Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 012

Sunday, October 17 2004

• R. Chaim Kanevsky
• RE: R. Chaim Kanevsky
• Exact 'o'clock', with no additional minutes or chalaqim
• Re: Molad
• Torah as Allegory
• Re: Less than a kezayis of bread
• "Lekaleis" - shevach or genai?
• Re: "Chazeres
• Ayzehu M'komon and Machlokess
• Re: linguistic norm
• R. Soloveitchik and science
• Re: Less than a kezayis of bread
• Re: Less than a kezayis of bread
• Re: "Lekaleis" - shevach or genai?
• Re: "Lekaleis" - shevach or genai?

I saw a recently published sefer with piskei halachot from R. Chaim Kanevsky,
"She-elat Rav". About 400 pages long it consists of short questions and
answers usually 1-3 words long. So the reasons are not always clear.

Some samples:

Smoking is prohibited

(in name of CI) it is preferable if a woman does not travel in a car
during the first 3 months of pregnancy

A pregnant woman should step on finger/toe nails

A pregnant woman should limit as much as possible the use of ultrasound.

In addition it is not proper to find out the sex of the baby before it
is born.

A pregnant woman who has passed her due date (determined by last mikvah
not doctors) should preferably sleep over shabbat near/in the hospital.

It is not necessary for a man to help a woman with a heavy stroller
because of azo-taazov

A married woman need not say the identical nusach berachah as her 
husband for asher yatzar (i.e. afila shaah achat).

Better not to look in a mirror to see if the tefillin are on right.

Even one who sweats a lot can not wash up (ler-chotz) during the 9 
days (I believe RMF allows showers).

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

From: Eli Turkel
> A pregnant woman should step on finger/toe nails

Is this one a typo? If not, can you elaborate a bit more? I always
thought it was the opposite, unless he was trying to say we should avoid
superstition or something.

Stuart

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> PS: Off topic about qiddush hachodesh that isn't worth its own post:
> This past Shabbos was the first time in 108 years or so that the molad
> was announced on an o'clock, with no additional minutes or chalaqim.

87 years.

There's a story doing the rounds [originally published in Der Blatt,
IIRC] about a 103 year old gentleman in a Moshav Zekenim in Jerusalem
who told visitors that he is awaiting this Shabbos Mevorchim.

He explained that 87 years ago he was davening in the famous Vienna
Schiffschul, when the gabai announced the zeman hamoled - which was also
an exact 'o'clock' - and added that we should all be zoche to be alive for
the next one - in the year 5765 - and he had responded with an 'Omein!'

[I see that the the annual Luach/Almanac published by R' Ganut also
reprinted this story.]

SBA

RMB wrote:

> PS: Off topic about qiddush hachodesh that isn't worth its own post:
> This past Shabbos was the first time in 108 years or so that the molad
> was announced on an o'clock, with no additional minutes or chalaqim.

~87 years, actually.  Or, to be precise, 1080 months.

I don't if anyone has posted this link but it is a thoughtful, well
considered article on this subject.
<http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm?shiurID=703973>

M. Levin

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< I think when it comes to pas haba bkisnin, many
poskim insist that a kevius includes other food consumed at the meal and
NOT davka the pas haba b'kisnin {PBK}. E.G. if I am kovei'a s'uda with
crackers and eat a lot of tuna fish then the tuna is mitztarei to make it
a meal. >>>

Sure, but you can't do that with just one cracker. You need at least a
kezayis of pas haba bkisnin, or else you haven't *eaten* a shiur of it,
and can't even say Al Hamichya (as I'll explain below), let alone Birkas
Hamazon.

<<< But it is evident that all things eaten lelafeis hapas are batel to
the pas. and so any sandwich would by definition be judged as to total
volume and NOT just the pas content. >>>

Mishna Brurah 208:48 says that in order to say Al Hamichya on a piece of
cake, he must have eaten a kezayis of flour, and that the sugar and
flavorings do *not* count towards that kezayis. He admits that the minhag
haolam is to include the other ingredients, but holds that "lechatchila",
one should not do so. The Igros Moshe (OC 1:71) says that one should not
rely on this minhag, and instead be sure to have had a full kezayis of
just flour.

In any case, even the Mishna Brurah only spoke of ingredients mixed in
with the flour. I really doubt if he would go so far as to include the
apples in a pie or the cheese on a pizza. In both cases, you need at
least a kezayis of *crust*.

But that's just *my* take on the MB. Someone else might read it so that
the apples and cheese *are* included. Okay, fine. That's because the item
was cooked as a single unit. It is a much bigger step to apply this to a
sandwich which has less than a kezayis of bread!

And, actually, nidon didan is even further removed than that. My original
post should have specified that the (mis)conception which I'm trying to
examine is the case where a person has a smaller-than-kezayis piece of
bread at Hamotzi, and no other bread at all in the course of the meal. In
such a case, *nothing* was eaten <<< lelafeis hapas >>>, yet many people
think this is enough for Birkas Hamazon.

My guess is that there has never been a posek who allowed such a thing,
but amcha has mistakenly taken the rules of ikar and tafel to an extent
that they shouldn't have. My question is whether I might be mistaken, and
perhaps there actually is a posek or acharon upon whom to rely.

Akiva Miller

Interesting comment by the Baal Torah Temimah in his sefer Tosefes Brocho
al haTorah [and also in his peirush on siddur Boruch She'omar].

On the Tefilah "Uvemakhalos Rivevos" - he suggests that the word
'lekaleis' does not belong there.

His reason, which lechoireh makes sense, is that while the word 'kaleis'
in Aramaic [and loshon Chazal] indeed means a type of praise, in LHK it
always means the opposite - eg 'lelaag ulekeles'.

Seeing that the rest of that tefilah [and all the other terms for praise
there] are in LHK - he is uncomfortable with having a aingle Aramaic
word used.

I did a bit of quick researching on this matter and found that the mekor
for this tefilah is the Mishna in Arvei Pesachim in its seder for the
Hagada - "Lefikoch anachnu chayovim ...lekaleis...".

Rav Boruch Epstein seems to have completely overlooked this Mishna
 - otherwise I am sure he would have commented.

However, checking the 'Shinui Nus'cha'os' there, I found that 5 of the
6 girso'os it brings - do not have the word 'lekaleis'.

OTOH the Avodas Yisroel siddur [p 130 - re kaddish] mentions something
about this concern - but claims that even in LHK it has 2 both meanings -
bring a rayah from Chabakuk 1:10 - 'Vehu bamelochim yiskalos'.

So I checked that out - and found that most meforshim there explain it
as a loshon genai [as per RBE].
The Mahari Kara, however, says 'loshon shevach'.

As for Rashi there, I wouldn't mind if someone could explain exactly 
what he is saying.

Personally, although I have no intention of changing my nusach - 
I think RBE makes a pretty good point.

Comments?

SBA

R' SBA wrote:
> IIRC, all diagrams in the hagodos [as well as on kaaros] show where to
> place both maror and chazeres.
> So I presumed that chazeres refers to lettuce leaves whilst maror is
> horseradish..

There is no difference between chazeres and morer. The "category" is
morer, and the implementation traditionally chazeres (Y: lattich, IL:
chasa kazoti muzeret maniyodea, E: prickly lettuce), alternatively leaves
of tamcho (WY: merettich, EY: krein, IL: chazeret, E: horseradish). You're
probably referring to diagrammes in hagodes who follow the Lurianic
reforms. Bnei Ashkenez and Teimen don't have it. (Not sure about Sefardic
and Oriental customs.)

There is an extensive bibliography compiled by R' B. Sh. Hamburger in
Youzep Shames, Minhogem deka"k Vermais (Warmaisa), vol I, p. 86, n. 15.

Lipman Minden
[ 8~)>

In a message dated 9/21/2004 9:54:34pm EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes: 
> ...it has been posited that Mishnah Perek Ezehu Mekoman 
> {Zvachim ch. 5} must be very old because there is no machlokes. 

This can be found in the Mishnah Berurah, Biur Haytave, Biur HaGra and
Beis Yosef on Orach Chaim (50), citing the Ra'ah, that this perek was
chosen in the morning prayers as representative of mishnayos because
"sheh-perek zeh ayn bo machlokess, v'hi mishnah berurah l'Mosheh
mi'Sinai,"--"this perek is not disputed against (or, "there is no dispute
recorded in it"), and it is a clear mishnah [given] to Mosheh mi-Sinai."

He doesn't quite say that the way we know it's a "mishnah berurah
l'Mosheh mi'Sinai" is through the fact that it contains no machlokess,
although the inference is reasonable.

> Even if you accept Litvisher or Galizianer versions of vowels, there is  
> certainly room for improvement WITHIN these systems for more attention  
> to mil'eil and mil'ra etc.

> EG Even, a Litvak COULD be trained to say tayRO instead of TAYro!

When he laining same, yes. In tefilles and when learning, no - this is an  
anachronistic hypercorrection.

> Second point: without obliterating communal norms it would be nice if  
> students we at least introduced Teimani anunciation. This would  
> sensitise stunents to the nuances of the various vowels and hopefully  
> evolve a better orthography in general.

Would you propose introducing spoken Old French, or even Modern French, in  
British schools for the same purpose? Of course, it would be very good for  
Israeli students to be acquainted with the Teimener pronunciation, but for  
the mastery of any orthography, reading more texts in standard orthography  
is most effective, though knowing the etymology helps in languages with a  
historical writing tradition.

Phillip Minden
[ 8~)>

> RDE posted a series of quotes from footnotes of RYBS re Torah and science.
> WADR to RMS , these posts were from RYBS's philosophical writings in
> which RYBS was underscoring and emphasizing the eternal relevance of
> the halachic system, as opposed to any other competing philosophical or
> scientific system. WADR, the footnotes cited by RDE support the conclusion
> that RYBS was not concerned with the conflict because of his view of
> the supremacy and sweep of halacha, as opposed to any other competing
> philosophical and contemporary value....

I didn't see the earlier posts. I assume the reference is to Lonely Man
of Faith.

In the Halakhic Mind R. Soloveitch holds that religion, in principle,
impinges on beliefs about the way the world is. He even has a kind word
for the Inquisition's pressure on early modern science!

Overall I would venture to say that GRYD had no interest in multiplying
conflicts between science and religion. This is true both of his mahashava
and his lomdut--in several sugyot he silently reformulates shittot to
avoid head on confrontation between halakhic categories and science. But
in principle he recognized that these could occur.

I would like two cents to this discussion from the lomdus standpoint.

The chakira of ikkar and tocfel is whether the ikkar paturs tofel because
the tofel is batul to the ikkar or whether it is because the tofel now
becomes a part of the ikkar. The obvious nafka mina is whether the tofel
is mitstaref to the shiur of the ikkar in as far as brocha achrona. Is
it different for pas and pas habbo b'kisnin?

My recollection from learnig this inyan, unfortnately many years ago,
that the rishonim appeared to fall on the latter side. What is needed
is someone to dedicate some time to exploring this issue in the relevant
rishonim and acharonim.

M. Levin

In a message dated 10/14/2004 5:37:42pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Sure, but you can't do that with just one cracker. You need at least a
> kezayis of pas haba bkisnin, or else you haven't *eaten* a shiur of it,
> and can't even say Al Hamichya (as I'll explain below), let alone Birkas
> Hamazon.
...
> My guess is that there has never been a posek who allowed such a thing,
> but amcha has mistakenly taken the rules of ikar and tafel to an extent
> that they shouldn't have. My question is whether I might be mistaken, and
> perhaps there actually is a posek or acharon upon whom to rely.

If your thesis is true, why can't a less-than-kzais mezonos roll work
for plain flights etc.?
Lich'ora a kevius with less-than-a-kzais pas haba bkinsnin still requires
washing etc. -why?

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 10/14/2004 5:37:43pm EDT, sba@sba2.com writes:
> Interesting comment by the Baal Torah Temimah in his sefer Tosefes Brocho
> al haTorah [and also in his peirush on siddur Boruch She'omar].

> On the Tefilah "Uvemakhalos Rivevos" - he suggests that the word
> 'lekaleis' does not belong there.
...
> His reason, which lechoireh makes sense, is that while the word 'kaleis'
> in Aramaic [and loshon Chazal] indeed means a type of praise, in LHK it
> always means the opposite - eg 'lelaag ulekeles'.

> OTOH the Avodas Yisroel siddur [p 130 - re kaddish] mentions something
> about this concern - but claims that even in LHK it has 2 both meanings -
> bring a rayah from Chabakuk 1:10 - 'Vehu bamelochim yiskalos'.

> So I checked that out - and found that most meforshim there explain it
> as a loshon genai [as per RBE].
> The Mahari Kara, however, says 'loshon shevach'.
....

My freind Mitchel First gave a shiur on this:
The Hebrew KLS is negative. E.G. see "la'ag vokeles" that we recite in
th M.Th. Tachanun.
The KLS that means praise derives form the Greek. The KL implies
something beautiful as in CALLIgraphy

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 10/15/2004 3:34:37pm EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> The KLS that means praise derives form the Greek. The KL implies something
> beautiful as in CALLIgraphy
> 
The Rokeach writes that the word Kaleis means "Dibur" in our context it is 
Kilus of Shevach.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]