Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 74

Tue, 16 Mar 2010

• 1. What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Meir Rabi)
• 2. Re: Who First Said it? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Timtum Halev (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Timtum halev (Beth & David Cohen)
• 6. Re: Ilanot Tobot/Tobim (JosephMosseri)
• 7. Re: timtum halev (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for theMitzvah of Matza? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: The Yeshivas and the Seder (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: More on the Seder (Saul Mashbaum)
• 11. Re: several questions (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: More on the Seder (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: timtum halev (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: timtum halev (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: timtum halev (David Riceman)

The Mechaber 661:2 mentions an opinion that one should protest against those
who make 'damper', dough that is baked in the hot ash or coals of a fire.
The MBerurah explains that there is a concern that the 'damper' may become
Chametz. I presume this is either due to the heat being less than the usual
baking oven or the 'damper' being a different consistency of dough or
bigger, or perhaps a combination of all of these considerations.
The MBerurah concludes that nevertheless such a baked product is not
Chametz. I presume he means that those baking it would be vigilant and
ensure that it did not become Chametz.
In the ShHaTziyun 17, he adds that it can also be used for the Mitzvah of
eating Matza.

This seems to be entirely unnecessary. If it is not Chametz, it is Matza and
one can use Matza for the Mitzavah.
The discussion of the Mechaber and MBerurah has nothing to do with making it
Lishmah

meir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/e1228472/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:07:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: The repetition of zecher/zeicher definitely goes back further than the
: MB.  The Toras Chesed, who was the Lubliber Rov from 1868 to 1892,
: once remarked "zecher, zeicher, abi opmeken" (so long as we erase);
: this shows that the repetition was customary in his day.

Or uncertainty about which is correct, if not resolved by saying both.
IOW, you are assuming "'zecher, zeicher', abi opmeken", whereas the TC
could have meant "'zecher', 'zeicher', abi opmeken".

And we know the uncertainty dates back to at the latest the 18th cent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:15:59PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: The Mechaber 661:2 mentions an opinion that one should protest against those
: who make 'damper', dough that is baked in the hot ash or coals of a fire.

I don't know how much this resembles, but for people wondering what
damper is as much as I did, there is a traditional Australian bread
made with sodium bicarbonate (rather than yeast) on hot coals. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damper_%28food%29

In Newfoundland, "damper dogs" are small round lumps of dough baked in
a stove's flue's dampers.

Common theme is that a "damper" is baked in spare heat, not the soda
bread aspect of the Australian version.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R'HS was very clear- eat within parameters of halacha=no timtum.
I think his pay grade is high enough for me.
KT
Joel Rich

________________________________
From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Joseph C. Kaplan
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:49 AM
To: Avo...@aishdas.org
Cc: Kenneth Miller; David Cohen
Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev

RAM writes: "Even the very best of hechsherim is not perfect; if someone
totally innocently ate such food, and it turned out to be treif, would you
say that it is not m'tamtem his lev even a tiny bit? What about someone
whose tefillin had been checked over the years by a dozen expert sofrim,
and only decades later was it discovered that an entire word was missing;
Hashem can give him all sorts of credits for trying, but do you think that
he'll really get full credit as if the word had been there all along?"

I don't know what RDC, to whom the questions were directed, would answer,
but I would answer "yes" to both questions.  Of course, what do I know
about this.  But I think RAM's comment about "being above my pay scale"
applies to almost everyone with respect to these matters.

Joseph Kaplan
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/f72f7709/attachment-0001.htm>

I want to thank my friend Akiva Miller for his thoughtful reply. It is well
done!

Just a few additional comments:
He wrote:

"> If someone holds be down and forces me to eat a kazayit
> of treif, does that cause timtum halev, while if I
> voluntarily consume a minuscule amount it doesn't?
Well, given that "chetzi shiur assur min haTorah", voluntarily consuming a
minuscule amount WILL cause timtum to a small degree. Whether it is smaller
than your example of oness, or not quite as small, is far above my pay
scale.
> I would think that maybe the timtum caused by inadvertent
> consumption (or inadvertent failure to perform a particular
> mitzva correctly, such as wearing tefilin you didn't know
> where not kosher) is the fact that the person did not care
> enough to be careful enough, which, therefore causes a
> chisaron in his neshama.
I totally agree that in such a case, the causes and effects are exactly as
you describe. But what would you say about a case where a person *did* care
enough, and *was* very careful, but stumbled nevertheless? Even the very
best of hechsherim is not perfect; if someone totally innocently ate such
food, and it turned out to be treif, would you say that it is not m'tamtem
his lev even a tiny bit? What about someone whose tefillin had been checked
over the years by a dozen expert sofrim, and only decades later was it
discovered that an entire word was missing; Hashem can give him all sorts of
credits for trying, but do you think that he'll really get full credit as if
the word had been there all along?"

D. Cohen:
I would have to say, yes, if you have done everything that the halacha
demands of you, with the required intention and attention to detail, with
the required care, then, if circumstances occur it has no effect on your
neshama. i would hold that we combine correct actions with correct intention
to affect our neshamot. A totally inadvertent, unknowing, accidental swallow
of treif should have no effect.
I would concede that emotionally the knowledge that there's treif in what I
ate might cause a visceral reaction, I might want to run and vomit. But
doesn't that contradict those who claim my attitude towards the forbidden is
that, if not for the command of HKBH it is very desirable.

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/a6586b49/attachment-0001.htm>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/87745109/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:04am IST, R Eli Turkel replied to RAM:
:> It seems to me that in the dispute over whether Chilul Shabos for
:> Sakana is "hutrah" or "dechuyah", there is comparatively little
:> difference in Halacha L'Maaseh. The main differences are in these
:> metaphysical areas.

: I didn't understand the difference. Even if pikuach nefesh is dechuya
: the halacha is that gedolei yisroel (interpreted as the great rabbis)
: should be the ones to do saving. There is no chillul shabbat even if
: it turns out that there was no danger.

First, WRT RAM's statement, there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh between
huterah and dekhuyah. "Comparatively little" reason is still grounds for
many a machloqes. There is no proof from the rarity of the difference
that the iqar machloqes is about metaphysics.

(The textbook nafqa mina: Can a healthy person eat food cooked on
Shabbos for a sick person?

(Case 2: Someone who must eat meat on Shabbos to live
but there is nothing nishchat should eat neveilah or should have meat
shechted for him on Shabbos. If Shabbos is hutrah, then shecht the meat;
if it's dechuyah, then neveilah is the lesser issur to be overridden.

(RMF has another case in the IM: Should a doctor try to move his on-call
hours so as minimize being on-call on Shabbos, or should he recognize
that he would be more diligent for his own patients, and therefore not do
so? The IM sides with the latter -- take Shabbos on-call hours. RMShinnar
once cited the Minchas Asher as bringing down this IM and disagreeing,
saying one should avoid being on call. Not because he holds necessarily
dekhuyah, but even if hutera. Rather, the MA is concerned about the
family's Shabbos, not just his own.)

Chemo causes medical damage. However, for someone who r"l needs chemo,
he would still be ill advised to avoid that damage.

Similarly, saying that Shabbos is dekhuyah for piquach nefesh would
mean that there is spiritual damage being done by the chillul Shabbos,
but the offsetting advantage to one's neshamah of saving a life is so
much greater, the cost is worth it.

This parallels the Taz YD 81 s"q 12 who explicitly says that the problem
with nursing from someone who eats treif is even if she ate treif beheter,
eg piquach nefesh.

As my modified position goes -- the "Litvisher" approach of assuming
that all metaphysical causality involves cheftzah->gavra->effect and
never directly from cheftza to effect. Just that the discussion often
shorthands by not spelling out every step in the chain.


RAM also asks:
> What about someone whose tefillin had been checked over the years by a
> dozen expert sofrim, and only decades later was it discovered that an
> entire word was missing; Hashem can give him all sorts of credits for
> trying, but do you think that he'll really get full credit as if the
> word had been there all along?"

In terms of "credit", I would argue yes. If he did everything halakhah
requires of him -- lefum tzaarah agra. Nothing about lefum cheftza.

However, once he knows that his tefillin was pasul, doesn't think
change how he relates back to what he did? He isn't the same person as
someone who would have found out the tefillin was kasher. So in terms
of hashgachah, he needs a different sort of push from HQBH.

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:47pm EDT, R David Cohen wrote:
: Well, given that "chetzi shiur assur min haTorah", voluntarily consuming a
: minuscule amount WILL cause timtum to a small degree.

OTOH, me'iqar hadin you can eat three pieces of fat -- 2 shuman, 1
cheilev, where there is a safeiq which is which -- even though you will
definitely eat a full piece of cheilev.

As I said, this ties back to the rules of birur -- is a mezuzah with a
chezqas kashrus but kelapei Shemaya galya is flawed metaphysically the
same as one that physically is kasher?

(And if a tree that falls in the forest doesn't make a sound, does any of
this discussion make any sense? There is no unknown state of the mezuzah
to contrast to its chezqas kashrus.)


On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:06pm EDT, RDR wrote:
: >But if the people involved didn't know a Jew nursed form a
: >nachriah,this modified position would argue there is no timtum.

: But that's not what the Rama says...

(We're discussing YD 81:7.)

Actually, the Rama talks about two cases:

First: where an adult is picking a meineqes for the child, and

Second (as the Shakh s"q 9 understands him): should the parents stop a
child from the issur of eating non-kosher, even if the child isn't up
to chinukh on the matter.

In both cases, people know what the child is eating. It's not limited
to the state of the milk or food as per qelapei Shemaya galya.

And in fact, the Shakh adds "shemaziq lo *bizqeinuso*".

Well, let's assume that all the metaphysical causality talk is shorthand,
leaving out the to-them-obvious human step in between cause and effect.

Then what's the Shakh's understanding of the Rama? Don't feed a kid treif
because you can't keep him from learning about it and being shaped by
it as an adult.

First, midina (at least as he writes in the Mapa), the child may be given
this milk. So it would seem that the point of the issur is not to avoid
timtum, or else HQBH would have assured using a meineqes who eats treif.

The case in the medrash with Rebbe and Antoninus, where Rebbe's mother
influences Antuninus by being his meineqes (eg see medrash quoted by Tos
AZ 10b d"h "amar leih im kein") is much like the discussion of whether
Rebbe was telling King Artvon of Persia that the mezuzah protects or
was telling him that Artvon can gain protection through it. Contrast to
the Bavli, Shabbos 32, where it's a lack of *kavod* for the mezuzah
which could ch"v cause one's chlidren to die young.

Back to the Rama:
:                                    Here's the Darkei Moshe s.k. 9
: (which, incidentally, doesn't use the term "timtum"): "The Ran Perek
: Ein Ma'amidin [7a] and the end of Perek Heresh in Yevamos wrote that
: there are those who prohibit permitting a child to suckle from a
: gentile when a Jewish wetnurse is available because the milk of a
: gentile is <not kosher>.  In the absence of a Jewish wetnurse it is
: permitted because [the absence of human] milk is dangerous for a
: child...

This is different than the Mapa, where the Rama weites that the whole
concern is extrahalachic. Not hutera/dekhuya by piquach nefesh.

...
: I think it's clear that both the Rashba and the Hagahos Ashrei were
: worried that milk of non-Jews is physically different than milk of
: Jews, and endangers the character of those who drink it.  And don't
: forget, we're talking about drinkers who are too young to study issur
: vaheter.

Or that knowing that one ate these things beheter could make it easier
or them to try them again. Kind of like Chava -- "I touched the tree,
nothing happened, let's see what happens if I eat from it..."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

meir...@gmail.com
> The MBerurah concludes that nevertheless such a baked product is not
> Chametz.....In the ShHaTziyun 17, he adds that it can also be used for
> the Mitzvah of eating Matza.This seems to be entirely unnecessary. If
> it is not Chametz, it is Matza and one can use Matza for the Mitzavah.?

The premise seems to be
Since it's not Hametz therefore it must be OK as matzaas Mitzvah.

Elu yochichu:
What about matzah ashira?
Matzah M'vusheles? Rebaked matzah meal in the form of a matzah ball?

While they're not Hametz they're still not available for the mitzva!

It's not necessarily black-and-white - although I have no clue as to
the ShZ's cheshash here.

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

kennethgmil...@juno.com 
> How else do the children know, already at the start of Maggid, that
> there will be a second dipping? (I've seen this question elsewhere,
> and don't recall the answer.)
 
I wrote an entire thread showing that the kids [except maybe a ben
hacham] did not ask this question until after the time of the Shulchan
Aruch
 
We still have not found the earliest source for the youngest to be asking
questions on issues not in view.
 
The Rambam et al. Have the reader stating this 
 
The mishnah has it as aviv m'lamdo if the kid fails to ask about m'zigass
kos sheini [see Rashi, Rashban and SA]

KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Regarding learning at the seder:

I have heard Rav Asher Zelig Weiss say several times that one who spends the
entire seder exclusively discussing hilchot Pesach, sugyot in masechet
Pesachim, or even sifrei machshavah like Pachad Yitzchak, can wind up not
fulfilling the mitzvah of sippur yetziat Mitzraim at all.
This is not to say that these activities are not at all appropriate, but one
must keep in mind what is the ikkar in this mitzvah.
Ad kan divrei R. Asher.

See Hagaddah shel Pesach Siah HaGrid, based on the teachings of RYBS,  pp
30-32, on learning hilchot haPesach as an integral part of the mitzvah of
the night.
Briefly, RYBS cites the Tosefta Pesachim 10:8, which says one is obligated
to learn hilchot haPesach  on the seder night, as indeed is indicated in the
answer to the wise son. However, it is possible that according to R.Elazar
ben Azaria, who holds that the KP may be eaten only until chatzot, the
mitzva to learn HP is also only until chatzot.(It seems that "Hilchot
haPesach" in this context means hilchot korban Pesach, not hilchot chag
haPesach, such as issur chametz, SM) But the mitzva to tell the story of the
exodus is all night even according to REbA, as indicated by the story of the
chachamim in Bnei Brak who told the story all night, one of whom was REbA
himself.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/22699eb2/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel asked several questions. I don't really know any answers, but here are some guesses.

> 1. Why is av haracamim not said on the shabbat of the 4
> parshiyot. Onbiously not connected to tachanun since
> Tzidchadcha is said

I've always supposed that it's because the 4 parshios are "special
occasion". It's like saying Shir Hamaalos at a seudas mitzva, even at a
seudas mitzvah which isn't big enough to cancel Tachanun for, like a Pidyon
Haben, or a Siyum.

> 3. What is the purpose of the bride wearing a heavy veil (dech
> tikel)

Why wear a veil at all? I always thought it had something to do with Yaakov
not realizing that he was marrying Leah. If so, a heavy veil makes much
more sense than a see-thru one.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

Meir Rabi wrote:

> The MBerurah concludes that nevertheless such a baked product is not 
> Chametz. I presume he means that those baking it would be vigilant and 
> ensure that it did not become Chametz.
> In the ShHaTziyun 17, he adds that it can also be used for the Mitzvah 
> of eating Matza.
> 
> This seems to be entirely unnecessary. If it is not Chametz, it is Matza 
> and one can use Matza for the Mitzavah.

Not necessarily.  It might not have counted as "bread".  Sun-baked loaves
are not bread, and one cannot say hamotzi on them or use them for the
mitzvah of matzah.  (Yet another proof, if one were necessary, against
the children's story of our ancestors taking unbaked dough out of Egypt
and the sun baking it into matzos on their shoulders.)  Ka mashma lan
that damper is not in that category, that even though it's an inferior
kind of bread it still counts as bread.

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

Micha Berger wrote:
 
> Acording to R' Hai Gaon, they were darshening Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in order
> to come up with a pesaq on backing Bar Kochva. All 5 end up being among
> BK's supporters.

Where is this RHG to be found?


> R Hai Gaon also translates the "askera" that killed Rabbi Akiva's talmidim
> during the omer period (Yevamos 62b) as "sicarii" (singluar: sicarius),
> a dagger used by the lower ranks of Roman soldier. (In contrast to
> Rashi's identification of "askera" with diptheria.)

See Gittin 44a, 55b

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

Micha Berger wrote:
> Or that knowing that one ate these things beheter could make it easier
> or them to try them again. Kind of like Chava -- "I touched the tree,
> nothing happened, let's see what happens if I eat from it..."
>   
But then why would the Rashba make the remark about rahmanim ubayshanim? 
In fact, what's the Rashba's objection at all? L'shitaso milk of a 
non-Jew is permissible even to an adult.

Admittedly, there's another way to understand the Rashba: he's worried, 
not about the effect of the milk, but about the effect of the character 
of the wetnurse.  In that case, however, why did the Rama append the 
position of the Hagahos Ashrei to that of the Rashba?

David Riceman

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:34:12PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >Or that knowing that one ate these things beheter could make it easier
: >or them to try them again. Kind of like Chava -- "I touched the tree,
: >nothing happened, let's see what happens if I eat from it..."

: But then why would the Rashba make the remark about rahmanim ubayshanim? 
: In fact, what's the Rashba's objection at all? L'shitaso milk of a 
: non-Jew is permissible even to an adult.

Still, in all these cases it's where the identity of the meineqes [and
the kashrus of her diet] is known. Thus, there is no way to prove that 
the issue is inherent in the milk, rather than the influence of the
person, or of knowing of a bond to such people, of having had indirect
treif before, or... but whatever, of eventually knowing rather than
an inherent metaphysical mechanics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> Still, in all these cases it's where the identity of the meineqes [and
> the kashrus of her diet] is known. Thus, there is no way to prove that 
> the issue is inherent in the milk, rather than the influence of the
> person, or of knowing of a bond to such people, of having had indirect
> treif before, or... but whatever, of eventually knowing rather than
> an inherent metaphysical mechanics.
>   
As I thought I said before, I don't think that these rishonim thought it 
was a metaphysical issue, I think they thought that non-kosher food is 
physically different and produces milk which is physically different, 
and that there is a presumption that a non-Jew eats non-kosher food.

David Riceman


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 74
**************************************

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..."