Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 027

Tuesday, June 17 2003

• Re: Just one Posuk - Tehillim initiative with a new twist !
• Re: Just one Posuk - Tehillim initiative with a new twist !
• schar ve-onesh
• Tanach
• Source of 'Ein dovor she'aino oimed bifne horotzon'
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Perikah and Te'inah
• Re: Minhagim
• Re: Revadim Project
• Re: Revadim Project
• Re: duchening/shabbat
• Re: Minhagim

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>The sign urged people to * learn * one posuk of Tehillim a
>>day - following a schedule outlined on the sign - which
>>other people would follow as well.

> I still don't understand it. I recently had the unfortunate opportunity
> to be in a hospital waiting room and learned Gemara intensely. Call me
> a Litvak, but that is what I think R' Chaim Volozhiner would do.

> Does anyone know what RYBS did in such circumstances?

While I think the initiative to learn Tehillim is a step in the right
direction, I agree with you that it is probably more productive to learn
Gemmarah or Halacha.

As to RYBS, I am relatively certain he would advocate learning
Gemmarah. IIRC, according to RYBS's Magnum Opus, Halachic Man this is in
fact what his Grandfather, R. Chaim told his son, R. Moshe to do after
Maariv on Yom HaKipurim instead of saying the Piyutim along with the
Shaliach Tzibur.

Similiarly there is a story told about the Magid of Dubna who was once
in the Beis HaMedrash with Rabbi E. Kramer on Shavuos night. The Magid
was saying Tikun Leil Shavuos and the GRA was learning and was purported
to have rebuked the Magid for saying Tikun rather than learning Gemmarah.

HM

At 05:22 PM 6/16/03 -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
>The sign was urging people to join a new Tehillim initiative - with a
>different twist however.

>The sign urged people to *learn* one posuk of Tehillim a day - following
>a schedule outlined on the sign - which other people would follow as well.

>It also stated in loshon kodesh (not exact quotes) that 'ha*limud* bisefer
>Tehillim yogein oleinu bozeh ubiboh' (the *learning* of sefer Tehillim
>will shield us in present and in the future) and that it is a great means
>to achieve dveikus. Interestingly, source given was sefer avodas hakodesh
>lihaChid"a (same Chid"a whose name has been attached to a differing
>usage of Tehillim that has been dubbed 'Tehillim haChid"a', which was
>discussed here a while back, and which drew some strong questioning).

It is a more accurate reflection of the Chida's lashon: "yilmad," except
that the Chida notes that it should be done according to the letters
of the person or place that needs a yeshuah. Evidently the innovator of
this latest project holds we need lots of yeshuos! (No doubt true.)

Who knows? Perhaps our discussions here somehow (rationally or mystically)
led to this new proposal...

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

<<I agree that the thief will be punished in the next world. However,
R. Schwab indicates that once a person's income is decided on Rosh Hashana
he cannot increase it by theft. That is the part I find difficult to
believe. It implies that the Mafioso living high on the barrel had that
decreed for them each RH>>

<The Mafiosi don't hold like RSS, but rather like Moreh Nevikhim, so
they *can* increase their earnings in this world. (check for Rambam's
explanation of hakol taluy bemazal)>

Actually many rishonim including the Ramban hold that schar ve-onesh does
not over-rule teva at least for the ordinary individual. My impression
is that modern day accepted knowledge that everything is determined and
man cannot change his fate (at least from Rosh Hashana to RH) is mainly
from the Zohar. As Carl tries to argue the Mafiosa will lose their money
some other way (plenty don't - as others point out obviously not every
crook suceeds).

Now to a similar question that has long bothered me.

Modern medicine has increased the life span from about 50 years in the
year 1900 to about 75 years in recent years (depending on country and
gender). Does that imply that people have become more virtuous in the
last 100 years? Ramban takes it for granted that men live longer than
women - it is now the opposite. Does that imply that women were less
virtuous in his day and their behavior has since changed? I am pretty
sure that the same statistics apply to the Jewish population (I have
not seen Jewish statistics for 1900) and so it is a universal question.
Since we are talking about statistics and not an individual the normal
answer that we don't know how G-d counts sins and mitzvot is harder to
apply. We still have to assume that in some measure the current generation
including moslems, chinese, africans etc. are all more deserving of life
than their ancestors of 100 years ago.

