Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 097

Tuesday, February 17 2004

• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• Re: Yisro's advice
• Re: Waving at Candles
• Waving at Candles
• Re: Euphemisms and Idioms
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Preparation for Torah Study
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Yisro's advice
• Omek Hapshat
• RE: Waving at Candles
• Yom HaShishi in Kiddush
• Usage of the Hebrew word "ki"
• Re: Giyur
• Giyur
• The current state of Purim
• Looking for Chasam Sofer inside
• Re: Euphemisms and Idioms
• Writing style
• Re: wine and nachrios

I don't know enough about Meshech CHokhma (and Haksav V hakbbolo
who should be added to thsi list) to pontificate. However, form Dayan
Grunfeld's introduction to Hirsch, it seems that his commentary ( and he
claims also Haksav Vhakabbolo)was conceived as response to Reform. Teh
Netsiv is motivated to apply the methods of the Geonim whose Torah he
delved in to for many years. I think that I would do better by referring
everyone to some sources on these issues and the issue of pshat. All of
these are available on the web.

Yaakov Elman The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/ca.htm

A. Grossman, "Parshanut HaMikra" in his: "Chochmei Tzarfat HaRishonim"
(Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 457-506.
Y. Maori, "The Approach of Classical Jewish Exegetes to Peshat and Derash
and its Implications for the Teaching of Bible Today," Tradition 21(1984),
n.3, 40-53.
U. Simon, "The Religious Significance of the Peshat," Tradition 23
(1988), n.2, 41-63.http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/Revel.htm

M. Levin

I was thinking about Yisro and his advice "VeAtoh Sechzeh" - to MR .
> How come MR - or even Aharon or any of the other leaders of Am Yisroel -
> didn't think of this idea?
> And where did Yisro himself, get the idea from?

In fact, the Ramban explains that Moshe fulfilled 3 functions; he prayed
for them, he judged and he taught. Only the middle one could be taken
over by someone else.

M. Levin

In Avodah V12 #96 dated 2/16/04 , [RGDubin:]
>  Whence the minhag of "waving at the candles" before lighting the
> neiros Shabbos? 

You are not "waving at the candles," you are welcoming the Shabbos
Queen into your home by waving your arms towards yourself in a classic
gesture of welcome that even small children understand. "Come here,
come in, welcome!"

The source of this minhag I do not know, but I will quote someone--sorry,
I don't remember who--who posted to Avodah:
> Is this really how people feel? That immediately after Matan Torah the
> Jews were keeping everything in the Mishna Brura and Shmiras Shabbos
> k'Hilchoso?

The answer is yes! In fact, even BEFORE Matan Torah! I'm sure that this
minhag was started by Sarah Imeinu. How do I know? Because she was a
tzadekes, and Rashi says she lit candles--and I never saw a righteous
woman light Shabbos candles any other way.

Please don't tell me my logic leaves something to be desired, I don't
want to know...

 --Toby Katz

From: Gershon Dubin <>
> 1. Whence the minhag of "waving at the candles" before lighting the
> neiros Shabbos? (Interesting aside, he told of someone who asked Rav
> David Feinstein this question, and was told "nobody does that", only
> to be roundly contradicted by his wife who said that not only does she,
> but so did Rav David's mother)

Sounds simliar to the recent story about the Amshinover Rebbe not
realising that his rebbetzen shaves her head.

> 2. Whence the minhag to begin kiddush Friday night from "vayhi erev
> vayhi voker"?

Ayin Taamei Haminhogim p.137 besheim Tshuvas CS 1:10.

SBA

In Avodah V12 #96 dated 2/16/04, From: Kenneth G Miller
<kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> The phrase "giluy arayos" ...is clearly not to be taken literally. ... It is 
> a euphemism for [intimacy -mi].

> ...why we must ascend to the Mizbe'ach with a ramp
> rather than a staircase: Stairs would involve giluy arayos, but a ramp
> would not.

> Rashi explains that this can't mean "giluy ervah mamash" [but]it is "karov 
> l'giluy ervah."
...

Noach (Ber. 9:21-23): "VAYISGAL besoch ahalo...vayar Cham es ERVAS
aviv...vayechsu es ERVAS avihem...."

Gilui arveh here does seem to mean literal nakedness.  

