Avodah Mailing List

Volume 37: Number 11

Thu, 14 Feb 2019

• 1. Re: Practical Problems of Mezonos Bread (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: Practical Problems of Mezonos Bread (Zev Sero)
• 3. 10 Dibrot (Sholom Simon)
• 4. Re: Practical Problems of Mezonos Bread (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: 10 Dibrot (Mandel, Seth)
• 6. Re: 10 Dibrot (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: 10 Dibrot (Mandel, Seth)
• 8. Re: 10 Dibrot (Zev Sero)
• 9. Does "ben" mean "son" or "child"? (Akiva Miller)
• 10. Re: 10 Dibrot (Zev Sero)

For as long as I can remember, Misnagid poskim and rabbanim have been
warning people about the halachic problems of bread and rolls that are
marked as "mezonos". And for the last several decades, I haven't seen
their hechsherim on such products either.

But I *have* seen such products in the stores, and invariably they
have a chassidishe hechsher. Not only on the bread and rolls
themselves, but even on prepared ready-to-eat sandwiches. I prefer not
to believe that the poskim of those hechsherim are blind to the
problem. Rather, I would like to believe that they are following a
different shita.

Specifically, I have heard over the years, that they hold that Pas
Habaa B'Kisnin retains its mezonos status as long as one eats less
than the shiur of 3-4 kebeitzim, EVEN if one eats it with other food
as a normal meal.Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any posek who
says that in writing.

It's not difficult to open the Orach Chaim 168 and find that the Shiur
Kevias Seudah is 3-4 beitzim. The tricky part is applying that rule to
this makom and this zman, where the definition of seudah is not
necessarily the same as it used to be. The misnagdishe poskim have
come down on the side of saying that the definition of seudah has
indeed changed, and the opportunities to say mezonos on a roll are
very limited. But what do the chassidishe poskim say? I haven't seen
anything, but I'm sure that's because I don't have much access to
chassidishe poskim at all.

Can anyone offer any insights?

Thanks

Akiva Miller

On 10/2/19 2:38 pm, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>  But what do the chassidishe poskim say? I haven't seen
> anything, but I'm sure that's because I don't have much access to
> chassidishe poskim at all.

You can look at chapter 2 of the Alter Rebbe's Seder Birchos Hanehenin, 
but I'm afraid you won't find what you're looking for there.

http://chabadlibrary.org/books/adhaz/piskey/52/2.htm

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

 On 7/2/19 3:38 am, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
>>
>> Very simple, so that each dibbera is one passuk. Which is why those who
>> want to accentuate that Anokhi is a separate dibbera (actually a
>> machloket) do not use ta'am elyon for the first passuk.

RSZ writes:
>Taam Elyon combines the first two dibros because they were heard mipi
>haGevurah.

My limited understanding is that some view that reason as an after-the-fact
justification for the fact that they _should_ be two psukim.  IIRC, Rav
Breuer has them as two psukim.

The problem arose because these psukim used to be printed with both sets of
ta'amim.  (A lot of them were above the letter -- thus ta'am "elyon",
etc.).  When they were disentangled into ta'am elyon and ta'am tachton, R
Breuer contends, a mistake was made.

One piece of circumstantial evidence:  there is a rule that a segol has to
be the first melech-type trop of a pasuk, and that it must appear before
the esnachta -- but the versions that present the dibros as nine psukim
violate both of those rules.

(Granted, one could argue that this is a special circumstance and thus an
exception)

Might there be another piece of circumstantial evidence?  I always
wondered: in what year/decade/century do we see the first suggestion that:
"it's nine psukim because ..."

Thoughts?

-- Sholom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190211/0366024e/attachment-0001.html>

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 02:38:27PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: For as long as I can remember, Misnagid poskim and rabbanim have been
: warning people about the halachic problems of bread and rolls that are
: marked as "mezonos"...
: But I have seen such products in the stores, and invariably they
: have a chassidishe hechsher...
: Specifically, I have heard over the years, that they hold that Pas
: Habaa B'Kisnin retains its mezonos status as long as one eats less
: than the shiur of 3-4 kebeitzim, EVEN if one eats it with other food
: as a normal meal.Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any posek who
: says that in writing.

The AhS (OC 168:16) explicitly says kevi'as se'udah is not subjective,
"ela kol she'acheirim qov'im se'udah al shiur zeh." Citing Berakhos 42a.

And as the SA itself says, "she'acheirim regilim liqvoa".

The MB (168:24) gives 3-4 kebeitzim as the shiur for qevi'as se'udah WRT
eiruv techumin and draws from that conclusions for HaMotzi and bentshin.
"Aval kamah acharonim behaGra mikhlalam cholqim" but because this is
the shiur for lunch, and a se'udah qavu'ah would be dinner or breakfast.

So it seems that even in Litta, the norm isn't to look at whether one
is indeed eating a meal, or even whether this is the amount of pas the
individual in question would eat for a meal, but rather, on a public
shiur.

The open question one would get from the MB is whether that is 3-4 kebeitzim,
or like the Gra says, more.

As far as I can tell, the MB mentions this Gra, as does the Chayei Adam
54:4, but it's not in the Bar Ilan DB.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On February 11, 2019 at 1:22pm EST, Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RSZ writes:
>> Taam Elyon combines the first two dibros because they were heard mipi
>> haGevurah.

> My limited understanding is that some view that reason as an
> after-the-fact justification for the fact that they should be two
> psukim. IIRC, Rav Breuer has them as two psukim.
...
> Might there be another piece of circumstantial evidence? I always
> wondered: in what year/decade/century do we see the first suggestion that:
> "it's nine psukim because..."

