Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 001

Monday, April 14 2003

• Re: gilgul
• Re: gilgul
• Re: gilgul
• Re: gilgul
• Re: your mail
• academics and maror
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chametz
• Re: children's chametz
• Re: Pesach shiurim
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: oral and written traditions
• oral and written traditions
• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chametz
• Pesach shiurim
• Re: Sheitels
• Kavod Hatsibbur
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chametz
• Children and Gezel (was Children and Mechiras Chometz)
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chametz
• children's private ownership
• [Areivim] Kitniot hinted in the Y'mi?

I think that we must realize that the ultimate outcome is Tchias
hameisim. Both gan eden/gehinom and gilgul are accessories to enable
better access to techias hameisim by purging or fixing impediments to
it. This is because techias hameisim is all-or-none; one either comes
back to life or not. Thus, an injustice couod occur in that a greater
and a lesser tsadik are rewarded in the same way. We have therefore,
mechanisms to even the score and ensure justice.

As an accessory, it does not require great focus or for the early sources
to dwell upon it (similar ideas in relation to afterlife were expressed
by the Ramban in Parshas Lech Lecha on the posuk anochi magen lach and
the Ikkarim Part 4). It is only in our times, when we have been exposed
to the Western culture pre-occupied with the hereafter the assumption
that it is a horrific place of demons and eternal fire, that gilgul
became associated with the morbid fascination with the occult.

So you are correct. The palce of gilgul in Jewish thought is quite limited
and hints in early sources is all that it proportionately deserves.

M. Levin

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 08:54:35AM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: I think that we must realize that the ultimate outcome is Tchias
: hameisim...

Not according to either the Rambam or Sefer haIkkarim, both of which
say techiyas hameisim is temporary, and the ultimate outcome is the
non-physical olam haba.

I don't know if there are any who espouse both this belief and that of
gilgulim. But if there are, would they say there is gilgul after misah
after techiyas hameisim? More probably, there would be no need even if
it is theoretically meaningful. Who would be both zocheh to techiyas
hameisim /and/ in this more perfected state do an aveirah requiring
gilgul for repair?

> So you are correct. The palce of gilgul in Jewish thought is quite
> limited and hints in early sources is all that it proportionately
> deserves.

But why can't the same be said of olam haba? I've heard this given as
a reason for why there is no full discussion of olam haba in Tanach,
but OH gets major coverage by chazal.

Unlike gilgul.

IMHO, you need to provide a chiluq between OH and gilgul to explain this
discrepency in how shas treats each.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Sunday 13 April 2003 14:54, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> I think that we must realize that the ultimate outcome is Tchias hameisim.
> Both gan eden/ gehinom and gilgul are accessories to enable better access
> to techias hameisim by purging or fixing impediments to it. 

Thou dosth profess quite some certainty as to matters which many rishonim felt 
they could do no more than speculate about.

I, for one, feel far from knowing with such certainty what is the exact 
relationship between ThM, G and 'olam habaah.

Kusher'n in frailikh'n Paisse'h,

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 02:44:09PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:                                                 However, the Rambam
: also states in MN and Shmone Prakim that mircles were essentially
: pre-programmed at Creation. If so, why is such ademinstration so crucially
: important as to be a principle of faith?

Who can say when HQBH "programmed" anything? He's lema'alah min hazeman.
I think it's this lack of real difference that the Rambam (and Ramban,
when he writes the same) is pointing to. NOT that the Rambam is asserting
the decision was made at one time rather than the other.

The point of this statement is to deny the complaint made by deists that
a well made universe should be able to run without intervention. That
nissim show a flaw in the original design. Therefore, we point out that
nissim were within the original design.

Going up to the reisha of that paragraph:
: According to the Rambamin Maamar Techias Hameisim, techias hameisim is
: a temporary stage before olam hanshomose and it is needed to demonstrate
: the truth of miracles....

