Volume 51 Number 63
Produced: Wed Mar 15 21:05:58 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aguna question
[<ERSherer@...>]
Common Mispronunciations
[yakir]
David is correct
[Jeanette Friedman]
Dialects vs. mispronounciation
[SBA]
Do khasidim these days use "rufen" for "invite?"
[SBA]
Kitzur not halacha
[Shoshana L. Boublil]
New Israeli Educational Stamps Posted Online
[Jacob Richman]
Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman--do we fulfill our
[Alex Heppenheimer]
Washing Clothes on Rosh Chodesh
[Carl Singer]
Zecher - Zeicher (was: K'Omrom - B'Omrom?)
[Alex Heppenheimer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ERSherer@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:24:28 EST
Subject: Re: Aguna question
No, the idea is not crazy, but I can see a court refusing to
entertain a case because it might involve the court in determining
religious issues. Is the refusal to give a get a tort or is it a breach
of a contractual obligation contained, if not explicitly, then by
inference, in the document he delivers to her under the chuppa?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yakir <yakirhd@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:35:58 +0200
Subject: Common Mispronunciations
Don't know if it has been mentioned, but in my experience the following
will catch quite a few people (It caught me)
In the Amidah (regular or repitition):
"Modim anachnu Lach, "
the next word is ? (especially the first syllable).
Now look it up!
Purim Sameach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:10:11 EST
Subject: David is correct
>>>David wrote:
>Is this really the Jewish nation you want to belong to? Where the
> community actively hates and punishes everybody whose Shabbos
> observance is less than perfect? I sincerely hope not.
>And I ask;
>Is this vituperative language necessary?
>Exactly which community is it that 'actively hates and punishes
>everybody whose Shabbos observance is less than perfect'?
>Just because you disagree with someone's understanding of halocho, does
>that give you the right to describe him with abusive language?<<<
What vituperative and abusive language is there in David's quote? There
is NONE. He makes a serious and valid observation. That this valid rebuke
is dismissed as vituperative and abusive--considering some of the posts
vis a vis women and the "other," whoever the "other" of the moment is on
the list--only underscores the correctness of what David said in the
first place.
Jeanette Friedman
Married PMW
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:51:58 +1100
Subject: Dialects vs. mispronounciation
From: Carl A. Singer <>
> We had a gentlemen in our shul whose pronunciation of
>the brachas for an Aliyah was "elokaynee ... ha-oy-lum" (To me) from him
>that was fine -- it reflected the authentic dialect that he grew up with
>some 70 years ago in Europe.
>The judgmental me would find this same pronunciation improper coming
>from a twenty-something who grew up and was educated in a main-stream US
>yeshiva.
Unless, that is the nusach of his father.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:31:09 +1100
Subject: Do khasidim these days use "rufen" for "invite?"
From: Meylekh Viswanath <>
>>From: SBA <sba@...>
>>He approached the BB Mechuten, gave him a hearty Mazel Tov and wished
>>him all the best. As he finished giving his Brochos, the Mechuten
>>turned to him [RAH] and said: "Keiner hot eich nisht gerufen" ["Nobody
>>called you!!].
>
>Very interesting, but at least to my knowledge, "invited" is translated
>as "farbeytn" or in some circles, "ayngeladen." "rufen" would not,
>normally, mean "invited." Rather, it would be like using "likro"
>instead of "lezammeyn."
>
>Do khasidim these days use "rufen" for "invite?"
From: <ERSherer@...>
> "Rufen" means "called". The call (telephone) might include an
>invitation or may involve no more than to wish a mazeltov.
I have had several people make similar comments.
'rufen' may indeed not be the correct translation of 'invite', but it
seems to be used by the vast majority of today's Yiddish speakers
[though not Yiddish scholars..]
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:25:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Kitzur not halacha
> From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
> Avi Feldblum stated in mail-Jewish Vol. 51 #57 Digest:
> and Michael brings a number of sources that do not hold by the
> aforementioned Kitzur's position, including some from YU, NCYI,
> Aish Hatorah and Chabad,
>
> These are not exactly halakhic sources. I did not see that Michael
> brought any pesaq halakha that counters the Mishna Berura. MB 55:46-47
> enumerates the types of `aveirot that disqualify one from being counted
> in a minyan.
This is one case where Sephardic psika (halacha LeMa'ase) is wonderful.
Tonight, my husband and one of his older brothers took turns reading the
Megillah at their parents home, as they've been doing for the last few
decades. What is different is that this brother is not considered
religious.
One of my SIL who was present was astonished at how well he read the
megillah, and commented. This brother replied -- well I studied in
Yeshiva.
One of the nice things, as far as I am concerned, is the experience that
you can always find a minyan. Many times, it would include people who
you wouldn't consider religious (they don't wear a kippa), but they know
the tefilla by heart better then most.
The Sephardi experience is very different from the Ashkenazi. In many
areas, there was no Haskala or Reform, so these issue didn't impact on
psika as much as they did in Sephardi areas.
The result is that many Sephardim will put on Tefillin every morning;
keep kosher (at least in their homes); keep the holidays and Niddah, but
they will consider themselves, despite all this, as secular or perhaps
"traditional".
In Sephardi psika, except for an actual Apikorus, every one else can
join in a Minyan. That is actually one of the strengths of the Sephardi
heritage, and why so many who left the fold, are now returning without
many of the problems facing Ashkenazi secular Chozrim BeTeshuva.
So, B"H that someone wants to join a Minyan. Encourage him. Show some
tolerance to him, and I'm sure Hashem will show tolerance to us.
Shoshana L. Boublil
Purim Same'ach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:50:25 +0200
Subject: New Israeli Educational Stamps Posted Online
Hi Everyone!
I scanned and posted on my website the new Israeli stamps that were
issued in February 2006. I included the stamp itself, the first day
cover, and an English and a Hebrew flyer about the stamp.
- Ezer Weizman 1924-2005
- Industry in Israel
- Israel Post
- Children of America Paint Israel
- Chabad
The new stamps are located at:
http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/stamps/index-2006.html
Happy Purim,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman--do we fulfill our
I thank Avi for his defense in MJ 51:59 of my posting in reply to
Dr. Hendel. A couple of additional comments:
> The second item Alex responded to was your statement on what the
> "real" reason why people read the 10 names along with the person
> reading the megilla even though they do not have a kosher
> megilla. What Alex does say is that based on the opinion of the
> Rogatchover Gaon, as quoted by R' Teitz, there is a halachic reason
> for doing so, and the basic presumption is that the reading is
> proper. So there is a source for the congregation reading the names in
> a case where the reading is done properly.
It actually means even more than that, IMHO. Given that it's established
halachah (690:4 - which I cited in my previous post) that reading from a
nonkosher Megillah is invalid, then following Russell's idea - that the
real reason for reading the 10 sons is because the baal korei most
likely hasn't enunciated them properly - may actually lead to the
listener not being yotzei where they might have otherwise done so; and
it can never confer any halachic benefit, unless the listener is
actually holding a kosher Megillah.
Consider this scenario:
The listener (who has a printed or otherwise nonkosher Megillah) reads
the 10 sons in an undertone. He or she then figures that there's no need
to bother paying attention to the baal korei's reading of the 10 sons,
"since anyway he'll probably end up slurring or otherwise mispronouncing
it, and after all, the real reason I just said it to myself is indeed to
guard against that possibility." Well, now the baal korei does manage to
croak out the 10 sons (whether in one breath or not - but at any rate,
enunciated correctly); our listener hasn't fulfilled their obligation,
though, because he or she hasn't heard it from a kosher Megillah!
Whereas by following the Rogatchover's explanation (or for that matter,
by not saying the 10 sons at all, if that's the listener's custom),
there's at least a reasonable chance (and, according to this
explanation, apparently almost a certainty) that he or she will be
yotzei the basic obligation of hearing the Megillah via the baal korei's
reading.
> The issue of what is preferable in a congregation where you do not
> have a person capable of reading the megilla properly while saying the
> 10 names of the sons of Haman in one breath, is not directly touched
> on by Alex. The only point of possible reference is the opinion of the
> Rama that while it is preferable to read in one breath, it is still
> valid if not.
Indeed. As a practical matter, of course it's perfectly true that a
bedieved obligation (to hear all of the words) trumps a lechatchilah one
(to say the 10 sons in one breath); so if a baal korei knows for a fact
that he doesn't have enough lung power to enunciate the words clearly in
one breath (and there's no one else available to lein), then by all
means he should say the 10 sons in as many breaths as necessary.
The question is, though, just what is necessary, and what trumps
what. It's very nice if a baal korei can manage the 10 sons with full
trop and phrasal pauses, in one breath, and I salute someone like
Russell who is able to do all of that. However, we still need to ask:
are all of these details on the same level halachically? If not, then
what's Russell's source for the idea that the "in one breath"
requirement is less important than the trop or the pauses, and that it
should be sacrificed in their favor?
Avi also wrote:
> As I have stated in the past, I strongly disagree with your
> [Russell's] last statement quoted above, that if you do not know the
> reason for a psak and have your own strong counter arguement, you may
> be "obligated" to follow it. You are obligated to follow the psak of
> your posek / Rabbi / Moreh Halacha. If you have reached the level of
> psak yourself, and the issue was one that is not halacha pesuka, there
> may be cases for a few among us that a strong enough counter arguement
> may obligate us in practice, but I would view that as very uncommen.
To which I would add, too, that it's becoming for anyone, whether a
posek or not, to not dismiss out of hand reasons that were advanced by
previous (or even contemporary) posekim, but rather to try and
understand them (and certainly add one's own understanding and opinion -
and raise questions and objections - as well, but qualified as such
rather than as the real truth). Note what Chazal (Berachos 4a) say -
with reference to Moshe Rabbeinu, no less! - that it's better to be
tentative rather than to declare things in absolutes.
A freilichen Purim to all,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:53:17 -0500
Subject: Washing Clothes on Rosh Chodesh
From: Carl Singer <>
>> we announce when Rosh Chodesh is -- important because davening changes,
>> certain work is prohibited (washing clothes as an example.)
>
>Washing clothes is prohibited on RC?
As far as I know, washing clothes is among several melachas that women
refrain from on Rosh Chodesh.
Sources anyone?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:58:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Zecher - Zeicher (was: K'Omrom - B'Omrom?)
In MJ 51:58, Asher Grossman wrote:
> Along the same vein, I've heard a Ba'al Koreh read Zecher and Zeicher
> when reading the Leining for Purim (Vayavo Amalek), as well as when
> leining it in Parshat Beshalach - simply because he is already an
> octogenarian and gets confused.
While the following probably isn't relevant to your baal koreh, it's
worth pointing out that there does exist a minhag (Chabad; I don't know
if there are any other communities that do this) to read Zecher-Zeicher
in Beshallach as well. In Sefer HaMinhagim (the official compilation of
Chabad customs), the Lubavitcher Rebbe cites the following sources for
this: the notes at the end of vol. 4 of Ketzos HaShulchan (by R'
A.C. Naeh), and a Chassidic discourse by R' Shneur Zalman of Liadi
(Boneh Yerushalayim, sec. 44), in which he associates the two
vocalizations with two aspects of the defeat of Amalek, one (represented
Kabbalistically by the tzeirei) that depends on our actions, and the
other (represented by segol) which must be left completely up to Hashem
to handle.
In any case, as the author of Toras Chessed (cited in Sefer HaMinhagim
there) said about this: "Whether zecher or zeicher - just so long as
[Amalek, and everything it represents] is properly erased!"
Kol tuv and a freilichen Purim,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 63
