Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 164

Thursday, March 22 2001

• RE: Pesach
• Re: Pesach
• Re: Starting Shmoneh Esrai Before The Deadline In Question
• Lot, His Daughters, and Tzoar
• Re: [Fwd: Rambam, Karaites, and Jewish unity]
• Re: Avodah V6 #163
• Re: [Fwd: Rambam, Karaites, and Jewish unity]
• Re: [Fwd: Rambam, Karaites, and Jewish unity]
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #4: MC vol. 1 p. 52 - Initial Summary
• Us vs. Them
• RE: Pesach
• RE: Pesach
• Re: Dor Revi'i on eileh p'kudei ha-mishkan, mishkan ha-eidut
• shalom- shamaim
• Re: shalom- shamaim
• Re: Kapparah
• Re: Lilmod ulelamed
• avedas akum
• Re: Water on Pesach
• Re: Water on Pesach
• RE: Pesach
• Sepharadim must check kitnios 3 x ?
• RE: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• (Fwd) Re: Actual Shabbos vs. Tosfos Shabbos
• RE: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• Re: Pesach
• Re: avedas akum
• Re: avedas akum

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>                                             Mima nafshach: either
> the mechirah is good or it isn't. The question of whether the food is
> chameitz gamur or not is unrelated to that of mechirah. 

I assume the point is that it's not clear that any mechirah is valid.
Consequently, you are machmir for the deoraissas (i.e., chametz which, if
you kept it, would cause you to violate bal yeira'eh bal yimatzay) but not
for the drabbanans.  Concept of safek drabbanan l'kulah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:58:33AM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:>                                             Mima nafshach: either
:> the mechirah is good or it isn't. The question of whether the food is
:> chameitz gamur or not is unrelated to that of mechirah. 

: I assume the point is that it's not clear that any mechirah is valid.
: Consequently, you are machmir for the deoraissas (i.e., chametz which, if
: you kept it, would cause you to violate bal yeira'eh bal yimatzay) but not
: for the drabbanans.  Concept of safek drabbanan l'kulah.

Chameitz gamur (CG) = di'Oraisa, while otherwise it's certainly diRabbanan???
What about that which is balul in keilim?

Li nir'eh the klal of s'feik s'feikah lekulah may come up more often. Much
of what we sell are those things that just aren't certified kasher lipesach
but we really have no idea.

-mi

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
>> Similarly, as long as we start davening before shekiah, the entire
>> shemoneh esreih is considered as having been said before shekiah.

I then asked:
> According to this shito, is this true for the other deadlines as well,
> such as z'man tefilah, chatzos, alos, and the 7th hr. for mussaf?

I just asked a shailoh and was told that , _b'dieved_, it is sufficent
to _start_ shmoneh esrai shel shacharis before chatzos. There is actually
another kula that could be considered a 'back-up': the shito that b'dieved
shacharis can be davened until mincha gedola. (even if one would not
rely on this shito alone, as MB (and likely others) poskens against it)

Interestingly enough, I was just talking with a friend of mine with
some shaichus to Tosh and he told me that by Tosh Shacharis on Shabbos
is scheduled so that they start shmoneh esrai before mincha gedola.
(During the week the Tosher rebbe, shlita, davens much later)

I also asked:
>Also, what about krias shema and birkas krias shema?
> (being that there are shitos that birkas krias shema
> cannot be said after z'man tefilah)

This isn't really l'maaseh because I asked a choshuve poseik years ago
about whether to say birkas krias shema after z'man tefilah, b'dieved,
and was told that I should. However, I know that there are those who are
machmir not to say birkas krias shema after z'man tefilah, even b'dieved
and I am curious about what I asked just above.

Finally, purely out of curiosity as we obviously do not pasken this way
at all, are there shitos that forbid saying birkas krias shema after
z'man krias shema?

- Noach

1) This first question is from my Talmud Torah students.

Some meforshim ask why Lot's daughters thought that there was no one else
alive on Earth. They should have realized that if they were zocheh to
escape alive, then certainly Avraham and Sarah would have escaped as
well. There are various answers to this, and it seems that those answers
focus on what Lot told (or failed to tell) his daughters about Avraham
and Sarah.

My students' question: But having escaped to Tzoar, the daughters
certainly knew about its residents. We know from the pesukim - and
certainly from Rashi on those pesukim - that Tzoar WAS inhabited. So why
did they think they were the last people alive?

2) The second question occurred to me as I was trying to research the one
above.

Has anyone noticed the irony in Lot's plea for Tzoar? Avraham tried to
save all five cities, but failed because he could not find ten tzadikim.
In contrast, Lot succeeded, by focusing on the one city that was not
quite as evil as the others -- as I understand Rashi, Tzoar was "only"
about 98.1% (51/52) as evil as Sodom was.

I suppose one could argue that Tzoar did not have enough zechus on its
own to survive, but Lot's wanting to escape there may have been the tiny
extra bit that they needed. But if so, we can only wonder what might have
happened if Avraham had threatened to remain in Sodom, as a last-ditch
effort of fighting for them: "Destroy Sodom, and You'll have to take me
with them!" What might Hashem have done?

Are there any meforshim who mention Lot's success, and compare it to
Avraham's failure?

Akiva Miller

Yitzchak Zlochower wrote:
: [In Mishne Torah, Hilchot Shechita 4: 14,16, the Rambam distinguishes...

Micha Berger wrote:
: My understanding from the Gemara is that the problem with Shomroni shechitah 
: isn't that they're minim.... In fact, the Gemara allows you to eat from 
: his shechitah if he eats from the same animal, therefore proving that he 
: trusts the shechitah for himself.
     
: Can someone explain the Rambam?

There was a special gezeirah on the shechitah of Kussim (i.e. Shomronim).
See Chullin 6b-7a. If the Karaites were Kussim then the gezeirah would
override the normal reasoning of lifnei iveir...

Yitzchak Zlochower wrote:
: 263. And the Karaites are not those that the Rabbis call minim, but they 
: are those who are called tzedukkim and baytusim - not Samaritans...

R. Yonason Eybeschutz in his Kereisi uPleisi (YD 2) points out what
is obvious to us. The Karaites are not Tzadokim or Baytusim either.
They have different views and are offended by the equation.

Gil Student

From: Elazar M Teitz [mailto:remt@juno.com]
>                  The rav said that since it wasn't 100% that she would
> have retarded children she did not have to reveal the information. The
> rationale was that they needed to have bitachon that everything would
> work out,"...

> (1) Is one permitted to "have bitachon" at another's expense?

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
: To put it another way: why should the kallah force the choson to have
: bitachon?  Let it work the other way around -- the kallah should tell the
: choson the genetic information and have bitachon that the choson will not
: call off the wedding!

The Steipler Gaon in Kehilas Yaakov (Yevamos 44) comes out with an
interesting P'sak related to this. The Shulchan Aruch (E"H 5:10) rules
according to the Rambam, that if a man loses one of his Beitzim during
surgery due to illness, it is deemed BiDei Shomayim and he is not a P'tzua
Daka. Rabbeinu Tam holds he can still procreate and may therefore marry
a Jewish girl. One such young man wished to know if he was obligated
to disclose his condition to prospective mates, fearing that not to
do so might render his marriage invalid as a Mekach Ta'us, or at least
constitute Genevas Daas. The Steipler cites the Chasam Sofer's opinion
(O"C 65) that where we rule leniently to prevent a considerable loss, the
leniency is only for the owner's benefit; not a buyer's. Thus, the bochur
received a Heter to marry for himself, but perhaps he should inform the
girl or risk a Mekach Ta'us. The Steipler concluded however, that a buyer
is generally interested in purchasing one of a group of similar items. If
he is tricked into buying a defective one, when he could have as easily
been given a good one, it would be a Mekach Ta'us. In Shiduchim however,
finding a compatible mate is difficult, and so, non-disclosure of a
minor defect would not be grounds for Mekach Ta'us, unless NO ONE would
agree to such a marriage. Still, despite the relative insignificance of
this defect, it is clearly Asur to fool someone, even without causing
a loss (SMA -- C"M 228:7). If disclosed at the beginning, however,
when the smallest defect is fatal, such a bochur might never be able
to marry. The Gemara (Yevamos 45a) gives advice to the son of a Jewish
mother and gentile father, that he go to a place where he is unknown,
and marry a Jewess there, without disclosing his Yichus. Thus we see,
if he is permitted to marry, he need not reveal his defect.
(Prozdor -- Ki Saytzay 5757)

Leibie Sternberg

[Moderator's note: RLS is the writer of Prozdor, a weekly that is available
at <http://www.prozdor.com>. -mi]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:35:21AM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: There was a special gezeirah on the shechitah of Kussim (i.e. Shomronim).
: See Chullin 6b-7a. If the Karaites were Kussim then the gezeirah would
: override the normal reasoning of lifnei iveir...

But in any case, the Kusi's shechitah is not being invalidated because
he's a min, but because we have no ne'emanus that the shechitah was
kasher.

So my difficulty understanding the Rambam remains. If he declares Kusim to
be minim, then the gemara is allowing the shechitah of minim. In which
case the distinction the Rambam is making between them and Tzedukim
doesn't work -- both are allowed to shecht.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I wrote:
: There was a special gezeirah on the shechitah of Kussim (i.e. Shomronim). 
: See Chullin 6b-7a. If the Karaites were Kussim then the gezeirah would
: override the normal reasoning of lifnei iveir...
     
Micha wrote:
: But in any case, the Kusi's shechitah is not being invalidated because 
: he's a min, but because we have no ne'emanus that the shechitah was 
: kasher.
     
Presumably, you are referring to the gemara on 4a.  That is talking about 
before the gezeirah.  The gezeirah is discussed on 5b-6a (I was off by a 
blatt in an earlier e-mail).  It was made because the Kussim were found to 
be worshipping avodah zarah (anyone know about this from an historical 
perspective?).

The Rambam implies, and the nosei keilim to Shulchan Aruch YD 2 state 
explicitly, that Tzadokim and Baytusim have the din of Kussim before the 
gezeirah.

Gil Student

At 09:56 AM 3/21/01 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>Of course this assumes that birchas haTorah is a birchas haMitzvah, as
>opposed to RCM's teirutz #4 that it's a bichas hashevach and therefore
>neither mitzvah has a birchas hamitzvah. And then of course there's
>the shitah that the berachah on TT is di'Oraisa.

RYE assumes as much there (Lekach Tov #11).


KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Gershon Dubin wrote on Areivim:
> Bitachon is a nice thing for yennem to have.   I don't recall who
> it was who said that for yourself,  be a ba'al bitachon;  for yennem,  be
> a kofer behashgacha and help them.  

IIRC, R. Yisrael Salanter says this about all midos. We should demand
good midos for ourselves - patience, forgiveness, generosity, etc. - but
treat others as if they had none of these. In other words, don't think
"Oh, it doesn't matter because he's supposed to be patient and forgiving"
even though he really is. We can only demand that of ourselves.

Gil Student

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>                                             Mima nafshach: either
> the mechirah is good or it isn't. The question of whether the food is
> chameitz gamur or not is unrelated to that of mechirah. Unless you are
> trying to build some kind of s'feik s'feikah, how does limiting the
> items for sale help?

Agreed.  I tend to believe that those who are machmir not to sell chametz
gomur are *almost* being motzei la'az on the mechira (i.e., that it's not a
real sale but a loophole devised by chazal).

IIRC, R' Zevin makes a similar point (and he uses stronger language) about
those who refuse to eat cholent on Shabbos day.  (Not wanting to get R'
Zevin angry, I try to be machmir and have cholent both Friday night and
Shabbos day [with my wife's permission/blessing, of course.] <g>).

(Another, totally unrelated, chumra/halacha that I don't really understand
is that of not partaking of any food or drink (even water) outside of the
sukkah.  (I say this with full knowledge that this is mefurash in the SA,
IIRC..."harei zeh meshubach").  The whole point of a sukkah is that it
should be "k'ain t'duru."  Just like one often eats "derech a'roi" outside
of his house during the year, why shouldn't one similarly eat "derech a'roi"
outside of his sukkah during Sukkos?)

KT
Aryeh

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:58:33AM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>: I assume the point is that it's not clear that any mechirah is valid.
>: Consequently, you are machmir for the deoraissas (i.e., chametz which, if
>: you kept it, would cause you to violate bal yeira'eh bal yimatzay) but not
>: for the drabbanans.  Concept of safek drabbanan l'kulah.

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Chameitz gamur (CG) = di'Oraisa, while otherwise it's certainly diRabbanan???

If it's not kzayis b'chdei achilas pras, then I think there isn't bal
yeira'eh bal yimatzay, even though there is an issur deoraissa to eat it
(because chatzi shiur asur).

> What about that which is balu[a] in keilim?

[Comments about my typo deleated. -mi]

If chometz is *balua* in keilim, I don't think there is a violation of
bal yeira'eh.

> Li nir'eh the klal of s'feik s'feikah lekulah may come up more often. Much
> of what we sell are those things that just aren't certified kasher lipesach
> but we really have no idea.

Maybe it's efshar l'varer, so you just can't sit back and say that you have
a safek.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

www.dorrevii.org and
www.math/psu.edu/glasner/dor4

eileh p'kudei ha-mishkan mishkan ha-eidut: 

See Rashi's explanation of why the word "mishkan" (tabernacle) is
written twice.

The word "mishkan" is mentioned twice in allusion to the Temple that was
taken twice in pledge (mashkon) by being destroyed twice for Israel's
transgressions

The Midrash (Sh'mot Rabbah 51) says:

    R. Tanhuma bar Abba began by saying (Proverbs 28:20): "A faithful
    man shall abound in blessings." You find that the Holy One Blessed
    Be He brings many blessings through one who is trustworthy. Such a
    man was Moshe.

And it appears to our master that the Midrash was also concerned with
explaining why the word "mishkan" was repeated. He suggested that the
source of blessing to Israel was that the Eternal would dwell among
them. And so the Scripture says that upon the completion of the Mishkan
(Exodus 40:43) "Moshe blessed them." Rashi, quoting the Sifra, gives us
the text of the blessing: "May it be the will of G-d that His Shehinah
rest upon the work of your hands." The resting of the Shehinah is a
sign that they did their work honestly. For in the Talmud the Sages say
that a thief is one who acts as if his actions were not seen on High,
and thereby presses the feet of the Shehinah [thereby the departure
of the Shehinah]. The Scripture therefore says that a faithful man,
i.e., one who deals honestly, abounds in blessings, because he draws
the Shehinah, which is the source of blessings, near. This referred to
Moshe who faithfully supervised the building of the Mishkan and all its
vessels. And this is what was meant by the verse: "These are the sums of
the dwelling" (eileh p'kudei ha-mishkan) that Moshe numbered to ensure
a just accounting. "The dwelling of testimony" (mishkan ha-eidut) was
itself testimony that Moshe's accountings were just, because G-d caused
his Shehinah to dwell within the Mishkan.

I you would like to receive email notification of updates to the Dor
Revi'i website, to save you the trouble of checking whether divrei torah
on the weekly parasha have been posted, send me your email address and
I will send you notification as soon as new material is added. I also
hope to have his comments on the Haggadah translated sometime during
the week before Pesach.

David Glasner

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> I think in a previous round I mentioned the thought from R'YBS...
> that the request oseh shalom bmromav hu yaaseh shalom aleinu refers to
> the peace hkbh makes in shamaaim between the midot of chesed and emet,
> having them both be fufilled with no dimunition of either...

On an individual level you could say that the water corresponds to the
cooling properties of reason, the brain,  whereas fire corresponds to the
warming properties of the emotions,  of the heart so to speak.  When the
heart and head are in harmony we therefore have shama'im-  shalom. Chessed
can represent the feelings of the heart,  emes, the reason of the mind. Then
see the result of seduction by lower forces and look at the second paragraph
of Shma.  Shamayim is 'stopped' on a penimiyus level because the heart is no
longer in harmony with reason,  R.L.  Our task is to get our hearts and
heads in alignment and try our best to keep it that way.  (based on Tanya)

Gila Atwood

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:21AM +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote:
: On an individual level you could say that the water corresponds to the
: cooling properties of reason, the brain...

Aristotle believed that the function of the brain was to cool the blood.
Since thought was a function of the heart, he had no idea what else the
brain did.

I wonder, though, if he didn't just take an older idea too literally.

-mi

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I suggested that kapparah refered to /k-p-r/ as a separation that keeps
> something in, roughly "containment of the animal urges". RRW suggested
> it is more related to a separation that keeps something out, closer to
> "protection from the punishment".

There is a Gemara in Gittin 56a, about Neron Keisar, who saya that HKBH
wants to destroy his house, but wants to "Le'chapurei yadei be'hahu gavra",
which means that HKBH would wipe his hands on me. Therefore, we see that the
shoresh k-p-r means to wipe clean.

K"T,
Amihai

RCS:
> As the most recent poster to post "u'l'lamda, I ask if anyone has a
> Brachos handy to verify the girsa I posted (it's in the last perek).

In Brachot 62a it says "Velilmod". It is also so in Megila 27b.
The mistake might be because many times when there is a kamataz katan,
it is transliterated as "a" instead of "o". "Ulelomdah" is the same as
"velilmod", but not the same as "ulelamdah".

K"T,
Amihai

Any current sources on avedas akum bizman hazeh that are reliably not the
product of the censors?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 3/21/2001 7:54:21am PST, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> number of years ago, someone realized that people fish in the Kinneret
> during Pesach and likely use Chametz for bait. Real chametz. As a result,
> the water supply from the Kinneret to Yerushalayim is shut off during
> Pesach, and we get our water from elsewhere. Nevertheless, I know people
> who put water in tanks before Pesach - at least for drinking.

Why isn't this an issue in all water supply systems?

KT
Joel

R' Carl:
>the water supply from the Kinneret to Yerushalayim is shut off during
>Pesach, and we get our water from elsewhere. Nevertheless, I know people
>who put water in tanks before Pesach - at least for drinking.

                                                                         Bs"d
I can't quote a source, but I remember hearing a few years ago that 
Yerushalayim never gets ANY of its water from the Kinneret. Rather, it 
comes from an aquifier in the area.

Eli

> Agreed.  I tend to believe that those who are machmir not to sell chametz
> gomur are *almost* being motzei la'az on the mechira (i.e., that it's not a
> real sale but a loophole devised by chazal).

Not at all -- the heter of chazal to sell chametz gamur was for hefsed
merubah (i.e. store owners/ whiskey dealers, etc) -- not for the stam bal
HaBayis to sell his oreo cookies so he can eat them motzai yom-toc acheron
of pesach after putting the pesach dishes away.

They never claim the sale isn't valid (even though there are MANY halachic
objections/problems with homeowners selling their chametz) -- just that too
many people are taking advantage of it who, according to the original
intentions of the heter, shouldn't be.

Akiva

Someone recently told me something along the following lines -

Many (some?) Sepharadim (and anshei eidos hamizroch presumably) do not eat 
kitnios on Pesach because they must check it three times to make sure that 
there are no (sometimes similar looking) chomeitz grains mixed into it which 
is too laborious, etc.

Is that correct?

Mordechai

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM]
> When the SSKH does quote RZSA that saving on a hard drive constitutes boneh
> (because the magnetic media is changed) ...

Where does the SSKH say this? 

> In any case, when you send email, is it necessarily the case that you are
> directly causing an electromagnetic change?

Why would you not be causing an electromagnetic change when you send email?

mmb

Yesterday, I wrote (it may have been on Areivim - I don't remember):
> Isn't that mutar because the issur on Shabbos is Amira *l'Akum* and
> not to a fellow Jew? Thus, for example, someone who is holding two days
> of Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael is allowed to ask someone who is holding one
> day to do Melacha for him on the second day....

Someone wrote me off list and said that I was wrong about a Ben Chu"l
being able to tell a Ben Eretz Yisrael to do Mlacha for him on Yom Tov
Sheini. That sent me to the sforim, and I'd like to correct what I wrote.

In Chutz LaAretz, chad v'chalak that it's assur for a Ben Chu"l to ask a
Ben Eretz Yisrael to do Mlacha for him. In Eretz Yisrael there are poskim
who hold otherwise, but l'maaseh we pasken that it's generally assur (Yom
Tov Sheini k'Hilchoso 14:2). OTOH, Rav Elayashiv paskens that it's only
remez b'derech tzivui that is assur, but the Ben Eretz Yisrael can (for
example) ask the Ben Chul if he wants the light turned on for him, and the
Ben Chul can answer yes. (YTSkH 14, note 3). Rav Elyashiv also allows a
Ben Chu"l to ask a Ben Eretz Yisrael to do Mlacha for him in Eretz Yisrael
on Yom Tov Sheini l'tzorech mitzva (14:4 and note 10 there). BTW, the
YTSkH brings in note 10 there, that according to Rav Elyashiv, the heter
to ask a fellow yid who has not been mkabel Shabbos yet to do Mlacha
for you during tosefes Shabbos is only l'dvar Mitzva. He says that RSZA
was cholek, and held that once the etzem dibbur is not assur because of
"mimtzo cheftzecha," he can ask even not for a dvar mitzva.

Caveat -- I have the old version of YTSkH. If the new one says otherwise,
please let me know.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Mark Burack wrote:
> Why would you not be causing an electromagnetic change when you send email?
     
Why should it matter?  An iggeres shalom is mutar to write and send on Chol 
Hamoed.

Gil Student

"Stein, Aryeh E." wrote:
> Agreed.  I tend to believe that those who are machmir not to sell chametz
> gomur are *almost* being motzei la'az on the mechira (i.e., that it's not a
> real sale but a loophole devised by chazal).

Is it really a chazal? Where?

> IIRC, R' Zevin makes a similar point (and he uses stronger language) about
> those who refuse to eat cholent on Shabbos day.

IIRC the special problem about not eating cholent is that one might be
suspected of Karaism.

David Riceman

> Any current sources on avedas akum bizman hazeh that are reliably not the 
> product of the censors?
     
I don't have any right now, but I don't see why the dina digemara does not 
apply.  You don't have to return it but it is appropriate if there will be a 
kiddush Hashem.

I once discussed this with a frum judge regarding the dina demalchusa.  He 
claimed that there is a legal obligation to return any lost object.  [Lawyers, 
don't argue with me.  I'm just repeating what he told me.]  If so, lichora dina 
demalchusa dina applies and you have to return it.

Gil Student

In a message dated 3/22/01 9:44:09am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Any current sources on avedas akum bizman hazeh that are reliably not the
> product of the censors?

See S"A Horav Hil. Metzia Upikodon Si'if 38.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]