Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 135

Thursday, April 1 2004

• kosher bittul of kitniyos
• Re: Avodah V12 #133
• Re: Walking down the aisle
• R. Elyashiv on pesach
• R. Elyashiv on pesach
• diet soda
• Re: What is the problem with cologne and packing peanuts on Pesach?
• Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• Re: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• Vehigadta levincha
• Re: diet soda
• Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:13:08 -0600
• RE:Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• RE: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• RE: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• RE: R. Elyashiv on pesach
• Re: G-d's existence
• Re: G-d's existence
• Re: Maavir Sidra or Daf Yomi??
• Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum

Is there any truth to the report that kosher agencies do not provide
Pesach certification to products containing even traces of kitniyos?
If this is true, how can they disregard and perhaps even be seen to be
legislating against the Halocha of bittul? I suppose, if they were to
indicate that these things are kosher relying on bittul but they wish
not to provide certification, it might be OK. However, they seem to
indicate that nothing but that which bears a reliable certification
should be consumed. Chocolate containing lecithin is a good example,
lecithin is certainly not a majority ingredient and is not discernible
and should be OK for Pesach.

Kenneth G Miller writes:
> The bottom line is that one *can* tell it to himself, in which case,
> the others can tell it to themselves as well. So how are they yotzay
> when I read it to them?

In an article in HaDarom, a number of years ago, I pointed out that,
based on the first 2 halachot of the Rambam, chapter 7 of Hilkhot
Chametz uMatzah, there are really 2 dinim in the mitzvah of SY"M. The
first is based on the pasuk, Zachor et hayom, and the second, Ve-higadta
le-vinkha. The first, like kiddush hayom, is shevach to HKB"H, the second
is educational in nature. There are many nafka minas le-halakhah:
1. Kol haMarbeh applies only to shevach, and not Ve-higadta le-vinkha
(here, tzimtzum may be the best).
2. The Haggadh text is for shevach; the content of Ve-higadta le-vinkha
must be appropriate for each child.
3. In shevach, Moshe Rabbeinu is not mentioned, in Ve-higadta le-vinkha,
he might be. (See Rambam's answer to the chacham.)
4. Matchilin begnut etc. may apply only to shevah (mimizrach shemesh ad
mevo'o...), but not necessarily to Ve-higadta le-vinkha.
5. Shomei'a ke-oneh may work for shevach, it might not for Ve-higadta
le-vinkha, which may be a chovat gavra not fulfilled by appropriating
another's
words.

Of course, there is much more to these arguments, a"sh.

In addition, it is because there are 2 dinim, there remains an obligation
of SY"M even if there are no children present and even if one is alone.

Mark Dratch

RCS wrote:
> NO. The chosson walks out with the shoshvinim and everyone else follows
> BEHIND THEM (or at their side or in front of them in a general ba'al'a'gan
> which is what this sometimes deteriorates into, and which is why many
> Americans don't like it). There is NO AISLE. Outside of North America,
> and some North Americans marrying in Israel, no one has an aisle.

Since some people would likely benefit from some eyewitness accounts,
let me state that this description matches what I have seen at many
weddings in Antwerp, London, Basel and Israel.

Now, lest you discredit the aisle altogether, let me tell you that in
all those places I also saw aisles, kind of. The Maharil writes that for
first marriages, one holds the 'huppah in shul; the Ramo EhE 61 mentions
the now most well known minhag of making the 'huppah under the stars of
heaven. In fact, the Kehal Adas Jeschurun Basel (a.k.a. IRG Basel, the
small local 'Hareidi community) reportedly tried to make both possible by
having a retractable roof in their synagogue sanctuary. I did not check,
not all their weddings happen in shul (none since I came, they were all
in hotels, with no aisle), nor did I ask Rav Snyders, their Rav.

Anyway, those who hold by the minhag of making weddings in shul (this
was a real shocker to me, until I learned those minhaggim and dinim. I
used to think that this was a concession to Reform, but it is a genuine
old minhag), obviously have two things that are common in America and
often criticized: an aisle (or two or more, depending on the layout of
the shul) and seats for the participants.

All the best,
A kushern in frailikhn Paisse'h (in my old accent;-)),

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.

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
> 33 One needs to finish maggid and say the second beracha on wine within
> 72 minutes of kiddush. If maggid takes longer than one should stop and
> make the second beracha and then continue with maggid
> (I don't think that was the minhag of most raabanim)

Could he be talking l'shitas ha'Mechabeir that you don't make a bracha
on the second and fourth kosos?>>

I read it as making a beracha ACHARONA on the first kos due to hefsek
(hence the shiyur of 72 minutes).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
<<But you ought to be able to get around that problem by drinking a
reviis at Kiddush because yayin sa'eed. (Agav urcha to a certain offlist
discussion, I learned that from my brother in law who uses drinking a
reviis of wine to be yotzei the daytime kiddush b'makom seuda on Shabbos
and Yom Tov during Pesach when he does not eat mezonos).>>

I often do that on a regular Shabbos to avoid problems of kevias se'uda
on mezonos (and achila gasa<g>). The ace in the hole is that RMF holds
that if you were not yotze kiddush bemkom se'udah you simply make kiddush
over, but you've done nothing wrong.

<<That's why I suspect it's l'shitas ha'M'chabeir, who holds not to make
a bracha on the second cup.>>

See my explanation re: beracha acharona, separate post.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
<<I don't know. But I can tell you that Rav Landau does not give a Pesach
hechsher to Diet Coke here, and I don't think the Badatz EC gives one
to Pepsi Max either.>>

The OU holds that the process whereby the artificial sweetener is "grown"
on a substrate of kitniyos makes it less of a derivative of kitniyos than,
say, corn oil. Obviously, not all agree to this chiluk.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Arie Folger wrote:
>Sorry to be a spoiler. Sikhah keakhilah is only for oil (of Trumah),
>not for hil. Pessa'h....

not so simple what sikhah keakhilah applies to.
see this previously discussed article about kosher soap.
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5764/5764winter/LEGALEAS.PDF

RAM wrote:
> I can see how a posek might require Hamotzi within 72 minutes of
> Kiddush, because of Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom Seudah....

I don't think a larger gap between kiddush and the seudah should present
a "Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom Seudah" problem on the seder night(s), since,
at the seder, Magid becomes an intrinsic chelek of the seudah; Magid is
not a hefsek between kiddush and the seudah, but it is really the link
that connects the two together.

RCS wrote:
> But you ought to be able to get around that problem by drinking a
> reviis at Kiddush because yayin sa'eed....

But if one is going to solve the Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom Seudah problem
with a revi'is of wine, doesn't one have to drink an extra revi'is of
wine (i.e., in addition to the revi'is of wine that was drunk as part
of kiddush)?

KT and CKvS
Aryeh

On 31 Mar 2004 at 13:41, Stein, Aryeh wrote:

> RCS wrote:
> >>>But you ought to be able to get around that problem by drinking a
> >>>reviis at Kiddush because yayin sa'eed....<<<

> Me:
> But if one is going to solve the Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom Seudah
> problem with a revi'is of wine, doesn't one have to drink an extra
> revi'is of wine (i.e., in addition to the revi'is of wine that was
> drunk as part of kiddush)?

According to most poskim, yes. According to some, no - one reviis 
will suffice. 

But why not drink two reviios at Kiddush and solve the problem? 

-- 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. 

"Soon we will have no enemies. The world is changing; it's 
fighting terror, and you believe they will let us continue fighting 
Arabs? Mr. Prime Minister, you are living in the past and 
ignoring the future. For the people's sake, return to reality!" 

Israeli Opposition Leader and Former Foreign Minister Shimon Peres,
January 12, 2004

> : distilling by evaporation does not un-hhamets it - think whiskey.
> One distills whisky to get the alcohol
< snip >
> Distilling water would be to get the water and leave behind the chameitz.

good point. so d o e s distillling un-hhamets, if done with the right
kawanah?

/dw

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 08:46:45PM +0300, proptrek wrote:
:>: distilling by evaporation does not un-hhamets it - think whiskey.
:> One distills whisky to get the alcohol
...
:> Distilling water would be to get the water and leave behind the chameitz.

: good point. so d o e s distillling un-hhamets, if done with the right
: kawanah?

It's not an issue of kavanah, but of metzi'us. Distilling to extract
alcohol produces two items: one containing chameitz, the other containing
alcohol made from chameitz.

Perhaps distilled water, which provably has no ta'am, is no longer
chameitz. As RAF has me hitting the books about the subject of ta'am,
I'll leave it with "perhaps".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

Akiva Miller wrote
>While the Torah does describe Sipur Yetzias
>Mitzrayim as having an audience, and even names that audience explicitly
>-- V'Higadta *L'Vincha* - the halacha tells us that this is merely the
>ideal means of doing this mitzvah. The bottom line is that one *can*
>tell it to himself, in which case, the others can tell it to themselves
>as well. So how are they yotzay when I read it to them?

It seems to me that, like lashon hara, having an audience *is* a
necessary element of sippur yetziat mitzrayim; the chidush (for which
there is a special limud in the mechilta) is that, unlike lashon hara,
the teller may serve as the audience as well . The very phrase "tell
it *to himself*" is consistent with this idea. This idea is explicit in
chazal (Psachim 116), when they say about the related obligation to ask
the four questions, that if one has no son or wife to ask him "shoel
et atzmo". A person may be both the questioner and the questioned, and
both the teller and the told. In any event there is always an object of
the question or answer, who participates in the mitzva. In the regular
case when there is an audience distinct from the teller, they fulfill
the obligation by *being told* the story; this is the nature of sippur,
as RAM indicated in his original posting.

Saul Mashbaum

On 30 Mar 2004 at 23:20, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> The OU holds that the process whereby the artificial sweetener is
> "grown" on a substrate of kitniyos makes it less of a derivative of
> kitniyos than, say, corn oil. Obviously, not all agree to this chiluk.

None of the Mehadrin hechsherim in Israel apparently do. I checked 
today and Pepsi Max (the local variant of Diet Pepsi) doesn't get the 
Badatz EC's hechsher for Pesach either. 

-- Carl

A recent post contained the following from R. Hershel Schachter's article:

Since our tradition has it that the Torah is a description (even if
only by way of moshol) of Elokus, and the prophet Malachi tells us that
G-d's essence can not be affected by change, it therefore follows that
the laws of the Torah can never change. The Torah (Beha'aloscha 12:8)
distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu and that
of the other prophets. Moshe was the only prophet "who was shown the
image of G-d." What can this possibly be referring to? We believe that
G-d has no body - there is no "image of G-d"!

How do we square "the law of the Torah can never change" with the
teachings that in the future, for example, the only chag that will
survive is Purim, or (per the Rambam in Moreh, albeit not in Yad), that
the korbanot will be unnecessary, or (to a lesser degree) that halacha
will be like Beis Shammai, or the argument (recited in the seder) about
whether yetziat mitzraim will be recited as part of the shma after the
arrival of Moshiach? It is one thing to accept those teachings in the
abstract, but once Torah is compared to the essence of HKB"H, it becomes
far more problematic.

[I suppose one answer is that the torah now includes the possibility of
these future changes, but that is a bit of a tautology that undermines
the strength of the comment about the non-changing nature of torah.]

Shalom L. Kohn

RMS
> >However, you are clearly unique (and, WADR, I find it a position hard to
> >argue seriously) in arguing that as a philosophical principle, the rambam
> >held that the text declared kosher by the proper halachic procedure are to
> >be viewed as the manifestation of the Torah given on Sinai

RDE 
> This view was stated by the Ginas Veradim. On what basis do you insist
> that this view is "clearly unique" understanding of the Rambam? Do you
> have any sources that specifically reject it?

THe ginat veradim does not say that - that is your interpretation of the
ginat veradim. Indeed, the conclusion of the ginat veradim - that a sefer
that is not in accordance with current majority decision has some kdusha
and people who read from it are yotze bediavad - would clearly imply that
it is not an ikkar emuna to believe in the sanctity of the current text.

> >...
> >This is clearly the position of all current authorities. It is not
> >clearly the position of the rambam in his ikkarim - which is at the
> >heart of the issue of whether the ikkarim are truly accepted as normative.

> If I understand you correctly - you acknowledge the validity of my
> understanding of the principle of faith that Torah is from Heaven -
> but you deny that the Rambam would agree with it. Your alternative is
> that the Rambam simple created a principle of faith that he himself did
> not believe!

No, you misunderstood me. I said that it is the position of all current
authorities that someone who uses a text different than the current
accepted one is not a heretic. Pshat in the rambam is not so clear -
but it is not clear to the extent that the rambam believed in it. (yes,
the idea that the rambam created principles of faith for the amcha that
he did not believe in is quite common - even in the Orthodox community -
because the ambiguity was something he did not think people could deal
with. BTW, this idea is even taught at Stern ...)I never stated (nor do
I think that that is the majority view - and I doubt that it is even a
minority view - while the CI type approach might validate the belief that
our tora is moshe's torah, I don't think that many would raise that to
an ikkar emuna) there are too many responsa about the implications of the
safek nature of our current text) that the principle of faith that Torah
is from heaven means that our torah text has been "sanctified" by majority
decision so that we believe that it is the torah given on har sinai.

> The following constitutes the attitude I was taught in yeshiva towards
> apparent contradictions. A casual dismissal of the Rambam's stated views
> is simply not acceptable.

No one casually dismisses them - one has to understand them. The question
is the appropriate methodology - and one based on halachic pilpul may not
be the appropriate one here. You are arguing that what I would consider
a sophisticated approach to understanding the rambam, based on his own
statements, and therefore one that does not take everything as simple
pshat, is a "casual dismissal" - while I would argue that the simple
understanding is really the "casual dismissal".

The rambam does have to make sense, and be struggled with - and the
ikkarim have to be understood in the context in which the rambam phrased
them - and your understanding of the ginat veradim is (IMHO) completely
at odds with the rambam's whole approach to ikkarim.

> Seridei Aish( 1:113): With an
> attitude of condescension one proclaims that they didn't know what they
> were talking about. Consequently one makes no effort to investigate and
> try to validate what they said. But in the end we find that in fact we
> are the ones who have erred.. Therefore it is characteristic of the truly
> wise to presume that the sages have not erred, chas v'shalom but we -
> with our limited perspective and limited understanding - have. 

Yes, I fully agree with the Seride Esh's statement - and argue that it
is simplistic and dismissive of the rambam to view his statements as
simple pshat.

> >2) While there are few who would argue (except the plain understanding of
> >the rambam) that use of a sefer torah based on a minority traditions is
> >heretical, the gan veradim does say something important - he argues that
> >such a sefer may even be used halachically, even though only bdiavad -
> >which further vitiates the notion that there is some fundamental principle
> >that the majority acceptance of the text grants it some fundamental status

RDE
> The Ginas Veradim goes further and states that the halachic Torah is
> to be viewed as the one from Sinai and that this approach is consistent
> with the Rambam

The rambam on nature of the sefer torah - where he discusses what is a
valid sefer torah - not rambam on ikkare emuna - that is (IMHO) where
you misunderstand the ginat veradimfurthermore, consistent with is quite
different than the pshat - and it s a grievous methodological error to use

> Ginas Veradim (O.H. 2:6): According to the Torah one needs to follow
> the majority in all matters - even though for a particular issue it is
> possible and even likely that the result is not true. One follow the
> majority even in such serious matters as marital issues which can cause
> mamzerim....The Rambam's words concerning the valdity of a Sefer Torah
> fit in well with this. 

He is talking about the halachic validity of a sefer torah - not the
ikkar emuna - again, if it is an ikkar, then any use of a "wrong" sefer
torah would be assur.

> The bottom line is that you can collect statements from various sources
> which seem to be at odds with the Rambam and say that there is obviously
> not universal agreement - approach of Prof Shapiro. Or you can say
> that there is a high degree of agreement in the principles of emuna and
> that differences are primarily the result of context - perspective or
> audience. Prof Shapiro has much interesting material - but it 
> simply does
> not support his thesis. 

