Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 199

Thu, 08 Oct 2009

• 1. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (awein...@umaryland.edu)
• 2. Re: lulav on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Hashkafa Question on Sukkah Eating, (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Sukkah on Shabbos (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: a community taking seriously the text of piyutim it says (Michael Poppers)
• 11. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 17. Gil'ad Shalit and the Maharam miRutenberg (Micha Berger)

The answer is very obvious. Micha touched on it, but it is simply yesh
koach b'yad chachomim la'akor davar min hatorah b'shev v'al taaseh, not kum
va'aseh. Whether it's a issur lav or bittul/issur aseh, chaza"l had no
ability to instruct us to actively engage in a practice that is contrary to
din torah. Period. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>
>> Nevertheless the standard psak in present times is like the Ritva.
>
> How do you know? ?Who explicitly paskens one way or the other?

Avnei Nezer  OC 392:9  says we pasken like the Ritva, Tzitz Hakodesh 42
Heichal Yitzchak OC 55 says in a safek derabban we pasken like Ritva

In addition the modern poskim who discuss Eilat discuss whether it is
in the boundaries of EY
and not just if the shelichim reached there

see http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/sukot/pmel.pdf (Hebrew) who also
takes for granted
that the present minhag is like the Ritva that 2nd day of yomtov
depends only on the boundaries of EY
and Jews in Transjordan, the Negev, Gaza and north Israel all keep 1
day even in modern cities
were there was no ancient city.
The main modern disagreement is only over Eilat

BTW the story with CI and Griz that they were machmir on themselves in
all new cities is brought
in the sefer yom tov sheni  hehilchato p280 and 351
>
>
>> Of course the halachik boundaries of EY are subject to dispute and
>> the question of 1 or 2 days in Eilat seems to depend on whether Eilat
>> is in the halachik boundaries of EY
>
> Huh? ?Who even suggests that it is (Eilat is in EY)?
>
Heichal Yitzchak OC 55, Tzitz Eliezer  3:23
Mikrai Kodesh (R Frank)  Pesach 2:58
Ir Hakodesh vehmikdash (R Tuchashinsky) 3:19

R Herzog gave the definitive chief rabbinate psak to keep 1 day in Eilat

R Saadiah Gaon translates Maale Akravim as Aquaba

There is even a quote in the name of CI to keep one day in Eilat
BTW  the general minhag today in Eilat among the permament residents is to
keep only one day even in rabbinic circles


-- 
Eli Turkel

Micha Berger wrote:

> In any case, lulav, shofar and megillah are all mitzvos asei. Eating
> outside of the sukkah is a lav.

Huh?

I think you mean that lulav and shofar are shev ve'al ta'aseh, while
eating outside the sukkah would be kum va'asei, even though they wouldn't
actually be *telling* us to eat.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

awein...@umaryland.edu wrote:
> The answer is very obvious. Micha touched on it, but it is simply yesh
> koach b'yad chachomim la'akor davar min hatorah b'shev v'al taaseh,
> not kum va'aseh. Whether it's a issur lav or bittul/issur aseh,
> chaza"l had no ability to instruct us to actively engage in a practice
> that is contrary to din torah. Period. 

This isn't entirely satisfactory, though, because they *wouldn't* be
telling us to eat chutz lasukah, they would just be forbidding us from
eating in it.  We could still either fast, or eat only achilat arai;
neither are prohibited min hatorah.  So it would still be a shev ve'al
taaseh, sort of.  If this is the best answer we can come up with, it
will have to do; but there's still a point in looking for a better one.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Avraham spends the entire Chol haMoed avoiding the CHIYYUV of eating in
the Sukkah. Instead of needing to find a sukkah, he adjusts his diet to
eat foods that do not trigger an obligation. He has water, fruit juice,
a hard boiled egg, but nothing to kovei'a any s'uda

Yitzchak religiously washes twice a day and makes hammotzi and benches.
He aims to get in 14 s'udos mamash over the course of sukkos over the
course of the Chag

But Yitzchak also eats several signifcant portions of food outside the
sukkah in addition to these 14 times. Some of them would be mamash
k'vias s'uda, but maybe he has a heter when traveling or at the office.

Haskafically Avraham has srcupulously avoided a bittul aseh, but makes
no brachah on hol Hamoed

Yitzchak makes 2 brachos a day with a definite chiyyuv, but at least
flirts with being mevateil the aseh once or twice a day because he has
non-sukkah refreshments.

Which approach is hashkafically superior?

[One might equate this question with Sur Meira vs. Asei Tov]

Gutn Moed
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 5:17pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >In any case, lulav, shofar and megillah are all mitzvos asei. Eating
: >outside of the sukkah is a lav.

: Huh?

: I think you mean that lulav and shofar are shev ve'al ta'aseh, while
: eating outside the sukkah would be kum va'asei, even though they wouldn't
: actually be *telling* us to eat.

As I wrote, I meant issur vs not doing a mitzvah, not the technical
labels of lav vs asei. But closer to that chiluq than that of sheiv
ve'al ta'aseh vs action. Becuase, as you yourself noted on Mon, Oct 05,
2009 at 5:22pm EDT:
: This isn't entirely satisfactory, though, because they *wouldn't* be
: telling us to eat chutz lasukah, they would just be forbidding us from
: eating in it.  We could still either fast, or eat only achilat arai;
: neither are prohibited min hatorah.  So it would still be a shev ve'al
: taaseh, sort of.  

There is an issur in eating outside the sukkah. Not picking up a lulav and
esrog when they're available is "only" oqeir mitzvah. No odor of issur,
and therefore more easily outweighed by issur melakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Akiva wrote: In very sharp contrast, *everyone* needs to bring food  
to the sukkah *on* Shabbos.

As a double portion of Manna fell erev Shabbos, so too, you can bring  
enough food erev Shabbos
and put it in the Sukkah. There are obviously certain foodstuffs that  
wouldn't keep, but there's enough
that one could eat that was left overnight.

Modadim l'simcha.

Micha Berger wrote:
> There is an issur in eating outside the sukkah.
Not really.  See H. Sukkah 6:7.

David Riceman

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Eating outside of the sukkah is a lav.

R' David Riceman wrote exactly what I was thinking:
> No it's being mevatel the aseh of "basukos teishvu shivas yamim".

R' Micha Berger responded:
> Correct what I said from the formal asei vs lav to chiyuv vs
> issur. That is the whole gezeirah shavah tes-vav tes-vav --
> the first night parallels a chiyuv of akhilas matzah, the
> rest of Sukkos it parallels not eating chameit. The mitzvah
> is not to eat outside the Sukkah, rather than a mitzvah to
> eat within it.

This is a very interesting analysis of that gezera shava. I've never heard
it before, and I'm curious if it is original or if you've heard/learned it
somewhere. I must admit that it does explain away one of my long-standing
questions.

Namely: The Mechaber 639:2 codifies that "one who is machmir on himself and
won't even drink water outside the sukkah - haray zeh meshubach." This is
based on the Mishna Sukkah 2:5, about amoraim who went out of their way to
eat non-required things in the sukkah. But if so, then the Mechaber should
have been phrased differently. He should have written about one who is
machmir to go to the sukkah even to drink water. I never understood how the
transition was made from the Mishna's case of drinking water *in* the
sukkah, to the Mechaber's case of *not* drinking water *outside* the
sukkah. But with RMB's focus on seeing it as an issur, it begins to make
sense. Thank you.

In any case, regardless of whether eating outside the sukkah is a "lav" or
merely "assur", it is certainly in a different category than lulav, shofar,
and megillah. Thank you.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=Dot0tWMlrW9WwAmg_D1CfAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

In Avodah V26#195, RZS responded to me:
>> Since some point to the pizmon of "B'motzaei m'nuchah" as evidence that
Ashk'nazim should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday night after
chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday morning, I 
thought
I would mention two phrases which those "some" presumably said on the 
first
day of Rosh haShanah (the first phrase is in the yotzros, a/k/a/ the
piyutim said as part of the pre-Shma b'rachah of "Yotzeir or", and the
second is in the q'rovos, a/k/a/ the piyutim said during chazaras haSHaTZ,
of Shacharis; translation taken from JMarmorstein translation of 
Roedelheim
Machzor, (C) Copyright 1965 by VGoldschmidt Publishers, Basle) and invite
comment.... <<
> Actually I said neither, and had never heard of these piyutim until
just now, but never mind. <
RZS, in case he was unaware, is by dint of his response not in the 
category of those "some."  BTW, for an example of another machzor which 
contains these piyutim and, I dare suggest, is in fairly wide use among 
the A/A membership (if not, at least it's more widely available than the 
Roedelheim :)), see pages 270 and 310 of the ArtScroll nusach-Ashkenaz 
RhSh machzor.

> In both cases you have seriously
misinterpreted the piyut, which says nothing even remotely similar
to what you think it does. <
Let us examine each cite again, and let the membership judge.  Especially 
re the second example, as well as at the end of your response, you use 
very strong words against a professional translation.  I would never use 
such strong words in objection to your opinion, even if I disagreed with 
it.  Please remember, a (if not the) hallmark of Rosh haShanah (as 
recently noted by RYReisman in his recent Teaneck, NJ shiur [
http://www.prayingwithfire.org/resiman_yk.html], quoting the S'fas Emes) 
is "ayin tovah," judging others favorably.  'nuf said on that score.

>> -1-
Melech taliso kasheleg m'tzuchtzach/The King whose cloak is like purified
snow....
>> Do you wear an all-white talis/dress in white?  How 'bout your 
community? <<
> No.  Why would we do so?  What do you see in this line to suggest
that we ought to do so?  The reference is obviously to Daniel 7:9
and is completely uncontroversial, but what has it go to to do with
our own taleisim?  If anything it can be taken to (very slightly)
imply that we should *not* wear an all-white talles, unlike those
who do. <
First, y'yasheir kochacha for noting the source (in the Vilna-edition BT, 
the phrase from that pasuq is mentioned in the margin of RhSh 17b [
http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=rosh_hashana&;daf=17b&go=Go, 11 lines 
down] without indicating the source).  All the commentaries on that pasuq 
were fairly straighforward, but that of RSGaon is especially noteworthy in 
explaining that hQbH is, k'vayachol, enwrapped in a talis whose color is 
like sheleg.  I'm not sure why RZS can't see the imitatio-Dei aspect of 
the custom I noted, but as I said, the point isn't any stronger than 
someone claiming that because a piyut says "B'motzaei m'nuchah," therefore 
we as a community should start saying Elul-week S'lichos on Saturday night 
after chatzos halayla rather than prior to Shacharis on Sunday morning, 
considering that Sunday morning, especially before the chamah rises, is 
also "motzoei Shabbos."

>> -2-
(This time, in order to emphasize that precisely "ten" is meant, I'm going
to quote and then translate the entire stanza, line by line, with the line
in question highlighted.)
Ya'amiru oz malchuyos eser/They revere in ten verses the acknowledgement 
of
divine rule;
T'vuos l'sheim buchan b'eser/They are based on him who was ten times 
tested
(Abraham);
** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and of Shofar
tones_ is ten **;
Zeicher m'vareich g'vir (nusach acheir: g'viro) b'eser/in memory of him 
who
with ten blessings made his son master.
>> Does your community have exactly ten "Shofar tones" during the Amidah 
(or
at least during the chazarah)? <<
> Again, you have seriously misinterpreted this line.  Like every
community we do indeed say ten malchiyos, ten zichronos, and ten
shofros, just as the piyut says we do.  Actually we say more than
ten malchiyos, but -- contrary to your claim -- the piyut does *not*
say we limit ourselves to exactly ten; it just says that we do say
ten, which is perfectly true.  Even if the piyut *had* said that
we blow the shofar ten times, there would be no contradiction, since
we all do that -- and then most of us blow many more; but the fact
is that it doesn't, and doesn't even hint at such a thing. <
and in the next digest, RZS responded to RShW:
> It's *very* clear to me (to the point that any other interpretation is
utterly impossible) that it refers to the ten pesukim of Shofros, and
has nothing whatsoever to do with what sounds are or are not blown, at
this or any other time. <
As noted, MJMarmorstein apparently disagreed with what RZS considers "
*very* clear."  RZS' thought is eminently reasonable, so let us consider 
why she rejected it.  First, let's look at what "eser" represents in this 
piyut.

The Mishna in Maseches RhSh says, "Ein poch'sin meiasarah 
malchiyos...zichronos...shofaros."  The BT (32a), in explicating this 
minimum, notes a series of "Ten"s, e.g. the Aseres haDibros, which are 
definitional and not meant to be less or more than "Ten."  Similarly, I 
posit, the paytan is listing more "Ten"s, e.g. "buchan b'eser" and "
m'vareich g'vir (nusach acheir: g'viro) b'eser."  In terms of the p'suqim 
we say during the Amidah, can we say more than ten?  Yes, but that's a 
question of m'tziyus, if you will, not of the definition of what we're 
trying to accomplish with our verbal act.  Similarly, the base requirement 
for Shofar sounds _is ten_ (and during the Amidah, or at least the 
chazarah).  I grant RZS' point that a community can blow more than ten 
qolos during the [chazarah for the] Amidah (as R'Micha might say, you've 
weakened my argument for a community blowing precisely ten qolos at that 
time but haven't ruled it out :)), so long as it recognizes (especially if 
it says the piyut in question :)) what the definitional act is all about. 
(Tangentially, as I privately noted to RAM, we also see that 
sh'varim-t'ruah is considered _two_ qolos, even as it consists of _one_ 
way of fulfilling the definitional "t'ruah," which I hope answers his 
question re the count for "100 qolos.")

So why not translate the piyut as referring to the p'suqim we say in the 
section known as Shofaros?  Because the paytan used the word "qolos."  If 
anyone knows where "qolos" refer to the p'suqim of Shofaros, please let us 
all know -- in the interim, I see at least a double entendre, referencing 
the actual qolos blown during the [chazarah for the] Amidah, and 
understand why at least one translator, if not one with the cachet of 
R'ArtScroll, saw fit to reference the literal meaning of the word rather 
than link it with the paytan's "malchuyos" and "zichronos" (which, I would 
agree, seemingly reference nothing other than the p'suqim in the sections 
respectively known as Malchiyos and Zichronos).

Best Moadim l'Simcha/Gut Moeid wishes from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091005/206ac11e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:44:09AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: This is a very interesting analysis of that gezera shava. I've
: never heard it before, and I'm curious if it is original or if you've
: heard/learned it somewhere. I must admit that it does explain away one
: of my long-standing questions.

I heard it in a shabbos shuvah derashah. The LOR was R' Sheinfeld of
Degel Israel, KGH, Queens. I haven't gone to my parents' for yamim
nora'im in perhaps 2 decades, so you'll be unsuprised if I forgot his
maqor.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:14:04PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >There is an issur in eating outside the sukkah.

: Not really.  See H. Sukkah 6:7.

I'm not sure what you're arguing: that I should have been more specific
and said "akhilas qeva"? The Rambam says that the first night is a
chiyuv, after that it's a reshus, and then "eino okhel kol shiv'ah
ela..." -- the issur I'm discussing. See also 6:8, eating without rosho
verubo bassukkah -- "harei zeh asur".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're arguing: that I should have been more specific
> and said "akhilas qeva"? The Rambam says that the first night is a
> chiyuv, after that it's a reshus, and then "eino okhel kol shiv'ah
> ela..." -- the issur I'm discussing.
Basically.  There's a big difference between not eating and not eating a 
seudah.  The Rambam is clear that it's perfectly feasible to go the 
whole week of Sukkos without a seudah and without eating in the sukkah.  
If Hazal had thought eating in a sukkah on Shabbos was problematical 
they could have forbidden it, whereas it would have required a much 
higher threshhold to require fasting on Shabbos.

David Riceman
>  

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:02:24PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: The gzeiro s in the mishnah as axiomatic

: The GMARA assigns rabba's svara to it
...
: Nevertheless, It's still a pretty good question! But the shema yaavirena
: is AFAIK never used to generate any gzeira. Rather it is Rabbah's svara
: to explain the gzeiros that already [pre-]existed in the Mishnah! (Or
: possibly from an old Sanhedrin)

This touches on the question of defining taamei hamitzvos.

The Chinukh calls them meshoreshei hamitzvah, meaning that they are
partial explanations, but actual elements of why Hashem commanded the mitzvah.

RSRH appears to side with the Chinukh, except also focusing on a lesson
aspect far more often than the Chinukh does. To him, a taam hamitzvah is
a/the lesson that the mitzvah was commanded to teach us.

R' JB Solovetichik talks about "halachic hermeutics" (his term), that we
can not know any actual "Why?" for a mitzvah, not even partially, but
he can offer some lessons one can learn post-facto.

Similarly, when Rabba gives a reason for a pre-existing gezeira, is he
trying to draw a post-facto lesson for the audience? Or is he saying
that this wwas what Anshkei Keneses haGedolah actually had in mind when
making the gezeirah?

I think the discussion going on presumes the latter (I know I did),
that although the reason is articulated by Rabba, it's Rabba's shitah
that this is the sevara that actually caused it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:23:14PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Basically.  There's a big difference between not eating and not eating a 
: seudah.  The Rambam is clear that it's perfectly feasible to go the 
: whole week of Sukkos without a seudah and without eating in the sukkah.  
: If Hazal had thought eating in a sukkah on Shabbos was problematical 
: they could have forbidden it, whereas it would have required a much 
: higher threshhold to require fasting on Shabbos.

I was thinking more technically, that since it's framed as a lav, beis
din simply lacked the legislative power to override it. You pulled my
head out of the sand to see that lemaaseh BD could have accomodated
both the issur and protect hotza'ah.

But the result would be a sheiv ve'al ta'aseh not to eat shalosh se'udos
nor make qiddush. The se'udos are deOraisa, based on "ikhluhu hayom ki
Shabbos hayom..." (Shemos 16, quoted at the bottom of Shabbos 117b).
So as you framed it, it would be a gezeira against "zakhor" to preserve
"shamor". Perhaps the answer is that it shows you that shevisas melakhah
isn't sufficiently more important -- if it's more important at all --
than the mitzvos asei of Shabbos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

> I think the discussion going on presumes the latter (I know I did),
> that although the reason is articulated by Rabba, it's Rabba's shitah
> that this is the sevara that actually caused it.
> -Micha

Actually Rabbah [iirc]says it only once

The gmara applies it to several situations
To answer the question why? In fact Micha, you quoted Rava as doing
this once! IE using Rabbah's s'vara


Point? We are reconstructing and spinning this gmara. The Gmara is
offering A rationale, we are presuming it is THE rationale!

We also know that certain g'zerios are sui generis (akuros) and you
really cannot extrapolate one to the other. [EG See artscroll's book on
chol hamoed]

AFAIK, re: shofar, megillah, and lulav, the issur on Shabbos is explicit
or implicit [Megillah] in the Mishnah. Rabbah's svara is brought
to bear. It may or may not be the actual impetus for the original
g'zeiros. And it might be the reason for one, and simply extrapolated
to the others. Because the Gmara says [iirc] Kiderabbah - which means
Rabbah himslef applied it ony one place.

Gutn Moed
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RHM's comment on Areivim made me wonder...

When the Maharam miRutenberg got word to the Rosh not to pay the ransom
(the money was already raised), was it a personal sacrifice or a pesaq?

I was taught the latter, and that in fact the MmR's decision was invoked
in later teshuvos. My Bar Ilan skills are either lacking, or I was under
a misimpression.

If anyone knows more about the MmR's decision as halachic precedent, I
would be happy to read it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 199
***************************************

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..."