Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well then, Mazel Tov!! May you have much nachas! Tizkeh l’gadloh l’Torah, l’ben Torah, l’chuppah, ul’maasim tovim!
Yitayningwut,
Are you maskim that R’ Chaim Ozer assers?
Care to elaborate?
You still do not comprehend Ein Mevatlin. Even in a case where it is Assur b’DiEved it is merely a Knas and NOT a continuation of the original Issur.
I guess my post was indeed incoherent (to you) because I didn’t say that it’s a continuation, rather a knas so that one doesn’t gain from his issur. The knas, though, is that the bittul is ineffective for him.
I’ll rephrase the rest of my (incoherent) post, and break it into numbers to make it possible to at least respond to the parts which you do comprehend.
1) I concede that, if we were to assume that the amount of milk would render it batul, it would be muttar to eat the muffins, because even if it would be assur to be m’vatel it, there would be no knas since it’s a shogeg.
2) This does not allow the OU to certify it, however, if we assume that certification amounts to bittul l’chatchila.
3) I do not concede that it’s batel at all, however, since the milk is avidi l’taama. See Shach 98:28 that a recognizable taste is never batel, even in 60 (Taz argues, but I believe the halacha follows Shach). It should therefore be assur even b’dieved.
4b) Rav Schacter obviously feels that if ein m’vatlin would apply here, the kula we find by ma’mid would not apply here. He writes,
?????? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????. Although I disagree with (or at least don’t comprehend) his other points, you characterization of my opinion as “a misconception” would have to apply to his as well.
5) I also pointed out that since most issurim d’rabbanan regarding bb”c do not apply to the issur hana’ah, the fact that if one mixed in a small amount of milk with meat it would remain muttat in hana’ah does not indicate that there is a kula regarding bittul of a davar muttar.
6) A side point, not from my previous post:
Badei Hashulchan, in Biurim pg. 350 asks on the Chocmas Adam, why it’s muttar to taste bread into which some milk was kneaded; we find no such kula for any other issur, even d’rabbanan, and if the bread has the milk taste, it’s a davar assur (as I mentioned earlier, The CH”A doesn’t seem to apply ein m’vatlin to milchig bread).
My suggested answer: if one kneads a small amount of milk into dough and bakes bread with the intention to taste it immediately and see if the taste is detectable, it’s considered a davar muat, which is muttar. Even if the taste is detected and the remainder of the bread must be discarded, the small amount tasted was murrar.
What do you (and anyone reading this) think?
DY: Are you saying that Rav Belsky was only matir immedIate family to borrow an original CD?? I believe you can loan your CD (to listen to) to anyone, just as you can loan anyone your Sefer or watch.
No, I suppose that anyone could borrow.
DY: Are you saying that Rav Belsky was only matir immedIate family to borrow an original CD?? I believe you can loan your CD (to listen to) to anyone, just as you can loan anyone your Sefer or watch.
No, I suppose that anyone could borrow.
Hello99,
B’shaah tovah!
So DaasYochid your saying that its mutar to copy something you already own?
Barring specific, valid limitations in the sale (e.g.) leasing agreements, yes.
How far does that extend? Can only your immediate family use it?How about friends?
I suppose they could borrow the original to use. Rav Belsky was mattir for immediate family members living in the same home.
What about if ts for a music video?
Probably not.
can you post it to a site where everyone will be able to copy it?
No.
R’ Chaim Ozer assers, it seems because of molid.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14671&st=&pgnum=505
Hello99,
A few quick points:
I think we need to distinguish between the issur l’chatchilah of ein m’vatlin issur, and the issur b’dieved (you’re correct that I misused the term “not batel”, because for some it’s muttar, but the effect on the mevatel and the mi shenisbatel bishvilo is that it’s treated as not batel).
Concerning b’dieved, Rav Schachter clearly writes that according to the shittah of the Tzemach Tzedek, it would be assur – “?????? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????”.
Anyhow, if we assume that it is batel, I think based on 99:5, we can safely conclude that at worst, that the OU is mistaken, anyone relying on it (including Thomas) would not be more than a shogeg , so we should limit our discussion to the perspective of the certifying agency. I believe that the OU holds that putting a hechsher on a product makes any ingredient be considered mevatel l’chatchilah (although I don’t think Thomas is Jewish owned).
Clearly, according to the Tzemach Tzedek, it’s assur l’chatchilah, so we cannot throw out the normal rules of the issur of “ein loshin”. In other words, I don’t understand what you wrote, “Since it is a completely separate Sugya from the original Din, it has its own set of Halachos and it cannot be presumed that the rules of the full-fledged Issur apply.”, since we are indeed discussing l’chatchila, which is not a separate sugya.
Concerning the Rashb”a, aside from applying it l’chatchila (even if not b’dieved), the Pri Megadim (M”Z) on ma’mid writes that avidi l’tama is worse than ma’mid.
As far as your final point, I still don’t think you need to feel obligated to be moch based on a “significant” view, if it’s not absolutely halacha p’sukah. You probably should have written in that original post that it’a an added point. I do agree, though, that the ingredients might be outright tarfus and that most processed foods need a hechsher.
It is a given that if you wish to reuse the grape juice bottle for other purposes, that you are now using it as an official Keili, and you are required to toivel it.
R’ Moshe is meikil. IG”M 2: 40, and 2: 137.
*For illustrative purposes, if the mod will allow:
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/hello/259/958/640/DSC_1112_crop.1.jpg
🙂
True that Milchig bread is Assur, but this bread is NOT Milchig!!!
It would be if we would apply the din of ein m’vatlin, which is precisely what we’re arguing about. See Rav Schachter’s opinion of what the halacha would be in our case acc. to the TZ”TZ.
However, you have not demonstrated any proof or valid logic that Ein Mevatlin applies to a product that would not be eaten with meat.
You haven’t demonstrated that there’s any halachic validity to an assumption that something won’t be eaten with meat, other than a siman in the bread itself, or a davar muat. An OU D has no validity to create a halachic assumption that it will not be eaten with meat.
Although unnecessary for my argument, I should point out that Thomas markets primarily to a customer base which would certainly eat it with meat.* I don’t understand Rav Schachter’s argument that intention goes according to the buyer.
I have none, this is just my opinion. I should clarify that there are opinions (cited in Badei Hashulchan, and my understanding is that the Chochmas Adam holds this way as well) that ein m’vatlin issur l’chatchila does not apply at all for milk in bread. According to them, it would not be a problem. I am merely opining that according to the TZ”TZ, the OU D doesn’t help.
You’re right, I’m not as familiar with ma’amid as I would like to be, but isn’t your raya from ma’amid really a kasha on the TZ”TZ, not on me?
Maybe choc’s right, and my tone was too harsh, so please be moichel me. Let me rephrase my question. Why do you object to someone (Yitayningwut) not requiring an OU on his food, based on no bittul even with more than 60 on an intentional ingredient when that same OU is someich on intentional bittul of more than 60?
Choc,
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and the opportunity to explain why he takes different sides in different discussions, but until he justifies it and explains it (which he hasn’t done yet), it certainly seems as if he is using his knowledge disingenuously. I hope I’m wrong and await a better explanation.
And for this reason we are not required to Toivel candy dishes and other glassware that we give as gifts to others (think Mishloach Manos).
Actually, if you put food in it, you should toivel it.
Have you become an Eskimoron yet?
Only bread likely to be eaten with meat.
Where do you get that from? Milchig bread is assur as is, despite intentions or ex-post-facto simanim.
“it would have the status of not batel”
Not true. The Issur b’DiEved on one who was MEvatel Issur is ony a Knas.
According to the TZ”TZ that the issur to be m’vatel issur applies here, why should’t the knas apply here as well?
Mixing fleishig rennet with milk itself is not an issue of Ma’amid if the meat is intrinsically Muttar. Bread intended to eat with meat cannot be worse than the meat tself!!!