No. The bottom line is one can have an a priori understanding of what
the rambam and other rishonim must have meant, and therefore understand
them in that light, or try to understand what they actually said - even
if it is against current popular "dogma". Stating that contradictory
statements are irrelevant needs to be proven rather than asserted.

In principle, you are stating that the vast majority agree that some
version of the 13 ikkarim, even if which version is one that there is
no consensus are binding - how that reinterpretation works, or what the
status of those who disagree, and who made that determination is left
in the air.

The problem is that ikkarim are different than other halachic statements.
Eg, the statement that we pasken like the shulchan aruch and the rama is,
in some sense, true, but also clearly false - there are many times we
don't. However, the statement reflects a fundamental basic consensus,
even if isn't always followed. The statement that the ikkarim are
universally accepted is true in the same sense - and I don't think
that RM Shapiro would argue - but ikkarim are fundamentally different -
because being wrong on ikkarim essentially writes one out. The exceptions
here essentially nullify the validity of that statement. The fact that
we rule against the mechaber and rama is one thing. The fact that a
major rishon or achron holds a shitta against the ikkarim is another.
The fact that it is still made reflects more the ignorance about the
disagreements - and here RM Shapiro made a major service.

Meir Shinnar

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>Both of them clearly have an agenda - Prof Shapiro's
>is described well by Prof Woolf and that of Prof Kellner
>is described by Prof Norman Solomon in "Three Books
>on Faith" Journal of Jewish Studies Spring 2001 v52 #1
>page 146-154

I thank Rabbi Eidensohn for this reference. I looked up the article by
Prof. Solomon and found that, in that very same issue, there was another
excellent review of Kellner's book by Daniel Statman of Bar Ilan.

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

Old Me:
>> But if one is going to solve the Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom Seudah 
>> problem with a revi'is of wine, doesn't one have to drink an extra 
>> revi'is of wine (i.e., in addition to the revi'is of wine that was 
>> drunk as part of kiddush)?

RCS:  
> According to most poskim, yes. According to some, no - one reviis
> will suffice. But why not drink two reviios at Kiddush and solve the
> problem?

Because one is not supposed to drink an extra cup of wine between the first two cups?

KT and CKvS,
Aryeh

On 31 Mar 2004 at 16:55, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
>>> But if one is going to solve the Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom Seudah
>>> problem with a revi'is of wine, doesn't one have to drink an extra
>>> revi'is of wine (i.e., in addition to the revi'is of wine that was
>>> drunk as part of kiddush)?

> RCS:  
>> According to most poskim, yes. According to some, no - one reviis 
>> will suffice.  But why not drink two reviios at Kiddush and solve the
>> problem?

> Because one is not supposed to drink an extra cup of wine between the
> first two cups?

Correct but.... What if l'chatchila I use a cup that happens to hold 
two reviiyos? 

-- Carl

Old me:
> Because one is not supposed to drink an extra cup of wine between the 
> first two cups?

RCS:
> Correct but.... What if l'chatchila I use a cup that happens to hold 
> two reviiyos? 

I wonder if that would solve the problem of Ein Kiddush Ela B'Makom
Seudah, especially if I drink both reviiyos at the same time (i.e.,
without a hefsek between the two.) According to those poskim who allow
for an extra reviis of wine to qualify as the "seudah," I don't know if
having one big cup would do the job.

KT and CKvS
Aryeh

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I think you're misportaying the history of the rabbinic position.

> In fact, if we look at chazal, rishonim, and acharonim who lived before
> Darwin, far more assume that Bereishis 1 doesn't specify a time for the
> start of creation than don't.

I don't know about the numbers but there are certainly significant modern
era Gedolim who do not buy into anyhting other than that the universe
is 6000 years old. They expalin all the scientific data indicating an
old universe by saying that world was created to look old. I believe
that the Lubavitcher Rebbe believed this as did R Avigdor Miller.

HM

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:57:43PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> In fact, if we look at chazal, rishonim, and acharonim who lived before
:> Darwin, far more assume that Bereishis 1 doesn't specify a time for the
:> start of creation than don't.

: I don't know about the numbers but there are certainly significant modern
: era Gedolim who do not buy into anyhting other than that the universe
: is 6000 years old. They expalin all the scientific data indicating an
: old universe by saying that world was created to look old. I believe
: that the Lubavitcher Rebbe believed this as did R Avigdor Miller.

Yes, the idea gained popularity after Darwin. Which is when RMMS and RAM
lived.

Until then, even those few who simply assumed by default that Bereishis
1 was literal did not argue it *had* to be and that any other peshat
was beyond the pale.

-mi

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> [on Areivim]
>> After all, the chiyuv to be Maavir Sedra is an undisputed halocho in SA.

> It's in the SA, but is it undisputed halakhah? There are many things in
> the SA which are not on the level of din. There is no issur in putting
> on or tying the wrong shoe first. The SA takes the course of writing
> what one does, without specifying between widespread minhag, a full
> minhag Yisrael, derabbanan and de'oraisa. I'm not sure why.
> Shenayim miqra ve'achad targum is not a takanah. The takanah for the
> sedra is what we lein in shul.

Punkt farkert! There are shittos that one may be maavir sedra during
krias hatorah.
[BTW why would anyone want to be mezalzel in a miztvah/takono/minhag
that Chazal tell us will result in 'Maarichin lo yomov ushnoysov.."?]

Thanks to my BICD - here it is loud and clear:

Rambam Hilchos Tefilah veNisias Kapayim [13:25]:
"Af al pi she'odom shoyme'a kol hatorah kulo bechol shabbos betzibbur
chayev likros le'atzmoy bechol shovu'a veshovu'a seder shel oysoy
shabbos shenayim mikra v'echod targum..."

Beis Yosef & Mechaber OC 285:
"Afilu shoma haparsha mipi haShatz
tsorich lehashlim parshiyosov im hatsibbur.."

MB 285:2:
"Lo yikro Echod Mikro v'echod targum veyechaven lishmoa mehaShatz
ele tsorich likros 2 pe'omim mikro - chutz mimah sheshoma mehaShatz -
im lo shekoro oz gam kein bepiv.."

RMF in IM OC 5:17 calls it a Mitzvah. he writes;
"Poshut uborur kemoy shelo niftar shum odom mikol mitsvah derabonon
betaaneh she'osek beTorah, kein lo nifteru af mimitzvah zu.
V'aderaba af mi shetorosoy umnosoy keRashni vechaverov ...
chayovim bikroyas haparsha SMVT..."

So why do I get the impression [ I have received off-list comments
on this] that this mitzvah isn't very popular amongst non-chassidim??

>> But I was surprised to hear someone say that 'of course he would
>> go for the DY'.

> I would think that to some people, breaking daf yomi would remove much
> of the impetus for daily talmud Torah, and therefore risk his getting
> lax in vehigisa bo.

I doubt RM Shapiro z'l expected his innovation to be used as an excuse
to drop a takonos Chazal...

SBA

(This thread started on Areivim as "Maavir Sidra or Daf Yomi??")

R' SBA wrote <<< After all, the chiyuv to be Maavir Sedra is an undisputed
halocho in SA. >>>

R' Micha Berger responded <<< It's in the SA, but is it undisputed
halakhah? ... The SA takes the course of writing what one does, without
specifying between widespread minhag, a full minhag Yisrael, derabbanan
and de'oraisa. I'm not sure why. >>>

In this particular case, though, Mechaber 285:1 does use the word
"chayav". That would seem to put it at least into category 2 of your
list. And probably category 3 or 4.

and <<< Shenayim miqra ve'achad targum is not a takanah. The takanah
for the sedra is what we lein in shul. >>>

Not according to Aruch HaShulchan 285:2 -- "... B'Vadai, when Moshe
Rabenu was m'saken to lain, he also established this takana, that each
individual should read Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum ..."

<<< (I also guess further comments on this part of the issue would be
Avodah fodder.) >>>

Done!

Akiva Miller

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]