Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 147

Mon, 29 Oct 2012

• 1. EATING BEFORE KIDDUSH and HAVDALAH (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: The Three-Ply Cord | Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Pronunciation Of Hebrew Benedictions, And Two Other Questions (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Pronunciation Of Hebrew Benedictions, And Two Other Questions (menucha)
• 5. Re: Pronunciation Of Hebrew Benedictions, And Two Other Questions (Zev Sero)
• 6. Tinok Shenishbeh (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: web site on shabbat (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Re: Tinok Shenishbeh (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: The Three-Ply Cord | Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog (Akiva Miller)
• 10. medical care for goyim (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Kashrus Certification, passover comment - moved to Avodah (Prof. Levine)
• 12. More on Kitniyos On Pesach (Prof. Levine)
• 13. What is Se'or? (Akiva Miller)
• 14. Who?s Afraid of Change? Rethinking the Yeshivah Curriculum (with URL included) (Prof. Levine)

Please see http://tinyurl.com/9qflhn6

YL

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:01:23AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: Link: http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/10/12/the-three-ply-cord/ (sent via
: Shareaholic)

In retrospect, I am glad I accidentally hit the approve button and
reraised this conversation here. (It's already on Areivim.)

But before I get to the on-topic stuff, since it did appear here I want
to add a disclaimer:
: Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog
...
: Posted on October 12, 2012 | 7 Comments

: A new unpublished study recently brought to my attention has challenging
: implications for the Torah world ? to wit, that 50% of the graduates of
: Modern Orthodox high schools are no longer Shabbat or Kashrut observant
: within two years of their graduation....

RSP since told R/D Paul Shaviv (the Head of School of Ramaz) that he
didn't see the report and was relying on rumor. We know a disappointing
number of our children aren't staying observant. But these frightening
numbers are far from confirmed. And as RSP notes in his article, some
fraction of that 50% didn't enter HS from observant homes.

: King Solomon stated in his wisdom "Two are better than one, for they get a
: greater return for their effort." But three are even better, "for the
: three-ply cord is not easily severed" (Kohelet 4:9,12). The Midrash
: (Kohelet Raba 4) interprets this as applicable to family continuity: "R.
: Zi'era said that a family of scholars will produce scholars, and a family
: of Bnai Torah will produce Bnai Torah...
:                                        I said "for the three-ply cord is
: NOT EASILY severed.' ..." [emphasis mine]

A balebatishe question on R' Ze'ira / Zeira: Is there evidence of even
this "not easily", though? Do children of rabbinic lineage leave the
qehilah less often than other children?

:             That should be obvious, because parents have the primary
: obligation of educating their children -- "you shall teach [these words] to
: your children to speak of them?" (Devarim 11:19). Even if parents delegate
: this task, they still remain primarily responsible....

I think there is a different distinction, related to niskatnu hadoros:
    R' Papa said to Abayei, "How is it that earlier generations had
    miracles happen for them, but we don't get miracles? It can't be
    because of their [superior] learning, because in the years of Rav
    Yehudah all of their studies were limited to Nezikin [the section
    of the Mishnah dealing with damages], yet we study all six orders
    [of the Mishnah]; and when Rav Yehudah reached in [tractate] Uqtzin
    [the discussion of], 'If a woman presses vegetables in a pot' (others
    say [the part] 'olives pressed with their leaves are clean'), he used
    to say, 'I see all the difficulties of Rab and Samuel here.' yet we
    have thirteen versions of Uqtzin.

    "But, when Rav Yehudah took off his first shoe [at the very start
    of a fast], rain used to come, while we torment ourselves and cry
    loudly, and no notice is taken of us!"

    He [Abayei] replied, "The earlier generations were mosrin nafshan
    aqidushas hasheim; we are not mosrinin nafshin aqidushas hasheim."
                            - Berakhos 20a

The issue is how to relay to the next generation the values that make
living al pi haTorah worth the necessary mesiras nefesh.

What it takes to have mesiras nefesh is not book knowledge. R' Yehudah's
generation had less textual information, but they had more mesiras
nefesh. In more recent history, they correspond to the East European
kid who went to cheider until he apprenticed to someone at age 13.

What we delegate to schools is nearly entirely teaching our children how
to someday learn those "13 versions of Uqtzin". I would argue that relaying
mesiras nefesh has to be mimetic (by seviva and imimtation). School can
play a role, but it's not the primary determinant of the culture in which
our youth live. And more importantly, the culture which they perceive
themselves as living in; having a lot of fire that doesn't reach their
perception doesn't help this issue much.

School does have opportunities for informal education. And there is also
the role-model rabbi. But there is also peer pressure. And the kid who
is leaving is likely in the track that has a lot of kids who are leaving.

Sleepaway camp actually can do more in this regard than school. (I
mentioned on Areivim that the C movement found this when they did a
study of Schechter and Camp Ramah alumni.)

Shul should be a big part of the experience of home life.

But the bottom line is the parents. And I don't mean that the majority
of the parents of kids who go OTD practice something less than what they
preach. I feel that it's that the parent is facing a greater challenge
than in the past, one at which many lack the ability to succeed.

Life is changing rapidly. How do parents who grew up without email relate
to children who are never out of contact with friends, who think FaceBook
friendships are actual meaningful relationships, who live in a world
where people are reading porn describing deviant sexuality in public
("50 Shades"), etc...? You can have filtered internet, and curtail your
teen's access, but you can't filter reality.

This is why a child of a father who goes to shul three minyanim almost
every weekday, and who sacrifices to keep up for daf yomi still often
ends up at risk. They don't see any of this as worth the effort. (Despite
RSP attibuting the phenomenon largely to O-lite homes where they don't
see bigdei Shabbos.

For that matter, today, little that are youth do other than sports
requires much effort. When doesn't even take "mesiras nefesh" to research
a schoool report, how do we tell them that davening, learning, preparing
for Shabbos, and going without their electronic toys on day a week are
worth self-sacrifice?

There is a fundamentally different psychology between people who grew
up expecting to be able to plan their days, and people who grow up
expecting to respond to phone calls, emails and texts. (And related to
this is NCSY's decision to set up drop-in zones.)

So how do you pass the torch a generation gap that wide?

Which leads to two opposite concerns:

How much does the general society have to bury their higher culture before
MO doesn't make sense? When participating in society doesn't give one
much greater exposure to higher secular learning or to refined aesthetic
experiences, should MO close shop? And if so, where is the red line?

Since no filter is perfect, even a boy raised in the heart of Bnei Braq
or Meah Shearim will know there are other options out there, even if
he doesn't know much about what they are? How many will we lose if we
do not maintain an approach to Torah that includes access to the more
constructive of those options? (Assuming enough still exist...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

From: "Akiva Miller"  <kennethgmil...@juno.com>

>>  1) Why the "e.g."? Are  there other examples? By my recollections, 
Chalitza and Birkas Kohanim are the  only two things that must be said in Lashon 
Hakodesh.<<


Akiva  Miller

 
 
>>>>
 
I offer -- in question form -- two other examples of things that  I think 
have to be said in Lashon Hakodesh:  "Biarti hakodesh min  habayis...." and 
"Harei at mekudeshes li....."
 
The question is, am I right?  Do these things have to be said using  these 
exact Hebrew words?
 

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




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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121025/6c87a013/attachment-0001.htm>

 Kidushin can be done in any language that the woman understands. 
(Rambam Ishut 3,8)
Mikra Bikurim must be said in Lashon hakodesh (Sotah 7, Mishna 2)  The 
whole list appears there.

BTW, I remember watching a chalitza video on the internet and the 
insistence of the Dayan on proper pronunciation.  Does anyone have a 
link to that video?

menucha

>  <>
> >>  1) Why the "e.g."? Are there other examples? By my recollections, 
> Chalitza and Birkas Kohanim are the only two things that must be said 
> in Lashon Hakodesh.<<
>
> Akiva Miller
>  
> I offer -- in question form -- two other examples of things that I 
> think have to be said in Lashon Hakodesh:  "Biarti hakodesh min 
> habayis...." and "Harei at mekudeshes li....."
>  
> The question is, am I right?  Do these things have to be said using 
> these exact Hebrew words?
>   <>
> --Toby Katz
> =============


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121025/7c42589d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 25/10/2012 10:29 AM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> I offer -- in question form -- two other examples of things that I
> think have to be said in Lashon Hakodesh:	"Biarti hakodesh min
> habayis...." and "Harei at mekudeshes li....."
> The question is, am I right?  Do these things have to be said using these exact Hebrew words?

1. Yes.
2. No

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I wrote:
>> Not so of course as it might seem.  The Rambam states in hilchos shabbas
>> perek 30 halacha 15 that [...] one who is mechallel shabbas befarhesia
>> behold he is like who worships idols and both of these are like a non Jew
>> in all respects.  And then further in hilchos oved chochavim perek 2
>> halacha 5 that not only one who is a mumar l'oved kochavim is a non Jew
>> in all respects but that  v'ain mekablin otum b'teshuva l'olam.

And RZS replied:

>First of all, he doesn't say that about an idolater but about "haminim
>miyisrael".

Well it depends how you understand the v'chen", as to whether the ain
mekablin b'teshuva goes more widely.  But certainly if you understand this
din of ain mekablin b'teshuva as being sourced as the Kesef Mishna does,
including in the gemora in Chullin which says that we do not accept a korban
from a mumar l'nesach es hayayin and one who is mechalel shabbas b'farhesia
- then it is clear that it is going on both (which is not to say, as the
Lechem Mishna points out, that HaShem might not accept teshuva from such a
person, just that we are not authorised to).

>But more importantly, it's impossible to read this as a
>halacha that they can't do teshuvah and we should reject their korbanos.
>The Torah explicitly prescribes korbanos for AZ.

Yes, but that relates to the point you make below regarding shogeg and
mezid.  You do not bring a korban for mezid.  If somebody was b'shogeg in
AZ, certainly he can bring a korban.  But if somebody was b'mezid in AZ,
then we cannot accept his korban - even for anything else he did b'shogeg.

> For that matter, we accept korbanos from a goy,

Based on the same gemora in Chullin 5a which says that we do not accept a
korban from a mumar l'manesach yayin and a mechalel shabbas b'farhesia.

> so even if an ex-mumar remains like a goy on what grounds could we reject
his korbanos.

Because the din of him being like a goy is in relation to other aspects
(such as shechting, which is how the gemora got into this), but in relation
to korbanos the gemora is explicit that we accept from goyim but not from
people in this category

> Furthermore, see Hil' Teshuvah 3:14, which explicitly says that "minim"
(see 3:7) and
>"meshumadim" *are* accepted if they do teshuvah.

Hence the Lechem Mishna's resolution of the distinction between HaShem
accepting (which can occur) and people, which may not.

>But we both missed another point (or at least I missed it, and I *think*
>you did too). A korban chatas is only brought for chilul shabbos (or AZ)
>*beshogeg*. The premise of the gemara is that a TSN is shogeg, and the
>question is only how many shgagos he committed, and the answer is one.

No I didn't miss it - that is precisely the point, clearly the gemora
considers him a shogeg.

>If we consider him mezid then we would not accept his chata'os because
>he doesn't owe any, and there's no such thing as a voluntary chatas.

Yes.

>Rather, we would advise him to bring olos for his teshuvah, and to bring
>as many as his conscience dictated.

No, because as a mechallel shabbas b'farhesia b'mezid we are forbidden to
take his korbanos (any korbanos, even voluntary ones), so we couldn't accept
these either.

>> So there is a serious question as to whether somebody who was mechallel
>> shabbas b'farhesia is considered to have put himself so far beyond the
pale
>> as to never able to be received in teshuva.  Now pashtus of the brief
>> discussion of the gemora regarding a TSN is not, but it is not an "of
>> course".  You could say that such a person has defined himself as a non
Jew
>> by his acts, and cannot come back.

>Again, even an actual non-Jew is welcome to come, so how can an apostate
>not be welcome back? 

