Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 50

Wed, 25 Apr 2018

• 1. Re: When Bittul Chometz precedes Mechiras Chometz (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: When Bittul Chometz precedes Mechiras Chometz (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: R. Yhonason Eybeschutz on Secular Subjects (hankman)
• 4. Some FAQs about the OU?s ?Tevel Matzah system? (Professor L. Levine)
• 5. Re: When Bittul Chometz precedes Mechiras Chometz (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: When Bittul Chometz precedes Mechiras Chometz (Zev Sero)
• 7. hand washing (Rich, Joel)
• 8. R?YBS-Feminist/Talit Story (Joseph Kaplan)
• 9. Judging The Credibility Of The Sages (Jay F. Shachter)
• 10. Re: R'YBS-Feminist/Talit Story (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 11. Re: R?YBS-Feminist/Talit Story (Micha Berger)

> 
> Assuming even the sale is effective as-of the last possible moment, therefore
> guratanteeing the usual bi'ur of known chameitz would happen first, there is
> still the question of what to do in case of error. Is chameitz found between
> chatzos erev Pesach and tzeis at the end of the last day destroyed, or
> moved to a location you told the non-Jew where to look?
> 
> I would think the latter.
> 

?????-
Iiuc they sold the whole business, not just the stock
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

I am amazed that this discussion has gotten this far without anyone
referencing the text of the Shtar Mechira. There have been conjectures
that the person's actions might reveal his intentions, or maybe not.
But it seems to me that the starting point should be that which has
been mentioned in writing.

And this is a significant point, because I'm aware of at least two
major styles of this shtar: Some rabbis simply identify each person
who is selling their chometz. Other rabbis require that the seller
must itemize the chometz that he is selling, to some greater or lesser
degree of detail.

In the former case, where each seller is selling "all" of his chometz,
I can see a great deal of room for a discussion of whether we must
take "all" literally, or whether we can/should figure out his actual
intentions. And that's the situation I had in mind when I started this
thread.

But in the latter case, where the seller has listed the chometz that
he is selling, that list surely omits "the bag that I'll be burning",
and I imagine that there is much less wiggle room to debate other
details. It seems to me that the "stam daas" of this person would be
that he is selling only what is on the list, and the bittul is on
everything else.

Akiva Miller

R?n T. Katz wrote:

In a message dated 4/23/2018 9:34:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, hmary...@yahoo.com writes:?
Yes, the Torah commands us to learn Torah day and night, But as my Rebbe,
RAS said, this Mitzvah can be fulfilled by simply reciting Kriyas Shema in
the morning and the evening.
?
Not that this is optimal....
?
For the rest of us, we should follow and develop our strengths and serve God that way, while being Koveah Itim to fulfill the Mitzvah of Limud HaTorah....
>>>>>
?
I agree with this. ?I am aware of the opinion that "vahagisa bo yomam
velayla" can be minimally fulfilled by saying Shma. ?Despite this, it is
not necessary for every individual to personally study math, geometry,
algebra, physics, optics, astronomy, medicine, botany, zoology and
chemistry. ?
?
?
--Toby Katz

I would go well beyond that and possibly suggest that when done ?the right
way? that certain limudei chol? (read math and natural sciences) could be a
 better and more efficient way of attaining emunah including drosh vachakor
and yiras harommeimus and the  goal of understanding ?beHai? boro osom, or
the gevuros of masseh bereishis, the intricacies of the olam koton and the
actual vast olom not to mention the numerous sugios in shas and halacha
that require knowledge of the real world and it science (its
understanding). I propose a thought for consideration, that while for some
yechidim their level of Torah learning is sufficiently high that Torah is
the best and most efficient path to attain these goals. Unfortunately for
many (most) of us, our level of Torah havanah is not even close to that
level and as a practical fact a more direct path to getting a start on
these Torah goals is through studying the briah and its science put there
by G-d in the maseh beraishis. Someone l
 ike the 
 GRA whose level of Torah study most of us can not even begin to imagine
 would relegate his study of science to only when it was not in opposition
 to his limud of Torah (such as the B?HK etc) as the best manner (for him)
 of achieving this goal was through his limud of Torah. But for most of us
 to take this as also applying to our situation is wishful thinking. As
 many times as I learn parshs Bereishis, my havana of ?beHai? boro osom has
 not really grown very much nor my level derosh vachakor. For us it may be
 a lekatchila outside the B?HK to set times for scientific study if done
 with the appropriate approach in support of our Torah understanding and
 growth in yira and emunah even when not just for parnasa.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180424/aeaad408/attachment-0001.html>

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Here are some FAQs about the OU?s ?Tevel Matzah system? that were described in yesterday?s Halacha Yomis.



Q1. What would happen if the box of tevel matzos that was left in the factory was accidentally discarded?

A1. If the matzo is discarded, the Tevel Matzah system becomes
in-operative. Because of the concern that the tevel matzos might be lost,
the OU also arranges a backup Hafrashas Challah each day in the OU offices
to cover any factory that did not have a proper Hafrashas Challah done on
premises.

Q2. Is there any special reason that the OU chooses to use matzos for their tevel system? Couldn?t plain dough or bread be used instead for this purpose?

A2. The main advantage of using matzos for Hafrashas Challah is that they
have a very long shelf-life. A matzah can easily last from one year to the
next and still be edible. Another obvious advantage of using matzah is that
it can remain in the factories on Pesach.

Q3. From how many batches of dough can one separate Challah using one box of tevel matzos?

A3. When the mashgiach places the box of matzos in the factory, he declares
that 1/5 of a gram of matzah should become Challah for each subsequent
batter that will be produced. Considering that a box of matzos contains
approximately one pound of matzos (454 grams), this means that a box of
matzos will cover the Challah for more than 2,200 batches of dough. Even if
a factory makes ten batches a day, a single box of matzos will last for
over 6 months!

Q4. Given that a box of matzah can be used to separate Challah for over
2,000 batches of dough, if a factory only makes one or two batches of dough
a day, could a single box of matzos be used for several years?

A4. No. One cannot take Challah from dough made from wheat that grew in one
year on a batch of dough made from wheat that grew in a different year. The
cutoff for determining which year the wheat grew is Rosh Hashanah.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180424/2d2f7e5e/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:33pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote:
: This is actually a very old question, usually phrased as: "If I do
: Bitul, why do I need a Bedika also?" I concede that the *main* answer
: to this is that the Bitul might not be sincere, but that is not the
: only reason.

I don't see how this works as a reason. Is an insincere declaration of
hefqeir less real than an insincere asmachta of a sales contract?

The MB's other reason (gezeira) and discussion thereof, elided.

: Some may question what I am writing in this post, and they will point
: out that Mechira is more effective than Bedika, because (as RBW wrote)
: Mechira gets rid of ALL the chometz, whereas Bedika only gets rid of
: the chometz that we found...

"Dechazisei udelo chazisei"?

...
: A better question to ask, I think, might be: If I have sold my
: chometz, why do I also need the BITUL? After all, the Mechira already
: removed ALL chometz from my possession, and there's nothing left for
: me to nullify! (Hmmmm... I wonder if that might be what RBW had
: intended to type!)

Can you sell something you didn't know you owned?


A shade over 6 days later, on Tue, Apr 24 at 7:53am EDT, RAM wrote:
: I am amazed that this discussion has gotten this far without anyone
: referencing the text of the Shtar Mechira...

: And this is a significant point, because I'm aware of at least two
: major styles of this shtar: Some rabbis simply identify each person
: who is selling their chometz. Other rabbis require that the seller
: must itemize the chometz that he is selling, to some greater or lesser
: degree of detail.

I thought there are so many versions, referencing "the text" or even "a
text" is meaningless.

I therefore viewed the issue when you raised it last week (?) morein
terms of: Does your LOR address this issue, and if so, how?

: In the former case, where each seller is selling "all" of his chometz,
: I can see a great deal of room for a discussion of whether we must
: take "all" literally, or whether we can/should figure out his actual
: intentions. And that's the situation I had in mind when I started this
: thread.

Bitul and "all my chameitz" are mutually exclusive sets. It it's hefqeir,
it's not mine. (BTW, in Israeli Aramaic the word was "hevqer", which I
kept on reading as though it was "the cattle.")

Espectially is we allow later actions as evidence of what was intent
at the time of the sale.

: But in the latter case, where the seller has listed the chometz that
: he is selling, that list surely omits "the bag that I'll be burning",
: and I imagine that there is much less wiggle room to debate other
: details...

Without "and any other chameitz which may be"?

That version would solve all your problems, but affords less protection
against issur. Since all the mechirah is belt-n-suspenders with bitul
anyway, no big deal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507        taking control result in balance and harmony?

On 24/04/18 11:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 
> I don't see how this works as a reason. Is an insincere declaration of
> hefqeir less real than an insincere asmachta of a sales contract?

Yes, I think it is.  Hefker, especially when the item is still in your 
property, depends on your willing renunciation.  If you still regard it 
as yours then it's not hefker, regardless of your declaration.  Either 
because the insincere declaration is defective, or because the moment 
you think of it as yours you regain it through kinyan chatzer.


> : Some may question what I am writing in this post, and they will point
> : out that Mechira is more effective than Bedika, because (as RBW wrote)
> : Mechira gets rid of ALL the chometz, whereas Bedika only gets rid of
> : the chometz that we found...
> 
> "Dechazisei udelo chazisei"?

Bedika != Bittul.   By definition Bedika cannot get rid of what is not 
found.


 > Can you sell something you didn't know you owned?

I don't see why not.  If you inherited an unspecified estate you can 
surely sell it as a lot, sight unseen, and leave it to the buyer to 
discover what exactly is included in it.


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

The gemara (Shabbat 62b) states that being derogatory (mzalzel) concerning
ntilat yadaim(hand washing) causes poverty. Rava then clarifies that this
is only talking about the case where one doesn't wash at all. The gemara
then rejects Rava's interpretation based on R' Chisda saying that he had
washed his hands with a lot of water and got a lot of good (in return?).

As part of a broader shiur, I was wondering
:
1. Is it possible that water was not as readily available then and so this focus on the amount of water might not be applicable today?
2. Why would the gemara accept a rejection of  Rava without a more specific refutation source?
3. How is R' Chisda's statement a source of rejection? (Rava could well
agree that using more than the minimum is praiseworthy but still hold
poverty only comes for those who don't wash at all)

That's enough to start :)

KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180425/86b0436f/attachment-0001.html>

RJR tells one version of the story of the Rav and women and Tallit and
others tell a different version. He believes one. Because of the
conflicting versions and after speaking to several of the Rav?s talmidim, I
believe neither. I note that they were not published or discussed during
the Rav?s lifetime. 
Joseph

Sent from my iPhone

> 
> Are you arguing that we need to know secular knowledge [s]o that we
> know when Chazal, rishonim or acharonim based their post-facto
> explanations are errors?  What's the deep value of that?  So that we
> question their wisdom about things that have nothing to do with
> emunas chakhamim and the fealty to the actual kelalei pesaq?
> 
> If you were arguing that we need to know what to pasqen about, not
> post-facto rationalizations that are in error but opinions of the
> metzi'us they are pasqening for... I agreed (and already posted)
> that a poseiq from LOR on up can't pasqen without knowing such
> things.  But the hamon am?

> 

It is always dangerous to believe things that are not true.

Not knowing something is an intellectual failing.  Not knowing what
you are talking about is a moral failing.  Making up an answer when
you do not know the answer is a moral failing.  Knowing when our sages
have displayed this moral failing makes you more able to see the same
moral failing in yourself.  It leads to self-awareness, and self-
correction.

At the same time, and this is not a contradiction, knowing both the
moral and the intellectual failings of our sages protects you from the
dangerous and deadly doctrine of das Torah.  You will rely on
yourself, in areas where you should rely on yourself.  In the 1930s,
the majority of gdolim in Europe were opposed to leaving Europe, and
advised Jews not to leave Europe.  The docrine of das Torah directly
caused the death of millions of Jews (this is hyperbole).

Members of this mailing list have, in the past, written on this
mailing list that our gdolim do not have perfect knowledge, but still
we must do what they say, because on whom else can we rely, if not on
our gdolim?  The answer is that you must rely on yourself.  Even in
matters of halakha you must rely on yourself, if you know the halakha,
even if all the gdolim are against you; it is the first Mishna in
Harayyoth.  Of course, you must have the intellectual honesty to admit
when they know the halakha better than you do.  Qal Vaxomer you must
rely on yourself when deciding whether to buy stock in General Motors.
If nothing else, ending the pernicious doctrine of das Torah will
increase variety in our behavior, and we want that, in matters where
the halakha does not demand uniformity of behavior, for the same
reason that we want genetic diversity in our crops.

That our sages can be wrong, and wrong about imporant things, we know
already from 1 Samuel 16:6.  But it helps if you can see it yourself,
and it helps to the extent that you can see for yourself, how often,
and how much, our sages have been wrong.  Otherwise you will take
literally midrashim that attribute 1 Samuel 16:6 to 1 Samuel 9:19 and
you will think that any time our sages are wrong it is an event that
requires supernatural explanation.

Moreover, knowing how often and how much our sages have been wrong,
and thus reducing the perceived distance between you and them, makes
you more likely to understand, and to believe, that you can be like
them.  Every reader of this mailing list is able to be a Moshe, a
Xuldah, a Hillel.  Their intellectual achievements may be beyond your
abilities but their moral achievements are not.  Knowing that it is
a possibility will lead to your striving to make it a reality.  Some
of you will succeed.  Some of you will surpass them.

You will not do this if you think that our sages were of a different
species than you, if you think that Moshe was 6 meters tall, that
every Tanna had the ability to resurrect the dead, that a Talmid
Xakham of sufficient stature can look into the Torah and derive all
scientific truths from it, they could have found in the Torah a
vaccine for smallpox but they chose not to because plagues bring us
closer to God.  People with these characteristics are a different
species from you.  You will not strive to be like them, because you
will know that you do not have it in you to be like them.  You are
different, you are lesser, you are inherently flawed, all you can do
is admire them, and obey them, but you cannot equal them, or surpass
them.

There are reasons for a secular education (which was the original
topic of the thread that led to the current posting), other than
bringing us to a correct judgement of the credibility of our sages,
that have not been mentioned on this mailing list.  Secular education
inculcates the empirical mode of thought, which is indispensible for
all innovation and all progress, even progress in Torah knowledge, and
progress in Torah knowledge is possible at least according to some
people, Samson Raphael Hirsch believed that he knew the reason for the
Parah Adumah.  Without the empirical mode of thought, no well-grounded
innovations, no innovations based on reality, will ever occur.  There
is a member of this mailing list who is very intelligent, perhaps he
is the most intelligent member of this mailing list.  But he will
never create anything useful with his mind, because he believes that
he has a religious obligation to believe in dibbuks.


                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                6424 N Whipple St
                Chicago IL  60645-4111
                        (1-773)7613784   landline
                        (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"

On 4/24/2018 1:57 PM, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote:
> RJR tells one version of the story of the Rav and women and Tallit
> and others tell a different version. He believes one. Because of the
> conflicting versions and after speaking to several of the Rav's talmidim,
> I believe neither. I note that they were not published or discussed
> during the Rav's lifetime.

The one that Rabbi Mayer Twersky quotes is in the name of an impeccable 
source, Rabbi Yehuda Kelemer, who was personally involved.

KT,
YGB

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:57:13PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote:
: RJR tells one version of the story of the Rav and women and Tallit
: and others tell a different version. He believes one...

Actually, you can go see RSM's version for yourself. No need to mix
RJR into this. From the current Jewish Action:
https://jewishaction.com/the-rav/observing-the-rav

> conflicting versions and after speaking to several of the Rav?s talmidim,
> I believe neither. I note that they were not published or discussed
> during the Rav?s lifetime.

Actually, the "a woman" version was. I remember the discussion in shul,
because I thought that the story as told belittled the woman too much.
(Unlike RSM's impression, "Most of the women accepted this response,
because the Rav treated their question with genuine respect and listened
to their grievances.")

Tamar Ross (2004) records R' Meiselman and the Frimer Brothers telling
the story
https://books.google.com/books?id=vkvNNioH--4C&;lpg=PA91&pg=PA91#v=onepage

I found R' Meiselman (published Fall 1998) here (near the bottom of
pg 9 [5th page of the PDF]): http://bit.ly/2HQBwHm

And the Frimers' article (Winter 1998, a half-year before) is at
(pg 41 [37th of the PDF])
http://bit.ly/2FfK715

They say they were told the story by  Rabbi Yehuda Kelemer, former
rabbi of the YI of Brokline, and that it happened in the mid-70s.

Remember (unlike RSM) your "several of the Rav's talmidim knew the
NY RY, not the Rabbi of Boston.

There is really enough detail in R' Meiselman and R's Frimer version
to rule out the story being legend. I would attribute RSM's version
to memory drift; it has been some 40 years since the events, after all.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?


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



_______________________________________________
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.)