Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 002

Monday, April 3 2006

• Re: Sheva Berachos
• yerusha
• Nusach for Bitul Chametz
• Re: Sechel Hapoel
• The Hazon Ish and Voting in the Israeli Elections
• RE: machine matzohs: Reasons for...
• Re: machine matzohs: Reasons for...
• Nice Rashi..
• korbanot
• Re: korbanot
• Re: Sechel Hapoel
• "Marror"
• Re: kashrut reliable enough
• Fw: Vechatosi Negdi Somid
• Re: The Hazon Ish and Voting in the Israeli Elections (was Pitka Tava on Areivim)
• Re: Sheva Berachos
• Re: Nusach for Bitul Chametz

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Anyone have any idea what a newlywed couple would do at the seder re:
> sheva berachos, taking into account ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos,
> nir'eh kemosif al hakosos, etc.?

Igros Moshe EH I #95 page 244

Shoshana L. Boublil answers my question on dividing up an inheritance
by listing the things the daughters are entitled to. I have some minor
quibbles with her quotes since much is only for young daughters. Certainly
once all the children are married the daughters are not entitled to
anything.

However, that is not the essence of the question. Even assuming her
answer that in many cases the daughters get most of the inheritance.
Dividing the inheritance equally still does not satisfy the Torah.
In my personal observations very few people leave their inheritance as
given by halacha. Even if one finds a halachically valid way around the
question was whether this violates the spirit of the Torah. For example
in Israel the rabbinate frequently requests the sons to be "mochel"
their portion (and the bechor his extra portion) to the daughters. While
certainly valid I doubt it what was done by Chazal.

kol tuv,
--
Eli Turkel

Rav Herschel Schechter, in his "B'Ikvei HaTzon", discusses this machlokes
between Rashi and Tosfos and, IIRC, concludes that one should first say
"k'afra d'ara" and then "hefker" (no discussion of the vav, though)
on the basis that one cannot declare the chametz to be ownerless if one
has already divested oneself of it.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

My understanding of it is that it is the Sechel of the lowest sphere, each
sphere having a sechel hanivdal, which interacts with the sublunar world.

The concept here is that old view that no interaction is possible
without connection. We no longer think like this and that is why it
is so hard to grasp. We now think that knowledge takes place totally
within teh confines of our brain and not that there is some kind of
interaction. (BTW, that is also how they understood seeing - as a
kind of light that comes out of our eyes and is reflected back after
striking an object. That's why science unti the 19th century used
to postulate ether which enabled objects to interact by the force
of gravity making contact through ether.) In our case, knowledge is
a union of the Knower and the known. By grasping a concept located
wthin the Sechel Hapoel the knower becomes one with the sechel hapoel
and the concept or idea that he is grasping. This idea will from now
on reside in him as well as in the sechel hapoel, together bringing
about a unification of the individual and the sechel hapoel. In this
fashion a human can achieve immortality through his intellect.

  M. Levin

From: "David Eisen" <>
> ..R. Weinbach explained that one *must* vote in the upcoming elections
> with a profound sense of enthusiasm and illustrated this by noting that
> the Hazon Ish had paskened that one should vote before one davens Shaharit
> in the morning. ...
> Can anyone verify this psak halacha attributed to the Hazon Ish, which
> IMHO is counterintuitive to what the halacha should be?

Seems to me that if the CI would have held that it was such a great mitzvah,
he would have  personally voted in the elections.
AFAIK, hakol modim that he didn't..

SBA 

In Avodah V17#1, RAS wrote:
> Other reasons why some prefer to only use machine matzos is because
> of the uniformity of the matzos, i.e., there are never any problems
> with matzoh kefulah, matzoh nefucha (which, in addition to problems of
> chometz can lead to problems of borer on shabbos), and obviate any need
> to worry about gebrokts.

Since one counterexample disproves a "never" (or an "always"), never
say "never": one Chag evening some years ago, we came across a possible
"doubled over" area on a machine-made matzah from Rakusen. (After asking
a sh'ayla [because neither my wife and I had ever seen an example of
what had previously been theoretical!], we got rid of that area ASAP.)

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager=

>         .... one Chag evening some years ago, we came across a possible
> "doubled over" area on a machine-made matzah from Rakusen...

You are correct - I should not have said "never."  However, FWIW, have
never found these problems with KAJ shmurah matzos.

KT,
Aryeh

A nice posuk Rashi to learn with your kids [or even yourself] this
week's Parsha. Vayikro 5:17 dh Velo Yoda.

SBA

Just heard a shiur on karbanot.
Any explanations here on the opinion of Rambam that Korbanot are because
of Avodah Zara. At the same time Rambam is clear that Korbanot will
reappear in the days of Moshiach although there would no longer be
Avodah Zara.

On a quick sampling of my shul very few would be comfortable with a
new Bet Hamikdash and bringing animal sacrifices. The gemara says that
it the kavod of Kohanim to be standing in blood. The bet hamikdash was
basically a slaughter house, not what we normally picture as our version
of spirituality.

--
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:14:42AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Any explanations here on the opinion of Rambam that Korbanot are because
: of Avodah Zara. At the same time Rambam is clear that Korbanot will
: reappear in the days of Moshiach although there would no longer be
: Avodah Zara.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/vayikra.pdf> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/purpose-of-qorbanos.shtml>.

Teaser:
> Narvoni: The Rambam doesn't speak of qorbanos as caused by the
> practice being avodah zarah. Rather, the practice expresses an inate
> human limitation. And if one doesn't allow an expression for avodas
> Hashem, the need would lead people to avodah zarah.

The Abarbanel at the beginning of Vayiqra discusses this Narvoni.

: On a quick sampling of my shul very few would be comfortable with a
: new Bet Hamikdash and bringing animal sacrifices. The gemara says that
: it the kavod of Kohanim to be standing in blood. The bet hamikdash was
: basically a slaughter house, not what we normally picture as our version
: of spirituality.

One of the things that I think of when saying Mussaf is "Nebich, RSO,
I not only can't bring qorbanos, I've assimilated to the point where I
can't even feel that I'm supposed to!"

And I made a point of saying qorbanas milah bemilah each day so as to
better reconnect to the generations for whom this was the ikar avodah.

But see also the Meshech Chokhmah, who would say this is because they're
thinking like a maqriv al habama, not like an oveid avodas beis hamiqdash.
Leshitaso:
> The Meshech Chokhmah (introduction to Vayiqra) finds a role for each
> explanation. The Rambam's notion of weaning was the role of bamos, of
> altars built to G-d on mountaintops, outside of the mishkan. The weaning
> period ended when the Beis haMiqdash was dedicated in Yerushalayim,
> which is why bamos became prohibited at that time. However, we failed,
> avodah zarah and bamos thrived throughout the first Temple. Qorbanos in
> the Beis haMiqdash is called a rei'ach nikho'ach (a pleasant smell before
> Hashem) because they were to unify the worlds, as explained by the Ramban.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: "david guttmann" <david.guttman@verizon.net>
> I am trying to work out the concept of Sechel Hapoel in Rambam in
> modern terms.

I don't think this can be done. It depends on a Platonic conception of
form and substance.

> If someone among the chaveirim
> has done research on the sechel hapoel I would appreciate pointers to
> readings to help understand it.

See Davidson's book "Alfarabi Avicenna and Averroes on Intellect".
You might also look through the indices of Wolfson's books "Crescas'
Critique of Aristotle" and "The Philosophy of Spinoza" and at his
essay "Extradeical and Intradeical Interpretations of Platonic Ideas"
(reprinted in "Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays").

David Riceman 

I've wracked my brains for years trying to remember where I had seen this
comment on the pointing for Maror Zeh. I began to think I had imagined
it! But here it is!

<http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/03/prague-1526-haggadah.html>

To return to an old thread. I was just in Yerushalayim, and was browsing
in a sefer nekiye da'at miyerushalayim - short biographies.

