Volume 63 Number 05
Produced: Mon, 31 Oct 16 02:47:15 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Avinu Malkeinu at YK Mincha (5)
[Martin Stern Abe Brot Immanuel Burton Yisrael Medad Roger Kingsley]
Blessing on viewing a hurricane
[Dr Russell Jay Hendel]
Chillull HaTorah (was Shabbat vs. Pikuah Nefesh)
[Yisrael Medad]
L'David Ori after post-YK Maariv (3)
[Martin Stern Immanuel Burton Haim Snyder]
Lekol Teruoseinu (was: Power of the press)
[Perets Mett]
Starting minchah early
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Oct 27,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Avinu Malkeinu at YK Mincha
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#04):
> The Koren YK Mahzor says that some shuls in Israel omit Avinu Malkeinu at YK
> mincha to insure that that birkat kohanim is done before shekia. Has anyone
> seen this in practice? If so, how exactly would that work? Shekia is at least
> 40 minutes, maybe more, from the end of the fast, and it takes only 15 minutes
> at most to get from birkat kohanim to the end of davening. Do they blow shofar
> early? Or is there a pre-shofar break?
The shul I davenned in in Manchester did not say Avinu Malkeinu at YK mincha
and, as far as I can remember, no shul I have attended in England did. AFAIK
the reason is that it is put off until Ne'ilah in the same way as is Ashrei
and Uva le'Tzion.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abe Brot <abe.brot@...>
Date: Thu, Oct 27,2016 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Avinu Malkeinu at YK Mincha
There are qualified opinions that Birkat-Kohanim can be said until it is
obviously dark, which is interpreted to mean 13 minutes after sunset. This is
sufficient, in most cases, to have the Birkat-Kohanin during the Ne'ila prayers.
In my shul in Kfar Ganim (Petah Tikva) we had Birkat Kohanim last year and two
years ago. This year, we were a few minutes late, so we were unable to have
Birkat Kohanim during Ne'ila.
Avraham Brot
Petah-Tikva
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Thu, Oct 27,2016 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Avinu Malkeinu at YK Mincha
The rubric in the Minhag Anglia edition of the Koren Yom Kippur machzor
regarding Avinu Malkeinu at mincha read as follows:
"Some congregations say Avinu Malkenu.
"On Shabbat all omit Avinu Malkenu.
"In Israel, many congregations omit Avinu Malkenu to allow time to say the Birkat
Kohanim of Ne'ila before sunset."
This seems to imply that some congregations outside Israel omit Avinu Malkenu at
mincha, but if there is no need to have time to say the Birkat Kohanim of
Ne'ila, why should Avinu Malkenu be omitted? Furthermore, why can't mincha be
started slightly earlier so that there's enough time for both?
I have been in Israel only once on Yom Kippur (in my yeshiva year), and I don't
remember if they said Avinu Malkenu at mincha. The way they did Ne'ila,
however, was that the Chazan's repetition was the same as the silent amidah
prayer but with Birkat Kohanim. They then said the selichot [propitiatory
prayers] that would normally be in the repetition after the repetition, followed
by Avinu Malkenu, thereby leaving enough time for everything without rushing
some parts or dragging out others.
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 28,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Avinu Malkeinu at YK Mincha
Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 63#04) asks if anyone has seen the practice of omitting Avinu
Malkeinu at YK mincha to insure that that birkat kohanim is done before shekia.
I have. In Shiloh. For 35 years. It is my impression that it is quite well
ingrained in shul practice here.
The Ne'ilah service, now that I think of it, is probably considered the most
important congregational prayer and is long and drawn-out.
The times at Shiloh's Noam Yonatan Ramat Shmuel synagogue were:
Minchah-leading-into-Ne'ilah 15:30;
Shekiah 18:12;
Shofar 18:27;
Fast terminated at 18:46.
There is singing and dancing for 10 minutes or so until Arvit. And the Avinu
Malkeinu of Ne'ilah takes at least 10-12 minutes.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 28,2016 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Avinu Malkeinu at YK Mincha
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#04):
> The Koren YK Mahzor says that some shuls in Israel omit Avinu Malkeinu at YK
> mincha to insure that that birkat kohanim is done before shekia. Has anyone
> seen this in practice? If so, how exactly would that work? Shekia is at least
> 40 minutes, maybe more, from the end of the fast, and it takes only 15 minutes
> at most to get from birkat kohanim to the end of davening. Do they blow shofar
> early? Or is there a pre-shofar break?
We daven this way in our shul. Following the Luach Eretz Yisrael of Rav
Tuk'chinsky, the shofar is blown 21 minutes after sh'kia, followed by Arvit,
with the end of the fast and havdala about 33 minutes after shkia. The end of
Neila and the last Avinu Malkeinus can be taken a little more slowly. There is
no need to skip the mincha Avinu Malkeinu, if enough time has been allowed for
mincha.
Roger Kingsley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr Russell Jay Hendel <rashiyomi@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 30,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Blessing on viewing a hurricane
Abraham Lebowitz (MJ 63#04) raises the interesting issue of saying a blessing on
a solar eclipse. He is indeed correct that certain of the acharonim (later
deciders of religious law) thought it inappropriate to say a blessing on an eclipse.
One possible source to this prohibition is a *restrictive* reading of the
original source of blessings in tractate Beracoth. Only 10 examples are given.
The restrictive reading says that we do not say a blessing on anything else. In
passing, destructive hurricane-type winds are explicitly mentioned, already in
the Talmud, as requiring a blessing.
Some acharonim mention the Talmud, Succah 29a, that says that eclipeses are a
bad sign for the world. Hence, one does not bless on them. Abraham mentions
this approach.
However, this approach is problematic. According to the Rambam, *any*
association of behavior (or omitted behavior) with astral events is an
iodlatrous practice and prohibited biblically. The Rambam of course would then
have to explain the Talmudic statment that eclipses are bad omens. But that
should be simple: The Talmud would be referring to the symbolism of eclipses
when used by the prophets or when occurring in our own dreams. It could not,
according to the Rambam, refer to any required behavior. Note: Although this
distinction is not explicitly mentioned in the Talmud, the resolution of the
contradiction between the Rambam and the Talmud requires us to reinterpret how
the Rambam reads the Talmud.
Going further, the Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan (Orach
Chaiim, 227 and 228) do not exclude solar eclipses. So a person would be
justified in saying the blessing "who makes the works of creation" on solar
eclipses especially according to the Rambam.
Going deeper, Abraham raises the issue on how to interpret the requirements of
the various blessings. What are the drivers that determine these blessings? As I
already mentioned, destructive winds do require a blessing.
Although, final law is not determined by the Rambam, nevertheless, it is a good
place to start because of how well-organized the Rambam is. One can find the
relevant laws in Rambam, Berachot, Chapter 10, Paragraphs 14, 15, 26. Before
stating my reading, I emphasize that this is creative (not explicit) in the
texts. But such a search for unifying reasons is part of Talmudic learning and
should always be done.
Paragraph 14 lists 5 items on which the blessing "whose might and strength fill
the world." Examining these five items - thunder, lightning, comets/meteorites,
hurricanes (actually strong winds), earthquakes - we easily see that they have
in common large amounts of energy and power.
As I indicated this is a creative exercise. Many of the commentaries on the
Shulchan Aruch point out the common custom of saying "whose might" on thunder
but "who makes the works of creation" on lightning. These commentaries use the
unifying factor of "noise" which does "fill the world" (However, I would
question whether a comet produces noise; also "lightning" although noiseless,
also "fills the world" I think the unifying approach I gave above -- large
energy -- is more succinct though it contradicts our current practice) Note:
Consistent with my explanation of the Rambam, several commentaries object to
"two blessings" on thunder/lightning especially when they occur simultaneously.
The Shulchan Aruch and commentaries also point out that blessings are not said
on any strong wind but on destructive winds that uproot stones. The widely used
Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, shows that category 5 hurricanes can be expected
to uproot and destroy homes. But even category 1 hurricanes could cause roof and
shingle damage. This is consistent with my categorization of the unifying
feature as "large energy" output. Finally, I note, that hurricanes have more
energy than small nuclear weapons (Nuclear weapons have more power; power and
energy are technical terms in physics and have precise definitions).
To answer Abraham: We make the blessing on the demonstration of God's might and
strength, which indeed is manifest in a hurricane. The blessing does not imply
or require that the hurricane be a good (or bad) experience.
Continuing, we find that Rambam in paragraph 15 lists 5 examples over which we
say the blessing "who makes the work of creation". They are "mountains, hills,
seas, rivers, deserts." These are not characterized by power and energy. The
Shulchan Aruch and commentaries point out that it does not apply to any river
but only a river with a name (a famous or known river). (There is technical
discussion whether the blessings on rivers only apply (as the Beis Yoseph seems
to indicate) to the four rivers mentioned in Gen 2; but most commentaries
re-interpret the Beis Yoseph to mean any river that is well known like the
rivers in Gen 2. Furthermore, almost everyone agrees that the blessing is only
said on natural wonders, not on man-made wonders. Finally, the Shulchan Aruch
points out the analogy that "who makes the works of creation" is analogous to
the "shehacol nihiyah bidvaro"; it is a universal blessing that would enable
fulfillment even if initially one should use other blessings.
Thus the unifying feature driving saying, "who makes the works of creation"
would be natural famous wonders, things that have names and are noticed by
people as something unusual. If we accept this, then the blessing "who makes the
works of creation" should be said on eclipses.
Finally, I note that in paragraph 26 Rambam urges that generally one should seek
out to praise and thank God on the past (This could be interpreted as saying
blessings or, more weakly, as just praise; I have interpreted it to mean to say
blessings "whose might" or "who makes the work of creation" whenever appropriate
as indicated by the unifying features above).
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D. ASA;
www.rashiyomi.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 28,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Chillull HaTorah (was Shabbat vs. Pikuah Nefesh)
Martin Stern (MJ 63#04) wrote:
> I get the distinct impression that certain rabbis consider "the maintenance
> of a state and all its apparatuses" as more important than the desecration
> of the Shabbat and are inclined to bend their decisions accordingly.
>
> The same would seem to apply to the way they turn a blind eye to the obvious
> insincerity of prospective 'converts' who quite clearly have no intention to
> commit themselves to mitzvah observance.
In the first place, being Rabbis, my assumption is that they well know, more
than others, when Shabbat is to be considered the overriding concern and when
other aspects of life are to be freed from subservience to strict Shabbat
halachic rules, those considerations of concern being halachic as well. I doubt
Martin was intimating that these Rabbis are heretics, yoke-breakers or ignoramuses.
As for his attempt, I think, to despise these "certain" Rabbis by seeking to
draw a guilt-by-association to a (non)parallel case of "genuine" conversion, it
is too close to Ellul/Tishrei for me to write anything more.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Oct 27,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: L'David Ori after post-YK Maariv
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#04):
> The Birnbaum mahzor doesn't print L'David Ori after maariv for motzaei Yom
> Kippur and doesn't indicate it's said. I've always assumed that this is a
> simple error, but then I didn't see it in my brand-new Koren mahzor. Did I
> miss something? Is there any custom not to say it then?
The custom in many communities in Germany was not to say L'David Ori at all,
whether from Rosh Chodesh Ellul until Yom Kippur or until Shemini Atzeret. This
was also formerly the custom in England before the East European influx in the
1880s. I presume that the same was true in the USA which would explain its
absence from the Birnbaum mahzor.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Thu, Oct 27,2016 at 10:01 PM
Subject: L'David Ori after post-YK Maariv
Orrin Tilevitz asked (MJ 63#04) about Le'Dovid Hashem Ori in maariv after Yom
Kippur. The Koren Machzor that I used this year was the Minhag Anglia edition
(not the 'regular' Ashkenaz edition), and it did include Le'Dovid Hashem Ori, on
page 1243. Oddly enough, though, the Shul which I attended (not in England)
didn't say it after maariv at the end of Yom Kippur, and no-one official seemed
concerned by this.
Could it be possible that this psalm isn't said after Yom Kippur so as not to
prolong the fast by even a small amount?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 30,2016 at 02:01 PM
Subject: L'David Ori after post-YK Maariv
Orrin Tilevitz commented (MJ 63#04) on the missing Psalm 27 in the post-Yom
Kippur mahzorim that he checked.
There were 2 opinions as to when this psalm is said:
1. from Rosh Hodesh Elul until Yom Kippur and
2. from Rosh Hodesh Elul until Hoshana Rabba.
In Maase Rav 53, it says that the G'ra says not to say this psalm at all, but
the period he cites is from Rosh Hodesh Elul until Yom Kippur. Apparently this
was the custom in Vilna (and Volozhen, since Maase Rav was compiled by Rav Haim
from Volozhen).
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Tue, Oct 11,2016 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Lekol Teruoseinu (was: Power of the press)
Michael Poppers (MJ 63#03) wrote:
> Martin Stern (MJ 63#02) blamed publishers/proofreaders:
>
>> On Rosh Hashanah, I could not help noticing that the gentleman sitting next
>> to me said 'teruateinu' in Areshet Sefateinu after the shofar blowing after
>> Malkhuyot but 'tekiateinu' after the shofar blowing after Zichronot and
>> Shofarot. As I was a intrigued by this inconsistency, I asked to see his
>> machzor which was printed in Hanover in 1837 and found that that was what
>> was printed in it. Obviously it had not been carefully proofread and he was
>> merely following what was in it.
>
> The nusach [liturgical text] Martin considers to be in error is also in the
> Roedelheim-print machzor ["cycle" of additional/festival prayers] that was
> originally edited by R. Wolf Heidenheim:
>
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43504&st=&pgnum=207
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43504&st=&pgnum=207>)
>
> and is still in use at "Breuer's"/KAJ and other q'hilos [congregations]. That
> nusach seemingly was well-known long before the 19th century CE (e.g. see a
> Venetian print from 1600, online here:
>
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11582&st=&pgnum=160
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11582&st=&pgnum=160>).
>
> Certainly, errors can occur thanks to intentional or unintentional changes by
> publishers or editors, but seems to me that in this case the error may be
> one of hypercorrection on the part of any editor who wished to eliminate
> "inconsistency." If I may, my thought on the reason for "t'ruaseinu" is
> that the "t'ruah" is the key sound, with the "t'qiyah" needed as the "rye
> bread" for the "sandwich."
>
In the fourth edition of the Roedelheim machzor there is a footnote at the
Areshes Sefoseinu of Zichronos referring to a manuscript explaining that in the
case of Zichronos, the version is lekol tekioseinu. The explanation is that in
Minhag Ashkenaz [in this context the South and West German rite], the shofar
blasts at Zichronos are Tekio Shvorim Tekio, and no teruo is sounded then.
Perets Mett
London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Oct 29,2016 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Starting minchah early
While minchah should preferably be davenned at minchah katanah, this is not
always practical, especially as we are now approaching winter with its short
afternoons, so many people will be davenning minchah at minchah gedolah - 30
minutes after midday.
The 30 minutes is only a safeguard to be sure that one does not daven before
midday and someone who inadvertently davens during those 30 minutes does not
have to repeat minchah.
It occurred to me recently that this might not apply to ashrei, which we say
before minchah, so perhaps one could actually start about a minute earlier.
Of course, on a weekday this is hardly a major leniency but on Shabbat, when
there is also Uva leTzion and Kriat Hatorah this could mean starting 10 minutes
earlier, which might be helpful.The same might apply to a Ta'anit Tzibbur.
I have been unable to find any ruling on this but, perhaps, others might know of
one.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 5
