Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 007

Monday, October 1 2001

• RE: rambam's iqqorim
• Fwd: Re: [schochetfamily] Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Lubavitch philosophy - bitul
• Havdala in the Succa
• Re: Umi domeh lach?
• Re: Three Motzoei Y"K points
• chayyim -- chayyim tovim
• Re: Aval anachnu chatanu
• Re: Vidui
• Back to Barekhu
• Rashi beginning of Mes. Kiddushin
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• Re: Ayin Hora
• Pruzbul
• Re: Ayin Hora
• RE: Aval anachnu chatanu

At 11:15 PM 9/27/01 -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
>Well, no, I do not. I don't understand reasoning which led you to suggest
>he had actively proved the opposite of what he (, I, and numerous other
>readers with no particular dawg in this race) thinks he did.

I do not recall any meaningful disagreements amongst sources that we 
consider to be Rishonim, and not just "scholars" that happened to 
live  contemporaneously with the Rishonim.

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

My sources further responses, somewhat abridged:

1. To R' David Riceman:

>What does "ra'ayot vehochachot" mean?Are they refutable?If not, how do 
>they differ from "clear absolute proof"? If he is concerned re Hil. 
>Yessodei Hatorah 1:4 it is still absolute proof legabei didon (lav 
>bashomayim hi etc.) If he is concerned re Eiruvin 13b or Eduyot end of ch. 
>5 (note there also 1:6)etc. -- ditto. There are clear klolei hashas 
>uposskim. Re YD 242:31 - GEVALT! If this applies to "colleagues" - kal 
>vochomer vedayo lanidon etc.( I anticipate his "reply" that there it is re 
>psak already issued etc. but the principle remains the same.)[Can't look 
>it up now, but I recall Sheilat Yavetz has a teshuvoh very early on s.v. 
>cholek al rabo, and I believe R' O. Yossef deals with that at length also 
>at the beg. of his shu"t.] Don't know why he cited the Rambam's Perush 
>Hamishnah (besides - would have been more authoritative citing his Sefer 
>Hamitzvot; moreover,an explicit Rashi, Sanhedrin 51b!). If anything, this 
>Rashi-Rambam, enhances my point: in halochoh you can argue with ra'ayot 
>vehochachot because it is rational velav bashomayim etc; in metaphysical 
>de'ot you cannot argue and might be guilty of melagleg al divrei chachomim 
>(see Sanhedrin 100a)!

2. To R' Micha Berger:

>Does he question the authenticity or authority of the A'mighty too because 
>He speaks of Himself in "grandiose" terms?R. Akiva had no  problem with 
>Rashby's self-awareness (Yerush. Sanhedrin 1:2, s.v. dayoch etc.). And is 
>the Yerush. re R. Yitzchak also an interpolation or arrogance?

3. General reply re Bittul:

>Be'oto inyan re bitul which your friends (and you) think uniquely chabad. 
>Please look up the Chozeh's  Zichron Zot, s.v. Mishlei, in comm. on tzadik 
>be'emunoso yichyeh. Moreover, closer to our times, the Ozorover (Esh Dat) 
>is certainly as good a rep. of chagat as you can have; see his Be'er 
>Mosheh (an extra-ordinary treasure-trove of mekoros and 
>insights)Beshalach, s.v. Emunat chachamim; and on Devarim 1:38 (where you 
>have acute citation of Yer. Eiruvin 5:1 and Oti'ot deR Akiva, dalet). In 
>short, neither chabad nor chagat etc. but simple, straightforward chazal.



At 05:19 PM 9/28/01 -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>>What does "ra'ayot vehochachot" mean?Are they refutable?If not, how do 
>>they differ from "clear absolute proof"? If he is concerned re Hil. 
>>Yessodei Hatorah 1:4 it is still absolute proof legabei didon (lav 
>>bashomayim hi etc.) If he is concerned re Eiruvin 13b or Eduyot end of 
>>ch. 5 (note there also 1:6)etc. -- ditto. There are clear klolei hashas 
>>uposskim. Re YD 242:31 - GEVALT! If this applies to "colleagues" - kal 
>>vochomer vedayo lanidon etc.( I anticipate his "reply" that there it is 
>>re psak already issued etc. but the principle remains the same.)[Can't 
>>look it up now, but I recall Sheilat Yavetz has a teshuvoh very early on 
>>s.v. cholek al rabo, and I believe R' O. Yossef deals with that at length 
>>also at the beg. of his shu"t.] Don't know why he cited the Rambam's 
>>Perush Hamishnah (besides - would have been more authoritative citing his 
>>Sefer Hamitzvot; moreover,an explicit Rashi, Sanhedrin 51b!). If 
>>anything, this Rashi-Rambam, enhances my point: in halochoh you can argue 
>>with ra'ayot vehochachot because it is rational velav bashomayim etc; in 
>>metaphysical de'ot you cannot argue and might be guilty of melagleg al 
>>divrei chachomim (see Sanhedrin 100a)!

My impression (from the Ramban in the Viku'ach, R' Shmuel Ha'Nagid in his 
Kellalim, the R' Avrohom b. ho'Rambam and others) is that you certainly 
have the right to argue in dei'os, unless you distinguish between Agada and 
De'os.

>>Be'oto inyan re bitul which your friends (and you) think uniquely chabad. 
>>Please look up the Chozeh's  Zichron Zot, s.v. Mishlei, in comm. on 
>>tzadik be'emunoso yichyeh. Moreover, closer to our times, the Ozorover 
>>(Esh Dat) is certainly as good a rep. of chagat as you can have; see his 
>>Be'er Mosheh (an extra-ordinary treasure-trove of mekoros and 
>>insights)Beshalach, s.v. Emunat chachamim; and on Devarim 1:38 (where you 
>>have acute citation of Yer. Eiruvin 5:1 and Oti'ot deR Akiva, dalet). In 
>>short, neither chabad nor chagat etc. but simple, straightforward chazal.

I am still not convinced. Nevertheless, right now the issue is not "emes" 
(eilu va'eilu) but how each school of thought conducts itself based on 
their perception (or, perhaps, lack thereof) of the precepts of Bittul.

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

It seems to me that the doctrine of bitul to the tzaddik ha'dor (i.e.
the contemporary Rebbe) that is found in Lubavitch sources is derived
from earlier Hassidic sources (the doctrine of the Tzaddik as a
necessary intermediary) and from even earlier kabbalistic sources.   The
kabbalistic veneration of the mystic Tzaddik as expressed in RYGB's
citation from the Zohar is, on the face of it, a later addition to the
core material that might be considered stemming from R' Shimon bar
Yochai.   It is rather unlikely that R' Shimon would have said such a
thing about himself, or allowed it to be said by others,  without being
excommunicated by his peers.   This apparent blurring of the gulf
between the human and divine is simply not in accord with classic
Judaism.   If taken literally, such an expression would have a more
natural place in the religion that prevailed at the time the Zohar
manuscript was produced in 14th century Spain.

As to the other citation from R' Shimon b' Yochai from the talmud,
wherein R' Shimon bemoans the dearth of tzaddikim in his generation, but
insists that he and his son, Eliezer, are included even if there are
only 2 tzaddikim - that must be understood in a different light.
Either one concludes that he is a fool who places even his son above all
the sages of his generation, or that he is making a pointed remark.   As
I understand it,  the point being made is that a tzaddik should not
tolerate the evil of his times.   If his contemporaries can make their
peace with Roman rule or acquiesce to it, then he considers them
deficient in tziddkut.  Only he and his son were, apparently, willing to
risk their lives by speaking up against the Romans.  Therefore,  if
there are only 2 tzaddikim - only he and his son qualify.

Gemar tov,
Yitzchok Zlochower

In the hope of getting an answer before Yom Tov....

Reb Scroll (as RGD calls him) IIRC says that one should eat 
something in the Succa immediately after Havdala so that the 
Leishev baSucca that one makes with Havdala should not be 
l'batala. If I drink a full reviis of wine for Havdala (which I always do 
so that I don't have a safek by bracha achrona), why should I have 
to eat something immediately afterwards? A reviis of wine should 
be sa'eed and therefore there should be no safek of having to make 
a leishev baSucca!

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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 26 Sep 01, at 14:37, Micha Berger wrote:
> I just wondered how we can say these words in Shemoneh Esrei, "umi domeh
> lach"? Doesn't imply that we think HQBH failed when He said "na'aseh
> adam bitzlameinu *kidmuseinu*"?
...

I would say that there's a difference between our midos and 
HKBH's midos and that although we are supposed to emulate Him 
we don't always succeed.

-- Carl
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 28 Sep 01, at 0:08, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 3.  I had mentioned some time back that one should not eat fish at the
> seudah hamafsekes,  and had to retract because I could not find mention
> of it.  Today I saw that Reb Scroll brings a Mateh Efraim (608:1) to that
> effect.

Still not so pashut. The Ktzei HaMateh there brings the Mateh 
Efraim's source as the Magen Avraham 608:6, and the Machtzis 
HaShekel and the Yad Efraim bringing from the Rambam's Peirush 
HaMishnayos Yoma 1:4 that fish are marbeh zerah and that's why 
we shouldn't eat them. But then he brings a Tosfos from Avoda 
Zara 5b, which says that you eat "ofos v'dagim u'dvarim kalim" all 
day on Erev Yom Kippur, which presumably includes Seuda 
Mafsekes. He tries to be meyashev by saying that only dagim 
ktanim are marbeh zera, and they are the ones to which the 
Rambam is referring (see Brachos 40a, 57b; Sotah 11b and Shmos 
Rabbah 81:12 and the Matnos Khuna there). (As an aside, does 
anyone know what fish are classified as "dagim ktanim?"). But he 
leaves this b'tzarich iyun because the distinction is not mashma 
from Tosfos.

-- Carl

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Gershon Dubin: <We say "zachrenu lechayim... zocher yetzurav lechayim" but
"Uchesov lechayim tovim" and then combine them, "Besefer chayim...lechayim
tovim." What is the distinction between chayim and chayim tovim, and
when do we ask for one and when the other.>

Phyllostac@aol.com: <I would like to add to the above seasonal query
the fact that in a number of places throughout the year, nusach Ashkenaz
generally limits itself to asking for chayim, while 'Sephard' adds tovim
-- e.g. in yaaleh viyovo (vihoshieinu vo lichayim [tovim -- Sephard]),
and at the end of kaddish (yihei shlomo rabbo min shimaya vichayim
[tovim-Sephard] oleinu....). In some printed 'nusach Ashkenaz' texts,
printers added 'tovim' in parentheses -- as some similarly some added
other 'Sephard' things in parentheses elsewhere.>

Mordechai is correct. Let me just provide some of the sources.

As far as we can tell, the oldest nusakh was just hayyim in all the
situations: qaddish, the Aseres Y'mei T'shuva additions, and Ya'ale
v'yavo.

The word tovim is absent in R. 'Amram Gaon's siddur, in R. Sa'adya Gaon's,
in the Rambam's, and in the Roqeah. The Roqeah, k'darko baqodesh and like
the shitta of all Hasidei Ashk'naz, counts the words in the Aseres Y'mei
T'shuva additions. When talking about zokhreinu, he says it has 11 words,
and says (p. 741) "one may not say 'vkhotvenu b'sefer hayyim tovim,'
because there may only be 11 words as we have said. Furthermore, the rhyme
is on the word hayyim, and furthermore, the whole insertion is m'shullash:
'melekh hafetz bahayyim' 3 [words], 'v'khotvenu b'sefer hahayyim' 3,
'l'ma'ankha eloqim hayyim' 3. These correspond to the 3 zikhronot in the
t'qi'ot" etc. His colleague, R. Shlomo of Worms, whose siddur R. Moshe
Hershler also published, says (p. 303) in the name of R. Y'huda Hahasid:
"Here as well the people of Tzarfat are grossly in error, since they
add and go over the limit, saying 'zokhrenu l'hayyim tovim,' and some
add... And they all are mistaken, because... there can only be 11 words."

