Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 012

Tuesday, April 11 2006

• idle thoughts
• Using separate drain pipes for milchig and fleishig sinks
• Re: Using separate drain pipes for milchig and fleishig sinks
• Re: Using separate drain pipes for milchig and fleishig sinks
• "Uvsourosoch/-secho
• Re: Devarim she-ein la-hem shiur - Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim?
• Re: 3 kedusha questions
• preparing for the second seder
• Re: Fwd: The Secret of Eating at the Seder
• Re: Shemen Kitniyos
• kitniyot
• Women and Hallel during the Seder
• Re: preparing for the second seder
• Re: The Secret of Eating at the Seder
• Re: Mitzvas Shechitah
• Re: yerushah
• Re: minority opinions
• Re: Sechel Hapoel
• Re: jewish identification
• Re: the Torah's response to sex offenders

> The Rambam (Deoth 4:23 based on a gemara in Sanhedrin) rules that
> a student of the sages may not live in a town whose beith din lacks
> the authority to inflict corporal punishment. Why hasn't there been a
> mass movement of talmidei hachamim to Iran ...
> or, alternatively, to places with fewer than 120 Jews?

When the Rosh moved to Spain he was shocked that the Batei Dinim there
inflicted corporal punishment. Hence, this is obviously a makhloket
ashkenaz and sefard. Hence, the question is only on our sefardi brothers.

Chag Kasher Vesameach
--
Eli Turkel

RETurkel wrote (in thread entitled "Kashrut for Pesach"):
>> One must not have 1 drain pipe from the 2 sinks as it "cooks" meat &
>> milk when hot water is applied.

On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 16:46 -0400, Shmuel Zajac wrote on Areivim:
>> Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I was always taught that the issue is
>> that if there is one drain pipe, then it is effectively one keili.

Usually, milchig and fleishig dishes are not washed at the same time.
Therefore water from the milchig sink is not mixing in the house's pipes
with water from the fleishig sink.

The only issue that I can see is that ta'am from the fleishig food gets
absorbed into the pipes and then is niflat to mix with milchig food (and
vice versa). Presumably, less than 24 hours elapse from one washing to
the next, so the taam wouldn't be nosen taam lifgam. However, couldn't
one argue that usually dish washing liquid is used, and that is pogem
the taam?

I also note that until relatively recently, many US kitchens had only
one sink for both milchigs and fleishigs, and people would use a rack
to ensure that the dishes did not touch the walls of the sink.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 4/11/06, Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Usually, milchig and fleishig dishes are not washed at the same time.
...
> The only issue that I can see is that ta'am from the fleishig food
> gets absorbed into the pipes and then is niflat to mix with milchig
> food (and vice versa).  Presumably, less than 24 hours elapse from one
> washing to the next, so the taam wouldn't be nosen taam lifgam.
> However, couldn't one argue that usually dish washing liquid is used,
> and that is pogem the taam?

I assume the problem is in the trap. The food in the trap accumulates
whether it is presently used or not. Since it is actual food and
not just taam the question is whether a dog would eat it.

kol tuv,
Eli

On 4/11/06, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume the problem is in the trap. The food in the trap accumulates
> whether it is presently used or not. Since it is actual food and
> not just taam the question is whether a dog would eat it.

Isn't the trap at the entrance of the sink into the pipe?  If so, if
you have two sinks, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Is there some other trap deeper in the pipe of which I'm unaware?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Minden <>
> This is a bedieved explanation (aetiology). It's simply an error: people
> automatically went on with "ve'imru omein" after "ouse sholoum". The
> same error occurs at the end of benshen, unless somebody is leading it.

If so, how come no Rishon or Acharon has suggested this?

> A similar phenomenon is probably the cause of saying "Uvsourosoch/-secho
> kosuv leimour: shema..." before Yishtabbach, which Baer believes to have
> been copied from the Malchiyes on Rosheshone.

So too does the Gro - according to the notes in the Otzar Hatefilos.
But it adds beshem the Noheg Katson Yosef and the Yaavetz [beshem his
father the Chacham Zvi, that it should be said.

