Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 42

Sun, 10 Mar 2013

• 1. Re: kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't pass (Rich, Joel)
• 4. komah zekufa (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't pass (Zev Sero)
• 7. shivyon hanettel (saul newman)
• 8. FW: partnership minyanim (Heather Luntz)
• 9. Who Brings the Chatos When BD Errs (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 10. Re: HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't pass (Micha Berger)
• 11. Kitniyos Oil and Chamets Crumbs (Meir Rabi)

On 10/03/2013 4:59 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
>>It's an explicit Rama. He permits lighting kitniyos oil, not eating it,
>> and his reason is that if it should happen to fall into the food it will
>> be batel.  IOW he is explicitly saying that the oil itself, in its non-
>> batel state, may not be eaten.  Given that I don't understand how anyone
>> could have permitted it.

> I already pointe dout last year that the Marcheshet said that kiniyot
> oils are no problem and Ramah means only oils made on Pesach.

Have you read the Marcheshet?   I have, and he certainly does not say any
such thing.  Please do not quote sources that you have not read.  The
Marcheshet is looking for leniencies for oil, and finds some, but it is
patently false to claim that he doesn't see the problem, or that the Rama
(and Trumat Hadeshen) is only talking about oil made on Pesach.  The
leniencies that he finds for kitniyos oil are 1) Being careful not to let
it get wet, just as one must with grain; or 2) Chalita, which he says is
still good for kitniyos if done before Pesach, even though the Ge'onim
forbade it for grain.

By the way, if you read the Marcheshet you'd see that he does not believe
that kitniyos applies only to specific species.  He explicitly says the
gezera was on broad categories, and thus would apply to peanuts too.


> R. Elchanan Spektor and Rav Kook explicitly allowed using kitniyot oils
> that had no mixture of water added.

This heter was only given on condition that the sesame was treated exactly
as if it were grain.  Under that condition, wheat oil would also be permitted,
if there were such a thing!  And yet the psak was controversial, because as
the Melamed Leho'il reports the established minhag in Yerushalayim (by both
Ashkenazim and Sefardim) was to forbid sesame and sesame oil.

By the way, if the minhag of Sefardim in Yerushalayim was to forbid kitniyos,
when and on what grounds did they become permitted there for Sefardim?


> see also Minchat Yitzchak  (IV:114:3)

I've seen it.  I very much doubt that you have.  What do you claim it says
that would support your position?  On the contrary, he forbids all kitniyos
oil, even if treated like grain.


> and also Mikra?ai Kodesh, Pesach II:60:2.

What sefer is this?  The only halacha sefer with that name I've heard of
is on Hil' Kri'as Hatorah.


> Rav Frank also allows peanuts and certainly peanut oil. He brings down
> that he heard that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik allowed cottenseed oil and
> agrees with that psak

This is not relevant to the topic we're discussing, which is kitniyos oil.
If he holds (for whatever reason) that peanuts and cottonseed are not
kitniyos, then of course their oil is permitted.  But if they are kitniyos
then you have no grounds to suppose that he would permit their oil.


> The OU allowed cottenseed oil. In Israel Rav Landau gave a hechsher for
> many years until it was withdrawn under charedi pressure. see the OU
> bulletin available at http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/Kitniyot/ for
> other information.

How is this *at all* relevant here?  The question of cottonseed is about
its own status, not about its oil.


> BTW the Rema (467:8) cites customs to not eat honey, raisins, dried fruit,
> sugar, saffron and cloves which I beleive most communities do not follow.

See MA that honey is permitted if it's directly from the comb; a hechsher
lepesach would be equivalent to this.  Dried fruit the Rema explicitly
permits if it's made in a way that is guaranteed not to have chametz; in
other words, it needs a hechsher for Pesach, a requirement that AFAIK all
communities today *do* follow.

On sugar he's very machmir, but this reflects the reality of those times,
when sugar was almost guaranteed to be chametz; it's not a gezera on the
species itself, as evidenced by the law he quotes from the Maharil to
permit Candian sugar on the last day.  Actually the MA quotes the Maharil
as being about sugar that he had personally brought from Candia, and even
that he only permitted on the last day.   But the fact that he did permit
it, and the Rema cites it, shows that there was never an issur on the
species, but only a real concern about chametz, so it would not apply to
sugar made with a hechsher, or nowadays when it's made under conditions
that we know that we know don't pose any concern.  (And yet there are
still many people who boil and strain the sugar before Pesach so that any
chametz will be batel.)

On saffron and cloves I don't know what most communities do.  The MA says
even home-grown saffron is forbidden.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

R' Micha Berger asked:

> What does an extra button sown into the inside of
> a garment do? It's neither batel-able nor enhance
> the garment (until removed for use). It's just an
> easy way not to lose it before you need it. RSZA
> says it's the permanent attachment. I don't see any
> of this other sevara in the SSK. I could faster
> argue the ID card enhances the garment because it
> enables me to wear it in more places without
> risking a fine.

As I read it,  we have here a machlokes between Rav Neuwith in the main
text of Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchatah 18:30, versus the view of Rav Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach in footnote 131 there. (Citations refer to the 5739
edition. Please refer to my last paragraph below, regarding the 5770
edition.)

Rav Neuwirth compares spare buttons to passul tzitzis which - if he plans
to repair the tzitzis - are important in their own right, and are no longer
batel to the beged, and one would violate hotzaah by going outside with
them.

(Before continuing,  I'd like to point out that in my experience in
learning about Meleches Hotzaah, tzitzis are seen as a "noy" to their
beged. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the tzitzis are part and
parcel *of* the beged.) If I'm reading RSZA correctly, he is saying that
spare buttons *are* a normal part of the beged (evidenced by being put
there as part of the beged's manufacturing),  and the fact that the button
is currently not in a useful location is irrelevant. He also distinguishes
between a spare button and a torn button-loop, by pointing out that right
*now* he wants to use the loop and is unable to (making it a non-batel
burden), while the spare button is filling its tafkid well by sitting in
the reserve location (making it part of the beged).

I can't see how RSZA's logic might be used to permit an ID card. In fact,
he closes with a similar case: "See the Beit Yosef, end of 301, regarding
money that was sewn into a garment, which is [forbidden] only because it is
designed for [the money to be] removable. *That's* why it's not batel to
the beged, which is not so in our case, where the button is permanently
attached to the beged, never to be removed, but only to have its position
changed when necessary. This is quite normal, it is batel to the beged, and
it is not a masa." -- But the ID card *will* be removed, right?

On a side note, I'll point out that although the SSK does not allow going
out with spare buttons, he does offer a solution to the ID card problem:
18:22 - "It is mutar for anyone to go out to a Reshus Harabim during a war
or other emergency with his identification, by transporting it k'l'achar
yad, such as by inserting it into his hat, provided that he is going to a
dvar mitzvah, to tefilah, or to learn Torah."

Ad kan the 2nd edition of the SSK, published in 5739. The 3rd edition
(5770) has a noteworthy change. In 18:30, Rav Neuwirth now allows the
sewn-in spare buttons,	"provided that they are plain buttons which no one
would be makpid on." But this would not change anything about ID cards,
which one *is* makpid on.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How to Sleep Like a Rock
Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/513ca7fead88e27fe34e8st03vuc

I often hear people say  HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't " pass". Does anyone know of any original sources either way on the issue?
KT
Joel Rich

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/20130310/56b3bb19/attachment-0001.htm>

What does the issue of komah zekufa (OC 2:6) mean?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130310/c878962b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/03/2013 11:33 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> On a side note, I'll point out that although the SSK does not allow
> going out with spare buttons, he does offer a solution to the ID card
> problem: 18:22 - "It is mutar for anyone to go out to a Reshus Harabim
> during a war or other emergency with his identification, by
> transporting it k'l'achar yad, such as by inserting it into his hat,
> provided that he is going to a dvar mitzvah, to tefilah, or to learn
> Torah."

The Netherlands is not in a war or other emergency.  The chance of being
challenged for ID is small, as is the fine for being caught without it.
The heter for a shvus dishvus letzorech mitzvah requires that the mitzvah
is impossible without it.  In a time of war one can easily justify that,
because going out without ID is not a viable option, so the only alternative
is staying at home and not do the mitzvah; but in today's Netherlands there
is a viable alternative that allows one both to avoid carrying and to do the
mitzvah: simply ignore the law.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 10/03/2013 8:59 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I often hear people say  HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't
> ? pass?. Does anyone know of any original sources either way on the issue?

??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????.   (AZ 3a)

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

seen online----

The Netziv operates from a value system that is as charedi as you can get.
In *She'er Yisrael *11, he states that Torah is the main weapon of the
Jewish people in defending itself against its enemies. He simultaneously
notes that those who support Torah study have a share in such defense. And
in*Haamek Davar* to Bereishis 49:14, he notes that the tribe of Yissacher
were not suited to war, and studied Torah instead - until David HaMelech
forcibly drafted them!

Apparently, then, under certain circumstances, even those learning Torah
and defending the Jewish People in that way are nevertheless supposed to be
drafter for actual combat. However, what is even more interesting is
Netziv's description (in *Haamek Davar* to Bereishis 49:15) of what happens
in other circumstances, when those learning Torah are not drafted. He
states that they pay higher monetary taxes to support the military! And he
states that they are to be available for whatever purposes the nation
requires (i.e. some sort of national service). Furthermore, in *Haamek Davar
* to Devarim 33:18 he notes that they must actually accompany the soldiers
to study Torah and pray at the front line (presumably either because the
protective force of Torah is geographically concentrated, or in order to
boost the morale of the soldiers).

This raises a fascinating question. Since the Netziv believed that learning
Torah provides the primary protection, why did he say that Yissacher has to
pay extra military taxes and perform national service? I don't know the
answer. But perhaps it was because he recognized that you can't claim to be
sharing the burden when you're not putting yourself out in a way that
meaningfully matches the sacrifices made by others.


---- one must say that the Netziv's position has not been accepted....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130310/3a4ebe3a/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:

>>"Now Rav Freundel appears to be trying to suggest that there might be a
position which says that tephila is purely d'rabbanan, and yet while women

>>are obligated in it (since the gemora in Brochos 20b states this
explicitly) somehow the rabbis made up a different way of davening for men
and women,

>>without telling us what the differences are at any point.  However let us
think this through.  If we can say this about this, surely we can say this

>>about any rabbinic mitzvah under the sun.  Eg that the rabbis instituted
the mitzvah of the four cups, and they included women, but maybe they didn't

>>include women in the details, and the details and the times are completely
different for women - or pick whatever other rabbinic mitzvah you like in

>>which women are included."

 

And RM Bluke replied:

 

>In fact, this seems to be the shita of the Behag regarding women and
Megilla reading. The Gemara says explicitly that women are chayavos in
Megilla because of af hen hayu b'oso hanes, yet >the Behag claims that women
are only obligated in hearing the Megilla and not reading it and therefore
cannot be motzi men. In other words, according to the Behag, women and men
have >fundamentally different chiyuvim when it comes to Megilla, women have
a chiyuv to hear and men have a chiyuv to read even though we find no
explicit mention of this in the Gemara. 

 

Well not quite.  Firstly the Behag understands the situation with Megilla to
be modelled on that with Hakel as explained by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah - an
exposition that is indeed in the gemora:  Chagiga 3a: hakel ea ha'am
ha'anashim, hanashim v'hataf [Devarim 31:12] if the men come to learn, and
the women come to listen what do the babies come to do? - in order to give
reward on those who bring them".  Ie the men come to do one thing, learn,
the women come to do a second and different thing, listen, and the babies
come to do yet a third thing.

 

Modelling the rabbinic mitzvah of reading the megilla in public on the torah
mitzvah of reading the Torah in public by Hakel is not anything like the
stretch that I refer to above (and of course the difference in obligation
regarding the Torah reading of Hakel can easily be understood to be derived
from the difference in obligation between men and women in relation to
talmud torah, a distinction everybody agrees to).

 

Secondly the Behag goes down this route because he is faced with what appear
to be a contradictions between the various sources.  Our Talmud, ie the
Talmud  Bavli (Megilla 4a) states, as you say, that women are obligated in
krias megilla because af hen b'oso hanes and again in Arechin 2b-3a which
states explicitly that women are kosher l'koreah es  hamegila  - again
citing af hen b'oso hanes.  However, the Talmud Yerushalmi says (perek 4
halacha 4)"Bar Kapara said: One must read the megilla before women and
before minors, for they, too, were involved in the risk [she-af otam hayu
ba-safek].  Rabbi Joshua ben Levi did so - he gathered his sons and the
members of his household and read before them".  This may be the same as the
Bavli, but may be supporting a weaker obligation of being read to, rather
than actually reading.  And then there is yet a third sources, the Tosephta,
which says (Tosephta Megilla perek 2 halacha  7s:

"All are obligated in the reading of the Megilla, kohanim, leviim and
Yisraelim, .... women, slaves and minors are exempt and do not exempt the
multitude"

 

Now the most common approach is to say, well where a Tosephta disagrees
explicitly with the Bavli; even if the Yerushalmi might seem to suggest a
half way house of being read to, the Bavli trumps, and we posken like the
Bavli.   However the Behag's shita is, in these circumstances,
understandable - especially given the gemora regarding Hakel.  

 

I therefore don't think we can take the Behag's shita as a more general
licence to differentiate between men and women in terms of form of chiyuv in
the absence of (a) a Tosephta or similar  chazalic source that directly
contradicts our gemora with one saying chayav and the other saying patur;
and (b) a different but very closely related parallel (Torah) mitzvah in
which a distinction between men and women's obligations is explained in our
gemora on which the mitzvah could have been modelled and which makes clear
the nature of the distinctions.

 

And, one might add, the Behag is a rishon.   There is yet a further hurdle
to finding such distinctions when they were not even discovered by the
rishonim.   To argue that the existence of the Behag's shita  here gives a
general licence to us today to find fundamentally different chiyuvim between
men and women in any other mitzvah is a yet another large stretch.

 

Regards

 

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130310/173a4eed/attachment-0001.htm>

R Micha, your lengthy erudite post does not address the Chatos issue we
were discussing.

  These Laws of Chatos indicate that the duty is almost always upon the
people to bring their own Chatos.

  For BD to bring a Chatos and exempt the people from their obligation to
bring their own, we can only be astounded at the conditions that must be
met. We can only be astounded at the enormity of the duty that HKBH places
upon us as individuals to be responsible for the decisions we take and act
upon.

A) BD?s ruling must be unanimous.
               a. If even one Dayan argues that the ruling is wrong, BD
will not bring their Chatos when they some time later recognise that they
made a mistake, notwithstanding that Gd instructs us to follow the majority
ruling of the BD.

B) Even if BD rules unanimously, they will not bring their Chatos if their
Pesak is not accepted by the majority of the people.

C) Even if BD rules unanimously and the Pesak is accepted by the majority
of the people, those who know that BD erred are not exempted by the BD?s
Chatos but must bring their own.
               a. Now this is a most curious ruling since a Chatos is not
offered for a wilful sin and here the sinner has known that BD erred and
must therefore be a wilful sinner.
                        The Gemara and Poskim therefore explain that this
person sinned in erroneously thinking that it is a Mitzvah to follow BD?s
Pesak even when BD has erred.

  But this person is mistaken.
  It is wrong to follow BD when we know they are wrong, even though they
have considered our argument and rejected it by an overwhelming majority.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130311/8b8e0f23/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:07:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 8:59 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
>> I often hear people say  HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't
>> ??? pass???. Does anyone know of any original sources either way on the issue?
>
> ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????.   (AZ 3a)

"Ein BQBH ba beturnia im haberios" doesn't necessarily refer to throwing
someone a test they can't pass. Rather, that He is not tyrranical.

I can imagine a whole slew of Holocaust-era situations which can't
be described as tests the victim was capable of passing without some
very creative definition of "pass". At which point, the claim becomes
meaningless.

For that matter, if they can't pass, then it's simply not a test. It's
a tragedy.

So, Hashem could very well put a person in a situation they can't handle.
It's pretty easy to find examples, actually. I know people who suffered
mental illness after some pretty traumatic experiences.

- A pretten girl who went to wake up her mother on what should have been
a regular morning, and her mother didn't wake up.

- An American who went on Machal and was sent into Lebanon. He went into
a building firing, as one can't risk being an easy target in a doorway.
An American teen couldn't handle the sight of what was left off the 7
year old girl was playing 5 avanim on the ground floor (below the target
he was going for).

- A friend was fleeing the WTC just as a jumper hit the sidewalk nearby.

Were these "tests" the person could have passed?

I would faster define the gemara as referring specifically to pointless
cruelty. As in the context: Why would Hashem tell the umos ha'olam to sit
in the sukkah le'asid lavo just to make the sun beat down on them? Don't
we say HQBH doesn't play cat-n-mouse with people?

When a person faces a situation they can't handle, we have bitachon
there is a reason. It's not tyrranical.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Kitniyos Oil

The Rema 453:1, says:
  A)   that it goes without saying, that Kitniyos will not prohibit,
BeDiOvad, those foods that they inadvertently become mixed with.
Mishne B explains that there is no Minhag to be Machmir in these
circumstances
The Kitniyos are Batel provided they are the minority and are not
discernible. If a piece is discernible, it must be removed.

  B)   that we may light Kitniyos derived oil.
Mishne B explains that this is true even though the Kitniyos were soaked
[presumably to enhance the extraction of their oil. The Chidush is that
considering that the ban on Kitniyos is that there may likely be some
grains of wheat amongst the Kitniyos, soaking them would make Chametz]

  C)   that these oils will not prohibit foods into which they fall.
Mishne B explains that the Chidush is that there is no need to take any
precautions to prevent this [not uncommon event] from contaminating our
food. [It looks as though it was common to have the oil lamp suspended
above the table where one ate] BTW the DMoshe quotes and dismisses the
MaHaRil who does suggest one should exercise caution and the Mishne B does
not even refer to the MaHaRil.

Mishne B then adds from the Darchey Moshe [Rema's commentary on the Tur]
that even if the sesame seed oil was pounded in a mortar used for crushing
Chamets this too may be used in the same way, without precautions. The
Mishne B quotes the DMoshe: there are two risks; residual crumbs of Chamets
left in the mortar, and Chamets taste absorbed by the mortar becoming
infused into the sesame oil. There is no concern about crumbs of Chamets
because they are Battel in 60 since the oil is prepared before Pesach.
Now this only makes sense if the oil is not a clear refined oil, the type
we are accustomed to, but an unrefined oil thick with sesame sediment and
pieces of sesame. Amongst all this muck is a crumb or two of Chamets that
may drip into our food; or perhaps the concern is that during Pesach these
crumbs of Chamets are infusing flavour into the sesame oil, which will not
be Battel since it is during Pesach. Yet this is all OK without need to
take precautions.
If refined oil was the norm or was readily achievable, then just as we must
remove a discernible Kitniyos piece from a mixture, so we would be duty
bound to clarify and remove the Kitniyos and Chamets crumbs from the oil.

There are a number of rather important observations to note from this.
1)  The Rema and Mishne B have no problems with Kitniyos oils. Their
concern is for the Kitniyos and Chamets substance and even that does not
trouble them too much at all. One need take no precautions to prevent such
substance from dripping into our food during Pesach.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130311/438b6822/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 42
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)