Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 127

Wed, 06 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: nusach sefard (Zev Sero)
• 2. col haomer shedavid chata (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)
• 3. Re: nusach sefard (R Davidovich)
• 4. Re: Shabbat Mincha ? No Ties (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: kavanah in tefila (Micha Berger)
• 6. kinyan chatzer (Eli Turkel)
• 7. soup (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: soup (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: kinyan chatzer (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Rakia, maasei bereishis, halacha (D&E-H Bannett)
• 11. kol for besamim (Simi Peters)
• 12. Re: Rakia, maasei bereishis, halacha (Zev Sero)
• 13. Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: soup (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: Can a woman wear a wig if her mother did not? (Rich, Joel)

On 5/07/2011 3:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I was asked a question today in shul by an edot mizrach man.
> According to most old nusach sefard (chassidic) siddurim after U-bah LeTzion
> (or returning the sefer Torah) there are prayers
> Tefilah LeDovid, Beit Yaakov and Shir HaMaalot on days that Tachanun is said.

Only Tefilah Ledavid is omitted when there is no tachanun.  Bet Yaakov
and Shir Hamaalot are said every day (except when there is musaf, and
therefore the entire order of davening is turned upside down).

> Almost every shul I have gone to in EY does not say this., perhaps due some
> nusach ashkenaz contamination. It seems that in Nusach Sefardi (edot
> Mizrach) it is indeed said.

> Does anyone have any experience with this?

I've never seen a NS shul that doesn't say them.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

see Bnei Banim IV maamar 9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/0a496a7d/attachment-0001.htm>

Nusach Ari of Chabad does say it. "Standard" Nusach Sefard of the other
Chassidic groups seems not to say it. I assume this based on the very short
time between the Tiskabeil and the end of the Shir Shel Yom.  This fits with
the general tendency of Nusach Ari to incorporate more Edot Hamizrach-isms
into its nusach than Nusach Sefard, which preserves more features from
Nusach Ashkenaz. There are many other examples of this.

Raphael Davidovich
------------------------------------
I was asked a question today in shul by an edot mizrach man.
According to most old nusach sefard (chassidic) siddurim after U-bah LeTzion
(or returning the sefer Torah) there are prayers
Tefilah LeDovid, Beit Yaakov and Shir HaMaalot on days that Tachanun is
said.

Almost every shul I have gone to in EY does not say this., perhaps due some
nusach ashkenaz contamination. It seems that in Nusach Sefardi (edot
Mizrach) it is indeed said.

Does anyone have any experience with this?

--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/9669135c/attachment-0001.htm>

I did not proofread my last post well enough (if at all), and I apologize.

I had posted:

> I wonder if we should not discount the reality that moods are often
> determined by where we are now, but where we'll so be.

What I meant was:

> I wonder if we should not discount the reality that moods are often
> determined NOT by where we are now, but where we'll SOON be.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e137c35390811301st05vuc

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 05:35:59AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: a. Despite what the Rishonim wrote (about our lack of kavana today)
: many great gedolim did delve into the issue of kavana in tefila and its
: importance. Those who did this obviously held that it is possible to
: succeed in having kavana.

I took the rishonim who were complaining about our kavanah were talking
(at different times) about two things:

1- Lemaaseh, today, kavanah is rare. When R' Matnaya thanked his head
for knowing when to bow at Modim it was guzma (compared to us, see #2);
today it's the norm. And therefore they held that we should not repeat
Ashrei if we said "Poseiach es yadekha" without kavanah, since the
repetition is not likely to be bekavanah either.

2- There is kavanah, and there is kavanah.

But not that one shouldn't try for as much kavanah as possible.

I think there are two definitions of kavanah floating around, though:

Cerebral/Litvish: peirush hamilim

Experiential/Chassidish: awareness of speaking to Avinu shebashamayim.

: b. We can ask the following: in a generation where so many people
: delve into issues of self awareness (in prayer and in other areas),
: perhaps it is time to return to the din of the Gemara. If someone can
: pray with kavana, then perhaps he should repeat his tefila if he failed
: to do so (perhaps the Rema was not talking about our generation).

All I know is that even when I try, e.g. during 10 Yemei Teshuvah when
I make a point of saying Birkhas Avos and Poseiach es Yadekha at the
meditative speed R' Aryeh Kaplan describes, I can lose myself between
starting and the third pasuq.

I'm not sure wanting to delve into self-awareness or even commiting to
do so can be counted on to produce results.

After all, you're not talking about getting above our current lack of
self-awareness, but getting above the level Jews were at when rishonim
were lamenting the death of real kavanah!

Just to get a handle on the difference between "kavanah" and "real
kavanah" (assuming you bought into my 2nd point):

Did these pesaqim about not repeating Ashrei come before or after the
time when people with "desk jobs" and full time stopped wearing tefillin
all day?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

<<On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 04:45:34PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: However, the extent of the chatzeir is irrelevant to a satellite.
: My chatzeir does not acquire someone else's property which is within it,
: unless its owner wants to convey ownership to me.

I suggested the case of yi'ush habaal. Comcast gave up on recovering
the satellite, do I get salvage rights? Or is it hefqer and others have
equal claim?>>

As we have discussed with shiurim - chametz is not batel on Pesach is
not to be taken literally, microscopic doesnt count
so with kinyan chatzer going up indefinitely obviously doesnt depend
on a flat or round or rotating earth.
It means up to distances that chazal could consider to be reasonable.
Satellites, planes etc are too far up.

It is true that R. Elyashiv seemed to apply tumah until planes.
However, that seems to be a daas yachid and the stories of cohanim
doing strange things when a plane passes over a cemetery seemed to
have died away (no pun intended).  Taking Micha's example it would
imply that a cohen should not be in a satellite having little choice
as it whizzes by many cemeteries some having Jews buried there.

-- 
Eli Turkel

RAM:

<<Maybe everyone *you* know acts that way. But I have no idea how anyone 
holds on this question. I can't ever recall seeing someone having a meal 
of wine and soup. There is either both bread and wine, or bread without 
wine, or neither bread nor wine. But wine and soup without bread?>>

My deduction was from the absence of a beracha when people eat bread and 
soup without wine (see my comment to RCB).

RAZ has informed me offlist, however, that Rabbi Kanievsky is of the 
opinion that someone who eats wine and soup without bread should not 
make a bracha on his soup (see footnote 8 in his (RAZ's) essay "What's 
the Truth About ... Making Berachot After Kiddush?".  I asked if he 
(RCK) rules that such a person must make a bracha when he eats bread and 
soup without wine, and he (RAZ) didn't know.  So I don't know whether 
this ruling is because of safek brachos l'hakel or whether its because 
he (RCK) holds that, me'ikkar hadin, soup is a mashkeh.

David Riceman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110705/ea4227db/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/07/2011 5:52 PM, David Riceman wrote:

> My deduction was from the absence of a beracha when people eat bread
> and soup without wine (see my comment to RCB).

Huh?  Why would you ever make a bracha then?  When you eat bread and
orange juice, do you make a bracha on the OJ?!

> RAZ has informed me offlist, however, that Rabbi Kanievsky is of the
> opinion that someone who eats wine and soup without bread should not
> make a bracha on his soup [...]  I asked if he  (RCK) rules that such a
> person must make a bracha when he eats bread and soup without wine

Again, why on earth would he?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

On 5/07/2011 5:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> As we have discussed with shiurim - chametz is not batel on Pesach is
> not to be taken literally, microscopic doesnt count
> so with kinyan chatzer going up indefinitely obviously doesnt depend
> on a flat or round or rotating earth.
> It means up to distances that chazal could consider to be reasonable.
> Satellites, planes etc are too far up.

Why?  What grounds do you have for such an assumption?

> It is true that R. Elyashiv seemed to apply tumah until planes.
> However, that seems to be a daas yachid and the stories of cohanim
> doing strange things when a plane passes over a cemetery seemed to
> have died away (no pun intended).

I thought they got the planes to take a different route.  Otherwise
what possible grounds could there be for deciding that the tum'ah stops
at some arbitrary altitude?

