Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 004

Wednesday, September 15 1999

• zekher ha-dam
• Re: RYGB granting of Mechilah
• Re: zekher ha-dam
• Re: Pre-Midnight Selichos - Ramblings
• Re: Glatt
• JO
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Infertility Treatments for a Non-married Woman
• Re: Yomim Noraim Liturgy - G'mar Chasima Tovah
• Re: RH candleliting;RH shalosh seudah
• Re: Pre-Midnight Selichos - Ramblings
• Re: Yomim Noraim Liturgy - Ramblings
• morning selichos
• blanket mechilla
• Re: morning selichos
• Age of a Gadol
• shabbat hatan
• Re: Chazaras Hashztz at Mincha

"Jonathan J. Baker writes:
>1) the MB in 685 s"k 18 suggesting that it is correct to repeat
>zeicher/zecher (an UNSOURCED SEVARAH?) [my emphasis]

and Moshe Feldman comments:

>AFAIK, zeicher/zecher is repeated only for the reading of Parshat
>Zachor (which may be de'oraita), not during the regular laining of
>Parshat Ki Teitzei.  So the argument should go the other way: if the
>KNOWN SAFEK [my emphasis] of zeicher/zecher is not repeated on an
>ordinary Shabbat, kal vachomer dam/dom should not be repeated.

As to unsourced: The M"B, who appears to be the one who started the repetitive
reading, evidently got the safek from Ma'aseh Rav where siman kl"d (134)
states that the GR"A said zekher in parashat zakhor with six points, i.e.,
segol - segol. R' Hayyim miVolozhin, however, in his haskama to Maaseh Rav
points out that this is an error. I quote: "And as to what he wrote that,
in parashat zakhor, to read zekher with six points, I heard from his holy
mouth that he read with five points.."

Based on the M"B, the idea has spread that there is a known safek. I am
surprised that RMFeldman, a student of R' Mordechai Breuer's work, has
accepted this. I'm afraid that, as R" Hayyim and the song have stated,
"it ain't necessarily so".

But first, an earlier source. The Radak in the printed editions of Sefer
Hashorashim says "zekher 'Amalek with six points". R' Wolf Heidenheim found
in his manuscript copy the additional words omitted from the printed edition
"...in some books and others say all zekher with five points". Despite the
Radak, Heidenheim decided that five was correct.

Before the Radak AFAIK there is no mention of any safek. All of the most
reliable manuscripts used by RMBreuer agree - five points. The ba'alei
hamesorah do not mention any alternative nikkud. RM"H, Meiri, YHB"Y, Ohr
Torah, and Minchat Shai make no comment (because there was no question). All
chumashim are the same - five points. David C. Ginsburg who went through all
possible sources to make his "scientific" Bible does not question the point.

From the Sefaradim we cannot learn because most of them do not differentiate
between segol and tzeireh. The Yemenites who differentiate even more strongly
than Ashkenazim read with a tzeireh as is written in their chumashim.

Ki tetzei is missing from the Keter, but, at every other place in that Tanakh,
zekher has five points. We also know from R' Yaakov Sapir, who sent to Aleppo
to check questionable words, that the Keter has zekher Amalek with five points.

And the proof that R' Mordechai Breuer, a proud Yekke, would probably consider
most important. The German shuls that follow the Frankfort a.M. custom read
zeikher with five and refuse to accept any change.

And one thing is quite certain. The GR"A did not repeat the word or phrase
or sentence twice.

Near the beginning of parashat Shofetim it says: bein dam le-dam bein din
le-din bein nega' le-nega. So from posting about dam we go on to a new
din which might well be a nega' and perhaps make divrei rivot be-sha'arei
Avodah. And the beginning of that pasuk is: Ki yipaleh mim'kha. Etm'ha!

Gemar Hatima Tova,

David

In v4n2, Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com> asks:
: Does blanket mechilah therefore have any meaning?

First, a related question:

IMHO, blanket apologies can have meaning, if heartfelt and not motivated by a
somewhat selfish desire to have a clean slate. (Of course the more specific
the better.)

It's possible to regret a sour relationship in general without remembering
each instance that made it sour. It's also possible to regret the way we
interact with all the faceless people on the net without remembering each
person we insulted.

(Note also that we have a liturgical vidui listing categories of chata'im,
we do not insist that vidui must consist of specific acts of violation.)

To get back to the question as hand:

If that regret leads to a modification in behavior and attitude, isn't it
an honest and meaningful apology?

Why wouldn't expressing the flip-side of the same emotion be any less
meaningful? Offering blanket mechilah to a group of people is also a statement
about wanting to improve ones relationship with them.

The Ch'Ch's addition to tefilas Zakah is an explicitly worded statement
that offers mechilah to anyone who did one of those things for which
mechilah is appropriate.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

--- D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@ibm.net> wrote:
> and Moshe Feldman comments:
> 
> >AFAIK, zeicher/zecher is repeated only for the reading of Parshat
> >Zachor (which may be de'oraita), not during the regular laining of
> >Parshat Ki Teitzei.  So the argument should go the other way: if
> the
> >KNOWN SAFEK [my emphasis] of zeicher/zecher is not repeated on an
> >ordinary Shabbat, kal vachomer dam/dom should not be repeated.
> 
> As to unsourced: The M"B, who appears to be the one who started the
> repetitive
> reading, evidently got the safek from Ma'aseh Rav where siman kl"d
> (134)
> states that the GR"A said zekher in parashat zakhor with six
> points, i.e.,
> segol - segol. R' Hayyim miVolozhin, however, in his haskama to
> Maaseh Rav
> points out that this is an error. I quote: "And as to what he wrote
> that,
> in parashat zakhor, to read zekher with six points, I heard from
> his holy
> mouth that he read with five points.."
> 
> Based on the M"B, the idea has spread that there is a known safek.
> I am
> surprised that RMFeldman, a student of R' Mordechai Breuer's work,
> has
> accepted this. I'm afraid that, as R" Hayyim and the song have
> stated,
> "it ain't necessarily so".
> 

Those who know me (in a laining sort of way) know that I often make
mention of R. Breuer's kuntrus zeicher/zecher.  My point was that the
hamon 'am, which has accepted the "safek" announced by the MB,
nevertheless only does so for Parshat Zachor.  From here we can
derive that for regular kriyat haTorah we do not reread psukim based
on safek, but we make a decision as to the correct girsah.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

In v4n2, RRW asks:
: 3) What is the halachically preferred choice
:     A) No Selcihos
:     B) Selichos in the morning beyichuds
:     C) Selichos prior to Midnight with a Minyan?

See Arnie Lustiger's fine seifer ("R' Soloveitchik on the Days of Awe", pp
50-53). The Rav places great importance on the sheliach tzibbur for selichos.

"The entire focus of the Selihot service rests on this individual. As one
example, only he dons the talit during the recitation of Selihot. The reason is
that the sheliah tzibur represents Hashem, as it were, by playing the same role
that Hashem played on that first Yom Kippur on Mount Sinai -- 'Were it not that
this was written in Scripture, it would have been impossible to suggest it.'

"As an emissary of the congregation, the sheliah tzibur recites the Thirteen
Attributes of Mercy in the context of a requirest the He forgive His people. The
oft repeated introduction to the Thirteen Attributes in Selihot includes the
phrase vederekh teshuvah horeita...

"An important detail in Rabbi Yohanan's description is that "...the Holy One
Blessed Be He wrapped Himself." The purpose of this wrapping, or atifah, is for
Hashem to hide his face from Moses because Moses would otherwise be consumed by
the Divine Presence -- 'for a man cannot see Me and live' (Exodus 33:20). As
a result, the reenactment of the first Yom Kippur on Mount Sinai, the sheliah
tzibur engages in atifah as well.

"A similar halakhah is operative during the blessing of the Kohanim...

"Greeting the Sabbath (Kabbalat Shabbat) required enwrapping oneself, because
Kabbalat Shabbat is equivalent to greeting the Divine Presence..."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

Avraham Allswang <aswang@netvision.net.il> asks:
: The Chasam Sofer in YD 39 ...  says that the peeling of adhesions, if done
: by an expert and G-d fearing shochet, then Yochlu anavim vyisbau - (which
: seems to mean no problem). Then his next words are "however, Shomer nafsho
: yirchak" (one who cares about his soul will stay away) from anything like
: this.

: Is this not a contradiction?

I would say no, but to do so I'm going to invoke my multiple dirachim / multiple
archetypes idea again. (Mechilah everyone?)

The Anav and the Shomer Nafsho are different archetypes. (I wonder if the
Ch"S's "Shomer Nafsho" is related to the M"B's "Ba'al Nefesh".) Pursuing
a given archetype is another way of saying following a given derech.

For someone striving to be a Shomer Nefesh, it pays to be lifnim mishuras
hadin and not eat such meat. However, such a chumrah would not aid in
pursuing Anivus.

Taking this from a perspective of Naran, the Shomer Nefesh is someone who
tries to control that ta'avos associates with life and with gashmiyus. Of
course refraining from otherwise permissable meat is along this dimension.

Anivus, though, is about controlling one's ruach, ones ego and sense of self.

Of course, it's more likely the Ch'S just wanted to quote Tehillim 22:27
instead of just saying "kosher". Everything else would just have justified
that choice.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

Had to wait nearly a year to find something worth reading in the Jewish
Observer. "Schkoiach" (like that spelling?) to Rav YGB.
gemar chasimah tovah to all
steve katz

In v4n3 Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
: I find it very strange to hear somebody being described as authoritative
: who is not viewed as an authority. Such a person is knowledgeable not
: authoritative. My point has been that authority is dependent upon being
: accepted as such [not so much by the masses but by peers]. There is
: no difference whether we are talking about halacha, agada or lehavdil -
: psychology.

The difference is that psychology lacks a parallel to Da'as Torah. A person
has a level of reliability including but also beyond just the direct knowledge
of the material -- which is what I meant by authoritative.

What I am saying is that gedulah is here referring to quantity of da'as Torah
and therefore of reliability. It is therefore theoretically possible for
someone to have da'as Torah and therefore reliability, but lack the halachic
authority created by having a following. (To my mind, this is because p'sak
is more about determining which right answer best fits Adas Yisrael's needs
than about which answer is the right one.)

:> I think the issue comes up because you're still picturing a gadol as one
:> of the few key poskim of the generation. Therefore we look at the numbers
:> of Adas Yisrael...

: Again - the issue is not limited to halacha.

But yet you're giving authority based on rov -- a rule in p'sak halachah
in particular.

: The historical fact is that the Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a posek or
: gadol in learning during his lifetime...

Sorry for the anachronism.

I'm deleting your example of the Ch"Ch and the Gr"a because we agree about
the role of numbers in conferring halachic impact. I disagree that public
acceptance is a measure of the person's skill, knowledge, or da'as Torah.
I don't believe that there's a public Ruach haKodesh guaranteeing that Adas
Yisrael will always following the person with the greatest da'as Torah.

Which is relevent in determining whether someone "rises above their footnotes".
IOW, in determining correctness when the question "what's true" as opposed to
"what's halachah".

In the original subject -- R' Aryeh Kaplan, the subject was whether he rises
above his footnotes in inyanei machshavah. Divorcing the question from RAK
in particular, can someone who is not acknowledged for his gedulah still
have sufficient gedulah for his words to carry weight because of his da'as
Torah and not just because of the book-knowledge he has on the topic? As
far as I can tell, the answer is certainly "yes".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

I'm currently working with an infertility specialist (I am a medical
student, and in my final year of school, I chose this as one of my
electives) and an interesting question has been on my mind for a while. If
a woman who is not married desires treatment for infertility, am I allowed
to help her concieve?
1) I would imagine that with a Jewish woman there is a problem of mesayeyah
yedei ovrei aveirah, certainly if she is being helped with her "partner's"
participation, but what about artificial insemination where there is no act
of Biah Assurah (at least no act that I would be a mesayayah in)?
2) what about a non-Jewish woman in a "steady" non-married relationship (if
there is such a thing)? is she any different than a non-Jewish married
woman?  What is the significance of a non-Jewish marriage and maybe
halachically a woman who lives with a man is considered married anyway?
(I am assuming the Shita of the Ramban that we can treat goyim for
infertility vs. Rabbeinu Yonah who held that it is not allowed)
3) What about a woman who is completely "partnerless", I find it personally
extremely bothersome for many obvious reasons to help her become pregnant,
but what are the halachic implications?
Shaul Weinreb

In a message dated 9/14/99 8:28:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> : 2) We refrain from saying Kesivo vaChasimo Tova after RH and switch to 
Gmar 
> 
>  : Chasimo Tova.  Yet in the tefillos, we say kosveinu up until ne'ilo and 
> only 
>  : then change to chosmeinu.
>  
>  In tefillah, we're referring to our own judgement. In the greeting we're
>  speaking of someone else's.
>  
This answer also guessed by RAM is brought in the Lvush. and see Mogein 
Avrohom end of 582.

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/14/99 3:52:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org writes:

> I'm looking for the source for the following 2 questions-------------    1]
>  chiyuv  of shalosh seudos on shabbat RH

See S"A Horav 529:2
   
>  2]the source of lehadlik ner shel yom hazikaron- do any jews other than
>  chabad use that nusach?

