Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 20

Tue, 13 Feb 2018

• 1. mixing nusach hatfila (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Something to Ponder (Richard Wolberg)
• 3. Re: mixing nusach hatfila (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: mixing nusach hatfila (Rich, Joel)
• 5. The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law (Professor L. Levine)
• 6. Hirsch: The Ideas (Professor L. Levine)
• 7. Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" (Yonatan Kaganoff)
• 8. Man's Purpose in Life (Professor L. Levine)
• 9. manuscripts of the Rambam (Eli Turkel)
• 10. AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT (cantorwolb...@cox.net)

At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote:

>Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being 
>determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak 
>a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've 
>gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no 
>matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At 
>mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him 
>afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom 
>bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should 
>say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is 
>anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach?

If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on 
should say),  the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to 
change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha.  One does not say what the 
Shatz says first,  but answers Kadosh, Kadosh,  etc.  Then just 
Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc.

This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180209/ec6cc955/attachment-0001.html>

I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer.
The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the
following fascinating gematria by saying that
ordinarily the particular source for this gematria
indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about
it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way.
However, he said the following gematria was an exception
and that it has definite mystical value.

The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the
same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture
was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master
of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus).

Shavua tov.

.
R' Joel Rich asked:

> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being
> determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I
> sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to
> say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their
> own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really
> surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13
> middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul,
> minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai
> eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at
> an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that
> deal with the question of mixed nusach?

When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein
might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe
of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this
topic.

As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad
Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of
mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a
collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav
Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The
fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should
one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that
each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for
y'all:

"So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls
[all together] in a large building, where there is no established
Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the
nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one
according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul,
where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and
Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that
the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not
considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one
can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo
Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no
halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each
individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what
he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of
Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach,
since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as
found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo
Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly
be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying.
Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was
written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah
Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an
established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the
nusach of the congregation.)"

Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears
in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I
remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva
written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who
edited the volume.

In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I
would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one
is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a
different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in
such a shul.

Akiva Miller

> 
> As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad
> Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of
> mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a
> collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav
> Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The
> fifth of those teshuvos 

> "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls
> [all together] in a large building, where there is no established
> Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the
> nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one
> according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul,
> where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and
> Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that
> the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not
> considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one
> can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo
> Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no
> halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each
> individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what
> he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of
> Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach,
> since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as
> found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo
> Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly
> be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying.
> Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was
> written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah
> Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an
> established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the
> nusach of the congregation.)"




Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved
Case and that he was not asked how such a group should	be set but rather
what to do in case these are the rules the  group has accepted upon itself.
Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the
group in advance 

In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. 

I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern

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.

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21

2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying.


?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????:


This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth
the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate
human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be
expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But
with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells
another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!!
This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written
Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary
source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must
have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before
the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only
exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit
the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom,
that the Law begins!

However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word,
the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book?

serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The
Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been
transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them
for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over
to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional
cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the
principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly.

On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but
individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive
manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were
entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language
of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual
term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra
or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts.
This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was
meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a
means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they
had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid
for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that
the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before
them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received
by word of mouth.

The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that
between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture
itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief
notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a
word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring

of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas,
observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not
attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they
try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity
make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the
students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars
for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely
meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt
to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct)
for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear
as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere.


God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice
and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human
rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the
property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished
by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is
to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180211/a8f59042/attachment-0001.html>

Please see the video at <https://youtu.be/qRDoKx_A5lY>

This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day
influence of RSRH. One of them is me.

YL

[Starting at 7:37 - <https://youtu.be/qRDoKx_A5lY?t=7m37s>
RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - <https://youtu.be/qRDoKx_A5lY?t=16m5s>
-mb]

For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its
applications.

In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court
decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a
"security" and how it differs from a "commodity".

The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation
is):

   1. It is an investment of money.
   2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment.
   3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise.
   4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party.

(I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and
which are securities.)

IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska".

In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a
"security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then
the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on
a loan which is prohibited because of interest.

Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if
I am correct in the parallels?

Yonatan Kaganoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180212/59a4e6b6/attachment-0001.html>

The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters


Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of
possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by
the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our
life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we
make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We
should measure our attainments by the extent to which we
fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner
acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly
human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner
and outer possessions have value only because they provide us
with the means to perform such deeds.

From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia
which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you
are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the
entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are
subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which
one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for
or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used
them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse.
Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion
by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond
to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to
judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not
the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources
with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used
them to the best of his ability to do God's Will.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180213/744b3c22/attachment-0001.html>

Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on
the internet
Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah

http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180213/ba9325e6/attachment-0001.html>

We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot.
However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) 
points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), 
Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). 

What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter 
intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) 
and Ya?akov, ayin (erev).

R. Wolberg

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



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


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


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)