Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 214

Sat, 06 Oct 2007

• 1. Zman Simchateinu - rejoinder to RRW (Jonathan Baker)
• 2. Re: Tea before Shacharis (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Tea before Shacharis (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz an d for the Private Worshiper? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: mechitza [was: heter mechira produce] (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: mechitza [was: heter mechira produce] (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: mechitza [was: heter mechira produce] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. "v'eilu ein lohem Helel ba'olam Habba" - Is that a Permanent Condition? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: heter mechira produce (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the Private Worshiper? (Elliott Shevin)
• 11. Re: Shmini Atzeret - why Sukkah YES and Lulav NO? (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Zman Simchateinu - rejoinder to RRW (Richard Wolpoe)

RRW has been regaling us with his theory about Zman Simchateinu 
necessarily corresponding to a historical commemoration of the
dedication of the Temple.

I feel he has put the cart before the horse: Zman Simchateinu
is part of the Biblical definition of Sukkot, while the Temple
came about almost 500 years later.

I have an extended rejoinder here:
http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/10/zman-simchateinu-or-not.html

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

I quoted RSZA's suggestion to say a Bakasha before one's pre-Shacharis coffee, and that his personal practice was to say Tehillim 30:9-11 for this purpose.

R' Micha responded:
> Vehaarev na has me covered, as does Ana Bekoach. Whew!

I'm not so sure. I think it's a pretty safe bet that RSZA said Birkas HaTorah prior to Tehillim, and if so, then V'haarev Na is *not* enough.

I wonder why? What do those psukim have that v'haarev lacks? Could it be that davening for ruchniyus does not meet the definition of bakasha? I don't know...

Akiva Miller

 

The mashal of Eved Hamozeg is designed to illustrate that when we have
been denied the opportunity to do the mitzva, we should understand that
HaShem is upset with us. Can someone do a search to see if this mashal
appears in other contexts? If it appears only by Sukkah, or also appears
for other similarly subjective mitzvos, then perhaps we can draw a clear
line between the cases where it applies, and the cases where Machshava
Mitztaref L'Maaseh applies.

Akiva Miller

===============================
This always bothered me versus ones rachmana patrei.  I had heard the
explanation (IIRC quoted here by R'RW) that the climate and HKB"H's
constant watch on eretz yisrael made this a "chiddush".  Note that the
Shvut Yaakov(2:10) deals with this issue and explains sukkah is a
"chiddush" because the point is you should go out sadly or else people
will think you're happy to go inside where you'd rather be anyway.

However note Rashi (this courtesy of the BICD) on yoma 88  where he
draws this mashal to a baal keri on Y"K which would seem to imply a
broader scope.

KT(kvittel tov?)
Joel Rich 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
> How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz
> and for the Private Worshipper?

The Igros Moshe has quite a few teshuvos on this. Check the Yad Moshe for specifics, or ask and I'll send.

IIRC, his basic approach for the Yachid is:

If it has to be said out loud, like Kedusha, then it has to be in the shul's manner. If it has to be said quietly, like Shmoneh Esreh, then he can say it either way. If it can be said either quietly or aloud, like most of the davening, then he *should* say it the shul's way, but can say it his own way provided he is careful to do so quietly.

For the Shatz, he has additional pointers: He explains that the only reason the Shatz says a silent Shmoneh Esreh is as preparation for the loud one, and therefore his silent amidah has to be in the shul's nusach else it wouldn't really be preparation. If being chazan means having to say actual brachos which are not part of his personal minhag -- he uses Hallel on the Seder night as his example -- then he should try to avoid being chazan, and might offer some other comments to, but if he can't avoid it then he says the brachos anyway.

RRW gave many specific applications of his question, but most of them can be put into the topics I've mentioned.

Akiva Miller

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Mechitza is only a "minhag"?  In Europe they didn't have mechitzos in 
> shul?  Men and women sat together?  Or they sat separately but with no 
> physical separation?
As far as I know the norm throughout Europe was balconies (or women not 
going to shul).  In the 1950s in the US various poskim tried to find 
sources for mehitza, but it's not explicitly discussed, as far as I 
know, in Hazal, Rishonim, or early modern poskim.  My personal 
conclusion is that it's a universal minhag.  I'd be surprised if we 
hadn't already hashed this out thoroughly at least once, but I don't 
recall having done so.

David Riceman

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> From: David Riceman <driceman@att.net>
>>I suspect this is a sociological phenomenon rather than a halachic one. 
>> One analogue in America is the elevation of mehitza in shul from a
>> custom not even mentioned in Shulhan Aruch to the fourteenth ikkar,
>> which distinguishes observant Jews from non-observant Jews. <<

> Mechitza is only a "minhag"?  In Europe they didn't have mechitzos in 
> shul?  Men and women sat together?  Or they sat separately but with no 
> physical separation?

Having a mechitza in a shul is a "custom" in the same sense that having
two sets of dishes is a "custom".  Having two sets of dishes is only
necessary if one eats both milk and meat at home, regularly enough that
one needs dishes for them.  If meat (or milk) never enters the home, or
does so so rarely that it makes sense to use only disposables for it,
then there's no need for two sets of dishes.

AIUI before about the 16th century women rarely went to shul, so there
was no need for shuls to be built with any sort of mechitza.  Even today
not every shul follows the "custom" of having a separate women's section;
some shtieblach don't need one, because women rarely come.  (As RMF
writes, the practise in Lita was that even on those occasions when a
woman or two did show up no mechitza was put up for them; it's only
required if there are a lot of women, or if it happens regularly.)

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

On 10/3/07, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  From: David Riceman <driceman@att.net>
> >>I suspect this is a sociological phenomenon rather than a halachic one.
>
> One analogue in America is the elevation of mehitza in shul from a
> custom not even mentioned in Shulhan Aruch to the fourteenth ikkar,
> which distinguishes observant Jews from non-observant Jews. <<
>
> >>>>>
> Mechitza is only a "minhag"?  In Europe they didn't have mechitzos in
> shul?  Men and women sat together?  Or they sat separately but with no
> physical separation?
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

I think the issue to which R. David Ricment refers is that Mehcitza is not
clearly codified in Tur/Shulchan Aruch etc. I see it as highly implicit
[mashma lehedya] in the Rambam hilchos 'Krias Shema" where he discusses the
erva of excrement and of nudity The Rambam cites the passuk lo yir'eh lecha
ervas davar.  However, Rambam does not seem to include this passuk in his
Taryag.  B"H I was learning Sefer Mitzvos Hashem and he brings down the SMAK
who indeed considers this passuk a d'orraisso. If the SMAK is normative - at
least in Ashkenaz - then any doubt would be  a s'feik d'orraisso..

There are indeed those people [inlcuding rabbis]  who consider a mechitza
only a Minhag .
IMHO this is misleading because - aisi al pi Rambam- you can ONLY make that
case if  all the women in shul are dressed  in something like Moslem
Burkas.  In a modern society that would be  virtually impossible.

-- 
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/20071003/20c82617/attachment-0001.htm 

Re: losing a Helek l'oam habba. I was mulling this over. Ach'av did Teshuva.
But he STILL lost his Helek l'Olam Habba.
I got a flash of an idea, but I have idea if this has any sources or fits in
with Hazal. so I am seeking to use Avodah as our Beis Midrash to discuss
this:

Hypothesis:  Those who lost Olam Habba are not permanently disabled. Rather
they lost their original helek during that Gilgul only;  and therefore need
to be re-cycled in order to recover their God-given legacy.  Others who have
earned Olam Habba, or preserved their God-given portion -  either need not
be "re-cycled" or are re-cycled for a given tikkun but not to regain Olam
Habba.

Illustration: Given that Dor Die'ah, for exmpale lost its Olam Habba , they
can still come back with the opportunity to recover their lost Helek.

Any insights out there?

-
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/20071003/95afba20/attachment-0001.html 

On 10/3/07, Chana Luntz <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> However, as this is being used as a justification for a
> specific leniency (prozbul) which by implication Hillel would never have
> enacted had shmitta not been d'rabbanan, it would seem logical that the
> kind of d'rabbanan that shmitta was deemed to be was not one which had
> all the chumros of a d'orisa, otherwise the question just reverts.  [Of
> course, the gemora does also give annother answer as to how Hillel was
> able to enact prozbul, by means of hefker beis din hefker, but it is not
> clear that these are indeed alternatives, because either way, you need
> the hefker beis din hefker response to counter the question as to how
> the rabbis could deem loans nullified if the Torah itself did not]
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chana
>

I see your point. I am only rainolizing how some rabbis treat  Shemittah
more strictly than other derabbanans. I am not positing that since it is
treated strictly in some aspects that it must be 100% consistently treated
like a d'orraiso!

AISI  Derabbans are on a continuum.  There are PURE derabbans like Hanukkah
and there are derabbanan's -like Marror w/o korban Pesach - that are
explicit d'orrasio'. Then there are derabbans that have asmachtos or are
IMPLCIT in the Torah [e.g. EruvTechumin].

From an academic or pedagogical point of view, it would be mis-leading to
conveniently label all derabbanan's as the same.  That said, I am virtually
ignorant re:  hilchos shemitta. I am only demonstrating how one derabban
could be stricter than another.  Whether these poskim are relying on my
thesis or have a sociological agenda - I don't know. I am not a mind
reader.  It is possible that they are using my approach unconsciously in
that they have been taught by their rebbes to be strict with Shemitta but
don't know WHY that is so. That is where I come in to find a precedent.

-- 
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/20071003/b8751b2c/attachment-0001.htm 

Richard Wolpoe asked:
 
> How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the> Private Worshipper? What are the parameters?
 
I don't have an answer regarding the Shatz, but I've been told that as far as 
the individual: whatever is apparent to others should follow the tzibur; what's not 
should follow one's own practice.
 
So if an Ashkenazi davens with a Sephardi minyan, he would say the tefila  
belachash the way he usually does (e.g., "Shalom Rav" rather than "Sim Shalom"
at mincha); but he'd say kedusha and kaddish the same as the rest of the 
tzibor. Likewise, he'd say Vidui after chazaras hashatz prior to Tachanun because 
he would obviously not be conforming if he sat resting his head on his arm while 
everyone else is standing and beating their chests.
 
Elly
_________________________________________________________________
Boo!?Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071003/7c8243f2/attachment-0001.html 

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:45:41 GMT
"kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

[snip]

> sukkah on Shmini for small snacks or to learn or shmooze. No one (AFAIK) sleeps in the Sukkah on Shmini. Safek Brachos 

Some Aharonim held that one must sleep in the Succah:  the Beis Yosef,
the Eliyahu Rabbah, the Bikkurei Ya'akov and most famously the Gra -
see Sha'arei Zion 668:4

> Akiva Miller

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

On 10/3/07, Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
>
> RRW has been regaling us with his theory about Zman Simchateinu
> necessarily corresponding to a historical commemoration of the
> dedication of the Temple.
>
> I feel he has put the cart before the horse: Zman Simchateinu
> is part of the Biblical definition of Sukkot, while the Temple
> came about almost 500 years later.
>
> I have an extended rejoinder here:
> http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/10/zman-simchateinu-or-not.html
> --
>

WADR you are not putting dealing with my SPECIFIC CART NOR HORSE
I never said that the Binyan Mikdash during sukkot was DESIGNED by Sh,lomn
to make it INTO a Simcha any more than the Roman's DESIGNED Tisha B'av as a
day of Mourning.  it is quite possible that Shlomoh had his motives and
Dvinie KISMET made it on Sukkos - So
if you want to wax mystical, God reserved THAT time for Simcha ,regardles of
shlomoh's motives.  I am also saying that NOW - after tthe facts -  z'man
simchateinu simply reflects a specific historical event

And AFAIK there is no evidence that Z'man simchateinu is earlier than the
Bayyit Shein era when these words were composed.

Parallels:
God reserved Yershlayim as "makom asher yivchar" 400 years earlier too!  Is
that Deutornomic cocnetp in Devarim AFTER the selection of yersuhalyim?  No
to Orthodox but yes to Bible Critics.  The point being you can peg something
NOW for use later - kind of like Reserved Yahrtzeit placques in Synagogue or
like my Cousin Sara  who bought her matzeiva about 10 years before she died.


JB accuses me of positing that:
<<Sukkot must celebrate a specific historic event too>>

 I stand accused and guilty. It might NOT be the binyan bet hamikdash. That
is indeed speculative although imho highly supported by a  lot of liturgical
considerations.

What I am charging JB and all is that  you cannot make a Z'man out of an
ongoing process as ajn ex post facto  ratoinale. Therefore Z'man  MUST refer
to a specific event. It might be other than binyan Beit MHamikdash. For
example, simchat beitt hasho'eivah - but that is even LATER in history. I
posit it SHOULD be historical because its 2 colleages are historical. This
is proof by context - davar halamei mei'inyono.   Assuming structure and
context is a big part of how I analyze texts. Strucuture being the 3 regalim
are inter-connected, contex that hte names in the prayerbook stem from the
same impetus.

So to bifurcate JB's points

   1. I posit that the MUST be a specifc - not a fluffy fuzzy - event to
   observe in Z'man Simachateinu.
   2. I SPECULATE - with strong hints - that this event is binyan bet
   hamikdash


Now to further bolster. When the Macccabees RE-DEDICATED the 2nd Mikdash
they observed 8 days of Hallel According to Maccabees II this is  due to a
make-up celebration of Sukkot. This kind of figures that  Sukkot IS
considered a historical  event associated with Binyan Bet Hamikdash EVEN in
the time of the  Maccabbees.  Of course this does not PROVE that there is
SIMCHA - only Hallel.

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/20071003/077d8f1c/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 214
***************************************

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..."