Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 217

Sun, 07 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Shmini Atzeret - why Sukkah YES and Lulav NO? (Marty Bluke)
• 2. Why do Yekkes wait 3 hours? (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. Re: Why do Yekkes Wait 3 hours After Meat instead of 1 or 6? (D&E-H Bannett)
• 4. Re: Why do Yekkes wait 3 hours? (Micha Berger)
• 5. mechitza [was: heter mechira produce] (Joseph Kaplan)
• 6. Re: rationalism and mysticism (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: rationalism and mysticism (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Why do Yekkes wait 3 hours? (Goldmeier)
• 9. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: mechitza [was: heter mechira produce] (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: mechitza (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: mechitza (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: mechitza (Zev Sero)
• 14. Vayoel Moshe- misrepresntations? (regalkit@aol.com)

RYBS has a nice explanation of this (printed in the shiurim on Succah
47a). He explains that on Shemini Atzeres chazal had a problem with
Yom Tov Sheni. On all other YT Sheni's they imposed a higher kedusha
d'rabbanan of Yom Tov on either Chol Hamoed or on a yom chol. The
Kedushas hayom of Yom Tov is what is mechayev you in the mitzvos. On
Shemini Atzeres however, there is already a kedushas hayom of Yom Tov
d'oraysa of Shemini Atzeres and therefore the chahamim could not
impose a lower kedusha d'rabbanan of chol hamoed succos. Therefore, he
says that Shemini Atzeres has no kedushaa hayom of succos at all, and
therefore there really is no chiyuv for any of the mitzvos of succus.
However, because of the idea of YT Sheni shel galuyus the chachamim
were mechayev you to sit in the succah without a beracha as a separate
chiyuv from the regular mitzva of succah.

He is madayek this both from Rashi in Succah (47a). Rashi explaining
why there is no beracha states: "d'shmini hu v'ayn shem succos alav".

The Rambam in perek 6 halacha 13 writes:
"... u'bayom hashmini shehu yom tov rishon shel shmini atzeres yoshvin
ba v'ayn mevarchim" The phrase "shehu yom tov rishon shel shmini
atzeres" seems to be superflous, why did the Rambam need to say it.
From this RYBS is medayek that there is no kedushas hayom of succos at
all.

Based on this we understand why there is no lulav as well.

>  1. Tosafos/ BeHeG require NO waiting between meat and milk - except to
>  end 1 meal and to being another - totally subjective timing.
>  2. Rema codifies 1 hour. - though he RECOMMENDS [nachon] to wait 6.
>  3. Meharshal/Shach/Chochmas Adam,and others take anything less than 6
>  hours as some kind of major deviation against Halachah despite the fact that
>  yekkes were waiting 3 during that very same era ...

RMP:
> > I wonder if 3 is actually a chumra of 1-hr immigrants who immigrated to a
> > 6-hr territory and justified 3 rather than 6 on the smaller gaps between

More from RRW: 
>  1. The Hagahos Shaa'rei Dura - iirc - suggeststhat 1 hours is a mere
>  humra over the position of Tosafos.
>  2. Gra objects to this line of reasoning and cites the Zohar on
>  Mishpatim as requiring 1-hour bidirectionally.
 
> Question:  What is the source/origin  for 3 hours?
> Answers:
 
>  1. Rav Schwb ZTL held it was a humra based upon 1 hour.
>  2. Some say it is 6 hours using the very shortest Sha'os Z;maniyos
>  3. Some say it is averaging the zero [or perhaps 1] hour option with
>  the 6 hour option and getting 3 [or 3.5 rounded to 3].

I've also heard "one hour is the normal length of a meal, three hours
is the length of the longest imaginable meal, six hours is the normal
time between meals."
 
> Question: how did we get 6 any? [W/O going back to the Gmara]

However it is, we have codifications of 
  0 + Kinuach/hadacha (Tosfos)
  1 + benching (Rema)
  6 (many)

and no written codification of 3 (until very late?  anywhere?)
 
>    3. Rif taking the Gmara a bit more literally waits between meals.  He
>    then used the Talmudic model where the morning meal [app.11:00AM until
>    noon] and the evening meal [app.6:00 pm] as the boundaries based upon
>    societal standards. The Rif therefore suggests but does NOT codify 6 hours.
>    AFAIK It is the Rambam who is the first to use that magic number.
 
> Ashkenazim tend to view things in a more sociological prism than others as
 
> Now you COULD stick to the Rif's model based upon Talmudic timing OR apply
> the Rif CONCEPTUALLY to the idea of one SOCIETY-timed meal to the next.
> [Tosafos had already taken the poistion of one PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE meal to
> the next.] Therfore, since society was only waiting 3 hours between meals
> the Rif implictly would require [approx.] a 3 hour wait after meat in a 3
> meal-a-day society.

Sounds as reasonable as any.
 
> Bottom line:  I see the Ashkenazic 3 hours as an application of the Rif's
> principles to a different society.
 
> [Caveat to my friend Jon Baker:  No, I  do not have any historical evidence
> to support this. It is merely educated speculation. Michael Poppers
> hypothesis about immigration may have been the historically correct
> phenomenon.]

I wouldn't have been so bothered in the other case if there weren't
early midrash (sifra emor 17:11), gemara (Sukk 11b), zohar etc. to
the contrary.  A paper trail of mesorah as it were.

Here, AFAIK, it's all speculation, much based on sociological reasons, even
as to the reasons behind the codified positions.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Re: <<since society was only waiting 3 hours between meals
the Rif implictly would require [approx.] a 3 hour wait
after meat in a 3
meal-a-day society.>>

I remember a previous round on this subject where I quoted 
from Mizmor l'David of R' David Pardo (Italy, late 1700's, 
later rosh yeshiva in Yerushalayim),. hilkhot basar b'chalav 
61 which backs up the quoted above.

He quotes the Pri Chadash, ot 6, shita 7, who wrote,  as 
there is only about four hours between meals, it resulted in 
the custom in some places to wait about three hours after 
meat even in the summer, because in winter that would be the 
time between meals  and one can say lo plug rabbanan.

k"t,

David

The explanation I was given:
1 Hour: a meal
6 or, waiting for the 6th, hours: between meals in most countries
3 hours: between meals in a country with High Tea (or the German
predecesor.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

RTK notes that "even today not every shul follows the 'custom' of  
having a separate women's section;
> some shtieblach don't need one, because women rarely come."

> I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg; that is, do  
> some shtieblach have no mechitzah because women rarely come, or do  
> women rarely come to those shteiblach because there is no  
> mechitzah?  Just wondering.

Joseph Kaplan

IIUC, all this started because I suggested in response to RETurkel that
the Rambam's shitah on magic was not based on his Aristotilianism.
This got a little befuddled because we have different definitions of
"magic".

Yes, Aristotle denied the possibility of violating the laws of nature. I
do not believe the Rambam found this compelling, because we do not find
a quote from the Rambam similar to the Ralbag's that the miracles of
Yetzi'as Mitzrayim were in consonance with nature. So, even if I were
thinking of magic in that sense of the word, it would not have been
compelling to connect the Rambam's denial of the reality of magic to
Aristotle.

However, WRT kishuf, the Torah's examples are things like ov and
yid'oni. Which actually are not in violation of the laws of nature as
then understood. Newton's notion of a clockworks universe didn't exist
yet. Aristotle's physics centers around intellects imparting impetus.
(A concept similar to momentum but not conserved.) And he believed in
intellects that were disconnected from anything physical.

Which is what I was thinking of when I wrote about the Rambam's position
being as likely caused by a mesorah about ov and yid'oni etc... being
slight of hand than by any reinterpretation forced by fitting the Torah
to Aristotilian beliefs.



I think that there is a similar confusion caused by the word "mysticism".

In its broadest sense, anyone who believes in a Borei and mal'akhim
believes in mysticism. But I'm sure that's not what is being debated here.

To me, the word means belief in an Intimate G-d, and centering one's
religiosity on the attempt to experience Him. (I realize that that's
Gnosticism in particular; however, it is the mental image I associate
with the word "mystic".)

The Rambam believed in an Atzilus model of creation, as per Moreh III:51,
as already noted in this thread. See also Yesodei haTorah 2:5, where
mal'akhim are described as stages in a process of atzilus (not the word
used, but seems to fit). To quote myself from
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n082.shtml
> Averroes (ibn Rushd), who translated Aristotle's works, mistook
> Plotinus's Enneads (the works that started neo-Platonism) to be
> Aristo's, and ... includes them in [his] translation. Therefore,
> everyone who got Aristotle via the Arabic had strong neo-Platonic
> influences. Including the Rambam, as we see in YhT 1 and 2, when the
> Rambam writes of Hashem as Mamtzi (rather than using the lashon of
> "Borei"), and speaks of each madreigah of mal'achim are mamtzi those
> "below" them (in 2:5, already discussed in this thread). It's a model
> of emanation, as per Plato [except with the addition of involving
> Divine Will -micha 7-Oct-2007], but modified to have these "quantum
> leaps" that RMLevin wrote of, thereby allowing for specific nivra'im
> interposed between us and HQBH, not to mention countable olamos rather
> than a continuum of them.

Also, in Moreh I:69 we find the Rambam explaining how the notion of Hashem
as Cause is the same as that of Agens. In it he shows that atzilus and
a more "manufacture" based model really describe the same thing.

YhT 2:5 is an overview of the same conception of reality as that found
in Heichalos literature.

So, I would think the Rambam did believe in what most of us think call
mysticism. But I threw in one more clause in defining a mystic. The Rambam
doesn't tell one to base their avodah Hashem on the search of climbing
through these heichalos to reach the Borei/Mamtzi. It's a feature of
the Rambam's hashkafah, but not the central feature.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
micha@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

IIUC, all this started because I suggested in response to RETurkel that
the Rambam's shitah on magic was not based on his Aristotilianism.
This got a little befuddled because we have different definitions of
"magic".

Yes, Aristotle denied the possibility of violating the laws of nature. I
do not believe the Rambam found this compelling, because we do not find
a quote from the Rambam similar to the Ralbag's that the miracles of
Yetzi'as Mitzrayim were in consonance with nature. So, even if I were
thinking of magic in that sense of the word, it would not have been
compelling to connect the Rambam's denial of the reality of magic to
Aristotle.

However, WRT kishuf, the Torah's examples are things like ov and
yid'oni. Which actually are not in violation of the laws of nature as
then understood. Newton's notion of a clockworks universe didn't exist
yet. Aristotle's physics centers around intellects imparting impetus.
(A concept similar to momentum but not conserved.) And he believed in
intellects that were disconnected from anything physical.

Which is what I was thinking of when I wrote about the Rambam's position
being as likely caused by a mesorah about ov and yid'oni etc... being
slight of hand than by any reinterpretation forced by fitting the Torah
to Aristotilian beliefs.



I think that there is a similar confusion caused by the word "mysticism".

In its broadest sense, anyone who believes in a Borei and mal'akhim
believes in mysticism. But I'm sure that's not what is being debated here.

To me, the word means belief in an Intimate G-d, and centering one's
religiosity on the attempt to experience Him. (I realize that that's
Gnosticism in particular; however, it is the mental image I associate
with the word "mystic".)

The Rambam believed in an Atzilus model of creation, as per Moreh III:51,
as already noted in this thread. See also Yesodei haTorah 2:5, where
mal'akhim are described as stages in a process of atzilus (not the word
used, but seems to fit). To quote myself from
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n082.shtml
> Averroes (ibn Rushd), who translated Aristotle's works, mistook
> Plotinus's Enneads (the works that started neo-Platonism) to be
> Aristo's, and ... includes them in [his] translation. Therefore,
> everyone who got Aristotle via the Arabic had strong neo-Platonic
> influences. Including the Rambam, as we see in YhT 1 and 2, when the
> Rambam writes of Hashem as Mamtzi (rather than using the lashon of
> "Borei"), and speaks of each madreigah of mal'achim are mamtzi those
> "below" them (in 2:5, already discussed in this thread). It's a model
> of emanation, as per Plato [except with the addition of involving
> Divine Will -micha 7-Oct-2007], but modified to have these "quantum
> leaps" that RMLevin wrote of, thereby allowing for specific nivra'im
> interposed between us and HQBH, not to mention countable olamos rather
> than a continuum of them.

Also, in Moreh I:69 we find the Rambam explaining how the notion of Hashem
as Cause is the same as that of Agens. In it he shows that atzilus and
a more "manufacture" based model really describe the same thing.

YhT 2:5 is an overview of the same conception of reality as that found
in Heichalos literature.

So, I would think the Rambam did believe in what most of us think call
mysticism. But I threw in one more clause in defining a mystic. The Rambam
doesn't tell one to base their avodah Hashem on the search of climbing
through these heichalos to reach the Borei/Mamtzi. It's a feature of
the Rambam's hashkafah, but not the central feature.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
micha@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

many associate the source of the minhag Yekke to wait 3 hours (as I 
keep) to the sefer Rabbeinu Yerucham who writes "gimmel shaos". This, 
iirc, is the earliest written source where one says 3 instead of either 
1 or 6. Many attribute Rabbeinu Yerucham's writing "gimmel" to be a typo 
and it should have said "vav". Others attribute it to the style in 
ashkenaz of having an extra meal (I always understood this as a fourth 
meal) - something akin to High Tea.

Kol tuv,
Rafi

---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier@012.net.il

http://torahthoughts.blogspot.com
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://parshaquestions.blogspot.com
http://yomtovthoughts.blogspot.com

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> Lubavitchers posken that you can change from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach 
> Ari (but not vice versa) because Nusach Ari is kabbalistically 
> superior.  You can go up in nusach but not go down.

Actually, from Ashkenaz to Sfard, and from Sfard to Ari.  (This is all
within the range of nuschaot available in NE Europe 100 years ago, so
Nusach Sefaradi isn't ranked, and nor are other nuschaot such as
Italian, Romaniote, Baladi, etc.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Joseph Kaplan wrote:
> RTK notes that

Actually, that was me.

>> "even today not every shul follows the 'custom' of  
>> having a separate women's section;
>> some shtieblach don't need one, because women rarely come."

