Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 93

Tue, 11 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Lighting one less candle in an halachic way (Moshe Feldman)
• 3. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (David Riceman)
• 4. Mashke of the Beis Mitb'chaya (Sholom Simon)
• 5. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 13. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 15. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 16. Re: Tefillin on Rosh Chodesh (David Riceman)
• 17. from a parsha sheet (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 18. Re: from a parsha sheet (Zev Sero)

On Dec 6, 2007 3:17 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> The interesting question isn't whether in the BhM people would wear
> tefillin
> on RC, acc. to this ancient minhag Ashkenaz, they did, even during mussaf.
>
> Instead, the question is, when did the idea of not wearing tefillin during
> mussaf on RC start. I have a feeling (but that is currently only a
> speculation) that it isn't more than 400-700 years old.
>
> I eagerly await the learned references on the subject,
>

A dear friend and old Yekkisher Rav  the late R. Aryeh Jacobs OBM - pondreed
this issue with me. He guessed that the nusach of the kedusha had morphed
somehow. I did not quite fathom what he was getting at but he did see the
taking off of Tephillin by "TRUE" Ashknenazim as an anomaly and that
SOMETHING must have changed.  A, Talmid Hacham's question is often more
powerful than his proposed solution!
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071206/b5a72c6e/attachment.html 

Green groups are urging us to light one less candle each day of Chanukah.

Why couldn't we do this halachically by eliminating a regular shamash
and instead use a small electric bulb?  (We would light with a regular
candle and then extinguish it.  Because I always use oil, I always use
a wax candle to light and then extinguish it.)  The point of the bulb
is that we not be ne'he'neh solely from Chanukah candles; the shamash
is not an integral part of the mitzvah and presumably does not have to
fulfill all the halachos of neiros Chanukah.  Or, do we say that the
minhag is to use davka a candle which can be used to fulfill the
mitvzah of neiros Chanukah.

BTW, technically, couldn't one shamash suffice for multiple menorahs?

Chanukah sameach and Shabbat Shalom.
Moshe

Arie Folger wrote:
> Instead, the question is, when did the idea of not wearing tefillin during 
> mussaf on RC start. I have a feeling (but that is currently only a 
> speculation) that it isn't more than 400-700 years old.
>   
It's times like this that I wish I were CD enabled.  I tried to start 
with the more basic question of when people stopped wearing tefillin all 
day, and started wearing them only for krias shma and shmoneh esrai.  
Certainly the Rosh (H. Tefillin #28) says so.  The problem with the 
Rosh, however, is how to decide where a custom he mentions was 
practiced, since he himself moved from Germany to Spain.

In this case, however, it's attested in three places around the 
thirteenth century: France (SMaG Aseh #3 and Sefer Hasidim ed. 
Margalioth #362), Lunel (S. HaTrumah ed. Refael p.634), and Spain 
(Menorath HaMaor by al Nakawa, ed. Enelow, vol. 2, p. 69).

Incidentally, a hundred years earlier another traveller, R Abraham Ibn 
Ezra, attests that people didn't wear talittot all day (commentary on 
Num. 15:39).

It also seems that in the thirteenth century both Spain and Ashkenaz 
were divided about whether to wear tefillin on Hol HaMoed.  The Beis 
Yosef (siman 31) says that after the Zohar appeared the custom in Spain 
became uniformly against wearing them.  As a tangent to another thread, 
how is one to harmonize this with the Hazon Ish's opinion about revising 
halachah based on new manuscripts of ancient opinions?

Both the Rama (siman 31) and the Maharshal (Tshuva 98) say that the 
custom of Ashkenaz is uniformly to wear tefillin of Hol HaMoed.  I don't 
know how and when it became uniform.

Anyway that took up all of Shabbos, last night, and this morning.  Part 
two is to figure out about mussaf.  I hope, but am not certain, that I 
can manage before I travel later this week.  Otherwise it may have to 
wait a couple of weeks.

David Riceman

In Eduyos 8:4 (and Keilim 15:6, and Pesachim 16a, and Sanhedrin 37b) 
we learn that the mashke of the Beis Mitbichayah is an exception to 
the rule that the seven liquids are mekabel tumah.

But I couldn't find any reasons.

Any thoughts as to why?

-- Sholom

On Sunday, 9. December 2007 16.44:58 David Riceman wrote:
> It also seems that in the thirteenth century both Spain and Ashkenaz
> were divided about whether to wear tefillin on Hol HaMoed. ?The Beis
> Yosef (siman 31) says that after the Zohar appeared the custom in Spain
> became uniformly against wearing them.

Eh, you went too fast. First you explained that there are testimonies that 
already in the 12th and 13th centuries, people didn't wear tallit, resp. 
tefillin, all day. Then, suddenly, without quoting any new material, you 
state that " Spain and Ashkenaz were divided about whether to wear tefillin 
on Hol HaMoed."

Did I miss a beat?
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

R' David Riceman:
> It also seems that in the thirteenth century both Spain and Ashkenaz
> were divided about whether to wear tefillin on Hol HaMoed.  The Beis
> Yosef (siman 31) says that after the Zohar appeared the custom in Spain
> became uniformly against wearing them.  As a tangent to another thread,
> how is one to harmonize this with the Hazon Ish's opinion about
> revising
> halachah based on new manuscripts of ancient opinions?


Hanach La'hem L'Yisrael - Im Lo Neviim Heim, B'nei Neviim Heim. I would
assume that the CI would say that the Posek would not change his Psak based
on the new manuscript, but once the Minhag spreads in spite of that, it is a
Minhag like any other.

