Volume 59 Number 34 Produced: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:58:42 EDT Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Al Het [Ira L. Jacobson] Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no aleinu (4) [Chips Akiva Miller] Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no birkat hacohanim at mi [David Ziants] Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - selichot [Martin Stern] Brady Street Cemetery - Whitechapel [Shmuel Himelstein] Rabbinical headcovering? [Michael Gerver] Sunset Period - Neliah - Yom Kippur "closing" [Carl Singer] Versions of prayers and poems in our liturgy (2) [Ira L. Jacobson Akiva Miller] Yedid Nefesh [Alan Rubin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 05:01 PM Subject: Al Het Rabbi Moshe Sokol brings an insight into the confessional "Al Het." Al het shehatanu lefanekha beyod`im uvelo yod`im is traditionally understood as referring to sins of which we are aware and those of which we are not. The Birkat Hayyim, says Rabbi Sokol, interprets this as referring to sins where we know things that we need not know, and those where we don't know things that we should know. I feel that this is very much timely regarding the details of abominations discussed recently on Mail-Jewish at length. Just as I should feel guilty of having listened to a short description I heard many decades ago by an American of the Puerto Rican persuasion, who described his first sexual experience with a lamb. These are indeed abominations of which we have no need to learn their details. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= IRA L. JACOBSON =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ mailto:<laser@...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chips <chips@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 04:01 PM Subject: Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no aleinu At our minyan, we DO say Aleinu after Mincha and if there is a significant break between Musaf and Mincha we say Aleinu then too. (we always break between Mincha and Neillah) rp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 04:01 PM Subject: Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no aleinu David Ziants <dziants@...> wrote (MJ 59#33): > The first idea that I can think of is lack of kadish yatom [mourners' > kaddish]. Since the general custom is to have shir shel yom [= psalm of > the day] at end of shacharit [= morning service] (Rinat Yisrael > machzor [festival prayer book] prints it after shacharit even though > in the siddur [daily prayer book] it is printed after musaph), this > means that the only possibility of saying kaddish yatom on Yom Kippur is at > shacharit (there also exists points at beginning of shacharit, according to > my custom) . There are varying customs regarding the shir shel yom. Some, like David's shul, say it after shacharit, others after mussaf, and yet others before pesukei dezimra (preceded by anim zemirot). There is always the kaddish derabbanan after the braita of Rabbi Yishmael and a kaddish yatom after mizmor shir chanukat habayit in those shuls that say it (These may be the ones to which David refers). > The reason for this is because there is no alainu prayer after musaph, > mincha [afternoon service] nor ne'illa [finishing service on Yom > Kippur]. We are not missing out on alainu because we say it in the amida > at musaph. A reason why no alainu (discussed in past in mail-jewish) is > because originally the davening would be in shul without any "break", > or maybe a small break between musaph and mincha. ... David is correct in his surmise. In my old shul we said varying numbers of selichot in shacharit, mussaf and minchah depending on the length of the day in order to avoid any "breaks". I believe that this was the universal custom amongst Ashkenazim at one time. In the older German machzorim (and the Kol Bo Vilna) the selichot (numbered) were actually printed. Each year a card would be given out to inform people of the numbers of the ones that were to be said. Different places had different customs in this respect and the East European printers did not bother to include them. In most modern machzorim there is just a cryptic note (after ya'ale veyavo in shachrit and minchah) or after the avodah in mussaf "kan amru selichot" which tends to be ignored - hence their disappearance in most congregations. > Maybe we should be putting Alainu or a psalm at end of Musaph to > draw a Kadish Yatom; or maybe some learning (lacking pitum k'toret) to > draw a kaddish d'rabbannan. I cannot understand why Aleinu is not said if there is going to be a break between mussaf and minchah. I suspect that the reason is simply that the printers assumed a continuous davenning with no breaks, and therefore did not print it, and people just said what was in the machzor without thinking. > regarding a custom, that someone recently mentioned, when everyday arvit > [evening service] is said straight after mincha, and alainu is omitted > after mincha. This was the German custom so many shuls instituted a short learning session, or recitation of tehillim, between minchah and ma'ariv so that aleinu could be said after minchah. Martin Stern ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Art Werschulz <agw@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 05:01 PM Subject: Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no aleinu Hi. Regarding the fact that we don't say Aleinu on Yom Kippur during the day, David Ziants wrote: > We are not missing out on alainu because we say it in the amida at musaph. I don't know if that works as "the" explanation. After all, we say Aleinu during the Rosh Hashana mussaf, but we still say Aleinu at its "usual" place. Art Werschulz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> Date: Mon, Sep 20,2010 at 12:01 AM Subject: Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no aleinu David Ziants (MJ 59:33) raised several concerns about the lack of Kaddish Yasom (Mourners Kaddish) on Yom Kippur, except for at the end of the evening service and the very beginning of the morning service -- far unlike the rest of the year, when it is also said at the end of the morning and/or additional service, and at the end of the afternoon service. He asked: > With the importance that is sometimes put, that one kaddish is said for a > nashama [soul] at every tephilla [prayer service], how does the lack of > kaddishim on YK resonate with this? To me, the simplest response to this is the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein (in his Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah, vol 1, #254) which is that this Kaddish does NOT need to be said more than once a day. His proof is that the current practice of several people saying Kaddish in unison is a comparatively recent development; originally, only one mourner said each kaddish, and the several Kaddishes were distributed to the several mourners by lot. In such circumstances, Rav Moshe writes, "each person would say only one Kaddish per day, and sometimes he wouldn't even say one Kaddish, but most of the time he did say one Kaddish per day." It is worth noting that this responsum was addressed to a person who was employed to say Kaddish on behalf of people who had no children to say Kaddish for them. (I'd point out that I have seen advertisements for this service in several Jewish newspapers.) The questioner was asking Rav Moshe how many people he could hire himself out to. Following the logic I quoted above, Rav Moshe answered that however many Kaddishes he says on a typical day, taking advantage of whatever multiple minyanim are available, that's how many people he can say Kaddish for - and even if on some occasions he won't be able to say that many Kaddishes, that's okay. But Rav Moshe added an interesting point: (brackets are my insertions) "Even though the law is that one Kaddish is sufficient, if the relative who is paying the Kaddish-sayer thinks that he'll be saying *many* Kaddishes, then it could be that he is stipulating to pay only for *that* service [that of saying many Kaddishes], in which case [the Kaddish-sayer] might be stealing [by accepting payment for a service which he isn't providing]." At this point, I thought that Rav Moshe would suggest that the Kaddish-sayer might offer two services: a less-expensive once-a-day service, and a more-expensive multiple-Kaddish service. But that's not what Rav Moshe suggested. Rather, he wrote: "Therefore, it would be good to tell the relative who is paying, that he'll be saying Kaddish once a day for the [dead] relative, because more is unnecessary. And if this will be publicized, and become known to many people that he is saying only one Kaddish per person, then he won't need to make such an explicit stipulation any more, because it will be presumed to be known that one Kaddish is enough, unless stipulated explicitly." One might argue that Rav Moshe allowed this leniency (of just one Kaddish per day) only for a paid Kaddish-sayer, but would have encouraged an actual mourner to attend services several times a day, so that Kaddish could be said several times per day. But I do not believe Rav Moshe would have *required* this, for two reasons: First, because his logic is based on the original institution of Kaddish, in which a typical actual mourner would say Kaddish far less than three times a day. Second, because he is recommending that it should be publicized that paid Kaddish-sayers are on a once-a-day basis. surely Rav Moshe could have anticipated how this publicity might induce less-motivated mourners to skip some Kaddishes, but he did not address that, leading me to suspect that he felt this way for actual mourners as well. Akiva Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Ziants <dziants@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 06:01 PM Subject: Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - no birkat hacohanim at mi As a follow up to my previous two postings, a third anomaly in the Yom Kippur davening [prayers] according to Ashkenazi minhag [= rite emanating from European countries] that I can think of (this and my two previous postings are relating to the order of prayers in Land of Israel):- Mentioning the importance of birkat hakohanim [Priestly Blessing] in my previous posting - which is done at shacharit [morning service] and musaph [additional service] and also at ne'lla [finishing service on Yom Kippur] - it is not done though at mincha. With this in itself, I do not feel any inconsistency. Shacharit and musaph like every shabbat and yom tov. Ne'lla - a reason being I assume, that this is "ait rachamim" [a great time of heavenly mercy] and so an ideal time to receive birkat hakohanim. The point is that at mincha we have the place-holder "elokainu velokai avotainu" used as if there should be duchening [go up to the stage to bless] but no cohanim present (also used outside of Israel at shacharit as cohanim never bless then). Therefore why do we have this place-holder at mincha? If it is like a minor fast day, then why