Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 130

Saturday, March 27 2004

• Re: Hametz in the kinneret
• Re: Hametz in the kinneret
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• diet soda
• Re: Time for afikoman
• Re: Time for afikoman
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• Re: Walking down the aisle
• Re: Walking down the aisle
• Re: Walking down the aisle
• Re: Chazal and Superstition
• Re: The adoption of new practices
• Bracha on having a child
• Re: omek pshuto shel mikra
• Re: omek pshuto shel mikra
• Re: omek pshuto shel mikra
• Re: Is Shapiro's book "Limits of Orthodox Theology" academically flawed?
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• [Areivim] Re: Chazal and Superstition
• Innovation In Religious Paractice

In a message Avodah V12 #129 dated 3/25/04 "Shinnar, Meir"
<Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes:
> However, if the position is taken that any hametz falling into water makes
> the whole water supply hametz, it is hard to believe that there is any
> water on earth (perhaps melt a glacier...) that is not hametz (or safek
> hametz)...

Well, if the crumbs fell in the water before Pesach, they're botul,
right? So we just have to set aside before Pesach all the water we're
going to use that week. Fill the bathtub, buy gallons and gallons
of bottled water before Pesach, etc. Could be parnasah for someone,
maybe, storing all this water? Your mention of a glacier opens intriguing
possibilities--someone once had similar idea to bring water to desert. Tow
a glacier to a safe spot off-shore, sell the melt, etc. Some enterprising
frum yid could bring a glacier to New York, near the Statue of Liberty....

--Toby Katz

From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
> The bottled water presumably comes from lakes or springs,
>but how do you know that there is no bread anywhere on the beaches of
>that lake?? (I don't think the hashgacha is that extensive)

I think some are concerned about using bottled water, as the tanks used
to carry the water may have problems.

We have a new entrepeneur in our shul who has just begun selling water
in 15 litre bottles for home and office coolers. He has a special Kosher
Lepesach batch - ensuring only brand new containers are beng used.

SBA

On 25 Mar 2004 at 17:42, Micha Berger wrote:
> BTW, a get from Teveryah would clear up what halakhah considers the
> Kineret. From the usability of the Yardein as a mikvah, it would
> appear that the Kineret is a widening of the Yardein, not a bor,
> be'eir or yam.

If you want to rely on ma'aseh she'haya, I can tell you that I spent
a week at a field school on the Kinneret in the summer of 1972 and we
were told by the madrichim when we went swimming on Sunday that if we
loosened our bathing suits, we could be toveil in it. Ask me if any of
the madrichim were reliable poskim at the time (at least one of them
that I recall is today), and I'd have to say that I'm not sure. And I
don't recall whether the Rabbonim who accompanied us actually signed
off on this idea....

-- Carl

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

I hate to spoil the debate, but isn't this a mefurash mishna - one of
the ways of disposing of chametz is to be 'matil l'yam' (21a, see the
sugya on 28 that any river counts), and this mishna is achar zman issuro,
not just on erev pesach (see R"T on tos 12b). Hayitachein that chazal
advised assering the entire river or yam's water supply for pesach, or
that no one drank from those waters? Or that you can be mekayem tashbisu
by creating a big ta'aroves of issur?

I'ts mashma that the heter of tossing into the sea/river is not just m'din
hefker or bittul, but it completely obliterates the cheftza shel issur,
so that what remains would be similar to the ashes left after burning
(compare it to bittul of avodah zarah). We should applaud those who toss
bread in as being mekayeim the d'oraysa of tashbisu!

On another note - pshat in 'mashehu' is not a din in shiur (1/1000 or
whatever instead of 1/60), but that chametz is mufka from the whole
din bittul no matter what the amount, the proof being that rashi says
this is based on r' yehudah's shita that min b'mino has no din bittul
(its not dependent on shiur - there is just no halacha of bittul), and
min b'aino mino is just an extension of that. And even tos who argues,
it is only because we don't accept r' yehudah and this is all m'din
chumra d'chamtez, but in lomdus it is the same idea of being mafkiya
bittul (long tos on daf 30).

With respect to kol d'parish, 'nachbishinu n'naydei' is only on a kavua
derabbanan where the pirsha occurs 'shelo b'fanav' (tos zevachin 73),
but here where you know the chametz is dropped in and then seperate the
water, it is parush b'fanav because you are doing it. And even if you
don't see the chametz in the pirsha, it should be no different than
(l'mashal) a ta'aroves lach b'lach, where you would not be allowed
to separate off part of the mixture after leidas hasafek to create a
situation of kd"p. But in any case, I like the lomdus to separate rov
and kd"p. Isn't it muchrach from r' yehudah - he rejects bittul by mb"m,
but would ostensibly not reject kd"p, as the gemara brings kd"p in many
sugyos as a davar pashut with no choleik?

-Chaim

it seems that most of the kashrus agencies are not certifying products
with kitniyos shenishtanu--- the starK lists nutrasweet in that category.
it is interesting that they show OUP diet coke on their list of okay
products. is diet coke using another sweetener, or are they listing a
product that r heineman would not give a hechsher on?

On 25 Mar 2004 at 12:47, Micha Berger wrote:
> I would think that if you have young children, you have a much earlier
> deadline than chatzos! After all, for the seider to be a qiyum of
> vehigadta levinkha you really have to finish the mitzvos of the night
> before they're too tired to learn.

Last year, the only kid who went to sleep was the one who was too little
to understand. The one who was then 3-years old stayed up for the entire
seder. (I think he may have gone to sleep after Chasal Siddur Pesach -
I'm not sure).

> Now that I have teens as well, I'm less tied to this early deadline.
> But a few years back I was noheig kein.

AIUI the chiyuv of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim is on you and not on any
individual child. There is no chiyuv for each child to hear the entire
story. So it would be okay to let the younger kids go to sleep and to
keep going with the older kids.

Keep in mind that the older kids also have a chiyuv and also have to be
m'sapeir. I don't have a problem with that - my problem is remembering
to be m'sapeir something myself as opposed to listening to the kids the
whole time :-)

Rav Asher Weiss' shiur last night was about Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim
(SYM). A couple of things he mentioned which I throw out as food for
thought:

1. While you can learn Hilchos Pesach to be yotzei the mitzva, Rav Weiss
argued that Hilchos Pesach come under the category of "kol ha'marbe
l'sapeir" and not as part of the mitzva itself. For the mitzva of SYM
you should tell over the nissim and niflaos that Hashem did for us in
Mitzrayim (cf. the Ramban at the end of Parshas Bo on how learning of
the big nissim in Mitzrayim makes us appreciate the smaller nissim that
we live with day to day and realize that they too come from Hashem).

2. In the old days when Haggados were scarce, in most houses the Ba'al
HaBayis read the Haggada and everyone else just listened. He implied
that today, either you have to have kavana to be yotzei or you have to
read along with the Ba'al HaBayis. We do neither of the above - we go
around the table handing out paragraphs to each person. I never thought
that there was an inyan to READ the entire Haggada ALOUD other than the
Shlosha Dvarim and possibly Avadim Hayinu. Anyone else?

3. Speaking of reading aloud, Rav Weiss said that you have to be m'sapeir
b'peh to be yotzei the mitzva. Reading it with your eyes isn't good
enough. Even if R"L you are alone.

-- Carl

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

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:38:03PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: > Now that I have teens as well, I'm less tied to this early deadline.
: > But a few years back I was noheig kein.

: AIUI the chiyuv of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim is on you and not on any
: individual child. There is no chiyuv for each child to hear the entire
: story. So it would be okay to let the younger kids go to sleep and to
: keep going with the older kids.

Then we're in agreement. Nowardays I have this option, a few years ago
I didn't.

