Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 59

Sun, 07 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: kiniyot errors (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: shoresh of kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: shoresh of kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: shoresh of kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: shoresh of kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: kiniyot errors (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: shoresh of kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: (Areivim) Short Shabbat Hagadol Drasha (Chana Luntz)
• 9. kitniyot (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: kitniyot (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Israeli Torah community (Marty Bluke)
• 12. Why did RY not agree to accept RG ruling earlier? (Meir Rabi)
• 13. Re: Why did RY not agree to accept RG ruling earlier? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Proper Attire for Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 15. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Ben Waxman)

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:12:40PM +0300, Eli Turkel replied to RAMiller:
:> To *me*, the question of which version was actually held by the Rambam is
:> mildly interesting, but only academically. For paskening purposes, there is
:> a much more important and valuable question that needs to be discussed: How
:> did subsequent authorities react to this Rambam?

:> If subsequent authorities saw a certain text, and they made no comments,
:> then it seems to me that they sort of "ratified" it. If they saw an
:> opinion, and no eyebrows were raised, then it passed muster, and became the
:> accepted halacha...

: Rabbi Sperber gave a lecture at the Torah Umaddah meeting to explicitly
: disagree with this approach...

WADR to RDS and his knowledge... No one would presume that he represents
the mainstream in pesaq, and bedavqa because of his willingness to change
things others wouldn't.

R Moshe b Haim, where this discussion started, would also disagree with
RAM's (and my) thesis.

:                                                      CI (in Vilna) wrote a
: lengthy piece to justify why the Ramah was still right even though the Yad
: Ramah never said any such thing. R. Shimon Shkop responded by saying one
: simply had to change the psak since it was in error. In several places ROY
: paskens like a Meiri against SA on the grounds that the SA didnt see the
: Meiri.

Now that we get to people I find more compelling, such as my own rebbe's
rebbe, it is more disconcerting.

: We pasken like basrai only when the the later authority saw the early
: opinions and disagreed....

Interestingly, that is the Rama's position (CM 25:2), quoting the Mahariq.

However, the case the Rama discusses is slightly different than ours. The
Rama is talking of a Me'iri, a case where the thought drops out of the
conversation altogether. There is no ratified alternative pesaq, the
basrai is initiating an idea that he wouldn't have put forward. As RAM
writes, in our case there is an alternative pesaq ratified by generations
of peer review. Even if those generations wouldn't have considered the
possibility had the Rambam been published correctly.

Recall my emphasis of the visual of a flow of ideas down the generation.
That metaphor applies to the mispublished Rambam, but not the accidental
new pesaq of a basra'i who didn't have access to the Me'iri.

The Shakh (s"q 22) disagrees with the Rama, citing the Alshikh (teshuvah
39) and Maharam el-Shaqar (teshuvah #54), that halakhah kebasrai does
NOT cross the rishon-acharon barrier. The halakhah is like the latter
rishon if he considered and rejected the opinion of an earlier one,
and similarly like the latter of 2 acharonim. But an acharon cannot
disagree with a rishon.

Which also addresses RMR's earlier claim that tannaim vs amoraim is a
convention due to kavod, not a hard-n-fast rule. (I think following R'
Chaim Brisker.) Kayadua, the Rambam makes the mishnah and gemara firm
landmarks because of their universal acceptance. And the CI places a
line between the two millenia of Torah, including the tannaim, and the
two millenia of mashiach, which begins with the amoraim. These acharonim
consider era changes legally binding as well.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On 5/04/2013 2:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But the minhag is associated with this term for small, grain-sized
> foods. Not some other word that would cover beans and whatever else
> the minhag started out covering. The word existing doesn't compell it
> being used as a category-name for the minhag.

Minah lach that the minhag *has* a name?  Kitniyos are a category of food.
When one decides to forbid this category, how else should one phrase it
but that kitniyos are now forbidden?

The context in which we come across this issur is the Shulchan Aruch
defining what can be made into matzah.  "But not with rice or other kinds
of kitniyos; these can't become chametz, and one may make a cooked dish
with them".  On this the Rama says "and some forbid it, and the minhag in
Ashkenaz is to be strict, and one may not change this".  So the term is
introduced *not* in the context of the minhag to forbid them, but davka
by the Mechaber, who is permitting them.  And he's not permitting them in
order to be sholel a minhag of forbidding them, he's just noting derech
agav that they are permitted, as opposed to grain which is not.  The Rama,
who introduces the issur, doesn't even use the term "kitniyos".  So I
think it's a very big stretch to attach a minhag-related significance to
the term.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> But the minhag is associated with this term for small, grain-sized
>> foods. Not some other word that would cover beans and whatever else
>> the minhag started out covering. The word existing doesn't compell it
>> being used as a category-name for the minhag.
>
> Minah lach that the minhag *has* a name?  Kitniyos are a category of food.

