Highlights of the Garden, 2013

The Lotus is in a class by itself.  You have to provide a very particular environment of soil covered with a foot of water, know exactly how to grow them, and be patient.  But when they do perform, it's unforgettable, and its beauty inspires a sense of awe, the spiritual joy and pleasure one has when hearing a beautiful symphony for the first time.  Some have an unusual fragrance, and it's not what you expect.  The Alba Grandiflora reminded me of a mix of licorice, mignonette, and freesia.

The Bracha is for fruit trees, but when the Lotus blooms, ליפטר בלא כלום אי אפשר, and I find it kedai to say the bracha without the sheimos.

שלא חיסר בעולמו כלום וברא בו בריות טובות ודשאים נאים להנות בהן בני אדם

The Alba was in my back yard and the Russian Red in my mother's.

Lotus Alba Grandiflora.  As you can see from the bumblebee, it's very large.

Russian Red,with my hand for scale.

Vayeira. The Influence of Environment - סביבה

Lot learned the importance of hospitality from Avraham Avinu, and absorbed the lesson to the extent that he endangered his family in order to shelter the travelers.  He is described as categorically rejecting the influence of Avraham Avinu- he said,  אי אפשי לא באברם ולא באלוקיו- I want nothing to do with Avram or with is God.  Despite this antipathy to what his uncle represented, Avraham Avinu did influence him.  Once he settled in Sedom, his spiritual fall accelerated, but some things that he learned from Avraham remained strong within him.

And it was not that Avraham gave a shiur in Hachnasas Orchim.  Rashi says (19:1)
 "וירא לוט וגו'" - מבית אברהם למד לחזור על האורחים -He learned from the house of Avraham to seek out guests.  It says that he learned this from the Beis Avraham, from the house of Avraham, not from any classroom lessons or discussions with his uncle.  He learned his lesson from being in the household of Avraham, from seeing what Avraham did, from seeing Avraham's pursuit of the well being of guests, from seeing the warmth and friendship that Avraham displayed to his guests.  Perhaps he learned the lesson from the "house" itself- because the house of Avraham was built to be welcoming from all sides, with open doors that would beckon passers by.  Whatever it was, it was not a formal transmission of a value- it was something he absorbed because he had been a member of Avraham Avinu's household.

Rambam in 6 Deios 1-

דרך ברייתו של אדם להיות נמשך בדעותיו ובמעשיו אחר ריעיו וחביריו ונוהג כמנהג אנשי מדינתו. לפיכך צריך אדם להתחבר לצדיקים ולישב אצל החכמים תמיד כדי שילמוד ממעשיהם. ויתרחק מן הרשעים ההולכים בחשך כדי שלא ילמוד ממעשיהם. הוא ששלמה אומר הולך את חכמים יחכם ורועה כסילים ירוע. ואומר אשרי האיש וגו'. וכן אם היה במדינה שמנהגותיה רעים ואין אנשיה הולכים בדרך ישרה ילך למקום שאנשיה צדיקים ונוהגים בדרך טובים. ואם היו כל המדינות שהוא יודעם ושומע שמועתן נוהגים בדרך לא טובה כמו זמנינו. או שאינו יכול ללכת למדינה שמנהגותיה טובים מפני הגייסות או מפני החולי ישב לבדו יחידי כענין שנאמר ישב בדד וידום. ואם היו רעים וחטאים שאין מניחים אותו לישב במדינה אלא אם כן נתערב עמהן ונוהג במנהגם הרע יצא למערות ולחוחים ולמדברות, ואל ינהיג עצמו בדרך חטאים כענין שנאמר מי יתנני במדבר מלון אורחים:

The Rambam says that it is inherent in the human condition to be influenced by friends, associates, and society as a whole, so it is vital to dwell in a place with moral standards that are consistent with your aspirations  If the only place you find is one of wicked people, then you have to move out to the desert.

The Rambam doesn't say that if you find yourself living in a community where the moral and spiritual standards are low that you should man up and show some discipline.  The Rambam's Rational Man should not be affected by the proximity of fools and sinners!  But that's not what the Rambam says.  That isn't even an option.  Get up and get out of there.  Go be a hermit in the desert.  There is no alternative.  If you stay, you can not escape the negative influence of your environment.

I heard in the name of  Rav Matisyahu Solomon that although the Rambam says there it is impossible to stay in an environment and escape being influenced, there is one hint in the beginning of the Rambam of a possible counterweight.  The Rambam says להיות נמשך בדעותיו ובמעשיו אחר ריעיו וחביריו ונוהג כמנהג אנשי מדינתו, a person is drawn by his friends and associates, and acts like the  people of his community.  All the Rambam had to say was that a person acts like the others in his community, which obviously includes friends and associates.  The implication is that the primary influence is that of friends and associates.  If a person consciously and carefully limits his personal and work relationships to people that deserve his respect, their positive influence might outweigh the negative influence of the community at large.

On the topic of being influenced by your environment, I saw a new perspective from Reb Yakov Kaminetsky on the Mishna in Avos 1:6 that I enjoyed.

The mishna says

יהושע בן פרחיי אומר עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות.

First, Reb Yakov says that if you are harsh and unforgiving in your assessment of other men, you'll never find a Rebbi you will respect, because even a Rebbi is a human being, not an angel.

כיון שכלל גדול הוא שאין אדם צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא. א״כ אם אינו רגיל הוא לדון אנשים לכף זכות, אז אף פעם לא יצליח לעשות לעצמו רב ולא לקנות לו חבר, כי בכל אדם ימצא מום פלוני או פגם אלמוני, ורק מי שדן את האדם — היינו כפי שאיתא בזוהר שת״ח נקרא אדם וע״ה לא נקרא אדם — לכף זכות, הוא יכול למצוא לעצמו רב או חבר.

Then he says something that relates to our discussion:

יש ענין נוסף בהוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות. כי הנה זה ברור, וכבר ייסד את זה הרמב״ם בפ״ו מהלכות דעות הל ״א — שדרך ברייתו של אדם להיות נמשך בדעותיו ובמעשיו אחר ריעיו וחביריו ונוהג כמנהג אנשי מדינתו וכר, וכל אדם מושפע מסביבתו, ומה״ט פסק שם הרמב״ם שתמיד צריך האדם להתחבר לצדיקים ולחכמים, ולכן אם הרואה מעשה של חבירו דנו

 לכף חובה — בהכרח שגם הוא יהי׳ מושפע ממנו, ולהיפך אם ידונו לכף זכות — יהי׳ הוא מושפע ממנו לטובה, ולכן

 תמיד צריך לדון כל אדם לכף זכות, ודו״ק.

If you judge your fellows to the good, then if you see them doing something that might seem to be sinful but you interpret it as really being a good thing, then you will be influenced by what you see to the better.  If you judge him negatively, then you will be influenced to your detriment.

