Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 144

Mon, 20 Oct 2014

• 1. Re: Hoshana Rabba (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: re'ach (Micha Berger)
• 4. Ushpizin for non-owners? (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. "raq eizot"? (Ben Waxman)
• 6. To Create or Not to Create (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: "raq eizot"? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Ushpizin for non-owners? (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: chapters in the Bible (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Yom Kippur at KAJ in Washington Heights (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: re'ach (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Kenneth Miller)
• 15. Re: re'ach (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Mindfulness (Jonathan Baker)

At 10:52 AM 10/15/2014, you wrote:
>As the sun rises on Hoshana Rabba, an annual question dawns (on me), 
>when in Jewish history can we document the "yom hadin" nature of 
>Hoshana Rabba being clearly identified ?
>Pitcha tova and a good kvitel J
>Joel Rich

What does this mean?  I am not familiar with these things.

On 14 October 2014 15:56, Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:43:53AM -0300, via Avodah wrote:
>: What mitzvah? ...

> This wouldn't be the only place where following minhag would be
> deemed letzorekh mitzvah.

Indeed, a minhag is also a mitzvah. It's not as if there's any real
prohibition involved, that would require a real mitzvah de'oraisa to
override it. Blowing shofar on Shabbos is not a melacha, it's not a
shvus, it's barely prohibited at all, so a minhag is also good enough
to override it. And once we need it it's not muktzeh any more.

Hoshanos would be forbidden on Shabbos, if HR were allowed to fall then,
not because of muktzeh but because of Gezera Derabba. And since it's
only a minhag, if we skipped it one year it might be forgotten forever.
So we make sure that can't happen.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:09:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: I don't understand the premise.  The Torah says willows, not eucalyptuses.

Actually, it says arvei nachal. One has to prove that the phrase refers
to a taxonomical species. We make hagafen on concord grapes (a cultivar
of the fox grape, Vitis lubrusca), despite their being a different
species than old world grapes (Vitis vinifera). Eucalyptus is actually
in the myrtle family and subfamily, closer to hadasim than aravos in
taxonomy. But I would need more than an assertion to accept that that's
more relevant than their looking enough like river willows for Hebrew
speakers who first encountered them to give them the same name.

: All the simanim are for distinguishing willows from similar species, but no
: siman is needed to distinguish them from such a dissimilar species that
: nobody would mistake them for each other!

And yet they're similar enough in appearance and in growing conditions for
Modern Hebrew speakers to call eucalyptus trees "aravos". If you look at
a eucalyptus branch (eg <http://www.crazyfortea.com/eucalyptustea.html> or
<http://karthikenterprises.tradeindia.com/eucalyptus-leaves-1022326.html
>)
it does indeed look identical to a kosher aravah.

PERHAPS related: Birds and bats are described as being created on the
same day -- bats aren't part of day 6. But more likely (but still not
muchrach) related: we generally understand bats as among the ofos that
are listed in the chumash as non-kosher.

So, the question is does halakhah deal in species, or in appearances? I see
that as a question wothy of a teshuvah, and the matter isn't open-and-shut
to my eye.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

I should've asked this a couple of weeks ago, but better late than never...
Last winter, my family moved to a new place which has no area where I can
put up a sukkah. I knew this in advance, and I don't regret the move, and
I've managed fine with the sukkos of friends, and the shuls, and most
importantly, that of my son who lives only a few blocks away.

I'd like to ask how other people in that sort of situation handle Ushpizin.
I've always percieved it as being associated with the baal habayis of the
sukkah. Who but the owner (and spouse) can invite guests, right? So in the
past, when I was in my sukkah, I've always recited the Ushpizin, while
everyone else sits and listens. And such seems to be the general practice:
I've never noticed a sukkah where each person said the ushpizin themselves.
But then again, my experience is far narrower than that of the Avodah
Chevreh.

So this year, where I was always a guest borrowing someone else's sukkah, I
simply skipped the ushpizin entirely. But yestyerday I started wondering if
this is what other people do. I can easily imagine that there might be a
distinction between the sukkah of a friend and that of a shul that I'm a
member of: Perhaps I should indeed say the ushpizin in the shul's sukkah,
since my membership gives me a partial ownership, just as I can say a
bracha on th shul's esrog or tallis.

So, has anyone else come up with this question?  I hope to hold on to the answers for next year (or maybe next year I'll have my own sukkah again).

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/543ee808879576808458dst04vuc

In the Sfat Emet, parshat Breishit, Taf Reish Lamed  Hei, B'sefer Qol 
Simcha, the SE cites the Zohar as saying that mitzvot are "eizot".  What 
does that mean? I understand that mitzvot need kavannah, and I get his 
point that mitzvot should bring one to a state of deveikut with HaShem. 
But what it mean to say that mitzvot are "raq eizot"?

Ben

A very striking rabbinic legend concedrning the crowning achievement of all creation, the making of man, tells that a very 
heated debate took place among the angels on high. Some said that man deserves to be created and some maintained
he should not be created. Chesed omeres yeborey, the attribute of mercy and loving kindness said man should be created, 
there is a bit of good in every human being. Emes omeres al yeborey; but absolute truth objected and said shekulo shelorim.
Man should not be created because he is deceitful and lying; man is dishonest, a cheat and fraud.

So what did the Almighty do? He cast ruth to the ground and He (amazingly) rejected the emes summarily, and while confusion
reigned He created man and said, K?var ne?eso odom?behold man is already here and he is here to stay!

The legend concludes that God turned at last to three angels and he asked them: ?Should I create man?? The angel Metatron
replied, ?Lord, what do You need him for?? and the second angel, Samuail (or Satan) said it simply cannot be done. But the angel
Gavriel said, ?Lord, it?s a wonderful idea, thell me how can I be of help?? And God kissed the angel Gavriel on the forehead and
said: ?Well spoken, ukvar ne?eso odom.? Man is created and he is here to stay.

Let us be like Gavriel, partners with God, in the act of creation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141015/01204aa1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 09:24:15PM +0200, R Ben Waxman wrote:
: In the Sfat Emet, parshat Breishit, Taf Reish Lamed  Hei, B'sefer
: Qol Simcha, the SE cites the Zohar as saying that mitzvot are
: "eizot"...                      But what it mean to say that mitzvot
: are "raq eizot"?

The Zohar calls them "Taryag Ittin", ittin being the Aramaic for
"eitzos", but there is no "raq".

The idea is that mitzvos are Doctor's Orders. General's Orders
are followed because they're orders. And mitzvos may well be that
too. But the Zohar here is focusing on mitzvos as Docator's Orders --
the Manufacturer telling us how to get the most from His product. And
an onesh (when looking at things this way) is less like being thrown in
the brig as suffering from gout after eating too much liver.

:       ... and I get his point that mitzvot should bring one to a
: state of deveikut with HaShem...

Because the Sefas Emes was a chassid. A Litvak would talk more about
mitzvos a way to refine or polish one's tzelem E-lokim.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I wrote:

> ... Ushpizin. I've always percieved it as being associated with
> the baal habayis of the sukkah. Who but the owner (and spouse)
> can invite guests, right?

Over Yom Tov, it struck me that the words "azamen l'seudasi" should have
led me to a slightly different conclusion: It is not the baal ha*bayis* who
is authorized to invite guests, but the baal ha*seudah*. This is usually
the same person (or spouse thereof) but not always.

Thus, it now seems obvious to me that when one brings his own food to a
public sukkah (such as at a shul) or is a paying customer at a restaurant
sukkah, there should be no problem at all with him saying the ushpizin. And
this would also be true where one brings his food to a friend's sukkah, if
he can presume that the friend wouldn't mind additional guests.

