Volume 36 Number 95
Produced: Sun Sep 1 14:20:25 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Additions to Oleinu, shir shel yom revii etc. (2)
[Shalom Ozarowski, Seth Mandel]
Avoiding Resume Gaps
[Andy Goldfinger]
Carrying IDs on Shabbath
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Geosynchronous Orbits and Shabbat
[Yeshaya Halevi]
Munax Mahpach-Special Tune
[Michael Poppers]
Pshat and Drash
[Caren and Steve Weisberg]
Reason for a Mitzvah
[Frank Silbermann]
What have we come to?
[SBA]
Yehoshua Bin-Nun
[Ben Z. Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Shalomoz@...> (Shalom Ozarowski)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:12:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Additions to Oleinu, shir shel yom revii etc.
R. Seth Mandel wrote:
<< When Oleinu became part of the tzibbur's tefilla and started being printed
and with the disappearance of the saying of Chaper 83 every day, printers
nevertheless continued to print some of the psukim that had been said as a
vestigial appendage after Oleinu. Shir shel yom, being a late addition,
follows both of these in standard siddurim. >>
I looked up the Seder Rav Amram Gaon (the first 'prototype' of the
modern siddur, it was written as an extended t'shuva) & didn't find
chapter 83 or "vestigial appendage" psukim. I'm curious if these
original extra psukim reflected the same themes as the al tira set
(e.g. futility of our enemies' plans, Hashem's power/assuaging our fears
etc). Might this have been directly linked to the content of tehillim 83
which also deals with these themes? (recently this kapitel has been
recited in more shuls after davening, among pirkei tehillim for
embattled Jews in israel). Also, does the extra pasuk added by
lubavitch (& others added by nusach sfard i think?) stem from this same
origin?
BTW, another good example of the "pasuk tack on" phenomenon is vihi noam
said before tehillim __ (yosheiv b'seter elyon) on motzai shabbat. In
fact an even more obvious addition to a kapitel tehillim in the davening
is the inclusion of 2 separate psukim at the beginning of ashrei &
"va'anachnu" at the end, bookending tehillim ch. 145! I'm not sure of
the exact reason for these additions, but they don't seem to bear any
relevance to the 'negative psukim' theory that has been suggested in a
number of recent posts. Any comments?
[On a different note, the aleinu posts reminded me of a funny question
that always bothered me: whether to bow at va'anachnu kor'im in the
aleinu for r"h musaf. The case against might be simply that it's in the
middle of shmoneh esrei. (Would that matter? Assuming the daily
recitation came from the r"h musaf originally, bowing then should be
more likely). Of course I never looked at what others were doing while I
was in the middle of the amida on yamim noraim :). ]
kol tuv
shalom ozarowski
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Mandel <sethm37@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:10:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Additions to Oleinu, shir shel yom revii etc.
>i looked up the seder rav amram gaon (the first 'prototype' of the modern
>siddur, it was written as an extended t'shuva) & didn't find chapter 83 or
>"vestigial appendage" psukim.
I said this was ancient nusach Ashk'naz. R. Amram Gaon's siddur was not
Ashk'naz (nebbekh, he was from Bovel ;-) ). And everyone please note
that although there are no p'suqim by R. Amram, there's also no 'Aleinu.
> im curious if these original extra psukim reflected the same themes
>as the al tira set (e.g. futility of our enemies' plans, Hashem's
>power/assuaging our fears etc). might this have been directly linked
>to the content of tehillim 83 which also deals with these themes?
Yes, they echoed the theme of 83. See Machzor Vitri for the full list of
p'suqim.
>[On a different note, the aleinu posts reminded me of a funny question
>that always bothered me: whether to bow at va'anachnu kor'im in the
>aleinu for r"h musaf. the case against might be simply that it's in
>the middle of shmoneh esrei. (would that matter? assuming the daily
>recitation came from the r"h musaf originally, bowing then should be
>more likely). of course i never looked at what others were doing while
>i was in the middle of the amida on yamim noraim :). ]
Even on Rosh HaShonon it is only a minhog, and is brought that way by
acharonim, not a halokho. Were it to be a halokho, you would have to do
k'ri'ah (on one's knees, but body upright) and then hishtachavaya (full
prostrate on the group, arms and legs stretched out).
Seth Mandel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:06:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Avoiding Resume Gaps
This discussion reminds me of an entry a friend put on his resume. To
account for his study of gemara, he put under hobbies: "study of
Babylonian texts."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:41:14 -0400
Subject: RE: Carrying IDs on Shabbath
Carl Singer in v36n79 states
>>This is not an halachik response.
There are various ID holders that you can wear (usually around your neck
or like a shoulder holster -- under your shirt / blouse.) Since the
last thing you want to do is loose your passport (for example) when out
of the country -- they are probably a worthwhile investment 7 days /
week.<<
I just wanted to clarify that men are prohibited from wearing such an ID
holster (since they are not traditional mens-garb). However the
prohibition is Rabbinic (Since this is not the traditional way to hold
ids). Therefore a competent Rabbi might decide in a particular case and
based on specific circumstances that it is permissable to violate this
Rabbinic law to carry ones id.
Women however may wear ornaments -- so one solution is to make the id
holster decorative.
The reason I made the above points is because there are reasonable
circumstances where one does not really have to carry ones id (despite
the state law). Therefore one must seriously examine if it is necessary
to violate a Rabbinic law
Russell Jay Hendel;http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yeshaya Halevi <chihal@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 14:14:05 -0500
Subject: Geosynchronous Orbits and Shabbat
Shalom, All:
Oy. All this logical discussion of whether a day is truly 24
hours or longer or shorter -- depending upon one's spatial/geographic
position -- just made me remember that Braysheet (Genesis) states that
God created various things such as dry land, animal life, aquatic
creatures etc., and the periods of creation are defined as one day. When
I (allegedly) grew up in the 1950s and early '60s, the Torah use of the
word "day" was understood to be literally 24 hours.
However, as science (including evolution) became accepted even
in many Orthodox circles, we were told that this does not conflict with
Torah because in the actions of Braysheet one "day" really means one
"era," even if that era is millions of years. Indeed, this thought is
found in Rambam, The British Chief rabbi Joseph Hertz and others.
This being the case, it seems that a day is not necessarily 24
earth hours. Thus, we go back to the original question: in a
geosynchronous orbit, what constitutes a day in terms of davening
(praying), Shabbat etc.
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi
<Chihal@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:24:40 -0400
Subject: RE: Munax Mahpach-Special Tune
In M-J V36#88, RJHendel wrote:
> (My brother, the Honorable Neal Hendel of Beer Sheva once pointed out
that the tune resembles a Mayrchah Kefulah--everyone I have spoken to
agrees with this but I have not seen it explicitly in any book) <
He's right, at least for the Yekkish mercha k'fula that I'm used to
intoning, but the m.k. I've heard in non-German-minhag shuls doesn't
sound at all like the m.k. I know&love.
> Consequently it would violate the known classification to read a munax in
an elongated manner. <
I've seen some posts in this thread (perhaps also by RJH) make what I
consider artificial distinctions between a mafsik [pausal] and m'shorais
[connective] based on the #measures or the ending note(s). Where I come
from, when one pauses after reading a word, one is saying that said word
was graced with a mafsik, and when one doesn't pause before continuing
to read the next word, one is saying that the word is graced with a
m'shorais -- the tune one uses shouldn't affect how one breaks p'sukim
into phrases based on their mafsikim. This basic rule is as true for
Eichah (or any reading from NaCh) or the other "special"-tune Torah
readings as it is for the "normal" Torah-reading tune
Insofar as the different Munach tune used when the next ta'am is a
certain m'shorais (be it a Mahpach or a Zokaif [looks like a Munach,
comes before Zokaif Koton]), the rule above applies just as it does for
a "regular" Munach: don't pause once you're done with the tune. A Yekke
m.k., as noted, starts off sounding like a special Munach and then
continues for another number of musical notes (to me, it sounds a bit
like a Shalsheles in reverse), but it's still a m'shorais and the korai
shouldn't pause after he's done singing it.
All the best from
Michael Poppers via RIM pager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Caren and Steve Weisberg <nydecs@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:18:29 +0300
Subject: Re: Pshat and Drash
I would like to add the following idea that I've developed over recent
years and have shared it at times. But I've never really heard any
reactions to it, ie. whether it's nonsense, the obvious or a worthwhile
addition.
