Volume 29 Number 93
Produced: Sun Oct 31 9:28:20 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ashkenaz Nusach on Chag/Shabbat
[Yisrael Medad]
Bike Riding on Yom Tov
[Harris Cohen]
Democracy--A Torah Value?
[Moshe Nugiel]
Issues with naming children
[Aviva Fee]
Mapik in Aramaic
[Gershon Dubin]
Mimetic tradition and Textualism
[Ellen Krischer]
Modim
[Eliezer Finkelman]
Question about Machzor Yerushalayim (2)
[Neil Parks, Neil Parks]
Why No Samech in "al chet"
[Eli Lansey]
Women and Angels (3)
[Chaim Schnur, Gitelle Rapoport, Russell Hendel]
Y5K?
[Louise Miller]
Zochreinu
[Reuven Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:13:07 +0200
Subject: Ashkenaz Nusach on Chag/Shabbat
As I was just asked to daven Arvit for the Chag, I was reminded of a
problem of the nusach. Our schule has a declared policy of Ashkenaz for
Shabbat and Chaggim (except for minor modifications - specifically
Hoshanot right after Hallel, for example). In my Galut schule in Queens
NY, Ashkenaz by any standard, the first two and the last two stanzas of
L'cha Dodi were said but here, they start off with Mizmor Shir claiming
that that custom was not Ashkenaz. Can anyone help me out on this one?
What is the Ashkenaz custom - L'cha Dodi (4 out of 9) or not at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harris Cohen <HarrisCohen@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:00:14 EDT
Subject: Bike Riding on Yom Tov
I know that Bike Riding is forbidden on shabbas, but what about on Yom
Tov, when many of the restrictions that exist on shabbas do not exist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Nugiel <friars@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:31:27 +0200
Subject: Democracy--A Torah Value?
I'd like to examine under the light of Torah hashkafa (perspective),
another institution which we all take for granted, namely democracy.
The Torah is quite straightforward in its decree that the appropriate
form of government for the Jewish Nation is that of enlightened
despotism. Surely, the era of the Moshiach, which we all long for, will
have this political framework.
Are we prepared to accept the evolution of democracy into that of the
monarchy of the Moshiach? Is the coming of the Moshiach waiting for us
all to reach that level of ego submissivness where we will be able to
concretize our twice daily affirmation of the acceptance of the yoke of
the kingdom of Heaven, and become willing subjects of the Melech
Ha'Moshiach?
To make the giving up of democracy easier, I'd like to point out how the
Almighty reacted to the suggestion that the Jewish Nation be ruled by
democratic principles. In the one sentence he utters in all of chumash
(Bamidbar 16:3), Korach and his cohorts assert: "The entire congregation
is holy, and Hashem is with them; why, therefore, have you raised
yourselves [ Moshe and Aaron] above Hashem's assembly?" Korach's great
chidush (new idea) is the advocacy of democracy. His punishment is so
wondrous and terrible, that we can have little doubt about the
Almighty's opinion in the matter. (Yes, I'm familiar with all the
midrashim which hold that Korach was deceiving the people and had only
self-aggrandizement as his goal. However, I'm in the pshat = pshat
camp, and not in the drush = pshat camp, and this analysis reflects the
former approach.) Although it may go against accepted contemporary
wisdom, democracy is not the highest form of government, nor does it
reflect Torah values. The political manifestation of a people which has
fully accepted upon itself the yoke of God's sovereignty is enlightened
despotism.
Moshe Nugiel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aviva Fee <aviva613@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 06:44:31 PDT
Subject: Issues with naming children
I have seen numerous times the experience where grand-parents have given
their children significant grief and heartache in reference to the
naming of newly born grand-children.
One side is that the grand-parents want the newly born child to have the
name of a deceased relative. The other side is that the parents of the
newborn may want a different or more modern name for the baby.
My question is two-fold:
Why do grand-parents put so much pressure, both psychological, and often
financial, to get the grand-child named after their relative?
But more importantly, if the what exactly does naming do? Is it some
sort of magic? If the deceased person lived an observant and upstanding
life, then those merits will preserve them in the world to come.
On the other hand, if they were not so upstanding, would the naming of a
child magically have such an influence on their soul?
Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:43:57 -0400
Subject: Mapik in Aramaic
This morning someone davened for the amud who stressed the mapik hehs in
kaddish, which I had never heard before. Does anyone know (sources?) if
the correct pronunciation of a mapik heh in Aramaic (yehe shmeh, di vro
chiruseh, me'asar beis shchinteh, etc.) is the same as in Hebrew?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ellen Krischer <krischer@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:17:08 -0400
Subject: RE: Mimetic tradition and Textualism
> Moshe Feldman writes:
> In any case, I believe that while the mimetic tradition is important, it
> is important to consider why the Mishna Brurah and others attacked
> it--in the 20th century many non-halakhic practices were masquerading as
> mimetic tradition.
On the flip side, I think there is a lot of "mimetic" (or really
"invented") tradition that is masquerading as halacha. The way we have
separate sinks, stoves, and, to a lesser extent, refridgerators is fast
becoming a kashrut "standard". (Not to mention the fact that the level
of separation we already have far exceeds halachik standards.) Not
cutting a boy's hair until 3. The "vort" complete with breaking of a
plate. I won't even get started with Pesach chumras...
Ellen Krischer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliezer Finkelman <Finkelmans@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:00:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Modim
In general, the Shaliah Tsibbur repeats every word of the Amidah at the
morning, additional and afternoon services. Nonetheless, there exists a
widespread practice: that the Shaliah Tsibbur, in repeating the Amidah,
reads only the first words and the last of the next to the last brakhah.
He says, "Modim anahnu lakh" and then goes silent, presumably reading
the rest of the paragraph, speaking out loud again at "HaTov." I have
never seen a source to justify this apparently erroneous custom. Does
anyone know its history?
Shalom,
Eliezer Finkelman
[A quick comment: In a number of shuls I have seen the custom for the
Chazan to say the entire modim paragraph out loud. In my shul, they have
clearly written this in the large sidder that the Chazan uses. Rabbi
Busel (Rosh Yeshiva RJJ) questioned the custom of simply having the
Chazan be quiet while the congregation says Modim derabanan and then
says the whole paragraph out loud, as the Gemarah states that it is the
Chazan saying Modim that triggers the congregation to respond with their
reciting of Modim. As such, he speculated that the Chazan should say the
first three words of Modim quickly, let the congregation start saying
modim derabanan, and then continue with his Modim out loud for the rest
of the paragraph. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Neil Parks <nparks@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:25:51
Subject: Question about Machzor Yerushalayim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Neil Parks <nparks@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:25:51
Subject: Question about Machzor Yerushalayim
I have seen Machzor Yerushalayim in two Jewish bookstores in this area,
both in the same configuration: Nusach Sefard, in a set of three
volumes-- one for Rosh Hashona, one for Yom Kippur, and one for
Pesach-Shavuos- Succos.
Is it available in Nusach Ashkenaz, and is it possible to buy just one
volume sted all three?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Lansey <elansey@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:43:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Why No Samech in "al chet"
>Does anyone know why in the alphabetical vidui, the letter samech is
>replaced with the letter shin/sin?
I am not sure why they left out the Samech in the "Al Chet" but my
Rebbi, Rabbi Dr. Yermiyahu Luchins mentioned a number of times in class
that every letter in the Aleph Bet has its own distinct sound, except
for the Sin and the Samach, which share the same sound. I guess that
maybe why they can be interchanged.
Sincerely,
Eli Lansey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Schnur <CS440NLAS@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:03:51 EDT
Subject: Women and Angels
The source for the Kitzur is the Mogen Avraham, (Orach Chaim, 619,
11) citing the Mateh Moshe. It is for the same reason that the
M.A. discourages women from wearing white clothing exclusively on Yom
Kippur (Ibid, 610, 5). He cites Midrashic support (Vayikra Raba, 31, 5)
based on the pasuk in Mishlei, 21-22, for the notion that females are
not to be found in the the angelic realms. According to the
interpretation of the Midrash Rabba HaMevuar, however, the point of the
Midrash is to deny any gender to angels, in which case the Mogen
Avraham's citation from Mishlei would not support the thesis that only
men can resemble angels.
Piska Tava,
Chaim Schnur
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gitelle Rapoport <giteller@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Women and Angels
>I was reading the Kizzur Shulhan Arukh dealing with Kol Nidrei Night
>and came across the following (chapter 132, halakha 4): There are those
>who stand on their feet throughout all the Arvit service and all the
>day...the reason for the standing is to be like the angels (ke-dugmat
>ha mal'akhim) and therefore women should not stand. What is the source
>of this statement?
I'm not sure, but there is a similar statement in Magen Avraham, Orah
Hayim 610:4, par. 5, who alludes to an opinion that women should not
wear white on the evening of Yom Kippur because "they cannot be like
angels" -- he quotes the Mateh Moshe who applied the same idea to women
immersing before Yom Kippur; the idea also appears in notes to R. Isaac
Tyrna's Sefer HaMinhagim. The statements are apparently based on the
Midrash Yalkut Shimoni to Mishlei 21:22, the first half of which reads,
"Ir gibborim alah chacham" (which can be translated "The wise man went
up to the city of mighty ones/warriors"). The midrash identifies the
"wise man" as Moshe Rabbeinu who, just before the revelation at Sinai,
went up to heaven, which is a "city" of the mighty angels. But since the
word *gibborim"* in this particular verse is written without a *vav* it
can be read *g'varim* -- i.e., "men" -- thus "proving" that angels are
male and not female.
Chag sameach to all,
Gitelle Rapoport
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Women and Angels
Ira Robinson in v29n88 asks whether we should follow certain laws whose
reason focuses on our resembling angels. This was recently asked on the
sister email group, AVODAH. Allow me to bring depth to Iras question by
generalizing it to include several examples.
EXAMPLE 1: Men stand during Shmoneh Esray with their feet together in
order to resemble the angels whose feet are aligned together (Ez 1).
EXAMPLE 2: Men wear Kittles on the high holy days in order to resemble
the angels that are pure.
Over and above the technical legal sources that answer these questions I
would suggest an approach that concentrates on underlying reasons. More
specifically
--We stand with feet together during prayer IN ORDER TO SHOW
RESPECT/REVERENCE to God. But women must also show respect to God and
hence should stand the same way
--We wear kittles in order to a) remind ourselves of goals of spiritual
purity b) remind ourselves of the day of death (and induce a sense of
humility) Since women need these reminders also they should wear
kittles.
Finally I take note that Sarah surpassed Abraham in prophecy and
therefore had the status of an angel.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
<RJHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louise Miller <daniel@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:04:17 -0700
Subject: Y5K?
Being totally sick to death of End of the Millenium hoo-hah, (and don't
bother telling me that the millenium ends next year, I'm not
interested!) I was sort of curious if there was any Jewish
concern/interest when the year went from 4999 to 5000 or from 5000 to
5001. (That would have been in the 1200's.)
Since the 5000 part is never used in the year anyway, how did they refer
to the year 5000? (The number 5000 is written as hey with a slash, but
it's almost always omitted from the year - I would imagine because it
looks like you're trying to say HaShem.)
When the year 5744 spelled out "he will destroy," many people wrote the
year as tof-shin-daled-mem rather than tof-shin-mem-daled.
Anyone out there know any history of Jewish Y5K acknowledgements and
also how they referred to that year?
Louise Miller (who tries to be asleep by midnight EVERY night, not just
Dec. 31)
La Jolla, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Reuven Miller <millerr@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 04:24:46 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: Zochreinu
> From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
> Does anyone know the origin of the custom to repeat the insertions
> "zochreinu lechaim", "mi chamocha"etc. when the sh"tz repeats Shemone
> Esreh?
"minhag Boston"(the Bostoner Rebbe) is _not_ to repeat it>
reuven
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 29 Issue 93
