Avodah Mailing List
Volume 05 : Number 008
Monday, April 10 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:53:09 -0400
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
There seems to be a very important distinction however between that Rav's
zt"l equating secular Israeli leadership with Amon, Moab, Pharoa etc. and
ROY's use of the appelations Amelek and rasha. There is no obligation to
kill Amonite or kings of Egypt as there is to kill Amalekites and rasha'im.
The Rav zt"l may have on some level read the secula ledaership out of the
spiritual aspects of Jewish life, but he never advocated killing them. ROY
seems to disagree. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that ROY has adopted that
attitude considering his past openess vis-a-vis R. Dr. Shaul Lieberman.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Tobrr111@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 10:56 PM
Subject: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
> In a message dated 4/8/00 5:58:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonathan
Schwartz
> writes:
> << I am a bit lost as to your sources for the "so called error" on Harav
> Blau's part. After reading your assertions that Rabbi Blau's comments
were
> not vintage "Rov" who made comparisons of irreligious Jews to Pharoh, and
> Esav, I rushed to check my copy of 5 Derashos all of which were presented
> to the Mizrachi. While the Rov notes that "Arab bullet and the Arab knife
> didn't distinguish between the Hebron Yeshiva students and leftwing
> kibbutzniks" (p. 22) and that "the alter of cone, traverse the land does
> not relate exclusively to us religious Jews. All Jews who took part in
> building the land, erected it. (p. 23). He notes that the Rov broke with
> his family and joined the Mizrachi simply because of his view that
secular
> Jews are employed "as instruments to bring to fruition His great plans
> regarding the land of Israel."(p. 36) none of these comments seem to
> support this assertion of the Rov's comparison of Secular Jewry to Esav
> etc. >>
> I myself heard the Rav do so and heard tapes where he does so. It is not
at
> all surprising that the Mizrachi didn't reprint these derashot. Anyway,
since
> the examples are to numerous to quote, I will just quote Professor Gerald
> Blidstein, from Exploring the thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: "
In
> derasha after derasha secular Israeli leadership is midrashically
assimilated
> to the non-Jewish oppressor: Esau, Pharoa, Avimelekh, Abraham's servant
lads,
> Amnon and Moab. . . . the secular Jew had ceased being a real Jew . . . "
>
> It is always also important to distinguish between secular leadership,
which
> the Rav like R. Ovadya criticizes, as opposed to the average secular
Israeli
> citizen.
>
> Toby Rubinson
>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:05:50 -0400
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
>
> > Unity around a common problem won't outlast the problem. The unity is
therefore
> > illusory. The anger generated, however, may not be. I therefore think
that
> > even chareidim should not be happy with the consequences.
>
> Obviously we would all be happier if ROY didn't have to say the
> things he did. But no one here is questioning whether he should
> have said them. Certainly not in the RW camp, and very little (that I
> have seen anyway) in the DL camp.
Did ROY have to say exactly what he said? Did he have to pronounce what
amounts to a chareidi Fatwa upon Sarid? Were I ROY or any other chareidi, I
would begin to pray for Sarid's good health with utmost fervor. Should
anything now befall him, ROY and all chareidim will be the scapegoats; and
the merits will be nothing at all. ROY overstepped the bounds this time, he
may have broken the law in doing so, and in the long run did nothing more
than perpetuate the hate and conflict.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:35:32 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
I don't think it is fair to equate Prof. Lieberman, an outstanding scholar
of personal observance, to Sarid, of no known scholarship nor observance.
I can't believe I am saying this, but I think we must be mocheh on Kavod
Ha'Torah :-) !
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila ygb@aishdas.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
>
> There seems to be a very important distinction however between that Rav's
> zt"l equating secular Israeli leadership with Amon, Moab, Pharoa etc. and
> ROY's use of the appelations Amelek and rasha. There is no obligation to
> kill Amonite or kings of Egypt as there is to kill Amalekites and
rasha'im.
> The Rav zt"l may have on some level read the secula ledaership out of the
> spiritual aspects of Jewish life, but he never advocated killing them.
ROY
> seems to disagree. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that ROY has adopted that
> attitude considering his past openess vis-a-vis R. Dr. Shaul Lieberman.
