Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 028

Wednesday, October 16 2002

• Re: reflections on the eighth month
• Re: Ve Tein Tal U matar in Chutz la'aretz
• Passul Sefer Torah?
• Abortion in today's Torah reading
• Re: Abortion in today's Torah reading
• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu
• mamzer
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu - !!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: air conitioning, kvius, and tzaar
• Re: Psak and Smicha
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu - !!!!!!!!!!!!! / Mevorchim Chodesh
• Re: mi khamokha - ma'ariv (was M'Vorchim HaChodesh)
• 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)

On 13 Oct 2002 at 16:07, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> I always thought that Marheshvan was a letter-by-letter conversion of
> yerah shemini, using the conventions of letter changes between Hebrew
> and Aramaic.

I understood that Marcheshvan came from "sifsosov m'rachashos," that the
niggunim of Chagei Tishrei should stay on our lips and set our year off
on a spiritual high. Which is why Marcheshvan is the only month without
any Chagim - it doesn't need any.

-- 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 21 Oct 2002 at 21:34, Shaul Bacher wrote:
> I heard today that a friend of mine who lives out of Eretz Yisroel
> will be visiting this week. Being that he is an ovel and will be
> shliach Tzibbur he will have to say Vetein Tal umatar. However when he
> returns from Eretz Yisroel next week he has to say v'tein Brachah
> during chazarat HaShatz, does he say the same in the quiet Shmoneh
> Esreh or does he continue to say vetein tal umatar quietly thus making
> the two brochas differently??

I live in Eretz Yisrael. Three years ago, I took several trips to
Chutz la'Aretz around this time. I was actually in Chutz la'Aretz on 7
Cheshvan and then I went again between 7 Cheshvan and December 4. IIRC,
I was told that on 7 Cheshvan, because I am a Ben Eretz Yisrael, I should
start saying Tal u'Matar in Tefilla b'Lachash only in Shma Koleinu. When I
returned to EY, I was to start saying it in Barech Aleinu. Once I started
saying it in Baruch Aleinu I was to continue saying it there unless I was
the Shaliach Tzibur. I avoided being Shaliach Tzibur to avoid the shaila
(something which your friend obviously cannot do).

 From what I recall, there is an extensive discussion of this in Yom
Tov Sheini k'Hilchaso.

-- Carl

In the minyan where I davened today, after they took out the Torah, we saw
that approximately the top third of stitching connecting the two pieces of
parchment had come out and the stitching was starting to get loose farther
down. No one could remember whether the Sefer Torah is passul in such a
case, so we took out another one (so as not to risk the beracha levatala in
the case that the ST really was passul). Afterwards we found in the MB,
siman 143, s"k 25 (...Nikreu --> acheret...): "If the stitching was torn
between one sheet (yeriah) and another, even if most of the stitching was
torn and it is still connected with five or six stichings - 'kesher shel
kayama' - it is kasher; if not, another ST should be taken out."

Can anyone give an objective definition of 'kesher shel kayama'? Does this
mean that the original tightness of the stitch has to be 100% intact? If
not, what standard should a stitch be judged by? Also, is the MB saying that
the Torah is kasher and should be read from lechatchila, or is it only
b'dieved (ie: it is kasher to read, b'dieved, if there is no other ST
available)? Since the stitching is already partially undone and further
handling of the Torah will invariably cause more of the stitching to become
loosened or undone, if another ST is available then wouldn't it be better
read from that one (so as to avoid the further bizayon of becoming more
unstitched to the first ST)? This is all conjecture on my part, but I would
be interested if anyone has seen this discussed somewhere.

Yaakov Ellis

[Bounced from Areivim. Let's see if we can keep the Torah issues here,
and the politics of abortion still on Areivim. -mi]

This morning, Shabbos Parshas Noach, we read a very interesting passuk:
"Shofech dam ha'adam ba'adam, damo yishafech." The pshat of this passuk
puts the comma after the word "ha'adam" which would be translated,
"Whoever spills the blood of a person, by people will his own blood be
spilled." (Death penalty for murder.)

