Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 019

Tuesday, October 16 2001

• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• Administrivia
• Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• Re: Birkas Habanim
• Re: Birkas Habanim
• missing thumbs
• Cutting nails on Thursday
• Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• Hakhel - Koheles
• WTC tragedy

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 23:09:07 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <136.31b13c2.28fd034f@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:28:15 EDT
Subject: Re: missing thumbs
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: Joelirich@aol.com, nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/14/2001 9:20:49am EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> The pisikat rabah quotes a medrash on tehilim 137 (al naharot bavel) that the 
> leviim bit their fingers off rather than  playing their kinorot for shirei 
> tzion. Assumedly in general it's assur to mutilate oneself, what is the issur 
> in singing shirei tzion that overcame this issur of selfmutilation?

How about hora'as sha'ah?  After all weren't those extreme extenuating 
circumstances and not necesarily a precedent setting practice?

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 04:24:13 2001
Message-ID: <3BCBF328.A86EDCD2@mail.biu.ac.il>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:43:20 +0200
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <zivotoa@mail.biu.ac.il>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Comparison of Radzyner tekhelet with Murex tekhelet.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org


[From R' Seth Mandel:]
> But now let us ignore me (much preferable anyway, since CQs are not so
> pretty to consider) and go to the FACTS of the matter.  Incontravertible
> facts (the best kind, no?), that none of the g'dolim at the time of the

> Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t'kheles.  And let me remind people of
> something which some parties in argument ignore: before Rav Kook [(sic!)]
> made his discovery that the Radzyner t'khelet was Prussian blue,
> approximately 25 years had passed.  During that period, the situation was
> EXACTLY as it is now: ...

I would like to point out that there were important works written during
the Radzyner's lifetime and immediately afterwards that addressed his
theories regarding the chilazon, criticizing them on very fundamental
levels. When one reads these works, one is immediately struck by the
difference between the Radzyner's position and that of P'Til Tekhelet -
i.e. murex trunculus as chilazon. In two works - Tekhelet m'Iyay Elisha
by Mordechai Rabinovits and P'Til Tekhelet by Hillel Meschel Gelbshtien
(both written in the early 1890's - a few years after the Radzyner
dyed his first strings)- the authors point out basic problems with the
Radzyner's tekhelet:

1. It fades when washed with soap

2. The dye is obtained from the organism many weeks and months after death
(against the Talmud's assertion that it must come from a live organism).

3. The color of the dye is not the color of the sky.

In addition, the Beis Halevi objected that:
4. Since the art of dyeing with squid had been around for many hundreds
of years, what explanation could the Radzyner offer for all the gedolim
of previous generations having missed what the Radzyner was now proposing.

None of these fundamental problems that contemporaries of the Radzyner
had raised apply to the modern assertion of murex as chilazon.

1) It is among the fastest dyes known to man,

2) it must be obtained from the organism while alive or immediately
on death,

3)It is exactly the color of kala ilan,

4)there is so much new information that was unavailable to previous
researchers that even at the time of Rav Herzog - barely one generation
ago - no one knew how to get the dye to a pure blue color.

One more point - though halacha is determined by halachic authorities
only, it is important to point out that no secular scholars accepted
the Radzyner's theory and no corroborating evidence from archeological
or historical sources was found. In the case of the murex though, it is
virtually unanimously accepted by secular scholars and an exhaustive
amount of evidence from various disciplines has been offered to
corroborate the murex as the source of the ancient tekhelet dye.

It is disingenuous to lump all attempts at the rediscovery of tekhelet
together. Each must be examined on its own merit and evaluated seriously.

Baruch Sterman

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 22:59:55 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <6f.1c28c9bf.28fd0123@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:18:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: jlapidus@usa.net, nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/15/2001 4:06:47pm EDT, jlapidus@usa.net writes:
> I'm aware of the various aspects of theodicy that we find in Biblical and
> Rabbinic writings over the ages regarding all manners of catastrophes,
> each one unique. There is no unanimity of opinion regarding any
> catastrophe and it's difficult, if not useless, to try to formulate
> general principles. The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the
> WTC atrocity to happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet
> kol ha'aretz, tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.

Quick point. I concur that it is regrettable to assign BLAME in the face of 
catastrophe. Think of Aaron's reaction when HIS twin towers - i.e. Nadav and 
Avihu were felled by fire. He remained dumbfounded!

