Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 462

Thursday, March 23 2000

• RE: Diyukim Redux
• Re: Hatzola
• Re[2]: Avodah V4 #459
• Re: maror v horseradish
• Re: Parshas Tzav
• Re[2]: Golus Mentality
• Re: Golus Mentality
• Living by the same standard
• Re: Maror v Horseradish
• Diyyuk Redux
• Golus Mentality
• Re: Avodah V4 #461
• Re: Golus Mentality
• Golus mentality
• Nusach Hatefillah
• Re: How Can We etc. (aniyei irkha)
• Re: golus mentality
• Re: golus mentality
• Re: Diyyuk Redux
• Nusach changes
• Re: How Can We Etc.
• Re: wedding takanos
• Re: Takanos
• Re: Diyyuk Redux

Since "Hashem..." is from the Torah and the other pesukim are from Navi,
"Hashem..." should really be said first.  However, since we want the kedusha
d'sidra to follow the pattern of kedusha of chazaraz hashatz, we say
"Hashem..." last, albeit quietly. See OC 132:2 Shaarei Teshuva, who brings
an Avudraham that also says that "Hashem..." should be said quietly. 

KT
Aryeh
aes@ll-f.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:33 AM
Subject: Diyukim Redux


> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:51:35 -0500
> From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
> Subject: RE: Diyyuk Redux
 
<<FWIW, R' SZ Auerbach holds that the third pasuk of kedusha of Uva
liTziyon/Va'to Kadosh ("Hashem Yimloch...") should not be said out loud
(contrary to the "yaish omrim" of Artscroll).  The reason is because this
pasuk is from the Chumash, while the first two pesukim ("Kadosh..."  and
"Baruch...") are not.>>

	What is the reasoning for the distinction?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

once the head of the KAJ hatzolo was reviving a man who fainted in shul, and had
to re-assure the patient that he was just helping to revive and not doing the 
tahara on him!

richard_wolpoe@ibi.comt


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Hatzola 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/22/2000 6:46 PM


 richard_wolpoe wrote:
Subject: Re: Takanos Redux

>...If I choose to volunteer for the chevra kadishah, it does not mean I oppose 
>hatzala because if is after all bad for business!  <smile>

Our Melbourne Hatzolo has a number of volunteers who also volunteer 
for the Chevra Kadisha - often eliciting the query from the 
patient: "Whom are you representing...?"

And  as one of these "double-serving letzim" in the group says: 
"We always get them - one way or another!".

Biz 120...

SHLOMO B ABELES

Mis-understanding the reality and varieties of anti-semitism can also can be 
fatal.

Konwing which anti-semties will take bribes and which will not can be fatal

considering hitler, mussloini and franko as all equals in fascism cna be fatal, 
too

btw see R. Tokayers book "The Fuku Plan" which gives another fictionalized spin 
on this

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
 

You've made several fatal assumptions:

Barry Schwarz

On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 11:51:28PM +1100, SBA wrote:
:>     ..... but I always thought that she'ar yeraqot in the MahNishtanah
:>made it clear that it had to be a leafy vegetable or the leafy part of a
: vegetable;

: *Shebchol Haleilos* onu ochlin "She'ar yeraqot "

Exactly, and on this night, we only eat a particular yerek, not only the
rest of them. Implied is that maror is a yerek, not a white root.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Mar-00: Levi, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 12a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

good point.

I guess like we have arboim choseir achas we have tzdi vov plus achas <smile>

-wally cleaver


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Parshas Tzav 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/23/2000 7:51 AM


>richard_wolpoe              Subject: Re: Parshas Tzav

>fwiw the hakdomo in the Artsroll Ba'al haTurim descibes Gematra in detail. 
>It seems that the word itself can be counted as 1. So Tzav is 96 PLUS 1 = 97.

OK! But the Chumash says that there are Tzadi Vov Pesukim - when there is 
really97...
And BTW do any other of the Gematria's (at the end of Sidra's) need complicated 
methods of
calculation?

Questions:

Would galus mentality perhaps also include:

1) Over-reacting to Goyim, 
2) Paranoia as to the Gentles intentions
3) Thinking that the Goyim are always plotting against us
4) Thinking that Goyim are always thinking about Jews instead of about 
themselves?
5) IOW does it include caring about what Goyim think in BOTH aspects 
     A). is going out of our way to PLEASE goyim
     as well as
     B). going out of our way to "dis" goyim?

-wally cleaver



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Golus Mentality 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/23/2000 3:49 AM


I would define Golus Mentality as a non-Jewish Weltanshaung (World-view).




Akiva

Was the Sridei Eish's deferential letter to Chancellor Hitler of this variety?

Or perhaps - mishum eivo - it pays to be nice even if the recipient of that 
courtesy does not "deserve" it, becauase after all saving lives is the 
over-riding concern rather than being "right"?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


4. Pandering to the Goyim generally (see RGD's post entitled, 
"Pope's Visit - Barf Alert").

-- Carl

In V4#459 (RE:  How can we condemn the church...)
in response to:
: No. Part of his responsibility is to see that his "children" act morally.
: That being the case shouldn't he speak out against such acts regardless 
: of who they are commited against? 
MB asked:
"I will say it again -- what is this stuff doing on Avodah?"

I apologize in advance for rambling....
Perhaps it has some bearing on the involvement of the Rabbinate in
the Israeli political arena and on Jewish organizations worldwide.
The Catholic Church has a precept of "Render unto Caesar..." which
is one of the reasons I've heard why there were no pronouncements 
from Rome during WWII.
In Judaism however, there is no "hard line" separation of the Heavenly 
vs the temporal. Therefore it seems to me that there may be no excuse
not to be involved - even if you are unable to make an impact you should.
Perhaps though, the fact that we are in golus means that we have 
no right to "push" morality on the Goyim, and therefore we should not 
be making organizational/denominational pronouncements. (And as 
there is no "b'mokom she'ein ish" for an individual, shouldn't limited resources must be used on an "aniyei ircha" basis?)

I realize that the subject line is lousy, perhaps tikun olam is better.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

SBA wrote:
> MBernet wrote: 
>  >     ..... but I always thought that she'ar yeraqot in the MahNishtanah
>  >made it clear that it had to be a leafy vegetable or the leafy part of a 
>  > vegetable;
>  *Shebchol Haleilos* onu ochlin "She'ar yeraqot "

His point seemed to have been on the "She'ar," indicating that Maror, too, is 
a Yerek.

In any case, Pesachim 39a-b makes it clear that we do not eat a root as 
Maror, according to most interpretations of "Kelach." (Rashi Succah 13a might 
indicate that "Kelach" is a root; Tosafos there disagrees. Rashi Chullin 59a 
"Ikra" is also interesting on this.) This is also clear in numerous 
authorities, such as Semag Aseh 41, Ritva Pesachim 39a, Shut Maharil 58, Shut 
Mahari Weil 193, Shelah 119a, Bach OC 483.

Even those who okay use of the root (Eliyah Rabbah 473, possibly Chasam Sofer 
OC 132) aren't happy about it. Some authorities (Masas Binyamin OC 3, Leket 
Yosher pg. 83, 92) say one may use the above-ground portion of a root.

BeShem Omro - Much of this came from the extremely valuable Gesher article.

Mordechai Torczyner
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:41:06 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re: Diyyuk Redux

<<This is interesting because I daven in a Nusach Ashkenaz shul, and from
time to time (not infrequently) someone will get up and say Kaddish using
the Nussach of Eidot HaMizrach or Nussach Sfard.>>

	This happens all the time in my local minyan factory.   I think that
what I saw there this Taanis Esther was a bit much,  though,  when
someone came in for mincha and proceeded to put on talis and tefilin.  I
thought that was wrong,  especially in light of the fairly common hakpada
of separating the tefilin wearers from the nonwearers on chol hamoed.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:53:17 +0200
> From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> Subject: RE: Golus Mentality

