Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 114

Wednesday, April 13 2005

• Re: Eruvin
• Tuma and tahor
• Re: mechaber vs. rema
• Re: Fw: Kashrut Info
• Re: kashrut on pesach
• Re: Erev Pesach on Shabbat (5765): A Short Guide
• geonim and gemara
• Brocha on Tevila
• Mordechai and Esther
• Re: Mordechai and Esther
• NonJew at a Seder
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• Re: Mentioning Chametz on Pesach
• Re: Rabbinic eras
• Re: Bracha for t'vila
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Eruvin
• Hasimas haTalmud - Rabbonan savorei
• Re: Erev Pesach on Shabbat (5765): A Short Guide
• Re: REED on education
• Pesach Halocho Sheets
• History of the minhagim of the Omer
• How is this year different from all other years?

On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 07:57:05PM -0700, shmuel pultman wrote:
: If you are referring to Rav Moshe zt"l's shita, the fact that the roads
: that run through the KGH neighborhood are small ones has no bearing on
: the matter that in a city Rav Moshe reckons the shishim ribuy (3,000,000
: people) over a twelve mil by twelve mil area and not over a single
: road...

1- Define "city". Since Queens and Brooklyn run into eachother, I don't know
why you're assuming they're separate.

2- Assuming that they are separate cities, does the 12x12 extend beyond
the city? If you go 6 mil (appx 6 km or 9-1/2 miles) east of KGH,
Flatbush or Boro Park you already past the east side of Manhattan.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

The second verse of Tazria (14:2) states: "This shall be the law of
the metzora on the day of his purification..." Since the Torah mentions
that his purification takes place during the day, the Sages expound that
the Kohen's declaration, which alone permits the metzora to begin his
purification ritual, may be made only during the day (Rashi; Sifra).

The gematria for 'yom' is 56. The same gematria for LaShem is 56, as
it is for yavdil. The gematria for 'laila' is 75. The same gematria for
'oyveinu' and 'bitachon' is also 75.

The connection I've made regarding purification which cannot take place at
night is the following: Symbolically, "night" is 'oyveinu,' (our enemy),
and it is only our 'bitachon' that takes us through the night to reach
the day "laShem," for God; and yavdil, He will separate our tumah, ritual
impurity. At that point the metzora can begin the purification ritual.

Richard Wolberg

In Avodah V14 #111 R' Eli Turkel Writes:
>In a shiur I go to of R. Zilberstein of BB I asked a question about some
>monteary payments a doctor might have to make and since it depended on
>a machloket mechaber and Ramah whether it would affect ashkenazi and
>sefardi doctors differently.

>He answered that the difference between ashkenazi/sefardi and SA/Ramah
>applies only to Orach Chaim and YD and not to CM and Even Haezer.
>Does everyone agree to that distinction?

What Rav Silberstein probably meant is, if someone wants to be motzee
mamon from an ashkenazi doctor on the semach of a Rema or vice versa, in
such an instance the doctor may argue "kim lee", I accept the position of
the mechaber therefore you can't coerce me to accept the Rema and pay you.

But in general, if the doctor would ask a rav how he should conduct
his businness in the first place, why wouldn't the answer would be
to an ashkenazi according to the Rema, and to a sefardi according to
the Mechaber.

I found now a lengthy tshuva in Yabia Omer (7 CM 2), in a case that
the tovea is a sefardi and the nitva is an ashkenazi and both reside in
Eretz Yisroel, if the nitva can claim kim lee like the Rema.

I didn't go over the whole tshuva yet, but the impression I got from
the numerous m"m he quotes, is that the rule that sefardim follow the
Mechaber and ashkenazim the Rema, applies to CM and Even Haezer as well.

- Avigdor Feldstein

On Apr 11, 2005 1:23 PM, Yisrael Medad <ymedad@begincenter.org.il> wrote:
> Q1.  Do rings need hag'alah due to...what?  we cook with them?
> If so,
> Q2.  what do we do with our fingers?

From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> 4. rings on fingers need to be cleaned because they contact chametz. When
> feasible ha-agalahh should be used.

The assumption is that someone who wears a ring all the time
also has them on when he/she cooks especially baking challot or similar
actions. Hence there is chametz stuck to the ring. It is even worse
when there is a stone setting as then chametz enters into cracks
in various parts of the setting.

The rav sais that one really only needs a through cleaning of the ring.
However, because of the chumra of Pesach many poskim suggest
hgaalah though he admitted that this was only a chumra

Chag Kasher Vesameach,
Eli Turkel

-- 
Eli Turkel

Avodah V14#112, posted 08 Apr 2005 by Dr. ETurkel:
> We has a shiur today from one of the rabbis of the rabbanut of Israel
> concerning Pesach....
> 4. rings on fingers need to be cleaned because they contact chametz. When
> feasible ha-agalahh should be used.

Re ha-agalah, was a distinction made between rings with stones (or with
other cavities) and relatively-smooth rings? Thanks.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

I'd like to add an additional thought to the points I've raised about
making hamotzi far from the table.

Namely, that this seems to be a very recent development.

When I skimmed over sources such as the Mishna Brura and Aruch HaShulchan
(siman 444), and even something as recent as Rav Eider's Halachos of
Pesach (1985 edition, chapter 35), this suggestion is not made at all! A
few words are given in each of those seforim for the idea of using Egg
Matza, but the bulk of the ink is spent on either of two main ideas:
(a) Cooking with chometz pots and eating on Chometz dishes, and (b)
Cooking with Pesach pots and eating on Chometz dishes.

The idea of cooking with Pesach pots and eating on *Pesach* dishes is
something that I don't think the poskim ever considered. There seems
to be a presumption that chometzdik bread will be eaten at the table,
because they go to the effort of telling us what to do with the crumbs,
and what to do with the dirty dishes.

It really blows me away. They strongly suggest to use Pesachdik recipes,
so why did it not occur to them to eat on Pesach dishes? This is NOT a
terribly high-tech idea which would have been unfeasible prior to recent
decades. On the contrary, I'd think that in ANY society, it would be
much simpler to lock up the chometz dishes before Shabbos, eat on Pesach
dishes, and you won't need to worry about where to store them for almost
a week and a half. (Aruch HaShulchan 444:9 even mentions how "m'chuar"
it is to leave the chometzdik pots unwashed.)

I invite the chevra to offer their ideas on why this never occurred
to anyone until recently -- or perhaps this idea does appear in some
sefer that I didn't see. Until then, the best idea I can come up with
is that they put a great deal of importance on the idea that IF we are
making HaMotzi, then we should eat the bread *during* the meal, and not
merely at the begininng. Please note that these same seforim suggested
the alternate idea for Seuda Shlishis to be in the afternoon, with just
meat and such, with no bread of any kind, so they *did* accept the idea
of eating meal-type food without bread.

Maybe it has something to do with Hilchos Brachos?

Akiva Miller

In today's daf yomi, berachot 42b Rosh (6:32) points out that the phrase
about going to the bet hamercatz or bloodletting being a hefsek was
added to the gemara based on the psak of the geonim.

-- 
Eli Turkel

In message <200504081547.j38FlIe29218@majordomo2.host4u.net>, Avodah 
<owner-avodah@aishdas.org> writes
>And I was postulating [and this is where it is me, rather than a pure 
>quote of sources] that according to those second rishonim, a brocha on 
>tevila of a single girl/baal keri (subsequent to the nulification of 
>takanat Ezra) would seem to be necessary, while perhaps the reason one 
>might hold that a brocha is not necessary in the case of a single 
>girl/baal keri (as we seem to hold today) is because we hold like the 
>other rishonim that tevila bizmana lav mitzvah hu with the mitzvah 
>rather being linked to the desire to enable the mitzvah that the tevila 
>now enables one to do, rather than to the time elapse causing the 
>mitzvah to be chal.

Further on my previous posting, I had a bit of time on shabbas (amidst all
the kids) to look up this question further to see what else I could find.