:      .... I don't have a problem with that - my problem is remembering
: to be m'sapeir something myself as opposed to listening to the kids the
: whole time :-)

My parents' seider, which was about my sisters, brother and I
repeating vertlach about the hagaddah that we learned in school (while
we each were bored through the others'), was actually halachically
problematic. Especially since the hagaddah was only read in a language
none of us knew!

I repeat a point I make every year -- Maggid (up to the first part of
Hallel) is vehigadta levinkha, not liturgy. Sticking to Hebrew is *worse*,
not better.

And, if one only has younger children and time is an issue, "Anglos"
are probably chayav to skip much of the Hebrew (rather than the English)
to stay within the time available. "It doesn't feel frum" is no excuse.

CYLOR now, before the rush!

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

>When chometz falls
>into food *on* Pesach, the issur is not based on taam, but is based on
>other reasons. The mixture is assur "b'mashehu", and it is not batel,
>"afilu b'elef". The focus of this thread should concentrate (IMHO)
>on the definitions of "mashehu" and "afilu b'elef".

There is a Yad Yehuda(?) that holds mashehu is only assur when it can
affect the taste See http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n011.shtml#19
for notes from a shiur that touched on this subject.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

From: "SimchaG" <simchag@att.net>
> theone.  From what i can see, there is an odity with this sefer in that
>the NAME of the sefer went through many gilgulim since it's inception and
>has NOT been consistent. in some editions it was called 'ohr yoshor'....in
>some editions it did not have the added 'derech seudah' part of the
>name..and so on and so on..
...
> does anybody know of any other sefer that is SO INCONSISTENT with the
> name?

 Interesting.
The Melitzei Eish names a number of his seforim - but neither of the
above...

> BTW the MaHaRam Paprish was a talmid of R' Yakov Tzemach.

IIRC the ME has other names.

SBA

From: "Kenneth G Miller" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> On Areivim, there's currently a discussion about various minhagim at
> weddings, and someone wrote <<< I can't believe that people here have
> some hava amina that walking down the aisle has even the slightest
> connection to Minhag Yisroel! >>>

> Maybe I misunderstood what he meant about "walking down the aisle", but
> try this: 
> "The reason why two shoshvinim lead him [the choson], one from the right
> and one from the left, is as we find in Bereishis Rabbah perek 7: Rabbi
> Yehuda bar Simon says that Michael and Gavriel were Adam HaRishon's
> shoshvinin." -- Taamei Haminhagim #959. ...

Of course the choson Kallah are accompanied to the chuppah.

My comment was about the whole parade [or 'formal procession'] that
seems to have become minhag America -
ad kdei kach, that we had a discussion about the RY who didn't agree to
join in for some reason.

SBA

On 25 Mar 2004 at 17:34, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstood what he meant about "walking down the aisle",
> but try this:
> "The reason why two shoshvinim lead him [the choson], one from the
> right and one from the left, is as we find in Bereishis Rabbah perek
> 7: Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon says that Michael and Gavriel were Adam
> HaRishon's shoshvinin." -- Taamei Haminhagim #959.

> Is there a way to understand that as something other than a formal
> procession?

Yes. Two people are bringing him (holding on to him on the way) to 
the chupa. It says nothing about what any of the surrounding people 
are doing. And it certainly says nothing about bringing the Kallah to 
the chupa. 

-- Carl

I quoted what the Taamei Minhagim says about shoshvinin, and asked <<<
Is there a way to understand that as something other than a formal
procession? >>>

R' Carl Sherer answered <<< Yes. Two people are bringing him (holding
on to him on the way) to the chupa. It says nothing about what any of
the surrounding people are doing. And it certainly says nothing about
bringing the Kallah to the chupa. >>>

As I already responded to someone else offline, I was reacting to the
comment that <<< I can't believe that people here have some hava amina
that walking down the aisle has even the slightest connection to Minhag
Yisroel! >>>

More specifically, I was reacting to the accusation that walking down
an aisle does not have even a slight connection to Minhag Yisroel.

Doesn't the concept of shoshvinin meet your definition of "slight
connection"?

So, over the years, we've added to the shoshvinin, and now the Kallah
is also part of that formal procession, and other people as well. Why
do you all thing that this is such a non-Jewish procedure? Maybe *they*
got it from *us*!!!

Akiva Miller

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> 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)...

And how did RAS explain Tumoh and Tahara legabe Kohanim/Tumas Meis etc?

SBA

On 25 Mar 2004 at 14:49, Micha Berger wrote:
> 8- Using particular sequences of pourings for neigl vasr and hamotzi.
> (A historical example, but at one time there was a switch from not
> caring.)

I think this one is different from the others you mentioned. It's the 
only one about which I might have a hava amina of a superstitious 
derivation (see the Meiri in the last Perek of Psachim on zugos). 

-- Carl

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

On Areivim, people had mentioned that <<< Shehechiyanu can be said at
the birth of the daughter >>> and <<< for boys he says to say Ha'Tov
v'ha'Meitiv >>>

R' SBA wrote <<< I have just checked my KSA [im Piskei MB] and see that
the MB says that if one had sons and was hoping for a daughter then
tsorich iyun if he makes a brocho... >>>

The ellipses there are not mine, but from RSBA's post. I think that
what he meant was: The MB says that if one had sons and was hoping for a
daughter then tsorich iyun if he makes a brocho when the daughter is born.

If that's what he meant, then I believe that he made a serious error,
and I made the exact same error. We did not realize that the very last
word of that text was the exact *opposite* of what we expected it to
be. I will explain:

The KSA we're talking about is at 59:5, and only mentions making a bracha
on a son.

There are several different KSA/MB's out there, and in mine (edited by
David Dublitzky) the view of the MB reads as follows: "If he has sons
and wants a daughter, then yesh l'ayen if he says a bracha on the birth
of a son."

Catch that? The first three times I read that, I thought (as RSBA did)
that it had said "yesh l'ayen if he says a bracha on the birth of a
daughter." But that's *not* the case.

The way I caught this was by looking at the source listed in my KSA/MB,
which points to Beur Halacha 223: "Zachar". In turn, that BH points to
MB 223:2. When I contrasted the MB and BH, they seemed to be saying very
different things, for the MB seems to clearly allow a Shehechiyanu when
a daughter is born, and the BH seems to leave it as a yesh l'ayen.

I'll admit that it's not impossible for a posek to hold one way in the
main text, and differently in the notes, but after reviewing it a couple
of times, the logic became clear. The MB does clearly allow a Shehechiyanu
on a daughter if that's what the father was hoping for. The BH is a
subtly different case: If a son was born, but (unlike the usual case)
the father was hoping *not* for a son, but was hoping for a daughter,
THAT is the case where the BH wonders if the bracha should be omitted,
because where is the simcha? His hopes were not fulfilled.

Akiva Miller

RMB wrote:
>           The idea that gray area must be a product of human ignorance
> or the imposition of multiple human models on a yes/no reductionist
> universe is *exactly* what I was trying to contrast our perspective
> from.

Well, it seems pretty obvious, even to the modern Western thinker, that
not everything falls in yes/no categories. Fuzzy logic and other models
gave us familiarity with partial truth. However, I state that even then
there are still mutually exclusive things out there, and that mutual
exclusivity applies to some interpretations of the Biblical text.

Arie
-- 
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.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:02:38AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Well, it seems pretty obvious, even to the modern Western thinker, that
: not everything falls in yes/no categories. Fuzzy logic and other models
: gave us familiarity with partial truth...

And yet the western thinker doesn't think that way. (The gap between
what we know and how we actually respond is basically the entire focus
of mussar. But that's a tangent.)

Perhaps it's relevent that fuzzy logic was invented by Lofti Zadeh,
not a westerner. Perhaps not. Multivalent logic wasn't invented until
the 19th cent, hardly the foundations of how they (and to too great of
an extent, we) think.

The west also started looking at catastrophe and chaos theories in the
20th cent. A shift away from reductionism and analyzing parts. Which
fits better with the all-or-nothing than analyzing interations.

Pre-messianic reunification? One can only hope.

:                                         However, I state that even then
: there are still mutually exclusive things out there, and that mutual
: exclusivity applies to some interpretations of the Biblical text.

Perhaps it does. I'm inclined to think it's only bepo'el that there is a
law of excluded middle, not bemchshavah. I found R' Tzadoq (Resisei Laylah
#17) quite convincing. I was only arguing for the possibility. As I said
about the pluralistic eilu va'eilu. In Aristo's logic, the possibility
isn't even there. And mainly, I liked RML's theme about there being
differing perspectives between Yefes and Sheim, entirely different ways
of thinking, beyond just having different philosophies.

That the Ramban argues for his position exclusively is no more a qushya
against this than noting that Beis Hillel similarly defended theirs --
and Beis Shammai didn't even think BH's position required addressing!
Believing a pluralistic eilu va'eilu in halakhah has to withstand teh
same question consistantly. One teiretz covers both.

A rav argues from within one angle; and while he acknowledge that the
same problem can be approached equally correctly from other angles,
he doesn't stand at both simultaneously.

But that explanation might be overly influenced by my living so far
into galus Edom. Perhaps we should say that the same teiretz, whatever
it may be, covers both.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:02:38AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Well, it seems pretty obvious, even to the modern Western thinker, that
: not everything falls in yes/no categories. Fuzzy logic and other models
: gave us familiarity with partial truth...

And yet the western thinker doesn't think that way. (The gap between
what we know and how we actually respond is basically the entire focus
of mussar. But that's a tangent.)

Perhaps it's relevent that fuzzy logic was invented by Lofti Zadeh,
not a westerner. Perhaps not. Multivalent logic wasn't invented until
the 19th cent, hardly the foundations of how they (and to too great of
an extent, we) think.

The west also started looking at catastrophe and chaos theories in the
20th cent. A shift away from reductionism and analyzing parts. Which
fits better with the all-or-nothing than analyzing interations.

Pre-messianic reunification? One can only hope.

:                                         However, I state that even then
: there are still mutually exclusive things out there, and that mutual
: exclusivity applies to some interpretations of the Biblical text.

Perhaps it does. I'm inclined to think it's only bepo'el that there is a
law of excluded middle, not bemchshavah. I found R' Tzadoq (Resisei Laylah
#17) quite convincing. I was only arguing for the possibility. As I said
about the pluralistic eilu va'eilu. In Aristo's logic, the possibility
isn't even there. And mainly, I liked RML's theme about there being
differing perspectives between Yefes and Sheim, entirely different ways
of thinking, beyond just having different philosophies.

That the Ramban argues for his position exclusively is no more a qushya
against this than noting that Beis Hillel similarly defended theirs --
and Beis Shammai didn't even think BH's position required addressing!
Believing a pluralistic eilu va'eilu in halakhah has to withstand teh
same question consistantly. One teiretz covers both.

A rav argues from within one angle; and while he acknowledge that the
same problem can be approached equally correctly from other angles,
he doesn't stand at both simultaneously.

But that explanation might be overly influenced by my living so far
into galus Edom. Perhaps we should say that the same teiretz, whatever
it may be, covers both.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:49:07PM -0500, Jonathan S. Ostroff wrote:
: In his recent monograph "The Limits of Orthodox Theology", Dr. Marc
: Shapiro writes that he is an "intellectual historian" who is searching
: for the truth and hopes to persuade "talmudists who at best merely
: dabble" in theology that the Rambam's 13 principles "were not regarded as
: authoritative either before his time or afterwards" [see the concluding
: chapter].

The notion that an "intellectual historian" is the relevent authority,
and that the opposition only consists of ""talmudists who at best merely
dabble" presumes his conclusion.

If he thinks his opinion of normative hashkafah is more relevent to
defining O than RYHutner's, RJBS's, R' Tzadoq's, R' Kook's, RAKaplan,
(and that's only a tiny sample from within the last century), or simply
didn't think about them, then his assumptions are wrong.

Torah is not decided by who knows more in the head, even if I thought
he did; it's by who knows more in the heart.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:41:11AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Emuna is what the Hovoth HaLevavoth calls a mitzva t'midi. If a possible
: kofer gets a psak that he's not a kofer and then visits another town
: wnere he is a kofer he gets lowered down a cistern to die (unless they
: follow the Hazon Ish). It neatens the problem, but it's hard on the guy
: who had gotten a psak that he's OK.

Actually, they'd have to rule him a tinoq shenishba even without the
CI. The CI generalized it to say that the post Haskalah kofeir is always
a tinoq shenishba legabei moridin, he didn't invent the heter in general.

After all, he was the product of a venue that taught that what he believed
was okay.

:-)BBii
-mi

SBA <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> And how did RAS explain Tumoh and Tahara legabe Kohanim/Tumas Meis
> etc? 

Spiritual Uncleanliness.

RAS does not say he has all the answers. But he volunteeres a possible
explanation of the term "Ruach Ra". He also volunteers an explanation
of Mazikin. In the case of the latter he explains that the description
of Mazikin in the Gemarrah fits what we now know about Bacteria (or
now that I think of it... germs is how he translated Mazikin). I do
not remember the detailed comparrison he made but it is published in
his book "Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind". IIRC, he translates
Ruach Ra as germs as well but I don't think he explained it seperately
from Mazikin. Perhaps he thought they were the same.

Tumah is a different Geder entirely and not related to Ruach Ra.
Ruach HaTumah is not the same as Ruach Ra.

HM

Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote [to Areivim]:
> "How much 'rootness'
> does an innovation need to become legitimate?"

> Let's remember that your own post referred to Nadav and Avihu, who took a
> very well-rooted concept, and designed their own version of it. If there
> is a parallel between korbanos and tefilos, I have a lot of difficulty
> seeing the difference between a korban that wasn't commanded and a tefila
> that wasn't commanded.

Teffilos are not necessarily "commanded". It is a Machlokes Rishonim
whether Teffilah is a D'Oraisa or a D'Rabbanan. But in any case Teffilos
as we know them today are D'Rabbanan. The problem with discussions like
these is that the scope ends up becoming too broad. But I'll give it
the old "college try". (...Not that I tried that hard in college...)

Within the parameters of Halacha there are certain areas of reshus.
The Torah tells us of voluntary Karbanos and mandatory ones. But the
voluntary Karbanos are permitted precisely because they are sourced in
the Torah. If someone wanted to make up a new Korban it would be probably
be considered Avodah Zara. For example, if someone wanted to sacrifice
a Korban on the Mizbeach for Yom HaAtzmaut (not as a Todah but as a
Chaggiga... and assuming for a moment that we were in a Tekufa that we
had the Beis HaMikdash) it would be assur. Also, If someone hates lamb
and loves beef it would still be Assur to sacrifice a calf instead of
a lamb for the Korban Pesach. Or if a Zar feels the need to do his own
Avodah instead of the Cohen it is still Assur, no matter how meaningful
the experience might be. The Torah tells us precisely who, what, when and
how... and what kind of Karbanos are permissible and when and what not.

To emphasize the importance of that precision, if one merely has a thought
of eating a Korban Pesach Chutz L'Zmano while doing one of its Avodos,
the Korban is Pasul and anyone who eats from it is Michuiv Kares... the
famous "Pigul".

I admit as many are implying that there might be some grey areas of
innovative practice. I am, as you know, not a big fan of innovation.
But if someone has such a need or desire it is important to examine the
source of that need or desire and then discuss it with competant Rabbanim
to see how that need can be properly addressed. Who is considered an
appropriate Rav? I will answer in the negative... NOT one who has any
kind of social or political agenda.

HM

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


[ 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         ]