Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 82

Mon, 11 May 2009

• 1. Re: Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic Decision (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: Yeast isn't chameitz (Michael Makovi)
• 3. electricity and shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: water and electricity (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. Mayim Achronim - Washing after Eating Is "Mayim Achronim" a law or a stringency? (I. Balbin)
• 6. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Death, Heathenism, and Judaism (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Re: sephira question (hankman)
• 9. Boys Being Taught How to Cook (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Boys Being Taught How to Cook (Zev Sero)
• 11. "The Spirit He breathed in Man is free" (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Fw: Tisha-Asar Mi Yode'a (Ari Zivotofsky)
• 13. [Areivim] Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei Haposkim (Doron Beckerman)
• 14. Re: Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei Haposkim (Micha Berger)

>RMM presented it as though chessed vs din comes into play; ie that
> it's using love/mercy to tone down halakhah. And because he sees the
> compassion as extrahalachic, he asked how it was any different than what
> we disparage about C's legal process.
>
> R' Micha Berger

According to Rabbi Berkovits, hesed/ahavah would be extra-halachic
insofar as it is not part of the formal halacha. But it'd still be
internal to halacha insofar as it plays a role in halachic
decision-making.

But it's really a question of semantics, I think; one could just as
well say that hesed and ahava are factors in deciding formal halacha,
i.e. that formal halacha itself demands consideration of hesed and
ahava. I don't forsee a major nafka minah, so this is, AFAIK, purely a
question of semantics.

So we'd perhaps have three layers:
1) formal halacha, according to the technical logic and sources
2) hesed/ahava, external to formal halacha, but internal to halacha in
general. Cf. also Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits's article in Tradition re:
Shahak following Rabbi Unterman (the article is at
http://www.edah.org/backend/document/jakobovits1.html), that shalom
plays a role in halacha, because the Gemara says that the Torah's very
raison d'etre is shalom. Following Rabbi Unterman's interpretation of
mipnei darchei shalom, Rabbi Jakobovits suggests that according to
halacha, shalom is an extra-halachic (insofar as it is not part of
formal halacha) factor that dictates that any halacha that is formally
correct, but not keeping with shalom, is ipso facto a false halacha.
That is, he says, the halacha itself dictates that its own formal
logic should be disregarded when it contradicts shalom. See especially
section III of Rabbi Jakobovit's article, at
http://www.edah.org/backend/document/jakobovitz/jakobovits2.html.
3) anything totally not part of halacha, at all; irrelevant to halacha, bichlal

On the other hand, Rabbi Elisha Anscelovits at Yeshivat Maale Gilboa
and Machon Pardes, has told me that he feels Rabbi Berkovits's
distinction between formal halacha and extra-halachic
shalom/hesed/ahava, is overly dichotomous. He says Rabbi Berkovits's
philosophy is based on Germanic notions which are outdated, and that
they need revision. He also said that while Rabbi Berkovits obviously
relied on the Dor Revi'i's petiha to the Dor Revi'i, he says Rabbi
Berkovits apparently didn't fully comprehend the Dor Revi'i.
Unfortunately, I didn't merit to understand Rabbi Anscelovits's
proposed alternative.

Perhaps Rabbi Anscelovits wanted hesed and ahava to be factors in
formal halacha, so that we'd only have two layers, viz. formal halacha
and everything that's irrelevant to halacha.

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


polemicists have criticized the Conservative interpretation of Beit
Hillel's victory, viz. "they were lenient". Since Rabbi Halevy said
exactly this, I thought it notable. Actually, I was rather
flabbergasted myself; I actually doubt whether this is the historical
truth behind Beit Hillel's victory, but in any case, it is truly
amazing what Rabbi Halevy said, IMHO.

Also, I showed a Haredi haver here on the list (privately) some of the
rulings of Rabbi Uziel, and he exclaimed, "This is Torah??!!", and
explained how he felt Rabbi Uziel's rulings were contrary to the Torah
derech. So again, I thought this meant he was notable enough to post
on the list.

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


darchei shalom, but Rabbi Halevy instead paskened Meiri, even if he
didn't cite the Meiri by name (AFAIK).

Personally, I don't think darchei shalom can be the same as mishum
eiva (even though Rambam says they are the same), because we have
several laws mipnei darchei shalom, that have nothing to do with
non-Jews, nothing to do with life-threatening animosity. For example,
I think one of the laws has to do with who gets to draw water from the
well first. Apparently, these laws are simply trying to create a
harmonious and peaceful society that functions smoothly, and they are
not utilitarian laws aimed towards the Jewish community's physical
security. On the other hand, I find it doubtful to say that mishum
eiva means shalom and love and harmony (like mipnei darchei shalom),
even though Rabbi Unterman wants to say they are the same. So I'll
agree with Rambam on mishum eiva (animosity) and Rabbi Unterman on
mipnei darchei shalom (harmony), but I'll disagree with Rambam on
mipnei darchei shalom (who says it is animosity like mishum eiva) and
with Rabbi Unterman on mishum eiva (who says it is harmony like mipnei
darchei shalom).

Michael Makovi

> ...any argument for why lice have no mamashus would apply to airborn yeast.
> R' Micha Berger

A difference I see:

Lice, it is possible that Hazal decided the halakhah based on their
science, and that the law is not a Sinaitic one, but rather, one based
purely on human knowledge and reasoning. That is, based on the
scientific knowledge that lice spontaneously reproduce, the halakhah
is such-and-such. (Of course, some argue that lice eggs are small
enough that they are k'ilu spontaneously-generating. Rabbi Aryeh
Carmell proposes that spontaneous generation is a post-facto
explanation for preexisting halakhah; he notes that Rambam's
explanation of this halakhah provides an alternate reasoning (based on
Rambam's science) but preserves the same halakhah (i.e. lice can be
killed, no nakfa mina with the Gemara's explanation). Today,
explaining the tiny eggs = k'ilu spontaneous generation would be
repeating this method.)

As for yeast, it seems to me that apparently, the halakhah, due to a
Sinaitic hok, simply doesn't care about yeast. Stam, fruit juice
doesn't make hametz, and stam, matzah cannot become hametz. In other
words, it'd have no relationship with science, whatsoever. Of course,
were we to actually ask Hazal where they got their definition of
hametz from, we might be instead told that it was based on their
scientific experimentation, i.e. they experimented with various
concoctions and saw what leavened. If the latter, then lice and hametz
would perhaps be in one category, along with treifot contradicted by
modern science, etc. Perhaps, even, Hazal would have said that baking
powder produces hametz, had they known about it! Heck, perhaps they'd
even say that non-wheat grains, if combined with pure gluten from
another source, and then water, also produce hametz - who knows? But
my personal feeling is that hametz is rather a technical definition
without correspondence in science. But I may be wrong.

Michael Makovi

Based on remarks of R. S. Pick I decided to take the lazy way and study
the encyclopedia talmudir rather than his suggestion of the original.
The encyclopedia has 2 entries under chashmal and an appendix at the
end of the volume
which discuss at length the correspondence between CI and RSZA. Based
on these articles:

They assume that CI is a shitat yachid since nobody before who
discussed electricity
mentioned the problem of Boneh. As an aside the CI is difficult since
he occisaionally
mentions Makeh Bepayisch in addition (instead?) of Boneh and never clearly
differentiates between them. A difference is disconnecting the
circuit.( If the problem is Boneh then disconnecting is Soter. If the
problem is Metaken Manah then undoing it is allowed)

As mentioned before CI considered making a circuit Boneh for 2 distinct reasons
One a gemara at the bottom of shabbat 47a on assembling a pole made of
separate sections
and if one strongly attached the pieces it is biblically prohibted and
someone who connects
wires allowing electricity to flow is like attaching the pieces of the
pole. Beyond this case
CI considered it Boneh since he converts it from a dead object to a
living object (I didn't
see any proofs to this concept). RSZA argued from opening a door to a
small room that
allows fresh air to enter but is not Boneh.
CI also claimed (didn't understand the physics) that electricity is an
intrinsic part of
the metal while other materials are not condcutors while heating metal
is just a temporary change and disappears when one stops heating (RSZA
countered that the electric flow also stops when one stops the
external forces). Furthermore melacha is also determined by man's
perception
and making electrical circuits requires wisdom and so is like a
melacha in the lishkan
(RSZA countered that putting together a candlebra made from pieces on
YomTov takes
wisdom but is not a melacha).

One opinion of  CI that if connecting the switch doesnt turn on the
electricity (ie there is a shabbat chock turned off temporarily) then
one is not changing the nature of the metal and one is not turning a
dead item to life. Another opinion is that CI prohibits connecting a
circuit  becuase of Boneh even though electricity will flow only later
when a second circuit is closed (eg shabbat clock)

As mentioned one of RSZA's counter arguments is from a water system.
It seems the example is not from opening that tap (that some people on
the list objected to) but rather from adding water to a full water
system that causes it to flow. Similarly closing a circuit cause the
electrons to push each other through the wire. It seems that CI
doesn't agree because he feels electricity is intrinsic to a metal
wire while water is external to the pipes. RSZA disagrees and says the
wire doesnt change because electricity flows through the wire. As
stated before RSZA argues that turning off the power source turns of
the elctricity and so one is not making basic changes to the wire.
Furthermore it is not different from returning feathers to a pillow
which is allowed even though one cannot put the feathers into the
pillow from scratch.

Furthermore some hold that even closing a circuit is Boneh because one
changes a dead object
to a living one nevertheless opening the circuit is not Soter since
bringing an object from life to death is not Soter and in fact the
gemara allows killing lice.

-- 
Eli Turkel

I have also seen a letter from Reb. Moshe Feinstein stating 
that he agrees with the chakhmei Eretz Israel who see the 
issur in electricity in the status of the resultant action.

IIRC, Harav Henkin spoke of tikkun kli.  I don't remember 
that he saw no issur if the result wasn't in itself assur.

R' Yitzhak Schmelkes,  the Bet Yitzhak, spoke of molid which 
is an act of tikkun kli d'rabbanan (Different from nolad 
which is a muktze because the item didn't exist at the onset 
of Shabbat)

If you read my quote from the CI, you might note that his 
Boneh is very similar to Tikkun Kli (d'oraita), and to Molid 
Zerem a tkkun kli d'rabbanan.  One difference is that, while 
there is no separate issur of un-tikkun or un-molid, there 
is an issur of un-boneh, i.e., s'tira.

I've heard a conjecture that the CI might have named the 
tikkun as boneh to prevent a possible heter to undo a tikkun 
or a molid.

To all three, the issur is thus the creative act of making a 
dead item come alive.

I think that RSZA view is different, He sees nothing wrong 
in principle with activating a device or deactivating it if 
the result is not an issur. It is using an already existing 
kli, like opening and closing a door. As to molid he says 
that it is limited to chazal's g'zeira, e.g., molid ur, 
molid reicha, and we cannot make a new g'zera of molid zerem 
To RZSA, the isur today is that kvar horah zaken, the Bet 
Yitzhak, and all of Israel has accepted the issur.

Or so it all seems to me, one who doesn't have the knowledge 
or authority to decide halakha and most certainly not to 
suggest changes in religous behavior or custom.


David 

The following is a Tshuvah from Rav Aviner Shlita

It is called an obligation in the Talmud (Berachot 53b). The Tosafot  
(ibid.) however writes that the reason for this washing is "salt from  
sodom" - a type of salt which can make one blind if it touches the  
eye, and since in our days this type of salt is uncommon, this custom  
creates no obligation to wash "Mayim Achronim." But there is another  
reason given for this washing: The Torah says (Vayikra 11:44), "For I  
am Hashem, your God ? and you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall  
become holy..." The Talmud (ibid.) explains that "and you shall  
sanctify yourselves" refers to "Mayim Rishonim ? washing before  
eating" and "you shall become holy" refers to "Mayim Achronim -  
washing after eating." This means that one should not bless Hashem  
with soiled hands. This law is not stated explicitly with regard to  
the blessing after eating, but with regard to all blessings, whether  
they are in the middle of a meal or the middle of the day (Shulchan  
Aruch, Orach Chaim 181, Shaar Ha-Tzion #32). Therefore, all depends on  
the situation. One who eats neatly without becoming soiled from the  
food is exempt from "Mayim Achronim." But if his hands are dirty, and  
it is to a degree that he would be careful to wash them for reasons of  
cleanliness or even because he is overly sensitive with regard to  
dirty hands, he may not recite the blessing without washing "Mayim  
Achronim." If his hands are completely clean, he is exempt according  
to the Halachah, although he is still required to according to the  
Kabbalists - the mystics (Mishnah Berurah ibid. #22).

