Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 009

Friday, October 5 2001

• RE: succah/arba minim
• Re: succah/arba minim
• Re: Havdala in the Succa
• Re: Havdala in the Succa
• Birchas Kohanim
• Re: Birchas Kohanim
• Re: rambam's iqqorim
• Re: Fwd: Re: [schochetfamily] Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Question on Sanhedrin
• RE: succah/arba minim
• Re: succah/arba minim
• succah/arba minim
• RE: succah/arba minim
• Re: succah/arba minim
• Havdala in the Succa
• Re: Birchas Kohanim
• WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• Reb Micha's points about techeiles
• Re: Delayed Celebration
• Re: Delayed Celebration
• Re: Birchas Kohanim
• Ramban on Malchus Yisrael
• Re: Lubavitch philosophy - bitul
• Re: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> 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).

Related is the fact that the halacha for what is considered kosher for
s'chach is based on the pasuk of "b'asfecha m'gorncha umeyikvecha" -- a
pasuk which relates succos to our thanks for the harvest, which, at least
according to pashut p'shat is the basis for arba minim.  The Rashbam on the
pasuk of "l'maan yeidu dorosechem..." explicitly makes the connection
between mitzvas succah and out thanks to Hashem for the harvest.

On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:36:00PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: FWIW, the ikar of the Succah is the schach...

Which explains why Sukkah and sechakh get their names from the same
shoresh.

I also do not know how much value this has, but there must have been some
conceptual connection back when the Karaim broke away from us. They do not
observe a separate mitzvah of 4 minim -- they use 4 minim for their sechach!

The Rambam writes that a point of the 4 minim is to be mesamei'ach with
one's produce. He also writes that a point of Succah is to leave the home,
which is full of "kol tuv", to appreciate HKBH. It would seem that we need
both steps: 1- 4 minim to appreciate what berachos we've gotten over the
past year; and 2- going into the Succah to remember Who provided those
berachos.

Which is a nice kavanah for Carl and I, when following our mutual minhag of
na'anu'im within the Suaccah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On 1 Oct 01, at 11:18, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> 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.

In what sense is a kezayis not a seduah for Succah? If I eat a kezayis
of mezonos, I have to eat it in the Succah!

FWIW, tonight I ate a piece of cake after Havdalah. We didn't eat supper
for another hour or two afterwards, so I made a bracha achrona and went
to catching up on Areivim :-).

> 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.

What about that nature constitutes a kevius? For example, it is - AFAIK
universally - accepted that one does not make a bracha on sleeping in
the Succah. Yet most people spend several hours sleeping!

-- 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

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

R' Carl Sherer asked <<< In what sense is a kezayis not a seduah for
Succah? If I eat a kezayis of mezonos, I have to eat it in the Succah! >>>

It is certainly a mitzva to go to the sukkah for a kezayis of mezonos,
or even for less than that. But the chiyuv is only for eating more than
a kebaytzah.

Of course there are loads of details and machlokesim, which I'd love
to discuss. But until then I recommend Orach Chaim 639:2 as a starting
point. The Mechaber there says that up to a kebaytzah is may be eaten
outside he sukkah, and the Beyur Halacha comments there that "even a
talmid chacham, if he wants not to be machmir on himself in this, is
allowed, and is not like one who is not medakdek in mitzvos."

Akiva Miller

I am curious about the nigun many shuls sing during Birchas Kohanim
before the last word of each beracha.  When did this begin?  Why is this
neither a hefsek in the beracha itself or in the keria from the sh"tz? 
Or is it?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:38:08PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I am curious about the nigun many shuls sing during Birchas Kohanim
: before the last word of each beracha.  When did this begin?  Why is this
: neither a hefsek in the beracha itself or in the keria from the sh"tz? 

It's there to give the kehillah time to say the tefillos. As to why
/they/ aren't hefsekim -- I have no idea. However, it's the gemara's
idea to say something about a bad dream while the kohanim are up on
the duchan. So either the gemara meant saying it before or after the
berachos, or there's a non-obvious answer to your question that. (I
follow my father's minhag of not saying them.)

As for the tune intelf -- a hefsek in what sense? It doesn't cause hesech
hada'as, and it's not adding words to the HKBH's matbei'ah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 10:47:11AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: The Rambam only said that what he wrote in Moreh Nevuchim might have hidden 
: or misleading meaning....

I took his intro much more simply... He wrote the Moreh as a polemic for
those already enamored of Aristotilian thought. Therefore, he is warning
that there are statements in it that come from a da mah lehashiv position
and while valid, don't necessarily represent his own shitah.

-mi

Prolixity Warning:

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> My sources further responses, somewhat abridged:
>> What does "ra'ayot vehochachot" mean?Are they refutable?If not, how do
>> they differ from "clear absolute proof"?

I see I'll have to spell this out in some detail. It is possible for a
psaq to be wrong. The technical verb for this is taah. It does not appear
in this context, but it does appear in the context of chacham sheassar,
which I will mention below.

Often, however, there are more than one possible legitimate psaqim.
One can aquire a legitimate opinion either by precedent or by deduction
from authoritative sources (raayoth v'hochachoth). The Rama here is
saying two things:

(1) In the presence of multiple legitimate opinions one need not adopt
that of one's Rebbe

(2) One need not adopt one's Rebbe's opinion in favor of another
legitimate opinion even if one has aquired that opinion, not by precedent,
but only by deduction.

The Rama mentions raayoth v'hochachoth to inform you of (2).

If you trouble yourself to look at the acharonim (the Arukh HaShulchan
is the clearest) you will discover that chacham sheassar ein chaveiro
r'shay l'hatir is not a din in kavod, it is instead a din in shavya
anafshei chaticha d'issura. It is for that reason that it has nothing
(should I say NOTHING?) to do with the subject at hand.

You will notice, by the way, that it is in this context that the Rama
discusses taah. Once the thing has been prohibited (shavya ...) the
existence of other legitimate opinions is irrelevant. One can legitimately
wonder, however, about the status of the thing if the shoel was not
its owner.

David Riceman

Can someone help me with peshat in Rashi, Sanhedrin daf 3a, leis behu chad
degamir, Rashi says that he heard from dayanim and chachamim something
about hilchos milveh. Why does Rashi mention both?

I misplaced my CD; can someone search "gamir" and see what Rashi says?

Thanks

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>                                              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 thought that I was the only one who did that, because I don't go to
shul on Sukkot and even if I did, I'm not the one who "owns" the lulav and
esrog and they are in use on the other side of the mechitza from me during
davening. Don't you all bentch lulav and esrog in shul before hallel?

---Rena

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Rena Freedenberg wrote:
:           Don't you all bentch lulav and esrog in shul before hallel?

As I mentioned, our minhag from Suvalk is that one bentches D' Minim in the
Succah, before going to shul.

OTOH, doesn't the Rambam say that the ikkar na'anuim is within Hallel? In
which case, making the berachah immediately before Hallel makes sense.

I wonder if we should be looking for a parallel: na'anu'im dimeyushav vs
na'anu'im dime'umad. By shofar too, the Rambam holds that the ikkar is
during the Amidah. No?

-mi

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> I and many others picked up the minhag of bentching lulav and esrog in 
> the Succah - maybe there's a message there? ...

The source is in kisvei Ari Zal, brought in MA 651:17, 652:3 and other
achronim, and in siddur of Baal Hatanya in Hil. Netilas Lulav.
As to a reason al pi Nigleh, possibly a prat of ke'en tuduru (therefore
a din in sukah), see other reasons in Lekutei Sichos (of Lubavitcher
Rebbe zatza"l) v.22 parshas Emor.

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

On 4 Oct 01, at 17:58, Rena Freedenberg wrote:
> I thought that I was the only one who did that, because I don't go to
> shul on Sukkot and even if I did, I'm not the one who "owns" the lulav and
> esrog and they are in use on the other side of the mechitza from me during
> davening. Don't you all bentch lulav and esrog in shul before hallel?

Yes, but if there's a Succa available and I can get to it and back in 
time, I run out and use the Succa, and if not (which is usually the 
case other than the first day of Yom Tov and Hoshana Rabba), I 
shake the Lulav and Esrog again in the Succa when I get home 
from shul. 


On 4 Oct 01, at 13:09, Micha Berger wrote:
> As I mentioned, our minhag from Suvalk is that one bentches D' Minim in the
> Succah, before going to shul.

Do you know of anyone with your minhag who davens vasikin? 

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

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:32:12PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> As I mentioned, our minhag from Suvalk is that one bentches D' Minim in the
:> Succah, before going to shul.

: Do you know of anyone with your minhag who davens vasikin? 

My father shey' follows this minhag and davens KEvasikin. (My father would be
insulted if I implied he was a vasik...) He, like you, shakes again after
minyan, as before minyan would be at night.

-mi

Carl writes:
> A reviis of wine should be sa'eed and therefore there should be no safek of
> having to make a leishev baSucca!

That is incorrect because we only make a Leisheiv Basuukkah on the 5 species
of grain. See Shulchan Aruch 639:2.

kol tuv
yosef stern

On 4 Oct 01, at 9:24, Micha Berger wrote:
> It's there to give the kehillah time to say the tefillos. As to why
> /they/ aren't hefsekim -- I have no idea. However, it's the gemara's
> idea to say something about a bad dream while the kohanim are up on
> the duchan....

In Eretz Yisrael, the Minhag is only to sing before the last word of the
third bracha (i.e. Shalom). So the tefilla being said is the Yehi Ratzon,
which is more a tefilla for parnassa than anything else. The dreams don't
even get a mention (and there is singing only in Musaf on Yom Tov and only
when Yom Tov does not fall on Shabbos). I have no idea what the origin of
this minhag is, or why the Yehi Ratzon would not be considered a hefsek.

> As for the tune intelf -- a hefsek in what sense? It doesn't cause hesech
> hada'as, and it's not adding words to the HKBH's matbei'ah.

I have heard that the tune dates back to Bayis Sheini. Of course, I have
also heard 2-3 versions of the tune (but no more than that) so that may
be a babbe meiseh.

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

Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:
>WADR, the issue is not how , why and for what purpose HaShem let this
>happen, but where was man beforehand and what is the appropriate action.
>Without straying too far awy fronm the subject, where was the FBI and CIA?

WADR Tehilim disagrees with you it says (146.3)AL TIVTICHU VENDIVIM......
ASHREI SHEK-EIL YAAKOV BE-EZROI
and (127.1) IM HA-SHEM LOI YISHMOR EER , SHOV SHOKAD SHOIMEIR

> As R.Lichtenstein pointed out, Kiddush HaShem is not dependent on one's
> shemiras hamitzvos

It would be correct to inject the word *only* (is not only dependent....)
but it is totaly incorrect to say that a persons shemiras hamitzvos is not a
Kiddush Ha-Shem see Rambam Hilchos yisodei hatorah chp. 5

kol tuv
yosef stern

1. Regarding Menachos, you have an interesting p'shat. I don't think it
is unusual to provide a description at a time when people dyed techeiles.
Not everyone would know the simanim - I think it is not merely making
interesting comments about it, though even this would suggest the
descriptions be somewhat unique. Certainly a shape like a fish is not
particularly interesting to comment on unless it is to help identify
the species.

2. As for once in 70 years, yes the Radzyner just learns it as a rare
abundance, but Rabbi herzog tries very hard to establish the idea of a
cycle. Murex has no cycle or rare abundances.

3. Indigo can be used to make many shades of blue - in fact a remarkable
array. The fact that k'lan ilan could imitate techeiles says little
about the color of techeiles, only that indigo could be used to mimic it.
Tosafos (chulin 47b?) says that indigo is a little like techeiles (k'tzas
domeh). This indicates that techeiles is NOT the usual shade of indigo,
but indigo could mimic the shade of techeiles, whatever that may be.

4. The chemical test in the gemara - these are doen on the final dye
(or on the tzitzis themselves fter dyeing), not on the murex dye prior
to preparation. The bromine is supposed to be removed at that point.
IN this case, it definitely fails the test. It is not my p'shat that
the test is fermentation process - Dr. Green, an international expert
on dyes early this century said so, and others since.
I merely recognized it as being essentially the same as the standard
fermentation vat used to reduce indigo to indigo white (which would
change colors and fail the test) since P'til prides themselves on
producing perfect indigo, exactly the same as k'la ilan in chemical,
it would be presumptuous to assume that enough bromine would be left
in the dye to cause the reduction to completely fail (failing the test
involves only fading - not complete reduction).

5. As for the gemara not warning us about murex indigo, this is
not necessary for two reasons. First, there is no evidence that the
ancients knew how to make indigo from murex, so it may never have been
done. Second, since the murex made an expensive dye, why use it to fake
techeiles when it could be imitated more cheaply with indigo? The gemara
does not need to warn us about something that didn't happen and there
was little fear of it happening. It would have been bad business to fake
techeiles with murex.

mendel

Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
>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?

I think we've discussed this in the past.  It was supposedly recommended by 
the Steipler but his son, R. Chaim Kaniefsky, was quoted as saying that his 
sister(s) never had a kiddush made for them.

Gil Student

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

R' Yonatan Kaganoff asked <<< 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? >>>

This was told by Rabbi Mordechai Kamenetzky (in the name of
the Steipler Rav) a few years ago on the Project Genesis
website and email lists. The full text is available at
<http://www.torah.org/learning/drasha/5758/vayera.html>

The basic thrust of the idea is that when parents make such a kiddush
for their daughter, the guests shower them with brachos about the
baby eventual marriage. Without the kiddush, those brachos were never
received. Making a kiddush now -- and receiving those brachos -- just
might make the difference this woman needs.

I am pretty sure that I recall a conversation on Areivim or Avodah a year
or two ago, in which someone claimed that the Steipler never said such a
thing. I have been unable to find a record of that conversation in the
Avodah archives. Perhaps it was on Areivim. In any case, regardless of
the source, consider whether you like the *logic* of it.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 10/4/2001 2:46:20pm EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> I have heard that the tune dates back to Bayis Sheini. Of course, I have
> also heard 2-3 versions of the tune (but no more than that)...

FWIW There are at least 4-5 separate tunes used in German Congregations,
many corresponding to the Yom Tov (e.g. Adir Hu on Pesach)

FWIW Both The Trumas Hadeshen 26 and Baer's Avodas Yisrael mentions not
changing melodies in the middle of the process

The Maharil notes that many tunes from Yamim Noraim are "misinai" tunes.
Few scholars of Jewish music and liturgy take this literally, rather
they have been established AS I they were from Sinai.

It is of course possible that the melodies indeed have ancient origins
though they have changed somewhat conform to varying locales.

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

Steve Brizel wrote on Areivim [WRT hak-heil bizman hazah -mi]:
>Moreover, I realize that this may stir up a hornet's nest but I think there 
>is a Ramban in the Hasgagos to Sefer Hamiyzvos LhaRambam in which he states 
>that the term melech or malchus is to be understood as lav davka. IOW, when 
>there is a memshalah supported by most of the people and has been stable, 
>despite its faults, then the
>concept of Malchus Yisrael applies. Under this sevara, the mitzva of
>hakhel or zecer lhakhel is more than a hilchsas lmeshicha.

The Ramban I've seen R. Hershel Schachter quote does not say all of that.  
He says (Shichechas HaAsin 4) "Shenitztavinu lareshes ha'aretz... velo 
na'azvah beyad zulaseinu min ha'umos o lishmamah."  From the fact that we 
cannot leave the land desolate, it is inferred that there is a status to 
Jewish "control" over the land i.e. malchus.

I heard R. Feivel Cohen explain this Ramban differently - that the Ramban is 
saying that there is a mitzvah on the gavra to conquer Eretz Yisrael and a 
mitzvah on the cheftza to be conquered.  In other words, if every Jew could 
fit into Jerusalem, we would still not be fully mekayem the mitzvah.

Gil Student

>From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
>It seems to me that the doctrine of bitul to the tzaddik ha'dor (i.e.
>the contemporary Rebbe) that is found in Lubavitch sources is derived
>from earlier Hassidic sources (the doctrine of the Tzaddik as a
>necessary intermediary) and from even earlier kabbalistic sources.   The

Whether it is derived or not is not the issue. If they use that as the 
support then they completely misunderstand the concept of the Tzaddik and 
his relationship to the chasid. For example, why is there a need for more 
then one??? The reason is that while there is a concept of the Tzaddik 
HaDor, each chasid has a particular Tzaddik who relates to his nashamah, 
and from whom he gains his spiritual/physical hashpuos.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur:                  chassidus-subscribe@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism                  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254    Yahoo/MSN Messaging: mosheshulman

The discussion on Areivim raised a number of issues that I thought ought
to be discussed here.

I argued that with today's notion of a non-deterministic teva, HKBH
could mete out hashgachah peratis without violating teva. But I didn't
bring it back to the matter at hand.

One of my oft used quotes is the Maharal (2nd intro to Gevuros Hashem)
that nissim occur all the time. However, they occur at a different plane
of existance. People who raise themselves above teva end up experiencing
a world in which the non-teva occurs.

However, this would mean that only a R' Chanina ben Dosa who doesn't
see the difference between oil burning and vinager burning could merit
a neis nigleh, and very few people would be zocheh to nisim nistarim to
save them from a tragedy like the attack on the WTC.

However, since in many situations teva could allow for two opposing
outcomes, a person could be saved or not without being lima'alah min
hateva.

For example, there was a guard on the 44th fl of 2 WTC who was telling
them that it was safer not to go outside. This was before the 2nd hit,
when it was thought that the first was an accident. A pane of window
fell in just as a friend of mine was trying to decide whether or not to
listen to him. B"H yom yom -- equilibrium broke just then, not after he
turned around. A single unpredictable event, one that was probably not
deterministic under the new physics, affected mi yichyeh umi yamus...


A second issue is HKBH's "culpability". As I see it, even if we follow
the Rambam's "olam keminhago holeich" (although I question the effects
thereof in the previous section of the post), HKBH still stood back and
allowed the world to follow teva. Even if one wants to say that HKBH
didn't actively kill all those people, He was omeid al damam. Hashem
obviously had the kisharon to prevent it.

One is at first glance left with the conclusion that HKBH values the
bechirah of 19 suicidal individuals over the lives of thousands. This
position is a bit extreme: the heroic actions of people at the scene and
those who rushed to the scene were mesukim midevash uminofesh tzufim.
(I originally had "rei'ach nicho'ach", but I couldn't really put my
heart into that metaphor. The smell was both unpleasant and unhealthy
to this basar vadam.)

Others took the "large tapestry" approach, that we lack the perspective
in which judgement is meaningful.

As I'll address below, I think this particular question is simply
unanswerable by man. This is difference than the lack of perspective
issue -- I'm suggesting that man is inherently incapable of ever gaining
that perspective and ability, not even as the event passes into history.
As per Hashem's words at the end of Iyov.

A side issue to this, but a very important one, is whether that
"culpability" implies anything about one's Avodas Hashem. To put it
somewhat better: do we need to dismiss HKBH's role in passively allowing
tragedy to occur in order to justify shemiras hamitzvos?

R' Yerucham Leibovich would say that they are unrelated. His Yahadus
is founded on hakaras hatov; on the facts that Hashem is our Borei,
and that He has (repeatedly) go'el oseinu mei'avdus lecheirus. HKBH
as Dayan haEmes has nothing to do with our shibud to Him.


A third issue is that of cheit and blame. As mentioned here and discussed
at some length on Areivim, a number of our gedolim have associated various
chata'im with the tragedy. In particular, they contrasted Islamic tzeni'us
(to whatever extent it's not just chitzoniyus) with the values we have
assimilated here in Galus America.

I wasn't there, but I have a feeling that we are missing a critical
distinction. There is a din (cited on Areivim besheim haRambam Hil
Ta'anis, but it appears in the gemara at the begining of Mes Ta'anis)
who tells us to use tragedy as a means of his'orerus to teshuvah. This
isn't necessarily the same as assuming blame, or even assuming the cheit
in question is the or a cause. (And not all causes are sources of blame.)

A person who faced tragedy has a strong emotional lever. It's a time in
which change comes easier than at other times. It is therefore logical
to call on man to do teshuvah at that time, even more so to do teshuvah
on a matter that the tragedy brings to light. That doesn't necessarily
mean that the cheit in question was why the tragedy was allowed to
occur. Just that now is a time when the person can more readily move
away from that cheit.

(This is the approach I took in my post about the Four Sons and Tragedy,
a later version of which is at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/fourSons.html>.)

This is the difference between Elifaz blaming Iyov's troubles on his
possible chata'im, and Iyov using his tragedies to abandon those very
chata'im. The first is condemned, the second is lauded. I think this
distinction better fits Chazal than the other-vs-self distinction I
proposed in earlier posts on the subject.

As I said, I do not know if that was actually the intent of R' Matisyahu
Solomon or R' Elya Svei. I wasn't there. Actually, this approach is more
in line with RYBS's Existentialist perspective. I've posted in the past
RYBS's approach in Qol Dodi Dofeq, that the Jewish question isn't "Why?"
but "How am I supposed to respond?" I also noted on Areivim a different
quote (I believe I saw it in our chaveir R' Arnie Lustiger's sefer) of
RYBS in which he discusses the choq of Parah Adumah as a consequence of
the choq-nature of misah itself.

But this approach is fully consistant with Chazal (of course, would RYBS
not be?) and there is nothing I heard in the Areivim discussion that
rules out their having this approach. I invite people who were actually
there to comment.


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

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


[ 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         ]