Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 211

Tue, 02 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Lulov pockets (D&E-H Bannett)
• 2. Re: Lulov Pockets (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Rav Yaakov Emden & Christianity (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Tea before Shacharis (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Lulov Pockets (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Shir HaMaalos, Maaseh Elokaynu/Enosh, L'Dovid Mizmor, Tekios B'Emtzo Kaddish (Zev Sero)
• 7. Maaseh Enosh (Jonathan Baker)
• 8. Re: heter mechira produce - d'rabanan (Goldmeier)
• 9. Re: heter mechira produce - d'rabanan (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Shofar and guf naki (Michael Poppers)
• 11. High Holiday Liturgy Sources (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Michael Poppers)
• 13. Re: Shir HaMaalos, Maaseh Elokaynu/Enosh, L'Dovid Mizmor, Tekios B'Emtzo Kaddish (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 14. heter mechira produce (Dov Bloom)

Re: <<Does anyone use a large bundle of hadassim and two 
aravos?>>

Teimanim surround the combined lulav, hadassim, aravot 
package with a large bundle of hadassim as decoration and 
tie with lulav leaves.

As to the dual-headed pockets, I have always called them a 
mafrid rather than a m'chaber or  m'ached.  Often the 
hadassim and aravot are inserted partway into their tubes 
and, when the tubes are not tied together, there is air 
space between the three items and they do not touch. 
Halakhically, I believe this is permitted. However, many 
people feel better when they tie the tubes to the lulav, 
joining the three.

I make a single tube (like a Chinese finger catcher), put 
all three inside together and pull to tighten. As the family 
as grown over the years, I did not always have time to make 
sufficient tubes for all.  So, I cheat by taking apart a 
dual-tube and making it into two separate ones. The inside 
diameter is not always what I like, but it saves a lot of 
time for my aging fingers. The kids call my tube making 
ripui b'isuk in the sukkah (occupational therapy).


hag sameach,

David

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 12:51:46AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> :> As noted last time we discussed this coin, Bar Kochva only needed one
> :> hadas and one aravah -- as he would follow shitas Rabbi Aqiva.
> 
> : But that's not what the coin seems to depict.
> 
> But the idea isn't mine. I got it, complete with the Rabbi Aqiva
> connection (only needing one of each) from the Biblical Archeology
> Review.

Look at the picture itself, though.


> All I could find by Google were copies of a Jm Post article citing our
> RAZivotofsky and R Ari Greenspan to this effect.
> 
> But it would seem that people who actually saw such coins are okay with
> this interpretation of their image.

What makes them more expert than any of us at what the picture actually
looks like?  Surely we're each equally capable of looking at it.


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

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> There is a major difference. Rambam holds that Christianity is idolatry
[...]
> R' Emden seems more  the view of Kuzari:  
> 
> *Kuzari(4:23):? *The law of Moses changes all religions that come after 
> it to be closer to the truth even though outwardly it might appear as if 
> these religions are distancing themselves from Judaism. These derivative 
> religions are in fact merely preparations and introductions to the 
> expected Moshiach. Moshiach is the fruition of the process. At the end  
> of time with their acknowledgment of G?d they too will become His fruit 
> and all of mankind will constitute one tree. At that time they will 
> revere the source religion which they had previously despised as we have 
> discussed concerning Yeshaya (52:13), ?Behold My servant prospers.?

I don't see how this differs from the Rambam.  He says exactly the
same thing.  That doesn't mean it isn't AZ, or that we're not commanded
to destroy it if and when we can.

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

On Mon, October 1, 2007 11:29 am, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I'd like to note what I saw in the Halichos Shlomo (psakim of
: RSZAuerbach) Chelek "Tefilah" 2:2:
: "One who feels a need to drink before davening may drink coffee with
: milk and sugar, but it is probably best [ach yitachen shenachon] to
: say a Davar Bakasha beforehand, such as Shema Hashem V'Chaneni etc."

: The notes there add that when RSZA personally did this, his choice was
: to say the psukim from "Aylecha Hashem Ekra..." to "...Hashem Heyeh
: Ozer Li." (Tehillim 30:9-11)

Vehaarev na has me covered, as does Ana Bekoach. Whew!

There is another distinction possible: desires vs needs.

How much tzorekh is "feels a need".

Say we're talking about someone who used to not even swallow water
before minyah, but due to damage caused during radiation theory would
be in significant pain trying to talk for extended time without a
drink -- preferably a hot one. (For that matter, he sometimes drinks
more tea during the derashah, and I'm sure his shulmates think him odd
for it, among other things.)

Would the fact that this hypothetical person ;-) chose a gourmet green
tea (cooked, if "cooked" is the right term, in a keli sheini, not
bederekh bishul) to satisfy his taste buds make it less of a refu'ah?
Here the question is different than for berakhos. Here the question
isn't hana'ah which was a side-effect in and of itself, it would be
whether the hana'ah constitutes a distraction for pre-tefillah.

My guess is that's the question being implicitly answered with the
mechabeir being careful to include "milk and sugar" in repeating
RSZA's pesaq. The difference being that I'm not sure the bakashah is
needed when the tzorekh for drinking before tefillah is greater.


While whining about my hypothetical person's inability to go all of
davening without a drink beforehand, here's a related (even more
maudlin) question:

He used to enjoy being a sha"tz, and when not, singing along with the
chazan was a big part of his tefillah on Shabbos and YT. Now, it's
painful to make it all the way through one or more tefillos without a
break, meaning frequently declining being sha"tz, and singing only
snippets rather than the entire keta. So, for the Avodah question:

Can someone put his mind at ease by proving that the mashal of an eved
hamozeg kos lerabo veshafach lo specifically applies to Sukkah?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

On Mon, October 1, 2007 5:06 pm, R Zev Sero wrote about the picture on
the back of the BK-era coin:
:> But it would seem that people who actually saw such coins are okay
:> with this interpretation of their image.

: What makes them more expert than any of us at what the picture
: actually looks like?  Surely we're each equally capable of looking at
: it.

I do not have access to many such coins, and only once saw one itself
rather than the picture of one. (At the museum at the digs around the
south-west corner of Har haBayis.) I presume the experts who voice an
opinion on such things have more data to work with.

What we find on the web is multiple copies of the same two or three
pictures. You are right that the only lines on it that do not appear
vertical to my eye are ones that could be simple rings. Although why
the rings would vary in width -- narrow, wide, narrow, wide --
yeilding a vase shape, is beyond me. If I were to concede the point, I
would suggest that it's perhaps just aesthetic. However, as I said,
people who are mumchim and have more data do not reach your
conclusion.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:

> Apparently [0] , the original version contrasted each Ma'aseh Elokeinu
> paragraph with a Ma'aseh Enosh paragraph.  Most of the Ma'ase Enosh's
> were subsequently removed; the standard Mahazorim contain only one.  I
> assume the Roedelheim simply omitted all of them.

> [0] See Weingarten's Mahazor Ha'meforush

The full version is in Machzor Livorno (nusach Italiani), in shacharit
of Yom Kippur.


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

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> RallisW@aol.com wrote:
 
> > 2) Where did the paragraphs of Maaseh Enosh enter into the Piyut of 
> > Maaseh Elokaynu? In the Roedelheim Machzor they don't appear.
 
> The original piyut has a verse of "maaseh enosh" after *each* verse
> of "maaseh Elokenu", just like the piyut "asher ematecha/veratzita
> shevach".

In fact, if you want to see a full Maaseh Elokeinu/Enosh piyut for
Yom Kippur (I don't know offhand if it's the same as ours), see
the Soncino Roman-rite Machzor of 1486 at the JNUL online book
site, pp. 213-4.

Interestingly, it has, for the first beracha, the same nusach as 
Shabbat Maariv - BA"Y EV"E Elokei Avraham, Elokei Yitzchak, V'elokei
Yaakov, Konei Shamayim Vaaretz.  Then it goes right to Misod chachamim
unevonim.  I don't think the later Roman-rite Livorno machzorim do,
they went to our more common Bavli nusach.

