Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 68

Tue, 09 Mar 2010

• 1. Who First Said It? 6 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Haqdamah to MB (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: timtum halev (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: timtum halev (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Who First Said It? 6 (Zev Sero)

What is the first source clearly stating an issur of matzah ashira on
erev pesach before the 10th hour?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:27:pm EDT, R Samuel Svarc wrote:
: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
...
:> RSMandel convinced me way back in 2002 (see
:> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n055.shtml#04>) to take the
:> MB's haqdamah at face value. It was written to be a survey of
:> shitos...
...
: To quote (using RSMAndel's translation) "The second reason [that we
: see that only a small number of people set a seder for learning
: halacha l'masseh]... is that it is difficult to know the halokho
: l'ma'aseh because of the multiple disagreements brought by the
: acharonim". The reason that R' Micha is quoting, that people don't
: have access, is written after the CC's second reason as 'V'od'.

: Is it reasonable to suppose that the CC wanted to fix the problem of
: "it is difficult to know the halokho l'ma'aseh because of the multiple
: disagreements brought by the acharonim" by making a "survey of
: shitos"? This is illogical and a clear misreading of the hagdamah.

OTOH, it is illogical to think the CC didn't hold like the MB, if he
intended the MB to be a seifer pesaq -- and there are numerous cases
where he didn't.

I like RRW's list of points in the haqdamah. At 9:22pm GMT,
rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: I find he says 4 reasons:
: 1 [starts with "ach"] The SA w/o Tur is a sefer Hasum
: 2 [sibba sh'niyya] Rabbu hadei'os in SA
: 3 [od ra'issis v'hisbonanti] the Ba'er Heitev was out-of-date
:   (obsolescent)
: 4 [zos od v'acheres] People have to look hither, thither, and yon amongst
:    numerous acharonim

: One might say that #3 viz. giving more sheetos conflicts with #4
: I.e. settling the issue.

Both RRW and RSS understand #3 as being about giving an answer. One can
avoid RRW's conflict as well as RSS's question by realizing that the
point of a survey is to give someone tools to get an answer.

Quoting RSM's translation:
                                               So that now if a person
    wants to understand some halokho l'ma'aseh that is not fully discussed
    in the SA, he will have so search in many acharonim... Therefore I have
    strengthened myself with the grace of G-d to fix these matters. I have
    written an explanation to the SA that is sufficient in my opinion...  and
    explained each din in the SA with its reasons and logic from the g'moro
    and posqim... and in each matter where there are disagreements among the
    posqim I have presented the conclusions of the acharonim (gathered from
    the BaH, the D'risha, the Elya Rabba, the G'Ro the P'ri M'godim...)"

Notice how the MB tells you the halakhah lemaaseh inheres in his survey,
not any personal proposal.

BTW, in that same discussion RDEidensohn posted the following
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n061.shtml#03>:
> Just spoke with Rav Michel Shurkin about these topics

> 1) Regarding Tzitzis he said that Rav Mendal Zaks had told Rav Moshe
> Feinstein that his father had charata concerning what he had written in
> the Mishna Berura. This would explain the disparity between the Mishna
> Berura and the fact that the Chofetz Chaim did not wear his tzitzis out.

This is a one-off item, and I'm only including it because I did
mistakenly include wearing tzitzis tucked in among the list. It doesn't
change the fact that RMZaks testifies that the CC didn't make a separate
berakhah on desert, despite the MB's conclusion. He did atifah as other
Litvaks did, not as per the MB's citation of the Ari. The CC writes that
he himself carried in city eruvin. The CC didn't say Berikh Shemei. His
kos for the seder was too small. Etc...

R' Hillel Zaks (RMZ's son) makes a blanket statement, quoted in Shoroshei
Minhag Ashkenaz I pg 164 (in a discussion of Berikh Shemei) that the CC
often didn't hold like the MB -- both lechumera and lequla.

As I wrote above, it's not maintainable that when the haqdamah says
he is giving you a way to know pesaq the MB is telling you that he's
handing you a pesaq, halakhah lemaaseh. Because his own maaseh rav doesn't match!