On tevila on erev yom kippur - the Shulchan Aruch poskens in Orech Chaim,
siman 606 si'if 4 that one does not make a brocha on the tevila erev yom
kippur. Now the Tur's commentary on this is as follows (in the same siman)
he begins by stating that Rav Sadiyah says that we do make a brocha on
the tevila on erev yom kippur, but the Rosh says that this does not seem
correct to him because we don't see in the talmud a hint to this tevila
or in the neviim .. and if it is because of what Rabbi Yitzchak said
(Rosh Hashana 16) that chayav adam l'taher etzmo b'regel, this is to
metaher himself from all tumah including tumas meis which requires hazah
etc and now there is no such tehora and since baalei keri don't toyvel
themselves all the year there is no obligation for this tevila and no
brocha but rather there is a minhag the world over to metaher oneself
from keri on erev yom kippur.

Now the Bach comments on this and answers the Rosh saying that there
really should be a bracha based no this obligation of Rabbi Yitzchak,
since this makes it into a mitzvah d'rabbanan, and we should make a bracha
on all mitzvahs d'rabanan. And in response to the view of the Rosh that we
can only say we are following Rabbi Yitzchak's halacha if we are able to
be metaher from all kinds of tumah, and since this is impossible today,
then we can't be said to be performing this mitzvah, the Bach argues and
says that even so, for each tahara and tahara that we are able to perform,
we ought to be able to say a bracha. But he concludes that since there
is a maklokus haposkim, that makes it a bracha m'safek and so we don't
make it, and that this is the custom.

But what would seem clear from this discussion is that nobody holds that,
absent a regel or any other reason to be metaher oneself, there is any
question of a stam mitzvah to toyvel purely to be metaher oneself, even
if one were able to be fully metaher oneself (including of tumas meis).
And since we cannot be fully metaher oneself, even before a regel there
is no brocha - at least in the case of a man.

Note further that the Sde Chemed in chelek daled Marechet mem, ois 62,
brings the Radvaz as stating in his teshuvas that the tevila, along with
the shchita does not fall within the controversy of whether mitzvos need
kavana or not, because these aren't mitzvos, but m'achsheri mitzvos -
and of course, the fact that tevila does not need kavana is the basis of
Rav Moshe's famous psak explaining why one can assume that a baal teshuva
is not a ben/bas nida (because their mother must have accidently toyveled
in the sea or some such). - which all kind of fits in with the idea that
there is no independent mitzvah of tevila, other than in connection with
what it enables.

My question though is - what about those rishonim who held that tevila
b'zmana is a mitzvah? And certainly the gemora in Nida I quoted in a
previous post seems to assume that the woman in question had to go to
mikvah dozens of times, despite not being able to act on that tevila,
because of the safek that in fact it was not the time for mikvah.
Is it that these rishonim hold contrary to the dominant opinion that in
fact there is an active mitzvah to be mateaher oneself? Or is it that
even there, the assumption was that at the end of all these safekos,
she would then be enabled to do something she was not previously able
to do (be involved in taharos, be mutar to her husband) and it was
only in that context that any mitzvah was chal on her to go on time.
Now this last Bach that I found (as set out above) would seem to be
pretty conclusive that (at least in the case of the Bach) it is the latter

So, while I was trying to find a possible support (even a minority
rishonic view) for the idea postulated by a number of people on Areivim
that a penuyah who went to mikvah should make a brocha - I don't think
that holds up, so I now struggle to see any position that would allow
for a penuya to make a bracha on tevila.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

In Areivim Digest V14 #251 dated 3/18/2005 RMB writes:
> As I've written on Avodah, IMHO, Esther was named for Ishtar,
> and Mordechai for her consort, Marduk (Ishtar = Asheirah; Marduk =
> Baal/El). As we know, each also had Jewish names. How is this mutar? As
> I also wrote on Avodah, I'm not sure. However, this is nearly the same
> time as the adoption of Tamuz as a month name.

Fascinating, but I doubt that Mordechai and Esther were named "for"
Persian gods. Rather, just as Peter, Paul and Mary have become popular
names in America--so that there are now Jewish Peters, Pauls and Marys
who are not named "for" the figures in the Xian Bible--so Mordechai and
Esther must have been common Persian names. And just as many American
Jews have both English and Hebrew names, so Mordechai and Esther had
Persian and Hebrew names.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 02:02:12PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Fascinating, but I doubt that Mordechai and Esther were named "for"
: Persian gods. Rather, just as Peter, Paul and Mary have become popular
: names in America--so that there are now Jewish Peters, Pauls and Marys
: who are not named "for" the figures in the Xian Bible...

