Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 203

Tue, 23 Nov 2010

• 1. Is Turkey Kosher? (david guttmann)
• 2. Re: Murder (Meir Shinnar)
• 3. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. changing tune in lecha dodi (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Akiva Blum)
• 7. is money a chisaron? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 8. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Hachnasat orchim v. Shmona Esrei (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 11. Science and Torah - redux number n (limit n -> infinity)... (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)

RMB -

In my earlier comment I was not suggesting CV that Ashkenazim may stray from
Remo's psak. I was just pointing out that Rambam who indeed does not require
Mesora but when he does discuss it, it is not based as RZS suggests, Mesora
Misinai but rather Mesora based on earlier Chachamim who relied on Simanim.
Indeed RMB in suggesting that turkey preceded Rema's psak seems to agree too
that an established Mesora other than Misinai is acceptable. Rema's Mesora
and indeed the Mechaber's are therefore not Misinai but based on local
practice.

Re RZS note about Bishmotehen being Misinai, that may be correct because we
are talking about the forbidden ones thus one who knows which were assur
Misinai, and that can only be through a kabbalah, may eat all others. That
does not take away though that the Mesora to permit was developed later by
Simanim or one who knew the forbidden ones. 

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

RAF
>
> But I must admit that I do wonder about whether accepting organs may
> represent a more active involvement in taking them than is generally
> acknowledged. Can a doctor join this conversation, please?
>
Not to go into hoary details, but yes, there is an active involvement
- involving that one has to actively register and show commitment to
wanting a transplant, being willing to show up at the time prescribed
for the transplant, etc - which do not directly affect the donor
(although time, at least for minor delays, may) , but also that the
evaluation of the donor is tailored to the requests of the
institutions where the recipients will receive the transplant - so the
donor may undergo invasive procedures (such as cardiac catheterization
for heart transplants) specifically because it is desired by the
institution for that patient, and would not otherwise undergo.  The
patient, through his physician, is directing what is being done to the
donor.
Furthermore, at the time that cardiac death (as distinct from brain
death) is induced, and the organs harvested - this is done
specifically for the sake of specfied donors = who are frequently
already in the operating room, and with anesthesia if not surgery
started, awaiting arrival of the organ.  It is NOT the case that the
organ is available, and then you are asked would you like to receive
this organ that we have...

Meir Shinnar

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:31:08PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:> As for the origin, bemechilas kevod toras R' Dovid Cohen, I think it
:> has a basis.

: So, the basis is
:> There is a minhag Frankfurt-am-Main to sing one tune for the beginning to
: His'oreri...
...
:> And then for the return to discussing Shabbos in Bo'i veShalom they
:> would *switch back*.

: I needn't say it, because you did:
:> Not exactly the same minhag, but the beginning of the idea.

: Then, instead of a mekor...

To supplement the maqor. The question was where the minhag of changing
the tune came from. I showed that it's an old Yekkishe minhag to change
the tune, albeit in a different place. This shifts the question. Given
that changing the tune is in fact a minhag that is older than I am,
why did we change which verse we change it at?

For that I do not have a source, but suggested a possible reason for
the shift. But in discussing that source, I wrote:
> To my mind this must be connected to the Chassidishe minhag, which is
> to use a slow tune for the first verses, and a lively / happy one for
> the last 4.....

The chassidishe version of the minhag (switching once, at Lo Seivoshi ),
which is what RSG asked for a maqor for, is old enough for many people
to have already forgotten details of that minhag. How many people insure
that Lo Seivoshi is a switch to a happier melody?

Or course, if the chazan thought about what he was saying, the choice
of melodies would be self-evident. Of course you sing Miqdash Melekh
to a plaintive tune, and Yamin uSemol to a joyous one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

R' Shaya Goldmeier asked:

> I know many people do this, regardless of MO vs Chareidi leanings.
> Personally, if the chazan has the kehilla "rockin" with the tune,
> I hate the disruption changing the tune creates.

I too find the change very jarring.

> he says, "it's become minhag Yisroel" to change the tune. Now my
> rov is generally a nationally respected rov and poseik. When I
> questioned him about the status of this strange behavior, he
> replied, yes, it is now minhag yisroel and I hate it when the
> chazan doesn't change the tune.
>
> So, my question to you all is, minhag yisroel? do ALL of you change
> the tune?

