Conference taveng::bagels

    I would presume that the book you are referring to is either a
    translation of the original "Shulchan Aruch" which was compiled by Rabbi
    Yosef Karo or the later "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" which was compiled
    by Rabbi Shlomo Gansfried. The latter is in most cases a brief
    statement of the former though at times the author did interject
    his own rulings when he either disagreed with the former or ruled
    in areas not mentioned in the former. 
    
    The "Shulchan Aruch" is generally considered to be the point of
    departure with regard to rulings within Jewish law. There are many
    many books that have been written subsequently. Some of these were
    written expressly as commentary, some were written as 
    complementry/supplementry, and others were written to be stand alone
    works whose basic goal was to bring the final rulings in a brief
    and better organized manner to the main stream of people since the
    original "Shulchan Aruch" is quite long and at times hard to
    understand. 
    
    Most of these books have been widely accepted within the various
    orthodox Jewish communities and are used constantly as the basis
    for day to day orthodox Jewish life and form the wealth of Jewish
    Halachik literature that is used by all orthodox Rabbis in forming 
    rulings in more complicated and esoteric areas.
    
    I hope this answers your question...
    
    Cb.
    

Hi Chaim,
    
>        The "Shulchan Aruch" is generally considered to be the point of
>    departure with regard to rulings within Jewish law.

    Can you explain the above in more detail. Are you saying that these
    rulings were different to those that went before. Their basis is
    not regarded as being the same?
    
    Are they accepted today as absolute due to being the laws of the
    Rabbis, or are they argueable?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Malcolm
    

    Re: 477.2
    
Malcom,
    
    The "Shulchan Aruch" (Prepared Table) is one of the earliest/most
    comprehensive codification of Jewish Law. It marked a stage, albeit
    a decisive one, in the development of Jewish halacha.
    
    However, one must remember it was written in the 15th century and as
    such has been the subject to a continuous process of commentary and
    supercommentary which has continually modified its decisions and
    brought in new halachic problems as they arose. 
            
    Don't expect to pick it up (without getting a hernia), a find the
    answer to a halachic question. It is used as a source reference for
    halachic questions not as a modern day book of halachah. 

    Malcolm,
    
    I'll try briefly to describe the evolution of the Halacha.
    
    The basis of course for all Halacha starts with the written law,
    the Chumash or five books of Moses, and the oral law, which is
    comprised of the Mishnah and Gemarrah (Babylonian and Jerusalamite).
    
    The really first attempt at compiling some sort of a Code would
    have to be the Rif (Rav Alphus), who filtered all the actual laws
    from the Talmud. This work was still lacking organization, clarity,
    and authority. The next attempt (and a very good one) was Maimonides
    (RAMBAM), a disciple of the Rif. His Mishneh Torah is very clear,
    quite well organized, and quite authoritative. In fact many Yemenite
    Jews to this day accept the RAMBAM and the Mishneh Torah as their
    "Shulchan Aruch".
    
    Next came Rav Yaakov ben Asher (the Rosh) who wrote the Arba Turim,
    hence he's known as the Baal Haturim. He tried to compile all the
    laws that pertain to daya to day life after the destruction of the
    Temple, leaving out those areas such as Sacrifices, into four basic
    categories; daily practice (blessings, prayer, Shabbat, holidays,
    and etc..), Teachings (Slaughtering, salting, meat and milk, lending
    money, vowels, mourning, and etc...), Justice (contracts, damages,
    and etc..), and Marital (marriage, divorce, and etc..). This work
    is not very authoritative, although it is very comprehensive.
    
    Rabbi Joseph Karo who wrote commentaries both on the Mishneh Torah
    (Kesef Mishneh) and on the Tur (Bet Yosef). Using the exact same outline
    as the Tur did, he compiled a very authoritative work. 
    
    The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserelis) wrote a short commentary to the
    "Shulchan Aruch" in  which he mentions and clarifies those areas
    where he differs with the "Shulchan Aruch".
    
    This work has been almost universally been accepted as the "final
    say". The Sephardim follow it explicitly. The Ashkenazim follow
    it explicitly except in the cases where the Rama disagrees. In these
    cases they follow the Rama. This is the accepted tradition.
    
