Volume 47 Number 35
Produced: Wed Mar 23 6:34:24 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Folding the Tallis on Shabbos
[Simon Wanderer]
Hallel and Purim
[Tal Benschar]
Lubavitch and Gurary
[David Eisen]
Minyan for Megillah reading
[Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
Not drinking on Purim
[Akiva Miller]
Quick Review of BGD-KFT rules (Ps 150)
[Russell J Hendel]
zaycher vs zecher
[Michael Poppers]
zecher/zaycher
[Ed Goldstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Simon Wanderer <simon.wanderer@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:27:34 -0000
Subject: Folding the Tallis on Shabbos
>From: Steven Oppenheimer <oppy49@...>
>This answers the issues of hachana (preparing for a weekday) and folding
>a garment on shabbat. This is allowed because he is protecting his
>property and not preparing for chol (weekday). Folding is permitted to
>allow him to bring the tallit back in a comfortable maner (by placing it
>the tallit bag) that will not damage (wrinkle) the tallit.
would it be permitted to fold the Tallis upon returning home after
'wearing' it back home in an area with no Eruv?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tal Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:48:51 -0500
Subject: Hallel and Purim
I heard this past Shabbos, but did not have a chance to confirm inside,
that the view of the Meiri is that in a city where there is no megillah,
the tsibbur should recite hallel, based on the view in the gemara that
reading the Megillah is a form of Hallel.
The quoted psak to do so on Shabbos seems only a short extension of that
view. We cannot lein because of gezeirah de Rabbah, so we can recite
Hallel instead.
Tal Benschar
Clifton, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Eisen <davide@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:31:10 +0200
Subject: RE: Lubavitch and Gurary
Can someone please provide additional information concerning this
matter; specifically:
A. Who was the plaintiff and who was the defendant? It sounds from the
above that Habad was the plaintiff.
B. Did the plaintiff try to sue the defendant before a Din Torah? If so,
before which Bet Din?
C. If the plaintiff indeed tried to sue the defendant before a
particular Bet Din, did it receive a Ktav Seruv (i.e, Writ of Refusal)
from such Bet Din, thereby enabling it to halachically seek justice from
a secular court?
D. Did the defendant argue that the presiding court was not qualified
and/or did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter?
E.Can someone send the URL with the court decision or send me by e-mail
or fax (+972-2-623-9276) a soft copy?
KT u'b'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen, Adv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <frimea@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:35:05 +0200
Subject: Re: Minyan for Megillah reading
> While on this sort of subject, I have been told that in order to be able
> to recite the blessing after the Megillah one needs 10 people to be
> present, and that women count towards this number, i.e. it's 10 people
> and not 10 men. Does anyone have a source for this?
> Immanuel Burton.
See "Women's Megillah Reading," Aryeh A. Frimer, In "Traditions and
Celebrations for the Bat Mitzvah," Ora Wiskind Elper, Editor; Urim
Publications: Jerusalem, 2003; pp. 281-304. PDF file available online
at: http://www.mail-jewish.org/Women%27sMegillaReadingArticle.pdf Note
93 which cites the following references:
R. Mas'ud Raphael Alfasi, Resp. Mash'ha deRabvata, addenda at end of II,
sec. 689; R. Joseph Hayyim, Resp. Rav Pe'alim, O.H. II, sec. 62;
R. Moses Hayyim Lits Rosenbaum, Sha'arei Emet, Hilkhot Megilla, sec. 4,
Hemdat Arye, sec. 4, no. 5; Hug haArets, sec. 3; R. Joseph Hayyim
Sonnenfeld, Resp. Salmat Hayyim, I, sec. 101; R. Tsvi Pesah Frank,
Mikra'ei Kodesh, Purim, sec. 35 and 50, note 3; R. Avraham Yeshayahu
Karelitz, Hazon Ish, O.H. sec. 155, no. 2; R. Isaac Halberstadt, Shenei
Sarei haKodesh, p. 16; Purim Meshulash, sec. 2, nos. 8 and 9 and
addendum thereto; R. Hanoch Zundel Grossberg, Iggeret haPurim, first
edition, sec. 7, no. 2, second edition, sec. 8, no. 3; Resp. Yabia Omer,
VIII, O.H. sec. 23, no. 27 and sec. 56, end of no. 4; R. Ovadiah Yosef,
Likkutei Kol Sinai, sec. 23, p. 47; Yalkut Yosef, V, Hilkhot Mikra
Megilla, sec. 7, p. 284; Kitsur Shulhan Arukh Yalkut Yosef,
O.H. sec. 692, nos. 4 and 10; Resp. Tsits Eliezer XIII, sec. 73;
Resp. Rivevot Efrayyim, VIII, sec. 274, no. 2; R. Moshe Shternbuch,
Resp. Teshuvot veHanhagot, IV, sec. 177, no. 2; R. Joseph Shalom
Elyashiv (personal written communication to Aryeh A. Frimer, 27 Adar
5754, March 10, 1994); Sefardi Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, cited
in Lu'ah Dinim uMinhagim, Israeli Chief Rabbinate (5757), p. 122;
R. Joel Schwartz, Adar uFurim, sec. 8, no. 5, par. 2 and 3 and note 11;
Halikhot Beita, sec. 24, nos. 17-21 and notes 33, 34, 44 and 48; Hilkhot
Hag beHag: Purim, sec. 8, no. 13 and 14, note 32 and addendum to sec. 8,
no. 13, note 31, p. 218; Chief Rabbis of Ma'ale Adumim Joshua Katz and
Mordechai Nagari, Ma'alot, no. 185, Parshat Tetsave 5756, Halakha
Sedura, sec. B, no. 5 and conversation with Dov I. Frimer (March 23,
1996); R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, Tsibbur Nashim biKri'at haMegilla,
Keshot, 4 (Adar II/Nisan 5755), sec 14, pp. 8-10, reprinted in
Resp. Benei Vanim, III, sec. 7; R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, Equality Lost:
Essays in Torah, Halacha and Jewish Thought (Jerusalem: Urim
Publications, 1999), pp. 54-65; R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, "Keriat
haMegilla al Yedei Nashim - haMahloket eina be-Halakha," HaTsofe, 14
Adar 5759 (March 2, 1999), p. 9
Other posekim dissent; see R. Shlomo Kluger, Hokhmat Shelomo,
O.H. sec. 689, no. 5; Kaf haHayyim, O.H. sec. 690, no. 120; Arukh
haShulhan, O.H. sec. 690, no. 25; Resp. Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura
Tinyana, I, O.H. sec. 550; and R. Moshe Feinstein as quoted by R. Dovid
Katz, "A Guide to Practical Halakha - Chanuka and Purim" (New York:
Traditional Press, 1979), VIII, Laws of Purim, sec. 14, no. 15, p. 134;
R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach cited by R. Nahum Stepansky, veAleihu Lo
Yibol, I, O.H., sec. 431. R. Raphael Evers, Resp. vaShav veRafa, O.H.,
sec. 31 suggests that the minhag is to be stringent. Surprisingly, in
Halikhot Shlomo, Hilkhot Tefilla, chap. 23, Dvar Halakha, no. 3 and note
13, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach maintains that while women count towards a
minyan for reading the Megilla on Purim meshulash, they do not recite
"Ha-rav et riveinu." This is also the position cited by R. Yeshayahu
Shapira, Tseida laDerekh, (Jerusalem: Machon Zomet, 2001), Chap. 67,
secs. A1, C1 and C2, pp. 157 and 158. Note, however, that both Arukh
haShulhan and R. Feinstein, like many other leading posekim, maintain
that the HaRav et riveinu benediction can be said even in the absence of
a minyan; see infra, note 91.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:05:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Not drinking on Purim
bsbank posted <<< I attended a Purim seudah at Telshe Yeshivah in
Cleveland ... I clearly recall HaRav Gifter, ztz"l, telling me that the
mitzvah of "Ad lo yada" was "Ad, aval lo ad bichlal." >>>
Having so much Hebrew is acceptable on some other email lists, but I
think that for MJ this should get translated, especially in view of this
being a public safety issue. So, here goes, with some extra words in
brackets:
... that the mitzvah of "[Drink] until you can't tell the difference
[between Cursed is Haman and Blessed in Mordechai]" was "Until, but not
including [that point]."
The Hebrew word "ad" and the English word "until" share the same
ambiguity. In both languages, it is often important to specify whether
one means "up to and including" or "up to but not including", because
without such an explanation, many people will mistakenly think that the
other one was intended.
In other words, if one actually reaches the point where he can't tell
the difference between Cursed is Haman and Blessed in Mordechai, then he
has gone too far, and the mitzvah is to stop just short of reaching that
point.
I have heard this exact same point from many other great rabbis as well,
that if one does try to reach that point, then he has misunderstood the
actual intent of the Gemara which defines the drinking in those terms.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:22:02 -0500
Subject: RE: Quick Review of BGD-KFT rules (Ps 150)
This is to answer Deb Wenger and give a brief review of the BGD KFT
rules.
There are six letters in Hebrew: Beth-Veth, Gimel-Jimel, Daleth-Thaleth,
Kaph-Chaph, Pay-Fay, Tauv-Thauv which have both hard and soft
pronunciations. Thus a Beth with a dot is pronounced "buh" while a beth
without a dot in it is pronounced "vuh". (In passing most modern Jewish
communities only observe the two pronunciations on Beth-Pay-Caph-Tauv
but not on Gimel-Daleth)
The rules governing these 6 letters are named by the acronym of the 6
letters involved: BGD-KFT. The full rules **do** exist but are quite
complicated. The following simplified version will help most people and
cover 80-90% of the cases.
First (And this is not always stated): The rule is a function both of
the word and of the grammar of the sentence it sits in. One must be
aware that the cantillation marks in the Bible function grammatically.
Certain cantillations are considered PAUSAL--that is they indicate
pauses in the sentence while other cantillations are considered
CONNECTIVE (That is they indicate liasons).
For example the first sentence of the Bible (in English!) is cantillated
(in both English and Hebrew) as follows: In-the-beginning, God created,
the heaven, and the earth. Here each comma and period corresponds to a
pausal cantillation; all other cantillations are connective. As a
general rule a cantillation is pausal if either the phrase requires a
pause OR if the words are very big and require time to
breathe. (Alternatively one can list the cantillations that are pausal
such as end-verse, mid-verse, zakef, pasthah, revii, etc).
These connective vs pausal cantillations hold in both the Psalmic and
biblical literature. Let us now review the laws of BGD-KFT. (a1) If the
BGD-KFT begins a word (or comes after a closed syllable inside a word)
then it is cantillated hard; (a2) provided that the preceding word did
not end in one of the letters Aleph, Hey, Yud, Vav. Hence in the first
chapter of Genesis we have Al-Penay (Gn01-02) or Bayn Haor (Gn01-04).
If the preceding word ends in Aleph-Hay-Yud-Vav then we do as follows:
(b1) if the preceding word has a pausal cantillation then again the BGD
KFT is hard (b2) but if the preceding word has a connective cantillation
then the BGD-KFT is soft.
Using rule (b) we can understand Ps 150. Ps150-02 uses a CONNECTIVE
canitllation on haleluhu and hence the beth is soft (VigVuRoThauv) while
Ps 150-03 uses a pausal cantillation on haleluhu (Haleluhu, BeThayKah
Shofar) and hence the Beth is hard.
The above two rules (a and b) are typically called the BGD-KFT rules.
However there are 11 exceptions to rule (b) (Which I will not fully go
into here). Here are some simple examples: Rule (b) does not apply if
the preceding letter is a pronounced vav (such as chatzarothauV
Bithilah). Other exceptions deal will accent shifts and other such
matters.
Believe it or not there are actually reasons for the exceptions and the
(b) rule--but again I will not go into them here (unless other readers
ask for a synopsis).
Hope this brief indication helps
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:26:54 -0500
Subject: Re: zaycher vs zecher
In M-J V47#32, DrMShinnar responded:
> Someone wrote
>> That the sound of a tzaireh is not 'ay' doesn't follow from the 'yud is
silent' answer. The yud is 'silent' because a tzaireh followed by a yud
sounds the same as a tzaireh not followed by a yud, regardless of how
the tzaireh itself is pronounced/sounded. <<
> IMHO, you misunderstand the position of rabbenu Avraham ben harambam....
<
I appreciate the elucidation of the position of RAvBRaMBaM, but IMHO you
misunderstood the point of "someone" (me). The sugya that Joshua
Hosseinof noted can be explained by the "yud is silent" answer of
RAvBRaMBaM even according to those who pronounce tzaireh as "ai" rather
than "eh": the Gemara is listing phrases where the pronounced consonant
of the one word's final syllable could be merged into the initial
consonant of the following word, and there is no pronounced consonant in
"b'nai" because its yud is silent, i.e. the word would be pronounced
exactly the same way even if the yud were not present. My response to
Joshua simply was that he could not prove from that sugya that tzaireh
is pronounced "eh," and, WADR, that response applies to the 2nd argument
of RAvBRaMBaM, too.
All the best from
Michael Poppers via RIM pager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <bernieavi@...> (Ed Goldstein)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:41:39 -0500
Subject: Re: zecher/zaycher
Having been a ba'al kriah in the shul of the Rav ztl in Boston, I can
tell you his unequivocal position was that you read the pasuk one way
and repeat it the other immediately. BTW he also did this with
Yisachar/Yissasschar.
And since it's Purim I will also advise that he said that 'haman' be
read twice EACH time...once with gragerring and once without.
Rabbi Ed Goldstein, Maimonides '71, Woodmere, NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 35