We have other evidence thst they were always 10 pesuk until the error.
Someone wrote an article tracing when the error was made.
There is no point in trying t o justify an error.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:14:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
: We have other evidence thst they were always 10 pesuk until the error.
: Someone wrote an article tracing when the error was made.
: There is no point in trying to justify an error.

Generalizing away from leining the 10 haDiberos...

At the end of the day, the RBSO arranged things so that for centuries now
Jews have been leining His 10 haDevarim (as Hashem calls them) as 9 pesuqim.

From a causal perspective, I agree with RSM. From a teleological one,
it's hard for me to dismiss that quickly a widely accepted minhag,
discussed by generations of gedolei Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On February 11, 2019 at 3:44:16 PM EST, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> At the end of the day, the RBSO arranged things so that for centuries now
> Jews have been leining His 10 haDevarim (as Hashem calls them) as 9 pesuqim.

> From a causal perspective, I agree with RSM. From a teleological one,
> it's hard for me to dismiss that quickly a widely accepted minhag,
> discussed by generations of gedolei Torah.

What you say is not correct. Most Ashkenzim just follow what is in print,
no matter how you prove that it was a mistake on the printer's part.

You can be m'lammed zechus, but that is not the same as justifying it.

And the Teimanim have for 1,000 years been always reading it as 10, both
on Parshat Yitro and Parshat wa'ethchannan and on Shavu'ot. They had the
advantage of not being corrupted by the printed versions that changed it.

There are many other issues where you can properly use your teleology. But
a mistake remains a mistake according to halokho. It is still a meqqah
ta'ut.

On 11/2/19 1:22 pm, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
> The problem arose because these psukim used to be printed with both sets 
> of ta'amim.? (A lot of them were above the letter -- thus ta'am "elyon", 
> etc.).? When they were disentangled into ta'am elyon and ta'am tachton, 
> R Breuer contends, a mistake was made.

Not unless this disentanglement happened centuries ago, which I don't 
think it did.


> Might there be another piece of circumstantial evidence?? I always 
> wondered: in what year/decade/century do we see the first suggestion 
> that: "it's nine psukim because ..."

No later than the Mas'es Binyomin (1530-1620).   And it seems from his 
explanation that the "disentangled" versions did not yet exist, since 
his questioner can't make head or tail of the printed te'amim and he 
explains them one by one.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

.
Who asks Mah Nishtana at the Seder?

Braisa Pesachim 116a: If he is a chacham, then his "ben" asks him. If
he's not a chacham, then his wife asks him. If not, then he asks
himself.

Rambam Chometz UMatza 7:3: If he has no "ben", his wife asks him. If
he has no wife, they ask each other... If he is alone, he asks
himself.

Mechaber 473:7: If there's no chochma in the "ben", his father teaches
him. If he has no son, then his wife asks him. If not, then he asks
himself.

I would like to know the best way to translate "ben" in the above
halachos. Does it refer to a generic "child", or specifically to a
"son"? The word "ben" can go either way. Many are accustomed to
translating it as "son" in this context (and in other contexts, like
"arba banim", and "v'higadta l'vincha") but I don't know whether this
is out of habit, or whether the sources actually intend to imply "ben
zachar".

I would like to suggest a test which might determine the answer to
this question. Suppose there are three people at the Seder: husband,
wife, and daughter. No sons. Who asks the Mah Nishtana? If "ben" means
"son", then there is no son present, and the wife should ask. But if
"ben" means "child", then the daughter *is* present, and it is her job
(if she has chochma).

Right now this is a merely hypothetical question, but in some homes it
will surely become practical two months from now: According to the
Braisa, and the Rambam, and the Mechaber, who should ask? Has anyone
heard this discussed or paskened? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Akiva Miller

Note: Aruch Hashulchan 473:21 says: If the "ben" does not have chochma
to ask, then his father teaches him to ask. If he doesn't have a
"ben", then the "bas" asks. If he doesn't have a "bas', then his wife
asks or someone else who is sitting at the table asks...

Undeniably, in this case, the contrast shows that "ben" and "bas" must
be translated as "son" and "daughter"; there is no generic "child" in
the Aruch Hashulchan. But this doesn't really answer my question of
according to the Braisa, Rambam, and Mechaber, because on the one
hand, the daughter gets priority over the mother, but on the other
hand, the daughter is unequal to the son. I suppose it is possible
that the Braisa Rambam and Mechaber would all agree with the Aruch
Hashulchan (that the daughter ranks midway between son and wife), but
I'd like to know if anyone has actually written on this subject.

I would also point out that none of these four authorities mention the
modern practice of giving the Mah Nishtana davka to the *youngest*. I
wonder who the Aruch Hashulchan would give this kavod to: an eight
year old son or a seven year old daughter.

On 11/2/19 3:54 pm, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
> What you say is not correct. Most Ashkenzim just follow what is in print,
> no matter how you prove that it was a mistake on the printer's part.
> 
> You can be m'lammed zechus, but that is not the same as justifying it.

But the poskim who give the reason are not being melamed zechus, they 
are seriously explaining the reason for the minhag.  They don't think 
it's a mistake, they assume that the minhag is correct.  And this is not 
some modern phenomenon.

How do we know it was a mistake and not a deliberate decision?  How do 
we know it wasn't he Temanim who made a mistake by reasoning that there 
ought to be 10, not 9?  Isn't there a rule in girsa'os that it's the 
less obvious version that's more likely to be correct?

When were the two taamim first printed separately anyway?  If it was 
after Mas'eis Binyamin then we know that couldn't be the source for the 
minhag.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 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.)