Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 121

Wed, 28 Sep 2016

• 1. Re: Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi (Marty Bluke)
• 2. meh chori (saul newman)
• 3. chamutzim umrurim (saul newman)
• 4. workers righs (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: chamutzim umrurim (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay (H Lampel)
• 7. Re: Rav Melamed on Metal Pots (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: KeViAs Seudah, MeZonos HaMotzi (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Mezonos Becomes HaMotzi (Akiva Miller)
• 10. workers right (Eli Turkel)

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
"But as I pointed out above, the halacha was already aware of people who try
to minimize their bread intake, and this "sif 2" appears very clearly in
the MB, the AhS, and many other acharonim. It's NOT a new situation where
we need imaginative and inventive gedolim to break totally new ground; much
of the work has already been done. We only need to apply the existing rules
to our situations."

The rules in the shulchan aruch distinguish between things that are part of
the meal and those that are not part of the meal, but meal seems to be
defined by bread. Therefore, I do think it is a new situation. The Aruch
Hashulchan writes an expression that there are a few rich people who don't
want to eat a lot of bread so we aren't going to change the halacha for
them. We see clearly that the majority of people still viewed bread as the
main part of the meal and it was only a few indiviudals who didn't want to
eat bread. Today it is just the opposite. Many people never eat bread
(except for a kzayis on Shabbos and Yom Tov) and bread is not king anymore.
I don't think you can easily apply rules made for a bread eating society
where bread was the main focus and meals were defined by bread, to a
non-bread eating society.

The Aruch Hashulchan writes that there are 2 distinct reasons why hamotzi
exempts other foods from a beracha:
1. The food is tafel to the bread
2. Hamotzi paturs any food that is coming to fill you up
He doesn't explain why this should be so he just states it as a fact, can
someone explain the sevara behind this? The Mishna Berura seems to argue on
this and therefore is mistapek what is the din if you eat the bread just to
patur the other food? The Aruch Hashulchan on the other hand has no safek
he says based on 2 that you are definitely patur.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160927/87a20542/attachment-0001.htm>

in nitzavim , the scenario is described that after the cataclysmic
destruction of the land , the later generations and the gentiles will ask
the source of  destruction , and they will say  it was due to violation of
the covenant by the jewish people.

i would contend that this has not happened yet as described for the
following reasons.  at the time of the destruction of the first temple ,
the calamity would have been attributed to the overwhelming power of the
Babylonian gods.        In the 2000 yr  post the destruction of the second
temple, the cause of victory would have been initially attributed to both
the Roman army and their superior gods.
since then , the gentiles would agree that the jews deserved destruction
because they refused to bow to the Wood [cross] or Stone [kaaba].

so while chazal [bneichem asher yakimu achareichem]  discerned  the causes
of destructions as they did ,  the gentiles  blamed violation of the
Covenant---  but Moshe certainly could not have meant that the Destruction
was caused by the Jews not converting to christianity or islam.

is this correct?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160927/eccd35d5/attachment-0001.htm>

that is the lashon of the matteh ephraim about  those who are noheig not to
eat sour or bitter in the 10 days.

questions:

1----  rice vinegar= sweet.   should that be considered 'chamutzim'

2----  jalapeno/serrano/etc   are not bitter and not sour . they are
spicy---a category that did not exist in ashkenazi cooking.   can we assume
these are excluded.

3----  a person enjoys  significantly chrain , pickles, etc .   should his
simchat yomtov  over ride this 'gam nohagim'  to use the author's lashon?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160927/cf2b7e91/attachment-0001.htm>

I am learning the gemara towards the end of BM that there is a mitzvah to
pay workers on time.
The CC states that since the gemara elsewhere states that wages are due
only at the end for the mitzvah one should not pay ahead of time. Thus for
example R Zilberstein deals with question of sherut taxis from Bnei Brak to
Jerusalem where they demand to be paid ahead of time
(his answer to pat the driver once the taxi reaches the main road  - it is
not clear the taxi drivers will agree to this solution)

Two questions
1) Since the mitzvah to pay the worker on time is explained that he relies
on the wages for his living - why should there be a problem to pay ahead of
time even though one is not required
2) Since in general monetary matters are ruled by agreements why can't the
two sides agree to pay ahead of time

Simple example - a baby sitter who leaves before the parents come home. Why
can't she be paid ahead of time instead of leaving the money on the table
and she makes a "kinyan" when leaving.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160927/735a1a0a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 27/09/16 12:44, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> that is the lashon of the matteh ephraim about  those who are noheig not to eat sour or bitter in the 10 days.

What is his source?  The only sources I've seen say "chomet", which I assume
is not because of its flavour but because it's a siman of the opposite of
bracha.

-- 
Zev Sero                            May you be written down and sealed
z...@sero.name                       for a good and productive year

On 9/13/2016 11:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 05:21:20PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:

ZL:
>: For clarity's sake, Here's [R/Dr Halbertal's] thesis: ...

>: 1. > Retrieval: G-d revealed every single detail about how to perform ...

RMB [I'm changing your original order--ZL]:
> I will ignore his portrayal of the geonim, because -- as you note --I
> am not convinced on that point either.


SIMPLISTIC?
ZL:
>: 2. "Accumulative": G-d did not give complete instructions as to
>: how to ...
>: 3. Constitutive: G-d did not reveal any details of mitzvah observance. ... >


RMB:
> This is way too oversimplified...The difference
> between these [second] two models ["Accumative" and "Constitutive"]
> is more whether
> 1- ["Accumulative"] G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's
> job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to create new
> positions that then "Accumulate", or
> 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of
> the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din.

How do you find my description more simplistic than your own? Whereas
you write, "G-d gave neither position at Sinai," I wrote, as you quoted,
"G-d did not give complete instructions," and I continued, "Chazal in each
generation, by their own reasoning and by utilizing drashos of pesukim,
determined the halachic status of things and people, and determined
heretofore unknown and unstated details and requirements as to how to
perform the mitzvos. Each generation accumulated new information." Not
only isn't my description simplistic, I think it's more thorough.

You write, "and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from
what we have to created new positions that then "Accumulate." I really
don't see my description ("Chazal in each generation, by their own
reasoning and by utilizing drashos of pesukim, determined the halachic
status of things and people, and determined heretofore unknown and
unstated details and requirements as to how to perform the mitzvos. Each
generation accumulated new information.") as more simplistic than yours.

But I still maintain that all the Geonim and rishonim--including those
to whom the essay attributes a "Constitutive" view--hold that Hashem
encoded in the pesukim the true halachic responses to all situations,
that He provided the keys by which to decode them, that He therefore
intended a specific response for Chazal to determine, and that Chazal's
goal was to retrieve that intent through using those keys and analyzing
precedents. The intent may not have been provided explicitly, but the
tools by which to accurately determine it were.And where different minds
using these tools came to different conclusions, Hashem approved the
majority opinion as the means by which to confidently discover His
original intent in the overwhelming majority of cases. (What is to
be done about the rare event that an opposite result is not obtained,
and what our attitude should be towards such an occurrence, is another,
although connected, issue.)

MORE STARK?

> and the difference between Accumulative and Constitutive models is
> made more stark than what the essay actualy describes. The
> difference between these [second] two models ["Accumative" and
> "Constitutive"] is more whether:

> 1- ["Accumulative"] G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the
> poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to
> create new positions that then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both
> positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to
> decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din.

And my opposing description of the essay's proposition of a "Constitutive
view was: "G-d did not reveal any details of mitzvah observance. He
only provided numerous "panim," legal principle,s some of which would
lead to one halachic conclusion in a given situation, and some of which
would lead to a different one."

I actually think your version creates a starker contrast between the
Accumulative and Constitutional views than mine does. You have the
"Accumulative" view asserting that Hashem explicitly stated neither
halachic position vs. the "Constitutive"view that Hashem actually gave
both contradictory halachic rulings. (I'm assuming you are using the
word "position" here to refer to the pesak, just as you did in your
description of the "Accumulative" view.) I have Hashem giving incomplete
halachic positions vs Hashem providing the halachic factors to consider
in reaching a decision. I think I'm being fairer and kinder to the
author by not extending the idea of Hashem giving multiple "panim"
(considerations to look for in situations they would face, by which
to size it up, and arrive at the correct pesak based upon the correct
weighing of those factors) to the less subtle, more radical idea that
He actually told Moshe contradicting conclusions (between which Chazal
would decide based upon...what??, being that there is no criterion to
meet?). RMH put it that the Ramban, Ran, and Ritva held that Hashem
left the issues "open-ended," by revealing to him the arguments of the
future sages, which Moshe proceeded to transmit to the sages for them
to decide the pesak. He did not actually write that the Ramban or Ran,
or even Ritva, held that Hashem actually gave contradicting pesakim.

ADHERENCE TO LOGIC

The rishonim to whom the "Constitutive View" is attributed, and the
talmudic sources involved, say only that Hashem refrained from explicating
a halachic conclusion (so that they are agreeing, in this aspect, to
the allegedly contrary "Accumulative View") Nowhere do they say that
"Hashem gave both positions at Sinai." After all, in all other areas,
The Ramban and Ran (and even IMO the Ritva) are no less married than
the Rambam to the logic of the Gemora, which holds that something cannot
both be true and untrue in the same place at the same time (which, you
say, Aristo's and Boolean logic agree to). This is the premise of every
Gemora's kushya between pesukim and between maamarim.

And, as I mentioned and indicated sources for in my first post on this
thread, the Ramban and the Ran, even concerning the halachic conclusions
that Hashem did not explicitly assign, explicitly express the premise
that Hashem did have a conclusion in mind, which Chazal were expected
to reach, and which as a rule they did (see above).

DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL

At the end of your second response, you wrote:

> in a Constitutive system [atttributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs
> Rambam who is said to hold the "Accumulative" system], whatever
> shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the
> forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess
> bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim
> that is the new din.

> With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities
> to second-guess those conclusions.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's
acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that
a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the
Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power.

But RMH himself wrote,

    ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the
    multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in
    the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial.
    Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to
    the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the
    Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or
    more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions,
    whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite.

So apparently even RMH recognizes that the Constitutive View he attributes
to the Ran does not, in contrast to the Accumulative View, entail any
difference at all in the power of later authorities to second-guess the
conclusions of earlier Batei Din.etin

This is getting long, so I'll save my responses to the rest of your
comments for other posts.

ZL

R' David Riceman wrote:

> On cast iron see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_iron
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast-iron_cookware
>
> Most of the pots in our house are either stainless steel or
> enameled cast iron or anodized aluminum, none of which were
> available for cooking before the 1900s (maybe late 1800s?),
> and all of which have very different properties than clay
> or cast iron pots.

I understand that cast iron is very different than stainless steel. It is
also very different from silver, copper, wood, pottery, and many other
materials. My question is: What makes stainless steel so categorically
different from these others that people want to say that it does not absorb
taam?

> And the routine use of soap to clean pots is also new.

How is that relevant?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160927/d23c03a7/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Meir G. Rabi wrote:

> Also, although sleeping is ALWAYS KaVuAh, nevertheless no
> Beracha is made even when sleeping the night.

and R' Zev Sero responded:

> Even if you have not already said a bracha in that sukah?!

(sigh...) It seems we go through this every year.

Just about anything one might do in a sukkah is a fulfillment of the
mitzvah. But Chazal singled out one specific act as being particularly
worthy of the bracha Layshev Basukkah. And that act is Seudas Keva. That is
why people often say things like, "Don't say Layshev on eating an apple,"
or "Don't say Layshev on relaxing in the sukkah," or in our case, "Don't
say Layshev on sleeping in the sukkah."

Unfortunately, these sayings are widely misunderstood. One CAN say Layshev
on the mitzvah of living in the sukkah. But eating an apple, or relaxing,
or even sleeping in the sukkah, does not intensify that mitzvah to the next
level. Eating a Seudas Keva DOES intensify the mitzvah.

Therefore, if one enters the sukkah for the mitzvah, and does not plan to
eat a Seudas Keva, since he is unquestionably doing Yeshivas Sukkah, he
does say Layshev, even though he is "merely" eating an apple, or relaxing,
or going to sleep. However, if he enters the sukkah for these purposes, and
he plans to eat a Seudas Keva later on - even much later on - then he
should save the bracha for that point, when he will be doing the more
"intense" (for lack of a better word) form of the mitzvah, and the bracha
will cover the prior time as well.

This is all spelled out in Mishne Brurah 639:46 and 639:48.

The common misunderstanding of these halachos is that we never say Layshev
except for a Seudas Keva, and people think that the Mechaber/Rama 639:8
supports that belief. But MB 46 there explains it differently: There is
indeed a machlokes, and the lenient view says to say Layshev any time one
enters the sukkah (after a hefsek from the previous time). Even if one
plans to eat a Seudas Keva later on, the lenient view says to say Layshev
immediately on entry. The stricter view (which Mechaber/Rama agree is the
actual practice) is to delay the Layshev until later on when he eats his
Seudas Keva. But that is only if there will indeed *be* a Seudas Keva later
on. If there will *not* be a Seudas Keva later on, then he *does* say
Layshev when entering.

An excellent example of this is if one spends some time outside the sukkah
doing some non-sukkah related stuff, so that that there's a hefsek since
his last Layshev. Then he enters the sukkah to go to sleep. He does say
Layshev, but it's not on sleeping in the sukkah - it's on *being* in the
sukkah. Another frequent example is someone who goes to the sukkah between
Mincha and Maariv (whether he is learning or shmoozing is irrelevant);
since Mincha is a hefsek and Maariv is a hefsek and he is not eating in
between, there's no reason not to say Layshev upon entering the Sukkah.

POSTSCRIPT: I was going to change the subject line for this post, to
something more Sukkos-related. But I'm not, because I perceive an important
connection between this post and some of the general Seudah ideas that
we've been discussing lately.

For example, let's take a look at the middle of MB 639:46: <<< The minhag
of the whole world follows those poskim who hold that we never say Layshev
except when eating. Even if they sit in the sukkah for an hour before
eating, they don't say Layshev, because they hold that it is all covered by
the bracha that they'll say later on, when eating, because that's the ikar
and it covers the sleeping and the relaxing and the learning, which are all
tafel to it. >>>

I'm sure there are many who will pounce on the words "we never say Layshev
except when eating", but I think they fail to notice that the MB is
presuming a meal later on.

This is an important point, very relevant to what we've been saying about
how the role of bread has changed in modern society. There used to be a
presumption that every meal would have bread as its focus, and THAT'S why
people got into the habit of not saying Layshev when they entered the
sukkah: "I'll say Layshev later on, with my Hamotzi."

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160927/1c85ebcb/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Marty Bluke wrote:

> The Aruch Hashulchan writes that there are 2 distinct reasons
> why hamotzi exempts other foods from a beracha:
> 1. ...
> 2. Hamotzi paturs any food that is coming to fill you up
> He doesn't explain why this should be so he just states it as
> a fact, can someone explain the sevara behind this?

I have heard some claim that the word "lechem" can mean "food" in a very
broad sense. I don't know whether (according to them) "food" was the
original meaning and then it got narrowed to "bread", or perhaps it was
originally "bread" and then got expanded to "food". Either way, the claim
was not that this was a slang or colloquial term (like using "dough" for
"money"), but more like how "kesef" took on "money" as its main meaning,
leaving "silver" almost secondary.

I don't know how true any of the above is, but if it *is* accurate, then I
think it would explain this Aruch Hashulchan, because all food is "lechem",
even if there's no bread around for the other food to be tafel to.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160928/76bbc905/attachment-0001.htm>

The Chofetz Chaim wrote many different seforim. I once heard that he said
that if can only buy one
of his seforim it should be "ahavas chesed" . Neverthless this sefer seems
to be "ignored" by many. While of course the MB is popular there are groups
to learn shmirat halashon. Are there any groups to study ahavas chesed?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160928/5e5b6b97/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.)