Volume 59 Number 99
Produced: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:41:23 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A conversion criterion
[Martin Stern]
Adon Olam (3)
[Lisa Liel Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Yisrael Medad]
Bameh Madlikin (2)
[Akiva Miller David Ziants]
Breast beating
[Martin Stern]
First Two Sheva Brachot Blessings - Together or Separate (2)
[Gershon Dubin Martin Stern]
Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
[Martin Stern]
Important Times Article on Homosexuality
[Lisa Liel]
Purim message (8)
[Perets Mett Ira L. Jacobson Ari Trachtenberg Tal S. Benschar Martin Stern Yisrael Medad Bernard Raab Akiva Miller]
Query: "Lamed Vov"niks (3)
[Keith Bierman Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Martin Stern]
Shalch Manot in These Times
[Wendy Baker]
Shir shel yom
[Carl Singer]
Starting davening on time (was Shir shel yom)
[Avraham Friedenberg]
The Katzav case
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Walking home from shul after davening
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 08:01 AM
Subject: A conversion criterion
With the current controversy over the minimal requirement regarding
acceptance of halachah by prospective converts, I came across a rather
interesting drush (homiletic interpretation),
In Psalm 146, which we say in psukei dezimra every day, most of the categories
of people mentioned as receiving Divine assistance (the oppressed, the hungry,
the prisoners, the blind, those bowed down, the righteous (vv. 7-8)) are
denominated without the (usually untranslated) direct object marker 'et' and
only the word 'gerim' carries it - 'et-gerim' (v. 9). Since 'gerim' is often
understood as meaning 'proselytes', it was suggested that this addition was
meant to indicate only those gerim who accept the Torah from alef to tav (the
two letters of which
the word 'et' consists), i.e. in its totality, are guarded by HKBH, but, as
the verse concludes, 'the ways of the wicked He makes crooked'.
This would provide an asmachta (biblical support) for the halachah that the
conversion of someone who accepts all the mitzvot except one is invalid ab
initio (Bechorot 30b and Rambam Hil. Issurei Biah 14.8).
Any comments?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Adon Olam
Mark Symons <msymons@...> wrote (MJ 59#98):
>... Ve-acharei kichlot hakol / levado yimloch, Nora ...
>
>This seems to imply a belief that one day everything (apart from Hashem, of
>course!) will cease to exist: Olam Hazeh, Olam Haba etc etc - which would
>seem to be in conflict with the belief in everlasting life.
>
>Does anyone know a source for this, or another way of understanding it?
Sure. Everything that exists is not separate from God. When we say
God is omnipresent, we take that to the extreme. But our perceptions
and our world is veiled in such a way that we perceive ourselves as
separate. Ultimately, that won't be the case.
Granted, that's just one view. There are others. But I'm not sure
the text you quoted means what you're saying. To say that God alone
will reign means that nothing else will. Not people, not -isms, not
anything. This line doesn't seem all that different than "v-hayah
Hashem l'melekh all kol ha-aretz".
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Adon Olam
Mark Symons <msymons@...> wrote (MJ 59#98):
> ... Ve-acharei kichlot hakol / levado yimloch, Nora ...
>
> This seems to imply a belief that one day everything (apart from Hashem, of
> course!) will cease to exist: Olam Hazeh, Olam Haba etc etc - which would
> seem to be in conflict with the belief in everlasting life.
>
> Does anyone know a source for this, or another way of understanding it?
kichlot hakol would mean at the end of "history" or of the way things
are, Hashem will be the sole ruler . It sounds like a way of saying
that everyone will acknowledge Him.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Adon Olam
In MJ 59#98, Mark Symons writes:
> ... Ve-acharei kichlot hakol / levado yimloch, Nora ..." This seems to imply a
> belief that one day everything (apart from>Hashem, of course!) will cease to
> exist - which would seem to be in conflict with the belief in everlasting life.
> Does anyone know a source for this, or another way of understanding it?
Well, one could translate/understand the term of 'kichlot hakol' to mean
"after all is said and done" or "when all is accomplished" and not that
everything ceases to exist or is destroyed, and then the phrase means
that God rules alone and is not dependent on our existence, but the reverse.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#98):
> The original minhag was to say BM at the end so that latecomers
> would not have to go home from shul on their own. This was at a
> time when shuls were outside the town and this could be dangerous.
I've heard this many times, but I've never understood it. I've never actually
timed how long it takes my shul to say BM, but I'd bet that it is somewhere
around three minutes. It takes longer than that from when the first person
leaves shul until the last person leaves. Stretching out the service by such a
short bit cannot make it all that much easier for the latecomers to catch up so
that they could leave together. It is possible that BM was not simply recited,
but that there was a lengthy lecture given on the topic?
