Volume 63 Number 78
Produced: Tue, 27 Mar 18 08:05:06 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Apology
[Martin Stern]
A Masoretic joke? (4)
[Martin Stern Orrin Tilevitz Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Michael Poppers]
Beyond the Seven Noahide Commandments
[Sammy Finkelman]
Davening outside
[Joel Rich]
Depriving the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun
[Susan Buxfield]
Egg Matzo (2)
[Orrin Tilevitz Sammy Finkelman]
Using secular music when davening
[Martin Stern]
Vechol ma'aminim (2)
[Martin Stern Sammy Finkelman]
Yehiyou Lerotzon Imrei Fee
[Sammy Finkelman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Apology
In editing the contribution from Sammy Finkelman (MJ 63#77) headed "Using
secular music when davening" the following was inadvertently inserted at the
beginning and repeated a few lines later:
Carl Singer wrote (MJ 63#74):
> but today I seldom hear secular melodies incorporated into the local
I apologise for the oversight.
As this will probably be the last digest before Pesach, may I, on behalf of the
whole moderating team, wish all members a chag kasher vesamei'ach.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: A Masoretic joke?
Sammy Finkelman wrote (MJ 63#77):
> 'bli kol', mentioned by Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 63#75) indeed does have the
> gematria of 92, but 've'ein lah', mentioned by Martin Stern (MJ 63#74)
> doesn't.
>
> There's a yud in the word ve'ein so its gematria is 6 + 10 + 30 not 6 + 30, so
> 've'ein lah' has a total gematria of 102 not 92
Of course Sammy is correct, but I assume the person who suggested this siman
meant that the word ve'ein should be spelled chaser, i.e. without a yud,
which would indeed make its gematria 92.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 10:01 PM
Subject: A Masoretic joke?
Sammy Finkelman asks (MJ 63#77):
> But what I don't know is what's the exact purpose of this. Is anyone going to
> be counting verses to see if one is missing? Is there some significance to the
> number of Pesukim?
As I understand it, up until the massoretic era in the 10th century pesukim were
punctuated differently from the way they are today, and there was no standard
text. The number of pesukim stated in the massoretic note, as well as the other
massoretic notes, provide a gross check on the then-new standardization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 10:01 PM
Subject: A Masoretic joke?
Sammy Finkelman wrote (MJ 63#77):
> By the way, I cannot see any verse total or mnemonic for Pekudei in either of
> the links he gives for that.
The first link that I gave was the statement that the verse total and mnemonic
were NOT given. The second link that I gave included in one of the answers the
statement:
> In old texts we can still find mnemonics for its 92 verses such as
>
> <http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-00652/138>
>
> <https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47df-c964-a3d9-040-e00a18064a99>
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <the65pops@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 25,2018 at 12:01 PM
Subject: A Masoretic joke?
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 63#76):
> In old texts we can still find mnemonics for its 92 verses such as
>
> <http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-00652/138>
> or
> <https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47df-c964-a3d9-e040-
e00a18064a99>
[alt URL for the latter site: <https://tinyurl.com/ycl49g2n> --Mod.]
to which Sammy Finkelman responded (MJ 63#77):
> I cannot see any verse total or mnemonic for Pekudei in either of the links he
> gives for that.
At the first URL, Sammy et al. could look for the first line after the end of
Seifer Shmos (it's tangential to the top two points of the six-pointed star) to
read "tzadi'beis' siman ayin'zayin'yud'heih'" (i.e. the mnemonic for the
#verses, 92, is "azayah").
At the second URL, please look in the margin to the left of the last word in
Seifer Shmos; seems to me like two mnemonics are provided, the first one being
"azayah", but I'm not sure if the second one is samech'beis'chaf'yud'.
Chag Kasher v'Sameach!
and all the best from
Michael Poppers
Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 25,2018 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Beyond the Seven Noahide Commandments
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#77):
> Or do the 7 Noahide commandments comprehensively govern non-Jews' conduct in
> the same way the Torah's laws (toraitic and rabbinic) govern Jews' conduct,
> so that nothing else matters?
Even with Jews, we have the concept of Lifnim meshuras hadin and the commandment
"to do that which is good and proper in the eyes of Hashem your G-d" (Devorim
6:18 echoed on 12:28), and also the concept of "l'drosh es elokim" - to search
for what Hashem finds right.
This indicates there is something more - that the Torah doesn't give you the
best possible behavior. There are things not required maybe, but meritorious,
(and there's no shiur [minimal amount] for a number of things)
So a non-Jew who returns lost objects may indeed be on a higher level, and maybe
the answer to the question of whether it is better to avoid tachanun or not
depends on the circumstances which can't be spelled out (and is not so
important). See:
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-40.htm
"Ramban, Devarim 6:18 in his famous explanation of the directive v'asita
hayashar v'hatov b'einei Hashem [and you shall do what is proper and good in the
eyes of Hashem], effectively creates ethical and religious categories for the
mitzvot. He writes that it would be impossible for the Torah to indicate in
detail the proper behaviour in every circumstance, thus after outlining the
correct behaviour in numerous circumstances - so that we may learn and
understand the general concept - the Torah declares the general rule - to do
what is yashar or tov. This mirrors, as well, Ramban's very understanding of the
directive kedoshim tihyu [be holy] (Vayikra 15:2)."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Davening outside
I recently attended a levaya (funeral) in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After
the kevura (burial) a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall
(which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested
using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al)
I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I
understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an
inside alternative. Anyone know?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 25,2018 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Depriving the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#77):
> After all we don't force them to say it (Tachanun) if they want to omit it.
There is an the issue of not to be "lifrosh min hatzibbur" - separate oneself from
the congregation, unless the tzibbur is acting incorrectly according the halacha
ie just the desire to finish the prayer quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Egg Matzo
David Lee Makovsky asks (MJ 63#77):
> How does one handle the situation at a Seder where at least one person must
> eat egg matzo for health reasons. Obviously a Rav must approve this.
>
> How is the matzo kept separate? Is it labeled so no one else takes it? Any
> other insights would be appreciated.
The obvious solution, which is what we did, was keep the egg matzo in the box,
and pass the box around.
I don't see how there's any question if the only other matzo at the table is
hand shmura (round, not square like egg matzo) but even if it isn't, egg matzo
doesn't look or feel like regular matzo. And there's no issue of egg matzo
somehow being chometz. It's the minhag of Ashkenazim not to eat it, but AFIK for
Sepharadim it's fine. And I don't know that you'd have to get a rabbi involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 25,2018 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Egg Matzo
In response to David Lee Makowsky (MJ 63#77):
It's kind of obvious what is egg matzah and what is not. Egg matzah is yellow,
and softer.
I suppose you could just alert people to the fact that egg matzah doesn't count
for fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah. Or you could hand it out specially
to the person or persons who can eat only it. Although I'd think matzah made wet
and soggy might be as good, or maybe that's worse.
You should remember one thing: The current matzah we see, hard like crackers, is
not the real old time (pre-1600s) matzah. The matzah of that time, and also used
by some Sephardim is much softer and baked Erev Pesach. But it is hard to keep
it kosher and people don't bake their own matzah any more. So all this only
applies when talking about the new (post-1600s or so) matzah.
Egg matzah is not chometz! It's not even kitniyos.
That's it's forbidden to eat egg matzah on Pesach I think is just a big error.
A lot of people act that way and only eat matzah on Erev Pesach which falls on
Shabbos. Rabbi Phillip (Pinchas) Harris ZT'L told us he used to do that, or that
was when it came in handy, or words to that effect.
My parents used to put egg matzah on a Seder table plate along with regular
(square non-Shemurah) matzah but maybe they didn't know anything. Still it must
have been a widely held custom in the United States. We always had regular
matzah as the 3 parts, the afikomen, with the maror etc. the egg matzah was
included for people to take by themselves.
The week before last a woman told me that some years ago, she went to Boro Park
before or during Pesach and couldn't find any Egg Matzah on sale. I explained to
her that Egg Matzah is not good for the seder but we have a mistake here in
reading the sources.
The boxes of Egg Matzah used to say something like it is forbidden for anyone
but invalids or people who can't eat regular matzah to eat Egg Matzah. They
would quote something that actually had to do with whether egg Matzah was
suitable for the mitzvah of matzah. On;y if you quoted it out of context could
you think it was speaking about whether you could eat it at all.
The egg matzah boxes nowadays don't seem to be strong in implying it is
forbidden as they used to be. It seems like this error has been significantly
corrected.
Of course it is not forbidden, because if so it would be chometz.
This year I saw that the Horowitz Margareten egg matzah box said in Hebrew
(underneath the Yiddish that mentioned Challah being taken etc and the fact that
it is under the strongest supervision by the OU) that it is Kosher for Passover
for all those people that are accustomed to eat Matzah Ashirah (a category in
which egg matzah falls). To see all the laws about eating Matzah Ashirah on
Pesach go to the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim Siman 462.
The Streits egg matzah box says (in English) that:
"Egg Matzos may be eaten only by the infirm, aged or children according to the
Shulchan Aruch."
So Streits still hasn't quite corrected that (or maybe it was like that in
previous years)
This may be there because some people insist it can't be eaten or some stores
wouldn't carry it if it didn't say something like that. When they just say
"Shulchan Aruch" they are not directing you to any halachic source so it's
misleading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Using secular music when davening
Sammy Finkelman wrote (MJ 63#77):
> That reminds me of the tune the chazan (actually the Rabbi) used to use for
> yechadesheihu for Birkhas hachodesh [benching Rosh Chodesh]. For Kislev and
> Teves, he sang it to the tune of Maoz Tzur; for Adar, Shoshanas Yaakov, and
> for Nisan, Dayenu.
Using the specific nigun of the upcoming Yom Tov for Birkhat hachodesh was a
well established custom among German Jews, with every month except Cheshvan and
Shevat having one.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 24,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Vechol ma'aminim
Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 63#77):
> Saul Mashbaum (MJ 63#76) makes the statement (relating to secular tunes):
>
>> When I taught at the high school in Providence RI many years ago, the
>> practice was to sing the piyyut "VeKol Maaminim" on the Yamim Noraim to the
>> melody of the well-known Yiddish lullaby "Of'n Pipichik."
>>
>> The principal, Rabbi Nachman Cohen, told me that the choice of this melody
>> was intentional. He said that the piyyut expressed emunah pshutah, the
>> fundamental and uncomplicated faith in HaShem everyone can share, even those
>> unlearned and not intellectual. The melody of a children's song is
>> appropriate for this message.
>
> I strongly disagree that this piyyut is in any way uncomplicated or
> unintellectual. I have spent a lot of time learning it and looking into
> sources and deeper meanings. The various language is deep not only in
> meaning, but in linguistic style. In fact, as a family we felt it was such a
> moving piece of liturgy that I commissioned an artist's calligraphy of it
> which now hangs in our living room.
I agree entirely with Leah in her objection to the opinion that "this piyyut
is in any way uncomplicated or unintellectual", which is why I object to the
way most shuls nowadays distort it by joining the second half of each verse
(Vechol ma'aminim ...) with the first half of the following one. The way it
was originally written and intended to be said was that the chazan would say
(or rather chant) the first half, to which the tzibbur would respond "Vechol
ma'aminim ...". So I suppose that Saul's comment might in reality be true in
that the current practice shows just how "unlearned and not intellectual"
such congregations really are.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 25,2018 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Vechol ma'aminim
Leah Gordon (MJ 63#77) wrote:
> Saul Mashbaum (MJ 63#76) wrote:
>
>> ... The principal, Rabbi Nachman Cohen ... said that the piyyut expressed
>> emunah pshutah, the fundamental and uncomplicated faith in HaShem everyone can
>> share, even those unlearned and not intellectual...
>
> I strongly disagree that this piyyut is in any way uncomplicated or
> unintellectual. I have spent a lot of time learning it and looking into
> sources and deeper meanings. The various language is deep not only in meaning,
> but in linguistic style.
I think the idea here is that the words "Vechol ma'aminim" express emunah
peshitah. If all beleive it, it has to be pretty simple - but that's only half
of each verse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 25,2018 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Yehiyou Lerotzon Imrei Fee
Haim Snyder wrote (MJ 63#77):
> Sammy Finkelman wrote (MJ 63#76):
>
>> One Artscroll siddur surprised me by saying the Chazan should say Yehiyou
>> Lerotzon Imrei Fee (quietly) after completing his repetition of the Shemoneh
>> Esrei
>
> This should not be a surprise. In Ma'ase Rav 42 it says (my translation) "In
> the repetition of the Shmoneh Esrei the reader should say before the prayer
> Hashem S'fatai and, at the end Yehiyou Lerotzon".
I really never heard that. I did know about saying Hashem S'fatai.
Another Artscroll siddur prints that Chazan's repitition ends here
before printing the first Yehiyou Lerotzon Imrei Fee
> The Gr"a therefore says that if they are part of the prayer they should be
> said by the reader who should repeat the prayer in its entirety.
That sounds like it is an innovation of the Vilna Gaon. Maybe correct, but not
universally adopted.
The Chazan's repetition actually at one time was the principle tefila, by which
unlearned people could participate by answering Omein. The Rambam actually
stopped the individual Shemoneh Esrei in Egypt and it remained stopped there for
over 300 years, maybe 350 years, until it was restored by Rabbi David ben
Shlomo ibn Abi Zimra (1479-1573) circa 1539
http://etzion.org.il/en/repetition-shemoneh-esrei-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 78