Comments for Close To Torah

Comment on Why The Repeat? – A Short Thought on Parshas Vayakhel Pekudei 5770 by Rabbi Yosef Tropper

Rabbi Yosef Tropper — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:55:39 +0000

Hi,

Nice to hear from you!

Rabbeinu Bechya is one of my most used Rishonim.
Rabbi Shvel discusses your point in his introduction Al HaTorah.

I specifically spelled it this way in order to satisfy any pronunciation!

All the best,

Yosef

Reply to Rabbi Yosef Tropper

Comment on Why The Repeat? – A Short Thought on Parshas Vayakhel Pekudei 5770 by joel schnur

joel schnur — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:16:38 +0000

how are you pronouncing Bechya? i know ppl mispronounce it as b’cha.ya and I was taught that it was bach.ya

Reply to joel schnur

Comment on Moshe’s Shine – Parshas Ki Sisa 5770 by yechezkel

yechezkel — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:52:44 +0000

Very nice insight into the parsha and an excellent depiction of Moshe Rabbeinu’s probable perspective! Shkoyach!

Reply to yechezkel

Comment on What is a Mishkan? A Short Thought on Parshas Terumah 5770 by Neil Harris

Neil Harris — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:55:26 +0000

Totally brilliant vort.
Thanks.

Reply to Neil Harris

Comment on Talking Tefilla – Parshas Mishpatim by Mommy

Mommy — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:54:07 +0000

Than you so much for this inspiring message! It is important for us to remember how much we need the framework of Torah halacha as a bulwark to the memories of spiritual highs and inspiration. May you, however, continue to inspire so many with your beautiful divrei Torah. We are so proud of you!

Reply to Mommy

Comment on Baltimore Blizzard 2010 – A Torah Perspective on the Snowman by Josehine Giorgi

Josehine Giorgi — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:19:35 +0000

I loved the story on snow and the significance of white for the bride who becomes the central figure of marriage.

Reply to Josehine Giorgi

Comment on Baltimore Blizzard 2010 – A Torah Perspective on the Snowman by Neil Harris

Neil Harris — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:47:22 +0000

I just linked this d’var Torah. It’s great.

Reply to Neil Harris

Comment on L’Shmor V’Laasos – Parshas Shemos 5770 by bhgbpnfans

bhgbpnfans — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:16:03 +0000

c4YmFW yodtzzujngxz, [url=http://lqqqafraqnik.com/]lqqqafraqnik[/url], [link=http://mlufnnzovteb.com/]mlufnnzovteb[/link], http://rmwrlbujzxfr.com/

Reply to bhgbpnfans

Comment on Was Christopher Columbus Jewish? by Ruby

Ruby — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:05:05 +0000

Article is jam packed w/knowledge and unfolds the real reason why America was so blessed. Columbus had God’s blessing!

Reply to Ruby

Comment on Avraham and Ten Plagues – A Short Thought on Parshas Va’eira 5770 by Elisheva

Elisheva — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:32:13 +0000

I enjoy this site a lot, and learning a lot too!

Reply to Elisheva

Comment on The Lox and Cream Cheese Dilemma by Yitzchak

Yitzchak — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:00:35 +0000

The Taz and a few other Poskim use the term of Taus sofer. This was alluded to in the article as “mistaken identity”

Reply to Yitzchak

Comment on The Lox and Cream Cheese Dilemma by kal

kal — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:51:31 +0000

I’m an avid fan of your blog and enjoy your insightful posts.I wanted to respectfully comment that as I recall, isn’t there a hagaha which states that this p’sak is a “taus sofrim”?

Reply to kal

Comment on What’s in a Name? – Parshas Shemos 5770 by Neil Harris

Neil Harris — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:04:49 +0000

Beautiful, thanks and have a great Shabbos Kodesh.

Reply to Neil Harris

Comment on Equality by Yosef Tropper

Yosef Tropper — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:13:27 +0000

You are correct, my words are vague!

The letters that spell איש(Man) are א-י-ש (alef-yud-shin).
Each letter can be spelled out to its full expression. The letter א, is spelledא-ל-ף .

Hence, the hidden part of א isל-ף . When one adds the hidden parts of the letters א-י-ש, you get 180!

Reply to Yosef Tropper

Comment on Equality by shmuel

shmuel — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:59:57 +0000

please explian. which inner letters? add up to 180

Reply to shmuel

Comment on Who Killed Esav? – Parshas Vayechi 5770 by rafi

rafi — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:14:51 +0000

Awesome! Really perceptive, well- written and very practical and down to earth. Keep it up! Thanks for the Chizuk!

