Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 038

Monday, November 3 2003

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:10:26 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: flood

In a message dated 10/29/2003 8:12:10 PM EST, T613K@aol.com writes:
> Anyway, the trees were created full grown. If you had cut down a big
> redwood in the Garden of Eden on the day it was created, presumably it
> would have had many rings.

> I point out the above as an obvious explanation for many rings, even
> though I hasten to add that I don't believe G-d created an old-looking
> world on purpose to deceive us.

Actually how old the trees were could be taluy in the machlokes of
R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in RH 10b re: btishrei nivra or b'Nissan nivra.
(FWIW I am preparing an Ein Yaakov sheiur on this sugya)

As far as ALL of these cheshbonos go here is a simple model that will
answer all the questions raised in this thread so far

Ch.1 of Breishis up thru vayechula talks of the phsyical bria of the
wolrd Ch. 2 depicts the creation of humans in detail and begins the
anthopology of the world

The only spans of eras upon whih Seder Olom is based is after all based
upon the lenght of the lives of Adam haRishon and his offspring and
therfore Our dating for 5764 is davka from the length of Adams days.
Now the days during the first 5.5 days of creation could have taken
literally 24 hours or not. IOW As for dating the first 5.5 days as 5.5
times 24 or into 15 billion years, we could live with either dating
system and be ok.

What is solid is the dating from Adam Harishon (with a couple of quibbles
of 150-200 year that actually might cancel each other out!)

And even secular historians would probably concede that civil humans with
dei'ah and dibbur (as per Rashi) would probably started about 5-6,000
years ago. I see books refer to this as the birth of "consiousness".
In star-trek lingo, this is when humans became sentient beings - at
least as I understand the various episodes...

So with just a minimum of flexiblity Science and Masorah can be
reconcliled - and the big gaps that were there lich'ora can be attirubted
to either mis-understandings or to semantics.

If you want to use this technique, all you need to do is start with
the assumptoins:

The Torah is correct
Science is probably on the right tract
The note the differences - if any - and then ask yourself, is there
perhaps a way of re-stating or re-interpreting the principles in such
a way that makes sense.

EG if you hold that time was created at the beginning of BReishis and
NOT on day 4 when the Moon and Sun were set into place, then you need
to look deeper.
 one answer is alluded to by Rashi, that all was created at once but the
creations were not firmed up until later on. So the early Moon and Sun
were there but were not definite, myabe somewhat gaseous or amorphous
and only on Day 4 did they take their CURRENT format. AIUI, this fitrs
Rashi well and might even fit the Ramban's model, although I am not as
sure about that.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:31:06 -0500
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com

Posted by: henkin@012.net.il
> Translated from Commentary on the Torah "Chibah Yeteirah". Bound together
> with Resp. Bnei Banim volumes 2-3, also separately.

> (Bereishit 7:19). "All the high mountains were covered that are under
> all of heaven." Not all mountains were covered. The word "all" (kal) is
> repeated and is a ribui achar ribui and comes to limit (l'mayeit). Thus,
> according to one opinion in Zevachim 113 "the flood did not descend to
> Eretz Israel." This is also the implication of "the high mountains were
> covered that are under all of heaven" i. e., those mountains that have all
> of heaven above them, which excludes the highest mountains whose tops are
> in the clouds. And similarly the implication of "that are under all of
> heaven" is those [mountains of the sort] that are found everywhere, which
> excludes the very high mountains that are only [found] in a few places.

In Yirmia 47,2 you find the use of 
"kol Haarets" while referring only to one city, in the context of a flood.

Also, this week's e-mailed parsha shiur form VBM focused on the mabul
and took the position that it was a partial event. Unfortunately, I
don't have a copy of the shiur and it has not been posted on the-site
but if I can find it, I will post it.

M. Levin

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:59:00 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Allegorization of Scripture

In a message dated 10/24/2003 2:12:35 PM EST, jjbaker@panix.com writes:

> And to constrict those lines, however, starts us down the slippery
> slope to becoming irrelevant to most of today's non-observant Jews.
> Do we present Torah as totally counter-factual? Or do we present it as
> something which a modern reasoning person can accept and incorporate into
> their psyche and behavior? Credo quia absurdum est is *not* a Jewish
> sentiment. In fact, it's the opposite of the gnoses of either Rambam
> or of the kabbalists/chasidim, neither of whom are overly attached to
> literal readings of the Torah's narratives and metaphors

I think that we present the Torah in teh way the Rambam deals with
Aggedita, Foolish to be taken literally and hertical to be dismissed
as untrue.

In practice, it is difficult to understand some stories of the Torah
from a completely rational point of view, but that is the point. It
is difficult to understand but that does not imply that we must accept
ONLY a supernatural position as literally ture nor a totally allegorical

So we do are best to reconcile from a position that the Torah is emes
and that rational understanding CAN work within a Torah framework.
See my post re: Chapters 1 & 2 of Breishis on this same them re: 5764 etc.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:07:26 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Defining Orthodoxy

In a message dated 10/15/2003 6:14:42 PM EST, jjbaker@panix.com writes:
> Not necessarily. You and I may draw the line at belief in some kind of
> Oral Torah. Others may draw the line at belief in something more than
> a minimal Oral Torah - which leads to questions of whether R' Eliezer
> Berkovits z"l or ybl"ch R' David Hartman are inside or outside the line
> (to name two Oral Torah minimalists), if they hold that God gave every
> jot and tittle explicitly at Sinai.

I posted thusly before but here goes again:

Based upon what Rabbi Dr. MS Feldblum AH said in class and perhaps with which 
R. Dr. DW Halivni would agree is:

The Gmara in Sanhedrin {99b 100a iirc) requires us to believe that even
drop of ink of TSBP and Torah Shbichsav were given at Sinai...

But that does not mean that what we HAVE in our hands is perfect.
Rather the point of the Gmara is that Moshe Rabbeinu was ne'man and did
not add a jot or tittle mida'ato. It does not mean that every piece
of Masorah was transmitted without human error. It MIGHT mean that
nothing was transmitted with CONSIOUS changes, but you CAN be Orthodox
and believe that mistakes crept into the processt

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:36:05 +0200 (IST)
From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
yesh me-ayin

This past friday we had a shiur in our shul on a topic tangentially
related to some recent questions. The shiur was an hour and so I apologize
for the brevity and mistakes are mind.

He began with the medrash Rabbah that the Torah existed before the
world and in fact seems to say that it was the blueprint that G-d used
to create the world. He then brought the various statements of things
that were created before the world 10 or 8 etc. He said he once added
them up and some 20 items were supposedly in existence before the world.

The question was that if the world was created yesh me-ayin then there was
nothing before the world. He brought the Kuzari that seems to answer that
one shouldn't take the medrash literally it merely means that the medrash
thinks these are important items for which the world was created. Rambam
in Moreh Nevuchim seems to give a similar answer.

He then brought the statement of worlds being created and destroyed
before this one. It would seem that Kuzari and Rambam also don't take
this literally.

More to the point he was not sure if these destructions and re-creation
were yesh me-yesh or yesh me-ayin. If they are yesh me-ayin in means that
"barah" happened many times. Though he was unhappy with this he had no
proff against it but prefered to assume that the worlds created were yesh
me-yesh. Furthermore, if this medrash is used to answer the dinosaur
"problem (he claimed that one of the first to use this answer was Rav
Kook in one of his published letters) then obviously the destruction of
the previous world was not a total destruction and that the next world
was yesh mi-yesh.

His own personal answer to the question of the rishonim was to stress
the definitions of spiritual and material and how all the things that
existed before creation are essentially different "properties" of G-d
rather than material things and we have to understand G-d using the Torah
as a blueprint in a deeper sense than what we were taught in kindergarten.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:31:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Naked and Cunning

R. Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> R' Micha Berger attempted to give three examples of where the
> Chumash puts homonyms in close proximity:

Actually, I was only trying to give examples where the chumash
repetitively uses the same shoresh. Whether it's homonym or repetition
by unusual usage. Such as "nach" when discussing Noach, "metzacheiq"
in stories about Yitzchaq.

That the shoresh was being used for two widely different meanings or
more similar ones was secondary.

Had I explained that, my post would have made more sense.

Why do I consider the issue of homonymity of lesser importance?
Because, as RAM later notes, the line may be blurry. In fact,
according to Hirsch, since the shoresh's spelling forces the
definition they must in some way be related. To quote RAM about /gml/:
> I could answer that they are different forms (noun and verb), so
> there might really be no difference at all...

> As I figured, he gives 5 meanings for this shoresh, and explains
> them in such a way that I can see how "camel" is similar to "repay"...

Efshar lomar a different notion: Gemilas chassadim can also be a stress
on teaching someone how to fish (in the proverb about that being better
than simply giving him a fish). It is therefore supporting over time,
not just a momentary gift. The similarity to a camel, in which one act
provides extended support.


Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:15:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Gil@aishdas.org
Re: Hashgocha protis and suicide

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>How then does one understand suicide according
>to the view that suffering - even at the hand of
>a person - is always a Heavenly decree? Does that
>mean that there is a Heavenly decree that this
>person must die and that he should be his own

R' Elchanan Wasserman posits that this is a machlokes rishonim.

Tosafos in Kesuvos 30a sv ha-kol write that one may commit suicide
even if it has not been previously ordained - "de-ha vadai she-be-yado
le-hamis atzmo".

REW in Kovetz Ma'amarim, peirushei aggados on "ha-kol biydei shamayim"
cites this tosafos and suggests that the Chovos HaLevavos disagrees.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:12:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>> Second, the question of a poseiq's authority most often revolves
>> around deciding between shitos. In fact, if the halachah was
>> discussed since the days of tana'im, and now some acharon wants to
>> introduce a new pesaq based on a sevara that contradicts all of
>> that history, no one would grant him the authority to do so. But
>> that's the parallel to our case of taking a new direction in
>> parshanus based on data other
>> than mesorah's.

> Except for two things -
> 1) the mesora explicitly recognized that scientific issues do change
> - and therefore accepting novel scientific ideas against simple
> pshat is part of the mesora - that is part of the issue - the mesora
> recognizes science as data...

This simply states your position as a conclusion. There is no source,
no argument to justify putting your words in the mesorah's "mouth".

> 2) Parshanut and hashkafa has a specific area of elu ve'elu and we
> don't pasken - and we do accept novel ideas (to go back to an old
> thread - the parshanut of the issur of astrology on the basis that
> it is false was novel) The real issue is the attempt to put the
> parameters of psak on hashkafa - and while this is a different issue
> than da'at torah, it is related, with very similar fault lines.

Eilu va'eilu is irrelevent. Allowing plurality has nothing to do with
allowing everything. Eilu va'eilu asserts the viability of two
conclusions reached from mesorah -- even if they conflict. Yes,
without the "vehalakhah ke-" there is no way to resolve the antinomy.

But how does that inherently justify statements that aren't "eilu
va'eilu"? Counting scientific theory as a voice is again presuming
your conclusion.

I never proposed applying the rules of pesaq.


> The rambam is quite explicit that the two guiding principles are 1)
> That the torah should be consistent with reason 2) Miraculous
> explanations are only permitted when the torah itself is explicit
> that everything there is a miracle...
> So, given the fact that the sequelae of the mabul are not thought to
> be explicitly a
> miracle, yes, allegorizing (or reinterpreting as a localized or .. -
> multiple possibilities which fundamentally change the simple pshat )
> become on the proper side...

"Everything there" is your own interpolation. Also, the notion that
the sequelae (as you put it) to the mabul were miraculous, is not a
fact I would take as a given. Between the two, I have no problem
thinking even the Rambam would be okay invoking the notion of miracle.


> No, he never said that in 2:15 (a point we have made before) - he
> makes the point that since Aristo is not proven, the nevi'im and our
> chachamim now weigh in - quite a different issue (I don't know
> anyone who has written on the rambam who understands him as you do).
> If Aristo was proven, then we could reinterprete ma'ase breshit...

A point you had made repeatedly, and I repeatedly objected to. (Which
is why RYGB wanted you to cite any source BUT the Rambam.)

The Rambam believes that Aristo's posotion could not have been proven
on a subject in which mesorah had a conflicting say. That would lead
to a contradiction between two authoritative sources of information,
which in the Rambam's bivalent logic is impossible. He denies the
possibility of your hypothetical, not suggests what to do if it were
to occur.

Which is what I'm asserting as well. Yes, Torah and science can not
contradict. Not because I must doubt the mesoretic process whenever
they appear to. Nor because I must doubt the value of a well-grounded
scientific theory. But because, when all facts are in, they won't.


Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:14:51 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Tochachah

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:16:44PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> Shu"t Maharam Lublin, no. 13; Ahavas Chesed, 17; Mitzvas HaShalom, pp.
:> 330-335.

: BUT - as I understand all of these mkoros, they are not saying that 
: we are patur today from giving tochacha. They're saying that no one 
: today can (apparently both because of a general inability to do so 
: and because one has to be a tzadik gamur in order to do so properly), 
: and therefore that today there is no mitzva to hate someone who is a 
: sinner - even one who is a sinner b'meizid. But that DOESN'T mean 
: that WE are patur from giving (or at least trying to give) tochacha. 

I don't follow your reasoning.

There is no chiyuv to hate the chotei today because there is no one who
can adequately give tochachah. The chotei therefore is less to blame.

But there is still a chiyuv to give that inadequate tochachah?


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:38:25 +0200
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Re: Ending a text on a sad note

Re: R' Akiva Miller's posting on not ending an aliya on a sad note:
A bit of additional info.

The Teimani stops in parashat hashavua are different from those in the
usual chumashim. I remember noticing that there are a few that end on
a sad note. This might be evidence that they did not adopt the custom.

I don't feel ready to check the endings of all Teimani aliyot or all
sad notes but, if someone is interested in verifying my memory, he can
find the Teimani stops in the back of Breuer's chumash (Mosad Harav Kook
edition) or in a Taj.

Not only do we not end with something bad but we also avoid starting
with bad. Most of us end the weekday k'ria of parashat Devarim just
before the words Eikha esa... but, on Shabbat, end the first aliya one
sentence earlier at kokh'vei hashamayim larov. (Eikha is the twelfth
pasuk so we could have ended one sentence earlier on weekdays.)

I did check the following. 
Teimani sheni is eight sentences further on (Pasuk 19) so we cannot
learn anything from that.

Teimanim don't have a stop in the tokhachot but they start the aliya in
B'hukotai with Im lo tishm'u li, something we avoid by starting three
sentences earlier.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:38:27 +0200
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Re: Incorrect Hebrew in the payet?

There is an ancient tradition that whenever I or R' Seth post something
about language or masoret, the other must add a 0.2-cent addition or
comment. As it is most difficult for me to find something not already
covered by R' Seth, the custom is that R' Seth purposely omits something,
thus insuring perpetuation of tradition.

R' Seth notes correctly that the hutz la'aretz introduction to birkat
kohanim should be v'te'erav l'fanekha. He omitted noting that Ibn Ezra
"corrected" this to v'te'erav 'alekha basing himself on the pasuk in
Tehilim 104, "Ye'erav 'alav sichi...".

R' Seth prefers payet to piyyut. I can add a "historical" note. In the
30's in Brooklyn,. the general term I heard for these additions was paiyit
(ai as in guy not ei as in gay). One would say: "In my shul we skip the
paiyit". The answer might be: "We say the first two piyyutim but skip
the third piyyut". In other words the specific name is piyyut but the
name for the entire group is paiyit.

The payet before shmoneh esrei was called yoitzros. We never
differentiated between yotzer, m'ora, ahava, g'ula,silluk. etc.
Independent or their position, they were all yoitzros. Only Yekkes knew
about the breakdown of titles. In chazarat hasha"tz , the paiyit was
called kroivos or kroivetz.

More history. In my shul we said paiyit on R"H and Y"K. On Pesach we
said only Brach Dodi before shmoneh esrei. We didn't say paiyit on arba
parshiot. I carefully avoided the shul across the street where they
did. It was only years later, when I became acquainted with Yekkes that
I discovered that there were dozens of other Shabbatot with paiyit that
I could have had the enjoyment of skipping.

So, if one trusts my ears and memory, R' Seth was following mesoret
avoteinu. And in my posting this, I am following our holy tradition in
Avodah. The 0.2 cents has been added.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:36:08 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Oseh haShalom

In a message dated 10/7/2003 8:03:51 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> The alternative ending of birkhas Shalom used during the AYT is the
> preservation of Eretz Yisra'el's nusach, which is no newer than the
> Bavli one we usually use (R David Bannett) ...

> RRW wrote that the
> "oseh hashalom" version is found in *older* manuscripts than the
> earliest copy of our usual version. R' Herschel Ainspan found the
> Otzar haTefillos calling it the older version.

> We use "hashalom" instead of "shalom" in other contexts of AYT
> davening (qaddish). So, whatever tipped the balance WRT birkhas Shalom
> has more general impact.

I am planning BEH a small article or post on this.

Bekitzur the bottom line is:
Iv;tov b'einencya levreich es amcho yisroel is the me'in hachasimah and
therby tied to hamevorcich

the fact that besefer chayyim comes AFTER this mei'ein hachasimah
pre-supposes that the chasimah is NOT hamvoreich -and that can be for
2 reasons
A) a change during Asseres YT
B) (more likely) beseifer kept the "older" version.

for those that DO follow the minhag to say BOTH besefer and to maintain
hameveriech then it seems obvious to me tthat besefer should PRECEDE
v;tov be'einechan and NOT foloow it. Saying besefer after v'to b'einecha
and then going back to the chasima of hamvoreich does not fit within
the structual norms of how me'ein hachsiamh should work

The relevant demonstrations for this structyural analysis is the meat
of the article.

The source for Oseh Hashalom as being older include IIRC Baer and I also
believe Ismar Elbogen.

In general, the 2 word chasimos {EG} rofei cholim instead of rofei
cholei amo Yisroel} are depicted in Elbogen based upon an 8th century
gniza fragment for Minhag EY.

Now if you are of the school that once we change to hamevoreich we stick
to that change all year roudn then I would strongly recommend putting
it before v'tov be'einecha. Otherwise one is effectively taking a piece
of nusach from one structure and mixing it with a piece from another in
a way that makes no sense.


Just totally tangentially, the Artscroll should be given a yasher koach
for bringing down the Shlah re: when one should take the aravos on
Hoshana Rabba.

Artscroll text cites 2 minhaggim, Ari - at the end and the general
minhag of doing it earlier ta'aneh emunim. The Shlah - as paraprhased by
artscroll - syas this istaluy in wheter hoshanaos are said at shacharis
or at Musaf. This is a very sharp perception in understanding the context
and structure that often underpins such disputes in the first place.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:50:04 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: duchenening during Ne'ila

In a message dated 10/9/2003 9:50:34 PM EST, sm@aishdas.org writes:
> 1) Dukening in Ne'ila was never done by any Eastern Ashkenazim for
> hundreds of years; I am shocked to hear that the Spinka have introduced
> such a practice. See the Remo in SA 623, based on the practice,
> as recorded in Mahari Tirna, that in Ashkenaz we only dukhen at musaf.
> Yes, in the Darkhei Moshe he brings the Maharil, by whom kohanim dukhened
> at ne'ila. But the Maharil, nebbekh, was from Germany. There, from the
> earliest times, they dukhened only on yom tov, but on all the t'fillos
> on yom tov -- i.e. shacharis as well (as was done by the Yekkes up until
> recent times). It is the Remo, again quoting Mahari Tirna, who says
> in SA 128:44 that we only dukhen by musaf -- and again, over there,
> the minhog of the Maharil was to dukhen by shacharis. So wherever the
> Spinka got this idea from, if they were to be consistent they would
> dukhen by shacharis as well.

KAJ Breuer's duchens at shacharis and Musaff every YT AFAIK

My shul duchens only at Mussaf except on YK in which we duchen Shacharis 
Mussaf and Ne'lah - never at minchah

my shul does not duchan on YT that falls on Shabbos however when YK falls
on Shabbos we usedto duchen at ne'ilah ONLY. I changed it {probably
uniwttingly!} to duchen all 3 times on YK even beshabbos - because the
minhag NOT To duchen on Shabbas was AFAIK tied to the chshash of the
kohein being a ba'al keri, etc.

also, FWIW I would expect  Oberlnaders to follow German customs, and IIRC 
Spinka is Oberland

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:54:23 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: eating in the succah in the rain

In a message dated 10/15/2003 6:10:56 PM EST, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
> Harry asked to account for the fact that some Hasidim will eat in the
> succah in the rain despite the objection by chazal to such behavior.
> I can understand their apparent dismissal of such objection by invoking
> the difference between the probability of rain in Succot in Israel vs.
> most places in the Golah. In Israel, rain in Succot is unusual and is,
> therefore, reckoned by chazal as an indication of Divine displeasure.
> If He doesn't want you in His presence, then you should not have
> the temerity to push yourself there. In countries that do not have a
> Mediterranean climate, rain is common in the fall months (or spring
> in the southern hemisphere) and the occurence of rainfall need not
> betoken Divine displeasure. Eating in the succah during rain can then
> be considered a personal stringency - not a defiant act.

There is another logical chiluk between EY and Chutz lo'oretz legabie
the rain on Sukkos....
IN EY the weather might be tied to the beahvior of the yehuddim there
while in Chutz l'EY it is less likely that the mei'uta demei'uta of Yiddn
would dictate the weather patterns. So in EY it would be reasonable to
construe rain as a rejection while outside it takes a bit of "hubris"
perhaps(?) to think that the rain is davka a rejection of those who sit
in the sukkah

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:24:29 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Question on Hallel

In a message dated 10/20/2003 12:06:06 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Why, when we say the full Hallel, does the sh"tz stop in the middle of
> the perek? Since full Hallel does not break up the perek, shouldn't we
> say it all at once?

Ein Hachi nami

I'll be this evolved due to the existence of Hallel bedillug and probably
mishum "lo plug".

another candidate:
German congregations do NOT stop before v'charos EXCEPT at a Bris Millah,
that way the passuk remains in tact w/o any interruption

Standard Easternn European Nusach Ashekneaz and Nusach Sefard does stop
and start at v'charos even w/o a Bris.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:39:06 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Hebrew Pronunciation

In a message dated 10/7/2003 8:00:28 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> RAYHKook addressed this she'eilah WRT those raised on hav'arah Yisra'elit.
> Lechat-chilah, one should daven with one's traditional hav'arah. However,
> those who could not be consistant because they were educated with and
> consistantly use a different pronounciation, should not switch.

> Then there's a question of where Galicianisher hav'arah came from. If
> everyone who uses it has an even earlier ancestor who used something
> closer to what you're used to, then perhaps you can invoke RMF's heter
> for switching from chassidisher nusach "Sfard" to Ashkenazi.

In essentially agreeing with Micha's point I formulate this into a
useful klal:
Masorah is deemed reliable albeit not infallible.

Example: Let's say one's family uses horseradish for Marror and for
the sake of arguement we are all convinced that horseraddish is not THE
authentic Marror

I would say, that person can be someich on his Masorah, but he can
realize intellectualyl that it might be shaky or even flawed.

A Complete outsider OTOH - i.e one lacking such a Masroah - cannot so
easily assume that Minhag. (An exception can probably be made for the
case when this person joins a kehillah that accepts this minhag) .

So if a persons father pronounced OY, then it is minhag avosof beyada
to continue. If his father did not, then you might have a case if he
joined a kehillah that did OY.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:18:14 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: nusach Ari

In a message dated 10/27/2003 9:18:52 AM EST, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> "IIRC, when I asked a Lubvitcher friend of mine a few decades ago
> about Nusach HaAri he explained that Rabbi Shneur Zalmen from Liadi had
> taken Nusach Sefard which was supposed to be the Nusach of the Ari and
> "corrected" it. What had happened is that Nusach Sefard had many differing
> versions of what this Nusach was, hence all of the parenteses in Siddurim
> of Nusach Sefard representing all those versions. The founder of Lubavitch
> took it upon himself to ferret out what he believed to be the actual
> Nusach of the Ari and that resulted in what is now called Nusach HaAri."

> Agreed. However, the claim was that what Chabad thought was Nusach Ari
> does not always agree with the writings of the Ari, in particular the
> example was the Baracha of Barech Olenu vs Borchenu in winter/summer.

WADR to the work of R. Shenur Zalman of Liadi it would be more precise
to call it
The nusach of the Ba'al Hatanya then the Nusach Ari, or at least the
Nusach Ari as edited by the Ba'al Hatanya.

The more general question is: How frequently does something - such as
a sefer or a tshuvah - get accredited to an earlier source?

EG is that many times children will claim something from Rashi is in
the text of the Chumash.

Another EG I recently read an article on Takkanos d'Rabbeinu Gershom
that were actually meyuchas to him, but not his per se. I am not taking
sides on this particular case, but you see where I'm going.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

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 >