Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 372

Wednesday, February 16 2000

• Re: psak halacha
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• Re: Diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re: anu v'amru
• Re: diyukim
• Query: Long term contracts
• Modulating Electric/Electronic Current
• Re: Query: Long term contracts
• diyukim
• Re: Diyukim/nusach
• Administrivia
• Re: Diyukim
• To read or not to read: is that the question?
• Re: To read or not to read: is that the question?
• Fw: Modulating Electric/Electronic Current
• diyukim
• KEDUSHA (2)
• Re: Avodah V4 #371
• diyukim

David Riceman wrote:

> With regard to Akiva Miller's long post on psak, there's a point on
> which I'd like to initiate more detailed discussion.  The act of psak
> consists of two parts: (1) determining that a particular physical
> situation should be classified as a particular halachic situation, and
> (2) determining the normative beahavior in that particular halachic
> situation.
>   When you go to a posek his main problem is to do (1).  It seems clear
> from the Rama in YD 242 that the act of psak somehow fixes (1).  Thw
> question is: what fixes (2)?
>   My hunch is that the Rambam and the Raavad differed on this. See the
> hassagah to the hakdamah to the Mishne Torah (savar letaken ...) -
> admittedly not explicit enough to serve as proof.  That is, the Rambam
> decided a halacha once and then let it lie, whereas the Raavad
> repaskened every time the question recurred.  I'd also guess that the
> Rambam represents a minority opinion, which is why his codificatory
> style is so unusual among rishonim.

take a look at the 8th volume of Igros Moshe YD IV #38. Rav Moshe
distinguishes between a posek who is decided a particular case and the
Sanhedrin which decides for cases that will happen in the future. In the
introduction to the Igros Rav Moshe indicates that all he is doing is
providing the sevoras that you can decide if they are acceptable. Therefore
you are poskening not the Igros.  However the Question is whether the Igros
Moshe or the Shulchan Aruch are poskening on future events and thus serve
as Sanhedrin. I was told by one major talmid chachom that when you use the
Igros Moshe it is equivalent to Rav Moshe poskening for you now.

Also look at the introduction to Ohr L'Tziyon of Rav Bentzion Abbah Shaul
in which it states psak is a strategy for minimizing error. Thus it is not
fixing anything unless you have accepted it as such. Exception being the
Shulchan Aruch because of the _acceptance_ of clall yisroel and the Arizal
because he had giloi eliyahu.

                               Daniel Eidensohn

--
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com (Avrohom Weidberg) requests that you approve the following:

	subscribe avodah-digest eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com

If you approve, please send a message such as the following back to
Majordomo@aishdas.org (with the appropriate PASSWORD filled in, of course):

	approve PASSWORD subscribe avodah-digest eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com

If you disapprove, do nothing.


Thanks!

Majordomo@aishdas.org

--
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

"David Super" <info@primepromo.com.au> requests that you approve the following:

	subscribe avodah-digest mailto:info@primepromo.com.au

If you approve, please send a message such as the following back to
Majordomo@aishdas.org (with the appropriate PASSWORD filled in, of course):

	approve PASSWORD subscribe avodah-digest mailto:info@primepromo.com.au

If you disapprove, do nothing.


Thanks!

Majordomo@aishdas.org

--
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com (Avrohom Weidberg) requests that you approve the following:

	subscribe avodah-digest eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com

If you approve, please send a message such as the following back to
Majordomo@aishdas.org (with the appropriate PASSWORD filled in, of course):

	approve PASSWORD subscribe avodah-digest eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com

If you disapprove, do nothing.


Thanks!

Majordomo@aishdas.org

--
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

"David Super" <info@primepromo.com.au> requests that you approve the following:

	subscribe avodah-digest mailto:info@primepromo.com.au

If you approve, please send a message such as the following back to
Majordomo@aishdas.org (with the appropriate PASSWORD filled in, of course):

	approve PASSWORD subscribe avodah-digest mailto:info@primepromo.com.au

If you disapprove, do nothing.


Thanks!

