Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 008

Tuesday, May 3 2005

• Re: The Geder of Mitzvas Charoses
• Re: Dayenu???
• Re: Thanking Hashem for the land of Israel in the Haggadah
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: Dayenu
• Re: Hidden Five at Seder
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: Teaching Children Midrashim
• Re: Sair L'Azazel / Birds of Metzora
• Re: Tinok shenishba
• Re: "obligation" to believe aggadata
• Re: dreams and schar veonesh
• Re: Kitniyos and bitul
• Re: Dayenu
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: Dayenu???
• Pirqe Abot
• Re: Pirqe Abot
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: Brocha on Tevila
• hametz sheavar alav haPesah
• Re: Dayenu??
• Re: Brocha on Tevila

Moshe Schor said:
> RYGB wrote:
>> V'asher al kein yeira'eh lomar that the Rambam does rule, in fact, in
>> accordance with Chachamim. The Rambam - both in the Peirush HaMishnayos
>> and the Yad - is consistent in this respect. His position is that this,
>> in and of itself, was the machlokes between REBRT and the Chachamim
>> - whether the mitzvah of charoses is a mitzvas achilah or a mitzvas
>> hava'ah. The nafka mina is, of course, whether there is a berachah on
>> the charoses or not: If the mitzvah is one of achilah, then of course it
>> follows that it should have its own berachah. But if it is a mitzvah of
>> hava'ah, it is no different than the other mitzvos hava'ah of the Seder
>> - viz., the zero'a and beitzah - upon which no berachah is made....

> I have a few problems with your Peshat as opposed to RYBS. First of all,
> the Mishneh on Pesachim 114a says according to T"K that you bring to the
> table Charoses among other things although it's not a Mitzvah. The Gemara
> 116a asks that if it's not a Mitzvah why bring it? The Gemara answers
> to counteract the harmful Kafa (poison?) in the Marror. Then the Gemara
> discusses The opinion of REBRT who holds it's a Mitzvah & the reasons why
> it's a Mitzvah. If the T"K also held that it was a Mitzvah to bring to the
> table for the reasons of commemorating the mortar or apple, why didn't
> the Gemara give that answer for why we bring it to the table? Secondly

I think it is not far-fetched to suppose that the ikkar reason to have an
additional tibbul on the table is for kapa, but that the form the tibbul
takes is significant in its own right.

> I don't think it really answers the question of why the Rambam reqires
> all the dippings in Charoses. Just because they are all Zecher to Avdus
> does not necessarily mean that they all require any dipping at all. The

"Require" is a tall order. I assume the Rambam would aqree that one is
yotzei the mitzvos that he connects to charoses even if the charoses were
excluded. Nevertheless, it is there and appropriate to incorporate in the
Seder.

> Gemara says according to the T"K that we dip it because of the "kafa"
> of the Morror which does not apply to the Karpas & Matzah. In addition,
> how does Rambam & R' Yechiel know that Karpas is Zecher to Avdus?

See Teshuvos Maharil #58 and Mahari Weil #131. I assume there are other
sources, butI did not check further l'eis attah.

While the Meiri (and others) state explicitly that the Rambam recanted
and ruled in accordance with REBRT, among the Rishonim that indicate
that the psak is in accordance with Chachomim while at the same time
zecher l'tit applies are the Avudraham on the Hagaddah and the Rashbetz
in Maamar Chametz #125 (all these sources courtesy of Bar Ilan!).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
rygb@aishdas.org   www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> The next-to-last stanza of Dayenu is usually translated: "If He would
> have given us the Torah, but not brought us in to the Land of Israel,
> it would have been enough for us!"

> The question: He *did* give us the Torah, but many of us are living
> outside of the Land, and it is *not* enough for us! The Torah is not
> enough; we want Israel too!

I always translate "dayeinu" as "that's all we would have deserved", which 
occasionally raises eyebrows among guests, but solves most of the textual 
problems.

David Riceman 

R. Simon Montagu wrote:
> the psak inside the Yad is for zman
> hamikdash, but the text of the haggadah is for use today, and indeed
> the Rambam explicitly prefaces the haggadah text "nussah hahaggadah
> shenahegu bah Yisrael bizman hagalut kach hi".

The question is whether the Rambam (and the Mishna's) formulation "ad
she'yigmor es ha'parsha kula" was meant just for when there is a beis
hamikdash, or even when we are in Eretz Yisrael with no beis hamikdash.  The
Mishnah (Pesachim 10:4) clearly  is referring to before the churban, as the
questions of Ma Nishtanah refer to basar tzli.  Anyone have access to Rav
Kasher's haggadah?  Apparently there he quotes old nusach Eretz Yisrael
haggados which darshen the fifth pasuk of Arami Oved Avi; were those
nuscha'os pre or post churban hamikdash?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> I didn't say "sof". I said "Zman Kriyas Shema". Zman Kriyas Shema
> doesn't begin until Netz.

Misheyakir. Which is somewhat after dawn, but considerably before
sunrise. The time between dawn and Misheyakir isn't all that much,
especially around the equinox, and at that latitude.

Another question: did R Eliezer's talmidim come in a few minutes later,
because he holds to a later definition of Misheyakir?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:41:15AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Another question: did R Eliezer's talmidim come in a few minutes later,
: because he holds to a later definition of Misheyakir?

R' Elazar ben Azaryah holds that qorban pesach is until chatzos. Yet,
he hung around the seder until the morning.

There's a Brisker Torah on this, with contributions from the Beis HaLevi,
R' Chaim and RYBS. It's possible that there is a split between when
the latest time one may eat the qorban and when it becomes nosar. So,
one could argue that REbA held that one can eat until chatzos, but it
becomes nosar even according to him at morning. Nafka mina lehalakhah:
kishkes do not require being eaten by a formal member of the chaburah,
so perhaps they could be eaten until the nosar time.

In which case, "ba'avur zeh" could be until morning, even though the
mitzvah of eating the qorban is over (leshitaso).

But I think there is a simpler answer that addresses both questions:
In Benei Beraq, they were either guests by R' Aqiva's, or someone else
following shitas R' Aqiva, the mara de'asra.

So, REbA may have felt htere was no chiyuv maggid anymore, but why
would he be poreish to leave? Similarly, R' Eliezer had no chiyuv to be
"in your face" about davening Shema later. (Besides, once everyone else
left, who would he stay there to talk to?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed for another?

Very nice. However, you could ask the same Q on each stanza of "Dayenu" -
would it have been enough just to come out of Egypt but not be sustained
and given the Torah etc.? From our perspective ­ of course not.

Alternatively, why not understand "Dayenu" as meaning - "that particular
chesed was so great we should relate to it as if it itself would have
been enough - i.e., more than we deserved."

Which is why we conclude with "So all-the-more-so do we owe thanks..."

Alexander Seinfeld

NB -- the GR"A argues on the Midrash ("a mistake"!) -- he says that
the 3rd statement -- "v'goalti" -- really counts for two redemptions
("bzroah netuya uvishfatim g'dolim"). He brings as a proof the Yerushalmi
that links the 4 cups to the 4 cups of salvation in Tehillim -- really
(says the Gr"a) there are only 3 but the 3rd (Ps. 116) is plural --
"kos yeshuos" and therefore contains 2 just like "v'goalti." Classic GR"A.

After reading this thread it occurs to me that the Gaon's vort only
works if you ignore Ps. 75 which is an additional "kos" (#5?) and in
context is distinct from the others as it refers to a cup in Hashem's
hand during the final ge'ulah.

AS

> Does this mean that one would fulfill the Mitzva of the night by merely
> discussing the intricacies of the various Hilchos Pessach?

Rav Asher Z. Weiss discusses this in Hagaddah Shel Pesach Minchat
Asher. The Tosefta (10:12) says the five chachamim in Bnei Brak were
learning hilchot Pesach all night. The Brisker Rov, R. Velvel, is quoted
as saying that this shows that one may fulfill his obligation on the
night of the 15th of Nissan by learning hilchot Pesach. The Tur and SA
OH481 mention both sippur yetziat mitzraim and learning hilchot Pesach
as the requirements of the night.

R. Weiss says, al pi svara, that one who learns *only* hilchot Pesach,
and says nothing about the miracles done to us in the course of yetziat
mitzraim, has not fulfilled his obligation, and has been mevatel a
mitzvat aseh. Learning hilchot Pesach is in the geder of kol hamarbeh
harei ze meshubach, since they are connected to yetziat mitzraim. He
quotes a very interesting Sifra in the beginning of Parshat B'chukotei,
and the Raavad and Rash there, that learning hilchot megilla is a kiyum
in mitzvat z'chirat Amalek. Surely one cannot fulfill the mitzva of
z'chirat Amalek by *only* learning hilchot megilla; nevertheless hilchot
megilla are a kiyum in this mitzva. This is true too of hilchot Pesach
and mitzvat sippur yetziat Mitzraim. See Hagaddah Shel Pesach Minchat
Asher, Shaarei Limud, 4:3.