But what Jew would name their child Jesus or Cristopher? The people you
name aren't the actual AZ.

For that matter, I would think one should ask a she'eilah before naming
someone after grandpa Isidore (Beloved of Isis) or grandma Isabella
(Isis is beautiful). But neither of those are currently worshipped.
I doubt someone of their mileau could hear "Mordekhai" without realizing
it means "Property of Marduk", as in "oveir laMolekh".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

May a nonJew attend a seder?  If not why not?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:08:31PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: May a nonJew attend a seder?  If not why not?

1- Talmud Torah lenachri.
2- One would have to be very careful not to do any extra bishul for one's
guest on yom tov.

I received the unsurprising pesaq that one may invite an intermarried
family to the seider, since the problems posed by the non-Jewish half
are ourweighed by providing a seider tfor the Jewish part of the family.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

R Harry Weiss wrote:
> Any discussion of Pesach, including the Torah read refers to getting
> rid of Chametz. there is a minhag to study the mishnayot of Messechet
> Pesachim which also deals in describing Chametz. Even in the Haggadah
> itself, chametz is referred to.

> I think it may be more like Arayas where hirhurim may be assur, but one
> may learn the halachos regarding harchakos.

For example, why would we use keifel lashon in Mah Nishtanah (shebekhol
haleilos anu okhelim chameitz umatzah...) if one is to avoid talking about
"chameitz"?

As for RWH's suggestion, it reminds me of "ha'okhel matzah be'Erev Pesach
kevo al arusaso beveis chamav." (Y-mi Pesachim 10:1 68b)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R Jonathan Baker wrote:
> Is the MB a code? I thought it was a commentary, like the Shach or
> Taz, but summarizing more discussion. The KSA certainly is, but within
> the 130 years or so since it was written, it hasn't been accepted as a
> universal code.

We've discussed the nature of the MB in the past. According to the
haqdamah, it was written to be a survey. Although the CC comments quite
often about his preferences, because it's a survey it's quite likely the
CC was giving which he thought was more mistaveir, not which he thought
was din.

However, shortly after the CC's petirah, there was an active campaign
to turn it into a code. Which demonstrates an Ashkenazic interest in
having codes, a mere 50 years or so after the AhS.

The Chayei Adam and KSA, while they never caught on as widely as the SA,
still show the existance of Ashkenazi communities that had a desire to
have a code, and that was slightly before the AhS.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rt Chana Luntz wrote:
> In message , a. adereth <adereth2003@yahoo.com> writes
>>It would follow from the analysis, below, that a postmenopausal woman
>>not make a brocha on t'vila,

> When do you anticipate that a post menopausal woman would do tevila? The
> only case I can think of is the one brought by RTK ie if she chooses to
> go erev yom kippur, and I don't believe she makes a brocha in that case.

Others mentioned the first tevilah after menapause, which for ba'alos
teshuvah will come well after knowing their state.

Second, doesn't a woman who sees dam have to practice hilkhos niddah
even if it would take a neis like Sarah's for the dam to be the normal
biology for niddah?

Much mach later in the post, RtCL writes:
> So clearly according to these Rishonim [the Rambam and the Chinuch], one has
> to want to be m'taher at the very least, and, at least by implication, that
> wanting would seem to be linked to being able to do a mitzvah action
> subsequent to the tevila.

I don't see that implication. No more than shechitas chulin requires a
desire to eat meat, with no implication that there must be some mitzvah
associated with eating that meat. Look at the examples the Rambam brings
in asei 109 -- these are all mitzvos asei that serve as matiros. The
Chinuch phrases it as "if they want to be metaheir", again with no
implication (IMHO) of "for a mitzvah".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R Shmuel Pultman wrote:
>> I really find it hard to believe that Rav Saadia Gaon knew of
>> the beginning of the Zohar on Mishpatim, the keta on gilgulim. His
>> condemnation of what ibn Tibon translates to "haatakah" centers on it
>> not having any hint of a mesorah and coming from AZ (EvD 6:2).

> This is exactly the point that the Zohar Chai is making. Those Geonim
> and Reshonim who contradict a stance taken by the Zohar would not have
> done so it if they had seen the Zohar. Your comment is possibly why the
> Kamarna Rebbe doesn't mention Rav Saadia Gaon as one of those Gaonim
> that he can prove had access to the Zohar. On the other hand he does
> mention Rav Hai Gaon.

More than not having access, and more than disagreeing with a stance
taken by the Zohar. RSG didn't even know a major topic was discussed in
the Zohar and said there's no source in the mesorah, it must be from AZ,
calls its adherents "people who call themselves Jews" etc... That's pretty
strong words, and indicates not even n-th hand knowledge of its existence.

It is possible that ibn Tibon used the word "haatakah" because he too
didn't know the word "gilgul" was part of Jewish jargon. However, it would
make life much simpler if RSG was denying haatakah which is similar to
-- but different than -- gilgul. This is dachuq, since RSG would then
have had to be condemning a belief while not drawing a distinction to
a similar but accepted one.

As to RSG's vehemence against haatakah, it probably comes from his
polemics against the Qaraim. Transmigration of souls seems to come from
Philo and then is resurrected in the works of Anan b. David.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R S Pultman wrote in part:
> f the road has shishim ribuy traversing it is a reshus harabbim
> otherwise it's not. None of the roads that run through Brooklyn's eruvin
> have anywhere near shishim ribuy.

> If you are referring to Rav Moshe zt"l's shita, the fact that the roads
> that run through the KGH neighborhood are small ones has no bearing on
> the matter that in a city Rav Moshe reckons the shishim ribuy (3,000,000
> people) over a twelve mil by twelve mil area and not over a single

IIRC, isn't Ocean Parkway a matter of some controversy as to whether it
carries shishim ribuy?WADR, even after numerous readings of RMF's teshuvah
re the KGH eruv, it is evident that RMF based his heter for the same on
the size of the neighborhood and the fact that no major highways of any
kind ran thru the eruv, as opposed to merely serving as its boundaries.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

R. Eli Turkel [eliturkel@gmail.com] posted on , 2 Apr 2005:
> In fact in several places the Gra explains Mishnayot according to
> the simple pshat and not according to the gemara! In fact Tifferet
> Yisrael (Machshirin 6:3) questions the Gra for not explaining as the
> gemara. ... R. Gutel continues with pages of other proofs for example
> the Rif paskens (berachot 24a in Rif) according to the simple pshat of
> the Mishnah and against a difficult answer of the gemara.

I recommend a sefer entitled "HaRambam L'lo S'tiyya Min HaTalmud"
(The Rambam Is Not Contradicted By The Talmud), by R. B.Z. Benedict
(Mosaad HaRav Kook, 1985). He resolves apparent contradictions between
the Rambam and the Gemora based on several principles. Among them is that
the Rambam, with good reasons, sometimes learned the sugya differently
than we do, influenced by Rashi and/or Tosefos. This is so not only in
the payrush of particular passages, but in general derech halimud as
well. Specifically, by taking a broad view of the Gemora, R. Benedict
demonstrates (with proofs) that the Rambam rejects teirutzim in a shakla
v'tarya that he considers "docheik" in view of accepted principles
stated elsewhere in Shas -- so that the "last word" presented in a shakla
v'tarya is not necessarily the Gemora's true maskana. The Gemora expects
the student to realize the answer is docheik and incorrect. (Readers
of Avodah should keep this in mind when they do not see me replying
to alleged challenges to my positions!) R. Benedict mentions that the
Rambam in this aspect follows the derech of the Rif. Thus, indeed,
the Rif may "pasken...(berachot 24a in Rif) according to the simple
pshat of the Mishnah and against a difficult answer of the gemara." Not
because he considers the Gemora's view as "docheik," but that through
examining the broader view of the Gemora, he sees that the Gemora itself
considers that payrush of the Mishnah incorrect.

At any rate, explaining or poskening differently from the Gemora
remains a startling idea. Thus the TY's question on the Gra noted by
R.E. Turkel. The proper response is to find answers, or (with Rav
Matisyahu Solomon's Siyum HaShas remarks coming to mind) leave the
problem as a "tayku," not a cause to overhaul accepted principles,
such as the authority of the Gemora's take on the Mishna. (Not that
I'm accusing anyone of overhauling accepted,--except perhaps for that
list-maker of "startling historical remarks" of another posting).

Zvi Lampel

RAM <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> Sometimes, the reality of a situation is so strong that it will even
> override one's explicit thoughts. For example, if one sees his possesions
> being carried away by a flood, this constitutes "yiush". He abandons hope
> of ever getting them back, and consequently gives up ownership, so anyone
> downstream can legally pick them up and keep them. What really amazes me
> is that this is true even if he stood on his roof and screamed at his
> stuff as it floated away, "I'm not abandoning you! I'm not abandoning
> you!" (Choshen Mishpat 259:7)

I think this is based on the observation that people are often not
aware of what they're thinking, and even more often like to convince
themselves that they're thinking a more noble thing than they really
are motivated by.

When I leave the house in the morning and pass my car, I don't yell "I'm
not abandoning you!" The fact that he is yelling is itself an indication
that he is hoping-against-hope, and not really avoiding yi'ush.

...
> All I'm suggesting (NOT paskening, obviously!) is that people who follow
> those procedures should make the appropriate brachos on the meal when
> they return to the table.

I guess an advantage of using matzah ashirah (for Ashkenazim, of course)
is that one doesn't need to make procedures out of fear of getting
chameitz on the table. Thereby avoiding this whole question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> BTW isn't this loss almost a required result from the R'ED vision of
>> yeshivot producing a gadol?

> This has been repeated on this list forever. While it is known that
> this was his shitah for his kollel can someone please provide a quote
> that REED said that ALL yeshivot should be set up to develop gedolim.
> On the contrary I always assumed that his justification for such a
> program in his kollel was that talmidim who were not on such a level
> could go to other yeshivot.

In MME vol. 3, page 357, he states this as the "approach of the yeshivos".
Of course, this is in the context of a letter about a specific case,
so one could imagine that other factors were involved, but he states it
as a general rule.

I have just finished translating [into English] and typing 2 single-page
Halocho sheets,
1) Guide for Preparing the Pesach Kitchen and 
2)  Timetable & Halochos for Shabbos-Erev Pesach.

These were compiled by the Dayan of our Kehilla and are pretty useful
and user-friendly.
Anyone wanting a copy please contact me 
sba@sba2.com
SBA

I recently did research for a university essay on the minhagim during
the sefirah. I had gone through many of the rishonim and acharonim on
the topic, and noticed that the Magen Avraham (whose parents, according
to EJ, were killed in tach v'tat when he was 13) is the first (that I
found) to place restrictions on music and dancing. Is this the case,
or are music and dancing mentioned earlier? After him, it seems that
everyone mentions that some sort of issur exists on these actions. Did
this custom originate in his time (making the 'aveilus yeshana' more
machmir because of tach v'tat) or was it just not mentioned earlier? Or
was it mentioned earlier and I missed it?

The essay has been handed in :)
 -Russell

Here is a link to an essay I wrote in honour of the calendar year 5765:
"How is this year different from all other years?"
<http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/>

Some highlights:

Since Erev Pesach falls on Shabbat, we have a record 32 consecutive
days of no Tachanun, as well as 9 or 10 consecutive Shabbatot without
Av HaRachamim (see Section M).

Unique to the "hei-chet-aleph" year-type, we have no "double parashiyyot"
the whole year (even outside of Israel), and we read Acharei Mot on
Shabbat Haggadol-Erev Pesach - these events have not happened since 24
years ago (see Section O).

The Jewish holidays and calendar dates fall later in the solar year this
year than they do in all other years of the 19-year cycle (see Section Q).

The coming Rosh HaShana (5766) will be the last time before the year 6000
that the rare "dechiyyat BeTU-TaKPaT" occurs, postponing Rosh HaShana
from Monday to Tuesday (see Section W).

Comments are welcome!

 -Ari Meir Brodsky
 ----------------------
Ari M. Brodsky
ari.brodsky@utoronto.ca

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


[ 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         ]