Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 90

Thu, 25 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: What is Chametz? (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Timtum HaLev (Micha Berger)
• 6. Pronouncing Sheimot in the Haggadag (was: Moshe's name in the haggadah) (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 9. Re: What is Chametz? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: What is Chametz? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Glatt Was Imported to the US by Hungarian 'Hassidim (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Pronouncing Sheimot in the Haggadag (was: Moshe's name in the haggadah) (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: What is Chametz? (Micha Berger)
• 15. When the Chacham is a Tam and the Tam a Chacham (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 17. Re: What is Chametz? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

Alan Rubin wrote:
> Is chametz a purely Halachic construct, an empirically observable
> phenomenon or something else?
>   
IIRC Rabbi Tendler once published a paper arguing that it must be a 
halachic construct, since baked flour retains gluten.  Hence, he argued, 
one can make a dough out of matza meal and yeast and water and produce 
something empirically indistinguishable from hametz, but which is kosher 
l'pesah.  I've never tried the experiment, but it sounds plausible to me.

David Riceman

 


I'm not sure we were ever nohagim to read half a pasuq. 
========================
But did you ever notice that  when the gemara quotes a pasuk it is the part
of the pasuk not quoted that has the needed information?  Anyone know any
general rules on this "literary" issue in the gemara?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Ken kbl...@gmail.com:
> I recall hearing as a child that the Haggadah makes no mention of Moses
> anywhere. Obviously, if we look at a haggadah today, there is an
> explicit reference to Moses, by Rabbi Yossi Hag'lili. Was this statement
> that Moses isn't in the haggadah a complete fabrication, or is there a
> source (and a girsa) to justify this statement?

Today's modern g'maras have the entire passuq in the margin.
Older editions have snips of the passuq in the text

I'm guessing that perhaps older haggados did NOT complete the passuq
While later editions do

And so the older haggadahs had the snip "vayar yisroel es hayad hag'dolah v'gomer"
And in those days Moshe's name was indeed omitted
Nowadays, we've been trending to quote complete p'suqqim
This is my best guest

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:26:17AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: But did you ever notice that when the gemara quotes a pasuk it
: is the part of the pasuk not quoted that has the needed information?
: Anyone know any general rules on this "literary" issue in the gemara?

I always thougth that was a publication decision. After all, there
are times when the derashah the gemara is relying on is in the piece
not quoted!

 From those rare cases I would suggest that the gemara just decided,
whether in the original or by a copyist or a later publisher, to give
you enough to know which pasuq is under discussion. Not that the tanna
or amorah necessarily referred to half a pasuq.

And so, as RRW noted, now that printing is cheaper and the effort of
typing and editing electronic "pages" is miniscule (and people don't
master Tanakh as a prerequisite for learning gemara), it's easy to make
the alternative decision of putting the whole pasuq somewhere on the page.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

I know, all of you were hoping I'd just let the topic die already.

However, today's Y-mi Daf Yomi has the story of Rebbe's gift of a mezuzah,
and I noticed something new in it.

Peah 1:1 4a has Rebbe giving the mezuzah to Artibon. Rebbe's prooftext
for the shemirah of a mezuzah is Mishlei 6:22 "behis-hallekhekha tancheh
osakh".

Looking in context, the reference is speaking about "netzor beni mitzvas
avikha ve'al titosh toras immekha".

Rebbe is clearly speaking of the mitzvah of mezuzah.

Nu, Artibon would be an eino metzuveh ve'osah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On a thread entitled Moshe's name in the haggadah, a discussion ensued
as to whether the occirrence of Moshe's name atthe end of a derashah
by R'Yossi Hagelili is a later addition, and that the source only
included the word relevant for the derashah, i.e., the first half of
the verse, or whether ours is the original version.

This leads me to another question. Maggid is a mitzvah of storytelling
and of Torah learning, not prayer. There are many verses that are
expounded upon in detail, with partial verses being quoted all over
the place (though they are eventually completely expounded upon, but
in little portions).

While I understand that common practice is to pronounce any Names of
G"d that occur in these snippets, one should wonder whether that is
appropriate. Should we not rather say "HaShem"? Or is the story then
deficient, since we don't really tell of G"d's wonders, but use a
euphemism (just like when praying in English one would not fulfil his
obligation if reading "HaShem" instead of L"rd or outright Ad"nai)?

Or perhaps we should never get hung up on pronouncing G"d's Name in
such an appropriate context, even when only quoting a verse snippet,
since it is done in an appropriate context.

I remind list members that there is, by comparison, really no problem
(and no point avoiding) pronouncing G"d's Name in a song; it is in
fact very appropriate, as we then really praise Him. Is expounding
upon verses the same?

And if we should pronounce G"d's Name in the Haggadah, should we also
when teaching Chumash? (I was taught "Vayoimer Hasem, in der Aibishter
hot gezugt, el Moishe, zie Moishe," clearly without pronouncing G"d's
Name).
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously
* 25 Jahre zu lebenslang fuer den Moerder des Herrn Gerstle
* From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew

Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
> I recall hearing as a child that the Haggadah makes no mention of Moses
> anywhere. Obviously, if we look at a haggadah today, there is an
> explicit reference to Moses, by Rabbi Yossi Hag'lili. Was this statement
> that Moses isn't in the haggadah a complete fabrication, or is there a
> source (and a girsa) to justify this statement?

1. The baal hagadah is not mentioning Moshe, he's just quoting a pasuk
in which Moshe happens to appear.

2. This whole piece is not in the Rambam's nusach.

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

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 04:27 -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I recall hearing as a child that the Haggadah makes no mention of Moses
> > anywhere. Obviously, if we look at a haggadah today, there is an
> > explicit reference to Moses, by Rabbi Yossi Hag'lili. Was this statement
> > that Moses isn't in the haggadah a complete fabrication, or is there a
> > source (and a girsa) to justify this statement?
> 
> Moses' name appears at the end of a pasuk in RYHG's derasha, and the
> derasha is based on the beginning of the pasuk. I have always assumed
> that the original girsa only quoted "Vayar' Yisrael et hayad hagedola"
> and later versions added the rest of the verse. I have no sources, but
> it makes sense to me.

Let me ask my question differently. There's certainly a girsa that
justifies this statement -- namely, the Rambam's girsa, which omits RYHG
completely. However, this statement which I heard (and which you can
find by googling it) wouldn't be based on a girsa that we no longer use
-- it must be quoted from somewhere, from someone who based himself on a
girsa that we no longer use. Who is being quoted?

--Ken

R' Alan Rubin asked:
> Is chametz a purely Halachic construct, an empirically observable
> phenomenon or something else?

R' Micha Berger answered:
> That's the whole discussion in the gemara about whether orez
> leavens. I would think that R' Yochanan ben Nuri holds that
> chameitz means leaven, in the biological sense. However, we
> follow the chakhamim that chameitz means leavening one of the 5
> grains ... with water. Otherwise, the leavening is called
> sirchon, not chameitz.

To me, a very significant word here is "called". Chazal say that when these
grains are used it is *called* chometz, and when those grains are used it
is *called* sirchon. Same chemical effect, different terminology.

To what may the matter be compared? To the reason why women are exempt from
the issur against shaving. I know that most women have little or no facial
hair, but why is there an exemption for the few who do? The answer is that
when a man puts a blade to his face to remove the hair, that is called
"giluach/shaving", but when a woman does the same act, it is not called
"giluach". And because "giluach" is what the Torah forbade, and when a
woman removes her hair with a blade it isn't called "giluach", therefore
there is no way for her to violate the law.

The distinction is linguistic, not mechanical or biological. But it is real nevertheless.

So too, I suspect, in our case. This is chometz, but that is merely
sirchon. It's not legalistic doubletalk; it is what the words mean. It is
entirely legitimate to ask whether orez which has undergone sirchon might
be forbidden on Pesach, the same way that one might ask whether a law which
applies to "babies" might also apply to "puppies" and "kittens". And it is
entirely legitimate to answer whether the law applies to specific species
or others as well.

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=cSng8hfuBTJR-LuqcDvn5gAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASUQAAAAA=

Alan Rubin wrote:

> Chametz can only occur with 5 species. Is it not possible that other
> species might also leaven?

It's possible, but AFAIK nobody has yet found such a species.

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

RMB and RSZ have been discussing how Hungarians apparently brought
Glatt to America, and that since their slaughterhouses were
independent (free of Mafia involvment), glatt became synonymous with
reliable. RMB wanted to use that as a backdrop upon which to develop
the thesis that entire Hungarian 'Hassidic communities were strict in
eating only glatt.

My US$0.02:

Just also remember that the Hungarians have a very lenient shittah of
glatt. Theirs is the messorah that distinguishes between ririn and
sirkhot, which is not very obvious to outsiders. Thus, Hungarian glatt
is not 'halaq Beit Yossef.

Alsol before the massive industrialization of cattle ranching, animals
had a heathier diet (corn is really hard for them to digest, and let's
not get started on the formula poor veal have to limit themselves to),
so that there were less ['hashash] tereifot.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously
* 25 Jahre zu lebenslang fuer den Moerder des Herrn Gerstle
* From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew

I wrote
> The Hiluq Both HY and BH make is simple
> Drops of water in wine first is indeed bateil, in the batzeik it's too
> late. MGA 3 says the same.

> Batzir is not a  necessary hilluq at all

> BEH I will double check MB later at work.

NB CAVEAT: this is ALL k'daas ham'chabeir - not necessarily Ashkenazic
P'saq.!

MB 10 supports the hiluq is "b'seesah" - peirush fermentation as per
MGA 6 and RZS

However Bei'ur Halachah D"H "Ho'eel Uchvar Nisbatlu" says that this is
by no means the simple read of the M'chabeir

> Yeish camah shem'froshim divrei SA kifshuto d'afilu b'yayin gamur namei -
> mi'ut hammayim misbatlim b'mei peiros [lichora even OJ]

> Uch'fee shemashma be'emes meepashtus l'shon ham'chabeir she'siyeim
> "ho'eel uch'var nisbatlu qodem shelashu ho'eesah"

So my p'shat in the m'chabeir is as per Bei'ur Halachah's own P'shat in
the m'chabeir or iow "Ein m'chabeir yotsei meeday p'shuto!". :-)

Further down...
Daas Rif&Rambam that it's always OK to add even "harbei mayim" ot the
wine [first] and [then] to kneed l'chatcheelah. And so too pasqen hoq
yaakov and magein elef [and Richard Wolpoe - at least for S'pahrdim and
only drops not "harbei"]

Also note the GRA as quoted by BH is also maskim that "t'seesah" is not
the hiluq.


MB is indeed chosheish for ROV ACHARONIM. But I would venture that
M'chabeir himself is soveir like Rif& Rambam - and unlikely like MGA.
Would anyone really think that the da'as m'chabeir would be otherwise -
given it's the striaghtforward read anyway!?


Rema here is silent
AISI it's pashut
M'chabeir is not worried about fermentation

But Rema/Ashkenaz is chosheish for added water and is therefore machmeer
not to use matzah asheera!

So b'pashtus this is how I frame the debate

SA - drops of water are bateil until leesha
Rema - we ARE chosheish that those earlier drops of water might be
    machmitz at time of leesha

MGA et al. are IMHO reding this ch'shash into the M'chabeir itself -
v'tzorich iyyun why they think m'chabeir would be Holeiq on Rif/Rambam
when there is -after all - an easy way out of the conundrum!

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: This leads me to another question. Maggid is a mitzvah of storytelling
: and of Torah learning, not prayer. There are many verses that are
: expounded upon in detail, with partial verses being quoted all over
: the place (though they are eventually completely expounded upon, but
: in little portions).

: While I understand that common practice is to pronounce any Names of
: G"d that occur in these snippets, one should wonder whether that is
: appropriate...

A more Areivim-esque answer, just telling you what I do (as opposed to
what ought to be done):

Much of my maggid is in English, for the simple reason that I'm not
discussing or teaching anyone anything if I stuck to the original
Hebrew. 

However, pesuqim I make sure to say in both languages. With sheim
Hashem.

To get to the Avodah piece:
I think the problem is that we have an unnatural lack of use of sheim
Hashem when quoting pesuqim. The question isn't whether we should use a
qinui during maggid, it's whether we should stop using so many qinuyim
during other learning!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:30:30PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: To me, a very significant word here is "called". Chazal say that when
: these grains are used it is *called* chometz, and when those grains are
: used it is *called* sirchon. Same chemical effect, different terminology.

And we also find by hilkhos Shabbos, that shinui sheim is what defines
nolad. So, there is much about how we experience things, including our
mental boxes, rather than how things are. As people here know, this is
one of my pet topics.

However, I think here it's cart & horse. Is it mutar because it's not
called chameitz, or do we refuse to call it chameitz because it's mutar?

In this case, I think the list of grains is a gezeiras hakasuv. "Eretz
chitah use'orah" refers to two families of grains, including 5 species.

And thereforew WRT RSZ's post, I think the question of whether or not
we ever find another grain with enough gluten to make a real dough
isn't relevent. Even if another such grain existed, or were genetically
engineered, the question would be whether it qualifies as chitah or
se'orah, nor not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

Teaser:
> In his newly published commentary on the Haggadah, "The Royal Table,"
> Rabbi Norman Lamm asks a question on the Yerushalmi's presentation of
> the Four Sons. In the Mechilta, upon which the text in our Haggadah is
> built, the Chacham is given a detailed halachic answer...

NishmaBlog: When the Chacham is a Tam and the Tam a Chacham
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-chacham-is-tam-and-
tam-chacham.html

Hag K'v'S
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

kennethgmil...@juno.com
> But there still *is* reason to distinguish Pesach from Erev Pesach,
> because on Erev Pesach - even after chatzos - chametz is "merely" a lav,
> whereas on Pesach itself it is karays.

Concuring with Akiva- 
Actually afaik there is no d'oraisso lav to eat hametz on erev pesach

In fact The baal hama'or claims that eating hametz on erev pesach is a
perfect qiyyum of "tashbisu"

While we do NOT pasqen this way, it is apparent that eating hametz after
the time of issur is less stringent than keeping it around

And we already KNOW that Ashkenazim are NOT makpid WRT matzah asheera
neithe re: tashbisu nor re: bal Y bal Y!

The issue remaining is eating. AIUI there is one man d'amar that
is chosheish that mei peiros produces hametz nuksheh - IIRC this is
sheetas Rashi.

Now we know OTOH that R"T was m'qyeim shaloshudos on erev pesach up until
the 10th hour with matzah asheera. So when seeing the holistic picture,
one must see the positions of
    - Noda Beehuda, 
    - AhS, 
    - HY one lashon, and the 
    - Derech Hayyim
as being both the correct minhag and the best read of the Rema. Namely the
hakpadah on Matzah asheera starts at the 10th hour. This is an explicit
Derech Hayyim Remember the Derech Hayyim is the author of the classic
work M'qor Hayyim on Hilchos Pesach, his bottom line carries weight

Also the NB is quoted by Shaarei T'shuvah, indicating it's not just an
academic Shu"T

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I have at least several cases that for me are real "head scratchers"

1. halachically speaking - when water drops all day on "issa" it is
never machmitz. Even though the water is NOT mayim shelanu etc. Now of
course when a lot of water falls onto or whena hefseq stops the dripping
it will beign to mahmitz.

2. The case where the fellow goes to the Beis Midrash and forgets he
was kneeding dough. How is it is shayach - ushmartem es hamatzos!
How can he take a side-trip and only realize later he was kneeding dough!
I mean there is no sign of an urgent interruption here. I cannot picture
this scenario.

ZP
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 90
**************************************

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..."