Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 011

Wednesday, September 22 1999

• Re: Avodah V4 #8
• Fans: Hendel vs. Bannett
• Why do we say AMITZ KOACH/ATA KONNANTA ?
• Shkoiach vs. Yiyasher Kochach
• re: Midas Harachamim
• Re: Why do we say AMITZ KOACH/ATA KONNANTA ?
• re: Midas Harachamim
• Ashkenaz and Israel
• Re: Ashkenaz and Israel
• Reason for 3 Shabbath Meals
• Zochreinu
• Reason for 3 Shabbath Meals
• Selichot

>That is why, R Love explains, the Gra (l'fi R' Chaim) said P Zachor with >the reading 
"zeicher" (five points).
>However, in Ashrei, it should....be "zecher" (six points).

Ashrei is in the Tanakh and all zekher's in the Tanakh are five pointed.  As far as safek 
is concerned,what's proof or one place is proof for the other

R"RHendel and I seem to be going around in circles,each repeating his argument. 
Russ writes

>David Banett claims that REMOVING A SHADE
 IS "LIKE" COMPLETING A CIRCUIT

And then quotes me to prove it:
:...circuit completion makes or completes the creative act, in Hendel's :example 
changing a "dead" fan into a "living" fan. The important concept :is the creativity of the 
act and it is immaterial whether the result was :caused by completing an electrical 
circuit or by other means...

I did not say one is like the other. The issur is a creative act. Circuit completion is 
sometimes an example of creative act.

Bannett's second claim as per Hendel:
:ELECTRIC FAN does not equal WATER RUN FAN
:These are David's two assumptions.

:I do not believe this is halachically correct. It has nothing to do with
:"Complexity"--rather it has to do with the difference between USAGE
:and COMPLETION.

:If I open and close a house door I have not made a DEAD HOUSE... into a :LIVING 
HOUSE...opening and closing ...[is] not... a melachah on Shabbos.
:But if I COMPLETE a house by putting a door on its hinges then I have
:violated a deoraiitha....COMPLETION is a biblical prohibition while USAGE :is 
permissable

In the above quoted "usage vs. completion" you are presenting  the argument of R' 
ShZA that I quoted in previous posting  If one accepts that argument (although RSZA 
himself did not accept it lema'aseh) there is no question to be argued.  I stated that to 
have anything to differ over we have to accept the usually accepted, (and opposed to 
RSZA's theoretical argument), that there is molid, tikkun or boneh, i.e., creativity, in 
turning on a fan.  The only possible way to avoid the agreed upon issur is to perform it 
in a manner that removes responsibility for the result. That was the reason for going 
into koach rishon sheni and koach kocho and my conclusion (based on R"LYH) that in 
your turning on the solar fan you did not avoid responsibility.

The question of use vs. creative act is indeed the difference between the water 
operated and solar operated fan. As I stated in the molid rea'ach and Na + Cl 
examples and in my questions to R"LYH,  when the "use" of existing elements is 
obvious to the observer there is no molid or tikkun.  When the elements involved are  
seen somehow by the average person to have 
created something new only then is there an issur.  In simple things one sees the use: 
opening and closing doors, opening perfume bottle.  In more complex the layman 
doesn't: creation of perfumed garment, creation of salt, fan starting to rotate for, to 
the non-technical one, unseen or not understood reasons.  

I don't claim to understand why chazal considered perfume on a beged or cheress as 
creating re'ach while perfume on the table or just opening the bottle is not creative. 
Why RLYH, a recognized posek on the subject, placed the border line somewhere 
between the water wheel operated and the electrically operated is also above my 
level.  I see the electricity connected, am told that electrons enter the motor and then 
the same number also exit the motor. I see something called a motor, a cylindrical 
object full of iron and copper wire coils and am told it rotates because of magnetic 
fields.  Man, that is complicated. (Pls ignore the fact that electronics and physics are 
my field.)

:The small fan was to avoid the problem of sparks raised by Micah.

Sorry, you didn't succeed in avoiding the sparks.  Neither large nor small induction 
motors have arcing while running but both have arcing at the moment of 
disconnection. Big motors have big sparks, small motors have small sparks,. Are we 
at eileh devarim she'ain lahem shiur?

A few months ago we learned YOMA in daf yomi so when we recited the Avoda piyut
(Amitz Koach or Ata Konnanta) in Musaf yesterday I was surprised to note
differences between the gemara's vesion and the piyut. On a gut feeling I
checked in the TUR (Orach Chaim taf resh kaf, and taf resh kaf aleph) and
was amazed at how the Bet Yosef found so many factual mistakes in the Piyut.

If it's so *wrong*, why is it still in Musaf unchanged or unmodified ??

Josh

> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:44:19 -0500
> From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
> Subject: JO
> 
> Had to wait nearly a year to find something worth reading in the Jewish
> Observer. "Schkoiach" (like that spelling?) to Rav YGB.

Yiyasher Kochacha is an obvious reference to the Gemara in Shabbat, Daf
87a that refers to HaShems's approval of Moshe breaking the Luchot.
For those looking for a source to say "Shkoiach", see Nedarim, Daf 77a.
The Ran suggests that when one is in agreement with the statement of
another, the common expression used was "Ashkoiach" (it appears on the
very last line of Ran on the page). 