Similarly, the count of words for "u'khtov l'hayyim" is 5, with
accompanying sodot, excluding tovim. And similarly the count of 16 for
"b'sefer hayyim" excludes saying tovim.

So the tsarfatim said tovim, at least in some places, but this was not
nusakh Ashk'naz -- nor, as I have said, the nusakh that the Rambam, R.
'Amram, or R. Sa'adya knew.

The Tur knows of the number 11 for zokhrenu, and knows some of the r'mozim
contained therein, and the number 8 for "mi khamokha," but doesn't know
about the numbers for the latter two additons. However, he does bring
a comment concerning this in the name of Maharam of Rotenburg, who said
that one should not say hayyim tovim in the first two b'rokhos, but can
only say it at the end, in hodo'o, where you can say "ukhtov l'hayyim
tovim." The reason, according to Maharam, is from Medrash T'hillim,
that a petitioner should begin by asking for something small, and then
he can ask for more.

So Dovid haMelekh first asked [forgiveness] for the sh'gogos, as he
said "sh'gi'ot mi yavin," and afterwards for the z'donos, "gam mizzedim
hasokh 'avdekha," and only after that "az etam v'niqqeti mippesha' rav,"
i.e. the most serious 'averos. R. Abba compared this to the Kuttiim,
who know how to beg. First they ask for a little water, and when they
are given it they ask for just one onion, and when they get that they
say that eating onion without bread is unhealthy. So too the tzaddiqim
know how to appeal to the Almighty, as it says in Mishlei 10:12 "siftei
tzaddiq yed'un ratzon." 'Ad kan the Tur in the name of Maharam.

The opinion of Maharam of Rotenburg was accepted in Ashk'naz over that of
the earlier nusakh, but either way in other situations they never used
"hayyim tovim," either because they were careful not to ask for hayyim
tovim unless you first asked for plain hayyim, or because they stuck to
the old nusakh. Thus in ya'ale v'yavo you only asked for hayyim, and
also in qaddish. S'faradim started at some point using hayyim tovim;
S'faradim in general did not object to embellishing existing baqqashot
and adding new ones (cf. their nusakh of y'he sh'lama rabba, which
is much longer than any of the old nuskha'ot). Since the A'ri davened
nusakh S'farad most of the year, he used the nusakh with hayyim tovim,
and thence it became standard among Chasidim.

The only question, then, is why Ashk'nazim say hayyim tovim at the
end of qaddish d'rabbonon, but not at the end of other qaddishes. The
answer is simple, but not widely known, and I plan to return to it
at one point in my discussion of qaddish. B'qittzur here: according
to all the early Ashk'naz rishonim, Ashk'nazim never said the full
qaddish d'rabbonon. They omitted the stanza starting " 'al yisro'el v'al
rabbonon v'al talmidehon...". Since the qaddish d'rabbonon was the only
qaddish available for y'somim to say, they began to call this shortened
qaddish d'rabbonon "qaddish yosom." It was only several centuries later
that they started reciting the full text of qaddish d'rabbonon in some
situations (not, orginally, in the standard places in the davening for
qaddish d'rabbonon, e.g. after Bameh Madliqin on Friday night, where they
continued to use the old Ashk'naz nusakh called by us "qaddish yosom). As
best as we can determine, it started in the 16th or 17th century, and
apparently was imported from the S'faradi q'hillos that had settled at
the outskirts of Ashk'naz proper, e.g. in Homburg. When they imported
this "S'faradi" qaddish, they imported with it the S'faradi nusakh for
the last two phrases. And so it happened that nowadays Ashk'nazim say
"hayyim tovim" in "y'he sh'lomo" and "hu v'rahamov ya'aseh" in " 'oseh
sholom" only in Qaddish d'rabbonon, whereas in the other qaddishes they
keep the original Ashk'naz nusakh without the words tovim and b'rahamov.

B'n I will bring the sources for this and explain it more fully in my
discussion of qaddish.

A g'mar khasimo tovo to all.
Seth Mandel

A sidelight on R' Micha's explanation of the use and meaning of "aval":

For many years I was mildly disturbed by the term "aval" when we say
she-ein anu azei panim lomar... (We are NOT that chutzpadik as to say)
we are tzaddikim and did not sin, BUT we have sinned! "Ki chatanu"
(BECAUSE we have sinned) would make much better sense than "AVAL
chatanu". The word aval is, at least, clumsy usage.

But then I happened to notice R' Amram Gaon's nusach which states she-anu
azei panim lomar (We ARE that chutzpadik as to say) that we are tzaddikim
and did not sin, BUT we did sin! There AVAL makes perfect sense

So, since then, I am still mildly disturbed - but smile when I think
about R' Amram who really knew about that unlimited Jewish chutzpa.

BTW, R' Sa'adia's nusach is "We are ashamed of our acts and
sins...etc....and cannot raise our heads... - How then can we have the
chutzpa, stiffen our necks, and open our mouths to say we are tzaddikim
and did not sin (And they answer:) Aval chatanu, 'avinu, pasha'nu...

Is R' Sa'adia siding with the usual nusach or with R' Amram. Or is
he purposely ambiguous, letting us decide for ourselves just how much
chutzpa we Jews have?

Another BTW: The kitvei yad do not have "va-avoteinu". (Some don't even
have anachnu.) I always wondered if the later additional of va-avoteinu
was an attempt at justification. We are not really to blame. After all,
they did it too. We were brought up in that environment and ma'asi
avoteinu siman la-banim. (Isn't that from the selichot in West Side
Story?)

In case any list member feels he is still in the "undecided" category,
I wish him a g'mar tov.

And, to all, a chag sameach.
David

Three more comments:

A possible explanation hit me during Vidui as for why we add "avoseinu"
in "aval anachnu va'avosienu chatanu".

In <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n243.shtml#10> I translate
the Gra's comments on Mishlei 4:24 where he makes a chakirah between two
types of beviors: derachim that one are born with, and those accumulated
later by hergel.

Perhaps we want to itemize these two elements in Vidui -- both the
chata'im we discovered ourselves, and those we "inherited" from our avos.

Second, R Laibie Sternberg pointed me to Kovetz Nahara'i 1:142, in
which the form of Vidui the Rambam gives in 1:1 is part of the mitzvah
of teshuvah, whereas "aval anachnu chatanu" is described as kapparah
oriented.

This is a machlokes as to whether "selach lanu, mechal lanu, kaper lanu"
is from least to most, or the reverse. Abarbanel understands kapparah
to be the greatest, because he takes it as a reference to mitigating
the effects of the cheit. RSRH takes it to be the least, containment of
punishment alone.

My point in the first post on this subject tried to argue that "chatasi
lifanecha" is a Vidui for the ma'aseh, and "aval anachnu chatanu" is for
the personality feature that underlied the sin. This would means that
KN is linking the personality oriented vidui to kapparah, and leants
toward the Abarbanel.

Thirds, I do not understand RDB's comments about "aval". It's earlier
meaning, as pointed out in the Targum and Rashi that I cited, is
"be'emes". "Ela" is the word that more often means what "aval" does in
modern usage.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

A few weeks ago someone (I'm fairly sure, IIRC, that it was R' Mechy
Frankel) posted comments on my reply to RYGB concerning the use of a sheva
or a chataf patach in the word barekhu. I meant to reply to the comments
but, as usual, delayed and put off until I accidentally deleted them .

But, as the subject doesn't seem to have left my mind, here are a few
comments on RMF's comments as best I remember them:

As proof that there should be no change in pronunciation between the two
systems of nikkud, I had quoted ben Asher's Dikdukei Hate'amim where
there are lists of mostly the same words, with and without the chataf
and ben Asher's comment that the menakked has free choice to decide
whether or not he wants to add the chataf to the sh'va (as a warning to
avoid mispronunciation).

R' MechyF questioned why I quoted from the Baer-Strack edition rather
than the more modern Dotan edition which is based on many more manuscript
sources. The answer is simply that the Baer edition is some ten feet
away from my computer. I do not own a copy of the Dotan edition.

I stated that the quote being in rhyme was evidence of it being authentic
ben Asher and not a later copyist's addition. RMF said that Dotan says
just the opposite. IIRC, Dotan says that rhyme is evidence that the text
is more ancient - as rhyme was a memory aid before the texts were written
down. Ben Asher might have been writing already existing material from
his predecessors. Prof. Dotan, of course is an academic researcher. He
does not accept that ben Asher is the author of Dikdukei Hat'amim without
proofs. IIRC, he even conjectures that Dikdukei Hat'amim might have
been written by ben Asher's students or later ba'alei masora who were
quoting their teachers or teachers on material attributed to ben Asher. I
don't think he considers rhymed text to be a "later" addition. To me,
"earlier" meant more authentic.

As to the lack of identity between the two lists (with and without
chataf), Dotan analyzes the differences in the list entries of various
manuscripts and concludes that, IIRC, the original lists were of the
g'roniot and that the non-groniot including the reish (I'm back to
barekhu) were later additions not always added to both lists.

That's all I remember on R' Mechy's comments. I was thrilled that someone
was sufficiently interested to make comments and thank him for them.
If there will be anything further on the subject, it will be posted only
on the mesorah sub-list so as to spare the other Avodah list members
and monea' from them simchat yomtov.

Chag Sameach l'khulam,
David

The Rambam at the beginning of Hil Ishus emphasizes that kodem matan Torah
even though the institution of marriage existed, kiddushin did not exist.
Kiddushin is a contractual entrance into marriage.  This distinction between
marriage and kiddushin is true even today by non-Jews.

With this intro we can understand the Rashi on the first Mishna.

1. Ha-ishah Niknis--l'baalah that is this new institution of contractual
entrance into marriage

2. Koneh es Atzma --lhiyos birshusa lhinasei l'acher  that is the contract
is dissolved.  The purpose and goal of kiddushin is nisuin, a full expressed
marriage.

3. concerning kdushei biah Rashi uses a different language "hiskadshee"
because in kiddushin the biah is understood in a new light; not as an
expressed and full marriage but rather is transformed into kiddushin.  This
is then the background to the Gemara's question biah kiddushin osah oh
nisuin osah.

Shlom Goldstein

From domo@aishdas.org  Sun Sep 30 21:23:13 2001
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010930215230.01097530@pop.cwru.edu>
X-Sender: mes12@pop.cwru.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:52:30 -0400
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
From: Mendel Singer <mes12@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: techeiles
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

Regarding my article on techeiles:

1.  Thanks go to Rabbi Alfred Cohen who gave permission for the article to
posted to the internet (as long as it is distributed for free).  I merely
supplied the Word file.

2.   Off the cuff, I supplied the wrong volume - it appeared in issue 42
(not 40), pp.5 -29.  (It was the Sukkot 2001 issue).  Fortunately I get
neurotic about details when I publish so I'd like to think that any issues
you have with what I wrote is strictly a matter of my faulty logic :-)

mendel

From domo@aishdas.org  Sun Sep 30 22:59:24 2001
Message-ID: <01b001c14a29$d3634f20$33aafea9@sba>
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Three Motzoei Y"K points
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:31:14 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> 1. We say in Avinu Malkenu, kosveinu besefer chayim tovim, and then again,
> kosveinu besefer parnasa vechalkala. In shemoneh esrei, we say besefer
> chayim beracha veshalom ufarnasa tova. Are chayim and parnasa separate
> sefarim or one?