While we have been blessed with numerous gedolim living into their 80's
90's and even hundreds this is also true of many sonei yisrael.

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/17/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

"RET makes very interesting points about the difficulties with Tanach
that emerge from the traditional Seder Olam. Surely, however, the authors
of that history were aware of Tanach?"

Rashi in several places answers some of the questions by assuming
that some of the different names in Tanach refer to the same person,
in particular Archashast is identical Darius. However, in pther places
Cyrus, Darius etc. sometimes refers to kings other than the obvious
person.
The claim is that Archashast is the name of a dynasty not an individual
king similar to the use of Pharoh. However, there is no evidence to
support this. Tanach seems to be consisent when refering to Darius and
when to Archashast and as mentioned they appear in the same Pasuk. Also
using external sources there are Persian records that explicitly refer
to these kings with the same names as used in Tanach!

As we have discussed before Chazal in many places equate seemingly
different people and use it to prove halacha eg that a boy can give birth
at the age of 7. Gra among others point out that the it is impossible
to identify these people because of contradictions it would cause
within Tanach.

Let me stress that according to secular history the period recording
in Tanach is only a small portion of Persian history which continued
for over 100 years after Ezra/Nechemis and so these later kings are not
mentioned. Furthermore, several commentaries do recognize Cambysis who
is not mentioned in Tanach. Hence, Ezra does not discuss every Persian
king only those relevant to Jewish history.

I point out that when we discussed the Gemara equation Ezra, Malachi
etc. RYGB brought commentaries that this was not to be taken literally
but only compared the people's qualities. Now we have to take it literally
that kings with different names are the same person. Baal Hamaor already
recognized these difficulties and so accepted that Archashast was indeed
a separate king which would extend the length of the Persian empire. On
the other hand it would ease the problem that Daniel, Ezra, Mordecai,
Chagai, Zecharya, Malachi all overlapped and hence where were they all
when the other stories took place eg Purim.

BTW for those that assume that Anshei Knesset Hagedolah was a single
body of contemporaries, where was it situated? Presumably Mordecai and
Daniel were in Bavel/Persia while Ezra/Nechemia went back and forth
and Zerchaya, Hagai and Malachi were in Israel. In particular according
to the medrash that Mordecai was demoted because of his involvement in
politics how did he participate at all if the Sanhedrin was in Israel
(similar if Daniel=Hatach).

However, I would like to repeat RYGB's question especially on Rambam.
As mentioned one of the difficulties with Chazal's chronology is that
Tanach lists some 7 High Priests son after son who officiated during
the 54 years. This requires that each gave birth at a very young age,
became Kohen Gadol at a young age and died shortly a few years later
again at a young age.
However, in addition to the standard question Rambam lists Ezra as a Kohen
Gadol (though he was not a descent of Yehoshua the first of these Kohanim
Gedolim). Besides adding one more Kohen Gadol who is not on the list (plus
Shimon haTzaddik who is also not on the list in Tanach) we know that Ezra
was in Israel for a while and some presumably Kohen Gadol for many years.
What Rambam will do with the list of Kohanim Gedolim I have no idea.

--
 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/17/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

From: Hershel Botnick <>
> There is a 'velt vort' that there is nothing that stands in the way of
> a strong will. If you really want something badly, it will come about.

> I was wondering whether there is a source for this in the torah, ..

This is one of the Phantom Maamorei Chazal we have discussed in the past.

I am told that there is a similar idea (different words) in Zohar
- Trumah

SBA

From: Arie Folger <>
> Now if you ask me WHY the poskim hold that men can control flatulation
> and women cannot (or even whether that is physiologically correct based
> on the science known to us today), I cannot tell you. But it is clear
> from the MB in 38:13 that he took women's lack of control over flatulation
> as a given.

See the Targum Yonoson on "Lo yihyeh kli gever al isha" - that women
should not put on Tallis and Tefillin.... Thus according to him if they
do, they are oyver a 'lo saaseh'...

[BTW in the same posuk - he also forbids men shaving.]

The Baal Haturim on that posuk writes: " bigematria kli Torah - remez
shelo yilmod odom levitoy Torah...'

SBA

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 04:57:11PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: > My kids' room could be messed up with toys or with clothes. Proving
: > that in one context the problem couldn't have been one doesn't mean it
: > never is.

: > Both of the above are destracting effects of our physical limitations.
: > Why can't either be a lack of the necessary neki'us?

: I wasn't trying to prove that men cannot have a guf that is not naki. 
: I was trying to prove that because men also need a guf naki for 
: tefillin, the idea had to refer to something that would be a 
: potential problem for both genders. Inability to control flatulation 
: seems the most likely candidate. 

: Admittedly, it could be argued that menstruating would cause a woman 
: not to have a guf naki. I just don't think that's the reference here.

Why? The statements before us are:
1- Women are less likely to have a guf naki (with that implication WRT
   tallis and tefillin); and
2- Men are still capable of having neki'us problems, presumably due to
   flatulation.

If all things are equal WRT digestive issues and women have causes in
addition to those, then they'd be less likely to have a guf naqi.

Again, why do you assume only one cause of uncleanliness is involved?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

I would like to thank whoever it was that posted the reference to
MB 38:13, regarding whether or not the required "guf naki" refers to
menstruation.

I think it would be very helpful if all interested parties would take a
look at Aruch HaShulchan 38:6 on that same question. As I read the AHS,
there's really no difference between men and women, except that men have
a chiyuv and women do not. He writes:

"Men, who have a chiyuv, are forced to be careful durng Shema and Tefilah,
and so they *don't* wear them the rest of the day... Women who are
exempt, why should they bring themselves into such a great chashash?
Shema and Tefilah by the women is like the rest of the day for men,
and that's why we don't let them don tefillin."

The MB 38:13 writes in much fewer words, "Because tefillin require a
guf naki, and women are not zariz to be zahir."

I think the MB can be understood in at least two ways: It is possible
that he accuses women in general of laxity in cleanliness. Or it could be
that he agrees with the AHS, that there's really no difference between
men and women, except that men have a chiyuv, and this chiyuv forces
them to be careful durng Shema and Tefilah. *If* the women would have
a chiyuv as well, there'd be no difference.

In short, I see no reference to menstruation in any of this. An accusation
that women are lax in cleanliness, maybe. But if menstruation were the
problem, someone would comment that they're not ABLE to keep themselves
suffciently clean.

Akiva Miller

Some time back the question was raised as to how the very same thing--a
woman's hair--could be ervah if she was married, not-ervah if she was
single. It didn't seem to make sense.

In the current Yated there is a halachic discussion, written by R' Doniel
Neustadt, about married women covering their hair. Based on what he says
there, the answer to the old question is a question of definition. It is
NOT that ervah must be covered, with ervah being defined--who knows how?
Rather, some areas must be covered al pi din; those areas which must be
covered are ipso facto DEFINED as ervah.

So a married woman does not have to cover her hair because it is ervah;
it is ervah because it has to be covered. A single girl doesn't have
to cover her hair, and therefore it is not ervah.

Another, related point from the same article: R' Gil Student recently
wrote that a maried woman who leaves her hair uncovered, relying on
a minority opinion (cited in a recent article by R' Michael Broyde),
"is not sinning." Based on my reading of R' Neustadt's article, such
a woman IS sinning. The authorities cited by R' Broyde can be used for
only one leniency: to make kiddush or say a bracha in the presence of
a married woman whose hair is not covered. (And even then R' Neustadt
says the man should avert his face while making kiddush.)

Toby Katz 

>Another, related point from the same article:  R'
>Gil Student recently wrote that a maried woman
>who leaves her hair uncovered, relying on a minority
>opinion (cited in a recent article by R' Michael
>Broyde), "is not sinning."  Based on my reading of
>R' Neustadt's article, such a woman IS sinning.

