Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 066

Friday, June 9 2006

• Re: me'ein hachasima
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• Re: eruv tavshilin
• Re: eruv tavshilin
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• Re:: me'ein hachasima
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• RE: me'ein hachasima
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• nevuah in Hebrew
• RE: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• me'ein hachasima - maariv arovim
• Re:: me'ein hachasima
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Pre-Ge'ulah: VeHeiShiv Lev Avot Al Banim

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:37:37PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

> We say that He is "H' Tzevakos" because He is "ma'avir yom umeivi laylah,
> umavdil..." Isn't that me'ein "hama'ariv aravim"?

Arvach arva tzarich;  please explain what you mean.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

If you're referring to "Kel chai vekayam", that is precisely why the
Abudraham (and reportedly the Arizal) said not to say it, and why it is
accordingly not found in some nuschaot, e.g. Chabad and Temani (Shami).

The same consideration applies to "or chadash" and "Tzur Yisrael".

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:14:02PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Arvach arva tzarich;  please explain what you mean.

umavdil bein yom uvein laylah -- ma'ariv aravim brings that critical
    havdalah
"H' Tzevakos" shemo -- H' has multitude of servants, each with its own
    role. He is Hashem Tzevakos because he has a yom and a laylah, which he
    accomplishes by His being ma'avir yom umeivi laylah.
But the whole sentence comes back to Hashem bringing the evening.

The question becomes what's the ikkar of the berakhah. The Avudraham
says it's literal evening, and starts the chasimah here. However, it
if it about "evenings" in our history, periods in which we must maintain
emunah even as the hesteir gets more intense, then it makes sense to
continue:

Kel Chai veQayam tamid yimlokh aleinu le'olam va'ed -- because even
    hesteir panim is Hashem choosing concealment. Thus everything,
    even His decision not to spare us an Eli Weiselian "Night", can be
    accepted as an expression of his melukhah.

I apologize for forgetting who says that it's both primarily about hesteir
panim and includes "Kel Chaim veqayam". If I had names for both sides,
my assertion that the two are really one machloqes would come across
far stronger.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> (The connection to Shavuos is the lo BEDU Pesach rules out the possibility
> of this happening on Pesach, and lo ADU Rosh rules out Sukkos. If my
> math is correct, it means that in EY, eiruv tavshilin would only come
> up on Shavuos or Shemini Atzeres.)

ET comes up in EY when Shevii Shel Pesach, Shavuot, or the 2nd day of
Rosh Hashana fall on a Friday.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> (The connection to Shavuos is the lo BEDU Pesach rules out the
> possibility of this happening on Pesach, and lo ADU Rosh rules
> out Sukkos. If my math is correct, it means that in EY, eiruv
> tavshilin would only come up on Shavuos or Shemini Atzeres.)

I believe not Shemini `Atzeres, but rather Shevi`i shel Pesach. Also Rosh
Hashanah, though it's the 2nd day that would be on Friday.

As for the original question, I haven't researched this properly,
so my conjecture should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt,
but I would guess that non-melakhah preparations for Shabbos, such as
setting the table, might be permitted even without an `eruv tavshilin.
The time for the performance of the mitzvah of kevod Shabbos is really
on erev Shabbos. The idea is that when Shabbos comes in, there should
already be a set table, a made bed, etc. Thus, setting the table
for Shabbos is actually attending to the needs of Friday, and is not
exclusively hachanah for after yom tov.

 -D.C.

R' Gershon Dubin asked:
> Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

R' Micha Berger answered:
> "ma'avir yom umeivi laylah, umavdil..."

I imagine that the problem bothering RGD is probably the "extra" sentence
("Keil chai ve-kayam...") between that and the chasimah. I seem to
recall that the Chabad nusach (maybe others, too; I don't know offhand)
omits this sentence, presumably due to this concern.

IIRC, there was a similar machlokes ha-ge'onim regarding the sentence
of "or chadash..." in the morning berakhah of "yotzeir ha-me'oros."
I think that R' Sa`adyah Ga'on omitted it, not just because of "me-`ein
ha-chasimah samukh la-chasimah" concerns (which the rest of his siddur
suggests that he did not interpret as strictly as we do), but because
it doesn't fit with the theme of the berakhah at all.

I wonder if there's a reason that these 2 parallel berakhos both have an
"extra" sentence after what would have been a more natural conclusion,
and both of those extra sentences serve to look toward the future.

 -D.C.

Re: me'ein chatima in maariv aravim.
Methinks you wouldn't ask the question if you had looked in a Sefaradi
or Chabad siddur, among others, where the added statement or bakasha,
El hai.....tamid yimlokh aleinu.. is omitted. The ending, umavdil bein
yom uvein laila... is then the desired me'ein hatima.

k"t,
David 

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The question becomes what's the ikkar of the berakhah. The Avudraham says
> it's literal evening, and starts the chasimah here. However, it if it
> about "evenings" in our history, periods in which we must maintain emunah
> even as the hesteir gets more intense, then it makes sense to continue:

The Levush gives the metaphorical approach; the Avudraham takes it out.
I was looking for more.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

Answer:  U'Mavdil Bein Yom Uvein Layla, Hashem Tzeva-os Shemo.

Obvious Follow-up Question: Nusach Ashkenaz adds a line: E-l Chai
v'Kayam...Vos epes?!

Ta-Shma-ian and Obvious Answer: Minhag Ashkenaz was not concerned with that
rule of the Bavli in Arvei Pesachim and often ignored it. Perhaps their
Baalei Tefilla and pre-Siddur Chazanim did not have that mesora.

Observation:  In addition to the various Kabbalistic changes the Baal
HaTanya made to his siddur, several of the other changes involve his
application of me'ein hachasima when Nusach Ashkenaz ignores it.

Raffy Davidovich

From: "Steg Belsky" <draqonfayir@juno.com>
> Except for those parts of Tanakh, including much of Daniyel, that are 
> in Aramaic.
> But Daniyel wasn't a prophet, so... is there a nafqa mina?

Jer. 10:11.

David Riceman

was the nevuah of Hashem to Bilaam in Hebrew?
Are the words in the Torah the actual words that Bilaam used?

 -- 
Eli Turkel

On June 7, 2006, Steg Belsky wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:44:15 -0400GMT, RSC wrote:
>> I can't imagine anything different because all of Tanach is in Hebrew and
>> Chazal make countless diyukim/drashos based on the etymology of Tanach.

> Except for those parts of Tanakh, including much of Daniyel, that are
> in Aramaic.

I meant most of Tanach and my point was that the Navi actually heard
the words he (or someone else in the future) subsequently transcribed
(regardless of what language they were said in) but they may have required
some interpretation by him. This makes the ability of being midayek in
these words inestimably greater than if they were merely the words of
a basar va'dam regardless of his stature.

Here's an example. When Yechezkel says "va'eshma achari kol ra'ash gadol"
this is definitely not bi'geder nevua. These words have the status of
Ruach haKodesh. When he goes on to say "baruch kvod Hashem mimkomo"
this is nevua and these are exactly the words he heard in his vision,
nothing more, nothing less. Incidentally, there are some shittos that
Yechezkel's visions are only bi'geder Ruach haKodesh but my example
suffices regardless.

Simcha Coffer

RMB writes:
> For that matter, can someone whose first language is something other
> than Hebrew ever lift himself to madreigas hanevu'ah? What about Moshe
> Rabbeinu? Was his first language Mitzri? Did he hear Hashem's voice as
> thought it was Bityah's?

Since Moshe Rabbeinu was nursed by his own mother I presume that his first
language was Hebrew. If he heard Hashem's voice as a mother's voice it
would have been Yocheved's voice, not Bityah's, but I think it far more
likely that a nevuah is "heard" as your own voice, the same voice with
which you express thoughts in your head. The case of Shmuel mistaking
Hashem's voice for Eli's voice is different from Moshe's case anyway,
because Shmuel was asleep and also he was a child when he heard the
voice calling him.

I don't know whether someone whose first language was something other
than Hebrew could become a navi, but I don't see why not. However,
as I said, this does not apply to Moshe.

Language is learned with different parts of the brain depending on
the age at which it is learned and thereafter continues to reside in
different brain boxes, depending. A child who hears one language spoken
from birth to age three (assuming that Moshe was weaned at age three)
will forever have that language in his "brain box" where it will be a
natural language for him.

Assuming that he continues to speak the language and to hear it at least
occasionally, he should be able to speak it fluently and without an accent --
even though his vocabulary in that language may be extremely limited,
if he switched at age three to some other language.

Let's assume Moshe was fully bilingual from infancy and spoke Hebrew and
Egyptian with equal facility. Hebrew would always be the most "natural"
language for him since he heard it first, from his mother. However he
might well have a more extensive vocabulary in Egyptian. His Hebrew
vocabulary might be limited to the words a three-year-old would know.
But precisely because Hebrew is his mama loshon, he would, as an adult,
be able to increase his Hebrew vocabulary virtually effortlessly, the
way we natural speakers of English learn new words every day on Avodah,
effortlessly. Acosmism, anyone?

Whatever voice he heard, there's no doubt that Moshe heard Hashem
speaking to him in Hebrew. When he said to Par'oh "Shalach es ami"
he either said it in Hebrew and a translator repeated it in Egyptian,
or perhaps Moshe himself said in Egyptian what he had heard in Hebrew.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
<me>
>> 1. In the beginning of H. Yesodei HaTorah the Rambam describes God as
>> necessarily existing, while everything else exists only contingently.
>> For example, if Hizkiyahu had become Mashiah God would still be the same,
>> but where would the subscribers of Avodah be?
> <RSC>
> I think RDR is confusing the concept of Ein Od Milvado, discussed
> in halachos 1-4 and the concept of Ani Hashem Lo Shanisi discussed
> at length in halachos 8-11.

RSC is making a subtle error here. According to Aristotle the world is
necessarily existent, and, of course, the world is subject to change.
God is necessarily existent and is simple (i.e., unchangeable). According
to the Rambam God is the only necessary existent, and He is simple.
RSC argues that, nonetheless, the Rambam accepts Aristotle's position that
necessity is independent of simplicity. I, however, don't think this
could be the case. After all, if God is simple and necessary and these
two properties are distinct, then He has two properties and is not simple.

RSC is correct, however, that my example is unnecessarily confusing;
I should have said "God would still be God".

> Shinuy, or lack thereof, is predicated
> on possessing a guf or lack thereof as Rambam explains.

This is false. The human soul and (l'havdil) the tax laws are examples
of bodiless things which are subject to change.

<me>
>> One possible view of Tsimtsum is that it
>> represents the abandonment of other possible ways the world could work -
>> - at the level of laws of nature and laws of hashgaha, not at the level
>> of historical phenomena.
> <RSC>
> Sounds like the Multi-verse of Quantum Physics. I don't buy it. Tzimtzum
> applies even to the reality we occupy and have occupied throughout
> history.

You have confused tzimtzum with reisha d'lo ithyada. See the peirush
on Klah Pith'hei Hochma #86, cited in my previous post.

<RSC>
> The purpose of creation was to facilitate the exercise of free will so as
> such I agree with RDR that the *purpose* of tzimtzum is to facilitate
> free will but the *process* of tzimtzum cannot be described as RDR
> suggests because tzimtzum applies to all forms of creation; even the
> higher worlds where free will does not exist.

But the entire machloketh of tzimtzum kipshuto or not is whether it's
only from human perspective or from the divine perspective as well.
This version represents the tzad tzimtzum eino kipshuto. IOW we are
unable even to conceive of a mechanism by which God practices hashgaha
without losing something of our consciousness of God qua God.

David Riceman 

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

The Toras Chaim, R. Avrohom Chaim Schorr (sp. ?), a talmid of a talmid of
the Rama, addresses this issue (brought down in Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz
[SMA] of R. Binyomin Hamburger shlit"a, cheilek aleph, p.77-9).

He says that umaavir yom... is the me'ein hachasima and the following
words are like a matbeia arucha. He brings other examples of such (ayen
shom for more info - in SMA - or in the original sefer).

Mordechai

"D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> Methinks you wouldn't ask the question if you had looked in a Sefaradi
> or Chabad siddur, among others, where the added statement or bakasha,
> El hai.....tamid yimlokh aleinu.. is omitted. The ending, umavdil bein
> yom uvein laila... is then the desired me'ein hatima.

I'd still have asked why Ashkenaz retains it.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Again it will try not to be too open here. I want to preface my 
comments by making a note that should be obvious. There are Mesoros 
in Kaballah. From these Mesoros there are seforim that are accepted 
and others rejected. (The Ari himself states what seforim are to be 
learned that predate his time.) I accept only those that I have a 
mesorah from my Rebbes. The issue of Emek HaMelech is probably pretty 
well known, but there were issues with the Rashash and his Kavonos, 
and also with the R'Y Sirug. The Gra was very controversial because 
he openly disagreed with the Ari in a number of issues. (The one most 
know of is with the number of matzos on Pesach al pi Kabbalah, 
although I know of others.) I mention this here because the sefer 
Nefesh HaChaim is being quoted and I have a Kabalah from my Rebbe 
ZT'L that there are problems with it's views.

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>On June 5, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>>                       All of the musagim in kisvei Arizal are a mashal as
>>>is well known but the infrastructure of the mashal is understood to
>>>perfectly express the reality of the nimshal in a form that can be grasped
>>>by our minds. If the mashal is problematic, it is not an accurate
>>>description, on a human level, of the reality of the nimshal. No one can
>>>relate to the reality of Atzmus nor can anyone fully relate to the reality
>>>of Or Ein Sof as it is beyond our frame of reference but that doesn't stop

>> You like to use terminology that is taken from Chabad. Some do not see
>> it that way. The Ari did not use Chabad terms.

>Or Ein Sof is Chabad terminology? Open up an Eitz Chaim. You can't get
>past the first page without encountering the terminology Or Ein Sof
>(Sha'ar haKilalim Perek Aleph)

I suggest looking at the difference in language in Eitz Chaim, Mevo
Hashearim, Otzros Chaim, and some of the other later works like Kanfei
Yonah, and Mishnas Chassidim (with the commentaries there.)

>Incidentally, for a thoroughly presented view of the difference between
>Atzmus and non-Atzmus, and for an explanation of the enigmatic words of
>the Arizal in his haKdama to Eitz Chaim in which he claims that all the
>shemos and kinuyim are forms of Atzmus which are nispashet in the sefiros,
>see the decidedly un-Chabad sefer Nefesh haChaim Shaar Beis Perek Beis.

A better one is found in the sefer Or Zerua from the Maharam Pafrish.

>>>the kabbalists from discussing the issue on the level of the mashal. All of
>>>the baalei shita I have seen (The Arizal, the Mishnas Chassidim, The Shomer
>>>Emunim, R' Yaakov Emden, R' Yonasan Eibishitz, The Gra, the Tanya, R' Chaim
>>>Volozhiner, Rav Dessler and the LR) all discuss tzimtzum on the level of the
>>>mashal. There is no other way to discuss kabbalistic concepts.

>> So your definition of tzimtzum k'peshuto is?

>Literal contraction of the Or Ein Sof. I made this clear several times
>already.

I asked because it was not clear to me. I was taught to learn first
Shomer Emunim, so you can tell where i am coming from. However in
Ziditchov/Komarna they would appear to have a view you would consider
k'peshito, but in no way can that be seen as being anywhere near
kefira. My understanding of TkP that would have problem is belief in a
literal tzimtzum that left a literal physical empty place afterwards.

>> But many seforim do speak of Him. The discussion of philosophers
>> about attributes of G-d is an example of such discussions.

>Serious error. In fact, this is precisely the error which causes the
>obfuscation of concepts like tzimtzum and which I consider karov le'kfira
>but I won't argue with you. Just see Nefesh haChaim Shaar Beis Perek
>Beis for a proper perspective on the attributes of the Boreh.

Not really an error. Kabbalists are just more radical in their 
monotheism then philosophers. There is an interesting note in Tanya 
chapter 2 relating to this.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

I have always found it interesting that one of the stages before Ge'ulah
(before HaYom Hagadol Ve HaNorah) is that Eliyah HaNavi will come and
"VeHeishiv Lev Avot Al Banim VeLev Banit Al Avotam".

And I wondered about 3 things:
    a) Why is this necessary at all ?
    b) Why Davka just before the final G'eulah
    c) Why Davka Eliyahu HaNavi?

Well, a discussion based on a few articles have enlightened me considerably.

Many Keiruv workers work with teenagers. Many of them to wonderful jobs
of Kiddush HaShem. But there are others who bring about a breakdown
in the family, alienating parents and children (even though they are
minors!!!).

The justifciations I've heard are variations on the theme that "the
parents are also obligated to be Chozeir BeTeshuva, and it's their fault
if they become alienated from their Chozeir BeTeshuva children".

One of the significant signs of the Pre-Ge'ulah times is that "Mal'Ah
HaAretz De'ah Et Hashem" -- there will be a massive Chazara BeTeshuva
movement.

Apparently, the Nevi'im were hinting at this and at the problem that
b/c of this many families will become alienated, and the actions will
be taken BeShem HaShem.

So, Hashem wants it clear: Davka at this time of pre-Ge'ulah, when so
many are Chozrim BeTeshuva (question b) we have a situation of break up
of families, sons and parents no longer talk, they are not united.

Hashem DOES NOT consider this a good thing, and so, to make sure it's
clear he sends Davka Eliyahu HaNavi with the job of restoring peace
and brotherhood. Why Eliyahu? B/c Eliyahu is known as the greates
Kanoi of all times. That is what he represents.

So, when Kano'im pre-Ge'ulah come and say that they are saving these
children's souls, and the cost of alienating parents and children is
justified -- Elyahu, the greatest Kanoi will come and say NO! It is
not right! And parents and children --Jewish families will be reunited.

Shabbat Shalom,
Shoshana L. Boublil

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


[ 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         ]