Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 051

Thursday, May 25 2000

• Re: Techilaso be'fshia
• Kissing A Fallen Sefer
• hechsherim
• Re: Taz on Milah
• Re: misayea
• Re: Taz on Milah
• Re: hechsherim
• Re: Taz on Milah
• Re: misayea
• RE:hechsherim
• Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Asmachta
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• RE: Hechsherim
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Heter Mechirah
• Re: Keepsakes
• Re: hechsherim

>>But because the aveira results from chachamim not 
allowing you to remove the pas from the oven, you are
patur from skila.<<<

I don't understand what you mean.  Forget Tos - the
gemara says that that if you put bread in the oven 
b'mazid and then remember what you did before it 
starts baking you are permitted to take it out - the 
original post said this was assur. If you put the bread 
in b'shogeg and then remember that you are about to 
violate Shabbos, that parallels the Mishna on 102. of 
techilaso b'shogeg v'sofo b'mazid -nothing to do with 
ones.

I don't have a Seridei Eish so I can't comment on what
he might have meant.  Just a note that I am sticking to
the case originally cited: you put the bread in the oven
and want to take it out.  Tos. discusses someone else
removing the bread.

BTW:  There is tashlumin for ones, see O.C. 108, so I 
was off yesterday on that.  The point of the Taz was
that an osek b'tzorcehi tzibbur may not need need
tashlumin.


-CB

On Areivim RSB Abeles wrote:

> >(IsraelWire-5/21) More and more members of the Orthodox community can
> be found using their trusty Palm Pilots for spiritual tasks, such as
> prayers, grace after meals, learning Torah, and more.
> >Rabbi Ephraim Zalmanovitz, the spiritual leader of Mazkeret Batia,
> has issued a halachic (Jewish law) ruling that one who has 'holy'
> software installed on one's pilot, and drops it, one must kiss it as one does
> to a holy book such as a prayer book or Psalms.
> >....

What is the source for the custom (or law?) to kiss a sefer that falls on the 
floor?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

In response to my post of Rav Moshe's tshuva, RYGB responded

>Um, RMS, that teshuva in the Igros Moshe is not quite relevant.

>The issue there was a case of unfair competiton and yored l'umanuso shel
>chaverio with attendant motzi la'az  (that R' Moshe (RMF) assumed was
>incorrect, and spread merely to gain the competitor's the hashgocho, and
>therefore motzi la'az).

>RMF never stated, nor I believe would have stated, that a Mara d'Asra who
>is
>not involved in competition and therefore has no vested interests, need go
>to a BD before advising his constituency of the inacceptability of a
>certain Hashgocho.

The BD there, in the IM's case, was essential because it was not a YD issue,
but a CM one (note the appearance of the teshuva in a CM volume of the IM).

bimkhilat kvod torato:
	1) R Moshe never makes the argument that it was a false accusation,
and it seems that he doesn't want to decide that.  From the tshuva, it seems
that he only heard one side, and he realized that he didn't have enough
information to decide.  The point was, that even if the accusations were
correct, it was being handled wrongly.  That is why he says that if there is
a legitimate issue, it should be taken to bet din.  That is the appropriate
forum for deciding whether the accusations are valid or not. 
With regard to RYGB's point about a communal rav - being motzi la'az and
mevaze others is applicable regardless of whether or not there is a
financial motive, and the notion of hezkat kashrut implies that one needs
proof before questioning others with a hezkat kashrut.
I think we are dealing with a fundamental difference of perception - do we
need proof that food that someone with a hazaka of yirat shamayim says is
kasher is actually kasher, or does it have therefore an automatic hazaka
that requires proof to deny, and saying otherwise impugns the certifier.
	2) While the chevra may read the tshuva for themselves, R David
Bleich, in Tradition (Spring 1995), in discussing the tshuva, reads the
conclusions of the tshuva in the same way that I do.  He then says that R
Moshe could never have meant it to be generally applicable, arguing that
testifying to kashrut is edut, and edut can not be compelled.  There is
nothing in R Moshe's tshuva that would suggest that he did not mean it to be
generally applicable, and R Bleich doesn't point to any such language.Thus,
R Bleich would disagree with RYGB on the apparent meaning of the tshuva,
even though he might agree with him on the final halacha.   One can decide
whether one agrees with R Bleich or R Moshe's plain language.  
	3) While kashrut is a yoreh deah issue, reliability of kashrut
supervision is a hoshen mishpat issue.  Why is the placement surprising?
There are no specific kashrut issues being discussed, merely the notions of
hezkat kashrut and ne'emanut of an individual (hoshen mishpat), kinyan misra
of a position (hoshen mishpat), and being motzi la'az and mevaze others
(hoshen mishpat).  The fact that these apply to the issue of kashrut seems
irrelevant.  Perhaps the fact that Rav Moshe put it in Igrot Moshe is
precisely this point - just because we are dealing with kashrut doesn't mean
that laws of hezkat kashrut, ne'emanut and bizayon disappear.
	4) Rav Aviner paskens the same way (without bringing rav Moshe).  I
should add that I got personal tshuvot along the same way.
	5) I agree that the olam is not hoshesh, and most view being hoshesh
on hechsherim as legitimate, even praiseworthy.  I think that that is
problematic.
Meir Shinnar

IIRC there is a shita (Ramban? or perhaps the Ritva that RJR spoke of?) that
holds that it is k'firah to say that Chazal first decided to make their din
d'Rabanan and then they searched for an asmachta to back them up.  Rather,
Chazal first took note of the asmachta, which indicated to them the
need/grounds for the din d'Rabanan.

KT
Aryeh

-----Original Message-----
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 22:05:23 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Taz on Milah

In a message dated 5/24/00 8:54:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 RGS <Gil.Student@citicorp.com> summarized RDC on the Taz. In it he presents
 three important kelalim. I don't understand the second one.
 
 : 2) When there is an asmachta to forbid then Chazal can (p. 76).
 
 Isn't an asmachta just a mnemonic device, using the rules of derashah to
 assist in remembering a din diRabanan? (That's the way I was taught it
 in greade school.) >>

There's a shita (ritva?) that asmachta is a higher level than a plain 
drabanan because it's not a mnemonic but HKB"H put that pasuk there so the 
Rabbis could use it if they need it.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Does anyone know of any Shut dealing with purchasing property that is known 
to be stolen? 
Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS The only reference I could find to misayea in s"a is in hilchot shabbat 
347 re: helping someone do a akira and hanacha. Does anyone know of other 
references?
Do the poskim generally differentiate between misayea and lifnei iver?

Zehr shverr.

I hope there is no such shitta. Because that is what I believe.

IIRC, The Ritva in RH says that asmachta'os were intended by the RBS"O as a
minor form of derosho, not just as a mnemonic device, but not that the
process was from the asmachta to the din.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Stein, Aryeh E. <aes@ll-f.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Taz on Milah


> IIRC there is a shita (Ramban? or perhaps the Ritva that RJR spoke of?) that
> holds that it is k'firah to say that Chazal first decided to make their din
> d'Rabanan and then they searched for an asmachta to back them up.  Rather,
> Chazal first took note of the asmachta, which indicated to them the
> need/grounds for the din d'Rabanan.

> KT
> Aryeh

----- Original Message -----
From: Shinnar, Meir <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:02 AM

> bimkhilat kvod torato:
> 1) R Moshe never makes the argument that it was a false accusation,
> and it seems that he doesn't want to decide that.  From the tshuva, it seems
> that he only heard one side, and he realized that he didn't have enough
> information to decide.  The point was, that even if the accusations were
> correct, it was being handled wrongly.  That is why he says that if there is
> a legitimate issue, it should be taken to bet din.  That is the appropriate
> forum for deciding whether the accusations are valid or not.

B'mechilatcha as well, RMF makes it quite clear that the circumstances and
his understanding of the case deem the rumors as slander. He does not say
that any question on a hashgocho is motzi la'az!

> With regard to RYGB's point about a communal rav - being motzi la'az and
> mevaze others is applicable regardless of whether or not there is a
> financial motive, and the notion of hezkat kashrut implies that one needs
> proof before questioning others with a hezkat kashrut.

Kana"l - you equate all questions on kashrus with la'az. You need ra'ayos -
especially in light of RGS's masterful presentation of ra'ayos fakehrt
yesterday.

> I think we are dealing with a fundamental difference of perception - do we
> need proof that food that someone with a hazaka of yirat shamayim says is
> kasher is actually kasher, or does it have therefore an automatic hazaka
> that requires proof to deny, and saying otherwise impugns the certifier.

We are not, at least, I'm not!

> 2) While the chevra may read the tshuva for themselves, R David
> Bleich, in Tradition (Spring 1995), in discussing the tshuva, reads the
> conclusions of the tshuva in the same way that I do.  He then says that R
> Moshe could never have meant it to be generally applicable, arguing that
> testifying to kashrut is edut, and edut can not be compelled.  There is
> nothing in R Moshe's tshuva that would suggest that he did not mean it to be
> generally applicable, and R Bleich doesn't point to any such language.Thus,
> R Bleich would disagree with RYGB on the apparent meaning of the tshuva,
> even though he might agree with him on the final halacha.   One can decide
> whether one agrees with R Bleich or R Moshe's plain language.

Or with me!

> 3) While kashrut is a yoreh deah issue, reliability of kashrut
> supervision is a hoshen mishpat issue.  Why is the placement surprising?

Ne'emanus of Eid Echad is a YD issue (vol. 2), not CM. This teshuva is about
hassogas gevul, not kashrus.

> There are no specific kashrut issues being discussed, merely the notions of
> hezkat kashrut and ne'emanut of an individual (hoshen mishpat), kinyan misra
> of a position (hoshen mishpat), and being motzi la'az and mevaze others
> (hoshen mishpat).  The fact that these apply to the issue of kashrut seems
> irrelevant.  Perhaps the fact that Rav Moshe put it in Igrot Moshe is
> precisely this point - just because we are dealing with kashrut doesn't mean
> that laws of hezkat kashrut, ne'emanut and bizayon disappear.

> 4) Rav Aviner paskens the same way (without bringing rav Moshe).  I
> should add that I got personal tshuvot along the same way.

As note yesterday by RGS, RAS's column tzarich iyun gadol.

> 5) I agree that the olam is not hoshesh, and most view being hoshesh
> on hechsherim as legitimate, even praiseworthy.  I think that that is
> problematic.

I agree that it is problematic. If only the problems would go away!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:08:05AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: Chazal first took note of the asmachta, which indicated to them the
: need/grounds for the din d'Rabanan.

According to this shitah, what is the line between an asmachta for a
diRabbanan and a d'rashah for a di'Oraisa?

For example, when Rashi tells us that Boaz was the first to darshen and
apply "Moavi vilo Mo'avis" how did he know that he discovered what Hashem
originally said, vs it being his invention?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

RJ Rich wrote:

>>Does anyone know of any Shut dealing with purchasing property that is known to
>>be stolen? 
>>
>>PS The only reference I could find to misayea in s"a is in hilchot shabbat 347
>>re: helping someone do a akira and hanacha. Does anyone know of other 
>>references?
>>Do the poskim generally differentiate between misayea and lifnei iver?

See my post in Avodah vol 4 #178
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n178.shtml#18>

See Yoreh Deah 151.

Mesaye'a is derabbanan while lifnei iveir is de'oraisa.  There is also an issue 
of machazik yedei ovrei aveirah which may or may not be different from mesaye'a.
Frankly, I don't know the difference but I've been told it is debated.

Purchasing stolen goods is certainly machazik yedei ovrei aveirah but I don't 
have any sources off-hand.  Maybe some of our more Choshen Mishpat enabled 
members can help.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

Questioning his (a rav hamchshir's} reliability therefore does question his 
integrity, yirat shamayim and hezkat kashrut.
Meir Shinnar<<
- -------
>how about questioning his competence?  Can't sincere people THINK they are 
>competent when in fact they are in over their heads?

>Rich Wolpoe

 velo am ha'aretz hasid comes to mind...

Meir Shinnar

This question was raised in R' Riskin's column a couple of weeks ago, and my
son (age 12) and I had a lot of fun kicking it around.

When we say someone is shomeir Shabbos, shomeir Torah uMitzvos, or the like,
which of the four kinds of shomeir is he?

-mi

On 25 May 2000, at 12:53, Micha Berger wrote:

> This question was raised in R' Riskin's column a couple of weeks ago, and my
> son (age 12) and I had a lot of fun kicking it around.
> 
> When we say someone is shomeir Shabbos, shomeir Torah uMitzvos, or the like,
> which of the four kinds of shomeir is he?

Ideally s/he should be a shomer chinam (shouldn't be doing it al 
m'nas le'kabel schar). More likely a shomer sachar.

-- 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.

In avodah vol3 #135 I wrote:

"4.The Ra'avad in Hil Mamrim (2:9) writes that there is 
no issur for the rabbanan to create an issur and 
formulate it as if it was a d'oraysa - after all, that 
is what an asmachta is.  It seems to me that the 
Ra'avad has a very different understanding of asmachta 
than a simple mnemonic, which is how the Ritva presents 
it (as quoted by the Torah Temimah every other parsha)."

IOW: by attaching the derabbanan to a pasuk it acts 
like a real derasha d'oraysa (Ra'avad gives no nafka
minos as to how far to take this).  Rambam's shita 
is that there is an issur for the chachamim to blur
the demarcation between a real derabbanan and 
d'oraysa.  See R' Y. Zirkind's response there.

(P.S. Great search engine Micha)

-Chaim B.

On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 09:10:34PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Ideally s/he should be a shomer chinam (shouldn't be doing it al 
: m'nas le'kabel schar). More likely a shomer sachar.

Ideally he should view himself as a shomeir chinam. However, he does get
sichar.

Would a shomeir chinam be obligated for losses incurred beshogeig? Chillul
Shabbos bishogeig requires a korban, there is culpability.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

>	As I tried to make clear in a previous post,   I would not suggest
>that
>you eat anything produced by a major food corporation and supervised by
>>someone who only knows the ingredient list.   It just is not that simple.
> Pick up a Kashrus magazine or equivalent,  check some of the excellent
>sites on the web with this type of information or speak to people in the
>field and find out what exactly the mashgiach needs to know beyond
>ingredients (which themselves are an entire field of study!).  There is a
>lot that goes into a kashrus supervision besides perusing a list of
>ingredients.

Of course one doesn't go by the ingredient rebbe.  I was just using
ingredients as one of the basic elements of the hechsher, and one that one
respondent had mentioned.  Preparation of the food requires more.  Yes, I
have read Kashrus magazine and multiple other such publications, and am
sorry if it came across that only the ingredients were important.

<<Questioning his reliability therefore does question his integrity,
yirat shamayim and hezkat kashrut.>>

	Not unless you equate his lack of knowledge of the complexity of the
issues with lack of integrity.  Although I don't agree, I could see that
point of view.

 I think it takes relatively little knowledge to realize the problem is
complex (everyone on this list by now knows this :).  It requires far more
knowledge to understand and solve the problem.  The first degree of
knowledge is reasonable to expect today, especially from someone who
ventures to give a hashgacha.

The question is, would anyone with yirat shamayim give a hechsher to
something he didn't understand (either ingredients or process).  I think
that not.   This means that many outstanding rabbanim and talmide chachamim,
baki in yoreh deah, can no longer function as solo mashgichim.  However, it
should be readily apparent to them that they can not so function.
Therefore, by certifying the food, they are certifying that they have
obtained the requisite knowledge, either through study or consulting with
appropriate authorities.

I eat in someone's house not because I have given them a bechina in yoreh
deah, but because I think that they are yere shamayim, and would have asked
questions about what they didn't understand.  

Regards 
Meir Shinnar

>>Ideally s/he should be a shomer chinam (shouldn't be
doing it al m'nas le'kabel schar).<< 

Ruach haChaim on Avos 1:3 writes that the ideal is al
menas l'kabel schar - to draw Hashem's shefa to the
world and reap its benefits, but most of us aren't on
the madreiga to do avodah that way so we settle for
shelo al menas l'kabel pras.  An interesting twist.  

-CB   

In the discussion of various Chumros regarding the state of Hechsherim in
Israel, one of the problems that comes up every seven years is Shmittah,
and reliance by Mekilim on the Heter Mechirah. In light of this discussion
I post the following, which I came accross last Shabbos.

From the Pages of Torah L'Daas by R. Matis Blum...

There are many places in Shas where Tanaaim argue about whether a Non-Jew can
make a Kinyan in Israel in order to remove one's obligations of Maaser. Both
the Yerushalmi and the Bavli discuss it.

Yerushalmi :(Demai 88)

Those who say a Goy CANNOT make a Kinyan, explain the Pasuk of "VeHisnachaltem
Osam Livneichem Achreichem LaReshes Achuza," (Vayikra 25: 46) compares
Achuza to Avodim. Just as is the case by an Eved who only we, Yisraelim can
"buy" Goyim as property and Goyim cannot be "buy" us (only our labor) so,
also, land. We can be buy from them and they cannot buy from us. Those who
say a Goy MAY buy land in Israel base it on the "Pasuk VeHaaretz Lo Simcar
LeTzmisus" But if the sale is made it IS valid.

Bavli (Gitin 47A):

Those that say a Goy cannot buy land, get it from the Pasuk of "Ki Li Kol
HaAretz". Li ( to G-D) is the holiness of the land therefore, no Kinyan can
be made by a Goy to remove the land's intrinsic Kedusha. Those who say a Goy
MAY buy land, interpret the words "Reshis D'Gancha" to mean only "Your grain"
(i.e. grain owned by a Jew) is governed by the laws of Kedushas HaAretz not
the grain of an Akum (Goy).

The Rambam (Terumos 81:10) and the Raavad (there Halacha 13), the Shulchan
Aruch (Yorah Deah Ch 331:3) and others Paskin that a Goy does NOT have
a Kinyan.

The words of the Rambam:

    "A Goy that buys land in Israel does not remove from it's Mitzvah
    obligations; it retains it's holiness. Therefore, if a Jew buys it back
    from the Goy, it is not considered a Kivush Yachid but he has to be
    Mafrish Terumos Umasros, and bring Bikurim; It is all Min HaTorah and
    it's as if he never sold it to him."

The Kesef Mishneh interprets the Rambam this way: All this applies after he
bought it back from the Goy. But, while the Goy owns it, it indeed, Patur
LeChol Hadeyos (according to all the above mentioned Shitos) in all matters
of Kedusha. So, the Kesef Mishneh Paskins that fruit of a goy is NOT subject
to the strictures of Shmitah.

Indeed, the Rambam Paskins (Hilchos Shmittah VeYovel Ch 84 Halacha 29) that
a Goy that buys land in Israel and plants during Shmittah, that those fruits
are Mutar. Their fruits are not subject to Shmittah laws as they serve "Sin"
and are therefore, not commanded on the laws of Shmittah.

Also, the Bais Yosef gave another reason to be Matir the Peiros of a Goy
during Shmittah. From the Pasuk "VeHaysah Shavas HaAretz Lachem" Lachem
VeLo Nachrim. From this it can be seen that only land of a Jew is subject
to the laws of Shmittah.

Today, Shmittah is Midirabbonan according to many poskim and according to
all of them, a Goy CAN make a kinyan in Israel in order to remove from it
the laws of Shmittah.

So what's the problem with Heter Mechirah?

According to the "Mabit" and Mahrit" the Rambam is to be interpreted
differently. They say that the Rambam only meant that before Biur, Goyim
do not have Gzeiras Sphicham on them. But Kedushas Shvi'is (Shmittah) they
do have.

The Ridvaz in his Teshuvos elaborates on this issue but Paskins like the Bais
Yosef and concludes with the following: "It is certain ( Barur KaShemesh)
that it is permissible to buy and eat grain and fruit purchased from Goyim
in Israel without Kedushas Shvi'is.

This is the basis of the Heter Mechirah that is used in Israel to this
very day.

But... 

Many Gedolim are against this practice for other reasons (of which I, HM,
am not aware) and for that reason, the Heter Mechirah authorized by R Kook,
was only given BeShas Hadechak (during times of great need literally when
Pikuach Nefesh was involved during the pioneering years of Israeli Statehood.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:54:52AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: Why did Hashem decide to have human beings procreate the way they do?
...
: The answer given was that Hashem did this to give us an idea of how intense
: our love for Him should be.  Similarly, this is the reason Shir HaShirim was
: written the way it was, in language that we can relate to.

"Lo tov heyos ha'adam livado". If man could feel complete alone, there would
be no community. Hashem therefore had to create man so that he needs another
to be complete. In particular, to be sufficiently complete to raise and
lead the next generation, to build toward the future. In RYBS's terms,
the role model for a child must not be an indvidual, but the fundamental
community of the couple.

Which is also why the act of "peru urvu" of Adam I is also the "vedavak
be'ishto" of Adam II.

Last, according to Rav, we learn that you must get to know your bride before
marrying her from "ve'ahavta lirei'acha kamocha". (Kiddushin 41a) An
unhealthy marriage can impede one's ability to interact with the larger
community of Israel. R' Akiva's peshat in the pasuk flows from R' Akiva.

In short, it's not only bein adam laMakom that is served by this biology.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:35:47AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: A supervisor is believed for two reasons - chezkas kashrus and eid echad
: ne'eman be'issurim. I am not an expert in the complicated areas of chazakah
: but it seems obvious to me that an eidus overrides a chezkas kashrus.
: Otherwise, how could we ever believe anyone that food is not kosher?

In <http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf> I tried to explain the rules
of such things as I understood them when I was learning Shev Shma'atsa.

In summary:

I extrapolate from R' Akiva Eiger's principle that there are two kinds of
birur: birur of the metzi'us, or berur of the halachah. Rov is a rule
in deciding what we should assume the metzi'us was. However, once the
metzi'us was kavu'ah, one can't use rov to determine a doubt that arose
about the resulting halachah.

In this extension, I suggest that eidus puts things in the same class as
kavu'ah. An eid observed the metzi'us. So some halachah exists based on
that metzi'us, our safeik is what that halachah was.

Chezkas kashrus is a rule of thumb, a chazakah disvara. (As opposed to
chazakah dimei'ikarah, the assumption that the metzi'us didn't change.)
It's a statement about what the metzi'us can be assumed to be. IOW,
we can assume the person is honest. It's a statement about the person,
not kashrus in the sense of the halachic state of a food. The line
between chazakah disvarah and rubah dileisa likaman -- a birur that
RAE said is a birur of the metzi'us.

Therefore, of course there is no chazakah dimei'ikara in the case of
eidus -- it's the wrong kind of birur. See Shmaatsa 6, 22.

-mi

PS: This is the third time or so I'm requesting comments on that appendix,
<http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf>, from the chevrah. What can I say,
I'm desparate.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

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


[ 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         ]