Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 91

Fri, 26 Mar 2010

• 1. What is Chametz (Alan Rubin)
• 2. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: What is Chametz (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: What is Chametz (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. No Moshiach? (Richard Wolberg)
• 8. Re: No Moshiach? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (cgsteinmetz)
• 10. Re: No Moshiach? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Jonathan Baker)
• 13. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Simon Montagu)
• 14. Re: intelligent design (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Who First Said it? 3 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Micha Berger)

Micha suggested

: So what is chametz?

>As I suggested above, it is the leavening of water and one of the 5
>species. Directly correlated to an empirical metzi'us, just not as broad
> of a category as leavening.

So I take some mei peyros, let some of the H20 in it evaporate and replace it.

That will make chametz but the original mei peyros wouldn't.

What if I collect the vapour from the mei peyros and add it back to the original mei peyros?

Alan

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:27:44AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
> : 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.
>
> I'm not sure we were ever nohagim to read half a pasuq.

"'Tam ma hu omer? 'Ma zot'"

JR...@sibson.com
> 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?

FWIW I can almost guarantee that we do not know for certain how these
p'suqim were quoted when Talmud was still being learned orally

OTOH, they may have davka avoided saying b'al peh any more than absolutely
necessary...

OTOH they may have had Tanach's handy and davka chanted the entire passuq
with the full masoretic notations.

OR ????

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:39:02PM +0000, Alan Rubin wrote:
: >As I suggested above, it is the leavening of water and one of the 5
: >species. Directly correlated to an empirical metzi'us, just not as broad
: >of a category as leavening.

: So I take some mei peyros, let some of the H20 in it evaporate and replace 
: it.
: That will make chametz but the original mei peyros wouldn't.
: What if I collect the vapour from the mei peyros and add it back to the 
: original mei peyros?

Those are interesting questions about the ingredients, but the ingredients
are still empirical things.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. I put together a relatively
involved theory about the relationship between halakhah and reality --
that halakhah applies to metzi'us -- literally: that which can be found,
and things that of mamashus -- literally: tangibility. Empirical reality,
but as a person can directly experience it without the aid of tools such
as microscropes. This even ties into things that can be experienced but
weren't, cases where we need to rely on rov, chazaqah, etc...

We're both making distinctions between halachic reality and the world
as science can objectively determin it to be.

However, I don't want to call "the world as experienced" non-empirical.
Because I am simultaneously playing another game; that of distancing
myself from Brisker "chalos sheim", where one can create categories and
not care about reality or what the halachic category means.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Simon Montagu continued our
exchange:
: > : 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.

: > I'm not sure we were ever nohagim to read half a pasuq.

: "'Tam ma hu omer? 'Ma zot'"

The din against quoting parts of pesuqim is for more then two words.

Another example "'Zeh Keili' anu ve'ameru".

Also, we lift idioms from Tanakh all the time, without considering
them quotes. Such as "Az, beqol ra'ash gadol adir vechazaq". "Qol
ra'ash gadol" is from Maaseh haMerkavah, and "adir vechazaq" further
describe the qol ra'ash gadol. Three words -- but an idiom, not a
quote.

"HaKeil haGadol haGibbor vehaNora".

The question we discussed WRT Fri night Qiddush is why most people do not
follow this rule. Saying "yom hashisi" would be okay -- 2 words isn't
a quote. Starting with "Vayar' Elokim es kol asher asah" would be the
whole pasuq. But whispering "Vayhi erev..." is starting mid-pasuq!

RRW argued, bringing other examples, that perhaps an esnachta is
sufficient phrase separation from this rule. And "Vayhi erev" is starting
Qiddush from the word after an esnachta.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

a...@rubin.org.uk
> So I take some mei peyros, let some of the H20 in it evaporate and
> replace it.
> That will make chametz but the original mei peyros wouldn't.
> What if I collect the vapour from the mei peyros and add it back to
> the original mei peyros?

Let me give a partial approach.

According to "my" hesber in SA
Water added to mei peiros BEFORE leesha is bateil - regardless of the
various scenarios.
[So too Rif and Rambam]

So the ONLY problem is taking mei peiros - kneeding a bit with flour - and THEN adding H2O.

And according to my hesber of Rema - he concurs mei'iqqar hadin - but
is chosheish l'chatchilah that drops of water added before leesha
MIGHT be a concern - albeit not enough for Bal Y Bal Y but for achilah

Schoen - it all makes some sort of sense.

Of course you might ask - NU so what if kneeded first and THEN water
comes in later. Good question and one needs to see the posqim inside
and see that there is some kind of ch'shash that since mei peiros are
not machmitz once water has been added it might be neglected.

At any rate, some hesbeirim are slightly less "magical" then others.

EG Rashi rejects that kli sheini is never m'vasheil. As he sees it -
when the water was heated [hotter] for washing instead of for drinking
It indeed CAN be m'vasheil. Because as per Rashi it's not a magical
legal construct, it's an observtion of typical m'tzius.

Here too. Some will posit more "magical" legalisms, and others will tend
towards more m'tzius oriented explanations

Even so not even the m'tizus crowd denies all legalisms. EG "lo plug"s
can make issurim in places where the specific m'tzius indeed would be
far-fetched. For matzah that includes "s'riqim" [molds] even "s'riqei
bayssus". Etc.

And so the humros or minhggim re: matzah ashirah and qitniyyos probably
include scenarios that would never trigger real ch'shash of hametz.
EG raw, dry qitniyyos or dry roasted qitniyyos.

I hope this helps

RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Hillel said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Chizkiyahu.
Sandhedrin 99a

[Rashi does say: But the Almighty will himself redeem israel and reign over them].

How could he make such a radical and astonishing statement?
Or is there something else that we are missing?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100325/86964d73/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:34:41PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: How could he make such a radical and astonishing statement?
: Or is there something else that we are missing?

Like the next line, where the talmud asks G-d to forgive Rabbi Hillel
(the amora, not Hillel the tanna) for saying it?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote
> 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"
> 
The BH"M is talking according to R; Shimon. We pasken according to R'
Yehuda on Erev Pesach.
CGS
____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=QYzHJmS2hIU7a7BG-jyiwAAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=

Richard Wolberg wrote:
> Hillel said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel because they have 
> already enjoyed him in the days of Chizkiyahu.
> Sandhedrin 99a
> 
> [Rashi does say: But the Almighty will himself redeem israel and reign 
> over them].
> 
> How could he make such a radical and astonishing statement?
> Or is there something else that we are missing?

Rav Hillel.  Not Hillel!  In his day the halacha was not yet paskened
against that position, so he was allowed to hold it. Anyone today who
believes such a thing is an apikores.


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

CGS cgsteinm...@juno.com
> The BH"M is talking according to R; Shimon. We pasken according to R'
> Yehuda on Erev Pesach.

Good Catch! Indeed
The Rambam DOES count. Lav to EAT hametz erev Pesach so what I wrote
was flawed.

I need to reconsider this a bit - although I still believe that

A  Erev pesach and Pesach are very different WRT matzah ashira

B Since we are not makpid to rid ourselves of matzah ashira, the ch'shash
cannot be very strong - otherwise we would need to be m'va'eir Amatzah
Ashira as a s'feiq d'oraisso l'humra. [Ironically, this correction of CGS,
makes this point even stronger!]

Bottom line we ashkenazim don't have matzah ashira on erev Pesach except
for those who need it during pesach

The one case where the minhag would be problematic would be Shaloshudos -
where matza ashira solves the problem as per RT.

And so AISI shalushodus should trump what I consider a faulty
understanding of this minhag

NB: Not to worry about me. I myself follow the Rema's recommendation to
eat "minei targima". My arguments are academic in nature and I'm merely
attempting to correct a perceived mis-understanding.


Unfortunately I erred myself during this process but BH our group
caught it

Hislamdus - I am grateful for CGS in particular and Avodah in general
for helping to set the record straight.

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
> 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

Maybe.  But the Haggadah is pretty short.

I did some poking on hebrewbooks and JNUL websites.  Some random 
haggadot (Prague 1527 and 1708) have the full verse.  As does Mantua 1560,
Venice 1609 with Ladino translation (so the Spanish did say it after the
Expusion), Sultzbach 1755 with Abarbanel, Roedelheim 1822 edited by Heiden-
heim (and we know he was willing to edit liturgical texts if necessary).

The only one that I found that had only the shortened verse was the 
Guadalajara (Spain, not Mexico) haggadah of 1482.

So I'd suspect that the word-saving was more of an issue for manuscripts,
and cheap ones at that, than for printed haggadot.  The Guadalajara version
is very barebones, one font all the way through.  The beautifully illuminated
Second Nuremberg Haggadah, also mid-1400s, from South Germany, has the full
verse.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Simon Montagu continued our
> exchange:
> : > : 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.
>
> : > I'm not sure we were ever nohagim to read half a pasuq.
>
> : "'Tam ma hu omer? 'Ma zot'"
>
> The din against quoting parts of pesuqim is for more then two words.

Ha! I thought that the tam's two words would be the most slam-dunk
proof that we are not makpid on not quoting partial pesuqim in the
context of the Haggada, but apparently tafasti merube lo tafasti. But
there are other examples, including right there in "RYHG omer" -- the
"etzba`" proof-text is only half a pasuk!

Same goes for Hillel's "Al matzot umerurim yochluhu", the hacham's "ma
ha`edot...", the rasha's "ma ha`avoda hazot lachem" and the answer
"ba`avur ze...", Ben Zoma's "lema`an tizkor..." (and that one starts
after zakef katon, not even atnah)

And looking again at the tam, I realize that the quotation is in fact
not two words: the whole sentence from "ma zot" to "mibeit avadim" is
a verbatim quote of part of a pasuk.

> The question we discussed WRT Fri night Qiddush is why most people do not
> follow this rule. Saying "yom hashisi" would be okay -- 2 words isn't
> a quote. Starting with "Vayar' Elokim es kol asher asah" would be the
> whole pasuq. But whispering "Vayhi erev..." is starting mid-pasuq!