Not only are there many times when we have a shatz who doesn't change the
tune, but I've been in MANY places where Lecha Dodi is not even sung at
all, but merely recited. How can it possibly be "minhag yisroel" when there
are so many variations?

I am very curious how this rav would explain the development and
establishment of new minhagim. On the one hand, by saying "it is now minhag
yisroel", he seems to be saying that this is a new minhag which only
recently achieved that status. But at the same time he is admitting that it
is *not* universally followed. Isn't that contradictory?

It seems to me that the burden is on *him* to (1) define at what point a
"popular practice" becomes a "minhag yisroel", and then to (2) reveal the
research and statistics which show that this point has been reached.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ceb4a5dd7b7e3475cfst03vuc

At 10:56 PM 11/22/2010, R. Gershon Dubin wrote:

>I asked Rav Dovid Cohen about the origins of this "custom" and he 
>had no idea if there was any.
>
>Gershon
>gershon.du...@juno.com

I remember the "good old days" when Lecha Dodi was often not sung. It 
was simply chanted. This was the custom in R. A. Miller's shul. One 
Friday night a fellow was asked to daven Kabbolas Shabbos for the 
Amud who was not aware of this custom in R. Miller's shul. He began 
to sing Lecha Dodi. The gabbai came over to him and told him that in 
this shul they do not sing Kabbolas Shabbos. He took off the talis he 
was wearing and simply sat down! This created a bit of a stir, as you 
can imagine. >:-}

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101123/64d46a33/attachment-0001.htm>

> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Zev Sero
> Sent: Monday 22 November 2010 5:44 AM
> 
> On 21/11/2010 1:40 PM, Akiva Blum wrote:
> 
> >> Back to Moshe Rabbenu.  That is the premise of the whole 
> business of
> >> requiring a mesorah for birds.
> >
> > Chazal had a system for identifying kosher birds, and it's 
> clear that
> > they actually used it. No mesorah could claim to be older 
> than whatever
> > time the system was still being used.
> 
> Why shouldn't a mesorah be older than that? 

Could be. But you couldn't know that it is. It could have been created
through using the simanim.

 >And if I recall the
> discussion in Eilu Treifos correctly, the system they came up with
> was more descriptive than prescriptive, and was something they derived
> by observing the birds they had a mesorah for. 

From where do you see that? It's a mishna (chullin 3:6).

  And the opinion that
> no system is good enough, and one needs a mesorah, goes back to their
> day.
> 

A mishna or a braiassa? It's a minhag from the times of the rishonim, based
on a maaseh in the gemorah.

Akiva

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2010/11/vayishlach-breishis-382-what-
to-look.html 
 a  drush on the parsha, on whether running  after  rich shidduchim 
detracts  from the spiritual  outcome  with the children....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101123/b9a0291c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:59:37AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: It seems to me that the burden is on *him* to (1) define at what point
: a "popular practice" becomes a "minhag yisroel", and then to (2) reveal
: the research and statistics which show that this point has been reached.

Item #1 is something I would like to hear opinions about from the chevrah.

-Micha

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:06:11PM +0000, Jonathan Dickson wrote:
: On the other hand, I'm not aware of any halacha that allows one to
: interrupt one's Amidah for hachnasat orchim.

I would think it your daughter's question would require orechim who
don't know what Shemoneh Esrei is or wouldn't wait for you to complete
to even get started.

...
: (especially when you consider that our davening is, presumably, a
: lower level of engaging with HKBH than Avraham's was. So kal vechomer,
: we should be able to interrupt it to carry out hachnasat orchim).

The qal vachomer fails, because his hachnasas orechim was also at a
higher level.

But in any case, I think the real difference is that Hashem was speaking
to Avraham; Avraham was not making baqashos. So, talmud Torah may be a
better comparison to his conversation with the Almighty than Shemoneh
Esrei -- and we do pause in talmud Torah to greet guests.

: My 9-year-old daughter's question, not mine - any thoughts?

Have nachas!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:55:21PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: The epistemological issue is that both sources of knowledge - both
: mesora and science/reason - both come from hashem - and are both
: true - and you reject that monistic approach. Yes, when there is
: a contradiction, one has to weigh the evidence - but we are used to
: assessing and deciding between variant positions in the mesorah -
: suggesting an imerfect understanding - and the question is why is
: knowledge obtained by one of hashem's other ways of revelation to us
: not included in this type of debate? ...

