Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 132

Sat, 12 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: Jews at war [was: R' Angel & Geirus Redux] (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Is it ossur to have a good time? (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. K'zayis as weight not volume? (Sholom Simon)
• 5. Re: size of a kezayit (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Sholom Aleichem [was: Tinok Shenishba] (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. conversion standards (Sholom Simon)
• 8. Re: Is it ossur to have a good time? (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets (Doron Beckerman)
• 10. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Your Houses Are Safe (Cantor Wolberg)

 
 
In  Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 107 dated 3/24/2008 "Michael Makovi"  
<mikewinddale@gmail.com>
writes:


>>The idea of Jews fighting each other for Germany and  England (or for
the Union and Confederacy in the American Civil War) is  absolutely
contrary to Judaism. B'vadai (IMHO), if I personally feel the  German
or the British cause is true and moral and the other side is in  the
wrong and immoral, then I can fight for it, and the fact that  there
are Jews on the opposing side is irrelevant - IMHO - I am not  fighting
for Germany or Britain per se, but rather for whatever moral  cause
Britain or Germany represents, and any Jews I am fighting are  ones
that are opposing what is moral....


Obviously, if the  country's cause is immoral, then it is irrelevant
whether I will fighting  Jews - if it is wrong, then fighting for it is
to fight Judaism itself  regardless of whether I am fighting against
any actual Jews on the opposing  side. Therefore, I am assuming a war
with no moral claim for or against -  you are fighting for a morally
ambiguous cause, solely because your country  is, and you are fighting
against Jews on the other side - this a Jew cannot  do.

If the war is moral, then you are fighting for a moral cause and  any
opposing Jews are irrelevant, and if the war is immoral, then you  are
fighting Judaism itself, and any opposing Jews are  irrelevant.....<<






>>>>>
All of this exquisitely sensitive "if this, then this but if that, then  
that" reasoning is a pure luxury possible only in an exceptionally prosperous  and 
exceptionally free country like modern-day America -- the first great  world 
power in history to give its citizens a /choice/ as to whether or not  they 
want to be in the army.  
 
In every other country that Jews have ever lived in -- including America  
during the Civil War and WWII -- Jews were drafted along with all other  
citizens, and were not given a choice, and one does hear stories of Jews  facing each 
other on opposite sides of a battle.  (Generally Jewish loyalty  to other Jews 
trumped loyalty to whatever country's uniform they happened  to be wearing -- 
quite properly -- and a Jew who heard an enemy soldier recite  Shema Yisrael 
would hold his fire.)
 
No posek that I've ever heard of ruled that Jews who are citizens of a  given 
country must make an independent judgement as to whether their country is  
fighting a just cause before agreeing to be drafted, or must allow themselves to 
 be imprisoned or executed as draft dodgers if they are unconvinced of their  
country's justice.  The Chofetz Chaim wrote a sefer for Jewish soldiers  
drafted into whatever army -- it's called Machane Yisrael -- and afaik it does  
not say that a Jew must be a draft dodger if he thinks his country is  wrong.  
(OTOH it goes without saying that any Jew who could  get out of serving in the 
Russian or Polish army would get out of it --  because these armies were rife 
with anti-Semitism and forced shmad.)


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





**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.    
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv000
  30000000016)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080411/74f3f5bb/attachment-0001.htm 

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is having a good time ossur
> To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20080410213557.GA4032@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:42:40AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : If you read Rishonim and  omit Acharonim the  issurim  on Sefirah seem
> : limitted to:
> :    1. Taspores 2. nissu'in  3. some kind of mleacha 

> ...
> :> The flipside of this is that RYBS would assur parties during omer or
> :> the three weeks even without music.
 
> : WADR to RYBS this is sourcesless in Rishonim.  The point of sefirah is
> : MITkTZAS aveilus. the Rav tried to morph it into FULL_SCALE aveilus.  See
> : both Tur and KItsar SA  for the  list of miktzas
 
> I also feel he shoehorned things that didn't really match, which is why
> I will open with a request that one of RYBS's chassidim field this one.
 
> But obviously he didn't give a shiur on the subject without lengthy
> background. Rashei peraqim: RYBS defines aveilus as only coming in three
> flavors: shiv'ah, sheloshim, and shanah. And thus, miqtzas aveilus would
> be a term for the least level. Same as his model for the differences
> between bein hametzarim, the 9 days, and 9 beAv itself.

Where is this shiur?  As you summarize it, it seems to go against other
ideas I've heard attributed to RYBS, such as "hashkafah is derived from
examining the halacha, it doesn't drive halacha."

Does the halacha (Rishonic, or even before the post-Rupture chumra
machine, and absent Brisker chumras that RYBS held for himself)
really support that?  Do the known issurim during sefirah actually
correspond to the known issurim of shanah?

Or is he defining Miktzas, and then using his personal definition to
apply the halachos of real aveilus back onto the semi-chol-hamoed of
Sefirah?  Clearly whatever minhagim the Rishonim had about it post-1096
would have sufficed for being "miktzas aveilus", as defined by themselves.

If the latter, it would seem like he's defining a hashkafic point (my
idiosyncratic definition of miktzas aveilus) and then using that to
quantify halachos.  Which is an apparent setirah to the other idea above.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

R' Gil Student wrote:
> Experiments have shown that handmade shemurah matzah has
> approximately half the density of water so 14 grams of
> handmade shemurah matzah has about a mass of 28 ccs.

I can't speak about handmade matza, but regarding machine matza, here are
some figures I copied from the "Nutrition Facts" on boxes of Streit's
products a few years ago. Each is one serving size:

Farfel: 4 fl oz (120 cc) = 31 gr
Matza meal:  2 fl oz (60 cc) = 30 gr
Cake meal: 2 fl oz (60 cc) = 38 gr

I don't know if the figures for farfel are relevant to this discussion, but
the difference between regular meal and cake meal is surely quite
significant. It appears the RGS may be referring to someone who did these
measurements using shmura matza meal, and not the more finely ground cake
meal. The critical question is: How finely must the matza be ground for
these calculations?

As I see it, cake meal has less air in it than regular meal, and that
accounts for the extra eight grams. But even the cake meal still has plenty
of air between the grains. Here is a simple experiment, and the only reason
I'm not performing it myself is that I don't have sufficiently accurate
equipment. But if someone else does, please try it, and tell us the
results:

Take a container of water, and put a measured (i.e., weighed) quantity of
matza into it. Use whichever kind of matza you want (cake meal, regular
meal, or large pieces) but allow enough time for the water to be absorbed
into the matza. Then put some more in. Keep adding matza until the
post-absorption water level rises to 60 cc above the starting point. NOW
you know how much matza is 60 cc!

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for great computer networking solutions!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3oHgMbh2ykAHHkiO4IgUbAJubE1i5r9nkusLXX5V05aEO15Y/

>28 ccs of water weighs 28 grams. If something has the same density as
>water and weighs 28 grams, then it has a mass of 28 ccs. Experiments
>have shown that handmade shemurah matzah has approximately half the
>density of water so 14 grams of handmade shemurah matzah has about a
>mass of 28 ccs.

If it's got half the density, then you need twice the weight to get 
an equivalent volume, no?

-- Sholom

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> One issue may be how to determine the density; how big a
> hole can be ignored?  We know that "sponge bread" is
> measured as it is, but what exactly does that mean? AFAIK
> the accepted explanation is that only microscopic holes
> can be ignored, but any hole that can be seen must be
> deducted from the volume.  The only practical way to do
> this is to squash the bread before measuring its volume.

I'd like to ask WHY the tiny holes can be ignored.

Here are two sources to show that although some kinds of airspace do not count towards the kezayis, other kinds DO count:

Mishnah Brura 487:3 writes: "If there is an airspace (chalal) in the matza,
the airspace does not contribute to the shiur kezayis, and he must mash it
(to measure it properly - A.M.) But if there is no airspace in the matza,
then even if it is soft and spongy (rachah v'asuyah k'sfug) there's no need
to mash it."

Mishnah Brura 210:1 (5 lines from the end of pg 242) writes: "If the bread
was spongy (pas sufgnin) and puffed up to the point where the air in it was
not tangible (ain haavirim shebo nirgashim) then one who eats a kezayis of
it as is cannot bench, because truthfully, he has not eaten a kezayis."

Okay, let's put that aside for a moment, and look at something else:

MB 208:48 says that if one makes a food from flour, honey, and spices, only
the flour counts towards the kezayis for an Al Hamichya; if one eats
exactly a kezayis of it, one should only say a Boray Nefashos, because he
did not have a kezayis of flour. He concedes that the popular practice
("nohagin haolam") is to count the other ingredients towards the kezayis,
but says that "lechatchila tov lizaher" to make sure that there is a
kezayis of flour [for the Al Hamichya].

Rav Moshe Feinstein (in Igros Moshe O"C 1:71) goes further and says that
one should not rely on the minhag of saying Al Hamichya on a Kezayis of
such a food, nor should one says Boray Nefashos on it, but that one must
("muchrach") eat enough so that there is a kezayis of flour eaten.

Here's my question: If the sugar -- which is dissolved into the mixture,
and unidentifiable in the end product -- cannot (or should not) be counted
toward the kezayis, how is it possible to count AIR, which is even less
tangible than the sugar?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
A cleaner home is just a click away. Click now for great housekeeping services!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nkMTrLOWituWRULPkg2KoiTsr6WgtseudJnyy4222rufrgW/

 
 
In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 108 dated 3/25/2008 Arie Folger 
_afolger@aishdas.org_ (mailto:afolger@aishdas.org)  writes:

>>While I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of becoming an avid  student of 
nussa'h, I must stress that there are changes and there are  chnages. Many 
changes are based on theological positions that may or may  not be compatible 
with O belief. Hence, there is a world of a difference  between C changes and 
O changes.

Please do not use this as a  springboard to discuss shalom 'aleikhem or 
malakhei ra'hamim, as we have  beaten that horse to death - not all O is 
Rambam, but we do generally  recognize what is an O compatible theology and 
what is not. Sufficiently  to make my point.





>>>>>
I am sorry to beat this horse, but you have reminded me that in that long  
extended thread about Sholom Aleichem, I kept waiting for someone to say the  
obvious but (afaicr) no one ever did, so I would like to say it now, for the  
sake of my own closure:
 
When we say, "Borchuni lesholom, malachei hasholom" we are NOT davening to  
the angels!  The Medrash or the Gemara or something says that when a man  comes 
home from shul Friday night, he is accompanied by two angels, a good one  and 
a bad one.  If the house is not clean and there is no Shabbos food  prepared 
and everything is unShabbosdik, the bad angel says, "So may it always  be" and 
the good angel perforce says "Amen."  If the table is set and the  house is 
clean and everything is pretty and nice and Shabbosdik, then the good  angel 
says, "So may it always be" and the bad one says, "Amen."
 
When the man comes home from shul and his house looks nice and his wife and  
kids look nice and the table is set and the food smells good, he sings Sholom  
Aleichem and says to the malachim, "Borchuni lesholom" -- "do your part,  
fulfill the promise of a bracha that my home will always be this  way."
 
It is implicitly obvious in the medrash about the malachim that they are  
merely agents of G-d's will and that it is Hashem who is sending them to bless  
(or otherwise) the household each Shabbos.  No one is davening to them and  so 
the Rambam's principle of "don't daven to anyone else" is not violated by  
singing Sholom Aleichem.
 
I would also like to say that those individuals who mentioned that they  sing 
Sholom Aleichem but don't sing the third stanza are implicitly criticizing  
the behavior of thousands of rabbanom and roshei yeshiva who are gedolim  
meihem.  
 
I can see more grounds to skip Sholom Aleichem altogether (although I think  
this would be unwarranted, given its broad acceptance in Klal Yisrael) than to 
 pointedly skip just one stanza on such theological grounds -- implying that 
your  private understanding of theology, philosophy and halacha is superior to 
anyone  else's.   Even to R' Shlomo Alkabetz's understanding -- he who  
(foolishly?) wrote a song with three kosher stanzas and one stanza of  heresy.  I 
think you're sending your children a (subliminal?) message of  arrogance.  I 
don't remember who the person or ppl were who said they don't  sing the third 
stanza, so "you're" in the previous sentence is generic.
 
And here it is not only close to Shabbos but just a week before Pesach, and  
if I don't get moving right now who knows what the malachim will be saying in 
my  house tonight??


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





**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.    
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv000
  30000000016)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080411/ce367726/attachment-0001.htm 

>You have set up a straw man because no posek demands perfection (or a
>promise of perfection) from a ger.  The usual requirement is that 
>the ger  agrees to
>keep Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha.

Around these parts there seems to be a fourth requirement, also: that 
the kids go to a day school that's frum enough to be acceptable to 
the rav overseeing the process.

-- Sholom

> But obviously he didn't give a shiur on the subject without lengthy 
> background. Rashei peraqim: RYBS defines aveilus as only coming in 
> three
> flavors: shiv'ah, sheloshim, and shanah. And thus, miqtzas aveilus 
> would be a term for the least level. Same as his model for the 
> differences between bein hametzarim, the 9 days, and 9 beAv itself.

Where is this shiur?  As you summarize it, it seems to go against other
ideas I've heard attributed to RYBS, such as "hashkafah is derived from
examining the halacha, it doesn't drive halacha."

Does the halacha (Rishonic, or even before the post-Rupture chumra
machine, and absent Brisker chumras that RYBS held for himself) really
support that?  Do the known issurim during sefirah actually correspond
to the known issurim of shanah?
========================================

AIUI R'YBS felt that a later takanah of aveilut would perforce have to
follow an earlier existing model (a la kol dtakun rabbanan kein duraita
takun) - very consistent with R'YBS general approach to change.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' Micha wrote:

>> That could be true whether it is its own gezreirah or part of muqtzah.
If muqtzah is about usability on Shabbos, then letzorekh gufo o meqomo
would simply fall out of the fact that the usability is really only
because of the exclusion most common usage. It would make sense for it
to have been part of the original taqanah. <<

Mimah Nafshach. If there is indeed a Haktzaah here because of its typical
use, then normative application of Muktzeh should dictate a blanket Issur
Tiltul, and if the atypical use is sufficient to avoid a Haktzaah, then it
shouldn't be Muktzeh at all. Huktzah from certain uses making it Assur from
those particular uses, while possible, seems to be counter to what Muktzeh
is all about.

: See GRA to YD 266. This can explain, e.g., the dispute whether a
: KSHML"A can create a Bosis.
>> What would be the lemaaseh? A KSHMLI could be moved letzarich meqomo,
and a basis is meqomo. So even if it could create a basis, when would
it create an issur letalteil? <<

The L'Maase is whether one may move the Basis Mechamah L'Tzeil.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080412/1331c1c3/attachment.htm 

Sholom Simon wrote:

> If it's got half the density, then you need twice the weight to get 
> an equivalent volume, no?

No, if it's got half the density then you need twice the volume to
get an equivalent weight.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Regarding tzaraas on a house, the gemara says that "there has never  
been, nor will there ever be, a house smitten with leprosy.
Why then was the law given? To study it and be rewarded for studying  
it." (Sanhedrin 71a)
In other words, what is most important is not the nature of the actual  
plague, but what we can learn from examining it.
Shabbat shalom.
ri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080411/f820ada8/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 132
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."