<<It's obvious that almost every Jew for millenia has had *some* Golus
Mentality. The trick in in being aware that it exists, in trying to
minimize it, and in knowing when one's actions are a result of it.>>

	I like your definition of golus mentality.  However,  I am not sure that
it jibes/jives with the common usage as popularized by, for example, Meir
Kahane.  In fact,  I am fairly sure that it doesn't.  THAT definition
implicitly or explicitly states that now that we are in Eretz Yisrael, 
we can relate differently to the goyim than when we were under their
thumb in golus.  To the accusation of possessing that golus mentality, 
my mental reaction was always "what's wrong with that?" as I believe RCS
asked a few digests ago.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 3/23/00 8:43:20 AM Central Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<<  I heard from RFabian Schonfeld that RYBS 
 met secretly with a high ranking Catholic theologian >>
I agree with your conclusion, but, isn't the phrase "high ranking Catholic 
theologian" an oxymoron? Something akin to Holy, Roman, Empire, which wasn't 
holy, wasn't Roman, and, surely wasn't an empire?
Barry Schwarz

In a message dated 3/23/00 2:51:35 AM US Central Standard Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< Keep in mind that the first ghettos (13th century Venice, I believe) were
 formed *voluntarily* by the Jewish community in order to isolate themselves
 from the Goyim around them. >>

Is this what we should be seeking for our generation?

David Finch

> I use both as I, An American Jew who is also a Jewish
> American (and a citizen of France)... am Bi-Mental.
> > > Farkert, I don't remember who I heard it from but
> > he pointed out that:
> > > Italian- American
> > > African-American
> > > Polish-American

> > > American Jew

> > "American" comes first.
> 
> "American" is the modifying adjective to the more
> important noun, "Jew".

It would appear that there is an ascending and descending order according
to what one is trying to suggest.

Thus religion has a worldwide concept.
Racial background as in afro/polish/anglo-saxon etc has an area concept.
Nationality has a local concept.
Color has a specific concept

It is more likely that a person would identify someone as a Jewish Polish
American if a delimmited form of say an American is required (ie to join
an ethnic  club).

If a delimitted form of say a Jew is required then obviously 'Polish
American Jew' (ie to join a shul) is probably more correct.

In the use of 'WASP' - white anglo-saxon protestant, since it is only
prevalent in America, the nationality would appear to be implied.

Daniel Wells
wells@mail.biu.ac.il

<Are the Sfardi poskim more makpid about only using
<your own Nussach than are the Ashkenazi poskim?
Yes.   I don't have the exact reference, but Rav Ovadia Yosef says that
a Sefardi should never daven any other nusach but his own, which means
he cannot be the shatz in a non-sefardi shul.
Like Carl, I am frequently at a Persian minyan, and I say kedusha
according to their nusach, and evrything else according to my own
siddur. When they add a mizmor of tehillim which I normally don't say,
(such as "Esa Einai" in weekday maariv, ), why not join them in saying
it? So I do.  A few times in my life I have been the shatz in a Nusach
Sfard minyan (I did not have a chiyuv).
Sefardim are not supposed to do these things.  At Yeshivat Sha'alvim,
which davens ashkenaz, I seemed to me that the only people saying
"Nekadesh" were the shatz and the American talmidim.  I don't know what
chasidim are supposed to do in a Nusach Ashkenaz minyan.

Daniel

Carl Scherer wrote:

<<<
But the Torah TELLS me that aniyei ircha kodmim, and as long as 
the Torah tells me that, I could care less what the nations of the 
galus think. 
>>>

Can we please not confuse mitzvot d'oraita with mitzvot d'rabbanan?
Remember Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

And, by the way, while we are on the subject, doesn't the 
obligation to support aniyei irkha also include the non-Jewish poor?

One more question.  Do you give exclusively to charities that 
distribute funds to the poor (Jewish or gentile) of Jerusalem?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Carl Scherer wrote:

<<<
I don't know what the others meant by the term, but what I meant 
by it was the following:

1. Doing things (or not doing things) out of concern for what the 
goyim will think.

2. Acting (or omitting to act) because it is not in the best interests 
of "humanity" even though it might be in the best interests of Jews.

3. Acting (or omitting to act) in ways that do not reflect (or that 
reflect a lack of concern for) the best interests of the Jewish 
people. 

4. [expletive deleted]
>>>

Raiti shibush d'varim poh.

1.  No doubt Moshe was laboring under a galus mentality when he
challenged HKBH with the question:  Lamah yomru Mitzraim leimor
ki b'ra'ah hotziam la-harog otam be-harim u-l'khalotam mei-al p'nei
ha-adamah."   And surely the RShO was the victim of a galus 
mentality when he acceded to such a shameful entreaty.  And
I suppose that David ha-Melekh was also tainted by a galus
mentality when he wondered lamah yomru ba-goyim ayeih 
elokeihem.  And of course all of the halakhot of hilul ha-Shem are
undoubtedly an unfortunate residue of a galus mentality that we 
somehow have not managed to outgrow.

2-3.  The issue is not whether we act or don't act in the interest of
the Jews or the interest of the Goyim, it is whether we act in ways that 
are right and just (ha-tov v'ha-yashar).  Unless you are a utilitarian of a 
very dogmatic sort (which I would frankly be very surprised to learn), 
you cannot base your conclusion on whether a given course of 
conduct is right and just solely on whether it is good or bad for the 
Jews or for anyone else.  There must be some other neutral standard 
of rightness and justice.  Otherwise you are in the world of im ani 
l'atzmi mah ani.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Carl Scherer wrote:

<<<
2. Acting (or omitting to act) because it is not in the best interests 
of "humanity" even though it might be in the best interests of Jews.

3. Acting (or omitting to act) in ways that do not reflect (or that 
reflect a lack of concern for) the best interests of the Jewish 
people. 
>>>

May I ask you to please share with us your interpretation of the 
book of Jonah in light of the above.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

I always thought (I could be wrong; wouldn't be the first time) that it was
a davar pashut that the sh'liach tzibur ("ST") (and any mispallel saying
kaddish) must foresake his own personal nusach and use that of the tzibur's.
IIRC, R' Moshe's minhag was to omit "Baruch Hashem L'olam..." in maariv.
However, whenever R' Moshe was the ST, he_would_say it.

KT
Aryeh
aes@ll-f.com

==============================================

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:41:06 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <	>
Subject: Re: Diyyuk Redux

On 23 Mar 00, at 1:23, sambo@charm.net wrote:

> We're admonished not to change our nusach under any circumstances.

When you say "we're" do you mean Jews in general or Eidot 
HaMizrach in particular? I always understood "al titosh Toras 
emecha" as (amongst other things) telling all Jews that they should 
not change their nusach, an explanation I heard from Rav Aaron 
Lichtenstein. Is that how you understand it as well?

> There are three shuls I can't go to for now because someone objected
> to my saying kaddish acording to my nusach. Since I'm not supposed to
> switch, nor supposed to antagnize, I just don't go. If, as a bar
> hiyyuv, I go to an Ashkenazi shul and am asked to be Sh"Z, the
> kehillah would have to agree to allow mw to pray in my nusach. So far
> none have.

This is interesting because I daven in a Nusach Ashkenaz shul, 
and from time to time (not infrequently) someone will get up and 
say Kaddish using the Nussach of Eidot HaMizrach or Nussach 
Sfard. In all my time in Israel, I have only davened regularly in one 
(Ashkenaz) shul that had a hakpada about it (and even that was a 
notice that was strategically placed in a couple of places in the 
shul asking that people use Nussach Ashkenaz for saying 
Kaddish). Yet I cannot recall ever seeing someone say Kaddish 
using Nussach Ashkenaz in a Sfardi or Eidot HaMizrach shul (my 
father-in-law used to be the Rav in a Persian shul, so I have 
davened a fair amount in Eidot HaMizrach shuls. There were 
always jokes in the family how whenever anyone other than my 
father-in-law - who became accustomed to the Nussach - davened 
from the amud, we would have to be careful never to look up from 
the siddur). Are the Sfardi poskim more makpid about only using 
your own Nussach than are the Ashkenazi poskim?

- -- Carl

There are stringent halachos with respect to this sort of stuff.  At
least in New York most of the shuls I go to (primarily of the multiple
minyan per day) variety don't tend to care as long as berachos krias
shema, pesukei d'zimra, and Shemoneh Esrei are basically alike (i.e.,
nusach sefard kedusha, Sim Shalom at Mincha) -- I have seen folks do a
complete Nusach Ashkenaz Amidah except for kedusha and Sim Shalom. 

In a message dated 3/22/00 5:49:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< But the Torah TELLS me that aniyei ircha kodmim, and as long as 
 the Torah tells me that, I could care less what the nations of the 
 galus think.  >>

No, you could not care less.

Jordan 

In a message dated 3/22/00 7:10:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, sba@blaze.net.au 
writes:

<< Reminds me of a story I heard, when, many years ago, the Manchester Kehilla
 decided to establish a "cost-price" grocery for the needy Kollel yungeleit 
etc.,
 some storekeepers complained to the Rosh Bes Din at the time -
 Rabbi Y Y Weiss zt'l (Baal Minchas Yitzchok) that this shop will
 bankrupt them. He answered: "In that case, you will also be able to purchase 
there..." >>

Interesting story. Insensitive remark by the Rosh Beis Din. But in a way very 
astute. At some point, the community has to take a hand in resolving the 
tension between the free market and the needs of those who lose when the free 
market is interrupted.
Still, despite my tongue in cheek comment, I would prefer to continue to do 
business then to receive the Tzedaka. As a personal approach, I have always 
made it clear when I thought a music product I was selling to a customer was 
a luxury or structurally necessary. But that didn't stop me from selling the 
luxury when requested. If everyone in the business took a more balanced 
approach, we would not be having these discussions. At the same time, if the 
Baalei Simcha had a more realistic idea of who it was truly necessary to 
invite, we would not be having these discussions. When a person honestly 
makes a wedding with 200 guests, I have no problem recommending a smaller 
band. But when they have this strange compulsion to make weddings with 
upwards of 500 people, I feel under no obligation to recommend a band below 
what I feel would do the best possible job. Part of my success is that my 
clients know I will always be honest in my recommendations.  I guess what I 
am saying is that there are a number of ways to enact takkanot, why do we 
assume that they have to be aimed strictly at the vendor?

Jordan Hirsch

In a message dated 3/23/00 12:07:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< 
 All of this has nothing to do with the fact that the opulence of 
 simchas is an easy place to cut back on an extravagant 
 expenditure. A week after the wedding, no one remembers how 
 lavish it was anyway, because they have been to another wedding 
 that is equally as lavish. Having a fancy wedding is not what most 
 of us would consider a necessity like having toilets and sinks, or 
 for that matter having a car (although if you are talking about driving 
 a Cadillac, a Rolls Royce, a Jaguar or a customized van, I agree 
 with you that someone on Yeshiva scholarships should not be 
 driving those either). Your comparisons are a bit strained (to put it 
 mildly). >>

Carl, you obviously have no idea of what Jews in America drive, or put on 
their backs, for that matter.
There are many frum Jew receiving scholarships for their children to go to 
Yeshiva who vacation in Israel, the Bahamas, etc. Who when their children 
learn in Eretz Yisrael, insist on flying them home for every little event, 
plus Pesach. 
I'm sorry, but when I deal with a customer, I do so with a clear conscience. 
And believe me, I am very glad to offer discounts to those who are truly in 
need. But I will not have anyone driving a Ford Expedition harangue me about 
the high costs of weddings. My car, by the way, is a used 1995 Saturn. So 
don't tell me about how I am taking advantage of the community. Save your 
sanctimony for something important.

Jordan Hirsch 

Carl Sherer wrote:



> HaMizrach in particular? I always understood "al titosh Toras
> emecha" as (amongst other things) telling all Jews that they should
> not change their nusach, an explanation I heard from Rav Aaron
> Lichtenstein. Is that how you understand it as well?


No. See below.


> This is interesting because I daven in a Nusach Ashkenaz shul,
> and from time to time (not infrequently) someone will get up and
> say Kaddish using the Nussach of Eidot HaMizrach or Nussach
> Sfard.


I'm glad to hear people are easy about it. There's one shul I go to
regularly where nobody's complained a bit. It's not a universal
condition. Actually, it's interesting, two of the three shuls where
someone said something to me, the reason they gave was that it was
"confusing". I wondered to whom, but kept my toungue.




> the siddur). Are the Sfardi poskim more makpid about only using
> your own Nussach than are the Ashkenazi poskim?


Yes.

Yalkut Yosef, V1, Hilchot Tefillah #39 (summary):

The nusah hatefillah of the sefaradim and edot hamizrah, is is the
correct nusah according to kaballah, and contains sodot elyonim nifla'im
more than nusah ashkenaz. And the Hida writes in Kesher Godel in the
name of the Ari that there are 12 gates representing the 12 tribes, and
the tefillot of each tribe go through their respective gates, and the
tefillot in nusah hasefaradim ascend through all 12 gates. (See also
Shalmei Zibbur pg 109b). Therefore, Ashkenazim who wish to change from
the minhag of their parents to pray in nusah hasefaradim, may do so, as
written by (I don't know who this is- Mem Heh Resh Shin Daled Mem) in
his teshuvah, that only where it involves an issur one may not change
from the minhag of his parents lehakel. As it says "al titosh Torat
imecha", and in Pesahim pg 50b. But to switch from the nusah tefillah to
pray according to the beautiful and sweet tefillot of the sefaradim ,
with the piyyutim of the gedolim of Spain, involves no issur, and is
therefore not included in "al titosh", and is permitted. As the hida
writes in Yosef Omez, who among us is as great as the Ari, who was an
Ashkenazi from the Luria family, from the family of the Maharshal, and
even so, he changed permanently to pray in nusah hasefaradim, as
explained in Sha'ar Hakavanot. And so wrote R' Hayyim Palagi in Lev
Hayyim, and R' Hayyim MiTzanz in Divrei Hayyim V2, that the nusah of the
sefaradim is correct for anyone from all tribes of Israel, and we have
no complaint with any who wish to switch from the nusah of their parents
to nusah hasefaradim, as did the Ari. And so writes R' Avraham
miBotshatsh in Eshel Avraham. And therefore, in schools in Israel, and
in any case when there are a majority of students from Edot Hamizrah,
they should teach and pray from siddurim in the sefaradi nusah. And
especially so on the Yomim Nora'im, to pray from mahazorei hasefaradim,
with the piyyutim of the gedolim of Spain who were great in wisdom and
yir'at Hashem (...praise of gedolim omitted...) as wrote the Radbaz. So,
sefaradi bahurim learning in yeshivot of our ashkenazi brethren, who are
not able to gather a minyan, should be sent home to pray with their
parents in their tradition. And the Roshei Yeshivot are obligated to
enable them to do so.





Then Aryeh Stein wrote:
 
> I always thought (I could be wrong; wouldn't be the first time) that
> it was a davar pashut that the sh'liach tzibur ("ST") (and any
> mispallel saying kaddish) must foresake his own personal nusach and
> use that of the tzibur's.  IIRC, R' Moshe's minhag was to omit "Baruch
> Hashem L'olam..." in maariv.  However, whenever R' Moshe was the ST,
> he_would_say it.


Yes. He apparently held opposite to R' Ovadiah on the matter. At least
that's what I was told when I brought Yalkut Yosef Hilchot Tefillah #42
(that a sefaradi shaliah zibbur in an Ashkenazi minyan should have the
kehillah assent to his nusah). That was in one of the shuls I don't go
to.


---sam

*********************


[ 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         ]