Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 16

Fri, Oct 20 2006

• 1. Re: Chazarat hashatz (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have hakafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 3. Pas Lechem (SBA)
• 4. YK Selichoth at Shacharith, Musaf and Minchah (SBA)
• 5. Re: sharing a succah (Mike Miller)
• 6. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. 'SHTILLEH NAANUIM' (SBA)
• 8. Re: Chazarat ha-Shats (David E Cohen)
• 9. Re: YK Selichos [Shacharis, Musaf, Minchah]? (David E Cohen)
• 10. Correct day for Berit Milah (JOSEPH MOSSERI)
• 11. Re: Chazarat hashatz (Danny Schoemann)
• 12. Re: Etrog jam and pesticides (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Knowledge of Good and Bad (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> The requirement is for *nine* answerers, not ten. And RMM
> is right to point out that little word "karov"; if there
> are not nine answerers it's not an actual beracha levatala,
> it's just "close" to being one.

Yes, indeed, that is correct. But there are indeed some poskim who 
wrote words to the effect that "if ten people are paying close 
attention to the chazan then xyz, but if less than ten are 
listening..."

Can we say that when they wrote "ten", they really meant "nine"? Or 
is there something deeper here?

Akiva Miller

Though the kneejerk reaction by some apparantly is that the "minhog
Chassidim" is based on a "mistaken reading" (therefore implying that the
minhog "vosikin" mentioned in Siddur of the Baal hatanya is also a
mistake!), the idea of hakofos on SA night (and day!) outside EY is
CLEARLY found in the sefer Chemdas Hayomim (without getting into the
discussion of the authorship of this sefer). Therefore, the concept
predates the "mistake" of Chassidim...
Chaim Gershon Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

From: "Rochel Weinstein" <>
Can anyone tell me where the inyon of pas lechem, or breakfast in general,
is discussed?
=====

You mean Pas Shachris.
See Bava Metzia 92b and
http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=1514&;CategoryID=537

SBA

From: "David J Havin" <>
Rabbiner Hirsch would select each year which of the Selichoth were to be
recited at Shacharith, Musaf and Mincha. Over the course of several years,
all of the Selichoth would thereby be read.
>>

This was also the minhag in Pressburg and many Oberlender kehilos.
A sheet was published every year detailing which selichos will be said at 
each of the tefilos.
(I have a copy of of one of these flyers somewhere.)

IIANM, the Vienner kehilla in NY (which follows minhagei Schiffshul) still 
does so.

SBA

On 10/17/06, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone was eating in a public succah with his wife.
> As the succah was crowded someone else came and asked the
> wife to leave so that he could eat in the succah as a woman is
> not required to eat in a succah.
>
> Is there any requirement for the woman to leave eating in the
> public succah with her husband so that another man can use
> her place?

A few thoughts, but no conclusions
1. I'm assuming the "public" sukkah is really a private sukkah belong
to the owner of a resteraunt, which he has opened to the public (or
maybe only those buying his food). I'm unaware of any _public_ sukkos
built by a municipality, etc. Thus, he could decide who is welcome in
his sukkah and who is not
2. The second man has no chiyyuv that needs to be fulfilled now. Who
said he can't wait until the first couple is done? Most resteraunts do
not kick out patrons immediately upon the conclusion of their chewing!

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

Over the years, many posts in many threads have bemoaned the loss of 
various minhagim, and changes to them, and have hailed the KAJ
community as a stalwart of retaining old-time Ashkenaz. The recent
thread about selichos at shacharis, musaf and mincha on YK is but one
example.

I was thus very surprised to read in R' Yitzchok Levine's post, of 
Rav Schwab adding hakafos to Maariv of Simchas Torah in not one, but 
two such shuls. I'm curious what his reasons were, and what the
shuls' reactions were.

Akiva Miller

From MailJewish:

From: Orrin Tilevitz <>
Is there any basis for the practice (I hesitate to call it a minhag) of
the sheliach tzibur's shaking the lulav while saying, in each case,
"hodu", the first "yomar", and the first two verses begining "Ana", to
himself, then either saying only the last word ("chasdo" or "na") aloud
or simply turning around expectantly to the congregation? Is there any
source that explicitly decries this practice?
>>>

Our Shul has nusach Ashkenaz and nusach Sfard (Chassidish) minyonim.
In the Ashkenaz minyan, the chazan does all the nanuim with a special
niggun etc, followed by the tzibbur,whilst in the chassidish minyonim
it is as you describe.
One of our choshuv talmidei chachomim raises a storm about this annually,
claiming it has no source.

SBA

R' Marty Bluke asked:
> RYBS also held that on Rosh Hashan you have to hear every word of the
> shatz to be yotze with the tekios on the seder haberachos, again how does
> this fit in with going to wash the hands of the cohanim (RYBS was a Levi
> as well)?


This Rosh ha-Shanah, I davened in the shul of R' Chaim Soloveichik in Ramat
Beit Shemesh. He announced that due to the aforementioned reason, as per
the minhag of his father (R' Aharon Soloveichik zt"l), the kohanim and
leviyim should not go out for washing until after Shofarot. The chazzan
sang a prolonged niggun for "Hayom harat `olam" to allow time for this.

--D.C.

In Teaneck, most of the shuls do say selichos at all 5 tefilos. I know
of one shul that does what RYBS did as described in Nefesh Harav (simply
inserting the 13 midos into piyutim that are already printed in all
machazorim), and others that say a selection of the selichos that were
recited on Yom Kippur in minhag Lita, using either photocopies of the
Goldschmidt machazor or a book that was compiled by R' Yaakov Neuburger
and privately published for this purpose.

--D.C.

A woman gave birth to a baby boy on the 2nd day of Sukot (Yom Tov Sheni
shel galuyot). Normally the Berit Milah would be 8 days later which
would be on Simhat Torah day also Yom Tov Sheni shel Galuyot.
The question is as follows: The birth was not natural rather it was
a C-section.
When is the Berit Milah?
On Simhat Torah, Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyot or on the next day which
is Hol. Please provide all sources and explanations.
Thanks,
Joseph Mosseri

R' Joel Rich asks:
Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during
chazarat hashatz?

The Be'er Heitev in OC124:4 (7) brings an opinion that if you can
concentrate enough to answer Omain after each brocho then you may
learn during CH.

-  Danny

RMB wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 04:48:32PM +0100, Rt Chana Luntz wrote:
> : And if not why is it valid for use in the arba minim? I thought that
> : everybody held that one of the criteria for use of an esrog was that it
> : must have a heter achila (see Sukkah 35a) due to the requirement of
> : l'chem (see eg Rashi there)? And yet I have never heard of anybody
> : enquiring into the pesticide status of an esrog to determine its
> : kashrus. Why not?
> 
> Heter achilah, not ra'ui la'achilah. Maybe this a case where 
> it's not true where chamira saqanta mei'isura?
> 

But the Rashi I referred to specifically uses the term ra'ui -
"v'haRachmana amar lchem, hara'ui l'chem bkol darchei hanaaso"

> But the problem is that jelly is made from the esrog 
> including the peel. The meat of the esrog is not poisoned.
> For that matter, I don't even know if the peel is, or if the 
> problem is that the poison is /on/ the peel and pragmatically 
> can't be removed.
> 

I think it is fairly clear from various sources that the gemora
considers the klipa hachitzona as being edible (see eg 35b and the
discussion about declaring it not to be teruma). This does seem to be
different to the very outer part (because a peeled esrog is not not
necessarily invalid) but I think that is a very thin layer of skin and
that the pesticides would go below that skin (or else the advice to the
potential jam maker would surely be to peel the esrog).

And then RMF wrote:

From Meorot HaDaf's weekly sheet:

....

> Esrogim sprayed with pesticides: The sefer Kashrus Arbaas 
> HaMinim (p. 73) addresses a similar question, in regard to 
> esrogim sprayed with dangerous pesticides. In the previous 
> case of the esrog kept under the bed, the esrog itself was 
> dangerous. In this case, the esrog itself is not dangerous. 
> Rather, the pesticides that have seeped beneath its skin are 
> poisonous, rendering the esrog inedible. Perhaps this can be
> compared to the case of a kosher esrog that absorbed the 
> taste of a forbidden food. The Magen Avraham (O.C. 649 s.k.
> 20) rules that le'chatchila such an esrog should not be used 
> on the first day, but b'dieved if one has no other esrog 
> available, he may use it even on the first day, and may even 
> recite a beracha (see Shaar HaTzion ibid s.k. 48).
> 
> R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l is quoted as saying that since 
> the pesticides will eventually wear off, and the esrog will 
> become edible, perhaps even now when it is inedible it is 
> still kosher.


This is all extremely interesting. But what I am getting from this sheet
is "some poskim are lenient", "maybe can make a bracha", "b'dieved", "if
no other esrog available". This does not sound like a ringing endorsement
of a pesticide infested esrog to me. And yet the original poster was told
that the reason these esrogim are allowed (presumably by the governmental
authorities) to be sprayed with so much pesticide is that they had mounted
an argument to such authorities that the esrogim were being grown for
religious reasons, not for food. Ie the esrog growers are doing this
l'chatchila and, it would seem, without putting any labelling on such
esrogim indicating a) they should not be eaten and b) their kashrus for
use for the arba minim relies on all sorts of lenient opinions.

I can see a significant difference between this case and the Australian
case where the esrogim had to be returned to the government at the end
of succos as the Australian esrogim were indeed suitable to be eaten
(the government could have done so as a method of destroyimg them,
although nobody expects them to). Not to mention that here it is surely
not required by law for the esrog growers to spray with so much pesticide
- rather it sounds like they had to get a special government exemption to
do so. And rather the whole practice would seem driven presumably by their
profit margin and by the demands of consumers for pretty looking esrogim,
even if that means being lenient in relation to other halachas. So I am
still a bit puzzled as to how this practice is allowed to go on.

Regards
Chana

Over the years, I have worked on trying to understand how Adam and Chava
made choices and decisions prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge
of Good and Evil (or, if you prefer, "of Good and Bad").

If they had no knowledge of these concepts, how did they make
choices? When I choose between doing Thing A or Thing B, it is based
on which I need more, which will have beneficial results, and similar
considerations. But if "good" and "not good" are foreign concepts,
how can one move foward?

Last year, my good friend and mechuton, Rabbi Yossi Abrams, currently
of Passaic, gave me the answer to this question, and I'd like to share
it with the chevra.

He pointed out that my whole premise is flawed. Adam and Chava DID
understand the concept of "good", even prior to eating from the tree.
This is easily proven from Bereishis 3:6, which clearly says that
"the woman saw that the tree was 'tov' for food." This concept was
something that she WAS familiar with. Thus, they did have a basis for
decision-making.

But if this is so, don't we have a contradiction? How can it be that they
understood "tov" even before eating from "the tree of knowledge of tov"?

The answer must be that these two uses of the word "tov" refer to two
different concepts. They did indeed understand that some things are good
as food and others are bad as food. Some ways of walking or sitting are
more efficient, and others are less efficient. One name for this animal
is fitting, and others are not fitting. They DID understand this sort of
"tov".

Then they ate from the tree, and gained a new knowledge. A new meaning
was added to the word "tov". Not only did they understand the difference
between good and bad, between tasty and putrid, between beautiful and
ugly. But now they also understood the difference between right and wrong.

And that's my mechuton's chidush that I want to share. A great deal of
understanding of this story was lost simply because of the translator's
choice of words. If we had called it "the tree of knowledge of right
and wrong" from the beginning, we would have understood it from the start.

Akiva Miller



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 16
*************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."