Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 181

Tue, 05 Oct 2010

• 1. Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Leshono Habo beYerushalayim (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Hoshana Rabba greeting (was "Re: lulav waving" (Poppers, Michael)
• 7. Re: Leshono Habo beYerushalayim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (Zev Sero)

  RMB:

<<Does this not say that the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim
> to interpret the rishonim over just going to the books himself? His
> own reason and definition of mitake trumps the value of the earlier
> source.>>
See Twersky, "Introduction to the Code of Maimonides", pp.160 ff., and 
Blidstein "Where Do We Stand in the Study of Maimonidean Halacha?" (in 
Twersky, "Studies in Maimonides"), pp. 23-29.

David Riceman

  Re: Truth and the Rambam

As I suspected, RMB's thesis is more nuanced than I thought. But I am 
having a very hard time trying to pin down what it is.
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010, Zvi Lampel attempted to define RMB's position as 
> follows:

> : (1) The Rambam, in explaining talmudic texts and poskening therefrom,
> : originally practiced in principle a "legal-process approach"
> : of uncritically following the Geonim's decisions and explanations
> : of talmudic passages...
>
> RMB: Not "uncritically". However, just as a contemporary teshuvah 
> would cite
> the Shach or the Taz, assuming their opinion of what was said before is
> more authoritative than our own, so too the Rif does so WRT the geonim.
The Rif? We were talking about the Rambam!
> The Rif actually argues with the geonim regularly. I'm currently exploring
> the reality of the idea (from a paper RRW sent me) that the Rif was the
> first to shift from studying who said what in the gemara to focusing
> more on the general flow of the sugya.
The Rif's methodology of pesak--shared by the Rambam--takes into 
consideration not only the kelalay ha-pesak of which Tanna's or Amora's 
stand usually trumps his opponent's (or opponents'), but also what 
opinion the local and other gemora passages treats as the mainstream 
one. This is not the subject at hand, however.

But the fact the Rif preceded the Rambam in arguing with previous geonim 
shows that the Rambam in doing so was following precedent, and shows 
that the Rif's methodology--and I maintain that of all the geonim and 
rishonim--was no less "Aristotelian" than the Rambam's. Are you in the 
above paragraph modifying your original position that  you found it--in 
contrast to his peers' approach--"unsurprising to assume the Rambam 
views pesaq as a pursuit of truth rather than as a legal process", 
considering the Rambam's fundamental methodology Aristotelian mind?
> The Rambam's approach in the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah that
> ignores the early acharonim, feeling that this reliance on earlier
> rabbanim to understand those even earlier introduces too many errors.
The Yad is a code, not a teshuva. Comparing apples to apples would 
entail comparing the Rambam's teshuvos to the teshuvos of the geonim, 
and seeing if there is a difference in how they relate to previous 
geonim's pesakim and their methodologies in reaching them. Or, to 
support your thesis about the Rambam's change of policy between the 
Payrush HaMishnayos and the Yad, we should compare his teshuvos before 
and after--or at least test the teshuvos written after the Yad was 
completed to see if indeed the Rambam ignored the interpretations and 
pesakim of the geonim and dealt exclusively with independent analysis of 
the gemoras, and thereby demonstrated, in your words, that "his approach 
to talmud Torah doesn't reflect acknowledging a flow of interpretation 
since the original author."

The last method is do-able. And in fact, in the Rambam's very next 
teshuva to the one you are quoting in in Rav Sheilat's 
chronologically-arranged collection (p. 650), The Rambam's first piece 
of evidence for his pesak is the Rif. Next is the Ri Migash. Is this not 
a continuation of a policy of examining the opinions of former 
authorities, rather than a new policy of totally ignoring them? Can you 
still say that the Rambam, sometime before completing the Yad, 
entertained "a denial of the flow of interpretation, a continuity down 
the generations...so radically different, it doesn't really fit the 
generally accepted definition of halachic process"? Does it reflect a 
notion that "the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim to interpret 
the rishonim over just going to the books himself," or demonstrate that 
"the Rambam's approach in the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah that 
ignores the early acharonim, feeling that this reliance on earlier 
rabbanim to understand those even earlier introduces too many errors"?

See also The Rambam's writings on p.389 (written after the Yad was 
completed), p. 390 line 10ff. and line 18ff, p.393 line 8, p. 430, all 
in which he brings into consideration the opinions of previous geonim.
> : ZL: (2) However, between writing the Payrush HaMishnayos and writing the
> : Mishneh Torah, in his unique Aristotelian-influenced pursuit to reach
> : a one-and-only-one truth about things, he developed a new principle
> : of independent analysis of the talmudic texts, to determine their
> : one-and-only original intent, and at times found himself at odds with
> : what the Geonim said.
>
> : I seriously question this. The Rambam did not say he formerly held in
> : principle to ignore original intent in favor of some legal process. I
> : only see that he regretted a former lack of sufficiently testing the
> : Geonim's interpretations against the text to which they were applied.
>
> : Rashi, too, many times differs with his predecessors' interpretations,
> ....
>
> RMB: Which is how your overstatement created a strawman. Rashi tried 
> to fit
> his precedecessors, and saw the text through their eyes. It was when
> that was impossible that he differed.
What is the overstatement and what is your real point? From where do you 
conclude that Rashi was any less critical of previous opinions than the 
Rambam?
> ...
> : However, I cannot find anywhere in these iggeros the Rambam attributing
> : to others uncritical reading of the Gemora through the eyes of the
> : Geonim....
>
> Here's some of what I quoted at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n171.shtml#06>:
> That which is codified in the chibbur [i.e. the Yad -mb] is
> undoubtedly correct, and so we wrote as well in the Perush HaMishnah,
> and that which is in your hands [an early version of the Peirush
> haMishnayos -mb] is the first version which I released without proper
> diligence. And I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of
> Rav Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just
> followed after him without verifying. And when I further evaluated
> and analyzed the statements [of Chazal], it became clear that the
> truth was what we recorded in the chibbur and we corrected the Perush
> HaMishnah accordingly. The same happened in so many places that the
> first version of the Perush HaMishnah was subsequently modified, tens
> of times. Each case we had originally followed the opinion of some
> Gaon, z"l, and afterwards the area of error became clear. (pg 647)
>
> Does this not say that the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim
> to interpret the rishonim over just going to the books himself?...
Yes, but it does not support the the statement you made that I was 
questioning: that the Rambam "credited" his predecessors with relying 
too heavily on the geonim in their reading of the Gemora ("the Rambam 
consciously chose to understand the gemara as it read to him, and 
abandoned his previous approach, which he credits to his predecessors as 
well, of reading the gemara through the prism of the geonim"). (Nor does 
it say that he himself decided at any point to disregard entirely what 
the geonim said ["I'm arguing that the Rambam gave up on trying to even 
work out the shitas hageonim and rejecting it -- he simply went to 'Rav 
Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" as he saw it' "]; or that Rashi or others 
treated the geonim's interpretations any less critically than the Rambam 
did.)

Perhaps you are misled by an ambiguity introduced by RMShapiro's 
translation, "I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of  Rav 
Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just  
followed after him without verifying." The Hebrew reads, "V'nimshachnu 
b'zeh ha-maamar acher mah sheh-zachar baal sefer hamitzvos...."  By the 
words, "b'zeh ha-maamar" the Rambam was referring to the specific pesak 
based on Rav Cheyfetz's take on a specific gemora--not the methodology 
of following geonim uncritically. RMS did not translate the word 
"ha-maamar."
> ZL:
> ...
> : For me to accept the extraordinary claim otherwise, you would have to
> : show me where a rishon says, "We don't care about the truth; we are 
> only
> : interested in the formality of uncritically following the Geonim's
> : conclusions." ...
>
> RMB: Same (inadvertant) strawman.
So what then is all this talk about contrasting Rashi and the others to 
the Rambam who, being he was so  Aristotlean, you found it unsurprising 
that he was more inclined than they to go back to examining the original 
sources for their true meaning?
> The Rambam gives more weight to the original than to later interpretation
> not only when he is second-guessing geonim but also when comparing the
> mishnah and the gemara.
>
> This is a denial of the flow of interpretation, a continuity down
> the genarations. I'm saying the Rambam's methodology is so radically
> different, it doesn't really fit the generally accepted definition of
> "halachic process"!
You're repeating this, but I fail to see any evidence for it. I'll 
repeat what I said: The methodologies of the Rambam and Rashi in the 
examples we discussed differ in what they understood the amoraim on the 
mishnayos to be saying. They differed over whether we should take the 
wording of the mishna to modify our understanding of the words of the 
amoraim (Rambam's approach), or take the words of the amoraim to modify 
what the mishnah seems to say (Rashi's approach). But there is no reason 
to deny that both Rashi and the Rambam agreed that the amoraim were 
continuing the "flow of [accurate] interpretation" of the Mishnah's 
true, original intent.
> ZL:
> : The idea that in transmitting the mesorah, the legal status of objects,
> : actions or thoughts should conform to a single original Intent predates
> : Aristotle and goes back to Moshe Rabbeynu and beyond. The entire
> : enterprise in the Gemora that pits one Mishnah or speaker against 
> another
> : and concludes either that the later speaker is in error or that one of
> : the statements must be modified so that they conform, assumes that there
> : is a single original idea that must be complied with.
>
> RMB: What about the notion that eilu va'eilu reflects that fact that 
> HQBH's
> Original Intent (kavayakhol) is diffracted into a spectrum of opinions
> by the time it reaches the human mind?
Hmmm...I guess you have not internalized what I wrote in Dynamics of 
Dispute on this...or you are not convinced. I'll deal with this b"n in 
another post.
> Or the Constitutive approach to
> law of the Ramban, Ritva and Ran, which leads to their understanding
> of machloqes?
Constitutive approach? Nolo comprende.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101003/9a2b3ca6/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 

