Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 015

Thursday, April 11 2002

• Re: Methodology of Rema
• Re: Tal uMotor
• Tal uMotor
• Hallel on Pesach
• kitniyot
• Re: Hallel on Pesach
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: segulos
• Re: segulot
• Re: R Yeru'ham on eggs and bassar be'chalav
• Re: Rema like Rashi in YD 92:1
• Re: etymology of upsherin
• RE: Correspondence
• Re: Tal uMotor
• Re: Tal uMotor
• Re: Tal uMotor
• Re: Hallel on Pesach
• Re: Avodah V9 #8
• Re: history of hagadah
• Re: Freedom

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:52:43PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: R. Eliezer Hagadol brought rayos min hashamayimn BUT Chazal rejected
: those rayos
: BUT
: it seems that bas kol WAS ratified re: Bes Hillel over Bes Shammai!

This is a machlokes rishonim discussed in the Encyc
Talmudit, entry "bas qol". I posted a summary in Dec 98, see
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n087.shtml#02>.

: A possbile difference
: A Bes Din CAN renew Halachah - BY CONSENSUS - but NOT by individuals.
: So R. Eliezer failed because he was after all a Da'as Yachid. A Da'as
: Yachid - even on a HIS madreiga is NOT normative.

I don't see the relevence. You started explaining when bas qol can
rewrite halachah, and give an explanation about the consensus of beis din.

: HOW can ADas Yisrael over-ride the Amito shel Torah?

: Yisrael v'roaisso vKusha Brich Hu Chad Hu. The ability of Adas Yisrael
: to at least INFLUENCE Halachah -- if not override it on occasion --
: is a built in factor - at least AISI

My model doesn't require such chiddushim. The eidah defines "halachah",
not "divrei E-lokim Chaim" (DEC). Which is why I argued that a poseiq
could override minhag avos if he finds the accepted halachah to be
outside of the range given by DEC.

Again, see the Encyc Talmudit article, particularly since the chiluq
I'm making is from one of the bas qol's under discussion.

: After all - if following inspiration were the criteria, then how can
: the Rema argue with the Bes Yoseph who learned with a Maggid? {BTW,
: BY himself does not overrule Esential Talmud/Psokim in favor of Zohar
: very often}

This is yet another point we seem to argue once per digest. This fits
my model quite cleanly. The maggid could only teach emes, not which emes
becomes halachah.

Second, the mechabeir set out to use rov, not personal opinion,
in pasqening. I suggested that this was the very reason -- that his
learning with the manifestation of Mishnah made his own pesaq suspect.
What was his, and what would be a violation of lo bashamayim hi?

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:28:44PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
: Ordinarily, Rema (I mean rav Moshe Isserlis) differs from BY where
: Ashkenazi practice has been more stringent, or, in less common instances,
: more lenient than the major halakhik codifiers....

: To a certain extent, this is the result of the fact that Rema wrote
: glosses to the BY's works, which already quoted the major halakhik
: codifiers....

And that the codifiers tended to be Sepharadim. Ashqenazim tended to
voice their opinions using the commentary model (e.g. Rashi, Tosafos,
Mordechai).

So, to cite Ashkenazi pesaq would pull one away from those Sepharadi
texts.

: In light of this, it is rather surprising that in the beginning of YD
: 92 he follows the opinion of Rashi...

You don't codify in order to preserve the mimetic tradition. That's
like painting a rose in order to keep it natural. The moment the reader
opened a book, he has shifted to mussar avicha from toras imecha. Rather,
the Rama codified in order to preserve Ashkenazi *textual* tradition.
(He also wouldn't repeatedly cite textual sources to prove that the
hamon am does.)

In this case, he's citing another Ashk. poseiq -- himself. The Rama
doesn't claim to be preserving all Ashk. pesaq, "just" AN Ashkenazi one.

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: As I posted last year, the Rema's primary task in the Mappah was to show 
: where Asskenazi practice differed.  What is startling is that he does not 
: ALWAYS point this out. See Orach Chaim 53 {IIRC} where Rema does not dispute 
: the Aleph/Ayyin dictinction of the mechabeir.

Again, I would say where Ashk pesaq, not practice, differed.

Second, I'm not sure about your sample exception. Perhaps in the Rama's
day Ashk /did/ pronounce their `ayin's. As preserved in the Yiddish "Yankef".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 12th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
Fax: (413) 403-9905                       forces the "judge" into submission

From: Yzkd@aol.com
>>The original question: "why don't we stop saying tal umotor two weeks
>>Pessach?" seems so logical that I surprised that no rishon or acharon (at
>>least those that I have looked up) brings it.

> The simple answer is that the time of rain fall doesn't come yet, see Taanis
> 6a, even according to the earliest opinion all we would be missing is the
> time of "Mvakeres" and Lhalacha we rule like R' Yossi see Rambam Hil. Ndorim
> 10:11, whereas in Nison it is the time for rain as in the Mishana in Taanis
> and Ndorim, so there is no reason not to ask, especially taking in
> consideration that the Kohein Godol is Mispaleil that the prayers of Holchei
> Drochim not be heeded,...

And what about the beginning of Mes. Shekolim  where it says that from RC
Adar they begin 'lesaken hadrochim' which were damaged during the winter and
need to be fixed for the Oiley regel? It seems from there that the rains
have generally stopped.

SBA

In a message dated 4/8/2002 6:15:30pm EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
>> The original question: "why don't we stop saying tal umotor two weeks before
>> Pessach?" seems so logical that I surprised that no rishon or acharon (at
>> least those that I have looked up) brings it.

RYZ wrote:
>The simple answer is that the time of rain fall doesn't come yet,
>see Taanis 6a...

Just last night I read, on a shul's parsha sheet a peice from Bar Ilan
Univ which purported to study the rainfall pattern of EY, (I think they
must be presuming that the pattern of rainfall is basically the same as
in time of Chazal), and went on to prove the correctness of the opinion
on Taanis 6a.

(Upon request I can try to find it, if anyone is interested).

-- Sholom

I see that my post on a biblical basis for the distinction between Pesach
and Succot with respect to saying Hallel has elicited diverse reactions.
First there was the more informative and scholarly response by Rav
Yitzchok Zirkind who cited various sources for the apparent lack of a
Rabbinic distinction in the pilgrimage duration of the two festivals.
Actually, that is my underlying question. The evident sense of the
verses in Emor and Re'ay that I cited does indicate such a distinction.
The latter verse, "u'fanisa ba'boker vehalachta le'ohalecha", with
reference to Pesach is generally taken to refer to the second day of
the festival (chol hamo'ed) and not to the end of the festival (see
Rashi, Rashbam, S.R. Hirsch and others - not like the second view of
Tos. R.H. 5a). Does this mean that I favor making a distinction between
the two festivals? Of course not! It is not my province to create
new halacha based on my reading of the Torah. When we reach Messianic
times and the Bet Ha'mikdash is rebuilt, the prophet, king, or Sanhedrin
in charge will tell us if our pilgrimages must last a week or a day.

I thought that I had worded my prior post with sufficient deference to
the sages that I would not be charged with a lack of belief. I see that
I was wrong. Why must everything come down to a matter of doctrine?
How can talmud be properly studied if statements can not be examined
by our, albeit, limited intelligence? Perhaps one sentence at the end
of my post was misleading. When I said that Chazal were, apparently,
not aware of a distinction in Hallel (or pilgrimage) requirements
between Pesach and Succot, I meant that there was, presumably, no such
distinction - at least during the latter phase of the second Temple.
I was merely speculating that such a distinction may have existed earlier.
Some of my speculation is based on a very imperfect understanding of
the agricultural seasons in ancient Israel. It would be very helpful
to know when the wheat harvest and principle fruits were brought inside.

Yitzchok Zlochower

>> 2. if someone is machmer not to eat kitniyot on Pesach, and visits
>> a close family member who does not have a no-kitniyout tradition ...
>> how machmer should he be in eating off dishes that had kitniyout 
>> served on them , or food cooked in pots that also had kitniyot  
>> cooked in them etc.

> I've heard the complete range of opinions, from "no problem" (heard
> from R' Shlesinger at Shaalvim) to "you can't eat there" from  
>various Rabbanim in Meah Shearim.

The "standard" psak is the same as R. Shlesinger that one cannot eat
kitniyot themselves but can eat food cooked in pots that were previously
used for kitniyot. (I am pretty sure this is the psak of ROY and most
ashkenazi poskim) I didn't understand the difference between chumra
and minhag and why that affects this issue.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 10/04/2002

[From a chaver who chooses not to delurk. The usual anonymizing rules
apply, and email to <chaveir@aishdas.org> will automatically go to
the poster. -mi]

> The reasons given by Chazal for not saying (the complete) Hallel after
> the first day(s) of Pesach, as contrasted with Succot, seem problematic. Why
> should the lack of a different number of holiday sacrafices (olot) on the
> days of Pesach lead to a diminshed joy and a diminished need to say shira?

R' Soloveitchik explained that the gem. is a siman that there is one
mechayev of simcha which extends over all 7 days of Pesach, but by
Sukkot each day is its own mechayev. It's not the lack of korbanot
which diminishes joy; it is the lack of complete joy each day which is
indicated by the korbanot cycle. Nafka mina: if one neglected to recite
hallel shaleim on the first day of Pesach one should still recite hallel
shaleim at least once suring the duration of chol hamoed. R' Shachter
has this b'kitzur in his sefer and it is spelled out more fully in one
of the old OU Mesorah journals.

(Derech agav: 1) acc. to shitas haramban brought by the ran in bameh
madlikin, hallel of rosh chodesh and hallel of chol hamoed are not
parallel [as the simple reading of that gem. in archin implies], but I
have not seen that discussed by R' Shachter. 2) acc. to many rishonim
hallel is d'oraysa - the gemara is not discussing reasons for takanos
derabbanan. 3) R' Shachter also points out that the minhag of davka
chatzi hallel on rosh chodesh [if there was a minhag of keriya, why not
hallel shaleim?] is to avoid the potential issur of the gem. in shabbos
of keriyas hallel b'chol yom; by chatzi hallel there is no chashash
issur at all- nafka nina for next week, v'hamavin yavin).

>On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:08:00AM +0200, c h a i m wrote:
>: outside waht is written in Yore De'a Siman 181, what is the etymology and
>: etiology of upsharin?
> Isn't it cognate to the English "shearing"?

As RMB said:

The German (and hence probably  Yiddish) for shearing is:
n. - Scherung 
v. - scheren 

I guess it resembles shearing more than haircutting after 3 years :-)

Actually the English shearing's etymology, according to Atomica is:
[Middle English scheren, from Old English sceran. N., from Middle English shere, from Old English sc?ar.]

I guess upsharin should therefore really be written abscheren, which translates from German to English as "cut", as in pruning.

- Danny

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:55:06AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> :   I suggested an anology with transistors which you dismissed without (I
> : suspect) considering it: transistors are consistent with the laws of
> : nature, but they are not found in nature and can be produced only
> : through human intervention...
>
> I already wrote in reply to this.
>
> As you write, transistors are consistant with the laws of nature. Those
> same laws necessary for effects that /do/ occur in nature. Therefore,
> the possibility for us to create transistors is a necessary consequence
> of having the laws around for other reasons.

How is this different from kishuf? It certainly fits the Ramban's description.

> :                              For the Ramban kishuf is not a violation of
> : the laws of nature, it is a misuse of them which can be produced only
> : with human intervention.  It nonetheless fits your definition of teva.
>
> Only because you presume your answer in your first sentence, when you
> call the relevent laws those of "nature". It does not fit my definition
> of teva, and the lack of other uses of the same laws is the basis of
> one of my questions about why it would exist.

I think this is one of the grounds of our argument. I claim that the
Ramban does not distinguish between teva and segulos; every physical
happening is a form of gilui panim to the inquiring mind. I'm still
waiting for your source which says that teva and segulos both exist and
are different things.

> Most definitions of teva would not include sheidim.

This is, to put it bluntly, false. Every medieval or ancient source
I know who believed in sheidim believed them to be natural phenomena,
of the same status as unicorns and mermaids. Perhaps you could quote one
Jewish premodern source who does not believe sheidim to be part of teva?
One modern source (excluding yourself)?

> Free will (using the English to be more general than a specifically Jewish
> formulation) involves choosing: be it action or thought. To choose,
> one must have multiple options ...  nefesh beheimis vs neshamah E-lokis.
>
> If I have greater reason to believe in
> neshamos, I am more likely to act on motivations produced by my neshamah.

This is another basic dispute. In the premodern world no one (known to
Jewish thinkers) denied the existence of God or of the human soul - mi lo
yiraacha melech hagoyim. The standard kabbalistical paradigm of choice is
between what you know to be right and what you desire, i.e. free will is a
function of the yetzer hara. This is complicated by theoretical questions
(e.g. Adam kodem hacheit) but in practical terms it is clear and concise.

> Current physical theory says they're unnatural.

That's also false. Current physical theory says they don't exist (again
I welcome you to cite a source).

> Those who follow M's
> definition of mal'ach as a "seichel hanivdal" and believe the same of
> sheidim would say so as well.

Who says sheidim are schalim nivdalim? The classical view is that they're
made of air and fire but not water and earth (birds, by the way, are
made of air fire and water but not earth, so this is not a metaphorical
way of saying non-physical).

David Riceman

I would like to suggest two new definitions of segulah that may explain
some of the three way disagreements between RMB, RDR and I.

Either a segulah is a suspected causal relationship that is not well
understood, and may really be attribuable to a variety of causes,
including but not limited to illusion. Remedies that are advocated in
ancient texts and in the Talmud, which we scientifically biased beings
would frown upon, fall into this category, or

A segulah is a magical device that depends not only on proper formula,
but is also dependent on proper kavvanah, in a way that precludes a
deterministic mechanism. The 'wonder' tefillot would fall under this
category.

The first category is not a threat to any be'hirah, and we may simply
study them and arrive at the conclusion that they are caused by the
mechanism described in the sources, that they are caused by a deifferent
mechanism, but still work, that they aren't caused but are illusions, or
that we simply don't know yet as we don't have the means to test it. Note
that much of fertility treatment is included in the last category, as very
few patients are willing to participate in double blind tests. (note:
I am not a doctor, just read some articles on the subject to figure out
how likely a thesis WRT the sex ratio, posited in a book called Too many
women? by Martha Gutentag or something like that makes any sense. My
conclusion was, may be, may be not. ;-))

The second category should be a threat to be'hirah unless kishuf is
widely available or success far, far from assured (as in, it helps only
a tzaddik gamur), so that it can't be investigated. The problem with
the it-applies-only-to-a-tzaddik-gamur explanation is that if so, why
have a segulah at all, as said tzaddik undoubtedly could simply pray to
G'd. No, I think that these segulot must be shortcuts that are more easily
available than for the tzaddik gamur only, and thus, either require a
world with a couner balancing widespread, available magic, or be of the
first sort. For the purpose of this post, I consider sheidim to be part
of tev'a (either they exist or they don't, nothing Divine about tehm),
and segulot attribuable to cooperation with sheidim to be tev'a as well.

IOW, methinks that the discussion WRT 4 wolrds or a continuum is not
really relevant if one doesn't belive in black magic, and is not a
'hiddush if one does believe in black magic.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

RJB wrote:
> In YD 87:5, the Mechaber passkins like the Rashba (i.e. egg has both
> yolk and egg white even "me'urot b'giddin" mutar l'ochlan b'chalav). Rashi
> as understood by the ROSH: "af im nigmar ha'chelmon [yolk] levad chashiv
> gemurot." HOWEVER there are those who understood the shitta of Rashi as:
> nigmar gam ha'chelbon [egg white] elah d'klipatan rakah".

I know. And in fact, BY demonstrates that there is not much or even
any difference between both ways to understand Rashi, as any apparent
difference stems from lack of dissection of chickens. (the BY wonders
what comes first, nigmar ha'helmon + some 'helbon, or separation from the
ovary - BTW, I am writing without a sefer in front of me, so I may be a
little off on some detail here - and then concludes that he has textual
proof from the Tur that nigmar ha'helmon comes after separation from
the ovary. Ask any veterinarian, and he'll confirm all this without the
Tur. The Tur knew which way eggs develop, either because he paskened a
sufficient number of such sheelot, and thus saw the insides of chickens,
or by massorah. The BY apparently was less experienced in this area,
as he relies on the textual proof alone. The Bakh seems to have had no
experience at all in this particular matter, as he rejects the textual
proof of the BY and thinks that the opposit order of development may
be possible.)

The above is easy to see when reading the BY and Bakh on this matter,
AND was confirmed by my veterinarian friend, Rav Barukh Price, originally
from S. Africa (a true African American ;-)) and presently from Teaneck.

However, all this is irrelevant to my question, as I simply asked what
rabbenu Yeru'ham holds, considering that in the beggining of the piece
BY says RY holds one way, and at the end that he holds another way.

I quote myself: <<In YD 87:5 the Tur & BY discuss which eggs, when found
inside a slaughtered fowl, may be eaten with milk, according to which
shitat harishonim. In DH Ubeitzim he quotes rabbenu Yeru'ham (NTU 28,
pg. 137) as prefering Rashi's and the Rosh's definition of "beitzim, af
'al pi sheeinam gemurim" (at the end of that paragraph).
However, two paragraphs down, DH VehaRan, he cites RY (NTU 22, pg. 133)
to the effect of agreeing with the opposing shitah, that of the Rashba
(although admittedly, that is not the BY's problem, as he is by then
concerned with whether such eggs need meli'hah).>>

Arie Folger

I wrote:
>> Ordinarily, Rema (I mean rav Moshe Isserlis) differs from BY where
>> Ashkenazi practice has been [different]
<snip>
>> In light of this, it is rather surprising that in the beginning of YD
>> 92 he follows the opinion of Rashi (admittedly an Ashkenazi rishon)
>> that a chunk of meat, not fully immersed in its stock, that received a
>> splattering of milk, is considered in isolation of the rest of the food
>> in the pot, while the vast majority of poskim, including Ashkenazi ones
>> whom he likes to quote (he himself noted in his Darkhei Mosheh that Issur
>> veHetter rules like the majority), ruled like Ri (no less an Ashkenazi
>> than Rashi).
<snip>
>> Why did Rema rule to be stringent in this case as there was no strong
>> precedence for this particular stringency?

RJB replied:
> Are you talking about s'if 1?  Taz there seems think he's ruling like
> Rashi to rule extra stringently:
<snip>
I know. Shakh says same thing but notes that by far most poskim weren't
stringent according to Rashi. Ramo in Darkei Mosheh noted same thing,
only one Ashkenazi source holds like Rashi, while all others hold like Ri
(I am away from my sefarim, so excuse this vague statement). My question
is, why was he ma'hmir acc. to Rashi when most Ashkenazi poskim weren't
bothered to.

RJB:
> Tas says to see "his book 25:49" as to why he paskens like Rashi over Ri.
> Does he mean Toras Chatas?
RDR suggested indeed that I look in Torat 'Hatat and that the Ramo
explains himself there. I hope to follow that lead some time next week.

Arie

RCC wrote:
> outside waht is written in Yore De'a Siman 181, what is the etymology and
> etiology of upsharin?

It's pure Yiddish. Up or oop means off and sheren means to cut or shear,
which can be applied to sheep, grass and grass on the head ;-). The word
sheren is known in Dutch (another Germanic language) as scheren and has
the same meaning. In current usage it applies to shaving the beard.

Arie Folger

I forwarded RYGB's request to R. Dr. Richie Schifmiller.  I checked the URL 
he provided and it gives you the exact Gregorian date for whatever Hebrew 
date you specify.

You can then, presumably, find out when the molad was at that time. However, 
you need to know in what year yetzias mitzrayim happened.  I seem to recall 
Rav Kasher having a list of a number of possible years in the milu'im to one 
of his volumes of Torah Shelemah.

>[Schiffmiller, Richard]  What is he talking about?  What does "the
>first Nisan" mean? Is this Ba'Ha'Rad, or the year of Adam, or the year of
>Yetzias Mitzrayim?  From your comment, it seems to be the latter.  I can
>certainly tell you the molad of Nisan in that year based on the current
>calendar.  But the current calendar only began in the ninth century CE, and
>so does not extrapolate backwards to what was done then.  In other words,
>the calendar, as all calendars, is not precise and the error magnifies the
>farther forward or backward you project it.  Our calendar has Pesach
>occurring (in the earliest year of the 19 year cycle (16)) before the 
>vernal
>equinox if you go back before the ninth century (one of the many proofs 
>that
>our calendar was initiated then).  So the projection is meaningless.

>For your information, there is an excellent calendar converter
>program available online at
>    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
>

Gil Student

In a message dated 4/10/02 4:52:35pm EDT, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> Just last night I read, on a shul's parsha sheet a peice from Bar Ilan
> Univ which purported to study the rainfall pattern of EY, (I think they
> must be presuming that the pattern of rainfall is basically the same as
> in time of Chazal), and went on to prove the correctness of the opinion
> on Taanis 6a.
> 

Is that every year or when the solar and lunar year or reconciled, from the 
Halacha of the fasts for rain it would seem that once the Cahchomim decide 
the year, then HKBH brings rain accordingly (famous Yerushalmi Lk-eil Gomeir 
Olai).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

At 08:31 PM 4/10/2002 EDT, Yzkd@aol.com wrote: 
> Is that every year or when the solar and lunar year or reconciled, from
> the Halacha of the fasts for rain it would seem that once the Cahchomim
> decide the year, then HKBH brings rain accordingly (famous Yerushalmi
> Lk-eil Gomeir Olai). 

The average Hebrew date according to the solar year.

However, I was mistaken as to what I was looking at.

The analysis was the _mid-point_ of the rainy season, examining Taanis 6a
vis-a-vis "when most of the rains had passed", and concluded that, on
average this was Shevat 15.

See the whole thing at
<<http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/beshalah/gol.html>

-- Sholom

In a message dated 4/10/02 4:51:41pm EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> And what about the beginning of Mes. Shekolim  where it says that from RC
> Adar they begin 'lesaken hadrochim' which were damaged during the winter and
> need to be fixed for the Oiley regel? It seems from there that the rains
> have generally stopped.
> 

Adifa Hava Lhakshos, that I contradicted *myself* by bringing the Rambam from 
the Gemara in Sanhedrin that if it will still be raining during the time of 
Aliya Lregel they would be Mabeir the year. (BTW this is part of my issue in 
a different post what effected the rain pattern).

The answer Lan"d is that while in Nissan rain *is* a Simon Bracha (and hence 
no reason to stop asking for it) the kind of rain that would fall would not 
disrupt Olei Rgolim as the Gemara in Taanis describes the difference between 
Yoreh and Malkosh (when the Nmushos would not go any more).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 4/10/02 4:52:00pm EDT, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
>  Why must everything come down to a matter of doctrine?
> How can talmud be properly studied if statements can not be examined
> by our, albeit, limited intelligence? Perhaps one sentence at the end
> of my post was misleading. When I said that Chazal were, apparently,
> not aware of a distinction in Hallel (or pilgrimage) requirements
> between Pesach and Succot,

The wording of a question is what defines the question of the Ben Chochom and 
the opposite one.

> I meant that there was, presumably, no such
> distinction - at least during the latter phase of the second Temple.
> I was merely speculating that such a distinction may have existed earlier.
> 
If that was the case the Chazal would have known of it, as there was an 
unbroken chain of Mkablei Hatorah.

> ome of my speculation is based on a very imperfect understanding of
> the agricultural seasons in ancient Israel. It would be very helpful
> to know when the wheat harvest and principle fruits were brought inside.
> 

I pointed out the Tos. in Bava Basra.


Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[From R' Dr Josh Backon: -mi]
> This is from a shiur in medical halacha we recently had at the hospital:
...
> 
> If one is gluten intolerant, one should make an effort to find oat
> or spelt matza....

I found this very interesting. I wanted to make one observation, and
one question.

With regards to Oat Matzah, which in America is imported from England,
I have been made aware of the reluctance of some Gedolim to allow its use
on Pesach, at least for Matzas Mitzvah. Apparently, there was a recent
research article that effectively questions whether Oat is really one
of the 5 Minim. I cannot remember the name of the author, but I know
that R' Hershel Shachter is taking it very seriously, and has been
shying away from the use of Oats in this context. Supposedly he also
makes Ha'adamah on Cheerios. In America Spelt matzah is available,
so it is not a big deal, but I thought it important to make people
aware of the reservations of such an eminent Rav. RF' Jeremy Weider,
a R"Y at YU, has also told me he is reluctant to allow Oat Matzah for
Matzas Mitzvah. He has also discussed the issue with R' Schachter.

My question is: Why in the preparation of the rice are we not allowed
to cook it together with the water from a cold temperature?

Jordan Hirsch    

In a message dated 4/8/02 6:08:46pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:
> Also, there was a minhag to make a matzah from a se'ah of flour (!).
> 
See O"C 456 and Ramah 475:7 that they made 3 Matzohs from 1/10th of an Eifah 
(which is 3/10ths of a Se'ah, (Rashi Shmos 16:36), hence each Matzah was 1/10 
of a Se'ah).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/22/02 11:51:27am EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> Bottom line - is slavery the opposite of cheirus or can they exist at
> the same time?

1) The Maharal discusses how the Hotzianu Meiavdus Lcheirus has accomplished 
that even in future Goluyois Yidden can't become Mshubad.

2) Chorus Al Haluchos...Ein Lach Ben Chorin Ela. even though Ki Li Bnei 
Yisroel Avodim (while not Avodim Lavodim)

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]