    Now, the problem arises when questions start popping up in actual
    situations for which the "Shulchan Aruch" does not explicitly address
    that particular issue. The easiest examples are questions regarding
    modern technology; how do you make a microwave oven Kosher, can
    one use a dishwasher for both meat and milk, and etc.. Or situations
    that just aren't explicitly cited. Thousands of such questions have
    come up over the centuries in all the sundry places where Jews have
    lived. This gave rise to the advent of litterally thousands of
    responsa. Some of these have been compiled in organized works, others
    have remained in unorganized fashion. 
    
    The commen denominator which pervades these responsa is the attempt
    to reach a ruling based on the way the author understands the
    underlying ruling of the "Shulchan Aruch" and then applying this
    to the actual situation.
    
    I hope this helps...
    
    Cb.
    
   
    

    hi,
    
    There are rulings that are from the Rabbis, and some that are from
    the Torah. Does the Shulchan Aruch in the way you described in .3
    form a complete set of the former? 
    
    There are things we do today which are just through tradition. 
    Is their inclusion in Shulchan Aruch the justification for them
    to be kept as the law? (The best example I can think of is chicken
    being considered as a meat product). 
    
    From your explanation in .3 am I right in thinking that it is only the
    Shulchan Aruch that gives the definitive interperation on the laws
    in the Torah (with the exceptions that you cited)?
    
    Thanks for your previous answer,
    
    Malcolm

    Malcolm,
    
>    There are rulings that are from the Rabbis, and some that are from
>    the Torah. Does the Shulchan Aruch in the way you described in .3
>    form a complete set of the former? 

>    There are things we do today which are just through tradition. 
>    Is their inclusion in Shulchan Aruch the justification for them
>    to be kept as the law? (The best example I can think of is chicken
>    being considered as a meat product). 
	
    You are correct in your statement that there are three different
    types of "laws"; Torah, Rabbinic, Tradition (Minhag). Your example
    is incorrect however. The discussion and subsequent ruling with
    regard to whether chiken is meat is definitely within the realm
    of a Rabbinic law. An example of a traditional law would be not
    cutting a boy child's hair until the age of three. 
    
    The "Shulchan Aruch" does contain all the laws (Torah and Rabbinic)
    within the realms within which it deals. Any subsequent problems
    are problems of application. It would have been almost impossible
    to have included every possible situation and pass down an explicit
    ruling. Rather the ground work was laid out completely for later
    generations to be able to build upon it. 
    
    Look at our own civil codes of law. If every possible case were
    dealt with explicitly, there would really be no need for civil courts.
    However, the laws as they exist lay a foundation upon which the
    judges can then apply what has been layed down to any case that
    may exist. 
    
    Now, obviously this requires a logical process and in doing so can
    lead to disagreement. Hence many modern day issues will receive
    varid solutions depending upon who is issuing the ruling. BTW,
    disagreement is not a negative. The Rabbis have stated "There are
    70 faces to the Torah" and in regard to vehement arguements (such
    as between the houses of Hillel and Shamai) "Those and those speak
    the word of the Almighty".
    
    Cb. 
    
     
    
	    

    So is it ok for Rabbis to add to/ change  the law of the Torah?
    A chicken has no milk, so by our understanding of kashrut
    it should be parave. Just like fish.
    
    Malcolm

    1) Torah explicitly says to follow the rulings of the leaders throughout
	the generations.

    2) The practice of "putting a fence around Torah" has existed since the
	earliest attempts to interpret the law.  And so, yes it is OK for
	rabbis to add (but not subtract).

    3) Fowl are included (unlike fish) because they can easily be prepared
	so that it might be mistaken for meat and vica versa.  So to
	prevent accidental infraction...

    Gavriel

re: 477.8

�  And so, yes it is OK for rabbis to add (but not subtract).

	They have done both.

    The subject of Rabbinical laws is reaaly somewhat complicated. There
    are actually several different categories.
    
    I don't believe that the Rabbinic law that chiken is considered
    meat vis-a-vis the laws pertaining to meat and milk is merely a
    question of a "Siyag". 
    
    In general the Rabbis have the authority to add laws with virtually
    no restriction and to detract only Torah positive commandments and
    only in a passive manner ("shev v'al Taaseh"). An example is the
    Rabbinical law that we donot blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashannah which
    comes out on Shabbat.
    
