Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 020

Wednesday, April 18 2001

• RE: Owning options on chameitz
• Re: am hasefer
• RE: Who and What is a Rishon
• Re:Chumros on Pesach
• pseach chumrot
• Re: Ramban and Ibn Ezra
• Re: Who and What is a Rishon
• rishonim
• rashi and history
• sefardim and askkenazim
• havara
• Retraction re: haatakah vs gilgul
• when to remove tefillin on rosh chodesh and chol haMoed
• Sentimental Value
• Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64: Summary
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64: Summary
• IDT/IDL
• CI and Shem HaShem
• Re: rashi and history
• agrippa - (Rashi and Mesorah)
• Re: pseach chumrot

Revising my recent post:
I skipped an important word--chometz--which I am putting in CAPS:

I don't know exactly what the SEC would do.  I do know that an American
court views breach of contract as not stealing; rather, you have harmed the
other party and have to pay damages (which may in fact exceed the cash paid
in a cash-settled contract, if, for example, time is of the essence).  I
also wouldn't say that dinah d'malchusah requires paying CHOMETZ--that would
be tantamount to saying that a court requires specific performance (actually
physically going through with the transaction), which is not the law.  Maybe
there is a midvar sheker tirchak, though presumably you could say that you
were hoping that you would "win" the gamble of the option.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> Does anyone know the origin of this term as a reference to klal yisrael?
> Assumedly the sefer is the torah but I've heard it used as well in more of
> the people of books rather than of "the" book.(I found that ironic since it
> seems we were meant to have one book and the rest baal peh)

The following is from the Britannica:

"The period of Islamic conquests and empire building marks the first phase
of the expansion of Islam as a religion. Islam's essential egalitarianism
within the community of the faithful and its official discrimination
against the followers of other religions won rapid converts. Jews and
Christians were assigned a special status as communities possessing
scriptures and called the "people of the Book" (ahl al-kitab) and,
therefore, were allowed religious autonomy. They were, however, required
to pay a per capita tax called jizyah, as opposed to pagans, who were
required to either accept Islam or die. The same status of the "people
of the Book" was later extended to Zoroastrians and Hindus, but many
"people of the Book" joined Islam in order to escape the disability of
the jizyah. ..."

Daniel Eidensohn

From: Wolpoe, Richard [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
> Similar, the problem with the Me'iri is imho not so mystical to understand.
> The point is he did not have the proper "peer review" of early acharonim
> etc.  It bypassed the historical process of  analysis of shakla v'tarya. It
> is similarly outside the system. Contrast this to how the Rishonim and early
> Acharonim discussed Rashi, Rambam, Tosfos, Rosh, etc.  

In light of your argument, perhaps we could distinguish between three
different uses of the Meiri: (1) what you referred to--whether his novel
opinions should be viewed as daas yachid; (2) using the Meiri to decipher
opinions of other Rishonim, and (3) to see what Minhag Provence was.  

WRT to #2: Often, rishonim, such as the Ramban or Raavad, are somewhat
enigmatic and it takes subsequent rishonim (often talmidim or talmidim of
talmidim) to uncover their intent.  In this case, subsequent ratification by
achronim should be irrelevant--we are trying to determine a historical fact:
what did the Ramban/Raavad say?

WRT to #3: Sometimes, it is important to "count" opinions to see which
shitah to pasken like (e.g., MB counting rishonim to determine whether to
rely on shishim ribo).  If the Meiri follows the Raavad and claims that this
was Minhag Provence, this gives additional weight to the Raavad--not only
was it his personal opinion, it was the minhag of a whole sector of Medieval
Jewry.

In cases #2 & #3, I would say that the Meiri should have continuing
importance, even WRT to psak halacha.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 02:59 PM 4/17/01 -0500, you wrote:
>The comment was made that  there is "a minhag amoung many chassidim to
>not eat anywhere except in their own house."
>This minhag (or, in deference to RYGB's query, this hanhaga) was not
>restricted to chassidim; it was apparently the norm in Lita as well....

Sorry. It is probably true that many of those 'chassidic' minhaging were 
minhagim that everyone followed but seem to have been lost in the last 100 
years.


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

> This minhag (or, in deference to RYGB's query, this hanhaga) was not
> restricted to chassidim; it was apparently the norm in Lita as well.  My
> father z"l taught me to take nothing in another house on Pesach, and
> indicated that it was the accepted practice.  

The modern (?) extension of this minhag/hanhaga is that one does not
buy any prepared food (except for matzot) and instead everything
is prepared at home from scratch.

I have heard complaints from several women about the tremendous
burden it puts on them not to use any canned foods or even matzoh
meal or potato mixes. While the husband comes up with the chumra
the wife is in the kitchen with all the extra work.

Eli Turkel

>> 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.

> OTOH, the Ramban, in the intro to his peirush al haTorah, is respectfull...

True. However, check out the Ramban on the Aseres hadibros in Shemos
where Ibn Ezra denies that "Zachor vshamor bdibur echad" and Ramban
dismisses this as a comment made by "someone who is not familiar with
the Talmud".

                            Steve Brizel
                            Zeliglaw@aol.com

R Mechy Frankel:
>> t'rumas had'deshen, are already acharonim.

REL writes:
> That's funny - my rebbaim in yeshivah always referred to him as a Rishon,
> albeit one of the last ones. Eli >

not sure just where the humor is localized above -- guess you had to be
there. it would be more interesting to understand your rebbeim's reasons.
my own reasons to the contrary were posted in a previous avodah cycle and
are presumably exhumable from the archives if anyone is still interested.

who knows, you may end up agreeing with me -- sh'ma ho'emes mi'mi
she'om'ro and all that. Then you can have a more interesting discussion
with your rebbeim should you pursue an explanation of their own
assertions.

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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>> In Nefesh haRav, RYBS is cited as suggesting that the Me'iri doesn't
>> have the din of a rishon WRT defining halachah. That HKBH hid his
>> sefarim during most of the development of halachah, and 
>> that too is part of the halachic process.
> 
> Rabbi Dr. E. Kanarfogel said something similar in a private discussion re:
> Sifrei Torah...
> RDEK replied that what makes a "kosher" Torah must endure the "Cur" of the
> Halachic process.  IOW, Batei Dinim over time must rule on what is and what
> is not kosher. An archaeological find bypasses this process....

How about Chiddushei Ramban, Ritva and others that were not available
to early acharonim. It is well known today that many of the chiddushin
were mixed up as to their authors and some were not available.

How about Ri Migash who is acknowledged to be a major rishon who heavily
influenced Rambam but whose commntaries were lost?

Eli Turkel

> Thanks for the insight. I often wonder how much of Rashi is mesorah and
> how much is him using the "facts and circumstances" as reported in the
> gemorah to "deduce" his perush (ie how much is sinai and how much is oker
> harim)...

While much of Rashi is based on his learning in the German yeshivot
he also used many other sources among early rishonim.
Rashi's knowledge of history seems to come from a sefer known as
Yossipon.
Not much is known about this book except that it was written fairly
late and has no relation to Josephus which Rashi did not seem to
know. Therefore, it is unlikely that Rashi knew details of the
various Jewish/Roman leaders at the time of the Churban.

Even in the Gemara and certainly in rishonim there is much confusion
of various people. In a recent daf yomi there was the story of
the rescue of R. Yishmael while he was a young child. It is obvious
that this refers to the contemporary of R. Akiva. Nevertheless, some
commentators seem to refer to the Cohen Gadol at the time of the
churban which is historically impossible (it is assumed by many
that R. Yishmael II was a descendant of Yishmael Cohen Gadol).
There are gemaras that refer to Yishmael Cohen Gadol with the title of Rabbi
which is also historically inappropriate.

In a similar vein there is frequent confusion in the Talmud and rishonim
between R. Gamliel hazaken and his grandson R. Gamliel of Yavne.
In a number of places Tosaphot struggle with various Tannaim and Amoraim
trying to decide when a single name refers to the same person or several
people with the same name.

Perhaps the most pervasive such problem is Ravina. There are at least two
and probably three amoraim with the name Ravina. I ecall also a recent
daf yomi in which Ravina is quoted within 2 lines of each other but they
obviously refer to different people. One was a contemporary of Rava,
one was a contemporary of Rav Ashi and there seems to be a later one.

When the gemara says Rav Ashio and Ravina were "sof horaah" which Ravina
are they refering to?

In general there does not seem to be a mesorah among Rishonim and certainly
not in Rashi identifying these various people.
One place where many rishonim were clearly wrong was Hillel II
(who finished the calendar). Various rishonim give vastly different
connections between him and Rebbe (R. Yehuda HaNasi) some listing
him very soon thereafter when there was probably some 200 years
between them and Hillel II was a contemporary of Rava and Abaye.

The rishonim mainly rely on R. Sherira Gaon and Ravad I in their letters
and there are numerous contradictions between these two sources.

Eli Turkel 

> Shouldn't Sfardi poskim be the ones to pasken for a change in Sfardi
> custom?

It also bothers me when ashkenzi poskim pasken for sefardim that the
ashkenzi way is better.

OTOH I am also upset when ROY paskens that the ashkenazim are required
to give up their psak and hold like the sefardim (for example that
girls should not say berachot on mitzva aseh she hazman gerama).
This is worse because I vaguely remember a psak of ROY in which he
gets very upset at the Tzitz Eliezer for paskening for sfardim
based on ashkenazi psak.

If I recall, R. Dovid Halevi in his shulchan Arukh paskens that
ashkenazi women are required to lean at the seder.

Eli Turkel

I wish to retract concerning R' Bachaye and pronunciation.  I see he says,
"unlike those who think there is no difference between komotz and pasach,
there is difference in pronunciation...

Shlomo Goldstein

In the past I suggested that perhaps R' Saadia Gaon's objection to
ha'atakah (EvD 6:8) was a reference to true metampsychosis, but that
the notion of gilgul wasn't metampsychosis. I suggested that gilgul was
reembodiment of the neshamah in particular, not the ru'ach or nefesh
(one of which contain the psyche, a machlokes the Ramchal with the
Maharal and the Gra).

Well, I must retract.

WRT Nadav and Avihu, the Ari writes that Nadav had the ru'ach of kayin
(refering to the pasuk "ru'ach nedivah", Tehillim 51:14), while Avihu
had both Kayin's nefesh and ru'ach. "Avihu": he, Adam, is my father --
since all of Avihu derived from Kayin.

-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

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> The Ezrat Torah Luach brings down that on chol hamoed pesach the chazan
> keeps tfillin on for hallel (if he wears them before :-)) due to tircha
> dtzibura however by sukkot it says he takes them off before hallel.
> Does aanyone know where the sources for these minhagim are and why the
> difference? I guessed ntilat lulav but.....

I believe that the original minhog Ashqenaz was to keep the tefillin
on throughout the davening and not to remove them early. After all, for
what reason should they be removed earlier than usual? Minhog Ashqenaz
holds that there is a chiyuv tefillin on chol haMoed which is a zman
tefillin and that is the case the whole day - during hallel and musaf
as well. Same for rosh chodesh. I believe the current custom of some
comes from a sort of compromise with Sepharadic custom.

R. Binyomin Shlomo Homburger shlit'a (of Mochon Moreshes Ashqenaz in
Bnei Beraq) touches upon this in his fine works 'gedolei hadoros al
mishmar minhog Ashqenaz' and 'Minhogei Vermaiza' (yoseir baarichus)
as I recall. Ayin shom.

Mordechai

Reuven Miller <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>> Does anyone have a makor to take the "sentimental" value of a damaged or
>> destroyed item into account when deciding on monetary damages to award a
>> nizak....

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Sounds like a Hezek She-Eino Nikkar, which, as we know Lav Shmei Hezek.

Right!!!
And what I am really asking is:

1 Is there discussion in Acronim or acronei Acronim to b'chol zos
have beis din give monetary compensation for this.

For another example if Shimon would (b'mazid o b'sogeg) destroy an album
of Levi's family pictures that have been handed down generation after
generation that can not be replaced.

Does Levi have any recourse to din Torah.?

If not how do we explain this?

What does the Torah come to teach us here?

Do we not recognize, value things that have no "monetary" value.
WHY is this considered  "lo smei hezek"?

Reuven

Well, this one proved real popular!
But, I told you, I davka liked it.

So, in summary:

We asked:

>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?

RCPS himself responds that the NbY may hold that chometz, even after asa'an 
he'kasuv b'reshuso, is still not mammon at all, since it is issurei hano'oh 
[not a davar pashut if you recall the famous Marcheshes - and the somewhat 
less famous Bigdei Sheish - on the topic], therefore a kinyan on the 
chometz may be possible, but yerusha is not - because one may make a kinyan 
limited in scope to the issur, but yerusha is only relevant to mammon that 
is his vis a vis true ownership, as it is based on the zechus of the 
yorshim, and yorshim can only have a zechus in something of substantive 
value, as opposed to the non-substantive ownership vis a vis the issur of 
Bal Yeiro'eh: On that, yerusha takes no effect, and, therefore, the yorshim 
are exempt from the Chiyuv of Bi'ur.

Seems quite similar to what our own RGS wrote:

>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.

I agree that this does not sound Brisk. It seems to me R' Chaim Telzer:

What is the geder of the kinyan in chometz that the kasuv ascribes to you: 
is it a "zechus" or a "chov": A zechus would imply an ownership, which 
would make yerusha possible; a chov, only the limited right that RCPS and 
RGS assert is non-inheritable.

RSG, OTOH:

>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

proposes a Brisker chilluk: Two dinim *in* the asa'an he'kasuv.

R' Micha, as always, is our Telzer:

> "Ba'alus", and similarly "reshus", have to do with control over the
> object. Note the literal translations of the words: one means "master"
> and the other "has permission".

> Which is why an issur removes ba'alus. Becuase if hana'ah is assur,
> then in what sense is one a ba'al, or does one have reshus to do with
> it as he pleases?

> Yerushah is of ba'alus, not ownership.

> KHB is the statement that even though he can't control the object, it's
> still assur for him to possess.

> (Does the use of a statement about mezuzah to resolve a question about
> chameitz make this a Poilisher teirutz?)

And, no, the use of Mezuzah does not make it *Hungarian* - as the yesod is 
a common one, not one extrapolated from Mezuzah to Chometz.

But, I would like to refine this one a tad, based on the Chinuch Mitzva 400 
(those of you without a Chinuch can check the Bigdei Sheish siman 37): The 
principle of Mishmush. The Chinuch there reads like a Sha'arei Yosher! 
Mishmush is the inherent right of a yoreish in the property of his morish 
*before* the morish's death. Without Mishmush, there is no yerusha, and 
while asa'an he'kasuv applies to the morish, it does not apply to the 
yoreish - in distinction to outright acquisition via kinyan. Thus, bereft 
of his zechus in the chometz, he inherits nothing and has no chiyuv bi'ur.

To round things out:

Rogatchover: By shelichus yad the Rogatchover distinguishes between the 
chomer (substance) and tzura (form, in the philosophical sense) - thus 
explaining how you can be chayav accordingto Beis Shammai b'amira b'almah. 
Thus, by chometz (I think he might say this explicitly), the Rogatchover 
would hold that you of course do not have a substantive kinyan, but the 
"going through the motions" of acquisition is the tzura of a kinyan - and 
that is the mechayev. by yerusha, of course, you lack even the tzura of a 
kinyan.

Poilish:

Based, again, on a real Poilish source, the Gr"i Perlow on the Rasag 3:46, 
who says Yerusha is a "Parasha" = a chiyuv and mitzva on Beis Din, not on 
the individual. Thus, yerusha cannot be mechayeiv the individual in Bal 
Yeiro'eh - as opposed, of course, to a direct acquisition, where one 
transgresses the personal lav personally (see BS ibid.).

Which leads to the Hungarian answer:

To truly be yoreish require Bereira ("He'achin she'chalku lekuchos hen") - 
so it is never mvurar who has a chiyuv Bi'ur, so there is none.

And the Sefardi one:

Perhaps the NbY does contradict himself and we pasken like one of his 
conclusions and not the other!

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 18 Apr 2001, at 0:14, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
> But, I would like to refine this one a tad, based on the Chinuch Mitzva 400...
> Mishmush is the inherent right of a yoreish in the property of his morish 
> *before* the morish's death. Without Mishmush, there is no yerusha, and 
> while asa'an he'kasuv applies to the morish, it does not apply to the 
> yoreish - in distinction to outright acquisition via kinyan. Thus, bereft 
> of his zechus in the chometz, he inherits nothing and has no chiyuv bi'ur.

Then how is the yoresh zocheh after Pesach? Is this like a zchiya min
ha'hefker? Does the mishmush suddenly re-appear and zing the chometz to
the yoresh? Or is the mishmush taluy v'omed throughout Pesach (as opposed
to being finally resolved)? And if it's toluy v'omed, why wouldn't the
chometz be assur as chometz she'avar alav ha'Pesach?

-- 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.

On the recently discussed issue of isra'usa dil'tata/le'eila, I wanted
to point out a piece from Rav Gedalia Shorr in the Ohr Gedalyahu.
He discusses how Pesach is IDL, followed by sefira which is IDT to regain
the madrega previously given bematnas chinam at yetzias mitzraim.

He points out that the mazal Nisan is a taleh, which is passively used
for wool and milk, as opposed to mazal Iyar, which is a shor, and (rav
tevuos bekoach shor) accomplishes on its own.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R Reuven Miller wrote:
> See Aleho Lo Yibol first chelek in beginning (O"C) (I do not have it in
> front of me).

**pp. 66-67**

RSZA did not agree with this deyah and doubted that this was the opinion
of the CI.

Eli Turkel wrote:
> While much of Rashi is based on his learning in the German yeshivot he also 
> used many other sources among early rishonim.

It is also clear that he had before him certain passages that we no
longer have. The same is true for some of the earlier rishonim/gaonim
like Bahag and She'eiltos. See Maharatz Chajes' Mevo HaTalmud ch. 31.

I seem to recall R. Elazar Hurvitz (of BRGS) claiming that Rashi had
before him other kuntressim that explained the gemara in the same way
that Rashi did. I don't know what proof he had for this claim.

> In general there does not seem to be a mesorah among Rishonim and certainly 
> not in Rashi identifying these various people.

One of the reasons that Rashbatz's Magen Avos is so famous is because he
was one of the first to actively discuss this topic and bring passages
from all over the talmudim and midrashim to prove or disprove the
identities of such people.

Gil Student

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Thanks for the insight. I often wonder how much of Rashi is mesorah and
> how much is him using the "facts and circumstances" as reported in the
> gemorah to "deduce" his perush (ie how much is sinai and how much is oker
> harim) IIRC there is a gemorah in kiddushin which discusses yuchsin in
> bavel and discusses geography which indicates in that case Rashi was
> deducing since his result doesn't square with the actual geography of
> the area in question. What are the "academic" and the "yeshivish" take
> on this?

Here is my  academic take re: this kind of  Rashi,
Rishonim KNEW bottom line Halachah etc. and retrofitted peshat in order to
reconcile.  This is similar to what the Bavli does on occasion to a Mishna,
or what Tosfos does to a Gmara.

While it is possible in this one case that Rashi had a specific Mesorah in a
specific, generally he knew what he knew from a more genera and worked from
there to deduce his Peirush. 

Or to explain this another way, Rashi probably had no EXPLICIT Mesorah, but
did have an IMPLICIT  Mesorah, and his explanations were often extensions
from a solid CORE Mesorah.  This model has several advantages:
1) Rashi is not being arbitrary or IOW completely original
and
2) It allows for other Rishonim to infer differently from the same
implication.  IOW even though the Mesorah is perhaps finite, there is a
range of valid interpretations. 

And therefore when two people argue and one says:
	"Rashi got this from a solid Mesorah"
And the other says:
	"Rashi made it up on his own"
They are in effect both right or more precisely both partially right. (as in
the famous joke about the proverbial rabbi <smile>)

That's what makes Mesorah OTOH so flexible and amorphous, yet OTOH so solid
and reliable.

When Rashi says what he says, he is probably including implications from
many pieces of the total Mesorah puzzle.  I consider Gedolim/Geniuses to be
analogous to chess masters who can play 40+ games of chess at the same time.
So Rashi can be drawing on an entire array of sources to infer what he
infers, and it that can make it far from intuitively obvious as to how Rashi
go there.
 
Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On 18 Apr 2001, at 11:48, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The modern (?) extension of this minhag/hanhaga is that one does not
> buy any prepared food (except for matzot) and instead everything
> is prepared at home from scratch.

> I have heard complaints from several women about the tremendous
> burden it puts on them...

Unless you're referring to people who are choshesh for gebrocks, I 
assume you're referring to manufactured products containing matza 
meal and not matza meal greida. My chabura makes matza meal - 
one of its major functions.

My wife actually found pasta(!) in the store which had Shmura 
Matza Meal rather than regular (hashgacha - Star-K). This is the 
first time I can recall seeing anything with this type of hashgacha. 

-- Carl

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

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


[ 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         ]