Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 008

Tuesday, April 20 2004

• Re: Torah portion - keruvim
• Re: Mashiach from the Dead/goyishe monotheism
• Re: Torah portion - keruvim
• RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: who is a posek
• Re: Monogamy
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• Re: Avodah V13 #7
• Circuses, What's the Heter?
• Re: who is a posek
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• chukat hagoyim
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book]
• heresy
• Re: heresy
• cos shel eliyahu
• [none]
• cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach

In  Avodah V13 #6 dated 4/18/04  [REMT:]
> The g'mara then asks that in Bayis Rishon there were no parochos
> (a wall separated heichal and kodesh hakodoshim), and in the Bayis
> Sheini there was no aron, and hence no k'ruvim. 

No aron, no keruvim in the bayis sheni? What about that story that
the Romans saw the keruvim locked in tight embrace at the time of the
churban--with the implication of Divine love for us even at the moment
of greatest Divine fury, the farewell embrace before we went into galus?

  Omer Day 12
--Toby Katz

R. Meri Shinnar wrote
> The issue of a mashiach from the dead is a different issue, and is
> not specifically addressed by the rambam in the perush hamishnayot.
> However, the lineage issue is - and in the entire debate over habad,
> almost no one raised that objection to a levy being the mashiach (and
> his claim to bet david not being the right lineage). This suggests that
> no one took the ikkarim as serious halachic fodder

SBA added on Areivim:
> And Yoshke [especially in the eyes of Chabad and its 7 Mitzvos Bnei Noach
> campaign - lechoireh] - did a GREAT job.
> After all he caused millions of idol worshippers to believe in
> G-d [with or without shutfus - it doesn't matter] - one of the sheva mitzvos
> bnei noach...No? [And introduced the 10 commandments etc which include more
> of the 7 mitzvos]
> [And BTW similarly Mohammed - though he didn't have that pintele yid - did
> bring millions to believe in G-d]

See the the R. Qafach's uncensored Yemeni manuscripts of Hilchot
Melachim... 11:4, as printed in Rambam La'Am for the Rambam's view on
this question.
Firstly: following the standard discussion on what the mashiach needs to
do to be accepted, the uncensored edition adds :'v'im lo hitzliach ad ko,
o neherag, b'yadu'a sh'eno ze shehivticha alav hatora... in other words
dying before achieving the requirements rules one out straight off,
and he goes on to say that this is a nisayon from HKBH to purify the
Jewish people.
Secondly: He goes on to say that 'Yeshu'a HaNotzri' was prophecied
by Daniel (11:14), and that he has brought the greatest michsol, in
bringing destruction of the Jews by the sword, their dispersion, their
oppression, replacement of the Torah, and bringing of 'rov ha'olam
la'avod elo'ah bilti hashem'
Thirdly: Despite all of this, it is HKBH's plan that Yoshke and 'that
Yishmaelite' should prepare the way for the Mashiach, by spreading
word of HKBH, his Torah, and the concept of the Mashiach, even to the
'i'im harechokim'.
Ayen sham

In fact it almost seems as if the Rambam is saying that the bringing of
this knowledge to the goyim, is more important than all the yisurim that
have come to us, and are still coming to us through the teachings of
'the Nazarene' and 'the Ishmaelite'.

Food for thought
Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 11:49:14PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: No aron, no keruvim in the bayis sheni? What about that story that
: the Romans saw the keruvim locked in tight embrace at the time of the
: churban--with the implication of Divine love for us even at the moment
: of greatest Divine fury, the farewell embrace before we went into galus?

Reish Laqish (Yuma 54b) says  "nachriim", and doesn't specify which
bayis. However, since he uses it to describe peshat in Eichah "kol
machbadeiha hiziluha ki ra'u ervasah" I would assume this is about
bayis rishon.

The lack of aron in bayis sheini is mentioned in the Avodah iin
Yom Kippur musaf, as the kohein gadol could only put the qetores
where "between the badim" should have been.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 13th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   necessary for a good relationship?

Me
>: 1) Many poskim today hold today that we are tinokot shenishbu -
>: and therefore we can drink the wine of most Jews, even if they hold
>: krum beliefs - questions of active rejection is different...
RMB
> That's why I liked geirus as an example. I also suggested the 
> messianist as another.

But that is the issue. Gerut is an issue where people demand things far
beyond the 13 ikkarim - therefore whether a bet din requires "13 ikkarim"
for gerut (or the extent to which it investigates and asks specifics
about kabbalat ol malchit shamayim) is fundamentally different than
determining than someone who violates them is a kofer.

>: 2) Many poskim use the "13 ikkarim" as shorthand - like saying we follow
>: the shulchan aruch - rather than describing a commitment to a specific
>: known version.

> Proof? Whenever one says "they don't mean what they say" one is opening
> up the door to a wide door of reinterpretation. (Look at scholars and
> the Rambam, claiming this peice or that -- whatever doesn't fit their
> theory -- was written to either satisfy the thought police or to satisfy
> the perplexed even though he doesn't believe it himself.

You like gerut and mashiach. What about the ikkar of not praying to
anyone except hashem, and all the piyutim to malachim? Again, meaning what
they say has certain consequences, giving what Shapiro has documented -
and the question is whether people are actually willing to make that
consequence. (In a previous go round, there was agreement from several
members here who opposed Shapiro that the ikkarim which are supposedly
normative were not those in the perush hamishnayot - but no consensus
on what they actually were)

I agree that saying "they don't mean what they say" is problematic -
but the problem is that the evidence from Shapiro's book would suggest
certain consequences that few outside of this list are willing to take.
The discussion about the eighth ikkar is significant.

The proof is also in the citation from Rav Weinberg's book about the
meaning of the eighth ikkar, and why it isn't necessarily what the rambam
wrote - leaving the question of what the ikarim are..

> Clearly, when RYHH writes about "achakeh lo bekhol yom sheyavo" he is
> referring to a version of the literal ikkar. In RGS's other URL, RAFeldman
> refers to the ikkarim and their codification in Hil Teshuvah. (Obviously
> he holds they are codified there.)

SOme version of most of the ikkarim is there - but not, and the versions
are quite different.

>: 3) To give one example of dissonance and specific disagreement from
>: the "universal agreement" among poskim that you claim: Rav Goren (in
>: the machanayim article previously cited) has specifically said popular
>: concept of 13 ikkarim was not given halachic force even by the rambam,
>: not to mention later authorities...

> And yet his rabbanut had a policy (which still stands) requiring
> professing belief in them in its batei din leyiur.

First, the rabbanut existed before Rav Goren, and not everything the
rabanut did reflected his views Let me summarize Rav Goren's position
in the article.
1> starts off by saying that the ikarim in the perush hamishnayot and
yigdal are binding as a body of tora
2) Then says halacha is determined as per the mishne torah
3) The mishne torah has a different version of most of the ikkarim,
and omits one ikar
4) His conclusion is that in the mishne torah, the rambam changed his
position about the nature of the ikkarim - and rejected the notion of
a specific body of statements that were elevated and whose acceptance
defined being a halachic Jew, but rather that there were true statements
whose acceptance was part of halacha - but did not have a distinguished
position in that world. An explicit rejection of the specific halachic
significance that you give the ikkarim.

RMB
> Not relevent, as we've alreadydistance current pesaq from the Rambam's
> original formulation.

RMS
>: RM Shapiro documents that rishonim and acharonim deviated from the
>: thirteen ikkarim - deviations both small and large.
RMB
> Not in dispute -- and well known even without the full detail provided
> in the documentation.

First, the fact that it is not in dispute and well known is not clear -
and if you will read many versions, both popular and nonpopular, the
claim is made about the universal acceptance of the ikkarim.

SEcond, you are claiming that we distance current pesak from the rambam's
original formulation - how many poskim can you cite that will speak
about how the 13 ikkarim are binding, but not the rambam's formulation
of them??? The entire rationale for their being binding is precisely the
belief that they were universally accepted ever since the rambam codified
them,and any dispute was only whether they were viewed as ikkarim. That
is precisely the dilemma that poskim have who confronted the changes -
and that has led to different results.

RMB
> One doesn't need the Chasam Sofer to speak about which beliefs we require
> for categorizing people WRT to certain dinim. His chiddush allows us to
> do so without passing judgement on historical figures, but the straight
> halachic process requires that we have some pesaq when dealing with
> our contemporaries.

However, doing so with passing judgement on historical figures is
problematic because of being motzi la'az al harishonim - and therefore
you need the chasam sofer (I would add that the issue of being motzi
la'az al harishonim seems to be a mitzva yetoma in our times, but there
are still few who would publicly state that a major rishon was a kofer)

Secondly, the straight halachic process may require that we have
some pesak when dealing with our contemporaries, but I think that you
misunderstand the issue of what the nature of this psak is. The question
being asked is not what we should believe. let me view a different area,
where this ideological overview is not so evident.

Let us, view, eg, hilchot shabbat. Many poskim view the use of an eruv
as being unacceptable, and that many cities have the status of reshut
harabbim d'oraita, and therefore someone who carries within such an eruv
is mehallel shabbat. One can multiply many other areas of machloket,
where one would view actions of someone following a different psak as
being mechallel shabbat d'oraita.

However, given the fact that other poskim allow it - how many poskim would
be willing to classify someone who follows a known major acharon as being
mechallel shabbat befarhesya, with all the sequelae that follow? (even
if they think that the other psak is absolutely wrong)

This is the issue. Many may view the 13 ikkarim (in some version
as being binding) but how many poskim, given evidence that a major
rishon/acharon disagreed, would classify someone who held like that
rishon as a kofer?? That was the essence of the debate (as previously
cited) about the perush of rav yehuda hachasid - because if he truly
held a certain way, one could not write off people who held a similar way.

> It has been demonstrated. You're dismissing the demonstration on an
> unsubstantiated claim that poseqim who refer to the ikkarim in their
> teshuvos don't mean it. But that's different than denying consensus
> where it does exist.

see rav goren's psak.   

>: Lastly, I find the last part of your post (WADR) incomphrehensible.
>: If respected members of the chain of mesora held certain opinions,
>: then their opinions become part of the chain of mesora - and therefore
>: the definition of Orthodoxy has to include them within it, or recognize
>: that one is writing out parts of it. How one defines Orthodoxy so that it
>: includes all of them may not be up to RM Shapiro, because that requires
>: a positive act of definition that needs to be done by the community,
>: but any definition that doesn't fit the data that he provides is ipso
>: facto inaccurate.

> Also, your last sentence seems to contradict: itself  If O need not include
> all of the opinions in mesorah, than how does any of RMShapiro's book
> force a redefinition? All he is saying, as I wrote last time, is that he
> believes there are non-O valid forms of yahadus.

Where do I say that O need not include all of the opinons in mesora?
That is one of the issues under discussion. I am not sure why you think
I contradict myself - the statement that Shapiro does not define the
Orthodoxy is quite different than the statement that any valid definition
of Orthodoxy has to contain all opinions that were historically recognized
as legitimate and part of the mesora.

Lastly, RM Levin believes that the issue of textual inaccuracy was
irrlevant to the rambam. On purely philosophical grounds, he is correct
that the text should not be important- but the problem is that is not
what the rambam says. That is why many understand the rambam's ikkar as
a polemic against the islamic attacks on the torah - which they claimed
was distorted by ezra and hazal - and therefore the issue of textual
accuracy assumed an importance

Meir Shinnar

>  I have come to the solid conclusion
< snip>
> Do I have a halachic right to act in accordance with my view

a rav's job is not to pick up a red phone and get instructions from
the boss. the boss already gave his instructions. ever since sof horaah
ravina werav ashi we are all readers and implementers of instructions
already given.
those instructions contain nothing that can be seen only by persons of
a special kind. see the rosh on sanhedrin, perek 4, oth 6, in your shas
daf 118r left column.
/dw

From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
> Given the various definitions of chukat hagoyim, why wouldn't this
> qualify?

How would one implement such a prohibition? Require every marriage to
be polygamous? The practical problems would be terrifying.

David Riceman

Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> I don't recall Rav Moshe referring to AZ in that tshuva,

He doesn't.  I did as part of my understanding behind Lo Selchu.
> and there's 
> a huge dispute among the poskim whether today's Christians are ovdei 
> AZ.

Machlokes Rishonim for them. AZ for us.

HM

RHM wrote
> Also, There is a Machlokes Rishonim as to whether Christians are
> considered Ovdei Avodah Zara. I believe we paskin that they are not
> being Over AZ through their theology of Shituf. But that does not tkae
> away the Issur since for us Shituf is considered AZ.

I initially understood the position of the Tosefot and the Rama on this
question refereed to the issur of business with them. The conclusion
being that it is permissible because there is no michsol lifne iver given
that bne no'ach are not covered by the issur of shituf in sh'vu'ot.
Meaning that although it is still AZ, and for a Jew to make a sh'vu'a
b'shem hashem b'shituf with AZ (ch'v) would be assur, but for a non-Jew
a sh'vu'a b'shem hashem and AZ (ch'v) would be mutar. And in fact one
finds no mention of issur shittuf bishvu'ot in Hilchot Melachim, whereas
in Hilchot Sh'vu'ot Rambam clearly states this issur.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

I'm sorry, this discussion is getting way to confusing for me...

This is how I see it (for now anyway)....

The relative sources seem to be the Avodah Zarah 18b, Mishnah Berurah
307:59, Magen Avraham 224; 3, and Iggeros Moshe, YD vol. 4 no. 11 sec. 1
(most of which I don't have easy access to in English leaving me a tad
disadvantaged)

Now this much seems clear...please correct me if I'm mistaken.

1. There isn't much debate it seems that "Circuses" are assur according
to the Gemara, just whether our circuses are such that they would be
included in the issur. From which it seems to me that to say the circus
is ossur is the presumed starting point, not a "Chumra". Rather we need
a heter, a "kula", to matir them.

2. The Gemara, as I recall, brings a B'raisa which also forbids circuses.
It explains the B'raisa referred to when there where gladiators, while
AvZ. 18b is discussing when no gladiators are present.

3. The Gemara calls 'circuses' "moshav l'eitzim". The discusion about
the passage is Avos is not directly relevant since in is not defining
"moshav l'eitzim" or limiting it to situations of eating, but giving
ONE example of it.

4. The MB, and apparently IM, apply this issur to (more)contemporary
"circuses".

5. MA includes "Jewish hunts" in the prohibition of "Moshav
l'eitzim"...even when no goyim are present.

6. MB likens our Purim festivities to "moshav l'eitzim" except they are
permitted since they celebrate the miracle of Purim. Certainly MB IS
NOT saying that we are allowed to breech the laws of tznius, idolatry,
or bloodshed for simchas Purim!!

So what I see is that circuses are ossur even without issues of bloodshed,
idolatry, and according to the MB at least even when there is not tznius
issues. According to the MA it may even be a problem when only Jews are
present. What am I missing here?

So far I have heard a lot of rationalizations 'permitting' circuses,
most of which I think are largely answered above. In so far as there is
an established issur against going to the circus who can cite a source
who permits it?

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 13:24 +0300, proptrek wrote:
>>  I have come to the solid conclusion
> < snip>
>> Do I have a halachic right to act in accordance with my view

> a rav's job is not to pick up a red phone and get instructions from
> the boss. the boss already gave his instructions. ever since sof horaah
> ravina werav ashi we are all readers and implementers of instructions
> already given.
> those instructions contain nothing that can be seen only by persons of
> a special kind. see the rosh on sanhedrin, perek 4, oth 6, in your shas
> daf 118r left column.

RHS has an article in a SOY publication "Mibayit V'Lachutz" from this
past tishrei on 2nd day yom tov in EY.

quoting from the end.
----
If one is a "Chacham shehigia lehoraah", then he is entitled and indeed
obligated to research each and every halachic issue and to follow his
own personal view on any matter. But, if one is NOT (emphesis his) higia
lehoraah (As the overwhelming majority of people who learned in yeshiva
would be classified) then one may not pick and chose arbitrarily from
amongst the various opinions of the poskim. One must always follow one
posek (As the mishna in Avos tells s) or follow the consesus from among
the group of poskim he looks up to as his rebeim (because the fact that
that group has left an impression on him)
---

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 16:13 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Prof Shapiro states on page 31.
> "Mendelssohn also believed that Maimnides' Thirteen Principles had
> significant religious and educational value...
> However, rather than recording them with the formulation 'I believe',
> he used the phrase 'Ich erkenne fur wahr und gewiss' (I recognize it
> as true and certain)...."

uh, his translation into German seems more accurate than "I believe".
 From my understanding of the Rambam (which is limited compared to many
people here), when he talks about belief, it not belief as we understand
it ("I believe this to be true") but that we know it's true ("I know
that this is true", just like I know that I exist).

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> As we have discussed in the past - Mendelson is a complex issue. It is
> not clear in what sense he could be said to accept the Ikkarim.
<snip>
> Prof Shapiro states on page 31.
> "Mendelssohn also believed that Maimnides' Thirteen Principles had
> significant religious and educational value, and he therefore translated
> then into German and included them in a book he published for students:
> see A. Shohet, Changing Eras, 256; A. E. Simn, 'Philanthropism', 163.
> However, rather than recording them with the formulation 'I believe',
> he used the phrase 'Ich erkenne fur wahr und gewiss' (I recognize it
> as true and certain).

That is, he acknowledged the truth of the Ikkarim. That they are Ikkarim
is not an Ikkar. If one believes the proposition that belief in the
Ikkarim is necessary and sufficient to be a normative Jew (as the Rambam
states) then MM was a normative Jew. It is this chain of logic which is
missing in PMS's book.

> There are other issues involved with Mendelson which justify keeping
> him at arm's length - other than whether he believed the Ikkarim.

But according to the doctrine which PMS wrote his book to disprove there
are no other possible issues. That's the Rambam in PHM Sanhedrin I cited
a couple of posts ago.

> My main criticism involves the concern that Prof Shapiro's material has
> not been presented in a coherent, scholarly way so that the readers would
> in fact understand fully what is going on.

Frankly I also wish he had written a different book. Had I been on the
publisher's committee I would have described the book as a preliminary
study: he collected the sources but did not analyze them. I would have
recommended against publication on that ground.
But, in PMS's defense, he is moved in large part by the imperatives of
academia. In graduate school he wrote a paper outside of his specialty.
He has since collected a file cabinet full of further sources. He
doesn't want to spend time on them (he is, after all, a modern historian,
not a medieval historian) but, in academia, the only justification for
collecting sources is to publish them. So he published them with a plea
to someone more interested to analyze them.

> I felt the confrontational and flipant tone of the work
> would militate against the Roshei Yeshivos seriously evaluating what Prof
> Shapiro was writing ....

This really bothers me. One of the 48 middos listed in the brayysa of
kinyan Torah is "modeh al haemes". Shouldn't Roshei Yeshivos deal with
the evidence no matter what the tone?

David Riceman

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
<<Recent posts in Areivim have attempted to apply the issur of chukat
ha'goyim to situations that are well beyond the classical halachic
applications, as I understand them. I understood chukat hagoyim to apply
to Gentile superstitions - particularly if they had an idolatrous source
or motivation, or even to merely irrational customs.>>

This is a machlokes Mechaber and Rama in Y"D 178:1. Lest you say OK, we're
Ashkenazim (the Rama is mekel), the Gra holds that the halacha is like
the Mechaber, and Sefardi practice is apparently like the Rama. So it
ain't simple, neither the way you have expressed it nor the opposite.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' David Riceman wrote:
>>I felt the confrontational and flipant tone of the work
>>would militate against the Roshei Yeshivos seriously evaluating what Prof
>>Shapiro was writing ....

>This really bothers me.  One of the 48 middos listed in the brayysa of
>kinyan Torah is "modeh al haemes".  Shouldn't Roshei Yeshivos deal with the
>evidence no matter what the tone?

I think it would be helpful to revisit the article by R' Parnes that
Prof Shapiro has acknowledged was the reason for his article and book.

Torah u-Madda and Freedom of Inquiry:

" [p 69] The purpose of this presentation is not to become embroiled in
prognostications and argumentations for either side. My intention, rather,
is to focus on and analyze a critical methodological feature of Torah
U-Madda. This method as theoretically formulated not only tolerates
freedom of inquiry but even espouses it. To place any constraint
on honest and inquisitive searching for truth would run counter to
Madda and all that it implies. To permit one aspect of scientific
or literary investigation and proscribe another would deny the very
integrity of the Madda process itself. And just as the substantive
range of Madda extends to the entire realm of intellectual activity so
does its erstwhile companion, i.e., freedom of inquiry. As a result,
Madda and its methodology allows for an unfettered investigation of
such sensitive areas as evolution, cosmolgy, determinism, agnosticism
and biblical criticism. If and when the inferences from Madda study
appear to clash with the tenents and truths of Torah then a resolution
must be sought. Hopefully, deeper analysis will show that, in fact,
there is actually no clash. If, however, a resolution remains elusive,
Torah u-Madda devotees maintain that one must learn to live with the
resulting inner tension until such time that an adequate solution
is found. In fact, some maintain that this tension is a healthy and
creative force that can produce even greater insight into the fabric
of Judaism. The danger is clear but Torah u-Madda thinkers feel that
such dangers are part of the ultimate intellectual challenge with
which Hashem has charged His people. There is, however, a serious
halakhic hurdle that Torah u-Madda must overcome before it can claim
bonafide standing. There is a decision of the Rambam in Hil. Avodah
Zarah (II:2-3) that states the following:... It appears that the Rambam
prohibits freedom of inquiry in the areas of idolatry and heresy. Though
freedom of inquiry is generally a desirable and appropriate approach,
with respect to areas of thought that are essentially heretical, the
halakhah imposes a prohibition ruling out free intellectual activity.
Seemingly, the Rambam should have been the last person to issue such a
ruling. And yet it is he, the great inteIIectual hero of thinking Jews,
that banned freedom of inquiry in areas that spark and arouse ideas which
are antithetical to the tenets of our faith.... Some have suggested that
Torah u-Madda is clearly supported by the very person of the Rambam. Did
the Rambam himself not study Greek philosophy assiduously? Did he not
read voluminously about the ancient practices of 'avodah zarah? In truth,
the apparent inconsistency between the Rambam's words and deed is easily
resolved. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 68a), with respect to the 'issur of
kishuf, goes so far as to say that if it is done... to understand and
makes decisions) it is permissible....Based on all of the above, Torah
u-Madda can only be viable if it imposes strict limits on freedom of
inquiry in areas that may undermine the 13 ikkrei emunah. Then, Torah
u-Madda will have the opportunity to represent itself as an authentic
and historical tradition in Jewish thought. "

Given the starting position that free inquiry which might undermine
the 13 ikkri emunah is prohibited -- it is difficult to understand how
Prof Shapiro expected that a strong beligerent attack on that position
would encourage a desire to study material which undermines the 13 ikkrei
emuna as presently understood. If he was well aware that it would harden
the starting position then one must conclude that his basic goal was
to show others -- not Rabbi Parness -- how "ridiculous" R' Parness'
position is. Either way it is quite understandable by Prof. Shapiro's
book was not greeted with great enthusiasm in certan learned circles. I
am not aware of any source which indicates that one must read and study
all material even that which is a violation of halacha and can undermine
faith. The Rambam clearly prohibits this as Rabbi Parness has pointed out.

Rambam(Avoa Zara 2:2-3): "Many books have been composed concerning idol
worship. G-d has commanded us not to read these books at all Avoda and not
even to think or talk about these practices. Even to look at an idol is
prohibited....Not only is idol worship prohibited even in thought -- but
all thoughts which could cause a person to reject any of the fundamentals
of Judaism are also prohibited. This is because the human mind is limited
and not everyone has the ability to ascertain truth properly. If a person
is drawn after his thoughts it will destroy the world. Because sometimes
he will hold by idol worship and sometimes by Judaism and while he is
thinking about whether the alternatives to Torah are true he will be
involved in heresy...therefore Torah commanded us not to follow after
hearts and after our eyes that we shouldn't be drawn after things which
our limited minds can't deal with... and end up losing Olam HaBah...."

Daniel Eidensohn

RDR:
<<digression #2. The PHM Hullin 1:1 also contains the claim that in
the Maghreb they executed many people for heresy. Given the Rambam's
skepticism about post-Biblical miracles I wonder how the Hazon Ish dealt
with >>

I don't know who is being quoted by RDR.  I didn't find this in Peirush
haMishnayos of the Rambam Perek 1 Mishna 1.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: "S Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> I don't know who is being quoted by RDR.  I didn't find this in Peirush
> haMishnayos of the Rambam Perek 1 Mishna 1.

Try Kafih's translation (Hebrew only) p. 117 column 2 "ukvar naasah mizeh
halacha l'maaseh baansashim rabim bchol eretz hamaarav."  I see, however,
that it's Hullin 1:2 and not 1:1.

DR

RnTK wrote
> My father zt'l covered the cup with a teller (a coaster). My husband
> pours the wine back into the bottle.

The Chasam Sofer used the wine from the cos shel eliyahu for kidush at the
seudah's tom tov the next day, as mentioned in the Hagada's Chasam Sofer..

Simcha G wrote:
> our minhag is also, to cover the cos with a coaster and use the wine
> for morning kidush..

Our minhag is to distribute the wine from the cos shel eliyahu amongst
the other glasses, for the fourth cos. Chassidic minhag -- what could
be better than shirayim of Eliyahu Hanavi?

Shalom L. Kohn

> in ones own Ch kitchen before Pesach raises the question of BILeChatchila,
> however it seems that as Gershon points out, there should be no problem;
> we are not dealing with Ch mamesh but only ta'am which the MB seems to
> say is OK.

For your information in New Zealand we do rely on that heter. It strikes
me that denying it's validity is challenging the authority of chazal,
to which many respond - it's kosher, sure, but I'm more of a tzaddik if
I refrain from eating it. Is this even a valid stance?

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

From: "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
<<Why do we no longer purchase things like dairy products before Pesach
relying on bittul? If these products are manufactured by non jewish
companies (and I think we must say also not produced under a machshir),
then it's not bittul issur lechatchila, it's just plain muttar. Cooking in
ones own Ch kitchen before Pesach raises the question of BILeChatchila,
however it seems that as Gershon points out, there should be no problem;
we are not dealing with Ch mamesh but only ta'am which the MB seems to
say is OK.>>

No, the MB (447:S"K 58) says mishum chumra dechametz we don't say stam
keilim einam benei yomam. See there, where the halacha specifically
deals with cooking in a chometzdik kitchen and the conclusion is that
it's assur for the above reason.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]