>  Taking Micha's example it would
> imply that a cohen should not be in a satellite having little choice
> as it whizzes by many cemeteries some having Jews buried there.

Really?  How would you know that?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

Just an odd thought:

Are the borders of the hatzeir parallel to one another as 
they go up to the raki'a? That is, are all cross-sections of 
the hatzeir identical in size at all heights? Or perhaps, 
the borders are found by drawing lines from the center of 
the earth, in which case the hatzeir cross-section increases 
in size as we go higher.

In other words, is the earth flat or a big ball?

David 

I had suggested that when you are concocting a complex formula like a
ketoret, it may be good for you to repeat the 'recipe' as you work, saying
it out loud so that you don't forget the ingredients, the amounts and the
order of execution.  Rabbi Teitz kindly contacted me off line to point out
that my theory would make sense "if what was said was the list of 
ingredients.  However, what is said is "Hadeik heiteiv, heiteiv hadeik."
While it might serve as a reminder to do what he is doing thoroughly, it
would hardly serve as a reminder of the ingredients." (He is, of course,
correct, and my first supposition is really an inexcusably sloppy error.) 
Rabbi Teitz's comment did, however, prod me to think of a different
argument (more persuasive, I hope).

The repetition of "hadek heiteiv, heiteiv hadek" is kind of rhythmic,
almost a chant.  Compare this to Pesahim 112b, where sailors are pulling
ropes to the rhythm of a sea chanty.  Maybe certain kinds of motion are
better coordinated through chanting. If the preparation of the ketoret
requires pounding with even strokes or grinding or mixing to a uniform
consistency, then maybe the repetition of "hadek heiteiv, heiteiv hadek"
facilitates that.  If so, then hakol is be'emet yafeh labesamim, where
again, in winemaking, it is merely a distraction.

I have not yet checked the reference from R' David Riceman.  Tomorrow, I hope.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110706/c057b62e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/07/2011 4:02 AM, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> Just an odd thought:

> Are the borders of the hatzeir parallel to one another as they go up
> to the raki'a?

Why would they be?  Or rather, how could they be?  When projecting a
particular boundary upward, why would it ever occur to anyone to do so
at an angle rather than directly up?  And if one does project it directly
up then it will of necessity not be parallel to a line projected directly
up from the opposite boundary.

Put it another way: when drawing boundaries on the earth, we don't
refer to the opposite boundary line to make sure we're running exactly
parallel; we draw the boundary where we think it goes, and if that ends
up not being parallel to the opposite boundary then that's how it is.
No law says a person's property must be a perfect rectangle, after all.
So when projecting one boundary up into the sky, why would we think to
refer to the other boundary?

> In other words, is the earth flat or a big ball?

We already know the answer to that, and the Tana'im (though not all
the Amora'im) knew it too.  But even those who didn't know it, wouldn't
think, when projecting one boundary up, to refer to the opposite one.
They would simply imagine that if you project each boundary directly
upward they will end up being naturally parallel; and they would be
wrong.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

 From http://tinyurl.com/3prdne8

The question arose about a young woman who was getting married, whose 
mother did not wear a wig. She wished to know that if she changed 
from her family custom of wearing head coverings (scarves and hats) 
and would start wearing a Peah Nochrith (wig), was there (a) a 
problem with this and (b) was she required to do Hattarath Nedarim 
(an annulment of vows) since this was something that was long 
accepted in her home and considered a vow?

This very matter was dealt with in Dibrei Yasib (Divrei Yatsiv) , by 
one of the more recent Hassidic masters, Rabbi Yekutiel Yehuda 
Halberstam, Grand Rabbi of Sanz-Klauzenberg, who passed away in '94.

Citing many sources he states that Hattarath Nedarim only works for 
something that is totally permitted where one, nevertheless, took 
upon oneself to keep away from it. But in a matter where there is a 
difference of opinion amongst the Hakhamim, where some forbid it but 
others permit it, Hattarath Nedarim is to no avail. He adds that many 
of the greatest Rabbis have forbidden wearing wigs. He quotes the 
Dibrei Hayim (Divrei Chaim) who states that the majority of the later 
deciders of Jewish law (Aharonim) forbid it. He quotes the Ran and 
the Ritba who say that even wearing silk that resembles hair is 
forbidden. He brings other opinions, including the Hatham Sofer, who 
forbid women wearing wigs outright.

He added that his hope was that the woman in question would 
understand the severity of the matter and keep away from wearing 
wigs. He states that it could be that the matter of making a vow was 
even more serious than the prohibition of wearing a wig. This means 
that in addition to the fact that many prohibit the leniency of 
wearing a wig, those whose family did not wear wigs should not take 
on the custom for the additional reason of Nedarim (vows).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110706/7e6ed71f/attachment-0001.htm>

In a message dated 7/6/2011, llev...@stevens.edu writes:

>>From _http://tinyurl.com/3prdne8_ (http://tinyurl.com/3prdne8) 

The  question arose about a young woman who was getting married, whose 
mother did  not wear a wig. She wished to know that if she changed from her 
family custom  of wearing head coverings (scarves and hats) and would start 
wearing a Peah  Nochrith (wig), was there (a) a problem with this and (b) was 
she required to  do Hattarath Nedarim (an annulment of vows) since this was 
something  that was long accepted in her home and considered a  vow?<<

My mother covers her hair with turban-type hats that fully cover her hair  
(not like the hats worn by women in some circles who permit the showing of 
some  hair in front).  However, I have worn a sheitel since I got  married.  
There is no issue of hataras nedarim nor do we have  matrilineal minhagim -- 
not patrilineal minhagim either, for that matter, in the  case of a married 
woman. Is there such a word as "virilineal"  -- husband-based?  I grew up 
in a home where knaidlach were never  served at the seder but no one ever 
suggested that I, when I married a  Litvak, had to do hataras nedarim before 
eating knaidlach on Pesach.   As for keeping my mother's minhagim -- there's 
no such thing.  I follow my  husband's minhagim, and that is the norm.

Even if your mother did make a vow not to wear a sheitel, parents' vows are 
 not binding on their children.  A nazir's children do not have to refrain  
from wine.

However, I will mention one area where there may possibly be a matrilineal  
minhag, and that is Shabbos candle lighting.  When I got married, I  was 
under the impression that if your mother lights a candle for each child,  then 
you, when you have your own home, should follow your mother's custom in  
this.  However, my husband said that you follow your husband's  custom.  His 
custom (which technically then is my mother-in-law's A'H  custom) is to light 
only two candles.  So that is what I do.  If I  felt strongly about it, he 
probably wouldn't mind my adding extra candles for  the children, but in the 
event I have not done so.  I wonder what the  chevra here say about 
candle-lighting -- mother's or mother-in-law's  minhag?  More than with the issue 
of head-covering, I can see where people  might think it goes according to 
the mother because candle-lighting is one of  the three special mitzvos for 
women.  In contrast, issues of tznius, what  to wear, fashion and 
head-covering, go according to the community of which you  are part, and normally a wife 
is part of her husband's community.

--Toby Katz
================

_____________________  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110706/2a8ffbd9/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS

<<Huh?  Why would you ever make a bracha then?  When you eat bread and
orange juice, do you make a bracha on the OJ?! >>

See Avodah Digest 128:126:16.  Do I really have to repeat myself?

David Riceman

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"



However, I will mention one area where there may possibly be a matrilineal
minhag, and that is Shabbos candle lighting.  When I got married, I was
under the impression that if your mother lights a candle for each child,
then you, when you have your own home, should follow your mother's custom
in this.  However, my husband said that you follow your husband's custom. 
His custom (which technically then is my mother-in-law's A'H custom) is to
light only two candles.  So that is what I do.	If I felt strongly about
it, he probably wouldn't mind my adding extra candles for the children, but
in the event I have not done so.  I wonder what the chevra here say about
candle-lighting -- mother's or mother-in-law's minhag?


--Toby Katz
================
First I think one might want to try to identify the source of the "minhag" 
to add one candle per child.  I suspect it's an example of what the gemara
refers to as "nahagu" - that people just started doing it that way and it
caught on.
 KT
Joel Rich


THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110706/148f3a36/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 127
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."