by Joel Rich
Thought experiment:: The JFK(an imaginary kashrut organization) gives a hechsher on packaged frozen shlumkies as well as an industrial mix for the same made on the same machines. Industrial mix is used in stores to use in a shlumkies machine used only for making individual shlumkies . Assumedly no objections (maybe not) even though these individual shlumkies are prepared and sold in stores where there is no overall supervision. Now assume there is only an industrial nix made. If there are no stores under supervision, is it a problem for JFK to give supervision knowing the only place you can buy shlumkies are unsupervised stores which prepare them (which JFK would advise against buying in). If yes, how many supervised stores would you need to make it not a problem?
From AL Hadaf – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry : The Shulchan Aruch rules that this halacha no longer applies today since it is uncommon for Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael to own fields.
The metziut (practical facts) of whiskey making differ from case (pun) to case. Kashrut issues include use of wine or casks that had been used for wine. [I always wondered why liquor and beer seemed to have gotten a pass on formal Kashrut certification – I assumed it was such a staple (like bread and water) that it was necessary to be lenient]
Does 1/6 bittul only work for wine in water or wine in anything? Does it make a difference for bittul purposes that the wine is added for taste?….
In general R’Moshe was lenient and R’Teitz stringent, but one needs to know the particular circumstances for each strange brew(Paging Eric Clapton – Cue Cream).
Two huge (probably only to me) issues raised: 1) When you can find out the facts, must you? (e.g. what if 90% of whiskeys didn’t use wine base, would you still have to check?) 2) On what basis did some later poskim say that ein mvatlin issur l’chatchila (you can’t purposely use a non-Kosher substance in your product even if it‘s less than1/60th) is subject to logical constraints (i.e. reason is concern you might put more than 1/60th in, so if that’s not an issue [e.g. it ruins the taste if you do], then it’s not a problem).
Starts with biography of the Chazon Ish (C.I.) – no Yeshiva pedigree, anti-Brisk learning style (respect for Rabbis more important than analysis) no kids [me – real food for thought how this affects philosophy], Aliyah at 55 “Tension” between Bnai Brak and Jerusalem.
Then discussion of his shiurim (weights and measures) for various mitzvoth. His “innovation” was that even if there were an established practice (minhag) we ignore it unless there was a current horaaah (Rabbinical seal of approval). Then his relationship to State of Israel (camel story), army, national service. Not Zionist but tied to Israel society.
Not sure what inspired me to try one of R’Kaplan’s non-halachic shiurim, not sure I should have.
The closer we try to get to the goyim, the more they dislike us, same is true for “frier yiddin”.
Learning torah in adverse circumstances has a special hashgacha (heavenly assistance).
The opposite of appreciation of good (makir tov) is to forget altogether.
Miriam knew Moshe would be saved, she just wanted to see how, similarly fundraisers are really just going to see who will have honor of giving money.
Ramban and Rambam on yerusha and yeshiva of Eretz Yisrael. Discussion of Temple (Mikdash) as completion of this process, dor hamabul and dor haflaga as political pradigms. Ends with discussion of David not building Beit Hamikdash.
Parenting advice – be a role model, make time for kids, let them feel your love, command respect rather than demand respect; it’s all about them. Nothing you didn’t know, but good reinforcement.5
Usage of love in Tanach (nope – it’s not defined as never having to say you’re sorry!). In different sfarim it’s used differently and sometimes seems extrinsic and temporary, but real “love” is intrinsic and permanent.
Who and how we love defines us.
Introduction to a series on R’YBS: Philosophical approach. Begins with a review of the prior series on Ramchal/Msilat Yesharim. Their philosophy is the world is basically a trap for us to elude, our total focus should be on the world to come. This stands in opposition to Ish Hahalacha (R’YBS) where cognitive man and religious man combined into Ish Hahalacha with an integral worldview (consider reading Majesty and Humility if you’re a visual learner).
Halachic man is transformative to this world – Halachic man focuses on how to relate to this world.
Focus on the GRA/etrog story up his reward in the world to come giving and feeling good about it, which is totally the opposite of the Mislat Yesharinm
Halachic man is very sensitive to death (because of how he values doing mitzvoth in this world) and is very democratic (doesn’t need an intercessor with HKB”H).
Halacha defines reality (i.e. sunset defining halachic day). Brisker Derech/halacha is comparable to math – underlying theories /actualize in real word thus Brisker Derech has big push to conceptualizing gemaras that otherwise would seem very “balabatish”.
This world focus of Brisk is spiritual because it brings the conceptual paradigm into this world. Halacha develops your spiritual personality – transformation of physical into spiritual.
Why does Parshat Shmot begin with “Habaim Mitzrayima” (coming to Egypt) which is present tense? The Egyptians looked at them as outsiders/new arrivals and we did not totally integrate. Political and metaphysical implications of the universal connection with HKB”H of all men and the covenantal connection with the Jewish people.
Includes discussion of Yocheved and Bat Paroh relationship with Moshe.
Discussion of what hypnosis really is and halachic implications thereof. Various halachic concerns are reviewed but major issue seems more optics than anything else.
Importance of daily commitment versus one time hoopla events.
Haman and Amalek first to challenge the exclusivity and permanence of the covenant. Then some nice mussar on using your time wisely in Yeshiva (40+ years late for me ) and importance of seeing what you could be. Closes with importance of vulnerability in prayer.