Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 18

Sun, 22 Oct 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:18:52 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Knowledge of Good and Bad

From: <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> The answer must be that these two uses of the word "tov" refer to two 
> different concepts. They did indeed understand that some things are 
> good as food and others are bad as food. Some ways of walking or 
> sitting are more efficient, and others are less efficient. One name 
> for this animal is fitting, and others are not fitting. They DID 
> understand this sort of "tov".

See MN 1:2.

David Riceman

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Aryeh Stein" <aesrusk@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:26:30 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Schooling for women (was 12 steps)

>>>The issur of 'ke'ilu melamdo tiflus' refers to 'omek talmud vetaamei
mitzvos'.  Anyone wishing to understand this sugya, should have a look in the
3rd part of VM - Maamar Loshon Hakodesh - especially chapters 41-43.
You may also want to check the archives for R' Yaakov Weinberg's take
on this issue, or you can buy a new book "Rav Yaakov Weinberg Talks
About Chinuch" which contains the transcripts from the Q&A sessions at
Torah Umesorah conventions.

(available for purchase at

(IIRC, when I posted (to either Avodah or Areivim, I forget which) the
transcripts  concerning RYW's views on Yom Haatzmaut, some people
didn't believe that he had ever said what the transcripts alleged that
he had said.  Well, this new book contains all of the transcripts that
were posted to Avodah, including the ones regarding Yom Haatzmaut.)

KT and GS,

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Prof. Levine" <llevine@stevens.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:24:18 -0400
[Avodah] What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to

At 10:49 AM 10/20/2006, you wrote:
>I suspect his reason was that the minhag /not/ to have hakafos on ST was  not
>a /genuine/ minhag but a Reform-influenced practice.

No, no, no!!!!  This has nothing to do with Reform. Indeed, the 
introduction of HaKafos was a new innovation (reform) when it 
occurred. See R. A. Ya'ari's sefer for the entire historical 
development of HaKafos and dancing on ST.  Not having HaKafos 
predates the Reform movement!

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061020/f68b1b7d/attachment-0001.html

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: <free@bezeqint.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:57:28 +0200 (IST)
Re: [Avodah] sharing a succah

I don't think that there is an actual requirement for her to
leave, but I do think that if the sukka was really that
crowded and she could eat outside the sukka she should have
just to be nice. 

It is not so uncommon here in Israel for this scenario to
happen, as the sukkot here are very crowded and most times I
don't even go into the public sukkot to eat with my husband so
that I won't take a space from someone who really must sit
there to eat.

Who has had a very, very sick computer and has 1000 messages
to go through when it gets better

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: <free@bezeqint.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:05:26 +0200 (IST)
Re: [Avodah] sharing a succah

Actually, there are plenty of public sukkot here. Beitar puts
up sukkot in all of the parks here and I know there are also
public sukkot near the Kotel, in Kiryat Arba and Hevron, and
in some national parks here in Israel.


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:36:02 +0200
[Avodah] tehillim for the sedra

I recently received an electronic  Tehillim for  Sidras or Mizmorim as
the orginal has it which are specific chapters of  Tehillim for each
Sidra of the Torah.  The list that this is based upon is  found at the
back of the famous Avodas Yisroel Siddur published in 1868  by R'
Seligmann Baer in the Frankfurt suburb of Roedelheim.  Dr.  Baer gives
no information therein as to who initiated this custom,  when the
custom began, what communities said them nor what is the  exact
connection between the Perek and the Sidra.

Does anyone know more about this?

kol tuv

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Ilana Sober" <sober@pathcom.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:23:45 -0400
[Avodah] Uman/Leaving the women behind

RnCL, quoting Sukkah 27b:
"as Rav Yitzchak says, from
where do we know that a man is obligated to visit his rav on the
festival as it is written "why are you going to him today it not being
new moon or shabbat" and we can infer from there that on new moon and
shabbat one is obligated to visit one's Rav."

Interesting source - in that case (Melachim Bet 4:23), the WIFE was going to
visit the Navi and was questioned by her husband (it's the story of Elisha
and the Shunamit).

- Ilana

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Chaim G Steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:13:49 -0400
[Avodah] What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to

[The following was written in response to off list discussion that was
spawned by Prof. Levine’s post on this matter].
Let me preface this by saying that I have no expertise in Kisvei Arizal
in the various versions of the manuscripts and prints etc. I am also not
expert in minhogim at all, but Torah hi ulilmod ani tzorich.

Let me summarize what Yaari writes (thanks to Dr Levine for a link to
the PDF - See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_hakafos.pdf ):

First he has a whole discussion (p 261-266) about the source of going
around the bima, and shows that until the time of the Ari, they did not
go around 7
times, rather only once (in those places that went around at all).

From 266 he quotes Shaar Hakavonos (SH) of R' Chaim Vital (RCV), that the
minhog was to go around 7 times, and that this took place ST after
Shacharis, Mincha and Motzei ST. Then he quotes R' Yaakov Tzemch (RYT) in
Nogid Umtzaveh, this minhog in the name of Ari, but with the important
difference, that RYT brings it as if hakofos took place the NIGHT of ST
and the morning. The same in Chemdas Hayomim (CH), where after he brings
similar to what RYT writes, he complains about those that don't do
hakofos the night of ST.

Yaari assumes that the discrepancy between the Shaar Hakavonos and RYT
CH, is explained by the fact that RYT and CH used corrupted manuscripts,
while the "proper version" of the Shaar Hakavonos was only printed much
(almost 150) later, in 1852.

He then goes on the bring the Shelah, who apparently does not mention
hakofos at all, and several Sefardim from a hundred years later,
that do mention it concerning the night of ST.  Ad kan devorov.
In summary, his point is that 7 hakofos is an invention
of the Ari, and that the Ari did hakofos on ST day and Motzoei ST, and
that the later ones who bring minhog Arizal for ST night were based on a
corrupted manuscript.