So the question is how to understand his statement aboutg needing to
know lemaaseh given that he also says it's a survey and we know the CC
didn't follow it lemaaseh. My suggestion is that he meant the survey
will give you what you need to reach a lemaaseh.

...
> [4]) Regarding the Mishna Berura as source of psak. He said that the
> change to regard it as source of psak was initiated by Rav Elchonon
> Wasserman. After the War the need for a common basis for halacha for the
> Orthodox world resulted in a campaign of gedolim that it be accepted as
> such - resulting in its current status.

> It would seem to follow from this that the Chofetz Chaim would not have
> been upset about this change from his original purpose since his prime
> orientation was to provide practical sefarim which satisfied the needs
> of the people. The needs changed after the War.

Now, I'm not saying that the switch being REW's decision rather than the
CC's, and probably the CC would have been happy with it anyway, takes
much authority away from the MB as a seifer pesaq.

However, it doesn't change the fact that RMShurkin also thought this
was a shift from the author's original intent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is the first source clearly stating an issur of matzah ashira on
> erev pesach before the 10th hour?

Huh?   Never mind who *first* said it; who said it at all?  Ashkenazim
can't eat matza ashira after the fourth hour, for a completely different
reason; but for those who are allowed it on Pesach (zekenim, cholim,
and Sefardim) who says they can't eat it on Erev Pesach until the 10th hr?


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

RZS:
> Huh? Never mind who *first* said it; who said it at all? Ashkenazim
> can't eat matza ashira after the fourth hour, for a completely different
> reason; ...

Please elaborate

Permit me to rephrase:
Who was the first to say healthy Ashk'nazim may not eat matzah ashira
after the 4th hour of erev pesach?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> RZS:
>> ?Huh?   Never mind who *first* said it; who said it at all?  Ashkenazim
>> can't eat matza ashira after the fourth hour, for a completely different
>> reason; ?
> 
> Please elaborate
> 
> Permit me to rephrase:
> Who was the first to say healthy Ashk'nazim may not eat matzah ashira
> after the 4th hour of erev pesach?

Since when is there a difference between Pesach itself and Erev Pesach
after the 4th hour?  The Ramo in 462:4 and 463:2 says we can't eat
matza ashira.  Where would you get a heter to do so on Erev Pesach?
As for who said it first, I assume the Ramo was not the first, but I
don't know his source.

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

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> Mamzerut is a spiritual disease and life is not always fair.
> Good intentions does not save someone from diseases or punishments

R' Micha Berger related that concept to the legal system:
> does keeping shemittah derabbanan cause the berakhah of having
> enough, or not? If you feel that de'oraisos are dangerous or
> powerful but derabbanans are merely law, then that explains why
> one is safeiq lechumera, but the other not.

> However, let's go back to timtum haleiv... Why would the RBSO and
> then Chazal matir something that is damaging? Where is the sekhar
> va'onesh aspect of things if every mitzvah has power other than
> lefum tza'arah?

This is an important point: Not everything which is mutar is free of
timtum halev.

We *do* accept the concept of necessary evil. Sometimes the ends *do*
justify the means. Sometimes the greater good outweighs the lesser evil.

We all grieve at Esther's violation of arayos with Achashveirosh. But
it had to be done. Ka'asher avad'ti, avad'ti. It had to be done, but
let no one think there wasn't any price to pay for it. Of course there
was a timtum there, but for the greater good, the RBSO indeed mattired it.

And this concept goes down all the way to the lowest levels of our daily
decisions. Should I learn for my own Mitzvas Talmud Torah, or should I
help my kid with his?

Back to the original question, where some real treif got batel in kosher
food, such that the entire result is mutar to eat -- I'd like to suggest
that (at least according to some poskim, and at least in some cases,
but not necessarily all cases) the timtum halev is indeed present in
a diluted form, and the poskim who allow eating it are saying that
discarding the food would cause *more* timtum (via Bal Tashchis) than
eating it would. The tipping point of the scale is that if there had
been enough treif that it would not be batel, that's where there's more
timtum in eating and less in discarding.

As evidence for this, consider the situations where, because the issur
is chashuv (example: a beriyah), Chazal said that it is never batel, even
though by all normal halachos of taaruvos, it should indeed be batel. In
such cases, I suggest, when Chazal said "it's too chashuv to be batel",
what they meant was "it's so chashuv that the timtum of eating it is
even worse than the timtum of discarding it."

Akiva Miller

Zev Sero:
> Since when is there a difference between Pesach itself and Erev Pesach
> after the 4th hour? 

See RT below

> The Ramo in 462:4 and 463:2 says we can't eat
> matza ashira.  Where would you get a heter to do so on Erev Pesach?
> As for who said it first, I assume the Ramo was not the first, but I
> don't know his source.

Well we know from Tosafos in Arvei P'sachim that Rabbeinu Tam ate matza
asheera for s'udah shishis when erev Pesach was shabbos - right up until
the 10th hour

> Where would you get a heter to do so on Erev Pesach?

Aderabba where do YOU get the issur on erev pesach before the 10th hour?

NB: As the Noda Beehudah notes you can't being a raya from Pesach re:
erev Pesach!

Rema only is dealing with Passover itself Whiel as per Tosafos itself
and m'chabeir - it IS assur erev pesach from 10th hour onwards.

See SA 471:2 matzah ashira is assur from 10th hour - bei'uur Hagolah 5
quotes Rosh as mKchabeir's source

Here Rema makes no objection He's silent WRT matzah ashira. Why assume
that he should he differ from RT?

So we have vaday
RT, Rosh, and M'chabeir being mattir until 10th hour

While the Rema is silent [porbably concurring with SA] about up to the
10th hour

Since Ein safeiq motzi meedei vaday! [That too is in P'sachim IIRC] ;-)
it should be fine.

So again - who is the first to extend that Issur to the 4th Hour rather
than from the 10th Hour of RT?

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

>> ?Since when is there a difference between Pesach itself and Erev Pesach
>> after the 4th hour? ?

> See RT below


>> ?The Ramo in 462:4 and 463:2 says we can't eat
>> matza ashira.  Where would you get a heter to do so on Erev Pesach?

> Well we know from Tosafos in arvei p'sachim that Rabbeinu Tam ate
> matza asheera for s'udah shishis when erev Pesach was shabbos - right
> up until the 10th hour

So who says he didn't eat matza ashira all through Pesach?


>> Where would you get a heter to do so on Erev Pesach??

> Aderabba where do YOU get the issur on erev pesach before the 10th hour? 

> NB: As the Noda Beehudah notes you can't being a raya from Pesach
> re: erev Pesach!

Where is this Noda Biyhuda?  And what makes you think it's not his own
chiddush, i.e. that he wasn't the first to say a heter?


> Rema only is dealing with Passover itself

Says who?  Where does one derive such a difference?  Not from the Ramo!


>  Whiel  as per Tosafos itself and m'chabeir - it IS assur erev pesach
> from 10th hour onwards.

Of course the mechaber says so -- he allows it during Pesach too!  And
I see no reason to suppose the Tosfos didn't do the same.  But we don't
allow it on Pesach, so the burden shifts to you to show that it is
permitted on Erev Pesach (before the 10th hour).


> See SA 471:2 matzah ashira is assur from 10th hour - bei'uur Hagolah 5
> quotes Rosh as mKchabeir's source

Nu, so who says the Rosh didn't allow it during Pesach?


> Here Rema makes no objection He's silent WRT matzah ashira. Why assume
> that he should he differ from RT?

Because he already said it twice.  Does he have to keep on saying it
every time it comes up?  He takes it for granted that you will know
that we can't eat it at that time, but for a side reason.  This siman
deals with the issur of matzah on Erev Pesach, and for that purpose
matza ashira doesn't count; so the Ramo doesn't disagree with the heter
here.  But it's not allowed for a completely different reason, which
he already gave elsewhere.


> So again - who is the first to extend that Issur to the 4th Hour

Aderaba, you show me who is the first to *permit* it at that time,
after it became the practise to asser it on Pesach.