In the entry on rav Gustman z"l, it said that on erev rosh hashana, he
would publicly throw out of his yeshiva bochurim who refused to eat at
homes arranged by the yeshiva, because they didn't think it was kosher
enough. It cited him as saying that anyone who was known to worry about
hilkhot shabbat and taharat hamishpacha could be relied on for kashrut.
Furthermore, anyone who wanted to be machmir, could be machmir in his
own home and only eat bashar chalak, but should not be machmir outside
the home.

This is consistent (albeit going further) with the previously cited
shitta of rsza. Anyone with more personal knowledge of rav gustman?

Meir Shinnar

Re the recent discussion [on Areivim] about the depressing effects that
aveiros etc have on some people, I noticed a related story in the sefer
'Toros VeUvdos miBeis Raboseinu'.

Someone once came to the SR saying that fulfilling the posuk 'Vechatosi
Negdi Somid', is driving him out of his mind and the constant thoughts
of the aveiros he committed is depressing and unbearable.

The Rebbe answered him, "We find that in the BHMK they were makriv the
Korban Tomid daily.
How much time did it take to fulfill this mitzvah?  
Just a few minutes or so. But still, it is called 'Tomid' [constant]
because it was done 'regularly' every day.

So it is too with aveiros. One should spend a certain few minutes daily
reflecting upon them - and by doing so one is mekayem the Vechatosi Negdi
Somid. But there is no need to think about the chatoi'im all the time..."

SBA 

My LOR retold a story he heard firsthand from R' Aharon Kotler. The
Satmar Rav came to his apartment in NY (this is before Lakewood) to
debate the merits of voting in Israel's first election.

Needless to say, things got loud and heated. At one point, The SR, red in
the face, stormed out of the apartment in frustration. RAK put his foot in
front of the door, and refused to let the SR leave. Instead, he called R'
Shneur. How could the SR leave before giving the einekelach a berakah?

My LOR was speaking about tefillah and being an eved H', vs learning and
being a sar lifnei hamelekh. It's the eved's tefillos that get answered,
he has an intimacy that a sar lacks. (The SR was obviously both.) The
reference is to Berakhos 34b, the answer Rabbi Gamliel gave his wife as
to why he asked his talmid, R' Chanina ben Dosa to daven for his sick
son. The wife wondered why the rebbe would need his talmid to daven for
him -- who is greater? (I like the image of a wife who is so proud of
her husband's accomplishments.) R' Gamliel's answer was that RCbD is
the eved, whereas he is the sar.

WRT our discussion: R' Aharon Kotler was quoted as saying that voting
in EY was a chiyuv.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

> Anyone have any idea what a newlywed couple would do at the seder re:
> sheva berachos, taking into account ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos,
> nir'eh kemosif al hakosos, etc.?

The Darchei Moshe discusses it in OC 473. As explained by RSZA (in
a just-published Halichos Shlomo on Seder Leil Pesach), the Borei pri
hagafen is made first, on the cup of the m'vareich, and then the six
b'rachos are made on the chasan's kos. In a recently published haggadah
featuring p'sakim and commentary of Rav Eliashiv, yblch"t, he says that
an extra dish should be served lichvod the chasan and kallah.

EMT

[R Akiva Miller:]
> Has anyone ever heard of a nusach which adds a vav, so that it reads
> "v'lehevay hefker U-k'afra d'ara" (and it will be ownerless AND like
> the dust of the earth)?

> It is quite possible that I never actually heard of this, but only
> imagined it, since I cannot find any mention of this in my hagados or
> my notes. But it is gnawing at me, so I figured I'd ask.
...
> The logic behind adding the vav is as follows: Tosafos holds that bitul
> means to make the chametz ownerless, but Rashi disagrees, and says that
> bitul is to mentally convert the chametz into non-chametz, by considering
> it (and treating it) as worthless garbage, or more specifically, as
> dust. The nusach of "hefker k'afra d'ara" may have been intended to cover
> both sides of this machlokes, but that's not how it sounds to me; "hefker
> k'afra d'ara" merely describes the concept of hefker more graphically
> (not unlike the recently-discussed "musafim k'hilchasam"), but does
> *not* really include Rashi's concept of bitul, because the chametz is
> still chametz, albeit as *ownerless* as dust. But by adding the vav,
> he is declaring the chametz to be both ownerless *and* dust.

The Nusach for Kol Hamira in current Haggados does indeed include
"hefqer" as in ...Livotel [or Livtel] V'Lehevei Hefqer K'afra D'ar'ah.
If you look at older Haggados, you will see the Nusach is ...Livotel
V'Lehevei K'afra D'ar'ah sans the word Hefqer. The Mehaber in OH 434:2
mentions the Nusach without Hefqer, and the MB says that it is proper
to add Hefqer before K'afra D'ar'ah.

Ramban in P'sakhim 4b in discussing Shitas Rashi WRT Bitul, makes a point
of asking among other questions, if Shitas Tosfos is correct and Bitul
M'ta'am Hefqer, why do we find the Nusach of V'Lehevei K'afra D'ar'ah
[He quotes the Yerushalmi as a source for this Nusach] by Bitul Hametz?

Furthermore, Ramban assumes that Afra D'Ar'ah is not actually Hefqer
[see notes by R' Isser Zalman on Ramban where he adds the words "V'eino"].

The original Nusach, one without the word Hefqer, would thus be consistent
with Shitas Rashi as Ramban sees it. It would also be consistent with
Rambam [Hilkhos Hametz Umatzah 2:2] describing the process of Bitul
...Sheyevatel Hahametz B'libo V'yakhshov Oso K'afar... and makes no
mention of Hefqer, like the Ramban and Rashi [according to the Ramban].

The Rif has a Girsa in the Ma'amar of R' Yehuda Amar Rav Habodek Tzorikh
Sheyevatel [P'Sakhim 6b ]...Heikhi M'vatel...V'Lehevei K'afra D'ar'ah.
This Girsa is in paranthesis. The Maggid Mishna [Hilkhos Hametz Umatzah
2:2] cites the Gemara in P'Sakhim 6b with that Girsa of the Rif as the
Meqor for Shitas Rambam.

How then can we reconcile the Nusach of K'Afra D'ara'ah with Tosfos,
and other Rishonim [i.e. Ran and his view of Shitas Rashi] that consider
Bitul M'ta'am Hefqer?

And would the Nusach of V'Lehevei Hefqer K'afra D'ar'ah be a Stirah
Minei u'Bei? If it's Hefqer, then it's not KDA [at least not according to
Ramban who considers AD to have ownership], if it's KDA, then the word
Hefqer is either superfluous or irrelevant and may defeat the purpose
of those who consider Bitul not to be Mita'am Hefqer as Hefqer would
not be sufficient for Bitul.

MB [OH 434:2 SK 9], when he translates the Nusach of Kol Hamira into
Yiddish, says ...zoll zein Hefqer und zoll nit zein girekhint nur azoi
vi erd in gahs [should be Hefqer and not considered more than the dirt
in the street]. This understanding of KAD would help explain the Rishonim
who consider Bitul MiTa'am Hefqer, and why the Ramban's question from the
Nusach would not be problematic. Ar'ah here would refer to public space,
technically ownerless.

If so, how does the Nusach of the added Hefqer reconcile with Ramban
and Rambam, being that they don't consider KAD to mean ownerless, rather
they consider it to be "unworthy?"

LFAND, this is not problematic, because L'Shitosom, Bitul B'Lev works,
and does not need verbal validation, unlike those who hold that Bitul is
Mita'am Hefqer, they would require that the person declare his intent
that he wants no future interest in the Hametz, without his verbal
statement he isn't actually Mafqir anything.

So it is plausible that by saying the Nusach of Hefqer KAD, you would
satisfy both Shitos, even without the Vav, because even according to
Ramban and Rambam you can say Hefqer even if it's not your full intent,
so long as you don't personally value the object [declaring Hefqer can
suggest you don't value the object enough to warrant future ownership,
anyway].

 -Jacob Farkas

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


[ 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         ]