Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 207

Tue, 11 Oct 2011

• 1. Re: Why we eat on erev YK? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 2. Re: Why we eat on erev YK? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: pairs and red (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: rules (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: rules (Liron Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: rules (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: From the cRc regarding schach (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Question for Gerim or those who teach them (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 9. hilchot schach (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 10. Re: Question for Gerim or those who teach them (Micha Berger)
• 11. : kosher switch (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: avot (mishna? as binding??) (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Brisker Chumeros and Shammuti Chumeros (Micha Berger)
• 14. kosher switch (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Re: kosher switch (Chana Luntz)
• 16. Why we eat on erev YK? (Joseph C. Kaplan)

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:03:53PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> : But how does eating on the 9th serve "as if we fasted"?
> : Or maybe more to the point, what are we supposed to be thinking about as
> we
> : eat?
>
> I think it should be considered an opportunity to practice eating in
> order to live a life of avodas Hashem, rather than living to eat.
>
> Through such practice, we would hopefully get to the point where we
> can similarly sanctify the satisfaction of all our physical needs. Not
> just sleeping, but sleeping in order to have the energy to do His
> Will. Etc...
>

But don't you get that every week with the shabbat seudot or with every
other chiyuv achila?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/b1a650cb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:09:06PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
:>: But how does eating on the 9th serve "as if we fasted"?
...
:> I think it should be considered an opportunity to practice eating in
:> order to live a life of avodas Hashem, rather than living to eat.
...
: But don't you get that every week with the shabbat seudot or with every
: other chiyuv achila?

Why just when there is a chiyuv?

In any case, you could ask why a YK altogether -- you could do teshuvah at
any time as well. Lemaaseh, the 9th of Tishrei was (to my mind) set aside
for a day to eat biqdushah. It's a much harder job than YK's perishus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Adom, the color of dam, related to the adamah, and the lowest color in
> the rainbow, represents gashmius, according to RSRH. It's the counterpart
> to tekheiles.
>

 The week we read about tzitzit (and the meraglim), the haftara is the
meraglim of yehoshua - and the red string with Rachav.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/7407cf28/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:54:44AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
:> Anyway, see<http://bit.ly/derechHamelech>, Derekh haMelekh by R'
:> Ariel Finkelstein, pgs 93-142 are a conscious rebuttal to Torat
:> haMelekh.
: 
: However, the part of that section relating to wartime is somewhat empty
: of content....

I didn't find that true. See pp 126-139.

: I searched the book for reference to the halakha of hatov she'ba-goyim
: -- b'sh'at milchama -- harog and found nothing. Which seems odd for
: a book purporting to deal with that subject...

It is very odd. But despite the ommission, I did find much info in the
aforementioned section.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
>>  Tzaar baalei chayim?

> Was there supposed to be a smiley after that?  I don't imagine that during
> a time of war, when the opposing side is anyway covered by "Hatov
> she'ba-goyim -- b'sh'at milchama -- harog", we'd need to worry about causing
> them tzaar.

Harog, yes. Unnecessary tzaar? Why would that be allowed? If there is a
poisonous spider, you can kill it, but you can't pull it's legs off.

On 10/11/2011 10:33 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>> Even if you believe that torture doesn't result in usable
>> information, I don't see any reason it would be forbidden
>> halakhically, other than the possibility of a chillul Hashem.
>> Lisa

> Tzaar baalei chayim?

Was there supposed to be a smiley after that? I don't imagine that
during a time of war, when the opposing side is anyway covered by "Hatov
she'ba-goyim -- b'sh'at milchama -- harog", we'd need to worry about
causing them tzaar.


On 10/11/2011 10:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:24:53AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> There are rules of warfare other than not cutting down fruit trees.  A
>> book was published recently called Torat HaMelech which apparently deals
>> with those subjects, many of which are far from politically correct.
>> The book has not been translated into English, so far as I'm aware.

> OTOH, there is another sefer...
> Given the heat it generated, the problem is far worse than PC-ness,
> it's considered by these rabbanim to be halachically wrong in ways that
> would have people killed.

> Anyway, see<http://bit.ly/derechHamelech>, Derekh haMelekh by R'
> Ariel Finkelstein, pgs 93-142 are a conscious rebuttal to Torat
> haMelekh.

