Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 002

Thursday, April 21 2005

• Matza Mehl Rolls
• re: How wicked can one's child be?
• Re: How wicked can one's child be?
• Non-Jew at a Seder (or other Shabbos or Yom Tov meal)
• Erev Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos
• B'trei zuzei
• Re: History of the minhagim of the Omer
• Sair L'Azazel / Birds of Metzora
• Re: Eruvin
• Bracha on Tevila
• Tinok shenishba
• Re: Praying for the Sick by Name
• Re: Erev Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos
• Re: Erev Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos
• Re: Erev Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos
• May a nonJew attend a seder
• Eiruvin
• Re: How wicked can one's child be?
• Minhag Yisroel not to eat chometz this Friday after the fourth hour
• Thanking Hashem for the land of Israel in the Haggadah

For more ideas on what to eat this coming Shabbos, people might want
to review a discussion of baked matzah meal items from four years ago,
in Avodah vol 7, issues 6-17, and possibly elsewhere.

(At least three different subject titles were used in this discussion,
including "Matzah mehl Rolls on Erev Pesach", "Matzeh Mehl rolls", and
"matzo mehl rolls".)

Akiva Miller

Shmos 12:26-
Vehaya ki yomru aleichem beneichem moh ha'avodah hazos lochem.
Va'amartem zevach pesach hu laHashem asher posach al botei Bnei Yisroel...
vayikod ha'am vayishtachavu.
Rashi:
Vayikod ha'am
al besoras hageulah, ubiyas ha'aretz, ubesoras habonim sheyihiyu lohem
(ayen Mechilta)

According to Rashi, when told that in the future your children will ask
"moh ha'avodah hazos lochem" you'll tell them these words, and Bnai
Yisroel bowed and thanked Hashem for the news that they'd experience
the geulah, and coming into Eretz Yisroel, and having children.

Note that the words of the son are those associated with the Rosha -
so, they bowed and thanked Hashem for the news of their future children,
even the reshoim!

I don't remember who points out this insight on Rashi.

From: "Cantor Wolberg" <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
>We all know how the stereotypical "wicked" child is portrayed in the
>Haggadah. .. The parents are then instructed by the author of the Haggadah: "
>"hak-heh his teeth," a difficult verb usually translated as "blunt his
>teeth" or give him a slap across the mouth.
>...Nothing could be further from the true interpretation. The Hebrew verb
>hak-heh etymologically means to remove the sharpness of an iron implement
>by the warmth of fire (Kohelet 10:10). The wise and prudent parent will
>take away the sting from the words of a wicked child through familial
>love and warmth...

"hak-heh his teeth," a difficult verb. The root is found 4 times in
Tenach. Once -- in Kohelet, when the object of the verb is an iron
implement, means mean to dull a blade. But when the object is teeth "avot
achlu boser ve-shinei habanim tik'hena" ( 3 other times in Yirmiyahu and
Yehezkel) it means to give a sour taste. It could be your teeth after
eating sour grapes feel widen and blunt and not sharp, but it is not a
favorable implication as Cantor Wohlberg is trying to "doresh", obviously
not the "You can get more with honey than vinegar." The etymology
doesn't support Cantor Wohlberg's drash, though educationally he has an
argument, that is not the meaning of the phrase in the Hagadda. It may
resonate in someones neshama but not with the use of the word in Tenach

Dov A Bloom

It is clear that there is a halachic distinction between a Yom Tov and
Shabbos meal because of the Yom Tov preparation concerns. However, those
who have written regarding allowing this on Shabbos are in error for
a different reason. See the Taz in 512:6 that only under very pressing
circumstances (I will leave it for another time for the defintion of these
crcumstances) is one permitted to have a non-Jew even at a Shabbos Seuda.

Y. Dovid Kaye

A relatively new sefer, Shalmei Moed, a collection of RSZA's writings
and statements on the various Yomim Tovim cites RSZA from Sefer Erev
Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos 21:5:

And in terms of seudah shelishis on Erev Pesach when it occurs on Shabbos,
since it is permitted to eat crushed matzo [meal] that has been cooked
or fried, it is also permitted to eat cake baked from crushed mazto meal
that does not have tzuras ha'pas [the form of bread]. I believe it must
be stressed that baked cake, even if it is mostly oil, eggs and sugar and
only partly flour, is nevertheless not the same as cooked crushed matzo
[kneidlach], for the cake has the definition of pas ha'ba'ah b'kisanin,
so that if one is koveia seudah upon it, washing, HaMotzi and Birkas
HaMazon are required.

In the Yalkut Yosef, I do not have it here now to cite chapter and verse,
ROY notes that even those who have the minhag not to eat gebrokts on
Pesach may eat gebrokts on Erev Pesach. [U'milsa d'mistabra hu, as lo
adif Erev Pesach from Shemini shel Pesach!]

YGB

Not great, but nevertheless, al derech ha'tzachus v'ha'daf:

Why does the Ba'al Haggadah state that the chad gadya was purchased
b'trei zuzei?

Because in Berachos 44b we see that even though a gadya bar zuza that
is shamen v'tov may still be considered small enough to be b'geder kol
kattan maktin.

YGB

[Micha:]
> See the AhS, OCh 493:1-3.
...

I had seen the AhS and footnoted him extensively in the essay, but I am 
looking for a source pre-MA that discusses music and dancing. If it was 
from the time of the geonim, why isn't the chiluk made earlier? What was 
the source of the AhS to say that it was geonic? I don't own a set, so I 
can't look it up anymore :(

>I therefore surmised, since the AhS gives two causes -- one involve all
>of Kelal Yisrael, the other Ashkenazic, and lists minagim in two parts
>-- one involving all of KY and the other more narrow in scope, that he
>was pairing them off.

>It also would explain the difficulty in choosing dates for
>observance. Pashut peshat in the gemara is that the talmidim died
>in the first part of the omer. But the Crusades reached Ashkenaz in
>mid-to-late Iyyar.

This was mentioned in the essay, and the exact same reasoning was given 
why keeping the second part of sefira is only an ashkenazic minhag, not 
one kept by sephardim.

>On my own, I would suggest a fourth possibility, the first three being
>Tach veTat and those I just listed. It's the only time that we had
>a special avodah that is now r"l taken from us, but no special chiyuv of
>simchah. The qorban omer is therefore one special thing where mourning
>its loss would be permissable.

This was also touched upon, that even though the time of the omer was a 
time of simchah, this was attached to the korban, not a mitzvah in and 
of itself.

 -Russell

Has anyone seen a meforesh that makes a connection between the two
concepts in Metzora and Acharei Mos, both involving a pair of creatures,
one of which is set free?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:00:59 Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> I always understood shishim ribo (not ribuy) to mean 60 x 10,000 =
> 600,000. What am I missing?

Shishim ribuy (or American ribo or maybe Chasidishe ribee, suit
yourself) means 60 myriads or 60 x 10,000. However Rav Moshe zt"l had
many chiddushim in eruvin. Please see my post on Avodah Sun, 3 Apr 2005
09:16:43 for what IMHO is a full explanation of RMF's shita.

Shmuel Pultman

[At <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n109.shtml#01>.


Email #2. -mi]

On Avodah Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:45:06 Steve Brizel wrote:
> As far as Manhattan is concerned, R Lamm is fond of telling what
> happened when RAK was ready to place him in cherem or the equivalent for
> establishing an eruv on the UWS. Puuting aside of other possible problems
> with the eruv, R Lamm consulted RYBS who said to him that he was a rav
> and musmach and that he should defend his position. R Lamm visited RAK,
> who admitted that he not learned Eruvun but that he was against eruvin
> in general.

On Areivim Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:08:46 Eli Turkel commented:
> Can someone please refresh my historical memory. Where was E. Lamm
> while RAK was still alive. I thought the main proponent of the manhattan
> eruv was R. Leo Jung who was then senior rabbi of the Jewish center. Was
> R. Lamm already a junior rabbi there or was he somewhere else?

Anyone who knows what a Gaon RAK zt"l was would strongly disagree with the
statement that he did not know hilchos eruvin. [Someone stated correctly
that RAK's teshuvos regarding eruvin are frequently quoted; however,
it's important to note his sefer Shu't Mishnas Rav Aharon was printed
posthumously in 1985.] Eruvin though is a special area of expertise and
maybe R' Lamm spoke to RAK before he wrote his teshuvos (Shu't Mishnas
Rav Aharon, 6:2) but by the time RAK wrote his teshuvos I think he knew
eruvin very well indeed. [Rav Menachem Kasher claimed that Rav Shneuer
Kotler zt"l told him (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2 p. 16) that his father
RAK never finished his teshuva pertaining to the Manhattan eruv.] That
RAK was against city eruvin in general makes sense in light of the story
I heard from Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt"l which I posted in another thread
(Avodah Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:42:20).

