Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 47

Tue, 19 Mar 2013

• 1. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: A Different Approach to Sheidim (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. RSRH On the Fourth Cup (Prof. Levine)
• 4. ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS! (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 5. HKB"H doesn't give you more than you can bear... (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 6. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Gebrochts, the ShTeshuvah, MA and MHaShekel; Angels in the Mezuzah (Meir Rabi)
• 8. ein mevatlin (Eli Turkel)
• 9. The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu? (Prof. Levine)
• 10. KLP Lecithin in chocolate and corn syrup (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 11. Re: The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu? (Harry Maryles)
• 12. Re: The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu? (Micha Berger)

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:

> ... while individuals (including police officers) may well
> be motivated by anti-semitism, the overall law is not

R' Zev Sero responded:

> I don't see how that matters.  It's not the overall law
> that's the problem, it's the enforcement. If the enforcement
> (in your hypothetical) is targeted at us, then it's close to
> "she'as hashmad", and since we *can* fight it we should. And
> an individual who compromises his observance in order to
> comply with it harms that cause.

Basically, I think R' Zev's argument is sound, except for one very big
practical problem: The she'as hashmad is coming from one or several police
officers, and not from the overall law itself. Therefore, the fight and
resistance needs to be against the enforcement, not against the
legislators.

The intention of the legislators was non-discriminatory, and intended only
for general security, not anti-Semitic purposes. Any attempt to paint the
legislators as anti-Semitic will backfire badly, and we will be seen as
unpatriotic crybabies who are trying to skirt the law for our own
interests.

But if our reaction can be targeted specifically at the anti-Semitic police
officers, that would be quite appropriate in my view. The difficulty, of
course, would be proving that they were indeed targeting us in an
anti-Semitic manner. I suppose a good place to look for more info on this
would be the phrase "racial profiling".

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Gaviscon® Official Site
Gaviscon® Relieves Heartburn Fast! See Products, Heartburn Info & More
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5145bca758b963ca72b51st04vuc

R' Micha Berger cited R' Mordechai Torczyner's blog post, which quoted Rav Yitzchak Hutner:

> ... Those creatures are the ones called sheidim -- theirs is
> an existence which is not an existence.
>
> When we say of something that it is only imagination, we mean
> that nothing like it exists in reality. However, certainly,
> for one who deals in human psychology, when he investigates
> the activities of the human brain, for him this imagination is
> certainly full-fledged reality.

To me, this sounds identical (or at least very close) to the view which
I've often heard expressed as: "If you believe in them, then they are real.
But if you don't believe in them, then don't worry about them."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

The first two volumes of the Collected Writings of RSRH contain 
insightful essays into the Jewish calendar.  In his essay Nissan 
IV,  Rav Hirsch discusses the significance of each cup that we drink 
at the Seder.  I found his comments on the fourth cup inspiring.  He 
explains the wonderful privilege it is to be a Jew.  I have put his 
comments at  h
ttp://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/nissan_iv_fourth_cup.pdf

Much of the RSRH's writings about Nissan and other months are available at

http://books.googl
e.com/books?id=Ky302zsiHZQC&;printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:cGd
PVTvu97gC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HstFUdG4GZep4APl8YG4AQ&ved=0CEgQ6AE
wBA 


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130317/9f352c0d/attachment-0001.htm>

It is brought down by the Poskim that the main part of Yizkor is not the
Yizkor prayer.								   
									   
							 The primary
accomplishment of Yizkor (brought down by the Poskim) is the actual giving 
									   
									   
				   of tzedakah in the memory of the
deceased. That?s more important than the prayers.

Since this whole topic has been on my mind, I submit the following:
Regarding HKB"H doesn't give more than you can bear --
You can't tell that to the suicide victim, unfortunately, but TELL it to his/her family!

I wrote:
>> the halachic point that a shvus d'shvus b'mkom mitzvah would seem to 
>> be pretty standard,

And RZS replied:

>It is standard, but the standard condition is that it is impossible to
observe the mitzvah in even the most minimal way without violating the shvus
>dishvus.  That's what I'm questioning here.

Where do you see this in the sources?

The classic rishonic machlokus that I am aware of is whether this particular
heter of shvus d'shvus applies solely to the case of mila (Tosphos) or
whether it applies to all mitzvos (the Rambam hilchos shabbas perek 7
halacha 9).

And indeed much of the discussion surrounding this (see Orech Chaim siman
307 in the Beis Yosef, Shulchan Aruch etc) is about telling non Jews to play
musical instruments on shabbas at a wedding (that being the shvus (telling a
non Jew) d'shvus (playing musical instruments) with the mitzvah being being
to be mesameach chatan v'kala).  And while the achronim eventually back away
from this practice, based on various concerns that it was causing more
general zilzul shabbas, and arguing that if there was a power on the rabbis
to  ban even shofar and lulav on shabbas, surely they even in their day can
ban non Jews playing musical instruments at weddings on shabbas, with part
of this ability to ban being derived from noting that the mitzvah of being
mesameach chatan v'kala can quite adequately be carried out with meat and
wine and unaccompanied zmiros etc - ie the mitzvah is quite possible to be
observed in a minimal way without violating the shvus d'shvus - they have to
go to some great lengths to explain why they are no longer relying on the
Ravya and other rishonim who do allow the shvus d'shvus (see the long piece
in the Sde Chemed in helek 7 letter 13 (on page 31 of my edition)).  If it
were the case, as you say, that automatically if one can observe the mitzvah
in the most minimal way without relying on the shvus d'shvus, one does not
allow the shvus d'shvus, the whole discussion would never have got off the
ground in the first place and these rishonim would not exist.

Rather though, one could raise the challenge that (at least according to
some - Rav Moshe disagrees) that as the Yalkut Yosef writes in chelek
Rishon, in the section under Hilchot Tefila letter 3 in the footnote that
the mitzvah of tefila "b'tzibbur" "aina ele mitzvah min hamuvchar"  and is
not such a big mitzvah [v'aina mitzvah kol kach] like the Maharil writes in
the halacha of eruvei tachumim, "that which the Sages permitted an eruv in
the place of a mitzvah, this is like going to a house of feasting [for a
wedding] or a house of mourning, but this is not true of going to pray with
ten as this is not such a big mitzvah since he is able to make his prayers
in his house, that we do not find that the Sages allowed this to make up a
minyan of ten".  And similar to this writes the Chavos Yai'ir (Siman 115)
that he forbad to go in the boat of a non Jew on Shabbat in order to pray
with ten, even though it is a shvus d'shvus  ... in any event to pray with
ten is not such a mitzvah [aina mitzvah kulei hai].  And he brings a proof
to this from the Maharil.  And the Mehabit in the book Beit Elokim (shar
chasidut perek 38) writes that from the time of Moshe until the men of the
great assembly every one prayed individually in his house, and Israel was
not gathered to pray in public in a place specified etc  And see in the Shut
Yad Eliayahu Melublin (Siman 7) that in a situation involving the loss of
money there is no need to pray b'tzibbur.  And even the Magen Avraham (Siman
416 si'if katan 2) who disagrees with the Maharil (and see Yabia Omer chelek
6 Chelek Orech Chaim siman 10 letter 5), all agree that it is a only a
mitzvah min hamuvchar [a matter of doing the mitzvah in the choicest way],
So following the Chavos Yair then one might say that while in general a
shvus d'shvus b'makom mitzvah is permitted, specifically to go to shul it is
not - but as mentioned, others would seem to disagree.


>> Born in 1875 in Poland, was a Rav in Romania for a while. Immigrated 
>> to Israel in 1949. Died in Bnei Brak in 1963.

>Since you have the sefer, can you tell me the date and place of the
teshuvah?  

Unfortunately it is neither dated nor indicates the place - although it may
have been written to the Av Beis Din of Skolin (the problem is that he
tackles three questions in this teshuva, this is the first one, and it is
not clear to me whether all three came from this Av Beis Din or only the
last one and were just grouped together).  

>My point is that the circumstances in which it was written are highly
relevant.  Much of his professional life would have been spent in times of
war and >emergency, and even more of it in times when antisemitism was taken
for granted and "gezeras hamalchus" was a serious matter; ignoring it was
not a >viable option, and the idea of openly defying or fighting it was
simply inconceivable.