Gmar Tov,
	
Rabbi Shalom Berger, EdD
Educational coordinator, Virtual Resource Center
The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora
Bar Ilan University

********************************************************************
The Lookjed List is a project of The Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Center for
Jewish Education in the Diaspora, Bar Ilan University. 
To subscribe or to post a message, please write us at: 
lookjed@vm.biu.ac.il

Check out our new website - still under construction - at
www.biu.ac.il/ICJI/lookstein. 
Contributions and suggestions are welcome!

Information regarding other Lookstein Center programs may be obtained by
writing to: feldme@mail.biu.ac.il 
#####################################################################

Sadya N Targum said:
>With respect to Moshe Rayman's query,

>"While I'm at it, does someone have a "reworking" of the phrase "midas
>harachamim aleinu hisgalgili", that does not pray to the midas harachamim
>but preserves the rhyme and the meter? 

>In Telz we say "Midas Harachamin aleinu nigalg'la / vilifnei koneinu
>tchinasienu napila / ub'ad ameinu rachamim nishala", and the fourth line
>stays unchanged.  Granted, that line does not continue the rhyme scheme,
>but the first three lines all preserve rhyme and meter, and no one is
>guilty of practicing poetry with an invalid license.

The second and third part are fine, WE are "placing down" (napila) our
suplications, and WE are asking for mercy.  But how can we "negalg'la" the
midas harachamim?

Another question comes to mind (this question equally applies to my original
suggestion, as well as Sadya's), bishlama with the original nusach, we are
praying for something (albeit, to the wrong entity).  With this corrected
version, we are merely stating, "we are asking for rachamim", what is the
point?  There are similar statements elsewhere in selichos where we say
things like that, "tamachti yeseidosay... lachen shafachti siach...".

But still, I was looking for something that readresses the request to the
Ribono shel olam.

I'll get back to you about the license.  I'm sure we can dig up some
imperfects with chirik-yud endings in tanach. 

Moshe
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Rayman
Lehman Brothers  - Tech Services Market Data
mrayman@lehman.com
212 526 1336
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--- BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> A few months ago we learned YOMA in daf yomi so when we recited the
> Avoda piyut
> (Amitz Koach or Ata Konnanta) in Musaf yesterday I was surprised to
> note
> differences between the gemara's vesion and the piyut. On a gut
> feeling I
> checked in the TUR (Orach Chaim taf resh kaf, and taf resh kaf
> aleph) and
> was amazed at how the Bet Yosef found so many factual mistakes in
> the Piyut.
> 
> If it's so *wrong*, why is it still in Musaf unchanged or
> unmodified ??
> 

With regard to Amitz Koach, written by R. Meshulam ben Kolonymus of
Lucca, Italy/ Mainz, Germany: I wonder whether he may have based
himself on Midrashim (of Eretz Yisrael) or the Yerushalmi, since
early Ashkenazic tradition derives from Eretz Yisrael, not Bavel.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Perhaps it might be instructive to consider the Paytan's rationale for
actually phrasing the piyut the way he did. The odds are he was no slouch
:-). See the Otzar Ha'Tefillos' Hakdomo.

On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Rayman, Mark wrote:

> Sadya N Targum said:
> >With respect to Moshe Rayman's query,
> 
> >"While I'm at it, does someone have a "reworking" of the phrase "midas
> >harachamim aleinu hisgalgili", that does not pray to the midas harachamim
> >but preserves the rhyme and the meter? 

YGB

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

I noticed that Ta-Shma's theory about Ashkenazi tradition being more Israeli
than based on the Bavli tradition (as represented in Shas) has been basically
accepted as "true" amongst our chevrah.

What about the chain from R' Saadia Gaon to R' Gershom to R. Yaakov ben
Yakkar, R. Yitzchak haLevi and R. Moshe HaDarshan, the 3 of whom in turn
taught Rashi?

Are we arguing that Ashkenazi halachah (in particular, according to the Baalei
haTosafos) doesn't owe heritage to Rabbeinu Gershom and Rashi?

-mi
(PS: Thanks Josh for the names!)

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 21-Sep-99: Shelishi
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 41b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim II 6

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I noticed that Ta-Shma's theory about Ashkenazi tradition being
> more Israeli
> than based on the Bavli tradition (as represented in Shas) has been
> basically
> accepted as "true" amongst our chevrah.
> 
> What about the chain from R' Saadia Gaon to R' Gershom to R. Yaakov
> ben
> Yakkar, R. Yitzchak haLevi and R. Moshe HaDarshan, the 3 of whom in
> turn
> taught Rashi?
> 
> Are we arguing that Ashkenazi halachah (in particular, according to
> the Baalei
> haTosafos) doesn't owe heritage to Rabbeinu Gershom and Rashi?
> 

Certainly it "owes heritage."  However, it doesn't own "its
heritage."  My point: there was influence from the Bavli (which was
learned), but the minhag/halacha originated in Eretz Yisrael, as the
migration pattern from Israel -> Italy -> Germany.

In fact, Dr. Hayim Soloveitchik noted (in class) that Rashi was the
first to systematically compare the Bavli to accepted halacha and to
try to eradicate non-Bavli halacha.  Rabbeinu Gershom, in contrast,
(according to Dr. S.) often paskened from psukim or midrashim, often
ignoring Talmud Bavli.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

The reason for 3 shabbath meals could not possibly
be because Ex 21:25 uses the word day 3 times. Indeed

>Eating 3 meals is rabbinnic not Biblical(so it couldn't
be derived from a verse)

>Chazal simply do not derive any laws using word games
(Of course they are good mnemonics). 

(WHile I am on the subject --ditto for the 4 cups on Passover
--it is absurd to claim that this was enacted because of
4 words in a chapter--more on that some other time).


The real reasons for the 3 meal laws are as follows
--The 3 meals on Shabbath simply reflect Non poverty.

The typical person ate 2 meals a day (one in the morning
eg before going out to work all day) and one in the
evening/afternoon after returning).

Hence the 2nd meal onf Friday+2 meals Shabbath=3 

Chazal were simply concerned that REST should be
reflected with MINIMAL MEALS eaten by an ordinary
person


Laws of Charity also insist on giving a poor person
two meals a day.


--Again the loaves were whole to affirm non poverty (cf
passover when one of the loaves is broken).

--The two loaves CLEARLY reflect a REMEMBERANCE
of the Man which was double on Friday. The reason
Chazal chose to REMEMBER this was not arbitrary,
sentimental or capricious--it was rather because the
TORAH EXPLICITLY asks that the MAN be used
to remember that it is God not man that gives people
their bread. (Other customs connected with this
include recitation of parshath haman by some people
every day.

The above is pure simple pshat unadulterated by
midrashic fantasys. To summarize

---meals must reflect non poverty
---meals must reflect complete portions
---we should remember Gods sustenance

There is a further controversy on whether there
should be 2 or 3 meals on Shabbath day...again this
has nothing to with word games...it rather has
to do with an alternate approach that suggests
that meals reflect not non-poverty but rather
wealth (hence the extra meal). But this is
rejected for halacha.

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Re: the tzibbur repeating the various phrases, the sefer Minhag Yisrael 
Torah, Vol III Siman 584 (pages 94-95) says that the sefer Adnei Paz (who ?)  
calls it a mistake. Here's what he says happened. The shatz  would forget to 
say zochreinu, etc. As a result the tzibbur would call out "zochreinu" to 
remind him. This led to people thinking they were required to say it.

Lewis S Wienerkur

This one sent me scrambling through some old Yeshiva notes:

> --- Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com> wrote:
> > The reason for 3 shabbath meals could not possibly
> > be because Ex 21:25 uses the word day 3 times.
> > Indeed

I think you meant 16:25....

> > >Eating 3 meals is rabbinnic not Biblical(so it
> > couldn't
> > be derived from a verse)

The Mishna Brura (291:1) characterizes it as an asmachta.

> > >Chazal simply do not derive any laws using word
> > games
> > (Of course they are good mnemonics). 

Then how do you characterize why we have three walls for a Succa 
(the three times it says Succos - once without a vav)?

> > The real reasons for the 3 meal laws are as follows
> > --The 3 meals on Shabbath simply reflect Non
> > poverty.

One of the first shiurim I heard from Rav Lichtenstein dealt with this 
subject. According to one of the ways he explained it, eating three 
meals on Shabbos is a way of fulfilling the mitzva of oneg. I 
suppose that would fit with your argument.

> > Laws of Charity also insist on giving a poor person
> > two meals a day.

See Mishna Brura 242:1 and Shaarei Tziyon 242:6 (says you have 
to give an oni money for three seudos on Shabbos).

> > There is a further controversy on whether there
> > should be 2 or 3 meals on Shabbath day...again this
> > has nothing to with word games...it rather has
> > to do with an alternate approach that suggests
> > that meals reflect not non-poverty but rather
> > wealth (hence the extra meal). But this is
> > rejected for halacha.

2 or 3? The Gemara I learned in Shabbos (117b) argued over 3 or 4. 
Who holds two? 

I realize there's a ptur if eating Seuda Shlishis would be achila 
gasa, and I realize that many shitos hold you can be yotzei with 
minei targima, and that there may be shitos that hold that "asei 
Shaboscha chol" means that you shouldn't take from tzdaka for 
Seuda Shlishis, but I don't know of any shita that says that you 
can lechatchila plan on two seudos.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Chag Sameach! May you and yours have a happy and joyous
Succos (or Succot, depending on your preference :-)

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Does anybody know why the Ashkenazic nuschaot of the siddur
(and machzor) are referred to as "nusach Ashkenaz" and "nusach Sfarad",
while the nuschaot of the Selichot are called "minhag Lita" and "minhag
Polin"?  Are there communities that daven nusach Ashkenaz but use
Minhag Polin for selichot?   Do the Yekkes use minhag Lita, or do they
have there own separate nusach for selichot?   Are there any other 
"minhagim" (i.e., nuschaot) for selichot?

GCT,
Shlomo Godick   

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


[ 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         ]