There were more proponents of the Manhattan eruv than opponents. [When RAK
was alive they were contemplating on eruv encompassing the whole Manhattan
not just the UWS]. In 1949 Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt"l at the behest of
the Amshinover Rebbe zt"l involved himself in re-establishing the 1905
Manhattan eruv. However, unlike the 1905 eruv they were going to include
the whole Manhattan Island and not just the lower east side. Within one
year a sizable group of rabbanim and admorim joined in exploring the
feasibility of this undertaking. They included the Kapishnitzer Rebbe
the Boyaner Rebbe the Noverminsker Rebbe the Radziner Rebbe Rav Michol
Dov Weissmandel Rav Yonasan Steif. By 1958 Rav Menachem Kasher and the
Shatzer Rebbe were deeply involved with the committee to establish the
Manhattan Eruv. By 1960 even Rav Henkin signed on to the committee. In
Iyyar of 1962 an eruv was finally established under the supervision of
the Shatzer Rebbe. Two weeks later the Agudas HaRabbonim und! er the
 directive of Rav Ahron Kotler came out against the Manhattan
 Eruv. [Because of RAK Rav Moshe zt"l also signed the kola korei against
 the Manhattan eruv see Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89.]

R' Lamm is mentioned by Rav Menachem Kasher in his sefer Divrei Menachem
(O.C. vol. 2 p. 14) as being involved with helping him rectify the bridges
of Manhattan. R' Jung is mentioned by Rav Moshe in a letter he wrote
to him in 1961 stating that if the rabbanim want to establish an eruv
in Manhattan notwithstanding his objections they can do as they please
(Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:89). R' Jung is mentioned as well by Rav Kasher in
1968 as being the rabbi of a shule that was utilizing the Manhattan eruv
(Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2 p. 17).

Shmuel Pultman

> RMB wrote:
>> 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?

I then wrote:
> Okay, Okay, but you are slightly missing the point here. Clearly in
> both of these cases the woman would make a bracha -

On second thoughts - I don't think this is so pashut. After all, as I
mentioned in one of my earlier posts, tevila is a mitzvah that does not
need kavana. If a woman fully immerses in a kosher mikvah (like the sea)
wearing loose fitting clothing, tevila occurs, regardless of intention.

Now in societies like that of Melbourne/Sydney, Australia, where beach
culture is very much part of the general culture, it may even be unlikely
that any woman who has been post menopausal for any significant period
of time and who is not frum will not in fact have at some point done
a kosher tevila. And, I would assume that given that we do not make a
bracha when there is safek, unless the woman was adament she had not done
a kosher tevila (scared of putting her head under water or some such or
always been too frum to go swimming at the beach), in such a society I
would not have thought a post menopausal woman would make a bracha once
she had become frum, even though she would indeed be required to tovel,
again due to the safek that she had not in fact done a proper tevila.

In non beach societies there is less chance of this - but people do go
on holiday, and then there are other possibilities for a kosher mikvah -
anybody have any idea whether bideved the Hampstead ponds in North West
London would be a kosher mikvah? I think they are natural ponds and not
mayim shuvim, but I certainly have never investigated, and they might
be artificial with pumped water.

However if you are talking about a stam non frum woman living in a Western
Society, who had been menopausal for some time, I would have thought that
the the psak is actually more likely to be no brocha that the reverse,
due to this safek.

Further RMB writes:
>> 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".

I then said:
> The implication comes from the next phrase in each case, ie "in order to
> enter the mikdash" etc - ie the follow on line relates in all cases to
> a mitzvah. Neither the Rambam nor the Chinuch needed those extra words -
> why could they not have simiply said "if they want to be m'taher"
> without more

I think also I wasn't as clear here as I could have been. The Chinuch
goes on to say more, that one is only bitul the aseh if one then went and
did the thing one is not permitted to do with tevila without doing the
tevila (eg enter the mikdash). I read that as saying that that there is
no mitzvas aseh if one does not so intend, and that is how he is reading
the Rambam.

Regards
Chana

A while back, we had a thread about tinok shenishba, where RYGB argued
that a tinok shenishba had a shem rasha, and outside of certain specific
halachot, all the halachot of dealing with a rasha apply to him. AT the
time (RYGB may differ), we ended with my citing tshuvot to the contrary
without rebuttal.

I just was relearning (after many years) Rav Hutner's Pahad Yitzhak on
Pesach, and the third article is highly relevant to this discussion.

The article is about the statement of tosfot (yevamot 70:2 d"h depesach )
where it ends up that a mumar is assur le'echol bekodshim.
A gadol from the previous generation questioned from rashi on hulin 132:,
that every kohen who is not modeh ba'avoda has no helek in kodshim - and
rashi says that means that he says that hashem did not command korbanot.
Question is - why specific reason of not modeb ba'avoda, say that he is
an epikoros with a din of a mumar - and therefore is passul from kodshim

Rav Hutner brings down the rambam's shita on karaim- that today they have the status of TsN - and then argues as follows:

A tinok shenishba may be an epikoros in his beliefs. However, we never
apply the the term and halachot of a rasha to anything which is ones -
so even if we classify the TsN as an epikoros in terms of his beliefs,
we don't apply the notion of rasha to a TsN - he is an epikoros without
being a rasha, and therefore does not have the status of a mumar.
However, when specific halachot demand certain specific attributes,
we may say that the TsN doesn't have them.
Therefore, a TsN who doesn't believe in korbanot is not excluded from
them because of a din of epikoros - but is excluded because he is not
modeh ba'avoda. Similarly, he is excluded from writing a sefer torah -
because we require an active belief - but not from shechita, where all
that is required is shem yisrael.

This is an explicit rejection of the notion that the term (and halachot)
that apply to reshaim can be applied to a tinok shenishba.

Meir Shinnar

> The Gemara here seems to be saying pretty explicitly that when praying
> for a sick person, there is no reason (or it is maybe even improper)
> to mention the name of the sick person.....How does this fit in with
> what seems to be the universal minhag nowadays that when saying a Mi
> Shebeirach for a sick person, we explicity mention the names of the sick
> people out prayer?

I'm pretty sure that one of the meforshim on the gemara explain that,
just like when Moshe davened for Miriam, he was davening in her presence
and therefore didn't have to mention her name, so too, when we daven in
the presence of a choleh, there is no need to mention the choleh's name.
However, when we say a Mi Shebeirach for a choleh in shul, the choleh
usually isn't there, hence the need to mention the person's name.

KT and CKvS,
Aryeh

On 4/18/05, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
> In the Yalkut Yosef, I do not have it here now to cite chapter and verse,
> ROY notes that even those who have the minhag not to eat gebrokts on
> Pesach may eat gebrokts on Erev Pesach. [U'milsa d'mistabra hu, as lo
> adif Erev Pesach from Shemini shel Pesach!]

I am totally missing something here. Isn't hametz on Erev Pesach an
issur d'oraita? Or does the heter to eat gebrokts only apply until
hatzot?

At 01:31 AM 4/19/2005, [R' Simon Montagu] wrote:
>I am totally missing something here. Isn't hametz on Erev Pesach an
>issur d'oraita? Or does the heter to eat gebrokts only apply until
>hatzot?

Gebrokts is a chumrah. And it is not at all clear that in the absence
of a korban pesach there is an issur d'orysa of chametz on EP.

YGB 

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:02:09AM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: Gebrokts is a chumrah. And it is not at all clear that in the absence
: of a korban pesach there is an issur d'orysa of chametz on EP.

Wouldn't that make it a zikkaron bizman hazeh, and therefore ke'ein
de'Oraisa tiqnu?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

There is a halacha posted here or on Areivim recently and before that
in the SA (!),that one may not invite a gentile to a yom tov meal "shema
yarbeh bishvilo."

Noach Witty

RSPultman wrote:
> shishim ribuy is an accepted fundament in reshus harabbim,

What does this mean? How are you appltying this to your discussion?
What would it mean if one held otherwise?

Thanks in advance.
Noach Witty

[CRW was asked for clarification in private email. He sent me his
reply. The query was deleted from atop the email. -mi]

The shoresh is unusual; it could be "kaha" spelled "kuf,hay,hay" and also
alternatively "kof,hay,hay". I don't know of any other shoresh with two
succeeding hays. That doesn't mean there aren't any -- just that I don't
know of one.

It means to be dull, blunt or obtuse. To the best of my knowledge it
occurs only twelve times in the entire Tanach. The reference which I
made to Kohelet 10:10 (which is the only spelling with a "kuf") begins
with "Im keiha (kuf,hay,hay) habarzel..." (If the iron is blunt, and one
does not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength; But wisdom is
profitable to direct." [Regarding the iron, it refers to the metal part of
the hatchet]. The individual is compelled to strike harder and more often
to fell the tree. On the first mentioned interpretation of this section,
this is an enigmatic piece of advice to would-be-conspirators to see that
all details of their scheme are carefully examined and prepared before
attempting an insurrection. Regarding wisdom is profitable to direct,
wisdom here is plain common sense. If the workman had prepared his tool
properly, he would have accomplished his task more successfully.

The next eleven usages of this word occur in the following places:
1) Vayikra (Tazria) 13:39. "The Kohen shall look, and behold! --
on the skin of their flesh are DIM white spots..." The word for "dim"
(Kayhot) is "kof,hey,vov,tuf," (plural).
2)Vayikra 13:6
3)Vayikra 13:21
4)Vayikra 13:26
5)Vayikra 13:28
6)Vayikra 13:56 [All of the preceding 5 usages refer to the same theme
in Tazria, namely 'dim'].
7) Sh'muel Aleph 3:13 -- The meaning here is different from the others. It
has the meaning here of "rebuke."
8)Yishayahu 42:3 (pishta khayha) "dimly burning wick"
9)Yishayahu 61:3 (ruach kayha) "spirit of heaviness" or dimmed, failing
spirit.
10) Nachum 3:19 "no assuaging (kayha) of your hurt" -- literally
'dimming,' hence 'lessening the pain, healing.'
11)Zechariah 11:17 - Actually has the opposite meaning (as sometimes
occurs in any language). "...v'ayn y'mino kaho tikh'heh" "...and his
right eye shall be utterly darkened (as opposed to dimmed).

Richard Wolberg

I received a shul bulletin (via e-mail) from a well-known shul in
Woodmere which states the following:
> Even though we will still be eating some Chometz on Shabbos Erev
> Pesach this year, Minhag Yisrael is to observe the Zmanim for eating and
> disposing of Chometz on Friday this year. Except for the Chometz one will
> be using for Lechem Mishneh on Shabbos, one should refrain from eating
> Chometz after 10:14 a.m. Friday morning, and the Chometz should be burned
> before 11:34 a.m. However, the language of the Bittul Chometz should
> not be said until one finishes eating Chometz on Shabbos morning.

I have never heard of this Minhag Yisroel to refrain from eating
chometz after the fourth hour on the 13th of Nissan when Pesach falls
out on Motzei Shabbos (and frankly, it doesn't make that much sense to
me....). Is this a widespread minhag that I somehow never picked up on?
Sources anyone?

KT and CKvS,
Aryeh

Someone forwarded me an email from Rabbi David Mescheloff in which he
writes that the requirement of doresh m'arami oved avi ad she'yigmor
es ha'parsha kula means that one should also darshen the 5th pasuk:
"v'yivi'einu el ha'makom hazeh va'yiten lanu . . . eretz zovas chalav
u'dvash." He suggests that this wasn't done in galus apparently because:
it was too painful to say "and you brought us to this place" etc in the
darkness of exile; besides, perhaps, the author of the haggada did not
want to encourage people to think that the land of exile in which they
found themselves was "the promised land". He concludes that those living
in Eretz Yisrael should darshen the fifth pasuk.

Has anyone heard of this suggestion before? If the halacha truly is
that one should darshen the 5th pasuk, the reasons suggested as to why
we didn't say it while in galus ("it was too painful to say...") do not
seem convincing from a halachic perspective.

I note that even though the Rambam says that one should darshen the entire
parsha, the haggadah in the back of the Rambam (even in my Frankel Rambam)
does not darshen the fifth pasuk. (Does anyone know the history of the
text of the haggadah printed in the Rambam?)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]