The "and" there is not a therefore (although it might well read like it is)
- rather he is (a) like a non Jew in all respects except that (b) unlike a
non Jew, who can become a ger, he cannot come back - or at least *we* are
not allowed to accept him back, even if HaShem might.

>But the entire premise of TSN is that he is shogeg.

Yes, that is from the gemora in Shabbas.  But if we only had the gemora in
Chullin and the various statements sourced from it, one might not reach that
conclusion.  You have to apply the gemora in Shabbas as a qualification on
the gemora in Chullin.  I agree it makes sense, but it is not as automatic
as you seemed to be implying.

>The question here is whether the person we're discussing, who knows about
Shabbos but through no fault of his own doesn't believe it to be true,
>is a TSN.

Agreed.

>No, if *that's* what he thinks, that it's just a minhag that very
>religious people keep, rather than Jewish law that all Jews are meant to
>keep, then he's still a TSN lechol hade'os. The question arises when
>he knows that Jewish law requires it of all Jews, but he thinks Jewish
>law is itself a myth, something that isn't binding or relevant to him.

That is probably a better formulation than I provided for the reasons you
provide.

>And that's something the gemara didn't really deal with, because in their
>day it wasn't a metzius. Everyone in their day knew and accepted that
>Jews must keep Jewish law. 

As a matter of pure fact, that is not true.  My knowledge of the Xtian
Testament is rather rusty, but I think it is Acts in which Paul (I think, or
was it Peter?) is supposedly shown a vision which stated that Jewish law is
now abrogated.  That Jews no longer have to keep Jewish law was very much
part of the Xtian message from Paul onwards.  Of course this was bone fide
minus.

>The only things a TSN might not have known were either that he is Jewish,
or what Jewish law requires.

Given the background above, it was highly likely that if the TSN was
captured by Xtians, he might well know what Jewish law requires, and that he
is Jewish, and still believe that Jewish law is a myth - or abrogated (ie
modern 2nd or 5th century Jews don't do this, because of the coming of etc)

But we don't get any discussions from Chazal on this one way or the other -
the first hint we have is in the Rambam, and his responses to the children
of the Karaim - which is what the Binyan Tzion draws on very heavily to
formulate his opinion.

>Knowing that driving in that area on Shabbos risks a rock doesn't mean he
>knows that driving is forbidden on Shabbos. He may think it's a crazy
>charedi chumra. If I carry in an eruv that I believe is kosher, but
>know that certain people will call me "sheigetz", or even throw stones
>at me, does that mean I know I'm being mechalel shabbos?! Surely even
>if the Sanhedrin eventually were to rule that they were right and the
>eruv was pasul, I would be deemed a shogeg and would be ordered to bring
>a chatas. So even by the strict definition a person driving on Shabbos
>may still be a TSN. 

Perhaps I was painting with too broad a brush when I said that knowing that
one risks a rock is enough,  but if you go that far the other way then all
true minim are by definition TSN - because a min, by definition, believes he
is right and "those rabbis" are wrong regarding how to keep shabbas, or the
necessity of keeping shabbas.  The Rambam (on which the Binyan Tzion draws)
draws a clear distinction between the original Karaim and their children.
But surely the original Karaim truly believed that what they were doing was
right, as certainly did the early Xtians.

So what about your eruv case.  Well certainly *after* the Sanhedrin ruled,
you would be b'mezid if you continued to carry, even if you then concluded
that the Sanhedrin were wrong, and didn't have that authority.  So I can
only conclude that you are only considered b'shogeg if you are within a
certain elu v'elu tolerance - and that is regardless of what some
individuals may call you.

>(Not to mention that he may be driving beheter, e.g. for pikuach nefesh.)

We are certainly not discussing that case- ie the case where, if all the
factual circumstances were made known, it would be agreed that it was mutar.

>Zev Sero

Regards

Chana

RMB asks:

>Makkos 9a says that the omer mutar is acting be'oneis. (Then there
>is a machloqes whether in the case of killing a geir toshav it may be
>sufficiently qarov lemeizid to be chayav biYdei Shamayim.)

>Wouldn't the person who knows that there is a tradition not to write two
>letters on Shabbos, but thinks that the whole concept isn't real be an
>omer mutar, an oneis, not even on the shogeig spectrum?

But, as I said in my previous post to RZS, if you take this too far, it
becomes virtually impossible to have genuine minus.  Because every min is an
omer mutar - If Paul had a vision which said that it was now mutar to eat
treif, and he went around preaching it, according to you then based on
Makkos 9a as an omer mutar he is acting b'oneis - and is therefore a shogeg
or maybe not even on the shogeg spectrum.  And it doesn't matter "why" he is
an omer mutar, and whether or not it is reasonable, he is still (at a
minimum) a shogeg and perhaps not even on the shogeig spectrum but an oneis.

>And if not, why wouldn't his ignorance of the reality of the consequences
put him on the shogeig spectrum, whether shogeig or TSN?

Is it at all possible that any min really has a true knowledge of the
reality of the consequences and yet does it anyway?  Do you think that is
true of the minim throughout history - including the ones that we daven
three times daily should have no hope!?!

But by saying what you are saying you are seriously undercutting and
virtually doing away with a large concept in Chazal (and our tephilos). 

>Either way, I don't understand the tzad lechumerah.

As I wrote in response to RZS, in order to preserve the existence of the
halacha of minus, they would understand the concept of "omer mutar" as being
within a certain limited framework, not involving tampering with the
fundamental ikkarim (however one defines them).

On the other hand we, following (and extending, to be fair) the Binyan Tzion
- in the various initial teshuvos, there was an assumption that the people
they were talking about, although they may not have been keeping shabbas,
were turning up to minyan, and by doing so were acknowledging both the
existence of HKBH and demonstrating a certain allegiance to the tradition as
by their very fealty to Orthodox services.  Today we take it a lot further
than that.  

However even this position doesn't say that anybody who says omer mutar
about anything at all is a shogeg.  Only that the modern secular environment
is a new thing that is very powerful in a way we haven't seen previously
and it has the consequence that somebody taught within it and hence
influenced by it can be considered like somebody captured and taken away to
a place without Jews.  But not that all environments everywhere do this.

>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Regards

Chana

On 25/10/2012 8:32 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> >And that's something the gemara didn't really deal with, because in their
>> >day it wasn't a metzius. Everyone in their day knew and accepted that
>> >Jews must keep Jewish law.

> As a matter of pure fact, that is not true.  My knowledge of the Xtian
> Testament is rather rusty, but I think it is Acts in which Paul (I think, or
> was it Peter?) is supposedly shown a vision which stated that Jewish law is
> now abrogated.  That Jews no longer have to keep Jewish law was very much
> part of the Xtian message from Paul onwards.  Of course this was bone fide
> minus.
>

Chazal, at any rate, seem to have been unaware of such a metzius.
They explicitly assumed that all people accepted the truth of the Torah.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer quoted from "Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog":

> Children who see their parents prioritize shul - not once or
> twice a week, but every day - see shul as a value. Children
> who see their parents attend shul once a week and primarily
> socialize and converse while there see shul as a place to meet
> their friends. When older, they can just bypass the middleman
> and just go straight to their friends.

What about the parent who DOES "attend shul once a week and primarily
socialize and converse while there"? Is Rabbi Pruzansky really saying that
this parent does NOT "see shul as a value"? I think such a parent would
feel quite insulted if one accused him of that!

One of my earliest memories as a beginning Baal Teshuva -- perhaps even
from before I began to improve any of my observances -- is an understanding
of the concept of Yeridas Hadoros. Of course, I had never heard that term
before, and did not even realize that it was an acknowledged sociological
phenomenon. But I had perceived differences from my grandparents' to my
parents' to my own generation, in mitzvos in general and in intermarriage
in particular. And I came to understand not only the causes for this
yeridah, but I figured out the antidote to it as well.

Simply put: A parent cannot possibly give his entire psychological makeup
into his child. If the parent feels strongly about something, the child
cannot possibly acquire those strong feelings simply by osmosis. The only
solution is for the parent to put an active effort into infusing his child
with those feelings, and if he fails to do so, then all bets are off.

Previous generations grew up with a very strong Jewish (or American, for
that matter) consciousness, and many factors helped to keep it that way.
But the parents made the mistake of presuming that their children would
feel as strongly as they did. The children usually did share their parents
feelings, but not quite as strongly. And the next generation even less so.
In many cases, it reached a point where the child's level dropped to a
point which shocked the parent, but the child genuinely could not
understand why the parent was making such a big deal over it.

Rav Moshe Feinstein is often quoted as bemoaning the phrase "It's tough to
be a Jew." I'm not disagreeing -- it accelerated what would have happened
even without that phrase. But the options are not binary: Beyond
complaining that it is tough, or not complaining about it, there's a third
option: Reveling in how *rewarding* it is to be a Jew!

Rabbi Pruzansky suggests a solution:

> To me, it all goes back to basics - not just what the
> parents say, but what parents say and do. The "chut
> hameshulash" - the "three-ply cord" of our world is Torah
> study, prayer and Shabbat - and in no particular order.

I agree about the "no particular order" part, but I'd go even further, to
suggest that it isn't even critical to single out these three mitzvos, or
even any other three mitzvos. The critical element, in my view, is simply
to give one's child a sense of

... Sorry about that. I had to step aside for a few minutes to collect my
thoughts. Because there is no "one size fits all" solution. For one child,
you have to impress upon him how *important* this is. Another needs to see
how *enjoyable* it is. A third needs the intellectual stimulation. The only
thing they all have in common is that you have to work on it. You can't
just presume that the kids will absorb it naturally.

Unfortunately, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here. How can I
communicate these ideas to the "If it was good enough for my father, then
it's good enough for me" crowd?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508a03fd5e3503fd30a0st02vuc

In his last shiur haRav Zilbersetin mentioned the importance of giving
medical care to nonJews including shabbat
and claimed it was a Deoraisa

1) When Lianado hospital was formed item number 1 in its charter is that it
was available for all people independent of religion.
The Klausenberger rebbe explained that he he lost everything in the
Holocaust he was once wounded. When trying to put a
bandage on the wound a Nazi ripped it off and said Jews dont deserve
medical care. He then vowed that if he was saved
he would set up a hospital that would would serve all people.

2) Rav Meir Simcha explains that the halacha of "yefat toar" holds only if
the enemy does not a single Jewish captive"
Otherwise it is forbidden to marry a captive. After the war is completed
the two sides will exchange captives.
The Jew who married the "yefat Toar" will refuse to give up his wife (and
possibly she will not want to go back).
Because of that the enemy will refuse to give up their Jewish captive.

Hence, Eivah is built into Torah law and is not some external reason

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121027/656159f4/attachment-0001.htm>

Moved from Areivim to Avodah at the suggestion of the moderators.  YL

At 04:00 PM 10/28/2012, Ben Waxman wrote:

 >Kitniyot being batel b'rov isn't Rav Brody's chiddush.

Of course not!  (BTW,  I did not know that Martin Brody was a
rov.)   Nonetheless,  l'chatchila most kashrus organizations do not
rely on bitul when it comes to giving supervision on Pesach products.

  From http://tinyurl.com/9bz243u

Bitel

Kitniyos is butel b'rov if it was mixed into a food.107

107 Refer to Rama 453:1, Pri Chadash 1, Elya Rabbah 4,
Chok Yaakov 6, Shulchan Aruch Harav 5, Chai Adom
127:1, Mishnah Berurah 9, Yesodo Yeshurin 6:pages 414-
415, Oz Nedberu 8:20:4. See Halachos of Pesach page 104
who brings those who argue.

So apparently this is not universally accepted.