I see the epistomological issue differently.

We know we misunderstood something. Either revelation or science. (I
would not call science another way of revelation, that language confuses
the issue.) Or, of course, the theories that grow around revelation,
around the empirical data, or some combination of the two.

The question becomes which do you consider more sure?

I am arguing that your approach gives far too much relative surety to
theories that grew up around empirical data in comparison to our mesorah.
(Again, from the very subjective measure of my own comfort zone.)

I am okay with theories that grow up around both, and thus knowledge
obtained by what you call "one of Hashem's other ways of revelation
to us" IS included in this kind of debate.

But to assume we got the Torah wrong when the Torah itself has no hint
of such... Isn't that as much of an anathema as assuming we got the
science wrong when all the data is solid, confirmed numerous times,
and the resulting theory made predictions that have also been confirmed
numerous times? Why open the mesorah to revision when the mesorah looks
mesoretically sound faster than opening up a scientific theory for
revision even though it seems to be scientifically sound?

It's that which I see as an assymetry that I am uncomfortable with.

...
:> (I repeatedly suggested a generic answer based on the Maharal about
:> the nature of miracles (pardon that turn of phrase) and suggested that
:> according to his formulation, they would leave never evidence behind
:> that could be experienced by anyone who doesn't live with the miraculous.)

: an understanding of much of tanach - that things happened in a
: miraculous realm that left no impact on the general physical world -
: seems far more radical than most allegorical approaches...

But it passed rabbinic peer review for the past 400 years.

: eg, a flood that affected the entire world - but left no traces that
: it actually happened?

Well, given how the Maharal understands nissim, it's not surprising.
See the 2nd haqdamah to Gevuros Hashem.

Cut-n-pasting from one of those repetitions (Mesukim MiDevash for
Beshalach, pp 1-2 <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/beshalach.pdf>):

    The Maharal... writes that rather than being an exception to
    the rule, nissim follow their own rules. Indeed, miracles occur
    all the time, but on their own plane of reality. This is why
    Yehoshua requests "shemesh beGiv'on dom -- the sun should stand
    still in Giv'on." (Yehoshua 10:13) The sun stopped for the Jews
    in Giv'on, who were on a plane where miracles operate, but not for
    anyone else. Literally two different realities were simultaneously
    experienced. Not two different perceptions of the same event, but two
    conflicting things were real, depending upon which world one occupied.

    Most of us live within a world in which the laws we call "teva"
    apply. R' Chanina ben Dosa, however, lived in a world where the
    laws of neis applied. In this world, oil and vinegar are equally
    flammable.... Rav Eliyahu Dessler elaborates on this principle [MmE I
    pp 304-312]. Mekubalim speak of four olamos, each of a higher level
    than the previous: asiyah (action), yetzirah (formation), beri'ah
    (creation) and atzilus (emanation)....

    People have two sources of information that they consider
    absolute. The first is their senses -- sight, sound, and so on. The
    second is their self-awareness. The senses bring us information about
    the physical world. Self awareness brings us concepts like truth,
    freedom and oppression. Someone mired in the desires of the senses
    lives in the physical world. He focuses his attention on it, just as
    everyone focuses on that which is important to them. "Every tailor
    notices and looks at the clothing of the people in the street; and
    similarly every shoemaker, shoes..." The man of the senses therefore
    perceives it as more objective and more absolute than the world of
    the self.... This is olam ha'asiyah.

    However, one can rise above that to the olam ha'yetzirah. This
    is not merely another level, but another world with its own laws,
    laws that do not conflict with free will. Those who focus on this
    world have no question that free will exists. To them, it is the
    ideals of this world that are more objective and absolute, and the
    senses, more subjective. Rav Dessler explains that this is how nissim
    can impact one person's senses and not another's. Yetzirah is the
    Maharal's plane of nissim, and as the Maharal noted different people
    will perceive the miraculous differently, or not at all. And so the
    sea split in olam hayetzirah, but not in olam ha'asiyah.

If during the event people have conflicting experiences, is it such a
big chiddush to suggest the same is true after the event? We who don't
rise up to the level of experiencing nissim don't live in a universe
where their evidence exists.

