Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 017

Friday, April 13 2001

• RE: matzo mehl rolls
• Re: cleaning house
• Re: Covering counter tops on Pesach
• Re: Achilas Kodshim
• Re: Achilas Kodshim
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh
• Re: Who and What Were Rishonim
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh
• Re: Chumros on Pesach - Hotels
• Re: Chumros on Pesach - Hotels
• RE: matzo mehl rolls
• chametz balua
• RE: Some Questions About Havoroh
• Vos iz--Brisker
• Re: Avodah V7 #16- Nechama Leibowitz on Abarbanel
• Erev Pesach B'Shabbos
• This Week's VIDC - Extension
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64
• agrippa
• Re: Kula shopping
• Re: Kula shopping
• Re: Kula shopping
• RE: Kula shopping
• Re: Kula shopping
• RE: Kula shopping
• RE: Kula shopping
• Re: Rashi and Avodah Zarah
• Re: Kula Shopping

From: Feldman, Mark 
> I don't think that losing toar lechem requires mixture with lots of honey &
> fats.  The fact is that kichel & pretzels are mezonos, based on the view
> that mezonos includes k'achin she'kos'sin oson b'vais hamishteh.  So if
> matzo meal is used to make pretzels or kichel, the bracha would be mezonos.

Here's a puzzle: how about baking matzo meal "bread"?  It would not have
toar matzah (compare to the case where matzah meal was made into
pretzels)--for example, you could not be yotzay matzos mitzvah with it.  But
it would be hamotzi--not because of the matzah that it once was, but because
of the "bread" that it is now.  Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing MB 168:50. It seems clear from the MB there that both of
your points are not correct. Ayin Sham. Also, pretzels are made with raw
flour. Here we are talking about using crushed matzah.

On 5 Apr 01, at 17:37, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I wasn't clear on the connection of going to hotels and cleaning.
> I thought it was more to avoid making a seder.

> At least one rabbi I know said that if one sells his entire home to
> avoid bedkat chametz then he has to tovel all the dishes after Pesach.

> Is that universally accepted?

Not that I know of. 

OTOH the standard shtar mechira here always includes Mechiras 
Yud Gimmel (this year Yud Beis) for places where you do not plan 
to go during the Chag and do not want to have to check. 

-- Carl

Finally got around to looking this up. See Shulchan Aruch OC 251:20 and
in the nosei keilim, particularly the Chok Ya'akov. It was evidently
once the minhag to both kasher the countertops and cover them. I don't
think that is done anymore.

Gil Student

From: S. Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> My point, and I think you agree ...  , is that under non-mitzvah
> circumstances, the cohen would skip such delicacies.  It seems that the
> mitzva of eating, like other mitzvos (Minchas Chinuch on Milchemes Mitzva)
> requires a certain physical stress on the body's systems.

While on a theoretical level we agree (that performing the mitzvah of
achilas kodshim would be required even if it injures one's health), on a
practical level we disagree.  Achilas kodshim requires just a k'zayis.  That
is not deleterious to one's health.  Eating a lot meat to avoid nosar would
be unhealthy, and therefore, I claim, not required.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I see that some people didn't read my post on "fat Cohanim" in AREIVIM.
The source is a Mishna in Shekalim 5:1 which mentioned that Ben Achiya was
"memuna al cholei ha'me'ayim". The Yerushalmi in Shekalim 21b explains the
reason: "she'hayu ha'kohanim mehalchin yecheifin al haritzpa v'hayu ochlin
basar v'shotin mayim, hayu ba'in lidei cholei ha'mei'ayim".

Notice that its's eating meat and not [as the Rambam Hilchot Klei
Hamikdash 7:14) writes: mipnei she'hayu omdin al haritzpa tamid,
v'ochlin basar HARBEH [caps mine] v'ein aleyhen begadim b'sh'aat havodah
elah chaluk echad, heym cholin b'mei'eihen".

There's only one problem: neither eating too much meat [look at the
Argentinians who eat 3 steaks a day] nor walking on cold tiles causes
gastrointestinal disorders. [As I posted on AREIVIM: I was medical
consultant to a major health spa in Jerusalem and from the literature
in physical medicine and neuroimmunology, cold per se does not cause
the flu or rheumatic or gastrointestinal disease. Nor does eating too
much meat cause gastrointestinal disorder, especially as the Kohanim also
ate other foods. (I have publishe din: GUT, J Clinical Gastroenterology
and Am J Gastroenterology].

However, the pshat may be in the Yerushalmi itself; "V'shotim MAYIM". The
next line in the Yerushalmi Shekalim 21b was explaining the next phrase
in the Mishna re; Nechunya Chofer Sichin". He had to dig wells to find
*good* water. There are two possibilities (one I raised in my post in
AREIVIM): the Kohanim get gastrointestinal disorder because of the [poor
quality or infected] water they drank [my guess would be Helicobacter
pylorii infection with gastroparesis] or endocrine effects of water
intoxication or simply drinking water too fast which can significantly
raise systolic blood pressure and affect venous return [which is a problem
if one is, as the Rambam writes, "omdin al haritzpa TAMID"] (See:
Circulation 2000;101:504).

Josh

On 5 Apr 01, at 22:59, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> The matter becomes more complex in a shul which has departed from its 
> parents' minhag - say Ashkenazim who have begun to pray with havara 
> Sefaradit.  I know at least one talmid hakham who, in such a shul, will 
> pray from the amud with havara Ashkenazit, while from the amud in a 
> Sefaradi shul he prays with havara Sefaradit (or his best approximation 
> thereof).

How many generations do you go back with this? It seems to me that if you
trace back 2-3 generations, you will find that nearly every shul in Israel
which is not Eidot HaMizrach should be davening in Havara Ashkenazis
and if that's the case, you can daven from the amud accordingly.

But if I do that, what happens to the inyan of the shatz being mekubal
on the tzibur? Will a tzibur of Israelis who have davened in havara
Sfardit for the past 50 years accept a shliach tzibur who davens in
Litvish Ashkenazis? Maybe and maybe not. I have seen shuls which were
quite makpid (one shul which had in its bylaws that you could not daven
in Havara Sfardit from the amud, although you could daven Nusach Sfard
from the amud during the week), and shuls which are not makpid at all
(the baal korei leins in Ashkenazis, most of the tzibur davens in Sfardit,
and the Nusach depends on the Shaliach Tzibur - BTW both of these shuls
are within about 200 meters of each other).

The point is that I think that the inyan of the shatz being mekubal on
the tzibur has to take precedence over your personal preference for how
you say the words of Chazoras HaShatz. After all, you are the Shaliach
of the Tzibur.

> The Chazon Ish held that no matter what Hashem's name should be pronounced
> in one's own nusach.

> My understanding of what the Hazon Ish said was that even Sefaradim should 
> pronounce shem Hashem as do the Ashkenazim.  Have you a source?

I suspect this is because the meaning would change depending on 
whether the final vowel in Adnus is pronounced as a komatz or a 
patach. But this isn't a question of preference or minhag - it's a 
question of changing the meaning of the word.

-- Carl

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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

RMBerger writes: <I think R' Mechy Frankel's surprise that this is the
opinion of the hamon am, as opposed to the scholarly position of Ta-Shma,
is because..>

it is friday erev pesach and i still have to take a work break and so
shall defer for another day, perhaps - had not really wanted to re-engage
on this topic - to some of the suggestions made on this thread. however,
one quick correction. i do not believe i ever asserted what prof ta'shma's
position was l'gabbei temporal boundaries. indeed i have no idea what
it is. i believe i once commended to the readership a ta shma article
on the interesting evolution of the concept of halochoh k'basroi which
is in fact a quite different matter, though there are clearly those (myself
not among them) to whom it is not completely orthogonal to nidone didon.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com		H:  (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

Ira Jacobson wrote:
> The Chazon Ish held that no matter what Hashem's name should be pronounced 
> in one's own nusach.

> My understanding of what the Hazon Ish said was that even Sefaradim should 
> pronounce shem Hashem as do the Ashkenazim.  Have you a source?

I never saw the Chazon Ish inside. I'm just reporting what R. Hershel
Schachter told me in a private conversation. What he also told, and I
subsequently saw inside, is that R. Moshe Shternbuch in his peirush al
haTorah (IIRC Tuv Ta'am VaDa'as) says the above, that even Sefaradim
should pronounce the shem adnus like Ashkenazim. He brought a Rabbeinu
Bachya as a proof.

Gil Student

At 09:20 AM 4/6/01 -0500, "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com> wrote:
>I would say going to a hotel all depends.  If by reducing the pre-Pesach
>preparations it produces a more pleasant Pesach experience - why should that
>be less Simchas YomTov than buying a new dress etc.?  OTOH, if the hotel
>experience is "alienating" and thereby reduces the Simchas YomTov maybe it's
>not such a good idea after all.

This ignores a minhag amoung many chassidim to not eat anywhere except in 
their own house (or their parents or inlaws.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> This ignores a minhag amoung many chassidim to not eat anywhere except
> in their own house (or their parents or inlaws.) 
> 

Raises an interesting question:

What defines a practice as minhag? Common and widespread as a practice
might be, I do not think that necessarily grants it "kedushas minhag".

KT,
YGB

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

From: Feldman, Mark 
>> I don't think that losing toar lechem requires mixture with lots of honey &
>> fats.  The fact is that kichel & pretzels are mezonos, based on the view
>> that mezonos includes k'achin she'kos'sin oson b'vais hamishteh.  So if
>> matzo meal is used to make pretzels or kichel, the bracha would be mezonos.

From: Markowitz, Chaim [mailto:CMarkowitz@scor.com]
> Here's a puzzle: how about baking matzo meal "bread"?  It would not have
> toar matzah (compare to the case where matzah meal was made into
> pretzels)--for example, you could not be yotzay matzos mitzvah with it.  But
> it would be hamotzi--not because of the matzah that it once was, but because
> of the "bread" that it is now.  Am I missing something?

> Yes you are missing MB 168:50. It seems clear from the MB there that both of
> your points are not correct. Ayin Sham. Also, pretzels are made with raw
> flour. Here we are talking about using crushed matzah.

MB 168:50 has no bearing on my first point.  I think you must have meant MB
168:59.

Based on a conversation this morning with REMT, I retract point #2 because
that case would yield matzah with which one could be yotzei his chiyuv
matzas mitzvah.  My new query: what if you had a majority of water and a
minority of sweetner--that would be considered lechem/hamotzi (for
Ashkenazim), but perhaps you could eat it on Erev Pesach because it's not
lechem oni.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

RMF>I don't understand why you should sell the chametz balua in the pots.
RMF>There is certainly no bal yeira'eh bal yimatzei

SA is mfurash that one need NOT get rid of chametz balua. 551:1

Shlomo Goldstein

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
>                                    I'm just reporting what R. Hershel
> Schachter told me in a private conversation. What he also told, and I
> subsequently saw inside, is that R. Moshe Shternbuch in his peirush al
> haTorah (IIRC Tuv Ta'am VaDa'as) says the above, that even Sefaradim
> should pronounce the shem adnus like Ashkenazim. He brought a Rabbeinu
> Bachya as a proof.

The Rabbeinu Bachya is Breishis 18:3

mmb

The Ran Pesachim 1a asks several questions about how can bitul make
something hefker.  He asserts this chiddush is limited to Pesach.
Therefore, he posits "giluy daas" prevents chametz which is anyway assur
b'hanaah from returning to one's "rshus" to violate bal yirah.

Accordingly, a voluntary purchase shows interest in chametz to create an
issur.  Yrushah however does not demonstrate interest in chametz which is
anyway assur b'hanaah.

Shlomo Goldstein

I heard Nechama herself, after mentioning this practice of the abarbanel,
point out the absurdities that can result when one inserts a question mark
where it doesn't belong. She got a lot of laughs fom it. One example was
placing a question mark after the pasuk, 'Anochi Hashem Elokeicha,etc."
Rabbi Meiselman used to point out that a lot of people seem to take the
pasuk 'vehayisa meshuga' as a tsivui.

It's a little late, but 2005 is just around the corner..

I may have missed someone else coming up with this idea, but the shitas
haBH"G is that there is no time factor for eating the 3 shabbos meals -
as long as 3 meals are eaten any time during the day. Rambam says the
meals must follow the tefilos (or tefilah times). So why not eat 2
meals at night and one for Shabbos morning - by eating 2 meals in the
morning you gain nothing acc. to Rambam, and to be yotzei BH"G (rashba
shabbos 117) it seems OK as long as you get 3 meals in at some point
(though all 3 at night might be a prob. of being mevatel kavod yom). -CB

Either there is a singular lack of interest in this week's VIDC or a
singular lack of time - only a couple of responses so far.

I actually had a lot of hano'oh from this one.

So, let's give some more time - Rabbosasi, it's Pesach and how better
to occupy your thoughts when you have an "idle" moment than by mulling
over the VIDC? Give it a try!

KT,
YGB

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

[Just in case you misplaced it, see
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n015.shtml#12'>. -mi]

I asked R' Chaim Davis, the rosh kollel where I daven. (He is Bcc-ed in
this post, so I will be corrected if I get anything wrong.)

His answer was that time isn't goreim mitzvas omer, Pesach is. Time is
goreim Pesach, but then there is a 2nd step beyond that causing the
chiyuv of sefiras ha'omer. "Mimacharas hashabbos" -- the mitzvah of
shevisah for Pesach that is goreim omer.

-mi

The mishna on 41a in sotah discusses the famous case of agrippa and
"achinu atah" Rashi states his mother was Jewish. IIRC Agrippas was the
son of aristoblus and bernice(herod's niece by his sister) so it can't
be him. IIrc agrippa had a son also called agrippa and I assume this is
Rashi's reference.

1. Does anyone know whether there is a mesora about this or is Rashi stating 
this simply based on the fact that the chachamim wouldn't have stood silent 
when the people said achinu atah unless there was some truth to it?

2.Is there any "historical" opinion on whether agrippa the second had a 
Jewish mother?

ml
Joel

From: Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>
: 1. Sorry. If this is the case, you have no argument from me because here
: you are dealing with a real, live machlokes haposkim. another case would
: be the old machlokes between RYBS and RMF whether you you can cover a
: hat or brush your teeth on Shabbos. As in your example, the machlokes
: is between Gdolim of the same stature in the same dor.

: 2. Proof? would you apply this klal in a safek doraissa against the rabim
: of poskim who are machmir? What about an earlier psak lkulah against many
: psakei halacha lchumrah from contemporary poskim (Halacha kbasraei)? In
: some areas of halacha, a psak lchumra is preferred (chametz). In many
: instances, Chazal felt that chumras led to the refinement of character
: (Rashi, beginning of Kedoshim-tznius). How do you understand these trends?

1. I'm even talking about a talmid of RMF taking kulos from RSZA.

2. I didn't mean the Talmudic application of koach dheteirah adif--to
pasken like a minority opinion. I meant it more like a melitzah--we
should applaud legitimate kulos from RMF, RSZA, RYBS, etc.

Other than for chometz, I don't think that psak lchumra should be
preferred. The SA has accumulated chumros for hundreds of years (ie,
the machmirim made it in during some periods--eg, Maharil--even though
during most periods poskim were mekil), that there is no reason to be
mosif. Especially in our times, when we have to compete with the luxuries
of the Western world, we should not emphasize the ascetic parts of our
religion--i heard this from R Yaakov Neuberger in the context of hilchos
tznius bein ish l'ishto.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>
: 1. While a person need not consult a poseik/rebbe, halacha does not
: recognize the notion of a self educated person without the benefit of a
: rebbe. While certain questions are so obvious that a poseik/ rebbe need
: not be consulted, I question whether one can decide important issues on
: his own or even if has smicha if he isn't raui lhoraah.in this instnce,
: one can ask the rebbeim who have had the greatest influence on him/her
: and go by the majority.

: 2. koach deheterira demonstrates greater lomdus. is it an operating
: priinciple across the boared in psak? On issues on the level of a
: safek drabbanan, yes. However, what application would it have on a
: safek doraisaa?

1. Who's talking paskening on one's own? We're talking about a person
talking one kula from RMF and another kula from RSZA.

2. I think that koach dheteira is said even for d'oriasas and as a general
rule for psak halacha--not merely to show who's the greater lamdan.
We are not supposed to be machmir when a valid kula is available.
Vachai bahem--the Torah must be livable.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[This is a conversation that RMF and RSB have been having off-line that
they agreed to share with the chevrah. -mi]

From: Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>
:> few years ago, an old chavrusa of mine said in front of me and 
:> several other people that a certain gadol whom all on this list would 
:> recognize told him to the effect that within one's "camp," one can indeed 
:> go kula shopping.

: Even if the kulot are contardictory? Please explain.

I assumed that your objection to kula shopping was even where the kulos
are not contradictory, and that you were basing your statement on the
concept of asei lcha rav. Many people assume that a kula shopper isn't
really serious about doing ratzon Hashem, but rather is seeing how much
he can get away with.

I challenge the above because:

1. It's not clear that asei lcha rav is a halachic requirement rather
than eitzah tova. Even if it is halachically required, it's not clear
that--in the context of lashon ha'mishnah--the point was to choose a
posek as opposed to a teacher.

2. Koach d'heteirah adif. If a posek explains to you a kulah in a way
which is convincing, why not follow it? Obviously, you should do this
with yiras shamayim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[More material forwarded from Areivim. -mi]

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
:> legitimate kulos from RMF, RSZA, RYBS, etc.  We are not supposed to be
:> machmir when a valid kula is available.

: We aren't?

: What about Yiras Shamayim? If I can choose between a makil and a machmir
: opinion, and both are equally doable, shouldn't I choose the more machmir
: option?

No, you should do the mekil option *unless* you feel that doing the
machmir option will create greater kavanah, yiras shamayim, etc. IMHO,
that is the impression one gets from the gemara. Examples:

1. One of the Amoraim said that he was "chala bar chamra" because his
father waited a very long time between meat and milk while he (the son)
waited just from meal to meal (exact reference would be appreciated).
Why didn't the son wait as long? The implication is that the son didn't
feel on the same madreigah as his father.

2. Harbei asu k'kimchis vlo alsa beyadam. Rabbi Yaakov Genack explained
the gemara to mean that one should imitate kimchis only if one has the
right kavvanos. Empty copying of chumros is meaningless.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
:> Other than for chometz, I don't think that psak lchumra should be preferred.
:> The SA has accumulated chumros for hundreds of years (ie, the machmirim made
:> it in during some periods--eg, Maharil--even though during most periods
:> poskim were mekil), that there is no reason to be mosif.  

: Gezel? Dinei Arayos not involving husband and wife?

I agree with you with regarding to s'yagim. I'm talking about being machmir
for the sake of being machmir.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
:> No, you should do the mekil option *unless* you feel that doing the machmir
:> option will create greater kavanah, yiras shamayim, etc.

: Your statement seems to hold following the machmir option to "raise" yiras
: shamayim.

: What about a case where one's yiras Hashem "compels" him to choose the
: machmir option?

Yiras shamayim should never compel one to be machmir where the halacha is
clearly lkula.  In the case of sakanah we are machmir for a one in a
thousand chance.  But for issurim--if something is batel bshishim then it is
batel.  We are not supposed to be machmir in such a case.  And when there is
a machlokes haposkim and it is clear that we follow one side, there is no
reason to be choshesh for the minority view--the Amoraim weren't choshesh
for shitos which were nidcheh l'halacha.  Lo bshamayim hee means that Hashem
thinks we are doing the 100 percent right thing in following the accepted
psak halacha.  We are not taking chances that maybe the halacha is really
like X rather than like Y.

Only in recent times have people started to be machmir in this way.  The
Baalei Hatosfos for example were not machmir when they felt the halcha was
lkulah against Rashi.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Akiva Atwood [mailto:atwood@netvision.net.il]
> But we aren't talking about such clear-cut cases -- we are talking about
> areas where poskim *today* disagree. When you have basic halachot where RMF
> is matir, and RSZA assurs, would you require a person to follow RMF?

If klal yisrael as a whole has been following RMF but RSZA is machmir, I
would say to follow RMF unless you are a talmid of RSZA or have learned the
sugya and are convinced that RSZA is right.  Read the two article by Rabbi
Michael Rosensweig in the first or second Torah U'Maddah Journal, where he
deals with the concept of elu v'elu (and quotes the Ritva and the brother of
the Maharal)--where there is a machlokes haposkim, both views are "right"
klapei shmayah--you don't have to be "afraid" that you chose the wrong psak.
RMR told me that ideally, one is able should learn the sugyah himself and
then choose between RMF and RSZA (in our example)--that works out best with
the way RMR explained elu v'elu (see prior avodah discussions, where I
fleshed this out more).

> What about shiurim? The time alloted to eat the matzoh at the seder spans
> (IIRC) from 2 minutes to 18. Would you say that no-one should use a shir
> less than 18 minutes?

No.  But I would say that there is no reason to be machmir beyond what our
forebears in Europe did 100 years ago.  Legend has it that a grandson of the
CC refused to use his kiddush cup because he felt it was too small.

<snip>
> That may be -- but we *are* living in these days, and must deal with psak as
> given by the poskim today.

My experience in speaking to poskim is that they do not tend to be machmir
for other views (at least for purposes of what their own families do; they
themselves may be machmir for *themselves*).  It is the baalei batim of
today who are fueling the chumrah kick.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Eric Simon, on Areivim, quoted R. Berel Wein from his tapes on the House of 
Rashi as saying that Rashi held that Christianity was not avodah zarah.

I am not in any position to argue with Rabbi Wein regarding something of 
this nature.  My understanding, which I must re-evaluate, was the opposite.  
In Teshuvos Rashi (327), Rashi says that Christians do not create a problem 
of yayin nesech because they are only following their minhag avoseihem and 
are not ovdei avodah zarah.  However, he is only following the gemara in 
Chullin 13b which says that about all non-Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael.  
The implication is that Christianity is avodah zarah, but that Christians 
(or rather most Christians) are not ovdei avodah zarah based on the logic of 
the gemara.  In 180, Rashi says that he relinquished a claim rather than 
force a Christian to take an oath.  That is more machmir than most other 
rishonim would be.

Gil Student

Moshe Feldman wrote on Areivim:
>Yiras shamayim should never compel one to be machmir where the halacha is 
>clearly lkula... And when there is a machlokes
>haposkim and it is clear that we follow one side, there is no reason
>to be choshesh for the minority view...
>Only in recent times have people started to be machmir in this way...

From Messilas Yesharim (ch. 14) by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, first published 
in 1740 (TQ):

The main types of abstinence (perishus) are three...  Abstinence in laws is 
to always be strict in them.  It is to be cautious even of a minority 
opinion in a disagreement if this opinion seems [legitimate?], even when the 
halachah does not follow it - this is on the condition that this stricture 
does not become a leniency - and to be strict in cases of doubt even when it 
is [halachically] possible to be lenient.  Our sages already explained to us 
[Chullin 37b] Yechezkel's saying [Yechezkel 7:14] "Behold! My soul has not 
been defiled" as meaning that he did not eat from an animal on which an 
halachic expert ruled...

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         ]