There is an informative article about kitnyos at http://tinyurl.com/8co3rq9

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121029/25c744f4/attachment-0001.htm>

See http://tinyurl.com/8e35ol2

With Tishrei behind us, I'm starting to think about Nisan. In particular,
I'm trying to understand the difference between Chametz and Se'or. These
seem to be two distinct items, as is clearly shown in Shemos 13:7: "...
v'lo yayraeh l'cha chametz, v'lo yayraeh l'cha se'or..." If one were
included in the other, it would not be necessary to specify both. (Except,
perhaps, to double the penalty for the included one.)

So what *is* se'or? The common translation is sourdough: Ordinary dough is
allowed to ferment so long that it becomes sour and useful as a starter
(enzyme?) to help other doughs rise. If so, isn't se'or included in
chametz? My wild guess is that in the process of dough becoming sourdough,
it becomes *so* sour that it is nifsal me'achilas kelev, and thereby no
longer subject to the halachos of chametz. Therefore, the Torah chose to
establish a new category for it, so that it too would be forbidden on
Pesach.

But that's only my guess: That chemically, se'or is indeed chametz, and
that it is a new halachic category established for this purpose. Am I
anywhere close to the truth? Has anyone written on this? Is the correct
answer different?

Thank you!
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508ebec2e9f893ec2184cst04vuc

The following are some selections from Rabbi 
Berel Wein's article with the above title.  See 
http://tinyurl.com/28td9kw for the entire article.  YL

It is no secret that many of our day school and 
yeshivah graduates are not very literate in 
Hebrew language, know little Nach, are unexcited 
by the study of Mishnah and Talmud and are 
therefore in jeopardy of becoming children at 
risk. Though the problem is widespread and well 
known to all in the educational field and 
certainly to the parents of these children, it is 
not widely discussed in terms of curriculum emphasis and adaptation.

Generally, in our current religious society, 
legends, fantasies and inaccurate nostalgia are 
taught as facts. Fanciful stories that appear in 
current Orthodox newspapers and periodicals are 
believed as being factually true by children who 
are completely unaware of the simple meaning of 
the verses of the Torah that they have allegedly 
covered in school. To say that this may create a 
distorted view of Torah and Judaism is an understatement.

The study of Tanach is almost an oxymoron 
statement regarding our schools. During my years 
as the head of a high school yeshivah and beit 
midrash program, I discovered that most students 
who graduated from excellent elementary and high 
schools could not even name the twenty-four holy 
books of the Jewish canon. Students revealed 
amazing ignorance about the Hebrew language and 
all of the grammar/dikduk statements of Rashi and 
the other Biblical commentators were never covered in the classroom.

A student who has never studied Sefer Yechezkel, 
Sefer Iyov or Tehillim is unprepared for the 
omnipresent problems of Jewish national? or of his own personal?life.

The Judaic studies program in our boys? schools 
is very heavily Talmud oriented from fifth and sixth grade onwards.

In previous generations in Europe and the early 
years in America, the study of Talmud was 
reserved for superior students and certainly not 
for the masses. All of this has changed in our 
current generation. The study of Talmud is 
widespread among adults and mandatory for our 
boys and, in some circles, even for our girls.

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky, the sage of American 
Jewish life in the past generation, told me that 
it is wrong to impose an elitist education on the 
masses. But that is exactly what we are doing. 
The danger that all of us are aware of?it is the 
unspoken elephant in the room?is that a child who 
dislikes the study of Talmud at the age of ten is 
more than likely to dislike it even more at 
seventeen, and this leads often to tragic 
results, both personally and religiously.

A further element concerning curriculum in Jewish 
schools should be an accurate and inspirational 
presentation of Jewish history. A generation that 
has little knowledge of our past is always 
blindsided by current events. A student of Jewish 
history, even a cursory one, will realize that 
the problems that we face today are not new ones.

Jewish history is a sourcebook for faith and 
hope, for inspiration and tenacity. But Jewish 
history that is fanciful and false?stories that 
have no factual basis, inaccurate and 
hagiographic biographies, the portrayal of the 
past in the light of current political 
correctness? is a false and ultimately 
uninspiring and self-defeating educational 
venture. I think that false history, a form of 
poisonous insidious propaganda, is perhaps worse 
in the long run than no history at all.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121029/2858a838/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 147
***************************************

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..."