This explanation has the advantage of explaining the lack of physical
evidence while accounting for the presence of cultural testimony to the
flood. The Aztecs, living at altitudes so high they developed larger lung
capacity than most people, didn't remember a flood local to Mesopotamia
or the area just south of the Black Sea. They aren't likely to have any
flood plain stories in their culture.

Cultures from the Australian Aborigines (in the Outback desert) to
the Innuit (in frozen parts of Canada) have flood legends. It's either
testimony to a real event or proof Jung's Archetypal Symbolism. I
don't know which would bother skeptic more.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
:> Yes. So the question is which do I assume was misunderstood,
:> the science / philosophy, or the Torah. I'm arguing that if you have
:> to change the Torah ONLY because you need to eliminate the
:> conflict, then to my mind (or should I say "to my gut instinct?") you
:> should instead wait for the science to be ammended.

:> Or, just wait with the question altogether, seeing as we lack the
:> tools to find the single truth.
...

: A different formulation of the problem, which, admittedly, doesn't
: fully answer our question, but nonetheless agrees with your assertion
: that "just wait with the question altogether, seeing as we lack the
: tools to find the single truth," but gives a useful result, is the
: following question:

: Given we cannot arrive at a definite answer in these matters, and
: given that some of us have different gut feelings than others, is it
: heresy to posit one kind of reconciliation or another? To that
: question, I believe that the negative answer will be true in many more
: cases than usually acknowledged.

I don't think anything but denying the iqarim define heresy. The iqarim
are echoed in Hil' Teshuvah in the definitions of minim, apiqursim and
koferim. Yes, not every believer in kefirah is a kofer, and yes, we have
argued in the past whether current following of the iqarim WRT who can
handle wine or who is a candidate for conversion is lifnim mishuras hadin
(or ta'us) or an actual pesaq.

So, we may argue if the iqarim are too restrictive, but I don't think any
of us have room to call someone a heretic if the iqarim are not touched.

My problem is with the surety one gives their scientific conclusions
vs their mesoretic ones. I think there is a weakness of emunah when
one assumes too often that it is the mesorah that must have been
misunderstood, rather than the scientific theory or philosophical
argument.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:18:39AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 22/11/2010 10:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> There is no mention of Yom haDin, just of Yom Hashem. The notion that
>> would need explanation would be your assumption that they're identical.
>> Or even that Yom haDin was a day -- I would think it's shorter.

> It's Yom Hashem Hagadol Vehanora.  What other day could that mean *but*
> Yom Hadin?  And it needn't take up the whole day, but that is the Day
> of Judgement; it certainly needn't take *more* than a day.

The Yom Shekulo Shabbos -- or is that also only 24 hours?

>> Rashi on 2:1 explicitly says that "kulam nivera'u barishon". Nothing
>> about a given day.

> Come, now.  His comment is on "*beyom* asos Hashem", and he says
> "*limdecha* shekulam nivre'u barishon".  *This teaches you* that
> everything was really created on the first day, not on the subsequent
> five days.  What teaches you this?  The word "beyom"....

In the beginning. Rashi notably doesn't use the word yom.

> Rashi takes this "beyom" absolutely literally.  It does not mean even
> as little as a week, let alone any longer period....

Since Rashi doesn't say anything about yamim, I don't see how you get
this. But in any case, where does Rashi reinterpret the introduction
of this parashah (2:4-3:15) the "toledos shamayim va'aretz behibar'am,
beyom asos H' Elokim shamayim va'aretz" as not telling you the entire
parashah isn't in that barishon, in that day of creation?

Rashi on 1:1 says it's a prepratory step before the week of creation.
"Velo ba hamiqra lehoros seder haberi'ah" and "bereishis hakol bara eilu".

According to what Rashi is saying, the kulam that were created barishon
includes the creation of man, woman and the eating from the eitz hadaas.
What he says this pereq tells you is that it all happened barishon. That
cannot be a 24 hour day if the week described in the previous pereq was
7 such 24 hour days.

This is why I counted Rashi among those who do not say that time
during maaseh bereishis is literal altogether -- not even 7 period of
unspecified length. Because Rashi appears to imply that the sequence is
even malleable. To me, Rashi reads not that differently than the Rambam's
7 causal steps. (Again, counting Shabbos as a nivra.)

See also the Maharal, the other haqdamah to Gevuros Hashem. In his
discussion of Ein Doreshin he says that "arayos" there refers to the
relationships between nivra'im more than literal intimate relationships
between people. And he associates it with this pereq, Bereishis 2.
Does that not sound like Rashi's notion of a single creation followed
by placement?

And doesn't creation vs placement sound similar to -- although different
than -- the Ramban's beri'ah of hyle vs later vayeitzer? In the sense
that both make creation a two step thing?

...
>> In fact, taken very literally, Rashi is saying that
>> everything was created at the start of the week, as he says on 1:14
>> about the me'oros, "they were created since yom 1, and on the 4th [yom]
>> it was commanded on them to hand in the raqia'".

> Exactly.  And how does he know this?  Because of this "beyom", which
> you claim means the whole week!

As above, Rashi says we know it from 1:1. Here, Rashi is saying that we
know everything was created up front (barishonah), in a single yom. That
yom could be of any duration, from all we see in Rashi. But after the
yom of creation -- not week -- everything is nivra and man ate from the
eitz hadaas.

...
> Rashi already handled that one.  The main pshat is that this pasuk is
> about the *purpose* of the whole creation, not its timing; and if that
> doesn't sit well then the secondary pshat is that it means that the
> next pasuk ("vehaaretz haysa tohu vavohu") happened at the beginning of
> the creation of shamayim va'aretz.  Rashi absolutely rejects the idea
> that 1:1 tells us when shamayim va'aretz were created.

Rashi absolutely rejects the idea that any of Miqra tells us when shamayim
va'aretz were nivra'im (to be more specific than "created"). He doesn't
say (on 1:1) "lo ba hapasuq" or "lo ba hamiqra kan". But "lo ba hamiqra".

...
> Sorry, you are distorting the Rashi beyond any recognition.  Rashi
> couldn't be any clearer: "beyom asos" means the first day and only the
> first day, to the specific exclusion of the rest of the yemei bereshis.

You don't address my main point in that post. "Beyom asos" is given
as the time in which Adam is created, names the animals, gets a mate,
eats from the eitz hadaas. "Eileh toledos" and then those are the events
told over. Is that all on day one?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RDE on his blog just posted three entries showing the ubiquity amongst
rishonim and acharonim the idea that chazal could err in science.

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/11/authority-of-scientific-
statements-of.html
    R' Sherira Gaon, R' Avraham ben haRambam, Ramchal, RSRH

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/11/scientific-statements-of
-chazal-might.html
    REED

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/11/validity-of-views-r-sherira-g
aon.html
    Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemiras HaGuf v'HaNefesh): [Rav Shlomo
    Zalman Auerbach was asked why the view of Rav Sherira Gaon and the
    Rambam's son - that the medical and scientific knowledge of our Sages
    was that of their times - should be listed as a minority view? He
    replied:] "At the present I don't remember whether there was anyone
    who actually disagreed with their views or even whether anyone has
    the authority to disagree with them. However, rabbinic authorities
    typically explain disparities in medical and scientific understanding
    [between the views of our Sages and contemporary science] as the
    result of change in nature. They do not utilize at all the reason
    that medical knowledge has advanced from the time of our Sages. That
    is why I commented that this view should be classed as a minority
    view. Especially since concerning the laws of Shabbos, there are
    rabbinic authorities that permit violating the Shabbos [in certain
    circumstances that our Sages say are medically dangerous] despite
    the fact that contemporary doctors assert there is no danger at all.

RSZA appears to be saying that everyone holds Chazal could err in science,
but where you could blame a particular error on nishtanah hateva, that's
the more common assumption. Not to start with that assumption until ruled
out would be following a minority view. But also not that everything chazal
says that doesn't match up with current findings is nishtanah hateva --
the sun didn't used to travel a different path.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On 22/11/2010 11:59 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> Not only are there many times when we have a shatz who doesn't change
> the tune, but I've been in MANY places where Lecha Dodi is not even
> sung at all, but merely recited. How can it possibly be "minhag
> yisroel" when there are so many variations?

My experience is the same.  Some people do change, some don't, and some
don't sing it at all.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

I have davened with a Yeminite minyan quite a few times and they ALL of 
Kabbalot Shabbat. But it is the same same for all the Tehillim and for all 
of Lecha Dodi. Nice tune, I really like it.

Also, I go to a Moroccan minyan sometimes and they don't change either.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>> he says, "it's become minhag Yisroel" to change the tune. Now my
>> rov is generally a nationally respected rov and poseik. When I
>> questioned him about the status of this strange behavior, he
>> replied, yes, it is now minhag yisroel and I hate it when the
>> chazan doesn't change the tune.
>> 

Again, this time in English

I have davened with a Yeminite minyan quite a few times and they sing
ALL of Kabbalot Shabbat. But it is the same tune for all the Tehillim
and for all of Lecha Dodi. Nice tune, I really like it.



From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:59:37AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>: It seems to me that the burden is on *him* to (1) define at what point
>: a "popular practice" becomes a "minhag yisroel",

> Item #1 is something I would like to hear opinions about from the chevrah.

I also don't understand this point. Why must EVERYTHING get regulated? By
this way of thinking, the Shlomo tunes should have been assur, since
"back then" Kabbalot Shabbat was much simpler. I can't say that as a
child I got around to too many shuls, but when I did, the tunes were
always the same.(I'm not trying to bring up (again) the value of Shlomo
tunes. This is merely an example of changes in the way things were done.)

Ben

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:00:27PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> I also don't understand this point. Why must EVERYTHING get regulated? ...

That's my problem. When is something just "what everyone does" (e.g.
wearing a button-down shirt Shabbos morning, to the extent that "everyone
does") and when is something minhag Yisrael? And how much of a rov does
a minhag take to be called minhag Yisrael?

For that matter, how universal must a /halakhah/ be to be nispasheit
bekhol Yisrael, or nispasheit to a community? Rov? Some kind of
supermajority?

>                                                                     By
> this way of thinking, the Shlomo tunes should have been assur, since
> "back then" Kabbalot Shabbat was much simpler....

Well, that is shitas haMaharil. And R' Cantor Sherwood Goffin (wearing
his YU's Belz School of Jewish Music and President Emeritus of Cantorial
Countil of America hats) has guidelines for when such tunes may be used,
and when not. I think
http://www.yutorah.org/togo/roshhashana/articles/
Rosh_Hashanah_To-Go_-_5770_Cantor_Goffin.pdf
(or <http://bit.ly/fsVoeb>) is informative, even though it centers
on Yamim Noraim, not Qabbalas Shabbos.

When we started a singing minyan (which is its own beryah, a variant
on the Carlebach Minyan theme, email me for details if you're curious)
I spoke to RCSG about it. (We're mishpachah.) LAD, I think his argument
has merit in general, but not for Qabbalas Shabbos. After all, by
the Maharil's rules, saying QS altogether (it was invented a couple of
centuries after his petirah) is a far bigger problem than which tune
one uses.

What you suggest as taking it to absurdity actually is halachically
problematic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:57 -0600, The Goldmeiers wrote:
> Regardless, My Rov recently made a statement that he wants to insists ALL
> chazanim to change the tune and he dislikes it when a chazan doesn't.
> he says, "it's become minhag Yisroel" to change the tune...
> is generally a nationally respected rov and poseik. When I questioned
> him about the status of this strange behavior, he replied, yes, it is
> now minhag yisroel and I hate it when the chazan doesn't change the tune.

> So, my question to you all is, minhag yisroel? do ALL of you change
> the tune? Is this early onset? (ok, just kidding on that one)

Well, all of the Sephardi synagogues I've been to use only one melody
for Lecha Dodi, but then again, very frequently Sephardim are not
counted when deciding what's "minhag yisroel".

On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 17:25 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
> I think in practice, it's pretty close to universal. That has been my
> observation listening to minyanim from numerous eidot at the kotel.
> There are some holdouts, but not many.

If you're basing your observations on the kotel, then you're missing the
fact that among Minhag Yerushalyim Sephardim, there is *one* particular
traditional melody[1] that they use for Lecha Dodi, and they use it the
whole way through. I don't claim to know how this melody came about as
the traditional melody, or why it's so standard, but you can easily
identify the people who follow this minhag -- they're the ones who face
west through all of Mizmor L'David and Lecha Dodi.

[1] This one:
http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/42.html?currPerformanceC

~Chanoch



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 203
***************************************

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..."