Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 36

Tue, 03 Apr 2018

• 1. Eating before Biur Chometz (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Kneidlach - what the ShA HaRav actually says (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. Re: The not-Korban Pesach (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Kneidlach - what the ShA HaRav actually says (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Kintiyot derivatives (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) (Zev Sero)

On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur
Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where
we cannot eat until doing rhe required act?

Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply
don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right?

I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day
that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that
Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik
breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point.
For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more
Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until
you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left."

Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach!

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180330/66c7826d/attachment-0001.html>

At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote:
>Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be
>a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to
>be designated practive by practice.

Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is 
meaningless.  In Europe before the advent of 
Chassidus each  community had its own distinct 
practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha 
Makom.  My understanding is that in Syria the 
Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own 
minhagim (different) minhagim.  To me minhag ha 
makom means that all of the people have the same 
minhagim.  In America I believe you have this in New Square.


>On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY
>not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom.

This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4


Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz 
Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do 
it betzinoh so it is not so well known.

One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go 
in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He 
keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam 
Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz.

There are even some minyonim where people wear 
tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of.

Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on 
following your minhog and Al yisbayeish?., as the 
Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim.

See the other comments there.


>For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence,
>Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz?

On the contrary,  I doubt that the Chassidim will 
ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach,  the Sephardim will 
stop eating kitnyos, and  the non-Chassidic world 
will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180330/811cc7f1/attachment-0001.html>

This year's incarnation of the Gebrochts discussion attempts to discuss the
Halacha and I think traverses territory not clearly enunciated in the past.

Also I would not characterise this as Gebrochts-bashing; I dont believe
anyone is troubled by those who say, "My Rebbe/My tradition is not to eat
whatever it may be" the issue is that Gebrochts is promoted as Halachically
legitimate and therefore preferred if not mandated.

The ShA HaRav declares firstly, that as far as the Halachah is concerned,
there is no concern with Kneidlach during Pesach, see the link -
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&;st=&pgnum=486

He does however advise that it is a valid stringency
his first observation/proof however is that flour can be found on the
surface of the Matzos
and later on says this is quite common

However,
A]  we have not been able to verify this in all our years
B]  no other Posek ever verified this claim
this claim supports the proposition that there remains flour within the
finished Matza - but
C]  there has never been a Posek who suggested that dough is not thoroughly
kneaded leaving flour in the finished product
the only concern was that flour not be added AFTER the dough had already
been made
D]  even the published Teshuvah admits this, look at note 33 on the link
provided -

It is universally accepted these days that flour is not added to a dough
already made
and there is no Matza baking program that permits adding flour to the
already made dough


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180402/56968f35/attachment-0001.html>

I had asked:
: It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to
: the Pesach as a Korban...
: My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided
: using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently?

Upon further research, it seems that my question was based on the
*mistaken* assumption that the Pesach was unique in this regard. It
turns out that while the Torah does use the word "korban", it never
uses phrases such as "Korban Tamid", "Korban Todah", or "Korban
Musaf". These were referred to simply as the Tamid, the Todah, and the
Musaf, just as the Pesach was. Apparently, construction of the phrase
came much later, and was applied to them all.

Exception: The "Korban Mincha" is mentioned three times in Vayikra 2,
but that would change the whole question drastically.

I should also clarify: these phrases aren't missing only from the
Torah, but from the whole Tanach. They seem to have arisen after the
Tanach.

Akiva Miller

On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> On the contrary,  I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on 
> Pesach,  the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and  the 
> non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach.

I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts.

[Email #2. -micha]

On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> This is changing. From

> One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash 
> and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the 
> Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz.

> There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol 
> Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of.

I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is
eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his
full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000
Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave.

Ben

On 01/04/18 11:09, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:

> A]  we have not been able to verify this in all our years 

Who is "we"?

> B]  no other Posek ever verified this claim
> this claim supports the proposition that there remains flour within 
> the finished Matza - but
 >
> C]? there has never been a Posek who suggested that dough is not 
> thoroughly kneaded leaving flour in the finished product
> the only concern was that flour not be added AFTER the dough had already 
> been made

Perhaps you mean no *other* posek, because this one clearly says it. 
It's no surprise that nobody before him mentions it, because he says 
it's a recent phenomenon.


> D]? even the published Teshuvah admits this, look at note 33 on the link 
> provided -

This is a bizarre claim.  The teshuvah "admits" no such thing.  First of 
all, the footnote is obviously not part of the teshuvah, not by its 
author, and thus completely irrelevant to anything.   Second, the 
footnote does not "admit" such a thing either.   It brings to the 
reader's attention, for his better understanding, a similar concern that 
is recorded in earlier times, in specific circumstances, from which one 
can easily understand why this current concern should lead to these 
conclusions.

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

I was thinking about this. I thought of two exceptions, one that 
basically is an exception that proves the rule and the other is a real 
exception.

1) Some chocolates state that they are kosher for everyone, but that 
they contain lecithin? (leftit). I consider this the exception that 
proves the rule because so many poskim consider it to be OK in any case 
that stating that a chocolate contain lecithin is basically stating that 
it contains a non-kitniyot product.
2) Powered chalav nochri. Labels here are supposed to state that a 
product containts powered chalav nochri (if it does). This was the 
result of a lawsuit.? I guess that no one wants to start listing every 
possible kula that goes into a food product.

OTOH? if meat isn't halaq, labels generally don't state it. They only 
state the meat's halaq status if it is halaq.

Ben

On 3/27/2018 5:32 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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
>

At 12:20 PM 4/1/2018, Ben Waxman wrote:
>I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which 
>is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give 
>his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 
>15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave.

Have patience and watch developments.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180401/58fb689e/attachment-0001.html>

On 01/04/18 21:58, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> At 12:20 PM 4/1/2018, Ben Waxman wrote:
>> I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is 
>> eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his 
>> full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 
>> Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave.
> 
> Have patience and watch developments.

Do you claim prophecy, or are you breaking silence on some vast and 
hereto unsuspected conspiracy?


-- 
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.)