Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 27

Wed, 04 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: shatz saying things out loud a.k.a silent ga'al Yisrael (D&E-H Bannett)
• 2. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: shatz saying things out loud a.k.a silent ga'al (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Why We Celebrate the Seventh Day (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Entering a Sanctuary for Hatzalat Yisrael (Saul Guberman)
• 6. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Madjsolo...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 17. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 18. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 19. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 20. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Micha Berger)
• 21. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Rich, Joel)

I just glanced at my last night's postings written at 1 AM 
and noticed all sorts of typos that might make it impossible 
to understand some of what I wrote.

If anyone is suffering because of this, please inform me and 
I'll do a bit of proofreading and send what I hope will be 
an improved version.

If no request, I'll let it go. For some, it might be more 
interesting reading when one has to scratch his head and 
think a while to figure out what the writer meant to say.


k"t,

David 

Rabbi Rich Wolpoe asked:
> I open a bottle of nonmevushal wine. Q: in order to avoid
> contamination by a non-Jew may I mix in mevushal wine? Or
> must I mevashel the original wine by itself?

Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus" (ArtScroll) writes (pg 63):
"Yayin nesech, due to its association with avodah zarah, cannot become
batel in any amount of wine. It can become batel, however with other foods
in a sixty to one ratio - batel b'shishim. (Rambam [Maachalos Asuros]
15:6)"

Unfortunately for your question, he does not say whether or not this would also apply to stam yaynam.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Can't pay your bills on time?? Click for quick cash with a payday loan.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbuphqhhyvPJi7mWn93JkMNnvmsWW9vE9WmzcSvolfuCJKcQ6/

R' David Bannett wrote:
> But every Ashkenazic Jew does say a self-Amen in Bonei
> Yerushalayim. 
> ...
> The self-amen is not an agreement of a reply to anything.
> It is a signal that indicates the end of a chativa, a
> single section or group of prayers.
> ...
> Ashkenazim dropped all except the one mentioned in Gemara
> Brakhot. Sefaradim retained all except those that were
> questionable.

Excellent post. I'd call it "exhaustive", if not for another example which
was not mentioned: the self-amen at the end of Oseh Shalom Bimromav
towards/at the end of Shmoneh Esreh and Birkas Hamazon.

The apparent and obvious reason why it was left out, is that Oseh Shalom is not a bracha. OTOH, it *is* a self-amen; one *is* saying Amen to his own prayer.

Even more perplexing is the previous word, "v'imru". This is quite
appropriate in Kaddish, and removes it from being a self-amen to being a
stage instruction. But its presence in the silent Shmoneh Esreh and the
individual's Birkas Hamazon seems odd. It seems to me that if someone chose
to include Oseh Shalom in these prayers, they could just as easily have
ended it at "v'al kol Yisrael", leaving off the "v'imru amen". I wonder why
they didn't.

Additional points: It is clear to me that Oseh Shalom fits in well with
RDB's point about self-amens always being at the end of a major section. In
Shmoneh Esray, we all say Oseh Shalom when stepping back, even though
another short paragraph follows it. In Birkas Hamazon, both of my Sefaradi
siddurim show Oseh Shalom as the very last line, and although Ashkenazim
add another paragraph (Y'roo) afterward, I can easily imagine that there
was a time when that paragraph had not been added yet.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here to find Medical Transcription Training programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbu1VbGBGQbS8kIWkIYct7fUpZ6lJulzwDap3Etcqm0bBpwim/

[I got worried, thanks to someone who pointed this out off-list, of fair
use limitations on our circulating copyrighted material. R Prof Levine
took the time to contact Feldheim and obrain their reshus in writing. -mi]


The following is from the new translation of RSRH's commentary to sefer
Shemos. I think that it gives interesting insight into the difference
between Yahadus and the way the non-Jewish world looks at things. YL

    9: 29 Moshe replied to him: As soon as I have gone out from the city I
    will spread out my hands to God ; the thunderclaps will cease and the
    hail will be no more, so that you may know that the earth is God's.

    Let us note that not only the onset of the plague but also and
    primarily its cessation at Gods Will constituted the most striking
    os of Gods omnipotence. For even the most sublime revelation of
    His creative and productive power would be insufficient, even
    today, to convey to the nations the pure conception of the God of
    Israel. At most, such a revelation would present Him as the highest
    power of all powers, the most forceful of all forces, whereas,
    in the Jewish conception, God is the free Master over His work,
    Whose creations do not escape His control. It was primarily through
    the cessation of the plague at Gods command, its cancellation,
    and its differentiation by Gods order between Egypt and Goshen
    that God revealed Himself. No other power can regain control of
    elemental forces, once they have been released. In this spirit the
    Jew celebrates the last of the days of Creation, the Sabbath. The
    non-Jewish world, in thoughtless contrast, celebrates the first
    day, Sunday. The outlook that considers the universe a result of
    natural forces can perhaps explain the Sunday of Creation, but it
    cannot explain the fact of the Sabbath of Creation. For why has the
    creation of new creatures ceased? After all, the same creative forces
    of nature still exist. That is why God established the Sabbath, the
    Shabbos with which Creation ceased, and not the days of Creation,
    as a monument to the Creator. (Cf. Commentary, Bereshis 2:1.)

Interesting dialogue between Rabbi M. Broyde & Rabbi K. Auman.
Entering a Sanctuary for Hatzalat Yisrael: An Exchange from Hirhurim -
Musings by Gil Student
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/02/entering-sanctuary-for-h
atzalat-yisrael.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090203/e0ad8369/attachment-0001.htm>

> Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus" (ArtScroll) writes (pg 63):
> "Yayin nesech, due to its association with avodah zarah, cannot become
> batel in any amount of wine. It can become batel, however with other
> foods in a sixty to one ratio - batel b'shishim. (Rambam [Maachalos
> Asuros] 15:6)"

> Unfortunately for your question, he does not say whether or not this
> would also apply to stam yaynam.
> Akiva Miller

Neither stam yaynam NOR yayn nesech was adressed.

The question was about yayin mevushal in a mixture with non mevushal.
Tha is PRIOR to any contamination.

Your cases cover after contamination. Being mevateil issur lechatchila
is never OK afaik

Kt
Rrw.

RRW:
>> I open a bottle of nonmevushal wine. Q: in order to avoid
>> contamination by a non-Jew may I mix in mevushal wine? Or
>> must I mevashel the original wine by itself?
>>     
RAM:
>
> Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus" (ArtScroll) writes (pg
> 63): "Yayin nesech, due to its association with avodah zarah, cannot
> become batel in any amount of wine. It can become batel, however with
> other foods in a sixty to one ratio - batel b'shishim. (Rambam
> [Maachalos Asuros] 15:6)"
>
> Unfortunately for your question, he does not say whether or not this would also apply to stam yaynam.
>   
Why would it need to become batel if it's not yet assur?  WRT the 
original question, see Tshuvos HaRambam, ed. Blau, #269, where he cites 
the Ri MiGash as recommending mixing honey in with the wine if a non-Jew 
enters the room, and says "v'chen asu halacha l'ma'aseh, hu v'chol 
gedolei Sfarad", though, IIRC, Rabbeinu Yonah in Sha'arei Tshuva disagrees.
It's not obvious to me how mevushal wine would work in that capacity 
unless it was rov.

David Riceman

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Rabbi Rich Wolpoe asked:
>> I open a bottle of nonmevushal wine. Q: in order to avoid
>> contamination by a non-Jew may I mix in mevushal wine? Or
>> must I mevashel the original wine by itself?
> 
> Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus" (ArtScroll) writes (pg
> 63): "Yayin nesech, due to its association with avodah zarah, cannot
> become batel in any amount of wine. It can become batel, however with
> other foods in a sixty to one ratio - batel b'shishim. (Rambam
> [Maachalos Asuros] 15:6)"

That's not the question.  The question is whether non-mevushal wine can
become pasul lenisuch by mixing in some amount of mevushal wine, and if
so how much?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:27:48PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: What about injunctions such as Lo Taturu, not to go against the
: words of the Sages, and Bal Tosef? Has nothing been codified
: in this regard? ...

Lo sosuru limits minhag -- a minhag can't violate halakhah, even
derabgbanan.

