Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 136

Sun, 10 Jun 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Galsaba@aol.com
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:06:52 EDT
Subject:
[Avodah] Yotzei Mitzraim


Reading Baba Batra 117A, and also the explaination of the Rashbam , it is not 
clear to me what the difference is between the two Tanaim, Rabbi Yoshya and 
Rabbi Yonatan. It looks like no matter if dividing the land was based on the 
parents who left egypt, or based on the childern that entered the country of 
Israel, either way dividing of the land will be equal between the fathers who 
left egypt, so if one father (Reuven) has 10 children and the other one (Shimon) 
has one child, the land of Shimon's child will be about 10 times bigger than 
the land of each of Reuven's children. If this is the case, then what ois the 
difference between the opinions of the two Tanaim?
 
Aaron Galsaba



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070610/2037e078/attachment-0001.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:17:56 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yeshivishe Peyos


R' Micha Berger wrote:
<There is no mitzvah for an esrog or megillah to have a case, never
mind a pretty one. ...

But the esrog is a cheftza shel mitzva and therefore it makes sense to
beautify it, it's case, etc. The beautification has some connection to
the mitzva. By peyos harosh there is no cheftza of a mitzva, the
mitzva is not to cut off your peyos. How can you beautify that?

The explanation that I have heard is that it is a siman that you are
doing it lshem mitzva.



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:24:04 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Yeshivishe Payes"


R' Danny Schoemann wrote:
<The Tur, BY and Bach struggle to explain what precisely is the
Rambam's opinion along with <his 4/40 hairs.

See the Chasam Sofer (I don't have the exact mareh makom this second)
where he explains the Rambam along the lines of what I said.



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "reuven koss" <kmr5@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:59:10 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zeicher/zecher




> Reb Rueven Kos wrote:
>> Regarding the Gra in M"R, Rav Chaim Volozhner is a daas yachid that the 
>> Gra
>> read it with a tzere- most talmidim of the Gra say that he read it with a
>> segol.
>
> Could you please provide references? AFAIK (based on a conversation with 
> Rav
> Mordechai Breuer zal), there were only two players in this disagreement.
> However, the MR was one of those talmidim that moved to Israel, and so the
> Perushim followed the MR. For RMBreuer, the Perushim were the only ones
> justified in following the MR.
>
> --
The Peulas sachir on the M"R says that ken he'idu rabim v'chen shleimim 
(that he read parshas zachor with two segols) ...the gist being over there 
hat all the talmidim heard the Gra read zecher and RC"V heard him read 
zeicher which the p"s says may have happened in his old age.

reuven 




Go to top.

Message: 5
From: T613K@aol.com
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:49:13 EDT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yeshivishe Peyos


 
 


<What about noi mitzvah, which is a qiyum of zeh Keili  ve'anveihu? [--R' 
Micha Berger]



>>....it only applies to an aseh
and not a lav. There is no  mitzva to have peyos, the mitzva is not to
cut them off, therefore how can  there be noi mitzvah?<< [--R' Marty Bluke]

>>Why assume it  doesn't apply to lavin?<< [--mi]


>>Having a pretty case  for an esrog or megilla shows chibuv mitzvah.  Is
there an element of  chibuv for lavim?  ....Where does the halachic 
literature talk about noi  mitzvah?  Is there any precedent of noi mitzvah for lavim? 
<<  [--R' Michael Kopinsky]





>>>>>
This discussion reminded me of two things:
 
1. My father didn't have long payos himself, but he tremendously loved  long 
payos.  He used to have a special affection for any old Jew with long  payos.  
At some level, it seems, he must have felt that long payos were  somehow more 
authentic or showed more Jewish pride than short  Litvishe/American payos.  
My father was a Gerrer chossid but didn't wear  the garb until the last years 
of his life.  I must ask my brothers if he  also grew his payos long then -- if 
he did, he kept them hidden under his  yarmulke.  But I know he loved a Yid 
with payos.
 
2.  Recently I heard a tape of a shiur -- alas, I don't  remember who gave 
it! -- and on the tape the speaker asked, "Why do mothers curl  their little 
boys' payos?  Because they love their payos so  much."
 
On another thread -- the fig-wasp thread -- R' Micha wrote: 
 
>>But I don't think this is true, because it fails the Kuzari Test.  I asked 
around, and no one around here heard of their grandmothers soaking their  
vegetables in vinegar. <<
 
If "what our grandmothers did" is a source, then here you have a strong  
source for the custom of growing long payos, as well as support for the thesis  
that one can love a lav so much that one wants to beautify it, or I should say,  
one can so love the /results/ of the lav -- which means, love the payos  that 
grow as a result of fulfilling the lav not to cut them.
 

--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070610/821dd3ed/attachment-0001.html 


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:17:52 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Har Habayit


To my comment, 
<I think the main difference is that not getting married is bitul
of a mitzvah.  Not going on the Har Habayis when one has no korban to
bring is not.>,

RYMedad responded:
<Besides the matter that korbanot were not the only reason to be 
on/in the Har Habayit, if I am not mistaken, the Rambam and others 
include building the Bet Hamikdash as a mitzvah and in doing so, we 
can afford for the Jewish people the opportubnity in one form or 
another to fulfill some 200+ mitzvot.>

      While his statement is true, it is also irrelevant to the 
discussion, since those currently visiting the Har Habayit are not 
engaged in the building of the Beis Hamikdash. 

RnSBoublil responded to my remarks:
<I was reading the material presented in Sidur HaMikdash, Shabbat 
regarding Mitzvot to be performed in the Mikdash itself, and 
apparently Korbanot are not the only mitzva.

<A. There is a Mitzva min HaTorah to enter Har HaBayit for prayer and 
Ze'aka when a Ta'anit is called, when Am Yisrael is in danger (Sefer 
HaMitzvot Rambam, Aseh 59 and Hilchot Ta'aniyot 1:a), for example: 
during water; plague; lack of rain; or other Pur'Anuyot.  It is a 
Mitzva both during the time of the Bayit and when it's BeChurbano.

<At this time, they are supposed to blow on Chatzotzrot HaKesef and a 
shofar (described in Mishna Rosh Hashana 25;a and Rambam).

<Shaliach Tzibbur adds 7 special blessing to the prayers with a 
special ending and during which Cohanim Tok'im UMeri'im (see Rambam 
there, chapter 4 and especially halachot 16-17). 

<This gathering is held Davka near Sha'ar HaMitzrach of Har HaBayit 
(NOT the Kotel) so that as many as possible can partake, including 
Tmei'ei Meit and Tevulei Yom.>

     Neither in the Sefer Hamitzvos nor in the Yad does the Rambam 
indicate that the mitzvah involves the Har Habayis.  When it _is_ 
done there, certain aspects of the mitzva change, but it is no more 
mitzva there than elsewhere.   In any event, since the Sha'ar 
haMizrach is not a place on the mountain but specifically the 
entrance to the Azarah, it presupposes the existence of the Bayis.

<B. There is a special mitzva to do Teki'ot Rosh HaShana Davka on Har 
HaBayit (mishna Rosh HaShana 3, 3 and also 27;1).>

     Again, there is no indication that there is a special mitzva to 
blow on the Har.  There is a special way of doing the general mitzva, 
but no obligation on anyone to do it there.  Furthermore, here too 
the Mikdash is required, not just the Har. (Rambam Hilchos Shofar 
1:2 -- "BaMikdash hayu tok'in.")

<C. There is a special mitzva of Netilat Lulav on Sukkot during all 7 
days davka on Har HaBayit (see Sefer HaMitzvot Rambam mitzva 169). It 
was not cancelled b/c of the Churban.>

     Here, too, it is the Mikdash, at least according to the Rambam, 
who writes (Hilchos Lulav 7:13) "uvaMikdash l'vado not'lin oso b'chol 
yom vayom mishivas y'mei hechag."

<These 3 are just examples. There are many others examples and 
special tefillot which are answered davka if said on the Har HaBayit 
itself.>

     As noted, none of the three are examples.  I doubt that there 
are any which apply in the absence of a Mikdash.  I am also unaware 
of the special t'filos referred to, and would appreciate examples.  
In any event, as above, those who are going on the Har today are 
engaged neither in the special ta'aniyos, nor shofar blowing, nor 
fulfilling mitzvas lulav.  They are chancing issur kareis, while 
fulfilling no mitzva.

EMT




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:52:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society


After having the time over Shabbos to look over the Tosafos YT on Avos
2:1, I would have to agree with RDB, that the TYT is clearly a source
for the yeshivish value system.

As he writes on Thu, May 31, 2007 9:35pm:
: The Tosfos Yom Tov to that Mishnah quotes the Derech Chaim as
: follows:
: "That which it says... Talmud Torah K'negged Kullam has nothing to do
: with "Ein Atta Yodeia Mattan Secharan Shel Mitzvos", for that is only
: said by *Mitzvos*, but between Talmud Torah and Mitzvos there it was
: not said, for it is obvious *that the reward for Talmud Torah is
: greater*.

That said, BH the goal I had set for myself was far more modest. I'm
not interested in disproving the origins of yeshivish thought. Rather,
I was originally motivated by RDB's use of the gemara in Megillah, and
fired up by his exclusion of alternatives from the realm of "Torah
hashkafah". I will therefore clearly state my agenda:

1- I do not believe this is the conclusion one can draw from the
gemara. Yes, binyan BHMQ takes a back seat to talmud Torah. May we
face this decision bb"a. However, we see that lemaaseh, Mordechai's
example is to be followed. We can argue about what is garu'ah about
being forced to follow his example, but the bottom line is that one
can't prioritize even safeiq piqu'ach nefesh behind Torah.

In particular, I understand the Taz as saying the exact opposite of
RDB's take. He says that lemaaseh the fact that Talmud Torah has a
plus has no behavioral impact. This is how he justifies the SA telling
you to redirect money earmarked to support learning into hatzalas
nefashos (if needed). So, we could argue what the plus is, but it's
not prescriptive, and thus can not be a measurement on a scale that
implies priority.

Further, the Taz quotes the halakhah (which isn't under machloqes)
that we prioritize learning currently in progress over being the one
to save lives that will be saved otherwise. The din only makes sense
if this prioritization is only true when the learning is currently in
progress. Otherwise, why add it as a conditional?

The CS needs to give an alternate explanation for the negative
judgment of Mordechai which would seem to say he holds that the
exchange of Torah for hatzalas nefashos would not in-and-of-itself
justify the judgment. And thus he says it was based on Mordechai's
learning being the one Hashem considers more interruptible.


2- On the more heated issue, RDB's claim that there is a consensus
amongst all Torah hashkafos about the role of talmud Torah not a
matter of finding a maqor for those who take "TT keneged kulam" at a
maximalist face value, but a matter of disproving the existence of
other meqoros.

The TYT isn't the only way to understand the seemingly conflicting
mishnayos of "i ata yodei'ah secharan shel mitzvos" and TTK.

The Tif'eres Yisrael says that TTKK is not inherent in the mitzvah
itself, but in the fact that without knowing what to do, one can't do
the other mitzvos.

This would seem to feed directly into Rav Hutner's understanding of
"lilmod al menas la'asos" meaning that if one lives according to one's
limud, that is part of the qiyum of talmud Torah. This is how he
explains Tosafos's answer of how the rest of life is not a hefseiq WRT
birkhos haTorah, as well as why "Ahavas olam / Ahavah rabba" can serve
as a birkhas haTorah despite discussing qiyum hamitzvos and not only
TT. But RYHutner goes further, and says this is breadth of life (and
not only direct qiyum hamitzvos, BTW) the "ma'arichin ba'echad'" of
Shema, which gets one the berakhah of arikhas yamim!

And that's without addressing the more famously "Torah-and" acharonim.
I am sure RDB wasn't suggesting that RSRH's wasn't a "Torah
hashkafah".

But the origins of this eilu va'eilu go back quite a ways. I already
mentioned R' Yismael vs Rashbi, but I can push it back another
generation: According to R' Tarfon, ma'aseh outranks Torah. But even
according to R' Aqiva, does Torah's outranking ma'aseh (which I would
think is the ancestor of the TYT's idea) mean that one doesn't try to
get a "well balanced diet"?

See RnCL's post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n008.shtml#14>
about TT keneged kulam. However, I will comment further after I see the
Derekh haChaim.

Actually, gedolim like the Gra and CI -- to reuse two examples from the
top of this discussion -- did spend time on chol topics. The Gra to
the point of publishing math books. R' Chaim Brisker, it would seem,
spent more hours engaged in chessed than in learning. (RCB's lifestyle
was amazing, and worth a discussion in and of itself...)

The lifestyle is one of learning, torasan umnasan. But it wasn't
"torah only". In Volozhin and Slabodka (the two examples I spent a
little time learning the history of), talmidim were expected to pick
this stuff up -- but on their own time. (Except for Russian Language,
which Volozhin actually had classes in toward the end.) WRT Slabodka,
RAEK draws a vivid picture of the debates over topics like Hegel, Marx
and Freud. Kelm altogether ran a Gymnasia, at least while the Alter
was alive to give it direction. The whole anti-mada thing is far more
extreme today than it was before the issue became a sociological
communal line. (Not claiming it's new, just that both sides are
further from the middle than they were in Eastern Europe.)

Perhaps if one follows like the Gra, that even the gadol hador will
gain 100 yadayim of Torah if they add a yad of mada to their learning,
that one yad studied for the sake of the 100 isn't bitul Torah.

-- 
Micha Berger            It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org       you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org  happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie







Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:35:02 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] "Tznius Police"


I found an interesting Sifri this week on the Parshah of the Mekoshesh
Eitzim: "Va'yimtz'u Ish Mekosheshe Eitzim - this teaches us that Moshe
appointed guards (Shomrim) and they found him being Mekoshesh." 
The Netziv (there) in Emek HaNetziv says: "She'minah Moshe Shomrim: Since
they were Perutzim in Chillul Shabbos, he needed to appoint guards for this
more than on any other Mitzvos. [The same thing applies to any sins that the
generation is Parutz in - we learn from here that Beis Din is obligated to
try to appoint guards, as explained in Rambam Hilchos Yom Tov and Shulchan
Aruch OC at the end of 529, Ayin Sham.] Nechemiah ben Chachlaiyah learned
this from here when he appointed guards to watch the gates on Shabbos
because they were Perutzim then, but without this (that they were Perutzim -
MYG) Beis Din is not obligated to do this."

I never realized that the lineage of the so-called "Tznius Police" was so
distinguished.

KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:38:07 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zeicher/zecher


On Sunday, 10. June 2007 16.59:10 reuven koss wrote:
> The Peulas sachir on the M"R says that ken he'idu rabim v'chen shleimim
> (that he read parshas zachor with two segols) ...the gist being over there
> hat all the talmidim heard the Gra read zecher and RC"V heard him read
> zeicher which the p"s says may have happened in his old age.

Who is the Peulas Sokhir? When did he live? Where?

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "reuven koss" <kmr5@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:06:04 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zeicher/zecher





> >> The Peulas sachir on the M"R says that ken he'idu rabim v'chen shleimim
>> (that he read parshas zachor with two segols) ...the gist being over 
>> there
>> hat all the talmidim heard the Gra read zecher and RC"V heard him read
>> zeicher which the p"s says may have happened in his old age.
>
> Who is the Peulas Sokhir? When did he live? Where?
>
> -- 
> Arie Folger

 Apparently he is the Mechaber of M"R and the hagahos  are called Peulas 
Sochir. He was the zkan hahoraah of Vilna at one point after the Gra's 
petirah.
reuven 




Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Goldmeier <goldmeier@012.net.il>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:15:17 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Har Habayit


If I am not mistaken, one of the aspects of mora mikdash in which we are 
all required as a mitzvah, according to the Rambam, includes being 
present on Har Habayit. Others might not include that in their 
definition of Mora Mikdash, but the Rambam does.

---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier@012.net.il

http://torahthoughts.blogspot.com
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://parshaquestions.blogspot.com
http://yomtovthoughts.blogspot.com




Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> To my comment, 
> <I think the main difference is that not getting married is bitul
> of a mitzvah.  Not going on the Har Habayis when one has no korban to
> bring is not.>,
>
> RYMedad responded:
> <Besides the matter that korbanot were not the only reason to be 
> on/in the Har Habayit, if I am not mistaken, the Rambam and others 
> include building the Bet Hamikdash as a mitzvah and in doing so, we 
> can afford for the Jewish people the opportubnity in one form or 
> another to fulfill some 200+ mitzvot.>
>
>       While his statement is true, it is also irrelevant to the 
> discussion, since those currently visiting the Har Habayit are not 
> engaged in the building of the Beis Hamikdash. 
>
> RnSBoublil responded to my remarks:
> <I was reading the material presented in Sidur HaMikdash, Shabbat 
> regarding Mitzvot to be performed in the Mikdash itself, and 
> apparently Korbanot are not the only mitzva.
>
> <A. There is a Mitzva min HaTorah to enter Har HaBayit for prayer and 
> Ze'aka when a Ta'anit is called, when Am Yisrael is in danger (Sefer 
> HaMitzvot Rambam, Aseh 59 and Hilchot Ta'aniyot 1:a), for example: 
> during water; plague; lack of rain; or other Pur'Anuyot.  It is a 
> Mitzva both during the time of the Bayit and when it's BeChurbano.
>
> <At this time, they are supposed to blow on Chatzotzrot HaKesef and a 
> shofar (described in Mishna Rosh Hashana 25;a and Rambam).
>
> <Shaliach Tzibbur adds 7 special blessing to the prayers with a 
> special ending and during which Cohanim Tok'im UMeri'im (see Rambam 
> there, chapter 4 and especially halachot 16-17). 
>
> <This gathering is held Davka near Sha'ar HaMitzrach of Har HaBayit 
> (NOT the Kotel) so that as many as possible can partake, including 
> Tmei'ei Meit and Tevulei Yom.>
>
>      Neither in the Sefer Hamitzvos nor in the Yad does the Rambam 
> indicate that the mitzvah involves the Har Habayis.  When it _is_ 
> done there, certain aspects of the mitzva change, but it is no more 
> mitzva there than elsewhere.   In any event, since the Sha'ar 
> haMizrach is not a place on the mountain but specifically the 
> entrance to the Azarah, it presupposes the existence of the Bayis.
>
> <B. There is a special mitzva to do Teki'ot Rosh HaShana Davka on Har 
> HaBayit (mishna Rosh HaShana 3, 3 and also 27;1).>
>
>      Again, there is no indication that there is a special mitzva to 
> blow on the Har.  There is a special way of doing the general mitzva, 
> but no obligation on anyone to do it there.  Furthermore, here too 
> the Mikdash is required, not just the Har. (Rambam Hilchos Shofar 
> 1:2 -- "BaMikdash hayu tok'in.")
>
> <C. There is a special mitzva of Netilat Lulav on Sukkot during all 7 
> days davka on Har HaBayit (see Sefer HaMitzvot Rambam mitzva 169). It 
> was not cancelled b/c of the Churban.>
>
>      Here, too, it is the Mikdash, at least according to the Rambam, 
> who writes (Hilchos Lulav 7:13) "uvaMikdash l'vado not'lin oso b'chol 
> yom vayom mishivas y'mei hechag."
>
> <These 3 are just examples. There are many others examples and 
> special tefillot which are answered davka if said on the Har HaBayit 
> itself.>
>
>      As noted, none of the three are examples.  I doubt that there 
> are any which apply in the absence of a Mikdash.  I am also unaware 
> of the special t'filos referred to, and would appreciate examples.  
> In any event, as above, those who are going on the Har today are 
> engaged neither in the special ta'aniyos, nor shofar blowing, nor 
> fulfilling mitzvas lulav.  They are chancing issur kareis, while 
> fulfilling no mitzva.
>
> EMT
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
>   



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:38:53 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zeicher/zecher


I've been following the latest repeat of the zeikher/zekher 
story and finally decided I had to join. Here is a copy of 
my posting from four years ago (which was not the first) and 
a few comments added at the end



From:    D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>

To:         avodah <avodah@aishdas.org>

Date:     Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:52:54 +0200

Subject:                 Re: Zecher and zeicher



Re: <<Was the Gra suggesting this change as his own chidush 
based on

his understanding of the language, or was he citing variants 
which

existed prior to his time?>>



I think some posters are beginning to forget that R' Hayyim 
Volozhiner

also wrote, in his letter printed as an introduction/haskama 
to Ma'aseh

Rav, that M"R was wrong because R' Hayyim clearly heard the 
Gra say

zeikher.  R' Hayyimn adds that perhaps the Gra changed his 
mind in his old age.



If the Tanakh had both forms, the ba'a;ei ha-mesorah would 
have commented. That

they didn't, indicates that  all are the same. The most 
authoritative

source, ben Asher himself, in Dikdukei Hat'amim 36, says 
tzeireh.  Ohr Torah and Minchat Shai have tzeireh.



AFAIK, and as posted in the past (perhaps in the Mesorah 
sub-list), the

first source for six dots (two segols) is the printed 
editions of the

Radak which says for parashat zakhor only: six dots and some 
say five.

According to RV"H, the manuscript copy he had has it 
reversed and some say

five always.



As to someone's question re zekher as s'mikhut: The smoky 
s'mikhut of

'ashan is 'eshen as in 'eshen hakivshan at Har Sinai in 
Yitro. Minchat

Shai, who backs the tzeireh, then mentions the story of Yoav 
who killed

all the males because the Torah commands "Wipe out the males 
of

Amalek." Perhaps Yoav didn't say zakhar Amalek but thought, 
as with

smoke, the s'mikhut of zakhar was zekher.



But, I vow that although a neder has six dots, in s'mikhut 
it drops to

five as in neider almana So even if the word is zekher, in 
the smikhut

of zeikher Amalek and zeikher rav tuvkha it might still be a 
tzeireh. Words with five dots, like seifer and eisev do not 
change to six dots in s'mikhut



After the Radak, the next time we seem to hear comments 
about zekher is

R' Shabtai Sofer (1618? IIRC) who justifies and puts six 
dots in his

siddur followed by R' 'Azriel and R' Eliyahu who copied from 
him in

their siddur (about 1704?).



But all the above discussion is unimportant. What is 
important to me is

that ALL of the ancient and accurate manuscripts considered 
to be

T'veryani'im, including the Keter (eidut of R' Ya'akov Sapir 
in M'orot

Natan) and Leningrad, Sassons etc., have zeikher with five 
dots

exclusively.



In later manuscripts, according to R' Prof. Yitzhak Penkower 
who checked

century by century, the majority of the Sefaradic 
manuscripts are also

five dotters. The Ashkenazi manuscripts are mixed and most 
Italian

manuscripts have zekher.



Most of the later manuscripts that do not have zeikher 
exclusively

are those that also have many other un-Tveryani variants or

inaccuracies in nikkud, etc. and are not considered to be 
reliable.



Remember too, that the linguistic experts (R' Seth?) tell us 
that in

many pronunciations of that time there was little or no 
difference

between the pronunciations of tzeireh and segol.



So, if R' Hayyim was wrong, which I doubt, the Gra was not 
originating

anything but might have been influenced, in old age (?), by 
the

generally accurate siddurim of R's Shabtai, 'Azriel & 
Eliyahu and/or

inaccurate manuscripts. I repeat, IF R' Hayyim was wrong.



It appears to me, however, that those who stand on five legs 
from

ancient times to this day are very much more stable than 
those that try

to experiment by standing on six.





k"t,



David



Just for the record, the word appears nine times, twice in 
chumash, five times in tehillim, once in Yeshayahu and once 
in Mishlei. All are mileil with tzeireh. Check any Tanakh. 
Three, IIRC, are not s'mikhut.



Only Ashkenazim have the double reading.  No other edah ever 
heard of it.



All ba'alei mesorah, rishonim and aharonim and all academic 
researchers agree on tzeireh. The Rama, Meiri, YHB"Y, Ohr 
Torah, Minhat Shai, R' Shlomo Dubno, RV"H, R Shlomo Netter, 
R' Mordekhai Breuer, R' Menahem Cohen, R' Y. Penkower



As to the postings on Chabad,  The Ba'al Hatanya did not 
read twice. He read zekher in b'shalach and zekher in 
ki-teitzei.  The Tzemach Tzedek said to read in sh'vi'i six 
dots in bshalch and five in ki-tetze and for maftir to read 
5 in b'shalach and 6 in ki tetze. The last rebbe, MM"Sh, had 
double reading of the one word and in the order of the 
previous rebbes.



And then came the CC and made it official for the non-Chabad 
as well.

But all that is the past. I expect that the final posek for 
those in the USA is Art Scroll.



I'll close with the words of Harav Mordekhai Breuer about 
one who repeats zeikher-zekher: "He expresses by this that 
it is impossible to rely on minhag avotenu b'yadenu, nor on 
the decisions of Ohr Torah and Minhat Shai, even if all the 
proofs in the world prove them correct.  Such (double) 
reading is an insufferable contradiction .



It sounds better in the original for those whose computer 
can display it.



  ?? ?????? ???-??? "??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? 
?? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?"? ??"? ?????? 
???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????...  ????? ???? ??? 
????? ????? ???? ????? ????





David









------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 136
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


< Previous Next >