Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 50

Mon, 30 Mar 2015

• 1. Of Gebrokts And Kitniyos (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Wearing Tzitzis outside (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Halachic Issues That Can Come Up on Pesach Hotel Programs - Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz - (YUTorah) (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Wearing Tzitzis outside (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Wearing Tzitzis outside (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Reflections on Torah Education and Mis-Education (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Wearing Tzitzis outside (Zev Sero)
• 8. Gebrochts - the ShTeshuvah (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 9. gebrochts (Eli Turkel)
• 10. naive kitniyot question (Eli Turkel)
• 11. The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 13. Re: Wearing Tzitzis outside (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (Zvi Lampel)
• 15. RAV?S HAGADA ? MIT?CHILA ? (David Wacholder)

 From http://tinyurl.com/p8ky88g


Of Gebrokts And Kitniyos

The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes  Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one 
who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to 
eating Gebrokts.

It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may 
rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana.

Reb Elyashuv holds  the original Chumra of Gebrokts  started when 
Matzohs were thick.

Today there is no chance of having unbaked <http://flour.in/>flour in 
our thin Matzos.

For Kitniyos one may not change , Hataras Nedarim won't help.

Even an Ashkenazia who marries a Sephardi (follows husbands Minhagim) 
has to keep her original Chumra and should not eat Kitniyos.

The Chumra of Kitniyos is different than all other Chumros. Kitniyos 
was a Kabala Gemura till the end of all generations. (Ashrei Ha'ish 3)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150327/476deee1/attachment.htm>

R' Joel Rich gave an example:

> e.g. my Yeshiva has lots of guys who put on tfillin at mincha,
> now I go on vacation and am at a minyan where it is not done -
> perhaps back to my question is it a function of me, the
> onlookers or both

Did you dream up this case to illustrate your question, or are there really yeshivos where they wear tefillin at mincha (other than on Tisha B'av?)?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55157f02e72f7f0249d7st03vuc

See http://tinyurl.com/p9jbsxq





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150327/a58cdf26/attachment.htm>

On 03/27/2015 12:01 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Did you dream up this case to illustrate your question, or are there
> really yeshivos where they wear tefillin at mincha (other than on
> Tisha B'av?)?

Sefardim, AFAIK, wear tefillin at mincha also on public fast days and on
Erev Yom Kippur.

But RMA di Fano held that they should be worn at mincha every day, so it
wouldn't surprise me if there was a yeshivah somewhere where people followed
his psak.

-- 
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' Zev Sero wrote:

> Sefardim, AFAIK, wear tefillin at mincha also on public fast days
> and on Erev Yom Kippur.
>
> But RMA di Fano held that they should be worn at mincha every day,
> so it wouldn't surprise me if there was a yeshivah somewhere where
> people followed his psak.

Wow, I don't recall ever hearing that before.

A few months ago, I wrote on these pages that when the subject of Women And
Tefillin is raised, we should NOT say that men wear tefillin on because of
the requirement, and even then, only for the minimum length of time. Back
then, I wrote that this can be proven false because shacharis lasts much
longer than the minimum shiur for tefillin, and also because certain
yechidim do wear them even longer.

If there are yeshivos where it common for all to wear the tefillin at mincha, then that argument is strengthened considerably.

Anyone know how RMA di Fano held on women and tefillin?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5515ce27904e74e277c89st04vuc

 From 
http://www.jewishideas.org/min-hamuvhar/reflections-torah
-education-and-mis-education

Our schools should not be teaching our children that dinosaurs did 
not exist. They should not be telling children that the dinosaur 
bones are just "dog bones swollen in the flood of Noah's time". This 
is not Torah education, but mis-education. Not only is there no 
religious necessity to teach such nonsense; it is a religious mandate 
NOT to teach falsehood. To cloak falsity in the clothing of religion 
is to undermine true religion.

See this URL for much more on this and related issues.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150327/ed3f08c5/attachment.htm>

On 03/27/2015 05:38 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Anyone know how RMA di Fano held on women and tefillin?

AFAIK the same as everyone.  He just says that the exact same reasons we
wear them at shacharis apply at mincha as well, and whatever is required
to justify wearing them -- a guf naki, no hesech hada'as, or whatever else
one may argue for -- it's surely easier to maintain these things for the
length of mincha than for the length of shacharis.

-- 
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

The ShaArei Teshuva (OCh Chapter 460) discusses a number of issues to do
with Matza.  Primarily, he dismisses the stringency that one not eat
Gebrochts [AKA Matza balls] since the cause, the deficiency that prompted
that stringency has been corrected.

He explains that:

originally all Matza was soft but special Matza was baked for grating into
meal. The ShaArei Teshuva says it was grated on a Rib Eizen, a grater. They
could not CRUSH it, only dry hard Matza can be crushed.


the Matza for making meal was baked differently to regular Matza, and it
was likely to be Chametz [because it was only lightly baked, presumably in
order to provide a whiter meal, as is the case today.]


this under-baked Matza was then GRATED to form crumbs. Once in crumb form,
it was no longer possible to evaluate if it was fully baked and therefore
likely to be Chametz. Therefore, Gd fearing Jews stopped eating foods made
with such meal.

now [1800] that the universal trend is to bake special Matza for making
meal and to bake it until it is hard. Consequently, there is no longer any
risk of it being Chamets. At this point the ShaArei Teshuva describes this
hard Matza being CRUSHED into flour. No longer were they using the Rib
Eisen to GRATE the Matza into crumbs.

Even when the Matza for making meal was baked hard and then crushed, the
regular Matza was still made soft, otherwise at 12mm thick [KeOvey EtzBa
finger thickness] it would need a hammer and cold chisel and be impossible
to chew and eat.

There was no need to consider altering soft Matza to hard Matza since it
was never considered at risk of being Chamets, although as per the Rama,
Matza was no longer made 40 to 50mm thick but only 12mm.

Besides baking Matza until it is hard means that it is no longer
Halachically identified as bread.

This is quite clear when he writes that Ha'idna IsKashra Dora (these days
people are more careful) and that the KEMACH, the MATZA FLOUR is made from
dry hard Matza. This means that only the Matza used for making flour was
baked hard whereas the regular Matza [which was 12mm thick (Beis Hillel
cited by the BaEr Heitev) and must have been soft, as per the ruling of the
Rama] was not and could not be baked hard.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150329/20a16918/attachment.htm>

The history of thick and thin matzot is given by Ari Zivofosky

http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150329/94d79b40/attachment.htm>

<<Peas are prohibited even if not in contact with water. I think it helps
to change the parallel you're assuming: The minhag is to treat qitniyos
like a form of chameitz, not like grain.>>

R Zevin brings shitot that one cant eat on Pesach matzot from kitniyot even
when baked with
all the chumrot of wheat matzot (ie `18 minutes etc)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150329/a90d56f1/attachment.htm>

> The IM (ibid, teshuvah 63), in his discussion which ends up permitting
> peanuts, comes out on the side of qitniyos being a list of specific
> items, that is not added to when other candidates arise.

Yes, but this seems to be his own chiddush; every earlier authority
I've seen assumes the opposite. And his main proof is from mustard,
which actually seems to be the strongest proof against him, once one
sees the Taz; since he doesn't even mention this, let alone offer any
explanation for why it doesn't refute his position, I can only assume
that it slipped his mind when he wrote the teshuva. >>

I protest strongly against the assumption that RMF forgot a Taz that Zev
knows.
Among other things the OU relies on this teshuva. I assume that means that
their poskim also don't know about this Taz.

I also rfere to the Yavetz (Shelat Yavetz 2-147) who protests against those
who wish to include potatos as kitniyot on the ground that we don't add to
the gezera of kitniyot beyond what was originally included,

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150329/9cbe8570/attachment.htm>

On 3/24/2015 3:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 12:30:34PM -0400, I wrote:
> :...the Rambam in the introduction to his Mishneh commentary emphasizes:
>
> :     We have never found a dispute arising among the sages of any era,
> :     from the days of Moshe to those of Rav Ashi, in which one sage would
> :     say that on the grounds that God said, "Ayin tachas ayin," we blind
> :     the eye of one who blinds the eye of his fellow and the other sage
> :     would state that the verse merely means that he is obligated to
> :     monetarily compensate for the loss...
>
> RMB replied: As you already noted, this might be about the nature of machloqes. On
> Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:05:28PM -0400, you wrote:
> :                                                   As I argue in
> : /Dynamics of Dispute,/ the Rambam denies that machlokess could be
> : attributed to /one/ of the disputants having lost the mesorah and
> : continuing to insist on his view despite his opponent's proven
> : maintaining of the mesorah....
>
> Perhaps there were deOraisos where the pesaq changed because of a newly
> applied derashah, but it was never that one said this was how halakhah
> was understood miSinai and another says that this is new.
But there were such instances where ''one said this was how halakhah was 
understood miSinai and another says that this is new.'' One example 
(noted by the Chavos Yair in his Teshuva 192) is a 3-way machlokess in 
Zevachim 110b, where one Amora says Nissuch HaMayyim is miDrabannan, 
another says it is derived from a posuk, and another says it was a 
halacha l'Moshe MiSinai. Rambam (Temidim uMussafim 10:6 ) poskens it is 
a halacha l'Moshe MiSinai. This is consistent with the concept that, as 
the Rambam writes, ''once someone says 'so have I received,' there is no 
more debate.'' The reason is that once one of our sages can demonstrate 
he is a recipient of explicit data originating with Moshe Rabbeynu, a 
HLMS, it is naturally accepted as fact.

On Avodah Vol 33 No. 40 I wrote:

> I strongly suspect the Rambam understood this
> to be a ''back-up'' kind of drasha for a Sinaitically-transmitted
> understanding, not a generative drasha, despite the usual meaning of
> ''nischadesh.''
And by reviewing that Teshuva, I am now reminded that, as the Brisker 
Rov took as a given, the Rambam wrote in Isurei Biah 12:18 that the din 
that we are permitted to marry female Moabites and Edomites is a Halacha 
l'Moshe MiSinai. (And since by the Rambam's definition a HLMS does not 
have a bona fide drash, the Gemora runs well when it presents challenges 
to the drash brought, and the din's defender resorts to citing ''Shmuel 
uBeis Dino'' as his only true source.)

Zvi Lampel

RMB:... what was done with Moavios before
Rus? ..in either case, it would imply that the new understanding did 
establish a din that
we didn't understand that way since Sinai. Whether we had a definite
opinion otherwise until now or not.

ZL: A similar possibility: Boaz's halacha was known since Sinai by the 
few elite baalei mesorah throughout the generations, but because of the 
irrelevance of the matter (marrying a converted Moabite female, and the 
very existence of a Moabite female desiring to convert), not known by 
the rest of the sages and certainly not by the masses (who may indeed 
have assumed that there was no difference between male and female 
Moabites).

RMB: The difference between the examples is that for a society to function,
ayin tachas ayin would be invoked regularly. ... But in general, rarely 
used derashos could be
forgotten, barring belief in siyata diShmaya preventing it.

ZL: I maintain that the pivotal point in loss of a halacha is if it is 
rarely used, and this applies whether it is a detail or not.

: RMB:  I find it interesting
he doesn't refer to Moavi velo Mo'abis and other rarely-occuring 
non-details.

So do I. But as mentioned above, he explicitly calls it a HLMS, and the 
idea that this ''non-detail'' was a ''rarely-occurring'' one, makes the 
Gemora passage read very well.

Zvi Lampel

Regarding Mincha: only a small minority (based on the times I've prayed 
in Sefardi shuls on fast days).

Ben

On 3/27/2015 9:13 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> Sefardim, AFAIK, wear tefillin at mincha also on public fast days and on
> Erev Yom Kippur.

I wrote Moabites and Edomites. I should have written Moabites and Amonites.

ZL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150330/ac823d79/attachment.htm>

RAV?S HAGADA ? MIT?CHILA ?

   -

   `Taking a panoramic view of the Hagada after the Mah Nishtana, we see a
   series of attempted starts which could also be introductions. They are all
   ambiguous. Avadim Hayinu should have progressed into the Main Action, but
   it deflects into how even the Wise Men must relate the exodus.
   -

   Taken as a group, it is creation of anticipation and excitement for the
   actual telling. It would be a series of Birkas Hatorah pieces, and perhaps
   Arami Oveid Avi is beginning to sound drum rolls for Magid. Only with Raban
   Gamliel?s Pesach Matza Umaror do we have a total declaration of addressing
   the plot.
   -

   This approach is modification of the Malbim/Maskil L?eitan Hagada who
   says Avadim Hayinu is not the beginning of Magid. It sees the Hagada as the
   Psicha series of EY Midrash style.
   -

   This all is grounds to ask a hard question on the Missing Yerushalmi.
   Yerushalmi says ? paraphrasing ? we use the Final Drasha of Yehoshua when
   he enumerates the Chasadim of Hashem, adjuring them that Hashem?s
   miraculous caring will continue, but they must trust only Hashem.
   -

   Except ? as in our Hagada ? the first two Psukim about the Avos are
   quoted and then ? nothing. Did Rav really skip the rest and go to Hallel?
   Not likely. I have two possibilities.

         5And I sent Moses and Aaron, and I plagued the Egyptians,
according to that which I did in their midst; and afterward I brought you
out. MAKOS!



6
<http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15808/jewish/Chapter-24
.htm#v=6>And
I brought your fathers out of Egypt, and you came to the sea; and the
Egyptians pursued your fathers with chariots and horsemen to the Red Sea.



:

7
<http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15808/jewish/Chapter-24
.htm#v=7>And
they cried to the Lord, and He put darkness between you and the Egyptians,
and brought the sea upon him, and it covered him. And your eyes have seen
what I have done in Egypt. And you sojourned in the wilderness many days.



   -

   .
   -

   I would guess  that Rav continued with the next Psukim  Yehoshua 24-5 to
   24-7  etc. which directly address Ytzias Mitzrayim! Thus Rav?s Drasha of
   Mit?chila in Sefer Yehoshua substituted for Shmuel?s Drasha of Arami Oveid
   Avi in our Hagada.

It is not hard to find reasons the Doreish in Bavel/Aram would find Arami
Oveid Avi a very strong Drasha.

    Yehoshua?s Drasha is quite demanding, fitting for those actually
dwelling in EY. It is similar in theme to Eliyahu Hanavi?s demand of
trusting only in Hashem. After listing the many proofs of Hashem?s
determination to protect the Bnei Yisrael.

    IMHO, according to Rav the theme of the Hagadah is Hashem?s dedicated
caring for the Bnei Yisrael. In return, Hashem demands that Bnei Yisrael
put their trust in Him completely.



    The Bavli highlights Shmuel?s shita. Shmuel?s Hagada begins ?Arami
Oveid Avi? ? Hashem protected the Avos Avraham and Yaakov during their
wanderings in Aram Naharayim.

    Parthia was considered a potential threat to the Roman Empire! Perhaps
outbreaks of hostility between Parthia (Bavel)  and the Roman Empire made
Shmuel more comfortable deflecting attention from demands to settle Eretz
Yisrael. It could have been construed as mildly traitorous.

Certainly Rav Yehudah was very diplomatic in discouraging emigration to a
rival empire. Rabi Zeira and others avoided contact with Rav Yhudah once
they were determined to travel to Eretz Yisrael.
?Lest I forget - the strong possiblity remains that Rav also said our
nusach with "Arami Oveid Avi".  I appreciate any feedback from the Olam on
this new idea.


-- 
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150330/8190a48c/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.)