Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 23

Tue, 21 Feb 2017

• 1. Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Totafos vs. tefillin (Ben Rothke)
• 3. Re: Amah Ivriya ()
• 4. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Amah Ivriya (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Psak (saul newman)
• 7. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Akiva Miller)

I saw an "advertorial" (that's how the page referred to itself) in the
Mishpacha magazine last year, in issue #607, 12 Nisan 5776, on page 204.
The same page is available on line in a few other magazines, such as page
99 at https://issuu.com/weeklylink.com/docs/vol_10_issue_28

(In the excerpts below, the parentheses and brackets are in the original,
but I did not highlight that which is bold or italics in the original.)

They write in the name of Rav Chaim Pinchos Scheinberg ztz"l:

> The general obligation to check for and get rid of crumbs
> does not apply if the crumbs are less than the size of an
> olive (k'zayis) and are dirty or spoiled enough to deter a
> person from eating them.

And they quote Rabbis Elozor Barclay and Yitzchok Jaeger that:

> If the chometz is dirty then only a piece that is the size
> of a k'zayis (an olive) must be removed.
> If the chometz is edible, then even a smaller [than a kzayis]
> piece that one may be tempted to eat must be removed.

If this is indeed the halacha, then it explains and simplifies several
difficulties I've had over the years. But *is* this the halacha? The page
has very few references to printed sources, and I'd appreciate any mar'eh
m'komos that anyone might offer.

Beyond the lack of references, I have a specific question on this. They
seem to be saying that one may deliberately ignore chometz gamur, and
deliberately *not* get rid of it, provided it is smaller than a kezayis
*and* he is not worried that someone might eat it.

Meiheicha teisa? Have we ever been taught such a thing? We are allowed to
keep a small amount of chometz over Pesach?

I would understand if someone would say that if the chometz is smaller than
a kezayis, then it is a "chetzi shiur", and certain leniencies could be
allowed for difficult situations. But they seem to be going much farther,
saying that chometz less than a kezayis is totally outside the purview of
Bal Yiraeh Ubal Yimatzeh; we would need to get rid of it only if there's a
chance it might be eaten. After all, the shiur for eating is a mashehu.

If all the above is accurate, are there any other examples of something
where a kezayis is assur d'Oraisa, but less than a kezayis is mutar
l'chatchila?

(By the way, I am aware that one can easily take care of his d'Oraisas
simply by being sincere when he does Bitul Chometz. But d'rabanan, we worry
that the bitul was *not* sincere (enough), so I don't know how that would
help.)

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170219/fce0d11b/attachment-0001.htm>

[I had to replace Hebrew with my own translitations. -micha]

In the parasha 2 weeks ago, Shmos 13:16 uses the word [totafos].
Onkelos translates it as [tefillin].
Any idea why we use the term [tefillin] as opposed to [totafos]?

From: Akiva Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>>  I have heard it said  (usually in the context of military service) that 
the
Torah forbids a woman  to be under the control of anyone other than her
father or husband.

It  seems from the beginning of Mishpatim that Amah Ivriya is an exception
to  that rule. Or perhaps it's not an exception, but that the rule is
actually  "father, husband, or Adon," ..... <<
 

Akiva Miller

 
 
>>>>>
 
When a man buys an amah ivriya he has to marry her or give her to his son  
as a wife, or let her go free.  The money he gave her father is equivalent  
to kidushin, if I am understanding Rashi correctly.  Rashi says the adon  
(or his son) does not say "Harei at mekudeshes li....." but instead says, 
"Harei  at meyu'edes li you are designated for me as my wife bakesef shekibel 
avich  bedamayich with the money that your father has received as your price." 
  (Silbermann translation.)
 
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170220/0a9aa7c8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/02/17 20:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:

> They write in the name of Rav Chaim Pinchos Scheinberg ztz"l:
>
>> The general obligation to check for and get rid of crumbs
>> does not apply if the crumbs are less than the size of an
>> olive (k'zayis) and are dirty or spoiled enough to deter a
>> person from eating them.

> If this is indeed the halacha, then it explains and simplifies several
> difficulties I've had over the years. But *is* this the halacha? The
> page has very few references to printed sources, and I'd appreciate any
> mar'eh m'komos that anyone might offer.

Yes, this is the halacha as I've always understood it.



> Beyond the lack of references, I have a specific question on this. They
> seem to be saying that one may deliberately ignore chometz gamur, and
> deliberately *not* get rid of it, provided it is smaller than a kezayis
> *and* he is not worried that someone might eat it.
>
> Meiheicha teisa? Have we ever been taught such a thing? We are allowed
> to keep a small amount of chometz over Pesach?

Crumbs smaller than a kezayis are automatically batel, except "a nice 
rolls", which one would want to keep if one knew about it (e.g. a 
wrapped candy).

There are two reasons why, midrabanan, bitul doesn't help: Lest one find 
a "nice roll", and lest one find chametz and absentmindedly eat it. 
These are obviously related; a dirty crumb that one would never think of 
eating is by definition not a "nice roll" that one would exclude from 
ones bitul.




-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

R' Akiva Miller asked Why is the military supposedly forbidden
even for an adult woman, while an Adon is allowed even for a young girl?

I believe that there are a number of answers:
1. The point of selling your daughter as an Ama Ivriya is so that the Adon
or his son will marry her. In fact, this is a mitzva d'oraysa (see the
Chinuch Mitzva 43). Not only that, we pasken that maos harishonos
l'kidushin nitnu, meaning that the money that the Adon pays to buy the girl
is the money for marrying her. We see clearly, that the prupose of teh
transaction is marraige. Therefore since the Adon or his son is supposed to
marry her it is appropriate for her to be under their control.
2. The statement "the Torah forbids a woman to be under the control of
anyone other than her father or husband." is clearly an exaggeration meant
to emphasize the problems/severity of women going to the army. It is not
meant to be taken literally and there is no such Torah prohibition. The
proof is that thousands of 18-19 Charedi girls leave their homes every year
in chutz laaretz and come to seminary in Israel. In seminary they are
clearly under the control of the seminary administration which is neither
their father nor their husband and yet this is the accepted practice in the
Charedi (and MO) world, so much so that a girl who doesn't go to seminary
in Israel has a hard time finding a shidduch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170220/eb04f254/attachment-0001.htm>

in re OCD spectrum and posek-

i remember a shiur by prof tendler locally , in which someone was mepakpek
a certain teshuva by r moshe saying his mental faculties were diminished at
the time it was written. r tendler was about as livid as i can imagine a
rov can get and said you cannot do literary pathophysiology to denigrate
established writings of the gdolim , because ein ledavar sof.

  but that's for detecting onset of mental capacity change. whether one can
say lechatchila from the beginning of one's literary-tora career one could
take the writing with a proviso, maybe is another question
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170220/c185a911/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:17:12AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Crumbs smaller than a kezayis are automatically batel, except "a
: nice rolls", which one would want to keep if one knew about it (e.g.
: a wrapped candy).

Also, if the sum of crumbs in a single keli add up to more than a
kezayis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Zev Sero tried to answer my questions:

> Crumbs smaller than a kezayis are automatically batel, except
> "a nice rolls", which one would want to keep if one knew
> about it (e.g. a wrapped candy).
> There are two reasons why, midrabanan, bitul doesn't help:
> Lest one find a "nice roll", and lest one find chametz and
> absentmindedly eat it. These are obviously related; a dirty
> crumb that one would never think of eating is by definition
> not a "nice roll" that one would exclude from ones bitul.

I would think that "automatically batel" ("batel me'elav") and "nice roll"
("gluska yafeh") result from the condition of the chometz, such as it's
cleanliness and freshness. I have no idea why the size would be relevant.

We are told many times how very thorough the bedikah must be: Cracks and
crevices. Holes in a wall. And so on. These places have always led me to
believe that we must search for all chometz - even if it is small and even
if it is dirty. The only criterion is that it is raui l'achilas kelev.

R' Micha Berger noted that it's not only when an individual piece is more
than a kezayis, but

> Also, if the sum of crumbs in a single keli add up to more
> than a kezayis.

Source? I have heard similar things, but in my experience, this idea is
taken as axiomatic, and then used to prove some other point. I'm looking
for a source for this axiom. And ideally it would explain *why* the
violation is worse if the pieces of chometz are together, than if they are
scattered.

Note that what I'm actually looking for is a source that if the chometz is
less than a kezayis, then there's not even a d'rabanan of Bal Yiraeh.
However, if one can find a source about the relative severity of pieces
combining, that may lead towards my question.