The point I am raising is to answer the problem as to why Pshat is
ignored when it comes to halacha l'maisa. This question is a strong one,
especially if one considers Pshat the primary intended meaning. It is
because of this question, btw, that in yeshivasha circles pshat is
rarely taught. And it is the reason why later meforshim like Malbim,
Ktav V'Kabala, Torah Tmima, worked so hard to prove that drash really is
Pshat. (This was inspired by what I learned from Shalom Carmy in Intro
to Bible, 1975.)
So, in short, how does one relate to Pshat from a halachik vantage
point?
I once heard in the name of the Rav that while we don't pasken according
to some view on any given issue, we still study it. Why? Because it's
still an article of Torah, in Brisker speak, a "cheftza shel Torah". And
that is the meaning of "eluh v'eluh divrei Elokim chaim."
I think Pshat should be approached the same. It's a cheftza shel Torah
but not the way we act, ie. pasken.
FWIW.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 07:49:30 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Reason for a Mitzvah
I daven at a Chabad shul. A while back we had a sicha in which the
Rebbe (or one of his antecedents, I don't remember which) said that
hassidim should strive to view all mitzvos as chukim and do them not for
any reason or benefit, but solely because HaShem commanded them. He
said that even one says, "We don't know the reason for this mitzvah, but
I will do it anyway because I assume they all have benefits, albeit
unknown" then we are not truly treating them as Chukim, because we are
doing them for a reason other than obediance to HaShem.
A few weeks ago the rabbi was discussing the halachos of the three weeks
of mourning before Tish B'Av, one of which was not wearing new clothes.
I said that I'd heard that "new clothes" meant clothes that hadn't been
worn before. The rabbi agreed. I then said, "Suppose my ten year old
daughter wants a new dress. Would it be OK if she had the little
gentile girl downstairs put it on first?" The rabbi said, "Of course
not! That would violate the fundamental reason for the prohibition of
not wearing new clothes -- which is to deny ourselves pleasure during
this period! Would your daughter's pleasure really be any less if her
friend tried the dress on first?"
I replied, "Ah, but you're considering the reason for the prohibition,
and the Rebbe said we should strive to treat all mitzvos as Chukim --
laws which we obey without any thought of reason or justification. If I
treat this as a halacha we do for no reason other than HaShem's command,
then as long as my scheme doesn't technically violate G-d's command
(i.e. the halacha), there's NO REASON not to go for it!" :-)
Needless to say, the rabbi was not impressed with my "chiddush"!
Frank Silbermann <fs@...> New Orleans, Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:44:20 +1000
Subject: What have we come to?
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
> I went into a baguette store in Me'ah She'arim today....I noticed a sign
> conspicuously posted above the two little tables: "Seating for men
> only."... and I left it.
> My question: where is there any place in Yiddishkeit (at least the
> Yiddishkeit I grew up in) for such blatant discrimination against Jewish
> women? Whatever happened to "B'Tzelem Elokim bara OTAM" (and not only
> the males of the species or the faith)?
Whilst in "the Yiddishkeit you [and many others] grew up in" - there may
not have been a total separation of the sexes, everyone knows that in
certain groups of Klall Yisroel - especially those who live in Meah
Shearim and surrounds - this is strongly endorsed. There is absolutely
no kavono in belittling females and they obviously observe the posuk
"kol kevudoh bas melech kpenimo"
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 01:29:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Yehoshua Bin-Nun
>From: <EG718@...>
>The "p'shat" that I heard (from Rabbi J. Love?) is that it is easier
>phonetically to say "Bin-Nun" than "Ben-Nun"...but a sweet "d'rash" that
>could serve to arouse a debate of some sort is that "Bin" is used to
>imply that while Yehoshua was the son of Nun biologically, he was really
>to be considered the Ben of Moshe, his teacher (based on the principle
>that someone who educates someone else's son is considered as though he
>parented him)...
Of course, neither of these 2 reasons explain the only other person in
Tanach referred to with "bin" instead of "ben" in Mishlay 30:1, "Agur
bin Yakeh". Rashi and others try to explain "bin" from "binah". Ibn
Ezra points out with a few other examples that "bin"="ben" (but this
still doesn't explain why in a few cases "bin" is used).
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital,Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph 773-880-4187; Fax 773-880-8226
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 36 Issue 95
