Volume 30 Number 99
Produced: Mon Jan 17 22:40:08 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Argument by AUTHORITY vs by FACT (2)
[Russell Hendel, Avi Feldblum]
Bowing to Angels
[Jack Gross]
Mayim Acharonim and Sefer Torah Transmission
[Shlomo Pick]
Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners) (4)
[Daniel Katsman, Sheldon Meth, Yeshaya Halevi, Harry Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:18:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Argument by AUTHORITY vs by FACT
Gilad Gevaryahu (v30n86) and later Professor Tabory responded to my
position that all letters of the Torah were preserved with AUTHORITY
based responses instead of FACTUAL based responses. Let me briefly
illustrate
Taking Gilads example, the Talmud states that DROSH DRASH is the
*midpoint* of the Bible in words. I suggested interpreting midpoint
differently based on a suggestion in Torah Forum. So in this case it
would not (as Gilad suggested) be MIDDLE LETTER or MIDDLE WORD but the
MIDDLE OF THE DOUBLE WORDS. This is a factual assertion. I am asserting
that if you take the list of all consecutive double word pairs in the
Bible then DROSH DRASH is the middle one. This assertion is either true
or false. Neither Gilad nor Tabory have responded to my FACTUAL
assertion. Instead they bring AUTHORITIES who interpret the Talmud the
way they suggested.
Let me put it this way: I think everyone (including Gilad and Tobory)
would have to concede that if DRSH DRSH was the middle of the double
Biblical words then the correct interpretation of the Talmudic statement
"This is the middle of the Torah in words" would be "This is the middle
double pair of the torah in double pair words". Gilad and Tabory would
*at most* have a question on the Talmuds wording but not on the Bible.
Similarly Gilad cited *authorities* that we do not understand FULL and
DEFICIENT spellings. But I gave a cite that lists all dozen Rashis on
this issue and shows a GRAMMATICAL approach using one of two
methods. Again my FACTUAL question has not been answered.
I again request that this issue be opened up as I think it important But
I would like it opened up on a FACTUAL level not on an authority level
Russell Hendel; Math; Towson University
Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:29:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Argument by AUTHORITY vs by FACT
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Russell Hendel wrote:
> Taking Gilads example, the Talmud states that DROSH DRASH is the *midpoint*
> of the Bible in words. I suggested interpreting midpoint differently based
> on a suggestion in Torah Forum. So in this case it would not (as Gilad
> suggested) be MIDDLE LETTER or MIDDLE WORD but the MIDDLE OF THE DOUBLE
> WORDS. This is a factual assertion. I am asserting that if you take the list
> of all consecutive double word pairs in the Bible then DROSH DRASH is the
> middle one. This assertion is either true or false. Neither Gilad nor Tabory
> have responded to my FACTUAL assertion. Instead they bring AUTHORITIES who
> interpret the Talmud the way they suggested.
>
> Let me put it this way: I think everyone (including Gilad and Tobory) would
> have to concede that if DRSH DRSH was the middle of the double Biblical words
> then the correct interpretation of the Talmudic statement "This is the middle
> of the Torah in words" would be "This is the middle double pair of the torah
> in double pair words". Gilad and Tabory would *at most* have a question on
> the Talmuds wording but not on the Bible.
I cannot speak for Gilad and Tabory, count me out of Russel's everyone
above. While Russel's statement that "DRSH DRSH was the middle of the
double Biblical words" may be factually correct, I am totally unconvinced
that it is relevant, and therefore do NOT agree that this is the correct
interpretation of the Talmudic statement.
Along with the direction Russel is pointing to here, I do not think that
the question of whether the Torah we have is FACTUALLY the same as what
Moshe wrote in the dessert is as important as whether from an
understanding of the chain of authorities (shalshelet shel Torah) the
doctrinal position of Halakhic Judaism is that the transmission is letter
perfect vs word/concept perfect.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: 16 Jan 00 18:27:16 EST
Subject: Bowing to Angels
From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
> I don't know the sources, but the reason for the different sequence is
> as follows: In osei shalom, as David Ziants mentioned, one is taking
> leave, as it were, of the Shechinah. Therefore, one bows first to the
> right of the Shechinah, which, if one is facing the Shechinah, is to
> one's left. In "vekara zeh el ze," one should imagine one is standing
> in a row of angels; therefore one bows to the angel on his right first.
