Volume 44 Number 61
Produced: Thu Sep 2 17:53:04 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aseres Yemei Teshuvoh Utterances in Chazoras Hashatz
[Mordechai]
Beer and Yayin Nesach
[Frank Silbermann]
Building Campaign Details?
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Chofetz Chaim name change
[Ari Zivotofsky]
Coffee
[Alan J. Wiener]
Falafel / Schwarma stand
[Carl Singer]
Ger
[Perets Mett]
Nusah Questions
[Martin Stern]
Query about R. Yohanan b. Zakkai
[Yehonatan Chipman]
Singing Voice as part of Tefilah
[Chana Luntz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:15:19 EDT
Subject: Aseres Yemei Teshuvoh Utterances in Chazoras Hashatz
<< From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
> The custom in Lita was, and in the Litvishe yeshivos is, for the
> congregation _not_ to say Zochreinu and Mi chamocha in the repetition of
> the Shmone Esrei, although Uchsov and B'sefer are said. Zochreinu is
> not said because it contains a Shem Shamayim ("l'ma'ancha Elokim
> chayim"), and Mi chamocha is not said because it is not a prayer for
> anything.
I would note as well, that al pi minhog HaGR"A (Maaseh Rav 204, cited in
siddur Eizor Eliyohu, revised edition, Jerusalem 5760, p. 41), not only
the first two utterances are treated as stated above, but rather, * none
* of the aseres yemei teshuvoh additions in shmoneh esreh are recited by
the congregation during chazoras hashatz. They are the province of the
shatz exclusively.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:31:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Beer and Yayin Nesach
> From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
> I think it is clear that Stam Yanum was instituted as a device to limit
> serious social interactions. I would be interested to see sources that
> it is related to the concern that the people will get drunk and we are
> worried about that behaviour. If my memory is correct that it was
> instituted as a social interaction inhibiter, because all serious social
> interaction would involve wine, as there were few other acceptable
> drinks at the time, then it is totally unrelated to whether the fathers
> "exchanged daughters" with or without permission.
Given that beer has been familiar since ancient times -- including
ancient Sumer, Babylon, Egypt and Rome (do a web search on "History of
Beer") -- I would have to assume that if Chazal did not put the
prohibition on beer in the first place then the motivation for Yayin
Nesach must have been for something far more specific than limiting
social interactions in a general sense. What are the exact words used
in the Talmud?
(And Chazal's distinction between wine and beer would logically extend
to the distinction between wine versus hard liquor and mixed drinks.)
Frank Silbermann, New Orleans, Louisiana <fs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:04:07 +0300
Subject: Building Campaign Details?
Recently, I've seen a number of signs in Jerusalem, asking for
contributions toward the building of the "Armon" (i.e., Palace) of the
Melech HaMashi'ach. The ads all show pictures of the Lubavicher Rebbi.
Does anyone have any more details about this? I'd be most interested in
knowing the location of this proposed building.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Zivotofsky <zivotoa@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:27:03 +0300
Subject: Chofetz Chaim name change
Nathan Lamm wrote:
> "The Chofetz Chaim's legal surname was Poupko, his mother's maiden name,
> although he went by his father's name, Kagan (i.e., Cohen, or Ha-Kohen)."
I would be interesting in seeing a source for this. He is a footnote I
once wrote to a paper with a comment from prof. SZ Leiman:
It seems that his family name was Kagan but some of his sons went by
Poupko. It could be that he had two last names because his mother
remarried. The Chofetz Chaim's father Reb Aryeh Ze'ev HaCohen died at
the age of 46 in 1849 when the CC was 10. His mother Dubrosha (d. 1893
aged 74) later married Reb Shimon. Might it be that Kagan was his
father's name (kagan is a kohen name) and Poupko was his step-father's
name? On his stationary it said Kagan (see p. 542, 620 in Yoshor,
English) and he was called by a Russian officer Rabbi Kagan (Yoshor
p. 541)). But his sons went by Poupko. Professor S.Z. Leiman disagreed
with this theory and notes that he has never once seen the CC use the
name Poupko in many letters (unpublished in the Vilna archives and
documents of the Radum yeshiva) he has read. Rather he suggests that it
was a common phenomenon in eastern Europe for children to take a
different name because of conscription and residency laws. He says we
know nothing about the stepfather's last name. A famous example is the
famed rov of Kovo, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, whose son, the next
rov of Kovo, was named R. Zvi Hirsch Rabinowtiz (b. 5608[1847]).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan J. Wiener <ajwiener@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:13:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Coffee
>> For a long time i have wondered about a similar problem. Many Jews buy
>> and then drink coffee where it is sold (by non-Jews). I am unsure of
>> how this is justified (other than the fact the many seem to do it and
>> i have not heard it called problematic). See Pischei Teshuva on Yoreh
>> De'ah 104:1. Is this discussed anywhere by poskim (in teshuvos,
>> etc.)?
>
> Beer or other alcoholic beverages are an issue for one of the reasons
> that wine is-that the intoxicating quality may lead to unwanted social
> closeness to nonJews. To the best of my knowledge, the only issue with
> coffee in poskim has been whether or not it's bishul akum.
Pitchei Teshuva (correct source is YD 114:1) cites two reasons to
prohibit non-Jewish coffee
1. It's analogous to bishul akum. In his time coffee was a delicacy
(oleh al shulchan melachim).
2. Socializing over coffee could lead to intermarriage.
In our society a $4.35 cup of coffee is certainly oleh al shulchan
melachim, and an invitation for a cup of coffee is shorthand for "let's
have a quiet talk." Maybe Pitchei Teshuva is right-- there are reasons
to be lenient, but this is something that a baal nefesh, a careful
person, should avoid.
Alan Wiener
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:22:53 -0400
Subject: Falafel / Schwarma stand
> About how parve is falafel when shwarma's sold at the same stand? In
> Israel, at least, many of the places provide a "salad bar" and even if
> they don't pieces of meat can fall in the salads, and the serving
> implements touch the meat.
Two thoughts emerge
1 - why go there -- are there other convenient choices or restaurants --
or is this the common practice everywhere. Given a choice of two
products one of which may be problematic and one of which is not ....
(or as in the liquor posts -- might you simply abstain.)
2 - what's the community standard (again, linking to other posts) -- if
you eschew this schwarma place and proclaim that it's because "I don't
like the way they handle the fleishigs near the salad" are you sending
yourself to chumra-ville or yahara-ville .
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:36:09 +0100
Subject: Ger
Nathan Lamm wrote:
> Shimon Hubberband was writing from first-hand knowledge of life in
> Poland and with the frustration he felt as he saw the Jews of Warsaw
> exterminated around him; I believe his opinion should be given
> considerable weight. (The quote appears in the Ringblum archive; it
> has been translated as "Kiddush Hashem.")
Please check your facts!
The Imrei Emes took over the leadership of the Gerer chasidim in 1905.
Rabbi Huberband was born in 1909
When reporting the change in davening times in Ger, he could not have
been writing from first-hand knowledge.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:13:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Nusah Questions
on 31/8/04 9:56 am, Elazar M Teitz <remt@...> wrote:
> The custom in Lita was, and in the Litvishe yeshivos is, for the
> congregation _not_ to say Zochreinu and Mi chamocha in the repetition
> of the Shmone Esrei, although Uchsov and B'sefer are said.
This is also the custom of the German Ashkenazim.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:30:54 +0200
Subject: Query about R. Yohanan b. Zakkai
Question: There is a story in the gemara that when R. Yohanan ben Zakkai
was dyoing his students came to take leave of him, and found him
weeping. They addressed him with a series of titles, including "amud
hazak" and "patish ha-yemini," and then asked rhetorically, "Is it
possible that someone like you fears the Divine judgment"? He answered
that there are two paths, one leading to Gan Eden and the other to
Gehinnom, and that he was not sure which is which.
Rav Soloveitchik once interpreted this in a shiur as expressing, in
retrospect, and decades later, uncertainty as to whether his choice of
"Yavneh ve-hakhameha" was the right one.
Please, does anyone know where to find this story? I tried both
asking several talmidei hakahamim and using the Bar-Ilan serach program
with every phrase I could think of, and came up empty handed. My thanks
and blessings in advance to anyoen who can give me an exact reference,
complete with page number..
Yehonatan Chipman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:27:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Singing Voice as part of Tefilah
Janice Gelb writes:
>Which, as usual, begs the question of why if the admonition is on the
>man not to hear the voice of the woman, it isn't the man's obligation
>to make sure he's not in range rather than the woman's obligation not
>to sing. I understand this for davening but it really bothers me for
>zemirot. There is as far as I know no obligation for men to sing
>zemirot.
Actually the same point can be made for davening - because there is no
obligation to *sing* during davening. In fact, traditional
litvishe/yeshivishe davening does not involve any singing by either sex.
And traditional chazzonus style davening, while it involves extensive
singing by the chazzan, does not expect any singing by anybody else,
male or female.
In general it would seem (at least in the Ashkenazi world) that that the
question has only really become an issue because of the increasing
prevalence of participatory singing "Carlbachesque" style davening. And
while there may be many reasons to value such davening forms in shuls
that hold by the Chida, ie that singing as part of davening is not
included within the prohibition of kol isha, I think one can seriously
query the appropriateness of adopting participatory style davening and
tunes that assume and encourage general participation in shuls where a
psak contrary to the Chida is held.
One is almost tempted to wonder whether a shaliach tzibbur who holds
that singing by the women in shul is kol isha and yet breaks into such
tunes is not involved in a form of lifnei iver (and I certainly do not
think it unreasonable for a woman to assume that if a shul is davening
using such tunes, that therefore the minhag hamakom is to allow woman to
sing).
> If so, the answer if the men present hold that even mixed voices are
>not permissible should be for no one to sing zemirot, not for the men
>to sing and the women to be forced to keep silent due to a stringency
>that is really on the men.
There is a lot of truth in what you say - except, and this is the big
except, most of the situations in which this occurs is where the woman
who is forced to keep silent is a guest in somebody else's home. And I
think it is a bit unfair to make demands on people in their own homes.
On the other hand, there is no requirement on a guest to accept a
shabbas invitation. There have been times when I have been alone in a
foreign city, and the only invitations for shabbas I have had were with
families exactly as you describe, where I would spend a good portion of
the meal trying to escape to the kitchen (and not being allowed to)
rather than have to sit there like an idiot while the men all sang and
the women of the household prepared in the kitchen.
And I decided fairly quickly that my oneg shabbas was enhanced far more
by my buying a take-away from somewhere, even if it was very simple, and
spending shabbas by myself than by accepting the invitation. On the
other hand, there were families, who held equally on kol isha, but who
did not sing, and for those I had no problem accepting an invitation
again.
A shabbas invitation is a gift, and people offer what they offer. It is
not appropriate to ask of them more than they are willing to give, but
you don't have to take the gift, and probably shouldn't if it wrecks
your oneg shabbas to the point that you would be happier alone. I never
felt the need to make a point about it, one can always find some way of
turning down an invitation (although it would also not seem wrong to
state, if pushed, that you would prefer not to take the invitation
because your oneg shabbas is better enhanced by being alone than by
having to sit silently during zmiros). If, on the other hand, you
really need that gift (you are stranded at short notice somewhere, for
example), it does not seem appropriate to demand that people give more
than they are willing to give, by giving up on their zmiros out of
consideration for their guest, just as you would not demand that they
give more than they are willing to give in other ways such as
financially or timewise.
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 61
