Presence

There is no way that parents are aware of what their kids are posting on myspace. I've seen many, many kids profiles in the communities and the language is horrible and the content isn't much better.

When you say "of universal enjoyment", is this an english translation of "Shaveh Lechol Nefesh"?

AlanLaz: that is correct.

Really Dude, you surprise me. The Birchas Kohanim thing is a gemara in Sotah. You're not supposed to be behind them while they do the Vulcan thing ("am she'achorei hakohanim"). Amateur.

Bill, with all due respect, I'm very familiar with the gemara in Sotah. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the issue at hand. I'm not talking about behind, I'm talking about to the side of.

>HarperCollins republished C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, but they messed up the ordering of the stories, arranging them in chronological order by Narnia time, not by publication time

Apparently C. S. Lewis himself okayed this (or at least republishing with The Magician's Nephew as Book I), although it wasn't his idea.

Also, re: Nefesh Hachayim. Your buddy Norman Lamm has a great book on it...it was his doctoral thesis (translated - by him - from the original Hebrew). I have it. You can borrow it, but I'll need your first-born as collateral. And, in keeping with the Torah's dictum, you can have him back at night.

And finally, there are some things you just can't blog about, no matter how much you want to.

Thought so, Greg. An interesting discussion arises as to whether what was considered Shaveh Lechol Nefesh at the time of the gemara applies today, or whether that is a fluid term.

If you hold that it is a fluid term, than clearly showering is considered Shaveh Lechol Nefesh today and would be allowed. But, at the same time, with this line of reasoning, you would have to hold that smoking is assur on Yom Tov, as smoking is clearly not universally enjoyed today (as it was in the time of the gemara).

And, obviously, the opposite is true: if you hold that it is not a fluid term, smoking would be muttar (because it was in the time of the Gemara) but showering assur. Funny how the people that need to shower most (the smelly smokers) are the ones that shouldn't be showering on Yom tov.

>I'm not talking about behind, I'm talking about to the side of.

That's a "baya d'lo ifshata" there in Sotah. The olam is machmir.

I was unaware that they had cigarettes in the days of the Talmud. The gemara does talk about mugmar (incense), and says that, according to those rishonim that hold shaveh lchol nefesh is still required by hana'as haguf, that it would be assur. Even if you would say that the qualificaiton of shaveh lchol nefesh is set in stone, smoking still might be permissible, since it could be considered a hana'as haguf, and more similar to food, and not subject to qualification (as some say bathing is).

And I think intrinsically, something that is "shaveh lchol nefesh" is fluid. If they said, "bathing is forbidden," like they did in the case of the unscrupulous bathouse owners, then I would agree with you. But they didn't.

Bill: Orech Chaim 128:24: "Those behind the Priests are not included in the blessing; but those in front of them and to the side, even an iron wall will not seperate; even if they are behind, but under duress, such as those in the fields involved in work and are unable to attend, are included in the blessing."

MB 95 - on the sides: "we don't mean those that are in front of the kohanim, but off to the sides, for they are most certainly included in the blessing; but even those that are exactly along side the kohanim, are included...according to this, those along the eastern wall, when the Aron sticks out (so they are behind the kohanim), are not included in the blessing...it is easy for them to find a free place along the sides of the kohanim or in the middle of the shul."

Look further in the Ba'er Halachah, which says you may have to turn and face the kohanim directly, but he also says you can even be included by standing next to the kohain, facing the congregation, and be included, since people talk that way.

Damn you.

Greg, I can understand complaining about kitniyos. I did that on my own blog way back when.

But Yom-Tov Sheini? I consider you an erlicher Yid, Greg. Don't disappoint me, Greg. Yom-Tov Sheini ain't budgin'. And many generations of Jews have grown spiritually from the extra days of Yom-Tov. You should too. I love two sedarim and enjoy two days in general. And it's not because of my profession, either.

Maybe if you resolve to be meikil on the issue of showering, as I have, it will get easier.

>>he made a distinction between the concepts of building and serving

So do my kids:
My boy uses wooden blocks. That's building.
My little girl throws tea parties for her dolls.
That's serving.
Boy, is the world lucky I don't blog!

I was also disappointed with the change in the order of the C.S. Lewis series. One day when I have children, I will pass on my edition to them and let it be read in its original order.

There was a New York Times article that came out before Pesach written by Joan Nathan. After reading the article, I realized she is a tad ignorant when it comes to understanding Judaism from anything but a "culturally Jewish cooking" perspective. She seemed quite shocked that baking soda and baking powder would be permitted. Anway, in the article she discussed how the Conservative Movement has gotten ride of kitniot. I may not agree with all conservative philosophies and changes regarding halacha, but I agree with this one.

1) smoking as davar hashaveh lechol nefesh was introduced by the pnei yehoshua. he said gave it that status because he thought it was 'healthy'.

2) levinas has some brilliant rational (if you're willing to call existentialism rational) reads of nefesh ha-hayyim.

3)i posted last year about how the notion of 'minhag avoteinu beyadeinu' is paradigmatic of the entire experience of galut. i will be abolishing it this summer. i also think i'm going to start with soy, peanuts, and corn next pesach. iy"h, karpas at my (one) seder will be salsa & chips, like it oughtta be!

Interestingly enough, I am also learning Nefesh Hachaim, and more interestingly I am currently on the 11th perek of Sha'ar Aleph (exactly where you are now). I don't learn it with a chavrusa, I usually open it up at some point over Shabbos. Maybe we could compare notes or something...

I also just bought a copy of the Tanya (which the Nefesh Hachaim was written as in opposition of) and Ruach Chaim - I would like to learn both at some point in my life.

I am curious about this translation that someone mentioned. I asked about a translation at Shabsi's and I was giving a negative answer. Where can you get copies of the translation? The Hebrew isn't usually that difficult, the only problem that I have is when there is a phrase that refers to a whole concept that you can't just look up in the dictionary (Shiur Koma is a great example).

Greg,

Sorry for not being clearer. Obviously, as you know, there were no cigarettes bizman hagemara, only the mugmar. See the Karbon Nesanel on Beitzah who talks about tobacco and cigarettes. Also, regarding bathing/showering, sure it was considered shaveh lechol nefesh then, but showering EVERY day was not.

Jack - cool, I would be happy to compare notes with you; we'll have to ask Bill where he got the translation, authored by R. Dr. Norman Lamm. Maybe we can ask R. JJ Schachter, who will be in town this week, if he can score us a copy.

Alan - I swear to God, sometimes I don't think you are listening to a word I am saying.

ADDeRabbi - Found your post. An interesting and nice idea, although it doesn't seem to be working the opposite way in Israel. I just don't see it as actually having gone down that way. I will not call existentialism rational; it is an insult to existentialism. Where are Levinas' comments?

Yehupitz - I do shower, and even with that, it's just too much. Maybe we can matir email and/or blogging? And please, never again mistake me for an ehrlicher yid.

I realize now I could have done like 8 blog posts on all these topics; ah well, there's the rub (that's for you Bill).

Unclear what you are referring to. If you wanted me to address the issue that cigarettes could be considered hanaas haguf, I would first like to see a source, instead of an inference ba'alma. I would imagine you'd have a tough time finding a contemporary posek that would say that something that clearly damages the body is considered hanaas haguf.

Oh yeah, and I would tell you not to swear to Gd, but it's your blog I wouldn't tell someone what to do on their own blog.

Here's the link to ADDeRabbi's post about Yom Tov Sheni shel Galiyos - http://adderabbi.blogspot.com/2005/05/blog-post.html

To distinguish myself from the other Sara commenter, I guess I have to use Sara K as my name. I would MUCH rather do away with Yom Tov sheini than kitniyos, but no one's asking me, right?

One trembles at the thought of disagreeing with the Yehupitzer, but his paean to the glories of Yom Tov Sheni ignores the fact that galus is, in fact, not an ideal milieu for Judaism. (Oh, and bludgeoning differing opinions as not being ehrlich is unseemly.)

i dont usually post comments on your blog - i dont often read blogs. but i cant let that whole "some things you just cant blog about" part. why are we, the readers, letting that slide. i want to know what it is that greg wont comment on yet feels compelled to mention it anyway. come on, fess up!!!!!! and i completely agree that we dont need shayni shel yom tov.

Of course you need Yom Tov Sheni SHEL GALUYOT: to remember that you're not in a land whose intrinsic kedusha negates the need for artificial add-ons. Of course, there IS a solution to your problem...

Tamar, that's a nice drush, but it doesn't really have anything to do with why Yom Tov sheni was instituted.

"The title statement is the Gemara’s justification for why Diaspora communities continue to observe 2 days of Yom Tov, despite certain knowledge of the date, because of the fundamental uncertainty of existing in Exile."
(from your link to Adderabbi's post from 2005)

I'm not so sorry that you find Yom Tov Sheni demoralizing -- I think that's pretty much the point. The flip side is that Bnei Eretz Yisrael find the biblical, ideal set-up exhilarating (especially those of us who have terrible memories of three-day-yom-tov-hair-trauma)

(Oh, and bludgeoning differing opinions as not being ehrlich is unseemly.)

Potemkin, don't be ridiculous. First of all, "Bludgeoning"?? Accusing a person who expresses an opinion of "bludgeoning" is unseemly.

Second of all, it's not the opinion. It was the feeling about a mitzvah (or chazal-approved minhag if you want to split hairs) that surprised me. Yes, I would include in the definition of ehrlich "One who has a positive response to Mitzvos D'Rabbonon that afford people in Golus more time to learn and daven." I admit that I am prone to being unehrlich at times.

Third of all, it should be obvious that my "paean" to YT Sheini was built on the assumption that it is something that is good for Golus (or Chutz La'Aretz). I did not spell that out, but when having a discussion with intelligent people, it's usually convenient to leave certain obvious axioms unsaid. You don't honestly think I was suggesting that YTS be kept by Yoshvei Eretz Yisrael, do you?

Fourth of all, my tone intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Greg seemed to interpret it that way.

Fifth of all, your didn't seem to be trembling too much...

Greg, you made a point in response to Tamar about "why YT Sheini was instituted" that leads me to another question: When you approach a Mitzvah D'Rabbanan, and the reasoning the Gemara gives for it, do you you limit your appreciation for that mitzvah to the reason the Gemara gives? Or can you allow the appreciation to come from other sources, such as your own analysis of the Mitzvah and what it accomplishes, Kabbala-based analysis of the Mitzvah, or later Rabbinic insight.

This applies not only to YT Sheini, but to Chazaras HaShatz, Barush Hashem L'Olam, Bameh Madlikin, and probably other customs and D'Rabbanans that we have from back then.

Personally, but not intellectually honestly, I think it is harmful to approach D'Rabbanan's with a "Judaism is so ossified that I have to do this pointless, spiritually meaningless act." attitude. I think such an approach would breed resentment and is one of the classic slippery slopes down to the Conservative path.

Yehupitz: That's a good point. I am more inclined to looking for extra-textual significance and meta-patterns in pretty much everything (if you recall my Moses-cow post from a few weeks back, that's a good example). I also take this approach when learning gemara and chumash (which I was sort of introduced to by R. Weinberg). But I try very hard to make sure that it is not me who is reading it into the text, rather that the text is suggesting it to me. So, for example, I am willing to read Maseches Moed Kattan, and the related rabbinic prohibitions of arduous labor on Chol HaMoed as a system of practices that are designed to engender a specific notion about life in this world, the meaning of death, Man's ultimate finitude, etc. Likewise with Sotah and Chagigah with different ideas. But this is based more on the overall structure of these entire texts, rather than a single statement of the gemara (coupled with the halachos of Minhag as outlined in 4th perek of Pesachim which seem to play a prevailing role in the definition of this concept) as less likely pointing to some greater idea.

I suppose I'm willing to be convinced that the rabbonim had some greater idea in mind (as the Nefesh HaChaim writes about tefillah), but I would need additional convincing.

Also, I hate three day yom tovs.

Give me some time. I'll find you a source for yom tov sheni shel galuyot reflecting more than just a machloket minhagim between minhag avot b'ydei bnei hagolah and minhag bnei Eretz Yisrael. This "source," though, as Yehupitz is suggesting, will be a Rabbinic insight or comment on the pshat of the gemara. I personally find usage of these sources to be an integral part of limmud and even, at times such as these, quite...validating.

The Ba'al Ha'Tanya discusses it in Iggeres Hakodesh. Methinks it's based on a Zohar. He says that in Chu"l we need 2 days to accomplish what B'nei E"Y can achieve in one.

Thank you Jackie! I posed the query to some of the greats lurking on aishdas' avodah list. Let's see if they can streamline some mechkar that would take me lots of time to do myself. I'll let you know, Greg, what they find...in case you reject mekorot m'sifrei Chassidut offhand (what a great mistake that would be!).

it's in either 'in time of nations' or 'beyond the verse'. i think the former. i link to both in this post:
http://adderabbi.blogspot.com/2005/12/4th-candle-problem-of-translation.html

Tamar: I wrote this comment last night, but didnt get to post it; it is going back on your initial comment about yom tov sheni.

So, I need the extra kedusha to ensure I am sufficiently demoralized? Are you equating the experience of kedusha and a state of demoralization?

I would respond to ADDeRabbi's post the same as I would be the same (although his reasons are a little different).

Also, according to both of your explanations, if I visit Israel, the mere fact of being there should be enough to exempt me from a second day. Yet most authorities would agree that, because of the rules relating to minhagim, I would be required to keep two days even in Israel. You may be thinking of countering this by arguing that as long as I haven't actually settled in Israel permanently, I can't become sufficiently exhilarated (assuming I am ever exhilarated) to do away with a second day. To which I would respond, OK, but the source of that halacha is from an external sugya related to minhag, and applicable to all minhagim regardless of whether or not they depend on living in Israel.

"I think it is harmful to approach D'Rabbanan's with a "Judaism is so ossified that I have to do this pointless, spiritually meaningless act." attitude. I think such an approach would breed resentment and is one of the classic slippery slopes down to the Conservative path."

Where I disagree with you before, and now, is in your assertion that the currently regnant resistance to progress that presents itself as the solely authenic approach to Judaism is, in fact, halachic, and to disagree is lacking in ehrlichkeit. You may think that this is the case, but it is not.

As for the other issue, frankly, your various comments elsewhere on the internet show a willingness to malign people whose approach to Torah life differs from your own. I apologize for assuming that your criticism of Greg was of a like nature. It remains unseemly for a rav to express himself as you frequently do, but I take you at your word that in this particular case, you were not.

- Moishe Potemkin

Potemkin, did I beat you when you were a child? Or have I defrauded you in some way? (I'm just trying to understand the animosity I sense coming from your IP Address.)

Nope. I'm tired and cranky, and I have a preternatural aversion to the Ortho-smuggery displayed far too frequently on the Internet. You're hardly the world's worst offender, but not competely innocent either, and you, specifically, should know better.

Lastly, I take considerable (albeit patronizing) umbrage at the implication that Greg is being less than forthright in his pursuit of understanding, even when presented in the mundane form of a whine about halachic hygiene.

Basically, you just put yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. No biggie. As you were.

- Moishe Potemkin

Greg,
Hey, I noticed your discussion above about Birkat Kohanim and why even those that are standing on the side move to a more central location. I have conferred with the Artscroll edition of Birkas Kohanim and summarize what they say. One of the elements of the bracha is that it should be "face to face" with the congregation, and so the reasoning for moving to a more central location is for this reasoning although it appears that even if you did stand on the side, the bracha would still be valid. Apparently this might be one of the reasons that there is opposition to putting a mechitza on the side (although the women could move as well). One of the other things that I have heard about this issue of the people on the side moving is that the bracha goes "outward" and therefore not to the side, however, Artscroll doesn't seem to mention this. That's my Priestly persepctive. Take care.

"Tamar, that's a nice drush, but it doesn't really have anything to do with why Yom Tov sheni was instituted."
Aside from what Jackie posted about the mekor in the Iggeret HaKodesh, the Ba'al HaTanya paskens that a Ben Eretz Yisrael must keep two days if he is in Chu"l. In the he'arot of R. Avraham Dovid Levitat, R. Levitat comments that the psak is based on the fact that since the ben E"Y is bereft of the innate kedusha of E"Y by dint of his celebrating chag in Chu"l, he needs the two days of kedusha to achieve what he would naturally achieve in the ideal model (one day). R. Levitat adds the cross reference of Likutei Torah, where the Ba'al HaTanya directly credits the idea to the Arizal and R. Moshe Kordevero. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, daf 183 at bottom of page.
Clearly this drash was considered to have halachic implications by a giant acharon.

One final note, for the sake of follow-up on the Yom Tov Sheni discussion:
This is also Rav Saadia Gaon's position - that second day yom tov is because of kdushat eretz yisrael. He also holds that the calendar was always calculated - the edim came, but the bet din
always knew.
This is discussed at length in a volume of the torah shelema devoted to the calendar (it is on parshat bo, around vol 13).
I guess I'm beating a dead horse. A wonderful Yom Ha'atzmaut to all, and may you all merit to observe all of our chagim in their ideal form.

One final, final note (does anyone read these things so long after they've been posted?) - it has been subtly communicated to me by our gracious host that comments I made earlier in this thread were unduly harsh.

In recognition of this, and of the retroactively obvious observation that self-imposed exhaustion does not automatically grant an uninhibited right to bad manners (apparently what happens in Vegas does not necessarily stay in Vegas), I apologize to the good Yehupitzer for my unpleasantness.

(Alas, I must disagree with his dismissal of Rabbi David Weiss Halivni, posted elsewhere in the blogovelt, but we'll hash that out another time. Tonight is but goodwill, goodwill to all.)

- Moishe Potemkin

Tamar: Thanks for the sources; I haven't seen them, but let me take a step back and offer you my perspective.

The institution of 2-day yom tov outside Israel is because of sefika d'yoma; that is clear. It seems like some of the sources you are quoting are saying otherwise; I'm not sure what to say in that situation, I find it hard to accept since the gemara is very clear as to the reasoning that yom tov sheini was initially instituted.

The topic of discussion is now that we have a calendar, and know when yom tov really is, why do we continue to practive two days? The answer given by the gemara is Minhag Avoseinu B'yadenu. I might be able to be convinced, as ADDeRabbi states, that the motivation behind the decision to continue the practice is based on forming a type of religious experience in galus vs. in Israel, but I don't see anything pointing to a relationship between an extra day of yom tov and kedushas eretz yisrael.

On a side note, this discussion has brought to mind, for me, the importance of realizing the distinctions when attempting to "system-build" in Judaism (or in any category of thought). It's hard to categorically state that such and such is the true opinion of "Judaism" (whatever that is) since throughout history so many different approaches have been taken with various different subtexts and presumptions that deviate from tradition just enough that they result in wholly different systems. Chassidus, the Zohar, Maimonides, etc., are all examples.