Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 003

Thursday, April 15 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:32:21 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Maavir Sidra or Daf Yomi??

In a message dated 4/1/2004 6:23:55 PM EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> So why do I get the impression [ I have received off-list comments
> on this] that this mitzvah isn't very popular amongst non-chassidim??
> I doubt RM Shapiro z'l expected his innovation to be used as an excuse
> to drop a takonos Chazal...

FWIW, when I attended Ner Yisroel I asked one of the "elter bachurim"
if he did shnayim Mikro and he answered no. I understood it to mean
that if one was oseik in learning all day he was patur from "shmos" -
and simlarly I understood that saying karbanos was also being sacrificed
in favor of learning.

re: being Yotzei with the krias Hatorah of the Tzibbur, I had understood
that this was at best a bedi'eved and could only be used for one of the
2 readings of the mikra and one was still required to do one more Mikra
and 1 Targum.

Richard Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:55:51 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Re: R. Elyashiv on Pesach - chumrot

On 6 Apr 2004 at 20:43, eli turkel wrote:
> It is well known that the Dram RCN used was the Turkish Dram and that
> in the days of Rambam was smaller and so even RCN was machmir.

Having now been through Rav Margolin's entire kuntres, I'm not sure 
where you got this from. Rav Margolin writes that RCN writes in 
Shiurei Torah (1:63) that since none of the Sfardi poskim says 
otherwise, RCN assumes that the darham has not changed since the time 
of the Rambam. That's how RCN is kovea that the darham is 3.2 grams. 
Based on that number and the shiur for the weight of a reviis of 
water that the Rambam brings in Peirush HaMishnayos Eiduyos 1:2 (27 
darhams), RCN concludes that a reviis is 86.4 ml (2.86 oz.). 

But Rav Margolin argues that there were in fact small changes in the 
size of a darham, and based upon (hundreds) of darhamin from the time 
of the Rambam that we have today (and upon other proofs), nearly all 
darhamin were less than 3 grams (he found one as large as 3.04 grams -
 that was the largest) and many were as small as 2.8 grams. 

> According to archaelogy the eggs have not changed in size of 2000
> years until about 50 years ago. In fact todays eggs are LARGER than in
> old days because of new feeding techniques.

Again, Rav Margolin says that RCN's shiur is based on an average egg 
being 57.6 ml, when the true number (which he says is in fact the 
case with today's eggs as well) is 50 ml.

> My wife feels that Israeli eggs are larger than those in the US but
> this is a private observation not based on any statistics.

See above. 

> according to most ashkenazi poskim that is indeed true. In the dvar
> torah from the Gush there is a detailed analysis of this. Khaf haChaim
> disagrees but it is not clear on what basis. As aa result many sefadim
> have a larger shiur for matzah even though they accept RCN.

Rav Margolin writes that ROY was shown smaller shiurim than RCN's by 
the author's of Midos u'Mishkolos shel Torah and Midos v'Shiurei 
Torah, and that as a result ROY adopted a shiur of less than 86 ml. 
He cites in the footnote (I don't have any of these sforim so I 
cannot check them), Meor Yisrael to Psachim 48a, 1 Halichos Olam 291, 
and "v'chen huva b'shmo b'sefer Yalkut Yosef." 

> In fact R. Elyashiv brings for matzah the shiur of the size of a hand
> with the fingers not completely open

Rav Elyashiv (apparently) accepts RCN's shiur (Kovetz Tshuvos 2:30). 

See also Midos v'Shurei Torah Page 91, and Halichos Shlomo Volume 2 
(the one on Moadim), Page 90, note 47 (RSZA made a bracha achrona for 
as little as 17-20 cc in his later years based upon his having been 
shown that RCN's shiurim were too large). (With the exception of 
Halichos Shlomo, which I own, I am relying on R. Margolin for the 
other sources). 

 - Carl

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

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:04:39 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
kezayit matzah

I found an article of Greenfeld in an old Techumum who summarizes the
various shitot for the kezayit of matzah. Unforunately he has does not
discuss the issue of 1 vs 2 kezayits and possibility of combining them
in one large shiur.

Interestingly he ignores the shitah of RMF as do almost all Israeli
writers. He quotes 2 shiurim of CI. One from the sefer and one based on
what CI did at his seder based on testimony of R. Chaim Kanevsky (a nephew
who is a gadol in his right). This is quoted in an article by R. Yehuda
Margolin. Seems like in practice CI used half of his own shiur. It was not
clear if this was only for the other participants or also for CI himself.

1. R. Chaim Volozhin  - 3cc (based on average olive today)
2, R. Benish - 7.5cc  (based on largest olives today)
3. CI in practice 50/3 = 17cc
4. R. Chaim Naeh - half an egg = 27cc
5. CI kuntress hashiurim = 100/3 = 33cc
6. shiurim shel torah = 100/2 = 50cc
7. MB - a full modern egg = 60 cc 
(not clear to me that the eggs in the days of CC were as large as
today's eggs)

He estimates that 17cc of CI is about 95 square centimeters which is
about the size of the hand (kaf yad) including the first joints of the
fingers which is what the Steipler used in his seder. converteing to
weight this is about 9 grams.

not listed kol dodi according to RMF 0.7 ounces *(28.375)=20gr but he
requires 2 full such kezaetim

one needs to convert from volume to weight depending on the individual
matzot e.g with 14 matzot per kilo each matzoh is 70gr. With thiner
matzot each matzah is about 50gram. Hence, if the "real" CI shiur is about
10grams it is only 1/5 of a thin matzoh and less of a thicker matzah.

RMF (according to kol dodi) is twice as large for a single kezayit and
he requires twice that for each person for the two kezeitim.

Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 4/14/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:41:47 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Cottonseed Oil

We spent all of Pesach thinking that the ban on cottonseed oil was
a chumra of recent development. It's not. My son found it tonight in
Ma'aseh Rav Hilchos Pesach 184 ("Shemen Zera Kanbus").

There are also some interesting mkoros there in notes Gimmel and 

 - Carl

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:41:14 +1200
From: jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Re: Aleinu text

Akiva Miller wrote
> Do any of you have a siddur in which Alenu has 152 words? If so, which
> is it, and how is it different from the more common text?

Carl wrote
> I think the point was that the number of words was supposed to match
> the gematria of "bin nun," which would be 158. If you add "she'heim
> mishtachavim..." (which after all was part of the original!) to your
> 150, you end up with 159. I don't know how to explain the (apparent)
> one-word discrepancy.

This is an easy one - the 'Siddur Meduyak' the article refers to is I
believe the siddur 'Ish Matzliach' which is an Edot HaMizrach siddur.
In the regular Edot HaMizrach nosach for Aleinu the words 'cor'im and
'umodim' are missing, and 'hu elokeinu en od' is replaced with 'hu
elokeinu v'en od acher'. There are numerous other grammatical differences,
but the point is that difference of one word, when added to 'she'hem
mistachavim...' gives 158 - the gematria of 'bin nun'.

While on the subject of noscha'ot for Aleinu, I have Teimani Shami
siddur 'Tefillat HaChodesh' in the classic Livorno edition. It is full
of photostatic copies of tefillot from old blotched printing presses,
and one noticeable thing is that often different noscha'ot for the same
thing appear. This is a case in point - in Shachrit and Mincha we have
the regular Edot HaMizrach Aleinu, but in Ma'ariv and Shachrit Shabbat
a different version appears with 'shelo sam chelkenu k'chelkam' (Aseret
Y'me T'shuva 'chelkenu kahem'), and 'lo yoshi'a' (Aseret Y'me T'shuva
'lo yo'il')

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Jonathan Cohen

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:24:15 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Taking off Tefillin Chol Hamoed

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> ..Bobover Chassidim have a minhag that their 'bochurim' wear tefillin
> during davening on chol haMoed (until Hallel at least). When I expressed
> my surprise at it, he told me it comes from the minhogim of the Divrei
> Chaim ... and that the rationale was that the reason Hassidim don't
> wear tefillin then (as opposed to regular minhag Ashkenaz) is based on
> 'Chassidus'/Kabbalah - and bochurim 'kennen nit Chassidus' (don't know
> Chassidus). I asked him if Klausenberg Hassidim have the same minhag,
> as they also claim Sanzer descent, IIRC, but he said no.

They actually wear tefillin in Shul???

AFAIK all bochurim of the chasiduses that are offshoots/affiliates of
Sanz, including Klausenburg, leig tefilin at home and say korbonos etc.
The Satmar Rebbe z'l also told his bochurim to do so.

I understand that in EY, those talmidim of Rav Dushinsky z'l who come
from O backgrounds also do this - even after marriage.