Leaving aside the question, that if the Ramo brings a minhog of hakofos
(at least one) - by day and night, would not have the Shelah mentioned
Are we to conclude that he disagreed with making even one hakofo? 
Also, everyone agrees that Ari did hakofos (whether by day or by night) -
would the Shelah not mention them at all? Are we to presume that the
Shalo did
not hold of the minhog of the Ramo either, in addition to minhog of

In fact, he brings NONE of the minhogim of ST?! So are we to conclude he
none of the minhogim? 
Point being - omission may not be a proof of anything.

In addition, we will leave aside the question, that if (according to
Yaari) RYT and CH had their own manuscripts of Shaar Hakavonos, that do
not match the printed version (published  over a hundred years
later) – “mi gilo lo roz zeh?” of which is the correct version of SH? 
Maybe the edition first printed in Saloniko 1852 is the corrupted
This is a matter that we should leave to the experts...
However, I believe Yaari’s entire argument is based on an error.
RYT and CH were not quoting the SH, but rather the Pri Eitz Chaim (PEC),
which incidentally, was printed MUCH before the SH  - which Yaari does
not reference at all -  in Shaar Halulov Perek 8, where he writes:
"Minhog Yisroel, shebeyom SA osim simcha gedolo lifnei hasforim, umakifin
zayin hakofos im hasforim, vekorin oso simchas torah ... (here he brings
the Zohar) ... va'ani ro’isee lemori Z'L, shehoyo holech lifnei hasforim,
vehoyo meraked umeranen vesome’ach bechol yecholto bechol hazayin hakofos
belaylo. ubeyom lo reisi..." - which is exactly the wording of RYT! 
Similarly the CH is basing himself on the PEC and not on the SH.
I have seen quoted a similar signon from 2 Siddurei Arizal (which I do
not own) - apparently also based on the PEC. [I also saw a reference to
Mishnas Chassidim, but I am not sure of the exact wording there, as I do
not have it either].

Now of course one can claim that there is a contradiction in the Arizal
(or rather - RCV) between PEC and SH, but I see no evidence of corrupted
manuscripts, especially since talmidim of RCV - RYT, and the compilers of
of Siddur Arizal (plus the anonymous author of CH), must have had the
minhog to do
it the night of ST, which (to my mind) would be a stretch to say that
they were relying ONLY on corrupted manuscripts, and not on a actual
minhog that they witnessed and kept).

Concerning doing hakofos the night of SA, which sparked this discussion -
I no longer see the problem, since once we accept the version of PEC (as
was accepted by CH, RYT, Siddur Arizal) that he did hakofos the night of
ST, therefore the minhog chassidim just extended that minhog in chutz
lo'oretz to SA (as written also in the CH, and see Shaar Yisoschor of the
Munkatcher who deals with this issue - though he does not bring the CH
(for understandable reasons). and feels -and so was his minhog - that
hakofos should be done the day of SA also!).

One further point: The chiddush of Arizal on ST was not so much the idea
of hakofos - which are mentioned already in Ramo and in earlier sources
(as brought by Yaari) - the chiddush was in SEVEN hakofos (though the PEC
refers to it as a "minhog yisroel"!) vs 1. It seems strange to me
that Arizal would not have done hakofos AT ALL the night of ST (which was
already a common minhog by many), and ONLY did them in the morning (and
the night after). 

One last point: The question will not only be on "Chassidim", but on all
those that make 7 hakofos ST night and day (which I believe is the common
minhog) – and which according to Yaari would have no source at all,
of the same "corrupted reading".

Bottom line: The minhog of hakofos at night of ST, and (according to
those that do it) on SA, is not a mistake, but has strong sources IMHO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061022/5caf1189/attachment.htm

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:49:46 +0200
Re: [Avodah] What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to

R'n TK wrote:
>> [...] Rav Schwab adding hakafos to Maariv of Simchas Torah in not one, but two such shuls. [...]
> I suspect his reason was that the minhag /not/ to have hakafos on ST was not a /genuine/ minhag but a Reform-influenced practice.

O. Kay. As I learned from my father za"l, I counted to 100 before answering. So, in all calm, let me point out some things:

- Not having hakofes isn't a minneg at all.  *Having*  hakofes is one. Or would you say it's a Florida-Jewish minneg  *not*  to put a clothes peg on your nose on Rosh choudesh Cheshven?

- Hakofes are a recent reform (uncapitalised, but it's a minneg, not a movement anyway). There might have been hakofes earlier in minneg Ashkenez, but only in few communities, and they were a slow procession once around the almeimer, not boozing and bouncing or other disgraces of the Toure. And this is about hakofes at all, not about evening hakofes, second third or fourth hakofes.
In case of doubt, the German minneg is the original, the Eastern minneg a reform (or novelty, if you like that better). Please write this a hundred times, and say it before nachtlainen.

- Germany does not equal Reform. (Please write this a hundred times, and say it before nachtlainen.) And concerning frum Poland versus frai Germany - may I remind you that of the Jews in pre-war Warsaw, between 70% and 80% were  *not*  shoumer mitzves?

- Breuer's has kept more of the original minneg Ashkenez, but Frankfurt's polonisation started in the 18th century at the latest, went on during the 19th, and today's KAJ is even less original, not least due to the chareidisation, and also because of false assumptions like yours. Add to the demand to be like other chareidists specific demands, which led to the introduction of the Polish ritual of Yizkor, for example, because Holocaust survivors wanted to bemoan their relatives in this way that they saw elsewhere.

- Rav Schwab zetza"l was very strongly influenced by the Eastern yeshives he went to as a youth.

Lipman Phillip Minden


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >