Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 386

Monday, February 21 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:22:33 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Chicago

In a message dated 2/21/00 5:39:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

> Keivan she'higid, shuv aino chozer u'magid :-) 

But the Shomeia isn't under those restrictions :-) 
I am also sure there is no issue of Bal Tagid and CDRG :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:33:22 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Daf Yomi Query

In a message dated 2/21/00 10:44:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> Wait till you get there - I am not talking about geneaology (a natural
>  assumption in Yevamos) - but of parameters of Kiddush Hashem.

Didn't you and your brother in law RCB discuss this issue already on the list?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:42:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Re: Marc Shapiro's agenda

--- Shapiro Marc B <shapirom2@UofS.edu> wrote:

> and with this I say goodbye to Avodah

Please do not leave Avodah.  I, for one, do not think
you are a heretic. Nor do I in any way question your
integrity. I value your past contribution and would
love to see more of it. It is my personal opinion that
diversity of views is a good thing and gives one
broader perspectives on all issues. 

I may disagree with your beliefs about the Mabul but I
don't exclude the possibility that you may be right. 
I only question how you arrived at your conclusions
about it.  What is this scientific evidence you refer
to that is so convincing? Isn't it possible that the
scientific community is so accepting of the
conclusiveness of these proofs because of the nature
of their Agnosticism? Isn't most of academia Agnostic?
Doesn't the scientific method encourage Agnosticism...
especially when there is no grounding in Torah

When pointing to the Origin of the Species, these
scientists totally ignore the Anthropic priniple.  As
long as it is mathematically possible to have a
randomly created universe, no matter how astronomical
the odds, Agnostic scientists cling to random
mutations as the guiding force in evolution and not
G-d. Therefore, there is no need to believe in G-d!
Are these the academics that you look towards for
validating those proofs?  

As I stated, I remain to be convinced that the Mabul
was only allegorical.  But, like you I am a seeker of
Truth and will accept it as Truth when proven so.

As to your publication of the SE's letters... I have
an honest disagreement with you about the need to
publish them and what purpose was served in the
context of a brief article in the TuM J. Perhaps your
book on the SE provides a truer picture of the man and
his essence and I would rather judge you on the basis
of reading your book and not your TuM J article.  

And please do not be insulted by my pointing out that
Historians are biased.  They are.  It is unarguable in
my opinion.  Just look at Ben Hecht's book, "Perfidy"
and compare it with the more mainstream versions of
the stories therein recounted.  Which are more
accurate? (At least Ben Hecht admitted his bias.) Did
you see the Karasawa movie "Rashamon"?  Six views of
an incident... six totally different versions told.
Sometimes we see what we want to see whether we admit
it or not.  A good historian will admit that to
himself and bend over backwards to not let himself be
so self-influenced (perhaps by submitting his work for
review to someone whose views are diametrically
opposite of his own, I don't know). 

In any case I belive you are as intellectully honest
as you say you are and, again, please do not be
insulted by my previous postings. 

Once again I ask you to stay on Avodah and contribute
to it's postings.

Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:54:05 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Diyukim

In a message dated 2/20/00 3:41:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

>     The answer: 
>  the acronym av"c did not really mean "adir v'chazak", but rather
>  "ofanim v'chayos", but was misinterpreted by the tzibbur.
>  It should have read:
>  "Az b'kol ra'ash gadol, ofanim v'chayos mashmi'im kol,
>  misnas'im l'umas s'rafim, l'umasam m'shab'chim v'omrim."
>  (He emphasizes that he is not suggesting reverting back to this
>  nusach -- it's too late, "adir v'chazak" has become the accepted
>  nussach.)

Adir Vechazak is brought in the Machzor Vitri and it's explanation is found 
in the Rokeiach.

>  He also contends that there should be no pause between 
>  "m'shuleshes" and "batorah" for the following reason:
>  If there were a pause, the sentence structure would be very 
>  disjointed, with "ham'shuleshes" modifying "bracha", 
>  "ha-ksuva" modifiying "torah", and then "mipi Aharon" going
>  back and modifying "bracha".   Without that  pause, all three 
>  of the adjectival phrases modify "bracha".
The Rokeiach seems to indicate to say Hamishuleshes Batora.

