This morning I bumped into the Rosh in shul and I said, "You're number three (for the minyan)." Then someone (who won't be mentioned because my wife said not to) said, "I think he davened already." I said to the Rosh, "You did?" and he nodded yes. I walked off to the mikve, but before I got there he called out "TRS!" All right, he didn't actually say my name, I doubt he even knows this blog exists (though his son told me he reads it), he said my real name. Anyway, he called me in, and said, I'll help you make a minyan, I'll wake up the people in my house. Then he told me the following:
The medrash says that sins begin to be counted from the first day of sukkos. Why is this? Because people are so busy doing mitzvos, either putting up a sukkah or buying a lulav or esrog or whatever, that they have no time for sins! Only when they relax a bit, on the first day of sukkos, do they begin to sin. (The lesson is that once you begin to relax... [he said parenthetically]). Some people though learn this medrash incorrectly; they think that they're coming out of yom kippur clean and pure, and they can afford to do a few sins here and there... I'll go wake them up...
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Gott's Nomen (day 2)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
nice. I am the first comment. yay!
btw, i love being the first commenter! (well second now!)
-Anon: what is it worth without a name?
-TRS: I was once number ten for a minyan - but within a minute of coming, Tanchum a"h finished davening on his own and left . . . The Rosh made me run around looking for a new Tenth. (He also called my home number to wake me up for minyan when he was short!)
1. You're in LA?
2. Have you ever considered spelling "mikveh" with an "h"?
awesome. say hi to shaps for me
you're in LA? huh?
:) I'm sure you were just dying for an appropriate way to say 'my wife.'
People 10-1 he's at home in Minnesota and the Rosh is bt his son-in-law Wilhelm!
Now that you mention that hypothesis, I'll take 1000-1 odds!
Anon: Mazel Tov.
e: 1. No.
2. No.
Yossi: I would if I could...
Cheerio: No.
Altie: Yes.
Mottel: Yes, for his grandson's barmy.
e: No bets after the fact :)
Shoot, I was liking this illusion of my pure state. Off to the huts then.
HAH! That memre was before the advent of blogger. Now anyone with a blackberry can sin while putting up the sukkah and whatever. Or you could be commenting on some blog when you aren't learning teyreh because you are ostensibly studying for a college class
Sounds like the pomegranate story.
What pomegranate story?
TRS, re: "mekiveh," well if you haven't yet, consider it now.
CA: yeah, what story?
*mikveh
Considering...
and the conclusion of the considerations?
Those are some considerable considerations.
Shouldn't it be mikvah with an h? Otherwise it sounds very chonyokked.
e et all: Well, if I remember...
That's not the attitude a writer takes towards spelling!
some commitment, young man!!
What pomegranate story?
There was one time a Satmar chossid was trying to have children and could not, so he needed a brocha. His Rebbe told him to go to the Lubavitcher Rebbe too. He went, the Rebbe gave him a brocha and told which doctor in Long Island to see. Then he asked him what his Rebbe talked about on the sium the day before.
“It says that even the sinners of Israel are full of mitzvos as the pomegranate is full of seeds. The [Satmar] Rebbe asked: how can they be full of mitzvos if they are sinners?”
“?” [The Rebbe indicated puzzlement.]
“The Rebbe asked, if it says that even the sinners of Israel are full of mitzvos... etc., etc.”
“???”
“How can we say that sinners are full of mitzvos as a pomegranate is full of seeds.” [At this point, the chossid was sweating.]
“Tell your Rebbe that there is a Jew in Brooklyn who studies the same part and asks the following question: if they are full of mitzvos as a pomegranate is full of seeds, how can we call them sinners?”
Told by Rabbi Bukiet of Lexington from the words of the said chossid.
e: Spelling (and especially hebrew transliteration), unlike math, is entirely subjective.
not entirely
Entirely is as entirely does.
what's that supposed to mean? That if you treat language as subjective then it really is subjective?
language IS subjective.
the rules of what constitutes standard usage are not.
but the rules change....making them subjective.
Cheerio: While language may be used subjectively, the laws of its proper use are very much objective - just look at organizations like the MLA!
well said, Mottel. Changing gradually over time is not the same thing as subjective. At every given time, one can objectively describe the rules.
Post a Comment