Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 005

Tuesday, March 27 2001

• RE: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• Lashon ha-ra
• Tevilas Ezra
• The rules of vav hahippukh
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #5: MC vol. 2 p. 65
• Re: water on Pesach
• Re: bein hashemoshot
• Does HaMotzi Cover the Meal?
• RE: Avodah V7 #4
• Re: Dor Revi'i on adam ki yakriv mikem korban la-Shem
• Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic
• Seeking sources: 1- Washing hands of Kohanim; 2- Kavod HaTzibur
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic
• RE: Lashon ha-ra about the dead
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic
• re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic
• Is'arusa d'l'Eila; Is'arusa d'l'Tatta (fwd)
• Re: Starting Shmoneh Esrai Before The Deadline In Question
• RE: Lashon ha-ra about the dead

I have been asked to further elucidate my posting of yesterday:

From: Menachem Burack <Mburack@emiltd.com>
>> But I don't think that what RSZA is prohibiting. He says that the diskette
>> has no value, but putting a file on it gives it value (before it was a
>> useless piece of plastic and now it has a file that can be opened and used
>> -- you have been "boneh" a useful object.). 

[Moshe:] 
> According to your sevarah RSZA should have limited his psak  to a *blank*
> diskette.  IIRC he does not.

Menachem Burack wrote that RSZA's sevarah is that putting a file on blank
disk (which prior to this had no value) is similar to boneh.  But, if that
is the problem, then it should be muttar to put a file on disk which already
has files on it.  IIRC, RSZA did not limit his issur to a case where the
disk had no files on it; rather he issued a blanket issur.  I haven't looked
at the SSKH recently and don't have it available (it's packed away because
we're moving on Thursday), so please check the language inside.

Therefore, I prefer my explanation of RSZA: any time you make an
electromagnetic change which stores information permanently, you have been
boneh.  This is not as difficult to understand as the Chazon Ish's
electricity psak--in the latter case, the binyan is truly ephemeral, while
in the former case, the electromagnetic change is permanent until it is
changed (unlike random access memory).  Nevertheless, I (and the rabbonim
with whom I've discussed this) find this psak difficult.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

The recent daf yomi tels the story of the daughters of Rav Nachman and
how they did magic and eventually refused to return to their husbands
after being captured.

I assume there is some purpose in this story (can someone please elucidate
it) however, I don't understand the purpose of giving the names of the
people involved. Why is this not lashon ha-ra. If someone would give
this story on avodah the first reaction would be to eliminate the names
of the people.

Eli Turkel 

From: "Leon Manel" <leonmanel@hotmail.com>
> 4- ... A baal keri must immerse in a mikveh in order to study Torah.
> This is a takanat Ezra. The gemera in bava kama (82a) discusses the
> decrees of Ezra, and states regarding a baal keri (82b) v'tikan t'vilah
> l'baalei kerain. d'oraita hu dichtiv v'ish ki titzei mimenu shichvat
> zara v'rachatz bamayim. d'oraita hu l'trumah ukadshim ata hu tikan afilu
> l'divrei torah. The gemara in Brachot (20b to 22b) discusses this further,
> concluding that a baal keri is assur b'divrei torah, forbidden in the
> words (and in the study) of Torah.

(I cannot figure out what your list of references correspond to because
the text you quoted has many more than four notes and they start from
#14. Having said that, I wanted to reply to the above quote)

You did not mention that this takanas Ezra has been nullified. It is
true that there are great inyanim in fulfilling it and many are mapkid
on it but meiikkar hadin, it is no longer binding.

Could I recall though, that a baal keri is still not allowed to learn
kabolo? If so, would he be able to say the passages from the Zohar in
the tefilos, such as K'gavna on Friday night and B'rich shmay?

- Noach

Just to let anyone who is interested know:
After getting queries about how the vav hahippukh works in the T'NaKh,
I wrote an explanation of the rules. It is rather lengthy and complex, as
most rules of the mysteries of loshon haqodesh are. Since it is too much
for people who are not interested in the topic, it was posted to Mesorah.
However, since the Rambam holds that learning the rules of loshon haqodesh
is a mitzva and part of the mitzvos of the Torah, and this topic is not
covered even in courses of diqduq, I just wanted to offer to send anyone
who is interested a copy of the discussion. Just send me a request.