Just to point out there is more then just one other possability of Batorah 
Ha'ksuva, as it could be said Hamshuleshes, (which is found) batorah, (the 
Torah "or" the Bracha is) Ha'ksuva.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:08:52 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Lashon Hara L'Toeles (was re: SE/History)

In a message dated 2/21/00 6:01:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

 Oops :-) It should be obvious from the rest of the post that I meant 
 to say that a statement which has a toeles for a significant public, 
 but not for all (who hear it), would be oiver on lashon hara.
So in our case of a child molester, no public statement could ever be made 
since some who would not be affected by it would hear? Even at the cost of 
the individual moving to another town and molesting again? Would the result 
be different if a bet din convened (even without power to punish?)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:15:55 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
History in Halacha

IMHO the first Rashi on the Torah deals with the parameters of history, 
(likewise WRT the Nvi'im Nvuah Shehutzracha L'doros), this is a Psicha for 
discussing history through the eyes of Torah.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:37:23 -0500
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
Re: SE impressions

> I think the chiluk between CDRG applying while a person is alive
> and after he is dead is a mistaken chiluk. IMHO it's based on a
> misconception that CDRG goes along with a letter as a property
> right. That is based on a misinterpretation of the Rishonim who say
> "v'im zorko l'ashpa mutar."
We have been through this.  CDRG isn't a din d'oraita or d'rabbanan, but
rather  a herem with specific rules for its application.  Minhag ha'olam
has been to publish posthumous works and letters without either explicit
or implicit permission, with out any opposition.  Therefore, any one who
says that CDRG applies posthumously has to bring some ra'ayah why no one
worried about it until RMS.  Question: did you ever read the letters of
the chazon ish, or the letter of the besht to his brother in law?  If
you found a posthumous letter from a gadol with hiddushe torah, you
wouldnt't publish it?
CDRG is not content based.  The mere content of a letter doesn't
determine whether CDRG applies during one's lifetime, so it shouldn;t
determine it posthumously.

>If what you're suggesting is that we cannot call a person a rasha
>because he violated CDRG by disclosing letters of someone who is
>dead because CDRG in such circumstances is not an issur
>mefursam, ain hachi nami. But that doesn't make it mutar. And if
>that's not what you were getting at, then please explain.
See the ET (Encyclopedia Talmudit) Because CDRG is only a herem, many
poskim hold that one has to know that the herem exists, and that one is
violating it, in order to be o'ver it.  I. e. there is no category of
shogeg for this herem, and if one doesn't believe that it applies, then
it is muttar.

>"But isn't one of the keys of Hilchos Lashon Hara that you're not
>supposed to say something about Reuven that the listener would
>regard as a gnus about Reuven? And if there's a reasonable
>likelihood that what you are writing (and particularly when you are
>publishing something) will be read by someone who will regard it as
>a gnus, aren't you saying lashon hara about Reuven at least when
>it reaches the ears of that recipient? If you were talking to Reuven
>and Shimon and you wanted to tell Reuven about Berl's dedication "

One can not worry about that some people will take something as a gnai.
Clearly, there are limits.
e. g., some people believe that either having (or not having, depending
on one's orientation) a secular education is a gnai.  Can I therefore
say that Rav Soloveichik went to University or that Rav Moshe did not go
to University?  using your example of dedication as a    potential gnai,
can I say that the Netziv was a matmid? What about reading newspapers?

Clearly, at somepoint, we need some objective criteria,otherwise we can
never say anything in a public forum about anyone else, which, halacha
lema'ase, noone holds.

>I'm not a posek and I'm not attempting to "pasken" as to whether
>this would apply to RMS. Not my place. But see Chafetz Chaim
>Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 10 S'if 5 and Shaarei Tshuva Ma'amar
>228. V'ain kan makom le'haarich.