Rav Schwab in Iyun Tefileh [p.192] cites the Maharam Schick beshem his
rebbe, the CS, to say it [and points us to the CS al Hatorah [Toras
Moshe] - parshas Nosoy [p. 14b] dh 'Lehokim' where it gives a reason
for the need to say it. Rav Schwab also has some additional comments.

[BTW the above CS also explains why some say Hodu before Boruch She'omar
[which adds to my earlier rayos that the CS indeed privately davvenned
nusach Sfard.]

SBA

From: "Esther and Aryeh Frimer" <frimera@zahav.net.il>

> Has anyone seen a discussion on why sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is not
> included in the Mishna in Peah with those things "she-ein la-hem shiur"?
> Could it be that it is subsumed under Talmud Torah?

It does have a shiur: "From Dusk to Dawn", as an old translation of the 
haggadah was once called.

David Riceman 

R' Dov Kay:
> Then there is disused custom for the shatz to raise the Sefer Torah
> slightly upon saying "un'romema" of "gadlu lashem iti un'romema sho
> yachdov". I have seen this custom mentioned in masseches Sofrim and
> cited by the Mogen Avrohom, but not seen it practised.

You obviously never were in a Yekkishe shul. :-) The ST is lifted
noticeably at Gadlu - while facing the Kehal.

Not surprisingly, the MB in 134:2:13 mentions it (as does the Baer
Heitev) - saying you must lift the ST thrice: First for Shma then for
Ehad. (Yekkes don't say those 2 phrases at this point in davening, so
I have no mesora about those.)

:-)

- Danny

As usual I got a message from my shul including the earliest time I
can start setting the table for the second seder. And as usual I don't
understand it. Why is setting the table any worse than being machshich
al hatchum l'dvar mitzva?

David Riceman 

R' Moshe Feldman said:
> I must say that I don't quite understand how the eating of items at
> the seder overcomes the problem of grabbing self-conscious pleasure
> from the world. Admittedly, we are eating because we are commanded,
> rather than for reasons of self-desire. But is that enough to overcome
> the problem which exists during the rest of the year? I certainly don't
> understand how meditating over finding the right job while eating matzah
> solves anything.

Reb Tzadok doesn't speak about finding jobs...

Chassidus believes that food, eaten at the right time and right place
with the right intentions, has a segulah effect on the eater. It's not
totally irrational either.

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

On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 11:42 +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
>> I don't understand why people think that this is allowed. 

> Well, apparently many Achronim don't agree with you. Here is an article
> in HaTzofe, with Mar'eh Makom, so that you can check the sources.
> <http://tinyurl.com/z7dz4>

> An interesting issue here is the power to Assur things. Rav Ovadia,
> in other psika, Rav Kook in this article and Rav Feinstein, in this
> article all discuss this issue with regard to the fact that we are NOT
> allowed to add Issurrim. Interesting.

RHS also mentioned the same thing to me. He quoted it in the name of
someone else (i.e. Pri Migadim/Maagen Avraham type) who I can't recall
at the moment.

> Well, apparently many Achronim don't agree with you. Here is an article
> in HaTzofe, with Mar'eh Makom, so that you can check the sources.
> <http://tinyurl.com/z7dz4>
> An interesting issue here is the power to Assur things. Rav Ovadia,
> in other psika, Rav Kook in this article and Rav Feinstein, in this
> article all discuss this issue with regard to the fact that we are NOT
> allowed to add Issurrim. Interesting.>>

I found this article quite strange. First the author lists himself as
a physicist, not a posek. Second he quotes only R. Kook and RMF and
never explains the other side. I find it very strange especially for a
nonposek to be matir what most people assur based on 2 poskim. It isnt
even 2 poskim because RMF never discussed corn or soya oil and it is
impossible to extrapolate what he said to those cases. To the best of my
knowledge the OU has given a hechsher to cottenseed oild based on RMF but
does not give a hecsher to corn oil or to soya oil or even to canola oil.

