Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 121

Thursday, September 14 2000

• Re: Vidui Maaser (2)
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Re: Kallir
• Re: R E Hakalir
• Re: Apikorsut
• Re: Apikorsut
• Re: Following ROY's psak
• Separation or Synthesis?
• Re: Kallir
• Re: Separation or Synthesis?
• Re: Vidui Maaser (2)
• Re: Question from a Yid
• Re: Question from a Yid
• 4 on the Parsha (Ki Sovoy)
• Re: Vidui Maaser (2)

On 13 Sep 2000, at 5:39, SBA wrote:

> What are we confessing when saying al chayeinu hamsurim biyadecha?

I would think that we are confessing that we have aveiros for which 
R"L we deserve to forfeit our lives, and nevertheless Hashem allows 
us to go on.

>> while thanking is "modeh li-" ...

> Could you explain that?

That's li - a lamed with a shva under it, not lee, a lamed with a 
chirik under it and a yud after it. At least I assume that's what RMB 
meant and what your question was asking, respectively.

[Note from MSB: I repeated something I heard R' Yudan say bisheim R'
Hutner. Perhaps a talmid of R' Hutner is better suited to explain than
I am.]

> A few psukim earlier regarding Bikkurim, on 'V'omarto Elov'(3),
> Rashi says: She'enchoh Kofui Tova, - which fits in with the above,
> but AFAIK the procedure when bringing Bikkurim is not referred to as Vidui.

As it shouldn't be - it's hodaa, not vidui.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Chana Luntz wrote to Areivim:
>         ROY holds that this idea of having different communities of
>Ashkenazim and Sephardim with different minhagim, based on minhag avot
>may be appropriate in a place like America, where there was never a
>native minhag hamakom, but that EY has always been the place of the
>Maran (Mechaber) and has always followed Sephardi psak.  He therefore
>holds that people with an Ashkenazi tradition have two options (as per
>the gemorra in Pesachim) - if they are coming to stay, they should adopt
>Sephardi minhagim, kulos as well as chumros.  If they are only visiting,
>then they need to keep the chumros of both for the duration of their
>stay.

Well ROY has a good point.

However if you go back to EY circa 500 you will see that Minhag Ashkenaz
is MUCH closer to Minhag EY of that era and minhag Sefard resembles
Minhag Bavli

Consider that Kalir is the backbone of Ashkenaz Piyyut and is ignored
by the Sefardic tradition. Kalir lived in EY.

Professor Agus would show that Minhag Ashekenaz - as originally
constituted - was based on Minhag EY circa 500-900. I have not read
Professor Ta Shma's take, but my understanding is that he more or less
concurs.

The meta issue is that Poskim may be missing a lot of premises and
trends if they are not aware of historical backgrounds. WADR to ROY
he is focused upon Maran for the last 450 years or so. But he might be
overlooking years 450-1450.

To note that the Rema in Cracow was not in EY and the BY was is
obvious. What is less obvious is the messorah the Remo brought via
Maharil and others that is rooted in the Yerushalmi and the Kalir era...

Now ROY *could* say, hey, we are disounting ancient (well medeival)
history and dealing with the more recent history. Fine he can say
that. But that does not mean we have to agree to that premise either.

If you discount the the Ashekanz Mesorah, then the Sefardic minhag
triumphs on many grounds, not just because they dominated EY. The facts
are that the Bavli closer to Sefardic tradition. IIRC this is reflected
in the ato konanto version of the Avoda being closer to the Bavli version
than is the amiztz Koach. However, when one factors in Minhag Ashkenaz,
than one realizes that Amitz koach comes from an equally ancient and
valid mesorah and was embraced by Ashkenaz. Most of that mesorah is
rooted in Minhag EY. (Eli Clark used to cringe when I would post this
stuff because it is a simplistic generalization. Nevertheless, for the
purposes of challenging ROY's premise it's good enough.)

KVCHT
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 09:40:10AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Consider that Kalir is the backbone of Ashkenaz Piyyut and is ignored by
: the Sefardic tradition.  Kalir lived in EY.

I thought that the only identification of haKalir that we have is Tosfos'
comment that R' Eliezer haKalir was R' Eliezer ben R' Shim'on bar Yochai,
and secular scholarship discounts that claim.

If they don't know who he was or what century he lived in, how do we
know where he lived?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:23:55 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>I thought that the only identification of haKalir that we have is Tosfos'
>comment that R' Eliezer haKalir was R' Eliezer ben R' Shim'on bar Yochai,
>and secular scholarship discounts that claim.
>If they don't know who he was or what century he lived in, how do we know
>where he lived?

WADR to this Tosfos this word is not the last word on who Kalir was.
IMHO this is a case of how Talmudics w/o Wissenschaft may cause one to
develope disintegrated, incomplete view of the whole.

W/O understanding the underpinnings of this history, then Halachah would
flow straight ouf ot whose got the best peshat in the Bavli. Piyyutim
such as Amitz Koach and minhaggim such as kitniyos complicate thinks.

Ask yourself this, if Kalir indeed was a tanna, how come the Sefardic
litrugy ignores him.

I'm not a researcher in this field, I'm just a student of other's primary
research. I would suggest that Ta Shma is the current guru in this
field and that Daniel Sperber and Hamburger have some additional insights.

While Professor Irving Agus's stuff might be passe, his work is still
significant.

Kalir is one of the sources of Minhag EY. Meshulam b. Klonymos of Lucca
is one of the Eruopean successors. Eventually this Minhag migrated to
Franco-Germany, (Mainz, Speyers, Wroms, Troyes, etc.)

The problem is that nobody bothered to complete an authoritative text
of what this minhag was. Most of the sources are either fragments here
and there or oral/mimetic stuff.

My understanding is that the Yershualmi was completed prematurely due
to perseuctions and that much of the richness of that minhag never got
codified or redacted. The Bavli is a much more comprehensive code of
Minhag Bavel. It is a qualitatvely richer more robust document.

However, if you can read Kalir and understand them, you can find in
between the lines those elements of TSBP that did not make into print.

I am actually planning a short article about the Talmud that was never
redacted.

One of the biggest flawed premise of textualists is that they pre-supposed
that the TSBP was redacted comletely by the 2 Talmudim and Tosefat etc. it
would be reall nice if that were the case, that the entire universe
of TSBP from the years 200-500 acuatlly made it into a redacted text.
Unfortunately, this is a bit of a neat oversimplification. Clearly,
many things never made it into text form.

Our confusion today is simply what traditions and mimetics are truly
ancient and which sprang up later and include some bubbe masselach.

I don't have an easy answer to distinguish between the truly ancient
traditions preserved outside of the texts via oral traditionas or
mimetics, and those that simply grew spontaneously.

But there IS a case where the traditions WERE preserved in textual
form and indicate a solid mesorah. And these are <ta da> the piyyutim
of kalir, mehsulem b. Klonymos etc.

And while I can apprecaite that reciting them can be problematic, there
is no reason I know to ignore their historical and halachic value.
By studying these texts, one can understand the underlying mesroah
that created the presuippositions upon which they are based.

The other area of tradition is the Shu"t.  Understanding Shu"t
hostorically is what Prof. Irving Agus did full time.  I'm only
standing on his shoulders...

Kvcht
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:33:56AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Kalir is one of the sources of Minhag EY. Meshulam b. Klonymos of
: Lucca is one of the Eruopean successors. Eventually this Minhag
: migrated to Franco-Germany, (Mainz, Speyers, Wroms, Troyes, etc.)

: The problem is that nobody bothered to complete an authoritative text
: of what this minhag was.  Most of the sources are either fragments
: here and there or oral/mimetic stuff.

To me this sounds a bit circular in reasoning. We don't have complete
knowledge, but since we know he is a source used by Ashkenazim, we know
he must have been from EY. And after much else is said, this data point
is later used to show an EY to Ashkenaz connection?

-mi

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:57:45 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>: Kalir is one of the sources of Minhag EY. Meshulam b. Klonymos of
>: Lucca is one of the Eruopean successors. Eventually this Minhag
>: migrated to Franco-Germany, (Mainz, Speyers, Wroms, Troyes, etc.)
>
>: The problem is that nobody bothered to complete an authoritative text
>: of what this minhag was.  Most of the sources are either fragments
>: here and there or oral/mimetic stuff.

>To me this sounds a bit circular in reasoning. We don't have complete
>knowledge, but since we know he is a source used by Ashkenazim, we know
>he must have been from EY. And after much else is said, this data point
>is later used to show an EY to Ashkenaz connection?

I confess that what I posted might be perceved as circular but that is
because I don't have the nitty gritty details down pat. The scholars
I rely upon do. Don't shoot me because I garbled - or rather trimmed
down - the message.

 The ciruclar reaonsing goes both ways by the way.
A:The Talmud says X and Ashk does Y so Ashk and Y must give in.
B:Well how abuut the mimetics and the supportive texts in the
Ashk PIyyutim?
A: Well the piyyutim don't count!
B: Well how come they don't count?
A: They don't match the Talmud!
B: Well who says the Talmud is authoriative to the exlusion ofA
the litrugy or other Mesorros?!
A: The Talmudists...

When you realize this circular reasoning that the Talmud has been evolved
into not merely the premeir text of TSBP but the exclusively authoritative
one you will follow what I am saying.

The premise that TB is Not the exclusive authoritative text amongst
Ashk. is demonstrable, but not provable.

The problem IMO is that most yehsivos tend to presuppose that all
Rishonim are a monolithic whole.
 If they realized that Rambam Ri Migash had a Bavli/Sefardic
axe to grind they would learn to take it with a grain of salt the way
we do the Mechaber in the SA.

Some of the conflicts today stem from the fascinationwith the Rambam's
analysis wile disounting his Sefardic heritage. The Rambam was a great
gaon, but he came from a Sefardic paradigm. Regardless of the lamdus one
applies to the Rambam, his influence on psak is from a different Mesorah.
I think this has been lost over the years. Some of us, the Dr. Chaim
Soloveichiks and others come out of hte woodwork to remind us of this.

it's not like we don't follow the Rambam in ashk. because he was wrong,
it's because he had a different mesorah.

As far as the history of minhag EY being the pre-cursor for Minhag Ahsk,
it is the underlying theories of Irving Agus and Ta Shma and others.
The transmission is not a perfect one and no one is claiming that it -
or I - are infallible

As far as dating Kalir goes, I'm not sure what the point is. We can see
where he lived and when he started getting "published" and who uses his
texts today, etc.

AIUI his piyyutim are only for Yom Tov Rishon. this pretty much serves
as an indicator that he lived in EY, thought there may be firmer proofs
than that. Again, I didn't read the entire gamut of literature on this.
I'm digesting it from my own mentors.

You may consult MY LOR - R. Dr. E. Kanarfogel - whose PhD is on this
very subject. While we do not agree 100% on certain details nevertheless
the Kalir-Minhag Ashk. conection etc. is pretty clear. I have no idea
how he deals with yenner Tosfos, but I'll ask him BEH bli neder.

KVCHT
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

I believe that in one piyyut, Kallir gives the number of years since
the occurrence of the Churban, which tells us he lived in the 5th-6th
centuries. Furthermore, the piyutim of Yanai and Yose ben Yose are
similar in style, and obviously from the same genre. In the Atrscroll
Machzor (I believe), they gave the scholarly dating (5th-6th Centuries)
in the first edition, then removed and replaced it with the opinion of
Tosafot (that he was a tanna) in the second edition. I didn't see it
myself, but the person who told me is this is definitely reliable.

Daniel

Re Hakalir. See the preface to Kinnos with Kol Beramah Hakinos Hamifurish by 
Shlomo Veintrib. See also the preface to Shar Hakolel by R AD Lavitt 
published by Kehot

On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:42:00AM +0300, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
: The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah Siman Bet s"k 16) indicated that in his day
: we no longer *danim din mumarin v'epikorsim* with regard to *moridin
: velo ma'alin*. To extrapolate this to everyone being a tinok shenishba
: is highly dubious.

The question is what changed in the CI's day? Was it the lack of mumarim
and apikursim, for example, because they're tinokos shenishbi'u at this
point. Or is it some problem with moridin velo ma'alim, like mishum eivah?

On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:46:55PM -0400 (which is actually later, if you
look at the 7 hours difference in time zone), Tobrr111@aol.com wrote:
:                                                   However, the Rambam as 
: understood by Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Elchanan Wasserman among others, 
: disagrees and holds that "nebech an apikores iz oych an apikores." However, I 
: must admit that I don't understand how that fits in with the concept of Tinok 
: Shenishba.