How is that nogeia here?
The Shulchan Aruch and Rema in YD 134:13 DO Pasken the Rashba.
Make up your mind how you want to pasken, but don’t change just to prove your point against whomever you happen to be disagreeing with on a given day.
Let’s not make this an insult party
My intention is not to insult bpt, who is usually a very pleasant and entertaining poster, it’s to defend BMG bochurim against his unwarranted attack on them.
The only fact I was provided is the fact that a 21 y/o woman cannot get a commitment from her male counterpart in the dating process.
No, she can’t get a male to even agree to begin the dating process (to go out with her). That was your mistaken fact.
BMG boys, for the most part, are just as able to make a commitment as anyone else, as evidenced by the very large percentage of them who get married within a year or two of starting to date. Your generalization that they are somehow unable to make a commitment was your mistaken conclusion.
YaakovL,
You misunderstood my comment; you made a disagreement out of something which wasn’t.
Bpt,
Say yes to which question?
I think your cynicism has led you to draw false conclusions from made-up facts.
Bpt,
Are you on the right thread?
Can you cite any sources that the above restrictions apply to Bitul Issur l’Chatchila and not solely to the prohibition of creating bread withperceptibleble Milchig flavor.
There aren’t likely any, because whether bittul issur l’chatchila applies here is a machlokes to begin with. So, we’ll go with reasoning.
If it’s assur to be m’vatel milk into bread, it would have the status of not batel, and the same rules would apply as bread with a perceptible milchig flavor.
The Rashba is not relevant here. His limitation is based on its similarity to a Ma’amid, and as we know from YD 87 regarding rennet, Ma’amid is only applicable to Issur and not Milchigs or Fleishigs.
Ah, but you’re once again forgetting that milchig or fleishig bread is not merely milchig or fleishig, it’s assur.
In truth, see the Pischei Teshuva towards the end of YD 134 that the Halacha likely doe snot follow the Rashba.
Then why your comment to yitayningwut?
The Yetzer Hora definitely tries to convince people to marry those who will not be the best ones for their ruchniyus.
Your job is to overcome personal bias and try to marry someone who will best help you in your avodas Hashem.
It’s hard to argue the motivations of imaginary people.
There were birthdays.
Not in the common, contemporary sense that you’re thinking of. I’d wager that in ancient times, many people did not even know exactly when their birthday was.
The Wolf
If they felt it important to celebrate a birthday, they would consider it important to keep track of the day. They must have kept track of it for twelve or thirteen years, though, to know when mitzvah obligations began.
147- How exactly did you eat before shachris. Its assur.
He said he davens first. I think 42 is correct, though.
YakovL,
It doesn”t talk about the creation
It says maaseh v’reishis.
It isn’t questionable lehalocho
It absolutely is questionable; not definitely wrong, not definitely okay – questionable.
and there are many that were noheg so
They obviously held it was fine. But for someone who doesn’t have this mesorah (or questions the halachic status of chamar medinah in modern society) your cute pshetl should not be a deciding factor.
Wolf,
There were no hot dogs in Bavel (or Radin for that matter). There were birthdays.
Daas: Just because the recording industry would like everyone to pay anytime they take a breath near a CD, does not make their or popa’s legal analysis anymore correct.
Hershi, even the pro consumer EFF is only justifying copying what you already own.
That was the first one I got in the morning, and I hadn’t yet eaten, and had no food at home, so that was really, appreciated.
I think that the last comma in that sentence is superfluous. 🙂
OK, but emes is emes, so I would hope not.
As far as the bittul issue, I quote the following from a respected and knowledgable poster in the YWN Coffee Room:
Hello99,
I’m not sure what you mean. Do I need to cite a source that a siman only works during the baking?
Do I need to cite a source that intention isn’t sufficient?
