Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 006

Thursday, October 5 2000

• Re: Visiting the Temple Mount
• Re: sukka
• Re: Birchos HaTorah
• Re: Rov (was Re: bugs)
• Kol Nidrei
• Re: asking for mchila
• mchila
• Re: seforim niftachim
• Re: Kol Nidrei
• Re: Rov (was Re: bugs)
• Torah She'bal Peh Misinai
• Re: yigdal
• Re: asking mechilah
• Re: yigdal
• Re: yigdal
• Re: yigdal
• Re: sukka
• Re: yigdal
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Re: sukka
• Discrepancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: yigdal
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics

On 5 Oct 2000, at 10:03, R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> We actually do know some part of the HhB - on the north side, where
> there is no original wall - that were definitely not part of the
> original HhB. The Shul was likely over there. Otherwise it was a
> gagin, aliyos or mechilin type structure.

The web page that RAA sent me to last night claims it was 
originally where Al-Aqsa is now. That would be the southeast 
corner of the Har HaBayis. Do we know for a fact that there were 
gagin, aliyos or mechilin back then? Or do we have to assume that 
people went up through what is now the Mugrabi gate and walked 
along the perimeter to the shul (thereby proving that the perimeter 
at least did not have kdusha, which IIRC was Rav Goren's taana).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 04:35:41PM -0500, RYG Bechhofer wrote:
: It is muchach that the CI holds that way by Hil. Shabbos, where he says 
: that a mechitza that is tied down on the top and bottom soy it does not 
: sway in the wind is a valid mechitza - mashma that even if it sways in the 
: middle it's OK. The she'mu'ah I heard is that it is, indeed, the CI that 
: was mattir the canvas sukkos.

It wasn't so muchrach to me.

First, the definition of mechitzah WRT Shabbos isn't the same as dofen
WRT sukkah. An example: tzuras hapesach.

Second, the CI could be taken to say (this is how it looked to me)
that a mechitzah that is tied down on the top and bottom in a way that
it doesn't sway in the wind [even in the middle]... Otherwise, why the
2nd clause about swaying bichlal?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I quoted R' Binyamin Tabory who said:
: The wording of the Ramban suggests that this blessing (which he feels is a
: Torah obligation) is similar in form to the blessings of thanks (which are
: rabbinical rulings).

Then why is part of it similar in matbei'ah to a birchas hamitzvah --
"asher kidshanu bimitzvosav vitzivanu"?

Also, note the conclusion, "la'ASOK bidivrei Torah". Eisek in learning would
bipashtus seem to exclude merely learning halachah lima'aseh. According to
Tosafos, who makes this a birchas hamitzvah, how are women mitztavos in
eisek?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 04:58:08PM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
:                            However, one probably needs a rov from this 
: particular source.

Bichlal this is a difficulty when dealing with a ruba dileisa likaman.
With a ruba di'isa likaman, the question of "rov of what?" is much clearer.
However, how are we to know what to include in the class of objects that
we are taking a rov of?

For example, why do we say "rov metzuyim eitzel shechitah mumchim heim", and
not that rov yisrael einum mumchim?

Similarly, why do we take the rov of the population of the city, as
opposed to rov people who use the particular street or neighborhood?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Anyone have thoughts as to why we bidavka start Yom Kippur with a statement
about nedarim?

Shibbolei haLeket writes that an unfulfilled neider can block one's teshuvah.
However, I find that this merely begs the question... of all issurim, why are
nedarim more related to kapparah than any other?

One thought, according to the nusach of the Rosh (kineged R' Tam), Kol
Nidrei is a form of hataras nedarim on nedarim made "miyom kippurim
she'avar ad yom kippurim zeh". Hataras nedarim is much like teshuvah
-- both retroactively undo something you had done earlier. Kol Nidrei
therefore affirms that the past can be changed. One who refuses to either
fulfil or be matir neider can't be a ba'al teshuvah because he doesn't
chap the whole concept of teshuvah bichlal yet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Another indication (albeit I wouldn't go so far as to call it a ra'ayah) that
asking mechilah is so that the asker experiences asking, and not because he
he is held hostage by the offended person, needing the mechilah to be granted
in order to get kapparah...

I would assume that a meis, in olam ha'emes, no longer holds grudges. And
yet a person who offended that meis should still go with a minyan to the
keiver to beg mechilah.

(Perhaps the minyan is to make it berabbim, since the feeling of humbling
oneself before the offended party isn't possible.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Another indication ... that asking mechilah is so that the asker
> experiences asking, and not because he is ... needing the mechilah
> to be granted in order to get kapparah...

> I would assume that a meis, in olam ha'emes, no longer holds grudges. And
> yet a person who offended that meis should still go with a minyan to the
> keiver to beg mechilah.

Interesting - I always assumed (based on nothing as usual) that this was
simply a partial solution, perhaps adopted so that the asker shouldn't be
myaesh.  Do you assume that receiving mchila from the soon to be niftar or
doing the above would be equivalent on a halachik basis?  

GCT,
Joel

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:37:50PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:         We ask, in Avinu Malkenu,  to be written in many different
: seforim.

You sure it's not many adjectives describing the same seifer?

:              The only seforim I am aware of are the shelosha seforim
: niftachim,  tzadikim, resha'im and beinonim.

There is also "vichol ma'asecha baseifer nichtavim", which R' Amnon
tells us is the Seifer haZichronos.

Umei'eilav yikarei -- a book that reads itself. (Not "umei'alav", but
"umei'eilav".) And somehow this is the process of din, of judging the
individual.

I would suggest that since a person is judged, as was Yishma'el,
"be'asher hu sham", the Seifer haZichronos /is/ the "hu". It's a term
for the neshamah.

But HKBH doesn't really read or need books. The idea of different sealed
fates has impact if we use the poetic metaphor of three books. But you
have to be careful not to overanalyze the metaphor. I think your question
is because you've taken it further than intended.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:24:12 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>Anyone have thoughts as to why we bidavka start Yom Kippur with a statement
>about nedarim?

I've asked the same question from the pulpit. The brief answer I offer
is that dibbur in general is *THE* defining attribute that makes us human
and not just animal. As such when we violate issurim related to dibbur
we violate our fundamental humanity, and this is the time of the year
that we observe as the anniversary of the creation of Adam haRishon.
Because I focus primarliy upon issues related to dibbur, I digress into
mussar re: LH, conversing in shul, etc.

Why nedarim and not other issurim such as LH or Nivul peh? I'm not sure,
but I suspect that the point of observance flows out of "mushba v'omeid"
that our "naaseh v'nishma" is the chief criteria for requiring observance
of the Torah.

I also suspect that nedarim is about commitments.  We have in a sense 3
levels of commitment:
1) Bein Adam Lamakom
2) Bein Adam Lechaveiro
3) Bein Adam Le'Atzmo

Most of YK is about Lifeni hashem titharu, IOW Lamakom... Mechila and
Tefilas Zakah and that genre covers "lechaveiro" Kol Nidre covers
"le'atzmo"

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

RM Berger wrote:
> Bichlal this is a difficulty when dealing with a ruba dileisa likaman.
> With a ruba di'isa likaman, the question of "rov of what?" is much clearer. 
> However, how are we to know what to include in the class of objects that
> we are taking a rov of?

Hmmm... Good question. This is a very common statistical/actuarial
problem. How thinly or thickly do you break up your population?
The thinner or smaller your population, the more precise your
statement/projection about it will be. However, what criteria do you use
to determine how to divide your population and how thinly do you split it?
We have procedures to determine statistical significance e.g. ANOVA,
multivariate regression,... I don't know how chazal did it.

Gil Student

I just recieved this quote of the day:
   POTENTIAL
   The creation of a thousand forests
   is in one acorn.
        - Ralph Waldo Emerson

This is the model I see as to how Torah Sheb'al peh was transmitted.
An Acorn has a genetic code embedded, the full potential of a tree
lays therein. But it is not the entire tree itself. Rather an acorn
is compact and portable

Hashem gave Moshe the acorn of TSBP at Sinai. Embedded therein were the
havayos of Abbaye and Rava, but in POTENTIAL form...

Just as Hashem creates a human from a microscopic sperm and egg simiarly
Hashem compacted TSBP and it grew over the generations and manifested
itself into a tree or a forest.

Those cynics who object to TSBP miSinai may not understand how it unfolds.
It is reasonable to note that not every statement was actually made at
Sinai, but it is foolish to overlook that the potential WAS there and
that the revelation was truly analogous to planting a tiny seed, but a
seed with all the genes and chomosomes needed to grow into a full blown
mature Eitz Chaim.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:22:59 -0400 Eli Turkel said:
:> <snip> RYBS objected to yigdal in that it was to close to
:> Xtian ideas of listing ones beliefs.

On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 10:44:27AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Well that is one of the main points of ikkarim in the first place.
: i.e. to distinguish us from Xtians, Moslems, Karaites, Sadduccess, etc.

According to RYBS in particular, the question of how to define ourselves
in relation to these other beliefs was the criterion for what meritted
inclusion in the list, and what didn't.

-mi

RM Feldman wrote:

> But I would think that there are plenty of dinim bein adam l'chaveiro that 
> apply to non-frum Jews and non-Jews.  E.g., embarrassing them.  Are you are 
> arguing that we can learn from the cases of lashon hara and ona'as devarim 
> that there are no halachos bain adam l'chaveiro that apply to them?
     
I wrote:

> I'm not arguing anything.  Just asking an open question.  What is the issur of
> embarrassing?  Is it part of retzichah?  If so, it would certainly apply to 
> non-frum Jews and non-Jews.  I think R. Daniel Feldman discuses the issur in 
> his book The Right and the Good.  I'll have to b"n look it up.  

I was flipping through RDF's book this morning. On pages 6-10 he discusses 
whether embarrassing is a part of retzichah.  He brings so many sources that 
it's hard to choose which ones to quote.  One of our (evidently former) 
listmembers, RYH Henkin, discusses this in Shu"t Benei Banim 1:41.

RDF spends a bit of time discussing whether this and some other bein adam 
lechaveiro's are due to the victim's tzelem elokim.  If so, they would apply to 
all people, Jew or gentile.  See RDF's The Good and the Right p. 192.

Gil Student

: According to RYBS in particular, the question of how to define ourselves
: in relation to these other beliefs was the criterion for what meritted
: inclusion in the list, and what didn't.

I hit "send" too soon.

This answers a number of questions on the Rambam. Yes, the Seifer haIkkarim
is right -- you wouldn't need all 13 to create a list of first principles.
But the Rambam wasn't trying to write such a list.

Also, it answers those who objected on the grounds that disbelief in a
single mitzvah or gezeirah shavah being miSinai is also apikursus. "We
have 613 ikkarei emunah." The Rambam wasn't trying to define apikursus
or meenus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RM Berger wrote:

: According to RYBS in particular, the question of how to define ourselves 
: in relation to these other beliefs was the criterion for what meritted
: inclusion in the list, and what didn't.
     
: Also, it answers those who objected on the grounds that disbelief in a 
: single mitzvah or gezeirah shavah being miSinai is also apikursus. "We 
: have 613 ikkarei emunah." The Rambam wasn't trying to define apikursus or 
: meenus.
     
I think that all of the above is also the conclusion of the Abarbanel in his 
small book Rosh Amanah.

However, the Rambam explicitly defines apikorsus, minus, mumarus, and others in 
hilchos teshuvah ch. 3.

Gil Student

Eli Turkel wrote:
>                     RYBS objected to yigdal in that it was to close to
> Xtian ideas of listing ones beliefs.

I had heard that RYBS referred to yigdal as being like "catechism."

>First, the definition of mechitzah WRT Shabbos isn't the same as dofen
>WRT sukkah. An example: tzuras hapesach.

The psul of tzuras ha'pesach is only because of the need for shelter - not 
a problem with canvas.

>Second, the CI could be taken to say (this is how it looked to me)
>that a mechitzah that is tied down on the top and bottom in a way that
>it doesn't sway in the wind [even in the middle]... Otherwise, why the
>2nd clause about swaying bichlal?

He says that tying on top and bottom eliminates the ruach problem.

But, granted, he was not paskening on Sukkah l'hedyah.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:06:12 -0400 Steve Katz said:
>Eli Turkel wrote:
>>                     RYBS objected to yigdal in that it was to close to
>> Xtian ideas of listing ones beliefs.
>
>I had heard that RYBS referred to yigdal as being like "catechism."

Indeed.See:
 http://www.jewish-history.com/catechism/creed.html

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 09:51:55AM -0400, Allen Baruch wrote:
: The Rosh HaYeshiva ztl dealt with this as well. 

: Tefila = bakosha (request)

According to RSRH and RYBS, lehispallel (in the hitpa'el) is reflexive,
something one does to oneself. The requests are idealized requests,
excericises in what we ought to be asking for rather than the more personal
requests of tachnunim.

: The difference between a human and a maloch (or anything else)
: is that a person has bechira. 

I guess then that <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n165.shtml#05>
merits a baruch shekivanti. I also reiterate my question in that email to
RYGB: Would you agree? If so, given that you hold (as per the Or Sameiach)
that mal'achim lack bechirah because in Shamayim all choices are obvious,
and that therefore they DO have bechirah while in olam hazeh... Would
you hold that it is mutar to make a bakashah of a mal'ach that is on
shelichus?

Also, does a niftar have bechirah? We often hear a maspid ask the niftar
to be a meilitz yosheir. Or perhaps, the uncertainty about whether they
have bechirah is the source of the question about the nature of davening
at a keiver.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

At 03:01 PM 10/5/00 -0400, you wrote:
>: >First, the definition of mechitzah WRT Shabbos isn't the same as dofen
>: >WRT sukkah. An example: tzuras hapesach.
>
>: The psul of tzuras ha'pesach is only because of the need for shelter - not
>: a problem with canvas.
>
>My point wasn't the particular p'sul, but the fact that the dofen of a
>Succah is different in kind. You just pointed out why -- because one is
>something that provides shelter, while the other merely defines borders.

That's not necessarily how it came across. to me, but your call.

>I don't think this email adds enough to warrant sending to the list.
>But please reply to Avodah.
>
>: >Second, the CI could be taken to say (this is how it looked to me)
>: >that a mechitzah that is tied down on the top and bottom in a way that
>: >it doesn't sway in the wind [even in the middle]... Otherwise, why the
>: >2nd clause about swaying bichlal?
>
>: He says that tying on top and bottom eliminates the ruach problem.
>
>Again, shelter could very well have different restrictions on ru'ach.
>
>Also, if you tie it taut on top and bottom taught enough that it doesn't
>billow, there won't be a ruach problem. If it does billow, there will.
>(Wind pushes wall which pushes air inside Succah, thereby making more
>wind.)

I don't think you are defining shelter correctly: Even if wind billows the 
walls out, the canvas protects you from any penetration.

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
> From: "Eliyohu Hoffmann"
> > Now, how could the afformentioned be "Not including the Olas ha-tamid," if
> > the Olas ha-tamid is indeed mentioned???...
 
> Have a look at the Siddur Otzar Tefilos where - for the above reasons -
> he brings several variations to the nusach - beshem various authorities.

One thing I noticed in the RH mussaf this year, davening out of a German
machzor for a change (tnx, RRW), was that the offerings for mussaf are
different in Frankfort-am-Main than in the rest of the world. Most 
nuschaot have "shnei s'irim lechaper", but FFD"M has "s'ir lechaper...
v's'ir lechatat."  Does this reflect some machloket in the Gemara,
similar to the arguments near the beginning of Yoma about different 
offerings on Shavuot?

Also, has anyone found an answer to the "kakatuv" question: kadosh
ata v'nora sh'mecha, v'ein eloah mibal'adecha, kakatuv <verses that
on the surface have nothing to do with God's uniqueness or holiness
or the awe of His Name>?  I looked in the Siddur Yaavetz, as someone
suggested, but didn't see anything.

RM Berger wrote:
>: According to RYBS in particular, the question of how to define ourselves
>: in relation to these other beliefs was the criterion for what meritted
>: inclusion in the list, and what didn't.

>: Also, it answers those who objected on the grounds that disbelief in a
>: single mitzvah or gezeirah shavah being miSinai is also apikursus. "We
>: have 613 ikkarei emunah." The Rambam wasn't trying to define apikursus or
>: meenus.

Gil Student
>I think that all of the above is also the conclusion of the Abarbanel in his
>small book Rosh Amanah.

>However, the Rambam explicitly defines apikorsus, minus, mumarus, and others in
>hilchos teshuvah ch. 3.


Points are well taken.
You still have to explain how it is perceived and "observed" today

Question: What brought about 13 ikkarim into an affirmation
we know as the Ani Maamin?

Follow up Question: If someone took the time to create a set
of affirmations, why would that author omit other essential criteria?
IOW why not list a comprehensive set of beliefs instead of
"merely" the 13 Ikkarim?

Follow-up Q2: What prompted objections to the the list of
Ani Maamins?

Follow-up Q3: OR why is there no alternative list of Ani Maamins?

The conclusion from those who object seem to Yigdal etc.
seem to fall into one of several categories

1) There are just 13 ikkarim, but we shouldn't recite them
cathechism style.  So they do not belong to the liturgy,
even though they have validity in other contexts

2) There is NO definitive list of ikkarim to begin with.  The
Rambam notwithstanding, Judaism cannot be reduced to a finite
set of beliefs.

3) There are other definitive lists such as Albo's.

To numbers one and two I would point out that the vast majority
of siddurim take it as a davar pashut otherwise...

Re: #3, The Rambam's list is the one and only that has endured
the test of time

While it it is probably and agruable that the Rambam intended
to use his ikkarim to contrast Judaism from other belief systems
and did not intend it to define minnus/apikorsus per se,
I would argue that in fact it has evolved into THE litmus test
anyway.

Perhaps with the advent of Reform, it is time to re-visit
the question of "What is an ikkar?"

In the prat of denying a single mitzva exists, that WOULD perhaps
violate an ikkar.  A mumar le'teiavon on one mitzva would not.

E.G. if Shimon says there is NO mitzva of Sha'atnez kol ikkar, then he
is a mumar legabie a denial of the Torah we have.

If however Shimon says, there IS a mitzva but he is not nizhar because
he is too lazy, he is an avaryan, and a mumar letei'avon but not
really a min/apikorus.

This distinction is CRITICAL in Geirus - imho.

If a prospective Geir says I don't believe in mitzva X, he cannot
be accepted.

However if a propetive Geir says, I accpet mitzva X but I know I am
tempted and weak in that area, and will probably fail at times,
we CAN accept him.  (IOW accpepting achrayus helps even when
he fails to observe)

Kach shomati from a summer Shiur from R. Yehudah Parness.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:42:41 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>RYGB: Would you agree? If so, given that you hold (as per the Or Sameiach)
>that mal'achim lack bechirah because in Shamayim all choices are obvious,
>and that therefore they DO have bechirah while in olam hazeh... Would
>you hold that it is mutar to make a bakashah of a mal'ach that is on
>shelichus?

Follow up question:
Given malachim have no bechira WHAT to do,
Still don't they have bechiar as to HOW they do it?
Doesn't the story of the the good and bad mal'och on Friday night
imply  that when the mal'ach answer "amiein" b'al corcho"e
that he does so reluctantly?

Also there is a story wrt Satan, that it's not that he tempts
people to do bad that cause his downfall, because
after al lthat's his job, rather it's becuase he ENJOYS his job.

Im kein Machnisei is NOT about whether or not
the malachim deliver the requested message,
it's about HOW hey deliver it, how much care
compassion, chessed, etc.  Machnisei can be seen as encouraging
the mal'achim not ordering them.  While only Hashem can order
a Mal'ach, we can act as "cheefleaders".

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]