Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 208

Sun, 30 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: Ko Kayli, Hoshanos, and HaShem HaShem on Yom Kippur (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Lulov Pockets (Zev Sero)
• 3. Why Kohellet on Sukkot from Nishmablog Post (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Ledovid in German Siddurim (Prof. Levine)
• 5. holders for aravot&hadasim (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Kevius Seudah on PHBK for Sukkah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Ledovid in German Siddurim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. heter mechira (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Time and Emunah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Shehecheyanu for shmitta (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: heter mechira produce (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Rav Yaakov Emden & Christianity (Micha Berger)

RallisW@aol.com wrote:
> Where did the minhog of reciting Ko Kayli come from? Why is it not said 
> on Shabbos which occurs on Yom Tov? Why is it not recited when on says 
> Yizkor (if one should say Yizkor on Yom Tov is another issue)? 

As I understand it, it's said to fill the gap between the haftarah and
ashrei, when nothing else is said then.  On Shabbos there's yekum purkan,
on the last days of yomtov there's yizkor, on Rosh Hashana there's the
shofar, on Simchas Torah there's sisu vesimchu.  So that leaves the first
two days of Pesach, the first day of Shavuos, and the first two days of
Sukkos, when they're on weekdays.

I've also seen in one siddur that on the first day of Pesach there's no
need for this piyut because of tal, and on the first day of Shovuos
because of akdomus, even though those don't come between the haftarah
and ashrei.  According to this, that leaves only the second day of Pesach
and the first two days of Sukkos, when they're on weekdays.

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> :                     I understand these pockets 
> : have  only been used in practice for a very short time...
> 
> See the picture at <http://tinyurl.com/2o59l4>. Even in Bar Kochva's day,
> hadasim and aravos were held with the lulav by a woven basket.

The picture looks just as consistent with a large bundle of hadassim
and two aravot, held together by a ring, more or less like the current
L practise, except that the aravot are projecting above the hadassim,
while L try to hide the aravot behind the hadassim.

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

My latest post to Nishmablog abased upon an Avodah discussion from Years
Back
Speical Yishar Koach to R. Gerson Dubin - please see below.
-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

Our Founding Director Rabbi B. Hecht wrote in the latest insight:
>
> The difficulty with this answer, though, is that it still does not explain
> how Kohelet connects with the theme of *Succot*,
>
> There is a really simple approach to this.
>
> Questions:
>
>    1. Why is King Shlomoh Called Kohelet?
>    2. Why is Kohelet read on Sukkot?
>
> To answer this - I had come up with 2 points years ago. One point had been
> already already published in Midrrash Rabba on Kohelet **. [Baruch
> shkivanti.] Further embelishing points emerged in a discussion based upon
> this model; see below.
>
> Shlomoh was the FIRST king in the Temple. He was thus the FIRST King to
> perform Mitzvat Hakhel - hence the TITLE Kohelet. When is Hakhel Done?
> Sukkot. Hence the association with Sukkot. Ad Kahn my contribution
>
> A fellow during a recent conversation informed me that the various parts
> of Kohellet [apparently he posits that the book is structured in 3
> divisions] is that these were Drashot of Shlomoh WHILST conducting hakhel
> during his career. [Hence the title of the BOOK.] Eventually, the redactors
> pasted them together as a single unit and became canonized laster one
> -despite the controversial nature of these drashot.
>
> Of course Rabbi Hecht will not that this post avoid all kinds of
> complexity. But this leaves the complexities to those addressed by
> Shlomoh/Kohellet himself.
>
> Hag Sameyach
> RRW
>
> ** MY Cyber-chaver - R. Gershon Dubin pointed this out to me on the Avodah
> list MANY years ago! Then I pointed out that the name was explained but the
> timing aspect was original to me.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070930/8c86180e/attachment.html 

At 01:33 PM 09/30/2007, you wrote:

>In Avodah Digest V23#206, RAF wrote:
> > The [newer] R?delheim siddur... [has] Ps. XXVII for Elul->8 'Atzeret. <
>Ad v'lo ad bichlal: the instructions are clear that "in some
>congregations," the kapitel is said through Hosha'na Rabba (Shmini Chag
>haAtzeres isn't Sukkos, so the asmachta of "ki yitzp'neini b'sukkoh"
>doesn't apply to it).

Over Yom Tov I saw two people using Rodelheim Siddurim. I pointed out 
to them that their Siddurim has the "Leshaim Yichud" before Sefiras 
Ha Omer." I do not believe that this was said in the "good old days" 
in Germany. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge the "real Ashkenaz 
Nusach" never had any Leshaim Yichud in it anywhere.

