Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 034

Thursday, June 26 2003

• Re: existential angst
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Cheerfull Friendship; The Powers of the Soul
• Musar at the JCC
• Re: 'nun hafucho'
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ketores
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Giving your wife Challah first
• Re: Giving your wife Challah first
• mixed seating at simchas
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ketores
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: 'nun hafucha'
• Nun Hafuchoh -eidus from the codices
• 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 your wife Challah first

Should it matter? Is the reason to do mitzvos so that we can get into
olam ha-ba?

Gil Student

IIRC, the nafka mina is that babies don't need to have arms/legs
covered therefore those areas when not covered in practice will be
mekomot hamegulim

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

>>> Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> 06/18/03 02:27AM >>>
> >and since baby (definitely in warm weather) tend to be dressed
> >according to different standards and in stretching or loosely fitting
> >clothes ... Should those areas be considered mekomot hamegulim?

RSBaruch wrote:
> According to the LOR I asked, yes (they are mekomot hamegulim)

So is it practice that establishes what is megulleh? Let me take an
extreme example: Yehudit is a future baalat tshuvah (we hope). Right
now, she is concerned with hilkhot se'udah, but generally dresses with
midriff baring clothing. She touches her midriff during her meal and
asks me whether she needs to wash again, what do I say? ... that since
she always dresses like that, it is a maqom megulleh? (note, Yehudit is
fictitious, created for the purpose of extrapolating your LOR's psaq)

L'zecher nishmas Rav Yochanon Motel ben Rav Ephraim and Moras Esther
Leah bas Rav Yehudah Yoseph B"H
       THE SALANT FOUNDATION
           Mussar - The Wisdom of Personal Growth
PIRKEI AVOS/ETHICS OF THE FATHERS __________________________1:15

[15] Shammai says: Make your Torah study your main occupation; say a
little and do much; greet everyone cheerfully.

The secret to success in human relations is to greet everyone you meet
with a joyous, smiling countenance. In this way, people will enjoy your
presence and your company, and you will have many friends.

Even if one has feelings of affection in his heart, if they are not
displayed there is no way for your friend to gauge just how fond you
are of him. Moreover, despite the warmth a person may hold in his heart,
if he does not express his love he is perceived as unfriendly.

Distinctly different from the caring person who does not show his warmth,
is the person who truly is unfriendly. Often times, negative emotions
cause a person to act with unfriendliness. When this is the case he
tends to be course, gruff, or even angry in his relation to others

By conducting ourselves with enthusiastic friendliness, we save ourselves
from being perceived as cold or angry. In addition, the Sages of Mussar
teach that our external conduct affects the inner self. Hence, the greater
magnitude of friendliness that we offer to our friends, the more we will
experience feelings of love within our heart.

The highest goal in human interaction is to strive to be a pleasing to
our fellow as possible. Our Sages advise, "If you want people to like
you - desire what you don't desire." Meaning, if you want to be beloved
by people - dismiss your will in favor of their will.

If you follow this path you will protect yourself from any damage that
might have resulted - had you shown them enmity. In addition, you will be
assured of many good friends; and all the goodness, peace, encouragement,
and joy that is engendered through cheerful friendship.

[Based on the commentary of Rabenu Yonah to Pirkei Avos]

[Email #2. -mi]

L'zecher nishmas Rav Yochanon Motel ben Rav Ephraim and Moras Esther
Leah bas Rav Yehudah Yoseph B"HL'zecher nishmas Rav Yochanon Motel ben
Rav Ephraim and Moras Esther Leah bas Rav Yehudah Yoseph B"H

THE SALANT FOUNDATION
   Mussar - The Wisdom of Personal Growth

Duties of the Heart\The Gate of Reflection

Consider the powers of the soul and their importance among the advantages
bestowed upon man: the faculties of thought, memory, forgetting, shame,
reason, and speech.

Imagine what condition a person would be if lacked one of these qualities.

Take memory for instance. What losses one would suffer in all his affairs
if he were unable to remember what he owned and what he owed; what he
had taken from others and what he had given to others; what he had seen
and what he had heard; what he had said and what had been said to him.

He would not remember who had done him a favor and who had done him harm;
who had helped him and who had damaged him. Moreover, he would not know
the way to go, though he had traveled that way many times.

He would not remember a science, though he had studied it
extensively. Experience would not help him; he would not be able to
evaluate things in light of previous events, nor would he able to foresee
the future based on the past. In short, he would be almost stripped
of humanity.

Forgetting also serves as an advantage to man. Were it not for the
power of forgetting, a person would never be free from melancholy, and
no joyous occasion would dispel his sadness. Events that should delight
him will bring him no happiness if he always remembers his misfortunes.

In addition, if an enemy devised a plan to harm him, he would be unable
to defend himself.

Observe how man has been endowed with two very different, opposite
qualities - memories and forgetfulness - each of which offers him various
kinds of benefits.

So, can anyone give us a report on Sunday's mussar program? Are there
tapes?

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

In a message dated 6/22/2003 12:40:45 AM EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> Kol yomay, when seeing the 'nun hafucho' mentioned in my chumash -
> before and after Vayhi Binsoya, I 'knew' it was an upside-down 'nun'...

> Yesterday I happened to be oleh letorah for that kriyeh and - lo and
> behold - I noticed that it wasn't upside-down at all - but rather back
> to front!.
...

> Anyone else have this misconception...?

Actually there are (at least) 2 Shitos, and see Keses Hasofer end of
Simon 15.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/22/2003 9:38:45 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Aharon asked Moshe Rabbenu to heal Miryam, because otherwise he, Aharon,
> as a karov, could not be metaher her. But how did she become tamei in
> the first place? And if she could become tamei because bemetzius she
> had tzora'as, then kol umas shebah ken yelech? I'm confused.

You were Michavein to the Tosfos D"H Ani Masgira Zevachim 102a, and see
the Maskil Ldovid and B'eir Bsodeh Al Asar. (what the Maskil Ldovid says
that she became Tomei by the Nzifah and Tzoras needs explanation if so
why is Hesger required).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On 23 Jun 2003 at 23:51, Micha Berger wrote:
> Assuming I bought into your assumption that the "sha'ar acharonim" of
> the ShT means rov as per the intro to the MB. 

That's what I understand him to be saying when he says, "gam beiarti 
bo ba'makom she'nimtza deios bein ha'poskim es maskonas ha'achronim 
l'halacha al kol din... u'b'shulei ha'y'riya patachti sh'ar u'shmo 
Sha'ar HaTziyun... u'b'makom she'raisi shnei deos bein achronim gufa 
b'aizeh davar, lo hayisi atzel ba'davar mi'l'chapeis b'chlal sifrei 
she'ar achronim liros el mi mi'kdoshim da'atam poneh l'ma'aseh...." 
(Towards the end of the hakdama).

> Lema'aseh, the MB itself
> (sans ShT) only takes credit for the first shitah -- stam MB keRama. :

I don't see that. The first thing he does is bring the Drisha to 
shlug it up. 

[email #2. -mi]

On 23 Jun 2003 at 10:02, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> If the MB were paskening like the Taz, he would say so clearly, such
> as by pointing out that "There is nothing gained by passing out the
> portions first, so why not be machmir?" as he so often does.

1. See my response to RMB. 

2. Then how do you understand "mah lo l'hafsik" (Sha'ar HaTziyun 69)?

> In sharp contrast, I note that the Aruch Hashulchan 167:30 cites the
> view of the Rama/MA as halacha, and does not seem to mention the
> Taz/Graz/MG at all.

True. We've also been down the road before of poskim today tending to
favor the MB over the AhS (admittedly I would likely have a better case
had the MB done this in a Biur Halacha) v'akm"l.

-- Carl

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

I haven't been following this thread be'iyun so I apologise if I repeat
previously posted materials.

I spoke about this and associated mattters to a young TC [future posek
IMHO] here. It seems that acording to the SA one should cut a slice
for himself, eat from it and then continue with the wife and others.

However he showed me the Zemiros Divrei Yoel (an excellent 2 vol
production - covering Shabbos and Yomim Tovim with halochos, minhogim and
Divrei Torah of the SR z'l) where it says that the SR used to cut 2 pieces
immediately - then he ate from his and sent the second to the rebbetzen.

In the footnotes there it quotes from a sefer that the Divrei Chaim z'l
also did so [al pi sod] - but gave to his rebbetzen even before he ate
his piece.

Also according to the Arizal, one should take a >kezayis< for himself -
but a >kebeitzeh< for the wife.

Regarding hefsek between handwashing and Moytzeh - he told me that
the shiur is 'kdei hiluch 22 amos'.
But that is only a lekatchileh and bedieved as long as there has been
no hesech hadaas - it's OK.

I asked him what is preferable - to wait longer than H22A - until the
family and guests all wash or to immediately make the moytzeh and not
wait for them a longer period? He answered that as long as there is no
HH - one should wait.

IRC someone here asked that if we are supposed to feed our animals before
ourselves, isn't it a kal vechomer that we do so for our wife?

I saw quoted beshem sefer Taharas Hashulchon - that ein hochi nameh
(though he was not referring to the motzi challah).

SBA

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:54:45PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: I spoke about this and associated mattters to a young TC [future posek
: IMHO] here. It seems that acording to the SA one should cut a slice
: for himself, eat from it and then continue with the wife and others.

Nisht Azoi (and yes, you missed this bit from our earlier discussion).

The Rama holds the mevareikh must eat before the others. As the MB points
out, this is consistant with his cutting for everyone, giving it out,
and everyone waiting for him. In fact, if you don't hold like the yeish
omerim (who the Shaar haTziyon tells us is the Derishah), the mevareikh
can be mocheil his kavod and they could even eat first. The issue,
according to this first opinion, is totally unrelated to hefseq.

-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"

I have no interest in seeing a debate on this issue for the gazillionth
time -- but I was wondering, for the benefit of others, if someone can
point me to a published piece summarizing the halacha on this issue.

Thanks
 -- Sholom

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
<<You were Michavein to the Tosfos D"H Ani Masgira Zevachim 102a, and
see the Maskil Ldovid and B'eir Bsodeh Al Asar. (what the Maskil Ldovid
says that she became Tomei by the Nzifah and Tzoras needs explanation
if so why is Hesger required).>>

Yasher koach, I'll look up the tosfos. However, since I never even HEARD
of the Maskil leDovid and Be'er basodeh, could you summarize?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:58:31PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> Lema'aseh, the MB itself
:> (sans ShT) only takes credit for the first shitah -- stam MB keRama.

: I don't see that. The first thing he does is bring the Drisha to 
: shlug it up. 

"Shlug it up"? You should have predicted my response. I see the MB as
bringing down three shitos. An explanation of the Rama's pesaq, and two
shitos that he happens to write as "yeish omerim".

Our disagreement boils down to whether the statement in the ShT that the
last is the shitah of the rest of the acharonim qualifies as the
masqanas ha'acharonim that he mentions in the haqdamah. Or whether the
text of the MB itself gives one shitah as normative and two variants.

I believe that leaning on the ShT isn't consistant with its purpose. As
you later write, it's not the MB or Bei'ur Halakhah...

:On 23 Jun 2003 at 10:02, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
:> If the MB were paskening like the Taz, he would say so clearly, such
:> as by pointing out that "There is nothing gained by passing out the
:> portions first, so why not be machmir?" as he so often does.

: 1. See my response to RMB. 

: 2. Then how do you understand "mah lo l'hafsik" (Sha'ar HaTziyun 69)?

As an explanation of the third opinion -- where you find the "69" in
the MB.

-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"

> I wrote:
> the word hafucha is a 'missnomer'..it means reverse NOT upside down
> 
> R' Kenneth Miller wrote:
> On the contrary, "hafucha" can mean "backwards" just as well as it can
> mean "upside-down". The misnomer is not in calling it "hafucha", the
> misnomer is in calling it "upside-down".

you are right....'hafucha' CAN mean 'backwards'....BUT it seems that
when the word 'hafuch' is used in 'Chumish' or in Chazal it is usually
to denote upsidedown..

for example..

in Breishis by Sedom 'vayahafoich' --meaning the 5 cities were turned
over i would venture to say that it means 'up side down'

the Maamar Chazal 'dahled nechnesu lehPardes'...one of them said 'oilom
hofuch rohisis' ...and he goes on to explain that whoever is on top here
is on the bottom there and vice versa..

In Pirkei Avous ...'hafoich bo' .. also means 'turn over'

MAYBE..MAYBE...in the case of the 'nun' we finaly find an example where
it is used to means backwards..

Simcha G

I just looked at the Leningrad Codex (in facsimile to be sure - i did spend 
a white night solstice in st petersburg three years ago and had wanted to 
see the real thing but this wasn't quite in my hosts' line of work and they 
couldn't figure out how to make it happen quickly) and the nuns are reversed 
in the sense that only the lower legs are backwards, while the top "yud" 
faces in the regular direction.  a cursory check of different printed 
chumoshim in my house (koren, breuer, artscroll, biblia hebraica, letteris, 
a variety of miqro'os g'dolos) had almost every variation except the one 
actually in the Leningrad.  There is a slightly older codex(OR4445)  in the 
british museum as well two or three others of similar vintage - and of 
course the keser aram tzovoh's b'midbor was burnt out in '47 -   but the 
leningrad is the only one to which I had easy access.   So - unless 
contradicted by any other of the very few pre- 1000 CE codices, we ought 
defer to this eidus.

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

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

RJBackon wrote:
> I was asked in private email what would be the Din of a man with
> a colostomy or with a urinary collection bag via a catheter re:
> tefillin. The Nishmat Avraham ORACH CHAYIM 76 #9 quotes the Minchat
> Yitzchak VI 11,12 and the Tzitz Eliezer IX 6 who permit use of a
> colostomy bag as long as it is completely covered and there is no
> odor. Ditto for the urine collection bag.

Quoting the same TE in a private conversation (IOW, I didn't double check the 
source), Rav Bleich told me that if it didn't come out of the anus, it ain't 
halakhic human waste, and is strictly speaking not even a problem if it 
smells. (but if it is unbearable, we may have to reconsider. the point being 
that the threshold is higher for colostomized patients)

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.

RJBackon cited a study that women are more likely (8x) to suffer from 
incontinence than are men, and connsidered this the reason why women are 
considered not to have a guf nake WRT tfillin.

I want to dispute this, while leaving RJB the chance to disprove me (he has 
all these articles handy ;-)).

Man is unique, separated from all animals, in his need to clean himself after 
defecation. This habit is seen accross cultures and is known not only from 
contemporary observation, but also from ancient sources. The Romans already 
had toilets that looked like our toilets (I posted on this a while ago, 
citing an article in Biblical Archaeology Review), and other cultures 
developed their own systems. We didn't start cleaning ourselves with the 
advent of toilet paper in IIRC the 19th century. Before paper, people used 
leaves, or even more likely, water (and still do, with the Israeli "bidet").

Thus, the idea that women wouldn't wipe themselves as soon as they dirtied 
themselves is ludicrous. Now read on.

Furthermore, AFAIK, the higher rate incontinence among women is directly 
connected with childbirth (as R Josh duly noted), and is in many (I hesitate 
to say most, yet am pretty sure that we are talking about most women) 
temporary, and can be remedied with so called Kiegel exercises that tighten 
the relevant muscles. Somehow, I have trouble imagining that women didn't 
intuitively do such exercises before Mr. or Mrs. Kiegel came along. I can't 
imagine a large number of women suffering from incontinence and not doing 
anything about it. Surely, there were well tested grandmother's techniques, 
probably similar to Kiegel exercises. Furthermore, incontinence may be 
temporary even without Kiegel exercises.

Peirush Rashi: I don't believe that close to 20% of women become permanently 
incontinent by the time they gave birth to their second or third child.

Also, the incontinence is related to urination, not defecation, and IIRC there 
is no halakhah that a few drops of urine in underpants prevent one from 
donning tfillin. That, IIRC, is only the case WRT feces, where the smallest 
quantity outside the pi hatabaat prohibits one from praying.

Lastly, one needs a guf naki for prayer, too. Yet, I have never heard of women 
avoiding anything but the shortest prayer for that reason. Many women have 
davened parts of sha'harit throughout the ages, alas perhaps not in Hebrew, 
but in Yiddish or Arabic (my maternal grandmother) or whatever their 
vernacular was.

Arie Folger

The issur of mei raglayim seems to be an issur d'rabbanan. That's why
drops of urine on underwear don't preclude a davar shebikdusha (Orach
Chayim 78:1) but do forbid saying a davar shebikdusha if the urine is on
an outer garment.

Tefillin require a guf naki (OC 38:1) and included in the definition of
guf naki is flatulence (hafacha) [OC 38:2]. There is also a nafka mina
between tefilla vs kriyat shema and brachot with regard to hafacha. The
main reason why women have a chazaka of NOT having a guf naki is the
MEDLINE abstract I posted that showed 2 things: a) a high correlation
between urinary incontinence and FECAL incontinence in women; and b)
the much higher prevalence (odds ratio of 8.7) of OVERALL urinary
incontinence in females vs. males. [Peyrush Rashi: women have almost
nine times the rate prevalence of urinary incontinence than males, and
in some sub-groups, e.g. post-pregnancy the rate skyrockets up to 70%].

Since even the tiniest amount of "tzoah b'pi tabaat afilu hi mechuseh
assur likrot l'divrei ha'kol afilu eina nir'eit" (OC 76:5), then al
achat kama v'kama fecal incontinence.

Josh

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:57:53AM +0400, Akiva Blum wrote:
: The reason why women are not encouraged is because we really wouldn't
: encourage anyone, except that men have a chiyuv, so minimum we require
: during Davening. That being the case, the practice has become that women
: do not put on Tefillin. Therefore, even if she wants too, it's too late.

This explanation is sufficient without any differences in zehirus WRT
niqayon.

It would also explain why Rashi's daughters (real or mythical) wore
tefillin. This notion of men only wearing tefilin as little as possible
was not as universally accepted as today. Therefore, women today might
worry about "as little as necessary" being "not at all" for them, women
then might not have.

However, it's not the reason given.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

RAM wrote:
> I do not see the MB as taking sides in this Machlokes. RCS takes Sh.HaTz.
> 69 to show that the MB prefers the Taz, but I see it (1) as a deeper
> explanation of the two sides, and (2) as an admission that the Taz would
> agree with the Rama if there would be a situation where the guests *were*
> allowed to eat before the botzea.

Rabotai, I stayed out of your argument and saw it develop. I was
stunned by the relatively extreme position RCS took, not allowing for
the possibility that his position may be supported by some but not all
poskim, and that whomever disagrees may have a point.

Let me elaborate with a ma'aseh rav. My RY from my HS years yeshivah
(not a HS yeshivah), Rav Yehudah Aryeh Treger, is a SIL of RSZA
OBM. After RSZA's passing away, he gave a eulogy in a BM in Sorotzkin
IIRC, and I was there. RYAT wanted to show RSZA's character traints,
and mentioned that, just having gotten married to RSZA's daughter,
at one of the first Shabbat meals, he cut the bread and first served
his wife, and then himself. RSZA did agree with RCS that the better
way to do things (IOW in line with more posqim) was for the blesser
to eat first and then to pass the bread to his family and guest. Yet,
in his humility, RSZA didn't tell his SIL that NO, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT,
DON'T YOU KNOW THE MB? IT IS A DEFINITE HEFSEQ! YOU ARE AN ILUY (true)
DON'T YOU KNOW THIS STUFF? AND I TOOK YOU AS MY OWN SIL? Instead, RSZA
merely mildly indicated that HE PREFERRED the other way.

IOW, I think that, based on the info my RY gave me, both positions are
reasonable (my RY is no am haaretz) and RSZA merely wished that his
familiy would be more maqpid on the more stringent position, especially
since his daughter was used not to take offense at being given her bread
a minute later.

Peirush Rashi (to paraphrase RJBackon): you both have positions that
may be defended, although RCS does have what would be considered in many
households and by many moreh horaah as the more stringent position. (we
already attempted to discuss in the past why stringency is usually in
the realm of ritual and not in the realm of interpersonal relations. May
it be time to ask the question again, perhaps?)

Now, you could interpret the story diferently, as RSZA trying the more
succesful technique to convince your SIL to change behaviour, but since
my RY is a TC in his own right, I doubt he would have followed RAM's
and RJB's technique had it been wrong, plus, the peirush Rashi quoted
above did partly come from his own mouth, during the eulogy.

Arie Folger

On 26 Jun 2003 at 1:53, Micha Berger wrote:

> The Rama holds the mevareikh must eat before the others. 
[snip]
> The issue, according to this first opinion, is totally unrelated to
> hefseq.

I think it would be more correct to say that the first opinion 
(assuming that you mean the Rama, the Tosfos and the Mordechai) holds 
that handing out the Challah to others is not a hefsek. 

But note that he says "aval mutar laseis" and not "yitein." 

[Email #2. -mi]

On 26 Jun 2003 at 1:47, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:58:31PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>:> Lema'aseh, the MB itself
>:> (sans ShT) only takes credit for the first shitah -- stam MB keRama.

>: I don't see that. The first thing he does is bring the Drisha to
>: shlug it up. 

> "Shlug it up"? You should have predicted my response. 

Ain hachi nami with respect to the Drisha. 

I see the MB as
> bringing down three shitos. An explanation of the Rama's pesaq, and
> two shitos that he happens to write as "yeish omerim".

Where do you see "yesh omrim" with respect to the Taz. He starts out 
"v'da'as haTaz...."

> Our disagreement boils down to whether the statement in the ShT that
> the last is the shitah of the rest of the acharonim qualifies as the
> masqanas ha'acharonim that he mentions in the haqdamah. Or whether the
> text of the MB itself gives one shitah as normative and two variants.

> I believe that leaning on the ShT isn't consistant with its purpose.
> As you later write, it's not the MB or Bei'ur Halakhah...

>:On 23 Jun 2003 at 10:02, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>:> If the MB were paskening like the Taz, he would say so clearly, such
>:> as by pointing out that "There is nothing gained by passing out the
>:> portions first, so why not be machmir?" as he so often does.

But you're ignoring the quote I brought from the Hakdama.

>>>"That's what I understand him to be saying when he says, "gam beiarti
bo ba'makom she'nimtza deios bein ha'poskim es maskonas ha'achronim
l'halacha al kol din... u'b'shulei ha'y'riya patachti sh'ar u'shmo Sha'ar
HaTziyun... u'b'makom she'raisi shnei deos bein achronim gufa b'aizeh
davar, lo hayisi atzel ba'davar mi'l'chapeis b'chlal sifrei she'ar
achronim liros el mi mi'kdoshim da'atam poneh l'ma'aseh...." (Towards
the end of the hakdama)."<<<

How do you understand his citing "she'ar achronim" (as opposed to naming
them) if he's not trying to bring a maskana?

What I meant by the Biur Halacha comment is that granted I would have an
easier case to make if the MB had written a long Biur Halacha analyzing
the shitos and coming to an absolute maskana ("v'halacha ka'Taz u'she'ar
achronim"), but nevertheless when he starts out "v'da'as haTaz" and
concludes "v'chein kasvu she'ar achronim," I understand that to be his
psak halacha (and in fact, I don't ever recall looking at that Sha'ar
Ha'Tziyun until I had to defend that position in this masa u'matan).

>: 1. See my response to RMB. 

>: 2. Then how do you understand "mah lo l'hafsik" (Sha'ar HaTziyun 69)?

> As an explanation of the third opinion -- where you find the "69" in
> the MB.

See above. Obviously, we're not going to reach a conclusion on this. 

[Email #3. -mi]

On 26 Jun 2003 at 8:48, Arie Folger wrote:
> Rabotai, I stayed out of your argument and saw it develop. I was
> stunned by the relatively extreme position RCS took, not allowing for
> the possibility that his position may be supported by some but not all
> poskim, and that whomever disagrees may have a point.

Well, I did concede yesterday that the Aruch HaShulchan seems to 
pasken otherwise.... 

> IOW, I think that, based on the info my RY gave me, both positions are
> reasonable (my RY is no am haaretz) and RSZA merely wished that his
> familiy would be more maqpid on the more stringent position,

As did the posek with whom RSBA discussed the issue. What can I say, 
I try to be a l'chatchila kind of guy:-) 

I would understand RSZA as taking the attitude of "k'dai hoo ploni 
lismoch alav b'shas ha'dchak." He certainly wasn't going to make him 
re-do the bracha! But even from your story, it's clear that RSZA (who 
was certainly no slouch on bein adam l'chaveiro) held that 
l'chatchila one should eat the first slice himself. 

In any event, it is clear to me that we are not going to resolve this 
dispute one way or the other....

-- Carl

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

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


[ 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         ]