As mentioned not clear - all he says is - because of the gezera hamemshala
shenitchadesha byamim haachronim.  

>> Tricky - because while individuals (including police officers) may 
>> well be motivated by anti-semitism, the overall law is not

>I don't see how that matters.  It's not the overall law that's the problem,
it's the enforcement.  If the enforcement (in your hypothetical) is targeted
>at us, then it's close to "she'as hashmad", and since we *can* fight it we
should.  And an individual who compromises his observance in order to comply
>with it harms that cause.

But in my hypothetical, it is only targeted at us if because we are now
known to be law breakers - and it would be targeted at any group who
similarly law broke in this way (to witness the Muslim community).  I don't
think anybody says that if there is reasonable suspicion that Jews are known
to be avoiding taxes, there is a question of shmad if a tax official makes
it his business to raise from Jews the taxes that they are otherwise due to
pay, which everybody else is paying.  Yes if it is focussed on Jews, and
they let everybody else off, that is one thing - but if the law is
universal, but Jews aren't performing it, then the fact that some police
officer thoroughly enjoys hauling the Jews in, doesn't make it a question of
shmad.  

Now clearly if there is a conflict between obeying the law, and obeying a
Torah law, then there is no question, and it does not matter if the law is
universal - but if there is a way of obeying both the general law, and
invoking halachas such as shvus d'shvus, which makes it mutar, I can't see
how the shmad comes into it - the law was not brought in to stop Jews going
to shul, but to make sure that illegal immigrants did not endanger the
national security of the country.

>> If the Orthodox Jewish community fights this, and indeed does get the
authorities to back down, which 
>> again will need to happen publically, the same "heter" will then be 
>> available to the Muslim communities.

>How so?  What religious requirement do they have that would prevent them
from carrying ID on a given day (or ever)?  The Jews wouldn't be campaigning
>for the abolition of the ID law (much as that might be desirable on general
civil liberties grounds, the gemeinde is not the DCLU), but for reasonable
>accommodation of a genuine religious restraint, such as would be routine in
the USA (and would be legally required in the case of a federal law).

Claim a religious objection to carrying ID - I am sure somebody can find a
hadith somewhere that will do the trick.  You may find it dubious, and
indeed the court my find it dubious - but once you open this up to religious
objection it becomes very hard for courts or individual police to deal with
(and why should devout civil liberties advocates claim the exemption
everyday).  Or, for that matter, why can't the Al Queda operative claim
he/she is Jewish when stopped on Shabbat and run your most dangerous
operations on Shabbat - what's a policeman to do?  How can they sought
through those kinds of claims without hauling everybody who claims so off to
the police station.

And down at the police station, you are really in the situation of not being
able to perform the mitzvah in even the most minimal way, even were that
halachic requirement.

>Zev Sero

Regards

Chana

I am going to conclude this post with the following, but I want to say it
up front:
Not eating Gebrochts during Pesach is a practice that has no Halachic
foundation and no credible logical structure. I would add that it is a type
of superstition that taints Yiddishkeit [like my previous discussion
referring to RaMBaM?s condemnation of the widespread practice of adding
names of angels into the Mezzuzah] and not that I suggest we actively
dismantle the practice of not eating Gebrochts, but that the sooner it [and
other similar practices] is abandoned, the sooner Yiddishkeit will be on a
path towards being recognised as a proper and honourable representation of
Gd?s destiny for the world.

Now that?s out of the way, I begin: I wrote on +13/03/2013 8:23 PM:
The ShaArey Teshuvah 460 makes some surprising comments about the origins
of Gebrochts.
Firstly, the risk is restricted to those batches of dough to which flour
has been added after kneading has already started. ??
I have verified this is what the ShTesh says, since it was suggested that I
misquoted the ShTesh. It is clear that the ShTesh is not just explaining
what those HarBeh ? those many, who eat Gebrochts without compunction, are
relying upon. He states clearly that unless circumstances indicate a
credible risk, i.e. flour has been added to the dough during kneading,
Halacha guides us to assume that all flour becomes fully combined in the
dough. AchZukei IssuRei Lo MeChazKinan. Besides, his tracing of the origins
of this custom are brought at this point in order to explain how such a
practice could ever have begun if it has absolutely no Halachic foundation.
And that is why he begins his history tracing with the linking word, VeGam
? and also, or Besides ?? the origins of this practice emerged from a
completely different concern which WAS legitimate; unlike the practice of
not eating Gebrochts for which there is NO Halachic source. It is plain
wrong to suggest that unbaked flour might remain in Matza manufactured in
the normal manner.

