Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 039

Saturday, September 5 1998

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:44:32 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com

Can one respond to ones own thread? A further complication(ok so I'm finally a
bit ahead on the daf :-)) can be found in pesachim on 21b where the gemora
says 'Lo tzarich kra, svara he' which implies wouldn't have both.

shabbat shalom, ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

In a message dated 98-09-04 09:29:06 EDT, you write:

 I'd like to expand the question to include why chazal felt the need to
 sometimes say I can either prove the point by a pasuk or by svara. Shouldn't
 the pasuk be final and more authoratative?
 Ktiva vchatima tova
 Joel Rich
  >This begs the question of why chazal felt the need to prove physically
  >observable facts from pasukim. Why were the pasukim added proof more than
  >what everyone knew and could clearly see.

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:34:16 +0300
From: "Avraham (avi) and pnina parnes" <avparnes@internet-zahav.net>
Hagomel for ktanim

A child of ours recently needed a sudden urgent operation. Boruch
Hashem  everything is okay and he is back running around after only a
couple of days.
I was very surprised to find out that a Katan does not say Hagomel and
nor does his parent say it for him. I felt somewhat "cheated" at not
being able to thank Hakodosh Boruch Hu in the fashion that is normally
done. Looking into the subject, the only reason I found in the Poskim
was that a Katan can not say "Hagomel Lechayavim etc." because as he is
not yet chayav in Mitzvot so he is not to be considered a choteh who
caused his near misfortune through averot. Since many Poskim explain
that chayavim in the Bracha is talking about chayavim dealma and not
specifically the one saying the bracha this reason is not  universal.Has
anyone hseen other reasons? why does the MB say that there is even no
din chinuch in this(219 sk 3). Even if the nussach of the bracha is a
problem (and as mentioned not everyone agrees) why is there no need to
give chinuch to say or do something else on a fundamental inyan of
hakarat hatov especially towards Hashem? Already in the Gemara there is
a heter to say Hagomel in different words so that the problem of matbeah
shetovu etc is not a big problem.(Brachot nun dalet bet and brought
lehalacha in oh 219). 
At the Seudat Hodaya that we made as a way of thanking Hashem I said al
derech hadrush that since "shomer ptaim Hashem" any nes regarding
children would fall into the category of a nes that is part of life and
not something special so there is no need for Hagomel. (The Aruch
Hashulchan in oh 219 speaks about three kinds of nissim and I am
considering a nes to a child as the type that doesn"t need either birkat
hanes or hagomel). As I said I feel that this is Derech drush and am
still bothered by the questions especially of why there is no din
I would appreciate your thoughts comments or sources.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 00:05:57 +0300
From: "Avraham (avi) and pnina parnes" <avparnes@internet-zahav.net>

I think that proof for Micha's idea about psak and svara being dependent
on how a person is approached , can  be found in the sugya of moreh
halacha befnay rabbo. the Gemara in Eruvin 62b says that Rav Chisda
would not answer about beyata becutcha while rav Huna was alive.
Obviously this falls under the category of not being a problem at all
but Rav Chisda still would not answer it because of horaah - he was
asked as a competent posek/ Had he been asked as a friend who has more
knowledge he might have answered.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 00:20:07 +0300
From: "Avraham (avi) and pnina parnes" <avparnes@internet-zahav.net>
Kal Vachomer

> I was taught that the
> reason for ein onshin was because the onesh for a particular aveira is also a
> kappara and thus when we apply a kal vachomer, while we know the chomer can't
> be done , we're unsure as to the proper punishment qua kappara and therefore
> don't punish. As with many things I was taught , I have no recollection of
> source so take this with a grain of salt:-)
The source might have been the Sugya in Makot 5b about aidem zomimim who
are Patur when they have caused a person to be killed. The Gemara asks
that it should be a Kal Vachomer. I remember hearing a Shiur that
explained what seems illogical by the Gemara on 2b that they are not
punished so as not to give them Kappara because even Mitat bet din is
not enough for their Kappara.

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 00:27:47 +0300
From: "Avraham (avi) and pnina parnes" <avparnes@internet-zahav.net>
svara / kra

The Gemara in Psachim might be bringing the Pasuk and meimra to identify
the definition of avuka and not as "proof" that it is better than ner.
Once we know what an avuka is, obviously we can see that it has more
light.(The proof from Havdala can be explained the same way - it is a
mitzva done weekly and people know what kind of fire is used for it. The
Gemara brings Rava to say that the fire used in Havdala is called

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:11:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Re: More on melba toast and maybe bagel chips

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Lawrence M. Reisman wrote:

>     1. It is baked with a filling (example would be pizza, but beware the
> Chicago style, and even some others with very little sauce and cheeze).

One of the antecedents of this august list was the "pizza war" - quite a
blood (or, maybe it was really tomato sauce!) bath. Many of us (myself
included) are firmly of the opinion of that the bracha on pizza is hamotzi
>     Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is
> made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel
> chips, the beracha would be mezonos.  However, if the bread was purchased
> from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread,
> then the beracha would be hamotzi.

I have been mulling this over, and have come to believe there is a
distinction between bagel chips and melba toast. Part of the essential
character of bagel chips is their origin in a bagel. They, as part of the
"etzem cheftza" and "chalos shem" of bagel chips, must have been *bagels*
at some point. They are, therefroe, in my opinion, like any other "pas"
that is rebaked, and do not lose their "chalos shem pas."

Melba toast is different. It is not meant to be true bread and was never
meant that way. It had no interim "chalos shem pas." It may, therefore, be


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

< Previous Next >