Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 008

Saturday, October 7 2000

• Re: Avodah V6 #4
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• RE: Fwd (gdubin@loebandtroper.com): asking for mchila
• RE: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• RE: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• B'etzem hayom hazeh
• Re: Yigdal
• <<<
• Re: Yigdal
• Re: Rosh Hashanah: King vs Ruler
• Re: B'etzem hayom hazeh
• Re: mchila
• Re: Rosh Hashanah: King vs Ruler
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Re: Fish on Yom Tov
• Re: Birchos HaTorah
• Tashlich vertlech from the Satmar Rebbe

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:09:16 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>What do we mean when we are mechayeiv [basar] viyayin?

>If someone doesn't enjoy basar, do we still say he has to eat it mishum
>chiyuv simchah? (R Herschel Schacher holds no.) And if not, of what kind
>of chiyuv is this whole discussion?

Peshita (Li): if bossor makes one suffer it is no required. The question
is what if one PREFERS fish over meat, can he be someich on eating fish
and bypass eating meat

Scenario #1:
Shavuos: Some people eat dairy, should they also eat fish at tht meal
and be yotzei or since that won't help and we require them to have a
separate meat meal?

Scenario #2:
Yom Tov Sheini. It is now late in the evening and I am w/o an appetite
and although I generally enjoy meat I think that tonight it will not
sit well. Is fish a valid alternative?

Scenario #3:
My friends are vegetarians. They have invited me to join them, but I
will be missing out on meat. Again is fish a valid alternative?

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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:10:14 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>The Satan is portrayed as not enjoying his job, just like the messenger
>who is sent by the king to tempt the prince with a purse of money and
>a ride to the door of a house of ill repute. The king needs to test
>the prince, the prince needs to practice overcoming ta'avah, and the
>messenger really wants him to pass the test.

1) Still does not address the proverbial reluctant mal'ach
who answers amein Friday night depending upon the situation.

2) in the Yom hadin the Mal'ach hamoves will die, Why? because
he enjoyed it.  Source: Shamati.
Same is said re" par'oh and shibud mitzrayim that the
gezeira was made v'avadum v'inu ossom but par'oh was too
zealous and therfore was made to suffer.

It seems pashut in reading various aggeditas that gezerrias
can be fixed but HOW they are implemnted varies.

The amount of Geshem is fixed but where it will fall is not
(Gemoro RH)

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

On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:27:49AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: 1) Still does not address the proverbial reluctant mal'ach
: who answers amein Friday night depending upon the situation.

True. Neither does the Rambam, to whom willingness or non-willness
of a mal'ach is a meaningless question.

Perhaps because it means that while qua eved Hashem the mal'ach gives a
berachah, it's still kineged his tafkid.

: 2) in the Yom hadin the Mal'ach hamoves will die, Why? because
: he enjoyed it.  Source: Shamati.

Of course, I still cited an agadita which states he does not.

There is a much simpler reason for him to die -- because there is no
tafkid left for him to do.

-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

Forwarded message from Gershon Dubin <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
: 	I beg to differ.  See the story of rucho shel Navos and Achav,
: where, in olam ha'emes,  he still held a grudge to the point where he
: was willing to forgo being bemechitzaso shel HKB"H for revenge.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
: [Good point. Now, how is that in consonance with "emes"? -mi]

	The same occurred to me.  The Gemara does say that Navos was
sent out because "dover shekarim lo yikon be'einai" (if I got
that right).  So he held a grudge,  but could not stay in the
olam ha'emes because he resorted to sheker to carry out his
grudge.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
: 	Interesting,  because in RSYW's rebbi's yeshiva (Yeshiva
: Rabbi Chaim Berlin) none of these (machnisei,  midas harachamim,
: etc.) are said.

I was under the impression that Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin skipped much of
selichos (preferring quality over quantity).  Assuming that this is true,
the fact that they skip "Machnisei Rachamim" is not a proof that they don't
"hold" of it. 

