Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 031

Thursday, June 19 2003

• Re: Perikah and Te'inah
• Re: Kiddush bemakom se'uda
• Re: Kiddush bemakom se'uda
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• RE: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• persian history
• Re: kohen gadol
• RE: Revadim Project
• Re: Revadim Project
• Re: Revadim Project
• Re: schar ve-onesh
• RE: Revadim Project
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece

On 18 Jun 2003 at 15:19, Rebelkrim@aol.com wrote:

> From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
> > R. Gil asked whether the Mitzvah of Perikah u'Tei'nah is operative with
> > regard to helping someone unload matresses loaded on one's car (and not
> > just with animals). 

[snip]

> I beleive the Sha'arim M'tzuyanim b'Halacha addresses this issue and
> IIRC does feel that the parallel between the Biblical case and modern
> day sitatuations exist.

Cite? I ask because I'm curious how far he extends this. Am I 
required to stop and help unload every time I see a moving van? 

-- Carl

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

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:03:26AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I've seen people do this, but they've never been able to explain why
: it doesn't fall under the prohibition of eating before Kidddush...

Tha's a shtikl Torah from RYBS: Is qiddush bemaqom se'udah a din in
qiddush or one in se'udah? IOW, does qiddush need a se'udah in order
to be qiddush, or does the meal need a qiddush in order to be a
se'udas Shabbos?

-mi

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
<<I don't follow why you're limiting this to Kiddusha Rabba, and not
including Friday Night. What "berachos issues" are you referring to?>>

The beracha beginning "asher kideshanu" and ending "mekadesh hashabos".
The wine beracha is never an issue if you drink.

<<Obviously, you're talking about saying kiddush to be motzi someone else,
and *they* drink the wine. No problem that I can see.>>

No, that's not the scenario, see below.

<<< Or maybe even make kiddush, eat less than kevius se'udah, then go
home, repeat kiddush and eat. >>>

<<You wouldn't eat any sort of nosh between davening and the time when
you are actually being yotzay Kiddush, would you? Why would having a sip
of wine make any difference. Isn't that exactly what's happening here?>>

Yes.

<<(Of course, if one drinks enough of the wine, that can be the seudah
itself, relieving him of any need to have a seudah of mezonos. But in
such a case he would be yotzay Kiddush and would not have to say it again
at home, so I don't think that's the situation you're talking about.)>>

Again, correct.

<<---- Ooops! I see now that R' Gershon writes of a Rabbi Pearl who gave
mar'eh mekomos on this point. Could you share some of them with me?>>

I didn't look them up (he recommended I buy a Yad Moshe, BTW which I
really should have long ago), but it's in Igros Moshe, I believe he said
4th volume OC AND 3rd volume YD, or vice versa.

I initially told him what I posted, that it didn't make sense to me, to
which he answered that to Rav Moshe it made sense. He later softened
that, saying "I can understand your being surprised if it's the first
time you've seen it; so was I the first time I saw it". I'll protect
his privacy by not revealing how many times he's seen it since <g>.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C336B2.0AA61140
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Shalom,

There was recent discussion of R. E. Falk's book "Oz Vehadar Levushah:
Modesty--An Adornment for Life" regarding Resp. Igrot Moshe's views on
women's hair-covering. Awaiting publication in Tradition Magazine is an
article of mine, "Contemporary Tzniut," of over forty pages. Following
is the part which refers to the above.

With Torah blessings,


Denying Igrot Moshe
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

Resp. Igrot Moshe, in any case, permitted uncovering up to a square tefach
of hair within the hairline. This contradicts Oz veHadar Levushah's
portrayal of contemporary Halachah as uniformly forbidding any display
of hair. In defence of its position, Oz veHadar Levushah claims, first,
that Resp. Igrot Moshe gave no general heter to expose any hair above
the forehead:

People assume that Maran Hagaon Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l allowed
women to leave less than a tefach uncovered.This is totally incorrect.
He allowed this only under pressing circumstances, as is evident from
the wording at the beginning of the Responsum.[1]

To butress this contention, the author then cites a report by a London
rabbi of a conversation with R. David Feinstein, in which the latter
spoke about his father's ruling:

Hagaon Rav Dovid shlita said to me that it is clear from the text of the
teshuva that his father zt'l never intended to give an all-out heter for
the exposure of two finger-widths of hair. The teshuva was a personal
heter given for an exceptional case. As he writes, "she [the lady who
did not agree to cover her hair] should not be considered a major sinner
ch"v." This is also indicated from the introductory words of the teshuva,
"In the first place I intended not to answer your query in writing, as
it is adequate that I give a verbal heter when the circumstances justify
it" etc. The responsum also finished with the words "It is correct for
women to be stringent and cover their hair completely, as the Chassam
Sofer held." All this clearly implies that no general heter was given.