Saul Mashbaum

I just heard a great Sfas Emes (from Rabbi Doni Deutsch of Chicago
Torah Network). The Torah uses the term "b'kiah" which implies one split
"miminam choma u'mismolam choma". Then in Hallel Hagodal we have "gizrei
yam" which the Sfas Emes explains shows that the sea was split into 12
gizrei yam suf, showing the importance of each shevet. Each shevet was
worthy of having the sea split for it alone. Then the sfas emes cites the
posuk in Tehillim that we say in slichos "ata forarta b'ozcha yam" that
shows that the there was much more than 12 rows. There were a multitude
of splits as is indicated by the usage of the forarto (as in pirurim -
crumbs). Meaning that every individual was worthy of having the sea
split for him/her.

I don't recall if the sfas emes said that there were millions of sits
or just that each individual was great enough to have the sea split in
his/her behalf. For me, this gives a great insight into the medrash.

But how do you teach this medrash to your kids? Do you says there was one
split? Many? Water fountains? Fruit trees? Marble tiled floors? I've got
a little sefer that has an artist's rendition of all of the above and
more. My eight year old really enjoyed looking through it. But should
I tell him the Maharal that says it's likely not literal? What about a
5 year old? A 3 year old? What about a table that has all of those ages
there? Just avoid the whole subject then?

RnRS:
> 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?

The gemara Yoma 62b notes a halachic similarity between these two pairs:
in each pair, the two creatures should be similar in appearance, of
equal value, and acquired together.

Saul Mashbaum

In Avodah V15 #2 Meir Shinnar <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> quotes the Pachad
Yitzchok who explains that a tinok shenishba does not havea shem rasha,
although he is disqualified from some mitzvot (He does not have the psul
of a kofer, but nevertheless lacks the maala of a maamin)

Chapter 11 of the recently published shiurim of RYBS on Tefillin, Stam,
and Tzitit, edited by R. M.Yair Kahn and published by Mossad HaRav Kook,
is devoted to precisely this question. Specifically, RYBS contrasts the
halachot of schechita and sta"m regarding psul mumar. In my opinion,
the Rov's undertanding is virtually identical to that quoted in the name
of Rav Hutner. Ayen Sham.

Saul Mashbaum

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 01:48:06PM -0400, Mike W wrote:
: I heard the following story from R' Michel Shurkin, concerning this topic:
: When R' Shurkin was learning by the Rav(RYBS), he had an argument with a
: prominent talmid of the rav and YU rosh yeshiva (whom r' Shurkin did not
: want to to divulge the identity of). The argument came down to this point,
: whether that talmid was a kofer for arguing with an aggadata gemora. R'
: Shurkin called RYBS who said the person in question certainly was a
: kofer, because the Ramabam in Teshuva 3:17 lists as a kofer one who is
: "machchish magideha." Ad kan.

But no one is denying the value of accepting aggadita. Rather, whether
"accepting aggadita" includes the historicity of the story, as well as
the nimshal.

Given the Rambam's balzingly negative description in his intro to pereq
Cheileq of the two katim who do believe in the historicity of every
aggadic story, it's hard to believe RYBS would declare that assuming
one of these positions an ikkar. Not to mention the Maharal, Maharsha,
and Gra each deny that chazal had any interest in the historicity of
these stories.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed for another?

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:05:27PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In the recent daf yomi Rava's wife (and children) died because of he
: did not pay for the interpretation of his dream and so received a bad
: interpretation which the Gemara states affects the future. Abaye OTOH
: paid and so received a good interpretation.

: Where does schar veonesh come into all of this...

Someone falls off a cliff and dies. Where does sechar ve'onesh come into
all of this?

David haMelekh fell, and we're told the satan pushed him. Is there any
less sechar va'onesh in that?

It's very "Yefetic" to tie everything down to a single cause, rather
than looking at the interconnected and relationship between things.
Things operate on multiple levels. HP can operate without necessarily
violating teva.

Or, if you'd prefer a rishon's explanation: any way one can make shalom
between teva and sechar va'onesh should work here too.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed for another?

RMB wrote: <<Does "mevateil issur lechat-chilah" apply to the mevateil's
definition of issur? I could see arguing that it should be, based on the
fact that bitul lechat-chilah by a nachri is bitul. However, I thought
that had to do with the nachri's lack of relevent da'as. By saying that
it depends on the mevateil, one makes it look like this is some kind of
onesh for trying to get away with bitul, rather than a kelal in birur.>>

Bime'hilat kevod Torato, methinks that you are mixing up two concepts:
keshenod'ah hata'arovet (relevant especially for 'hatikhah na'asit
neveilah) and ein mevatlin issur lekhat'hilah, the latter being indeed
a form of onesh. I believe that you are applying the reasoning of one
to the other. And yes, there is a problem of bittul issur lekhat'hilah
with kitnios, and regarding whether it applies before Pessach, see
Rabbi Aqivah Eiger on whether there is at all a problem of being mevatel
'hametz (!) before Pessach lekhat'hilah and see Shut Dovev Meisharimn
siman 2 about the more mainstream suggestion that it is ok to be mevatel
kitnois lekhat'hilah before Pessach.

Arie Folger

At 01:13 PM 5/2/2005 -0400, [R Alexander Seinfeld] wrote:
>Very nice. However, you could ask the same Q on each stanza of "Dayenu" -
>would it have been enough just to come out of Egypt but not be sustained
>and given the Torah etc.? From our perspective ­ of course not.

>Alternatively, why not understand "Dayenu" as meaning - "that particular
>chesed was so great we should relate to it as if it itself would have
>been enough - i.e., more than we deserved."

>Which is why we conclude with "So all-the-more-so do we owe thanks..."

This is close to what Rabbi Dr. Twersky writes. He says about the stanza
about it would have been enough to get their wealth but not have the sea
split for us,it is to teach us to be grateful for every chesed Hashem
does for us even if we cannot see how it will be useful or good. At the
Sea we might not have been able to see the value in having the wealth
when it looked like we would all die.

Similarly, my Rav, HaRav Boruch Hirschfeld, Shlita, often talks about the
importance of being properly thankful and that means to break it down
into the many parts. We see that the all inclusive brocha of shehakol
is a lower level of thanks than the brochas specifying the category of
food. My saying is "hakaros hatov is like taxes - it pays to itemize".

mendel

Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>> I didn't say "sof". I said "Zman Kriyas Shema". Zman Kriyas Shema
>> doesn't begin until Netz.

> Misheyakir. Which is somewhat after dawn, but considerably before
> sunrise. The time between dawn and Misheyakir isn't all that much,
> especially around the equinox, and at that latitude.

But it ..IS... earlier. Another explantion is that Higiya ...DOES
refer to Sof Z'man KS and that is why they needed to be interipted by
the Talmidim. Why else woiuld they have the Chutzpah to interupt
those Chachmim from learnig? Or even if you say they weren't doing
Sipur B'Toras Limud wat was the harm in letting them continue until
Sof Zman KS? 

> Another question: did R Eliezer's talmidim come in a few minutes later,
> because he holds to a later definition of Misheyakir?

I don't know.

HM

In Avodah V15#7, RAM asked:
> I was dumbstruck. What have we been thinking all these years while saying
> these words? What were the authors of this poem thinking?

Possibly (IMHO, most likely :-)) "Dayainu" means "[if He had done X but
not Y] it would have been enough reason to thank hQbH" (Qal vaChomer when
He _did_ do Y, too, we should thank Him), and see RMLeibtag's thoughts on
the matter (re why we say "Dayainu" at that point in the evening, etc.).
I believe that explanation should answer RAM's question.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

The custom of the Sefaradim in Israel, Syria, Turkey & Egypt is to read
Masekhet Abot and Pereq Qinyan Torah in the synagogue on each Shabbat
between Pesah & Shabou'ot. On each Shabbat 1 pereq and it is recited
pleasantly and melodiously. Depending on the place and time it would
also be translated into either Ladino or Arabic for all to hear and
understand. The custom of the Ashkenazim used to be to recite them each
Shabbat from Perashat Yitro until Perashat Mas'e, but the current custom
among Ashkenazim is for these chapters to be recited each Shabbat from
Pesah until Rosh Hashanah.

This custom is very old and dates back to the days of the Geonim. Rab
Amram Gaon in his sidour mentions it as the custom in his day in Babylonia
that after Minhah (each Shabbat) they would study Pirqe About. It is
also mentioned by Rab Sar Shalom Gaon and Rab Haaye Gaon.

Rabbi Abraham BeRibi Natan HaYarhi (passed away in 1215) in his Sefer
Hamanhigh mentions that the custom in Babylonia, Spain and Provence is
to recite Pirqe Abot after minhah each Shabbat. Elsewhere he mentions
it as the custom of France and Provence.

Rabbi David AbouDirham tells us that the custom in Spain was to read
Masekhet Abot and Qinyan Torah on each Shabbat between Pesah and
Shabou'ot, one chapter each Shabbat.

The Mahzor Vitri also quotes Rab Sar Shalom Gaon as this being the custom
in Babylonia.

Obviously the custom changed over time from a year round thing to a
specially reserved item during these weeks in our preparation for the
receiving of the Torah!

Our Hakhamim have said Derekh Eress Qadma LaTorah. Rabbi Shem Tob Gaguine
in his Keter Shem Tob said that since Pirqe Abot is all codes of ethics
and morals how fitting it is to study it and learn it and absorb it's
ways prior to receiving the Torah.

This minhag is still very strong in Jerusalem were there is an ancient
tune used for the recitation of these Mishnayot and after the recitation
of one chapter a week the rabbi gets up and delivers a sermon expounding
on the thoughts and ideas expressed by our sages of old.

Recently some of the speeches by our late Chief Rabbi and Rishon Lession
Hakham Ben Sion Meir Hai Ouziel have been published for the first time
from manuscript together with the complete text of Pirqe Abot in both
Hebrew and Ladino.

In Egypt it was the custom to study the Pirqe Abot with the commentary of
Rabbenou David HaNagid (the grandson of HaRambam) in Arabic. It was used
by the Rabbis of Cairo from the original manuscript for centuries until it
was finally published in 1901 and again in 1932. A Hebrew translation was
made from the Arabic and published in Israel in 1944 and again in 1987.

It's my understanding that this custom is still practiced by the Moroccan
communities in Israel and the Turkish community in Seattle,Washington.

I've recently been informed that this custom never existed in Aleppo
even though an attempt was made at one point about 70 years ago to get
the young boys there to recite it during these shabatot.

There are many commentaries available on Abot but I just thought I would
mention a few of the early published Sephardic ones.Probably the first
and foremost traditional Sephardic running commentary on Pirqe Abot is
Midrash Shemouel by Hakham Shemouel ben Yisshaq Ouceda (1538-1602). It's
truly an important anthology of early commentators on Abot. It was first
printed in Venice in 1579.

Rabbi Mosheh Almosnino (1514-1581) wrote Pirqe Mosheh (Salonika 1562)
on Abot.

Ribbi Yehoudah Lirmah (1505-1572) issued his commentary on Abot Lehem
Yehoudah in Venice 1553 and a revised version in Salonika 1554.

Leb Abot (Salonika 1565) by Rabbi Shelomo HaLevi (1532-1600).

Rabbi Yosef ben Haim Ya'abess (1441-1507) also issued a commentary on
Abot in Constantinople 1553 and Adrianople 1555.

There are many more but I just wanted to scratch the surface so that you
would be aware that we must look back to our great Sephardic Luminaries
before looking at more modern non-traditional sources.

The lessons of our "FATHERS" are great and we must learn them and head
their words. Take them to heart and put them into action.

Shabbat (May 7, 2005) is the first of these weeks, let's all make an
effort to read and study these mishnayot.

JOEY MOSSERI
````````````````````````````````

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:34:43AM -0400, JosephMosseri wrote:
: The lessons of our "FATHERS" are great and we must learn them and head
: their words. Take them to heart and put them into action.

According to the Bartenura, the "avos" in "Pirqei Avos" is in the same
sense as "avos melakhah". Not fathers, but first principles.

Which, in turn, gets us into a discussion as to whether mitzvos have
any comprehensible avos, an issue I think brings us to the heart of
the difference between Brisk and Telzhe.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            most appropriate?

On 5/3/05, Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But it ..IS... earlier. Another explantion is that Higiya ...DOES
> refer to Sof Z'man KS and that is why they needed to be interipted by
> the Talmidim. Why else woiuld they have the Chutzpah to interupt
> those Chachmim from learnig? Or even if you say they weren't doing
> Sipur B'Toras Limud wat was the harm in letting them continue until
> Sof Zman KS?

A possible explanation is that the Rebbeim were in hiding in a cellar
or cave & did not know the time.  This would expalin why the students
had to tell them what time it was and why they were not with their
respective families for Yom Tov.  I don't recall the source of this
explanation.

R'n CL wrote, regarding a teshuvah of RSZA she quoted: <<Anybody have
any idea what these minhagim and chumros that are being referred to
here are?>>

I believe he refers to when the colour (for you Englishpeople) of a
stain or on a bedikah cloth is doubtful. We are, after all, not realy
experts on this matter, as we were taught in massekhet Nidah. Hence,
we are ma'hmir on many colours and aren't even aware of it, thinking it
is midinah. Now imagine a woman who spotted, consequently treats herself
as a nidah/zavah and eventually goes to mikveh, she does make a brakhah,
even as she might have been tehorah all along.

Leharbeis Teireh ulehaadiroh,
Arie Folger

A friend was talking about the distributer problem, i.e., that the
middlemen who buy from manufacturers and sell to supermarkets are Jewish,
so you have to worry about lots of goods being hametz sheavar alav
hapesah. I wonder, however, how many of them are hametz at all.

On Pesah, both for achilah and for bal yiraeh/bal yimatze we are very
mahmir. We worry that washed grain may have absorbed water, and (since
we're not bekiin) that any grain which has absorbed water may have
become hametz. We worry that any flour which has soaked in water for long
enough, whether or not it displays the characteristic signs of himutz,
has become hametz. We hold that hametz is assur b'mashehu.

After Pesah, on the other hand, we hold that hametz sheavar alav haPesah
is an issur derabbanan. So why should we be worried about any of those
cheshashoth? Why should we consider flour or macaroni to be hametz? I
can see that things containing yeast (like crackers and some cookies)
might present a problem, but why should anything else present a problem?

David Riceman 

RAM wrote:
> And then I saw The Lehmann Hagadah, published by Feldheim. Lehmann
> translates "Dayenu" differently than any other hagada I can remember
> seeing. He punctuates it not with an exclamation point, but with a
> question mark.

> NOT "It would have been enough!"
> Rather, "Would it have been enough?"

My wife asked this question at the seder, and the next day, having looked
into the matter, I gave a shiur explaining that dayeinu means "it would
have been sufficient ... to obligate us to recite hallel" which fits
neatly the continuation of 'al a'hat kamah ve-khamah ... lefikhakh... (!)

Arie Folger

In message <002b01c54c36$09aced40$44db84d9@shalom>, Saul Mashbaum 
<smash52@netvision.net.il> writes
> It is clear to me that RSZA is referring to doubtful cases of nida/ziva,
> in which women are stringent to consider themselves nidot, count 7 clean
> days, and do tvila (like tipat dam k'chardal, llo hargasha).

My understanding is that the consensus is that llo hargasha takes the 
tumah from a d'orisa level to a d'rabbanan level, and if that is 
correct, then there still should be a bracha.  tipat dam k'chardal is, 
however a minhag according to the gemora, so perhaps that is what he is 
referring to.

...
> RSZA's answer is that such a tvila may well have an effect, since it may
> make a woman t'hora to enter the har-habayit, which she would not be able to
> do before the tvila, as one who was poletet shichvat zera.

> Chana's questions on this passage are indeed serious; by this logic, a
> man should make a bracha on erev YK, and in fact for any tvilat keri. And,
> as Chana further points out, if the woman has not had relations since her
> previous tvila, then the effect RSZA ascribes to the tvila does not apply.
...

But surely the same argument can be run for the tevila by men on Yom
Kippur - since a man is surely also required to make a bracha over it
when it is a mitzva. When a man is involved in entering har habayis,
or in any of the avodahs of the beis hamikdash, he will also do tevila
and presumably make a bracha, so why should he not make a brocha on erev
yom kippur?

> It is *possible* that a similar concept may apply to the mechaber,
> who says a bracha is made only if the mitzva is obligitory

No, because Sephardim do not make a bracha on Hallel when it is only
a minhag (eg Rosh Chodesh) despite the fact that they do make bracha
when it is obligatory (such as Channukah).

> (and not when it is voluntary, as it brachot on lulav and succa for
> women). It may be that if the mitzva requires a bracha when obligitory,
> as tvilat nashim mitzad hadin, a bracha may be made over it when it
> is strictly not, if it achieves a significant halachic effect, such
> as achieving tahara which would allow one to enter har-habayit. OTOH,
> since a man's tvila l'keri is never strictly required, it does not merit
> a bracha, even though it achieves the same effect

But it is required when he wishes to enter har habayis. Also, by this
logic, should not *women* who go to mikvah on erev yom kippur make
a brocha.

>Indeed, according to RSZA's explanation, a sfardi woman who had no
>relations since her last tvila would not make a bracha on a tvila done to
>maintain a minhag.

Do you think though that in reality that is a question that is in fact
asked in the cases that RSZA refers to?

Leaving aside RSZA, and just throwing out a suggestion - I wonder whether
an alternative explanation might be that even the mechaber might allow a
bracha on a minhag that is explicitly mentioned in the gemora. After all,
that is the case for the tipat dam k'chardal, in contradistinction to any
of these other minhagim you mention. And the other case that springs to
mind of a minhag on which Sephardim most definitely do make brochas is
minhag avosanu b'yadanu - second day yom tov, on which they do the full
kiddush, seder etc, but of course the keeping of two days yom tov is a
minhag (once the calendar was set and it stopped being meshum safek)
mentioned in the gemora (and even when it was meshum safek, normally
one does not make a bracha on a safek, so how to justify brochas on
either day).

In message , Akiva Blum <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>  then writes
>He is refering to the fact that when a women has a ketem that requires
>a psak, the psak will not always be definite tomei, but may be meshum
>sofek (note leadmimut). Nevertheless, women are noheg to make a brocho
>on all tevillos.

I would have assumed that they would have been told to toyvel without a
bracha and certainly ROY appears to hold that way (see Taharat Habayit
chelek beis siman 15, si'if 3 - A woman who sees a kesem even without
hargasha needs to make a bracha on her tevila, even though she is only
tameh d'rabbanan, because there was no hargasha when the dam came out
and also the kesem is only tameh m'safek, maybe it came from the makor
or maybe it came from the sides since chazal were gozer an issur of tumas
kesem she needs to make a bracha on her tevila. But if she sees dam that
is a safek ... and the chacham makes her tameh m'safek she does not make
a bracha on the tevila since she is only tameh m'safek, and safek bracha
l'hakel. And if it is possible it is good to listen to the bracha made
by a friend who is tameh vadai, and intend to exempt her obligation with
that bracha.). Note he also goes on to say that a woman who does her
first tevila after giving birth, and who then does another tevila on
dam tahor, also does not make a bracha. Is ROY a das yachid on this one?

Interestingly, one Friday night I was one of the last coming out of the
changing rooms of the mikvah, and the mikvah lady grabbed me and said
she had just had a question with one of the other ladies. After the other
lady had toyvelled, she remembered that she had put on lip-gloss on her
lips before shabbas, and while after the tevila the lip gloss was gone,
the lady was not sure that it had been gone during the tevila. So the
mikvah lady had made her go back and toyvel again, but without a bracha.
But she wasn't sure if she had done the right thing. And she showed me her
"mikvah lady's guide", which gave a potted summary of various halachas -
and brought exactly this case where a woman remembered after tevila that
she had forgotten to take off make-up (although no mention was made of a
Friday night), and it stated that in such a case a competent Rav should
be consulted - and she looked at me and I looked at her, and there was
no way there was a competent Rav to consult anywhere accessible on a
Friday night.

So I said to her, lets think about this from first principles. Failing to
toyvel properly means one is potentially over an issur d'orisa (chayav
kares) and safek d'orisa l'chumra. But making a brocha is a d'rabbanan,
and safek d'rabbanan l'kula, so I think you did the right thing to make
her toyvel again, but not make the bracha.

But from what you are saying maybe she should have had this lady make
the bracha again (this presumably being an Ashkenazi lady and certainly
an Ashkenazi mikvah).

>This may not answer all the questions but is clear to me that that is
>his intention.

I did wonder whether maybe what was being referred to was the minhag
brought by the Rema for women who the first baalei chaim they meet on
coming out of the mikvah is a dog or tameh animal or person, are noheg
to toyvel again (Yoreh Deah siman 198, si'if 48) - but certainly ROY
(again) holds that such a tevila should be without a bracha (Taharat
Habayit siman 15, si'if 7).

Regards
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

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


[ 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         ]