Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 009

Tuesday, March 26 2002

• Re: Korbonos l'osid lovo..
• Re: Korbonos l'osid lovo..
• Re: Korbonos l'osid lovo..
• Korbonos l'asid lovo
• Reading the nesi'im
• RE: Matzo He'oros from my Brother in Law
• history of hagadah
• Seder, Letizonus and Matzo
• Re: "Ve'od Toneh Bar Kapporo...
• Re: Ben Olam Haba (was: what we daven for?)
• Re: Freedom
• Re: Gilgul and Reason
• Taanos B'choros
• Re: Freedom
• Administrivia: Chol HaMoed Get Together
• Re: emunas chachomim
• Re: Gilgul and Reason
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Corn/Cosmetics on Pesach
• Re: Freedom
• Re: Corn/Cosmetics on Pesach
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: Meciras Chametz -some hearos
• Mah Nishtanah

From: <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
> Given that you pause between "vaisecho" and "v'ishai Yisroel" ...
> you might be able to answer your own question, as "v'ishai Yisroel" is then
> connected to "u-s'filasam," hence the explanation that it refers to people,
> not korbanos, and specifically to tzadikim, and especially when
> they have passed on from this world.

See the Otzar Hatefilos Siddur on this where indeed in one pshat he
translates 've'ishei' as 'v'anshei' and talks about the neshomos of tzadikim
that maloch Gavriel[?] is makriv.

SBA

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> SBA wrote:
>> Looking into some sEforim, I was referred to a Midrash Tanchuma (Emor 14)
>> which says "...Kol hakorbonos b'teilim vekorban toda eino botel le'olom..."

> That is referring to the korbenos yachid like chatas and asham.  Korbenos
> tzibbur will still be around.

Source?

SBA

SBA wrote:
>>That is referring to the korbenos yachid like chatas and asham.  Korbenos
>>tzibbur will still be around.

>Source?

Yefeh Toar to Vayikra Rabbah 9:7, 27:12.

Gil Student

I don't understand why some chaverim take aggadic passages in Chazal
literally when they appear to conflict with passages in the Torah.
Chazal are known for exaggerated expressions and figurative language
in such contexts. In the context ot the passage in Medrash Tanchuma,
however, there is no conflict. The medrash refers to a time after
techiyat ha'metim and the removal of the yetzer ha'ra from mankind.
It further assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that even sins
committed in error will be eliminated. Under such conditions, there
would be no occassion for the bringing of individual chata'ot and ashamim
according to the Torah. Todot, however, will always be brought since
there is always an important place for expressing thankfulness to Hashem.
The korbonot tzibbur legislated by the Torah appears also to be an eternal
mandate since the Torah uses the expression "Chukat olam le'doroseichem"
with reference to the korban tamid and to many of the festival korbonot.
One would have to argue that "le'doroteichem" may exclude the period
after techiyat hametim (if there will no longer be new offspring) in
order to allow the possibility of a radical change in the function of
a bet hamikdash.

Yitzchok Zlochower

I looked up the Kaf Hachaim which R' Carl mentioned, and he does quote the
Shlah to read the parashas hamenorah. However, that is to be read on the
13th day of Nissan, NOT as the tail end of the 12th as is commonly done.

I ask again, is there any source to read it as the end of the reading
of the 12th, similar to Chanuka?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>The Maor V'Shemesh writes that man and matzah are opposites - the 40 
>years in the midbar when man fell were marked by no korban Pesach and 
>hence no real kiyum of achilas matzah (certainly acc. to the m"d that 
>it would be derabbanan, but even if d'oryasa, not a full kium).  When 
>klal yisrael come to E.Y., they renew the korban pesach and at the same 
>time the man stops.

Where is this Maor V'Shemesh? 
The Gemara in Kiddushin (38) says that the Oogos (=matzos) that Bnei
Yisroel took with them from Mitzrayim had the taste of Man. Which seems
to be more of an equation than a contrast.

One book dedicated to the history of the hagadah is
hagadat chazal (Hebrew)
by Shmuel & Zeev Safrai (father & son) from
Hebrew U and Bar-Ilan. They discuss in depth the
historical status of the hagadah through the ages and
its development.

I remember they claim that the sources that discuss the seder during the
Temple days discuss mainly the Hallel aspect and the korban. He claims
that most of maggid is post Temple including the 4 cups of wine. During
the Temple days (they claim) only the first and third cups were drunk
(kiddush & birchat hamazon). We know that the 4 cups is rabbinic but
mefarshim don't usually discuss when the derabban took effect. Safrai
claim that most of the last perek in Pesachim is post churban except for
the machloket bet hillel and bet shamai as to how to split the hallel. The
later derashot of the origin of 4 cups against 4 leshonot is to explain
an existing minhag rather than being the basis of the institution of
the custom.

They also claim that by measuring the size of the azarah and excluding
the mizbeach etc that not more than a few thousand korbanot could have
been brought. Each person came with his sheep and it seems with his knife
and most people slaughtered their own sheep. Assuming an average of
about 20 people per korban that gives a total amount of 50-100 thousand
participants.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 03/24/2002

> The purpose of the Seder is obviously not to say over nissim, no?

>> Actually it's mefurosh in Rambam , Chometz U matzo beginning perek zayin: 
>> Mitzvas Asseh shel Torah Lesaper Nissim etc.

The Rambam in CuM 7 brings down four, maybe more, separate mitzvos:
Sippur, L'ha'ros, Charoses and Marror! I would say that if the essential
ikkar of 15 Nissan the way the Ba'al Haggadah intended it to be is the
Sippur, he did a pretty lousy job (I admit that this is not my exclusive
insight - I heard elements of this from an Odom Gadol).

I bought one of my children "The Little Medrash Says" Haggadah this year -
they should've let him write the Haggadah! Tons of Midrashim that are not
in the Haggadah - why could the Ba'al Haggadah not included all this stuff
(and, I might add, there are a lot of pesukim that are missing from the
Haggadah as well)? It seems that the Haggadah is primarily written as
zemiros v'sishbochos to HKB"H.

Fundamentally, of course, our Emunah is based on the Exodus: "Onochi
Hashem Elokecho ahser hotzeitzicho mei'eretz Mitzrayim mi'beis
avodim." Thus, it seems to me that Seder night is essentially an
opportunity for contemplation of that Emunah - the essence of "B'chol
dor va'dor" - and the *purpose* of the Sippur.

The Telzer Rosh Yeshiva, R' Yosef Leib Bloch, makes this very point in
the Shiur Da'as "Nishmas ha'Torah" - he says that if Chazal wanted to
enact great audio-visual pageants for the Seder, they could have done
a far better job - but they b'davka made a subtle, nuanced Seder, in
order that the message ("Hagar'in ha'nachon, roshem ha'nefesh ha'penimi")
not be lost in the ritual.

Perhaps this why Pesach ne'echal b'chaburah, and the Seder night defies
the standard principle of "B'rov Am hadras Melech" - because a public
gathering - a "communal seder" - diminishes the capacity for contemplation
and internalization.

Thus, perhaps, the Seder can really a time for meditation, contemplation -
and, of course, true tefillos of simcha and hisromemus. (I am not sure if
inane tunes like the one commonly used for "Dayenu" achieve that purpose!)
The Sippur is intentionally curtailed to allow for more his'pa'alus.

Me'inyan l'inyan, earlier this season I wrote:
>There is an interesting thing about many Letter Tzaddi (or Tzaddik)
>based words - they connote some measure of constriction or pressure. For
>example: "Hinei zeh omed achar kosleinu mashgi'ach min ha'chalonos
>MEITZITZ min ha'charackim" - the word MEITZITZ means to look through a
>narrow aperture or to squint.
>
>There seems to be a distinction between similar types of words in this
>category: Mem-Tzaddi words vs. Tzaddi-Mem words. The M-TZ words, such as
>Motzatz imply applying pressure or squeezing (perhaps via the connotation
>of the Mem prefix - "From" - i.e., "from something to squeeze") while the
>TZ-M words, such as Tzameh, thirsty, imply the void created as a result
>(i.e., "what is the result of the squeezing process"). The distinction,
>however, seems somewhat arbitrary, and needs some fine-tuning.
>
>All of this likely has to do with the more esoteric concept of a tzaddik
>(without getting into the exact appellation of the letter, the Gemara in
>Shabbos links it to the tzaddik persona), who is the gibbor ha'kovesh -
>applies pressures to - yitzro. I think in the Kabbalistic system also,
>the "tzaddik yesod olam" represents the narrowed pathway through which
>the shefa flows back and forth from the upper sefiros to malchus and vice
>versa. 90 is a 10 (shleymus) multiple of 9, and yesod is the ninth sefira.
>
>Phonetically, the pronunciation of the tzaddi also sounds and requires
>the tongue to squeeze the palate.
>
>Thus, a word like Matzah probably pertains to the pressure applied to
>the dough to prevent its rising - which is why an alternate meaning of
>the word is an altercation, in which two parties apply pressure to one
>another. "Le'matzos" means to pour out completely - extracting every
>last drop from a barrel, and, of course Mitz is the result of Metzitzah,
>which extracts juice, and Tamtzis is essence. And, of course, Meitzar
>is a narrowed space. A Metziah is something that came through a process
>of narrowing your search until you hit upon the found object.

Rabbi Feuer, in his Shabbos ha'Gadol derosho that I attended yesterday,
focused on leitzonus and its evils. His mention of the term caused me
to ruminate on the following:

Letz is the antithesis of Tzel. Tzel, shadow or reflection, is a pretty
positive word, the basis of the word Tzelem, which, of course, captures
our essence as Tzelem Elokim. Letz, a scofer, scorner, super-cynic, is
one of the most negative terms in existence (albeit it is not in Chumash,
I believe, appearing first in Yeshaya, and most heavily in Mishlei -
perhaps Yeshaya was mechaddesh the word to define certain phenomena?).

It would seem thus: The Tzaddi, or Tzaddik, represents the application
of pressure or squeezing - tzimtzum. In the word Tzel, the Tzaddik is
like the aperture of the camera that controls the flow of light (much
as the tzaddik controls the flow of the olamos, elyonim to tachtonim
and tachtonim to elyonim). What happens when the light gets beyond that
aperture (or lens - one of the translations of the "aspeklaria" through
which the tzaddikim perceive the Shechina as defined in Mes. Sukkah)? The
proper use of the constricted light is to learn from it and expand it
and go towards it - all reflected by the Lamed, which connotes Limud,
expansion towards the Olamos Elyonim (as connoted by the vav ascending
from the top of the Lamed) and its meaning as a prefix "to".

The Letz is one who takes the greatness of the Lamed and all its
connotations, and squeezes it - rather than taking the diminshed light
that made its way through the aperture and the lens and expanding upon
it as much as possible, he takes whatever light is connoted by the Lamed
and squeezes - treads upon it and pounds it.

Of course, Pharoh scoffed at Hashem: "Me Hashem asher eshma b'kolo" -
and Moshe warned him to stop scoffing: "Al yosef Paroh hasel" (sidebar:
note the mention of Yosef ha'Tzaddik!) , and Hashem later comments on the
mockery he made of Mitzrayim in return: "Es asher his'alalti b'Mitzrayim."
One big comedy! Shlomo ha'Melech say in Mishlei, capturing the essence of
Yetzi'as Mitzrayim: "Nachonu l'leitzim shefotim." Indeed, I believe the
shoresh of Letz is Lotzatz - gimatriya 210, the years of the shi'abud -
as the purpose of Yetzi'as Mitrzayim is the penetration of layers of
leitzonus and hashovo la'alev.

Matzo is from M-Tz. What is the difference between L-Tz and M-Tz?
"L" means "to" and "M" means "from" (in the prefix form). To quash an
aspiration to go towards greatness is a very negative phenomenon that
is the essence of leitzonus. To quash an aspiration to proceed away from
greatness is actually a good thing. To try you patience with yet another
gimatriya, M-Tz is the tikkun for Kuf-Lamed (both 130) as Kallus Rosh
is an ally, if not identical, with leitzonus.

Chometz is captured in Mishlei: "Zed yohir Letz shemo" - yehirus is
haughtiness, and the Ches is the haughtiness that ruins (ches as churban,
although on Shavuos the ches is elevation - not haughtiness - which is
why the shnei ha'lechem are chametz, but not for now!) the M-Tz attempt
to arrest the flight from greatness. The Matzoh is the antidote for that
problem, of course, the fermentation process arrested.

More can be said on this, perhaps if I have time later this week (I
can hear the groans :-) ) I will expand some more, but yishma chochom
v'yosif lekach!

Kol Tuv, and Chag Kasher v'Samei'ach,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Yisrael Dubitsky
>>>>>> While it is true that the maamarim [there are *two* Tani
Bar Kaparas]as such do not exist, there are pretty close parallels:
1. Yerushalmi Yoma 4:5 (41d)<<<<

Close? It doesn't have it.

>>>>>>>2. According to the Orhot Hayim (of R Aharon ha-Kohen of Lunel)
it is found in Yerushalmi Orlah. [Not found in modern editions or 5
manuscripts I checked, but, then, I'm not sure where in Orlah it might
have gone. This might be a printer/copyist's error in the OH or an
indication of differences with our Yerushalmi.]<<<<<<

At the back of the Yerushalmi (Yoma 4:5) I was using the 'Toroson shel
Rishonim' brings this but adds that it doesn't appear in our Yerushalmi
Orlah.


>>>>RSBA is to be commended for his tabulating of what he has called
in the past "phantom maamarei Chazal" [a listing of certain importance]
but, alas, this instance I'm afraid doesn't qualify.<<<

Of course and I never thought of placing this on that list.
I was just commenting on the fact that we don't have it in our Talmudim.

SBA

On 22 Mar 2002 at 15:23, Micha Berger wrote:
>: I think "yeish lahem chelek" is how you start out - but you can blow
>: it. After all the Mishna goes on to enumerate people who don't have a
>: chelek. A "ben olam haba" is someone who is assured a place. 

> Except that Hillel tells us that no one can be assured of themselves
> ad yom mosecha. Wouldn't that include not be assured of a place?

Not necessarily. There are places and there are places - there is
nothing that I know of that says that everyone's place in Olam HaBa is
equal. Hillel means that you cannot be assured that you will remain a
tzadik. With respect to Olam HaBa, I would interpret that as meaning
that you cannot be assured of the quality of your place.

-- 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.

R' Daniel Eidensohn asked <<< Can a person be free from G-d? ... is
slavery the opposite of cheirus or can they exist at the same time? >>>

He raised many interesting questions in that post which I cannot answer. I
am especially intrigued by the suggestion that *Shavuos* is the time of
our freedom.

Nevertheless, for whatever value you might find in it, I once saw an
interesting quote (sorry I don't remember the source) which I try to
always mention at my Seder: "Freedom is when you stop being a slave to
what you don't like, and become a slave to what you do like."

Akiva Miller

Micha wrote:
>"Clear majority"? I didn't think it was rov rishonim. Rov acharonim, yes. 
>But most rishonim that discuss existance after misah don't include it in 
>their description.

I meant that the majority of those who discuss gilgul do not reject it.
Also keep in mind that many rishonim intentionally hid this belief.
The Ramban never discusses it openly. He only hints to it. I believe
that one of the Blau boys (Yitzy?) wrote an excellent article on gilgul
in the most recent Torah uMadda Journal. I'll have to take another look
at it.

>Isn't this in itself the point under dispute? R' Saadia Gaon's rejection is 
>clearly based on the assumption that the idea was imported from other 
>religions, and did NOT have a mesorah.

If you are correct that the dispute revolves over whether there is
a masora, then I have won my argument. Not everything is decided by
reason and logic.

If there were a tradition then that would trump logic.

Someone asked how gilgul can be logically disproven. RCC said that if a
person's neshamah is his potential intellect, then his accomplishments are
defined by what his intellect acquires. If he goes through a gilgul then
his intellect must bring with it all that it has acquired. Otherwise,
he is a different person. However, we know that babies are born without
previous knowledge. Since babies do not have any acquired knowledge,
they must not be a gilgul. He then rejects this based on the tradition
of gilgul.

Gil Student

: MiPi Shmuah from Rabbi Tzvi Finer:
...
: RSZA answers with the following. The fact is that the common perception of
: the reason for Taanis B'choros, that of fasting because G-d spared us from
: that Maka, is NOT the reason for the Taanis. The reason is because the
: B'chorim lost the Kahuna... the HALACHIC B'chorim. This is why B'Chorim
: fast and the reason we do it on erev Pesach is because that day was the
: busiest day in the year for Kohanim. ....                     The reason
: we are encouraged to have a Siyum is because the learning of Torah is
: the ultimate antidote to the loss and is the only way to compensate for
: this loss.

If this is true, then can someone answer the following question:

It was my (erronious?) belief that that pidyon haBen does not apply to a
male who was born after a mother's miscarriage, which would seem to imply
that such a male would not be part of the Kehuna.  If so, why is such a
male obligated to fast on erev Pesach?

-- Sholom

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>Pesach is described as the time of our freedom - cheirus. But at the same 
>time we were freed from Egypt only to becomes slaves of G-d.

R. Yaakov Meidan discusses this in the Pesach package recently sent out
by Gush's VBM. Unfortunately, I only have it in hard copy right now.
One point that jumped out at me is that the common phrase "Let my people
go" is a half phrase. "Shelach as ami /veya'avduni/"

Gil Student

Repeat Announcement. So far there has not been a lot of response, but last
year a lot of people showed up without responding. For those wondering
about times, figure 2:00-5:00. And BE"H it will warm up a little bit :-)

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
To:             	Areivim@aishdas.org, Avodah@aishdas.org
Subject:        	Chol HaMoed Get Together
Date sent:      	Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:17:01 +0200

Adina and I wish to invite those of the Chevra who will be in Eretz
Yisrael for Pesach to the third annual Avodah/Areivim Chol HaMoed get

together at our home in Ramat Shlomo in Yerushalayim.

We are planning to the make the get together on Sunday afternoon, the

third day of Chol HaMoed (for those of you in Chu"l, we count Chol
HaMoed differently than you do :-) on the assumption that Birkas Kohanim
will be Sunday morning (first non-Yom Tov day for all), and that way
people planning on coming for Birkas Kohanim will have what to do in
the afternoon and not have to come in for another day to attend. No
promises, but in the past there has usually been a direct bus between
my neighborhood and the Kotel on Chol HaMoed.

If you are interested, please drop me an email. I will try bli neder to
find the maps on my computer that someone sent me last year, but I

will send directions bli neder to all who respond.

Please note that the food will likely not be as elaborate as it was
last year, so please don't count on making lunch out of it :-) We look
forward to seeing you!

-- Carl

I thank David Riceman and Daniel Eidensohn for reminding me of the Mishnah
in Avot that mentions emunat hakhamim as one of the 49 ways in which the
crown of torah is acquired. I agree that it is likely that the concept of
emunas chachomim as the term is now understood (though actually one of
my questions was how is the term now understood) is derived from emunat
hakhamim of the Mishnah. But it does not appear to me that emunat hakhamim
of the Mishnah refers to any set of normative beliefs that one is supposed
to have in the hakhamim, but simply means that without appropriate trust
in one's teachers one cannot gain for himself the crown of torah. The
Mishnah seems to be talking about personal traits not systems of belief.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On 25 Mar 2002 at 11:02, Gil Student wrote:
> I meant that the majority of those who discuss gilgul do not reject it.
> Also keep in mind that many rishonim intentionally hid this belief.
> The Ramban never discusses it openly. He only hints to it. 

IIRC he is pretty explicit about it when he discusses Moshe Rabbeinu 
being a gilgul of Hevel at the beginning of Sefer Shmos. 

-- Carl

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.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Sholom and I were recently discussing a further column in my
redaction of R' Akiva Miller's list of shitos for which days of
the omer to observe. (RAM's version was on Mail-Jewish. I made some
nit-picky corrections (and got lazy drawing the table) and produced
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n043.shtml#15>.

Sholom wrote me:
: I have been told (via email) that:
: "in Shulchan Aruch Harav, he writes that one is permitted to get a hair cut
: on Lag Baomer and on all the Yemei Hagbalah."
: Unfortunately, I don't have a cite.  And I don't have the S"A HaRav, so I
: can't find it...

Sounds like a variant of my column B, but with Lag Ba'omer
excluded. Possibly also the first night of the YhG, possibly not.

If anyone can find a m"m for the L shitah for me, I'd greatly appreciate
it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

Was corn eaten in Europe. My rav thinks that it was only "discovered"
when the Europeans came to America in the 16th century. Therefore, the
original minhag of kitniyos could not have applied to corn. He doesn't
want to be meikel until he does more historical research. Does anyone
have any sources on the history of corn?

He also told me that R. Tuvia Goldstein said that he once went with
R. Moshe Feinstein and R. YE Henkin to be mevaker choleh and RYEH brought
up owning chametzdik cosmetics on Pesach. RMF said that they were not
ra'uy le'achilas kelev and RYEH said that he had once seen in Europe
a dog eat cosmetics (perfume?). RMF replied that in Europe people were
poor and could not feed their dogs well so the dogs would eat anything.
American dogs are well fed and wouldn't eat it. I said that this seems to
contradict what R. Blumenkrantz writes in the name of RMF and my rav said
that R. Tuvia Goldstein is a bar samcha to relay a statement lehalachah.

Gil Student

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:05:02PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Bottom line - is slavery the opposite of cheirus or can they exist at
: the same time?

Isn't this a false dichotomy?

What if cheirus is a spectrum that starts with freedom from slavery (avadai
heim, velo avadim la'avadim) but isn't complete until one chooses to be an
eved Hashem (cheirus al haluchos)?

This definition of cheirus works better with the mussar approach that one is
always enslaved to something, and therefore "freedom" can only be defined in
terms of choosing the right Thing to be enslaved to. (The approach that making
money your top priority is A"Z.) Likach notzarta -- an eved Hashem is following
the goal he was created for. Any other goal is therefore objectively inferior.

Also related is my DT on why charoses, which is supposed to look
like mortar, is consistantly made sweet by all contemporary minhagim
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach.html>. The tzivuyim of HQBH are, bottom
line, also what are best for us. To the outsider they are the mortar of
parech, but once experienced they're sweet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:17:29AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: Was corn eaten in Europe...

No, it was not. The word "corn" used to mean wheat in British
English, and referred to oats in Scotland and Ireland. See
<http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/100-199/nb118.htm>. (Just trying to
get my tax dollar's worth. <grin>)

Add to this that the bigger issue we have with corn is not kitniyos, but
mei kitniyos. Think how many products would be usable if they didn't use
corn syrup or corn starch.

But then, most of the species of kitniyos eaten today are also new world
foods, including peas, arbes, string, kidney and lima beans. Of the
old-world beans, the only one I recognized the name of was soy. See also
<http://newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/200-299/nb261.htm>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On 26 Mar 2002 at 13:47, Micha Berger wrote:
> Sholom and I were recently discussing a further column in my
> redaction of R' Akiva Miller's list of shitos for which days of
> the omer to observe...
> If anyone can find a m"m for the L shitah for me, I'd greatly appreciate
> it.

SA HaRav OH 493:7.

-- Carl

For those interested in learning how meciras chametz developed, look
un HaMoadim BHalacha. R Zevin ZTl has a fascinating discussion on
this inyan. RHS has said on numerous times that there is a machlokes
haAcharonim between the Nesivos and the Ktzos as to whether a haarama can
be used to nullify a mitzvas aseh , as opposed to protecting one from
an issur. Tosfos in Bchoros ( 5a or b) posits that a haarama cannot be
used to avoida mitzvas aseh such as pidyon peter chamor and the Nesivos
applies this Shita to Meciras Chametz. RHS has quoted RYBS on many
instances as dissaproving of the shtar mecirah for actual chametz. R
Wiilig also suggested that the shtar makes a lot more sense if the Rav
allows a Non Jew to enter and actually remove the Chametz just to show
that the sale is a real kinyan.

Look at the MB's comments in which he insists also that the sale be
accompanied by as many of the requirements of sale as possible . The
shtar is a real sale if it is used properly.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

We were discussing on Areivim the notion of "Mah Nishtanah", and I
commented that having your kids sing a well memorized prepared text
doesn't really qualify as a them asking question. Then I added:
> Actually, it's unclear that the Mah Nishtanah even is a question.

> Grammatically, the smoothest translation is: How different this night is
> from all other nights! For on all other nights...

Someone pointed the following to me in private email:
: Aruch HaShulchan 473:21.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

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


[ 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         ]