Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 089

Thursday, September 5 2002

• RE: Elul vs. Tishrei / slichos
• FW: Changing Paths, not Just Deeds
• Seawood for Sechach
• Re: FW: RE: lo bashamayim
• Re: Teaching goyim Torah
• Elul vs. Tishrei
• Eating fish in treif restaurant
• Why teach the other opinions?
• SSY
• Re: SSY
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Changes in studying Hashkafa
• Re:Slits and Tznius
• Re: SSY
• RE: Going to Uman for RH
• RE: Slits in Skirts... Tznius in Women's Clothing
• Re: Why teach the other opinions?
• Re: Avodah V9 #86
• Re: Minhag of Selichos and AYT re: Avel
• Re: Elul vs. Tishrei

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com] on Areivim
> isn't it logical 
> that the last days of Elul are more important than the first 
> days if Tishrei? Speaking for myself, I'd rather get into 
> shape now, and help insure that HaShem's decisions on Rosh 
> Hashana will be ones that I like, than let it slide and try 
> to fix it in time for Yom Kippur.

We generally assume that most of us are considered beinonim. For a beinoni
(unlike a tzaddik or rasha), whose gzar din is not fixed on Rosh Hashana,
is there any advantage to doing tshuvah now rather than during eseres
y'mai tshuvah?

Hooking this up with the thread on slichos: I note that other than
reciting "ashamnu," slichos is not focused on our doing tshuvah. Rather,
the themes seem to be: (1) we are unworthy but Hashem please forgive
us anyway; and (2) our nation is downtrodden, beset by enemies; please
save us. We say nothing like a tfillas zakah (or al cheit) to encourage
us to review our deeds and do tshuvah. Perhaps this why many of us are
not energized by slichos even when we do understand what we're saying.

I also understand that the format of slichos seems to derive from prayers
that were said during an eis tzarah (e.g., a taanis called for rain).
During such a time, it would make sense to be focusing on themes which
essentially call on Hashem to revoke His decree. To my rationalist mind,
prior to Yom Kippur we should be focusing on doing tshuvah rather than
calling on Hashem to forgive us despite our sins; on YK itself--when the
decree is about to be sealed--I can understand begging Hashem for mercy.
The only explanation to this that I can offer is that by calling on
Hashem to save us, we are remembering that we are dependent upon Him
and this spurs us to tshuvah. But this seems roundabout to me.

Can anyone comment on the themes in the slichos said by eidot mizrach?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I recommend this because it answers a question that's been bothering me
and makes a lot of sense to me on an experiential level.

*********************************************************
                            
             Changing Paths, not Just Deeds
      Based on a sicha by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein
                Translated by Kaeren Fish

QUESTION:

 From the beginning of Elul until Yom Kippur, when teshuva (repentance)
"is most becoming and is accepted immediately" (Rambam, Hilkhot Teshuva
2:6), every individual is required to examine his actions and to repent
for any sins that he may have committed. In listing the laws of teshuva,
the Rambam divides the teshuva process into four parts: abandonment of
the sin, confession, regret, and a resolution for the future (2:2).

But as we examine our ways and seek to return to our Maker, doubt
and despair start to overcome us: Was it not exactly a year ago, as we
examined our deeds at the end of last year, that we confessed exactly the
same sins, resolving not to repeat them? And now only a year has passed,
we discover that we have transgressed in the same areas, and we have to
accept upon ourselves not to transgress again in the future. During this
period, as our mouth promises - and with full intention! - that we will
not repeat those sins that we have just abandoned, we know in the depths
of our hearts that in a year's time we will stand again brokenhearted
before the Master of the Universe, and confess precisely the same sins
once again.

Does this not somehow fall into the category of "One who tells lies shall
not stand before My eyes" (Tehillim 101:7)? Are we not, heaven forbid,
similar to one who says, "I will sin and then I will perform teshuva,"
who never performs a true teshuva (Yoma 85b)?

ANSWER:

In listing the stages of the process of teshuva, the Rambam describes
the stage of resolution for the future as follows: "And He Who knows
all secrets can testify concerning him that he will never again repeat
THIS SIN" (2:2). What is the meaning of the expression, "this sin"?
Is the Rambam referring to the sin that the person committed - in which
case the person will be considered as having performed teshuva even if
he continues in all his evil ways, but abandons that one specific sin
that he has confessed? I learned from Rav Soloveitchik zt"l that this
is not the case. The key to understanding this is an understanding of
the two aspects of the process of teshuva.

The Rambam's Hilkhot Teshuva is divided into two parts: in chapters 1-6
he discusses a person who recognizes the sin that he has committed, and
decides to perform teshuva. From chapter 7 onwards, the Rambam deals with
a different type of teshuva: a person recognizes that his WAYS are evil,
not just his deeds, and he seeks to change himself.

The first type of teshuva has a clear aim, and if a person does not
transgress that sin again then he has attained his goal. By contrast,
the second type of teshuva is a life-long mission. It has no endpoint;
it guides a person's path throughout his life, "until he dies as a
penitent and merits life in the World-to-Come" (7:1).

The "way of the sinner" means the direction of his life, the road
that he treads, and it is this path that has brought him to commit
his many sins. The comprehensive teshuva that the Rambam presents is
more meaningful and more difficult than the specific teshuva that he
addressed at first. The "path of the wicked" is less well defined than
"wicked deeds;" it is more difficult to recognize with a view to changing
it. On the other hand, the path is what leads to the deeds, and a change
in the former will bring a change in the latter.

At the beginning of chapter 7, the Rambam summarizes his teaching
concerning free will: "Since every person is given free will, as we
have explained, a person should TRY to perform teshuva..." At first
glance, this formulation is most surprising: surely teshuva is a mitzva,
a commandment, and not merely a recommendation? Some people have indeed
tried to claim that in the Rambam's view, teshuva is not a mitzva,
but such a view is unacceptable to any worthy religious philosophy.

The correct understanding is that, in using this formulation, the
Rambam is referring to the second type of teshuva - a comprehensive
endeavor to improve one's attributes, and not the focused repentance for
specific deeds. This teshuva has no objective which, once attained, will
allow the person to rest on his laurels. It involves unceasing effort:
"A person should always view himself as though he is about to die, and
since he may die at that time and still be associated with his sin -
therefore he should repent his sin immediately" (7:2).

This type of teshuva is also addressed by the prophet Yeshayahu, when he
declares, "Let the wicked one abandon his way, and the iniquitous person
his thoughts" (55:7). The "way" of the wicked is the thread that runs
through all of his various deeds, guiding his future on the basis of
the past and the present. When repenting, the wicked person is required
not only to abandon his deeds, but to change the direction of his life
and to forsake the path that has led him to all of his transgressions:
"Return, return from your evil ways; why should you die, O house of
Israel?" (Yehezkel 33:11).

It is this type of teshuva - repairing character flaws and changing the
course of one's life - that the Rambam refers to when he uses the term
"try," for in the spiritual world the effort is critical, and a person's
efforts have an independent status and value. The focus of teshuva is
not the result - that he may "die as a penitent" - but rather the path,
the aspiration, the effort. "A person should try to perform teshuva"
- and then automatically he will die as a penitent, and merit life in
the World-to-Come.

Here we must keep in mind an important point. While teshuva - a
"returning" from a sinful path - indeed represents a revolution in
one's personality, it is not usually accompanied by a corresponding
revolution in one's deeds. Sometimes we encounter "ba'alei teshuva"
who have changed their path and their lifestyle in a dramatic manner.
Generally, however, the visible changes that accompany a teshuva are far
less spectacular: if a person has until now given in to his inclination
concerning a certain level of some stimulus, from now on he will overcome
his inclination, yielding to it only at a higher level of stimulus. This
change finds its practical expression only when the person encounters a
stimulus of the strength that used to cause him to sin. As opposed to
his way prior to his teshuva, he will no longer speak "lashon ha-ra"
every time that he feels the desire to do so; it now takes a stronger
desire to cause him to speak "lashon ha-ra."

This is the deeper meaning of the Rambam's words, "to the point where
the Knower of all secrets can testify concerning him that he will never
return to THIS SIN." Rambam writes: "What is complete teshuva? When
a person encounters something that once caused him to sin, and he has
the ability to repeat it, but nevertheless removes himself and does not
act thus because of his teshuva" (2:1). There is no one in the world
so righteous that he does only good and never sins; it is the way of
the world that people stumble. Resolution for the future, which is an
integral part of the teshuva process, means gradual progress, continuing
throughout a person's life.

A person who stands in fear and trembling before his Maker and returns
to Him in complete teshuva knows that during the past year he has not
committed the same sins that he repentedfor the previous year, for he
has managed to overcome his inclination in the situations that brought
him to sin a year ago. This person remembers his sins from the year
that has gone by, regrets and confesses them, and resolves not to give
in to his inclination, to overcome it in those situations where he has
sinned until now. In this way, a person sanctifies himself year by year,
following the path that leads to God's house, correcting his ways and
improving his deeds, such that "he will die as a penitent and will merit
life in the World-to-Come."

   How great is the status of teshuva! Previously this person was
   separated from the God of Israel, as it is written, "Your sins have
   separated between you and your God," he would cry out and was not
   answered... But now he cleaves to the Shekhina, as it is written,
   "But you who cleave to God your God..." - he cries out and is answered
   immediately, as it is written, "And it will be that even before they
   call out, I will answer them." He performs mitzvot and they are
   accepted with Divine pleasure and joy, as it is written, "For God
   already desires your actions." In fact, He even longs for them, as it
   is written, "May the offering of Yehuda and Yerushalayim be sweet to
   God as in days of old, as in the ancient years gone by." (Rambam 7:7)

***********************************************************
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
Copyright (c) 2002 Yeshivat Har Etzion. 

Is seaweed kosher for sechach?  Is it considered gidulo min ha'aretz?

Gil Student

In a message dated 9/4/02 12:51:58pm EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
> I seem to recall that the chiluk is as follows: "lo bashamayim" means
> that we don't listen to a bas kol which is telling us how to pasken.
> However, if the whole basis for the uncertainty as to how to pasken is
> because we don't know the underlying facts, then we _can_ listen to a
> bas kol which is telling us, l'ma'aseh, what actually happened/what are
> the facts.

These are 2 different approaches.  The one you describe is how the Mahartz 
Chiyut explains teku.

KVCT
Joel Rich

There was an article about this in the RJJ journal in 1993. As to
Rebbetzin Katz's peshat on the seventy language translation of whatever
was written on the stone ba'er heitev, I believe the Netziv writes
similarly in his Ha'amek (or Herchev) Davar.

Gil Student

R' Gershon Dubin wrote <<< Not to detract from the mussar value of this
approach, isn't the traditional approach that each day of aseres yemei
teshuva the FIRST of the Sundays, Mondays, etc. of the year? >>>

R' Micha Berger beat me by responding <<< Charata or azivas hacheit at
the end of the year vs qabbalah al ha'asid at the begining? >>>

Yet, if I had to choose between the two, isn't it logical that the last
days of Elul are more important than the first days if Tishrei? Speaking
for myself, I'd rather get into shape now, and help insure that HaShem's
decisions on Rosh Hashana will be ones that I like, than let it slide
and try to fix it in time for Yom Kippur.

Akiva Miller

From: "Stuart Klagsbrun" <sklagsbrun@agtnet.com>
>>I hope no one is taking this discussion too seriously.

Actually, I think all those participating take it quite seriously,
in the sense of lehalacha velo lema'aseh. Which is why your offer,

>>BTW, if anyone ever needs to know how to eat kosher in a treif restaurant

is off base. Nobody AFAIK is even remotely interested in actually doing
so lema'aseh, but the discussion of the "lehalacha" would be enhanced
if you gave facts rather than writing off everyone's knowledge base.

Since it's not lema'aseh, you won't lose any business <g>.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a discussion about dress codes in a certain school, R' Akiva Atwood
wrote <<< Furthermore -- WHY should they teach the girls that there
are other opinions? Judaism is NOT a democracy where the Am decide for
themselves which opinion they want to follow. I assume that the Posek
knows the other opinions, and ruled against them. >>>

One reason to teach the other opinions is to make it easier for them
to be dan l'kaf z'chus when they see other people following the more
lenient opinion.

I wonder which is worse in HaShem's eyes: (A) The many incidents of
judging people *un*favorably, when seeing someone take chicken out of
the refigerator and put it straight on the blech, or (B) The "Chillul
Shabbos" (so to speak) which would have resulted if more people knew
about such lenient shitos and (cholilah!) acted in accordance with them.

Another reason to teach the other opinions: If the teacher would explain
the varying opinions AND the reasons for doing it this way, they'd be
stronger and more able to withstand any pressures to follow the other
opinions.

I do not mean to suggest that all the shitos must be taught on every
question that comes up, but the question was "why teach the other
opinions", and I've given two reasons.

Akiva Miller

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>Bizman shebeis hamiqdash hayah qaram, the leviim sang the SSY during
> the qorban tamid, not the minchah.

I'm sure you didn't mean mincha literally (as in korban mincha); I was
referring to SSY during tefilas hamincha, which is keneged tamid shel
bein ha'arbaim, which certainly did have a SSY.

The original poster took it for granted that "of course" we don't say
SSY then; I am asking why not.

> I heard besheim R' Hutner that nusach Ashkenaz associates the SSY
> to the mention of the tamid in the musaf "shemoneh esrei" rather
> than combining it with shacharis that doesn't mention qorbanos
> at all.

Here as well I'm not sure what you're saying.  

Rav Hutner writes that since shacharis is _keneged_ temidim, and musaf
is _neshalma farim sefaseinu_, i.e., actually replacing the musaf rather
than just remembering the tamid, then the SSY is associated with the
higher (musaf) level of tefila (IIRC). It is in the Pachad Yitzchak,
but no chapter/verse (unless asked).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>I heard besheim R' Hutner that nusach Ashkenaz associates the SSY
>to the mention of the tamid in the musaf "shemoneh esrei" rather
>than combining it with shacharis that doesn't mention qorbanos
>at all.

I think pashtus is that SSY was a later addition so it was "slapped on"
at the very end of davening. Same with Aleinu and whatever other people
say at the end of davening. Hence, also, the widely varying customs.

Gil Student

Perhaps Rav Aviner is simply criticizing what he might view as selfish
and self-indulgent behavior that is contrary to a Torah lifestyle.

Perhaps, his interest is less in trying to give guidance to normative
Chasidim (amongst whom he has no constituency) and more in trying to
give direction to individuals from his own constituency, some of whom
might be going to Uman for the wrong reasons.

And, perhaps, as a tremendous pikeach with great insight into the roots
of certain social and religious problems amongst his constituency, he
is providing a "fig leaf" and not stating quite everything that is on
his mind.

And, there may, in fact be a great difference between going tfrom one
place in Chutz l'Aretz to another in order to visit one's Rebbi to
seek his blessing/guidance and in leaving Eretz Yisrael to go pray at a
gravesite in Chutz l'Aretz because you believe that it has more holiness
than does Eretz Yisrael.

Would it be fair to state that most, if not all of the tension on this
issue dates back to the Maimonidean comflict re the Moreh ?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

> And *I* have been at a loss why issues of Tznius in dress have been so
> *loosely* interpreted by some non-beis-Yaakovers.

I think that we would all agree that Tznius includes both formal halachic
requirements of dress and a hashkafa that we are trying to raise our
daughters not to exist as either sex objects or nuns. Sometimes, the
hashkafa seems to be neglected . Gila Manolson's works and " A Return
to Modesty" both adress these issues quite well.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

 
>>of course SSY is said only in the morning. 

> Why is shir shel yom not said at Mincha?
  
See Magen Avraham 132:4 and MB 132:16. Briefly, since the n'sachim
(which were the part of korban tzibbur requiring shirah) of the tamid
shel bein ha'arbayim were often brought at night, at which time shirah is
not said, we don't say it at the t'fillah which commemorates that tamid.
[Although the morning's n'sachim could be brought at night as well, it
would have been an extremely uncommon event, unlike the afternoon one, for
which it did not take an extended delay to make it too late for shirah.]

 From my friend the Breslover...
> And, there may, in fact be a great difference between going tfrom one
> place in Chutz l'Aretz to another in order to visit one's Rebbi to
> seek his blessing/guidance and in leaving Eretz Yisrael to go pray at a
> gravesite in Chutz l'Aretz because you believe that it has more holiness
> than does Eretz Yisrael.

One is allowed to leave E"Y in order to visit kivrei tzaddikim. It is
brought in Shaarei Teshuva in Orach Chaim (exact ch. can't remember
off-hand).

plus, there were Breslover of one hundred years ago, who were also
*poskim* who left E"Y to go to Uman for R"H.

> Subject: Avodah V9 #88
> RE: Slits in Skirts...  Tznius in Women's Clothing

I'm responding to several posts on this issue:

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

2 questions are raised in this post, both are actually examples of a broader
issue of Psika without a Sanhedrin:

>> IS Tznius or not, and worst an attempt assert one's own personal views
>> as Halacah P'Suka on unsophisticated young minds who will then teach it
>> as Halacha P'Suka to the next generation without ever questioning it.

> Why do you assume the teachers are acting on their own "personal views"?
> Maybe they are acting according to the halachic instructions they received
> from the schools posek?

or to summarize:  What rabbi do the girls of Beit Ya'akov have to follow?
The issue of Satmar ruling on socks was also raised in aonther post on this
issue.  What about the Psika of Rav Ovadia that (to paraphrase):  If the
skirt isn't long enough -- the stockings (nylon) don't help; and if the
skirt IS long enough -- who needs the stockings?

And then there is the issue in many schools of Beit Yaakov in Israel which
forbid floor length skirts b/c Bnei Akiva girls wear them (this is as
reported by a former Beit Yaakov student).

> Furthermore -- WHY should they teach the girls that there are other
> opinions? Judaism is NOT a democracy where the Am decide for themselves
> which opinion they want to follow. I assume that the Posek knows the
> other opinions, and ruled against them.

This is the 2nd question:  the issue of Aseh LeCha Rav and how it impacts on
girls.

In any case, I would like to respond to the immediate question of "why to
teach girls other opinions" with a simple response:  to promote Ahavat
Yisrael and prevent Sinat Chinum.  If the girls are taught that they must
follow their rabbi (no democracy) and other girls follow their rabbi, and
therefore ALL the girls are following the Mitzvot and are good religious
girls, then comments like "shiksa, you don't wear stockings" won't be heard
anymore -- and more importantly: won't be thought!

So teach the girls that the halachic minimum by ALL shitot is ..... and that
THEIR rabbi paskens that they have to dress according to dress code XXX.
The girls will learn the truth of the halachic situation, and won't be so
fast to judge others who are conforming with Halacha (just not their
specific poseik's code).  Truth btw, is not a bad thing <g>.

(cont. below)

From: Stuart Goldstein <stugold1@juno.com>
> Harry Maryles holds forth:
>> I have always been at a loss as to why issues of Tznius in dress have
>> been so ridgedly interpreted by some of our Batei Yaacov. In fact I
>> believe that it is not taught but rather indoctrinated.

> While I have also entertained my own share of questions regarding the
> Tznius obsession in Beis Yaakov schools, I have usually focused on the
> manner in which Tznius Hashkafos are forced down the girls' throats. I
> have argued with BY high school principals that they have to find other
> and more interesting means of motivating girls to WANT to dress with
> Tznius, rather than receive a daily dose of "You must do it", without
> further discussion.

[del for bw]

I discussed this issue with my daughters who learned in Ulpanot where
there is a requirement to follow minimal halachic standards, but where
the girls come from a variety of areas and situations (many follow more
stringent halachic requirements while others don't).

When the girls come to the school in 9th grade, many do come wearing
Tzniusdik clothing according to more Machmir opinions, but by 12th
grade the vast majority have changed their wardrobe to comply with more
stringent standards. I asked my daughter how this came about.

Apparently, when the girls who wear marginally tznius clothing come to
the school, they see the other girls ask questions and start getting
answers, both halachic and hashkafa related. As their knowledge broadens
they start enquiring as to where to purchase the more tznius clothing
and change their wardrobe. A secondary issue that came to light during
the discussion is the question of Emuna vs. knowledge. There are girls
who find it sufficient to be shown that the Halacha states that certain
limits are set for tznius -- and they immediately change their wardrobe.
Others need more understanding of the underlying hashkafa before they
can comply. Among these girls some realize that they have to follow even
though they don't fully comprehend/accept the information as sufficient,
while others consider taking upon themselves more stringent standards a
question of "being a Tzadika" and as they don't consider themselves as
such -- they don't see a reason to be Makpid.

To summarize, once again education is not a one Shitta for all but rather
"Chanoch LaNa'ar (or Na'ara) Al Pi Darko.