According to his pshat, Yehoshua ben Prachya's advice relates to Nitai Ha'Arbeli's in the next Mishna- ניתאי הארבלי אומר, הרחק משכן רע, ואל תתחבר לרשע.

My Mashgia'ch, Reb Dovid Kronglass, once said that every character trait that lays in our souls can be used in the service of the Ribono shel Olam.  He said that he wondered, how can a person use the midda of saying a "krummeh svara," of saying absurd things, in the service of God?  (I've heard this said in the name of Reb Chaim, on Tipshus.  Same idea.)  He decided that it is only by recruiting the trait of Krumkeit can one fulfill that Mishna in Avos.  When you see a person doing a bad thing, you know that he's a Rasha and a sheigitz.  So how can you possibly judge him favorably, how can you be Dan l'kaf zechus that there's some innocent explanation for that person's behavior?  The answer is that you have to enlist the midda of krumkeit, so you can make up some absurd explanation for the behavior that would recast it in a positive light.

Those are the words of one of the great baalei mussar of the Mirrer Yeshiva who had to deal with American boys, and they may seem cynical.  But assuming that dan lekaf zechus is often delusional, you can use that delusion to improve your environment.  Whenever you see people doing bad things, make up an explanation that would justify what they're doing, and so you won't be negatively influenced from observing bad behavior.  Pace Voltaire, Doctor Pangloss and Leibniz were not fools.

Psycholinguists have noticed a remarkable phenomenon that explain with what they call the Communication Accommodation Theory.  This means that  “when people interact they adjust their speech, their vocal patterns and their gestures, to accommodate to others”

One element in this phenomenon is Convergence.  This can be observed whenever you listen to an interview: Every person has a specific speech pattern.  As the interview progresses, you will find that one party will begin to talk like the other party- in his accent, phrasing, intonation, and in many other elements of speech that are characteristic of a social stratum or location.  The inferior party will imitate the superior or dominant party.  This is not a conscious decision; just like wolves need to establish a hierarchy, humans will verbally examine each other and subconsciously decide on their relative status.  At that point, the subordinate will begin to imitate the linguistic traits of the dominant.

The idea is that in any social interaction one party will begin to imitate the other.  Sometimes it will be because one party instinctively perceives that he is subordinate to the other, and by imitating the superior's speech, he is currying favor.  Even where there is no clear dominant/subordinate, the speech patterns of both parties will Converge, will move toward the middle, will drop elements that distinguish the two patterns.

To bring this back to the Rambam, I want to point out that while usually in a one-on-one relationship there might be a dominant and a subordinate, and when there isn't the two parties will Converge, but when it's an individual and a community, the individual will always instinctively feel that he is subordinate to the community and will adjust to become more like the community.

Interestingly, this reflects something Reb Yerucham said.  He said pshat in the Rambam that it's not that an environment will reach out and influence you.  Pshat is that people instinctively seek social acceptance, and that desire will cause you to subconsciously imitate the group that comprises your human environment.  This is not a decision one makes.  It is, as the Rambam says, דרך ברייתו של אדם, something innate and unchangeable.  

This is described on Wiki as follows:

Convergence refers to the process through which an individual shifts his or her speech patterns in interaction so that they more closely resemble the speech patterns of his interlocutor(s). People can converge through many features of communication such as their use of language, their “pronunciation, pause and utterance lengths, vocal intensities, non verbal behaviors, and intimacy of self disclosures”(Giles and Smith, 1979, 46), but they do not necessarily have to converge simultaneously at all of these levels. In fact people can both converge at some levels and diverge through others at the same time .  People use convergence based on their perceptions of others, as well as what they are able to infer about them and their backgrounds. Attraction (likability, charisma, credibility), also triggers convergence. As Turner and West note, “when communicators are attracted to others they will converge in their conversations”.  On the other hand, as the similarity attraction theory highlights, when people have similar beliefs, personality and behaviors they tend to be more attracted towards each other. Thus when an individual shifts his speech and non-verbal behaviors in order to assimilate to the other it can result in a more favorable appraisal of him, that is: when convergence is perceived positively it is likely to enhance both the conversation and the attraction between the listener and the speaker. For this reason it could be said that convergence reflects “an individual’s desire for social approval” from his interlocutor, and that the greater the individual’s need for social approval, the more likely he or she is to converge. Besides attraction, other factors which “influence the intensity of this”need of approval and hence the level of convergence “include the probability of future interactions, the social status of the addressee, and interpersonal variability for need of social approval”.  Other factors that determine whether and to what extent individuals converge in interaction are their relational history, social norms and power variables.  Because individuals are more likely to converge to the individual with the higher status it is likely that the speech in a conversation will reflect the speech of the individual with the higher status. Converging also increases the effectiveness of communication, which in turn lowers uncertainty, interpersonal anxiety, and increases mutual understanding. This is another factor that motivates people to converge.

(Along the same lines, the idea that imitating speech patterns is an important part of patterning one's self on someone else can be observed in the fact that Hillel would sometimes say Malei Hin instead of just Hin.  The Rambam says that this was because he wanted to use the exact words of his teachers, Shmaya and Avtalyon, who simply could not pronounce the letter Hei, so they said In, not Hin, and they had to say Malei In to be understandable. (see Eduyos 1:3 in Pirush HaRambam)  If you're a talmid, you talk like your rebbi, you walk like your rebbi, and you eat like your rebbi.  Ultimately, you hope, you will become like your rebbi in all things.)


So the Mussar Haskeil is that we should always remember the Mishna in Avos and the passuk in Mishlei.

Avos 2:12- 

איזו היא דרך טובה שידבק בה האדם. ... רבי יהושוע אומר, חבר טוב; רבי יוסי אומר, שכן טוב

Mishlei 13:20-  הלוך (הולך) את חכמים (יחכם); ורעה כסילים ירוע

As the Medrash there says,

משל למי שנכנס בחנותו של בשם, אף על פי שאינו מוכר לו ואינו לוקח ממנו, הוא יוצא וריחו נודף, וריח בגדיו מבושמין, ואין ריחו זז ממנו כל היום, עליו הוא אומר הולך את חכמים יחכם... משל לאחד שנכנס לחנותו של בורסקי, אף על פי שאינו מוכר לו ואינו לוקח ממנו, הוא יוצא, ריחו וריח בגדיו מלוכלכין, ואין ריחו וריח בגדיו זז ממנו כל היום, ועליו הוא אומר ורועה כסילים ירוע

בחיר היצירה. Natural Kings and Queens.

When my mother shetichyeh was around 13, she left her home in Kelm to go to the Ponovezher Gymasium,  The Ponovezher Gymasium was a high school for Jewish girls, founded by Ponovezher Rov, HaRav Yosef Kahaneman, that taught Jewish and secular subjects.  In Ponovezh, she rented a room from a Jewish family.  My mother's parents felt comfortable letting her leave home because her sister (Taibel) was married to Rav Mottel Pagremanski's brother (Yosef), so her family and the Pogremanski family were very close, and Reb Mottel's sister, Bassel, lived a few houses away and kept an eagle's eye on my mother.  Bassel, a lawyer, was already very frum by then.  (A little too frum, my mother implies.  An envious classmate of my mother's reported to Bassel that she saw her talking to boys- a total fabrication.  Back to Kelm she went.)

A Gentile that lived in the same courtyard passed away, and the woman from whom she rented the room mentioned that she had gone to pay her respects to the deceased's family.  My mother said, "Oh, they must have been very honored."  דאס איז זיכער געווען פאר זיי א גרויסער כבוד.  The lady looked at her as if she had come from another world.  She incredulously said "Honored??? I'm lucky they let me into the house."

My mother simply couldn't process that response.  She had been raised in Kelm to think of Jews as בחיר היצירה, the pinnacle of creation.  She had been taught that to be a Jew meant that one is a member of the עם הנבחר, that as a servant of Hashem one is an aristocrat, and that a Jew must comport him or herself as would a king or a queen.  What did that mean, that she was lucky that they let her in???  It took a long time for my mother to assimilate the fact that not every Gentile had that point of view.

I don't want you to thing that my mother, at 13, was childishly simple.  A few years later she was offered the King George Scholarship to Oxford, which she had to decline because her parents sought the advice of Reb Eliah Lopian, who was living in England at that time, and he strongly discouraged them from allowing her to go.  In the Lithuanian Yeshiva world, she was famous for her intelligence and knowledge, among other things.  Reb Mottel Pogremanski used to say to her "מנוחה, איר ווייסט צו פיל."  Unfortunately, unlike in some families, such as the Huxleys and the Soloveichiks, brilliance is not a dominant gene.

The point of this story is not that she was educated to see Gentiles as inferior.  The point is that she was taught that to be a Jew meant that we represent the Torah and the relationship between the Ribono shel Olam with His world, and this created responsibilities- noblesse oblige.  It was not intended to belittle, it was not a statement of relative inferiority of the "other."   It was a concept that emphasized the obligation of the Jew to ensure that his life and his behavior expressed the Kedusha with which Hashem has entrusted us.  God chose us; He gave us His Torah, He put His name on us, and He expects us represent Him.

I was reminded of this story by an obituary that I saw for Hagaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef.  Of all the things one could say about him, about his love of Torah and Klal Yisrael, of his photographic and encyclopedic memory  for Torah and the ability to perfectly assimilate and organize all his knowledge, the fact that he was a living treasure whose life was absolutely dedicated to the Mesorah of Klal Yisrael, what did they say?  "...and said God put gentiles on earth only to serve Jews...."  Which is, of course, something להבדיל בין קודש הקדשים להמאוס, Julius Streicher was fond of attributing to the Jews.  What a pity it is that from a life of a Malach Ha'Elokim they found and quoted out of the context of Jewish philosophy one theological expression that is not politically correct.  Who do you think has more respect for human life?  The secular humanists, the left wingers, or our Gedolim?  The Irish think they're the best of all the races;  Stokely Carmichael and Cornel West think they are the pinnacle of the creation.  All that is needed is a tiny little bit of Seichel to realize that there's nothing wrong with voicing such sentiments of self esteem within one's group.  But they stupidly and unethically use these words to attribute to this great man a primitive and xenophobic tribalism.

But, as noted in the comments, the unfortunate reality is inescapable: these quotes have increased antipathy towards the Jewish people.  Let me say this:  I don't know what Rav Ovadia said. I wasn't there. But I know enough to not trust reporters who are quoting people they don't respect (an understatement) and don't understand (another understatement.)

I also know that the Talmud (Berachot 58) quotes the Tanna Ben Zoma, who once looked out upon a vast multitude of Jews surrounding the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and said "Thank God, who has created all these people to serve me." He was talking about his fellow Jews. He was not a horrible solipsist.  He obviously did not mean that no Jew other than he had any independent significance. He knew that every one of them was equal to him in God's eyes. Harav Ovadia said exactly the same thing as Ben Zoma, but while Ben Zoma applied it to himself vis a vis the rest of the Jewish People, Harav Ovadia applied it to Klal Yisrael as a whole vis a vis the rest of the world.  So if you're going to quote Rav Ovadia Yosef, if you're going to quote someone whose entire life and lexicon reflected the deep wisdom of Chazal, you really ought to have a smidgen of understanding of the context of his words.  If you don't, then you can quote God Himself and make Him look like the Devil.

בין איך משוגע

My father zatzal used to tell stories about Reb Aizekel (Eizel) Charif.  In one of the stories, Reb Aizikel woke his rebbetzin up in middle of the night, and asked her, in profound agitation, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע?  Am I sane, or am I crazy?

She was shocked and afraid, and she said, Reb Aizek, what do you mean?  He insisted, and repeated, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע?  I am gozeir on you as your husband that you have to tell me what you really believe!  She answered, with worry and dismay, Reb Aizek, I promise that you are the most sane man in the world, you are 100% sane.

Reb Aizek said, (sometimes my father said he started dancing and said) Oy, Baruch Hashem!  Baruch Hashem!  Someone gave me this sefer that he just published, and I was reading it, and I came to realize that there are only two possibilities.  Either I am crazy, or he is crazy.  Baruch Hashem!  If I am not crazy, Iz ehr meshuga, then he is crazy!



I was talking to a friend recently, and we began to talk about the sugya of לקבעא קמא הדר- that sometimes, walking out and returning is called a hefsek and if you return it is a new beginning and you have to make a new birkas hanehenin, but sometimes it is not considered an interruption, and so when you return you are continuing the same meal  He asked me the following question.

We know that if a person ate a kezayis of mezonos and left the room, he does not have to make another bracha when he returns.  Because mezonos obligates a person to return to the place where he ate, his leaving is not called a hefsek.  לקבעא קמא הדר

What if a person was eating mezonos and shehakol, and he left the room, and he returned.  Would he have to repeat the shehakol?

The natural answer is that no, he would not have to repeat the shehakol.  If he doesn't have to repeat the mezonos because his obligation to return renders his having left insignificant, then he shouldn't have to repeat any bracha.  It seems obvious to me that the din that you don't repeat mezonos is not because mezonos requires that you go back to where  you ate.  It is because mezonos creates a reality of kvius.  Because of that kevius, you have to make the bracha achrona where you ate.  If there were no brachos in the world, the concept of kevius would still apply.  The din of going back is a siman, not a siba.  If so, if there's a reality of kvius, the kvius is applicable to all your brachos.

So my friend told me that he saw a certain great posek, a man that was well known to have shas and poskim and rishonim in his pocket, said that he does have to repeat the shehakol.