However, the part of that section relating to wartime is somewhat empty
of content. L'chaf zechut, it may be that chapters 5 and 6 of Torat
Hamelekh are equally bad -- I can't speak to that, since I haven't been
able to obtain a copy of the book -- but, well, let me quote from that
section of Derekh haMelekh in part (and in translation):

    Torat HaMelekh -- Chapters 5 and 6: Killing non-Jews in Wartime,
    and Intentionally Attacking Innocents

    In these chapters, the authors deal with "killing non-Jews in wartime"
    (chapter 5) and "intentally attacking innocents" (chapter 6). First,
    they attempt to apply the conclusions that they reached in previous
    chapters -- conclusions which we have already challenged -- to
    wartime. Beyond this, most of the discussions in these chapters
    are based on biblical content which is midrashic of conceptual,
    and in light of this, it is easy to overcome their positions,
    as Rabbi Shmuel Ariel has shown in his article "This is not Torat
    HaMelech". Additionally, I see no need to respond to these chapters,
    since the halakhic sources on the subject are vague and imprecise,
    and halakhic determination in the topic should, it seems to be,
    be left to the Gedolei HaDor and to poskim with public responsibility.

I searched the book for reference to the halakha of hatov she'ba-goyim
-- b'sh'at milchama -- harog and found nothing. Which seems odd for
a book purporting to deal with that subject. This halakha is brought
down l'halakha in the Shulchan Aruch -- twice.

> Both books focus on the halakhos of killing, rodef, non-combatants, etc...

> More along the same lines as bal tashchis, there is the chiyuv to dig
> latrines, the laws of eishes yefas to'ar. Can anyone think of more?

Leaving one side open in a siege.

Lisa

R' Dorron Katzin (quoting the CRC) wrote:
> The reeds are placed perpendicular to the schach support-beams
> rather than parallel to the beams.

R' Moshe Y. Gluck asked:
> What difference does it make if the schach is parallel or
> perpendicular to the support beams? Is it because of the shittah
> that a line of "light" all across the sukkah makes it pasul - if
> so, then as long as there is anything dividing it should be ok.
> Not to mention that lots of sukkahs don't have any support
> beams...

Here is my guess -- and I must stress the word *guess*:

Those reeds are formed into a mat by being woven with some sort of
material, which I'm guessing is pasul. (I think the advertisement mentioned
that the mat could be cut into smaller sizes by cutting wires, which are
surely pasul.) If the hechsher for the mat involves pretending that the
wires aren't there (forgive me if the word "pretend" sounds pejorative)
then we probably have the odd situation where the reeds are not even strong
enough to support their own weight. It is true that there are many sukkos
which don't have support beams, but if you tried that with these reeds,
they'd probably just fall right through. If this wasn't for a sukkah,
support beams would not be needed, because the wires give it enough
strength> But my guess is that in the CRC's view, you can't rely on the
wires for strength, and at the same time pretend they're not there. (Think
about kashrus of gelatin and other maamids. These wires might fit that
definition exactly. I think it is a relevant point i
 n shaatnez too, where the shesi is wool and the arev is linen.) Therefore,
 my guess is that the CRC is insisting that these mats must be supported by
 support beams which are place in such a manner that if the wires were
 absent, the reeds would still stay up there.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Auto Insurance Quotes
Auto Insurance Cheaper than Your Cell Phone Bill. Free Quotes Now&#33
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e947725ac499bff9adst01vuc

On 10/11/2011 11:01, Lisa Liel wrote:
> That doesn't mean the nusach would be the same, though. Elokeinu means
> *our* God.

Although it's darshened that way, it doesn't seem to me that one *must* 
read it that way exclusively, to the extent that e.g. a ben Noach would 
be unable to use the term. "v-elokei avoseinu," not.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-mitzvos-schach.htm
the relevant passage---

A kosher monofilament mat must be placed on the sukkah in the proper 
manner.  The following guidelines must be followed:  The bamboo slats 
should be placed perpendicular to the beams and walls upon which they 
rest.  In other words, if the monofilament line (which does not qualify as 
schach) is supporting the slats, the mat has been placed down improperly. 
One may not suspend schach with non-schach material.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/650b76e7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:16:57PM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
> Although it's darshened that way, it doesn't seem to me that one *must*  
> read it that way exclusively, to the extent that e.g. a ben Noach would  
> be unable to use the term. "v-elokei avoseinu," not.

Since we do call HQBH "Elokei khol basar" (eg Yirmiyahu 32:27, Modim
deRabbanan), I think there is no question that another basar can call Him
"Elokeinu".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I wrote:
> : Why?  If at any given point, you still have only a 50% chance of
> getting a
> : head?

And RMB replied:

> If brushing one's hair is pesiq reishei for pulling hairs out, it's
> not because we consider the odds of uprooting each hair as a separate
> risk.
> 
> AIUI, the odds add up.

But with regards to hairs, this is in space, while in the case of the kosher
switch, the odds you are adding up are in time.

Interestingly, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n136.shtml#14 I
asked why was it that in the case of using breira to all for terumah, Rabbi
Meir was not choshesh for the wine cask breaking on shabbas, given that his
is the shita of bein chayish l'miuta.  And an answer that was sent to me
privately was that in each case where Rabbi Meir was chayish l'miuta the
question is whether the person or the object currently belongs to the
majority class or the minority class, Nowhere, though, do we find R. Meir
saying that we must be concerned lest something which is a minority
likelihood may occur to the person or object under consideration.

In other words, R' Meir is chayish l'miuta in space, but not in time.
Similarly it seems to me, the psik reish of pulling hairs out is about
space, that at least one of the hairs currently in existence and being
brushed will inevitably fall out, and that this is fundamentally different
to a series of cumulative acts in time.

> : > IOW, I don't think being goreim something that rov of the
> : > time violates an issur is any more mutar than geramah of a vadai.
> :
> : Well clearly there is such a concept - that is precisely the din of
> psik
> : resha....
> 
> Only if pesiq reishei requires specifically a vadai, and not a ruba
> deruba. Which is a rephrase of my earlier statement. How do you know
> that?

Actually I myself don't think it matters whether it is a vadai or ruba
deruba.  I was just noting that the language of the  gemora itself assumes
we are talking about a vadai here - ie "will it not die?" not in the vast,
overwhelming number of cases it will die.  On the other hand, I was pointing
out that the reality of Mike the Headless Chicken might be used to say that
in practice psik reisha is not just vadai, but also ruba deruba, despite the
language of the gemora.

But regardless whether psik reisha is vadai or ruba d'ruba, the case being
discussed as the paradigms of psik resha are talking only about a one time
acts, not a series of acts spread out over time that culminate in an almost
certain result.  After all, vadai every single chicken alive at the time of
Chazal is now dead, due to the passage of time.  But that was not the psik
reisha Chazal were talking about. 

The fact that every definition of grama has some element of time delay
(grama is not merely a shinui) shows again that time is different from space
and you cannot necessarily add up little time units in the way you may be
able to with space units.

> ...
> : The reality is that if this is your only option, you put up with
> things not
> : working on shabbas as smoothly as they do on weekdays...
> 
> But it must work with enough reliability for my "sure enough" standard
> to be met.

Yes, agreed.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:07:44PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
: > ... pirqei avos are avos in the sense of avos malakhah. (The
: > Bartenura's translation, not mine.) IOW, they aren't rules of
: > behavior, they are values and rules of what you should be which
: > interact with the situations you face to produce those rules of
: > behavior codified in the other mesechtos -- as well as telling
: > you which way you're pulled when acting lifnim mishuras hadin.

: > So, aspiring for its goals is obligatory, but the specific
: > behaviors used to exemplify those goals may not be obligatory
: > in every situation and context.

: Your conclusion (that "the specific behaviors ... may not be
: obligatory") might be correct, but I don't see how you get there from
: your starting point.

E.g. see the Ramban on "hayashar vehatov" (Devarim 6:18). "Lefi she'i
efshar lehazkir baTorah kol hanhagos ha'adam im kol shekhenav verei'av".
Hatov vehayashar are avos because the Torah can't possibly codify how
BALC is reflected in all of one's deailing.

On the BALM side, the Ramban's famous "qadeish es atzmekha bema shemutar
lakh" is similar. Not every duty to G-d can be made a black-letter rule,
so HQBH also gave us the av, the basic principle, from which to derive
lifnim mishuras hadin.

: On the contrary, to my ears, the comparison being made by the Bartenura
: is that Pirkei Avos lists broad categories, and that similar things (that
: Toldos of these Avos) are equally important....

I erred, and it's not the Bartenura, it's the Tif'eres Yisrael, in
the name of those qwho cam before him ("kisvu qama'ei"). See
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40276&;pgnum=433>.

The notion that these categories are themselves obligation names is
a mistaken parallel you're drawing from my giving another example of
this translation of "av". All I meant was to justify not translating
it as "... of the fathers".