Eli Turkel
--
Eli Turkel

Mishna B'rurah (OH 479:1 SQ 9) mentions that women are included for the
three required to say Hodu during Hallel at the seder. He adds that
the Hoq Ya'aqov has reservations with including women, as Hallel is
recited with Niggun, and one should be Hosesh for what the Gemara says
[Sotah 48a] Zamri Nashei V'anei Gavrei Ka'aish Bin'ores.

Having never been to a Seder where women recited Hallel or other portions
of the Haggadah noticeably aloud, I was wondering if this Hoq Ya'aqov is
common practice, or do others have greater participation by women. Does
it change if the women present are closely related to the men at the table
[according to the HY, seemingly not]?

A side he'arah. The Gemara in Sotah 48a seems to be discussing Zemer
in a Beis HaMishteh (pub, restaurant?). Is this a strong Ra'ayah to the
HY position?

Jacob Farkas

From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> Why is setting the table any worse than being machshich
> al hatchum l'dvar mitzva?

I'm also puzzled about the first seder. Why don't we start before
tzeis? As far as I know we accept the most stringent of the three
tannaitic opinions of when day begins/ends on the beginning and end of
Shabbos because of the general stricture of Shabbos. One can, however,
make kiddush early, and 4 kosos is a d'rabbanan, so why can't we rely
on ikkar hadin on erev pesah especially when there is a countervailing
imperative of starting promptly so the children won't fall asleep?

David Riceman
(whose eyelids start drooping on Friday night as soon as he hears
l'cha dodi)

In v17n6, R' Moshe Feldman forwarded an excerpt from
<http://tinyurl.com/qrxnx>:
:     The great Kabbalist Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen revealed a deep secret about
:     how to fix the way we engage with the world. He says that humanity's
:     first sin was not Adam and Eve's eating of forbidden fruit, but rather
:     the way they ate it....

Leshitaso. Izhbitz takes the idea that success or failure is biydei
HQBH to great lengths. So that bechirah is taken to only be on
machashavah. If the act was successfully pulled off, clearly Hashem
wanted it, and if it didn't -- that too was because of Him.

And so, the cheit is /never/ the action, but the attitude that one is
acting in opposition to His Ratzon.

(I think this informed RYGB's position on aveiros lishmah, but that's
for him to discuss.)

...
:     All neuroses, personality imbalances, and existential
:     dissatisfactions, teaches Torah, have their root in this first "sin"
:     of unholy eating...

Here things get dangerous. The writer is taking Rav Tzadoq to mean that
mental illness is always a product of sin, and that people who properly
seek their rabbi would need need to seek their therapist.

Halevai. I know too many case studies of people who became frum thinking
that it would cure their more fundamental issues... Just the same day,
I was pointed to a rav / public speaker's web page where he writes this
definition in a footnote:
> Attention Deficit Disorder - it's the psychologists' label of the
> hyperactivity that accompanies a child's hungry soul; they don't know
> how to solve the problem, because they don't understand the makeup of a
> neshoma, most of them don't believe in Hashem, and they don't have emuna,
> so they drug the kids with ritalin.

Not to get into the ritalin debate, but I think that saying that it's over
a chisaron in emunah is dangerously mixing religion and mental health.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unknown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:48:47PM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: Shehitah (for the consumption of Basar Hulin) is most definitely a
: Mitzvah Kiyumis, as there is no Mitzvah to eat Basar Hulin more than
: there is to eat an apple (I'm not looking to discuss whether Basar Hulin
: on Yom Tov is a Mitzva)..

Tzitzis is a mitzvah qiyumis (sans minhagim to wear them daily). So is
gittin. There is no one-to-one between the chiyuvis vs qiyumis split
and the chaqirah between an asei that is supposed to be a spiritual
event and one that is not. Perhaps one could say that every chiyuv is,
but one can not say that every mitzvah qiyumis isn't. But I wouldn't
even take the reisha of the previous sentence (every chiyuv is supposed
to be spiritually uplifting) as a given, since the chiluq was already
proven faulty.

That said, I will repeat that my inability to be moved by the idea of
a qorban has little to do with qorbanos, and much to do with 2 millenia
of galus. I'm warped by centuries of depravation.

I could even explain, cerebrally, sevaros to show their beauty. From the
machloqes rishonim about their motivation as a whole to RSRH's mapping of
why particular animals are appropriate for each of the various qorbanos.

But move me? No. Mitzvos ma'asiyos don't really work without the ma'aseh.
I don't "get" uneshalma parim sefaseinu beyond HQBH crediting us for
doing the little we can.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:16:46PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: R Herzog (about 1949) tried to establish a takanah giving equal rights
: to sons and daughters for yerushah. He could not get it passed within
: the chief rabbinate council because the others felt it violated the
: spirit if halakhah even if technically valid

But it would seem from a nubmer of discussions in Bava Basra pereq
"Yeish Nochalin" that trying to equate yerushah was considered a value
by a number of chazal -- even back to the tannaim.

-mi

On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I have recently seen several teshuvot of ROY in which he combines
: various minority opinions that no one follows to give a heter.

: Not quite similar he also combines the Ramah and minority opinions to
: give a heter again R. Karo.

Isn't there a similar discussion WRT metzi'us, if one can combine mi'utim?

-mi

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 07:41:03PM -0800, Mark Levin wrote:
: My understanding of it is that it is the Sechel of the lowest sphere, each
: sphere having a sechel hanivdal, which interacts with the sublunar world.

In general, that seems to be the take. That it's a seichel created for
the purpose of communicating with man, as the Kuzari puts it. Being the
insertion of Divine Wisdom into this world, placing it just below the
sphere of the moon is logical.

The concept of da'as, which also implies marital intimacy, is understood
as an intimate contact between the seichel hapo'al and man's personal
seichel bepo'al. (The scholatic term for the contact is "copulatio".)
Man's seichel seeks the seichel hapo'al, as matter always seeks form.

It doesn't seem to be the Rambam's position in the Moreh, who uses the
Arisotitilian idea that the Seichel haPo'el without a seichel beko'ach
could only be HQBH. Which is why I want to draw a distinction between
what I wrote about the Rambam and Aristotle and the below:

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:51:59AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: I don't think this can be done. It depends on a Platonic conception of
: form and substance.

Also, the Rambam understands that since the Seichel haPo'al is Hashem,
the seichel attains His Nitzchiyus through da'as Hashem. The chomer
acquiring the "Tzurah".

RDR, later in that post:
: See Davidson's book "Alfarabi Avicenna and Averroes on Intellect".

Averroes position is hard to make out. Perhaps because he put
Plotinus's Enneads into Aristotle's mouth, and then had to figure out
an understanding of the idea based on Aristotle and neoPlatonism fused.

Thinking about it further, this seems to be the exact opposite of the
debate about the kavod nivra. The Rambam posits something created just
so that the navi can percieve Meqom Kevodo, whereas the Ramban.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
micha@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 12:31:07AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Does it take care of the problem of how could Haman's descendants have
: learned Torah in Bnai Brak? If they were Amalekites shouldn't they have
: been put to death?

There is a machloqes rishonim about whether we take geirim from Amaleiq.
And the Rambam seems to imply that a geir toshav who was an Amaleiqi is
NOT put to death.

-mi

From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
> [R Simcha Coffer:]
>> Yes, Rabbi A. Miller ztz'l. He claims that Sanhedrin had lockup
>> facilities for people who were incorrigible, and in cases where they were
>> convinced that he was a murderer, for instance, they locked him up and
>> "forgot" he was there.

> -Psachim 91a mentions a beit haassurin shel yisrael which rashi posits
> was used either for coercive reasons (divorce an inappropriate wife or
> pay back a loan) or for someone who you injured to see if he recovers
> or dies). Interesting that rashi gave 2 possibilities.

Neither of those is incarceration as a punsihment for past misdeeds.

David Riceman 

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


[ 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         ]