But Resp. Igrot Moshe did not write "she should not be considered a
major sinner," in the singular. Instead, he wrote "those [women] who
want to be lenient" (ailu harotzot lehakel) in the plural, referring
to women in general, and there is no mention of any specific "lady who
did not agree to cover her hair." Also, Resp. Igrot Moshe did not write
"she should not be considered a major sinner." Instead, he wrote "they
should not be considered violators of dat Yehudit" (ein lehachshivan
k'ovrot al dat Yehudit), i.e., not sinners at all, neither major nor
minor. Thus he concluded, "even a scholar and a yarei shamayim should
not refrain from marrying such a woman."

This pattern of wishful or willful misreading of Resp. Igrot Moshe is
evident in other points raised, as well. The teshuvah was not "a personal
heter given for an exceptional case." The hesitancy at the beginning
of the teshuvah refers to replying specifically in writing, not to any
hesitancy about the reply itself, and no "pressing circumstances" are
involved except as regards writing the heter as opposed to transmitting
it orally. If there is reluctance to give a "general heter" it is in
the sense of not circulating it, lest it lead women who untill then
covered all of their hair to lower their standards, but the heter was
there for anyone who needed it. This explains the remarkable fact that
although the teshuvah professes to disagree with Resp. Chatam Sofer,[2]
it makes not the slightest reference to minhag which is a key component
of the latter's argument. Resp. Igrot Moshe had no intention of prompting
women who already had a minhag lehachmir to abandon it.

Oz veHadar Levushah's second argument is that Resp. Igrot Moshe retracted
his earlier view:

The ruling mentioned (O.C. 4:112) is written in a responsum dated 5717
and again in a responsum (E.H. 1:58) dated 5721. There is, however, a
third responsum (O.C. 4:15) dated 5732 in which it is written explicitly
that even less than a tefach of hair must be covered in line with other
"covered areas" of a woman's body which must be fully covered, and even
less than a tefach may not be exposed.[3]

This refers to the fact that in the two earlier responsa Resp. Igrot
Moshe argued that even Hagahot Maimoniot cited by Rema, who forbids
viewing less than a tefach of flesh in women other than his wife, would
permit less than a tefach of hair, i. e., that there is no disagreement on
this matter. In the third responsum, however, he wrote that the question
"depends on the controversy concerning less than a tefach [of flesh]
brought by Rema," i. e., there is disagreement on this matter. According
to Oz veHadar Levushah, therefore, the last teshuvah of Resp. Igrot Moshe
on the subject rules "explicitly" that any amount of hair must be covered.

However, besides the fact that there is nothing explicit about it,
Resp. Igrot Moshe did not specify that we rule according to Rema on
this issue, but only that it is a matter of controversy. In addition,
as opposed to the first two responsa which discuss the Rema / Hagahot
Maimoniot view, the third responsum has no discussion at all and merely
mentions it in passing. It is unlikely that this represents a retraction
of his previous arguments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Oz veHadar Levushah, p. 236.
[2] Orach Chayim, no. 36.
[3] Oz veHadar Levushah, p. 238.

In a message dated 6/19/2003 12:50:53 PM EDT, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
> Due to detrusor (muscle) instability, urinary incontinence [Peyrush
> Rashi: pardon my language but that's "pishing" in your pants] is
> much higher prevalence in females....

What is the differential in practice(ie x% of men and y% of women)
suffer from this condition

KT
Joel

>  Rather, I suspect the MB is addressing how careful one is 
>  to make sure that his guf is naki before putting the 
>  tefillin on, and how careful one is to remove the tefillin 
>  if the guf becomes not naki.

Um, I have to say that many of the posts on this subject are just not
consistent with the metzia. Women are MUCH cleaner than men in general
and much more likely to be zrizot in the case of uncleanliness.

I am not sure that cleanliness was ever really the responsibility of
the husband, whether that of the children or that of the house. I am
also not convinced that there is any truth to the statement that women
were not able to wash after changing diapers. In a Jewish household,
there had to always be water for washing both in the morning, for bread,
and after going to the outhouse. Why would women, who were responsible
for making the food, ever walk around with fecal matter on their hands?

The arguments put forth so far just plain make no logical sense and
cannot be the answer.

---Rena

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:18:48PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: On 17 Jun 2003 at 13:39, Micha Berger wrote:
:> According to the MB's original peshat in the Rama, this is an issue of
:> kavod and reshus, not of berakhah and hefseq.

: Then how do you explain the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun in s"k 69? There he DOES 
: make it an issue of hefsek for the host (see my translation in the 
: email to RAM). 

I don't understand your question. He quotes three shittos.
How does his further discussion of the third shitah in ShT
change the presence of the fist and 2nd in the MB itself?

: And then he says it also b'shem she'ar achronim, which the Sha'ar 
: Ha'Tziyun tells us in s"k 70 is the Graz and the Magen Giborim. Why 
: is that not "maskonas ha'achronim" (cf. the Hakdama)? 

The other two shitos are variants of what Tos and Mordechai hold.
That those achronim who do not hold like the rishonim  hold like
the Taz doesn't change the Rama's words.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:20:16PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: <<< Look at the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun there (69). He says (translation mine),
: "...But since they are not allowed to eat in any event, why should he
: interrupt himself?" It should be apparent that the same line of reasoning
: applies to the act of cutting the Challah. ... Since the guests cannot
: eat anyway, why should the host lengthen his own hefsek? >>>

: There is absolutely no advantage to passing the challah out to the
: others before he eats, because they can't eat it yet, and that's the
: Shaar HaTziyun's point. But there are some small advantages (see above)
: in doing all the slicing before he eats.

: WHAT????????	You've just turned the Chafetz Chaim on his head because 
: he doesn't say what you want him to say!!!!!

While I agree with RCS that that's the ShT, I need to reraise the
question of how do you know whether that's the din. You're identifying
"the rest of the acharonim [ie those who disagree with the rishonim]"
with "the consensus of acharonim".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

I wrote that I cut many slices before choosing one for myself: <<<
It is true that my wait will be slightly longer, but the fact that I
get to choose my favorite of all those slices makes it worth it, and
negates the hefsek. >>>

R' Carl Sherer asked <<< And that is halachically significant
because????? >>>

It is significant because I believe that it brings me down to a zero
hefsek. Not merely a minimal hefsek, but no hefsek at all. Everything
I do between my saying hamotzi and my eating the challah can be seen as
l'tzorech my own eating:
a) I say Hamotzi.
b) I cut several slices, because the first slice is often not the
best slice.
c) I put salt on all of them, because the exact same amount of time would
be spent on salting one or all.
d) Then I finally select which one I want.
e) I take it, put it in my mouth with one hand and pass out the plate
with the other (as the Aruch Hashulchan quoted someone as suggesting).

No hefsek at all, as I see it.

I wrote <<< There is absolutely no advantage to passing the challah
out to the others before he eats, because they can't eat it yet, and
that's the Shaar HaTziyun's point. But there are some small advantages
(see above) in doing all the slicing before he eats. >>>

RCS asked <<< WHAT???????? You've just turned the Chafetz Chaim on his
head because he doesn't say what you want him to say!!!!! >>>

Here's how I read that Shaar HaTziun (167:69):

"If they *would* be allowed to eat before [the baal habayis], then since
he is being motzi them with his bracha, it would not be a hefsek [for him
to pass out the portions before taking his own], because the bracha goes
on all of them, and by receiving their portions immediately and tasting
it, they will have connected the bracha to the eating. But since they
are *not* allowed to eat [before him], why should he make this hefsek?"

The way I read that Shaar HaTziun, his main concern (and possibly his
*only* concern) is that all actions should have an immediate usefulness.
His own example demonstrates this principle: If they *would* be allowed
to eat before him, then he could pass the slices to them before taking
his own, and it would not be a hefsek, because they'd be able to eat it
immediately -- even though it delays his own eating!

Do you read the ShHaTz differently? It sounds very clear to me that
*if* they'd be allowed to eat their challa immediately upon receipt,
then the time he spends slicing and distributing to them would *not*
be a hefsek, because it *is* purposeful, and is l'tzorech the seudah. I
grant that (even in that scenario) he doesn't *have* to pass out their
portions before he takes his own, but he would have been allowed to,
and the ShHaTz doesn't seem bothered by the fact that it would cause
his delay to be longer than theirs.

But that scenario is in fantasyland. In the real world, they are *not*
allowed to eat before the baal habayis. And that's the *only* distinction
between the reisha and the seifa of the ShHaTz. In the real world, if
he passes out the portions before taking his own, what good would it
do anyone? The futility of that action is what makes it a hefsek. But
immediately purposeful actions (like cutting many slices so I can pick
the best) would *not* be a hefsek.

How did you read that ShHaTz? I'm open to other explanations.

Akiva Miller

Hopefully a last survey of Nechemia 12:10
The pasuk lists the following descendents of Yehoshua (Yeshua) Cohen Gadol
    Yehoshua
    Yoyakim
    Elyashiv
    Yoyada
    Yonatan
    Yadua
all son after son
further according to the medrash Shimon Hatzaddik was a grandson of Yadua
and appeared to Alexander the Great. According to the gemara Alexander
destroyed Persia 34 years after the rebuilding of the Temple. This was
built by Yehoshua. Hence 34 years passed and 8 high priests (or at
least generations) existed.
Furthermore Nechemia returns to Israel in the 32nd year of Artachast
3 years before Alexander and Elyashiv is Cohen Gadol (3 out of 8).
Sometime later Nechemia removes Yoyada from the priesthood because some
of his children have married nonJews.

Artscroll brings 2 answers to this problem
1, Yehoshua was very old at this time (likely since his grandfather
was killed at the destruction of the first temple 70 years earlier).
Hence, his son and grandson were also old and all died in a relatively
short time. We then have to assume that the last few either were all
disqualified or died early or were skipped over.

We also need to assume that each one had a son at about age 15 for 7
straight generations so they all fir into the 34 years.

Besides being less than obvious commentators assume that Ezra was the
uncle of Yehoshua which means he came to Israel about the age of 100
(unless we assume he was 20 years younger than his nephew and then he
would "only" be in his 80s) Furthermore Tanach lists the leviim and
cohanim that lived in the times of the first few cohanim gedolim which
is slightly strange if the wer cohen gadol for some 5 years each.

2 At the time of Alexander Yadua was Cohen Gadol. Shimon hatzaddik his
grandson appeared before Alexander in high priest clothing because his
grandfather was too old or some other reason (lessens the problem but
still not simple).

Again Rambam in his Mavoh lists Ezra as Cohen Gadol before Shimon
(artscroll guesses based on the gemara that Ezra made a Parah Adumah)
which makes all these calculations worse unless we assume that he was
Cohen Gadol after the end of Nechemia and only for a year or so and then
the high priesthood reverted back to the normal line after this strange
interlude of a grandx6 uncle.

Daat Mikrah (Mossaad haRav Kook) accepts the secular dating and so
Ezra was many years after the building of the Temple and so this has
no problem. Furthermore, they assume that the last 2 cohanim gedolim
Yonatan and Yadua (certainly Shimon) were after the time of Nechemia and
that there names were added to the pasuk at some later stage but before
Tanach was closed (Alexander?).

Eli Turkel

See the gemara in Chullin 24b and Rambam Hilchot Klei haMikdash 5:15.
Although l'halacha a kohen gadol could serve "k'she'yigdal ha'kohen
v'ye'aseh ish harei hu kasher l'avodah" based on the gemara, the Rambam
indicates "aval echav ha'kohanim LO HAYU MANICHIM OTO la'avod b'mikdash
ad she'yiy'heh ben esrim shana".

You might want to check the Rishonim on this gemara for the underlying
reason.

Josh

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil@aishdas.org]
> RSF argues against both R' Elchanan Wasserman's and the Chazon Ish's
> approaches to the reason why we cannot disagree with Amoraim and why
> Amoraim could not disagree with Tannaim. He suggests that just like
> at kabbalas ha-Torah we accepted the Torah and made it binding on
> ourselves and our descendants, so too we accepted on ourselves the
> conclusions of the Talmud which can therefore never be disputed. This
> acceptance, RSF says, was not at a specific gathering but rather was
> an ongoing sociological phenomenon. 
<snip>

R' Gil then argues:
> Based on all this, one would conclude that Amoraim could not 
> reject the halachic conclusions of Tannaim. 

Not necessarily.  Why not say that the kabbalah of the Amoraim was not to
directly disagree with tannaim (as a matter of showing them kavod), not to
accept their halachic rulings as binding for all generations?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:31:55AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Thus whether the source of authority is yeridas hadoros as stated in
: Chazon Ish or public acceptance as stated in Kesef Mishna - seems to be
: an old dispute that predates the Conservative movement.

Invoking C is because they get around the issue of authority by saying
that there is a long history of getting around the authority problem by
claiming fealty while in reality reinterpreting the sources to fit the
desired ruling.

This is easier to swallow if you believe the authority being violated
is because of acceptance by Catholic Israel. But it's a denial of
that authority either way. And, as noted already, it implies a
level of dishonesty being practiced by the amora'im.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>Not necessarily.  Why not say that the kabbalah of the Amoraim
>was not to directly disagree with tannaim (as a matter of showing
>them kavod), not to accept their halachic rulings as binding for all
>generations?

You could say that, but RS Fisher could not because the rest of his
essay is about accepting halachic rulings.

Gil Student

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:09:23AM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Modern medicine has increased the life span from about 50 years in the
: year 1900 to about 75 years in recent years (depending on country and
: gender). Does that imply that people have become more virtuous in the
: last 100 years? ...

Perhaps it just means that us midgets are given more time to walk the
course than those long legged giants had.

-mi

I wrote:
> >Not necessarily.  Why not say that the kabbalah of the Amoraim
> >was not to directly disagree with tannaim (as a matter of showing
> >them kavod), not to accept their halachic rulings as binding for all
> >generations?

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil@aishdas.org]
> You could say that, but RS Fisher could not because the rest of his
> essay is about accepting halachic rulings.

My intention was that the Amoraim only partially accepted the authority of
the Tannaim, but post-Talmud, everyone accepted the complete authority of the
Talmud.  I.e., because the approach of RSF requires accepting authority
rather than authority resulting from halacha, there is flexibility as to what
the level of acceptance was.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 19 Jun 2003 at 15:20, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> It is significant because I believe that it brings me down to a zero
> hefsek. Not merely a minimal hefsek, but no hefsek at all. Everything
> I do between my saying hamotzi and my eating the challah can be seen
> as l'tzorech my own eating: a) I say Hamotzi. b) I cut several slices,
> because the first slice is often not the best slice. 

And the halachic significance of the "best" slice is? 

> No hefsek at all, as I see it.

I disagree. 
 
> I wrote <<< There is absolutely no advantage to passing the challah
> out to the others before he eats, because they can't eat it yet, and
> that's the Shaar HaTziyun's point. But there are some small advantages
> (see above) in doing all the slicing before he eats. >>>
> 
> RCS asked <<< WHAT???????? You've just turned the Chafetz Chaim on his
> head because he doesn't say what you want him to say!!!!! >>>
> 
> Here's how I read that Shaar HaTziun (167:69):
> 
> "If they *would* be allowed to eat before [the baal habayis], then
> since he is being motzi them with his bracha, it would not be a hefsek
> [for him to pass out the portions before taking his own], because the
> bracha goes on all of them, and by receiving their portions
> immediately and tasting it, they will have connected the bracha to the
> eating. But since they are *not* allowed to eat [before him], why
> should he make this hefsek?"
> 
> The way I read that Shaar HaTziun, his main concern (and possibly his
> *only* concern) is that all actions should have an immediate
> usefulness. 

His concern is with there not being a hefsek. What he is saying is 
that I cannot avoid everyone else's hefsek, so at least I have to 
avoid my own. 

His own example demonstrates this principle: If they
> *would* be allowed to eat before him, then he could pass the slices to
> them before taking his own, and it would not be a hefsek, because
> they'd be able to eat it immediately -- even though it delays his own
> eating!

But since they can't do that then he doesn't take ANY action to give 
them challah until he starts to eat his own. 

> Do you read the ShHaTz differently? 

Obviously yes. 

> It sounds very clear to me that
> *if* they'd be allowed to eat their challa immediately upon receipt,
> then the time he spends slicing and distributing to them would *not*
> be a hefsek, because it *is* purposeful, and is l'tzorech the seudah.

He's not talking about tzorech seuda - he's talking l'tzorech the 
m'varech eating.  I see NO place for distiguishing between cutting 
and passing out. 

> But that scenario is in fantasyland. In the real world, they are *not*
> allowed to eat before the baal habayis. 

And therefore, he pretends that they are not there until he has 
started to eat himself - because he is the ONLY one whose hefsek he 
can influence. 

> And that's the *only*
> distinction between the reisha and the seifa of the ShHaTz. In the
> real world, if he passes out the portions before taking his own, what
> good would it do anyone? 

In the real world, if he cuts everyone else's portions before he 
takes his own, what good would it do anyone? 

> The futility of that action is what makes it
> a hefsek. But immediately purposeful actions (like cutting many slices
> so I can pick the best) would *not* be a hefsek.

Where did you get the idea that one slice of challah is 'better' than
another? We're not talking about pieces of meat here. There's no alya. And
since we cut from the middle on Shabbos anyway, you can't argue that
you do/don't want an end piece (not that I know anyone over the age
of ten that starts that argument. Aderaba, if you're so 'courteous'
to your guests, maybe you should allow them to choose the 'best' piece.

-- Carl

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

On 19 Jun 2003 at 17:49, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Then how do you explain the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun in s"k 69? There he DOES
>: make it an issue of hefsek for the host (see my translation in the
>: email to RAM). 

> I don't understand your question. He quotes three shittos.
> How does his further discussion of the third shitah in ShT
> change the presence of the fist and 2nd in the MB itself?

Where do you see three shitos? I see Tosfos and the Mordechai 
regarding b'tzia generally, who say that the guests should not eat 
unless the ba'al bayis eats (it should be noted here that the Tur - 
below - paskens like the Yesh Mforshim in that Tosfos, and not like 
the Sar MiKutzi which is how I think you were learning the Tosfos); I 
see the Drisha - not contradicting the previous two - saying that 
even if the ba'al ha'bayis is mochel, it doesn't help, and I see the 
Taz, the Graz and the Magen Giborim (the latter two being brought as 
"she'ar achronim" or the consensus) saying that since they cannot eat 
anyway, he should eat before distributing to them. I don't see any of 
those shitos being cholek on each other.  

>: And then he says it also b'shem she'ar achronim, which the Sha'ar
>: Ha'Tziyun tells us in s"k 70 is the Graz and the Magen Giborim. Why
>: is that not "maskonas ha'achronim" (cf. the Hakdama)? 

> The other two shitos are variants of what Tos and Mordechai hold. That
> those achronim who do not hold like the rishonim  hold like the Taz
> doesn't change the Rama's words.

No, they're explaining Tosfos and the Mordechai.

...
> While I agree with RCS that that's the ShT, I need to reraise the
> question of how do you know whether that's the din. You're identifying
> "the rest of the acharonim [ie those who disagree with the rishonim]"
> with "the consensus of acharonim".

Well, one way I know it is by looking up the Bach :-) The Bach (167:16)
says " she'ha'botzea y'hei nizhar l'chatchila LITOM MEYAD v'lo lases
lifnei kol echad chelko kodem she'yitom hu."

The Tur (167:15) doesn't even bring the possibility of the ba'al ha'bayis
handing out pieces of challah before he eats his own. The Tur simply says
that the guests cannot eat until the ba'al ha'bayis eats, unless they each
have their own bread in front of them and on Shabbos they must have lechem
mishna in order to be allowed to eat. (I have been in people's houses
where they give me my own challah for me and my family. I'm uncomfortable
with that because I'm afraid I will be mafsik to answer Amen to someone
else's bracha out of habit. Because of that, in my own house, although
I offer married male guests the opportunity to make their own Kiddush,
I do not offer them the opportunity to make their own Motzi).

-- Carl

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


[ 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         ]