>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:44:42 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: aniyei ircha: (ATT vs TTA)
On 10 Apr 00, at 10:00, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> RC Sherer wrote:
>
> >>If halacha aspired to communism, I think we would be required to give a lot
> more than maaser, and we would not say "hamevazbez al yevazbez yoser
> me'chomesh.">>
>
> I think Ma'aser only applies when there are no immediate needy people. If there
> is an ani who needs money and comes straight to you then I believe that you are
> obligated lehachayoso. The only heter for us is that the ani'im do not rely
> solely on any one of us. The Aruch HaShulchan offers your sevara for ma'aser
> but I believe other poskim (e.g. R. Chaim Kaniefsky) disagree.
The Aruch HaShulchan argues that "le'hachayoso" only applies to
a gabbai tzedaka (it's somewhere in YD 251 - I think 7 or 8). An
individual is not obligated to give an ani "day machsoro." Where
does R. Chaim write otherwise and what exactly does he say?
-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:42:58 -0400
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
Subject: mitzvos einum mevatlos
Micha Berger wrote:
> I wanted to offer a third possibility, just to make sure you covered all
> the bases. Ammended to take care of one of R' Chaim Bron'ws objections, I
> would now suggest they are both the same mitzvah (in the technical sense
> of
> taryag mitzvos). The Chachamim could then hold that mitzvos einum mevatlos
> zeh es ze (MEMZEZ) applies even to different peratim in the same chiyuv,
> while Hillel could hold that they don't.
>
I am not sure what you are trying to say-could you clarify. Thanks.
I wrote:
> : Maybe you can argue that if you unnecessarily
> : draw out the milah process you are causing unnecessary suffering to the
> : child-but if you perform the milah in a normal manner even if it takes
> : longer than a few minutes why should yopu be over on tzar baalei chaim?
Micha responded:
>>For the very reason you state -- because doing so causes
unnecessary suffering.
>>I'm missing what you're trying to say here.
What I am trying to say is that I don't see why toch kidei dibbur
should apply here. Even if there is an issue of tzar baaleio chaim (which I
am not sure about) at the very least I don't think we would force the mohel
to perform the various aspects of milah toch k'dei dibbur. Why should it be
any different than a normal surgical procedure- whatever time is expected
for the whole process to take should be the normal time. Irregardless if
there is more than a 3-4 second delay between the diff. procedures.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:50:29 EDT
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
In a message dated 4/10/00 8:22:18 AM US Central Standard Time,
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:
<< Did ROY have to say exactly what he said? Did he have to pronounce what
amounts to a chareidi Fatwa upon Sarid? Were I ROY or any other chareidi, I
would begin to pray for Sarid's good health with utmost fervor. Should
anything now befall him, ROY and all chareidim will be the scapegoats; and
the merits will be nothing at all. ROY overstepped the bounds this time, he
may have broken the law in doing so, and in the long run did nothing more
than perpetuate the hate and conflict.
>>
Take a fundamentalist religious leader. Give him a particular ethnic
following -- Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Arab, Northern Irish Catholic, Black
Muslim, whatever. Give him concomitant political power. Make him the arbiter
of G-d's law, whether vast or prosaic. Give him and his followers the role of
The Oppressed, The Victim. Give him access to the news media.
What will you get? First, you get someone who can communicate with HaShem, or
wants others to think he can do so. You'll get someone who will approach the
line, and sometimes cross it, as a sign to his followers that he can stand up
to the Enemy. (It's good for morale.) You'll get someone who knows how to do
the Fatwa Two-Step: he invokes religious metaphors for the fiercesome death
and destruction of his enemies, but then quietly issues an official denial of
any violent intent. He creates controversy in the name of HaShem, and in the
name of HaShem gets his face on TV throughout the world as G-d's Own press
agent and political operative.
Vanity, ego, self-idolization, an individual's belief that he really
understands G-d's motives and can really act as G-d's true representative:
These things are the same in any religion. So are the victims of the process,
including many of us on the Avodah line.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:50:46 EDT
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
In a message dated 4/10/00 8:22:18 AM US Central Standard Time,
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:
<< Did ROY have to say exactly what he said? Did he have to pronounce what
amounts to a chareidi Fatwa upon Sarid? Were I ROY or any other chareidi, I
would begin to pray for Sarid's good health with utmost fervor. Should
anything now befall him, ROY and all chareidim will be the scapegoats; and
the merits will be nothing at all. ROY overstepped the bounds this time, he
may have broken the law in doing so, and in the long run did nothing more
than perpetuate the hate and conflict.
>>
Take a fundamentalist religious leader. Give him a particular ethnic
following -- Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Arab, Northern Irish Catholic, Black
Muslim, whatever. Give him concomitant political power. Make him the arbiter
of G-d's law, whether vast or prosaic. Give him and his followers the role of
The Oppressed, The Victim. Give him access to the news media.
What will you get? First, you get someone who can communicate with HaShem, or
wants others to think he can do so. You'll get someone who will approach the
line, and sometimes cross it, as a sign to his followers that he can stand up
to the Enemy. (It's good for morale.) You'll get someone who knows how to do
the Fatwa Two-Step: he invokes religious metaphors for the fiercesome death
and destruction of his enemies, but then quietly issues an official denial of
any violent intent. He creates controversy in the name of HaShem, and in the
name of HaShem gets his face on TV throughout the world as G-d's Own press
agent and political operative.
Vanity, ego, self-idolization, an individual's belief that he really
understands G-d's motives and can really act as G-d's true representative:
These things are the same in any religion. So are the victims of the process,
including many of us on the Avodah line.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:34:44 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
----- Original Message -----
From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
> What will you get? First, you get someone who can communicate with HaShem,
or
> wants others to think he can do so. You'll get someone who will approach
the
I think we do believe that. Chacham adif me'Navi (A Sage is superior to a
Prophet) - BB 12. See the Bigdei Shesh there, but, more importantly, the
Ramban he quotes: They (the Sages) know the truth with the divine spirit
that is within them.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila ygb@aishdas.org
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:39:16 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: koreich
> would now suggest they are both the same mitzvah (in the technical sense of
> taryag mitzvos). The Chachamim could then hold that mitzvos einum mevatlos
> zeh es ze (MEMZEZ) applies even to different peratim in the same chiyuv,
> while Hillel could hold that they don't.
Problem #1 - why twist the words of the gemara 'mitzva'
to mean anything other than one of the 613?
Problem #2 - acc. to you everyone should agree in
principle to the concept of mitzvos mevatlos; Hillel and
the chachamim disagree in a detail, namely, do you apply
the principle to pratim of the same miztva. But that's
not what the gemara says - the gemara says they disagree
fundementally as to whether there is such a principle
of mizvos mevatlos zu es zu exists. See Tos. on the
daf who raises the possibility that there is no fundemental disagreement as to miztvos mevatlos and instead there is a limited dispute here by koreich and
shows exacltly why the gemara chose to see the dispute
in a far broader context.
Problem #3 - if there is only one chiyuv d'oraysa
called koreich, which involves 2 peratim of matzah and
maror, then why does Hillel say that there is a kiyum
d'oraysa of matzah even when there is no chiyuv of
maror? How can you do half a mitzva? Rather, koreich
is a means if fufilling the two independent chiyuvim
of matzah and maror.
> I then suggested a possible nafka minah lihalachah -- whether one is required
> to eat a kizayis each of matzah and marror to fulfil the zeicher of koreich,
Problem #4 See RZ"H who writes this explicitely. I don't think
the Shagas Arye needs to be involved.
-Chaim B.
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:10:08 +0200
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject: "etzba beinoni" and "etzba beinonis"
In "Reb Yaakov", the ArtScroll biography of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, mention
was made of a psak regarding measures which Reb Yaakov claimed was
erroneous because the posek failed to differentiate between "etzba beinoni"
(the finger of an average person) and "etzba beinonis" (the middle
finger). The text did not go into any details.
Is this referring to a minor psak of little consequence, or is it referring
to a major machlokes (say, on the order of Rav Haim Naeh vs. the
Chazon Ish). Anyone familiar with the details?
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:46:56 -0400
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
But this is the same Prof. Lieberman who was at the intellectual head of the
Conservative movement, the very sam movement ROY, the Rabbanut, the Eida
Chareidis is batling now in Israel. It is the same Conservative movement
that the was compared to amalek not too long ago. The Conservatives have
not really changed their appproach in over 35 years. ROY felt justified in
sneaking into JTS in the 1960's and 70's to talk in learning with Prof.
