Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 99

Tue, 18 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Gilgul (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: history (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Mitzvot and sins cancel each other, or not (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: schechtworthy (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: O attend R wedding = kosher eidim? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 10. Re: O attend R wedding = kosher eidim? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: purim drinking (Aryeh Stein)
• 12. Shaloch manos: through a sh'liach or maybe not? (Aryeh Stein)

>  *R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep the
>  entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published in
>  Forward November 2007
>
>  "Rabbi Uziel argued that not only may rabbis do conversions in less than
>  ideal circumstances, but they are obligated to do so ? even when the
>  would-be convert is not expected to become fully observant religiously.
>  Since so many conversion cases involve intermarriage or potential
>  intermarriage, Rabbi Uziel believed we should perform conversions in
>  order to maintain whole Jewish families that can raise Jewish children
>  within the Jewish community. He viewed himself as being "strict" in his
>  opposition to intermarriage, not as being "lenient" in matters of
>  conversion."
>
>  Daniel Eidensohn

I believe however that Rabbi Uziel's approach (along with Rabbi
Angel's, Rabbi Berkovits's, etc.) becomes very different in the
context of Eretz Yisrael. RMF says that there is no benefit to doing
these conversions, even if we could do them. But this is davka in
chutz la'aretz. But in EY, the issue we have is a gentile woman having
gentile children, and her daughters having gentile children, etc. etc.
This causes fantastically enormous problems that need not be
elaborated on.

Even a gentile man, and gentile sons of a gentile woman, are a
problem. In chutz la'aretz, most of the Jews assimilate, and kol
she'ken the gentiles born of a Jewish father. Therefore, the problem
solves itself - we instead have to worry about Chabad-kiruv for the
minority-Jew marrying the majority-gentile. But in EY, the gentiles
assimilate into the Jewish population, and become as Israeli and
fluent in Hebrew as any Jew. It is beyond a doubt that they will meet
a nice secular Jew and so forth. By doing conversions, even without
kabbalat mitzvot, we ensure that there is no intermarriage between the
minority-gentile and the majority-Jew. Kol she'ken, we solve the
horrible problem of an everlasting gentile sect that we must keep
genealogical records for her for all eternity, and the terrible
problem of legitimate, true, bona-fide Jews who lack documentation
(since bubbe married a gentile and had no ketuba), and have no
inclination to convert in an Orthodox fashion (because he or she is
Reform BUT halachically Jewish), and so become, in effect, mamzerim
who have to find a back-handed way via Itim to get proof of
Jewishness. It's hard enough for the Orthodox Jews who need a safek
conversion in Israel, but what do we do for the Reform Jews who cannot
get a safek conversion, but absolutely positively know that their
mother's mother is Jewish?

Rabbi Berkovits characterized it as an eit la'asot lashem, dropping
the law of gerut in favor of unity of Am Yisrael. Not that I'm an
expert, but he has me convinced.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Sun, March 16, 2008 2:55 pm, R Michael Makovi wrote on Areivim:
: I'm not sure how much weight I put in gilgul; as an aside, there's an
: interesting Rav Hirsch somewhere, where he says the Egyptians believed
: in gilgul but Judaism does not....

See also <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=G#GILGUL>
and subsequent subject lines in the archive as well as
<http://tinyurl.com/32fkep> (that's a different part of the index than
the unshortened first link).

RSRH's comments are usually taken to refer to bodily resurrection.
Which is why the Egyptians took such care of how they preserved the
pharaoh's body. Then there is R' Saadia Gaon's rejection of "haatakah"
in Emunos veDei'os 2:9, which he considers an import of foreign
thought, and not from our mesorah.

I tried divorcing ha'atakah from gilgul in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n144.shtml#04>. According the
the Ari, every human being is a unique configuration, even if elements
of his neshamah participated in other configurations. This is a very
different notion than simple reincarnation. I think the biggest
problem with my resolution is that it would be odd for RSG to be so
condemning of one and not mention the Torah origins of a somewhat
similar idea.

In Plato's thought, reincarnation was part of the general cyclical
nature of time. It would then be logical to vehemently reject it in
favor of our notion of progressing from Adam le'achar hacheit to yemos
hamashiach. (Jewish "helical time" -- revisiting yetzias mitzrayim
annually as part of the trip to the geulah sheleimah.)

Josephus in BJ 2.8.14 mentions that we Perushim believe something
along these lines. R Dr Louis Feldman (RMFeldman's father) believes
it's techiyas hameisim le'asid lavo, but the author of the Britannica
article believes he is describing gilgul. (I also noted that Josephus
refers to future "bodies", in the plural, of a single soul, which
could well be early documentation of the notion of nitzotzos described
by the Ari zal.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>>  I wrote:
>> *R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep the
>>  entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published in
>>  Forward November 2007
>>
>>  
>
> Rabbi Berkovits characterized it as an eit la'asot lashem, dropping
> the law of gerut in favor of unity of Am Yisrael. Not that I'm an
> expert, but he has me convinced.
>
>
>   

If I understand you properly, R' Berkovitz argues that whenever the 
Torah laws become difficult to keep they should be simply abrogated 
because of ais la'asos. According to this if we are prepared to have 
Israel populated by "make believe" Jews for the sake of "Jewish unity" 
we should also do away with the problem of aguna and mamzerim by saying 
these halachos are no longer of concern because it interferes with 
Jewish unity. Shabbos is also a problem. Hilchos nidda and kashrus are  
also divisive laws. 


Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>
>  R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>
> >>  I wrote:
>  >> *R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep the
>  >>  entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published in
>  >>  Forward November 2007
>  >>

> > Rabbi Berkovits characterized it as an eit la'asot lashem, dropping
>  > the law of gerut in favor of unity of Am Yisrael. Not that I'm an
>  > expert, but he has me convinced.
>  >

>  If I understand you properly, R' Berkovitz argues that whenever the
>  Torah laws become difficult to keep they should be simply abrogated
>  because of ais la'asos. According to this if we are prepared to have
>  Israel populated by "make believe" Jews for the sake of "Jewish unity"
>  we should also do away with the problem of aguna and mamzerim by saying
>  these halachos are no longer of concern because it interferes with
>  Jewish unity. Shabbos is also a problem. Hilchos nidda and kashrus are
>  also divisive laws.
>
>
>  Daniel Eidensohn

What Rav Berkovits says has to be understood along with what he says
about Chazal in Not in Heaven: he says that Chazal could never
abrogate a deoraita in theory, but they could okimta it so as to
effectively get rid of it (the rebellious son) or to modify its
operation (for example, with mamzerim, you can just simply not
investigate the evidence, for an aguna you can rely on one witness,
etc.). I'm not an expert on exactly what he intends, but it is very
obvious he means nothing similar to simply wiping laws out.

What he says is that the Torah was meant to be a living evolutionary
code (therefore it was davka Oral and not Written), and therefore it
could freely evolve according to the legitimate needs of human living.
His Not in Heaven is full of examples he brings from the Gemara to
illustrate what he intends.

But he is of course committed to the halachic system (unlike
Conservative, who use disengenous pseudo-halachic solutions), and he
did not (or at least, he did not knowingly) import foreign values into
Judaism (unlike Conservative); he relied on Tanachic values, as did
Chazal.

A more thorough discussion of this would take me more time than I
currently have. On Azure.co.il, there's an article by David Hazony,
with a title something about revival of Jewish moral thought, on this
entire subject.

Mikha'el Makovi

Michael Makovi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>   
>>  R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>>  I wrote:
>>>>         
>>  >> *R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep the
>>  >>  entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published in
>>  >>  Forward November 2007
>>  >>
>>     
>>> Rabbi Berkovits characterized it as an eit la'asot lashem, dropping
>>>       
>>  > the law of gerut in favor of unity of Am Yisrael. Not that I'm an
>>  > expert, but he has me convinced.
>>  >
>>     
>
>   
>>  If I understand you properly, R' Berkovitz argues that whenever the
>>  Torah laws become difficult to keep they should be simply abrogated
>>  because of ais la'asos. According to this if we are prepared to have
>>  Israel populated by "make believe" Jews for the sake of "Jewish unity"
>>  we should also do away with the problem of aguna and mamzerim by saying
>>  these halachos are no longer of concern because it interferes with
>>  Jewish unity. Shabbos is also a problem. Hilchos nidda and kashrus are
>>  also divisive laws.
>>
>>
>>  Daniel Eidensohn
>>     
>
> What Rav Berkovits says has to be understood along with what he says
> about Chazal in Not in Heaven: he says that Chazal could never
> abrogate a deoraita in theory, but they could okimta it so as to
> effectively get rid of it (the rebellious son) or to modify its
> operation (for example, with mamzerim, you can just simply not
> investigate the evidence, for an aguna you can rely on one witness,
> etc.). I'm not an expert on exactly what he intends, but it is very
> obvious he means nothing similar to simply wiping laws out.
>   
He basically says that whatever we think Chazal did - we can do also. 
However even if we have the arrogance to think we fully understand what 
Chazal did and even if we chas v'shalom viewed ourselves as their equals 
- but much of what they did was obviously before the closing of the 
Talmud. How can you assert that that freedom of action still exists 
after the closing of the Talmud?

> What he says is that the Torah was meant to be a living evolutionary
> code (therefore it was davka Oral and not Written), and therefore it
> could freely evolve according to the legitimate needs of human living.
> His Not in Heaven is full of examples he brings from the Gemara to
> illustrate what he intends.
>
> But he is of course committed to the halachic system (unlike
> Conservative, who use disengenous pseudo-halachic solutions), and he
> did not (or at least, he did not knowingly) import foreign values into
> Judaism (unlike Conservative); he relied on Tanachic values, as did
> Chazal.
>
>
>   
Having read through Not in Heaven - in particular Chapter 4 -Halacha in 
our Time - I am having difficulty understanding how R' Berkovitz differs 
from Reform and Conservative Judaism. What does he do with Jews for 
Jesus? The following is his lead in to his discussion of conversion.

For example he states on page 107

"It is our conviction that Halacha has to be stretched to its limits in 
order to further Jewish unity and to better mutual understanding. In the 
Orthodox camp there are certain psychological impediments that have to 
be overcome. It is time that Orthodox rabbis face without dogmatism the 
issue of their relationship to rabbis of the non-Orthodox denominations. 
Judged in the light of the real situation, it is just not true that the 
latter, because of the Conservative or Reform interpretation of Judaism, 
are incapable of Yirat Shamayim. To insist that this is so is a 
prejudice; it is insisting on an untruth that, as such, is a violation 
of important biblical commandments. There are quite a few among 
Conservative and Reform rabbis who are sincere believers in Judaism. Nor 
should one take it for granted that belonging to the Orthodox group 
automatically bestows upon one the precious treasure of Yirat Shamayim. 
It is true that some of the practices and teachings of non-Orthodox 
rabbis represent a violation of the laws of the Torah as they are 
understood by the Orthodox interpretation. But it is not true that they 
interpret and practice as they do because the mean to perform an act of 
heresy or rebellion against Judaism. On the contrary, many among them 
work to preserve, to enrich, to serve Judaism and the Jewish people no 
less than the best among their Orthodox colleagues. From the point of 
view of their ideological position, their intention may be no less 
L'shem Shamayim, for the sake of heaven, than that of Orthodox Jews. 
What is their halachic status? Since they do not violate the law with 
the knowledge or the intention of violating, but on the contary with 
conviction - however mistaken from the Orthodox point of view - of 
practicing a valid form of Judaism, they are not to be considered Mumrim 
l'Hakhis, apostates out of spite, nor even Mumrim l'Teabon, apostates of 
convenience. From the halachic point of view they are To'im, mistaken. 
This reference to non-Orthodox rabbis as To'im as erring ones, should 
not be taken as a form of condescension. We are attempting to define 
their status from the point of view of Halakha. I fully realize that 
non-Orthodox interpreters of Judaism may similarly refer to the Orthodox 
interpretation as Ta'ut, a mistake...."


Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, March 10, 2008 8:07 am, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: Now, Rav Hirsch explains all this saying that we had a TSBP of
: history, not only halacha.

So, would you argue that RSRH would therefore ignore archeology-based
arguments for anything other than a global flood? I'm not discussing
the idea of a local flood, I am raising the question of whether the
notion that history can be mesorah would mandate a mesoretic argument
to defend changing our understanding of the history.

Still, there is much in the Torah about how Rivqah was found for
Yitzchaq, and nothing about how a boy became an Avraham avinu or Moshe
rabbeinu. Even from a role-model perspective this is odd, never mind
from a historical one.

I would therefore argue that while there are historical claims
embedded in the mesorah (maamad Har Sinai, for one), that doesn't mean
that it's a focal topic for TSBP, or that engaging in the study is
included in talmud Torah. Rather, that a fact is of relevant to two
distinct fields of study.

I am also not deprecating the study of history. The history of
halakhah is no less noble of a goal than studying telecommunications
(my own field, back when I was an academic).

But we were talking about what imparts to the studier a Torah
weltenschaung, the indescribable part of TSBP that can't be described
formally and is developed through extended exposure and shimush. My
argument was that academic study, because it cultivates objectivity,
is inherently ill suited for that development.

And thus I was arguing that someone could be a fine frum Jew who is a
great academic in the study of Judaism, but not have any more of that
Torah culture than the rest of us. Certainly not equipped to argue
with rishonim without always holding onto the possibility that there
is something overlooked. (Of course not on halachic matters, as the
authority structure of how law is created gives few acharonim such
gravitas. But even on aggadic, it is presumptuous.)

TuM and TIDE don't mean that mada or derekh eretz are Talmud Torah.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM, R David Riceman <driceman@att.net> asked:
:> Michael Makovi wrote:
:>> The Gemara says that tzedaka, for example, cancels out averot.

:> Where?

On Sun, March 9, 2008 9:33 pm, Rn Shayna Livia Korb wrote:
: Do you mean in the gemara in Rosh Hashana? (16b - 4 things overturn a
: decree - tzedaka, tzeaka, shinui shem, shinui maaseh)

I fail to follow this whole argument. Is the task of sheleimus haadam
measured in a single dimension? Aren't there people who are very
generous, but also very vindictive? And not only is the melakhah
multidimensional, so is the sechar. One person could be a success
financially and be able to found institutions that give him nachas,
another is zokheh lir'os banim uvnei vanim oseqim baTorah.

Given that both "input" and "output" vary in many different ways, how
can someone discuss whether work in one area, with its sechar, has any
impact on another sechar which is tied to "baasher who sham" in
another midah, task or ...?

What then is "tzedaqah tatzil mimaves", the above gemara in RH or "...
utzedaqah ma'avirin es ro'ah hagezeirah"?

Two possibilities:
1- I think it has to do with onesh vs a window to do more teshuvah.
The gezeirah remains, but the evil is alleviated. Thus all tzedaqah
buys is time, not a cancellation.

2- Tefillah and tzedaqah are aspects of teshuvah, the lemaaseh of
Avodah and Gemilus Chassadim. Teshuvah alone cancels out aveiros; but
without a qabalah al haasid to do better bein adam laMaqom (tefillah)
and bein adam lachaveiro (tzedaqah) there is no real teshuvah.


BTW, notice that in the mapping from the gemara to the machzor,
"shinui sheim and shinui maaseh" are folded together where the other
has "teshuvah". One discussing the 2 pe'ulos, the other the 1 chalos.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RZS writes:

> It's a question of poretz geder.  In a community where TV-watching is
> not accepted, someone who does raises questions about his yiras shomayim,
> and a shochet's yiras shomayim must be beyond question.  The same applies
> to shaving or trimming, and in an earlier era even to wearing galoshes!
> Someone whose community regards these things as normal is just behaving
> normally, and no question need be raised.
> 
> R' Elchonon Loebenstein was a shochet in Melbourne for many decades.
> He was one of the Dunera Boys, and when he started shechting for the
> L community in Melbourne some were concerned because he trimmed his
> beard.  They wrote to the LR, who replied that since he came from
> Germany where this was normal, it did not cause any problem at all
> with his shechita.

Where is poretz geder discussed vis a vis a shochet?  I know that beis din
is required to check that shochtim are mumchim, beki'im and kasherim because
of the michshol that can arise from shechita (Yoreh Deah siman aleph si'if
aleph in the Rema), but I confess that checking for chitzonius of this
nature seems if anything to be the exact opposite of what one might want.

After all, as you say,we need a shochet to have a greater yiras shamayim
than yiras benei adam (difficult as that is to achieve, as we know from
pirkei avos) - as the temptation to say nothing and allow the shecting to
pass as kosher when a) his reputation is at stake; and b) his employer's
money is at stake is exceedingly great.

So who seems psychologically more likely to be that sort of person? The one
who does what seems correct to him al pi halacha, regardless of what people
say, or the one who trims his sails (or should we say his beard) because of
what the community will say?  

Again I understand what you are saying if you are using the term poretz
geder to mean what it is often used in the literature to specifically mean,
to go against the consensus of Chazal or the rishonim bringing the universal
minhag especially where it is made clear that a violation is indeed poretz
geder (such as not fasting on minor fast days).  That is a question of a
person setting himself up against the weight of authority, and it is
important that a shochet submit to rabbinical authority (hence the
requirement to show the knife).  But to extend that to submitting to the
whims of the wider community seems almost guaranteed to pick up the wrong,
rather than the right, type of person.  One for whom chitzonius is more
important than penimius.  And that seems a more risky choice to me than the
other.


> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Regards

Chana

<According to rov rishonim, there is no problem as the eidei qiyum were picked, and presumably they weren't the O guests.>

     I don't think R weddings have designated witnesses, certainly not "to the exclusion of all others."

<According to the baalei Tosafos, the problem is bigger, but avoidable
-- make sure BD never only ask the O guests to testify without a pisul
le'eidus as well.>

(snip)
     
<WRT the agunah problem, why not interview two brothers and thereby
invalidate the kat eidim without impossibly difficult grilling?>

     I believe there is a basic misunderstanding underlying these two
     comments.	Eidei Kiddushin serve two functions: they are eidi rai'ah,
     who can attest that an act of kiddushin took place (or at least, that
     the mechanics of kiddushin were performed); but the are also eidei
     kiyum: it is their presence which makes the act of a man's putting a
     ring on a woman's finger and saying "harei at" become an act of
     kiddushin.  If two brothers were to testify in court that they saw the
     act, or if two kosher eidim together with one who wasn't testified, BD
     then lacks proof that kiddushin occurred -- but it doesn't mean that
     it didn't occur.  It's just that the BD before whom they testified has
     not received kosher evidence to that effect.  So long as two kosher
     witnesses saw the act, however, whether or not they (or any one else)
     ever tsetifies about it in BD, the couple is still married.

     According to the opinion, though, that a seeing witnesses, not only a
     testifying witness, makes everyone's seeing pasul, (what has been
     referred to in this conversation as the shittah of Tosafos), then
     there are no _eidei kiyum_ as a result of the presence of the pasul,
     and hence no kiddushin.	 

EMT 
_____________________________________________________________
Security Camera for your small business. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3mYHqVUWqL9FiCls5TBIs9BnPnZKdYabSQzrY08drOVrb0fA/

On Mon, March 17, 2008 8:54 pm, R Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:      I don't think R weddings have designated witnesses, certainly not
: "to the exclusion of all others."

I once worked for a small firm, about 8 people altogether, and two of
my co workers got married. She is an American of Italian Catholic
heritage, he was a Russian Jew who spent enough time in Israel to be
fluent in Hebrew. They were already sharing an apartment before the
engagement.

They had a civil wedding in a NY courthouse, and they asked me to be a
witness.

To bring the story to its relevancy for this conversation, I would
presume that if the American norm is to appoint witnesses, R would as
well. So, I hit Google and near the top of the list (the first
relevant hit) I found
<http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycl
e/Marriage/LiturgyRitualCustom/ModernCustoms/Howto_Wedding.htm>:
>                   Traditionally, a witness must be a religiously
> observant Jewish male, unrelated to the bride or groom. Reform and
> Reconstructionist and some Conservative rabbis accept women as
> witnesses, though most still prefer that the witness be Jewish.

So, they appoint witnesses, often nothing resembling eidus. They are
pretty formally appointed, actually, I got the impression that there
is usually one set of witnesses for the "kesuvah" and the ceremony. I
do not know if the appointment of a woman and a nachri would qualify
as being close enough to appointing eidim as to exclude all others. So
I'm left agreeing with the possibility of the seifa of the
above-quoted sentence, even if I think the metzi'us assumed in the
reisha is mistaken.

But to my mind, a core question is at what point is the appointment of
two passul eidim not even qualify as separating out eidim? How does
selecting two brothers qualify as separating out two eidim altogether,
whereas (I presume) separating out two people to serve as
representatives of the Lollipop Guild would not?



An odd side-point of the above story; IOW, mikan va'eilakh is a tangent.

I told my then LOR about the "honor". He reasoned (roughly, I'm going
back around 15 yrs): The couple are living together either way. There
is no enabling of an aveirah by participating in the ceremony.

Now I might even add:

The Rogatchover has a huge (IMHO) chiddush that a couple who had a
wedding ceremony that wasn't qidushin would require a get shichrur!
His reasoning sounds Brisker, the Rogatchover makes tzvei dinim out of
marriage. There is qiddushin, and then there is the concept of baalus
as it applies even to benei Noach (arayos is one of the 7 mitzvos).

So, the usual get wouldn't apply, because there is no qedushah to
terminate. However, to end baalus, as by a baal releading a former
eved, one uses a get shichrur.

According to the Rogatchover, then, perhaps if you truly believed the
couple would stay together no longer with the NY state recognition
than without, the wedding is a /good/ thing.

But with or without this sevara, the damage of intermarriage was
already done. And thus the LOR in question said it would be okay to
participate, and if I was the Russian yid's only contact to tradition,
I should seriously consider accepting.

I did it, and I still feel guilty over the decision.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

>>>for those makpid to be drunk ,or  at least affected enough to sleep ,on
purim---   is this independent of the seuda?  ie   is it appropriate
to do the drinking  before the seuda---and then
one must leave enough time to recuperate to eat a seuda while not
stuperous....>>>

It is brought down in Halichos Shlomo vol 2 (p. 334) that it is proper
to not eat on Purim day until one has fulfilled all of the mitzvos
hayom.  RSZA made sure to give shaloch manos and matanos l'evyonim as
soon as he returned from shul on Purim morning.  He would then wash
for bread and a morning seudah and receive visitors and drink a little
wine with them and talk in learning.  (He also used to give shaloch
manos to everyone that gave him until it got too hard for his
rebbetzin.)  He would then take a nap (to be mekayim "ad d'lo yada"
according to the suggestion of the Rama.)

After chatzos and mincha, but before washing for the main seudah, RSZA
would learn a bit (again, like the Rama).  During the seuda, RSZA
learnt some hilchos Pesach (since it is 30 days before yom tov).
Among the songs that he sung, he sang the "Shoshanas Yaakov" of R'
Yitzchak Blazer [anyone know what tune this is?]

So, to deal with RSN's question, while RSZA drank and slept in the
morning to fulfill "ad d'lo yada," this was not really independent of
the seudah, since RSZA has a morning seudah as well as an afternoon
seudah.

KT and FP,
Aryeh

It is commonly accepted that shaloch manos is preferably done through
a shliach.  However, it is worth noting that the Butchacher Rebbe held
that it is better to give shaloch manos directly, i.e., without a
shliach, because "mitzvah bo yoseir m'b'shlucho" (Halichos Shlomo vol.
2, p. 337.)   However, since the Binyan Tzion is mesupak whether
shaloch manos should be given davka through a shliach, the Butchacher
Rebbe was makpid to give one shaloch manos through a shliach.

KT and FP,
Aryeh


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 99
**************************************

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..."