I'm satisfied with the above, but if anyone has other thoughts, please share.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5443b48358b28348345b2st04vuc

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> The Archbishop of Canterbury introduced the chapters in the early
> 1200s. It was first used by the Jews by Rabbi Yitschak Natan in
> 1448. In 1516 was published in Venice the first Jewish Bible using
> the division by chapters.
> The article claims that the division into chapters was introduced
> into Jewish works because of the various debates between the clergy
> and the Jews where verses where refered to by their chapter

This is similar to what appears on page 79 of Artscroll's *Bereshis* (the
354-page volume, first printed in 1977, covering only the parshiyos of
Bereshis and Noach): "The division of the Bible into chapters is of
non-Jewish origin, introduced in the Middle Ages by Christian Bible
printers. Most Jewish Bibles follow these divisions for identification
purposes..."

Although it is clear that we did in fact adopt their *concept* of numbering
the Tanach by chapter and verse, we did not do so blindly. There are
several interesting points in which our numbering differs from theirs, and
I advise people to be aware of this to prevent confusion. In other words,
if you're not aware of these differences, you might not find what you're
looking for, or you might mistakenly think that your source misprinted the
location. (My guess is that the Jews made these refinements *after* the era
of the debates; it would have been counterproductive for us to insist on a
different numbering system while the debates were in progress.)

A while back I submitted a post to another mailing list, in which I
identified many of these differences. You can find it at http://www.
ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i34.html#CJQ

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54442e2fa2a72e2e3252st02vuc

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Blowing shofar on Shabbos is not a melacha, it's not a shvus,
> it's barely prohibited at all, so a minhag is also good enough
> to override it. And once we need it it's not muktzeh any more.

Rama 588:5 and Mishneh Berurah 588:14 say that on Shabbos it is a kli shemelachto l'issur.

> Hoshanos would be forbidden on Shabbos, if HR were allowed to
> fall then, not because of muktzeh but because of Gezera Derabba.

Two questions: (1) The aravos are currently Muktzeh Machmas Gufo on Shabbos
Chol Hamoed Sukkos (Rama 658:2 and MB 658:3-4), so why do you say that they
would not be muktzeh if Hoshana Rabba would fall on Shabbos? (2) Could you
please remind me what "Gezera Derabba" you're referring to?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5443c6b58d09a46b50908st03vuc

Reb Daniel Adler spent Yom Kippur in Washington Heights and davened 
at K'hal Adas Jeshurun.  He has written a description of this 
experience which may be read at

http://www.kayj.net/media/kunena/attachments/76/YKatKAJ.pdf

I am sure that you will find his experience davening at KAJ of 
interest given that KAJ adheres to old minhagim that are different 
from those practiced in most shuls today.

YL

 Kenneth Miller via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

>> Blowing shofar on Shabbos is not a melacha, it's not a shvus,
>> it's barely prohibited at all, so a minhag is also good enough
>> to override it. And once we need it it's not muktzeh any more.

> Rama 588:5 and Mishneh Berurah 588:14 say that on Shabbos it is a kli
> shemelachto l'issur.

But what is that issur?  Not a melacha, not a shvus, barely an issur at all.
Any good reason is enough to permit it, and then it's no longer melachto
le'issur.



>> Hoshanos would be forbidden on Shabbos, if HR were allowed to
>> fall then, not because of muktzeh but because of Gezera Derabba.

> Two questions: (1) The aravos are currently Muktzeh Machmas Gufo on
> Shabbos Chol Hamoed Sukkos (Rama 658:2 and MB 658:3-4), so why do
> you say that they would not be muktzeh if Hoshana Rabba would fall
> on Shabbos?

Because they would then have a use, and thus not be muktzeh, just as
the lulav is not muktzeh on yomtov (and when Bnei-EY used to take the
lulav on the first day even on Shabbos, it was not muktzeh for them).


> (2) Could you please remind me what "Gezera Derabba" you're referring to?

The same gezera that prevents us from bowing shofar and reading the
megillah on Shabbos.  Fear that it will lead to carrying.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141020/27a4546a/attachment.htm>

[Email #1, a reply to my post, originally sent Motza"Sh 18 Oct. -micha]

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:09:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I don't understand the premise.  The Torah says willows, not eucalyptuses.

> Actually, it says arvei nachal. One has to prove that the phrase refers
> to a taxonomical species.

