Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 139

Thu, 17 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: western wall (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Kazayyit size (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Chinese repression in Tibet - al pi Torah? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Denying that Chazal are Oral Torah is Kefira? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Micha Berger)
• 6. B'Din Heseiba L'Ikuva (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Exempt from Loshon Hara (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Chinese repression in Tibet - al pi Torah? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Denying that Chazal are Oral Torah is Kefira? (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: western wall (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: B'Din Heseiba L'Ikuva (Harry Maryles)

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 06:01:17PM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Good question. In the popular consciousness, the Kotel is holy, but
: k'halacha, is there any true significance to it? I would think that it
: is just a stam a bunch of stones that just happen to hold up har
: ha-bayit.

According to Briskers (both US and Israel), qedushas Har haBayis starts at
the *outside* of the wall. I'm not sure if that's vadai or safeiq (starts
or "be careful, it might start"). And so (aside from them considering it a
silly practice) both RYBS and his uncle suggested that someone who insists
on putting a note into the kotel do so with a pen cap -- not their finger!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:18:58PM -0400, Saul Guberman wrote:
: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:
: > In another, commenting on the new large zeitim,  I mentioned the CS
: > shita. He did not swallow the 2 zeitim little by little but,
: > chewed and gathered them in one cheek after which he
: > swallowed the entire amount all at once...

: I don't understand this.  Isn't the mitzvah to "eat matza on that night"?
: How is this derech achilah?  How can you make a bracha & then eat this
: way?

It's a problem with achila gasa. Which is why this chumra can't be
literally "at once", it would turn out to be a huge kulah -- thus opening
the door for the Steipler's suggestion.

I would think that if you're eating a large kezayis, that implies a
large beitzah and a large peras -- and therefore a large kedai achilas
peras in which to eat it.

In fact, one /kezayis/ per /kedai achilas peras/ would be the same ratio
regardless of the shitah -- differences would cancel out. And so, relying
on a large kedai achilas peras will be no kulah even if the kezayis were
smaller than you're assuming. Just eat the first Vilozhiner kezayis in
a Vilozhiner KAP, etc... by eating at a slow but steady speed.

Last, doesn't "at once" always mean tokh kedai dibur, not one gulp?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:10:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Is your co-worker from Tibet?  Does he say that his religion is Tibetan?

His parents met in Tibet.

And the two books on his desk are from Snow Lion. Their web site claims
they are "publisher and distributor of books on Tibetan Buddhism and
culture."

And his description matches Wikipedia, to the best of my comprehension.
It's a very "saint" (bodhisattva) oriented religion, believing that
there are people who hang around after enlightenment to help others get
there. And they may use effigies to help focus meditation, including
effigies of the Buddha and other bodhisattvas. But they aren't worshipped
as deities, and make much less of a claim of such than the system Tosafos
called shituf.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:33:54PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> For example, [the CI] is quoted in the same letter as saying that we know
:> our sifrei Torah are ...     They took the majority of three sefarim
:> to reconstruct the Torah after churban bayis. The result didn't match
:> any of the 3 originals. And yet, if we were to find Ezra's or MRAH's
:> seifer Torah, we would have to use ours and not switch to theirs.

:> That's not an issue of having the historically correct girsa, it's an
:> issue of the processes defining correctness.

: Would you say this statement would hold true even if Sanhedrin were
: restarted?

I'm sorry. You need to repeat the question with more explanation,
because I didn't keep up.

At the time they took the "vote", there was a Sanhedrin.

And wouldn't a Sanhedrin mean there is more authority to construct
halakhah (defining correctness), and therefore /less/ role for having
to determine what was decided to be correct in earlier generations?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

This thread went all over the place.

I- Geirus

On Fri, April 11, 2008 12:42 pm, R Sholom Simon wrote:
:>You have set up a straw man because no posek demands perfection (or a
:>promise of perfection) from a ger.  The usual requirement is that
:>the ger  agrees to keep Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha.

: Around these parts there seems to be a fourth requirement, also: that
: the kids go to a day school that's frum enough to be acceptable to
: the rav overseeing the process.

That demand, though, may be part of making sure you're doing them a
favor by making them Jewish rather than incuring on them the problem of
being avaryanim. Or perhaps a measure of sincerity. IOW, do you think
the rabbis in question would consider the conversion invalid bedi'eved,
lechat-chilah, or just wish to make sure things are done "right" (as
they define the term) while they still have control -- and this isn't
really about the validity of the geirus?

II - Austritt, TIDE, and Israel

On Fri, April 11, 2008 10:35 am, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I am certain that RSRH would NOT permit Orthodox participation in a 
: common body with R and C organizations, although he would permit
: Orthodox representatives to run for election to governmental bodies
: like the Knesset....

I am far from certain. Austritt included anti-Zionism. I could picture
RSRH deciding that the Keneset represents an Ism to which Austritt
should apply.

This isn't RYBS, with his distinction between kelapei chutz/fate and
kelapei penim/destiny. Austritt would include banning participation in
the SCA, even if it were only addressing survival and communal issues.

And via R' Breuer et al, RSRH's position colored Agudah's founding
principles. Which brings me to another post...

On Sun, April 13, 2008 3:44 am, T613K@aol.com wrote:
:> (Tangent: Obviously, Agudists can. Anti-Zionists will agree
:> something changed, but they will say it's the introduction of a
:> nisayon.  But the neutral non-Zionist can say that it's not a
:> fundamental  change.)

: I don't agree that this is a fair statement of what Agudists believe. 
: I consider myself an Agudist and, like most Agudists, I believe that
: something  HAS changed in Eretz Yisrael....

WADR, I believe you're projecting onto the leadership of the movement
what you want your movement to be teaching.

...
: Rather, we do live in a time when we can hear the footsteps of
: Moshiach approaching...

This has little to do with the question of Zionism. R' Reines founded
Mizrachi without believing that the State had anything to do with
bi'as hamashiach. RYBS refrained from what he called making prophetic
assumptions about current events and ge'ulah as well.

RAYK and RSZK taught a philosophy that now dominates that community. But
it wasn't the only possible form of RZ.

:    When you see Yerushalayim built up and  full of Yidden,
: when you see the desert turning green and the farms producing 
: bountiful harvests, it would be very difficult for a Torah Jew not to
: see that  miracles are happening before our eyes.

Which is why I can't accept the Agudah non-Zionist position. At least
the anti-Zionist position explains why something nonpareil in the last
2 millennia is happening now.

But arguing for your perception doesn't make it the position of the
movement to which you wish to align. They forced RAYK out over the
Zionism issue. RYBS chose to leave (according to 5 Derashos) because he
felt that HQBH spoke through history and told us Mizrachi was correct.

Unless you wish to claim that Nov 29, 2007 marks a change in the Agudah's
platform. (As in <http://www.forward.com/articles/12143/>. But that
takes us to Areivim territory.)

: What happened was that there was "something in the air" and the Zionists
: picked up a whiff of it and ran with it -- in the wrong direction. Away from
: Torah, rather than back to Torah.

And RSRH and later the Moetzes took this as proof that Zionism was
just another Ism of the post-Haskalah world, an alternative proposed
to Judaism.

III - TsN

RnTK continued:
: Furthermore, many or most of them consciously and openly oppose
: Orthodoxy in their teaching and preaching -- they are not neutral.
: They may not go to Gehenom for what they do -- because of their
: tinok shenishba status -- but their actions are nevertheless:
: objectively evil and anti-Torah, even if their intentions are
: not evil and they are sincere in their beliefs.

Yes, one needs to separate judging the deed from judging the person.

To take a controversially extreme case: One can oppose the formation of
Meretz. However, how can one stand in judgment of the Holocaust survivor
who thinks he is aiding Jewish survival by starting it?

And I think this is the essence of the gap between TsN and the underlying
concept of shogeig or oneis. (This is a new proposal, I'm not claiming
I had this idea at the beginning of the discussion.)

TsN isn't a judgment about the person -- we can't read their minds and
know how they decided to act as they do. Rather, it's a rule of thumb,
a form of birur, for dealing with other people when we need to know
whether we can presume they are meizidim (letei'avon, lehach'is) or not
for the sake of determining our own actions.

Given this proposal, I hope to explain R Michael Makovi's post of Thu,
Apr 03, 2008 at 01:37:54AM +0300:
: I didn't say they had to be gedolei yisrael to be meizid. What I said,
: however, is that it seems to me (IMHO) that in order to for him to
: cease to be a TsN, he has to cease to be shogeg in the fact of Sinai
: etc. If he learns a random halacha or happens to meet a few religious
: Jews (Reb Moshe), he won't have learned enough to be convinced that
: Torah is min ha-shamayim.

: That is why I do not understand the notion of Reb Moshe that the
: moment he meets a religious Jew he is no longer TsN...

The notion that would need to be defended would only be that once he
meets a religious Jew, we can't simply use the working assumption that
he is oneis or shogeig. He might very well still be, and not guilty, but
stam yeinam

(All this said, I did no understand RDE's quotes the way he explained them,
and thus would disagree that RMF actually says the R Jew how lives among
O Jews isn't a TsN. And he even pasqens lequlah based on this. As
discussed already.)

: And I agree with R' Akiva Miller that "Where are the defining limits?
: I don't know. But do I *need* to know? Let Hashem decide  these
: things." With nonreligious Jews today, how can we really know whether
: they are meizid or not? ...

Yes. It effects pesaqim in minyan, stam yeinam and other dinim. My
proposal is that we are arguing whether we can rule out their being
meizidim when making these decisions, not whether they actually are
meizidim.

Similarly, it simplifies RnCL's point, posted on Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at
12:47:31PM +0100:
: The Lechem Mishna there on the Rambam questions this Rambam on the grounds
: that the Rambam at the end hilchos teshuva perek 3 says that everyone can do
: teshuva .  He suggests a resolution to the stira.  He says that it is
: possible to do teshuva for aveiros of this nature, but they are of such a
: great magnitude and it is so difficult that anybody who truly did teshuva
: for them would die in the process ...
:                 Hence the point is that *we do not accept* any person as
: having done teshuva for such aveiros, because any person who had really done
: teshuva for such aveiros would no longer be alive, and if they are alive
: they can't have done teshuva.

We don't need to accept or reject the teshuvah -- we need to know whether
we may assume it occured WRT pesaqim about how to relate to the person.

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 01:59:44PM +0100, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: And the Shach says there on [siman 268] si'if 12: When he comes to
: convert: And it is written in tosphos that this is from perek kama
: of shabbas that he came before Hillel and said to him convert me on
: condition that I will be cohen gadol and in the end he did it l'shem
: shamayim .. and from here one can learn that it is all according to what
the eyes of the beis din see and so writes the drisha.

I have to admit I learned the sugya with the Maharsha (who RDE already
noted holds the actual geirus was /after/ the qabbalas ol), and therefore
didn't see it coming.

Do they disagree with the need for qabalas ol mitzvos, or do they give
the authority to the beis din to assess whether the current obstacles
to such qabalah are real and permanent? After all, in all of three cases
there eventually was qabalah. And if the beis din uses their discretion
and full qabalah is not forthcoming, would even the Shach say that the
geirus was chal? He could be seen as saying they are allow to go through
the steps, which is a much smaller claim.


IV - REB and Halakhah

On the subject of REB's version of halakhah RnCL writes:
: The example I was always given of a R' Berkowitz "solution"
: was - we have a need in a Jewish state for policemen.  We can't and
: shouldn't delegate that to the goyim on Shabbas.  But that means we
: need to have policemen out there "on the beat" policing - even in
: circumstances where there is no clear cut pikuach nefesh scenario to
: justify being mechalel shabbas.  So we need to be creative - we should
: put policemen on bicycles!

: Now bicycles are another example of a somewhat modern day machlokus,
: where the consensus is that we don't use them...

You're right that in this case, REB wouldn't be rolling black the clock
so far that we're sure the current consensus "canonized" the pesaq yet.
Nispasheit has to imply some kind of time window, and I don't know what
it would be.

(Similarly, can we still roll back the clock on mei qitniyos? What about
peanuts?)

I find myself with an awkard position to support. After all, RRW and I
have debate the role of aggadic values in pesaq, and I have been promoting
a model of pesaq that gives them a relatively greater position.

However, even in my model, it's a way of weighing the value of textually
justifiable pesaqim, one with a weaker supporting argument or less
precedent as minhag avos, but more value in the person's derekh in
avodas Hashem.

I'm saying that REB wants to have his cake and eat it too. He claims his
theory about the evils of codification has no pragmatic impact since
social realities force us to have codes, in an argument to eliminate
shemitah bizman hazeh. And yet lemaaseh he did invoke sevaros based on
first principles in an attempt to rule differently than that supported
by formal process.

RHM put it well in v8n59, and RHM studied under REB at HTC:
> In this he uses the concept that Svara can and does have the ability to
> change the pervailing law. He uses the Gemmara in Kesuvos 3A where the
> Gemmara tries to find a source for Rava's ruling of Ain Onaise B'Get.
> Rava ruled that the husband cannot claim that the situation was beyond
> his control (Onaise) and that a Get, that stipulated that he would be
> "back in town" by a certain time and was prevented by Onaise from doing
> so, the Get is never-the-less, still valid.

> The Gemmara goes throgh several Tannaitic proofs and rejects them all
> concluding that Rava based himself on Svara for the sake of the modest
> and immodest women.

> IOW, practical considerations are the basis for Rava's ruling, not
> precedent. This gives us TODAY, precedent to do the same when practical
> considerations warrent.

> Thus does Dr. Berkowitz open up an entire pandora's box enabling us
> to dispense with hundreds of years of Teshuvos by merely utilizing his
> afforementioned principles as in Rava's case where Rava himself utilized
> savra for the sake of the rectifying a difficult situation for woman.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

I find the article very interesting. Much of it is beyond my ken of  
comprehension.
However, the one thing I'd like to submit regarding from the gemara  
Pesachim: "Matzah is a D Oraisa - a biblical commandment.
In our day Maror is only a DRabbanan - a rabbinic requirement....
By eating them together - the DRabbanan of Maror will then void the  
DOraisa of Matzah."

I was always under the impression that by violating the DRabbanan, you  
are actually committing two aveiros since
we are commanded to obey DRabbanan from DOraisa. This would be similar  
to making a brocho "...asher kidshanu b'mitzvosav
v'tzivanu..." over Shabbos or Chanukah candles (and others). You can  
argue it's DRabbanan, so how can you say "asher kidshanu"?
But that's exactly the point. DRabbanan takes on the same (or more)  
than DOraisa. Hence, how can the DRabbanan of Maror void the
DOraisa of Matzah?

ri

I have a very interesting question for Avodah.  Is a newspaper exempt  
from loshon hara?
In other words, if a prominent Jewish person is charged with any  
crime, is the publishing
of the story by a newspaper loshon hara and/or rechilus?  Without  
going into specifics,
(otherwise I would be perpetuating the salacious story), if a  
prominent (or even average)
Jewish person were charged with having been involved in an adulterous  
relationship (whether
it was true or not) and it was put in the newspaper, is the newspaper  
guilty of loshon hara?

Also, would there be different standards if it were true or not true?

ri

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> If you say that the concept of lechem oni is part of the
> usual YT concept of se'udah, then [[snipped]] ...
> However, if you say that they are distinct, then ... one
> would need a kezayis from each -- the lechem mishneh and
> the lechem oni.

Are you saying that one is not yotzei Lechem Mishneh unless he eats a
kezayis of it? That if I have a small piece of the baal habayis's two
challahs, and then eat some of the sliced bread on the table for the
kezayis of seudah, that I have not fulfilled the mitzvah of Lechem Mishneh?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nr7ZeHn7koN9yE8gLqpQarp3YrDmcOmzg8z6qIfHKdXdYVs/

Micha Berger wrote:

> And his description matches Wikipedia, to the best of my comprehension.
> It's a very "saint" (bodhisattva) oriented religion, believing that
> there are people who hang around after enlightenment to help others get
> there. And they may use effigies to help focus meditation, including
> effigies of the Buddha and other bodhisattvas. But they aren't worshipped
> as deities, and make much less of a claim of such than the system Tosafos
> called shituf.

1. Only one answer in that Tosfos suggests that RC is shituf, and it's
not the final answer.

2. Do they offer food to the statues?  That would contradict any claim
that the statues are mere reminders of the achievements of the person
they stand for.

3. It has been my understanding, which I will now have to check, that
Tibetan Buddhism involves worship of mountain spirits and demons, and
other pure AZ.  *That* is probably not in the books they print for
Westerners.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 

-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:55 PM
To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Denying that Chazal are Oral Torah is Kefira?

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:33:54PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> For example, [the CI] is quoted in the same letter as saying that we
know
:> our sifrei Torah are ...     They took the majority of three sefarim
:> to reconstruct the Torah after churban bayis. The result didn't match
:> any of the 3 originals. And yet, if we were to find Ezra's or MRAH's
:> seifer Torah, we would have to use ours and not switch to theirs.

:> That's not an issue of having the historically correct girsa, it's an
:> issue of the processes defining correctness.

: Would you say this statement would hold true even if Sanhedrin were
: restarted?

I'm sorry. You need to repeat the question with more explanation,
because I didn't keep up.

At the time they took the "vote", there was a Sanhedrin.

And wouldn't a Sanhedrin mean there is more authority to construct
halakhah (defining correctness), and therefore /less/ role for having to
determine what was decided to be correct in earlier generations?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I was asking in theory if Sanhedrin were restarted today could
they vote that the girsa we have (BTW is it ashkenaz or sfard?) is
incorrect and use a different one (or just have us all use one)

KT & CKVS
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

nevertheless Chazal seem to praise Herod for rebuilding the Temple and
say that it was the most beautiful building.
After killing the chachamim the remaining ones seemed to encourage him to
redo the Temple as a "kapparah"

Chag Kasher Vesameach

Eli

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RET wrote:
>  > 4. I have doubts that when Herod did this wall e employed only Jews
>  > who went to the mikveh each day
>
>  Do you want the government of Israel or the relevant authority to stoop so low
>  as to follow Herod's lead?
>
>  (Let's just remember that, prior to renovating the BhM, Herod killed as many
>  of the 'hakhmei Yisroel as he could get his hands on. It is doubtful that he
>  did teshuvah - his renovation project was more likely to placate his subjects
>  and to guarantee that he is remembered not only for his crimes. KNLAD.)
>
>  --
>  Arie Folger
>  http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
>



-- 
Eli Turkel

  Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:
  ... the one thing I'd like to submit regarding from the gemara 
Pesachim: "Matzah is a D Oraisa - a biblical commandment.
In our day Maror is only a DRabbanan - a rabbinic requirement....
By eating them together - the DRabbanan of Maror will then void the 
DOraisa of Matzah."

I was always under the impression that by violating the DRabbanan, you 
are actually committing two aveiros since
we are commanded to obey DRabbanan from DOraisa. This would be similar 
to making a brocho "...asher kidshanu b'mitzvosav
v'tzivanu..." over Shabbos or Chanukah candles (and others). You can 
argue it's DRabbanan, so how can you say "asher kidshanu"?
But that's exactly the point. DRabbanan takes on the same (or more) 
than DOraisa. Hence, how can the DRabbanan of Maror void the
DOraisa of Matzah?  -----------------------
   
  The power of all D'Rabbanans is derived of the D'Oraisa of Lo Sasur. So
  in that sense they are D'Oraisos. But they do not carry the same weight
  as a D'Oraisa since each D'Rabbanan is man made. 
   
  One might ask, what is the rationale for why the D'Rabbanan of Maror negates the D'Oraisa of Matzah? 
   
  Tosephos in Zevachim (78A) explains that it is based on the Halachic
  concept of Bitul Taam. This means that something that cannot be tasted is
  considered non existent. Although normally combining two foods with these
  proportions would not usually weaken the taste of either,  Maror is an
  exception in that its taste is very strong and overwhelms the taste of
  the Matzah. That makes it Halachicly non existent.
   
  This raises a difficulty with Rav Soloveitchik?s answer to R. Shlomo
  HaKohen M?Vilna. Since the Maror has such a strong taste, how can he say
  that the in Korech the Matzah overwhelms the taste of the Maror?
   
  The answer is given by the Meiri ?which is the crux of R? Shlomo
  HaKohen?s solution. The Meiri holds that we are required to demonstrate
  our reverence for the Mitzvah by not allowing its taste to become
  affected by anything of lesser importance. That is why the SA paskins
  that we must eat Matzah, a D?Oriasa, without it being affected by the
  taste of a food item of lesser importance? in this case: Maror. But when
  the two are equal? as in the case of Korech  where the Chiuv for Maror
  and the Chiuv for Matzah B?Heseibah is equal. In that case neither one
  can undermine the other since our reverence for the Mitzvah ? defined by
  its equal Halachic status ? is the same.
   
  Rav Soloveitchik?s point is that they are not equal. The Maror?s basic
  requirement of Achila has not been performed at all. The requirement of
  Matzah B?Heseibah is of lesser significance since it is only that portion
  of Sipur required to be demonstrated by the act of Heseibah. Hence our
  reverence for the now greater Chiuv D?Rabbaban of Maror requires us to
  show our reverence for the Mitzvah by not allowing the taste of the Maror
  to be effected by the taste of the Matzah.
   
   
   


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080417/0531783c/attachment.htm 

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 139
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."