AFAIK it is a Chidush of the Baal Hatanyoh in his Siddur, (among the possible 
reasons according to the Rebbe Ztz"l is to compare to the blessing in Kiddush 
and Haftorah, (and Brocho Emtzois of Kiddush Hayom YZ)).

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind 

In a message dated 9/13/99 10:10:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> 1) What is the precise Halachic problem in saying Selichos prior to 
Midnight?

See Mogein Avrohom 565 S"K 5. the Mokor is Shaar Hakavonos.

>  2) Is saying Selichos prior to midnight any bigger an avla than davening 
> after  the zman - a practice common to many Chassidishe circles?

According to the RaMaZ brought in Kaf Hachayim 581 Ois 2 perhaps.

>  3) What is the halachically preferred choice
>      A) No Selcihos
>      B) Selichos in the morning beyichuds
>      C) Selichos prior to Midnight with a Minyan?

As others mentioned Reb Moshe ruled that it is OK before Chatzohs, but others 
based on the (above mentioned RaMaZ) hold that no earlier then 10 hours after 
Chatzohs Hayom (according to the RaMaZ one who is present at an earlier 
saying should not join in), see Deios in Nitei Gavrie-l. also see Poskim what 
may or may not be said Byechidus.


>  4) Similarly which is preferable
>      A) Selichos in the mroning w/o kavana, very rushed while anxious about 
>  getting to work on time
>      B) Selichos in the evening in a slow relaxed atmosphere with a good 
deal 
> of 
>  concentration?

KaNal.

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/13/99 4:18:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> 1) We refrain from tekias reshus on erev RH in order to be mafsik.  etc.  
Why 
>  not blow on Erev RH when it falls out on erev Shabbos, since in this case 
>  Shabbos itself would be mafsik?

The second reason brought in Mogein Avrohom 581 (14) is still relevent.
  
>  2) We refrain from saying Kesivo vaChasimo Tova after RH and switch to 
Gmar 
>  Chasimo Tova.  Yet in the tefillos, we say kosveinu up until ne'ilo and 
only 
>  then change to chosmeinu.

This answer  given by RMB also guessed by RAM is brought in the Lvush. and 
see Mogein Avrohom end of 582.

  
>  3) Why are reshuyos for the Shatz said bekol?  As private petitions 
shouldn' t 
>  they be said belachash?

There are different customs, as to what is said Bkol.

>  4) We omit Ovinu Malkunei on Shabbos and on Erev YK. If the reason is that 
 it 
>  resembles the bakkoshos in Shmoneh Esrai, why not omit it on Yom Tov too? 

If one is Mdayeik in the Loshon (M"A 584 (3) from the Lvush) it is based on a 
*day* that has a connection with the Brochos Emtoiyois.
 
>  5) If the Shevorim-Teruoh combination is considered one of 3 possible 
forms of 
>  Teruoh, how come it is counted as 2 notes each legabei 100 and not as 1 
note 
>  each?

Lpoeil it is 2 different "Koylos" even if not 2 different Truos.

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In the original minhag of davening selichot while it is still dark 
only the chazan wore a tallit.Today many shuls daven selichot 
after sunrise. I have seen many minhagim in terms of wearing/not wearing
tallit and tefillin.
Does anyone know of a source that discusses what is most proper
(other than saying that one should say selichot earlier)

Eli Turkel

 
>>I don't believe in blanket mechilah unless you know of something
>>specific you have done to me.

Of course in Tefillat Zakah there is a blanket mechilla.
Why do we exclude those who say that they sin on condition they will
be forgiven?

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 9/15/99 2:53:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< 
 In the original minhag of davening selichot while it is still dark 
 only the chazan wore a tallit.Today many shuls daven selichot 
 after sunrise. I have seen many minhagim in terms of wearing/not wearing
 tallit and tefillin.
 Does anyone know of a source that discusses what is most proper
 (other than saying that one should say selichot earlier)
 
 Eli Turkel
  >>
Someone earlier on quoted The Rav(JB Soloveitchik) wrt the Shatz "reenacting" 
the medrash of Hashem appearing to moshe while being mitatef as a shatz as 
the source for the basic practice (and for selichot as a separate prayer).  
I'm not sure that this would be compelling vis-a-vis late morning selichot 
and I have seen all the practices you mentioned but no one who would point to 
 a specific source.

