[Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh

Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org
Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 PST 2017


On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the
: ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various
: grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They
: found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other
: grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the
: tests were inconclusive.)

(Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom
of the amud.)

Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I
did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact
even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There
are other problems:

1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz
and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz?
Not one of the experiments had another dissenter?

2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the
experiment?

As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri
and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and
sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the
5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar
kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon."

Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about
qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it?
The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given
RYBN differing obseration.

As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited
as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because
the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so
clear cut on the first test.

And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah
deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws
the line.

: There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of
: the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look
: for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz -
: without even knowing the ingredients.

... and we don't know what to look for.

:> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of
:> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure
:> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So,
:> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim
:> if it were resolvable?

: The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for.

As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical
question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly
attempted to be resolved.

You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to
reject.

But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its
sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have
arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by
lost information.

: The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a
: degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on
: the list or not.,,,

Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the
Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other
than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is
halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers,
who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the
metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw
halachic lines in the physical sand.

So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini,
we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one
of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic
test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the
other -- because we don't know where the line is.

A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
micha at aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)


More information about the Avodah mailing list