Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 006

Wednesday, March 20 2002

• Re: Parshas Zachor and tekias Shofar
• Parshas Zachor and tekias Shofar
• Re: Parshas Zachor and tekias Shofar
• Taanos B'choros
• Re: Eliyahu's cup
• Re: Eliyahu's cup
• Re: Pesach wine and seating/staggering
• Re: Good Wine
• Re: Pesach wine and seating/staggering
• Re: Pesach wine and seating/staggering
• Some Pesach Yom Kippur Parallels
• Ben Olam Haba (was: what we daven for?)
• Re: custom vs gezerah
• Re: calendar
• Adas Yisrael and Sanhedrin
• RE: Eggs and blood spots
• Re: Tikkun Soferim
• Re: Tikkun Soferim
• Re: When did Mosheh write the Torah?
• Re: Eggs and blood spots
• Re: kashrut
• RE: kashrut

On 19 Mar 2002 at 23:15, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Umei'inyan le'inyan, 
> does anyone
> know if the minhag kerias hanesi'im includes, on the last day,  the parashas
> hamenorah?  I would guess it should not since it's not domeh to Chanuka; but
> logic is not necessarily a germane consideration here.  In past years I
> believe it's been included,  not necessarily with prior thought.

According to my luach, for those who read the nesiim (our shul does 
not), the first few psukim of b'Haa'loscha should be read on the 13th 
of Nissan. 

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
<<Assuming there is no such source, I think that the Poskim write that
a Sefer Torah should not be removed willy nilly from the Aron in the
absence of a chiyuv kriya.>>

Does that include reading the nesi'im? Umei'inyan le'inyan, does anyone
know if the minhag kerias hanesi'im includes, on the last day, the
parashas hamenorah? I would guess it should not since it's not domeh
to Chanuka; but logic is not necessarily a germane consideration here.
In past years I believe it's been included, not necessarily with prior
thought.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[On Areivim, we were discussing the recommendation of a couple of rabbanim
for women not to bother getting to shul for parashas Zachor. Nor bother with
a 2nd leining for those who couldn't.

[I asked that regardless of whether minhag yisrael was not to (like the
CI) or to go (as the pesaq came to Frankfurt in 1860), women accepted
upon themselves to go. How is it different than teqi'as shofar, other
than the date of acceptance? -mi]

here is a possibel chiluk. If women are exempt from war and its
obligations and the kriah of parshas zachor is a kiyum in mchiyas Amalek,
then the notion of a separate minyan just so that women can hear the
kriya is problematic for that reason. I leave the subject of milchemes
mitzva and the absence of a Ptur for women for another day. Shofar, as
Tosfos in RH point out was a chivuv which all or most women accepted
among themselves along with other mitzvos. Does anyonbe know whether
there is statement to this effect about women and warfare, aside from
the Mishna's statement about a milchemes mitzva? Assuming there is no
such source, I think that the Poskim write that a Sefer Torah should
not be removed willy nilly from the Aron in the absence of a chiyuv kriya.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

MiPi Shmuah from Rabbi Tzvi Finer:

RSZA asks the following questions: Why do we fast the Taanis Bechoros? We
Bechorim (Yes, I are one)were saved from that Maka. This should be a
cause for celebration, not fasting! Additionally the decree of Makkos
B'choros was that the first born of the households were to be killed,
not the Halachic B'choros. This means, for example that if a B'chor
did not live in the house but was killed or merely lived in his own
somewhere else then the next oldest in THAT HOUSE would receive the
decree. So why, then, do we fast and why does it apply to the Halachic
B'chorim and not the B'chorim applicable to Makos B'choros? Also, what
do we presently have to do with being saved? It was our ancestors. Why
do WE fast? And why on Erev Pesach? Makos B'Choros happened ON Pesach,
not Erev Pesach? Finally why are we encouraged to have a Siyum to avoid
a fast? Doesn't that undermine the intent of a fast?

RSZA answers with the following. The fact is that the common perception of
the reason for Taanis B'choros, that of fasting because G-d spared us from
that Maka, is NOT the reason for the Taanis. The reason is because the
B'chorim lost the Kahuna... the HALACHIC B'chorim. This is why B'Chorim
fast and the reason we do it on erev Pesach is because that day was the
busiest day in the year for Kohanim. The Gemmarah tells us the Kohanim
were knee deep in the blood from the Shchitas Korban Pesach. So it is on
this busiest day... EREV PESACH... that B'chorim are most saddened by
their loss of their ability to serve in the Beis HaMikdash. The reason
we are encouraged to have a Siyum is because the learning of Torah is
the ultimate antidote to the loss and is the only way to compensate for
this loss.

HM

Yisrael Dubitsky was kind enough to point out (offlist) that the Haggadas
Ba'alei HaTosafos does discuss the fifth cup at the beginning of Nirtzah.

Another listmember directed me to the Lubavitcher Rebbe z"l's
Likutei Sichos vol. 27 p. 48ff (available at http://www.otzar770.com).
He explains the Rambam as saying that there is a chiyuv to pour a fifth
cup for Hallel but one is not supposed to drink it. A Brisker would
say that the cup is so that Hallel can be said al hakos and is not an
obligation in itself. The Lubavitcher Rebbe z"l also disagreed with the
Gra's suggestion that the name "kos shel Eliyahu" is due to a safek that
Eliyahu will answer (his proof is largely from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav).
He, true to form (and with plenty of precedent), connected it to the
arrival of Moshiach.

As an aside, the Yiddish was very easy. Although, it took me a while to
realize that "derfor" and "trinkin" mean "therefore" and "drink".

Gil Student

You may also want to check R. G. Oberlander's fascinating article on
the subject in *Or Yisrael* vol 1, no. 3 (1996) pp. 133-145.

Yisrael Dubitsky

As long as the grape juice isn't mevushal (defined as "hirtiach" as per
Yoreh Deah 127:3), what's the problem for its use for the Arba Kossot ??
Although l'chatchila grape juice can't be used l'nissuach in the Beit
haMikdash, it can be used b'diaved (as per Tosefta Menachot 9:2 "ein
mevi'im yayin pachot mi'ben mem yom, v'im heyvi m'gitto, kasher"). But
what's muttar b'dievad for nissuach is muttar l'chatchila for kiddush
(as per the gemara in Bava Batra 97a which brings down a braita "anan
afilu l'chatchila") and this is paskened l'halacha Orach Chaim 272:2
("yayin m'gitto m'kadshin alav v'sochet adam eshkol shel anavim v'omer
alav kiddush hayom").That the Magen Avraham there indicates that it's
a mitzvah to make kiddush over yayin yashan, is another story.

Josh

In a message dated 3/20/2002 8:56:42am CST, Seth Mandel (with all rights
reserved) writes:
> This is done by distilling the alcohol...
>              . Sometime it is added to a beverage like wine that has
> already reached its natural limit, e.g. cognac. Wine at the time of
> the g'moro, or during the entire ancient period, was never more than
> 12%-14%. (And that was only if the wine was stored so that alcohol
> would not evaporate.....                                     Therefore,
> after being diluted 3 to 1 as specified by Hazal, the wine drunk was
> never more than 3%-4% alcohol.

Let me get this straight: Wine made naturally from high-sugar grapes can
reach an alcoholic content of 25 to 30 proof. Wine made potable through
the addition of sugar can be fortified and reach a higher alcoholic
content. Wine that is distilled by boiling of the alcohol can be turned
into hard stuff, e.g., brandy, grappa, etc.

Do we know that Chazal didn't fortify its wine in the manner of port,
madeira, etc? Do we know that Chazal didn't distill its wine in the
manner of brandy, and then dilute it a little? Either approach makes wine
drinkable. Natural, unfortified low-alcohol wine made from native Middle
Eastern grapes would've tasted just horrible. Why would such stuff have
been cherished by the Jews of that period for symbolic and celebratory
uses? We have to assume the wine was made in a way that made it desirable.

Anyhow, how can Jews have started the traditional of getting stone-drunk
on Purim if they were swallowing 4 percent wine?

David Finch

From: "Seth Mandel">
> This applies to wine made from grapes with sufficent sugar. That is true
> of real grapes, but not of their American second cousins, Concord grapes
> (a native American species that is of a different genus than grapes in
> Europe and the Middle East.

Is there place to argue that concord grapes may not be halachically grapes
at all, in which case there wine would be pasul (besides as chamar medina)?

> Commercial production
> of grape juice depended on the discoveries of Louis Pasteur, and did
> not begin until the 20th century.

Since all that is required (I assume) is simple boiling, why could the
ancients not figure that out? Or is it not all that simple?

>  Furthermore, even were someone to insist that wine is
> preferable to grape juice nowadays because today it is more prestigious,
> I would argue that the wine should be diluted by grape juice or water down
> to 3%-4% alcohol, since that is the wine that Hazal were talking about.
>
Not only that, but since chazal *do* prefer mozug, it would be preferable
for everyone. But what about Rama 272:5 that prefers not mozug? Or was that
just a matter of taste?

Shlomoh
sjtait@barak-online.net

First, corrigenda: an esteemed chaver pointed out to me that (probably due 
to my state of partial inebriation just from discussing all the alcohol) I 
had erred in my calculation of proof.  Wine of 12% alcohol is 24 proof, not 
6.  I'll try not to make that mishtake again <hic>.

From: "Shlomoh Taitelbaum" <sjtait@barak-online.net>
>> This applies to wine made from grapes with sufficent sugar. That is true
>> of real grapes, but not of their American second cousins, Concord grapes
>> (a native American species that is of a different genus than grapes in
>> Europe and the Middle East.

>Is there place to argue that concord grapes may not be halachically grapes
>at all, in which case there wine would be pasul (besides as chamar medina)?

There certainly would be a place for a theoretical discussion in lomdus 
about the status of concord grapes.  However, as the Rambam wrote, horo'o of 
the g'dolim of previous generations is a ammud hozoq in paskening a shaylo 
(excuse the misquote, I have not the reference in front of me).  Since all 
the g'dolim that I am aware of that were in the United States in the early 
years of the century held that they were grapes, nor did RYBS, RMF, 
RAKotler, RYKaminetsky, RPTeitz ever disagree, to the best of my knowledge, 
the questioned is settled from a practical point of view. (Personally, 
though, RYBS would not use concord for qiddush, since it always had sugar 
added, and personally I would not because I don't prefer its taste, which is 
very different from all the grapes of the Middle East and Europe).

>> Commercial production
>> of grape juice depended on the discoveries of Louis Pasteur, and did
>> not begin until the 20th century.

>Since all that is required (I assume) is simple boiling, why could the
>ancients not figure that out? Or is it not all that simple?

All that is required to KILL the beasties is boiling, which Hazal knew all 
about.  However, boiling does gornisht unless you can put the wine in a 
sterile environment.  THAT the ancients knew nothing about.  In the time of 
Hazal and the rishonim, as soon as you finished boiling, another beastie 
would land and start eating and multiplying...
Nowadays, all grape juice that I know of, as I said, is m'vushal, and packed 
in sterile bottles.  And just look: all the grape juice bottles say to 
refrigerate after opening.  That is not for taste: wine bottles, even if 
better chilled, don't say that, because most wine is 12% alcohol already, 
and so most of the sigle-cells landing in it would suffocate.

>Not only that, but since chazal *do* prefer mozug, it would be preferable
>for everyone. But what about Rama 272:5 that prefers not mozug? Or was that
>just a matter of taste?

The issue of mozug with water, since Hazal say that undiluted wine of their 
time is not proper to drink, is more involved.  As I indicated, their wine 
was certainly only 3%-4% alcohol after the m'ziga, but the question of why 
they did m'ziga can be (and is) debated.  The Tur ad loc. quotes the B'HaG 
that undiluted wine can, but should not be drunk. However, the Beis Yosef 
indicates, and the Tur says outright, that "yeinos shelonu yoser tovim hem 
b'lo m'ziga,"  and so the R'Mo paskens.  The underlying premise is that 
taste is more important than the alcohol content.  I have no evidence that 
points to the knowledge of the Tur or the R'Mo that wine cannot get over 
12%-14% naturally; they do not mention it, but that is not good evidence.
<Hic>
Seth

[I think RRW is quoting an email from a totally unrelated list. -mi]

In a message dated 3/18/02 2:42:34pm EST, noah@e-ark.net writes:
> I am interested in opinions on saying Hallel in Shul on seder night.
> Shulchan Arcuh Orach Chayim 487:4 says that hallel should be said in
> shul with a beracha.  Rama comments that in his community hallel is not
> said in shul.  Amazingly, I tend to agree with Rama (Rabbi Wolpoe: If
> you are reading this, please mark down the date and time).

Date?  Your birthday no doubt.

in a related matter there are a set of parallels between Yom Kippur and
Seder Night

1) Both nights Kittel is worn
2) We normally do not recite Hallel at night nor Slichot at night,
but these nights are different than all other nights. Homiletically,
they are are not really nights at all but days that are neither day nor
night. (and on Yom Kippur even a Tallit is worn!)
3) Each holiday is preceeded by drashot in shul, Shabat Shuva and
Shabbat Hagadol
4) Passover culminates the time of ridding of Chametz, Yom Kippur the
end of Slichot and ridding of sins
5) There are customs to stay up all night -on Passover to recite about
the Exodus and Yom Kippur to recite Tehillim or Shir Hayichud etc.

Using the idea that on Seder night certain aspects of night are suspended
and is treated like a day, THAT might provide an imperative to recite
Hallel. IOW, it is conceivable that we would recite Hallel on other nights
were we not enjoine dfrom doing so (let's say hypthetically we might on
Hanukkah if we could). And this explains the reading of Megillat Esther
twice according to those who see the megillah as in lieu of Hallel.

AND also let us recall that in the Temple Hallel was recited on the
afternoon of the 14th in conjunction with the Passover offering and
re-recited at the Seder. I'm not sure if this is connected to saying it
at night in shul or not.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

R' Micha Berger asked <<< A side question: How does a "ben olam habah"
differ from all of BY who "yeish lahem cheileq le'olam haba"? >>>

Citizen vs. permanent resident?

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 2/21/02 6:59:16pm EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> A better example is the various halachot of nidah. The gemara in a number of
> cases says that the women accepted on themselves chumrot (i.e. every nidah
> has the laws of zivah). Does anyone today think of this as a custom? Obviously
> at some stage what started as a custom got changed into a gezerah...
> Similarly many takanot in monetary matters ...

It's just as likely  -if not more so - that 
1) first PSAK is issued by one rav or poseik
then
2) via MINHAG is nispashet
3) becomes binding as  minhag {gezeira} that is nispashet 

This most probably explains the prohibition of kitniyos and most certainly
explains the dynamics of Cherem of Rabbein Gershom WRT polygamy

Any minhag whose source was not based upona bona fide PSAK or a MESORAH
is IMHO tantamount to the case of chezkas habattim were these is no
TOEIN stating that they bought the land and lost the deed/contract.
Truely it might be subsequnetly ratified by POSKIM, but that would start
it at that time.

See the issue discussed vis-av-si hanosein layeif koach (Orach Chaim 47
espeically TAZ) and conversely Yotzros (Orach Chaim 68 especially BACH)
who say this {virtually} explicitly.

[Email #2. -mi]

Tangentially:
As far as Minhag goes, a Minhag that is ONLY the expression of the
people is not what I would refer to a "binding minhag". Only a Minhag
predicated on a Mesorah or Psak would have that standing. Kitniyos is
a case of a binding Minhag <pun most definitely intended BTW}

For example we cannot simply introdiuce a hefsek in davening such as
Yotzros. BUT we can ratify the pre-existing introduction by Kallir
v'sayyaso. FWIW the ARIZAL in Orach Chaim 68 - as cited in Ba'eir Hetev
- makes a similar distinction between EARLY Yotzros and LATE Yotzros.
Ayein Sham.

The case of sitting in the Sukkah in Gola on Shmini Atzeres is similar.
According to Aruuch Hashulchan the Minhag of not sitting is predciated
upon an anynymous or hypothetical PSAK based upon the climate of Europe.
What makes this minhag weaker is the lack of unanymity. IOW it is OK
for a Minhag to clash with the Gmara when the source is anyonymous but
it also must be unanimous --smile--. {not really but it must be nispashet}

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 2/21/02 6:59:22pm ET, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> Various Rishonim quote the geneaology of Hillel II differently...

> << In any case the Talmud never quotes him by name>>

re:  In any case the Talmud never quotes him by name.

Then Just who is Rav Hillel in Sanhedrin 99a re: Moshiach? Is this yet
a THIRD Hillel?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Briefly:

Vayikra 4 notes 4 sepcial cases of Karban Chatas:
1) Kohen Moschiach
2) Adas Yisrael
3) Nasi

It would seem from the Mikra that all 3 have a speical status re:
the Tzibbur

Rashi Vayikra 4:13 brings down Toras Kohanim that eqautes Adas Yisrael
with Sanhedrin., more specifically Sanhedrin Hagadol

Is it really such a big extrapolatoin to say that NOw - following the
Churban and in the absence of a bona fide Sanhedrin - that the Davar is
chozer leyoshno and that we fall back to the idea of Adas Yisrael as a
authoritavie body - albeit with some limitations and caveats?

And to draw that parallel a step further, each shevet had a Sanhedrin
of its own. Simlarly, full-scale communities such as Ashkenaz, Spharad,
Teiman etc. might be construed as a Shevet. {IIRC The Arizal has already
said pretty much the same re: nusach hatefillah}.

The question remains, can Adas Yisrael INITIATE
1) Minhag
2) Halachah
3) Takkanah
4) Gzeira

or does it have the power ONLY to ratify or to CHOOSE.

Example of a Ratification
Maariv as a chov

Example of a Choice
Tefilin of Rashi over that of Rabbeinu Tam

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Jonathan Baker [mailto:jjbaker@panix.com] on Areivim
> What do those poskim suggest you do when you *do* find a blood spot,
> *after* you've cracked the egg into the teflon pan?  You can't kasher
> teflon.  Or do they consider the blood-spot not to be a 
> kashrus problem?

Rabbi Michael Broyde wrote a whole article about eggs & blood spots in the
RJJ Journal.  It can be found at:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde-1.htm

Excerpt:
<<However, Shulchan Aruch states clearly that "eggs from a coop where there
are no roosters may be eaten, even if the hen sat on the eggs for may days,
so long as one removes the blood spot."15 Indeed, some Rishonim are of the
view that when one has an egg with a blood spot from a hen that has been
separated from a rooster, even the blood spot may be eaten, although the
normative halacha appears to reject this view.16 

Since table eggs in the United States never have blood spots that are the
result of the fertilization process, there is a consensus among the halachic
authorities of our day that there is no obligation or even custom to throw
out the whole egg when one sees a blood spot. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef notes that
the custom is to simply remove the blood spot and eat the egg;17 Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein agrees that one may simply remove the blood spot and eat the whole
egg,18 as does Dayan Yakov Weiss.19 In cases where the blood spot from such
an egg is mixed in with other food products, the food is kosher, and the
utensils do not need to be made kosher again.20 

Not withstanding the halachic possibility of removing only the blood spot,
most people simply find it too taxing or messy to actually remove just the
blood spot when they see one, and thus simply throw out the whole egg rather
than engage in the effort needed to remove a small portion of an egg and
keep the rest of the egg.21 
>> 

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 2/22/02 1:20:51pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> We are all familiar with the machlokes whether Tikkun Soferim were
> emendations the soferim made in Tanach or were places in which the
> authors of Tanach initially modified the phrasing like a sofer would....

> I had someone check in the Samaritan Torah and it seems that in the
> places in the Torah in which tikkunei soferim were supposedly made
> (Bereishis 18:22; Bamidbar 11:15, 12:12) the Samaritan Torah has the
> same version we have in our Torahs....

IIRC Professor MS Feoldblum (Avi's father) said this Tikkun soferim is
an idiomatic expression MEANING eupehmism

Any time a person uses a circumlocution it is a "Tikkun Soferim" not
because it was said one way and emended but because a "lashon naki"
was susbtituted at the outset

Yasher Koach! This supports your research - and vice versa of course!

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>Yasher Koach! This supports your research - and vice versa of course!

R. Moshe Bernstein (who I cc'ed on the original post) responded that
it is not clear that the Samaritan Torah originates from before Ezra.
He directed me to the Anchor Bible Dictionary which has a long and
detailed entry on this. To this amateur it didn't seem particularly
evident that they could accurately date anything with those types of
methods. But scholars claim that the Samaritan Torah post-dated some
of the Dead Sea Scrolls which means that if there were tikkunei soferim
they would have been reflected in the Samaritan Torah as well (if their
dating is correct).

Gil Student

Tanegential
When was Parhas Vayikra said?
In 1 Nissan at the 8th day of Mliuim? 
at the first day of Milu'im - whenever?

Before Milu'im and in the Ohel Moed referred to in Parshas Ki Sissa?

If after Nissan 1, how were karbanos brought for Hanukkas Hamizbeyach? 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RMF quoting R' Broyde:
> Since table eggs in the United States never have blood spots that are the
> result of the fertilization process, there is a consensus among the halachic
> authorities of our day that there is no obligation or even custom to throw
> out the whole egg when one sees a blood spot. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef notes that
> the custom is to simply remove the blood spot and eat the egg;17 Rabbi Moshe
> Feinstein agrees that one may simply remove the blood spot and eat the whole
> egg,18 as does Dayan Yakov Weiss.19 In cases where the blood spot from such
> an egg is mixed in with other food products, the food is kosher, and the
> utensils do not need to be made kosher again.20 

Sounds like he's talking about *before* the egg is cooked. But if you
break the egg into the teflon pan, that cooks it instantly. Wouldn't that
affect the teflon, much as cooking basar b'chalav, or cheilev b'basar?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
:>Okay, you're right, but how do you know for sure that they are 
:>unfertilized?

: Rov.

I wondered about this. As a child my mother taught me that if you can,
you should check the egg before putting it in a pot. However, boiled
eggs which are cooked in their shell need not be.

After learning the inyan, I figured that the issue was efshar levareir.

It would seem therefore that "efshar" is pretty leniently defined. After
all, there is no need to have bedavka boiled eggs. The /desire/ to have
them in one form is already enough to make it "i efshar"???

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> I wondered about this. As a child my mother taught me that if you can,
> you should check the egg before putting it in a pot. However, boiled
> eggs which are cooked in their shell need not be.
> 
> After learning the inyan, I figured that the issue was efshar 
> levareir.

See Rabbi Broyde's article:
<<In addition, United States government regulations require that Grade A
and Grade AA table eggs be checked for blood spots in a process commonly
referred to as candling (although it is now done with an infrared
light) before eggs can be sold to the consumer as grade A or AA. Thus
the incidence of blood spotting in grade A or AA table eggs is very,
very small in the United States (perhaps as low as one in 1,000). >>

<<Even in pre-modern farms, halacha did not require that one check eggs
for blood spots before eating them. Shulchan Aruch states that one does
not even have to check eggs generally and the "one can eat toasted eggs
even though one cannot check them."22 However, Ramo adds that: One does
not have to check eggs to see if they have blood spot, as one relies on
the fact that most eggs do not; nonetheless, people have the custom to be
strict and check the eggs for blood spots when cooking during the day.23
The reason for this custom is obvious. First, if one does not check an
egg for a blood spot, and one sees the blood spot during the cooking
process or even later, one might have to discard all the food. Second,
one might miss blood spot and eat food which is prohibited to eat.24

The crucial question is whether the halachic custom to check eggs must
still be observed or whether it is possible to be lenient on this matter
and simply not check any eggs generally. The answer to this question is
not simple. It might be that one does not have to check eggs for blood
spots, but when one is seen, it is still required to remove it according
to Jewish law, and thus, it is prudent to check the eggs before placing
them in a situation where it is difficult to remove the blood spot.

Thus it is possible to conclude that Jewish law does not require that
one check eggs for blood spots prior to their use if one purchases grade
A or AA eggs from a supermarket in America, although there is a minhag
to check eggs, and one who checks for such eggs is in the category of
Hamachmir tavo alav bracha, (pious conduct for which one is blessed for
being strict). No less than six different reasons can be provided to
justify the practice of not checking eggs prior to using them:

1. The United States Department of Agriculture already requires that all
eggs be checked for blood spots before they can be sold in a supermarket as
grade A or AA eggs.25 There was never a custom to check twice for blood
spots. 
2. There are virtually never blood spots found in eggs sold in supermarkets
in America that are a result of fertilization; thus no biblical violation is
ever present even if there is a blood spot in the egg. The custom to check
all eggs was limited to a society where not checking might lead to a Torah
violation. 
3. There never was a custom to check for blood spots when all eggs derive
from hens raised alone, in which case some authorities rule that even the
blood spot itself can be eaten. 
4. The incidence of blood spots in Grade A or AA eggs sold in the
supermarket is less than one in a thousand, and generally one does not have
to check for very infrequent rabbinic prohibitions.26 
5. Halacha never required that one check for blood spots; it was a custom,
and the custom itself did not apply when it was difficult to check, such as
at night. Nowadays, given the way we cook, checking is more difficult in a
variety of settings.27 
6. If there is a blood spot in the egg, one will generally see it even after
the egg has been opened, and one can remove the blood spot then. 

This approach is fully consistent with other cases found in halacha where
there once was a custom to check and changes in reality have diminished
or even removed the obligation to check.28 Indeed, it is possible that
future changes in agricultural reality will require a change in the
practices found in kosher homes on other matters (or even this matter).

The common practice in commercial settings, where large numbers of eggs
are used and checking is expensive (but not impossible) is not to have
a Jew check even grade B eggs, which have a markedly higher incident
of blood spotting than grade A or AA eggs.29 This is even more so true
given the fact that once a blood-spotted egg derived from a chicken coop
with only hens is actually mixed with other foodstuff, all the food, as
well as the utensils, are permitted to be used.30 Such nullification is
commonly relied on in the commercial setting, as it would be extremely
expensive to check every egg.

However, even though halacha does not require that one check every grad
A or AA egg purchased in a supermarket prior to using it, there might be
prudent reasons why a person might choose to do so, and this explains
the common practice of checking eggs found in many Ashkenazi homes.31
Most significantly, if one sees a blood spot, one must remove it, and
it is easier to remove a blood spot prior to adding the egg to food than
afterwards. So, too, a person who purchases brown eggs, free range eggs,
organic eggs, or eggs sold at a farmers' market, has to check those eggs,
and thus it might simply be easier to check all eggs than to monitor what
type of egg one is using at any given time. Finally, one who frequently
travels abroad, where the economic conditions relating to egg farming
might be different, will certainly have to check eggs before using them,
and might find it easier to simply check all eggs. >>

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


[ 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         ]