Tangentially,
I prefer this explanation, because I'm a bit cautious about bowing to
angels. I'm not sure if this is permissible.
I too was long bothered by the concept of bowing to angels (or Middos)
-- particulary since bowing in three directions could be mistaken for
acknowledging a trinity, ch.v.
In "siddur rav saadiah gaon" -- at least in mekitzei nirdamim's
Heb. trans. of the author's Arabic -- the description of the 3 steps
backward etc. evokes the fol. image:
In tefillah, you are "on the carpet", standing before the King in His
private chamber. Two angels guard the door, ensuring the privacy of the
audience. At its conclusion, you take leave (the 3 steps back while
bowing), so that now those guardians are in front of you. Then (and
only then) you acknowledge the angels' presence and service by nodding
(not bowing) to them.
He (R. Saadia) also cautions to say nothing while thus acknowledging
them -- i.e., not to appear to address a request to them. [Perhaps this
is to oppose our practice of interspersing the bowing right-and-left
with the nusach of Oseh Shalom].
In Rambam it is also clear that bowing forward occurs during the 3
steps, *before* one gives the nesinas shalom left and right.
Also note: In Arvei Pesachim there is a machlokes re: the conclusing of
Havdala, "Mekadesh Yisrael" vs. "Hamavdil". One of the acharonim
suggests that both versions were prevalent and acceptible in Rav's time;
the emphatic rejection of "Mekadesh Yisrael" in the time of later
amoraim reflected the growing danger from the movement that made Yom
Rishon [Sunday - Mod.] the Sabbath; it was then feared that the recital
of a special bracha of Mekadesh Yisrael only on the conclusion of our
Shabbat -- and the arrival of Yom Rishon -- might lend credence to that
heresy.
-- Yaakov Gross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Pick <picksh@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:42:01 +0200
Subject: Mayim Acharonim and Sefer Torah Transmission
1) Andy Levy-Stevenson wrote in mj 50:32
>This would run counter to my memory of a tshuva by Rabbi Feinstein that
>I read in which he was clear that women should wash Mayim
>Acharonim. Since my learning isn't great, and I don't have the book to
>hand, I would assume my memory is faulty. Perhaps someone with more
>knowledge (or the book!) could clarify this? Thanks.
A check on the bar-ilan CD-ROM did not turn up any teshuva by Rav Moshe
on Mayim Acharonim at all.
2) in mj 30:48
there was a response to questions of the sefer torah and soferim
let me note the following concerning this discussion:
A. Gevurot Ari (by the Sha'agat Aryeh) to Yoma, Meeluim to 54a (p. 111
of my vol), say that Ezra edited divrei hayaim (Chronicles) from
different sources and that is why there are many contradictions (stirot)
in that volume.
B. the Naziv in his ha'amek devar to parshat Vayechi, based upon a
midrash rabba to leviticus, that some early prophecies were too brief to
be written down in their own books, and so they were added ("nitpelah")
to later prophecies. Thus in Gen. 49:10 in his Harkhev Davar (1), he
says a prophecy from the time of the judges was added to that of Micah.
See his other references there.
C. The Admor, R. Y. Isaac Komarnah, author of the Heichal ha-Beracha,
stated that all disagreements of chasser and maleh were given to Moses
on Mt. Sinai. All disagreements in this area, whether between the
Mesorah and the Talmud, each person must write a Torah Scroll according
to the root (shoresh) of his soul. Thus R. Meir wrote in his Torah
(katnot or - with a aleph!)... thus, if one finds a torah scroll
according to one opinion (of the ancient massoraites) be-de'avad it is
permitted to read from it and one not need take out another one. He
then went on to state that 13 Torah scrolls were given by Moses to each
tribe, and all the above various options were written in then, and Moses
then gave each tribe a scroll according to its Shoresh on high. (most of
this can be found in the author's introduction to OZar haChayim and
Heichal ha-Beracha; the last part in the peticha kezara to Moshe Zuriel,
Mesoret Seyag le-Torah, Bnei Brak, 5750, p. 26).
