Volume 60 Number 39
Produced: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 01:53:13 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Barachahs with "L'*" or "Al *"
[Chaim Casper]
Hashem as "King"
[David Curwin]
Mashkimim leslichot (4)
[Orrin Tilevitz Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Chaim Casper Steven Oppenheimer]
Shabbat Shalom (2)
[Chaim Casper Ira L. Jacobson]
Stiebel - Shabbat in New Zealand (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Orrin Tilevitz]
Theodicy (2)
[Avraham Walfish Akiva Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Barachahs with "L'*" or "Al *"
Sammy Finkelman wrote (MJ 60#38):
> I think there might be other examples where it is after it is over, but I
> think the "L'" is said only before a mitzvah began while "al' would be said
> during or after a mitzvah.
> We have "Al Netilas Lulav" because you already began. We say "Leishev
> Basuccah" because you haven't actually begun residing there - or is
> that right. Residing would be sitting down maybe or eating.
> There is a little bit of a problem with "L'Hadlik Ner shel Shabbos."
> It is said before it begins but it also may be acceptance of Shabbos.
> If more than one candle is lit it might not be allowed to light a second.
Sammy's analysis of nusah ha'brakhot bothers me.
Lulav & Etrog is blessed while the pithom is pointing down. Only after the
brakhah is finished is the pitom turned upside. That is because if the
pitom is pointing up and one is holding the etrog, then one is doing the
mitzvah. So we hold the etrog in a way that will not fulfill the mitzvah,
then make the brakhah, then turn it rightside up and then do the
shakings/na'a'noo'im. The point is that according to Sammy's principle,
"L" should be recited as long as the pithom is not turned up. But we
recite "Al Netiliat Lulav" after we pick up the arba minim but before we
turn up the pitom and certainly before we do the na'a'noo'im (which is the
mitzvah according to some).
"L"shev basukah would be said if one is about to start the mitzvah. But the
gemara lists a shitah held by some Rishonim that everytime one enters a
sukkah one makes the brakhah. L'ma'aseh, most of us make the brakhah as we
are sitting down to eat. So shouldn't we say "al" yishivat sukkah as we
are already in the sukkah at the time of the brakhah?
"L"netilat yadayim should be said after rinsing the hands but before drying
the hands. That is because according to the Sha"Kh, the drying of the
hands (or the negivah) is ikkar of the mitzvah. Yet we make the brakhah
"Al" netilat yadayim which according to Sammy should be after the drying.
"L"hadlik ner shel shabbat is recited after lighting both/all the candles.
But according to Sammy's principle, it should be "al" hadlakat ner because
the candles were previously lit.
I don't mean to reject the principle. Rather, I am having trouble understanding it.
Wishing a shanah tovah u'metukah to all,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Hashem as "King"
For those that read Hebrew, I recommend the following recent blog post by
Dr. Chagai Misgav, which discusses this very issue:
http://misgav.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_19.html
-David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Mashkimim leslichot
Martin Stern asks (MJ 60#38) why many place say the first selichot at 12:00 when
the proper custom is to say them after chatzot halaila, which is local midnight.
As I recall, the Mishna Brura says that the central piyut of the first selichot,
Bemotzaei Menucha, should be said after the last vestiges of shabbat are over,
i.e., after local midnight. As a result, the shuls that I've davened in call
selichot for 12:30 and start a bit later, reaching Bemotzaei Menucha at the
proper time. Maybe if the chazan is really slow and there is a long speech
before, 12:00 midnight works too, or maybe people stopped being careful about
this. My recollection is that during the high-crime era in New York in the 1970s
and 1980s, many shuls, particularly in Manhattan, moved selichot even earlier
because people were afraid to be out that late. The shul that I've davened
selichot at for over 20 years, Old Broadway Synagogue in a demonstrably iffy
area of Manhattan, never did; we've always called selichot for 12:30 A.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Mashkimim leslichot
There are places that start even earlier because people cannot stay up until
chatzos as they get older. However, I do not know how this can occur, given
that chatzos is the earliest time for saying selichos.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Mashkimim leslichot
Martin Stern (MJ 60#38) asks three questions regarding the Ashkenazic saying of
slihot:
> The ideal time for their recital is to start before daybreak and finish
> shortly after misheyakir [the earliest time that one can, except in
> emergency situations, put on tallit and tefillin and say Shema]. In
> Manchester England these times are approximately 5.15 and 6.00 respectively
> which is a little too early for most people.