Bal tosif is only an issue if (1) the minhag ruins the numerical
significance of the mitzvah (5 minim, not 4); or (2) according to
the Rambam, if it's passed off as deOraisa.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:02:31PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Well there are a few exceptions:
: The minhag not to duchan daily.
...
: Many changes can be justified. Some like duchan is a function of shei
: v'al ta'aseh.

If it can be judtified, then it's not an exception.

Or perhaps my words should be limited by more explicitly saying that a
minhag can't violate halakhah in a way that can't be justified.

In my "weighing factors" formulaion, minhag is a factor to be weighed,
and thus can counterbalance the need to find a justification.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> "Lo sosuru limits minhag -- a minhag can't violate halakhah, even
> derabbanan"
> Micha

Well there are a few exceptions:
The minhag not to duchan daily.

The minhag for women not to do zimun for themselves, even when halacha. Would require it.  Eg 3 women and 0-2 men.

The minhag to tare qriya at funerall and not at original sha'as chimum.

Many changes can be justified.  Some like duchan is a function of shei v'al ta'aseh.

Kt
Rrw
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In answer to Rabbi Wolpe's question it is important to recognise that no  
issur has been made. However, there is a question of whether bittul occurs in  
Heter b'heter (as noted by Shach 22 on YD 99). In that case the milk 'fell' into 
 the water (Lashon Bedieved, but Lechatchila this is assur as noted by the 
Beit  Meir) and that later on, the problem is only a question of ta'am.  
However, in his first comment on YD 299, the Shach  makes it clear that where 
concerns exist other than ta'am, then bittul of heter  b'heter does not work. As such 
I presume that you may not mix in mevushal wine.  However, I would be keen to 
learn if this is not the case. 
 
Johnny Solomon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090203/679263d1/attachment-0001.htm>

> In answer to Rabbi Wolpe's question it is important to recognise that
> no issur has been made. However, there is a question of whether bittul
> occurs in Heter b'heter (as noted by Shach 22 on YD 99). In that case
> the milk 'fell' into the water (Lashon Bedieved, but Lechatchila this
> is assur as noted by the Beit Meir) and that later on, the problem
> is only a question of ta'am. However, in his first comment on YD 299,
> the Shach makes it clear that where concerns exist other than ta'am,
> then bittul of heter b'heter does not work. As such I presume that you
> may not mix in mevushal wine. However, I would be keen to learn if this
> is not the case. Johnny Solomon

WADR this completely misses the point! It's not even close. There is
zero issur being introduced here!!!

My case is more like this:

At what point does a combination of wine with x lose its borei pri
hagaffen status. And I can find the answer to that!

So now at what point can I add enough mevushal wine so that the original
wine it loses its non mevushal status w/o heating it!

If u want to say min bemino is not bateil then even a drop of nonmev
ushal wine that fallks into mevushal would change its status.

I think it's safe to assume davar sheyeish lo matirin does not apply
cause heating wine messes it up.!
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Madjsolo...@aol.com wrote:
> In answer to Rabbi Wolpe's question it is important to recognise that no 
> issur has been made. However, there is a question of whether bittul 
> occurs in Heter b'heter (as noted by Shach 22 on YD 99). In that case 
> the milk 'fell' into the water (Lashon Bedieved, but Lechatchila this is 
> assur as noted by the Beit Meir) and that later on, the problem is only 
> a question of ta'am. However, in his first comment on YD 299, the Shach 
> makes it clear that where concerns exist other than ta'am, then bittul 
> of heter b'heter does not work. As such I presume that you may not mix 
> in mevushal wine. However, I would be keen to learn if this is not the 
> case.

This is not at all on topic.  Lav hanidon domeh lara'ayah.  The question
here is not one of bitul at all.  RRW is not seeking to be mevatel the
non-mevushal wine in the mevushal, which would require *at least* a rov.
Rather, he is trying to render the non-mevushal wine unfit for nisuch.
It is certainly permitted to do so, lechatchilah; after all, that is
exactly what we do when we create yayin mevushal.  RRW's question is
whether there is a less drastic way to do it, by adding mevushal wine
to the non-mevushal.  Is there some proportion of mevushal wine,
presumably *less* than a rov, that renders the entire wine unfit for
nisuch?  I don't know the answer, but it's a legitimate question.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> My case is more like this:
> 
> At what point does a combination of wine with x lose its borei pri
> hagaffen status. And I can find the answer to that!