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

Akiva Miller:
> As evidence for this, consider the situations where, because the issur
> is chashuv (example: a beriyah), Chazal said that it is never batel, even
> though by all normal halachos of taaruvos, it should indeed be batel. In
> such cases, I suggest, when Chazal said "it's too chashuv to be batel",
> what they meant was "it's so chashuv that the timtum of eating it is
> even worse than the timtum of discarding it."

I was thinking along the same lines

Halachah might mattir A dilutted issur
BUT
Certain individuals are more [spiritually] sensitive and NEED to be
machmir upon themselves even then

And Akiva gave us the rationale - it's more chashuv to such a sensitive
person. Maybe due to their palates being more refined or to their
ruchniyyus being more attenuated, whatever...

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>>> Rema only is dealing with Passover itself
> 
>> Says who?  Where does one derive such a difference?  Not from the Ramo!?
> 
> Zev I thought you were a strict constructionist!

I am.  Strict construction tells me that the issur achila begins,
midrabanan, after the 4th hour.  Absent any explicit statement
to the contrary, that includes anything that we don't eat on Pesach.
If you want to say that there are things which we don't eat on Pesach
itself, but do eat on Erev Pesach, the burden is on you to prove it.


> There is zero evidence produced so far that anyone was machmir before
> the 10th hour through the era of the Rema!  The chilluq is pashut!

If it's so pashut, why don't you explain it.  What *is* the chilluq
*lemaaseh* between Erev Pesach and Pesach itself?  Until you do, we
must assume that when the Ramo says we don't eat matza ashira he means
from the 5th hour of Erev Pesach until the stars come out on the 9th
night.

Proof that someone ate matza ashira on Erev Pesach must include proof
that this same person *didn't* eat it during Pesach.  You're assuming
that since RT and the Rosh were Ashkenazim, and Ashkenazim today are
noheg issur with matzah ashirah, therefore they must also have done so.
But who says this minhag Ashkenaz is that old?  Maybe it's only 50 or
100 years older than the Ramo himself?

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

RZS
> I am.  Strict construction tells me that the issur achila begins,
> midrabanan, after the 4th hour.  Absent any explicit statement
> to the contrary, that includes anything that we don't eat on Pesach.

Aderabba! The minhag is to be machmir on d'oraissos not to dafeguard
derabannans! This is loose construction NOT strict!

> there are things which we don't eat on Pesach
> itself, but do eat on Erev Pesach, the burden is on you to prove it.

taanis bechoros

And NO the burden is to prove a minhag is extended and not strictly
constructed this is obvious to any strict constructionist to read it
narrowly NOT broadly!

> Until you do, we
> must assume that when the Ramo says we don't eat matza ashira he means
> from the 5th hour of Erev Pesach until the stars come out on the 9th
> night.

Adderabba until you show otherwise why make a machloqes Rema on RT!

Any way gebrogts is a case that shlugs up the above s'vara anyway because
it's not noheig on the 8th day. And that the 8th is stricter then the
erev should be obvious! In galus it's only s'feiq erev, so there is a
s'feiq s'feiqa!


Please produce hard evidence not spin!  Show me the FIRST to say this!

AhS: O"Ch 444:5

My translation:
    Rema's kavvana is NOT that matzira ashira is not to eat matzah
    ashira Erev Pesach - rather since it's not our minhag to have it on
    Passover therefore it's not k'day to be matri'ach to make some for
    JUST shaloshudos and no more.


ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Plz append if not too late - otherwise I'll post BEH mar'eh m'qomos later
> 
> AhS: O"Ch 444:5
> 
> My translation:
> Rema's kavvana is NOT that matzira ashira is not to eat matzah ashira
> Erev Pesach - rather since it's not our minhag to have it on Passover
> therefore it's not k'day to be matri'ach to make some for JUST
> shaloshudos and no more.>

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9102&;st=&pgnum=31
Nu, so who says he's right?  You actually missed out a bit.  What the
AHS writes is: "And it seems that this doesn't mean that also on Erev
Pesach one shouldn't eat matza ashira according to the minhag, *for*
*there is no reason to this*."   What does he mean, that there is no
reason to forbid it on Erev Pesach?  To answer that, one must first
ask what is the reason we forbid it on Pesach itself?  The AHS himself
says that the reason is a concern that a drop of water will find its
way into the mixture, and it will become chametz.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9102&;st=&pgnum=80
So why is this concern any less on Erev Pesach?

A hint at the answer can be found in the Chok Yaakov on siman 444.
He distinguishes between two possible reason for the minhag.  One is
chashash chimutz.  If so, there is no reason to distinguish EP from
Pesach itself.  But the other possible reason is that we don't eat
matza ashira on Pesach lest we come to eat it at the seder.  If so,
then allowing it on EP makes sense; not only will this not lead us to
eat it at the seder, but on the contrary it will drive home to us that
this is *not* the sort of matza which which one can do the mitzvah,
and that is precisely why it's allowed on EP.  Thus, those who hold
that this is the reason for the minhag will permit it for shaleshudes.

But this leaves us with a puzzle: the AHS in siman 462 gives the first
reason for the minhag, not the second one, so why does he write as he
does in siman 444?  The only tentative answer I can think of is that
he changed his mind between 444 and 462, and forgot to go back and
correct himself.  But this is very shvach.

At any rate, now that I've looked at this Chok Yaacov I can better
answer your original question: who first forbade matza ashira on Erev
Pesach?  The Chok Yaacov, after first making the same suggestion as
the AHS ("ve'efshar dekavanas harav..."), then quotes the Maharil (Hil'
Shabbos Hagodol) and the Hagohos SMaK (siman 219) that issur applies
also on EP, becaues the reason is chashash chimutz, and says that this
is in fact what the Ramo meant ("ve'achar zeh nimshach harav").
So the answer (until a better one comes up) is the Maharil and the Smak.

-- 
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:
> RZS

>> ?I am.  Strict construction tells me that the issur achila begins,
>> midrabanan, after the 4th hour.  Absent any explicit statement
>> to the contrary, that includes anything that we don't eat on Pesach.?

> Aderabba! The minhag is to be machmir on d'oraissos not to dafeguard
> derabannans!  This is loose construction NOT strict!

Again, show me this distinction.   And in any case, from midday we're
no longer talking derabbanan but de'oraisa.  So why would matza ashira
be forbidden on Pesach and permitted on Erev Pesach?  If we're worried
on Pesach that it might be chametz, we should have the same concern on
Erev Pesach, even leshitascha from noon if not from two hours earlier.
If you want to be mechalek it's up to you to come up with one and prove
that we eat things on EP that we don't eat on Pesach itself.

 
>> there are things which we don't eat on Pesach
>> itself, but do eat on Erev Pesach, the burden is on you to prove it.?

> taanis bechoros

Huh?  Please explain.

> And NO the burden is to prove a minhag is extended and not strictly
> constructed this is obvious to any strict constructionist to read it
> narrowly NOT broadly!

Read *what* narrowly?  Where did you get even the tiniest hint that
it applies only on Pesach itself?  Where did the Ramo even mention the
words "besoch hapesach"?  If we have a minhag to forbid something, do
I have to prove that it's forbidden on all days of the week and not
just on Mondays?


> ?Until you do, we
> must assume that when the Ramo says we don't eat matza ashira he means
> from the 5th hour of Erev Pesach until the stars come out on the 9th
> night.?
> 
> Adderabba until you show otherwise why make a machloqes Rema on RT!

For heavens' sake, *what* machlokes?  Since when did RT forbid matza
ashira at *all*?

 
> Any way gebrogts is a case that shlugs up the above s'vara anyway
> because it's not noheig on the 8th day. And that the 8th is stricter
> then the erev should be obvious! In galus it's only s'feiq erev, so
> there is a s'feiq s'feiqa!

Huh? Again, this makes no sense to me at all.
 

> Please produce hard evidence not spin!

You're the one spinning for all you're worth, creating a chiluk
between EP and P with no basis *whatsoever*.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 68
**************************************

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..."