Lieberman, a man who trained those who now seek to ireversibly alter of not
destroy the status quo in Israeli religious life. That seems rather
inconsistent with his current pronouncements.
----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
> I don't think it is fair to equate Prof. Lieberman, an outstanding scholar
> of personal observance, to Sarid, of no known scholarship nor observance.
>
> I can't believe I am saying this, but I think we must be mocheh on Kavod
> Ha'Torah :-) !
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila ygb@aishdas.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
>
>
> >
> > There seems to be a very important distinction however between that
Rav's
> > zt"l equating secular Israeli leadership with Amon, Moab, Pharoa etc.
and
> > ROY's use of the appelations Amelek and rasha. There is no obligation
to
> > kill Amonite or kings of Egypt as there is to kill Amalekites and
> rasha'im.
> > The Rav zt"l may have on some level read the secula ledaership out of
the
> > spiritual aspects of Jewish life, but he never advocated killing them.
> ROY
> > seems to disagree. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that ROY has adopted
that
> > attitude considering his past openess vis-a-vis R. Dr. Shaul Lieberman.
> >
>
>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:49:22 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: Chiyuv of Mah Nishtana
The shailah is do
> the questions have to take the form of Mah Nishtana and if not you are not
> yotzei in haggadah or is the Mah nishtana just a starting point to help
> formulate the questions and really you could ask any type of question
> relating to yetzias mitzrayim. I didn't see the Rambam inside but supposedly
> there are some who want to be midayik that the Rambam holds like the second
> tzad.
The simple reading of the gemera bot. 115b is that any
question suffices, e.g. Abaye asked Raba why he was
removing the table before eating and Raba answered you
have exempted us from Mah Nishtana. However, Tos.
there comments that the gemera is not to be taken
literally and that the formal Mah Nishtana questions
must still be asked. The simple reading of the Rambam
in ch. 8 is that the son asks any question, and the
reader of the haggadah recites the 4 questions as
a declaritive - 'V'kan haben shoel. V'omer haKoreah mah
nishtana...'
I'm not sure even within Brisker lomdus that you would
not be yotzei the mitzva of haggadah at all if you
neglected to recite mah nishtana, but correct me if you
have a source.
-Chaim B.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:09:11 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: koreich
On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:39:16AM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: Problem #1 - why twist the words of the gemara 'mitzva'
: to mean anything other than one of the 613?
It usually does. For example, techeiles and lavan.
: Problem #2 - acc. to you everyone should agree in
: principle to the concept of mitzvos mevatlos; Hillel and
: the chachamim disagree in a detail, namely, do you apply
: the principle to pratim of the same miztva. ...
Not "according to me", I was just offering another hava amina to make sure we
weren't exploring a false dichotomy. I'm willing to drop it.
: Problem #3 - if there is only one chiyuv d'oraysa
: called koreich, which involves 2 peratim of matzah and
: maror, then why does Hillel say that there is a kiyum
: d'oraysa of matzah even when there is no chiyuv of
: maror?
Again, techeiles and lavan. Or shel rosh vs shel yad (except lefi haRambam).
:> I then suggested a possible nafka minah lihalachah -- whether one is required
:> to eat a kizayis each of matzah and marror to fulfil the zeicher of koreich,
: Problem #4 See RZ"H who writes this explicitely. I don't think
: the Shagas Arye needs to be involved.
Okay, then it's a dead option.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 25
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:22:51 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: mitzvos einum mevatlos
On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:42:58AM -0400, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: I am not sure what you are trying to say-could you clarify. Thanks.
Never mind. RCB has successfully shot it down anyway. I was just raising
a third hava aminah because I am nervous about false dichotomies. (Def:
Trying to prove B by asserting that either A or B must be true, and disproving
that it could be B. You have to be very careful, though, that there are no
non-obvious third options.) So, I looked for a possible third option.
:>: Maybe you can argue that if you unnecessarily
:>: draw out the milah process you are causing unnecessary suffering to the
:>: child-but if you perform the milah in a normal manner even if it takes
:>: longer than a few minutes why should yopu be over on tzar baalei chaim?
:> For the very reason you state -- because doing so causes unnecessary
:> suffering. I'm missing what you're trying to say here.
: What I am trying to say is that I don't see why toch kidei dibbur
: should apply here. Even if there is an issue of tzar baaleio chaim...
You're conflating two issues:
1- Toch kidei dibbur (TKD) was my suggested shiur for bivas achas. I was saying
that a b'ris need not be performed bivas achas. It would also be a wait of
longer than kidei bibbur between steps, not a completion of all of it TKD.
Saying an entire eidus is considered "bivas achas" even if the dirishah
vichakirah takes hours.
Lima'aseh, I've never been to a b'ris that had such lengthy pauses in the
middle.
2- Ignoring dinim of b'ris, though, doing a b'ris slower than necessary is
causing unnecessary pain, and therefore we can agree at least raises
questions of tza'ar ba'alei chaim. If not a violation (although I don't
see how not) it is certainly to be avoided.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 25
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:23:08 -0400
From: "Rayman, Mark" <mrayman@lehman.com>
Subject: RE: Sazria-Tazria
Sort of like:
sefer and parashas "bamidbor"
while the actual word in the parsha is pronounced "bimidbar"
Moshe
> That is why the word is leined "Sazria". However, the parsha is called
>"Parshas Tazria".
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:41:16 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
> spiritual aspects of Jewish life, but he never advocated
> killing them. ROY
> seems to disagree.
>
Quite frankly, I'm suprised that a lawyer could twist ROY's words into
advocating killing anyone.
Akiva
A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)
===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:03:48 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: asking questions
> Subject: Chiyuv of Mah Nishtana
>
> The other day someone pointed out to me an interesting chakirah in Mah
> Nishtana. There is the famous "brisker" vort that one of the main
> differences between sippur yetzias mitzrayim and zichiras yetzias mitzrayim
> is that sippur must be done in question and answer form . The shailah is do
> the questions have to take the form of Mah Nishtana and if not you are not
> yotzei in haggadah or is the Mah nishtana just a starting point to help
> formulate the questions and really you could ask any type of question
> relating to yetzias mitzrayim.
There is the joke of the child to starts to ask his father about the seder.
The father responds by telling the child to please be quiet and just say
the Mah Nishtana.
In fact in many places it is the father and the son who says the Mah
Nishtana. Hence, the Mah Nishtana is not even part of the questions
that the child asks.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:00:59 -0400
From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
Where is the twist? ROY apparently said that Sarid should be strung up like
Haman and shoudl be removed from the Earth. The plain meaning of that seems
to indicate that ROY would like Sarid dead. Lawyer or no lawyer, the words
speak for themselves
----- Original Message -----
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: RYBS criticising secular Israeli leadership
> > spiritual aspects of Jewish life, but he never advocated
> > killing them. ROY
> > seems to disagree.
> >
>
> Quite frankly, I'm suprised that a lawyer could twist ROY's words into
> advocating killing anyone.
>
> Akiva
>
>
> A reality check a day keeps
> the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)
>
> ===========================
> Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
> Jerusalem, Israel 91274
>
>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:07:29 -0400
From: "Edward Weidberg" <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>
Subject: Re: Matza shiurim
Subject: Re: Matza shiurim
Revi'is is clearly a volume shiur, not weight (e.g. see Pesachim 109a).
Since revi'is is 1and 1/2 beitzim and k'zayis is either 1/3 or 1/2
beitza, they are also volume measurements. Maybe as a practical matter
the shiurim are expressed in ounces or grams of matza (or whatever the
nidan is), however this doesn't change the nature of the shiur.
If you assert that Sefaradim hold K'zayis to be a measure of weight,
please cite sources.
KT
Avrohom Weidberg
-----------------
>
> Kezayis is clearly a measure of volume, not weight. See S"A O'C
486-
> Remo and MB s'k 3 that one should squeeze together the maror and
matzo
> to eliminate measuring air gaps between the pieces (but spongy matzo
> need not be squeezed).
Yes, but following Micha's earlier post, both the Rema and M"B are
Ashkenazim. Maran says nothing there except what I quoted earlier,
that
some say that a kezayit is half a bezzah.
- ---sam
Go to top.
*******************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]