Volume 45 Number 42
Produced: Sun Oct 31 8:01:56 EST 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Adon Olam and Yigdal
[Larry Israel]
clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"
[Lipman Phillip Minden]
Davening with others -- was -- clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"
[Carl Singer]
Desert Island
[Tzvi Stein]
Electricity on Shabbat (2)
[Ira L. Jacobson, Avi Feldblum]
Funeral Customs
[Abie Zayit]
Honey
[Israel Caspi]
Kabbalat Shabbat
[Boruch Merzel]
Kiddush
[Mona Berdugo]
Lulav (2)
[Eliezer Wenger, Chaim G Steinmetz]
Petah Tiqwa and Jerusalem minhagim
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Pregnant Women at Funerals
[David Mescheloff]
Shabbat work
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Talmud torah and reading aloud
[Alan Rubin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Israel <VSLARRY@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 04 22:10:01 +0200
Subject: Adon Olam and Yigdal
Why are Adon Olam or Yigdal said at the end of Shabbes and Yom Tov
evening and morning prayers (or for that matter, every morning at the
beginning of services)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lipman Phillip Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:32:47 +0200
Subject: Re: clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"
Nathan Lamm wrote:
> [...] mentions the practice of a shamash saying shemone esrei privately
> so he can announce a change. How then does he fulfill t'fila b'tzibur?
I summarise from several simonem in the Worms minneg buch, including R'
B. Sh. Hamburgers valuable notes:
Boys under bar mitzve announce "Roshchoudesh!" on both days, if
applicable, in maarev between chatzi kaddish and shumenesre. The Mahril
comments this is good, so that the shames needn't be mafsek between
geule and tefile. For the shaale, though, the chazen made the
announcement, maybe because the boys weren't used to it. The Divrei
Kehilles wonders about Frankfurt's minneg (concurring with minneg
Oustraich, the predecessor of minneg Poulen) that the shames is the one
to announce and not the chazen, explaining himself that the shames in
theory might not join the tziber and say geule and tefile afterwards,
though in fact, he didn't. Actually, they obviously didn't see the
hefsek as a problem, and the ancient Frankfurt minneg was just like in
Worms, as the Noueg ketzoun yousef writes: It is the custom for the
shatz to announce between the kaddish after Yir-u eineinu and the
shumenesre "Shaale!" and there is no matter of hefsek in this."
Lipman Phillip Minden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:13:12 -0400
Subject: Davening with others -- was -- clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"
It seems this discussion has broadened to some of the distractions /
challenges of davening with others -- perhaps because we are a more
mobile society -- we and our fellow daveners likely have not all grown
up davening together in the same shule since youth -- so minhagim,
acceptable practices, pace, volume, etc., all vary.
I'm quite fortunate in that I've found a small (15 - 25) person Shabbos
morning minyan that I'm fairly comfortable with -- most of the daveners
are regulars, I sit next to someone whom I've known for 20 + years, etc.
Even so -- it seems that there are several distracters / complaints
listed in recent postings:
1 - different nusach / minhagim of davening
2 - talking, coming late, etc.
3 - davening aloud and (possibly) out of synch with the group
I'd be interested in how others perceive distracters and how individuals
/ congregations deal with these.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:06:36 -0400
Subject: Desert Island
Hypothetically, what would be the halacha if an unmarried Jewish man and
woman found themselves stranded on a desert island, or in an area with
no Jews and no prospects of leaving? Could they get married without
kosher aidim (witnesses)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:07:16 +0200
Subject: Re: Electricity on Shabbat
On a very large power system, people are always turning things on
an off at all times. It is very likely that at the exact same
time when you turn something on, someone turns something off. The
net effect is no change to the output of the generators for
switching on small loads. So it isn't a "psik raisha".
In the real world, things never occur at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. At best
there will be only a few seconds or even a fraction of a second between
one operation and another. So that speaking precisely, nothing is ever
turned on at just the same time that something else is turned off.
At the same time, probability may predict that all the myriad operations
cancel each other out if they are random, but the use of such devices as
heaters and air conditioners, not to mention people (or Shabbos clocks)
turning on and off lights at similar times, means that the load
increases and decreases significantly over the course of the day.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004
Subject: Re: Electricity on Shabbat
While Ira is correct that in any individual case, there is not exact
canceling out, from a halachik perspective it would seem to me that the
question is likely to be, what is the probability that my individual
action is going to cause a change in the state of the system that will
require an individual to do an action that will involve chillul
shabbat. If the answer, due to the net effect of all the inputs to the
system is that the probability is minimal, then we clearly do not have
"psik raisha".
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <oliveoil@...> (Abie Zayit)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:06:10 +0000
Subject: RE: Funeral Customs
Keeping sons from accompanying the body for burial is <<<halachikly
questionable>>> because it is a Mitzva min HaTorah for children to be
involved in their parents' burial, while minhag Yerushalayim is based on
a kabbalistic tradition.
At least that is what I heard from Rav Lichtenstein (prior to his
parents' passing) who said that mourners should tell the Chevra Kadisha
to allow them to fulfill their obligation. I do not know what he
actually did.
Abie Zayit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:21:21 -0500
Subject: Honey
rp (<chips@...>) wrote:
> Which brings to my mind the fascinating question of: Why is
>honey kosher at all?...I actually do not believe that honey would be
>considered kosher if it was "discovered" after the time of the Neviim. I
>do not doubt that it is indeed kosher, as Yehonoson ate it , and from
>the comb itself no less.
FWIW, I learned that the honey mentioned in the Torah was almost always
date honey, not bee's honey. I also learned -- from a reliable Orthodox
source (who probably does not want to have his name mentioned in a
public forum such as mail-jewish) -- that our forefathers did not
correctly understand (forgive the heresy) the biological process by
which bee's honey is produced. For sure, they knew that the bee was
somehow involved in honey production but had they understood that the
honey is actually produced in and expelled from the bee's body, it would
have been judged to be non-kosher, just like any other food (milk, eggs,
etc.) that comes from a non-kosher animal. (Which begs the question of
why, now that we do understand the process, we ciontinue to cinsider
bee's honey to be kosher. Sort of gives "minhag avoteinu b'yadeinu" a
new dimension!?!?)
--Israel Caspi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BoJoM@...> (Boruch Merzel)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:19:48 EDT
Subject: Re: Kabbalat Shabbat
Bob Werman
> The GR"A, z"l, did not recite kabbalat shabbat in his shul, of about 30
> daveners. Some say he said it at home. In his case, as a strong
> proponent of the Zohar and other Kabbalistic works, his reticence was
> certainly not because of its Kabbalistic origin. He is rumored to have
> said that it was not part of the t'filla b'tzibbur.
This is the reason why the Shliach Tzibbur leads Kabbalas Shabbos from
the central Bima rather than from the Amud where he normally would lead
T'filos. This is a public demonstration that the Kabbalas Shabbos is
not to be considered a part of T'fila B'Tzibbur. Therefore, when it
comes to Maariv he leaves the Central Bima and leads the Maariv from the
Amud below as is proper for T'fila B'Tzibbur
Boruch Merzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mona Berdugo <yignmona@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:08:03 +0200
Subject: Kiddush
For those who hold that every adult male should say his own kiddush
because of "mitzvah bo yoter mibishlucho" why does the same logic not
apply for women? As I understand it women have the exact same
obligation as men when it comes to kiddush on Shabbat (the Shulchan
Aruch even says that a man is yotsei if he hears kiddush from a woman)
so why should she have to settle for hearing it from a shaliach if she
is capable of saying it herself?
I ask because I've noticed that many women who grow up in religious
homes are trained to think of kiddush as being a "male thing" and feel
uncomfortable saying it themselves, even if there is no man around.
This often leads to them either not making kiddush when they should
(like a woman who wants to eat something Shabbat morning before her
husband comes home from shul) or going to unnecessary difficulties to
hear it from a man (like going to a neighbor for kiddush if her husband
is away.)
I can understand arguing that if one person will say kiddush for the
entire family that it should be the husband/father, but if we are
encouraging all the men to say it for themselves, why are women
discouraged?
Mona Farkas Berdugo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliezer Wenger <ewenger@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:43:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Lulav
Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>> writes:
> Eliezer Wenger mentions that minhag Chabad is to pick up the esrog
> later. I recently read that this developed because the sixth rebbe was
> too ill in his later years to hold both lulav and esrog for too long,
> and so only picked them both up for the actual waving.
While that theory may sound appealing, I am sorry to say that it does
not hold water for one simple reason. The Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Shneur
Zalmen the founder of Chabad and who lived 5 generations earlier than
the sixth Rebbe already wrote ths procedure of holding just the Lulav
while saying the Brochos in his Siddur when discussing the Arba Minim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim G Steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:44:38 -0400
Subject: Lulav
You are confusing holding it for the whole duration of Hallel (a
relatively long time) and holding it for the brocho. The Chabad custom
of picking up the esrog after the brocho is clearly spelled out in the
halochos in the Siddur of the baal Hatanya.
Chaim Gershon Steinmetz
<cgsteinmetz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:16:53 +0200
Subject: Re: Petah Tiqwa and Jerusalem minhagim
Batya Medad said on Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:27:41 +0200, in response to my
question:
> Since Petah Tiqwa was founded by Jerusalemites, Petah Tiqwa follows
> Jerusalem minhagim. However, when it comes to funerals, it seems that
> NO Jerusalem minhagim are followed. Any ideas why not?"
I thought that they followed the Jerusalem custom of immediate burial,
even late at night, rather than waiting till morning.
Recently many people in Israel, including but not limited to Jerusalem
and Petah Tiqwa, have begun holding burials at night. (Many, of course,
do not.) However, the conduct of the funeral itself in Petah Tiqwa does
not follow the minhagim for the conduct of the funeral in Jerusalem.
Any idea why?
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Mescheloff <david_mescheloff@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Pregnant Women at Funerals
Batya Medad seems to equate cohanim and pregnant women standing at a
distance during funerals. For cohanim there is an explicit source in
the Torah (let us ignore for the moment views of rishonim and acharonim
concerning the status of this matter for cohanim today) for their
standing at a distance. But what source is there for pregnant women not
attending a funeral?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:21:15 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Shabbat work
One should check if all the Shabbat workers are really needed, or do
they need the overtime pay. Ashdod port is closed on Shabbat, many of
the workers are religous, but Haifa and Eilat work. However, in the past
they would close on the workers holiest day = may day. I read that 65%
of the Israeli workers work on Friday and 15% work on Shabbat, and that
does not include the military.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Rubin <alan@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:51:28 +0100
Subject: Talmud torah and reading aloud
Could anyone confirm, with a reference if possible, whether there is any
respected halachic opinion that to fulfill the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah
one has to actually say the words aloud?
I must say that if there were such a opinion it would seem to have some
odd consequences. So for instance attending a shiur or listening to
one's chavrusa learning would not count as properly as fulfilling the
Mitzvah.
Thanks.
Alan Rubin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 42