KT and GCT

Aryeh

RE: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics << I was under the impression that
Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin skipped much of selichos (preferring quality over
quantity).  Assuming that this is true, the fact that they skip "Machnisei
Rachamim" is not a proof that they don't "hold" of it.  >>

          Granted.  This does not explain why they don't say "midas
harachamim" which is in the pizmon which they do say,

  but they specifically skip it.

  Gershon

Rashi notes the use of 'b'etzem hayom hazeh' in Hazinu, and notes that's
used three times, and makes a comparison to the other two: in Noach 7, and
in Shmos around chapter 12 or so (when b'nei yisroel leave mitzrayim).
There are interesting parallels to all three -- including one that relates
to Yom Kippur.

And that is, the masses acted in a fashion that was 'too little too late';
the rashaim wouldn't repent after seeing Noach building for 100 years; Paro
et al wouldn't relent until after 10 full plagues; Am Yisroel complained to
Moshe until the day he died, at which point they expressed pain at the
loss.  The Yom Kippur lesson, obviously, is not to be in a position of 'too
little too late.'

Rav Shraga Simmons makes the above point, and then points out that 'B'etzem
hayom hazeh' also occurs in Emor, when talking about Yom Kippur.  Perfect!

Except, wait, I thought Rashi said it appeared three times.  This is a
fourth.  Am I missing something?  Does it appear in additional places?

Good Shabbos and GCT,

Eric

On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:42:53 EDT Richard Wolpoe PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM wrote
Subject: Re: Yigdal
>>Are you aware that some Hasidic siddurim omit Yigdal from Shaharit on
>>the grounds that it does not portray correctly the 13 Ikkarim.

>I'm aware that the Siddur Tehilas Hashem (chabad/Ari) omits the Yigdal, I 
>was not sure why.
>Afaik it also omits the Ani Maamin, too.

I had not put in my comments on this issue before, assuming that one of the
others on the list would remark on the fact that Ani Maamin is a very recent
addition to the siddur, of source unknown. Neither Ani Maamin nor Yigdal
accurately reflect the Rambam's real views (as expressed in the Perush
HaMishnayos and the More Nevukhim), but rather are popularizations of the 13
principals. Yigdal at least has the excuse that it is meant to be poetry
(although not a song). (Note that the Rambam in the More specifically
condemns reciting the principles.) I believe that that is the real reason
that the Lubavich siddur does not have them, since the Alter Rebbe was
trying to redact the Siddur of the 'Ari, and neither of these were said in
the time of the 'Ari. It is doubtful that the Ani Maamin even existed at
that time, although I would love to hear from anyone who has more data on
that.

This also touches on the suggestion that was advanced that was is in the 
siddur is binding.  Maybe yes, but CERTAINLY NOT things that were added 
later by various publishers of siddurim without the agreement of the 
gedolim.  In that I include the ani maamins, the 6 zkirot, and many other 
things that were condemned at the times as unwarranted intrusions into the 
holy siddur.

Seth

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdubin@loebandtroper.com>
: 	I beg to differ.  See the story of rucho shel Navos and Achav,
: where, in olam ha'emes,  he still held a grudge to the point where he
: was willing to forgo being bemechitzaso shel HKB"H for revenge.

> [Good point. Now, how is that in consonance with "emes"? -mi]

IIRC (I don't remember the source) a person's neshomo after death is still
"stained" with his midos ro'ois, and acts accordingly without being able
to help himself (with the accompanying bushoh), even though he knows the
'emes' that they are m'chu'or-- until after the cleansing process of
chibut hakever, kaf hakela, gehenom etc.

KT and GCT
Avrohom Weidberg

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:04:57 -0400 Seth said:
>This also touches on the suggestion that was advanced that was is in the
>siddur is binding.  Maybe yes, but CERTAINLY NOT things that were added
>later by various publishers of siddurim without the agreement of the
>gedolim.  In that I include the ani maamins, the 6 zkirot, and many other
>things that were condemned at the times as unwarranted intrusions into the
>holy siddur.

Adreabbo, something added to the siddur is DAVKA binding
unless it is protested.

The whole point of the litrugy is that it REFLECTS binding consensus
and perpetuates it, but does not create it out of nothing.

With respect to the Yigdal, there indeed IS a protest against it.
But most redactors (including Artscroll and Baer) have neglected
that protest.

Now a groundswell might alter that, but until it does, I advocate that
we accept consensus for what it is and leave scholarly/academic
objections to the realm of the theoretical.

As noted, machnisei was also controversial. If the liturgy didn't
count - iow was not binding - who cares?  Simply add a caveat that
machnisei is one of those late editions that is optional.
The very fact that a macho'oh is necessary suggests to me that
leaving the liturgy alone would be a problem otherwise.

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

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:8r2alp$fhv$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> The Gra explains that a melech rules by acclamation of the people. A
> mosheil, however well intended, has to rule by imposing his (or His) will
> on them.

Following your "melech" post...

Ein Melech Bilo Am. To own the title King one needs human subjects. We thus
"fulfill" a (voluntarily expressed) desire/need by crowning G-d our King. (I
also think I saw explanation to the order, Malchios - we are moving to crown
the King, and as ours. Zichronos, He remembers us. With the assistance of
Shofros.

I recently saw an interesting question... Adon Olam Asher Molach Biterem Kol
Yitzur Nivra.. which insinuates that G-d was melech before any human
creation. How? Bilo Am? Should not another title have been given for this
phrase?

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:03:12 -0400 Eric Simon said:
>Rashi notes the use of 'b'etzem hayom hazeh' in Hazinu, and notes that's
>used three times, and makes a comparison to the other two: in Noach 7, and
>in Shmos around chapter 12...

How about the end of lech lecha re: Bris?

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

On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 11:52:18AM -0400, Edward Weidberg wrote:
: IIRC (I don't remember the source) a person's neshomo after death is still
: "stained" with his midos ro'ois, and acts accordingly without being able
: to help himself (with the accompanying bushoh), even though he knows the
: 'emes' that they are m'chu'or-- until after the cleansing process of
: chibut hakever, kaf hakela, gehenom etc.

I would have thought that was the *definition* of chibas hakever. One is
still attached to his guf and gashmiyus even though they no longer provide
any ta'anug, hana'ah or to'eles to him.

Gehanom, OTOH, may be defined as lihefech -- getting to the realization
of the emes, and realizing the disparity between that and what one did
with one's life.

As the famous ma'aseh ends: I'm not afraid of the Aibishter asking me,
"Reb Zushia, why weren't you a Moshe Rabbeinu"? But what if He asks,
"Reb Zushia, why weren't you Reb Zushia?"

Along these lines, Seifer ha'Ikkarim (4:33) defines the "fires" of
gehenom to be those of bushah.

Which ties in nicely with another discussion, the question of whether
someone who offends another needs the bushah aspect of asking for
selichah.

Also, it ties into my recent comment about Unsaneh Tokef, that din is
the Seifer haZichronos reading itself, which is another imagery for
the neshamah living out the consequences of "ba'asher hu sham". Onesh
is a natural consequence of the ma'aseh. Hashem set up that causal
connection, so He is Dayan, but the aveirah causes the onesh -- onesh
isn't "artificially" imposed.

-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 Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:19:09 -0400 TruthSeeker said:
>I recently saw an interesting question... Adon Olam Asher Molach Biterem Kol
>Yitzur Nivra.. which insinuates that G-d was melech before any human
>creation. How? Bilo Am? Should not another title have been given for this
>phrase?

In Chaye Sara Avraham says first Elokei Hashamayim and later Elokei
Hashmayim v'ho'oretz. Rashi notes in 24:7 that the it was because
Avarham manifest Hashem as King of Ho'oretz. Before Avaham, Hashem was
king only Bashamayim....

We daven "melech al kol ho'oretz..." The point is NOT that we are
simply acknowleging Hashem as melech, but that we are MAMLICH Hashem in
the oretz as part of our legacy from Avraham Avinu. IOW in Shamayim,
Hashem doesn't need us to rule. But to become Melech al kol ho'oretz
He requires our participation. Malchiyos is our facillitation of that
participation by waking up the world to Hashem's mlucha....

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

R. Chaim Friedlander has a section on bechirah and malachim in his Sifsei Chaim 
- Emunah uVechirah vol. 2.  I'll b"n summarize it some time in the future for 
the list.

Gil Student

> Scenario #3:
> My friends are vegetarians. They have invited me to join them, but I 
> will be missing out on meat. Again is fish a valid alternative?
     
I once asked this to mv"r R. Mayer Twersky.  He said that for Yom Tov you need 
davka meat but for Shabbos anything that creates oneg.

Gil Student

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:10:25 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>Galus Bavel was attributed to many things, one of them that they
>weren't mevareich birchas haTorah. Looking at our derashah or asmachtah
>(depending on the machlokes rishonim), the ta'us was that by skipping
>"havo godeil li'Eilokeinu" they clearly didn't consider learning to be
>"ki sheim Hashem ekra".

> <snip>

>Which ties back to the lack of berachah, the lack of sense of G-dliness
>in the material they were learning.

Indeed. I heard similar at Mussar shmussen, that the problem
was that they treated Troah as just another subject matter.

IOW the attitude towards the Torah
in Bayis rishon was wrong in that the bracha was omitted.

This ties into the HOW not the WHAT.  When the HOW is wrong
the nevi'im screamed lama li rov zichcheichem.  Were thy
decrying the karbanos themselves?  No, they were decrying
the bad attitude that accompanied them.

On another thread, Micha and I are debating whehter or not
a Mal'ach has bechira rt attitude.  I really don't know for sure
My point is that al pi machshava, "attitudes" iow the "HOW's"
sometimes are more important than the "WHAT's".

In life we do many things "a' korcheinu". The area we still
have bechira is HOW we do those assigned tasks....

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

A little overdue - but better late than never -

A couple of interesting vertlech from the Satmar Rebbe zt'l I found them
in the Divrei Yoel Machzor on Rosh Hashono (a 700+ page masterpiece,
which includes hundreds of the SR's minhogim, stories, Torah's, Droshes,
Vertlech etc.)

The SR explains (b'derech tzachus) why on Rosh Hashono we throw (our
avoinois) into the water whilst in Nissan we go back to the water and
draw out water - the Mayim Shelonu (for Matzos).

He answers that during Tishri we are Oved Hashem m'pachad and eimas hadin,
we do T'shuva Miyiroh - on which Chazal say 'zedonos nasos shegogos'
- therefore we throw away these avoinos into the water - as we do not
want them.

However in Nissan when we are bein Geulah l'Geulah and we thank and praise
Hashem for his Yeshuos - and we are Oved Hashem m'Ahavo - resulting in
'zedonos nasos zochuyos' - so we want them returned to us (to add to
our mitzvos) - therefore we go to the water to get them back...


In another vort he similarly explains why we davka throw our sins into
the water? Why not (as lemoshol with chometz) 'mefarer v'zoreh l'ruach
or s'reifoh etc?

And his answer again is - that although at the moment we ask for our
aveiros to be 'lo yizochru v'lo yipokdu', but there will come a time -
when we do Tshuvoh Me'ahavo - that they become zochuyos and we will want
them back - and that is only possible when throwing them into the sea...

And he adds that that is the kavono in "vesashlich bimtzulas yom
kol chatoisom' - that just like toveling in water is mehapech m'tumoh
l'taharoh - so it should and will be with these aveiros - which we have
thrown into water - once we do t'shuvo me'ahavoh..

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au

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


[ 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         ]