Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 033

Tuesday, May 21 2002

• Fwd: RE: Arev
• Re: Fwd: RE: Arev
• Re: Arev times Four
• arev times 4
• Rav Chaim Pinchos Sheinberg's TK's
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Waiting on First Night of Shavuos
• Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• Re: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• night before day or after day
• Re: Rosh Chodesh Iyar and Sivan, 2448
• EIN SIMCHO ELEH BEBOSOR..
• Re: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• RE: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• RE: Waiting to daven maariv
• FW: Waiting to daven maariv
• RE: Waiting to daven maariv
• Re: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• V'ha'arev na
• Dor Revi'i on Zionism (Part IV)

 From my brother-in-law, comments interspersed:

>From: "Brown, Chaim"
>1.  Radomsker writes chiddush that tefilas arvis=lashon of arvus  (this is
>"old" Torah that I e-mailed to you before and you forwarded to the
>shochetlist, so check the archives for the whole mehalaich).   Ya'akov
>tikein tefilas arvis, represnting galus, where our survival is dependent
>upon the midah of arvus.  He preferred sending Yehudah to Mitzrayim over
>Reuvain because Yehudah exhibited that midah - "anochi a'arvenu".  Baba
>Basra 173b brings this as the makor arvus.  One point Ariella had was that
>women were never mekabeil arvis upon themselves as a chovah and women are
>also excluded from the din of arvus (machlokes R"AK Eiger and Dagul
>Merevava, dvarim atikim).

Nice, except that didn't arvus in terms of communal responsibility commence 
only upon entry to Eretz Yisroel - if anything, I would say the ikkar arvus 
is thus associated specifically with a portion in EY, which is women are 
precluded from official Halachic arvus, and which is why, perhaps, Tefillas 
Arvis is optional - it was made by Yaakov as he was going into Galus, where 
arvus really does not apply.

>2. Noam Elimelech relates the words "arv"=sweet and "orev"=bird.  The "orev"
>is the tzadik who engages in the  avodah of serving Hashem through masah
>u'matan in olam hazeh for parnasah; that avodah is "arev"=sweet in the eyes
>of both man and G-d.  Gem. in kesubos (? - I don't have time to check the
>daf) says one who fails to support his children is worse than the "orev".
>The yonah is the tzaddik who is mufrash from olam hazeh, lo matzah manoch
>l'klaf raglah.

Interesting that an Orev is an unkosher bird, and that the original Orev 
did NOT evince communal responsibility when sent out by Noach...

Requires more analysis, perhaps the tikkun was the episode you cite below.

>Maybe orev is related to ra'av, esp. the food idea; the birds fed Eliyahu at
>time of famine....also see Bava Kamma 3 ba"r=shein, again coming back to the
>food idea.
>Is there a point to playing these word games - no kashe, no ra'aya, straight
>speculation??  (You may take that as a rhetorical question - I know your
>answer, you know mine.  I just had to write it anyway to be yotzei making
>the point.)

Right, you know my answer - I would say that lashon ha'kodesh must by 
definition bear such analysis.

>Have a good Y"T!
>
>P.S. Let's see if you can incorporate ra'av and b'ar in your conclusions as
>well.

Have already begun that thought process as well... (Anticipating your 
challenge!)


Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:29:34AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Interesting that an Orev is an unkosher bird, and that the original Orev 
: did NOT evince communal responsibility when sent out by Noach...

RSRH writes basically like RCS, that /`rb/ refers to mixtures. Sharing
responsibility is mixing eachother's burdens. He also addresses
orev and aravah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

In an earlier mailing, I posited a "new" perspective on the minhag of 
chalav on Shavuos. to which I received the following response:

>Not like you to forget a Beis ha'Levi (Parshas Yisro). But as usual, your 
>additions are thought provoking.

The assumption that I am familiar with BhL's is flattering, but of course 
false. I then posed the query:
>Why is the word for sweetness or pleasantness the same as for guarantor and
>the same as for mixture and the same as for evening? (Ayin-Reish-Veis).
>There are partial connections that swirl through my mind, but I feel there
>is something very significant going on here...

>I began to propose:

>Ayin-Reish means awake, or aroused (might be a contraction of Ayin Ro'eh - 
>the definition of wakefulness). Interesting that it is the antithesis of 
>Evil or Friend (Reish-Ayin) - this requires some analysis.

>Be that as it may, the Ayin-Reish-Beis combo seems to tack on "Beis" as in 
>the prefix "In". In a mixture, the two substances are "awake" within the 
>concoction (if not, one is battel and it is no longer a ta'aroves).

>When something is pleasant or sweet, there is a sense of awakening or 
>arousal in the experience.

>A guarantor is mixed in, and is an "aroused' partner in the relationship.

>Erev, in contradistinction to Lyla, is a time of mixture (thus the 
>Rogatchover that Bein ha'Shemashos is not a safek in din but a safek 
>b'etzem) - elements of both light and dark are awake in that time frame.

>Now, to correlate to inyana d'yoma - to Shavuos - all these elements 
>should be awake in the brocho-phrase "V'ha'arev nah es divrei Toroscha 
>b'finu..."

Since then several other approaches have come in, including:

>Dear Rabbi Bechhofer:

>Easy. Because Jews are allowed to mix business with pleasure, especially 
>after hours.

And my brother in law writes about the tameh bird, the Orev:

> >>>Interesting that an Orev is an unkosher bird, and that the original Orev
>did NOT evince communal responsibility when sent out by Noach...<<<

>See the N.E.'s other pshat that a tzaddik has to be achzari k'orev in
>distancing himself from committments.

From Reb Micha Berger:
>RSRH writes basically like RCS, that /`rb/ refers to mixtures. Sharing
>responsibility is mixing eachother's burdens. He also addresses
>orev and aravah.

And, from another source, that I would like to use as a springboard:
> From one of your strings last week: "Ayin-Reish means awake, or aroused 
> (might be a contraction of Ayin Ro'eh - the definition of wakefulness). 
> Interesting that it is the antithesis of Evil or Friend (Reish-Ayin) - 
> this requires some analysis."

>I add the following from some time ago written by me to my friend (deleted):

>You may recall my asking about the connection between ra/bad and 
>reah/friend, as they share a common root yet have apparently opposite
>meanings, assuming that a friend is a good thing, of course.

>(Deleted) told me last night that he heard at a sheva brachos the meaning 
>of reim in reim ahuvim from the sheva brachos. Rav (Deleted) says that the 
>first appearance of reah/friend in chumash is (I'll skip a couple of lines 
>so you can see if you know it!)
>........................................................................
>........................................................................
>Yehuda's partner and friend is referred to as re'ehu ha'adulami. The first 
>appearance of re'ehu is when Yehuda sends him to execute the exchange with 
>Tamar, something Yehuda was not necessarily most proud of. In order to 
>have a good marraige we bentch the couple to be reim, that's to say 
>capable of absorbing the least desirable aspects of the other person and 
>be with them anyway.

>Based on this we can suggest that the ra in re'ah is that a real friend 
>stays with us, warts and all.

>I recall asking this question to Rav (Deleted) (I think you were there at 
>the time) and he answered that a good friend points out the bad. Flip 
>side, but same basic approach.

My primary thought is that this is not, indeed, the first mention of
a "Rei'ah" in tanach. The first mention is in Parashas No'ach 11:3 -
by Migdal Bovel, "Va'yomru ish el rei'eihu..." In fact, if I counted
correctly in shul yesterday, this is the 270th pasuk in the Torah,
gimatriya "Rei'ah". Thus, the first appearance of a friendship in the
Torah is a negative one. Doubtless our mitzva of "V'ohavto l'rei'acha
kamocho" is meant to counteract this negative reyus.I am sure, BTW,
that the vowels make the difference: The Komatz in "Rah" is negative,
as in miserliness. The tzerei/posach combination in "Rei'ah" connotes
an openness between two persons - but the goal may be good or bad.

(This search, and a good deal of "down time" in yesterday's services,
led me to research the 300th and 400th pesukim in the Torah, but more
on that another time.)

Of course, returning to Arev, the Orev is b'pashtus called Orev because
it is dark as evening, yet it was meant as a guarantor, to guaranty
that the Earth had dried after the Mabul. It failed in that mission,
but did so in securing Elisha's survival many years later.

As we mentioned, the Ayin-Reish combo is the antitheses of the Reish-Ayin
combo. Rah is the result of Hesech ha'Da'as - the Ayin, representing the
aperture by which one takes in phenomena and applies perspective (the ayin
is a silent, yet guttural sound - while the aleph is a completely silent
sound - thus the aleph represents that beyond conscious comprehension -
it does not register - while the ayin represents the most simple conscious
- deeply rooted - comprehension - thus while ayin is the eye, it also
represents "Sod" (its gematriya) and the knowledge of the Einei ho'Eida,
the seventy members of the Sanhedrin). The Reish is a destructive letter:
Beis is duality, but it is two things together, a letter made by closing
the lips. Kof is duality, but it represents likeness - thus its symmetry
- the base reflecting the roof, and its meaning. Reish no longer has a
base and a roof, and if I understand pronunciation, is a deeper, more
throaty sound - but not a true os geronis- i.e., it reaches down in its
destructiveness, but cannot reach the actual source.

Reish-Ayin thus is the "ruin" of the Ayin, while Ayin-Reish is the triumph
of the Ayin over the Reish - the opening of the eye, wakefulness. As
we noted, Arev is "Awake-in". The ultimate Arev is HKB"H, and thus is
the 272nd pasuk of the Torah, Hashem comes "down" (see Rashi there) to
check out what's going on below - interesting that this verb of yerida
seems not to be applied to HKB"H earlier in the Torah.

But enough "fun" - we must come around (after your comments) to connecting
all this to Torah and Birchas ha'Torah.

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

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Why is the word for sweetness or pleasantness the same as
> for guarantor and the same as for mixture and the same as for
> evening? (Ayin-Reish-Veis). There are partial connections that swirl
> through my mind, but I feel there is something very significant going
> on here...

The Ralbag at the end of Perek 21 of Shmuel Beis writes that the Toeles of
the rebellion of Avshalom is that Dovid did not lose himself in the heat of
this tragedy but kept a cool head ,...... lo lehisrashel......The Maharal
and Rav Zadok both explain the the world was created in Choshech followed by
Or.

That the madrega of dovid was that he was able to realize that the darkness
in his life had a purpose to lead him to greatness.

In darkness there is sweetness to be found, and a guarator understands the
need of those in need to show sweetness to them in times of their darkness.

Menachem Brick

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>: But we b'davka go and buy a four-cornered garment in order to be
>: m'kayem the mitzva...

> According to those rishonim, we don't! If you say that the single guy
> isn't yotzei, neither is the married one. Which means the minhag isn't
> about making opportunities for qiyum hamitzvah. It's about inventing
> an "ur'isem oso" of our own.

If this is correct, maybe we can get someone up there to ask Rav Chaim
Pinchos Sheinberg shlit'a why he bothers to wear about 100 talleisim
ktanim...?

SBA

R' Carl asked, <<Is there anyone who specifically says NOT to wear them
out (as opposed to being silent on the issue)?

As has been mentioned a number of times in postings. The Ar"i said one
should not wear them out because of yohora. All the Sefardic posekim
follow this and state it clearly, e.g., the Hida, R' Hayyim David Halevi
and R' Ovadia Yosef.

David

Moshe Feldman pointed out that some acharonim bring the minhag as waiting
to daven maariv, while others bring it as waiting to make kiddush.
The sevara for the first version is pretty simple -- davening maariv
is the first positive action (to the exclusion of our refraining from
melachah since shekiah) by which we acknowledge that it is Shavuos.

The sevara for the second version of the minhag is not as evident.
I was thinking about this in light of one of RYBS's printed yahrzeit
shiurim on "Kiddush keMekadeish." He discusses the fact that there is
a machalokes in the gemara as to whether or not one who davens maariv
early on a Friday may also make kiddush early. Although we, of course,
pasken that one may, the presence of the other shitah makes us take a
look at the nature of what kiddush is doing. He suggests that while
the "kiddush bidevarim" in tefilah may bring on the isur melachah,
the positive nature of Shabbos (oneg), for which kiddush al hakos is
the "koveia umaschil" -- the opening cermony, so to speak -- does not
neccesarily go along with that.

Perhaps, in this light, we can understand the minhag that allows davening
maariv on leyl Shavuos before the 7 "temimos" weeks are completly over,
but not making kiddush. While davening maariv simply goes along with
the isur melachah that we've already started anyway, kiddush is in the
camp of the positive observance of Shavuos, and should wait.

--David

 From memory, with a reminder that I'm not a halachic authority (to say
the least):

I once heard a shiur from Rav A. E. Rubinstein shlyto (Rav of the local
Shomrai Hachomos) who went into the "temimos" aspect in detail.

Basically since we are supposed to count 7 complete weeks, we ignore the
"hours". (Otherwise somebody who counted the first night at midnight
(E.g. during the 2nd seder) would have to wait for midnight to start
Shavu'os?).

He concluded that if you learn the sugya in depth there's no real reason
for waiting. I no longer recall the details, but we could always ask
RCS to get them next Friday night. :-)

In the Adas Jeshurun of Johannesburg they didn't wait for night, IIRC,
though it's early winter, so by the time people made kiddush it probably
was dark.

On the second night you have to wait until night, like on every "2nd day",
as you cannot "end" the first day early.

- Danny

R' Moshe Feldman wrote <<< I don't see the sevarah for waiting so long on
the first night. The idea of temimos connects to sefiras ha'omer, which
we pasken is drabbanan. If so, we should wait the more mekil shittah
for tzeis (similar to when we break fasts for drabbanan fasts). >>>

I'd like to ask what sounds like a perfectly ridiculous question, except
that I don't know of any good answer to it: B'zman hazeh, is Shavuos
d'Oraisa, or is it d'Rabanan?

To understand my question, we must remind ourselves that the Torah does
not prescribe any specific day for this Yom Tov. So, then, when does it
occur, if at all?

If Shavuos occurs when we have compled our counting of seven temimos
weeks, and our counting does not exist on a d'Oraisa level, then how can
Shavuos be a d'Oraisa holiday? It would be only d'Rabanan, and we should
indeed wait until (an early shitah of) tzeis, to insure that those seven
temimos (d'Rabanan) weeks have passed, because the Yom Tov cannot start
until then.

But if the existence of Shavuos as a Yom Tov is independent of Sefiras
HaOmer, then it can easily be a Yom Tov d'Oraisa. But how does this
happen, given how intricately the psukim connect Shavuos to Sefira? And
why would there be any need to wait at all? We could even begin it from
Plag haMincha if we wanted to!

My guess is that, somehow, our counting has a d'Oraisa chalos, even
though it is merely a d'Rabanan action. Perhaps it is similar to how
giving a chicken-cheese food to someone would be a Michshol d'Oraisa,
even though the issur is only d'Rabanan?

Any other thoughts on this? Am I even making any sense?

Akiva Miller

Akiva, who started this thread, seens to have confused a number of issues.

First and foremost, I never said nor, hopefully, implied that the
Rashbam's understanding of peshat in the entire Torah leads to the
conclusion that night follows day in halacha. That is only established
with regard to korbonot. With regard to other matters, we treat the day
as beginning with the previous night and ending the following night.
The Rishonim did not normally take it upon themselves to challenge
established halachot on the basis of their understanding of the Torah, and
the Rashbam does not do so in this case. The Ibn Ezra's criticism of the
Rashbam on this matter suggests, however, how easily the latter's position
was misunderstood. Unfortunately, that still appears to be the case.

Second, there is no conundrum with regard to kiddush ha'chodesh in the
midbar, according to the Rashbam's understanding. Rosh chodesh does not
begin with the molad (a mere mathematical calculation based on an average
length of the lunar cycle) nor, even, with the sighting of the new moon -
but with its declaration by a competent bet din. [The current calendrical
system was instituted some 17 centuries ago only when the authority of
a central bet din in Israel was coming to an end due to persecution.]
If the new moon was seen at night, then, on the next morning, Moshe
and Aharon (and the elders) would declare that day to be rosh chodesh,
i.e., the first day of the new month. The previous night, according
to this understanding, was merely the end of the previous month.
Of course, with respect to Shabbat and the mo'adim, the cessation of
melacha started with the previous night as per the verse, "mei'erev ad
erev tishbetu shabatchem". Thus, the observance of Rosh Hashana began
the previous night which was the end of the sixth month, in this view.
Actually, determining the new moon must have been a simple matter then.
Everyone was together and everyone could see the new crescent moon in
the clear desert sky. There was also little likelihood that the sky
would be clouded over during the winter months.

In the course of time, however - particularly after the abrogation of
korbonot with the destruction of the bet ha'mikdash - it became useful
to consider the day as always starting with the previous night in order
to avoid possible confusion and chillul yom tov.

Yitzchok

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:40:28PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: On the one hand, it sounds odd that the Beis Din might say, "Last night
: -- which was yesterday -- they saw the New Moon, and therefore today,
: Shabbos, is the New Month!" (Sure, Beis Din *could* deliberately delay
: Rosh Chodesh if they wanted to, but they do that by *rejecting* the
: day's testimony, not by *accepting* it!)

Say a Sanhedrin during bayis 2 closed in order to force the month to
be malei. What do they do on day 2, when the same eidim arive? "These
people saw the moon yesterday, so today is the Rosh Chodesh." No?

I thought the whole point was that it's beis din's declaration, and not
astronomy that defines Rosh Chodesh.

-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: "SBA"   (Forwarded from Areivim)
: Must there be bosor at every meal?

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Or, if I may rephrase: There is a mitzva of seudas Yom Tov and a mitzva
> of simchas Yom Tov. Must they be coincidental i.e. can I have a seudah
> without meat, and eat meat at some other point in the day.
> If the latter, must that meat be part of a(nother) meal or can it be
> eaten outside of a meal?

I was speaking to a Rav about these things yesterday. According to him,
the answer to my original question - whether one must eat meat at every
meal is no. Therefore there is no problem with our minhag of eating a
milchig meal (only) the first night Shvuos.

Then I heard a tape of a shiur on Shvuos by Rav Menachem Meir Weissmandl
of Monsey who also mentioned this minhag. (His late father Rav Michoel
Ber z'l was an Ashkenaz/Oberlender - though RMMW didn't mention his
family's tradition.)

But the whole inyan of 'ein simcho eleh bebosor' may need some birur. I
presume that in the times of Chazal meat was a big deal and reserved
for Shabbos and YT. However these days when many of us have meat every
single day - is it 'takeh' such a great treat?

I also discussed this with the Rav and he told me that some advise that
these days you should have a special type of meat (and similarly in case
of fish- if one eats it daily) for Shabbos and YT.

But then if cheese kreplech, dobosh torteh or shlak zahneh (I hope I
spelled them correctly) - which we may have einmohl a yovel - is my
taanug, do I still have to eat bosor - which is not? Fish is one of the
maacholei Shabbos - but if one doesn't enjoy it - the SA says not to
eat it.

And when we have 2 days YT followed by Shabbos - 6 consecutive meat meals!
How many people really enjoy that?

SBA

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>I take it that there is no minhag to wait on the second night (even though 
>one could argue sfeikah d'yoma) since one did not count Omer the night 
>before.

Carl Sherer wrote:
>Actually the Yeshiva in Passaic did wait on the second night, although they 
>didn't wait quite as long for Maariv (IIRC they waited 72 minutes the first 
>night and 55 the second). But there was always singing and dancing after 
>Maariv the second night (except in years like this year where the second 
>night was Shabbos) on the theory that the veiber needed time to prepare the 
>meal anyway.

Aderaba, according to the Torah Lodaas parsha sheet this year there was an 
inyan of davening EARLY on the second night.  That was to ensure that the 
cooking via the eiruv tavshilin was done early enough in the day to be ra'uy 
for guests who may come on Yom Tov.

Gil Student

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> But if the existence of Shavuos as a Yom Tov is independent of Sefiras
> HaOmer, then it can easily be a Yom Tov d'Oraisa. But how does this
> happen, given how intricately the psukim connect Shavuos to Sefira? And
> why would there be any need to wait at all? We could even begin it from
> Plag haMincha if we wanted to!

> My guess is that, somehow, our counting has a d'Oraisa chalos, even
> though it is merely a d'Rabanan action. Perhaps it is similar to how
> giving a chicken-cheese food to someone would be a Michshol d'Oraisa,
> even though the issur is only d'Rabanan?

Imagine that the rabbanan had never made the takanah to count sefiras
HaOmer.  Would that mean that there would be no Shavuous?  Of course not.
Rather, independent of whether or not people counted, Shavuos occurs at the
end of seven weeks.

BTW, I think that there is a din of tosefes yom tov, so that a person should
be mekabel Shavuos before shkiyah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Danny Schoemann [mailto:dannys@atomica.com]
> On the second night you have to wait until night, like on every "2nd day",
> as you cannot "end" the first day early.

Does everyone agree with this?  I seem to recall being in shuls where the
rabbanim didn't wait to daven on Yom Tov Sheni.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

 From a certain rav:

-----Original Message-----
on the second day of pesach one has to wait for the seder. on the second
day of sukkos, we wait for eating in the sukka. on the last days of
these yamim tovim i see no reason to wait. likewise on shavu'ot when
there is no mitzvas hayom to delay us.

also, in general on the second day we can not make preparations early.
so what is the rush to daven early. we'd have to wait for the food
anyway. and perhaps this is why the delay has become so ingrained
(even for acharon shel pesach. simchas torah is a totally different
creature). but when the second day is friday night, when all preparations
are made early, why wait.

other than for tzais for kri'as shma. but that's something else entirely.

>From: Danny Schoemann [mailto:dannys@atomica.com]
>> On the second night you have to wait until night, like on 
>> every "2nd day",
>> as you cannot "end" the first day early.

>Does everyone agree with this?  I seem to recall being in shuls where the
>rabbanim didn't wait to daven on Yom Tov Sheni.

>Kol tuv,
>Moshe

Oops.
The Biur Halocho in 489:1 quotes the Mor Ukzi'o that the reason you
count sefiro after maariv (on the 2nd seder night) is because in earlier
generations they would daven maariv before night. QED

"I stand corrected, and myself reprove." 
	- John Dryden in The Maiden Queen (1668) 
	According to Atomica - http://lookup.atomica.com/atomica/query?s=stand%20corrected
	How else would I know these things? :-)

- Danny, who works for Atomica in between Areivim & Avoda. :-)

R' Moshe Feldman: <<< Imagine that the rabbanan had never made the takanah
to count sefiras HaOmer. Would that mean that there would be no Shavuous?
Of course not. Rather, independent of whether or not people counted,
Shavuos occurs at the end of seven weeks. >>>

I hope I made it clear enough that I *DO* recognize Shavuos to be
d'Oraisa. Rather my question is how we know that.

If the rabanan had not made that takanah AND not a single Jew on the
planet actually counted anyway, then how would Shavuos exist that
year? And on what day would it occur? All the psukim involved place it
on the 50th day of the count.

<<< BTW, I think that there is a din of tosefes yom tov, so that a person
should be mekabel Shavuos before shkiyah. >>>

If one does so, is he not m'vatel the temimos which we accomplish by
delaying maariv?

Akiva Miller

 From one correspondent:
>The Ralbag at the end of Perek 21 of Shmuel Beis writes that the Toeles of 
>the rebellion of Avshalom is that Dovid did not lose himself in the heat 
>of this tragedy but kept a cool head ,...... lo lehisrashel......The 
>Maharal and Rav Zadok both explain the the world was created in Choshech 
>followed by Or.
>
>That the madrega of dovid was that he was able to realize that the 
>darkness in his life had a purpose to lead him to greatness.
>
>In darkness there is sweetness to be found, and a guarator understands the 
>need of those in need to show sweetness to them in times of their darkness.
>
>Menachem Brick

 From another:
>R' Volbe in  Alei Shur (Chelek Aleph, pg. 154) has a short comment that 
>Arev which means sweet also means mixture because when something is sweet 
>we try to mix it with ourselves and make it part of ourselves. When 
>something is bitter we push it away from ourselves and do not allow it to 
>mix with ourselves.  Therefore we say V'HaErev Nah -- the Torah should be 
>sweet  so that the Torah can  mix with our pnimiyut and become one.

Based on my derivation I would add to these comments that Arev in all its 
permutations means to be alive and awake in the midst of potentially 
dulling and stupefying influences. The process of our Avodas Hashem takes 
place in darkness - according to the Mekkublaim, primarily in Kelipas Nogah 
- the "glowing husk" - the paradoxical character of light from within 
darkness - the particularly sweet light of the Zohar that Reb Tzadok 
quotes. And of course many of us are familiar with the Reb Avrohom min 
Ho'Hor and the Eglei Tal that Torah Lishma is for the sweetness.

So we ask for the arousal and life-force that it gives us, the capacity to 
imbue and admix all our activities with Torah, the guarantee that Torah be 
instilled within us, and the capacity to employ Torah to illuminate the 
darkness.

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

                ZIONISM IN THE LIGHT OF FAITH (part IV)

IV. 	Zionism in the Light of Faith

Doubts similar to those that exist today in relation to Zionism existed
at all stages of the extension of rights to all Jews in the Diaspora.
After the French Revolution, when the nations reached the conclusion that
it is not possible to deny from an entire people the natural rights of
citizenship on account of their faith, and they grantedt
 he Jews here and there the rights of equals, there were those of our
Hareidi teachers of that generation who expressed the most serious
religious reservations and attempted, by all means, to prevent this
process. The same thing also happened again when the question of the
Hertzaphtzion recognition in Hungary was solved, a matter to which I
was an eyewitness.

It is worth remarking, by the way, on the historical fact that the
motivation for the solution of the question of recognition in Hungaryc
 ame from Klausenburg. When the Tisza party, the advocate of
liberalism, appeared on the scene, it seemed an appropriate time to remove
the shame of "lack of recognition" from our ancient and honorable faith.
I, together with two of the most distinguished Jewish citizens of the
city, explained to candidates of the Tisza party, who sought to assure
for themselves the support of Jewish voters, that the government could
not rely on the Jewish voters unless the prime minister would announce
publically and in an appropriate way, that the government intended to
propose in the near future legislation concerning the recognition of the
Jewish religion. Shortly thereafter such an announcement was indeed made
by the prime minister, and a short time later the recognition law was
enacted by the parliament. This effort of mine was not well received in
our circles and my favor departed from the eyes of our Orthodox leaders.

However, then as now, my position was this: even if we should admit that
emancipation and reciprocity contain within them certain dangers for
complete faith, this presumption cannot serve as a reason to ascribe to
the people an intention to forego, or even to reject, natural rights.
"Her ways are the ways of pleasantness," not the ways of unnatural
rejection. The Holy One Blessed Be He does not demand of people to cease
being people and He does not demand of people to quell their ambitions
and their ambitions for success in order to anticipate dangers that are
liable to endanger the completeness of the faith.

Now happiness and wealth may become a great danger to piety, as is
explained in many places in the Scripture and as every day life experience
teaches us. It would therefore have been necessary, on account of the
dangers within it, to impose a religious prohibition against the ambition
for happiness. But we see that it is not so, and not only do the pious
among us pray for wealth and honor, but they pursue with full energy
the enlargement of their wealth and possessions and they do not worry
about bad results. There is no explanation except this: that a Divine law
cannot prohibit or stop this tendency without at the same time impairing
the natural development of the human species. More than this do we find:
Hezekiah the king ceased conjugal relations after he was informed that
he would beget a son named Menashe who would erect an idol in the Holy
Temple (2 Kings 41:7; 2 Chronicles 33:7). He was then told by Isaiah the
prophet: "What have you to do with these secrets of the Merciful One?"
(Berahot 10a). "Such worries are not for you, and you ought not follow
precautionary measures like these." Similar to this was the reproof given
by Miriam the daughter of Amram who reproved her father for leaving his
wife in order not to beget a son to be drowned in the Nile. (Sotah 12a)

If it is so for individuals, why would the Holy One Blessed Be He demand
from an entire people self-denial such that would be like deliberate
self-destruction? Even if our holy Torah demands from us not to depart
from her ways, neither owing to persecution nor to enticement by the
Gentiles, even if she demands of us to sacrifice for her survival all
that is precious to us, even our own selves, the Torah would not demand
what is unnatural: to reject, owing to fear of ourselves, rights and
advantages that are attainable. The first demand is humane and natural
while the second is inhumane and unnatural.

In that manner, there is today an absurd opinion that we the Hareidim
must not exercise our right that has been recognized by the Great Powers
of the world, which have taken an extra step forward by expressing their
readiness to support the return of the Jewish people to their ancient
homeland, wherein the people will be able to live in accord with their
spirit and their tradition, because we are afraid that there in the
land of Israel, we will not, under our own autonomous jurisdiction,
be sufficiently devout.

There is a further aspect to this question. A fundamental tenet of our
faith is that even if people, in general, are free in their actions and
are not under the influence of a celestial power, this is nots
 o concerning great and significant events that determine the destiny
of entire nations. In these cases, the active agents are only puppets
manipulated from above, because the events that determine the destiny of
the world cannot depend on the will of an individual or of the many as
it is written (Proverbs 21:1): "The heart of kings and princes is in the
hand of the L-rd, whatever He wants they shall give." Who among us would
dispute that the appearance twenty-six years ago of the Zionist movement,
which brought about the Balfour Declaration and the recognition of the
land of Israel as the homeland of the people of Israel, was not decreed
by Divine Providence?

To be sure, the eras of prophecy and open miracles have passed,
but even today we still merit a modern prophecy (the holy spirit of
wisdom) and modern miracles (miracles clothed in nature). When the
Judenstaat of Herzl appeared twenty-six years ago, I felt in reading
the work that a spirit from on high was guiding the pen of this man.
Every word penetrated deep into my heart, and the general impression of
this composition was enormous. That I was not alone in this feeling,
but that it was a general feeling, is testified to by the fact that
within a year the first Zionist conference was convened in Basel and
with extraordinary enthusiasm created the famous Basel program and that
the movement has succeeded in growing from year to year.

And if my point of view was not then, to my distress, shared by my
colleagues in Hungary, who, at that time, issued prohibitions against
Zionism and Mizrahi, does anything require them to maintain their
rejection today? If the Zionist idea was then considered utopian, does
anything require to continue their rejection today, after the world war
and the subsequent peace conference have transformed it into a reality?
Does anything require our Hareidim, who see in every inconsequential
event miracles and wonders, to view precisely this phenomenon, that has
astonished the world, as a mere coincidence? I am unable, and certainly
do not want, to believe such a thing. I would rather hope that even in
the twelfth hour a decisive turning point will occur in the view of these
leaders of ours. And would that this essay will makes its contribution
to this.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]