avakesh

Avos 2:7, The number 5

He [Hillel] used to say: 1.The more flesh [a person possesses], the more worms [will eventually consume him in the grave]; 2.the more property the more worry; 3.the more wives the more witchcraft; 4.the more maidservants the more lewdness; 5.the more slaves the more thievery.

1.The more Torah the more life; 2.the more study the more wisdom; 3.the more advice the more understanding; 4.the more charity the more peace. 5.One who acquires a good name acquires it for himself; one who acquires words of Torah has acquired himself a share in the World to Come."

In Chapter 1, the number 3 reigned. Every saying came in threes; the chapter opened with the three things that Men of the Great Assembly said and ended with the three things that R. Shimon ben Gamliel said. The numerology of this chapter is certainly less straightforward than merely a number 5 but each Tanna's saying hovers someweher in the vicinity of 5, either clearly in five parts or somewhere near it and can be fitted into it, if one desires.The number itself also makes its appearance: "Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had five disciples...". Then each of the dsciples says three things.

In the first misnha of the chapter, there are five saying but the number three also makes an apearance.Since this is found in the first and subsequent mishnas, it supports the supposition than numbers are intentional.What we have here is transitioning from three to five, with the three fading away and five taking over as we go through the chapter.

The first mishna is: Rabbi Judah the Prince said: 1.Which is the proper course that a man should choose for himself? 2.That which is an honor to him and elicits honor from his fellow men. 3.Be as scrupulous about a light precept as of a weighty one, for you do not know the reward allotted for each precept. 4.Balance the loss incurred by the fulfillment of a precept against the gain and the accruing from a transgression against the loss it involves.5. Reflect on THREE things and you will never come to sin: Know what is above you--a seeing eye, a hearing ear, and all your deeds recorded in a book.

I am not trying to fit our chapter into the Procrustean numerology bed but the number 5 and 3 hover somewhere in the background in tis chapter, from beginning to the end. We certainly have it in the mishnah 7 which we are discussing now, in which there are five things of vanity and five things of eternity.

The chapter closes with a five-partite saying (three havng faded away by now),  1.He(R. Elazar) used to say: It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task. 2.Yet, you are not free to desist from it. 3.If you have studied much in the Torah much reward will be given you, 4.and faithful is your employer who shall pay you the reward of your labor. 5.And know that the reward for the righteous shall be in the time to come.

The next chapter starts again with a three but we will dsicuss that later.

The return of the Caliphs

The middle East is transforming in front of eyes and it is bewlidering and, yes, frightening. After all the devil that you know is better than the one you do not udnerstand. The revolutions and upheavals across the Muslim world will surely end in a different reality. Will it be good for the Jews?

Probably no, at least not right away, but maybe yes, after some time.

We can begin to analyze what is taking place by noting two major trends and some inherent charactristics of the Islamic civilization.

Dar al Islam is being rapidly secularized as much as the rest of the world. Internet, youtube, television and the seeping in of agnosticism, cynicism and denial affects it as much as it affected the Western world, and perhaps with even more of an explosive power. The corrosion of the traditional mindset that we observe in the traditional Jewish society is also happening among moslems. It had even more impact becasue they have not been immunized by living in the Western countries for centuries.

As a counterfoil, Islamic fanaticism is also increasing. It springs from the deep sense that the success and triumph of infidels in the areas of technology, social organization, culture and politics is a humiliation. Shame and revenge are an integral component of Arab culture. For a people that has been conditioned to feel superior to the non-believers, the success of Israel and the West is galling and intolerable. Some would rather kill themselves than suffer humiliation.

These two trends are on a collision course. In some countries you will see the dominance of one and on other countries the other will win. Neither bodes well for the Jews because Jew hatred is so deeply ingrained in the Arab psyche. Someone once said: "A Christian hates the Jew because he is envious of him, the Moslem hates the Jew because he despises him".