Claiming that "yom hashishi" is 2 words and therefore not a quote is
LAD dohek gadol when we're continuing with the next pasuk. I prefer
RRW's answer (especially since it also works for "al ken..." at
Shabbat morning qiddush)

>
> RRW argued, bringing other examples, that perhaps an esnachta is
> sufficient phrase separation from this rule. And "Vayhi erev" is starting
> Qiddush from the word after an esnachta.

 
 
From: Eli Turkel _eliturkel@gmail.com_ (mailto:elitur...@gmail.com) 

>> Due to  various attacks on creationism being non-scientific certain
groups  (mainly
Protestant groups with a very literal reading of the Bible)  have
invented "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwin.  Officially
"intelligent design" does not seek to prove that there is a G-d  that 
created
the universe (again that violates separation of church and  state). Rather 
the
main argument is that because nature is so complex it  could not have
come by natural evolution.

Prof. Aviezer brought  several proofs against the idea. He stressed that
because intelligent design  is wrong it does not mean that Darwin and 
natural
evolution is right. His  personal viewpoint is that evolution in correct 
but it
happened in jumps (eg  a meteor hitting earth) rather than natural 
selection.<<

-- 
Eli  Turkel


 
 
>>>>>
Thanks for that clarification.  Evidently what the participants  at the 
conference rejected was one particular (Christian-inspired) notion of  
intelligent design.  They did not reject -- how could an Orthodox Jew? --  the idea 
of G-d being the source of everything that exists.
 
That (at least partially) answers a question that nobody else has  even 
addressed, at least not in this particular thread:  The question was,  if you 
reject intelligent design, what are the alternatives?  There are  really only 
three possibilities (leaving aside a million idiosyncratic  permutations of 
each one):  
 
1. Bereishis must be taken absolutely literally.  (I'm sure  MO rejects 
this.)
 
2. There is no God.  (I'm pretty sure most MO reject this, as  well)
 
3.  The universe is the product of intelligent design, i.e, it  was 
created.  Exactly what steps occurred between the first moment of yesh  me'ayin, 
and how long those steps took, until we arrived at our present moment  -- may 
be the subject of debate.  But surely a Torah Jew cannot deny the  existence 
of a Designer and still be Orthodox?  
 
When, in an earlier post, RET wrote that all the participants at the  MO 
conference unanimously rejected intelligent design, I just couldn't see how  
to square this circle.  Now he explains that they only rejected  C
hristianity. OK, good, fine with me.  I also reject  Christianity.
 
So let us now agree that we all /accept/ intelligent design.  And we  can 
then amuse ourselves drawing little circles and diagrams to explain  exactly 
what we believe and what we reject.  (I still believe  that people say they 
"reject intelligent design" when they want to give  themselves scientific 
cover and gain credibility with the Scientific Community  -- and I still 
maintain that it's a useless tactic that won't work.)
 
PS Anyone who is interested in this subject absolutely must read  
*Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery* by  
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards.  This book is beautiful, fascinating  and 
incredibly inspiring.  
 
 
 
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100325/e5dc01ae/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW:
> Nowadays this has morphed into using lulavim as fuel with which to
> burn Hametz.
> Who was the first source to suggest this transition?

I found this today:
Ben Ish Hai Year 1 P. Tzav mentions burning the aravah/hoshana with the
hameitz

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:44:09PM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Ha! I thought that the tam's two words would be the most slam-dunk
: proof that we are not makpid on not quoting partial pesuqim in the
: context of the Haggada, but apparently tafasti merube lo tafasti. But
: there are other examples, including right there in "RYHG omer" -- the
: "etzba`" proof-text is only half a pasuk!

But another quote of a beraisa (? tosefata? mishnah?), and thus subject
to the same problem as the first one. We don't know how well preserved
the original forms of the citations are.

The Gra was strict on "full pesuqim", starting Qiddish from Vayar.

I presume he would say that the partial quotes were originally full, or
expected to be read that way.

I have no idea how he would address the text for the Chakham or, now
that it's no longer two words, the Tam. But it is his shitah, not mine,
and I presume the Vilna Gaon didn't overlook examples that obvious (to
him, if not to me).

: Same goes for Hillel's "Al matzot umerurim yochluhu", the hacham's "ma
...
:> The question we discussed WRT Fri night Qiddush is why most people do not
:> follow this rule. Saying "yom hashisi" would be okay -- 2 words isn't
:> a quote. Starting with "Vayar' Elokim es kol asher asah" would be the
:> whole pasuq. But whispering "Vayhi erev..." is starting mid-pasuq!

: Claiming that "yom hashishi" is 2 words and therefore not a quote is
: LAD dohek gadol when we're continuing with the next pasuk. I prefer
: RRW's answer (especially since it also works for "al ken..." at
: Shabbat morning qiddush)

As RRW keeps on telling me, it's the CI's answer. He was "just" mechaven
to it.

But my point was just that the whole notion of whispering the words was
(I thought) to avoid the problem, and if you don't use the "esnachta"
answer, it actually makes the problem worse.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 91
**************************************

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..."