Here we have a 'gevoreneh [ he married into it ] Gerer' - spodik and
the works - whose father was from Cracow - and kept minhogei Ashkenaz.
The son still leigs tefillin on CHM [probably the only Gerer anywhere
to do so...]

[Email #2 -mi]

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> The Ezras Torah luach for the first day of chol hamoed pesach notes that
> the shatz takes off his tfillin after hallel so as not to be matriach
> the tzibbur. Does this apply to all of chol hamoed and is there a
> written source?

What it probably mans is that on Sukkos, teh tefillin is removed before
hallel - so the retzuos should'nt be a hfsek for the Arba Minim. Pesach
there is no such concern.

Oor minhag is that on the 1st day CHM Pesach we keep our tefillin on
until after Krias Hatorah - seeing they lein 'Kadesh Li'.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:16:23 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
tefillin on chol haMoed - time of removal for wearers

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> The Ezras Torah luach for the first day of chol hamoed pesach notes that
> the shatz takes off his tfillin after hallel so as not to be matriach
> the tzibbur. Does this apply to all of chol hamoed and is there a
> written source?

IIRC, this has come up in the past, but just in case it's not easily
accessible / available, I will mention that the old minhag Ashkenaz was
to keep tefillin on through mussaf on chol haMoed - but when migrants
from Poland came to Ashkenaz after gezeiros Ta"ch (1648 C.E.) they
brought with them the * Sepharadic * minhag to remove them before mussaf
(evidently Sepharadim at one time wore tefillin on chol haMoed too,
presumably before the Zohar became more widely spread and known after it
was printed) after (see Mekor Chaim 25:13, Hagohos of R. Sinai Luantz to
Minhogos Vermayzah [Worms], Yerusholayim 5748, p.183 and compare there
p.242 [al pi 'Gedolei Hadoros al Mishmar Minhag Ashkenaz', Rav Binyomin
Shlomo Hamburger, Benei Brak 5754, p.102-3]).


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:55:38 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>1) The ikkarim are derived from the perush hamishnayot - not from the
>mishne torah, where, as previously discussed, not all of them appear
>The argument that the ikkarim are normative therefore has to refer to
>their formulation in the perush hamishnayot.

>If you want to argue that the mishne torah determines ikkarim - that
>is a different argument than the one that so many here argue that the
>"13 ikkarim" are normative.

>The fact that there is a contradiction between the perush hamishnayot
>and the mishne torah that you recognize suggests something else - that
>he himself did not mean the ikkarim literally - which is something that
>I would subscribe to -but then becomes problematic for those who hold
>the ikkarim as normative.

I don't understand what you are saying. The Ikkarim are not derived
from the perush hamishna - they are stated there. The fact that these
Ikkarim are stated in different formulation in other works requires
careful explanation - especially before one can make the assertions that
Prof Shapiro makes. In particular there is a necessity of understanding
how the Rambam intended these various formulations to be understood and
the nature of the disagreement with the Rambam concerning Ikkarim Prof
Shapiro does not do this. Your comments seem to presuppose clarity of
understanding concerning what is meant by the Ikkarim and that it is
obvious that they are independent of expressions of these ideas in the
rest of the Rambam's writings. I think that the best that can be stated
 - with the available data - is that we can't answer these questions.
I think it is intellectually arrogant of Prof Shapiro to assume that
any perceived disagreement with the Rambam - either concerning his
forumation of principles or whether there are principles that determine
whether a person is a Jew - indicates a lack of commonality in Orthodox
beliefs. It is a major leap to go from a catalogue of various criticisms
of the Rambam's formulation to assertions about the outer limits of
Orthodoxy. Especially since many if not all these criticisms are open
to interpretations as to what they mean. An example of this problem
is page 50 where Prof Shapiro attempts to show that the incorporality
of G-d has been a point of contention. He cites Prof Meir Bar Ilan
"that in the first centuries Jews in the Land of Israel and in Babylon
believed in an anthoropomorphic G-d." He then cites concurrence with
this point from Prof Marmosrtein. However in a footnote he acknowledges
"David Stern offers an alternative reading of rabbinic anthropomorophic
passages which does not presume a belief in divine corporeality.."

It is also very questionable to lump comments from mainstream authorities
such as Rambam, Raavad etc with comments from Yosefus, Philo as well as
academics such as Prof Kellner and former Orthodox rabbi Louis Jacobs -
and come up with a statement concerning the limits of Orthodox theology.
If he wants to clarify the limits of Orthodox theology he needs to use
authorities who are recognized as such. If he wants to write an academic
exercise then he needs to label it as a secular view of Orthodox thought.

>>I have no problem with agreeing with Prof Shapiro - but I often have
>>a problem figuring out what his position is. The problem with the above
>>assertion is why there is inconsistency between the Rambam's expression
>>of the Ikkarim in the Commentary to Sanhedrin and the Mishna Torah? The
>>version in Mishna Torah is concerned with not asserting deliberate
>>human creation while the expression in the Commentary is that the text
>>we have today is identical. I have been asserting that the version in
>>Mishna Torah is what he meant and you have asserted that Mishna Torah
>>is halacha while the Commentary is dogma.

>No, but rather that those who view the 13 ikkarim as dogma base
>themselves on the perush hamishnayot - the mishne torah has different
>versions of most of the ikkarim, and does not have all of them. You are
>selectively choosing the eighth ikkar and saying here we follow the
>Mishne Tora formulation - which undermines the entire notion of the 13
>ikkarim as dogma.

Again you assume that which needs to be proven - are the 13 ikkarim simply
dogma by decree and are therefore independent of all the other writings
of the Rambam? I selected the 8th principle because it involves halacha
l'maaseh as well as apparently clear internal contradictions - and there
is much material written about it. Thus it seems the clearest laboratory
for testing various hypotheses concerning the nature of the the ikkarim.

>>I have not been able to decide what Prof Shapiro views as the purpose
>>of his work. Is it :
>>1) Rambam was not accepted as dogma.
>>2) Judaism does not have a core of universally accepted beliefs.
>>3) Rambam couldn't possible believe a dogma which excluded so many
>>4) Judaism is much more flexible in beliefs than orthodox Jews
>>5) Some major authorities held views that other authorities viewed as
>>6) Rambam's beliefs are not binding because there have been some
>>disagreement with some of the details of some of the beliefs.

> One could wish that Prof Shapiro wrote a different book - and with the
> wealth of material that he accumulated, had addressed other interesting
> issues in the history of Jewish dogma/doctrine. However, that does not
> mean that he did not address (and definitely solve) certain issues.
> You are perfectly comfortable with the Rambam not being accepted as
> dogma -or even doctrine - but note that many of our list are very
> uncomfortable, and Prof Shapiro was directly addressing a rosh yeshiva
> who made the claim that it is accepted as dogma, as well as other works
> in the popular sphere that make that claim.

Prof Shapiro wrote the following in the first page of his introduction:
" I first began exploring the subject of this book a number of years
ago after reading an article by R. Yehudah Parnes in the Torah u-Madda
Journal, published by Yeshiva University. In this article Parnes argued
that as far as Orthodox Judaism is concerned, heresy is defined by
the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon, 1138-1204-),
which appear in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin, introduction
to chapter 10). Parnes further asserted that one is forbidden to read
anything that disagrees with these Principles, since it is ipso facto
heresy. ...However, despite its apparent logical structure, Parnes'
argument was ridiculous. It was also without historical precedent,
since it would mean that much of Jewish literature of the most
traditional variety, including portions of the Talmud, Zohar, rishonim
(early authorities), and acharonim (later authorities) were forbidden
reading, since they disagreed with aspects of Maimonides' theological
formulations in the Principles.2 Although the majority of traditional
scholars, including the most right-wing among them, would certainly
not go as far as Parnes, the underlying assumption that the Thirteen
Principles are the bedrock of Orthodoxy has never been openly challenged
in modern times by those who identify with Orthodoxy. ... . Indeed, there
is a history of opposition to Maimonides' Principles among the ranks of
traditional, or as it is called in modern times, Orthodox Judaism. . What
is fascinating is that this opposition exists together with widespread
assertions that the Thirteen Principles are the defining features of
Judaism. As a method of shorthand, the Principles are indeed a very good
way of expressing the fundamentals of Judaism as understood by most Jews
until the rise of the Reform movement. However, as with most shorthand
formulations, while correct in many essentials, they are not correct in
their entirety. A good parallel to this is the popular expression that a
righteous person observes all 613 (taryag) commandments, an expression
also mentioned by Maimnides... .Of course, as everyone is well aware,
it is impossible for any individual to observe 'all taryag mitsvot',
but this does not take away from the power of the idea behind the phrase.

