Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 007

Friday, October 6 2000

• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• 13 ikkarim
• Visiting the Temple Mount
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• RE: asking mechilah
• Re: Birchos HaTorah
• Fwd: Yated Neeman Columns V, 10/05//2000
• Re: seforim niftachim
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• kodosh atoh
• Re: Avodah V6 #4
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Kol Nidrei
• Re: mchila
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• asking for mchila
• Re: Birchos HaTorah

There are shitos which hold that the simchas yom tov of eating meat can only
be done by eating the korbanos, which means that it cannot be done b'zman
hazeh, and I understand that.  But there are other shitos which hold that it
can be done today, except that it requires davka basar beheima, and I would
like to understand that better.

When we were in the Midbar and wanted basar, HaShem sent us the slav. It
seems clear to me that when we had a taiva for meat, HaShem expected poultry
to satisfy that taiva. So what's wrong with having chicken on yom tov?
Perhaps we would need slav davka? (No pun intended!)

Akiva Miller

> While it it is probably and agruable that the Rambam intended
> to use his ikkarim to contrast Judaism from other belief systems
> and did not intend it to define minnus/apikorsus per se,
> I would argue that in fact it has evolved into THE litmus test
> anyway.

Since they appear in the perush mishnayot on the mishna in sanhedrin perek
chelek which describes those that have no chelek in olam haba, I have heard
it argued that the Rambam simply took the flip side of these as being what
one must believe (which is not to negate your thesis, it may be related)

GCT,
Joel Rich

RYGB a ecrit:
>>                           Do we know for a fact that there were
>>gagin, aliyos or mechilin back then? Or do we have to assume that ...
 
> I have no idea. The walls there are definitely original. So far as I know, 
> R' Mordechai Eliyahu's proposal was for the North Side. Tzarich iyun.

The walls are Herodian, but the location of Beit haMikdash never
changed.  The south part, where Al-Aqsa is, should not be a problem
as far as treading on the kodesh area.  Shlomo haMelech's Har Habayit
was an enclosure, smaller than today's, centered on the rock where the 
Mosque of Omar is today.  The east wall, overlooking the Nahal Kidron,
is in the same place as it was 3000 years ago.  The west wall is
completely Herodian.  The Hasmoneans extended the Har haBayit in the
north-south direction, Herod extended it north-south and westward.

One can see, from the Kidron side, a "straight joint", a place where
the stones abut each other without overlapping.  This indicates that
the stones south of there were added later.  The north and south ends
are both outside the area of the Temple itself.  What I don't know is
the degree of kedusha, the degree of taharah necessary to enter these
ancillary areas.

One possible reconstruction is at 
    <http://www.bib-arch.org/barso99/barso99sga.html>
Another is at
    <http://www.bib-arch.org/barja99/sgsbtemple.html>
And 
    <http://www.bib-arch.org/barso00/plan.html>

There's a debate currently on the Biblical Archaeology Review website
about just this issue, but all of the opinions agree that the north &
south ends were outside the fence around the Beit haMikdash.

So it seems to me that either the north or the south ends would be 
equally good for a synagogue location.

On 5 Oct 00, at 9:46, Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> Let me rephrase this as 2 separate questions:
> 
> 1) Is fish yotzei ydai Simchas Yomtov?

I would argue no. See Beer Hetev OH 529:3. Do people commonly 
refer to fish as basar? I would think not - v'ha raaya "basar v'dagim 
v'chol mat'amim." 

> 2) Is fish yotzei ydai Oneg Shabbos?

I would say yes. It may even be required (assuming we still have 
kasa d'harsena today - it's never been clear to me what specific 
fish that refers to). See Mishna Brura 242:1. However, he also says 
there that one who can afford to should also have basar v'yayin and 
migdanos. 

> If bossor v'daggim implies a literal "AND" then you need both

The Mishna Brura seems to be saying that if you can afford it you 
should.

> However, a looser rendering might be bossor v'daggim
> is a list or a menu from which we may select our favorites.

I happen to like meat :-) But yes, I think that's what he means by 
migdanos.

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Gmar Chasima Tova (or Gmar Chatima Tova,
depending on your preference).
May you and yours be sealed in
the books of life, health and happiness.

RM Feldman wrote:
>> But I would think that there are plenty of dinim bein adam l'chaveiro that 
>> apply to non-frum Jews and non-Jews.  E.g., embarrassing them.  Are you are 
>> arguing that we can learn from the cases of lashon hara and ona'as devarim 
>> that there are no halachos bain adam l'chaveiro that apply to them?

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com [mailto:Gil.Student@citicorp.com]
> RDF spends a bit of time discussing whether this and some other bein adam 
> lechaveiro's are due to the victim's tzelem elokim.  If so, 
> they would apply to 
> all people, Jew or gentile.  See RDF's The Good and the Right p. 192.

I am not surprised, based on the reading I did in G. Blidstein's article,
"Tikkun Olam." Gerald Blidstein suggests that since it is clear that
Hashem desires "tikkun olam" it follows from there that Jews should
take an active role in this based both on the concept that (1) we have
a covenant with Hashem and therefore ought to be partners with him, and
on the concept (2) of imitatio dei--we are supposed to imitate Hashem
"ma hu...af ata"; the Gemara Sotah 14a states "Just as Hashem clothed the
naked, as it is written 'And Hashem made garments of skin for Adam and
his wife and clothed them,' so you too ought to clothe the naked..."
Blidstein reports that Rav Soloveitchik once said that the morning
blessings, birchot hashachar, begin with our thanking Hashem for meeting
our physical needs in universal terms (asher nasan la'sechvi...malbish
arumim), so as to set out an ethical program: we, too, are obliged,
this day, to clothe the naked and free the captive.

I would like to suggest something based on a shiur I heard from Rav
Lichtenstein, discussing Ramban on "Kedoshim t'hiyu" and "v'asei'sa
hayashar v'hatov" (VHVH). RAL understands Ramban that VHVH is a separate
mitzva kolleles--Hashem couldn't possibly list all actions that a person
should do, so Hashem gave us 612 examples and then an all-encompassing
mitzvah that says "do the right thing" based on the time and circumstance.
A person who is knowledgeable of the 612 other mitzvos can extrapolate
from them how to act in circumstances not delineated in the torah.

Based on this, I would argue that the 612 specific mitzvos, which are
generally geared towards our fellow Jews, are meant to be followed in
minute detail. E.g., don't violate lashon hara even by making a fairly
neutral comment like "the rabbi spoke well today though I think he was
too wordy." VHVH, on the other hand, is more context-specific; perhaps I
could make the same statement about a my non-Jewish boss. But I shouldn't
gossip with my co-workers about clearly negative traits of my non-Jewish
boss, even though the laws of lashon hara officially apply to Jews.

So, has anyone asked mechilah of their non-frum or non-Jewish co-workers
yet? Could we be mechalek between minor incidents that people forget and
major incidents that are a continuing source of tension? Or what about
things that are really their fault, but they misunderstand and blame us?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In Avodah V6 #6, MBerger wrote:
>> ...the Ramban adds: "It is necessary to thank G-d whenever we read the
>> Torah...."....  The wording of the Ramban suggests that this blessing...

> Then why is part of it similar in matbei'ah to a birchas hamitzvah --
> "asher kidshanu bimitzvosav vitzivanu"?

Perhaps RaMBaN was referring to "asher bochar bonu"?

> According to Tosafos, who makes this a birchas hamitzvah, how are women
> mitztavos in eisek?

Oolay yaish lomar that the set of b'rachos (from "...la'asok" through
"asher bochar bonu") should not be broken up, and (as I've posited to
you and Carl privately) "asher bochar bonu" is certainly applicable to
both genders. The BH at the end of OC 47 gets into the relationship of
women to "v'tzivanu." Dare I suggest, without a source, that "la'asok"
can mean different things when said by different people?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Apropos the KN discussion. Disclaimer: I have not read the following!

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

[Moderator's note: I believe this article originated as an email on Project
Genesis' Halachah Hashavu'a email list. RSBA also forwarded this article
to the chevrah. -mi]

>From: "Yated-Usa" <yated-usa@yated.com>
>Subject: Yated Neeman Columns V, 10/05//2000
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:07:15 -0400

>Yated Neeman Columns V
>Halacha Discussion: The Origin and Purpose of Kol Nidrei

>  The holiest day of the year, the day which the Torah designates as a Day of
>Atonement for the sins of the Jewish people, begins with the little
>understood but emotionally charged Kol Nidrei Service. For reasons which are
>not completely known to us, the compilers of the Yom Kippur Machzor chose
>Kol Nidrei, which is basically a halachic procedure for annulling certain
>oaths and vows, as the opening chapter of the Yom Kippur davening.
>Obviously, then, there is more to Kol Nidrei than meets the eye. Let us take
>a deeper look.

>  It is known that Kol Nidrei dates back to ancient times, possibly as far
>back as the era of Anshei Kenesses ha-Gedolah(1). The earliest written
>version, though, is in the Seder of Rav Amram Gaon who lived in the ninth
>century. Already then, the exact reason for reciting Kol Nidrei on Yom
>Kippur was not clearly understood, and the Geonim and the early Rishonim
>struggled with its exact meaning and purpose(2).

>Halachic Background - Vows and Oaths

>  In earlier times, much more so than today, individuals were inclined to
>"accept upon themselves" different types of self-imposed obligations or
>restrictions. In order to ensure that these would actually be kept, people
>would label their self-imposed obligation as either a neder, a vow, or a
>shevuah, an oath, thus giving it legal force. The binding status of vows and
>oaths and the horrific and tragic consequences of violating them are
>discussed in several places in the Torah and Rabbinical literature(3).

>  But the Torah also recognizes that sometimes these vows and oaths were
>undertaken without due consideration of the consequences. More often than
>not, the individual making the oath did not realize how difficult it would
>be to keep it. Sometimes, an oath was declared in anger or out of spite and
>eventually the individual regretted his words and wished to revoke them. To
>that end, the Torah provided a legal formula called hatoras nedorim,
>allowing a petitioner to present his case before a bais din in order to find
>a legal loophole and extricate the petitioner from his plight. This process
>involves complex halachos, and indeed, not always can the court release the
>petitioner from his vow.

>The View of the Early Authorities

>  Before beseeching G-d for atonement of sins on Yom Kippur, it is imperative
>that each individual absolve himself of any vows or oaths that he may have
>made and subsequently violated. The severity of violating a vow or an oath
>is such that it may block or interfere with the entire atonement process(4).
>Consequently, one who is aware of any violations that he may have, is
>strongly urged to petition a Jewish court in order to find a way out of his
>self-imposed obligations. Indeed, it has become customary that already on
>Erev Rosh ha-Shanah, all males petition a beis din for Hatoras nedarim.

>  But not everyone is familiar with the procedure of Hatoras nedorim, and not
>everyone who has violated a neder or a shevuah realizes that he has done so.
>To avert and to solve this problem, Kol Nidrei was instituted. Kol Nidrei
>declares that in case an individual made a vow or an oath during the past
>year and somehow forgot and violated it inadvertently, he now realizes that
>he made a terrible mistake and strongly regrets his hasty pronouncement. In
>effect he tells the "court"-comprised of the Chazan and two congregational
>leaders-that had he realized the gravity and severity of violating an oath,
>he would never have uttered it in the first place. He thus begs for
>forgiveness and understanding(5).

>  This explanation of Kol Nidrei, put forth by many of the early authorities
>and endorsed by the Rosh, fits nicely with the traditional text of Kol
>Nidrei, which reads, "from the last Yom Kippur until this Yom Kippur", since
>we are focusing on vows and oath which were undertaken during the past
>year(6).

>The View of Rabbeinu Tam

>  Other authorities-led by Rabbeinu Tam-strongly object to this
>interpretation of Kol Nidrei. Basing their opposition on various halachic
>principles, they question if it is legally valid to perform hatoras nedarim
>in this manner. In their view, Kol Nidrei was instituted to deal with the
>problem of unfulfilled vows, but from a different angle. Instead of
>annulling existing vows and oaths, Kol Nidrei serves as a declaration
>rendering all future vows and oaths which may be uttered without due
>forethought-as invalid, "null and void, without power and without
>standing(7)." Accordingly, the text was amended to read "from this Yom
>Kippur until the next Yom Kippur", since we are referring to what may happen
>in the future, not to what has already happened in the past.

>What approach do we follow?

>  Most of the later authorities have accepted Rabbeinu Tam's explanation of
>Kol Nidrei and this has become the accepted custom in most congregations(8).
>Nevertheless, in deference to the first opinion, many congregation include
>both versions as part of the text. Thus the text in some machzorim(9) reads
>as follows: From the last Yom Kippur until this Yom Kippur (accounting for
>vows already made), and from this Yom Kippur until the next Yom Kippur
>(referring to future vows), etc.

>  It is important to note, however, that Kol Nidrei, whether referring to the
>past or to the future, does not give one the right to break his word. As
>previously explained, Kol Nidrei is valid only for additional obligations or
>personal restrictions that an individual undertakes of his own volition. By
>no means can hatoras nedarim or Kol Nidrei exempt an individual from court
>[or beis din] imposed oaths, etc.

>A practical application

>  As stated earlier, vows and oaths are not too common in our times. It would
>seem, therefore, that the halachic aspect of Kol Nidrei has little practical
>application. But when properly understood, Kol Nidrei can be used as a tool
>to rectify a fairly common halachic problem. There is a well-known ruling in
>the Shulchan Aruch(10) that any proper custom, once accepted and followed,
>may not be dropped without undergoing hataras nedarim. People who adopt even
>"simple" customs which they are not obligated to practice, like reciting
>Tehilim daily, without making the b'li neder (without a vow) stipulation,
>require hataras nedarim should they decide to discontinue their
>practice(11).

>  This is where Kol Nidrei(12) can help. As stated above, Rabbeinu Tam
>explained that Kol Nidrei is a declaration that invalidates the legal force
>of certain future vows. Contemporary poskim(13) rule that "proper customs"
>from which an individual wishes to absolve himself although he neglected to
>make the beli neder stipulation initially, are included in the Kol Nidrei
>declaration invalidating such vows. The "proper custom" may now be
>discontinued.

>Rules

>  Since Kol Nidrei is an halachic procedure for nullifying certain, specific
>future vows, the following conditions must be met:

>  Each individual must understand exactly what is being said during Kol
>Nidrei. Since a legal declaration is being made, if one does not understand
>what he is declaring, his statement cannot have legal force(14). The
>difficult Aramaic text should, therefore, be studied and understood in
>advance of Yom Kippur eve.

>  Each individual must verbally recite Kol Nidrei along with the Chazan.
>Obviously, the Chazan cannot make such a declaration for anyone but
>himself(15). It should not be recited in an undertone, but loudly enough for
>a person nearby to hear(16). If it is whispered too softly, it may be
>invalid(17).

>  Kol Nidrei should be recited while it is daylight, since the process of
>annulling vows [and the declaration of voiding them in the future] should
>not be done on Shabbos or Yom Tov(18).

[Footnotes:]
>1 Shita Mekubetzes (Nedarim 23b).

>2 Indeed, some well-known Geonim, including Rav Netronai Gaon and Rav Hai
>Gaon, were adamantly opposed to the Kol Nidrei service and ordered their
>congregations to omit it entirely; see Tur O.C. 619.

>3 For a sampling see Shabbos 32b; Yavamos 109b; Nedarim 20a and 22b; Vayikra
>Rabbah 37:1; Koheles Rabbah 5:2; Tanchuma, Matos 1.

>4 Shibbolei ha-Leket.

>5 It is important to stress that, even according to this opinion, Kol Nidrei
>is a "last ditch effort" to guard a person from his own words and to save
>him from certain punishment. It is not meant as a crutch to rely on
>l'chatchilah.

>6 According to this opinion, Kol Nidrei is similar to the first part of
>hatoras nedarim which is recited on Erev Rosh ha-Shanah

>7 The halachic basis for this type of declaration is in the Talmud (Nedarim
>23b) and is not within the scope of this column. Note that according to this
>opinion, Kol Nidrei is similar to the second part of hatoras nedarim which
>is recited on Erev Rosh ha-Shanah

>8 Mishnah Berurah 619:2.

>9 This "compromise text" was introduced by the Radvaz (4:33) and later
>adopted by Rav Yaakov Emdin (She'alas Yaavetz 145) and other poskim, see Kaf
>ha-Chayim 619:17.

>10 Y.D. 214:1.

>11 See The Weekly Halachah Discussion, vol. 2, pg. 528-529 for a full
>discussion.

>12 Or the second part of Hatoras nedorim on Erev Rosh ha-Shanah. See Minchas
>Yitzchak 9:60 who explains why it is proper (but not obligatory) to recite
>both texts.

>13 Harav S.Z. Auerbach in Minchas Shelomo 91 based on Teshuvos Salmas Chayim
>2:38. See also Yabia Omer 2:30 and 4:11-9 who relies on this as well.

>14 Chayei Adam 138:8 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 128:16, concerning hatoras
>nedorim.

>15 Mishnah Berurah 619:2.

>16 Shulchan Aruch Harav 619:3 based on Y.D. 211:1. On the other hand, it
>should also not be said too loudly, so not to confuse the Chazan and other
>worshippers; Mateh Efraim 619:11.

>17 Minchas Yitzchak 9:61.

>18 Mishnah Berurah 619:5. See Mateh Efraim 619:11 who explains that as long
>as Kol Nidrei begins during daytime it does not matter if it continues into
>the night.

> I was under the impression that each of those sforim in Avinu 
> Malkeinu has three components (tzadikim, reshaim and beinonim), 
> but I have no real basis for saying that.

A little hard to say that there's a sefer zechuyos for reshaim,  for
instance.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>RYGB: Would you agree? If so, given that you hold (as per the Or Sameiach)
>that mal'achim lack bechirah because in Shamayim all choices are obvious,
>and that therefore they DO have bechirah while in olam hazeh... Would
>you hold that it is mutar to make a bakashah of a mal'ach that is on
>shelichus?

Yes.

>Also, does a niftar have bechirah? We often hear a maspid ask the niftar
>to be a meilitz yosheir. Or perhaps, the uncertainty about whether they
>have bechirah is the source of the question about the nature of davening
>at a keiver.

It seems that they do have bechira to pay attention to matters of this 
world or not.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: jjbaker@panix.com
> ..has anyone found an answer to the "kakatuv" question: kadosh
> ata v'nora sh'mecha, v'ein eloah mibal'adecha, kakatuv ?

RY Zlotchever has posted his pshat and RYY sent another privately -
which I have forwarded to you.

> I looked in the Siddur Yaavetz, as someone suggested, but didn't see anything.

It is in the standard (old style) 1-volume edition - in the Peirush
Yeri'os Sholomo (from Rav Sholom Kliger zt'l) - but not in the recent
2-volume edition.

My problem with all these pshotim is that -did the Anshei Knesses hagdolo
expect us the be mechaven such elaborate pshetlech - whilst davenning?

SBA

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 07:43:21PM -0400, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
:                         I understand the shita of the Shaagas aryeh that 
: holds that  aimcha means basar vyayin  but there are other shitos that learn 
: that the drasha is doraisa when we have a Beis HaMikdash.

What do we mean when we are mechayeiv [basar] viyayin?

If someone doesn't enjoy basar, do we still say he has to eat it mishum
chiyuv simchah? (R Herschel Schacher holds no.) And if not, of what kind
of chiyuv is this whole discussion?

-mi

On 5 Oct 00, at 9:46, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>> 1) Is fish yotzei ydai Simchas Yomtov?

At 12:11 PM 10/6/00 +0200, you wrote:
>I would argue no. See Beer Hetev OH 529:3. Do people commonly
>refer to fish as basar? I would think not - v'ha raaya "basar v'dagim
>v'chol mat'amim."

I would argue yes. I have an essay on the topic, written in English, but in 
my pre-computing days (it is typewritten, was printed in our Far Rockaway 
Kollel journal back in the '80's). As usual, available by fax by request - 
if anyone then would like to scan it, I would be most grateful.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

: 1) Bein Adam Lamakom
: 2) Bein Adam Lechaveiro
: 3) Bein Adam Le'Atzmo

Whose commitments are reaffirmed through tefillah, tzedahah and teshuvah,
respectively.

This all ties back to Derech haChaim 1:2, which I dwelled on in the discussion
about what is self.

-mi

(With thanks to Leibel Sternberg for his research.)

On the importance of going through bushah in order to obtain mechilah, note
that the Rambam's formula for Vidui (Hil Teshuvah 1:1) requires "nichamti
uvoshti bima'asai".

R' Yitzchak Blazer (Kochivei Or 5:3) applies this idea to the story (Yuma
87a) that we told about Rav and the butcher. Yes, Rav could have offered
blanket mechilah, but he wanted to offer the butcher an opportunity to
reach "uvoshti bima'asai".

The Maharit (O"Ch 2:8) was approached by a man who all thought was a tzaddik
but had somehow speant an entire year each on the 3 yaharog vi'al ya'avor
aveiros. The Maharit said that he must publicly renounce his chata'im that
hurt others except for those of arayos where whole families could acquire
a stigma. (I assume we're talking where there is no possibility of real
mamzeirus, and it's more about shidduch potential.) He writes that the bushah
he feels on the other aveiros could aid the teshuvah in these as well.

Chaneinu Hashem ki rav savanu vuz.

-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 Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 03:58:03PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Given malachim have no bechira WHAT to do,
: Still don't they have bechiar as to HOW they do it?

What is "how"? Isn't it the same question as "what" except on the peratim
instead of the tafkid as a whole?

: Also there is a story wrt Satan, that it's not that he tempts
: people to do bad that cause his downfall, because
: after al lthat's his job, rather it's becuase he ENJOYS his job.

For example, if a mal'ach enjoys his job, it must be because of his
awareness of the emes, and that such enjoyment is part of what Hashem
would want him to do.

According to the Rambam, who says a mal'ach lacks even the potential
for choice (like software, it just does what it was built to do [and,
unfortunately, what you intended to build it to do]), then such simchah
is clearly Hashem's intent.

The Satan is portrayed as not enjoying his job, just like the messenger
who is sent by the king to tempt the prince with a purse of money and
a ride to the door of a house of ill repute. The king needs to test
the prince, the prince needs to practice overcoming ta'avah, and the
messenger really wants him to pass the test.

-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

From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@lifebridgehealth.org>
> In essence he said that 100% we are not making a bakosha to the
> maloch. Rather, it's b'geder "Ana Melech Malchei haOlamim, tzavei
> l'malachecha..." in Ribon Kol HaOlamim.

	Interesting,  because in RSYW's rebbi's yeshiva (Yeshiva
Rabbi Chaim Berlin) none of these (machnisei,  midas harachamim,
etc.) are said.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I would assume that a meis, in olam ha'emes, no longer holds grudges.

	I beg to differ.  See the story of rucho shel Navos and Achav,
where, in olam ha'emes,  he still held a grudge to the point where he
was willing to forgo being bemechitzaso shel HKB"H for revenge.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[Good point. Now, how is that in consonance with "emes"? -mi]

More about birchas haTorah, but on a different inyan...

Galus Bavel was attributed to many things, one of them that they
weren't mevareich birchas haTorah. Looking at our derashah or asmachtah
(depending on the machlokes rishonim), the ta'us was that by skipping
"havo godeil li'Eilokeinu" they clearly didn't consider learning to be
"ki sheim Hashem ekra".

Note that the Ramban learns the concept of a berachah from the word
godeil. Both are leshonos of ribbui.

Second, the implication is that Torah is entirely composed of shemos
Hashem, it is identified with "sheim Hashem ekra".

Third, toward the end of the galus we have Meg Esther "layhudim haysa
orah visimchah visason viykar" to which Chazal ask what is orah, what
is simchah, etc... and orah is identified with Torah.

Why didn't the megillah just say that the Jews had Torah, a restoration
of korbanos, ... outright? Why did the pasuk use 5 leshonos that hint
to the points?

Perhaps because the Jews before galus had Torah, but their Torah wasn't
an ohr for them. They had korbanos, but not the simchah.

Which ties back to the lack of berachah, the lack of sense of G-dliness
in the material they were learning.

-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

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


[ 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         ]