I think that ultimately the Arab world will divide into two camps. There will be secularized countries, probably a minority and there will be Islamicized ones, probably the majority, In either case, there will be no reason for national division of the same people and you we will see some consolidations. The Caliphs by another name will return. There will be more erasing of borders among the secularized and democratic states because power hungry individuals. who cling to national borders to repserve their fiefdoms will have less influence. The Islamicized states, on the other hand, will likely unite by sword rather than by ballot. We will see several blocks of various degree of religiosity, material success and political influence.They will intermittently lash out at each other, Israel and Europe. As now, America will remain friendly to Israel but buzzing harmlessly around in the periphery of events unable to comprehend or affect them in meaningful ways.

During this period, the Arab states will be busy with internecine warfare, using the Palestinian issue as a diversion and not committing resources to it, and the main antagonists of Israel will be the European states because their consitutents demand it. LIike now, they will smile in public and gnash their teeth in private, for Esau's hypocrisy does not abate. Its Moslem minorities will continue to goad and provoke their hosts. When Esau the sleeping giant awakens, it will be terrible.We will see a world unlike the one we ever imagined.

Israel had a chance for survival, with G-d's help, if it maneuvers well between these three blocks: Europe, Islamic states as they fight each other, and secularizing states, busy with internal cleansing.

Abaye enquired of Rabbah: "What is your reason [for not wishing to see him]? Shall we say, because of the birth pangs [preceding the advent] of the Messiah ]?" But it has been taught... "What must a man do to be spared the pangs of the Messiah ?" "Let him engage in study and benevolence..."( Sanhedrin 98b)

Repost: How much gold was there in the Mishkan

Here

Jews of Color Video in 4 parts

 

The issues of identity cuts deep. What I see in this video is special people stuggling with who they are as Jews. What I hear over and over again, beside complaints against racism which of course has no place in our community and is inimical to any understanding of Ahavas Yisroel, is how to integrate where they came from with where they find themselves. Ms. Hausman says that guests look at her strangely when she serves plaintain, a Dominical staple, for Shabbos.

Of course it is fine to eat plaintain for Shabbos and I am sure that Jews in the Carribean not once served plaintain for Seudah Shlishis in the course of history. What is the real question and one that is much more important is sanctification of Jewish ways of behaving versus how other peoples behave.

A convert would have to expend an unjustifiable amount of energy to learn how to emulate all the "jewish" cultural nuances. Some of them are even what we call, "minhag shtus", foolish customs. It is better to spend the time learning Torah. However, in principle, Jewish ways of doing things has innate sanctity, more so than other culturally associated patterns of other nations.

I wrote about it here

It is a struggle, an immense struggle. We don't see this struggle reflected in Tanach or in the Gemara. You don't find R. Akiva agonizing whether to use the Greek name, Achilles; or Ruth insisting that she needs to wear a Moabite style apron to be true to herself and her heritage. However, for Jews of Color, born Jewish or converted, there is clearly, a sense of color as identity, as something which does not easily goes with gefilte fish, as something that does not fit, or seems foollish and self-conscious to be mixed with shtetl folkways, perhpas as something of which "white" Jews remind them too often. Current culturla norms of idividualism and self-expression inform this sensiblity but do not solely encompass it.

Some of the panelists intimate that the solution is creating communities of Jews of Color. The estimate is that there are fifty thousand Jews of Color in the USA and in citeis such as Chicago there are already such embryonic communities in existence. However, on the face of it, this is not the direction in which the society is moving or where we, as Jews, should be going.

We can expect that as America grows more diverse, so will the general Jewish population. Go into any Reform or Conservative congregation Hebrew school and you will see what I mean. Also, as the Internet opens Judaism to the world, more and more converts from all over the world will be joining us.

Are we prepared to accept, to love and to help guide those who struggle.

We must be!

 

Shiurim

A legal system requires measures. In common law, for example, there are limits on the amounts that can be claimed in a small court case, or of a time period after which a claim may be filed (statute of limitations), or a cap on monetary awards in certain cases. A law system cannot exist without limits.

In Torah law, limits are called shiurim. Eating chomtz on Pesach has a shiur of kazais for the penalty of kares(extirpation) and any amount for being prohibited. A dead sheretz(crawling creature) larger than a bean (adasha) causes impurity but smaller than an adasha does not cause impurity. One has to say a blessing after eating an olive size of food and so on.

Torah usually does not tell is what these shiurim are. It often does for time: how long does take for a sacrifice to become pasul, how long to celebrate Passover, at what time to bring Omer. With the exception of the measurements of Temple vessels, it almost never tells us how large or small something has to be, or what price a sacrifice should be. There are exceptions: Asham of 2 shekalim, thirty shekalim for one whose ox kills a slave, erachin and others, but usually not.

Yet, for practically everything, we know that there is a shiur. Where do the shiurim come form?

There are three possiblities. They could be entirely rabbinic, either completely rabbinic or rabbinic but with a Biblical sanction for rabbis to define shiurim. They could also be halacha l'Moshe Misinai(Sinaitic ir origin and orally transmitted since Sinai) or they could be derived through drasha.

The discussion in Bavli considers these possiblities in Sukkah 5b, Eruvin 4a and Brochos 41b, Pesachim 80a. In Brochos the conclusion seems to be that shiurim are rabbinic and in the other places that they are Sinaitic but attached to a verse by asmakhta. Here is the quote from Brochos.

 ואידך הני שיעורין בהדיא מי כתיבי אלא מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

Of note, in Yerushalmi, it is explicit that whether shiurim are rabbinic or Sinaitic is a disagrement of R. Yochanan and R. Oshiah.

דמר ר' יוחנן מעה כסף שתי כסף דבר תורה תנא רבי יוסי קומי רבי יוחנן ראיה כל שהוא חכמים הן שאמרו מעה כסף שתי כסף א"ל ויש כעין זו א"ר יונה וכל השיעורים לא חכמים הן שנתנו כזית מן המת כזית מן הנבלה וכעדשה מן השרץ

In fact, R. Oshiah advised that one should write down his tansgression and the exact  amount with which they were committed, since there is no Temple and they cannot be atoned for immediately, and in some future time Rabbis can changed the size of shiurim and require a recalculation of what the sinner must bring. This is also found in Bavli Yoma 80a, where it is explained that they may say that instead of an average olive, we should use a large olive. For some reason this is not cosnidered a violation of the principle that a subsequent Beis Din cannot overturn the rule of a prior Beis Din, unless the later Beis Din is greater. But Bavli does nto connect it to a view the shiurim are Rabbinic in roigin.

Yerushalmi Peah:

אמר רבי יוסי בר בון רבי יוחנן כדעתיה דרבי יוחנן אמר כל השיעורים הלכה למשה מסיני דו אמר מעה כסף שתי כסף דבר תורה רבי הושעיא כדעתיה דרבי הושעיא אמר האוכל איסור בזמן הזה צריך לרשום עליו את השיעור שמא יעמוד ב"ד אחר וישנה עליו את השיעורים ויהי' יודע מאיזה שיעור אכל

It seems that R. Oshiah understands shiurim to be completely rabbinic, not that Torah gave Rabbis the authority to define shiur(as Gro says in his commentary to this yerushalmi), for had that been the case, a subsequent court cannot change shiurim once they were defined.

That Torah gave the rabbis the authority to define various laws, is already found in the Rishonim;this view was enunciated again and again in our day by the Chazon Ish (See Chazon Ish E'H 22,3; Y"D 5:3, Ch'M Nezikin 11:1, 8:1, Kovetz Inyanim pp. 194-197).

The hashkafic significance of the view the shiurim are rabbinic is,of course, great. It is surprising thate some of the Rabbis, certainly according to Yerushalmi, saw such a central and crucial concept of law as being rabbinic in origin.

Perhaps, it is because, as important as halacha is, it is just not as important as moral teachings, so it was left to Rabbis. (Bereshit Rabbah 60,11):"Said R. Aha: The table-talk of the servants of the patriarchs' households is more notable (literally: beautiful) than the scripture (Torah) of their descendants. Eliezer's story is recorded and recapitulated, taking up to three pages, whereas one of the fundamental rulings of the Torah, to the effect that the blood of a creeping thing defiles in the same way as its flesh, is only known to us through the superfluity of one letter in the Scriptures."

Here is another example:

Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 44

"The Mitzvot were given only to purify humanity. For what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, if one slaughters an animal at the throat or at the nape of the neck? Lo, the sole purpose is to purify humanity."

See also the distinciton in Moreh Nevukhim 3:28 between necessary laws and true ones.

Aruch L'Ner in Sukkah posits that there are two different kinds of shiurim. As I understand him, and there are other ways to understand what he says, there are logical measures. Everyone measures a meal as half a laof of bread, everyone recognizes that an olive is a minimum kind of "eating". Torah did not have to legislate these concepts and rabbis simply formalized them. I would say that ll that Rabbis did is say that "Botla Daato etzel kol adam". Once Rabbis defined these shiurim no individual could claim that his meal takes longer or that he is sated with something less than grogeres.  On the other hand, in purity and impurity there is no such consensus. Why should a sheretz cause impurity above a size of a bean? Why not a hair or a stone? These "illogical" shiurim were received from Sinai. When Yerushalmi reports a view that shiurim are rabbinic, it only discussed the former kind.

The elephant in the room is the mishna that explicitly says that shiurim were made by rabbis. Aruch L'Ner implies that these mishnayos in Keilim 17 speak of "logical shiurim" but that is far from obvious. Here is one of the representative mishna from Keilim: "ח  כזית שאמרו--לא גדול ולא קטן, אלא בינוני:  זה אגורי.  כשעורה שאמרו--לא גדולה ולא קטנה, אלא בינונית:  זו מדברית.  כעדשה שאמרו--לא גדולה ולא קטנה, אלא בינונית:  זו מצרית.  כל המיטלטלין מביאין את הטומאה בעובי המרדע--לא גדול ולא קטן, אלא בינוני.  איזה הוא בינוני, כל שהיקפו טפח"

There are other indications that a later Beit Din can change an etablished halacha. An example is what Ruth Rabbah says to explain why Ploni Almoni was afraid to marry Ruth (4:6) "lest I destroy my inheritance".He was afraid that a subsequent Cort will darshin that the prohibiton to marry a Moabite includes also Moabite women. Yevamot
76b-77a reports that a debate broke out about David's fitness for the throne, when Doeg the asked why are you debating is fitness to be king, when it is not even clear that he is fit to marry into he nation, since he is a descendant of Ruth the Moabite.  Whereupon the
answer was given Amoni v'lo Amonit, Moavi v'lo Moavit.  To which Doeg
replied, if so why not Mitzri, v'lo Mitzrit and mamzer v'lo mamzeret?  They
replied mamzer means mei am zar, which includes males and females
and then concerning amon and moav they cited the verse "since they did
not provide you with bread and water..."  But Doeg even had an answer
for that verse, the men should have provided bread and water to the
men and the women should have provided bread and water to the
women.  The gemara says that they were silent, unable to counter Doeg.
Doeg's objection was not refuted until Itra came and threatened to kill
anyone who rejected the drasha Moavi v'lo Moavit which he claimed to
have heard directly from the beit din of Shmuel ha-ramati.  

Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 that the beit din ha-gadol has he authority to change the halachah of a previous beit din based on its own understanding of the
relevant Biblical verses. See also here

You see here that this license does not extend to a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai.
Form this passage in Yerushalmi you can see that R. Oshiah, who holds that shiurim are rabbinic, says that the same way a drasha can be change, so can a future Beis Din re-legislate the shiurim. R. Yochanan, who holds that shiurim are Sinaitic, has no concern that a subsequent beit din will change the shiurim.