However, the Gemara puts the comma where I have placed it and reads,
"Whoever spills the blood of a human being inside another human being,
his blood will be spilled." Thus, death penalty for abortion.

The above passuk was spoken by G-d to Noah and constitutes part of the
Sheva Mitzvos Bnai Noach, the universal code of morality for all mankind
antedating all known religions.

I myself do not, as a matter of public policy, favor the death penalty
for abortion providers or for women who seek their services. However,
you will have a very difficult time persuading me that abortion on demand
is a defensible position for a Torah Jew to take in public debate.

We should want what the majority of Americans want: abortion available
only under limited circumstances--including to save the mother's life--as
it was prior to Roe vs. Wade.

And if you think that Jews have no responsibility for what goyim do,
that's a subject for another posting, but Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch
and I strongly disagree.

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> This morning, Shabbos Parshas Noach, we read a very interesting passuk:
> "Shofech dam ha'adam ba'adam, damo yishafech." The pshat of this passuk
> puts the comma after the word "ha'adam" which would be translated,
> "Whoever spills the blood of a person, by people will his own blood
> be spilled." (Death penalty for murder.)
> 
> However, the Gemara puts the comma where I have placed it and reads,
> "Whoever spills the blood of a human being inside another human being,
> his blood will be spilled." Thus, death penalty for abortion.
...

Pursuant to the discussion on abortion I thought I it appropriate to
submit the following, taken from Torah L'Daas - with apologies to Rabbi
Matis Blum.

The Gemmarah in Sanhedrin 57B states that a Ben Noah is executed by
a Beis Din of one and that one witness suffuices, even if a relative
and without Hasra-ah . R. Yishmael says this includes abortion. Rashi
states there that if someone hits a woman and she miscarries, a Ben
Noah is executed. A Jew however, is not liable for the death penalty
unless the fetus is born. The Gemarrah explains in answer to a question
it asked that the R. Yishmael bases his view on the Pasuk in Pashas
Noah of: "Shofech dam ha'adam ba'adam, damo yishafech."(Bereshis 9:6)
and asks: What is a "man within a man" (Adam Ba'Adam) ? It is a fetus
in the womb. The Tanna Kamma argues with R. Yishmael and holds like
the Tanna D'Bei Menashe that the definition of "ha'adam ba'adam." is
that the death penalty of a Ben Noah is death by strangulation (Chenek)
since the blood (Nefesh) remains within the body.

The Rambam Paskins that a Ben Noah that violates any of the Sheva Mitzvos
Bnei Noah is executed by the sword (Hereg) indicating that he holds
the view of R. Yishmael and concluding that a Ben Noah that murders or
performs an abortion is to be executed via the sword.

Incidently it should be noted that Jews have a different Psak WRT to
abortion. They are not subject to the death penalty for performing an
abortion. Never-the-less it is still a violation of Halacha, some say
D'Oraisa some say D'Rabbonan. Furthermore, abortions are permissible in
certain circumstances. In a case of abortion performed on a Ben Noah,
a Jew is Patur while a Ben Noah is Chaive.

The Minchas Chinuch raises the question of performance of an abortion by
a Ben Noah is under the category of murder and the fetus is considered
life (for him) or whether it is not considered life but rather a Ben
Noah is Muzhar (warned) against it in the same way he is Muzhar on
abortions as it is not murder for him either but just an Aveirah for
a Ben Noah like other Aveiros. The Rosh Paskins that it is therefore
permitted for a Jew to perform an abortion on a Bas Noah to save her
life since a Fetus is not considered life. It is just an Issur and the
and like other Aveiros it is DeChuya B'Makom Sakanah. But It remains a
Machlokes as to whether a Ben Noah whom performs an abortion is taking
a life or is simply violating an Issur like other Issurim.

The question is raised as to which point in a pregnancy is a Ben Noah
considered a murderer if he performs an abortion. It is possible that
a ben Noah is not committing murder unless the pregnancy is full term
since a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb is considered an
unviable tissue mass. But the Gemmarah concludes that indeed a Ben Noah
is considered a murderer at any point in a pregnancy he performs an
abortion since ultimately a fetus will reach a point in the womb where
he can survive outside it. Never-the-less, the many Poskim (Achiezer,
ShuT Toras Chesed, Shevet M'Yehudah) Paskin that before forty days a Ben
Noah is not liable to the death penalty. The Tzafnas Paneach (Rogatchover
Gaon) Paskins that a Ben Noah is not liable for the death penalty at
all for an abortion since while a fetus it is part of the same body
(as the mother). But most Poskim disagree.

The Maharit says that a Jewish doctor who performs an abortion is guilty
of Lifnei Iveir.

To save a Bas Noah's life one an abortion is permitted and according
Tosfos in Sanhedrin(59A) even a Ben Noah may perform it. The Minchas
Chinuch questions this however and says that it requries further
analysis. The Tosfos HaRosh permits it without reservation. (So too
Macaneh Efriam, Imrei Shefer, Koach Shor in situations where the mother's
life is in danger. There are two rationales. One is that even if the
fetus is consdered a life it is never-the-less considered a Rodef. The
other Sevarah is that it is not considered a life.

HM

 From Avodah V10 #27:
>Sefer Chokri Minhagim from R' Eliyahu Gurary deals with the issue...
>He quotes and anyone including me can see inside: R' Yaakov Emden's Siddur
>by Slach Lanu (p.257 in new Eshkol) says this
>in the name of the Shelah... no klapping on days without tachanun... I
>could not find it in the Shelah by CD-ROM. It was not in Kitzur HaShelah
>and I did not see it in its place in the Shelah Siddur. I am interested in
>seeing it inside.

I am, too. Why should I 'klap' on Friday morning but not on Friday
afternoon...or on, say, Rosh Chodesh (a time when the k'lal looks to
improve itself and make a new start)? I understand the concept of
not 'klap'ing for the first Avinu Malkainu line ("chotonu l'fonecha")
on Rosh HaShanah (which, it so happens, is a day when no tachanun is
said) but would like to hear some reasoning for not 'klap'ping for
"ki chotonu...ki foshonu" in the daily Amidah.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Someone quoted the Mishna Yevamos end of Ch 1 that Bais Hillel would marry
with Bais Shammai in spite of a dispute as to the definition of mamzer.
See Gemara 14b there that precautions were taken to insure that they did
not stumble on someone who was, even only to THEIR OWN ShITA, a mamzer.
IOW one canNOt rely on the opposing viewpoint to be lenient in questions
of mamzerus.

Shlomo Goldstein

> R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote <<< The issue of microphones as well as the
> issue of electricity in general is something that can not be left to each
> community to decide. Similarly the issue of conversion, aguna etc can not
> tolerate idiosyncratic practices - no matter how well intended and
> informed by precedent.> >>
>
> Why?
>
> Why is it that microphones in shul cannot be left to each community, but
> giving aliyos to a mechalel Shabbos can be?
>
> Why is it that electricity in general cannot be left to each community,
> but Chalav Hacompanies, or opening cans on Shabbos can be?

This is an excellent question. My guess is that certain issues are
perceived as leading to a general attitude of leniency ie., slippery
slope. Other things or circumstances can tolerate for divergence of
opinion without harm. Which is which is a judgment call. Gedolim don't
run experiments to see the consequences of path A versus path B.

A similar process occurred for umbrellas. There are definitely
circumstances that umbrellas should be permitted - nevertheless it was
universally agreed that they simply had to be prohibited on Shabbos. See
Shemiras Shabbos k'hilchosa 24:15.

> Why can't we tolerate different practices on conversion and aguna? Didn't
> Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai tolerate each others practices on gittin?

This is simply because it would lead to the loss of a coherent
Jewish people. As has been noted by the many pronouncements concerning
questionable conversions or psakim that lead to mamzerim in the view of
most poskim.

The oft quoted beis Hillel and Beis Shamai was a case where the two sides
could clearly trust each other to reveal what people were prohibited. That
is not the situation today. Nor is it desirable to have people have
permanent family records that must be kept forever (worse than genetic
testing) which will determined who can marry whom. Finally the gemora
Shabbos states that they were ready (or in fact did kill each other)
concerning differences in halacha.

[Email #2. -mi]

> So are when  we advcoate that allRabbonans are d'oraissos;
> 1) Where is our emes? Our ehrlichkeit?
> 2)  How can any one be a Zakein Mamre?

> I'm sure the Rambam at least would be appalled by this methodology. I am not
> sure about the other poskim.

Let me cite the full statement of the Mahretz Chajes (Vol I Darchei
HaHora'ah Simon 6 page 270 note in first column at bottom of page. [Chasam
Sofer is also Kovetz Tshuvos #58.]

    "In my opinion it is not correct in my eyes [the Chasam Sofer's']
    decision that it is permitted to elevate the nature of the prohibition
    and to say concerning a negative commandment that it is prohibited
    by both a positive and negative commandment. Behold we see that even
    though scare tactics are practiced by Chazal [look in the Rambam's
    Commentary to Mishna Sanhedrin 7:4] concerning the punishment for
    sexual transgressions. The Rambam writes in the middle of his words
    'Our Sages have already warned us concerning hirhur and keeping
    far from those things which brings a person to it and they go into
    great length in order to intimidate and frighten ... but there is
    no punishment of lashes for any of these things.' Thus they say that
    it like murder or idol worship and similarly they say on many things
    that there is a chiyuv misa. But all this is only to intimidate and
    frighten. But to say on a rabbinic prohibition to say that it is a
    Torah prohibition the Rambam writes Hilchos Mamrim 2:9 that it is a
    transgression of baal tosif if one says that combining chicken with
    milk that it is a Torah prohibition.Since it is only rabbinic it
    is prohibited to say that it is a Torah prohibition. There is also
    the problem of lying even though it is done for a reason. Chazal
    were also very particular at all times to clearly distinguish what
    things were from the Torah and which were Rabbinic even if there
    was no practical halachic consequence."

Take a look at Shulchan Aruch EH 23:1 "Zera L'vatalah is the most serious
crime in the Torah..." The Beis Shmuel says "lav davka". See also Igros
Moshe EH III #14 page 437

Raavad (Mamrim 2:9):"The words for the Rambam concerning baal tosif are
meaningless [concerning the issue of bal tosif and rabbinic decrees]
because whatever they decreed and prohibited as a preventive measure
to safeguard the Torah is not a transgression of baal tosif even if
they fix it for all generations and they make it like a Torah law
and they associate it with a Torah verse as we find in many places
where it says that the law is rabbinic and that the verse is only an
asmachta. Furthermore if they temporarily ignore Torah prohibitions as
Eliyahu did on Mt. Carmel but this is ais la'asos. In fact we don't find
a prohibition of baal tosif except concerning positive commandments such
as lulav, tefilin, tzitzis etc whether they were decreed for a limited
time or for all generations whether it was established as doreisa or not.

Chinuch #454 says that the position of the Raavad is that of most Rishonim

Migdal Oz (Maamrim 2:9) notes that this debate predates that Rambam and
Raavad and is in fact a debate in Chazal.

In sum even the Rambam notes that Chazal give a misleading description
of transgressions in order to prevent sin. He has no objection to
this as long as the sinner is not punished according to the inflated
description. Thus the Rambam doesn't object to exaggerated labeling except
in the specific case of rabbinic's being labeled doreissa. Regarding
your second question the Sanhedrin knows which is which and the Zakein
Mamre has to be a high level posek also and thus also must know.

> and R. D. Eidensohnn:
>> The issue of microphones as well as the issue of electricity in general is
>> something that can not be  left to each community to decide. Similarly the
>> issue of conversion, aguna etc can not tolerate idiosyncratic practices - no
>> matter how well intended and informed by precedent. The Chasam Sofer's
>> declaration of chodosh assur  is a prime example of this....
>
> Point is how dod you know when a rule is a rule and when an exceptoin
> is an exception?

That is the job of gedolim. Halacha is not determined by plebiscite as
it is by the Reform and Conservative.

> Let me add this
> IF a poseik were to say:
> "microphones might be OK technically under certain conditions, but
> lema'aseh we feel using them is a pirtzus geder subject to terrible abuse,
> etc. therefore we strongly forbid it's use" that's an OK statment with me
>
> It's quite another to say: Anyone relying upon Heter X is a mehcalle
> Shabbes

Anyone who has had experience with the masses is well aware of what
would happen if such an announcement were to be made. There are many
halachic rulings which assume that the masses [including many avreichim
and local orthodox rabbis] can not adequately discriminate between the
permitted and the prohibited situation and thus the line must be drawn
far away from the actual issur.


There are in fact two different interpretations possible concerning
microphones. 1) It was perceived by Rav Moshe and others major poskim
as definitely prohibited and that ais la'asos required that there be
a uniform halachic practice. 2) It was viewed that microphones per
se were legitimately viewed as permitted under certain very limited
circumstances but that this constituted an unacceptable slippery
slope. Thus the ais la'asos was to prevent the use microphones that
might result of use where they were definitely prohibited as well the
use of electricity in general. I don't know which of these alternatives
is more correct. Realistically it makes no difference in practice.

The vast majority of poskim have agreed that microphones are not permitted
on Shabbos and anyone who insists today that he has sources to rely on -
is legitimately treated as a transgressor.

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

At 01:55 PM 10/14/02 -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
>> He quotes and anyone including me can see inside: R' Yaakov Emden's Siddur
>> by Slach Lanu (p.257 in new Eshkol) says this
>> in the name of the Shelah... no klapping on days without tachanun...

>         ... Why should I 'klap' on Friday morning but not on Friday
> afternoon...

[I assume this reply (after the first line) is also being forwarded,
and not by RYGB. -mi]

!!!!!!!!!!!:

> I asked Rav Faivel [Cohen] about klappen. He said he couldn't comment,
> since he never does it. It seems that in Chaim Berlin nobody did it,
> presumably because Rav Hutner didn't. Gut Shabbos.

RCS wrote:
> I'm not bothered by Rebbetzin Luntz's claims that I am thereby forsaking
> bentching, but I'm having some difficulty articulating why. Clearly,
> people avoid eating bread to avoid bentching year round. One could also
> argue that the d'oraisa chiyuv of bentching is only if one is full, a
> feeling which many of us don't have so often. Or one could argue that
> even if one doesn't have to bentch, there is still bracha achrona in
> its place. But in any event, I am less bothered by avoiding bentching
> than I am by avoiding eating in the Succah.

I believe that RCS has hit the nail on the head. We have had some
parallels with tzitzit, only to wonder, since not wearing clothing that
requires tzitzit is not a bittul mitzvat 'asseh, why then the story
of rav Qattina (re that one should make himself become obligated in
tzitzit, even though being patur is not being mevatel the mitzvah),
which RMF quotes in his tshuvah.

The idea is that in general it is not prohibited not to become obligated
in a particular mitzvah. However, (a) one may not make himself entirely
exempt from mitzvot (by becoming drunk - forgot the source, but IIRC,
is a gemara; heard from rav Mosheh Tendler at a YU yom iyun on substance
abuse), and (b) there are certain mitzvot where the taam hamitzvah or
something else about it is so powerful, that one may not gratuitiously
make himself exempt from it. The question, of course, is which mitzvot
belong to (b).

Tzitzit is a good candidate because of rav Qattina's aggadeta, however,
that does not mean that one must wear a tallit qetanah, but rather that
one must wear some tallit regularly. Based on the Tur and earlier posqim
I would venture to say that one avoids the problem rav Qattina is avoided
when wearing a tallit daily - during davening. The only reason to extend
the requirement to tallit qetanah would be minhag, which RMF tries to
do en passant. However, even without RMF's argument that it is now a
minhag to wear a tallit qetanah all day, the analogy with sukkah may
still hold because, in RMF's opinion, there is something about sukkah
that should make us want to be obligated, although I am not sure what
(I could speculate, but want to see the 'hevrah's reaction, first,
especially since I did not read the entire tshuvah of RMF).

Rav Lichtenstein's ruling is different, because it relates specifically to
the role of youth movements, and their obligation to increase our desire
to fulfil mitzvot, rather than seek to escape them. Such an argument is
not restricted to sukkah, but rather to youth groups, although I do accept
the possibility that RAL would distinguish between eating and sleeping,
although I am not sure about that (why should eating be less stringent,
reb Carl?).

Looking for reactions,

Arie Folger

When asked which mitzvah was hardest, the Gra answered "vehayisa ACH
samei'ach". Being happy is one thing, being *only* happy?

I think it takes a certain level of bitachon to be purely happy while
mitzta'eir. One I personally don't have.

The M"B notes the machloqes about mitzta'eir patur min hasukah (and
doesn't note the above) as being about whether "ke'ein tadiru" is a petur
on the gavra (to rephrase in Brisk-speak) or a pesul in the cheftzah
sukah. The nafka minah: whether a mitzta'eir gets sechar if he sits
there anyway. Is it a "eino metzuveh ve'oseh" or simply a guy sitting
in a booth?

The MB assumes that if the former, one could sit in the sukkah on the first
night.

My little sevarah would argue that he shouldn't as it violates simchas
YT.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:54:06PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> One can, perhaps, define pesak based on what one is not allowed to do in
:> front of one's rebbe.  See YD 242:7-10.

: Which just makes another turn around the circle, and justifies women
: making psak. Why? Because heter horaah allows such to be done in front
: of one's rebbe, no? ...

I think R' Gil was saying that anything that requires a heter hora'ah is
hora'ah. (And if it's not what he meant, it's still an idea to consider.)

Not that a woman necessarily should be able to obtain a heter as per
the SA cited.

-mi

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:11:06AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: The basis is facts.  Does the Agudas Harbbanim in fact represent a Rov!?

To confuse the issue with facts:

REMT already said that the AhR was at the time not only rov, but
ruba deruba of the poseikim in the US.

That context has to be considered when discussing RMF's answer to
RCS. It's one thing to say "it's din" when the kehllah answers to the AhR,
but when you know you're crossing from that general statement about the US
(of that day) and a community that didn't, the rules change.


On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:11:06AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: A minhag has to be analyzed.  
: So does a text

The process of analyzing is textual, formal. It's what the rabbis do,
not the masses.

But you have been asserting that the minhag has final say over what the
rabbanim deduce in sefarim. (With few drastic exceptions on the level of
freeing agunos or preventing mamzeirim.)

In which case, who has the authority to analyze and evaluate minhag?


BTW, "oseh hashalom bimromav..." is an attempt to use an allusion begamatria
to the name of the mal'ach involved in bestowing shalom while not giving
up at least paraphrasing the pasuq. A comprimise. Not an error in keeping
the two nusachos separate.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On 14 Oct 2002 at 21:58, Arie Folger wrote:
> Rav Lichtenstein's ruling is different, because it relates
> specifically to the role of youth movements, and their obligation to
> increase our desire to fulfil mitzvot, rather than seek to escape
> them. Such an argument is not restricted to sukkah, but rather to
> youth groups, although I do accept the possibility that RAL would
> distinguish between eating and sleeping, although I am not sure about
> that (why should eating be less stringent, reb Carl?).

With eating there's a kva/arai dichotomy. No such thing as sheinas 
arai. 

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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 Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:15:22PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: With eating there's a kva/arai dichotomy. No such thing as sheinas 
: arai. 

Why not? There is WRT birchas haTorah, etc... It's a common discussion
on Shavu'os morning (and a rare one on longer Shabbos afternoons, when
one's Shabbos nap could approach the length of a nighttime sleep).

-mi

On 15 Oct 2002 at 20:33, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:15:22PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>: With eating there's a kva/arai dichotomy. No such thing as sheinas
>: arai. 

> Why not? ....

See SA OC 639:2 and Biur Halacha there s"v Afilu Sheinas Arai. 

-- Carl

I have it on very reliable authority that R' Yaakov Weinberg zt"l - of 
course, a talmid of Rav Hutner zt"l - never klapped by Selach Lanu as well. 
Makes one wonder what we have been assuming all these years...

On the Mevorchim Chodesh issue, inquiring minds want to know:

>I haven't been watching too closely, but has anyone mentioned there are 
>two different nuschaot for the earlier part - hachodesh hazeh vs. 
>hachodesh haba.  Clearly, the former is predominant but the latter seems 
>to make more sense.

RYGB wrote:
> BTW, I davened with Stolines this summer, and in Mi Komocho they have the
> intersting variant "Zeh Keli anu *vohmoru*."

Standard 'hassiedische nussach, though many don't follow it. Few siddurim
print it this way; it's an oral tradition. However, after all those years
of hearing this quite often (depends on shatz), I couldn't figure out
the grammar. May be it means that they were brought to say by a power
from without themselves?

It also seems that most shli'hei tzibbur don't agree that, first, our
ancestors reacted (after seeing the sea split) "ze E-li", (the comma
was very important) and, then, they said ... haShem yimlokh le'olam
va'ed. Instead they say "Thy Kingdom your children saw, [when You]
were splitting the sea [upon which] they reacted and said *this is my
God*." Never mind that "and said" occurs after "this is my God".

Re: whether we should or shouldn't prefix a heh to the day when we
announce rosh 'hodesh for, during birkat ha'hodesh, I believe that the
heh prefix is appropriate, as we are not saying that RH in general falls
out on Sunday, or whatever day, but rather that this coming Sunday or
whatever day will be RH. Heh hayedi'ah at its best.

This is further emphasized by those who say habah 'alenu letovah even
for Sun-Fri, although using this formula also obliterates the need for
a heh hayedi'ah.

Arie Folger

Someone asked me about 'hakofos sheniyos' recently and asked me to
'ask my chevra' about it. So here goes....

He said that a family member of his was in Eretz Yisroel and she (a bas
chutz lo'oretz) attended 'hakofos sheniyos' with musical instruments,
etc., put on by some Israelis.....This person had evidently not previously
been familiar with 'hakofos sheniyos' and was not crazy about the idea....

In the course of the discussion, some questions came up, such as -

1) What is the idea of 'hakofos sheniyos' ? He had trouble understanding
it - he said something like 'has anyone ever heard of a second seder ?

2) Is one allowed to take out sifrei Torah for such an event which
(licheora) has no source in the past ?

3) Is it proper for a ben / bas chutz lo'oretz to take part in such an
event if it includes music, etc., which is prohibited to them at that time
(when it is still yom tov for them) ?

4) Licheora a ben/bas chu"l cannot be yotze hakofos Simchas Torah by
attending 'hakofos sheniyos' - since the bnei EY putting them on have
no chiyuv to make them, while the bnei Chu"l do - correct ?

I told the fellow that I believe it is basically a dati-leumi thing,
not engaged in by chareidim. Is that correct ?

Any comments on the inyan ? Are there are teshuvos (Rabbinic responsa)
on it ?

Mordechai

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


[ 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         ]