Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 21

Tue, 23 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: An-im Zemiros (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. An-im Zemiros The Reason For My Question (RallisW@aol.com)
• 3. Should Rabbis Pasken Halachah or Teach Halachahl (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Minhag Yisroel (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Rav Schachter on Kiddushei Ta'us; and a hypothesis re: Annulment (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: What did they learn in the yeshiva of Shem and Eiver (Silverman, Philip B)
• 11. Re: Birchos HaTorah after parshas HaTamid (Richard Wolpoe)

 
 
From: _RallisW@aol.com_ (mailto:RallisW@aol.com)   

>>Is one permitted to recite An-im Zemiros on Shabbos or Yom Tov  as a  
majority 
of Ashkenazic shuls do? Is one allowed to recite it at  the end of  davening? 
<<




>>>>>
Your question is strange.  If the majority of Ashkenazic shuls recite  An'im 
Zemiros then ipso factor it must be mutar.  Your question should then  be 
worded, "Why is it permitted to recite An'im Zemiros on Shabbos and Yom  Tov?"  In 
return I would ask, what would be the reason to think that one  might /not/ 
be permitted to recite An'im Zemiros on Shabbos and Yom Tov, or that  one might 
/not/ be permitted to recite it at the end of davening?


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/31e58011/attachment-0001.htm 

 
Is one permitted to recite An-im Zemiros on Shabbos or Yom Tov as a  majority 
of Ashkenazic
shuls do? Is one allowed to recite it at the end of  davening? Should one 
recite the concluding
section of "Lcho HaShem  HaGeduloh...." which is of later origin?
 
I do not understand your question. Why would you think these practices  
(which you admit are
done by "a majority of Ashkenazic shuls") would be  wrong? 
The reason I asked this question is, according to the commentary in  the 
Siddur Maharal
MiPrague. 
According to the Maharal (Nesivos Olom Nesiv  12) it is ossur after the 
Tefilloh, to speak in praise
of HaKodosh Boruch Hu,  more than nessecary. The Gemoro Megilloh 106b says in 
comment to
the posuk  "Mi yimalayl gevuros HaShem yashmiya kol tehiloso". 
[How ironic that this is  one of the pesukim which were added at the end of 
the Shir Hakovod]
Says  Rabboh Bar Chanoh Omar Rabi Yochonon, ?One who speaks praise about the  
Holy
One Blessed Be He more than necessary, will be uprooted from the world.?  The 
Gemoro goes on
to quote from Iyov (37:20).  Yechezkel (65:20) etc..  
Rashi explains the reason that it is only ossur to speak praise of the  
Omnipresent in the form of a
brocho. It would seem it would be mutor  otherwise. 
The Maharal says he does see the chiluk between praise during a  brocho and 
not during a
brocho?  
Therefore the Paitonim who composed  this Piyut established this Piyut in the 
midst of the Tefilloh
and did not  establish at the end of the Tefilloh. Like the Tur in Orach 
Chayim (Simonim 68  and
112). 
The Maharal states those who recite the song known as Shir  HaYichud are 
committing an ?Issur
Gomur.? The lay people started reciting  there but originally it was only 
recited on Yom Kippur. 
On Yom Kippur it is  not called praising the Omnipresent more than essence 
because we do
praise  G-d that way already because it is Yom Kippur. A person on Yom Kippur 
is already  trying to
elevate himself to the level of the Maloch. In the frame of mind it  is 
fitting to give praise and song
to Hakodosh Boruch Hu.  
But to  say everyday praise to HaKodosh Boruch Hu is not done with the 
approval of  the
Chachomim. Even on Yom Kippur if one cannot abolish the recital of Shir  
Hayichud which was
innovated by those who were not Baalei Toroh, it should be  recited 
preferably before Boruch
Sh?omar. 




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/5fc91ed1/attachment-0001.html 

>
> The Humility to DeferIn general, *psak halacha* is exclusively reserved
> for *talmidim she'higi'u l'hora'a*, great torah sages. *Chazal*unequivocally condemn those who are not qualified to
> *pasken*, and yet do so. "
>

See  the rest of R Meiri Twersky's artcile

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rtwe_shmini.html

I recently dealt with a Ri Migash who recommended using secondary sources
for rabbis.  upon further analysis the Ri Migash did not do this hismelf.
The upshot iwas:  Gret Rabbis [those wiith gravitas should go to original
sources] lesser rabbis are better off using secondary sources.

As I pointed out once in antore discussion of women yo'atzot: Any women can
"quote" halacha as written inthe codes such as Shlchan Aruch or MB.  A women
does not ned to be a posiek to  CITE a source.

However to give hor'ah on  a given issue requires MORE than quoting.

Bottom line: should MOST rabbis today be morim be'hora'a using origian l
sources, or given the reality of time constraints should rabbis self-limt to
quoting or teaching Halachic sources and relying upon full-time poskim and
Dayyanim to make serious or difficult Halachic decisions.

This is analogous to the hierarchy or sarei alaphim v'sarei mei'os. Taht
only those at the top have the gravitas to render difficult p'sak.



-
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/21d9bfe1/attachment-0001.htm 

 
 
From: "Richard Wolpoe" _rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com) 



>I  would tend to believe the following: Halakhah - within bounds - clearly
>  develops over time.


>>Agreed. but how many right-wingers agree  to this premise?<<


 
 
>>>>>
100% of them.
 
The area of disagreement is not whether halacha underwent some historical  
development -- the Gemara itself says that it did, when it describes the reasons 
 and circumstances under which various derabanans were promulgated.   
Everyone knows that the mitzvos of Chanuka and Purim, for example, were the  products 
of certain historical events.  
 
The area of disagreement concerns the question of whether the entire  corpus 
of halacha is entirely man-made, subjective and random.   Right-wingers would 
say that only /allowable/ developments occurred over time,  and that there is 
a system of rules under which not all developments are  allowable.  
 
Even when two poskim disagree on a given psak, they do not choose from an  
infinite array of subjectively chosen possibilities when they arrive at their  
respective decisions, but from an allowable range which is distinctly finite 
and  bound by known rules.
 
You can play a hundred games of chess, according to the rules of chess,  and 
from the same initial setup you can arrive at a hundred different final  
chessboard arrangements, but all of them will be derivable from the same  rules.  A 
chess player can glance at the final chessboard and tell you  instantly that 
in one case, the final board was not a possible outcome of the  rules of chess 
and that his three-year-old must have put pieces on the  board after the game 
was over.  (The three-year-old in my analogy is a  Reform or Conservative 
rabbi who isn't happy with the allowable range of  chess moves and doesn't really 
care how he gets to the final board as long  as he likes the way it looks.)
 


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071023/75061aac/attachment-0001.html 

I wrote:
> There is, however, one point in which I disagree with the quote I posted: I
> do not believe that two identical shoalim exist. Hence a pessaq is always
> personal.

I must be craeful here, as the "two identical" shoalim comes from a quote by 
the Ramban. I guess that we should check the source. Ramban probably 
wrote "same", which is not as precise, and hence not as difficult, as 
identical, but it would be prudent to check the quote.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

I wrote:
> I would tend to believe the following: Halakhah - within bounds - clearly
> develops over time. 

RRW replied:
> Agreed. but how many right-wingers agree to this premise?

The observation is true according to any bar da'as. However, the parameters of 
this statement can be disputed. I based myself on the principle, not on the 
extent to which the statement is true. After all, I clearly add "within 
bounds", and also stressed that the developments can be seen as wrong by some 
later posqim who reevaluate earlier developments. That is partly how we 
stay "within bounds".

RRW also wrote:
> BY, Rema and Kitzur [by and large] submitted their  decisions  to a
> hypothetical BD. ROY follows  Maran BY. Ben Ish Hay implements  as much
> ARIZAL as the populace can handle.
> Kaf hachayim quote as many sources as he can [ROY, too]
>
> OTOH, MB seems to have a multi-faceted shita re: z'manei hayyom that leave
> me confused. He does not seem to follow strictly  GRA nor Magen AVraham nor
> Rabbeinu Tam nor Levush. See what I mean?

... that the MB was much more mimetically oriented as some make him out to be?

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> See Rav Schachter on Kiddushei Ta'us
> http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2001/rsch_nissuin.html
> In this posting I essentially concur with  Rav Schachter.
> 
> RRW's Hypothesis [caveta: this is probably based upon one of the 
> Rishonim but I am not sure]:
> Hazal only use afk'inhu in the presence of a Defective Get. However,
> in the total absence of a Get, they do not use annulment.

Maybe so, but it's got nothing to do with RHS's article, which isn't
about afke'inhu at all, but about kidushei ta'ut.   The two concepts
have no connection whatsoever.

If there was indeed a ta'ut in the kiddushin then the marriage is void,
whether we recognise that fact or not. If we were to be "machmir" at
the poor woman's expense it won't change the fact that she's a single
woman, free to marry whomever she likes, even a kohen.  And if there
wasn't a ta'ut, no act of beit din will create one; if we were to give
her a heter nisuin and then discover our mistake, we would have no
choice but to declare her children mamzerim.

Afke'inhu, OTOH, is an act of beit din.  Yesh koach beyad chachamim.
And you are probably right that the chachamim used this power only in
very limited circumstances, which we have no right to extend, even if
we had the power, which we may well not have either.

In practise, I've never heard of a case of afke'inhu in modern times
(meaning the past 1500 years); while cases of annulment on grounds of
kidushei ta'ut do happen from time to time, and I'm sure RHS has no
problem with that.  (It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he's
personally participated in such a case.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> If you take the Exodus as axiomatic then I can posit that we follow 
> Hashem's commandments because he acquired us from Par'oh.; IOW the 
> religion is now about serving God as a salve serves his master.
This is an assertion with respectable yichus, but I've never found it 
convincing.  It is, however, not relevant to the question at hand, which 
is the relationship between religion and the behavior of its adherents.
> The Torah is not about SELF-PERFECTION but creating SOCIETAL 
> perfection, i.e a mamlehces kohanim
So would you find that hypothetical survey convincing? Incidentally, if 
that's the function of the Torah, wouldn't we be better off dismissing 
all failed Jews from the clan?

David Riceman

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Of course a religion does have an effect on its adherents. But other 
> things affect them too!
>   
I was (unsurprisingly) thinking like a statistician.  Of course you 
can't know whether any particular action of a person is motivated by his 
religion, but you'd expect that some actions of some people are.  
Suppose, then, that group A is religious and group B, otherwise similar, 
is irreligious (yes, I know, it's hard to find these groups).  In the 
aggregate you'd expect more of group A's actions to have religious 
motivation.  If there's really no difference then what has their 
religion accomplished?  And if it really doesn't accomplish anything 
then why bother?

David Riceman

R' Zero mentioned that "Rebbi sent Ardeban a mezuzah,
and said that it would protect him; if he would not be doing a mitzvah
how could he get its sechar?"


A similar case just came up recently in Florida, related to the
Rebbe/Ardeban story:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2007/10/18/a11a_
crist_jewish_1018.html?imw=Y

A Jewish state representative gave Governor Crist a mezuzah, who hung it
on his office door, and "civil rights activists are troubled". 

A question to ask the gift-givers: "What would you do if Ardeban (or
Governor Crist) sent you a wreath in return?"

Phil



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071023/97ad5384/attachment.htm 

On 10/23/07, Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  A couple of weeks ago, we discussed the ideal time for saying Birchos
> HaTorah (BHT).  We clarified that the original minhag Ashkenaz was to say it
> immediately before parshas HaTamid, after birchos HaShachar, and I mentioned
> that I thought this was also minhag HaGra.  R. Wolpoe disagreed, arguing
> that it was inconsistent the Gra's well known position in OH 47 that one
> must make BHT on hirhurei Torah (contra the Mechaber).  He then argued,
> IIRC, that the attribution of this position (ie BHT before parshas HaTamid)
> comes from the Maasei Rav and was therefore unreliable as compared with Biur
> HaGra.
>

I stand corrected -  good catch!

I must correct this position.  The Biur HaGra to OH 46:8 makes it abundantly
> clear that the practice of saying BHT immediately before parshas haTamid is
> to be found in all old siddurim "mimei avoseinu",
>

Indeed the Tur follows this model as does KAJ/Breuer's. I do not  know why
the Rema [apparently] changed the order

Note:  when I taught orach Chayyim 46/47 I noted thanthere are 2 places in
the Siddur that have Mikra/Mihsna/Braisso in order

   1. After Brikas haTorah as WE have it [Birkas kohhanim etc.
   2. After Birksas haTorah as the Tur has it - Parshas hatamid  etc.

I noted this redundancy, and I speculated at the time that something must
have evolved. As I read your post I an speculating the following: That case
befoe Tamid seems to have been the original as per Ashkenaz, and the One
after Birkas Hatorah [as we have it in most Siddrurim]  seems to me al pi
hamechabeir.

KAJ preserves the original order [I attributed  to the Tur]  but also adds
the  Birkas Kohanim etc. BEFORE  Parshas Hatamid etc.

and is endorsed by the Ramban in the Yad, R. Amram Gaon and the Avudraham,
> among others.  I think the problem with relying on Biur HaGra to determine
> the Gra's halakhic positions is that he is often just giving a source for
> the position of the SA or Rema under discussion without endorsing that
> position.  In this case, however, there is no such uncertainty, as the Gra
> is ma'arich on this point and clearly sees the shift of BHT to just after
> Elokai Neshama (or Asher Yatzar, l'fi the Rema) as a later development and
> erroneous.  It seems odd to me that R. M. Sternbuch, who describes himself
> as nin v'neched m'haGra in all his seforim, writes somewhere that BHT should
> be said as soon as possible after waking, without even referencing the
> Gaon's view.
>

When I was in YU  [circa 1973] I read Rav Strerbuch's Sefer on Minhagei
HaGRA from cover to cover,one of the few Seforim that I read so ithoroughly
and intensely during my years at Yeshiva.   Perhaps my mis-perception of the
GRA's position stems from that experience via that Sefer?

As against R. Wolpoe, I do not think there is any contradiction between the
> Gra's positions regarding hirhurei Torah and BHT.  The latter is clearly
> based on the question whether divrei Torah said b'derech tefillah also
> require BHT (the subject of OH 46:8).  The Mechaber says "yesh lochush"
> for the opinion they do and the Rema says that the custom is that they
> don't.  The Gra paskens that they do not.  This is a different question
> from whether hirhurei Torah b'derech limud, as opposed to b'derech tefillah,
> require BHT.
> I hope this clarifies matters.
>
> Kol tuv
> Dov Kay
>
> <http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk>
>
Yishar Kochehca. It does clarify the GRA's position quite a bit. And I am at
a loss to explain my earlier presumption except to say that it seemed to me
a POPULAR notion that this was the GRA's postion.

So from now on Say R. Wolpoe's earlier position! [Mishan Rishona] and until
further notice or further research I am hozeir to teach like Dov Kay on this
matter

Your post explains another GRAthat troubled me. viz How come saying Krias
Shemai s NOT construed as Talmud Torah legabei considering Ahava Rabbah as
birkas hatorah.   The Rema's position would be clear - since Krias Shema is
said bederech Tefillah ergo it is not construed as Talmud Torah.  Now I can
get the GRA's position. Caveat:  SO LONG as Krias Shema is said bizmano.
After that it is indeed contsrued as Talmud Torah as per the Mishna - SEE MB
on rectiing Krias Shema  on  9 Av when putting on Tefillin.  I hve more to
quibble with this MB  al pi a Tur I learned recently.

Question: Would the GRA hold like the Rema that Birkas haTorah not be said
before Selichos?

And now for your next ACT can you explain Artscroll's position on printing
the parshiyos of Kadesh li and V'haya ki yeviacha BEFORE bircas hatorah?!
Are they derech Techina?


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071023/64745ed8/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 21
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."