Furthermore, if the goal was indeed to lengthen the service to make it easier
for latecomers to catch up, why would it matter which part of the service got
this extra addition?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Groupon™ Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d87964c590e32a1746st02vuc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
In the recent discussion about Bameh Madlikin, Harry Weiss
<hjweiss@...> (MJ 59 #98) mentioned the standard Israeli
custom of saying this before arvit and he states:-
=================================================
Many Rabbis or shul officers speak before Barchu.
=================================================
In most shuls that I have belonged to or visited, in Israel, over the
last 30 years, I have found that the d'var torah [torah discourse] at
that stage is given by ba'aley batim [men other than the community
Rabbi] rather than the Rav.
Although not everywhere is it done this way, it makes a lot of sense
that Bameh Madlikin is said after the d'var torah, and then the kaddish
d'rabbanan after that becomes relevant for both.
The shuls where I normally go these days follow nusach sepharad or
nusach ashkenaz according to the sheliach tzibur [prayer leader]. If
nusach sepharad, then BM is not said and there is no kaddish but the
sha"tz [prayer leader] goes straight into Bar'chu. Those who use nusach ashkenaz
would still say BM and I personally try and start as soon as the d'var torah
finishes, before the sha"tz starts so that there is enough time to complete.
David Ziants
<dziants@...>
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Breast beating
Recently I heard a heated discussion concerning beating one's breast when
saying 'selach lanu' and 'mechal lanu' in the 6th brachah of shemoneh esrei
on days when tachanun is omitted. One claimed that this was completely
incorrect, the other that the custom was to do so. Can anyone supply sources
for either or both opinions?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 09:01 PM
Subject: First Two Sheva Brachot Blessings - Together or Separate
Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote (MJ 59#98):
> In a discussion I had, the topic came up of the custom that the first
> two blessings of the Sheva Brachot at the Chuppah/Wedding ceremony are
> usually said by one person together. It was suggested that there is no
> Halachic basis for this and actually, they should be recited separately
> so as to give more persons a role of participation. The reason would
> seem to be that the first benediction, over the wine, is considered
> somehow insufficient or less-than-important and that person need be
> compensated and awarded a second benediction.
> Of course, for Kiddush, that one blessing is quite enough on its own.
I just this evening finished listening to a shiur on the topic of sheva berachos
and this was covered among many other issues. IIRC, the Shevet Halevi says they
should go together, unless there is a pressing need for an additional kibud to
"keep the peace".
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 09:01 AM
Subject: First Two Sheva Brachot Blessings - Together or Separate
Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> (MJ 59#98) wrote:
> In a discussion I had, the topic came up of the custom that the first
> two blessings of the Sheva Brachot at the Chuppah/Wedding ceremony are
> usually said by one person together. It was suggested that there is no
> Halachic basis for this and actually, they should be recited separately
> so as to give more persons a role of participation.
IMHO, the custom of giving the Sheva Brachot to different people is
unfortunate. Since there are only seven (or six if the first two are given
to the same person), it is almost inevitable that somebody will feel
overlooked. However the custom is almost universal so we have to accept it.
Splitting the first two can cause confusion. When we got married almost 50
years ago, the mesader kiddushin (rabbi in charge) did this but the eminent
rabbi to whom he gave the second one must not have been paying attention and
proceeded to say the third instead. A case of missing "shehakol bara
lichvodo"!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
I would like to thank R' Mordechai Horowitz for this Purim
Torah (MJ 59#98). While a day late, it did succeed in making me laugh.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
In answer to Martin Stern <md.stern@...> (MJ59#98):
Both Purim Someiach and Chanuka Someiach (and for that matter Sukkos Someiach)
are grammatically correct.
Purim (and Chanuka and Sukkos) is the name of the chag, which is what the word
someiach refers to.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
Martin Stern asked in MJ 59#98 about "Purim same'ah."
First, that expression is a translation from Yiddish and is not an
authentic Hebrew form. In Hebrew, for example, we say "vesamahta
behagekha," and not "hag same'ah." In other words YOU should be
happy, and not that the holiday should be happy. In that case (not
for Purim), an authentic Hebrew expression is "mo`adim lesimha."
A "freilichen Pirim" is good Yiddish, perhaps, but not Hebrew.
Furthermore, in the expression "Purim same'ah" the understood subject
is hag or some equivalent. Yes, we know that there is no qorban
hagiga on this day, but neither is there for Rosh Hashana ("bakese
leyom hagenu"). Thus the adjective is "correctly" in the singular.
Proof: Which would we say?
"Little Women" is my favorite book.
"Little Women" are my favorite book.
"Little Women" are my favorite books.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#98):
>
> Having received many mishloach manot packages with cards wishing "Purim
> sameiach", it occurred to me that this may not be grammatically correct.
One could ask a similar question about "shabbat shalom", where "shabbat"
is empirically female.
best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tal S. Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
Re: Martin Stern's inquiry (MJ 59#98) as to why the phrase is "Purim
Sameiach" even though Purim is plural and Sameiach is singular, the simply
answer is that the phrase contains an ellipsis -- a missing, understood word.
In modern Hebrew it would be "Chag Purim Sameiach," with Sameiach modifying
the word Chag. Someone once pointed out to me that this is somewhat innacurate
-- Chag is limited to holidays which have a korban Chagigah, so it should be Yom
Purim Sameiach, or Mishteh Purim Sameiach.
In English we would say the Holiday of Purim or the Feast of Lots. In any
case, there is a missing, understood word -- the Day (or Holiday) of Purim.
Tal S. Benschar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
In reply to all those commenting on my posting (MJ 59#98), many of whom sent
copies to me directly, perhaps they did not appreciate the significance of the
paragraph "Well this query probably only reinforces the old saying "Don't tell a
Yekke a joke on Purim - he might come to laugh on Tisha be'Av!" which was meant
to indicate the question's connection with Purim!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
Martin asks (MJ 59#98):
> "Purim sameiach" may not be grammatically correct. Any explanations?
Sure. It's short for Chag Purim Sameach. Same for Chanukah.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Purim message
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#98):
> Having received many mishloach manot packages with cards wishing "Purim
> sameiach", it occurred to me that this may not be grammatically correct.
> Since Purim is plural, which the qualifying adjective should also be, i.e.
> "Purim smeichim". The same might apply to "Channukah sameiach" which
> grammatically should be "Channukah sameichah". Any explanations?
>
> Well this query probably only reinforces the old saying "Don't tell a Yekke
> a joke on Purim - he might come to laugh on Tisha be'Av!"
Martin may have something here. We have in America a holiday called Presidents'
Day, honoring the birthdays of both Presidents Washington and Lincoln on one day
each year. Perhaps we should say: "Presidents' Day come but once a year." This
must sound quite correct to the Brits, who disdain the collective noun; e.g.,
"Our chess group meet every Monday night". To our British cousins, this Purim
Torah is observed all year!
Chagim Purim smeichim
Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Purim message
Martin Stern asked (MJ 59#98):
> Having received many mishloach manot packages with cards wishing
> "Purim sameiach", it occurred to me that this may not be
> grammatically correct. Since Purim is plural, which the qualifying
> adjective should also be, i.e. "Purim smeichim".
I have two guesses:
1) Perhaps it is simply short for "chag purim samayach", in which the "samayach"
is actually referring to "chag" and is properly singular. The word "chag" was
then dropped because Purim is technically *not* a chag, but the other two words
remain unchanged.
2) Even though the word "Purim" SEEMS to be plural, and indeed it is plural when
it refers to "lots", but perhaps it is really singular when referring to the
holiday. This would be similar to "Elokim" using a singular verb in the very
first verse of the Torah.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Query: "Lamed Vov"niks
Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...> wrote (MJ 59#98):
> I just looked at an article that mentions the lamed vovniks and translated
> it as 36 righteous MEN. Are women ever counted among the LVs?
>
I'm guessing not, after all, if they were the list would be much longer than
36.
A belated purim samach (samachim if the last post is accurate ;>).
Keith Bierman
<khbkhb@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Query: "Lamed Vov"niks
Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...> wrote (MJ 59#98):
> I just looked at an article that mentions the lamed vovniks and translated
> it as 36 righteous MEN. Are women ever counted among the LVs?
Since the whole point of the "Lamed-Vavniks" are that they are not
known, how could we ever tell? Women tend to be even more "private"
than men so that even a "Lamed-Vavnik" who is discovered after death
would tend to be a man.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Query: "Lamed Vov"niks
Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...> wrote (MJ 59#98):
> I just looked at an article that mentions the lamed vovniks and translated
> it as 36 righteous MEN. Are women ever counted among the LVs?
Despite feminist complaints, the traditional English usage is that the word
MEN can be non-gender-specific, just as referring to HKBH as He or Him does
not imply any maleness. In any case, since the lamed vovniks are by
definition hidden, their gender is not knowable.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Shalch Manot in These Times
I probably should have thought to bring this up a month or so ago, but I
forget each year until the packages come in. As I see money being spent
on Shalach Manot for cute packages and dishes, bowl, baskets, etc that most
of us don't need and on quantities of candies, cookies, etc. that many of
us don't need, or shouldn't eat I wonder if there could be a movement to
send only simple gifts, with more emphasis on fruits, or vegetables (little
tomatoes some to mind),etc. Not only is there considerable cost in
competing for more and more "original" packaging, etc, but an enormous
amount of food gets wasted. I can understand some candy for kids, but
most of us with grown children don't need tons of tooth-pulling toffee
bars, sugary sweets of all kinds. Some of us are even diabetic.
Many shuls in my area(Manhattan) have the program of having contributions
made to the shul and a single interesting package with a list of donors to
you is sent (or picked up after Megilla reading). We are, however
instructed that this doesn't count a Shalach Manot, so at lest 3 packages
containing 2 different types of food must be given. This helps to a great
degree, but not completely.
I know there is waste, because I run a Chametz food drive and all kinds
of Shalach Manot stuff comes in as contributions. How do I know? Some
are from, the Shul's own package or are the same as foods that I received,
and much of the candy and exotic jams, etc just have the Shalach Manot
"look." I have also heard from friends who live in other pars of the
city, that garbage pails are full of sweets, etc tht have been thrown out
because the hechsher does not meet with the recipient's approval.
In view of the current economic and world political issues, as well as
growing problems with obesity and diabetes, even among children, this
seems to be sending the wrong message. Perhaps we should try to change
the nature of our gifts, to less elaborate and more healthy ones. In
addition, differentiating between packages for children and adults would
make sense.
I know this is not a Halachic issue, nor is it the most serious on the
world's plate, but waste and harming others are issues. We should be
providing joy,without harm or waste, in our packages.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Shir shel yom
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
To: Mail-Jewish <mj@...>
There are many variants of when the Shir shel yom is said.
At the early (7AM) Shabbos minyan where I daven (Young Israel of Passaic
Clifton - New Jersey) after the repetition of the Schacharis Amidah, Aneem
Zimros and the Shir shel yom (for Shabbos, of course) is recited, followed
by kaddish and then p'seecha and layning.
I find this is more decorous than having these at the end when
(a) some people are preparing to leave and
(b) others are entering for the "second" minyan.
I do not know the halachic basis for this or other sequences.
On the related topic of reciting kaddish, there seem to be many people who
get rather emotional about having missed a kaddish -- but this doesn't seem
to translate into a positive influence on their planning and punctuality --
aka getting to shul on time for kaddish.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Friedenberg <elshpen@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Starting davening on time (was Shir shel yom)
>Unfortunately some people who follow it become quite upset when they are
>aveilim and arrive to find that the the tsibbur have started without them.
>Should the congregation perhaps have waited for them?
What about those who arrived on time and are ready to daven? Shouldn't they
be upset because their time is wasted waiting for the latecomers? If the
latecomers are so concerned, then perhaps they should change their habit of
arriving late!
Avraham Friedenberg
Karnei Shomron, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2011 at 04:01 AM
Subject: The Katzav case
Can any explain (and I certainly cannot!) how it is that a number of very
prominent rabbis of the Religious Zionist stream have come out in favor of
Israel's past president, Moshe Katzav, including stating point-black that
Mr. Katzav is DEFINITELY innocent. On what basis can they make such a
pronouncement? They obviously were not in the courtroom and did not hear the
evidence.
In my opinion (and I believe that many thousands of religious people would
agree with me) this pronouncement of these rabbis has not added any luster
to the rabbinate. On the contrary, it has simply reinforced the view of so
many of us that these rabbis are totally out of touch with reality and have
their own agenda - whatever it is. And for so many decades I believed that
the Religious Zionist movement was the rational movement. How sad!
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Walking home from shul after davening
In his post on Bameh Madlikin (MJ 59#98) Martin Stern notes:
> The original minhag was to say BM at the end so that latecomers would not
> have to go home from shul on their own. This was at a time when shuls were
> outside the town and this could be dangerous.
A related minhag that I learned from my father, ztl, and have passed along
to my sons is that of walking a stranger (that is an out-of-towner) to his
destination after davening.
I don't quite know the origins of this practice. On those few occasions
when a stranger appears in shul on Friday night without their host, I've
tended to this.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 99
