Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 067

Sunday, July 28 2002

• RE: Rabbi Kessin's Speech
• Fish & Dairy in halakhah
• wedding rings
• Re:recitation of piyyutim
• Re: recitation of piyyutim
• Re: Forward article about ritually observant boxer
• Re: Sanhedrin
• Re: Machlokes resolution and Sanhedrin
• Re: Machlokes resolution and Sanhedrin
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: Derashah and Sevarah
• Re: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• RE: The MB and psaq
• Re: Yom HaShoah
• Re: wedding rings
• Re: Houses in Chu"l
• RE: Rabbi Kessin's Speech
• RE: Chezkat Kashrut
• Re: wedding rings
• Innovation
• re warming drawers

Rena wrote:
>I believe that in Kol Ha Tor by the GR"A he teaches that Moshiach ben
>Yosef will come first and almost be killed and then Moshiach ben David
>will come. I don't recall the GR"A holding that Moshiach ben Yosef
>is sitting at the gates to Yerushalayim yet suffering and wrapping
>and re-wrapping his bandages quite yet. From where does the idea that
>Moshiach ben Yosef is already here come?

It is HIGHLY controversial and is the major theme of R. Menachem Kasher's
HaTekufah HaGedolah. The exact lineage of Kol HaTor is disputed and the
manuscript from which it was printed was never released to the public.
I believe that R. Moshe Shternbuch (nin veneched leHaGra) claims that
it is a forgery.

Gil Student

For all those that are interested here is an article on the subject by Rabbi
Moshe Shamah.

 http://judaic.org/halakhot/fish_dairy.htm

Some time ago we discussed briefly double ring ceremonies. Leaving that
debate aside, what is the hakpada in some circles for a man not to wear
a ring after marriage? I've been told it's chukot hagoyim but, if so,
why is it any different for a woman? AIUI the custom of using a ring in
society in general predates the Jewish use. I don't mean this to go off
into a discussion of the different shitot in chukot hagoyim except to the
extent that it might explain the difference between female and male usage.

KT
Joel

From: HaLeviY@aol.com
> Does anyone know either of a sefer or articles that deal with the history
> of the recitation (or lack thereof) of piyyutim in Ashkenazi circles?

There is a collection of most of the controversy in Moadim B'haLacha by R>
Tuvia Frind Jerusalem 1998 Elul and Tishrei pp. 1-63

D. rabinowitz

In a message dated 7/24/02 1:57:52pm EDT, HaLeviY@aol.com writes:
> Does anyone know either of a sefer or articles that deal with the history
> of the recitation (or lack thereof) of piyyutim in Ashkenazi circles?

See Tur Orach Chaim 68 {IIRC)
See Baer's Avodas Yisrael 
I would also consult works on liturgy such as Cantor Nulman's and perhaps 
Idelsohn

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/5/02 12:20:18pm EDT, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
> The Rambam (Hilchot Chovel u'Mazzik 5:1) qualifies the issur of hitting
> someone else "derech bizayon". The Minchat Chinuch 48 # gimmel qualifies
> the issur "....b'makeh aviv i'imo o chavero, haynu DAVKA BELO RESHUT,
> aval im ....chaveiro OMRIM LO SHE'YAKEM ... EINO OVER b'LAV ZEH v'eino
> chayav malkot velo mita ....". See also: Ralbach in Kuntrus ha'Semicha
> 101 "harei amar l'chaveiro hakeini u'pzaani....patur aliba d'kuli alma,
> v'NIREH SHE'HU MUTAR".

Catching up on some old posts.

See S"A Horav Hil. Nizkei Guf vNefesh S'if 4 that a person cannot give 
permission and it remains, however for money see Kunters Achron # 2.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/25/02 4:30:02 PM, Daniel Eidensohn writes:
<< Thus according to both approaches post churban Sanhedrin could
not force resolution of disputes simple on the basis of its authority
as Sanhedrin - but could encourage acceptance by other means such as
persuasion, loyalty of students or use of social sanctions as we find
today.

One of the things that makes talking about the Sanhedrin tricky (pre-
or post-churban) is the unstated assumption that the Sanhedrin exercised
an independent jurisdiction over a a Greek-style "polis" based on Jewish
civil, criminal, and religious law. This was only partly true, part of
the time, under certain circumstances. Much of the Sanhedrin's civil
and criminal authority was granted (or delegated, or simply tolerated)
by Roman administrators, who at one time withdrew from the Sanhedrin
the power of capital punishment (see Sanhedrin 18a). While on certain
strictly religious matters the Sanhedrin operated independently, it's
dangerous to assume that on other matters the Sandhedrin didn't keep an
eye out for its Roman protectors.

Also, while the Sanhedrin had 71 official members, including leadership
among the Sadducean kohanim, its abililty to function was limited by the
independent actions of the Pharisaic soferim, who, while outsiders as
far as the Sanhedrin was concerned, included the leaders of the House of
Hillel, including Rabban Gamliel and his son Rabban Simon. Whatever the
liberal beauty of Hillel's approach to issues of halacha, I'm not sure
the ascendancy of his approach reflected political methods that were
either liberal or beautiful. Surely "persuasion" and "social sanction"
were not the only tools by which the disputes between the Sadduces and
the Pharisees were resolved. To think of the Sanhedrin as a purely
deliberative body is to impress upon it a modern political template that
is anachronistic at best and perhaps a bit naive at worst.

David Finch

In a message dated 7/25/02 5:29:08pm Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
> . He notes, however, that
> Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel represent a problem to this proposal since
> in fact Sanhedrin still had the ability to execute at that time. He cites
> the Meiri (Sanhedrin 88b) that Zakein Mamre only applies to a single
> individual disputing the rulings of the 71 judges of Sanhedrin....

IIRC Sanhedrin did not execute during the last 40 pre-Churban Years -
co-inciding with the Beis Shammai - Beis Hillel period.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:02:25PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
:> When their students need a machloqes resolved, they didn't go to the
:> Sanhedrin. They themselves hold a vote in the upstairs room of Chananiah
:> ben Chizqiyah ben Gurion's mansion...

: My understanding was not that the students were arguing. Stam students
: wouldn't have that authority. My understanding was that the students of
: Hillel and Shammai were in the Sanhedrin...

As was mine. But being a bunch of members of the Sanhedrin and convening
qua Sanhedrin are different things. Had they met as Sanhedrin, then
BH's majority would have held. Apparantly this was a random group of
members of the two yeshivos, one that had a different BH / BS mix.

:> My argument stands as long as "mishnah" refers to halachah pesuqah,
:> not the whole thought process leading to the pesaq. The kind of material
:> found in the mishnayos Rebbe compiled. As opposed to your claim that it
:> means "more than just the text".

: Except I consider that Mishnah is not halakhah psukah, as there is too much 
: information missing from the Mishnah to be able to use it as even a kitzur.

Mishnah was intended to be a readily memorizable form of halachah
pesuqah. Azoi zogt the Rambam I cited earlier in defining shelish
bemishnah. The fact that the requirement for memorization made them
overly mnemonic for later doros doesn't change Rebbe's intent.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:16:16AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Regarding the question raised as to how could there be an unresolved
: machlokes while there was Sanhedrin I have found two suggestions.

Both made much sense to me. Obviously the first one did, it was a
better developed version of what I proposed.

Some questions, though:

: 1) Most of the debates recorded in the gemora refer to the period when
: in fact there was no Sanhedrin. The Ramban notes in Sefer HaMitzvos
: (Positive #153) that when the Sanhedrin left the Beis Hamikdash not only
: was there no more judging of capital cases - but there was no longer
: a Sanhedrin...

Then what about the fact that the gemara discusses later Sanhedrin's
when discussing things like the calendar? A colloquial usage of the term?

: 2) An alternative explanation found in Chikrei Lev (Y. D. 1:88 page 444-)
: accepts that in fact Sanhedrin existed after the Churban. He says that
: unresolved debates resulted from not being able to kill zakein mamre...

This is harder to understand. Because it would imply that half of our
tanna'im were ch"v zeqeinim mamrim! Not being able to prosecute doesn't
imply innocense. If every machloqes was unresolved only because of a
lack of misas beis din, then aren't you saying that the losing side of
every machloqes was an avaryan who happened not to be able to be punished?

Speaking of which, I saw the following thought in this week's Shabbat
B'Shabbato from Machon Tzomet. R' Yehudah Shaviv, writing on the daf,
notes a Rashbam on BB 133b. The gemara says that Yonasan ben Uziel
recieved a man's entire yerushah, but YbU then decided to divide it:
he sold a third, was maqdish a third and gave a third to the man's
children. Shammai came to YbU "bemaqlo vetarmilo". The Rashbam says this
is an idiom meaning that Shammai came to argue.

RYS relates this to R' Aqiva's hesped for R' Eli'ezer: I have a lot of
money, but no one to change it. (Sanhedrin 68a) Rashi taitches it as RA
lamenting that he had many questions but no one to answer them. Apparantly
money transactions were a common metaphor for shaqla vetarya.

RYS uses this to give a beautiful peshat in Rabban Gamli'el's request
that R' Yehoshu'a show up on the day RY considered Yom Kippur with his
staff and wallet. (RH 2:8-9) He suggests that RG invited him to argue
the sevaros -- but only after he accepted the pesaq of the Sanhedrin.

(And thus the connection to RDE's post.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 6/29/02 11:13:43pm EDT, DFinchPC@aol.com writes:
>                                        .... But Josephus was, in fact,
> "dere," at least during much of the period covered by his "The Jewish
> War." He wasn't "dere" for the period covered by his "Antiquities,"
> but was there when the stories that compose the "Antiquities" were being
> told by Jews to other Jews in the Second Temple era....

> Let's face it. Our understanding of our history of the period from the
> destruction of the First Temple until around the year 70 C.E. -- probably
> the most important period in our history, the history of our halacha --
> remains wedded to Josephus. We can reject him as a traitor (or, at the
> very least, a sell-out to the Romans) but we still use him when we want
> to, especially when what he says is consistent with our reading of Tanach.

My point is that we reject Josephus {at least in part} BECAUSE we have
the Talmud, etc.

If you have a community that NEVER had the Talmud how would they KNOW
to reject Josephus? Micha's hypthetical case was a community with a
Masorah but w/o the entire Bayyis Sheini Halachic process - including
final Tanach canonization, Tefillah as we know and a set of normative
or at least common structures about Halacah and Hashkafah. Lacking THAT
what would you have?

[2nd email. -mi]

In a message dated 7/3/02 3:31:57pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>                       The question (after refinement of language) was
> whether a hypothetical real descendent is within the Sanaitic covenent in
> following his mesorah, or if he'd be bound by the evolution of halachah
> by Sanhedrin and the majority once he learned of us.

IMHO if there WERE a: <<real descendent is within the Sinaitic covenent
in following his mesorah>> he would appear to US as no more - or not
MUCH more - Jewish than the aforementioned Mormon.

What WE consider Normative is so influenced by Bayyis Shein throught the
Talmud etc. that lacking those elements they would be beyond the pale of
what we would consider Jewish - even if tehcnically they were not "wrong".

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/3/02 3:31:58pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: 3) Torah implies but the mining of the Halachah came out LATER the Sinai
>: albeit it might have been implciti at Sinai...

> Li nir'eh this is the overwhelming majority. Every time there is a
> machlokes tana'im about the lema'seh, along with a machlokes over
> the derashos, this is the probable cause.

>: 4) Drasha is known but implication is unknown {I believe Rashi on Gzeria
>: Shava syas something on this. Location of Source is unkown to me....

> How does this differ from #3 in any pragmatic sense?

Bottom line imght not differ much but HOW you get there is different

With #3 the drasha was NOT known at all but was INFERRED.
With #4 Drasha WAS known but it's implications were later INFERRED 

Think of it this way
When Moishe died and people forgot thousands of Halachos did peop
Did they 
3) forget the Drashos completely?
4) remeber that they existed but forget how to implement them?

If #3 then the fact that many generations make no reference to a given
drasha is not a big problem

If #4, then you would expect that EVERY successive generation was aware
of the Hermeutic conncections - albeit not their implications and if
you can show a given post-Sinaitic source shows a lack of said knowledge
you need to address this as a contradiction

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/2/02 5:50:31pm EDT, sethm37@hotmail.com writes:
> <3. Is there any sefer that a rav could just read and pasken?>

> Not really. As RYBS used to say, the job of the rov is not supposed to be
> an index/table of contents to the SA. His job is to understand the halokho
> and apply it. However, if a person were to read the SA/R'mo and pasken
> from them, he is at least not contravening the intention of the authors.

> Do you give kovod to a talmid chochom -- including the CC -- by
> contravening his words?

There are different level of poskim

A stam rav is expected to be able to rely on the Shulchan Aruch and the
nos'ei keilim including MB

A higher level poseik is expect to research further. This dichotomy is
implicit in R. Kanarfogel {RDEK}'s article on Progress and Tradition in
Medieval Ashkenaz in his citation of the Ri Migash

I think RYBS was speaking from HIS perspective and either ignoring
or not being realistic about the capacity of the average mora d'asra.
Or he was referring to himself and not to the average Rav.

re: Halachic Methodolgy in General Let me say this postulate:

Halachic Posulate #20
A) One may pasken from a Shulchan Aruch etc. w/o knowing the Gmara
But
B) if one wants to argue on the poskim one better know the Gmaros and
relevant Sugors well and be able to back up one's arguments

Corrolary:
One should at least be aware of the poskim even whn one is contradicting
them. IOW, it's
1) NOT OK to learn the Gmaros w/o the Rishonim and to come up with
Halachah
but
2) it IS ok to learn the Gmara and Rishonim and then to argue against
the Rishonim's take on said Gmara. Just realize that one is innovating
and is probably a da'as yachid

May I suggest that R. Moshe Feinstein did #2 several times - 
1) Overrides Tosafos re: clappping on shabbos
2) Forbids burial on YomTov - even YT Sheini


Summary: for a Posik to ignore precdent and rely upon the Gmara it
behooves that person to know Shas well. This is because one may be
overlooking a related sugya and a global Shas perspective is important

Rabbanim who do not know shas well can rely upon secondary sources -
such as Tur, Bet Yosef, SA, Rema, MB, AhS, etc.

To rely upon the MB alone w/o seeing the AhS and others is IMHO a
bd'ieved. Even one relying upon secondary sources should be somewhat well
rounded and get several perspectives. Who learns the Shach w/o the Taz?

[Email #2. -mi

In a message dated 7/2/02 7:12:53pm EDT, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> I once discussed this issue with Rav Yosef Soleveitchik - son of Rav Aaron
> and he pointed out the following Biur Halacha (688:5) "Nevertheless I
> request from the reader not to rely on me concerning the beracha..."  He
> noted that if the Mishna Berura is saying don't rely on me concerning this
> particular point, he meant that elsewhere he can be relied upon halacha
> l'maaseh.


FWIW: I have no problem wiht relying upon the MB. It is the OVER-Relying upon 
the MB that has become the problem.

The MB has evolved into a kind of SA of its own.  IMHO it is one of the 
formeost nos'ei keilim but it has been taken too far.

Certainly the AhS, RMF, CI  and others must be given weight, too  

As I stated [above -mi], who learns the Shach w/o the Taz? 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Daniel Eidensohn [mailto:yadmoshe@012.net.il]
> Just spoke with Rav Michel Shurkin about these topics
<snip> 
> 3)Regarding the Mishna Berura as source of psak. He said that the
> change to regard it as source of psak was initiated by Rav Elchonon
> Wasserman. After the War the need for a common basis for halacha for the
> Orthodox world resulted in a campaign of gedolim that it be accepted as
> such - resulting in its current status.

> It would seem to follow from this that the Chofetz Chaim would not have
> been upset about this change from his original purpose since his prime
> orientation was to provide practical sefarim which satisfied the needs
> of the people. The needs changed after the War.

According to RSMandel, the MB was meant to summarize the writings of
the various achronim, not to decide among them or render psak. If you
think about it, the MB was not intending to reflect the minhag (e.g.,
to use eiruvin, as he himself did), just the written texts.

1. The decision of REWasserman as WWII approached to use the MB as a
basis for common psak was therefore not consistent with the CC's intent.
Why memorialize as psakim what the CC did not himself follow or even
believe to be the best way to go (e.g., the examples of tzitzis, eiruv)?

It would have made sense for REWasserman to choose a sefer psak as a
basis for common psak, not a sefer summarizing achronim.

2. The decision to choose a summary of achronim's writings over commonly
accepted minhag is itself revolutionary. See Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik's
article on mimeticism. At the time of the CC, almost no one followed
piskei haGr"a, for example.

3. The MB's "v'nachon lahachmir..." can often IMHO be misunderstood when
read as being part of sefer psak. If understood as part of a sefer limud
achronim, such a statement would be understood to indicate that a certain
stringent view has a good deal of logic behind it; a posek nevertheless
might pasken that while yechidim might be choshesh for that view, the
hamon am should be perfectly comfortable in adhering to their lenient
minhag. When read as part of a sefer psak, one is tempted to believe
that this is what should be recommended to the average baal ha'bos.

Case in point: S'A OC 340 MB 17 says that the Ramo in a tshuvah paskened
that one may open a book which has letters written along the edge, and
this does not violate mochek. Further, MB notes that may achronim concur,
and this is the minhag. He concludes: nevertheless, nachon l'hachmir
if one has another book available. To me, the explanation is simple:
it's muttar, but if you have another copy of the *same* book, why enter
into a machlokes? However, R. Simcha Bunim Cohen in "The Shabbos Home"
(vol 1) (which he claims in his intro is based on the psak of the MB,
and only if no such psak is available did he go to other sources)
understands this to mean that one should make every effort to avoid
opening books with writing on their edges. Therefore he concludes,
in the analogous case of puzzles, that adults (as opposed to children)
may not play with puzzles because they can always play some other game.
I disagree: clearly, the MB did not intend to say that if your copy of
Maseches Gittin has writing on it, you should study Maseches Kiddushin
(even if you're half-way through Gittin).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R. Moshe Feldman:
>Case in point: S'A OC 340 MB 17 says that the Ramo in a tshuvah paskened that
>one may open a book which has letters written along the edge, and this does
>not violate mochek.  Further, MB notes that may achronim concur, and this is
>the minhag.  He concludes: nevertheless, nachon l'hachmir if one has another
>book available.  To me, the explanation is simple: it's muttar, but if you
>have another copy of the *same* book, why enter into a machlokes?  However,
>R. Simcha Bunim Cohen in "The Shabbos Home" (vol 1) (which he claims in his
>intro is based on the psak of the MB, and only if no such psak is available
>did he go to other sources) understands this to mean that one should make
>every effort to avoid opening books with writing on their edges.  Therefore
>he concludes, in the analogous case of puzzles, that adults (as opposed to
>children) may not play with puzzles because they can always play some other
>game.  I disagree: clearly, the MB did not intend to say that if your copy of
>Maseches Gittin has writing on it, you should study Maseches Kiddushin (even
>if you're half-way through Gittin).

I will add to R. Moshe's argument (with which I concur): those who say that 
the CC meant it to be a sefer psak still have to explain (and have not yet) 
why it is that even the talmidim in Radin did not wear the tzitzis of their 
talis kotons outside.  Did they not even have enough derekh eretz to follow 
the CC's "psak" in his own yeshiva?  R. Michel is correct, but R. Elchonon's 
effort doesn't mean that the CC meant the book for that purpose.  I am sure 
he is unhappy about the way that rabbonim do not even learn through the 
inyon any more to pasken, but just follow what they believe is the psak 
indicated in the MB (often on the basis of convoluted rules, such as which 
acharon the MB quotes first).

Seth

In a message dated 7/19/02 1:24:42pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> The following is from a kinah about the 3 towns. It starts with "Mi
> yiten roshi mayim".
> "Vechi ein lehosif moed shever lesaverah ve'ein lehakdim zulasi lacharah
> tachas kein hayom livyasi a'orerah..."
> This seems to imply that one may not institute a new day of mourning
> for a tragedy.

How about a Ta'anis Yahrtzeit? Isn't that defacto a new day of mourning?
So if Generatoin X of Worms was wiped out on one day wouldn't generation
X+1 defacto be observing a day of mourning?

The problem of the Holocaust is simple. Unlike pogroms etc. it was not
a one-day event. It was a daily event spread out over years

OTOH Krystalnacht WAS a one day pogrom

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On 25 Jul 2002 at 14:38, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Some time ago we discussed briefly double ring ceremonies. Leaving that
> debate aside, what is the hakpada in some circles for a man not to wear
> a ring after marriage? ...

I would think it's Begged Isha. 

-- Carl

From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
>> I seem to recall learning once that halacha is against building a
>> permanent living structure in chu"l. Can anyone corroborate that with a
>> more substantial source than "recall learning once"?

> The Shlah (at the end of masseches sukkah) says that one should not (I
> think he means it as a middas chassidus rather than an actual prohibition)
> purchase a house in Chu"l which has more room than one needs right now.

There is a famous vort from [IIRC] the Kedushas Levi z'l saying that if
"...Asidin botei midroshos...lehikova b'EY..." - al achas kamoh vekamoh -
the houses of Yidden - where innumerable mitzvas are performed - will
definitely be transferred to EY - bevias hagoel - bba.

SBA

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> The exact lineage of Kol HaTor is disputed and the
> manuscript from which it was printed was never released to the public.
> I believe that R. Moshe Shternbuch (nin veneched leHaGra) claims that
> it is a forgery.

See generally an article interviewing R. Eliach, who wrote a three volume
work on the life of the Vilna Gaon:
<http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/archives5762/mishpatim/MP62features.htm>:
<<Approximately fifty years ago the existence of a sefer entitled Kol
Hator, which deals with the pathways to the future redemption, was first
made public and a sharp debate sprung up around the work.

Some view it as having issued from a holy source. According to them,
its author was one of the Gaon's talmidim, and in it he gave accurate
expression to his rebbe's outlook on the matter. Others deny the work's
authenticity altogether. They maintain that it is a work of fraud
and deceit.

These then, are the two, irreconcilable extremes. Both parties number
worthy Jews and well known Torah scholars among them.
....
My present instructions from the gedolei Yisroel, which is naturally
the path I have followed, are to make do with mentioning the sefer's
appearance and to note that its authenticity, and therefore its
reliability, are the subject of debate.

[Sparked by a conversation on Areivim about baalei teshuvah and their
not-yet-frum families. -mi]

From: Jonathan Baker [mailto:jjbaker@panix.com] on Areivim
> From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
>> Just asking -- in such a case how can we trust the non-religious family
>> that their house is kosher?

> Because we know them to be trustworthy.

>> Would you trust a non-observant mashgiach that a certain restaurant is
>> kosher?
<snip>
> The pressures to take unwarranted kulot are much greater in a
> restaurant, <snip>
> Much greater leniency is allowed by the halacha than by the 
> average kosher housewife, who will just toss out food that
> had a problem, rather than use the available kulot to save it.

> Also, the question is whether or not the person supervising the 
> food is to be trusted.  Only where we don't know the mashgiach,
> do we really need to use a chazakah of "shomer shabbos = trust-
> worthy".  But where we have sure knowledge, why rely on chazakot?

Could someone please present some sources on the neemanus/chezkas kashrus of
a mumar l'tei'avon?  By way of comparison, I might trust a goy because I
personally know him, yet if he buys an unmarked piece of meat from a kosher
store, I'm not allowed to eat it.  What happens when a mumar l'tei'avon buys
such meat?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> > debate aside, what is the hakpada in some circles for a man not to wear
> > a ring after marriage? ...
>
> I would think it's Begged Isha.

Why? in secular/non-Jewish circles many (most?) men wear rings. Wouldn't
that take it out of the geder of Begged Isha?

Akiva

A question came up on another list about the value of innovation in the
medieval period.  My first thought was the expression "ein beit midrash
b'li chidush" (or something like that).  How far back does it go?  What
exactly was it taken to mean - that people will make up chidushim 
regardless of quality, or that it is desirable that people grow to the
stage where they can make good chidushim, or what?  What value was 
placed on innovation at various times (I know about Avot's distinction
between a Sinai and an Oker Harim).

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

just curious:

in my experience teaching americans hilkhos bishul, i have encountered
a number of problematic practices of many parents of my students.

for example, the wide spread usage of ovens on shabbos. while one can
justify leaving food in b/f shabbos as long as one grapples with the
thermostat questions, returning food to an oven on shabbos moning seems
to be a wide spread yet extremely problematic practice. "meila" if one
is returning food which was on the fire during bein hashmoshaos, so
the well known opinion of the ran can be invoked, but if we are talking
about stam food intot he oven.... shver.

anybody else notice this troubling custom?

however, i have also been introduced the the "warming tray". many students
relate that their parents place food into a warming drawer. any thoughts
or observations on this phenomenon? do some american poskin argure that
a nonadjustable (or garufed) warming drawer may be similar to a warming
plate, which r moshe permitted hachzara onto lechatchila?

thanks,
david brofsky

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


[ 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         ]