Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 44

Mon, 16 Mar 2015

• 1. Stress Relief Through Understanding Hilchos Pesach (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Chesky Salomon)
• 5. am haaretz (saul newman)
• 6. Re: am haaretz (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (H Lampel)
• 8. Science, Halachah, and Baking Matzos (Micha Berger)
• 9. Science, Halachah, and Baking Matzos (cont.) (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Science, Halachah, and Baking Matzos (cont.) (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Question on the Megilla (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: Question on the Megilla (Simon Montagu)
• 14. Sefer Hageulah (David Wacholder)

Cleaning for Pesach has nothing to do with Spring cleaning. According to

http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/pesach/stress_relief.pdf

It appears that a lot of what is termed Pesach cleaning has nothing 
to do with the proper preparation for Pesach.

YL

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 02:02:05AM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
: I don't see why RZS' point is causing such trouble here: in v.18 "a life
: for a life" has to mean financial compensation, particularly in the light
: of v.21...

The trouble isn't with saying that "tachas" is an idiom meaning payment.

It's with the fact that the gemara calls this a derashah, tannaim argue
about how the derashah works, and therefore the idea of payment is not
peshat. You don't need a derashah to prove peshat.

(As I've said repeatedly, I understand Zev's position better than the
gemara's. But given that it's in the gemara, Zev and my instincts are
wrong.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 03/15/2015 09:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The trouble isn't with saying that "tachas" is an idiom meaning payment.
>
> It's with the fact that the gemara calls this a derashah, tannaim argue
> about how the derashah works, and therefore the idea of payment is not
> peshat. You don't need a derashah to prove peshat.

Then what do you claim *is* pshat?  It can't be removing the eye, because
it's impossible to read the whole passage with that meaning.  So if it's
not money then what is it?  Money seems to be the only translation that
works.

The gemara simply doesn't care about pshat, and doesn't bother inquiring
into the pshat.  Halacha comes from the drash layer, so that's where the
gemara's inquiry starts and ends.   And in my last message I showed how
the pshat reading I am pushing, which I think is the *only* viable pshat
reading, doesn't work at the drash level, because drash abhors redundancy.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:45 AM, R' Micha Berger wrote:
> The trouble isn't with saying that "tachas" is an idiom meaning payment.
>
> It's with the fact that the gemara calls this a derashah, tannaim argue
> about how the derashah works, and therefore the idea of payment is not
> peshat. You don't need a derashah to prove peshat.

The peshat is a bit ambiguous -- this is at least not an instance of
peshuto k'mashma'o. Might the derasha be needed to confirm that the
idiom, not the na?ve translation, is what's meant?

-- Chesky Salomon

the latter part of Hagigah concentrates on kulot applied to tumah/taharah
in yom tov season as far as aliya regel by non chaverim was concerned.
chazal then were sufficiently concerned of the risk of this large-enough
segment potentially running off and making their own mikdash that certain
leniencies were accepted in re kodshim, but not truma [as they could give
to their own amei aretz kohanim.

trying to analogize to today's time , looking at the prevalent factions
then and who would be parallel to 'am haaretz' today.

it would seem that violating torah min hashamayim, or at least the
authority of chazal ie torah shebeal peh  would in those days have been
Saducees, and that is a group to the left of 'am haaretz' and out of the
pale.  the would seem today to indicate all the non-O branches , and
possibly some far LWMO theologians.

it would seem that the chaver/prushim catagory is the standard current
haredi model, with the RWMO /chardal  elements as well.

what is left would then seem to be the less praxic elements of MO, that
would seem halachically to fit--- makpid on chiyuv mitah issues, less so on
other issues  [akin to, take off the truma and trumat ma'aser] . but an
element that clearly would then  be oleh regel , even if not makpid on all
tuma/tahara issues....


am i off base here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150315/745a8a73/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 09:08:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: it would seem that violating torah min hashamayim, or at least the
: authority of chazal ie torah shebeal peh  would in those days have been
: Saducees, and that is a group to the left of 'am haaretz' and out of the
: pale....

Actually the Tzeduqim were to the right of us, not left.

Judging from things like the difference between giving tochakhah for
things not beheirush in the pasuq and those that are, you would think
that amei ha'aretz had tzeduqi leanings. OTOH, given the laws of demai,
we wouldn't think they were all that observant.

So my overall picture is of people who didn't care enough about religion
to take sides. More like a vague, informal and not very observed respect
for anything any sect discussed as mandatory or forbidden.

But when generalizing about millions of people, any one description is
likely meaningless.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:02:50 GMT
From: Gershon Dubin via Avodah

> There is a concept that when HKB"H sends a nevuah to a navi, he sends
> the same nevuah to all living neviim but only instructs one navi to
> actually say the nevuah. Does anyone know where this comes from?

Sanhedrin 89b, the same page that says that each navi related his
prophesies in his own style, says,

    A tanna recited to Rav HIsda, "One who withholds his prophecy gets
    malkus." He said to him, "...Who warns him?! [I.e. one only get
    malkus if he was exhorted by witnesses that he is transgressing a
    law. How could anyone know if one had a propleccy that he did not
    reveal?]  Abbaye said, "His fellow prophets [warned him]. [But
    still,] how did they know? Abbaye said, becuase it is written  [Amos
    3] "For Hashem will not do anything unless he reveals His sod
    (secret/counsel)." (I.e., the very posuk RGD referenced in his
    subject heading.)

We see from here that other prophets, besides the one commanded to 
relate the prophecy, experienced the same prophecy. Whether this refers 
to /all/ other living prophets is not stated, but it is a possible 
inference from what follows in the Gemora:

    But perhaps Hashem retracted [and told the prophet /not/ to deliver
    the prophecy]?
    If He had retracted, he would have made this known to /all/ the
    prophets [as well].

The "all" can be taken to mean that it was all the prophets in the world
that experienced the prophecy. But it may also just be referring to all
the prophets who experienced the original prophecy.

Zvi Lampel

OC 455 poses challenges... The topic is mayim shelanu for baking matzos.
As y'all can assume, I'm looking at the AhS.

Rashi (cited in se'if 2) says the reason for the need is because in the
winter and still through Nisan, ma'ayanos are warm. And rivers are warmed
in sunlight all day, so they also need a night to cool off.

Rabbeinu Eliezer miMitz says the reason is that because the sun is
going under the ground at night and therefore heating up the ma'ayanos
and rivers. Vehara'ayah, at alos hashachar one can see "kemo ashan"
over the rivers. Therefore, one has to use water that wasn't there to
be heated up overnight.

So, REmM either thinks the sun is going under a flat earth, and Or, what
seems to me more likely, is that he believes the bottom of a spherical
earth is submerged under water, so the heat is conducted to the water
over night.

Rashi's focus is therefore on how long the water was drawn, and REmM's
is making sure it's drawn before night. Therefore, to be yotzei lekhol
hadei'os, the water should be drawn bein hashemashos (or at least shortly
before),, and not used for at least a full 12 hours.

Of course, not of this fits experimental evidence.

Although, yeast doesn't thrive as well in cool water, so the idea of
using cool water to avoid your matzah becoming chameitz in less than
kedei hilukh mil does.

But the reason for not allowing salt in matzah (se'if 13) does defy
what experimental data says about yeast. "Demalach mechameim matza,
vekhein pileplin". I do not know the effect of pepper on yeast, but just
sticking to salt -- it would slow down rising, not speed up. Even if
there is also some exothermic reaction my biochem connection couldn't
find reference to for me, salt would lower the yeast population.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

(I hit "send" prematurely.)

Unlike the prior cases, mei peiros (the first part of siman 462)
doesn't bother me on a scientific level. The halakhah is that if we
only mix with mei peiros, the resulting dough can't become chameitz,
but if a significant fraction of the liquid is water, it not only can
become chameitz, we worry about it rising in less than 18 min.

So, this doesn't bother me Even though all fruit juice contains H2O
whether we add any to the dough or not.

The gemara already implies a distinction between leaven and leaven in ways
that have to do with halachic definition, not science, when it comes to
the type of grain. We hold that a rice dough undergoes sircha and does not
become chameitz. Even though it goes through the same biochemistry as the
5 minim would have. So, if the gemara says only the leavening of certain
grains makes it assur as chameitz, why can't it similarly limit liquids?

Mei peiros can be a problem as an accelerant, but only if there is also
flour from the 5 grains and actual water also in the mix.

(About grains, R Yochanan ben Nuri dissents (Pesachim 35a) holding that
all leavening is chameitz. He prohibits food made from rice dough.
So perhaps he would also prohibit use of mei peiros. I don't know,
because RYbN's position was rejected to early.

(Qitniyos is different than RYbN, in that the minhag includes all
qitniyos, even those fully baked in less than 18 minutes. Qitniyos are
treated like quasi-chameitz, not quasi-chitah.)

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, Arpelei Tohar

On 03/15/2015 10:16 AM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> Sanhedrin 89b, the same page that says that each navi related his
> prophesies in his own style, says,
>
>      A tanna recited to Rav HIsda, "One who withholds his prophecy gets
>      malkus." He said to him, "...Who warns him?! [I.e. one only get
>      malkus if he was exhorted by witnesses that he is transgressing a
>      law. How could anyone know if one had a propleccy that he did not
>      reveal?]  Abbaye said, "His fellow prophets [warned him]. [But
>      still,] how did they know? Abbaye said, becuase it is written  [Amos
>      3] "For Hashem will not do anything unless he reveals His sod
>      (secret/counsel)." (I.e., the very posuk RGD referenced in his
>      subject heading.)
>
> We see from here that other prophets, besides the one commanded to
> relate the prophecy, experienced the same prophecy.

