Volume 57 Number 20
Produced: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:55:48 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Hareidi line
[Ariel Ozick]
Is "Nusach Ari" synonymous with "Nusach Sepharad" (2)
[Martin Stern Michael Frankel]
Issues with (Dis)Agreement with Rashi
[Russell J Hendel]
Minhag Eretz Yisrael
[Martin Stern]
Nusachim
[Rabbi Meir Wise]
Tashlich when there are no rivers or streams
[Martin Stern]
Viddui (Confession)
[Russell J Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ariel Ozick <ari@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Hareidi line
For the sake of argument, what's wrong with this halachically or morally?
No one is paying for a ticket. This is a flaw in the system of line waiting
that is setup by the bureaucracies - in theory everyone could do this.. I
recall at Misrad HaPnim in Jerusalem you're given a number by a clerk which
might mitigate this, and other offices can be by appointment only...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Is "Nusach Ari" synonymous with "Nusach Sepharad"
> I am not so certain that the Gr"a intended, or would have agreed, to abolish
> recital of "Baruch Hashem Leolam..." (the "fifth Beracha" of Arvit now
> almost universally omitted throughout Israel), as his student proceeded to
> do.
On a slightly tangential point the Baal Hatanya did abolish "Baruch Hashem
Leolam..." and this is one further difference between Nusach ha'Ari (Chabad)
and Nusach Sfard as practiced outside Israel where it is said except on Chol
Hamoed and Motsa'ei Shabbat and Yom Tov.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Is "Nusach Ari" synonymous with "Nusach Sepharad"
From: Zvi Greenberg <haroldzgreenberg@...>
...
5) special features - aids to pronunciation
In the Ha-Ari ZAL siddur there is an asterisk over a letter if it has a vocal
sheva underneath. However, there is no asterisk over the first letter of a word
if it has a sheva as (so I understand) the sheva there is always vocal.
so it is also confidently asserted in various leining guides. (i recall in
particular one put out by experienced baal qoreihs/baalei q'rioh from monsey
whose name(s?) i disremember). but the word "shtayyim" (two) and its variants
would seem a generally unremarked exception to the rule. there is a masoretic
note - noted in yeivin's movoh lammesoroh hattvronis (and skipping over the
fact that nobody today leins according to the rules of pronunciation set by the
baalei mesoroh who invented all this stuff)- that the sh'voh under the shin is
quiescent. and of course there is in internal clue that something unusual is
going on here - why the dogeish in the tof if the preceding sh'voh is truly noh?
(which led to the theory of the missing helping vowel, but that's another
story.) nor it should it be thought that identifying flavors of either sh'voh
or qomotz is not fraught with ongoing dispute, despite iconic assertions found
in many siddurim and tiqquns these days.
Mechy Frankel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 6,2009 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Issues with (Dis)Agreement with Rashi
A previous issue of mail-jewish asked the question "Can I dissent with Rashi." I
started to write a response but it took some time. Furthermore I began answering
a different set of questions: Can I agree with Rashi (if I don't understand
him). HOW does one disagree with Rashi.
Accordingly, while acknowledging the previous post, I am writing this post as a
standalone post and am entitling it "Issues with (dis)Agreement with Rashi and
other commentators"
In addressing the question "Can I dissent with Rashi" it is useful to a) break
the question into several related questions and also b) to give examples. First
I give a brief synopsis of this more detailed approach - then I defend each
particular idea with a Rashi example.I suggest that a) When one is a
student(Still learning Rashi methods) one should never disagree with Rashi b)
When one is reasonably proficient in all Rashi methods one may disagree with
Rashi. [This principle is consistent with rulings in the Gemarrah on when a
student can disagree; it is also consistent with common sense...if you admit you
don't know all Rashi's rules then how can you disagree with him. Indeed, you
don't know the reason he said something - indeed you just admitted not knowing
all the rules. On the other hand if you are proficient in all Rashi rules then
if a Rashi is stated you can certainly disagree if you have a better explanation
using Rashi's own methods(I who consider myself proficient with all Rashi rules
have never found a case like that but see below) In passing by the word
"proficient" I intend that upon hearing a Rashi a person can instantly show the
method involved and derive the Rashi.
