Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 367

Monday, February 14 2000

• Re: diyukim -new Sfas Emes Siddur
• Re: diyukim -new Sfas Emes Siddur
• Re: diyukim
• diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re: "kir'u'sai" vs. "chir'u'sai" (was "diyukim")
• Re: Torah journals
• Re: Forthcoming Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Ch...
• Re: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim -new Sfas Emes Siddur
• Re: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re:diyukim
• Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: diyukim
• Misc corrections
• Re: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• diyukim

Where may this siddur be obtained?

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> There is a new edition (actually 2 new editions) of the Roedelheim Sfas Emes
> Siddur now in print.
>
> One version has all the piyyutim (so-called "yotzrros") for special shabbossos
> etc.
>
> The other is the same w/o the piyyutim in the back.
>
> The major change is that all instructions are now in Hebrew instead of German.
>
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Where may this siddur be obtained?

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> There is a new edition (actually 2 new editions) of the Roedelheim Sfas Emes
> Siddur now in print.
>
> One version has all the piyyutim (so-called "yotzrros") for special shabbossos
> etc.
>
> The other is the same w/o the piyyutim in the back.
>
> The major change is that all instructions are now in Hebrew instead of German.
>
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:34:37PM -0500, sambo wrote:
: Do you know why he wanted those two words to be in Hebrew?  As I said, I
: haven't seen the Gra inside, only heard it referenced.

Because in Yechezkeil it reads "Hisgadalti vihiskadashti" -- albeit in first
"Person", not second. The first two words of kaddish are the paraphrase of
a pasuk. Saying it in Hebrew makes it a closer paraphrase.

:> Isn't it "di vera kir'usei" -- IOW "kir'usei" being a description of the
:> beri'ah of the world?

: Not as far as I recall. Hence the dagesh in the chaf 'Kir'uteih'.
: Otherwise it would be refuyah, following the alef in vera. As a seperate
: (one-word) phrase, it is degushah. Unless it could be Be'alma; kir'uteih.

That was my point in talking about various levels of pausing.

My translation would have been "in the world which He created, as per what
He Saw worthy".

: Be'alma di vera;
: Kir'uteih,
: Ve'yamlich Malchuteih,(or .)...

: I agree wholeheartedly. This is the main reason I don't generally
: transliterate. 

I think transliterators and translators -- for that matter, publishers in
the original Hebrew, should come up with a better convention for showing
phraseology.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:28:38 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: diyukim

<<Point of note, I believe the G'ra had you say "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish"
(tzeiri as the last vowel of each word), in Hebrew not in Aramaic, >>

	Anybody know the correct way,  according to this Gra or otherwise,  of
saying tiskabail/tiskabal?

	How about placement of the word "vechayim"  (Sammy,  this doesn't affect
you!) in yehe shelama rabba?

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:34:37 -0500
> From: sambo <sambo@charm.net>
> Subject: Re: diyukim

<<Not as far as I recall. Hence the dagesh in the chaf 'Kir'uteih'. 
Otherwise it would be refuyah, following the alef in vera. As a seperate
(one-word) phrase, it is degushah. Unless it could be Be'alma;
kir'uteih>>

	I have not yet heard a good explanation of ki/chi r'usei as a separate
phrase.  Is the degusha a fact,  whence we derive that it is a separate
phrase,  or could it perhaps be refuyah after all?

Gershon

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:25:37PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<Point of note, I believe the G'ra had you say "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish"
: (tzeiri as the last vowel of each word), in Hebrew not in Aramaic, >>

: 	Anybody know the correct way,  according to this Gra or otherwise,  of
: saying tiskabail/tiskabal?

As I noted, the rational that "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish" is a paraphrase
applies ONLY to those two words. There's no reason to assume any of the
other hitpa'el words of kaddish are in Hebrew. Therefore "tiskabal".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

MBerger:
>> Isn't it "di vera kir'usei" -- IOW "kir'usei" being a description of the
beri'ah of the world? <<
Sam:
> Not as far as I recall. Hence the dagesh in the chaf 'Kir'uteih'.
Otherwise it would be refuyah, following the alef in vera. As a seperate
(one-word) phrase, it is degushah. <
I believe you're correct.  The GRA's reading follows the same logic as
"kirtzono v'chirtzon y'rai'ov..." in the "Al hakol yisgadal..." paragraph
said [at least in minhag Ash'k'naz] on Shabbos and YT during Hotzo'o (while
the Saifer Torah is being brought to the Bima) -- it starts a new
"sentence" (i.e. is not s'muchah to the previous words and therefore has a
dagesh kal) but refers back to what was said (and NB the similarity in
terminology between this paragraph and Kaddish).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Although the RAMBI database at Hebrew University (currently available
only by  telnet aleph.huji.ac.il   login as aleph  LB then access RAMBI)
has the table of contents of Tradition, Torah'Umadda Journal, and
the J Halacha and Contemporary Society (plus, if you have Hebrew telnet
fonts, dozens of halachic journals), RAMBI doesn't provide full-text
access. Unfortunately, only JHCS appears on the UNCOVER database
(telnet database.carl.org  5  UNCOVER) but it too, doesn't permit full
text access (most of the 15,000 journals do provide this service for a
fee of around $5-$10/article). I would heartily recommend that Tradition
and the Torah u'Maddah Journal get on UNCOVER (done by supplying 1 free
copy of each issue).

For example, if you have the special Hebrew KERMIT telnet program you can
read the table of contents of the latest issue of TECHUMIN, Hapardes,
Moriah, etc.

Josh

In a message dated 2/14/00 2:49:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<<  You (and I) will need to make do with a virtual presence (Do a little
 Rabbi Akiva Eiger dance,  maybe) until (y)our local regional conference
 convenes.  >>

While lately there has been a move to unify by i.e. saying Tehilim etc. at 
the same time, which would mean for those on the east coast it would be at a 
different hour, and in EY another hour, Al Pi Halacha one can be Yotzei by 
doing it during time of Seuda Shlishis (Ravo Dchol Ravin or Bloshon Hakosuv 
Eis Rotzon) each in their own time zone, see S"A Horav Madura Basra end of 
O"C 1.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/14/00 2:50:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< Where are they?
  >>
One of the more Lomdusher ones are in the Shira Bmayim Adirim (strong waters, 
Rashi in Shoftim, Rokeach) or Bmayim, Adirim (gemara Minochos Adirim goes on 
Mitzririm see Pri Mgodim).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

AFAIK it will be availabe in Jewish Book Stores.

If not it can be obtained via the "Roedelheim hotline".

I can provide some details off-list

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim -new Sfas Emes Siddur 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/14/2000 5:12 PM


Where may this siddur be obtained?

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> There is a new edition (actually 2 new editions) of the Roedelheim Sfas Emes 
> Siddur now in print.
>
> One version has all the piyyutim (so-called "yotzrros") for special shabbossos
> etc.
>
> The other is the same w/o the piyyutim in the back. 
>
> The major change is that all instructions are now in Hebrew instead of German.
>
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 2/14/00 5:15:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< "in the world which He created, as per what
 He Saw worthy". >>

IMHO R'usei in hebrew would be Kirtzoini (akin to the Nusach Sheosani 
Kirtzoinoi).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

re: uva litzion
this is the girso in most siddurim:
hu yiftach libeinu besoroso, v'laasos retzonon blevivov shaleim

Birnbaum hochi garsinon:

hu yiftach libeinu besoroso laasos retzonon bleivov shaleim

IOW removing the v' in front of laasos maks it one smooth phrase.

Q: what gives Brinbaum the "right" to remove that vov? Is it based upon 
manusrcipts?

A: I'm not sure if he has any manuscripts.  The assumption is a dittography, 
that some how the vov from besorosso got "dittoed" into laasos making it into 
v'laasos.

While Birnbaum avoids revising the Siddur, this is a form of "lower criticism" 
that is about fixing girsos.

re: Birchas al atzadikkim
By analogy, he emends u'l'lovom lo neivosh because it:
A) matches nusach sefard - itself not sufficient reason
B) it also will match benching.  

So the 2 reasons combined tend to lead us to belief the v'lo nivosh got a 
misplaced vov from u'lolom.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________




<<See Birnbaum on uva letziyon legaei sorosO V'laasos,>>

	Lost you here.

Gershon

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:41:56 -0600 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
writes:

<<As I noted, the rational that "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish" is a paraphrase
applies ONLY to those two words. There's no reason to assume any of  the
other hitpa'el words of kaddish are in Hebrew. Therefore "tiskabal". >>

	The sevara is good;  however tiskabail is fairly commonly used.  Any
explanation of that or proof to your sevara?

Gershon

	Something unsettling about this lower criticism;  I give chezkas moro
kamo to the nusach which is wide spread, and would like more solid proof
than our own sevaros before changing a nusach.

Gershon

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:11:44 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<< While Birnbaum avoids revising the Siddur, this is a form of "lower
criticism" that is about fixing girsos.>>
 
<<re: Birchas al atzadikkim By analogy, he emends u'l'lovom lo neivosh
because it: A) matches nusach sefard - itself not sufficient reason
B) it also will match benching.>>

Here's another, See SA 123:3

Oseh sholom bimromov

Hu Yaaseh sholom Aleinu

V'al kol Yosroel....

Aleinu is in the 2nd phrase although many say it in the beginning of the 3rd 
phrase.  I discussed this with R. Schwab...

Oseh sholom Bimromov is a possuk in Iyov.  This is then difficult to understand 
the minhag of the Baal hatanyo and others of chaing it to HAshlaom during 10 
days of Teshuva.  As Micha noted, it makes sesne to stick close to a possuk.

While the phrasing of Alivenu v'al kol yisroel makes sense to me, R. Schwab 
seemed to say that the aleinu is ikkar and thererfore in the 2nd phrase and that
the v'al kol Yisroel is almost a 3rd thought - sort of an afterthought...

The next question is to WHOM is the imru omeim go in amido and benching?!  
Certainly in Kaddish it is a command to the tzibbur.  But in silent amido who is
supposed to reply omein?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

How about R. Henkin separating onu from v'omru?  is that any more or less 
revisionistic than claiming a superfluouis vov?  it certainly does not appera to
be the traditional phrasing.

Since when do we object to using sevoro to emend the Siddur?  The Baal hatanyo 
moitted phrases because it didn't fit into his version of being mesyaim 
k'inyono,

How about bringing a rayo that revising the siddur based upon speculative 
errrors is "forbedden fruit"?  The Gra didn't hesitate to yank Berachamove out 
of the siyyum habrocho in benching.  He claimed it was in error, too



Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: diyukim 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/14/2000 7:24 PM


	Something unsettling about this lower criticism;  I give chezkas moro 
kamo to the nusach which is wide spread, and would like more solid proof 
than our own sevaros before changing a nusach.

Gershon

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:11:44 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<< While Birnbaum avoids revising the Siddur, this is a form of "lower 
criticism" that is about fixing girsos.>>

<<re: Birchas al atzadikkim By analogy, he emends u'l'lovom lo neivosh 
because it: A) matches nusach sefard - itself not sufficient reason
B) it also will match benching.>>

Whoops Forgot!  the Gra claims that the siyyum Oseh Hashalom during 10 days of 
Teshuva is transposed from the siyyum Oseh HAshalom bimoromov, and does not 
belong to the siyyjm habrocho.  the Gro AFAIK has no physical evidence to 
support this shito, only the suppoistion based upon his propoistion that 
siyyujmim are not altered in general. See the Graon Boneh yerushalayi, in both 
benching and Tisha b'av.  It is also true - and consistent - that Minhag sefard 
does not change the siyyjm.  this being another case where the Gra favors Sefard
over Ashkenaz. 

IOW the Gra did a textual lower criticism here, one that has fallen into some 
question in light of the Aruch Hashulchan who claims that older kisvei yad have 
been found that do support an Ose Hashalom siyyum...

Of course while Birnbaum is not the Gra, however the limited field of the siddur
he was an expert.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: diyukim 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/14/2000 7:24 PM


	Something unsettling about this lower criticism;  I give chezkas moro 
kamo to the nusach which is wide spread, and would like more solid proof 
than our own sevaros before changing a nusach.

Gershon

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:11:44 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<< While Birnbaum avoids revising the Siddur, this is a form of "lower 
criticism" that is about fixing girsos.>>

<<re: Birchas al atzadikkim By analogy, he emends u'l'lovom lo neivosh 
because it: A) matches nusach sefard - itself not sufficient reason
B) it also will match benching.>>

(1) With respect to "keil chai v'kayom," the combination of "tamid" and
"l'olam vaed" appears in birchat hamazon in a manner that does not allow
the type of division proposed for ma'ariv: "yisborach shimcha b'fi kol
chai tamid l'olam vaed." V'nilmad sasum min ham'forash.

(2) As for the Kaddish, the Gra's interpretation is as follows:
Yisgadal v'yiskadash shmey rabbo, b'alma di vra, kir'usay; i.e., the
magnification and sanctification should be in accordance with his will,
in the world which he created.  The kir'usay is *not* intended to be
attached to v'yamlich, which would have no meaning,
We have a similar t'fila in lashon kodesh: after taking out the Torah, we
say "Al hakol yisgadal v'yiskadash . . . baolamos shebara kirtzono
v'chirtzon y'reiav." Certainly, we don't mean to indicate that the world
was created kirtzon y'reiav; obviously, it means that the yisgadal
v'yiskadash be kirtzono v'chirtzon y'reiav.
Elazar M. Teitz
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In some siddurim, there is an alternate (longer) text for the Baruch 
Shepatrani recitation, which includes the full bracha.  Apparently, the Vilna 
Gaon--and other major rabbinic authorities--believed that the full bracha 
should be stated.  What is the reason, then, why most shuls have the custom 
of saying the shortened version?

And while we are on the subject of this recitation, if we believe that a 
father is responsible for the sins of a pre-Bat Mitzvah girl, why doesn't he 
recite this bracha when his daughter reaches the age of mitzvot?

Finally, is there any reason why a mother (as well as a father) can't recite 
this prayer together once their son reaches the age of mitzvot?  If a Bar 
Mitzvah boy's father has died, can a mother then recite the bracha?  Can a 
stepfather say this recitation?

I would appreciate all comments anyone has on the subject.  Much thanks!

Michael Feldstein

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:


> 
> re: uva litzion
> this is the girso in most siddurim:
> hu yiftach libeinu besoroso, v'laasos retzonon blevivov shaleim
> 
> Birnbaum hochi garsinon:
> 
> hu yiftach libeinu besoroso laasos retzonon bleivov shaleim
> 
> IOW removing the v' in front of laasos maks it one smooth phrase.
> 
> Q: what gives Brinbaum the "right" to remove that vov? Is it based upon
> manusrcipts?



Apparently. I have "Hu liftah libenu betorato, ve'yasim belibenu ahavato
ve'yirato la'asot retzono u'le'auvdo velevav shalem".

No vav. I'm not sure that paragraph is quoted from anywhere. I've seen
three different girsot, each more interesting than the others. If you
get a chance, have a look at an Italian siddur.


---sam

Just a couple of corrections to some of my posts from last week.

Anyone who wants to know how the Mishna Brurah parses the phrases of
Kaddish, see 56:2 (not 59 as I had written previously).

This evening I found my shul's copy of the ArtScroll Birkas Hachama.
(Personal note to REMT: It about halfway between the front and back of
the Beis Medrash, mixed in with a bunch of other ArtScrolls.) Indeed, it
does go into a lot of detail comparing the Jewish and solar calendars. On
page 53, for example, it points out that in 5601, Birkas Hachama did
actually fall on the second day of Chol Hamoed Pesach; it explains both
why one would think that is a problem, and also why in fact it's not a
problem.

ArtScroll there also explains many other interesting tidbits, such as how
--- if the calendar continues along the same rules as are followed now
--- about 42000 years from now, we will actually begin Tal UMatar on
Pesach itself. This absurdity serves to reinforce our conviction that
Moshiach will come some time prior to that, and reinstitute the old
rules.

By the way, the next two occurences of Birkas Hachama are scheduled for
14 Nisan in 2009, and 23 Nisan in 2037.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:41:18 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Of course while Birnbaum is not the Gra, however the limited field of
the siddur he was an expert.>>

	Not an expert in the league of the Gra,  he was not.  Please.

Gershon

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:32:14 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<How about R. Henkin separating onu from v'omru?  is that any more or
less revisionistic than claiming a superfluouis vov?  it certainly does
not appera to be the traditional phrasing.>>

	I see your point.  However,  I can see a difference between a change in
the placement of a comma,  and removal or insertion of a letter.
 
<<Since when do we object to using sevoro to emend the Siddur?  The Baal
hatanyo moitted phrases because it didn't fit into his version of being
mesyaim k'inyono,
 
How about bringing a rayo that revising the siddur based upon speculative

> errrors is "forbedden fruit"?  The Gra didn't hesitate to yank
berachamove out of the siyyum habrocho in benching.  He claimed it was in
error, too>>

	When I consider myself on the madrega of either the Gra or the Baal
Hatanya,  I am sure I will feel comfortable with the idea.

Gershon

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:29:47 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<< While the phrasing of Alivenu v'al kol yisroel makes sense to me, R.
Schwab seemed to say that the aleinu is ikkar and thererfore in the 2nd
phrase and that the v'al kol Yisroel is almost a 3rd thought - sort of an
afterthought...>>

	Similar,  perhaps,  to layehudim haysa orah vesimcah vesason vikar
(topical!),  ken tihye lanu,  where we interject a prayer into a pasuk.  

	Similar also to the posuk mentioned in malchios in musaf R"H:  Hashem
Tzvakos yagen alehem.  We add (how many people don't know that this isn't
part of the posuk <g>?) ken tagen al amcha Yisrael.  

	So there is precedent;  also the bowing procedure supports this
division.  (Oseh shalom bimromov (left) hu yaaseh shalom alenu (right)
ve'al kol Yisrael v'imru amen (front).

	Again,  you're talking commas,  not additions and deletions.

<<The next question is to WHOM is the imru omeim go in amido and
benching?!>>

	Good question for amida.  For bentsching,  whoever is listening. The
structure of bentching was originally one person being motzi the others, 
so I don't see a problem here.

	For amida,  maybe just to be consistent.

Gershon

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]