Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 479

Tuesday, April 4 2000

• Re: packing peanuts on Pesach
• Re: Middle of the Torah
• Re: matza shiurim
• Re: matza shiurim
• Re: shiurim
• Re: Thought on the PASSOVER FAMILY FUN KIT
• Re: Kiyum for achila more than a kzayis
• Re: shiurim
• Re: Yissachor-Zevulun Learning Arrangement
• Re: Yissachor-Zevulun Learning Arrangement
• Maror and Horseradish
• Re: Dor Revi'i (monetary sacrifice to avoid transgression)
• Eating Matzah and Marror together (was Shiurim)
• Middle of the Torah
• Re: Avodah V4 #478

My aside was off topic for Avodah, so I'm not thrilled with making a thread
out of it. But as my misspeech might cause someone to do something
counterproductive to their health, I want to clear it up for "venishmartem
me'od" purposes.

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:41:54PM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                                                                   He
: advocates putting lemon juice in the cup before tea in order to avoid
: "leaching" out the polymer.  Au contraire - the lemon oil (limonene) in
: the lemon juice will dissolve the polystyrene in the cup.

Which is why I meant to write that tea with lemon is okay UNLESS you put
the lemon in first.

Pretty bad typo: unless -> if -> it. It's still Adar, venahapoch hu.

:                  If Micha has such information from scientific sources,
: I would appreciate seeing it.

I don't have a particularly authoritative source. I was about to put diet
Coke into a styrofoam cup one "shalashudis" when a friend who is a biochemist
stopped me.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-Mar-00: Shishi, Shmini
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 17b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Interesting side note: I was looking at the Nefesh haChaim this morning (to
see something mentioned by RYGB about NhC on goyim and sechar).

A ba'al mussar would understand this aggadita to mean that each Jew and his
understanding has value, as each is a "letter" in the Torah sheBa'al Peh.

R' Chaim Vilozhiner takes it the reverse direction. Yisrael vi'Oraisa ...
chad. Each Jewish soul has its source in the Torah.

I don't think the two perspectives are choleik. It's a cause-and-effect
thing.


The two other ideas that I mentioned were:

1- Each vuv-width is counted as a letter. Therefore letters like chaf count
   as two, and mem and shin would be three.
2- In Ashuris many letters are written as combinations of other letters. E.g.
   mem, lamed and pei are contructed from a chaf and a vuv (with the vav in
   three different positions) -- they would therefore count as two. I believe
   R' Mordecai Kornfeld used this notion in Parashah-Page.

I would only be convinced by one of these explanations if someone did the math
and found that it actually does get you to the number in one of the counts in
Bamidbar.

-mi

PS: I couldn't find an earlier discussion of this topic on Avodah. Perhaps
another mailing list touched on it.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-Mar-00: Shishi, Shmini
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 17b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Micha Berger wrote:



> In general, I'm bothered by the same question raised earlier. How do you
> define a k'zayis matza? Does the air in the bubbles count? If so, crumbling
> it will give you an over estimate. Also, when you pack a solid into a volume,
> you can get VERY different answers depending upon how fine you grind it before
> packing. How long should the contents settle, how much pressure to pack it in
> with, all end up being very relevent to such measuring schemes.


So why insist on defining it by area filled instead of by weight? Weight
will be consistent across all your measuring schemes.

Someone said earlier that the shiur of R' Naeh was generally accepted.
His shiur was 27g, by weight. About one ounce, or one machine mazzah. No
matter how you crumble it.


---sam

Shiurim are volume measurements, not weight. That is why there is discussion
of being metzaref the air pockets. There would be no such discussions if
shiurim were weight measurements. Thus, cc's are more accurate measures than
grams.

By cake and bread we are metzaref the air pockets. I do not recall offhand
the halacha by matzo.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: matza shiurim


> Micha Berger wrote:
>
>
>
> > In general, I'm bothered by the same question raised earlier. How do you
> > define a k'zayis matza? Does the air in the bubbles count? If so,
crumbling
> > it will give you an over estimate. Also, when you pack a solid into a
volume,
> > you can get VERY different answers depending upon how fine you grind it
before
> > packing. How long should the contents settle, how much pressure to pack
it in
> > with, all end up being very relevent to such measuring schemes.
>
>
> So why insist on defining it by area filled instead of by weight? Weight
> will be consistent across all your measuring schemes.
>
> Someone said earlier that the shiur of R' Naeh was generally accepted.
> His shiur was 27g, by weight. About one ounce, or one machine mazzah. No
> matter how you crumble it.
>
>
> ---sam
>

"Carl M. Sherer" wrote:


> Is there any argument that the matzos today are thinner?


Thinner than what?


> 
> Friday night, there was a sheet of paper left on benches in shul
> which made the claim that because of the way the matzos are
> made (which, he argued, is in layers) 


Unless things have changed dramatically in the 3 years since Yehudah
closed his bakery, mazzot are not made in layers. A piece of dough is
rolled out, run over with something that looks like a torture device to
make sure they stay flat (the thing that makes all the little
punctures), put on a dowel, and into the oven.

No "layering" at any point. 


> there is a greater chashash
> of chimutz than in the past, that the ovens are not hot enough, and


I can assure you, Yehudah kept his oven as hot as it needed to be. I
don't think that the technology to keep an oven hot was better 200 years
ago than it is now. In fact, it's the same. Yehudah used a wood-fired
brick oven, like you see in high-end pizza joints. It's hot.



> hashgacha on a matzo factory? I haven't gotten through the whole
> thing yet, but if someone did not see it and wants to see it, I can
> fax it to you.


I'd be curious, but I don't have a fax machine. Do you have access to a
scanner?


---sam

On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 05:15:02PM -0800, aviva fee wrote:
: I was wondering what the Avodah olam thought of the Passover Family Fun Kit 

I wasn't too thrilled to see an ad reprinted on Avodah. However, since it's
for an Aish HaTorah fundraiser, it could be worse.

Last year we used the "Box-o-Plagues" <http://www.plagues.com> a collection
of trinkets (high profit margin) put out by Cong. Tiferes Yisroel Youth (R'
Goldberger).

I can't see how it's any worse than using nuts and raisins to keep the
kids intrigued. IOW, despite the novelty, isn't it in line with the general
idea of using trick to keep the kids involved?

And, unlike Afikoman, it doesn't make a game out of theft and blackmail.

I think halachically it's not only fine, such techniques are laudable.

From a pragmatic point of view: it worked on the first day -- when they
didn't know what was coming. The kids really got into it, and we didn't
have anyone (other than Yoni) drifting away from the table.

The second day they fought over who got which role and toy. So we won't be
using it this year.

Another non-traditional part of our seder: every line in the Maggid portion
of Maggid (as opposed to the Hallel portion of Maggid) is a question to
ellicit the point from one of the kids. The derashos from the pesukim begin
with learning the pasuk as one would in class, followed by the same question
and answer. I'm not all that pedantic about making sure the original words
are said, although I try to do so myself because it doesn't feel right
otherwise. Again, I believe that even without the Hebrew is the actual kiyum
hamitzvah as described in the sifrei halachah more than reading words that
only one person in the table can translate.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

But I think the Rashba would only hold that as to the first ke'zayis 
 (which is a chiyuv) and not as to the second one (which is a kiyum 
 hamitzva and not a chiyuv). <<<

Why do you would assume efshar l'kayem
shneihem is not applicable even if we are discussing 
kiyumim and not chiyuvim?  If anything, the fact that 
there is only a kiyum and no chiyuv would lead you to 
think that we don't apply dechiya at all (see below).
I don't understand how you got this from the rashba.
 
> I think that at least according to Rav Elchonon only if by using the 
> davar she'yesh lo matirin, you are fulfilling a time-based chova that 
> cannot be fulfilled in any other way (whether practically or 
> theoretically is a separate diyun).

The gemara has a principle of efshar l'kayem shneihem. 
What chiddush does R' Elchanan say that the gemara doesn't
and what is his proof?

Tos. in Kiddushin and YGB's dechiya-  R' 
Shternbruch learns Tos. as saying there is a kiyum, but
on a kiyum alone we don't say aseh doche l"t (a mach. 
R"T and Ra'avad in Menachos). However, Tos. in other 
places uses a similar expression, e.g. gezeirah biyah
 rishona atu biya shniya, where I  think saying there 
would be additional kiyumim in multiple biyos is more
difficult. 

-Chaim 

On 4 Apr 00, at 9:57, Sammy Ominsky wrote:

> "Carl M. Sherer" wrote:
> 
> 
> > Is there any argument that the matzos today are thinner?
> 
> 
> Thinner than what?

Thinner than they were in Rav Moshe's time. Let's say 30-40 years 
ago.

> > Friday night, there was a sheet of paper left on benches in shul
> > which made the claim that because of the way the matzos are
> > made (which, he argued, is in layers) 
[snip]
> > hashgacha on a matzo factory? I haven't gotten through the whole
> > thing yet, but if someone did not see it and wants to see it, I can
> > fax it to you.
> 
> 
> I'd be curious, but I don't have a fax machine. Do you have access to a
> scanner?

I don't, but maybe someone with a fax machine does. In any event, 
it looks like I won't be faxing them out until tomorrow.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:22:49PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> I don't understand why you make your assumption. Why can't non-Jews have
:> sechar seguli? Doesn't the Nefesh haChaim's explanation of the connection
:> of mitzvah to sechar apply to the 7 mitzvos B'nei Noach as well?

: No, I do not think so. The NhC is quite clear that only Jews are hard wired
: that way. The whole concept of a chok does not apply to non-Jews for that
: reason as well.!

I understood differently, and refrained from responding until chechking the
NhC again. My impression is that he doesn't feel that non-Jews make the
same roshem in the olamos ha'elyonim (*), see 1:4 about Nevuchadnetzar and
Titus. However, I also took him to understand the acts of non-Jews to
produce their own olam habah. In 1:11 R' Chaim speaks of "kol Yisrael
yeish lahem cheilek li'olam habah" as a guarantee that only Jews have --
not that a non-Jew wouldn't. His examples of people who create their own
gehenom include Yermiyahu (2:19) speaking to Mitzrayim and Ashur.

So it would seem that non-Jews do have a seguli relationship with their
fates. Or do you believe this to be true of cheit but not mitzvah?

*) It is interesting to note that the NhC takes this as an ontological
statement: that nachriim lack that connection to olamos ha'elyonim. RSRH
makes it an axological one: we are obligated to develop that connection
but they are not. See his commentary on Bamidbar 16:41. This is why 8,
which is beyond the week, is associated with milah, atzeres and tzitzis
-- the calling of the Jew.
    


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

To continue (I didn't reply to both of RYBS's points before hitting "send".
Sorry.)...

On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:22:49PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: If a compotent of the chiddush of teshuva is the capacity to remove a stain
: in olamos elyonim - that would not be relevant to non-Jews, as they neither
: stained or ruined nor have what to rectify. So their teshuva would be very
: different. It would not be a mending, but a changing.

Therefore, I would think that while teshuvah for a Jew involves both personal
tikkun and tikkun ha'olam[os], teshuvah for a non-Jew would still be a personal
tikkun.

But you touch on another problem I've mentioned in the past. According to the
NhC, teshuvah isn't an amazing chiddush. If a person is paying the consequences
for what he is, then changing who he is is *logically* would change his
fate.

-mi

I pointed out earlier that while horseradish is sharp, not bitter, this is a
different usage of the word bitter than is normally indicated by the word
"mar". "Vayimariru es chayeihem" is a statement about making their lives
unhappy, unpleasant, and miserable. That's only a homonym to "bitter" in
the sense of a flavor.

Romaine lettuce and endives don't necessarily make one "mar". Horseradish does.

So my question: How does marror represent "vayimariru es chayeihem"? Is it
as an anti- "devash vinofes tzufim"? There we have a measure of sweetness
that most adults couldn't tolerate as a description of pleasantness. Perhaps
the tastes are more symbolic of moods than causes?

I'm happier, though, with semniotics that are innate, not imposed. IOW,
a symbol that naturally serves its purpose. That's not to say ch"v that I'm
calling RSRH *wrong* when he deals with the other kind of symbol, just that
his explanation is far less satisfying.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Gershon Dubin wrote:

<<<
I missed something in this discussion.  Could someone state the Dor
Revii's novel position on spending all of one's money to avoid a lav?  Or
am I missing more than I thought?
>>>

Actually you didn't miss anything.  The point was raised in passing by 
Toby Rubinson in the course of discussing the normative status of the
Dor Revi'i's opinions.  The Dor Revi'i discusses in his p'tiha (25b-26a) 
to  Dor Revi'i the question why the principle of oness Rachmana patrei 
should not excuse the transgression of a lav to avoid the loss of one's 
entire wealth.  The position of major Rishonim that one is oligated to 
sacrifice all one's possessions rather than transgress a lav seems to 
contradict the beraita that explains why it was necessary to write 
b'khol m'odekha after b'khol nafsh'kha.  From that beraita it would 
appear that losing all one's possessions is as much of a matir to 
transgress an ordinary lav as losing one's life.  The Dor Revi'i 
recognizes that the mishna in Shabbat about extinguishing a fire 
seems to contradict the beraita and he closes with a tarikh iyun, but 
suggests that for well-off people the loss of a home might not be serious 
enough to permit the transgression of a lav, but if the loss of a home 
would force the person to rely on charity (ani hashuv k'meit) then there 
would be a basis for permitting the fire to be extinguished.


David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

	"Edward Weidberg" wrote:

	I meant "kol hara'ui l'bila" as an explanation as to why one is
yotzei
	the mitzva bedi'eved without tasting the matza.  

	Your kasha is still valid -- why bola matza u'moror, yedai matza 
	yatza--- since the matza can't be chewed in that case because it
would
	bring the conflicting taste of maror with it, so it's "ain ra'ui
	l'bila".

	You're probably right in that "kol hara'ui l'bila" is not the proper
	explanation here (although one might be able to argue that it's
still
	considered "ra'ui l'bila" where the matza itself is chewable and
	potentially can be tasted and the problem is caused by an external
	factor in that the maror would be chewed with it and offer a
conflicting
	taste).


The truth is that if you look into the  sugyah of Mitzvas M'vatlin zeh es
zeh it comes out that the main reason why one can not eat matzah and marror
together is not primarily because the taam of marro ris m'vatel the taam of
matzah.
	The Gemarah says that the only time the marror is m'vatel the matzah
is when the chiyuv on marror is d'rabonan and matzah is m'deoraisah (i.e.
b'zman hazeh), then the taam morrer is m'vatel the taam matzah. The obvious
question is if the whole reason is because the taam marror cancels out the
taam matzah who cares if your chiyuv is d'rabanan or d'oraisah. Furthermore
as Carl Shere asked we pasken Balah Matzah Yotzah so you clearly see you
don't have to taste the matzah. There are basically 2 mehalchim in the
rishonim. The first is the Maharam Chalvah in which he uses the loshon (I
don't have the exact wording in front of me) that this halacha is comparable
to bittul min b'sheino mino. The Chasam Sofer explains that the entire idea
of mitzvos ein m'vatlin zeh es zeh has to be compared to the regular halacha
of bittul. Baed on the Ran in  Nedarim  by davar sh'yesh lo mattirin the
Chasam Sofer explains that when do we say one item is m'vatel another item?
Only when the 2 things "clash" with each other. When one thing is assur and
one is muttar there is a clash betwen the 2 items and the idea of bittul
exists. However by 2 things which are hetter we don't say one item of heter
is m'vatel the other item rather they are "m'chazek" each other and neither
one is m'vatel the other. This is the same idea by mitzvos. Since there is
no clash between 2 mitzvos they can't be m'vatel each other. However, if one
mitzvah is d'rabbanan and one is d'oreisa then we could say the 2 items
"clash" and one item could be m'vatel the other item. By matzah and marror
then we would apply this concept. (Note: As I have not seen the Chasam sofer
inside recently, this next part I'm not sure if the Chasam Sofer says it or
it is my own sevara) However, we would still need the idea of marror being a
stronger taste than matzah because otherwise how is the marror being m'vatel
the matzah? There is no real taaravos until you put it in your mouth and if
you tasted the matzah over the marror one could say you are eating matzah
but since the marror is stronger we will say that you are really eating
marror. (if they would both be midoraisah than the whole parsha of bittul
wouldn't start-it would be hetter b'hetter. It is only cause marror is
drabbanan does the parsha of bittul starts. Then we have to determine what
is m'vatel what and for this we go after the stronger taste. 
		The second mehalach is that of the Ramban. ( I don't have
his loshon here to quote)  The Ramban seems to say that when one does a
mitzvah it has to be evident which mitzvah you are doing. When one eats
matzah and marror it is not clear if you are being yotzei matzah or
marror.(I actually have a rayah that the Ramban holds of this idea from
another place but I don't remember it off hand.) The hard part to understand
about the Ramban is why should there be a chiluk if the  2 mitzvos are both
d'oreisah or if one is d'rabanan and one is d'oreisah. 
	According to both m'halchim bola matza yatza since the main reason
why marror is m'vatel matzah is not because you don't tatse the matzah. A
nafkah minah would be swallowing matza and marror. According to the Maharam
Chalvah/Chasam Sofer you could claim that there is no bittul taking place
since you swallowed 2 seperate items and the matazah retained its cheftzah
of matzah. If youy chewed them so you had one cheftzah with a taam of marror
so we would say the matzah is battul to marror but since they were kept
seperate it is considered as if you swallowed matzah and marror. Acc. to the
Ramban however, from your actions it is not clear what mitzvah you are
performing-matzah or marror so you might not be yotzei.
	The Rambam on this sugyah also needs work but I'll stop for now.
	

R'  Aryeh Kaplan in Handbook of Jewish Thought vol. 1 pp. 134-135 at the
end of footnote 108 cites numerous references discussing Vav of Gachon
apparently not being the middle of the Torah according to our letter
count-- Mishnath Avrohom-Sefer Torah ;  Piskei Eliahu 3:1; Mishnath
Rabbi Yaakov 4:3; and Hamikra Vhamesora 12 (p. 44)

If anyone has seen any of these seforim (or any other discussion of the
issue), I would love to know what they say.

He also provides references regarding the 600K letter issue in that
footnote.

The Pnei Yehoshua (Kiddushin 30) gives a number of answers-- the
simplest being that the 600K counts the kri and ksiv of every letter
separately.

Avrohom Weidberg 
--------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:33:16 -0400
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
Subject: Middle of the Torah

Apologies if this subject has been brought up before (I'm somewhat new
on
this list):

Commentaries tell us that the vav in Shemini is elongated because it
marks
the midpoint of the letters of the Torah.  Elsewhere I've read (can't
find
sources) that it is not the mid-point of the Torah.

Can someone shed some light on this?

I also frequently read of the 600,000 letters in Torah, and yet also
that
there are approximately 308K letters in Torah.  While the 600K may be
a
metaphor (?), most references to this 600K number do not mention that
it is
so.

Can someone shed light on this, too?

Thanks.

- -- Eric

Toby Rubinson wrote:

<<<
I most definitely am trying to be respectful.  Why wouldn't I be respectful of 
a Gadol Biyisrael?  
>>>

Why not indeed?  Unfortunately, as you undoubtedly must know, that 
status was often not enough to immunize him against shameful and 
outrageous attack from those who disagreed with him.

<<<
And I am not trying to marginalize HIM, but rather trying 
to show why some of his opinions are not what I call normative. As you 
mention the Dor Rivii, despite his gadlus, was a late acharon. Also, he is 
not as well known as some other great achronim - evidence the fact that some 
listmembers never even heard of him -therefore not putting in the status of 
one who is considered Rabban shel kol benay hagolah by any substantial number 
of religious Jews.
>>>

And I am still trying to make sense of what it is you call normative.  It seems
to be nothing more than do we follow the position as "halakha l'ma'asseh"
yet you seem to be packing something else into that term, which I can't quite
put my finger on.

<<<
 You may take this as an insult, but I personally would put 
him in the same category as his chief antagonist - the Satmar Rav. 
>>>

I wouldn't call it an insult, exactly.  But, no, I do not take kindly (with 
apologies to my esteemed and learned friend Mechy Frankel) to such
a comparison.  But I promise not to hold it against you.  This time.
And, by the way, to classify RJT as the chief antagonist of the Dor 
Revi'i is just not accurate as a matter of historical record.  RJT was 
about 25 years younger than the Dor Revi'i, and he had not even 
established himself at Satmar during the Dor Revi'i's lifetime.  There
were far greater opponents that the Dor Revi'i had to contend with.
One of them was actually another great-grandfather of mine, 
R. Yeshaye Silberstein, the Weitzener Rav, author of Ma'assei 
l'Melekh on the Rambam.  They exchanged very heated 
correspondence, probably about Zionism, but perhaps also about 
other issues.  The antagonism between them was well enough 
known and remembered so that when my parents were married in 
1941, the shiduch was considered to be a quite extraordinary 
reconciliation of the families (the Ma'assei l"Melekh was my 
mother's maternal grandfather).

<<<
Both were 
brilliant Talmidei Chachamim with sharp minds and strongly held opinions. 
Just as I consider the opinions of the Satmar Rav on Israel not to be beyond 
the Pale but still not normative, 
>>>

That the Six-Day War was the result of the miraculous intervention of Satan?
Gevalt!

<<<
I feel the same way on some opinions of the 
Dor Rivii. In fact, in a way the opinions of the Satmar Rav gained wider 
acceptance among Orthodox Jews. 
>>>

Ditto!

<<< 
I wrote: Naturally, this is somewhat of a tough halacha to swallow. It goes 
against our sensibilities (which is part of the reason the Dor Rivii has 
trouble with it).
David responded: Part, but only part.  He also argues that it contradicts the 
explicit
 and famous drasha on "b'khol m'odekha"
 My response: Correct as I said PART of the reason. 
>>>

You make it sound as if our sensibilities were something to be disdained. 
What about v'khol drakheha darkhei noam?  Rahamanim b'nei 
rahamanim?  The normativeness of his reasoning can only be enhanced its
affirmation of such sensibilities.  Whether his reasoning on this point was
acute enough to overcome the settled opinion is certainly open to question,
just as the reasoning of every gadol, including those who are better known 
than the Dor Revi'i, is open to question.

<<<
I wrote: When teaching this law, although I would be aware of the Dor Rivii's 
position, I feel as a teacher it would be misleading to highlight it.

David Responded:  "Highllight" is a very tricky verb in this context.  Please 
explain to me how "highlight" as you are using it differs from "acknowledge 
the existence of."
Was it equally misleading for Rabbeinu ha-Kadosh and Ravina and Rav Ashi 
 to "highlight" all the deiot yehidim recorded in the Talmud?  

 My response: Its no different. But just as R. Yosi's opinion that one can 
eat Chicken and cheese isn't normative neither are some of the Dor Rivii's 
opinions.
>>>

Does that mean that, apart from citing it as an example of a non-normative
opinion for purposes of our discussion, you would or would not 
acknowledge the existence of R. Yossi's opinion when teaching about the 
dietary laws? 

<<< 
David wrote: I can understand that a posek faced with an actual case might be 
reluctant to rely on a da'at yahid, especially a rather late Aharon against 
the weight of so much contrary opinion.  But then does "normative" mean 
anything other 
 than "the generally accepted halakha l'ma'aseh"?  If not, fine.  But you 
 seem to have something else in mind.
 My response: Actually I really don't have much else in mind other than the 
fact that I feel that there are "normative" opinions in both halachic and 
hashkafic topics.
>>>

But there is somthing else going on and I am asking you to try to be more
explicit about what it is.  

<<<
 I wrote: To highlight his position would be a 
 case of being uncomfortable with a halacha, and searching for an opinion to 
 fit my sensibilities. 
 David responded: Kan ha-ben sho'eil:  Mah nishtanah ha-da'at (yahid) hazot 
mikol ha-deiot  (yehidim)?
 My response: No different. If an avarage Jew would have shaved on Chol 
Hamoed by saying he was following the opinion of the Nodah BiYehuda (one of 
the greatest achronim of all time) I would be suspicous that he wants to 
shave because that is the "normal" thing to do, and is just using the Nodah 
BiYehuda as an Ilan Gadol to be "Toleh". The reason being because the Nodah 
BiYehuda's opinion was not considered "normative" by the vast amount of 
gedolei Yisrael. I think it would be "Mutar" to follow him but not the 
correct thing to do. Today that RYBS and R. Moshe Feinstein also permit 
shaving on Chol Hamoed, I would consider this opinion to be back in the 
category of normative.
>>>

That's a good example, because it shows that a settled halakhah can change
based on the reasoning behind it.  Because R. Moshe and the Rav offered new
insights into the reasoning behind the halakha, there is a stronger basis for
shaving on Hol ha-Moed than there was in the time of the Noda Bihuda.  But in 
studying the laws of shaving on Hol ha-Moed why wouldn't you want to 
highlight the opinion of the Noda Bihuda?  Actually, I think it is quite well known.

<<<
 I wrote: (I am using the Dor Rivii's position on losing all ones money in 
order not to 
 transgress a negative prohibition as an example, in fact he has many 
original 
 positions, both halachic and hashkafic that I would label non-normative.)

David Responded: I would be most interested (and I say that without any 
ironic intent) in seeing your list of such positions.
 
My response: I will try to list them for you in a different post. But for now 
I will merely list a quote from an excellent article written by a very 
intelligent individual: "[The Dor Rivii's] view of the purpose of the Oral 
law might seem at odds with the conventional Orthodox account. . . . To 
critics . . . [it] seemed to be sanctioning the heretical views of . . . 
Conservative Judaism."

And I just will add that indeed there were many such critics.
>>>

I seem to remember reading that passage somewhere, so I looked it up.  
Just for the sake of completelness, I would quote the following sentence
"But R. Moshe Shmuel's commitment to halakha was absolute, and 
his conclusions . . . rested exclusively on talmudic and rabbinic 
sources."

And I will just add that just because there were many critics who have 
made such criticisms does not mean that those criticisms were justified.  
They, as I hope both you would and the author would agree, most 
definitely were not justified.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]