Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 051

Tuesday, June 25 2002

• RE: Black Jews
• RE: Age of Majority for nonJews
• Re: Age of Majority for nonJews
• Re: Black Jews
• =?windows-1255?B?4fLw6envIGJsYWNrIGpld3M6cmU=?=
• Aharon Ben Asher, Rambam, Rasag and the Aleppo Codex
• who was apostomos
• re:body piercing
• 100 brachos
• RW Wurzburger on Jewish Community
• emunas chachomim
• Admin: Please consider helping to arrange Aishdas programming
• Aruch Hashulchan - Even Haezer]
• who is a Jew
• RE: Black Jews
• RE: Black Jews
• The/A mesorah
• RE: who was apostomos
• RE: RW Wurzburger on Jewish Community
• RE: 100 brachos
• Re: 100 brachos
• Re: Kavana in Shma

> We Ashkenazim simply don't have the evidence -- the metzius, if you
> will -- to say we're any more Jewish than the Ethiopians.

Well, there IS genetic evidence (the Cohen gene) that links Ashkenazin and
Sephardim and is NOT present in non-Jews to the same degree.

> I think that the major reason some religious Jews are unhappy with the
> psak on the basis of which Ethiopian Jews immigrated to Israel is that
> these Jews don't like Black folks. Specifically, they don't want some
> Gadol telling them that as a religious matter, it's okay for their
> daughters to marry an observation Black Jew. Or am I being simplistic?

You are assuming that the American Jewish distrust of blacks is shared by
Israeli Gedolim -- but haven't shown any evidence to support that claim.

Akiva

> For a Jew, it's different. A boy becomes a bar mitzvah at age 13. This
> is a law that was received from our teacher Moses at Sinai and handed
> down generation to generation.

Is this true?

Which came first? Bar/Bat Mitzvah based on *simanim*, or 12/13? OR are both
M'Sinai?

Akiva

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 09:30:31PM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: Which came first? Bar/Bat Mitzvah based on *simanim*, or 12/13? OR are both
: M'Sinai?

12 or 13 for defining bar chiyuvah is based on rov -- rov have simanim by
then. Only used for derabbanan. For geirus, we rely on shenei sa'aros.
Which means that you can't really know the exact moment, to within a
toch kedei dibbur, of when the child should be accepting ol mitzvos.

Contrary to what most of us were taught, the real kabbalas ol mitzvos
happens by checking his observance and with the child before the precise
moment (say sometime in the previous half year) and some point after. And
if the child was shomer torah umitzvos throughout the period we accept
his geirus.

There may also be a formal approaching of the beis din by the child on
his birthday, but that's not technically required for geirus.

(Source: R' Zvi Flaum, who paskened accordingly lema'aseh. The other
dayanim were R' Matis Blum and R' Dovid Sheinfeld.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 09:03:05PM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: > We Ashkenazim simply don't have the evidence -- the metzius, if you
: > will -- to say we're any more Jewish than the Ethiopians.

: Well, there IS genetic evidence (the Cohen gene) that links Ashkenazin and
: Sephardim and is NOT present in non-Jews to the same degree.

There is better evidence for us non-kohanim. The following was taken
from my keepers file, unfortunately without posting dates. I believe
they're from mail-jewish, mid-80s.

From: "Dr. Arthur Komar" <komar@yu1.yu.edu>
> Samuel Karlin, Ron Kebet and Batsheva Bonne-Tamir, "Analysis of 
> Biochemical Genetic Data of Jewish Populations" American Journal of Human 
> Genetics 31 (1979) pp.341-365. There are also more recent papers, but 
> this work is quite adequate for our purposes.

> In that paper Karlin, et.al. (Stanford Univ.) presented data describing
> the gene frequency distribution for 14 different genetic markers among
> 9 Jewish and 6 non-Jewish populations. The conclusion reached was that
> Ashkenazic and Sephardic populations were similar to each other in
> genetic profile and distant from the non-Jewish populations with whom
> they were compared (i.e. Germans, Poles,Russians,Arabs, Armenians). To
> quote Karlin: the data is consistant with the thesis that "the present
> day Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews were the remnants of several small Jewish
> populations of the 14th and 15th centuries.... Since the Christian
> reconquest at the end of the Middle Ages, the contribution of non-Jews
> to the Jewish gene pool has been extremely small." Note that although
> Turkic peoples were not used for comparison in this study (unfortunately)
> Germans, Poles and Russians were. Most surprising was that Jews, both
> Sephardim and Ashkenazim, were demonstrated to be far closer genetically
> to each other than either of them were to the Arabs.

From David Price <dprice@MGray-2.Med.Dal.CA>:
> In response to Celcelia's question about the existence studies
> examining the genetic relationships between different Jewish communities
> (Ashkenazic, North African, Near Eastern, Yemenite, Ethiopian, Indian,
> etc.) here is a short list of papers on the subject:

> 1. "Genetic Diversity among the Jews: diseases and markers at the DNA
> level". (1992) Oxford University Press, New York. (a book)

> 2. "The Differences Among Jewish Communities -- Maternal and Paternal
> Contributions". Journal of Molecular Evolution 37:435-44 (1993).

> 3. "Jewish Populations of the World: Genetic likenesses and differences".
> Annals (?) of Human Biology 9:1-34 (1982).

> 4. "Analysis of genetic data on Jewish populations. I. Historical
> Background, demographic features, and genetic markers". American Journal
> of Human Genetics 31:324-340 (1979).

(I'm not sure if this last reference is identical to Dr. Komar's, or
if two different papers on similar subjects were featured in the same
issue. The titles differ, and this latter paper ends the page before
the other citation.)

In short, genetic differences between the various Jewish populations
are only skin deep.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> So, what are they? I dunno. Ask the Radbaz. The better question is:
> What are WE? How many of us of Ashkenazic descent really believe that
> as an ethnic or anthropological fact we are all Jews descended directly
> from the dark-skinned refugees who huddled at the feet of Moshe Rabenu
> when he delivered the Law? ....

As far as I recall, one of the communities cursed by Ezra Hasofer was Worms.
And when visiting Augsburg many years ago I recll being told that there were
records of Jews in Augsburg from the year 70, which was the year bayis sheni
was deystroyed.  About the dark skinned Jews who stood below Har Sinai,
there are quite a few dark ashkenazim. And by the way,  I  know a number of
Morroccans who as blond as scandinavians.  And the majority of Teimanim are
darker than your "average " Sefaradi.

 reuven

Brukheh veshulem,

I just read the article under the heading Massora in EJ, and wonder
aloud about the folowing:
* Rambam consulted the manuscripts of Aharon ben Asher (aka Aaron ben
  Asher) as an authoritative source, finding it it be of a high quality,
  worthy to be copied.
* Rav Sa'adyah Gaon had a fight with Aharon ben Asher, accusing him of
  being a Karaite.
* EJ claims that the two Aharon ben Ashers are one and the same.

But could it be that we rely on a Karaite for the exact text of the Torah?
Could Rambam have been unaware of ABA's being a Karaite? EJ is a little
ambiguous as to whether ABA really was a Karaite, or whether it was an
unfounded accusation. Does any list member have more info on this?

Next: EJ lists a bunch of masorah+grammar works, such as:
* Aaron Ben-Asher DIKDUKEI HA-TE'AMIM
* Mishael b. Uzziel, Kitab al-Bulaf alladi bayn al-Muallimayn ben
  Asher wa-ben Naftali ("The Book of Differences between the two Masters,
  Ben-Asher and Ben- Naphtali") (Arabic)
* anonymous, found in Cairo Genizah: Okhlah veOkhlah
* Anonymous: Hidayat al-Qari ("The Direction of the Reader") (Arabic,
  translated in abbreviated form as Horayat haqore or Sefer ta'amei
  haMiqra)
* One transformation of Hidayat al-Qari is the Hebrew compilation Adat
  Devorim ("A Swarm of Bees") which was written by Joseph ha-Qostandini
  ("from Constantinople") not earlier than the second half of the 11th
  century.
* There are quotations from the work also in Hibbur ha-Qonim by
  R. Samson ha-Naqdan (first half of the 13th century); Darkhei ha-Niqqud
  we-ha-Neginot (attributed to R. Moses ha-Naqdan) as well as other works
  depend also on Hidayat al-Qari.
* MEIR BEN TODROS HA-LEVI ABULAFIA, Masoret Seyag la-Torah
* Jekuthiel ben Judah ha-Kohen ha-Naqdan, (first half of the 13th
  century), Ein ha-Qore
* Meiri, Qirtyat Sefer

And finally <<Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adoniah (15th/16th century) was the
first to publish a text of the Bible which had been selected carefully
from a large number of manuscripts and was accompanied by the notes of
Masorah Parva, Masorah Magna, and Masorah Finalis which were likewise
gathered and selected from many manuscripts. This text is the Mikra'ot
Gedolot edition of the Bible which was published in Venice, in 1524–25,
by Daniel Bomberg, who employed Ben Hayyim as a proofreader. This
edition became known as the "accepted" version of the Bible, "the
Masoretic Text," upon which everyone has since relied and which all
have copied and imitated. Even the Masorah which was published in this
edition has been unjustly recognized ever since as the exclusive text
of the Masorah. In fact Ben Hayyim's work has been considered as the
codification of the Masorah, and until today it is the only complete
Masorah in print. Ben Hayyim also printed for the first time other
works together with the Masorah Finalis: the first printed edition
of Dikdukei ha-Teamim of Aaron Ben-Asher (see 6.2.1); Darkhei haniqud
vehaneginot attributed to Moses ha-Naqdan; various lists of Masorah,
some of them resembling those in Okhlah we-Okhlah, as well as lists of
variants between the Western and Eastern traditions and between Ben-
Asher and Ben-Naphtali for the Torah.>>

All the above information os from the EJ article.

Questions:

Are any list members familiar with any of the above works? (some have
been printed, either in editions of the 'Humash, either as free standing
sefarim, or in academic journals. Others are still in manuscripts.)

Do any of these works present grammar as an independent discipline,
or do they merely consist of lists of exceptions? IOW, do any of these
works present an underlying framework that causes rules and exceptions,
or are they all, as is Okhlah veOkhlah, "alephbetic" lists of exceptions?

Thoughts?

Arie Folger

From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
> http://tinyurl.com/fwp

Interesting, but inconclusive article. I would suggest that a textual
change might solve the question, or at least narrow the field. The text
in my (Eshkol) mishna reads "...vesaraf apost'mos et hatorah, v'he'emid
tzelem b'heichal." A footnote notes an alternate girsa, "v'hu'amad
tzelem", and further notes that Tos. Yom Tov tells us that the girsa
reflects a difference of opinion as to who erected the idol. Those who
say it was Menashe hold by "v'he'emid" - since that doesn't attribute
it to Apost'mos. Those who say it was Apost'mos hold by "v'hu'amad".

So it could only be those who burned a torah scroll, without reference
to erecting an idol:

1) Ele Ezk'ra's executioner of Hanina b. Tradyon
2) Josephus' soldier who burned the Torah at Horon.
3) Allon's Syrian procurator, since separating the burning from
   the idol makes it unnecessary for the incident to predate the hurban
   habayit.

there is a "teshuva" in Teshuvot Va'ad ha-Halakha shel Keneset ha-Rabonim
bi-Yisrael vol. 6 1995-1998 pp. 241-253.

dan rabinowitz

Hi!

	Does anyone out there know of a source for an opinion who counts
the 100 brachos a day starting from the morning and ending at night?
The Beis Yosef and other poskim on O.H. 46 seem to all go from the night
first, but I remember hearing years ago that there is another opinion.
A search through Bar-Ilan Responsa also didn't turn up anything.

Thanks,
Ephraim

One of the criticisms of Martin Buber's I-Thou formulation is that
it does not leave room for a community. It is all about relationships
between individuals or between an individual and G-d.

In his book G-d Is Proof Enough, and I know enough to realize that this
is a very sophisticated work, R. Walter Wurzburger formulates the concept
of a "Dialogic Self" in which a person is defined as someone in dialogue
with G-d. In two places he discusses the idea of community.

In chapter 1, RWW suggests that as part of our dialogue with G-d we
must be concerned for others because they are in the image of G-d.
Therefore our dialogue with G-d must include a dialogue with other people.

In chapter 2, RWW addresses community ffrom a more utilitarian
perspective. An individual needs a community in order to function
properly, i.e. eat, learn, live.

Why does RWW need both of these explanations and do either of them allow
room for Kelal Yisrael?

Gil Student

Regarding the issue of the fallibility of gedolim.

Seridei Aish (1:113): I frequently explain the apparent contradiction found
in Avos(6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah i.e.
pilpul of the students and emunas chachomim. Furthermore what does emunas
chachomim have to do with acquiring Torah? But the explanation is that if
one doesn't have certainty in the truth of the words of the sages then one
readily dismisses them for the slightest reason. With an attitude of
condescension one proclaims that they didn't know what they were talking
about. Consequently one makes no effort to investigate and try to validate
what they said. But in the end we find that in fact we are the ones who have
erred.. Therefore it is characteristic of the truly wise to presume that the
sages have not erred, chas v'shalom but we - with our limited perspective
and limited understanding - have. On the other hand to blindly believe and
not struggle to comprehend with our intellect the apparent difficulties -
saying simply that they knew and we need merely to mindlessly rely on
them  - that is also not correct. We need to wrestle mightily with the
apparent contradictions and doubts as if they are people like us. With this
approach we will come to a much profounder and sharper comprehension. Thus
we see that both factors – emunas chachomim and pilpul – working together to
the end bring about the acquisition of Torah.

                Daniel Eidensohn

We would very much like to get the Aishdas program moving. Please help us
out by inviting Reb Micha or myself to address your group, organization or
community this summer, either over Shabbos or on a weekday. If you feel
that this program is not practical for your group at this time, please help
out by passing the e-mail along to someone you think might be able to
facilitate a shiur, chaburah, lecture or get-together. Please assist us in
moving the ideals that Aishdas represents forward. Sorry if you get this=20
e-mail more than once, please forgive me!

YGB

[Moderator's two cents:

[I have other potential speakers in mind, but they haven't been asked yet.

[Second, the original ended with a table of potential topics. I couldn't
get it to look like anything in Avodah's plain text format. So, I ask
you to see <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/speaker.htm>. I recommend using
the prettier format for discussing it with people who don't have a first
impression yet anyway. -mi]

----------
                                                                     BS"D


          AishDas Lectures by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer is a senior lecturer for AishDas, a society
devoted to more profound understanding and experience of all aspects of
Talmud Torah and Avodas Hashem.

Aishdas is read from the Torah as two words. Aish, the fire of a soul
aflame, of Hislahavus, striving for fulfillment, seeking its Creator.
Das, ritual, the precision of halachic law, understanding and grasping
the details of the mission for which Hashem chose us. A single word,
unique in Tanach, untranslatable. Aishdas is the synthesis of the flame
and the law, a whole that is greater than its parts.

To be aflame with Aishdas means to constantly learn, grow and ascend.
To be observant not merely out of habit or upbringing but to connect with
word and deed on intellectual and emotional levels. To reach this level,
Torah must be the totality of life.

AishDas aims to teach advanced levels of Torah, Avodah, and Gemillus
Chassadim, and to develop deeper approaches to these basic principles,
leading to Hislahavus, inner spiritual feeling.

AishDas was founded by Mr. Micha Berger, a computer programmer by
profession, who is driven by a vision, and who resides in Passaic with
his family. Rabbi Bechhofer is one of AishDas's charter members.

Rabbi Bechhofer has served as a Rav, Rebbe and Rosh Kollel in Chicago
and New York. He is one of the few individuals to have served as Maggid
Shiur for both Daf Yomi Bavli and Daf Yomi Yerushalmi, completing both.

Rabbi Bechhofer has served as a Guest Maggid Shiur, Scholar in
Residence, and Lecturer in numerous venues, including Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Ontario, New
York, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, Israel and England. He is a
prolific author. His major work in progress is a sefer (in Hebrew) on
Sefer Shoftim. He has published many essays in major Orthodox Jewish
periodicals. His other published seforim are: The Contemporary Eruv:
Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas, and the Bigdei Shesh al Masechta
Bava Basra. Well over one thousand tapes of his lectures and shiurim,
are available.

Rabbi Bechhofer learnt in many yeshivos, including Sha'alvim, Ner
Yisroel and both Mirrer yeshivos. He received Semicha from Rabbi Yitzchok
Koolitz, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, and Rabbi Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg,
Jerusalem. He holds an M.S. in Education (concentration in Counseling
and Guidance), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

AishDas incorporates ideals developed by Dr. Nathan Birnbaum zt"l in
founding the Ha'Olim movement eighty years ago. Dr. Birnbaum's premise
was that outreach is insufficient - far more critical to a thriving Jewish
society is "inreach" - holistic and programmatic growth and ascent within
the observant community. Dr. Birnbaum advocated progress in three broad
areas: Kedusha, Rachamim and Tiferes, roughly analogous to relations
between Man and G-d, Man and his fellow Man, and the atmosphere and aura
of Jewish life. Dr. Birnbaum, in essence, took Rav Yisroel Salanter
zt"l's system of Mussar, that was primarily individual, and attempted
to apply its principles to groups and to society as a whole.

More information on AishDas's purpose and activities, and more material
on Dr. Birnbaum and other luminaries who inspire us may be found at the
AishDas website, <http://www.aishdas.org>.

Rabbi Bechhofer and other AishDas lecturers would like to acquaint you
with the more profound and uplifting approach to Yahadus that we strive
to encourage.

Please consider having Rabbi Bechhofer come to speak on Aishdas and its
activities, and/or one of the topics below. The list is excerpted from
the Catalog of Torah Tapes by Rabbi Bechhofer. (Many of his lectures
on Contemporary and Practical Halachic Issues, Emuna and Hashkafa,
Nach b'Machashava and Daf Yomi in Talmud Yerushalmi -- the only English
language Yerushalmi tapes in the world -- are available on tape for
purchase or loan.)

[deletia, as per above -mi]

Why is there no Hilchot Kasuvos in the Aruch Hashulchan???
(Even Haezer 66-118)

Reuven Miller

If Judaism were merely a race, then perhaps rdf would be correct in
asserting that the ethiopians are no more or less Jewish than their
European counterparts with neither reflecting the "true" Sefardic
light-brown.

However, he is so clearly wrong! We have an unbroken mesorah of Jews
being Jewish in both Ashkenaz and Sfard/ Edot haMizrah neither of which
had total intermarriage or conversion as rdf claims.

Yet this is clearly not the case with the Ethiopians being cut-off from
the rest of Judaism for hundreds of years. Their practice of Judaism
also was rampant with deviations and errors.

Even if they are Jews, they certainly hold a broken mesorah.

So certainly for us Orthodox Jews to blithely ignore mesorah in favor
of skin-color is wrong.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>> Jews, both Sephardim and Ashkenazim, were demonstrated to be far closer
>> genetically to each other than either of them were to the Arabs.

I vaguely recall reading an article that Ethiopian Jews are not close
genetically to other Jews.  Anyone recall such an article?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: DFinchPC@aol.com [mailto:DFinchPC@aol.com]
> Let's say, just for the sake
> of discussion, that there was a point in history Ethopians were
> neither Christian nor Jewish. Then they were converted to some form
> of Christianity; <snip>

> The better question is:
> What are WE? <snip> We're all converts, of some sort,
> under some vague and forgotten political circumstances that most likely
> did not start with a kosher Beis Din and a mikva bath.

As Micha noted, the genetic similarities between Ashkenazim and Sefardim
imply that we share common ancestors. Consequently, it is reasonable to
presume that while there were plenty of conversions (Ashkenazim on the
whole are lighter than Sefardim; also read the Times article a couple of
weeks ago about maternal genetic markers, which suggests that many women
were converted), the conversions were done according to halacha. Is it
so hard to get a kosher beis din and a mikva (or natural body of water)?

In contrast, if the professor quoted by Reb Josh is correct, the
Ethiopians never halachically converted to Judaism. (AIUI, even though
the rabbanut ruled that they should do giyur l'chumra, many felt that
this was an insult to their Judaism and refused to comply. Can anyone
give an update on this?)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 11:24:55PM +0200, S Goldstein wrote:
: Even if they are Jews, they certainly hold a broken mesorah.

New thread:

Suppose we encounter a community that can prove they (as a community)
date back to bayis rishon. They were cut off from the flow of mesorah
since before Anshei Kenesses haGedolah.

Presumably such people would have a vastly different halachah than we
do. After all, so much of halachah is derabbanan, and of the de'Oraisa,
so much is subject to machlokesin that weren't pasqened until after
the split.

The calendar would be different. Vechulu. Could well look like a
different religion.

Is there some objective definition by which one tradition would be right,
and the other wrong? Are we following "the mesorah" or "a mesorah"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Here are two emails from my father (Prof. Louis H. Feldman at YU) in
connection to http://tinyurl.com/fwp:

<<As the article that you called to my attention indicates, this remains
an unsolved mystery. It would seem from the Mishnah in Ta`anit 4:6 that
17 Tammuz commemorates 5 events. The last 4 are apparently connected
with the Second Temple. Wih regard to Apostomos the Gemara (Ta`anit 28b)
says that it is gemara--a tradition. Apparently, the Amoraim did not
have actual evidence as to who Apostomos was. But it would seem that the
best guess is the reference in Josephus, Jewish War 2.229, which tells
of a Roman soldier who tore a Torah scroll into pieces and threw it into
a fire. True, this occurred in Beth Horon; but the passage in Ta`anit
does not say that it occurred in Jerusalem. In fact, the Yerushalmi
Ta`anit 4.5.68d says that it took place at the pass of Lydda. True,
it occurred ca. 50, but it is part of the background of the destruction
of the Temple. Josephus does not give the name of the soldier, but as
the Gemara indicates, it is all part of a tradition.>>

<<I would add that the fact that Josephus, in his parallel account of
what appears to be the same event (Antiquities 20.115: there one of the
soldiers, again nameless, tore a Torah scroll in two while uttering
blasphemeies, but there is no mention of flinging it into the fire)
differs in details would seem to indicate that there is some doubt as
to what actually happened. The Antiquities parallels the Jewish War in
many places; and since it was written in 93-94, whereas the Jewish War was
apparently written ca. 79, it is sometimes regarded as a kind of second
edition. Another possibility is that the burning of the Torah scroll
and the setting up of an idol in the Temple are two separate events.
The Mishnah speaks of five events that are commemorate on 17 Tammuz, and
these are two of them. The Yerushalmi Ta`anit 4.5.68d reads Hu`amad,
"was set up," rather than "he'emid, "set up," indicating that perhaps
it was not Apostomos who set up the idol. One conjecture is that the
reference is a totally different event, the setting up of an idol in the
First Temple by King Manasseh; but the five events would seem to be in
chronological order, and this would break the chronological order.>>

> In chapter 1, RWW suggests that as part of our dialogue with G-d we
> must be concerned for others because they are in the image of G-d.
> Therefore our dialogue with G-d must include a dialogue with 
> other people.

How does this differ from Buber?

> In chapter 2, RWW addresses community ffrom a more utilitarian
> perspective. An individual needs a community in order to function
> properly, i.e. eat, learn, live.
> Why does RWW need both of these explanations 

One deals with a ruchnius relationship, and one is a gashmius relationship.

Akiva

>>>Does anyone out there know of a source for an opinion who counts
the 100 brachos a day starting from the morning and ending at night?
The Beis Yosef and other poskim on O.H. 46 seem to all go from the night
first, but I remember hearing years ago that there is another opinion.
A search through Bar-Ilan Responsa also didn't turn up anything.>>>

See Halichos Shlomo, page 271, n. 93, where a shita is brought down that
is mesupak whether the day goes after the previous night for purposes
of 100 brachos.

(See also D'var Halacha 42 which is mesupak whether the brachos recited
during bein hash'mashos are included in the previous day or the following
day.)

KT
Aryeh

Efraim Yawitz wrote:
>         Does anyone out there know of a source for an opinion who counts
> the 100 brachos a day starting from the morning and ending at night? ...

Doesn't the Arukh HaShulhan start counting in the morning?

David Riceman

In a message dated 6/23/02 9:25:13am EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 5:1 that when saying the shem adnus one
> should have in mind that Hashem is the master of all and that He was,
> is, and will be. When saying elokim one should have in mind that He is
> all-powerful and the master of all forces.

> The Gra in his biur there says that this applies only to Kerias Shema
> and not to all berachos.

For clarification purposes, the Gra is only discussing the need to have
the Kavana of both, the way the Shem is written (was is and will be)
and the way it is said (master), however Lchol Hadeios when saying a
Bracha one needs to have Kavana for master (by Hashem) and that He is
all-powerful and the master of all forces (by E-lokim), as to the actual
Teitch in E-lokim there are 2 Girsos's Vein Kan Mkomo.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]