He is saying that the mitzvos are tolados, and these are the avos
(which also "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai"). Still, once we have the av,
we can construct other tolados that are more situationally defined,
along the lines of the Ramban above.

: But the comparison to Avos Melacha does not specify where Pirkei Avos
: falls on that spectrum...

??? Pirqei AVOS are the avos, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:20:23AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 9:55 AM, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
>> I think that one should distinguish the practice of blowing the shofar
>> after davening is over and other chumrot. Most agree that this is beyond
>> even a chumra and is more like a hanhaga tovah, which shows our love of
>> the mitzvah of Shofar.

> I thought blowing the shofar after davening was to confuse the Satan;
> just when he thought it was safe to come back, here they are blowing again!

To ask the question often asked of the skipped day of shofar blowing: Is
the satan that dim that he'd not only fall for it once, but even annually?

The satan is the YhR (and mal'akh hamaves). Confusing the satan requires
confounding something internal to the person the satan would otherwise
sway.

PERHAPS, it's that the yeitzer hara makes great use of routine to
lull my hislahavus and to keep me in a rut rather than pulling out and
doing teshuvah. Therefore, anything that breaks routine is "le'arbev
es hasatan".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

<<On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 12:01:23PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> At some point, the probability gets to be a small enough miut that it's
:> ignorable.

: Why?  If at any given point, you still have only a 50% chance of getting a
: head?

If brushing one's hair is pesiq reishei for pulling hairs out, it's
not because we consider the odds of uprooting each hair as a separate
risk.   AIUI, the odds add up. >>

Changing the topic there have been major debates in EY about ribis and heter
iska for banks.
Many years ago the Mizrachi bank was sued in court for a loan that defaulted
that they signed a heter iska and so should participate in the loss.

As a result various rabbis worked on a new version of a heter iska. The main
problem is that the rational of the heter iska is that the bank takes some
risk. However, if there is any reasonable risk then the bank won't make a
loan. The solution was to write the heter iska so that the possible risk is
extremely small so as to be negligible while not being zero.

If ome takes Chana's argument to the limit -  a one in a billion chance is
ignored in halacha just as we ignore insects we can't see. As pointed out in
the past even chamtez on Pesach which is not batel even if there exists a
mash-shehu is batul if the amount is so small as to be insignificant.
Otherwise every mixture in the world has some infinitesimal amount of
chametz from the air.
Hence, I would assume that if a device has a one in a billion chance of not
working that doesnt make it into grama. So the only question is what is the
cutoff. Standard psak in many areas is that a small miut of under 5% doesnt
count

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/1a7aeaed/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
> :> At some point, the probability gets to be a small enough miut that
> it's
> :> ignorable.

And I responded:
 
> : Why?  If at any given point, you still have only a 50% chance of
> : getting a head?

RMB commented:

> If brushing one's hair is pesiq reishei for pulling hairs out, it's
> not because we consider the odds of uprooting each hair as a separate
> risk.   AIUI, the odds add up. >>

And the RET responded

> Changing the topic there have been major debates in EY about ribis and
> heter iska for banks. Many years ago the Mizrachi bank was sued in court for a loan that
> defaulted that they signed a heter iska and so should participate in
> the loss.

Actually this is not a change of topic at all, it is a brilliant case to illustrate my point.  

> As a result various rabbis worked on a new version of a heter iska. The
> main problem is that the rational of the heter iska is that the bank
> takes some risk. However, if there is any reasonable risk then the bank
> won't make a loan.

Actually, that is not true -all banks take risks when they make loans. 
They take the risk that the business or company or individual they lend to
will fail or become insolvent or become bankrupt or that the price of the
property given a collateral will fall and be irrecoverable.  All bankers
when they enter into loans know they are taking these risk, they attempt to
assess it, but it is a given that some loans will fail.  Every bank in
existence has a bad loans department that attempts to deal with loans in
default, including, ultimately, writing them off.  How do they mitigate
that risk?  Very simply, by entering into large numbers of loans, making an
overall assessment of the risk, and hopefully making enough profit off the
other loans so as to allow for those loans that go bad.  It is when *too
many* loans go bad that the banks are in trouble, not the reality that any
given loan carries a risk.

However, the issue vis a vis the halacha, is that the risk that somebody
will be declared insolvent/bankrupt and will never have to repay the loan
is not considered an adequate form of risk within halacha (perhaps partly
because there is no law of bankruptcy/insolvency in halacha), thus, to make
a heter iska be considered valid in halacha, *additional* risk to the
standard systemic risk needs to be added, risk that relates specifically to
the project or nature to which the money is put.