IIRC last year someone asked the question about the various 'seforim'
mentioned in the AM. Again, IIRC, we didn't get a satisfactory answer.

Having given it some thought again this year, it seems to me that all
those AM's are referring to one and the the same sefer - but asking
 that we be noted down not only for Chayim but for 
a Chayim with "all the extra's"...

(I saw that the Sefardi nussach has 6 AM - besefer's as compared to our 5).

> 3.  I had mentioned some time back that one should not eat fish at the
> seudah hamafsekes,  and had to retract because I could not find mention
> of it.  Today I saw that Reb Scroll brings a Mateh Efraim (608:1) to that
> effect.

As does the KSA [131:12}.

SBA

From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct  1 09:17:38 2001
X-Originating-IP: [63.65.111.2]
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Three Motzoei Y"K points
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:42:35 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F121DzvYMwkyxU62p4d0000c81b@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2001 13:42:35.0577 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED9AE290:01C14A7E]
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

Gershon Dubin wrote:
>1. Are chayim and parnasa separate sefarim or one?

Do you know people who are alive but do not have a good parnasa?  Clearly, 
on this allegorical level, they are different books.

Gil Student

On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:41:59PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I'm not sure if this answers the question, or whether it is a third type
: of Ayim Hora is addition to the two you mentioned, but here goes:

First, I'm arguing that there is only one type of "ayin hara" -- jealousy.

The thing we elevated into a metaphysical force was simply the gemara's
warning that causing jealousy can cause a mida-kineged-miga punishment of
losing that thing. (Even though I do not believe that one can plan for
sechar va'onesh in olam hazeh, it is certainly one of the many factors
in the mix.)

: A boy in my town got very ill. The family asked us to say tehillim etc
: etc etc for him. We asked what is wrong with him, but they chose not to
: let us know, saying that it would be an ayin hara for us to know the
: illness.

Are you sure they didn't mean "pesichas peh lasatan"? Ayin hara involves
saying something positive, "al tiftach peh" is usually applied to the
negative.

(This is an idea for which it's much harder to give a rationalist spin.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il> 

<< A few days before R"H I lent someone a dollar whom I don't know and
> didn't expect to meet again.  I asked him to wait until after R"H and
> then,  it having become his due to shemitas kesafim,  to give it to
> tzedaka.  In retrospect I probably had no right to ask him to do so.
 
AIUI, based on a psak I received, a debt had to be due before R"H for
shmitas kesafim to apply.>>

The chov was due immediately,  or within a day or two.  I lent the money
to someone erev Shabbos before R"H.  So if he hadn't paid me by R"H it
would have been overdue and been meshamet.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R. Micha Berger asked <<< IOW, what is the makor for considering a
supernatural force of its own rather than midah kineged midah for
flaunting something and causing jealousy in others? >>>

I'm not sure if this answers the question, or whether it is a third type
of Ayim Hora is addition to the two you mentioned, but here goes:

A boy in my town got very ill. The family asked us to say tehillim etc
etc etc for him. We asked what is wrong with him, but they chose not to
let us know, saying that it would be an ayin hara for us to know the
illness.

This confused me for several years, until someone explained it to me: The
disease he had was a particularly serious disease. If we would not know
the nature of the disease, Hashem could cure him and it would still be a
comparatively "minor" nes. But if the disease would be known, it would
take a major nes to cure him.

Therefore, the family said, we can't tell you his disease, as it would be
an ayin hara and make his refuah that much more difficult.

Perhaps the above situation is not truly what is meant by Ayin Hora. But
if it is, then it is a logical explanation to me.

Akiva Miller

On Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:01 PM, D. and E-H. Bannett 
<dbnet@barak-online.net> wrote:
> I think the Rov's explanation of 'Aval' (too long for me to even try to 
> present here) clears up the whole question beautifully. Prof. Pely offers a 
> very good presentation of it in English, BTW.

I remember seeing it for the first time. Left no doubt in my mind that he 
had not only hit the nail on the head but hit the nail dead center.

kt
sk

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


[ 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         ]