Thus it would appear that Prof Shapiro acknowledges the majority
of traditional scholars do not take the principles literally [i.e.,
independent of all Torah literature] and that they are at best a short
hand for describing the beliefs of an orthodox Jew. Prof Shapiro's ire
was raised by those who insist that the Ikkarim must be taken literally
and are to be viewed as dogma and that the slightest deviation from them
constitutes heresy.

>WRT to the outer limits of Orthodoxy - my reading is quite different
> from yours. The amcha understanding (as understood by many on this list,
> and even partially enshrined in the bylaws of this list) - is that the
> 13 ikarim define the outer limits of Orthodoxy. Shapiro has shown that
> drawing the limits there is quite problematic.

In sum. You seem to feel that Prof Shapiro had done a great service by
pointing out the disparity being a literal and simplistic understanding
of the Rambam's Ikkarim and the rest of Torah literature. I feel that Prof
Shapiro had a wonderful opportunity to enrich and deepen our understanding
of Orthodox belief - and instead he made a crude club to pound those he
views as dogmatic and overly rigid about Orthodox beliefs. By using the
approach he did - he succeeded in offending those he could have enlighted
and disappointed people like myself who appreciates Prof Shapiro's
brilliance and had hoped for something more scholarly and balanced.

                        Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:03:26 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book

Without citing at length from your erudite, as usual, post, I think that
we are arguing at cross purposes, and discussing different issues.

The issue (in my mind) is not whether the data that Prof Shapiro could
have been used for a more detailed analysis of the nature of doctrine -
that is not the book that he wrote. We should criticize him for the book
that he did write.

The issue that he addressed is quite simply (perhaps for the last time)

1) There is a popular perception that the ikkarim represent not merely
a summary of a large body of Jewish thought over which there is general
agreement, even if significant disagreement on the details - but a
binding set of dogma. You may find that position one not worthy of
serious debate - but clearly others, even with Prof Shapiro's evidence,
still hold on to it.

2) The normal understanding of the ikkarim is the pshat in the perush
hamishnayot, perhaps as reformulated in a more popular version (eg
yigdal, siddur ani ma'amin (Rav Wolpoe has argued for yigdal), even
though their authority seems quite minimal). You wish to argue that
this, as in other things in the perush hamishnayot, has to be understood
through the prism of the mishne torah - and where there is a disagreement,
use the understanding of the mishne torah.

That would normally be a reasonable understanding of most halachic issues
- but is historically not what most people mean by the 13 ikkarim.
That is, eg, the essence of rav goren's article cited previously -
which leads him to question the halachic nature of the 13 ikkarim.
In other sources, too, the understanding of what the 13 ikkarim are is
based on the perush hamishnayot.

The issue of the rambam's own understanding of these ikkarim is a
different issue, and the mishne torah is necessary for a full assessment
of that issue - and yes, Prof Shapiro does not deal fully with that issue
- but the normal understanding of the 13 ikkarim is not based on the
mishne torah, or on an understanding that the two are somehow congruent.

You raise a point that the 13 ikkarim did not miraculously become
dogma, but obtained their authority through the mishne torah - but
that actually emphasizes the tenuous halachic status of the ikkarim as
normally understood.

Furthermore, one can try for a deeper understanding of the 13 ikarim, and
that will eliminate the relevance of some of prof shapiro's evidence - but
there will still remain a substantial body of evidence that contradicts
any reasonable understanding of what the rambam meant by those ikkarim.

Most people have problems with the assumption that clearcut gdolim of
previous generations rejected what we consider ikkare emunah and would
therefore be kofrim. Therefore, the halachic process about ikkarim
inherently requires far more consensus - and the mere existence of a
debate implies that it is not an ikkar (not necessarily a question of
whether it is believed to be true - but not an ikkar, whose denial has
halachic consequences.) The rambam's own ambiguity about the ikkarim
undercuts much of the argument for their validity.

3) Given the popular understanding, and the reluctance to challenge
that understanding, prof Shapiro did a real service by documenting that
the popular understanding (which is held by some rashe yeshivot, and is
part of many popular hashkafa books) is quite problematic and wrong -
and therefore the outlines of normative Orthodox thought are substantially
broader than believed. That is not dependent on Kellner and Jacobs, but on
the more mainstream sources cited - but Kellner and Jacobs have already
pointed out some of this issues, and their summaries can therefore be
cited (even with the problems with Jacobs - kabel ha'emet from everyone)

4) You seem to think that because you think Prof Shapiro should have
written a deeper analysis of the nature of Jewish doctrine, and that
he uses an academic methodology and cites (although not necessarily for
his conclusions) sources you dislike, the entire book can therefore be
ignored - and while one can always hope for more, I don't understand
why you can't accept what is actually there.

Meir SHinnar

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:53:40 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Adir Adireinu (in kedushoh for mussaf on some yomim tovim)

In the yom tov that just passed I davened in some minyonim where they said
'adir adireinu....' in kedushoh of mussaf.

I started wondering about where it comes from, but was hard-pressed
to find information on it. Finally, I saw a hagoho (note) on it in
siddur 'Shaar Horachamim' im pirush 'Maggid Tzeddek' from Rav Pinchos
Mipolotzk, talmid haGR"A (Yerusholayim 5763) in the notes entitled
'siddurah ditzlusa' by Rav Eliezer Weissfish on p.688. He cites there
'Maaseh Hageonim' teshuvoh 50 "ein omrim adir adireinu bikedusho ela
birosh hashonoh viyom hakippurim vilo yoseir, lefi shehu shir shel
malochim, vilo hitiru liomro ela bieilu (ha)yomim sheheim yimei hadin
vichulei'. Aval Rabbeinu Elyokim gozar lishliach tzibbur liomro paam achas
baatzeres, mishum hai taamah diomar, halo oso shir lo omruhu hamalochim
ela bishaas matan Torah, kidegarsinon bimaseches Shabbos (89a) bishaa
shenosan Hakodosh boruch Hu Torah liYisroel omru malochei hashoreis :
Adir adireinu Hashem Elokeinu, moh adir shimcho bichol ho'oretz, vial kein
bedin liomro ba'atzeres mishum matan Torah bo bayom. (hagirsa begamara
shelifoneinu hi 'Hashem adoneinu' vigomer' uchiloshon haposuk beTehillim
(8:2). Vigam hamilim 'adir adireinu' einon mofios shom.)."

Brief English summary - We don't say adir adireinu in kedusho, only on
Rosh Hashonoh and Yom haKippurim, and not more, because it is a song of
angels, and they did not permit it to be said only on those days which
are days of judgement....But Rabbeinu Elyokim once decreed that a shliach
tzibbur say it on Atzeres (Shavuos), because of the reason that he said
that that shir was only said by the malochim at the time of matan Torah,
as we see in maseches Shabbos 89a

I also saw mention in 'Gedolei Hadoros al Mishmar Minhag Ashkenaz' (Rav
Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger, Benei Brak 5754), p. 101, mention of this
episode with Rabbeinu Elyokim, who is described there as a talmid of a
talmid of Rabbeinu Gershom Maor Hagoloh, and it states there that the
people resisted his move to add it on Atzeres, as it was an innovation
(and cites maaseh hageonim, p.39 and peirush Rabbeinu Elyokim to Maseches
Yoma, Yerushaloyim 5724, p. 26).

It seems that later it became accepted by many (e.g. in Eastern Europe) to
say it on sholosh regolim (as with some other things like Yizkor and the
recitation of 'yud gimmel middos' before hotzoas sefer Torah, which were
also originally only on Yom Kippur and/or Rosh Hashonoh, IIRC, and then
spread [at least by some] to sholosh regolim too - perhaps they spread
partially on the basis of the sholosh regolim being yimei din of sorta
as well, as the mishnah in Rosh Hashonoh says, biarbo'oh perokim ho'olom
nidon, biPesach al hatevuoh, ba'Atzeres al peiros ho'ilan..... bichag al
hamoyim)as well, however, some kehillos/minhogim kept the old minhogim
and did not grant such extension. Based on a look at some siddurim
(siddur Sefas Emes / Heidenheim/Rodelheim and Lubavitch siddur), it
seems that 'Yekkes' and Lubavitchers do not say it on sholosh regolim
(the latter possibly not even on yomim noroim ?). Do any Sepharadim /
Benei Eidos Hamizrach say it ever ?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:24:47 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: tefillin on chol haMoed - time of removal for wearers

In a message dated 4/15/2004 12:25:45 PM EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> From: Joelirich@aol.com
> >The Ezras Torah luach for the first day of chol hamoed pesach notes that
> >the shatz takes off his tfillin after hallel so as not to be matriach
> >the tzibbur. Does this apply to all of chol hamoed and is there a
> >written source?

>                    ... I will mention that the old minhag Ashkenaz was
> to keep tefillin on through mussaf on chol haMoed - but when migrants
> from Poland came to Ashkenaz after gezeiros Ta"ch (1648 C.E.) they
> brought with them the *Sepharadic* minhag to remove them before mussaf...

But why Pesach vs. Sukkot & why shatz vs. Kahal?

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:53:29 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Re: Hassidim wearing tefillin on chol haMoed

Joel Rich wrote:
>The Ezras Torah luach for the first day of chol hamoed
>pesach notes that the shatz takes off his tfillin after hallel
>so as not to be matriach the tzibbur. Does this apply to
>all of chol hamoed and is there a written source?

I seem to recall from when I was a teenager that the shatz would take
off his tefillin before Hallel on Sukkos (when we do the na'anu'im)
but not on Pesach. I don't know if that has a makor.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book

Having had time over Pesach to take a step back and think things over,
here are my basic issues:

1- The question of whether the ikkarim are doctrine or dogma is
intriguing, but not necessarily relevent. RGS and I disagreed with
RMShapiro's position because we're using a totally different criterion
-- halakhah.

(Besides, does it make sense to use subtle distinctions in Catholic
terms with the assumption they shed light within the Jewish worldview?)

This means that on a theoretical level, I personally agree with RMS's
first point, that we are not bound to accept the ikkarei emunah as the
Rambam proposed them. In the Peirush haMishnayos, they're given as a
means of explaining who is "Yisrael" for the purposes of "yeish lahem
cheileq". I do not think O should be defined by taking positions on who
has or doesn't have a cheileq le'olam haba.

However, as there is a clear and unquestioned pesaq that someone who
doesn't hold some version (loosely defined) of these beliefs is to be
treated as "non-Yisrael" for the sake of numerous mitzvos, they still
define the limits of O. And they do so on the one level upon which
assessing the state of other people has any purpose -- the pragmatic.

2- Even if it were an aggadic matter, there is still more value in a
subjective, from within the Torah, analysis of the inyan than a scholar's
one. I do not see why RMShapiro thinks that his skills as historian
should impact the limits of O. O has its own means of coming to decisions,
and it's not the academic's objective approach to the material.

If I'm to accept his argument, he would first need to prove that his
methodology has significance.

Saying that there is no process of pesaq in aggadic matters (the
applicability of which I question in #1) does not go as far as proving
that there is

3- A community defines itself, and *because* it's the self-definition, it
is thereby the correct one. RMS proposes a new methodology of obtaining
a definition, and thereby wants to broaden O. Not being a leader,
he lacks the authority to do so. Even if I thought he were correct,
his argument would only have the potential to say that O is only one
sort of valid Judaism.

4- I have difficulty seperating the objective problem raised in #2 from
an ad hominem issue. He portrays his opposition as naive, and dismisses
its adherents overly flippantly. There is a basic attitudinal problem
if he thinks that current O thought is the product of talmudists who
at most dabble in philosophy. As though there were no leading rabbinic
philosophers of the last century who were at least as aware of these
rishonim as RMShapiro is, or that their thought didn't shape the
philosophy of their students.

I am quoted anonymously by RMS in a footnote when he cites Avodah's
membership agreement as an example of what he's portraying as a naive
attitude toward the ikkarim. Which of course adds to my difficulty at
being objective. And while the following teeters on the edge of ga'avah,
if not goes well past it, I believe there is ample evidence in my posts
on Avodah that I am not among the ignorant or disinterested hoi paloi
who follow the ikkarim without knowing about the historical debate on
some of their basic points. Even if I am not aware of the total extent
of the debate, still enough to have had to grapple with the issue.


Micha Berger             Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            might appropriate?

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:45:04 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Eliyahu at the Seder

Akiva Miller wrote:
>Bottom line, I was very wrong. I used to make fun of
>those who pretend that Eliyahu actually comes to our
>sedarim, like those fathers who nudge the table to make
>the kos shake, and who then tell the kids, "Look! Eliyahu
>is taking a sip!" That's really not too far removed from
>standing up to greet the navi with "Baruch Haba"...

But the explanation you cited from the Aruch HaShulchan is that Eliyahu
will come to the seder *once* and then "le-shanah ha-ba'ah biyrushalayim,"
not that he comes every year and visits the seder like a mysterious
Hanukkah Harry.

Gil Student

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 >