Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 010

Wednesday, October 11 2000

• Re: Yigdal
• b'etzem hayom hazeh
• kol nidre
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Re: kodosh atoh
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Yigdal
• Re: Maariv Motzoei Shabbos
• tinok shenishba
• Re: Maariv Motzoei Shabbos
• Re: tinok shenishba
• Re: tinok shenishba
• Re: mchila

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Adreabbo, something added to the siddur is DAVKA binding unless it is
> protested. The whole point of the liturgy is that it REFLECTS binding
> consensus and perpetuates it, but does not create it out of nothing. With
> respect to the Yigdal, there indeed IS a protest against it. But most
> redactors (including Artscroll and Baer) have neglected that protest.

Yigdal, then, is an example of how difficult it can be to determine
whether the siddur refelects the consensus, or whether the consensus is a
result of the siddur.

Another example: Those who use their siddur or machzor for Ushpizin will
end up saying it in their personal nusach. But those who use a bencher or
wall poster will be the unwitting victims of the printers, who rarely (if
ever) note which nusach they used. People buy the most attractive bencher
or wall poster according to their tastes, and do not even realize that
there are differences between the nuschaos.

Or we could count the number of disputes which arose in shul because of
how the siddur-macher chose to write the rules for Lamenatzeach. Does the
shul follow the siddur, or do the siddurim follow the people? I dunno.

And if anyone was waiting for me to mention my pet peeve about Haneros
Halalu in the siddur vs Haneros Halalu in the poskim... Okay, I mentioned
it.

GCT
Akiva Miller

From: Eric Simon
> Rashi notes the use of 'b'etzem hayom hazeh' in Hazinu, and notes that's
> used three times, and makes a comparison to the other two: in Noach 7, and
> in Shmos around chapter 12 or so (when b'nei yisroel leave mitzrayim).
> ...Except, wait, I thought Rashi said it appeared three times.  This is a
> fourth.  Am I missing something?  Does it appear in additional places?

From: Richard Wolpoe
> How about the end of lech lecha re: Bris?

The peirush Leket Bohur explains that (although Rashi says that Avrohom
Ovinu showed that he wasn't afraid or ashamed to Mal himself -) only these
3 "b'etzem's" concern Hashem saying (Kaveyochul): "try and stop Me!"
(He notes that there are several more "betzem hayom hazeh's" in the
Torah.)

(The Tosefes Brochoh from RB Epstein zt'l (baal Torah Temimoh) says a
similar pshat.)

BTW - for those who learn Rashi - interesting loshon of Rashi (actually
Sifri): "lefi shehoyu bnei yisroel omrim *bekach vockach*..."

The meforshim say it is a loshon of Shvuoh.

Has anyone encountered this expression anywhere else?

SHLOMO B ABELES

Yated Neeman Columns V
>   It is known that Kol Nidrei dates back to ancient times, possibly as far
> back as the era of Anshei Kenesses ha-Gedolah(1). The earliest written
> version, though, is in the Seder of Rav Amram Gaon ...

If it goes back to Anshei Kenesses ha-Gedolah why isn't it mentioned in the
gemara especially since the idea of being "mattir neder" for the year is
discussed?

It would seem to me that our language for Kol Nidre is from the geonim
although the idea may be older. It is unlikely that Anshei Kenesses
ha-Gedolah would have used Aramaic.

Eli Turkel

On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:44:10PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> RYGB: Would you agree? If so, given that you hold (as per the Or Sameiach)
:> that mal'achim lack bechirah because in Shamayim all choices are obvious,
:> and that therefore they DO have bechirah while in olam hazeh... Would
:> you hold that it is mutar to make a bakashah of a mal'ach that is on
:> shelichus?

Actually, I misspoke. I would think that the definition of avodah zarah
is more talui on what the worshipper thinks he's making a request from
than what the reality is. IOW, someone who prays to a mal'ach thinking
it fully lack bechirah (e.g. he follows the Rambam on this point) is an
oveid avodah zarah, no? Regardless of what you or I might think.

It's odd because it reduces the number of possible shogegim. Since any
assur deity being worshipped only exists in the imagination -- one's
machshava should determine whether or not it's Avodah Zarah.

IOW, permissability depends on two things:
1- Is it mutar to believe X?
2- Is it mutar for someone who believes X to do Y?

Your answer would apply to Shalom Aleichem, where the mal'achim enter your
home. However, the mal'achim in Machnisei Rachamim, should leshitascha
have no bechirah (and therefore saying MR would be assur).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 01:17:06AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: My problem with all these pshotim is that -did the Anshei Knesses hagdolo
: expect us the be mechaven such elaborate pshetlech - whilst davenning?

They certainly did. The fact that most of us can't means that we've gotten
used to davening too rapidly.

The question is whether they would make a tephillah for which there is no
peshuto shel matbei'ah (for want of an expression).

I would think not. Based upon discussion on Mesorah, I would not assume
here agrees.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> From Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky's sefer on Shulchan Aruch:
     
> "It is proper to be machmir and drink wine each day of Chol Hamoed and in each
> seudah (possibly even the morning seudah [breakfast? gd]), since only in this 
> way is one mekayem the mitzvah of simcha lechol hadei'os. 

R. Hershel Schachter distinguishes between Chol HaMoed Pesach and Sukkos.  On 
Sukkos each day has its own chiyuv simchah.  However, Pesach is one long chiyuv 
simchah which can be mekuyam on any of the days.  The proofs for this are long 
and complicated (one proof is the daily korban).  The only written source for 
this that I can think of right now is an article by R. Baruch Simon in YU's Beis
Yitzchak around two years ago about the differences between Pesach and Sukkos.

> Venir'eh that grape juice is included in wine for this purpose. 

Pilei pelayim.  One can use grape juice to be mekayem the mitzvah of simchah!?! 
The poskim speak about this at length regarding using grape juice for the four 
cups on Pesach and IIRC most say that grape juice can not be used for simchah.  
Even RYBS says that wine should be used for the first cup.

Gil Student

On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:07:15 -0400 Kenneth G Miller said:
>Yigdal, then, is an example of how difficult it can be to determine
>whether the siddur refelects the consensus, or whether the consensus is a
>result of the siddur.

While it is difficult to pin-point a process that is somewhat
"reciprocal", Yigdal is not a great example.  Most siddurim,
even scholarly ones such as Baer, Heidenheim, etc. presuppose
the universality of the Yigdal.

What makes something universal is sometimes slience, IOW the
absence of protest, and that can be even more profound when there
is a meiut that does protest and still gets ignored.


>Another example: Those who use their siddur or machzor for Ushpizin will
>end up saying it in their personal nusach. But those who use a bencher or
>wall poster will be the unwitting victims of the printers, who rarely (if
>ever) note which nusach they used. ...

Ushpizin is not nearly as universal as Yigdal...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:45:52 -0400 SBA said:
>The Kitzur Shulchan Oruch brings (96:10) <also the Remoh 293:3> that when
>saying V'Hu Rachum and Borchu on Motzoei Shabbos it should be dragged out
>to be 'mosif mechol al hakodesh'. I remember hearing that the 'V"hu-u-u-u
>Rachum' is dragged out to lengthen the respite of those poor souls who
>will shortly be returning to Gehenom.

FWIW, KAJ has an elaborate tune to v'Hu Rachum and Barchu that is used
Motsa'ei Shabbos.
And note this is after singing Ledavid Baruch and Lamnatzeyach

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

 In response to my question about our relationship with the nondati'im,and
the permissibility of honoring them, I cited to 
RYGB the issue of tinok shenishba.  He answered

I too categorize them as tinokos she'nishbu. As Rabbi MY Tzuriel-Weiss, 
Beis Yechezkel vol. 2 p. 63 notes, the *halachic* ramification of a tinok 
she'nishba requires to be gomeil chesed and save TsN's. All other 
*halachic* parameters of relationship to resho'im apply to them, including:

1. No prohibition on ono'os devorim (Rema CM 228:1).
2. Permissibility to denigrate (Chofetz Chaim 4:7).
3. No concern for his degradation (Chochmas Shlomo OC 311).
4. Prohibition to honor him (Sha'arei Teshuva 3:189).


The 4 numbered sources deal with our relationship to reshaim,  they are
irrelevant to the characterization of a TsN as a rasha.

I don't have the Bet Yehezkel, however, other sources seem not to agree.  I
did a search on the bar ilan cd for tinok shenishba, and couldn't find a
characterization of a tinok shenishba as a rasha (although he is not
necessarily viewed as a tzaddik)

Perhaps RYGB can summarize the reasoning of the Bet Yehezkel.  
Here are some other sources that seem (IMHO) to take a different approach to
the issue of TsN.

titz eliezer 9:17, kunteres refua beshabbat, perek b, davar hamatchil, about
someone who said that a tinok shenishba ein moridin veein ma'alin, he says
how could it possibly enter the mind, that after all, hare ciyehudi kasher
hu, 
and then goes on to say that he has the status of anus..and eyn averotav
averot..

Yabi'a omer 1 YD:11 the tinok shenishba has a din of anus (and at the end he
states perhaps shogeg), and the mitzva of hating reshaim only applies after
tochecha, and today we don't have the skill to be mochiach) (this point is
made in numerous points in ROY;s sefarim)

kol mevaser 2:17 the machloket with a tinok shenishba is whether (as
according R Yochanan and Resh Lakish) they have the status of anus and are
patur, or whether they have the status of a shogeg. (rasha somehow is not on
the menu..)

avne nezer yore deah 143  about a tinok shenishba - de'rasha lo have de'anus
hu .....al kol panim zadik lo have

So, other sources don't seem to view him as a rasha.  Any further
documentation to the reasoning  of the bet yehezkel??

With regard to the sha'are tshuva's position that one is not allowed to
honor reshaim, even though tinokot shenisbu are not reshaim, see

Yabia omer 6 oc:15, where he cites that mutar lehachanif lereshaim baolam
hazeh)



Meir Shinnar,

In Avodah V6 #9, SBAbeles wrote:
> ...when saying V'Hu Rachum and Borchu on Motzoei Shabbos it should be
> dragged out to be 'mosif mechol al hakodesh'.

This is done in "Breuer's" (i.e. in shuls which follow minhag Frankfurt),
and I might as well add that a special melody (which "drags" this section
out even more!) is employed by the SHaTZ from the night of the day that
s'lichos will be said through the yomim noaro-im.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

P.S.  If you want to hear my humble, baalebatish rendition
(of either or both melodies) on the phone, let me know.

Meir Shinnar
>1. No prohibition on ono'os devorim (Rema CM 228:1).
>2. Permissibility to denigrate (Chofetz Chaim 4:7).
>3. No concern for his degradation (Chochmas Shlomo OC 311).
>4. Prohibition to honor him (Sha'arei Teshuva 3:189).
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

>The 4 numbered sources deal with our relationship to reshaim,  they are
>irrelevant to the characterization of a TsN as a rasha.

No. Unless you can prove that TsN is a wholly independent category, they 
apply, ipso facto.

>I don't have the Bet Yehezkel, however, other sources seem not to agree.  I
>did a search on the bar ilan cd for tinok shenishba, and couldn't find a
>characterization of a tinok shenishba as a rasha ....

>titz eliezer 9:17... then goes on to say that he has the status of anus..
>and eyn averotav averot..

Ah, the pitfalls of CD research manifest!

Do you know who that "someone" is?

RSZA!!!

Nohr vohs, we cannot possibly attribute such a sevoro to RSZA, right?

So, you need to look at the entire perek: There the discussion concerns not 
the modern "Application" of TsN, but a literal, old fashioned, classic one: 
A TsN that never has lived among Jews AND NEVER WILL!

RSZA is not sure it is muttar to save such an individual ON SHABBOS, as the 
sevara of "Chalel alav Shabbos achas k'dei she'yishmor Shabbosos harbei" is 
not applicable.. The TE takes issue with this specific scenario, as the 
aveiros of this individual in Chillul Shabbos, he holds, do not count.

I wager that if I look far enough I will find ra'ayos l'shitasi in the TE.

I don't have a YO, but ROY's recent contretemps with Yossi Sarid indicates 
that while, of course we are not supposed to hate TsN (I made this clear!), 
we are pretty sure of their rosho status...

I assume that the KM and AN are similar to the TE. Sorry.

With regard to the last YO, see the Reb Yerucham Levovitz on the beginning 
of Vayishlach: While it is muttar l'hachnif, it is only as a last case 
resort, and leads to negative outcomes.

The reality is that the modern application of TsN applies only to 
requirements to save, sustain and love.See CI YD 1:2 and 13:28.

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 10 Oct 2000, at 15:12, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
>> The 4 numbered sources deal with our relationship to reshaim,  they are
>> irrelevant to the characterization of a TsN as a rasha.

> No. Unless you can prove that TsN is a wholly independent category, they 
> apply, ipso facto.

I thought the whole point of TsN was that he is in a different 
category than a Rasha. That he cannot help his actions because 
he does not know any better. But if a TsN has all the dinim of a 
Rasha then l'mai nafka mina?

> RSZA is not sure it is muttar to save such an individual ON SHABBOS, as the 
> sevara of "Chalel alav Shabbos achas k'dei she'yishmor Shabbosos harbei" is 
> not applicable.. The TE takes issue with this specific scenario, as the 
> aveiros of this individual in Chillul Shabbos, he holds, do not count.

But didn't RSZA hold that Jews in Israel DO have a din of TsN and 
can be saved under the svara of "chalel alav Shabbos achas" 
because living among Jews they could conceivably become baalei 
tshuva? And if that's the case, how could they be categorized as 
Reshaim at the same time?

> I don't have a YO, but ROY's recent contretemps with Yossi Sarid indicates 
> that while, of course we are not supposed to hate TsN (I made this clear!), 
> we are pretty sure of their rosho status...

Or could he be holding that Sarid is in a category other than a tinok 
she'nishba? 

> The reality is that the modern application of TsN applies only to 
> requirements to save, sustain and love.See CI YD 1:2 and 13:28.

Wouldn't an obligation to sustain at least contradict 2 and 3 on 
your list above?

-- Carl

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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:38:41 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>Gehanom, OTOH, may be defined as lihefech -- getting to the realization
>of the emes, and realizing the disparity between that and what one did
>with one's life.

IIRC R. Aryeh Kaplan described this same concept of Gehenmom but I forget
in which sefer, and therfore he might have been quoting or translating
someone else...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

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


[ 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         ]