Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 011

Monday, April 2 2001

• Mah Nishtana! (for Avodah)
• RE: vehigdta l'vinkha
• Re: IdT and IdE
• Re: Dor Revi'i on the four sons
• rice on erev pesach this year
• Re: Matzos Mitsva, ShLo L'Shma?
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza
• Children and Mechiras Chometz
• Fate of Children Who Were Niftar, R"L
• mechitzah
• efficacy of / different approaches to Mikvah for men
• Tvilas Ezra
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but Goodie
• Fwd: Re: Vos is der chiluk
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #6: MC vol. 1 p. 60 - An Oldie but Goodie
• When is Pesach?
• Yeast on Pesach
• Re: Siddurim
• re: water on Pesach
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chometz
• Bedikas Chametz at Night
• Whither Voss Iz Der Chilluk
• Re: Bedikas Chametz at Night
• Re: When is Pesach?
• Re: Dor Revi'i on R. Gamliel haya omeir

    Some years ago at the seder I proposed that mah nishtana should be read,
not "mah nishtana halayla hazeh mekol haleylot?" with a question mark, "How
is  this night different from all other nights?" but rather "mah nishtana
halayla hazeh mekol haleylot!" with an exclamation point, meaning "How
different is this night from other nights!" The parallel is to Tehilim
104:24, "mah rabu ma'asecha, haShem!" I have not searched to see whether
anyone already said this, but there is no mention of it R. Kasher's Haggadah
Shleimah. My wife suggested that it is the subject of a disagreement in
Pesachim 115b-116a, with Abayei seated before Rabah explaining mah nishtanah
as a question and Rav Nachman with Daru viewing it as an exclamation of
wonderment.

    It is also similar to "kamah ma'alot tovot lamakom aleinu" in Dayeini,
which is certainly an exclamation. However, the Hebrew there is difficult to
understand. What does "ma'alot lamakom aleinu" mean? I prefer to read
"alinu" with a chirik, from the verb aloh, rather than "aleinu" with a
tzeireh, "on us." This explains the simile as being aliyah bema'alot. But
what does the sentence mean, exactly?

    This reading of mah nishtanah is an example of peshat through a radical
rereading or re-punctuation of the text.  My favorite example of this is in
my Chibah Yeteirah commentary on the Torah in Devarim  4:7. "Ki mi goy
gadol?-asher lo Elokim kerovim eilav!.umi goi gadol? -asher  lo chukim
umishpatim tzadkim!" "Which is a great nation? One that Elokim is close to.
And which is a great nation? One which has righteous statutes," and see
Parshat Vaetchanan in my forthcoming "New Interpretations on the Parshah"
(Ktav). Phrases starting with "asher" are frequent in Tanach, such as in
Tehilim 95:4, "Asher lo hayam, vehu asahu."

    When recklessly applied, however, the genre lends itself to enjoyable
but farfetched drashim, as in any number of Chassidic "vort"s. An early
example of this is in Berachot 4b, where Amos 5:2 is rendered "Naflah, lo
tosif. Kum, betulat Yisrael!" as if the verse says "kumi" in the feminine
rather than "kum" in the masculine, and compare Yishayahu 24:20.

> you are assuming that mah nishtana was always said at the beginning
> of the seder and not after the meal. It ain't necessarily so.

R'Moshe Feldman asked
> Are you referring to the time of the Bais Hamikdash, when there were
> a a number of shifts eating the korban Pesach. Did the first shift eat
> and then talk later?

No. IIRC there are sources that at least conjecture that until Talmudic
times they ate first and then read. I should be reading through my
collection of haggadot during the last three weeks but haven't even
glanced at them this year. A sudden batch of rush-rush work has kept
me ultra-busy and at a time when I've lost the cheishek for work. R'
Daniel Goldschmidt comes to mind as one who might comment on this, or
perhaps R' M"M Kasher in Haggadah Sh'leima. I'm sure somebody on the
list can bring sources.

While on Mah nishtana, I noted that so far nobody called it the Fir Kashes
or four questions. Is that because of the decline of Yiddish or perhaps
in addition to the four "sheb'khol haleilo" sentences, the first sentence
is also a question: Mah nishtana halaila hazeh. Finif Kashes? (Funf for
litvaks) Or is their only one question,namely Mah nishtana, and four
answers given, a listing of four of the things we do only balaila hazeh.
Or, are there no questions at all but only statements of fact and the
first sentence Mah nishtana means How different is halaila hazeh! And
then a listing, the pirut.

Five, four, one, or none? Pick your choose.

The fact that the magid haseder says the mah nishtana himself if there is
no child and, by some, he repeats it after the child has said it seems to
point that these are statements, a list of differences, and not questions.

And when the child Abayei ASKS (in Pesahim) why was the table removed,
Rabba comments that Abayei had pattered US from SAYING mah nishtana.
What does that indicate?

So, I just prepared myself for the seder. But everyone there has heard
these comments from me many times before. Who knows if I'll find time
to search for or dream up a new comment this year.

Pesah Kasher v'Sameah to all,
David

At 03:08 AM 3/29/01 +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote:
>The first Pesach was pretty much IdE.  There was a certain amount of low
>grade IdT -  Hashem heard the people's groans-  plus there was Moshe
>Rabenu's personal preparation as go'el which took many years.
>However IdE on Shavuos has the potential to be on a much higher level since
>we have the entire sephira to prepare ourselves spiritually.

Please see my last post on "Me'mochoras ha'Pesach" vs. "Me'Mochoras 
ha'Shabbos".

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

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

www.dorrevii.org or
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

k'neged arba'ah banim dibrah torah: It may be asked why the Hagadah places
the wicked son after the wise son but ahead of the simple son and the one
incapable of asking. Is he not the worst one of all? It is also amazing
that after the question "what is this service unto you?" asked by the
son who is designated as wicked, the Torah says (Exodus 12:27): "the
people bowed the head and worshiped." Rashi comments that the they did
so in gratitude for the good news that they would have further offspring.
But how is it possible that they would rejoice on hearing of the arrival
of a wicked son?

And it appears to our master that just as it is not possible for the world
to exist without both males and females, so too it is not possible for the
world to exist without both the righteous and the wicked, for G-d created
the one in relation to the other. For where there are shadows is there
not light? And in the place of justice must there not be evil? Moreover,
the perfection of the righteous will never be eliminated nor the folly
of evil cease. However, from the manner of the wicked and their conduct
we can infer the manner of the righteous and their conduct. For in a
generation in which the wicked recognize in their souls the great loss
that they have incurred by turning back from the service of G-d and how
heavy is their sin for high-handedly transgressing the commandments of
the Eternal, they will then seek to assuage their wounded spirit and to
ease their minds by asking fallacious questions based on false opinions.
They will pose questions and raise difficulties to our G-d to throw off
from upon themselves the burden of their guilt and to relieve themselves
of the yoke upon their necks. From these ingenious wicked ones we can
easily judge the righteous. The wicked are a sign that righteous desire
the Torah of the Eternal and they study it by day and by night. And
their wisdom resonates in the houses of worship and the houses of study
for the sake of Torah, so that the whole land is filled with knowledge.
The wicked must therefore seek to hide beneath false doctrines.

However, in a generation in which the wicked shamelessly throw the Torah
and the commandments behind them, because they do not know that they are
sinning against their own souls, they do not seek to excuse or rationalize
their conduct and offer no wayward doctrines in their own defense. It is
clear that the righteous and holy ones of such a generation have been weak
in upholding the Torah. Their skill has departed from them and they study
the Torah indolently without passion, not seeking, and not searching.

The four sons of the Haggadah are thus from two different generations
and are their results. In an era when the wise son asks "what are the
testimonies, and the statutes and the laws?" because he is so desperate to
know all the details of the commandments and all its derivations (which
in fact is the answer that we give the wise son; we tell him "concerning
the laws of the Pesah, we do not partake of dessert after the Pesah"
(ein maftirin ahar ha-pesah aphikoman), and the commentators explain
that if your son is wise do not withhold what is good from its rightful
owner, teach him all the laws of Pesah until the final one which is that
we do not partake of dessert after the Pesah, a law found at the end of
the tractate of Pesahim (the following Mishnah discussing only rabbinic
enactments)), the wicked will ask heretical questions, such as "what is
this service unto you?" in order to find comfort for their impure souls
for having despised the commandments of the Eternal and having defied
His will. But if the righteous ask only "what is this?" like a simple
person and are not desperate to master the entire contents of the Torah
and their souls are not consumed by the desire to learn all the statutes
of the Torah in all their detail and complexity, being satisfied with
the mere general knowledge of "what is this?" then the wicked of their
generation will totally disregard the commandments of the Eternal and
will not even know that they are sinning. They will therefore not even
feel the need to ask deceitful questions to put their own minds at ease.
That is why when the Children of Israel were informed that in a future
generation the wicked would ask "what is this service unto you?" they
gave thanks to the Eternal for the good news that they would have truly
righteous offspring, because if there were not offspring that were truly
righteous, the wicked ones would not have asked such a question.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

(Question for Ashkenazim)

Theoretically, there is no problem eating rice the day before Pesach.
This is (of sorts) a family minhag. Since we're rely so much on pototoes
for Pesach, we usually have rice as our main carbohydrate the day before
pesach. But this year, there might be some extra halachic considerations.
Most recommendations have been that we have pesadike meals the shabbos
before Pesach, using pesadike keilim (except for the lechem mishna,
as has already been thoroughly discussed).

But what about rice? Can we cook rice in a pesadike pot just before
shabbos? What about rice on our pesadike plates, forks? On our pesadicke
table? Anything else we have to worry about?

-- Eric

I just wanted to point out to the chevra that matzos baked by a Non-Jew with 
a Jew omed al gabav is not the end of the world.  See Mishnah Berurah 460:3 
and Sha'arei Tzion 4 that there are many poskim who permit this.

Gil Student

R. Shlomo Wahrman in his Oros HaPesach, 20 argues that it is permissible to 
eat matzah ashirah on EPSB.  He also quotes a "kol kore" from R. Eliezer 
Silver in 1954 in which he permitted eating eating matzah ashirah on EPSB 
until 3:40 pm.

Gil Student

I'm wondering what the chevra feels about children selling their chometz.
It seems to me that if the child is above bar/bas mitzvah age, and has
earned money from outside sources (such as babysitting) and bought
chometz with it, then it clearly belongs to the child, and the parents
would be unable to sell it on the child's behalf.

So if the child knows of such chometz that he wants to save for after
Pesach, the child would have to sell it through the Rav personally.
Further, if the child is not aware of any specific chometz still
remaining, but is choshesh that he might have some unfound chometz
somewhere and does not want to rely on his bittul, then too, he must sell
it himself and cannot rely on his parents.

What do the rest of you think?

Akiva Miller

From: "Noah S. Rothstein" <noahrothstein@mindspring.com>
> But since a child cannot committ aveiros, wouldn't the neshama go straight
> to Gan Eden without any detour and further yissurim whatsoever?
> Also, we know that the guf a tsadik does not decompose. Wouldn't this
> also be true for a young child who never had the chance to sin?

Ein lanu esek benistaros. Neither with the delayed kaporo associated
with delayed kevura, nor with who is a tzadik to merit sheleimus haguf.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I received the following question (le-ma'aseh).  I would especially
appreciate comments and responses that refer to published sources or
verifiable responses be'al peh that might be applicable to the case at hand.

The shomer shabbos rabbi of a mixed pews synagogue is now in a position to
institute the following improvement:

to install a mechitza (not too high now... "baby steps") from the front
to (approximately) the center of the sanctuary. This mechitza will serve
to separate men and women. At the point where that mechitza ends another
mechitza is to be erected, perpendicularly (thus creating a T-shape) to
allow those congregants who want to continue to sit in a mixed-seating
situation to continue to do so. Unless the ones in front turn around,
they cannot see the mixed seating behind them.

The following information is, I believe, pertinent:
The president has threatened that there is a sentiment that this
synagogue would become Reform (I do not know whether it is now United
Synagogue affiliated but Reform would, i think, certainly be a step
down.) I suggested calling the bluff with a Orth vs. R vote and the
rabbi believes that R would certainly win. The mechitza will be about
3 feet high or whatever would be 10 tefachim in someone's estimation.
I noted that while al pi 'ikkar hadin that might be good, the irony was
that in a congregation where doilies are more likely to be common than
a valid kisui, a higher mechitza might be necessary in a less observant
demography to obviate the ervah problem during krias shma and SE.

As I saw it, the issue was whether to take what one can to diminish
the unacceptable (see e.g. RMF Darash Moshe on parshas Shlach D"H
Va-yahas Kalev) vs. an all-or-nothing approach arguably justifiable
on the grounds that such a physical set-up creates a moral relevancy
or normative equivalence between mixed-seating and separate-seating
situations (where one has the option of choosing as though each path is
valid in the eyes of Jewish law). Perhaps there are other "hashkafic"
considerations that are not redundant to the above.

The questions are as follows (they may be different facets of the same
question(s)): Can the people sitting in the separate-seating section
be thought to be participating in a valid minyan? Is this an acceptable
arrangement within the main sanctuary of the synagogue?

My add-on query: What is the lowest height that the mechitza could be
and still be deemed acceptable by someone whose authority one might rely
on at least be-sh'aas hadkhak?

From: "Noah S. Rothstein" <noahrothstein@mindspring.com>

> There is a story of two gedolim in Eretz Yisroel, that one asked the other why
> such a great man as him takes the time to toivel every day- Isn't it bitul
> Torah? The one who toiveled answered: "If a mikvah can change a goy into a
> Yid, imagine what it can do for someone already a Yid!".

It is an interesting argument - problem is, it is flawed. Mikva alone does 
not make a someone into a Jew. One can immerse a myriad of times and it will 
not effect the change of status without mila / hatafas dam bris, kabbolas 
mitzvos (all of them!) and beis din approval.

Also, if someone is toveil visheretz biyodo, the tevila doesn't help either. 
Perhaps the above is why misnagdim, for the most part, place less emphasis on 
mikvah. Perhaps they think that the most important tevila is in the mayim 
chayim of Torah / yam talmud.

Mordechai

I found the following in
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/dafyomi2/chagigah/backgrnd/ch-in-11.htm

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

8) [line 36] ARBA'IM SE'AH (MEASUREMENTS OF VOLUME) 1
Eifah = 3 Se'in
1 Se'ah = 6 Kabim
1 Kav = 4 Lugim
1 Log = 6 Beitzim
1 Beitzah = approximately 0.0576 liters or 0.1 liters, depending upon the
differing Halachic opinions 40 Se'ah = approximately 331.7 liters or 576
liters, depending upon the differing Halachic opinions

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

ie 9 kabim should be about 12.43 liters or 21.6 liters (according to CI)
of water. Put a known size pail under the shower head and measure how long
it takes to fill and thus extrapolate for the time for 12.43/21.6 liters
to flow.

I understand that in many hevrot kedisha, they use a hose pipe to tovel
the body before burial.

Obviously d'oraitha (for Tvilas nashim/kelim) this method is not valid.
The question that does comes to mind if a male, Erev Yom Kippur has a hiuv
derabonnan to tovel in a kosher lenashim/kelim mikveh

Daniel

[Forwarded by RYGB. -mi]

1)  The first "Derech" is the famous explanation that "Nashim" are only 
"Patur" when the only "Machriah" is the zman however by "Omer" the 
"machriah" is also the "omer".  The interesting point in this "Biur" 
(which incidently is based on the Turei Haeven by Bikurim (Daf 20:)) is 
that there is no discussion as to whether women should be "Chayav" or 
"Patur"  based on the reasoning of Korban but rather, that the only 
"Petur" of "Mitzvas Aseh Shezam Grama" is when the only "Machriah" is 
"Zman"  and here there is another "Machriah" (This can be found in the 
Chazon Yechezkel and Mikrai Kodesh (Frank))

2)  The second Derech is based on the Avnei Nezer ( Chelek Bes No. 384) 
that since it says by Omer not the date 16th of Nissan but rather 
"Memocharas Hashabbas" then it is dependant on Pesach.  And even though 
Pesach is   "Zman" orientated, women are obligated in the Mitzvas of 
Pesach and hence are obligated in the Mitzvah of Omer.   Here he is 
concerned with what the other Machriah is.

3)  I want to propose three other Derarchim.  Firstly, that the Mitzvas 
Sefiras Haomer is dependant on the Korban Omer (at least the counting of 
the weeks, while the days are dependant on Shevuos) and since women have a 
Chelek in the Korban Tzibur they are obligated to count the Omer.  And 
even though you might say that the Korbon itself is a Mitzvas Eseh 
Shehazman Grama, (since you can't bring it in the day) we could explain 
that this is not so, since it is not the day that is Gorem the obligation 
to bring a Korban but rather it is a Din in the Korban that it must be 
brought in the day.  In other words according to the Ramban the only Petur 
of Mitzvah Eseh Shehazman Grama  is when the Chiyuv Zman is on the Gavra 
however in the halacha of Sefiras Haomer which is dependant on Korban Omer 
the Chiyuv of Zman is on the Chefza.  Secondly, there are Issurim attached 
to the Korban Omer,  namely the Issur to be Kozer prior etc. Perhaps this 
would remove the Petur of Mitzvas Aseh Shezman Grama like we find by other 
Dinim.  Thirdly, we could explain Al pi the derech of the Avnei Nezer by 
simply saying that "Mimocharas Hashabas" is not considered "Shehazman 
Grama", because the classic terminology "Shehazman Grama" is when the 
Torah lists a calendar day, without having to attach it to the "Chag 
Hapesach".

P.S.  It is interesting to note the list of potential Mitzvas listed by 
the Achronim that the Ramban was speaking about according to those who 
held that it is a  Taus Soferim :  1)  Matnus Aniyim (I get Mem go mixed 
with Samech) 2) Seder Haovoda  3) Sefiras Hazava

[From a 2nd email, also forwarded. -mi]

One additional thought is that a Mitzvas Aseh Shezman Grama is when the 
Mitzvah must be performed in a certain time frame but here the counting of 
the time frame is the Mitzvah  that perhaps could be different

From R' Gershon Steinmetz (slightly modified):

> I remember hearing from R' Ezra Schochet that there is a metzius of
> "yemay hoimer" that has to be counted, and that cheftza only exists
> between pesach & shvous. (similar to the idea of kiddush levana & Turei
> Even about bicurim, just that the zman itself is the cheftza d'mitzva,
> not just korbon oimer).Maybe this could be used as a Rogatchover derech
> (gedarim in zman)?

Your most recent "voss is der chiluk" about the Ramban on s'firas ha'omer,
brought back memories. As a teen-ager on the way to Yeshiva in Eretz
Yisroel, I had the z'chus to meet, and be given a brief three-question
b'china on Kidduhin, by Harav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg z"l.

That was one of the questions asked. My answer, which he was m'kabel,
was that mitzvas aseh shehaz'man grama means an act of mitzvah, to be
performed at a specific time. In s'firas haomer, on th other hand,
the z'man is part of the ma'aseh hamitzvah: it's not, e.g., "eat in
the succah," but do it on 15 Tishtei; rather, it's "count 16 Nissan."
Of course, assuming that it's not a ta'us had'fus, this would imply that
the Ramban holds that the day, too, is z'man s'firah.

B'virkas chag kasher v'sameach,
Elazar M. Teitz

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:36:21PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: The answer, I believe, is to be found in Pesachim 5a, where it says that 
: the pasuk in Shemos 12:18 "Ba'rishon b'arba'asar..." means "On the first 
: day of Pesach, the fourteenth.

If you look at the lashon of the pasuk, the term "Pesach" refers to the
14th, which is followed by 7 days of "Chag haMatzos".

: The first day of Pesach proper is called Shabbos ("Me'Mochoras ha'Shabbos") 
: - but that is not the first day of Pesach! The fourteenth is the first day 
: of Pesach. The fifteenth is described as "Me'Mochoras ha'Pesach" (Bamidbar 
: 33:3). Indeed, Noch Chatzos on Erev Pesach has gedorim of Chol ha'Mo'ed
: Pesach.

I therefore need help understanding this discussion. The 15th, even
bilashon haTorah is the first day of a chag -- just that the chag
isn't called Pesach. So, why the specialness of chatzos?

-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

The discussion of how to obtain kosher liPesach yeast came up on Areivim.

An interesting point to note about the permissability of yeast but not
of si'or.

Si'or is an attachment to the past. You're taking the yeast present in
an earlier batch of dough and using it to prime a new batch. The earlier
batch itself was primed from one before it, and so on...

When the Benei Yisrael left Mitzrayim, it was important to cut ties to
their base, tamei, lifestyle there. In particular, those elements of
Mitzri culture that are machmetzos the neshamah.

That is why it's bedavka si'or that's assur, not every leavening agent.

Comments? Reactions?
-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

2 quick questions

1. Is it common for siddurim to have the chazzan stopping at Al Harishonim
after kriat shma rather than at laad kayamet?

2.The practice of giving tzedakah in the middle of vayivarech david is
brought down in at least one contemporary siddur as the seeming common
practice. I know it's mentioned in the mishna brurah as the practice of
the Ari - is this common practice among chasidim? Was it common in non
chassidic areas?

Interesting is that the M"A brings it down but says the Ari gave tzedaka
when the kahal was at that point, even if he wasn't(this isn't brought
down in M"B). Also interesting is that the M"B mentions some have a
practice of giving during kriat hatorah but this isn't appropriate due
to distraction - so why do many do it during chazarat hashatz and why
isn't the Ari's practice a distraction from psukei dzimrah?

KT &CKV
Joel

I was at a shiur this MSh that touched on this subject (chametz that
falls into the water supply on Pesach).. Here's a brief recap, sorry
about the lack of sources. The Nesivos seems to be the first one to
bring up this shailoh in correspondence with the Sefer Yehoshua? (an
uncle of the Minchas Chinuch?) specifically - if someone tosses chometz
into a resivour/lake/well on Pesach where it's assur b'mashehu AND kavush
k'mevushal, 24 hrs later you have water cooked with chometz and it should
be assur R Shlomo Kluger is metaretz that kavush k'mevushal is only in
stagnant water. The problem with this is that the Remo holds by chometz
you don't need kavush to asser. Shaarie Teshuvah - chidush that mashehu
is only assur when it belongs to a Yehudi Yad Yehuda - mashehu is only
assur when it can affect the taste

The person giving the shiur said he had heard of Tzaddikim being machmir

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

On 1 Apr 2001, at 14:49, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
>          It seems to me that if the child is above bar/bas mitzvah
> age, and has earned money from outside sources (such as babysitting)
> and bought chometz with it, then it clearly belongs to the child, and
> the parents would be unable to sell it on the child's behalf.
...
> Further, if the child is not aware of any specific chometz still
> remaining, but is choshesh that he might have some unfound chometz
> somewhere and does not want to rely on his bittul, then too, he must
> sell it himself and cannot rely on his parents.

Where's the daas makneh? 

-- Carl

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.

Why do we do bedikas chametz davka at night? Does this make sense?
Am I allowed to ask if it makes sense? Experience tells me that I can see
things much better in a fully lighted room, counter-intuitive apologetics
notwithstanding.

Gil Student

This, slightly modified, is the feedback and suggestion of one of the 
participants in VIDC.

>As far as VIDC goes on Avodah, after a month of trial I think it should 
>die a natural death. What's the point?  I was just going to ignore the 
>whole thing, but figured I will just let you know what I think.

>My suggestion is to change the format to more of a chaburah style - one 
>person take a topic for each week and at least spell out the gemara, the 
>shitas Rishonim, and some of the derachim in the achronim.  e.g., by 
>bittul chametz write over the mach. Tos., Rashi, Ran, and how the sugyos 
>work out.  If someone took the time to write up at least the basic shitos 
>and chakiros for me at least it would be more valuable than just reading 
>sevaros that people shoot from the hip with no connection to 
>anything.  Also, this way even those who cannot think of a sevara will 
>walk away with at least a grounding in some basic shitos rishonim and some 
>idea of what the issue are.  Your call, or maybe throw it out for a vote.

Since the feedback has been limited (one or maybe two positive reactions, 
and this reaction to counterbalance those), as we are approaching the end of 
the "zman" (Pesach), I would like to ask, before continuing (I will post a 
summary for this week), whether the Oilem (in particular lurkers) have a 
significant interest in continuing, or whether we have demonstrated the 
feasibility of the process and shown creativity, and it is time to move on.

Please let me know, publicly or privately.

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

> Why do we do bedikas chametz davka at night? Does this make sense?
> Am I allowed to ask if it makes sense? Experience tells me that I can
> see things much better in a fully lighted room,

B'sha'ah sh'bnei adam metzuyim b'bateihem (Pesachim4a). Most of us are
at work during the day.

At 11:02 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>I therefore need help understanding this discussion. The 15th, even
>bilashon haTorah is the first day of a chag -- just that the chag
>isn't called Pesach. So, why the specialness of chatzos?

Chag has to do with the korbon.

That is probably why Chazal instituted the lashon of Yom Tov instead.

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

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website:

www.dorrevii.org or
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

Rabban Gamliel haya omeir kol she-lo amar sh'loshah d'varim eilu ba-pesah
lo yatza y'dei hovato . . . she-ne'ema va-amartem zevah pesah:

See Tosafot who wrote (Pesahim 116b d.h. va-amartem)

The Scripture means an oral statement, so that one must say "this Pesah
sacrifice that we are eating." And matzah and maror are compared to the
Pesah sacrifice, and one must say "this matzah" and "this maror"

From their words it appears that in the Mishnah the proof text
(Exodus 12:27) "that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord's
passover, for that He passed over the houses of the children of Israel
in Egypt" (va-amartem zevah pesah hu la-Shem asher pasah al batei b'nei
yisrael b'mitrayim) immediately follows the words "and they are these"
(v'eilu hein). Thus, according to the Tosafot, Rabban Gamliel derives
the obligation to say "this pesah" from this verse and then derives the
obligation to say "this matzah" and "this maror" by comparison (hekeish)
to pesah. And according to this, contrary to the author of the Haggadah,
the proof text "va-amertem zevah pesah" is sufficient for all three,
because pesah is mentioned explicitly and the other two are deduced
from pesah. For the author of the Haggadah believed that the verse
"va-amertem zevah pesah" was a proof text only for the obligation to say
"this pesah." He therefore brought the proof text after writing: "This
Pesah which our fathers ate in the Temple days, what was the reason for
it? . . . as it is written.." The author of the Haggadah therefore had
to bring another proof text for matzah and for maror.

However, the words of the Tosafot are correct and reasonable because
the text of the Mishnah published in the Mishnayot does not bring any
proof texts, while in the text of the Mishnah published in the Gemara
these proof texts are written within parentheses. So the canonical text
corresponds to the opinion of the Tosafot that Rabban Gamliel brought
the verse "va-amaretem" as a proof text for his main proposition that
anyone who did not say these three things did not fulfill his obligation,
not as the explanation for why the pesah is eaten. And some copyist who
misunderstood how Rabban Gamliel derived his law from this verse must
have inserted the verse "va-amartem" below as a proof text for why the
pesah is brought, and was then required to add other verses for matzah
and maror. However, the correct reading accords with the opinion of
the Tosafot that immediately after "v'eilu hein pesah matzah u-maror"
one should insert the proof text, "she-ne'emar va-amartem zevah pesah."

One may add a further proof to the words of Tosafot to prove this
derivation from this verse, for the verse "va-amartem" is the answer that
is written in the Torah to the question of the wicked son: "mah ha-avodah
ha-zot la-khem" (what is this service unto you?). And to this question,
the Torah says: "va-amartem zevah pesah." The author of the Haggadah
in fact ignores this answer and provides a different one (Exodus 13:8):
"because of that which the Lord did for me when I went forth from Egypt"
For me, but not for him. And our master has previously elaborated on
why it does not say "va-amartem lo" (and ye shall say to him) as it says
in reference to the other sons, e.g., "v'higadta l'vinkha" (thou shalt
tell thy son), "v'amarta eilav" (thou shalt say unto him). And from this
difference in wording our master concluded that it is improper to respond
to the wicked son with a curse, but only to respond by putting his teeth
on edge by saying: "for me, but not for him." (And our master explained
there, how this answer is relevant to the son who is incapable of asking.)
At any rate, the verse "va-amartem zevah pesah" is not answer to any
questioner, in which case to whom should it be said if not to one's
own son? Rabban Gamliel therefore properly deduces that even for one
who has no son to question him, it is obligatory to say "this pesah."
And as the Tosafot wrote, R. Gamliel compared matzah and maror to pesah,
so one is also obligated to say "this matzah" and "this maror."

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]