Perhaps there is a chiluk between status and oneshin. IOW, perhaps
tinok shenishba is a concept of on'shin alone. So we don't punish him
for being an apikoreis. However, he still is still "nebech an apikores"
when it comes to status. For example, stam yeinam.

I liked this idea until I read last week's email from R' Binyamin Hecht
of Nishma. In it he quoted Peirush haMishnayos (note that it's also
Rambam) on Sanhedrin 10:1. How can the mishnah say "kol Yisrael yeish
lahem cheilek li'olam haba" and then list exceptions? The Rambam explains
that ligabei olam haba, such people aren't bichlal "Yisrael".

IOW, lihaRambam, one can't separate oneshin (kelapei Shemaya, at least)
from status.

R' Hecht suggests outright the exact opposite of my hava amina, "Their
incorrectness touched their very bond to Israel. /Tinok she'nishba/
does not only remove individual judgement but repairs the bond of Israel."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> I liked this idea until I read last week's email from R' Binyamin Hecht 
> of Nishma. In it he quoted Peirush haMishnayos (note that it's also 
> Rambam) on Sanhedrin 10:1. How can the mishnah say "kol Yisrael yeish 
> lahem cheilek li'olam haba" and then list exceptions? The Rambam 
> explains that ligabei olam haba, such people aren't bichlal "Yisrael".
     
Someone who knows Rambam better than I correct me, but doesn't the Rambam hold 
that olam haba is one of da'as and without the right dei'os there is no metzius 
of olam haba?

Gil Student

In a message dated 9/13/00 3:18:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> I thought that the only identification of haKalir that we have is Tosfos'
>  comment that R' Eliezer haKalir was R' Eliezer ben R' Shim'on bar Yochai,
>  and secular scholarship discounts that claim.
>  
>  If they don't know who he was or what century he lived in, how do we
>  know where he lived?
>  
In the Seder Hadoros under R' Elozor Hakalir he quotes from the Ashknazic 
Machzorim of Shvi'e Shel Pessach where he signs "Ani Elozor Ben Yaakov 
Hakaliree Mkiryat Sefer Meretz Yisroel, see more inside.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,

Yitzchok Zirkind

I was raised on divrei Torah from RYBS, who sees the world in terms of
being able to live within the tension of various dialectics.

A key facet of R' Kook's philosophy is that plurality is illusory, and
it is our job to get to the reality behind these divisions.

In short, my perspective of yahadus is one in which history drives toward
fusion. Ra is eliminated by seeing how everything serves the Ultimate Tachlis,
ending its abuse.

So I was sort of surprised by the following from this week's "Perceptions"
by R' Pinchas Winston:
> Ever since Adam HaRishon ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
> life outside the Garden has been about birrur -- separation. This is
> because, the main consequence of Adam's eating prematurely, which led
> directly to the need for death in the world, was the intermingling
> of good and evil, which, up until the sin, had been distinct and
> distant from each other.

He sees the historical process as one of seperating out the ra, not
finding ways in which it ceases to be ra.

Thoughts?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:18:39 -0400 Daniel Schiffman said:
>I believe that in one piyyut, Kallir gives the number of years since
>the occurrence of the Churban, which tells us he lived in the 5th-6th
>centuries.

Kalir makes a reference to more than 1,000 years after the churban
Now this is just about impossble to be churban bayis sheini and if it
is churban byais rishon we have the old 166 year discrepncy. Anyway,
it seems likely that he lived around 550-650 CE.

As for Tosfos' remarks, I do not know what to make of them. here are
about 4 ideas <tongue somewhat in cheek>

1) Tosfos knew about Kalir's works but did not know who Kalir was,
   so he just specualted.
2) Tosafists in general knew, but like Avodah, Tosfos was the work
   of a committee and somebody got their facts mixed up.
   Nevertheless this is not a reflection upon Tosafists in general.
3) Elazar haKalir IS Elazar Ben R. Shimon - in a different gilgul.
4) Since Kalir was special, therefore Tosfos was conferring
   upon him the status of Tanna honoris causa.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:30:58 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>In short, my perspective of yahadus is one in which history drives toward
>fusion. Ra is eliminated by seeing how everything serves the Ultimate Tachlis,
>ending its abuse.
...

>So I was sort of surprised by the following from this week's "Perceptions"
>by R' Pinchas Winston:
>> Ever since Adam HaRishon ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
>> life outside the Garden has been about birrur -- separation....

A general thought is that these are just 2 paradigms explaining a common
phenomenum. While they seem to contradict, they are probably paradoxically
very alike.

The process of briah goes as I best understand it goes like this.

Totla unity achdus ====> split and more split (fission) ===> fusion
or reunification

one major split was the etz hadaas. This was the first churban the prayet
of hasveinu hashem elicho vnashuvo is appropos here too. That is bring
us back to you hashem and we will be return. IOW reconciled.

However the striaght line model may be a generalization. the reality of
split and re-unification might be wavy. the process of split on Tisha B'av
is obsdrved annually followed by teh shiva' denechmata of reconcilliation.

once we are reconcilled and "Lovey Dovey" again then the haftoro shifts
to shuva yuisreol ad Ahasem elokecha. Well if we are reconcilled and
all is well how can we still return. The final return is an all the
waything. Sos asis Basehm is still 2 distinctb lovers. The unification
is not complete just eveybody is in high spirits. the final shuvah ad
hashem is total fusion.

The process of history might be that the first big band was a fission
and the ultimate is a fusion but the straight line model is inadequate.

Between the 2 we have a wavy model with a pedndulum that swings back and
forth . This is parallel to a Taoist model. We gradually grow close we
gradualy separate. We are spinning are wheels.

perhaps the human condition alone will never end this cycle and we need
Hashmes intervetion. so we pray hashiveinu...

Just a few rambling thoughts on the topic

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

Forgive me if this is redundant.
Viduy may best be translated as acknowledgement.

This encompasses both confession aspects and gratitude aspects.
Viduy on OK is to acknowelge aval anachnu (va'avoseinu) chatanu
IOW you might have thought otherwise but we admit or acknowlegde this...

The Modim is acknowelging our gratitude and our indebtedness.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

Gil Student
> This, I think, can explain some of the apparent contradictions in Rashi's
> explanations to the Talmud where he sometimes has different definitions
> of a Ger Toshav. Sometimes the Ger Toshav discussed was one who had
> accepted all the mitzvot except he still ate non-kosher food, othertimes
> just the seven noachide mitzvot.

I have a Shtickel Torah I wrote on Rashi's shitta on Ger Toshav, available
via fax (it's in Hebrew). Basically, I am medayek that Rashi holds a
regular Ben Noach is not metzuveh on shittuf while a GT is. This explains
several sugyos, incuding Yevamos 48 on a GT being Shomer Shabbos. It is
also muchach from the pesukim by Na'aman.

KT,
YGB

In Areivim V5 #291, GStudent wrote:
> 2. ...in talmudic times there were many levels of Ger Toshav....
> This is also suggested in the great halachic work, Mishnah Berurah,
> although the exact citation escapes me at this time.

My copy of Yad Yisroel (for which I'm glad to take the opportunity to
again thank Carl) lists Gair-Toshav ("GT")-related cites in Orach Chayim
("OC") 39:11, 304:4, and 304:24. 39:11 says that the criterion is kabolas
sheva mitzvos b'nai Noach ("7MbN"); I don't have the latter chailek of
OC-w/-MB in the office, but OC 304:1 definitely compares an eved to a
GT if he accepts 7MbN -- also see Machatzis haShekel ("MhS") 304:1.

> 4. ...I think the clear majority of authorities are of the opinion that
> today Bnei Noach cannot become Gerei Toshav.

See Magen Avraham 304:12 and MhS ad hoc re the RaMBaM.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

== Arami Oved Ovi - Vayered Mitzraymoh ==

This posuk is generally translated (as does Targum Onkelos) that Lovon Ho'Arami
wanted to destroy Yaakov Ovinu and he (ie YO) went to Mitzrayim. According
to Rashi, however, these are two separate events, but when we say it at the
Seder (with most Hagodo's not having Peirush Rashi) - we tend to accept the
first pshat - which lechoreh needs some explanation as to how was Lovon in
any way responsible for Yaakov going to Mitzrayim?

One pshat that I heard many years ago, (IIRC b'shem Rav Yehudah Ossad zt'l and
more recently from the father of RE Hildesheimer zt'l) and which I say at every
year at the seder - hoping that the family doesn't remember it from last year:

A person who has several children usually does not upset the others - when
favouring his first-born, as they understand the yichus of being Bechor. Not
so - should a later child get special treatment - this would no doubt upset
them and create jealousy and strife.

Had Lovon Ho'arami not cheated Yaakov - but given him Rochel as his first
(and probably only) wife - as per the original deal, Yosef would have been
the Bechor with no one upset about the special love that Yaakov showed him.

But as we know, Lovon cheated Yaakov into marrying Leah - following which her
children plus those of the Shfochos - were born first and naturally jealous
of his affection and attention to a later-coming Yosef. This caused the
hatred that eventually led to Yosef being sold and the whole sad episode
that culminated in Yaakov and family migrating to Mitzrayim.

Thus - Lovon Ho'arami was the cause of Vayered Mitzraymoh.

***

== Lo Ovarti Al Mitzvosecho v'Lo Shochochti and ...mice ==

The Midrash (Eikev) relates that R' Pinchos ben Yoir advised the inhabitants
of a city where a plague of mice were eating into the crops to be 'mafrish'
Maasros correctly and the mice will disappear - whilst the Gemoro (Horiyos
13) states that consuming food that mice have eaten from (=their Shirayim)
is Kosho Leshikcha - causes one to forget his learning.

That is the pshat in his declaration: 'Bi'arti Hakodesh...Lo Ovarti al
Mitzvosechoh' - I was mafrish Maaser K'halocho (so mice did not eat from my
crops - and didn't render them Kosho Leshikcha) resulting in 'Lo Schochochti'
- I did not forget any of my learning...

****

 == V'lo Nosati Mimenu L'meis... ==

Remember the excuse to charity collectors - I gave at the office...?

The Abarbenel explains the above posuk,'V'lo Nosati Mimanu L'meis' -
I didn't try to get out of giving Maaser Oni by claiming that I have
already given it to an Oni - who has since died....

******

U'vo'u Olecho Kol Habrochos Ho'eleh - V'hisigichoh...

The word 'V'hisigichoh' seems superfluous - if the brochos will come to
you, of course they will reach you?

The Modzitzer Rebbe zt'l explained that often when a person is blessed
with fortune, he doesn't have any idea (kein "Hasogoh") on how to make
use of the money properly.

Therefore the Torah here gives an additional brocho: 'V'hisigichoh' -
you will have an Hasogoh on how to handle your newly found Ashirus...

May we all be gebenched with Ashirus and Hasogos...

A Gutten Shabbos

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au

From this week's Hamaayan, by Shlomo Katz.

-mi


R' Mordechai Hager shlita (the Vizhnitzer Rebbe in Monsey, N.Y.) related:
I heard from my grandfather, the "Ahavas Yisrael" (R' Yisrael Hager z"l;
1860-1936) that he was once visited by the Satmar Rebbe, R' Yoel Teitelbaum z"l
(1887-1979). My grandfather told his guest the comment of R' Levi Yitzchak
z"l of Bereditchev on the statement in the Rosh Hashanah prayers, "For You
remember all the forgotten things." Said R' Levi Yitzchak:

"G-d remembers what man forgets, whether his mitzvot or his transgressions. If
one performs a mitzvah and reminds himself of it so that it makes him haughty,
Hashem ignores that mitzvah. G-d only remembers (so-to-speak) those mitzvot
which we do and quickly put out of our minds, knowing that whatever we did,
we have not even begun to serve G-d sufficiently.

"By the same token, if we transgress and quickly forget what we have done,
G-d will remember it. Only if we keep our sins in mind so that they humble
us will Hashem forget them (so-to- speak)."

Upon hearing this, the Satmar Rebbe said, "In this light, we may understand
the verse [in this week's parashah, 26:13], 'I have not transgressed any of
your commandments, and I have not forgotten.' Our sages call this section
of the parashah, "Vidui Ma'aser" / "Confession Regarding Tithes,' but what
kind of confession is it when one says, 'I have not transgressed any of
your commandments'?

"The answer," said R' Teitelbaum, "is that our confession is, 'I have not
forgotten.' If one has not transgressed a single one of the commandments, he
should forget that fact." (Quoted in Otzar Tzaddikei U'geonei Ha'dorot p. 576)

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]