Gmar tov
Joel Rich

Eli Turkel writes:

> Carl writes
> 
> << I was referring to modern times. Nearly all our gdolim today are
> << senior citizens before they are recognized as gdolim.
> 
> Two of the gedolim of the present day Agudah are Rav Chaim Kanevsky
> and Rav Steinman. I am not sure how old they are but they are
> not senior citizens (Rav Kanevsky is a son-in-law of Rav Eliyashiv
> and so a generation younger - of course he is also the son of the Steipler).

I have never met Rav Steinman, but I have had the zchus of 
meeting Rav Kanievsky and I am going to guess that he is around 
70 bli ayin hara. I base this not only on his appearance, but also on 
the fact that his father, the Steipler Gaon, made aliya in 1934 with 
three children, of whom Rav Chaim was the oldest.

I am also going to make the guess that the masses RECOGNIZED 
Rav Chaim as a gadol at an earlier age because of his yichus (the 
Steipler zt"l's son, and lehavdil bein chaim lechaim Rav Elyashiv 
shlita's son in law). That is not in any way to imply that Rav Chaim 
was not worthy of such recognition in his own right - I have heard in 
Rav Elyashiv's name that one may make a bracha on Rav Chaim 
because he knows kol haTorah kula. I am only arguing that in 
general, people are not RECOGNIZED as gdolim by the masses 
until a relatively advanced age. I am sure that the "insiders" as R. 
Daniel calls them recognize at a much earlier age those who will 
eventually be recognized by the masses as gdolim.

> Also Rav Ovadiah Yosef was considered a gadol at least by sefardim for
> many years.

Then how do you explain that he was pushed out of his position as 
the Rishon LeZion in the early 80's? While R. Ovadia's status is 
clearly not subject to any sort of dispute today, I question whether 
the masses truly appreciated him properly 15 or 20 years ago.

> I dont think we have gedolim like the Ramban who wrote major works at
> the age of 17 but thet are not all in retirement age. Also if I remember,
> the first seforim of Chazon Ish and the Steipler appeared when they were
> not that old.

I don't question that. There are definitely young talmidei 
chachamim who publish brilliant sforim (which, unfortunately, in 
many cases are not noticed until years later). But were they 
RECOGNIZED as gdolim by the masses at that age? The Chazon 
Ish's earliest writings were actually penned anonymously! (He 
would sign them "Ish"). 

Recall that my argument was that had Rav Areyh Kaplan zt"l lived 
to be 75 or 80, he would have been much more likely to have been 
recognized by the masses as a gadol. I don't think anything you've 
said contradicts that assertion.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

what is the origin of the Shabbat Hatan (aufruf)?

Ben Waxman
Technical Writer, Foxcom
Tel: 972-2-589-9822
Fax:972-2-589-9898
http://www.foxcom.com <http://www.foxcom.com/> 

Meet us at IBC '99
September 10 - 14 1999
Amsterdam, Holland
Booth # 1.292

In a message dated 9/14/99 8:33:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
david.nadoff@bfkpn.com writes:

<< Does anyone know of any "hard" halachik authority (such as a
 published t'shuva by a recognized posek) for the practice
 commonly known as "haycha kedusha," in which chazaras hashatz of
 Mincha is omitted in the absence of any circumstances that might
 constitute sha'as hadchak (e.g., to avoid missing z'man t'fila or
 to avoid brochos l'vatolo when there are not at least 9 men who
 will listen and answer amayn to the brochos of the shatz), >>

 We have previously discussed the relative priority of tfila btzibbur versus 
Talmud tora and I think that the Yeshiva practice of a  haycha kedusha was 
based on a similar analysis.  I've often wondered about the precedent since 
this seems to have spread widely.  I assume the Yeshiva practice was based on 
the Roshei Yeshiva and talmidim who do not waste any time at all during the 
day and thus it is truly a trade off of limud versus tfila (not that all 
would agree that even this trade is appropriate) and that if there were some 
talmidim who did waste time during the day, it was not meakev.

Let me ask for comment on the following hypothetical (?) situation. A simcha 
is scheduled on a winter day at noon and extends past shkia.

1. Is there a responsibility on the baal simcha to announce a mincha minyan 
publicly (versus anyone who is interested trying to get a minyan at any time 
so as not to disturb the flow)?

2. Would the tircha of the limited time of the simcha, the pressure of the 
timing of various facets of the simcha and the caterer's timing needs  be 
justification for a community (or their Rav) to adopt the practice of a 
Haycha ? { I have heard this justification which I find somewhat strange 
since the speeches at such events generally are full of thanks to hashem but 
we can't give him an extra 5 minutes)

I'd love to be enlightened (yes, not only on this point:-)

Gmar Chatima Tova,
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         ]