Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 038

Friday, September 4 1998

• Bagel chips
• [none]
• Re:
• The sun sets in the west - it's a Pasuk!
• Re: bagel chips, and maybe melba toast
• Re: bagel chips, and maybe melba toast (fwd)
• Re: Minhag
• Re: Avodah V1 #37
• Re: Bechirah Chafshi
• More on melba toast and maybe bagel chips
• Re:
• Re: Women and Psak/Serara
• Re:sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re:
• Re:sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re:sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re:
• Administrivia: web archive
• Re: sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re:

Some brands evens point out on the label that they are baked, not fried.
I never had a hava amina to make mezonos on them. They're no different
than a regular piece of toast.

Akiva

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Subject: re: proofs from pasukim
On  Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:44:33 -0500 (CDT), Elie Ginsparg wrote:

>This begs the question of why chazal felt the need to prove physically
>observable facts from pasukim. Why were the pasukim added proof more than
>what everyone knew and could clearly see.

Perhaps an analogy to references in journal publications might help to
explain this. If one is citing a finding or technique which is
well-known to researchers in that field, one would typically cite the
first paper where this finding/technique was reported, rather than the
most recent paper which uses this finding/technique, in order to give
proper credit to the first discoverer/inventor, even if this reference
were 20-30 years old.  Similarly, Hashem was "histakel b'Oraisa u'vara
alma" - the psukim are the original reference, and the observable
facts of nature are merely secondary works that are instantiations of
the original reference.

K'siva vachasima tova- Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

I'd like to expand the question to include why chazal felt the need to
sometimes say I can either prove the point by a pasuk or by svara. Shouldn't
the pasuk be final and more authoratative?
Ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

<< 
 >This begs the question of why chazal felt the need to prove physically
 >observable facts from pasukim. Why were the pasukim added proof more than
 >what everyone knew and could clearly see.
 
 Perhaps an analogy to references in journal publications might help to
 explain this. If one is citing a finding or technique which is
 well-known to researchers in that field, one would typically cite the
 first paper where this finding/technique was reported, rather than the
 most recent paper which uses this finding/technique, in order to give
 proper credit to the first discoverer/inventor, even if this reference
 were 20-30 years old.  Similarly, Hashem was "histakel b'Oraisa u'vara
 alma" - the psukim are the original reference, and the observable
 facts of nature are merely secondary works that are instantiations of
 the original reference.
 
 K'siva vachasima tova- Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)
 
  >>

> From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> While going over daf yomi this week I was fascinated by the gemara which
> asks why we don't use an avukah for bedikas chametz instead of a candle
> since it provides more light. It wasn't the question which was so amazing
> as the next line in the gemara which continued by proving that a torch was
> a better light from a pasuk and a statement of Rava. What was extremely
> obvious to the naked eye was supported by a pasuk and a statement of an
> amora.As I was thinking about this gemara I reminded myself of a gemara in
> Eruvin (daf 56a) which says that the sun rises in the east and sets in the
> west while traveling through the southern sky which isn't amazing except
> that the gemara proves this from a pasuk and not by saying to go look
> outside during the day and see fro your self. After speaking with Rabbi
> Bechoffer we reminded each other that there are many such examples. This

Such cases, to me, speak of the difference between theory and fact. We may
see events occur, but that doesn't mean they will always be that way, or
that they are that way in all cases. For that, we need a pasuk.
				Mordechai

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor The Mareh Mekomos library
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI: http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

YGB writes:

> > I believe that there is no frying in the process.  R' turkeltaub told me
> > that he has seen them made and the slices are sprayed with an oil/spice
> > spray before the second baking, as a delivery means for the flavoring. 


But isn't that still frying? What difference is there if the oil is
sprayed on the food or it sits in a pan full? The heat heats the oil which
soaks into the chips/crackers just as if they were sitting in it. I may be
wrong halachically, but as a chef I would consider it frying.


---sammy ominsky

More from Elly

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 08:01:04 -0500
From: Elly Bachrach <ebachrach@heidecorp.com>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: bagel chips, and maybe melba toast

The same mashgiach also told me that these bagels are made from the
beginning with the intent to be sliced thin and turned into bagel chips;
they are not made from regular bagels that didn't pass quality tests.
They would therefore never get the shem pas. This was the opinion of R'
Tarkieltaub (now I know how to spell it!), and is underlying the opinion
of R' Forst in his book.

In R' Forst's brachos book, he says that when shown melba toast R'
Shlomo Zalman zt"l felt that they were not a food that was eaten b'kvias
seudah, so the bracha would remain mezonos.  Then he makes the point
stated above, to explain why there is no shem pas.

Thanks,
elly

--

Elly Bachrach
Heide Corporation
7434 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Phone: (847) 676-2880
Fax: (847) 676-2880
E-Mail:  ebachrach@heidecorp.com
--
Headquarters
5 West Mill Street
Medfield MA 02052
Phone: 508 359 5885
Fax:  508 359 2737
http://www.heidecorp.com

Eli Clark categorizes types of minhag in v1n34 (I'm catching up on backlog):
: Minhag is often the source of a practice....

: A different kind of minhag is the minhag to follow a certain halakhic
: opinion or tradition....

I think that while this is called "minhag", it's not within the technical
meaning of the word when used as jargon. Thus, Chaim Brown's paraphrase of
R' Ovadia that minhag can not decide an issue about which their exists a
machlokes haposkim.

I'd like to suggest a middle ground: sometimes people accept to follow the
machmir not because they think it's halachah, but as a minhag. In particular,
I have in mind the difference between the Sepharadi acceptance of Bet-Yoseph
meat vs. the Hungarian/Chassidishe acceptance of Glatt. Both are based on the
same sources, but one is an acceptance of a p'sak qua p'sak on a d'Oraisa, and
is therefore more chamur, and the other is the acceptance of the idea as
minhag.

: Interestingly, I think we are today witnessing a process by which many
: centuries old differences in this area are fading.

Gershon Dubin notes that:
>> Just derech agav - Chazal refer constantly to minhag hamakom.  What is 
>> the basis for a family minhag?
> From what I've been told there is no such thing;  only minhag hamakom. 
> In places like America or Israel where people of many different
> mekomos come together,  they blend,   but it is the mokom which is koveah the
> minhag.

I think that both observations are because we live in a time of flux. The
major centers of minhag have vanished too recently for us to have solid roots
to the makom. People don't think of themselves as coming from the "eidah of
Detroit".

Slowly, until moshiach's arrival stops the process, we'll witness the
evolution of a minhag America. Israel is further along down this route, since
minhagei HaGra were well established before the population was.

I don't think the differences will fade, as much as divide along current
geographical lines instead of the old ones.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5912 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

If I was sick I would certainly seek
the counsel of a doctor rather then attempt to do surgery on myself.  (3) I
would not call my doctor every time I have a headache or sneeze; calling a
Rav for every little problem is  "halachic hyperchondria".
You may disagree with me practically on what falls into the category of a
major life decsion and what is minor, but agree at least that this is a
valid philosophical model.

___________________________________________________________________________
_

To carry your doctor analogy further ...

You do get medical direction more than the rare (we pray) times you need
surgery:
- You go for annual checkups.
- You hear medical advice on the radio, and read medical articles in the
newspapers
- You discuss with others their medical experiences

And, on the flip side ...
- You manage your own care by evaluating your doctor's advice, and
following what your sechel says makes sense for you
- You use your intellect to decide which doctor to listen to, and when to
leave one doctor for another
- You go to specialists for specific ailments

Also ...
As with medical advice, the degree we utilize rabbinic advice/guidance is
not based on a halachically prescribable formula but a function of each
person's individual style. Assuming we all have the goal of making the best
religious choices we each go about it in our own way.  Some of us are
"survey takers" always asking those around us for validation. Some of us
are "wing it" people who arrive at their ultimate goal by plunging in and
trying different solutions that seem right until they hit the best one.
Others of us are "analysts", proceeding methodologically toward our
solution, etc etc..

Each style will utilize advisors in ints own way.

So there.

In v1n34, Rabbi Blau writes:
: The phenomenon of Roshei Yeshiva taking on many aspects of a Chassidic
: Rebbe is recent and can not be explained simply by showing similarities
: between Musar and Chassidus.

My (poorly stated) argument was that mussar and chassidus are products of
similar social/religious forces and had many other similar expressions -- so
R. Yisrael's attitude about "da'as Torah" outside the realm of piskei halachah
is unsurprising. It's yet another similarity among many mussar has to
Chassidus, probably due to similar cause.

I agree that the current phenomenon is modern. However, they appeal to "da'as
Torah" as defined by R' Yisroel Salanter. So, while they didn't get the idea
through a continuous mesorah since the birth of mussar, the idea is reclaimed
from mussar texts.

: Perhaps my being taught by my own Rebbeim that bechira chofshis is
: fundamental to yahadus and that taking responsibility for my own
: decisions its logical implication makes me uncomfortable with this

Joel Rich responded to R' Blau:
: Perhaps it also occurs because talmidim would rather not have to deal with the
: myriad of complex decisions that life forces on us but would rather substitute
: one act of bchira chafsheet(choosing a rebbe). It's not my mesora but....

However, it's the /excercising/ of bechirah that give mitzvos their value.
Otherwise, we might as well be automata programmed to follow ratzon haBorei,
like the mal'achim. Making decisions shouldn't be avoided, or minimized,
because then the value of following the right one is minimized as well.

Unfortunately, the population of this list is skewed. We don't have as many
people from the communities that follow this form of da'as Torah. Therefore,
we aren't going to get an overly solid defense. (Consider this a request to
make invitations. The list would be far more interesting if we had a wider
variety of Orthodoxies well represented.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5912 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Twenty years ago, I attended a series of shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Wikler
(editor of Kashrus Magazine) on the subject of pas haba be-kisnin, those
foods which are made of flour, kneeded like bread, and baked like bread.
Pas haba be-kisnin differs from bread if one of the following conditions is
met:

    1. It is baked with a filling (example would be pizza, but beware the
Chicago style, and even some others with very little sauce and cheeze).

    2. It is baked with other ingredients such as sugar, fruit juice,
chocolate, which can be tasted in the finished product.  (This is the
Shulchan Oruch's psak; the Rema  states that these would qualify only if the
other ingredients are greater in volume than the amount of water used to
bake it.)

    3. It is baked thin and is not normally used as bread.  (This is the
basis for certain Eastern Jews making mezonos on matzah except on Pesach.
On this one, the Bach says it will still be bread, unless there are
ingredients other than flour and water which are greater in volume than the
water used to bake the product.)

    Now we get to the issue of melba toast made with water.  First, bread is
baked, than it is cut into thin strips and toasted.  What is the beracha?
Rabbi Wikler said he asked Reb Moshe Feinstein the question and his answer
was that it depended on the intentions of the bakers when the bread was
being made.  If the bread was baked with the intention that it be made into
melba toast, the beracha was mezonos, since the process ended with something
thin and crispy, not normally used as bread.  However, if the bread was
baked with the intention of using it as bread, and only afterwards converted
for use as melba toast, then the beracha was hamotzi, since it was being
baked to be used as bread.

    Applying this logic to bagel chips, it would appear that if the bread is
made in the bagel chip factory and the entire lot is used to make bagel
chips, the beracha would be mezonos.  However, if the bread was purchased
from a supplier, part of whose product run was intended for use as bread,
then the beracha would be hamotzi.

    In any case, even if the product is pas haba be'ksnin, the beracha might
still be hamotzi, if the consumer were either eating enough of it to
constitute a seuda, or was using it to be kovaya a seuda, but that's another
issue entirely.  (For this reason, Rabbi Wikler, when at a kiddush, looked
for noodle pudding or something similar for kiddush bemakom seuda, since
there is no problem.  Cholent with barley is another possibility)

Best wishes,

Levi Reisman

In a message dated 98-09-04 09:00:15 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Subject: re: proofs from pasukim
 On  Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:44:33 -0500 (CDT), Elie Ginsparg wrote:
 
 >This begs the question of why chazal felt the need to prove physically
 >observable facts from pasukim. Why were the pasukim added proof more than
 >what everyone knew and could clearly see.
 
 Perhaps an analogy to references in journal publications might help to
 explain this. If one is citing a finding or technique which is
 well-known to researchers in that field, one would typically cite the
 first paper where this finding/technique was reported, rather than the
 most recent paper which uses this finding/technique, in order to give
 proper credit to the first discoverer/inventor, even if this reference
 were 20-30 years old.  Similarly, Hashem was "histakel b'Oraisa u'vara
 alma" - the psukim are the original reference, and the observable
 facts of nature are merely secondary works that are instantiations of
 the original reference.
 
 K'siva vachasima tova- Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)
  >>

A friend of mine tells me that by a similar question(also a recent daf yomi
issue) as to why write a pasuk if you could learn it from a kal vachomer, the
bnai yissaschar says that its to teach you that the kal vachomer has the same
authority as a pasuk.   I assume that this has value when you just have a kal
vachomer although it doesn't answer why the tora/gemora would do this more
than once and less than everytime. If we extend this to the nature/svara in
addition to psukim issues it has some very interesting hashkafic results.

Shabbat shalom and a ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

My wife is a mikvah lady a couple of nights a week. She often makes the
decision whether something is (a) certainly a problem; (b) certainly not a
problem; or (c) a question for the Rabbi. For that matter, she makes the same
determinations at home, when it comes to basr bichalav questions. (This fork
is certainly fine; that ladle was made treif; I have to ask about that soup
spoon.) I rely on these decisions when I eat.

We all do this kind of decision making. And these decisions often impact
others.

How does this differ from a posek deciding between: (a) assur, (b) muttar,
(c) this is over my head, I need to ask my Rebbe?

IOW, the line between what is p'sak and what is eid echad isn't all that
boolean. It seems to me to be at least partly a function of whether the
decisor is being approached as a posek, that is to say, as an authority.

Simlarly, serirah applies to things like shul presidency, which isn't a
halachic status.

So, why not just translate the word literally, and say that "serirah" means
"authority". In which case, whether X is called p'sak or not is really
secondary to the question of whether a woman could be hired for the job. To my
mind, the question revolves around whether being a decisor of X makes one a
"person of authority in the community".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5912 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Someone commented on psukim being stronger proof then logic/sevara.  In
fact, sevara is a stronger source then a pasuk.  There is a gemara in the
middle of Bava Kamma (I don't have the mesachta here with me so I can't
cite a daf) that has a line "lamah li k'ra, sevara hu" - we don't need
pesukim to teach us what is logically clear.  R' Akiva Eiger in gilyon on
that gemara cites another one or two places in Shas where such a line
appears.

>>>I thought of a possible answer but agreed with Rabbi Bechoffer that
instead of writing it we should let Chaim write his opinion so he doesn't
have to spend time proving mine is wrong (I hope this is taken with the
humor that I intended)<<<

I have no opinion to offer yet [try to disprove that!]  Maybe this will
shed some light on it.  In the NY Times last week a story appeared of a
mathematician who had spent 10 years and devised an elaborate equation that
could only be done by supercomputers to prove that a pyramid-structure is
the best way to stack spheres wasting the least amount of space.  The
article pointed out that every grocer knows this intuitively - look at a
stack of oranges on a fruit stand.   Proof and observation are worlds
apart.

-Good Shabbos,
Chaim B.

> A friend of mine tells me that by a similar question(also a recent daf yomi
> issue) as to why write a pasuk if you could learn it from a kal vachomer, the
> bnai yissaschar says that its to teach you that the kal vachomer has the same
> authority as a pasuk.   I assume that this has value when you just have a kal
> vachomer although it doesn't answer why the tora/gemora would do this more
> than once and less than everytime. If we extend this to the nature/svara in
> addition to psukim issues it has some very interesting hashkafic results.
> 
> Shabbat shalom and a ktiva vchatima tova
> Joel Rich
> 
I'm not sure you can extend the principle to a kal vchomer without a pasuk
and if you can then I'm not sure I understand the bnei yessaschar because
we know that ein onshin min hadin which proves that a kal vechomer is
dafka not as strong as a pasuk. However I do agree that the issue of
why we ever give a sevara in the face of a pasuk is related and should be
answered as well
Elie Ginsparg 

> 
> I have no opinion to offer yet [try to disprove that!]  Maybe this will
> shed some light on it.  In the NY Times last week a story appeared of a
> mathematician who had spent 10 years and devised an elaborate equation that
> could only be done by supercomputers to prove that a pyramid-structure is
> the best way to stack spheres wasting the least amount of space.  The
> article pointed out that every grocer knows this intuitively - look at a
> stack of oranges on a fruit stand.   Proof and observation are worlds
> apart.
> 
> -Good Shabbos,
> Chaim B.
> > 

I agree that proof and observation are different, but the question is that
when the gemara asks why don't we rely on the observation
instead of
bringind the pasuk. In your analogy, if someone had stacked fruit one on
top of another and the grocer walked in and saw this he wouldn't say why
do you stack it this way seeing that a person figured out on a super
computer that this isn't an effective way of stacking, he'd say---don't
you know that everybody stacks fruit in a pyramid because its clearly the
best way to stack fruit--just see for yourself. the question is why chazal
say a torch has better light then a candle becaUS it says... instead of a
torch has better light then a candle because everyone knows this (or else
don't bring any proof) because as you correctly said  ---svara lama lee
kra.
Elie Ginsparg

You inverted my analogy.  Chazal are mathematicians, not grocers.  Sevara
is logical, not empirical.

As to why Chazal did not take the common-sense approach and instead
searched for absolute proof - why must the mathematician prove what is
obvious to the grocer and not rely on common sense?  I think that is at
least an outline of an answer.

-CB


                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           



          Please respond to avodah@aishdas.org

          To:   avodah @ aishdas.org
          cc:
          Subject:  Re:sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof






          In your analogy, if someone had stacked fruit one on top of another
          and the grocer walked in and saw this he wouldn't say why
          do you stack it this way seeing that a person figured out on a super
          computer that this isn't an effective way of stacking, he'd say---
          don't
you know that everybody stacks fruit in a pyramid because its clearly the
best way to stack fruit--just see for yourself. the question is why chazal
say a torch has better light then a candle becaUS it says... instead of a
torch has better light then a candle because everyone knows this (or else
don't bring any proof) because as you correctly said  ---svara lama lee
kra.
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 98-09-04 13:54:04 EDT, you write:

<<  
 I'm not sure you can extend the principle to a kal vchomer without a pasuk
 and if you can then I'm not sure I understand the bnei yessaschar because
 we know that ein onshin min hadin which proves that a kal vechomer is
 dafka not as strong as a pasuk. However I do agree that the issue of
 why we ever give a sevara in the face of a pasuk is related and should be
 answered as well
 Elie Ginsparg 
  >>
I'm not sure you can extend it either but I'm not sure ein onshin min hadin
proves that kal vachomer is not as strong as a pasuk. I was taught that the
reason for ein onshin was because the onesh for a particular aveira is also a
kappara and thus when we apply a kal vachomer, while we know the chomer can't
be done , we're unsure as to the proper punishment qua kappara and therefore
don't punish. As with many things I was taught , I have no recollection of
source so take this with a grain of salt:-)

Shabbat shalom and a ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

There is a web archive of back digests on http://www.aishdas.org/avodah

From there you can also get an index keyed by subject line, which obviously is
only as good as peoples' subject lines.

It's still in beta testing. Feedback is welcome.

Good Shabbos,
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5913 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Off the top of my head:

Many times the Gemmorah will bring down psukim to prove the obvious 
because...IT CAN!  It isn't so much to prove the obvious that it brings 
down the psukim, it's that Psukim (i.e. Torah) is the ultimate validator 
of what is right in the "eyes" of G-d.  Intuituion tells us to trust our 
senses but our senses can be fooled.  Ask David Copperfield.  So even 
though we can see that a torch is brighter than a candle and it would 
seem absurd to bring psukim to prove it, never-the-less, the gemmoroh 
does so in order to tell us that it is the Torah that is to be trusted, 
even beyond what our senses (common and otherwise) tell us.

HM

 I was taught that the
> reason for ein onshin was because the onesh for a particular aveira is also a
> kappara and thus when we apply a kal vachomer, while we know the chomer can't
> be done , we're unsure as to the proper punishment qua kappara and therefore
> don't punish. As with many things I was taught , I have no recollection of
> source so take this with a grain of salt:-)
> 
> Shabbat shalom and a ktiva vchatima tova
> Joel Rich
> 
I was taught that we don't punish from a kal vchomer because we have a
rule that we never punish m'safek (we always try to find a zchus for a
person except for a masis etc.) any law derived from a kal vechomer is
never better than a safek because it can in theory be disproved. Unlike a
pasuk where the guilty party hasno way to defend himself if he violated a
law stated explicitly or learned out from an irrefutable drash such as
gezara shava. However if you were to punish a person from a kal vechomer
he'd say how do you know I'm guilty maybe someone would come along and
refute your kal vechomer. Thus one can't be punished from a kal vechomer.
following this logic , I made my statement that a kal vechomer is dafka
weaker than a pasuk in regards to ein onshim min hadin. However i'm sure
that there are other sevaras, which would make for a fine breakaway thread
Elie Ginsparg

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]