Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 020

Monday, April 24 2006

• Re: Seventh Day of Pesach on Friday
• Re: Seventh Day of Pesach on Friday
• RE: Shach and Taz (was: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread) )
• Re: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• Tinoq Shenishba
• Re: Tinoq Shenishba
• Re: Compurer Sheimos
• Re: Kilayim Today
• Mesirah for social annoyances
• kuzari arguments
• Re: kuzari arguments
• RE: Shach and Taz (was: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread) )
• Re: Forks in the Road to the Seder
• Korban Pesach

MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
> In Avodah V17 #18, RZS wrote:

>> It is customary, at least in my experience, to announce that nobody 
>> should eat the sold chametz until a specified time, which is well after 
>> yomtov is over, in order to give the rav time to buy it back. It seems 
>> to me that these announcements are incorrect, and one may eat
>> the chametz immediately.

> And if the announcement is geared to a m'chirah which included 
> renting/leasing certain areas, could one "invade" such areas immediately 
> after the end of Pesach without the explicit consent of the party with 
> whom the Rav arranged the m'chirah?

These are not residential premises, the goy isn't living in your cupboard,
so I imagine he has a lower expectation of privacy. And since in this
case you know exactly what he's storing there -- and he doesn't! --
he has no expectation of privacy whatsoever. If we may assume he is
not makpid on you taking his stock, he will certainly not be makpid on
your entering his leased premises, which he has never visited, and has
no intention ever to visit before his lease expires.

In addition, you generally have some of your own property in this storage
area too; even those who sell their kelim will still have non-chametz
items in the same cupboard or room, which have not been sold. It stands
to reason that you have some sort of right of entry in order to retrieve
your property or to replace it. For what it's worth, if a landlord
retains the right to store his property in the leased premises, then for
the purpose of Hilchot Eruvin he remains a legal "owner", and therefore
the presence of multiple goyishe tenants does not prevent the Jewish ones
from making an eruv. I'm not sure how relevant this is here, since the
required level of "ownership" is different, but I thought I'd mention it.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In Avodah V17 #18, RZS wrote:
> It is customary, at least in my experience, to announce that nobody
> should eat the sold chametz until a specified time, which is well
> after yomtov is over, in order to give the rav time to buy it back.
> It seems to me that these announcements are incorrect, and one may eat
> the chametz immediately.

And if the announcement is geared to a m'chirah which included
renting/leasing certain areas, could one "invade" such areas immediately
after the end of Pesach without the explicit consent of the party with
whom the Rav arranged the m'chirah?

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

>There is also an additional matter that I would love discussed - although
>I am slightly hesitant to bring it out, because I am not confident I
>have enough knowledge of the precise position. I have been told (by
>somebody reliable, but many years ago, in a totally different context,
>and I am not confident I remember the geographical locations correctly)
>that certain areas of Eastern Europe (I think including Lita - although
>I think by this he meant Lita proper, not Lita as in in the wider
>"yeshivishe velt" sense where it is sometimes used) tended, where there
>was a psak, to follow the Taz, and certain other geographical areas
>(Poland?) that tended to follow the Shach. Now on having a look over
>pesach, I did not manage to turn up anything in writing on this, and I
>am not sure I would even know where to look to find it. And I am not
>that confident that I remember correctly.

This is very interesting. In the past year I asked two different Rabbonim,
"Who do we follow? The Shach or the Taz?" They both said that as a general
rule psak will be like the Shach. (One is from the four Lakewood poskim
and the other is a Chasidisher Rav, a Bobover.) When I mentioned this
to a chasisher avreich he told me that the litvisher poskim generally
followed the Shach, not the Taz.

I'm curious if that was caused by the fact (to the best of my knowledge)
that the Shach was written after the Taz.

KT,
MSS

On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 05:41:50PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: One example of this is Aruch Hashulchan 168:46, which describes kreplach
: as a type of pashtida, but I have never seen any kreplach other than
: cooked in a soup.

Dim sum. Wantons in garlic sauce or fried wantons. I don't know if anyone
in the AhS's day was kove'i'ah se'udah on kreplach, but nowadays it's
very doable.

-mi

[Note from RnTK:]

I sent this post, below, in to Areivim at the request of Chana Luntz,
whose mail to aishdas is getting bounced back to her for some reason.
It was rejected by the Areivim moderation team on the grounds that it is
"sufficiently Torah related to warrant the extra attention and wider
audience of Avodah."

Background: this thread on Areivim has to do with a conversation
reported by someone on Areivim -- a conversation with his Israeli charedi
relatives, who told him that many or most charedim and charedi poskim
no longer consider the average chiloni to be in the category of tinok
shenishba, are reluctant to be mechallel Shabbos to save chilonim, and
in some cases express no fellow-feeling with chilonim, to the extent of
not mourning when chilonim are injured or killed in terror attacks.

In the ensuing discussions, some on Areivim disputed whether this was
an accurate representation of current charedi attitudes, and there was
also some back-and-forth regarding the question of whether an Israeli who
has heard of Torah and mitzvos, but did not receive a Torah education,
is or is not a tinok shenishba. Be that as it may, Chana Luntz wrote
the following comments about this thread. --TK

=================


"Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>   writes:
> I see you missed my recent post on MAIL JEWISH with extensive
> references especially #5 below (Rav Vozner in SHEVET HA'LEVI on
> Chilonim).

In deference to the length of posting, and that all of this is
viewable on the web from the mail-jewish archives, I would refer
readers of areivim to my response to RJB on that same list at:
<http://www.importersparadise.com/mj_ht_arch/v51/mj_v51i92.html#CXZ>

There has been quite a lot of correspondence about this
concept on the mail-jewish list - some of just my posts include:
<http://www.importersparadise.com/mj_ht_arch/v51/mj_v51i61.html#CQI>
<http://www.importersparadise.com/mj_ht_arch/v51/mj_v51i68.html#CSD>
<http://www.importersparadise.com/mj_ht_arch/v51/mj_v51i71.html#CSX>
<http://www.importersparadise.com/mj_ht_arch/v51/mj_v51i76.html#CUJ>

(and there is more, both from me, and obviously from many others).

There is no suggestion that Rav Ovadiah and those who follow him have
changed their views (do you view them as charedi or not?).

However, it does not surprise me to hear that this is no longer the
"mood on the street" as it were. Nor that Rav Eliashev does not hold by
this (whether in fact or in common allegation - with Rav Eliashev it is
generally hard to be sure which is which) given the various other things I
have heard emanating from his circles. It is also noteworthy that, given
the response on mail-jewish (not exactly your bastion of charedi thinking)
and the surprise there that there were sources to be quoted that might
suggest a different view at all, in some way the only surprise of this
is that you are surprised. The charedi community in Israel has moved
in a whole host of ways, and one of them, as we have discussed in other
contexts, is a move away from piskei halacha and hashkafa that tend to
stress the dignity and respect due to human beings, qua tzelem Elokim,
regardless of their views and actions, and towards piskei halacha and
hashkafa that tend to stress correct thoughts and actions.

In all fairness, it is important to be aware that both of these
drachim find expression within the halacha - as illustrated
by this very topic. One of the bits I would quote from one of
my recent postings on mail-jewish surrounding this topic (not
listed above, as not directly related to it - but to be found at
<http://www.importersparadise.com/mj_ht_arch/v51/mj_v51i85.html>

Is:

"One of the issues that indeed does come up in the mechallel shabbas
b'farhesia case is the issue of judgementalism, which to my mind is one
of the real plagues of frum society today, the tendency for people to
look down their nose at other people's frumkeit (and it is so easy to
slip into that mindset), and make more and more judgements on tinier
and tinier aspects. It is to my mind a bad and very destructive mida
that is completely out of control - which leads to people being over on
countless d'orisas ben adam l'chavero. One of the strengths of the minyan
system is that it rarely makes these judgements. It is just appreciative
of men, any men, or in the case of the cohanic blessing, a cohen, any
cohen. That is why I believe that so many of the poskim have tried so
hard. Because it is one thing to write off the odd genuinely rebellious
man and discount him from your minyan. It is another to completely
write off the majority (unfortunately) of the Jewish people based on
their actions. Even going down that road leads you almost inexorably
into this kind of judgementalism of what this one does and what that
one does that is so rife today."

That sort of consideration though, is a hashkafic/philosophical one.
And given the blogged comment quoted on this list recently regarding
education, and the current attitude towards the disposability of "children
at risk" by throwing them out of charedi schools, or not taking them in
the first place (and their siblings, and anybody who might be associated
with them, or might have an internet connection in their home etc etc)
- attitudes that have been common within charedi circles in Israel for
many years now (and something which, as has frequently been quoted,
is directly against the position of the Chazon Ish as well - these
philosophic/hashkafic attitudes tend to go hand in hand), I guess I am
a little surprised that you are surprised.

Shabbat Shalom
Chana

This would be our 4th iteration on the topic on Avodah (if you include
v1n4, which was pre-merger Beis Tefilah). RMF in OC III only assur-ed
calling their clergy up for an aliyah, as the masses were TSN. (And in
IM II, also intermarried men.)

RMShinnar added Seridei Eish 2:10, about a child raised by an anti-dati
(refused to give the boy a beris) who lived within an observant community
and was brought to shul to "be bar mitzvahed".

In a different discussion a year ago, RMS cited the Pachad Yitzchoq (R'
Hutner) on Pesach. R' Hutner understands the Rambam's shitah on Qara'im to
apply to non-O Jews today. RMS from that post, summarizing the PY:
> A tinok shenishba may be an epikoros in his beliefs. However, we never
> apply the the term and halachot of a rasha to anything which is ones -
> so even if we classify the TsN as an epikoros in terms of his beliefs,
> we don't apply the notion of rasha to a TsN - he is an epikoros without
> being a rasha, and therefore does not have the status of a mumar.
> However, when specific halachot demand certain specific attributes,
> we may say that the TsN doesn't have them.
> Therefore, a TsN who doesn't believe in korbanot is not excluded from
> them because of a din of epikoros - but is excluded because he is not
> modeh ba'avoda. Similarly, he is excluded from writing a sefer torah -
> because we require an active belief - but not from shechita, where all
> that is required is shem yisrael.

> This is an explicit rejection of the notion that the term (and halachot)
> that apply to reshaim can be applied to a tinok shenishba.

It is unsurprising to find an opinion attributed to both RMF and RYH
became a "given" amonst most of the US contingent here.


I am not zocheh to understand the sevarah to the other tzad.

First, a textbook tinoq shenishba did have exposure to the Judaism of
the towns his band of listim terrorized. Someone who robbed the highways
outside Pumpedisa wasn't entirely unaware of things like Shabbos.

Second, consider someone who is exposed to Torah but has no way of knowing
what is Torah and what is the strawman his mentors held up to ridicule,
whose exposure has primarily been to teach the belief that is silly
and wrong.

How is he any less be'oneis than someone raised by aborignes who never
heard of the word? Lehefech -- he is LESS likely to ever accept the Torah.
It is easier to learn from a blank slate than have to unlearn and relearn.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

R' Velvel Montrealer asked:
> Is there any reason why not to delete Sheimos from
> the computer? How about printing out a copy and
> burying that with the Sheimos, and then deleting
> the file?

R' Moshe Feinstein addresses a similar question, that of erasing an audio tape which contains recordings of Sheimos, in Igros Moshe YD 2:142, last paragraph. He writes, "Since there are no letters, the issur of erasing does not apply. Even so, it is a m'chuar [disgusting, objectionable] thing. Therefore, when it is necessary to erase, one should do it via a grama, which is not strictly forbidden [me'etzem hadin]..."

Akiva Miller

[R Jon Baker:]
> I picked up some basil plants, and want to put in a window box with them
> and some other herbs. What are the current rules for kilayim outside
> of EY? Will I run afoul of them? I learned the masechet in the mishnah
> once, and found it very confusing; I've recently started the masechet
> in Y'mi with RYGB's tapes, but haven't gotten into the later peraqim
> which discuss gardening.

Kilayim is specific to EY and areas that Hazal determined to have Q'dushas
Ha'aretz. Outside of this zone, Kilayim is not applicable.

Kilayim is also not applicable to potted plants on a window box.

Certain aspects of Kilay Hakerem are applicable in HUL, some are not.

Harkavah (e.g. grafting) is applicable in EY and HUL.

Jacob Farkas

R' Steve Brizel wrote the following on Areivim:
> Jewish Law - Articles - Informing on Others for Violating American Law:
> A Jewish Law View < (http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html>
> For those who are interested on how American law and halacha might 
> interact ... take a look at this article.R Broyde presents a number
> of approaches set forth by Gdolim.

Having read this very informative and interesting essay, I was left
wondering about a scenario that has recently started to become an
annoyance.

In the past year and change, the FTC has created a "National Do Not Call
Registry." This registry allows individuals who prefer not to bothered
by telemarketers to register their home or mobile number to a website
managed by the FTC, https://www.donotcall.gov/ and within 31 days of
registration, one can expect to stop receiving telemarketing calls,
with a few exceptions as outlined by the FTC.

Having registered my home phone number [a year or so ago], I noticed
that within a few weeks many if not most of the telemarketing calls
have stopped. Calls from Yeshivas and other charity institutions were
still coming through, but those are acceptable as per FTC guidelines,
so no complaints there.

I did notice that "heimishe" businesses continued to call with prerecorded
messages advertising their goods and services. This is the only form
of telemarketing that has persisted in spite of my registration with
the do not call registry. [Many of my neighbors have also been equally
privileged and continued to receive these calls as well...]

The FTC has a form where you can submit violators of their policy, by
including the number and date/time of the call, but I have been hesitant
to report this abuse as I figured that this could be borderline Mesirah.

I'm curious what the Chaverim think about the above scenario, and whether
the following can be considered:

1) Many Yidden are annoyed by this practice, and stand to benefit when
these numbers are submitted as violators.
2) The penalty for the DNC registry violation is monetary, rather than
a penalty of imprisonment.
3) Taking the violators to Beis Din does not make any sense, as there
is no Halakha that states you can't 'cold call' an individual, the
violation is an FTC violation, not a crime in the true sense, BD may
not even have the jurisdiction to stop someone from placing these calls.
4) If I don't report it today, someone may tomorrow, so why not report
today and get the process done sooner?
5) Is the annoyance of having a phone disturb you worthy of Halakhic
consideration, after all, the phone rings for many reasons, friends,
family, etc. The mere fact that this specific call was not initiated by
someone you wish to speak with is not in itself annoying, rather the
fact that yenem has the Hutzpah to blatantly violate the DNC registry
and call that may be annoying?

Jacob Farkas

<http://www.mesora.org/Resurrection/> on this a blogger asks in re
the claim that other religions origin stories is an occurance to an
individual, how many people reporting those origin stories would make
it a tzibbur to give credence by the numbers.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:09:49AM -0700, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: <http://www.mesora.org/Resurrection/> on this a blogger asks in re
: the claim that other religions origin stories is an occurance to an
: individual, how many people reporting those origin stories would make
: it a tzibbur to give credence by the numbers.

I would recommend putting the word "Kuzari" in quotes in this context.
I really doubt RYhL opened a book by deriding the value and need for
philosophical proof, and then continues by giving one. Rather, he
advises the king (and the reader) that mesorah is more reliable than proof.

See MmD for Yisro <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/yisro.pdf>,
and my series on the "Kuzari Proof" at
	<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-i.shtml>I</a>
Defense of the idea that all philosophical proofs must be weaker than givens,
after the comments to the previous:
	<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-ii.shtml>
An example of the above:
	<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/argument-by-design-ver-40.shtml>
Then, just ot round out the list, an excerpt from a shir from R'
Chaim Navon:
	<http://www.aishdas.org/2005/02/kuzari-proof-part-iii.shtml>

Beqitzur:
1- I do not believe the Kuzari meant this proof
2- I think the proof is flawed in at least two ways
3- I don't think it matters, because people believe due to personal
experience with shemiras haTorah, not proofs.

And just last digest R' Ken Bloom noted that one can't even find it as
presented in the Kuzari!
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n107.shtml#12>

All that said, if one wanted to use this proof, the number would be "all
of the ancestors of the religious community". The problem isn't only
the numerical difference between 500 people at a wedding who allegedly
saw yeiYeishu do his thing vs (lehavdil) the 2-3 million at Har Sin
ai. Buthe people in Cana aren't alleged to be the ancestors of the bulk
of the Xian community. So the key question "Why didn't I ever hear of
this before?" could be answered, "Well, your ancestors simply weren't
among those there."

But one would also have to address the two other flaws I noted in that
first blog entry.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

[RSS:]
> This is very interesting. In the past year I asked two different Rabbonim,
> "Who do we follow? The Shach or the Taz?" They both said that as a general
> rule psak will be like the Shach....
> I'm curious if that was caused by the fact (to the best of my knowledge)
> that the Shach was written after the Taz.

IIRC the Taz was much younger than the Shach but they published within the
same year. I also have a vague memory that it was reported that the Shach
to some extent retarded the publication/distribution/acceptance (you'll
appreciate when you get older how hazy the memory can get) of the Taz's
work and the eventual (apparently not immediate) halachik preference
for the Taz was somewhat a quid pro quo min hashamayim. Probably an
apocryphal story.

I would have thought that each issue would be decided based on the force
of their logic which iirc is often very clear in Y"D (in other words
they just don't say kosher/treif)

KT
Joel Rich

RMB wrote:
> You seem to be slipping into a characature of chassidus = passionate,
> misnagdus = intellectual.

Later in the same post he wrote:
> The analytic-procedural requirement is to have an event with
> experiential overtones.

What struck me was that despite RMB's aversion to stereotyping -- that
last sentence could only have been written by a misnaged.
:- )

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

Zev wrote:
> People who live in the Galil or the Negev will presumably be sorted into
> the first session of Korban Pesach, so they will have time to drive home
> with the korban before yomtov.

Would not the geographical classification of 'derech r'choka' come into
play here? The 15 mils, about 14.5 kilometers, distance from Jerusalem
(see Rambam, Hilchot Korban Pesach, 5:9)? Or does the advent of cars
and heliocopters change all that?

Yisrael Medad
Shiloh

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


[ 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         ]