 You might say, who would even think of changing Sinaitic Laws. However, that is another discussion.

 

Plausability of Biblical accounts

When I was a child the world was stable. Two blocks ruled the world, the American West on one side and the Soviet East on the other. Things ambled on amiably and nothing seemed to really change much. As in the past, tradition and received wisdom ruled society.

Messianic future seemed improbable. Of course, one had to accept these things on faith, you know, and, of course no one would even question them... but they appeared remote and implausible. Sure, there were events in history of which we heard: Mongol invasion, spread of Christianity, Alexander the Great, Mohammed and his conquests, but it was just history and far from our experience.

Boy, have things changed!

Every decade, year, almost every day brings news of implausible events: the fall of the collossus of Communism, which nobody would ever have predicted,  Obama's unexpected sweep to power, and now Mubarak.

Parallels to Pharaoh abound and have duly been noted by various commentators. Here you again see an entrenched ruler who stubbornly resists. He resists and resists and resists to the end. Then the army takes over... and supresses the peons - just like in the Bible.

Pharaoh's blind intrangience was always a difficult to accept feature of the Biblical account of the Exodus but, I think, no more.

Many years ago I read the book Aleph Shin. It is a curious volume and its companion, Samson's Lion is even more curious, with many bones to pick. Still, I was struck by its attempt to present how, naturalistically, Moschiach may come. I am grateful to the book because it showed me a (fairly) plausible way in which it can happen.

When one actually observes the rises and falls of leaders and ideologies, when one personally experience world changing cataclysms, when one reads about events that rapidly and inexorabley alter and transform attitudes and societies, the hard to believe becomes believable and easy to accept. This is the way in which current events reinforce Faith.

Rashi and Yerushalmi

I started a new series on Yerushalmi. Finally, after three years of searching and learning it on my own  I was able to find a talmid chochom interested in Yerushalmi to learn it b'chavrusa - very exciting, B'H. 

I present some observations on the material that we learn, right now in Peah. The goal is to make interesting points that are not excessively technical and do not require immersion in a particular sugya and are also of universal interest.

In the very beginning of Peah we find the list of things that do not have a measure(shiur). They, with 6 more items that come, no one knows from where, are recited every morning after Berkas Hatorah (See Shabbos  127 and Tos. Brochos 11b)

The gemora asks: "Why Teruma is not listed in this mishna like Peah?" To simplify, it answers that Teruma does have a measure, in that you cannot make all of your field Teruma but you can make all of your field Peah. In other words, there is no upper limit to Peah but there is an upper limit to Teruma and it, therefore, does not belong in our mishna, which lists examples of things that have no limit.

רבי בנימין בר לוי אמר רבי יצחק ורבי אמי הוון יתבון מקשיי למה לא תנינן תרומה עמהן..... אמר רבי יוסי אדם עושה כל שדהו ביכורים ואין אדם עושה כל שדהו תרומה התיבון הרי הוא אומר פיאה והרי אין אדם עושה כל שדהו פיאה ותניתה א"ר יוסי קצירת שיבולת הראשונה דומה למירוחו עד שלא קצר השיבולת הראשונה לא נתחייבה שדהו בפיאה משקצר שיבולת ראשונה נתחייבה שדהו בפיאה ביקש לעשות כל שדהו פיאה עושה ברם הכא עד שלא נתמרח הכרי לא נתחייב כריו תרומה נתמרח ביקש לעשות כל כריו תרומה אינו עושה

The interesting thing is that Rashi asks the same question in Chulin 136b (s.v.deoraisa) and answers compltely differently and without mentioning this prominent first Yerushalmi in Peah. Rashi's answer is in itself interesting. He says that Teruma is different in that min hatorah there is no punishment if one gave the minimum; even one grain exempts the entire grain heap in regard to punishment. However, ad initio(lechatchila) one must separate off one sixtieth, one fiftieth or one fourtieth. My chavrusa pointed out that there is discussion in R. Yosef Engel, he thought in Beis Haotzar, about whether there is such a thing as lechatchila and badieved on the Biblical level. This Rashi explicitly says that there is.

 

Some scholars claim that Rashi's citations of Yerushalmi originate from other sources and that he himself never saw a copy of an Yerushalmi(p.22). A generation later however, Rashi's students and sons-in-law freely quote from Yerushalmi; so it seems that a copy became available to them in the intervening years.

To me it seems more likely that Rashi himself obtained a manuscript of Yerushalmi after his Kuntres was already written. He did not rewrite it because of this discovery but added to it some of Yerushalmi material as glosses. This explains why he repeatedly does not cite a crucially important Yerushalmi passage in some places but does so in others. When he does, it is usually easy to insert explanation of words, terms and the like. One example of where Rashi mentions a Yerushalmi is when explaining the modest conduct of Kimchis, the mother who merited to see seven sons serve as High Priests.See also Rashi quoting a Yerushalmi about why TU b'Av is a holiday in Taanis 30a and Bava Kama 117a. In many of these instances, Rashi explains terms and events based on the Yerushalmi but he rarely explains the entire sugya based on Yerushalmi.

R. Yeshoshua Cohen in Kerem Yehoshua, a fascinating small work that argues for importance of bekius, takes up this quesiton. He says (hat tip here): "In the more than 500 disagreements between Rashi and Tosfos which are connected to the Jerusalem Talmud, we see that Rashi never adopts the viewpoint of the Jerusalem Talmud, while Tosfos always does. This cannot be merely because Rashi lacked certain parts of the Yerushalmi while the Tosafists, who lived 100 years later, had these parts. Rather, in my humble opinion, when we closely examine these disagreements between Rashi and Tosfos, we will find that in the cases where Rashi interprets contrary to the Jerusalem Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud cannot be easily reconciled with with the wording of the Babylonian Talmud. Thus Rashi simply remained true to his tradition that Ravina and Rav Ashi, the compilers of the Babylonian Talmud, always wrote in such a way that anyone could understand their words. Based on this tradition, he maintained that if the Babylonian Talmud had agreed with the Jerusalem Talmud, Rav Ashi and Ravina would have written their text to express this agreement more clearly. They would have stated the law in phraseology parallel to that of the Jerusalem Talmud; or they would have restricted the law to the same specific case to which the Jerusalem Talmud restricted it. If they did not do so, this shows (according to Rashi) that they disagreed with the Jerusalem Talmud.

The Tosafists' opinion, however, maintained that not evey law in the Babylonian Talmud is stated in the clearest possible way. Rather, Rav Ashi and Ravina, in order to sharpen their students, would occasionally teach a law without mentioning that it applied only to a certain restricted case. Wherever there is an apparent disagreement between the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud - for example, where the Babylonian Talmud presents a law as being broadly applicable, while the Jerusalem Talmud presents it as applying to one restircted case - Tosfos reasons as follows: why should we assume the Babylonian Talmud disagrees with the Jerusalem Talmud? Let us assume instead that the Babylonian Talmud agrees that the law applies only to one restricted case, but this is one of those places where Rav Ashi and Ravina deliberately did not mention it. Although this involves interpreting the Babylonian Talmud in a way that does not fit the plain meaning of the words, Tosfos does not see this as far-fetched. Tosfos maintains that such occasional discrepancies were intentional. According to Tosfos, it is better to interpret the Babylonian Talmud in this way than to assume a disagreement between it and the Jerusalem Talmud."

I met R. Cohen 25 years ago in Philadelphia, where both of us were visiting for Shabbos. Until that time I fancied myself a boki and it was a rude awakening to encounter someone who truly was a boki in the style of past generations, able to cite every place where any  statement of Chazal is found. I still remember how I mentioned a certain Chazal during our conversation and he challenged me to say from where it came. I guessed wrong and he cited it in every place where it appeared, plus. I was perturbed the whole Shabbos, which was a good thing. Such things are good, for they make you grow.

 

Elect the Golden Calf!

The exile within, by Chaim Gershon

A few weeks before his stroke in 5752, the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke about the Menorah and the incense in the Beis Hamikdah. He points out that the order in which we recite the sequence of incense offering and lighting of the Menorah during davening does not follow the halacha as codified by Rambam. The halachah, as decided by the Rambam and the Sefer Mitzvos Gadol is that the incense offering is brought between the cleaning of the first five and the final two lamps of the menorah. What we recite is according to the view of Abayee, who, follows the monirity opinion of Abba Shaul, a minority opinion, maintains that the cleaning of the five lamps of the menorah preceded the sprinkling of the blood of the daily burnt offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily burnt offering preceded the cleaning of the remaining two lamps of the menorah. Next came the  cleaning of the last two lamps of the menorah and only then the incense offering.

To review, Rambam has that incense brought between the cleaning of the first five and last two lamps of the Menorah. Abaye has it take place ater all the lamps were already lit.

See http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/sichos-in-english/51/43.htm for  English as well as http://www.theyeshiva.net/Video/View/6 with notes at http://www.theyeshiva.net/Content/PDF/Tetzaveh%205769%20(5771).pdf 

and

   http://yyjacobson.blogspot.com/2008/02/parshas-tetzaveh-english.html  

The Rebbe explains that we recite Abaye’s version because it reflects our current psychological status in galus.  Menorah is the light that represents our influence upon the outside world. Incense, in Hebrew Ketores, a word that in Arameic means "connection", representing our connection with Hashem. Incense rises up for the Altar, uniting the lower and higher spheres. In the time of golus the two are disconnected and therefore, we do not say the version that has the incense take place in midst of Menorah lighting but after it. In other words, golus is the state in which our involvement in the world and with the Divine are uncoupled.

The exception is on Yom HaKippur in the afternoon, the time of forgiveness and redemption, when we recite the Rambam’s version, which is halacha and reflects the situation as it will be during the future Redemption.

This is not a new question nor one unique to Chabad. Besides the many priorChabad sources [the Tzemach Tzedek and Rebbe Maharash had answers for the question]  cited in the aforementioned sicha (Hebrew version available online http://www.otzar770.com/ at p.316 and in Hisvadus 5752 Volume Beis). The discrepancy between what actually happened in  the Beis HaMikdash according to halacha and Abaye's opinion has also been discussed by the CHIDA (see Siddur CHIDA http://www.mysefer.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=1&P_ID=1351&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=141 quoting sin everal of his sefarim). The Rema in Toras HaOla (Part 2, Chapters 10-18) and the Apter Rav in Ohaiv Yisroel (p.206, Behalosecha) also discuss this topic and give a similar answer, a message very relevant for our times.

 Avakesh comments: Two aspects of this teaching warrant a note.

One is the insistence in certain chassidic streams on inner wholeness. The Yid Hakodesh was once visited by a certain individula who planned to fast the entire day bui then became very thirsty. He approached a well to draw some water but reminded himself of his wow and drew back. He was still thristy and so he went to the well and drew back again, repeating the process several times but did not drink. When he visited Yid Hakodesh, he was told: "Patchwork! A Jew must be whole and not a patchwork".

The second is the spiritualization of the golus experience as the state of inner disconnectedness and separation, in which the soul itself is divided. A prominent motif in Tanya is the struggle of the Divine Soul to rule over the Animal Soul.

It's Adar!

It's brought down in chassidishe seform that mishnichnas adar means "from the time Adar ENTERED, even the situation of two Adars, like this year, and even that we have to "increse joy" from the Shabas mevorchim hachodesh of first Adar.

So I start, belatedly now.