Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 129

Thu, 07 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Micha Berger)
• 3. talking donkey (s newman)
• 4. Re: soup (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: nusach sefard (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: soup (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: ??how do we understand? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: ??how do we understand? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. poretz hageder and chanukah.... (Harvey Benton)
• 12. Re: soup (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: poretz hageder and chanukah.... (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: ??how do we understand? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 16. Re: soup (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 17. hetter 100 rabonim (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 18. Re: soup (David Riceman)

On 6/07/2011 5:13 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But in any case, any raayah from a story can be from the fact that
> tannaim (or amoraim) repeated the story and found it sensible, not from
> the historicity of the story.

You can only say they found it sensible if they thought it was true.
And if they thought it was true, what makes you say it isn't?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 06:48:29PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> You can only say they found it sensible if they thought it was true.
> And if they thought it was true, what makes you say it isn't?

I deny the premise, and thus the conclusion. They thought it was worth
repeating, which means that they thought the story relays the right
message without negative elements

I'm defending the position of rov rishonim, BTW. You are free to hold
otherwise. (Much the way most contemporary Jews believe in universal
hashgachah peratis.) But you perforce must accept the validity of a
position that runs through millenia of baalei mesorah.

BTW, R' Gershon Seif's post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n020.shtml#02> is an easy place
to start a list of mar'eh meqomos.

Again, the sources have been collected on list and in Daas Torah.
Peruse them and then argue; don't just dismiss a valid shitah out of
hand. R' Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, his son R' Avraham, the Ritva, the
Maharal, the Ramchal, the Vilna Gaon, the Maharetz Chajes, R' Hirsch,
R' Yisrael Salanter, etc... weren't stupid.

If you want to argue, don't do so on the basis that they failed to
understand basic logic.

If I thought I came across a trivial way to dismiss a position that well
supported, personally I would assume I didn't understand the position.

Yes, the Maharsha appears to only dismiss those stories one has to (his
criticism of the Arukh WRT Vashti's tail, although in other places he
may say otherwise) and the Rashbam also assumes literalness, but as far
as I can see, until modern times they were the mi'ut.

For that matter, you are now using arguments that would work against
your own version of the Rambam! No matter which subset of stories you
feel a given rishon says we should assume are ahistorical, as long as
there is such a collection your notion that it's only sensible if it
were true would apply to those stories.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

revach.net----

After Bilam's donkey finally had enough abuse the donkey turned around and
verbally complained to Bilam. One would think that Bilam would be awestruck
at the sound of his donkey talking. Yet, Bilam doesn't flinch and he answers
the donkey back, getting into a verbal altercation a if this is a perfectly
normal everyday occurrence. Why?
Rav Chaim Kanievsky answers that Bilam was being accompanied by all the most
distinguished ministers of Moav, and he didn't want to look bad. Therefore,
he pretended that indeed he had a special donkey with whom he conversed on a
regular basis. He wanted to show the ministers how he puts his donkey in
place. Unfortunately, things did not work out so well for Bilam as he lost
the argument, shaming himself in front of his prestigious guides


--- saul newman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110706/5533e5e5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/07/2011 5:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Quinoa might be "kashe" in that sense of the word, but I doubt it
> or potatos would qualify as daisa (lit: grits).
>
> Last I recall from our annual "is qiunoa qitniyos?" threads of years
> back, qinoa are seeds from a plant that is related to beets and spinach,
> not grain.

So is buckwheat, which is the ultimate kashe, so much that it doesn't
have a name of its own.   And "daisa", at least whenever it's used by
Ashkenazi poskim, is an exact synonym for "kashe".

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

> 
> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> 
> On 5/07/2011 3:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> I was asked a question today in shul by an edot mizrach man.
>> According to most old nusach sefard (chassidic) siddurim after U-bah LeTzion
>> (or returning the sefer Torah) there are prayers
>> Tefilah LeDovid, Beit Yaakov and Shir HaMaalot on days that Tachanun is said.
> 
> Only Tefilah Ledavid is omitted when there is no tachanun.  Bet Yaakov
> and Shir Hamaalot are said every day (except when there is musaf, and
> therefore the entire order of davening is turned upside down).

I've davened for a long time in a NS Shule where went straight to Hayom Yom
when there was no Tachanun.

At 01:05 PM 7/6/2011, Rn T. Katz wrote:
>My mother covers her hair with turban-type hats that fully cover her 
>hair  (not like the hats worn by women in some circles who permit 
>the showing of some  hair in front).  However, I have worn a sheitel 
>since I got  married.  There is no issue of hataras nedarim nor do 
>we have  matrilineal minhagim -- not patrilineal minhagim either, 
>for that matter, in the  case of a married woman. Is there such a 
>word as "virilineal"  -- husband-based?  I grew up in a home where 
>knaidlach were never  served at the seder but no one ever suggested 
>that I, when I married a  Litvak, had to do hataras nedarim before 
>eating knaidlach on Pesach.   As for keeping my mother's minhagim -- 
>there's no such thing.  I follow my  husband's minhagim, and that is 
>the norm. Even if your mother did make a vow not to wear a sheitel, 
>parents' vows are not binding on their children.  A nazir's children 
>do not have to refrain  from wine. However, I will mention one area 
>where there may possibly be a matrilineal  minhag, and that is 
>Shabbos candle lighting.  When I got married, I  was under the 
>impression that if your mother lights a candle for each child,  then 
>you, when you have your own home, should follow your mother's custom 
>in  this.  However, my husband said that you follow your 
>husband's  custom.  His custom (which technically then is my 
>mother-in-law's A'H  custom) is to light only two candles.  So that 
>is what I do.  If I  felt strongly about it, he probably wouldn't 
>mind my adding extra candles for  the children, but in the event I 
>have not done so.  I wonder what the  chevra here say about 
>candle-lighting -- mother's or mother-in-law's  minhag?  More than 
>with the issue of head-covering, I can see where people  might think 
>it goes according to the mother because candle-lighting is one 
>of  the three special mitzvos for women.  In contrast, issues of 
>tznius, what  to wear, fashion and head-covering, go according to 
>the community of which you  are part, and normally a wife is part of 
>her husband's community. --Toby Katz

I recall reading years ago about a newly married woman whose mother 
shaved her head and who wanted to do the same thing.  Her husband did 
not want her to do this.  Reb Moshe was asked and he replied, IIRC, 
(1) Shaving the head is an unsightly/inappropriate thing to do, and 
(2) a woman is supposed to follow the minhagim of her 
husband.  Hence, she should not shave her head. YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110706/b9218a1c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 06:46:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> So is buckwheat, which is the ultimate kashe, so much that it doesn't
> have a name of its own.   And "daisa", at least whenever it's used by
> Ashkenazi poskim, is an exact synonym for "kashe".

But quinoa comes in fruit, they don't have husks, they have berries.

And in the days of the poseqim you're citing, all pseudocereals, including
buckwheat, were harvested much like oats. Quinoa is more like pistachios.
I'm not sure they would have grouped quinoa with kashe had they known
about it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 6/07/2011 4:49 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> how do we understand the differences between
> zonah, kedeisha and challala,
> legabei yehuda, who turned aside
> to tamar, whom he thought was
> a zonah?

We don't.  That's a different usage.


On 6/07/2011 4:59 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Actually, he thought she was a kedeisha.

"Vayir'eha Yehuda vayachsheveha lezonah, ki chiseta paneha."

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 6/07/2011 9:33 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I deny the premise, and thus the conclusion. They thought it was worth
> repeating, which means that they thought the story relays the right
> message without negative elements

The message of R Pinchas ben Yair's donkey *depends* on it being true.
If it didn't really happen, then what possible proof could one bring
from it?  What possible lesson could one learn from it?


> I'm defending the position of rov rishonim, BTW.

No, you're not.  Name one rishon who says that R Pinchas ben Yair
didn't really have a frum donkey, or that R Chanina ben Dosa didn't
really tell his wife to light vinegar.  I don't believe any such
rishonim exist.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

At 05:45 PM 7/6/2011, Zev Sero wrote:
>On 6/07/2011 4:59 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>Actually, he thought she was a kedeisha.
>
>"Vayir'eha Yehuda vayachsheveha lezonah, ki chiseta paneha."

"Ayei ha-kedeisha hee b'einayim al ha-derekh?"

Lisa 

there are many midrashim that talk about  what 
will be after the moshiach/eliyahu decide things
however, my question is, why would chanukah
remain (and why did the chachamim establish
it to begin with,  given that it was not the place
of the chashmanoaim, to light candles (non-
kohanim) in the beis hamikdash??
+++doesn't it set a bad example for children 
and adults alike, that to poretz hageder, or go
beyond boundaries that hashem has set up
for us, is rewarded?? (instead of punished)??
--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110706/b0084059/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/07/2011 9:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 06:46:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> So is buckwheat, which is the ultimate kashe, so much that it doesn't
>> have a name of its own.   And "daisa", at least whenever it's used by
>> Ashkenazi poskim, is an exact synonym for "kashe".
>
> But quinoa comes in fruit, they don't have husks, they have berries.

What fruit?  They don't "come in" fruit, the seeds *are* the fruit,
aren't they?  And what berries are you talking about?



> And in the days of the poseqim you're citing, all pseudocereals, including
> buckwheat, were harvested much like oats. Quinoa is more like pistachios.

Pistachios?!  What do they have in common with pistachios?  Pistachios
grow on trees, don't they?

In any case, what difference does it make how it grows?  "Daysa" is a
culinary term, and quinoa is cooked exactly like any other kashe.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 6/07/2011 10:14 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> there are many midrashim that talk about what
> will be after the moshiach/eliyahu decide things
> however, my question is, why would chanukah
> remain (and why did the chachamim establish
> it to begin with, given that it was not the place
> of the chashmanoaim, to light candles (non-
> kohanim) in the beis hamikdash??
> +++doesn't it set a bad example for children
> and adults alike, that to poretz hageder, or go
> beyond boundaries that hashem has set up
> for us, is rewarded?? (instead of punished)??

Huh?  Where is this coming from? Who on earth told you that the
Chashmonaim were not kohanim?!


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 6/07/2011 10:13 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> At 05:45 PM 7/6/2011, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 6/07/2011 4:59 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> Actually, he thought she was a kedeisha.
>>
>> "Vayir'eha Yehuda vayachsheveha lezonah, ki chiseta paneha."
>
> "Ayei ha-kedeisha hee b'einayim al ha-derekh?"

My point exactly.   It's a different usage, and there is no useful
connection to be made with the halachic categories in Emor.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

:> Look at the Rambam's words. He says that divrei chakhamim are melitzah,
:> and intepreting them literally is wrong. That part doesn't require
:> disbelieving that they aren't also potentially historical -- just that
:> there is no actual historical claim being made. Chazal do not repeat
:> a story any more because it's history than if it weren't. But then he
:> talks about people who "...vena'asu etzlam kol hanimna'os mechuyevei
:> hamtzei'us." The Rambam rules out such stories that defy nature.
:
In response to my comment 

 >When the Rambam criticizes those for whom "na'asu etzlam kol hanimna'os
: mechuyavei ham'tzius," he does _not_ rule out all incidents which go
: against nature. He criticizes them for believing "she_kol_ hanimna'os" --
: _all_ "impossible" incidents -- must be true. This is not the same as
: saying all are not true. Certainly he held neis Chanuka to be literal.<

RMBerger wrote
 
 .  . . you repeat what I feel is the wrong half of the Rambam's phrase,
yes it's "sheKOL hanimna'os", but the Rambam continues "mechuyavei
hametzi'us". What are the "necessities of existence" if not the laws of
nature? He doesn't speak of paradoxes and laws of logic..<

     I don't understand "mechuyavei ham'tzius" to mean "necessities of
     existence."  I believe it means "must necessarily have happened." 
     What Rambam is saying is that this group mistakenly believes that
     _all_ the seemingly impossible stories _must_ have taken place, that
     they are "m'tzius" (reality) rather than something else.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
Official Barack Obama Website
President Obama needs your help to move America forward. Join us now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e155929a8ff26070est04vuc

R' David Riceman wrote:

> RAM suggested that the bracha of bread covers soup because soup
> is meizan zayyin.  This is the opinion of the Mahzor Vitri cited
> in the Bach ad. loc., and revived by several aharonim.  The
> problem is that the rishonim (and the Bach) view the SA's first
> opinion and the Mahzor Vitri's opinion as contradictory: they
> claim that we cannot say both "meizan zayyin" and "ain derech
> le'echol b'lo shtiyah" are reasons to cover drinks under bread,
> since they are contradictory explanations of a gemara.

(For those trying to follow along inside, "the Bach ad. loc." is in siman 174, "v'al".)

It is difficult for me to follow that Bach, and even more difficult for me
to follow your questions on it. Would it be possible to start with a
simpler topic, and go from there to the more complicated question of soup?

Specifically: Would you say a bracha on Coca Cola during a meal? If not, what is your reasoning, and why wouldn't it apply to soup?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e151fac6803525afb8st03vuc

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/fil
e/1103583447650-95/Kinyan+07-06-2011.pdf



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110707/9c313516/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM:
> (For those trying to follow along inside, "the Bach ad. loc." is in siman 174, "v'al".)
>
> It is difficult for me to follow that Bach, and even more difficult
> for me to follow your questions on it. Would it be possible to start
> with a simpler topic, and go from there to the more complicated
> question of soup?
Let's start with Berachos 41b (near the end).  The gemara is discussing 
the definition of "dvarim haba'im mahmas haseudah".  Ben Azzai has just 
explained that the reason they are pturim mibracha is because "pas 
potartan" -- bread exempts them.  They then ask about wine, which does 
require a bracha.  His response (which spills over into 42a): "sha'ani 
yayin, dgoreim bracha l'atzmo" -- wine is different, because it induces 
its own bracha.

There are numerous explanations about what the hava amina is -- why 
might wine be considered "mahmas haseudah" and what, other than wine, is 
included in the category of that hava amina that was not included in the 
previous discussion of the gemara.  There are also numerous explanations 
of "goreim bracha l'atzmo", and what other than wine is excluded based 
on that clause.

I will isolate as few opinions as I can manage.  "dvarim haba'im mahmas 
haseudah" can mean (i) things which you would consume only at a meal 
with bread (ii) things which you eat more of because of the meal/bread 
(we could subdivide this further if I had the time) (iii) things which 
provide substantial nourishment and therefore are construed to be part 
of the meal/bread.  "sha'ani yayin, dgoreim bracha l'atzmo" can mean (i) 
wine is unique (ii) wine is an example of a larger special class of 
drinks (iii) wine is an example of the general class of drinks.

Context matters for the definition of "dvarim haba'im mahmas haseudah".  
Hence the SA feels free to pick one definition in the context of drinks 
at a meal, and a different definition in the context of porridge (which, 
having spent my formative years studying YD, I think of as a solid).

The SA presents three opinions.  There is a machlokes aharonim whether 
the first opinion is (ii):(i) or (ii):(ii), and that is the opinion that 
the Rama (also unclearly) certifies as normative for Ashkenazim.  In 
particular, it is of the opinion that drinks are "dvarim haba'im mahmas 
haseudah" because people drink more at meals to aid their digestion (see 
H. Deos 4:2 for a condemnation of this practice).

Your suggestion that soup is included in the bracha of bread because it 
is like porridge can be construed two ways.  One is that we define 
"dvarim haba'im mahmas haseudah" in this context like (iii), which is 
not the opinion of the SA.  Another is that soup is not a mashkeh, and 
hence the definition we use in this context is irrelevant.  That, 
indeed, was my initial question: how do we know that?

Coke is a difficult case because it depends on two distinct issues (and 
since neither I nor my wife comes from a family of Coke drinkers I don't 
know the facts).  Does a Coke addict's consumption of Coke increase 
during meals, or is it a regular (say) one bottle every three hours, 
whether or not a meal intervenes?  If the latter, then it certainly 
requires its own bracha.

If the former, then we need to deal with the machlokes aharonim about 
the meaning of "sha'ani yayin, dgoreim bracha l'atzmo", v'od hazon lamo'ed".

David Riceman




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 129
***************************************
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..."