popa_bar_abba

More regarding the mashgiach accused of fraud:

kasha, you are certainly correct that we would need a proper kabalas eidus as well.

I would add to my previous post that even if we were to establish him as a mumar for gezel, he still is not totally unreliable. It is a machlokes by a mumar whether we trust him for shechita (2:6). Even those who do not, only require that we check the knife but still rely on him to do a proper shechita.

In fact, if one’s animals are stolen and found slaughtered, they are permitted provided that most of the burglars of the city are jewish (1:4)

I wonder if it is worse in our case, since he is being paid for his services and might not wish to lose the client by saying it is not kosher. Since his sin is money related, it is possible that would make it worse. We find a similar idea in choshen mishpat 34. I don’t know.

Charlie;

Regarding the rabbi who supervise the restaurant and is accused of financial crimes.

An accusation alone would not suffice to make him pasul for eidus. We would need two proper witnesses testifying to his crime.

Now, even if he were found to be a gazlan, he would still be reliable as a mashgiach. See YD 2:6 that someone who is pasul for eidus is reliable to be a shochet unless he is a mumar for gezel. To be a mumar, he would have to do it 3 times (pri megadim on shach 2:19).

So, until we have proper testimony that he stole 3 times, we can rely on him.

Charliehall:

A. I am intrigued by the loan cases, but I did not learn that area of Choshen Mishpat. Sorry.

B. You asked about a tidal estuary, a river which flows into the sea, and a freshwater lake.

There is rainwater and spring water. Rainwater is only a mikva if it pooled with no apparent flow. Spring water is fine even flowing.

A river which is formed from a mixture of spring and rain, if it is mostly spring is fine.(half/ half see shach 201:10) If it is apparently mostly rainwater it is a machlokes the Rosh and Rabeinu Tam. According to the rema 201:2 and shach, this is a real psul. According to the Taz 201:3, this is a gzeira. The gezeira applies to all rivers which are overwhelmed by rainwater lest you be tovel in a spot of all rainwater.

One of the proofs of the Taz is that since the springwater is touching the rainwater, it should make all of it kosher for tvila even flowing (see also taz 20).

The Rema states that we can rely on the permitting opinions if we have no other mikva. Even so, one can only go in the middle of the river where it was flowing before the rain (shach 11).

Your cases therefore present a difficulty. If the water were to be springwater, it would unquestionably be ok. However, if the water is rainwater and it is flowing (the lake would probably be considered flowing if it has an outlet, the estuary, if it flows), it is more difficult.

The Mechaber says in 201:10 that if a spring is connected to a pool of rainwater it takes on the status of rainwater. This would seem to permit your river which is open to the sea.

Nevertheless, according to the Taz, it would still clearly be pasul since the gezeira would still apply. I imagine the estuary would not have the gezeira, I don’t know if the lake would.

According to the shach, rivers which have majority rainwater are always pasul despite the fact that they are connected to their own springwater. the shach therefore qualifies the mechaber in 201:10 saying, (shach 201:32) that the mechaber was only speaking in a case of majority springwater after the mixing. I don’t imagine that the river flowing into the sea will become majority springwater. It would therefore be pasul.

So. In all three, if majority spring water, fine.

If majority rain water, if flowing, not fine.

Except the lake, perhaps ok even if flowing according to Taz as long as some spring water.

Chulent:

I’m sorry, I missed your question. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.

CKBSHL:

Generally if something other than water (and certain water based liquids) were to fall into a mikva, and changed its appearance, it invalidates the mikva. (YD 201:25) However, if the “mikva” were a spring, even if the appearance is changed by the liquid which fell in, it is still a valid “mikva”. (201:28) Oceans are considered a spring. (201:5)

One would therefore imagine that one may indeed tovel in the oil spill.

Unless one wished to argue that since the oil does not mix with the water, it is not part of the ocean?

mod: please delete previous post, I pushed enter in the middle mistakenly.

PLEASE NOTE THAT EVERYTHING I WRITE, ESPECIALLY THIS POST, IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED ON. (Or, as Montaigne said, “All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.”)

Ok. Ovens are discussed in siman 108:1-2.

We generally say that to roast basar and chalav or issur and heter in the same oven is not allowed but is ok if you did provided that the oven was not sealed. It is only a problem if one of the two has an oily nature.

If you are cooking them in pots, it is allowed to be done, provided that the oven is not sealed. If one of them is covered, even with dough, it is allowed to be done.

If the one of them is spicy, it is a problem even bdieved unless one is covered. (Here, the shach 10 is machmir lechatchila regarding a dough covering.)

No mention is made of any issur lechatchila or bdieved to do one after the other.

However, the Rema mentions that if you were to roast the two under a pan, and the pan were to receive the steam of the two, all the cases are assur bdieved even one after another, unless one was covered.

I have heard that our ovens are considered to be like the pan which receives the steam. If this is so, it would be assur even one after another, even if cooked in pots, unless one was covered.

It still would be ok if neither one had an oily nature, even lechatchila. I do not think this is what is done in my house.

Apashutayid: Siman 116:2. According to Rema, it is assur lechatchila and mutar bdieved in same oven at same time. I believe one after another would be ok unless the oven was so small as to be considered like a pot cover. (108:1)

According to Shach 116:1, cooked at same time is assur bdieved.

According to Taz 116:2 we can allow together lechatchila if it is a “large oven”. A “large oven” holds 12 esronim.

Derech: I don’t know about the fish and water.

YW Editor: According to Mechaber Siman 11:1, it depends where he lives. If he lives in the “kefarim”, we need him to ignore 3 invitations before we put him bnidui. If he lives in the city, we put him bnidui after one ignored invitation.

derech hamelech:

A. by a lach blach, we would certainly say the whole thing is meurav. the only nafka minah I can think of regarding if it is bishul would be for basar b’chalav as to whether it is d’oraysa and assur b’hanaa. I imagine we would follow the regular rules of tassaa gavara and say it only cooked kdai klipa.

B. Regarding irui and kli sheni, bear in mind that issur has another factor over hilchos shabbos in that on shabbos we are only concerned with bishul. Kli sheni, for instance, although it is not mevashel, is maflit u’mavlia according to the taz following rashal (not at same time though).

philosopher: I do think you are going too far. One’s upbringing is able to have very negative and lasting results on one’s psyche. To simply state that people in these situations should “snap out of it”, “deal with it”, or whatever, is not realistic.

Imagine a teenager who was heavily criticized by her parents and made to think that her own feelings and wants were irrelevant. She was told that she must live exactly as her parents wished or she would be rejected by them and would be a rasha.

Don’t you agree that at the very least she is LESS responsible than other people?

And if she is less responsible, could it not be feasible that she is fulfilling her responsibilities in a better manner than some people who you deem to be doing the right things?

thanks for the italics advice, I did it.

Hey look. I don’t know how to do italics.

so now I’m wondering, maybe there is another step.

The din of davar shebiminyan is based on the the significance of the item as evidenced by its being sold by count. Perhaps if the reason it is sold by weight is statutory, we can still infer its true significance and it should still be not batul.

ok. In general, a piece of issur which is mixed in with pieces of heter is batul if there is a majority of heter. However, when the piece of issur is a significant piece, the Rabbis decreed that it not be batul.

There are four kinds of significant pieces. They are:

A. A piece which one would use to honor a guest. (ch”r”l)

B. A whole item which was prohibited since its creation. (berya)

C. Something which is sold by count. (davar shebiminyan)

D. miscellaneous significant items such as closed barrels of wine- regardless of the aforementioned rules.

(davar shyaish lo matirim is for a different reason.)

Regarding the third type, there is a machlokes in the gemara whether we are only referring to items which are ALWAYS sold by count or even items which are SOMETIMES sold by count. This is dependent on whether the mishna is read “es shedarco limanos” or “kol shedarco limanos”.

We are machmir like the opinion of R’ YOchanan that even items which are SOMETIMES sold by count are not batul. The Taz permits in cases of loss to rely on the opinion that only items ALWAYS sold by count are not batul.

Hence, for several centuries, eggs have been considered a “davar shebimanyan” and one was not able to nullify them when mixed into a majority of heter. The Maharshal writes that eggs are always sold by count (quoted in Shach and Taz YD 110).

Now however, in Europe eggs are being sold by weight. This changes their status regarding this law. After further thought, I believe that their status will only change in the regions where this change has taken place, while in America they will remain as before.

Therefore, in Europe, eggs will be considered something which is never sold by count and always batul in a majority of heter (if the heter is comprised of the same type of egg- otherwise you will need 60 eggs of heter for a total of sixty one eggs). In America and elsewhere, eggs will remain something which is always sold by count and will never be batul, even in 1000.