There is certainly no difference between men and women in regard to  
"Mayim Achronim."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090510/c3b6fad4/attachment-0001.htm>

RSP replied:
> if anyone washes his hand after the meal for whatever reason, especially
> if he feels that his hands are greasy, then tur and the mechaber all
> state that he is obligated in mayim acharonim

I think one needs to add the word "regularly" before "washes." ??So,
how many of us regularly wash our hands after eating a meal.."

Question:
Is our society's use of napkins (serviettes) a halachiclly acceptable
alternative to mayyim acharonim?

If yes, then the minhag pashut to NOT wash mayyim acharonim could be
defended on this basis.

RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra

21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their 
head, nor shall they shave off the corners of 
their beard and they shall not make a wound in
their flesh.

Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion
with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death
and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen
view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never
revives, who sends death and its harbingers ? sickness and poverty ?
so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should
fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the
foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the
eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the
dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of
death ? a symbol of death?s power to conquer all ? and thus remains
ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this
especially befits a priest and his office.

Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept
of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the
??? regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted
manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes
strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and
vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life.
Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life
we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical
things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment
of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God;
how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a
life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure.
This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for
whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the
?basis and direction of life? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090510/8049f7d0/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:

Day 0 is the 1st day, such that when we measure the passage of 49 days,
we fulfilled "tisperu chamishim yom".

I respond:

I don't get it here any more than I do in quantum mechanics. (The
Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time until
observed???) There are only 49 counts (either in arrears or in advance), if
day zero is a real count (and is in arrears), then erev yomtov (your day
50) no longer has a count as we only actually counted 49 (in arrears)
(despite the pasuk of "tisperu chamishim yom".) You sort of want day zero
to be counted and not counted so which is it?

The alternative is 49 counts in advance (without day zero) and we are back to my original question.

If the nature of the first days count is vastly different than the other 48
counts then you could mean that the first count, counts two days at the
same time, day zero in arrears and also day1 in advance, the following 48
are all in advance. But this leaves us with a non-uniform count methodology
for the sephira.

Still not completely convinced.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090510/f7fb94bf/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/7 I posted the following on Areivim:

Teaneck, NJ - Orthodox Yeshivah Adds Culinary Class To Its  Curriculum

Please see http://tinyurl.com/d25cs3

I hope that this will begin a trend so that elementary and high 
school Bais Yaakovs as well seminaries will introduce similar courses.

I am an advocate for everyone, men, women and children, knowing at 
least the basics of cooking.  Some years ago the wife of someone who 
lived on my block passed away at a relatively young age, and the 
husband was left with taking care of his two young daughters. He had 
absolutely no knowledge of how to do anything in his home, and it 
turned out to be problem.

Home skills are survival skills!

YL

I then followed this up on  with

"Proof" From the Torah That All Yeshiva Boys Should be Taught  How to
  Cook

The article at http://tinyurl.com/d25cs3 about boys taking cooking 
classes at the Torah Academy of Bergen County (TABC) has got me to 
thinking. I believe that one can "prove" from the Torah that this 
school is doing the correct thing and that all other day schools and 
yeshivas should be teaching boys to cook.

We are told that we should emulate the Avos and follow in their 
footsteps.  Furthermore, we all know that when Eisav came home, he 
found Yaakov Aveinu cooking some sort of pottage.

Bereishis 25: 29 One day Ya'akov cooked a pottage, and Esav came in 
from the field, exhausted.

The Chumash tells us explicitly that Yaakov had cooked this food, not 
his mother. Also, Yaakov was, of course, a yeshiva bochur. Hence we 
deduce from here that a yeshiva bochur should know how to cook and 
actually do some cooking himself!

In light of this, I really do not understand why all yeshivas are not 
doing what TABC is doing, namely, giving their students courses in cooking.

YL

Last night I sent the message below to Areivim and the Moderator 
wrote that he felt it should be sent to Avodah.

This morning someone in shul pointed out to me that the Or HaChaim
writes about Yaakov learning to cook.  See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/or_hachaim_yaakov_cook.pdf

and the Or HaChaim on pasuk 29.

Again, it seems that TABC in Teaneck is following a true Torah
approach when it some to teaching boys to cook!

Yitzchok Levine


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090510/3258f282/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:

> This morning someone in shul pointed out to me that the Or HaChaim
> writes about Yaakov learning to cook.

The OHC doesn't say anything about his learning to cook.  What it
says is that he decided that since Yitzchak loved Esav, Esav must be
doing something right and he should copy him, so he decided to cook
food as Esav did.

In any event, we see that his culinary skill wasn't so great, because
he only essayed a simple pot of lentils; when it came to cooking goat
"mat'ammim" he relied on his mother.

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

On Thu, 7 May 2009 15:06:42 -0700
Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote [on Areivim, cited with permission]:

...

>     is it not a bit like when a jay walker is hit by a car, and 
> hospitalized , what was his sin -- shabbos , loshon horo, tznius? or 
> primarily violating the RBSO's Law of Nature { car vs man, laws of 
> momentum, etc}....

Rudyard Kipling's "Natural Theology":

PRIMITIVE

I ate my fill of a whale that died,
And stranded after a month at sea....
There is a pain in my inside.
Why have the Gods afflicted me?
Ow! I am purged till I am a wraith!
Wow! I am sick till I cannot see!
What is the sense of Religion and Faith?
Look how the Gods have afflicted me!


PAGAN

How can the skin of rat or mouse hold
Anything more than a harmless flea?...
The burning plague has taken my household.
Why have my Gods afflicted me?

All my kith and kin are deceased,
Though they were as good as good could be.
I will out and batter the family priest,
Because my Gods have afflicted me.


MEDIAEVAL

My privy and well drain into each other
After the custom of Christendie....
Fevers and fluxes are wasting my mother.
Why has the Lord afflicted me?
The Saints are helpless for all I offer--
So are the clergy I used to fee
Henceforward I keep my cash in my coffer,
Because the Lord has afflicted me.


MATERIAL

I run eight hundred hens to the acre.
They die by dozens mysteriously....
I am more than doubtful concerning my Maker.
Why has the Lord afflicted me?
What a return for all my endeavour--
Not to mention the L. S. D.!
I am an atheist now and for ever,
Because this God has afflicted me!


PROGRESSIVE

Money spent on an Army or Fleet
Is homicidal lunacy....
My son has been killed in the Mons retreat.
Why is the Lord afflicting me?
Why are murder, pillage and arson
And rape allowed by the Deity?
I will write to the _Times_, deriding our parson
Because my God has afflicted me.


CHORUS

We had a kettle, we let it leak;
Our not repairing it made it worse.
We haven't had any tea for a week....
The bottom is out of the Universe!


CONCLUSION

This was none of the good Lord's pleasure,
For the Spirit He breathed in Man is free;
But what comes after is measure for measure
And not a God that afflicteth thee.
As was the sowing so the reaping
Is now and evermore shall be.
Thou art delivered to thy own keeping.
Only Thyself hath afflicted thee!

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/8504/

Theologically fraught, to be sure, but compare Rambam:

The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to
the defects existing in the persons themselves. We complain and seek
relief from our own faults: we suffer from the evils which we, by our
own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far
from being connected with them! Comp. "Is destruction his [work]? No.
Ye [who call yourselves] wrongly his sons, you who are a perverse and
crooked generation" (Deut. xxxii. 5). This is explained by Solomon, who
says, "The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart
fretteth against the Lord" (Prov. xix. 3). ...

(3) The third class of evils comprises those which every one causes to
himself by his own action. This is the largest class, and is far more
numerous than the second class. It is especially of these evils that
all men complain, only few men are found that do not sin against
themselves by this kind of evil. Those that are afflicted with it are
therefore justly blamed in the words of the prophet, "This hath been by
your means" (Mal. i. 9); the same is expressed in the following
passage, "He that doeth it destroyeth his own soul" (Prov. vi. 32). In
reference to this kind of evil, Solomon says, "The foolishness of man
perverteth his way" (ibid. xix. 3). In the following passage he
explains also that this kind of evil is man's own work, "Lo, this only
have I found, that God hath made man upright, but they have thought out
many inventions" (Eccles. vii. 29), and these inventions bring the
evils upon him. The same subject is referred to in Job (v. 6), "For
affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring
out of the ground." These words are immediately followed by the
explanation that man himself is the author of this class of evils, "But
man is born unto trouble."

-- Guide to the Perplexed, III:12, Friedlander's translationedition pp. 269-271,
available here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp148.htm

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

to those who found the note below of interest, this article should also 
be of interest.
http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5767/spring67/ja_56_59.pdf



L Reich wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: L Reich
> To: Avodah Postings
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 5:16 PM
> Subject: Tisha-Asar Mi Yode'a
>
>
> ?From: Elozor Reich
> Tisha-Asar Mi Yode'a or
> Anniversaries, Birthdays & Cycles
> Many are aware that Hebrew and Civil birthdays don't usually 
> correspond in most years, but that they often
> do coincide or come near to each other on any 19th anniversary or on 
> any multiple of 19 years. This note explains this phenomenon and more.

[rest of note deleted]

RMF (IM OC I:22:11, and even more so EH IV:59, and OC V 28:22), RSZA (see
Halichos Shlomo Pesach 9 footnote 145), RYSE, and Rav Nissim Karelitz all
hold that the Chilonim in EY are generally not Tinokos Shenishbu; and even
the CI held that each individual has to be assessed on his own as there is
no blanket rule for this.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky (see Maaseh Ish V page 32) said that the CI explicitly
excluded Ben Gurion and his ilk from Tinok Shenishba category.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090511/cdda9016/attachment-0001.htm>

Redux

I have 2 Vilna Gaon haggados one from artscroll and
The 2nd - from moa-dim uzmanim - takes the position that GRA required
al netilas yadayyim even when tibbul is pachos mikazayyis. And
This is mamash knegged mishna brura's sevara.

Tangentially I saw there, that l'inyan kazzayis of karpas iirc 2
statements attributed to GRA are in conflict.
1 davka kezayyis and 1 davka less

Beniddan diddan, it seems that to be meikil for ketannim to eat more than
a kezayyis makes a lot of sense since it is a matter of dispute anyway.

So AISI kettanim could add strawberries and bananas to karpas (w/o sour
cream I hope :-) and stay up.

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 07:33:02PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: RMF (IM OC I:22:11, and even more so EH IV:59, and OC V 28:22), RSZA (see
: Halichos Shlomo Pesach 9 footnote 145), RYSE, and Rav Nissim Karelitz all
: hold that the Chilonim in EY are generally not Tinokos Shenishbu..
: Rav Chaim Kanievsky (see Maaseh Ish V page 32) said that the CI explicitly
: excluded Ben Gurion and his ilk from Tinok Shenishba category.

This is back a generation or 2. Now that that generation is raising the
leadership of today, does the same pesaq hold?

When RMF z"l wrote that teshuvah, JTSA wasn't ordaining women, never
mind people who proudly advocate their homosexual "lifestyle". JTSA had
no bible critical requirements; today they require of their graduates
more hours of denial of TmS than of "halakhah" (as they define the term).
RMF concluded that C religious leaders were NOT tinoqs shenishbe'u. Can
we be so sure he would rule identically today?

Similarly in Israel. The secular Zionist community didn't even have a
stellar success relaying their own ideals, never mind their underlying
feeling for Jewishness (however they defined it).

Today's situation requires a new pesaq from today's poseqim.

There are many of the chevrah who accept that post-48 attitudes toward
Zionism should not be based on RCBrisker's or REWasserman's pesaqim. Those
who embrace this notion already acknowledge the notion that generational
social and political changes can include the assumptions that underly
a pesaq. I think my argument parallels.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 82
**************************************

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..."