Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 26

Mon, 18 Feb 2013

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:03:59 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Tzitzit tucked in

R' Isaac Balbin wrote:

> Although one might technically argue that there are loopholes,
> such as Daled Amos, I think that the notion of Al Tifrosh Min
> HaTzibur, and even more importantly, making  sure that these
> minhagim are ingrained into every type of person who comes to
> a Beis HaChaim, should imply that it is definitely a proper
> hanhogo to ...

Similarly, one of my kids once noticed that it is my practice to shut the
car radio immediately upon entering a cemetery, or even slightly before
that, and even if we were listening to an all-news station (rather than
music). My response was simply, "In a cemetery, it's always Tisha B'Av."
(They understood clearly that I was making a hashkafic point, not a
halachic one.)

Akiva Miller
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:18:15 GMT
Re: [Avodah] Mussaf After Minchah

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> In fact I rarely see a bencher that has the brachos to say before
> the fourth bracha if you realise just at that moment that you
> forgot to say retzei or yaaleh veyavo.  I suppose the reason most
> benchers omit them is that it's unusual to remember just at that
> moment, and once you've gone past "Hashem" in the fourth bracha
> it's too late, but still they should be there.

An even better example would be the very few benchers which include Yaaleh
V'Yavo for Yom Kippur, for those children or cholim who eat bread then. (Or
the zero benchers which mention to say Nachem at that point, if eating
bread on Tisha B'Av, as per Rama 557:1.)

Akiva Miller
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:48:21 -0500
Re: [Avodah] A question for the chevre

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 04:23:05AM -0800, R' Martin Brody replied to R'
Akiva Miller:
:> A Jew was drafted into the Russian army, and went to the Chofetz Chaim with
:> the following shailah: They had given this Jew his choice of two units, one
:> where he could eat kosher but would have to be mechalel Shabbos, and
:> another where he could keep Shabbos, but would have to eat treif. Which
:> should he choose? ...                             The Chofetz Chaim
:> explained that he could always hope to be Shomer Shabbos again some day in
:> the future, but once one eats the treif, it becomes part of him and it is
:> impossible to *totally* cleanse oneself of it.

: Of course it's not a true story. What does it mean" impossible to
: *totally* cleanse oneself of it."?

It means "it's very very hard". Your problem comes from taking "impossible"
literally, and "totally" as less than literally. But we call many difficult
but possible things "impossible" -- it's common guzma.

With acknowledging that idiom, the CC is no longer denying the possibility
of teshuvah. Just acknowledging how hard total teshuvah can be for certain

Al derekh hateva, once someone puts something in their mouth, they
either have to be disgusted or convince themselves it's not so bad. After
all, non-Jews too say "you are what you eat" -- it seems to be natural
psychology. When it comes to maakhalos asuros, "naaseh lo keheter" is
even more pronounced. A naturalistic explanation to timtum halev.


Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Poppers, Michael" <Michael.Popp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:33:42 -0500
Re: [Avodah] Mussaf After Minchah

In Avodah V31n24, R'Micha wrote:
> According to the Rama OC 127:2 <http://j.mp/Z9S3KM>, Ashkenazim say
> Shalom Rav whenever we mention duchaning with "EvE"A borkheinu..."
> <
Of course, he meant to quote RMA as noting, "Ashkenazim say Sim Shalom," and he later quoted RJJB quoting RMA to that effect. 

RZS added, in part:
> ...how many Ashkenazi siddurim for chu"l have you seen that have birchas kohanim in shacharis?  And yet we do it on Simchas Torah. <
For the record (and this has likely been noted before in this forum),
Minhag FFdM (and I assume this was true in many other communities in the
general area) always had the kohanim duchaning during Shacharis of Yuntef
(and, I might add, not duchaning during Musaf when it's Shabbos -- as a
kid, my assumption was that the reason was a s'yag against violating
s'chitah [of the towels used for drying hands]), and Bircas Kohanim is
certainly noted in the Roedelheim (and, presumably, other
relatively-ancient) machzor(im) for Shacharis. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:42:06 -0000
Re: [Avodah] A question for the Chevre

RMZ writes:
>> You have a secular Jew who's on his way to Africa for the rest of his 
>> life, and you have an opportunity to teach him one mitzva that he'll 
>> keep until he dies. ... Do you teach him: a) to love Hashem, or b) not 
>> to take bones out of a fish on Shabbos?

>> To emphasize, the question here is not a kiruv/chinuch strategy 
>> question
>> -- it won't lead to more mitzvos. It's a question of priorities in 
>> halacha. To this Rav, it was pashut that you teach him about borer. 
>> Thoughts?

And then:

>I also thought that "osei docheh lo taase" would be a good raya. But he
pointed out that there are exceptions >to that klal. For example, it doesn't
apply when the Lo Taaseh is a chiyuv kares. Which seems to suggest that, >if
we make the decision of which mitzvah is more important based on their
kadima in halacha, then shmiras >Shabbos outweighs Ahavas Hashem. That was
the Rav's sevara altogether. He even went so far as to say that the >mitzva
of not taking a bone out of a fish ONCE in a lifetime would outweigh a
lifetime of Ahavas Hashem.
>It seems that in purely halachic terms, he's correct. But I have a chush
that there's something wrong with >this approach.

Why is this right in purely halachic terms?

Taking bones out of fish is one single case of performing the melacha of
borer.  Even if you teach him this, there are hundreds of other ways in
which he can, and may well, perform borer on any given shabbas (we are
assuming here that he is not able to extrapolate, otherwise you will have
him growing in Torah, which he is apparently not able to do).

Boreh is only one of the 39 melachos of shabbas, for which one is chayav
kares.  And if you broke them down individually, there must be at least
thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other actions which he could and
may well do which would constitute issurei d'orisa.

So even if you teach him not to take bones out of fish, the chances that he
will, on any given shabbas, perform not just one, but hundreds of issurei
d'orisa seems very high.  The chances that he will keep shabbas in its
entirety seems miniscule.

So what have you achieved by teaching him about taking bones out of fish?

If you regard him as a mezid, then he is a mezid regarding chillul shabbas
anyway, and your teaching has achieved nothing, he is still chayav kares.
If you regard him as a shogeg, then he is chayav as many korbanos as you
deem him to be chayav for his shogeg (either one for all of shabbasos he
will violate, one for each shabbas, or one for each melacha, depending, but
most likely the former), since he will do borer anyway, the fact that he
will do one less bit of borer would seem to have achieved nothing.  If he is
a tinuk shenishba and you hold that makes him patur from any korban, then
that is his status and having taught him about bones in fish you have
achieved nothing - unless you hold that by teaching him this small amount,
you have turned him from a tinuk shenishba to a mazid or shogeg, in which
case you have made the situation significantly worse.  From that point of
view the phrase mutav shehayu shogegin comes to mind.

Thus having taught him about taking bones out of fish would seem to have
achieved absolutely nothing halachically but might possibly have made things

I do agree, if you were able to teach him about *all* of the melachos (even
let's say the d'orisa melachos) of shabbas, you would have achieved
something, and maybe it could be weighed against the opportunity to teach
him about Ahavas HaShem or some other such kneged kol haTorah mitzvah (such
as Talmud torah).

But I am also puzzled why no reference has been made to the various attempts
in our sources to condense the whole of the Torah down to one teaching.  I
can understand perhaps that Hillel's - dalach s'nei lchavrecha lo ta'avid
[Shabbat 31a] has not been brought - on the grounds that this is followed by
zil gamor - and in the artificial case before us, no further learning is
possible.  But then Makos 24a (which is after all about yeridos hadoros, and
the fact that the 613 needed increasingly to be condensed into fewer and
fewer) concludes with the one principle of Habakuk - v'tzadik bemunato yiyeh
[2:4] - which would seem to point very strongly towards emunas HaShem as
being the gemora mandated single mitzvah that would be required to be taught
in such highly artificial circumstances.



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:52:04 -0500
Re: [Avodah] A question for the Chevre

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:42:06AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Taking bones out of fish is one single case of performing the melacha of
: borer.  Even if you teach him this, there are hundreds of other ways in
: which he can, and may well, perform borer on any given shabbas (we are
: assuming here that he is not able to extrapolate, otherwise you will have
: him growing in Torah, which he is apparently not able to do).
: Boreh is only one of the 39 melachos of shabbas, for which one is chayav
: kares...

Not that this touches your thesis, but:
Given that each av melakhah done beshogeig is its own chatas, it would
seem each has independent value. Someone who avoids boreir while still
doing havarah is ahead. Still, there are enough opportunities for boreir
in particular other than deboning fish, and his removing bones would be
in the same he'elam as those.

: I do agree, if you were able to teach him about *all* of the melachos (even
: let's say the d'orisa melachos) of shabbas, you would have achieved
: something, and maybe it could be weighed against the opportunity to teach
: him about Ahavas HaShem or some other such kneged kol haTorah mitzvah (such
: as Talmud torah).

Shabbos is also on that list.

:      ....  But then Makos 24a (which is after all about yeridos hadoros, and
: the fact that the 613 needed increasingly to be condensed into fewer and
: fewer) concludes with the one principle of Habakuk - v'tzadik bemunato yiyeh
: [2:4] - which would seem to point very strongly towards emunas HaShem as
: being the gemora mandated single mitzvah that would be required to be taught
: in such highly artificial circumstances.

Or, being a tzadiq.

I just also want to flag the difference between ahavas H' and
emunah. Without emunah, there is no belief in the One Who commanded,
never mind that He prohibited boreir.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:33:46 -0500
Re: [Avodah] bee honey and davar hamamid/non kosher enzymes

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 02:25:55PM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote:
: Is it possible to present a coherent logical system for why bee honey
: is kosher (per hazal) and there's a concept of davar hamamid when it
: comes to kashrut (which I have been told is more of a concept from the
: rishonim?) and in modern times (and even before re rennet and cheese)
: this is applied to enzymes which have a large role in industrial food
: production.

Industrial food poduction adds enzymes in be'ein amounts. Bees do not.
It's not "just" bitul.

This is my general approach in dealing with things Chazal say that
don't bear up to the microscope. The bereisa (quoted on Bekhoros 7b)
says that bees do not add to the nectar to turn it into honey. Therefore,
I would think that the key to an answer is seeing how what they do add
isn't relevant to a halachic discussion.

Besides, I'm not sure the permissability is an issue of "coherent logical
system" as much as an exception by gezeiras hakasuv. The gemara continues
with R' Yaaqov who cites "akh es zeh tokhlu mikol sheretz ha'of" (Vayiqra
11:21), and the gemara continues that devash devorim is unique among
honeys because it has no sheim levvai -- it alone is called "devash"
without an adjective.

The gemara starts by trying to put devash in the general pattern, but once
it prohibits hornet's honey, it appears to have given up on that attempt.

that this is specific to bee honey because it alone is called devash with
no adjectives. If it were about the logic, and not the positive use of
the word "devash" throughout Tanakh, wouldn't devash tzir'in also be

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:18:29 -0000
[Avodah] partnership minyanim

RSN kindly quoted links to the following articles:


>all in response to--


Which is an article by Rabbi Barry Freundel on Hirhurim entitled Putting the
Silent Partner Back Into Partnership Minyanim - in which he states - "Yet
there has, to the best of my knowledge and research, not been any formal
attempt to discuss in writing whether these practices are or are not
Halakhic. In effect, Halakhah has been the silent partner in the development
of Partnership Minyanim."

Rabbi Freundel discusses a number of points, and in an Avodah post I do not
scope to respond to all of them, but I would like to focus on his main
discussion, that surrounding the leading of services (including non
obligatory, customary services such as kabbalat Shabbat) as opposed to Torah
readings.  If I am summarising him correctly, he appears to be saying that
while there are discussions in the Talmud regarding aliyot for women and
kavod hatzibbur, there is no reference in the Talmud to kavod hatzibbur in
relation to prayer services and particularly prayer services for women.  He
then cites as Meiri, which he quotes as " often cited as a critically
important source supporting the arguments of those who see aliyot for women
as acceptable", but which, as he correctly points out, does not discuss
prayer services in any great detail, although it does deal make reference to
what is the critical halachic question, which is what is the situation for
minors [katanim]. There is more at the end of his piece regarding a Tosephta
and some various discussions about the nature of Kabbalat Shabbat and

However it is somewhat astounding, to my mind, that Rabbi Freundel brings
this Meiri, Tosepheta and other sources, but does bring what I would
consider the more authoritative halachic literature on the subject.  In my
view, the key halachic source is rather this Beis Yosef Orech Chaim Siman 53
(letter 2):

?????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????
????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????
?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????
?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????
???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??
????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?"? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????
???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??"? ???? ?? ????? ?"?
???? ????? ?????? ?????"? ???? ?????? )?"? ??' ???)  ??? ????"? ????? ????
???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????
???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????
????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??"?. ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????
???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??"? ????? ???????? ???? ???
????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????
????? ??? (????? ??:)

"And from the words of our rabbi [the Tur] and the words of the commentators
that I wrote it is derived explicitly that a katan is not permitted to go
down before the ark even only on a casual basis and there is to wonder on
that which is the custom that a katan goes down before the ark on Motzei
Shabbatot and prays the prayer of Arvit, and it is possible to say that the
Chachamim were not makpid [particular] except on the prayer of Shachrit in
which there is the brachot of Yotzer and in the amidah that of kedusha and
also since it is necessary for the shaliach tzibbur to repeat the amidah to
exempt the majority from their obligation and a katan since he is not a bar
chiyuva [obligated] is not able to exempt others as is taught all who is not
obligated in a matter is not able to exempt the majority from their
obligation, and I heard that Rav Yosef Abudaram reproached this custom that
they were accustomed that katanim went down before the ark on Motzei
Shabbatot and the great Rav Yitzchak d? Leon agreed to nullify this custom.
But I found that the Rashba writes in his teshuva (Chelek 1 siman 239) in
the name of the Ra?avid that ?the reason that it is taught that a katan does
not recite the shema and does not go before the ark is since the blessings
and the prayers are rabbinic, and a katan that reaches chinuch [educatable
age] is obligated rabbinically one might have thought that a rabbinically
obligated person can come and exempt a rabbinically obligated person
[Brachot 20b]  therefore we learn that because of kovod hatzibbur [the
honour of the community] we do not do so, since it is a disgrace to the
community that a katan exempts them.?  And according to this reason there is
place for the custom to say that the community is mochel its kavod [forgives
its honour] and even according to the explanation of Rashi that the reason
for our mishna is because all who are not obligated in a matter cannot
exempt the multitude from their obligation there is to say that the prayer
of Arvit is different since it is reshut (Brachot 27b)." 

And so he poskens in the Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 53 si'if 10:

?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????
?????? ?????

There is to learn zechut on the places where the custom is for the katanim
to go down before the ark and to pray the prayer of arvit on Motzei Shabbat.

Now it should be noted that the Rema in the Darchei Moshe responds to this
by saying:

(?) ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????"? (?? ??' ?) ?? ????? ?? ?"?
???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ????
?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ??
?????. ?????? ??????? ???"? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????
??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??"?:
(3)There is not amongst us this custom and greater than this the Maharil
writes (there siman 8) that one who becomes 13 years on Shabbat is not able
to be shaliach tzibbur in arvit on the night of Shabbat because we add chol
to kodesh on erev Shabbat and this addition is not relevant to the years of
a lad, and since we pray while it is still day he should not pray.  And I
heard that in the country of Zachshin that the minor boys are made shaliach
tzibbur on the four weeks before their bar mitzvah and they should not do

And in the Shulchan Aruch he comments:

. ???: ???????? ??? ???? ??, ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????,
????? ???? ???? ?"? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???, ???? ????? ???
?? ?"? ??? (????"?).

Rema: And in the places where this is not the custom do not do so, and a
katan cannot go down before the ark even for the prayer of Arvit, even if he
reaches 13 years on the day that is Shabbat he does not pray the prayer of
Arvit of Shabbat since behold he has not yet had 13 years (Maharil).

It should further be noted that the Dagul Mervava that I have says:

???"? ???? ??? ????? ????"? ??? ???? ??"? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??
???? ???? ???, ???? ??? ????? ?"? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????  ??"? ???
??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????

And according to me that this is why the Mechaber writes on Motzei Shabbat
and behold indeed, it is not Motzei Shabbat davka but only to exclude the
night of Shabbat where there is the bracha of mein sheva, and behold in this
there is exempting of obligation to one who forgot and did not recall
Shabbat, but in the Bet Yosef he writes a further reason that according to
that which the Arvit prayer is reshut and since according to the Darchei
Moshe he writes that there is not amongst us this custom I have been brief.

But note that Rav Ovadiah Yosef in Yabiat Omer Chelek 9 Orech Chaim siman
100 letter 4 appears to have a different version of the Dagul Mervava as he

??' ????? ????? (???' ??) ??"? ??"? ????? ?? ???"?, ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???
??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???, ??? ???? ?"? ??"? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????
??? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?"? ???????. ?"?.

"And see the Dagul Mervava siman 53 on that which the Shulchan Aruch writes
regarding Motzei Shabbat, and he comes to distinguish Arvit of the night of
Shabbat on which there is in it the blessing meain sheva, rather even
according to that which the Bet Yosef writes because the prayer of Arvit is
reshut also on the night of shabbas those who are accustomed to do so have
on whom to rely, see there."

The point being, as can easily be seen from these sources, that distinctions
can and are made within halacha between those parts of the prayer service in
which the leader needs to exempt the obligations of others, where a katan
cannot fulfil those roles and others where he may, but where there may be
issues of kovod hatzibbur.

It seems to me that without these sources you cannot have a meaningful
discussion about the topic, and that it is rather odd that they have not
been quoted in favour of a Meiri.

Now I would also note that while Rabbi Zev Farber Partnership Minyanim: A
Defense and Encomium is unhappy that Rabbi Freundel, warns "the reader that
this phenomenon might ?split the community.? And argues that offering an
option that many Orthodox people (even rabbis) consider to be halakhically
valid is not what splits the community. What splits the community is the
threat from one group to declare the reasonably defended practice of another
to be illegitimate." - I do think it is fair to say that Rabbi Freundel's
position mirrors that of the Bach Orech Chaim siman 53 letter 2 who is
similarly concerned that if some communities are mochel their kavod, and
others are not, then you will have "in Israel agudot agudot this community
would be mochel and this community would not be mochel" - and therefore
holds that wherever Chazal say that something is done for the kavod of the
tzibbur, the tzibbur cannot be mochel - and hence one can never roll the
sefer torah in front of the community etc.  But most people appear to bring
the other reason given by the Bach here (namely the Taz (siman 53 si'if
katan 2, Magen Avraham siman 53 si'if katan 9) why in the case of using a
katan as shaliach tzibbur the community cannot be mochel, because this is a
matter of kavod shamayim -  in the words of the Bach:

??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????
?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???
???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???
???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????
????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????

"rather its explanation is that this is not kavod of the tzibbur that they
send before them to go up one who does not have beauty of face [meaning a
beard ? Shabbat 152a ? the beauty of the face is the beard] to defend the
tzibbur that even before a king of flesh and blood we do not send to defend
the community even if he is a great chacham unless he is also of goodly
stature and there is to him a beauty of face that he has a full beard and
all the more so before the king of kings the Holy One Blessed be He"

Ie the real issue at portrayed by this portion of the Bach, and the part
picked up by the Taz and Magen Avraham is that you would not send a child to
represent a community for an important matter. In past times one would also
almost certainly not send a woman, but I doubt that is the case today - many
countries have female ambassadors - I doubt there are any that have
children.  Whether this changes the nature of this halacha is an interesting

But the real problem with Rabbi Freudel's analysis is, as I have mentioned,
that in his zeal to write partnership minyanim out of Orthodoxy, appears to
be doing a good job to write the Sephardi Community wholesale out of

Because it is not that surprising that the sources discussing what katanim
can and cannot do in a service seem fundamentally and primarily to crop up
amongst Sephardi poskim.  Because the Sephardi approach to chinuch (and this
may not be true of the Spanish and Portuguese, who are after all very
European, I  do not know, but is very much the case amongst the
Gibralterians, Moroccans, Iraqis and various others of my acquaintance)
involves the active participation of katanim in a way that is flabbergasting
to your average Ashkenazi.  Now there is to my mind some considerable
evidence that it works.  An extraordinary number of non religious Sephardim
can not only daven but layn at the drop of a hat, in a way that very very
few frum Ashkenazim can.

Now Rabbi Freudel does note this, but appears to treat it as some sort of
halachic aberration. However it is absolutely standard across many Sephardi
communities for katanim to recite psukei d'zimra, and the discomfit is only
that of Rabbi Feundel.  Indeed after some consideration as to whether
katanim can do more in Mishpachat Uziel krach 3 miluim siman 2 where Rav
Uzziel concludes l'ma'ase like the Magen Avraham and the Taz that they could
not allow the community to have katanim go before the ark for the brachos of
kriyas shema, tephila and musaf (it not being kovod hashamayim to send
katanim)- he suggested psukei d'zimra as the appropriate solution.

Similarly, Rav Ovadiah Yosef has a discussion about the topic of what
katanim can and can't do in Yabiat Omer Chelek 9 Orech Chaim siman 100 ?
which is a series of comments on the book ?Kiryat Hannah David? of Rabbi
David HaCohen Sakli. In letter 4 Rav Ovadiah discusses a comment of Rabbi
Sakli in siman 24 where he apparently says "that there are communities in a
few places where it is customary for the katanim to go down before the ark
in shachrit with the prayer of repetition and there is to them on which to
rely.  And they should not nullify their custom."

Now after bringing the Bet Yosef that I brought above, and the Shulchan
Aruch (and noting the Rema) Rav Ovadiah continues:

????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??, ????' ??"? ????"? ??????
???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????, ?"? ?????"? ?????? ?????? (?? ?) ?????
???? ???? ??????, ???? ?????. ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ???' ????
?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???' ??????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????


????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???' ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???' ????? ?????.

??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????, ???"? ???, ???? ???? ????, ??? ??? ?? ????
??"?, ???"? ???"? (??' ?? ?"? ??). 
???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????.

"And now in connection with Shachrit or Mincha according to all opinions we
do not conduct ourselves so, and even according to that which the Rashba
writes that were it not for kovod hatzibbur one obligated rabbinically would
come and exempt one obligated rabbinically, there is to respond that the
Rashba is going according to his position in Megila (19b) that a katan
himself is obligated rabbinically, because of chinuch.
But the position of the majority of the Rishonim is that a katan himself
even if he reaches the age of chinuch is not obligated at all in mitzvoth
even d?rabbanan, and that all the mitzvah of chinuch falls davka on the
father, like that which Rashi writes in Brachot (48a).

... [Many references omitted]

Therefore a katan who is exempt even rabbinically is not able to pass before
the ark even for a preayer which is d?rabbanan.  And it is enough for us to
fulfil the custom of the prayer of arvit and like Maharan [the Shulchan
Aruch] wrote because it is reshut, and also there is not in it chazarat
hashatz and like the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 52 si?if katan 12. And he
brings that we do not add onto this to do so in the tephila of Shachrit or

Rav Uzziel in the teshuva quoted above also discusses another common
practice, where  the katan says whatever it is, and the gadol next to him
says the words under his  breath, or after him, or together, or the
community says them after him, and therefore arguably the katan is not
exempting anybody. Rav Uzziel is not keen, to say the least, but it is a
very common practice - just at the various local Sephardi shuls in London we
have come across katanim saying the kaddish of the shaliach tzibbur that
way, and bits of kedusha, and various bits in the brochos of the shema that
are generally sung or repeated (and perhaps it should also be noted that in
my very staid Ashkenazi shul, there is a choir which includes katanim, who
sing various parts of the service, albeit generally together with gedolim,
or in response to the shaliach tzibbur) - but the extent of Sephardi
involvement of katanim goes way beyond this.

And reflecting this the poskim have clearly set out a hierarchy which is at
work in the parts of the tephila.  From the Brachot of the Shema and on in
Shachrit, Musaf and Mincha, there are, aside from a few defences like that
of Rav Sakli, universal opposition to katanim being shatz.  Given the
position of the Shulchan Aruch, there appears to be grudging acceptance of
katanim saying arvit, except for arvit of Shabbat (perhaps), although the
poskim are not keen.  Saying the lesser parts of the service like psukei
d'zimra are, however, completely accepted. 

Kabbalat Shabbat itself in most Sephardi shuls appears generally sung in
unison, so does not particularly involve katanim - the role of the katanim
on a Friday night is most often then to recite Shir HaShirim and B'meh

Nut the general line of the halachic sources therefore does seem to me to
support Rav Farber's division as summarised by Rabbi Freundel of:

"1) The classic function to say certain prayers out loud either on behalf of
the congregation as a whole, e.g. Kaddish and Barkhu, or on behalf of
individuals who do not know how to recite the prayer on his or her own,? 2)
to set the pace and melodies of the prayers. He then assumes different rules
for the individuals who perform these two different functions."

Rabbi Freundel then states:

"But R. Farber presents no sources for this dichotomy in halakha or for
women being allowed to fill role #2. He presents two rationales in Rishonim
for the repetition of the amidah that might fit definition #1, but no
sources that discuss or present model #2. Most importantly, he presents no
sources that suggest different rules for who may perform this second
function, which again he creates whole cloth without a textual basis."

It seems to me that the textual basis is adequately provided by the
distinctions made between what parts of the service katanim can and cannot
say, according to the Bet Yosef, Dagul Mervava (who brings in Magen Avot as
being precisely the distinction between Arvit on Friday night and Arvit the
rest of the week) Rav Ovadiah Yosef and Rav Uzziel as brought above.

And while the quote from the Tosephta is all very nice - it is clearly not
used as the basis in any form of Sephardi psak to exclude katanim from the
various parts of the services that they commonly perform.  The fact that
Rabbi Freudel feels a level of discomfit in seeing such common Sephardi
practices does not render them non halachic, or outside of Orthodoxy.
Rather than relying on the juxtaposition of references to girls and boys and
men in a Tosephta to create a whole halachic framework unsupported by later
authorities, it seems far more relevant to discuss key sources such as that
of the Bet Yosef and Shulchan Aruch, the use of kovod hatzibbur in this
context by the Rashba and following him the Shulchan Aruch and the various
commentators, both for and against allowing a community to be mochel, and
when - as well as the distinction between reshut and chova in arvit versus
shachrit clearly making a halachic distinction between whether a katan can
in fact be shaliach tzibbur or not - and the clearly accepted and normative
position that psukei d'zimra, being even a lower level of tephila that the
reshut of arvit, being completely mutar for ketanim.



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:50:08 +0200
[Avodah] Persian history

As we approach Purim I again review some of the difficulties with the
traditional history of the Persia as given by chazal

 According to Chazal there were 4 Persian kings
1) Darius the Mede
2) Cyrus
3) Achasverosh
4) Daryavosh (conquered by Alexander the great)

Darius the Mede & Cyrus - 5 years
Achashverosh 14 years
Daryavosh 35 years
total 54 years

70 years aftyer Chruban Bayit Rishon came in 2nd year of Daryavosh
Jews ruled by Persian for another 34 years afterwards

1) Darius the Mede doesnt appear in any other record - perhaps because his
rule was under 1 year

2) According to secular history Cyrus ruled for approximately  30 years
(various versions whether he dies in battle or peacefully) after conquring
many lands and building cities

Next is Camysis (Rashi quotes from Yossipon about Canbysis)

3) after the death of Camysis there was a brother (real or pretender not
clear) who was defeated by Darius I. Hence, Achasverosh could not be
between Cyrus and Daryavosh.
Darius left many documents including large descriptions on walls giving his
accomplishments (eg Mount Bisitun) the inscriptions on the face of the
cliff is given in 3 languages. Darius also expanded the city of Susa

It appears that the Persians had several capitals (in addition to Susa was
Babylonia and especially Persepolis. The assumption is that Susa was the
winter palace as it is extremely hot in the summer.

4) The next king was Xerxes (Greek name) whose Persian name is somewhat
similar to Achashverosh (Chasiarsh) . In addition to many wars he also
expnded the cities of Susa and Persepolis. He also is mentioned in many
documents as the son of Darius

King Xerxes Proclaims: My father was Darius whose father was Hystapses etc.
see inscription at Hamadan

5) Xerxes was murdered and was succeeded by his son Artaxeres. There is a
bowl in the British museum with the inscription

Artaxerses the great king, king of kings. king of countries, son of Xerxes
the king who was the son of Darius the king the Achamenian in whose house
this silver cup was made.

Note that all these names appear in Tanach and are consistent with Persian
history. However Chazal accepting only 4 kings (3 without Darius the Mede)
stated that the various names refer to the same person.
Also note that many of the details of Megillat Esther coincide with what is
known about the Persinas and Susa (eg the large number of concubines, tombs
of queens with vast amount of jewelry, a picture of the perian king on his
thrown with a large rod in his right hand, Mordechai sitting at the king's
gate. The king rewarding those who gave information was well known in
Persian life. There is even a picture of a servant carrying a footstool to
help the master on his horse as told by chazal.

Note however that Haman promised 10,000 talents of silver which is
approximately 300 tons! according to Herodotus this was about the size of
the annual budget of Persia.

According to this version the story of Purim happened in the reigh of
Xerxes many years after the second Temple was rebuilt in the days of Darius.

The Persian kingdom lasted for many more years (interestingly there is much
less native documentation ie non-Greek for these later kings) and it was
only Darius III (after several Xerxes' and Artaxerxes) who was conquered by
Alexander the great.

In general the archaeological evidence supports the version of Herodotus
and other Greek historians in the large though the Greek historians are
known to be not trustworthy in many details especially in regard to the
wars between the Greeks and the Persians where they had an axe to grind. In
addition to the many documents left by the Persian kings there are letters
sent to the garrison in elephantime (southern Eygpt) that corroborates this
history together with the Jewish officers there keeping many halachot.

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 26

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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

A list of common acronyms is available at at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >