Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 022

Tuesday, October 8 2002

• [Areivim] Psak and Smicha
• Re: [Areivim] Psak and Smicha
• Re: Psak and Smicha
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Rambam on Bilam's Prophecy
• reflections on the eighth month
• re: Avoiding mitzvos
• Re: travelling on Sukkot
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: reflections on the eighth month
• Re: Rambam on Bilam's Prophecy
• Looking for seifer
• Re: reflections on the eighth month
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• The Vaad
• Fwd: Re: [schochetfamily] Interesting Halacha?
• frummer than you - a meshugenner...)
• Re: Rambam on Bilam's Prophecy
• Re: air conitioning, kvius, and tzaar
• Re: [schochetfamily] Interesting Halacha?

[Women and pesaq, yet again. Came back up on Areivim, and now that people
are suggesting new angles, I'm moving the thread over to Avodah. -mi]

R' Harry Maryles writes:
>Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
>> From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
>>> RHM:

>>>> R' Harry Mayles wrote <<< I can almost even accept the concept of
>>>> an Orthodox female rabbi, in theory, as long as the resultant role 
>>>> would NOT be one of Posek but one of teacher.
>>> [non-musmechet women compared to non-musmach school rabbis] What
>>> difference would it make as long as she doesn't try and Paskin?
>> Why not?  Our current rabbonim are called "morei horaah", but using
>> that certification they paskin.  You don't need yadin yadin to tell a

>> So what Torah source, rather than communal prejudice, can you bring
>> to support your (and/or Harry's) attitude that women can call
>> themselves "Rabbi" as long as they don't try and Paskin?
 
> I think we need to define "Paskin". 

Indeed. This was discussed on Avodah some years back, and I don't recall
if we came to a conclusion.

Maybe we should move this back to Avodah?  I'll cc: it there, let Micha
decide.
 
> A woman is allowed to "Paskin" that you are not allowed to carry on
> Shabbos. What she may not do is Paskin a Shailo that requires

A woman is allowed to "Pasken" her own stains, based on experience.
So says R' Mordechai Eliahu in Darchei Tahara.  And that's something
we tend to leave to rabbonim of great experience.  

> significant knowledege of Shas and Poskim. For this we need to rely
> on Poskim. Eventhough Smicha gives one the right to be Morah Halacha
> on matters of Issur V'Heter as the title "Yoreh Yoreh" indictates...

AFAIK it gives one the right to teach during the lifetime of one's 
primary teacher (rebbi muvhak).  That's it.

> most of us, especially those of us who do not have pulpits, would not
> dare and tread on ground we are not familiar with and leave the
> Paskining to those who are more experienced and more qualified to do
> so. This is true for being Morah Halacha. As for innovation of new

Indeed.  Nobody would treat the yoatzot halacha as poskim, any more
than one would treat Joe Hecht, fresh out of Tomchei Temimim as a
posek.  The question is, if they keep up with the learning and training
for 20 years, and start writing innovative teshuvot, to what extent will
rejection of such teshuvot be based on the merits of the teshuvot them-
selves, and to what extent will it based on "it was written by icky
gurrls?"

> Halacha, the consensus is that we leave it to the Gedolei HaPoskim of
> the generation.

Which just begs the question.

What confers authority, by your description, is intense long-term
study.  Not the grant of a title.  In which case, what bars women
from the same course of study and apprenticeship?  You wouldn't go
to a guy whose klaf is still wet to judge a ketem, it's the shimush
that trains one to judge ketamim.  So again, it's not the title, it's
the experience and learning.
 
> Why is the ability to Paskin limited to men? Frankly, Im not sure. I
> think it is to a degree both Masoretic and sociological having to do
> with our desire to separate ourselves from the C and R movements.

But the C/R movements didn't ordain women until 20 years ago.  So 
that's not a real reason that means anything.  And what do we care
if they ordain women?  We don't regard their male rabbis as potential
poskim either.  Should we also stop ordaining men?

> This is an area that I am not that familiar with and will leave it to
> others here on the list more knowledgeable than I, to answer.

In other words, communal prejudice.  No Torah source that you know
of either, and you're a musmach.  And you don't know what the scope
or basis of your rabbinic authority is any more than the rest of us.

I'm not trying to cast blame or disrespect, but it is, it seems, a 
worthwhile topic to investigate: to what extent is rabbinic authority
genuine, the authority conferred by the klaf, and to what extent is
it smoke and mirrors?  What is different about a klaf-holder that gives
him greater authority to decide a legal question than an equally-well-
educated non-musmach?  Some of the guys I know who have dropped out of
the Lubavitch smicha program know far more Torah than others that I know
who have finished it and work in the field.  Having the klaf is not a
guarantee of a top-notch education.

       Jonathan Baker     |  Marches-wan, marches-two,
       jjbaker@panix.com  |  March the months all through and through
                Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>

On 7 Oct 2002 at 12:58, Micha Berger wrote:
>:> I think we need to define "Paskin". 
> 
>: Indeed. This was discussed on Avodah some years back, and I don't recall
>: if we came to a conclusion.
> 
> I think the only poseiq with a well-defined position was Rav Moshe:
> pesaq is okay, it's being in a leadership position where the woman
> imposes her decisions that the IM objected to.

IIRC Rav Henkin gave a definition during one of our discussions of 
the Yoatzot. From what I remember (bli neder will try to find it 
later), it had something to do with extrapolating from a case given 
in the Gemara/SA to real life which is considered psak and is not 
allowed. To read a s'if in SA is - according to Rav Henkin IIRC - not 
considered psak and allowed for a woman to do. 

I know that the issue of "paskening" is a very big part of the 
yoatzot training program and that Rav Henkin has said many times that 
the yoatzot do NOT pasken - questions of psak go to a Rav. And I 
don't think this is just a question of semantics. My impression is 
that they take it quite seriously. 

-- 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.

One can, perhaps, define pesak based on what one is not allowed to do in
front of one's rebbe.  See YD 242:7-10.

Gil Student

On 5 Oct 2002 at 20:05, Chana Luntz wrote:
> I think the fundamental difference between Hoshana Rabba and Sukkos is
> that if Hoshana Rabba fell on Shabbas, that year nobody would fulfil
> the mitzvah, and there is a legitimate fear that, if years went past
> without people performing the mitzvah, they would forget how to (see
> for example what happened when years went past since the last erev
> pesach fell on Shabbas, people forgot what to do).  That is very
> different from this case where the mitzvah will definitely be
> performed at least once (well actually, surely it is more than once,
> because there has to be at least one shabbas in the week, and that
> means three seudos, and the means three times in the sukkah).  

Maybe and maybe not. This year, for example, the first day of Sukkos 
was on Shabbos. Suppose it had rained. (This year, it didn't, but 
next year, with Succos much later, that is more likely to happen - 
admittedly there has been only one year since I came on aliya that we 
had serious rain on Succos). Would you still argue that I can avoid 
the mitzva. 

In the
> case of Rosh Hashana, the chachamim did not legislate so as to ensure
> that Rosh Hashana never fell on Shabbas, even though, on those years
> on which Rosh Hashana does fall on shabbas, the mitzvah of shofar is
> only performed once.

Would you argue that it's okay to go somewhere where there's no 
shofar for Rosh haShanna because someone else will be blowing it and 
therefore the mitzva won't be forgotten? Can I l'chatchila put myself 
in the position the Gemara describes of having to choose between 
tkiyas shofar and davening with a minyan? Why is that different from 
putting myself deliberately in the position of not being able to be 
m'kayem the mitzva of Succa. 

> If anything, I would think that the opposite might well be the case.
> One philosophical explanation for the halacha of tadir v'ano tadir,
> tadir kodem, is that, we are always very excited and keen about the
> rarer mitzvos, with a tendency to overlook and ignore the commoner
> ones (for exactly the reason you mentioned - oh well, I can always do
> it tomorrow, next week, next month). We therefore are instructed not
> to do what we would instinctively do, which is prioritise the ano
> tadir (such as Sukkah), but to put the tadir (such as benching) kodem.

Would you argue therefore that the entire year I should also bring 
myself to a chiyuv of bentching by eating bread at every meal? 

(I'm recalling a story that Rav Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin - whose 
halacha shiur I attended regularly in Har Nof - loves to tell about 
someone who took three hours to bentch and therefore never brought 
himself to a chiyuv of bentching except on Shabbos and Yom Tov. 
Unfortunately, I don't remember who it was). 

Moreover, maybe the mitzva of Succa has the bila rule - kol ha'rauy 
l'bila ain bila m'akeves. If I have a Succa available but I choose to 
drink water and eat dates and not eat in a Succa that's okay, but to 
put myself in a position where a Succa is not available where there 
is no reason to put myself in that position is wrong (Rav 
Lichtenstein) or assur (Rav Moshe). 

And then there's the sleeping issue.... 

-- Carl

In Moreh Nevuchim 2:45 Rambam writes that Bilam had ruach hakodesh and not
nevuah.  However, in 2:42 Rambam writes that the entire episode with the
talking donkey was a nevuah.  Is this a contradiction?  Does anyone talk
about it?

Gil Student

Since today is the first day of the eighth month, I would like to pose
the following questions. First, at what point in history did people
begin to drop the first two letters of the name of the eighth month
(which happen to have nothing to do with the absence of holidays in the
eighth month or with any invidious comparison to the previous month)?
Second, how long after people began dropping the first two letters of
the name of the eighth month did people start offering those bogus
rationalizations for dropping the first two letters of the name of
the eighth month? Third, how can we account for almost universal
misunderstanding of the name of the eighth month and its meaning?
Fourth, has the usage of talmidei hakhamim and gedolim in referring to
the eighth month been significantly different from that of the hamon am
(as reflected for instance in their references to dates in responsa)?
Fifth, what is the halakhic status of a document in which the name of the
eighth month is mistakenly rendered? Sixth, what are the implications
for the integrity of other oral traditions if one as simple as the name
of the eigth month has been corrupted?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

(Please note: I want to stress a point which should have been obvious
in the "shehakol outside the sukkah" but seems to have been forgotten:
We all agree that mitzvos are a good thing to do, even if they aren't
required. The point of discussion is the broad spectrum which begins just
*short* of "required to do it", and descends through "strongly advised"
and "a good idea" down to "totally optional".)

I wrote <<< But even those authorities do not denigrate a person who
simply does not exert himself to get such a beged.... >>>

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Interesting parallel. It presumes these mitzvos
being in the same class as shechitah, mitzvos that are mandatory matiros
some act. Would we have a problem with someone who avoids meat (say only
on yemei chol, to avoid side-issues) and thereby avoids shechitah? >>>

Wow. I didn't realize what my comment would lead to. It boggles my mind
that Sukkah would be considered merely a mattir to allow eating a seudas
keva during that week. But why not? Where is the border drawn? Where
is the line between tzitzis, which we are told to actively seek out,
and shechita, which does seem to be merely a mattir. Where does sukkah
fall in that spectrum?

What would we say about a person whose one and only reason for living with
his parents was to avoid the mitzvah of Mezuzah? Is that a mitzvah that
he should be chasing, or merely a mattir that he can legitimately avoid?

Pshat in Chumash shows that Mitzvas Shechita applies only if there is a
desire to eat meat. If one has no real desire to eat meat, then I don't
see any reason to go out of the way to get the mitzvah of Shechita by
*inventing* a desire for meat. (That's based only on the pesukim, of
course; I have no idea what the meforshim might say.)

I remember a number of years ago, when someone went to great effort to
do Pidyon Chamor. That would certainly be a great example of a mitzvah
which we are *not* instructed to chase after. Perhaps the line is drawn
based on how difficult the mitzvah is. Indeed, the ease with which one
can buy and wear a tallis katan is the *only* explanation I've ever heard
for why we are exhorted to chase it, despite its being a Kiyumis rather
than a Chiyuvis.

Somehow, I can't help suspecting that there really isn't any solid
halachic reason why someone should go out of his way to wear tzitzis,
and that it was really never more than a "public policy" pronouncement
to begin with. (Which is not to say that I have any objection at all to
public policy pronouncements; only that by failing to label it as such,
we have muddied the waters.)

Akiva Miller

I wrote:
>R' Mordechai Willig argues this position also in his 
>Am Mordechai (or perhaps it was in a Beis Yitzchak 
>article).

Beis Yitzchak 5758.

Gil Student

> Bepashtus one may dispute the authority and/or the majority status of
> the Agudas Harabbonim...
> So RMF can legitimately assert that the heter was a Taus gamur OTOH he
> should not assert that relying on this heter is a tuas for those that
> do.

I find these assertion rather amazing and totally unconvincing. We
are discussing the nature of the halachic process. I am presenting a
description of a recognized authority. In response you keep asserting
that he was wrong!? It would be helpful if you cited the basis for
asserting that Rav Moshe's conduct in this area violates the rules.

>I can show you many cases where poskim accepted post facto relying
> upon "shaky" heterim. And at least the conecpt of mutav sheyihyu shoggim
> should make sense in this case. Using a Microphone that is already on
> is not a d'oraysso AFAIK....

There is a major difference between "many cases where poskim accepted
post facto" and concluding that Rav Moshe was wrong not to accept it
in this case. You might have a legitimate point if you can show that in
this case of microphones - many major league poskim accepted the validity
of using microphones while Rav Moshe went against the tide. In fact
the opposite actually occured. Therefore if the vast majority of poskim
refused to accept microphones even post facto it would indicate that
your rule is either wrong or for some reason did not apply in this
particular case.

> Furthermore, are people to be condemned solely for relying upon a Psak
> that is a minority? Many k'hillos rely upon the heterim of their minhag
> - EG what about sukkah on Shmin Atzeres, etc. I do realize that Chilul
> Shabbos is a biggie, but let's remember that AFAIK microphone is not
> a d'oraisso.

There are many reasons for coming down hard on an innovation which is
viewed as drastically altering the halachic environment just as there are
reasons for ignoring changes when the protest will cause more darkness
than light.

> In fact I asked the Late R. Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg Z"L re: Mirophone.
> He told me that it was assure mishum hashmoas kol - a gzeira.

Did you ask him whether he felt Rav Moshe was wrong? BTW YD II #5
discusses the nature of the issur.

> I do realize that RMF as a Gadol felt the need to make a Macho'ah.
> But if one takes this line of reasoning literally, than we have a slippery
> slope of people relying upon kulos as mechaleli Shabbos. I would guess
> the Manhattan Eruv might be another case in point. I personally do not
> rely on that Eruv - except for the fact that I would not label anyone
> who DOES rely upon it as Mechallel Shabbos.

Again you are contrasting your halachic intution with that of Rav Moshe
and apparently asserting yours is better. If you could cite some geunine
sources that support your intuition it would be more helpful.

> I would have been more comfortable had RMF declared something like this:
> "No Yerei Shaomayim Nor any Shomer Mitzvos ought to rely upon the
> microphone heter because it is an inherently flawed heter and we must
> take steps to prevent this from becoming a popular practice"

I am not sure what your comfort has to do with the halachic process?

> Now you CAN argue that RMF - by declaring one a mechallel Shabbos -
> succeede in effecting this result. It's just that if that is indeed
> the case, somehow then the ends have now justified the means and we
> now have to live with a form of "halachic hyperbole" as normative. That
> means condemning people relying upon minority heterim can be labelled
> and discarded. I don't like it.

Again your likes and dislikes should not be the topic of discussion. What
sources do you have that Rav Moshe violated established canons of halachic
conduct in this case?

> Remember the Rambam who condemned the corporeality of HKBH and the
> Raavad's response that while he agrees with the Rambam's POV he conedes
> that SOME great people did not agree. OK we may not have GREAT people
> issuing the heter for microphones but again the stakes are lower AISI.

This is a straight forward halachic dispute as to whether heresy
indavertently arrived at makes the person a genuine apikorus. I don't
see what it has to do with your assertion that Rav Moshe overstepped
appropriate behavior in the case of the microphones. Please supply
citations that support your assertions.

                        Daniel Eidensohn

Avodah member Ari Z. wrote an article on the topic of Cheshvan-Marcheshvan
in last year's Jewish Action. I recommend it as a starting point for
most of the issues David addressed.

Raffy Davidovich

At 03:05 PM 10/7/02 -0400, Gil Student wrote:
>In Moreh Nevuchim 2:45 Rambam writes that Bilam had ruach hakodesh and not
>nevuah.  However, in 2:42 Rambam writes that the entire episode with the
>talking donkey was a nevuah.  Is this a contradiction?  Does anyone talk
>about it?

I do not think Manoach was a navi yet he saw malochim too, see the 
forthcoming Bigdei Shesh on Shoftim on the topic :-) .

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

RYGB suggests getting a copy of how to learn mussar spread around before
we attempt to learn mussar. Sounded reasonable, so...

Does anyone have a copy of Alei Shur cheilek beis or Kuntres Hadrachah
Lelimud Mussar?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
> Avodah member Ari Z. wrote an article on the topic of Cheshvan-Marcheshvan
> in last year's Jewish Action. I recommend it as a starting point for
> most of the issues David addressed.

It is available at:
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5761fall/LEGALEAS.PDF

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:05:20PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I think the fundamental difference between Hoshana Rabba and Sukkos is 
: that if Hoshana Rabba fell on Shabbas, that year nobody would fulfil the 
: mitzvah, and there is a legitimate fear that, if years went past without 
: people performing the mitzvah, they would forget how to...
:                              In the case of Rosh Hashana, the chachamim 
: did not legislate so as to ensure that Rosh Hashana never fell on 
: Shabbas, even though, on those years on which Rosh Hashana does fall on 
: shabbas, the mitzvah of shofar is only performed once.

: If anything, I would think that the opposite might well be the case. 
: One philosophical explanation for the halacha of tadir v'ano tadir, 
: tadir kodem, is that, we are always very excited and keen about the 
: rarer mitzvos, with a tendency to overlook and ignore the commoner ones 
: (for exactly the reason you mentioned - oh well, I can always do it 
: tomorrow, next week, next month). We therefore are instructed not to do 
: what we would instinctively do, which is prioritise the ano tadir (such 
: as Sukkah), but to put the tadir (such as benching) kodem.

OTOH, I would have made the opposite proposed ta'am:

Importance is the common cause for both frequency and qedimah. Shabbos
is more important. Therefore it comes more often than Sukkos. Andalso,
that is why Retzei precedes Ya'aleh veYavo.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

Appropos of the discussion about developing Vaadei Musar, I
made PDF copies of 3 pages from Tenuas HaMusar by Dov Katz
which give a brief overview of how the vaad was organized
and conducted itself in Kelm.

The pages are in hebrew, but it is not a difficult hebrew.
If the pages are blurry, you may need to set the
magnification lower.

The pages can be viewed at www.tzemachdovid.org/vaad.

Please email me if there are any problems viewing the
pages.

Kol Tuv,

Bennett

This was my post to a family list (the latter paragraph) and one of my
cousins' response. I guess I never closely looked at other people during
SE, but just goes to show one can go through forty years in blissful
ignorance of variations in minhagim! We were taught, of course, in
elementary school, that the klapping goes intrinsically with Selach Lanu.
Anyone know what the German minhag might be?

>See Tfiloh Kehilchosoh for several mekoros. See also Minhag Yisroel
>Torah. It's also part of minhogei Chabad. Not only on DAYS where we
>don't say tachnun, but any tefiloh where there is no tachnun(like
>maariv) there is no klapping.

> >Saw recently that RSZA would not "klap" by Selach Lanu on days when
> >one does not say tachanun. Anyone every heard this before?

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

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>  the Rashi (from the Midrash) in Mikeitz, "Veshom Itonu Naar Ivri...
> - Naar - Shoteh..."
> 
> The question is obvious. How could the Sar Hamashkim
> describe Yosef Hatzadik as a 'Shoteh'???
>>>>snip<<<<
> (Someone showed me that the SR z'l also asks the above questions
> and basically explains [as has been mentioned here previously]
> that many consider one who is frummer than themself - a meshugenner...)

I have now looked up the pshat of the SR - and - kedarko bakodesh
he brings a source from Chazal.

The gemoro in Sanhedrin 97a - says
"...Dor sh'Ben Dovid bo ...Vesor m'ra mishtolel...
(ie) Kol mi shesor m'ra - mishtolel al habriyos.."
Peirush Rashi -  Kol ho'olom omrim olov - shoteh hu.."

RY Kafah seemed to have noticed this problem in a footnote to MN 3:22.  To
the statement, "This is what Bilam also saw in a prophetic vision..." RYK
writes "Whose [prophetic vision]?" and cites 2:45 where Rambam writes that
Bilam only had ruach hakodesh.  RYK leaves this unresolved.

Also, Rambam in Hilchos Melachim 11:1 quotes a messianic prophecy of Bilam
with the preface "vesham niba."  RYK notes in a footnote that, according to
Rambam, Bilam was not a prophet and suggests that "vesham niba" is referring
to Moshe's prophesying (i.e. writing the Torah) and not Bilam's.

I also found that Prof. Alvin Reines noticed this issue in his English
translation of some of Abarbanel's commentary on MN (titled "Maimonides and
Abrabanel on Prophecy").  P. 158 n. 22: "Maimonides did not consider Balaam
a true prophet; his 'prophecy' was placed in the second degree, which is not
genuine prophecy.  However, the name 'prophet' could in an extended sense be
applied to Balaam. Cf. /Moreh/ II, 45 (the introduction to the degrees of
prophecy, and the second degree)."

The problem with this non-answer is that Rambam considers speaking to an
angel, which is what Bilam did, as the SIXTH level of prophecy (in MN 3:45).
How could Bilam do that if he only reached the second level (ruach
hakodesh)?

Perhaps Bilam was really intellectually capable of reaching the sixth level
of prophecy but HKBH in His wisdom chose to prevent Bilam from rising above
the second level.  However, for the incident of the donkey & angel HKBH
temporarily removed that block thereby allowing Bilam to reach the sixth
level.  See the Ramban's commentary to Bamidbar 22:31 where he says this
(albeit in his own framework of prophecy and not Rambam's).

As to other sources that say that Bilam was not a prophet, see the Ramban
cited above, Sanhedrin 106a at the bottom and Rashi there (as opposed to Yad
Ramah), Ibn Ezra to Bamidbar 22:28, and Akeidas Yitzchak at the beginning of
Balak.  The last source addresses the famous Sifrei that Bilam was the
"gentile equivalent" of Moshe and explains it differently than is normally
done.

Gil Student

Mishpachat Freedenberg wrote:
> It seems that you are misunderstanding what Sukkot is and is supposed to
> be.

I am trying to understand the definition of mitztaer and the (apparent)
shiur of teishvu k'ein taduru.

> but it is a bit sad that your joy of being in the sukka is dependent on
> everything being "perfect". There is so much to be joyful about while
> sitting in the sukkah, no matter the heat of the day.

The Rama says that someone who is mitztaer and nonetheless sits in the
sukkah is a fool (IIRC he uses the word hedyot, slightly different in
meaning but similar in force).  Are you saying that a joyful person does not
feel tzaar?

> A sukkah is NOT supposed to be "Effective Housing". It is supposed to be
> a temporary hut, rather flimsy and not too tall [but not too short] that
> we don't even put a mezuzah on due to its temporary usage. One of the
> reasons we go "out into the sukkah" is to remind ourselves that the
> walls of our home that seem so sturdy are but an illusion, as it is
> really Hashem who shelters us in truth. We can derive comfort from the
> joy of the mitzvah,

So why is there a ptur of mitztaer?

> the joy that comes from the chag that is zman
> simchateinu, and joy from the fact that we are off work for a week
> [well, at least those of us here in Israel] to hang out in our sukkah.

These are true even indoors.

> Do you remember learning the medrash that at the
> end of days the goyim will come to Hashem and ta'aneh that it wasn't
> fair that we get rewarded -- if they had mitzvos like the Jews did then
> they could have been just as good as us. Hashem then gives them the
> relatively easy mitzva of sukka and when they go into the sukkah Hashem
> makes it very hot and the goyim leave the sukkah, kicking it on the way
> out.

The baalei mussar (or is it in the gemara; I'm away from home and can't
check right now) all say that the problem is the kicking, not the leaving,
since if the sukkah is too hot they are patur.

> Again, the sukkah is supposed to be breezy and a bit flimsy

I would love to see a halachic source saying this.  Is sturdiness a psul in
sukka?

> I am quite sure that homes were always more comfortable than sukkot
> during the last thousand or so years ....   Sukkah is a mitzva that is
> perfectly suited to the
> climate in Eretz Yisrael, with its hot days and beautiful, cool nights.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Perhaps you could
explain further.

David Riceman

In a message dated 10/08/2002 10:13:00 AM EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> >See Tfiloh Kehilchosoh for several mekoros. See also Minhag Yisroel
> >Torah. It's also part of minhogei Chabad. Not only on DAYS where we
> >don't say tachnun, but any tefiloh where there is no tachnun(like
> >maariv) there is no klapping.

> > >Saw recently that RSZA would not "klap" by Selach Lanu on days when
> > >one does not say tachanun. Anyone every heard this before?

FWIW, I would have called the thread "Interesting Minhag". Halacha is
probably too strong a word for this issue.

In any case, based on what I've read, this has only been the "official"
minhag in Chabad since 1950 or so, although it might have been the
practice in the town of Lubavitch. or among the Chabad Rebbeim.
Since 1994, (in Chabad circles) there has been a renewed interest in
the year following the death of Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe (RYYS),
when there was no Rebbe.

RMMS spoke in the shiva house a number of times, telling a number of
stories about and hanhagos of his father-in-law. One of those hanhagos
was that he (RYYS) didn't klap for Selach Lonu when Tachanun wasn't said.

Raffy Davidovich

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


[ 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         ]