On 29/09/2010 1:11 PM,  Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:10:58AM +1000, Zev Sero  wrote:
>> When it's raining, it's possible not only to force yourself  to eat in
>> the sukkah anyway, but also to force yourself to *like*  doing so, and
>> to be *happy* while doing so...[--RZS]
>
>  How do you force yourself to like something and to be happy doing
> it?  [-RMB]

>> It depends, of course, on how unpleasant it is in the  first place; also
on how long one must go on liking it.  But one can  often psych oneself
into enjoying otherwise unpleasant experiences for a  short while; alcohol
helps, as do being with a group who are all doing it  together, and an
inspiring speaker or leader.  .... <<
--  
Zev  Sero                       
z...@sero.name                 





>>>>
This is far-fetched.  Liquoring up is all very well, but I don't  believe 
all Lubs psych themselves into believing that they are having a  wonderful 
time in the sukkah when they're sitting there soaking in the rain,  their 
clothing, hats, tables and food drowned in water.  I just can't  believe that 
"everyone psyches themselves into thinking they're enjoying  themselves"  is 
an adequate explanation -- that it gives them a hetter, let  alone a chiyuv, 
to eat in the sukkah when it's pouring rain.  Well I guess  you don't need a 
hetter to sit in the rain, but surely you need a hetter to make  a bracha 
"Leshev basukkah" under such circumstances?
 
 
The rest of Klal Yisrael considers it a "potsh in panim" if it rains the  
first night of Sukkos -- a sign that Hashem seems to have rejected our 
efforts  at fulfilling the mitzva of Sukkah.  We wait even until midnight to see 
if  the rain will stop so that we can sit in the sukka and make the bracha.   
Are you telling us that Lubs don't wait and don't get upset and don't even 
think  rain the first night is a negative sign at all -- because they enjoy 
a rainy  night just as well as a dry one?
 
You didn't explain why they don't sleep in the sukkah, either.  "You  can't 
psych yourself to fall asleep when you're all wet" -- OK fine I get  that.  
But how about when the weather is nice?    To my  knowledge, Lubs never 
sleep in the sukkah.  I'm just curious why.  (My  husband never sleeps in the 
sukkah either but that's because he genuinely can't  fall asleep anywhere but 
in his own comfy bed.  But he would never make  that the basis of a general 
rule that nobody else should sleep in a sukkah  either!)
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101004/3afa17b6/attachment-0001.htm>

  On 10/3/2010 1:15 PM, I wrote:
>  RMB:
>
> <<Does this not say that the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim
>> to interpret the rishonim over just going to the books himself? His
>> own reason and definition of mitake trumps the value of the earlier
>> source.>>
> See Twersky, "Introduction to the Code of Maimonides", pp.160 ff., and 
> Blidstein "Where Do We Stand in the Study of Maimonidean Halacha?" (in 
> Twersky, "Studies in Maimonides"), pp. 23-29.

And see Benedict, "HaRambam l'lo Stiyah min haTalmud", pp.56-58, p.69 
item 3, p. 103, the paragraph beginning "b'ram", and note 35 on p. 254.

Someone asked for a summary, but they're all fairly dense discussions of 
the Rambam's dependence (both in psak and organization) on the Ri 
MiGash, the Rif, and the Geonim.

David  Riceman

From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 

On Mon, Sep 27,  2010 at 09:53:39PM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
: Why isn't it obvious that,  regardless of the Messianic value of a 
Jerusalem
: which flies a Jewish flag,  [as the song goes] "Yerushalayim HaB'nuyah"
: refers to a Jerusalem with the  Beit HaMikdash?

At RET already noted besheim haGri"z miBrisk, "habenuyah"  is a later
addition. But one could easily argue it stood implied  anyway.

"Od yishamah" is actually more anachronistic. I remember once  ascending
the stairs in the rova, running from the sefarim store alongside  Aish
toward the serious staircase down to the plaza. It was Friday  afternoon,
and little children were running down past me, tinoqos in the  preschool
and young grades. And I choked up, wondering what Yirmiyahu was  looking
down and saying... Did he turn to our mother Rachel and say, "See,  see --
yeish sakhar lefe'ulaseikh"? How do we teitch still asking HQBH in  shevah
berakhos that we should hear "bechutzos Y-m qol sason veqol  simchah..."?
Y-m even boasts a hachnasas seifer Torah party  van!


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         



>>>>>
 
You are translating "Od yishama...." as a prayer, "May it be Your will that 
 the joyous sounds will be heard again in Yerushalayim...."
 
I've never understood it that way.  I believe it was intended as a  
prophecy, a nevuah of hope and consolation in a time of profound  loss:  "It will 
happen again some day, that the joyous sounds of weddings  and of children 
playing will be heard in the streets of Yerushalayim."
 
This nevuah has come true in our own day, after thousands of years of  
desolation -- a fact that I find awesomely inspiring and amazing.
 
What we now await is the fulfillment of the rest of the nevuos of  nechama. 
 Having seen so much come true in the past few decades, we are  like R' 
Akiva who laughed when he saw the shualim on the Har Habayis. But  we have even 
more reason to have emunah -- he saw the fulfillment of nevuos of  
destruction, and knew that the nevuos of rebuilding would follow some day.   We have 
been zocheh to see the beginning of the rebuilding.
 
Right now there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism throughout the civilized  
world, on the cover of Time magazine and in the learned halls of academe.   
We have reason enough to look to the future with fear and trepidation.  But  
children are playing in the streets of Yerushalayim and chasanim and 
kallahs are  going to their weddings in the city that lay in ruins for so many  
centuries!  So we know that we will see our enemies defeated, and  that we are 
an eternal people.  We don't "believe" it -- we know  it!
 

--Toby Katz
==========




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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101004/ffe72b6e/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V27n180#4, R'Micha wrote:
> Parnasah tovah uqerovah la'ir! (Trying to invent a hoshanah rabba
greeting) <
How 'bout "Y'shuos v'nechamos!" to which the appropriate response would be
"Lanu ulchal-Yisrael!"? or "Mayim [mayim :)] b'sason" to which one would
respond "Mima'aynei haYshuah!"?

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:02:22AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:> "Od yishamah" is actually more anachronistic....
:>                              How do we teitch still asking HQBH in  shevah
:> berakhos that we should hear "bechutzos Y-m qol sason veqol  simchah..."?
:> Y-m even boasts a hachnasas seifer Torah party  van!

: You are translating "Od yishama...." as a prayer, "May it be Your will that 
:  the joyous sounds will be heard again in Yerushalayim...."

I was referring to Sheva Berakhos, where the words are "Meheirah H'
E-lokeinu, yishama be'arei Yehudah". Sorry for including the word "od",
which isn't in the berakhah. So, my question stands WRT the berakhah,
and that's the "we still ask". The pasuq was written when it was written.

So, I ask again, how can we ask Hashem "May there soon be heard in the
cities of Judea and the outdoors of J-m ... the sounds of a chasan and
sounds of a kalah" when they're heard there already?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
: It depends, of course, on how unpleasant it is in the  first place; also
: on how long one must go on liking it.  But one can  often psych oneself
: into enjoying otherwise unpleasant experiences for a  short while; alcohol
: helps, as do being with a group who are all doing it  together, and an
: inspiring speaker or leader.  ....

Is psyching oneself into enjoying something really "akh sameiach",
or simchah at all, for that matter?

Simchah is very specific. We speak of simchah shel mitzvah, simchah
bechelqo, and we have numerous other words for joy that simchah aren't
(sason, gilah, etc...)

I have a feeling our different viewpoints derives from the difference
between chassidus and mussar, and how deeply one is expected to analyze
the honesty and reality of what one is feeling.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> : It depends, of course, on how unpleasant it is in the  first place; also
> : on how long one must go on liking it.  But one can  often psych oneself
> : into enjoying otherwise unpleasant experiences for a  short while;
> alcohol
> : helps, as do being with a group who are all doing it  together, and an
> : inspiring speaker or leader.  ....
>
> Is psyching oneself into enjoying something really "akh sameiach",
> or simchah at all, for that matter?
>

I don't understand why simcha has anything to do with this discussion at all
- Mitztaer Patur Min HaASukkah has to do with Teshvu k'ein taduru, not
v'samachta b'chagecha. If someone nebuch lives in a situation where they
have rain pouring through their roof, it is possible to psych themselves
into accepting the situation b'simcha, and maybe that person would be able
to stay in the sukkah, but for the rest of us who live with real roofs over
our heads, no amount of psyching can change the fact that it is not k'ein
taduru.
As an example, there are people who enjoy going camping in the winter in the
snow. They bundle up, put on tons of layers and enjoy the exhiliration of
the freezing cold. But these people would all have to agree that they are
not dwelling in any normal sense and are doing the camping for the thrill of
it. Staying in a sukkah in similar circumstances, while doable, also does
not sound like teshvu k'ein taduru.

Kol tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101004/88939b83/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/10/2010 1:26 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> From: Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>
> : It depends, of course, on how unpleasant it is in the  first place; also
> : on how long one must go on liking it.  But one can  often psych oneself
> : into enjoying otherwise unpleasant experiences for a  short while; alcohol
> : helps, as do being with a group who are all doing it  together, and an
> : inspiring speaker or leader.  ....
>
> Is psyching oneself into enjoying something really "akh sameiach",
> or simchah at all, for that matter?

Simcha is all in the mind.  It's a chemical experience; if your brain is
being flooded with the correct chemicals you are objectively happy, no
matter how they got there.


> I have a feeling our different viewpoints derives from the difference
> between chassidus and mussar, and how deeply one is expected to analyze
> the honesty and reality of what one is feeling.

I don't think there's anything dishonest or unreal in a happiness that
is deliberately self-induced.


[Email #2. -micha]


On 4/10/2010 3:43 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> This is far-fetched. Liquoring up is all very well, but I don't
> believe all Lubs psych themselves into believing that they are having
> a wonderful time in the sukkah when they're sitting there soaking in
> the rain, their clothing, hats, tables and food drowned in water.

In my experience I've never yet come across a L who seemed actually
miserable while eating in the sukkah.  The enjoyment might be minimal
enough that one eats up quickly and rush inside, which shows that the
discomfort is real and conscious, and certainly people will delay their
meals in hope of the rain letting up, but I really can't think of anyone
who seemed sitting there out of pure kabbolas ol, while feeling sad and
miserable and wishing he weren't there.

But more than that, on many occasions I've seen people remain in the
sukkah in the rain after they'd finished eating, rather than rushing
in to the house.  They were sitting, singing, listening to words of
torah, saying lechayim and eating a bit with it, and ignoring the fact
that they were getting wet.  They could easily have gone inside with
a good conscience, but chose not to, mostly because nobody else was;
as I wrote, a group experience helps with this sort of thing.  And
their faces didn't show any feeling that they'd really rather be inside
but didn't want to lose face; rather, being outside with the group was
a genuinely pleasurable experience, even though it would have been even
more pleasant in the dry.


> Are you telling us that Lubs don't wait and don't get upset and don't
> even think rain the first night is a negative sign at all

That's right.  In my experience, anyway.


> You didn't explain why they don't sleep in the sukkah, either.

L don't sleep in the sukkah because the Rebbe didn't, which was
because his father-in-law didn't, which was because none of the LRs
ever did.  The reason recorded is that the Mitteler Rebbe said he
couldn't fall asleep in Makifin Debina; the consciousness of where
he was kept him awake.  Chassidim who heard this could no longer fall
asleep, because trying to sleep they would remember that the rebbe
was being kept up by the Makifin Debina, and they would get upset
that they themselves couldn't feel this, and it felt like an ordinary
tent or hut.  Later chassidim would feel upset that this insensitivity
on their part no longer bothered them.  (This chain can in theory go
on ad infinitum, but at some point it comes down to simply doing it
because ones rebbe does it, rather than because one feels upset at not
caring {that one doesn't care}... that one doesn't feel what he does.)
About 60 years ago the LR said that those who don't sleep in the sukkah
because his FIL didn't, "tovo aleihem bracha"; that probably helped
promote this behaviour even among those who might otherwise have slept.

BTW, L are hardly the only ones with such a minhag.  The Belzer rebbes
didn't sleep in the Sukkah, and in Dzikov the feeling against sleeping
in the sukkah was so strong that if someone dozed off while sitting
there, others would shout at him "nu, sukkah"!   The Satmar Rebbe ZL
married into an offshoot of Dzikov, and when he wanted to sleep in the
sukkah his brothers-in-law prevented it.  There were many other rebbes
and chassidim who davka didn't sleep in the sukkah.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 181
***************************************

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..."