> I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg; that is, do  
> some shtieblach have no mechitzah because women rarely come, or do  
> women rarely come to those shteiblach because there is no  
> mechitzah?  Just wondering.

They have no mechitzah because women don't come.  Often there's no eruv,
or there is one that their members don't accept, or they cater to a
segment of society where women just don't have the custom of regularly
going to shul, and those who do go prefer a "big shul" where there's a
proper ladies' gallery and a rov who speaks, etc..  Even at those
shtiblach that do have a mechitzah, the number of women who show up
is tiny when compared to the number of men.

I've seen some such places that do put up a mechitzah during yomtov
musaf, when the women come for birkas kohanim.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

R' Gershon Dubin wrote
> Much more likely that women never even showed up in shul;
> those few who did were probably in a separate room.

I've heard this many times. But it only makes sense to me 99% of the time. How recent is it that women come to shul for Parshas Zachor and Megillas Esther and Tekias Shofar? It is difficult for me to imagine women crowded by the doors and windows, when the number of women might be similar to the number of men.

Akiva Miller

On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:00:57PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I've heard this many times. But it only makes sense to me 99% of the
: time. How recent is it that women come to shul for Parshas Zachor and
: Megillas Esther and Tekias Shofar? ...

All three are recent.

Until the 19th cent, it was assumed that since women aren't mechuyavos
in meshiyas Amaleiq, they weren't mechuyavos in Parashas Zachor either.
See Seifer haChinuch #603, in contrast to the Minchas Chinukh (sham).
The earliest clear pesaq lemaaseh requiring women to attend Zachor is
shu"t Binyan Tziyon by R' Yaaqov Etlinger, besheim R' Nathan Adler.
Similarly Maharal Diskin holds that since a woman is mechuyeves to even
leave her chupah for a milchemes mitzvah, she IS mechuyeves in milchemes
Amaleiq and therefore Parashas Zachor as well.

Sepharadi women still don't.

Shofar and qeri'as Megillah were typically held separately for women.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Gershon Dubin wrote
>> Much more likely that women never even showed up in shul;
>> those few who did were probably in a separate room.

> I've heard this many times. But it only makes sense to me 99% of the
> time. How recent is it that women come to shul for Parshas Zachor and
> Megillas Esther and Tekias Shofar? It is difficult for me to imagine
> women crowded by the doors and windows, when the number of women might
> be similar to the number of men.

Parshat Zachor?  Extremely recent.  It was almost unheard of mere decades
ago.  Shofar?  Women are not obligated, and in those days they probably
didn't hear it.  Which leaves only megillah, and my guess is that their
husbands read it for them at home, and those whose husbands didn't know
how would go to the home of someone with a more learned husband.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

I?ve never posted here before but seeing the knowledge you as
group posses let me give this a shot. For the better part of a year I?ve been
studying the issue of ?Sholosh Shevuos? and ?Mitzvos Yishuv EY? and have
pretty much gone through the Vayoel Moshe. As he was universally recognized as
a great and learned man by friend and foe alike, I am puzzled by what I see as
continuous misrepresentations on the sefer?s pages. I have found that when I
checked the sources it did not always seem to be saying what the SR said that
it did. I am not very learned and I?m sure that I must be making errors so I
would like to present 2 instances, one of the (possible) misrepresentation of
the historical events, and one of the (possible) misrepresentations of a shitta
in a sefer.





In the Maamar Sholosh Shevuos #86 he writes, ?After the UN
gave permission for the State of Israel to come into fruition, they revoked
their permission and gave it to the Zionists as a TRUSTEESHIP, however the Zionists didn?t obey the UN. Does anyone
know if this is in fact an historical fact, and if it isn?t, does that mean the
Zionists do have a right to be there according to the Satmar shitta?





In Maamar Yishuv Haaretz #58; 4 opinions as to the
commandment of living in EY are presented. He brings the Ramban that it?s a mitzvas
aseh Dioraisah even during Golus, however he says the Ramban?s loshon is unclear
if it?s talking about if the inhabitants are forbidden to leave or if a golus
jew is required to go to EY. He also questions that now that there is a ?Gezeiras
Golus? may be the Ramban is not referiing to this time. A simple look at the
Ramban (Sefer Hamitzvos Lihorambam, Hasogas HoRamban Mitzva 4), is as clear as
clear can be that the chiyuv is ? Bidor min hadoros? it can be done with force,
the chiyuv of Kibush still applies, ?Mitzvas Aseh Lidoros Mischayav Kol Yochid
mimenu veafilu bizman hagalus?. Look at his wording and see if it is possible
to misunderstand his meaning.





The sefer, in my humble opinion, is full of these misrepresentations;
can someone guide me as to how I can understand a Godol Hador?s writings?





Thank You.




Binyomin Hirsch??????????? 

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071007/bcee3d76/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 217
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

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