Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 018

Wednesday, October 2 2002

• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: naar--naarah
• RYBS and Mussar
• Re: RYBS and Mussar
• Re: Oseh hashalom
• Re: Oseh hashalom
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Kiddush on Leyl Simchat Torah
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• re: Garbage Removal on Simchas Torah
• Re: Birchat kohanim/hoshanot/ naanuim
• Re: Bowing during the Avodas Yom Kippur
• Re: travelling on Sukkot
• kiddush-havdalah candle
• Re: RYBS and Mussar
• Re: RYBS, RYGB, and Mussar
• Re: RYBS and Mussar
• RE: Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• RE: Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane

Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
>On 1 Oct 2002 at 10:40, Gil Student wrote:
>> Maybe not you.  But I know plenty of people who go to the Bronx Zoo on a
>> Sunday and bring food sandwiches with them.  Suddenly comes Chol HaMoed and
>> I'm not allowed to bring sandwiches along with me (FWIW, I brought yogurt
>> but not because I thought I could not bring a sandwich)?

>But given the option, why not just bring the yogurt and avoid the
>issue?

How is that better? Are you not thereby being mevatel the d'orisa
mitzvah of benching in precisely the same way as those being discussed
use travelling to avail themselves of the ptur relating to sukkah,
or wearing non four cornered garments to avail themselves of the ptur
relating to tzitzis?

If anything, is it not worse (assuming that, unlike R Gil, you really
feel like sandwiches rather than yogurt)?

Regards
Chana Luntz

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
> In three instances in Chumash (story with Rivka in Bereshit
> 24:14,16,28,66; story with Dina in Bereshit 34:3,12; ...
> the word NAARA is spelled NAAR. ...there is nothing
> mentioned why with Rivka and Dina the word is spelled chaser.

I do not remember where I heard it, but I heard somewhere that Rivka
and Dina were physically similar to males in that bederech hateva they
were not able to bear children. In addition, Dina actually was meant
to be a boy. (Not heard in a shiur, but my own addition: there are
occasionally children born who are genetically male--XY-- but their
outward physical characteristics are female. These children are usually
raised female, but are barren. Sometimes they are very tomboyish in their
behavior--reminiscent of Dina, the "yotsanit." On the other hand, she
was beautiful, and these children of ambiguous gender generally are not.)
(My apologies to anyone who takes exception to my assumption that genes
influence personality.)

Toby Katz

Some snippets from R' Rakeffet's talks on the Rav (from my website):

(From the lecture "The Rav and tradition")

The Rav  had great respect for  women.   A hesped for  the Talner
Rebbetzin (published in 1978 in Tradition):  the father is a king
teacher,  the  mother is a saint  teacher.   What is  Torat Imcha
(Prov.   8)?    One  learns  how  to  read,   to  interpret,   to
conceptualize and analyze,  the discipline of thought and action,
that is, mussar.   Torat Imcha is seeing the holiness of the day,
of  reciting  prayers,  the  order  of  things on  Friday  night.
Judaism expresses itself  as a living experience,   the scent and
texture of  mitzvot.   One sees the  Shabbat as a  living entity,
gained  from the  mother.    The father  teaches  how to  observe
Shabbat, the mother how to greet and enjoy its 24-hour presence.
 
                              _____

(From the lecture "Stories told by the Rav")
 
In the 1840's there arose the  Mussar Movement,  with Rav Yisrael
Salanter  and others.    There was  great  opposition to  Mussar,
especially from Rabbi Isaac Elchanan in Grodno, and from Volozhin
Yeshiva.  In 1896, the Slabodka Yeshiva split in a revolt against
Mussar.    What's wrong  with  Mussar?   Its  main  method is  to
frighten  people to  death  to  improve their  attributes.    The
Halachic Man recoils from this.   When Mussar changed later to an
emphasis  on bringing  out  how good  man can  be,   then it  was
accepted.
                              _____
 
  Jonathan Baker     |  Ksivechsimetoiveh!
  jjbaker@panix.com  |  (It's a contraction, like Shkoiech, or Brshmo)
  Webpage: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
                 

In a message dated 10/01/2002 5:28:45 PM EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> From RALichtenstein's shiur ...  I expect that RYBS would say that
> the mitzvos are merely examples of proper behavior (after all, Hashem
> could list every single action a person should take, so He just gave
> 613 examples) and that one uses the mitzvos to extrapolate to other
> situations.
 
This is exactly what R'Ziegler at Gush IIRC taught as to how R'YBS
developed his overall philosophy.

KT
Joel Rich

Herschel Ainspan <ainspan@watson.ibm.com> noted:
>Siddur Otzar haT'filos says that the original nusah was oseh hashalom
>year-round.

As the hatima for Sim Shalom, or in Oseh shalom bimeromav?

---------------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:17:03PM +0300, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
:> Siddur Otzar haT'filos says that the original nusah was oseh hashalom
:> year-round.

: As the hatima for Sim Shalom, or in Oseh shalom bimeromav?

As the chasimah for birkhas Shalom.

-mi

In a message dated 9/25/2002 11:25:57am EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> "The unique
> relationship between G-d and Israel guarantees that we will always be
> able to ascertain His will... This relationship also guarantees that
> collectively Israel will always obey G-d's will in the long run..." That
> is, HaShem will make things work out so that the opinions which *are*
> beyond the pale will never gain popular acceptance.

> But if so, then how do I explain the continued existence of real
> communities of Samaritans and Karaites, even after centuries and millenia?

I struggle with this all the time

Here is how I see it.

The Torah Community is self-defined and self-contained

BUT

God might have the leigitamte need for other commujniteis to exist.
The facts are that Karaites and Christians are not seen as Jewish by
almost all Jews and even by themselves to a great extent. Rather they
have evolved to be separate

So God protects the Torah community by a slective process, but He
obviously has use for these communites to exist somehow elsewhere.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 10/1/2002 12:15:46pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: But does such a community exist? Perhaps this is what Rav Aryeh Kaplan
>: meant when he wrote (Handbook of Jewish Thought, 12:6-7) "The unique
>: relationship between G-d and Israel guarantees that we will always be
>: able to ascertain His will... This relationship also guarantees that
>: collectively Israel will always obey G-d's will in the long run..." ...

> "She'eiris Yisra'el lo ya'asu avla."
<snip>

There is more than mystical magic here

Ultimately there is peer review. You can fool a khillah or even a Gadol or
2 but you cannot perpetually fool all rabbanom and communites over time.

There are practices that have ignored continual protests by some poskim -
one is the avoidance of Sukkah on Shimni Atzeres. There have always been
poskim that have decried this lack of compliance. That is the macha'ah
that proves my point; i,e, Lacking just such a protest, enables one to
rely upon the consensus.

[Email #3. -mi]

In a message dated 9/20/2002 2:00:56pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> C is doubly non-observant: they neither make following halachah without
> redefining the term an ideal, nor do the masses observe their redefined
> version.
...
> 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.
...
>: 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?

By your reasoning any rabbi that devieates from a given "NORM"
Such as Bavli or Shulchan Aruch 
is by defintion non-Observant too

And many C rabbis will point out that O rabbis have stepped on many rules and 
therefore they are not Observant etc., and therefore O's use circular 
reasoning too

[Email #4. -mi]

addenda
you can argue that any rabbi that does not sit in the Sukka on Shmini
Atzeres is ipso facto non-observant

Or why not argue that R. Moshe's psak re: not burying on YomTov when
the TB and the SA clearly require it as being a Non-Orthodox psak?

[Email #5. -mi]

In a message dated 10/1/2002 4:22:19pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> We have a lot of history buffs here. Can someone take an example from
> the past (it doesn't have to be Mayim Acharonim; there are many others)
> and give a detailed explanation of the processes by which a community
> dropped it?

BTW, Do you mean "frum" community or any community?

Here there are several examples of Gzeiros or other Halachos that the TB
indicates are in force but have been virtually "nulllfied" in many circles:
1) Dancing/Clappping on Shabbos/YomTov
2) Being mitztareif Women in a zimun
4) Duchaning daily
5) Sitting in the Sukkah on Shimini Atzeres
6) Burying on YomTov - especially YomTov Sheini
  

The process of "dropping it" is itself quite controversial
Model 1) Circumstances changed and the underlying Halachah is no longer
applicable

Model 2) Some Communities were NEVER noheig like the Bavli due to other
sources, Masoros or subsequent psakkim/takkaons/Gazeiros.

In the case of Model 2, you might reasearch and find that sources
tried to show that #1 was also true, that in effect there was no reason
to begin the process of observing since the original gzeira was sort of
obsolete anyway. This is how I explain something like Chalav Hacompanies
in the USA.

Model 3) New Gzeiros overrode circumstances. EG too much chillul
YomtTov led to ignoring the original din of burying on Yom Tov

Some Halachos are still on the books but rarely strictly enforced

EG Suicides are nowadays almost always gives the benefit of the doubt
re: burial

Rambam in a Tshuva felt that too much talking during Chazras Hashatz
made it a good idea to dispense with it

Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I quoted Rav Aryeh Kaplan, and R' Micha Berger summed it up: <<<
"She'eiris Yisra'el lo ya'asu avla." IIUC, you're saying that after
significant time, we couldn't determine which kehillos are within the
4 amos of halachah and which not, but fortunately HQBH (via history)
answers the question for us. >>>

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

<<< I am asserting that there is halachic process, that results obtained
by means other than that process is recognizable. If not in some absolute
way, it's still a matter about which a poseiq can rule upon for his
community. >>>

Yes indeed. And here we are in this thread, trying to recognize and
define that process, and winnow out the differences which separate the
Samaritans and Karaites from the Mayim Acharonim and Megilas Taanis.
OTOH, I think we'll all (pretty much) agree that (to paraphrase Justice
Stewart), "we know it when we see it".

Akiva Miller

The minhag in the place where I davened on the night of Simchat Torah
(in chutz la'aretz, Yom Tov Sheini shel Galuyot) has the minhag that the
gabbai makes kiddush after the first hakafa (and this year, havdala as
well), after which people eat mezonot and drink beverages. This is done,
presumably because hakafot are not over until after 11 PM and people get
very hungry and thirsty in the meantime. Does anyone know of a halachic
source for this practice? Most of the people did not eat their Yom Tov
seudah at the location of hakafot. So it comes down to (I think): can
we apply the heter of kiddush bemakom seudah with mezonos and not bread
(that is used by many on Shabbos day) to a derabanan yom tov for the
kiddush at night?

A related follow up issue that may or may not depend on the answer to the
first question: When people go to eat their meals after hakafot are over,
and everyone at the meal heard kiddush and ate a kezayit of mezonot,
is there any reason to say kiddush again? For example, if the answer to
the first question is that people were really not yotzei with the kiddush
that they heard at hakafot, were they yotzei kiddush b'dieved (since it
is derabanan kiddush - unlike shabbos - and also safek berachot lehakel)
and therefore should not make kiddush again? Or maybe they were not yotzei
at all and should make kiddush again? (but presumably not shehechayanu
and havdala). Sources and teshuvot would be appreciated.

Yaakov Ellis

On 1 Oct 2002 at 21:49, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> But given the option, why not just bring the yogurt and avoid the
>> issue?

> How is that better?  Are you not thereby being mevatel the d'orisa
> mitzvah of benching in precisely the same way as those being discussed
> use travelling to avail themselves of the ptur relating to sukkah, or
> wearing non four cornered garments to avail themselves of the ptur
> relating to tzitzis?

Nope. The d'oraisa of bentching is only if you're full. The Gemara 
says that being makpid on k'zayis and k'beitza is a chumra. Eating a 
sandwich doesn't necessarily make bentching a d'oraisa in any event. 

> If anything, is it not worse (assuming that, unlike R Gil, you really
> feel like sandwiches rather than yogurt)?

Why would it be worse? Am I restricted to eating the thing I want to 
eat the most? (By the way, on Pesach tiyulim, we usually do take 
Matza and cold cuts :-).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

R' Gil Student wrote <<< I apologize for being unclear. I was thinking of
candy wrappers and potato chip bags that contained food bein hashmashos
and are not muktzah. >>>

R' Daniel Wells objected <<< Unless you designated a use for them before
Shabbos, yes they are muktzeh once the food inside them is finished. ...
[and] once it is in the garbage can unless its gref shel rei you can
not move it. >>>

I was very surprised to see this, and I looked for sources with which
to refute it. Instead, the first place I looked (R' Bodner's "Halachos
of Muktza", pp. 86-90) would seem(*) to say that R' Wells is indeed
correct, unless these empty wrappers still have some sort of use. And
even if they do have a use, on Yom Tov the halachos of Nolad might make
it muktzeh if it's a different use than previously.

(* I wrote "seem" because R' Bodner does not bring the exact example
of torn wrappers, but I think it is comparable to what he writes about
torn clothing or broken dishes. I would also suggest that an empty but
UNtorn potato chip bag is still useful and does not become muktzeh until
it is discarded.)

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 9/27/2002 2:55:29pm EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> 1. What is the halachik principle that is employed to determine when
> a change in minhag is permissible(why isn't it a neder brabbim type
> situation?)
> 2. Isn't having 2 different minhagim for chol vs. yom tov problematic
> (not exactly tartei dsatrei but along those lines)

This deserves a long dissertation
Breifly AISI you need to see the QUALITY of the Minhag. Is it a minhag
that pre-dates Rishonim {IOW so-called Minhag Ashkenaz Kadomn} or is it
a later Minhag?

Does changing the minhag violate a deeply-rooted principle or is the
case more flexible?

For example moving Hoshanos from Mussaf to Shacharis might only do minor
damage to the Minhag, as opposed to omitting Hoshaons completely which
would be construed as a more serious offense

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 10/1/2002 4:22:28pm EDT, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> Arie Folger wrote:
>> I also saw something strange: the ba'al mussaf, a Vizhnitzer 'hoosid, did not
>> crouch when doing his hishta'havayah, but rather layed down flat, a more
>> literal form of pishut yadayim veraglayim. ...

> R' Hershel Schachter does this also.

IIRC pishut mamash was done in the mikdash and we davka do something a
bit less, but I do not recall sources or why

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Granted that the Mishna and everyone else praises one who will not even
drink water outside of the sukkah.

But I often wonder why this does not contravene the idea of Tayshvu k'Eyn
Taduru. I seem to recall hearing that TkET is one reason (among others)
for why the one who goes to the sukkah even in the rain is called a
chassid shoteh -- because only a fool would leave his dry dining room
to eat in a rainy kitchen.

So why do we praise the fool who is thirsty, but refrains from a drink
of water (or a k'beitzah or smaller sandwich, for that matter) simply
because he is not at "home"?

Akiva Miller

I can understand the reluctance of some of our chevra to temporarily place
two candles (or a candle and a splint) together to create a temporary
avukah on a Yom Tov which falls out on a Motza'ei Shabbat, as this year.
I don't know that there is an issur involved, but it does not seem very
yomtovdig.. [By the way, the chemistry of the candle flame that was cited
is so simplified as to be largely incorrect - a common error in relying
on anonymous websites for technical information.] However, why has no
one mentioned the alternative of using a previously lit incandescent
bulb for this purpose? I clearly remember being taught in yeshiva that
Harav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky held that an electric bulb was an avukah
and usable for havdalah. Does anyone hold that a simple candle flame is
superior to a light bulb for havdalah?

If one wished to prepare a proper short-term avukah for such occasions,
one could stick a number of small Chanukah or birthday candles in
an appropriate holder and light the entire mass. [Try this out first
before Yom Tov in order to prevent any surprises, and be sure to catch
the drippings on a ceramic or metal plate]

Yitzchok 

On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 03:15:54PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: Maybe that's where RYBS stood on Mussar in general: Mussar is unnecessary
: because the lessons of Mussar are inherent in Talmud itself, and can be
: gleaned and applied through a strictly analytical approach to the Law."

RMB:
>That is Brisk in general. In fact, I've had rabbeim who were students
>of RYBS question whether there is a Jewish ethos beyond the rules of
>halachah. ...
>I have no idea what someone on that derekh does with obligations like
>"qedoshim tihyu" -- "qadeish as atzmekha bemah shemutar lakh". Or the
>issur of neveilus birshus haTorah. Both presume a definition of right
>and wrong that underly and at times go beyond the letter of halachah.

Yet our rich Talmud includes din, lifnim m'shuras ha-din and midas
chassidus. Mishlei also incorporates value judgments such as laziness and
drunkenness etc. without leaving the pristine world of Torah. Halacha is,
in fact, pretty broad. Hovos ha-Levavos claims he is writing a halacha
sefer. hafoch bah d'kula bah.

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 10/1/02 2:32:04 PM, Micha Berger writes:
> I've had rabbeim who were students
> of RYBS question whether there is a Jewish ethos beyond the rules of
> halachah....

RYBS wasn't constrained by the letter of halacha. He would've said that
chiddush itself -- i.e., in his formulation, "creative interpretation,"
goes beyond the mere letter of halacha. But he couldn't imagine a mussar
that is truly apart from halacha.

With due respect to RYGB, who is truly an expert on the subject, I
wouldn't call RYBS as an "arch anti-Mussarist." An arch anti-Chassid,
maybe -- and maybe that's the point RYGB was really making. To
RYBS, mussar detached from logic couldn't exist within halacha. To
semi-chassidishe mussarists like RYGB, mussar that is bound by pure
logic cannot exist within the heart.

David Finch

At 05:43 PM 10/1/02 -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>Some snippets from R' Rakeffet's talks on the Rav (from my website):
>(From the lecture "The Rav and tradition")
...
>Judaism expresses itself  as a living experience,   the scent and
>texture of  mitzvot.   One sees the  Shabbat as a  living entity,
>gained  from the  mother.    The father  teaches  how to  observe
>Shabbat, the mother how to greet and enjoy its 24-hour presence.
>                               _____
>(From the lecture "Stories told by the Rav")
>       ... What's wrong  with  Mussar?   Its  main  method is  to
>frighten  people to  death  to  improve their  attributes.    The
>Halachic Man recoils from this.   When Mussar changed later to an
>emphasis  on bringing  out  how good  man can  be,   then it  was
>accepted.

These are great examples of why it is odious to define Mussar on the
basis of RYBS. His attitude towards Mussar is utterly patronizing,
classic - unfortunate - narrowminded Brisk.

KT,
YGB

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> I think the point was that there are lots of ways to go on a tiyul or 
> to "see nature" without giving up the mitzva of Succah. This is all 
> the more so in Israel, as R. Lichtenstein points out. I'll bet if you 
> asked R. Faivel Cohen whether you can decide to go to Great Adventure 
> davka on one of the days that they don't have a Succah, he'd give you 
> a nice mussar shmooze. 

Exactly RAL's view (in http://www.vbm-torah.org/sukkot/suk-ral.htm),
but not RMFeinstein's view. IOW, RAL believes that it is halachically
permissible to go on a tiyul, but in many cases would constitute something
close to naval b'rshus hatorah. RMF believes that it is halachically
assur to go, and RAL disagrees:
<<In Iggerot Moshe OC II:93, Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l suggests that a
pleasure trip would not be included in the traveler's exemption from a
sukka. This inference seems difficult to me. It also seems that Rav Moshe
would agree in the case under discussion: an educational trip organized
for a youth group is surely no less permissible than a business trip.>>

In the case of Great Adventure, given the fact that there is a Succah day,
if a person davka chooses to go on a non-succah day, he deserves a nice
mussar schmooze. But if he were incapable of going on the Succah day,
then he doesn't deserve such a schmooze.

> I think that RMF was trying to avoid the slippery slope of saying 
> that anytime one wants to go on a tiyul on Succos, they should just 
> go and forsake the mitzva.

But then RMF shouldn't have pronounced a halachic issur, but have taken
RAL's approach:
<<Up until now we spoke from a purely and exclusively halakhic vantage
point. However, on a practical level the matter seems radically
different.

One should be firmly and sharply opposed - both educationally and from
the perspective of Jewish beliefs and values - to tiyulim or activities
organized in a way that involves not observing the mitzva of sukka. >>

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
>> [Moshe:] I would also add a practical note: many 
>> employees have a limited number of vacation days, and often have to choose
>> between spending them going on a "real" vacation and taking off for chol
>> hamoed. Some rabbanim permit taking the "real" vacation if the employee
>> feels it's necessary for his well being, even though the person then is
>> forced to work on chol hamoed (because losing a job is davar ha'aved).

> That doesn't turn a vacation into a mitzva. 

Again, RAL doesn't require that you perform a mitzvah, just RMF.

>> An employee might choose to go on a "real" vacation on chol hamoed even
>> if that means forgoing a sukkah (because this allows him to fulfill the
>> deoraisa of not working on chol hamoed) as opposed to going on a real
>> vacation during the summer and eating in a succah near his workplace.

> I question what lesson this teaches one's children - let alone what 
> it says about one's kiyum ha'mitzvos. 

1. Message to children: explain the halachic inyan of not working on
chol hamoed
2. It says quite a lot about one's kiyum hamitzvos if the alternative
is to go on a summer vacation and work on chol hamoed. In America,
choosing to schedule your only vacation for chol hamoed is a sacrifice
(because that often limits where you can go on vacation).

It's true that someone could argue that I could spend all my vacations
going to heimish places with Succos. But if I don't recharge my batteries
that way, but do recharge them via a rough hike in New Hampshire, should
I then choose to vacation during the summer and work on chol hamoed?
(All this is theoretical: in reality, my wife and I haven't gone on a
real vacation--other than to visit E"Y--in years. But we can't wait
until our children are old enough for us to resume our hiking activities.)

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> I would not question whether one should take vacation when it is 
> available during Chol HaMoed - obviously one who can, should. But not 
> at the cost of not fulfilling the mitzva of Succah. (It is possible 
> to take vacation and stay home too. Again, there is no mitzva to 
> travel on vacation, with the possible exception of walking in Eretz 
> Yisrael). 

See my previous post. The choice is between taking a real vacation on
chol hamoed vs. taking it during the summer and working on chol hamoed
(no doubt eating one's bagged lunch in succah near work!).

> [RGS:] The mitzvah is not just to eat
>> in the sukkah (or to eat and sleep in the sukkah) but to live in the
>> sukkah and that allows leaving the sukkah just like one leaves one's
>> house.

> See both Rav Moshe and Rav Lichtenstein on that one. 

RAL agrees with RGS on technical grounds. He just says that in E"Y,
youth groups--with sufficient effort--should be able to arrange for succos
for tiyulim, and if they don't make such an effort, they are close to
naval b'rshus hatorah. In America, those traveling to New Hampshire
may find it more difficult. (Of course, now with the "pop-up succah"
there's less of an excuse.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 2 Oct 2002 at 12:04, Feldman, Mark wrote:

>>> An employee might choose to go on a "real" vacation on chol hamoed even if
>>> that means forgoing a sukkah (because this allows him to fulfill the deoraisa
>>> of not working on chol hamoed) as opposed to going on a real vacation during
>>> the summer and eating in a succah near his workplace.
>> 
>> I question what lesson this teaches one's children - let alone what
>> it says about one's kiyum ha'mitzvos. 
> 
> 1.  Message to children: explain the halachic inyan of not working on
> chol hamoed 

Only if you take off EVERY Chol HaMoed unless you have a demonstrable 
davar ha'aveid (not - this year I'll use my vacation for Chol HaMoed 
and next year I'll use it in August). 

2.  It says quite a lot about one's kiyum hamitzvos if the
> alternative is to go on a summer vacation and work on chol hamoed.  In
> America, choosing to schedule your only vacation for chol hamoed is a
> sacrifice (because that often limits where you can go on vacation).

I didn't say it wasn't. It is here too if you wanted to go to chu"l. 
 
> It's true that someone could argue that I could spend all my vacations
> going to heimish places with Succos.  But if I don't recharge my
> batteries that way, but do recharge them via a rough hike in New
> Hampshire, should I then choose to vacation during the summer and work
> on chol hamoed?  

Where's the mitzva? 

> (All this is theoretical: in reality, my wife and I
> haven't gone on a real vacation--other than to visit E"Y--in years. 
> But we can't wait until our children are old enough for us to resume
> our hiking activities.)

We were like that as well until we made aliya. But since we have been 
here, we have done many hikes with kids in backpacks and snugglies. 
Unfortunately, once they get old enough to go on real tiyulim they 
would often rather go with their friends than with you.... 

-- Carl

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


[ 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         ]