Thanks!
Akiva Miller


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 19/02/17 20:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> They write in the name of Rav Chaim Pinchos Scheinberg ztz"l:
>>
>> The general obligation to check for and get rid of crumbs
>>> does not apply if the crumbs are less than the size of an
>>> olive (k'zayis) and are dirty or spoiled enough to deter a
>>> person from eating them.
>>>
>>
> If this is indeed the halacha, then it explains and simplifies several
>> difficulties I've had over the years. But *is* this the halacha? The
>> page has very few references to printed sources, and I'd appreciate any
>> mar'eh m'komos that anyone might offer.
>>
>
> Yes, this is the halacha as I've always understood it.
>
>
>
> Beyond the lack of references, I have a specific question on this. They
>> seem to be saying that one may deliberately ignore chometz gamur, and
>> deliberately *not* get rid of it, provided it is smaller than a kezayis
>> *and* he is not worried that someone might eat it.
>>
>> Meiheicha teisa? Have we ever been taught such a thing? We are allowed
>> to keep a small amount of chometz over Pesach?
>>
>
> Crumbs smaller than a kezayis are automatically batel, except "a nice
> rolls", which one would want to keep if one knew about it (e.g. a wrapped
> candy).
>
> There are two reasons why, midrabanan, bitul doesn't help: Lest one find a
> "nice roll", and lest one find chametz and absentmindedly eat it. These are
> obviously related; a dirty crumb that one would never think of eating is by
> definition not a "nice roll" that one would exclude from ones bitul.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
> z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170220/11998e6b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 20/02/17 18:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> I would think that "automatically batel" ("batel me'elav") and "nice
> roll" ("gluska yafeh") result from the condition of the chometz, such as
> it's cleanliness and freshness. I have no idea why the size would be
> relevant.

Size is relevant because a kezayis is chashuv, and therefore not 
automatically batel, whereas a crumb smaller than that has no value, and 
is thus as if it doesn't exist, unless one specifically values it.  Even 
a "nice roll" is batel unless one finds it and thinks about keeping it, 
which gives it value and thus takes it out of that category.

We see this not only on Pesach but also with regard to the respect one 
must give bread; crumbs under a kezayis don't count, and one may throw 
them away, needn't pick them up off the ground, etc.


> We are told many times how very thorough the bedikah must be: Cracks
> and crevices. Holes in a wall. And so on.

But only for crumbs bigger than a kezayis.


> Note that what I'm actually looking for is a source that if the
> chometz is less than a kezayis, then there's not even a d'rabanan of
> Bal Yiraeh.

See siman 442



-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> See siman 442

Thank you. This is exactly what I've been looking for. I'm a bit surprised
that this is in the siman about taaroves chometz, rather than biur or
bedikah, but oh well.

The parts that made the biggest impression on me were Mechaber 442:7 and
especially MB 442:33, which explicitly mentions the case of chometz which
is both smaller than a kezayis and is also dirty.

The topic of whether several small pieces combine to make a kezayis, is
dealt with in Mechaber 442:8.

The compromise that a piece of chometz does *not* require bedika/biur but
*does* require bitul appears at the end of Mechaber 442:8, and MB 442:38.

It has been my understanding throughout whatever little bits of Torah that
I've been privileged to learn, that if a kezayis of something is a shiur
d'Oriasa for whatever halacha, then a partial kezayis would be a chetzi
shiur d'Oraisa, or at least a d'rabanan, for that same halacha. I am
surprised that chometz (which is generally so very severe!) is an exception
to this, and becomes mutar when less than a kezayis. The reasoning does
seem to be that a partial kezayis is not chashuv -- but can't that be said
about ANY partial shiur? [sarcasm on:] A half-kezayis of chazir is not
chashuv, so why not eat just a nibble? [sarcasm off] What makes chometz
different?

Here's my guess at the answer: We often put eating chometz and owning
chometz into the same category, but that's a mistake. Eating chometz is a
very severe issur, but owning chometz is more like a "gezera d'Oraisa" to
insure that we don't go so far as to eat chometz. (Practical example: the
fifth hour on Erev Pesach, where we are machmir on the ikar (eating) but
not on the gezera (owning).) Perhaps this is why we are machmir on other
halachos for a partial kezayis, but lenient for OWNING a partial kezayis of
chometz.

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 20/02/17 18:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
>>
>> I would think that "automatically batel" ("batel me'elav") and "nice
>> roll" ("gluska yafeh") result from the condition of the chometz, such as
>> it's cleanliness and freshness. I have no idea why the size would be
>> relevant.
>>
>
> Size is relevant because a kezayis is chashuv, and therefore not
> automatically batel, whereas a crumb smaller than that has no value, and is
> thus as if it doesn't exist, unless one specifically values it.  Even a
> "nice roll" is batel unless one finds it and thinks about keeping it, which
> gives it value and thus takes it out of that category.
>
> We see this not only on Pesach but also with regard to the respect one
> must give bread; crumbs under a kezayis don't count, and one may throw them
> away, needn't pick them up off the ground, etc.
>
>
> We are told many times how very thorough the bedikah must be: Cracks
>> and crevices. Holes in a wall. And so on.
>>
>
> But only for crumbs bigger than a kezayis.
>
>
> Note that what I'm actually looking for is a source that if the
>> chometz is less than a kezayis, then there's not even a d'rabanan of
>> Bal Yiraeh.
>>
>
> See siman 442
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
> z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170221/c05ca855/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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)