Meir Shinnar

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:22:42 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Re: TheSOY Sale , The SE, RYGB and RMS

 First-the good news. Yes, many of the persons who come to the sale wouldn't 
be caught dead in YU otherwise. Yet, davka because of their ahavas Torah , 
albeit at a reduced price, these Bnei Torah,  Bnos Torah and students from 
JTS/HUC buy sifrei kodesh . The lines are long and noone leaves with just 
what they had originally on their list. The sale is a marvelous Kiddush 
 Now-the bad news. I've been follwing the recent strand on SE etc. Since RMS 
had the intellectual sagacity to refuse the demands of the the Feminist 
conference, I think that we should review his book in a proper manner. . 
Would any of us dare to call Ibn Ezra not a Rishon because he differs with 
Ramban on the hekesh of zachor/Shamor. Remember, although Ramban criticized 
this as evidence of a lack of familiarity with Shas, Ramban never went so far 
as to say that because because of this shita, "Idon;t Goreis the Ibn Ezra".  
I think that off line perusal of the letters By RYGB and list members without 
a careful review of the book does Avodah and its purposes a disservice. The 
bottom line of all of the tendentious strain is that If you don't trust 
anyone except ArtScroll to "write" hagiography disguised as biograghy,don't 
read the book.
 OTOH, if you're interested in wrestling with the lives of Gdolim, perhaps 
the book is worthgwile as suggested by RYGBlau.To repeat, if RMS is too frum 
for the FEminist Conference,that should make us reconsider all of the 
bromides that have been tossed in the directions of the emunos vdeos of RMS.  

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:34:51 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Re: Ban on Cigarettes

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:15:20 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer" 

<<I prefer to think that we on Avodah are mechaven to some issues which
the gedolim consider berumo shel olam;    that we are not (only >
<g>)spouting hot air.
I give the gdolim more credit than I give us :-) >>

	That they read Avodah???


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:38:11 IST
From: "moshe rudner" <mosherudner@hotmail.com>

Referring to attacks an R' Shapiro's judgement a poster wrote:

<<<Micha - just where are the DNA's (Darchei Noam Alerts) on this topic?>>>

I agree wholeheartedly. R' Marc is a professional historian. Analyzing 
history is his career. To go and attack him simply because "everyone has a 
bias" is improper (can someone chapter and verse that in the Chofetz 
Chaim?). I believe it was R' Salanter who said the sin is tantamount to 

Aspersions are being cast on his integrity and when it comes down to it the 
best anyone can come up with is "he's Modern Orthodox, you can't trust him - 
but nothing personal, everyone's a Nogeah BiDavar". Fascinating.

How can any work by anyone be quoted being as everyone is a Nogeah BiDavar?  
I agree with the woman I quoted above and with the other posters who pointed 
out that a few people on this list should be sent DNA posts for their 
improper attacks on a fellow Jew. We should know better than to kill the 
messanger because we (some of us) don't like the message.

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:58:03 +0000
From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
re:besmirching frum sociopaths

David Finch writes: 
Why is this thread called "Besmirching Frum Sociopaths"? Frum 
> sociopaths 
> should be let alone, so long as they don't bother anybody. Should 
> the thread 
> be recaptioned "Besmirching Frum Predatory Criminals"? If that 
> caption is 
> more accurate, then the community's obligations to the victims and 
> to the law 
> is more obvious.

Can someone please define "frum predatory criminal"? How can one be a
predatory criminal and still be considered frum? What next: a frum
mechalel shabbos?

Sadya N. Targum
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:55:21 -0800
From: "zvi brooks" <zvib@mailcity.com>
New biography of R. Weinberg

For what it's worth, I think M. Shapiro's biography of R. Weinberg is outstanding, although I realize that if Artscroll chooses to issue a sanitized version of it, there will be a number of things taken out, e. g., the pro-Nazi comments of R. Weinberg and R. Munk (author of "World of Prayer.")


MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime!

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:22:49 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Diyukim

On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:33:26PM +0200, Shlomo Godick wrote:
: he asked me: where is the subject of the sentence?  Where is
: the antecedent?  Who is mashmi'im kol?

"Kesheim shemakdishim oso *bishmei marom*". After establishing that we're
describing tzeva'os Hashayim, isn't "they" enough?


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:26:56 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Chicago

On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 03:10:14PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: When are we going to be zoche to "chazaras hashiur"?

It snowed from Thursday night until early Shabbos morning. As the gathering
was timed for Shabbos, trudging through all that snow wasn't a pleasant
prospect. I had a great weekend, and had a good time chatting with those
people I did meet. But the more formal gathering was snowed out.


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:26:10 EST
From: Maylocks1@aol.com
Biography of SE

    To everyone on Avodah, I said I will not enter this debate again, but I 
do have one more comment.
    First let me say that I appreciate defenses of my integrity. I don't 
begrudge anyone for what they said on the list. I assume everyone feels 
strongly about issues, and this sort of list is freewheeling. I assume no one 
has any personal animus to me. As long as people stick to the issues, that is 
fine with me.
    Since many people have been writing me and asking questions about the 
biography, which uses many hundreds of private letters, let me say, first of 
all, that I will provide copies of any of these letters to any interested 
    Second, I am not completely objective. Although I am not interested in 
writing a MO portrait of R. Weinberg, I obviously have biases and choose to 
focus on different aspects of his personality, while others would focus on 
different points. This is unavoidable, and biases are a part of how history 
is written. But I hope we haven't become so post-modern to assert that all 
history is relative. 
    I think that my portrait of R. Weinberg's inner self and his true 
convictions is the most convincing that can be offered. But I don't have a 
monopoly on him. Great men are always subject to different interepretations. 
I have offered my interpretation of R. Weinberg. If people want to differ, 
then please do so. If there are multiple interepretations of the Rambam, not 
to mention Freud, Marx and Hitler (yemach shemo) then obviously there can be 
different interpretations of R. Weinberg. 
    Since I have examined many hundreds of letters, I obviously have to 
determine which portions of the letters I feel are significant and cull 
information from them. I use them to form my portrait, and I see a number of 
strong patterns in R. Weinberg's personality which emerge clearly from his 
letters. If you trust my skill as a historian then you will trust that I have 
not deceived the public and used the letters responsibly, but obviously, I 
had to make judgments in how I used the letters. If you don't trust my judgmen
t, what can I say.  
    Incidentally, I did leave out things, since it is not possible to include 
everything. For example, R. Weinberg in one letter affirms his support for 
Heikhal Shlomo and says that the right-wing fear that this would become a 
Sanhedrin is misplaced. Some probably would think that I should have included 
this in the book. But I couldn't discuss everything, and the trend of thought 
expressed in this letter is found in many others. I. e., the reader's 
understanding of R. Weinberg is not affected by not discussing this letter. I 
assert categorically that nothing I have omitted is significant in 
understanding the man and his ideas. A biography has to know which 
inofrmation is important and see trends. Take Churchill for example -- can 
one quote from every letter of his. But as I said before, and repeat now, I 
have not covered anything up
    Others might have a different take on R. Weinberg, but it is up to you to 
provide the evidence, not simply attack through innuendo. I communicated with 
R. Yaakov Sarne many times, even going to see him. I told him about the 
biography and said how important it was to get more letters from members of 
the yeshiva world, since this would fill out the portrait. I was unsuccessful 
in my attempt to see the letters from R. Weinberg to his father (I realize 
that it is difficult for a rosh yeshiva to take the time and dige thse things 
up -- he told me he would do so, but later said he didn't have the time). Had 
I read these letters, I don't think my portrait would have been substantially 
changed. I believe his *fundamental* essence would remain, but I do think 
that more aspects of personality would have been revealed (of course, this 
too is a judgment on my part -- but since when does the writing of history 
not include making judgments? I think some people on this list are not aware 
of how history is written. There are schools of interpretations, and various 
approaches. Whichever approach the historian adheres to will affect his 
    All doubts as to my skill in using the letters will be erased (or 
confirmed!) if I   publish all the letters. I originally planned to do so. 
But now I feel that this will create too much controversy, so it is likely 
that many of these letters will not see the light of day. Therefore, I repeat 
what I said, above, that I can allow anyone who wants to, access to these 
    I also realize that when people see that the letters say exactly what I 
say they do, they will fall back on another strategy, namely, "Shapiro's 
portrait will be disproven by letters he hasn't yet seen." And when I publish 
the letters to the yeshiva world and these don't significantly affect the 
portrait, people will then claim "Shapiro's portrait would be disproven if we 
had the letters to R. Chaim Ozer and the Munkatcher which were destroyed in 
the Holocaust" etc. etc. But what can I do except produce what I believe to 
be an honest portrait of one of the most complicated gedolim and, to my mind, 
a very inspirational figure.
    It has been said that my biography is the only "real" study of a modern 
gadol. I don't know if that's true (Ellenson has written on Hildesheimer for 
example). But I do know it is not hagiography. So therefore, please judge it 
as it was meant to be judged, that is, as history. If you believe that 
gedolim should not be written about in anthing but a hagiographic fashion, 
well then we are two ships passing through the night.
    Finally, re. my post on writing true history and lashon hara, I was only 
raising issues, not offering conclusions. I assume, as my book clearly 
illustrates, that there is nothing unethical about writing history, although, 
as my post also made clear, I admit that I am not sure how this can be 
justified halakhically. Also, if my post implied that I was not involved in 
publishing the letters in TUMJ, and simply gave R. Schacter free reign, this 
is incorrect. I suggested publishing them, and therefore if people are to be 
criticized it is both of us. I do not say that I was wrong to publish the 
letters (admittedly, I am very torn), but in retrospect I believe that they 
should have appeared in a very different forum, i .e., a journal with a more 
limited readership. 


                                         Marc Shapiro

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:55:26 EST
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>

I just wanted to drop a line to say goodbye to my fellow listmembers, as
I plan to unsubscribe from this list shortly.

Over the past few months, there have been several scattered attempts to
clarify the nature of this chevrah, and to codify rules of behavior for
the posts we send in. I have come to the conclusion that the personality
of this chevrah clashes with my own. Not in any way that is objectively
bad, chalilah, but simply different, to the point where I just don't
enjoy going through the posts.

I have learned a great deal from many of the people here, but for the
effort involved, it just isn't worth it, for *me*. B'taam v'rayach, ayn
l'hitvakayach. The personality of the chevrah at Mail-Jewish is more
suited to my interests, and I plan to remain active there.


Akiva Miller

Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:28:40 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Re: besmirching frum sociopaths

In a message dated 2/21/00 7:53:17 PM US Central Standard Time, 
targum1@juno.com writes:

<< Can someone please define "frum predatory criminal"? How can one be a
 predatory criminal and still be considered frum? What next: a frum
 mechalel shabbos?

It's no easier to define a "Frum Sociopath," either, from that point of view. 
If it's impossible to be frum and to commit a predatory crime, then our 
problem is solved. We can report all of them to the authorities without 
further hand-wringing.

David Finch

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:57:03 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
From Today's "Israel Line"

> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:11:53 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: From Today's "Israel Line

<<: people find jobs.  ...  Maybe a loose interpretation of TIDE at most.

Wrong mishnah. Perhaps, "Im ein kemach, ein Torah".>>

	My point.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:59:06 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
RE: 60 Minutes

> Last night on the CBS program sixty Minutes there was
> a segment about the Israeli "war" between Charedim and
> Chilonim. The hate that secular society has for
> religious society is enormous.

The hate a *small* segment of secular society has for religious society is

and since that segment controls the press they make it appear to be greater
than it really is.


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:18:45 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Fascinating Digest from the Reb Shlomo List!

I hope it's not illegal to quote other lists - I cut some of the stuff that
seemed superfluous, but this is fascinating!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 11:17 PM

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Message-Id: <v04220800b4d69b10a221@[]>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:05:04 +0200
> To: reb-shlomo@shamash.org
> From: dovid <dovid@nac.net>
> Subject: "Maaseh Rav"
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> bs"d
> As the book has already been written on Rabbeinu's
> relations with his fellow man, i was encouraged
> to begin a thread regarding Rabbeinu's
> practices regarding G-d. G-d willing, with enough
> input from all sources, there will be a book on this topic also
> some day.
> (a glossary of terms follows at the bottom)
> 1) In accordance with the instructions of the
> old Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbeinu and his brother both
> carefully observed the practice of not getting up in
> the morning without washing negl wassr. accordingly
> always had the basin underneath the bed.
> 2) permitted a separate woman's prayer group and qriyas
> torah for bas mizva and simhat torah
> 3) encouraged women to hold and dance with sefer torah --
> if i trust a woman to carry my babila for nine months then
> why cant i trust her to carry my torah for a few moments...
> 4) after kabalat shabbat Rabbeinu always said "boie boie
> kala shabbat malkata" following lkha dodi while still facing
> backwards and bowed three times.
> 5) gave out afikoman with a brakha to
> each hevra individually. Rabbeinu asked us to retain
> a piece of Afikoman.
> 6) Made space for men and women to stand (separately) near
> the Aron Qodesh during Tfilot Tal, Geshem and Neila.
> 7) Rabbeinu once asked for the Aliya of the Tokhakha. He called
> on all the doctors and therapists in the Shul to participate
> in his Aliya (about half the people in the Shule) and layned
> it himself. Rabbeinu explained in the name of a Rebbe, whose name
> i forget, that the reading of the
> Tokhaka brings down a great healing into the world.
> 8) To read and explain the nusakh of Tikun Leyl Shavuot.
> 9) Rabbeinu once asked to receive and layn the
> final Aliya of the second day of Rosh haShanah.
> 10) The Aliyah of Maftir Yonah to be given to a group.
> 11) just before hakafot, Rabbeinu gave out hasidishe sforim
> to each hevra individually, Rabbeinu described the derekh
> of each Rebbe and gave over a brakha based on that derekh.
> 12) Read and explain the nusakh of Ushpizn in the Sukkah.
> Said over the Torah of Rebbes with the same names.
> Heard Rabbeinu do likewise during the week of shiva for
> his mother.
> 13) insisted that the Aliyot of Simhat Torah be given in groups
> even when there was time to call people individually.
> 14) To do Tanoyim immediately upon engagement. Explained carefully
> the text of the Tanoyim (and Ktuvah).
> 15) Asked a Kohein, Levi and Yisroel stand behind Hussan
> and Kallah.
> 16) Had the Ketuvah completed under the Huppa. Skipped Hussan's
> Tisch and Kabbalat Panim and start the wedding from the
> Badeqn. This was the m.o. at weddings where Rabbeinu was in charge.
> I don't know what happened at Rabbeinu's own wedding.
> 17) he waited the full six hours between eating meat and milk
> ------------------------------
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Message-Id: <v04220801b4d6bab6120a@[]>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:08:36 +0200
> To: reb-shlomo@shamash.org
> From: dovid <dovid@nac.net>
> Subject: "Maaseh Rav II -- Niggun"
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> bs"d
> "veninu tirena", "vaani tfilati" before learning
> the others i dont remember the names...
> "vihareinu" after learnings on thursdays.
> Rabbeinu modified the traditional hasidiscshe nusakh
> hatfila and used it always
> except for
> -qdusha of shabbos and yom tov
> -hallel
> -piyutim.
> to each "khruz", a different niggun.
> except qaddosh and barukh of qedusha always sung
> to the same nussach. Not easy to follow the place.
> a different niggun for each occasion.
> Rafi David was baal musaf whenever
> Shlomo wasn't there and Rafi always sang
> qedusha to "lmaan achai" which became nusakh
> at the shul following Rabbeinu's ptira.
> "atah birkatanu" sometimes used for qdusha of yom tov.
> repetition of amidah done in flattened nusakh and fast.
> no nigunnim sung.
> "Dukhaning". Abridged Lubavitch niggun. Always.
> qriyas hatorah (and megilla): flattened the trop
> and knocked off fast. Such practice was
> not universally well received among chevra and perhaps
> why Rabbeinu used this time to prepare for
> his Derasha.
> Kabbalat Shabbat -- buy the tape.
> "Mizmor leDovid". Standing. No dancing.
> "Ona baKoach" silently.
> "Lkho Dodi" always different. "Lo Tevoshi"
> change of tune.
> "Mizmor Shir LYom HaShabbat and HaShem Melelkh":
