Avodah: Volume 6, Number 1

Monday, October 2 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
  1. KODOSH ATOH V'NOYROH SH'MECHOH...
  2. Al Tashlichenu L'eys Ziknoh..
  3. minhag vs. halacha, was: Avodah V5 #132
  4. Re: correction of the baal kriah
  5. RE: Birchos HaTorah (was Re: Besuros Tovos)
  6. Melech vs Mosheil
  7. Re: correction of the baal kriah
  8. kefeila, arama'ah, yisrael or computerized
  9. correction of the baal kriah
  10. R' Schachter
  11. Re: Tefillah and Normative Beliefs
  12. Re: Tefillah and Normative Beliefs

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:16:31 +1000
From: SBA <s...@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
KODOSH ATOH V'NOYROH SH'MECHOH...


In the Sh'moneh Esreh's of Rosh Hashono and Yom Kippur - we say: Kodosh
Atoh v'Noyroh Sh'mechoh - v'Ein Elokah Mibalodecho, kakosuv Vayigbah
Hashem Tz. Bamishpot etc etc..

I have never quite understood this piece of Tefilla. How does the Posuk
(Vayigbah) prove (kakosuv) the previous sentence? It seems to be talking
about something different completely.

The Likutei Maharich brings other versions of the Nussach - rather than
'kakosuv', (IIRC - I don't have the LM handy) 'v'ne'emar' or similar,
which solves the problem. However, every Machzor that I have seen has
'kakosuv'.

I am sure that I am not the only person who tries to understand Peirush
Hamilos during the Yomim Noroim - and as I haven't heard of others being
bothered by this - maybe they do understand Pshat.

BTW the RY Emden Siddur brings this question (actually the Yerios Shlomo)
and writes a lengthy answer - which I have yet to learn.

In any case, it would be interesting to hear any other pshotim.

Wishing all a Ksiva v'Chasima Tovah - Tocheil Shonoh uBirchoseho
SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:s...@blaze.net.au


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:13:19 +1000
From: SBA <s...@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
Al Tashlichenu L'eys Ziknoh..


Al Tashlichenu L'eys Ziknoh...

I heard an interesting moshol recently to explain this posuk (which we
say daily during Selichos) - especially the word 'tashlichenu'.

A poor widow had been saving her copper coins for weeks so she can buy
herself an apple. The big day - when she has the full amount - arrives
and she goes to the fruit store to buy her long-awaited-for apple.

The shopkeeper, realising her situation and feeling sorry for her,
puts the apple into a bag and unbeknownst to her, throws in a number of
leftover partially rotten apples, thinking that she'll have some benefit
from these as well.

The woman goes home, opens her bag and finds the extras - 'farfaulteh'
apples. Upon which she runs back to the store and berates the owner.
He explains to her: "I gave you a nice apple for your money and I threw
in the others free, for no charge."

The widow tells him: "You want to give me apples - give me good
apples. But don't throw in for me any rotten ones".

And that is what we are requesting: Yes, we ask for a long life, one
which comes with health and happiness, but, please - "Al *Tashlichenu*
l'eis ziknoh" - don't "throw into our bag" just *any* ("rotten-apple")
type of 'eis ziknoh'...

Kein Yehi Rotzon...

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:s...@blaze.net.au


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:23:52 -0400
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdu...@loebandtroper.com>
Subject:
minhag vs. halacha, was: Avodah V5 #132


From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toram...@zahav.net.il>
> Do you allow fish on Rosh Hashana or forbid it?

	Who forbids and why?

Gershon
gdu...@loebandtroper.com
gershon.du...@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:43:09 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: correction of the baal kriah


On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:48:22AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Indeed. Who is to say that changes, based on subtle nuance, like this, 
: necessarily warrant, according to the Yerushalmi, correction?

Very good question. How do you define a shi'ur of change in meaning?

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:01:41 +0100
From: luntz <lu...@demon.co.uk>
Subject:
RE: Birchos HaTorah (was Re: Besuros Tovos)


===== Original Message From cmshe...@inter.net.il =====
> Note the Biur Halacha in 47 s"v Nashim, where he says, "d'ho
> chayavos LILMOD ha'dinim she'lahem v'od d'chayeves LOMAR
> parshas ha'korbanos k'mo she'chayeves b'tfilla." [Emphasis mine].

>It seems that the Biur Halacha is holding that whatever it is that
>women are doing with parshas ha'korbanos, it isn't learning.

Agreed. But that negates the position that the reason for women saying Birchas 
Hatorah is because of their obligation to say the korbanos (I am at work at 
the moment, and after last time's mix up, am hesitant to say whether it was 
the Magen Avraham, Taz or both that suggested this as the rationale).

That takes us back to the question of what are women saying birchas hatorah 
over when they say such brochas? Particularly according to the Sephardi view 
that you do not say a bracha over a miztvah for which you are patur. I 
certainly haven't seen this anywhere, but is it possible that the answer is 
"elu d'varim" (which certainly includes mitzvos incumbant on women - but is 
somewhat ironic, as a) it is included as the section to cover torah sh'baal 
peh and b) it includes the very specific statement "v'talmud torah kneged 
kulam", which arguably if you follow the view proposed, is probably a sheker 
for women - how can you say that a mitzvah for which you are not commanded in 
kneged all these others for which you are)? {I note in passing on the question 
of sheker, that the Aruch HaShulchan insists on you leaving out language in 
the slichos that is inappropriate for the time at which you are saying them 
(eg if they contemplate early morning, and it is evening etc) on the grounds 
you should not be saying sheker - How far you should stretch this no sheker 
business I have never really worked out - should I be leaving out the 
references to talis and tephillin when I say the shema? I don't, but I don't 
know why I don't!)

In any event, I still remain with my statement that excluding "l'torah" from 
the bracha for a girl is in direct contradiction to the position of obligating 
her to say birchas hatorah.  With the interesting aside that maybe women 
should be saying birchas hatorah every time the do sit down to learn, in 
addition to saying these brochos in the morning.

Shana Tova
Chana


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:23:03 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Melech vs Mosheil


The Gra has a relatively well-known vort on the difference between a melech
and a mosheil. As meluchah is a major theme, if not THE major theme of Rosh
haShanah (after all, Malchios and Birchas haYom are one and the same), I
was thinking about it lately.

Before I add my 2 cents, here's the Gra's thought.

"Ki Lashem haMluchah uMosheil bagoyim..." Why is HKBH "only" a mosheil
to the other goyim?

"Malchuscha malchus kol olamim, umemshalticha bichol dor vador." Why is
meluchah "kol olamim", but memshalah last only "dor vador"?

"Vihayah Hashem limelech al kol ha'aretz..." IOW, after acharis hayamim,
after the "dor vador", Hashem will be melech over the other nations
as well.

What's the difference between memshalah and meluchah?

The Gra explains that a melech rules by acclamation of the people. A
mosheil, however well intended, has to rule by imposing his (or His)
will on them. Therefore, in the days of "veyei'asu kulam agudah achas
la'asos ritzonicha..." Hashem will be "melech al kol ha'aretz".

So far the Gra, in painfully short summary.

This casts the point of Rosh haShanah into being about accepting HKBH as
our melech, thereby changing His relationship to us from one of mosheil
to that of melech.

A Melech need not impose His will in the same way that a Mosheil does.
A Melech, therefore, has the opportunity to act with chessed and rachamim
at times when a Mosheil could not. We therefore introduce yamim nora'im
by declairing HKBH's meluchah. By accepting Him as king we obviate the
need for him to direct us through yissurim and nisyonos.

And when Moshe Rabbeinu asked "hareini na es kivodechah", Hashem's answer
was the 13 middos harachamim. "Meloch al kol ha'olam kulo bichcodecha"
-- HKBH's kavod malchus is rachamim. And so His "throne" is rachamim,
as we say in selichos "Ke-l *Melech* yosheiv al kisei *rachamim*".

It's interesting to note that the man-melech relationship is a subtheme in
Purim as well. After all, the only reference to Hashem Yisbarach in the
megillah is the title "melech" -- which always refers to Him, as least on
the level of derashah or remez. And when Esther approaches the melech, she
opens her request with the word "Uvchein", just as a number of requests in
the birchas hayom for Yamim Nora'im do.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l



Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:04:01 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMS...@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
Re: correction of the baal kriah


On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:29:41 -0400 Micha Berger said:
> Very good question. How do you define a shi'ur of change in meaning?

to me these are simple:

1) Es/eis or lechem/lochem - not a change in meaning only in form
or syntax.

2) ishEh/ishAh - ayIl/ayAl is a change in meaning

3) BO'oh/bo'OH v'aCHALta/v'achlTA -  the same verb different tense.
This is a grey area; perhaps THE grey area for a machlokes.

There is no doubt that {textual} lamdus could come up with
other distinctions and criteria, but I would say that by and large
What I outlines above is what is popularly accepted and enforced
accross the spectrum, or at least the 80% under the bell curve.

KVCHT
Shanah Tova - Happy New Year
Rich Wolpoe
pms...@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:39:06 -0400
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdu...@loebandtroper.com>
Subject:
kefeila, arama'ah, yisrael or computerized


Reb Josh Backon and I had the following exchange concerning the above:

He wrote:
: Look at the SHACH and the MATEH YEHONATAN in Yoreh Deah 98:1 on what the
: Rema writes "v'ein nohagin achshav" [re: Kfeila]. The problem with a goy
: is *meysiach lefu tomo", I never heard of a computerized odor sensor
: with this problem :-)

: Seriously, there should be NO problem using this $50,000 odor sensor for
: taarovot (even min she'b'mino).

To which I answered:
> 	I looked at the mar'eh mekomos that you gave me and you are
> correct,  per the Shach one can use a kefeila bizman hazeh (I
> didn't remember the case of heter,  as in taste of meat for use
> with milk,  so I thank you for sending me there.).

> 	However,  my impression was that we are NOT somech on a
> kefeila, lema'aseh.   I looked in the Chavas Da'as and that is his
> conclusion,  which bears out my impression.

> 	Are you aware of any situation halacha lema'aseh of using a
> kefeila,  like the Shach and unlike the Chavas Da'as?

Gershon
gdu...@loebandtroper.com
gershon.du...@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:00:00 -0400
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gdu...@loebandtroper.com>
Subject:
correction of the baal kriah


From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> As does stress change meaning. I can't readily think of an example from
> Tanach

	How about the pesukim she'en lahem hechra? We recently read one,
hinecha shochev im avosecha vekam... Clearly, Tosefos (IIRC, sorry,
no m"m) held that the way you read it is important, since he asks on
the Gemara from the way the trop breaks up the posuk. If the posuk HAD a
hechra, and you didn't put it in the right place, would that constitute
a change in meaning?

	To RDB, yes, rarely does the kahal correct mistakes requiring a
knowledge of dikduk. whether they correct things like es or ais depends
on their level of knowledge.

Gershon
gdu...@loebandtroper.com
gershon.du...@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:07:03 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@segalco.com>
Subject:
R' Schachter


[I thought one of the points belonged on Areivim. The rest were renumbered
and I'm forwarding here. -mi]

R H' Schachter gave a shiur to Balabatim last night. There were a few points
related to some of our discussions:

1. The Netziv stated that slichot in the middle of the night only began
after the churban bayit. Before that to intensify tfilot you brought a
karban - (proof was choni hammagal story)  Only after churban and Yermiyahu
saying kumi roni balaila etc. did it move to night.

2.R' Abbahu's compromise to blow all the different combinations was
(according to R' Hai Gaon) so that Balabatim wouldn't think only they were
yotzeh their way and no one else was yotzeh, or that their way was
"mehadrin" (hmmm-sounds like mussar to me for all of us)

3.Chafetz chaim on why blow on right side if elsewhere satan(ra) is thought
to be on left- it's when the satan appears to be on right (ie he tells you
what you're doing is lshem shamayim, that he's most dangerous (hmmmm- more
mussar for all of us)

4.When R' YDS held that it wasn't worth giving up lives for har habayit it
wasn't in the current situation which is more like shaat hashmad(my words)
where it's clear that har habayit is a religious issue.

Please be mochel me for any slights perceived or real and any lack of
clarity or poorly thought out posts etc.

KVCT,
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:55:37 -0400
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Tefillah and Normative Beliefs


On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:39:23AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:     The liturgy is a repository of normative beliefs.  That in
:     addition to supplications to and praises of HKBH, the
:     litrugy contains a large set of affirmations.
...
: #1  If this were not true, why bother arugin over the apporopirateness
:     of reciting "machnisei Rachamim"  The fact that poskim agaonize over
:     the implications of reciting a poem indicates that its recitation
:     confirms its presuppositions, or at least needs redefining.

The question about machnisei rachamim isn't merely over whether or not the
sentiment is emes. It's whether or not the act of expressing this sentiment
is mutar.

Those who disagree with saying it (or "borchuni lishalom mal'achei
hashalom") do so because of the issur of praying to anything other
than HKBH.

The issue of whether Hashem necessarily accepts requests for rachamim directly
or via a mal'ach is not necessarily relevent. You can believe the latter and
still hold that saying "machnisei rachamim" is assur and minhag ta'us.

: #3  Therefore the presence of Yigdal and Ani Maamin in the liturgy-
:     w/o any controversy - is testimony to its "virtual universal
:     acceptance" (See Artscroll & Baer Siddur)

It also would indicate that these forms have more authority than
the Rambam's original in peirush hamishnayos.

: #4  Any midrashic homily that is not in the liturgy might therefore
:     be freely presumed to not be a normative belief....

So then what do you do when two tefillos contradict. Such as the difference
between tefillos on Rosh haShanah vs Birchas haChamah about the date
of beri'ah (and therefore the implications WRT rachamim vs din).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l



Go to top.

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:29:00 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMS...@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
Re: Tefillah and Normative Beliefs


On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:07:42 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:39:23AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>The question about machnisei rachamim isn't merely over whether or not the
>sentiment is emes. It's whether or not the act of expressing this sentiment
>is mutar.

>Those who disagree with saying it (or "borchuni lishalom mal'achei
>hashalom") do so because of the issur of praying to anything other
>than HKBH.

And those who do say it allow for praying to others?  not really
I think the machklokes is about the percetions... More later perhaps

>: #3  Therefore the presence of Yigdal and Ani Maamin in the liturgy-
>:     w/o any controversy - is testimony to its "virtual universal
>:     acceptance" (See Artscroll & Baer Siddur)

>It also would indicate that these forms have more authority than
>the Rambam's original in peirush hamishnayos.

Absolutely true.  My hold point is that halachic tradition
as normative is how something is accepted not how it is proposed.
It is arguable that the 4 taaneisim of the neviim were all
25-hour fasts, but we do only oe for 25 hours.
Original Intent is important in the LAMDUS area, it has to
be modified by later implementation in the halachic area...

>So then what do you do when two tefillos contradict. Such as the difference
>between tefillos on Rosh haShanah vs Birchas haChamah about the date
>of beri'ah (and therefore the implications WRT rachamim vs din).

I would do my best to find a common solution that removes the
contradiction.

Illustration: Hayom haras olam - today the world is CONCEIVED
not born!

On a further level, RH is the Birthday of Adam haRishon not of
the pysical world... which hints that on a certain level
the 6 days of Creation are not OUR 6 24 hour days even
according to chachomim, and most likely according to kabbalah.

RH represents the first day of the relationship between Hashem
and adam. Birchos hachamah deals with the more physical realm

And in the more Eastern paradigms there are no contradictions
only paradoxes.

Shanah Tova - Happy New Year
Rich Wolpoe

pms...@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.


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


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

< Previous Next >