Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 039

Wednesday, May 10 2006

• cutting the challah
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• RE: Prusbul D'oraysa
• Re: Avodah V17 #38
• Re: Anshei Kneses Hagedola
• Re: Lavud
• Re: Lavud
• Horizontal lavud
• Re: hallel on 16 Nisan
• Binfol oyivcha
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• RE: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• "Binfol oyivcha" does not apply to goyim/Spilling wine at the Seder

> Sorry I don't have the mekor, but I've seen the reason is to take the
> time, before making the hamotzi, to calculate the shiur to cut, to avoid
> unnnecessary hefsek between the beracha and the achila.
> Also, I saw that the proper depth to cut (again, to avoid unnnecessary
> hefsek) is as much as can be done that will still leave enough uncut,
> that if you lift up one end of the challah, it won't break.

I have never understood this. Unless one keeps the knife in the cut
while saying the bracha it will take longer to find the place the
challah was cut then to start over again. In any case the difference
between a partially cut challah and an uncut challah is a fraction is
a second. Whats the big deal?

Again why arent the dishes/silverware on te table good enough for a
basis? As others have pointed my wife does not light on the dining room
table but nearby. Save problems with room on the table and kids knocking
things over

 --
Eli Turkel

People have the customs they have and are used to the way their mother
always did it, but for the benefit of young couples starting out and
baalei teshuva who don't have a custom from home, I am going to spell
out *The Way the Shabbos Table SHOULD Be*:

1. The challa should be on the table from lecht-bentshing, to avoid
making the table muktza. It should not be removed for kiddush and brought
back afterwards -- rather, it should be covered, which accomplishes the
same purpose, is practical, and honors both the challa and the kiddush.
Leaving the challa on the table and covering it is not a bedieved but
a lechatchilla.

2. No other food should be on the table before kiddush. If any food
is on the table it should be covered, but it really shouldn't be there
in the first place.

3. The candles should be on the table, not on the sideboard.
The Yekkes have lovely candleholders that hang from the ceiling, above
the table. That's a beautiful custom and can be adopted by non-Yekkes,
too. (My sister has one of those.)

After Wilma we didn't have power for three weeks and for the first time
I started to take the Gemara seriously -- about Shabbos candles being
needed for sholom bayis, because otherwise people bump into things and
quarrel. That reasoning used to sound quaint and a bit comical to me,
until I lived it. In the dark, people become irritable and depressed,
it's the plain truth. They do bump into things and they do blame each
other and shout a lot. If you don't have candles on the table you
cannot see what you're eating and you can't make out the words in the
bentsher. I am now certain that before there was electricity, people
did not light their candles on a sideboard.

Now they do it to keep small children from tipping the candles (but you
have to watch them anyway, even with the candles on the sideboard), or
because they need room on the table for all the serving dishes. IMO,
better to put the food on the sideboard than to banish the candles
from the Shabbos table. And BTW if the candles are not on the table,
then, unless your family are all sitting along one side of the table
like the apostles in Michelangelo's Last Supper, some of you will be
sitting with your backs to the candles. That's not right, you should
be able to see the candles while you're having your seuda.

The above is Frum Table-Setting 101.  
Let me know if you want Frum Table-Setting 202, the advanced course.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

R"n Toby Katz answered:
> The reason for pre-slicing your bread is that there
> is supposed to be as little hefsek as possible between
> your bracha and your eating. ... So on Shabbos you
> just make a scratch -- a siman, as RGD said.

Sure, but does this make the hefsek shorter, or does it make it longer?

In my experience -- and as some of my friends have told me as well --
it takes longer to find that scratch than it would take to just make a
fresh cut.

In my view, having that scratch would truly make things faster only for
someone who spends a good few seconds trying to decide where to make
that first cut. If so, then my next question would be: Why is it that
difficult to decide where to cut it?

Akiva Miller

PS: Like R' Simon Montagu's family, I too have my shabbos candles on a
nearby piece of furniture, not the table that we eat on. More important
than the muktzeh issues which this easily resolves, I feel it is also
much safer (and makes it easier to pass the food around the table).

"Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a
> reason why everybody else uses the dining table? Are there sources?

Sources? If you have room on the table and the kids won't knock them
down, you put them there; otherwise you put them elsewhere. I can't
imagine this being a halacha issue other than the side issue of basis.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> Also, I saw that the proper depth to cut (again, to avoid unnnecessary
> hefsek) is as much as can be done that will still leave enough uncut,
> that if you lift up one end of the challah, it won't break.

I believe that is the shiur for during the week, while for Shabbos one
only makes a siman and does not pre-cut.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no question that there is a mechanism that works min hatorah.
> Howeer, there is a machlokes Harishonim whether this mechanism is pruzbul
> or not. Tosafos in Makos 3b DH Hamoser states that moser shtarosav lbeis
> din works min hatorah, while pruzbul only works m'drabanan and is a
> different mechanism.

So how do you understand that Tosfos? It seems to say that "pruzbul"
is not what we do nowadays, but some other procedure that has been
completely forgotten. Because what we do today *is* "moser shtarotav
lebet din"; the nusach that we use explicitly says "hareni moser lachem",
and doesn't use the word "pruzbul" at all.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
> I don't understand, doesn't someone with AIDS automatically pass the
> virus to his or her children?

Not exactly. Although there is a significant risk to the baby if the
mother is HIV+, the transmission risk can be lowered in certain ways,
such as by administering the drug AZT.
    Dovid Rier

On 5/4/06, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> How long did this institution last? Were its members replaced when
> they died? How did it end-bang or whimper?

R' Reuven Margoliot discusses this (along with many other issues along
the same lines) is his sefer, "Seder Mishnah V'Arichata", published by
Mossad HaRav Kook. B"L I will post a summary when I have more time.

RYGB, quoting RYBS, wants to posit that lavud only effects a wall
horizontally, not vertically, where "horizontal" refers to lavud filling
in the gap between horizontal pieces, and "vertical" fills in the gap
between vertical pieces. Thus, the question from the mishna of makifin
shlosha chavalim was based on an error in reversing the definition of
horizontal and vertical.

I'm afraid I still don't understand: how does RYBS understand the very
next mishna, "Makifin b'kanim, ubilvad shelo y'hei ein kaneh lachaveiro
sh'loshs t'fachim," which is the vertical counterpart of the horizontal
chavalim?

EMT

A correspondent wrote, in response to my response to REMT:

> From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer rygb@aishdas.org <mailto:rygb@aishdas.org>
> Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>>> In the Hararei Kedem to Sukkah 7a it is stated that RYBS suggested
>>> that lavud only is effective (in creating a wall) horizontally, not
>>> vertically. It is very convenient to say so in the sugyah there, but
>>> very mechudash. Anyone ever heard such a thing before?

>> It must be a total lack of understanding on my part, but isn't the
>> opposite a mishna m'fureshes in Eiruvin 16b, "Makifin bishlosha chavalim
>> zeh l'ma'lah mizeh"?

> That is horizontal; RYBS is attacking the vertical lavud.

> But in that same Mishna it adds Kanim and as Rashi says that Chavolim are Erev (horzontal) Kanim are Shesi (vertical).
> However perhaps RYBS was making this distinction only WRT Sukkah, as we find such distinction in the Maharsha, brought by the Mogein Avraham begining of 630, (as explained by the Lvushei Srad and Machatzis Hasehekel there), although there it is the exact opposite that Erev (horizontal) is worse then Shesi (vertical).

RYBS is nosei v'nosein in that MA and MhS etc. His basic issue is that
the Rambam in Hil. Sukkah 3:3 rules, according to the MA in the Rambam,
that in a sukkah ketanah you need a tzuras ha'pesach besides the pas arba,
which is shverr because anyway lavud should be mashlim the dofen. Yet in
3:4 the Rambam rules that a horizontal lavud _*is*_ mashlim a mechitza.

On this RYBS says a lavud works for the height of the wall to be mashlim
10t, but not in the width of the wall to be mashlim 7t, /but only to
close the pirtza/. He goes on to "explain" that the height of a wall is
one indivisible unit - /because it is all one place/ - while the width
of a wall is many separate parts (sounds very Rogatchoverish, but very
unclear!). He notes that we find elsewhere horizontal lavud, such as
in terms of kinyan hagbaha (more and more R'ish!!) in Kid. 26a. Hence,
while lavus close the gap between the walls, it is the tzuras ha'pesach
that is mashlim the shiur. (He then goes on to derive ramifications for
the din of asui k'min gam).

Did RYBS forget the sugya several blatt hence of petzimei achsadra?!

In any event, I would like to understand this RYBS, because if it works
out it is very helpful to a hypothesis I just developed to distinguish
between a "dofen" (a unique law in Sukkah) and a "mechitza." V'dok.

[Email #2. -mi]

The Shtickel

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/lavudHK.pdf>

KT,
YGB

RYGB wrote: 
I see I mixed everyone up.
> This I am calling horizontal:
> ______________________________
> 3>
> ______________________________
...
> and this vertical:
|3>   |3>   |

Accordingly, I reiterate my comments about the separated reeds which
are thought to form a mechitza, where proximity helps in terms of the
"vertical" connection but there is the additional halacha of amud merubeh
al ha-porutz (i.e., lavud establishes proximity, but is sufficient to
create a solid.

Shalom L. Kohn 

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> Rather, the kelal would seem to only refer to qorbanos listed in Pinechas,
> those we call qorban Musaf.

But the gemara in Eirchin (10b) just says korbanos.

From: "reuven koss" <kmr5@zahav.net.il>
> the Sifsei Chochomim on Rashi there says that the korban is brought for
> the chiyuv of the omer, not as a spcial mussaf.

But the psukim associate it with mo'ed, meaning occasion, not event.
Why isn't hakravas ha'omer sufficient occasion for hallel?

Certainly the naive understanding of the gemara in Eirchin is that all
the days of Pesah are alike, whereas all the days of Sukkos are different.
That's clearly false, as demonstrated by my example of 16 Nisan. So what
does the gemara mean?

David Riceman 

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> Has anyone brought up as a factor and analysed the concluding line in
> "Al Naharos Bavel" regarding the issue of the proper emotions one should
> feel regarding enemy nations?

I'd say, offhand, that saying this or that psalm is about creating
the feeling that the psalmist had when writing it. So for Al Naharos
Bavel, the psalmist was in Bavel, we were a conquered people, yearning
for revenge. We were, as it were, kotzrei ruach, as we are today in an
exiled state.

Pesach is also about recreating an experience, the experience of Yetzias
Mitzrayim. So it's a question - what feelings are we trying to recreate?
Sure, in the aftermath of the immediate salvation from the pursuing
soldiers, we said Shirah, but do we need to recreate that feeling,
of a week later, while recreating the feeling of the moment of Exodus?
Even for the week later, we can see that Chazal, by decreeing Chatzi
Hallel, wanted to di- minish our bloodthirsty triumphalism. We won,
we can afford to see our enemies as individuals which God created, not
just as the Wholly Evil Enemy. Even more so, then, on the Seder night -
relief at leaving, but bearing in mind some sadness at the destruction
of God's creations, in a "vihalachta bidrachav" sort of way. So again
we say hallel, but not in a fully-simchadig sort of way, broken in half,
as it were, by the meal.

Al Naharos Bavel is said during the week, when we are wholly in the world,
our world of galut. The Seder is a yom tov, with a chiyuv of simcha,
and of sipur yetziat mitzrayim - we draw ourselves out of our world, into
another world. Is it not fair to treat the feelings of that world, that
situation, on its own terms? Is it not fair to try to figure out what
feelings Chazal and our antecedents want us to draw from the experience?

And as another possibility, perhaps the emergence of the "Abarbanel
position" within the last hundred years, and its vehement opposition, are
also related to the experiences of the last century? To many, the Shoah
is part of living memory, of themselves or of growing up with parents who
were scarred by it. So of course the vengefulness of Al Naharos Bavel,
or Az Yashir, comes to the fore. For others, the Zion- ist experiment
which has largely succeeded, and/or the openness of America, has also
shaped an openness to the possibility that Hashem isn't entirely happy
with the death of any of His creations.

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

"Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> Has anyone brought up as a factor and analysed the concluding line in
> "Al Naharos Bavel" regarding the issue of the proper emotions one should
> feel regarding enemy nations?

Yesh lechalek, because that does not refer to an actual slaughter of
actual children. It's a curse uttered by the Jews in the depth of their
grief, that they hope their oppressors will one day feel the same grief.
The children whose gory end is described so graphically are hypothetical
children, who have not yet been born, and may for all the poet knows
live quiet lives - he's not actually wishing harm to them, but to their
fathers. (Cf the halacha that if you call someone a mamzer, he may sue
you for defamation, but his mother may not, because nobody is likely to
take it literally, so it's not really a slur on her character.)

Also note, contra some anti-Bible fanatics, that nothing in the pasuk
actually justifies the hypothetical slaughter of the Bavli children.
The poet is not saying that the slaughterers will be right, or that they
won't be horrible genocidal criminals. Indeed, "al de'ateft atfach, vesof
metifayich yetufun". The Poles, Litvaks, etc, who willingly helped the
Nazis, suffered for their sin under the Soviet boot, and that was a good
thing, it was Divine Justice, but it did not absolve the Soviets of guilt.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[Rn Toby Katz:]
> If you don't have candles on the table you cannot see what you're eating
> and you can't make out the words in the bentsher. I am now certain that
> before there was electricity, people did not light their candles on a
> sideboard.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
List-Id: "Avodah Torah Discussion Group" <avodah.single.aishdas.org>

WADR to Rn' Katz, IIUC we are not concerned with where the candles went
before electricity since, as she correctly points out , the purpose is
shalom bayit. Rather I was taught the one lighting the candles should
have in mind (and in fact turn on) the lights just before candle lighting
lshem kavod shabbat).

KT
Joel Rich

On 5/9/06, Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org> wrote:
> Reversing this question, why would anyone do that ("pre-slicing")?
> No one I've ever asked had a reason for doing it, they just see everyone
> else doing it, so they've copied it.

We learn Mishna Berura, hilchot Shabbat during Seudah Shelishit.
I recall that one of the reasons to make a mark on the challah was that
you wanted to decide before the bracha, which was the better challah
and which piece was the better piece. That is the challah & location
to be cut immediately after making the bracha.

Saul

Sorry, been very busy at work and no time for Avodah, so I have only
just caught up on back issues:

RJB:

> Apart from the gemara in Megilla 16a which EXPLICITLY limits "binfol
> oyivcha" to a fellow Jew [and actually insists that it isn't valid for an
> enemy of the Jews], there are many other sources that hold this position
> [Tashbetz's commentary Magen Avot; Pirkei d'rabbi Eliezer 49; Rav Ovadya
> Yosef in Yabia Omer V Orach Chayim 19).

Actually, I think that Rav Ovadya's position is not that clear - he quotes
both. That is, he brings both those who say that the reason we do not say
a full hallel on last days pesach is because of Binfol (the Yalkut, the
Psika d'Rav Kahana, the Beis Yosef and the shibulei haleket). And those
who question this, such as the Marsha, and he also notes this gemora.
ie, Rav Ovadiah is fulfilling his usual role of being encyclopedic and
comprehensive, not providing a conclusion (this teshuva is about making
shechiyanu on grafted fruit and the discussion is rather a by the way).

There is a bit more of a discussion in a later teshuva in Yabiat Omer,
namely 6 Orech Chaim 41: 4 - which is rather more on point. There he
brings the use of Binfol oyivecha in relation to not saying full hallel
on pesach as proving that in fact the hallel said on Channukah is in
relation to the pach shemen, and that one does not say hallel on a
military victory.

Being Rav Ovadiah, and being the comprehensive source citer that he is, he
again goes on to bring those sources contrary to this position, including
the gemora in megilla and also brings the Chida who explains the gemora
in Sanhedrin that tells the angels not to sing shira by krias yam suf on
the basis that the work of Hashem's hands is drowning as being something
only applicable only at the time, ie at the time of the destruction,
but that once the gmar din has occurred and the nes has been revealed,
then indeed one should say shira. The Chida does not, from this quote,
appear to be dealing with either Binfol oyivcha or Megila, but rather with
the contradiction between Sanhedrin and the statement that in fact Dovid
hamelech did not say hallel until he witnessed malpeltan shel reshaim.
ie The question seems to be, how can one say any form of shira at all
(as Hashem seems to be prohibiting it) not whether one should go from
full to half hallel.

BTW The really fascinating thing about ROY's teshuva in Yabiat Omer 6,
Orech Chayim siman 41:6 is its subject matter: - it is about saying hallel
on Yom Hatzmaut. If, or course, you hold that we are required to say
hallel on a military victory, and a full hallel, the implication would
seem to be clear, hallel on Yom Hatzmaut with a bracha (even with Rav
Ovadya's very strict requirements about brachos - remember Sephardim don't
even say Hallel with a bracha on Rosh Chodesh) would seem to be mandatory.

So, Rav Ovadiah in order to eliminate this conclusion goes through
and argues that Hallel on Channukah is not in relation to the military
victory. And while he the goes on to quote the various other sources,
he effectively rejects them - because he holds that one should not say
hallel with a bracha on Yom Hatzmaut.

But to the extent that one is required to rejoice and say shira on the
mapela of our enemies, then hallel on Yom Hatzmaut would in fact seem
rather essential. After all, our enemies refer to the creation of the
State of Israel as "the catastrophe" (or is anybody going to stand
up for the Arab League etc and say they are *not* reshai'im or *not*
our enemies).

It is only if one does not automatically require shira on the downfall
of evil doers and our enemies and that rather hallel has to be linked
to some other good that we would even seem to get into the question as
to to whether Midinat Yisroel is a "good thing" over which one should
have questions about whether to say shira.

So it would seem that if one does not hold that Binfol oyivcha is
operative and there is a positive mitzvah to say shira on the downfall
of enemies, one would fall into the full hallel on Yom Hatzmaut camp
(is there anybody out there who does that - I am aware of people who
say half hallel with a brocha, but full hallel?)

Once the question is understood with the sources described abover it seems
to me to be provide the most obvious and straightforward resolution of the
various mamrei chazal. Haman quotes a pasuk that says that one should not
be joyful at all (al tismach - literally would seem to require no hallel
or shira or rejoicing at all) on the downfall of enemies, and Mordechai
replies, that only applies to Jews. On the other hand, the Yalkut, Pesika
d'Rabbi Kahana etc says that while there is not a prohibition on any form
of joy, and some form of shira is indeed required, joy is still required
to be diminished based on this pasuk. That doesn't seem much of a stira.

The bigger problem I have with the pshat in Megilla 16a is, we already
have a d'orisa prohibition on hating a fellow Jew (vayikra 19:17), or
bearing a grudge (19:18), so how is it possible to have a fellow Jew
as an enemy about whose downfall one should not rejoice? And if one is
already over on a d'orisa, the addition of a d'rabbanan (from Mishlei)
is hardly going to alter matters, nor does it seem very logical that
the pasuk in tehilim is addressing itself to those who are already over
on issurei d'orisa. I guess one option is that one is talking about a
Jewish rasha. However that opens another whole series of issues (as has
been somewhat aireed on this list) - it is certainly not pashut that
Binfol applies to a Jewish rasha.

Another thing that strikes me as rather odd about the gemora in Megila
is the context. We learn that Binfol oyivcha applies only to Jews from
the Torah taught by Mordechai to Haman. Now it is somewhat problematic
to teach non Jews Torah, and it is rather hard to think of a non Jew who
is more problematic to teach than Haman - so the whole context for this
is rather extraordinary. What on earth was Mordechai thinking of?

On a moral level, however, and leaving aside the mamrei chazal who
seem to use this pasuk as an asmuchta for what I guess must be deemed
a rabbinic requirement to diminish joy (as the pasuk is from Mishlei,
so it can't be a d'orisa), the pasuk as written is really a statement
of self interest (why should you not rejoice when your enemy falls or
let your heart be glad when he stumbles - pen yirei Hashem v'ra b'eynav
v'heshiv me'elav apo). If you rejoice in the downfall of your enemies,
you bring on Hashem's scrutiny, and activate his midas hadin against
yourself instead of them, and are you really on such a level of tzidkus
that you can afford to do that?

It is thus the flip side of Shabbas 151b "kol hamerachem al habriyos,
merachamin alav min hashamayim vchol she aino merachem al habriyos ain
merachamin alav min hashamayim". That is, if you demonstrate rachamim
(and "al habriyos" is pretty wide), you will attract to yourself Hashem's
mida of rachamim, while Binfol oyivcha is a statement that if you seem
too pleased with din, then that is the mida you will arose in respect
of yourself.

Of course, the other formulation to that found in Shabbas 151b is that
of Beitza 32b "kol hamerachem al habriyos b'yadua she hu mezero shel
avraham avinu vcholmi sheano merachem al habriyos byadua sheano m'zero
shel avraham avinu"

Midas hadin can be a harsh thing. Think of Yonah and Hashem's statement
regarding Ninveh asher yesh ba harbe mishteim esra ribo adam asher lo
yada ben yamino l'smolo u behema raba. But of course if Ninveh had not
done teshuva, those innocents would indeed have been killed along with
the rest. Likewise, to get us back where we started from, given the nature
of the maka, a pretty fair number of those killed by makas bechoros were
likely to have been children who could not distinguish their right hand
from their left. Feelings of rachamim vis a vis the innocent relatives
of those against one has a justified din who happen to be caught up in
the pursuit of justice seems much more in keeping with what it means to
be a member of klal yisroel than, even only symbolically, demanding the
last drop of blood (and were not the Gibbonim excluded from Klal Yisroel
for that very reason, despite their claim against Shaul being just,
as demonstrated by the plague that Hashem brought on their behalf -
see Yevamos 79a).

But something that has been intriguing me since this question of spilling
the wine at the seder came up, but I have not really had any luck finding
anything on is is on what basis one is permitted to spill wine out at all,
given the b'zayon d'ochlin involved, regardless of the reasons given on
this list.

The gemora in brochas 50b discusses the prohibition on bzayon d'ochlin
involving the throwing of food where the food might become spoilt,
but specifically allows the pouring of wine in front of a chossen/kala
"in the spouts". Rashi says this is considered a siman tov and there
isn't any bzayon or hefsed because they catch it at the head of the
spout in a vessel. The Rashba says that there is a little bit of bzayon
d'ochlin involved, even if it is not rendered disgusting but that this
is outweighed by the mitzvah of being mesameach chassan v'kala.

The rule specifically permitting the pouring in front of the chassan
kala is brought down in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 171 si'if 4 -
but stated to be permitted only so long as it is caught at the mouth of
the spout.

So, how is spilling out wine at the seder permitted at all? Note in
particular that the general Sephardi minhag (as brought by both ROY and
the Ben Ish Chai) is not to use a finger, but to pour sixteen/seventeen
times - and in the course of that pouring to end up throwing out the
entire cup, making a complete refill needed for the second cup. And the
minhag is also to make sure that the wine is poured into some kli that
is disgusting and that has been designated for the purpose (my husband
uses our floor washing bucket) so that the wine becomes in the process
maos and undrinkable and therefore able to be thrown out. {Not that the
Ashkenazi practice of dipping one's finger in and then putting it on a
saucer is much better, the wine would still be considered to have been
rendered disgusting).

But I can't seem to find anybody who comments on this, or on the
contradiction, and explains how come we are permitted to do this at all.

I guess if one does see Binfol oyivcha al tismach as a mitzvah (not
just good advice) - albeit understood as only tempering our joy somewhat
(as per half hallel), then relying on the Rashba (but not Rashi) maybe
one could permit this form of bzayon of the wine.

If not, I am stuck - because I can't see how any of the other mitzvos
of pesach, and certainly not the references quoted to remembering the
gvuros of Hashem, allow us to mistreat wine in contradiction to an
explicit gemora and Shulchan Aruch.

Regards
Chana
Chana Luntz

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


[ 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         ]