OTOH Rashi does not understand it literally, and explains the gilui arvah
here in two other ways, both of which involve Cham doing something to
his father far more heinous than just seeing him uncovered.

> My second point is to suggest that, perhaps, the figurative sense is
> meant even in this case.

> What is the difference between walking up a ramp and walking up steps? I
> can't figure what it might be....
> ...the only difference I can see between a ramp and stairs is... 
> When one foot is on one step,
> and the other foot is on another step, the upper step is quite literally
> between his legs. 

> Could this be what the Torah is insisting that we avoid here? ...

> ..."Don't go up to My mizbe'ach by steps, so that you won't have sexual
> relations with it."

My main thought, after seeing what mental contortions you have gone
through here, is: clearly, you have never worn a skirt.

If you had worn a skirt--or a tunic, robe, or kaftan--you would know
that it is almost impossible to climb stairs tzniusdikly (sorry for
the neologism) from the point of view of someone/something (the stairs
themselves, the floor, the ramp, a camera) that can see under your skirt
as you climb. With every step up, the skirt lifts, necessarily.

If the skirt is long--and I believe the kohanim's begadim were
floor-length?--you have no choice but to hike your skirts up with your
hand as you climb the stairs, further compromising your tznius (again,
from the point of view of something under your feet).

If you don't hold your skirt up, you will step on it as you climb, and
you will quickly find yourself toppling over. If you have ever seen an
old movie with a girl in long skirts walking up a staircase, you will
recall that she held her skirts up in her hands as she climbed. Now you
know why. BTW when my daughter was little, she had a long nightgown and
did not know about the Scarlett O'Hara rule. As she climbed the stairs,
a little bit of the nightie got under her feet; with the second step, a
bit more; with the third--well you get the picture. By the fourth step
she was totally immobilized by the length of skirt under her own feet,
and had to be rescued by her loving (and hysterically laughing) mother.
If you have difficulty picturing the problem, I heartily recommend that
you climb a flight of stairs wearing a long dress or robe.

 --Toby Katz

> I think tha being Orthodox obligates a commitment to Orthodox doctrine
> which has been well defined over the past 200 years. A major part of that
> formulation is Torah MiSinai and this means that basically the Torah has

This assumes that "everything" in terms of Halachic development was
also given at Har Sinai. RHS pointed out that RSRH used this view of the
Gaonim to fight Graetz who claimed that the entire Torah SheBaal Peh was
invented completely without Moshe Rabbeinu even being given the basis
for future generations chiddushim such as R Yishmael's principles. RSRH
ascribed all halachic developments soley to human forgetfullness. RHS
mentioned that the view of the Gaonim was rejected by the Rambam. The
Netziv in Kidmas HaEmek to the Sheiltos points out that Halacha and
Chiddushei Torah obviously evolves because of the application of the
rules of interpretation by Gdolim in every generation. We also know
of many cases where a Beis Din reversed the psak of a prior Beis Din
on a Torah law - Nissuch Hamayim . We also know that while an Amora
generally does not dissagree with a Tana, there is no hard and fast
rules prohibiting such a machlokes ( see the comments of REW re "Rav tana
upalig" and his quote from R Chaim ZTL on this issue). We also are aware
that contemporary poskim of stature can dissagree with prior poskim as
well. Therefore, the assumption that everything was frozen halachically
at Sinai is questionnable. The issue posed re Dovid and Tefilin is one
of hashkafa, as opposed to halacha. One wonders what is the nafka mina
lhalacha of such a statement, as opposed to the ikar that the mitzvos
that we perform are unchanged .

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In Avodah V12 #96 dated 2/16/04, From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> The Chazon Ish in his Igros advises both:  davening properly enhances the
> learning;  learning well improves davening.

Rabbi Neal Turk, in a recent shiur about the place of E"Y in the siddur
(numerous references to E"Y in the tefillos; face E"Y when davening;
say certain tefillos according to the calendar in E"Y; etc) pointed out
that Chazal meant to teach certain lessons when they arranged the order
and content of the tefillos. His comment was that we should not just
daven from the siddur--we should learn it as a sefer in its own right.

 --Toby Katz

From: Kenneth G Miller <>
> Back to the original question...
> my point is that if one wants to invoke Miriam in a discussion of Kol
> Isha, it should *not* be expressed as "How could Kol Isha be assur,
> being that Miriam sang at the Yam?", but rather as "How do Targum and
> Onkelos understand Kol Isha, being that they hold Miriam sang at the Yam?"

I really don't think there is any problem here at all.

The Torah clearly states that first "...Vateitsenoh kol hanoshim
achareho..."
- all the women followed Miriam out [away from where the men were]
and only then: "Vataan lohem Miriam shiru laHashem.."

Besides this, the women also played their drums which would have helped
drown out the singing.

SBA

From: Gershon Dubin <>
> From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>> The Targum Yonoson on Vehizharto es'hem es hachukim vegomer.. [18:20]
>> translates the posukas Yisro advising MR to inform them of the 'tefilos
>> that they should davven in shul [!]', how to be mevaker cholim, to be
>> kover meisim and be gomel chesed,...and they should do lifnim mishuras
>> hadin for reshoim...

> Isn't the derasha "es haderech yelechu vah" a Gemara? And, isn't it Yisro
> only restating what MR was doing anyway, not advice to do something new?

Yes it is from Chazal [one of who was the baal TY].
But if the idea was originally Yisro's or MR thought of it first,
I don't know.
Isn't it possible, that just like MR needed Yisroy's advice on how to
set up the Rabbinate etc, he may have needed advice on Bikur Cholim,
Kevuras meisim.
And re the concept of lifnim mishuras hadin, could it be an extension
of his advice for establishing a judicial system?

Finally, Yisro's advice on tefilos in Shuls...
Were there Botei Kenesiyos Litefilo in those times???

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> ......Moses knew Torah better than anyone else ..... His father in law,
> Reuel, OTOH was an Oved AZ and even in his greatest moment of revelation
> ...his concession to God was only that He is the greatest of all gods. IOW
> he did not concede to God being the only Deity. Only the greatest of
> deities clearly retaining his status as an Oved AZ.

Lav davka.

See how the Targum Unkelos [18:11]translates it: 
"..Ke'an yodano arei rav Hashem v'leis aloh bar minei..."

And MR himself says [Devorim 10:17]: 
"..Ki Hashem Elokeichem hu Elokei Ho'elohim..."

And in Tehillim 136 [which we say it every Shabbos]:
 "Hodu l'Elokei Ho'elohim..Ki le'olom chasdoy..."

SBA

There has been a great deal of discussion at this site about pshat,
chazal and their method of interpretation. I think that an example is
worth a 1000 description. The Midrash and Method for Mishpatim takes
up the famous question of how "eye for an eye" can be said to mean
monetary compensation. I suggest that the Mekhilta engages in careful
analysis of two words in the parsha to come up with that understanding
as pshat. It can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/ I look
forward to comments.

Thank you,
M. Levin

>>  Whence the minhag of "waving at the candles" before lighting the 
>> neiros Shabbos?

> You are not "waving at the candles," you are welcoming the 
> Shabbos Queen into your home by waving your arms towards 
> yourself in a classic gesture of welcome that even small 
> children understand. "Come here, come in, welcome!"

You have explained the physical dimension of the phenomena, but you did
not explain the spiritual dimension of this action.

When you circle the lights with your hands, you are also taking the
kedusha of the flame and bringing it towards you. With this kedusha you
are accepting Shabbat not only in your head but helping to bring the
added kedusha of Shabbat into your aura.

I think that this may be something that one must be a woman to understand.

 --Rena 

SBA <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>> 2. Whence the minhag to begin kiddush Friday night from "vayhi erev
>> vayhi voker"?

> Ayin Taamei Haminhogim p.137 besheim Tshuvas CS 1:10.

IIRC the CS says that begining Yom HaShihi is to complete the Roshei
Tevos of the Shem Havaya:

(Y)om (H)ashishi, (V)ayechulu (H)ashamyim...

Most Poskim say that we should start Veyhi Erev which is the beginning
of that Pasuk because of the Halacha of Kol D'Lo Pasik Moshe, Anan
Lo Paskinan.

HM

Is anyone aware of examples from Tanach of the word "ki" being used in
the sense of "in order to," rather than as "for" or "because"?

The question came up this past Shabbat regarding the phrase in Yitro
"ki li kol ha'aretz."

Many thanks!

Amirom Singer
msinger@uchicago.edu

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
>I think tha being Orthodox obligates a commitment to Orthodox doctrine
>which has been well defined over the past 200 years. A major part of that
>formulation is Torah MiSinai and this means that basically the Torah has
>not changed. That is not to say that there were no Rabbinic enactments. It
>does mean that barring that as derived out of the Talmud, we do assume that
>Dovid Hamelech wore tefillin. The rules of geirus may have been different
>and format in Yevamos 47 may be Rabbinic. However, the derivation of
>tevila, mila and korban in Temura 9 is from
>pesukim. The point can be argued on the technical basis and using talmudic
>method but arguing it as was done above puts us into the Conservative
>territory, in my opinion. Just as Orthodox has been well defined over
>the past 200 years, so has Conservative. Historical approach is basically
>Conservative theology.

The above pronouncement is problematic as it stands. It can be understood
in several ways and should be clarified. Which of the following points
was intended?

1) We should strongly reject the belief that yiddishkeit is transient
and that all aspects are dismissable because they are only products of
specific historical conditions.

2) Because of the attacks of Reform Conservative etcetra over the last
200 years we need to take an extreme stance in public discourse and
deny that changes ever occurred, can occur or will occur. However in non
confrontational situations the validity of the question of change over
time is totally legitimate. Since this is a public forum the extreme
stance needs to be maintained.

3) Yeshiva education - as response to the Reform and Conservative
attacks over the last 200 - encourages a person not to think about
change, or historical reality. Therefore Orthodox Jews are obligated
in all circumstances not the think in these terms so they won't be
influenced. The sole exception being where there is a clearly stated
gemora indicating change occurred.

I think we would all agree with #1. The issue is whether you meant 2 or 3?

          Daniel Eidensohn

>This assumes that "everything" in terms of Halachic development was
>also given at Har Sinai. RHS pointed out that RSRH used this view of the
>Gaonim to fight Graetz who claimed that the entire Torah SheBaal Peh was
>invented completely without Moshe Rabbeinu even being given the basis
>for future generations chiddushim such as R Yishmael's principles. RSRH
>ascribed all halachic developments soley to human forgetfullness. RHS
>mentioned that the view of the Gaonim was rejected by the Rambam. The
>Netziv in Kidmas HaEmek to the Sheiltos points out that Halacha and
>Chiddushei Torah obviously evolves because of the application of the
>rules of interpretation by Gdolim in every generation. We also know
>of many cases where a Beis Din reversed the psak of a prior Beis Din
>on a Torah law - Nissuch Hamayim . We also know that while an Amora
>generally does not dissagree with a Tana, there is no hard and fast
>rules prohibiting such a machlokes ( see the comments of REW re "Rav tana
>upalig" and his quote from R Chaim ZTL on this issue). We also are aware
>that contemporary poskim of stature can dissagree with prior poskim as
>well. Therefore, the assumption that everything was frozen halachically
>at Sinai is questionnable. The issue posed re Dovid and Tefilin is one
>of hashkafa, as opposed to halacha. One wonders what is the nafka mina
>lhalacha of such a statement, as opposed to the ikar that the mitzvos
>that we perform are unchanged

As often in the past, I did not express myself clearly. The conflict that
I experience every time I feel compelled to respond to a complicated post
is: do I write an essay or do I try to encompass my points in careful
formulation and wording. I don't have the time to do the first but I
do not do the second well either. So I apologise in advance. May be I
should not respond if I can't do it right, but Torah insists on being
let out. So here we go-

I can write a 30 page essay of this issue but I regretfully must do with
a summary instead, and without the desired quotations. The Torah that
we received can be divided into:
1. Written Torah given word-for-word at Sinai. There is a debate about
whether a few Rishonim conceive of short editorial comments inserted later
under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh here and there; there is also debate
whether that view, even if incorrect, would be now considered apikorsus.
2. Definitions of terms. What is cherem, nezek, yerusha, prayer,totafos,
esrog etc etc. Clearly, these definitions needed to be present from the
inception of the written text.
3. 13 middos of interpretation. There is a machlokes among rishonim if
all of them or only some of them are from Moshe, whether all of these
derivations or some of them are asmakhtos to sinaitic laws, mostly of
the first class.
4. Halacha L Moshe Misinai. Except for a few exceptions they really are
from Sinai (see Bartenure CH. 2 or Terumos for one). These are according
to the Rambam never subject to machlokes, but Chavas Yair counts 94
that are.

Now to classic Conservative theology. It was at least formulated by
significant scholars, such as Z. Frankel, S. Schechter etc and it is
worth a consideration and responde in Talmud Torah terms which it did
in fact receive. Contemporary conservative treatments of these matters
leave much to be desired in the scholarship department and some of it is
pure drivel. It pretty much left 1 alone, although tacitly assuming the
second view expressed there-in. It did not address 2 much. It assumed
that 13 middos are Rabbinic and it radically extended the Bartenura's
view to all or the majority of HLMS. It also felt no constraint to the
power of precedent and minhag and did not concern itself with the factor
of Yiras Shamiam or the effect that these views had on Jewish masses
and their own commitment to observance.

In very broad strokes, that it is what I meant to say but did not
effectively do.

M. Levin

[It was asked on Areivim:]
> What is wrong?  How did we lose Purim?

We forgot that "no joy is greater or more glorious than the joy of
gladdening the hearts of the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the
strangers."

I'd recommend that everyone read Rambam Hilkhot Megillah Ch. 2, Halakhot
15-17:

   Halakhah 15

   What does the obligation to serve this meal entail? One should eat
   meat and in general have as fine a repast as his means would allow,
   and drink wine until it overcomes him and makes him fall asleep.
   Similarly, one should send to a friend two portions of meat, or
   two kinds of cooked food, or two species of any other comestible.
   For when Scripture says, And of sending portions to one another (Esther
   9:22), it implies that two portions should be sent to one person;
   and whoever increases his sending of gifts to friends is praiseworthy.
   If one has nothing to send, he should make an exchange with a friend,
   each sending his own meal to the other, in order to fulfill the duty
   of sending portions to one another.

   Halakhah 16

   It is also one's duty to distribute charity to the poor on Purim day,
   "the poor" meaning not less than two persons; each should be given
   a separate gift-money, a cooked dish, or some other comestible.
   For when Scripture says, And gifts to the poor (Esther 9:22), it
   implies at least two gifts to two poor persons. No investigations
   should be made of applicants for such Purim money, rather it should
   be given to anyone who stretches out his hand. Nor may Purim money
   be diverted to any other charitable purposes.

   Halakhah 17

   It is preferable to spend more on gifts to the poor than on the
   Purim meal or on presents to friends, for no joy is greater or
   more glorious than the joy of gladdening the hearts of the poor,
   the orphans, the widows, and the strangers. Indeed, he who causes the
   hearts of these unfortunates to rejoice emulates the Divine Presence,
   of whom Scripture says, To revive the spirit of the humble, and to
   revive the heart of the contrite ones (Isaiah 57:15).

For the past few years I've passed out a source sheet I made with these
materials at the megillah reading. At that point, when people think about
how much they've spent on mishloach manot, they still have a chance to
make sure that their matanot la-evyonim exceeds their mishloach manot
and seudah expenses.

If anyone would like a source sheet suitable for distribution on this
issue (and can deal with MS Word with Hebrew files), please be in contact
with me.

Kol Tuv,
David Roth

Heard in a drush on Shabbas in the name of the Chasam Sofer: question
was how the goyim could have gotten the Torah if they said yes to the
question asked (Mechilta) whereas the Yiddin had to go through Mitzrayim
and be forced. Answer was a story about a father who wanted one son to
inherit so he taught him only about working the fields so he could be
the only one to inherit.

Where is this inside? The person said in the Drashos, maybe?

Chaim
hgschild@yahoo.com

I asked for examples of where the phrase "giluy arayos" -- or other
grammatical forms, such as "lo tigaleh ervas'cha" at the end of Yisro
-- might be meant literally ("being naked") rather than as a euphemism
for intimacy.

R"n Toby Katz suggested <<< Noach (Ber. 9:21-23): "VAYISGAL besoch
ahalo...vayar Cham es ERVAS aviv...vayechsu es ERVAS avihem...." Gilui
arveh here does seem to mean literal nakedness.>>>

Good try, but all three of those are in separate pesukim. The phrase
"giluy arayos" does not appear here. Even in the middle one, "vayar ervas"
is not necessarily the same as if it had said "vayegaleh ervas".