    Cb.
    
    P.S. I hope it is clear that the "Rabbis" about whom we're referring
         are not present day Rabbis but rather Rabbis who were members
   	 of the Sanhedrin Hagadol. If and when "Smicha" (proper ordination)
         is reestablished and a Sanhedrin set up, then perhaps this
    	 authority will be reinstituted.
    

Chaim,
    
>        I don't believe that the Rabbinic law that chiken is considered
>   meat vis-a-vis the laws pertaining to meat and milk is merely a
>   question of a "Siyag". 
    
Can you explain the above please? I don't understand this. Also the
explanation that cooked chicken looks like meet to me sound really wet. 
I've seen far better attempts with soya!
    
Malcolm
    
    

   

    Malcolm,
    
    As I mentioned in a previous reply the notion of "Rabbinical Laws"
    is complex and not trivial. There are many oppinions regarding the
    status, authority, reason behind the many different "Rabbinical
    Laws".
    
    At any rate, there are laws that the Rabbis felt obliged to enact
    so as to function as a fence "siyag", to keep the people away from
    a greater prohibition. For example, take the "Rabbinical" law that
    prohibits making bread with milk (unless the bread is either of
    a distinctive shape or explicitly says MILK on it or according to
    some authorities the wrapper). This law was enacted lest one comes
    to eat this bread with meat. The reasoning being that bread is commonly
    eaten with both milk and meat, and therefore it would be very easy
    to make a mistake and eat this milchig bread with meat. 
    
    There are also many "Rabbinical" laws whose purpose is not to act
    as a fence but enacted each for its own specific reason. For example,
    according to most authorities, the laws pertaining to mourning are
    "Rabbinical" (The RAMBAM holds the first day is from the Torah while
    the remaining six days are "Rabbinic", other authorities hold all
    seven days are "Rabbinic"). The "Rabbinical" "Karmelit" (a small
    public domain) in which one is prohibited from carrying on Shabbat
    only from the "Rabbis" was instituted NOT because the "Rabbis" were
    afraid that one migjt then carry into a true public domain, but
    the Rabbis used there authority to expand the Torah law viewing
    carrying of this nature as being unbecoming on Shabbat. 
    
    I realize that sometimes the distinction becomes difficult to fathom,
    but it vnevertheless exists. 
    
    Believe me that the subject is quite complicated and complex. In
    fact the exact source from which this "Rabbinic" authority stems
    is a contreversial issue amongst the Rabbis.
    
    Hope I haven't confused you further...
    
    Cb. 
    
    
    
    

    A personal opinion:
    
    I don't believe it will be useful to dicuss if chicken is meat or
    not, or wether Old Abe (Avraham Avinu) served non-kosher food to
    the Angels when he ordered to prepare for them meat and butter...
    
    Most of the religious laws and regulations are in the category of
    Taboo: those are conventions that are as they are, are intended
    to apease the Powers and are outside any rational explanation, because
    they do not adress rational questions or conditions.
    
    Chicken is meat and fish is not, you may have sole with Roquefort
    cheese and not Indian chicken with yogurth...
    
    Y. L. Peretz, the Yddish writer has an essay where he tells a story
    like this:
    
    "A man was strolling on his fields and he found a huge diamond.
    Happy with his luck he run home to share it with his family. However,
    as he approached his house he thought that since his wife had a
    tendency to gossip, the news of his diamond would spread and they
    might be victims of thieves, so he decided to bury the diamond in
    the garden untill he will find out a way to take care of it. In 
    order not to loose the spot where the diamond was buried, he selected 
    a stone and put it on top of the diamond.
    
    His wife saw him and, as he reached home she wanted to know why
    was he laying stones in the garden - 'It brings good luck' was
    the answer. The next morning he saw two stones, close to each other
    and his wife explained that 2 stones would bring better luck than
    a single stone, and she went on, and the children, and the children's
    children....
    
    Today, the field, the house and the neiborhood are covered with
    hundreds of stones, a very little ray of light shine sinto the old
    house, and the descendents of the old man that begun laying stones
    do not know for sure why the stones are layed and some even question
    if there was once a diamond.... 
      
