Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 17

Fri, 20 Oct 2006

• 1. Re: [Areivim] A "talking" [audio] Tefillat haDerech for the car (SBA)
• 2. tefillas haderekh: Standing or sitting? (Danny Schoemann)
• 3. Re: nice things about EY (from areivim) (saul mashbaum)
• 4. Re: source for the minhag hakafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (SBA)
• 5. Re: Chazarta Hashas (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. Re: Knowledge of Good and Bad (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Chazarta Hashas (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] Uman/Leaving the women behind (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (SBA)
• 10. Bris and C Section (Cantor Wolberg)
• 11. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on SA? (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. nice things about EY (from areivim) (saul mashbaum)
• 13. Avi Avos Hatumoh (SBA)
• 14. Re: sharing a succah (Mike Miller) (Cantor Wolberg)
• 15. Re: nice things about EY (from areivim) (Chaim G Steinmetz)

From: "Micha Berger" <>
Josh Backon wrote: I just saw this cute gizmo ("talking" [audio] Tefillat
haDerech you put in the car). Nothing to recite. Just push the button.
 http://www.21.tv/arutz/category1.aspx for catalog number 52537

Useful when driving alone. You don't have to read the words, which would
hopefully mean stopping the car. IIRC, tefillas haderekh is preferably said
while actually traveling. (Corrections on this point to Avodah, please.)
>>

Actually the Mechaber writes (OC, 110:4) that if possible he should stop
while saying it ["yaamod mileilech"]. See MB there 21-23.

SBA

> tefillas haderekh is preferably said  while actually traveling.

KSA 68:4 and OC 110:4: ...and if possible he should halt while
reciting it, if he's riding he needn't go down.

MB (21) if possible: E.g. the company will wait.
MB (22) he should halt: Though if the delay will bother him he may walk or sit.
MB (23) needn't go down: as it's a bother. He need only halt the
animal. Ditto for riding in a carriage.

- Danny

I wrote:

>>
One of R. SY Zevin's stories in Sippurei Chassidim is of a rebbe who intended to move to Israel, but ultimately decided not to do so in order not to lose the spiritual  benefits he obtained on the second days of Yom Tov.
>>


I found the story.
The rebbe involved was the tzaddik R. Yitzchaz Eizik of Dzidichov. After deciding to make aliya, he did not experience the "mochin" of YT on the second night of Pesach; this persuaded him to change his mind about aliyah. This is tale number 325 in RSY Zevin's book of chassidic tales.

Interestingly, the chassidic story RSBA recently told about the Ushpizin is also in this sefer (number 125) and involves the same tzaddik.

Saul Mashbaum

From: Ken Bloom <>
, Marty Bluke wrote:
> Subject: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have
> hakafos on Shmini Atzeres night? 
>
> The one source that I found is in the siddur of the Baal Hatanya
> where he quotes it as a minhag vasikin. Anyone know of any other
> sources/reasons?

See Ben Ish Chai Parshat Vetzot HaBeracha for the first year, section 
17. He states this practice as the halacha without giving any earlier 
source or reason.
>>

I looked in Likutei Maharich and Nitei Gavriel - who says that there is no 
source in the Rishonim and Minhagei hakadmonim for this.
NG also quotes the Chida being strngly against these hakafos

SBA

>> Teshuvos Mem Ayin..
>Tshuvos Menachem Azaria by Rama mePano.?

It would seem so, as the Ba'er Heitev in OC124:4 (7) it says: Teshuvos
HRM"Ayin mePano siman 102.

- Danny

On Thu, October 19, 2006 9:03 am, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: 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.

As you say later: Was she making a moral judgment or an aesthetic judgment? Or
perhaps even a functional judgment -- she ascertained that the fruit was
edible.

In any case, the Rambam discusses bechirah before the eitz hada'as and says
that it was between emes and sheqer. That Adam would naturally only want to do
ratzon Hashem, but would need to distinguish the real tov from the nachash's
sheqer.

And REED discusses the eitz hada'as in terms of the internalization of the
yeitzer. In <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/bereishis.shtml> I suggest that this
works together quite well with the Rambam. (I also discuss the unity of
"Hashem E-lokim" used in the creation of man up to the eitz hada'as, and how
this perception was bifurcated with the cheit.)

The thing is, though, that moral good derives from functional good. A good pen
is one that does the job well, and doesn't leak in my pocket. A good person is
one who does their job well, and doesn't sin very often. Once you posit that
Man was created for a purpose, the two kinds of "good" coincide.

And therefore I would disagree with what you write:
: 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.

But rather, once people gained the ability to pursue goals other than the
purpose for which they were created, they had the ability to be more or less
functional, to be good or bad in a moral sense.

Chavah herself couldn't be more or less tov, without conflicting desires to
pursue. But she could be mistaken as to whether the fruit would advance or
harm the function for which she was created.



Another way of understanding eitz hada'as tov vara is that it gave Man the
knowledge of "good-and-evil", the irbuvya of motives in how we make decisions.
IOW, not just the internalization of evil, but the inability to separate it
from good. Every decision we make is motivated by conflicting drives. Every
act of kindness has some element of personal gain -- be it the ego massage of
getting to convince oneself they are "good people", or fame, or whatnot. And
similarly lehefech.

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

>>> Teshuvos Mem Ayin..
>> Tshuvos Menachem Azaria by Rama mePano.?

> It would seem so, as the Ba'er Heitev in OC124:4 (7) it says: Teshuvos
> HRM"Ayin mePano siman 102.

There's no such place as Pano;  RME was from Fano.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Been meaning to post on this since this exchange on Areivim last month
but have not had time:

>
RSB wrote:

> >>My problem is that  is also a family holiday, where you
> have a special
> >>meal with your family etc.
>  It looks like people are forgetting this.
> 

And RSBA responded:

> It is exactly the same with all chassidim. They leave their families  
> (or at least the females) at home and join the rebbe for yomim tovim.
> 
> And even if they live in the same place as the rebbe resides,
> often there  is no time for more than a rushed meal between tefilos
and tishen etc.

I founfd it interesting that the tension articulated in this exchange
between Rav and family seems to go back at least as far as the gemora.
It states on Succah 27b: Tanu Rabbanan, Ma'ase regarding Rabi Eloyi who
went to greet his teacher Rabbi Eliezer in Lud on the festival. [Rabbi
Eliezer] said to him, Eloyi - you are not among those who rest on the
festival because Rabbi Eliezer used to say, I praise the lazy ones who
do not go out of their houses on the festival as it is written
V'samachta ata uvitecha.  But is it so,  as Rav Yitzchak says, from
where do we know that a man is obligated to visit his rav on the
festival as it is written "why are you going to him today it not being
new moon or shabbat" and we can infer from there that on new moon and
shabbat one is obligated to visit one's Rav.  Lo kasha this is when he
can go and come in one day and this is when he cannot go and come in one
day. 

Now the Rambam brings purely and simply that one is obligated to visit
one's Rav on festivals (Hilchos Talmid Torah perek 5 halacha 7) but not
the halacha about going and coming in one day and the Shulchan Aruch
brings neither.

The Noda B'Yehuda asks the question as to why the Tur and Shulchan Aruch
do not bring the obligation to visit one's Rav and concludes that this
is because the obligation is only during the time of the beis hamikdash
(when one was also required to visit the shechina by means of alios
haregel).  But the Aruch HaNer (on Sukka 27b) disagrees with this Noda
B'Yehuda  arguing that the whole ma'ase regarding Rabbi Eliezer had to
have happened when the beis hamikdash was no longer standing.  Rather he
argues that when the beis hamikdash was standing a man was obligated to
go up to Yerushalayim with his wife to fulfil v'samachta ata uvitecha as
per Chaggiga 6a and holds that the reason why the Tur and Shulchan Aruch
omit the mitzvah of visiting one's Rav on the festival is that they hold
that it is a mitzvah to do this on any day, even a regular day (ie they
are effectively cholek on Rav Yitzchak and do not need to bring him).  

On Daf 10a the Aruch L'Ner discusses the fact that the Rambam does not
bring the qualification of returning in one day and suggests that this
is due to the situation described in the gemora there where Rav Chisda
and Rabbah Bar Rav Huna visited the Reish Galusa on succos and held that
they were patur from succah because they were shluchei mitzvah (ie the
mitzvah being that they were visiting their Rav)- which would arguably
seem to have been a case where they were not returning to their home on
the same day.

Returning to the Aruch LaNer on 27b he comments that the pasuk of
samachta ata uvitecha is not written in relation to Yom Tov but rather
in relation to maaser sheni and refers to what he wrote on daf 62b of
Yevamos that women are obligated to come up to Yerushalyim on the
regalim due to the shalmei simcha and then she eats the maaser sheni
there as there is no simcha for him without his wife.

Not that any of this latter commentary seems to provide conclusions as
to what is the halacha given conflicting obligations to visit one's Rav
and to be with one's wife (unlike the Noda B'Yehuda, who would clearly
seem to hold that v'samachta takes precedence b'zman hazeh over visiting
one's Rav) .  I assume that RSB's point is that v'samachta is a d'orisa
obligation and visiting one's Rav is a d'rabbanan one - but on the other
hand the gemora on Sukka 10a seems to suggest that the mitzvah of
visiting one's Rav is doche the obligation to sit in a sukkah, so
presumably that is the basis for arguing (a la the chassidim) that it is
doche v'samachta.

But this whole discussion seems to segue nicely into a question that RET
just posted on Avodah

> A question that came up this past succot.
> 
> 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?
> 

Just a guess from first principles but it seems to me that there are two
separate issues raised by this:

A) in relation to the ownership of a public succah, who has the
authority to decide how it is used, and if a woman is effectively
temporarily koneh daled amos in the sukkah, is putting pressure on her
to relinquish those daled amos a form of gezela or otherwise problematic
even if it is to enable a mitzvah?

B) in relation to the various mitzvah obligations - the assumption of
the asker being that it is very straightfoward.  He has an obligation to
eat in a sukkah, a woman does not, therefore the woman should leave to
enable him to perform a mitzvah, on the grounds that that will maximise
the mizvah observance all round.

But I wonder if B) is true.  The Rema writes in Orech Chaim siman 739
si'if 2 that it seems to him that the reason that these days we are
lenient regarding men sleeping in the sukkah is because the mitzvah of
sukkah is "ish v'beiso ish v'ishto k'derech she hu dor kol hashana - and
in a place where he is not able to sleep with his wife because the
sukkah isn't private enough he is patur.  Similarly therefore if a man
usually eats with his wife all year round, if she is asked to leave the
sukkah, and he cannot eat with her, is it not arguable that the mitzvah
of the husband has just disappeared?

And based on the Aruch LaNer I quoted above, is it not similarly
arguable that by her leaving the sukkah one is nullifying the mitzvah of
v'samachta ata uvitecha- both his simcha and hers?  So is the mitzvah
tally as straightforward as the asker would seem to assume?

> -- 
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

From: "Prof. Levine" <>
Have a look at Chapter 30 of R. A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas 
Torah (page 267). There you will see that due to a mistake in 
transcription, people were under the impression that the ARI danced 
in front of the Sifrei Torah on Shmini Atzeres night. However, he 
actually danced on Motzoei SA after Maariv.
It seems to me that this error in transcription is the "basis" for 
what Chassidim do.
>>

WADR, Yaari is writing a naarishkeit.
To have even a hava amina that the "basis" of a minhag practised by 
tzadikim and kedoshim and thousands of their followers over centuries 
is "due to a mistake in  transcription" is ludicrous and mischievous.

SBA

"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."

The following I know to be a fact, but fails to answer the question.
If a baby was delivered by C Section on Shabbos, his bris would be the following Sunday (the baby's 9th day). Only a Bris of a natural birth can take place on Shabbos.  With that reasoning, I would surmise that the Moyel would feel justified in this case to perform the bris on Chol.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061019/9a9afd7d/attachment.htm

 
 

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" _kennethgmiller@juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com) 

>>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..... 

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.<<


>>>>>
.
I suspect his reason was that the minhag /not/ to have hakafos on ST was  not 
a /genuine/ minhag but a Reform-influenced practice.
 
And the way Yekkes "dance" there is not all that big a change from not  
having hakafos to having hakafos. At least that's how it was in the  Yekke shul in 
Joburg when I was there.  (I say this with all due  respect and affection for 
a community my father much  admired.) 



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061020/2ca4a61c/attachment.html

RSBA
>>
I have heard beshem the CS z'l that when Moshiach comes there will be a need
to establish a 'zecher' to our golus - and it will be "YT sheni shel
goliyos", which  will become a permanent fixture in our calendar.
>>>
Chaim G Steinmetz:
> It is found in Droshos Chasam Sofer p 544 (in the droshos of
> pesach). [See a slightly different take on the issue in his chidushim on
> Beitza 4b, and tshuvos OC #145].

I looked up the tshuva and chiddushim, and there the CS says something quite different from what 
RSBA wrote. The CS in these two places says that there will be a heichei timtza of YT sheni even after the geula. 
The islands in the Mediterranian Sea mentioned in Gittin 8 are part of EY, and some are far from EY. 
Leatid lavo, Jews will live on these islands, and where there is a sfeika d'yoma, YT sheini will be observed.
The CS says that this YT will  be called "YT shneini shel geuliyot", (as REMT recalled his father 
saying) *not* galuyot. 

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the reference to Droshos Chasam Sofer p 544;                                                      the version of this sefer I have access is a five volume set with diffeent pagination.

Saul Mashbaum

Someone pointed out to me today that this term does not appear in Chazal.
I checked in Bar Ilan and indeed it did not come up there.

Interesting...

SBA

"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."

IMHO only a boor would do such a thing and unless there were mitigating factors of which we are unaware, I think the woman should have definitely refused to leave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061019/117eb1a2/attachment-0001.htm

 
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:54:36 +0200 saul mashbaum
<smash52@netvision.net.il> writes:
> Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the reference to Droshos 
> Chasam Sofer p 544;                                                  
>     the version of this sefer I have access is a five volume set 
> with diffeent pagination.
> 
> Saul Mashbaum

Correct, I wrote the chiddushim and tshuvo was in a different vein. Look
in Droshos (which I am not aware was reprinted in 5 volumes??) for Pesach
5690 - the last piece DH Lemaan Tizkor. 
CGS


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 17
*************************************

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..."