its object or result. Although those can be relevant depending on the
context (as we will soon see), they are never the primary
consideration.

With RBA, definitions matter a lot, since a great lot of
implementation work hinges on determining which real life phenomena
fit which legal definition. Here is how we arrive at the definition of
the melakha of borer ("selector"):

One of the tasks of the Mishkan was preparation of dyes used to color
the various cloths that were part of the structure. Preparation of
dyes involves several processes - gathering, grinding, boiling, etc. -
and one of them is borer, separating unwanted matter (short-termed
"refuse") from the collected herbs and from their grounds. The
definition of the melakha of borer is thus "the process of separating
what one wants from what one does not want." Note that there is no
reference to what one is separating, or what the result is.

At first blush, then, it would appear that one can't separate bones
from fish (or shells from nuts, or a book from others on a shelf, or
whatever) in any way. But few, if any, legal principles stand alone in
a system. Two other principles are relevant here: one, that in order
to be forbidden d'oraita (rabbinic strictures come later) the melakha
needs to be performed in a manner usual to that melakha; and two, that
the Tora doesn't wish to preclude Jews from living more or less
normally on Shabbat, which includes eating. The latter appears to be
in conflict with the definition of borer. Resolving conflicts of law
(which is, incidentally, the primary business of any court of appeal
except in strictly procedural cases) is always somewhat arbitrary, as
the judge(s) have to decide which one trumps. Sometimes, the conflict
is resolved in a compromise sort of way.

Now, observe how the Mishne Tora Hilhot Shabbat Ch. 8 codifies borer
(R' Eliyahu Touher's translation at chabad.org):
---------------------------

Halacha 12

A person who separates food from unwanted matter and one who separates
one type of food from another food using a sifter or a strainer is
liable. If one separates using a tray or a pot with compartments, one
is not liable. It is permitted to separate food by hand to eat
immediately.


Halacha 13

A person who separates unwanted matter from food is liable, even if he
does so using only one hand. A person who separates turmos beans from
their shucks is liable, for the shucks sweeten them when they are
cooked together. Therefore, one is considered to be taking unwanted
matter from food and is held liable.

A person who separates food from unwanted matter by hand and sets it
aside [to serve] at a later time, even later on [the Sabbath] itself,
is considered to have separated for the purpose of storage and is held
liable.

If there were two types of food mixed together before a person, he may
separate one from the other and place it aside to eat immediately. If
he separated [one from the other] and set it aside [to serve] at a
later time, even later on [the Sabbath] itself, he is liable - for
example, one separated food in the morning to eat in the late
afternoon.
---------------------------

This illustrates what I've said above. The "don't separate"/"need to
eat normally" conflict is resolved by permitting separation of the
food from refuse ("eat normally"), but not the opposite (the way the
melakha was performed in the Mishkan). IMHO, an elegant and entirely
logical decision, given the assumptions and constraints.

Contrast this with the melakha of boneh ("builder"). This one is
defined as "the process of putting together a permanent structure that
will house something." Note that here there is a reference to the end
result, so that the scope of the process is limited ab initio. Thus,
there is no need to invoke the need to eat normally in order to permit
"building" a sandwich - it's simply out of scope of this prohibition.
But the focus is still on the process. (Note, however, that there are
also derivatives of melakhot to complicate the situation. In this
case, Ch. 10 Halakha 13 states: "...one who makes cheese performs a
derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building." Before you fly off
the handle, observe that nobody is calling cheesemaking "boneh" - it's
a derivative thereof. Borer also has derivatives, such as curdling
milk and filtering wine.)

Now, Shelly, I have a personal request. It took quite a bit of time
and effort to put this post together, and I would appreciate knowing
that the labor was not in vain. Please don't reject what I said out of
hand, but give it at least a fair hearing. And if afterwards you're
still unable to say: "I disagree with you, of course, but now I
understand how what you do makes sense and is logical given your
assumptions and priorities," then I would really like to understand
why not.

[Shelly]

On 05/06/2013 13:14, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
> The public streets in most modern cities and towns are technically
> Carmelis according to Ashkanasi poskim, and so an eruv will permit
> carrying.

How are the public streets not considered public domain. They are not
call Carmelis streets. They are call *Public* streets. This makes no
sense [to me] other than taking something that is clearly public, giving
it a new name, and so it is no longer public. Also, there is absolutely
no reason for doing this OTHER THAN TO PERMIT THE CREATION of a way
around the prohibition -- the eruv. Can you give me another reason why
they created this new category?

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 05/06/2013 15:00, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:11:56 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 05/06/2013 08:56, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>>>> In fact, you can say that you are CREATING a "purified set" by
>>>>>>>>> "selecting" only the green ones.
>>>>>>> Yes, you can. But should you? What's your criteria for that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus you are building something that
>>>>>>>>> was not there before -- and I always thought that building something on
>>>>>>>>> Shabbat was prohibited.
>>>>>>> Any "something"? What about building a sandwich? Do you think we
>>>>>>> observant Jews should avoid that? Why or why not?
>>>>> I really don't care one way or the other. Whichever way makes you happy
>>>>> is fine with me.
>>> I know. That's not the topic.
>>>
>>>>> It just occurred to me that it is, indeed, building.
>>>>> It was one of his examples (I don't remember which one) that put that
>>>>> thought into my head.
>>> So am I a hypocrite if I "build" a sandwich on Shabbat?
>> I would never call you that. I asked a question.
> Erm, you said regarding sandwiches: "It just occurred to me that it
> is, indeed, building." "Indeed." That's an assertion. So I asked my
> question regarding an obvious derivation of this assertion.

OK, I expressed my thoughts poorly so your statement was justified.

>
> BTW, should it be forbidden to build confidence on Shabbat?

<grin>

>
>> So far, there has
>> been no answer. The question was, essentially, what constitutes
>> building.
> I only saw questions about selecting, not building.

That was *my* poorly expressed question.

>
>> Malcolm was giving out definitions and using selecting and
>> purifying. I asked if that isn't also building.
> B"n I'll respond in another post.

That is what I meant by my having asked a question.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 05/06/2013 15:00, Yisroel Markov wrote:

How about if I say:

"I think I am now beginning to understand trhat what you do makes sense
to you given your assumptions and priorities. I don't know if I agree
or disagree because I need to re-read this about five times in order to
fully grasp what you are saying. That is an exercise for later and I
will save this post for later study when I have more time. In any case,
whether I agree or disagree, thank you for your effort."

-- Shelly

[JJ]

"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message

news:kefuq895qsrqcj95u...@4ax.com...

Yisroel, everything you wrote above is correct -- for you. Not for me. And
I (1) believe that it is your absolute right to practice as you wish, and
what you believe, but (2) to me this still borders on nonsense. I UNDERSTAND
what you're saying, and I have read through the technicalities of eruv (here
and elsewhere ) and the long post you wrote about the laws of borer (more
power to you for your patience and perseverance in trying to explain these
things to Shelly and me) but I am not at all convinced that this is more
than rabbinic philosophizing. Maybe that's why I became an atheist.

And by the way, I do not affirm your right to be stupid (you are far from
stupid!) , but I do affirm your right to do things which you consider to be
Jewishly important and which I could never accept as necessary.

Jay

[David Makowsky]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:14:51 PM UTC-5, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:

[ Snip ]

> Eruv will NOT permit carrying in a genuine Public Domain, where the
> Torah forbids carrying.

> The public streets in most modern cities and towns are technically
> Carmelis according to Ashkanasi poskim, and so an eruv will permit
> carrying. Sapharadic poskim consider most public streets to be Public
> Domain, and so Sapharadim (at least those who know the law) are not
> permitted to carry in public streets even where there is an eruv. It
> should be noted that many Ashkanasic poskim also discourage relying on
> an eruv in a public street. Put it is not withing their power to
> actually forbid it for ashkanasim, and the overwhelming majority of
> opinion is that it is permitted, assuming that the eruv was
> constructed properly (which itself is quite complex, not merely "some
> pegs with a string on top").

I know many students of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, and they hold that some (most? all?) eruvim in the United States are not valid. I know for a fact they hold this way for all of the eruvim in the Chicago area (where the Rav spent most of his time since the 1960s). There is a machloket between Rashi and Rambam, and Rav Aharon held according to the stricter view (I do not remember what the grounds of the machloket are).