Volume 35: Number 94
Tue, 25 Jul 2017
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:11:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah
R' Joel Rich wrote:
> If I am not being yotzeih with his reading, then
> I am indifferent (except for kavod hatzibbur)
Glad to hear that kavod hatzibbur is relevant.
I would think that tochacha is also relevant. I dunno, maybe
"tochacha" is too strong a word, and I should use "arvus" or
something. My point is simply that ME being yotzay is only part of the
picture, and I care about the Reader being yotzay also.
Even in a shul where everyone is reading on their own, if I overhear
someone make a serious mistake, I should not be indifferent. I should
at least WANT to bring the mistake to his attention. Whether I
actually DO bring it to his attention depends on several factors,
including the risk of embarrassing him, but I should at least be
thinking about it. (It is similar to the question of what to do when I
see someone's tefillin clearly in the wrong position.)
Go to top.
From: elazar teitz
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:56:33 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] correcting ba'alei kria
RZev Sero made the argument that "When it comes to the haftarah,
however, we do not find such a thing. If the tzibbur missed one week's
haftarah they needn't make it up. This tells me that there is no communal
chovah for the haftarah to be read. Chazal instituted that it be read, and
they composed brachos to be said
with it, but it is simply a part of the order of the shabbos service, which
ought to be followed, but there is no liability, and therefore no concept
of "yotzei" or "not yotzei".
The fact that it "need not be made up" does not indicate that there was
no chiyuv originally. It merely indicates that there was no takana of
tashlumim -- in effect, avar z'mano bateil korbano -- which proves nothing
about the nature of the original obligation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Go to top.
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:45 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Alma vs Almah
In a gett, the year is given "leberi'as alma". The AhS (EhE 126:61)
discusses the question of what happens if there is a ta'us, and it reads
"leberi'as almah", with a hei? Some say it's always pasul, some say it's
kosher beshe'as hadechaq, and yet others say it depends on whether the
husband pointed it out, saying it was an intentional avoidance of giving
her a real gett.
The reason why this particular spelling error is discussed is because
"almah" (with a hei) is a near synonym for naarah. And so, the gett
says something different than intented. It's not just some of the other
misspellings that have only one possible intent.
I was wondering if this is too fanciful:
Why would someone consider "toward the creation of the young woman" a
plausible possibility? Could it be related to christological readings of
Yeshiah 7:14, where they famously mistranslate "hinneih ha'almah harah
veyoledes bein" to refer to virgin birth? And thus, "beri'ah ha'almah"
could be taken as a reference to the Xian mythos of an almah having a
role in producing boy born yeish mei'ayin. After all, years are often
given given in CE.
Perhaps the problem under discussion is only because Xianity
reappropriated the word "almah", and therefore this hava aminah could
cross the readers mind.
Maybe? Or too creative?
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Avodah mailing list
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
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)