KT,
MYG

Arie Folger wrote:
> On Sunday, 9. December 2007 16.44:58 David Riceman wrote:
>   
>> It also seems that in the thirteenth century both Spain and Ashkenaz
>> were divided about whether to wear tefillin on Hol HaMoed.  The Beis
>> Yosef (siman 31) says that after the Zohar appeared the custom in Spain
>> became uniformly against wearing them.
>>     
>
> Eh, you went too fast. First you explained that there are testimonies that 
> already in the 12th and 13th centuries, people didn't wear tallit, resp. 
> tefillin, all day. Then, suddenly, without quoting any new material, you 
> state that " Spain and Ashkenaz were divided about whether to wear tefillin 
> on Hol HaMoed."
>
> Did I miss a beat?
>   
Perhaps I phrased the paragraph incorrectly.  Both sentences are based 
on that Beis Yosef.

David Riceman

 



Hanach La'hem L'Yisrael - Im Lo Neviim Heim, B'nei Neviim Heim. I would
assume that the CI would say that the Posek would not change his Psak
based on the new manuscript, but once the Minhag spreads in spite of
that, it is a Minhag like any other.

KT,
MYG

===================================================
And if I could peek into hkb"h's record book, would the first people who
started doing this, assumedly against the will of poskim, have demerits?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

David Riceman wrote:
> I tried to start
> with the more basic question of when people stopped wearing tefillin all 
> day, and started wearing them only for krias shma and shmoneh esrai.
I composed that post hurriedly yesterday.  Two quick addenda:

1.  All of those opinions cite concerns with guf naki or lack of 
concentration as a reason to minimize wearing tefillin.

2.  There's an intermediate position from the same era in Tosafos 
Berachos 44b s.v. "V'livnei Ma'arava" where he says that "our" custom is 
to wear tefillin till noon.  I hope to propose a speculative explanation 
in the next lengthy post, but meanwhile I'll observe that the custom of 
minimizing wearing tefillin was not universal at that point.

David Riceman

Another datum:  At least some Italian shuls say Keter in Shacharit and
Mincha as well as Musaf.  (Machzor Livorno gives both Keter and
Nakdishach and prefaces the latter with "some say this in place of Keter";
the Italian shul in Y'm says Keter.)  Do they remove their tefilin before
chazarat hashatz every day?  I assume not, so they probably don't think
it's a problem to say Keter in tefilin.  Given that, does anyone know
whether they keep their tefilin on for Musaf of Rosh Chodesh?  It would
make sense that they should, and Machzor Livorno doesn't mention anything
about removing tefilin, but I don't know.

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

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>
> Hanach La'hem L'Yisrael - Im Lo Neviim Heim, B'nei Neviim Heim. I would
> assume that the CI would say that the Posek would not change his Psak based
> on the new manuscript, but once the Minhag spreads in spite of that, it is a
> Minhag like any other.
>   
So you think it was the hamon am who studied Zohar? If not, how would 
they know about RaShBY's opinion?

David Riceman

Just a thought on this thread and a number like it.  We almost always seem to assume that when comparing 2 minhagim etc. There is only 1 factor  (eg here keter) that explains the difference and then try to extrapolate to other situations.It could be more than one factor and thus extrapolating based on that factor alone is incorrect (eg perhaps in italy they say keter but hold mussaf coulds have said nekadesh...)

kt

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

JRich@Sibson.com wrote:
> (eg perhaps in italy they say keter but hold mussaf coulds have said nekadesh...)

Huh?  I think there's an editing error there.

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

R' Joel Rich:
> And if I could peek into hkb"h's record book, would the first people
> who
> started doing this, assumedly against the will of poskim, have
> demerits?


I think so, but that's not the only reason why it's good that I'm not the
RBSO... :-) The only analogy I'm thinking of is the Zakein Mamrei, who also
thought he was correct, but got demerits anyway.

KT,
MYG

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> > Hanach La'hem L'Yisrael - Im Lo Neviim Heim, B'nei Neviim Heim. I
> would
> > assume that the CI would say that the Posek would not change his Psak
> based
> > on the new manuscript, but once the Minhag spreads in spite of that,
> it is a
> > Minhag like any other.
R' David Riceman:
> So you think it was the hamon am who studied Zohar? If not, how would
> they know about RaShBY's opinion?


Do we have any idea how fast this Minhag spread? Maybe it took a long time.
Besides, there are many Minhagim, I believe, based on the Zohar which people
found out about, somehow, sometime. Also, don't forget that at least after
the Ari HaKadosh, the Hamon Am did learn Zohar, in the form of Chok
L'Yisroel.

KT,
MYG

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> Do we have any idea how fast this Minhag spread? Maybe it took a long 
> time.
> Besides, there are many Minhagim, I believe, based on the Zohar which people
> found out about, somehow, sometime.
But it's not a minhag, it's a halacha.  If one may wear tefillin on Hol 
HaMoed then one must.

Daviod Riceman

Question of the week
A minyan is required for many religious activities. Usually, ten male 
adult Jews qualify for a minyan.
a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?
b. When must a minyan include two rabbis?
c. when must a minyan consist of ten Torah scholars?

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or 
disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently 
delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or 
saving them.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071211/6c2a9886/attachment.htm 

Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
> 
> Question of the week
> A minyan is required for many religious activities. Usually, ten male
> adult Jews qualify for a minyan.
> a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?
> b. When must a minyan include two rabbis?
> c. when must a minyan consist of ten Torah scholars?

B is gomel.  I think A may be megilah, according to at least some
opinions.  I'm still trying to puzzle out C.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 93
**************************************

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..."