Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 131

Fri, 11 Apr 2008

• 1. size of a kezayit (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (Gil Student)
• 4. Re: buddhism (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: sports and leisure (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (R Davidovich)
• 7. Re: buddhism (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (Gil Student)
• 9. Re: size of a kezayit (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (T613K@aol.com)
• 11. Re: conversion standards [was: R' Angel & Geirus Redux] (T613K@aol.com)

The kaf hachaim says to use weight and not volume.

See

http://www.vbm-torah.org/pesach/pes62-yr.htm

for all the glory details of how much to eat and all the shitot

-- 
Eli Turkel

R Davidovich wrote:
> I recently read a teshuva by R'Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 1: 16) that 
> gives the measurement for the k'zayis as a weight, not volume.  Instead 
> of saying that the k'zayis is 28cc, which comes out to about  1/6 of a 
> hand-matza according to Rabbi Heinemann's water-displacing  tests, ROY 
> says that  it is 28 grams, which is the approximately the weight of half 
> a hand-matza.  (With standard issue hand matza, you get about 8 matzos a 
> pound, one slice is two ounces, or 56 grams.)

How did R Heinemann do these tests?  AFAIK the halachic standard is
to assume that bread and matzah have approximately the same density
as water, so that 1 ml weighs about 1 g.  See Shiurei Torah chapter 1,
footnote 33; chapter 2, para 1; and siman 3, footnotes 17 and 18. 

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

> The teshuva I cited seems to say that 28 grams of matza need to be eaten,
> not 28 ccs.  He even mentions using a scale to weigh the 28 grams, not 14
> grams.  He mentions no conversion from mass to or from volume.  That would
> make his kzayis shiur half a hand-matza, not a quarter.
>
> Do you think he was inexact and meant cc's?

Then I don't know. Sorry.


Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

Micha Berger wrote:

> I went into this assuming that if the belief wasn't assur, neither
> could be the activity. RTK and RZS came in on the other side,
> commenting on the use of statues and icons.

I don't recall doing so.  All I recall saying is that it's my
understanding that Buddhism as actually practised in Tibet is
nothing like the sanitised theoretical model of Buddhism that is
taught in the West, but rather is actual literal AZ, every bit
as much as that of Terach or of Chazal's Romans.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

R' Micha'el Makovi:
> My major rabbi at Machon Meir (not the previous one above) said that
> one in fact does NOT have to do everything leshem shamayim, i.e. with
> the kavana of having fun to rest for study. Now, obviously, to do so
> is a lofty and meritorious thing. But, he said, to do something
> "'l'shem Wooh!" (his exact words; read with your hands in the air like
> you're going down a waterslide) is not an averah; it isn't a mitzvah,
> but it isn't an averah either.
> 
> So the point, he said, is that it's not mitzvah or averah; there IS a
> neutral area in between.
> 
> Anyone know a source?

See Even Ha'ezel, Hilchos Melachim 3:5-6. (BTW, I heard that at one point
they reprinted Even Ha'ezel and wanted to take this paragraph out, but R'
Aharon Kotler refused to allow it.)

KT,
MYG

The teshuva I cited seems to say that 28 grams of matza need to be eaten,
not 28 ccs.  He even mentions using a scale to weigh the 28 grams, not 14
grams.  He mentions no conversion from mass to or from volume.  That would
make his kzayis shiur half a hand-matza, not a quarter.

Do you think he was inexact and meant cc's?

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Gil Student <gil.student@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know what ROY says but R. Mordechai Willig also uses weight (I
> will be"H be posting his calculations early next week). The real issue
> is mass but weight can be used to calculate mass if you have the
> appropriate conversion factor.
>
> 28 ccs of water weighs 28 grams. If something has the same density as
> water and weighs 28 grams, then it has a mass of 28 ccs. Experiments
> have shown that handmade shemurah matzah has approximately half the
> density of water so 14 grams of handmade shemurah matzah has about a
> mass of 28 ccs. Therefore, if you eat 14 grams (half an ounce) of
> handmade shemurah matzah, you have eaten 28 ccs, which is a ke-zayis
> according to ROY.
>
> I believe an average handmade shemurah matzah weighs a over 2 ounces.
> So ROY's shiur of ke-zayis is under 1/4 of an average matzah.
>
>
>
>
> On 4/11/08, R Davidovich <raphaeldavidovich@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I recently read a teshuva by R'Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 1: 16) that
> gives
> > the measurement for the k'zayis as a weight, not volume.  Instead of
> saying
> > that the k'zayis is 28cc, which comes out to about  1/6 of a hand-matza
> > according to Rabbi Heinemann's water-displacing  tests, ROY says that
>  it is
> > 28 grams, which is the approximately the weight of half a hand-matza.
>  (With
> > standard issue hand matza, you get about 8 matzos a pound, one slice is
> two
> > ounces, or 56 grams.)
> >
> > I cannot figure out how ROY turned k'zayis and k'beitza into mass!
> >
> > Does anyone have sources or answers?
> >
> > --
> > RD
> >
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
> Gil Student,          Yashar Books
> Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
> news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
> http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
> mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com
>



-- 
RD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080411/18dae720/attachment-0001.htm 

I apologize for this ongoing discussion of tum'ah, but I really see no
other way for us to determine whether we should support Tibetan
independence.

There is another issue that could have halachic impact, and that is
whether Chinese Communism really is all that vehemently atheistic
anymore. IOW, is there a religious component left to the oppression,
or is it entirely political?

On Fri, April 11, 2008 11:23 am, R Zev Sero wrote:
: I don't recall doing so.  All I recall saying is that it's my
: understanding that Buddhism as actually practised in Tibet is
: nothing like the sanitised theoretical model of Buddhism that is
: taught in the West, but rather is actual literal AZ, every bit
: as much as that of Terach or of Chazal's Romans.

Well, Tibetan Buddhism as described in the book my co worker showed me
a month ago is as I said. He has a bit of a library on his desk, many
of the books published by <http://www.snowlionpub.com/>.

Mahayana Buddhists don't so much have many gods as have many people
who realized (in the sense of: became conscious of) their
panentheistic nature and offered to hang around to help other people
get there. I might seem like polytheism, but again, each is not a
deity.

A related question: Does Catholocism's use of saints as intermediaries
pose halachic issues in how we relate to them beyond trinitarianism?
(Not to mention Zoroastrianism dualism that crept in when they
promoted satan into a demigod capable of turning all of history into a
battle against their god.)

This is even less, as it's not a demigod or middleman.

I have never seen a good discussion of AZ in how it applies to Eastern
Religions. It's not like the paganism that evolved around from Egypt,
Assyria, Phoenicia, Greece and Rome, where there was a well defined
pantheon of multiple deities.

I have been calling Buddhism panentheistic. They would object to my
calling "Buddha nature" their deity, and call their religion
non-theistic (not promoting or discouraging any particular concept
about god or gods or the lack of them). Both are arguable.

So, what would a poseiq do?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I don't know what ROY says but R. Mordechai Willig also uses weight (I
will be"H be posting his calculations early next week). The real issue
is mass but weight can be used to calculate mass if you have the
appropriate conversion factor.

28 ccs of water weighs 28 grams. If something has the same density as
water and weighs 28 grams, then it has a mass of 28 ccs. Experiments
have shown that handmade shemurah matzah has approximately half the
density of water so 14 grams of handmade shemurah matzah has about a
mass of 28 ccs. Therefore, if you eat 14 grams (half an ounce) of
handmade shemurah matzah, you have eaten 28 ccs, which is a ke-zayis
according to ROY.

I believe an average handmade shemurah matzah weighs a over 2 ounces.
So ROY's shiur of ke-zayis is under 1/4 of an average matzah.




On 4/11/08, R Davidovich <raphaeldavidovich@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recently read a teshuva by R'Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 1: 16) that gives
> the measurement for the k'zayis as a weight, not volume.  Instead of saying
> that the k'zayis is 28cc, which comes out to about  1/6 of a hand-matza
> according to Rabbi Heinemann's water-displacing  tests, ROY says that  it is
> 28 grams, which is the approximately the weight of half a hand-matza.  (With
> standard issue hand matza, you get about 8 matzos a pound, one slice is two
> ounces, or 56 grams.)
>
> I cannot figure out how ROY turned k'zayis and k'beitza into mass!
>
> Does anyone have sources or answers?
>
> --
> RD
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

Eli Turkel wrote:
> The kaf hachaim says to use weight and not volume.
> 
> See
> http://www.vbm-torah.org/pesach/pes62-yr.htm 
> for all the glory details of how much to eat and all the shitot


There is no opinion, anywhere, that shiurim are determined by weight.
The web page cited creates a machlokes out of thin air.  The most practical
way to determine the volume of a solid is to weigh it and multiply by its
known density.  That's all.

Now we do seem to have a dispute about the density of matzah, since
all the older sources assume it to have approximately the same density
as water, and the well-attested minhag in EY was to weigh 9 dirhams of
matzah for a kezayit, explicitly on this assumption that it has the
same density as water.  If more recent experimental data shows this
assumption to have been incorrect, then the weight required must be
adjusted accordingly.

One issue may be how to determine the density; how big a hole can be
ignored?  We know that "sponge bread" is measured as it is, but what
exactly does that mean?  AFAIK the accepted explanation is that only
microscopic holes can be ignored, but any hole that can be seen must
be deducted from the volume.  The only practical way to do this is
to squash the bread before measuring its volume.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 
 
In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 107 dated 3/24/2008  "Michael Makovi"  
<mikewinddale@gmail.com>
writes:
 

>>Also, though, I would argue that even according to an pure  austritt
position like RSRH, today's R clergy are not like those of his  day. In
his day, the R clergy KNEW what they were doing, knew they  were
deviating from classical Judaism - there was NO ignorance. But  today's
R/C clergy are as ignorant and misguided as their laity - not in  terms
of textual knowledge, but rather in terms of  weltanschauung.

Now, RSRH would probably still insist that an Orthodox  congregation
cannot belong to an R umbrella organization, if the O's  membership is
lending legitimacy or material assistance to any R  activities, such as
publishing R educational materials or funding HUC - an  in fact, I
cannot imagine most supporting such an O membership of such an  R
organization. But if the organization is doing nonsectarian  activities
that are not inimical to the goals of O, or if the organization  is
dialog exclusively, etc., then I would say that perhaps even  RSRH
would permit working together. His austritt was because O  membership
aided the R in their efforts, and because R was not TsN, but  since
today R certainly is TsN (IMHO), and if the organization is  not
inimical to anything O, then perhaps RSRH would permit.

Rabbi  Moshe Shmuel Glasner in haTzionut b'Ohr haEmuna argues that
austritt is  perfect for when O and R oppose each other, but when they
share a common  goal, austritt is out of place. His example of a common
goal is Zionism  
Mikha'el Makovi





>>>>>
I am certain that RSRH would NOT permit Orthodox participation in a  common 
body with R and C organizations, although he would permit Orthodox  
representatives to run for election to governmental bodies like the  Knesset.  If there 
were some kind of joint rabbinate, say, for conversion,  or even for charitable 
disbursements, involving R, C and O clergy together in  one body, he would 
most certainly forbid it.  If there were a  non-sectarian, secular organization 
in which Jews as individuals acted together  for some purpose -- such as AIPAC 
-- then he would permit individuals to  participate.  But a body like the 
World Jewish Congress would be a  no-no.  
 
The fact that most R/C rabbis today are tinokos shenishbu is completely  
irrelevant to the question of holding joint activities with them.  They are  still 
sinners, even if not intentionally, and what they teach is pure kefirah.  
Furthermore, many or most of them consciously and openly oppose Orthodoxy in  
their teaching and preaching -- they are not neutral.  They may not go to  
Gehenom for what they do -- because of their tinok shenishba status -- but their  
actions are nevertheless objectively evil and anti-Torah, even if their  
intentions are not evil and they are sincere in their beliefs.


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





**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.    
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv000
  30000000016)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080411/ead83c54/attachment.htm 

 
In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 107 dated 3/24/2008 "Michael Makovi"  
<mikewinddale@gmail.com>
writes:



>>I would say you cannot possibly draw a line - NO ONE  can possibly hold
a distinction between one who promises to try to keep  halacha, and one
who says that he won't keep halacha because he simply  cannot. It is
not a theoretical question of where the line would be drawn;  rather,
it is objectively impossible to even consider drawing a line.  EVERY
ger will mess up. EVERY bar mitzvah will mess up. EVERY *Jew*  will
mess up. NO ONE can keep all the mitzvot perfectly, and so NO  posek
can demand this. Poskim can argue on how close to success (in  perfect
mitzvah performance) the ger must achieve, but they all must  concede
that perfection is impossible.<<
 
>>>>>
You have set up a straw man because no posek demands perfection (or a  
promise of perfection) from a ger.  The usual requirement is that the ger  agrees to 
keep Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha.  It is obvious  that he will 
do so with better and better fidelity as he learns more of the  halachos with 
the passage of time.  IOW a ger must agree to be observant  and Orthodox.
 
Unfortunately there are Orthodox rabbis who will convert people even though  
these converts openly state that they have no intention of being  observant.   
I have recently written about several such cases, on  Areivim.  These rabbis 
have caused untold harm to Klal Yisrael. 
 
My husband, for example, refused to convert someone's fiancee in  Chattanooga 
-- the woman openly stated that she did not intend to be  observant.  But a 
previous Orthodox rabbi had accepted two such converts,  women who were active 
in our shul but did not keep kosher, Shabbos or taharas  hamishpacha.   So the 
people in our shul -- most of whom were  non-observant themselves -- could 
not understand why my husband was being so  "fanatic" and stubborn.  The women 
involved took it very personally and  concluded that my husband rejected them 
as Jews, and there were certainly hurt  feelings and a great deal of machlokes 
in the shul, ultimately leading to our  departure from Chattanooga.  This was 
all the fault of a rabbi who did not  adhere to minimum standards of Orthodox 
conversion.
 
Again, no one asks or expects from a convert a commitment to keep mitzvos  
"perfectly."  That is not the issue.
 
 


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





**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.    
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv000
  30000000016)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080411/a4a0eb8a/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 131
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."