> This would appear to be the reason why we do not put on tallit and tefillin
> until after saying them even for those who do not begin so early though it
> would be permissible and I have seen the occasional person do so, probably
> to save time between finishing selichot and beginning shacharit.
According to the Magen Avraham (OH 581:1), slihot should be said when the
Bet Din of above is meeting which is the night time/early morning which is
the last four hours of night. By definition, that is a time that tallit
and tefilin are not worn (at least with a brakhah). In fact, this is why
the shaliah tzibbur needs to borrow a tallit from someone else. He cannot
wear his own as there is a question if he needs to make the brakhah. And
he cannt use the shul's tallit (if he is a member) as he has partial ownership
in that tallit which leaves the safek brakhah question. So he borrows a tallit
from someone else which all agree he has no obligation to say a brakhah over.
> There seems to be a longstanding custom of saying selichot on the first
> night (Motsa'ei Shabbat) at midnight, which is the earliest time for their
> recital. I have however noticed that most such recitals are announced for
> 12.00 which, because of daylight saving, is an hour before midnight. Can
> anyone explain the reason behind this apparently incorrect procedure?
We start slihot on Saturday night/Sunday because that is the anniversary of
the initial creation of the world (it is when light was created). If the
first Rosh Hashannah occured on Shabbat, then our slihot from that Sunday
through Shabbat would parallel the seven days of creation.
I once heard that a particular gadol held that hazot means 12 midnight
regardless of whether we are standard time or daylight savings time.
However, I have never been able to confirm this in the writings of this
particular gadol. But perhaps this is the source of why some places start
at midnight. Also, there are places (e.g. here in North Miami Beach) where
we start at 1am.
> Also, in some congregations, selichot are said each night in the evening
> after ma'ariv which seems to go against the concept of getting up early to
> say them. Can anyone provide an explanation for this?
I vaguely remember the Arukh Hashulhan (or maybe the Mishneh Brurah) permits
this but I couldn't find it when I took a quick look. Rav Braun, zt"l, in
*Shaarim M'zuyanim B'halkhah*, quotes the Birkhey Yosef who tried to stop
this custom.
Wishing all a Shanah Tovah u'Metukah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 21,2011 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Mashkimim leslichot
Martin Stern (MJ 60#38) asks about the proper times for saying Selichot.
It is proper to recite Selichot at a "propitious time" - B'Et Ratzon (Sh. A.
O. Ch. 581:1 and Mishnah Berurah). When exactly is this time? This is
after halachic midnight and should not be recited under any circumstances
(except for Yom Kippur) before this time according to the Mishnah Berurah
(565:12)
The first night there is concern that Selichot not be said until after
Chatzot HaLayla (12 hours after the halachic Chatzot Hayom (halachic noon).
This is because of Kedushat Shabbat - the sanctity of Shabbat. (Responsa
Maharam Zechuta siman 30, the Ariz"l Sha'ar HaKavanot Drush Aleph Shel
Arvit, dag 52 amud 4, Magen Avrohom 565:5).
Furtheremore, there are those who hold that even though the time after
halachic midnight is Et Razon, it is preferable to wait until Ashmoret
HaBoker, which is two hours later (Igra DePirka, oht 147). (this is a
stringency)
In the Sefer Machashavot B'Etzah,(published 110 years ago) Rabbi Ya'akov
Weissman opines that we go by the time of Chatzot HaLayla according to
Jerusalem time. He brings many proofs. And this would certainly provide a
leniency for many who recite Selichot "early". Rav Ovadia Yosef says that
people in Europe, for example, may rely on this leniency. He brings this as
a "yesh omrim" - there are those who say.
Rav Yosef writes that the proper time for Selichot is either after Chatzot
HaLayla or after Chatzot HaYom.
Mishmeret Shalom (siman 41:4) writes that those who have difficulty staying
up late may say Selichot 2 hours before Chatzot HaLayla (that is *not* to be
interpreted as 2 hours before midnight). So, if halachic midnight is 1 AM,
then 11 PM would be the earliest time.
Iggerot Moshe (O. Ch. 2:105) permits this in a case of great need but does
not sanction this as a normative yearly practice.
Yechave Da'at (1:46) does not accept this leniency and says it is better to
recite Selichot before Mincha in a case of need. He brings as a proof that
people who daven nusach sefarad say Yud Gimmel Midot at the Mincha prayer
throughout the year. Rav Yosef permits individuals to recite selichot (at
the proper time which is after chatzot hayom or after chatzot halayla) as
long as they skip the yud gimmel midot and do not say any of the sections
that are in Aramaic. One may recite the yud gimmel midot if ones recites
them with the cantillation. This would be better in his opinion than
reciting Selichot with a minyan at an improper time.
Responsa Remez (#30) (17th century) strongly condemns the practice of saying
Sleichot prior to halachic midnight and says the proper time is in the
morning hours.
Beseeching HaShem's mercy should be done at the most efficacious and
propitious time. Why would we pick a time that is not a favorable period?
Therefore, it is preferable not to say Selichot prior to halachic midnight
unless one is too weak to recite Selichot at other more favorable times.
Then, after consultation with one's Rav, one may rely on some of
the leniencies mentioned above, if so advised.
--
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Shabbat Shalom
To emphasize Martin Stern's point (MJ 60#38):
> This is all very well provided the person is intending to accept Shabbat
> with his greeting but I think most people definitely do not. In any case
> they have the option of making a mental note that they are not doing so
> which certainly would be effective, just as a man can light the Shabbat
> lights (after plag haminchah, of course) with the intention of not accepting
> Shabbat and then carry on doing melachot (usually carrying in an area where
> there is no eruv). A woman, I believe, must actually make a declaration that
> she is not accepting Shabbat since women (unlike men) usually accept Shabbat
> by candle lighting.
Rav Moshe, zt"l, wrote that men are able to drive to shul on Friday
afternoon even though they look up at the large apartment buildings and see
the Shabbat candles lit as men do not accept Shabbat until they say Mizmor
Shir or Barkhu. On the other hand, since women usually accept Shabbat with
candle lighting, they would have to specifically say they are not accepting
Shabbat with their lighting.
Wishing a Shanah Tovah U'Metukah to all,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 21,2011 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Shabbat Shalom
Martin Stern stated in MJ 60#38, first quoting your humble servant (MJ 60#37),
regarding people who refrain from saying "Shabbat shalom" or some translation
thereof on Friday afternoon:
>> Perhaps these people are not ready to accept Shabbat and therefore refrain
>> from saying that formula.
> This is all very well provided the person is intending to accept
> Shabbat with his greeting but I think most people definitely do not.
> In any case they have the option of making a mental note that they
> are not doing so which certainly would be effective,
The question is what is the default -- that is, what happens if one
did not make a mental note either to accept Shabbat or not to.
> A woman, I believe, must actually make a declaration that she is
> not accepting Shabbat since women (unlike men) usually accept
> Shabbat by candle lighting.
What Martin says is true, but for Ashkenazi'ot only. It is
apparently not well known that Sefaradi'ot do not accept Shabbat by
lighting candles, which is the reason that they recite the blessing
first and only then light the candles.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Stiebel - Shabbat in New Zealand
Guido Elbogen <havlei.h@...> wrote (MJ 60#38);
> Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 60#37):
>
>> BTW, meanwhile I have found the location of the shtiebel, or "Stiebel" as
>> they spell it, but since it's not on the Auckland Hebrew Congregation
>> website
> Yes it is. On the front page of http://www.ahc.org.nz/
>
> ***********quote*************
> As Auckland's only Orthodox Synagogue and Community Centre, Auckland Hebrew
> Congregation is the hub of Jewish living in Aotearoa. The AHC has a main
> centre <http://www.ahc.org.nz/centre.php> in Auckland Central and an
> Eastern Suburbs Stiebel <http://www.ahc.org.nz/living.php#religious>.
> Whether you have grown up in Auckland, are a new arrival or just passing
> through; the Congregation has something for everyone!
> ********end quote************
It would probably be a good idea to publish the address shown on the pages
referenced.
***********quote*************
Our Community Centre at 108 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, consists of two
synagogues, the Greys Avenue Deli (our Kosher cafe & store), AHC offices,
Kadimah College and function rooms. Whether you want to attend services,
find gourmet Israeli products, take a tour of the centre or host your own
Simcha - being the hub of the Auckland Jewish Community, youll find what
you need at Greys Ave!
********end quote************
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 21,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Stiebel - Shabbat in New Zealand
In response to my assertion (MJ 60#37) that the location of the "Stiebel"
in Auckland's suburbs was not on the Auckland Hebrew Congregation website,
Guido Elbogen wrote (MJ 60#38):
> Yes it is. On the front page of http://www.ahc.org.nz/
If Guido had taken the trouble to click on this link (and all the further links)
before posting this comment, he would have noticed that the only shul address on
the website is that of the main shul on Greys Avenue in downtown Auckland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 20,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Theodicy
In MJ 60#38, Martin suggested attempting to cope with the theological
questions raised by massive tragedies such as 9-11 in the following manner:
> I would like to suggest that there is a basic principle that can help in
> this connection, that we have freedom of choice, which is the converse of
> the concept of reward and punishment, which would be meaningless without
> it.
>
> Unfortunately, the consequence of free choice is that it has to be
> possible for a person to choose to be as wicked as he wishes and commit the
> most horrendous crimes. G-d does not interfere in an obvious manner else His
> 'interference' would limit our ability to make moral choices and, in
> effect, force us to do good.
>
> While this does nothing to alleviate the pain we feel when confronted by
> these inexplicable events, blaming G-d is about as sensible as blaming Him
> for not preventing the death of someone who falls from a high building.
> While we believe He CAN act against the 'laws of nature', we also believe
> that, in general, He does not do so for the above reasons.
This argument is similar to the approach advocated by Rabbi Prof. Eliezer
Berkovits z"l in *God, Man, and History*, pp. 142-148 and in *Faith After
the Holocaust. *This appears to be different from our everyday theology, in
which we tend to attribute to Divine providence every good and bad event
that occurs to any individual, and especially seems to contradict the
theology underlying our Yamim Noraim prayers, where we assert that on Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur, every individual's fate for the year is determined.
Nevertheless I think there is cogency in this idea, and that our theological
understanding needs to accommodate both individual Divine providence and the
ramifications of human freedom of choice - a tall (and perhaps ultimately
impossible, order). I have made a stab at discussing this issue in an
article, "Re-engaging Theology", in: C. Waxman (ed.), *Religious Zionism
Post Disengagement - Future Directions*, pp. 71-72, and footnotes 22-25,
where I cite, among other sources, important discussions by mori verabi
Harav Aharon Lichtenstein, "The Duties of the Heart and the Response to
Suffering", in: *The Jewish Experience of Suffering*, pp. 38-39 and by S.
Ariel in *Tsohar *28 (5767), pp. 33-50.
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 21,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Theodicy
Martin Stern (MJ 60#38) wrote:
> ... The age-old question is if G-d is all-powerful and utterly
> good, how can He allow such things to happen.
>
> ...
>
> Unfortunately, the consequence of free choice is that it has to
> be possible for a person to choose to be as wicked as he wishes
> and commit the most horrendous crimes. G-d does not interfere in
> an obvious manner else His 'interference' would limit our ability
> to make moral choices and, in effect, force us to do good.
>
> While this does nothing to alleviate the pain we feel when
> confronted by these inexplicable events, blaming G-d is about as
> sensible as blaming Him for not preventing the death of someone
> who falls from a high building. While we believe He CAN act against
> the 'laws of nature', we also believe that, in general, He does not
> do so for the above reasons.
The above reasoning is exactly the same as what I've always believed and understood.
In fact, I understand it so strongly that I honestly *don't* understand it when some people complain,
"Why did G-d allow such-and-such to happen?" When such complaints come from non-believers, I
understand their complaint to be not a question but an excuse. But when such complaints come from
believers, I honestly don't understand their question -- do they really expect G-d to intervene whenever
evil occurs? Don't they see how such a situation would reduce us to robots?
Some might answer that they would want G-d to intervene in the really terrible evils, but allowing minor
evils would preserve our free will and our reward for doing good. But I challenge those people to
describe where they would draw the line. Should G-d have intervened in Shushan and Auschwitz and
9/11, but not in smaller matters like Gettysburg and Yom Kippur War? Maybe even in those but not in
street muggings?
Even if one would indeed draw the line somewhere, it would not solve the problem. If G-d intervened in
the really awful evils, He would would be preventing us from achieving the good of fighting the really
awful evils. The two go hand-in-hand. One cannot have great good unless there is at least a possibility
of great evil.
If these thoughts are insufficient for someone, please respond and tell us your objections.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 39
