Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 371

Wednesday, February 16 2000

• RE: video cameras
• RE: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• Re: Baruch Shepatrani
• re: Diyukim
• re: diyukim
• re: Diyukim/nusach
• Marc Shapiro's book on Rabbi Y Y Weinberg
• Re:Family Redeemed -A new work from RYBS's unprinted manuscripts
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re: science and halakha (treifa/drusa)
• RE: video cameras
• re: Diyukim/nusach
• Re: Re[2]: diyukim
• diyukim
• Re: Family Redeemed -A new work from RYBS's unprinted manuscripts
• Re: Diyukim

R' Akiva Atwood wrote <<< Keep in mind that the technology of video has
changed since the original question was asked -- today we use devices that
are more solid-state. >>>

Not all facets have changed, however. My understanding of the essence of the
Aish Hatorah response regarding the Kotel Kam, would apply to all video
cameras --- and, now that I think of it, all cameras of all kinds, whether
still or motion, electronic or chemical. Namely:

Unlike (certain kinds of) microphones, where the person's voice *actively*
affects the electricity within the microphone, giving us reason to analyze
it's workings in order to determine its relation to Hilchos Shabbos, a
person being photographed does not *actively* affect the camera in any way.
The camera will take a picture whether you are there or not. It only records
your passive standing. It is true that the picture will be different
depending on whether you are there or not, but that is still a *passive*
result. It is very different than what happens when you speak into (certain
kinds of) microphones.

Hmmm... I do suppose the auto-focus feature would have to be set for
"manual" over Shabbos. That is an example of how the camera would react to
your actions.

Akiva Miller

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > I think what makes most Christian religions
> complex to
> > analyze in this regard
> > is that they embrace a paradox, refusing to deal
> with the
> > contradiction
> > inherent in 3 = 1 by considering it beyond human
> reason.
> 
> The standard answer (as taught by my Jesuit
> professor) is that they are
> manifestations of attributes -- l'havdil like HaShem
> vs Elokim.

This can't be right as this would not be considered
shituf.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In a message dated 2/15/00 3:01:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> And the child isn't culpable until 20. (See, for example, the famous Rashi
>  on Chayei Sarah, "Vi'esrim shanah".) Almost as though halachah realizes 
that
>  *no one* could be held accountable for the actions of a teenager. <grin>
>  

See Pri Mgodim 219, BTW it is brought in Seforim that the passing of a child 
between 13 - 20 R"L is due to communal issues, Umisaymim Btoiv -

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/15/00 2:58:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> :> On a different note, would the Rambam hold that belief a god that had 
> human
>  :> form is shutfus?
>  
>  : See Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 1:7, and the famous Hil. Tshuvah 3:7.
>  
>  Neither answer my question. The first says the belief is false, the second
>  says the believer is a min. I specifically asked about shutfus, and added 
that
>  I wanted to know the status of a *non-Jew* who has such a belief.
>  
> 

As to how this would fit into "Shituf" I don't understand, however in general 
a BN is not killed for Deios alone (i.e atheist, WRT Yid there is Machlokes 
whether it is a Lo Saseh in addition to an Esoh Vein Kan Mkoimoi), hence the 
issue would be where a BN was Oveid something and said that he was Mchavein 
to G-d but that he believes he has a Guf, the Mashmo'os from above mentioned 
Halochos is that he would be Chayov Missah.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/15/00 3:04:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

> YZirkind responded:
>  > The Bracha is that the responsibility of someone else's welfare is off...
>  <
>  I don't understand: "shep'torani" is in the *1st* person and refers to the
>  person making the b'rocho, not someone else.

The father says "shep'torani" that he HKB"H freed me from OInshoi Shel Zeh 
from punishments dealt to this person, from now on any punishments will be 
due to his own action (see Poskim who discuss why one Bentches from 13 to 20).

