Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 127

Wednesday, March 24 2004

• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Chazal and Superstition
• Re: Is Shapiro's book "Limits of Orthodox Theology" academically flawed?
• re: why chabad is eruvless
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• Re:Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• Re: SA OC Sha'arai T'shuvah 3:1
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: Chazal and Superstition
• Re: Rambam, Torah and philosophy
• Re: Rambam, Torah and philosophy
• Re: Chazal and Superstition
• RE: Chazal and Superstition
• RE: For Those Web Sites That Want You to 'Register'
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:50:01AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: With regard to your general point: rishonim contradict each other
: about all sorts of things. Our normal response is not to take sides
: by saying that both are legitimate readings of Torah, but only one can
: be normative halacha. We don't say shiv'im panim laTorah about heresy.
: By labelling one side of a dispute as heretical you are taking sides.

Why do you assume that we don't say 70 panim laTorah about heresy?

It can't be as messy as holding such plurality WRT mamzeirus.

-mi

I wrote:
>And what about when rishonim contradicted each other on issues
>of ikkarim? Both views cannot be "true", so (at least) one must be
>false and, according to you, heretical.

David Riceman wrote:
>You have committed a fallacy.  False does not imply heretical even
>though heretical implies false.

But when dealing with matters of ikkarei emunah, one considers the
other heretical. The Rambam would hold that X is heretical while another
authority holds that X is non-heretical, maybe even true. You are forced
to either always accept the broadest interpretation (halachah ke-divrei
ha-meikel be-inyanei emunah?!?), to choose sides issue by issue, or to
adopt my approach.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Hi all,

I am a new member and this is my first posting, so forgive me if the
topic has already been covered.

We all know that for primitive man myths and superstitious beliefs
played major roles in determining the behavior and values of their
cultures. Chazal in Talmudic times, of course, were still largely of
that milieu.

My question is now, is it heretical, or against normative Orthodox
thinking, to suggest that Chazal were to some degree influenced by such
thinking? When, if ever, can we be cognizant of the widespread acceptance
of superstition when coming across halachos, minhagim, or statements from
Chazal that seem to have no rational basis and can only be understood
in the context of their milieu?

I don't have many examples off the top of my head, but the admonitions
against discarding fingernails comes to mind, as well as statements
involving ghosts and haunted houses (churvos and shaidim and ruchos). In
a related category might be laws such as "negel vaser"--with the stated
reason to get rid of the "ruach ra'ah".

If one were to say that the words of the sages of the Talmud were all
divinely inspired and can contain no error, would the same apply to
later sages, and if so, which ones? Rishonim? Achronim?

IMO, if we accept that halacha is a legal framework with clear parameters
and logical methods, then halacha is timeless since it allows itself to
adopt to new conditions. But if we must accept rulings and statements
without rational basis, then there is the danger of modern society
rejecting it as ancient and archaic.

Yisroel Zucker

In a message dated 3/21/2004 3:49:07 PM EST, jonathan@yorku.ca writes:
... [none of body sent. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n125.shtml#03> -mi]

Thank you for beginning to speak out.Your points are well taken and
informative. I sent you this week's Midrash and Method as it has relevance
to this topic.

In my opinion, this battle will not be won on the battlefield of sources
and authorities for that simply embroils one in what academic scholars do
and do better. The real struggle is for hearts of a significant portion
of religious youth and it will be won by appeal to their loyalty, sense
of Jewishness and belonging to a long and venerable tradition of faith
wiht which they should not not wish to break. Therefore, while responding
to textual proofs is important, what we need to stress is time hallowed
acceptance of these principles, that Judaism looks very different with
them than without them and where tampering with them may lead us.

Regards, 
M. Levin

R' Sholom Simon wrote <<< The issue is _living_ and _experiencing_
the melachas. As someone once put it, there are a whole lot of Jews
in E"Y who live with 38 relevant issurei melachos. ... But, as far as
I understand it -- the main point is #2. Going through life trying to
avoid 38 melachos on shabbos is an imcomplete experience to life. >>>

Just wondering... Can anyone remember the last time they lived and
experienced any of these melachos? (Numbering and translation taken from
Rav Eider Vol I.)

4. M'amer - Gathering or binding sheaves
6. Zoreh - Winnowing
14. M'napetz - Combing raw material
16. Toveh - Spinning
17. Meisach - Weaving process
18. Oseh b' batei nirin - Weaving process
19. Oreg - Weaving process
20. Potzea - Weaving process
27. Mafshit - Skinning

Peirush: I'm all for the idea that people need to be familiar with the
concepts of Hotzaah in order to prevent accidents in a place where there's
no Eruv. But I think the idea of "38 relevant melachos" is pretty fuzzy
and needs more work.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 3/23/2004 2:17:29 PM EST, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> If one truly believes that "ma-she-hu" includes one portion in billions
> and trillions then everything is prohibited.

I think this is the basic issue. Has this ever been defined?

KT
Joel Rich

> The kinneret needs about 13cm until it reaches the top line. So far about
> 1.4 meters have already been pumped back into underground reservoirs and
> the claim is that during Pesach they need to continue pumping water into
> the reservoirs.

The problem isn't the pumping into the reservoirs -- but into the national
water carrier.

> 3. The filters would remove any noticeable piece of bread and so only
> a minute portion would go through the pipes and this would then be
> spread among many houses.

Filters don't remove "tam", do they? And there's no bitul of chametz
during pesach.

> If one truly believes that "ma-she-hu" includes one portion in billions
> and trillions then everything is prohibited.

How many grams is a "ma-she-hu"? How many Parts Per Million do we consider
a "Tam"?

Let's face it -- none of these bassar/chalav/chametz issues are measurable
in a laboratory -- so there's no justification to bringing it as an
argument against a minhag/halacha.

> In sum is this a "new" chumrah or has this been around for ever?

It's an old yerushalmi minhag to not rely on well water during pesach
because someone might throw bread into it during pesach.

Akiva

================
"Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is." - B.
Banzai

See Avodah vol. 6 #160 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n160.shtml#05

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> Second, R Kasdan, (IMHO) is seriously misunderstanding the gmara about
> the last eight psukim. The issue was not (and could not be) about who
> was the mechanical writer of the last eight psukim - a very minor issue -
> after all, moshe remained in full physical power to the end - but rather
> whether to whom they were revealed - did hashem reveal them to yehoshua,
> or did he reveal it to moshe - for the tanna who holds that yehoshua
> was the one who wrote them, the suggestion that they were revealed to
> moshe who then revealed them to yehoshua who wrote it down just doesn't
> make sense (except as an attempt to reconcile with the rambam, but not
> as pshat) - the problem the gmara has is the past tense of vayamot -
> and the opinion that yehoshua wrote it rejects the interpretation that
> this was binevua - therefore, moshe could not have said it - however,
> if moshe could have transmitted it, surely he could have written it.

I don't see the logic here. It seems to me that the problem the gemara
has is with Moshe having actually written, in the past tense, something
that hadn't yet happened. But Hashem could very well have told him what
*should* be written in the Torah about his death, and he could have passed
it on to Yehoshua, with instructions to write it down once it became true,
just as some people today plan their own matzevot. (It seems to me that
Moshe could even have written it down for Yehoshua, exact spelling and
all, and it wouldn't have been sheker, since the context would have made
it true. And as I write this a new solution to the gemara's question
occurs to me: perhaps Moshe did indeed write the 8 pesukim into his
13 sifrei torah, but with a note in the margin saying 'this is what
the Torah will say about my death'; once I am dead you may erase this
note'. That would nicely solve the gemara's problem, while retaining
the mainstream view that Moshe did indeed write the pesukim himself.)

RGS
> No. Even if the person loses entirely his "shem rasha" because he
> is a tinok she-nishbah, the views he espouses are heretical and may
> not be studied (except for those who have a heter to pursue those
> studies). Furthermore, a heretic may not teach because he might lead
> his students to heresy (see Tur and SA, YD 153 & EH 22). Presumably,
> this has nothing to do with a "shem rasha" and even a tinok she-nishbah
> would fall under these parameters.

The radbaz's tshuva dealt with a preacher who was teaching what was felt
minut - and he was dealt with differently.

RGS questions the relevance of my examples of MOAG to the censorship of
r Yehuda Hachasid. To take an example closer to the time of the psak
about R Yehudah Hachasid, when R Steinsaltz was accused o on the basis of
his book Biblical Images, RSZA's bet din paskened that he had to remove
certain passages from the book and the rest could be published - clearly,
there is a difference between requiring one to remove objectionable
passages, versus determining that those passages are actually kfira
(as rav steinsaltz is contemporary, the position that RGS holds - that
we hold some opinions acceptable for the past but not for us - clearly
didn't apply to him).

Meir Shinnar 

From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> Anyone know who MaHaRaM Poppers (assuming that is his surname) is?
> This Poppers would love to know :-). Thanks!

it's probably Rabbi Meir (son of Rabbi Yehuda L.) Katz Poprish, Zt"l. 
author of "Ohr Tzadikim". 
He passed away on 2nd day Adar in the year 5502 and is buried on Har
HaZeitim) He is refered to as MaHaRam Poprish...

the sefer is sort of a 'halacha and minhag' sefer similar to the Shulchan
Oruch H'ari. i have this sefer in my library...(and if i'm not mistaken,
it was recently reprinted)

Simcha G

RSG replied:
> it's probably Rabbi Meir (son of Rabbi Yehuda L.) Katz Poprish, Zt"l. 
> author of "Ohr Tzadikim".  ...
> He is refered to as MaHaRam Poprish...

Thanks! Googling on "Ohr Tzadikim" brought up
<http://www.thirdtemple.com/JewishTime/adar.html>... and
it also brought up
<http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/fleisher/chasidic/archives/haazinu62.htm>,
which refers to "Rabbi Mordechai of Kremenitz" -- I assume there's no
direct relationship between the two men.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

other than the same name of their seforim (Ohr Tzadikim) there is no known
relationship between MaHaRam Paprish and Rabbi Mordechai of Kremenitz..

BTW the full name of MaHaRam Paprish's sefer is Ohr Tzadikim vDerech
Seudah and is a halacha sefer. the Ohr Tzadikim of Rabbi Mordechai of
Kremenitz is a chasidic drush sefer aal hatorah

Simcha G

 From EJ:

POPPERS, MEIR BEN JUDAH LOEB HA-KOHEN (d. 1662), kabbalist of Ashkenazi
descent who was active in Jerusalem after 1640. A pupil of Jacob Zemah,
he became the last editor of the Lurianic writings. He divided the mass
of Vital's different versions of Luria's teachings into three parts,
Derekh Ez Hayyim, Peri Ez Hayyim, and Nof Ez Hayyim. Poppers' version
became the one in most widespread use in Poland and Germany.
....
He mentions as his teachers one R. Israel Ashkenazi and his father-in-law,
Azariah Ze'evi (probably from Hebron). During the 1650s Poppers spent
about two years in Constantinople. He died in Jerusalem.

Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> As every year there is a controversy over chametz in the kinneret.
> This year with Shinui in the government they refused to stop the supply
> of water from the kinneret during Pesach with the claim that there would
> be damage to the water supply of Israel.

> The kinneret needs about 13cm until it reaches the top line. So far about
> 1.4 meters have already been pumped back into underground reservoirs and
> the claim is that during Pesach they need to continue pumping water into
> the reservoirs.

Aside from the reasons you stated (deleted for brevity) there is the
fact that even a Mah SheHu needs a shiur. Microscopic particles have
no bearing on Halacha. This can be seen time and again whether it in
examining an Esrog for blemishes or examining vegetables for bugs. If
microscopic bugs were a problem we could never drink water because there
is no Bitul with a Birya which a single bacterium is and of which water
has many. Yet we are permitted to drink water. Those who are worried
about Chametz in the Kinneret need to get a life.

HM

Israel Zucker <izucker@diamonds.net> wrote:
> We all know that for primitive man myths and superstitious beliefs
> played major roles in determining the behavior and values of their
> cultures. Chazal in Talmudic times, of course, were still largely of
> that milieu.

> My question is now, is it heretical, or against normative Orthodox
> thinking, to suggest that Chazal were to some degree influenced by such
> thinking? When, if ever, can we be cognizant of the widespread acceptance
> of superstition when coming across halachos, minhagim, or statements from
> Chazal that seem to have no rational basis and can only be understood
> in the context of their milieu?

Welcome to Avodah.

Yes, we have been down this road before in different incarnations.

You cannot accuse Chazal of superstition in the classical meaning of the
word. AIUI superstition is tantemount to Avodah Zara. It is therefore
incorrect to say that Negel Vassar is based on a superstition. An
explanation of this particual Mitzvah was explained by my Rebbe, R. Aaron
Soloveichik. He stated that Chazal mandated that we wash our hands in
the morning via the Negel Vassar route in order to remove the Ruach Ra
which he (RAS) defines as bacteria (IIRC). RAS held that even though we
now have more effective means for doing so by using soap and water, it
has never-the-less been established by Chazal to do it in the proscribed
method and we have do not have the ability to change the Halacha.

HM

> That's STILL the cart before the horse.
> How does the Rambam decide what has been "conclusive" and what not?
> Isn't that the entire question: Whether to assume the philosophy is
> flawed, that it is not conclusive, or to assume one's understanding of
> the Torah is?

The problem is that the rambam, in his discussion, never uses torah to
assess whether philosophy is true - only once philosophy is questionable
on its own grounds, does torah reasons enter.

> What you inadvertantly hide behind the phrase "to the test" is that he
> considers the possibility of real conflict impossible. As he writes,
> "If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, 
> THE WHOLE
> TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE would be rejected, and we should be forced to
> other opinions." (RYQafeh: haysah nofeles kol haTorah!) Assuming the
> validity of A's proof would mean falsifying kol haTorah 
> kulah. Not some
> re-interpretation to preserve what's left.

I think that you misunderstand what the rambam is saying. It isn't that
the issue of conflict per se doesn't lead to reinterpretation - that
is a very difficult reading given the clear statement in the beginning.
Rather, the issue of hashem's possible intervention is so fundamental,
that one can't think of a reinterpretation that would preserve anything
meaningful - however, lesser degrees of reinterpretation are clearly
sanctioned.

As in iggeret tehiyat hametim (shilat edition p 360)
know that these promises and similar things that we say are parables -
our word is not a decree, we did not receive a prophecy from hashem to
tell us that it is a parable, and we did not find a tradition to the sages
from the prophets that will explain that parts of these statements are
parables. What caused us to come to this is our effort, and the effort
of every intelligent man from the few - the opposite of the effort of
the multitude: that most followers of the tora, what is beloved by them
and pleasant to their folly, that they will put the torah and reason as
two opposing ends, and will point to everything that seems separate from
reason, and say that it is a miracle, and will flee from something being
natural, not what is told about the past, nor the present, nor the future.

ie, the reason we can eliminate the problem is we can reinterprete maamre
hazal (and neviim) - not reinterprete philosophy...

Meir Shinnar

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 05:14:59PM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
:> That's STILL the cart before the horse.
:> How does the Rambam decide what has been "conclusive" and what not?
:> Isn't that the entire question: Whether to assume the philosophy is
:> flawed, that it is not conclusive, or to assume one's understanding of
:> the Torah is?

: The problem is that the rambam, in his discussion, never uses torah to
: assess whether philosophy is true - only once philosophy is questionable
: on its own grounds, does torah reasons enter.

I give up. I don't know how else to say: You're looking at the
post-resolution reinterpretation of the philosophical position and calling
it "questionable oin its own grounds". Of course, if the reinterpretation
is successful, he found a reason to reject the initial interpretation
of the data!

...
: I think that you misunderstand what the rambam is saying. It isn't that
: the issue of conflict per se doesn't lead to reinterpretation - that
: is a very difficult reading given the clear statement in the beginning.
: Rather, the issue of hashem's possible intervention is so fundamental,
: that one can't think of a reinterpretation that would preserve anything
: meaningful - however, lesser degrees of reinterpretation are clearly
: sanctioned.

You're overly limiting the second clause. He says this about ANY
reinterpretation that requires overthrowing major sections of mesorah.

Note that he says this clause would hold even if eternalism didn't involve
the full ikkar. But again, I'm tiring of repeating the same argument in
different words.

His words in Igeres Techiyas haMeisim doesn't deal with "nimnu
vegamru". Rather, he said "don't make an idiot of yourself by taking
everything literally". Much like the second kat of people WRT aggadic
stories, as the Rambam lists them in the haqdamah to Cheileq.

(Teh 1st kat take every story literally, therefore conclude the Torah
contains foolishness, and reject the Torah. The second kat take them
literally and therefore believe foolishness. "The third class is few and
far between, and can only be called a class in the sense that the sun is
the only member of the class of all suns..." (He didn't know about stars
yet, so take the comparison as he meant it.) "This class understand that
they were speaking parables, and you must study their words carefully
to get the meaning.")

-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"

In a message dated 3/23/2004 5:31:50 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> AIUI superstition is tantemount to Avodah Zara. It is therefore
> incorrect to say that Negel Vassar is based on a superstition. An
> explanation of this particual Mitzvah was explained by my Rebbe, R. Aaron
> Soloveichik. He stated that Chazal mandated that we wash our hands in
> the morning via the Negel Vassar route in order to remove the Ruach Ra
> which he (RAS) defines as bacteria (IIRC). RAS held that even though we
> now have more effective means for doing so by using soap and water, it
> has never-the-less been established by Chazal to do it in the proscribed
> method and we have do not have the ability to change the Halacha.

or astrology was viewed then as "hard science" is today & thus chazal
acted accordingly.

KT
Joel Rich

From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com] 
> You cannot accuse Chazal of superstition in the classical meaning of
> the word. AIUI superstition is tantemount to Avodah Zara. 

Why would superstition be AZ? 

According to Merriam-Webster's, superstition is:
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown,
trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an
irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature,
or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

That means superstition would include many common practices done by
many frum people. Various segulos can hardly be justified rationally,
but wouldn't calling it AZ be a bit of a stretch?

Which leads to a related question:
Can common segulos that have no apparent rationale be considered
superstitious? Can we say that about eitzos mentioned in seforim or
known to come from gedolim?

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> The only halachic argument I've heard in favor of these fake UserIDs is
> that the owner of the website doesn't actually lose anything. I would
> get something of value, but not at their expense. 

I'm surprised that the owner would need to lose something in order for it
to be wrong. What is the halachic source for that? AIUI, it's the same
as intelectual property. I can stipulate my terms for your benefit of,
say, my work or writing, even though you're not taking away the original
from me.

IOW, the owner actually does lose something: the benefit they would have
by getting your information.

Yisroel 

> Aside from the reasons you stated (deleted for brevity) there is the
> fact that even a Mah SheHu needs a shiur. Microscopic particles have
> no bearing on Halacha.

Two points:

1) "Tam" is less than microscopic -- yet it has a halachic existance;

2) The original piece of chametz HAS a shiur. It could be a very large
one. For example -- let's say that a TON of chametz was dropped in the
kinneret over pesach. Does that have a shiur? Is it botel? (We're easily
talking about 1 part in millions).

> This can be seen time and again whether it in
> examining an Esrog for blemishes or examining vegetables for bugs. If
> microscopic bugs were a problem we could never drink water because there
> is no Bitul with a Birya which a single bacterium is and of which water
> has many. Yet we are permitted to drink water.

The bacterium is microscopic -- and therefore not an issue halachicly. A
spore of chametz isn't an issue either. It's the loaf of bread dropped
in the well/kinneret that's the issue -- and the "tam" that results.

> Those who are worried
> about Chametz in the Kinneret need to get a life.

Instead of dismissing/insulting others for holding a different way,
why not accept/understand why they hold that way.

And, FWIW, they aren't doing it to "get a life" -- they are doing it to
"get an after-life".

Akiva

================
"Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is." - B.
Banzai

Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:
HM:
>> Aside from the reasons you stated (deleted for brevity) there is the
>> fact that even a Mah SheHu needs a shiur. Microscopic particles have
>> no bearing on Halacha.

RAA:

> Two points:
> 1) "Tam" is less than microscopic -- yet it has a halachic
> existance;

Bitul is based on Taam... or lack of Taam. If a piece of food is Nosein
Taam it cannot be Batul. That is how we have the concept of Batul
B'Shishim. That ratio of one in sixty eliminates Taam. If it didn't then
the concept of Batul B'Shishim wouldn't exist.

> 2) The original piece of chametz HAS a shiur. It could be a very large
> one. For example -- let's say that a TON of chametz was dropped in the
> kinneret over pesach. Does that have a shiur? Is it botel? (We're easily
> talking about 1 part in millions).

One ton? I'd like to see that happen. But even if it did, in the Kinneret
it would dissipate into particles not visible to the naked eye and would
not impart Taam. While it is true that Chametz is not Batul Afilu B'Elef
because it is a Davar Sheyesh Lah Matirin, that is only true during
Pesach and would not apply to particles not visible to the naked eye
and in no way imparts Taam in any case. Besides, before Pesach it IS
batul B'Shishim.

But here I admit my ignorance. If the numbers are such that there IS
Mamoshus to the Chametz in the ratio of one ton per Yam Kinneret, then
this would make the entire Kinneret Chametzdik. But I doubt that this
is the case.

HM:
>> Those who are worried
>> about Chametz in the Kinneret need to get a life.

> Instead of dismissing/insulting others for holding a different way,
> why not accept/understand why they hold that way.

RAA:
> And, FWIW, they aren't doing it to "get a life" -- they are doing
> it to "get an after-life".

OK. Here's a challange. I would like to see a list of any Poskim and their
Teshuvos that say that there is a problem with Chametz in the Kinneret.

Anyone?

HM

> Bitul is based on Taam... or lack of Taam. If a piece of food is
> Nosein Taam it cannot be Batul. That is how we have the concept of
> Batul B'Shishim. That ratio of one in sixty eliminates Taam. If it
> didn't then the concept of Batul B'Shishim wouldn't exist.

Correct -- but once that tam exists you don't need pieces of food anymore.

Boil a piece of meat in water in a stainless-steel pot -- the water is
fleishigs, as is the pot.

While boiling the steam is fleishigs.

Filter the water to remove any particles -- the water is still fleishigs.

Grind away the inner layer of the pot -- removing any particles there --
still fleishigs.

The *outside* is fleishigs too.

And how about those drops of milk falling on the outside of a hot
fleishigs pot?

> One ton? I'd like to see that happen. But even if it did, in the
> Kinneret it would dissipate into particles not visible to the naked
> eye and would not impart Taam. While it is true that Chametz is not
> Batul Afilu B'Elef because it is a Davar Sheyesh Lah Matirin, that is
> only true during Pesach and would not apply to particles not visible
> to the naked eye and in no way imparts Taam in any case. Besides,
> before Pesach it IS batul B'Shishim.

1) I specified over pesach

2) the particles were visible when first entering the Yam

> But here I admit my ignorance. If the numbers are such that there IS
> Mamoshus to the Chametz in the ratio of one ton per Yam Kinneret,
> then  this would make the entire Kinneret Chametzdik. But I doubt
> that this is the case.

So you admit one ton would be enough.

What about ONE loaf of bread? What's the difference between 1 loaf and
1 ton? I can still see both.

One slice?

How small can we go and have you stil admit that the Yam becomes
chametdik?

> OK. Here's a challange. I would like to see a list of any Poskim and
> their Teshuvos that say that there is a problem with Chametz in the
> Kinneret.

The assumption is to treat the kinneret as a public well -- and being
machmir with public wells is well-known.

KS"A 117:2 -- where a piece of bread in the well possuls the well water
for pesach.

Akiva
================
"Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is." - B.
Banzai

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


[ 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         ]