Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 015

Thursday, April 5 2001

• Re: Zmanim on Erev Pesach Morning
• Re: Covering counter tops on Pesach
• matzo mehl rolls
• Last Year's Matzah Shmurah
• Candles for the Seder night
• Roedelheim Haggadah
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but Goodie: Summary
• RE: matzo mehl rolls
• fat Cohanim
• Re: Roedelheim Haggadah
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but
• Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but
• Re: matzo mehl rolls
• Chumros on Pesach (was: Zmanim on Erev Pesach Morning)
• Re: Covering counter tops on Pesach
• Re: Covering counter tops on Pesach
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh
• Re: Avodah V7 #14
• Re: Who and What is a Rishon
• rishonim and acharonim
• question marks
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64
• RE: Seudah Sh'lishish (was: EPSBEFAGE, was:Erev Pesach she' chal b'Sh abbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters)
• Seudah Sh'lishish
• Re: Who and What is a Rishon

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: Second: Isn't it enough that Chazal pushed their issur one and two hours
: earlier than the Torah's zman? Why do so many people push these zmanim
: even earlier, by using Rabenu Tam's calculation? People are willing to
: push a d'Oraisa like Krias Shma up to the last minute of the Gra's zman,
: but are makpid on R"T for this d'rabanan.

Three answers, I believe all are true.

The cynic in me suggests that it's much easier to be machmir on a
once-a-year mitzvah than on keri'as shema.

It's also easier to put the mitzvah on a pedastal. Sometimes we confuse
the importance of catching the opportunity with the importance of the
thing itself. Not everything that is urgent is important. However, if the
mitzvah is rare, we don't want to squander the opportunity. In reality,
though, the important things are done /more/ often, as those are the
things we need to really work on. Tadir vishe'eino tadir, tadir kodem
implies that the tadir is more important, not less.

Third, Toras Imecha (mimetic tradition) is that chameitz is something on
which we are very machmir. Perhaps it's a reflection of the Ari's inyan
which removes the shiur on bal yeira'eh. Or perhaps our acceptance of the
frantic cleaning this entails is because we already had the attitude. In
either case, it's minhag Yisrael that the issurei chameitz are treated
as such.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 3 Apr 2001, at 20:13, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> The common custom is to cover counter tops for Pesach. What is the
> halachic justification for this? Also, what is the chiluk between chometz
> and tarfus? When people buy a house from goyim, they don't cover the
> counter tops.

We have marble counter tops, and our posek told us we could clean them well,
pour boiling water over them and then NOT cover them (I think because the
marble doesn't absorb). We actually did this the first year that we were
in the apartment, but the second year, my shver was coming for the seder,
and he would not eat in the house unless we covered them, so we covered
them. We have covered them ever since.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In his Shabbos Hagadol drasha, Rav Elazar Teitz of Elizabeth said that
matzo meal cakes CAN be eated on Erev Pesach (until 10th hour), and
publicly cited the Shaar Hatziyun 471:16, which allows such foods as long
as there is no Toar Lechem.

I have since reviewed those sections of the MB and other seforim, and I
conclude that R'YGB was correct in his original post, and R Moshe Feldman
in his support of RYGB. I now retract my various postings, in which I
felt this to be assur.

It cannot be denied that there are those who do forbid such cakes. (I
cited them in Avodah 7:5, on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:17:03 -0500.) It seems
clear to me that the point of the machlokes lies in whether the grains of
matza meal in such a cake have Toar Lechem or not. If one claims that
such granules do have Toar Lechem, then it is consistent to say that they
may not be eaten on Erev Pesach unless boiled.

But if they do not have Toar Lechem, then it makes no sense (to me) to
forbid such cakes, because Shaar Hatziyun 471:16 says that the
prohibition applies only when it does have Toar Lechem. Please note that
this Shaar Hatziun refers not only to baked and boiled mixtures, but even
to *raw* ones. This is proven by the MB there (471:19), which mentions
baked or raw mixtures, and by the Shaar Hatziyun's reference to Shulchan
Aruch 168:10, which also discusses raw mixtures.

Now that our attention is on Sh"A 168:10, please note that the MB there
(#60) says explicitly that bread which has been crumbled "as finely as
soless" has lost its Toar Lechem (but that since it is simply plain
bread, it will remain a pile of Hamozti crumbs until and unless those
crumbs are Mechubar to each other in some fashion). I do not know exactly
what "soless" looks like. It might be our dusty flour, or it might be a
more granular material, like farina. If soless is dusty like flour, then
I can see a basis to say that matza meal cakes retain their Toar Lechem
and may not be eaten Erev Pesach. But even according to that view, cakes
or rolls made of matza *cake* meal, which looks to me just like flour,
would still be allowed.

Summary: It is unfortunate that the only practical examples given by the
Mishna Brurah are those of cooked matzos (a whole cooked kezayis in
471:18, and kneidlach in 471:20); if he had given examples of baked
matzos, this whole business would be clearer. Be that as it may, I think
people have taken the baked/cooked question out of context. It seems to
be relevant only when Toar Lechem is present. When Toar Lechem is gone,
any method of chibur (MB 168:60) will suffice.

I will close with the words of the Mechaber, Sh"A 168:10: "... and if it
is not cooked, just mechubar with honey or soup ... if the pieces are not
a kezayis and if they don't have Toar Lechem ... the bracha is Mezonos
and Me'en Shalosh."

Akiva Miller

iirc this might have beeen discussed years ago...
What are the Halachic opinions about using a previous year's Matazah
Shmurah?  I would imagine there might be an issue of lishmah - or not?  

Hag Kasher v'Samei'ach
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

Gershon Dubin argued to me (offline) that the candles on the seder table
must last until the beginning of the actual meal (Shulchan Orech), which is
a couple of hours after licht bentching, and that otherwise, the bracha on
the candles would be a bracha levatala.

Questions:
1.  Do listmembers agree?  Could one argue that the bracha is not levatala
if the family members have hana'a from the candles even before eating?
2.  Could one argue that the kiddush wine constitutes the beginning of the
meal for purposes of the candles?

I do agree with Gershon that nice decorative candles do add to the decor of
the table.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

FWIW, the simanim in an old Roeldelhim Haggadah are as follows:

Kadesh   uRchatz
Karpas   Yachatz
Maggid   uRchatz (n.a. Rachzah)
                 Motzi Matza
Marror   Korech
Shulchan Oreich
Tazfun   Bareich	
	           Hallel Nirtzah

This adds two "chidusshim which are really yeshanim"
1)
    A) lines 1-3 rhyme with each other
    B) lines 5-7 rhyme with each other
    C) lines 4 & * rhyme with each other

2) urchatz is same both times althou it does allow a Nusach Acheir for
Rachtza

3)  If you hold like Micha that Hallel and Nirzzah are but one step then it
would make sense to say the same for motzi matza.  If you like one word pair
separet then it is likely both are separate - levaing shulchan oreich the
one exceptional word pari which is only one step.

Zissen Pesach
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

Li nir'eh a number of answers really centered around the same point.
The difference between a mitzvah that occurs at a particular time,
and a mitzvah that is about a particular time.

And azoi is the lashon, "shehazman geramah". It doesn't say any mitzvah
at a given time, but only those which the time is goreim. Geramah isn't
p'sik reishei, and it isn't the etzem davar.

-mi

From: Kenneth G Miller [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> In his Shabbos Hagadol drasha, Rav Elazar Teitz of Elizabeth said that
> matzo meal cakes CAN be eated on Erev Pesach (until 10th hour), and
> publicly cited the Shaar Hatziyun 471:16, which allows such 
> foods as long as there is no Toar Lechem.

<snip>
> It cannot be denied that there are those who do forbid such cakes. (I
> cited them in Avodah 7:5, on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:17:03 -0500.) It seems
> clear to me that the point of the machlokes lies in whether the grains of
> matza meal in such a cake have Toar Lechem or not. If one claims that
> such granules do have Toar Lechem, then it is consistent to say that they
> may not be eaten on Erev Pesach unless boiled.

I don't understand how you can say this, given the fact that whether or not
something has toar lechem is reflected in hilchos birchas hamazon--S'A
168:10.  No one I know makes hamotzi on matzah meal cake.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> (Based on a comment from Akiva Miller many moons ago, in the name of 
> his wife, that sometimes it is baal tashchis to eat food rather than 
> throw it away:)

With all due respect to RAM's wife, I heard this beshem Rav Moshe
Feinstein (that is, the concept of overeating being bal tashchis degufa).

The source is Shabbos 140a (thank you Snunit and whoever introduced me
thereto and all who helped me with the search engine). The Gemara there
says if one can eat one type of cheaper food and eats a more expensive
one, he is over on bal tashchis (the extra expense), velo hi, bal tashchis
degufa adif.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> FWIW, the simanim in an old Roeldelhim Haggadah are as follows:
> Kadesh   uRchatz
> Karpas   Yachatz
> Maggid   uRchatz (n.a. Rachzah)
>               Motzi Matza

In the edition that I have, it is "Maggid, Rachatz".  That is also how RMM 
Kasher has it in his Haggadah Sheleimah and he notes his source as Heidenheim 
(who was the publisher in Roedelheim).

Gil Student

Micha wrote:
> And azoi is the lashon, "shehazman geramah". It doesn't say any mitzvah at a 
> given time, but only those which the time is goreim. Geramah isn't p'sik 
> reishei, and it isn't the etzem davar.
     
When I was in high school, I heard suggested by R. Saul Zucker this as a sevara 
why women are mechuyeves in tefillah de'oraisa (if men are) even though it is 
time-related.  Since time isn't the gorem of the chiyuv, only something that 
regulates it, it is not a mitzvas aseh shehazeman geramah.  He said that he told
it over to RYBS who liked it.

Gil Student

In the MC the query here is longer than the resolution. I'm going to give
a little longer to reply to this one, let's say until Wed. Chol ha'Mo'ed,
at least.

One more inyana d'yoma:

The Noda b'Yehuda MK OC 20 writes that if someone who has neither sold nor
been mevatel his chometz dies Erev Pesach after Chatzos, the heirs are not
required to be meva'er that chometz, and that chometz is muttar after
Pesach, as chometz achar Shesh is not mammon that can be bequeathed. See
also MT 65.

The Mekor Chaim OC 448:9 cites the NbY and writes that he himself
disagrees, positing that any case in which, were the substance not chometz
it would have been mammono, the principle of "Shnei devartim einam
b'reshuu shel Odom v'asa'al he'Kasuv ke'illu hein b'reshuso" kicks in,
and, since were it mammono of the deceased then yerusha would pertain, it
applies vis a vis issur chometz as well and the heirs must be meva'er the
chometz.

The Chok Ya''akov 435:2 agrees with the NbY. The Mikro'ei Kodesh Pesach 59
cites the Maharal Diskin concurring with the MC.

The Hararei Kodesh there 59:9 notes a contradiction, seemingly, between
this NbY and the NbY MK #19 that uses a similar approach to that of the MC
to explain the Rambam Chometz u'Matzo Perek 1, who rules that if one
purchases chometz on Pesach than that person receives Malkos. The question
is, of course, that one cannot acquire Issurei Hano'oh. The NbY himself
answers that since vis a vis Bal Yeiro'eh the Torah regards chometz as
his as regards the issur, it is also mammon vis a vis zehiyah.

Voss Iz Der Chilluk z'vishen (between) Yerusha and Kinyan?

What derech/derachim have you employed to reach that chilluk?

Chag Kasher v'Samei'ach!

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 4 Apr 2001, at 17:42, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> When I was in high school, I heard suggested by R. Saul Zucker this as a
> sevara why women are mechuyeves in tefillah de'oraisa (if men are) even
> though it is time-related. Since time isn't the gorem of the chiyuv, only
> something that regulates it, it is not a mitzvas aseh shehazeman geramah.
> He said that he told it over to RYBS who liked it.

Would he say the same thing by limud haTorah?

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

I wrote <<< It seems clear to me that the point of the machlokes lies in
whether the grains of matza meal in such a cake have Toar Lechem or not.
If one claims that such granules do have Toar Lechem, then it is
consistent to say that they may not be eaten on Erev Pesach unless
boiled. >>>

R' Moshe Feldman writes <<< I don't understand how you can say this,
given the fact that whether or not something has toar lechem is reflected
in hilchos birchas hamazon--S'A 168:10.  No one I know makes hamotzi on
matzah meal cake. >>>

I also don't know anyone who makes hamotzi on matza meal cake, but that
could be because of the ingredients. If there's more water than others,
why not make hamotzi?

More to the point, Toar Lechem is only one of several factors which make
up determination of the bracha. I'm running out of the office at the
moment, but IIRC, (smaller than kezayis + without toar lechem + cooked)
is mezonos, while (bigger than kezayis + without toar lechem + cooked) is
hamotzi. Or something like that.

In any case, I don't see any toar lechem in matza meal myself. But then
how can we explain those who say not to eat such cake?

Akiva Miller

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Third, Toras Imecha (mimetic tradition) is that chameitz is something on
> which we are very machmir. Perhaps it's a reflection of the Ari's inyan
> which removes the shiur on bal yeira'eh. Or perhaps our acceptance of the
> frantic cleaning this entails is because we already had the attitude. In
> either case, it's minhag Yisrael that the issurei chameitz are treated
> as such.

Maybe with R. Scheinberg's piece getting spread around, this minhag Yisrael
will begin to change.    I am referring to his comment that with people
having larger and larger houses, Pesach cleaning has gotten too onerous and
reduces simchas Yom Tov and a woman's ability to participate properly in the
Seder.  

In connection with RS's argument, I note that recently, more and more people
have started going to hotels for Pesach because of the difficulty of
cleaning the entire house.  I decry this development, as it reduces the
chance of having an intergenerational gathering.  IMHO having grandparents
at the Seder is part of v'higadta l'vincha, as part of the idea of that
mitzvah is pass down the flavor of previous generations ("liros es
atzmo...").  (Also, my only Seder experience at a hotel was negative--with
all the other people reciting the haggaddah and singing at different points,
the Seder felt more like a meal.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Micha Berger wrote on Areivim (and requested we respond to Avodah)
> If you can't kasher your countertop, then why does covering it help? In
> either case, there is chameitz balu'ah in something that you clearly
> didn't sell -- because you're using it through a sheet of plastic. And if
> the chameitz is bateil, why cover it?

Your references to selling and bittul make it sound as if you are under
the impression that covering a countertop has something to do with Bal
Yiraeh UBal Yimatze. *My* impression is that it is strictly a kashrus
issue.

If you can't (or don't) kasher the countertop, then there is a very real
chashash that hot pesachdik food which falls on it will absorb the
chometz from the countertop. And this is happening during Pesach, when
bittul doesn't apply. Perhaps one can say that the chometz was already
batel to the countertop prior to Pesach, but maybe there's some kind of
chozer v'nayur going on. I don't know, taaruvos is definitely one of my
weaker points. But if you ask the typical am haaretz why he covers his
countertops, I'm pretty confident that this is a standard answer.

As for the original question, why we are not makpid the rest of the year,
I've heard the reason being that a countertop is off the stove, and so it
is at worst a kli sheni situation, which is not so terrible in kashrus
(as compared to Shabbos, at least). Personally, that answer does not
appeal to me, since it is not unusual for foods off the fire to be far
above yad soledes bo, and/or there can be an iruy kli rishon onto the
countertop. Common example: when trasferring food from the pot to a
serving utensil, some can fall onto the countertop.  But another tzad
l'hakel would be that the counter is probably not a ben yomo anymore, and
again, that's a lot easier to deal with for general kashrus than for
Pesach.

Akiva Miller

On 4 Apr 2001, at 17:03, Micha Berger wrote:
> If you can't kasher your countertop, then why does covering it help?
> In either case, there is chameitz balu'ah in something that you clearly
> didn't sell -- because you're using it through a sheet of plastic. And
> if the chameitz is bateil, why cover it?

I don't see why you're not selling the chametz balua in the counters 
the same way that you are selling the chametz balua in your pots. 
If you wanted to take out your chametzdig frying pan during the 
week and use its underside (covered of course :-) as a surface on 
which to place a pot of food, why would you not be able to do that? 

Also, I'm not sure that it matters, but most people here cover their 
countertops using an extra thick coating of aluminum foil, which is 
generally only sold around Pesach time and which you buy by 
specifying the microns of thickness that you want (I think that what 
we use to cover the counters is 300 microns thick but I would have 
to check that with she who is the expert).

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Noach Rothstein wrote:
> 3. I have observed some people who change their havoroh for davening based on
> where they are. I recall a chosid who said Birkas HaTorah in a Litvishe 
> havoroh when receiving an aliya in a Litvishe minyan, even though he normally 
> davens in a Chassidishe havoroh. Is there any heter or precedent for this? 

This is an halachic issue. I once spoke to R. Hershel Schachter about this
and most of his remarks to me are consistent with what he subsequently
wrote in Nefesh HaRav. He said (in the name of RYBS) that speaking Hebrew
in another havarah is like speaking in another language. There is nothing
wrong with davening in another language. Quite the opposite, one should
not publicly deviate from a shul's minhag. My case was a Syrian shul. He
told me that if I were to get an aliyah I should say the berachos with
a Syrian havarah (as best as I could) with the following exception.

Names cannot be translated. Therefore, names like Hashem's name, Avrohom,
Yitzchok, etc. should be pronounced in one's own nusach. The Chazon Ish
held that no matter what Hashem's name should be pronounced in one's own
nusach. That is why there are many Religous Zionist types who speak in
Modern Hebrew but say Hashem's name in Ashkenazis. RYBS felt that all
names should be pronounced like that.

Gil Student

<<<<R. Seth Mandel wrote......

c) t'vila 'al pi qabbolo. Does not accomplish halakhic taharo;
accomplishes spriitual taharo, and each dipping, if accompanied by the
right kavvono, can add a different aspect of spiritual taharo (called
tosfos q'dusho and taharo). Practiced by m'qubbolim and hasidim.

The only question is how did some hasidim get confused and connect c)
above with t'vilas Ezra? >>>>

perhaps because of bichlal mosayim moneh-- because going to mikvah every
day includes tvilas Ezra and also adds an inyan of tznius, so noone else
need know which day tvilas Ezra applies.

Regarding tvila on Shabbos, MB 326:24 brings that most Acharonim permit
tvila for baal keri, and in Biur Halacha D"H Adam also for tosefes
k'dusha. A hot mikva on Shabbos is a problem-- The Tchibiner Rav, a
leading chasidic poseik in Israel in the 1950's personally didn't go to
a fully heated mikvah on Shabbos, but most chasidic poskim are meikil for
various reasons, and many places are careful not to fully heat the mikvah.
Isn't a hot mikva a problem for women's tvila too?

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

R. Chasdai Crescas was *only* the talmid of the RAN and the rav muvhak
of R. Yosef Chaviva (Ninukei Yosef).

*only being used sarcastically

[In a second email... -mi]

Look at the mavo of the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava kamma, 2nd page, 1st
column, 2/3 of the way down and see how the Ibn Ezra is described:
"min v'apikorsus". Look at how he is ridiculed by the Baalei Tosfot"
Rosh Hashana 13a d"h d'akrivu; Taanit 20b d"h b'hachinto; Kiddushin
37b d"h Mi'mocharat hashabbat.

No great *glick* :-)

Josh

>                Does contemporaneity invest all members of a generation
> with an equivalent halakhic authority...
> R. crescas to fall, barely, within the rishonic period, that's only because
> he was a sefaradi and we would want to acknowledge the nimuqei yosef,
> rivash, and rashbetz as rishonim even in the early 1400s.
>                                ... As for Abarbanel, even considering
> the more extended sefaradi rishonic period, and the fact that he may
> have been barely born while the last of the sefaradi rishonim were yet
> living, he is an acharon. However, not having left a body of talmudic
> or halokhic work, his position vis a vis contemporaries may 
> be somewhat analogous to the ibn ezra's to his.

The question of defining rishonim and acharonim is difficult. First of
all, even art scroll -), agrees that the time line for ashkenazim and
sefardim is different. There is a strange comment in Nefesh haRav, that
I never understood, that R. Karo was a rishon and R. Isserles an acharon.

First we must understand the difference between rishonim and acharonim and
who defines them. It is far from clear that an acharon cannot disagree
with a rishon except for general custom and we know of achranom who
did disagree. Second not all rishonim (or for that matter achronim)
are equal. Thus, it is easier to disagree with the Meiri then with Rambam.

I seem to recall a Radvaz who did not consider himself an achron (that
terminilogy did not exist in his day) nevertheless says he can disagree
with later generations but not earlier ones. So he would not disagree
with Rambam but would disagree with R. Crescas. I am not sure today we
would distinguish between Rambam and Ran or Numukei Yosef or the Rivash.

I am not sure I agree with the remarks about Ibn Ezra. Do we really
treat him differently than the perush of other rishonim on Torah. I am
not convinced that someone who would easily argue with Ibn Ezra would
treat Rashbam any different even though Rashbam was a talmudic scholar.

Eli Turkel

> I heard Nehama Leibowitz A"H quote the Abarbanel as inserting question
> marks to explain Psukim that he found difficult....

This can be quite dangerous.
There are loads of jokes based on inserting question marks into Shulchan
Arukh.
Basically any halakhah can be negated by saying it was a question rather
than a statement.

Eli Turkel

I don't know how to classify this. I think I heard it from a Brisker,
but it does not seem Brisker to me.

The machlokes is what it means by "asa'an hakasuv ke'ilu hen birshuso".
The gemara notes that a person cannot have ba'alus on something that is
assur behana'ah but, if that is the case, how is it ever possible to be
over on bal yimatzeh? According to the Nesivos, the gemara answers that
despite the general rule that a person can not have ba'alus on something
assur behana'ah, the Torah here made an exception so that one can be
over on bal yimatzeh. Therefore, the deceased owned the chametz and it
fell biyerushah.

According to the NbY, this is not an exception to the general rule.
Rather, the issur is such that one does not have to have actual ba'alus in
order to be over. It only has to be "ke'ilu" one has ba'alus. Therefore,
the deceased did not own the chametz and it never fell biyerushah.

Gil Student

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
>> IIRC there is a diyuk in the Rambam to eat seudah sh'lishis after Mincha.

> Specifics, please. 

See Rambam Hil. Shabbos 30:10, where he describes the ideal order for doing
things on Shabbos and says that one davens Mincha and then eats.  It
certainly doesn't seem l'ikuvah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:52:31 -0400 "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
writes:
<< See Rambam Hil. Shabbos 30:10, where he describes the ideal order for
doing things on Shabbos and says that one davens Mincha and then eats. >>

Rav Dovid Cohen said in his Shabbos Hagadol derasha that this means
zeman mincha. (He did not reference the Rambam specifically.) Once in
the zman mincha, davening first is probably better than the reverse.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R. Mechy Frankel questioned whether R. Chasdai Crescas and R. Yitzchak
Abarbanel can be considered Rishonim. His seminal post on the matter on
Mail-Jewish <http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i48.html#COF>
was mainly to argue that the Beis Yosef was not a rishon and to argue
that the period of rishonim in Ashkenaz ended in the mid-1300s with the
black plague and the ensuing upheaval. I'm not willing to argue on these
two points.

However, the end of the period of rishonim in Sefarad seems to me to be
at the time of the exile from Spain and its great upheaval, essentially
at the turn of the 16th century. If that is the case, then the Abarbanel
(51 years older than the Beis Yosef) is a transitionary figure, having
been a talmid chacham both before and after the exile. What to me brings
him into the era of rishonim is his style. The Tur and the Beis Yosef
quote the opinions of rishonim and generally are machria between them.
The Abarbanel, however (granted, in a different subject-matter), brings
opinions of rishonim and debates these opinions, frequently offering his
own opinion. That, and his transitionary status, seems to make him into
a rishon.

R. Chasdai Crescas was one of the poskei hador of his generation. He took
over the Rivash's position when the latter moved to Algiers, and those
two frequently consulted with each other on halachic matters. The fact
that very few of RCC's teshuvos survived to be quoted is perhaps more
indicative of the great upheaval that happened during his mid-life, and
his subsequent pre-occupation with defending his faith against missionary
and philosophic onslaught, than his lack of halachic competence.

Regarding the dismissal of Ibn Ezra's views by some, the same is done
to the Ralbag and no one disputes his being a rishon. This dismissal is
due to other, "frumkeit"-related reasons.

Gil Student

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]