Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 024

Saturday, October 28 2000

• Shmini Atzeres as Regel Bifnei Atzmo
• Shmini Atzeres as Regel Bifnei Atzmo
• Re: Hakofos
• KADDISH
• Re: kaddish
• Kares
• HO'ISHO ASHER NOSATOH IMODI...
• Re: HO'ISHO ASHER NOSATOH IMODI...
• Re: Correct version of my post on Gehinnom
• Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik--Succah on Shmini Atzeres

> Some items that suggestion continuity or one long Chag

       You left out what may be one of the most important:  the Gemara
consistently refers to it as "Yom Tov haAcharon shel Chag".   It serves as
tashlumin for chagigas Sukkos,  keilim are removed from the sukka lichvod
YTHSC (How's that for acronymity?), vechule'.

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

"Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> wrote:
> Are there any sources that present us with a definitive guideline re:just
> how independent is Shmini Ateres {SA} from Sukkos?

	Another haaroh on the same topic. 

	If one looks at the Sefer Hachinuch he says that the shoresh
hamitzvah of lulav is due to the fact that sukkos is a time of harvest and
we are natuarlly happy over the food we just harvested. In order that we
should channel our simcha in the right direction, the mitzva of lulav was
given (since these minim bring simcha) so that are simcha becomes an avodas
hashem.
	When it comes to the mitzvah of Sukka he says that the shoresh
hamitzvah is in order to remember yitzias mitzrayim which will enable us to
remember all that hashem did for us. 

	Why do these 2 reasons not apply on Shimini Atzeres ? It would seem
that on one level the nature of Shimini Atzeres is different than the rest
of Sukkos. It could be very simply that since it is a special "party" for
just us that in it of itself accomplishes the purpose of the mitzva of lulav
and sukkah.

	Also, why does the gemara (and mishnayos) refer to Shmini Atzeres as
Yom Tov Ha'Acharon Shel Chag  if it is a regel b'fnei atzmo?

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer:
> >Yisrael Dubitsky wrote:

> >>5) Finally, Simhat Torah I davened in R. Victor Vorhand's shteibel and the
> >>Rebbe of course introduced each hakafah [i.e. said the opening
> >>Hoshana..etc] and added, at the end of each, Shema Yisrael... and H'
> >>Melekh, H' Malakh, H' Yimlokh le-olam va'ed which we repeated after him.
> > Isn't that mentioned in the Otzar ha'Tefillos siddur (where there are 
> > beautiful tefillos for after each Hakofo and at there end...
> FWIW, the Dumbrov Shtibel in Wash. Heights also does this.  I thought this
> was standard Chassidishe Nusach sfard...

The nusach sfard siddur I keep in the office has Shma yisrael, H' melech
3 times, then a series of psukim drawn from five sources, then a yehi
ratzon, after each hakafah. The psukim alone appear in the Lubavitch
siddur. Nothing appears in the Artscroll siddur. The new Siddur Vilna
has the psukim from Eishet Chayil divided up among the 7 hakafot.

From: "Rich, Joel"
>  Also does anyone know of the sources for the parenthesis in kaddish derabanan
> (vara,tovim,brachamv)

And I'd like to know why Kaddish D'rabonon has these additional words
(tovim, brachmov)?

Talking about Kaddish...BH Achshir doro and quite a few siddurim
(Artscroll b'sochom) now clearly state the halochos of where one may be
mafsik for Omem, Kaddish, Kedusha etc etc.

What I haven't seen yet, is anyone telling us - if someone - not davening
with the minyan, and holds b'emtza tefilla (Psuke d'zimra, after Borchu
etc) and he wishes to say kaddish yosom or rabonon with the tzibbur -
may he do so? In what places is it considered a hefsek and where not?

Yelamdenu Rabosenu..
SBA

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:45:08AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: It's also a bferush Artscroll(I think) that the punctuation is "balma
: di vra chiruteh, vyamlich malchuteh bchayechon ...."Yet it's almost
: universally said with the comma after malchuteh.

The question is whether you are saying bechayeichon on just
"viyamlich malchusei" or on all three requests made so far. In which
case, the clause is a separate as the comma after chir'usei (or "kir'usei",
as per one's nusach).

-mi

In v6n22, R' Yitz Oratz quotes RYGB and writes:
:> Kareis is not a loss of OhB. It is a severance of the lower regions of the 
:> neshomo from the higher regions thereof, reducing a person's access to 
:> kedusha and hashp'o'o and rendering teshuva difficult.

> The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 8:1 disagrees...

WADR, you're discussing different topics. RYGB is discussing what he
himself believes, which may or may not be what the Rambam believes.
Frankly, bi'inyanei hashkafah, very few people today follow the Rambam.
RYGB already stated in an earlier email that he was siding with the
mekubalim on this one.

I would define kareis as the introduction of a chatzitzah between the
ru'ach and the neshamah. This prevents the conscious self that is a
neti'ah of the ru'ach from having "access to kedushah and hashpa'ah and
rendering teshuvah difficult" as well as separating it from the neshamah's
kisharon to access to the Olam ha'Emes. Not so much non-existance in
olam haba as an inability to percieve one's existance there.

However, as I said, the Rambam's description of the ikkar of s'char
va'onesh does discuss kareis (and possibly even gehonnom; the dikduk
is hard to follow) as the cessation of existance. Even if he is only
referring to one kind of kareis.

OTOH, as mentioned earlier, it's arguable that such cessation isn't
philosophically possible, as neshamos lack chomer and therefore are at
least in some sense atemporal.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Some months ago, whilst visiting Israel, I heard the following vort from
a Rosh Yeshiva at a Sheva Brochos,

Hashem asked Odom Horishon: "Hamin Ho'etz asher tzivisicho l'vilti achol
mimemu - ocholto?"

OH answered: "Ho'isho asher nosato imodi, hi nosno li..."

What answer is that to the question??

The RY explained it with a moshol.

Normally when a couple get married, the husband takes charge of
Yiddishkeit matters at home and gives his new wife instructions regarding
Halocho, Kashrus etc.

However, when someone marries the daughter of famous Rav or Posek - should
he try to tell his wife how to manage the Kashrus of their kitchen, she
will tell him where to go.."You're telling me? I am the daughter of the
famous so and so Rov and I know at least as much as you about Kashrus".

And that was the situation here.

When HKBH questioned OH about his eating from the Eitz Hadaas, he
answered, "Ho'isho asher nosato imodi.." I was listening to (your
'daughter') - the woman that you gave me...! I didn't think that that
there is any need to question the Kashrus of anything she offers me...

BTW - see the Ramban and Or Hachaim who write similarly.
SBA

At 01:03 AM 10/27/00 +1000, RSBA wrote:
>When HKBH questioned OH about his eating from the Eitz Hadaas, he
>answered, "Ho'isho asher nosato imodi.." I was listening to (your
>'daughter') - the woman that you gave me...! I didn't think that that
>there is any need to question the Kashrus of anything she offers me...

>BTW - see the Ramban and Or Hachaim who write similarly.

See the Ishbitzer there!!

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

>               The mistake I made, and caught when seeing the Ramban inside
>again is that it is not dissolution. Rather, it has awareness, but is not
>allowed/unable to to partake of any pleasure in the World to Come. In any
>event, my point is that what you said in your post is not muchrach, and
>that others have very differnent p'shatim. A question I have is, according
>to the Ramban, complete dissolution is literally impossible. If so, and
>going with your understanding that this constitutes a cheilik in Olam Haba,
>what exactly is the punishement of those kitot that don't have a cheilik?
>Eternal Gehinnom?

As Micha noted in his own Avodah post today, I am espousing here my own 
belief (basically the MME), and not necessarily what the Rambam or Ramban 
held. I appreciate very much his clarifying that.

As to people like, let us say, Hitler yms"h, I believe the Haftarah of 
Shabbos ha'Gadol makes clear that they undergo some form of eternal 
Gehinnom "l'deira'on l'kol basar" - which is their "tikkun" (sic) - the 
Kiddush Hashem of their onesh compensating for the Chillul Hashem of their 
aveiros. To cease to exist would hardly seem like "punishment".

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

At Michael Poppers' prodding I am writing you a summary of DCS' views on the
matter.

The minhag of not eating in the Succah at night goes back to the family of
Rav Yitzchak HaLevy of Worms, the father of one of the rebbeim of Rashi, and
who is quoted in the Maaseh HaGeonim (p. 42) and subsequently in Raavya
(siman 696).  This minhag is mentioned in Machzor Vitri (siman 384) as being
that of Rav Yose of Chinon (France).  It is mentioned in Yichusei Tanaaim
V'amoraim (an Ashkenazic work) as "yesh nohagim."  Maharam M'Rutenberg
(siman 696) quotes "yesh m'komos b'tzarfat."

There is an issue whether Rashi had this minhag as well.  The Maaseh
HaGeonim and Raavya quote Rabbenu Shlomo as sitting in the succah; many
believe this to be Rashi, though some believe this to be Rav Shlomo b'rav
Shimshon (Epstein in hakdama to Maaseh HaGeonim; see footnote 6 to "Minhagim
d'K"K Vermeiza" in the section Minhag Shmini Atzeres).  [MF: in fact,
Rashi's comment to Succah 48a s.v. "ha lan" implies that he believed that
one does not sit it in the succah; see Raavya, supra, who argues with
Rashi's pshat.]  In any case, during the period of the achronim, the
Treves/Dreyfus family (two different spellings of the same name), of which
the Revid HaZahav (the av bes din of the GR"A) was a member, had a kabbalah
that their ancestor, Rashi, did not sit in the succah at night.  See Yosef
Ometz siman 1058 and Minhagim d'K"K Vermeizza, supra.  DCS mentioned that
Revid Hazahav did this despite his close relationship with the GR"A, which
shows how strongly people adhered to minhag even when they understood
halacha to be opposite their minhag.

The transition of the minhag from a minhag of a few families to the minhag
of a large group seems to have occurred prior to the advent of Chasidism.
DCS conjectured that it occurred at the time of the move from Germany to
Poland.  Already the Bach in siman 666 (end of s.v. Af al pi) stated "v'chol
baal nefesh yachmir" to sit in the succah; this implies that many were not
doing so.  In addition, the Magen Avaraham siman 668 refers to "ksas
anashim...she'ra'oo kach m'avoseihem."

One interesting note: The Yichusai Tanaim V'amoraim states that "v'hilchisa
yasvei yasvinan" was not written by the Amoraim but by the Baal Halachos
Gedolos (and was interpolated into our gemara).  In fact, without
"v'hilchisa," the conclusion of the gemara Succah 47a would have been that
the halacha is that one doesn't sit in the succah at all, since the ika
d'amrei concludes that you don't, and we generally pasken like the ika
d'amrei.

DCS did not conjecture as to whether the ancient minhag not to sit in the
succah derives from an Eretz Yisrael minhag.  It seems to me however that
the possibility exists:  Rav Yochanan is the maan d'amar who paskens not to
sit in the succah according to the ika d'amrei. (In addition, according to
all versions, Rav Yochanan is more mekil than Rav with regard to sitting in
the succah; i.e., the Palestinian amoraim had a different approach than the
Babylonians.)  Moreover, many quote the Yerushalmi as the makor of the
minhag, though, as Raavya demonstrates, the Yerushalmi is opaque.  Also,
there is one source which quotes this as the minhag of a person in Italy
(and Italy was the conduit of Minhag Eretz Yisrael from Israel to Ashkenaz).
If the Yichusai Tanaim V'amoraim is correct, it would make sense that the
psak of the Baal Halachos Gedolos, a Babylonian Gaon, would not necessarily
have been accepted by followers of minhag Eretz Yisrael.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying
or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and
permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.  Thank you.

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


[ 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         ]