Yes, but the original minhag applied to a group of foods that were a subset
of a number of categories. People chose to say they were avoiding qitniyos.
Not (eg) duqa, the actual Aramaic word for legumes.

As I said, "category-name" -- just as you did.

...
> The context in which we come across this issur is the Shulchan Aruch
> defining what can be made into matzah.  "But not with rice or other kinds
> of kitniyos; these can't become chametz, and one may make a cooked dish
> with them"....                                            So the term is
> introduced *not* in the context of the minhag to forbid them, but davka
> by the Mechaber, who is permitting them....

And obviously in trying to put down an erroneous (in his opinion)
practice, the SA would use the term that those who followed it would
be using. It's not their coinage and this reference to "the context"
is arbitrary.

BTW, according to the Gra, the origin of the minhag of not eating qitniyos
is Rava (Pesachim 40b). He yelled at the reish galusa's staff for eating
chasisi (Tosafos: lentils) on Pesach, since it was often confused with
chameitz. I never before heard a basis that solid, so I wanted to share.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On 5/04/2013 2:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> >The context in which we come across this issur is the Shulchan Aruch
>> >defining what can be made into matzah.  "But not with rice or other kinds
>> >of kitniyos; these can't become chametz, and one may make a cooked dish
>> >with them"....                                            So the term is
>> >introduced*not*  in the context of the minhag to forbid them, but davka
>> >by the Mechaber, who is permitting them....

> And obviously in trying to put down an erroneous (in his opinion)
> practice, the SA would use the term that those who followed it would
> be using. It's not their coinage and this reference to "the context"
> is arbitrary.

The SA is *not* trying to put down any practise.  There is no internal
evidence in the text of the SA that the Mechaber was even aware that there
are those who don't eat them.  (I assume he was in fact aware, but this
is not reflected in the SA.)

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:26:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> The SA is *not* trying to put down any practise.  There is no internal
> evidence in the text of the SA that the Mechaber was even aware that there
> are those who don't eat them.  (I assume he was in fact aware, but this
> is not reflected in the SA.)

???? Why would he bother saying "it's okay to eat ..." if people weren't
refraining from doing so. Does the SA make a point of telling you it's
okay to eat apples on Pesach or to read on Shabbos? He was obviously
denying an extant minhag.

Especially if the Gra is right, and the the minhag dates back to Rava.

In either case, first mention of the minhag was centuries before. Rabbeinu
Peretz ben Eliyah miCorbell, 13th cent. And we already mentioned the
minhag is discussed in the Tur -- so certainly Maran Bet Yosef did know
there was a minhag to avoid qitniyos and knew it was phrased that way.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

R' Eli Turkel concluded his very clear post:

> I am reminded of the famous joke of some gadol who comes
> to heaven and wants to speak to the Rambam. He asks his
> question and the Rambam answers that he never said the
> halacha and it is a misprint. The gadol responds that that
> is no way to answer a difficult Rambam. There are many
> brilliant divrei Torah to answer contradictions in the
> Rambam that appear only because of misprints.

This is exactly my point. If a misprint occurs, and the consensus of later
opinions is that the printed version is consistent with "many brilliant
divrei Torah", then even if that is not what the author had meant, it
should still be followed l'halacha. But if the consensus of later opinions
is that the printed version causes contradictions which cannot be
reconciled, then it must be amended, even if that *IS* what the author had
intended.

But RET's post made me realize that I'm over-generalizing. There are
different kinds of psak, and my point only applies to those where evidence
is brought and a point is proven. In such cases, the stature of the one
saying it may be impressive, but should not be persuasive. What I mean is
that a great rav will be able to find sources and proofs that a lesser
person would not think of, but the psak should be based on how convincing
the evidence is, and should *not* be based on the say-so of this particular
rav, as great as he might be.

But there are other cases, where the halacha is NOT based on evidence and
proof, but is based on a Shikul Hadaas, where the posek must form an
opinion on how he sees the situation and how he sees the halacha. (I
concede that many cases will straddle these two categories, as where the
rav must decide whether This proof is more reasonable, or That proof is
more reasonable. But let's keep it simple.)

In these cases, where the psak is based on the posek's subjective opinion,
I would agree that newly-discovered manuscripts (and the like) should be
given serious weight. I imagine that this might include every case where a
posek writes "nireh li". If the standard publication had "Nireh li that the
halacha is ABC," and an old manuscript said "Nireh li that the halacha is
XYZ," that would be worth looking into.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How to Sleep Like a Rock
Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/515f26ae9792d26ae6b9fst03vuc

On 5/04/2013 4:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:26:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The SA is *not* trying to put down any practise.  There is no internal
>> evidence in the text of the SA that the Mechaber was even aware that there
>> are those who don't eat them.  (I assume he was in fact aware, but this
>> is not reflected in the SA.)
>
> ???? Why would he bother saying "it's okay to eat ..." if people weren't
> refraining from doing so.

Because his point is that they don't become chametz, so you can't use them
for matzah.  That is his only point.  That you can make a tavshil from
them is a side-effect, a consequence.


> Does the SA make a point of telling you it's okay to eat apples on Pesach

He would, if there were fruits one could not eat on Pesach, and he was
discussing them and distinguishing them from the ones you can.

> or to read on Shabbos?

He actually does, several times IIRC.  Distinguishing between those things
that it is OK to read and those that it's not.


> He was obviously denying an extant minhag.

No, he wasn't.  I quoted the text and the context.  If you don't believe
me read it yourself.


> Especially if the Gra is right, and the the minhag dates back to Rava.

If it dated back to Rava it wouldn't be exclusive to Ashkenaz.


> In either case, first mention of the minhag was centuries before. Rabbeinu
> Peretz ben Eliyah miCorbell, 13th cent. And we already mentioned the
> minhag is discussed in the Tur -- so certainly Maran Bet Yosef did know
> there was a minhag to avoid qitniyos and knew it was phrased that way.

Yes, I said that he probably did know about it.  But there's no evidence
of that awareness in the SA.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

RZS asked:

>>What of the clause in the (Ashkenazi) tena'im, that says "veyishletun
benichseihon shaveh beshaveh" (they shall control their property equally)?
>>Does that not make the chametz just as much the wife's as the husband's?

And I replied:

>I don't think anybody really seems to take that clause seriously.  .... But
certainly the discussion in the Magen Avraham and the Mishna Brura (who
>surely was aware of these kinds of tanaim) etc is all predicated on (at
most) the reshus that the husband gives to deal with his property (or
perhaps >ishto k'gufo), without any mention of tanaim changing things ...

I might add that the tenaim have been around for a reasonably long time, so
one might have expected the Mishna Brura (and I imagine even the Magen
Avraham) to have commented - although that might depend on how long that
phrase has been in the tenaim - tenaim themselves, according to Wikipedia,
date to the 12th century, but I don't know how old that phrase is - a brief
hunt around on line seems to suggest that it is not in all tenaim by any
means, even those purporting to be Ashkenazi ones - but I am certainly not
an expert in the area, and would be very interested to know whether somebody
has done some serious work on the girsos, and where and when that text first
appeared.

However something that might also impact the question, but is likely to be
too new for even the Mishna Brura (given that the places where he lived were
hardly at the forefront of modern legislation), are dina d'malchusa dina
laws such as the Married Woman's Property Act 1970 (UK).  Rav Shternbach
doesn't advert to this in his discussion regarding tzedaka, despite coming
down in favour of excepting tzedaka from a married woman - but it seems to
me that it really ought to impact.

After all, the State deems the earnings of the wife and any property
acquired or inherited by her, either prior to or during marriage to remain
the property of the wife (overturning the common law).  Hence any sale under
secular law of property (such as of chametz) that was owned by her would
seem to need to be sold by her to be valid (surely a goy cannot properly buy
chametz that is only the husband's by dint of halacha but is deemed by the
state to remain the property of the wife), and surely the same should be
true of any chametz the subject of bittel or biur.  I always sign the
mechiras chametz form as well as my husband, and make my own kol chamira,
but this has made me wonder whether all women do.  If the husband is
performing the bittel on behalf of the wife, and she does indeed own at
least some of the chametz, then he would, if this is correct, need to use
some sort of chametz shel ishto language similar to that brought in the
meforshim for a shaliach to use, but none of the machzorim and hagadot that
I have seen seem to add this.

>Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and

Regards

Chana

<< according to Richard J Israel at <
http://www.site38.com/dickisrael/kitniot.htm>:
    In general, kitniot are those small (kitniot - from katan) seeds or
    beans which look a little like grains and which need to be cooked to be
eaten.>>

RSZA paskens that peanuts are only a safek kitniyot because the seed is big
while he prohibits cottenseed oil because the seeds are small.
Similarly potatos are not a problem even though he prohibits potato starch
because it can be used to make cakes

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130406/5285db74/attachment-0001.htm>

In fact one rarely sees cottenseed oil any more. These are all old
teshuvot. Today it is usually replaced by Canola oil which has many of the
same questions

Eli Turkel


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

> **
> On 4/6/2013 2:54 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> << according to Richard J Israel at <
> http://www.site38.com/dickisrael/kitniot.htm>:
>     In general, kitniot are those small (kitniot - from katan) seeds or
>     beans which look a little like grains and which need to be cooked to be
> eaten.>>
>
>  RSZA paskens that peanuts are only a safek kitniyot because the seed is
> big
> while he prohibits cottenseed oil because the seeds are small.
>
>
> It's a shame they don't prohibit cottonseed oil because of its toxicity.
> Aside from the fact that natural cottonseed oil is toxic, and when they
> leach out the toxins, they never get them all, cotton is not a food crop,
> and as a result, the pesticides they use on it are ones that would never be
> allowed on food crops.  It's nasty stuff.
>
> Lisa
>
>
>


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130407/3e01170e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Areivim there was a discussion of the Chaluka system, where the people
in in the old yishuv were supported by donors from abroad.