(For example, if I had asked for an example of where the phrase "sleeping
together" was used literally, a citation of "lying together" would not
work; I'd want something like "they slept together that night, A in the
top bunk and B in the bottom one.")

[Email #2. -mi]

I asked <<< What is the difference between walking up a ramp and walking
up steps? I can't figure what it might be....>>>

R"n Toby Katz responded <<< But my main thought, after seeing what mental
contortions you have gone through here, is: clearly, you have never worn
a skirt. ... If the skirt is long--and I believe the kohanim's begadim
were floor-length?--you have no choice but to hike your skirts up with
your hand as you climb the stairs, further compromising your tznius
(again, from the point of view of something under your feet). ...>>>

Yes, you're correct, I've never worn such a skirt, and from the occasional
long bathrobe that I *have* worn, I totally agree and understand what
you're saying. But --

First, as Rashi points out, the kohen is wearing pants under the outer
garment anyway, so the mizbe'ach never actually sees anything, but (as
Rashi also says) that's irrelevant because we want to avoid even being
"close" to indecency.

Second, to avoid tripping on the skirt, you don't need to hike it up
any higher than the ankles. But that too is irrelevant, because even
such a small amount of hiking would be "close" to indecency.

However, I still maintain that the rise of each step on the staircase
might be made small enough that the skirt does *not* need to be hiked
up at all, in which case there's no difference between the stairs and
the ramp. Specifically, if the skirt does reach all the way to the floor,
then it would have to be hiked even on a ramp, or even on a level surface,
so therefore we know that the skirt did *not* reach to the floor, and
we simply make the rise of each step shorter than the distance from the
bottom of the skirt to the floor.

Therefore, it seems to me that if the "giluy ervah" here cannot relate
to hiking up the skirt, because hiking is dependent on the steepness of
the climb and the distance from the bottom of the skirt to the floor,
and *not* whether the climb is done on a ramp or a staircase. If the
climb is steep and the skirt is close to the floor, then you have to
have to hike it whether it is a stairs or a ramp. If the climb is shallow
or the skirt ends far from the floor, then you *don't* have to hike it,
whether it is a stairs or a ramp.

One might suggest that in all cases, a ramp allows one to sort of
"shuffle" along without putting much distance between the legs at all,
and that this cannot be done even on a very shallow staircase. But
according to the Mishna (Yoma 2:1) the kohanim used to "run up the ramp",
literally racing each other to the top, and this would seem to preclude
this sort of "shuffling".

If the word "ratz" in that Mishna means anything even similar to what
we mean in English by the word "run", then they *did* put significant
distance between their legs, and the hiking described by R"n Katz would
be dependent only on the steepness of the climb (and length of the skirt),
and *not* on the stairs/ramp construction.

Summary: I still think that a staircase is *not* more capable of seeing
the kohen's ervah than a ramp is, but a staircase *does* enter between
the kohen's legs in a way that a ramp cannot.

Akiva Miller

I wish to offer an apology to those who were offended by some of my recent
posts. Some good friends clued me to the fact that some of my posts may be
perceived as pedantic, slamming and insensitive to people who were simply
seeking clarifications or hesitantly seeking information. To a degree this
is due to my poor adjustment to the medium of the e-mail. I very much
appreciate that this was pointed out to me and I offer a public apology
to those who cared to let me know and to those who silently bore it.

I hope to be able to do better in the future.

M. Levin

"SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> IIRC, the Tzelemer Rov shlita, when he was here told us that
> simply by a nachri touching the bottle - it doesn't become unacceptable.
> [Again IIRC,] it must be both uncovered and also have been moved/shaked
> [shich'shuch?].
> I presume that he was not being mechadesh any halocho here -
> but simply telling it according the the SA.

See YD 124:11, Rema 124:24, and Shach 124:71

> No doubt hamachmir tovoy olov brocho
> [there are those who will not make kiddush on wine seen by a nachri.]

That's based on the Shelah, and it's only for making kiddush, not for
drinking.

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                        potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                        before the war.                         - David Kay

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


[ 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         ]