Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 120

Tuesday, March 5 2002

• Re: Occultism, was CCHF and Purim ad ...
• Does a talmid chochom have a yetzer hora?
• Pey'os
• Re: Occultism, was CCHF and Purim ad ...
• Re: Segulos
• Ayin haRa
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Kofer Nafsho
• Re: Hilchos Pesach - outer limit of 30 days before Yom Tov
• Re: Work in Progress, from Purim onto Pesach
• Re: Work in Progress, from Purim onto Pesach
• Re: conflicting reports
• The Mechaber and MB's views on mixed seating
• Re: Cosmetics on Pesach
• Re: Cosmetics on Pesach
• Re: Segulos
• "Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening"
• Re: Silk Screened Torah Scrolls
• cosmetics on Pesach
• RE: Silk Screened Torah Scrolls

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

Reb Akiva Miller suggested that many segulot are based not on occultism,
but on their beneficial consequences. As an example he cited the maamar
'Hazal in Berakhot ch1 that reciting Ashrei 3x makes one be a ben 'olam
habah. (note for you who will search for this 'Hazal: Ashrei des not
figure in the maamar, rather 'Hazal call it Tehillah leDavid)

I think that 'Hazal were pretty clear on the reason for this quality of A,
as the maamar states clearly that A has 2 advantages over other mizmorim:
it is an accrostic of the Aleph Bet, and it contains the verse "Potea'h
et Yadekha umasbi'ah lekhol 'hai ratzon".

Whenever I dicussed the A in either a beginner's class, or when mentioning
it in a shiur, I always explained that the quality of reciting A is,
refering to the above verse, that it involves recognizing that behind
ko'hi veotzem yadi, behind the economy, the stock market, etc., there
is Yad haShem.

As for the inherent quality of Aleph Bet accrostics in tefillot, see the
mefarshei hapiyyutim, as the style is very popular there. The number of
rationally acceptable interpretation is sufficiently large.

Arie Folger

[From Areivim. -mi]

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
>> Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?

> Of course. A "Tzaddik Gamur" doesn't -- I don't think we have many today.

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> Who said?
> "Kol hagodol mechavero yitzro godol mimeni (heimeno?)..."

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
} Good kushya. However, it's on the Tanya. Forward answers to Avodah.

This (or a similar) idea is brought in sefer 'Even Shleima' 4:11. Ayin
shom....The note there gives four mareh mikomos - three in Mishlei (I
looked at a copy of Mishlei with biur HaGR"A to see them) and a fourth one
from the Zohar (which I have not yet checked inside). Licheora therefore,
this is not an idea that originated with the first Lyubavitcher rebbe.....

Mordechai

[Also from an Areivim discussion. -mi]

There has been some discussion of the origin of pey'os in litvak circles
with the suggestion that it reflects an another aping of chasidic
practice. I offer the following corrective.

The first thing is to broaden the discussion from lita to standard
ashkenazi and s'faradi practice. It is unquestionable that growing pey'os
is an ancient practice going back to chazal and doubtless before. After
all the torah commands us "lo saqqifu p'as rosh'khem" and one would
expect that the base line minhog was to simply grow them. however, from
the discussion of the haircut of the sons of rav huna (nozir 57b) it is
clear that there was some difference amongst the amoro'im with regard to
the practice of such growth. In geonic times we have a t'shuvoh of rav
sh'riroh gaon to the effect that the minhog of the rabbonei sura and
pumbadisoh was to shave the pey'os area. (presumably in a permissible
fashion). In s'farad this the existence of a dual minhog is quite
explicit in the rambam. the rambam himself did not deem it necessary,
and cut his own pey'os with scissors, but the language of his t'shuvoh
clearly indicates that the "hamon" did -- mistakenly, l'fi harambam --
grow them.. on the other hand there is a letter of the rashbetz to the
community of majorca castigating them for the common practice of the
young men to cut off their pey'os. Turning to medieval ashkenaz, it is
clear that both practices, both shaving them and growing them, are well
attested. Rabbeinu tam apparently permits cutting off pey'os even with
scissors "k'ein ta'ar" (apparently a very close shave), Ri haz'zoqien,
and later maharam mirutenburg, on the other hand asurs cutting pey'os even
with (non-taar like) scissors. Many pos'qim permitted cutting pey'os with
ordinary scissors, i.e. would leave some extra hair around the pey'os,
but belzer chasidim they weren't.

So at the end of the medieval period it seems as though they were parallel
traditions concerning pey'os and, at least a minority of the european
community always wore pey'os.

However the 1500s saw a real shot in the arm for the unshaven crowd as
the Arizal's influence, and minhogim spread. The ari did wear pey'os
and rather long dagling ones at that. this was bound to influence
the mystically inclined which -- one remembers from gersom scholem's
descriptions of the period -- included a goodly fraction of the entire
jewish population given the very widespread study of kabboloh in europe
in those pre-sabbatean days.

There is no need to blame the modern practice on the mediation of
the chasidim as kabbalistic practices and the ari's minhogim directly
influenced european practice long before the chasidim ever appeared. Quite
separate from the kabbalistic crowd, pos'qim such as the maharshal also
inveighed against any cutting of the pey'os at all, even with regular
scissors (since "we don't know the shiur of "haqqofoh"). In the eighteenth
century, the advance or sartorial technology presented a new challenge to
traditional pey'os. The advent of the male sheitel. Those wishing to wear
a wig with a good fit were driven to cut off their pey'os, and apparently
many jewish communities abandoned pey'os at this time. There are t'shuvos
from both r' yaacov emden and r yonoson eibschitz (admittedly strange
bedfellows, but there you are) attacking the wig wearers who abandon
their pey'os. So bottom line is -- there were always ashkenazi pey'os
and they didn't require the chasidim to emulate -- though its likely
that some chizuq was provided by the example of chasidim. But just as
important -- there were always ashkenazi non-pey'os -- following in the
tradition of rabbeinu tam and rambam and many other pos'qim who permitted
cutting even k'ein ta'ar, and "bushy" pey'os after the (probably majority)
who permitted cutting pey'os b'misporayim sheloa k'ein ta'ar.

RSBA asks about sources for "styles" of pey'os. I don't think there really
are any until medieval or post medieval times. The arizal grew his long
and dangling -- however -- once it got below his face, he cut them off at
that point, on the theory that below the rosh, it no longer constituted
p'as rosh'khem. The early nineteenth century probably influenced the
styles we see today. At that time there were a series of g'zeiros by czar
nicholas I, y's, aimed at the conversion and assimilation of the jewish
population. Part of this campaign involved the well known laws against
distinctive jewish dress and appearance. (many of the well known leaders
of both lita and the chasidic world were involved in intensive shtadlonus
to get the jewish dress decree overturned. The lubavitcher rebbe, gerer
rebbe, and r yitzchoq peterburger were particularly active. the kotzker
-- a rebbe/choveir -- to the gerer, didn't seem to care as much). The
campaign against dress eventually turned to appearance and there are
numerous reports, and surviving artistic renditions, of jews being seized
and having their beards and pey'os cut off. It is not unlikely that the
custom of many communities to curl their pey'os back around their ears
stems from this period when many jews attempted to conceal the obvious
appearance of pey'os in the public street. Such stylistic innovations
affected both "misnagdic' and chasidic pey'os wearers, and there are
many chasidic traditions today which exhibit davkoh short pey'os and
which may have been influenced by historical episode. Thus the gerer
minhog of hiding them under the hat chutz lo'oretz, the chabad minhog of
growing short pey'os only, and of course the rhziner rebbe (greatest and
most influential of all tzaddiqim in first half of nineteeth century)
's remark -- lange hair, kurtze seichel had great sartorial resonance
amongst masses of chasidim.

this information, and more as well, is covered in eric zimmer's lengthy
article "pey'os ha'rosh: t'udas zeihus y'hudis? in his book printed by
mercaz zalman shazar.

Mechy Frankel                       W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com         H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

Reb Akiva Miller suggested that many segulot are based not on occultism,
but on their beneficial consequences. As an example he cited the maamar
'Hazal in Berakhot ch1 that reciting Ashrei 3x makes one be a ben 'olam
habah. (note for you who will search for this 'Hazal: Ashrei des not
figure in the maamar, rather 'Hazal call it Tehillah leDavid)

I think that 'Hazal were pretty clear on the reason for this quality of A,
as the maamar states clearly that A has 2 advantages over other mizmorim:
it is an accrostic of the Aleph Bet, and it contains the verse "Potea'h
et Yadekha umasbi'ah lekhol 'hai ratzon".

Whenever I dicussed the A in either a beginner's class, or when mentioning
it in a shiur, I always explained that the quality of reciting A is,
refering to the above verse, that it involves recognizing that behind
ko'hi veotzem yadi, behind the economy, the stock market, etc., there
is Yad haShem.

As for the inherent quality of Aleph Bet accrostics in tefillot, see the
mefarshei hapiyyutim, as the style is very popular there. The number of
rationally acceptable interpretation is sufficiently large.

Arie Folger
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 11:02:51AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> I'm not arguing that segulos prove the existance of G-d. Rather they
:> argue for the existance of a soul.

: I still don't understand this. Let's take a concrete example, of three
: cases:
...
: 1. When my son has strep (luckily not often) his doctor tells us "he
: will be infectious for n days" ...
: 2. When I was young my mother used to tell me that if I went out in the
: rain without a raincoat I would get sick.

If these two things tend to happen often enough for you to believe thse
rules to be true then what happened? You gained trust in the existance of
germs, and perhaps of a correlation between getting wet an immunity.

: 3. The Holy Babylonian Talmud (I think it's Chullin 105b but I haven't
: looked it up) says that if I spill foam from date beer onto the dirt
: floor I will become impoverished.

Here, however, why would the person become impoverished? Either this
is a law of teva, and it's no different than 1 and 2. I would have no
objection, because I have no problem with teva.

Or, it's a segulah (in the broad sense coined for this discussion). In
which case it argues in favor of higher olamos, and that people exist
in these higher olamos not only this one. So much for the balance between
mammal and angel from which bechirah must choose.

As I wrote:
: >  the major
: > difference between physics and segulos is that one operate in olam
: > ha'asiyah, while the other involves higher olamos as well.

: Again I'm lost here. I think I know the technical meanings of these terms,
: and I think you're alluding to that Ramban I pointed out. I suspect,
: however, that you are treating segulos and physics (wouldn't biology
: be a better analogy?) assymetrically: you are discussing the outcome
: of physics but the mechanism of segulos. Is the law of gravity in Olam
: HaAsiya, or only the falling cannonball?

The law of gravity is as well. Or at least, we do not require that
gravitational fields exist anywhere but Olam ha'Asiyah. Perhaps the
gemara about mal'achim telling each blade of grass to grow indicates
that they go beyond this olam. But seeing the effects of nature does
not indicate there much be a "beyond this olam".

:> Segulah has a parallel to higher physics, but there are no set of
:> rules of segulah that can be derived natively without conscious
:> study.

: So you would argue that God shouldn't let transistors work, but that he
: should permit baseball bats to work? Curiouser and curiouser.

Not at all.

Look at my two questions about segulos:

1- They indicate that man has a higher existance, and therefore unduly
   shift the person's bechirah point. This is not true of transistors.

2- Transisters work by the same rules as baseball bats. We need the daily
   physics be able to make choices even if the same physics has non-daily
   applications. So, the notion that there can be no bechirah without
   transistors (or some sophisticated application of whatever rules G-d
   would have given teva) holds.


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Last week's OhrNet (Ohr Samayach's weekly email) cites REED, M"E III
313-314 and IV 5-6, on our recurring subject of defining ayin hara.

REED writes to his father that ayin hara is a punishment for carelessly
causing ayin ra (in the mishnah in Avos's sense of jealousy) in others.
It's an onesh for causing emotional anguish in others.

This answer was suggested here, but an archive search did not show
a maqor cited.

(BTW, I found gaps in the archive's serach database that need closing up.
So, it could well have been mentioned and I simply didn't find it.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Akiva Atwood wrote:
>Of course. A "Tzaddik Gamur" doesn't -- I don't think we have many today.

SBA wrote:
>Who said? "Kol hagodol mechavero yitzro godol mimeni (heimeno?)..."

Some of us recently had an offline discussion of this. See Tanya ch. 1;
Malbim on Tehillim 32:1; Or Yisrael ch. 30; RYBS's Al HaTeshuvah re:
Nurei be Rav Amram.

All the above sources say that a tzaddik gamur has no yetzer hara.
The Rambam in Shemonah Perakim (ch. 6) starts off saying that this
is the view of the philosophers and not of Chazal. He then arrives
at a compromise. R. Yisrael Salanter claims that this Rambam does not
contradict the above but I don think I understood how.

Gil Student

I received the fpllowing from the Torah Center of Deal NJ (R' SHmuel
Choueka, http://www.toracenter.com>). It's on the need for hislahavus.

-mi

: From the Heart

: "When you take a census.every man shall give G-d an atonement for his
: soul.This they shall give.a half-shekel" (Shemot 30:12-13)

: Rashi writes that Moshe had difficulty understanding what Hashem was
: telling him; therefore, He showed Moshe a fiery coin which weighed a
: half-shekel. Why was it so difficult for Moshe to understand?

: When Hashem spoke about the half-shekel, He called it "kofer nafsho -
: atonement for the soul" for Torah violations. Moshe could not comprehend
: how money can accomplish forgiveness for the soul. Therefore, Hashem
: said to Moshe, "Zeh yitnu" - They should give just such a coin (a fiery
: coin). The giving of a coin itself cannot atone for a grave sin such
: as worshipping the Golden Calf. However, if one gives with warmth and
: enthusiasm that stems from the fiery core of the Jewish soul, then a
: half-shekel can truly become the cause of forgiveness, even for sins
: that affect the essence of the Jewish soul. (Vedibarta Bam)

There is a well known din not to eat Matza which will be used for Leil
Seder on Erev Pesach. Some refrain from Rosh Chodesh . I heard a shiur
from RHS in which he pointed out the minhag makes sense if you would
observibg it from Purim because that's when the din of 30 days as a
lead in for Hilchos Pesach kicks in to almost all of Hilchos Pesach. Any
comments on this minhag ?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

At 01:08 PM 3/4/02 -0500, Gil Student wrote:
>Then shouldn't Mordechai be le'umas Haman?  Haman is certainly not le'umas 
>HKBH.  No one and nothing is.

"Ki yad al kes Y-h milchama la'*Hashem* b'*Amalek* me'dor dor."

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

RYGB wrote:
>Hama"n in gimatriya is 95 and so is Hamelec"h, and of course zeh l'ummas 
>zeh osoh Elokim - which is why hamelec"h stam in the Megillah is Melech 
>Malchei ha'Melochim and why Sofrim are mehadder to make "Hamelech" 
>megillos.

Then shouldn't Mordechai be le'umas Haman?  Haman is certainly not le'umas 
HKBH.  No one and nothing is.

Gil Student

In a message dated 2/24/02 11:52:55am EST, Daniel Eidensohn yadmoshe@012.net.il
writes:
> My point - was and is - don't utilize judgmental evaluations such as
> that someone was lying or was psychologically blinded when there are more
> simple and non judgmental schemata which can explain the data. Only when
> this cognitive approach fails - is it appropriate to utilize motivational
> or psychological schemata.

Agreed
BUT

What about cultural biases? Wouldn't it make sense for a Litvak to see
RYBS as a Litvak and a Yekke see RYBS as more Hirschian?

There are a number of passages in MB re: Birchas Hatorah in which it
appears to me that he does not quite "get" the old Minhag as preserved
today in Breuer's re saying slichos before birchas Hatorah. an example
is in SA Ordach Chaim 46:9 the Rmea there and the MB's take on the Rema.
I went over this with a a friend of mine who is both a Yekke and gives a
MB shiur and I showed him that the MB seems to feel the Rema's placing
of Bircas Hatorah after asher Yatazr to contradict his own heter to
say slichos first. It's IMHO a mis-read of the Rema. I guess it is
probably due to lack of familiarity of how it used to be done in the
Old Minhag. (more on this subject someday BEH

W/O getting overly analyitical it just seems obvious that people expect
a person or text to conform to their pre-existing maps of reality...

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

[Bounced from Areivim. The halachic part of the discussion pretty much
starts with the portion of RSBA's email that RSNT quotes at the top.
So, I'm not going to try to cull through all the emails to find halachic
vs sociological snippets. If you think you have a point that bears repeating
here, please repost.  -mi]

From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
>>>RSBA writes,
> I advise that before commenting they should look up the following:
> 1)  Mechaber 529:4 (and also the MB there 22).
> 2) MB 415:2 and 5, and Shar Hatzion 6
> 3) Biur Halocho 339 dh "Lehokel Bakol"

What's the connection? In 415:2 the MB discusses mixed dancing, not
mixed seating. And he quotes the not saying of shehasimcha bim'ono as
being where the *dancing* (not the seating) is mixed. <<<

What he actually writes is "...ugedola m'zu kosvu haposkim bE"H 62, d'ein
nochon levorech bekegon zeh shehasimcho bimeono..." A quick glance at EH
62 (in BS) will confirm that the discussion is regarding mixed seating
and not dancing.

>>>In 415:5, he discusses "holeluth v'hitharvuth z'charim un'kevoth,"
which also seems a long way from mixed seating. <<<

I think reading 415:5 correctly will in no way show a hetter of Taaruvas
anoshim venoshim. Aderabe the MB's language is very strong against it
"...mah shemotzui b'avonoseny horabim b'eizeh mekomos b'ayoros gedolos
she'oskim shom beholellos UVEHISARVUS ZECHORIM UNEKEVOS....mikre dvar
aveirah...u'kvar tsovchu al holelos zu kamoh gedolim vehashomer nafsho
yirchak mileilech shom - v'al zeh omar Dovid Hamelech OH ashrei ho'ish
asher lo holach..."

>>>The Shaar Hatziyun 6 says that a m'zalzel b'mitzvoth is worse than
an am ha'aretz, and one may not participate in his simcha. So what's
the connection to mixed seating? <<<

No connection. The MB is giving instances where a wedding is not
considered a seudas mitzvah -with the SH explaining that this is the
case at the wedding of someone who is mezalzel bemitzvos.

>>>And the Biur Halacha 339 quotes a sefer Zichron Yosef which after
saying that dancing on Yom Tov is prohibited even if men and women are
separate, then goes on to discuss mixed dancing (he talks about how
the men gaze at the women dancing and are "ochazin ma'aseh avotheihem
b'ydeihem shel hanashim" and says of them "yad l'yad lo yinakeh midino
shel geihinom.") Not a word in any of these citations which has anything
to do with mixed seating at a simcha shel mitzvah. <<<

And this, I think, is the answer to those asking why in Lita there may
have been weddings (attended by prominent Rabbonim) with mixed seating.
The CC writes he took the bother to find the sefer Zichron Yosef and
brings a very long and very sharp quote.

It is quite obvious that in Lita there was a serious problem with the
youth and mixed dancing (see the Shaar Hatzion I bring further on) and
the rabbonim were probably grateful if they could stop the dancing - which
hakol modim was more important than insisting on separate seating. (And,
I repeat re an earlier thread, the early rabonim in America similarly
didn't fight for CY or women covering their hair etc, when they had enough
on their hands fighting for Shabbos, Taharas hamishpocho and Shechita.)

>>>Even  529:4 which *does* discuss eating and drinking together
seems to be talking about gathering in semi-secluded places, not barabim
and not at a simcha.<<<

Pardon?
Here are the words of the Mechaber:
"...Chayovim BD lehaamid shotrim b'regolim...beganos ubepardesim v'al
hanehoros shelo yiskabtzu shom l'echol velishtos anoshim venoshim
v'yevoyu l'ydei avera. V'chen yazhiru bedovor zeh lechol ho'om SHELO
YISARVU ANOSHIM VENOSHIM >>BEBOTEIHEM BESIMCHO<< velo yimshechu bayayin
shemo yovou l'ydei aveira - eleh yihyu kulom kedoshim..."

MB sk22: "...Hinei b'emes dovor zeh hachiyuv tomid lehazhir velimchos
mi sheyesh beyodo - eleh sheb'regel motzuy hakilkul beyoser..."

SHAAR HAZION (21): "...Ube'avonosenu horabim nisparetz kilkul zeh
bizmanenu b'eizeh mekomos gam biy'mos hachol, v'ovon godol hu, umi
sheyesh beyodo limchos bevadai mechuyav limchos..."

SBA

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

> R Micha noted that Rav Frand and others do not consider cosmetics as
> problematic on Pesach despite their chometz ingredients (presumably because
> they're not raui l'achilas kelev).  Am I right in saying that some perfumes
> are ra'ui l'achila and are therefore problematic?


I beleive it's R' Moshe who was offered the litmus test that in a moment
of desperation a goy might boil them down to their base alcohols to drink,
therefore rendering them problematic on Pesach.

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:03:20PM -0500, Yitzchok Willroth wrote:
: I beleive it's R' Moshe who was offered the litmus test that in a moment
: of desperation a goy might boil them down to their base alcohols to drink,
: therefore rendering them problematic on Pesach.

And when said "bowery bum" needs hospitalization afterward?

Does ra'ui la'achila really mean "a person would eat" or "a person could
eat a kezayis of without injuring themselves"? You're saying that RMF
held the former, but that's an incredible standard. You can find people
in desperation who would eat nearly anything.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 11:00:57PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: You seem to be saying that the soul's roots in the "upper olamos" makes
: it predisposed towards the yetzer tov, a clear contradiction to a truly
: free bechirah. But I do not see that at all. In my view, the neshama is
: no more predisposed towards tov than the guf is predisposed towards ra.

Here is where our perspectives diverge.

Bechirah is not only divisible into good vs evil. In fact, that's not
even the most useful division. After all, people have no innate sense
of good. Otherwise the tinoq shenishba would have little excuse.

So at best it's a division between what one thinks is good and what
one thinks is evil. Which gets us to issues of the aveirah lishmah,
mitzvos einum tzerichos kavanah, uchdomeh.

But this too is only an approximation, because the decision not only
is between good and evil, but also shapes what it is we think is good,
and what it is that's evil. There's a feedback here, a circularity
of definition, that makes this model of the human condition less than
perfect.

In sifrei mussar, at least as far back as Mesilas Yesharim, the division
given is between guf and seichel. Or, as I put it in private email to
RAM, the beheimah - mal'ach balance. That between the nefesh beheimis
and the neshamah E-lokis.

It is this balance that I'm claiming is broken by segulos.

: For millenia, babies figured out not to go over the edge. And animals
: learn not to go over the cliff. Did no one know this before Isaac Newton?

That's the very point I'm trying to make! The rule Newton formalized (or
Einstein's more exact version) is "merely" a detailed and formal version
of the same law that every infant learns. We need those rules to know
whether to choose to go over an edge or to let go of an object. Gravity
gives predictability to our choices even without a scientific study of the
subject.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

[Forwarded from Areivim to give context for the next post, by RYW. -mi]

A project of kashrut.org and Rav Abadi.  Anybody hear about this?
http://www.kashrut.org/scrollproject/default.htm#
Sefer Torahs by Silk Screening 

A new process was created to tackle an old problem. The Sofer starts
by purchasing some of the highest quality "Klaf" (parchment). The Klaf
is checked, tested, and cut to size. The "Sirtut" (engraved lines) is
scored to the exact depth, thickness, height, and length. Silk screens
are created with the exact lettering. Computers are utilized to achieve a
perfectly balanced page using proportionate letters. No need for elongated
or squished letters to reach the end of the line. The screens are placed
on top of the Klaf in an exact position to meet the Sirtut. The Sofer then
puts ink on the screen, and applies the ink by hand passing a squeegee
across the Klaf. In a matter of seconds this Klaf has a full page written
perfectly. The page is then dried. After the pages are all written, they
are sewed properly and the new Torah scroll is ready to use. This is a
combination of many patented and patent pending processes. This project
is completely under the auspices of Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi, originally of
Lakewood, NJ and currently living in Har Nof, Jerusalem, Israel. Rabbi
Abadi was the Posek in Lakewood for years and many of his students are
Rabbis across the globe. The Rav has thoroughly reviewed every aspect of
this process and declared it Kosher for "Mehadrin Min Hamehadrin." The
ability to control the perfection of the writing makes it a better choice
than conventional Sifrei Torah. Many prominent Rabbis were consulted and
were thrilled with the idea. When they were able to view an actual sample
they agreed to the high quality and the Kashrut of this type of Sefer
Torah. All writing will be done by hand by a prominent Rabbi and Sofer.

Does anyone know for certain whether the silk screening will ultimately
serve as the text, or will it merely be a guideline that will later be
traced over by a sofer? I could see the latter still offering significant
time (resulting in financial) savings, as filling in preformed letters
certainly takes less time than creating them from scratch, as well as
the time to plan letter widths to fill a line and the like. With this
approach you'd have the benefit of well planned line spacing, while
still having a hand-scribed scroll. I wonder (with _either_ approach)
about the requirement to write each letter _from_ a kosher scroll.
Filling in the letter would lend itself too easily to ommitting this step,
and certainly screen printing the final product one klaf at a time fails
this criteria. I s anyone more familiar with (a) the process and/or
(b) the pertinent halacha?

Micha's statement that nobody but the unnamed booklet regards cosmetics as
chometz is totally misleading and thoroughly incorrect.  Cosmetics as a
category includes an enormous range of products, some of which are
unquestionably chometz gamur or taaruvas chometz that is fit to eat.  It is
a long-standing machlokes haposkim, going back at least to the rishonim, as
to the status of many of these items, and the debate continues up to the
most recent poskim.  Rav Moshe, zt"l, was included among those who
prohibited various liquid preparations, as did Rav Aharon Soloveichik zt"l.
If  R' Micha was referring only to certain types of compounds, he should say
so.  Rav Abadi's psak is probably based on the Mechaber, according to whom
all or most cosmetics would at least be permissible to have on Pesach
(though not necessarily to use), but many Ashkenazi poskim disagree.

Melech
M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Touro College, 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, x 275
mpress@ix.netcom.com or melechp@touro.edu

> traced over by a sofer? I could see the latter still offering significant
> time (resulting in financial) savings, as filling in preformed letters

Outlined letters are actually kosher, as long as the border is unbroken.

> about the requirement to write each letter _from_ a kosher scroll.

You don't have to copy a kosher scroll -- sofrim usually copy a printed
tikkun.

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]