Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 77

Fri, 19 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: timtum halev (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Hat and jacket (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: timtum halev (David Riceman)
• 4. popcorn (Eli Turkel)
• 5. dektuch (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: popcorn (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: The Yeshivas and the Seder (Samuel Svarc)
• 8. Re: popcorn on Pesach (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: popcorn on Pesach (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: popcorn on Pesach (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Ratzuy l'Rov Echav (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Ratzuy l'Rov Echav (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Ratzuy l'Rov Echav (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Timtum HaLev (Zvi Lampel)
• 15. Re: Timtum HaLev (Micha Berger)
• 16. re Popcorn (martin brody)
• 17. What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Meir Rabi)

R' David Riceman wrote:

> 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 ...

I can understand that if a cow was shechted and found to be a terefah, some
could conclude that the animal was physically unhealthy, and that eating it
would be physically unhealthy for the person. And it is even easier for me
to understand that certain species are unhealthy altogether.

But I don't understand why would anyone think that there is a physical
difference between a cow that was shechted with a smooth knife, and one
that was shechted with a dented knife, or had its head hacked off in some
other manner. To say that such differences are in the physical world
reminds me of many things that I recall from many decades ago, where it was
claimed that if the animal is killed in a non-painless way, then it tenses
up at the moment of death, resulting in tougher meat. I'm not going to call
such ideas nonsense, but to me, they sound more like 20th century
apologetics than like something any rishon might have said.

Can you elaborate on why you think that those rishonim "thought that non-kosher food is physically different and produces milk which is physically different"?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=ThGmoeC1CUymDwlIiCf06QAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:18:12AM +0000, Dov Kaiser wrote:
: I recently heard a mp3 talk on YUTorah by R. Benjamin Yudin about
: R. Dovid Lifshitz. He mentions that once a bochur visited R. Dovid's
: apartment . R. Dovid was eating breakfast in the kitchen without a
: jacket. When R. Dovid noticed the bochur, he immediately put on a jacket
: (hat I don't remember). It appears from this anecdote that R. Lifshitz
: would not have appeared in public without a jacket. Perhaps one of his
: talmidim can confirm.

I picture that's true, altough we never discussed the topic.

However, I would distinguish between that maaseh rav and this one:
: I was once told by a former talmid of R. Shmuel Rozovsky (who, for the
: record, wore a grey frak) that R. Shmuel once saw a bochur...

I don't think R' Dovid saw this as an obligation on a "ben Torah" but
rather part of being a rebbe, including the awkward job of teaching
talmidim about kavod for their rebbe. Rather than announce "give me
kavod", it's useful to just exude it.

Total guesswork, but informed guesswork.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

Me:
>> 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 ...
>>     
> RAM:
> But I don't understand why would anyone think that there is a physical
> difference between a cow that was shechted with a smooth knife, and
> one that was shechted with a dented knife, or had its head hacked off
> in some other manner.
> <snip>
> Can you elaborate on why you think that those rishonim "thought that
> non-kosher food is physically different and produces milk which is
> physically different"?
>   
If you look at my translation of the Rama's citation of Hagahos Ashri, 
you'll see that I translated "neveilah" as "carrion".  I don't think 
they thought all non-kosher foods were different, only certain foods.  
For example, Hazal say that non-Jews have warmer bodies because they eat 
rodents and insects (I apologize that I don't recall the source - 
perhaps someone with a better memory can cite it).

David Riceman

<<Not only is popcorn not a problem, but nor is corn on the cob as long as
it is roasted on a bar b q for example and not boiled, for example. Tinned
corn kernels would be a problem too, of course.>>

I don't understand this. Out minhag is not to eat fresh kitniyot so why would
popcorn be any better then eating fresh peas.

-- 
Eli Turkel

I find the reason given for the dektuch (thanks to REMT for the
correction of my yiddish)
as tzniut of the bride and the references to pesukim as stretched.

I have no idea what the marriage ceremonies of Yitzchak and Yaakov looked like.
However, in modern weddings the bride walks down a relatively long
aisle and frequently up
stairs to a chpah. Wearing a dektuch she is holding on for dear life
with fear of falling over her long gown.

Also I find it strange that walking down to the chupa while she is
single she worries about
tzniut of the guests staring at her but on the way back from the chupa
she is now married
and usually goes the same route in reverse without the dektuch.
In fact in many weddings boys dance the couple to the yichud room.

BTW I have seen various minhagim as to when the bride starts covering her hair.
Certainly according to those that she when she leaves the chuppa she
is not wearing a
sheitel tzniut is even a bigger problem.

I would suggest a new chumra of the week that  brides wear the dektuch
also on the way back
from the chupa -)

-- 
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<Not only is popcorn not a problem, but nor is corn on the cob as long as
> it is roasted on a bar b q for example and not boiled, for example. Tinned
> corn kernels would be a problem too, of course.>>
> 
> I don't understand this. Out minhag is not to eat fresh kitniyot so why would
> popcorn be any better then eating fresh peas.

Who said that was our minhag?


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

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ira Tick <itick1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As to the general issue, children are inevitably--as they should
> be--educated in school about the story of the Exodus and about the laws and
> customs of the holiday, simply because of the role that schools occupy in
> our society, where parents have neither the time nor the expertise to
> be?completely responsible for directing educating their children...
> issue seems to be whether or not young children need to be poised to learn
> all the tidbits of the seder itself--such as the many?vignettes?of the
> Haggadah, which barely touches upon the Chumash's account and focuses on
> specific lessons of Jewish history, survival, and cultural
> narrative.

'Punkt' these are harder to properly "give over". And not as
essential. Someone whose father really believes that God took us out
of Egypt and that we heard His voice on Mount Sinai will feel that by
the seder without any effort necessary. The way the father "breathes"
will reflect this, he can just stick to the Haggadah. No one will be
able to convince his children that such a tradition doesn't exist.
They might think it is mistaken, but they can never doubt its existence
after their father sat down at a table to say over the Haggadah to them
believing every word to be true. Nothing further is needed.

>?Perhaps children should be "misdirected" to focus on aspects of
> the story that leave room for parents to discuss the significance of freedom
> and Hashem's hand in the world. A big part of V'Higadta is to make the story
> very personal--"This is what Hashem did for me," which only parents and
> caregivers can really impart to children. ?Parents should discuss with their
> kids what it means to them to be free and part of Am Yisrael.

Above all the parents should make sure to focus on the mitzvos
'hayom'. Matza, marror, etc. and why we do it. One can survive without
hearing about "freedom" from their parents, but will not survive Jewishly
if they don't hear that we are Jews because God took us out of Egypt to
be His servants.

> Another important idea is to simply ask children questions. ?Don't let them
> read off packets and sing song after song from class about plagues and such,
> but ask them specifically about what they've learned about specific parts of
> the story. ?And ask them experiential questions, like what they think it
> would be like to be on scene when the events took place.

Very true, but we must remember the 'arbah bonim'; there are some children
that need coaching for questions as well, and that might need a totally
spoon fed experience.



On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:34 AM, <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:
> My family has always read Maggid by going around the table, each person
> taking turns reading a paragraph at a time. I had always thought this
> to be a great
> idea, enabling everyone to do the mitzva of *telling* the story. But
> more and more, I'm coming to appreciate the price we're paying for it,
> in the loss of this
> parent to child mesora.

Speak to your 'moreh derech', but I think it can be said that the fact
that the father is officiating (and says the essential parts) is
sufficient for the mitzvah. As for the 'mesorah', if the father sat
down at the table to have a seder that is dedicated to Pesach that
seems like it is almost completely done without a word necessary.

-- 
KT,
MSS

FWIW The issur of eating any qitniyyos on Passover is implicit in Rema
O"C: 453:1
"One may keep them in the house" implying they may be kept but not eaten

The MB 12 says this explicitly that only eating is assur and not having
hana'ah - quoting the MGA [ShhZ 11] which I do not have with me.

It is also mashma b'pashtus from KSA 117:4

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> FWIW The issur of eating any qitniyyos on Passover is implicit in Rema
> O"C: 453:1
> "One may keep them in the house" implying they may be kept but not eaten
> 
> The MB 12 says this explicitly that only eating is assur and not having
> hana'ah - quoting the MGA [ShhZ 11] which I do not have with me.
> 
> It is also mashma b'pashtus from KSA 117:4

*Cooked* kitniyos.  Where do you see anything about not eating raw ones?


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

RZS:
>> FWIW The issur of eating any qitniyyos on Passover is implicit in Rema
>> O"C: 453:1
>> "One may keep them in the house" implying they may be kept but not eaten

> *Cooked* kitniyos.  Where do you see anything about not eating raw ones?

Further on Rema mentions that seeds such as anice may be eaten because
they are not qitniyyos. Mashma -- if they were qitniyyos, then they
would be verbotten.

No mention of bishul here

Also
The MB 12 says this explicitly that only eating is assur and not having
hana'ah
MB makes no mention of cooking only if water droped on them



Rema is quoting Trumas Hadeshen 

KSA mentions the halachah ICW dried fruit - nothing about bishul at all.

I would suggest seeing THD first

So far I see ZERO evidence that cooking matters - except that qitniyyos
m'oravos in a tavshil is muttar.
               
Is there any text that states "geshribben" only cooked Qitniyyos?

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

At the end of the Megillah we have thes statement "Ratzuy l'Rov Echav"
re: Mordechai.

The gmara M'gillah as quoted by Rashi and Torah Temimah say that since
Mordechai left "Talmud Torah" and went to s'rara therefore Mordechai
was only ratzuy l'Rov and NOT l'chol

Somone said that the reason had to do with Mordechai abandoning Israel
and going back to Persia etc. Does anyone know a source for connecting
this idea to this Passuq?

Zissen Pesach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 07:58:57PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Somone said that the reason had to do with Mordechai abandoning Israel
: and going back to Persia etc. Does anyone know a source for connecting
: this idea to this Passuq?

From RCJachter's column at
http://koltorah.org/ravj/15-24_Why_is_Megillat_Ester_W
ritten_in_Such_a_Secular_Style.htm
or http://bit.ly/aW7afQ

    Moreover, there is no mention of Eretz Yisrael or the Beit Hamikdash
    in Megillat Ester, even though the events of Megillat Ester occurred
    in 482 B.C.E., 478 B.C.E., and 473 B.C.E., long after Cyrus permitted
    Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael (539 B.C.E.) and the Beit Hamikdash
    was completed (515 B.C.E.). (This follows the approach of the Daat
    Mikra in understanding the Peshuto Shel Mikra of Ezra-Nechemiah,
    especially the order of Persian emperors that appear in the beginning
    of Ezra chapter four.)

Now, if we identify Mordechai with the one in Ezra (or one of the other
known olim in seifer Ezra), then he had to have left again in order to
later be in Shushan for the Purim story.

See also Megillah 17b:
    "Veratzui lerov echav" -- teaches that some of the Sanhedrin
    separated from him.
    Rav Yosef said: Talmud Torah is greater than hatzalas nefashos.
    For in the beginning Mordechai was after 4 [people] in importance, 
    and at the end, we was after 5. In the begining it says "Who cam
    with Zerubavel: Yeishua, Nechemyah, Serayah, Re'eilyah, Mordekhai
    Bilshon..." (Ezra 2:2). In the end it says "Those who were coming
    with Zerubavel: Yeishua, Nechemyah, Azaryah,  Ra'amyah, Nachamani,
    Mordechai Bilshan" (Nechemiah 7:6)

All of which shows it's possible to explain "lerov echav" on those
grounds. Which is short of finding someone who actually does.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Somone said that the reason had to do with Mordechai abandoning Israel
> and going back to Persia etc.

I've never heard this before.  Who said it?    When was he ever there in
the first place, since galus Yechoniah?


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

RMB--in response to my observation that 'The Drashos HaRan (#5, I think) 
writes (regarding the imperative to follow the Sages): ...''the 
spiritual gains in obeying the mitzva of following the Sages counteracts 
the harmful consequences of the rare instances where the Sages may be 
wrong.)--wrote:

    But this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and explicitly not about
    other metaphysical mechanics. Personally, I would argue that the Ran
    and the Ikkarim (his talmid, who describes a very similar hashkafah)
    don't actually believe there is such a thing.''


I got stuck here in your response. How can you say that the Ran is not 
about metaphysical mechanics? The issue he is addressing--comprising the 
first paragraph I had quoted--explicitly stated, ''everything the Torah 
warns us against is indeed harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint 
on our souls, even though we may not know the mechanics behind that 
process.''

Furthermore, you yourself then continue to refer to ''the notion of the 
Ran (Derashos haRan ch. 10) and his student R' Yosef Albo (Seifer 
haIkarim 4:13), ... that the effects of sin are to dirty the soul and 
that the punishment of sin is that barrier blocking the soul's access to 
Divine Good.''

How then do you perceive that ''this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and 
explicitly not about other metaphysical mechanics''?

As I wrote, ''He answers that the spiritual gains in obeying the mitzva 
of following the Sages counteracts the harmful consequences of the rare 
instances where the Sages may be wrong.'' His answer, as well as his 
question, is in terms of ''spiritual harm and gains,'' not just reward 
and punishment.

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100318/9f9803fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:> But this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and explicitly not about
:> other metaphysical mechanics. Personally, I would argue that the Ran
:> and the Ikkarim (his talmid, who describes a very similar hashkafah)
:> don't actually believe there is such a thing.''

: I got stuck here in your response. How can you say that the Ran is not 
: about metaphysical mechanics? ...

Picture nested sets.

The smallest set is a metaphysical mechanical explanation of sekhar
va'onesh. As I wrote in my post, I believe that approach is central to
the Ran (and RYAlbo, the Iqarim, his talmid).

Next is a belief in metaphysical mechanics, but everything runs through
people. So, an object has no inherent spiritual power without a soul
connecting it and events in this world to higher realms. I'm saying
this is the position of the Nefesh haChaim, and until the mid-20th cent,
probably of Litta as a whole. I wrote about this at some length, it took
a whole series of blog entries, and I can't do it justice in email length.

Third is believe in a metaphysical mechanics in which objects themselves
have impact in those higher realms. (And so of course do neshamos in
general, as well as that being part of how sekhar va'onesh works. Each
set includes the previous.)

The Ran only discusses the first category. Not to say his beliefs are
or are not broader -- I just haven't encountered him or the Iqarim
discussing the mechanics of other spiritual phenomena.

I'm only addressing the third, broadest, understanding of the role of
metaphysical mechanics. I believe it was one of the chiddushim that grew
out of the Besh"t's approach to the Ari's Qabbalah. And thus an odd
belief to have caught on among misnagdim.

To put it another way:

The Ran explains how the mitzvah of mezuzah causes the shemirah that
Rebbe tells Artibon about. He does not address the question of whether
the mezuzah as a cheftzah has a power of drawing down shemirah.

Does scanning the letters of the Zohar by someone who doesn't understand
anything of what he's looking at cause anything different to happen than
in lehavdil the text were Ephraim Kishon's?

Similarly, does a qemei'ah work if the person who has it isn't triggered
to think about its contents?

This is all one question. In Litta, were fancy qabbalistic qemei'os "only"
frowned upon because they were considered a violation of "tamim tihyeh
im Hashem E-lokekha" or did they also believe they simply didn't work?

...
: How then do you perceive that ''this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and 
: explicitly not about other metaphysical mechanics''?

Key word: "other".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

martin brody wrote:
> Not only is popcorn not a problem, but nor is corn on the cob as long as
> it is roasted on a bar b q for example and not boiled, for example. Tinned
> corn kernels would be a problem too, of course.

Source?

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

Source for what?
Corn not being Kitnyot? R.Yitzchak Abadi, amongst others.Besides, it was
discovered after the original proscriptions. I think the Chaye Adam added
potatoes too, but does anybody agree with that?

For it being somewhat kitnyot but OK to eat as long as it isn't quasi
chumetz? Rav Kook.
Hope that was what you were asking.



-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100318/2451697c/attachment-0001.htm>

R Z Sero wrote -
Meir Rabi wrote:

> R Z Sero said - Sun-baked loaves are not bread, and one cannot say
> hamotzi on them or use them for the mitzvah of matzah.
[MR] R Zev, please provide sources for this Halacha.

>(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.
[MR] Well, R Zev appears to be agreeing with the Diyuk in the Sh HaTziyun
and its implications, as I pointed them out. There appears to be a state of
processed dough that is neither Chametz nor Matza, I call this dehydrated
dough. And the Q now moves on to, "How do we know if our very dry dough
rolled V thin and heated to 700C, is considered baked at all? Maybe it is
just dried out dough? Stuff that we should NOT be using for the Mitzvah of
eating Matza"

>
> R Zev is referring to the need for Matza to be baked by FIRE. But one
> can hardly suggest that the hot coals and ashes of the fire are not fire.
ZS said >>How do you know?
[MR] How do I know that hot coals are fire? I dont follow your question.

>They're waste heat, so this is an afiyah pechusa.
[MR] Is Afiya Pechusa a Halachic term? Where is it found? What on Earth is
"waste heat"?

>What's wrong with sun-baked bread?  That it's not a derech afiyah.
[MR] R Zev where is it indicated that sun baked bread is not bread? Derech
Afiya applies to Hilchos Shabbos I think bcs Shabbos requires normal Melacha
and is not a special Halacha to do with baking.

>Baking in waste heat is also not derech afiyah, so how do we know that
>the same din doesn't apply.  Ka mashma lan that it doesn't, and the
>matzos are still hamotzi and still kosher for the mitzvah.
[MR] Yes in principle this is correct. this is what I was proving from the
comment of the ShaAr HaTziyun.

Does anyone know of another source for this observation?

But I dont know a Mekor for "waste heat" that applies to Matza or any other
aspect of Halacha. R Zev, please help us.

Anyway, I think the issue is that the Matza baked in the ashes and dying
coals of a fire will dry rather than bake the dough, since the fire is not
as hot as a normal baking oven. Dried out dough may not be Chamets but it is
not be matza either and it may NOT be used for the Mitzvah of eating Matza.
This is addressed by the ShHaTziyun, that baked in the embers is indeed
deemed to be baked and Matza, so it CAN be used for the Mitzvah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100319/8844be16/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 77
**************************************

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..."