Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 021

Tuesday, April 25 2006

• Re: Seventh Day of Pesach on Friday
• Re: Kilayim Today
• It's raining in Israel
• how the Mishna Berurah became so popular
• Re: Kilayim Today
• Re: Kilayim Today
• Re: Korban Pesach
• RE: Shach and Taz
• Re: Korban Pesach
• Re: Chameitz and S'or
• Mitzvas Matzah (was Seventh Day of Pesach on Friday)
• Re: seder
• Re: Mevushal Wines
• RE: Shach and Taz
• Re: mishum eivah
• Re: mishum eivah
• Re: Avdus

R. Jacob Farkas said:
>Eating Matzah in the six latter days of Pesah is a Reshus, not a
>Mitzvah. See Gemara P'sahim 120a, Mah shv'i'i r'shus af sheishes yamim
>r'shus. SA in OH 475:7 says specifically that there is no Hiyuv to eat
>Matza in the six latter days. Although the MB [OH 475:7 sq 45] does
>mention that they say that the GRA considered it a Mitzvah to eat Matzah
>on all days of Pesah, [the MB does not say whether this practice of the
>GRA was in Mitzvas Matzah per se, rather than in practice he sought to
>eat Matzah all seven days, reason unknown --jf.]

Here's a post I very recently had on SCJM:

About 2 weeks ago on SCJM someone asked if there's a requirement to eat
matza during the entire week of Passover. I said NO and indicated that
the requirement is on for the Seder and there is no mitzva to eat matza
the rest of the week [Baal haIttur Hilchot Matza; KOLBO Hilchot Sukka;
Rabbenu Manoach on Rambam Hilchot Chametz u'Matza 6:1; MAHARIL Hilchot
Sukka]. And that's why the bracha "al achilat matza" is said only at
the Seder (Sdei Chemed Maarechet Achilat Matza oht 7).

While the requirement is only at the Seder, there are those who said
that if one did eat matza during the week, one has fulfilled a mitzva
[Baal haMaor on the gemara at the end of Arvei Pesachim; Avnei Nezer 377;
Birkei Yosef 476 s"k 6; Gilyonei haShas Pesachim 38a; Rokeach 291].

KT
Josh

"Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> I picked up some basil plants, and want to put in a window box with them
> and some other herbs. What are the current rules for kilayim outside
> of EY? Will I run afoul of them?

"It is permitted for a Jew to plant kil'ei zera'im with his own hands
in chutz la'aretz, and even to mix the seeds deliberately and plant them
in chu"l is permitted. These matters are divrei kabbalah." (YD 297:2)

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On 4/24/06, Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote on Areivim
[I undid RMF's snipping. -mi:
> It's raining in Israel.

> Such a simple sentence.  So much is hidden inside it.

> We are after Pesach -- Chag Ha'Aviv;

> We are counting the Omer -- the time of the Ketzir Chittim;

> And yet I haven't found a single pashkeville; a single prayer; a single
> word of "why"?

> Most people don't even appear to realize the problem. They consider
> it great b/c we didn't have sufficient rains during the regular rainy
> season in Israel, this year.

> Can it be that we are so far distant from Eretz Yisrael that we can't
> hear her cry???

> Is our calendar wrong?

> Should we, perhaps be doing Teshuva?

> Am I truly the only one who sees a problem in the fact that it's been
> raining in Israel?

> Please, educate me!

After doing a little research...

The Mishnah in Taanis 12b says: "if Nissan *passes* and it rains, it
is a siman k'lalah, as it says in Shmuel aleph 12:17 "ha'lo ketzir
chittim hayom...."

Note, also, that the Ralbag on Shmuel states that ketzir chitim time
is around Chag Shavuos (not Pesach, which is the time of the barley
harvest).

Also, <http://tinyurl.com/om92p> which has monthly averages for Bet Lechem
(near me), states that on average, during the month of April there is
1.20 inches of rain, about a quarter of the amount in February. So,
it's not that rare for it to rain in April (as opposed to May which has
an average of just 0.10 inches of rain). The question is whether siman
k'lalah depends just on the Hebrew months or also on the solar calendar
(which is what the weather system is connected to).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

The issue needs to be examined not only in the Litvishe context and
environment (e.g. as opposed to the Aruch Hashulchan), but beyond that
as well.

IIRC, the Gerrer Rebbe (admor miGur) told his Hassidim to learn it (MB). I
would assume that was pre-WWII, even well before it. Since Gur was/is
a large and powerful group, that definitely helped the MB's acceptance
and influence. Presumably it could be seen in the context of the good
relationship between the Chofetz Chaim and Gur, which was also seen in
their both backing the then new Beis Yaakov movement for chinuch habonos,
as well as Agudath Israel, and the esteem in which the CC was held in
the Gerrer court. OTOH, among other Hassidim, there was not the same
reaction. Some favored the Shulchan Aruch Harav (Baal Hatanya) and were
wary of a new work, perhaps esp. from a non-Hassidic source, that might
overtake or supercede it. Others favored the Kitzur Shulchan Oruch of R.
Shlomo Gantzfried.

Additionally, the Chofetz Chaim outlived the Aruch Hashulchan by
circa 25 years, years in which alot of the old Eastern European order
changed. In those years his reputation and influence grew, due in part to
his involvement in communal affairs, and he became a zokein hador. That
helped spread his influence, and the influence of his seforim as well.

Mordechai

Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
> Kilayim is specific to EY and areas that Hazal determined to have Q'dushas
> Ha'aretz. Outside of this zone, Kilayim is not applicable.

> Kilayim is also not applicable to potted plants on a window box.

Actually, in EY it does apply to pot plants -- mide'oraita if the pot
has a hole, miderabbanan if it does not. (YD 297:1)

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> Kilayim is also not applicable to potted plants on a window box.

> Actually, in EY it does apply to pot plants -- mide'oraita if the pot has
> a hole, miderabbanan if it does not.  (YD 297:1)

Would it be Mutar to be Miqayam Kilayim, l'khathilah, that was planted
in an Atzitz Sh'eino Nakuv, or is the Issur D'rabanan specific to the
act of planting?

Jacob Farkas

"Yisrael Medad" <yisrael.medad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> People who live in the Galil or the Negev will presumably be sorted into
>>> the first session of Korban Pesach, so they will have time to drive home
>>> with the korban before yomtov.

> Would not the geographical classification of 'derech r'choka' come into
> play here? The 15 mils, about 14.5 kilometers, distance from Jerusalem
> (see Rambam, Hilchot Korban Pesach, 5:9)? Or does the advent of cars
> and heliocopters change all that?

But these places *won't* be "distant from Jerusalem", since the kedusha
of Y'm will extend over the whole of EY, up to the gates of Damascus.

Previous generations may well have asked, when learning of this, how it
could be possible for kodashim kalim to be eaten so far away from the
BHMK - even if Y'm expands that far out, how could one transport the meat
that far within the time for eating it? Perhaps they answered that it
would be transported by mal'achim, or shedim (e.g. Yosef Shida). Today
we have the answer. In a car it would be easy to get a korban from the
BHMK to Damascus with plenty of time to eat it.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

"Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com> wrote:
> IIRC the Taz was much younger than the Shach but they published within
> the same year.

Other way round. The Taz was 35 years older than the Shach (and survived
him by a few years).

> I also have a vague memory that it was reported that the Shach
> to some extent retarded the publication/distribution/acceptance (you'll
> appreciate when you get older how hazy the memory can get) of the Taz's
> work

Perhaps this refers to the fact that he wrote the Nekudot Hakesef,
as a response to the Taz?

> and the eventual (apparently not immediate) halachik preference
> for the Taz was somewhat a quid pro quo min hashamayim. Probably an
> apocryphal story.

Except that, as we've just heard, in many places (e.g. Lita), the halachic
preference is davka for the Shach. So this reward didn't quite work out.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:05:47PM +0200, Yisrael Medad wrote:
: Would not the geographical classification of 'derech r'choka' come into
: play here? The 15 mils, about 14.5 kilometers, distance from Jerusalem
: (see Rambam, Hilchot Korban Pesach, 5:9)? Or does the advent of cars
: and heliocopters change all that?

Aside from RZS's comments...

We discussed WRT to tefillas hadderekh the question of whether the 4
mil beyond city limits refers to distance or travel time. ROY holds
the latter; would he say the same thing here?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 05:01:40PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: So I was intrigued by the apparent similarity of s'or and sourdough.
: Looking at the OED, "sour" goes back to the early Middle Ages, almost
: identical in German, English and Slavic - so it must be Indo-European.

BDB couldn't find a Semitic cognate of "se'or" either.

I don't think se'or is a cognate of sour.

Sour refers to things that are acidy, and therefore taste, well, sour.
By extension we say that food that got old "went sour", because that's
a common part of the decaying process.

Se'or refers to sourdough, but there is no indication that it's related
to the primary meaning of the word "sour". And why assume the same
tenuous connection in both language families?

According to R' Matisyahu Clark's dictionary, RSRH suggests the word is
more related to fermentation, both physically (she'ar) and politically
(sherarah). From she'ar, the word would have more to do with rising
than the taste of acidity.

I would also wonder if "se`orah" (barley), which requires more yeast
than chitah, is related in an ayin-alef Hirschian sense.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

> About 2 weeks ago on SCJM someone asked if there's a requirement to eat
> matza during the entire week of Passover. I said NO and indicated that
> the requirement is on for the Seder and there is no mitzva to eat matza
> the rest of the week [Baal haIttur Hilchot Matza; KOLBO Hilchot Sukka;
> Rabbenu Manoach on Rambam Hilchot Chametz u'Matza 6:1; MAHARIL Hilchot
> Sukka]. And that's why the bracha "al achilat matza" is said only at
> the Seder (Sdei Chemed Maarechet Achilat Matza oht 7).

> While the requirement is only at the Seder, there are those who said
> that if one did eat matza during the week, one has fulfilled a mitzva
> [Baal haMaor on the gemara at the end of Arvei Pesachim; Avnei Nezer 377;
> Birkei Yosef 476 s"k 6; Gilyonei haShas Pesachim 38a; Rokeach 291].

Ba'al HaMaor in Arvei P'sahim asks why we don't recite Al Akhilas Matzah
after the first night just like we recite Leisheiv B'sukkah all seven
days of Sukkos, after all we learn from one another that first night is
obligatory the latter days are R'shus. He responds that unlike Pessah
where one could survive easily the rest of Yom Tov without eating bread,
it is impossible to go 3 days without sleep, so one is "forced" to dwell
in a Sukkah and therefore we do recite Leisheiv B'sukkah all seven days
of Sukkos.

In reading the Ba'al HaMaor it is very difficult to understand how many
Aharonim concluded that his Shitah was that eating Matzah after the
first night is a Mitzvah. If anything, it seems pretty clear that his
interpretation of Mitzvah Qiyumis of Sukkah is a bit unconventional, as
his conclusion suggests that if physiologically we were able to survive
without sleep, than even while dwelling in the Sukkah we would not
recite a B'racha for Mitzvas Sukkah. Granted, it would be difficult to
consider the possibility of reciting a B'rakha on a r'shus, but perhaps
the b'racha would be akin to Al HaSh'hita, a B'rakha that the Taz in YD
says is really a B'racha that we recite thanking HQBH for assering the
Neveilah and Eiver min Hahai, so too here the B'rakha could have been
been on Issur Hametz, efsher...

Nevertheless, many Aharonim do conclude that the BHM must have held that
there is a Mitzvah in eating Matzah after the first night. The Mar'ei
M'qomos mentioned above for those holding that there is indeed a Mitzvah,
are all dealing with this BHM.

(The Rokeah does not, he states that Ha'okhel matzah shivas yamim
k'hilkhasa k'ilu na'aseh shutaf l'HQBH b'ma'aseh Breishis...)

The Gilyonei haShas does have a novel interpretation of R'shus in the
BHM (and presumably the Gemara on what it was based), claiming that the
r'shus in Matzah is like r'shus in T'filas Arvis R'shus.

According to those who consider the BHM to be a Meqor that the Mitzvah
of Matza does indeed continue throughout Pessah, and the Mitzvah is not
a positive enactment of Issur Hametz, could one argue that there is Bal
Tosif in eating Matzah Motzei Pessah?

Proving that this is indeed the Shitas BHM (Mitzvas Akhilas Matzah kol
Shivah) is pretty difficult, IMHO. It has no Halakhic consequence either,
as the SA does not consider it to be a Mitzvah.

Jacob Farkas

Eli Turkel wrote:
> The article reminds of the famous story of someone who visited Volozhin
> and spent the first seder at ther Bet Halevi where the entire seder was
> attention to every chmurah and afterwards R. YB Soloveitchik be,oaned
> that they probably weren't yotzeh. The second seder was by the Netziv
> where the emphasis was on enjoying the seder and aftrewards the Netziv
> remarked that he was sure that G-d also enjoyed the seder. The conclusion
> was that there has always been two ways of addressing Yiddishkeit through
> fear or through love.

This is related by the Torah Temimah in the Makor Baruch. IIRC his 
conclusion was pro-Netziv and anti-BHL.

YGB

On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 04:21:11PM -0400, I wrote:
: That's what RSZA holds. Rov poseqim do not require change in flavor a,
: appearance of texture, just that it be cooked. ROY holds that it's okay
: because the wine /is/ reduced through cooking...

I found the parashah sheet in the sheimos pile, but since
learned that R' Jachter's original article will be available at
<http://koltorah.org/ravj/ravj.htm#Pesach> any week now. Watch the bottom
of the Pesach section.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

MSS wrote:
> This is very interesting. In the past year I asked two different Rabbonim,
> "Who do we follow? The Shach or the Taz?" They both said that as a general
> rule psak will be like the Shach....
> When I mentioned this to a chasisher avreich he told me that the litvisher
> poskim generally followed the Shach, not the Taz. I'm curious if that
> was caused by the fact (to the best of my knowledge) that the Shach was
> written after the Taz.

RHS told the following story. When the Shach first wanted to publish
his sefer, the Taz did not want to allow it to be published. As a
punishment min hashamayim, the the Taz has been relegated to secondary
status in Yoreh Deah to the Shach and in Orach Chayim to the Magen
Avraham.

From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> My question is whether there is such a concept with regard to other Jews.

Yoma 12b "kohen gadol mishum eivah".

David Riceman

On 4/25/06, David Riceman <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
>> My question is whether there is such a concept with regard to other
>> Jews.

> Yoma 12b "kohen gadol mishum eivah".

I thank David but the cases are not comparable. The gemara in Yoma is
talking about 2 candidates for Cohen Gadol and one is not chosen because
of "Eivah".

Though it does not mention that word it reminds of the gemara when
R. Gamliel was removed from being Nasi that R. Yehoshua was not appointed
because it would be an affron to R. Gamliel.

The case we are talking about is violating an issur derbbanan because
otherwise it would cause enmity in other Jews who are not included.
I am still not convinced that such a case appears in the gemara.

Thanks,
Eli Turkel

S & R Coffer wrote:
> On April 6, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
>>: I've always had a problem with this Gemara. Since avdus is the tachlis
>>: of Torah u'Mitzvos (see Chovos haLevavos sha'ar bechina and shaar
>>: Avodas Elokim)...

>> Is it? The tachlis is subject to the classic "hashkafic fork" described
>> by RYGB at <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/forks.htm>,

 From the Pinocchio essay:

    In taking our mashal to its conclusion, we might understand an
    interesting perspective of the Zohar Ha'Kodosh. The Zohar calls
    the 613 mitzvos "Taryag Ittin" (613 suggestions).[1] To be sure,
    although there are other interpretations, the simple derivation of
    mitzvah is from the verb tzaveh, i.e., command. Why does the Zohar
    depart from the simple meaning?

    Perhaps the Zohar is pointing at the difference between the external
    Jiminy Cricket and the internalized conscience. At the earlier stage,
    the mitzvos resemble the rules and regulations that an external
    system must impose on its constituents. This is the level of Avdus
    - the impositions of a Master on His servant.[2] For the immature
    individual - be he seventeen or seventy - a structure of rules is
    necessary - a system to confine him to the straight and narrow.

    But it is not for that end that Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu created us:
    "*Bannim* attem la'Hashem Elokeichem" (Devarim 14:1). The more we
    internalize "Hashem Elokeichem *Emes*" the more we achieve that true
    Tzelem Elokim which is our innermost essence. Our conscience is then
    not imposed command but inner truth - no longer the directive of a
    Master to a servant but the loving advice of a Father to his beloved -
    and loving son.

	After a long, long look, Pinocchio said to himself with great
	content:
	"How ridiculous I was as a Marionette! And how happy I am,
	now that I have become a real boy!"
	        (The Adventures of Pinocchio, Carlo Collodi, 1881)

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

[1] Reb Tzadok ha'Kohen of Lublin zt"l expands on this Zohar (vol. 2,
82b) in numerous places. See, for example, Tzidkas ha'Tzaddik simanim 68,
156 and 219.

[2] I know I am on shaky grounds here. After all, the Chofetz Chaim
zt"l did not recite "Berich Shmei" because he found it presumptuous to
state about himself "Ana avda d'Kudsha Berich Hu" (see Shorshei Minhag
Ashkenaz vol. 1, the discussion on the German minhag not to recite Berich
Shmei). The Torah reserves the praise of Eved Hashem for Moshe Rabbeinu
a"h. But there are different connotations to Avdus, and I am using the
term here in its more negative implication.

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


[ 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         ]