Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 32

Tue, 27 Mar 2018

• 1. Re: No more (Not eating) Gebrokts (Zev Sero)
• 2. The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? (Professor L. Levine)
• 3. Re: Being Matir Neder (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Soft vs dry matza (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Being Matir Neder (Zev Sero)
• 6. Being Matir Neder (Sholom Simon)
• 7. Re: Being Matir Neder (Mandel, Seth)
• 8. Re: deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Kintiyot derivatives (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Being Matir Neder (Zev Sero)
• 11. Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos (Professor L. Levine)
• 12. Re: Being Matir Neder (Zev Sero)

On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it 
> did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat 
> Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating 
> kitniyot.

Or maariv.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

From

https://goo.gl/xoFGcP


With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law)
controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The
controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869)
came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that
machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era
who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur
(1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic
rabbis, particularly from Galicia.


Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe,
maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade
matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875),
Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and
Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine
spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic
personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also
approved of the machine.


See the above URL for more.


YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180326/3561d3b7/attachment-0001.html>

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From Today's OU  Kosher Halacha Yomis
: 
:> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on
:> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and
:> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation
:> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as
:> though he made a vow...

: Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce
: from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply
: start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado?

It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that
had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who
accepted on themselves".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
:                                                    Rav Eli Tzilicha
: feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these
: advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot.

1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually
exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends
if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce
matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of
baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out,
even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.)


:                                                                 Rav
: Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how
: to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim
: and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so.

: My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly
: kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an
: argument here about the halacha.

2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade
ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery
in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine,
but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian)
hechsher!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:


> Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? 

No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for 
chometz, although a slight one.


>? If yes, ?then can one deduce 
> from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply 
> start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado?

No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but 
is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu".


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

>
> Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies
> that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah,
> Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the
> smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder
> (annulment of vows)?
>
> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a
> stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and
> followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would
> continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a
> vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment
>

My limited understanding of YD 214 is this:

1.  The Mechaber took the machmir view.  IIRC (a few years back I learned
this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban
who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent.  The
Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban.

2.  Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one
may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion?

3.  If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on
the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what
constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does?

[Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times,
even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).]


That would be with stam intent, no?  If he did it three times, but had
specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder.

Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume
that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra
beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does
not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required.


I totally don't understand this!  Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214?

YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or
refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this
almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?  The whole idea
of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from
it anyway.  That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it?

-- Sholom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180326/fe4cddf1/attachment-0001.html>

On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to
> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra
> beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does
> not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required.

> I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214?

> YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K,
> or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this
> almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea
> of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains
> from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it?

Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people
will start being mzalzel in other things.

According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If
you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim
is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just
a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make
it a never.

The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in
halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to
avoid d esting tomatoes.

If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider
it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required,
then again it is s ta'us.

.
Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I
> believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew
> has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should
> be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates
> a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not
> necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This
> is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the
> minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy.

Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion
that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick
announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which
simcha WE are celebrating.

But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another
off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house.

No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva
minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one
dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur
to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all
sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning).

But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos,
in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as
follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole
7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil
is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel
himself does not..."

I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact.
Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a
house or shul where there is a chasan..."

I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech
Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it
for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech
Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more
than they felt the avel's loss?

I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I
have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out
that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow
their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our
unlearned minds.

Akiva Miller

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of
: kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this
: way, that isn't my question.

I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the
lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product
as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos
rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package
which minhagim can or can't use the product.

The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that
in a number of ways.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
> According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If
> you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim
> is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just
> a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make
> it a never.

Not so.  It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a 
real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at

http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180327/369f9dc8/attachment.html>

On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
> 
>> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to
>> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an
>> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the
>> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would
>> not be required.


> I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214?
> 
> YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or 
> refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this 
> almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole 
> idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but 
> refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, 
> isn't it?

This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often 
tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the 
author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up 
the original source.  As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his 
teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?".

RMF's words in the original are crystal clear:

                  ==========  b e g i n  ==========
But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when 
people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact 
that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good 
deed.  For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are 
permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that 
this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot 
derive it from "they treated it as forbidden".

And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they 
treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath 
cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to 
institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that 
they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the 
prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when 
"they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is 
possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term 
"vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when 
he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an 
effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting 
oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had 
accepted it on himself with the term "vow".

So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as 
tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos 
and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the 
form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a 
thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a 
mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not 
applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be 
considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly 
accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)