> a flattened "yossile good shabbos".
> the flat yossile for havdalah
> in shule, mourners qaddish, birkhat hatorah
> and for Sheva Berakhot. for the final brakha,
> Rabbeinu's originals.
> Contrary to the accepted practice of the Chevra,
> Rabbeinu never used the original yossile good shabbos
> niggun except for telling the story.
> Ribon haOlamim after Sholom Aleikhem, silently.
> Kol Miqadesh at the end of the meal before desert
> to "Lulei Toratkha". (This niggun was also for
> shabbos morning "hakol yadukha" followed by "el odon or
> orekh yamim")
> If there was any distractions, Rabbeinu got birogez
> with his chevra and started it all over from the beginning.
> Menukha veSimcha followed without interruption.
> sung to "siman tov" (any version) or
> "orekh yamim". Rabbeinu stood up at the end. I dont
> recall if there was dancing or not. followed by torah.
> Following desert, "Kah Ribbon" sung to "Shevakhin".
> "Shir HaMaalot" sung to the old "Od Yishama"
> at concerts sang his own "hinei" or "hamavdil" for havdala.
> Hallel -- always different.
> the old "Piskhu Li" niggun was never sung.
> Ona hashem to either Modzitz or te "ki bshem qadshikha"
> Unisaneh Toqef -- i forget the name but not his "kivaqorat".
> "kivaqorat" was used before the silent prayer on yom
> kippur night
> Haqafot -- many nigunnim such as "orekh yamim" "uvua haovdim",
> "dovid melekh" plus one slower niggun.
> Krakow niggun -- must be sung in its entirety.
> "El Adon" Rabbeinu did not
> allow the change in pitch on repetition. after the ptira
> the chevra went ahead and changed it any way.
> "vayesayu" -- either Modzitz or his own "veyesayu"
> Weddings: his own "Mi Adir"
> ------------------------------
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Message-Id: <v04220801b4d7142e7cfe@[]>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:06:16 +0200
> To: reb-shlomo@shamash.org
> From: dovid <dovid@nac.net>
> Subject: "Maaseh Rav III -- corrections"
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> bs"d
> Regarding the use of "nusach" (traditional chassidic liturgical
> melody). Rabbeinu was about 80% faithful, flattening here
> or adding a flourish or other minor modification there, thus
> transforming nusach into something uniquely his own.
> Shabbos night. Said Torah after davening and then again before
> sholom aleikhem.
> Shabbos morning: 9 am coffee cake and carlebach
> (no cash) in Rabbeinu's house. learning in the shule
> at 930 for an hour then davening.
> Nishmas Kol Hai. for Rabbeinu's mothers levaya in the shule
> in new york, several people gave long speeches.
> Rabbeinu was last. didnt give any speech. he just brought
> down a new niggun for the 23d psalm and then sang the eishes
> hayil niggun. end.
> During the year of avelut Rabbeinu used this new niggun for Nishmat.
> Shabbos day. derasha following musaf. No niggunim at Lunch.
> Rabbeinu usually left lunch early.
> 3d shabbos meal: Bnei hekhala sung to "veshomru" of friday night.
> followed by the 23d psalm sung to "vehanhileinu", followed by
> rizhner niggun followed by krakow niggun. The chevra seemed to have
> gotten this one right. afterward Rabbeinu gave over Torah.
> unisane toqef = one particular "ulimiqdashekh
> tuv". Rabbeinu brought down at least three different melodies
> to ulimqdashekh and i am unable to verbally distinguish
> among them.
> "Mi Adir" at the Huppah = "ledor vador" niggun.
> (haven't heard it sung at a wedding since the ptira.)
> baby girl naming. for the father's Aliya, taleisim are spread
> from the bima to the mother. during the mishberakh, the
> baby is placed on the open sefer torah.
> thank you to sharya witt for reminding me of the source names
> of the niggunim. (i highly recommend reb joey greenblatt to
> anyone in nyc needing help in connecting niggunim with a name).
> ------------------------------
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Message-Id: <v04220802b4d7212b8a8b@[]>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:09:07 +0200
> To: reb-shlomo@shamash.org
> From: dovid <dovid@nac.net>
> Subject: "Maaseh Rav IV -- corrections"
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> bs"d
> after qiddush levana each month
> and after davening Rosh hashona night Rabbeinu asked
> the chevre to all give each other blessings.
> End of REB-SHLOMO Digest 924
> ****************************
> ----------------------- reb-shlomo@shamash.org ----------------------+
> Hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Internet Consortium  http://shamash.org
> ----------------------- reb-shlomo@shamash.org ----------------------=

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 >