Volume 45 Number 22
Produced: Sat Oct 16 22:03:16 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aleinu on Yom Kippur
[Nathan Lamm]
Beautiful Theory on Chapter Divisions
[Russell J Hendel]
Kiddush Customs
[Martin Stern]
Molad and Leap Second
[Richard Schultz]
More Kiddush and Zimun (2)
[Yakir, Avi Feldblum]
Shalom Aleichem (Was: Aramaic in Private Davening)
[Nathan Lamm]
Shomea K'oneh
[Eitan Fiorino]
Songs For Hakafot (2)
[Joel Rich, Shoshana Ziskind]
T'filos Ha-Shachar
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Aleinu on Yom Kippur
Andrew Marks writes:
> My understanding is that since [Aleinu]'s already in davening on yoma
> (and rosh hashannah), it just wasn't added at the end.
This wouldn't explain why it *is* said on Rosh Hashana, the day when it
originally appeared. The likely answer is the length of Yom Kippur
services and the lack of gaps between them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:53:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Beautiful Theory on Chapter Divisions
In the past few issues several discussants have found flaws in the
theory I cited, quoted in the introduction to the KORAIN TANAKH, that
shows that the 293 Biblical chapters correspond to the 293 days
available in a solar year. There are 3 criticisms allow me to answer
each one.
First many people point out that there are not exactly 293 days in a
year. Let me strengthen the question: Why use a solar year (365). Why
not use a Jewish year (354 or 383 days). Quite simply this type of
problem happens all the time in syllabus construction...you make a
beautiful syllabus and then there are snow days, sick days, the students
need an extra day etc. So syllabus theory suggests having
flexibility. Quite simply then I point out two places where the Rebbe
has flexibility in this chapter @ day approach: (A) The repetition of
the 12 Prince sacrifices in Number 7 are identical (Except say for the
1st two). Thus we have a flexibility of about 10 days. (B) The verses of
the the so called SONG (Ex 15) can be studied one a day or one row a
day. Both these approaches allow flexibility for using lunar vs solar
years, taking care of holiday overlaps and allowing time for student
needs.
Next: One person asked why we take off Shabbath. This is actually advice
brought down in Jewish law: One should preferably not study new material
on sabbath but rather review the weeks learning. Here REVIEW is defined
in terms of NEWNESS (So if you have a yearly cycle then you shouldnt
embark on something new in the cycle).
Finally one person asked about the inclusion of Tisha Beav in the
exceptions. Obviously the temple was destroyed several hundred years
AFTER the receiptof the Torah. But several other tragedies happened on
Tisha Beav. In particular Nu14-01 explicitly states that rebellion of
the spies reached a climax on THAT NIGHT---The Talmudic Rabbis were not
being Midrashic...they were noticing the DEFINITE PARTICIPLE (THAT NIGHT
--literally THE NIGHT) and said that this rebellion happeend on Tisha
Beav.
But there is something beyond the 3 answers I gave. What about the basic
idea?! I have suggested that God intended that we learn ONE CHAPTER PER
DAY. This is a pedagogic approach....I have heard NO COMMENTS on
this...is it a sound idea...would it be productive..would it increase
retention? Note that this is different than the PAGE A DAY approach to
Talmud (Many have criticized the PAGE A DAY approach as learning to
much).
I for one would like to see this thread continued and disuss pedagogy.
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:15:39 +0100
Subject: Re: Kiddush Customs
on 14/10/04 10:34 am, Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote:
> My practice is that if I am a guest, and they offer me the option to
> make my own kiddush, I very often take them up on that, but for a reason
> that I did not notice anyone yet mention.
>
> Namely, some people mumble the words and/or mispronounce them so badly
> that at times I'm not sure whether I'm yoztay or not. Sometimes it is
> even so bad that I'm sure I'm not yotzay.
I did allude to this when I mentioned in Volume 45 Number 10 that even
according to Minhag A "The only possible exception would be a very large
gathering in a hall so large that some people might not be able to hear
the baal habayit."
Where the host is inaudible for other reasons, the same should apply.
However, there may be a problem of 'malbin p'nei chaveiro - embarrassing
the host' in such circumstances. The morning kiddush, which really only
requires the berakhah on wine, the pesukim being merely customary and
can be omitted if necessary, can be said without drawing attention to
one's action. It is only the evening one which could be
problematic. Perhaps one should consult ones rav as to what to do if one
normally follows Minhag A.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:23:25 +0200
Subject: Molad and Leap Second
In mail-jewish Vol. 45 #19 Digest, Mike Gerver (<MJGerver@...>) writes:
> Since hours, minutes, and chalakim are all defined halachically in terms
> of the solar day, rather than in terms of the modern scientific
> definition of the second (based on the frequency of a certain spectral
> line of krypton 86),
This is not correct. The official definition of the second (from
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html) is
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
In 1960, the definition of the *meter* was changed from the distance between
two marks on a prototype (measured at 0 degrees C) to a certain number of
*wavelengths* of a spectral line of krypton 86. This definition was
changed in 1983 to "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light
in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." This change
was made because it became possible to measure the speed of light with
greater precision than the precision of the measurement of wavelength of
the spectral line. Note that this definition means that if our current
measurements of the speed of light turn out to be wrong, it will be the
length of the meter that changes, not the accepted value for the speed of
light, since the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light and not the
other way around.
Richard Schultz
<schultr@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yakir <yakirhd@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:59:50 +0200
Subject: More Kiddush and Zimun
This seems to have been discussed from all directions but I thought I'd
add my shnei zuzei (2 cents worth).
It might be relevant to look at the other end of the meal - zimmun.
Looking at the sources (which of course I am not doing at the moment) -
it seems that the "mezamen" was supposed to recite the Birkat HaMazon
aloud ("b'rov am ..." etc) making it a communal event. With time,
because of problems with "being motzi" other people, this changed. I
suppose people were then more attuned to "being motzi" both as a
motzi-er and a motzi-ee than we are today. There are technical reasons
for this but perhaps also nowadays we are encouraged "to do our own
thing".
I have been known to engender various responses (including polite
indifference) when I make a point, if given the honour of zimmun, of
reciting the first bracha of Birkat HaMazon aloud.
-- Yakir
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:59:50 +0200
Subject: More Kiddush and Zimun
Re Yakir comment above about reciting the full first beracha of Birchat
Hamazon aloud when he is given the honor of Zimun, my understanding is
that this is correct and required, since the entire first beracha is
considered part of the birchat hazimun. However, I have not looked this
up in a long time, so I figured this was a good opening to post this and
I figure I'll get comments / sources from the list.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Shalom Aleichem (Was: Aramaic in Private Davening)
It should also be pointed out in this context that there are issues not
just with the third verse ("Barechuni") but also the fourth,
"Tzeitchem." After all, why bid the angels farewell when they've just
arrived? Some substitute "K'Tzeitchem, L'Shalom"- "When you leave, do so
in peace." Others eliminate the last two verses altogether.
There's also an issue with the first verse: In the last three, the term
is "Malachei HaShalom," but in the first, it's "Malachei HaSharet," the
Ministering Angels. Some authorities have wondered how we can presume to
hold ourselves on a level to speak to these high angels, and substitute
"Malachei HaShalom." Others, seeing so many issues (plus the overall
issue of addressing angels), omit Shalom Aleichem altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:08:18 -0400
Subject: RE: Shomea K'oneh
> From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
> <snip>
> There are rishonim who hold that it is not permitted to
> listen to kaddish while saying the shmoneh esreh, in the same
> way that it is not permitted to speak while praying!
I've not really ever looked into this but have often wondered why, if we
do hold that "shomea k'oneh" is taken literally, why then do we pause
during the amidah to listen to kedusha (if one has not finished by the
time the chazan has reached kedusha)? Unless it is the case that there
is a machlochet rishonim about the nature of shomea k'oneh. The
rishonim cited above (any references?) obviously hold that listening
with intent is literally the same as speaking. There are presumably
other rishonim who understand this differently, so how do they
conceptualize shomea k'oneh? If shomea k'oneh really isn't literally
the same as speaking, then how is one actually yotzei through this
mechanism a mitzva that is performed entirely and only by speaking?
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:36:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Songs For Hakafot
What's to be concluded from all this? I guess that people sing
songs because they like the words and music, not because they pay
too much attention to the meaning...
-Dave
2 cognitive dissonances:
adam doeg.... (man worries about his money but not his wasting of days)
played to a happy upbeat tune
chazak - quoting a pasuk IIRC where 2 were encouraging each other to idol
worship (please don't stone me IIRincorrectly)
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana Ziskind <shosh@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:54:19 -0400
Subject: RE: Songs For Hakafot
On Oct 14, 2004, at 6:23 AM, David Curwin wrote:
> - My Rosh Yeshiva, Rav David Bigman was opposed to the popular >
> (Chabad?) song Mashiach, Mashiach, since it put too much emphasis on
> man, and not enough on God.
Now this I don't understand and I'm not saying this because the song has
a shaychus to Chabad [:
If its the song I'm thinking of, it's sung by Mordechai Ben David (who
by the way is a Gur chossid) and the words are from Rambam. Its the ani
maamin about Moshiach. So what's the problem? That he sings the world
"Moshiach" repeatedly?
> What's to be concluded from all this? I guess that people sing songs
> because they like the words and music, not because they pay too much
> attention to the meaning...
Its true. Also a somewhat recent Miami Boys Choir song which is still
really popular is "Vayeha Machanecha Kadosh" which my husband thought
was extremely funny because its about digging latrines away from the
camp. (I still like the song, but its funny)
Shoshana Ziskind
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:57:21 +0100
Subject: Re: T'filos Ha-Shachar
on 14/10/04 10:34 am, Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...> wrote:
> There are many minhagim, particularly in yeshivos, that do not say
> everything between Brachot and Pisukei D'Zimrah. (Some actually begin
> with Barchu, but say everything privately.) The yeshiva I first went to
> skipped straight to Rabbi Yishmael. I recently got a copy of the United
> Synagogue (UK) siddur, which does not include the parsha of the akeda or
> the ketoret at all, and only includes what you wrote above (plus the
> tamid). I believe the Gra did not say korbanot.
The custom of the (Orthodox) United Synagogue in the UK follows what was
described in the foundation document of the London Great Synagogue as
the custom of the Polish Jews of Hamburg, i.e. the minhag of North and
East Germany where Parashat HaAkeidah was not recited and the only
korbanot said were Parashat haTamid, Eizehu Mekoman and the Baraita
deRabbi Yishmael. This is still the custom of Jews originating from
Germany. If I am not much mistaken Parashat HaKetoret and the associated
Beraitot were adopted by East European Jews under kabbalistic influence
since the Zohar speaks highly of this practice.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 22
