Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 51

Sun, 03 Apr 2011

• 1. Rosh Chodesh bentching controversies - Just in time for this Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 2. diet coke (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Diet Coke (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Diet Coke (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 5. Re: Diet Coke (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Diet Coke (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 7. Re: How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Something's Not Kosher at the Matzah Bakery (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Women and Tallis (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: diet coke (Akiva Blum)
• 13. Re: Something's Not Kosher at the Matzah Bakery (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Rosh Chodesh bentching controversies - Just in time for this Shabbos (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Re: Women and Tallis (Allan Engel)
• 16. Re: Rosh Chodesh bentching controversies - Just in time for this Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: diet coke (Zev Sero)

Please see http://tinyurl.com/3q9xw9d

<<Sucralose (including the brand name "Splenda"), and aspartame (such as
"Equal") are generally made from corn syrup.

So, if:

1- Your variant of the minhag includes categories, not species (so that
  corn is included despite not being known by Ashkenazim when the minhag
  started), and
2- you are noheig to avoid mei qitniyos (which seems to be implied by
  the Rama), then the two leading artificial sweeteners are out.>>

As the article from Prof. Stevens indicated the question is kitniyot
nenishtanu.
The corn is not made directly into oil and has undergone many changes
until it is aspartame. Furthermore it is is certainly batel.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110401/f5d7dfa0/attachment-0001.htm>

At 09:56 AM 4/1/2011, R. Saul Z. Newman wrote:

>here is  COR [toronto] ---   The following products contain kitniyos and
>are for
>use only by the Sephardic Community. These items
>bear the distinctive Passover symbol displayed below.
>Diet Coke
>
>in fact  they observe---
>COR KITNIYOS POLICY
>The policy of the COR for Kosher L?Pesach
>products which contain kitniyos or kitniyos
>shanishtana is to use a distinctive label indicating
>?Kosher for Sephardim only for Passover?.
>The following organizations do not use kitniyos
>shanishtana: KOF-K; KAJ (only the Migdal and
>HaOlam retail labels); Star-K; CRC (Hisachdus
>Harabonim); MK; OK (except as indicated on
>product labels); and products supervised by the
>Nirbater Rav and the Volover Rav.
>Some of those that do allow its use include the CRC
>(Chicago) and the OU (Orthodox Union). [emphasis mine]
>
>yet  KAJ  accepts it ---via  thier   product guide----
The Star-K 2006 Passover directory listed Diet Coke as being fine for 
Pesach. See http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/pesach_directory.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110401/f17739ad/attachment-0001.htm>

from the 2011 online  starK guide--  1= kitnityot shenishtanu 
http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/star-k11_pesach_directory.pdf 


page 51-------

... ?kitniyos shenishtanu?,  kitniyos that have been transformed into a 
new 
product. h ese converted food grade ingredients include citric acid and 
ascorbic acid 
(that have wide food applications), NutraSweet sweetener, ....
Th ere are divergent opinions amongst poskim regarding kitniyos 
shenishtanu. Some 
poskim say these processes have altered the corn out of a state of 
kitniyos into a neutral 
product. Other poskim remain ? rm and maintain that these products still 
retain their 
kitniyos status in spite of the conversions.


page 53-----

 Products bearing a Star-K P on the label do not contain kitniyos 
shenishtanu (kitniyos that have been manufactured and transformed into a 
new product)
Anise
2
Cumin
2
Nutra Sweet
1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110401/00ee21b4/attachment-0001.htm>

The article about Kitniyos was written by Rabbi Tzvi Rosen, Editor 
Kashrus Kurrents, who took two years of high school math with me back 
in the late sixties when I taught math at the Yeshiva High School of 
Greater Washington while working on my PhD thesis. Of course, then he 
was Harry Rosen! YL

At 12:20 PM 4/1/2011, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:

>from the 2011 online  starK guide--  1= kitnityot shenishtanu
><http
>://www.star-k.org/kashrus/star-k11_pesach_directory.pdf>http
>://www.star-k.org/kashrus/star-k11_pesach_directory.pdf 
>
>
>
>page 51-------
>
>... "kitniyos shenishtanu",  kitniyos that have been transformed into a new
>product. h ese converted food grade ingredients include citric acid 
>and ascorbic acid
>(that have wide food applications), NutraSweet sweetener, ....
>Th ere are divergent opinions amongst poskim regarding kitniyos 
>shenishtanu. Some
>poskim say these processes have altered the corn out of a state of 
>kitniyos into a neutral
>product. Other poskim remain rm and maintain that these products 
>still retain their
>kitniyos status in spite of the conversions.
>
>
>page 53-----
>
>  Products bearing a Star-K P on the label do not contain kitniyos
>shenishtanu (kitniyos that have been manufactured and transformed into a
>new product)
>Anise
>2
>Cumin
>2
>Nutra Sweet
>1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110401/c0274a92/attachment-0001.htm>

rechecking the starK guide,
they list  for baltimore  acceptable---


Coca Cola KFP (?OUP? on bottlecap)
Classic Coke
 Diet Coke

--- so either  pesach  diet coke uses  something other than aspartame; or 
the guide is self-contradictory.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110401/d0a94e16/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/04/2011 9:06 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> PS: I had thought that the solution might lie in Mishna Rosh Hashana
> 1:1, which says that the years for kings are counted from Nisan.
> According to this, if a king took office in Tammuz and died the
> following Teves, that would count as only one year, even though it
> spans two calendar years. And if he took office in Teves and died in
> Tammuz, it would count as two (partial) years, even though his reign
> only lasted about a half-year. However, this is NOT relevant to any of
> the above, according to ArtScroll Mishnah Rosh Hashana page 13, which
> says that Nisan marks the year only for Jewish kings -- non-Jewish
> kings count their years from Tishrei.

Is it possible that Bavli kings counted their years from Tishri and
Persian ones from Nissan, or vice versa?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 02:17:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Is it possible that Bavli kings counted their years from Tishri and
: Persian ones from Nissan, or vice versa?

RH 1:1 tells us to go with RZS's "visa versa": Rosh Chodesh Nissan is RH
for our kings, Tishrei is for theirs.

I suggested a variant of this back when the discussion began. I wrote:
>                                                     ... Adar is between
> Tishrei and Nissan, and thus between the time N's reign year-count gets
> incremented and Yehoyachin's. Could that be relevant?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 1/04/2011 4:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 02:17:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Is it possible that Bavli kings counted their years from Tishri and
> : Persian ones from Nissan, or vice versa?
>
> RH 1:1 tells us to go with RZS's "visa versa": Rosh Chodesh Nissan is RH
> for our kings, Tishrei is for theirs.

Bavlim and Persians are both "theirs".  I'm suggesting that they didn't
have the same custom.




-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:01:09PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Surely minhag hatagarim is by definition valid; so long as everyone's
> expectations are on the same page, because they're all participants in
> the same economy with the same practises, there should be no issur,
> de'oraisa or derabanan.

> Postponing the usual payday, as in the story, certainly seems to be a
> problem; since by definition it's a change from what the workers have
> been told and have expected and relied on...

Which is the definition of lo solin, so as you note, there is no
violation.

As a matter of theory, though, is it an issue of minhag hatagarim? I
thought that a way to have qinyanim that are not of one of the halachic
forms, and therefore wouldn't be related to  lo solin.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:15:54PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> :            Ha-Rav Soloveitchik said: "For three months, you have been
> : wearing a garment without any religious or halachic value, it is thus
> : clear that your feeling comes from a source outside of the Mitzvah", and
he
> : didnot grant her permission to wear a Talit).

And RMB replied:

> This is part of RYBS's general position about the relationship between
> halakhah and following the Torah. One that I believe is distinctly
> Brisk.

...

> Why is this woman wanting to do something that makes her feel connected
> to the Borei valueless just because it is non-halachic? 

I see the value in your criticism, but I have an even more fundamental
question.  Why, even within a Brisk "halachic" world view is this not
something that can be justified within a halachic analysis?

Chagiga 16b
Rabbi Yosi says Abba Elazar told me that once we had a calf of an offering,
and we brought it to the women's courtyard and the women leant on it, not
because leaning is obligatory for women but in order to give "nachat ruach"
to the women.  And if you would think that one needs leaning with all one's
strength because of nachat ruach for the women would we [allow them to do]
work with kodshim?  Rather, derive from this that we do not need with all
one's strength - no, I can say to that we do need with all one's strength,
and they said to them float your hands [ie they told the women not to do
leaning with all their strength, even though that is what the men were
doing]  - if so, [it was not necessary to explain that] it was not because
of leaning for women.  Let him [Rabbi Abba Elazar], explain that they did
not do leaning at all.  Rav Ami said, one and another thing, one, that they
did not do leaning at all and further, it was done to give nachat ruach to
women.

Now there are various ways the rishonim explain what is going on here.
Ra'avid (beginning of Toras Kohanim) says that when women brought their own
korbanos they did and could do the full leaning, and what the gemora in
Chagiga here is describing when refers to getting women to float their hands
over the korban and not do the full leaning was in circumstances where they
did not actually have a portion in the korban (like if it was paid for and
brought by their husbands).  

Tosphos however suggests that all women were encouraged to only float their
hands and not do the full leaning.

Tosphot Chullin 85a
Women may lean: - this is to float their hands like that which is said in
bain dorshin (Chagiga 16b) but with all their strength Rabbi Yosi agrees
that it is prohibited and [it can be asked here] how can Rabbi Yosi permit
women to lean by floating their hands even though it would seem like they
are doing work on kodshim [a rabbinic prohibition] and here also to blow
[shofar] there is only a prohibition that is rabbinic and Rabbi Yosi permits
this for women.

That is, according to Tosphos, if women are not obligated in something, they
are prohibited from doing it if it would mean that thereby they would
violate an issur d'orisa, but that if they would only violate an issur
d'rabbanan, then it is permitted.  Floating the hands is only an issur
d'rabbanan and hence was permitted to give nachat ruach to women.

But regardless of whether you take the Ra'avid's approach (which seems also
to be Rashi, as he seems to suggest that women could do the full fledged
leaning) or Tosphos' - there were clearly some circumstances (whether it was
when the women in question had no portion in the korban, or all women), when
the chachamim allowed women to do something (floating the hands) which
clearly had no "religious or halachic value" in order to give nachas ruach
d'nashim.

That is, given the accepted halachic position that real smicha involves
leaning with all one's strength, floating one's hands is merely imitative
nonsense - making it look like one is doing smicha (and hence, according to
Tosphos, violating a rabbinic prohibition) when in reality one is not.

How does that differ from the woman and the tallis case?  What she did
(actually what RYBS apparently suggested she do) was do something that
imitated what the men were doing without actually constituting the mitzvah.
And when the woman reported back to him that she had indeed had nachas ruach
- as one would expect given the gemora in Chagiga, how can RYBS then throw
that back at her?  Is it not tantamount to rejecting the halachic legitimacy
of what was done by Chazal as documented in Chagiga?

> That said, I see value to R' Aviner's observation about yuhara. 

The question about yuhura and tallis is a bit deeper than just R' Aviner's
observation.

It is actually a Rema in OC 17:2.  But it is also important to quote all of
the Rema, as he explains there why in the case of tzitzit is different
stating *hoil v'aino chovot gavra perush sheino chayav liknot lo talit kedei
shechayav b'tzitzit*.

The point being that tzitzis is only a mitzvah kiyumis - a man is not
required to wear tzitzis, only if he wants to wear a four cornered garment
must he put tzitzis on.  And for many times during our history it is not
clear that anybody except the pious wore tzitzis (yes, today, three year old
boys are required by their schools to wear tzitzis, but this seems to be a
new fangled custom, certainly amongst many communities).  For a woman to
take on a mitzvah that only the pious were doing raised issues of yehura -
if you look at the general discussions of yehura in other contexts, they
mostly centre on any (male) Tom or Yankel taking on actions that are
specified as only being for talmidei chachamim and the like.    Tzitzis may
originally be a mitzvah kiyumis, but today by minhag it has the status of a
mitzvah chiyuvis.  Once could debate whether, in a world whether every three
year old boy who is barely toilet trained is putting on tzitzis, the Rema's
concern remains or applies.

It's
> for this reason that when I first got ahold of murex dyed strings,
> my father only wore them on his tallis qatan, not on display. (My own
> tallis qatan's strings /are/ on display...)

It seems to me that your father's concern is therefore justified, given the
Rema in question.  You technically don't have to get yourself into the
problem as this is only a mitzvah kiyumis anyway.  And the fact that I
suspect you do feel you need to get into the question and do not take a
standard modern approach (found on most other topics except this one) of
avoiding all questions of machlokus on the subject by never wearing a
garment that needs tzitzis, speaks to the fact that today, tzitzis is not
really regarded as just a mitzvah kiyumis.

 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Shavuah tov

Chana

 


  _____  

From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Eli Turkel
Sent: Friday 01 April 2011 6:13 PM



As the article from Prof. Stevens indicated the question is kitniyot nenishtanu.
The corn is not made directly into oil and has undergone many changes
until it is aspartame. Furthermore it is is certainly batel.

 
Since a sweetener is made for taste, it is most certainly not batel in any quantity.
 
Akiva 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110403/3bef830a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/04/2011 5:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> As a matter of theory, though, is it an issue of minhag hatagarim? I
> thought that [was] a way to have qinyanim that are not of one of the
> halachic forms, and therefore wouldn't be related to  lo solin.

AIUI "minhag hatagorim" is a consequence of "kol tnai shebemomon kayom".
Merchant Law is considered to be a "tnai" agreed on by all participants,
and therefore valid.  Non-halachic kinyonim would merely be one application
of that principle.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

I looked at four different siddurim:

Rinat Yisrael has only the expanded version.
Koren has the expanded version and a note that in ROW one says the original 
version.
Beit Tefilah has the original version and note that yesh omrim the expanded 
version.
Ateret Yerushalayim has the expanded version and a note that according to 
the Chazon Ish one says the original version. Therefore the blog's reference 
to that shul in Bnei Brak makes sense.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>


> Please see http://tinyurl.com/3q9xw9d
> 

If Yuhara is the problem, why could a woman not wear arba kanfos below outer
clothes, as most men do?

This does throw up a separate question that I have wondered about, what
exactly is the significance of a tallis, especially in an era where men
routinely wear tzitzis? I appreciate that one can only do 'atifa with a full
tallis, and that therefore they have different brochos, but surely that is a
post-facto distinction?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110403/33babf79/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL will be happy to know that Lubavitch says neither Tfilas Rav nor the
expanded "Yechadsheihu".

Meanwhile, since we're on the subject, the Italian nusach for birkat
hachodesh includes this formula: "Kach gazru rabbotenu hamechubadim,
shenachriz bifnei hakahal hakadosh hazeh, sheyihyu yod'im gedolim
uktanim sheyesh lanu rosh chodesh Nissan becheshbon rabbotenu bayom
hashelishi."  Note the explicit reference to Chazal and the calculated
calendar; I wonder whether this was lehozi miliban of the Karaim.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 2/04/2011 5:11 PM, Akiva Blum wrote:

> Since a sweetener is made for taste, it is most certainly not batel in any quantity.

Why not?  Kitniyos is batel berov, not beshishim, so why should taam
be an issue?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 51
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."