Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 008

Thursday, October 4 2001

• Re: Three Motzoei Y"K points
• Three Motzoei Y"K points
• Re: Three Motzoei Y"K points
• Re: Avodas Yom HaKippurim- texts of the Avodah
• succah/arba minim
• Re: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• Re: rambam's iqqorim
• techeiles
• Re: RMES's article on Techeiles
• Re: Esrogei Shemitah
• Re: chayyim -- chayyim tovim
• Re: Lubavitch philosophy - bitul
• Re: Esrogei Shemitah
• Delayed Celebration
• Re: Shabbath Shuva
• Re: Umi domeh lach?
• Re: chayyim -- chayyim tovim
• Re: Havdala in the Succa
• Re: Umi domeh lach?
• RE: Shabbath Shuva
• Re: chayyim -- chayyim tovim
• Re: succah/arba minim

On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:42:35 -0400 "Gil Student"
<gil_student@hotmail.com> writes:

<< Do you know people who are alive but do not have a good parnasa?  
Clearly,  on this allegorical level, they are different books.>>

        OK, then why is it *besefer* instead of besifrei?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> 1. We say in Avinu Malkenu, kosveinu besefer chayim tovim, and then again,
> kosveinu besefer parnasa vechalkala. In shemoneh esrei, we say besefer
> chayim beracha veshalom ufarnasa tova. Are chayim and parnasa separate
> sefarim or one?

IIRC last year someone asked the question about the various 'seforim'
mentioned in the AM. Again, IIRC, we didn't get a satisfactory answer.

Having given it some thought again this year, it seems to me that all
those AM's are referring to one and the the same sefer - but asking
that we be noted down not only for Chayim but for a Chayim with "all
the extra's"...

(I saw that the Sefardi nussach has 6 AM - besefer's as compared to our 5).

> 3.  I had mentioned some time back that one should not eat fish at the
> seudah hamafsekes,  and had to retract because I could not find mention
> of it.  Today I saw that Reb Scroll brings a Mateh Efraim (608:1) to that
> effect.

As does the KSA [131:12}.

SBA

Gershon Dubin wrote:
>1. Are chayim and parnasa separate sefarim or one?

Do you know people who are alive but do not have a good parnasa?  Clearly, 
on this allegorical level, they are different books.

Gil Student

In a message dated 9/28/2001 2:25:02pm EDT, Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>
writes:
> Query: which shuls followed the Nusach Sefard as opposed to the Nusach
> Ashkenaz version of the Avodah? I heard a fascinating shiur on this from
> RHS. According to Rhs and RYBS, the Beis Yosef was magiah much of the
> nussach. Check out one daf in the Tur and you will see no Tur text at
> all. the Tosfos Yom Tov claims that the Nussach ashkenaz text is based
> on one shita in the Yerushalmi. Therefore, it is based on at least one
> shita in Tannaim. However, Nussach Sefard follows the Seder haAvodah as
> described in the Mishnayos in Yoma. Anyone in an Nussach Ashkenaz Shul
> who davened Mussaf in a Nussach Sefard Shul based on this problem?

FWIW:
The Amitz Koach is authored by Meshulam Ben Klonymous of Lucca, Italy one of 
the early sources of the "minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon"

This is one classic example of how the "Minhag Ashknenaz" leaned towards 
Minhag EY and away from Bavel, particularly in the liturgy as per the Tosafos 
Yom Tov above. 

There is little question amongst scholars that the Atoi Konanto more closely 
follows the Bavli thatn does the Amitz Koach. The fact that Amitz Koach was 
accepted and preserved by Ashkenzic Rishonim supports the thesis of a 
peculiar minhag that often diverged from the Bavli.

It is {IMHO} only amongst some Acharonim that this process was called into 
question.  This "revisionistic" trend tends to dismiss the Ashkenazic Minhag 
in favor of the Sephardic Minhag.  

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

A question that I always have this time and have never heard a
satisfactory answer to is an explanation of the relationship between 4
minim and succah. Are these two separate mitzvahs with simply happen
to coincide during the same seven day period? Whereas the mitzvahs for
all other yom tovim are obviously linked (chometz/matza/sipur yetzias
mitzraim; tshuva/inuyim, etc...), there is no obvious link between the
two succos mitzvahs, to the extent that rambam and the tur/shulchan
aruch deal with each under a separate section.

It would appear that succah relates to the historical/zechirah aspect of
the yom yov whereas arba minim relates to the agricultural/thanksgiving
aspect (chag ha'asif) of the yom tov. UNder this view they are indeed
separate mitzvahs for almost separate, albeit coinciding, yom tovim.

(BTW, mitzvah is an actual word according to microsoft spellcheck.)

On 30 Sep 01, at 18:45, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> The Chareid rav urged all to be more makpid in Tznius,and Mayim acharonim. 

Why Mayim Achronim?

>              Many of us in the audience who had escaped from Manhattan or 
> downtown Brooklyn were astounded at the assertions that these were the cause 
> of the terrible events. WADR, I also felt that such an analysis on the day of 
> the event was made with a lack of appreciation that this was a national 
> tragedy, as opposed to just a siman minhashamyim of the oncoming yimei hadin. 
> Perhaps , I am overstating the case, but I do think that this was not the 
> incident to think about a specifically Jewish response . 

Is exhorting people about tznius a specifically Jewish response? 
Are goyim mechuyav to dress tzniustically? Would that be a part of 
the issur of giluy arayos among the Sheva Mitzvos? 

-- 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

Mechy Frankel wrote:
>There is nothing slight about the majority of them

Clearly, we disagree on this.  I, and probably RYGB, believe that the 
disagreements are slight.  Let me elaborate and/or explain my earlier 
comments.


THIRD IKKAR
I wrote:
>there is little information how many...

In other words, there were maybe three relatively obscure talmidei chachamim 
that we know of who believed in some form of corporeality.  This does not 
demonstrate that this ikkar was in flux.  To add, even among those who we 
know believed in some form of corporeality, R. Moshe of Taku only believed 
that G-d could, if He wanted, appear corporeal.  He did not believe that G-d 
is, in general, corporeal (see Torah Shelemah vol. 16 pp. 308-319).  The 
difference between this and the Rambam's view is, IMHO, slight.  
Philosophically significant but practically neglible.  I might even say that 
there are many today who would agree with R. Moshe Taku.  [It is arguable 
that R. Shlomo min HaHar agreed with R. Moshe Taku]

FOURTH IKKAR
>With regard to prophecy, all Shapiro has is a machlokes over whether
>Mashiach will be a greater prophet than Moshe.

There are two issues here.  First, regarding the ikkar on prophecy, this is 
only a debate over whether Mashiach will be a greater prophet than Moshe.  
This is precisely what I would call a slight disagreement.  Second, Shapiro 
has one source.  One rishon, and a controversial one at that, dissents.


FIFTH IKKAR
>Shapiro also points out something we already know.

Yes, there are some mekoros within Chazal about using intermediaries to 
reach Hashem.  And those who worked so hard to justify this, e.g. the 
Minchas Elazar, have already explained this.  It is not worshipping 
intermediaries but using them to worship Hashem.  Would Rambam protest?  
Yes.  But this still fits into the main intent of the ikkar that Hashem, and 
only Hashem, is the object of our worship and prayers.  No one would say 
that we should worship anyone else or pray to anyone else.  They only 
suggest, in certain circumstances, requesting other beings to pray to G-d on 
our behalf.  I call this disagreement slight.

EIGHTH IKKAR
>With regard to Torah MiSinai, you can almost sense the glee in which 
>Shapiro goes into detail about the debates over the Masoretic text.

Yes, indeed.  I don't have explanations for the deviations from what we call 
the Masoretic Text.  However, there are no sources who dispute anything but 
individual letters and a few words.  I have not calculated percentages but I 
would be willing to guess that less than 1% of Tanach is under question.

I also believe that Shapiro maximized the disagreements on this issue.  
There are a number of rishonim who I do not think should be included in that 
section (e.g. Rashi).

TENTH IKKAR
>The tenth ikkar is that Hashem knows man's actions. Again, he has a 
>debatable Ibn Ezra

The key here is debatable.  Additionally, Ibn Ezra is a controversial figure 
among rishonim.  But don't focus on that.  Focus on the "debatable" part.  
It is very possible that Ibn Ezra did not say what Shapiro claims he did 
(although Shapiro does note that possibility) and, if so, there is no 
disagreement over this ikkar.

ELEVENTH IKKAR
>I don't think he has a leg on which to stand

This simply means that I think that he is totally mistaken.

Gil Student

Regarding my article on techeiles:

1.  Thanks go to Rabbi Alfred Cohen who gave permission for the article to
posted to the internet (as long as it is distributed for free).  I merely
supplied the Word file.

2.   Off the cuff, I supplied the wrong volume - it appeared in issue 42
(not 40), pp.5 -29.  (It was the Sukkot 2001 issue).  Fortunately I get
neurotic about details when I publish so I'd like to think that any issues
you have with what I wrote is strictly a matter of my faulty logic :-)

mendel

(A preface by way of disclaimer: I think the subject has gotten
'religious' enough for the biases of the people involved to be
relevent. FYI, I wear murex trunculus derived indigo on my tzitzis. I do
so because I feel the identification likely enough to warrant spending
the money -- not that I feel it is vadai. As the Radziner Rebbe asked,
what do you lose if you're wrong?)

I think that RMES, as well as most of the other authors on the subject,
bring the wrong approach to undestanding the gemara (Menachos 44a).

At the time Shas was written, people in Israel were still wearing
techeiles. The identity of the chilazon was not a mystery. Which means
that the gemara has no reason to give unique features by which to identify
the chilazon.

Li nir'eh the list is one of explaining the significant features of the
chilazon. Not the identifying ones. They therefore need not be unique.

On the subject of the color of techeiles: the gemara warns us about kaleh
ilan based dye. It is accepted that this warning is about indigo. Which
means that we know that techeiles is the same color as indigo. So, while
I understand RMES's concerns over the true color of techeiles, the murex
dye /is/ the right color. How then do we understand the mekoros? That's
not a question about using murex, but about the general consensus that
kalah ilan is indigo.

Also, we're only warned about a single alternative dye of that
color. Chazal knew of the murex dye. They didn't warn about tzitzis dyed
with indigo made from the murex when they warned about kala ilan. If it
isn't techeiles, why not?

As for his comments about the gemara's test: the first problem is
that we don't know how to get indigo to fail this test. But if we go
with REMS's peshat that the test is about fermentation, there is a
clear difference between the two sources of the indigo chemical. The
murex source requires dropping bromine from the original compound,
which then leaves bromine elsewhere in the resulting dye. Studies
involving the comparison of laevural acid vs the dibromide version (e.g.
<http://www.prosci.uci.edu/Articles/Vol8/issue6/8577/8577.html>) show
that yeast doesn't do as well in the presence of bromine.

One last point, RMES writes that:
: Regarding criterion 3, the requirement of once in 70 years, the
: Radzyner Rebbe says this means that there are times when the chilazon is
: abundant.[20] Likewise, Rabbi Herzog, citing also the braita of tzitzit
: that says the chilazon comes up every 7 years, is of the opinion that
: there should be some cycle, though not necessarily 7 or 70 years.[21]
: Murex trunculus has no known cycle or times of unusual abundance.
: Petil followers have tried to argue that the Hebrew sheva shanim in
: the braita could also mean seven-fold, and Pliny the Elder mentions
: an optimal seven-month cycle for harvesting murex snails.[22] ...

This is news to me. I did not see any mention of cycles in Sefunei
Temunei Chol. Li nir'eh he is saying that usually it's rare, and on
certain occasions it isn't.

"Once in 70 years" is a usual idiom in gemara, such as in the famous
statement about misas beis din. It never crossed my mind to take it to
mean anything but "very rare".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Sadya Targum wrote on Areivim:
>But ne'evad does not say you can't do work. It says that if you *did*
>do work, the resulting fruit is prohibited. It is that din which I
>never heard, and whose source I asked for.

I remember seeing an RJJ Journal article (early '90s) by R. Michael J. 
Broyde in which he brings poskim who say that one is not yotzeh with an 
esrog that was "worked" during shemitah and poskim who say that one is 
yotzeh.  IIRC, he quotes RYBS as saying one is yotzeh because there is no 
pesul on the cheftzah, only an issur on the gavra.  However, buying that 
esrog would be machzik yedei ovrei aveirah.

Gil Student

There are three ways we can look at the request for chayim.

1. Our teshuvah should suffice and we should not be punished, which does not 
always work as detailed in Yoma 86a.
2. We should be punished with yissurin rather than death.
3. We should be punished in olam haba rather than olam hazeh.

Clearly, 3 is not something for which we should be asking.  Therefore, I 
would guess that we should ask for either 1 or 2.  Asking for chayim tovim 
seems to preclude 2 but asking for just chayim leaves room for both 1 and 2. 
  PERHAPS, asking for 1 does not include aveiros for which one is chayav 
kareis or misas bes din, for which teshuvah and Yom HaKippurim do not 
suffice.

Gil Student

> The kabbalistic veneration of the mystic Tzaddik as expressed in RYGB's 
> citation from the Zohar is, on the face of it, a later addition to the 
> core material that might be considered stemming from R' Shimon bar 
> Yochai....      If taken literally, such an expression would have a more 
> natural place in the religion that prevailed at the time the Zohar 
> manuscript was produced in 14th century Spain. 
> 
> As to the other citation from R' Shimon b' Yochai from the talmud, 
> wherein R' Shimon bemoans the dearth of tzaddikim in his generation, but 
> insists that he and his son, Eliezer, are included even if there are 
> only 2 tzaddikim - that must be understood in a different light. ...

Since I do not subscribe to the the theory, that i regard as erroneous, that 
the zohar or parts thereof stem from the 14th century, and since I cannot 
accept that we have a more sophisticated understaniding of religion than our 
medieval forbears, and since I do not assume the Zohar to be literal, I have no 
problem with an allegorical interpretation of the cited passage about RSHBY. 

As to the Gemara about Bnei Aliyah, that, as we know, has approxcimatey a 
gazilllion interpretations. 

KT, 
YGB 

I have to apologize for misquoting R. Michael J. Broyde. The following
is a somewhat editted (for length) response I received from him. I'll
have to check over Yom Tov what I am thinking of.

Gil Student

From: "Michael Broyde" <mbroyde@law.emory.edu>
>This quote from me is incorrect and I never said it.  I wrote a
>letter to the editor of the RJJ journal arguing that such etrogim
>were mutar,. and a letter to the editor of chavrusa which is below.

>		Shemittah 5761:
>Letters to the Editor of Chavrusa
>Shemittah: A Rejoinder
>Rabbi Michael J. Broyde
>Rabbi Howard Jachter

>The articles omit a crucial piece of information concerning the rules
>of produce grown during shemittah. Fruit, even if the orchard is
>guarded or worked, may be eaten. Thus, oranges produced in Israel can
>always be eaten. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach states: "Even for those
>who are strict and do not wish to rely on the heter mechira at all,
>according to our custom based on the consensus of later poskim, it is
>appropriate to be lenient nowadays concerning fruit gown in orchards
>that are either guarded or worked. This is also found in the writings
>of the Chazon Ish who states that once the fruits were grown it is,
>after the fact, not prohibited and it is permissible to eat this
>fruit" (Minchat Shlomo #44).

>Rabbi Auerbach then goes on to state that one can buy such fruit from
>a merchant selling them in Israel. This insight is based on a
>discussion in Yevamot 122a and Sukah 39b, and while Rabenu Tam
>appears to disagree (id.), Rashi, Rambam. Ramban and Rashba, all
>accept that this fruit can be eaten. This ruling is accepted as
>correct by many modern poskim, including Rabbi Feinstein (Iggrot
>Moshe O.C. I: 186); Rabbi Abraham I. Karelitz, Chazon Ish, Sheveit
>10:5-6 and 7:25; Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer 6:39 and
>11:69; Rabbi Yitzchak I. Leibes, Beit Avi 1:52-54; Rabbi Yechiel
>Michel Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan He’Atid Shemitah VeYovel 21:6-8;
>Rabbi Binyamin Silber, Az Nidberu 4:8 and 9:60 and many others. Once
>one accepts this rationale, since the overwhelming majority of
>Israeli produce sold in America is oranges or grapefruits, it would
>be permissible to eat them even if one did not accept the general
>validity of the heter mechira. While, of course, according to these
>authorities, one would have to treat this produce with the sanctity
>of produce produced during the sabbatical year, that is relatively
>easy to do. People should consult their local Orthodox rabbi as to
>the details of this.

I heard of an odd practice and I am wondering if anyone else knows a
source or can document the phenomenon.

Women who are having trouble finding their bashert were asked by their
Rabbis if their parents had ever made for them a Kiddush upon their
birth and if not were told to sponsor a Kiddush for themselves. This
presumably would correct something and would help them get married.

Has anyone heard of this?

Chag Sameach,
Yonatan

In a message dated 9/21/2001 1:31:00pm EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> 1. Why not have Yom Kippur immediately after Rosh haShana? For most of
> us the days between are a let-down rather than a heightened experience
> of mitzvoth and tshuva

Perhaps providing a full week after RH for shlichin to go to Surya and Bavel 
reduces the area of Sfeika deyoma which can be highly problematic for YK  

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:26:23AM -0500, Akiva Miller wrote:
: I think you may be confusing "d'mus" with "tzelem".
: I won't pretend to have a clear understanding of either term, but it
: seems to me that HaShem chose to create us in His tzelem, and succeeded.

The Moreh cheilek 1 defines each. As does the Ramban on the pasuk, to
very different answers.

: But regarding d'mus, He chose to create us LIKE His d'mus (with a kaf),
: not IN His d'mus (with a beis). Thus, can accurately ask "umi domeh
: Lach". We may come close, but not all the way.

This is one of the possibilities I suggested:
> Is it an issue of the "ki-" in "kidmuseinu" vs an actual dimyon?

BTW, "bitzalmeinu" wouldn't necessarily be "of the same tzurah".
One would first have to show that the idiom of being IN a form
is native to Lashon haKodesh. Although it is the normal idiom in
English, one isn't actually /inside/ anything.

It could very well be the other meaning of "bi-" -- via, or through
the aegis of. IOW, "let Us use our Tzelem to create man like our
Demus." In which case, there is no claim that man has G-d's Tzelem.
I know of no one who says this, though.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In Avodah V8 #7, SMandel noted:
> Similarly, the count of words for "u'khtov l'hayyim" is 5, with
accompanying sodot, excluding tovim. <

Perhaps this ["must be 5 words"] is why minhag Frankfurt elides "kal,"
i.e. they say, "u'k'sov l'chayyim tovim b'nai B'risecha."

All the best (including wishes for a wonderful Chag!) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

R' Carl Sherer asked <<< If I drink a full reviis of wine for Havdala
(which I always do so that I don't have a safek by bracha achrona),
why should I have to eat something immediately afterwards? A reviis of
wine should be sa'eed and therefore there should be no safek of having
to make a leishev baSucca! >>>

It's already Yom Tov in Yerushalayim, but Shabbos ChH"M is still coming
up, so here's my two cents:

A full reviis is a seudah for Kiddush B'Makom Seudah, and so I a single
kezayis of mezonos. But a single kezayis is not a seudah for sukkah,
and I believe that a reviis also is not.

BUT, I recall a halacha involving drinking buddies who sit down to drink
and have a good time, which *would* have to be done in a sukka. IIRC,
that is not because a reviis makes a seudah, but because the nature of
their sitting constitutes a kevius.

Akiva Miller

R' Micha Berger asked <<< I just wondered how we can say these words
in Shemoneh Esrei, "umi domeh lach"? Doesn't imply that we think HQBH
failed when He said "na'aseh adam bitzlameinu *kidmuseinu*"? >>>

I think you may be confusing "d'mus" with "tzelem".

I won't pretend to have a clear understanding of either term, but it
seems to me that HaShem chose to create us in His tzelem, and succeeded.

But regarding d'mus, He chose to create us LIKE His d'mus (with a kaf),
not IN His d'mus (with a beis). Thus, can accurately ask "umi domeh
Lach". We may come close, but not all the way.

Akiva Miller

On Monday, October 01, 2001 12:30 PM, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com [SMTP:RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/21/2001 1:31:00pm EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> > 1. Why not have Yom Kippur immediately after Rosh haShana? 

Because that is the way the Torah scheduled it? (lomah anu tokim?)

In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:32:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:
> Perhaps this ["must be 5 words"] is why minhag Frankfurt elides "kal,"
> i.e. they say, "u'k'sov l'chayyim tovim b'nai B'risecha."

See  Baer's Avodas Yisrael Page 389...
There are those that use only  5 words either omitting Tovim {e.g. Maharil} 
while others  who omit kal {e.g. K'K Virmsa (Worms?)} 
FWIW Baer sides with using all 6 and cites the Tur the Levush and others...

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

On 1 Oct 01, at 10:20, Zilberberg, David wrote:
> It would appear that succah relates to the historical/zechirah aspect of
> the yom yov whereas arba minim relates to the agricultural/thanksgiving
> aspect (chag ha'asif) of the yom tov. UNder this view they are indeed
> separate mitzvahs for almost separate, albeit coinciding, yom tovim.

FWIW, the ikar of the Succah is the schach, which comes from gidulei
karka, so there is at least some connection. Somewhere along the way, I
and many others picked up the minhag of bentching lulav and esrog in the
Succah - maybe there's a message there? (I don't recall seeing any reason
for the minhag, but it seems like a nice way to connect both mitzvos).

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

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


[ 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         ]