D) please note the writings by Rabbi M. Breuer and the review essay by
M. Ekstein, in Tradition 33:3, pp. 6 ff.
Respectfully yours,
Shlomo Pick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Katsman <hannah@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:18:16 -0000
Subject: Re: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
Joseph Geretz wrote:
> Our Yom Kippur prayers commence with the declaration that by G-d's
> consent, and by the consent of the congregation, we are permitting
> ourselves to pray with Avaryonim (sinners). I'd like to examine this
> >
> 2b) All year round, we are not permitted to count Avaryonim for a
> Minyan. On Yom Kippur (for whatever reason, perhaps because the day
> itself effects attonment) we do count an Avaryon for a Minyan....
> > >
> Ultimately, we can discuss who exactly qualifies as an Avaryon ...
According to the Goldschmidt mahzor for Yom Kippur (introduction, page 28),
"Anu mattirin le-hitpallel 'im ha-avaryanim" was introduced into the Yom
Kippur davening by the MaHaRaM of Rotenburg. "Here is given a special heter
for people who were in niddui (excommunicated) because they had transgressed
the decrees of the community and were therefore separated from public
prayer, to participate in the prayer on this day." (Goldschidt's Hebrew, my
translation. Uncharacteristically, he offers no source or footnote. Ba'er
Heitev, Orah Hayyim 619:1, says something similar.) I.e., the "avaryan" in
this context is not a run-of-the-mill non-observant Jew, but someone
who has been put in herem.
Daniel Katsman
Petah Tikva
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:22:35 -0500
Subject: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
The Art Scroll Yom Kippur Machzor (Sfard), p 62, states that "a
congregation has the right to ban transgressors from prayer in the
synagogue or other interaction with the community. On the other hand,
the Sages teach: A public fast in which Jewish sinners do not take part
is no fast...Therefore, even in the event that transgressors may have
been banned for the rest of the year, they should be admitted to the
congregation for the Yom Kippur services."
"Al da'as hamakom.." is attributed by Art Scroll to the R"M m'Rottenburg.
Also, see Ta'amei haMinhagim 747, who defines an avaryan as one who did
something so serious as to deserve niddui or shamta [forms of
excommunication/banishment], and also see Mateh Efrayim 619:10, and the
Elef Lamateh, note 17 there.
-Sheldon Meth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yeshaya Halevi <CHIHAL@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:49:08 EST
Subject: Re: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
Shalom, All:
1. Regarding the question of praying with sinners, I was under
the assumption that it is not only permissable, but **necessary.** And
yes, I base it on Yom Kippur.
The notes in my old makhzor say that Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg,
the Me'or ha-gola (the "light of the exile"), inserted the phrase "We
declare it permissable to pray with the transgressors" because the
G'mara (Talmud) in Keritot, 6b, says "A public fast where Jewish
transgressors do not participate is no fast."
2. As for the gentleman who wrote <<As a matter of history, I've
always understood that the prayer dates back to the time of the
Marrannos and that this declaration was incorporated to allow the
Marrannos to integrate with the congregation on Yom Kippur.>>,
I will ask him to please remember that the word "Marrano" means "pig,"
and is not used anymore in polite company. The proper term -- and this
is hardly "political correctness," since we're talking about Jews being
called "pigs" by their "Holy Inquisition" persecutors -- is either
"Conversos" ("those who converted"), or "Anuseem," which means "the
forced/violated ones."
3. Kol Nidray is, I believe, more than 1,000 years old, pre-dating
both the Inquisition and the statement that "We declare it permissable
to pray with the transgressors." Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, who added
the language about the transgressors/sinners, died about 1291 C.E., and
was European/Ashkenazi, not S'fardee. However, even though neither the
Kol Needray or the permission granted to pray with sinners was written
for the Conversos/Anuseem, it most certainly does appear to have been
tearfully taken to heart by them.
Yeshaya Halevi (<Chihal@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <harry.weiss@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 00 13:46:39 -0700
Subject: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
There has been some discussion of counting the non (I prefer - not yet)
observant in a minyan.
There have been references to the Yom Kippur giving permission to pray
with transgressors. There have been discussions as to what connection
if any that has with allowing one to count the not yet observant in a
minyan.
I was taught that on Yom Kippur we are referring to those Jews who are
formally in Cherem. That is why this is done with three people at the
reading table to create a Bet Din that releases these people
(temporarily) from Cherem to allow them to pray on Yom Kippur.
Thus, this would have no relevancy at all to allowing the not yet
observant to be counted (and lead) a minyan.
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 99