>  > ...As
>  an aside that is also why a Katan doesn't make Gomeil <
>  However, the Bar Mitzva is now a Bar Mitzva (that's why he's called a Bar
>  Mitzva! AFAIK, the b'rocho is not recited by whomever until he's a BM...)
>  and, if the circumstances called for it, he (rather than his father) could
>  recite birchas haGomel.  Please explain -- thanks.

I was pointing out that prior to Bar Mitzvah a child does not say Hagomeil as 
the Chayovim would point toward his father has he is not a Bar Onshin.
>  


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/15/00 4:25:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

> > The Bracha is that the responsibility of someone else's welfare is off, 
(As 
>  > an aside that is also why a Katan doesn't make Gomeil).
>  
>  I'm not sure I understand your aside. If you are commenting on the 
>  fact that a katan doesn't bentch gomel, AFAIK that is not because 
>  the son's problems R"L come from the father but because for the 
>  son to say "hagomel lechayavim tovos" would be disrespectful to 
>  the father.

According to my understanding of the Taz (beginning of 219) the reason a 
Katan does not Bentch Gomeil is because the word Lchayovim is problematic, as 
it can't refer to the child for his sins, so then it would have to mean the 
child is being punished for the Chayovim of his father which is 
disrespectful. (and BTW this needs Iyun according to the opinion that a child 
can make Bracha for father, Vyesh Lchaleik by Katan where the Chiuv would be 
only due to Chinuch it gets Nidche for seeming disrespect).

> And if you're talking about the son bentching gomel at 
>  his Bar Mitzva for things that happened before the Bar Mitzva, it is 
>  my understanding that he does (or can) if he would have had a 
>  reason to bentch gomel when he was a katan. If you have sources 
>  that say otherwise, please let me know, 

See Kaf Hachayim, even while a Katan there are some who hold he Bentches, 
(also there may arise question of Tashlumim to Zman Haptur).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Birnbaum's and de Sola Pool's opinions carry
far more weight than my own, but I wouldn't recommend that a community
amend their nusach to follow either. >>>

The Chofetz Chaim might disagree. The nosei kelim on O"C 208:10 discuss
various questions regarding the proper text for Al Hamichya, and the
Chofetz Chaim gives his version in MB 208:50. He gives his reasoning and
sources in Beur Halacha 208:50-52.

I find it very interesting that Beur Halacha 208:50 gives the source as
<<< Magen Avraham, and I changed a little from his language based on what
is written in our siddurim, and see the Pri Megadim who also writes like
our words, and in many rishonim the nusach is mentioned like in our
siddurim. >>>

The significance of this source is even more striking when you note that
the Chofetz Chaim does not specify which siddurim he is referring to, not
by title, editor, publisher, community, nothing.

There are many factors which influence minhagim. Apparently, the mere
popularity of a specific siddur can be among those factors. If any siddur
becomes so popular that its editors decisions end up affecting community
minhagim, maybe that's not as terrible as it sounds.

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.

There is an important point that I neglected to include in my post of a
few minutes ago: The words of the Beur Halacha make it very clear that
his *primary* source for the nusach of Al Hamichya was the Magen Avraham
and other poskim, and one cannot just blindly follow what a siddur says.

What surprised me --- shocked me, even --- was that the text of "our
siddurim" was even mentioned at all. Why even *bother* looking at the
decision of the local siddur-macher when you have the holy words of the
rishonim and acharonim to choose from!??!

Yet, in some of those cases, the Mishna Brurah did allow the siddurim to
be machria between the poskim. Amazing! Not the sort of mimetics we are
used to seeing in the Mishna Brurah, is it?  :-)

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.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BF7803.1088D0A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just to add one further issue to the pile about diyukim/nusach..The =
introduction to bircas cohanim has always bothered me. Is it "babracha =
hamshuleshes, batorah..." or "babracha hameshuleshes batorah...?" The =
latter seems to be how most shluchei tzibbur I've heard seem to read it, =
but then the loose translation seems a bit awkward: "the blessing that =
is made three-fold in the Torah..." (Is it not three-fold when it's not =
in the Torah?). IMHO, (LAD, of course) it would seem that if you switch =
the order of "hamshuleshes" and "batorah," you'd end up with:

babracha hamshuleshes...the three-fold blessing,
haksuvah batorah etc...that was written in the Torah
ha'amurah etc...that is said...

 - a nice parallel structure that doesn't follow from the other =
readings. Any thoughts? Is this something that's been discussed?

 Shlomo Weiss=20
(new poster, treat with caution! :) )

=AB---------=BB
E. S. Weiss / sw@weiss.net / http://sw.weiss.net

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BF7803.1088D0A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#d1d1d1>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Just to add one further issue to the pile about=20
diyukim/nusach..The&nbsp;introduction to bircas cohanim has always =
bothered me.=20
Is it "babracha hamshuleshes, batorah..." or "babracha hameshuleshes=20
batorah...?" The latter seems to be how most shluchei tzibbur I've heard =
seem to=20
read it, but then the loose translation seems a bit awkward: "the =
blessing that=20
is made three-fold in the Torah..." (Is it not three-fold when it's not =
in the=20
Torah?). IMHO, (LAD, of course) it would seem that if you switch the =
order of=20
"hamshuleshes" and "batorah," you'd end up with:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>babracha hamshuleshes...the three-fold =
blessing,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>haksuvah batorah etc...that was written in the=20
Torah</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ha'amurah etc...that is said...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;- a nice parallel structure that doesn't =
follow from the=20
other readings. Any thoughts? Is this something that's been=20
discussed?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;Shlomo Weiss </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>(new poster, treat with caution! :) )</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>=AB---------=BB<BR>E. S. Weiss / <A=20
href=3D"mailto:sw@weiss.net">sw@weiss.net</A> / <A=20
href=3D"http://sw.weiss.net">http://sw.weiss.net</A></FONT></DIV></BODY><=
/HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BF7803.1088D0A0--

Dr Shapiro's book can be purchased from the publisher, The Littman Library
of Jewish Civilization, POB 645 Oxford OX2, Tel/Fax: (44 1235) 868 104;
info@littman.co.uk; www.littman.co.uk. They are very efficient and will
usually post the book the day that an order is received.  I ordered the book
the day before I left Australia last month, and it was waiting for me when I
arrived in London.

a new book of the RYBS' unprinted manuscripts (edited by Dr David Schatz and 
Joel Wolowelsky) has been published the Toras Ho Rav Foundation. The chapters 
are entitled Adam and Eve, Marriage, The redemption of Sexual Life' 
Parenthood:Natural and Redeemed, Kibbud u Mora:Honor and Fear of Parents, 
Torah and Skekhinah. It is the first in a series of volumes on various topics 
based upon the manuscripts of RYBS. It is a magnificient work. I urge all 
list members to buy it at their earliest convenience.                         
           Zeliglaw@aol.com
                                                       Steven Brizel

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:55:24 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<How about "restoring" nusach?  Correcting printer and scribal errors?
Is that limited to being a "gadol"?>>

	You would definitely need to define those terms. How do you know you are
restoring rather than emending?

Gershon

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:35:31 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<I think this gets back to WHO says it vs. WHAT is said. The Gro
speculates a change, that's ok. Birnbaum - whose major opus is after his
siddur/machzor - speculates a change it's not ok.  Taht is despite the
fact that this was his fild of expertise. Sounds arbitrary to me.>>

	YOU are getting to it;  I started there.  You have stated it very well: 
the Gra's suggestions, coming from the closest we had in the last few
hundred years to a malach Elokim,  are OK.  Birnbaum,  nu nu.  Exactly
right,  it's who,  not what.

Gershon

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:30:10 -0600 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
writes:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:40:40PM -0500, Gershon Dubin quoted me and 

<<Last vowel would be patach in all those cases. And, while the words
appear in hitpa'el in Tanach (or at least, I'll agree they probably do),
they don't as an idiom.>>

Not sure what idioms have to do with it:

<RYZ mode on <g>>

Root B'R'Ch':

Devorim 29:18
Yeshaya 65:16 (twice)

Root P'A'R:

Shoftim 7:2
Yeshaya 10:15
Yeshaya  60: 21
Yeshaya  61:3

No hits for R'M'M or K'B'L'

<<RYZ mode off>>

All of these have a tzereh in the middle letter of the shoresh

<<RYBS, and I presume that the Gaon as well, would therefore use a segol
as the final vowel only for these two (as per Hebrew) and a patach for
the Aramaic hitpa'al (not hitpa'eil!) words.>>
	
	My question is on the "only".  Maybe the first two words are an example,
 that since they are Hebrew and not Aramaic they get a tzereh.  Perhaps
the same would be true for the others,  including tiskabel,  as well?

Gershon

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:44:45 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer"
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
> On 15 Feb 00, at 9:45, Gershon Dubin wrote:
 
<<and objective researchinto documents and writings is insufficient to
make emendations or corrections?>>

<<This is not open to just anyone.  The Torah Temima did it often and got
blasted for it.>>  
 
<< Please explain.>>

	The Baal Torah Temima,  in his sefer Mekor Baruch,  often takes radical
positions on this type of issue.  I haven't read the sefer in many years,
 but two things stick in my mind:

1.  He says that the reason we have magdil/migdol in birchas hamazon is
because the printer wrote "B"SH"B,  which was supposed to mean Shmuel
Beis,  and it was corrupted to BShB" or Shabbos.

2.  He says that the chasimas habracha on Yom Tov should really be
"mekadesh Yisrael veChag Hasukos"  or "mekadesh Yisrael veChag Hapesach".
  Since printers had to set type by hand,  someone abbreviated it to 
mekadesh Yisrael vehazmanim,  with the intent that the mispalel fill in
the specific blank on the specific Yom Tov.

Needless to say,  these explanations,  while interesting,  did not
resonate well with traditionally minded folks.

Gershon

In a message dated 2/15/00 9:33:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

> What surprised me --- shocked me, even --- was that the text of "our
>  siddurim" was even mentioned at all. Why even *bother* looking at the
>  decision of the local siddur-macher when you have the holy words of the
>  rishonim and acharonim to choose from!??!
>  

See also M"A O"C 46:2.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/15/00 2:32:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
DGLASNER@SIRIUS.FTC.GOV writes:

> But drusa is not m'furash in the pasuk,

See Loshon HoRambam is Sefer Hamitzvohs Lo Sasei 181, see Hasogas Horamban 
Shoresh 2 end of Ois [30], and see Rav Heller's edition of the Sefer 
Hamitzvohs, E"T Erech Drasa.  (bottom line there are those who understand 
that the Rambam is saying that Drasa is Pshat in the Possuk the other 7 are 
different).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On 15 Feb 00, at 17:59, Kenneth Miller wrote:

> Not all facets have changed, however. My understanding of the essence
> of the Aish Hatorah response regarding the Kotel Kam, would apply to
> all video cameras --- and, now that I think of it, all cameras of all
> kinds, whether still or motion, electronic or chemical. Namely:
> 
> Unlike (certain kinds of) microphones, where the person's voice
> *actively* affects the electricity within the microphone, giving us
> reason to analyze it's workings in order to determine its relation to
> Hilchos Shabbos, a person being photographed does not *actively*
> affect the camera in any way. The camera will take a picture whether
> you are there or not. It only records your passive standing. It is
> true that the picture will be different depending on whether you are
> there or not, but that is still a *passive* result. It is very
> different than what happens when you speak into (certain kinds of)
> microphones.

Then it would seemingly be mutar to walk past a store with a 
closed circuit camera in the window or the like.

A number of years ago I was in Vienna on business. The main shul 
there has a closed circuit camera outside the door, and they have 
to buzz to admit you. I'm sure they don't buzz on Shabbos, but 
does anyone know whether they turn the camera off? The system 
was apparently installed because of a terrorist attack on the shul 
R"L in 1981.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 15 Feb 00, at 22:21, E. S. Weiss wrote:

> Just to add one further issue to the pile about diyukim/nusach..The
> introduction to bircas cohanim has always bothered me. Is it "babracha
> hamshuleshes, batorah..." or "babracha hameshuleshes batorah...?" The
> latter seems to be how most shluchei tzibbur I've heard seem to read
> it, but then the loose translation seems a bit awkward: "the blessing
> that is made three-fold in the Torah..." (Is it not three-fold when
> it's not in the Torah?). IMHO, (LAD, of course) it would seem that if
> you switch the order of "hamshuleshes" and "batorah," you'd end up
> with:
> 
> babracha hamshuleshes...the three-fold blessing,
> haksuvah batorah etc...that was written in the Torah
> ha'amurah etc...that is said...
> 
>  - a nice parallel structure that doesn't follow from the other
>  readings. Any thoughts? Is this something that's been discussed?

IIRC RYBS held that it should be "babracha hameshuleshes 
batorah..." or better yet "babracha hameshuleshes SHEbatorah...."

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 15 Feb 00, at 21:08, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:44:45 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer"
> <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
> > On 15 Feb 00, at 9:45, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 
> <<and objective researchinto documents and writings is insufficient to
> make emendations or corrections?>>
> 
> <<This is not open to just anyone.  The Torah Temima did it often and
> got blasted for it.>>  
> 
> << Please explain.>>
> 
>  The Baal Torah Temima,  in his sefer Mekor Baruch,  often takes
>  radical
> positions on this type of issue.  I haven't read the sefer in many
> years,
>  but two things stick in my mind:
> 
> 1.  He says that the reason we have magdil/migdol in birchas hamazon
> is because the printer wrote "B"SH"B,  which was supposed to mean
> Shmuel Beis,  and it was corrupted to BShB" or Shabbos.

I actually heard this one in RYBS's name when I was a teenager.

Thanks for the elaboration.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:00:33 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer"
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:

<<1.  He says that the reason we have magdil/migdol in birchas hamazon
is because the printer wrote "B"SH"B,  which was supposed to mean
Shmuel Beis,  and it was corrupted to BShB" or Shabbos.>>
 
<<I actually heard this one in RYBS's name when I was a teenager.>>

	Rav Dovid Cohen refutes this by pointing out that the first to mention a
difference between Shabbos and chol for this nusach was the Avudraham. 
The division into Shmuel I/II and Melachim I/II was made by the
Christians at the time that they started printing the Bible,  hundreds of
years after the Avudraham.

Gershon

In a message dated 2/15/00 11:05:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:

<< a new book of the RYBS' unprinted manuscripts (edited by Dr David Schatz 
and 
 Joel Wolowelsky) has been published the Toras Ho Rav Foundation. The 
chapters 
 are entitled Adam and Eve, Marriage, The redemption of Sexual Life' 
 Parenthood:Natural and Redeemed, Kibbud u Mora:Honor and Fear of Parents, 
 Torah and Skekhinah. It is the first in a series of volumes on various 
topics 
 based upon the manuscripts of RYBS. It is a magnificient work. I urge all 
 list members to buy it at their earliest convenience.                        
 
            Zeliglaw@aol.com
                                                        Steven Brizel >>
The tapes of most(all?) of these lectures are available from Mnordl@aol.com
La"d aino domeh kria lshmia.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

The MB writes that the proper nusach for the brocho of She'hechiyanu is (as
is Nusah Ari) "L'zman Ha'zeh". The "Olam" continues to say as in the Siddur
(and, of course, who can argue on the Roedelheim?) "La'zman."

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <micha@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 7:58 PM
Subject: re: Diyukim


> The significance of this source is even more striking when you note that
> the Chofetz Chaim does not specify which siddurim he is referring to, not
> by title, editor, publisher, community, nothing.
>
> There are many factors which influence minhagim. Apparently, the mere
> popularity of a specific siddur can be among those factors. If any siddur
> becomes so popular that its editors decisions end up affecting community
> minhagim, maybe that's not as terrible as it sounds.
>
> Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]