    

Hi Juan,
    
>        A personal opinion:
    
>    I don't believe it will be useful to dicuss if chicken is meat or
>    not, or wether Old Abe (Avraham Avinu) served non-kosher food to
>    the Angels when he ordered to prepare for them meat and butter...
    
>    Most of the religious laws and regulations are in the category of
>    Taboo: those are conventions that are as they are, are intended
>    to apease the Powers and are outside any rational explanation, because
>    they do not adress rational questions or conditions.

    I feel it's very worthwhile discussing these areas as it helps us to
    understand how we got to where we are today. If some bits of Torah have
    been added to or subtracted from, within traditional orthordoxy, then
    we have a way to deal with some of the major problems that we as a
    community face today. To solve community problems a buy-in is needed
    from the whole community, and that can only be acheived if the basis of
    any changes can be put forward as not having an origin from within the
    reform movements. 

    Perhaps I should start a new topic along the lines of Judaism and the
    Jewish people in the 21st Century.
    
    Malcolm 

    Juan,
    
    Firstly, I don't quite understand what relevance the story you
    mentioned from one of Y.L. Peretz's essays has to our discussion
    any more than does the price of tea in China.
    
    
>    I don't believe it will be useful to dicuss if chicken is meat or
>    not, or wether Old Abe (Avraham Avinu) served non-kosher food to
>    the Angels when he ordered to prepare for them meat and butter...

    Secondly, I think yor referrence to Avraham Avinu is in exceptionally
    bad taste.
        
>    Most of the religious laws and regulations are in the category of
>    Taboo: those are conventions that are as they are, are intended
>    to apease the Powers and are outside any rational explanation, because
>    they do not adress rational questions or conditions.
    
    Thirdly, the above is not true. Perhaps our understanding is limited
    and we are not omniscient as G-d, but that does not detract from
    our right and even perhaps obligation to try and understand. The
    Jewish laws transcend much farther than merely being "conventions".
    They are the fabric of Jewish life; both on a daily practical basis
    and towards a more futuristic spiritual basis. I agree that there
    are some laws which may superficially appear to be completely absract
    and devoid of any rationalism, and do not apparently relate to "normal"
    conditions, but this is due to our shortcomings and intellectual
    limitations. 
    
    Cb.
    

    
    
    

Chaim,
    
>    There are also many "Rabbinical" laws whose purpose is not to act
>    as a fence but enacted each for its own specific reason.

    Do we understand the process by which these new laws became part of
    Judaism? 
    
    It seems that the Rabbis interperation of Judaism is now a lot less
    open to ideas and flexibility than it must have been in the past.
    
    This is a shame, as there appears to be such a large rift developing
    between the different sections. I dread to think of the status of
    the majority of Jews in the near future.

    Malcolm

    
>    Do we understand the process by which these new laws became part of
>    Judaism? 
    
    Yes, but this requires studying the sources (Mishne, Talmud, and
    etc...) in each case.
    
>    It seems that the Rabbis interperation of Judaism is now a lot less
>    open to ideas and flexibility than it must have been in the past.
    
    I don't believe this is so. What makes you say that?

    True, by definition the Rabbis of today cannot exercise any authority
    to actually create new "Rabbinic" laws or redefine/delete any existing 
    "Rabbinic" laws. Presently they have the authority only to rule on 
    specific questions based on the existing laws.
    
    Just because certain rulings aren't popular doesn't necessarily
    mean that the Rabbis have been inflexible. I think that if you examine
    very closely contemporary rulings you'll be very surprised to see
    that the Rabbis have in many cases leaned over backwards to try
    and be as lenient as possible. Unfortunately only the unpopular
    rulings, where even leaning over backwards cannot help, get publicity.
    
    Cb.
    

    Re: Chaim's .15
    
    1.	The connection I see between the explanations on the evolution
    of Halachic Legislation and Peretz'es essay is that I feel the building
    of fences around the law left very little, if any, light to filter 
    through and lighten our contemporary lives. I do believe there is
    a diamond buried inside the Jewish culture and tradition, I would
    like to see more light and air coming thru. 
    
    When the line of the notes begun to drift along if chicken was meat
    or not, I decided to comment that this is a topic for a very sharp
    pilpul, but I do not feel it has any relation with my present
    preocupations as a human being and as a member of the Jewish People.
    I think that today the discusion of the Responsa is a wrong answer
    to my present existencial questions.       
    
