Thursday, June 17, 2010

בענין שהייה מטעם הטמנה

במס' שבת, לו: - לח. משנה: כירה (יש לו מקום שתיפת שתי קדרות ופיו למעלה) שהוסקה בקש וגבבא (שעושים אש חלש) מותר לשים עליו תבשיל. בגפת ועצים (שעושים אש חזק) חייבים לגרוף או לשים אפר על הגחלים קודם. (רמב"ם וטור: גריפה זה להוציא את כל הגחלים, ר"ן בשם רז"ה: להזיז גחלים לצד.)

- למה צריכים גריפה או קטימה? לרש"י זה משום תוספת הבל, וגו"ק ממעטת את החום. רעיון זה של תוספת הבל מובא ע"י רש"י מכד: שם מדובר בהטמנה. שם מבואר שאם ההטמנה מוסיפה הבל, אסור שמא יחתה. משמע מפה שרש"י אוחז שהטמנה ושהייה/חזרה הם אותו ענין. רש"י אומר בפירוש שזה אותו ענין, ואף שגו"ק מהני אף בהטמנה: "וגזרו אף בבישלה כל צרכה עד שיגרוף או שיקטום, והכי מסקינן בפרק כירה דאמר רבי: קטמה והובערה - משהין עליה חמין שהוחמו מבעוד יום כל צרכן." אבל תוס' מצטט ר"י שאף בגו"ק של שהייה עדיין מוסיף הבל אלא הסיבה לגו"ק הוא "דילמא אתי לחתויי". תוס' במז: מביא ר"ת שמסביר שיש הבדל בסיסי בין הטמנה לשהייה. בשהייה, שליט ביה אוירא, וחתוי מעט לא משנה הרבה. אבל בהטמנה, כל חתוי עלול לעזור לתהליך הבישול אם טומן בדבר המוסיף הבל (ואסרו כל דבר המוסיף הבל כגזירה שמא יסיק ברמץ, שזה מאוד חם – חשוב לזכור שמדובר בגזירה לגזירה לד:). זה מבואר בפירוש בתוס' שלנו, שבו ר"י אומר שדוקא בהטמנה רעיון "מוסיף הבל" מביא לידי איסור שמא יחתה. אבל בשהייה, לא תלוי במוסיף הבל כלל, אלא בהיכר לעצרו מלחתות.

- לרש"י, חשוב לציין שדין הטמנה כדין שהייה בזה שביז: מוסק שרק אסור שהייה במשהו "בשיל ולא בשיל". אבל אם בושל כל צרכו או נע, מותר

- ב"ש: כל ההיתר זה בחמין אבל לא תבשיל (רש"י: כי חמין לא צריכין בישול עוד ואין גזירה שמא יחתה, אבל תבשיל, ניחא בישולו ואתי לחתויי, או נתקיימה מחשבו, ומחזי כמבשל.) , וב"ה: גם בתבשיל.

- ב"ש: נוטלין אבל לא מחזירין לכירה, אפילו גו"ק, ב"ה: אף מחזירין.

- תנור (מקום לקדרה אחת) שהוסק בקש וגבבא אסור ליתן בו או עליו, כי התנור חומו יתרה הרבה. כופח, זה באמצע, חומו יותר מכירה ופחות מתנור, לכן אם הוסק בקש וגבבא, דינו ככירה, בגפת ועצים דינו כתנור.

- בגמ', שקלינן ותרינן אם המשנה מדברת על שהייה או החזרה. כחנניה, שרק בהחזרה בעי גו"ק, אבל בשהייה, מותר אף בלי גו"ק, וכל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי מותר לשהות, או דילמא המשנה מדברת בשהייה, אבל החזרה, אסור.

- רש"י ותוס' (בשם ר"י): יש סתמא משנה של נותנים חררה על גבי גחלים אם קרמו פניה, וזה משמע כחנניה, ועל זה סומכים אנו דמשהינן קדרה על גבי כירה. משמע מהם שהם לא חולקים על הסבר הרא"ש מהי מסקנת הסוגיא, אלא מתגברים על מסקנת סוגייתינו ע"י להביא סתם משנה שמשמע כחנניה. רא"ש: מסקנת הסוגייא היא לחומרא, שמדובר בשהייה, וההוכחה היא שהמשך הגמ' מניה ש"תוכה וגבה הוא דאסיר", משמע שהגמ' לוקחת כנתון ששהייה על גבה אסור בלא גו"ק. הרא"ש מסיים שרבו הדיעות בזה וישראל אדוקים במצוות עונג שבת, ולא ישמעו להחמיר, הנח להם כמנהג שנהגו על פי הפוסקים כחנניה. רי"ף מביא ראיות לחומרא.

- רמות בישול: 1) נע 2) התחיל לבשל 3) מאכל בן דרוסאי 4) מצטמק ויפה לו 5) מצטמק ורע לו. 5 נחשב מבושל כל צרכו. 4, טור אומר שלא נחשב מבושל כל צרכו. יש מח' אם 3 נחשב מבושל כל צרכו.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Hirsch and the Categorical Imperative

"It remains completely unknown to us what objects may be by themselves and apart from the receptivity of our sense. We know nothing but our manner of perceiving them; that manner...not necessarily shared by every being, though, no doubt, by every human being." (Critique 37)


With this revolution in epistemology, Immanuel Kant forever changes the direction of philosophy. After ensuring that all noumena are permanently and fundamentally hidden behind the veil of human perception and sense in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant finds religion and morality in quite a precarious position. However, in the Critique of Practical Reason, he discusses the saving grace, in his thought, of morality, an a priori and innate morality not derived from experience. Kant calls this objective foundation of "good", the categorical imperative. A necessary corollary of such an innate drive is a God. Thus, Kant, in his own mind, provides for the necessity of a God, and a general inborn human drive to be moral. This far comes Kant.

The purpose of this short post is not to point out the weaknesses in this theory. Kant's ideas were the turning point of philosophy, and the percussions of his ground-breaking theory of the ultimate reality, conceivable by thought and yet un-perceivable in experience, were felt everywhere. So, it is valuable to see how a Jewish philosopher might respond to this theory that rejects absolute knowledge of Godly command.

And indeed, Rabbi SR Hirsch praised Kant. He considered him one who reached the doorstep of Judaism, and by tragedy of ignorance, came no further. For Hirsch, the categorical imperative is not morality, for the moral universe is not what is, but what must be (Grunfeld LXXV). (Rabbi Hirsch makes this point in discussion of the Golden Calf: that the sin immediately after revelation is yet another indication of the Divine origin of the Law, a Law that is hoisted upon people by God who are not yet morally ready for it, as opposed to an organic moral progressive process of wise men in the life of the people.)The innate moral voice in Man is not the voice of morality, it is the yearning for morality. Man's sense of good and evil is not perfect, too much variation exists to be able to call it that. What is constant however, is the desire, the striving to a moral structure. Kant confused the homonomy (self-commanded law) with the desire for a formulated heteronomy.

By making this simple but crucial adjustment in Kant's theory of Practical Reason, Rabbi Hirsch supremely empowers the categorical imperative. No longer does morality hinge upon the sparse commonality of Man's inner moral voice. Hirsch's innate desire for a moral structure, as Kant's innate morality, posits a God. However, Hirsch's conception of the imperative also posits a revelation of Divine Will -- the definition of the heteronomous morality towards which the yearning innate in Man strives. For if humanity is to strive towards an ideal of morality, and if this yearning presupposes a God, then, taken together, these two ideas require a God-given moral code for Man to work towards. The categorical imperative then, for Rabbi Hirsch, is not the oracle of "good" carried personally in every man's breast. Rather, each man carries within him a piece of the morality puzzle, an innate reminder that there is a moral law that must be attained in this world, and that it must be available somehow.

Of course, this leads in to a discussion of the Torah and the scientific necessity to study it from within instead of from without. Perhaps more on that some other time.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Gaza Flotilla

The international media and world governments have reacted to Israel's boarding of the Gaza flotilla. The almost universal reaction has been the condemnation of Israel's boarding of a peacefully intentioned vessel in international waters.

I am not so naive as to believe that the truth will change the minds of the media and global leaders. I have seen enough to know that the world has lost its patience with the truth in Israel's case. The media and world organs have provided the Arab world with a mouthpiece, and have repeated the lies so often that they trump truth. The word "occupation" has been used so much, that the world forgets the armistance agreements in '67 and '73, agreements which define Israel's legally binding international frontiers, and provide the West Bank and Gaza as Israeli territory until Israel, Egypt and Jordan, draw up new agreements otherwise. The word "apartheid" is bandied about so that the true racial oppression of actual citizens in South Africa is forgotten. Israeli treatment of non-citizen terrorists is viewed as the mistreatment of law-abiding citizens. Israel's equality and democracy for its diverse citizenry is ignored. The terms "illegal settlement" and "illegal blockade" twist morally and legally acceptable actions into evil practices. And the final, perfect irony, the use of the term "Nazi", calling to memory the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, is used to describe the limited actions of a state surrounded and attacked on two sides, to handle actual terrorists intent on the murder of non-combatants.

However, I know that in the end, the truth matters. It matters to us, as we deal with attacks from every side. It matters to Jews world over who know not what to say when confronted by enemies of the truth, who use lies and propoganda to veil their new anti-semitism, called anti-zionism. And the truth will matter when the world once again, for however short a period of time, considers the facts instead of the screams of the mob.

So what is the truth?

1) Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. (Many may feel that Hamas is a freedom-fighting organization, and not terrorists. In a moment of honesty, however, the free world has named them terrorists because they attack civilians and utilize tactics to induce the population of Israel to fear. Those who choose to label Hamas as anything other than terrorists will have to redefine the word terror.)
2) Hamas is in control of Gaza not through democratic means; rather, they wrested control from the ruling party through violence, bloodshed and intimidation directed towards the residents of Gaza.
3) Since the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas, Israel and Egypt, with the support of most western Governments, have effected a blockade of Gaza.
4) The sole purpose of this blockade is to prevent arms from reaching the terrorists. Literally hundreds of tons of food reach Gaza from Israel weekly. Gazans are routinely brought to Israeli hospitals for treatment that is beyond the ken of Gazan doctors.
5) The flotilla's express purpose is not to bring food and relief to Gaza. If that was their purpose, they would have agreed to Israel's offer to take the supplies in to Gaza after inspection. The expressed purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade in place to prevent weaponse from reaching terrorists.
6) According to international agreements regarding running of blockades (see the San Remo Manual, article 67), a ship is boardable even on the high seas if it intends to run a blockade. It is considered in violation of a blockade the moment it sets out from port with the purpose of running the blockade. Israel acted within international law. The use of force is permitted as a last resort.
7) Some say Israel should have allowed the ship through. They say that this would have been less damaging to Israel. However, this is far from true. Israel had three choices: 1) allow the ship through, 2) physically block the ship and reach a standoff situation, 3) take the ships to Israel after boarding them. The third option was the best choice in a sitation that contained only bad choices. (1) would have presented Israel as a paper tiger, unable or unwilling to enforce its own blockade. Further, it would have allowed in potential weaponry and terrorists to Gaza. (2) would have resulted in a standoff situation in which the flotilla members would have used the media to their advantage: imagine the flotilla members going on a hunger strike until being allowed to run the blockade! Or the flotilla ships may have rammed Navy vessels, requiring the use of much more force. Israel really had no choice but to board.
7) The flotilla members claimed the would be non-violent and resist passively. Video and images from the boats reveal these verbal assurances to be lies. The soldiers of Israel's Navy, carrying out legally sanctioned actions, were beaten and thrown overboard, stabbed and shot, by the 'non-violent' protestors. The fact that the feeling around the world is that Israel opened fire on unarmed civilians shows just how powerfully the flotilla members are in control of the media surrounding this event, and/or how biased the world is against Israel.

In conclusion, the Israelis acted within their legal rights and responsibilities towards their citizens. The flotilla was made up of provocateurs whose purpose was to score a big PR win for their side. The state of Israel's image in a world that is tired of the truth and just wants Israel to go away is such that Israel lost the PR battle before it began. Anything Israel did would be reported gleefully, either as a weakness in blockade, or cruelty in boarding.

And to counter all the disinformation, here is a picture of a 'peaceful flotilla member' describing his plans for the Israeli soldiers:


And here is a video documenting the violence met by the Israelis in enforcing their internationally-recognized blockade: