Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 133

Tuesday, March 30 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:55:18 +0200
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: chametz in the kinneret


On Monday 29 March 2004 18:52, Micha Berger wrote:
> As I wrote, there's literal ta'am, and tama shebekeli. The above is
> about the latter. Most keilim that are labeled nosenim ta'am give off
> no taste. Nor do they contain 1:60. And yet bitul doesn't apply. I was
> suggesting a sevarah as to why. That the state of a keli goes beyond
> what the keli is like empirically, but also how we relate to it.

And I am saying that me'iqar hadin, one could ask the kfeilah wether the
resulting dish was positively influenced by any such taste. In fact,
in this area, Ashkenazi rabbanim rely on te'imat kfeilah for some
industrial settings.

IOW, the ta'am is meant to be actual in all cases. We just use the
full volume of the pot because we don't trust a kfeilah ordinarily. As
I pointed out, this is a matter of dispute between the Levush and the
Shakh, namely, whether one could taste an onion and decide whether or
not it is fleishig.

> If it were simply about taste, one wouldn't need to kasher most
> dishes. (Issues of 24 hours aside, as nosein ta'am lifgam obviously
> assumes there is some kind of ta'am.)

Indeed, but we are stringent, in accordance with the Levush.

> TQ is about determining, bedi'ebed, whether a mixture of less than 1:60
> has a physical tase of the smaller item so as to prevent bittul. IOW,
> we're no longer talking about applying an adjective to a keli.

Because we developed practical rules to deal with ignorance WRT
the taste. As I said, the Levush distrusts our ability to perceive
taste. Otherwise, indeed, one could at least taste products to decide
whether or not they are kosher lePessa'h, for example.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:58:35 +0200
From: Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il>
Subject:
RE: R. Elyashiv on pesach


>> water for the entire chag is stored ahead of time in a barrel

> And I thought I was joking when I suggested doing this [just in case
> someone had thrown some bread in the Kineret].

It's a common Yerushalmi practice. They have a LARGE water tank in the
kitchen (say, 2 feet in diameter, 6 feet high).

[Email #2. -mi]

> I'm curious about this one too. I mean, in theory an ashkenazi can eat
> kitnios on pesach itself, but the minhag is not to - right? Perhaps Rav
> Elyashiv means that there are two separate minhagim: First, the ashkenazim
> avoided kitnios but only on Pesach itself, and then a separate minhag
> included Erev Pesach as well.

According to our LOR, R' Elyashiv holds the issur on kitniyot starts at
the same time as the issur on chametz.

Akiva


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:15:17 -0500
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves


These debates cover a good deal of time and span a number of digests,
so they can get confusing. Let me clarify my recent post.

I wrote (vol. 12 #126):
>No. Even if the person loses entirely his "shem rasha" because
>he is a tinok she-nishbah, the views he espouses are heretical
>and may not be studied (except for those who have a heter to
>pursue those studies). Furthermore, a heretic may not teach
>because he might lead his students to heresy (see Tur and SA,
>YD 153 & EH 22). Presumably, this has nothing to do with a
>"shem rasha" and even a tinok she-nishbah would fall under
>these parameters.

To this, Meir Shinnar responded (vol. 12 #127):
>The radbaz's tshuva dealt with a preacher who was teaching
>what was felt minut - and he was dealt with differently.

I responded in turn (vol. 12 #131):
>However, the Radbaz concludes by instructing his correspondent
>to send witnesses to tell this preacher in his [the Radbaz's] name
>that the preacher is wrong and give him an opportunity to retract
>or to state his view in front of the witnesses. If he does not retract,
>the Radbaz was ready to rebuke, coerce and chase him until
>Chormah (which I think is a veiled reference to putting him in
>cherem).

Meir Shinnar wrote in response (vol. 12 #132):
>but nowhere do we see anything that would suggest that
>the problem of the radbaz is one of kfira - and the radbaz
>exempts true statements (or those that the proponent believed
>true on the basis of reason) from kfira.

No, he does not! He exempts KOFERIM (who are brought to kefirah through
mistaken analyses), not KEFIRAH. Kefirah is still kefirah, regardless
of the status of its proponents or how it is arrived at. Since this
preacher was publicly teaching kefirah he needed to be punished, even
if he was a shogeg in regard to being a kofer.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:20:42 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: omek pshuto shel mikra


On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:02:38AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Well, it seems pretty obvious, even to the modern Western thinker, that
: not everything falls in yes/no categories. Fuzzy logic and other models
: gave us familiarity with partial truth...

The west hasn't really caught on yet. This is why we get questions
like "Are you with us, or against us?" But more telling, this is why
westerners fall prey to the false dichotomy.

It's not really partial truth as much as looking at the world holistically
and seeing how the same element can be viewed different equally valid
ways based on the multiple roles it polays and interactions that it has.

A dialectic like gadlus hamochin vs qatnus hamochin isn't about each
being partially true.

I think the first mishnah is very telling that way. Mishnah intentionally
submerges you into a network of thoughts, rather than analyzing by
dividing into category and subcategory the way one would a western
law code.

BTW, the plurality approach to machloqes predates Rav Tzadoq. But I agree
that you and I are simply taking different sides of a machloqes. Which
leads to an interesting paradox inherent in all pluralism: Would Rav
Tzadoq apply his notion of eilu va'eilu to the question and say that
non-pluralism is also true?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:25:07 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: The adoption of new practices


On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:38:03PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> 8- Using particular sequences of pourings for neigl vasr and hamotzi.
:> (A historical example, but at one time there was a switch from not
:> caring.)

: I think this one is different from the others you mentioned. It's the 
: only one about which I might have a hava amina of a superstitious 
: derivation (see the Meiri in the last Perek of Psachim on zugos). 

There are other possible poor derivations: Such as picking up the Notzri
practice of the sermon (which is an example that I gave).

But along the same lines, the Gra would add:
    - red strings
    - kaparos

The question, given that current intent adds to one's avodas Hashem,
is to what extent do forgotten origins matter. There might be overlap
between this discussion and those of Thanksgiving or Holloween.

The other question is to what extent does current intent matter. Is it
okay to simply add to the ritual whatever one feels aids one's avodah. Or,
should I be learning to align my religious needs to the rituals already
extant.

Judging from RHM's comments in the past here (and recently on Areivim
against singing minyanim (except in the context of kiruv), I assume
he leans toward the latter. I started this thread with hopes to better
flesh out our stances on the subject.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:53:51 +0000
From: simchag@att.net (SimchaG)
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


>> 26. The minhag to leave jerusalem on erev pesach has no basis

RCS and RTK wrote:
> Never heard of this.... 

i heard of this minhag...and i was told that the taam has to do with
being clasified as on a 'derech rechokoh' when the zman hakrovas korban
pesach arrives....so as to able to be makriv a pesach sheini k'sheyiboneh
hamikdosh bimheiroh.....

if the halacha IS so....is a different diyun altogether.....

>> water for the entire chag is stored ahead of time in a barrel

RTK wrote:
> And I thought I was joking when I suggested doing this [just in case
> someone had thrown some bread in the Kineret].

i had an uncle, (the father-in-law of R' Sholom Noach Weiss mechaber of
the multi-volume Binyan Sholom on halocho) that had ALL water that was
used in his house for cooking, stored ahead of time in a barrel..

talking about 'upgehitten'

there was a yid here in BP, his name was Parnas..(if i'm not mistaken,
Shabsi Parnas the musician is his einikle)
He came to the states before WWII...his einiklech own the locksmith
store on 13th Ave around Shomer Shabbos area...'Neiman's locksmith'...
this yid had ALL his food cooked before pesach....
an einikle of his told me that his grandfather even had a separate set
of false teeth that he used ONLY on peasch...

chag kosher v'somaiach
Simcha G


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:05:36 EST
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


In a message dated 3/29/04 4:53:59 PM EST, simchag@att.net writes:
>>> 26. The minhag to leave jerusalem on erev pesach has no basis

>> RCS and RTK wrote:
>> Never heard of this.... 

> i heard of this minhag...and i was told that the taam has to do with
> being clasified as on a 'derech rechokoh' when the zman hakrovas korban
> pesach arrives....so as to able to be makriv a pesach sheini k'sheyiboneh
> hamikdosh bimheiroh.....

Yes but how do you do it? You physically get on a bus and leave?
Where do you go? What time do you leave, and what time do you get back?
When do you do all your erev Pesach stuff--burning the chometz, cooking,
preparing the ka'ara, setting the table, having baths, getting dressed
for yom tov? Does the whole family leave--the wife too--or just the
man of the house? If the latter, I can see where this would be a very
convenient minhag for some men.

  CKvS
 -Toby Katz


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:19:11 -0500
From: "Avi Burstein" <avi@tenagurot.com>
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


> i had an uncle, that had ALL water that was
> used in his house for cooking, stored ahead of time in a barrel..

I don't understand what this accomplishes. Isn't is just as possible
that that water source has had chometz in it even before pesach?

Avi Burstein 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:02:24 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
R. Elyashiv on pesach


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> 27. for taanit bechorot the siyum helps only if one is there for the
> entire siyum. 

I recall hearing a tape of a shiur by Rav Benzion Strasser shlita - Nitra
Rov of BP - saying that the main requirement is eating from the seuda..?

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:05:33 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


On 29 Mar 2004 at 18:05, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> i heard of this minhag...and i was told that the taam has to do with 
> being clasified as on a 'derech rechokoh' when the zman hakrovas 
> korban pesach arrives....so as to able to be makriv a pesach sheini 
> k'sheyiboneh hamikdosh bimheiroh.....

Why? The Gemara says that all derech rechoka means is "mi'chutz l'iskoopas
ha'azara."

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:11:49 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
R. Elyashiv


to make some things clear about the things I quoted in the name of R.
Elyashiv.

I purchased the booket (10 NIS) in Bnei Brak.
It is over 30 pages long and includes much more than what I quoted.
It doesn't say but my assumption is that this is a compilation by others
of piskei halachot of R. Elyashiv over time. I doubt (but don't know)
that he sat for a series of questions.
As such the piskei halachot are geared towards ashkenazim.
They also include numerous personal customs of R. Elyashiv.

The 72 minutes is the time from beracha rishona to berachona achrona
for food. R. Elyashiv (and others) feel that this applied to the seder
since we are not eating in between.
In fact he notes that the 72 minutes is really for food and for drinks 
it should be less - about 30 minutes.
Nevertheless in the section of his personal customs it brings that he
finished Maggid with the 72 minutes (and presumably has more discussions
during the meal).

My question mark merely referred to my observation that very few people
including gedolim are makpid over this point.
I have heard that RYBS also hurried through maggid but from the
perspective that extraneous discussion would be a hefsek.

The minhag to leave yerushalyim on erev pesach refers to the chiyuv to
bring a korban pesach. It is not discussed in the booklet but this may
only refer to the old city. In any case R. Elyashiv doesn't like the
minhag since if there is no bet hamikdash there is no need to avoid
being mechuyav to bring a korban.

kol tuv,
-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/30/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:35:06 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
RE: Is R Marc Shapiro's recent book intellectually flawed


RMB
> RYBS (as one example close to RMS's heart and mine) on many occasions
> analyzed the Rambam's 13 ikkarim and outrights states that they define
> normative belief.

I am not familiar with those sources - and I would be careful about the
meaning of normative. I think it is more accurate that he holds that
they represent in some sense the broadest consensus, but without the
specific halachic extension that you hold by (unless there is clear
evidence otherwise)

Are you suggesting, for example, that RYBS holds that anyone who says a
piyyut to malachim is not only wrong, but is a kofer? That someone who
holds that the mashiach (or the ari) had a higher degree of nevua is a
kofer (not merely someone who is wrong)

> Simply put, I disagree, there is plenty. There is also, as I've been
> insisting repeatedly, the halachic norms WRT geirus and sharing
> wine that none sought to overturn. Admittedly that's an argument
> from silence. But my point is more that this is a religious issue in
> which the religious perspective, not the academic historian's, carries
> the day.

The halachic norms are not one that many (outside of this list) make -
precisely because there are precedents, and few are willing to hold
that major rishonim were epikorsim. Furthermore, The radbaz's argument
(in another thread) is precisely that the halachic norms are not defined
merely by the content of one's belief, but also by the rationale for
one's belief.

Gerut is a different issue - as the criteria for joining the community
imply some acceptance of communal norms - and enforcement of communal
norms is a different issue (and I would venture that there are different
norms in different communities)

> In the quote to which I responded, RMShapiro belittles the grounds on
> which the pesaq is made by those "dabblers" in favor of his 
> scholarship.
> Yahadus doesn't work that way.

Anyone who argues that there is (and was) universal agreement on the 13 ikkarim is a dabbler. 

>> 2) THere is a notion that halacha kebatrai except when the latter
>> authorities did not see the earlier - RMS source material is important
>> in that it provides much material that is not generally well known - and
>> therefore any position that is not aware of his material is inherently
>> flawed, regardless of the gdula of its owner. The question is whether
>> the owner of the position would still classify as kfira a position if
>> he knew that certain rishonim held from it...

> a) The notion you give is very debated. Teh CI and RYBS both say
> the exact reverse -- halachah evolves as it evolves, and any evolution
> based on ignorance is not to be overturned. The CI invokes a mystical
> notion of the idea being hidden because Hashem wanted it so. RYBS
> bases himself on the authority of the construction of the covenental
> partnership,

The fact that it is debated is not the same thing as saying that it is
denied. Other achronim hold differently. This is especially true when
the implications of the psak is that one is writing someone out of the
covenantal relationship - rather than merely being paskened against.

> b) It's ridiculous to think that the acharonim who decide these major
> questions are dabblers in machshavah and don't know these things. Your
> #1 concedes the point that there were numerous rabbanim who did.

Name me one of those rabbanim who knew of those positions and specifically
wrote them out.
Again, you are going by implicit assumption.

It reminds me of a lecture that I heard ~20-30 years ago by a rosh yeshiva
(well known, but won't be named). He argued in a public lecture that
the conclusions of the sefer hamadda were universally accepted, and the
reason that they weren't included in the shulchan aruch by rav karo was
that as there was no debate, and the sefer hamadda was well written,
there was no need to write it.

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe, as I do the other cases, and
would need explicit proof of your statements.

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:19:46 -0500
From: "Jonathan S. Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca>
Subject:
RE: G-d's existence


RHM wrote:
> But science has conclusively proven that the age of the universe is far
> more than 6000 years old. So some Gedolim have gone to sources dating
> back to the Talmud and have included medieval and recent commentators
> to support a formula theologically compatible with the scienticfic data
> which places the age of the universe at about 15 billion years. 

Science has not "conclusively" proven this. That would be a na´ve view
of the limitations of science and current theories.

We have seen massive reversals in scientific "deep theory" just in the
past 80 years. Eighty years ago the greatest scientists (including
Einstein) were convinced that the universe was eternal, pretty much
existing as it does now. The big bang came as a big shock, and the big
bang theory may itself not last forever, despite it currently being the
best (or perhaps the only) explanatory candidate.

Infinity to 15-billion is (infinitely) orders of magnitude more than
15-billion to 5764!

The greatest scientists deeply believed that all of nature was
deterministic (where then room for free will?). In 1931, Einstein called
free-will an "illusion". Materialistic determinism gained the ascendancy
in all areas of science.

With the arrival of Quantum mechanics, the deterministic hegemony was
completely overturned at least in the standard Copenhagen interpretation
(an interpretation that is today itself under fire). There are even,
today, some physicists and psychologists who succesfully use QM and
free-will to heal patients suffering from OCD (e.g. see the work of
Stapp/Schwartz), although the prior commitment of others to materialism
still put these scientists in the minority.

What the above examples show is that science is not equally authoritative
in all areas especially when it comes to deep theory, or doing huge
extrapolations on thin data. Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb has a shiur on tape
called the Adolosecence of Science that explains levels of credibility
depending on which methods and data are used.

[The tape below may have some of the same information (but I am not sure).
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html mp3 of Science &
The Age of The Universe]

JSO


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:28:14 -0500
From: chaim g steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@juno.com>
Subject:
V'Higadta L'Vincha


The wording in Shulchan Aruch Horav 473:24 when discussing that the BB do
not need their own kaaro, is that "those that are yotzeh by hearing from
the baal habayis - as is correct to do because of berov am hadas melech -
do not need these things in front of them" etc.
Chaim G Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:56:56 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Eliyahu HaNavi


From: Kenneth G Miller <>
> Baruch Haba? To who, Eliyahu HaNavi? I've been trying for years to tell
> people that he comes to a shalom zachar and a bris, but coming to sedarim
> is only an urban legend. Could I have been wrong?

Yes.
Sholom Zochor is AFAIK an urban legend.

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:11:21 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Vehigadta levincha


I suggested that a person sitting at the Seder, whose mouth tells not a
word of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, might be yotzay by what he hears from
the leader -- and not via the leader being motzi him, but because his
role as *audience* qualifies him as being an *active* participant.

R' Saul Mashbaum confirmed this <<< *Exactly* this point was made by
Rav Asher Weiss in the aforementioned shiur. ... R. Asher went on to say
that there is another area of halacha in which this principle applies,
although in a negative context - lashon hara. One who listens to (and
accepts) lashon hara is "over" because that is exactly what lashon hara
consists of - a "m'saper" and a "shomeh". ...>>>

Baruch Shekivanti! I am very gratified to hear that my guess has such
a strong basis, as I wrote to RSM a few hours ago.

But more recently, I started having second thoughts about the comparison
case, that of Lashon Hara. I think these two mitzvos are not as similar
as they might seem at first glance.

IIRC, a person who says Lashon Hara in an empty room has *not* violated
Hilchos Lashon Hara. More precisely, even if this act does violate some
of the mitzvos related to Lashon Hara, such as "Don't hate your brother
in your heart" (Vayikra 19:12), it does *not* violate "Lo selech rochil -
Don't go as a talebearer" (Vayikra 19:16).

If so, then the role of the audience is me'akev for Lashon Hara, but it
is *not* me'akev for Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim -- if neccesary, one could
be yotzay on V'Higadta by reading the Hagada to oneself.

I am back to square one. While the Torah does describe Sipur Yetzias
Mitzrayim as having an audience, and even names that audience explicitly
-- V'Higadta *L'Vincha* - the halacha tells us that this is merely the
ideal means of doing this mitzvah. The bottom line is that one *can*
tell it to himself, in which case, the others can tell it to themselves
as well. So how are they yotzay when I read it to them?

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:14:11 -0500
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 18:19 -0500, Avi Burstein wrote:
>> i had an uncle, that had ALL water that was
>> used in his house for cooking, stored ahead of time in a barrel..

> I don't understand what this accomplishes. Isn't is just as possible
> that that water source has had chometz in it even before pesach?

Chametz is batel before pesach, not during?

shaya

[RAA and RCS answered similarly. But I'm deleting their replies to
save redundancy. -mi]


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:30:26 -0600
From: Elly Bachrach <ebachrach@engineeringintent.com>
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2004 at 18:05, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> i heard of this minhag...and i was told that the taam has to do with
>> being clasified as on a 'derech rechokoh' when the zman hakrovas
>> korban pesach arrives....so as to able to be makriv a pesach sheini
>> k'sheyiboneh hamikdosh bimheiroh.....

> Why? The Gemara says that all derech rechoka means is "mi'chutz l'iskoopas
> ha'azara."

I believe this is what rashi on chumash quotes, but this is not the
accepted opinion in the gemara. Derech rechoka is half a day from
yerushalayim (from modiin?). R' Shachter once explained in shiur the
2 explanations (rashi and rambam) for this shiur - either the time one
has on erev pesach until the zman hakorban begins (technically chatzos
hayom, even if it wasn't brought before mincha gedola), or the time one
has from the beginning of the zman hakorban until the end of the day.

So for this minhag, you'd have to be a half day's travel away. You would
also have to decide how you measure the half day's travel in our times,
when you can travel hundreds of miles in that time frame.

Incidentally, R' Shachter also noted in shiur that how we measure
the distance in our days, when we travel much faster has a practical
application, lo aleniu, in hilchos aveilus, and is dealt with by modern
poskim. I forget the details, but it has to do with a case of one of the
people who is chayav to be misabel on the mes but was not aware of the
petirah, where that person was far away during the shiva. The halacha
relates to whether that person, should they learn of the petirah at the
end of the shiva, has to keep 7 days of aveilus or only one.

k't
elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:07:43 +0000
From: simchag@att.net (SimchaG)
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach


[RCS:]
> Why? The Gemara says that all derech rechoka means is "mi'chutz 
> l'iskoopas ha'azara." 

Exactly!...now...re-read the last line of my post
"if the halacha IS so....is a different diyun altogether..... "

i was just relaying the taam of this minhag as I heard it...and probably
that is the reason for R' Elyashiv's 'avek machen' with this custom..

Simcha G


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:42:08 +0200
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: What is the problem with cologne and packing peanuts on Pesach?


Reb Somebody wrote:
>> First off, fragrances and colognes, even if made with chometz are
>> not food.

RAA answered:
> Since we *rub them into the skin* halacha says we treat them the same as
> food.

Sorry to be a spoiler. Sikhah keakhilah is only for oil (of Trumah),
not for hil. Pessa'h. This also confirmed by the Rav of Bobov Antwerp,
to whom I addressed this same question about 15 years ago. The question
regarding cologne et al is not onle of eating 'hametz, but one of holding
on to 'hametz. The concensus seems to be that it isn't eadible, however,
some authorities still prohibited it (IIRC, RMF is one of them), on the
grounds that the alcohol can be distilled and made eadible again.

Anyway, I'd appreciate an expert telling us whether cosmetics use grain
based aethanol in any significant quantity, or rather use another kind
of alcohol, not made from grains but from wood.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:27:20 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Al Naharot Bavel


In a message dated 3/27/2004 9:23:16 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> For those who say it during the year, what is the common practice re:
> saying this during Nissan(before Birchat Hamazon)? Does anyone say shir
> hamaalot for the whole month(whether they say al naharot the rest of
> the year or not)?
> Any sources?

You can answer offline( I'm sure at least some of the chevrah eat bread
and bentch during Nissan :-)) Does anyone say shir hamaalot for the
whole month? If not, what is the davar hamachria as to when you say it
(obviously not lack of tachanun)

KT
Joel RIch


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:27:35 +0200
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: omek pshuto shel mikra


RYGB wrote:
> I agree with RAF that the Ramban did not think he was offering another
> equally valid viewpoint, but rejecting Rashi. So did R' Tzadok. R' Tzadok
> is addressing how a 19th century acharon MUST perceive the disagreement.
> Kal vachomer a 21st century "acharon."

Ah. This is very far frfom the theory RML suggested, of a Semitic
perspective of logic and truth which is oh so different from the
Yeffetic perspective. What RYGB is saying, is that there may or may
not be compatibility between the positions of, say, Ramban and Rashi,
and in the latter case, alibi dishmaya, one may be right while the
other may be wrong (or, as a concession to RMB, both may be somewhat
right, although that implies that both are also somewhat wrong, if they
stated their positions as mutually exclusive. Of course, I'd have to
find another ma'hloket as a perfect example, since Rashi couldn't have
made a statement of his mutually exclusive with a statement of Ramban,
since Rashi didn't see Ramban ;-)).

However, argues RYGB (and that is a solid position), we shouldn't freely
take sides. Rather, we should keep in mind that there are two compelling
options, and respect both.

As I said, different from the accross the board statements of RML and RMB.

RYGB, it's nice to see you post again.

A kushern in frailekhn Paisse'h,
Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >