Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 034

Thursday, May 3 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:40:10 -0400
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
FW: HALAKHA61 -21: Mentioning "Shem & Malkhut" in Blessings

As a follow up to the thread on understanding TSBP...

Notice how below that Tosafot is quote that the phrase "Elokei Avraham"
satisfies the Malchut requirement, and the Rosh (6:23) suggests that
the expression "ha-Kel ha-gadol" does the same.

IOW Malchus is indeed a requirement but the term "melech haolom" is not
meant davka literally.

AIUI this is the nature of TSBP when committed to text. That is, whilst
still oral, there is a tendency to apply these principals more flexibly.
It is when writing them down that they acquire more rigid, literal,

Regardless, this is a great article

Rich Wolpoe   

[Reshus from the author deleted. -mi]


Mentioning "Shem & Malkhut" in Blessings
By Harav Aharon Lichtenstein
Translated and Adapted by David Silverberg

I. Introduction: The Missing "Malkhut" in Shemoneh Esrei

A well-known dispute exists between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan concerning
the basic text required in any berakha (blessing):

    "Rav said: Any berakha that does not include mention of G-d's Name
    ['Shem'] is not a berakha. Rabbi Yochanan said: Any berakha that does
    not include 'Malkhut' [mention of G-d's kingship: 'Melekh ha-olam']
    is not a berakha." (Berakhot 40b)

Though the passage itself need not be explained in this light, the
Rishonim understood that Rabbi Yochanan adds a stringency onto Rav's
position. Meaning, Rabbi Yochanan requires that a berakha include
both Shem and Malkhut. The Rif adopted Rabbi Yochanan's ruling as
authoritative. Despite Abayei's citation of proof for Rav's position
later in the Gemara, Tosafot follow the Rif's ruling.[1] The Rambam
(Hilkhot Berakhot 1:5) similarly requires both Shem and Malkhut, and
this ruling is codified in the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 214:1). Indeed, the
Ri testified to the widespread practice of including Malkhut in every
berakha,[2] and this has, in fact, emerged as the common understanding,
identifying Shem and Malkhut as the defining elements of a berakha.

We must question, then, the several unique berakhot, most notably the
opening berakha in Shemoneh Esrei ("Avot"), which make no mention of
"Malkhut" in their opening clauses. Regarding the specific instance of
"Avot," the Rishonim offer several answers. Tosafot write that the phrase
"Elokei Avraham" satisfies this requirement, as Avraham crowned the
Almighty as King over the universe by informing others of His rule. The
Rosh (6:23) suggests that the expression "ha-Kel ha-gadol" amounts to
a reference to Malkhut.[3] Yet a third possibility appears in "Sefer
Ha-minhagot" in the name of Rav Hai Gaon: we consider the expression
"Melekh ozer," recited towards the end of this berakha, as being situated
at the beginning.[4]

All these approaches maintain that the berakha of "Avot" requires
Malkhut and features some parallel expression that satisfies this
requirement. Other Rishonim, by contrast, argue that Malkhut has no
place in this berakha. The Roke'ach (363), for example, advances this
thesis and provides two possible bases for it:

I. The opening passage of Shemoneh Esrei parallels the prayer of Eliezer,
Avraham's servant, as recorded in Chumash. He did not mention Malkhut
in his supplication, since the Almighty had yet to make His kingship
known to the world.

II. "All berakhot which express thanksgiving to the Almighty contain
mention of Shem and Malkhut. The beginning of Shemoneh Esrei, however,
does not express thanksgiving for any benefit or mitzva, but rather
serves as an introduction to man's requesting his needs -- 'One must
always arrange the Almighty's praise and only thereafter pray.' Therefore,
they did not place Malkhut in this berakha."

A similar approach is cited by the Ra'avya:

    "We have seen in the name of Rabbeinu Shemaya that in the Shemoneh
    Esrei prayer as well as the berakhhot before and after Keriat Shema we
    do not mention Malkhut, because they involve [requesting] compassion,
    and every [mention of] 'Melekh' implies the divine attribute of
    justice... " (1:114)

He then adds another reason, that at both Shacharit and Arvit, the
opening berakha of Shemoneh Esrei immediately follows the berakhot
of Keriat Shema. Now a berakha immediately following another does not
require Shem and Malkhut (as we will soon discuss at length). Once the
first berakha of Shemoneh Esrei at Shacharit and Arvit did not require
Malkhut, it was not introduced into the Mincha service either.

There remains, however, room for further consideration of this issue. By
analyzing the basis of the Shem and Malkhut requirement on the one hand,
and the nature of Shemoneh Esrei on the other, we may perhaps suggest
an additional explanation.

II. Distinguishing Shem From Malkhut

The Rif seems to have had before him a slightly different text of
Rabbi Yochanan's view: "Any berakha that does not include Malkhut and
mention of Hashem's Name is not a berakha." The Rambam and a slew of
other authorities also understood Rabbi Yochanan in this vein. At first
glance, it appears that no distinction exists between the status of Shem
and that of Malkhut within the framework of berakhot; they are equally
indispensable. Upon further reflection, however, it becomes clear that
this is not the case. To demonstrate this, we must first examine the
aforementioned halakha of "berakha ha-semukha le-chaverta" -- a berakha
immediately following another, which does not require Malkhut.

    "All berakhot begin with 'barukh' and conclude with 'barukh,'
    except for berakhot over mitzvot, berakhot over food, a berakha
    immediately following another, and the final berakha of Keriat
    Shema." (Pesachim 104b)

Although this beraita lists the four exceptions together, there is a
vast difference between the first two and last two. The berakhot recited
over food and or mitzvot feature very brief texts; they include Shem
and Malkhut but omit the concluding "barukh" (which repeats the mention
of Shem and with which longer berakhot end). By contrast, berakhot
immediately following others and the final berakha of Keriat Shema do
not include Malkhut at all.

The Rishonim seem to disagree about the basis for this exception of the
adjacent berakha. The Mordekhai (Pesachim 104b) cites Rabbeinu Tam as
significantly limiting the this provision to cases where the first of
the two adjacent berakhot features a long text, one which includes both
an introduction and conclusion of "Barukh." If, however, the first of
the two berakhot was a short, simple berakha (such as berakhot over food
and mitzvot), the second berakha would require Malkhut. The Mordekhai
himself, based on convincing proofs from the Yerushalmi, rejects this
view. He insists that in all cases, the second of two adjacent berakhot
does not require Malkhut.

Apparently, the Mordekhai understood that according to Rabbeinu Tam,
the second of two adjacent berakhot does, in fact, require the standard
opening formula (including Malkhut). However, this second berakha can make
use of the opening of the first berakha, which applies to both. Therefore,
in a case of a short first berakha (without a conclusion), the second
lacks a strong enough basis on which to rely; it therefore requires
its own opening formula. By contrast, the Mordekhai argues that,
fundamentally, the second of two adjacent berakhot is exempt from an
introduction. The status of the first will therefore have no bearing on
this exemption. [5]

Either way, and especially according to our interpretation of Rabbeinu
Tam's position, a simple question presents itself: why does this exemption
apply only to Malkhut? Why don't we find any berakha -- either in the
context of adjacent berakhot or in any other -- without the mention of
Shem? After all, don't berakhot generally require both Shem and Malkhut
(according to Rabbi Yochanan)? Why should an exemption for one not
automatically include the exemption of the other?

Undeniably, then, these two requirements -- of Shem and Malkhut -- do not
resemble one another. Further evidence emerges from the absence of any
explicit source for the requirement of Shem. By contrast, the Yerushalmi
(Berakhot 9:1) cites Rabbi Tanchuma as pointing to a verse in Tehillim
-- "I will exalt you, my G-d, the king" -- as a basis for the need for
Malkhut. [6]

The explanation of this distinction seems clear. The requirement of Shem
in a berakha does not constitute a halakhic detail relevant to berakhot,
but rather itself defines the statement as a "berakha." Without mention
of G-d's Name, no berakha can be said to have been articulated. Just as a
"shevu'a" (oath), according to the Rambam [7], requires the utterance
of G-d's Name, without which the individual's promise does not attain
the halakhic sof a "shevu'a," so is the case regarding a berakha (and
even more so!). We need no Scriptural source for this requirement,
as it establishes the essential definition of a berakha, rather than a
specific requirement relevant to berakhot.

The requirement of Malkhut, by contrast, extends beyond the basic
definition of the berakha; it constitutes an additional halakhic detail
applicable to berakhot. We would not have arrived at this requirement
independently, without a textual basis in Tanakh. This point perhaps
emerges from a careful reading of Rav's comments in the aforementioned
passage in the Yerushalmi: "Any berakha which does not have WITH IT
Malkhut is not a berakha." He speaks of a berakha not accompanied by
Malkhut. Malkhut does not establish the berakha's very identity; only
Shem defines a berakha as such. [8]

We should note, however, that the Bavli provides no source for either
of the two requirements. Additionally, unlike Rav in the Yerushalmi,
Rav Yochanan, in his corresponding statement in the Bavli, formulates
both requirements identically (see citation at the outset of the shiur),
without the nuance we detected in Rav's formulation. Nevertheless,
it appears that the Bavli, too, subscribes to the distinction we have
developed, accounting for the discrepancy between Shem and Malkhut
regarding adjacent berakhot. Given the role of Shem in defining a berakha
as such, we cannot exempt the second of two adjacent berakhot from Shem,
nor can we rely on the Shem of the first berakha. Shem must appear in
the body of every berakha. By contrast, Malkhut, an added requirement,
need not appear in the text of every berakha; we may expect unique
instances of exemption or the possibility of relying on an immediately
preceding berakha.

Furthermore, it would appear that Halakha does not require Malkhut as a
component of the berakha's text, but rather mandates Malkhut in order to
define the individual as standing before the Almighty by acknowledging
His kingship. The verse, "I will exalt You, my G-d, the King," says
nothing about the content of that exaltation. Rather, it depicts the
individual as turning towards the King before whom he stands. We thus
learn from this verse the requirement to see oneself as speaking before
G-d when reciting a berakha.

III. Berakhot Without Malkhut

Having arrived at this conclusion, the possibility arises of reciting
a berakha without Malkhut so long as we can achieve the same goal
through alternate means. We may perhaps understand the halakha of
adjacent berakhot in this light. The individual's status as standing
before the Almighty has already been established by the first berakha,
through which he turned to G-d as King. He need not, therefore, mention
Malkhut in the immediately ensuing berakhot.

If so, we should anticipate other situations where this same status is
established through non-verbal means, thus allowing Shem to suffice on
its own, without the inclusion of Malkhut. One example may arise from
the beraita (Pesachim 104b) mentioned earlier. Recall that the beraita
included in its list of exceptions the final berakha of Keriat Shema,
which concludes with "barukh" but does not begin with "barukh." Rashi
(Berakhot 46b s.v. "Ve-yesh") explains this exception as based on the
rule of adjacent berakhot:

    "Although Keriat Shema interrupts in between, it is nevertheless
    considered adjacent to the preceding berakhot..."

However, the simple reading of the beraita, which lists adjacent
berakhot apart from the final berakha of Keriat Shema, clearly implies
otherwise. Indeed, the Rashba (Berakhot 11b s.v. "Achat") challenges
Rashi's interpretation and suggests a different approach: certain
berakhot were, from the outset, established without an opening clause of
"Barukh..." The Rashba does not, however, provide us with any basis for
singling out one berakha over another in this regard.

The explanation seems to lie in the essence of the mitzva of Keriat
Shema: "kabbalat ol malkhut Shamayim" -- one's accepting upon himself
the yoke of G-d's kingship. The very recitation of Keriat Shema demands
recognition of G-d's kingship. As such, this reading already establishes
the individual's status as addressing the King, thus negating the need
for verbal declaration to this effect (i.e. Malkhut). The circumstances
themselves establish this relationship between the individual reciting
the berakhot and the Almighty.

However, the insistence of Rashi and the Rashba on searching for other
approaches to explain this exception clearly indicates that they did not
adopt the above analysis. However, they may very well have accepted the
principle but rejected only its application to the context of the berakhot
of Keriat Shema. If so, we may explore the possibility of applying our
principle in a different context, that of the obligation of tefilla.

The Rav z"tl has often drawn, with sound logical and textual basis,
a basic distinction between Keriat Shema and tefilla. Although Keriat
Shema involves, as stated, "kabbalat ol malkhut Shamayim," and in this
regard Keriat Shema likely surpasses tefilla, nevertheless, Keriat Shema
does not require a sense of standing before the King. Regarding tefilla,
by contrast, the worshipper's appearance before the Master of the World
constitutes a central element of the mitzva. Several proofs exist to
this effect; we will cite just two:

1) The Ramban (Berakhot 22b) draws a comparison between berakhot and
tefilla with regard to the laws governing their recitation in the presence
of excrement. He then adds:

    "However, regarding a drunkard or one who has drunk wine, it seems
    to me that berakhot are not included under this stringency, for the
    Sages mentioned [this prohibition] only [regarding] tefilla. They
    may, however, read Keriat Shema and certainly berakhot and fulfill
    their obligation.

    For the reason for [the prohibition against their recitation of]
    tefilla is that tefilla requires extra concentration, as it is
    like speaking before the King. We always find the law concerning
    concentration more stringent for tefilla than for Keriat Shema... as
    it is said regarding the mitzva of Megilla:

    'One who naps [as he reads it] has fulfilled his obligation. What
    is considered napping? When one sleeps but does not sleep, is awake
    but is not awake, that one calls him and he answers, but he cannot
    respond in a matter requiring thought. Only when he is reminded does
    he remember.'

    Such a person may read even optimally. Regarding tefilla, by contrast,
    one who cannot speak before the King may not pray." [9]

2) Rashi points to this concept even more explicitly, commenting on the
beraita (Berakhot 24b) that says,

    "If one's cloak of material, leather or sackcloth was wrapped around
    his waist, he may recite Keriat Shema. But for tefilla -- not until
    he covers his heart."

Rashi (25a) explains,

    "For tefilla one must show himself as standing before the King and
    stand with dread; but [while reciting] Keriat Shema -- one does not
    speak before the King."

In light of this distinction, we can easily explain why the opening
berakha of Shemoneh Esrei features no mention of Malkhut. With regard
to the final berakha of Keriat Shema, Rashi and Rashba felt that we
cannot establish one as standing before G-d through the recitation of
Keriat Shema, since, as stated, this recitation does not require a sense
of speaking before the King. Therefore, they suggested alternate reasons
for the lack of Malkhut in the final berakha of Keriat Shema. By contrast,
tefilla by its very definition involves this status of standing before the
King. Since the text of a berakha in and of itself requires only Shem,
whereas Malkhut is needed only to establish the berakha as a direct
address to the King, Malkhut in Shemoneh Esrei would be superfluous.


[1] Berakhot 40b, s.v. Amar. However, Tosafot Rabbeinu Yehuda He-chasid
leaves the halakhic ruling in this regard as an open question. The Tur
(O.C. 214) cites the Ri as likewise expressing ambivalence on this
issue. The Roke'ach (363) ruled in accordance with Rav's view, though
he adds that common practice follows Rabbi Yochs position regarding
the beginning of long berakhot and Rav's opinion with respect to their

[2] The Ri's comments are cited in the Or Zarua (1:114), though there
they appear in the name of "Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi." However, the
identity between the opening words cited with those quoted by several
Rishonim in the name of the Ri suggests a misprint. The Rashba (Berakhot
40b s.v. "Ve-rabbi") cites Rav Hai Gaon concerning the prevalent practice.

[3] In his Tosafot Ha-Rosh (Berakhot 12a), the Rosh writes that the
entire clause, "ha-Kel ha-gadol ha-gibor ve-ha-nora" constitutes an
expression of Malkhut.

[4] Cited in "Sifran Shel Rishonim," edited by Rav Simcha Assaf,
p. 135. Needless to say, according to Tosafot's position, that the
Malkhut requirement includes the mention of the word "ha-olam," this
answer becomes untenable. See also Meiri, Berakhot 40b; Sefer Ha- manhig,
Hilkhot Tefilla 51.

[5] Granted, one could posit an opposite understanding of this dispute,
depending on the details of the halakhot concerning adjacent berakhot
and precisely how we interpret the concept of "exemption" in this and
similar contexts. These issues lie beyond the scope of our discussion,
but I hope to return to them on a future occasion.

[6] As opposed to the Bavli, the Yerushalmi there cites Rav as requiring
the inclusion of Malkhut in berakhot, without any dissenting view.

