Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 113

Saturday, January 27 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:37:19 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
RE: Standing with feet apart

Shlomo Goldstein
> Not so clear to me.  Why didn't PMG or MB or AH or Remo or Darkei Moshe say
> so?  Why didn't the Rambam say so?
> Why make one rosh yeshiva's chumro a question against everyone else? ...
> If many Jews stand with feet apart, they are probably correct.  Why must
> they be wrong if they learn in yeshivos?  My svoro is that standing helps
> focus and connection to the chazaras hashatz.

Just to echo R. Shlomo

Based upono what I read about the Arizal, that listening to the Chazaras
HaShatz intently with kavvannah as if one were davening himself was some
kind of chiddush or hanhaggah tova for those kabbalistically inclined.

So aisi, the Briskers had a similar POV that being focused upon the
CH requires feet together etc. But to say this is mei'ikkar hadin is
a dochak.

The problem with such a chumra comes about on Yamim Noraim when many
piyyutim and slichos are embedded in CH. I don't understand how it
can be exected that people stand for hours with their feet together -
e.g. how can we do pesichah? how can people help the shatz wit kor'im?

Rich Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:03:28 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Re: names of chumashim

Gershon Dubin wrote:

> On this topic, today's daf yomi is instructive.  The Gemara refers to Chumash 
> Hapekudim,  Rashi explains this as "Sefer Vayedaber".  The Gemara refers to 
> Chumash Sheni,  and Rashi explains this as Sefer Ve'eleh Shemos.
In the Netziv's introduction to Shemos he discusses the different names for the 
different seforim and their significance, particularly the significance of 
calling Shemos "Chumash Sheini".  He explains it based on a Ramban that Shemos 
is really just a continuation of Bereishis.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:02:49 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: names of chumashim

On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:03:28PM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
:                                           particularly the significance of 
: calling Shemos "Chumash Sheini". He explains it based on a Ramban that Shemos 
: is really just a continuation of Bereishis.

WADR, you don't need the Rambam to note it. Just the first letter of the


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:07:54 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Re: Non-Jews prohibited by rabbinic law?

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> As I mentioned in a previous posting - there are two basic sources that 
> obligate us. 1) a  command from the Torah i.e., from G-d. 2) Commonsense. 

The Rambam in hilchos melachim 8:11 opts for #1.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:38:59 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RE: RHS vs RSZA & societal changes

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>                                                 Today does eating in the
> street confirm that one has no self-respect and therefore should not be
> believed as a witness?  Perhaps not.  It merely reflects a lack of
> sensitivity to proper derech-eretz.

Even your last statement is debatable.  If someone lives in an area where
there are no frum Jews, he will not think that eating in the street (e.g.,
eating a candy bar while waiting for the bus) shows a lack of proper derech
eretz.  Why distinguish between psul eidus (where you are willing to
acknowledge societal change) and proper derech eretz?

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:11:47 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz

I realized the true difference between our RSM's shitah and my

I was taught this notion as tzvei dinim: 1- helping the ignorant;
2- the community's tefillah.

R' Seth Mandel, however, noted that there is no lashon of "tephillah
betzibbur" in the Rambam, and therefore he has only one din. This allows
(or perhaps even requires) RSM to say that helping the ignorant is an
aspect of tefillat hatzibbur. Or, as he writes:
:                                            I think that the Rambam holds
: that that is precisely why someone who is not baqi can only be yotzei this
: way, and not by listening to someone else daven his own t'filla. After
: all, the mitzva of t'filla is that every individual should pour out
: his heart to HQB'H, and everyone's heart is different. So how can one
: person say t'filla for another one? The answer is he can't, but everyone
: is part of the t'filla of klal Yisroel.

The power of the chazan to daven on behalf of someone who can't is,
in RSM's view a consequence of it being the tzibbur's tefillah.

It's also why RSM didn't understand my question about the Rambam's teshuvah.
I noted that the Rambam said that with a heicha kedushah nothing is lost,
neither personal tefillah nor the tefillah for those who can't. And so I
asked, but what about communal tefillah? To him, however, communal tefillah
is the tefillah for those who can't. (Only one din.) And therefore, nothing
truly is lost.


Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:07:22 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Daf Yomi

We are behind. A few notes:

1. Fascinating brief teshuva in the Seridei Eish OC to Rabi Jung on English 
prayers. Starts with avoiding fights with Kano'im, proceeds to halachic 
issues, and ends with a ringing emotional charge to keep Shuls pure and holy.

2. Two important R' Tzadoks, one on Gavriel: He is the midda of gever and 
involved with our relationships with the 70 ummos, so he understands all 
languages, as opposed to the midda of malach that is that of Michael. That 
is why is the only malach who understands other languages, why his travels 
are in two kefitzos as opposed to Michael's in one. The other concerns ko, 
kaochoh and v'ansa v'amra (and L'Dovid Mizmor vs. Mizmor L'dovid), and that 
ruach ha'kodesh, expressed in lashon ha'kodesh, is from the deepest 
wellsprings of the individual: any statement that comes from an individuals 
shoresh ha'neshomo is b'ruach ha'kodesh.


ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Go to top.


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >