It’s Pesach time, and it’s time to start measuring the wine, matzah and maror.
Here is the shiurim links for the Star-K , Kof-K and OU. Here’s a link to a halachic discussion of the shiurim with the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein.
What do you do at your seder?
a) give out the more stringent measurements to each participant
b) give out a lenient measurements to each participant
c) discuss the measurements and let people take their own
d) say nothing and let people take their own
e) assume everybody at your seder knows all the halachos
f) other
There is a very easy way to avoid this issue-at least with respect to Achilas Matzah-The Netziv posits that the words “Harei Mshubach” imply that the obligation to eat Matzah is a continuous obligation. Therefore, regardless of whether one has a chart at the table, the more Matzah that you eat, the more likely it is that you will certainly fulfill at least any posited shiurim. Obviously with respect to other shiurim, there is a huge Machlokes Acharonim begining with the Tzalach and discussions in the MB, as well in the works of the CI and R Chaim Naeh, as to how the shiurim are defined ,and whether we double the size of the shiurim mentioned in the Talmud.
Bob, you’re not going to find a “refutation”. The poskim are trying to make a determination of something which was not always definitively known and halahcic determinations had to be made in the absence of absolute knowledge. Of course those determinations carry the weight of precedent. At most you’ll get something like “Rov Poskim” say X or this very weighty Posek says Y, which contradicts R’ Chaim and others. But that’s not a refutation.
As others have pointed out, even definitive historical and archaeological evidence “refuting” the basis certain accepted practices is not necessarily enough to overturn the weight of precedent. However, halachic observance is far from black and white (as much as some would like to think otherwise) and the concept of “Yesh Al L’smoch” is a very valuable tool.
The bulk of RNS’s essay is to detail the “Evolution of the Olive”.
If you contrast his article with R. Dr. Haym Soloveitchik’s “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, which considers the kzayis the “best..and earliest example”, the latter doesn’t discuss practical halacha of kzayis at all, but has the same approach regarding the history of it.
Regarding practical halacha, RNS writes,
“there is a strong case to make for saying that halachah follows its own protocols and should not be re-evaluated in light of new data, even if it seems clear that the halachah is in opposition to objective facts…
However, this case has two factors that make it easier to rely on the new data if one wishes to do so…Yet while this justifies someone who wishes to evaluate a kezayis as being the size of a regular olive, we can still understand why others do not take this approach.”
I’d want to see any reasoned refutation of R’ Chaim Volozhiner’s definition of a kezayis, and also some evidence of which kezayis he personally used in practice and the reasons why he did so.
He live in what we could call the modern era.
Also Micha, you’ve mischaracterized Rabbi Slifkin’s analysis. He’s merely explaining the “evolution” of the current Kezayit and why/how various poskim hold the way they do. If such a detailed well-sourced analysis is considered “Conservative” then we’re all in big trouble.
Micha said:
“We do not roll back halachic change based on anything other than halachic reasoning. Compelling archeological evidence can tell us what the halakhah was, but not what it should be.”
This is not accurate. Just look at the discussion regarding killing lice on Shabbos. The “halacha” permits it, but some subsequent psak has adapted to scientific understanding. Also, there are many significant poskim, such as Rav Shachter, who find the archaeological evidence supporting Tekhelet compelling enough to re-establish wearing it.
It’s certainly understandable that many hold to halacha based on “erroneous” data because of the process. But there are others who understand that halachic development ALSO includes refining practice based on greater understanding.
Micha,
Do you believe that an Ashkenazic Jew today can validly hold like R’ Chaim Volozhiner regarding kezayis volume, and use it to determine matzo and maror shiurim at the seder?
I never said he was claiming to be a halachic source. In fact, he strongly hold by the halachic “process”. However, like I mentioned, I’ve heard poskim provide psak of more reasonably sized Kezaytim using similar logic. Sometimes history absolutely does play a role in helping poskim make decisions. Especially decisions that make some of our practices less onerous.
Micha, thanks for the important distinction between history and halacha.
I find R’ Slifkin’s works interesting and often provocative, but I find it disconcerting when good people look to him as a halachic source, which I don’t think he’s claiming to be. In fact I put up this post, with halachically reliable links, to prevent people from making that mistake, since this time of year brings out the credit card shiur discussion.
RNS’s analysis is very flawed, IMHO. Halakhah is a legal process. Laws evolve. The Torah is oral for a reason. We do not roll back halachic change based on anything other than halachic reasoning. Compelling archeological evidence can tell us what the halakhah was, but not what it should be.
Rav Chaim Brisker took this even further than I would. I just spoke about undoing development of the halakhah based on a scientific finding. R’ Chaim wouldn’t even utilize scientific findings in case when the tradition is silent! When the Radziner Rebbe proposed his identification of the chilazon, and thus of tekheiles, the Brisker objection didn’t even get into whether the rebbe’s arguments were accurate or not. Procedurally, they would not establish halakhah on zoological findings. According to them, Eliyahu will restore what he remembered tekheiles being, and anything else is a distortion of halachic process.
If you want to reach similar conclusions by holding like R’ Chaim Volozhiner, who says that a kezayis is defined by the olives of your day (not Moshe’s or chazal’s olives), or by holding like the Rambam or R’ Chaim Naeh, then there is room to discuss whether the argument is valid or not. But to override halachic process to turn back the clock…
That’s Historical School. In its early days it was Orthodox, but it quickly evolved into the Conservative Movement.
Menachem, to your knowledge, has anyone refuted, or even tried to refute, the detailed analysis in your link?
Back in the day I actually had a table to calculate the fraction of a shmurah matzah based on the number of matzohs in the box. (Try handing out .63 of a matzah!) We also diligently prepared little zip lock baggies with the shiurim of Romain lettuce for Maror.
A few years ago, while learning at Sheppel’s, a rav gave a guest lecture on Shiurim and how they’ve grown over the years. He said that the base Kezayit of Matzah is about the size of a credit card. That, combined with Rabbi Slikfin’s excellent analysis (linked below) allowed me to ease up for myself, my family and guests. There’s plenty of Matzah and Maror for those who want to be Machmir, but I’m no longer forcing matzah down people’s throats, so to speak.
One should also keep in mind, that the hosts work very hard preparing food for the meal (eating which is also a mitzvah) and being too machmir on shiurim of Matzah and Maror can cause one to be Mekel with regard to the sensibilities of the “chef” when one can barely eat the food they prepared.
The Evolution of the Olive – Rabbi Natan Slifkin
http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/TheEvolutionOfTtheOlive.pdf
I insure that each person takes a R’ Chaim Naeh shiur. This is the smallest of the commonly accepted range among Ashkenazim, and since it’s (1) a record of Minhag Yerushalaim in the early 20th cent, (2) almost twice the shiur found in the Rambam and (3) the SA and FWIW (and I wouldn’t say it’s worth much without the first two arguments) archaeological evidence points more toward this Sepharadi position for what a kezayis was in Chazal’s day, I’m not going to insist anyone else eat more. Being machmir should be a personal decision; we shouldn’t be machmirim for others.
I generally want more for myself, mostly because that’s what I saw at my father’s table. But I don’t bother measuring how much more. I think we’ve forgotten the connotation of the preposition “ke-” — it implies a lack of precision. (Like the question on Moshe Rabbeinu’s “kechatzi halaylah”.)
This is a great post and a great service!
Years ago, we bought a colorful laminated card showing the matzah and moror-related shiurim applicable at points in the seder per Rav Feinstein. While other shiurim exist, this makes it simple and we’ve heard no objections.
1. I give out amounts to my family members based on the shiurim provided by our rabbi. These may vary based on the age of the person performing the mitzva.
2. If I have guests who would know what I was talking about if I asked them about shiurim, I check with them in advance what they would like to do and accomodate them.
3. If I have guests who are open to performing mitzvot in a traditional way, I give them the same thing I am having.
4. If I have guests who are skeptical or not so interested, I give them the smallest of the listed shiurim.
All of this is estimated, of course.
I personally try to use a cup that is as close as possible to the exact shiur I am operating with for my 4 kosot –that is, I try for it not to be much larger than the prescribed amount. This allows me to perform the mitzva of drinking each kos in an optimal way without having to drink too much alcohol.