Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 19

Sun, 17 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Bal Tashchit (Rich, Joel)
• 2. The Meaning of Lice (Liron Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: Bal Tashchit (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: New Brachos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Shaking Hands (Daniel Israel)
• 7. Possession of EY (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Bal Tashchit (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: Bal Tashchit (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Shaking Hands (Samuel Svarc)
• 11. Re: Bal Tashchit (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: New Brachos (Arie Folger)
• 13. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 14. Re: Bal Tashchit (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

Kiddushin 32a relates a ma'aseh in which Rav Huna tested his son's mida of
ka'as by tearing a silk garment (that he would eventually inherit) in his
presence.  It notes that doing so would ordinarily be a violation of bal
tashchis, were it not that the tear was actually done along a seam.  This
being the case, it seems that the use of an otherwise useful item as a
mussar tool would still be considered bal tashchis.

- Josh
 =======================
classic example would be brachot 30b - breaking expensive glass to restore serious attitude.
KT
Joel Rich

________________________________
As of February 22, our New York Office will be located at:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100115/0676c348/attachment-0001.htm>

Here is a link to a dvar Torah I wrote this week:
http://mydvar.com/2010/01/the-meaning-of-lice/

If you would be interested in writing one in future weeks, please let me
know.

Shabbat Shalom,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100115/10b45d74/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha
> What makes your earlier application of al tehi tzadiq harbei difficult
> is that "bal tashchis" isn't about throwing food out, it's about wasting
> it. So you first must define use vs waste

Pursuant to Micha's point

In taaroves of z'vachim it's clear
One lamb that is "qodesh" in a taaroves of 1,000 hullin, makes the entire
heard useless.

There are many similar cases, and to me it bespeaks that if there is a
halachic issue, destruction does NOT constitute a concern of bal tashchis.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

When I came up with my example of a bracha thanking Hashem for pretty
rocks, I did not stop to consider whether that bracha is shevach or
nehenin. But now that R' Arie Folger and R"n Chana Luntz have introduced
that idea, I need to ask how that fits into the equivalence of brachos and
oaths. In fact, I need to reevaluate how ALL birchos shevach fit into this
idea.

A bracha of nehenin can be a bracha l'vatala when it is comparable to a
oath. This will happen when the rules of the bracha are violated. For
example, when one says a bracha on food, and fails to eat that food, it is
like swearing to eat, and then breaking that oath. Or if one says a bracha
on food during a meal, it is like a pointless oath.

A bracha of shevach works the same way, because it also has rules. If I
would say, "Baruch... Oseh es hayam hagadol" right now, I would expect that
to be assur, because the rules of that bracha require me to be seeing that
yam, and right now I cannot see it. But, as RCL points out, I can say
"malbish arumim" in the morning, even if I stay in pajamas all day. What is
the difference?

From the perspective of how much need there is to make this oath, I see no
difference at all. The only difference concerns the rules which Chazal set
up. In the case of "malbish arumim", the rule is to say it once every day.
In the case of "yam hagadol", the rule is to say it upon seeing the sight.
The only question that remains for me is whether my saying "yam hagadol"
right now would be a bracha l'vatala or she'eina tzricha.

This is similar to what RAF wrote:

> Sheva'h does not necessarily depend on a situation the way
> birkot hanehenin and birkot hamitzvot do, and hence, the
> situation upon which we react by praising G"d, is more fluid.
> Thus, I would argue that you will sooner encounter a berakha
> levatalah in birkot hanehenin and birkot hamitzvot, than in
> birkot hasheva'h. This is confirmed by the fact that we do
> not hesitate to praise G"d by singing poems that include His
> Name (a.k.a. zemirot*)

My only quibble with the above is that zemirot should not be brought into
this conversation. Saying Hashem's name in zemiros -- or in any tefillah,
for that matter -- is an example of the more general halachah of "Lo tisa",
with the only important question is, "Was HaShem's name said purposefully
or in vain?" Bracha levatalah, despite its connection to "Lo Tisa", is a
very legalistic detail of that halachah, and it depends upon the
equivalence between brachos and oaths, and is violated any time Chazal's
rules were broken, even if the individual's intention was to say Hashem's
name purposefully.

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote the following to me offline, and I believe he intended it to be published:

> Just as repetition of lo osef constituites a shvaua
> Other legalisms take hold hold even absent the magic term
> EG if halachah says
> X is mutar but don't do it lest you do Y
> You have a classic s'yag/g'zeira even absent the term,
> because it matches the legal formula
> You can also give someone a "bracha"
> Without sayng the verb B-R-Ch or bless

Excellent points, but I'm not so sure about the last line.

We have a whole siman (O"C 214) about the importance of Shem and Malchus in
establishing whether a bracha has been said or not. Noticeably absent from
that siman is any discussion of the word "Baruch". I've always thought it
to be so essential that no one ever bothered to mention it.

RRW seems to disagree. I would agree that one can give another person a
"bracha" in the colloquial sense, with words as plain as "Good morning!"
But that's not the same as a bracha in the *technical* sense, for which one
needs Shem and Malchus - and (it seems to me) some form of the word
"Baruch".

My proof for this distinction between general brachos and technical brachos
is this: The ban on post-Talmudic brachos was never thought of as extending
to general brachos. Both gedolim and even the smallest of other people, are
*encouraged* to give these sort of brachos when appropriate. It seems to me
that the requirement of Shem and Malchus may have been designed
specifically to create a clear line between technical brachos (with which
one runs the risk of Bracha L'vatala and Bracha She'eina Tzricha is one is
careless) and general brachos (which have no such problem, although if said
meaninglessly might run afoul of Lo Tisa).

An interesting question which crosses all these questions is Tzur Mishelo.

I've heard of people who specifically say "HaShem" (and not the Real Shem)
in that one zemer, specifically to avoid any question of possibly being
yotzay Birkas Hamazon D'Oraisa by singing it. (There's no quesiton about
Birkas Hamazon D'Rabanan because the zemer omits HaTov V'Hametiv.)

I find this question interesting on several points: The zemer does include
the word Baruch in the refrain: "Tzur mishelo achalnu, barchu emunai -
Faithful ones, let's bless the Rock from Whose we've eaten." If one
pronounce it right, it also includes the Shem. I don't think Malchus
appears anywhere, though, unless the indirect reference in "Hazan es olamo
- He feeds His universe" counts.

Does anyone know if this question appears in print anywhere?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Senior Assisted Living
Put your loved ones in good hands with quality senior assisted living. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=4_iZhVNDtRJGgsG9HtXcJwAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASUQAAAAA=

RRW wrote:

> See SA O"Ch Hilchos YT 517:2
> ...muttar... Aval im ragil b'chah assur.. D'EIN ZEH HASHUV
> B'DIAVAD KEIVAN D'RAGIL B'CHAH"
> IOW what could be kosher b'diavad on an ocassional basis
> would fail if done on a regular basis.
> Illustration of how I'd apply it
> If eino-Yehudi bakes dairy bread ONCE and labels the package
> only, I can make a case that it slips through the g'zeira
> against baking dairy bread w/o forming an intrinsic siman.
> BUT
> If I give hashgacha and the eino-Yehudi is ragil - then it's
> tantamount to using a dairy bread l'chathcila w/o an
> intrinsic siman and l'chatchila relying upon the package.
> [And that would depend upon where you stand on that issue]

No big chidush. What you're saying is that a hashgacha can't rely on
b'dieveds as a normal operating procedure. That's pretty much the same
thing as when we were labeling them as the "American model" which is actual
supervision, and the "European model" which (to grossly oversimplify)
relies on *possible* b'dieveds.

To my recollection, the European model never says "That's okay because the
poskim allow it b'dieved". What they say is "We're not supervising it, so
we can't guarantee that it's not happening, and if there was good evidence
that it *was* happening then we would stop relying on it, but since it
seems to be not happening, and even if it WAS happening it would be okay
b'dieved, THAT's why we rely on it."

Can someone corroborate or correct my previous paragraph?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Love Spell
Click here to light up your life with a love spell!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=bVYEZdRkCeRe8ty-c5J2IAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARwAAAAA=

I know we've visited the sugya of a man shaking a woman's hand several 
times on this list.  I've been reviewing this in preparation for a shiur 
I'm giving, and I had some questions perhaps someone could shed light on.

1. It seems like the the major sources to be meikel are not from written 
psak.  I've heard it permitted in the name of many poskim from reliable 
sources, but is anyone aware of an actual t'shuva?  (I note an 
interesting piece in Hakira by RYYH.  He gives a very interesting 
discussion of the status of the issur, but simply presumes that 
according to those who don't hold it to be a d'orraissa it should be 
permitted to avoid embarrassment.  On this, see my next point.)

2. RMF writes that he hears the s'vara of not embarrassing, but he 
doesn't find it convincing.  Presumably that implies that he holds that 
the lav involved is d'rabbanan, otherwise he could simply argue that one 
lav doesn't override the other.  So is anyone aware what the s'varah is 
to reject the notion that not embarrassing wins out (written source 
preferred, but it doesn't have to be RMF).  The best I could come up 
with is that RMF feels that a refusal to shake hands due to the halachic 
issues intrinsically cannot create something that halachically 
constitutes embarrassment.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

RSRH comments on Shemos 6

8 And then I will bring you into the land concerning which I raised 
My hand, to give it to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov, and I will
give it to you as a heritage, I, Hashem!

V'hayvaysi Eschem. Thus, Israel is to be fully constituted as a nation even
before it receives a land of its own. Hence, its existence as a nation is
not contingent upon possession of a land; rather, its possession of a
land is contingent upon the faithful fulfillment of its task as a nation.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100115/a2e880c4/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> There are many similar cases, and to me it bespeaks that if there is a
> halachic issue, destruction does NOT constitute a concern of bal tashchis.
>

Is this true for a chumra b'alma as well?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100115/7c4728cf/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:55:46AM -0800, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: > There are many similar cases, and to me it bespeaks that if there is a
: > halachic issue, destruction does NOT constitute a concern of bal tashchis.
: 
: Is this true for a chumra b'alma as well?

I thought we did this already. The chumrah would be a meaningful use of
the food (like R' Lessin's mussar practice), so I don't see it as bal
tashchis.

You then raised the question of whether it could still be bal taschis
because as an alternative the person could do both his chumrah and allow
the food to be eaten by giving it to someone who isn't machmir.

To which I didn't have an answer as to why it wouldn't be bal tashchis,
but a demonstration that argues that it probably isn't -- even though
I don't know why not. After all, we throw tereifos to the dogs, but no
one ever said neveilus too so as to avoid bal tashchis.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Daniel Israel <dan...@kolberamah.org> wrote:


> 2. RMF writes that he hears the s'vara of not embarrassing, but he doesn't
> find it convincing. ?Presumably that implies that he holds that the lav
> involved is d'rabbanan, otherwise he could simply argue that one lav doesn't
> override the other. ?So is anyone aware what the s'varah is to reject the
> notion that not embarrassing wins out (written source preferred, but it
> doesn't have to be RMF). ?The best I could come up with is that RMF feels
> that a refusal to shake hands due to the halachic issues intrinsically
> cannot create something that halachically constitutes embarrassment.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here, and I have so argued
in an off-list discussion with a friend a few years back.

KT,
MSS

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> In taaroves of z'vachim it's clear
> One lamb that is "qodesh" in a taaroves of 1,000 hullin, makes the entire
> heard useless.

Yes, because a lamb is a davar shebeminyan, and therefore cannot be batel,
so there can be no question what to do; the herd is *already* wasted and
useless, so destroying it is not bal tashchis, it's a mitzvah of removing
a michshol.

 
> There are many similar cases, and to me it bespeaks that if there is a
> halachic issue, destruction does NOT constitute a concern of bal tashchis.

But here we're talking about something that *is* batel, and halachically
permitted, but you want to stay inside shuras hadin and not eat it.  Do
you have to worry about what will happen to it?


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

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Chana <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> I do want however to spend some more time on the Sephardi
> position, ?because, as I have tried to articulate, that one seems
> to be the more difficult to understand. ?And I don't know how to
> reconcile RAF's research with the Sephardi position.

OK, let me elaborate. But first, I have to prefix these words with the
following disclaimer: while I did reasearch the development of
shemonei 'essrei and other central liturgical elements more
extensively, I did not research that intensively what I am about to
write. It is based on things I picked up here and there during my
recent studies, but was not subjected to proper analysis.

We have to remember that there hasn't been any single tradition of
psak and minhag in Judaism, since the days of Shivat Tziyon of
'Haggai, Tekharya and Malakhi, and the situation definitely got more
complex since Rav came to Bavel and established yeshivot there. At
least since the latter, but possibly since the former, there have been
two major minhaggim and psaq traditions in Judaism. These strains did
not diverge too much, because they based themselves on the same
sources and were in contact with each other, but divergent they were.

Bavel seems to have been more insistent on the technical formulations
of blessings (malkhut, me'eyn ha'hatima) while EY was more flexible.
Regarding the all over composition, however, the situation was
reversed. EY insisted on having exactly 18 blessings, while Bavel did
not.

Rosh miLunel points out that the source of birkot Qeriat Shema'
(covering first nature and then Torah) is Psalm 19, and Aharon Mirsky
worked that out in an article and shows that it is not a vort, but
that Ps.19 permeates birkot QS through and through. Interestingly,
Ps.19 ends with yihyu leratzon imrei fi ... The Bavli has that for
after the shemone 'essrei, as we do, but in the Yerushalmi, there is a
view that has that verse at the beginning. According to Mirsky, this
is because then, we would maintain the unity of the model of Ps.19. So
you see, in EY, all over composition was more important.

Up until here, I described solid information; now comes the less well
researched part.

It seems that in Bavel, they ruled more rigidly about the form of
blessings. Thus, EY could combine et tzema'h David with veliYrushalaim
'irkha in order to create space for velamalshinim while maintaining
18, while the Bavlim went looking for a source to justify having 19
blessings, instead. EY allowed and even cherished piyutim, even some
that veered quite distantly from the content of the blessing at hand,
while the Bavlim were aghast (see the polemics of 9th century Pirqoi
Ben Baboi, who was a Bavli living in EY, published in Revue des ?tudes
Juives about a century ago).

Nowadays, we live in a world in which a lot of harmonization between
EY and Bavel took place, and so there is less distance between
Ashkenaz (mostly EY, but a lot of Bavel) and Sefarad (mostly Bavel,
but a lot of EY). Sometimes, the minhaggim cross in weird ways
(Example: Bavel didn't say shir shel yom, but said the mishnah about
shir shel yom every day, instead, whiel EY said shir shel yom, as can
be seen from the Siddur of R'Amram Gaon vs. Massekhet Sofrim ch.18.
Yet, it is the Rambam who preserved the ancient EY rite here, while
Tur reported R'Amram's Babylonian tradition. Nowadays we follow EY 7
days a week and also Bavel on Shabbat.), and this may have been the
case with some aspect of what we are researching. Libi omer li that
Bavel was against using blessings for minhaggim, hence, after his
initial shock of seeing the recitation of Hallel was over, Rav noticed
they didn't say a blessing. However, once this was incorporated into
EY, they perhaps did say a blessing, because they didn't mind being
more liberal with the use of blessings, and so the current minhag came
out of a combination of Bavel and EY. This last point is the most
speculative thing I wrote about here.

Having tried to shed light of Sefarad's attitude, let me try to answer
one more question of R'n CL:
> So how do we explain the Sephardi approach?  I don't think we can say
> according to the Sephardi approach (as RAF has logically said
> according to the Ashkenazi approach) that "Hence, the reason why it
> may be considered levatalah has to do with the formula of blessings."
> - because the formula of blessing appears unquestionably to be a
> d'rabbanan formulation, and yet according to the Sephardi approach
> deviating from it makes for a d'orisa violation.

That's right, a misuse of a derabbanan may result in a deOraita
violation. The form of blessings is so holy, that we should be
exceedingly careful with them. We are not only mentioning G"d's Name,
but addressing ourselves to Him, so we have to be doubly careful. And
unless there is explicit permission from the Masters of the Messorah
to say a blessing, we should abstain, LEST it be in vain.

Another explanation: may, just like some explain the definition of
qidushin, with qidushei kessef being midivrei sofrim, there are some
things where the Torah left it up to the rabbis to legislate the
details, while stating that when something is teh case, it may result
in a deOraita violatoin. Concretely, perhaps qiddushei kessef is a
rabbinic innovation, but which falls under rabbinic prerogative, and
once 'Hazal determined kessef to establish qiddushin, the women is now
deOraita married, with all consequences applying ('heneq for adultery,
etc.). Likewise, perhaps the Torah left it up to the rabbis to
determine what is in vain, and when they legislated blessings -
according to this approach, all other blessings fell outside of the
exemption, and fell afoul of lo tissa.

Good week,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Das innige Gebet einer Frau
* Eine falsche Ethik
* Internet Halakha: Should we Expect Privacy?
* Newsflash: King David had Literate Servants
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?

Now that we've fleshed out a lot of basic concepts in the thread "New
Brachos", I'd like to return to the original thread, "The Dynamic of
Post-Talmudic Brachos", and apply them here.

