Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 016

Sunday, May 25 2003

• B'rshus
• re: birshus list
• Re: B'rshus
• Re: Naming a Child
• Naming a child
• Re: Persian period and V.
• Courts
• Re: Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Persian period and V.
• Re: Persian Era
• Re: Persian Era
• Persian chronology
• Re: Persian period and V.
• Re: Birshus ba'alas habayis, nivarech...
• Re: birshus list
• re: birshus list

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>

That I stopped saying b'rshus when I lead bentching with my sons 
(each of whom says "b'rshus avi mori n'varech..." and does not ask 
rshus from anyone else - the older one also thinks the younger one 
should ask rshus from him...). 
>>>>>>

Isn't it part of the 'matbe'a shetovu chachomim'?


>>And that I stopped saying b'rshus before ha'motzi too.... 

I had never heard of that 'b'rshus' - until being invited here to
 someones home - where this chap had learned [well, at least this] in Telz.

Where does it come from?

SBA

In a discussion on Areivim, I explained my view that if a guest is asked
to lead the zimun, when he says "birshus...", he should mention both
the man of the house and also the lady of the house. It's Derech Eretz,
I said.

R' Carl Sherer responded <<< Actually, it's not. It's asking rshus from
the person who has the right to be kovea who bentches, i.e. the ba'al
ha'bayis (SA 201:1 and Biur Halacha id. s"v v'im). >>>

Yes, I totally agree. And (as R' Moshe Feldman already posted) in many
homes this applies to both the husband and the wife. Every place where
that Beur Halacha mentioned "baal habayis", you could substitute "baalas
habayis" and it would make just as much sense.

Nothing in that halacha was based on the idea that the baal habayis has
the legal ability to lead the zimun (in contrast to the baalas habayis,
who cannot lead this zimun (presuming there are 3 men present)). Rather,
the abilities granted to the baal habayis in that halacha center around
the idea that it is his home and he has the privilege of asking others
to lead the zimun.

Take this example: Suppose there are three men at the meal, *not*
counting the baal habayis. Now suppose that for whatever reason, the
other men ate bread but the baal habayis did not. Therefore, the baal
habayis will not be benching, and will certainly not lead the zimun.
Someone else will be leading the zimun. Does anyone really think that
the m'zamen should leave out the baal habayis from his "birshus..."

Of course not! Just because of a little thing like he won't be benching,
that's not a good enough reason to leave him out! It's plain derech
eretz! You have to include him! ... and the same could be said of
the wife!

R' Carl also wrote <<< Based on that Biur Halacha, I would argue that
one need not ask r'shus from a Kohain except in a public place where
there is no ba'al ha'bayis and the Kohain's din kdima for ALL things
would come into play. But let's not let little things like that get in
the way of political correctness.... >>>

(I sense some sarcasm here, but I'm not sure what your point is. Be that
as it may...) As I read that Beur Halacha, there are situations (perhaps
always) where the baal habayis can choose whomever he wants to lead the
zimun, and so the kohen is not automatically entitled to it except in a
public place like R' Carl describes. Yet, when a kohen is at the table,
and the baal habayis asks a different person to lead the zimun, that
other person *does* include the kohen in the "birshus..." (At least,
that's what I've seen wherever I go.) So, I maintain, he should include
that baalas habayis as well.

Akiva Miller

On 23 May 2003 at 1:06, Micha Berger wrote:
>: This would be fine with me. It's the sudden, abrupt "Nevarech!" that
>: I find grating. For example, in English you would say "Let's
>: Betsch", not just "Bentsch!" I just think you need something before
>: the Nevarech!

> How about using the entirety of "Tzur Mishelo" instead? Wasn't that
> what it was written for?

I thought that with Tzur MiShelo you have a safek if you were 
actually yotzei bentching (not just inviting people to bentch) unless 
you have specific kavana otherwise. 

Also, if you're going to say that Tzur MiShelo is an invitation to 
bentch, I could say the same about Shir HaMa'alos (and of course, 
both of them are only applicable on Shabbos). 

[Email #2. -mi]

On 23 May 2003 at 0:46, SBA wrote:
>> That I stopped saying b'rshus when I lead bentching with my sons...
>> of whom says "b'rshus avi mori n'varech..." and does not ask rshus
>> from anyone else...

> Isn't it part of the 'matbe'a shetovu chachomim'?

Isn't what? The Birshus? Arguable.

>> And that I stopped saying b'rshus before ha'motzi too.... 

> I had never heard of that 'b'rshus' - until being invited here to
>  someones home - where this chap had learned [well, at least this] in
>  Telz.
> Where does it come from?

I have no idea. It seems to me that if the idea is to get people's 
attention (as my wife and Rebbetzin Katz both believe), savri would 
be more appropriate. 

[Email #3. -mi]

On 23 May 2003 at 14:25, SBA wrote:

> In any case, I looked up the MB this morning and am now an expert on
> the subject <g>.
> 
> It seems that the 'b'rshus' only makes sense when you are being motzi
> the others. Therefore lechoireh there is no pshat in saying it for
> hamotzi - when [these days] everyone makes there own brocho anyway.

Or when you have to ask r'shus from the ba'al ha'bayis to bentch - 
see the Biur Halacha at the beginning of 201 (the second one). I 
would argue that it also makes sense when there is no ba'al ha'bayis 
and a non-Kohen is bentching. 

> Regarding saying 'b'rshus' to your children etc - see the MB 167:75 -
> that even the baal habayis or the gadol  says it '...mishum midas
> anovo tzorich litol reshus ke'ilu heim gedolim mimeno - ulohem no'eh
> levorech...'

Ain hachi nami. But that ought to apply to other guests and not to my 
children who are chayav in kibud v'mora. It seems to me that asking 
their r'shus would conflict with that obligation. 

> Also see the Shaar HaTzion.

Where?

-- Carl

R' Gil Student asked <<< I have three children and have never heard an
angel whisper to me. Has anyone here heard the whisper? >>>

As one might have understood from other posters, one might hear this
whisper and not be aware of it. That does not affect the reality or the
significance. Here's our story:

For various reasons, we wanted our daughter's first name to be a selected
name, not after a relative. Her middle name would be for her grandmother,
but the first name, we wanted something *really* special. We thought of
many names, and we finally settled on calling her "Ariella".

(We really loved that name. And it was a pleasure to tell it to the
people in my office as well. It was a welcome change from when I told my
coworkers about my newborn sons "Eliezer" and "Avraham", and getting blank
stares, forcing me to explain, "It's from the Bible." "Eliezer was Moses'
son." "Avraham, it's Hebrew for Abraham." and getting a polite "Oh" in
return. This was different. This time it was "We named her Ariella." --
"OOoohh! That's such a pretty name!" A nice change, I must say.)

Anyway... Ariella must have been five years old when a friend from
Yerushalayim came to visit us. We told the story of the name, and the
friend asked, "And you named her Ariella because she was born on Yom
Yerushalayim, right?"

We were stunned. "Lots of people name such kids Ariel or Ariella." Well,
of course we knew when our daughter was born, and of course we knew that
Ariel is a kinui for the City. But we had never put them together before.
we never knew that a minhag (of sorts) had already developed, and that
we had unwittingly followed it. "Ariella" was just a pretty name that
came to us from ... from ... from the whisper of a mal'ach, perhaps?

Akiva Miller

I have heard the whisper and it comes in some of the following fashions
(I'm sure there are others):

1) From a parent, in-law, or relative whose business it is not at all:
"I would REALLY appreciate it if you would name the baby ______ ."(fill
in name you despise).

2) From your spouse: "NOT EVER!" or "No." or sound of being buzzed off.

3) From the child him/herself at about the age of three, at about 1:30
a.m., whispering: "Can I sleep in your bed."

Noach Witty

RYGB: <<The first assertion may be inaccurate, but not incorrect. The
Second assertion is correct and appropriate.
1. Velikovsky condensed history. He compacted events on the
Egyptian side. Others have followed his lead (Micha cited the Aronson
references) and building on V's research compacted the Persian history.>>

Mah inyon sh'mitoh aitzel har Sinai? While it is true that V banished
entire Egyptian dynasties into literary oblivion with a flick of his
bic, he most certainly did not do any such thing for the Persians. I was
unable to parse your sentence sufficiently to infer whether this latest
claim involved an assertion that V, Aronson researchers, or R' Micha had
similarly consigned Persians to non-existence, and I am only familiar
(very) with V. However the original posting referred only to V and I am
responding only to that notion. Those who doubt this assertion of V's
position are invited to look up that cult classic "Peoples of the Sea"
by V, especially the chronological tables on pages 198-199 to convince
themselves that he doesn't touch the conventional historical Persian
period in eretz yisroel, with the destruction of the bais miqdosh in --
586/587 to Alexander, about two hundred and fifty years later.

<< R' Schwab's approach is unsubstantiated from Chazal and any ancillary
literature to Chazal that we possess. It is sheer speculation, and
speculation of the kind that cannot stand in a scientific sense to be
proven -- viz., if you cannot find evidence of a "cover-up" that is
no evidence against the cover-up, because it just shows you how well
the cover-up succeeded! That it is substantiated by extrinsic (i.e.,
non-Talmudic and non-Jewish) sources is not substantiation of the
cover-up theory, but rather the data that the the theory is meant to
explain away.>>

Ah. well. if your "unsubstantiated" remark was focused on R. Schwaab's
speculation for the reasons behind the discrepancy between jewish and
secular historical accounts, then that is correct. His speculations
are unsubstantiated (and probably wrong) though no one has come up with
anything much more satisfying. However his basic agreement on the factoids
of the dates is certainly "substantiated" while SOR's is not. Also I would
not call his notion a "cover up" theory as that language usage is a bit
pejorative. It is rather that he felt Chazal deliberately obscured this
period for other reasons (to m'tashteish attempt l'chasheiv haqqeitz).

BTW, while the notion that absence of evidence is the surest proof that
something is going on, may present a self evident absurdity to RYGB
(and many others including myself) but I'm afraid I can assure you
that, in my experience (in another persona I deal quite closely with
this nation's intelligence community) such "reasoning" has indeed been
advanced in serious circles.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

I seek sources (sh"ut, responsa, articles, letters,etc.) that discuss
the permissibility (or not) of using the government's ("secular") courts
for the purpose of obtaining discovery of documents and/or testimony to
be used subsequently at a "trial" or hearing before a bais din.

Noach Witty
ewitty@att.net

On 23 May 2003 at 1:09, Micha Berger wrote:
> As for questions of hefseq... Where's the hesach hada'as? Is there an
> oveir la'asiyasan for food?

I'm not sure I understand the second question. Why would you have a 
hava amina that the bracha for food does not have to be oveir 
l'asiyasan? As to your first question, if I made the bracha I am 
supposed to eat right away. How is cutting for everyone else part of 
the inyan of my making the bracha and eating? 

BTW - I also wash last, partly for the same reason. I told my kids 
that when they have their own houses BE"H, I won't be offended if 
they make me wash ahead of them :-) 

-- Carl

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

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:17:50PM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> As for questions of hefseq... Where's the hesach hada'as? Is there an
:> oveir la'asiyasan for food?

: I'm not sure I understand the second question. Why would you have a 
: hava amina that the bracha for food does not have to be oveir 
: l'asiyasan?...

Why would I? Where is the maqor?

I thought the problem with food is hefseq, not immediacy.

:             As to your first question, if I made the bracha I am 
: supposed to eat right away. How is cutting for everyone else part of 
: the inyan of my making the bracha and eating? 

You aren't making the berakhah only for yourself.

: BTW - I also wash last, partly for the same reason. I told my kids 
: that when they have their own houses BE"H, I won't be offended if 
: they make me wash ahead of them :-) 

The gemara tells the mevareikh not to wait for 5 or more peoplen
but to wash first if there are fewer.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 36th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                     being a stable and reliable partner?

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:47:59AM -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
: bic, he most certainly did not do any such thing for the Persians. I was
: unable to parse your sentence sufficiently to infer whether this latest
: claim involved an assertion that V, Aronson researchers, or R' Micha had
: similarly consigned Persians to non-existence...

Not non-existance, redundancy.

In any case Aaronson and Liel's work folds Persian rulers to make the
navi's dates work.

I don't know how they handle the astronomical side of the dating issue.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 36th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                     being a stable and reliable partner?

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:

> I did not say the lecturer was being heretical - I said flippant and I
> meant flippant. I do not see why Chazal are any less to be trusted than
> Herodotus. Why not see Chazal as a question looming up upon Herodotus,
> and assume his knowledge was faulty, rather than the other way around?!

The problem is that if you accept Chazal's chronology Herdotus's knowledge was
prophetic: he knew of things that happened after his death, and protrayed them
as happening before his birth.  So you need to accept one of two preposterous
possibilities: (i) that the entirety of Athenian historical literature was a
vast conspiricy entered upon after the Athenian era, or (ii) that Herodotus
was, in fact, a prophet as well as a liar.

David Riceman

At 09:53 AM 5/23/03 -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>The problem is that if you accept Chazal's chronology Herdotus's knowledge was
>prophetic...                    So you need to accept one of two preposterous
>possibilities: (i) that the entirety of Athenian historical literature was a
>vast conspiricy entered upon after the Athenian era, or (ii) that Herodotus
>was, in fact, a prophet as well as a liar.

I certainly would not mind being educated: When did Herodotus live,
according to the various chronologies, and what events would prove
historic if one way and prophetic if the other?

[Email #2. -mi]

At 07:47 AM 5/23/03 -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
>Mah inyon sh'mitoh aitzel har Sinai? While it is true that V banished 
>entire Egyptian dynasties into literary oblivion with a flick of his bic, 
>he most certainly did not do any such thing for the Persians. I was unable 
>to parse your sentence sufficiently to infer whether this latest claim 
>involved an assertion that V, Aronson researchers, or R' Micha had 
>similarly consigned Persians to non-existence, and I am only familiar 
>(very) with V....

Aronson, as in Brad, published an essay in JA a number of years ago on
this, and the website Micha posted IIUC discusses his methodology. I am
pretty sure we discussed it at the time, either here or on MJ.

>Ah. well.  if your "unsubstantiated" remark was focused on R. Schwaab's 
>speculation for the reasons behind the discrepancy between jewish and 
>secular historical accounts, then that is correct. His speculations are 
>unsubstantiated (and probably wrong) though no one has come up with 
>anything much more satisfying. However his basic agreement on the factoids 
>of the dates is certainly "substantiated" while SOR's is not.  Also I 
>would not call his notion a "cover up" theory as that language usage is a 
>bit pejorative.  It is rather that he felt Chazal deliberately obscured 
>this period for other reasons (to m'tashteish attempt l'chasheiv haqqeitz).

Was that what R' Schwab gave as the reason? IIRC it was to cover up the
period immediately after Shivas Tziyon in which things occurred best
left unknown to history - i.e., in line with R' Schwab's general theory
that history should only be made available selectively.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

This is a vague summary. No doubt people on the list who are better
historians than I will correct or amplify the content.

A basic sequence, agreed by all:

1. The Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar, conquered much of the known
world, including Eretz Yisrael.

2. After Nebuchadnezzar's death the Persians, under Cyrus, conquered
the Babylonians.

3. After this Darius, king of the Persians (Cyrus's grandson, according
to Herodotus), attempted but failed to conquer Greece.

NB Darius and Cyrus were common names among Persian kings (NOT Babylonian
kings), which can lead to confusion.

4. Herodotus wrote his Histories to commemorate the Greek defence
against Persia.

5. The Peloponnesian war happened after Herodotus wrote his Histories.

6. Writing of history became popular in Greece, and we have many
books, with many details of chronology, filling in the years from the
Peloponnesian war to Alexander's death and beyond.

7. Philip of Macedonia (Alexander's dad) conquered Greece.

8. Alexander conquered Persia, Eretz Yisrael, and lots of other places.

Two important events caused repurcussions in both Jewish and Greek
history: the Persian conquest of Babylonia, and the life of Alexander
the Great (died 323 in the Greek version, and 313 in Kantor's version -
Kantor has minyan shtaroth beginning with Alexander's death rather than
the beginning of the Seleucid empire).

Now some dates. Greek historians date Cyrus (=Persia)'s conquest of
Babylon at 539, Darius's failed invasion of Greece at 480 (battle of
Salamis - not a food fight), and the Peloponnesian war at 431-404.
Herodotus, writing before the Peoloponnesian war, described these
first two as events which occured in the past, and they are central,
not tangential, to his book.

According to Kantor, The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, the Persians
under Darius and Cyrus conquered Babylon in 372, well after the Greek
date of the Peloponnesian war, and well after Herodotus wrote his book.

All the events from the Persian conquest of Babylonia to Alexander's death
took 216 years in the Greek version and 49 years in Kantor's version.
This has to include the Persian invasion of Greece, the Peloponnesian war
two generations later, and Philip's conquest of Greece two generations
after that.

As I said in my previous post you have two options if you want to accept
his dates:

1. All the Greek historians from Thucydides on were engaged in a vast
conspiracy to invent lots of non-existent years and events after the
Persian invasion of Babylonia, and in fact Herodotus wrote at least 100
years later than he claimed to have written.

I don't buy this because I can imagine no adequate motive for them having
done so.

2. Herodotus was a prophet, who wrote about the Persian conquest of
Babylonia and the Persian invasion of Greece more than 100 years before
they happened.

Not only does that strike me as silly, but there are other Greek authors
who will have to have been prophets as well, e.g., Xenophon's Anabasis
and his Cyropaedia were both written, according to Cantor, before the
Persian conquest of Babylonia.

So that, while I agree with Rabbi B that one must give great weight to
Chazal's opinions, I can see no way to harmonize their opinions about
Persian chronology with other, well attested, facts.

David Riceman

<<MF: . It is rather that he felt Chazal deliberately obscured this
period for other reasons (to m'tashteish attempt l'chasheiv haqqeitz).>>

<<RYGB: Was that what R' Schwab gave as the reason? IIRC it was to cover
up the period immediately after Shivas Tziyon in which things occurred
best left unknown to history - i.e., in line with R' Schwab's general
theory that history should only be made available selectively.>>

Such is my memory of it, but I admit to a certain vagueness here. I
read R. Schwaab on this topic when I was still a teenager randomly
perusing some volumes in the reading room of the Hebrew university
library. I believe R. Schwaab's article was part of a jubilee volume
for one of the Breuers, though I disremember which one, and I think
it was in Hebrew though I'm also uncertain about that. In any event,
my recollection is a bit shaky but the reason adduced above is what I
seem to remember. Now, I've never read any of the later versions that
R Schwaab may have published in various collections of his writings nor
have I ever read the alleged "retraction" but perhaps he developed some
other theories in the interim since I first came across the matter.

Mechy Frankel

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:12:33PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Let's say that a widow has invited three male guests. Isn't she the
: one who has the right--as the ba'alas ha'bayis--to designate which of
: the three will lead the mezuman? In that case, wouldn't it be proper
: for the one leading the mezmuman to say "birshus ba'alas habayis?"

I'm not sure it's asking permission to lead benching. Presumably
(and this is true in practice) the guest wouldn't have opened his
mouth had such reshus not been granted.

Also, why then ask reshus of anyone beyond the ba'al habayis, or the rav,
or whichever one kohein is in the position to do the appointing? Why would
it ever be belashon rabbim or otherwise refer to multiple people except in
the rare cases where the person was selected by committee?

As per RMF's post, the statement is acknowledging those who had prior
claim to leading. Or to acknowledge that a peer may in some way deserve
such prior claim.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 36th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                     being a stable and reliable partner?

On 23 May 2003 at 8:31, Joseph Kaplan wrote:

> Probably the same source as the Yiddish "rabbosai . . . bentchen."

Hardly. That comes from the Gemara in Brachos that talks about hav 
lan v'navrich (yes, I know, we said last night that is only 
appropriate for bentching with a kos, but the SA says that you should 
always bentch with a kos, even as a yachid (!), and the Rema 
certainly seems to hold that l'chatchila one should bentch with a 
kos. You have to go down to the Mishna Brura to see why we're meikil.

-- Carl

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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to:

http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

On 22 May 2003 at 23:00, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> R' Carl Sherer responded <<< Actually, it's not. It's asking rshus
> from the person who has the right to be kovea who bentches, i.e. the
> ba'al ha'bayis (SA 201:1 and Biur Halacha id. s"v v'im). >>>
> 
> Yes, I totally agree. And (as R' Moshe Feldman already posted) in many
> homes this applies to both the husband and the wife. Every place where
> that Beur Halacha mentioned "baal habayis", you could substitute
> "baalas habayis" and it would make just as much sense.

Except that no posek from 50 years ago or longer ever did that, which 
is why I labelled it PC. The only situation in which I can see that 
making sense is if a woman lives alone (e.g. a widow R"L) and has a 
mzuman in her house for some reason.

> Nothing in that halacha was based on the idea that the baal habayis
> has the legal ability to lead the zimun (in contrast to the baalas
> habayis, who cannot lead this zimun (presuming there are 3 men
> present)). 

That's not true. The ba'al ha'bayis has the right to determine who 
leads the zimun and while the gemara advises him to give it to a 
guest so that they will give him the bracha (y'hi ratzon she'lo 
yeivosh), the poskim make clear that the ba'al ha'bayis would be 
perfectly within his rights to take the honor of being the m'zamen 
for himself and no one else - including his wife - would have the 
right to stop him. That's why you have to ask the ba'al ha'bayis' 
r'shus (see Biur Halacha 201). 

> Take this example: Suppose there are three men at the meal, *not*
> counting the baal habayis. Now suppose that for whatever reason, the
> other men ate bread but the baal habayis did not. Therefore, the baal
> habayis will not be benching, and will certainly not lead the zimun.
> Someone else will be leading the zimun. Does anyone really think that
> the m'zamen should leave out the baal habayis from his "birshus..."

Ain hachi nami. 

> Of course not! Just because of a little thing like he won't be
> benching, that's not a good enough reason to leave him out! It's plain
> derech eretz! 

No, it's not just derech eretz. It's his house, and even if he is not 
bentching, he would still have the right to determine who will bentch 
(what we would call a tovas hana'a in the context of - for example - 
trumos and ma'aseros). The woman has no such right. 

You have to include him! ... and the same could be said
> of the wife!

No, it can't. See above. Halachically, she doesn't own the house 
(except in very special cases where it was purchased with money which 
was given to her al tnai that he has no chelek in it - which might 
impose an obligation to ask her r'shus - but then you would not have 
to ask his). Mah she'kansa isha kana ba'ala. 

> R' Carl also wrote <<< Based on that Biur Halacha, I would argue that
> one need not ask r'shus from a Kohain except in a public place where
> there is no ba'al ha'bayis and the Kohain's din kdima for ALL things
> would come into play. But let's not let little things like that get in
> the way of political correctness.... >>>
> 
> (I sense some sarcasm here, but I'm not sure what your point is. Be
> that as it may...) 

Check the time on the post.... 

As I read that Beur Halacha, there are situations
> (perhaps always) where the baal habayis can choose whomever he wants
> to lead the zimun, and so the kohen is not automatically entitled to
> it except in a public place like R' Carl describes. Yet, when a kohen
> is at the table, and the baal habayis asks a different person to lead
> the zimun, that other person *does* include the kohen in the
> "birshus..." (At least, that's what I've seen wherever I go.) 

Based on the Biur Halacha, I don't think he's obligated to include 
the Kohen. 

So, I
> maintain, he should include that baalas habayis as well.

Mah inyan shmitta eitzel har Sinai? There's no connection whatsoever. 
With the Kohen you have a chiyuv of v'kidashto, which Chazal have 
interpreted as allowing him to be m'varech rishon, etc. No such 
chiyuv for the wife. 

-- Carl

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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to:

http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

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


[ 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         ]