Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 114

Fri, 07 May 2010

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:06:23 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] No Smokers for My Daughters


Prof. Levine wrote:
> Please see the article at * 
> http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1366/no-smokers-for-my-daug
> hters* *
> 
> *I find it strange that Jonathan Rosenblum does not mention the psak 
> titled "The Prohibition of Smoking in Halacha" that is at  
> http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Prohibition_Smoking.pdf  
> <http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Prohibition_Smoking.pdf%A0%A0> In light of 
> this, how can one call any young person who takes up smoking a Ben Torah?
> 
> When I emailed Rosenblum pointing this out, he replied, "That is not a 
> universally subscribed to opinion. I did not want to get into it." I 
> asked him for the names of those who disagreed with the RCA opinion, but 
> I have not heard back from him. Does anyone know of a poseik who permits 
> smoking today in light of what we know of the health risks of this habit?

Smoking has a chezkas heter, so any posek who didn't sign this or any
similar proclamation can be presumed to still permit it.  There's no
need to ask again.  The argument given in this resolution is rather
tendentious.  In particular it depends on the CDC's ludicrous claim
that over 400K people a year die in the USA from tobacco's effects.
It fails to recognise that the CDC have become highly politicised and
are now prisoners of the "public health" lobby; they can no longer be
regarded as neutral sources of unbiased fact, at least with regard to
any political issue, and tobacco is a highly political issue.  Without
these unfounded CDC claims, the premise falls away and we are left with
a mortality rate of less than 50%, or at least a safek, which is not
enough to destroy a chazakah.

Even if one could prove that more than 50% of smokers live slightly
shorter lives than they would otherwise, I don't see the halachic basis
for forbidding it.  R Bleich is quoted as writing "if the majority of
smokers do indeed face premature death as a result of cigarette smoking
there is, according to Binyan Tzion?s thesis, no halakhic basis for
sanctioning the practice even though the multitude continues ?to tread 
thereon?.  That is so even if longevity is reduced only marginally."
But no basis is given for this assertion.  It's simply taken for
granted.  But who says it's so?    It's generally accepted that one may
refuse chemotherapy even if has a >50% chance of extending ones life
for a few months; one is entitled to decide that those few months aren't
worth the pain.  So who says that one may not accept a >50% risk of
losing a few months at the end of ones life in return for the presumed
pleasure of smoking now, decades earlier?   Surely a source is needed
for such a proposition.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 14:42:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] More on what constitutes chilul hashem


Beth & David Cohen wrote:
>> "This whole idea that
>> breaking the law is a chilul hashem has no foundation.  The notion
>> that one must obey the law simply because it is the law is abhorrent,
>> and the fact that Germans believe it and Americans don't explains a
>> lot about those nations' recent history.

> In the good old USA,  if one truly believes that a particular law is 
> unjust or unfair, one has recourse through the court system.

One has the same recourse in Germany.  But in the USA, as in most
countries, one also has the option of simply ignoring the law and
taking the risk of being caught, and nobody thinks less of one for
doing so.


> But our 
> theoretical Jew is not interested in any due process other than his own 
> --- he doesn't attempt to conform with the legal requirements (e.g. get 
> the permit), or appealing if he is wrongfully prevented from doing what 
> he believes is correct.

If you're still talking about the sheimos place, he *got* clearance
from the local authorities.   How was he to know the DEP would poke
its nose into his affairs?


> He won't do so, because to him these annoying 
> regulations are only for yenem, not for those of us who only answer to a 
> higher authority.

This is a caricature that does not conform to any reality.  Where have
you ever seen such a view expressed, that the laws are for yenem?  Where
have you ever seen or heard of a yid breaking a law but at the same time
demanding that others keep it?

The only time one sees such claims is when the law contradicts a
mitzvah or minhag, etc.  In such cases, of course, there can be no
question that the mitzvah, minhag, etc., takes precedence.  That is
the very definition of *kiddush* haShem, that Torah and Jewish
practises are seen to take priority over all obstacles, and a yid is
higher than the world.  But surely you are talking about divrei reshus, 
where such considerations don't apply, and a yid is exactly the same
as anyone else: free to do as he wishes, provided that it's right and
just, even if it carries a risk he deems acceptable.


> In some circumstances, it is the breaking of the law that creates a 
> chilul Hashem (e.g. child abuse by those decked out in full charedi 
> accouterments) . In other circumstances it's not the breaking of the law 
> that's a chilul Hashem, but the attitude towards the law and its 
> enforcement that creates it.

Breaking a law *never* creates a chilul hashem.  Some actions that are
chilul hashem, and would be so even if they were lawful, happen to be
against the law.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 18:48:19 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] FW: : [Areivim] rain can really be a blessing



In Avodah V27#112, RSBA wrote:
> Generally the month of Iyar (Roshei teivos Ani Hashem Rofecho) is a
segula
for refuos (Ayen Taamei Haminhagim page 251).
> Interestingly the TH there adds: "Ve'ata be'avonoseinu harabim omrim
'Chodesh May hu mesugal lerefuah...  Anyone hear of that?) <
I recently saw someone note the g'matriya of mem-yud (50) as significant.
Can't wait to see someone equate April with g'ulah....

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100506/d12db671/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 00:11:17 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should


RYL writes:

> I really see nothing puzzling regarding what Rav Schwab wrote and all
> of the sources you have quoted regarding how married women should
> dress. Rav A. Miller often said, "A woman should dress for her husband,
> not for others."? He meant that the finery should be reserved for the
> home. Thus all of these adornments are to be worn in the home for the
> husband, not in public.

If you look carefully you will see that not all of these are about being
worn at home for the husband.

In particular, the discussion about a woman in mourning for her father
specifically mentions an unmarried woman, and suggests that she needs to
wear such ornaments in order to attract a husband.

But even more telling is the bit I quoted (albeit in the middle of my piece,
so you may have missed it) namely:

>>And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis Din is
empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property in
order to >>provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include a
required provision for adornments  (tachshitim - again Rashi, besamim)
because it can be >>assumed that he would not be happy to have his wife
become repulsive.

Now this is a case where the husband is off in midinas hayam [ie overseas],
and due to his absence, beis din is having to take on the role of making
sure she has her basic essentials (by selling off his property to provide
them).  So there is absolutely no husband around to see and appreciate these
ornaments.  And yet, it is so essential that a woman adorn herself with
perfumes and the like, that in the absence of her husband, that beis din can
go down onto his property and sell parts of it off to buy them.

This hardly sounds like a finery should be reserved for the husband, does
it?

> YL

Regards

Chana





Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 21:42:22 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women




In Avodah V27#113, RSBA wrote:
> Talking of which, a puzzling Rashi in Shmos 31:18 dh Kechaloso: "Ma
kallah
miskashetes b-24 kishutin - hen ho'amurim besefer Yeshaya [3: 18-23]"
> However when you look it up, you'll find that this is the same Yeshayahu
that RSS refers to and the Navi there is warning the Bnos Yisroel of
terrible punishments for outfitting themselves with these 24 kishutin.
Nowhere is there any mention of this being OK and the standard for a
kallah.
> Yelamdeinu raboseinu... <
Such kishutin would seem appropriate in the extreme for a kallah about to
enter married life (in a way similar to the Torah being given to MRAH and
K'lal Yisrael [and I use "k'lal" deliberately, as, IINM, the first p'shat
mentioned by RaShY really has more to do w/ MRAH receiving k'lalim/rules to
use at a later time]) -- these kishutin aren't per se evil even for
already-married ladies, much less kallos! and why would you expect
Y'sha'yahu to mention their being
"OK and the standard for a kallah" when such clearly was Torah sheb'al peh
as recorded in Shir haShirim Rabbah (quoted by RSS, by the way, in his
comments on Y'sha'yahu 3:17, and perhaps RDrYL would like to post those
comments, too...) and elsewhere?

Tangentially, this "puzzling Rashi" (his "davar acheir") is also brought
down by the Ba'al haTurim, a favorite peirush of yours (and mine) :).

A guten Shabbes and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100506/df4a2aab/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Chometz Whiskey Alert


The following is from http://www.kashrut.com/Alerts/

The following alert has been sent out by the 
<http://www.crcweb.org/Whisky%20Alert%20_May%202010_%20Final%20Version
.pdf>Association 
of Kashrus Organizations (AKO) on May 6, 2010.

AKO Executive Committee has reason to believe that there are large 
liquor companies in the United States which may be owned in whole or 
part by Jews. We are concerned that such companies may not have 
arranged for the sale of their chametz (mechiras chametz) during 
Pesach. These companies primarily manufacture bourbon, cordials, and 
American whiskey, and also deal in a small amount of Scotch and 
vodka. Chametz-containing liquors owned, produced and/or aged by 
Jewish-owned companies over Pesach are forbidden as chametz she'avar 
alav haPesach. Since many liquor products are aged for many years 
before they are sold to the public, it cannot be assumed that these 
beverages are acceptable for kosher use even if they are purchased a 
long time before or after Pesach.

Accordingly, we recommend that Kashrus Agencies and consumers change 
their policies and only consume those alcoholic beverages which [are 
free of standard kosher concerns and] are known to (a) be produced by 
a non-Jewish company or a Jewish-owned company which arranged for the 
sale of their chametz, (b) not contain any chametz, including not 
having chametz secondary grains or malted barley (bourbon and 
cordials are examples of items that may have these forbidden items), 
and/or (c) were not aged over Pesach (e.g. vodka).

A list of liquors can be found at 
/www.crcweb.org/Whisky%20Alert%20_May%202010_%20Final%20Version.pdf. 
For updated information or questions regarding this notification, 
please email AKO at <mailto:liq...@akokosher.org>liq...@akokosher.org.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100507/7768e1a6/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:48:44 +1000
Subject:
[Avodah] Hard Matza, Most Mehudar Soft Matza


Akiva Miller wrote
I can testify that when I was part of my yeshiva's chabura making hand
matzos, they were NOT baked until they were hard.

Rather, they were baked until they were "done", as in "fit to eat".When they
came out of the oven, they were still soft, pliable, and moist.

However, about a minute or so after being removed from the oven, the matza
would dry out and become hard. But this was a separate step, which occurs
*after* the matza is done baking.

If any posek considers this to be a requirement, custom, or whatever (as RMR
is searching for), I predict it will be difficult to find, as it would be
phrased in terms of "the matza is baked until such time as it will become
hard after it is removed from the oven."

Rather, I suspect that no such requirement exists according to anyone, and
that all poskim of all stripes merely require that the matza be fully baked,
and that the hardness is merely a result of thinness of the matza, which
*is* something that the poskim mention. Making a thin wafer-like dough *is*
mentioned as a way to insure that the matza can be baked quickly, easily,
and fully. The resulting hardness is not required - maybe not even desired -
but is merely an inevitable side-effect.

Perhaps someday, someone will figure out a way to make matzos which are
cracker-thin and fully-baked, yet still soft. But if that does happen, I
predict that a machlokes will arise over the definition of "fully baked",
and some will claim that the softness is evidence that it is *not* fully
baked.
end quote

I accept your observations. Matzos, as do biscuits, become hard and crisp as
they cool and their moisture evaporates. I use the word 'bake' loosely to
include this, out of the oven stage.

The ShO defines baking as when no stringy doughy threads stretch between the
two pieces of Matza that is torn apart.
The MBerura adds that this test can be performed only when the Matza is
still warm out of the oven. I dont understand this. Is the MB suggesting
that if the Matza was not fully baked when it came out of the oven, i.e.
there would have been stringy doughy threads, then after it has cooled it
will longer have such threads?

Also, the thin Matza mentioned in ShO, is the Ramo who speaks of Rekikin.
However, the BHeitev says this refers to Matza 10 - 12 mm thick. Thin is a
relative term, not absolute. Compared to matza that is Kosher if only
slightly less than one Tefach thick, one finger thickness is quite thin.

Furthermore, the MB adds a second test, poking the Matza with a finger (or a
skewer) to see if any dough sticks, again limited to being tested whilst
still warm from the oven.

I think this all points towards the Matza being soft even after it has
cooled. I would have thought that the MB would say in discussing these
matters, something along the lines of, these days the custom is to bake
Matza until hard and crisp, which he apparently does not.

In Halacha, bread dough that has been baked hard and crisp is no longer
bread but Mezonos. It is therefore V difficult to imagine that matza is made
crisp and hard is the preferred style Matza of Halacha.

I have produced last year and will PG produce next year soft matza that is
less than 1 mm thick, machine made, produced in less than 40 seconds, whose
dough is idle in total for not more than 5 seconds, the oven conveyor belt
is constantly being cleaned and kashered on its return journey and in view
of these considerations, I think is probably the most Mehudar Matza
available in the world today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100507/d8e7e1f9/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 03:31:24 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should


Chana Luntz wrote:

> And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis Din is
> empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property in
> order to provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include a
> required provision for adornments 

Actually this is incorrect.  "A woman whose husband is gone, and the
BD appropriates for her food and clothing and furniture and rent, they
do not appropriate adornments for her, for she has no husband for whom
to adorn herself."   http://mechon-mamre.org/i/4113.htm#8

The same psak is in Shulchan Aruch EH 70:5: "But they don't give her
the means to adorn herself".   Evidently either we pasken like R Chisda
rather than R Yosef, or else we accept Rashi's reading which reverses
the "kol sheken".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:39:49 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] how women should dress


<<Jewish women
are encouraged to make themselves attractive to their husbands. The
references to women's perfumes and cosmetics in the Mishnah or Gemara
are made in connection with their use for the purpose of making women
attractive to their husbands.>>

I repeat my previous remark. I have great doubts that R. Akiva bought for
his wife the Jerusalem of Gold to wear only at home

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:20:44 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Blind Obedience


Over on Areivim, there is a discussion going on about what one would do
if HQBH, e.g. via nevu'ah, told you to do something that to human reason
appears cruel or violent. E.g. what would you do if you found and
identified an Amaleiqi newborn?

I started composing a reply when I realized that what I was writing
really belongs here.

My first post said (in part):
    Ani maamin beemnnuah sheleimah that the RBSO doesn't want Crusades
    or terrorism. That He hid the identity of those Amaleiqi babies back
    in the days when our neighbors ceased being a bunch of barbarian
    warring tribes and civilization came in the form of the Babylonian
    Empire for a reason.

[Clipping the joke for Avodah.]
    A guy was once nervous about going on a date, so he asked a buddy
    what he should talk about....
    So, he goess on the date, and the conversation runs dry...
    "If you had a brother, would he like noodles?"

    Yes, we are fundamentalists. But the content of the belief that we are
    fudamentalist about is different in kind[, from that of contemporary
    Islamic terrorists, the Inquisition or the Crusades]. If G-d had
    asked us to blow up civilians... -- that's just not my religion. The
    hypothetical changes the entire thing I am now loyal to. Asking me
    to answer is just as meaningless as the question this guy posed on
    his date.

In another post:
    ... [T]he Torah makes my very point in the Aqeidah. Hashem shows
    Avraham that he would never really ask such a thing.

    BTW, Avraham already had some indication that something was
    up. Perhaps techiyas hameisim perhaps something else. But since
    "ki miYitzchaq yiqarei lekha zara" requires that Yitzchaq be around
    after the Aqeidah somehow to start a nation, Avraham knew there was
    more to the whole thing that he is being told.

More on Amaleiq:
    If one remembers that the G-d of Sinai is the G-d of History, there
    is no question. HQBH ended the mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq; and it
    was only in effect at a time when nations would only respond to other
    nations that acted that way. Kol hameracheim al ha'achzarim... it
    was net-net rachmanus, as hard as that is for those of us who live
    in a more civilized world.

    Similarly, Hashem not commanding anything aqeidah-like today doesn't
    just make the question theoretical. It is in part in order to avoid
    the problem raised by the question!

Notice here my thesis -- Hashem would only command cruely in order to
prevent greater cruelty.

Along similar lines, Hashem killed dor hamabul but only stopped dor
hahaflagah. The former was cruel, the latter's agression was against
HQBH. (Except according to RSRH, who places in the center the medrash
about crying over a fallen brick and not a fallen person. Turning the
migdal into an archtype of ruthless totalitarian statism. But in the
manner most understand dor hahaflagah, the comparison is as I put it.)

Notice that as soon as civiliation, in the form of the Babylonians,
reached those Kenaani tribes, Hashem erased the command. Because mechiyah
wasn't the best way to eliminate the Amaleiqi threat.

As for the internal fighting after the eigel... Egypt had a god named
Apis, a bull. The cult of Apis had two temples, one in either side of
the country, their holiday was the full moon of the eighth month. And so
it really looks like Yerav'am was imitating that cult. He also said "Zeh
elohekha Yisrael", echoing Aharon's "eileh elohekha Yisrael". In short,
the notion that the eigel was an echo of that aspect of Egyptian religion
is quite tenable. And the cult of Apis practiced human sacrifice. There is
a machloqes as to whether sacrifices to Molekh were passed over a fire,
or placed in the belly *of a statue of an iron bull* and roasted alive
within it, the metal turning their screams into something resembling
the roar of a bull.

So, distinction #1 -- it is rachmanus on one vs rachmanus on more.
It's not placing another value ahead of lift.

And in fact, even with the three yeihareig ve'al ya'avor, that's
"yeihareig", not "yaharog". We have no calling to kill somoene to
prevent sinning.

Distinction #2, with the exception of those G-d-hidden barbaric tribes,
it would take nevu'ah to have such a command. Halakhah doesn't have any.
No one could *deduce* that such cruelty was Ratzon haBorei, he would have
to be told and defy nature in ways that show we are required to follow
him. This criterion would also be sufficient to prevent fundamentalist
terrorism.

This question also touches on the relationship between halakhah and
natural morality.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/05/morality-n-halakhah.shtml>
    One can accordingly translate Hillel's famous words to the prospective
    ger, "That which you would loathe [if in their shoes] don't do to
    others. Now go and learn" into "All of the Torah is an elaboration of
    natural morality. However, you would never figure out how to reach the
    right conclusions from those principles unless you go study Torah."

And as I wrote before, I have an article of emunah that Hashem wouldn't
tell anyone that. It defies the purpose of creation (as far as shitos
as diverse as R' Saadia Gaon and the Ramchal) "raq leheitiv es harabim"
(R' Shimon Shkop's words). It defies Hillel's understanding of kol
haTorah kulah.

Being nice really underpins everything.

I can't really entertain the question of "what would I do if". Or, to
quote my original post to Areivim:
    Would you bother answering:
    If you found out that God was really three-in-one, would you still be
    Jewish?

    Isn't the question posed just as absurd?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:40:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] FW: : [Areivim] rain can really be a blessing


On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 06:48:19PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote:
:> Interestingly the TH there adds: "Ve'ata be'avonoseinu harabim omrim
:> 'Chodesh May hu mesugal lerefuah...

: I recently saw someone note the g'matriya of mem-yud (50) as significant.

51. The month name is probably from Maia, a fertility goddess. Although
Virgil writes about Maiores vs Iuniores -- Adults vs Juniors, May and
June. In either case, the month name originally would have required
an alef.

But I see the Taamei haMinhagim as proving his point about Iyar (or
perhaps Iyyar) and refu'ah by mentioning the common idiom. Not that it
being May has anything to do with the idiom. Rather *baavonoseinu harabim*
when we noted the effect we sadly associated it with may rather than Iyar.

The Rama holds a get written this month must have the spelled with two
yuddin, Iyyar (EhE 126:6). Even if the Ben Ish Chai quotes the Chida
about this segula based on rashei teivos "Ani H' Rofekha" and thus
assuming only one yud.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:58:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Hard Matza, Most Mehudar Soft Matza


On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 01:48:44PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: The MBerura adds that this test can be performed only when the Matza is
: still warm out of the oven. I dont understand this. Is the MB suggesting
: that if the Matza was not fully baked when it came out of the oven, i.e.
: there would have been stringy doughy threads, then after it has cooled it
: will longer have such threads?
...
: Furthermore, the MB adds a second test, poking the Matza with a finger (or a
: skewer) to see if any dough sticks, again limited to being tested whilst
: still warm from the oven.

The MB post-dates thin matzos. I think the CC is saying that if the dough
isn't fully bakes but is bakes enough to turn into a cracker through
drying, the lack of threads appearing when you crack the cracker doesn't
prove anything. The threads have to be gone through baking.

: I think this all points towards the Matza being soft even after it has
: cooled. I would have thought that the MB would say in discussing these
: matters, something along the lines of, these days the custom is to bake
: Matza until hard and crisp, which he apparently does not.

But we know from contemporaries. Matzah got progressivly thinner, and
the docking holes progressivly closer together, during the 18th cent.
The cripy matzah has to predate the machine matzah, which means 1838,
invented by Isaac Singer (the sowing machine guy).

I agree it's new, but I would date crispy matzos to the 18th cent, not
the 20th.

(What a far cry from my early posts on the subject, when I argued it had
to predate the Council of Nicea!)

: I have produced last year and will PG produce next year soft matza that is
: less than 1 mm thick, machine made, produced in less than 40 seconds, whose
: dough is idle in total for not more than 5 seconds, the oven conveyor belt
: is constantly being cleaned and kashered on its return journey and in view
: of these considerations, I think is probably the most Mehudar Matza
: available in the world today.

Except for those who feel the rei'usah in lishmah WRT machine made offsets
all this extra caution in timing, at least for the seder's matzos mitzvah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 12:09:25 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] how women should dress


On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 01:39:49PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I repeat my previous remark. I have great doubts that R. Akiva bought for
: his wife the Jerusalem of Gold to wear only at home

We don't know. The argument is being made that our cultures differ on
this very point.

But I want to point out a missing subtext that was driven home for me
by a story...

The scene is a Junior NCSY Shabbaton. A daughter is brought by her mother,
and takes her suitcase out of the car. The mother, being the kind of
doting mom one can find in the wealthier NY suburbs in Nassau County,
noticed that the daughter, age 12, "forgot" to pack one of her outfits.
"Here, honey," she says, pulling it out of the trunk, "Don't you want
this one? You look so sexy in it."

Who wants their 12 yr old daughter to look sexy?

In contemporary culture, from Madison Av to both men's and women's
magazines to even evolutionary psychologiest the notions of looking
aesthetically pleasing and looking sexually alluring have been deeply
confused.

RSSchwab speaks of flaunting beauty and flaunting feminity. Which
conflates these two issues as well.

However, someone who dresses beautifully with a reminder of what was
lost of Y-m (within their own lifetimes) is aesthetically relaying
"her greatness, of her holiness, of what she really is". RSS writes,
"Although we have many references to women's beauty in the Torah in
connection with the Matriarchs, Sara, Rivka, and Rachel, such beauty
always corresponded to and complemented their inner beauty." But isn't
such a tiara more related to inner beauty than feminity.

BTW, in those days women wore tiaras from one piece of gold, and necklaces
that were chains. This was intentional -- it would represent unity of
thought, but a plurality of maasim tovim.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmo...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:48:18 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Blind Obedience


On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Over on Areivim, there is a discussion going on about what one would do
> if HQBH, e.g. via nevu'ah, told you to do something that to human reason
> appears cruel or violent. E.g. what would you do if you found and
> identified an Amaleiqi newborn?
>
> *Radvaz(2:652): *Question: We have an established principle that if an
established prophet should command us to transgress one of the mitzvos of
the Torah except for idolatry we are to listen to him. For example Eliyahu
on Mt. Carmel transgressed on the command not to offer sacrifices outside of
the Temple. He didn't do this to nullify the mitzva but rather as an
emergency measure to refute the prophets of Baal. Your question is whether
such a prophet said to kill someone or destroy a particular city or to
pillage a particular city as an emergency measure to protect the Torah - how
can we obey such a command since no court would do such a thing even as an
emergency measure? And even if it were commanded by G-d - but we have the
principle of "it is not in Heaven"? Since a person is not killed except with
witnesses and with proper warning - how is it possible to listen to the
prophet to transgress that which is stated in the Torah? Even if he gives an
explanation for the need to do this - that would not be sufficient - but he
says it is a mitzva to listen to him according to the Torah. Answer: Also in
my eyes this is was puzzling until it occurred to me to say that this
principle only applies to mitzvos between man and G-d. But concerning
mitzvos between men, there is no command to listen to him. However I saw in
Sanhedrin (90a): Concerning all sins if a prophet tells you to transgress
the words of Torah you are to listen to him except for idolatry, because it
is possible that he has the ability to stop the sun in the middle of the sky
so don't listen to him.... Thus this gemora clearly states that the only sin
not to commit at the command of a prophet is idolatry. ... So since it is
explicitly stated that it is a mitzva to transgress when commanded by a
prophet.... therefore even to kill a person would be required or to destroy a
particular city. This is similar to the statement that "I heard that one
flogs and punishes not according to the law of the Torah but for the
emergency needs of the times and to save the Torah and its mitzvos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100507/23606f2f/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 114
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


< Previous Next >