That is precisely the problem with R' Neustadt's article.  But I'll let
others argue this issue.

>The authorities cited by R' Broyde can be used for
>only one leniency:  to make kiddush or say a bracha
>in the presence of a married woman whose hair is not
>covered.

Different authorities, and R' Broyde was advancing a limud zechus for
those women who do not cover their hair, not issuing a heter.

>(And even then R' Neustadt says the man
>should avert his face while making kiddush.)

The Aruch HaShulchan and R' Moshe Feinstein disagreed.

Gil Student

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:15:09PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: I knew I wasn't making this up. The Mishna Brura 167:79 paskens the 
: way I have been arguing for the Ba'al HaBayis to take first for 
: HaMotzi (although the entire distribution order after the Ba'al 
: Ha'Bayis is likely my own invention) in the name of the Taz, the Graz 
: and the Magen Giborim. See also the Sh'arei Tziyon s"k 69 there.

The MB does /not/ pasqen in that s"k.

He starts by explaining the position given in the Rama besheim Tosafos
and Mordechai, that the others at the table ought not taste before the
mevareikh. They should wait before eating, not before his cutting and
handing it out. According to the Derishah -- who is given as a yeish
omerim and only named in the ShTz s"k 68 -- this is even if the ba'al
habayis gives reshus.

According to the MB's original peshat in the Rama, this is an issue of
kavod and reshus, not of berakhah and hefseq.

Then he quotes the Taz's shitah.

None seem to be given as more authoritative than the other. Unless one
wants to assert primacy to a stam mishnah ... berurah. <grin>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

(Continuation of a thread from about 3-4 weeks ago...)

I had pointed out that on Shabbos, the halachos of Lechem Mishneh
require us to spend time cutting the challah between the bracha and the
eating, and I suggested that this permissible delay would be evidence
for permission to cut challah for the entire household prior to eating
any himself.

R' Carl Sherer explained the difference between slicing for oneself and
slicing for others <<< while it may be an 'interlude,' for ME it is not
a hefsek. Cutting Challah for someone else does nothing to bring about
my eating, and therefore for ME, that could be or is a hefsek. >>>

I'm supposed to eat *after* I've fed my dog. If I don't remember until
I've already said HaMotzi, I can tell someone else to feed him, even prior
to eating the bread myself. (Mechaber 167:6) Don't my guests deserve
at least a similar consideration? (Note that slicing their portions is
something that I *couldn't* do before saying the bracha.)

Regarding the situation after the baal habayis has taken and eaten his own
piece, R' Carl wrote <<< at that point, the issue isn't hefsek as much as
it's who deserves respect. That's why my wife gets next. Then my parents
or inlaws if they are present. Then other adults. Then other persons over
the age of majority. And then the little kids. ... There is no concept of
'equality' among people in halacha. That's a western, secular concept. >>>

I agree that people must give kavod to their parents, and children to
adults, etc etc. When I am the baal habaiyis, I would certainly give to
my parents or other people whom *I* must give kavod to, prior to giving
to others at the table.

But if another family is at my table, I see no reason why *I* should give
precedence to the parents (my peers) over their children. If one of their
children happens to be closer to the challah than his parent, then sure,
that child should offer to his parent before taking for himself (unless,
perhaps, it is a bigger chiyuv for him to minimize his own hefsek). But
to *me*, the parent and child are indeed equal, unless the parent is in
one of the categories which I'm chayav to give kavod to.

RCS continued: <<< I knew I wasn't making this up. The Mishna Brura 167:79
paskens the way I have been arguing for the Ba'al HaBayis to take first
for HaMotzi .... See also the Sh'arei Tziyon s"k 69 there. >>>

Read that again, and ask yourself whether the verb "l'chalek" in that
context refers to slicing the challah into many pieces, or whether it
refers to passing the slices out to the others, or possibly both actions.
The Rama there was very precise, and wrote that <<< It is mutar to give
each one his portion before he eats, provided that they wait until he
has eaten. >>> This language of the Rama leads me to suspect that when
the MB and others use the word "l'chalek", it refers to passing out the
portions, and *not* to the slicing.

I think the language of the MB says that also: "The Taz holds that
it's not kedai for the Slicer to give out ("she'y'chalek") a portion
to each one, because if they're not allowed to eat until after he does,
then it is considered a hefsek." In other words, it is a waste of time
(and a hefsek) to give out the slices if they can't eat it yet. That
speaks only to the giving out, and not to the actual slicing.

In my usual procedure, I first cut all the slices, then I decide which
slice is the one that I want, and I put it in my mouth. No one gets a
slice until I've already gotten my own. Then, with a minimum of time
delay, I pass the plate down the table, and each person can take a
piece for himself (or choose to offer it to someone to whom he is chayav
in kavod).

In the unusual case where I have a guest whom I want to give particular
kavod to, I *do* use a procedure similar to R' Carl's: I cut all the
slices, select and eat one myself, and then I pass specific slices to
those people, mentioning out loud "This is for Ploni", and then I pass
out the remainder of the plate to everyone else.

(By the way, the first slice cut is often *not* the choicest one. A
different slice may be larger, or wider, or have a better crust, or in
some other way be more preferable to me. This is why I feel that if I
cut many slices, and then go to the specific effor of choosing which
I like the best (rather than simply taking a random slice), then the
"extra" cutting is not a hefsek. Compare it to many situations in Hilchos
Shabbos and Yom Tov, where one can prepare a large serving dish of food,
even though it is certainly more than will be eaten, because a larger
dish has certain other advantages.)

Akiva Miller

As I was walking home yesterday, I came across someone down the block with
beds and mattresses tied to the top of his car that he was unloading.
This seemed to me to be the modern equivalent of a loaded donkey so I
insisted on helping him unload (I pointed out that it was a shame that
he wasn't my enemy).

I later wondered whether perhaps the specific mitzvah de'oraisa only
applies to an animal that is loaded because it has the added issue of
tza'ar ba'alei chaim. I looked around a little and there's nothing in
Shulchan Aruch about non-animals. The most I could find was a She'arim
Metzuyanim BaHalachah that deduced it from an Aruch HaShulchan.

Is anyone aware of any discussions of the applicability of this mitzvah
to unloading cars or trucks?

Gil Student

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:00:28PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: In a message dated 06/12/2003 2:15:07 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
:> The oft quoted (here) Rambam, in Mamrim 2:2 is clear that minhagim are
:> instituted by the beis din. Not a grass-roots from the masses.

: However see Taanit 26b which implies certain minhagim were grass roots.

I couldn't figure out what you're referring to. The discussion in
the mishnah about T"U be'Av? Where does it say there that the minhag
originated with the women rather than suggested by beis din?

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:46:11AM +0200, S Goldstein wrote:
: I would add half-Hallel to RJR's list.

This post-dates Sanhedrin. Still, I would ask where one has indication
that the minhag started with the masses rather than the poseqim.

Particularly since we're discussing tefillah, which implies a presence
in shul and therefore many morei de'asra's approval.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

[A response to my post that was presumably meant to be onlist. BTW,
the Prof. Lieberman article I cited is in the Kovetz Mada le-Zecher
Moshe Schorr (New York:1944).

Gil Student]

I suggest that the student open Beit Yishai of Rav Shlomo Fisher to
page 112, the note at the bottom, to understand the point. Rav Shlomo
Fisher, and Rav Dov Lior, and many others, including Rishonim we bring
in our booklet of sources, hold that okimtot are definitely not peshat
in the source being interpreted. The problem here is that as Westerners,
we have a hard time understanding the way oral teaching works in Eastern
societies. Halachah is always according to the latter authority because
only he knows the conditions of the age. When he paskens for the age, and
he bases his pesak on earlier sources, he must often resolve the earlier
sources with the changed circumstances on the ground. This process is so
well known in pesak halachah that there is hardly any pesak without it.
The claim about okimtot is just that, that the later posek is paskening
according to circumstances in his day, applying the eternal principles
of Torah to new circumstances, and this requires resolution to earlier
sources by defining the circumstances of earlier pesak in a way that
allows for later pesak.

Pinchas Hayman

First, let me note that I think that the method as described has merit.
It may well be reasonable to teach the skills in the order of:
    1- Mishnah
    2- learning how to compare to other tannaitic statements
    3- Statements of amora'im
    4- shakla vetaryah
But that doesn't require making statements about the time sequence. That's
where they hit problems. The assertion that the maskanah as understood
in steps 3 or 4 is later than the real meaning of the statements in
steps 2 or 3.

Asserting a logical development over historical time is totally Breslau.
And the results end up being very C - historical school, as I argue below.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:21:29PM +0200, Pinchas Hayman wrote:
...
: The more topical objections to the Method center around three main points:

: 1. The dating of the stama d'talmuda (the anonymous aramaic frame of the
: Talmud) - opponents of the Method claim that the entire Talmud, with
: the exception of a number of isolated sugyot, was edited by Rav Ashi
: and Rabina, or by Rav Asi and Rabina b. Rav Huna two generations later.
: The opponents of the Method attribute to us a later dating of the stama,
: and are concerned that this may undercut the halachic authority of
: the Talmud.

: Our Response: the Revadim Method does not take any definitive stance
: on whether the stama is amoraic or post-amoraic...

But you don't entertain the possibility that the one quoted is defending
his own position in the shakla vetarya. I'm not saying it must be the
same amorah -- of course not. (Minimally, "amar lach R' ..." can't be.)
However, one here is asserting they can't. As though later amora'im
"played a different game" than the earlier ones.

...
: 2. The Revadim Method learns that when the Talmud claims that an
: earlier source which presents a general law only intended to relate to a
: certain special case, and not in accordance with its simple meaning, the
: Talmud does not mean this to be the simple meaning of the sources being
: interpreted (okimtot). The opposition claims that this will undermine
: the respect of the students for the way of the Talmud in this regard.

: Our Response: Our opinion on this topic is supported by dozens of sources
: from the Rishonim and Acharonim. In our opinion, it is specifically the
: process of interpretation not in accordance with simple meaning which
: is the crown of the system, in that it combines respect for the earlier
: sources with the struggle to apply halacha to changing circumstances.
...

C's motto is all about adapting halachah to the times. And they also
came up with this notion of reading ulterior motives than the ones
stated into the gemara.

Halachah grows to cover new situations. Not transvalues earlier statements
to create an illusion of continuity where non really exists.

And that has greater impact on halachic development than when the
gemara was redacted. Once one is allowed to transvalue earlier
statements, once amora'im allegedly did so to eliminate precedent
from the halachic precedent and amoraic statements that one may
not do so transvalued into allowing one to eliminate precedent,
halachah has no continuity.

How is this new approach any more kosher than C's?

: Several Gedolim we have consulted with in the last several months have
: concurred with us on this issue.

Haskamos usually come with names. Not anonymous gedolim. At most, it
shows no one is convinced enough to stand up and put their name to it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:03:22AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: 2. Does anyone know the reason for the cohanims' nigun? There are sources
: that discuss the issue of saying psukim/RBS"O during their nigun, but
: which came first-ie was the nigun added so that the kahal could say
: something while not breaking into the actual bracha or was the nigun
: always there and it was thus convenient to allow something to be said.
...
: If the latter, why don't the cohanim sing their nigun on shabbat(perhaps
: so as not to confuse the Kahal?)

Tangent:

I do not say anything during the nigun, midin hefseq.

Given that and my love of singing along (*), I often sing along with
the kohanim.

It was pointed out to me once that perhaps I ought to keep silent,
that the nigun was itself part of the avodah, and therefore not for
us non-kohanim.

If the nigun historically preceded the bakashos, is this conclusion
muchrach?

(* Tefillah for me tends to be about peirush hamilim, and seeing hashkafic
nuances in the words of tefillah. Beauty of ideas, more than that of
poetry. A personal failing explaining why I have a propensity toward
engineering rather than liberal arts. Music adds leiv to the equation.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

: However see Taanit 26b which implies certain minhagim were grass roots.

Where the gemora explains the difference between halacha,minhag and nahagu.

KT
Joel Rich

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]