Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 042

Tuesday, September 8 1998

• Re: More on melba toast and maybe bagel chips
• Re: sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re: More on melba toast and maybe bagel chips
• Re: Bechira Chofshis
• Wedding Innovation!
• Re: sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re: Minhag HaMakom
• Re: Selichos
• New sefer!
• Re: New sefer!
• HaGomel for K'tanim
• RE: HaGomel for K'tanim
• Re: sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• esther's trope, hanging offenses.
• swiss air
• Re: sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re:kal vachomer and empirical evidence vs. proof
• Re: sevara vs. pasuk, empirical evidence vs. proof
• Fw: SELICHOS

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> I have been mulling this over, and have come to believe there is a
> distinction between bagel chips and melba toast. Part of the essential
> character of bagel chips is their origin in a bagel. They, as part of the
> "etzem cheftza" and "chalos shem" of bagel chips, must have been *bagels*
> at some point. They are, therefroe, in my opinion, like any other "pas"
> that is rebaked, and do not lose their "chalos shem pas."
>
> Melba toast is different. It is not meant to be true bread and was never
> meant that way. It had no interim "chalos shem pas." It may, therefore, be
> mezonos.
>

I would suggest that the difference is in name only.  If we assume that they are
manufactured in the same basic way, they differ only in whatever step makes a
bagel a bagel and not ordinary bread.  Hence the choic of names.  But that step is
still only one in a process that began and ended with the intent to make the
chips.

If one is emphasizing the choice of names as a pointer to intent, i.e. why call
them bagel chips if they were not made from something that was intended to be
eated as a bagel, then  wouldn't toast, which is usually understood to be bread
that was, well, toasted, imply that bread that was intended to be eated was then
toasted.  I would not have thought so.

elly

--

Elly Bachrach
Heide Corporation
7434 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Phone: (847) 676-2880
Fax: (847) 676-2880
E-Mail:  ebachrach@heidecorp.com
--
Headquarters
5 West Mill Street
Medfield MA 02052
Phone: 508 359 5885
Fax:  508 359 2737
http://www.heidecorp.com

cbrown@bestware.com wrote:
> 
> You distrust intuition but acknowledge that the Torah mandates that what is
> logical misevara needs no pesukim.  Huh?
> 
> Our senses can be fooled?  The Torah relies on empirical judgements all the
> time.  The Torah allows a Rav to look at a mareh of dam and pasken based on
> his sense-perception a potential issur kares, but to see that a torch gives
> more light then a candle I need a pasuk.  Am I missing something here?
> 
> -CB
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> Many times the Gemmorah will bring down psukim to prove the obvious
> because...IT CAN!  It isn't so much to prove the obvious that it brings
>           down the psukim, it's that Psukim (i.e. Torah) is the ultimate
>           validator
> of what is right in the "eyes" of G-d.  Intuituion tells us to trust our
> senses but our senses can be fooled.  Ask David Copperfield.  So even
>           though we can see that a torch is brighter than a candle and it would
>           seem absurd to bring psukim to prove it, never-the-less, the gemmoroh
> does so in order to tell us that it is the Torah that is to be trusted,
> even beyond what our senses (common and otherwise) tell us.
> 
>           HM

I think you missunderstood my point.  Of course the Torah allows you, 
indeed mandates you to use our senses as you clearly point out by 
Marehs. Our senses CAN be fooled but are not neccesarily fooled.  The 
point that I think the Gemorrah in Pesachim is making is a Hashkafic 
one, i.e., when given the choice between our own sesnses and what the 
Torah tells us, we are required to follow the Torah. Very often the 
Gemmorah will go through the proccess of a Kal VeChomer proof and then 
quote a pasuk. that is because a Pasuk has the Ultimate authority over a 
Kal VeChomer even when it is irrefutable.
 An example of our senses observing a fact and paskening as though we 
weren't observing it can be seen in the following:

I have heard that R. Aaron Soloveichik has an interesting perspective on 
the halacha of Killing a "louse' on shabbos.  When science discovered 
that lice reproduce sexually than the "Pachad Yitzchak", (an Italian 
Acharon, I believe,) said that it is now assur to kill lice on shabbos 
Deoraiso, eventhough the mishna in Shabbos says it isn't.  R. Aaron said 
that if the Pachad Yitzchak were alive today, he would put him in 
Cherem!  So, here we have a case where our senses tell us that the 
halacha should be different then what Chazal tell us but chazal are to 
be followed as they have the correct mesorah, being closer to Mamid Har 
Sinai. (In reality we are choshesh for the daas hamacmir,in this case 
both shitos.)

HM

Toast is a good example. If a compnay were to sell "bread toast chips" we
would make hamotzi on them. Bagel chips should be identical - no?

On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Elly Bachrach wrote:

> 
> If one is emphasizing the choice of names as a pointer to intent, i.e.
> why call them bagel chips if they were not made from something that was
> intended to be eated as a bagel, then wouldn't toast, which is usually
> understood to be bread that was, well, toasted, imply that bread that
> was intended to be eated was then toasted.  I would not have thought so. 
> 
> elly
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

<< 
Can someone please tell me why making the incredibly difficult decision of
relying on someone more knowledgeable and objective than yourself and
being mevatel your daas in order for what you believe is the proper way to
serve HAshem isn't considered bechiras chafshis. 
>>

I think the issue is not in going to a Rav for an opinion, but in feeling that
that is the ONLY way to decide matters.  The idea that any other person is not
capable of making an independent decision is a limitation on bechira.

Eliyahu Teitz

I was at a wedding recently - under an Orthodox Mesader Kiddushin - where
after the traditional sheva brochos were recited, six women were called up
to read the texts of the last six brochos in English (not the HaGaffen).

Afterwards, both the chosson and kalla broke glasses.

While the latter smacks perhaps of bal tashchis, that is not necessarily a
problem. However, since I believe we hold that one is yotzei a bracha done
with proper translation of shem and malchus in English is a valid bracha -
then all these "blessings" are bona fide berachos l'batala.

When relating this episode to my Daf Yomi Shiur, one of the chaverim noted
that he had been at a wedding - ostensibly Orthodox - where the "real"
brochos were interspersed with blessings in English by women. That is, it
seems, even worse, as some of the brochos are not poseich b'baruch
because of semucha l'chaveirta, which, one, of course, loses in this
manner.

Who said there was no new under the sun :-) ?

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 98-09-08 10:07:51 EDT, you write:

<< 
 I have heard that R. Aaron Soloveichik has an interesting perspective on 
 the halacha of Killing a "louse' on shabbos.  When science discovered 
 that lice reproduce sexually than the "Pachad Yitzchak", (an Italian 
 Acharon, I believe,) said that it is now assur to kill lice on shabbos 
 Deoraiso, eventhough the mishna in Shabbos says it isn't.  R. Aaron said 
 that if the Pachad Yitzchak were alive today, he would put him in 
 Cherem!  So, here we have a case where our senses tell us that the 
 halacha should be different then what Chazal tell us but chazal are to 
 be followed as they have the correct mesorah, being closer to Mamid Har 
 Sinai. (In reality we are choshesh for the daas hamacmir,in this case 
 both shitos.)
 
 HM
  >>
Would you agree that if chazal said killing lice on shabbat is mutar because
they do not reproduce sexually, and we now know they reproduce sexually, that
it would be assur to kill them not mitoch being choshes for the daat hamachmir
but because of the etzem halacha(and perhaps say that nishtaneh hateva or that
chazal were acting on the best information they have)- or would you say that
modern science is wrong and that they really don't reproduce sexually?(similar
to the mouse that was half earth half flesh issue I suppose) And who would you
put in cherem- the one who uses the new information or the one who ignores it?

Ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

<<
I think that both observations are because we live in a time of flux. The
major centers of minhag have vanished too recently for us to have solid roots
to the makom. People don't think of themselves as coming from the "eidah of
Detroit".
>>

The flux is twofold.  First, we are too close to the radical changes inflicted
by WWII.  But there is another movement: in the majority, we no longer have
families living 3 or more generations in one city, so that a family will have
strong ties to a minhag ha-makom.

<<
Slowly, until moshiach's arrival stops the process, we'll witness the
evolution of a minhag America. Israel is further along down this route, since
minhagei HaGra were well established before the population was.
>>

Even in Eretz Yisrael, the minhagei HaGr'a are no longer followed as
universally as they were even 20-30 years ago.

Personally, I think that we are seeing the end of minhag hamakom as we have
understood it.

Eliyahu Teitz

Last night at Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst's halacha shiur, he mentioned that both
R' Moshe and R' Ovadia Yosef speak strongly in teshuvos against the
practice of saying selichos before midnight. However, he did mention that
the 'Mishmeres Shalom' permits it.

Any idea who the 'Mishmeres Shalom' was?

Eliezer Appleton

Among the most compelling of the Rav's lectures was an annual address
presented in Yiddish to the Rabbinical Council of America on the topics of
teshuvah and the Yamim Nora'im.

Rabbi Pinchas Peli's On Repentance (Al Hateshuvah) (now in its 10th(!)
printing) summarized Rabbi Soloveitchik's lectures in this series presented
from 1966-1972. Avodah's own Dr. Lustiger just came out with a sequel,
covering the shei'urim from 1973-1980.

Arnie Lustiger's new sefer is titled: Before Hashem you Shall be Purified:
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the Days of Awe.

Dr. Lustiger has organized these summaries topically, from the pre-Rosh
Hashanah Selihot prayers through the Yom Kippur Avodah and concluding Yom
Kippur Ne'ilah services. Cross-references are provided, with citations from
Rabbi Soloveitchik's written works that address and amplify important themes
in these lectures.

A website which describes his new sefer in more detail along with excerpts
and a table of contents can be found at www.kabsoft.com/rav. The sefer itself
can be found sefarim stores throughout the U.S., or Arnie Lusiger is selling
directly -- call (732) 819-4919 in the evening.


I might point out this is the SECOND sefer written by a listmember published
in the past few months. R' YGB was running the list, however, when his came
out, so I guess he chose to keep the bragging to a minimum. For more on
Eiruvim in Modern Metropolitan Areas see www.aishdas.org/baistefila/eruvp1.htm)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5916 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

A short while back there was a discussion about tnai b'nissuim and Rabbi
Berkowitz's book as well as Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberger's approbation of it were
mentioned. The full letter from Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberger as well as many
others of his are now available in a new sefer that a friend of mine has published.



This is the announcement that he sent to me and I thought it would interest people
on the list.


I have just published volume 1 of what will be a 3 volume collection of
the writings of Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg. Vol. 1 deals with Talmud and
halakhah and anyone wishing to receive a copy should send a check for $20
to Marc Shapiro, Dept. of Theology, University of Scranton, Scranton, PA.
18510.



Ari Zivotofsky

R YB Soloveitchik felt that when a husband bentches gomel on behalf of his
wife, he should not say "hagomel *lachayavim*". It's one thing when you're
thanking Hashem for saving you, to call yourself a "chayav". It's another to
call your wife one. Also, the Rav thought that shegimalani should be shifted
from first to third person.

Certainly, though, if one were to bentch gomel on behalf of someone who is not
yet a bar chiyuva, "lachayavim" doesn't seem appropriate.

Another idea, though. Couldn't one bentch gomel for the impact on one's own
life? IOW, instead of making the brachah for the child so that the child is
thanking G-d (by proxy) for being saved, why can't the parent bentch gomel for
/the parent's/ yeshu'ah from chas vishalom possibly losing a child?

(BTW, the linguistic relationship between chiyuv and chayav seems to be saying
something deep. I'm not sure what.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5916 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

> Another idea, though. Couldn't one bentch gomel for the 
> impact on one's own
> life? IOW, instead of making the brachah for the child so 
> that the child is
> thanking G-d (by proxy) for being saved, why can't the parent 
> bentch gomel for
> /the parent's/ yeshu'ah from chas vishalom possibly losing a child?
> 
> -mi
> 

Isn't birchas gomel restricted to life threatening (as opposed to very
tragic or stressful) situations?

AP

ELIE:Our senses CAN be fooled but are not neccesarily fooled..i.e.when
given the choice between our own sesnses and what the Torah tells us, we
are required to follow the Torah. Very often the Gemmorah will go through
the proccess of a Kal VeChomer proof and then quote a pasuk...<<<
           ME:1)Why does the gemara prefer sevara, the logic of our puny
          human brain that can be tricked, to pesukim?  When we are given a
          choice shouldn't the preference be for pesukim (as you write)?
          2) Can you give me a mareh makon to a sugya that looks for a
          gezeirat hakatuv when it has a good kal v'chomer.  3)  Regarding
          R' Aharon Soloveitchik's statement - It is hard to fathom being
          machmir for the opinion of someone who you would put in cheirem!
           ELIE:>>>An example of our senses observing a fact and paskening
          as though we weren't observing it...<<<
           ME:Do you mean to say our senses are wrong, or the mesorah
          outweighs emprical proof?  The former is a rejection of science,
          the latter creates an uncomfortable schism between what we
          believe scientifically to be true and what we adopt as religious
          doctrine.  Which do you prefer, or do you have a different way
          out?

           -CB

just a few quick notes after perusing some of the back issues: 

M. Berger wrote: 
<I agree that the current phenomenon is modern. However, they appeal to "da'as
Torah" as defined by R' Yisroel Salanter. So, while they didn't get t>

Where is it that R. Salanter refers to "da'as torah?"? 

E. Appleton wrote:
<My understanding of ta'amei hamikra (based on Breuer) is that the placement of
the trop is systematic and therefore the fact that the trop is the same is no
more surprising than the fact that the nekudos are the same>

The systematic part is, I think, pushed too hard.  Else THE system would have
been identified long ago.  The particular trope is not all that predictable.
Its easier to rule some combinations out than predict what's in.

A Miller wrote:
<Is it possible that when Mordechai translated Haman's words into Hebrew for
inclusion in the megillah, he deliberately chose these words and this trop, in
order to allude to chalitza for some reason?>

Don't think we should pin the partcular choice of trope on Mordechai.

While I've been out of touch for a bit (and will be again - this shabbos in
london), I did want to at least register my discomfort with the listowner's
decision to fire one of the members for - apparantly - not showing proper
respect and perhaps other more vaguely outlined offenses including
frequency/volume of submission. My discomfort stems from the judgemental
subjectivity of the former and the selective applicability of the latter. 
There are any number of sensitive topics where perhaps more careful
articulation might be called for but lack of a felicitous phraseology ought not
be grounds for execution. Maybe we need to damp down our bristle rerflex. up.
As for bandwidth, the delete button and down arrow work just fine. 

Mechy Frankel			frankel@hq.dswa.mil

I found the following news item interesting


The Chief Doctor of the Israel Police has departed for Canada to
participate in identifying the bodies of the victims of the Swissair plane
crash.  The doctor was asked by the wife of one of the victims - a rabbi
from the U.S. - to identify her husband's body so that her marital status
would not remain in a Halakhic state of limbo.  MK Alex Lubotsky (Third
Way), who was instrumental in the pathologist's trip to Canada, said,
"Hopefully we will not need these services again, but it is nice to know
that Israel can help out in matters of this nature all over the world."

Eli Turkel

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Would you agree that if chazal said killing lice on shabbat is mutar because
> they do not reproduce sexually, and we now know they reproduce sexually, that
> it would be assur to kill them not mitoch being choshes for the daat hamachmir
> but because of the etzem halacha

Yes I would. But that is included in being choshesh for the daas 
HaMachmir in this case.  

>(and perhaps say that nishtaneh hateva or that
> chazal were acting on the best information they have)- or would you say that
> modern science is wrong and that they really don't reproduce sexually?

I am a very firm believer in science.  Saying that Nature has changed 
(Nishtaneh HaTeva) is essentially the same as saying that a species can 
change from an asexually reproducing organism to a sexually reproducing 
organism through the evolutionary proccess.  It is also true that Chazal 
were acting on the best information they had at the time and may have 
been wrong in matters of science.  So that paskening a halacha on the 
subject of killing lice on Shabbos based on the limited knowledge of 
that era would have led them to pasken as they did.  One could argue 
that if they would have had Microscopes and been able to detirmine that 
Lice do indeed reproduce sexually, they may have paskined differently. 

There are those that say that Chazal were not wrong even in matters of 
science ( As does R. Aaron Soloveichik) and therefore we are wrong and 
lice do not reproduce sexually.  I am extremely hard pressed to believe 
this.  I would rather say that their knowledge was limited by the extent 
of their resources.  This does not lessen their stature in any way shape 
or or form.   

There is another opinion about psak as it has been established by chazal 
which R. YGB has expounded upon to me. (I believe this is based on the 
view of R. Dessler)  When the halacha was estblished by Chazal, 
eventhough it may not have reflected the reality of science as we know 
it today,  G-d wanted to establish the halacha based on the scientific 
knowledge of that era, for reasons known only to Him.  If Rabbi YGB is 
so inclined he can expand better on this thesis than I can.


> And who would you
> put in cherem- the one who uses the new information or the one who ignores it?

I would not put anyone in Cherem.  I believe Rabbi Soloveichik was 
probably exagerating to make the point. but to answer you question in 
another way, I believe it is prudent in this case to follow the original 
psak of Chazal and to allow for the possibility that chazal would have 
paskined differently, had they known the truth.

HM







































> 
> Ktiva vchatima tova
> Joel Rich

In a message dated 98-09-08 18:03:12 EDT, you write:

<< 
 There is another opinion about psak as it has been established by chazal 
 which R. YGB has expounded upon to me. (I believe this is based on the 
 view of R. Dessler)  When the halacha was estblished by Chazal, 
 eventhough it may not have reflected the reality of science as we know 
 it today,  G-d wanted to establish the halacha based on the scientific 
 knowledge of that era, for reasons known only to Him.  If Rabbi YGB is 
 so inclined he can expand better on this thesis than I can. >>

I'd love to hear about it.



 I was taught that the
> reason for ein onshin was because the onesh for a particular aveira is also
a
> kappara and thus when we apply a kal vachomer, while we know the chomer
can't
> be done , we're unsure as to the proper punishment qua kappara and therefore
> don't punish. As with many things I was taught , I have no recollection of
> source so take this with a grain of salt:-)
> 
> Shabbat shalom and a ktiva vchatima tova
> Joel Rich
> 
I was taught that we don't punish from a kal vchomer because we have a
rule that we never punish m'safek (we always try to find a zchus for a
person except for a masis etc.) any law derived from a kal vechomer is
never better than a safek because it can in theory be disproved. Unlike a
pasuk where the guilty party hasno way to defend himself if he violated a
law stated explicitly or learned out from an irrefutable drash such as
gezara shava. However if you were to punish a person from a kal vechomer
he'd say how do you know I'm guilty maybe someone would come along and
refute your kal vechomer. Thus one can't be punished from a kal vechomer.
following this logic , I made my statement that a kal vechomer is dafka
weaker than a pasuk in regards to ein onshim min hadin. However i'm sure
that there are other sevaras, which would make for a fine breakaway thread
Elie Ginsparg


The nodeh byehuda(mahadura tanina-chohen mishpat-siman samech) quotes both
opinions-yours in the name of the sefer midot aharon, mine in the name of the
smag as quoted by the maharsha in mesechta sanhedrin. those are the only 2
opinions he cites. Elu v'elu!:-)

ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

cbrown@bestware.com wrote:
> 
> ELIE:Our senses CAN be fooled but are not neccesarily fooled..i.e.when
> given the choice between our own sesnses and what the Torah tells us, we
> are required to follow the Torah. Very often the Gemmorah will go through
> the proccess of a Kal VeChomer proof and then quote a pasuk...<<<
>            ME:1)Why does the gemara prefer sevara, the logic of our puny
>           human brain that can be tricked, to pesukim?  When we are given a
>           choice shouldn't the preference be for pesukim (as you write)?
>           2) Can you give me a mareh makon to a sugya that looks for a
>           gezeirat hakatuv when it has a good kal v'chomer.  3)  Regarding
>           R' Aharon Soloveitchik's statement - It is hard to fathom being
>           machmir for the opinion of someone who you would put in cheirem!
>            ELIE:>>>An example of our senses observing a fact and paskening
>           as though we weren't observing it...<<<
>            ME:Do you mean to say our senses are wrong, or the mesorah
>           outweighs emprical proof?  The former is a rejection of science,
>           the latter creates an uncomfortable schism between what we
>           believe scientifically to be true and what we adopt as religious
>           doctrine.  Which do you prefer, or do you have a different way
>           out?
> 
>            -CB


First of all I would like to correct your refference to me as "Elie".  
Eventhough I am flattered by it.  Elie is my son-in-law. I signed my 
original post in my usual manner of just using my initials, HM. It is 
easy to make that mistake since we both have the same e-mail address.

As to the issues you brought up:

I don't beleive that the Gemmorah PREFERS svara to psukim.  It is just 
more often applied because of the need to utilze rational thinking when 
we DON'T have psukim.  Whenever possible the Gemmorah will prefer psukim 
to prove a halacha over svara.  As for finding a source in the Gemorrah, 
where the gemmorah goes through the kal vechomer proccess only to find 
pesukim in the end.  I can't do so off the cuff.  I can only tell you 
that in going through Shas via daf yomi, I come accross it fairly often.

As for the following the Das Hamachmir that R. Soloveichik puts in 
Cherem, A) he did'nt (He only would have) and B) as I said in another 
post I think he was exaggerating to make a point about not changing the 
psak in Chazal.

To answer your last question,  see the post to Joel Rich on this 
subject.

HM (not Elie)

--
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: SELICHOS


>>>Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 17:31:15 -0400
>>From: Mendel <Moled@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: RE: SELICHOS
>>
>>My question is how CAN one say the PizMon
>>BaMotzoi MeNuCha (MotZoi Shabbos) on Sunday morning?
>>
>I've said slichos Sunday morning.  We just skip the words  *BaMotzoi
>MeNuCha*
>Ksivah U'Hasimah Tovah
>Moshe Gaffen
>

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]