The Sh Tesh clearly considers the practice of Gebrochts as needless and
without Halachic foundation. Even given the now known-to-be- untrue
observation of the ShA HaRav, that flour is found on the surface of baked
Matza, the ShTeshuvah Paskens that particles of flour will NOT become
Chamets, only clumps of flour become Chamets. So flour on the surface of
the Matza is not a problem, not even LeChatChiLa.
Note that I try to avoid describing Gebrochts as a Chumrah or Minhag, not
eating Keneidelach is a misplaced and misguided practice.


Now since this discussion has turned towards the broader issue of
Gebrochts, and not just the subset I was discussing, i.e. the ShTesh; I
will expand on this.

The ShA HaRav, in Teshuvah 6, back of Hilchos Pesach, tries to support this
practice. However, if one looks with care at his sources, it is plain to
see that there is really nothing in them that relates directly to Matza.
The BYosef he quotes 461, Dibbur HaMasChil, Kosav HaRaMBaM, is explaining
what may at first appear to be an inconsistency in the RaMBaM. On the one
hand RaMBaM rules that we may cook with flour during Pesach if the flour
has been toasted. But at the same time he rules that we may not cook with
flour that has been ground from kernels of wheat that have been toasted.
The difference RaMBaM explains, is that flour is exposed to the heat more
so than the kernels of wheat and that?s why the flour has certainly been
denatured by the heat and can no longer become Chamets, whereas the kernels
may not have been denatured. (Perhaps because the inner part of the kernel
is protected from the heat or perhaps because toasting is a fine balance
between perfection and burned and the concern not to burn inclines people
to under-toast rather than over-toast.)

Accordingly, the BY proceeds to explain another Halacha of RaMBaM; pots
were annealed by heating them with either just kernels or flour, or the
pots were cleaned with some sort of a paste made from these and water and
vinegar [Peri Chadash]. After such heating, the kernels and flour are
denatured and may be used during Pesach without fear of them becoming
Chamets. [or if a paste, one may clean pots with these pastes during Pesach
without fearing they may become Chamets] The BY now explains that this
could not refer to kernels but only to flour, which is consistent with
RaMBaM?s Pesak that kernels are at risk of not being denatured and
therefore vulnerable to becoming Chamets.
Following this, BY mentions that Rabbenu YeRuCham banned the practice of
women preparing baby food from toasted flour which was then boiled, because
he fears that the flour will not be adequately heated and may become
Chamets.

Now although the SAH mentions all these as sources, none of them reflect
directly in any way upon Matza Meal or Kneidelach. We require an
intermediate step to create and seek to justify the practice of not eating
GeBrochts. That intermediate step is the SAH?s observation that everyone
can see for themselves that flour is found on baked Matza.

It is equally clear that these days we see no such thing.

It would also appear that neither has anyone else seen flour on baked
Matza. Other than the MachHaShekel 458:1, who unlike the SAH, says that
LiFeAmim, only occasionally, one finds flour not thoroughly kneaded into
the dough; it seems that no one else notes this phenomenon.
BTW, it is evident from that MA 458:1, that the MA did not consider this a
credible risk.

The SAH explains why this has not been a problem in the past. He suggests
that the methods of Matza making changed; they had begun to make the dough
with very little water and the dough was not adequately kneaded.

Although the SAH refers to the MaAvraham 463:4; and I assume for the sake
of brevity, makes it sound as though the MA is discussing Matza, the MA in
fact is NOT discussing Matza.

The SAH says that the MA Paskens that even though the Matza itself is OK
BeDiOVad, it will be Assur if it is placed into soup. However, the MA is
actually commenting on the Mechaber?s Halacha that one should not cook
toasted kernels that have been ground into flour. They may not have been
adequately toasted and may become Chamets when combined with water. It is
regarding these that he says, if they are added BeDiOvad to a pot during
Pesach, the food will be Assur.

So I conclude - Not eating Gebrochts during Pesach is a practice that has
no Halachic foundation and no credible logical structure. I would add that
it is a type of superstition that taints Yiddishkeit [like my previous
discussion referring to RaMBaM?s condemnation of the widespread practice of
adding names of angels into the Mezzuzah] and not that I suggest we
actively dismantle the practice of not eating Gebrochts, but that the
sooner it [and other similar practices] is abandoned, the sooner
Yiddishkeit will be on a path towards being recognised as a proper and
honourable representation of Gd?s destiny for the world.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130319/49004c89/attachment-0001.htm>

I saw recently that Beer Yitzchak (#11) allows one to eat a product where
kitniyot was added as a
flavor even if it was added intentionally provided it was added before
Pesach.
Hence addinga sweetner is no problem

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130318/5a4e3d04/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/cle2efp
[An article on The Seforim blog by R' Eliezer Brodt. -micha]

One of the memorable parts of the seder night is during Shefoch Chamascha
when we open the door for Eliyahu Hanavi to come inside and drink from
the Kos Shel Eliyahu. Children all over the world look carefully to
see if there is less wine in the cup after he leaves, while many adults
accidently shake the table to make sure that there is less wine. What
are the sources of this custom? When do we pour the kos of wine and what
should we do with the leftover wine from the kos?drink it, spill it out,
or save it? In this article I hope to trace this custom to its earliest
known sources and to discuss some other aspects of the seder night
related to this topic.[1] I would like to point out that my intention
in this article is not to collect all the sources and reasons on these
specific topics but rather to focus on the earliest sources and how
these various minhagim came about.[2]

To begin with, it is worth pointing out that as far as we know today,
there is no mention of the concept of Kos Shel Eliyahu in all of
the literature that we have from the Geonim and Rishonim. Neither is
there mention of it in the Tur, Shulchan Orach, Rema, or other early
commentators on the Shulchan Orach.

See the above URL for more.

YL

In response to the suggestion that there is no Bittul when a Goy adds non
Kosher DELIBERATELY or according to a RECIPE, and accordingly chocolate
with lecithin and drinks sweetened with tiny amounts Kitniyos are Assur
during Pesach for Ashkenazim, I should like to present the following
information.

The MaHARaM of Lublin, Teshuvah 104, Paskens that it is Muttar. Reb Moshe
YD 2:41 Paskens accordingly.

The case is; a Goy's milking sheep have been attacked and some are Tereifos
but unidentifiable. The same farm also has milking cows that are not
Tereifos.
The milk of all the sheep and all the cows is combined and used to
manufacture cheese and butter. The Tereifa milk is less than Shishim.

A Jew has contracted to purchase a proportion of the cheese and butter. A
Jew, either the purchaser or another, supervises to satisfy the
requirements for Cholov and Gevinas Yisrael.
There is no problem with Mevatlin Issur LeChatChila, provided the Yid does
not directly and openly instruct the Goy to combine the milks.

To prove his point, he quotes the ShaArei DuRa; who permits eating honey
cakes made by a Goy even though they are flavored with non-kosher spices,
i.e. crushed in a non-kosher mortar, since they are Battel in the mixture.
(I presume he means it's a case of Zeh VeZeh GoRem because spices are added
to provide flavour but work in conjunction with the honey - which is also a
tremendous Chiddush, or perhaps we don't reckon with more than the Issur
which is NivLah in the spice)

Reb Moshe also proves this from the Ramo, Darchei Moshe YD 122:2. And
explains that even the Rashba agrees. The Rashba only applies the penalty
of not permitting the food when the diet drink or chocolate is made
exclusively for Ashkenazi Yidden at the instruction of a Yid. So Liebers or
Paskesz may not subcontract a non Jewish manufacturer to produce foods
under their kosher badge brand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130320/d07e8539/attachment-0001.htm>

There is no visitor. That is a Bubba Maysa ?- perhaps designed for children.
The source for the Kos Shel Eliyahu is the Machlokes about whether thare
are 4 or 5 Leshonos of Geula... the 5th Lashon being the word V'Heveiso.
That would call for a fifth cup of wine. (IIRC The Rambam actually drank a
5th Kos but that is not our current Minhag). We still pour a fifth Kos to
symbolize that 5th cup. It is called the Kos Shel Eliyahu because the
Machlokes will be settled by Eliyahu upon his arrival pre-Moshiach.
HM


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 



Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

--- On Tue, 3/19/13, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

From: Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu>
Subject: [Avodah] The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu?
To: avo...@aishdas.org
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 7:51 AM

 From http://tinyurl.com/cle2efp
[An article on The Seforim blog by R' Eliezer Brodt. -micha]

One of the memorable parts of the seder night is during Shefoch Chamascha
when we open the door for Eliyahu Hanavi to come inside and drink from
the Kos Shel Eliyahu. Children all over the world look carefully to
see if there is less wine in the cup after he leaves, while many adults
accidently shake the table to make sure that there is less wine. What
are the sources of this custom? When do we pour the kos of wine and what
should we do with the leftover wine from the kos?drink it, spill it out,
or save it? In this article I hope to trace this custom to its earliest
known sources and to discuss some other aspects of the seder night
related to this topic.[1] I would like to point out that my intention
in this article is not to collect all the sources and reasons on these
specific topics but rather to focus on the earliest sources and how
these various minhagim came about.[2]

To begin with, it is worth pointing out that as far as we know today,
there is no mention of the concept of Kos Shel Eliyahu in all of
the literature that we have from the Geonim and Rishonim. Neither is
there mention of it in the Tur, Shulchan Orach, Rema, or other early
commentators on the Shulchan Orach.

See the above URL for more.

YL
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130319/09618ac5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:07:23PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: The source for the Kos Shel Eliyahu is the Machlokes about whether
: thare are 4 or 5 Leshonos of Geula... the 5th Lashon being the word
: V'Heveiso. That would call for a fifth cup of wine...

Actually, if you look through the article...
:  From http://tinyurl.com/cle2efp
: [An article on The Seforim blog by R' Eliezer Brodt. -micha]

    Until 1984 these were the three earliest sources that made any
    mention of Kos Shel Eliyahu. In 1984, Rabbi Binyomin Nuzetz printed
    parts of a manuscript of Rabbi Zeligman Benga on Pesachim. Rabbi
    Benga was a grandson of Rabbi Menachem Tzioni and a close talmid
    of the Maharil, and he died around 1471. Rabbi Benga writes that
    he noticed some people pour a special glass of wine and call it Kos
    Shel Eliyahu. He writes that a possible reason for this is that we
    pour wine for Eliyahu Hanavi, since we are expecting him to come
    and he will need wine for the Arba Kosos.[8] This source helps us
    date the Kos Shel Eliyahu a few hundred years earlier than previously
    thought. Previously, the earliest source was printed in 1692. What is
    interesting about this source is that he was not sure where the minhag
    came from and, again, he mentions no connection to Shefoch Chamascha.

    In 1988, the department in Machon Yerushalayim that prints early
    works of German Jewry printed two volumes from manuscript from
    Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash (1604-1678) of Worms. Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash
    writes that it was the custom in Worms at the beginning of the
    seder to pour one extra cup of wine. Just as we say in the Haggadah,
    "Kol dichfin yesev v'yachul," we prepare a glass for the guest who
    might come. This glass is called Kos Shel Eliyahu since this is the
    guest we await. Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash brings another reason why it
    is called Kos Shel Eliyahu: because it is a segulah to say "Eliyahu"
    to get rid of mazikim [destructive forces], and we do various things
    on the seder night to chase away the mazikim.[9]

    In 1985, a manuscript of Rav Yaakov Emden was printed in the Kovetz
    Kerem Shlomo of Bobov. This manuscript contained Rav Yaakov Emden's
    notes on the Pesach Meuvin of Rabbi Chaim Benveniste. He says that
    there is a minhag to have a Kos Shel Eliyahu but not to pour leftover
    wine in a cup for him -- that would not be an honor for him at all. He
    points out that the Chazal say not to drink from a cup that someone
    else drank from.[10]

And it seems the fifth lashon thing is a bit of reverse engineering. A
way to add meaning to a minhag that existed for more prosaic rasons.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 47
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)