should the Cohanim not duchen? If mincha on Yom Kippur is not comparable to mincha on a minor fast day (for Yom Kippur is a happy day and Cohanim duchen at shacharit as well as musaph) then why have the place-holder? The shaliach tzibur [prayer leader] for mincha where I was on YK, is a cohen. He was about to omit "elokainu velokai avotainu" but was "corrected" by the heckling of a few members of the congregation and so he said it. By the way he said it, rushed and quietly, I could feel his discomfort and this is possibly because of the above contradiction. (Unlike Sephardi [rite emanating from Middle Eastern countries] practice, an Ashkenazi sha"tz [prayer leader] who is a Cohen interrupts his repetition to duchen with the other Cohanim.) He might have felt:- "why am I saying this - that warrants "kayn yehi ratzon" ["may it be his will (that it will come about)"] when I could easily be doing the real thing like I did at the other tephillot [=prayer services] and everyone answers 'amen' ". David Ziants Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 05:01 PM Subject: Anomalies in Ashkanazi Yom Kippur davening - selichot David Ziants <dziants@...> wrote (MJ 59#33): > The reason for doing this, is the importance that is put on saying > birkat hakohanim [Priestly Blessing] and this has to be before > sunset. > > Our machzorim developed in Europe, where the sunset period is longer, > and ne'lla had more time to be said. Moreover birkat hakohanim, did not > have the same importance as it is given to it now in Israel, where it is > done (in most parts) every day. The custom amongst Ashkenazim outside Israel is that birkat kohanim is only said in mussaf on Yom Tov (Some omit it when Yom Tov falls on Shabbat) - the reason for this is not entirely clear. On Simchat Torah some congrgations move it to shacharit because most people make kiddush before mussaf and there is a worry that a cohen may be somewhat intoxicated by then. Martin Stern ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> Date: Wed, Sep 15,2010 at 01:01 PM Subject: Brady Street Cemetery - Whitechapel I just noticed on an Internet site that the Brady Street Cemetery in Whitechapel, London, founded in 1811, was basically full by 1840, and to find more room they added four feet of earth and put in a second layer of graves. Thus one finds headstones back to back - the bottom layer and the top layer. And of course there is the cemetery in Prague which is claimed to have twelve layers of graves. Thus there are ample precedents for this, as proposed by some Israeli burial societies which are running out of space. We went on a walking tour of Whitechapel a few years ago, and the very knowledgeable (Jewish) guide mentioned that any cemetery in England which has not had a new burial for (I believe) ninety years may be reclaimed and used for any other purpose. As we were told, the cemetery in question was close to that ninety year limit without burials when a very prominent British Jew (a Rothschild?) was buried there, thus given the cemetery another ninety years. This brings to mind the fact that when I tried to take a bus to Meah Shearim today, I was forced to walk up Yechezkel Street as there was a Charedi demonstration regarding an alleged grave desecration in Jaffa (or was it Akko?). Shmuel Himelstein ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Gerver <mjgerver@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 06:01 PM Subject: Rabbinical headcovering? Starting with Shoshana Ziskind's post in MJ 58#45, a number of people commented on this old-fashioned black pillbox style yarmulke about a month ago. As Hillel Raymon noted in MJ 58#51, this style of yarmulke was not limited to rabbis, but was commonly worn by Jews in Eastern Europe, and by Orthodox Jews in the US and other countries who came from Eastern Europe, before the war. However, no one has commented on the fact that this type of yarmulke is still in use in certain communities today, so I thought I would say something about that, even though this thread is over a month old. I only learned this because of an email I received a couple of years ago from Noyekh Miller, whom many of you know from his occasional posts here, and from the many years that he ran the Mendele list dealing with Yiddish language and linguistics. Mike, you're not old enough to have seen them in O. shuls, but before the war the standard yarmulke (decidedly not kipa) was a black pillbox affair not unlike what's worn by some Muslims. My zeyde wore one and I wore one (it came in very handy when we'd play hooky from kheyder and went hunting wild blackberries -- that imitation papal thing you wear couldn't have held a fifth of the luscious fruit). Question: does anyone in Israel hold to the old custom? I would dearly love to see and even wear one again. After making some inquiries, I eventually learned, from Menachem Fishbein, that this type of yarmulke is still worn today, at least in Jerusalem, by Sephardim who wear Rabbeinu Tam tefillin. Unlike Ashkenazim who wear Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, these Sephardim wear both sets of tefillin (Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi) at the same time, and need a high straight-sided head covering to go over the upper "shel rosh". So there is still a market for these black pillbox style yarmulkes, and you can buy them at a yarmulke store, located in the Geula neighborhood of Jerusalem, half a block south of Malkhei Yisrael, on either the first or second small side street to the west of Kikar Shabbat. This store not only sells nothing but yarmulkes, but sells only black yarmulkes, and not knitted ones. But they did have those pillbox style yarmulkes in stock, for only 10 shekels. So I picked up a couple for Noyekh, who was very pleased to receive them the next time I visited him in Brookline, as well as one for myself. They are not exactly the same as the ones worn before the war -- I was able to compare them, since I have one from the 1930s that we inherited from my father-in-law a"h, who evidently also had fond memories of wearing one, or maybe only of his grandfather wearing one. The modern ones are more cheaply made, with only a single layer of material, and a starched lining around the side to hold the shape, which was not needed in the more sturdily made pre-war ones. But they look very similar. Mike Gerver Raanana, Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 04:01 PM Subject: Sunset Period - Neliah - Yom Kippur "closing" David Ziants (MJ53#33) notes correctly that: > Our machzorim developed in Europe, where the sunset period is longer, > and ne'lla had more time to be said. Moeover birkat hakohanim, did not > have the same importance as it is given to it now in Israel, where it is > done (in most parts) every day. Weighing up everything, it seems that > there are poskim who prefer to change the order (to which I personally > feel a kind of anti-climax although I have slowly become used to it) to > what is printed in the machzor. Clearly sunset appears to occur more quickly the closer one is to the equator. I recall in Hawaii -- where we had the additional advantage of an unobstructed view as the sun set on the ocean -- that the sun seemed to plummet into the ocean, almost like in the cartoons -- I was expecting it to bounce once or twice. That said nearly every shul has access to precise calendars -- they know the (all important?) time that the fast ends - and can schedule Neilah to begin at an appropriate time to allow for thoughtful davening with how much or how little (extra?) content. Which brings me to another related point. Some congregations attempt to conclude Neilah at the time that the fast is to end -- and thus the shofer blowing Ma'ariv is usually said (sometimes a bit rushed) and then weather permitting this is the first opportunity for Kiddush Levanah. In contrast, some congregations finish Neilah a bit earlier, thus allowing for a more benign Ma'ariv and the shofer is blown (at the correct time) AFTER Ma'ariv. Carl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 05:01 PM Subject: Versions of prayers and poems in our liturgy Eitan Fiorino stated the following (MJ 59#33): > I guess the issue is that if one believes that changes "introduced > in accordance with the views of the redactors" are by definition > "correct" then it may seem strange that some would prefer > otherwise. Your error, I believe, is in assuming that the editors > were in fact, acting correctly all the time, or even most of the > time, or even some of the time. Well, not exactly. "Correctness" was not one of my parameters, at least not explicitly. My point was that the people who have no qualms about reciting the "serious" prayers according to a text that is at wide variance with the known earlier versions, make such a big fuss over the changes that may have been made in Yedid Nefesh. Why concentrate on the chaff and ignore the wheat? ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= IRA L. JACOBSON =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ mailto:<laser@...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> Date: Mon, Sep 20,2010 at 12:01 AM Subject: Versions of prayers and poems in our liturgy Eitan Fiorino (MJ 59#33) wrote: > Transmission of the text of the siddur has been notoriously poor. These > are common books, edited and printed frequently. Printers make mistakes > - both unintentional, and intentional - by "correcting" something that > they mistakenly believed was mistaken. Yes, this is very true. But I find it interesting that not all of the rabbis are bothered by it. My favorite example concerns the proper text for the "Bracha Achas Me'en Shalosh", which is said after certain foods, and is popularly called "Al Hamichya". Anyone who learns Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 208 will find the authorities discussing whether the proper text should be these words or those words. But when the Mishna Brurah (paragraph 50) wants to offer a definitive ruling on these variant texts, what is his source? "Our siddurim"!!! Akiva Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Rubin <alan@...> Date: Sun, Sep 19,2010 at 02:01 PM Subject: Yedid Nefesh Ben Katz wrote (MJ 59#29): > Ashkenazim were always more prudish than Sepharadim. When Yedid > Nefesh makes its way from Sepharad to Ashkenaz in the Middle Ages, > shifchat olam (your everlasting maidservant) becomes simchat olam > (eternal joy), which doesn't even really make sense. I was under the impression that Yedid Nefesh had arrived in Ashkenazi Jewry via the Chacham Zvi who had picked it up while he was studying in Salonika. It is printed in Rav Yaakov Emden's siddur as a song that the Chacham Zvi would regularly sing at night. My edition of his siddur has 'simchas olam' but given that it also has a commentary by R Sholomo Kluger (born 7 years after the death of R Yaakov Emden) it is possible that it has been edited and does not represent what R' Yaakov Emden published. Alan Rubin ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 34