Michael el Chayil

Almost sounds like the beginning of a "dad" joke, right? Speaking of which: What do you call a bear with no ears? Answer: It doesn't matter... he can't hear you.  Phew.... ok... I got that out of my system. Siman 92 of Yoreh Deah is titled: The Laws Concerning Milk Falling into a Pot of Meat, which contains nine סעיפים/sections. The first סעיף/section begins like this: A k'zayis of meat falls into a pot of boiling milk. No, really. I told you already, I got the jokes of my system. The second  סעיף/section, in fact, is about milk falling into a pot of meat. The rest of the siman? I am still learning it, but skimming ahead I see lots of stuff about practical -- and sometimes surprising -- ways that one gets himself into a potentially forbidden milk and meat situation. Also some stuff about חנ''ן -- when a leetle bit of milk or meat makes a big chunk of forbidden meat/milk combination. More about all that later, בעזרת השם. The bird's eye view of the firs...

This mishna in Yevamos (6:6, discussed on daf 61b/61a) says that a man needs to bring two children into this world in order to fulfill the mitzvah of "be fruitful and multiply". Technically, the mitzvah is to make reasonable efforts to have children. The Torah obligation continues until one has two children, but Chazal obligated a man to always endeavor to bring more children into the world. Beis Hillel says it needs to be one male and one female. Beis Shammai says you are good to go with two boys. As usual, we pasken like Beis Hillel, though in this case it leads to a stringency. So far so good. Our sages, of course, were not arguing opinions, but bringing support for their position from precedent from the Oral and Written Law -- Our Holy Torah. Following Rashi, the essential points of discussion are as follows: Beis Shammai learns from Moshe Rabbeinu, who had two sons before he separated from his wife. Beis Hillel learns from the creation of the world, namely: HaShem create...

We are having so much fun with opportunity costs, so let's try another one. Recall ( TftD: Opportunity Costs ) we had a case where Sam can save something of Ned's, but Sam will have to sacrifice something of his own that is less valuable than Ned's. (Sam is ready to s ave something of Ned's, that is n ebbich, at risk. Pretty clever choice of names, no?) Recall that as long as Sam announces his intentions and Ned accepts the cost, then Sam can recoup his costs/losses to save Ned's stuff. The gemara (Bava Kamma 116a/b) continues the discussion by asking: But what if Sam flubs the job (my free translation), can Sam still recoup his costs? The gemara absolutely adores this question. After all, Sam did make an investment in his efforts to save Ned's stuff. And Ned did accept. Is it Sam's fault that he failed? The gemara, after praising the question, answers: Sam failed to deliver the goods, so he gets only his labor costs (time spent trying to save Ned's st...

Even before I was religious, I knew very well there was such a thing as blessings. Anyone who has seen any Hallmark special about a holiday (or even not) has certainly heard of "saying grace" before eating. All that is true, yet we Torah Jews need a biblical and/or rabbinic source for anything we do. It isn't surprising, therefore, that our Chazal explored that topic. There is a famous drash (Brachos 35a): R' Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that anyone who benefits from this world without making a bracha is as if he has <illegally> benefited from consecrated property. R' Levi noted (and resolved an apparent contradiction) between two verses. One verse says that the earth and all that is in it belongs to HaShem. The other says that the heavens are the heavens of HaShem, but the earth He gave to people. The resolution is: One is before making a bracha, the other is afterward. I -- and the few people with whom I have checked who had actually tried to process ...