Volume 38: Number 63
Sun, 02 Aug 2020
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:02:37 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Crazy Snakes and Dogs
We repeatedly discussed RYBS's statement that toothpaste is not ra'ui
la'akhilas kelev and therefore doesn't need a hekhsher to be KLP.
Not where I intended to go, but I should note that we never
discussed the actual core issue -- the limits of the principle of
achshevei. Since toothpaste is flavored, one could argue it does
apply. RMF (IG OC 2:92), ROY (YD 2:60), the Tzitz Eliezer (10:25),
says it does not apply when the flavored item isn't being eaten for
the sake of the flavor. Excluding medicine -- and the same argument
applies to toothpaste. The CI (OC 116:8) limits achshevei to spoiled
chameitz, and not to mixtures containing chameitz. The "only" machmir
about applying achshevei to medicines that I know of is the She'agas
Now, back to the topic I did intent to post about....
So, the story goes (version taken from R Chaim Jachter at
A charming anecdote that occurred in Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik's
Shiur at Yeshiva University in the 1970's (reported by Rav Yosef
Adler and many others) is often cited in support of the common
practice to be lenient. The Rav stated in Shiur that toothpaste is
not Ra'ui Liachilat Kelev (unfit for canine consumption) and thus
one is permitted to consume it on Pesach even if it contains Chametz.
The next day in Shiur a student raised his hand and explained that he
conducted an "experiment" the night before. He related that he placed
toothpaste in his dog's feeding bowl to see if his dog would eat it
-- and indeed, the dog ate the toothpaste!! Rav Soloveitchik simply
responded, "Your dog is crazy." This story illustrates the ruling
that we cited last week from Rav Soloveitchik that the standards of
edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior.
R Pesach Sommer recently found Tosefta Terumos 7:13, which is more famously
available on Chullin 49b. It /has/ to be what RYBS was thinking of. The
Detanya: 5 [liquids] do not have [the prohibition] of gilui: brine,
vinegar, oil, honey and fish gravy.
Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a snake drink fish brine in Tzidon!
They said to him: That [snake] was a shetaya, and one doesn't bring
a proof from shotim.
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp and her returnees, through righteousness.
Author: Widen Your Tent
Go to top.
From: Henry Topas
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:29:43 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai D'Zimrah
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:41:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
>> This reminds me of a question which would apply to almost every day when
>> we change the Sha'tz before Yishtabach. Isn't Pezukai d'zimrah framed
>> by Boruch She'amar as the beginning bracha and the end of Yishtabach as
>> the closing bracha, and if correct (and I may not be), should not the
>> same Sha'tz conclude what he started?
> I always understood the Shat"z to more of a "concept" than a person.
I called it an office, not the occupent.
But I didn't just reply to suggest a different phrasing of the same
idea. I have a theory why:
I think it's inherent in the idea that the sha"tz is a
*shaliach*. Personal identity is the opposite of the point of the post!
Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's
approach of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person
takes over at Hallel for Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah,
do we require the original shaliach or officeholder to come back and say
Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that reasoning shouldn't
the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue for
Thank you and Kol Tuv,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Go to top.
From: Danny Schoemann
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 12:36:36 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Change of Shluchei Tzibur during Pezukai
R' Henry Topas wrote:
> Understanding both RDS's suggestion of the Shat"z as a concept and RMB's approach
> of office or shaliach, why then on days when a different person takes over at Hallel for
> Hallel and perhaps continuing through Hotza'ah, do we require the original shaliach or
> officeholder to come back and say Kaddish Shalem? If it is an office, then along that
> reasoning shouldn't the Shaliach in the office having led Hallel then be good to continue
> for Kaddish Shalem?
What you describe is nothing I've found in the written Poskim.
Where I grew up (various Yekkishe Kehiloth) the Ovel was "off the
hook" when Hallel was recited.
I see this being done in Yeshivishe minyonim, seemingly to "prevent"
the Ovel from being Shatz for Hallel. (Also not recorded, AFAIK,
except during Shiva.)
So, my guess is, that since the Ovel wants to say as many Kadieshim as
possible he "gets back the Omud" after Hallel - giving him one more
This has no bearing on our discussion, it's a question (and answer) on
a recent "Minhag/Hanhogo".
Avodah mailing list
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)