It seems, BTW, that until you brought it to there attention, they were certifying the muffins without concern for bittul at all. While it was the only muffin with that tzurah, they were apparently relying on the tzurah despite the fact that
1) It was made for mass distribution
2) The tzurah was certainly not made as a specific dairy designation (although I think the R’ma, who is mattir fleishig Shabbos bread based on the tzurah, doesn’t require this).
Popa’s right.
Interestingly, the recording industry apparently feels that even some forms of copying of media which you purchased does not fall under “fair use”.
From Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):
Sure, the Post should have made clear that the RIAA is not suing Howell for making personal copies. (The Howell case is just the one of thousands of suits the RIAA has brought against fans sharing music via P2P). But the evidence suggests that the original Post article was correct in spirit — the RIAA believes that most copies for personal use are unauthorized, infringing on their copyrights, and illegal. They are simply choosing (wisely, considering the public relations disaster that would result) not to fight personal copying at this time. They will not officially acknowledge the right of fans to make personal copies, nor will they rule out the possibility of suits on these grounds at some point in the future.
I would add only if it’s intrinsically unlikely, as in a dessert pastry. English muffins are not intrinsically unlikely to be eaten with meat. The packaging won’t help, though.
Hello99,
Thanks for the idea. Here it is, like the Gilyon Maharsha brings it; he compares milk in dough to milk with chicken.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43091&st=&pgnum=242
A siman after the fact should not work.
The law of the land would permit making a copy, as long as its not for commercial purposes.
AFAIK, it’s also illegal to copy to give away. Fair usage is only for the use of the one who purchased it.
Uneeq,
The poskim (e.g. Chochmas Adam) are mattir milchig cake because it’s not the derech to eat it with milk. Apparently, pastries, even though not bread, are otherwise included in the issur.
Hello99,
Since milchig or fleishig bread are assur, and intention doesn’t help, there should most certainly be an issue of ein m’vatlin here. See the Gilyon Maharsha’s wording, in quoting the Tzemach Tzedek, who learns this way. See, however, Badei Hashulchan who seems to bring it your way.
Do you understand R’ Schachter’s ???? ???????? I don’t; if it’s batul, why not eat it with a hamburger? (I still don’t understand why it’s batel – they obviously put it in for the taste!)
From the OU’s site (I haven’t read it yet):
By: By Rabbi Dovid Cohen
Muffins have a unique shape.
Rav Schachter rejected this reason as follows:
The dairy ingredient is batel in the muffin.
??? ????
????? ???? ??????
The motive of Shishim seems logical to me
Not to me, since ein m’vatlin issur l’chatchilah, which the poskim do apply to milchig bread.
Also, why would they put in milk if it wasn’t to enhance the product?
Hello99,
uneeq: the Tzemach Tzedek would not be an issue here. His sole problem is because wine is gnerally consumed with Fleishigs, so adding minute quantities of milk would be Bittul Issur. Once the OU adds “D” to the label of the the muffins, it is no longer likely that a frum Jew would eat them with meat, and there is no issue of Bittul Issur.
Except that, as you noted in your letter, a siman after the fact, especially on packaging, is ineffectual.
I would not be a bit surprised to hear that some irresponsible and immature guy (or girl, for that matter) would do this.
Probably more of a guy thing.
Assuming this is true and not a Purim Shpiel
Don’t assume that.
Had I thought he was serious, I’d be just as offended as you are.
If it IS a joke, then hahaha, we fell for it. Happy Purim :p
If you recall, popa enjoys the occasional “motzaei Shabbos troll thread”. According to popa’s logic, Carlebach would allow him this pleasure on any day of the week.
Logician +1
Folks, think about the Carlebach reference.
Avoid “Mr. Popper’s Penguins” like the plague if you are concerned about pritzus. I’m told that the husband calls his wife “____” in the book.
I’m shocked that your comment made it past moderation! 🙂
I mean to ask what you meant when you wrote “On that topic…”. (Encyclopedia Talmudis is complete?)
They’re on the Star K list.
Mazel Tov on the ET (what topic?).
I wonder what the pshat is with english muffins.
Maybe ein issur chal al issur. 😉
