Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 012

Tuesday, April 3 2001

• classical authorities who opposed belief in 'gilgul neshomos' (reincarnation)
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza
• Re: Kadesh urChatz - 14 steps or 15 steps?
• Internalizing Divrei Torah
• Re: Internalizing Divrei Torah
• Re: meaning of zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat (was IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro)
• Re: Avodah V7 #11
• Re: Internalizing Divrei Torah
• Re: Bedikas Chametz at Night
• re: Bedikas Chametz at Night
• Re: Avodah V7 #11
• Re: Internalizing Divrei Torah
• Re: Bedikas Chametz at Night
• Zmanim on Erev Pesach Morning
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V7 #11
• Re: rice on erev pesach this year (fwd)
• Re: Yeast
• RE: Hah Lachma and Resort Hotels
• Mah Nishtana!
• New pshat Mah Nishtanoh
• [none]
• Re: Dor Revi'i on R. Gamliel haya omeir
• RE: Chatzos at the Seder
• Re: meaning of zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat (was IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro)

From: "Avrohom Weidberg" <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>
> Does anyone have mar'e makomos re shitas Rav Saadia Gaon, Rav Yosef Albo 
>etc. and any response/discussion from the pro-gilgul side?

Here are some mareh miqomos for those who opposed belief in gilgul -

1) Rav Saadia Gaon - Sefer Emunos vaDeios, Maamar shishi (6), Perek shmini (8).

2) Rav Yosef Albo - sefer HaIkkarim 4:29.

Also, for more info, you can see the entries on gilgul in the classic
'Pachad Yitzchok' Encyclopedia by Rav Shmuel Lampronti from 1700's Italy,
the encyclopedia 'Otzer Yisroel' (J.D. Eisenstein) and encyclopedia Judaica.

Others who opposed gilgul according to above sources were Rav Yehudah Aryeh
de Modena and Raava"d (I am not sure which Raava"d is meant).

3) Rash"i (?) - A while ago, while learning Devorim, the following caught my
attention. In Devorim 24:16 Rashi says that it's possible (chas vesholom)
for children to die due to sins of (their) fathers - one should note that
Rashi makes no mention of (what many folks nowadays might bring up re such a
case) the theory those who promote the idea of gilgulim/reincarnation would
be wont to mention in such a case (that the child who dies was a reincarnated
soul,etc.). Perhaps some would say that that may indicate that Rash"i followed
in the footsteps of Rav Saadia and didn't believe in gilgul.

There is another position also. Some who believed in gilgul, believed that
it should not be discussed in public (see encyclopedia Pachad Yitzchok).

I have heard someone claim that the Ramba"m also didn't believe in gilgul,
but I have no mareh moqom re that at present. R. SM - can you help?

Mordechai

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> Carl Sherer wrote:
>> Is there any inyan of eating Shalesh Seudos on (non-Shabbos days of)
>> Yom Tov?

> Al pi halachah, no. See Tosafos on Beitzah 2b that there is a machlokes
> midrashim about this. But I believe everyone holds that there is no
> chiyuv. Al pi nistar or chassidus, I don't know but I can cynically note
> that there always seems to be an "inyan" when it comes to eating.

I do know that both the Gaon and some Chassidim ate shalesh seudos on shmini
shel pesach.  I've never seen a source - the Gaon's students say it's mishum
chavivusa d'matza.  The Talner Chassidim call it seudas Baal Shem Tov and
tell the story of his aborted trip to Eretz Yisrael (which ended in
Constantinople on Shmini shel Pesach).  I suspect there's a common source in
kabbala (that's usually true when the Gaon and the Chassidim agree with each
other and disagree with normative halacha).

David Riceman

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:46:27AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Arguing the merits of Motzi-Matzah as either a single compound step or as
: two distinct steps has some value. However, I will ignore the intrinsic
: aspect of Motzi-Matzah and come up with a completely extrinsic reasoning.

Li nir'eh this is talui on whether one has three matzos at the seder or
follows the Gra (and R' Moshe Feinstein and RYBS) and only has two.

If the latter, it's because the mitzvah of mishneh lechem for a se'udas Yom
Tov and the concept of lechem oni have been unified. Therefore, one may use
a broken, ani's, matzah as one of the two for hamotzi.

But if the two mitzvos are unified, then their berachos are on the same
mitzvah and therefore should be one step.

I would further question the inclusion of Nirtzah as a step -- since the
first words of Nirtzah are "We have completed the siddur Pesach". It would
seem that Nirtzah places itself after the seder, not as part of it.

This brings the number of steps down to 13. Which then fits Echad Mi
Yodei'ah, telling you that 13 corresponds to the Middos haRachamim.

Speaking of the structure of the seder (which is a little redundant, if
you think about the words), here's how I would structure it, using the
filling of each cup as a separator into larger structure:

I First Cup (primarily reenacting avdus)
    1- Kadeish; 2- Urachtz; 3- Karpas; 4- Yachatz
II Second Cup (retelling the ge'ulah)
    5- Maggid
	a- Introduction
	    This includes Ha Lachma Anya, Mah Nishtanah,
	    and Avadim Hayinu -- telling the genus to shevach according to
	    Shemu'el (ge'ulah gashmi)
	    The introduction ends by noting that this mitzvah is sippur
	    yetzi'as Mitzrayim, not the usual zeicher (kol yimei chayecha).
	    The next three sections are what make sippur unique according to
	    R' Chaim.
	b- The chiyuv to tell others in Q&A format
	    The four sons through Yacho meiRosh Chodesh
	c- The chain of events
	    Rav's haggadah -- the spiritual ge'ulah from "Avadim hayinu",
	    through the makkos, Yam Suf and the nisim in the midbar.
	d- Reasons for the mitzvos
	    R' Gamli'el's haggadah
	e- Expressions of praise
	    The first part of hallel
III Third cup (reenacting the ge'ulah)
    6- Rachtzah; 7- Motzi; 8- Matzah; 9- Maror; 10- Koreich;
    11- Shulchan Oreich; 12- Tzafun; 13- Bareich;
IV Fourth cup (praising HKBH from the position of nig'alim)
    14- Hallel; 15- Nirtzah

The correspondance between 13 and rachamim works this way as well, as we
have 13 steps before getting to the point of shirah.

-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

>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:31:20 -0600
>From: micha@aishdas.org
>Subject: Re: Is'arusa d'l'Eila; Is'arusa d'l'Tatta

>(BTW, it wasn't only the mekubalim who meditated. See in Michtav
>mei'Eliyahu I, REED's instructions for how to learn a mussar
>concept. Repeating the same sentence or pasuk for 20 minutes or more
>is meditative.)

R' Avigdor Miller says that in Slabodka they used to sit in the dark one night a
week and each bochur would repeat his favorite maamar from a mussar sefer again
and again, in order that it should really sink in.

One of the reasons why I enjoy R' Miller's cassettes so much is the great
feeling nd sincerity with which he talks and which he imparts to the listener;
he really makes the words, p'sukim and maamorim  come alive.

One of the inyanim to singing is that it the nigunim can help one to appreciate
the meaning and beauty of the words.  I have found this to be true, such as at
the Skulener tish, most recently. It's not just while you are singing and
hearing them as well, the nigunim continue to play in my mind as do the memories
of seeing the rebbe.

- Noach

Micha Berger wrote:
>(BTW, it wasn't only the mekubalim who meditated. See in Michtav 
>mei'Eliyahu I, REED's instructions for how to learn a mussar 
>concept. Repeating the same sentence or pasuk for 20 minutes or more 
>is meditative.)

Noach Rothstein wrote:
>R' Avigdor Miller says that in Slabodka they used to sit in the dark one night 
>a week and each bochur would repeat his favorite maamar from a mussar sefer 
>again and again, in order that it should really sink in.

This was one of the chiddushim that R. Yisrael Salanter instituted,
although he wanted a separate building for only this - a beis hamussar.
He also instituted distinct niggunim for mussar that are different than
the niggun for learning. This is all in his letters in Or Yisrael and
I think R. Itzele Blaser discusses it in his introduction to the book.

Gil Student

[Micha, I just sent the following message without filling in the subject
line. It should have gone out under the above heading.]

Micha Berger wrote (7:9)
> So much for the thought I quoted besheim R' Chaim Davis a while back.
> How can we testify on Shabbos to ma'aseh bereishis? We weren't there!
> He suggested that we can testify to yetzirah yeish mei'ayin because
> each Shabbos a neshamah yeseirah is created for us.

Good question. An even better question is when we are commanded to
remember the Sabbath day (zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat) what are we supposed
to remember? Every other commandment in Torah enjoinging us to remember
something, e.g., "zakor eit asher assah l'kha amaleik," "zakhor eit
asher assah ha-Shem Elokekha l'miriam," "zakor eit asher hiktzaphta
ha-Shem Elokekha ba-midbar" etc. refer to events that were physically
experienced by the Jewish people and could therefore be remembered by
them. Shabbat shel b'reishit was not experienced by the Jewish people,
so how could they be commanded to remember it?

This is not my question, it is the question of my grandfather, R. Akiva
Glasner, ab"d dk"k dk"b, son and successor of the Dor Revi'i, which
he discusses at length in the course of a general explanation of the
significance of Shabbat and the Mo'adim in his book, Ikvei ha-Tzon.
B'kitzur nimratz, Shabbat, rishon hu l'mikraei kodesh, is itself
a commemoration of the giving at the Torah at Sinai (ha-kol modim
she-b'shabbat nitnah torah) the acceptance of which by the Jewish people
was the condition on which the world was allowed to exist for the 2000
years between Creation and the Revelation at Sinai. (See Rashi in bayon
ha-Shishi. Query: Rashi says that the "heh" symbolizes the five books
of the Torah and the conditional existence of the world in the period
between Creation and Revelation. The relationship between "heh" and
five is obvious, what is the relation between "heh" and the conditional
existence of the world? Answer: See the "p'tiha to Ikvei ha-Tzon). Thus,
Shabbat ma-amad har Sinai was the culmination of ma'asseh b'reishit.
That's why it is literally true that the heaven, and the earth and all
their hosts were completed on the Seventh Day (not the Sixth as it would
seem from a superficial reading of Genesis 1) and that's why when we are
commanded to remember the Sabbath Day what we are commanded to remember
is the Sabbath Day on which we received the Torah, an event about which
we clearly are able to provide testimony.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov  

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> An interesting point to note about the permissability of yeast but not
> of si'or.
> Si'or is an attachment to the past....
> When the Benei Yisrael left Mitzrayim, it was important to cut ties to
> their base, tamei, lifestyle there....
> Comments? Reactions?

I like this and I'm also curious about your source.
This reminds me of any modern behavioural dysfunctionality that can pass
from generation to generation. Someone has to transcend the trend.

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> This was one of the chiddushim that R. Yisrael Salanter instituted,
> although he wanted a separate building for only this - a beis hamussar.
> He also instituted distinct niggunim for mussar that are different than
> the niggun for learning....

Take a look at Toldoth Adam, a biography of R Zalman Volozhiner (R. Chaim's
brother).  He did the same thing at least two generations earlier (R. Yisrael
Salanter was a student of R. Zundel Salanter who was a student of R. Chaim).

David Riceman

>>Why do we do bedikas chametz davka at night? Does this make sense?   Am I 
>>allowed to ask if it makes sense? Experience tells me that I can see  
>>things much better in a fully lighted room,

> B'sha'ah sh'bnei adam metzuyim b'bateihem (Pesachim4a).

Ve'or haner yafeh livdikah. See Rashi and the gemara on 7b. See also
the Revid HaZahav on parshas Noach sv. tzohar.

Gil Student

Someone asked <<< Why do we do bedikas chametz davka at night?
...Experience tells me that I can see things much better in a fully
lighted room, >>>

We sometimes speak of one who "loses the forest for the trees." My
experience is that with too much general light, one will "lose the trees
for the forest." That is, a small amount(*) of light in a dark room, will
force one to focus both the light and his attention, upon a small part of
that room, until the whole area has been carefully searched, bit by bit.
With too much light, there is a tendency to look at a large area and say,
"Nah, I don't see anything", without actually inspecting it.

(*) I mean "small" to describe the size, not the intensity. My first
preference is to use a high-intensity, but narrow-beam, flashlight.

Akiva Miller

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> Why do we do bedikas chametz davka at night? Does this make sense?
> Am I allowed to ask if it makes sense? Experience tells me that I can see
> things much better in a fully lighted room, counter-intuitive apologetics
> notwithstanding.

Crumbs can be well camouflaged on Israeli stone tiled floors even in the
best lighting.
Two advantages of night testing- a flickering candle or even a moving
flashlight, will cast shadows which also jig around. This makes it much
easier to spot small three dimensional objects. Secondly, human vision
changes as light intensity changes. In strong sunlight our cones are most
important for vision- they see colour but are not so strong on light/dark
contrasts. In low intensity light rods are dominant. These have much
weaker colour perception but very sharp at noticing light/dark contrasts.
At night we'll see small objects and their shadows much more readily.
Pesach cleaning? A piece of cake! In every conceivable place.

Micha Berger wrote:
>(BTW, it wasn't only the mekubalim who meditated. See in Michtav 
>mei'Eliyahu I, REED's instructions for how to learn a mussar 
>concept. Repeating the same sentence or pasuk for 20 minutes or more 
>is meditative.)

Noach Rothstein wrote:
>R' Avigdor Miller says that in Slabodka they used to sit in the dark one night 
>a week and each bochur would repeat his favorite maamar from a mussar sefer 
>again and again, in order that it should really sink in.

This was one of the chiddushim that R. Yisrael Salanter instituted,
although he wanted a separate building for only this - a beis hamussar.
He also instituted distinct niggunim for mussar that are different than
the niggun for learning. This is all in his letters in Or Yisrael and
I think R. Itzele Blaser discusses it in his introduction to the book.

Gil Student

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Why do we do bedikas chametz davka at night? Does this make sense?

There is more going on in this mitzvah than the functional preparation
for bi'ur and bal yeira'eh.

For example, why do you need a neir to search for chameitz in the daytime?
And yet, you need to use one if you forget and leave bedikah for the
morning.

Perhaps the process of searching is an inyan bifnei atzmah, as we see from
the Alshich I quoted last week.

-mi

Chometz is not assur on Erev Pesach until chatzos, and even then,
it is "only" a lav - karays doesn't kick in until the night. Because
of possible confusion that could occur on a cloudy day, Chazal said
not to wait for chatzos, but rather they forbade owning chometz even
a whole hour before chatzos. And because eating chometz is so chamur,
they forbade eating chometz two whole hours before chatzos.

First question: In what way is *eating* chometz on E"P Afternoon any
worse than *owning* chometz on E"P Afternoon, that Chazal chose to push
the d'rabanan an extra hour early? Aren't they both just "plain" lavim?

Second: Isn't it enough that Chazal pushed their issur one and two hours
earlier than the Torah's zman? Why do so many people push these zmanim
even earlier, by using Rabenu Tam's calculation? People are willing to
push a d'Oraisa like Krias Shma up to the last minute of the Gra's zman,
but are makpid on R"T for this d'rabanan.

Any ideas?

Akiva Miller

>          It seems to me that if the child is above bar/bas mitzvah
> age, and has earned money from outside sources (such as babysitting)
> and bought chometz with it, then it clearly belongs to the child, and
> the parents would be unable to sell it on the child's behalf.
...

Since the child is 'somech al shulchan aviv' the food and wages earned
technically belong to the parents. Even though it is common that the
parents don't collect this money, perhaps that's simply because today
parents anyway shower the children with so much money. Today's parents
merely ignore their right of collection of babysitting money, but I
think that this money is really not owned by the children.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> An interesting point to note about the permissability of yeast but not
> of si'or.
> Si'or is an attachment to the past....
> When the Benei Yisrael left Mitzrayim, it was important to cut ties to
> their base, tamei, lifestyle there....
> Comments? Reactions?

I like this and I'm also curious about your source.
This reminds me of any modern behavioural dysfunctionality that can pass
from generation to generation. Someone has to transcend the trend.

Eric Simon asks about rice and kitniyot on Erev Pesach according to ahkenazim

Pri Migadim (Eshel Avraham, OH 444, no.2) permits eating kitniyot on Erev
Pesach, and indicates that the prohibition of kitniyot is only on Pesach
proper. Nevertheless, Hok Yaakov (OH 471 no. 2) forbids eating kitniyot on
Erev Pesach (from 9:12 A.M.), and this seems to be the general custom (Resp.
Shevet HaLevi, III, end of sec 31; Nitei Gavriel, Hag HaPesach, II, Chapter
38, no. 14). Kitniyot may be eaten Friday night. Kitniyot are not hametz, and
may be stored in the house.

The general rule is that there is no din of Baluah by kitniyot.  This was
also confirmed le-halakha le-ma'aseh by my brother Dov in a conversation with
rav aharon Lichtenstein shlita.  I've written to various kashrut agencies as
to why they suggest separate keilim for feeding babies rice cereal and the
answer is " It's a Humra"  or "a geder".   That - I don't understand!  A
geder on a Minhag ha-Geonim which was not accepted by all klal yisrael and
which many poskim were in favor of limiting as much as possible?   Now
there's a takanta le-takanta!

Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
:> An interesting point to note about the permissability of yeast but not
:> of si'or. ...
:> Comments? Reactions?

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:09AM +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote:
: I like this and I'm also curious about your source.

No source.

My closing two questions were asking for verification of a personal chiddush.

-mi

From: MIKE38CT@aol.com [mailto:MIKE38CT@aol.com]
> Is Hah Lachma just a symbolic prayer, or does one truly 
> have to have the ability to invite others to one's seder table to recite it?  
> Does anyone know of any hotels that make an effort to invite needy people to 
> their communal sedarim?

I once heard a pshat that Ha Lachma Anya is supposed to be understood
as a lament: In the times of the Bais HaMikdash, the korban pesach
was ne'echal limnuyav so one couldn't just invite someone on the spur
of the moment. After the destruction, this is no longer the case.
Hashata hacha, l'shana ha'ba'a b'ar'a d'yisrael and we will build the
Bhm"k and no longer be able to invite people at the time of the seder.

Anybody know who said this pshat? (I learned it when I was much younger
and forgot--or was never told--the source.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Daniel Goldschmit suggests a similar Pshat in his Haggada (pp. 10-11),
together with a list of Mefarshim who seem to explain the Mah Nishtana
as a series of statements rather than questions.

I don't understand why the story of Rabbah and Abaye would imply
otherwise. The simple understanding of that story is that Rabbah
is pleased that Abaye has asked a question on his own ("V'kan HaBen
Shoel Aviv...") which frees him of his obligation to teach a child who
hasn't the intelligence to ask on his own ("...V'Im Ein Da'at BaBen,
Aviv Melamdo...).

I heard Nehama Leibowitz A"H quote the Abarbanel as inserting question
marks to explain Psukim that he found difficult. The ones that come
to mind are "HaShem Ish Milkhama!? HaShem Shmo!" (the Abarbanel was
a pacifist), and "Ashrei Ha'am Shelakha lo!? Ashrei Ha'am SheHaShem
Elokav!" (the Abarbanel - for all his position as treasurer for Queen
Isabella - believed the Histapkut BeMuat was an ideal).

Pesach Kasher VeSameach,
Shalom Berger
Alon Shvut

From: "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il>
>                                                            "mah nishtana
>halayla hazeh mekol haleylot!" with an exclamation point, meaning "How
>different is this night from other nights!" The parallel is to Tehilim
>104:24, "mah rabu ma'asecha, haShem!" . ....
>When recklessly applied, however, the genre lends itself to enjoyable
>but farfetched drashim, as in any number of Chassidic "vort"s...

Many years ago, I (who admittedly knows very little dikduk etc - RSM would
bli sofek flunk me year after year) thought of a similar pshat in MN - How
is it different ? - with the following 4 'questions' (shebchol haleilos)
not being questions but rather answers on how tonight is different...

The best response I got was that it is a good Purim Torah...

(I suppose the biggest problem RYHH and I have, is, how do we teitch the
"vekaan haben shoel"...)

SBA

RYHH:
> I proposed that mah nishtana should be read, "mah nishtana halayla
> hazeh mekol haleylot!" with an exclamation point...

Arukh HaShulchan, Halachos of the Seder

Shlomo Goldstein

I'm thinking about the dynamics of the machlokes.

Rabban Gamliel says that one must be makpid to associate maggid with the
mitzvos of the night. From the term "munachim lifanecha" it's clear that
to him Maggid should be simultaneous with or before the meal.

Thinking back to our discussion of Rashi vs Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, where
we find archeological evidence of this machlokes preceding even the
tannaim.

If this is the norm for machlokesin (as would be a logical position for
a halachic pluralist, to use a term from volume 1), then I assume that
in the days of the beis hamikdosh some actually did like Rabban Gamliel.

IOW, at least some people didn't eat the korban Pesach first.

Second, we know that the other people didn't hold there was a chiyuv to
have them munachim lifanecha. But doesn't the presence of the machlokes
indicate that even those people did do the mitzvos biyachad -- and therefore
the question was whether one had to do so, or one would be yotzei even
if not?

Otherwise, how did the machlokes arise?

-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

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> I'm just wondering how many of you actually make it to Afikoman 
> by Chatzos at the seder and how many do not. We used to always 
> make it, but last year we didn't and I think we may not have the 
> year before that either. 

I always liked the vort of the Bais HaLevy (printed in the Brisker Haggadah)
on R. Elazar ben Azaryah "v'lo zachisee she'tai'amar yetzias mitzrayim
ba'leilos" being juxtaposed to "ve'hayu misaprim b'yitzias mitzrayim kol oso
haleilah" --this proves that REBA had been overruled by R. Akiva & the
Chachamim in the machlokes as to whether the korban Pesach is eaten past
chatzos (RA said yes, because we look at chipazon d'yisrael, which was in
the morning) and therefore stayed up all night saying maggid, which is only
a mitzvah so long as there is a mitzvah to eat the korban pesach ("baavur
zeh lo amarti ela b'sha'a sheyesh [Pesach] matza u'maror munachim
l'fanecha").  That's what REBA said: until now I said yitzias mitzrayim at
night because I believed that chipazon d'mitzrayim was the ikar; now that
I've been overruled, I don't have any basis for my shita to say yitzias
mitzrayim ba'leilos, ad she'drasha Ben Zoma....

When I was in my parents' home, we would eat the Afikoman before the chatzos
for the first night, but not the second night, based on the practice of my
mother's relative, the Kashauer Rov.  I justify our practice by arguing that
me'ikar hadin, it seems clear that the halacha follows R. Akiva.  Even if we
wish to be machmir when it comes to the first night, where a deoraisa may be
involved, there is no reason to be machmir regarding the second night.  As
might be imagined, our second night seder always ran much longer than the
first (we once finished at 5 am).

IIRC I think that the Haggaddah published by R. Yitzchok Lichtenstein with
Torah from his grandfather, RYBS, (maybe this is somewhere else?) says that
there is a simple eitzah, based on the proposition that those who believe
that one must eat afikoman by chatzos also believe that there is no issur
achilah after chatzos (because it's no longer b'sha'as chiyuv).  [Does
anyone know a source for this?]  Therefore, if one is running late, one
should eat two k'zaysim for afikoman right before chatzos, wait until after
chatzos, continue the meal and eat afikoman again (to satisfy the majority
view).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Micha Berger wrote (7:9)
> So much for the thought I quoted besheim R' Chaim Davis a while back.
> How can we testify on Shabbos to ma'aseh bereishis? We weren't there!
> He suggested that we can testify to yetzirah yeish mei'ayin because
> each Shabbos a neshamah yeseirah is created for us.

Good question. An even better question is when we are commanded to
remember the Sabbath day (zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat) what are we supposed
to remember? Every other commandment in Torah enjoinging us to remember
something, e.g., "zakor eit asher assah l'kha amaleik," "zakhor eit
asher assah ha-Shem Elokekha l'miriam," "zakor eit asher hiktzaphta
ha-Shem Elokekha ba-midbar" etc. refer to events that were physically
experienced by the Jewish people and could therefore be remembered by
them. Shabbat shel b'reishit was not experienced by the Jewish people,
so how could they be commanded to remember it?

This is not my question, it is the question of my grandfather, R. Akiva
Glasner, ab"d dk"k dk"b, son and successor of the Dor Revi'i, which
he discusses at length in the course of a general explanation of the
significance of Shabbat and the Mo'adim in his book, Ikvei ha-Tzon.
B'kitzur nimratz, Shabbat, rishon hu l'mikraei kodesh, is itself
a commemoration of the giving at the Torah at Sinai (ha-kol modim
she-b'shabbat nitnah torah) the acceptance of which by the Jewish people
was the condition on which the world was allowed to exist for the 2000
years between Creation and the Revelation at Sinai. (See Rashi in bayon
ha-Shishi. Query: Rashi says that the "heh" symbolizes the five books
of the Torah and the conditional existence of the world in the period
between Creation and Revelation. The relationship between "heh" and
five is obvious, what is the relation between "heh" and the conditional
existence of the world? Answer: See the "p'tiha to Ikvei ha-Tzon). Thus,
Shabbat ma-amad har Sinai was the culmination of ma'asseh b'reishit.
That's why it is literally true that the heaven, and the earth and all
their hosts were completed on the Seventh Day (not the Sixth as it would
seem from a superficial reading of Genesis 1) and that's why when we are
commanded to remember the Sabbath Day what we are commanded to remember
is the Sabbath Day on which we received the Torah, an event about which
we clearly are able to provide testimony.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov  

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


[ 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         ]