In the previous paragraph I have introduced LEVEL OF SCHOLARSHIP as an issue in
disagreeing with Rashi. In this paragraph I would like to study the concept of
DISAGREEMENT. I offer the following ideas: A) It is prohibited to say you
believe Rashi if you can't defend him (You can say you believe there is some way
to justify him but you shouldn't lie and say you believe him if in your present
understanding the Rashi is incomprehensible) Indeed according to many
authorities, "flattery" (Chanifah) is a Bilbical prohibition. B) Even when
disagreeing with Rashi one most be careful whether the disagreement is with
Rashi's FORM vs. CONTENT C) Similarly when disagreeing with Rashi one must be
very careful to distinguish whether one disagrees with the EXCLUSIVITY of
Rashi's explanation or whether one accepts Rashi's explanation but argues there
are OTHER COMPLEMENTARY EXPLANATIONS simultaneously present.
In A)-C) I have laid down some modifications of HOW one may disagree with Rashi.
I now give examples clarifying these remarks. All the examples here may be found
on the Rashi website
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/by-verse.htm http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule.htm Many
interesting concepts may be found in my first Tradition article on Rashi
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rashi.pdf as well as a more recent article on Rashi
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/formatting.pdf.
The following is an example of principles A) and B).This example comes from the
Rav (Soloveitchick) and is NOT mine. It may be found at
http://www.rashiyomi.com/gn32-05a.htm. Rashi on Gen. 34:5 states that "Jacob
observed all 613 Biblical commandments because the text says he lived (GARTI)
with laban and the letters of GARTI when rearranged spell TARYAG, 613." The Rav
opened his remarks by stating "What is this? Is Rashi becoming a Chasidishe
Rebbe?" The Rav's sarcasm illustrates principle (A) that it is prohibited to
simply say "I believe in Rashi" or "I believe that because GARTI spelled
backwards means 613 therefore Jacob observed all 613 commandments." The trouble
with Rashi's derivation as stated is that it is not reproducible ....you cant
assume that every two words with equal gematria give rise to a correct Biblical
inference.
The Rav (and later his son pointed out to me that this is brought down by the
Chizkuni) explained Rashi's "real reason": "There are two words for "residence"
in Biblcia Hebrew: Yashav which means reside and Garti means "to stay over."
Jacob lived 20 years in a city, married two women and had 12 children and yet he
says "I stayed over with Laban" Such a choice of words reflects uneasiness and
unhappiness. Presumably Laban did not observe the Torah and therefore Jacob
regarded his stay there as temporary."
Having heard the Rav's explanation we might re-formulate it as follows: The
Rashi comment that Yaakov felt uncomfortable because he observed Torah while
Laban did not is correct. The literal Rashi explanation that this correct fact
may be inferred from the gematria GARTI TARYAG is incorrect. In other words we
have a right here to disagree with the FORM in which Rashi stated his rule - his
FORM used gematria. However the Rashi comment itself is correct.This example
also shows that sometimes an "absurd" Rashi may have a "correct straightforward"
justification. In such a case you SHOULD disagree with Rashi's form but you
should not because of that disagree with the Rashi comment itself.
For another example (again not mine but from commentators on the Midrash Rabbah)
where Rashi is disagreed in FORM, see my article on Biblical formatting with the
Gn09-12 example.
The following Rashi found at http://www.rashiyomi.com/gn25-22d.htm is an
illustration of principle C) above. Recall that Rivkah had a difficult pregnancy
and went to SEEK God. Rashi and Ramban seem to disagree on the meaning of the
phrase SEEK GOD. Rashi says "She went to the Beth Midrash of Shem/Ever" Thus
Rashi interprets SEEK GOD as meaning SEEKING PROPHETIC advice.
Ramban demurs. Ramban cites several verses where SEEK GOD means prayer.It thus
APPEARS that Rashi and Ramban disagree. In fact on my website I cite several
verses where SEEK GOD does mean
SEEK PROPHETIC ADVICE. But I then cite several verses where SEEK GOD means BOTH
seek prophetic advice and pray. In other words I do disagree with Rashi (as
literally stated) I disagree that SEEK GOD means EXCLUSIVELY seek PROPHETIC
ADVICE. I contend that SEEK GOD means a combined approach of PROPHETIC ADVICE
and PRAYER. This is not what Rashi says so I am disagreeing with him. But my
disagreement is on the CONTENT of what Rashi says but rather on its EXCLUSIVITY.
That is I contend that the verse means BOTH what Rashi says and ALSO what Ramban
says. I in fact believe that Rivkah first prayed for guidance and then sought
prophetic advice. (In fact I believe that both Rashi and Ramban believed this -
I believe that Ramban was not disagreeing with Rashi but clarifying him).
The above examples are enough for a short posting. What I wanted to do in this
posting is sharpen the readers eye on the concept of disagreement. The right to
disagree depends on one's level of scholarship. Furthermore disagreement can
take place in content, exclusivity and form. Finally I argue that agreement can
be as bad as disagreement.I hope the above examples increase one's appreciation
of Rashi.
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d. A.S.A. http://www.Rashiyomi.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Minhag Eretz Yisrael
> I am not so certain that the Gr"a intended, or would have agreed, to abolish
> recital of "Baruch Hashem Leolam..." (the "fifth Beracha" of Arvit now
> almost universally omitted throughout Israel), as his student proceeded to
> do.
Might I suggest that the G'ra may not have said B.H.L. because he took
rather longer to say Shema than the rest of the congregation and would not
have been able to finish in time to start Shemoneh Esreh with them, which is
the main obligation of tefillah betsibbur [public prayer]. Because of its
post-Talmudic origin it can be omitted in such a case of need.
Personally I have noticed that even those who take a very long time over
Shemoneh Esreh seem to say Shema much more quickly. I once saw the
explanation of this behaviour as being based on the distinction that the
former is us talking to HKBH and the latter His talking to us - people much
prefer to do the talking rather than the listening!
> If this is so, we would expect that the Gr"a *did* say B.H.L. (and aloud)
> whenever he acted as Sha"tz. I do not recall seeing anything explicit about
> that in Maaseh Rav.
If my conjecture is correct he would have done so especially if that were
the minhag hamakom [custom of the place[ in which he was davenning and it is
certainly not correct to change a fixed custom.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Meir Wise <Meirhwise@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Nusachim
Who says that "am ha-aretz" is a pejorative term meaning country
bumpkin? The biblical term does not have this connotation.
My Yemenite wife assures me that baladi means makomi ( here, local).
She does not know the term "kani" which sounds like pure Hebrew.
The Yemenite-Arabic word makani exists and means my place.
The Jews of the capital Saana where the bet din gadol sat were
considered to be the educated, high-society of the Yemenite Jews and
even they prayed baladi. They called themselves yehud al-balad locals
NOT yokels!
I repeat baladi means local ( the original nusach of the rambam and
the maharitz) shami means there ( Hebron, eretz israel where the
nusach sfard siddurim were printed and brought to Yemen)
Read the long introduction to the 5 volume set of
tichlolim (siddurim) Knesset hagdolah by the late Yemenite Chief Rabbi
of
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Mori Yosef Tzuberi zata"l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Tashlich when there are no rivers or streams
On Sat, Sep 5,2009, David Ziants <dziants@...> wrote:
> When tashlich is said next to a running kitchen tap, is it the water
> that comes through the pipe to the tap, or the water that runs down the
> drain, the "tashlich stream"?
> The fire hydrant gushing water out seems to be a better option than the
> above, as in this case the water really forms a stream running down the
> road, rather than down a drain (which is more artificial).
Since tashlich is a very late custom first mentioned by the Maharil (15th
century), and of unknown previous origin, I doubt if one need be too
bothered about not reciting it at all in the absence of suitable rivers or
streams.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 7,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Viddui (Confession)
A few issues back the issue of Viddui was mentioned as well as how often it is
said.
As a Chazan I always recite the entire Viddui.
However as an individual I only recite those portions of the Viddui that are
applicable to me. In other words I will skip such confessions as "incest,
adultery, theft etc" since they don't apply to me. The purpose of the Viddui as
I understand it is to provide a TEMPLATE so those who have particular sins
should know what to say.
Viddui is not a law of WORDS but of CONTENT. The shma is a law of words. Even
if you don't understand what you are saying there is a fulfillment of
recitation since by reciting it you are acknowledging the yoke of the kingdom of
heaven.
But Viddui is a law in content. The purpose of Viddui is not to recognize God.
The purpose of Viddui is to confess those particular sins that you actually did.
You dilute the viddui by inserting sins you didn't do - the confession begins to
lose meaning. It is as if you said "If I did anything to offend you God like
murder, incest and idolatry I apologize." That is not confession. If anything it
is insult - for you are asking God to forgive you without even taking the time
to identify what you have really done.
Rambam in the Laws of Repentance makes it clear that the Viddui is not
sufficient. You can't say the language of the Viddui "On sins involving theft"
and complete your obligation. You have to provide details - e.g. I made up a
deduction on last years Tax return of such and such an amount...and this is
wrong and I thank God for not getting caught but I will not do it again."
Anyway those are my views. I am cognizant that some authorities try to "justify"
the individual recitation of the entire viddui. But in my mind the arguments are
very weak and contradict the sources above.
A Happy and Healthy New Year to the Entire Mail Jewish Family
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d. ASA http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 57 Issue 20