I asked him, but why is this different that one who was eating a shehakol food and left the room, but he left his friends there, and he intends to return because of his friends.  He told me it's a good question, but if that posek said farkert, it's my problem to be meyasheiv the sugya.

I haven't looked at any of the mareh mekomos.  I'm afraid it will say what he says.  If it does, then the only choice I will have is to accept the unfortunate reality of the title of this post.  As the Mahari Viel said, פסקי בעלי בתים ופסקי לומדים שני הפכים הם.
(שו"ת מהר"י ווייל סוף סימן קמ"ו, הובא בסמ"ע סימן ג' ס"ק י"ג)

Marei mekomos, thank you Eli.
Badei Hashulchan here and also here
Teshuvos Maharim Padua  (Not the famous Maharam Padua, who lived three hundred years earlier, but he was the Rov of Brisk a generation before the Maharil Diskin, so read it carefully.)


Also on the issue of לקבעא קמא הדר:

What if a person heard kiddush in his Sukkah, but he didn't drink a reviis of wine.  Let's say he wasn't the one that made kiddush, or even if he made kiddush, he drank rov kos but not a revi'is.  Then he walked out to wash netilas yadayim for Hamotzi.  Is he yotzei Kiddush bimkom seuda?  Or does his walking out mean there's a hefsek and his kiddush was not bimkom seuda, since it is not related to the seuda he will eat after washing?

I would think that his obligation and intent to return to eat bread means that he never "left" the sukkah.  It's not worse than leaving friends and intending to come back- which is another example of לקבעא קמא הדר.  Indeed, that is what Reb Yosef Peimer from Slutzk, a talmid of Reb Chaim Volozhiner says in his teshuvos at the end of #7 (here's more about him.)  Rav Chaim Volozhiner is saying a big chiddush:  he is the only one who connects the halacha of leaving a friend behind, which is usually related to the din of making new brachos, to the din of Kiddush Bimkom Seuda.

ואגב דקיימינן בהאי ענינא דקידוש במקום סעודה אמרתי לכתוב כאן מה ששמעתי מפ"ק אדמו"ר הגאןן המפורסם החסיד מהור"ר חיים זצוק"ל בעל נפש החיים בהיותינו יחד הוציא אותנו בקידוש ליל א' של יו"ט ואחר הקידוש יצא אחד לחוץ וחזר מיד ואוושו עלין שצריך לחזור ולקדש כמו דכתב המ"א בסימן רע"ג סק"ה ד"ה צריך כן' דאם יצא ממקומו בנתיים צריך לקדש שנית ואמר מורנו שאין צריך כיןן שהניח מקצת חברים שנתחברו יחד כדי לצאת בקידוש זה וחזר לחביריו הו"ל כההיא דסימן קע"ח דבהניח מקצת חברים אין צריך לחזור ולברך בשינוי מקום ואע"ג שדבריו ז"ל אין צריך חיזוק יש לצרף מה שראיתי בחידושי הריטב"א במסכת סוכה דף מ"ה ד"ה ורבה כו' דז"ל מיהו כי אמרינן דמברך על הסוכה כל זמן שנכנס בה היינו כשיוצא מתחלה יציאה גמורה לעשות ענינו ושלא לחזור לאלתר דהוי כחליצה דתפילין אבל לא יצא מתחלה אלא לדבר עם חבירו או להביא דבר לסוכה לצורך שעתו לא הויא יציאה כלל לחייבו בברכה כשחוזר וכיוצא בזה לענין ברכת נהנין כשעמד בתוך הסעודה על דעת לחזור לאלתר שאינו טעון ברכה לאחריו ולא לפניו ולקבעי' הדר ואע"פ שלא הניח שם זקן או חולה וכדפרישנא בדוכתא עכ"ל הריטב"א וצ"ע שלאו הביאו דעתו כלל וכפי העולה בזכרוני ראיתי פ"א בכנה"ג דחולק על גוף הדין של המ"א ואין הספר ת"י לעיין בן ועיין בח"ש מה דכתבנו בדברי המג"א סימן קפ"ד סק"ג 

 But they tell me that the Chazon Ish argues. It's remarkable.  All of Klal Yisrael does this.  You make kiddush in the Sukkah, you go out to wash, and then you make hamotzi.  This is a hefsek, and it's not the same seuda, so it's a problem of not making kiddush bimkom seudah?

And once again, I have a very big problem understanding this.  We all know that talking between bracha and achila is a hefsek, but not where the talking is for the purpose of the Achila, like "Bring salt."  So we ought to learn a general svara that a hefsek for the needs of the seuda is not a hefsek.  If so, going out to wash in order to eat is not in the parsha of hefsek at all.  Not only is it not a hefsek, it's exactly the opposite of a hefsek- it's a "Not Hefsek," it's a chibbur.  In fact, I believe that if you sat down to eat, and you realized you hadn’t fed your animals, and you go outside to feed them so you can eat, it is not a hefsek either.  To me, this is a poshuteh svara.  So why don’t any of these gedolim say this simple, baalebatische svara?  Is there something wrong with me?  Has my brain gotten dim with age?  Has my almost exclusive focus on the Daf Yomi for twenty five years made me simplistic?  Very possible.



UPDATE
After thinking about this for a while, I've come to realize that the problem with being a baal habayis is the tendency to form an immediate opinion and to close one's mind, instead of delving into the sugya to see what other ways there are to learn it.  It's a matter of being outside the milieu of shakla vetarya, and also simple laziness and inertia.  So, yes.  Unfortunately, it's true.


By the way, Reb Yosef (Yosalleh) Peimer was like a father to Reb Elya Pruzhiner, Reb Moshe Feinstein's uncle (who made Reb Moshe's father's shidduch with his sister in law on the condition that the Feinsteins drop their Kaidaner Chasidus and adopt the minhagei haGra,) who was born in Slutsk.

Noach, Bereishis 6:12. Grafted Vegetables.

Hashem looked upon the Earth and saw that his creatures were interbreeding, that mankind's debasement had so ruinously distanced the Earth from Hashem's plan that even animals were transgressing the natural order of His creation.

וירא אלהים את-הארץ, והנה נשחתה: כי-השחית כל-בשר את-דרכו, על-הארץ

And God saw the earth, and behold it had become corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth.

Rashi:

כי השחית כל בשר: אפילו בהמה חיה ועוף נזקקין לשאינן מינן

for all flesh had corrupted: Even cattle, beasts, and fowl would mate with those who were not of their own species.  [from Tanchuma Noach 12.]

This, of course, refers to animals, not to plants.  So Tom Tatoes are probably not a sign of the Apocalypse. If our world is destroyed, it will probably be for better reasons.

Recently, grafted vegetables have come to the market for gardeners.  (Apparently, this method has been used commercially for some time- according to this article, 95% of the watermelons in Turkey are grafted onto pumpkin rootstock.)  The most common examples in home gardening are grafted tomatoes.  Heirloom tomatoes taste very good, but they tend to have weak and delicate root systems, and so they often die early or bear few marketable fruits.  Scions of heirloom tomatoes are grafted on to commercial tomato rootstock, which is vigorous and disease-resistant.  This is 100% muttar.  However, Thompson and Morgan has recently begun selling a graft of a tomato and a potato, resulting in a plant which produces both crops.  This is a fine and efficient use of one's garden, and it looks like it would be a lot of fun, but this is definitely a prohibited graft, and it is most probably assur to plant them.  The fruit they produce is muttar, but planting and maintaining the grafted plant is a problem.

The problem is the issur of Kilei Zera'im, kilayim of plants.  The Torah prohibits the grafting of dissimilar trees and vegetables.  While some prohibitions of Kilayim- intermixing- apply only in Eretz Yisrael, the grafting prohibition applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael.  This might be derabanan, it might be muttar when done by the hand of a gentile, there are plenty of "might"s.  But I believe that the practical halacha is that it is assur to plant them.

If you're interested in the methodology, see here and here.

(The cite for the Chazon Ish regarding various kinds of Citrus fruits is Kilayim 3:7.  The Chazon Ish there expresses uncertainty as to whether various citruses are considered dissimilar for purposes of Kilayim  There is, however, no doubt in the world that tomatoes and potatoes are kilayim.  While both are members of the family Solanum, that is irrelevant to the halachic determination of Kilayim.  The connection is no more significant than the fact that apples and roses are members of Rosaceae.)

Sources, and I apologize for the abysmally boring names:

An article about the Tom Tato

New Zealand's Potato Tom

A discussion of the issur of grafting dissimilar plants

The author of the cited discussion, in the last paragraph, leans towards being mattir when done by a gentile.  I disagree.

Yiddish Expressions and their Sources in Chazal- A Yavan in Sukkah

This was originally posted in '12, but it has been updated.  And again, in 2015, with a great find.

Today, when my mother shetichyeh realized that she had forgotten something, she said "א קאצ'ישע קאפ."  A cat's head.  I don't recall hearing that expression before- that a person that forgets things has a cat's head.  I've since seen that some say א קאצין מוח, same idea, a cat's brain.  I don't know why we would malign the cat's memory, but it reminded me of the Gemara (Horios 13b) ת"ר חמשה דברים משכחים את הלימוד האוכל ממה שאוכל עכבר וממה שאוכל חתול והאוכל לב של בהמה והרגיל בזיתים והשותה מים של שיורי רחיצה והרוחץ רגליו זו על גבי זו ויש אומרים אף המניח כליו תחת מראשותיו, that eating a food that had been partially eaten by a cat or a rodent damages the memory.  It stands to reason that a cat and a rodent have terrible memories, because they are always eating things that a cat or a rodent had begun eating.

There are many Yiddish expressions that stem from Chazal.  Obviously, Yiddish can become ugly in the mouths of vulgar people, but so much of it stems from Tanach and Chazal because of Klal Yisrael's obsessive love of the Torah.  I once enjoyed a conversation with Dr. Jean Jofen on this topic, one of the many areas of her expertise.  One example we discussed was that an expression for "a tiny amount," an iota, is a כי הוא זה.  A person who wanted to say that he knew absolutely nothing would say "I don't know a כי הוא זה.  This, of course, comes from the Gemara (Bava Kamma 106b) that when the Torah uses those words, it refers to a man that makes a partial admission of liability- I don't owe you הוא, I only owe you זה.  So the words כי הוא זה came to mean "a little bit."

Another one is ווי א האן אין בני אדם.  When you look at someone askance, you are looking at him ווי א האן אין בני אדם, like a chicken at a human being.  This comes from Kapparos.  We take a chicken by the legs and swing him around our heads while saying the passuk בני אדם יושבי חושך וצלמות....  One imagines that the chicken is looking down at us and wondering what on Earth is going on.  The chicken is totally confused and thinks that we are deranged.  He looks at us ווי א האן אין בני אדם.

Then, there is לא דובים ולא יער, which means "never happened, none of it is true."  This comes from the Gemara (Sota 47) that says that the story (Melachim II 2:23-25) of Elisha and the bears was only a vision or a metaphor, and there were no bears and no forest.  לא דובים ולא יער.  (Another expression that means "totally fabricated" is נישט געשטויגען נישט געפלויגען, which means "didn't rise and didn't fly," and it is our reaction to the claims of miracles about a certain Jew that lived toward the end of the second Beis Hamikdash.)

There are many such expressions.  Another is א יאהר און א מיטוואך (or א יאהר מיט א מיטוואך), translating to "a year and a Wednesday", meaning "a long, long, time."  This also comes from a Gemara (Kesuvos 2a: if after an engagement the groom delays the marriage, the dilatory groom's obligation of spousal support vests a year after the engagement, but only beginning on the first Wednesday after the year because of the rule called 'Shakdu.'  The kalla will eventually be taken care of, but she might have to wait  א יאהר מיט א מיטוואך.)  The common expression for senility- עובר בטל- comes, of course, directly from Avos 5:21, בן מאה כאילו עבר ובטל מן העולם.

I recently was thinking about the word "Parev," or, as used now, Parveh. Remarkably, the word seems to have sprung into existence only in the late eighteen hundreds! What is its etymology? Nobody knows, There are innumerable explanations, most of which are not at all credible. For example - 

פארעוו פאר וואם הייסט א מאכל וואם איז ניט פליישיק און ניט מילכיק פארעוו פארעוו פרבה מלשון פרבר  כלפי בר שעומד בחוץ שלא השתמשו בו לא חלב ולא בשר 

(ר׳ יצחק ליפיעץ)

Then there are the believable ones. The first was suggested to me by my son in law, Harav Moshe Jofen, and I later sort of found it in Reb Dovid Kohen's Yiddish, HaSofoh Hakedoisha,  יידיש השפה הקדושה - א, קאהן, דוד בן צבי משה
where he says

פארעווע ר"ל לא בשרי ולא חלבי 

נראה שהמקור ממשנה ביומא ל:א וגם לד:ב שהכהן גדול שעבר עבורת יום הכפורים והיה צריך לטבול בין חליפת בגדי זהב לבגדי לבן וכן להיפוך היה טובל בבית הפרוה שהיה בקודש משא"כ טבילה ראשונה שהיתה בחול ובגמרא שם לה א אמרו שפרווה אמגושא וכתב שם רש"י שהיה מכשף והוא בנה אותו מקום ועיין שם בתוס' הרי שהטבילה היתה באמצע ונמצא שפרווה הוי כמקום אמצעי בין הדברים הקיצונים במו בשר וחלב 

The idea is not well expressed there, but I think that if the Parvah chamber is the source, it is be because it was situated on the line between Ezras Yisrael and Ezras Kohanim -  it straddled the line. It was liminal.

Then Rav Kohen brings something intriguing:

וידידי הגאון רב אהרן ישעיה בלויא שליט"א ביאר מרש"י קידושין לג:א ד"ה דגיסי בהו דבלע"ז פריביץ וכ"ה בכתובות חיטין פריווירי"ץ שהדבר נאכל עם הכל או בשר או חלב 

In a glossary of the French words in Rashi, he says

 544 עירובץ מז. גס

 פריבי״ץ privez חופשי

 הכוונה: חופשי ביחסי בני-אדם, שאין ביניהם מחיצת נימוסים: השווה בצרפתית של היום privauté

 ״התנהגות חופשית מאוד, לא-מנומסת, בפרט בין גבר לאשה״. הלעז חסר בדפוסים.

(Google translates  "privauté" as "familiarity.")
I like this pshat! Of course, we would need to explain why the word disappeared for six hundred years, between the time of Rashi and its next appearance, when French would not be the source for new Yiddish words.



The one that has forever puzzled me is ווי א יון אין סוכה, literally, something completely out of place.  Literally, it means "like a Greek in a Sukkah."  Now, I know that a Greek, a paradigmatic non-Jew, would be out of place in a Sukkah.  But the specificity of the expression makes it clear that it comes from somewhere.

Here's one approach- Rabbi David Hollander, writing in the Algemeiner, said that it reflects the passuk יפת אלוקים ליפת וישכון באהלי שם:

דער ערשטער טייל פון די געוואונשענע שיריים איז אין פאַרשטיין פאַרוואָס מיר זאָגן "ווי אַ יוון אין סוכה"? פאַרוואָס דווקא ווי אַ "יוון", נישט ווי אַ טערק, אַ רוימער, אָדער וועלכער גוי עס זאָל נישט זיין?

....why do we say "like a Greek in Sukkah?"  Why not a Turk, a Roman, or some other kind of gentile?

דער תירוץ איז, אַז יוון, די גריכן פון אַמאָל און היינט, האָבן זיך אויסגעצייכנט אין אויסערלעכער שיינקייט, אין מאָלערייען, אין סקולפּטור, אין מוזיק און אין אַרכיטעקטור, אָבער זיי האָבן דאַן, אין די ערשטע יאָרן נאָך בריאת העולם, זיך דערווייטערט פון דעם עיקר, ווי עס שטייט אין דער תורה, "יפת אלוקים ליפת וישכון באהלי שם". יפת'ס שיינקייט איז אַ ברכה, אָבער מיט אַ שטרענגן תנאי, און דאָס איז, "וישכון באהלי שם", אונטער ג-ט'ס ממשלה. אָבער יפת, די יוונים, האָבן זיך דערווייטערט פון דעם "וישכון באהלי שם" (בראשית ט', כ"ז). די חז"ל (מגילה ט') זאָגן "יפיפיתו של יפת יהא באהלי שם",יעמאָלט איז יפת שיין, בשעת עס איז באהלי שם.

The answer is that the Greek, ancient and modern,  excelled in external beauty, in painting, in sculpture, in music and architecture, but they distanced themselves, long ago, from the most important thing.  As it says in the Torah (Breishis 9:27), "Hashem , give beauty to Yefeth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem". Yefeth's beauty is a blessing, but with a strong prerequisite- that it be under G-d's rule.  But Yefeth, the Greeks, grasped the beauty and disdained the tent of Shem.

ר' יהודה הלוי וואָרנט אַז יוון איז בלויז "פּרחים" אָבער "בלי פּירות". די מוזיקאַלישע כלים זיינען געווען אָן אהלי שם, ווי רש"י זאָגט (בראשית כ') אַז עס איז געווען "לזמר לעבודת אלילים".

Reb Yehuda Halevi warns that Greece is merely flowers without fruit.  The  musical instruments were used outside the tent of Shem, they were used to serenade the pagan idols.

מיר, אידן, לעבן אין דער קולטור פון די יוונים, פון די קינסטלער וועלכע זיינען נישט געבונדן צו דעם "וישכון באהלי שם", און ביי זיי איז כל דבר אסור מותר, מיטן תירוץ אַז די אַרטיסטן מעגן עובר זיין אויף אַלע מאָראַלישע געזעצן, ווייל זיי, די אַרטיסטן, האָבן געשאַפן אַ לעבנס-וועג, וואָס דערלויבט אַלץ ווייל עס איז נישט "באהלי שם".

צום באַדויערן זיינען פילע אידן געוואָרן די אָנפירער פון דער קולטור פון יוון, און דאָס האָט געבראַכט די השכלה-באַוועגונג, און דערנאָך דעם געפעלשטן "דזשודאַאיזם", וואָס איז געוואָרן דער "יוון אין סוכה" מיט שיינע טעמפּלען, מיט מוזיק אַלס דער עיקר, אָבער ס'איז בלויז "פּרחים בלי פּירות".

דער יוון איז ליידער אַריין אין אונדזער אידישער סוכה...

So the idea is that Yefeth, the Greek people, were given the gift of creating aesthetic beauty, which was intended to be used in service of Hashem.  They rejected "the tents of Shem," and used their gift for exactly the opposite purpose, to glorify physicality and paganism.  For a Yavan to walk into a sukkah highlights the ironic contrast- the Yavan and that which was offered but determinedly and absolutely rejected.

Nachum J suggests that the incongruity of a Yavan in a Sukkah refers to the Gemara in Avoda Zara 3a:

אמרו לפניו רבש"ע תנה לנו מראש ונעשנה אמר להן הקב"ה שוטים שבעולם מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל בשבת מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת אלא אף על פי כן מצוה קלה יש לי וסוכה שמה לכו ועשו אותה ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (דברים ז) אשר אנכי מצוך היום היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא היום ליטול שכר אלא שאין הקב"ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו ואמאי קרי ליה מצוה קלה משום דלית ביה חסרון כיס מיד כל אחד [ואחד] נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו והקדוש ברוך הוא מקדיר עליהם חמה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא שנאמר (תהילים ב) ננתקה את מוסרותימו ונשליכה ממנו עבותימו 

that when Mashiach comes, the nations will say they deserve a chance to do the mitzvos; Hashem will offer them Sukka, and when the sun beats down on their heads, they will say enough is enough, and kick the sukka and stomp out.  So the concept is that Sukka is specifically something that resonates with the Jewish personality, and having a Yavan in a sukka is like having your neighbor come along on your honeymoon.

S, in the comments, cites the following, from a book called יידיש- השפה הקדושה:

עם פאסט וויא א יון אין סוכה
 זה מתאים כמו יוני בסוכה
 יש מפרשים שהיו אומרים ״כמו איואן(שם פרטי של גוי רוסי) בסוכה״ שאין מקומו שם. והנני מעתיק מש״ב באהל דוד ח״א
 בהערות לזכריה יד-טז ״והיה כל הנותר מכל הגוים הבאים על ירושלים ועלו מדי שנה בשנה להשתהות למלך ה׳ צב־אות
 ולחג את חג הסכת״.... עיין רש״י שפי׳ על פי הא דעבודה זרה ג, א שהקב״ה יבדוק הגוים על ידי מצות סוכה עיי״ש. ויתכן
 דמכאן בא הביטוי ביידיש ״א יון אין סוכה״ ששינו יון במקום רומי מטעם הצנזורה. דעיין שבת טו,א רש״י ד״ה המלכות
 הרשעה רומי״ דבדפוס וויען הגירסא יון מטעם הצנזורה (דבווילנא הצארית משלה דת יון האורטודוקסי [גריק
 אורטודוקס בלע״ז] ובוויען משלה דת רומי הקטוליקי. ועיין שם לעיל יא. א ד״ה ולא תחת ולקמן שם לג,ב ודף נו,א ודו״ק.
 ושמעתי שהיו קוראים לרוסים ולאלו שהיו מדת גריק ארטעדאקס בשם יונים וכ״ה בספר ביון מצולה.

This is almost exactly what Dr. Nachum J said, as I mentioned above. The interesting addition is the passuk in Zechariah that says that the gentiles will come and join us in our celebration of Sukkos.  Of course, this is what the Gemara in Avoda Zara comes from, but the expression might have come from a bemused reaction to the passuk in Zechariah.  They're going to come and celebrate Sukkos? נאר דאס פעלט אונז אויס.  That's all we're missing.  Wonderful.

In any case, I think I'm satisfied with this etymology: Based on the passuk in Zecharyah, the Gemara in Avoda Zara, and the pasuk in Breishis, the expression, which means "Something with Zero shaychus," is well grounded in Chazal and Tanach.  A Yavan in a Sukka is in a place that has absolutely no shaychus to him, where he completely does not belong.

The sefer cited, יידיש- השפה הקדושה, is very interesting, and contains some of the etymologies I mentioned in this post.  It is available at Hebrewbooks.org here.  It was written by HaRav Dovid Cohen of Gevul Yavetz.  So I'm not the only person that writes about these havolim.

Rabbi Dr. GS reminds us of the Gemara (Sukka 2b-3a) that tells us how careful Queen Hellenni was to ensure that her children were in a Sukkah, even though she herself was not obligated to be there.  Good idea. Except that Hellini was queen of Adiabene, an Assyrian kingdom in Iraq, and she wasn't Greek, and she and her son Munbaz were geirim.  But it does sound like a Greek name, and she certainly wasn't obligated to be in the Sukka.  And, as RDGS pointedly notes, the Yevanim in the story of Chanuka weren't Greek either.

RDGS, never one to leave well enough alone, now directs our attention to an interesting article by Philologos in the Forwards, in which the identity of those whom we refer to as Assyrians and as Greeks and Yevanim is examined.  As it turns out, Heleni was no less Greek than Assyrian, and, if she descended from Alexander, more.

Ok, now we've cleared up this one.  Next:   עס האט א טעם ווי מען שמייסט א יון.  Literally- It [has as much flavor as /makes as much sense as-] (i.e., no flavor/rationale at all-) beating a Greek.

UPDATE:
My son in law, Harav Moshe Jofen, directs our attention to a Braisa in Maseches Sofrim, 1:7.

מעשה בחמשה זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יונית והיה היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה העגל שלא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה

Once, five elders wrote the Torah in Greek for King Ptolemy.  That day was as hard for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, because the Torah can't be translated as it requires.

How does this relate to the Sukka?

The Vilner Gaon (this is being written on his Yahrtzeit) asks, why is Sukkos in the Fall, when the events it commemorates took place in the Spring.  Chazal do offer other explanations, but the Gaon's explanation is emblematic of his unique gadlus.  The Gaon explains that when we made the Eigel, the Ananei Hakavod that indicated the presence of the Shechina left us.  The sin of the Eigel was forgiven on Yom Kippur, and on that day Moshe descended with the new Luchos from Har Sinai.  The next day, the eleventh of Tishrei, Moshe gave us the commandment to build the Mishkan.  On the twelfth and thirteenth, people brought their contributions.  On the fourteenth, an accounting was made of what was brought, and we were told to stop bringing.  On the fifteenth, the building of the Mishkan began, and the Ananei Hakavod returned.  Sukkos commemorates our regaining Hashem's love- not just the forgiveness, which occurred on Yom Kippur, but the return to the state of being loved by the Ribono shel Olam, as we were before the sin of the Eigel.

On a simple level, we can say that Ptolmey, a Greek king, instigated the translation of the Torah, which was akin to the creation of the Eigel.  Sukkos represents the perfect opposite of the Eigel.  If the Greek king equals the Eigel, and the Sukkah is the sign that the sin of the Eigel was totally erased, then the diametric opposite of the Sukka is the Greek, Yavan.

More importantly, we need to think about why Chazal chose "the day the Eigel was made" to describe the Ptolomeic translation.  We know that in Chazal, the Greeks represent a concept of the absolute limitation of knowledge to the empirical.  (see Ramban in Parshas Achrei Mos, Vayikra 16:8, והנה רמז לך ר"א שתדע סודו כשתגיע לפסוק ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים. והמלה מורכבת, וחביריה רבים. והנה העניין מבואר, זולתי אם תחקור מה עניין לשכלים הנבדלים ולרוחות בקורבן. וזה יודע ברוחות, בחכמת נגרומנסי"א, ויודע גם בשכלים, ברמזי התורה למבין סודם, ולא אוכל לפרש. כי היינו צריכים לחסום פי המתחכמים בטבע הנמשכים אחרי היוני אשר הכחיש כל דבר זולתי המורגש לו, והגיס דעתו לחשוב הוא ותלמידיו הרשעים, כי כל עניין שלא השיג אליו הוא בסברתו איננו אמת..)   For the Greek, the idea that human knowledge is imperfect and unreliable, and that we need to admit our limits and to trust the truths of the Torah, is anathema.  This is what the Braisa means when it says that לא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה, that the Torah could not be translated as it needs to be- without faith in the Ribono shel Olam, the Torah is a mere book of thoughts, subject to human interpretation and criticism and the vagaries of ephemeral fashions of philosophy.  The Sukka represents the idea that human ability and thought are not enough, and we need to place our faith into the hands of the Ribono shel Olam: the only thing we can rely on is impermanence. The only absolute truth is knowledge imparted by the Ribono shel Olam.

Briefly: The sukka represents faith in Hashem, the awareness that nothing we do is permanent and nothing we know is absolute.  Yavan represents human self-reliance and the rejection of revelation in favor of empiricism.  A Yavan and a Sukka are fundamentally incompatible.

I think this pshat is the best of all.

ANOTHER UPDATE:
I just saw a scolarly discussion in the Sefarim Blog about the term Yevanim in Yiddish.  It was written by an "S", and I assume it's not the S I mention above.  It goes as follows:

Yevanim was a particularly loaded term in Russia (for historical purposes this includes regions outside of Russia proper, like Ukraine), because Jews called the non-Jews Yevanim. They did so because many Ukrainians were of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (the Russian Orthodox Church is an Eastern Orthodox Church and in that way 'related' to Greece as well). It is for this reason that Hanover called his account of the Khmelnitzky massacres Yeven Metzula, and refers to the Cossacks as yevanim - but we can see it from other sources, too. For example, see attached for a horrifying account of a massacre on the second day of Pesach 1655. You can see he calls the Cossacks yevanim (from here and here).

Supposedly it was also a play on the name Ivan (ed.- as Rav Dovid Cohen suggested,) but I'm not sure if that's just folk etymology. But more importantly, we can see that some works took it seriously and changed yevanim to something else, to avoid offending the censor. See here where changing yevanim to "yehirim" in Maoz Tzur was a somewhat common change.

And see here where it documents in the 1840s that Jews called the Russians yevanim  - and doubtless you can show it from many Yiddish sources, too. See here where I discuss how the Slavuta Talmud actually changes a gemara; "Rabbi said, why speak Syriac in Eretz Yisrael? Speak Hebrew or Greek!" to "Speak Hebrew or Akum!" 

UPDATE OCTOBER 2015:
I just saw such a fascinating thing- will this never end??  The Shach, in his peirush on the Torah in Emor, Vayikra 23:43 says

 הרי הז׳ צדיקים רמוזים שהם באים ויושבים בסוכה על כן צריך לשבת בה באימה וביראה בבושה וענוה. ולא ימשך אחר אכילה ושתיה שלא יבא לידי נבלה. ולא יכניס לתוכה עכו״ם שהסוכה צלה דמהמנותא ועכו״ם לית ליה מהמנותא ואז בורחת הקדושה וז׳ הצדיקים מקללים קללות נמרצות

*

UPDATE
We were discussing the word Parev, or as people say now, Parveh. There is no clear source for this word, and it seems to have only come into use in the nineteenth century. My son in law, Harav Moshe Jofen, said that it comes from Liskas Beis HaParveh, the chamber that was half in Ezras Yisrael and half in Ezras Kehuna. I scoffed, even though I saw someone else that suggested it, but I'm wondering if he's right.

Schach That is only Kosher on One Axis, and Eiruv Tavshilin a Few Days Before Yomtov.

UPDATED OCTOBER 2020.  I realized that I was wrong and that Reb Moshe passels this schach no matter how you put it up.  See end of section I.

I
DIRECTIONAL S'CHACH

The Chicago Rabbinical Counsel, pursuant to the psak of Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz and Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, has made it known that a certain commercially available fencing product is kosher to be used as Schach.  The original psak can be seen here.  However, they include a link to a caveat: it is only kosher when it is supported by some other schach other than this fencing- on bamboo, for example- and also that it lies perpendicular to the other schach.   The warning can be seen here.  If you remember your High School math, the Cartesian terms would be that this Schach is only kosher on the X axis.  If you place it on the Y axis, it will be passul.

Let's call it "X Axis Schach."

Here is a picture of the schach in use in a sukkah.

In the picture you can see a black line.  This is one of the wires that are woven through the reeds to hold them together.   A moment's thought should make it clear why this schach is only kosher perpendicular to the support bamboo.  If a moment's thought does not do it, I note the explanation below.

Unfortunately, from my examination of this product, I believe it to be mostly open, חמתו מרובה מצלתו.  It might be that since its use is limited to cases where it is perpendicular to other kosher schach, it can be assumed that between itself and the support schach there will be a total of צלתו מרובה מחמתו.  This, however, is a risky assumption, but well within the purview of reliance on one's poseik.  For skeptics, the only way to make a final determination would be to use a light meter and a flashlight in a darkened room. Rabbi Reuven Drucker, the Marah D'Asra of the Agudah of Highland Park New Jersey and Menahel of Yeshiva Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in Washington Heights, is an expert in such determinations.

UPDATE
I was just informed that Rabbi Fishbane, head of the CRC, says that they did measure it and they found it to be tzilsa merubah.  Rabbi Fishbane is universally respected in the Kashrus World, has well established his credentials as a man to be relied upon, and I cede to his opinion.
SECOND UPDATE
Oddly, in the printed CRC information sheet, this schach is discussed, and the paragraph ends by saying that as in all cases, one should ensure that the schach is Tzilso Merubah.  Evidently, someone at the office was not convinced that it is mostly reed.

EXPLANATION
If the schach is placed parallel (Y Axis) to the support schach, then removing the wire would result in all the reeds falling down between the supports.  If it is placed perpendicularly (X Axis,) then even if the wire were to be removed, the reeds would stay in place.  Thus, when the fencing is parallel, the wire is the only reason the schach stays where it belongs, and under the rule of Maamid Bedavar Hamekabel Tumah the reeds are no more kasher than the wire itself.  It is like having a metal lattice holding up the schach.  (Many poskim are not concerned about maamid..)

UPDATE:

I realized that Reb Moshe passels this schach in OC I 177. The emplacement of the wire by the manufacturer to lend the product stability and functionality renders the whole thing ראוי לקבל טומאה.  Like venetian blinds. Finished.

Of course, if you know kol hatorah kullah, including Taharos, and you disagree, please feel free to differ.


II
ON EIRUV TAVSHILIN

On another topic:  Some people, not chalilah in reference to anyone who will be eating in my house this Yomtov, are obsessive about the Eiruv Tavshilin.  They are afraid someone (me) will forget to make the eiruv.    Others might themselves be worried that they will get busy and forget erev yomtov.  For those unfortunate compulsives, I have some advice.  Make the eiruv two or three days before yomtov.  As the Tur points out, his father, the Rosh, says that according to Rav Ashi, such an eiruv is kasher, and we pasken like Rav Ashi (as the basra.)  True, the Mechaber (OC 527, see, for example, here, in Seif 4 and 25 ) holds that lechatchila one should be choshesh for the shitta of Ravva (and the Maharshal that says that the Rosh's analysis is incorrect) and only rely on an erev yomtov Eiruv, but bedieved it is certainly kasher.  So for anyone taking this to heart, remember: if you make the eiruv a few days before Yomtov, or erev yomtov for the last days as well, it's kosher.  But don't make a bracha, neither now nor later on erev Yomtov.  And make sure the Eiruv food remains edible and available until Shabbos begins.

UPDATE 10/8/21

I was wrong to just blithely suggest making the eiruv days before. The Taz 527:2k12 and the Magen Avraham sk13 both prohibit doing so in the first instance, although both accept its validity bedi'eved. So I would modify the suggestion by saying that one should make an early eiruv with a tnai - if I remember, then this eiruv is nothing. If I forget, I will be someich on this eiruv.