Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 6

Tue, 11 Jan 2011

• 1. Matza made with < 50% rice or corn (Meir Rabi)
• 2. Re: Yayin Mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Matza made with < 50% rice or corn (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Matza made with < 50% rice or corn (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Matza made with < 50% rice or corn (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 7. Re: Refusal to pay, BM 17a (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 8. Re: nittel nacht (menucha)
• 9. Fwd: b'Ito u'b'Zmano (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 10. Re: worst aveirah (Micha Berger)
• 11. worst averiah (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Hankman)
• 13. Re: attending a C service [was: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending...] (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Hankman)
• 15. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Prayer for Air? (LReich)
• 18. Are there any chemists on Avodah (LReich)
• 19. translation of Na (M Cohen)

Any one ever heard of Matza made with a large proportion of corn or rice?
for Ashkenazim?
Any reason other than tradition with a very small "t" for this?

Who would like to try some this year?

meir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/52f22334/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/01/2011 12:18 PM, Alan Rubin wrote:
> As I understand it, according to many authorities, if a non-Jew
> handles yayin mevushal this does not render it non-Kosher.

That is according to all authorities.


> The grounds
> for this ruling is that cooking would invalidate the wine for  avodah
> zara.

Indeed.  Presumably this was based on the AZ prevalent in Chazal's day.
Note that there's no reason for a link between what's valid for the
BHMK and what's valid for AZ.  We have our rules, they have theirs.
So what follows has no real connection to what came before.


> I am wondering about the logic behind this. There is a link between
> kiddush and libations in the temple. Wine that is invalid for libation
> in the temple might, lechatchilah at least, be unsuitable for kiddush.
> If pasteurising or otherwise heating wine is enough of a mevushal to
> take away the problem of touching by a non-Jew shouldn't that also
> render it unfit for kiddush?

That is the Rambam's opinion, but he's a daat yachid.

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

On 9/01/2011 5:08 PM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> Any one ever heard of Matza made with a large proportion of corn or
> rice? for Ashkenazim?
> Any reason other than tradition with a very small "t" for this?
>
> Who would like to try some this year?

For Ashkenazim, definitely not.  Ein mevatlin issur lechatchila.
The only community I'm aware of that mixes kitniyot into their matzot
are Temanim.   I assume the reason is that kitniyot were cheaper than
wheat.

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

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 06:04:00PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> For Ashkenazim, definitely not.  Ein mevatlin issur lechatchila.
> The only community I'm aware of that mixes kitniyot into their matzot
> are Temanim.   I assume the reason is that kitniyot were cheaper than
> wheat.

Qitniyos in general, or rice flour in particular?

I ask because Y-mi Challah 3:5 18b seems to place wheat-rice mixtures
in their own class WRT challah and chameitz. If the taste is of wheat,
then it's chayav in challah and can become chameitz -- and thus is usable
for matzah. It seems rice blends into the dough in ways other things
do not.

OTOH, Indian breads often have whole peas or other legumes mixed in. Maybe
it's a cultural-culinary thing.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

Sure there is; it is on sale every year, kosher for Pesach. But I have never seen shmura matza made this way.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Meir Rabi 


  Any one ever heard of Matza made with a large proportion of corn or rice? for Ashkenazim? 
  Any reason other than tradition with a very small "t" for this?


  Who would like to try some this year
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/a9e0e4bc/attachment-0001.htm>

First,

You may want to watch on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuFovhr4UQM

It's from Machon HaMikdash and towards the end it has a few moments showing
how they built the Mitzbe'ach including using pitch.


Second, 

The reason I spoke of mud (in a previous post) is b/c we are talking about
Mitzbach Adama.

I find it interesting that despite the fact that at least in Egypt and
certainly historically elsewhere, building with bricks and mud (and stone)
was well known, when discussing "Mizbach Adama", none of the mefarshim
consider that it was literally built from soil.

It is even more interesting b/c the various resources I read all state that
the reason for Mitzbach Adama is to remind mankind that they were made from
Earth (etc.).

Shoshana L. Boublil

That's just it; acc to Rashi, there's no denial, no lie on record. The edim
say, be-fanenu teva'o li-feroa' lo ... /-lo para'./ Then, because he was
me'iz la'avor a.p. BD, he's no longer ne'eman. So IHN, why le-fi Rashi is
he called kafran if he never lied, and why le-oso mamon?

--
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
212.742.8770 ext. 2432
http://www.tourolib.org/

Access problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:26, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> I agree he does seem to go in a different direction, maybe something
> focused about being in denial (kafran, c.f. kefirah) WRT this particular
> debt.

actually i've heard it in certain dl yeshivot , where it was felt that 
those for whom those 2 minutes would really be bitul Torah should learn 
in a side room.
my son learns in the mixed charedi/dl Talmud  Torah in Bat ayin and the 
Rav taught a mishna right before the siren and said that those who 
wanted could review the mishna in their head while standing.
menucha

T6...@aol.com wrote:

>  
> This is the first time I've heard the argument that the objection to 
> Yom Hashoah is "bitul Torah." 
> I


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/1217f3de/attachment-0001.htm>

An eis is a time that comes according to a prescheduled appointment,
> ready or not. It is a point in a shanah, in cyclic time that runs its
> celestial heartbeat regardless of human action

-----  this  fits with  'b'ito achishena'.     but  would not then   'eis 
laasos lashem'  imply that  certain down spiralling  of jewish behavior is 
 pre-ordained,  as to yield the required  'hefeiru  sorasecha' ? or  would 
 you read it  backwards  that  'hefeiru behaviour'   preordains 'eis 
laasos' ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/d529a59c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 12:05:41PM -0500, I wrote:
: But none of the three yeihareig ve'al ha'avor are pushiable by seqilah.

I was corrected in private email:
> (1) Avoda zara is punishable by s'kila.
> (1.5) The case of arayos where the din is derived is na'ara ham'orasa,
> which is also s'kila.

Still, it's possible to be over a yeihareig ve'al ya'avor without violating
an issur punishable (if there were eidus, hasra'ah, etc..) by the most chamur
of oneshim.

: They're clearly worse -- which means there must be another dimension
: than that used by derashos miqal vachomer.

RZS asked:
> Why are those three clearly worse?  Who says that the severity of an
> averah is what should determine whether it's nidche by pikuach nefesh?

In the qal vachomer dimension, the fact that these is a chiyuv by one
that isn't applicable to the other ranks it as more chamur. That's how
qv"ch is done, no? Which implies that those which are yeihareig ve'al
ya'avor are being called more chamur.

Then he asked:
> For instance, murder is on the list not because of any measurement of
> its severity but because it's not logical for pikuach nefesh to override
> it: "who says your blood is redder than the other person's?"

I would say that the quote is exactly why it's so severe.

> Also, it's obvious that kibbush ha'aretz overrides PKN; otherwise it
> would be impossible.  The reason it's not listed among "the three" is
> simple: it's an asei, not a lo sa'aseh, so the language "yehareg ve'al
> ya`avor" is simply inapplicable.

That's a logical guess. But just a guess.

> And yet nobody will argue that
> because it overrides PKN it's therefore more important than other
> mitzvos.

I find this a less logical guess. If nothing else, a person who is
willing to risk their own neck to do a mitzvah must be doing something
very important, regardless of how we would otherwise rank the mitzvah.
But that's a different axis.

> That refers to mitzvos, not to averos.  We *do* know the ranking of
> averos, by the punishment they attract...

Do you mean asei vs lav? Because fulfilling a lo saasei is avoiding the
aveirah, and thus one would guess that its value is the negative of the
ranking of the aveirah.

I find RZS's response flawed because it too presumes that there is only
one definition of "chamur" or "worse". It seems clear to me that any
tanking of mitzvos that assume shaveh lekhol nefesh is incomplete. The
actual value of a given mitzvah or the cost of an aveirah, includes
issues like where the person's nequdas habechirah is, lefum tza'arah agra,
and other issues that don't allow a context-free ranking of the 613.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

> But none of the three yeihareig ve'al ha'avor are pushiable by seqilah.
> They're clearly worse -- which means there must be another dimension
> than that used by derashos miqal vachomer.

Why are those three clearly worse?  Who says that the severity of an
aveirah is what should determine whether it's nidche by pikuach nefesh? >>>

Just a note that pikuach nefesh overrides shabbat. However, pikuach nefesh
does not override stealing if one cannot pay back.
So we see that what overrides includes other factors and not just severity
as stealing is certainly not that stringent. In fact pikuach nefesh does not
always override any mitzvot bein adam lechavero

We have "vechai behem" which says that pikuach nefesh overrides mitzvot
between man and G-d but doesnt apply always to things that affect other
human beings

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/d8d13c1c/attachment-0001.htm>

I had asked in a previous post:

Also does the fingernail rule only apply to the individual stone aggregate,
or to the entire surface after removal of the form. If so, the
aggregate-mortar joints must have been near perfect - almost like a
polished surface!? Also does this fingernail rule apply to stone aggregate
buried in the interior of the mizbeach and never visible at its surface? If
yes - you will never know whether during construction a stone in the
interior became scratched and made the mizbeach pasul!

I have since found that:

The sugia is in Chulin 18a and the meforshim there discuss it. The gemara
says the pegimas hamizbeach is kdai shtachgor es hatsiporen. Then the gm'
brings a breisa stating that RSB'I holds the shiur pegimas hamizbeach is a
tefach and REB'Y holds it's a czayis. Then the gm' explains the breisa does
not contradict the previous gm'. One is b'sida (plaster) and the other is
b'avna (stone). Most meforshim assume the shiur of the nail is for the
stone and the shiur of the breisa is for the plaster but some meforshim
have it reversed.

It also seems that it should make no difference whether the stones are on
the surface or in the interior of the mizbeach as the psul originates in
the requirement of shlaimos. This of course leaves my final question
unanswered for which you can give a simple (if very tedious for the actual
workers building the mizbeach) balabatishe answer that they were extremely
careful in the placement of each stone in the huge 32 X 32 X 9 (roughly)
amo volume. I.e., these stones were of necessity not placed the way we
place concrete into forms today poured en mass, but each piece of the
aggregate (smooth stone) had to be placed carefully, and then carefully
surrounded by the mortar, (unless the mortar was sufficiently fluid to flow
through the stone matrix under gravity).

Correct me if you think I have it wrong.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/93a54185/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:50:36AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: By suggesting that attending services in a C cong /might/ be permissible  
: for kibud av ve'eim, you are already conceding that attending services in a  
: C cong might be permissible, period.

Only if you think pesaq is black-and-white rather than weighing pros
vs cons. A study of shu"t shows that it's usually more finding a way
among the shades of gray than clearcut issur veheter. (The clearcut
cases rarely require a shu"t.)

It means that there is a senif lehaqeil on its own "merits", but
without another strong motivator, eg kibud av, the reasons to be machmir
overwhelm it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

I vaguely recalled in my previous post:

I think there is a discussion about whether it is iron or metal that is under prohibition of use for the mizbeach. 

When I looked:

I found that that most assume it is only barzel and not other metals under
this prohibition. I did not see many who disagree. I think the source is in
the Michilta  in a maimra of RYBZ who clearly states it is only barzel.

Howevre I did find in a tshuva of the Afarkasta De-Anya (R. David ben R.
Baruch Kalonymus Sperber) who points out that the RMBM in Hilchos Beis
HaBechira 1:17 writes that "melavnin hamizbeach b'mapo" and that the RAVD
there writes "vesadin oso b'kapis shel aits." From this he speculates that
they might hold that not just barzel is assur but all metals, since if not,
why the need for aits or mapo? Many (metalic, nonferrous) materials are
available for these jobs.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110110/61187934/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/01/2011 6:04 PM, Hankman wrote:
> This of course leaves my final question unanswered for which you can
> give a simple (if very tedious for the actual workers building the
> mizbeach) balabatishe answer that they were extremely careful in the
> placement of each stone in the huge 32 X 32 X 9 (roughly) amo volume.

The mizbeach was not solid stone. It was four stone walls surrounding
a hollow that was filled in with earth.  So the work would have been
tedious, but less so than you imagined.

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

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 06:59:20PM -0500, Hankman wrote:
: I found that that most assume it is only barzel and not other metals
: under this prohibition. I did not see many who disagree. I think the
: source is in the Michilta in a maimra of RYBZ who clearly states it is
: only barzel.

I don't know how anyone could disagree. The original was nechoshes on
the outside. (And even named "mizbe'iach hanechoshes.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mondays and Thursdays we say a short Tefiloh for travellers

in peril, starting "Acheinu Bnei Yisroel". It prays for those who are

at sea or on dry land,  "Bein Bayom, Bein Beyaboshoh".

Since nowadays at any one moment in 24 hours there are many travellers

on planes, should we not add "Bein Bo'avir?"

Elozor Reich 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110111/ce3d9707/attachment-0001.htm>

Substantial material about the construction of the Mizbeach can be found by 
Googling "Roman Concrete"

Elozor Reich 

this week's parsha has the word Na twice.

once it means please (speak to pharaoh)
the other time it means raw (korban pesach)

the word is spelled identically - what is the connection between two?

mordechai cohen




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 6
*************************************

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..."