Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 023

Thursday, April 27 2006

• Re: yayin poter kol minei mashkeh
• Re: Avdus
• Re: Using separate drain pipes for milchig and fleishig sinks
• Re: Drifting of the Hebrew calendar
• Re: It's raining in Israel
• Re: Drifting of the Hebrew calendar
• Re: Drifting of the Hebrew calendar
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Korban Pesach
• Re: Korban Pesach
• mishum eivah
• Re: Mezonot Bread

David Riceman wrote:
>We all know that once you make the bracha on wine/grape juice you
>need not make a bracha on another drink. My son asked about arvus.
>If someone says amen to Friday night kiddush can he drink something on
>which the bracha is normally shehakol without making a bracha? ...

i discuss this in my article in Jewish Action winter 5763
https://www.ou.org/publications/ ja/5763/5763winter/LEGAL-EA.PDF

R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>  From the Pinocchio essay:
>     In taking our mashal to its conclusion, we might understand an
>     interesting perspective of the Zohar Ha'Kodosh. The Zohar calls
>     the 613 mitzvos "Taryag Ittin" (613 suggestions).[1] To be sure,
>     although there are other interpretations, the simple derivation of
>     mitzvah is from the verb tzaveh, i.e., command. Why does the Zohar
>     depart from the simple meaning?

I suggested a grammatical link to the same point. "Commandment" would be
the simple meaning of "tzavah". Why is is called a "mitzvah", more like
"that which was commanded"?

By calling it a "tzavah", Hashem would be telling us that the whole
point of doing it is because it's an order. A "mitzvah" is something that
happens to be commanded; it allows for the realization that there is a
reason why He commanded it, and we perform it not only out of obedience

>                                           ...  At the earlier stage,
>     the mitzvos resemble the rules and regulations that an external
>     system must impose on its constituents. This is the level of Avdus
>     - the impositions of a Master on His servant....
>     But it is not for that end that Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu created us:
>     "*Bannim* attem la'Hashem Elokeichem" (Devarim 14:1). The more we
>     internalize "Hashem Elokeichem *Emes*" the more we achieve that true
>     Tzelem Elokim which is our innermost essence.

The mashal I used, although it lacks the beauty of being biblical,
was between following generals orders (tzavah), and doctor's orders
(mitzvah). You obey your doctor not primarily because he will scold you
otherwise (although he might), but because you trust his judgement and
that he knows what is best for you.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 13th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   necessary for a good relationship?

On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 16:46 -0400, Shmuel Zajac wrote on Areivim:
> Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I was always taught that the issue is
> that if there is one drain pipe, then it is effectively one keili.

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> Usually, milchig and fleishig dishes are not washed at the same time. 
> Therefore water from the milchig sink is not mixing in the house's
> pipes with water from the fleishig sink.

That's not the issue, as far as I understand.  The issue is that it is
one keili.  Would you use the same dish basin for milchig and
fleishig?  That's what this is about.

> I also note that until relatively recently, many US kitchens had only
> one sink for both milchigs and fleishigs, and people would use a rack
> to ensure that the dishes did not touch the walls of the sink.

True. And many kitchens with 2 sinks had them together. Our apartment
was like that, and we used a rack.

 - Kayza

On second thought, in the interest of mathematical accuracy, I wish
to slightly modify what I wrote this morning on Areivim. Though our
calendar does use an accurate value for the mean length of the lunar cycle
when rounded to the nearest chelek, the difference between that rounded
value and the precise value is not the primary factor in our calendar's
implied length of the solar year being "off" by as much as it is.
Rather, this is the result of wanting to have a simple 19-year cycle.
I don't know how many years a cycle would have to be to get a number of
years, each comprised of 12 or 13 months, whose length is even closer
to an integral number of astronomical solar years than then length of
our 19-year cycle is to that of 19 solar years (and I'm not even sure
that my computer can deal with numbers of chalakim that are big enough
to write a program to find out), but I can be pretty certain that it's
nowhere near 19. We talk about "tekufas Rava Adda," but I doubt that
this was his estimate for the exact length of the solar year, and the
calendar was built around it. It seems more likely to me that the
calendar was built around the convenience and relative accuracy of the
19-year cycle, and an implied solar year length of 365 days, 5 hours,
55 minutes, and 7.632 chalakim is worked backwards from there.

The imprecision in the value that we use for the mean length of the lunar
month does, however, affect the synchronization of our calendar with
the lunar cycle, though this cumulative error is nowhere near as great
as the error in synchronization with the solar cycle. In an article in
the Fall 2004 issue of Tradition, Sheldon Epstein, Bernard Dickman and
Yonah Wilamowsky suggested that correcting this error was the motivation
of Ben Meir in the famous controversy regarding the years 4683 and 4684
(922-924 CE). If they are correct, then there is some precedent for a
view that the algorithm can be modified to keep it in synchronization with
the astronomical reality. True, the halakhic consensus since that first
time it came up has not been like Ben Meir, and I am not suggesting that
the error in synchronization with the solar cycle really needs to or ought
to be corrected. (I stand by that part of my post from this morning.)
I just thought it was worth mentioning.

[Email #2. -mi]

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Also, since Tequfas Shemu'el is more off, it (and the Julian Calendar)
> drifted by 13 days, so that there is a relative drift of 6 days between
> the calendar and the tequfah.

He raises an interesting point. In terms of implied length of the solar
year, from shortest to longest, the order is: Astronomical reality -->
Tekufas Rav Adda --> Tekufas Shemu'el

This means that if we define the requirement to have the holidays in their
appropriate seasons by tekufas Shemu'el, rather than by the astronomical
reality, then our calendar ("based on" tekufas Rav Adda), is slipping
backwards, rather than forwards! If that were the case, than it has
already been "broken" for many centuries, as Pesach has started many
times in the "winter" -- before tekufas Nisan according to Shemu'el.

Given that, we can't understand the requirement as being according
to tekufas Shemu'el. It would be rather circular to understand it as
being according to tekuras Rav Adda (then, by definition, the calendar
would always stay perfectly "synchronized"). By process of elimination,
it must be according to the astronomical reality of the seasons.

 -D.C.

I wrote:
: Rambam hilchos Taanis3:9 and SA siman 575:7 Nissan shel tekufo finished,
: that is when the sun reaches 'mazel shor', we don't fast any more...
: When is that? Mishna Bruroh says 30 days after tkufas nissan, which is
: 27th April on my luach.

RMB wrote:
>It's not tied to the Jewish calendar, it's tied to the
>tequfah.

You clearly havn't taken a good look at my luach. It says there tkufo
of Rav Ado is Monday 27th March afternoon.

Tkufo of Shmuel was Shabos 7/8 April at chatzos halaylo. 30 days later
will be 7/8 May.

Akiva

[FWIW, I point out that because the calendar is based on tequfas Rav Adda
there is no difference lema'aseh. The line you quote simply notes that the
quote mentions the tequfah -- which then means it could be Shmu'el's. -mi]

RZS wrote:
> The proof for this is that bizman habayit
> they used to declare leap years for several reasons. The equinox was
> one reason, but even when Rosh Chodesh would fall after the equinox
> they would still declare leap years if the roads were too muddy, or the
> lambs were too young, or the barley crop would not be ripe for the Omer.
> Obviously in such cases both Rosh Chodesh and Pesach would fall more
> than a month after the equinox. And yet the gemara seems to have no
> problem with this. This proves that there is no requirement for either
> Rosh Chodesh or Pesach to be in the first 30 days after the equinox.

Eh, I always understood that the lambs being too young or the barley too 
unripe is a sign that we are before the equinox. After all, plants and 
animals tend to instinctively orient themselves according to the astronomical 
date. Since our calendar could drift, these are signs of drift which we 
should look out for.

However, nissan would not be in May.

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger

Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RZS wrote:

>> The proof for this is that bizman habayit
>> they used to declare leap years for several reasons. The equinox was
>> one reason, but even when Rosh Chodesh would fall after the equinox
>> they would still declare leap years if the roads were too muddy, or the
>> lambs were too young, or the barley crop would not be ripe for the Omer.
>> Obviously in such cases both Rosh Chodesh and Pesach would fall more
>> than a month after the equinox. And yet the gemara seems to have no
>> problem with this. This proves that there is no requirement for either
>> Rosh Chodesh or Pesach to be in the first 30 days after the equinox.

> Eh, I always understood that the lambs being too young or the barley
> too unripe is a sign that we are before the equinox.

Why would they need a sign for that?  Determining the exact date of the
equinox was not exactly a mystery.

> After all, plants and animals tend to instinctively orient themselves
> according to the astronomical date.

No, they don't.  They take their cues from the weather.  (Not the
wether:-))

> Since our calendar could drift, these are signs of drift which we
> should look out for.  However, nissan would not be in May.

On the contrary, to me this gemara proves that occasionally, if it had
been a long winter, Nissan *would* be in May, or at least late April.

From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com>
> Does anyone have any evidence to support the claim that there was a
> concerted effort by roshei yeshiva (or, in one version, by the Chazon
> Ish and R. Aharon Kotler) post-WWII to establish the supremacy of the MB?

> I started attending yeshivos g'dolos in 1950 (Telshe, Ponevez, Ner Israel)
> and saw no evidence of such an effort. On the other hand, my father z"l
> mentioned the ubiquity of the MB, and its wide acceptance...

A Dear freind, RAbbi meyer Zywica OBM passed awy recently. He was a
Talmid at the Mir and hailed from pre-war Lita. My impression was that
the Aruch hashulchan was considered to be THE poseik in Lita. He did
not make an AhS vs. MB comparison but I would say anyone with a high
level of learning can see from the AhS style a master of all 4 Turim
with Rishonim, etc. The MB is less analytical and investigative and
more about reporting shitos in the way the BA'eir heitiv did before him.

I have also heard direi Torah that quote RYBS that AhS was the Poseik
hador of his time. It is my unscientific impression that Litvisher
rabbanim - not necessarily Roshei Yeshiva - were partial to the AhS.

The MB on the other hand is a much better TEXT for teaching basic Halacha
at around the high school level. Any Rav who is paskening a serious
sheilah with the MB withou the AhS is imho not doing a thorough job.
For "quick and dirty" sheilos, I'm sure MB is just fine. and also ipcha,
if you pasken ONLY from AhS w/o MB you have not done your homework either.

Here is some Briske style explanations for AhS vs. MB:

AhS is more for RAbbanim MB is more for Roshei Yeshiva and Melamdim.
Corollary, AhS is better for paskening and MB better for learning.

There are 2 kinds of LItvaks, Mussar-dik and non-mussar-dik.
The Mussar-dik Litvaks like MB better, the non-mussar-dik like AhS better.

IMHO the best designed Halachah sefer was the Beis Yoseph. If you judge
a Halachic work by THAT paradigm, then I think you come up with the AhS.

Also, I am partial to Minhag Avos. AhS - like the Maharil & Rema -
was a master in that department.

I was also told in Ner Israel that one should not read the AhS straight
w/o first reading the SA or perhaps the Tur. I have been in that frame
of reference ever since. I have a freind however, who is learning AhS
straight thru - andlast I heard is in Even Ha'ezer - and he claims that
you need not look at SA or Tur, that AhS is self-contained.

It also appears t me that the MB learnns heavily on the Eliyahu Rabba
and I recommend that serious MB consult the ER first. This is analogous
to the Shulchan haRav which leans heavliy upon the magen Avraham.

As for AhS, besides the aforementioned BY, the closest analogy might be
the Levush, but the Levush cites no sources.

'nuff said

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On another discussion group (soc.culture.jewish.moderated) there is a
yearly question why we spill out drops of wine at the Seder. Every year
someone mentions the reason given by the non-O clergy as "we feel sorrow
for the death of the Egyptians" and every year I, Lisa Liel and Zev Sero
mention that this has zero factual basis in traditional Jewish sources. I
then bring the real reason as brought by the Darchei Moishe on TUR Orach
Chayim 473 that this was a zecher of "etzba eloKim" and mention that
the alleged Abarbanel which quotes the "sorrow" hypothesis doesn't exist.

All the following sources give the reason why we lift the finger (or
spill out drops of wine) as "etzba eloKim": Magen Avraham OC 473 s"k 28;
Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75; the Beer Heitev
473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil (Seder Hahaggada #27)
quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says: "v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza
lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U AL SONEINU [caps mine].....

So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
(Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how Hashem
will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.

KT
Josh

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:08:37PM +0000, R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
: On another discussion group (soc.culture.jewish.moderated) there is a
: yearly question why we spill out drops of wine at the Seder...

Not quite.

The discussion is whether binfol oyvekha al tismach applies to the
Egyptians and the like. There wouldn't have been a hew and cry if
it were limited to the original minhag. However, the explanation was
declared not only false, but un-Jewish in its compassion on the guilty.
So the conversation got heated, because it became about what something
very fundamental.

(As an aside, REMT does believe that binfol oyvekha motivates the spilling
of wine and "Etbah E-liom Hi" only explains the variant that uses makes
a point of using the index finger. I ask him to find the time to write
a full answer.)

 From that it grew into a discussion of Chatzi Hallel on the last days
of Pesach (and therefore on ch"m too). I figured that if I could show
that there are sources that use the medrash of "ma'asei Yadai tov'im
bayam" to apply "binfoyl oyvekha al tismach" to to explain saying CH,
the question of whether such compassion is "Jewish" would be closed.

The source I found was the Beis Yoseif on OC 490:4 (d"h "Kol), he in
turn cites earlier sources. Let me present it in historical order as I
understand it at this point in the scjm conversation.

A medrash, which can be found in the Yalqut Shim'oni and Pesiqta deRav
Kahanah (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a, found by RnLL), explains CH
on the 7th day of Pesach with the story about the mal'achim drowning.

This medrash found its way into Medrash Harninu, which in turn is quoted
by Shibolei haLeqet. One of the two is the first to cite the pasuq in
Mishlei (24:17), "binfol oyvekha", in this connection.

The BY raises the question twice. In se'if 544 he cites the gemara in
Eirkhin 10b (see also the parallel version in Megillah). An inconclusive
discussion positing both that each day had the same mussaf as the one
before (unlike Sukkos) and the notion that once we settled Isarael,
whole Hallel required being in Israel.

In the BY I found, he mentions the gemara, without saying what it says,
and then the ShL. Twould seem pretty clear the BY supports both theories.

Thus, having compassion on the Mitzriyim is a Jewish value. Not, as R"D JB
is portraying it, some non-O assimilation of American values.

The Perishah, as Lisa finally showed me, points you back to the gemara.
For all I know, his problem is that if the death of Mitzriyim was cause
for halving Hallel, what about Chanukah?

Very relavent is RAZZ's JA column at
<http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760spring/legalease.pdf>. (Where
he also gives two newer reasons for CH.) RAZZ concludes that "ma'asei
yadai" is not the reason for CH. But along the way he shows that the
idea has a long history in our mesorah. And even of those who reject
the explanation, none have a problem with applying "binfol oyvekha"
to the Mitzriyim. He also provides the Taz (OC 490:3) and Chavos Ya'ir
(225) as holding this position. In footnote 5 he presents people who
question the validity of this new reason. (New? A medrash is assumed to
be post-Chazal?) As well as R' Aharon Kotler, who is in support.

But in the meantime, through all of this no one questions our basic issue --
whether "binfol oyvekha" means that the joy, while present, must be
incpmplete. In fact, the Torah Temimah doesn't like the medrash's answer
because omitting two half-kapitlach from Hallel is insufficient to say
we're curtailing joy. (Still paraphrasing RAZZ's artcile.)

(I invite RAZZ to chime in as well.)

The idea of deminishing Hallel because of the death of the Mitzriyim
thus has a long history, from the Yalqut Shim'oni -- or even earlier,
from the medrashim from which he takes his liqut -- to R' Aharon
Kotler. "Not Jewish"? "Naarishkeit"?

So I stand by my insistance that by saying such compassion is unJewish,
one is misrepresenting Judaism as being overly skewed toward din over
rachamim. Judaism recognized the "dialectic tension" and requires us to
both rejoice at the expression of Midas haDin, and feel the pain of the
fact that tzalmei E-lokim had to die to accomplish it.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

"Michael Y. Kopinsky" <m1@kopinsky.com> wrote:
>> ...up to the gates of Damascus...

>As opposed to today, when it stretches to Damascus Gate.

No. The chomo hashelishis runs near the end of Mea Shearim and in front
of the American consulate, much further north than Damascus Gate.

Akiva

RMB wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:00:31PM +0000, Arie Folger wrote:
> : The gemara states explicitly that the distance is measured in millin,
> : not in traveling time.

> For bein hashemashos, we discuss 3/4 mil as a unit of time. Also, as
> already noted ROY holds that tefillas haderekh is based on mil as a unit
> of time. Is the gemara explicit that the millin in question are distance,
> not the time to walk that distance?

Yes. Pesa'him 94a:
Tanu Rabbanan: Haya 'omed 'hutz laModi'im veyakhol likanes besusim
ubefradim, yakhol yehei 'hayav, talmud lomar "uvederekh lo hayah",
vahaloh hayah.

The convcerse is also taught in the Beraita.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

Further to my earlier post:
> RET writes: 
>> Moshe brought down the concept of mishum eivah as applying to chilonim.
>> My question is whether there is such a concept with regard to other Jews.

Note that the Encylopedia Talmudit lists under the heading eivah four
sections entitled:

a) between husband and wife;
b) between father and son;
c) between adam l'chavero;
d) between yisroel and non Jew.

See there for all the citations in relation to between Jews and Jews
found in the gemora.

Kind Regards
Chana
Chana Luntz

From: T613K@aol.com
> You asked me what bracha I made on a mezonos roll that I ate by itself
> as a snack, and I replied that I made a mezonos. I should clarify that
> I assumed, when the label said "mezonos roll," that the roll was made
> with fruit juice, not water. Otherwise I don't know on what basis anyone
> could have labelled it "mezonos roll."

That is also my understanding. Assuming a mezonos roll o mei peiros -
If one ate a mezonos roll with a cup of coffee instead of a doughnut
it would be treated as a mezonos OTOH if the roll is eaten along with
a meal it is hamotzi.

The problme with mezonos rolls at cateres is that people are really
eating a lot of food together with the roll - e.g. at a kiddush.

OTOH if on a plane one wer to save their mezonos roll for desert with
a cup of coffee or tea, that would be clasic kinuach, etc.

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 05:41:50PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>: One example of this is Aruch Hashulchan 168:46, which describes kreplach
>: as a type of pashtida, but I have never seen any kreplach other than
>: cooked in a soup.

> Dim sum. Wantons in garlic sauce or fried wantons. I don't know if anyone
> in the AhS's day was kove'i'ah se'udah on kreplach, but nowadays it's
> very doable.

note: and you may also add Pirogoen - and kreplach is yiddish for crepe

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

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


[ 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         ]