Apparently the versions of the Rodelheim Siddur printed after the war 
have become Chassidized! >:-}


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070930/75532577/attachment.htm 

>
>   Do that constitute a chatzitzoh between the Arbo Minim being that the
> palm leaves used in those pockets are dried up?
>

depends who you ask. Ashkenazim usually put aravot and hadasim in holders
made from palms and don'y consider it a chatziza. I heard a psak from
R. A. Yosef
strongly condemning this and insisting on the sefardi minhag of tying the
aravot and hadasim directly to the lulav.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Regarding Pas Habaah B'Kisnin (PHBK) in the sukkah, Mishneh Brurah 639:16 says: "... If he was not kovea seudah, but merely ate more than a kebeitzah, there are varying opinions among the acharonim whether he needs to say Leshev Basukkah... In order to avoid this safek bracha l'vatalah, he should see to it that he doesn't leave immediately after eating, but rather sit/stay [lasheves] there for some time [zman mah], and when he says the Leshev Basukkah, he should have in mind to cover both the eating and the sitting [yeshiva] after it."

It seems clear to me that the case where this safek exists, according to the MB, is where he DOES exit the sukkah immediately after eating the PHBK. Phrased differently, it seems that if one wants to grab a quick snack of a kebaytza-plus of PHBK, then on the one hand it must be eaten in the sukkah, but on the other hand there's a safek on whether this is enough of a keviyus to justify the bracha.

I am bothered by this apparent chiluk being made between PHBK and Pas Gamur. The shiur for one is "more than a kebaytza of pas", and the shiur for the other is "more than a kebaytza of pas". Why distinguish between different types of pas?

So here's my question: Suppose someone would want to grab a quick sandwich made of more than a kebaytza of pas, and some sort of filling. His plan is to wash netilas yadayim in the house, enter the sukkah, say the proper bracho(s), eat the sandwich, say birkas hamazon, and leave immediately. It seems to me that there is no more kevius here than in the MB's case. Do any poskim discuss whether or not to say Leshev Basukkah in such a case?

Akiva Miller

On 9/30/07, Prof. Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:
>
>  At 01:33 PM 09/30/2007, you wrote:
>
>
> Over Yom Tov I saw two people using Rodelheim Siddurim. I pointed out to
> them that their Siddurim has the "Leshaim Yichud" before Sefiras Ha Omer." I
> do not believe that this was said in the "good old days" in Germany. Indeed,
> to the best of my knowledge the "real Ashkenaz Nusach" never had any Leshaim
> Yichud in it anywhere.
>
> Apparently the versions of the Rodelheim Siddur printed after the war have
> become Chassidized! >:-}
>
>  Yitzchok Levine
>

The explanation is simple all AISI:
When the printers put in the Sefira they cut and pasted it from a version
that had lesheim yichud

Background:
When I did shul calendars, I would use an OLD calendar as a template and
then update it with the new dates. Almost invariably, I would leave ONE old
piece of info that was in error

Printers of Siddurim make simliar mistakes. When they notice the absence of
Sefira, they grab it from another siddur. So in this case - the pristine
Yekke tradition is contaminated by an innocent error devoid of any
intention.

If you see some old Roedelheim Siddurim or Machazorim they DID have the
Sefira and  bracha but they only supplied day one i.e. "yom echad".  It was
the emerging need to supply the entire chart for 49 days that prompted the
change and inadvertently brought in the corrupting lesheim yichud.

I cannot explain it for the bracha on the lulav.  I would venture to guess
that something similar did happen

Most of the Hineni's and Hinene Muchan's etc. in the Yekkisher siddurim are
about kavvanah but are devoid of Kabbalistic references.  [kavvanah good,
Kabbalh Bad --smile--]

Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070930/50649d67/attachment-0001.html 

<<When I asked a Rabbi from Machon HaTorah VeHaretz, he gave me source from
Chazon Ish and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that say that Heter Mechira
produce BeDi'avad are mutar.>>

R. Moshe feinstein also has a teshuva allowing bideved.
RYBS stated that he himself was not in favor but once the rabbanut paskened that
way it is allowed.
As you point out shemitta today is derabbanan and sefichin is also derabanan and
so we are no where near the level of treifot.
Since many major gedolim through the generations allowed the heter mechira it
seems very difficult to disallow it except on political grounds.

Just as an example of the problems.
My son's company, as is common, provides meals at work through a caterer.
The rabbanut of the hechsher (kfar saba) says they will no longer give a
hecsher to heter mechira. The caterer came back to the company and
told them that for an extra 5 shekel per meal he can provide "mehadrin
shemitta".
Multiplying that by the number of employees (only a small fraction care) and the
number of work days the company refused. So as of now the caterer for
the company has no hasgacha.

I find it very difficult to justify such a stand that would allow many
Jews to eat
really nonkosher food (or at least without any hasgacha) rather than allowing
heter mechira which ROY today among others strongly supports.


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:46:31PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: it is also my firm belief that True Science and True Torah can never be in
: conflict, t is our human limitations that perceive contradictions that are
: not there and perhaps  during yemos hamashiach when Da'as Hashem kemayim
: mechassim we will THEN be able to transcend these human limitations by an
: infusion of Divine Enlightenment...

My point was that there is no True Science beyond human limitations.
(Don't blame me: Kant, Mach, REED and Einstein said it first.) Science is
a study of the structures humans place by how we perceive what's out there.

Which ties directly into REED's understanding of the Maharal's explanation
of nissim. With a sufficiently lofty perception, scientific law becomes
hazy and moral law comes to the fore.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 04:33:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Even more generally, there are opinons out there that one might find
: somewhat worrying to modern sensibilities, but I am not sure we should
: pretend they do not exist.  For example the Rema states in Choshen
: Mishpat Siman 421 si'if 13 "v'chen mi shehu tachas reshuto v'roeh bo
: shehu oseh d'var averah rashai l'hachuso v'lyissuro cde l'hefrusho
: m'isur v'ain tzarich l'hevio l'beis din (trumas hadeshen siman 18)" He
: also brings a linked statement in Even Haezer siman 154 si'if 3 as a
: yesh omrim (and then brings an alternative opinion that it is absolutely
: forbidden), but I am afraid he then goes on to say that the first
: opinion is the ikar.

I figure that the biggest difference between the mesorah and our response
to it is the current cultural emphasis on autonomy.

In a culture which defines morality in terms of rights, we do not take to
negative reinforcement the way people have for most of human history.
We like the carrot, but chafe under the stick. Rather than Shelomo
haMelekh's rod (as generally understood, not as RSW explains it) causing
positive change, it sparks rebellion.

We therefore can't relate to corporal punishment. But not necessarily
entirely for the good. It comes from an underlying inability, the same
place from which comes our need to "connect" to mitzvos rather than
submit to them.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:06:28PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: Why does this trouble you. One might be justified arguing that in the
: 21st century it would be largely inaffective. Or that it's a dangerous
: slope. But surely fom a moral standpoint, his longterm welfare is of
: paramount importance.

Well... Since we're now unable to even imagine a sane talmid reforming
under such a regimen, we have a hard time imagining a situation where
it would help his longterm welfare and thus be moral.

And that's why the very idea rubs us the wrong way.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:07:57PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote:
:> To narrow the search, wouldn't the mitzvah have to be both an asei, and
:> the qiyum bequm va'asei in order to warrant a berakah? Regardless of where
:> we go with shemittas kesafim at the end of the year, what ma'aseh is
:> necessary for it?

: Would that first Q's logic apply to, say, wearing a new suit for the first
: time?  And couldn't a response to the 2nd Q be that what one is bidden to
: do re certain monetary situations that one happens to be a part of is
: similar to, say, what one is bidden to do when in a 4-cornered-garment
: situation?

My point wasn't that shehechiyanu requires a mitzvah. However, if one
is making shehechiyanu on a mitzvah then I would think it requires that:
1- We are making shehechiyanu on something happening, not on something
failing to happen; and thus the mitzvah must be an asei.

Tzitzis is a qiyum asei. Carrying a loan past shemittah is a lav. To
make a shehechiyanu on handing over your loan to a BD would be expressing
thanks for coming to a time where a lav didn't happen.

2- The berakhah should require that there be a particular event involved;
which is why I figured the asei requires an action.

Shehechiyanu on a suit is similarly an event (not the absence of a bad
event) that involved something specific happening -- wearing it.


: BTW, mei'inyan l'inyan: do you know why "shehecheyanu" isn't made by a
: b'ris (which surely is a "qiyum bequm va'asei")?  The "Sharashei Minhag
: Ashk'naz" Vol1 piece on this topic is worthwhile (and speaking of
: "Sharashei Minhag Ashk'naz," see my next post)....

I thought there were those who don't say shehechiyanu (basically,
non-Gra-influenced Ashkenazim in chu"l) because there is pain involved.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:51:09PM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: I also recall a lecture many years ago, in which the basic issue with regard 
: to Heter Mechira was whether or not Shmitta was D'Oraita or DeRabanan in our 
: times...

I have an entry on he question of whether din derabbanan has the
same mamashus, chalos, ontology, whatever you want to call it, at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>. It's
primarily from a shiur by RARakeffet. There seems to be two sides to a
very old machloqes. Among the fallout would be whether following shemittah
derabbanan comes with the Torah's berakhah. (Also touched would be the
question of why safeiq derabannan lequlah, given that it is a safeiq in
lo sasur.)

However, even with the CI believing that the heter mechirah was redundant
since the berakhah would take care of parnasah (and this is a documented
exception to ein somechin al haneis), he was a strong proponent of the
otzar beis din -- itself a kulah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:26:13AM -0400, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I just came across an interesting article written 30 years ago by Blu 
: Greenberg - Judaism 27:3 1978 p351-363...
: page 358 "In his commentary Eitz Avos (40b-41a) on Pirkei Avot (4:11), 
: Emden describes Christianity as a "religion in the service of God," a 
: religion which God sees as good and, therefore, He sustains it..."
:         Emden continues: these two families, Christianity and 
: Mohammedanism, which God selected as vehicles to bring faith into the 
: world, were never brought under the yoke of mitzvot of the Torah...

Shitas haRambam, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 208
***************************************

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..."