Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 68

Mon, 20 Apr 2009

• 1. Why isn't Sefira 2 Mitzvos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Why isn't Sefira 2 Mitzvos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: : Re: Gebrochts (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Why isn't Sefira 2 Mitzvos (Y...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis; an alternative svara Pt. 2 (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 6. Did You Know? (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Did You Know? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Dr. Berkovits and R' Marc Angel (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: Dr. Berkovits and R' Marc Angel (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Dr. Berkovits and R' Marc Angel (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Selling open boxes (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. Re: Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 13. Re: Selling open boxes (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Selling open boxes (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 16. Re: Gebrochts (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Why was arami chosen over more complete passages in shmos re: Exodus? (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: eating matza for 7 days (Micha Berger)
• 19. Re: Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis (Chaim G Steinmetz)

Given:
A passuk in Emor to count (up to) 50 days

Another passuk in Re'eh to count 7 weeks

AND given
A memra from Abbaye to count BOTH days AND weeks!

Shouldn't this be a classic model for sefira being 2 separate mitzvos?

If not - why not?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 05:38:57PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Shouldn't this be a classic model for sefira being 2 separate mitzvos?
: If not - why not?

See
http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/shav67-mt.htm and
http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/shav68-mt.htm

It's a machloqes. Rabbeinu Yerucham says that the qorban and counting
weeks is one mitzvah, and counting days another. Therefore, counting
weeks today is a derabbanan zeikher lamiqdash. The Rambam (asei 161)
refers back to asei 140, counting yoveil, as well as points to the fact
that there is only one berakhah to show that it's one mitzvah. He also
notes that we do mention the weeks daily, unlike the Baal haMaor who
only required numbering the week weekly.

In either case, R' "Meish" (Moshe) Taragin discusses it at length.
Ayin sham.

The Rambam assumes that tefillah shel rosh rosh einah me'aqeves es
shel yad and v.v. proves that they are separate chiyuvim. (Tekheiles
and lavan within a single mitzvah of tzitzis is the exception.) I know
this is the converse aand not the contrapositive, but does holding that
counting days and counting weeks are mutually me'aqvos force one to
count them as a single one of the 613?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:14:06PM +0100, I wrote:
> > : Anyhow, my husband was busy wondering out loud on seventh 
> > : night how theymanaged in the days before freezers - and one of the old

> > : timers at the meal said that she remembered in India they used to hang
up 
> > : the matzos, and then when it was time to eat them they used to soak
them in 
> > : water to make them edible!  

And RMB writes: 
> > I think they baked their own in the middle of Pesach.

And RZS replies:
> Yes, they did, but what about Shabbat?

But even leaving aside shabbat, is it not a significant tircha to have to
bake every single day?  And how about for second night seder (these
communities were not in Israel, so they kept second day as well)?  How could
they bake on first day for second day - I can't think of a greater
preparation than that?  But surely they were not baking after nacht before
they started second seder?  Which would seem to suggest to me that they
*must* have baked at latest on the afternoon of the 14th for both first and
second seder.  But without a freezer, my best guess is this stuff would be
hard and pretty close to inedible by the time you got to second seder.

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you


Regards

Chana

In a message dated 4/19/2009 4:16:59pm EDT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com writes:
> Given:
> A passuk in Emor to count (up to) 50 days
> Another  passuk in Re'eh to count 7 weeks
> AND given
> A memra from Abbaye to  count BOTH days AND weeks!

> Shouldn't this be a classic model for sefira  being 2 separate mitzvos?

See Sefer Hamitzvohs of the Rambam Mitzva 161 and his reference to  Mitzva 
140. 
 
Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In part 1, I was able to squeeze the following svara into the GRA as
understood by Mishna Brura...
Namely:  Since only a K'zayyis triggers a bracha on the netila for tibbul -
And since we are noheig to never make the bracha al netilas yadayim for
ANY Tibbul -
Therefore it is best to avoid a S'feik Bracha by consuming less than a
K'zayyis karpas.

The Rambam will show us a converse scenario;
Namely how it looks in the case when we DO say a bracha al netilas
yadyyim prior to tibbul.

Re: Karpas...
Rambam hil. Hametz uMatza 8:1 
...Mevareich al netilas yadayim v'noteil es yadav...
 
8:2 
Maschil umevareich borei pri ha'adamah... V'ocheil kezayis...

Running with the Mishna Brura's sevara -
then ONLY a k'zayyis of tibbul would trigger the bracha of al netilas
yadayim..

Extrapolating from there as per this read of Rambam:
If you are going to wash for tibbul anyway
Then ensure a bracha by ensuring a K'zayyis.
---------------------


would add the proviso that is ONLY true in conjunction with a K'zayyis

And since SA is mesuppak on brachah due to Tosafos, therefore it would
be best to avoid a K'zayyis because that would trigger a bracha according
to the Rambam. And so SA would prefer not to be in a position of safeik.

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


MB and therefore would make a bracha al netilas no matter how little
tibbul would be eaten? Then you might need another reason for Rambam
to require k'zayyis. And there we already have alternate sevaros.

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



Algebraically let's define a Rishon "R" who DOES hold one makes a bracha
al netilas and as MB posits only when there is a k'zayyis.

Then even if we must disregard the Rambam due to external difficulties,
if we can still find a Rishon. R who holds YES to bracha al netilas,
provided it's a k'zayyis, then it would behoove us to be chosheish for
this Rishon R and avoid the conflict by consuming LESS.

Or IOW we just need to find is a Rishon that holds like the MB claims
the GRA holds.

Superficially, I would have guessed this Rambam would fit. But as R
Chaim Steinmetz BEH show us, this Rambam is a difficult fit

And if can show that NO such Rishon R exists then we have a big tzarich
iyyun on my entire thesis which is No big deal.

However, this would also be a tzarich iyyun on the Mishna Brura, too!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I'm curious if any of you realized that as there are 355 days in a non- 
leap year,
the gematria of shana is 355. (Coincidence? I seriously doubt it).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090420/ffb0c837/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> I'm curious if any of you realized that as there are 355 days in a 
> non-leap year,

Only if it's a long year (shlemah), which only 46% of non-leap years
are. A normal year (kesidrah) is 354 days, and a short year (chasera)
is 353 (16% of all non-leap years).  Leap years are 383, 384, or 385.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Michael Makovi (quoting RMDA) wrote:
> > Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, in the mid-second century C.E., compiled the
>> Mishnah, a record of the oral law up to his time. From then on, the
>> mishnah became the central text in halakhah; rabbis no longer derived
>> laws directly from the text of the Torah, but focused their studies
>> and decisions on the texts of the Mishnah.

R' David Riceman responded,
> This is a gross oversimplification of a process that took many
> generations.  Certainly the Tosefta derives halacha primarily from
> psukim, and much of what the amoraim did was to provide Biblical
> justification for Tannaitic norms.  It's only in the time of the geonim
> that deriving halacha from psukim became rare.

It may certainly be an oversimplification. Perhaps "mishnah" is lav
davka, and includes also the writing of other Tannaitic texts. But the
gist seems to be the same. And while the Amoraim provided Biblical
*justifications* for laws *already* taught by the Tannaim, and
sometimes even offered a better text than the Tanna's pasuk (R' Zvi
Lampel's Dynamics of Dispute offers a novel interpretation of why they
could do this: the Amoraim could mix-and-match Tannaitic opinions as
they desired, taking half of this shita and half of that shita and
crafting a hybrid, as long as they preserved the lowest common
denominator of every Tannaitic opinion involved), I'm not aware of any
times when the Amoraim actually derived wholly new laws from pasukim,
as the Tannaim did. The Tannaim derived new laws with new drashot; the
Amoraim justified old laws with new drashot. So as far as I know, the
end of the Tannaitic age was the end of direct Scriptural exegesis as
a method of *creating* law.

Also, Menachem Elon, in Encyclopedia Judaica, "Interpretation", says
almost the exact same thing as Rabbi Angel does here. Perhaps someone
has an Encyclopedia Judaica to check whether my memory is correct?

Also, I'll add that Rabbi Glasner and Dr. Berkovits rely on the
*writing* of the Mishna, which is problematic according to the version
of Iggeret haRav Sherira Gaon that says Rebbe merely orally compiled
the Mishna. For that reason, I prefer Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, who
explains that the Glasner/Berkovits phenomenon occurred not with the
*writing* of the Mishna, but rather, with the transition from midrash
halakhah to mishnah, whether written or oral.

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


that Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner required Mashiah's coming for a
Sanhedrin. He notes that the Dor Revi'i supported Rabbi
Fishman/Maimon's effort to reinstate the Sanhedrin.

Also, regarding Hilhot Mamrim that one Sanhedrin can overturn a
previous Sanhedrin's drash, the Dor Revi'i writes,
However, while this opinion of the Rambam's is the essential law, in
accordance with the verse "the judge that will be in those days," it
is really a law for Messianic times (hilkheta li-meshiha). For [when]
the Temple is rebuilt (speedily in our times!), and the "children
return to their boundary," and the crown is returned to its former
condition in that the Oral Torah will be transmitted orally and it
will be forbidden to write it down-then the sages of each generation
will have the right to interpret the Torah [according to their own
understanding] without reference to the interpretations of their
predecessors, for the Oral Torah will not have been written down in an
"iron pen" to be unchanging.

Regarding our governing Israel according to the Torah, Rabbi Glasner writes,
Now, concerning the public administration and how to administer it
according to the Torah, it would be an idle task as yet to enter into
this topic too deeply. It is clear that the holy Torah cannot put
insurmountable obstacles in our way, so that we should be unable to
live our national life in our land and that we should be required to
remain in the Diaspora. There can be no doubt that had Israel remained
in its homeland for the past two thousand years, it would not have
been capable of being closed off from advancements in all areas of
life. As a wise and understanding nation, the people of Israel would
have been required to light the path before the nations in these
fields, too. We can be sure that if we return now, after two thousand
years of exile, to live our national lives in our homeland, that the
Holy One Blessed Be He will give, and from the midst of the people
there will arise, leaders worthy of their great assignment who will
know how to reconcile life with the laws of the Torah in the manner in
which the Rambam posited in his commentary on the Mishnah at the
beginning of Sanhedrin.
And it appears to me that when there will be an agreement among all
the scholars to advance one man from the academy upon them, and they
will place him at their head, provided, as we have mentioned, that
this takes place in the land of Israel, then the academy will be
established for this man and he will be ordained. He will then be able
to ordain whomever he wants to. For if you will say otherwise, it is
impossible that the Sanhedrin will never be extant, because it is
necessary that each member of the Sanhedrin be ordained and the Holy
One Blessed Be He promised that they would return as it is written
(Isaiah 1:26): "And I shall return your judges as at first and your
counselors as in the beginning. And then it will be called unto you a
city of justice." And without doubt this will occur when the Blessed
Creator will prepare the hearts of the people and their merits will be
multiplied and their longing will be for the name of the Blessed One
and the Torah and their wisdom will become great before the coming of
the Messiah, as this is explained in many verses in the Scripture.
If we faithfully attach ourselves to these holy and prophetic words of
the Rambam, why should we not march in formation toward the task of
settling and taking possession of the Holy Land, trusting in the
Divine promise "I shall return your judges as at first and your
counselors as in the beginning," which, according to the Rambam, is
destined to occur before the arrival of the Messiah?

It appears from Rabbi Glasner's words that the Sanhedrin can be
instituted before Mashiah. If so, his opinion would appear to be
(almost) exactly like Rabbi Uziel's.

Michael Makovi


-- 
Michael Makovi
????? ???????
mikewindd...@gmail.com
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com

Michael Makovi wrote:
> The Tannaim derived new laws with new drashot; the
> Amoraim justified old laws with new drashot.
Do you have any evidence for either half of this assertion?

David Riceman

Michael:
> So as far as I know, the
> end of the Tannaitic age was the end of direct Scriptural exegesis as
> a method of *creating* law."

See. SA Orach Chayyim 494
where Taz requires waiting to daven arvis after tzeis due to "temimos"

There is also a minhag for unmarried men not to wear a Tallis due a
drasha of semuchos
Viz.
Gedillim taaseh lach
And
Ki yikach ish isha
This is quoted by Maharil though he is apparently not in favor of this
particular minhag.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 561 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090420/3708b20f/attachment-0001.bin>

R' Rich asked me to comment, in light of our lengthy off list
discussions. He himself pointed out some of the difficulty in his
approach. Let me expand a bit (though I will try to keep it short):
I believe one has to first look at the halochos of washing - in Siman 158
and rambam hil. brochos, and based on that, draw conclusions concerning
"urchatz - karpas".
1) Rambam's Shita 
The theory was, that the reason why the Rambam (in hil. Chometz u'Matzo)
needs a kzayis for karpas is in order to trigger the chiyuv netilla. 
IMO, the simple reading of the Rambam in the first 2 halochos of hil.
Brochos imply that there is no shiur to the chiyuv netillah with a
brocho. Concerning bread, he gives the condition of "bread that one makes
hamotzi on" - and there is no shiur to hamotzi. Concerning "tibolo
bemashke" - he attaches no conditions ("kol dovor"). In halacho 2 he
writes that anytime you have to wash - you have to wash with a brocho
(there is no such thing in straight halocho as washing without a brocho.
Either you are obligated or not).
This understanding - which I think is the simple read of the Rambam, is
also the understanding of the Beis Meir and others. According to this -
there is no shiur to the obligation of washing, and by extension - no
shiur to the brocho.
Now, the Gro has a different understanding in the Rambam, and is
mechadesh - that the chiyuv of washing on bread is not dependent on the
brocho of hamotzi, but on the chiyuv Birchas Hamozon. [The Chasam Sofer
in his tshuvos (OH Siman 86,127) brings such a svoro, but not in the
Rambam]. According to this, on less than a kzayis there is no chiyuv to
wash at all.This is brought lehalocho in the MB 158:10.
This is all concerning bread. What about tibul bemashke? Let us see:
If bread acccording to the Rambam has no shiur (like the simple reading
in his words in hil. brochos) - then tibul bemashke has no shiur either,
for why assume they are different? Even if bread has a shiur of kzayis
(like the Gro) - it DOES not mean that tibul bemashke has also. The
simple reading of the Gro in Siman 473 - is that one washes with a brocho
on less than a kzayis of tibul bemashke (see at length Shu"t Binyan
Shlomo Siman who proves this in the Gro (from here and from Siman 158) -
unlike the Shaar Hatziyon 473:70 who sort of "twists" the simple meaning
of the Gro)! Even the MB - though he is lenient concerning bread less
than a kzayis based on the Gro, nonetheless, when he discusses tibul
bemashke says to be meikil based on his OWN svoro (because of a
combination of shitos), but does not quote the Gro - see MB 158:20.
Therefore - the only way one can explain the Rambam needing a kzayis of
karpas in order to be able to make a brocho on the washing - is if there
is a din of kzayis by washing on tibul bemashke, something I believe
(based on the above) is far from a given.
There IS such a pshat in why one would NEED a kzayis karpas (to ba able
to make the brocho) - in Rasbatz brought in Biur Halacha end of Siman
473. It is not clear to me whether he learns the Rambam in hil Brochos
that way, or it is his own pshat to explain such a shita, but lav daka IN
the Rambam. Bchol ofen, according to many shitos mentioned above, the
Rambam holds netillah less than a kzayis, in which case the pshat (in
Rambam) does not begin.
In any case - the question will always remain: Even if true - why the
hakpodo to davka wash? Let one eat as much karpas as they want, if they
need to wash (because they ate a shiur) they wash, if not - not. Why a
DIN - to davka eat a kzayis IN ORDER to wash (with a brocho)?
More - a discussion of the other shitos in Rishonim, and most importantly
- the point of this whole discussion, which is the shito of the mechaber
- later BEH.
CGS
____________________________________________________________
Don't risk your health! Click now for professional mold remediation!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTGP9uSA3gofentDZX4p2lE4UxYGgbQRJN7tgprSn37JWgz2B04pc0/

Micha Berger wrote [on Areivim]:
> A question for Avodah: Many items are not sellable used and open. If
> someone sells everything (eg before heading for the hotel), is the sale
> of half a box of Cheerios really chal?

Why are such items not sellable?  They may not be worth very much, but
so what?  If you were to offer that half-used box of Cheerios at a stoop
sale, you'd be unlikely to get as much as $1 for it, but if you were to
offer it for 5 cents do you really think it would be impossible to find
a customer?  If you have a willing seller and a willing buyer, even a
half-eaten sandwich can be sold, and would probably fetch a price of more
than a prutah.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                    - Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, April 20, 2009 11:55 am, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: Similarly, selling half a box of cheerios may not be worth exactly
: half of the original purchase price, but I see no reason why someone
: couldn't buy it if they so desired.

Don't you think we've descended well into asmachta / haaramah when we
discuss a family going away to a hotel for Yom Tov, and selling open
package after open package?

It's one thing to throw in a bad element in a large deal -- you get
all this stuff, if you take that half a box of cereal that my children
rifled through too. It's another when speaking of dozens of half-used
packages, that while they *could* buy if they so desired, they aren't
plausibly likely to desire it.


SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@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

2) Other Rishonim
We clearly find other Rishonim who hold that one washes (with a brocho)
on tibul bemashke even less than a kzayis, and they mention this in
connection with the seder. Namely, the Tur in Siman 473 and 486, where he
mentions the brocho and washing and says one does not need a kzayis.
Probably one can make such a case for the Rosh, who mentions that one
does not need a kzayis.
Also the Rashbo in a tshuva, clearly needs washing (with a brocho) and
does not need a kzayis.
These Rishonim (or rather - the Tur, he does not mention the others),
compelled the MB to retract from his view in 158:20 that one does not
need to wash for tibul bemashke on less than a kzayis according to
everyone - as it is clearly not the case - see Biur Halacha Siman 473 and
note in siman 158. [It would be interesting to go through more rishonim
to see if one can find others].
Therefore, irrespective of what they hold concerning bread - on tibul
bemashke kzayis is not a factor. This point is made by the Beis Meir
siman 158, that tibul bemashke is more stringent than bread!
Point being, that for sure karpas less than a kzayis accomplishes nothing
according these rishonim as far as washing (and with a brocho) is
concerned. Uposhut.
Next: The opinion of the mechaber (SA).
CGS
 
____________________________________________________________
Free quote and debt consolidation information.  Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTIk3mFRhjPpmTLHg456KD1hTYF9nbHkXEg20Wv03GBDqfJWVDyRLS/

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 01:47:03PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>Thanks to RSZ, who cited this SAhR in a discussion some years back about
:>how long ago Ashkenazim started exclusively making crispy matzos.

: I must apologise for having confused two things.  As I think I pointed
: out later in that thread, and as RCGS has pointed out this time around,
: the change the Rav explicitly mentions is not to thin matzos (as I had
: originally misremembered) but to quick processing (i.e. 18-minute batches).

We weren't speaking of thin matzos, but of crispy matzos. A wrap
is also thin. Matzos progressively got thinner in the 18th and 19th
centuries, we know this from illustrations and descriptions of flour
per matzah. (Assuming the matzos weren't a yard or more across.)

What did change in the 18th cent in particular was this notion that
the clock shouldn't be stopped for kneading (just in case!). And in the
19th century, the holes got closer together. Before then, people would
draw pictures on the matzah, e.g. a seh representing the qorban pesach,
drawn in dots. The roller was motivated by the greater rush, which no
longer left time for poking holes in any pretty pattern.

What I'm trying to say is, all these shifts happened at one time. When
matzos actually ended up crispy could have been later than the SA haRav,
but NOT earlier than the minhag he mentioned.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 06:21:00PM -0400, rebshr...@aol.com wrote:
: I believe that Chazal carefully fulfilled the?chiyuv of "V'hegadta
> lvincha bayom hahu"by finding?a text that contains the formula (ie. the
> Cheftzah) of "V'hegadta". ? By Bikurim the Chumash tells us?that the
> bringer introduces?his statement of thanksgiving by "Hegadti hayom laShem
> Elokecha" and continues with four verses that describes the history of the
> Exodus? The Chumash thereby tells us that these four verses constitute a
> "hagadah"....


This just shifts the question. What constitutes a hagadah? Why does HQBH
use this label for Arami oveid avi to the exclusion of other tellings of
the story?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:16:52PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: RMF claims that the mitzva of yishuv ha-aretz is a mitzva kiyumit.
: R. Avrahaam Shapira disagreed and said that a mitza kiyumit is like tzizit
: where the choice is whether to wear a 4 cornered garment or not. However, once
: one wears a 4 cornered garment one is required to wear tzizit.
: He claimed that there were no examples of a mitzva kiyumit where one
: had complete freedom whether to keep the mitzva or not.

We discussed this before, volume 7. Even tzitzis isn't clearcut. I
argued from the MB 13:9 that he holds it's qiyumis, not a machshir.
Which is why wearing a beged without tzitzis is a bitul asei, not an
issur. For that matter, how it's possible to fulfil half the mitzvah
without techeiles, rather than the beged being assur or techeiles not
being a machshirah. There is no bitul asei if you don't believe you can
get your hands on any. Also, why kavod haberiyos doesn't require dropping
your tallis in public the moment you notice a pesul.

Rav Dovid Lifshitz also distinguished between a mitzvah machshirah and
a mitzvah qiyumis.

How about having a third child, isn't that a mitzvah qiyumis? (I think
the Meshekh Chokhmah says so.)

And tefillin. (Which came up in my discussion with RRW about changing
halakhah -- I argued that tefillin on ch"m isn't a chiyuv anyway; and
if you have a reason not to wear them beyond laziness, it's not mechzei
keshiqra. As on Shabbos.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

3) The SA
The theory put fwd by R' Rich was, that the reason the SA in Siman 473
says to eat less than a kzayis of karpas, is to gain that there not be an
issue of a brocho on netilla, since lehalocho we don't wash today
(because of the machlokes whether tibul bemashke applies today), so we
sidestep the issue of a sofek brocho by eating less than a kzayis where
there is no chiyuv brocho. 
Obviously, this is based on the assumption that the Mechaber felt that on
less than a kzayis there would be a washing, but without getting into the
issue of a brocho (or rather - less of an issue of a brocho). 
My problem is as follows: Who is the mechaber following? He cannot be
following the opinions of the Tur and Rashba, as they clearly hold of a
brocho less than a kzayis, so the same issue of sofek remains.
R' Rich claims he is doing the Rambam "in reverse": The Rambam (who holds
you make a brocho) holds you need a kzayis to make a brocho, which is why
he makes you eat a kzayis of karpas in order to trigger the brocho - so
the Mechaber, who wants to avoid the issue of (sofek) brocho, tells you
to eat less than a kzayis.
However, we have already shown that it is not simple at all to claim that
the rambam holds you need a kzayis for tibul lemashke - the Gro probably
does not hold like that (unlike by bread). On this R' Rich can argue, nu,
go like a shita that holds you need a kzayis, and say, that we avoid THAT
shita by eating less than a kzayis (maybe the aforementioned rashbatz),
just like we see the MB himself held such a shita (of davka a kzayis).
Perhaps.
My problem is as follows: In 158:2, he brings an opinion (the Rokeach)
concerning bread that on less than a kbeitza one washes without a brocho
(since it is a sofek whether one has to wash ). In 158:3, he brings an
opinion without dissent (also apparantly based on the Rokeach) beshem
"yesh mi sheomar" that holds that less than a kzayis one does not have to
wash at all.
On this last point (seif 3) there is much discussion (see nosei keilim).
Many say the BY had a wrong girsa, and there is no issue of kzayis at
all. According to them, less than a kbeitza is a sofek (as per 158:2)
whether one has to wash, therefore anything less than a kbeitza one
washes without a brocho (no difference less or more than a kzayis). This
is accepted lehalocho by many achronim - see SA Horav, and opinions
brought in MB 158:10.
Others say it was not a mistake, and less than a kzayis one does not wash
at all, and from kzayis until kbeitza without a brocho - see
aforementioned MB for sources, and this is the opinion of the Gro (see
also Aruch Hashulchan).
[IF we equate tibul to pas, it follows that we will have the same
machlokes: Either less than a KBEITZA wash without a brocho (me'ikur
hadin) - and kzayis is meaningless in this context, or have a sofek
whether netilla applies less than a kbeitza, and no netilla at all less
than a kzayis. This may be wrong - has to be looked into again].
Now let us see: The reason to assume that the chiyuv tibul bemashke is
only kzayis, is based on the kzayis we find concerning pas (at least,
that is R' Rich's read of MB 158:20). If that is the case - there is no
reason to wash at all! For by bread, the shiur kzayis is not only for the
brocho but for washing also.
Therefore - memah nifshach: If the mechaber equated bread and tibul - and
both have the shiur kzayis, why wash at all on karpas LESS than a kzayis.
And if there is no shiur kzayis on tibul, then what do you gain by having
less than a kzayis?
IOW: We are trying to understand the MECHABER's needing less than a
kzayis. The theory is, that he gained the issue of (sofek) brocho that
kzayis would have. But let us examine his OWN shito in 158 - either he
holds less than a kzayis does not need any washing like bread doesn't, in
that case why wash at all? There is no chiyuv to wash! [To say this is a
special pesach night netilah would be a chiddush nifla!]. Or he holds
that there is no kzayis issue by tibul - in which case he gained nothing
by having less than a kzayis.
In short: I do not know of a shito, that has washing for tibul less than
a kzayis without a brocho according to ikur hadin. Therefore, I do not
see how washing on less than a kzayis gives you a chiyuv to wash without
a brocho.
Since he DOES tell you to wash, indicates to me, that he holds that there
is a chiyuv netillah, albeit without a brocho (like any washing today on
tibul is without a brocho), and less than a kzayis davka, is for the
brocho achrona issue.
veyesh lehaarich od.
Before I conclude (and no doubt get attacked and refuted...), I want to
thank R' Rich for giving me the impetus for learning a fascinating inyon
that I never learned before...
CGS

PS I am in the process of writing this up (in a different format) in
Hebrew. If anyone is interested, contact me off-list.
____________________________________________________________
Be a professional.  Click here to earn a psychology degree.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTOk51QYl3dlSreiemC4KhRrbEfp1UOI1rIxdt2sOUptveXFytqeKc/


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 68
**************************************


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..."