Or it could mean that every prophet is notified when one of their fellows
has been given a message for the public.  They may not know what the message
is, but they know that a public announcement is coming, a) as a courtesy so
they won't be caught by surprise, b and more importantly) so that they stand
ready to back up their fellow if he is challenged.  The Rambam says that if
a known navi certifies a new one, we are to trust him immediately, without
demanding signs, so it would make sense that all true nevi'im who are in a
position to endorse him would be put on notice to do so.  So when a few days
pass and the expected message is not delivered, they all know that something
is wrong.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On 03/15/2015 04:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> The gemara already implies a distinction between leaven and leaven in ways
> that have to do with halachic definition, not science, when it comes to
> the type of grain. We hold that a rice dough undergoes sircha and does not
> become chameitz. Even though it goes through the same biochemistry as the
> 5 minim would have. So, if the gemara says only the leavening of certain
> grains makes it assur as chameitz, why can't it similarly limit liquids?

Does rice undergo the same process, despite the lack of gluten?  I thought
gluten was necessary, otherwise the bubbles just burst and the gas escapes
and the dough stays flat.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

R"n Toby Katz asked:

> I have also long wondered about this -- what about all the king's
> advisors, what about his servants who opened the curtains on his
> four-poster bed and who helped him get dressed and who served his
> food? Did he generally spend his days all alone, with everyone
> afraid to walk in? When the maid came in with the chicken platter,...

This never bothered me. The pasuk (4:11) clearly refers only to those who
enter the "chatzer hapnimis - the inner court". In American terms, it is
like saying that no one would enter the Oval Office without an invitation.
But there are plenty of other places where one might approach the President
uninvited.

R' Zev Sero's response was:

> Servants are traditionally regarded as non-existent, and thus go
> anywhere without knocking on doors.  People with servants are
> trained not to see them.

I'll agree with this idea, especially when the best servants are the ones
who do their job without being seen. But I feel that this answer is
off-topic. I suppose that it might not be a breach of protocol for the
staff to empty the trash, even uninvited in the Inner Court. But that's not
what constitutes a capital crime.

The same pasuk limits it to "asher yavo el hamelech - one who approaches
the king." This is not a case of a maid who carefully left a tray of coffee
and donuts on the table - it's a case of someone who had the audacity to
enter the Inner Court and confront the guy in charge.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Heavy rains mean flooding
Anywhere it rains it can flood. Learn your risk. Get flood insurance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/550625e48ac4425e42469st03vuc

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> This never bothered me. The pasuk (4:11) clearly refers only to those who
> enter the "chatzer hapnimis - the inner court". In American terms, it is
> like saying that no one would enter the Oval Office without an invitation.
> But there are plenty of other places where one might approach the President
> uninvited.
>

 This approach is certainly effective in answering the current question,
but unfortunately IMHO it's much too broad a brush, and also does away with
"ka'asher 'avadti 'avadti" and half the plot of the Megilla!

What was Esther's problem? Why didn't she just approach the king in one of
those other places? It's not like she's even talking to him about matters
of state when she first approaches him -- she's just inviting him to
cocktails!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150316/24136309/attachment-0001.htm>

Shmos gives us identity. Sefer Hageula, book of Redemption, is Ramban?s
description of Sefer Shmos. We started as slaves with little hope, and
ended with dazzling display of Hashem?s Anan inhabiting the Mishkan.

While the Avos can be considered extraordinary individuals, regular average
individuals find hope in the Chosen Nation of Sefer Shmos. Hashem includes
all of Bnei Yisrael in his novel formation of a family unit. We know the
Avos as individuals blazed a path of devotion and  partnership with Hashem.

The grandchildren had no guarantees that they would see Geulah. They had
seen parents who were born in Mitzrayim and never left. The 400 years and
Four generations will end someday, who says I and my family will be the
ones rescued? Even Moshe was tarrying with his father in law?s sheep and
goats in Midyan, in no position to participate in Geulah. This lasted a
century  or more until the moment of the Sneh ? the Burning Bush.

Two years is the time it takes to get married and have a one year old
child, with thanks to Hashem. How much is the child consulted for consent
to be part of the family? Not at all ? it is the parents who have the power
and initiative for quite a long period of time.

Pharaoh willfully erased his debts to Yoseif, but he knew of their
potential as free men. His oppression efforts focused on them. The enslaved
Bnei Yisrael were kept frantically on the run and bone weary morning to
night.

Since Yisrael included adults, Hashem assumed Parental Rights, voluntarily
adopted all of Bnei Yisrael. Unilaterally Hashem guaranteed that Bni Bchori
Yisrael ? focused carrying ? eternal protection for each and every one.
Moshe Rabeinu read them the Proclamation, but their enthusiastic positive
reaction is not recorded in the Torah. It was all the initiative and
enthusiasm of  Hshem himself. This will be familiar to parents.

From the Sneh, Moshe Rabeinu returned to Mitzrayim, enlisted Aharon, and
made Hshem?s proclamation to Pharaoh. From then to Makas Bechoros and the
first step of the Exodus would be about a year. Even then the negotiations
and demands  were with Pharaoh, not with the Benei Yisrael.

Fast Forward to Nissan One the next eventful year ?Har Sinai and Luchos ?
and the Mishkan is completed in six months ! The Shechina ? the Anan ?
inhabits it!

Abrabanel stresses the miracle ? look at the complex handiwork in the
design  of the Mishkan ? imagine even a person with technical prowess and
unlimited resources ? would it be finished in ten months? No delays, no
technical failures, no materials unavailable.

Even were we to  assume there was planning in advance, such as the
logistics of  the Atzei Shitim Omdim with Divine Inspiration,  completion
of the task in the allotted time is miraculous.  Abarbaneil?s Appendix to
Shmos stresses the empowerment of uncoordinated individual members of Benei
Yisrael, mostly former slaves lacking technical training.  With Hashem as
the Master Builder, inspiring each one of Bnei Yisrael with Ruach Hakodesh,
it was done in six months.

Geulah means seeing the Anan of Hashem?s Presence filling the Mishkan ? in
front of our eyes. That is like having Hashem?s Presence in the Synagogue
as we pray! That is the Security of Family ? all are present together,
taking care of each other.

Bnei Yisrael built the Mishkan ? the first contribution they made to the
Family Closeness. When the Shchinah and Anan entered and filled it ? that
is Family Acceptance, aka Geulah.

That is not the definition I have seen widely used. Still, I seek support
in Rashi-Rashbam  in Parshas Shmos on Ehkeh/Havayah, Machzor Vitri 148.
(Confirmation in Rav Yosef Bchor Shor al Hatorah). Yes, I combine Rashbams
and Rashis and the explanation of Nishmas in Machzor Vitri ? into one
syncretistic approach. Rashbam himself at the end of Shmos tells us to use
both his and Rashi?s Peirush together.

Machzor Vitri gathers Rashi?s lectures, along with other material. The
particular piece ? pages 148-153 in the classic edition ? has multiple
internal indications  of Rashi?s authorship. I hope some will come to the
same conclusion.  It would not be expected for Rashi?s close students to
use his name. The common title for Rashi in his lifetime was ?Rebbe? or
similar.

MV-PN claims that NIshmas has an architectural framework.

  The manuscript uniquely has ?HVYH Shmo Eir ? hineh lo yanum vlo yiyshan?.
Plausibly  some copyists later corrected it to Shomeir. Here the wording is
accompanied by a paragraph of explanation.  The Avoth were so perfect that
they measured up to every expectation, and never needed the Midas Hadin.
Their descendants in Mitzraim were oppressed slaves, and their rescue with
miracles required Shem Havaya and rachamim.

This  Rachamim is the strongest Rachamim ? like a mother who carried a
child and is devoted to the child not only now but until the end of time.
This is the commitment of a Parent, which becomes the mutual commitment of
a Family.  Hashem ? in the structural axiological commitment that He
stressed that His Holy Name is this Family Caring Permanent Commitment ?
means that the family unit of Benei Yisrael and Hashem is inseparable.
Hashem will always be Shomeir Yisrael. Rashi refers to Psalm 121. Behold
His Watchfulness over his beloved Family will not doze nor will it sleep!

The last prophet ? Malachi ? haftara of Shabbos Hagadol ? says Ani Hashem
Lo Shanisi ? my determined caring motherly guard will never weaken nor will
I be distracted.

May I suggest that Haya Hoveh Yihyeh ? was is and will ever be ? applies to
the Rashi ?I will be there in this crisis (exodus) and I will be there in
every crisis!!? It applies to the covenant of the Sneh, not prior to the
Sneh. Cursory scan of the Emmes Vyatziv prayer may show that the key is the
covenant of always being Present and Protecting, since the Ytzias
Mitzrayim.

May I suggest that some explained Chai HaOlamim differently. Chai is active
and Olamim is eternally.  The phrase would mean ? Hashem cares so much
about his Ben Bechor firstborn son ? that he would never forsake watching
Bnei Yisrael even for a moment.  I suggest we describe Hashem as always
standing on guard at all times ready to take action. The devotion of Hashem
to His children is more absolute than the parents? devotion to their child.
If nothing else ? his powers are unlimited.
Rashi addresses the younger infant child.   The child?s first question is ?
is my parent here and will my parent be here later? Once that is addressed,
more advanced questions will be addressed.

-- 
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150316/205327f2/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


**************************************

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