Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 004

Friday, April 16 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:50:34 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Re: Sreifas Chometz


Akiva Miller wrote:
>Someone once told me that there's a shita that "ein biur ela
>b'sreifah", according to which you're *not* yotzei when you
>pour the kerosene on it. Even after it burns you won't be
>yotzay, since what you burned was no longer edible chometz...

Carl wrote:
>That would be Rav Yehuda in the Gemara.

*Rabbi* Yehuda, the tanna. The Shulchan Aruch clearly paskens like
Chachamim, but the Rema writes that the minhag is to burn it (OC 445:1).

Akiva Miller wrote:
>So if bitul (which doesn't physically affect the chometz at all)
>is a legitimate form of biur,

Carl wrote:
>We don't rely on bitul alone, because we are afraid of finding
>a gluska yafa (nice piece of cake) during the chag, and hesitating
>about disposing of it.

According to Tosafos on the first amud of Pesachim, because you might
come to eat it.

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


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach


R Meir Rabi wrote on Mar 25th:
> It appears from M"B 447 S"K 14, that one may cook and bake in unkashered
> chometz kitchen before Pesach, the food one will eat on Pesach. Is this
> true?

I'm still perplexed about this one. Anyone?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Sreifas Chometz


RAMiller:
>> Someone once told me that there's a shita that "ein biur ela
>> b'sreifah", according to which you're *not* yotzei when you pour the
>> kerosene on it. Even after it burns you won't be yotzay, since what you
>> burned was no longer edible chometz.

RCS replied:
> That would be [Rabbi] Yehuda in the Gemara.

Also, Rava (Pesachim 5a) deduces it's the opinion of Rabbi Aqiva. Given
that he's Rabbi Yehudah's rebbe's rebbe, no surprise there.

However, as RAM later deduced, this is not an exception to acharei rabim
lehatos. We hold like the rabbanan, not R' Yehudah (see Pes 27b).

Which is also later implied in RCS's response:
> We don't rely on bitul alone, because we are afraid of finding a
> gluska yafa (nice piece of cake) during the chag, and hesitating
> about disposing of it.

The problem isn't a lack of bi'ur, it's that because the bi'ur isn't
physical, we have cheshashos about what the person will do with it on
yom tov.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:55:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot


Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2004 at 12:53, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But how do you measure the kezayis? You're not going to crunch up the
>> matzah you're about to eat.

> Actually, I was told that there were small scales for use at the seder being
> sold in Geula last week (really!).

> But AIUI, what you were 'supposed' to do was crush a matza before Pesach and
> see how much of it fit into the proper sized instrument (I heard an Israeli
> matchbox, although that would not coincide with the CI shiur).

Even that's less accurate than weighing. You're assuming a consistancy in
width that simply isn't there. Which is why I spoke about crushing "the matzah
you're about to eat" in particular.

The weight of a kezayis of matzah is consistant, can be made to account for
any air-matzah ratio in the crushing and compaction (not to mention the ratio
in the original uncrushed matzah) and is pretty consistant for any reasonably
dry matzah. (Special whole wheat and spelt matzos would require different
weights.)

But are we supposed to be that frantic about accuracy? Our ancestors weren't.
This is a variant of my question about kevasikin. The vasikin being immitated
didn't have watches accurate to the quarter-hour, yet most kevasikin minyanim
try for accuracy to the second.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:48:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: torah portion


R Gershon Dubin wrote:
> The Mishna and Gemara at the end of Chagiga (26 a-b) , which says that the
> olei regalim were shown the keruvim (NB Rav Dovid Cohen explained to me that
> this means the pictures of keruvim that Shelomo Hamelech put in various
> places in the BhM, not those on the Aron, which explains how they could show
> them to zarim) and the shulchan, which was raised up for the purpose (and
> was therefore mekabel tum'ah, which is what the Mishna starts off
> discussing).

If we're talking about pictures, how does this show chibah? Were the
pictures with the keruvim facing eachother, away from eachother or even
ch"v hugging? How does one know which picture on the wall represents
what's really going on live within the qodesh haqadashim.

And why must we assume that it is *the* aron that was shown to them?

In Shekalim (15b), Reish Lakish says that there were two aronos. The aron
with the 2nd luchos in the qodesh haqedashim, and the aron with the first
luchos that was taken out to war -- and therefore seen by the masses. The
Rabanan disagree, based on a pasuq, and say that the aron was taken out
only once, in Eli's day, and shouldn't have been (which is why it was
captured). I'm not sure what the chachamim do with the story of Yericho,
where the pasuq says the aron lead the procession around the walls.

OTOH, in Sotah 42a the gemara makes the undisputed statement that the
aron went out to war (based on "Ki H' E-lokeikhem imakhem").

Perhaps the mishnah in Chagigah because of the latter opinion.

> That showing of the shulchan, indicating that the lechem hapanim was hot
> even a week after its being put onto the shulchan, was done on Shabbos of
> the Moed, which is when the lechem hapanim had been on there the longest.
> Thus the chiba (re'u chibaschem lifnei Hamakom) was greatest then.

Note that these demonstations are aimed at ma'aminim. Cynics would
simply say they snuck in new loaves. The demonstation was to make the
intellectual knowledge more real, to internalize it -- "veyadata hayom,
vehasheivosa el levavekha" -- it would fail to prove anything.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:03:49 -0400
From: "Litke, Gary S." <glitke@torys.com>
Subject:
RE: Eliyahu at the Seder


Akiva Miller wrote:
>Bottom line, I was very wrong. I used to make fun of
>those who pretend that Eliyahu actually comes to our
>sedarim, like those fathers who nudge the table to make
>the kos shake, and who then tell the kids, "Look! Eliyahu
>is taking a sip!" That's really not too far removed from standing up to
>greet the navi with "Baruch Haba"...

But see RSZA new Haggadah that Kos shel Eliyahu only means that it is
on the table because of the gemoro's safek of whther we shoud have a
fifth cup, as to which the gemoro ultimately states, "TY'KU" - Tishbi
(Eliyahu) will answer the question. Hence it became known as Kos Shel
Eliyahu. This doesn't mean Eliyahu fails to attend (I think), but it
does mean that he doesn't drink.

Gary S. Litke
Torys LLP
212.880.6190


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:29:38 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Hassidim wearing tefillin on chol haMoed


On 15 Apr 2004 at 13:53, Gil Student wrote:
> I seem to recall from when I was a teenager that the shatz would take
> off his tefillin before Hallel on Sukkos (when we do the na'anu'im)
> but not on Pesach. I don't know if that has a makor.

 From what I recall, on Succos there would be a chashash of chatzitza 
if you wore the tefillin when you took lulav and esrog and that's why 
they were removed before Hallel. 

-- 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. 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:41:19 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book


WRT to RMB's position that the issue of the ikkarim is halacha, and,
as he states
>However, as there is a clear and unquestioned pesaq that someone who
>doesn't hold some version (loosely defined) of these beliefs is to be
>treated as "non-Yisrael" for the sake of numerous mitzvos, they still
>define the limits of O. 

While there may be poskim who hold that way, phrasing it as clear and
unquestioned seems highly unjustified - and would need documentation,
especially given RM Shapiro's evidence tot he contrary.. BOth RM Frankel
and RD Riceman have expressed similar doubts about this. FUrthermore,
t the radbaz's psak shows that the consequences of wrong beliefs is not
necessarily being treated as "non Yisrael".

The basis for many of those who hold that "some version (loosely defined)"
is normative is precisely the belief that they were agreed upon - and
therefore the documentation that they were not undercuts that position.

Part of the debate is that I (and I think others) understand that an
essential part of the nature of ikkarim is that they require clarity -
as well as consensus. That is both for halachic reasons (some of us
have an aversion to labeling someone "non Yisrael" except for very
clear reasons) as well as intellectual reasons - which is why ikkarim
tend to be a subset of what is believed to be true. The essence of
the above formulation is that the ikkarim are not clearly formulated,
nor is there any evidence that there ever was any consensus about the
version of ikkarim that you happen to choose.

One can document that certain communities had certain standards of belief,
which frequently included (but was not limited) to the ikkarim - and
those who didn't agree were viewed as questionable or even hutz lamachane.
These criteria were sometimes used for the halachic issues that RMB cites
(eg gerut) - but it is hard to document that this acceptance was universal
or limited to the ikkarim (eg, the CI has been quoted that someone who
doesn't believe in the truth of hazal is a kofer, and other examples
can be multiplied.

The halachic issues that are raised by RMB's position are

1) The extent to which the hatam sofer's position about the consensus
changing over time redefining ikkare emuna has been widely adopted -
and there is little evidence that it has been so widely adopted and cited.

2) Even accepting such a position, the nature of the consensus required
for such a change remains undefined, nor is there evidence that such a
consensus actually exists.

3) The position of how we view positions of rishonim that were not
known by some achronim - the CI position applies to positions that were
completely unknown, and even that is controversial - but it does not seem
to apply to material that was used in the halachic community but unknown
to a particular acharon. The material that is cited by Prof Shapiro
is almost all not material that was lost and recently rediscovered in
manuscripts,(to which the CI's shitta awould apply) but within works
that were part of the chain of mesora, even if not necessarily widely
known or always accessible in some communities.

Lastly, RMB questions Prof Shapiro's right to expand the limits of
Orthodoxy, as he is not a leader. The problem is not that Prof Shapiro
is expanding the limits - but that he is pointing out that the limits
have always been far broader, unless one is willing to write out of the
community many who were considered leaders in the past - something that
many of us find problematic (and would even suggest that not finding it
problematic is itself problematic). Pointing out that we were mistaken
is something that does not require a leader. The question of whether his
methodology is right is a different issue - but he brings data that has
to be addressed with our methodology, and just dismissing it because
of the source is unacceptable is convenient, but not right. The real
question is whether we have the right to narrow the limits of Orthodoxy,
rather than whether Shapiro has the right to broaden it.

Meir Shinnar   


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:18:13 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book


I have not read Marc Shapiro's new book and have no plans to do so in the
near future. I do recall our deliberations here at the time that the TuM
essay appeared, and am surprised that this thread continues here. As we
noted at the time, the paucity of significant differences and deviations
proves Marc's anti-thesis, and absent stunning new revelations of truly
profound differences, that would assumedly remain the case.

YGB


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:29:35 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book


On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 04:41:19PM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: WRT to RMB's position that the issue of the ikkarim is halacha, and,
: as he states
: >However, as there is a clear and unquestioned pesaq that someone who
: >doesn't hold some version (loosely defined) of these beliefs is to be
: >treated as "non-Yisrael" for the sake of numerous mitzvos, they still
: >define the limits of O. 

: While there may be poskim who hold that way, phrasing it as clear and
: unquestioned seems highly unjustified...

And yet you have yet to provide a poseiq who states that converts need
not accept the ikkarim, or that one can drink the wine of someone who
doesn't, or eat his shechitah.

RDE writes that he feels the 8th ikkar is a useful barometer. Let me
propose using the 12th.

I didn't want to raise the subject and the potential for sidetracking,
but...

All of the debate over L messianists takes the definitiveness of the
ikkarim as a given. The question is not whether one can violate the 12th
ikkar and still be in the fold, but whether belief in a dead messiah is
sufficient to be considered denying the ikkar.

Be it Rav Shach, Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, or the debate between R Dr
David Berger and the RCA. The RCA would not come out against drinking
their wine or eating their shechitah because they wouldn't consider
the messianist to be koferim. But no one questioned the ground rules --
the 12th ikkar does play a role in the definition kefirah.

And RMF invokes the ikkarim when labeling R and C rabbis as apiqursim.

RYBS discusses the role of the ikkarim in numerous lectures that one
could find in RMNordlicht's library. I've mentioned this before over a
month ago. I don't think he was under any such misimpression.

RSM at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n156.shtml#09> discusses
the MB and the ikkarim.

: especially given RM Shapiro's evidence tot he contrary.....

RMS does NOT DISCUSS the topic. He assumes the issue is one of dogma,
and therefore outside the realm of pesaq and of the rules for making
formerly valid options unviable.

With which I disagree on two grounds:
1- It *is* within the realm of halakhah;
2- Placing outside the realm does not mean that being a historian of
ideas gives your opinion authority. Accuracy, perhaps, but not the
power to define.

: The basis for many of those who hold that "some version (loosely defined)"
: is normative is precisely the belief that they were agreed upon - and
: therefore the documentation that they were not undercuts that position.

WADR, that's not the basis for my own belief (and he casts me as a member
of that group), and FAR more importantly, for the belief of those who
actually do have the authority to define the limits of O.

: The halachic issues that are raised by RMB's position are

: 1) The extent to which the hatam sofer's position about the consensus
: changing over time redefining ikkare emuna has been widely adopted -
: and there is little evidence that it has been so widely adopted and cited.

Um, this has nothing to do with the Chasam Sofer's position.

: 3) The position of how we view positions of rishonim that were not
: known by some achronim...

Also irrelevent. That only changes the magnitude of the divergence of
opinion. It was still well known that the current consensus about the
ikkarim post-dates the rishonim.

: Lastly, RMB questions Prof Shapiro's right to expand the limits of
: Orthodoxy, as he is not a leader. The problem is not that Prof Shapiro
: is expanding the limits...

What's the title of the book again?

RMS has as little authority to re-enstate limits as he is to create new
ones. It's like saying that chicken and milk is okay because otherwise
we're branding R' Yosef haGelili an avaryan. History isn't halachah; mastery
of one has nothing to do with authority in defining the other.

: have always been far broader, unless one is willing to write out of the
: community many who were considered leaders in the past...

You're right, I would not eat any meat you told me Hillel (who denied
bi'as hamashiach) shechted. <g>

They aren't in the community, they're niftarim. This is a halachic
question, with pragmatic impact. The labels are only of value as halachic
jargon, not in and of themselves.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:11:52 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: kezayit matzah


On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:04:39AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: not listed kol dodi according to RMF 0.7 ounces *(28.375)=20gr but he
: requires 2 full such kezaetim

I'm bewildered trying to understand RMF's combination of shitos.
1- As RET writes, RMF requires two kezeisim for Motzi and Matzah.
2- However, RMF holds like the Tur and the Gra, and had only two matzos
at his seider.

The sevara justifying two matzos is that lechem oni is a din in the
mishneh lechem for the chag rather than a separate chiyuv. Therefore, one
can be yotzei the mishneh lechem for pesach without the 2 being sheleimim.

However, if they're the same din, one would only need one kezayis. Requiring
two kezeisim implies a kezayis for each.

I could use some help.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:19:40 -0400
From: "Moshe & Ilana Sober" <sober@pathcom.com>
Subject:
V'Higadta L'Vincha


IMVHO, it seems to me that v'higadta & shevach are two stages of a single
process. The v'higadta of leil haseder is supposed to be experiential,
accompanied by Pesach/Matza/Maror, and each individual should feel as
if he personally came out of Mitzrayim. If we feel as if we have been
redeemed from Mitzrayim, then our natural response is shevach v'hoda'ah
to HKBH.

Pesachim 116a
Rav Nachman said to Daru his slave, "A slave whose master set him free,
and gave him silver and gold - what should he say to him?"
He said to him, "He should thank and praise him."
He said to him, "You have exempted us from saying Mah Nishtanah." He
began to recite Avadim Hayinu.

Mah Nishtanah seems quintessentially part of *v'higadta*. When we begin
Magid by asking our own questions, then the answers will matter to
us personally. And if the answers matter to us - because we ourselves
were redeemed from Mitzrayim - then we will give *shevach* to HKBH.

- Ilana


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:15:24 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: tefillin on chol haMoed - time of removal for wearers


On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:16:23PM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
:                                                     ... when migrants
: from Poland came to Ashkenaz after gezeiros Ta"ch (1648 C.E.) they
: brought with them the *Sepharadic* minhag to remove them before mussaf
...

Be'oso inyan, RYBS writes that it is better to wear one's tefillin for
mussaf RCh than to take them off and leave them with the retzu'os all
over the place. It's a lack of kavod hamitzvah.

However, RYBS adds, if one is saying "Keser" for qedushah, it particularly
doesn't jibe with wearing tefillin, and that should outweigh the
consideration of kavod.

LAD, this would explain why Sepharadim and Chassidim (at least some,
for their youth) would have a notion of taking off their tefillin between
Shacharis and Mussaf.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:04:11 -0400
From: IBrandriss@aol.com
Subject:
Tefillin on Chol HaMoed - time of removal for Shatz


Re the queries about a source for the practice of the Shatz removing
his tefillin after Hallel on Chol HaMoed (of Pesach), and why Succos is
different, see Mishna Berura on the last se'if of Orach Chaim 25 (s"k 60)
and the acharonim he cites. After explaining generally that the reason
to "hurry to remove" one's tefillin before Hallel on the days of Chol
HaMoed is because some say not to put tefillin on at all on these days,
the M.B. says that on Succos, the Shatz has time to take his tefillin off
before Hallel "while they are waiting for the Esrog." (See also the Magen
Avraham's reference here to the Rema in Orach Chaim 651:7 regarding the
"hefsek" issue of holding the Arba Minim with tefillin on one's hand.)
The M.B. does not explicitly explain why the reason to remove tefillin
before Hallel is not compelling for the Shatz on Pesach. See, however,
the Machatzis HaShekel on the Magen Avraham, who says that on Pesach
the Shatz does not have time.

Yitzchok Brandriss


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:58:33 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Hassidim wearing tefillin on chol haMoed


From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> ..Bobover Chassidim have a minhag that their 'bochurim' wear tefillin
> during davening on chol haMoed (until Hallel at least)....

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> They actually wear tefillin in Shul???

I investigated the matter and found the following. Bobov in Borough Park
in NYC, has signs up at their headquarters listing times and places for
minyonim for meinichei tefillin (bochurim). However, it seems that they
take place only in a separate designated building - the Mesivta building -
and not in the main beis midrash. But it definitely is openly, betzibbur,
and not something limited to betzinah / at home.

Mordechai


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:43:47 +1000
From: SBA <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Re: Tfillin on chol hamoed


Passing on - from a lurker

A tradition of the Halberstam family has it that once the divrei Chaim
came into shul on chol hamoed and saw that the bachurim were behaving
with kalos rosh. He said that without talis and without t'fillin, kalos
rosh would be a natural result, and therefore instituted wearing t'fillin
on chol hamoed for bachurim.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:13:55 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Sitting while answering qaddish


R Dr Josh Backon suggested I take the following scjm exchange to Avodah.
On scjm, most aren't frum, and certainly the level of erudition is such
that not too many people are able to chime in with their opinions on
this one.

It started when someone asked:
> When I was growing up, my family belonged to a Conservative synagogue.
> People generally did not stand for kaddish, unless they were saying
> it....
> people who were perceived (even aside from kaddish) as being the more
> "religious" members of the congregation.
> In the frum world, it's pretty universal to stand for kaddish.  Is
> this custom?  Halakha?  Is there any ground for the option of sitting

RDJB replied:
> Halacha. See: Shulchan Aruch ORACH CHAYIM 56:1 in Rema ("v'yesh la'amod
> k'sh'onim kaddish v'chol davar she'bikdusha") ["one must stand up for
> Kaddish and any other 'davar she'bikdusha' (said with a minyan of 10)].
> But the TAZ there (s"k gimmel) indicates that not all hold by this. In
> OC 53 S"k 1 he mentions that the MAHARIL mentions that MAHARI Segal didn't
> stand up for a Davar She'bikdusha. However, the Magen Avraham 56 s"k 4 
> indicates "lo l'ha'keyl"; thus he too requires standing for a Davar
> She'bikdusha.

To which I chimed in:
> "Veyeish" isn't quite "one must". More like "there is [reason to]".

On a tangent from another questioner I added:
> Which fits. The SA doesn't say anything, the Rama says it's appropriate
> to stand. When I was a kid, many Ashkenazim didn't sztand either, or would
> stand only when the prayer before or after Qaddish required standing. (As
> in making a point to stand up early or not to sit down if up already.)

> I don't know if that was because of a ruling, or because of laziness.

RDJB, quotes me and replied:
>> "Veyeish" isn't quite "one must". More like "there is [reason to]".

> Not exactly :-)  The REMA's use of "v'yesh" most definitely means that one
> is "urged" to stand.

Me:
> Still, not as strong as "vetzarich" (and he must), his use of a verb
> without "veyeish", or when he says "anu nohagim" or the like.

> prayer. They require a minyan. As far as I can tell the common feature is
> that these prayers simultaneously bless G-d and state His transcendence.

RDJB:
>                          ... it just occurred to me that you may be
> confusing "v'yesh" with "v'yesh OMRIM" (there are those that say ..").

Me:
> No Josh. Look at my translation. That's [veyeish omerim] his means of
> recording a law in which both side either way. I'm talking about the
> Rama's means of recording an "ought" rather than a "must".

Opinions, comments?

I'm curious both about the subject of the Rama's use of "veyeish" and
whether the people who sat when listening to qaddish back when I was a
child were being meiqil or lazy.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (413) 403-9905                  judgment bring balance and harmony?


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:17:09 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: 2/7


In a message dated 04/11/2004 10:51:39 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> IIRC, when we learnt the inyan in Morashah "Kollel" (sometime in the
> mid-80s), RMWillig explained this to be closer to once every 7 years.
> Two checkings within a 7 year span means checking a second time just
> under 7 years after the first.

Small world, I saw R' Wiilig (who I don't know) last night in Passaic
and asked him about this. He said he thought there was flexibility(ie
not every 3.5) but not that beginning and end was ok.

You can post this to list if you think it worthwhile.

[I did, as otherwise my post could have left the wrong impression. -mi]

KT
Joel


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:01:08 +0300 (IDT)
From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
davening in plane


saw notice that R. Wosner paskened that one cannot daven in a group in
a plane when it is dangerous or interferes with the crew. Recommends
either small groups or davening in one's seat. R. Yosef also paskens it
is preferable to daven in one's seat.

Seems that the psak was in response to a question from El Al.

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:47:26 -0400
From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com>
Subject:
re: cottonseed oil


<We spent all of Pesach thinking that the ban on cottonseed oil was
a chumra of recent development. It's not. My son found it tonight in
Ma'aseh Rav Hilchos Pesach 184 ("Shemen Zera Kanbus")>

It is very highly unlikely that the reference in Ma'aseh Rav has
any connection to cottonseed oil. First of all, in the Gr"a's time,
cottonseed oil was virtually unknown. The following was found online,
from an industry source: "Although cotton has been grown for its fiber
for several thousand years, the use of cottonseed on a commercial scale
is of relatively recent origin. In ancient times, it is reported that
the Hindus and the Chinese developed crude methods for obtaining oil
from cottonseed, using the principle of the mortar and pestle. They used
the oil in lamps and fed the remainder of the pressed seed to cattle. For
many centuries, however, the use of cottonseed did not develop much beyond
that crude stage and was confined to local areas. During the first part
of the 19th century, plants in Europe began to crush small quantities of
Egyptian cottonseed." The Gr"a was niftar at the end of the 18th century
(Chol Hamoed Succos 5558 -- 1797).

In addition, the term "kanbus" is not used for cotton. According to
Professor Yehuda Felix in his "Hatzomeiach v'Hachai Bamishnah," it refers
to hemp (cannabis sativa), whose seeds, he says, were used for oil and
bird feed.

The Aruch says that it is the "enef." He gives two different meanings:
that it is a spice akin to cumin, or a type of flax known as "kanbi,"
to which the Musaf HeAruch adds, "that is, a type of grass from whose
threads clothing and thick ropes are made," which would seem to be a
description of hemp. It is much more likely that this was the product
referred to by the Gr"a.

EMT


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 >