Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 57

Sun, 30 Apr 2017

• 1. Re: kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Two days [was: kitniyot] (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Two days [was: kitniyot] ()
• 4. Re: One Hundred Percent (Zev Sero)
• 5. If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 6. Re: If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 8. Acharei Mot (Cantor Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss (Isaac Balbin)
• 11. Re: kitniyot (Marty Bluke)
• 12. Re: kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Better to die (Micha Berger)

On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos
> : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not
> : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day
> : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a
> : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most
> : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But
> : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the
> : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays.

> Lo zakhisi lehavin.
>
> All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a
> taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty.
>
> Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the
> uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays
> being of the form of an uncertainty.
>
> But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was
> like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain
> about the date.


I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni 
were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan 
pretending to be a safek d'oraisa.   Nowadays that describes *all* YT 
Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not 
pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was 
occasionally the case).  So his explanation is merely historical, that 
what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
> I think it's a false dichotomy.  We assume that zman matan Toratenu is
> the calendar date on which the Torah was given.  Clearly, that's not the
> case.  Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which
> we left Egypt.  Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the
> Exodus.

Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th 
day but on the 51st.  So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th 
of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian 
anniversary.

Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT.  In fact I assume they didn't 
say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a 
coincidence.  Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it 
take on a new nature as ZMT.

This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion 
that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday.   This is the basis of the 
entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know.  But right at the 
end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the 
Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! 
Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's 
opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, 
YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and 
the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, 
follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th.

So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source 
and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means 
accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to 
reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam.  If the SO was enough for 
the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for 
us?



-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

 

From: Akiva Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


>> But the bottom line is the  the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after
Pesach. If you know Pesach, then  there is absolutely no uncertainty
about Shavuos. <<

Akiva  Miller

 
 
>>>>
 
In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know  when 
Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled  
around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and 
 therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos 
 was.  But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as  we've 
been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about  the 
date.
 
So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no  
uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant.  After  all, 
didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night?  Was  that not 
a stira -- counting sefira at the seder?  After all, we're  supposed to 
start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov,  i.e., the first 
day of chol hamo'ed.  So "fifty days after Pesach" turns  out itself to be 
a slightly slippery concept.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170428/e9ec8489/attachment-0001.htm>

I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA:

The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". 
What does this mean?  The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity 
to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins.  So we owe You, Melech 
Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins.  But on Shabbos we are short 200.  Who 
makes up these 200?  Those who keep it with fruit.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
"Insufficiently baked"
means that there is some dough
in the middle of the matza
that did not get baked
and it is already chometz.
RMGR feels
that this is a "much greater risk"
than the risk of Gebrochts.


I hope the following clarifies my argument
that G is an utterly fake concern

IF one is Choshesh
that the baking has NOT reached
the central part of the Matza
as are Choshesh
all those who do not eat G
[bcs if it is properly baked
then even if some flour remains
bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded
that flour which has been baked
CANNOT become Chamets]

The problem is
once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash
that the central part of the Matza
is not fully baked
then never mind the problem of flour
which will BECOME Chamets
when it gets wet
and given time
WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM
according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument
we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS
in the Matza
since the dough that is insufficiently baked
is ALREADY Chamets
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170429/94850abf/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently
> kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through
> the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet?
> If the dough is now too baked to rise any further,
> wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be
> too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5,
> which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu
> yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is
> that possible?

What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more
time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same,
but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach
breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have
forgotten how to do that correctly.

I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local
public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how
different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors,
and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a
while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You
have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the
right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster.

This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly
does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim
say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very
easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the
matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is
still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz.

Akiva Miller

 R Micha points out
RaMBaM does record the Halacha
that we may not cook in water
during Pesach
toasted grains
nor the flour ground from them
because
Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe
perhaps they were not fully toasted
and they may become Chamets

one assumes this is because
over-toasting the Camel grains
ruins the taste
and it was therefore
far more likely that they were under-toasted
than over-toasted

Furthermore
there is no test to apply
to toasted grains
as there is to baked Matza
Matza is tested for being baked
by tearing it apart
and ensuring there are no doughy threads
stretching between the torn pieces
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170429/1f72623d/attachment-0001.htm>

Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title.
The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot.
In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death.
As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell 
on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER.



Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; 
and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.      

Rossiter Worthington Raymond  (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York)

He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, 
the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases 
of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet,
novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. 
What he did, he always did well." 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170429/1d29d7d5/attachment-0001.htm>

Read further down on the page:

Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei 
eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the 
famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout 
Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost 
uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a 
reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and 
there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To 
each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many 
of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares 
put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself.

Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the 
general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, 
including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim 
here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer.

  Ben

On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:

 >
 > This statement does not seem to be correct.  See 
http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x
 >
 > Note the following from there.

I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response.
The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow
cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like,
and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which
covers the plastic bag(s).
It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious.
It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both.
One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out.
One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature.
There are various scenarios.

Where the food is ready on Friday night.
Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos
Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos
Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling
The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12
hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a
different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted
steak.

Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m
interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah
from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s
not Hatmono.

Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan.

This is the link to the Tshuva

http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp

or

http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp

I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his
son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he
won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course).



"It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself."
______________________
Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170430/9ec1005c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
>: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos
>: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not
>: differentiate between holidays...

> All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]...
> But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was
> like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain
> about the date.

The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made
b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about  second day of
Yom Tov apply.

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made
: b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about  second day of
: Yom Tov apply.

I know. That's my question.

He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo
pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos,
Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos
of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply --
or else, there is a pelug. No?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
: > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he
: > could speak to her; at least through a fence...
...
: The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone
: who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as
: issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought.
...
: [Email #2. -micha]
: 
: On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar
: pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned
: with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as
: arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua.

Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy
for letting his taavos get so worked up.

I see a slight conflict in your answers.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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



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


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


**************************************

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
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)