Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 004

Tuesday, April 4 2006

• Re: Sheva Brachos
• re:the Chazon Ish and voting in the Israeli elections
• Re: Nusach for Bitul Chametz
• Re: kashrut for Pesach
• RE: Mezonot Bread
• RE: Nusach for Bitul Chametz
• kashrut reliable enough
• FW: Mezonot Bread
• Re: Mezonot Bread
• korbanot
• Re: korbanot
• Re: Nusach for Bitul Chametz
• Looking for a source
• Re: jewish identification
• Re: jewish identification
• Mezonot Bread

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> Gershon Dubin wrote:
>> Anyone have any idea what a newlywed couple would do at the seder re:
>> sheva berachos, taking into account ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos,
>> nir'eh kemosif al hakosos, etc.?

> Igros Moshe EH I #95 page 244

Rabbi Frand gave a shiur on this -  commuter Chavrusa 18 Parashat Va'era.

Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com

[Micha:]
> WRT our discussion: R' Aharon Kotler was quoted as saying that voting
> in EY was a chiyuv.

RAK was in Israel shortly before the 1953 elections for the Knesset.
It was reported in the press at the time that he said it was a chiyuv
to vote (for Agudah, of course), and that when asked if it was a chiyuv
like eating matzah on Pesach, he responded, "No, like eating marror."

EMT

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> R' Chaim Berlin has a chiddush on the nusach of Biur Chametz. He asks,
> why is it that we say d'bi'artey udilo bi'artey? Obviously we do not
> have to be mivatel Chametz which we destroyed? His approach is that
> mechiras Chametz is, according to some shitttos, problematic (it is
> only ha'arama) and thus I am being mivatel even the chametz which I
> have gotten rid of via sale. Thus, the mechira is not addressing an
> issur d'oraysa and therefore ha'arama is good enough for a d'Rabbonon
> (chametz she'avar alav haPesach) Our Rav quoted this chiddush this week
> in Shul. On the way home I commented to some chaveirim that this chiddush
> only works aliba d'Rashi. However, according to Tosfos' shita of hefker,
> it doesn't work mimanafshacch. If you were mivatel, i.e. were mifkir,
> the chametz before the goy took possesuion, than how can you sell it
> to him? And if you said the nusach of bitul after he took possession,
> it's not yours to be mivatel. However, if you hold like Rashi, bitul
> is a personal statement about your estimation of the worthlessness of
> Chametz and as such no technical kinyan must be effected.

RSC, Can I have the Mar'eh Moqom for that Shtickl from RCB?

The vort should work even L'Shitas Tosfos and the Ran. The Hefqer
involved in Bitul Hametz is not your standard Hefqer, being that Hametz
is Eino Birshuso and Asa'an haKosuv K'Illu Hein Birshuso, the Hefqer is
to prevent Asa'an haKosuv K'Illu Hein Birshuso. So you could be Mevatel
the Hametz beforehand and the sale to the goy would still be Chal at
the same time, even L'Shitas Tosfos, because you are only Mafqir your
[unwelcome] future interest that comes after z'man biur.

R' Shimon Shkop in Sha'arei Yosher [5:23] further elaborates about the
nature of Hefqer in Bitul Hametz and uses this concept to answer many
questions the Rishonim had about Hefqer and Hametz.

Jacob Farkas

From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> 6. The rabbinate has started a major upgrade of their kashrut services.
> By the end of the year (Rosh Hashana) all 4000 masgichim will have
> undertaken a professional course including exams.

We were told last summer that we had to be tested before pesach- and there 
have been at least 3 tests till now.

reuven

On April 2, 2006, Rich, Joel wrote:
> As I sadly sit at Ben Gurion Airport for the trip back to the US,
> I thought the chevra might find the insert from the Weiss cuisine...
> "There is a dispute among Poskim concerning the proper Bruche(sic)
> for this roll. Please consult your own rav)
...
> But now I'm even more confused-on the trip back (this time the hashgacha
> is OU, Jerusalem Edah Charedit) I read "The rolls are Halachically
> "Pas Kisnin" and their brocho is "mezonot"
...
> Any ideas

Yes. 

IMO, it is wrong to make a 'mezonot' on most of the rolls caterers refer
to as "mezonos rolls". Furthermore, despite the fact that everyone does
it, making a mezonos on pizza is also wrong. The only possible heter to
make a mizonos on pizza is if the dough was made *entirely* from 'may
peiros' (apple, orange or other fruit juices). Otherwise, the bracha is
clearly "ha'motzee". I personally asked several pizza shop owners in
NY and almost all pizza shop owners in my own city and I received the
same response; pizza pie dough is made with water, not fruit juice! The
Michaber is quite clear about dough which is baked in an oven with a
"milui basar, dagim o gevina" engendering a ha'motzee. The Taz's heter (SA
168:17) only applies if the ma'achal is obviously li'kinuach (such as the
"dogs in a blanket" that are commonly served at Schmorgesbords). Nobody
eats pizza as desert or aperitif. Also, nobody eats dinner rolls on
planes 'l'kinuach'. Consequently, I can't see any heter to make a mizonos
on rolls or pizza which are made with flour and water. Pizza shop owners
in NY are in the habit of quoting R' Moshe that the bracha on pizza is
mezonos but I've never seen this purported teshuva anywhere in Igros
Moshe. Perhaps when R' Moshe was originally asked, 50 years ago, pizza
was not eaten as a meal however today I can't see any leniency in this
matter. At best, one should follow the Michaber's advice in sif 13 and
make sure to make a ha'motzee on regular bread before eating a ma'achal
whose 'bracha' status is sharuy b'safek.

I've never discussed this with a "velt's posek" so, as RGS would say,
the preceding was "la-halakhah ve-lo le-ma'aseh". Kindly consult your
LOR before proceeding.

Simcha Coffer     

On April 3, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
>> R' Chaim Berlin has a chiddush on the nusach of Biur Chametz.... 

> RSC, Can I have the Mar'eh Moqom for that Shtickl from RCB?

It was in one of those Torah journals. I'll try and get it for you over
Pesach bl'n.

> The vort should work even L'Shitas Tosfos and the Ran. The Hefqer
> involved in Bitul Hametz is not your standard Hefqer, being that Hametz
> is Eino Birshuso and Asa'an haKosuv K'Illu Hein Birshuso, the Hefqer is
> to prevent Asa'an haKosuv K'Illu Hein Birshuso. So you could be Mevatel
> the Hametz beforehand and the sale to the goy would still be Chal at the
> same time, even L'Shitas Tosfos, because you are only Mafqir your
> [unwelcome] future interest that comes after z'man biur.

I'm not following you. Since chametz is assur b'achila and assur
b'hana'ah, you have no "shelo" to be mafkir after the zman biur. As
you mention, the Torah merely puts chametz in your reshus l'gabey being
over ba'al yiraeh u'ba'al yimatzeh. If one finds chametz in his house
during Pesach, he merely needs to dispose of it. No special nusach is
required. "Biur Chametz" only works before the zman, not after. You can't
perform biur chametz after shesh shaos. It's not yours to be mivaer. Thus
we are obviously discussing biur, i.e. being mafkir one's chametz ,
before the zman. Therefore, hadra kushya l'duchta. If biur really has
a din of hefker, how can I subsequently sell my chametz to the goy? And
if the mechira is chal before the biur, what was I mivaer?

Simcha Coffer

At 04:07 PM 04/03/2006, R Davidovich wrote:
>I trust the housewife's ability to keep her keilim
>separate and soak/salt the meat properly.
<snip>

I sincerely doubt that today (in America for sure, in EY I cannot
say for sure) that the average housewife knows how to soak/ salt meat
properly, simply because all of the meat and chicken that we get is
already kashered.

>With this understanding, it is certainly not nearly as insulting not to
>trust the same hechsheirim other people might trust, since this depends
>on factors having nothing to do with the ne'emanus of the other balebos.

It is this point that I made time and time again when this issue was
discussed months ago, yet there were those who refused to accept it.
Perhaps you will be more successful now than I was then. :-)

Yitzchok Levine 

On April 3, 2006 I wrote: 
> IMO, it is wrong to make a 'mezonot' on most of the rolls caterers refer
> to as "mezonos rolls". Furthermore, despite the fact that everyone does
> it, making a mezonos on pizza is also wrong.

My wife is always purchasing "Mendelsohn's Pizza" (NY) from the grocery. I
understand that the dough is made with mei peiros and thus a proper shiur
must be consumed before entertaining the prospect of making a ha'motzee.

A quick synopsis.

SA 168:8 - Mizonos is pronounced on Pas Ha'ba'ah Bi'kisnin unless one
eats a "shiur" which customarily is considered a se'uda. (see sif 9 for
the definition of PHB) The MB states that it would seem from the halachah
of Eiruvei Techumin that a shiur seuda is gimmel or dalet beitzim (this
refers to volume - whatever amount of food product one can squeeze into
a container the size of an average-sized egg) however the Gra and other
acharonim hold that only a quantity which corresponds to the standard
normally consumed for breakfast or dinner satisfies the requirement of
haMotzee. Apparently, this is greater than "gimmel or dalet beitzim". The
MB goes on to say that it is best to be choshesh for the da'as machmirim
and not consume more than dalet beizim of mizonos material [unless
first making a hamotztee on a ma'achal which is unquestionably bread. -
my addition]

As far as I'm concerned, two average-sized slices of pizza cannot possibly
fit into a container which represents the volume of four average-sized
(or any size) eggs and thus, even if one was to adopt the Taz's shita
regarding PHB, he would still have to make a hamotzee on two slices of
pizza. As far as one slice, the SA suggestion (make hamotztzee on an
item that is not a safek) should be followed. I saw a similar eitza in
the Shulchan Aruch haRav.

As I mentioned in my previous email, I am not paskening. I would like
to hear from list-members who have experience with ho'ra'ah regarding
this issue. Despite several attempts, I have not been able to illicit
an unequivocal psak regarding this issue from a universally recognized
posek despite the fact that I feel that the issue is cut and dry. Any
assistance in this matter would be appreciated.

Simcha Coffer

RJR wrote:
> "There is a dispute among Poskim concerning the proper  Bruche(sic)
> for this roll. Please consult your own rav)....
>  ....on the trip back (this time the hashgacha
> is OU, Jerusalem Edah  Charedit) I read "The rolls are Halachically
> "Pas Kisnin" and their brocho is  "mezonot"<<

Since my husband (and everybody else?) holds that all rolls are hamotzi
if eaten as part of a meal, I'll tell you what I did with the mezonos
roll in my airline meal. I put it aside to eat as a snack some time
after I finished my meal.

 -Toby  Katz
=============
CKVS

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> 
> ...On a quick sampling of my shul very few would be comfortable with a 
> new Bet Hamikdash and bringing animal sacrifices. ...

I can empathize, since I myself am personally very squeamish. I remember
in my yeshivah days the bochurim sitting around the breakfast table and
discussing the mesechta Zavchim we were learning -- shechting the animal,
collecting the dam, etc., etc. I felt like puking.

However, the same could be said for shechting (chullin) altogether,
and even for bris millah. Have you taken a survey among your fellow
congregants on whether they'd be comfortable with personally performing,
or even just closely watching, either of these mitzvos?

Zvi Lampel

[RZL:]
> I can empathize, since I myself am personally very squeamish....
> However, the same could be said for shechting (chullin) altogether,
> and even for bris millah. Have you taken a survey among your fellow
> congregants on whether they'd be comfortable with personally performing,
> or even just closely watching, either of these mitzvos?

The difference is that we don't consider chullin shechita something
spiritual. In fact many vegetarians object to the idea. I recently ate a
whole fish with head and eyes and felt quite squeamish. My reaction was
- never again. I have been in a cow slaughterhouse once in my life -
as a teenager and based on that experience would not want to be around
when the schect my animal in the bet hamikdash (kasher with a Yisrael). I
would probably do the semichah and run.

As for Milah I look at is as surgery - necessary but not pleasant. Many
mothers in particular have trouble with Milah. Again I don't look at
the actual procedure as something uplifting.

[Email #2. -mi]

> Rav Dessler (chelek Dalet somewhere if memory serves) claims that the
> Rambam was only giving one of several possible reasons in the Moreh. In
> fact, continues Rav Dessler, all Rishonim did this.

Rambam uses avodah zarah as his explanation of many mitzvot not just
korbanot. Hence, according to Rambam this is a central issue in the Torah.
Hard to believe that he felt that this was just one more reason.

kol tuv
Eli Turkel
School of Mathematics
Tel Aviv University

>> The vort should work even L'Shitas Tosfos and the Ran. The Hefqer
>> involved in Bitul Hametz is not your standard Hefqer, being that Hametz
>> is Eino Birshuso and Asa'an haKosuv K'Illu Hein Birshuso, the Hefqer is
>> to prevent Asa'an haKosuv K'Illu Hein Birshuso. So you could be Mevatel
>> the Hametz beforehand and the sale to the goy would still be Chal at the
>> same time, even L'Shitas Tosfos, because you are only Mafqir your
>> [unwelcome] future interest that comes after z'man biur.

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> I'm not following you. Since chametz is assur b'achila and assur b'hana'ah,
> you have no "shelo" to be mafkir after the zman biur. As you mention, the
> Torah merely puts chametz in your reshus l'gabey being over ba'al yiraeh
> u'ba'al yimatzeh. If one finds chametz in his house during Pesach, he merely
> needs to dispose of it. No special nusach is required. "Biur Chametz" only
> works before the zman, not after. You can't perform biur chametz after shesh
> shaos. It's not yours to be mivaer. Thus we are obviously discussing biur,
> i.e. being mafkir one's chametz , before the zman. Therefore, hadra kushya
> l'duchta. If biur really has a din of hefker, how can I subsequently sell my
> chametz to the goy? And if the mechira is chal before the biur, what was I
> mivaer? 

Correct. There is no ownership after z'man bi'ur. That is precisely why
A'sa'an ha'kasuv k'ilu hein birshuso rather than it being birshuso in
the first place. The Hefqer of Bitul is in the future unwelcome interest
of k'ilu hein birshuso, its function is to nullify the possibility of
ownership for issur purposes.

Biur is different from bitul, in biur you are doing an action that renders
the product to be actual non-hametz, unlike bitul which does not modify
anything, rather it prevents the person from obtaining ownership.

Another point, biur is the proper process for hametz yadua, bitul is
used for hametz she'eino yadua. Granted, some Rishonim who consider that
Tashbisu is performed by way of Bitul would allow for Bitul of hametz
yadua, but everyone agrees that Bitul would work on hametz she'eino
yadua. So when you are M'vatel hametz, you wouldn't be mafqir a known
entity unless you consider that you are denying your future interest of
the object.

When z'man biur arrives, you no longer own anything anyway. If you
sold it, it is not yours, if you destroyed it, it is no longer, if you
did nothing, it is contingent on whether you were m'vatel. If you did
nothing, then the Torah will "reward" you with new ownership so that
you could be liable for the Issur of bal yiro'eh, if you were m'vatel,
you declared that you have no intention of acquiring this "ownership,"
and as a result the hametz is not considered in your domain.

So you can sell your Hametz and declare that you intend no future interest
and the two are not mutually exclusive.

Jacob Farkas

I heard b'shem the Shus of some Rishon that was asked a shailah about
establishing a beis zonah where the ladies would go to the mikvah etc.,
so only issurei d'rabbanan would be involved.

The Rav answered no, because basically an OU should never grace the
walls of a beis zonah. (I.e. it should never be seen that the rabbis
gave approval to such a place.)

Does anyone know where this teshuva can be found?

This question is relevant today, WRT questions about how to relate to
heterodox movements. Should we say, "We never want to give the impression
of approving such a thing," or should we try to minimize damage?

I'm not looking for a discussion about reform, just a mar'eh makom.

Michael Y. Kopinsky
m1@kopinsky.com

I was just wondering whether anyone wanted to address this. R' Micha
wrote that Haman was not an actual descendent of Agag, and when I
questioned this, his responses were that (a) the Daat Mikra on Esther
suggests possibilities other than his being a descendent of Agag, and that
(b) Yerushalmi Yevamot 4a says Hamedata lived long before Haman.

I've been unable to track down what R' Micha was referring to in the
Yerushalmi, and I'm confused as to why musings in the Daat Mikra which
are explicitly contradicted by Chazal should be considered authoritative.

Lisa

--- Original Post ---
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:44:12 -0600
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net>
Subject: Re: jewish identification

On 3 Mar 2006 11:31:13 -0500, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 09:42:15PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>>You mean like Haman haAGAGI?

>>Why would you think that Haman was not a descendent of Agag? Certainly he
>>would have been called Amaleki, had that been the intent.

>The Da'as Miqra on Esther offers three peshatim for "Haman haAgagi":
>1- That he came from Agag
>2- That he came from a Persian family named Agag. (2 more cents: 
>There was an Agag, Persia. So maybe that's the homonym.)
>3- That he was a conceptioal, not physical, descendent of Agag.

I assume you're talking about the Da'at Mikra edition of Nach? That's
pretty late. I don't think I'm willing to accept a conjecture of such
recent vintage on a point like this, particularly in the face of the many
statements in Chazal that say Haman was a literal descendent of Agag,
king of Amalek. Not unless he's citing older sources himself.

>He leans toward the latter. Why then was he called "Agagi" rather 
>than "Amaleiqi"? R' Chakham writes that this is because of Haman's 
>fate -- to be killed by a daughter of Sha'ul haMelekh's house.
>Also, the Yerushalmi in Yevamos 4a says that Hamedasa, who lived 
>well before Haman, was not his biological father, but his conceptual one.

Could you provide more details on this? I was looking at the Yerushalmi
in Yevamot 4a, and I didn't see anything that even remotely referred
to Haman or Hamdata. I wondered if perhaps you meant Megillah, so I
checked Yerushalmi Megillah 4a as well and came up equally blank. Is this
something you've seen inside? If so, could you please be more specific?
Maybe I'm looking right at it and not understanding what I'm seeing.

Thanks,
Lisa

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:44:12PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
:>Also, the Yerushalmi in Yevamos 4a says that Hamedasa, who lived 
:>well before Haman, was not his biological father, but his conceptual one.

: Could you provide more details on this? I was looking at the Yerushalmi
: in Yevamot 4a, and I didn't see anything that even remotely referred
: to Haman or Hamdata...

Sorry for the bitul zeman. It's Yevamos 13a (2:6), "Vekhi ben Hamdasa
hayah? Ela tzoreir ben tzoreir of hacha qotzeitz ben qotzeitz."

And a belated hat tip to RGS on talkreason.org.

-mi

From: "Rich, Joel" <>
>> the insert from the Weiss cuisine (OU
>>and Rabbi Binyomin Gruber Dayen of Muncie certified) "There is a dispute
>>among Poskim concerning the proper Bruche(sic) for this roll. Please
>>consult your own rav) I tried calling my Rav but for some reason my
>>cellphone didn't work over the Atlantic. >>

Now that you're home, you can ask. So next trip you'll know what to
do. [And you can tell us too.]

>>Am i missing something? The insert included info on Weiss' mission so
>>I assume they could have put a bit more detail if they felt it was needed.

Should they be criticised for not wishing to make a psak? 

> -on the trip back (this time the hashgacha is OU, Jerusalem Edah
> Charedit) I read "The rolls are Halachically "Pas Kisnin" and their
> brocho is "mezonot"

Doing a bit of Pesach cleaning around my computer today, I found a
leaflet from the "Hamasbia' company - which indeed has as you posted. But
I don't see the OU there - only the EH and a R' Moshe Nachshoni.

I have also found a similar leaflet by Hermolis of London [which is
under the charedi Kedassia org] and they too write Rolls/Bread are
Mezonos Kedin Pas Haboh Bekisnin.

SBA 

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


[ 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         ]