Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 013

Friday, October 13 2000

• RE: tinok shenishba
• RE: tinok shenishba
• Re: tinok shenishba
• Re: "standing on the shoulders of giants"
• RE: tinok shenishba
• Re: tinok shenishba
• R' Eliezer on Succah
• Re: Yom Kippur Notes
• Re: Yom Kippur Notes
• Re: Yom Kippur Notes
• OMaiN (was "Liturgy as Affirmations - Amidah shel chol")
• Re: OMaiN (was "Liturgy as Affirmations - Amidah shel chol")
• Re: tinok shenishba
• forgiveness
• 15 Av
• Re: tinok shenishba
• Bread and Salt

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> Except according to the Binyan Tziyon, for example, the halacha of stam 
> yeinam is accepted by all Poskim as applying to Mechalelei Shabbos b'zman 
> ha'zeh....

> Let me stress that: RMF makes clear that TsN is only an indicator that 
> "v'ein aleihem ha'dinim" that I have noted before - no more, no less.

...

> The TE is merely discussing their status vis a vis one of those dinim - 
> hatzolo. ...

Sorry, I am quite sure you remain in the wrong on this issue.

I have not looked yet again at the several teshuvos RMF has on giving 
kibbudim to mumarim. I can, if you'd like.

WADR, this is a related (but different issue) to the original issue that we
were discussing.  There are several separate issues;

1)  Is a TsN considered a rasha?

2) To what extent are people who do not keep mitzvot today to be considered
a tinon shenishba versus a rasha?

Your original argument was that even a classical TsN was considered a rahsa,
and that all the classic parameters of a rasha applied to them, excepting
gmilat hesed and saving lives.

 think that that is wrong, and all my sources focused on that issue. 

The second issue is far more complex, and the nature of TsN applied to
today's non datiim is clearly in some way different than the classical
one. After all, the Radbaz even argues that since the karaite community
in Egypt had close contact with the rabbinic community, one should not
apply the Rambam's sevara that today's karaites are TsN, as they all
had access to the truth. Today, all the Jews (in Israel, at least)
have at least that much exposure, and many have grown up in a home with
some observance.

Rather, the notion of TsN is applied by many in a half hearted way.  To some
extent, it is related to the extent that a particular mitzvah is generally
known and accepted in the general community.  Thus, the Binyan Tziyon's (by
the way, I am not sure whether he actually used the term tinok shenishba)
positoin was that as hillul shabbat was so widespread, the notion of hillul
shabbat befarhesya did not really apply.  However, for example, (until quite
recently) intermarriage was accepted as assur by the general American
community, so someone who was noseh a nochrit (one the previous examples
from a tshuva of RMF you cited) may not qualify as a TsN.  That is part of
the reason that there is such a broad spectrum of opinion about whether one
may give aliyot or other kibbudim to someone who is mehallel shabbat bazman
haze, as while the general notion of a tinok shenishba is thought to apply,
it is not clear how far to apply it.  That is why the sources you cite
(without a CD :-)) are relevant to the second issue, but not the first.

There is a range of opinions about how to treat today's non datiim, ranging
from a very limited (gmilat hasadim and hatzalat nefashot yes, otherwise no)
to acceptance to counting for a minyan to allowing giving aliyot to a full
fledged classic TsN approach.  There were clearly gdolim who sanctioned
kibbudim to stam datiim, and even more who approved kibbudim to members of
the government .

My original statement was, in response to your statement that they were
mehallel shabbat, etc, was that many (most) of us viewed it as a TsN, and
therefore they did not have the status of reshaim.  

