Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 014

Wednesday, April 4 2001

• RE: Whither Voss Iz Der Chilluk
• rice on erev pesach this year
• RE: what constitutes "roasting"
• RE: Chatzos at the Seder
• Re: Chatzos at the Seder
• RE: Chatzos at the Seder
• [none]
• Achilas matzah /seudah
• Matzah when bread unavailable
• New Shiur From RYBS
• Covering counter tops on Pesach
• Re: Matzah mehl Rolls on Erev Pesach (sent to Avodah also)
• At Psach Lo
• Who and What is a Rishon
• Re: classical authorities who opposed belief in 'gilgul ne
• "ki hu Kel zon" in 'bentching'
• Re: tevilas ezra
• Re:VIDC #6 (fwd)
• Re: tevilas ezra
• Re: classical authorities who opposed belief in 'gilgul neshomos' (reincarnation)
• Ibn Ezra's heavenly reputation
• Re: The Woman as Kohein Godol....
• Re: meaning of zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat (was IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro)
• RE: fat Cohanim

> If someone took the time to write up at least the basic shitos 
> and chakiros for me at least it would be more valuable than just reading 
> sevaros that people shoot from the hip with no connection to 
> anything.  Also, this way even those who cannot think of a sevara will 
> walk away with at least a grounding in some basic shitos rishonim and some 
> idea of what the issue are.  Your call, or maybe throw it out for a vote.

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to read VIDC thoroughly.  From what I
did read, it does seem valuable to me.  It is important for people to
understand the *process* of lomdus, not just the information itself.  Rav
Lichtenstein, for example, gives a shiur in methodology which uses a
bekius-like understanding of a sugyah as a launching pad for talmidim to
learn how to kler chakiros, etc.

Would an expanded chaburah be even more valuable?  Perhaps--provided that
the wealth of information does not drown out the goal of focusing on
understanding how different schools of lomdus think.  And the question
remains whether one or more people would be willing to spend the time
writing up the chaburah in a clear and concise fashion.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: "Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer" <frimea@mail.biu.ac.il>
> The general rule is that there is no din of Baluah by kitniyot.  This was
> also confirmed le-halakha le-ma'aseh by my brother Dov in a conversation with
> rav aharon Lichtenstein shlita.  I've written to various kashrut agencies as
> to why they suggest separate keilim for feeding babies rice cereal and the
> answer is " It's a Humra"  or "a geder".   That - I don't understand!  A
> geder on a Minhag ha-Geonim which was not accepted by all klal yisrael and
> which many poskim were in favor of limiting as much as possible?   Now
> there's a takanta le-takanta!

The Darchei Moshe (453) brings down the Maharil re: using oil from Kitniyos
that one shouldl not let the oil drop onto the dishes upon which we eat
pesachdikke food.   

Afai can tell, we don't pasken like this Maharil re: a few drops of oil
messing up our food be'dieved, but it still might make sense to separate the
keilim lechatchila...  

[In a second email, RRW adds:]

Whoops a follow up sevara occured to me:
Q: Was this rice CERTIFIED free of other chametz?

Background: One of the original "issues" with Kiniyos is the chance that
other grains wer mixed in.

So 
A) Given if we have rice that was prepared for Passover - let's say for
Sefardim - so we KNOW it has no other issues of Chametz and we can assume
100% kitniyos then perhaps indeed there is zero reason to be gozer on bliah

However,

B) If we have STAM rice without it having been checked for other grains
embedded therein, then perhaps this is a case of the original "gzeiro or
chumra or minhag" of kitniyos to begin with?  IOW since this rice MIGHT have
other grains embedded it would only make sense to refrain from using regular
keilim.

Zissen Pesach
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Avram_Sacks@cch.com [mailto:Avram_Sacks@cch.com]
> If meat is placed into a pan and placed inside an oven, with nothing
> more, is that roasting? or, must the meat be directly exposed to flame? 
> (does it make a difference if the oven is electric, where the element
> is *inside* the oven, vs a gas stove, where the flame is in the broiler
> beneath the oven compartment?

Look at the R. Eider sefer on Pesach (I don't have it here), where he quotes
IIRC the Mishnah Brurah to the effect that this case constitutes tzli kadar
and is prohibited.

> Must the heat be totally dry? For example, if, in the above example, water
> and wine is placed in the pan with the meat, does that bring the meat
> outside the "roasting" category? 

IIRC, R. Eider permits it (and IIRC he cites the MB, and I verified it)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Edward Weidberg [mailto:eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com]
> I have heard this referred to as the aitza of the Avnei Nezer (source
> anybody?) and also that it doesn't work according to some Shitos (IIRC
> the Rosh near the end of Pesachim) that R. Akiva agrees that there's an
> issur midRabbonon to eat korban Pesach after midnight like other kodoshim
> (see Zevochim 57b).

I've always wondered about this.  Is it clear that all gzeiros m'drabbanan
that were applied to Korban Pesach are automatically applied to the
afikoman?  And, to the extent that we have a safek l'halacha, would we say
sfeikah d'rabbanan l'kula?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[I'm allowing yet another answer because he adds se'if and siman. -mi]

>> there is a simple eitzah, based on the proposition that those who believe
>> that one must eat afikoman by chatzos also believe that there is no issur
>> achilah after chatzos (because it's no longer b'sha'as chiyuv).  
...
> I have heard this referred to as the aitza of the Avnei Nezer (source
> anybody?) ...

See Avnei Nezer OH 381:5

> I've always wondered about this.  Is it clear that all gzeiros m'drabbanan
> that were applied to Korban Pesach are automatically applied to the
> afikoman?  And, to the extent that we have a safek l'halacha, would we say
> sfeikah d'rabbanan l'kula?

All this is only l'chetchila as the afikomen is zecher l'pesach.
See MB 477:6, Biur Halacha D"H Vihay. It seems also from Sha'ar HaTziun
4 that l'chetchila we are chosheish for shitas Rashi and Rashbam that
the afikomen is eaten for the Di'oraisa mitzva of matzoh.

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

Saw this on the train this morning. 
If one only has matzah this Erev Pesach would we say the asseh d'rabanan of
eating lechem on Shabbos is docheh the lo saseh d'rabanan of not eating
matzah Erev Pesach?

3 answers brought down why we wouldn't say this.

1) The  lo saseh d'rabanan of not eating matzah Erev Pesach is based on an
Asmachrah so has stronger weight than aseh.

2) The shiur achila of pas is a beitzah and the issur is on a k'zayis. If
one were allowed to eat matzah there is a chashash one might eat more than a
beitzah and wind up eating a kzayis extra.

3) There is no chiyuv to eat pas on Shabbos only an issur to fast. (Issur
aseh)

> If one only has matzah this Erev Pesach would we say the asseh d'rabanan
> of eating lechem on Shabbos is docheh the lo saseh d'rabanan of not
> eating matzah Erev Pesach?

I think the simple answer is that not eating on Shabbos is built into
the din, similar to what the T.Y. writes by bringing a korban tamid on
Shabbos its not aseh doche l"t because built into the chiyuv korban tamid
is the fact that it must occur daily and the tzivuyim of Shabbos do not
apply to it. Here too, when the din of not eating matzah on E.P. was made,
it was understood that the din seudah on Shabbos was being pushed off.

More complex answer (since this issue has been discussed on avodah):
the din of seudas shabbos is a takanah derabbanan. The din of not eating
matzah E.P. is a gezeirah derabbanan. A gezeirah overrides a takkanah.
(By way of example: the gezeirah of shema ya'avirenu overrides mitzvas
Shofar/lulav on Shabbos, though the cases are not precisely parallel).

From: Brown, Charles.F [mailto:charlesf.brown@gs.com]
> If I wanted to launch into lomdus land I would say that the issur achila
> is a gezeirah m'derabbanan.  The din of eating is a takanah mderabbanan.  A
> gezeirah overrides a takanah (just likr for example the gezeirah of shema
> ya'avirenu removes the mitzva of tekiyas shofar).

Your example of shofar  was mentioned to me by Micha on the train but I
thought it wasn't a teretz cause by shofar the gezairah was gufah on blowing
the shofar. Here the issur achila is on matzah not on the din of eating pas
on Shabbos. To be comparable you'd have to say that Chazal made a gezairah
not to eat any Pas on Shabbos Erev Pesach not just matzah

Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Makas Bchoros
(Shiur Date: 2/8/75. Tape available from M. Nordlicht: #5218, #5219. Please
refer to this Shiur for Parshas Bo as well.)

Yetzias Mitzrayim is more than a story that happened to our people
thousands of years ago. It is still as significant and relative today as
it was those many years ago. The exodus was the preamble to receiving the
Torah at Sinai. One could say that all 613 commandments are rooted in some
way to Yetzias Mitzrayim and Kabbalas HaTorah. Often the Torah associates
Yetzias Mitzrayim with Mitzvahs, for example Ani Hashem Elokaychem Hamotzi
Eschem M'Eretz Mitzrayim. Shabbos as explained in the Aseres Hadibros
in Sefer Devarim is rooted in Yetzias Mitzrayim. What is the guiding
principle of the Mitzvahs that are explicitly associated with Yetzias
Mitzrayim? For instance we are enjoined from acting as the Egyptians did.

[Rest of post snipped, as per our discussion on Areivim about long reposts.
See <http://shamash.org/listarchives/mj-ravtorah/bo.01.ravtorah.01> for the
complete article. -mi]

The common custom is to cover counter tops for Pesach. What is the
halachic justification for this? Also, what is the chiluk between chometz
and tarfus? When people buy a house from goyim, they don't cover the
counter tops.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Markowitz, Chaim <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
> 1) I think R' Moshe Feldman is confusing 2 issues. One issue is whether
> the matzah has a taam matzah and can be considered matzah you can be
> yotzei with and the 2nd issue is once you rebake/boil etc the matzah
> what brachah do you make.

> In regards to the 1st issue to me it seems pretty clear in the MB that
> only boiling (and maybe frying) removes the taam matzah from the matzah.
> Consequently, only boiled matzah can be eaten Erev pesach. In regards
> to the 2nd issue, that is the discussion in 168.

I disagree with your reading of the MB.  It is true that MB 471:20 happens
to talk only about boiling pieces of matzah.  However, the citations I wrote
in last week's email are borne out by Shaar Hatziyun 471:16, which says that
the comment of MB 471:19--which stated that pieces of matzah kneaded with
wine cannot be eaten erev Pesach--does not apply if there is no toar lechem.
The Shaar Hatziyun cites, as did I, S"A 168 (which deals with hilchos
brachos--this undermines the chiluk you tried to make) and the Magen Avraham
there.

Finally, REMTeitz publicly announced this Shabbos that one may eat matzah
meal cakes next Shabbos (l'ochlei gebroks).  He was the one who brought my
attention to the Shaar Hatziyun.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> I was looking through the Roedelheim Haggadah on the train this morning
> (it is called the Wolf Heidenheim Haggadah). I noticed a few interesting
> changes he made to the nusach.  Regarding the she'eino yodea lishol,
> he has "atah pesah lo" instead of "at pesah lo..

So that wipes out 2 'toyros' that kids have been saying for generations
explaining the 'at':

1) First teach the SYL the alef beis from A(lef)-T(ov)
2) That the SYL is a really young child who is at home with his mother
all the time. So the mother -'at' - (loshon nekeiva) should teach him...

SBA

> It is also interesting to note the philosophically oriented rishonim
> who believed in gilgul. For example, R. Chasdai Crescas (towards the
> end of Or Hashem, in a chapter whose title mentions gilgul) and R.
> Yitzchak Abarbanel (in his peirush al haTorah on the parshah of yibum).

The above quote highlights an interesting (to me anyway) issue of status
determination. Does contemporaneity invest all members of a generation
with an equivalent halakhic authority -- asked in that way, I would assume
the answer is trivially, no. thus to call r. chasdai crescas -- remembered
for matters other than halokhic contributions -- in the same breath that
calls rambam or rabbeinu tam rishonim seems to blur some important distinction
that needs to be made. This question more usually lurks just underneath
-- and occasionally just above -- the horizon when the traditionalist
contemplates the ibn ezra, who at least was an exegete of note but had
not distinguished himself as a ba'al talmud -- few traditionalists have
much compunction blowing off the ibn ezra's opinion of things, even in
matters of poroshonus, or even speaking of him with borderline disrespect,
in a way they would never do for one of his ba'alei tosofos contemporaries
-- but yet preople, somewhat schizophrenically, account the ibn ezra a
rishon. I'm not sure that many would grant r. crescas even the same
grudging period acknowledgement granted ibn ezra. Then too, there is
the other issue of rishonic era dating. While I would acknowledge r.
crescas to fall, barely, within the rishonic period, that's only because
he was a sefaradi and we would want to acknowledge the nimuqei yosef,
rivash, and rashbetz as rishonim even in the early 1400s.
I will forebear repeating here the reasons which I had previously remarked,
and are presumably exhumable in old mail jewish or avodah archives, that
-- despite popular published time line posters and various artscroll
pubs, ashqenazi rishonim have disappea red by the mid 1300s and everybody
else from then on -- specifically including such as maharil and t'rumas
had'deshen, are already acharonim. As for Abarbanel, even considering
the more extended sefaradi rishonic period, and the fact that he may
have been barely born while the last of the sefaradi rishonim were yet
living, he is an acharon. However, not having left a body of talmudic
or halokhic work, his position vis a vis contemporaries may be somewhat
analogous to the ibn ezra's to his.

Mechy Frankel			W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com	H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

Davide Riceman wrote:
> I still haven't looked up the page, but I lent the sefer to someone yesterday 
> so I'll post anyway. R. Margalioth, in his introduction to R. Avraham ben 
> HaRambam's Milhamoth HaShem, cites R. Avraham as opposing belief in gilgul.
     
p. 19 n. 11

Gil Student

From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> I was looking through the Roedelheim Haggadah on the train this morning
> (it is called the Wolf Heidenheim Haggadah). I noticed a few interesting
> changes he made to the nusach..................
> Also, in the first paragaph of bentching he has "ki hu zon" instead of "ki 
> hu kel zon".................

FYI - according to the hagohos in the Siddur Eizor Eliyohu (on birchas 
hamozon), all old siddurim have "ki hu zon" instead of "ki hu kel zon" and 
the  change to the former seems to be al pi hAr"i - it is not a change by R. 
Heidenheim.

Mordechai

R. Sadya n Targum: <First of all, the mikvah does not bring taharo when
it is not tvilas Ezra, because where there's no tumah there can't be
taharo.> R. SB Abeles: <AIUI there is an inyan of tosfos tahara and
tosfos kedusho.> SNT: <Second, even if there is need for tvilas Ezra,
the person doesn't become tohor after the mikvah until the night (the
posuk says "v'tomay ad ho'erev.")>

SBA: <I think that refers to achilas kodoshim only.>

I thought, perhaps erroneously, that my previous post on the subject
made it clear that there are two completely different things going on
here. Hasidim do NOT go to the miqva because of t'vilas Ezra. T'vilas
Ezra is not done on a regular, scheduled basis, like once a day or once
a week, and certainly would not be done on erev shabbos. All rishonim
held it was botel, and the one who held you should do it was the Gro',
who was certainly NOT a source of hasidishe minhogim. According to the
Gro', it would ONLY have been done in the morning before shaharis on
occasion and never on shabbos or yom tov itself, and certainly never on
erev shabbos. And the taqqono, although it did not accomplish taharo
(as I quoted the Rambam, that taqqonas Ezro covered a zov or a niddo
who had relations, even though they remained in tum'a hamura), was for
t'vila done as other t'vilos, i.e. only once. There were no t'vilos done
at the time of Hazal for more than once, even not for the Kohen G-dol
on Yom haKippurim.

Rather, the source for t'vila by hasidim and m'qubbalim is the Qabbolo. I
quoted from the Talmidim of the Ari that he would praise to them the
benefit of going to the miqva on Erev Shabbos to be "moshekh on themselves
the q'dusha of shabbos." This is transparently not a halakhic concept.
Q'dushas z'man has nothing to do with a miqva; even on erev Yom Kippur,
the earliest source of the idea of going to a miqva for men, was
specifically labeled a minhog.

To call this "an inyan of tosfos tahara and tosfos kedusho," while
true in common parlance, obfuscates the distinction. To be accurate,
it should be called "an inyan of tosfos tahara and tosfos kedusho 'al
pi Qabbolo." This is not "tosfos taharo" on top of halakhic taharo;
this is taharo 'al pi Qabbolo, a totally different concept, on top of
taharo 'al pi Qabbolo. Therefore, the m'qubbalim and hasidim who follow
this not only see nothing strange with dunking in the miqva more than
once, addrabba, it is standard. Each time you go down, for instance
on erev shabbos, you have different kavvonos (the kavvonos, of course,
as with anything done 'al pi Qabbolo, are crucially important), and so
each dipping accomplishes a "tosfos q'dusha and taharo" on top of the
previous one. But the q'dusha and taharo that the Qabbolo is talking about
has nothing to do with halakhic qdusha and taharo, and to confuse them
is to muddy the waters for both. (OK, at least one bad pun per serious
post.) As a matter of fact, hasidim who do go to the miqva remain tome
as far as everything goes except for eating hulin 'al taharas trumo or
'al taharas haqodesh, and I scarcely think that any hosid will claim he
is doing that. T'vilo for trumo or qodshin, per the mishna in Hagiga,
has to be done specifically l'shem that taharo.

So there are three separate issues that have to be distinguished here:

a) t'vilo for taharo, as in hilkhos tum'a and taharo. Practiced
by P'rushim in the time of Hazal who ate hulin 'al taharas
haqodesh. Practiced by NOBODY for over a thousand years.

b) t'vilas Ezro. Did not accomplish taharo, was only for ba'al qeri or
relations. According to virtually all, the taqqono was botel totally. The
Rambam brings a minhog is all of Spain and Bovel to wash oneself (not
necessarily miqva) before davening (but not before divrei Torah) in the
morning. However, this minhog was NEVER practiced in Ashk'naz. To try to
connect any minhogim of Ashk'nazim with the Rambam's minhog has no basis
whatsoever. Furthermore, when the Rambam says Sefarad, he is referring
to Muslim Spain. We do not find this minhog in Christian Spain. The Gro'
held it is still noheg, and there are a very few Groniks who do it;
most do not. Simon muvhoq: one doing it to follow the Gro will not do
it on shabbos or yom tov or Rosh haShono or Yom Kippur, nor will he go
on erev shabbos.

c) t'vila 'al pi qabbolo. Does not accomplish halakhic taharo;
accomplishes spriitual taharo, and each dipping, if accompanied by the
right kavvono, can add a different aspect of spiritual taharo (called
tosfos q'dusho and taharo). Practiced by m'qubbolim and hasidim.

The only question is how did some hasidim get confused and connect c)
above with t'vilas Ezra? The answer may be that they knew that they
were not dipping for halakhic taharo, and the only miqva mentioned in
the g'moro not for taharo is t'vilas Ezra. More probably, the cause is
the uncertainty of what the Ari himself did. Although he went on erev
shabbos, his talmidim, as I quoted them before, are not at all clear
on when he went otherwise. They quote him as going when one was a ba'al
qeri. So it may have been that during the week, the Ari held like the Gro,
that you do t'vilas Ezra. Be that as it may, that was not the way the
m'qubbolim held. They held there is an "inyan" to go to the miqva any
day of the week, even on shabbos morning, especially on shabbos and yom
tov morning, and again before tqias shofar. This is not t'vilas Ezra,
but it makes perfectly good sense 'al pi qabbolo, which is, after all,
the source for most hasidishe minhogim. And, as I mentioned before,
t'vilas Ezra could never be done in a heated miqva on shabbos. G'zeras
habballonim, an issur d'rabbonon, overrides that mitzvo d'rabbonon. The
claim that the g'zero is botel, something held by NO rishonim, is
certainly less than the claim that taqqonas Ezro is botel, something
held by all rishonim. Whether g'zeras habballonim overrides t'vila 'al pi
qabbolo is a completely different issue that cannot be discussed on the
same terms. L'ma hadovor dome? To a claim that in order to have proper
kavvono, one can daven after the z'man of hazal. This can be termed an
"extra-halakhic" discussion, because it relies on issues that may be very
important, like the proper kavono 'al pi qabbolo or the proper taharo
'al pi qabbolo, but are outside the framework of halokho of the niglo,
as m'qubbolim call it.

Seth Mandel

Anonymous response:

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:57:28 -0400
Subject: Re:VIDC

This is an example of the problem with this thread. The question was

>"The Divrei Yechezkel 45:4 asks why the Ramban categorizes Sefiras
>ha'Omer as a Mtizvas Aseh *she'ein* ha'zman grama - how is different
>than any Mitzvas Aseh she'ha'zman grama - it is, after all, linked to a
>time." 

The answer to such a question is not to find reasons to be mechayev women,
but to be choker in the gedarim of sefira and to show why it isn't
considerd Zman Grama (ZG) (like the Turei Even etc). To find a mechayev
(zecher l'mikdash, "V'safra lah" by Niddah" etc.) doesn't explain why it
is not ZG, just like Kiddush is ZG even though there is a limud Zochor
V'Shamor. [YGB note: Well, perhaps that's what makes those mahalchim
Hungarian :-) .]
 
In addition, to bring a machlokes whether ZG is a ptur by d'Rabbonon has
the same problem - it dosn't explain the Ramban at all - in addition to
the fact that that is a machlokes only by d'Rabbonon and Sefirah is only
ba'zman ha'zeh a d'Rabbonon - what is to say that the Ramban is talking
davka ba'zman hazeh (besides the fact that according to many shittos -
Rambam - sefira even today is min hatorah). So also to say "based on
zecher l'mikdash" - zecher l'mikdash is only ba'zman hazeh - why the
Rabbonon were mesaken - what does that have to do with the mitzvah min
ha'Torah?  etc.  etc. (In the bittul discusion there were similar
problems). In other words, sevoros are thrown around "lishmah" regardless
of context at all. There should be more stress on context etc. KNLAD. 

Seth Mandel wrote:
> T'vilas Ezra is not done on a regular scheduled basis. All rishonim held it
> was botel.

Isn't there a tshuva of the Rambam (to R. Pinchas HaDayan, IIRC, and included
in Sheilat's Iggroth HaRambam, though possibly not in Blau's edition of
tshuvoth) in which he cites tevillath Ezra as a widespread custom among
sefaradim (though not Rumanian jews like R. Pinhas) and one that he himself
follows?

Admittedly, he held the obligation was battel, but not the minhag.

David Riceman

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 12:58:32PM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: 1) Rav Saadia Gaon - Sefer Emunos vaDeios, Maamar shishi (6), Perek shmini (8).

RSG there opposed a belief in ha'atakah, which he attribute to "people
who are called Jews", and defines as "the soul of Reuven will return
to Shimon, and then to Levi, and then to Yehuda. Many of them say that
there are times when the soul of a human enters an animal and the soul
of an animal enters a human, and many other such matters of madness
and confusion." (Transliation from Ibn Tibon's Hebrew by Amitai Halevi
<chr04ha@aluf.technion.ac.il>.)

This may or may not be the same belief as gilgul. When Prof (chem) Halevi
posted the above on scjm, I suggested that gilgul did not mean total
metempsyschosis, but that the term "gilgul neshamah" refered to neshamah
in the Naran sense -- not the whole soul. This would fit the notion of
gilgul of just nitzotzos as well, no one is claiming that the person's
psyche or mind is reincarnated (until techiyas hameisim).

I admit, though, that this is unlikely. Why would R' Saadia Gaon speak
so forcefully against a belief similar to one he felt was kosher without
clearly defining the difference between the two; thereby avoiding the
confusion that I just suggested could have occured?

: 3) Rash"i (?) - A while ago, while learning Devorim, the following caught my
: attention. In Devorim 24:16 Rashi says that it's possible (chas vesholom)
: for children to die due to sins of (their) fathers - one should note that
: Rashi makes no mention of (what many folks nowadays might bring up re such a
: case) the theory those who promote the idea of gilgulim/reincarnation would
: be wont to mention in such a case (that the child who dies was a reincarnated
: soul,etc.). ...

Rashi (and the Sifri) are dealing with a totally different inyan -- the
idea that what the father does could hurt the children (despite the pashut
peshat in the pasuk at hand, which would be soseir the 13 middos). It's
not about the death of children, but about intergenerational sechar va'onesh.
The fact that children could die for other reasons isn't relevent to
whether or not this punishment can occur.

Second, it is assur to tell someone bish'as ma'aseh that some tzarah came
because of cheit. While "the theory mentioned" does not have such an issur.

Last, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Fitting the child's death into
the parent's cheshbon doesn't explain how it fits in the child's.

Any student of history knows well that most events are the products of
a convergence of multiple causes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Usually when the Maggid Meisharim quotes a rishon the form is first-name
followed by term-of-endearment.  I was surprised last week (parshas
Vayiqra) to read a reference to "Ibn Ezra" [sic].  Any explanations?
  Is this related to the Ramban's "tochacha meguleh v'ahavah mustereth"?
Does anyone have any inside information on Ibn Ezra's reputation in
shamayim?

David Riceman

In a message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:56:16am EST, "Noah S. Rothstein"
<noahrothstein@mindspring.com> writes:
:> R' Avigdor Miller, shlita, said that if a woman has the k'vono to enable her
:> children and husband to be oveid Hashem when she is cooking for them, she is
:> like the Kohein Godol offering korbonos in the Beis H"M...

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:00:24AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: And a wife who pays someone else to perform these functions?
: And a husband who works for a living with the same kavanot?

Another act, no matter how laudable, isn't doing what the kohein did. The
point was the kedushah of kehunah, not kedushah in general.

BTW, why kohein gadol? Didn't a kohein hedyot do more of these duties --
e.g. dishun mizbei'ach?

-mi

Joel Rich wrote (7:13)
> Nice, but then why is there a separate zchirah for maamad har sinai?
> I always understood zachor et yom hashabbat al pi R'YBS general approach
> to zchirah meaning that it has to be more than thought - that zchirah
> of shabbat reminds us of our connectionto HKBH on a ruchani level & thus
> must change our daily activities (which works better I suppose according
> to the Rambam who says that zchirah-even amalkek- is a daily requirement)

Good question.  I don't remember if my grandfather discussed it, I'll have to
check.  Al regel achas, I would say that al pi p'shat the commandment of 
zakhor et yom ha-shabbat is not a commandment to remember ma'amad
har sinai at all, it is a commandment about the observance of shabbat.  The
question is why the particular term "zakhor"  which in all other instances is
used only in connection with events that were directly experienced by dor
ha-midbar would be used in connection with Shabbat.  That problem is
dissolved when we associate Shabbat with Shabbat Mattan Torah rather
than (merely) Shabbat B'reishit.  That doesn't necessarily obviate the need 
for a special mitzvah to remember ma'amad har Sinai on weekdays as well.
RYBS's comment on zakhor seems to me to be orthogonal to my 
grandfather's interpretation.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

From: Seth Mandel [mailto:sethm37@hotmail.com]
>> <3) Who says the Kohanim ate all the meat, to the point of achila gasa and 
>> beyond? Perhaps they just ate as much as they wished / felt comfortable 
>> with.

> I didn't say akhilo gasso, which is osur.  But it is an issur d'orayso to 
> make qodshim into nosar, so you have to eat whatever you can to prevent 
> that, even if it means you gain weight.

(Based on a comment from Akiva Miller many moons ago, in the name of his
wife, that sometimes it is baal tashchis to eat food rather than throw it
away:)
Is it required to put oneself into danger healthwise in order to avoid
nosar?  Are the dinim of nosar different than those of baal tashchis?  Also,
why would it be permitted not to eat kodshim so as to avoid achilah gasa,
but not permitted to avoid eating excessive amounts of kodshim for health
reasons?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]