    Therefore, yes, I see a connection between the conversations about
    the continuity and validity of Halacha and the price of tea in China.
    
    2.	About the bad taste of Avraham Avinu's cuisine I am not the
    Mashgiach Kashrut and I cannot be of help. My comment was intended
    to show that even though at the times Genesis was written it didn't
    seem to be a terrible thing to serve meat and butter, as well as
    in the times of the Mishna, the people in Galilee were eating Chicken
    with milk with no hard feelelings, but then came the fence builders 
    and decided that it was Terefa.
    
    Here again I personally believe that the fence builders were very
    short-sighted since the context of the prohibition of eating a
    kid cooked in his mother's milk refers to prohibition of idolatry
    and related rituals, and instead of looking at the different forms
    of idolatry and sincretism, they only took the textual prohibition.
    (Some authors suggest the cooking of a kid in its goat's milk to
    be related with fertility rituals).
    
    In my personal conception, today the prohibition of mixing meat
    and milk has become a Taboo, we do not understand its origins or
    reasons, but we are supposed to follow it in order to placate the
    powers.
    
    3. 	I would like to apologize for calling my ancestor, Avraham Avinu
    Old Abe, since some people would be hurt by my joke.
                                                                  
                                                    
    Re: .14
    
    I think it will be very difficult to open orthodoxy to the 21st
    Century. That is the reason I said we should not discuss the rules;
    I believe that the discusion will not help since orthodox Jews will
    not be able to change their conception of the world and their
    compliance with Halachic regulations.
    
    
    Juan-Carlos Kiel
    

>                                               My comment was intended
>    to show that even though at the times Genesis was written it didn't
>    seem to be a terrible thing to serve meat and butter, as well as

    Actually, I believe it was butter and meat.  Then as now the order
    was important though the degree of separation may have been (read:
    probably was) less.

    Gavriel

re: .15

>                                                  I agree that there
>   are some laws which may superficially appear to be completely absract
>   and devoid of any rationalism, and do not apparently relate to "normal"
>   conditions, but this is due to our shortcomings and intellectual
>   limitations. 

	One way of understanding and clarifying is to look at the social
and political context in which many of the rules were promulgated.  In
many cases (e.g. as Hoffman points out in his book _The Canonization of
the Synagogue Service_, a number of parts of the liturgy were shaped by
political disputes among various Rabbinic groups--each one claiming authority
to make certain decisions.) one comes to the conclusion that the rulings
had a great deal more to do with politics than holiness.

	The fact that the one making the ruling asserts that it comes
(directly or indirectly) from a divine source, does not automatically 
make it so.  (On the other hand, denying the divine origin of, say, the
Mishnah, does not lessen it's importance in Jewish history, although it may
affect the way one deals with it now.)

					Aaron

Shalom,

I've found this discussion highly interesting as it sheds some 
additional light on things I seek to understand regarding the
evolution of Rabbinic Judaism [out of Biblical Judaism].

While I don't understand the nitty-gritty of the details, in
general terms some of the comments here reflect much of what I
feel. At my current level of understanding of Judaism [which I
admit is limited], I am feeling that there are, sadly, a great
many fences that have been erected which seem to make it more 
difficult for the individual to experience the presence of the 
living G-d.

A previous reply made mention of the meat/milk prohibition. It
did indeed arise out of idolatrous practices, and the fences were to
increase distance. How far is far?
  
I found the story of the buried diamond highly insightful. I can also 
see parallels in it to what happened in Christianity in nearly 2,000 
years of evolvement. Here, too, traditions of men have added/subtracted/
changed/obscured/complicated some things pertaining to the original 
message.

Man embroiders, sometimes through divine inspiration, sometimes 
through the good intents of his own heart, sometimes, unfortunately,
due to political struggles for power;  often, it is difficult
to discern which it was. And, in the latter case, man often succeeds
in obscuring the face of G-d, which he so desperately would desire
to find through those efforts.

Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it.
[Kethuvim Psalms 127], Tanakh, New Jewish Translation].

Forgive me for jumping in here like this with my observations. I'm
just an outsider, looking in, attempting to grow in my understanding
of religion and man's response to God's search for man.

Bowing out, now,
Irena