It should be obvious that it is naming a species, just like the other
three, but if proof were needed it is easily found: every source,
without exception, agrees that there is no requirement whatsoever that
the aravos actually grow on a nachal. Everyone explains this by saying
that "arvei nachal" is a species name, not a description.

> We make hagafen on concord grapes (a cultivar of the fox grape, Vitis
> lubrusca), despite their being a different species than old world grapes
> (Vitis vinifera)

It's not at all clear that v. vinifera and v. labrusca are separate
species. They are completely interfertile, so who says they should be
considered separate species? In any case, concord grapes are about 1/3
v vinifera.


> But I would need more than an assertion to accept that that's
> more relevant than their looking enough like river willows for Hebrew
> speakers who first encountered them to give them the same name.

I have never heard of this, and need more than an assertion before I can
accept that it happened. Who exactly were these people who did this,
and when?

> And yet they're similar enough in appearance and in growing conditions for
> Modern Hebrew speakers to call eucalyptus trees "aravos".

To the best of my knowledge, no, they don't. AFAIK in modern Hebrew they
have no other name than "eqaliptus". Naomi Shemer AH did not write of
"horshat ha`aravot"!


> PERHAPS related: Birds and bats are described as being created on the
> same day -- bats aren't part of day 6.

I agree that they were created on the 5th day, but I'm curious what
authority you're quoting for that proposition.

>  But more likely (but still not muchrach) related: we generally understand
> bats as among the ofos that are listed in the chumash as non-kosher.

Surely that *is* muchrach; is there any doubt at all that the "`atalef"
listed is the bat? But I don't see how this is relevant. Bats are
`ofos -- they fly! Just as cetaceans are dagim, because they swim.
On the sixth day the land animals were created, and neither bats nor
whales are land animals. Nowhere is it even hinted that all mammals
were created on the 6th day. "Mammal" is a category of animal that was
unknown to our ancestors at Matan Torah, or to Chazal; it never occurred
to them to class animals according to whether they lactate.


[Email #2, in reply to R Saul Newman, sent Mon, 20 Oct 2014 02:13:55 EDT]

> i would contend that before taxonomists got involved, anyone
> encountering eucalyptus, by sight could easily see it as a variety
> of aravah.

Really? Then surely you can produce some examples of people calling
them willows. As far as I know this has never happened. From the
very first time Europeans encountered them, they recognised them as a
separate species, and did not confuse them with willows.

>  the point is made in the aforementioned sefer, that hadassim, for
> example, look different in different parts of eretz ysrael.

And this proves what?

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Regarding Shofar, I pointed out:

> Rama 588:5 and Mishneh Berurah 588:14 say that on Shabbos it is a
> kli shemelachto l'issur.

R' Zev Sero asked:

> But what is that issur?

The main function of a shofar is Hashma'as Kol.

It can also be used as a container, to move liquids from here to there, and
that is why it is a genuine kli shemelachto l'issur, i.e., a keli whose
MAIN function is assur but has mutar uses as well. - Mishne Brurah 588:15.

According to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, however, no one would actually use
a shofar for such a purpose nowadays, and so we would lose the heter to
move it L'tzorech Gufo Umekomo. (Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata, chapter 28;
footnote 80 in 2nd edition, footnote 82 in 3rd edition)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54450ea7e145ea67d7dst04vuc

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:23:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: > Actually, it says arvei nachal. One has to prove that the phrase refers
: > to a taxonomical species.
: 
: It should be obvious that it is naming a species, just like the other
: three, but if proof were needed it is easily found: every source,
: without exception, agrees that there is no requirement whatsoever that
: the aravos actually grow on a nachal. Everyone explains this by saying
: that "arvei nachal" is a species name, not a description.

Except that "species" as you are using the word wasn't a formalized
concept yet. All they had to go by was description. It looked like
and grew in the same areas as aravos. Why wouldn't they assume it's
a related plant?

:> We make hagafen on concord grapes (a cultivar of the fox grape, Vitis
:> lubrusca), despite their being a different species than old world grapes
:> (Vitis vinifera)

: It's not at all clear that v. vinifera and v. labrusca are separate
: species. They are completely interfertile, so who says they should be
: considered separate species? In any case, concord grapes are about 1/3
: v vinifera.

We discussed this at length before Pesach 2009, when I semi-jokingly
questioned the use of concord wine (or grape juice) for dalet kosos.

I believe you are mistaken in the facts, that if you directly cross
new- and old-world you get mules. However, that whole detour was
made unnecessary by what R Yitzchaq Grossman posted on 21-Mar-2009
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n059.shtml#10>:
> I am aware that that is the exact definition of modern biology for species
> differentiation, but what is your source that that is the definition of
> 'min' in the context of Kilayim? On the contrary, the criteria that I see
> all seem to refer to similarity of appearance (of leaves and / or fruit)
> or taste, and there's even the phrase "ein holchin be'kelayim elah ahar
> maris ha'ayin" (see commentaries of Rash, Rambam and Tosfos Yom Tov to
> Kelayim 1:4-5 and Hazon Ish Kelayim Ch. 3).

So, if kelayim only follow appearance, it is fair to ask about 4 minim.

: To the best of my knowledge, no, they don't. AFAIK in modern Hebrew they
: have no other name than "eqaliptus". Naomi Shemer AH did not write of
: "horshat ha`aravot"!

Did you see the ArtScroll footnote that raised the question in RSN's mind
to begin with?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

I was catching up on Avodah/Areivims for August/September over Yom
Tov, and read a longish piece RMi wrote (12 Sep 14, V32n133) against
Mindfulness, on the grounds that it's Buddhist in origin, and now-centered
rather than future-directed. I have a big problem with that argument.

1) I went to the Yavneh Vaad (still going strong - a shul is a good
place for an AishDas Vaad, whether run with cooperative reading, or by a
Rosh Vaad) over Chol Hamoed. In one of the meditative chapters which the
eVaad skipped, he deals directly with mindfulness, self-conscious eating,
drinking and excretion, as well as the usual breathing. Excretion, I kid
you not - this week's avodah is to be conscious of bodily waste removal,
and to contemplate the relationship between health and proper excretion
3x a day (beyond rattling off Asher Yatzar, apparently).

2) It seems to me, that apart from whatever technical meaning Mindfulness
has in terms of western neo-Buddhism, the more general way it's used by
therapists and even the Hindu texts is the method of Musar.

In fact, I'd go further, and say that from how Micha has been talking
about the goal of AishDas for the past 15-20 years, whether the method
was Mussar, MMGH or pseudo-Masonry, the entire goal of AishDas is
mindfulness - to get the FFB to observe his observance as closely and
self-consciously as does the BT. To be mindful of everything one does.
To be in the moment of one's actions as well as keeping them in the
larger context (future-directed as it may be) of Torah Judaism. IOW,
cultivating mindful observance for all (observant) Jews.

Hm. Reading the Wikipedia article on mindfulness, or in Hindu "sati",
it seems to be exactly Micha's "Mindfulness 2.0" (see Avodahs from
Nov.2007) - being now, SO THAT you will remember LATER.. How you are
now, entering the path towards liberation - so that you develop later
based on how you are now.

Current Western mindfulness meditation, based on 19th-century vipassana,
is just breathing, which I agree is not really the goal of anything
Jewish, except as a first step towards other meditative practices
(viz. R' Brill, R' Itche Mayer Morgenstern). But as originally meant,
it seems to be just what we want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness
http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/rabbi-morgenstern-and-medit
ation/

In the past (Nov 2007) Micha talked about Mindfulness as a component
of Hislamdus, but rejected the "in-the-present" goal; here he seems to
reject the whole thing. But being in the moment, acknowledging the now
and where you are now, are a vital part of figuring out where to go next.
A vector has to have an origin point. Or, to put it like R' Dessler,
you have to acknowledge your bechirah-point before you can habituate
yourself to a state where you can move that point onward.

So I don't understand how/why R Berger rejects Mindfulness, when it
seems to underlie everything he wants to do.

-- 
jon baker         |   blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
tha...@gmail.com  | web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker


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



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


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


***************************************

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