See it here: http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/html/bk1993278.htm

(you'll need a DjVu reader plugin)

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

so does that mean that when we take into account and mention how it is 
d'rabanan as a reason "l'hakel", we are dmisplaced and in error?

---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier@012.net.il

http://torahthoughts.blogspot.com
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://parshaquestions.blogspot.com
http://yomtovthoughts.blogspot.com




Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> I would posit the hypothesis that an essential d'orraiso that has been 
> reduced to Derabbana status is stronger than a simple  "pure" Derabbanan.
>
> Other "strong" derabbanans include:
>
>    1. YT sheini shel galiyus
>    2. According to some the gzeiros on Bishul - shehiya, hazarr, and
>       Hatmanas -s s'feikam lechumra for that reason.   The g'zeriso
>       are  construed as  d'orraisso derivitaves. [See S. Edier's  book
>       on Hilchos Shabbas]
>
> I am not sure if the poskim are consious of this conecton, or just 
> aware that the trend with shmitta has been to be machmir so they are 
> perpetuating a pre-existing approach.  THAT approach might have been 
> due to these reasons.
>
> Since I know extremly little re: Shemitta itself, I am only guessing.  
> OTOH, regarding the aforementioned inyanim there is a lot of material  
> demonstrating this  phenomenon.
>  
>
> -- 
> Gmar Tov
> Best Wishes for 5768,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com <mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com>
> Please Visit:
> http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1040 - Release Date: 9/30/2007 9:01 PM
>   

On 10/1/07, Goldmeier <goldmeier@012.net.il> wrote:
>
> so does that mean that when we take into account and mention how it is
> d'rabanan as a reason "l'hakel", we are dmisplaced and in error?
>
>
>
This is a logic flaw in the above pre-supposition...

Let's take 2 Cases:

   1. Explaining HOW a derabban MIGHT have an inherent humra
   2. Explaining How A Derabban MUST have an inherent humra

What I did was showed how poskim MIGHT treat Shemitta lehumra because it has
a d'orraisso foundation

You are now attmpting to show how poskim SHOULD or MUST treat a derabbanan
lehumra.
I never made  that demand upon poskim

I am only offering a rationale for what they have purportedly done already.

Example:
If you were to ask me - how come chicken requires a 6 -hour wait for diary
after all  it is only a derabbanan?
Then I might answer: "well it is an extentsion of a D'orasisso" and can be
treated as such

Then you could turn around and ask: Well what about Sfeik Bssar bechalav
derabbanan wtih chicken are we machmir like a D'orraiso?

I would answer that poskim do NOT treat that case strictly. The option to be
stricter in one aspect does not necessarily imply a requirement to be
stricter across the board

I hope this helps

-- 
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/20071001/38b930f8/attachment.html 

In Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 209, R'Micha wrote:
> ...I...begin at home with: Asher Yatzar, E-lokai Netzor, Birkhos haTorah
- body, soul and mind -- which some rishonim make a point of making a
triad. Others see Asher Yatzar as a necessary prelude, E-lokai Netzor as
semukhah to haMapil the night before, and Birkhos haTorah as standing by
itself. <
And then (re "Elokai, n'shamah," which I assume is what Micha meant by
"E-lokai Netzor") there's SA OC 46:1....

Personally, I wash my hands, do what I need to do in the WC, and then say
"al n'tilas yadayim," "asher yatzar," and "Elokai, n'shamah" as a group.
Getting dressed, I say the birchos haTorah after putting on my talis qatan
(not for Micha's reason, but simply because I associate tzitzis with Torah
and want to say those b'rachos ASAP) and then proceed to say birchos
hashachar.

Gut Moeid and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071001/d0bf0580/attachment.htm 

Dear Readers,
There is a lot of confusion between various customs re: the High Holidays.
One of the best sources adressing the contrast betwee nthe German Minhag and
the so-called "polish" Minhag is Daniel Goldschmidt's Yamim Nora'im
Machazorim

Caveat: I myself owned these tomes for year w/o realizing their significance
until I started davening in a shul that was Roedelheim based.

If I could, I would require  rabbinical students [and others] to spend time
in various communities in order to better appreciate each nusach. This is
analogous to understanding English better by studying French/Spanish/German
etc.

If you look at the Minhaggim of RYDS as outlined in the new editions of the
Mahcazor Masores Harav, you can trace many of these minhaggim to earlier
sources.  I would venture a guess that well over 50% are attributable to
either the Gra or the Ba'al Hatanya's Siddur.
I found that about 5-10% were compatible with Heidenheim et. al.

By the time of the Rema, the concept of a LONG selichos on Erev Yom Kippur
is apparently considered rare. nevertheless, it is still preserved in the
Heidenheim Selichos and still practiced at Breuer's.

For some reason, My old shul [Cong. Ohav Sholaum] we used the Roedleheim
Selichos but trimmed it down on Erev Yom Kippur. This was considered highly
unusual.  I don't know the origin of that custom.

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/20071001/6c2bb6af/attachment.html 

In Avodah Digest V23#209, R'Micha replied to me:
> The question was skipping Berikh Shemei when one is not the sha"tz and no
one else would notice. <
When something (and I previously had noted the portions of Q'dushah which
[quoting from MB 125:2] "nowadays" are said by the "qahal" as well as
"B'rich Shmei") that is part of the nusach hat'fila is supposed to be said
by the tzibbur, it is my understanding that one is poreish min hatzibbur by
evidently not saying it.  Perhaps (as implied by Micha publicly and fleshed
out by him privately) if one properly disguises one's not saying it (e.g.
re "B'rich Shmei," one says something else or even just moves one's lips
for whatever part is said silently), one thereby works around any issue of
"lo sisgod'du."

> The parallel would be something I do every Shabbos: Daven nusach Ashkenaz
when saying tefillah belachash, but answering Qedushah with the rest of the
minyan in nusach "Sfard". <
With respect, that "parallel" isn't a parallel at all, as we're talking
about what the tzibbur does together, not what is done "belachash."  A
parallel might be your saying "Na'aritz'cha" while the qahal is saying
"Keser."

Gut Moeid and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071001/db3ff35a/attachment.htm 

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:25:11 -0400
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> 
> > Apparently [0] , the original version contrasted each Ma'aseh Elokeinu
> > paragraph with a Ma'aseh Enosh paragraph.  Most of the Ma'ase Enosh's
> > were subsequently removed; the standard Mahazorim contain only one.  I
> > assume the Roedelheim simply omitted all of them.
> 
> > [0] See Weingarten's Mahazor Ha'meforush
> 
> The full version is in Machzor Livorno (nusach Italiani), in shacharit
> of Yom Kippur.

And in Goldschmidt, as my father showed me.

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

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

>Rafi Goldmeier commented "while it keeps getting mentioned in the discussion that shmitta is only  d'rabanan anyway ... I have not heard any Rav use that as a reason to be meikil. I have heard many shiurim on shmitta issues leading up to shmitta ...yet that "svara" has never been mentioned by a Rav. "

I must say that over the last 30 years I have heard dozens of shiurim on shmitta over the last 5 shmittot, and it is rare that one does not begin with the question of what is the status of Shmitta bzman hazeh, D'oraita, D'Rabbanan or Midat Hasidut.

See for instance Sefer HaShmitta of R Yechiel Michel Tokuchinsky, author of the (original) Luach Eretz Yisrael which is now put out by his descendents. Part 2 of the sefer is about the heter hamechira through the different shmittot starting from 5642. Of great interest are the letters anouncing the heter hamechira in 5649 and the letter of R Yitzhak Elhonon Spector of Kovno in 5649, who was probably the pre-eminent posek at that time.  

On p. 71 he begins to analyze "ta'anot ha-rabbanim hametirim" and begins of course with "she-anan naktinan shvi'it bezman hazeh derabbanan" (Kesef Mishne Shmitta perek 4 25 and 9 9, Ramban Sfer haZachut, Rashi Gittin 36 and Sanhedrin 26, Yerushalmi Shviit Perek 9,  Tur YD 331, Bach CM 67 6, Kaftor VaFerach, Gra, and finally "mara d'arah Yisrael baal Peat Hashulchan").

To skip forward in time to a month ago, I heard a shiur by R Dov Lior, R of Kiryat Arba-Hevron - a well established posek le-maase (who is in charge of all the smicha testing of the Rabbanut Harashit). He of course also began his shiur by mentioning the d'rabbanan status which came into play many times during the shiur which was very le-maase. 

In my experience it is a given that anyone who deals seriously with the question of shmitta nowadays and grapples with situations of le-maase agricultural questions all years and not just shmitta, will relate to the question of D'oraita, D'Rabbanan or Midat Hasidut.

What one heard more 20-30 years ago was a stress on the opinion (usually as a snif la-heter) of Midat Hasidut. See for example Shut Yabia Omer  of OY, YD Sefer  Gimel Tshuva 19. After showing how the prominent Poskim Sfardim in EY held by the heter and even the Ashenazim relied on the Sfardim in EY (Yeshuot Malko YD 53), he says "Ukvar noda ba'shearim ha'metzuyanim ba'halacha shitat harbe min haRishonim sheEIN SHVIIT NOHEGET BIZMAN HAZEH AFILU ME'DRABBANAN...". He brings down Rashbam, Baal HaMaor, Rashbash, Behag, Baal HaItur and others. His conclusion "HaMachmir tavo alav beracha ve'hameikel lo hifsid". 

A far cry from how some rabbanim relate this year to produce from heter mechira.

As another "snif", some of the criticism of the heter mechira in the past was that it wasn't a real sale, ho-ra'aya, land taxes weren't paid etc. etc. A few shmittas ago a law was passed by the knesset recognizing heter mechira sales and exempting land sales by the RHR for the purpose of shmitta from land registry taxes. 

Another complaint that I even saw this year as a reason to posel the heter hamechira was there is no real "gemirut daat". In the past, kibbutzim or moshavim wishing to be part of the heter ha'mechiva had to sign the papers in such a way that it was legally binding, such as two of the authorized signatories of the organization plus the seal of the organization.  This year with new Rabbanim handling the heter hamechira, they insisted on a vote by the kibbutz/moshav membership at a general meeting. One more complaint down.

A chief criticism of the heter, dating back to the 5640's was the question of "lo techoname". Today anyone raising that problem and preferring to buy goods from the Arabs in EY, or to be "mehader" and buy from the Hamas-Arabs in the Gaza strip, seems to have a question on his own kasha!. This point was stressed by the above mentioned R Dov Lior. Paying high prices to Arabs to produce crops in EY acc'd to R Lior is "vadai lo techoname". A previous poster had said that "political issues " such as buying from enemies of Am Yisrael has no halachick ramifacations and cannot be used as a reason to rely on the heter. Just the opposite, if the alternative is buying from enemies of Am Yisrael who dwell in EY, it has GREAT halachik ramifacations, lo techoname is D'Oraita now and shmitta is acc'd to rov haposkin D'rabbanan! 

For those who don't see the "hiddur" in buying produce from the Gaza strip, which is not obvious, I will elaborate. Certain BaDaTZim felt that if they buy from West Bank or Israeli Arabs, they may be buying Jewish produce that the Arabs bought from the Jews and are selling now for a higher price, under the label of Arab produce. (This happened all the time in past shmitot and I have seen it with my own eyes.) However, if the BaDaTZ buys from Gaza, it would be vadai Arab produce. )

I hope Am Yisrael gets through this year with minimal kitrug. 

My family had the opportunity on Sukkot to eat vegetables "kdushat peirot shvi'it" with their attendent zkut of ingesting kedusha (ve-hayta shabbat ha-aretz lachem le-ochla) while being cafeful of the various issurim involved in disposing of leftovers etc.  



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 211
***************************************

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..."