As for the absence of any Talmudic reference to a source for the
requirement of Shem, we should note that such a source does appear in
Midrashic literature. The Avudraham (3, "Birkat Ha-mitzvot U-mishpateha")
cites a midrash that brings two verses as establishing this requirement.

[7] Hilkhot Shevuot 2:2-4. However, it remains to be determined whether
the same parameters define Shem in both berakhot and shevuot. For example,
the Gemara (Shevuot 35a) implies that any expression clearly demonstrating
the speaker's intent to refer to G-d suffices for the articulation of an
oath. It seems to me, however, that although a "kinui" (a reference to
the Almighty, but not His actual Name) suffices for berakhot, this would
have to be in the form of an adjective, and not a generalized reference
(e.g. "Heaven and earth"). This issue requires further study.

[8] This distinction would yield the conclusion that one violates the
prohibition of uttering an unnecessary berakha even by mentioning only
Shem, without Malkhut. This would hold true even according to those
Acharonim who maintain that the prohibition of unnecessary berakhot stands
independent of the prohibition of unnecessarily mentioning G-d's Name.

[9] The Ramban here combines two elements: extra concentration and a
sense of standing before the King. We may, however, understand his words
as meaning that this quality of tefilla, of constituting an appearance
before the King, itself demands an added level of concentration.

[O'riginally in Alon Shevut 151]

For direct questions or comments regarding this shiur, please write

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion All Rights Reserved

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:58:49 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Chanukah

In a message dated 5/3/01 11:01:32am EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes
[to Areivim]:
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> Rebbe was not mibeis David. Hillel's mother was, and
>> Rebbe was literally mibeis Hillel.

> I think that is a machlokes Bavli/Yerushalmi.  There is a gilyon hashas 
> somewhere in Kesuvos that gives the mareh mekomos.

The Gemara is KSubos 62b, the one that is Mitzayein to the contradictions
in the sugia is the Yifei Einayim also the Yavetz, this also involves
the Gemara in Sanhedrin that says that is Moshiach is from the living
it is "Kigon Rabbeinu Hakodosh" and the 2 Pshatim in Rashi, see also Al
Hatzadikim from the Minchas E-lazar, (I once wrote about this elsewhere

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:58:56 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: The Child Sacrifice Debate

In a message dated 5/2/01 10:09:17am EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes
[to Areivim]:

> This is just from memory, but my impression from the Da'as Zekeinim to 
> "shofech dam ha'adam..." (Bereishis 9:6) is that one rishon ADVISED killing 
> the children and another rishon condemned him for this ruling.

This is quoted also in the Bedek Habayis in the Beis Yosef on the Tur Y"D 
157, which is where this issue is discussed Lhalach and see Darkei Tshuva 

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:58:55 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: chukat hagoy-parameters

In a message dated 5/2/01 12:29:52pm EDT, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org writes
[to Areivim]:
> hypothetical-  if the minhag of the country of memorial day in  the US, UK,
> Australia, Belgium, etc would be a siren and silent standing, what does one
> conjecture the psak would be?  is it chukat hagoi lgabei a jewish country or
> a goyish one? is potential chillul hashem or fear of physical/religious
> danger in a nation of goyim, oor irreligious jews ?

> not trying to be provocative, just to figure the parameter of chukat hagoy?

> also, is it chukat hagoy making a barbq on july 4,  standing for  7th inning
> stretch [or national anthem for that matter]
> also,  if as in my community, the yom hazikaron/ yom haatzmaut commemoration
> has  a moment of silence, does the fact that jews are doing it for a number
> of years now change 'chukat hagoy' into  'minhag hamakom' ?

See Y"D 178:1 and B'eir Heiteiv 2 and Darkei Tshuva there.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:39:53 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:50:19PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:                                          The question is whether the
: content of all knowledge is included in Torah as transmitted through the
: sages. The Rambam's psak is that the act of studying Pardes - which may
: or may not include all science, that's moot here - is considered Talmud
: Torah (would it merit a brachah?)

IOW, the question isn't whether learning mada is included in the mitzvah
of talmud Torah, but whether mada itself can be learned from within the
Torah (TSBK and TSBP).

A second question: if one asserts the former, as did the Rambam, then
what does the mishnah mean?

Hafoch bah vihafoch bah, dihakol matzui bah" -- what is "hakol" all of
what? It can't mean all of TSBP, because that would be saying that all
of TSBP can be found in TSBP.

It would seem to me that the mishnah is asserting that all of what one
needs to learn is there. IOW, if learning mada (by which I mean philosophy
and natural philosophy, as per the Rambam -- liberal arts aside) is part
of the mitzvah of talmud Torah then the mishnah is saying that it's in
the Torah.

However, if one if choleik with the Rambam, then "everything you need to
know" would include what? All of ethics?


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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:22:57 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Chumros on Pesach (was: Zmanim on Erev Pesach Morning)

Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>In connection with RS's argument, I note that recently, more and more people
>have started going to hotels for Pesach because of the difficulty of
>cleaning the entire house.  I decry this development, as it reduces the
>chance of having an intergenerational gathering.  IMHO having grandparents
>at the Seder is part of v'higadta l'vincha, as part of the idea of that
>mitzvah is pass down the flavor of previous generations ("liros es

Why do you assume that a the one is linked to the other.  In fact, I
would have thought, with the increase in international marriages, going
to a hotel is often *more* rather than less conducive to an
intergenerational gathering (For least one family of my acquaintance,
where the parents live in Germany, the one sister in Switzerland and the
second in England, the solution to having pesach with the entire family
is usually a hotel in France - fully funded, I believe, at the cost of
the parents).  It also, assuming it can be afforded by both sides,
solves the problem of those families caught between the two parents-in-
law (where both sets of parents live locally, and you are in chutz
l'aretz, they can usually be appeased by one seder each, but even if one
set is in South London and one in North, it means you may have to make a
choice, and end up with one or other broigas - despite the mishna in
pesachim trying to solve the problem).

For a different reason, the intergenerational issue was one of the
reasons we ourselves tried the hotel option this year.  While, being six
months pregnant, I did not really feel up to making a full pesach, we
could have gotten ourselves enough invitations to eat out pretty much
all meals and managed at home - but that would have been more difficult
for Robert's elderly (unmarried) uncle, who always ate at Robert's late
mother's place, and who is the last of his generation, and who is
finding walking all over difficult these days (but who would most
certainly not have been willing to contemplate a wheelchair, even if
that would have resolved all of the difficulties).  Going to a hotel was
the perfect solution, as we therefore could take Robert's uncle with us
(as well as to take both him and Robert out of the Golders Green
environment where the loss would have been most poignant).

Of course, to preserve the intergenerational flavour, you would need to
go to one where the seder was not communal.  And while we did find
"doing your own thing" in a communal dining hall quite a balagan - we
had the option (although we had not realised we had it until we
discovered that others were taking advantage of it) of doing the seder
in one's own room.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 15:26:40 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RE: Chumros on Pesach (was: Zmanim on Erev Pesach Morning)

From: Chana/Heather Luntz [mailto:Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk]
> Why do you assume that a the one is linked to the other.  In fact, I
> would have thought, with the increase in international marriages, going
> to a hotel is often *more* rather than less conducive to an
> intergenerational gathering...

In your international circles, perhaps.  Most American Jews are not going to
hotels for that reason.

You are correct that the "fully funded by parents" option does allow for
intergenerational gatherings. Unfortunately, neither my parents nor my
in-laws have heard of this minhag. Where the fully funded option is not
available, what often happens is that the empty-nesters go to a hotel
while the young family stays home, especially if there are a number of
children--causing the cost of a hotel to be prohibitive.

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:54:58 +0300
From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
Re: Passover Stringencies

R' Seth Mandel wrote in Avodah V7 #32:
>The story is well known about R. Velvel going
>to R. Chaim Ozer with some of his sons during Pesah, and R. CO serving
>them tea with sugar, and R. Velvel holding the sugar cube in his mouth
>and spitting it out when he got outside. He suspected some kitniyos
>or something were used in the processing of the cube, but would choke
>rather than insult RCO. Or am I misremembering?

I have no information about your memory, but the story sounds a bit

Try holding a sugar cube in your mouth and see how long you can keep it
there without its dissolving. Then try to hold the liquid in your mouth
and continue your conversation without choking or spitting.

                 IRA L. JACOBSON

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:41:07 +0300
From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
Re: - 5 Iyar on 2 Iyar

At 02:08 03/05/01, JoshHoff@aol.com wrote in Avodah V7 #32:
>When Rav Dovid Lifshitz was alive, he was the Rov of the Beis 
>Medrash  minyan, and  he said the minyan should say both  tachanun and 
>Hallel on Yom HaAtrzmaut, and when it fell duriing BHB, he had them say 
>selichos, as well. Interestingly, in Mercaz Horav,Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook 
>also said that selichos should be said on Yom Ha Atzmaut if it falls out 
>during BHB, because selichos are for teshuvah, and one can do teshuvah on 
>Yom HaAtzmaut, also.

Shall we assume that both rabbis fasted on Ta'anit Behav (BHB) and recited 
Hallel on that day?

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:58:53 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: sinat chinam

In a message dated 5/3/01 10:05:07am EDT, Eli.Turkel@kvab.be writes:
> I am still confused. There is no such thing as hatred without a cause.
> Whoever hates has a reason for doing so. Others may disagree whether
> the cause is justified.

While unfortunately there exists Sinas Chinom Kipshutoi also (due to Tzar 
Ayin etc.),see Rashi D"H Sinas Chinom Sabbos 33b.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:58:52 +0300
From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
Re: Tefillot on Shabbat

Since none of our resident linguists have commented, I just wanted to note 
that the singular of diberot is diber, and both words are of the masculine 
gender.  Hence `asseret and not `eser.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:47:41 +0300
From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
Re: Davening in Biblical vs Mishnaic Hebrew

R' Seth Mandel  wrote in Avodah V7 #32:
>--- if you look in the Tur, he had the girsa "lehanot."

I suspect that he had that girsa whether or not you look <g>.

Seriously, I note that all siddurim that I have consulted have a shewa 
under the initial lamed.  Ordinarily lehanot is written with a tzere 
(instead of lehehanot) because it is nif'al.

Is there such a form with a sheva?

>The BY does not mention that this
>is different from the g'moro either. So at least some of the rishonim
>had this different girsa, and we don't know how it came about....
>                                       K'lum, on the other hand, is,
>since all the rishonim and early aharonim have it, and davar seems to
>be an invention of some m'daqdeq hired by/followed by the printer.

Does any siddur other than my favourite, that of R' Daniel Goldschmidt, 
give both readings?

                         Ira L. Jacobson

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:07:29 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Re: ideas for improvement in Tefillah

Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
>4) The shliach tzibbur cannot be allowed to proceed at excessive
>speed. The shliach tzibbur is like the driver of a bus. If he is speeding
>he puts the whole minyan in danger because the people try to keep up
>with him, often at the expense of proper kavannah. IMHO, if an aveil /
>chiyuv does not daven properly (e.g. speeds) he should not be allowed to
>be shliach tzibbur. Ideally the pace of the minyan is set by a talmid
>chochom or the Rav / Rosh HaYeshiva. ...

Sephardi (Edot HaMizrach) minyanim tend to go a lot slower than Ashkenazi
minyanim, partly because they say everything out loud (they also say
more than the Ashkenazim).

However, the downside of this is that it takes more time out of your day.
When Robert was sitting shiva, a number of Ashkenazim came and "tried
out" the minyan at his mother's place. However, unless they were in
kollel or retired, they couldn't afford the time shachris took.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 15:49:12 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
RE: Rav Avigdor Miller ZTK"L

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> T E N   S T E P S   T O   G R E A T N E S S
> By Rav Avigdor Miller ZTK"L

This past Shabbos, R' Tzvi Hersh Weinreb spoke about his experience with R'
Avigor Miller, zt"l.  When RTHW was 15-16 years old, he and a group of other
teens spent some time in RAM's shul/neighborhood (Rugby Park (?) in
Brooklyn) in an effort to infuse the area with some young blood.

They met on a regular basis for a mussar vaad (over the course of
approximately one year), and RTHW remembered one of the assignments that RAM
gave them: on Chanuka, turn all the lights off, sit in front of the chanuka
licht and think what the candles mean to you.  RTHW noted that this kind of
action is certainly not usual nowadays, and it certainly raised eyebrows
back in those days.  I noticed that this is similar to some of RAM's "Ten
Steps to Greatness."


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 >