Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 70

Wed, 17 Apr 2013

• 1. Quick question wrt birchas hagomel (M Cohen)
• 2. Quick question wrt birchas hagomel and Korban Todah (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Rav Soloveitchik?s Position On Hallel On Yom Ha?atzmaut (Poppers, Michael)
• 4. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: (Areivim) Two Income Families and the halacha (was Short Shabbat Hagadol Drasha) (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Rav Moshe Vaye and Rav Eitam Henkin - Differing Opinions Regarding Bugs in Fruits and Vegetables (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Kohen in a bag on a plane to block Tumah (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Opening Yahadus to ridicule (Kenneth Miller)
• 16. ABARBANEL on Merkava In every Home (David Wacholder)

Akiva Miller writes ..My guess to all of the above is that these trips are
allowed, despite the obligations of Todah/Gomel. Halacha does forbid us to
do things that are dangerous, but I think that prohibition requires a
relatively high level of danger, while Todah/Gomel kicks in at a relatively
low level of danger. But I have no evidence to support these guesses.

Its very hard to hear that one is obligated a KT for very low levels of
danger, that are perfectly mutar to do.
Going skiing, bungy jumping, long distance car drive, etc require KT?!

I thought about the issue boat trips previously.

For every boat trip they brought a KT!?
If you take a rowboat offshore from Yafo?
Everyone who goes ocean sailing? Sailing overnight? Sailing out of sight of
shore?
Staten island ferry ride? 

Its hard to believe that today anyone who takes pleasure sailing trips makes
a BG
Do those who take cruises make BG? 

RMC:

<<Also, if flying is so 'dangerous' that it requires a b'gomel - why is
it mutar for vacation, etc>>

RYZ ZL had some enlightening sources about this under the rubric of
"driving" in v. 11 #71-73.  Check the archives.

David Riceman


Resend due to bad heading.

DR

In Avodah V31n69, R'Micha noted:
> RYBS was a staunch Zionist. Anyone who read 5 Derashos or Qol Dodi Dofeiq
knows as much. <
At least one article in the YUTorah Pesach5773 compendium noted that his
hashqafah evolved (and seemingly came to be quite different from his days
of association with Agudah).

> He was also a staunch halachacist of Brisker heritage, and wouldn't simply
permit Hallel for purely technical reasons. <
IIUC, the "framework of t'filah" was very important.  Saying Hallel prior
to Qaddish "Tisqaba[i]l" was more than an issue of tampering w/ that
framework -- it was an issue of violating the mandate against saying Hallel
"b'chal-yom."  The "framework" alone comes into play in saying Tachanun on
YhA (something noted as not being a contradiction w/ saying chapters of
T'hilim after Qaddish "Tisqaba[i]l"), such that not saying Tachanun would
be in violation of that framework.

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:44:04PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: - The kli must be of a material that is not mekabel tuma -- and plastic
:   is considered like water halachically and so this is good.

I didn't think there was actually consensus on this issue.

While on the topic... When is something a sealed keli and when is
it an ohel zaruq (that happens to be closed)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 16/04/2013 9:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:44:04PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> : - The kli must be of a material that is not mekabel tuma -- and plastic
> :   is considered like water halachically and so this is good.
>
> I didn't think there was actually consensus on this issue.
>
> While on the topic... When is something a sealed keli and when is
> it an ohel zaruq (that happens to be closed)?

Why can't it be both?  An ohel zaruk is not an ohel at all, so it won't
protect the kohen in that capacity, but if it's also a tzamid pasil then
it will protect him in that capacity.  Now you could ask what if it's
not zaruk; what if it's stationery, in which capacity is it protecting him?
As an ohel, or as a tzamid pasil?  But then what difference does it make?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:24:50PM -0400, I wrote:
: While on the topic... When is something a sealed keli and when is
: it an ohel zaruq (that happens to be closed)?

To be more clear: Why is being in an airplane being in an ohel zaruq, and
therefore does not protect from tum'ah, but being in a bag of non-meqabel
tum'ah substance in that plane is being muqaf tzamid pesil? Why isn't
the enclosed airplane a tzamid pesil, or the bag eqaully an ohel zaruq?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 17/04/2013 6:09 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:24:50PM -0400, I wrote:
> : While on the topic... When is something a sealed keli and when is
> : it an ohel zaruq (that happens to be closed)?
>
> To be more clear: Why is being in an airplane being in an ohel zaruq, and
> therefore does not protect from tum'ah, but being in a bag of non-meqabel
> tum'ah substance in that plane is being muqaf tzamid pesil? Why isn't
> the enclosed airplane a tzamid pesil, or the bag eqaully an ohel zaruq?

The plane is not a tzamid pasil, first because it's made of metal.  It's
possible that the 787 would indeed be OK as far as that's concerned.
The second reason the plane is not a tzamid pasil is because there's no
sealant.  Perhaps El Al could add some sort of tape to the doors.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

The plane is not a tzamid pasil, first because it's made of metal.  It's
possible that the 787 would indeed be OK as far as that's concerned.
The second reason the plane is not a tzamid pasil is because there's no
sealant.  Perhaps El Al could add some sort of tape to the doors.

-----------------------------------
Interesting all the focus on why the plane doesn't work but (maybe I missed
it) not on why the plastic bag may not work (in addition to suffocating the
cohain since it seems to need to be "sealed" or having him bounce off the
ceiling due to turbulence.)
KT
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.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:51:29PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB asks:
:> In a two-income family where husband and wife keep their money in joint
:> accounts, which of the two models of nechasim applies?
: 
: I am not sure I am understanding your question.  Or rather, this is where it
: seems to me that dina d'malchusa dina has to come into play - and this would
: have to be operating to overrule the halacha.  Because the government
: recognises her income as hers and his income as his, and the joint account
: as owned jointly.  It may, on the dissolution of the marriage, reallocate
: some of those funds based on alimony...

You're thinking too much like a lawyer, or whatever your profession is
called in The Queens' English. (In contrast to my native tongue of Queens
English.) You are IMHO overly focusing on what can be pragmatically
defended.

Before it comes to being contested, a husband might be obligated to
arrange his affairs -- his will (or whatever is the more proper technical
term for what is colloquially called a "halachic will") or other paperwork
-- to insure that his wife receives what he owes her.

There is also the possibility that the case is brought to BD for "legal
arbitration". In which case, what in principle would BD try for?


Second, I don't think DDD overrides all dinei mamonos between two Jews,
just that it creates forms of qinyan. At least, that's (minus the last
clause about qinyan) what I think the Rama is saying in CM 369:11, and
looking at the Mahariq he cites (shu"t #187; thanks to Bar Ilan web site)
reinforces that suspicion (and discusses real estate contracts). The
Rama mentions marriage and yerushah in particular.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:56:10AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If I understand Chana correctly she is arguing that Dina DeMalchuta overrides
: halacha in making a kinyan. According to this using money to buy a moveable
: is a kinyan because of dina demalchuta even though the gemara explictly
: states that it is not a kinyan.

: First without a proof I find this hard to believe. Second why the need for
: simtuta why not just use dina demalchusa...

I understood the usage of DDD in the context of qinyanim to be an example
of simtuta. (Thus avoiding the question of "why not just use A rather than
B?") Simtuta says that any convention that creates a mutual understanding
that one party lost ownership and the other party gained ownership is
a qinyan. Dina demalkhusa is one way to create such conventions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:40:47AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Interesting all the focus on why the plane doesn't work but (maybe
: I missed it) not on why the plastic bag may not work (in addition to
: suffocating the cohain since it seems to need to be "sealed" or having
: him bounce off the ceiling due to turbulence.)

AIUI, the kohein put the bag on shortly before reaching Israel, and opened
it up again when they were clearly past the cemetaries. The whole thing was
a few minutes.

But I agree that (1) knotting the bag should be no more a seal than
locking the airplane door. Recall, we're talking about a pressurized
cabin -- it's airtight. And (2) the bag can't stand on its own. And (3)
I am still waiting for someone to provide details on the machloqes about
whether plastic is meqabel tum'ah and did we really reach a consenus. And
(4) was the airplane fusalage and pressurized cabin area both metal,
one of them fiberglass, and does that make a difference (is fiberglass
meqabel tum'ah)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

On 17/04/2013 9:40 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Interesting all the focus on why the plane doesn't work but (maybe I
> missed it) not on why the plastic bag may not work (in addition to
> suffocating the cohain since it seems to need to be "sealed" or
> having him bounce off the ceiling due to turbulence.)

There's plenty of air inside the bag, so no danger of suffocation for
the time he has to be in it.  As evidenced by the fact that he survived
just fine and without any distress.  If he did start to feel endangered
he could always open the bag.

And I see no reason he can't wear a seat belt over the bag.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

But I agree that (1) knotting the bag should be no more a seal than
locking the airplane door. Recall, we're talking about a pressurized
cabin -- it's airtight. And (2) the bag can't stand on its own. And (3)
I am still waiting for someone to provide details on the machloqes about
whether plastic is meqabel tum'ah and did we really reach a consenus. And
(4) was the airplane fusalage and pressurized cabin area both metal,
one of them fiberglass, and does that make a difference (is fiberglass
meqabel tum'ah)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-------------------------------------------------------------
And R' Moshe's opinion that aluminum isn't metal as well as the issue as to
whether the rakia extends to infinity.	I guess what confuses me is why the
snifim lhakeil by the plane itself were deemed insufficient but adding the
bag with its own halachic issues (and I find it hard to believe the FAA
would say it's OK given that take-off and landing are when they are most
concerned for unfettered access to exits) makes enough snifim lhakeil.
Then there's my age old favorite of yachol lvarer - why is there no requirement to check entire length of any air journey?
KT

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.

 From http://tinyurl.com/cktrssv

Rav Moshe Vaye, probably the world?s expert on 
bugs in food, from both the halachic and 
scientific perspective, brings to our attention 
many important revelations and rulings regarding 
bugs in food and how to deal with them. His 
arguments are powerful, well-documented and 
cannot simply be shrugged away and dismissed. 
Nevertheless, there is a sense of extremism 
throughout his sefer ?Bedikas Hamazon? as well as 
in his lectures. Take, for example, his entry on 
corn on the cob. According to Rav Vaye, corn on 
the cob is ?highly infested? and the only way to 
enjoy corn is to ?cut all the kernels off the cob 
with a sharp knife and separate the kernels from 
one another?soak the kernels in soapy water for 
three minutes..rinse well in a strainer under a 
strong stream of running water ? one ear?s worth at a time?.

Corn on the cob has always been consumed, along 
with many other fruits and vegetables that Rav 
Vaye?s rulings have forbidden or considerably 
regulated over the past few years. Could Rav Vaye 
not have suggested soaking the corn on the cob? 
Taking a fingernail-type brush and brushing down 
the cob under running water?  Perhaps even a 
second brushing after the corn has been cooked? 
This would cover any concerns with a ?miut 
hamatzui? status and possibly even ?muchzak 
b?tolaim? status, if corn on the cob must be declared as such.

However, there other opinions on the matter that cannot be ignored, either.

Rav Eitam Henkin has written a sefer ?Lechem 
Yehiyeh L?achla? (Machon Lerabanei Yishuvim 
(www.rabanim.org) 165 pages / Heb.) which takes a 
much more moderate approach to the issue of bugs 
in food. It is an approach that is both 
consistent with historical reality and also takes 
into consideration the reality on the ground 
today. Although Rav Henkin?s sefer is not a 
direct response to Rav Vaye?s sefer (unlike R? 
Eitam?s father, Rav Yehuda Henkin, who wrote a 
sefer ?Understanding Tzniut? as a direct response 
to Rav Elyahu Falk?s ?Oz V?ehadar Levusha? ) it 
was especially helpful to read it concurrently with Rav Vaye?s sefer.

Rav Henkin?s sefer helps readers to distinguish 
between what is halacha and what is chumra. For 
example, Rav Henkin notes that Rav Vaye writes 
that a ?miut hamatzui? food that cannot be 
completely cleaned is categorically forbidden to 
be eaten ? something that may be unfounded. Such 
stringency only truly applies to ?muchzak 
b?tolaim? (though Rav Vaye does acknowledge this 
fact in another place). Rav Vaye also writes that 
?miut hamtzui? includes a frequency of 5%, which 
Rav Henkin proves is an unnecessary chumra 
according to all normative standards.

See the above URL for more.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130417/e4836b26/attachment-0001.htm>

On 4/17/2013 7:20 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> The plane is not a tzamid pasil, first because it's made of metal.  It's
> possible that the 787 would indeed be OK as far as that's concerned.
> The second reason the plane is not a tzamid pasil is because there's no
> sealant.  Perhaps El Al could add some sort of tape to the doors.

Why do you think an air-tight gasket doesn't count?

Lisa

I asked:

> I do understand the idea that we don't want to create any
> PR problems. But how do we reconcile that with the Rama in
> O"C 1:1, that we must do our mitzvos and not worry about
> those who would laugh at us?

R' Zev Sero and I seem to be of like mind on this question. I'm in agreement with just about everything he responded, such as:

> This is the definition of kiddush haShem -- willingness to
> keep the mitzvos regardless of difficulty, and in particular
> regardless of what anybody thinks of it.  It's exactly the
> same as inviting ridicule and worse by insisting that there
> is only one god and refusing to worship the imaginary ones
> that the mal'igim (or worse) expect one to worship.

RZS then introduced an intriguing example, which I'll come back to in a minute. He wrote:

> The criticism reminds me of the people 40 years ago who
> used to say that wearing a yarmulke on the street was a
> "chilul haShem"!

Writing about this topic in general (and not specifically about yarmulkes 40 years ago) R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I would think the difference is between being laughed at for
> doing what's right, and being laughed at for how one goes
> about doing it.

I'd like to take both comments and suggest the following:

I think it is safe to say, as a matter of historical record, that there WAS
a time when even in the frummest areas of New York City, it was "pas nisht"
(unseemly) to walk in the street with a yarmulka. (I'd think it was
somewhat more than 40 years ago, but let's not quibble over details.)

But we need to distinguish between a yarmulke and other types of headgear.
The objection was not to the fact that this courageous Jew did what's right
by covering his head. Rather, the objection is for how he went about doing
it - in just a blatantly Jewish manner, with "in your face" pro-semitic
chutzpah. The times were such (difficult as it is for us to understand)
that he could have - and SHOULD have - chosen to wear some sort of cap or
hat instead.

Is it possible that both RSZ and RMB might agree to making this distinction?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Unusual Sleep Trick
Scientists in Boston have revealed a natural sleep formula that would have everyone talking. Try it tonight.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/516eccb66f1fb4cb60229st02vuc

*Abarbanel at several places in his Peirush  apologizes that in his **running
commentary **he cannot explain his ideas regarding Hashem's Presence. He
sends us to a special section at the end of Sefer Shmos. Only there does he
give depth to **?Kvod Hashem Malei et Hamishkan?, Eish Hashem and the
?Anan/Eish?. *

*
*

* It was self evident that Bnei Yisrael will sense Hashem and build the
Mishkan pieces successfully, bringing the Shechina in its highest form.*

* **Successful assembly of the components of the Mishkan proves that
EveryJew has the highest potential for Direct Connection to Hashem. The
pieces themselves were made in each Jewish House. Only the Assembly step
was Moshe and Aharon.  Each piece was made in their private homes. .*

*
*

*Kavod Hashem, Or of First Day of Creation and Eish and Anan Hashem are
just a few of the concepts** he discusses. **All are used to designate
Emanations connected closely to His Ineffable Presence, and their faithful
analogs/reflections.      Anan and Eish do not ever retreat. Simultaneously
and Tamid  together they express Hashem?s presence. The brightness of one
makes the other undetectable. All members of Klal Yisrael dependably
connect to Hashem?s Active Presence, with no stoppages.*

* *

*Source ? Peirush Abarbanel a/k/a Abrabanel on Seifer Shmos, chapter 39 to
end; see Hebrewbooks_org_14386.pdf                   pages 357 through
 page 366;   Paragraphs give exact page-line or **page-column-line. *

*
*

*359-10; Straight out of Mitzrayim, the folk-artisans who constructed the
components of the Mishkan, took the hinted instructions of Hashem as
dictated to Moshe Rabeinu.  They went into their sundry private houses.
Moshe Rabeinu did not make a single house call to inspect them. In spite of
that ? each of hundreds of thousands of artisans were singly perfect in
their execution of the plan and purpose of the Mishkan.*

*This is a profound affirmation of the Godliness of members of Klal
Yisrael. 359-24 they were indeed worthy of blessing.*

* *

*366-b-20 The Mishkan is an impression [analog?] of the Creation of the
World in six days. The common artisan ? Moshe was confident ? was able to
carry it out flawlessly. And indeed they did. The assembly was practiced
for seven days, and on the eighth day the Kvod Hashem /Anan /Eish ?filled?
Malei the Mishkan.*

* *

*367-a-12 just as the Six Days prepared for the continuity of the World,
in turn the Mishkan sets the stage for the Active Projection of Presence of
Hashem, ten crowns of the day akin to the ten speeches of Hashem. The
Mishkan is built by the ??gestalt/duality?? of Yisrael and Hashem. First
Bnei Yisrael actively made the components, then Moshe assembled it, then on
Yom Hashmini made it a fixture always assembled. From then on Yisrael is
passive and the visibly  Active factor is  Hashem?s presence, a/k/a
Shechinah a/k/a Hashgachah in its most entire manifestation.*

*366-b-25  Anan and Eish are both present 24 hours a day, but at night the
luminescence of Eish is perceptible,  and during daylight the Anan?s
darkness.  Thus both are reliably Always-Present as fitting for Hashem?s
presence. [ This  skips the detailed technical discussion of Light and Dark
on 364-365 as beyond coherence.]*

* *

*[Abarbanel seems to suggest but not express the following:   *

*Shechinah is relational and implies that there is a direct objectand
indirect object.  Klal Yisrael is the direct object, and the Mishkan is the
indirect object. If it is relational, it may follow that without Klal
Yisrael as the receiver, lacking  the receptor, that Hashem?s active
Shechinah and Hashgacha are inconceivable.*

* *

*[Similar logic would say that the Middah of Rachamim as mercy is
relational.  Mercy needs an object of that mercy, applicable only after
active deeds of Adam Harishon. Creation with mercy, and saying  ?Creator
with his mercy of Sky and Earth? is not proper.*

*In turn, a childless member of Sanhedrin does not actively practice
Rachamim and is forbidden to  judge capital cases.]*

* *

*Without Shechinah there may be no conception of Klal Yisrael as Mamlechet
Kohanim.  This formulation is a suggestion and not from Abarbanel. End of
suggestion. ??]  *

* *

*367-b-1   Mishkan represents Projection of the highest [ontological]
levels attained on Maamad Har Sinai by Moshe Rabeinu/Klal Yisrael in Sivan.
 As the Mishkan is pieces assembled by the individual artisans of Bnei
Yisrael; then the assembly into one unit was done the first time by Moshe
Rabeinu, and was accepted by Hashem in Parshas Shmini; therefore the three
can only travel together as one unit. They are completely bonded together.
That is the meaning of those last passages of Sefer Shmos -  the travel
based on the Anan?s movement.*

* *

*361-b-2 the ?OR? light in the Anan is called Eish, also Kvod Hashem; line
15 sor six days of the daily construction, only the Anan was visible, and
on the seventh day of Mishkan the Anan lifted to show the Kvod Hashem
Luminescence. It is not the eighth day, it is the seventh day.*

* *

*362-a-8 that Kvod Hashem is identical with the Or Haganuz of day one of
Creation, the highest ontological level of Hashem-Presence projectable into
creation.*

* *

*362-a-20  - the Kvodo is the ongoing vitality of the world based on
Hashem?s projected Presence ? Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh/ MLOi Kol Ha?aretz Kvodo.
*

* *

*382-b-36  direct exposure to the sun causes temporary or permanent
blindness, as Ben Azai looked too closely at the Shechina and was harmed.
There is a ?lampshade? on Shechinah.*

* *

*363-a-15 Just as fire/light can result at times in injury, there can be
punishment/harm for those exposed to more Presence than they are ready for.
363-a30 for Yisrael the very same Light/Fire will be warmth and sustenance.*

* *

*363-b-5  There is OR  like the sun too bright to see; there is projected
light of Hashem-Presence which we experienced on Har Sinai; That is like
visible useful sunlight.  Just as there is a corona which cannot be seen
except at eclipse, there is darkness around the over-bright sun. Material
clouds and lunar eclipse have equivalents in Hashem-Presence-Kavod.*

* *

*363-b-40 Smoke billows from fire, Choshech is either the surrounding less
luminary beings, or the too-bright ?Shechina which ends up perceived almost
as darkness.*

*363-b-40 Smoke is cloud that surrounds protects the
Shechina-Light-Presence. That is why Anan and Eish surround Mikdash and
Mishkan.*

* *

*364-a-18 the Hashem-Light makes sun look dim by comparison. With
Light-Presence they will be brighter. 364365-a8 Either OR is transparent ,
-b-50 maybe the Hashem-Or it is dimmed by distance.*

* *

*365a20 Sinai?s ?Created  ? The Anan  and The Active-Fire-Hashem both Or
Haganuz type, much higher than profane fire.*

* *

*365a35 Day One of Creation ? the Choshech was a separate Creation of
Spiritual Hiding.  The same Or was present ?Day? and ?Night?, just at night
the Choshech covered the Or. That is Cosmic rhythm, not a physical result.
365-b-4 this is the ?Conceptual? presentation, but Abarbanel on Breishis
wrote the ?Elementary? presentation.*

*365b8 the Anan Hakavod is identical with the Choshech of Day One. 365b10
Borei Choshech of Day One ? and using it for good is making Shalom peace.*

*365b12 the Ananei Hakavod is the location of the Keshes of Noach. When the
Ananei Kavod lead to rain, a glimpse of the Keshet shines from Ananei
hakavod. This is the deep Pshat.*

* *

*355-b-40 Anan of Yechezkel is the Ananei Kavod. *

* *

*366a20 cannot directly look at Keshet.*

*366a36 choshech makif v?soveiv Or Hanivra*

* *

*366a40 Choshech/ananei Hakavod and Or Haganuz of Day One ? are the same
general type  as ananei kavod  and Eish in the Midbar for 40 years. The Or
haganuz shined from Moshe?s face, necessitating a mask.  366b1 Nadav and
Avihu who were not ready for it -  were harmed*

*366b3 the Anan covered Ohel Moeid and Kvod Havaya Malei es Hamishkan ? the
Or Choshech*

* *

*366b4 Moshe and Aharon anticipated that if their deeds are accepted, then
Hasehem?s Presence will manifest itself. In answer Eish Eloki descended to
Mizbeiach on Yom Hashmini ?of the Miluim sacrifices, validating the
connection. Over the next forty years [at key moments ] it appeared to Bnei
Yisrael.*

* *

*366-b8 the same AnanKavod-Kvod hashem filled Beis hashem Mikdash Shlomo
Mlachim-1-8-11, which was much later, showing an abiding connection; the
same event is described in Divrei Hayamim as ?all Bnei Yisrael saw IN the
descent of the Eish and the Kvod Hashem ? into the Bayis. Eish Kavod Anan
are essentially similar and identical.*

*366b10 the same Presence Eish appeared on Har Hakarmel to Eliyahu.*

*366b16 the Nahar DiNur of Divine Fire in Daniel can be explained this way.*

* *

*[Other  - Machzor Vitri page ~152; Malbim Yechezkel, Preface]*

* *

*All this confirms the permanent nature of Hashem?s manifest presence among
Bnei Yisrael. The same Shechina of the Or Haganuz, shined in the Ananei
Hakavod and Eish. It was the Anan and Choshech and Eish of Sinai. It was
the Eish of hashem in Parshas Shmini. It continues to the Bayis Rishon of
Shlomo.*

*Although the  dependable connection with Hashem continues on. The actual
sighting of it later became a rarity. Malbim Yechezkel [Preface] says that
Yechezkel had to prove that he saw Hashem, already an unexpected thing in
the Exile and outside Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, in Eretz Yisrael in
 Yeshaya?s period, seeing Hashem was natural , so Maaseh Merkava is
described in passing with less detail. *


-- 
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130417/5bc7af30/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 70
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)