[Avodah] MA - by Name or by appearances

[Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah]

Reb Micha says his intent is to argue with my central thesis.

He argues that the name itself, Maris Ayin, suggests a simple understanding
of the rule - how the act would look to an observer, which is not defined
by the names we use to identify things.

But I agree. At first glance, MA seems to be just that - indeed it is only
because I started with that proposition that I had my Q - and the answer
which seems to jump out from the Halacha is as I described it, and which as
far as I can tell, has not been addressed.

Furthermore, I dont think that our determinations about the nature of a
decree - made by its name, MA, is a compelling argument to overturn the
facts of the Halacha.

I am aware of Reb Moshe's Teshuvah IM OC 1:96, 2:40, 4:82.
I am not sure how he addresses the Qs we are troubled by.

We may find Halachic categorisation a somewhat unsatisfactory means of
applying MA. That is why I softened the blow by comparing it to Min BeMino,
is it by Halachci categorisation or by taste?

Indeed, not being identified as meat by the Halacha, does NOT alter the
misconception of the observers. So what? That may not fit your and my
picture of MA, but it fits the Takana made by Chazal. Shtehl Tzu Ayere Kop
- stop trying to force the round peg.

I am sure you can think of plenty of Halachos that you and I would
construct with different parameters to what Chazal determined.

= = = = =
Reb Meir Simcha gets his understanding that the milk was actually cooked
with milk from the Pesikta he quotes.

Sure there are many Rishonim who suggest otherwise - but that is nothing
new in our experience - different Midrashimn will comfortably contradict
one another. We do not require proof that they actually ate meat and milk
together. Even if we accept that the Medrash is not to be taken literally,
it must still be Halachically coherent.

Cutting a tongue from a goat and roasting it over the fire then basting it
with yoghurt or butter, does not take too long. And he may have done that
in order to have fresher tastier meat, as per the Seforno re the women
processing the fleece whilst still connected to the goats.

- - - - -
Reb Zev disputes my proposition that Chaya does not have anything NAMED
Cheilev and that Shuman is not NAMED Cheilev, whereby it can be explained
why there is no MA to cook these with dairy.
He admits he does not know how similar they [I think he means Cheilev and
Shuman of a cow] look, but he is certain they are physically different
substances, and proves his point by suggesting that they have different
names even in English.

Lets say we agree on this, but that hardly addresses the common notion that
MA bans things that are SIMILAR, not just things that are identical. And
now we can engage forever in discussing how similar they are.

Based on the Meshech Chochmah, I think it is fairly reasonable to assert
that Ben PeKuAh is not NAMED meat. In fact according to Rabbenu Gershom a
BP, with regard to other Halachos that will shock you, is not even a
BeHeimah. And this is also indicated in Rashi.

Reb Zev also asks, but I must ask him to explain - what happened when
HaShem determined that the Yidden were not Yidden but BeNei Noach until
they got the Luchos? Why did the angels not then renew their objection and
not let Moshe go down with the second set?
I do not understand this Q. But I would imagine that whatever Medrash Reb
Zev is referring to [if there is in fact such a Medrash and it is not just
the interpretation of an Acharon or a Vertel] will, like many Medrashim,
take a different path than the Medrash which the Meshech Chochmah is
explaining.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170829/74b55ecf/attachment-0007.html>