Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 012

Monday, September 23 2002

• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Ketivah va-hatimah tovah
• Chazaras haShatz
• Re: Sukkot Yerushalayim canvas succah
• RE: Sukkot Yerushalayim canvas succah
• Re: Areivim on Hol HaMoed
• Re: Chasima v. Tehillim?
• kano meshoyreres
• Yishtabach
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Re: My Kabboloh for YK: Six Temidi'os
• Re: new LA eruv
• Re: new LA eruv
• Re: The Kohen Gadol's Viduy
• 3 year cycle

On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:44:04AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Let's say OBSERVANT community.  
: AISI, C today is no by and large Observant.

C is doubly non-observant: they neither make following halachah without
redefining the term an ideal, nor do the masses observe their redefined
version.

Which aspect are you refering to.

If the former, then you've really gotten circular. We can't define the
variety of halachah by presupposing they left that variety.

If the latter, then you've said that C's lack of observance is what
makes their version non-halachah. Not the substance. Aside from finding
that conclusion absurd, let's define a community, we'll call it "JTSA".
How would they not justify your counting C halachah?

: Certainly this can be shown to be circular to an extent. EG if people
: violate the gzeira of not clapping on Shabbas and Tosafos uses this as
: a raya you COULD say "AHA, Tosfafos is bringin a raya from a community
: that is non-Observant of Clapping" and then extrapolate it to mean they
: are at least mumarim for this one gzeira etc.

This is Solomon Schechter's Catholic Israel [CI] problem again. It's
fully circular. You take one minor example, I took a big one.

It defines halachah as that which is accepted by CI, and CI as the
community that accepts halachah.

And, as I said the first time we raised the CI issue, the reasonable
way out is to posit constitutional law that is NOT open to consensus.
This also explains B"D sheta'ah and has to bring a korban for misleading
the tzibbur. The tzibbur don't make an invalid opinion halachah, only
valid ones.

Then it becomes: CI is the community that follows the range of opinions
that are valid results of the halachic process; and halachah is defined
as those conclusions of that process that are accepted by elements of
CI.

: So if Poseik A paskens AND it gets accepted by a community or a range
: of Communities over a period of time, it is reliable.

So if JTSA has a community that observes C rules, those rules are valid?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

In a message dated 09/20/2002 1:52:39pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> One rav I asked this to said, "Well, on Yom Kippur it might be sealed
> that we'll get rain, but if the person becomes evil mid-year, the rain
> will come at the wrong times."

> I was left dissatisfied, since that makes the chasimah partial. Wouldn't
> his fate for the year include the success or failure of the crops, perhaps
> even more so than just the rain (which after all is just the means to
> his ratzon, not the desired thing itself)?

An extensive, yet complex treatment of this quandary can be found in Rav 
Matis Weinberg's Patterns in Time Vol. 1: Rosh Hashanah.

Raffy

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> Scenario: 9 people daven Shmoneh Esrei
> In walks number 10.
> Question: Is a chiyyuv of Chazaras hashatz suddenly incurred or is it too 
> late.

> We know the converse if there were 10 davening and 1 left, we continue with 
> Chazaras Hashatz etc.

What we used to do in Park Slope was a kind of inverse Heicha Kedusha.
If #10 walked in after most had said Shmone Esreh, and someone else
(#8, say) happened to be up to S.E. in his davening, he would say the
first three paragraphs out loud, with Kedushah, when he got to that
point in his tefillah, even if everyone else had finished S.E.  I
think that sort of thing is more common in Lubav places than in others.

If we didn't do this, we would almost never have said Kedushah during 
the week, because the tenth often wouldn't straggle in until the
spitting, in time to help out the mourners for kaddish.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>Query: the canvas is attached to the frame via velcro and it
>can be easily removed while the straps remain in place;
>would it be permissible to remove the canvas on Shabbos/
>Yom Tov, as halachically the "wall" still remains?

Wouldn't it qualify as "noyei sukkah" that are muktzah (i.e. can't be taken
down) throughout Sukkos?

Gil Student

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil@aishdas.org]
> Wouldn't it qualify as "noyei sukkah" that are muktzah (i.e. 
> can't be taken down) throughout Sukkos?

I don't understand "muktzah" in that way in this context.  I understand it
means that it's hukzah l'mitzvaso and therefore you can't use it for a
different purpose (can't have hana'ah from it).  But you could take it down,
esp. if you intended from the beginning that you sometimes remove it.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Since I didn't notice that anyone answered Rn Katz, I will just point you
to--
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n165.shtml#11>
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n165.shtml#14>
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n165.shtml#13>

Also, I believe that even though sending & receiving email should be muttar,
printing it is probably problematic.  I think that there's an issue whether
printing is maaseh uman vs. maaseh hedyot (do you look at the result or the
skill required--this has been discussed in the case of typewriters; see the
Chol HaMoed book in English), but in any case you would need a tzorech
hamoed.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>> And does the notion of kesivah and chasimah mean that someone who
>> is chotei definitly won't be punished until the next year, since this
>> year's fate is sealed? ...

>> There ARE shitos by which there is no chasimah, or perhaps none until
>> The Yom haDin. But they're not the ones we tend to discuss around yamim
>> nora'im.

I have long given thought to this question and came up with this answer,
which I hope isn't heretical:

G-d's way of looking at time and our way are completely different, since
He simultaneously sees the past, present and future. Thus He will keep
a rasha alive (several examples in Tanach, none come to mind right this
minute) because of a tzaddik destined to come from him.

When He judges us on RH/YK, He presumably takes into account whether
we will daven, whether and how our friends will daven for us should
that become necessary, etc. We as humans cannot say "There's no use
davening for Ploni, Hashem already decided His fate on RH" because we,
not knowing whether Hashem's judgement included our davening, have got
to assume that we have to daven.

In every decision we make--whether to daven for Ploni, what house to buy,
etc etc--there is a sense in which the decision was predetermined for us.
This is especially true in the cases--the majority of our common daily
actions--in which Chazal explicitly say that free will is an illusion:
"Hakol bidei Shomayim chutz miyiras Shomayim." Even though our decisions
were predermined, we, not knowing what the determination was, must act
as if we have free will. What else can we do? And this is even more true
in the cases where we really do have free will--"yiras Shomayim"--which
I take to include mitzvos and davening.

Hashem's foreknowledge may seem to preclude free will even in these
cases, but His foreknowledge and our free will are only an apparent,
not an actual, paradox. "Hakol tsafui vehareshus nesuna." The solution
to the apparent paradox is that for G-d all time is simultaneous, while
for us humans it is necessarily linear.

Toby Katz

What is the simple meaning of the phrase "kano meshoyreres" in the
non-Shabbos piyut for Hoyshanos? The Artscroll translation is not helpful.

Thank you.
Sholem Berger

MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes on Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:27:49 -0400: 
> You mentioned the well-known "triad" in order to demonstrate that it _did_ 
> appear in our saider t'filoh without being a direct quote from TaNaCh.  I'm 
> asking why it doesn't appear uninterrupted in "Yishtabach," why "t'hilah" 
> comes in between.  Thanks. 

An excellent question - but, truth, be told, the entire order in
Yishtabach require some sort of explanation as it does not seem to follow
any consistent patteren. I need some time (and seforim! when I get back
to NY) to mull this one over. Suggestions accepted!

Gut Mo'ed! 
YGB 

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes on Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:17:30 +0000: 
> RYGB takes it as a given that this spells out a triad (of adjectives). 
> The Gra, however, understands it to be a quadruplet (of nouns). The 
> entire first berachah he understands as repetitions of these four-fold 
> theme first spelled out by Mosheh Rabbeinu. 
...
> Your reference to chesed-gevurah-tif'eres doesn't work in his peshat. 

The possibility of a quad-structure is not a contradiction to the 
triad-structure. That is the construct of a mashpi'a being mashpi'a in three 
manners (Kel being mashpia or menaifest in Gadol, Gibor, Norah) and sometimes 
(although not that I recall in the first brocho) the mushpa receiving the 
hashpa'ah in three manners. 

Gut Moed, 
YGB 

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes on Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:32:14 +0000: 
> : One of my correspondents, Reb F"B Silverman from Atlanta, mentioned to 
> : me that the six mitzvos temidi'oscan form a box. 

> : Below: Yichud Hashem - to make Hashem Melech al kol *ha'aretz* 

> Besheim H' E-lokei Yisrael... 

...

I did take that passage into account in formulating my box. Until last
night I had executed my kabboloh (i.e, to think about the 6 Temidi'os
upon entering my car) every time since after YK - last night driving
home from shul I forgot.

Gut Moed! 
YGB 

In a message dated 09/20/2002 1:52:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org writes:
<< 
 1- If there is a dispute among the Poskim regarding a certain issue and
 the consensus of the Poskim is to decide the manner according one opinion,
 we are mandated to follow that opinion.
 
 2- If there is a dispute among the Poskim and there is no consensus,
 if the question is regarding a Torah prohibition, we are mandated to
 follow the stringent opinion. If the issue is regarding a Rabbinical
 prohibition, we are permitted to follow the lenient opinion.
 
 3- The Shulchan Aruch will sometimes declare that a certain food
 is forbidden unless there is a great loss of money, in which case
 one may follow the lenient opinion. This is seemingly difficult
 to understand. Even if one were to lose all of his assets he is not
 permitted to transgress a prohibition. How then may he be lenient
 in case of great financial loss. The Ramoh explains, that whenever we
 allow leniency in cases of loss, it means that in truth we have decided
 the issue according to the lenient opinion. However, since there are
 many opinions that rule stringently, we are only permitted to follow
 the lenient opinion in case of financial loss. Now, if one were to say
 that since the true Halacha follows the lenient opinion, I would like
 to follow the lenient opinion even when there is no loss of money, he
 would be transgressing the Halacha. If the Shulchan Aruch decides that
 one can only be lenient in cases of great financial loss, then we are
 mandated to follow the stringent opinion in all other cases
 
 4- At times there is a Halachic situation when most Poskim decide
 according to the lenient opinion but, nevertheless, there are reputable
 Poskim that decide the issue stringently. The later Poskim may decide
 that in this case, though the Halacha follows the lenient opinion,
 nevertheless, since there are reputable Poskim who decide the matter
 stringently, they recommend that one act stringently, since there has
 not been a clear consensus to be lenient. In this case, one is not
 mandated according to Halacha to follow the stringent opinion but one
 is recommended to do so.
 
 5- There may be a dispute among the Poskim and the consensus is to be
 lenient, or, the Jewish nation as a whole, has accepted the lenient
 opinion, but there are nevertheless, dissenting Poskim. In such a case,
 the general populace is not recommended to act stringently, but those
 seeking a higher level of observance are recommended to act stringently.
  >>

Very interesting.  By the laws of chance, if we assume that a reputable posek 
holding stringently would affect future generations, these rules imply to me 
that those seeking a higher level would need to act stringently in any case 
where there has been a difference of opinion on any issue over time.

Moadim Lsimcha
Joel Rich

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 07:22:14AM -0700, Newman,Saul Z forwarded from
R' Bess:
: D'var Halacha
: The Bottom Line
...
: 2- If there is a dispute among the Poskim and there is no consensus,
: if the question is regarding a Torah prohibition, we are mandated to
: follow the stringent opinion. If the issue is regarding a Rabbinical
: prohibition, we are permitted to follow the lenient opinion.

Does this mean that R' Bess considers the unresolved machloqes to have
a din of safeiq?

Would he equate "azlinan basar rubah" with "kol deparish"? Why not
qavu'ah?

What about "ba'al nefesh yachmir" -- does he exclude its applicability
with dinim diRabbanan?

Vechulu...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I hear, then I forget; I see then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand. - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       On cannot compare hearing to seeing. - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          We will do and we will listen. - Israelites

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:44:20AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: #1: Chatasi, avisi, poshati l'fanecha, ani uveisi - I sinned: me and my
: family
: #2: Chatasi, avisi, poshati l'fanecha, ani uveisi uvnei Aharon am
: kedoshecha - I sinned: me and the kohanim
: #3: Chatu, avu, poshu l'fanecha, amcha beis Yisrael - They sinned, Your
: people Beis Yisrael
...
:     my main question is why he used the first person (I/we) for #2 and
: the the third person (they) for #3. Whatever the reason is for using
: "I/we" for #2, why was it changed to "they" for #3? And whatever the
: reason is for using "they" for #3, why was it changed to "I/we" for #2?

My guess:

The ikkar vidui for the tzibbur, for Qlal Yisrael in its entirety, is #3,
said on the se'ir.

The other two viduyim were to prepare the kohanim so that the shenei
se'irim could be brought by people who were tahor from cheit.

Therefore, the first two viduyim were said in the first person, as the
KG was included. However, the point of those viduyim was that the
kohein had nothing personally to be misvadeh by the time the se'ir
was brought; therefore he refers to the chote'im in the third
person.

Thoughts?

: My secondary question is why he uses singular verbs in #1 and #2. He is
: including others, so he ought to say "WE sinned". But that does not
: really bother me much; as leader of those families, perhaps he says "I"
: to take responsibility for their sins.

This I would guess would flow from your primary question. One can stress
one's own place in the community of sinners only when one actually is in
that community. IOW, when saying vidui in the first person, one ought
to stress "I", not "we". But in the third person, that's not an option.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I hear, then I forget; I see then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand. - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       On cannot compare hearing to seeing. - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          We will do and we will listen. - Israelites

<Actually, even in the time of the Rambam (see: Hilchot Tefilla
13:1) there were communities still on the three-year Torah reading
cycle.>

I have heard some people claim that the 3 year cyclw was to split 
each of our present sedrot in 3. Others deny it.
Does anyone know of any proofs beyond theories
-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 23/09/2002

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


[ 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         ]