Volume 48 Number 17
Produced: Fri May 27 6:16:33 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Artscroll (3)
[Akiva Miller, Stephen Phillips, Ben Katz]
Counting for Minyan
[Jeanette Friedman]
Heinz Baked Beans (2)
[Stephen Phillips, Eliyahu Gerstl]
Peshe?
[Perets Mett]
Supporting shuls
[David Maslow]
Women with Small Children (3)
[Jeanette Friedman, Carl Singer, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:01:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Artscroll
As an example of errors in the Artscroll siddur, Martin Stern wrote
> ... Machzor for Pesach (Ashkenaz version). page 408, 610, 1006 has the
> words "retsei vimnuchateinu" to be added on Shabbat before melekh
> rachaman racheim aleinu ... At the very least it should state "in some
> communities this is added" rather than let it pass without
> comment...
Our rav, listmember Rabbi Elazar Teitz, has pointed out this error to
the shul many times.
Mr. Stern adds <<< In the Siddur p. 686 the phrase does not appear. >>>
I suspect that he was looking in a First Edition (1984) version of that
siddur, which properly omits those two words. These words, and the
directions to say them on Shabbos, DO appear in the newer editions of
the Artscroll siddur. It seems that they had the correct version, and
then decided to change to the other version.
The same situation exists for the first words which the congregation
says at the beginning of Birkas Kohanim on Yom Tov. The first edition of
their siddur begins with "v'se'erav alecha" (which I understand to be
the proper Nusach Ashkenaz), while the later editions and machzorim all
have "v'say'arev l'fanecha" (which I have heard was taken from Nusach
Sefard).
Artscroll has many many detailed seforim to their credit. It is my hope
that someday they will publish a volume which will explain the many
variant readings in the siddur, and how they decided on which one to
print where.
I am confident that at least some of the variations are due more to
marketing pressures than anything else. I'll give two examples:
In the Hebrew/English siddurim, after Yekum Purkan, Artscroll inserts
this direction: "In many congregations, a prayer for the welfare of the
State is recited by the Rabbi, chazzan, or gabbai at this point." Now,
it seems to me that this is sufficiently vague (no specification of
which "State" it's referring to, and it's only "many" congregations and
not all of them) that no one should argue with it. But the all-Hebrew
siddur leaves out this note entirely. And I must admit, from what I have
seen, if one goes to any shul at random, the ratio of Artscroll
All-Hebrew Siddurim to Artscroll Hebrew/English Siddurim will be a
pretty good predictor of whether or not that shul says any sort of
prayer for the State.
In the Hebrew/English siddurim, the text for counting Sefiras Haomer
ends with "la'omer". In the All-Hebrew siddurim, it ends with
"ba'omer". Why the difference? Both are Nusach Ashkenaz!
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:05:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Artscroll
> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> on 24/5/05 10:36 am, David Roth <davidyonah@...> wrote:
> I will just give two examples, one to the text of the tephillot and one
> to the notes, references to Machzor for Pesach (Ashkenaz version).
> page 408, 610, 1006 has the words "retsei vimnuchateinu" to be added on
> Shabbat before melekh rachaman racheim aleinu ... This error crept into
> earlier machzorim and was adopted as a consequence by many, but not all,
> communities. At the very least it should state "in some communities this
> is added" rather than let it pass without comment, just as it notes
> regarding Addir addireinu in Kedushah shel Mussaph on Shabbat Chol
> Hamoed. In the Siddur p. 686 the phrase does not appear.
It really depends which edition and version of the Siddur you are
talking about.
The first edition of the English translation contained the instruction
that "restsei vemnuchateinu" should be added on Shabbos. I'm not sure
about later editions, but I seem to recall that the Hebrew only edition
stated that "Some add" it.
I think that as each edition came out, people got on to Artscroll to
complain about a particular point which they then changed in a later
edition. I think also that different versions (mainly the English
translation and the Hebrew only) may have had different editors.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:13:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Artscroll
The error, pointed out by Mr. Stern, in my opinion actually
involves something much deeper. ArtScroll has put back into their
siddur many such errors that previous publishers had attempted to
correct. (Emden in his siddur, for example, cited the above error
pointed out by Mr. Stern. I am sure the ArtScroll editors knew this -
it is even in Birnbaum's introduction, and yet chose to ignore it.)
Another example (also cited by Birnbaum in his Introduction) is the
"toan acher" vs "toan echad" misprint in Rabbi Yishmael's middot, that
Birnbaum corrected based on Sifrei manuscripts that ArtScroll put back
in.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:07:37 EDT
Subject: Re: Counting for Minyan
>>>For starters, I would like some reason to believe that
they were Jewish.<<<
How do you propose to do that? Why would a non-Jew even bother ?
Chabadniks simply ask, "R U Jewsh? Why can't you?
Jeanette Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Heinz Baked Beans
This may well have been the case as the American Heinz Baked Beans with
the OU are readily available here in the UK.
To be fair to Stephen Coleman, however, he did say there was no Hechsher
on the baked beans he was being offered.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliyahu Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 07:36:35 -0400
Subject: RE: Heinz Baked Beans
But don't touch the Canadian Heinz beans as they no longer have a
hechsher. We in Canada have to import them from the U.S. and therefore
they're twice the price of Canadian Heinz here.
KT
Eliyahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:00:49 +0100
Subject: Peshe?
someone wrote:
> Also, one of Shalom Aleichem's books is called "Mottel Paysie Dem
> Chazzan's."
Oh dear! That's a man, not a woman. Peysi is just a form of the name
Peysakh - nothing to do with Peshe.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Maslow <maslowd@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:42:22 -0400
Subject: Supporting shuls
Carl Singer observed (MJ 48:7) that shuls are increasingly serving only
as a place for davening and less as a community center.
In Jonathan Sarna's excellent book, American Judaism, he describes how
synagogues in the US evolved during the early to mid-20th century, from
the European model of just a place for davening, to the synagogue/center
model promoted by Mordechai Kaplan, initially at the Jewish Center in
NY, and fostered by such organizations as Young Israel. This social
center concept across the spectrum of observance was promoted by a need
to associate with "family" in this "foreign land." Synagogue members
were often united by locale of origin, occupation or other unifying
factor.
I have also observed the return to shul for davening only and think it
can be attributed to many factors including:
1) We no longer feel so foreign that we need to use the shul as our
social center (minor influence).
2) Increasing numbers of orthodox shul members are baalai tshuvah whose
major social ties are to their rebbi or mekarev and they are not looking
for social interactions elsewhere.
3) Increasing numbers of orthodox shul male members have spent years in
yeshiva and kollel, and so they are not accustomed to the social role of
a synagogue.
4) Shuls are much more heterogeneous, which makes the members less
interested in socializing
5) Most of the non-tphilah-related activities of shuls were organized by
women who are now employed outside the home, or raising more children,
making such efforts more limited (major influence).
6) The move to the right has discouraged non-religious activities with
men and women participants
7) The dispersion of populations centers means people commute further to
work and spend more time visiting distant relatives, leaving less time
for shul socializing.
8) The increasing number of non-shul based community educational
opportunities and youth programs.
I cannot think of any reason beyond financial hardship, which I
recognize as valid, for not supporting a community shul that one uses
consistently for minyanim, or even attends on a frequent basis, say only
every Sunday morning. I seem to recall hearing that Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein has some tshuvot on this topic, and perhaps other will bring
them to the fore.
David E. Maslow
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:03:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Women with Small Children
Men (i.e. males) are obligated in communal prayer, women
(i.e. females) are not. While it is highly commendable for women
to come, this is entirely voluntary and should not be at the
expense of men being able to daven. Therefore in families with
small children who are too young to come to shul and participate
at any level, the mother should stay at home with them and not
expect the whole congregation to be disrupted.
How about a junior congregation? a play group in an unused space in
shul...to teach basic modeh ani while tati and mami daven? Innovative?
Nope. I went to junior congregation at Crown Heights Yeshiva, while my
dad was in the Agudah up the street. Guess what? There I learned how
people daven in most shuls in America, including the tunes to Aitz Chaim
Hee and Anim Zemirot, etc. The davening in the Co-ed yeshiva taught me
the structure of davening as a young kid. The Agudah never taught me
when to sit, stand, or anything else--not one whit of derech eretz for
davening. That I got from the modern Orthodox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:40:13 -0400
Subject: Women with Small Children
> Men (i.e. males) are obligated in communal prayer, women (i.e. females)
> are not. While it is highly commendable for women to come, this is
> entirely voluntary and should not be at the expense of men being able to
> daven. Therefore in families with small children who are too young to
> come to shul and participate at any level, the mother should stay at
> home with them and not expect the whole congregation to be disrupted.
Several thoughts here:
Agreed that the whole congregation must not be disrupted by children or
adults whose behavior is out of place. That doesn't automatically
translate to mothers must stay home.
If husband / Neanderthal has no regard for his wife -- like the
kollelnik who alleged that he couldn't take out the garbage as it was
zman bitul Torah -- then keep her at home, barefoot and pregnant.
Asking the mother to stay home with small children may, in effect, keep
her exiled from shul for as much as a decade if she (and her husband,
btw) are blessed with many children (not all at once :) -- although this
may not violate any halachic considerations re: her necessity to daven,
it sure as heck is a social problem. There are better solutions.
Hashkomah minyans allow both (husband and wife) to daven if they wish to
share child care and hubby goes to the early minyan. Other means --
baby sitting co-ops, in shul child care, etc., can be set up when there
is no hashkomah minyan.
My greatest concern with small children in shul is that they are there
too long. My wife, the educator par excellence, would gradually
increase the time our children spent in shul -- starting with coming for
the last strains of "Ayn Kelohaynu" and working to longer and more
meaningful experiences.
Disruption in services really depends on many circumstances. Adults
talking, children crying and / or running around, etc. all are
perceived differently. I somehow find a child wandering loose without
parental supervision (what I unkindly refer to as "shul orphans") to be
greatly disruptive. Whereas a child sitting next to his / her parent
even if talking / asking questions or munching on cheerios is a
beautiful thing. Children need to grow up in such a manner that they
are comfortable in shul and know why they are there.
Attitude is important -- without a doubt my granddaughter, now almost 9
months old only sings when she is in shul -- others may perceive it as
crying, but what do they know. Seriously, there are some parents who,
perhaps because they are used to their children's crying and tantrums,
seem oblivious to what their children are doing in shul -- which is a
problem. Similarly, there are grandparents who think that any utterance
from their grandchildren is beautiful and seem oblivious of the noise
their precious grandchild is making.
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 10:51:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Women with Small Children
I know of a number of families where the father goes to the hashkama
minyon so that he can help with the children during the regular minyon.
Of course, this is not an option in some communities and depends on the
particular minyon.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<Sabba.Hillel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 17
