Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 030

Thursday, June 19 2003

• Re: Revadim Project
• Retzuos - Black both sides
• kohen gadol
• birkhat cohanim
• arguing with Talmud
• Re: Persian Era
• Re: Persian Era
• Re: Just one Posuk - Tehillim initiative with a new twist !
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Kiddush bemakom se'uda

I cannot find my copy of Derahos Bais Yishai. Anyone who frequents Har
Nof and might be able to procure for me another set, please let me know
ASAP, as my in-laws are in Israel till the end of June and would be
able to bring stuff back for me. (Reb Gil faxed me the relevant pages
for this e-mail).

L'gufo shel inyan:

At 11:25 AM 6/18/03 -0400, Gil Student wrote:
>I looked up the source that Pinchas Hayman quoted. It is in Derashos
>Beis Yishai vol. 1 p. 114 and is a beautiful essay by R' Shlomo Fisher
>advancing the idea that halachah as we know it is binding because we
>have accepted it upon ourselves....

The entire gist of RSF's essay (one I have quoted on my essay on the
RSG/RABM controversy) is that there is a kabbalah that binds Amoraim
to accept the Tannaic corpus and subsequent generations to accept the
Talmudic corpus. This is not a great new idea, as the Rambam in the
Hakdam makes it pretty clear.

Indeed, R' Yisrael Salanter put it very well when he said, IIRC, that
for us the Mishnah is our Tanach (as we no longer have direct halachic
access to pesukim) and the Gemara is our mishnah, v'duk.

You see this more when you learn Yerushalmi, which does not use chisurei
mechsara as a tool in a Mishnah, that the Amoraim themselves understood
RYS's principle, and clearly treated the Mishnah as a new TSBK. This makes
Rebbe's revolutionary redaction of the Mishnah - and his promulgation
of a formal Heter to write TSBAP - even more extraordinary than one
first thinks.

So, there was a seamless kabbalah of the Mishnah by the Amoraim, which
necessitated their working within the confines of that corpus - although
there were Darkei HaLimud that would extract layers of meaning from the
Mishnah much like Derashos of Chazal extract them from the Tanach. We
may discuss the parallel, but it is there. Similarly, we must approach
the Talmud on the basis of our seamless kabblah. We may innovate Darkei
HaLimud, but only such that treat the corpus as authoritative uniformly
and completely. There is no difference between Amora A or Amora B, nor
between identified Amora and Stama d'Gemara - just as one does not find
Amoraim differentiating between various Tannaim.

This is completely in line with RSF, and not in line with Revadim.

YGB 

Re my recent post about a visiting Rebbeleh here whose retzuos were
painted black on both sides - today I saw this discussed in the sefer
Nimukei Orach Chaim 33 [by the Munkatcher Rov zt'l]. He comes out against
this idea.

SBA

does anyone know if there is a minimum age to become kogen gadol?

2. Do the ages of beginning avodah for a kohen listed in chumash
appliy for all generation including the second temple?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
turkel@post.tau.ac.il

"We had this situation in our shul. The minhag was that a kohen went to
mikvah before yomtov in order to duchen b'tahara. Apparently people found
out that they were neglecting their onah responsibilities, in order to
remain 'tahor' for duchening on Shabbos. As such, some banned duchening
on Shabbos Yom Tov, to make a very clear statement of priorities.
the question is - can we say batel ta'am - batel hatakanah? A story is
told about RYBS during his first years in Boston when he insisted that
kohanim duchen on Shabbos Yom Tov, going against the minhag of the shul
at the time. IIRC, he felt that it was a minhag ta'us."

Minchat Yitzchak has a teshuva about (not) saying birkhat cohanim in
Tzfat except for Musaf Shabbat (most places in Israel say it every day
in schaarit+musaf). He tries to justify it by also saying that it was
to go to the mikveh in the winter even though mikveh is not necessary
for birkhat cohanim.

He concludes that since the minhag seems to be as early as the Bet Yosef
and Ari it can't be changed even though his rationalizations are weak.

My personal reading into the teshuva is that if the basis for the minhag
was less than R. Yosef Karo and Ari he would have ruled that it was a
minhag taut and should be changed

--
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/19/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

"RSF argues against both R' Elchanan Wasserman's and the Chazon Ish's
approaches to the reason why we cannot disagree with Amoraim and why
Amoraim could not disagree with Tannaim. He suggests that just like
at kabbalas ha-Torah we accepted the Torah and made it binding on
ourselves and our descendants, so too we accepted on ourselves the
conclusions of the Talmud which can therefore never be disputed. This
acceptance, RSF says, was not at a specific gathering but rather was
an ongoing sociological phenomenon. While he does not say as much, one
would presume that he would apply the same to many customs and halachic
rulings throughout the ages that have been universally accepted. However,
and he demonstrates this point clearly, this only applies to halachic
conclusions. When the halachah is not concluded in the Talmud, or when the
Talmud discusses the reasoning behind mitzvos (ta'ama dikra) or theology,
there is no acceptance of the conclusions of the Talmud and we are not
bound by them. Thus, for example, we find Amoraim disagreeing with Tannaim
regarding derashos (i.e. derivations) of halachos. While they were bound
to the halachic conclusions of the Tannaim, they were not bound by either
the reasoning behind the halachah or the biblical source of the halachah.
I don't recall RSF saying this but one could also point to the Rambam's
frequent use of rejected or alternate derashos in his Mishneh Torah."

I have always felt this to be the best approach. However pne thing that
bothers me is that according to this approach the gemara's medical
opinions are not binding even without such answers as tishanu hateva
which many bring. Also such customs as not eating peeled garlic or meat
and fish which are based on sakana and not halacha. Further what about
statements about not walking in the shuk and eating etc. Would they
change with the local culture?

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/19/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

> I believe your disagreement with me to be based on our respective
> recollections of RSS's retraction, which I admit not to have seen
> in years. But, the niterpretation that RSS didn't mean to retract is
> not mine, but the Baseler Dayan's, based upon his confrontation of his
> relative, RSS.

>> the public pressure and not because he rejected his hypothesis. However R'
>> Schwab has written that it is permitted to conceal information but not to
>> lie. According to RAF R' Schwab still believed his original hypothesis and
>> only "recanted" to avoid being criticized. According to RAF R' Schwab's
>> action was not in agreement with his publicly stated principles.

> Upon reading your post, I noticed that you believe RSS to only have
> recanted from his idea of 'Hazal intentionally concealing info, but
> that he didn't recant of his acceptance of the relative precision of
> non Jewish chronologies. I, on the other hand, along with the Basler
> Dayan, understood his disclaimer as *seemingly* implying that he totally
> recanted, even from trusting the accuracy of the non Jewish chronologies.

> So ... perhaps we disagree about nothing but our interpretation of the
> retraction, which, considering our positions, results in exactly the
> same masqana of RSS. (is that correct?)

No. We are miles apart. In order to hopefully conclude this discussion
I borrowed Selected Speeches from Rebtzn Rosenberg - R' Schwab's
daughter. The book is out of print so I will present the epilogue for
our members to decide whose view is correct. BTW Rebtzn Rosenberg agreed
with my understanding that he had not retracted the problem but only
the solution.

Chapter 21 of Selected Speeches: A collection of Addresses and Essays on
Hashkafah, Contemporary Issues and Jewish History Including: "Comparitive
Jewish Chronology". CIS publishers 1991. pp255-285. The first part is
essentially what I previously posted.

p. 281 Epilogue

1) All the aforegoing is based on an essay which was printed about 30
years ago in Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer Jubilee Volume and which was revised
a few times. The purpose of this attempt was to assist the bewildered
Torah-true students of Jewish history sitting on the horns of a dilemma,
and to strengthen their emunah. Time and again, I was urged to publish
this revised edition in order to serve a larger readership. But in
the meantime many great doubts have bothered my mind and have made it
mandatory for me to share my pangs of conscious with my readers.

a) "History" is either true or false. There is no middle ground. The
events described in a history book have either happened or they
haven't. The most ingenious theories which may have their place in
philosophy or as a working thesis in the exact sciences have no meaning
in the pursuit of historical evidence, which is a search for facts and
which accepts no conjectures. A chronological time table is the backbone
of any book on history which expects to be accepted by intellectually
honest students.

b) If our forefathers wanted to hide a certain period in our history,
because of a Divine mandate, who has the right to uncover the carefully
concealed secret? Even with our best intentions to strengthen the faith
of those who doubt the accuracy of our traditional method of counting
the years from Creation, we still were not given the right to remove
the veil for any reason. therefore, I feel like the legendary king of
the Khazars who was told a few time in a dream "Your intentions are
acceptable but your deeds are not."

c) The "hidden years theory" necessitates the assumption that the
construction of the Second Temple lasted for a century and a half which,
by the way would explain the discrepancy between the measurements
of the Bayis Sheini in Ezra (6:13) and those of mescheta Midos. It
would also explain why the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah speak in the Mishna
(i.e. Zevachim 5:1) of before the hanging curtains instead of using the
word ezara as in all other places. There were no hanging curtains except
in the Mishkan which was built in the desert. But there may have been
hanging curtains during the very long construction period of the Second
Temple which was not completed until the time of Shimon HaTzaddik, exactly
420 years before its destruction by the Romans. True, there's a reference
to this in the book of Ben Sira, but no clear evidence. Therefore, the
assumption of such a minor Bayis Sheini for 186 years is totally unproven.

d) Josephus who was not a faithful Torah Jew, and who lived only about
400 years after Alexander the Great, makes no mention of a large interval
between Ezra and the Greek period. He would not have kept quiet had he
known about that from the gentiles.

e) One letter-writer suggested to me that most ancient documents are so
unclear, confusing and self-contradicting that we do not have to take
the conclusions of modern historians seriously. In this, case no real
conflict exists.

Another correspondent called my attention to the writings of Rav Saadiah
Gaon in Emuna v'De'os chapter 9 where he states that a certain "nation"
has inserted over one hundred years and 17 additional kings in their
history books, in order to place the founder of Christianity into a
fitting historical context.

f) A very knowledgeable friend has called my attention to the exact
reckoning of the new moon which we follow today, which could not be
reconciled with the addition of 168 "missing years". The computer shows
that the molad would be off by 1.5 days,b y which time the moon is already
visible. The statements of chazal which deal with the molad at the time
of creation, the so-called molad tohu would not tally if an additional
168 years are added (Concerning the various methods of calculating the
molad, see Rambam Kiddush Hachodesh 6:8...Torah Sheleimah vol 11 chapter
8 par. 110...

The counter-argument is that our system of figuring out the molad dates
back only to the time after Daniel, and our Sages went to great lengths
to hide the true cheshbon by constructing a method which we follow today.
Subsequently the molad tohu is figured out retroactively.

g) We are now counting the year 5751, and if we add 168 years, the real
date for this year would be 5919, which leaves only 81 years till the
end of the 6th millennium.This is most frightening, especially for all
those born not so long ago, or those to be born in the near future,
who would become the living witnesses of the "end of days". They will
see with own eyes whether the statement (Rosh Hashanna 31a, Avodah Zara
9a. Sanhedrin 97) that "the world will exist only for six thousand years
and then be destroyed" is meant to be taken literally, or has a different
interpretation, as do many Aggadic pronouncements.

I am writing all this with awe and trepidation. On the other hand, if the
"hidden years" never were, then mankind still ahs 250 years before the
coming of the "end".

h) It is because of all these gnawing doubts that I have decided to put
a big question mark after the words "Jewish Chronology." Let somebody
with greater knowledge come and pick up the threads where I left off. Our
traditional, universally accepted Jewish way of counting the years from
Creation is sacred territory which only fools do not fear to tread upon.

This may be a disappointment to some, but on the other hand I muster the
courage to belong to those who rather wish to be honest to themselves than
to be "right". I would rather leave a good question open than risk giving
a wrong answer. And I follow the teachings of Rav Shimon (Pesachim 52b)
who said "Just as I was awarded for the research, so shall I be awarded
for the retraction". The historic material which I have assembled may
still be somehow useful, even for those who will doubt whether there can
ever be a Jewish chronology which would satisfy the non believer in the
wisdom of our Sages. So I fall back into the ranks of all shlomei emunei
Yisroel. And to me l'berias olam means what it meant to our fathers. It
is as simple as that. And while we may keep on searching for the answers,
we pray that Hashem may enlighten our eyes. "And G-d should enlighten
the eyes of all those who wait for the coming redemption quickly in our
days amen"

I wrote:
>> So ... perhaps we disagree about nothing but our interpretation of the
>> retraction, which, considering our positions, results in exactly the
>> same masqana of RSS. (is that correct?)

On Thursday 19 June 2003 15:21, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> No. We are miles apart. In order to hopefully conclude this discussion I
> borrowed Selected Speeches from Rebtzn Rosenberg - R' Schwab's daughter.
> The book is out of print so I will present the epilogue for our members to
> decide whose view is correct.

<snip>

> b) If our forefathers wanted to hide a certain period in our history,
> because of a Divine mandate, who has the right to uncover the carefully
> concealed secret?

This says little about his true belief; furthermore, he dealt with this
in his essay by saying that nowadays, the earth has opened up its mouth
and reveaked the secret; now we must deal with it.

<snip>

>     c) The "hidden years theory" necessitates the assumption that the
> construction of the Second Temple lasted for a century and a half which ...

is not a real problem.

>     d) Josephus who was not a faithful Torah Jew, and who lived only about
> 400 years after Alexander the Great, makes no mention of a large interval
> between Ezra and the Greek period. He would not have kept quiet had he
> known about that from the gentiles.

But does he provide evidence to the contrary? What were his sources,
anyway? If he wasn't a faithful Jew (debatable), would his argument be
better than Xenophon et al.?

<snip>

> Saadiah Gaon in Emuna v'De'os chapter 9 where he states that a certain
> "nation" has inserted over one hundred years and 17 additional kings in
> their history books, in order to place the founder of Christianity into a
> fitting historical context.

Xenophon was a Christian? Anyway, this is merely one of the ways to deal
with the dilemma.

>     f) A very knowledgeable friend has called my attention to the exact
> reckoning of the new moon which we follow today, which could not be
> reconciled with the addition of 168 "missing years".

Besides his own refutation of this logic, we have the additional issue
that we don't even know the exact number of missing years. RSS talks
about 168, while others talk about 165, and any number in that vicinity
is possibly reasonable. Would the molad still be significantly off if
the missing number of years would be a little off?

<snip>

>     g) We are now counting the year 5751, and if we add 168 years, the real
> date for this year would be 5919, which leaves only 81 years till the end
> of the 6th millennium.This is most frightening,

This is a non argument. Essentially, RSS is saying that some people are
uncomfortable with his theory. Well, that doesn't mean it is wrong.

<snip>

>     h) It is because of all these gnawing doubts that I have decided to put
> a big question mark after the words "Jewish Chronology." Let somebody with
> greater knowledge come and pick up the threads where I left off.

RSS is being very modest. However, I see no more than one gnawing doubt,
namely whether or not his theory is correct. Yet, most of the points deal
not with whether or not 'Hazal "lied", but whether or not the years are
really missing.

I must adit, though, that the following sentence is powerful stuff:

> Our
> traditional, universally accepted Jewish way of counting the years from
> Creation is sacred territory which only fools do not fear to tread upon.

But didn't he himself state that the traditional Jewish calendar used
years since 'hurban or minyan shtarot, not anno mundi?

>     This may be a disappointment to some, but on the other hand I muster
> the courage to belong to those who rather wish to be honest to themselves
> than to be "right". I would rather leave a good question open than risk
> giving a wrong answer.

Here above, he has indeed explained that RDE is right that RSS did
not retract from his belief that many years are missing. But first,
he threw a smokescreen by mentioning several arguments against any gap
whatsoever. He throws again such a smokescreen below:

<snip>
> The historic material which I have assembled
> may still be somehow useful, even for those who will doubt whether there
> can ever be a Jewish chronology which would satisfy the non believer in the
> wisdom of our Sages.

IOW, the one who believes in the gap is perhaps an unbeliever.

> So I fall back into the ranks of all shlomei emunei
> Yisroel. And to me l'berias olam means what it meant to our fathers. It is
> as simple as that.

Sounds like he is retracting his position that there is any gap! Unlike
what RDE reports in name of RSS's granddaughter (or who was it?). So,
if he still believed ther was a gap, but retracted his hypothesis (which
is fine with me), he isn't being crystal clear about it in his retraction.

However, considering the way he wrote it, it seems like he wants to
only retract from the hypothesis, but at the end takes a sudden turn,
retracting even from the assertion ther was a gap, and claims much
evidence to support sich a claim, even though he narely brought any.

Interpret it as you want.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

Harry Maryles wrote:
> Similiarly there is a story told about the Magid of Dubna who was once
> in the Beis HaMedrash with Rabbi E. Kramer on Shavuos night. The Magid
> was saying Tikun Leil Shavuos and the GRA was learning and was purported
> to have rebuked the Magid for saying Tikun rather than learning Gemmarah.

Funny, the story I heard was the opposite. The Gaon was saying the tikun,
and the Magid was learning gemara. When the Gaon remonstrated the Magid
responded with a mashal comparing learning the tikun to showing cloth
samples, the Gaon to a wholesaler with a large warehouse, and himself
to an itinerant peddler with nothing but his sample book.

David Riceman

On 19 Jun 2003 at 11:32, Akiva Blum wrote:

> The reason why men are able to control flatulence ( which is the pashtus
> of guf naki in all hilchos tefillin) greater than women is practice. Men
> have been practicing control since age 13, every day! That's experience.
> 
> Since the simple fact is that women do not put on tefillin, then even if
> she wanted to we would recommend against it, because she is inexperienced
> at self-control.

If that were the case, we would be encouraging women to put them on 
at age 12 so that they would have practice too.... 

-- Carl

I'm sure AREIVIM member Reb Shaul Weinreb (3rd year resident in obstetrics
and gynecology) could answer better than me but here's my input on GUF
NAKI and women re: tefillin.

Due to detrusor (muscle) instability, urinary incontinence [Peyrush
Rashi: pardon my language but that's "pishing" in your pants] is
much higher prevalence in females. And this is accompanied by flatus
incontinence. See: "Prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence and
symptoms of genital prolapse in women". Acta Obstet Gynecol Scandinavica
2003;82:270-86.

And what's worse: not only flatulence but also leakage of fecal material
is linked to urinary incontinece. See: "Anorectal dysfunction in women
with urinary incontinence orlower urinary tract infection". Int J Ob
Gyn 2002;77:139-45.

The upshot of this is that maintaining a "guf naki" is much much harder
for a woman. This would basically prohibit the majority of females from
even contemplating the wearing of tefillin.

Josh

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< The MB says "ain zrizos li'zaher," implying that
having a guf naki is something one can control to some extent. Menstrual
flow isn't controllable (at least without artificial or outside
intervention). >>>

Yes, the MB might be implying something about one's control over *having*
a guf naki. But might he instead be implying something about having
tefilin *on* a guf that's not naki?

In other words, "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis" -- Everyone will
encounter situations where their guf is not naki for whatever reason.
Some people more often than others, and perhaps women are not naki more
often than men are. But I suspect that this is *not* the issue which
the MB refers to.

Rather, I suspect the MB is addressing how careful one is to make sure
that his guf is naki before putting the tefillin on, and how careful
one is to remove the tefillin if the guf becomes not naki.

RCS added: <<< if menstrual flow was the issue, the MB would have
not have said "ain zrizos li'zaher," he would have said "ain YECHOLOS
li'zaher." >>>

According to what I wrote above, this can be answered simply: If women
be more zahir to remove the tefillin upon getting their period, we might
let them wear tefillin. But they're not zariz, so we don't let them. If
the problem was that they are *unaware* of the menstrual flow, that's
when the MB would have said "ain *yecholos* lizaher". But use of the word
zahir instead of yecholos is what leads me to conclude that the problem is
one which the women ARE able to handle, they're just not very good at it.

Akiva Miller

R' SBA wrote <<< See the Eshel Avrohom - [the Betchooch one (any got a
better way of spelling it?)], who writes a svoro that it is a kovod for
the tefilin that women shouldn't don them as they can sometimes become
a niddah 'behesech hadaas' - outside their regular period. >>>

If he is worried about a surprise niddah who merely wears tefillin,
I wonder how he holds for having relations on a day when she is neither
a nidah nor does the halacha mandate anticipation of becoming nidah. A
surprise could turn their act into an issur karays. Would he advise
avoidance of all relations except when it is a genuine chiyuv, like
for tefillin?

Akiva Miller

On 18 Jun 2003 at 22:16, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> The Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa 55:24 outlines the procedure for how
> the baal habayis should distribute the challah. 

That one is at home (as is Orchos Shabbos). Bli neder will try to look
tonight.

> It seems to me that if the baal habayis takes his own slice, puts it
> in his mouth, and then starts cutting the other slices, it is likely
> that he will have swallowed some before even the first person gets any,
> and certainly before the last people get theirs. But if the baal habayis
> cuts all the slices, and is the first of many to take a slice, then he
> will certainly still be chewing while the others are getting theirs.

But why is it significant whether or not he still has challah in his
mouth when the last people get theirs? I would argue that all the Toras
Shabbos means is that he should not wait to swallow before he starts
cutting for everyone else (even though - for example - he is not allowed
to speak until he has swallowed; think Leil HaSeder and eating Matza).

And you still haven't answered the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun s"k 69, which is
quite explicit.

-- Carl

On 18 Jun 2003 at 17:21, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> R' Carl Sherer wrote:
> <<< There's an issur against eating before your animals eat. There is no
> such issur against eating before your guests eat. Aderaba - your guests
> are supposed to wait for you. The halacha is that the host is botzea.
> Whether your guests "deserve at least a similar consideration" is not a
> criterion recognized by halacha. ... I think you've introduced a western
> notion of 'courtesy' that the halacha doesn't recognize. >>>
> 
> I always thought it goes both ways. The guests are supposed to be
> courteous to the host, and the host is supposed to be courteous to the
> guests. This is a western concept? Common courtesy is not recognized by
> halacha? Do you think that the Chofetz Chaim (who, btw, was a kohen whom
> we agree that we are chayav to give kavod to) was wrong for insisting
> on making the bed for his houseguests?

I said that YOUR notion of courtesy is western - not that halacha or 
the CC would not recognize a notion of courtesy. Halacha - at least 
as expounded by the CC in Sha'ar HaTziyun 167:69 - is quite explicit 
that since the only one with a possibility of totally avoiding a 
hefsek is the ba'al ha'bayis, the ba'al ha'bayis should "go for it" 
even at the expense of slightly lengthening the hefsek of his family 
members and guests. 

> <<< This makes no sense to me. If I am not supposed to distribute their
> portions to them because doing so would be a hefsek, what is the point
> of cutting their portions? They're going to have to wait either way! >>>
> 
> There are two advantages to cutting all the slices together:
> 
> (1) Several hundred milliseconds 

And you still have given no reason why that has halachic 
significance! A hefsek is a hefsek! 

[I'm being somewhat facetious, I suppose;
> no matter whose procedure we use, we're talking about shaving fractions
> off of the already-quick total, aren't we?] are saved by picking the
> knife up only once, putting it down only once, and sprinkling the salt
> only once. 

I sprinkle salt only once in any event - I dip the challah into the 
salt (and don't sprinkle salt on the challah). So I put the salt on 
the tray ONCE and then dip the challah into it as I pass it out 
(several pieces at a time). Most meals this all takes less than a 
minute. (Admittedly, if we have another family it might take longer).

Instead of cutting my slice, putting the knife down, salting
> mine and putting it in my mouth, and then going back to cut the other
> slices, salt them, and pass them out, instead I just make a few more
> slices, salt them all together, and pass them out while I'm eating
> mine. In other words, yes, they're going to have to wait either way,
> but they wait slightly less my way. 

But why is that "slightly less" halachically significant? 

> (2) It is true that my wait will be slightly longer, but the fact that
> I get to choose my favorite of all those slices makes it worth it,
> and negates the hefsek.

And that is halachically significant because?????

> <<< Look at the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun there (69). He says (translation mine),
> "...But since they are not allowed to eat in any event, why should he
> interrupt himself?" It should be apparent that the same line of reasoning
> applies to the act of cutting the Challah. ... Since the guests cannot
> eat anyway, why should the host lengthen his own hefsek? >>>
> 
> There is absolutely no advantage to passing the challah out to the
> others before he eats, because they can't eat it yet, and that's the
> Shaar HaTziyun's point. But there are some small advantages (see above)
> in doing all the slicing before he eats.

WHAT????????	You've just turned the Chafetz Chaim on his head because 
he doesn't say what you want him to say!!!!!

-- Carl

R' Gershon Dubin asked <<< Someone mentioned recently that although one
is not yotzei kiddush shelo bemakom se'uda, this does not preclude making
kiddush (obviously kiddusha rabba so as not to have berachos issues)
without a se'uda. >>>

I don't follow why you're limiting this to Kiddusha Rabba, and not
including Friday Night. What "berachos issues" are you referring to?

<<< IOW the following is possible: make kiddush, drink the wine/liquor
and eat nothing. Then go home and make kiddush and eat. >>>

Obviously, you're talking about saying kiddush to be motzi someone else,
and *they* drink the wine. No problem that I can see.

<<< Or maybe even make kiddush, eat less than kevius se'udah, then go
home, repeat kiddush and eat. >>>

I've seen people do this, but they've never been able to explain why
it doesn't fall under the prohibition of eating before Kidddush. You
wouldn't eat any sort of nosh between davening and the time when you are
actually being yotzay Kiddush, would you? Why would having a sip of wine
make any difference. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? I'd look
for sources, but isn't it obvious?

(Of course, if one drinks enough of the wine, that can be the seudah
itself, relieving him of any need to have a seudah of mezonos. But in
such a case he would be yotzay Kiddush and would not have to say it again
at home, so I don't think that's the situation you're talking about.)

---- Ooops! I see now that R' Gershon writes of a Rabbi Pearl who gave
mar'eh mekomos on this point. Could you share some of them with me?
Thanks!

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]