Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 013

Thursday, October 11 2001

• Mar'eh mekomos
• Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• RE: Havdala in the Succa
• Re: arba minim in succah
• Re: bracha on arba minim-sukkah or shul
• RE: Sukkah Rope
• etrog of shemitta in US
• Re: Avodah V8 #10
• Re: Hoshanos - choice and order
• Re: rambam's iqqorim
• Re: Sukkah Rope
• RE: Sukkah Rope

From: Micha Berger micha@aishdas.org

<<I can't reproduce the poetic words about the power of music>>

        No but you could give us mar'eh mekomos (preferably befor Y"T) of
where to find it........

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Since many of Acheinu B'nei Israel in Chutz HaAretz are Noheg not to
eat in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres (Sh. A.) despite the clear Halacha
in the Shulchan Aruch, I think we are required to be MeLamed Zchus for
them. To that extent I would like to make an attempt to do so.

The Gemmarah in Sukkah 48A states that Sh. A. Is a Regel Bifnei Atzmo,
a holiday unto itself independent and separate from Sukkos. Rashi there
explains that we therefore do not sit in a Succah on Sh. A. But in
Chutz HaAretz there exists a Sfeka DeYoma as to whether it is the really
Sh. A. or the last day of Sukkos which requires sitting in the Sukkah.

The Gemmarah on 46B brings three possible approaches in dealing with this
seemingly contradictory dilemma. 1) Not to sit at all in the Sukkah on
Sh. A., 2) to sit but not make a Bracha, and 3) to sit and make a Bracha
as well.

The problem of 1) is that by not sitting in the Sukkah, we end up
notobserving the Takanas Chazal of Sfeka DeYoma. The problem of 2)
and 3) is Bal Tosef. But Tosefos points out that since people often
eat outside in a Gazebo type area during other times of the year for
pleasure, we can just "say" that this is all we are doing. We avoid the
problem of making a Bracha of "Leishev" which clearly contradicts the
day of Sh. A. Is avoided by eliminating the saying of the Bracha.

Therefore, the Halacha is that we do the compromise of 2): Yesuvi
Yasvinan, Bruchi Lo MeVarchinan, i.e. we sit and do not make a "Leishev
BaSukkah." The reasoning is as follows. Even though it is a Tarti Desasri,
an internal contradiction of realities, we never-the-less, avoid it by
just "saying" we are eating in the Gazebo and "enjoying the weather" as
we often do at other times of the year. This is also the reason we do not
take a Lulav and Esrog on Sh. A. As there is no other reason to take it
except as part of the Mitzvah of Sukkos which would then contradict the
Regel Bifnei Atzma of Sh. A. and therefore, be in violation of Bal Tosef.

The above is the conventional wisdom and indeed the Shulchan Aruch Paskins
that way. In Chutzah LaAretz we eat in the Sukkah both in the night and
in the day. This is the accepted practice by all of the Yeshivishe world
and much of the Chasidishe world... but... NOT all of it.

There is a Minhag by some not to eat in the Sukkah on Sh. A. at night
because of the Birchas Hazman creating in effect, a contradiction by
eating in the Sukkah. Those who do not eat in the Sukkah at night on
Sh. A. use this rationale and interpret The Gemmara's statement of "Mesiv
Yasvinan" as meaning only the daytime. The Tur rejects this since the
Lashon of the Gemmarah is "Stam" and thereby includes both day and night.

The Bach, OTOH, gives another reason for not eating in the Sukkah at
night. It is done to make a Hefsek or separation, between Sukkos and
Sh. A. So that eating in the Sukkah on the Day of Sh. A. will not seem
like Bal Tosef. Additionally even if you want to reason that you can eat
at night so as to be Mosef MeChol Al HaKodesh, it wouldn't work because
saying "Es Yom Shmini Atzeres HaZeh" clearly contradicts that motivation
and eliminates the possibility of it's use.

There is a Minhag among some to not eat in the Sukkah in the daytime
of Sh. A. as well. They only make Kiddush and eat only a portion of
the Seudah (eg a Kezayis of bread) finishing thr rest of the Seudah in
the house. They do not eat at night for the above stated reasons and,
as brought down in the Medrash Tanchuma (as cited in Taamei HaMinhagim),
they do not eat in the daytime because of the fact that they have just
done Birchas HaGeshamim and in order for them to do so with a Lev Shalem
and not worry that they have just prayed for rain in the Sukkah, they
"remove" themselves from the Sukkah. The Minhag of the "Tzadik HaKodosh
MeNesChoiz" as mentioned in the Sefer "Tamei HaMinhagim" was to " not
eat in the Sukkah on Sh. A. And make Kiddush only during the day then
leaving the Sukkah with Nigunim and Simcha".

In the Name of RYBS as cited by R. Shurkin, The Rambam Hilchos Sukkah
6:13 states that Bezman Hazeh we sit in the Sukkah but do not make
"Leishiv" on Sh. A. He compares it to the fact that we don't allow a
Bracha to an Androginos and TumTum who are Patur from "Leishiv" Mishum
Safek. The question arises "how compare?" If Safek is the reason we do
not make a Bracha then we should not do the Kiddush Hayom on The second
day of Sukkos either? Why do we? The reason is because there are two
Dinim in the Takanah of Yom Tov Sheni. 1)Sfeka DeYoma which is observed
today through the requirement of Minahg Avosenu BeYodenu and 2) Takanos
Yom Tov Sheni MiToras Vadai M'Derabbonan in order not to be Mezalzel
(deprecate) the day. Therefore Chazal were Mesaken a Chalos Kedushas
HaYom MiToras Vadai and we make the Bracha.

But on Sh. A. There already exists a Kedusha of it's own, the Kedusha
of the day of Sh. A. We therefore do not make any Lesheiv because this
day lacks the Kedusha component that Yom Tov Sheni of Golios of the
second day has vested in it. This is why the Rambam compares it to the
din Safek Bracha of an Androgenes and a Tumtum.

So this part of the Takanah is no longer extant in effect eliminating from
existence, the second part of the Takanas Chazal i.e. there is absolutely
no Kedushas Yom Tov Mi Toras Sukkos. Only MiToras Sh. A. It is therefore
my contention that this understanding of the requirements of the Takanas
Chachamim of Sfeka DeYoma further dilutes the requirement of eating in
the Sukkah on Sh. A. In that it doesn't' even have the Kedushas Yom Tov
of Sukkah and is only to be observed on Sh. A. MiToras Safek just as
there is a Din of Toras Safek by an Androgenes and Tumtum.

Even though I am zealous "convert" to the "Litvishe Derech" reverting
to the Minhagim of my ancestors which pre-date the Chassidus of my
latter ancestors (and I have a direct Mesorah on this) never-the-less,
I still maintain the Minhag of my father of not eating in the Sukkah
on Shmini Atzeres. When he was alive he was angered by the mere mention
of eating in the Sukkah on Sh. A. For some reason he was bothered more
by this Minhag than others. (For example it never bothered him that I
Daven Nusach Ashkenaz.)

I have honored this Minhag and will continue to do so.

HM

On 8 Oct 01, at 11:00, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
> The rov I asked holds it is not a chiyuv to make a brachah when going to 
> sleep in the succah but it not a brachah l'vatalah either, so he in fact 
> says one.

Source?

-- 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

On 5 Oct 01, at 17:51, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> In regards to bentching lulav in the succah (btw why is it succah and not
> sukkah) Rav Moshe has a teshuva in which he says the proper way to do it
> is to bentch lulav before hallel since the ikkar mitzvah is the nanuim
> of hallel. This was pointed out to me by the rav of my shul. However, the
> Mishna Berurah has a comment that there is a minhag to bentch lulav in the
> succah k'vasikin. When I pointed this out to my rav he said tzarich iyun.
> The 2 questions I have are 1) according to mishna berurah is it davka
> vasikin or any time of the day 2) according to Rav Moshe one should not
> even do the nanuim before hallel. You should wait for hallel.

FWIW, Rav Elyashiv comes to the Kotel every day of Chol HaMoed 
to bentch arba minim exactly at hanetz (although there are Sukkas 
available on the back part of the Kotel plaza), he comes to the 
back of the front part of the plaza and bentches and leaves while 
most of us are still saying Shmoneh Esrei.

-- Carl

On 7 Oct 01, at 18:45, yosef stern wrote:
> The Rav (Alter Rebbe) writes in his Siddur (printed in the Thilas
> Hashem Siddur p.240): Min Haddin in should be said just before Hallel,
> but because it's a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to take the 4 Minim in the
> Sukkah and 1 would not be permitted to leave Shul to go to the Sukkah
> (Mipnei Takionas Horoi-im)- he should take the 4 Minim in the Sukkah in
> the morning before Davening.

What is Takonas Horoim? That people will see him leaving? 

-- Carl

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com] on Areivim
> Does anyone know if there is a kind of strong rope is giddulei karka and can 
> be used to tie down sechach?  Let's just say that sechach mats fly off 
> pretty easily.

Why do you assume that rope that is not giddulei karka cannot be used?  As
long as the schach mat would stay on the the sukkah when there is a ruach
metzuyah (I doubt they fly off *that* easily), IMHO using the rope does not
constitute being ma'amid the schach b'davar hamekabel tumah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> 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.

What is the source of the notice that one is required to ship etrogim
back to Israel after Succot? Doesn't sound so easy to me.

Eli Turkel

> You are claiming that this countrywide fear and mourning, not to mention the 
> very real danger of repetition, is for no reason at all.  Where in Tanach, 
> after being faced with a plague or crushing defeat, did people say that it 
> was just "free will"?  Nowhere.  They looked for the reason that G-d was 
> punishing them.

For some reason Jewish people seem have trouble with the concept of
free will. But the idea of free will is all over Tanach. Koheles and
Yoab, for example, are beautiful prose-poems that focus exactly on the
interplay between free will and HaShem's aspirations for the way man
might exercise that free will.

Koheles discusses this in terms of a sort of existential exhaustion,
which may be only marginally relevant to the bombings at WTC. Yoab,
however, is extremely relevant to WTC. Many of the messages posted on
Areivim remind me of those posted long ago (apochryphally, of course)
by Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, who were also so, so certain why HaShem
chose to punish their fellow Believer Yoab. HaShem was angry at Yoab
for his presumption, but He gave Yaob's "friends" a quick brush of
the back of His hand. He essentially told them that He had no time for
their stupidity -- implying that such stupidity is in itself a form of
non-belief. Is it possible (apochryphally, of course) that HaShem has
similar feelings for those who now use His name to describe the tragedy
of September 11th as an active of divine retribution?

It is dangerous to mess around with the idea of what is or is not
Divine motive. Where were we, after all, when the morning stars were
singing? What do we know? What will we ever know, in this world?

David Finch

On 7 Oct 01, at 0:28, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> 3) E'eroch shui - said on first day of chol haMoed ( 3rd day in diaspora).
> Reasons given are a) it refers to Yom Kippur when it mentions 'gilisi
> batzom pishi' (I revealed my sins on Yom Kippur) so we try to say it
> as close to Yom Kippur as possible while avoiding saying it on (non
> chol haMoed) Yom tov because we don't say 'techina' (certain types of
> supplications) on Yom tov [according to this reason it should be said on
> second day in eretz Yisroel, notes siddur Eizor Eliyohu] 

But it isn't! We say Even Sh'sia on the second day as well!

> and b) the third
> day of Sukkos falls on the same day of week as Yom Kippur [according to
> this reason Eretz Yisroel should also say it on day three seemingly.

That sounds like a bit of a stretch....

> 4) Adon hamoshia - said on day # 6 as it contains a prayer for rain
> and rain on Sukkos is considered bad (as it could prevent activities in
> Sukkah, etc.), so it is said near the end of Sukkos.

Then why is it repeated on Hoshana Rabba? Why not just say it only
on Hoshana Rabba as we do with, for example, "L'Maan Eisan." (My son,
Avraham Yaakov is reading over my shoulder and suggests this may have
to do with the extra mem in the kriya for the sixth day - part of the
hint for nisuch ha'mayim).

> Parenthetically, according to the GR"A, no hoshannas are said when Sukkos
> falls on Shabbos, while others say 'om ani chomah'....

???? AFAIK everyone says Ohm Netzura on Shabbos of Sukkos regardless of
when it falls.

-- Carl

I wanted to correct an earlier post. The discussion about whether Moshe
is the greatest prophet was mislabeled as the fourth ikkar. It is,
of course, the seventh ikkar.

Also, something I did not mention is that Dr. Shapiro says repeatedly,
in his article and in his reply to R. Avraham Gordimer's letter about
the article, that the ikkarim is not an halachic issue and therefore
cannot be determined by regular halachic methodology.

I disagree. It is an halachic issue and has ramifications regarding the
halachos of moridin velo ma'alin and stam yeinam, among possibly others.

And, finally, I have started reading Dr. Berger's newly released book
and came across the following relevant quote.

R. David Berger, "The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox
Indifference," p. 45

In general, I do not believe that an isolated passage, even by a
great rabbi, automatically legitimates a theological position against
the weight of overwhelming contrary opinion. Even with respect to
issues of full-fledged heresy, one can point to isolated statements by
distinguished Jews which differ from the Jewish consensus. This is true of
anthropomorphism and even of certain issues touching on the composition
of the Torah[7]. These statements do not mean that an Orthodox Jew is
permitted to entertain the belief in a corporeal God or to be open to
revisionist views about the Mosaic authorship of any part of the Torah.

[7] See some of the citations in Marc B. Shapiro, 'The Last Word in
Jewish Theology? Maimonides' Thirteen Principles,' Torah U-Madda Journal,
4 (1993), 187-242

Gil Student

On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 02:12:34PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Why do you assume that rope that is not giddulei karka cannot be used? ...

Excluding pishtan, which is mekabeil tum'ah be'ohel, I assume.

-mi

In a message dated Thu, 11 Oct 2001 3:27:11pm EDT, "Feldman, Mark"
<MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
> Why do you assume that rope that is not giddulei karka cannot be used?  As
> long as the schach mat would stay on the the sukkah when there is a ruach
> metzuyah (I doubt they fly off *that* easily), IMHO using the rope does not
> constitute being ma'amid the schach b'davar hamekabel tumah.

What is the definition of ruach metzuya? For example this year in West
Orange a number of "mats" blew off on a day that one would call blustery
but not one that people would say "it was unbelievably windy"

KT
Joel

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


[ 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         ]