Reply to rafi

Comment on Ins and Outs of Shnei Keilim by meir rabi

meir rabi — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:31:46 +0000

but this is the subject of a Teshuva by the N BiYehudah YD 1:28, which I shall try to paraphrase below.

The NB addresses the problem, why does the Gemara not rely on Tasting to Resolve Iloi or TaToi Govur, i.e. when hot food falls into cold food there is a debate if the upper or the lower determines the nature of the reaction. If the lower determines, then there is no cooking since the lower is cold and vice versa, if the upper determines the reaction then there is cooking. However if there is cooking then by Halachic standards there must be a transfer of flavour. In that case why not get someone reliable to taste such a reaction (performed as an experiment) and resolve the Gemara’s dispute?

Why can an expert’s tasting not be relied upon to resolve the Machlokes between Rav & Shemuel?

Even more difficult; how could there be a Machlokes on such a matter? After all it is a matter of fact and is not subject to dispute.

The same issue troubles us regarding the Machlokes if Bittul is in 60 or 100 (Chulin 98) according to Tosafos that the argument hinges on TaAm.

The answer is that it is not a certainty that flavour will be exuded. This is proved by the fact that a piece of Issur will Asser 2 pots meaning we consider it to have twice as much TaAm than what it actually has, which is clearly impossible.

This can only be explained by understanding that it is possible that the piece exuded no flavour at all in the first pot and exuded all of its flavour in the second pot.

Reply to meir rabi

Comment on Ins and Outs of Shnei Keilim by Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:27:06 +0000

Yitzchok, there are many issues in Issur V’Heter that don’t seem to “make sense”; for example, a piece of non-kosher meat falls into a pot, you take it out, and now you need 60 times its volume in order to nullify the taste that came out. Why? Isn’t it obvious that you’ve retrieved at least 95% of the meat? Example 2: You dunk the meat into 100 consecutive pots, they all need 60 to nullify it. How is that??
The answer (I believe) is that since every food and situation is different, there is no way to make a general rule that will cover all circumstances; and allowing every person to simply rely on his own “boich sevara” doesn’t cut it either – it’s way too risky. So Chazal simply made a rule across-the-board: always assume the worst! Every food and utensil is suspected of divesting 100% of its content when it enters a pot.
So, in the case of the drop of milk, it’s not really relevant whether the concern is reasonable, because once Chazal set the parameters, that’s the law.
If I had more time I would search for some sources, but I think what I’m saying is more-or-less correct.
Hatzlacha!

Reply to Dave

Comment on Ins and Outs of Shnei Keilim by Yitzchok

Yitzchok — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:12:03 +0000

Dear Rabbi Spitz, This whole subject is just one colossal and unexplained chumrah that doesn’t have a basis in metzios. Learning this inyan will amaze you and leave you scratching your head. Be honest…..are we to assume that the drop of milk landing on the outside of the fleishig pot has the potency and strength of a bullet and the ability to drill through the stainless steel (or aluminium or cast iron) pot and invade the fleishig food and then add milk flavor to the meat in the pot so that the mixture is now bosor b’cholov and requires 60 be mevatel? Or is the author saying that milk drop has the power to invade the pot and drill to just below the inner surface and then weaken and stop dead before jumping into the soup. But the drop of milk will have enough strength to mix with the minute amounts of meat buried in the metal below the INNER surface and create bosor b’cholov so that the pot is traif but the contents kosher.
With all due respect to the poskim mentioned and the esteemed author, does this make a bit of sense? Are our stove pots porous and leaky? Isn’t the purpose of a metal pot to contain its contents and not permit what is on the outside to enter. Can’t the pot withstand heat and pressure and abuse? Can you imagine using a pot that is porous and leaky? Why don’t we see food leaking out of our pots when we cook. Next time you cook, pass your finger over the outside and lick it. Will you taste the contents. Is our milk a radioactive isotope that can push its way though metal? Is this inyan a subject of tumah and tahara?
I submit that it is physically impossible for a drop of milk to drill though a cooking pot sitting on the flame and contaminate the inner meat contents or the pot itself. The sechel just doesn’t accept such a metzios and I challenge any person to prove that it is possible. Yitzchok

Reply to Yitzchok

Comment on The Coca-Cola Kashrus Controversy by Pinchas Garfunkel

Pinchas Garfunkel — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:49:06 +0000

Yasher Koach. Nice shtikel. I was unaware of the shitos which say that there was a shayla on being mevatel issur lechatchila (Radbaz & Tashbatz). This is very נוגע with regards to medicine here in the states because most of them have treif fillers that are battul – and I believe that the Star k gives them clearence (not a hechsher)= meaning they say you can take them.
Kol Tuv, Pinchas

Reply to Pinchas Garfunkel