Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 67

Sun, 19 Apr 2009

• 1. Re: Gebrochts (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Gebrochts (Zev Sero)
• 3. Standing for Shirat Hayam (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: seder (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: seder (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: running a seder (Micha Berger)
• 7. Why was arami chosen over more complete passages in shmos re: Exodus? (rebshrink@aol.com)
• 8. eating matza for 7 days (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Gebrochts (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: Kitniyot and Potatoes (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Kitniyos and Potatoes (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Why was arami chosen over more complete passages in shmosre: Exodus? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. : Re: Gebrochts (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: running a seder (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: : Re: Gebrochts (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: : Re: Gebrochts (Zev Sero)
• 17. Dr. Berkovits and R' Marc Angel (Michael Makovi)
• 18. Re: Dr. Berkovits and R' Marc Angel (David Riceman)
• 19. Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis; an alternative svara Pt. 1. (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 02:19:30PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Rambam uses term "rekik" which implies wafer. See vayikra and tzav that
: has 3 kinds of matzos and I am guessing that rekik is the thinnest. (Also
: l'havdil the Catholic wafer is thin enough to see thru and lichora is
: based upon ancient matza.)

That's where I began last time around, but RSZ corrected me. The Notzrim
haven't been using wafers that long.

And as RnTK already noted, rekikei matzos can soak in oil. Therefore I
would think the word does /not/ imply wafer -- despite its meaning in
Modern Hebrew. I would side with R' Aryeh Kaplan's translation, "flat".
See also the cows in Bereishis 41:19, again -- flat (skinny), not
crispy.

...
: AISI, since we are machmir to have thin crispy matza, we can afford to
: be meikil about the cheshash of unbaked sections...

But we also count lishah toward the 18 minutes, making the whole thing
much more rushed. I can't guess which effect is greater.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 5th day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       away my independence?

Micha Berger wrote:

> Thanks to RSZ, who cited this SAhR in a discussion some years back about
> how long ago Ashkenazim started exclusively making crispy matzos.

I must apologise for having confused two things.  As I think I pointed
out later in that thread, and as RCGS has pointed out this time around,
the change the Rav explicitly mentions is not to thin matzos (as I had
originally misremembered) but to quick processing (i.e. 18-minute batches).
It *may* be that the change to thin matzos happened at the same time,
but it's not necessary.  That change may have happened earlier; but I
have other reasons to suspect that it actually happened later, some time
in the 19th century!



> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 02:19:30PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> : Rambam uses term "rekik" which implies wafer. See vayikra and tzav that
> : has 3 kinds of matzos and I am guessing that rekik is the thinnest. (Also
> : l'havdil the Catholic wafer is thin enough to see thru and lichora is
> : based upon ancient matza.)
> 
> That's where I began last time around, but RSZ corrected me. The Notzrim
> haven't been using wafers that long.

Depends how long is "that long".  In the previous context we were
talking about 2000 years.  Your original suggestion was that the
Catholic wafer shows that we had thin matzos since the days of Chazal.
That I corrected, because the Catholic wafer probably isn't much
older than 900 years.  But 900 years is still a long time.


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

The issue is what are the laws and custsom regarding standing for the
Shirat Hayyam [and by extension the Asseret haDdibrot]

   - Rambam: never stand because no one portion is better than any other
   - Maharam miRothenburg:  Always stand because no one portion is better
     than any other!  :-)
   - Minhag:  Stand for Shira only

Question how does this Minhag work?

Quick answer: Peak at why we stand for Qiddush Levana. Since we receive
the Face of the Shechina whilst saying birkat levana Abbaye rules that we
therefore must recite it standing overrdiing the objections of the Rambam
et. al. is the fact that we stand NOT for the verses being read so much
as the re-enanctment of confronting the Divine Presence as revealed at
the Splitting of the Sea.

A minhag in Medeival Bagda [iirc] developed to call the local Rabbi to
the Torah and stand in HIS honor. This MIGHT be the reason for calling
up an important person to this aliya

Hag Samei'ach
RRW
-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/

I find it interesting that RSBA takes it for granted we aren't supposed
to eat a kezayis. There was a time when the majority made a point of
eating a kezayis. And as already mentioned in passing, this might have
been shitas haRambam. See also the Maggid Mishnah. The Rosh and the Rashba
(shu"t #202) says it's not mandatory -- but still reads as though that's
the lechatchilah. Hagahos Maiminios corrects the text of the Yad to this
position as well.

The SA's opinion won out (c.f. QSA and MB)... but perhaps only nispasheit
within our own lifetimes.

In this case it reversed the norm for this kind of chumrah -- away from
shitas haRambam. The tzad hashaveh appears to be a growing emphasis on
avoiding questions. Such as the berakhah acharonah on karpas (not that we
make a berakhah acharonah on qaddeish) and birkhas hamitzvah on rochtzah.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 5th day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       away my independence?

I find it interesting that RSBA takes it for granted we aren't supposed
to eat a kezayis. There was a time when the majority made a point of
eating a kezayis. And as already mentioned in passing, this might have
been shitas haRambam. See also the Maggid Mishnah. The Rosh and the Rashba
(shu"t #202) says it's not mandatory -- but still reads as though that's
the lechatchilah. Hagahos Maiminios corrects the text of the Yad to this
position as well.

The SA's opinion won out (c.f. QSA and MB)... but perhaps only nispasheit
within our own lifetimes.

In this case it reversed the norm for this kind of chumrah -- away from
shitas haRambam. The tzad hashaveh appears to be a growing emphasis on
avoiding questions. Such as the berakhah acharonah on karpas (not that we
make a berakhah acharonah on qaddeish) and birkhas hamitzvah on rochtzah.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 5th day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       away my independence?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:33:36PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I'd like to cite from my notes from a shiur given by Rav Nachman Bulman
: at Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim in 1976:

: "Cheirus is *not* freedom, but rather aristocracy. The aristocrat is
: *not* totally free. On the contrary - his life is quite structured. Not
: *restricted*, but rather *structured*...

Very TIDE. (RnTK will be underwhelmed by that observation, sorry.)

"Cheirus al haluchos" combined with RSRH's notion of Torah as the
ennoblement of man -- "aristocracy is on the luchos" would be a
very precise description of the ideal person TIDE sets to create.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 5th day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       away my independence?

I believe that Chazal carefully fulfilled the?chiyuv of "V'hegadta lvincha
bayom hahu"by finding?a text that contains the formula (ie. the Cheftzah)
of "V'hegadta". ? By Bikurim the Chumash tells us?that the bringer
introduces?his statement of thanksgiving by "Hegadti hayom laShem Elokecha"
and continues with four verses that describes the history of the Exodus?
The Chumash thereby tells us that these four verses constitute a
"hagadah".?? Thus Chazal use the Cheftzah of Hagadah by Bikurim as the
Cheftzah of Hagadah by Pesach, fulfilling the Mitzvah of Hagadah.

Kol Tov,

Stu Grant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090414/bf181fb1/attachment-0001.htm>

I think the disconnect is in your identefication of mitzvas asei
with chiyuv. Most hold that the rest of Pesach only holds an issur of
chameitz. The Gra (daas yachid?) holds there is a qiyum asei in eating
matzah. Qiyumis, not chiyuvis.>>

No the Gra is not a daas yachid before him there is the chizkuni (shemot 12:18)
see
http://www.vbm-torah.org/pesach/pesach65-rbt.htm
for more details

As an aside this halacha comes up in an entirely different context.
RMF claims that the mitzva of yishuv ha-aretz is a mitzva kiyumit.
R. Avrahaam Shapira disagreed and said that a mitza kiyumit is like tzizit
where the choice is whether to wear a 4 cornered garment or not. However, once
one wears a 4 cornered garment one is required to wear tzizit.
He claimed that there were no examples of a mitzva kiyumit where one
had complete
freedom whether to keep the mitzva or not.
I felt that one counter-example is this halacha of eating matza all 7
days according to
the Chizkuni/Gra. I once had another example which I can't currently remember.

For those keeping a second day of yomtov - enjoy -). We have Maimouna


-- 
Eli Turkel

Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> AISI, since we are machmir to have thin crispy matza,
> we can afford to be meikil about the cheshash of
> unbaked sections.

If there is a fear that wetting a matza might cause it to become chometz,
that fear has nothing to do with how well the matzah got baked. If a matza
was not baked well enough, then that portion of dough became chometz long
before anyone put it in their soup.

Rather, if there is a fear that wetting a matza might cause it to become
chometz, that fear is beased on how well the dough was *kneaded*. If there
are any specks of flour which never got kneaded into the rest of the dough,
then (IIUC) they are still capable of becoming chometz if they get wet.

(Disclaimer: This post should not be construed as opposing those views
which base gebrockts on flour-mehl confusion, or other reasonings. It is
only the "unbaked" logic which I'm opposing.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Become a Medical Transcriptionist. Click here to find schedules designed to fit your life.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsIBaCG65Ah8XKZiKc25qXXeelAjKutiBE0BeRswQlf21dUObwBq60/

If we held by the Khai Adam's qula regarding kiniyot (that one can eat them 
if you apply the restrictions put on the 5 grains) then his khumra of 
potatoes would not be so bad.

Ben 

I stopped trying to search for an all inclusive reason when I heard that 
some people include cotton seed oil as kitniyot.

Ben

> ==========================
> R' Belsky on the recent OU webcast (more detail will be forthcoming on
> my next hirhurim audio roundup) said that potatoes are a large vegetable
> not at all grainlike and that's why they didn't make the cut.
> CKVS
> Joel Rich
> > ************************************** 

!����޶�
�jW���\��W�W����,���Յ�v֥�)܅��ʉ�j����v)�jױ��Z��'�����^~��V�z�^
��6���az���r).�)��ࡺf��ץ�ˬ�����)�z�����Ǭ�+,��^�����ajy,�+���v
ءk*&���za%�G����u�'�)�z�"�躻ޮǬ��u��&޲�^�+-���~�^���x(n��
!��y��zYl��aj�azǟ���z���'�ح�ך��u�R��j{EX����+y�(����v�^�w���ޭ�_��
���kj�Z�,ȶ�ښ)e���&�x!���g��ɮ�楗'�r[����UVI���&���$�����3(
n)^

RRW writes:

> AISI, since we are machmir to have thin crispy matza, we can afford to
> be meikil about the cheshash of unbaked sections. Otoh would we change
> and be meiklil and restore thick matzos we would need to restore the
> cheshash of not being baked thoroughly. A humra-kula see-saw if you will.
> 
> AISI with our matzos there is no need to be chosheish for gebroktz
> BUT
> The cheshash could exist if matzos were kosher but thicker.

Interesting factoid from somebody we had dinner with on seventh night.  We
were talking about the soft matzos that we had on second night (we were out
first night at an Ashkenazi family, so no soft matzos, but we bought Rabbi
David's (Rav of one of the Sephardi kehillos here) matzos for our seder at
home second night - I think Rabbi David is the only one making these in
England).  Anyhow, on Rabbi David's instructions they came out of his
freezer straight into ours, and we only took them out of the freezer in time
for the seder - in order to keep them soft.  And we could see why, because
by the next day they were already very hard and pretty much inedible (if you
call what they were the night of the seder edible - but at least they were
soft and bendy).

Anyhow, my husband was busy wondering out loud on seventh night how they
managed in the days before freezers - and one of the old timers at the meal
said that she remembered in India they used to hang up the matzos, and then
when it was time to eat them they used to soak them in water to make them
edible!  

That makes me wonder whether in fact it was not only not the minhag but
impossible to be non gebrochts in the days before crispy matzos and still
fulfil the mitzvah - or at least whether one would have to bake one's matzos
within hours of the seder in order to eat them without gebrochts.



> Gutn Mo-ed
> RRW

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

RRW I back down a bit from my previous stance. But one must see
Goldschmidt to get what I'm pointing to.."

Also see the Artscroll mishnayos pesachim 10:4
"Old edition" pp. 210-211

Starting from:   "however our versions of rambam's code...".
And ending with: ".. of why the the customs of this night are so unusual."

What is missing is ED Goldscmidt's assertion as to how the peshat morphed
by a "misread" of the text. Otherwise the elements of the peshat are
the same as is Goldschmidt"

Sh Shalom
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:14:06PM +0100, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: Anyhow, my husband was busy wondering out loud on seventh night how they
: managed in the days before freezers - and one of the old timers at the meal
: said that she remembered in India they used to hang up the matzos, and then
: when it was time to eat them they used to soak them in water to make them
: edible!  

I think they baked their own in the middle of Pesach. The notion of
needing a matzah bakery with a special oven is new to Sepharadim. I have
eidus that this is what was the norm in Yemen -- which is off topic,
but does avoid any implication about pragmatically requiring gebrochts.

Think how Middle Eastern breads are made: You could heat up a KLP pan or
a rock and throw dough on it.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@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?

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:14:06PM +0100, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
> : Anyhow, my husband was busy wondering out loud on seventh night how they
> : managed in the days before freezers - and one of the old timers at the meal
> : said that she remembered in India they used to hang up the matzos, and then
> : when it was time to eat them they used to soak them in water to make them
> : edible!  

> I think they baked their own in the middle of Pesach.

Yes, they did, but what about Shabbat?


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

I was reading Rabbi Marc D. Angel's "The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A
Sephardic Approach" this past Yom Tov, and I found the following
passages. If anyone sees or does not see any parallels to Dor Revi'i
and/or Dr. Eliezer Berkovits, either way, I'm offering the following
passages from Rabbi Angel's work, without commentary of my own, save
what is in brackets. Especially, I do NOT quote either Rabbis Glasner
or Berkovits herein. But as far as I can tell, if Rabbi Angel's
presentation is accurate, Rabbi Benzion Uziel would perhaps agree to a
great degree with Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits.

(An aside: someone emailed me off-list, telling me that I should drop
my interest in Dr. Berkovits. This individual appealed to his being a
rabbi with smiha, saying that since he knows more than I do, his word
(as a rabbi) should be enough to convince me that he is right and I am
wrong. He seems to have held that I should drop my views without any
discussion, without any parrying of sources or sevara. Besides the
fact that following charisma (i.e. the mere fact that he has "rabbi"
before his name) over sources and logic goes against everything I
believe - this individual's email to me thus highly disturbed me, and
represents, I believe, one of the chief problems with Orthodoxy today
- cf. Einaim Lirot and Rabbi Weinberg's letters to Professor Atlas - I
might note that Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman at Bar Ilan seems to regard
Dr. Berkovits's views well. If so, then I have Rabbis Uziel, Angel,
Glasner, Berkovits, and Hayman to rely on - enough for me if my goal
is simply to rely on anyone and everyone who has smiha, regardless of
his sources or logic. On the other hand, if we discard charisma and
appeals to authority, and argue based on the sources, I'm all ears.
Also, I'll note that I DID contact one of the other smiha'ed haverim
(a career Torah educator of renown) on the list, forwarding him the
criticism of me (minus the name of its author), asking this haver
whether I should honor his words or not (he said I shouldn't).)

Now, to quote Rabbi Angel:

Pp. 66ff:

The words of the Torah, even with their ancient explanations, still
leave many questions unanswered. The language of the Torah is not
legalistic, for the most part. Even in its legalistic sections, it is
not usually precise as a code of law. The words of the Torah demand
explanation and interpretation. The Torah provides us with the word of
God - but also leaves much room for human interpretation and
application of principles. Due to changed conditions and/or
perceptions, the words of the Torah are not always easily applied to
contemporary life. Therefore, the halakhah also includes categories of
rabbinic law. The rabbis of each generation are given the
responsibility and authority to apply the teachings of the Torah to
their own situation. Categories of rabbinic law include a) laws
derived by hermeneutic principles, by interpretations of the Torah
[Rabbi Angel seems to be following Rambam's Sefer haMitzvot, contra
Ramban's hasagot thereto, and so all the same discussions of that
machloket, apply here to Rabbi Angel's words]; b) rabbinical
ordinances; c) local regulations and customs.

These categories of halakhah are not based directly on God's command,
but on the rabbinic application of Torah principles to their
contemporary situations. The Torah and the original oral law [Rabbi
Angel, a page earlier, describes oral law that is explanations of the
Written Law, given explicitly at Sinai] represent God's words to
Israel; the rabbinic categories of halakhah represent the effort of
human beings to derive God's will from the principles of the Torah.

...

The Great Court had the authority to interpret the Torah and to
declare its judgment concerning the will of God. Yet interpretations
could change from one generation to the next; the oral law was "oral"
so that it would retain fluidity and flexibility [the same reason
offered by Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits]. Maimonides writes (Laws of
Rebels 2:1): ... [to summarize Rambam: if one Great Court rules the
halakhah one way, based in its exegesis of the Torah, a latter Great
Court can overrule that interpretation in favor of its own personal
exegesis].

