Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 098

Tuesday, January 24 2006

• RE: Jewish Clothes
• Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays
• Re: Bal tashchis and burning Chometz
• Re: Kashrus which became: Bal Tashchis and burning Chometz
• Re: Emunah, Corruption, and the Mabul
• Re: Emunah, Corruption, and the Mabul
• Re: Kashrus which became: Bal Tashchis and burning Chometz
• Pas Akkum - Kashrus
• Re: Sending Food to Someone Sitting Shiva
• Re: Sending Food to Someone Sitting Shiva
• Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays
• Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays
• Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays

WRT the discussion about the custom of charedim to wear black clothes,
the following letter was published in the January 20, 2006 edition of
the Yated Ne'eman:

=====================================================================
Dear Editor,
...
I heard from Rav Aaron Kreiser zt"l that when Rav Elchonon Wasserman was
in the United States, he was questioned by a newspaper reporter as to
why the rabbonim always wear black. With his encyclopedic knowledge of
Medrash, he immediately responded that the color of Yissochor's stone
in the Choshen was black. This is the source of black for those who are
the contemporary Yissochors - the Bnei Torah.

Kol tuv, 
Dov Klughaft
Brooklyn, N.Y.
=====================================================================

KT,
Aryeh

On 1/22/06, Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given these 2 points, a trip to the store in the city is never
>> mechayev tefilas haderech. The question remains how do you define the
>> city. RSZA takes an expansive view and suggests that even a highway
>> nowadays is considered in the city because so many people travel on
>> it. Others take the opposite view that a highway is always considered
>> out of teh city because it is disconnected from the houses.

> In my case, I live in Neve Daniel, Gush Etzion.  It's a 5 minute drive
> to Alon Shevut, and that doesn't require passing through Arab
> villages....
> [S]ince ThD could techically be said because of the possibility of
> terrorism (and presumably tourists, who don't understand the
> situation, do actually say it for that reason), I feel entitled to say
> ThD even though my concern is terrorism.

 From Neve Daniel to Alon Shvut is considered leaving the city and
therefore there is room to say tefilas haderech, however, in the
city itself from on place to another there is no chiyuv whatsoever and
therefore someon who lives in a big city would never say tefilas haderech
going to the store.

[Micha:]
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:31:06PM +0200, R Danny Schoemann wrote:
>: However, neither in the MB nor in the OH (siman 448) do I see any hint
>: of minimising the amount of chometz being burnt.

>I'm not sure if this she'eilah would be lema'aseh for too many people
>until recently. Even the wealthy didn't have the same ability to
>store more than necessary...

> The few who did, like liquor store owners, were the people for whom
> heter mechirah was invented!

Granted that extended storage wasn't common for the average person many
years ago. People still had some Hametz, a week's or a month's worth,
perhaps. There is no mention that one should be careful not to destroy
more than x amount of Hametz. Furthermore, there are those whose custom
was for individuals to sell Hametz Gamur, so if there was enough to sell
there probably was enough to discard for those whose custom it was not
to sell Hametz Gamur. The obligation is to rid oneself of all Hametz no
matter the amount. This should be an instance where Lo ra'inu ra'ayah.

Jacob Farkas

Chana Luntz <Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> it is considered a big zchus for 
> the meis for those coming to be menachem avelim to eat and thereby 
> make brochos in the house ... 

IMHAO (In my humble Ashkenazocentric opinion) I have seen this at many
Sefaradim of different edot.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net> wrote:
> Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> it seems that there
>> are millions of artifacts that testify to an unbroken chain of existence
>> of various peoples and cultures that predate the Mabul. 

> There are issues with regards to the techniques used to date ancient
> finds. Every single one of them relies on a chain of unproven assumptions.

> Carbon dating (the most common technique) assumes that the current
> levels of carbon in our atmosphere are exactly the same as they've been
> for... well, forever. ...

> The same is true with counting tree rings.  ...tree ring counting
> assumes that only one ring is formed on a tree each year, which is
> demonstratably false....

At the risk of sounding like an Apikores, I must agree that it isn't
quite that simple but I turn it around on you. To eliminate carbon
dating doesn't eliminate "the millions of artifacts that testify to an
unbroken chain of existence of various peoples and cultures that predate
the Mabul." It just seems to me that it can't be all about carbon dating
or tree rings. I don't beleive that sincere people who are believers in
our Mesorah and point to these artifacts would not be so easily led away
from a literal interpretaion of the Mabul.

As I said, I am poorly equipped to argue their case for them. But the
question is raised in my mind. I don't say that your answer is not
complete, but I wonder what those who view the artifact evidence to be
compelling would say to you.

HM

At 04:51 PM 1/23/2006, Harry Maryles wrote:
>>So with all due respect to the knowledgable commentator, it's not 
>>quite that simple.
>
>At the risk of sounding like an Apikores, I must agree that it isn't 
>quite that simple but I turn it around on you. To eliminate carbon 
>dating doesn't eliminate "the millions of artifacts that testify to 
>an unbroken chain of existence of various peoples and cultures that 
>predate the Mabul."  It just seems to me that it can't be all about 
>carbon dating or tree rings. I don't beleive that sincere people who 
>are believers in our Mesorah and point to these artifacts would not 
>be so easily led away from a literal interpretaion of the Mabul.

I don't think you sound like an Apikores at all. It's a legitimate
question. I'm not sure you'll like the answer, though.

Bear in mind that I haven't seen the specific evidence that was
cited here. Nor am I an expert in radiocarbon dating, or other dating
techniques. But how do you suppose there can be "millions of artifacts
that testify to an unbroken chain... that predates the Mabul"? As I
said, I haven't seen the description of what artifacts the commentator
was referring to, but I'll stipulate that there might be an unbroken
chain of artifacts, just for the sake of argument.

So consider the earliest artifact in the chain. How do they know it
predates the Mabul? How do they know that it doesn't date to, say,
the time of Avraham Avinu? Or earlier or later or what have you?
That's why I immediately went to the question of dating. Because there
are no absolute dates in antiquity.

When I was little, I used to read the Encyclopedia Brown books. They were
mysteries/puzzles for kids. In one story, Encyclopedia is presented with
a coin that has the date "4 BC" (or something like that) engraved on it.
He deduces immediately that the coin is a forgery. The reason is obvious
to us as adults, but not so much to kids. You can't have a coin dated
that way, because that dating system postdates the supposed date.

Dating antiquity is done primarily by constructing chains; it's true.
But what you get after all that constructing is very much like a map
without a key. If I show you a map of a place you've never been, and
there are two cities marked on it, how do you know the distance between
the two cities? Without a key, it's impossible. There's a map on my
wall here, and it looks to me like New York and Chicago are a couple of
inches apart. Now, I *know* that they're closer together than Los Angeles
and Boston, because I can see that. I can make that sort of comparison.
But I can only conclude relative things unless I have a key.

So what's the key for ancient history? There may not be one. But that's
not at all satisfying to the scholarly mind. Enter radiocarbon dating,
tree rings, ice layers, and so on. They quench the thirst for order.
It feels good to know, even if the knowledge may not be that solid.

And now we get to frum Jews who bend to this sort of scholarly
proclamation. There are a few things happening here. One is that you
just can't be knowledgable in every area. For every minute I put into
learning about ancient history, that's a minute that I haven't spent
learning how to draw. As a result, I can't draw a straight line with
a ruler. You pretty much have to rely on specialists for most things.
So they rely on the experts in this area. They rely on their conclusions,
and never look at where those conclusions come from, because that's what
human beings do. Life is just too short to reinvent the wheel yourself
every time.

The other issue is one of... well, self-esteem, I think. The first thing
that happens when you reject a scholarly consensus is that people start
to look at you funny. And if they find out that you're religious, well,
it goes without saying that you're a fundie nut who is anti-science.
Who needs that kind of hassle? It's easier to go with what "everyone
knows". If it turns out down the line that the scholars were mistaken,
well, when that comes out, you'll be in good company with the other
people who'd been mistaken/misinformed. No harm, no foul.

Take my word for it. I know from personal experience how condescending,
belittling and arrogant people can get to someone outside of the
consensus.

>As I said, I am poorly equipped to argue their case for them. But 
>the question is raised in my mind. I don't say that your answer is 
>not complete, but I wonder what those who view the artifact evidence 
>to be compelling would say to you.

I'd like very much to hear what the "artifact evidence" is that was
being claimed. Because while I was willing to stipulate it for the sake
of this discussion, I'm a little skeptical.

Lisa 

I wrote in response to RYL
>> Even if it is, why not make a Brocho on spices?

> Well as you can see - this too.  As mentioned, one of my jobs was making sure
> we didn't just have food, but that we had food that would maximise the number
> of brochas. (Note however that I have not heard of bringing different kinds
> of besamim into the house to ensure that the different brochas over spices
> are made - something that presumably would not be of relevance to Ashkenazim 
> either, since they do not distinguish).

Having now checked the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 375 si'if 7) - he
would seem to forbid the bringing of besamim into the house of a mourner
(but permit the washing and cleaning of the house). I suspect therefore
that the custom mentioned by the Ben Ish Chai is to specifically use
rose water and only this, because regular besamim is prohibited by the
Shulchan Aruch, but rose water is sort of a cleaning agent but one that
also invites the brocha. Rose water also, while it does seem to be the
custom of some, is by no means as universal as food amongst Sephardim,
probably because of the stira with the Shulchan Aruch.

Regards
Chana

From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
>[R' Yitzchok Levine:]
>>Would anyone today think of eating bread baked by a gentile unless it
>>has rabbinical supervision? Who knows what might be in unsupervised
>>bread that could be a kashrus problem?

>Are you suggesting that originally bread baked by an Akkum was Kosher
>and if not for the G'Zeira on Pas Akkum that loaf of bread would be
>acceptable, presumably because by default bread has a Hazaqa not to
>contain any particles of Ma'Achalos Assuros that would affect the Kashrus
>of the loaf of bread? If so, what changed today? Who knew what the Akkum
>used (ingredients-wise) to bake with in his home? Who knew what he had
>in his oven at the same time? What technological or modern condition
>changed the dynamics of 'How can you be certain?'

The following is from <http://www.kashrut.com/articles/PasAkum/>

"There is another issue that comes to mind, namely, why aren't we
concerned about the fact that the non-Jew made this bread in his utensils,
which presumably were used for "tarfus" -- non-kosher food? I.e. it is
not enough that the ingredients are kosher, the utensils must also be
"kosher". The Shach (3) explains that you don't have to worry about
tarfus (non-kosher absorptions) because there is a presumption that the
utensils are not "Bney yoman" (used that day), i.e. they have not been
used within the last 24 hours. I.e. the absorptions in the pot are only
potent for 24 hours after use. After 24 hours, anything absorbed in the
walls of the pot has no effect."

It seems to me that the implication here is that the ingredients that were
used to bake the bread were kosher. Bread was flour, yeast and water,
and presumably nothing else. This is not the case today. All sorts of
things such as oil are added to commercial bread today. Even home baked
bread is often made from mixes.

The article also says

"Tosafos in Avoda Zara 35b discusses the fact that the Rabbinic decree
against Pas Akum did not enjoy overwhelming acceptance. This was
because in many areas this decree caused undue hardship for the general
populace (there was not necessarily Pas Yisroel (bread baked by a Jew)
available). The Gemara states that any Rabbinic decree that a sizable
amount of the population cannot abide by, is not as binding as a typical
Rabbinic decree. In Yoreh Deah 112:2 there is a dispute between the
Mechaber and Rama when it comes to bread that is baked by a gentile baker
(Pas Palter or Pas Nachtum). The Mechaber says you can eat this bread
when there is not a Jewish baker to buy from in town. The logic is that
since the gezeyra (Rabbinic decree) was not universally accepted we can
be lenient in this case of a gentile baker because the major fear of
intermarriage, which was the catalyst for this decree, does not exist,
i.e. the baker is not baking the bread for me, he is baking it for his
business. This will not engender those feelings of friendship that the
Rabbis were worried about. However, the Rabbis only allowed it if there
is not a Jewish baker. The Rama permits this Pas Palter even if there is
a Jewish baker in town. His logic is that the Rabbis never included this
type of bread in their decree and therefore it is one hundred percent
permitted even if there are numerous Jewish bakeries in town."

Quoting Yitzchok Levine <llevine@stevens.edu>:
> The following selections are from the sefer 
> Mourning in Halachah by Rabbi Chaim Binyamin Goldberg.
...
> 34. Rama 38 1:3. The reason is that sending gifts 
> is considered in the same category as asking about
>     another's welfare."

> Does this not imply that sending food to someone 
> sitting shiva other than for the se'udas havra'ah is forbidden?
> I asked a Rav this morning about this, and he 
> could not answer me. He said that it seemed that I was correct.

Of course your kasha is only a kasha on Ashkenazim as the Sephardim
would just say, we follow Maran (the Shulchan Aruch) and not the Rema -
note that while Eternal Life by Dayan Toledano does as his want bring
more generally, and does quote this Rema, he quotes it as follows:

24:3 "According to Rabbi Issereles if one is mourning for a parent then
it is forbidden to send him a gift during the twelve months of mourning"
{Footnote Rema 385, 3 "b'haga".)

ie there is not necessarily an expectation that Sephardim will follow it,
as they generally do not follow the Rema.

Note interestingly in relation to the category of asking about the
mourner's welfare (to which the Rema links the din) Dayan Toledan says
just above:

24:2: "Nowadays, however the custom is to be lenient with the above
laws, as the enquiry about the mourner's welfare is done in the form of
consolation and comfort so he may be able to bear his loss" {Footnote:
Maran 385:1. And know that the custom in these days is to be lenient in
these dinim about sheilat shalom even during the shiva and this is the
reason that our sheilat shalom is in the way of consolation and comfort to
the mourner and to lighten upon him his pain. And see what is written
in the Rema there that the custom is to be lenient after the shloshim.
And see the Shach si'if katan 2 and the be'er hetev si'if katan 2"). [to
be honest I am not sure where he is quoting from at the beginning here,
although the Be'er Hetev does say something similar in different words,
it is not in the Shulchan Aruch itself]

Obviously in this respect, the custom among Sephardim will follow the
Shulchan Aruch and that of the Ashkenazim will follow the Rema.

> I looked in the index of Mourning in Halachah and 
> found no listing for food, sending food or cooking. Perhaps the
> author does deal in other places with the issue 
> of sending food to an Avel, but I have not found it.

Dayan Toledano writes:

18:1: The first meal eaten by a mourner after the burial is called "seudat
habra'a" that is, the meal provided by others. At this meal the mourner
may not eat his own food. It is customary for neighbours to bring food,
but if one happens to be in a place where there is no Jewish community,
one need not impose discomfort for the sake of this mitsvah and one may
eat one's own food [Footnote: Maran 378:1 and one does not eat from his
own in the first meal, and know that if his neighbours do not send to
him from theirs he is able to eat from his own and see the Taz there
si'if katan 1] For the second meal and onwards the mourner's own food
may be eaten.

18:13 Some have the custom to deliver food to the house of mourning
for all seven days [Footnote: custom. And so it is in the Be'er Hetev
siman 378 si'if katan 6 that this is the minhag of the Sephardim that
they bring from others all seven days. And in the sefer Nohagu haAm
he writes that in Morocco the custom was for all seven days to bring
foodstuffs made of meat to the house of a mourner see there daf 72,
letter 15. And see further in the Be'er Hagola siman 378 at the end of
letter 21 who writes that this is the minhag of the Sephardim.]

Unfortunately Dayan Toledano does not bring any sources for the custom
amongst Ashkenazim - but that does not mean there are none. (It is
not uncommon for Chassidim to have pick up various Sephardi minhagim,
so it may be that it went that route.)

But even if you say that this appears to be a good kasha on the Rema,
and hence on the Askenazi practice, why do you appear to distinguish
between the se'udas havra'ah and any other seudah. How can the Rema say
that one cannot give gifts to an avel, when clearly the se'udas havra'ah
is a gift given at the time when the mourning is at its most intense?

And so I think the answer to your question is therefore given most
clearly by the Be'er Hetev when he states that what the minhag is is
"shemevarin kol shiva" - from the same root as havra'ah. What the minhag
is, therefore, is in fact to extend the same reasons for the se'udas
havra'ah to the whole of the shiva and hence the same reasons for pushing
off the Rema for the se'udas havra'ah apply to the minhag of havra'ah
for the entire shiva. And any kasha you therefore have on the Rema
from the later bringing is just the same kasha that can be asked on the
earlier one. Just as there must be answers that people have brought to
justify the one over the other, so the same answers can be applied to the
rest of the shiva. Otherwise you could not do the seudas havra'ah either.

Regards
Chana
Chana Luntz

>Just as there must be answers that
>people have brought to justify the one over the other, so the same answers can
>be applied to the rest of the shiva.  Otherwise you could not do the seudas
>havra'ah either.

The Seudas Havra'ah is a special exception to the prohibition of not
sending food (for Ashkenazim) or other gifts. This seems to me to be
clear from the sefer that I quoted from before.

I spoke with someone who is knowledgeable about these matters this
morning. He is from a Chassidishe family and wears a Streimel on
Shabbos. He said, "The Sephardim do send food, but we do not." He went
on to say that in America people are not careful about this, because
they do not know better.

Yitzchok Levine 

In  Avodah V16 #97 dated 1/23/2006 RMF writes: 
> Still, RSZA (Halichos Shlomo chap. 22 seif 1) says that one may  add to
> the text "and save us from car accidents."

In the Birchos Hashachar when I say "Yehi ratzon...shetatzileini hayom
uvechol yom me'azei fonim umei'azus ponim, me'adam ra umichaver ra
umishachen ra UMIPEGA RA...." -- I have in mind to be spared from a
car accident c'v.

Similarly when I say tefillas haderech (which is generally only on a
plane trip -- as any drive up I-95 from where I live will go through
continuously settled areas for about eight hours' driving time), at
the words "vesatzileinu mikaf kol oyev ve'oreiv baderech, UMIKOL MINEI
FUR'ANIYOS HAMISRAGSHOS LAVO LA'OLAM..." -- I have in mind a tefilla
to be spared plane crashes and car accidents.

BTW (sorry to segue to Areivim territory) it seems perfectly obvious
to me that airplanes cannot stay up in the air bederech hateva, and
therefore every plane trip is a manifestation of the fact that Hashem
performs miracles for us on a constant basis. Despite my knowledge of
His constant beneficence, however, I am always tense until the plane is
safely down on the ground again, which perhaps might lead to another
Avodah-worthy question: is nervousness in flight a manifestation of
weak emunah or is there no stirah between "normal" nervousness and
bitachon? Would a person with perfect bitachon never experience fear?

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

On 1/24/06, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> it seems perfectly obvious to me
> that airplanes cannot stay up in the air bederech hateva, and therefore
> every plane trip is a manifestation of the fact that Hashem performs
> miracles for us on a constant basis.

Why should this be considered not b'derech ha'tevah? It works according
to the laws of physics, which is teva. Why should it be considered a nes?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I wrote:
> Therefore,
> since ThD could techically be said because of the possibility of
> terrorism (and presumably tourists, who don't understand the
> situation, do actually say it for that reason), I feel entitled to say
> ThD even though my concern is terrorism.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to write: "...even though my concern
is road accidents."

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         ]