Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 081

Monday, July 3 2006

• question re: rosh chodesh
• Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous
• Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous
• Re: Foie gras and veal
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• Re: Bishul Akum
• Re: Mechirat Chametz
• Re: Bishul Akum
• Re: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: question re: rosh chodesh
• RE: face painting
• Re: face painting
• Re: historical contingency and brachos

Suppose a person davens at a shul that davens maariv to begin rosh hodesh
after plag hamincha but before shkiah, and so he says yaaleh v'yavo in
shemoneh esrei. If that person goes home to eat dinner, has bread at
the meal, finishes his meal, and is ready to bentch, all before shkiah,
should he say yaaleh v'yavo in bentching?

Explanations as to why the answer is what it is, rather than just yes/no,
would be much appreciated. And no, this is not just a hypothetical case,
but a maaseh she'haya.

Thanks,
Sammy Groner

From: micha@aishdas.org
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:55:17PM +0200, Minden wrote:
>: About "sheve shabboses temimes", the actual question is - how comes
>: nobody ever thought that was to be understood like that before R' Yankev
>: Pollak? Did all the tannoem, amouroem, ge-ounem, rishounem, and lots of
>: achrounem break the law year after year?! Hard to believe.

> And on Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 02:08:21PM +0200, R Arie Folger wrote:
>: RMB wrote:
>:> 1- Shiv'ah neqi'im? If bedikah is somewhat after sheqi'ah, the whole
>:> day could be lost. There are other examples from taharos.

>: ??? That proves RDSchoemann's point. Min hadin, the last day need not
>: be complete, it is just because of the strnigency of karet that we wait
>: until evening...

> So, if we wait to temimos alst chumrah, both question disappear.
> However here, what motivates the chumrah isn't kareis, but the lashon
> hapasuq.

The Meta question is how can an Acharon make a halachah from a drasha
on a passuk? A Halachah that hs no precedent - AFAIK - in Rishonim?!

It's one thing to find a pasuk as an asmachta for a pre-exsiting halachah
or minhag it's another thing to invent a Halacha from a Passuk!

The drasha of b'etzem hayom hazeh is equally troubling for the same reason.

The Mishnah Brura for example rejectst he Maharil's drasha re: not
wearing tzitsis before marriage becasue the Maharil darshen's smuchos -
ki yikach and gedillim, etc.

If you look at most early Minhag Ashkenaz for dnnim and minhaggim wihtou
any root in the Bavli, you can usualyl find a source in the Midrash,
pesikta, Tosefta, etc. You rarely find drashos such as the above Maharil,
and when you do, the poskim reject it and so do most German Ashekenzim
who after all DO Wear a tallis despite the Maharil's drasha and influence.

The fact that the Taz made this drashis a distrubing. but it is FAR less
disturrbing than the fact that people actually are noheg this way! AFAIK
the German communities are not chosesh for this and it can shown from
the Magen Avrham that he was ONLY makpid on Kiddush and not on Ma'ariv.

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   

On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:49:23AM -0400, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> So, if we wait to temimos alst chumrah, both question disappear.
:> However here, what motivates the chumrah isn't kareis, but the lashon
:> hapasuq.

: The Meta question is how can an Acharon make a halachah from a drasha
: on a passuk? A Halachah that hs no precedent - AFAIK - in Rishonim?!

You mean like wearing your tzitzis out, as a qiyum of "ur'isem oso"?

My whole point was that waiting for Shavuos to fill the idea of temimus
wasn't being suggested as ikkar hadin. (Nor do I know of someone who
says that if your tzitzis are within your pants, you aren't yotzei.)
See my first line, above.

Acharonim invent chumros all the time, and this wouldn't be the first
one based on peshat in the pasuq.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

R' Gil Student wrote:
> I'd recommend seeing the issue of Halacha Berurah on shechitah and
> tza'ar ba'alei chaim, available online at
> http://www.kehillah.com/torah/samples/HB0804_the_shechitah_crisis.pdf

Thanks for pointing me (and others) to the article.

The conclusions of the article's author WRT the two issues in our 
subject header are as follows:
Foie gras and veal are permitted, "...Since such a food is very sought
after, it would not be prohibited due to tzaar ballei chaim..."

His rational for dismissing RMF p'saq in Igros Moshe EH 4:92 is that
RMF relied on what he heard from people, but in reality it is incorrect,
and the fact that RMF writes that the percentage of Treifos are unusually
high with veal "calves" is also disputed by the article's author arguing
that experts claim that these days the percentage of treifos while higher
than with average cows, are not significantly higher.

Ad kan tamtzis divrei Halacha B'rura haNogei'a l'inyaneinu.

There is no mention of a source that desirability of a non-staple item is
within the realm of Tzorkhei Adam, as understood in the Hetter of the Rama
for TZBH. RMF had issue with profit alone being considered tzorekh haAdam,
and it is plausible that niche market desirability may be classified as
the same non-tzorekh, it does seem to follow so logically.
Furthermore, RMF was aware that veal is sought after, and he still had
issue with it, because in his understanding it served no real additional
purpose for mankind.

I am never comfortable with someone mentioning post facto that a Poseiq
was misinformed, particularly if the p'saq is against one's own personal
agenda or understanding. While it is entirely possible that the Poseiq
was indeed misinformed, such a claim would need to be backed up with
convincing evidence. It is pretty presumptuous IMHO to claim that RMF
would issue a P'saq about veal, claiming that its flavor profile is
not sufficient to call upon Tzorekh haAdam to override TZBH, and that
RMF evidence is mere hearsay. The product is and always was somewhat
popular. In my opinion RMF meant what he said, and was not mistaken in
the facts influencing his P'saq.

Gut Vokh,
Jacob Farkas

From: rdavidovich@cox.net
>>Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

>Answer:  U'Mavdil Bein Yom Uvein Layla, Hashem Tzeva-os Shemo.
>Obvious Follow-up Question: Nusach Ashkenaz adds a line: E-l Chai
>v'Kayam...Vos epes?!

> Ta-Shma-ian and Obvious Answer: Minhag Ashkenaz was not concerned with that
> rule of the Bavli in Arvei Pesachim and often ignored it. Perhaps their
> Baalei Tefilla and pre-Siddur Chazanim did not have that mesora.

> Observation:  In addition to the various Kabbalistic changes the Baal
> HaTanya made to his siddur, several of the other changes involve his
> application of me'ein hachasima when Nusach Ashkenaz ignores it.

Think of the 4 insertions for Asseres y'mai Teshuva:

the 1st 3 come BEFORE m'ein hachasima

The last comes RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE i.e after v'tov be'einench and before
the chasima

WHY?

I have about 3-4 hyptheses the common denominator is clear that:
1) the ancient nusach was oseh hashlaom NOT hamevareich
2) b'sefer Hayyim is an ok segue into oseh Hashalom
3) v'tov b'einecha is there ONLY because of the later nusach of hamevoreich.

Therefore if you DO keep hamevareich during the 10 days of teshuva then
by all means insert b'sefer BEFORE v'tov beinecha an NOT after! Otherwise
it makes no sense because all 3 previous insertions do NOT step on the
me'ein hachasimah!

A simlar insrtion that steps on the hasima is before birchas kohhaim

Normal sequence
1) v'sehcezena {mei'ein hachasima}
2) hamachazir

During birkas kohanim:
1) v'sehczena
2) v'sham na'vadcha {mei'ein hachasima}
3) she'oscho

upshot? When insertion steps on the mei'ein hachasima the bracha {usually}
changes, otherwise it would be set back BEFORE.

disclaimer: The German minhag of maaravios BTW does NOT fit this
model! but as noted The German Minhag was probably not so concerned
about the mei'ein hachaisma anyway.

To reiterate if you say hamevarich during 10 days of Teshuva you are
either ARI or GRA and then you Should be concerned! To step on the mei'in
hachasima with b'sefer THEN makes no sense at all! It is a tarta desasrei!

Kol Tuv
Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com   

> [Rn Toby  Katz:]
>> First of all, is sushi really "raw"? Isn't it pickled like herring
>> and lox?

Many people eat sushi with 100% raw fish.

[That should read "sushi with fish that is 100% raw". "Sushi" refers to
the rice that the fish (and other food) was rolled in. -mi]

>> Second of all, was there such a thing as sushi when Yakov Herzog
>> was  looking for something to eat in a restaurant?

R' Jacob Sasson wrote:
> 1. Sushi is raw.
> 2. Sushi is ancient. You probably meant to ask if he knew of sushi.
> While I can conceive of many different scenarios under which Yaakov Herzog
> came to be aware of the practice of eating raw fish, I will admit that
> I do not know (not having read the book) whether or not he knew that
> fish could be eaten raw. I merely responded to the implication that
> his action was objectively problematic.

Many current posqim are of the opinion that fish needs Bishul Yisrael
in spite of the popularity of sashimi and raw-fish sushi. The reasoning
is [and not limited to] the fact that most people do not eat fish raw,
and/or that most (overwhelming majority) fish is not consumed raw. The
mi'ut of people who eat raw fish or the mi'ut of fish that is consumed
raw is not qove'a fish is a food that is ra'ui l'okhlo k'shehee hai and
thus exempt of Bishul Yisrael. There are posqim who disagree, and use
the fact that raw fish is edible as proof that BY is not needed.

Jacob Farkas

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:04:02PM -0400, bdcohen@optonline.net wrote:
:> The chametz, however, is not yours, and even if you take it that just
:> makes you a thief, not an owner of chametz on pesach.

: But isn't the act of stealing a type of kinyan on the property, i.e. that
: the thief does become the owner of the chametz, subject to the superior
: claim of the rightful owner?

Only with shinui (BK 65a).

-mi

[I took the liberty of deleting the "what is sushi" sideline. -mi]

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Second of all, was there such a thing as sushi when Yakov
> Herzog was looking for something to eat in a restaurant?

Well, it existed, of course - in Japan, and probably in a handful of
Japanese restaurants in North America. But it was not nearly common
enough to exempt (those species of) fish from bishul akum. Nowadays it
certainly is.

Which brings us back to sociological changes affecting the halacha.
There probably isn't a gemara that definitively states that fish is not
commonly eaten raw, and so is subject to BA; but what if there were?
Would anyone claim that since Chazal said it it must be true, everywhere
and forever, and that to say otherwise is to be "makchish magideha"?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R' Jacob Farkas wrote:
> Modern society or otherwise, Yidden will always insist on having
> bread present at every Se'udas Mitzvah. There is no other constant.
> The special status stands, IMHO.

First, I'm not asking what the bracha would be at a Seudas Mitzvah. I
agree that since we're making a seudah out of it, it is hamotzi. My
question is about what the bracha is when one eats bread *not* as
a seudah.

But more than that, I could challenge your premise. I don't think that
this is the constant you claim it to be. I think that a good argument
could be made that many of the egg challahs sold in my area (New Jersey)
contain more than enough sweetness to be PBK. It is not unusual for
people to remark on Shabbos, "Wow, this is delicious, are you sure it
is hamotzi?" And my answer, always, is, "I don't know, but it doesn't
matter, because even if it is mezonos, it becomes hamotzi because we
are making a meal of it."

> Bread is a product made with mostly flour and water, baked,
> without toppings. Its significance lies in its simplicity and
> ubiquity, people relied on it for sustenance all year round and
> thus its role in q'vias seudah.

And this comment is exactly the basis of my question. Yes, in previous
generations, "people relied on it for sustenance". But nowadays they
don't.

Even most Shomrei Mitzvos, it seems to me, do not rely on bread for
sustenance. We have hamotzi at a seudas mitzva because we're mechuyav,
and many will have hamotzi at a non-seudas mitzvah out of habit. But no
one considers bread to be a main source of nutrition. It isn't even a
specific part of the USDA Nutrition Pyramid -- it is merely a part of the
"Bread, Cereal, Rice and Pasta" group. Get your dagan anywhere you like;
nutritionists don't consider bread much different than spaghetti. (At
least, not enough to make a difference for this discussion.)

By the way, I don't deny that there's a real culinary distinction between
bread and PBK. Many years ago, I spent some time at the supermarket,
examining the ingredients on many many breads, cakes, and cookies,
both kosher and not. As I recall, in over 95% of the breads, water
was *significantly* more prominent than the other ingredients. And in
over 95% of the cookies and cakes, water was not even listed at all. I
came to the conclusion that water gives a very distinct identity to the
dough - probably in terms of fluffiness - which causes us to label it
as bread. And the lack of sweetness makes it a bland and neutral food,
which can easily serve as the basis of a meal of any type.

So, am I backtracking? Why did I just spend a whole paragraph pointing
out how different bread and cake are? Because I don't deny that they
do have different tastes and textures. But I do deny that they have
significantly different *roles* in our society today.

In our society today, if a person says, "I am going to eat a meal",
he does not automatically include bread, unless the meal is one which
involves bread (such as a sandwich, or if the meal will include some
sort of dip or gravy ("liptan" in the seforim) which goes well with
bread. Rather, first one decides to have a meal, or to have a snack,
and then chooses a food. Choosing a "meal" does not require bread,
and choosing a "snack" does not exclude bread.

I'd like to go even further. In our society, many people don't even
bother to label the eating as "meal" or "snack". We just eat whatever we
want, whenever we want to. A person could just as easily have five small
meals in the course of the day and having five large snacks in that same
day. And that's why my example was of a person who chose to snack on
ONE hot dog with bun. I could have spoke ok a snack which involved two
hot dogs, because I do believe that there are many people who would eat
two hot dogs - or even three! - and call it a snack. But I'd prefer to
keep the discussion simple. One hot dog is certainly a mere snack. No
special status is given to the bun.

I don't know why we should consider the hot dog bun as more significant
than --- I was going to say "the crust of one slice of pizza", but that's
old hat by now. Let's up the ante. Let's take a genuine mezonos roll,
eaten with nothing else. Flour, eggs, apple juice. Technically, it is
PBK, and we'd all agree that it is mezonos. But are those recipe-based
halachos relevant today? No one eats those rolls other than as a sandwich
(airline passengers excepted :-).

This paragraph is for those who say mezonos on such a sandwich: Clearly,
you consider such a sandwich to be a snack, and not keviyus seudah. So
if a sandwich can be a snack, then what difference is there nowadays
between bread and cake? Why not says mezonos on that hot dog bun too?

This paragraph is for those who say hamotzi on such a sandwich: Do
you really consider that to be a meal? More of a meal than a slice of
pizza? Or, perhaps we are locked into a mindset that equates sandwiches
with bread, and bread with meals. This is the main point that I'm
questioning. In today's society, eating a sandwich does not necessarily
involve a meal, and more than a bread baked with cheese does.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 7/2/2006 7:33:00pm EDT,  spg28@cornell.edu writes:
> Suppose a person davens at a shul that davens maariv to begin rosh
> hodesh after plag hamincha but before shkiah, and so he says yaaleh
> v'yavo in shemoneh esrei. If that person goes home to eat dinner...
> all before shkiah, should he say yaaleh v'yavo in bentching?

See Mogein Avraham Orach Chayim 419 (towards end), brought in Mishna Brura  
424 s"k 2.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[Micha, in reply to R Jacob Farkas:     -mi]
>: Right. Makos 21a, Rambam Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 12:11 (or 12:15,
>: depending on the edition), Yoreh Deah 180:1 -- you need to violate the
>: integrity of the skin AND apply color.

> But you're quoting Sepharadi sources -- the Rambam and the Mechabeir. As
> noted, Rashi and the Rama disagree.

I'm not sure that Rashi there means to explain the full parameters of the
issur deoraisa, just that aspect relevant to the discussion there (in
Gittin). And where is this Rama?

Barak

R' Barak Greenfield, MD wrote:
> [Micha, in reply to R Jacob Farkas:     -mi]
>>: Right. Makos 21a, Rambam Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 12:11 (or 12:15,
>>: depending on the edition), Yoreh Deah 180:1 -- you need to violate the
>>: integrity of the skin AND apply color.

>> But you're quoting Sepharadi sources -- the Rambam and the Mechabeir. As
>> noted, Rashi and the Rama disagree.

> I'm not sure that Rashi there means to explain the full parameters of the
> issur deoraisa, just that aspect relevant to the discussion there (in
> Gittin). And where is this Rama?

YD 180:3. Rama objects to branding a slave, l'khathila. Biur haGRA 
suggests that the source for the Rama's objection would be because he 
holds like Tosfos in Gitin, that even when all the biblical parameters 
are not met, there could still be a rabbinic prohibition to tattoo.

Jacob Farkas

Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> Modern society or otherwise, Yidden will always insist on having
>> bread present at every Se'udas Mitzvah. There is no other constant.
>> The special status stands, IMHO.

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
> First, I'm not asking what the bracha would be at a Seudas Mitzvah. I
> agree that since we're making a seudah out of it, it is hamotzi. My
> question is about what the bracha is when one eats bread *not* as
> a seudah.

Pas is haMotzi, PHBK is Mezonos. Pas was granted Seudah status, a fact
that you are currently questioning, based on the fact that its role in
modern times has changed. I don't know for certain in which society and
at what point in time bread shifted from being the central feature to
just another article of food, but this shift has not taken place by the
halakha-observant precisely because of the special Halakhos surrounding
bread. Now I realize that this logic is somewhat circular, but much of
Yiddishkeit is about preserving the values and customs of yore, intended
for us to link to our ancestors. As a result, while much of society heads
in one direction, certain values and customs are preserved nevertheless,
and I don't just mean by Gezeirah, I mean l'ma'aseh. I could cite many
examples but that is a different discussion all in itslef, one that has
been raised by others recently.

> But more than that, I could challenge your premise. I don't think that
> this is the constant you claim it to be. I think that a good argument
> could be made that many of the egg challahs sold in my area (New Jersey)
> contain more than enough sweetness to be PBK. It is not unusual for
> people to remark on Shabbos, "Wow, this is delicious, are you sure it
> is hamotzi?" And my answer, always, is, "I don't know, but it doesn't
> matter, because even if it is mezonos, it becomes hamotzi because we
> are making a meal of it."

Certain Heimishe Yidden are maqpid to eat water Hallah for Lehem Mishneh
precisely because of the argument you raised. They do consider flavored
bread to be PHBK, and thus will not use it for Lehem Misneh.

>> Bread is a product made with mostly flour and water, baked,
>> without toppings. Its significance lies in its simplicity and
>> ubiquity, people relied on it for sustenance all year round and
>> thus its role in q'vias seudah.

> And this comment is exactly the basis of my question. Yes, in previous
> generations, "people relied on it for sustenance". But nowadays they
> don't.

They don't "have to" would be more accurate. Mankind has progressed and
found variety to supplement bread with other options, so bread as its
role in society at large is diminished. Certain (once-) popular diet
fads advocated abstinence of bread and similar foods.

> Even most Shomrei Mitzvos, it seems to me, do not rely on bread for
> sustenance. We have hamotzi at a seudas mitzva because we're mechuyav,
> and many will have hamotzi at a non-seudas mitzvah out of habit. But no
> one considers bread to be a main source of nutrition. It isn't even a
> specific part of the USDA Nutrition Pyramid -- it is merely a part of the
> "Bread, Cereal, Rice and Pasta" group. Get your dagan anywhere you like;
> nutritionists don't consider bread much different than spaghetti. (At
> least, not enough to make a difference for this discussion.)

Agreed. Bread is no longer the central feature, but it is still the
common factor. All Seudos still contain bread, so its Hashivus shifted
from being the star of the show to being the constant at the show. Not
all Seudos contain kugel but they all have Pas.

> By the way, I don't deny that there's a real culinary distinction between
> bread and PBK. Many years ago, I spent some time at the supermarket,
> examining the ingredients on many many breads, cakes, and cookies,
> both kosher and not. As I recall, in over 95% of the breads, water
> was *significantly* more prominent than the other ingredients. And in
> over 95% of the cookies and cakes, water was not even listed at all. I
> came to the conclusion that water gives a very distinct identity to the
> dough - probably in terms of fluffiness - which causes us to label it
> as bread. And the lack of sweetness makes it a bland and neutral food,
> which can easily serve as the basis of a meal of any type.

You hit the nail on the head. (Though fluffiness is a byproduct of gas
bubbles caused by yeast.) Bread is simpler in nature and won't clash
with whatever else is being served at the meal. That is why it is a
constant fixture.

> So, am I backtracking? Why did I just spend a whole paragraph pointing
> out how different bread and cake are? Because I don't deny that they
> do have different tastes and textures. But I do deny that they have
> significantly different *roles* in our society today.

> In our society today, if a person says, "I am going to eat a meal",
> he does not automatically include bread, unless the meal is one which
> involves bread (such as a sandwich, or if the meal will include some
> sort of dip or gravy ("liptan" in the seforim) which goes well with
> bread. Rather, first one decides to have a meal, or to have a snack,
> and then chooses a food. Choosing a "meal" does not require bread,
> and choosing a "snack" does not exclude bread.

> I'd like to go even further. In our society, many people don't even
> bother to label the eating as "meal" or "snack". We just eat whatever we
> want, whenever we want to. A person could just as easily have five small
> meals in the course of the day and having five large snacks in that same
> day. And that's why my example was of a person who chose to snack on
> ONE hot dog with bun. I could have spoke ok a snack which involved two
> hot dogs, because I do believe that there are many people who would eat
> two hot dogs - or even three! - and call it a snack. But I'd prefer to
> keep the discussion simple. One hot dog is certainly a mere snack. No
> special status is given to the bun.

Eating on the go and Seudah are natural opposites. I still don't know
of Seudah without Pas, at least not in most circles.

> I don't know why we should consider the hot dog bun as more significant
> than --- I was going to say "the crust of one slice of pizza", but that's
> old hat by now. Let's up the ante. Let's take a genuine mezonos roll,
> eaten with nothing else. Flour, eggs, apple juice. Technically, it is
> PBK, and we'd all agree that it is mezonos. But are those recipe-based
> halachos relevant today? No one eats those rolls other than as a sandwich
> (airline passengers excepted :-).

Recipe based Halakhos are still relevant. They define the Heftza, one
can say he is qovei'a seudah on cake, but halakha requires 4 k'beyos
for Birkas haMazon. Even if you put a piece of lox between two slices
of sponge cake and call it a sandwich, there is no one that pasken that
you need birkas haMazon, because you were qovei'a seudah.

> This paragraph is for those who say mezonos on such a sandwich: Clearly,
> you consider such a sandwich to be a snack, and not keviyus seudah. So
> if a sandwich can be a snack, then what difference is there nowadays
> between bread and cake? Why not says mezonos on that hot dog bun too?

Bread and cake have different ingredients, serve different purposes.

> This paragraph is for those who say hamotzi on such a sandwich: Do
> you really consider that to be a meal? More of a meal than a slice of
> pizza? Or, perhaps we are locked into a mindset that equates sandwiches
> with bread, and bread with meals. This is the main point that I'm
> questioning. In today's society, eating a sandwich does not necessarily
> involve a meal, and more than a bread baked with cheese does.

A small piece of Pas is still haMotzi, even if eaten as a snack.
Sandwiches are (usually) made with Pas, cheese baked on a bread defines
the purpose of that bread, it is no longer the neutral, ubiquitous,
Pas that we expect to appear at Seudah, it is a foodstuff that contains
pseudo-pas, or PHBK.

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         ]