...

Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, in the mid-second century C.E., compiled the
Mishnah, a record of the oral law up to his time. From then on, the
mishnah became the central text in halakhah; rabbis no longer derived
laws directly from the text of the Torah, but focused their studies
and decisions on the texts of the Mishnah. [Menachem Elon, in the
Encyclopedia Judaica, "Interpretation", makes this same point. Rabbis
Glasner and Berkovits attribute this change to the writing qua writing
per se of the Mishnah, explaining the prohibition to write the oral
law. Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, in his Foreword to the Soncino Midrash
Rabbah, rather explains this as the result of the change from midrash
halakhah to mishnah; whereas midrash halakhah had previously worked
exactly like midrash aggadah, with the same degree of freedom, the
level of freedom was now curtailed by the mishnaic method. See
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/01/rabbi-dr-isidore
-epstein-on-oral-law.html]
... The dissolution of the Great Court changed the method of halakhah.
No longer was there one universally recognized institution which could
rule authoritatively for all Jews. No longer did rabbis go directly to
the Torah in order to determine halakhah.

...

There have been some individuals who have called for the establishment
of a new Sanhedrin in our times. They would like a revival of a
central halakhic authority for the Jewish people. The Sanhedrin would
not only provide unity in halakhah, but would re-institute the
original methodology of the oral law - interpreting the Torah itself,
applying the law to life with the freedom to overrule precedents and
previous decisions.

One of those calling for a Sanhedrin was the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of
Israel, Rabbi Benzion Uziel (1880-1953). In a speech delivered on 12
Kislev 5697, he called for a authoritative rabbinic body along the
lines of the Great Court of Jerusalem. [Mikhmanei Uziel, Tel Aviv,
1939, p. 358.] [As far as I can tell, Rabbi Uziel here would be more
extreme than Rabbi Glasner; Rabbi Glasner said the Oral Law would
become oral again with Mashiah's coming, but Rabbi Uziel seems to have
tried to bring this about even sooner. On the other hand, Rabbi Uziel
is less extreme than Dr. Berkovits, who sought to restore the oral
law's nature even today. On the other hand, Dr. Berkovits explicitly
said that we cannot discard the Shulhan Aruch, but that rather, we
must strive to reintroduce the flexibility of the original oral law,
back into our exegesis and utilization of the Shulhan Aruch's binding
rulings. Also, Dr. Berkovits said we cannot create a new Sanhedrin
today; he said the Sanhedrin is more than just a collection of the
greatest rabbis of the age in one room; it is rather a group of rabbis
with powers and methods of halakhic decision-making entirely unlike
today's, and a paradigm shift in halakhic-thinking is required before
we can blithely resurrect the Sanhedrin. Perhaps, then, Dr. Berkovits
was trying to resurrect the Sanhedrin's method, as a preparation for
the Sanhedrin itself's own resurrection?]

(end quote) As an aside, in the following pages, Rabbi Angel suggests
that Sephardi poskim themselves regard Sephardi halakhah as being more
lenient than Ashkenazi; Rabbi Angel cites the Hida as saying that
Sephardi halakhah is hesed and Ashkenazi is gevura. Rabbi Angel says
this may or may not be true, but it indicates the Sephardi self-image,
he says. Also, Rabbi Angel says Sephardim were more in touch with the
needs of the common man, and the Sephardi way of life had more "joie
de vivre".

-----


highly of YCT, and has close ties to Rabbi Avi Weiss. Someone recently
told me that an anonymous authority within Rabbi Avi Weiss's Open
Orthodoxy said that Open Orthodoxy is aspiring to what the original
intent of Conservative's right-wing JTS wing was. Rabbi Weiss's
description of the Oral Law in his article "Open Orthodoxy!"
(http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_down
load/gid,143/,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n4_v46/ai_20583577), is
highly reminiscent of Dr. Berkovits:

Aside from Sinaitic law, there are laws that are non-Sinaitic. Halakha
is a partnership between God-given law and laws based on the biblical
mandate: "And you shall rise and go to the judge of your day"
(Deuteronomy 17:10).

This verse in part refers to laws that are logically deduced by the
rabbis from the Torah or from the thirteen hermeneutic principles
given at Sinai. These laws are interpretive in nature (ha-dinin
she-hoziu al darkhei ha-sevara). While they were set down by the
rabbis, they have biblical status (de-Oraita), since they emerge from
the Torah.(5 - See Harry C. Schimmel, The Oral Law (Jerusalem/New
York: Feldheim Publishers, 1971), pp. 62, 63. 6. See Maimonides in his
Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah. Other rishonim (early
commentaries) disagree with this distinction.)

The fundamental difference between Sinaitic law and non-Sinaitic law,
according to Maimonides, is that laws from Sinai, coming as they do
directly from God, are free from controversy. There is only one view
on every issue. Non-Sinaitic law, on the other hand, which is the
result of rabbinic interpretation, is subject to controversy.(6 - See
Tosafot to Pesahim 5 la, s.v. 'I'ata and Maimonides in his
Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah. See also Maimonides,
Code, Laws of Rebels 2:5.) After all, two rabbis of equal piety,
intellectual ability, or stature may disagree - and both may be
correct.

Thus, Halakha has a degree of flexibility. While bordered by a system
that is external to humankind - the God-given law, Torah mi-Sinai, to
which Jews are subservient - it also includes laws derived by the
rabbis, concerning which there may be more than one view. It follows,
therefore, that Halakha is a living structure that operates within
absolute guidelines, yet one which is broad enough to allow
significant latitude for the posek (decisor) to take into account the
individual and his or her circumstances. Simply put, within airtight
parameters, Halakha is flexible.

In the same framework, all those who hold to Orthodoxy contend that
"new Halakha," which emerges constantly from the wellspring of the
halakhic process, must always be based on the highest caliber of
religio-legal authority. There must be an exceptional halakhic
personality who affirms the new ruling on the grounds of sound
halakhic reasoning.

----



-- 
Michael Makovi
????? ???????
mikewindd...@gmail.com
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com

Michael Makovi (quoting RMDA) wrote:
> Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, in the mid-second century C.E., compiled the
> Mishnah, a record of the oral law up to his time. From then on, the
> mishnah became the central text in halakhah; rabbis no longer derived
> laws directly from the text of the Torah, but focused their studies
> and decisions on the texts of the Mishnah.

This is a gross oversimplification of a process that took many 
generations.  Certainly the Tosefta derives halacha primarily from 
psukim, and much of what the amoraim did was to provide Biblical 
justification for Tannaitic norms.  It's only in the time of the geonim 
that deriving halacha from psukim became rare.

David Riceman

Standard Mainstrem Read:
The Minhag as stated in SA Orach Chayyim 473:6 is to davka consume less
than a k'zayyis for karpas

Reason?
The Be'er Hagolah there states the reason (as per the Beth Yosef); that by
consuming less than a K'zayyis we avoid a s'feik bracha of borei nefashos
(BNR).

Based upon information from my distant past I would like to offer a
different ta'am. This has little to no direct bearing on the psaq of
the SA but it differs from the be'er hagolah's ta'am. Also it may have
other indirect halachic ramifications.
---------------------


The reason for avoiding a K'zayis for karpas
Is to avoid a s'feik baracha on the netillas yadayyim that precedes the
tibbul. IOW since with a kezayyis there are dei'os that WOULD require
a bracha therefore less then a k'zayyis would NOT trigger the bracha
- just the netillah lechal hadei'os or perhaps only lerov hade-'os.
(Taluy in how one reads Rambam and GRA)

-----------------------
The mishnah brura in 473:52 and shaar hatziyyun 473:70
And the MB 158:20
State:
That Davar shetibbulo bemashkin triggers a bracha al netilas yadayim
leda'as haGRA
BUT MB limits this to the case ONLY when this Tibbul is at least
a k'zayyis. (I Don't know MB's source but it seems mistavra)

Therefore avoiding a K'zayyis for karpas avoids a possible bracha of al
netilas yadayim as the MB understands GRA.

In Part 2 I will attempt to read the converse into the Rambam.
NB: that R Chaim Stenmetz and others have taken issue with this read.

More Later BEH
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 67
**************************************


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..."