Shanna Tova,
Shoshana L. Boublil

On 4 Sep 2002 at 21:41, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> One reason to teach the other opinions is to make it easier for them
> to be dan l'kaf z'chus when they see other people following the more
> lenient opinion.

That presumes the legitimacy of the lenient opinion. What if the
teacher/posek/Rebbe holds that the other opinion is NOT legitimate?
For example, someone here mentioned women wearing pants the other day. I'm
sure I don't have to tell you that there are many, many poskim who hold
that there is no heter.

> Another reason to teach the other opinions: If the teacher would
> explain the varying opinions AND the reasons for doing it this way,
> they'd be stronger and more able to withstand any pressures to follow
> the other opinions.

It can happen that the second opinion is okay - but only b'shas
ha'dchak. In my experience, where that is the case, it is usually
taught, but only for higher level students. For example, in most of
the EY Charedi community, people do not open bottles on Shabbos. I
remember when my daughter was in elementary school, she came home and
told me that she learned that it is flat out assur to open bottles on
Shabbos - no dissenting opinions. I told her that in much of America,
the normative psak is that you can open bottles on Shabbos, but for the
test she should write that it's assur to open bottles on Shabbos.

Recently, I was at an (very Charedi) aufruf where they needed dozens of
bottles of soda, and there were none opened before Shabbos. I suppose
that they could have relied on a shinui (pouring out the entire contents
of the bottle immediately after it was opened, poking a hole in the cap
before opening). But instead, much to my surprise, they said "Rav Shlomo
Zalman held it's mutar to open bottles on Shabbos - kdai hu lismoch alav
b'shas ha'dchak" and went on to open the bottles without any shinui
whatsoever. Obviously, someone at some point taught them that there's
another shita out there.

-- Carl

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

Elazar M Teitz wrote:
>  Borchi Nafshi and
> Mizmor Shir are not, in my opinion.  They are added because they are the
> Shir shel Yom for Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah, respectively, and of course
> SSY is said only in the morning. (The Gr"a, in explaining why not to say
> the day-of-the-week mizmor on those days, says it is because "only one
> SSY should be said.")

I don't understand this opinion. Surely on RC they said the shir shel
yom on the korban tamid, and the shir shel RC on the korban musaf.
On Hannukah there was no musaf, and they didn't say a special shir
at all. Why should only one SSY be said on RC? Why is there a special
SSY for Chanukah?

David Riceman

From: R' GD 
> In my local shtibl, they do not permit an avel to daven for the amud
> during Aseres Yemei Teshuva. That applies to all 3 tefilos.
> In the same shul, they do permit the avel to daven for the amud during
> Selichos, but not for Selichos themselves. Does anyone have a source
> for this?

From: R' SG 
> the sources is the Mateh Efraim, who mentions the minhag of an avel not
> davening for the amud ASERES YEMEI TSHUVAH. he doesn't say anything about
> not davening during selichos before RH

The Mateh Ephraim ("ME") (581:23) brings down a few different minhagim:

1) Avel can daven for the amud prior to RH (for selichos and davening) but
not during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva ("AYT") (for selichos and davening)
except that he can daven for the amud from Ashrei/Oovah l'Tzion forward.
"V'yaish mekilin gam b'zeh" (I'm not sure what the ME means to say by
this so I left the quote as is.)

2) Avel should not lead the selichos prior to RH (but he can daven for
the amud for the tefilos) but, during the AYT, he should not daven for
the amud at all (i.e., selichos and davening) (except that he can daven
for the amud from Ashrei/Oovah l'Tzion forward).

3) When the ME brings down the above two opinions, he says by both
"Yeish Nohagim." Thus, the third opinion obviously is that there are no
restrictions on when an avel can daven (before and after RH).

(Looking at what I just wrote above, I realize that I could have written
it a lot less complicated, but this is how the ME phrases it.)

KT and Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah
Aryeh

R' Gershon Dubin asked <<< Do you refrain from pas palter (to use one
example) in the last week of Elul? To repeat the obvious, there is no
reason not to adopt both approaches. It's just that the AYT approach
has been codified in halacha, whereas the Elul approach is a (valid)
mussar approach. >>>

Last night, I responded <<< Excellent proof. Now you've got me wondering
*why* they chose AYT for pas yisroel, after the decision may have already
been made, instead of beforehand. >>>

I've been thinking a lot about this, and the answer came to me this
morning at Selichos.

Can we agree that the importance of saying Selichos is somewhat comparable
to avoidance of Pas Palter? (We don't need to get bogged down in which
is more important, or if such a determination can even be made.)

My point is that pre-Rosh Hashana and post-Rosh Hashana are two very
distinct periods. Each has their own role in things, and *both* have been
"codified in halacha", to use RGD's words.

This thread begin with R' Aryeh Stein's comment that <<< the last seven
days before Rosh Hashanah are special. How we act on the Tuesday before
Rosh Hashanah can be mechaper for all the times we acted inappropriately
on all of the Tuesdays of the year >>>

I want to say that this is more than merely a mussar approach. The saying
of L'Dovid Ori and Selichos point to the idea that the halachic world
too wants to remind people of the events that are coming up, and that
be had better get ready for them.

The question will be asked, "Why does Elul have only these sets of
prayers, rather than some sort of mitzvah-strengthing observance
comparable to Pas Palter?"

I think the answer is that (as the secular editorials keep reminding us)
observance cannot be legislated.

Why was Pas Palter chosen for this Aseres Yemei Teshuva observance? The
reason, as I learned it, is that Pas Palter is almost unique in its
position in the halachic scheme of things, in that it is universally
accepted as a good thing to do, but also universally accepted as optional,
not required. (See footnote for more examples.)

As I was taught, Chazal tried to forbid Pas Palter, but this gezerah
was not ratified by the people, and is non-operational. Yet it stays
"on the books" as a good thing to do, and is thus extremely different
from almost every other "chumra" in vogue today, which generally based
not on "A is better than B", but on "A is safer and B is a machlokes".

Pas Palter is the sort of "chumrah" that is *very* appropriate for Aseres
Yemei Teshuva. Rosh Hashana has passed, and we hope to have been among
those who were put in the Sefer HaChayim immediately. So we show HaShem
that not only have I corrected my actions in Elul, but now I'll try to go
even beyond that. Pas Palter is something that I do *NOT* have to do. It
is lifnim m'shuras hadin. And so during the AYT, I ask HaShem to go lifnim
m'shuras hadin, and judge me favorably. And I do this even though we all
know that after Yom Kippur, I'll go back to eating the Pas Palter. This
chanifah is appropriate and fitting for the AYT, and Pas Palter fits well.

In contrast, the usual sort of chumra cannot be suggested for Aseres
Yemei Teshuva, because if one says (for example) that during AYT, that
he'll make extra sure to say Shema by the Magen Avraham's zman, or to
wait 72 minutes for Havdalah, --- What is he showing? He is showing that
he is more frum, and that he'll do a better jobs of hedging his bets on
what the Halacha says. I don't think that's what the AYT are all about.

(Much of the above is based on what I was taught by a dear friend, Rabbi
Joseph Oratz, resident of Elizabeth and Vice-Principal at Bruriah High
School. He suggested to me that there is another thing which fits the
pattern of Pas Palter very well, and that is watching television. Even
people who don't hold that television is assur agree that it *ought*
to be assur, if not for the fact that we are too weak to follow such an
issur, very much like Pas Palter, or even more so.)

But for prior to Rosh Hashana, that is precisely when we should
concentrate on acting as R' Aryeh Stein suggested, that the final Tuesday
or Shabbos, or Rosh Chodesh of the year can correct and *repair* the
damage I caused on the previous Tuesdays, and Shabbosos, and RC's. I will
totally admit that this has not been formalized and institutionalized
the way Pas Palter has been, but I suggest that the reason is simply
because it is a thing which is not subject to formalization and
institutionalization. All the seforim tell us that in Elul we should
examine and correct our deeds of the past year. I don't know what more
they might have instituted than that.

(Footnote: Another example of a gezera which the people did not ratify,
and is therefore a good idea but not required, is Tevilas Ezra. Another
example of something which (to my knowledge) Chazal never even tried to
require, yet is universally accepted as a good idea, is the avoidance
of tamei food, and eating of tahor food. For practical reasons, I think
it is easy to see why Pas Palter was chosen over either of these others.)

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]