OTOH Chazal did learn lessons from THAT story. Which means to me that while 
assigning blame is NOT OK because we are not the ultimate Dayan; nevertheless 
we can still LEARN from things that go wrong.  The trick is to do so w/o the 
blaming.  

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 23:27:33 2001
Message-Id: <200110160346.f9G3kbB10386@lmail.actcom.co.il>
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 05:09:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
In-reply-to: <ftamstsgconq62l0sjs49ajqrttjsdt5lo@4ax.com>
References: <3BCB46CB.23914.613B40E@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On 15 Oct 01, at 15:02, Jay Lapidus wrote:
> Carl:
>>                                              There's an explicit 
>> Gemara in Bava Kama and Sanhedrin which says that when 
>> Hashem wants to punish "Sonei Yisrael" (b'lashon sagi nahor - but 
>> no reason it could not also be interpreted literally) He gives them a 
>> "blind goat" to lead the flock. That doesn't mean that He interferes 
>> with man making the proper choice - but He does make it a lot less 
>> likely that man will choose correctly.

> So who are the "sonei yisrael"... the people of New York? The US military?
> The NYPD and the FDNY? America?

I think you misunderstood. The Gemara uses "sonei Yisrael" b'lashon sagi
nahor to refer to Jews, i.e. when Hashem wants to punish the Jews R"L
He allows the accession of incompetent leaders. I was suggesting that
the Gemara could also be interpreted as applying literally to non-Jews,
i.e. that Hashem may have given the non-Jews incompetent leaders so that
they would not understand the importance of taking proper preventive
actions before September 11.

> I'm aware of the various aspects of theodicy that we find in Biblical and
> Rabbinic writings over the ages regarding all manners of catastrophes,
> each one unique. There is no unanimity of opinion regarding any
> catastrophe and it's difficult, if not useless, to try to formulate
> general principles. The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the
> WTC atrocity to happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet
> kol ha'aretz, tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.

But to say that He had nothing to do with it is to deny Hashem's hashgacha
in this world, which is at least as equally Jewishly unacceptable.

-- 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.

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 21:58:27 2001
Message-ID: <002701c155e8$a36a2260$f8fc67cf@willroth>
From: "Yitzchok Willroth" <willroth@voicenet.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
References: <200110152047.PAA21663@majordomo1.host4u.net> <001b01c155d3$dc6547d0$020044c0@larry>
Subject: Re: Daled Minim in Mikdash/Yerushalayim
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:16:58 -0400
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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

> Even if their Daled Minim didn't meet the de-Oraysa standards, wouldn't
> they still be fulfilling (the Rabbinic) Takanas RYBZ to take it "All Seven
> [Days]" which is all they would be fulfilling if they don't go. OTOH,
> if their Daled Minim still meet the de-Oraysa standards -- which one
> hopes they were meeting on the first day -- then they have also fulfilled
> the de-Oraysa.

I think the logic is that while they could fulfill the D'Rabbannan
from elsewhere, the D'Oraisa becomes incumbant upon them only b'makom
haMikdash. Assuming they had, in fact, fulfilled the mitzvah D'Oraisa
the first day, and nothing had changed since, there'd be nothing to
lose and much to gain, yes. But that, to them, is a _big_ assumption.
Perhaps they _hadn't_ fulfilled the D'Oraisa the first day? They'd be
putting themself in the position to again be m'vatel the aseih each
day they returned to the makon haMikdash. Now there's what to lose...
Considering that most bochurim in the Brisk yeshivas bentch the Rosh
Yeshiva's arbah minim for the brochah and use their own only for nanuim
due as much to sefaikos over their own minim as much as the hiddur of
the Rosh Yeshiva's, it's l'shitaschem not to put themsleves in such a
situation the remaining days of the festival...

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 23:04:24 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <8b.db54f34.28fd022f@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:23:27 EDT
Subject: Hakhel - Koheles
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

Given there is a connection between Hakhel and Sukkos.

Hypothesis:

Kohelles is the title of the king who conducts the Hakhel and  hence we read 
Koheless on Sukkos

Ani KOHELES  melech birushalyim
then might mean:
I am the implementor of Hakhel, {i.e.}  King in Jeruslaem.  

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 00:24:04 2001
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:42:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
Message-ID: <20011016.004237.-497711.1.dhojda1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-7
From: David Hojda <dhojda1@juno.com>
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

The sefer b'Sukkos Teishvu has a page that lists various personal
minhagim of Rav Moshe Feinstein's, as reported to the author by Rav
Mordechai Tendler.

It says that Rav Moshe was mosser nefesh to sleep in the sukkah, almost
until the end of his days, even on Shemini Atzerres. A footnote adds
the following (my translation):

"I heard from Rav Mordechai regarding his great grandfather, the Gaon Rav
Dovid zt"l, that he slept in the sukkah one leil shemini atzerres when
it was extremely cold and from this he became ill with a lung infection.
Within six days, he had died. Rav Moshe saw this as messiras nefesh for
the mitzva and saw it as an example to himself l'hakpid al zeh".

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 00:24:24 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <fc.d9f0966.28fd14f1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:43:29 EDT
Subject: Re: sukkah bi-shemini
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: sba@blaze.net.au, nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/15/2001 1:28:54pm EDT, sba@blaze.net.au writes:
> And lehalocho does a targum TBU overrule a befeirush gemoro?

Lechatchila - unlikely.

Yet to justify an existing minhag or psak this is not so unusual.
IOW given that Minhag X or Psak Y already contradicts a Bavli, apologists
will seek a supporting text - Bedieved - as a rationale.

IMHO this is not so unusual. The Bavli itself will set aside a Mishnah
in favor of a Braisso on occasion. This is not a license for us to do
this lechatchilah, yet we can accept the fact - post facto - that the
Bavli felt justified in doing so.

Also we do not set aside a Bavli in favor of a text suchaas TBU unless
we have a Masorah to do so. While aAccording to some there are zero
exceptions to this rule and that the Bavli ALWAYS trumps any other text -
to me this is but a tempting over-simplification.

In summation: We don't Innovate by setting aside a Bavli, but we do
eclectically overrule the Bavli in cases where this has already been
established - e.g .by Tosafos.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

> From domo@aishdas.org  Tue Oct 16 02:23:33 2001
Message-ID: <000901c1560e$fed6b7a0$33aafea9@sba>
From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:19:51 +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: Qumran <qumran@optonline.net>
> It's hard for me to give much weight to the sevara that the Rebbe
> and/or his chasidim are mitztaer, because there isn'y enough space in
> the sukka. If that's really the reason, they should leave the sukka
> during sukkot itself.

It seems that chassidim usually stayed home for Sukkos and travelled to
their rebbes for SA and ST.

SBA

> From domo@aishdas.org  Mon Oct 15 22:59:55 2001
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <6f.1c28c9bf.28fd0123@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:18:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Hashgacha peratis, bechirah, and WTC stories
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
CC: jlapidus@usa.net, nishma@interlog.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/15/2001 4:06:47pm EDT, jlapidus@usa.net writes:
> I'm aware of the various aspects of theodicy that we find in Biblical and
> Rabbinic writings over the ages regarding all manners of catastrophes,
> each one unique. There is no unanimity of opinion regarding any
> catastrophe and it's difficult, if not useless, to try to formulate
> general principles. The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the
> WTC atrocity to happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet
> kol ha'aretz, tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.

Quick point. I concur that it is regrettable to assign BLAME in the face of 
catastrophe. Think of Aaron's reaction when HIS twin towers - i.e. Nadav and 
Avihu were felled by fire. He remained dumbfounded!

OTOH Chazal did learn lessons from THAT story. Which means to me that while 
assigning blame is NOT OK because we are not the ultimate Dayan; nevertheless 
we can still LEARN from things that go wrong.  The trick is to do so w/o the 
blaming.  

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

Sorry about that...

-mi

From: Seth Mandel <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> RSBA: <It is quite obvious from there (and other sources) that
> this machlokes has been around for a long, long time, well before the
> Chassidic/Misnagdic split and certain families - including descendants
> of Rashi z'l - did not eat in the sukka.>

> This is not true, and is a commonly circulated fairy tale.

Sorry, what I should have said was didn't eat ALL their meals in the
Sukka.

I have seen 3 sforim which discuss this topic in length (and I am sure
there are many more (incl Rav Tzodok Hakohen's Meshiv Tzedek - which
seems to be mentioned quite a lot).

These are the Tshuvos Minchas Elozor [V4 31] (where he writes that his
ancestor the Bnei Yissoschor - Dinover Rov/Rebbe - whilst Rov in Munkach
ate all his meals in the sukka), The Nitei Gavriel - which also includes
lists of gedolim on both sides [some say that his lists are not reliable]
and the Minhag Yisroel Torah.

It seems that the most serious source for this minhag is the Korban
Nesanel although the practice was known well befor this time.

>                                                        As far as anyone
> has been able to find, there is no evidence of anybody not eating in the
> sukka during the day of Shmini At. before chasidim.

IIRC there is some mention of half in the sukka and half in the house

> A lot was made of this minority custom after the chasidim started not
> eating in the sukka at all on SA

I think that even with chasidim virtually all - at least make kiddush
in the morning in the Sukka.

SBA

Akiva replied:
> Do you mean to suggest that the bracha is said silently, ... <

I mean to say that my parents (and their parents, etc.) didn't say it
aloud (the way that, e.g., Birchas Kohanim is said by a kohain in the
presence of a minyan). I definitely was conscious (when I was of an age
to be conscious of such things -- call that "chinuch age" if you wish)
that they were saying something, so I wouldn't term the volume level as
"silence" but rather the way I termed it in my previous response.

> ...so that the children hear nothing and do not respond? <

I knew (at the age mentioned above) what they were saying, knew how to
respond when the b'rocho was complete, and felt...well, see below.

> Isn't the hearing a main component of what is going on when a parent
benches his child? <

Hearing is but one method we use to gauge the world around us. Feeling
your father's or mother's hands on you and recognizing that something
special is going on is indescribable, but I can say that it has little
to do with hearing.

> I say this bracha in the child's presence so that it has a more direct
effect on his consciousness. The whole thing tends to foster a close
bond between parent and child, regardless of the actual bracha itself. <

Precisely.

> If the bracha is silent, then I would imagine that it amounts to little
more than a pat on the head, ... <

Precisely not.

> ...and this is especially true for the youngest children, who have
little or no concept of what a bracha is or does. <

We may be getting off-topic a bit, but perhaps you've forgotten how
efficacious laying your hands on an infant can be (frankly, I had to be
reminded of the cause-and-effect with our 2nd child, now five+ months old,
as I had forgotten how calming it can be and was for our first child,
now 3+ years old).

> I would like to hear more from people who got a silent bracha from
their parents: How did you feel about it when you were young? What was
your understanding of what was happening? Thanks again. <

I felt tremendous energy and closeness -- receiving this b'rocho was
always very special to me. I understood it as a component of the special
nature of the day (be it Shabbos or YT). As an older child (i.e. sometime
in my teenage years), I saw (and felt) it as a personal version of Birchas
Kohanim and of Ya'akov's blessing to Yosaif's sons wrapped into a few
moments of time. (FWIW, I get a surge from the actual Birchas Kohanim,
too, even though their hands don't physically touch me.)

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

R' Michael Poppers suggested (and R' SBA seconded the idea) -- <<< why
not bless your children in an Amidah-like tone of voice and thus avoid
worrying about their saying anything in response? >>>

Do you mean to suggest that the bracha is said silently, so that the
children hear nothing and do not respond? Isn't the hearing a main
component of what is going on when a parent benches his child?

If I simply want to ask HaShem to be good to my child, the child does
not need to be present. I say this bracha in the child's presence so
that it has a more direct effect on his consciousness. The whole thing
tends to foster a close bond between parent and child, regardless of
the actual bracha itself.

If the bracha is silent, then I would imagine that it amounts to little
more than a pat on the head, and this is especially true for the youngest
children, who have little or no concept of what a bracha is or does.

I would like to hear more from people who got a silent bracha from their
parents: How did you feel about it when you were young? What was your
understanding of what was happening? Thanks again.

Akiva Miller

Joelirich@aol.com writes:
>The pisikat rabah quotes a medrash on tehilim 137 (al naharot bavel) that the
>leviim bit their fingers off rather than  playing their kinorot for shirei
>tzion. Assumedly in general it's assur to mutilate oneself, what is the issur
>in singing shirei tzion that overcame this issur of selfmutilation?

I don't have the pisikat rabah  but I do have the Medrash Tehilim and there
it says they bit off their fingers not to sing Shirei Tzion for Avodah
Zorah! which automatically answers your question. (it was the issur of A"Z,
not an Issur of singing Shirei Tzion on its own.

kol tuv
yosef stern

Reuvein Lichtman writes:
>Please could somebody advise me if the practice of refraining from cutting
>nails on Thursday includes Thursday Eve (leil Shishi - Erev Shabbos)
>or perhaps Wednesday night.

I would think that it's a Dovor Poshut that since the reason is so that
the nails shouldn't start growing on Shabbos (which is the third day
from Thursday) - so just like Shabbos begins Friday evening, so also
Thursday begins on Wednesday evening.

kol tuv
yosef stern

RSBA: <Sorry, what I should have said was didn't eat ALL their meals in the 
Sukka. I have seen 3 sforim which discuss this topic in length (and I am 
sure there are many more (incl Rav Tzodok Hakohen's Meshiv Tzedek -
which seems to be mentioned quite a lot). These are the Tshuvos Minchas 
Elozor [V4 31] (where he writes that his ancestor the Bnei Yissoschor - 
Dinover Rov/Rebbe - whilst Rov in Munkach ate all his meals in the sukka), 
The Nitei Gavriel - which also includes lists of gedolim on both sides [some 
say that his lists are not reliable] and the Minhag Yisroel Torah.>

Unfortunately, the Nitei Gavriel and the Minhog Yisruel Toyro are part
of the problem. They blithely quote the minority sources that ate at
night in the house, but in the sukka during the day, as support for
the chasidishe custom of not eating in the sukka at all. If you look
up their sources you will see this is the case. I will be charitable
and say that they did not read their sources carefully; anyone who did
would be guilty of spreading falsehoods.

<It seems that the most serious source for this minhag is the Korban
Nesanel although the practice was known well befor ehis time.>

The Korbon N'sanel was not m'haddesh a minhog, or paskening against the
SA and R'Mo. His explanation is mufrakh minneh uveh, bimhilo of his kovod,
since he mentions EY as well as Bovel.

<IIRC there is some mention of half in the sukka and half in the house>
Not in the early sources, unless you mean at night in the house and
during the day in the sukka (again, only a minority, with no support
from the Posqim).

<I think that even with chasidim virtually all - at least make kiddush
in the morning in the Sukka.>

You are probably correct about virtually all (although some do not),
but again this would not solve the problem that the g'moro, rishonim,
and aharonim say that you eat in the sukka.

To serve R. Harry's purpose of being m'lammed z'khus on previous
generations of Jews who did not, I prefer your earlier suggestion.
Anyone who knows anything about chasidus knows how eagerly the men looked
forward to being in the presence of their Rebbe on yontev, and planned
their trips, and would sleep on the floor rather than spend yontev
away from the Rebbe. No sukka could withstand or hold the crush of the
thousands that came to the larger courts of the Admorim. It was even
hard for some of the stibels/botei medrash to accomodate a shabbos tish.

Seth Mandel

<<Ani KOHELES melech birushalyim then might mean: I am the implementor
of Hakhel, {i.e.} King in Jeruslaem. >>

I believe the Gemara preceded you in this peshat <g>.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 15 Oct 01, at 15:02, Jay Lapidus wrote:
<<The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the WTC atrocity to
happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun, HaShofet kol ha'aretz,
tamim po'alo, and is Jewishly unacceptable.>>

To which Carl Sherer responded:
<<But to say that He had nothing to do with it is to deny Hashem's
hashgacha in this world, which is at least as equally Jewishly
unacceptable.>>

Amos, 3:6 Im yitaka shofar be'ir veha'am lo yecheradu, im tihyeh
ra'ah be'ir vAshem lo asah. Sounds like Hashem IS doing the ra'ah.
Clearly this is as Jewishly acceptable as it comes, even though, and
maybe davka because, we don't understand it.

Hashem is Kel rachum vechanun, but also nakeh lo yenakeh.

The other two pesukim you bring to help you, are also proofs farkert.
The first is Avraham Avinu's request that Hashem spare Sedom. Once he
was unsuccessful in doing so and Hashem in fact does destroy Sedom,
does that mean the end of the pasuk is ch"v true, that lo ya'aseh mishpat?

Second, hatzur tamim pa'alo is tziduk hadin. It implies that no matter
how bad it may seem, HKB"H is, again as the end of the pasuk says,
kol derachav mishpat.

Gershon
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         ]