[Avodah] Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh

[Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah]

NEVEILAH

Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the
prohibition to eat Neveilah

It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2
However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted
Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow
cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah
according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah.

I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b
the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by
Halacha
so why is it Assur to eat it?


MARIS AYIN

The following are universally accepted
1]  AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha
and even Minhag
2]  AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta]
3]  AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the
guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern
that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin

Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA?
I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal.
and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are
not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats,
even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA.
The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non
animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin


JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu

As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah -
Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply
they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not.
Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended
the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had
not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has
no direct Halachic component to it
Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they
were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a
reflection of Halacha.

Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our
ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden.
Please provide some sources.
As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a
Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is
also predicated
upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim.

As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his
ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish?


ISSUR BBCh

I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify
as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul
Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor -
only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along
and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook.
The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there
is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that
has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if
there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that
would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from
Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an
independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs
simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar
BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out
- the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah.


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/20170901/16d6ecdd/attachment-0007.html>