The fact is that regarding Chaluka in Israel, the Chasam Sofer ( Hiddushim
of Chasam Sofer to Sukkah (36a), s.v. Etrog hakushi) would seem to have
been very much opposed.

"agricultural work in Israel is itself a mitzva, included in the Mitzvah of
settling the land and bringing forth its holy fruit. The Torah therefore
commands, "Gather your grain". Even Boaz winnows his grain at night as a
Mitzvah. Just as one would not say, "I will not lay Tefillin because I am
learning Torah," so too one should not say, "I will not gather my grain
because of involvement in Torah." It is even possible that other
professions that have a societal value are included in this mitzvah.
However, in other lands, whoever works more takes away from Avodas Hashem. "
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130407/3bf49c25/attachment-0001.htm>

Shalom Rabbiner Arie.

You say -  Now if RY accepted that the people would follow RG's pessaq, and
he didn't need to worry about his own violation of YK, since it was all a
show he could game, then why didn't he agree to go as soon as he heard RA#1
or RD#1? Particularly RD#1 should suffice, so why RD#2?

I dont follow your argument - RY remained unconvinced until he was reminded
by R Akiva of his own Pesak Atem Atem Atem. ONLY THEN was he convinced that
BNY would not be desecrating YK.


Further to R Akivas choice of words, it is reasonable to propose that R
Akiva was concerned not to offend in any way and was most mindful that in
these circumstances offence might readily be taken or caused. He therefore
chose his words most carefully and said "yesh li lilmod shekol ma she'asa
RG asuy," rather than intimate even in the most subtle reference that RY
had forgotten what he himself had taught, which might be interpreted as an
allusion that RY was too personally engaged in this conflict, as per the
famous story ? was it about the Shach who when arguing his case in a Din
Torah forgot his own ruling which the Dayan knew and followed in Paskening
against the Shach. Therefore he said the far more neutral, "halo limadtanu
shekol ma she'asa RG asuy"

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/3ec6f10c/attachment-0001.htm>

I was wondering how RMR would understand R' Eliezer's comment (quoted
by Rashi) that Nadav and Avihu only died because they pasqened without
consulting Moshe. Apparently kevod harav is a higher priority than
intellectually encountering G-d.

Weren't you saying that's the be all and end all of being in Hashem's
"Image" and being creatures with bechirah chofshis?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: I don't know why you ignored my advice not to change the subject
line with every post. It makes the thread impossible to find in the
archive. We do have a topic index, and this discussion ends up scattered
across it.

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 12th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  forces the "judge" into submission?

This Shabbos a fellow came into the Hashkama Minyan I run at the YI 
of J in Brooklyn a bit late.  I immediately pegged him as an 
Israeli.  Why?  Because of the way he was dressed.  He was wearing a 
white shirt, no tie,  dressy jeans,  Timberland type boots (See 
http://tinyurl.com/24okkte), no jacket, and a kipah which IMO was 
much too small.  Indeed,  it was so small that he needed a bobby pin 
to keep it on his head.  When he said to me "Ezrat Nashim?"  I did 
not grasp what he wanted.  Then he said "Ezras Nashim?" and I got up 
and showed his wife who was standing in the hallway how to enter our 
Ladies Section.

Seeing him brought to mind the article "Casual Saturday?  Dressing 
Down for Shabbat" by Dr. Wallace Greene that appears in the most 
recent issue of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society. I 
contacted Dr. Greene, and he sent me a pdf file of his article with 
permission to post it.  I have posted the article at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Casual%20Saturday.pdf

It raises a number of issues that I think are very important 
regarding appropriate dress for Shabbos.

YL

You're talking about someone who obviously doesn't understand American 
norms (because his English is poor), and who is used to the Israeli 
scene where his clothes would be acceptable in many places. Maybe he 
didn't get that when in Rome . . . .

Ben

On 4/7/2013 5:50 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>  Because of the way he was dressed.  He was wearing a white shirt, no 
> tie,  dressy jeans,  Timberland type boots (See 
> http://tinyurl.com/24okkte), no jacket, and a kipah which IMO was much 
> too small.  Indeed,  it was so small that he needed a bobby pin to 
> keep it on his head. 



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


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 59
**************************************

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.)