Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 117

Sun, 01 Oct 2017

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:52:24 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom



My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening
Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during
Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era
which included the newfangled text?

Akiva Miller
_______________________________________________
Never heard it until late 70's at earliest and that was at a "new" minyan in an "old" shul where iirc the old minyan continued oseh hashalom.
Gct
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.



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:03:26 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah


On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the
> Maharil), as giving an ani money is less humiliating than giving them
> a chicken. He also write that the Shelah says you can't use ma'aser money.

No, he doesn't.  The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it 
would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev, let alone to the Shelah 
or the Maharil.    The central point of kaparos but that a life is being 
exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it with an inanimate 
object such as money.

You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the 
chicken afterwards.   Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the 
Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after 
kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or 
else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.   The Baer 
Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since it's 
less embarrassing to the recipient.


> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age --
> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly. 

No, it isn't.  "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means a 
minhag of the ancients.  He's not appealing to its age but to its 
pedigree.  The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were 
doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand it; 
we should trust them and do as they taught us.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:15:53 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
: >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the
: >Maharil)...
: 
: No, he doesn't.  The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it
: would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev...

Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon".
    And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will
    be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give
    maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather
    from his own money. (Shelah)

: You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the
: chicken afterwards.   Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka....

Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is
inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer
to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a
meilitz yosher before going into din.

I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have
primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag.

I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the
pidyon of the person.

:> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age --
:> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly.

: No, it isn't.  "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means
: a minhag of the ancients.  He's not appealing to its age but to its
: pedigree....

Source? He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously
suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves
pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin
to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition
fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag
vasiqin"?

GCT and :-)@@ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht
: Shelah or the Maharil.    The central point of kaparos but that a
: life is being exchanged for a life, so it makes no sense to do it
: with an inanimate object such as money.
: 
: You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the
: chicken afterwards.   Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but
: the Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after
: kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or
: else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.   The
: Baer Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better,
: since it's less embarrassing to the recipient.
: 
: 
: >Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age --
: >we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly.
: 
: No, it isn't.  "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means
: a minhag of the ancients.  He's not appealing to its age but to its
: pedigree.  The vasiqin instituted it, and they knew what they were
: doing, so we should not change it just because we don't understand
: it; we should trust them and do as they taught us.
: 
: -- 
: Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
: z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all
: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
: 

GCT and :-)@@ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:33:13 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah


On 29/09/17 16:15, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:03:26AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : On 28/09/17 15:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> : >Teh Be'eir Heiteiv (#4) prefers using money (citing the Shelah and the
> : >Maharil)...
> :
> : No, he doesn't.  The idea of using money is extremely recent, and it
> : would never have even occured to the Baer Hetev...
> 
> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon".
>      And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will
>      be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give
>      maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather
>      from his own money. (Shelah)

As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do kaporos, it 
refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards.  Kaporos cannot 
be done on money.  The idea makes no sense.  Kaporos is done on a 
chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give tzedaka, and it's 
better to give money than the chicken.



> : You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the
> : chicken afterwards.   Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka....
> 
> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is
> inferior to giving moneey, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer
> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a
> meilitz yosher before going into din.

Since when?  Where did you get that idea?  The language of the Rama and 
the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all of a 
connection between kaparos and tzedaka.   Plus, kaporos is not done 
right before YK, it's supposed to be done in the morning watch, before 
daybreak (though nowadays because of the large numbers some recommend 
doing it as much as a few days earlier).



> I think the problem is that living in chassidishe circles, you have
> primarily heard more mystical explanations for the minhag.

Where did you see a *non*-mystical explanation?

> I also think /you/ are confusing the pidyon of the chicken with the
> pidyon of the person.

The chicken is the pidyon of the person.  Zeh chalifasi.   Later, 
instead of giving the chicken to tzedaka as is the minhag, one can buy 
it, like pidyon maaser sheni.



> :> Also, the Rama's only reason for keeping the minhag going is its age --
> :> we shouldn't drop a minhag vasiqin just willy nilly.
> 
> : No, it isn't.  "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means
> : a minhag of the ancients.  He's not appealing to its age but to its
> : pedigree....
> 
> Source?

It's what the word means.  Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a plural 
noun.  It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients".


> He finds a geonic refernce and sayce it's been continuously
> suported since, then calls it a minhag vasiqin. Admittely that proves
> pedigree as well as age. But where's your source that we use vasiqin
> to mean the greats among the baalei mesorah? How would your definition
> fit YD 196:1: "ki kibelu me'eitzeh chakham shehorah lahen, vehu minhag
> vasiqin"?

The same thing.   Although don't know who gave this heter someone must 
have, and it's a custom of the ancients so don't mess with it even if we 
don't understand it.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:35:00 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah


If I can mix actuality with the idea below:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149

What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with 
tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or 
honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that 
affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in 
Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question.

Ben

On 9/29/2017 7:03 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>
> You have confused how one does kaparos with what one does with the 
> chicken afterwards.?? Kaparos has nothing to do with tzedaka., but the 
> Rema, citing the Maharil, says that there is a minhag that after 
> kaparos, instead of eating the chicken, one gives it to the poor, or 
> else one exchanges it for money and give that to the poor.?? The Baer 
> Hetev, citing the Shelah, says the latter version is better, since 
> it's less embarrassing to the recipient. 





Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 21:03:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon".
: >     And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will
: >     be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give
: >     maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather
: >     from his own money. (Shelah)
: 
: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do
: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards.
: Kaporos cannot be done on money.  The idea makes no sense.  Kaporos
: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give
: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken.

Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person
to the pidyon of the person's pidyon.

: >Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is
: >inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer
: >to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a
: >meilitz yosher before going into din.
: 
: Since when?  Where did you get that idea?  The language of the Rama
: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all
: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka...

The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor
person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken.

(We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about
a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes
no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.)

As you yourself write, epmashsis added:

: The chicken is the pidyon of the person.  Zeh chalifasi.   Later,
: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can
: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni.


: >: No, it isn't.  "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means
: >: a minhag of the ancients.  He's not appealing to its age but to its
: >: pedigree....
: >
: >Source?
: 
: It's what the word means.  Vasikin is not an adjective, it's a
: plural noun.  It doesn't mean "ancient", it means "the ancients".

Yes, something done a long time ago is something done by people who lived
a long time ago. That is an appeal to age. I was asking where you find
"vasiqin" as a reference to pedigree, that it can't just be an old custom
of the masses. Vasiqin doesn't mean tzadiqim or talmdei chakhamim.

Minhag vasiqin means a custom kept by people who lived long ago. Which
is close enough to "old mminhg" to have made this digression pointless.
The Rama is advocating we keep this minhag and all he mentions in its
defense is its age. An argument that loses much of its thrust once the
chain was already broken for a couple of generations.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Not hadar is pasul


A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 
minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of 
Succot (only the first day for Sefardim).

What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to 
another book which I don't own).





Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:05:15 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] expensive etrog


 ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and 
sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the 
mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only 
applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive. The 
language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto 
yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay more or there is 
simply no need (but if you want to, you? can)? If there is no need to 
pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a hiddur to buy one?





Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:22:16 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul


On 29/09/17 08:14, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> A halacha guide book that I got (Mikrei Qodesh) states that if the 4 
> minim are not hadar, that is a pasul for Ashkenazim the entire week of 
> Succot (only the first day for Sefardim).
> 
> What is the source for this halacha? (The book gives references to 
> another book which I don't own).

Shulchan aruch OC 649.  See aruch Hashulchan se'if 15-16, that it's a 
machlokes of Rambam v Raavad, Tosfos, and Rosh, and the BY paskens like 
the Rambam.

Hadar means things such as the top of each kind being intact, the 
lulav's leaves not being spread out like a broom, the hadas not being 
covered in more red berries than leaves, etc.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:05:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] expensive etrog


On 29/09/17 08:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
>  ?In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog and 
> sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to buy the 
> mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). However, this only 
> applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% more expensive.

The first opinion is that only if one is hadar and the other is not, 
must one spend up to a third more for the hadar, but if both are hadar 
one may buy the cheaper one.  The second opinion is that even if both 
are hadar, but one is more hadar than the other, one must spend up to a 
third more for the better one.   This rule is not just for esrog, it's 
in all mitzvos; "zeh Keli ve'anvehu" means one must pay up to a third 
extra for hiddur mitzvah (Bava Kama 9b).

 > The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh omrim" is "ein
 > meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish". Does this mean that it is assur to pay
 > more or there is simply no need (but if you want to, you  can)? If
 > there is no need to pay a lot of money for an etrog, is it really a
 > hiddur to buy one?

It means neither one.  You left out a word.  The Mechaber's language is 
"*im* ein meyakrin oto yoter mishlish".  One should buy the better one, 
*if* they don't make it more expensive than a third above the inferior 
one.  If they charge more than that, you don't have to buy it.  But 
there's certainly no restriction if you want to.  The gemara says "Up to 
a third is from his own, more than that is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu", 
i.e. that Hashem will pay him back for what he spends over a third.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:25:53 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah


On 30/09/17 16:35, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> If I can mix actuality with the idea below:
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/236149
> 
> What is the story a scandal? If the minhag has nothing to do with 
> tzedaka, why the need to redo it? OK, I understand that it isn't nice or 
> honest that someone made a buck with these chickens but why should that 
> affect the people who did kaparot? Given that this scandal happened in 
> Chabad communities, it only emphasizes the question.

The problem had nothing to do with someone making a buck.  There's 
nothing wrong with a yid making a parnassah:-)  Especially on Erev Yom 
Kippur one should not begrudge a yid his parnassah.   The scandal is 
that they were not shechted, which *is* the kaparah.  If they shechted 
them properly and *then* sold them to the arabs nobody would have cared.


[Email #2]

On 30/09/17 21:03, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 04:33:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>:> Well, let's pull up the mar'eh maqom I cited, BH OC 605:4, d"h "bemamon".
>:>      And this is better than giving the ani a rooster, for he will
>:>      be mevayeish (Shelah, Maharil). And he should be nizhar to give
>:>      maaser; he shouldn't take this pidyon from maaser money, rather
>:>      from his own money. (Shelah)

>: As I pointed out before, that is not talking about how to do
>: kaporos, it refers only to what to do with the chicken afterwards.
>: Kaporos cannot be done on money.  The idea makes no sense.  Kaporos
>: is done on a chicken, and then there is a separate minhag to give
>: tzedaka, and it's better to give money than the chicken.

> Only because you think we're switching topics from the pidyon of the person
> to the pidyon of the person's pidyon.

We clearly have switched topics.  There is no other way to read the 
Rama.   The Mechaber says what the minhag of kaparos is: to shecht a 
chicken and say pesukim over it. No mention of tzedaka.  The Rama says 
that we should not change this minhag.  Then he says how it should be 
done, with a bird of the appropriate gender, and preferably white.

*Then* he introduces a completely new minhag, that *after* doing kaparos 
we give the bird to the poor, or we redeem it and give the money. The 
Rama's word is "lifdosan", to redeem *them*, i.e. the birds, not the 
person.  and the Baer Hetev refers to this money as "pidyon kaparos", 
not "kaparos" itself, or "pidyon ha'adam".  It's a pidyon just like 
pidyon maaser sheni; since there is a minhag to give this bird to the 
poor, we buy it back from tzedaka.

>:> Actually, the tzedaqah of the chicken that the BH he tells you is
>:> inferior to giving money, is the meilitz yosher mini elef we refer
>:> to in the text of kaparos. Right before YK we do one last mitzcah as a
>:> meilitz yosher before going into din.

>: Since when?  Where did you get that idea?  The language of the Rama
>: and the nos'ei kelim is very clear, and there is no mention at all
>: of a connection between kaparos and tzedaka...

> The Be'er Heiteiv assumes that if you're not giving the poor
> person the money, you'd be giving them the more embarassing chicken.

Yes, of course he does; that is what the Rama writes explicitly.  The 
minhag is that once we're done with the bird we give it to the poor 
rather than keep it for ourselves, *or* we buy it back and give them 
money.  On *this* the Baer Hetev says the second option is preferable.

See the next paragrah, about the minhag to go to the cemetery and give 
tzedaka there, that this tzedaka is the pidyon hakaparos mentioned 
earlier.  So these are two different customs, kaparos and pidyon 
kaparos, and the pidyon kaparos is done at the cemetery.

See Siddur R Yaacov Kopel, which says explicitly that after it's 
shechted it remains in its kedusha and there is no need to give it to 
the poor.  (Not that he objects to giving it, but that's a separate 
minhag, and failing to do so doesn't invalidate the kaporah.)

> (We also know from the line said immediately before kapparos are about
> a meilitz yosher testifying that the person isn't all bad, which makes
> no sense of this minhag weren't all about doing a mitzvah.)

Where did you get this idea?  There's nothing about it in the source 
we're discussing, or in any source that I've seen.   The pasuk from Iyov 
is said because it says "I have found a ransom", which is the "gever" 
that we will shecht instead of this "gever".  It has nothing to do with 
doing a mitzvah.  Indeed the whole thing is based on this pasuk in Iyov, 
which is why we say from Tehillim 107 only the pesukim about a prisoner 
and a sick person, and not those about a traveler or a seafarer, because 
only those two are mentioned in that section of Iyov.

> As you yourself write, epmashsis added:

>: The chicken is the pidyon of the person.  Zeh chalifasi.   Later,
>: instead of GIVING THE CHICKEN TO TZEDAKA AS IS THE MINHAG, one can
>: buy it, like pidyon maaser sheni.

Yes, but I don't see how you find support in this.  Giving it to the 
poor is a separate minhag.

BTW the embarrassment to the poor is not that you're giving them a 
chicken, it's that you're giving them your kaparah, and they feel like 
you don't want to eat it because it's tainted with the averos it carries 
or something, but you think it's good enough for them.  This isn't a 
logical thing, it's a feeling that the aniyim have, so giving them money 
prevents it.  On the contrary, if they see that the rich and important 
don't disdain to eat their own kaporos, then they know there's nothing 
wrong with it, so they won't be embarrassed to take chickens from those 
who do give them (whether because they can't afford to buy them back, or 
because they don't want to deal with cleaning and kashering on this busy 
day).

>:>: No, it isn't.  "Minhag vasiqin" doesn't mean an old minhag, it means
>:>: a minhag of the ancients.  He's not appealing to its age but to its
>:>: pedigree....

This whole discussion got off on a wrong track, because I assumed you 
were at least right in associating the word "vosik" with age, and that 
had it says "minhag vosik" you'd have been right to translate it as "an 
old minhag".   But I suspected something was wrong, and then I realised 
what it was.  "Vosik" does not mean old.  You're confusing it with 
"`atik". "Vosik" means, as Jastrow renders it, "enduring; trusty; 
strong; distinguished".  "Talmid vosik" is "a faithful student; a 
distinguished scholar".   "Vosik nesaticho bo'umos" is "I made thee 
distinguished among the nations".  "Esp. Vethikin (ancients), the 
conscientiously pious men of former days."

So "minhag vosikin" is not at all an appeal to its age, but to its 
pedigree as a minhag of distinguished people who knew what they were 
doing, just like saying krias shema "kevosikin" means like the 
especially scrupulous, not like the elderly people who are up at dawn 
because they can't sleep anyway:-)


[Email #3]

PS to my last post, I just looked "vosik" up in Ivrit, to see whether 
its meaning has perhaps changed over time, but it appears not really.
https://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7  defines it in 
leshon Chazal, as "trustworthy", and in Ivrit as "experienced".  So even 
when it's used in its modern sense it refers not to the passage of time 
itself but to the experience gained over that time.   The etymology is 
not clear, but it's close to an arabic word meaning "trustworthy".  It 
does offer the English words "old, senior" as a translation of the 
modern definition, but again it's clearly not "old" in the sense of age, 
but of experience.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all




Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 22:18:58 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov


.
A few days ago, my son Avi posted this to our family chat group:

> The great Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev was very calm when
> Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat and explained why it was so. It is
> known we are commanded as not to write on Shabbat, that it is
> a desecration of the holy Shabbat! Just for saving a life one
> is allowed to write. And therefore G-d can only write us in
> for a year of life as writing is only permitted for saving
> lives but for no other exception. We will surely be blessed
> and inscribed and sealed for a great year filled with all good
> both physically and spiritually!

When I spoke to him on Erev YK, I thanked him for the vort, but I told him
that I have heard something similar, but significantly different: I had
heard that on Rosh Hashana, Hashem can write us in the Sefer Chayim for the
same reason as above (pikuach nefesh), but if anyone is going into the
other book it would have to wait until after Yom Tov, because writing is
assur on Yom Tov. In this light, it seems that the Berditchever's vort
would apply on ANY Yom Kippur, not just when it happens to fall on Shabbos.

My son responded immediately: "Vayanach bayom hashvii" - The pasuk tells us
that Hashem rests on Shabbos, but who says He doesn't do melacha on Yom Tov?

I was stumped. It sounds like a perfectly good question. Perhaps the
Berditchever is right about Yom Kippur on Shabbos, and what I heard about
Rosh Hashana applies only when the first day is on Shabbos.

Has anyone ever heard anything about anything like this? Over the years,
I've heard snippets about halachos that Hashem Himself observes, but I
don't remember much of it. OBVIOUSLY we are VERY deep in the midrashic -
allegorical - poetic territory here. (If we took this stuff literally, we'd
point out that Hashem is *constantly* busy keeping the world running,
Shabbos included, and that is certainly a major melacha. And when I wrote
"Shabbos included", I meant even that very first Shabbos, at the beginning
of Bereshis. So any attempts to say that Hashem keeps Shabbos must use a
pretty fuzzy definition of "keeps".)

So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of
Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov?

Looking forward to your responses.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20170930/69ad8f73/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >