Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 018

Tuesday, October 16 2001

• Re: arba minim in succah
• Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• Re: sukkah bi-shemini
• Re: Daled Minim in Mikdash/Yerushalayim
• Re: free will
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 12:57:11AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>: Yes, that's why Rav Elyashiv (and thousands of other people, including
>: me) go to the Kotel during Chol haMoed - to be choshesh for the Rambam
>: and the possibility of there being a d'oraysa even today...

On 15 Oct 2001, at 12:29, Micha Berger wrote:
> First, it's mashma from the rishonim that one can be meqayeim aliyas
> haregel by seeing the ritzpah of where the azarah ought to be....

I wasn't referring to aliya la'regel - I was referring to lulav nital
shiva. See the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos Succa 4:1 (and also in Rosh
HaShanna 4:1) regarding the definition of "Mikdash."

> Noach Witty asked me about this in shul. If one can be maqayeim aliyas
> haregel by seeing the fllor of the Har Habayis Platform, would one be
> chayav in a korban re'iyah? Does asei docheh lav mean that one can choose
> to put oneself into the situation that requires the asei and violating
> the lav?

IIRC the korban discussed by the Kapos Tmarim in Succa 35 as being
possible to bring today is a Korban R'Iya. Maybe this is why? There are
places from which it is possible to see the floor of the Har HaBayis
platform without going onto Har HaBayis (the view from a couple of the
gates to the Har HaBayis complex comes to mind).

-- Carl

RSBA: <I think we discussed this matter in length last year>

We did. I don't want to repeat myself either, but to prevent
misinformation from being spread without an objection:

<It is quite obvious from there (and other sources) that this machlokes
has been around for a long, long time, well before the Chassidic/Misnagdic
split and certain families - including descendants of Rashi z'l – did
not eat in the sukka.>

This is not true, and is a commonly circulated fairy tale. As far as
anyone has been able to find, there is no evidence of anybody not eating
in the sukka during the day of Shmini At. before chasidim.

What is attested in old sources is that a few families (primarily
Dreifuss) did not eat in the sukka on the night of SA to make a hefsek
from the day. This not eating at night was usually the custom of a small
minority in most places and times, and was condemned by all poskim,
since it is against the g'moro and SA. But everybody ate in the sukka
during the day.

A lot was made of this minority custom after the chasidim started not
eating in the sukka at all on SA, but it has no connection with it.
The reason given by RSBA that there was not room in the sukka for the
rebbe and all his chasidim may well be the correct one for this puzzling
phenomenon.

Seth

From: "David Glasner" <DGLASNER@ftc.gov>
> I will only note briefly that in his book Dor Dorim, .... cites the
> Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Bamidbar 29:35: "b'yoma t'mina'a t'hevun
> k'nishtin b'hedva min matilkhon l'vateikhon."

Shlomo Abeles wrote:
> IMHO, YBU is translating the posuk referring to SA which - shonim
> ketikunom veyisroel sheruyim al admosom - is a separate regel bifnei
> atzmoy.

The YBU is telling us the halakhic meaning of atzeret which is to be
gathered in from the sukah into the home.  Why should that obligation
which from the very name given to the holiday be disregarded in 
hutz la-aretz?

> And lehalocho does a targum TBU overrule a befeirush gemoro?

Not by itself.  But as Daniel Schiffman pointed out recently there is a 
Yerushalmi that paskens l'halakhah that before one goes into the sukah on 
Shemini Atzeret one must first make qidush in the home.  Of course, it's
also true that the sugya in the Yerushalmi was in reference to Eretz Yisrael, 
but that doesn't mean necessarily that it is irrelevant to proper hanhagah
in hutz la-aretz even though most poskim have disregarded it on that 
basis.  As my grandfather shows it is not only possible to interpret the
sugya in the bavli as premised on the sugya in the Yerushalmi, doing so
resolves a number of the well-known difficulties with the sugya in the 
Bavli that have troubled all subsequent m'pharshim.  According to my
grandfather, the YBU does not overrule the sugya in the Bavli, it allows
us to understand a sugya that is otherwise virtually impossible to 
comprehend.  v'ayein sham.

>> ...But under the principle of meitav yatvinan b'rukhi lo m'varkhinan we are
>> obligated to return to the sukkah the following day. v'zeh barur v'emet
>> lamitah shel torah.

> I was always under the impression that the Chasam Sofer z'l and his
> descendants and talmidim did eat in the sukka on SA. Was your grandfather
> the only exclusion to this or do you know of others in the family who
> agreed with him?

This was my grandfather's own hiddush (u-maqom hinihu lo avotav l'hitgadeir
bo).  You are right that the Hatam Sofer definitely ate in the sukah on 
Shemini Atzeret, and I assume that that was the minhag in Klausenburg as
well.  At what point, my grandfather changed his hanhagah I don't know.
If I remember I'll ask my father about it.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

>> Yes, that's why Rav Elyashiv (and thousands of other people, including
>> me) go to the Kotel during Chol haMoed - to be choshesh for the Rambam
>> and the possibility of there being a d'oraysa even today....

> Funny, Briskers _don't_ go on Chol HaMoed for precisely the same reason.

Even if their Daled Minim didn't meet the de-Oraysa standards, wouldn't
they still be fulfilling (the Rabbinic) Takanas RYBZ to take it "All Seven
[Days]" which is all they would be fulfilling if they don't go. OTOH,
if their Daled Minim still meet the de-Oraysa standards -- which one
hopes they were meeting on the first day -- then they have also fulfilled
the de-Oraysa.

"Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>Rav Nebenzahl argues that until Eitz HaDaas, Adam HaRishon had free
>will but it was free will applied with a cold rationalism so that Adam
>HaRishon would be as unlikely to make the wrong choice as you and I
>would be to jump out of an office tower that was not on fire....

You should credit the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (I believe in the first
volume, where he deals with definitions of homonyms and ambiguous terms)
for this idea. He states that prior to 'het etz hada'at there was no tov
ve-ra', which are emotional responses, but only emet and sheker. This
may be, in the Rambam's opinion, not antithetical to free will, but IMHO
is not identical with it. (any references as to the definition of free
will in rishonim, anybody?)

"Mrs. Gila Atwood" <gatwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>So the big question is,  WHY is it so important to preserve free will in the
>scheme of history even though it costs many lives?

It seems to me that free will is a requisite part of creation. Without
free will there would be no righteousness to distinguish from
_what_every_sane_human_being_would_do_ and thus no place for sachar
ve-onesh. You may, of course, point to the period before the sin of etz
hada'at as a period where free will was substantially different from
tody, or even not yet existant. However, this is not true, because,
a) Adam and 'Havah did sin, in spite of their perception of emet and
sheker, and b) all that happened before the end of Shabbat Bereishit,
which implies that creation was not finished until Adam had sinned,
acquired the modern version of free will, and was banished from Gan Eden.

The question as to whether creation existed without free will seems even
more unlikely when considering the cosmology of kabbalists such as the
Ari hakadosh who held that the creation narrative contains the secret of
shevirat hakeilim, which is the secret of how G'd made it possible for
the _finite_ world to exist, considering that He is _Infinite_. Their
understanding (according to my interpretation, which requires that
there cannot be accidents of faulty creation, and thus, any 'accidental'
Breaking of the Vessels is by Design) is that creation was not complete
without the imperfection of tov ver'a.

I do wonder whether the list members think such an idea is compatible
with Rambam's description of free will before 'het etz hada'at, as I
described it above.

Arie Folger

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 22:59:55 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <6f.1c28c9bf.28fd0123@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:18:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: jlapidus@usa.net, nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/15/2001 4:06:47pm EDT, jlapidus@usa.net writes:
> I'm aware of the various aspects of theodicy that we find in Biblical and
> Rabbinic writings over the ages regarding all manners of catastrophes,
> each one unique. There is no unanimity of opinion regarding any
> catastrophe and it's difficult, if not useless, to try to formulate
> general principles. The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the
> WTC atrocity to happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet
> kol ha'aretz, tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.

Quick point. I concur that it is regrettable to assign BLAME in the face of 
catastrophe. Think of Aaron's reaction when HIS twin towers - i.e. Nadav and 
Avihu were felled by fire. He remained dumbfounded!

OTOH Chazal did learn lessons from THAT story. Which means to me that while 
assigning blame is NOT OK because we are not the ultimate Dayan; nevertheless 
we can still LEARN from things that go wrong.  The trick is to do so w/o the 
blaming.  

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

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 23:27:33 2001
Message-Id: <200110160346.f9G3kbB10386@lmail.actcom.co.il>
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 05:09:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
In-reply-to: <ftamstsgconq62l0sjs49ajqrttjsdt5lo@4ax.com>
References: <3BCB46CB.23914.613B40E@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On 15 Oct 01, at 15:02, Jay Lapidus wrote:
> Carl:
>>                                              There's an explicit 
>> Gemara in Bava Kama and Sanhedrin which says that when 
>> Hashem wants to punish "Sonei Yisrael" (b'lashon sagi nahor - but 
>> no reason it could not also be interpreted literally) He gives them a 
>> "blind goat" to lead the flock. That doesn't mean that He interferes 
>> with man making the proper choice - but He does make it a lot less 
>> likely that man will choose correctly.

> So who are the "sonei yisrael"... the people of New York? The US military?
> The NYPD and the FDNY? America?

I think you misunderstood. The Gemara uses "sonei Yisrael" b'lashon sagi
nahor to refer to Jews, i.e. when Hashem wants to punish the Jews R"L
He allows the accession of incompetent leaders. I was suggesting that
the Gemara could also be interpreted as applying literally to non-Jews,
i.e. that Hashem may have given the non-Jews incompetent leaders so that
they would not understand the importance of taking proper preventive
actions before September 11.

> I'm aware of the various aspects of theodicy that we find in Biblical and
> Rabbinic writings over the ages regarding all manners of catastrophes,
> each one unique. There is no unanimity of opinion regarding any
> catastrophe and it's difficult, if not useless, to try to formulate
> general principles. The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the
> WTC atrocity to happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet
> kol ha'aretz, tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.

But to say that He had nothing to do with it is to deny Hashem's hashgacha
in this world, which is at least as equally Jewishly unacceptable.

-- 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.

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 21:58:27 2001
Message-ID: <002701c155e8$a36a2260$f8fc67cf@willroth>
From: "Yitzchok Willroth" <willroth@voicenet.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
References: <200110152047.PAA21663@majordomo1.host4u.net> <001b01c155d3$dc6547d0$020044c0@larry>
Subject: Re: Daled Minim in Mikdash/Yerushalayim
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:16:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

> Even if their Daled Minim didn't meet the de-Oraysa standards, wouldn't
> they still be fulfilling (the Rabbinic) Takanas RYBZ to take it "All Seven
> [Days]" which is all they would be fulfilling if they don't go. OTOH,
> if their Daled Minim still meet the de-Oraysa standards -- which one
> hopes they were meeting on the first day -- then they have also fulfilled
> the de-Oraysa.

I think the logic is that while they could fulfill the D'Rabbannan
from elsewhere, the D'Oraisa becomes incumbant upon them only b'makom
haMikdash. Assuming they had, in fact, fulfilled the mitzvah D'Oraisa
the first day, and nothing had changed since, there'd be nothing to
lose and much to gain, yes. But that, to them, is a _big_ assumption.
Perhaps they _hadn't_ fulfilled the D'Oraisa the first day? They'd be
putting themself in the position to again be m'vatel the aseih each
day they returned to the makon haMikdash. Now there's what to lose...
Considering that most bochurim in the Brisk yeshivas bentch the Rosh
Yeshiva's arbah minim for the brochah and use their own only for nanuim
due as much to sefaikos over their own minim as much as the hiddur of
the Rosh Yeshiva's, it's l'shitaschem not to put themsleves in such a
situation the remaining days of the festival...

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 23:04:24 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <8b.db54f34.28fd022f@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:23:27 EDT
Subject: Hakhel - Koheles
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

Given there is a connection between Hakhel and Sukkos.

Hypothesis:

Kohelles is the title of the king who conducts the Hakhel and  hence we read 
Koheless on Sukkos

Ani KOHELES  melech birushalyim
then might mean:
I am the implementor of Hakhel, {i.e.}  King in Jeruslaem.  

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

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 00:24:04 2001
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:42:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
Message-ID: <20011016.004237.-497711.1.dhojda1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-7
From: David Hojda <dhojda1@juno.com>
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

The sefer b'Sukkos Teishvu has a page that lists various personal
minhagim of Rav Moshe Feinstein's, as reported to the author by Rav
Mordechai Tendler.

It says that Rav Moshe was mosser nefesh to sleep in the sukkah, almost
until the end of his days, even on Shemini Atzerres. A footnote adds
the following (my translation):

"I heard from Rav Mordechai regarding his great grandfather, the Gaon Rav
Dovid zt"l, that he slept in the sukkah one leil shemini atzerres when
it was extremely cold and from this he became ill with a lung infection.
Within six days, he had died. Rav Moshe saw this as messiras nefesh for
the mitzva and saw it as an example to himself l'hakpid al zeh".

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 00:24:24 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <fc.d9f0966.28fd14f1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:43:29 EDT
Subject: Re: sukkah bi-shemini
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: sba@blaze.net.au, nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/15/2001 1:28:54pm EDT, sba@blaze.net.au writes:
> And lehalocho does a targum TBU overrule a befeirush gemoro?

Lechatchila - unlikely.

Yet to justify an existing minhag or psak this is not so unusual.
IOW given that Minhag X or Psak Y already contradicts a Bavli, apologists
will seek a supporting text - Bedieved - as a rationale.

IMHO this is not so unusual. The Bavli itself will set aside a Mishnah
in favor of a Braisso on occasion. This is not a license for us to do
this lechatchilah, yet we can accept the fact - post facto - that the
Bavli felt justified in doing so.

Also we do not set aside a Bavli in favor of a text suchaas TBU unless
we have a Masorah to do so. While aAccording to some there are zero
exceptions to this rule and that the Bavli ALWAYS trumps any other text -
to me this is but a tempting over-simplification.

In summation: We don't Innovate by setting aside a Bavli, but we do
eclectically overrule the Bavli in cases where this has already been
established - e.g .by Tosafos.

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

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 02:23:33 2001
Message-ID: <000901c1560e$fed6b7a0$33aafea9@sba>
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:19:51 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

From: Qumran <qumran@optonline.net>
> It's hard for me to give much weight to the sevara that the Rebbe
> and/or his chasidim are mitztaer, because there isn'y enough space in
> the sukka. If that's really the reason, they should leave the sukka
> during sukkot itself.

It seems that chassidim usually stayed home for Sukkos and travelled to
their rebbes for SA and ST.

SBA

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 07:25:06 2001
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:43:36 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret--Late Rishonim
Message-ID: <20011016074336.A1946@aishdas.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
References: <002501c154c5$e92b3ce0$e76c2e18@0pxnu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <002501c154c5$e92b3ce0$e76c2e18@0pxnu>; from qumran@optonline.net on Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:35:53AM -0400
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:35:53AM -0400, Daniel Schiffman wrote:
:                    It's hard for me to give much weight to the sevara
: that the Rebbe and/or his chasidim are mitztaer, because there isn'y
: enough space in the sukka. If that's really the reason, they should
: leave the sukka during sukkot itself.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:19:51PM +1000, SBA replied:
: It seems that chassidim usually stayed home for Sukkos and travelled to
: their rebbes for SA and ST.

That's exactly what Nefesh haRav suggests besheim RYBS. The big gathering
by the Rebbe was on "the last days" -- SA/ST and the last two days
of Pesach.

Another point raised in my post that people missed was that this limud
zechus is a claim that Chassidim today are making an honest mistake.
They remembered what was done by the Rebbe, where they were "shushvinin"
and applying it even at home, where no heter exists. This isn't, as RDS
calls it, "a sevara".

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 07:37:14 2001
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:55:43 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Yom Tov Sheini vis-a-vis Yom Kippur
Message-ID: <20011016075543.B1946@aishdas.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
References: <01Oct15.103438edt.119388@gatekeeper.bop.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <01Oct15.103438edt.119388@gatekeeper.bop.gov>; from erics@radix.net on Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:34:39AM -0400
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:34:39AM -0400, Eric Simon wrote:
: So now I'm completely confused:

I think the problem is that RJDL (whose initials appear in his email)
misunderstood your question. In his 2nd email he says as much.

: Simcha's "man in the backyard" wrote:

... WRT the question he /thought/ you were asking. 

:> The answer be'H is that since the declaration of Rosh Chodesh
:> is actually dependent on the actual declaration of Rosh Chodesh by the
:> Beit Din (i.e. Beit Din doesn't notify of Rosh Chodesh, it creates it),
:> therefore the "l'mafrea" status of the declaration is only vis a vis
:> mikahn ulhaba...

This is in answer to what happens when eidim don't get to Sanhedrin
until after Rosh haShanah. This delays their declaration, and therefore
the creation of the Rosh Chodesh, which only modifies the calendar
miqan ulhaba.

: But then also wrote:

... after RJDL reread your email, and addressed your actual question:
:> in your case everyone in galus would be chayav a korban chatat.

If they keep the wrong day of Y"K because word didn't reach them, they
are shogegim.

On your side question... : I'm also confused as to the comment that
"this theory...is a creation : of R Chaim Brisker". How does that apply
in the time prior to the fixed : calendar?

When a scientist makes a theory, or an acharon engages in lomdus, they
are trying to find an elegent rule by which to explain the facts. When
we say that this theory is RCM's, we don't mean that he created the din,
rather that it's his sevarah for explaining this particular din. He
noticed a pattern and from this theorized a rule that lemafrei'a and
iglaei milsa limafrei'a consistantly behave differently.

Of course, given these rules, one then has hypotheses about what the
din would be in cases where the gemara and rishon are silent. But that's
not our situation.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 02:23:52 2001
Message-ID: <000a01c1560f$0a085160$33aafea9@sba>
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Birkas Habanim (2)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:26:18 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In Avodah V8 #15, Akiva Miller asked:
> Any other thoughts on this topic? <

From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> ..why not bless your children in an Amidah-like tone of voice and
> thus avoid worrying about their saying anything in response? ...

Now that you mention it - that is indeed how my late father and I and
all people that I have observed 'benching' their children, do it.

So Omein is not even shayech here..

SBA

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 07:42:17 2001
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:00:47 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: hefsek
Message-ID: <20011016080047.C1946@aishdas.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
References: <86.110ca4e2.28fbbe82@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <86.110ca4e2.28fbbe82@aol.com>; from RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com on Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:22:26AM -0400
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:22:26AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Re: the kinds of Piyuutim between Barechu and Amidah: Yotzros are called
: so because they fall after birchas yotzeir
: There is also:
: 1) Ofan - during v'ha'ofanim
: 2) Maorah - before yotzeir heme'oros
: 3) Zullas - after Ein Elokim Zulasecha
: 4) G'ulah - before Birchas Go'al Yisrael 
...
: It is Clear that Kallir <grin> did not consider yotzros a hefsek.

At least, not during birchos K"Sh and Chazaras haSha"tz. However, we
were not discussing the mitzvah of tefillah, but that of Birchas Kohanim.

This goes back to my theory that there are two kinds of hefseq:
interrupting the matbei'ah, and hesech hada'as. I could see arguing that a
piyut that is on the same topic as the berachah being interrupted isn't
hesech hada'as.

But in Birchas Kohanim, like in Shema, there is a matbei'ah that is
de'Oraisa. (At least the first two paragraphs of Shema are, I don't know
about the third.) No one would think of putting piyutim in the middle
of Shema.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 07:43:13 2001
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:01:43 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Maqom ha'Azarah (was: arba minim in succah)
Message-ID: <20011016080143.D1946@aishdas.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
References: <20011015122941.A18564@aishdas.org> <000101c155a0$3b0b2900$9892003e@mshome.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <000101c155a0$3b0b2900$9892003e@mshome.net>; from atwood@netvision.net.il on Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:38:22PM +0200
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:38:22PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: Isn't that specific "place" currently underground?

No, the floor of Herod's bayis was at the same level as the current platform.
Something that makes the dimensions of various features of that platform
quite interesting.

-mi

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


[ 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         ]