 The solution was to write the heter iska so that the
> possible risk is extremely small so as to be negligible while not being
> zero.

The point being for the banks, that if they have to take on additional risk
over and above the usual risk which is already factored into the way they
do business (or one hopes so, part of the credit crunch crisis over the
last few years has to do precisely with the banks inadequately factoring in
the risks that they were in fact taking), that may make the loan
unprofitable (especially if a comparable rate of interest is offered to
that being offered by the non Jewish competitor  banks).  Again, if they
could do *enough* of these loans so as to mean that overall, despite anyone
having a higher probability of failure, the profit from the majority that
go OK make up for it, then it would be an economic proposition for any
bank, but that means a level of volume that tiny Israel (or at least the
frum portion of it seeking such loans) cannot necessarily provide.  Hence
the need to make the additional risk relatively small.

> If ome takes Chana's argument to the limit -  a one in a billion chance
> is ignored in halacha just as we ignore insects we can't see. As
> pointed out in the past even chamtez on Pesach which is not batel even
> if there exists a mash-shehu is batul if the amount is so small as to
> be insignificant. Otherwise every mixture in the world has some
> infinitesimal amount of chametz from the air.

But, as I have mentioned in my other post - this is a case of "in space",
an infinitesimal amount is a spacial measurement, and this we clearly do
ignore at the limits.

> Hence, I would assume that if a device has a one in a billion chance of
> not working that doesnt make it into grama.  So the only question is
> what is the cutoff. Standard psak in many areas is that a small miut of
> under 5% doesnt count

This is if the correct analysis is to look at the device as a whole, then I
would agree.  But the question becomes, at what point do you look at "the
device as a whole"?  Because, if you look at a bank as a whole, one that
makes a billion loans - then, even with a reasonable (eg well above 5%)
risk on every single one of these loans, according to this analysis, the
bank as a whole will still "work" and is "virtually guaranteed to make a
profit" because spread over that number of loans at a reasonable level of
interest, even having a significant number of loans going bad would still
leave it with a tidy profit.  So if you look at a bank as a whole, then you
can say that in fact the bank takes virtually no risk whatsoever, or has
only a one in billion chance of not working.  Thus if your overall "one in
a billion chance of not working"  is applied to a bank, whatever heter iska
you attempt to write for any individual loan is completely irrelevant, the
bank takes virtually no ri
 sk, and hence cannot charge interest.

However this is not the approach taken by the poskim.  What they do is look
at each single individual loan in isolation, and say "does the bank take a
halachically considered risk on *this* loan" and if yes, then the loan is
permissible if drafted in heter iska form.

Similarly, the question is, do you look at the kosher switch overall, like
the bank, or do you look at each individual coin toss?	If you look at each
individual coin toss, well then the risk of failure is 50%, which is
clearly pretty high.  The fact that, like with the bank, if there are a
billion of them, you end up with a very low risk should similarly be
irrelevant.

Now RMB's point is that with hair pulling, for each individual hair, the
risk might not be that high of it being pulled out, but if we look at the
head of hair as a whole, then given the large number of hairs, one of them
surely will be.  What I have tried to point out is that the analysis of the
head of hair and the treatment of it as a whole is in the case of virtually
instantaneous brushing and that is why it is appropriate to treat it as a
whole.	On the other hand, the bank with its loans by no means concludes
them instantaneously (those that it does indeed conclude instantaneously
might perhaps more legitimately be considered one transaction) and that is
why we have to look at it on a loan by loan basis, and not an overall bank
basis.	On that basis, it seems to me that a series of coin tossing which
occurs one after another is more like the case of the bank than the case of
the head of hair.

> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

": But how does eating on the 9th serve "as if we fasted"?
: Or maybe more to the point, what are we supposed to be thinking about as we
: eat?

I think it should be considered an opportunity to practice eating in
order to live a life of avodas Hashem, rather than living to eat."

When I was a teenager I spent one erev YK morning sucking hard candies.  My
mother finally had it with me and told me to stop it.  I piously explained
that I read that the Chafetz Chaim did this all day because of the mitzvah
to eat on erev YK.  My mother replied: "Exactly; he did it because of the
mitzvah and you're doing it because you like candy."  (My mother was a wise
woman.)

Joseph Kaplan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111011/5d6c4e4c/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 207
***************************************

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..."