Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 72

Mon, 27 Apr 2009

• 1. Re: Coincidences? You Decide. (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 2. Re: selling real chametz (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 3. Re: Ani v'lo hashaliach (Zev Sero)
• 4. Nichum avelim and zugot (Zev Sero)
• 5. The Knowledge Conundrum (Harry Maryles)
• 6. Re: Birkat Hachama (v26,n71,#07) (Motti Yarchinai)
• 7. RSRH on Iyar (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Iyar III: RSRH's Essay on Av Harachamim (Yitzchok Levine)
• 9. Re: Issur Qitniyyos - Sources (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: Issur Qitniyyos - Sources (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Selling Real Chameitz (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Selling Real Chameitz (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (Harry Maryles)
• 16. Re: Issur Qitniyyos - Sources (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:51:40PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given:
> Shanah = 355
> Regular lunar year = 354 days
> 
> Note: g'matriyah has a technique called (IIRC) "im hakollel". That allows
> a discrepancy of one to be equivalent.
> 
> Disclaimer:  
> I don't know the parameters and rules of when this technique applies

I thought of that, but you're using "im hakollel" in the wrong
direction. "Im hakollel" allows you to add one to a gematria
(apparently for each word involved), so "im hakollel" for "shanah" =
356.

--Ken

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090424/e1033fca/attachment-0001.pgp>

RZev Sero writes;
<Chemtzo shel goy is not a heter, it's plain muttar, and there isn't
any reason to suppose an issur on it, or to be machmir on it.  And
where the goy got it from, or what he intends to do with it after
Pesach, isn't really relevant.>
     Those who oppose the selling of chametz do not dispute the validity of
     truly selling chametz to a non-Jew. What they are concerned about is
     the validity of the sale _as it is practiced_, where the goy knows
     that he is never going to see what he has bought, because it will be
     repurchased as soon as Pesach is over, and at no time will the price
     he has to pay be determined.  It is highly likely that he does not
     consider himself the owner of the chametz at all.	It is also likely
     that if a liquor store were to suffer a theft during Pesach, the Jew
     who ostensibly sold it would file an insurance claim for his lost
     liquor, though he has no right to the insurance, and his only claim is
     to the purchaser, who cannot sell him back what he bought, as it is no
     longer in his possession.	One can be sure that the goy has no intent
     of paying.  Thus, it is a "sale" in which neither party considers it
     to be truly sold/purchased.  It is thus in effect a ha'arama, and many
     will not rely on 
 ha'arama for the issur d'oraisa of owning true chametz.
EMT
____________________________________________________________
Stuck in a dead end job?? Click to start living your dreams by earning an online degree.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTKL6fKyhIisWihPq2wYkj4T6FhT1wKPCv0VZAvK9DvCyfsU6SkF6g/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090424/2b9f8a20/attachment-0001.htm>

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Towards the end of Maggid, just before the Ten Plagues, the Hagada quotes
> the pasuk "V'avarti b'eretz mitzraim", and offers these comments:
> 
> "... Ani v'lo mal'ach.
> "... Ani v'lo saraf.
> "... Ani v'lo hashaliach."
> 
> What is the significance of the heh hayediah in the last of these?
> Is Hashem referring to a *specific* shaliach, but only a generic mal'ach
> or a generic saraf?

R Rubin of the Albany Shtiebel suggested that Malach, Saraf, and
Hashaliach is roshei tevot Mosheh, and that perhaps this was a way of
sneaking a mention of Mosheh into the hagadah, even though he doesn't
appear explicitly (except as an aside in the pasuk "vayaaminu baH'
uvemosheh avdo").  He related this to the way Mosheh is missing from
the explicit text of Tetzaveh, but is hinted at in the very first word,
"ve'atah".   Perhaps the author of this phrase wanted to get Mosheh
back into the hagadah, and this was his way of doing so.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                    - Margaret Thatcher

I just heard for the first time of a Sefardi custom (this is second-hand
so I don't know what kind of Sefardi) not to visit an avel an even number
of times.  If one has already been to a shiva house one should not go
again unless one plans a third visit, and similarly one should not visit
a fourth time unless a fifth time is planned, etc.   The person providing
the information didn't seem to know a reason, but it seems obvious to me
that it's related to the issue of zugot.

Questions:
1. How widespread is this minhag?   Are there other zugot-related
minhagim?

2. The gemara in Arvei Pesachim says the only number to avoid is 2,
because 3, 5, and 7 can be counted or not counted, as one chooses.
So for a 4th visit one can choose not to count the 3rd, while for a
5th visit one can choose to count the 3rd after all.  So why avoid
a 4th or 6th, etc. visit?

3. I've never quite understood that gemara.  Once we know that 3 is
optionally counted, why tell us about 5 and 7?  What point is there in
choosing not to count 5 or 7, if the whole point is to arrive at an
odd number, and one can already play with 3?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

This was part of a thread on Areivim. But the following comment generated a few of my own thoughts which I think belong on Avodah. - HM
?
--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:



My grandfather was born in Suvalke (a city, not a shtetl) to a family
that owned a plant for dying textiles. Not life in Anatevka. And yet
the O community was much more like Tevya, with a simpler faith than
we have but more more deep.
?
Some random thoughts come to mind.
?
What does this say about Emunah Peshuta versus Emunah through rational thought?
?
What we?experience today weakens the depth of our faith - and that is based
on the give and take between Torah knowledge and worldly knowledge through
the medium of rational thought. ?
?
We have greater access to both disciplines than our European ancestors. And
that makes Emunah Peshuta almost impossible to rely upon. ?Questions arise
and must be dealt with. Sometimes there are no satisfying answers and we
remain with questions and contradictions. That weakens deep faith. 
?
For those who have less exposure to worldly knowledge and know only Torah
as is the case in Charedi Israel - simple faith is easier to have. Without
worldly knowledge there are no questions.
?
This fact is in part responsible for the increasing numbers of Frum Jews who have a crisis of faith when they encounter these contradictions.
?
I think faith is strengthened to a certain degree when such questions are
answered properly. But at the same time I think the depth of such faith
cannot be compared to?the pure and unquestioning faith of Emunah Peshuta.
?
Does that mean worldly knowledge should be avoided? That is what the Torah
Only Hashkafa advocates. And perhaps they have a point. But how can you ask
people to remain ignorant?
?
And in the current climate of instant information ? it is becoming
increasingly difficult if not impossible to avoid getting enough general
knowledge to start having questions of faith.
?
And once a question enters your mind it is impossible to deny or negate it.
If that thought contains a kernel of doubt without satisfactory answers -
how is it even possible to have the deep faith of our ancesters? ??Fun A
Kashe Shtarbt Min Nisht. But one?s Emunah does get tested if one remains
with a Kashe.

HM
?
?
Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090424/7bf30c7a/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote on 23 Apr 2009:

>>>
It seems to me very likely that ... the dates for both [Xmas & March 
equinox] were fixed [at Dec 25, not 21, and at Mar 26, not 21] in the 
3rd century BCE or so, when those were the correct dates for the 
respective tekufot.
<<<

For the March equinox, that would have been in the fourth century BCE 
(long before both Shmuel and J Caesar); for Saturnalia, 3rd Century 
BCE, a lttle later, but the above still applies.

Shmuel, or Hillel II (or someone else in between such as Abbaye), 
take your pick, were stuck with a pre-existing (solar) calendar, but 
not necessarily with a particular date in that calendar.

(By "stuck", BTW, I don't mean to imply that it was a poor choice 
made reluctantly; the Julian calendar was eminently suitable for 
Shmuel's purpose because it provided a reasonable cycle length for 
BH, quite aside from the fact that it was long established, widely 
used, and therefore well known, so a suitable solar calendar to fix 
our BH and sh'elah dates in.)

Whoever it was could have chosen, for the 'nominal' March equinox, 
any Julian date (J)  that: (a) fell on a Wed in year 1H (Hebrew) and 
(b) was near the equinox in their own time. Since in year 1H, March 
21, J, was a Friday, they could just as easily have chosen Wed March 
19. (Though I can make out a case why a forward adjustment would have 
seemed preferable to them than a backward adjustment.)

However, you seem to be implying that there was something special 
about March 26 (and Dec 25) J. (Like some pre-existing pagan 
equinoctial festival that the rabbis wanted to "overwrite" with a 
Jewish observance, just as the Christians replaced Saturnalia with 
Xmas.) I know I implied something similar in section 1 of my article, 
but I didn't mean that with respect to a specific calendar date, just 
with respect to their vs. our way of celebrating the Sun's birthday.

So was there, historically, a pre-existing festival on those dates? 
Your theory is credible for Saturnalia. It began in 217 BCE (which 
century fits your theory). Against this is the fact that it was not 
replaced by Xmas until the 4th Century, at which time Dec 21, G = Dec 
20 (not 25), J, but if, despite this, Saturnalia was still being 
celebrated on Dec 25 in that century, your theory holds.

I have looked for something fixed to March 26, J, but can only find 
festivals that are linked to the actual (observed) equinox. Nothing 
Roman, and Persians / Zoroastrians didn't use the Julian calendar. 
Ditto Babylonians - we got most of our month names from their luni-
solar calendar. Can't find anything that fits.

Methinks my theory (in section 7 of my article) still survives 
Ockham's razor.

Motti Yarchinai

I have posted an essay by RSRH about Iyar at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/collected_writings.html

This essay is subtitled  The 67th Psalm and the Centuries of the 
Crusades-Should we Delete the Sefirah Prayers?  I found this essay 
most interesting for the insight it gives into this period of Jewish 
history and the Sefirah mourning that we are observing now.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090426/f79ae4fd/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/collected_writings.html

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090426/5e273798/attachment-0001.htm>

> I vaguely recall someone adding "dayssa" as a concern. Is there a mekor
> for this [viz. kitniot]
> RRW

The Smak, Mitzvah Resh Kaf Gimel, speaks of them being "maaseh
kadira". He also speaks of them being d'migan, perhaps "grainy", as in
powdery and stored in silos, adding that one can make bread from them.
His constant refrain is that people will confuse hametz and kitniot,
not being learned enough to distinguish. He says that only in the time
of Hazal could they easily tell between rice and real grain; today, he
says, laypeople aren't so learned, and the average layman cannot tell
the difference. Sometimes, one wonders about the Haredi perception of
all the laymen in the past being so much wiser than we are now.

He says nothing about their growing nearby or being stored in the same
sacks. It's all based, according to him, on people confusing hametz
and kitniot.

His reasoning seems entirely inapplicable to whole unground kitniot,
such as beans. No one would ever confuse a whole solid bean with wheat
flour, or mistakenly make bread from whole unground beans. On the
other hand, he says laymen cannot tell the difference between rice and
wheat, but really, is this not true only of rice flour?

Michael Makovi

-- 
Michael Makovi
????? ???????
mikewindd...@gmail.com
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm doing some research on this.
> 
> In sefer k'hilchos hapesach he brings 2 main reasons for the gzeira
> against qitniyyos
> 
> 1. They grow near real grain - viz. 5 minei dagan
> 2. Their flour resmbles kemach from dagan
> 
> I vaguely recall someone adding "dayssa" as a concern. Is there a mekor
> for this

The term seen more often is "maaseh kederah", which the gemara seems to
use interchangeably with "daysa".  In Yiddish it's "kashe".

The SAHarav gives this as *the* reason; he doesn't even bother citing
the other two reasons you cite.   The new annotated edition references
this to Hagahot haSMaK ch 222 (p 231), Mordechai remez 588, TaZ 453:1,
and Chok Yaacov 453:5.

The Taz in that location quotes the SMaK, but he says "issa" rather
than "daysa"; maybe it's a typo, or maybe the compilers of the new
edition misread it, or maybe by "issa" he doesn't mean dough but
"maaseh kedera".  One could resolve this by looking at the SMaK, but
I haven't got one to look at.

The Chok Yaacov does indeed bring "maaseh kedera" as the primary
reason, and then adds two more reasons, that kitniyos are sometimes
used to make bread and that sometimes grain is found in them.

IMHO part of the problem we English-speakers have in discussing
this is that English doesn't really have a word for daysa/maaseh-
kedera/kashe.   "Porridge" doesn't really cut it.  Porridge, at
least as it's used today, is breakfast, not dinner; it's oatmeal
or semolina, not cooked rice, wheat berries, couscous, barley,
buckwheat, millet, peas, lentils, etc.  *All* of those are "kashe"
in Yiddish, and "daysa" or "maaseh kedera" in Aramaic/Hebrew.
Without a single word to cover all of these things, we don't tend
to think of them as different flavours of the same food, and
therefore tend not to get how easy it would be to confuse them.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

HM:
> What does this say about Emunah Peshuta versus Emunah through rational
> thought?

A couple of thoughts juxtaposed...

Rabbi Sasha Picaric teaches in Teaneck. I suggested he do course on
moreh nevuchim

Then a Breslover friend warned me that Reb Nachman liked Rambam in
Halachah and opposed Chakira.

Kassuv hashlishi hamachria. Beineihem

Kuzari:
Emunah peshua (defined as al pi Mesorah) is best
Lechatchila

BUT
If one begins chakira then it is best to get Torah True stuff (perhaps
such as Kuzari itself and hovos halevavos etc.)

We just discussed in yesterday's daf about tleh that wanders needs more
shemira as per Rava as per Rav Chisda.

I quipped you can't keep the boy down in the farm after he's seen Paris
which is a WWI metaphor for once the doughboys have seen the world they
won't go back to the "nave life any more...

So lechatchila probably a simple approach is best.
However once one has been exposed (contaminated?) by intellectual chakira,
then a sophisticated approach is (probably) superior.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

HM:
> What does this say about Emunah Peshuta versus Emunah through rational

> thought?

  I suppose it is possible to imagine that HKB"H wanted the rest of the
world to advance through rational thought  but wanted us to build
barriers so as not to be affected (much like he may have created
beautiful art and music as a distraction) but that's not the way I'd
bet. BTW was R' Chaim "the chemist" wrong for starting down the Brisker
derech of rationality which would impact so many?

In any event, doesn't the most rational of approaches still require a
leap of faith, so is it really a dichotomy?

KT
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.

Zev:
> I don't think it's that.  Mechirat chametz isn't a takanah in the sense
> of an enactment, it's more literally a tikkun, i.e. a solution.  The
> *reason* it was invented in the first place may have been because people
> were facing a hefsed merubeh; without that incentive it may be that
> nobody would have put the effort into inventing and developing it...

> Chemtzo shel goy is not a heter, it's plain muttar, and there isn't
> any reason to suppose an issur on it, or to be machmir on it.  And
> where the goy got it from, or what he intends to do with it after
> Pesach, isn't really relevant.

If it were that simple why did GRA and others oppose it OUR heter mechira?
EG One rav-mekkubal I know insists on pouring any sold liquor down
the drain!
AFAIK a permanent sale is not controversial

The tikkun and the controversy is about selling hametz to a goy, buying
it back and the goy never touching it.

Perhaps if all of the hametz were shlepped by the goy to his warehouse
for 8 days it would appear to be less of a ha'aramah

Now technically we DO rent space to the goy. But this is a bit shaky.
Example:
Does the tenant's leaae permit him to "sub-lease" to another? Re: co-ops -
Is the co-op board consulted?

What about liquor store owners? Does the goy need a valid liquor license
to assume ownership of a liquor store? And if he only buys the stock and
not the store are the taxes and transfers reported to the gov't. During
the buy back phase?

FWIW I could never convince most of my yekke congregation that this was
anything but a clever ha'arama and not a true sale. And believe me I
tried to show how medakdeik we are to make this sale "real".

The mishna does present a case of sell-buyback. But it seems to be ONLY
bish'as haddechak.


OTOH it is a minhag pashut to do it. So I don't want to make people
nervous about its efficacy..

Good Shabbos
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 


> Chemtzo shel goy is not a heter, it's plain muttar, and there isn't 
> any reason to suppose an issur on it, or to be machmir on it. 
If it were that simple why did GRA and others oppose it OUR heter
mechira?

======================================
Could be because he didn't believe that there was real kavanah to make a
real sale - so there is no contradiction between the 2 statements above.
KT
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.

--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:



HM:
> What does this say about Emunah Peshuta...


In any event, doesn't the most rational of approaches still require a
leap of faith?
?
------------------------------------------
?
Yes. But the smaller the leap the better - in my view. 
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090427/c7ab7cb4/attachment-0001.htm>

Michael Makovi wrote:
>> I vaguely recall someone adding "dayssa" as a concern. Is there a mekor
>> for this [viz. kitniot]
>> RRW
> 
> The Smak, Mitzvah Resh Kaf Gimel, speaks of them being "maaseh
> kadira". He also speaks of them being d'migan, perhaps "grainy", as in
> powdery and stored in silos

We're talking about grain, not flour.  Midi demidgan simply means
the seed is separated from the rest of the plant, and stored in
heaps; that's what is done with every grain.


> His reasoning seems entirely inapplicable to whole unground kitniot,
> such as beans. No one would ever confuse a whole solid bean with wheat
> flour, or mistakenly make bread from whole unground beans. On the
> other hand, he says laymen cannot tell the difference between rice and
> wheat, but really, is this not true only of rice flour?

Again, this has nothing to do with flour.  Maaseh kedera is not made
with flour.  (And the original "pottage", another word that no longer
exists in Practical English, was lentils.)

SA Harav says the gezera was on anything that is cooked as a maaseh
kedera, and could thus be confused with the five kinds of grain,
*plus* anything that grows in pods (e.g. mustard) and is therefore
by definition in the class of kitniyot.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

I posted:
"A couple of thoughts juxtaposed...

Rabbi Sasha Picaric teaches in Teaneck. I suggested he do course on
moreh nevuchim

Then a Breslover friend warned me that Reb Nachman liked Rambam in
Halachah and opposed Chakira.

Kassuv hashlishi hamachria. Beineihem

Kuzari:
Emunah peshua (defined as al pi Mesorah) is best
Lechatchila

BUT
If one begins chakira then it is best to get Torah True stuff (perhaps
such as Kuzari itself and hovos halevavos etc.)
...
So lechatchila probably a simple approach is best.
However once one has been exposed (contaminated?) by intellectual chakira,
then a sophisticated approach is (probably) superior."

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



"I disagree with your last point.
The point of R. Nachman's objection to Chakira is that is essentially
worthless. We lack the vocabulary to bridge the gap between HaShem's
Imminence and Transcendence. Here lie the Eternal Questions.The answers
to the great eternal questions are not available to us. Our response must
be silence and Emunah. The answers of M.N. and the rest of that genre are
either based on circular reasoning, or simply rephrase the problem in a
subtler way, thereby giving the illusion of having answered the question.
Kuzari is an exception. It uses Reason to show the limits of Reason,
and the need to rely on Emunah.

Note: This is very much like Eastern philosophies who use "Ordinary Mind
to dissolve Ordinary Mind."
---------------------



1 maybe MN is also about teaching the limits of mind to grasp HKBH,
but does so through an oblique method. IOW he doesn't state but you
see it for yourself afterwards.

2. Perhaps some high IQ intellectuals CAN see the Yad Hashem via M N E.G.
RYDS, Rema, but the average mortal cannot bridge that chasm.

KT
RRW


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 72
**************************************

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..."