Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 095

Friday, August 31 2001

• Re: Minhag was Re: The SR's views on yishuv EYQ
• Re: Minhag was Re: The SR's views on yishuv EYQ
• Re: minhag and majority
• Re: Ben Ish Chai
• BY and Rama
• Re: Yishuv Eretz Yisrael and sinners
• Re: tefilas Rabbim always 'heard'?
• Re: tefilas Rabbim always 'heard'?
• Foundationalism
• Re: science and tradition
• Re: tefilas Rabbim always 'heard'?
• Yom Kippur - Fast and Feast
• Rashi question
• Re: tefilas Rabbim always 'heard'?
• Man beast hybrid: a matter of consciousness raising?
• Re: minhag and majority
• TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: tefilas Rabbim always 'heard'?
• Milchemet Mitzva in the time of Yehuda HaMaccabbee
• Re: Wheelchair on Shabbos
• Barekhu nikkud

On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:57:23PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> Yours produces paradox. Now that precedent for such overturning exists,
:> denying that posekim have such power is itself overturning precedent.
: 
: And yours produces a justificatoin for overturning Halachah via svara -

... when halchically permitted.

: something C exploits very nicely thank you....

... even in ways not halachically permitted. Nor do they necessarily rely
on sevarah, but also to amend their laws to fit goals they feel are societal
needs.

To my mind, this is the key of why we're going in circles. You seem to
think that abandoning precedent is equivalent to breaching the process,
just because some C thinkers confused the two. Truth isn't determined by
what has the least danger of causing confusion.

: Anyway if the Gra was OK with overturning precdent why did he put
: Hassidism in Cherem?

Because he felt they violated the halachos of making halachah. Precedent
isn't all there is WRT those halachos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>Anyway if the Gra was OK with overturning precdent
>why did he put Hassidism in Cherem?

Because he thought that they were apikorsim and ovrei aveirah.

Gil Student

On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 05:40:47PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: RGS: Says who? Maybe in Navardok, or rather within his kehillah in
: Navardok.

: RRW: most litvisher rabbonim This has been brought downi n the Jewish
: press as CC was the Taddik hador but AH was the poseik hador. I think if
: yo uare sh'al zkeinecha they wil ltel lyou EXCEPT for Yeshivishe cirlces
: the AH was preferred.

I know that R' Dovid Lifshitz suggested to me the A"H over the M"B.

I also have a contemporary who was in Neir Yisrael when we was told
the same by R' SY Weinberg.

The authority of the M"B was the result of an active campaign by a
number of American gedolim. Including R' Aharon Kotler, who made a
point of holding a M"B during a portrait photo to make this point.
This campaign was discussed in v1n25 to n30 and thereabouts.

Also, recall that for 3/4 of halachah, and the harder 3/4 at that (since
it includes choshein mishpat, ma'achalos assuros and even ha'ezer --
man's greatest ta'avos for cutting corners), the M"B is silent, anyway.

Much of the Gra's changes are prefered by those who want to know
why they are doing what they are. Because his talmidim had to
explain why the Gra chose the less popular or dormant minhag over
the accepted one, following the Gra provides those reasons.

I guess that's my (and my father's) attraction toward that shitah. It's
much easier to reach kavanah when you better understand the "nishmah"
behind the pesak. Perhaps my feeling that there is a need for AishDas
is fueling the vehemence with which I'm pursuing this debate.

The A"S, for all his attraction to mesorah, was more interested in
giving the sevarah for a pesak than the M"B. Which, means that the A"S
is in the unique position of providing both continuity and explanation.

The M"B, as well as many posekim today, are breaking mesorah not in
order to follow a given sevarah and a given image of what the mitzvah
is about, but in order to be chosheid for as many shitos as possible.
(Which is probably why we think of the M"B using "ba'al nefesh yachmir"
so much more often than he actually does.) I am not zocheh to understand
the point or heter to do so, this both violates the rules of pesak and
serves neither end.

And I think it's the opportunity for this attitude that has RRW so riled.
After all, C's reopening questions in order to insert kullos isn't that
far from reopening them to create chumros.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 8/28/2001 6:06:20pm EDT, turkel@icase.edu writes:
> It is not clear how much of Zohar BY knew and this is a very controversial
> topic. There seems to be various proofs that he never saw the Zohar
> in its entirety and only knew small portions of it.

In Siman 3 BY quotes the Zohar.  He was in the same Tzfat Chevra as Shelah 
and Ari.  

I cannot claim t o know how much BY new, but it is clear he was a big 
mekubbal.  For that matter the Tur was a big mekubbal too but I don't know 
how much Zohar he used. 


Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>                ...  At what point in Ashkenaz was R. Yosef Karo considered 
>the biggest gadol beTorah? ...

RHS writes in Nefesh haRav that according to RMS the BY was a rishon
and the Rama an Achron.

Does anyone understand this?

Eli Turkel

RYH Henkin wrote about RYE Henkin:
>After its establishment, however, he strongly supported the State, for the 
>same reason: if already there was a State, if Jews would not support it 
>there would be more war and Jews would be killed.

>This practical approach was as far removed as could be imagined from the 
>various ideological and theological positions of both supporters and 
>opponents, then and now.

Is this not the standard Agudah approach of non-Zionism?  Isn't this what 
RYBS described as his uncle's view in his hesped for him?

Gil Student

In a message dated 8/28/01 6:06:14pm EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> However, does that mean that the tefillah from a tzibbur / with a minyan
> is always granted?
> Licheora I would say not.
...
> 1) IIRC there are some that point out that the loshon in Chaza"l is
> that Hashem is not moeis (does not reject it in disgust) in tefillas
> Rabbim / tzibbur - not that he necessarily accepts it. >>

Interesting but IIRC the Rambam in hilchot tfila clearly says Tfilat
hatzibur nishmmat tamid based on that same gemora in brachot which uses
the language you mention. Clearly nishmaat is better than not but I don't
think that anyone holds that no matter what the tzibbur prays for it's
granted - for example what if 2 tziburs in the same town pray - one for
rain and one for sunshine, what if all clal yisrael prayed hareni na
et kvodecha?

KT
Joel

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 02:27:52PM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: This is a reference to the teaching in the gemara that HKB"H is not moeis
: in the tefillah of a Rabbim (the posuk 'hen Kel kabir lo Yimos' is cited).

: However, does that mean that the tefillah from a tzibbur / with a minyan
: is always granted?

Can't this boil down to the recently discussed machlokes as to the nature
of bitachon? The CI and Chovos haLvavos seem to hold that bitachon is
about trust that He will do the former -- that Hashem will do what is
best, not what is wanted or planned.

Tefillos aren't answered because begging HKBH is successful. Rather,
because one changes oneself to become the kind of person more likely to
recieve hatavah. Where hatavah is defined as above.

A tefillah being heard could mean that what is "gam zu litovah" is
a greater total positive or that it's more according to your desire.
I am suggesting we extend the above machlokes to say that according to
the CI and CH, tefillah's goal is to be in a state where "what is best"
is even better than what would have been. While the Ramban or the Besht
would say that it's more being in a state where one is more likely to
get what one wants.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

[First, my apologies to RSC for approving the version of his post that
had a broken header before seeing that he sent a second version. -mi]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 10:05:27AM -0400, Shalom Carmy wrote:
:> Remember that to the Kuzari, "philosophy" meant the Greeks, Metukalemun
:> and scholastics. He could not address much of the positions you've been
:> citing in this discussion. As the word was used in his day, philosophy
:> was entirely about finding foundations amongst the first principles.

: If finding foundations means discovering propositions that one is really
: certain of, based upon reason, and then building on top of that, it is not
: clear to me that the Rambam is a foundationalist (nor Plato and
: Aristotle).

I'm not too sure that in a world in which science was "natural philosophy"
there was a clear difference between empirical observations and a priori
propositions. They were all postulates. Certainly the opening of cheilek
beis of the Moreh mixes the two into a single list.

The distinction we're making may therefore hit a problem with anachronism.

RCS notes that:
: Rambam's proofs of G-d are not based on reason but on inferences from
: scientific theories of the time, some of which he himself considered
: debatable...

What I'm suggesting is that in that worldview "scientific theory"
and "philosophical stance" weren't clearly divisible concepts. Is the
separation of essence vs attribute the former or the latter?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:55:14AM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I recently read an article that claimed that the debate between religion
: and science is getting larger because of the advances in biology. In
: particular on the definition of life.

I think this is a different kind of split than that over ma'aseh Bereishis.

Biology can aid in identifying different physical states. Societies can
then choose to call some salient feature of some of those states and
call those states "alive".

In the case of western civ, that feature is usually considered to be the
cessation of neural activity in the brain stem.

Halachah is mid-debate as to whether that alone is the salient feature,
or if cessation of the heartbeat is.

But the debate isn't over the facts, but how people interpret
those facts into moral judgements. It boils down to the definition
of the word "life", not the nature of the situation.

The debate is getting larger because the gap in moral stance
between the two communities is. Not because of findings.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On 28 Aug 2001, at 21:08, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> for example what if 2 tziburs in the same town pray - one for
> rain and one for sunshine

I suspect that would be covered by the Tfilla in Musaf of Yom 
Kippur that HKB"H should not listen to the tfillos of ovrei drachim 
who are davening only for their own convenience :-) 

-- Carl

Dear Chevra - Below I am pasting my shul's New Year Message

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com

5762 New Year Message:
Yom Kippur - Fast and Feast

Yom Kippur - the Day of Atonement is a Fast Day. As a Yom Tov it should
also be a "Feast Day". Of course you we cannot fast and feast at the
same time - or can we?

The Torah reading in Emor regarding Yom Kippur gives us a hint:
"On the Ninth day, from evening until evening you shall Observe your
Sabbath." Yom Kippur falls on the 10th of Tishrei and not on the 9th .
How does this work?

We actually are told to begin Yom Kippur a few minutes earlier on the Eve
of Yom Kippur. This extends beyond that. We even say Vidduy - {Confession}
BEFORE Mincho on Erev Yom Kippur. In effect part of the Holiday begins
already before the Se'uda Hamfsekkes {final meal}. That means that we
can treat this meal AS IF it were on Yom Kippur itself, and thereby we
observe the Yom Tov feasting on the Eve of Yom Kippur.

We have a parallel on Tisha b'Av. Tisha b'Av is after all a time of
mourning - and mourners ritually eat a special meal. This cannot be done
on Tisha b'Av itself because, after all, it is a Fast Day. Rather we eat
a mourner's meal after Mincho on Erev Tisha b'Av in a manner befitting
mourners. So, in both cases, that special ceremonial meal that cannot
be eaten due to the fast day is observed on the eve of the Fast Day.

May Hashem grant us all a Healthy and Prosperous 5762.

The Wolpoe Family

Rashi says on the "vechi yerivun anashim" that "ein shalom yotze mitoch
meriva".   On "vechi yinatzu anashim" he says "ein shalom yotze mitoch
matzusa".

What is the difference in the pasuk between riv and matza,  and why does
Rashi have to say this idea twice?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 28 Aug 2001, at 21:08, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> for example what if 2 tziburs in the same town pray - one for
> rain and one for sunshine

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> I suspect that would be covered by the Tfilla in Musaf of Yom
> Kippur that HKB"H should not listen to the tfillos of ovrei drachim
> who are davening only for their own convenience :-)

IIRC, the Baalei Musar derive from the Kohen Gadol's Tefilah that although 
all would agree that rain is better than no rain, if the Ovrei Derachim 
daven with exceptional Kavanah, they stand a pretty good chance of success. 
Such is the power of Tefilah.

L'Shanah Tovah TikaTeiv V'TeiChateim
Stuart Goldstein

<From: Stuart Klagsbrun
What would be the din on this? Man-beast hybrid beyond talking stage
Human DNA in cow egg Scott Foster The Edmonton Journal ... Melding man
and beast may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but it's not....>

There is another interesting scientific vector, admittedly speculative,
which, as far as I can tell, is being missed in all discussions I've
seen surrounding the above experiment. And that relates to one of the
deepest mysteries of science -- the source and nature of consciousness
(the modern incarnation of the venerable mind-body problem). The article
noted en passant that the developing cells would in fact incorporate the
animal -- not human -- mitochondria as these reside outside the nucleus.
But there is another potentially very important structure that also
resides outside the nucleus, and which may essentially define us as
humans. And that is the cytoskeleton -- essentially the cell "wall". On
the quite speculative side, it has been suggested elsewhere by one of
my very distinguished secular rebbes that the physical source of human
consciousness lies precisely in these cytoskeletons and the ability of
their microtubular shaped, water filled, protein structures to support
long range quantum correlations.

A proposition to which he adduces suggestive though far from definitive
evidence.

Now most professional biologists do not take this suggestion seriously.
those few that think about it at all tend to consider consciousness as
an emergent property that attends some threshold level of complexity of
neuronal connectivity -- something mathematically akin to the emergence
of long range coherent behavior from the interplay of large numbers of
fluctuating short range interactions in a system far from thermodynamic
equilibrium, e.g. the giant red spot on jupiter, or oscillating chemical
reactions. But what do they know. If penrose is correct -- and I'd always
bet on him vs a biologist -- the creation of a creature with human DNA
but animal cytoskeleton might well differ from human by a lot more than
the 95%/5% human/animal hybrid speculated of in the article.

Mechy Frankel                   W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com    H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

In a message dated 8/29/2001 11:57:28am EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> And I think it's the opportunity for this attitude that has RRW so riled.
> After all, C's reopening questions in order to insert kullos isn't that
> far from reopening them to create chumros.

Agreed.

Plus if your model for Halachah is balance any tilt in EITHER direction will 
trigger counter-tilts in reaction

It seems that to many "pietists" the more machmir the better. While in my way 
of thinking this undermines the system as much as the more kullos the better. 
IOW to every chumra there is an equal and opposite kulla, and vice versa!
<smile>)

To me the more widespread and accepted a practice is - both in the width of 
the present moment and in the length of time - serves to identify those 
halachos that are most likely to be well-balanced to begin with.  


...
> I know that R' Dovid Lifshitz suggested to me the A"H over the M"B.

Remember that RDL was a RAV in Europe - i.e. the Rav of Suvalk and not a RY.  
IIRC the few Litvisher rabbonim {as opposed to RY's} all favored the A"H.

But if I were teaching a clas in basic Halachah, I would use the MB because 
his Ei'ur is better.  CC was a better pedagogue 

Just over the long run, the better texts evolve to become the more normative. 
hat's because the Unwritten agenda gets lost in the shuffle by people who 
read w/o knowing the premises.

If people like the Maharil had never written his stuff down, I probably would 
not know this stuff either.  The clues are there, but they are not obvious. 
It takes a PhD to ferret out the idea of an underlying Oral Tradition that 
uses texts w/ a grain of salt and practices otherwise  

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

Going through Rav Schwab's sefer (Rav Schwab on Prayer - Artscroll), I 
noticed that he states that when Moshiach comes, Torah shebeal Peh (TSBP) 
will go back to being oral only - as it was before Rebbe allowed it to be 
written down due to 'eis la'asos...' (P.358 - ayin shom ba'arichus)

I was wondering - does anyone else address this point / inyan? Does everyone 
agree with Rav Schwab on this?

Maybe that would be only be correct according to the shitos who hold that 
there will be nissim and the like in yimos haMoshiach, and hence, no / little 
shikcha, weakness, yerida, etc., which cause the original 'eis la'asos'.  
Perhaps however, if you hold according to Shmuel (as the Ramba"m paskens) 
that 'ein bein haolom hazeh liymos haMoshiach ela shibud malchuyos bilvad', 
perhaps the heter would remain in place?

Before sending it here, I posed the question to Rabbi Joshua Hoffman shlit"a 
and he gave me a very interesting answer, along the following lines -

It is not dependent on that - depends on a different question.

RYBS and others (e.g. Rav Gershon Sacks and R. Elchonon Wasserman) say that 
lefi the Rambam once it was mutar to write it down the issur was lifted 
forever - Rambam doesn't mention the issur in the body of Mishneh Torah (only 
in the hakdomo) - but others felt it is still in effect. Rav Elchonon asked 
the question to Rav Moshe Soloveitchik in Warsaw when he was visiting (why 
the Rambam omits the issur from Mishneh Torah) and R. Moshe didn't know - so 
he asked his son 'Berel' (RYBS) -a little boy then - maybe 13 years old - for 
an answer - and that's what he answered - but others are choleik, e.g. the 
GR"A - they say that is why he wrote so much bekitzur - because only what is 
absolutely necessary is mutar to write down.

Also, it is stated in Sorei Hameioh by R. Y.L. Maimon that R. Nosson Adler 
(rebbe of the Chasam Sofer) used to write some type of cryptic dots to help 
him remember TSBP for the same reason, instead of regular notes. 

I am still curious though, to hear the reponses of others as well.

Comments please.

Mordechai

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 01:14:14AM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: Going through Rav Schwab's sefer (Rav Schwab on Prayer - Artscroll), I 
: noticed that he states that when Moshiach comes, Torah shebeal Peh (TSBP) 
: will go back to being oral only - as it was before Rebbe allowed it to be 
: written down due to 'eis la'asos...' (P.358 - ayin shom ba'arichus)

: I was wondering - does anyone else address this point / inyan? Does everyone 
: agree with Rav Schwab on this?

Implied in R' Chaim Soloveitchik's chiddush on the contents of the first
luchos is the exact opposite. Had they not needed to be destroyed, all of
what is now TSBP would have been available in writing. I assumed, therefore,
that yemos hamoshi'ach would restore us to a pre-eigel state in this way
as well. The reasons RCS gives for why a post-eigel world needs TSBP wouldn't
apply in yemos hamashiach either.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:23:23PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: I think you pretty much described the shitot I've heard; I've always
: wondered why the eit laasot became a permanent heter (besides flying in
: the face of the usual definition of an eit laasot by it's nature being
: temporary)...

We've discussed this before. I suggested then, with no proof but looking
for feedback, that perhaps writing down TSBP is "eino resha'i" but not
actually assur.

Therefore it wasn't really an eis la'asos, as there was no issur being
repealed. Just that Rebbe -- or perhaps the savora'im who may have been
the first to actually write down his compelation (another old thread of
ours) -- used similar logic to choose to write it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I think you pretty much described the shitot I've heard; I've always
wondered why the eit laasot became a permanent heter (besides flying in
the face of the usual definition of an eit laasot by it's nature being
temporary) Why didn't the heter simply allow the writing down of the
gemora (or mishna) as a fixed text but no commentaries? This would've
maintained to some extent the oral/flexible tradition without the source
material being lost(which IIUC was the reason for the heter)

KVCT
Joel

On 30 Aug 2001, at 13:32, Stuart Goldstein wrote:
> IIRC, the Baalei Musar derive from the Kohen Gadol's Tefilah that although 
> all would agree that rain is better than no rain, if the Ovrei Derachim 
> daven with exceptional Kavanah, they stand a pretty good chance of success. 
> Such is the power of Tefilah.

Ain hachi nami. But in this case, it seems we would have two sets 
of Ovrei Drachim with opposite desires, and Hashem would likely 
not answer either tfilla.

-- Carl
Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il             mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Milchemet Mitzva in the time of Yehuda:

In the course of research I came across a sentence in Sefer HaMaccabim
I (chapter 3) where it states that before the battle of Emaus, Yehudah
sent home all those who hadn't built a house, or wed a wife or planted
a vineyard.

Questions:

a) If this is a Milchemet Mitzva -- why would anyone be sent home?
b) If it was halacha to send them home -- why did he wait till the
battle of Emaus and he didn't send them home before the previous
battles?

Anyone know of any Jewish sources on this?

Shoshana L. Boublil

All work that is done, should be done out of love.
Then it ceases to be difficult, or boring, or embarrassing.
Even a cup or a plate can be washed with devotion until they shine,
out of aspiration for  perfection and completion.
Rav A.Y. HaCohen Kook

In a message dated 8/30/2001 8:01:02pm EDT, jzuckesq@mail.com writes:
>                                                        I even recall 
> hearing that Rav Schwab ZT"L, toward the end of this life, was pushed to 
> shul in a wheelchair on Shabbos.  (The Breuer's kehilla did not accept that 
> there was an eruv for Washington Heights.) ...

It is a fact that R. Schwab was wheeled to shul on Shabbos w/o an Eruv
It is a fact that it was a special heter for him as Rav. After R. Gelley was 
in for a year R. Schwab did NOT come to shul on Shabbos anymore iirc

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

I've been waiting quietly for at least one of the list's experts to
supply an answer to RYGB's question concerning the use of chataf patach
in the reish of Barekhu in the Roedelheim siddurim. But it seems all my
friends in the mesorah list are busy elsewhere. So it looks like I'll
have to put in my two cents instead. Sometime ago, there were a number of
postings on this subject in Avodah. IIRC, the chataf thread was started
by questions on the chataf kamatz in Mordekhai, so the interested in
details that will not appear below can look in the archives of the Purim
season a year and a half ago.

[That would be in volume 4. As volume numbers advance in Nissan and
Tishrei (and we started this list in Elul), Adar will always appear
in the latter part of an even numbered volume. -mi]

First, I'd point out that, just as some siddur editions have chatafim in
the reish and others have just a sh'va (na') alone, some texts of Tanakh
have chatafim in the reish and others have sheva alone. So, RYGB's siddur
is basing itself on the usage in the Torah and it is there we must look
for explanation

In modern texts, Koren has the chatafim, Breuer has sh'vaim.

As examples of the"accurate" ancient manuscripts: The Keter has many
chatafim in non-gronit, the Leningrad has very few. (Breuer even omits
almost all of those few chatafim that appear in Leningrad.)

As to statistics,(courtesy of my computer and CD): The Keter (with the
missing parts restored by R' Menahem Cohen) has over 180 occurrences of
reish with chataf patach. In the shoresh b-r-kh, there are 21 occurrences
in the Chumash and an additional 26 in Nakh.

The ba'alei mesorah in their attempt to preserve the "correct"
pronunciation of Torah as they heard it in Teverya put pronunciation aids
into their manuscripts. They added little marks we call metagim. When, in
"weak" letters, they were afraid of elision or changing of a sh'va na'
to nach some ba'alei mesora put a patach, kamatz or segol next to the
sh'va to indicate that the sh'va is na' and inform of the mild "tint"
in the sound of that sh'va. There are five places where the Keter even
has a chataf chirik. Details of all this can be found in the Avodah
archives Purim time, March? 2000 l'misparam.. Search for sh'va, chataf,
Mordekhai, gronit, non-gronit, Bannett, or such..

But how did ben Asher himself want RYGB to pronounce Barekhu?

What is better than a quote from ben Asher himself (Baer-Strack edition,
Siman 14):

Yesh Sofrim, davar emet morim, v'nus'chei yesharim, bimkomot rabim
korim k'gon ... and then follows a list of words with chataf kamatz ion
non-groniot... v'yesh Sofrim acherim, ein kamatz chataf korim, v'nas'chei
yesharim k'gon ...and then the same list with sh'va alone... ukh'mohem
rabim, v'ein l'davar zeh shoresh ki im birtzon haSofrim. This is followed
by a list of words with chataf patach in non-groniot. (Note that this
Siman is in rhyme which is evidence that it is "original" ben Asher and
not interpolation of later scribes.)

What interests us is ben Asher's comment that the Sofrim can do as they
wish. Some put in the chataf, some don't. Both are correct! To me this
is clear evidence that there is no difference in pronunciation between
the two methods of notation.

In groniot, all sofrim agreed that the reader should be reminded that
the sh'va is na' because the tendency in such weak letters is to make
its sh'va into a nach or elide the gronit letter completely.

Some sofrim think the reader needs help to avoid mispronunciation
even with other somewhat problematic letters, such as reish and kuf..
Others do not think he needs help or don't want to bother to mark it in.

In the archives you will find a posting on the sound of the sh'va na'
and that the T'veryan pronunciation of the sh'va na was usually a very
mild, weak "ah" sound, a slight patach sound, chatuf. Therefore the hint
usually marked next to the sh'va is a patach

In many words all the scribes seem to have agreed that no help is
required. The nikkud in shem Havaya is that of shem Adanut. No sofrim
put a chataf patach in the Y of YKVK although the alef of ADNY has a
chataf. That word is repeated so often that everybody knows how to say
it without reading aids. Most of the manuscripts even omit the cholam
to make life easy for the sofer. (The use of yud-yud for Hashem also
has the sh'va and kamatz, omitting the cholam. Even the old manuscripts
that used three yuds omitted the cholam but placed the middle yud higher
than the others, perhaps as zeicher l'cholam.) However, when YKVK is to
be pronounced as Elohim, the chataf segol is put in because that usage
is not common and the reader needs to be reminded of it.

Someone had commented in Avodah that the different notation might
represent different pronunciations. I don't believe that the different
sofrim of that era thought that there two ways to pronounce these words,
but simply that some sofrim were more makpid in putting in reading aids.

Shana tova to all,
David

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


[ 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         ]