Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 001

Thursday, April 8 2004

• age of the universe
• Re: rishonim - psak
• divine providence - hasidic view
• R. Tam
• diet soda
• R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot
• Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• Re: Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum
• OT, was: kosher bittul of kitniyos
• chametz in the kinneret
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot
• Re: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot
• Re: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot
• Re: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot
• RE: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• Re: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:39:58 -0600, Avodah 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 naive view
> of the limitations of science and current theories.

I know of no serious scientists who doubt the age of the universe (plus
or minus a few billion).
This is not based on one single proof but myriads. I doubt if one could
open any edition of scientific american or discover magazine that does
not imply an earth or universe of much more than 6000 years. So I don't
take R. Gottlieb very seriously

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/4/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

In a message dated 3/17/2004 4:07:19 PM EST, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> CI seems to equate authority in psak with greatness (as RDE quoted)
> but this is not universally accepted. Other theories are offered by
> others. Even CI seems to bring his theory for Amoraim vs Taanaim. It
> is not clear he would give the same explanation as to why we don't
> disagree with Rishonim. In fact some rishonim like Meiri seem to have
> "less" authority and CI has a different theory for that not connectness
> with greatness.

Let's start with premises.  Here's mine:
The Ikkar TSBP is the Beis Din Hagadol in the Lishkah - See Rambam Hil.
Mamrim 1:1

It follows, that - exluding takkanos, gzeiros and minhaggim - that
the ikkar TSBP after the Churban is that TSBP that bests approximates
the original.

The earlier the Dor, the more Torah from the last Sanhedrin is
rememembered. The later the Dor the more that is forgotten.
Niskatnu - at least in terms of Halachic prciess is primarioly a
function of collective memory DYSfuction, and not so much a lower level
of tzidkuss, although there is something to be argued for the tzidukuss
definition, too.

Lemashal The GRA could be considered a Rishon because he could restore
and revive a lot of forgotten Torah via his methods.
....

More later

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 3/19/2004 2:05:31 PM EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> The authority of Taanaim vs Amoraim vs Rishonim vs Achronim and the

> See R Elchanan re Rav Tana UPalig in Kesuvos. Amoraim could but rarely
> dissagreed withTanaim. A Tana and an Amora were on the same level because
> they both learned from purely oral sources. An Achron can dissagree
> with a Rishon . RHS elaborates on this issue at length in his shiur on
> whether TSBP is dynamic or static in nature.

> The best source on this that I know in English is Zvi Lampel,
> Dynamics of Dispute (Judaica Press)where he discusses this isssue in
> detail. Basically, he proposes a novel idea: the Amoraim only did not
> disagree with Tannaim becasue the Tanna could be basing himself on a
> Halacha L'Moshe Misinai of which fact an Amora may not be aware. However,
> in matters when this is not a concern, such as which posuk a known
> halacha is derived, they did argue.

It seems that early amoraim were unaware or clueless that there was any
problem with disgreeing with a Tannaim, Notice a lot of tiyvtas on Rabbi
Yochana because he paskened in contradition to braissos. He probably
was niftar long before he knew that this was a problem. The voice of
the Gmara - aka the so-called Stam - takes this for granted. But it
is not so obvious that Rav, Shmuel or R. Yochanan {etc.} were aware
that an era had ended. This is apparently a retrofit from later on.
I'm not sure which generation to be sure...

See Arvei Psachim were Shmuel paskens neither like R. Yehuda nor like R.
Yossi, and the Rashhbam. Tosafos, Yerushalmi etc.

Maybe the problem with arguing is only with the consensus of a generation.
IOW, once the Tannaitic issue was settled, then it the matter was frozen.
Same with the Gmara. once the Gmara was closed - AND a clear psak given
- the issue was closed. The same might be said for Rishonim - when the
matter had a clear psak. And Beis Yosef and Rema did their best to come
to a conclusion based upon the Torah of the Rishonim. Note that neither of
them - AFAIK - ever went bakc to the Gmara itself to prove their points.
Rather they weighed the voices of Rishonim etc.

Best Wishes for a "Sweet" Passover
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

We have discussed hasgacha pratit several times.
For those interested in the chasidic view there is an article in the
latest BDD that just came out

chag kasher vesameach
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/4/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Aso in the latest BDD is an article that claims that R. Tam's shekia
strats much earlier than astronomical sunset and so the secdond shekia
is not much different than the geonim.

-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/4/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:23:43 -0600, Avodah wrote:
>> The OU holds that the process whereby the artificial sweetener is
>> "grown" on a substrate of kitniyos makes it less of a derivative of
>> kitniyos than, say, corn oil. Obviously, not all agree to this> chiluk.

> None of the Mehadrin hechsherim in Israel apparently do. I checked
> today and Pepsi Max (the local variant of Diet Pepsi) doesn't get the
> Badatz EC's hechsher for Pesach either.

I believe that RC diet has the hecjsher of R. Rubin

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/4/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

There have been no comments on what I viewed as his greatest chumrah
that ashkenazi women married to sefardim have to keep the gerzerah on
kitnitot because that generation accepted it on them for all generations.

I have no idea which generation accepted such a gezerah. At most other
poskin require a hatarat nedarim. Most poskim say the woman automatically
go after the customs of the wife. I don't see how a normal household
could run with the husband eating kitniyot and the wife who prepares it
does not.

BTW the shiur of R. Elyashiv for matzah is 21 grams le-chumra and 15
grams le-kula. One can combine these and eat one "large" kezayit instead
of 2 kezayits. Hence, 21 garms is actually enough for the 2 kezayit's.

I just re-read Kol dodi hagadah and he is MUCH more machmir He requires
0.7 ounces for 1 kezayiy (reasonable) but 1.5 ounces for 2 (sorry his
math is not very good). This amounts to over 40grams or more than twice
R. Elyashiv's most chumra shitah. He also mentions that the shiur for
maror goes up with each edition (good thing mine is a few years old).

-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/4/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> I questioned this. <<< Baruch Haba? To who, Eliyahu HaNavi? I've been
> trying for years to tell people that he comes to ... a bris, but coming
> to sedarim is only an urban legend. Could I have been wrong? >>>

> Yes, it seems that I *was* wrong.
[snip]

At the end of Rabbi Leibtag's shiur on the reason for matzo, his further
iyun section deals with Eliyahu at the seder.
<http://www.tanach.org/shmot/bo.txt>

Have a nice Pesach,
Saul

On 1 Apr 2004 at 9:26, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Not according to Aruch HaShulchan 285:2 -- "... B'Vadai, when Moshe
> Rabenu was m'saken to lain, 

The very issue of who was m'sakein to leyin (and when) is a machlokes 
rishonim.... 

-- Carl

From: Arie Folger 
> Rabbi Meir (don't you have a last name? or first?) wrote:

Rabi is the family name...

SBA

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
<<Nor would there ever be reason for libun chamur -- libun kal
will burn away literal ta'am of any biochemical.>>

Libun kal burns away be'ein.  Libun chamur does balu'ah. IIRC.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 11:38:57PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Libun kal burns away be'ein.  Libun chamur does balu'ah. IIRC.

That fits my recollection. But that doesn't fit the chemistry -- in
practice libun kal would be sufficient to reduce any biochemical to ash
(and therefore make it mutar). Nor does it get to the underlying issue:
that that which is bal'uah must be less than 1:60 of the material in the
pot. We aren't treating the ta'am balu'ah within the pot in a chemist's
manner.

:-)ODOii! (:-)ODii! for any Granikim amongst us)
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

> I just re-read Kol dodi hagadah and he is MUCH more machmir He requires
> 0.7 ounces for 1 kezayiy (reasonable) but 1.5 ounces for 2 (sorry his
> math is not very good).

Sounds like rounding error to me -- what's the "gram/CC" figure?

Akiva

On 4 Apr 2004 at 11:33, Eli Turkel wrote:
> BTW the shiur of R. Elyashiv for matzah is 21 grams le-chumra and 15
> grams le-kula. One can combine these and eat one "large" kezayit instead
> of 2 kezayits. Hence, 21 garms is actually enough for the 2 kezayit's.

> I just re-read Kol dodi hagadah and he is MUCH more machmir He requires
> 0.7 ounces for 1 kezayiy (reasonable) but 1.5 ounces for 2 (sorry his
> math is not very good). This amounts to over 40grams or more than twice
> R. Elyashiv's most chumra shitah. He also mentions that the shiur for
> maror goes up with each edition (good thing mine is a few years old).

Over Shabbos, my son picked up a pamphlet called Hidurei HaMidos written
by R. Hadar Margolin (who was my son's 11th grade Rebbe in Ma'arava). I
only read part of the second half of it. In the second half, he attempts
to disprove R. Chaim Naeh's shitta in reviis by showing that RCN's
shiur was based upon a mistake in the weight of the derham, the coin
which the Rambam cites in explaining midos. (The Rambam says that the
a reviis weighs approximately 27 derhams) The mistake was that RCN said
the derham weighed 3.2 grams. AIUI, today, hundreds of derhams have been
found, with an average weight of 2.8 grams and none over 3.04 grams (as
described in numismatic catalogues). I have not yet read the first half,
where he attempts to disprove the Chazon Ish's shita, but he says there
that the CI held that the derham weighed 5.5 grams.

He claims that a reviis should be 75ml (2.5 oz.) as compared with 2.86
oz. for RCN and 5 oz. for the CI. Towards the end, he brings b'derech
agav that a k'beitza should be 50 cubic centimeters as is today's egg
(!!!) and that you can calculate a k'zayis from that (I recall hearing
from R. Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin in 5755 that a k'zayis of matza is the
amount that would fit into an Israeli matchbox if you grind it up).

The pamphlet is meant to be a teaser for a full sefer to be published
later this year. It has one haskama - from R. Ezriel Auerbach, which
basically says "this is very interesting, but we have to keep to our
masores."

-- Carl

From: "Eli Turkel" <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> BTW the shiur of R. Elyashiv for matzah is 21 grams le-chumra and 15
> grams le-kula.

I thought k'zayis was a measure of volume.

David Riceman

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 08:02:07AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: From: "Eli Turkel" <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
:> BTW the shiur of R. Elyashiv for matzah is 21 grams le-chumra and 15
:> grams le-kula.

: I thought k'zayis was a measure of volume.

But how do you measure the kezayis? You're not going to crunch up the
matzah you're about to eat. And even if you were, how small do you crunch
it? Different sizes would allow different dough-air ratios. And should
the ideal be zero air? Whole matzah has bubbles too. Nor can you drop it
in water to see the volume it displaces.

So, it has become common to use estimates based on the area of the matzah
eaten. This estimate relies on all matzos having roughly the same thickness,
and therefore a reliable conversion from area to volume. Which makes for an
unreliable estimate.

Matzos (assuming all are the crispy kind) have roughly the same weight
per volume. While still imperfect, it's far more consistant than any
other measuring system at our disposal.

Doing the translation by printing the weight of a kezayis of matzah is
our most accurate way of relaying the proper amount to eat.

:-)ODOii!
-mi

On 31 Mar 2004 at 17:57, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
> I wonder if that would solve the problem of Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom
> Seudah, especially if I drink both reviiyos at the same time (i.e.,
> without a hefsek between the two.) According to those poskim who allow
> for an extra reviis of wine to qualify as the "seudah," I don't know if
> having one big cup would do the job.

This is what I had in mind as well. But this morning, I received a
response off list from Rav Teitz that in order for this to work, you
would have to drink the reviis off the top of your cup, and then pour
it into a separate cup for the 'seuda' part.

-- 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. 

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> Over Shabbos, my son picked up a pamphlet called Hidurei HaMidos
> written by R. Hadar Margolin...
>       he attempts to disprove R. Chaim Naeh's shitta in reviis by
> showing that RCN's shiur was based upon a mistake in the weight of
> the derham, the coin which the Rambam cites in explaining midos....
> He claims that a reviis should be 75ml (2.5 oz.) as compared with
> 2.86 oz. for RCN and 5 oz. for the CI. Towards the end, he brings
> b'derech agav that a k'beitza should be 50 cubic centimeters as is
> today's egg (!!!) and that you can calculate a k'zayis from that...

It is well known that the Dram RCN used was the Turkish Dram and that
in the days of Rambam was smaller and so even RCN was machmir.

According to archaelogy the eggs have not changed in size of 2000 years
until about 50 years ago. In fact todays eggs are LARGER than in old
days because of new feeding techniques.

My wife feels that Israeli eggs are larger than those in the US but this
is a private observation not based on any statistics.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Eli Turkel" <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
>> BTW the shiur of R. Elyashiv for matzah is 21 grams le-chumra and 15
>> grams le-kula.

> I thought k'zayis was a measure of volume.

according to most ashkenazi poskim that is indeed true. In the dvar
torah from the Gush there is a detailed analysis of this. Khaf haChaim
disagrees but it is not clear on what basis. As aa result many sefadim
have a larger shiur for matzah even though they accept RCN.

In fact R. Elyashiv brings for matzah the shiur of the size of a hand
with the fingers not completely open

moadim lesimchah
Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]