Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 45

Tue, 22 Mar 2011

• 1. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Soft Matza in the MB ShA HaRav and the A HaShulchan, Siman 486 (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Relationship Between Mordechai and Esther (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Sobering Thoughts for Purim (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Sobering Thoughts for Purim (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 6. The Acharonim and Soft Matza (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Re: The Acharonim and Soft Matza (Micha Berger)
• 8. kesubos 30a/ burning grain..... (Harvey Benton)
• 9. Aveinu Malkenu at Mincha on Taanis Esther (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: The Acharonim and Soft Matza (Meir Rabi)
• 11. Zechor/zachar (Joseph Kaplan)
• 12. Re: Sobering Thoughts for Purim (Danny Schoemann)
• 13. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: Zechor/zachar (D&E-H Bannett)
• 15. kol isha question (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 16. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Ben Waxman)
• 17. Nisht Yoshon/Not Yoshon (Prof. Levine)

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 02:47:47PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: Here's what Chazal say (quoted by Rashi in Parsha Bo) BK 60:
: "Kivun sheniten reshus lamashchis - eino mavchin bein tzadikim lereshaim,
: velo od  ela shemas'chil min hatzadikim techila"

You can't take this too far. After all, there is perpetually someone
out of the 7 billion plus human beings who is chayav misah. If you say
that this brings the mashchis to the world who could then kill anyone --
leis din veleis Dayan, hashgachah peratis is out the window, etc...

Obviously, therefore, this gemara has to be understood specifically
within its limited context.

The gemara (BK 60a) is saying that when a community deserves punishment
as a corporate entity, one can't assume the most guilty people in the
community are the ones who will bear the brunt of it -- and that in fact
it will start with the tzadiqim. R' Yoseif's maqoros are makas bekhoros
(Shemos 12:22) and Yechezqeil's hasra'ah about galus Bavel (21:8),
"vehikhrasi mimmeikh tzadiq verasha". This sets R' Yoseif to tears until
Abayei (his talmid) says it's letovasam -- so that they are spared living
through the tragedy.

But in any case, it's specifically about cases where hashgachah minis
and hashgachah peratis collide.

I'm arguing that when the overwhelming majority don't even know their
country did something, even if I were to think that something was in
proportion to the tragedy, it's still not a time when Hashem would send
the mashchis bedavqa in the role of onesh. It defies din, and we learn
from Sedom vaAmorah to expect not only din, but rachamim. Hashem judges
a nation not by a guilty minority, but by whether there is a minority
still around capable of uplifting the majority.

Tir'u baTov!
-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 20/03/2011 9:21 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:

> I would just like to point out that the MB does say that our minhag is to use thin matzos. 451:111

This is not the MB; he's just quoting the MA.  And what does the MA
mean by "thin"?  The Ba'er Hetev says it means an etzba.  Matza an
etzba thick had better be at least somewhat soft!

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

On 20/03/2011 12:23 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I was under the impression that Mordechai was Esther's uncle.

Really?  But *why*?  Surely you learned the megillah many years ago,
and have read and heard it many many times since then, so how could
this error have persisted until you read RAZ's article?

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

On 21/03/2011 10:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> The part that I don't understand is that the gemara doesn't end there,
> though. The gemara continues with the story of "qam Rabah shechiteih leR'
> Zeira". Reading the gemara naively, I would have concluded the masqanah
> is not to hold like Rava.

On the contrary, the fact that Rabba continued to get drunk the next
year shows that the halacha is as his talmid Rava reported it (presumably
*after* this story happened).  Nor does R Zeira object to Rabba getting
drunk, so he too agrees that it's right and proper for him to do so; he
just doesn't want to be in the vicinity when it happens!

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

It is an interesting story, and I recently heard 2 tellings about this. The
first was very disappointing because the Rav who gave it turned out to be an
Importer of fine Italian wines and was hawking his product as part of the
shiur! (oy gevalt!)

Another brought forth the point that one may certainly concur that Rabbi
Zeira's refusal to come to the seuda the following year does speak of
something. 

Perhaps it tells us that one should be careful with whom you drink, since
the worst can come out in some people. (the common phrase 'when wine goes in
wisdom departs' (so if you want to keep wisdom in, keep wine out - from the
same Midrash) is sometimes rendered by the heavy drinkers as "when wine goes
in, wisdom comes out', although it's a twist of the Hebrew verb
"yud-tzaddi-aleph", and it hasn't been my experience!). Perhaps it does seem
to have a disconnect between Rava and Rabba (I have wondered if a
transcribing change took place between the names, but probably not), but it
does begin with AMAR RABBA, which we traditionally hold, in many cases, to
mean that it's a point of view of the majority (rather than "Rabbi x omeir",
which indicates a machlochet, as in "Rabbi Yishmael omeir...").

But most people don't finish the sentence "until you don't know the
difference between...", and the reality is that there is no difference! So I
suppose this means that any amount of drinking is acceptable (or in my case,
coming from a family of addicted alcoholics, I use grape juice).

Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel

<-------------[Snippet from Original Post]---------------->
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:53:08 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Sobering Thoughts for Purim

The part that I don't understand is that the gemara doesn't end there,
though. The gemara continues with the story of "qam Rabah shechiteih leR'
Zeira". Reading the gemara naively, I would have concluded the masqanah
is not to hold like Rava.

-Micha

Reb Micha responds to my observation, "I simply wished to point out that
theses Acharonim had no hesitation in mentioning Soft Matza at all. They
did not see any reason to consider that Soft Matza should NOT be used."

Reb Micha says, "I don't think you can prove much from it. After all,
one could in theory require eating enough cracker-matzah so that it
would compress to a kezayis. They would still use the term "afilu hi
rakah va'asuyah kisfug" because that's the jargon since before the
norm switched."

Reb Micha, I find your position very difficult to accept. "Talmudic or
Halachic Jargon" I imagine requires that it be quite common which this
is not.

Why not be less startled and re-evaluate your assertion that soft Matza
was almost certainly out of use amongst Ashkenasim for decades before
they wrote their Halachot. Perhaps, as is suggested by their expression,
soft Matza was still at least a fresh memory if not an actual fact amongst
certain groups and it is these that the Poskim address their comments.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 03:45:17AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Why not be less startled and re-evaluate your assertion that soft Matza
: was almost certainly out of use amongst Ashkenasim for decades before
: they wrote their Halachot. Perhaps, as is suggested by their expression,
: soft Matza was still at least a fresh memory if not an actual fact amongst
: certain groups and it is these that the Poskim address their comments.

I have met too many people from the Lithuania in which the AhS and
MB lived. R' Yechiel Michl Epstein was niftar in 1908, RYMK, in 1933.

If the people I met remembered soft matzos at their seder table,
they never mentioned it. For that matter, that generation's children
and grandchildren are the ones who think that crispy matzah was what
Ashkenazim "always" did.

/Some/ rumor would have persisted.

Other data points... The matzah machine was invented by Isaac Singer in
1838, and in 1888 Dov Behr (who later took the surname Manischewitz),
mass produced machine matzos. In the machloqes that ensued, I do not
recall anyone expressing a problem with their crispiness. So it would seem
crispiness was already the norm by 1888.

And the Jewish Encylopedia (1901-1906)
<http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=305&;letter=M>:
    The thickness of the mazzah must not exceed the size of a closed
    fist, four fingers or four inches, which was the thickness of the
    show bread. A later custom was to make mazzah one finger thick
    ("Bet Hillel," Yoreh De'ah, No. 96). In modern times the mazzah is
    much thinner, varying from four to five mazzot to the inch, and is
    made in round form about twelve inches in diameter.

Unless you think they were crepes... Notice also (if you pull up the
article) by 1906, no one in England thought about discussing the subject
of soft vs crispy. I'm convinced it was 50 years in the past by then.

My guess is that the reidel (Eng: docker, the roller with the pins that
make holes) probably enabled the shift.

But again my primary reason is that among the people who think Ashk
matzah /has/ to be crispy are people too close in time to the AhS and
MB to believe so much was forgotten so quickly.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

In kesubos 30a there is a discussion in the gemmara if one is chayav for the 
grain if one (cv) burns a stack of grain on shabbas/yom kippur,since the person 
is chayav the greater punishment of mitah/kares, and thus pattur of the monetary 
chova for the grain. my question is, why would the owner of the grain have to 
lose out because of a chova/punishiment (chova of his life) to Hashem?

By Yom Kippur kapara inyanim, we are taught that one needs to first clear up the 
chovos one has with ben adam l'chaveiro, and then Hashem will absolve you of the 
chovos you have to him (e.g. forgive you), but here, in the burning-grain 
scenario, it seems just the opposite, namely that the chovos or punishments due 
to Shamayim, come first.......why would that be??

any explanations???
Harvey



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110321/a0e32668/attachment-0001.htm>

At 11:40 AM 3/21/2011, R. Ben Waxman wrote:

>I find two problems/questions about your story:
>
>1) You changed your minhag based on an email discussion? Did you consult
>with your rav before changing?

Yes, I changed based on what I found out is the real Ashkenaz minhag 
and no I did not consult "my rav."

I am in a different position than many others in that I was not 
brought up in an observant home.  As a result, I had to hammer out 
everything that I do, because I have no family minhagim to follow, 
except for a few things like my ancestors davened Ashkenaz.  While 
not coming from an observant home has many obvious disadvantages, it 
means that I examined everything that I saw people doing and decided 
which way I wanted to do things.


>1) You choose to ignore minhag hamakom based on a conversation that you had
>with RS years ago? Maybe what he meant was only relevant to tachnun?

You did not read what I wrote very carefully. I never had a 
conversation with Rav Schwab about tachanun. It was a friend of mine 
who reported this conversation to me.

I never "flaunt" that I am not doing what the Tzibur is doing save 
when it comes to tachanun.  For example, a Shteibel near me will not 
say tachanun tomorrow or on Wednesday, because the gemara asks about 
the possibility of reading the megilla on the 16th and 17th of 
Adar.  If I were to daven in this place tomorrow, I would quietly and 
unobtrusively say tachanun.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110321/a7bbbeff/attachment-0001.htm>

R Micha, I do not attempt to dispute your analysis of history. But I am not
attempting to determine the history of hard and soft Matza and the
transition from one to the other.
I am observing that the notion of soft Matza being a perfectly acceptable
option is quite clearly assumed by these major Acharonim.
For example, I assume that round circular Succos are not very common neither
are Succos with steepled roofs, but that would not stop the Poskim making an
observation about such Succos regarding some particular Halachic discussion.
But if a Minhag would have taken hold of not constructing such Succos, the
Poskim would not use these examples in their discussions, unless they were
discussing BeShaAs HadChak situations.

So, I think it is compelling from these major Acharonim, that no Minhag of
any strength exists suggesting that only hard Matzos are to be used.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 03:45:17AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
> : Why not be less startled and re-evaluate your assertion that soft Matza
> : was almost certainly out of use amongst Ashkenasim for decades before
> : they wrote their Halachot. Perhaps, as is suggested by their expression,
> : soft Matza was still at least a fresh memory if not an actual fact
> amongst
> : certain groups and it is these that the Poskim address their comments.
>
> I have met too many people from the Lithuania in which the AhS and
> MB lived. R' Yechiel Michl Epstein was niftar in 1908, RYMK, in 1933.
>
> If the people I met remembered soft matzos at their seder table,
> they never mentioned it. For that matter, that generation's children
> and grandchildren are the ones who think that crispy matzah was what
> Ashkenazim "always" did.
>
> /Some/ rumor would have persisted.
>
> Other data points... The matzah machine was invented by Isaac Singer in
> 1838, and in 1888 Dov Behr (who later took the surname Manischewitz),
> mass produced machine matzos. In the machloqes that ensued, I do not
> recall anyone expressing a problem with their crispiness. So it would seem
> crispiness was already the norm by 1888.
>
> And the Jewish Encylopedia (1901-1906)
> <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=305&;letter=M>:
>    The thickness of the mazzah must not exceed the size of a closed
>    fist, four fingers or four inches, which was the thickness of the
>    show bread. A later custom was to make mazzah one finger thick
>    ("Bet Hillel," Yoreh De'ah, No. 96). In modern times the mazzah is
>    much thinner, varying from four to five mazzot to the inch, and is
>    made in round form about twelve inches in diameter.
>
> Unless you think they were crepes... Notice also (if you pull up the
> article) by 1906, no one in England thought about discussing the subject
> of soft vs crispy. I'm convinced it was 50 years in the past by then.
>
> My guess is that the reidel (Eng: docker, the roller with the pins that
> make holes) probably enabled the shift.
>
> But again my primary reason is that among the people who think Ashk
> matzah /has/ to be crispy are people too close in time to the AhS and
> MB to believe so much was forgotten so quickly.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
> mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
> http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
> Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110322/fd6574e4/attachment-0001.htm>

"As to zeikher/zekher, I refer you to the excellent articles 
by R' Mordekhai Breuer, R' Yhtzhak Penkovsky, and Yossi 
Peretz all of which show what has always been quite obvious. 
There is no real basis for the zekher reading."

Another article on this issue is by my brother-in-law, Prof. Jordan
Penkower of Br Ilan University. It's way beyond my expertise although I've
been told that Jordan, who is acknowledged as a leading expert in Bible
studies, Jewish manuscripts etc., has written the definitive piece in this
issue. The article can be found in Vol 4 of Iyyunei Miqroh U'foroshonos, a
series published by Bar Ilan U Press, and is entitled: Zeicher -
Bi'chomeish oa Sheish Niqudos?

Joseph Kaplan

> The part that I don't understand is that the gemara doesn't end there,
> though. The gemara continues with the story of "qam Rabah shechiteih leR'
> Zeira". Reading the gemara naively, I would have concluded the masqanah
> is not to hold like Rava.

Could be that this IS the correct conclusion.

The Kitzur (122:6) writes that if you run the chance of being
negligent (Mezalzel) C"V in any Mitzva, Bracha or Tefilla, or that you
will come C"V to be frivilous (Kalus Rosh) you are better off not
getting drunk.

????? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????
????? ????, ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???, ???? ??? ??????
??? ????? ???? ??? ????.

The Oruch Hashulchan (OC 695:5) says "chayav inish livsumei BePuritei.
Not that you become drunk, for drunkedness is absolutly forbidden. And
there is no greater Aveira than this, which causes licentious
behaviour, bloodshed and many other sins. Rather one should drink more
than usual.

???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????, ??? ?????:
???? ???? ?????? ??????. ?? ??????, ??????? ????? ????. ???? ?? ?????
????? ???, ???? ???? ?????? ?????, ??????? ????, ???? ?????? ?????. ??
????? ???? ??????? ???.

- Danny

From: Micha Berger
: SBA wrote:
>: The gemara gives the reason for earthquakes  (and tsunami) happening - when
>: Hashem remembers His children suffering amongst the Umos Haolom, he is
>: "morid shtei dimaos leyam hagadol - vekolo nishma misof haolom v'ad sofo"

I had an interesting thought. Japan had made their country "earthquake
proof" and AFAIK nobody got killed because of the quake - almost the
biggest ever recorded.

What killed them was the Tsunami that followed, then the nuclear
trouble then the volcano that erupted and finally snow.

Sort of "Tower of Babel" like; you think you can outsmart the RBSO, do you?

That could be a lesson we can "take home"

- Danny

R' Yosef Kaplan just e-mailed me to point out that old folks 
sometimes get a bit mixed up in the head.  I had written 
about the articles that prove the lack of any basis for the 
double reading including one by R' Yitzhak Penkovsky.

RYK very politely added an article by his brother-in-law 
Prof Jordan Penkower. As Prof. Penkower's is called up to 
the Torah as Yitzhak and the "w" becomes a "v" in Hebrew , 
even a mixed up mind realized that we are talking about the 
same article.  Obviously, I had meant to write Penkover and 
and not Penkovsky.  BTW, Prof Penkower's article on 
zeikher/zekher, as I have written before on list, is the 
most complete and, in 44 pages, covers the entire history of 
the five nekuddot vs six nekuddot question.

Sorry for the error. Please correct your memories of the 
names in my e-mail.


David 

http://www.kolneshama.org/no-boys-allowed-25-november-2008/

are viewers/ listeners  who are meikel/don't hold from  kol isha  issues 
bound  by the request of  performers  who don't want  their own psak of 
kol isha issues violated?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110322/e2a76761/attachment-0001.htm>

If that was their intent. Maybe it was simply to do the best they can.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Schoemann" <doni...@gmail.com>
>
> Sort of "Tower of Babel" like; you think you can outsmart the RBSO, do 
> you?
>
> That could be a lesson we can "take home"
org 

Today I bought a package of Meal Mart Amazing Meals Parve Baked Ziti in
tomato sauce. When I got it home, I noticed that there is a label on
the side that says in Yiddish "Nisht Yoshen" and in English "Not Yoshen."

I have bought this product many times before and have never seen such
a label on it. Indeed, I have never seen such a label on any pasta
product. Some pasta products say they are Yoshen. Others say nothing
regarding Yoshen, but this is the first product I have seen that says
that it is not Yoshen.

After exchanging a few emails with Rabbi A. Teitlebaum who supervises
this product along with the OU, he wrote " According the information we
received, it is chodosh vadai, about your eating it, I can't answer,"

Based on this I am going to return this product to the store. I am not
makpid on Yoshon, but my understanding is that one is allowed to eat
sofek Chodosh but not something that one knows for sure is Chodosh.
Am I correct? And if I am, then I feel that the labeling "Not Yoshen"
on this product is a michshal, since some will assume that it means that
while the product is not certified as being Yoshon, it is sofek Yoshen.

Please see the articles at 
http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/8821  and 
http://mykosherla.com/kosher-faqs/what-is-yoshon/

At http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-yoshon-old_new.htm  it says

In fact, a few Rabbis have suggested that there are more compelling 
reasons to observe chodosh than there are for eating only Glatt Kosher
and Cholov Yisroel.

Based on all of this I really do not understand how Meal Mart can 
market a product that is known to be vadai Chodosh.

Yitzchok Levine


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 45
**************************************

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..."