First, the Rambam holds that neis and teva are different in
kind. Therefore even if they were programmed in together (and how
can anything the Borei Echad does be separated?), they are still very
different.

Second, deism is still real kefirah. Saying that HQBH is lema'alah min
hazeman doesn't mean that deism and theism are identical. Or, to put
it in English: just because they are not separate in time from HQBH's
perspective doesn't make them at the same time from ours. Nissim still
imply H's management of the world and of the people in it as opposed to
a watchmaker winding it up and then letting it run.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> This triggered a question that I always had. In many Yeshivas, it is
> standard to confiscate items such as balls, Game Boys, PDA's etc from
> kids who play them in class and even at recess and that is the policy of
> the school....                               What is the justification
> for this behavior via-a-vis the laws of gezel?

Rabbi Moshe Bleich (son of Rabbi J.D.) had on article on this topic about 
two years ago in the education journal Ten Da'at.

I was recently reading the ezras Torah calendar that brought a psak of
R. Henkin that the only real maror we know today is horseradish and that
the mes orah was lost for various types of lettuces.

OTOH I read a pamphlet by a biologist who goes through the various
rishonim and show clearly that all early rishonim identify all the types
of maror as the roma ine lettuce and endive family (iceberg lettuce is a
later invention). The first reference to horseradish is the 13th century
two hundred years after Rashi. As the Jews moved north and east in Europe
the lettuce family was not available Pesach time and so horseradish came
into vogue. In fact R. Tam prohibits the use of roots and much later
was it justified to use the root of the horseradish.

Interestingly he points out that horseradish is not bitter but sharp and
that the tongue tastes the different properties in separate locations. To
the best of my knowledge Sephardim all use various members of the
lettuce/endive family.

Does one accept the psak of R. Henkin best on East European mesorah
or the proofs of academics based on the laaz used by rishonim and on
biological data?

Personally we eat romaine lettuce with a dash of horseradish for old
times sake with both of them on the seder plate.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

On 11 Apr 2003 at 13:30, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> <<OTOH, if you own chametz on someone else's property
> (e.g. your desk at work), AFAIK that's yours and you have to sell it
> or get rid of it.>>

> My boss asks me each year to make bedikas chametz in the office.  Do I
> have any obligation to go beyond common areas (e.g. kitchen,
> lobby)-I've always assumed that people's offices are their own
> "property" for this purpose?

I would think that you don't have to go beyond what you've done. 

The issur of bal yairaeh u'bal yimatzei applies to MY chametz. After
all, I have the goy's chametz in my house all of Pesach and there's
no issur. What someone else has in their desk is THEIR chametz; not
the boss'.

I'm not sure whether this works for your children.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 09:33:40AM +0200, S Goldstein wrote:
: From SA (and Rema and Nosei Keilim)Choshen Mishpat Siman 270, it seems
: that it is superfluous for children, even above bar Mitzva, that live in
: their parents' home to sell their own chametz. All income and kinyanim
: with that money belong to the father.

If this were true, why would there be that whole Torah about children
using one's esrog on the first day of Succos. If all their kinyanim
are mine, there is simply no way for a child to be meqayeim "lachem"
regardless of how I give it to him; and no way for me to ruin my "lachem"
if I do it before using it myself.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:31:22PM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                               ... A bias is also introduced by using
: only Ashkenazim - particularly those living in Slavic countries where
: large bones are common....

What about differences in what Jews looked like before there was an
Ashkenaz and the time when the measurement occured? Even if Sepharadim
were included in the survey, average measurements are still bound to
drift over time?

Similarly:
:                                                    ..... The Aruch
: Hashulchan, writing in Lita at the beginning of the last century, mentions
: that the eggs in his lifetime had undergone a considerable increase in
: size since the introduction of a new variety of hen. It is reasonable
: to assume, therefore, that egg size has, indeed, increased since the
: days of Harav Landau....

But I know nothing about the breeds of olives that were grown in Israel
before the Roman conquest. For all I know, it was some breed we don't
see anymore (perhaps the taste is inferior) that was quite large. I
don't see how far you can take deductions about the difference between
the Nodah biYhudah's day and ours since we don't know the differences
introduced until his day.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On 11 Apr 2003 at 10:39, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/11/2003 8:36:15 AM EST, sherer@actcom.co.il
> writes:
>>> and once you're dealing with a written post-ptirah document(or even
>>> an unauthorized preptirah) you need to seriously consider whether
>>> the Rav in question changed his mind subsequent to the writers
>>> information.

>> Why wouldn't you have to consider that even if the Rav himself wrote
>> it? We have certainly all seen that happen....

> One would assume that knowing his printed word was out there, if a
> posek changed his mind on something he would make every effort to see
> that the change was publicized (the burden of having published and
> putting one's written word into the written mesorah chain!)

I think that's a big assumption. How many times does the Rambam in 
the Yad contradict things he wrote in the Peirush HaMishnayos or in 
the Sefer HaMitzvos? Granted we do acrobatics to explain the 
contradictions away, but can we say they're not there? 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

RMB cited my sig line and commented:
>: If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the
>: Law, as applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However,
>: permission was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for
>: the future generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord,
>: unless he shall bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his
>: argument].
>:       paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
>:       Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

> Another ra'ayah about the authority of recording in a book, that somehow
> that gives power to bind the ruling for future generations. Not the
> Bach's point -- something he *takes as a given*!

Wrong. The Bach there criticizes somebody for writing the stuff down. IOW,
the power of the written word is that it threatens to seem authoritative,
not that it really acquires a halakhic weight by virtue of the letters
being inked and pressed onto paper.

Arie
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

WRT to Micha's bringing the Brisker reluctance to publish, as well as RA
Folger's I think that the reason is actually quite different.

for some, the issue of writing was reserved for what was kav vnaki - removed
from all errors.  This automaticially meant that there was a greater
standard for that particular written source.

This issue of kav vnaki is clearly not preserved by all written sources and
traditions.

With regard to shu"t - over the last 400 years, most oral traditions do get
written down after a generation or two, given the volume of the responsa
literature - therefore, most shu't can deal with previous shut that cite the
oral traditions.  The notion that the oral tradition is inherently worthless
or of less value is a unique modern invention.  There are shut that cite
oral traditions.  (R C Soloveichik's article is also relevant here - as the
change in approach to oral traditions involve not only minhagim.)

With regard to my citation of the CI and RSZA on electricity, he
misunderstands what I said.   The  debate between them was one of lomdus -
based on the CI's written tshuvot and positions.  After the lomdus, RSZA
comes to a point and says that given the authority of the CI, even though on
a lomdus level he disagrees with him and thinks that RSZA's position is
better, he can not go against the CI.  It is this issue of authority which
is independent of the lomdus involved that I was citing.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 03:13:18PM -0400, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
: Sounds from the gemara like Rebbe was not mechadesh anything l'halacha -
: there already existed a shita that kidsha l'shayta lo kidhsa l'asid lavo,
: and all that was needed was a giluy milsa in metziyus that Beit She'an
: was not conquered by olei bavel. The initial flaw was a misunderstanding
: of metziyus. What if the whole world held kedusha rishona kidsha l'asid
: lavo? If rebbe wanted to change the practice, wouldn't that need to
: be looked at based on the criteria the rambam gives in hil mamrim for
: uprooting takkanos and dinim?

I don't know. Isn't this a situation of Mamrim 2:1? It's not a question
of repealing a din, minhag etc... (2:2) or a seyag (2:3). It's not
overturning legislation at all, but rather of pesaq.

2:1 is pretty permissive of changes from one Sanhedrin to a later one.
Don't need gedulah bechochmah or minyan. The only question would be
if it denies a problem with anything we would want to label shinui!
And if there is a limitation on shinui, where does it come from?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

I thank all who replied to my question on this topic.

Over the years, I had gotten accustomed to the idea that Mechiras Chometz
can act as a "safety net", in the case if I happen to find some chometz
during Pesach and retract my bittul I am still not oveir on Bal Yiraeh,
because the Mechirah includes all the chometz that I own, and so this
piece which I found isn't mine to be oveir with.

Having gotten used to that idea, I had approached my LOR several years
ago, asking if my children should sell their own Chometz, to which he
answered yes. I haven't heard of other people doing this, which is why
I asked here about it. Your responses prompted me to re-ask, and it
turns out that I had misunderstood Rav E. M. Teitz, who agrees that the
children should sell their chometz, but ONLY if they have some actual
chometz to sell.

As it turns out, my two sons do have real chometz of their own, and will
be selling it through the Rav. My daughter has only some non-Pesachdik
things which are not real chometz; she will hide it (with the chometz
which *I'll* be selling) and make extra sure to be serious about her
bittul.

R' SGoldstein (and others?) wrote that according to the Rama and others
in Choshen Mishpat 270:2, all income and kinyanim of a child who live
with his parents belong to the father, even if he is above Bar Mitzvah. I
do admit that the Rama there seems to say this, but I have two questions:

1) I'm not very fluent in Choshen Mishpat, but I imagine this halacha
is merely a starting point, that the father *can* assert ownership over
the child's kinyanim in consideration for the food and shelter which
he provides, but that the father is allowed to make exceptions so that
the child would have some things which are truly his own. Does this
make sense?

2) As an example of the above, when a father buys several lulavim, and
gives one to his post-Bar Mitzvah son, it is surely property of the son,
or else we would see many poskim discussing how the son would be able to
do this mitzvah. I have not noticed any such writings (in sharp contrast
to the many writings about how a PRE-Bar Mitzvah boy can do this mitzvah)
which leads me to suspect that if a boy can own his own lulav, he can
also own his own chometz. Comments?

Akiva Miller

My post on shiurim was done from memory - always a risky proposition.
Having now checked some of my sources - and being currently unable
to check others, I should make some retractions. Upon checking the
wording of HaRav Moshe Feinstein's responsum in Iggrot Moshe, Orech
Chaim vol. I: 136, I find that he concludes that a Rivi'it should hold
the volume of 3 eggs (double the shiur in Chazal). He, unfortunately,
does not offer an explanation or analysis. I gather that he accepts
the argument of the Nodeh Bi'yehuda - at least le'chumra. This is
not the impression that I have gained from secondary sources that base
themselves on R' Moshe. However, I do not have these sources available
now (Most of my seforim are still packed away after a remodeling job.).
Perhaps R' Doniel Eidensohn can elaborate on the view of R' Moshe on
shiurim. I should also probably conclude that R' Moshe's measurement
of an etzbah and ama (21 1/4 inches) is simply intermediate between
that of R' Na'eh and the Chazon Ish- without qualifying it further, in
the absence of direct sources. Does anyone know the actual methodology
used in arriving at the various measurements of an etzbah and ama?

I would like to emphasize, again, that the measurement of an average
etzbah is a difficult proposition - both from the making the measurement
accurately and from arriving at a statistically valid average value.
My clear impression is that bone (and thumb) widths vary not only between
individuals, but also between countries. I am prepared to believe that
the average thumb size of Jews of east-European ancestry
 is greater than that of Jews from Arabic countries. This, perhaps, is
relevant to the distinction between the measurement of R' Na'eh made in
Yerushalayim a century ago when Sephardim constituted a sizable portion
of the population, and more recent measurements that concentrated on
Ashkenazim. I don't know if it makes sense for each distinct kehilla
to have its own measurements and shiurim standards. If a universal
standard is to be adopted, however, it must be based on statistically
valid sampling and accurate measurement over the Jewish people - at
least those residing in Israel. I am also puzzled why the standard
is based on the etzba rather than the ama - a much easier measurement.
Is there not a definition of the ama given in Chazal such as the classical
one for the cubit - from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger?

Yitzchok Zlochower

RHM wrote:
> I don't see how you can define a relative type of Tznius as a
> D'Oraisa. What is your source for that? It is difficult for me to see
> that a singular act in one society violates a D'Oraisa and in another
> society that same act is Mutar.

Gzeilah pursuant to an acquisition through particular qinyanim common
in particular places only. This is also one explanation of Rambam on
qidushei kessef, where he classifes them as divrei sofrim. The explanation
would be that the qinyan is not deOraita, but nonetheless, after 'Hazaal
instituted it, it has the ability to create a deOraita effect.

Neither statements of mine have anything to do with DM or DY, but do
demonstrate << that a singular act in one society violates a D'Oraisa and
in another society that same act is Mutar>> and that rabbinic enactments
can cause deOraita effects outside of lo tasur.

Arie

Joel Rich:
: Also interesting ... is that of the 6 places in shas that I could find
: ... only once (in Yuma re: rolling the sefer torah on yom kippur) does
: Rashi explain what the issues is(they have to stand around quietly and
: wait!). I wasn't able to find much else in the way of Rishonim discussing
: what kavod tzibbur really means though there is spirited discussion of
: whether a tzibbur can be mochel its kavod...

I believe that this is a gender issue. There is a teshuva in Maharam
Mirotenburg who allows eved to be called up as there is not issue of
kavod hatsibbur, he being a man.

M. Levin

On 13 Apr 2003 at 18:50, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> 1) I'm not very fluent in Choshen Mishpat, but I imagine this halacha
> is merely a starting point, that the father *can* assert ownership
> over the child's kinyanim in consideration for the food and shelter
> which he provides, but that the father is allowed to make exceptions
> so that the child would have some things which are truly his own. Does
> this make sense?

I think the real question is what the default position is. AFAIK it's
that the father owns what is in his house. If the child purchased it
with his own money that he earned himself, that might be different.

> 2) As an example of the above, when a father buys several lulavim, and
> gives one to his post-Bar Mitzvah son, it is surely property of the
> son, or else we would see many poskim discussing how the son would be
> able to do this mitzvah. I have not noticed any such writings (in
> sharp contrast to the many writings about how a PRE-Bar Mitzvah boy
> can do this mitzvah) which leads me to suspect that if a boy can own
> his own lulav, he can also own his own chometz. Comments?

You've just given me a good argument for what I do, which I learned
from my shver. I give my (over Bar Mitzva) sons money and they go out
and buy their own arba minim. I think that both of them end up adding
from their own money (Bar Mitzva gifts, money earned in Bein HaZmanim
Kollels, etc.) to buy a better set. Under those circumstances, I think
that there is no doubt that it is actually theirs.

But this is all off the top of my head....

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Mlevinmd@aol.com
>This triggered a question that I always had. In many Yeshivas, it is
>standard to confiscate items such as balls, Game Boys, PDA's etc from
>kids who play them in class and even at recess and that is the policy of
>the school. Oftentimes, there isn't even a warning...

Not that I am paskening froma story, but I recall seeing the following
story in the Artscroll biography of Rav Elchanan Wasserman. (It was in
a footnote if I remember correctly)

Rav Elchanan was reading the newspaper in the Beis Medrash and the
Mashgiach/hanhala confiscated it. Rav Elchanan asked for it back and
said teh yeshiva was oiver an issuer gezeilah. I think they gave it back
to him.

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< ... I think the real question is what the default
position is. AFAIK it's that the father owns what is in his house. If
the child purchased it with his own money that he earned himself, that
might be different. ... I give my (over Bar Mitzva) sons money and they
go out and buy their own arba minim. I think that both of them end up
adding from their own money (Bar Mitzva gifts, money earned in Bein
HaZmanim Kollels, etc.) to buy a better set. Under those circumstances,
I think that there is no doubt that it is actually theirs. >>>

Yes, that is the exact situation my original post was about. I think
I even gave babysitting as an example of how the child acquires his
own money.

I would be happy to entertain the idea that the concept of giving chilren
an allowance, and allowing them to keep the money they earn, as methods
of teaching them money management, are fairly new and modern ideas which
did not exist in previous centuries, when everything of the children
(even above Bar Mitzvah) was property of the father (and everything of
the wife was property of the husband) and no one even had a hava minah
to think otherwise. But if that was so, then isn't it curious how the
adult children did Arba Minim in those days? Are there any poskim who
point out that "When the father gives his sons their lulav, he must
explicitly make it the son's personal property"? In such a society,
such a stam daas might *not* be presumable (the way "lending" a lulav
to another balabos *can* be presumed to be a "matana al mnas lhachzir").

Akiva Miller

Due to SA HM 270, it should be permitted to confiscate items from all
students, even those above Bar Mitzva age. Whether this is recommended,
of course, is a different story.

Shlomo Goldstein

[An scjm post that was subsequently sent to Areivim, and now being
bounced here. I think it helps to understand person B if you know he's
a Maimonidian, and therefore won't put much weight into any minhag or
precedent that post-dates Ravina veR' Ashi, and very little weight into
one that predates them but didn't make it into the Bavli or the Yad. -mi]

Person A wrote:
>Person B wrote:

>>Although we don't paskin (rule) this way, the BACH goes so far as to
>>rule that one can only fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzoh with that
>>which was baked after chatzos on Erev Pesach.

>Surely an instance of minhag mebhatel misva.  Sheer nonsense.

I think you'd love the sources brought in Ta-Shma's article on the origins
of kitniyot. 3 sources from the 13th century, the Sefer Mitzvot Katan,
the Or Zarua, and Rabbenu Manoach. Each of them describes kitniyot as

  a) something clung to by the amaratzim;
  b) my rebbe was mattir;
  c) well, we don't want to permit something that people have forbidden
     on themselves, even if it's a minhag ta'ut.

 From day one, kitniyot has been driven by the fears of the mob.

If I may be permitted some wild speculation:

The mishna in the Bavli Pesachim 114a says they bring "shnei tavshilin"
after the first cup. To this is hooked a piece in the Gemara about
Rav Huna serving rice davka to spite R' Yochanan b. Nuri's opinion that
rice can become hametz. The parallel mishna in the Yerushalmi doesn't
have that phrase. They both refer back to a mishna in the 2nd perek,
on the five grains. The Bavli's discussion of the passage mentions
several tannaim by name who rejected R' Yochanan b. Nuri's opinion.
The Yerushalmi does not, and in fact seems to give greater credence to
R' Yochanan b. Nuri's claim, recording an experiment made whether rice
(karmit in this passage, which the meforshim say was some kind of grass)
became chametz, and each side said the experiment went their way (the
rabbis said the experiment proved it did not become chametz, RYbN said
it proved that it did become chametz). The Semag, R' Moshe me-Coucy,
says in the mid-1200s that kitniyot is OK, but Rabbenu Manoah, writing
about 1200, records the conflict. The Semag's endorsement of kitniyot
could just be part of the rabbinic rejection of this minhag ta'ut.

So here's the wild speculation: the Bavli used its version of the mishna
in the 10th perek as a hook on which to hang the story of the Bavli R'
Huna serving beets & rice to demonstrate that R' Yochanan b. Nuri was
wrong. The Y'mi version of that mishna doesn't provide the hook for
discrediting RYbN, which, combined with the more serious treatment of
RYbN in the 2nd perek, without the list of dissenting tannaim, might
hint at the existence of some people avoiding rice/karmit already in
the time of the Y'mi, in Israel, whose minhagim (and problems) then went
over into northern Europe.

-- 
    Jonathan Baker     |  What is the 7th verse of the piut Shir haChodoshim?
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  The Nissan Stanza.

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


[ 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         ]