That one is easy.  1 part wine to 6 parts other liquid.  If you were
going to add that much mevushal to your non-mevushal, why bother?


> So now at what point can I add enough mevushal wine so that the original
> wine it loses its non mevushal status w/o heating it!

*That* question is not so easy.  It stands to reason that 1.0001:1 will
do it; but it's quite possible that a much smaller ratio will also do it.


> I think it's safe to assume davar sheyeish lo matirin does not apply
> cause heating wine messes it up.!

In any case it's not yesh lo matirin.  Before the goy handles it it
doesn't need any heter, and after the goy handles it boiling it won't
help.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:02:31 +0000
rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> > "Lo sosuru limits minhag -- a minhag can't violate halakhah, even
> > derabbanan"
> > Micha
> 
> Well there are a few exceptions:
> The minhag not to duchan daily.
> 
> The minhag for women not to do zimun for themselves, even when halacha. Would require it.  Eg 3 women and 0-2 men.

No.  The Halachah is that three women and fewer than three men is only
a reshus (SA OH 199:7), and there's no violation of Halachah when they
choose not to do so.  What does seem to violate Halachah is the failure
of women (even one) to join a Zimun when three or more men are present;
this question is discussed in Igros Moshe (OH V:9:10).

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:35:06 +0000
rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

...

> Re: reshus vs. Hiyyuv:
> See both tur and gra and the rosh they both quote..
> 
> Reshus is the teirutz of smag but is clearly dochak..

You're right; I was not that familiar with the Sugya, and I relied on
the fact that Maran ruled in accordance with Semag (and Tosafos) and
Rema did not dissent.  It does seem, though, at least from my cursory
perusal of the Rishonim, that the straightforward reading of the Sugya
is indeed that women are actually obligated in Zimun (even when there
are not three men present), and the implication of Tosafos is that they
are reinterpreting the Sugya to justify the Minhag to the contrary.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

> No.  The Halachah is that three women and fewer than three men is only
> a reshus (SA OH 199:7), and there's no violation of Halachah when they
> choose not to do so.  What does seem to violate Halachah is the failure
> of women (even one) to join a Zimun when three or more men are present;
> this question is discussed in Igros Moshe (OH V:9:10)."

Re: reshus vs. Hiyyuv:
See both tur and gra and the rosh they both quote..

Reshus is the teirutz of smag but is clearly dochak..

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 01:10:22AM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
:                             and the implication of Tosafos is that they
: are reinterpreting the Sugya to justify the Minhag to the contrary.

The following two say the same substance but IMHO betray very different
attitudes toward mesorah.

Do Tosafos reinterpret a sugyah to justify a minhag?
or
Do they realize by looking at how halakhah was practiced (and assuming
the default that practice is in line with halakhah) that the gemara
couldn't have meant what it seems to?

Did Tosafos think they were reinterpreting, or using other data to
understand how it was always understood, thus explaining how the
practice was allowed to persist.

I realize the latter presumes a connection between Ashk and the Bavli
which was stronger than it historically was. But I'm asking about
Tosafos and what they were doing -- not whether or not they got the
history right.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:49:51PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: That one is easy.  1 part wine to 6 parts other liquid.  If you were
: going to add that much mevushal to your non-mevushal, why bother?

The opening case was that RRW has a nachriah housekeeper. I don't know
about you, but I know how to make a taaroves, but I do not know how
to cook wine without ruining it. I would think you need equipment to
insure the alcohol wouldn't get away. So lemaaseh in someone's home,
this solution may be the more pragmatic one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

No.  The Halachah is that three women and fewer than three men is only a
reshus (SA OH 199:7), and there's no violation of Halachah when they
choose not to do so.  

Yitzhak
------------------------------
I suppose it goes back to different understandings of reshut - (e.g.
tosfot by arvit reshut) but in any event - would you understand this to
mean that HKB"H is indifferent to whether they make a zimmun or not?

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.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 27
**************************************

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..."