K't,
Seth Mandel

[Mesorah readers: You were already sent a copy.
[Other interested parties: you should probably consider joining Mesorah,
as it seems to be down your alley. -mi]

At 07:46 AM 3/27/01 +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>> In other words, if you can't be yotzeh the mitzvah of matzah
>> with it, then you are permitted to eat it erev Pesach.

>What about Matza Ashira?

Matzo ashira applies to flour mixed with mei perios - not matzo meal.



At 09:46 AM 3/27/01 +0200, Menachem Burack wrote:
>Rav Jolte zt"l, former chief rabbi of Yerushalayim, suggested eating matzos
>that were baked "she'lo l'shem matzo mitzvah" - since you cannot be yotze
>with them on Pesach - you can eat them erev Pessach.

I was at the Shabbos ha'Gadol derosho where he expounded his thesis.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:05:31AM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:               ... Micha's logical distinction between two types of bittul. 
: I find it somewhat Brisker in its "Tzvei Dinim" approach.

To remind people how I saw the chiluk:
> ... bitul chameitz is about making the chameitz or one's ba'alus over
> the chameitz void.
> None of those, though, a[re] similar to the bitul discussed in hilchos
> sukkah. There we aren't making the pillows and blankets void, we are
> making them tafeil to the sukkah.

Is this really "tz'vei dinim" (TzD)? I'm not arguing that the two dinim
ever co-exist. I think of a TzD as a case where in the norm two sevaros
coincide, so that a single halachah is a kiyum of 2 dinim, but in the
case in question, only one does.

-mi

On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 08:28:28PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: 1. I would propose that a Ma She'hu has to be visible to the naked
: eye...

Which fits R' Dovid Lifshitz hk"m's shitah. He holds that not only are
insects that are too mall to see not a halachic issue, but this is a
general klal. Nothing that is too small to be observed has mamashus. (If
you recall, I once posted R' Dovid's resolution of "ein lahem piryah
virivyah" and the falseness of aboigenesis based on the size of their
eggs.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:18:01PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                    Our observations could provide a clearer picture.
: The observers should state their location, height, and if their
: observation is in a city or countryside.  They should also have a clear
: western horizon and, ideally, a reasonably clear eastern sky (some white
: clouds are OK since they will reflect the reddish rays of the sun for a
: while after sunset).

They would also have to record altitude, the level of light pollution,
and (to cover the issue of diffraction) the humidity, temperature,
air pressure and air pollution levels for that evening.

I think that if you're defining tzeis observationally, then it's only
that particular night's observation that is relevent. There are too many
variables, the meteorological ones aren't even predictable.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

There are many varying opinions regarding saying brachos on dessert. They
are all based on varying views about the relationship between the meal
and the dessert. Where the dessert is perceived as batel to the meal,
the Hamotzi will cover the dessert, but where the dessert is percieved
as unconnected it will need its own bracha.

Of course there are many details and exceptions to the above, but
IIRC, one example which all agree upon is the one given by the gemara:
"Akiras Hashulchan". When one table is used for eating the meal, and it is
removed and the dessert is brought in and eaten from a different table,
that is a clear demarcation that the dessert is a separate course which
the original Hamotzi does not cover, and so it requires its own bracha.

If I have not made any mistakes in the above, please consider the
following scenario:

<<< Alternatively, one may eat with Pesach utensils and eat chametz only
at the beginning of the meal with a special tablecloth, before setting
the table with Pesach utensils. After finishing eating the chametz, one
should rinse his mouth and hands and then bring out the Pesach dishes
and food (or eat in a different room). >>>

That quote is from Yeshivat Har Etzion's Virtual Beit Midrash, from a
recent email by Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon. (Unfortunately, it is part of an
email shiur, and not available on their website.) But similar procedures
are suggested in many many other seforim and publications. For example,
Rabbi Dovid Heber, Kashrus Administrator of the Star-K, writes at
http://www.star-k.org/kashruskurrents/pass01/eruv01.html :

<<< Use small fresh rolls for lechem mishneh (there are less crumbs with
fresh rolls). Lechem mishneh should be placed on tissues on the table.
Nothing Pesachdik should be on the table with the rolls. All the rolls
should be eaten carefully over tissues, so that any remaining crumbs can
be wrapped in the tissues and flushed. The table should then be cleared
of all chometz. All disposable items (e.g. plastic tablecloth, plates,
etc.) used with chometz should be discarded in a trash can. The rest of
the Pesachdik meal should be served on Pesachdik or disposable dishes....
If one is concerned with eating any bread inside, one may eat outside on
an outside porch or backyard (if it is permissible to carry - i.e. within
a reshus hayachid). >>>

My question should be obvious by now:

If one uses chometzdik Lechem Mishneh, and eats it at the table where
he'll have the meal, and the table is set as usual, only he is extremely
careful to keep control of all the chometzdik crumbs, not letting them
go where they shouldn't -- then I can understand how the meal might be
batel to the hamotzi.

But in cases where the family goes to another room, perhaps even outdoors,
and makes hamotzi standing over napkins which will catch the crumbs,
and then everyone eats the bread, flushes the napkins, and washes their
hands and mouths, and returns to a freshly set Pesachdik table at which
no Hamotzi will be eaten or is even present... How is this different
than the classical Akiras Hashulchan? Why on earth would they not have
to make a new bracha rishona on the main course and side dishes?

Akiva Miller

From: "Yitzchok Willroth" <willroth@jersey.net>
> The Mishna Berurah suggests kneidlach for Shalosh Seudos...

I thought kneidlach were not pas haba b'kisman since they are boiled. How
could you use them for lechem mishna?

A local rav pointed out that the issur of eating matzah erev pesach is
only from Alos. Friday night one could theoretically eat any matzah with
no problem.

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

www.dorrevii.org and
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

va-yikra el Moshe . . . adam ki yakriv mi-kem korban la-Shem min 
ha-bakar min ha-tzon takrivu et korbankhem:  

It is written in the Midrash:

	"If any man of you offer an offering unto the Eternal."  This 
refers to what is written (Jeremiah 31:20): "Is Ephraim a 
darling son unto Me?"  (ha-bein yakir li Ephraim)  They that 
stand for Me are very precious.  In the ordinary course of 
the world, out of a thousand that begin the study of 
Scripture, one hundred complete their studies successfully.  
Out of one hundred that begin the study of Mishnah, ten 
complete their studies successfully.  Out of ten that begin 
the study of the Talmud, only one of them finishes his 
studies successfully.  One out of a thousand have I found.

And it appears to our master that the Midrash is coming to explain a 
difficulty in the Scripture, because one could ask why the word 
"mikem" (of you) comes after the verb "yakriv" (i.e., "if any man offer 
an offering from you").  Would it not have been better to say "adam 
mikem" (i.e., "if any man of you offer an offering")?  Furthermore, why 
does the Scripture first say "korban la-Shem" (a sacrifice unto the 
Eternal) and immediately afterwards refer to it as "korbankhem" (your 
sacrifice)?  That is why the Midrash explains that the Torah wanted to 
show us here at the very beginning of the book of Va-yikra (i.e., Torat 
Kohanim, the law of the Priests), which is mostly devoted to the laws 
of sacrifices, that the Eternal does not desire burnt offerings and 
sacrifices, but asks us only to love Him and to study his Torah.  And 
that alone is the treasure of the King of the Universe and the object of 
His longing, more precious than cattle and sheep, and all the fruit of the 
Bashan cannot be compared to it.  Thus, the Sages say in the Talmud 
that there is no place in this world for the Holy One Blessed Be He 
except in the four cubits of the law (dalet amot shel halakhah).  Acts of 
justice and charity are therefore preferred by the Eternal to all the rams 
of Nevayot and all the sheep of Keidar that could be sacrificed before 
Him.  It is a man who dies in the tent of the Torah, having dedicated his 
soul to the Eternal to love Him and to cling to Him, because his desire is 
for the Torah of the Eternal which he studies by day and by night, that is 
the holy object that the Eternal will draw close to Himself.  And this could 
be any man.  But Eternal gave to us the institution of the priesthood, 
those who bring the sacrifices and bring forward the meal-offerings, only 
because our ancestors despised study and wanted only to serve Him 
through action by sacrificing burnt offerings.  (See divrei torah on parshiot 
T'rumah and Ki Tisa)

This is the meaning of the verse "if any man offer an offering from you to 
the Eternal" (adam ki yakriv mikem korban la-Shem).  And how should a 
person offer his soul to G-d if not by studying how to conduct himself?  
This is a true "sacrifice unto the Eternal" (korban la-Shem).  But "from the 
cattle and from the sheep" (min ha-bakar u-min ha-tzon), these are just 
"your sacrifices" (korbankhem), but not a "sacrifice for the Eternal" 
(korban la-Shem).  This is what the Midrash meant by saying "this is the 
meaning of the verse ĦIs Ephraim a darling son to me?˘"  For nothing is so 
dear in the eyes of the Eternal as a Torah scholar who is called Ephraim, 
since they are so rare, inasmuch as out of the thousand that enter into the 
study of the Scripture, only one successfully completes the study of 
Talmud.

And there is a further hint to this from the numerical value of "mikem" 
which is 100.  At Sinai, Israel heard the Scripture, which is the Written 
Law, which was also given to them there.  But the Oral Law, the Mishnah 
and the Talmud, which explain the Torah and its reasons, was transmitted 
to them in the Tent of Meeting.  So, from every thousand that heard the 
Scripture at Sinai, only one hundred entered into the Tent of Assembly, but 
only one of those thousand successfully completed the study of Talmud.  
And that is what is meant by "adam ki yakriv mikem":  that man that shall 
come forward from among you, i.e, that one from the one hundred who 
entered into the study of the Oral Law who successfully completes his 
study to become the sacrifice unto the Eternal (korban la-Shem), he shall 
be the beloved son (bein yakir) to G-d.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

MFeldman responded to the following as below:

From: Yitzchok Willroth <mailto:willroth@jersey.net>
> The Mishna Berurah suggests kneidlach for Shalosh Seudos... I immediately
> also came onto the idea of matzo flour "rolls", but I wondered why one
> couldn't take it further and use them for ALL THREE meals of Shabbos?
> The entire house could be chometz-free before Shabbos -- the bitul could
> be done Friday morning along with the biur...

Not only that, but we wouldn't have to daven at a hashkama minyan on Shabbos
morning.  AFAIK, most shuls are davening early that Shabbos, so that people
can eat before sof zman achilas chametz.  Out of curiosity, does anyone know
of any shuls that aren't davening early and are instead counseling the
eating of matzo flour rolls?

If one's house is totally Pesach-dik before Shabbos, it could be argued that
at least according to several Rishonim you forgo the mitzvas 'aseh of
Tashbisu which--again, acc. to them--may take place only on 14 Nissan during
the day.  Consequently, while one is not necessarily mevatel the mitzva
beyadayim if one chooses to go this route--and indeed it might be a
praiseworthy forfeiture if the goal is to have more certainty about being
chometz-free--nonetheless, it would be a price to pay.  For the same reason,
those who burn chometz (in other years) and otherwise flush it down the
toilet this erev pesach, should wait for a ke-zayis of chometz to be burned
before reciting the "kol chamira": if you say kol chamira to soon, it's not
your chometz being burned since you were just mafkir it, and again the
mitzvah disapears.

Noach Witty

>>> In other words, if you can't be yotzeh the mitzvah of matzah
>>> with it, then you are permitted to eat it erev Pesach.

> >What about Matza Ashira?

> Matzo ashira applies to flour mixed with mei perios - not matzo meal.

I know -- but AFAIK you can't be yotzeh the mitzvah with it, so by the
original post it should be mutar to eat it erev Pesach.

AIUI, Ashkenazim don't eat it erev pesach.

Akiva

I seek sources, especially SH"uT, about the obligation/miinhag of
Leviyim washing hands of Kohanim before Nesi-as Kapayim.  I have SA, MB,
AhaS.

Also, sources about Leviyim ketanim washing hands of Kohanim.  (I know:
extra-ordinarily arcane.)

Please cc me with your responses, if possible. Thanks.

[A second email that I'm pasting together. -mi]

I seek sources about the parameters in halacha of the concept of Kavod
HaTzibbur. Thanks.

NWitty

> Rav Jolte zt"l, former chief rabbi of Yerushalayim, suggested eating
> matzos that were baked "she'lo l'shem matzo mitzvah" - since you cannot
> be yotze with them on Pesach - you can eat them erev Pessach.

The Rambam says the point of not eating matza on E.P. is to have a heker
for the achila at night. What kind of heker would there be if the only
difference is in the kavanah during the baking process- it looks like
matza, tastes like matza, etc.?

From: Eli Turkel [mailto:Eli.Turkel@kvab.be]
> The recent daf yomi tels the story of the daughters of Rav Nachman and
> how they did magic and eventually refused to return to their husbands
> after being captured.

>              ... Why is this not lashon ha-ra. If someone would give
> this story on avodah the first reaction would be to eliminate 
> the names of the people.

First of all, did you have to repeat their names?  
<g>
Seriously, lashon hara about the dead is not technically assur.
The gemora Berachos 19a states: Rabbi Yitzchok said, "Whoever speaks
disparingly about someone after his death is as if he spoke about a
stone." Some say because the deceased is not aware of the comment while
others explain it is because the deceased is aware of the negative
comments but doesn't care.

Chafetz Chaim Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 8, S'if 9 states: "And know also
that even to disparage and curse the dead is also forbidden (citing
Mordechai in Bava Kamma Letter 82), and the poskim have written that
there is a regulation and cherem of earlier generations not to speak
ill of and besmirch the dead."

The Chofetz Chaim did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about the dead.
Rather, he prohibited (a) disparaging & cursing and (b) being motzi
shem ra (which is what the Mordechai says). Lashon hara, in contrast,
is speaking the truth, and not necessarily in a disparaging way.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I wrote:
> In other words, if you can't be yotzeh the mitzvah of matzah 
> with it, then you are permitted to eat it erev Pesach.
     
Akiva Atwood wrote:
> What about Matza Ashira?
     
> I know -- but AFAIK you can't be yotzeh the mitzvah with it, so by the 
> original post it should be mutar to eat it erev Pesach.
> AIUI, Ashkenazim don't eat it erev pesach.
     
First, my source is the Rama in OC 471:1 who cites, I believe, the Ran in Arvei 
Pesachim.

Second, I've never heard that Ashkenazim do not eat matzah ashirah on erev 
Pesach.  Fahrkert, that is what many poskim RECOMMEND on erev Pesach shechal 
lihyos beShabbos.  The Aruch HaShulchan comes to mind.  I believe that the 
Breuers community uses matzah made with grape juice.

Perhaps you are thinking specifically of egg matzah which, according to some 
shitos, is NOT matzah ashirah and therefore some are makpid not to eat it on 
erev Pesach.

Noach Rothstein wrote:
> Not only that, but we wouldn't have to daven at a hashkama minyan on Shabbos 
> morning.  AFAIK, most shuls are davening early that Shabbos, so that people 
> can eat before sof zman achilas chametz.

I know of plenty of shuls that are not davening early.  However, in this day and
age who can resist a good chumrah so the shuls are davening early to accomodate 
those who want to be machmir for the most shitos.  Ironically, there is a 
significant chumra not to eat shaleshudis before minchah gedolah which these 
people will not be fulfilling.  Of course, all of this discussion is about a 
chumra on the derabbanan issur of not eating matzah on erev Pesach.

Last Shabbos, I saw a teshuvah from a rishon, I think maybe the Rosh, who says 
that he waits until minchah gedolah and then eats only a kezayis of matzah 
ashirah.

Gil Student

RYGB suggested <<< "Challah" Rolls made from Matzo Meal and water plus
some egg flavoring. Can be eaten after Chatzos, lichora, as well - good
for Se'udah Shelishis (you can wash if you are kovei'ah se'udah, like egg
chometz challos). Works? >>>

My understanding is that there is a safek, that one might be yotzay
achilas matza with such a roll. We are machmir at the seder to eat only
plain, unadulterated matza for the mitzva, but we are also machmir not to
eat any sort of BAKED matzah product at all on Erev Pesach, although
boiled matza is okay.

This is supported by the Star-K at
http://www.star-k.org/kashruskurrents/pass01/eruv01.html, which writes
<<< For those who follow the custom of eating gebrokts on Pesach,
products containing matzoh meal that were boiled (e.g. knaidlach) may be
eaten if they are consumed before the 10th hour of the day. Baked matzoh
meal products, including cakes, may not be eaten all day. (Whether or not
one eats gebroks, baked matzoh meal may be eaten friday night.) >>>

The comment allowing baked matzah meal on Friday night suggests that it
is "only" a chumrah to avoid it by day as well. If so, there may very
well be poskim who support RYGB's suggestion, but my recollection is that
we don't pasken that way.

I am out of town for a few days. Can someone check the seforim on this?
By phone, my son was able to read me sections from page 196 of Rav
Eider's "Halachos of Pesach", and it sounds like he also holds not to eat
baked matza meal products on Erev Pesach. With difficulty, my son also
read me some of the sources, and it sounds like Rama 471:2 and Mishna
Brurah 444:8 and 471:19 are good places to look for this.

Akiva Miller

> This is supported by the Star-K ...
> <<< For those who follow the custom of eating gebrokts on Pesach,
> products containing matzoh meal that were boiled (e.g. knaidlach) may be
> eaten if they are consumed before the 10th hour of the day... >>>

I do not understand what the prohibition is on Pesach cakes or flavored
Matzo rolls (nidon didan) Erev Pesach before zman mincha ketana.



On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> I know -- but AFAIK you can't be yotzeh the mitzvah with it, so by the
> original post it should be mutar to eat it erev Pesach. 

It is - until sof zman achilas chometz. Many people will use egg matzo
Shabbos morning this year. 

> AIUI, Ashkenazim don't eat it erev pesach.

After sof zman because of Rashi's chumra of chometz nukshe.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

More responses to request for clarifications:

> just a question  or two if you can bear with me for a minute-- in your first 
> paragraph, is it our contribution the challah which is called IDT as opposed 
> to shabbos which is called IDE?

Yes. All mitzvos are really IdT. Some more than others, of course, but
that is the idea of mitzvos and their imparting fragrance (a la the
hadassim).

> OR ARE YOU REFERRING TO FRIDAY NIGHT AND SHABBOS MORNING?  CLARIFY
> please.  if so, why is friday night and shabbos morning different. or
> can we leave it in simple terms that shabbos is IDE whereas challah is
> IDT?

Both. Overall, Shabbos is IdE - but, there is a "minor" theme of IdT to
it, that is our observance of Shabbos making Shabbos the Kallah - which
the Arizal introduced to our Avodas Hashem in the Lecha Dodi, and, of
course, in the recitation (by those who do so!) of Shir ha'Shirim Erev
Shabbos samuch l'kenisas ha'Shabbos - our contribution to Shabbos.

Nothing is ever simple :-) .
  
> Techiyas hamaysim is an obvious IDE? right?

Nope - that's what I would have thought as well. But, RSF clarifies that
Chazal tell us there is prerequisite zechus - ThM requires zechus of Torah
(and Mitzvos) to merit - so, while the process cannot begin until Hashem
wills it, according to RSF, it is inherently an IdT procedure.

> Explain why matza on Pesach IDE versus chometz on Shavuos? is Shavuos a
> IDE or IDT? why?

Matzo is likened to the Mon - it has no human element to it - it is the
simple combination of flour (grain) and water. Bread has the human element
of fermentation. RSF goes further. Fermentation is the breakdown of
enzymes. Ruination for the purpose of Building. [Like the nefilos of a
Tzaddik for the purpose of higher ascent]. This is the basic premise of
Torah she'be'al Peh - Gittin 43a - "*Ein* Odom omeid al Divrei Torah elah
im kein nichshal bahem" - you need to traverse the hava amina to get to
the maskono - that is how the creation of Torah by Am Yisroel - IdT -
works.

> So is the concept that we need both an IDE and an IDT? 

Resounding yes.

> That's why shabbos which is IDE requires us to eat challah which is IDT,
> and that is why the kohanim ate challah the IDT on Pesach an IDE?

Mixing concepts! The Challah we eat is not the Challah of the mitzvah -
but I think you might have stumbled onto something profound (I should give
you more credit, perhaps you meant it!): Why *do* we call bread on Shabbos
Challah?...

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Chana wrote in Avodah V7 #2:
>that the Sephardim
>would go l'chumra and take the more limited shiur (ie Rabbi Yehuda and
>hence limit the saying of these brochas to four hours) while the
>Ashkenazim would go l'kula (ie until chatzos).

That's interesting.  Safek berakhot lequla is ordinarily understood to mean 
that in case of a doubt, do *not* recite the blessing.

On 27 Mar 2001, at 12:52, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> Seriously, lashon hara about the dead is not technically assur.
> The gemora Berachos 19a states: Rabbi Yitzchok said, "Whoever speaks
> disparingly about someone after his death is as if he spoke about a
> stone." ...

> Chafetz Chaim Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 8, S'if 9 ...
> The Chofetz Chaim did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about the
> dead. Rather, he prohibited (a) disparaging & cursing and (b) being
> motzi shem ra (which is what the Mordechai says). Lashon hara, in
> contrast, is speaking the truth, and not necessarily in a disparaging
> way.

From Avodah Volume 3 #196:

Let's try this one again....

Moshe Feldman wrote (in #184):
>> I also have a svarah to distinguish motzi shem ra from lashon hara
>> regarding the dead.  It's not right to falsify information about a
>> person whether he's dead or alive.  But the sin of lashon hara
>> (speaking the truth) is really one of causing the person pain; dead
>> people don't feel pain (see Brachot 19a).
 
To which I responded:

>>> Ah, but we don't pasken like that Gemara. We pasken like the 
>>> Gemara at the bottom of Brachos 18a that says that we don't wear 
>>> tztzis or tfillin in a Beis HaKvoros because of loeg larash. If the

>>> meisim don't understand anyway, why would we pasken that way?
>>> (See Yoreh Deah 361:3). Obviously the meisim do feel something. 
>>> (And yes, that's what the Zera Chaim I cited yesterday brought as
>>> proof).

[Moshe:]
>>> The flow of the gemara Brachot 18-19 does not accord with your
>>> assertion.  

[Carl:]
>> The flow of the Gemara may not accord with my assertion, but the 
>> Shulchan Aruch certainly does. See YD 367:2-3 (or 3-4 depending 
>> on what counts as the first s'if). In any event, if you look at the Ein 
>> Mishpat, the part of the Gemara which is actually cited l'halacha is 
>> further up on 18a, whereas the part that you are citing starts 
>> towards the bottom. 

> I am mystified as to your reasoning.

Actually, it is really quite simple. You are arguing the semantics of
the Gemara and whether or not the statement that one who talks about
the dead is as if he is talking about a stone can be reconciled with
the Gemara's earlier statement (which is gepaskened l'halacha) that one
cannot wear tzitzis and t'fillin in the Beis HaKvoros because of loeg
larash. And I am arguing that because we do pasken loeg larash is assur,
that it is assur to speak lashon hara about meisim.

So we are actually talking about two different things. 

>> Third, the Mordechai refers to "motzi laaz." It's not clear to me that 
>> means the same thing as "motzi shem ra."

> There are 2 Mordechais.  The Mordechai dealing with the cherem says
> motzi shem ra.

> In any case, motzi laaz implies falsehood, not truth.

Look at the Rabbeinu Yona in the sugya in Brachos top of 11b in the Rif,
s"v Kol HaMesaper. He specifically states that it's assur to repeat
the gnus and the aveiros of a talmid chacham, and he does not make the
distinction between truth and falsehood that you make. While that may
not mean that we cannot speak (truthfully) b'gnus of ANY meis (because
the Rabbeinu Yona attributes it to the fact that we have a chazaka that
a talmid chacham who sins does tshuva immediately), it nevertheless
would forbid airing out a talmid chacham's dirty laundry after he dies -
for example, by publishing his private letters or a book about him in
a derogatory fashion.

And I think you and I have already agreed that it is forbidden to speak
*falsely* b'gnus about any fruhm meis, based on the Mordechai in Bava
Kama forbidding motzi shem ra (Number 106 there).

BTW the Mordechai in Bava Kama Number 82 speaks of asking forgiveness
from meisim for "cheruf." (He also alludes to this at the beginning of
106). AFAIK cheruf is a curse, without regard to its truth or falsity.

This may not be my last word on this subject - I am still looking for
proofs that one cannot talk lashon hara on the dead in general, even
if what one is saying is true. So far, the only thing I have to go on
is the Tanchuma in v'Eschanan that I cited in an earlier post, but I am
looking for something more specific.

-- Carl

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


[ 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         ]