Volume 61 Number 98
Produced: Sat, 16 Nov 13 22:54:43 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Another pronunciation problem
[Robert Israel]
Electric menorah
[Yossi Ginzberg]
Modern technology (2)
[Carl Singer Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Necromancy
[Martin Stern]
Preparing during shmoneh esrai
[Yosi Fishkin, MD]
Rosh Chodesh musings (4)
[Chaim Casper Katz, Ben M.D. Michael Poppers Haim Snyder]
Shir shel yom
[Martin Stern]
Technology and halacha
[Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 7,2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Another pronunciation problem
Arthur G. Sapper wrote (MJ 61#97):
> That's the theory. In practice, however, I found that the principal
> obstacle to learning to pronounce that sound at the end of "echad" was
> its rarity in English when the last letters in an English word are "th."
> Nearly always, the "th" at the end of an English word is unvoiced, as in
> "tunesmith" (the "th" is pronounced like that in "thin"). There are some
> exceptions, such as "mouths" and (in some dialects of English) "paths,"
> which have voiced "dth" at the end. As a result, I found it difficult to
> associate a voiced "th" sound with an undageshed dalet at the end of a
> word, as in "echad." Once that was surmounted, I was able to pronounce
> echad as a voiced fricative (dth) upon seeing an undageshed dalet.
Well, it's usually spelled "...the" rather than "...th", but the voiced
"th" sound at the end of an English word is not so rare:
clothe
bathe
lathe
Robert Israel
University of British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yossi Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 8,2013 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Electric menorah
Steven Oppenheimer stated (MJ 61#96):
> What may be less well known is that both Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
> z"l and Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv z"l permitted using an electric
> menorah in a pinch, when oil or wax candles were not available.
Since in shul we light a menorah even for Shacharit, I have always wondered why
we cannot interpret this as a sign that there are two separate mitzvot involved,
first the actual lighting (for the mitzva and with a bracha) and second the
mitzva of Pirsum Haness, which would be among the devarim she'ein lahem shiur
[matters not requiring/paired with a {minimum} measurement --Mod.] and thus
bracha-free.
The difference (halacha l'maaseh) would be relevant to lighting a menorah in a
busy office.
1) Should/must one do so?
2) Since candles/oil are illegal or impractical there, can one do so with
electric?
3) Is the above even relevant, or could we say that if there is a stand-alone
mitzva of Pirsum, perhaps it doesn't have the requirements of oil in the first
place, so electric could even be l'chatchila?
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 7,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Modern technology
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 61#97):
> I am looking for tshuvot or articles on brain/computer interface issues -
> besides R' Asher Weiss (e.g. thinking leading to computer generated action
> - implications for shabbat or nezikin [damages] etc.). What about totally
> imperceptible results (e.g. automatic adjustments to hearing aids, room
> sensors that sense whether the room is occupied.....).
First I recall a basic IEEE project -- two sensors that by the sequence of their
being triggered in effect count people entering or leaving a room. Then a light
that turns on whenever N, the number of people in the room, is greater than 0.
A friend built one of these, and people learned that by fanning their hand past
the pair of sensors they could trick the counter. So soon the lights would go
out even though there were still 3 or 4 people in the room.
It's not beyond today's capability for an array of sensors to determine (with
some error) that YOU (as opposed to the room) are cold (perhaps your posture,
goose bumps, whatever). Then what if in response the heat was turned on.
Or what if a sensor determined that the lighting in the room was insufficient for
your needs -- perhaps reading a brain wave, or perhaps noting the position of
your head and a book -- and again, what if in response it turned a light on.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 7,2013 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Modern technology
In reply to Joel Rich (MJ 61#97):
You might want to consider that the results of devices like motion detectors
often do include visible results such as blinking a light when triggered or
turning room lights on or off when the room is occupied. This could change your
analysis of the problem.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 11,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Necromancy
I always thought that communicating with the dead was explicitly prohibited
by the Torah as a form of idolatry, so I was intrigued to read in the Times
of Israel (Nov. 11) an article entitled
"Dialing the dead: Rebecca Rosen is psychic to the stars"
with the subtitle "The Conservative rabbi's sister says everyone could
potentially speak with the dead and is already training her two young sons".
http://www.timesofisrael.com/dialing-the-dead-rebecca-rosen-is-psychic-to-the-
stars/
In it the author states:
"Her first brush with fame came when the Detroit Jewish News featured her on
its cover in 2001, touting her efforts to comfort those who had lost loved
ones by bringing energies from the other side....
"Rosen's brother Baruch HaLevi, a Conservative rabbi at Congregation Shirat
Hayam in the northern Boston suburb of Swampscott, is also enthusiastic
about her profession. He occasionally promotes her work on his blog and has
vouched for her authenticity. The siblings are contemplating creating a
series of retreats that will combine yoga, meditation, Jewish spirituality
and Rosen's readings."
Does the Conservative movement really condone this sort of thing?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yosi Fishkin, MD <Joseph@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 8,2013 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Preparing during shmoneh esrai
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 61#96):
> The S"A/M"B seem pretty clear about appropriate behavior during chazarat
> hashatz. How does one explain the seemingly common practice to take off
> tfillin, unsheathe lulav and esrog, and even make a bracha on them during
> chazarat hashatz?
At my shul, every year on the first day of Sukkos, immediately after Kedushah,
the Chazzan pauses, and the Rabbi makes an announcement to the effect of, "In
order to avoid disturbing chazaras hashatz, we request that people do not
prepare their lulav and esrog at this time. Before we start Hallel, we will
leave some time for people to do their preparations." This leads to much better
decorum, and I think it's a great system.
Yosi Fishkin, MD
goDaven.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 7,2013 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Rosh Chodesh musings
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#97) about:
> the gabbai calling out 'Ya'aleh veyavo' (1st day Rosh Chodesh if there are
> two days) or 'Rosh Chodesh' (2nd - or only - day Rosh Chodesh) at ma'ariv
> after birchot kriat shema just before the congregation starts shemoneh esrei.
> The same is done for some other additions such as 'tal umatar' or 'al
> hanissim'.
The m'haber rules (OH 236:2) that one should not talk "between the g'eulah of
ma'ariv with the amidah (i.e. after the brakhah 'shomer a'mo yisrael l'ad' or
'hamelekh bikhvodo' depending on one's nusah/liturgy and before hazi-qaddish)."
However, the shaliah zibbur announcing "Rosh Hodesh" between hazi-qaddish
and the amidah is not an interruption since it is needed for the prayer (zorekh
ha't'filah). (The B'air Hagolah lists the source as a t'shuvah by the
RaShB"A.)
As gabbai, I have made it a practice to make such an announcement at my current
synagogue here in North Miami Beach. I would assume that my synagogue is
typical of many Anglo synagogues in that our members come from a variety of
backgrounds. Some have had, B"H, a very solid Jewish education while others,
BTs and less proficient day schoolers, struggle with the davening. As a
result, to just say "Ya'aleh v'yavo" or "Rosh Hodesh" may not resonate with all
the mitpallelim; they may not understand what I want them to do. So I speak in
complete sentences: "Please remember to add Ya'aleh v'yavo for Rosh Hodesh (or
"Attah B'hartanu, the Amidah for Yom Tov, with the additions for Pesah," etc.)"
and then the appropriate page number.
Yet l'ma'aseh (in practice), this has been a source of friction. Some of the
educationally weaker members of the shul appreciate that I speak in a language
they can understand.
But there are a number of members who always feel a need to hit a desk, slam a
shtender closed, etc. at the beginning of the Amidah. I have had to explain to
them the above halakhah and say
A) the halakhah talks about the shaliah zibbur (or gabbai) making an
announcement and
B) the halakhah does not talk about other people making noise (to which I add
that the weaker daveners may not catch the hint as to what is to be done during
the amidah).
There is one member who has had a very strong Jewish education who can't
understand why this is at all necessary. I have had to explain to him that
not everyone has the knowledge he has, so while he may not need the
announcement, others do.
The end result of my efforts is that I notice after all these years many
daveners now wait for me to make the announcement. Is it because they want to
hear the instructions or is it because they do not want my announcement to
interrupt their concentration? I suspect both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katz, Ben M.D. <BKatz@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 7,2013 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Rosh Chodesh musings
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#97):
> Some thoughts came to mind today during davenning on Rosh Chodesh.
>
> There is an old minhag, already mentioned by the Maharil in the 15th
> century, of the gabbai calling out "Ya'aleh veyavo" (1st day Rosh Chodesh if
> there are two days) or "Rosh Chodesh" (2nd - or only - day Rosh Chodesh) at
> ma'ariv after birchot kriat shema just before the congregation starts
> shemoneh esrei. The same is done for some other additions such as "tal
> umatar" or "al hanissim".
>
> There is some discussion in the halachic literature as to why this
> interruption is permitted between Ga'al Yisrael and shemoneh esrei and the
> consensus is that such a break is not as severe a problem at ma'ariv as at
> shacharit, where the break is for the purpose of the congregation avoiding
> mistakes in the tefillah.
>
> Unfortunately, in some places, several people take it on themselves to call
> out "Ya'aleh veyavo" or "Rosh Chodesh", which is not necessary and might
> constitute a prohibited interruption by them. Also, that some people call out
> loudly the words "Ya'aleh veyavo" or "Rosh Chodesh" when they say them
> in their (officially) silent shemonehe srei can be very disturbing
> to those who do not daven quite as fast as them.
>
> What surprises me is that, unlike shacharit or minchah, someone who omits
> ya'aleh veyavo does not have to repeat his shemoneh esrei. Is that because,
> when the date of Rosh Chodesh was set by observing the new moon, this was
> only done during the day and so there was no certainty that it was in fact
> Rosh Chodesh at ma'ariv?
>
> A relatively new custom seems to have arisen for the gabbai to bang on the
> bimah at the same point in shacharit where speaking is much more severely
> prohibited. It is difficult to fault this but, again, only one person should
> do it.
>
> Following on from this, I have noticed some people also "bang" just before
> the minchah shemoneh esrei. This struck me as rather odd since there would
> not be any objection to them actually calling out at that point in
> davenning.
>
> Do other MJ members have any observations on these matters?
There is no din of mafsik in maariv between ga'al yisrael and the amidah - the
proof is that there is a kaddish in between (Rosh). Thus there is no reason not
to just say "yaaleh ve-yavo" or whatever to remind people of an insertion. I
personally need all the reminders I can get and don't mind it when someone
whispers a reminder.
The reason one need not repeat the maariv amidah if he or she says it wrong is
because it is not obligatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <the65pops@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 7,2013 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Rosh Chodesh musings
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#97):
> ... that some people call out loudly the words "Ya'aleh veyavo" or "Rosh
> Chodesh" when they say them in their (officially) silent shemoneh esrei can be
> very disturbing to those who do not daven quite as fast as them
Yes, but they likely mean well; and see BH 422:1
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40527&st=&pgnum=338
(re the "shamash" [what we might call a *gabbai* or a member of the Synagogue
Committee] saying "Ya'aleh v'ayvo" out loud during his Amidah).
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 8,2013 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Rosh Chodesh musings
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#97):
> What surprises me is that, unlike shacharit or minchah, someone who omits
> ya'aleh veyavo does not have to repeat his shemoneh esrei. Is that because,
> when the date of Rosh Chodesh was set by observing the new moon, this was
> only done during the day and so there was no certainty that it was in fact
> Rosh Chodesh at ma'ariv?
The Shulhan Arukh, in OH 322, states specifically that the reason is because the
month was not set at night. This also explains why this applies on the second
night of a two day Rosh Hodesh. There is an opinion in the Gemora that on the
second night of a two day Rosh Hodesh one would have to repeat because it is
clear that that night has the sanctity of Rosh Hodesh. The Mishna Brura (ad loc)
rejects that, saying that the second day may be caused by a doubt that perhaps
the first day was Rosh Hodesh but the witnesses didn't arrive in time for the
declaration.
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 11,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Shir shel yom
On the last page of Shekalim (22a in the Vilna pagination), the Yerushalmi
quotes a Beraita regarding the shir shel yom when Rosh Chodesh falls on
Shabbat in which case "the one for Rosh Chodesh is sung first", on which
Rabbi Yosah comments that this is done "in order to publicise it and let
people know that it is Rosh Chodesh".
In our Daf Hayomi shiur the maggid shiur commented that this would be a bit
late and the people would have omitted ya'aleh veyavo from their shacharit
amidah.
However that would only be according to the current minhag to recite the
shir shel yom at the end of davenning, which is quite a recent innovation.
It would seem from the Kitsur Shelah, first published in 1683 in Fuerth,
that it was said after the Korbanot before Pesukei Dezimra (p.113 in the
1984 Jerusalem print) and, in many places, this is still done on Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur, as indicated in older machzorim.
It is not clear why it was moved, but Rabbi Yosah's comment would only seem
to make sense if it were not. This might be connected with its adoption as
part of the regular davenning by everyone, whereas in the time of the Kitsur
Shelah it appears only to have been said by especially pious individuals.
Does anyone have any further information on this?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 8,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Technology and halacha
David Ziants wrote (MJ 61#97):
> From the little gemara learning that I have, I remember learning a sugya
> [subject] in Mesechet B'rachot that discusses behaviour in a toilet, being a
> place that is unclean.
>
> Bearing in mind that toilets those days were basically holes in the ground, a
> distinction is made of a newer type of toilet (maybe in Bavel) which had a
> primitive kind of drainage, and as a result there was less smell and so one
> could be more lenient on certain issues.
That would be 26a - Persian toilets. I thought of that as alternative
technology but you might be right. Another example might be the technology of
heating water using hot springs that the Rabbis banned for Shabbat use (see
Mishnah Shabbat 3:4).
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 98