I want to suggest that there is no prescriptive prohibition against
Post-Talmudic Brachos. What we do have is a descriptive observation that we
chose to avoid designing such brachos. There are indeed a few well-known
exceptions, but (as RRW noted in the original post in this thread) they
tend to be very old, from the Geonim. Some may be even more recent, but
they become rarer and rarer as time goes on.

From recent (and not-so-recent) posts, it seems that there was never any
specific legislative body that composed an authoritative list of brachos,
such that the ones on the list are legitimate, and ones which are not on
the list are ispo facto illegitimate. (This is true for the general theme
of each bracha, and even more so for the precise texts.)

For example, although "l'his'atef b'tzitzis" and "l'haniach tefillin" are
legitimate brachos, this, in and of itself, does not mean that "al mitzvas
tzitzis" and "al mitzvas tefillin" are illegitimate. They may or may not
be, depending on all relevant factors.

R' Micha Berger had
> proposed looking at two distinct questions:
> 1- Does the situation call for a berakhah?
> 2- Is this berakhah an established nusach?

At first, I had thought that question #1 was unreasonable. I had thought
that if the situation calls for a bracha, then Chazal would have
established one. But now I accept that I was mistaken. The question of
which situations require a bracha is somewhat fluid. It is entirely
possible that a new situation could arise, where it is clear that a bracha
is needed, but no pre-existing bracha seems to fit.

One example would be a garment which is clearly chayav in tzitzis, but to
which atifa does not apply; one must say a Birkas Hamitzvah on it, but that
bracha can't be L'his'atef B'tzitzis. Another example would be a food
(toasted grains) which is clearly important enough to need a Bracha Me'en
Shalosh afterwards, but no existing text seems to fit.

Those who take a hard line in this area (Sefardim) will tend to shy away
from these new Brachos. Others (Ashkenazim) will be more accepting of them.
But there is no real point of disagreement; the only real difference is how
far to go, and where to draw the line. For example, if I'm not mistaken,
although Sephardi individuals do not say a bracha on Hallel on Rosh
Chodesh, the Chazan does say it. And even Tosfos did not tell us to
actually say an "Al Ha'adamah"; they were just perplexed about how to
handle the situation.

There was a gradual phasing out over the centuries. Early on, it was easier
to accept that a new bracha was needed and justified. Later, we became much
more wary and reticent. It seems to me that this parallels another
development, also intimately related to Lo Tisa. Except that this other
development is that of Tefilos, not Brachos.

For many centuries it was quite common for authors to include the Shem in
their prayers -- whether zemiros, piyutim, kinos, selichos, or whatever.
But recently, this seems to have ground to a halt. Take a look at the
post-Holocaust kinos, or any of the varied tefilos which have been written
for the Israeli government, or the local government, or the Army, or the
captives. They are almost totally devoid of any mention of HaShem's Name,
except as part of a pasuk, and I can't help but wonder if the pasuk was
included specifically as a way to invoke His Name without running a risk of
it being in vain.

All the above is mere conjecture, submitted for your comments.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=DHy3H8QZ3L6mB8VukTdkAwAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

Micha's Point
> Perhaps upholding a chumrah is sufficient use for a food, one that could
> not be obtained otherwise.


My illlustration:
> In taaroves of z'vachim it's clear One lamb that is "qodesh" in a taaroves
> of 1,000 hullin, makes the entire heard useless.

RZS:
> Yes, because a lamb is a davar shebeminyan, and therefore cannot be
> batel, so there can be no question what to do; the herd is *already*
> wasted 

My comment
Actually lav davka because davar shebeminyan is a derabban humra on
taaruvos NOT an absolute. [And if bal tashchis were a snif l'haqeil here,
then why not use it?]

So I'll revise my earlier conclusion:
There are many similar cases, and to me it bespeaks that if there is a
halachic issue, *such as histaleiq min hasafeiq* destruction does NOT
constitute a concern of bal tashchis [AISI from sources that demonstrate
a lack of concern]

GV
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

kennethgmil...@juno.com
> What we do have is a descriptive observation that we chose to avoid
> designing such brachos.

Exactly my point. POLICY
Just like a [post-talmidic] BD might ban EG smoking or polygamy, etc.

Tangentially  IIRC Rosh opposes ban on Qitniyyos.

KT
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 27, Issue 19
**************************************

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..."