Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 005

Monday, September 28 1998

• Re: Bracha L'vatala
• Re: Avodah V2 #3
• Re: Aliyah L'Regel
• Was Re: Chumros, now: Kiruv
• RE: Conservative movement and its dangers
• Re: Bracha L'vatala
• Simanim for R"H dinner
• Weird bris
• Re: Weird bris
• Re: Was Re: Chumros, now: Kiruv
• Bracha L'vatala:secular names
• Re: Beracha L'vatala in foreign languages
• Re: Beracha L'vatala in foreign languages
• Re: Ashkenaz/Sfard

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes

>Well, we probably could, but my main intention was the yishuv of the
>Chayei Adam. Has that not been accomplished?

Sorry, I thought it was a more general comment.

In answer to your question, I'm afraid that not being baki in Chayei
Adam, I haven't manage to glean precisely what his position is, or at
least not well enough to feel comfortable about asking a question a to
whether a subtle distinction avoids a contradiction.

As a more general request, I know it takes time an effort, but I
certainly find I get more from the list (both in reading somebody else's
post and in writing my own) if a) either a quote or a translation of the
pertinent place (or at least a snippet thereof) is provided (especially
if it is something that may not be easily accessible) and b) a citation
is given so I can check that I read it in the same way (if translated)
or can make sense of the transliteration. I understand that the aim of
this list is to be on a high level, and hence agree that translation of
Hebrew or basic concepts, and similarly references to matters that
everybody should know (eg something in the Torah) should not need to be
cited (such as eg my reference to the loshen hora of Miryam and Aharon).
But my impression is that most of the people on this list would not call
themselves baki b'shas poskim and that therefore a steer would be
helpful in ensuring we are all discussing the same idea.

Getting back to the general question of the contradiction between being
yotzei a bracha which is completely not in Hebrew and the position of
the Shach, I am tempted to put forward another possible distinction,
although with great hesitation, because on one level it does seem
counter intuitive to the whole concept - and that is to uncouple the
concept of being yotzei a bracha and the concept of brach l'vatala.  Now
it seems intuitively obvious to link the two, ie either one is yotzei
the bracha, or it is l'vatala - and this would seem to be the
relationship in Hebrew - but maybe it is not in a language like English
- ie either you are yotzei a brocha in English, or you are not, but even
if you are not, that is not a bracha l'vatala.

Strangely enough, something like this concept might be derived from the
a close read of the Mishna Brura quoted by Daniel 215:19

If you read that citation closely the Mishna Brura says two things:

(19) even if he makes a bracha like the seder of the nusach of the
bracha b'derech  hoda'ah v'shevach since it is not necessary and even
more so if he recalls the shem HaShem l'vatala c"v and not just the Shem
of 4 letters but the same din is for other names which are within the
same issur. And this is the din for saying the shem in loshen la'az
l'vatala d'hinu shelo bederech shevach v'hoda'ah gum ken yesh issur".


Now if you look at the structure of this piece.  It is quite striking -
it is an issur to say a bracha in Hebrew *even if* it is said b'shevach
v'hoda'ah so long as it is not necessary - but the issur for a bracha in
la'az is only if it is *not* said bderech shevach v'hoda'ah, with no
qualification as to necessity!

That would seem to imply this: - if I say hadn't eaten in days, and I
said a bracha over my food and took a bite, and then wanted to say a
bracha again before I took another bite, and again before having a
third, we all know that is assur, no matter how grateful I was for
finally having some food.  On the other hand, if I then said it in
English, it would clearly be shevach v'hoda'ah and hence would not seem
to be assur as set out above!

It would also seem to resolve the problem of the Shach (dealing with an
issur) and the general psak that you may be yotzei a bracha in la'az

>
>YGB

Shavuah tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

regarding the use of the wrod tov in shana tovah and the like, I recently
saw a story about R Levi Yitzcok imploring God to send a shanah tovah that
"even the rebetzin will be able to percieve as good, since he knew that
kol ma de-avid rahmana le-tava avid.
 a Gemar Chasimah Tovah to all, from the Aretz asher hi Tovah me'od Meod,
Daniel

In message , Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> writes
>Chana Luntz asks <<< How about the Cohen Gadol, who is in the beis
>hamikdash and eating korbanas all the time? >>>
>
>My understanding was that the Kohen Gadol had the privilege to step in
>and take over the job that any of the Kohanim Hedyotim were doing, but I
>don't recall what *had* to be done by the Kohen Gadol. Other than Yom
>Kippur, was there anything that the Kohen Gadol *had* to do which would
>prevent a normal family life?

How about in the midbar, when we had a most four cohanim - Aharon,
Ela'azer, Itamar and Pinchas (depending on when exactly he started
ministering). How was it possible, especially given the numbers of
korbanos that are described in the Torah for any of them to take
anything but the occassional day off?

>
>Akiva Miller

Gmar tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:

> Christianity or Buddhism. The only difference is that we must try to
> influence the conservative and have them return to the truth, whereas we
> don't need to deal with Christians or Buddhists. I think this underlines
> Elie Ginsparg
>

We don't?

I thought we do, just we are so messed up internally that we do not have
the necessary resources to go and do our "or la'goyim" thing as we should.

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> Lest anyone think that I am agreeing or disagreeing with any opinions
> posted thus far on Avodah, let me point out this: I have no idea what the
> statistics are. I don't know whether there are more or fewer "frum
> Reformers" out there today, as compared to 10 or 50 years ago. My only
> point is that they DO exist, and they are NOT to be trifled with.
>

I still maintain that they do not. There may be sincere "lishma" C/R - I
fully grant that. I have met them. But there are no more Louis Ginsburgs
or Saul Liebermans out there. The current crop of JTS rabbis could not
even open a Tosefta K'Peshuta, let alone claim familiarity with Shas.
 
> I would compare this situation to one who must choose between hearing the
> shofar at a Conservative institution or not hearing it at all. I have
> heard Rav Soloveitchik most often quoted as the originator of the issur
> to even listen to that shofar from outside the building, but I've heard
> it in the name of many other gedolim as well. 
>

I would differ. The situation is not comparable. A more direct parallel
would be if a non-Orthodox Jew wanted to go hear shofar at a C/R
synagogue. RYBS was addressing Orthodox Jews.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> As a more general request, I know it takes time an effort, but I
> certainly find I get more from the list (both in reading somebody else's
> post and in writing my own) if a) either a quote or a translation of the
> pertinent place (or at least a snippet thereof) is provided (especially
> if it is something that may not be easily accessible) and b) a citation
> is given so I can check that I read it in the same way (if translated)
> or can make sense of the transliteration. I understand that the aim of
> this list is to be on a high level, and hence agree that translation of
> Hebrew or basic concepts, and similarly references to matters that
> everybody should know (eg something in the Torah) should not need to be
> cited (such as eg my reference to the loshen hora of Miryam and Aharon).
> But my impression is that most of the people on this list would not call
> themselves baki b'shas poskim and that therefore a steer would be
> helpful in ensuring we are all discussing the same idea.


OK Chana, your rebuke is well taken, and, after looking inside, I see some
confusion would have been avoided had I actually gone to the bookshelf and
gotten a Chayei Adam 5:1:

"...v'hamevarech l'vatala over al Lo Tisa me'd'rabbanan, aval hamotzi shem
shomayim l'vatala over al mitzvas aseh Es Hashem Elokecha Tira, u'ksiv Im
Lo tishmor ve'gomer L'Yirah Es Hashen Ha'Nichbad V'Ha'Nora chulei, ki zeh
hu me'klal ha'yirah, shelo le'hazkir shem ha'gadol ki im b'derech shevach
u'bracha ma she'michuyav, aval lo l'vatala. V'yirah v'yizda'azei'ah
eivarav b'sha'ah she'mazkir hashem. V'lo shem ha'meyuchad bilvad, elah kol
sheimos she'einan nimchakin ha'miyuchadin l'shmo ha'gadol B"H, va'afilu
b'chol lashon asur. (V'ayain b'Choshen Mishpat siman 27 d'ha'mekalel
b'shem she'korin ha'nochrim l'ha'KB"H lokeh, u'ma she'kasav haSHA"CH
b'Yoreh De'ah siman 179 s"k 11 d'b'lashon chol muttar l'mochko heyenu
l'inyan mechika davka, v'chen kasav Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 14 chelek 8
b'hedia d'afilu b'la"az chayav.)..."

> Getting back to the general question of the contradiction between being
> yotzei a bracha which is completely not in Hebrew and the position of
> the Shach, I am tempted to put forward another possible distinction,
> although with great hesitation, because on one level it does seem
> counter intuitive to the whole concept - and that is to uncouple the
> concept of being yotzei a bracha and the concept of brach l'vatala.  Now
> it seems intuitively obvious to link the two, ie either one is yotzei
> the bracha, or it is l'vatala - and this would seem to be the
> relationship in Hebrew - but maybe it is not in a language like English
> - ie either you are yotzei a brocha in English, or you are not, but even
> if you are not, that is not a bracha l'vatala.

I think this *is* the sevara of those who say in a safek berachos to say
"Berich Rachmana" etc.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

The Mishna Brurah 583:1 points out that "Yhi ratzon sheYIRBEH
z'chuyosenu" can be said not only on the food which is called RUBYAH in
Aramaic, but on whatever food has a similar name in the local language.

The Aruch Hashulchan mentions the same idea, and says that there is a
fish called "karet" which can be used instead of leek, which was called
"karti". I suppose we could use "carrot" for the same purpose.

Here are some more which I've come up with. If other people can add to
the list, then next year will be all the nicer. Of course, these are just
ideas; you can change the exact words to whatever fits your fancy.

Meat (*basar*) - Harachaman hu yishlach lanu es Eliyahu ... v'y*vaser*
lanu *b'sor*os tovos ... etc

*Liver* - Zachrenu l*chayim* (or any of a zillion other tefilos for long
life)

*Corn* - Avinu Malkenu, harem *keren* Yisroel amecha.

Lettuce (*chasah*) - Sh'ma kolenu, *chus* v'rachem alenu.

*Tokay* wine - Areshes s'faseinu yeerav lifanecha ... mabit umakshiv
l'kol *tekiy*asenu.

*Matzah* - Ko amar HaShem, *matza* chen bamidbar, am s'ridei charev.

My most favorite is a tefila for parnasa, suggested many years ago by my
friend Rabbi Shimon Kapnick: Take some lettuce, and half of a raisin, and
a piece of celery, and ask HaShem to "Lett uce half a rais in celery".
(Get it?)

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

I've been invited to a weird bris.  Father is Jewish, mother is not, 
father's mother arranged with a mohel (I know him, so I'm not worried
about him doing something incorrect) to do a bris leshem giyur, so 
that if the kid wants to do something about it later in life, he won't
have to get a bris then.

My question is, aside from this leshem giyur business, does the father
have a mitzvah to do a bris on his son, even though the son is not
Jewish?  These are the data I have already:

1) YD 260 says it is a mitzva on the father to mal his son.
It doesn't distinguish between Jewish and non-Jewish sons.

2) A friend says that "it's not legally his son because of 
'ci yasir es bincha' in Dt 7:4", so it wouldn't be a mitzva
according to him - it's not his son.

3) YD 266:13 (backed up by OH 331:5) says "if a Jewish man
has a son by a non-Jewish woman, his bris is not docheh Shabbos". 
This implies (to me at least) that a) there *is* a son relation-
ship in this case, and consequentially b) he is metzuveh to mal
his son.  

{Mishneh Brurah ad loc. says that the mother having tumas yoledes
is a precondition to an 8th-day bris, so a non-Jew not being subject
to tumah, the 8th-day doesn't override Shabbos.  It says nothing
about a weak or non-existent relationship between father & son. 
I won't get to look at a full shulchan aruch until tomorrow.}

If the last implication holds, then should the father say
the brachos?

Obviously, this is all theoretical.  The bris is tomorrow (Sunday
before YK), and the mohel will do what he does.

R' Itzele Ponivitcher, Zecher Yitzchol 1-2 advances that the father is
mechuyav to be mal the kid in  this situation, me'din avdus (i.e., the kid
is his eved), but says l'migdar milsa we do not perform the bris under
these circumstances.

YGB

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> My question is, aside from this leshem giyur business, does the father
> have a mitzvah to do a bris on his son, even though the son is not
> Jewish?  These are the data I have already:

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

All I meant was that we have a responsibility as arevim to all Jews to
do our best to help them observe Judaism correctly, we are not required to
 actively convert non-Jews, maybe the word influence was a bad choice but
all of a
sudden so picky, obviously we are required to be an or la goyim so that we
may see the day speedily when all recognize Hashem as the true G-d
Elie Ginsparg 
On
Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Shoshanah M. &
Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:
> 
> > Christianity or Buddhism. The only difference is that we must try to
> > influence the conservative and have them return to the truth, whereas we
> > don't need to deal with Christians or Buddhists. I think this underlines
> > Elie Ginsparg
> >
> 
> We don't?
> 
> I thought we do, just we are so messed up internally that we do not have
> the necessary resources to go and do our "or la'goyim" thing as we should.
> 
> YGB 
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 
> 

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> It would be interesting for R' Daniel or someone else familiar with R'
> Moshe's opinions to respond, because R' Moshe writes that only the seven
> names that cannot be erased require geniza.

Rav Moshe (Y.D. I #172) has a discussion about missionary works -  as to
burning them even thought they contain verses and names of G-d in the secular
languages. He notes the Nimukei Yosef Nedarim 7b who holds that it is not a
Torah prohibition to mention the name of G-d in secular languages but there is
a need to rebuke. Rav Moshe says that this only applies to names such as G-d
and not names such  as Almighty. [ see R. Bleich vol I page 202 - 206].

In O.H. II #25 page 197 he discusses saying secular names of G-d with
uncovered head. "And to mention the name G-d in English with intent to G-d
with uncovered head - it would appear that one does not have to be too
particular. We see the Shach Y.D. 179 11 that secular words such as G-tt are
not names at all and it is permitted to erase them... and it is permitted to
use them as incantations over wounds and to spit with the saying of a verse in
secular languages even though G-d is mentioned in the secular language and
Rashi says in the name of his Rebbe that it is only l'chatchila that one
should be careful. [We can conclude from that it should be permitted ] to
mention the name of G-d with uncovered head [especially since] there are those
who hold that even with G-d's actual name it is only midas chasidus....

                                               Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbi Bechhofer has asked for a source that according to Rav Moshe
Feinstein, a bracha recited in foreign languages could be a bracha
l'vatala. I found two teshuvos relevant to this, and I recommend their
study to anyone interested in the original topic of this thread, which
related to adding various tefilos and translations to the wedding
service. I grant you that these two teshuvos are about brachos on food,
which is a very different category than the Sheva Berachos, but what R.
Moshe writes about translations, and hefsek, and beracha levatala is
still quite relevant.

In the first teshuva, Igros Moshe O"C 2, #49, dated 1960, he discusses a
fund-raising banquet, whose leaders want to say the Hamotzi in both
Hebrew and English. He says that if the English is said first, then the
Hebrew would be both a hefsek and a beracha levatala. But if the Hebrew
is said first, although the English would be a hefsek, it is *possible*
that it would NOT a beracha levatala, following the opinion of the Shach,
that the issur of saying His Name l'vatala applies only in Hebrew.

He discussed similar ideas later, but first, I'd like to share an
interesting idea with you.

The Aruch Hashulchan O"C 202:3 offers an interesting suggestion to get
out of any safek bracha, by saying its first words in Aramaic. For
example, <<< you could say "Brich Rachmana, Mara, Malka D'alma, borei
nefashos etc.", and if you are chayav then you are yotzay with it, and if
you don't need it then you have not said his Name l'vatala... And I've
done this myself on occasion, when drinking hot drinks. (I have seen one
who writes that this too would be a beracha levatala, but that is not
reasonable to me at all.) >>>

It appears that Rav Moshe may have gotten a bit stricter over the years
regarding Hashem's Name in other languages. In a 1979 teshuva, published
in Igros Moshe, O"C 4, 40:27, he quotes that very Aruch Hashulchan and
disagrees with it. First he points out that the idea will not work,
because berachos need to include HaShem's Name, and translations of it
work only if the *entire* beracha is in that foreign language. More
relevant to our point, he quotes many more sources who object to the
needless mentioning of the Name even in other languages.

He concludes <<< L'maaseh, if one has a safek bracha situation, one
should not recite Brich Rachmana, even if the *entire* beracha is in
Aramaic, unlike what the Aruch Hashulchan wrote. And his note that "I
have seen one who writes that this too would be a beracha levatala, but
that is not reasonable to me at all", according to what *I've* written
from the Chavos Yair, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, and the Mishna
Brurah, and that people are in fact careful about this, the proper
opinion is like the one who wrote that it is a beracha levatala. >>>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> It appears that Rav Moshe may have gotten a bit stricter over the years
> regarding Hashem's Name in other languages.

I am not sure that your conclusion is warranted. Rav Moshe was known to
posken differently depending upon the situation. I don't think you can deduce
from the fact that here he says  not to follow the suggestion of the Aruch
HaShulchan that he had changed his views. He doesn't say that he himself has
altered his position  m'ikar hadin. He simply indicates that there are those
who view it as a beracha l'vatala and that the Aruch HaShulchan can't simply
dismiss their views so easily to justify his proposal.  I am open to an
alternative reading but at present I don't see that this indicates that he
had changed his view.

                                        Daniel Eidensohn

<<  
[page 302 From Yavneh to Pumbedisa- - Artscroll]
>>

I would not use Artscroll as a source for history.  Their research methods are
not the most rigorous.

<<
The Shulchan Aruch was viewed as an attempt
 to preserve this dominance. That is one of the reasons why the Rema wrote a
 similar code to defend the Ashkenazic practices from being obliterated by the
 Sefaradic migrants.. >>

Where does this logic come from?  Had Rema intended to preserve Ashkenazi
supremacy, he would have written a competing code, not written glosses on an
existing one.

Eliyahu Teitz

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]