You insisted that it was a davar pashut that everyone accepted the very
limited notion of TsN that you described.  I think that that is wrong, I
think that it was wrong to say that the limited status of TsN applied to all
TsN (rahter than just the modern version), and I think that there were very
few rabbanim (not from  Bdtz, Satmar or NK) who would have objected to
giving public honor to Ben Gurion in his time, Rabin, Begin,
Sharon, Netanyahu or Barak purely on the ground that he was not dati. We
know RYBS at YU (and currently RH Schechter) allowed public gatherings in
honor of visiting rashe memshala, we know leaders of the Rabbanut (from even
before the state), from RAYK to RIHH showed kavod to heads of the yishuv,
(not evem talking about the extreme of R Chaim avid Halevy's identification
of Ben Gurion with mashiach ben yosef), and I think (although am not sure)
that Ben Gurion and other leaders visited "rabbanish" institutions and were
given appropriate kavod as heads of the government.  I am therefore puzzled
by your insistence that there is an absolute issur about honoring Arik
Sharon.

Meir Shinnar

At 06:27 PM 10/10/00 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>  Outside of the Bet Yehezkel,  all the different poskim in the CD  do not
>seem to view the term rasha as applicable, some (such as the avne nezer)
>even specifically exclude him from the term rasha...

What it boils down, thus, is this:

The term rasha you did not find in conjunction with the term TsN on a 
CD-Rom search.

Rasha you did not find because it is not a true category.

What you need to look for is Mumar, Mechallel Shabbos, etc., in conjunction 
with TsN.

Even then, since it is rare that the Poskim discuss the concept of honoring 
resho'im, you will not find much.

But try.

RMF, for example, does discuss giving resho'im (a nasui nochris - he may 
not use the term rasha there either) kibbudim in Shuls.

Dinners are really irrelevant to this discussion. They are meant to raise 
and the persons honored there are honored only because of their funds, but 
check that out too.

All sources indicate that TsN is a pettur in certain halachos, not a din 
bifnei atzmo.

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

At 10:36 PM 10/10/00 +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:


>I thought the whole point of TsN was that he is in a different
>category than a Rasha. That he cannot help his actions because
>he does not know any better. But if a TsN has all the dinim of a
>Rasha then l'mai nafka mina?

As indicated by the mareh mekomos from the CI that I sent under separate 
cover yesterday, and by several places in the Chofetz Chayim, TsN status is 
not an independent category, rather, it is a exemption on certain 
liabilities in halacha that normally apply to a rasha or mumar. Note, of 
course, that not all resha'im have the liabilities that apply to mumar and 
above in any event: For example, a "makkeh rei'eihu" is not generally 
regarded as a mumar. The Beis Yechezkel notes several places where Chazal 
use the term rasha as a sanction, not as a category.

>But didn't RSZA hold that Jews in Israel DO have a din of TsN and
>can be saved under the svara of "chalel alav Shabbos achas"
>because living among Jews they could conceivably become baalei
>tshuva? And if that's the case, how could they be categorized as
>Reshaim at the same time?

Again, one of the exemptions of TsN is from the din of "lo moridim v'lo 
ma'alim" - RSZA was mistapek why this should be true in a theoretical case 
of a TsN who will never hear of Shabbos.

> > I don't have a YO, but ROY's recent contretemps with Yossi Sarid indicates
> > that while, of course we are not supposed to hate TsN (I made this 
> clear!),
> > we are pretty sure of their rosho status...
>
>Or could he be holding that Sarid is in a category other than a tinok
>she'nishba?

???

> > The reality is that the modern application of TsN applies only to
> > requirements to save, sustain and love.See CI YD 1:2 and 13:28.
>
>Wouldn't an obligation to sustain at least contradict 2 and 3 on
>your list above?

Not really. For example, one may love Sharon as a Jew, but not praise him 
nor defend his honor.


KT,
YGB

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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:04:38 -0400 Harry Maryles said:
>
>--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> Last time we discussed this it was pointed out that in the opinion
>> of RYBS and others, it's "won't argue" not "can't argue".
>
>That may be true and is borne out by the fact that the Gra does in
>fact argue with Rishonim, but it is a distinction without a practical
>difference since no Acharon would do so without being totally rejected
>by his peers as approaching tremendous chutzpah and lack of respect to
>the Doros HaRishonim and therefore not a true Yiras Shomayim. All an
>Acharon can do today is say that he doesn't understand the given Rishon.
>The fact that the Gra's ability to argue with Rishonim, was accepted
>gives testament to the great awe and respect that the Gra had from his
>peers, I don't think any other Acharon would have been able to achieve
>that kind of acceptance.
>
>HM

This might violate netiquette but I agree with Harry.

We have accepted the Gra's right to argue, IOW it's an issue
of consensus, and it wouldn't be granted to acharonim in general
(although there are possible ad hoc exceptions).

On another level I would say an acharon has a right to dispute
a Rishon's conclusions in theory but not lehalacha.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Shinnar, Meir wrote:

> WADR, this is a related (but different issue) to the original issue that
> we were discussing.  There are several separate issues; 
> 
> 1)  Is a TsN considered a rasha? 
>

Yes. This is what I have attempted to prove, I believe suceessfully. I
believe you continue to err in equating "rosho" with judgmentalism. It is
not. It is not. It is the super-category that includes Mumarim, Mechalelei
Shabbos, Posh'im, and garden variety Resho'im. Once more, their mitigation
as TsN requires us to love them, save them and support them as if they are
"Yehudim Kesheirim."
 
> 2) To what extent are people who do not keep mitzvot today to be
> considered a tinon shenishba versus a rasha? 
> 

No, I was never arguing that point at all. They may well all be TsN. They
probably are, with rare, if any, exception.

[snip]

> Rather, the notion of TsN is applied by many in a half hearted way.  To
> some extent, it is related to the extent that a particular mitzvah is
> generally known and accepted in the general community.  Thus, the Binyan
> Tziyon's (by the way, I am not sure whether he actually used the term
> tinok shenishba)  positoin was that as hillul shabbat was so widespread,

He does.

[snip]

> There is a range of opinions about how to treat today's non datiim,
> ranging from a very limited (gmilat hasadim and hatzalat nefashot yes,
> otherwise no)  to acceptance to counting for a minyan to allowing giving
> aliyot to a full fledged classic TsN approach.  There were clearly
> gdolim who sanctioned kibbudim to stam datiim, and even more who
> approved kibbudim to members of the government .  My original statement
> was, in response to your statement that they were mehallel shabbat, etc,
> was that many (most) of us viewed it as a TsN, and therefore they did
> not have the status of reshaim. 
> 

I have not seen you cite one teshuva that states you may be mechabed a
Rosho, even of the TsN variety, unless there are very extenuating
circumstances. To the best of my understanding your evidence is the
dubious honor of fundraising dinners.

> You insisted that it was a davar pashut that everyone accepted the very
> limited notion of TsN that you described.  I think that that is wrong, I
> think that it was wrong to say that the limited status of TsN applied to
> all TsN (rahter than just the modern version), and I think that there
> were very few rabbanim (not from Bdtz, Satmar or NK) who would have
> objected to giving public honor to Ben Gurion in his time, Rabin, Begin,
> Sharon, Netanyahu or Barak purely on the ground that he was not dati. We
> know RYBS at YU (and currently RH Schechter) allowed public gatherings
> in honor of visiting rashe memshala, we know leaders of the Rabbanut
> (from even before the state), from RAYK to RIHH showed kavod to heads of
> the yishuv, (not evem talking about the extreme of R Chaim avid Halevy's
> identification of Ben Gurion with mashiach ben yosef), and I think
> (although am not sure)  that Ben Gurion and other leaders visited
> "rabbanish" institutions and were given appropriate kavod as heads of
> the government.  I am therefore puzzled by your insistence that there is
> an absolute issur about honoring Arik Sharon. 
> 
> Meir Shinnar
> 

This is an interesting, although quite separate, issue that you raise.

If a government official expects a certain level of reception, and the
"velt" expects that common courtesy would require this level of honor,
then it is not kibbud qua kibbud that is being extended. Thisgoes back to
the famous, perhaps mythical, quandary of the CI as to whether to place
fruit on the table when BG came to visit: On the one hand, BG would not
make a berocho (and, I guess, the CI felt it would be demeaning to ask
him). OTOH, IIRC (I am already in Detroit for the YT, lacking seforim),
the way RSZA puts it, it would be lifnei iver in sin'ah for Shomrei
Mitzvos *not* to put out a "kibbud kal". It would also cause, likely, a
Chillul Hashem. Thus, the CI did put out the fruit (although IIRC in some
manner that would minimize the chances that BG would partake :-) ). I am
sure that it is in this spirit that RYBS and other Gedolei Yisroel are
mechabbed "Manhigei Yisroel" (according to your usage).

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:28:39PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Let me stress that: RMF makes clear that TsN is only an indicator that 
: "v'ein aleihem ha'dinim" that I have noted before - no more, no less.

That would work l'fi RMF. However, many don't hold "nebich an apikoreis"
and do count tinokos shenishbi'u toward a minyan.

Also, there is the problem that Rambam on "kol Yisrael yeish laham cheilek
li'olam haba" associates sechar va'onesh to the applicability of the label
"Yisrael". It would seem that leshitaso, you can't separate din from chalos
sheim.

-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

Looking over divrei Torah (DTs) for Toras Aish, I read 2 DTs close enough
together in time to wonder about a connection between them.

There's the famous machlokes R' Eliezer and R' Akiva about the nature of
the Succos in the midbar -- RE holds they were ananei hakavod, and RA
says they were succos mamash.

Notice, that the same RE is choleik with the Chachamim as to whether a
person can be yotzei with someone else's Succah.

The Chachamim darshin from "kol ha'ezrach biYisrael yeishvu basuccos
[k'siv: bassukas]" that all of klal Yisrael could be yotzei by sitting
in a single succah. They also permit a succah built birshus harabbim.

OTOH, R' Eliezer darshins from "chag hasuccos ta'aseh licha" that a
Succah has to be shel'cha. (Note the similarlity to "vilakachtem
lachem" WRT the 4 minim.)

So, I was wondering if these two were related, if I can show R' Eliezer
lishitaso.

There's a thought I heard both in the name of R' Yisroel Salanter and
the Chafeitz Chaim, in which the rav (whichever) stated that every
middah has a use in avodas Hashem. Even apikursus. When it comes to
your own needs, one can rely on bitachon -- HKBH will provide. When
it comes to someone else's you need to adopt a little "apikursus"
and try to take care of it yourself.

R' Eliezer's version of succah, on a machshavah level, is that it is
about protection through bitachon in distinction to hishtadlus. R'
Akiva's succos, OTOH, would only have protected through the fusion of
both efforts.

Perhaps we can say that if RE would hold that your succah is usable
for the mitzvah by others, it would imply that your pure bitachon, sans
hishtadlus can be the appropriate tool for providing help for others.
That I could assume a stance of "Hashem ya'azor" when it comes to
helping kol dichpin vichol ditzrich.

-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 Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:29:32PM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: The tochacha/kelala of HaAzinu is nevuah; that of Ki Tavo is expressed
: conditionally....

Isn't every nevu'ah about a davar ra, shelo yavo eilenu, implicitly
conditional? Ninvei nehepeches...

-mi

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:07:59AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: 1) Parshas Aroyos at Mincha. There are a number of reasons given why
: we lein Parshas Aroyos at Mincha...

Why not pashut p'shat: because it's a continuation of what we had just
leined in the morning. Much like what we do on Shabbos.

: 2) BTW isn't Yom Kippur a strange time for wife-hunting?

Perhaps it gives one a chance to pick a bride based on her yir'as
Shamayim.

: 4) Amongst many - Hoshana Rabbo - is in some ways considered as an
: extension of the Yomim Noroim...

Note that Sh'mini Atzeres comes after 49 days of teshuvah (starting
R' Chodesh Elul). It invites comparison to the other Atzeres.

Except that in Nissan, yimei chessed, we first get the ge'ulah "on credit"
and then prepare for Atzeres. For Tishrei, the preparation is a means
to earn the Atzeres al pi din, and therefore culminates with the week of
Succos.

As to why the one requires counting and a korban, and the other is left
implied, I am forced (by lacking a clue) to leave as an excercise by
the reader.

-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:

: Isn't every nevu'ah about a davar ra, shelo yavo eilenu, implicitly 
: conditional? Ninvei nehepeches...
     
Yes.  But in the specific case of Ninvei, the Abarbanel explains that no matter 
what Ninvei was nehepeches.  If they would do teshuvah, then they would have 
"changed".  If they would not have down teshuvah, then they would have been 
"overturned".

Gil Student

In Avodah V6#12, RWolpoe wrote:
> ...every Amein can be seen as affirming this is "emes".(amain - Keil
> melech neeman)

Seems as good a time as any to ask the tzibbur a question which popped
into my mind a few days ago: if "omain" is indeed an acronym for "Kail
Melech Ne'eman," shouldn't we be pronouncing it "aimen" (with the "ai"
from the tzaireh under "Kail"'s aleph)? If we should, did we once do
so but abandon the practice due to, e.g., "b'chukosaihem" concerns?

All the best (incl. wishes for a wonderful Shabbos and Chag) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:53:40AM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: Seems as good a time as any to ask the tzibbur a question which popped
: into my mind a few days ago: if "omain" is indeed an acronym for "Kail
: Melech Ne'eman,"...

Amein is a word from a well established shoresh whose sentiment fits the
occasion. Re'uvein says a berachah, and Shim'on attests to the reliablity
of what he said.

However, that's biderech p'shat. IOW, being a word and having that
word's nikud, doesn't mean it isn't also something else.

The word can still have been chosen as opposed to some other affirmation
because of remez or derashah. (I'm inclined to believe rashei teivos are
ramazim, not derashos).

BTW, your line of reasoning would have us call the famous rishoninim
Ramobema, Ramobena, and Ra'i'fa. Not to mention the famous sefer, the Tuza.
What I'm jokingly trying to point out is, nikud for rashei teivos appears
to be arbitrary.

Speaking of the Ramobema, I love the Me'iri's title for him, "haRam biMazal".

-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, 13 Oct 2000, Micha Berger wrote:
: Let me stress that: RMF makes clear that TsN is only an indicator that
: "v'ein aleihem ha'dinim" that I have noted before - no more, no less. 

> That would work l'fi RMF. However, many don't hold "nebich an apikoreis" 
> and do count tinokos shenishbi'u toward a minyan. 

RMF clearly considere them nebich apikorsim and still holds that, at least
b'di'eved, you can be metzaref them to a minyan. R' Ahron Soloveitchik
holds they must, at a minimum, believe they are davening to Hashem - a
reasonable bar.

> Also, there is the problem that Rambam on "kol Yisrael yeish laham
> cheilek li'olam haba" associates sechar va'onesh to the applicability of
> the label "Yisrael". It would seem that leshitaso, you can't separate
> din from chalos sheim. 

Why not?

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

> During Yom Kippur, we read that it is not permitted to give forgiveness to 
> a person who acts wrongly, with the expectation that you will forgive 
> them. Wrong, committed with the expectation of getting away with it, is a 
> form of manipulative blackmail.

Is this statement correct, that one is not permitted to give forgiveness or
is it not required (nafka mina - in tfilat zaka can one leave out the
passage where we withhold forgiveness from one who said I'll sin and he'll
forgive)

Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach (Tadir vsheno tadir order?)
Joel RIch

I realize that I'm a few months late with this question, but I'd prefer
to look at it as being very early. :-)  At any rate...

As I understand the story (I'm not sure if it is a gemara or medrash or
whatever), when we were in the midbar, each year on Tisha B'av, everyone
would go to sleep in their graves, and some people would not wake up in
the morning. On the 40th year, everyone woke up, and so they figured that
they had miscalculated the date of Tisha B'av, and so they repeated this
scene each day until the full moon of 15 Av convinced them that the Ninth
had indeed passed harmlessly.

I have two questions about this story:

(First question:)

I believe that until about a hundred years ago, most people knew the
night sky as well as they knew the streets of their town. Young children
could pointto the constellations with ease, etc etc etc. If this is true,
then how would they not be familiar with the moon's appearance on the 9th
of the month?

Perhaps they might confuse the 8th and 10th, but not to a factor of 6
days! A significant chunk of the moon is still dark on the 9th, and by
the 12th or 13th it should be obvious that the Ninth had passed.

Take it like this, for example: Let's say that today is the 13th day
since the Beis Din declared it to be Rosh Chodesh, but since no one died,
we have a genuine safek that tonight is not the 13th, but is really the
9th. Well, if that is the scenario, then what I am really saying is that
"Four days ago, which I thought was the ninth, was really the fifth." Who
would say such a thing? On the 9th, the moon is clearly more than
half-full, and on the 5th it is clearly less than half-full. Would such
people truly have confused these sightings?

(Second question:)

To think that there had been a miscalculation is absurd, because even if
there WAS a miscalculation, we are taught that HaShem follows the
declaration of Beis Din. Once the Beis Din is mekadesh the chodesh, that
is what is followed, even if the Beis Din erred, or even if they
deliberately set the wrong day.

So even if Rosh Chodesh Av was no declared on the true New Moon day, the
deaths - if any - would still have occured nine days later, and there
would have been zero chance of any subsequent days being the "real" Tisha
B'av.

(Conclusions:)

One possible answer is that every night was cloudy, and they genuinely
could not see the moon. Unlikely as that might be for a summer in the
Sinai desert, I'll concede the possibility, except that only moves the
first question back to Tamuz, and doesn't answer the second one at all.

Another possibility is that the story was never meant to be taken as
literally as I've done. If so, then fine; but can anyone suggest the
nimshol of this allegory?

Yet another possibility is that I've misunderstood something about how
Kiddush haChodesh works. I understand (from Rashi Bereshis 1:1) that the
mitzvah was established 40 years earlier, so cannot say that it was not
yet functioning. But perhaps it functioned differently than we now
understand it. I always thought that when Beis Din declares Rosh Chodesh,
then that day does become Rosh Chodesh even if they declared it in error,
or even if they deliberately chose the wrong day. Could I be mistaken
about this?

Akiva Miller

On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:08:42AM -0500, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
:> That would work l'fi RMF. However, many don't hold "nebich an apikoreis" 
:> and do count tinokos shenishbi'u toward a minyan. 

: RMF clearly considere them nebich apikorsim and still holds that, at least
: b'di'eved, you can be metzaref them to a minyan. R' Ahron Soloveitchik
: holds they must, at a minimum, believe they are davening to Hashem - a
: reasonable bar.

Which still means that RAS considers a TsN to be a non-rasha -- as long as
he is capable of doing the mitzvah, we count him toward it. As opposed to
a non-TsN who is mechaleil Shabbos bifarhesia but still davens regularly.

:> Also, there is the problem that Rambam on "kol Yisrael yeish laham
:> cheilek li'olam haba" associates sechar va'onesh to the applicability of
:> the label "Yisrael". It would seem that leshitaso, you can't separate
:> din from chalos sheim. 

: Why not?

Because he associates din, at least din Shamayim, with the sheim
"Yisrael". The same criterion used to define eidah-eidah for minyan is
used to define whether or not the person is guaranteed a cheilek li'olam
haba.

I'm sorry if that doesn't add much, but I thought my original paragraph
was clear. I'm not sure what I left to ask "why" over. Please be more
verbose in your question.

-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

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@zahav.net.il>
> Recently someone told me of a custom to bring bread and salt to a new
> home.

> Can anyone identify the source of the custom and it's meaning?

	My mother in law A"HSh brought bread,  salt and candles.  I gathered
that the bread was for parnasa and candles for light,  but not why the salt.
As for origin,  she was of Polish Jewish origin,  but I'm not sure if this
was a folk tradition or a well based minhag.

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

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


[ 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         ]