Majordomo@aishdas.org

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:58:40PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Birnbaum's and de Sola Pool's opinions carry
: far more weight than my own, but I wouldn't recommend that a community
: amend their nusach to follow either. >>>

: The Chofetz Chaim might disagree. The nosei kelim on O"C 208:10 discuss
: various questions regarding the proper text for Al Hamichya, and the
: Chofetz Chaim gives his version in MB 208:50. He gives his reasoning and
: sources in Beur Halacha 208:50-52.

I'm not sure how this counters what I said. I was speaking about the
difference between p'sak as rendered by da'as Torah, and scholarship.
In that regard, the Chofetz Chaim isn't a "scholar" in the sense of
trying to objectively study Torah from the outside. De Sola Pool engaged
in both limud Torah and Torah scholarship -- it's only the former that
should really give his pisakim any authority. And for a Rav, I'm more
comfortable following the C"C or the Gra than DSP.

A rav needs to take the facts into account. He needs to work with the
information scholarship can reveal to us. However, a p'sak halachah isn't
a discovery or a theory.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:54:18PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Not sure what idioms have to do with it:

People quote phrases and cliches. It's hard to argue that a sentence that
uses the same word as another is quoting the earlier one. Unless the word
were unique or otherwise distinguishable from just using the language.

In our case: the line is written in hitpa'el. How then was the writer of
Kaddish supposed to talk about the notion of "being blessed"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:20:39PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: It's not -- it's logical (as in "zeh Kaili" matches up with "zeh Tzur
: yish'ainu," yet one is a quote from the Shira and the other isn't; as in
: "onu v'o'm'ru" matches up with "potzu feh v'o'm'ru," yet the former is an
: idiom from TaNaCh and the latter isn't..

My point is just that. You are assuming the two "match up"? Why? Maybe we have
"anu" where they don't, and their "patzu feh vi'amru" is an elaborate form
of our vi'amru. (In which case, we would have a comma where they wouldn't.)
Perhaps the only reason why both appear in the same place is because they
serve the same role in the rhythm, not the meaning of the pasuk.

Or, perhaps the whole reason WHY we differ is because our nusach feels there
ought to be a verb for "zeh Keili" and the other doesn't. It might even be
related to our usage of a quote from the Shirah, which creates a need to say
that they said this quote.

IOW, we could have a different text because there ought NOT to be a match.

: Let's be clear.  Examining various nus'cha'os in order to
: better understand one's own nussach is a labor of love,
: not a system, and going back to the primary sources
: (e.g. in Baer's case, kisvai yad) is a matter of seeking Emes,
: not a system.

I think you're taking offense over the word "system" where none is intended.
Many approaches to seeking emes involve systems: the rules you learned to
add or multiply multi-column numbers, the scientific method, the Brisker
Derech, etc...

So, while I can see how it can bring nuances about the tefilah to light, I'm
still unclear on how this technique (better than "system"?) can produce
decisions. Questions, yes. Conclusions -- I'm still unclear.

However, seeing how long it took me to grasp the other part of this
conversation (see below) that shouldn't be surprising.

: > I still think the first iteration should be translation. <

: I humbly disagree.  The words we use have meanings beyond p'shat
: (as has been pointed out by ARI HaKodosh and others), and p'shat
: itself is not the same as translation.

The second sentence is why I spoke of multiple iterations. In order to know
how p'shat goes beyond translation, you have to know translation. However,
I disagree with the implication you make in your first sentence. Yes, there
are meanings beyond the p'shat of the words. However, there is still, first
and foremost, the p'shat.

Davening is not some trancendental meditation of meaningless or disjointed
words. It has a meditative component, but it's a meaningful text, spoken
from child to Father.

:                                                   If you
: are so strongly opposed to the parsing proposed by Rabbi EMTeitz
: that you insist on breaking "onu" from "v'o'm'ru," do so in good
: health, but please stop implying that a translation is not possible
: when "onu v'o'm'ru" are kept together.

Actually, I wrote that you and REMT managed to show me a possible
translation. Took a number of explanations, but I finally caught on.

I thought we were now on a deeper issue: Need the text be parsable and
translatable? You were saying that even if "anu vi'amru" together had
no translation (a "what if") situation, we should still say them together.

It was with that stance that I was still disagreeing. As you write:
: Should we endeavor to understand what it is we're saying?  Without
: a doubt.

What we're saying has to make sense. If there were no translation of
the sentence with the comma removed, I couldn't be comfortable removing
the comma.

That's a personal stance. I realize that while I say "Ana, biko'ach
gedulas yemincha" many (most?) siddurim tell you to say the entire
techinah in pairs of words. There are those who place the yesodos and
Kavvanos (cap. K -- in the kabbalistic sense; if you don't understand
it, I'm not sure how you can be mekhavein to it) first.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Guttenberg invented the printing press in 1436; the Avudraham, a talmid
of the Baal HaTurim, lived around the same time period (he was a
contemporary of the RAN). So one can not assume that it was the Avudraham
rather than Xtian printers of the Bible who divided Sefer Shmuel into
two books, who first indicated that SH"B was *shabbat* rather than
*shmuel bet*.

Josh

I seem to recall shuti"m on the issue of signing a contract longer than six
years, the limit stemming from the Halachos of Eved Ivri, and one's
inability to "enslave" oneself to an employer for longer than that period.
Does anyone have references to such an idea?

Shalom Berger
Yerushalayim

It seems to me that our anonymous friend from MJ was most concerned not with
the CI and boneh, and certainly not with the more conventional Mav'ir, but
with R' Moshe's original hypothesis that there is a specific issur of (I am
not 100% what) modulating electric current.

Yet I believe (I will be chided for my laziness here, but it is from memory)
that R' Moshe, as most other Poskim, is mattir, in the final analysis,
speaking directly to a person wearing a hearing aid. I am cc'ing RDE so he
may confirm or deny this from his far superior knowledge of R' Moshe's
perspectives.

Thus, it seems, Halacha L'Ma'aseh, that the idea of Modulation as an issu
bifnei atzmo was not niskabel l'halacha - not just according to R' Shlomo
Zalman, but even according to R' Moshe, and all resultant conclusions would
follow.

(Perhaps R' Moshe's hypothesis is linked to his original willingness to
consider that one is yotzei Mikra Megilla etc. over the telephone.)

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

It is, if I recall correctly, in the Shut Chasam Sofer, and pertains to
rabbinic contracts, so it is probably in the CM volume.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Berger <rachelbe@netvision.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: Query: Long term contracts


> I seem to recall shuti"m on the issue of signing a contract longer than
six
> years, the limit stemming from the Halachos of Eved Ivri, and one's
> inability to "enslave" oneself to an employer for longer than that period.
> Does anyone have references to such an idea?
>
> Shalom Berger
> Yerushalayim
>
>

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Diyukim

>The MB writes that the proper nusach for the brocho of >She'hechiyanu
is (as
>is Nusah Ari) "L'zman Ha'zeh". The "Olam" continues to say as in the
>Siddur
>(and, of course, who can argue on the Roedelheim?) "La'zman."

In Hanerot Hallalu, we say "bayamim hahem bazman hazeh," but minhag
Chabad is to say "bizman hazeh."  But I right now I can't check
to see if the MB recommends this (very similar) nusach in Hilchot
Chanukah.

The recent mention about the possible "correct" readings of
"babracha hamshuleshes, batorah..." (as I was taught to say)
reminded me of a story I heard as a teenager:

Apparently the original Rodelheim  machzor came out with the
brocho for bircas cohanim corrected to "Asher kidshonu
*Bikdushas* Aharon" and as a result was taken out of
circulation.

If this story is true it would show how seriously previous
generation took to fixing the nussach.

- Danny

Danny Schoemann
Product Manager
DoroTree Technologies Ltd.
Tel: +972-2-679 7490 Ext. 221
Fax: +972-2-679-7470
http://www.dorotree.com

Oops. I accidentally ran a few emails through the wrong script. I intended to
send the email through a program that finds the email address and sends them
a Membership Agreement. Instead, I pushed them through the script I use
for approving emails from outsiders for distribution to the list.

Please ignore.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

RYGB wrote:

>>The MB writes that the proper nusach for the brocho of She'hechiyanu is (as is
Nusah Ari) "L'zman Ha'zeh". The "Olam" continues to say as in the Siddur (and, 
of course, who can argue on the Roedelheim?) "La'zman.">>

Th Aruch HaShulchan in hilchos Chanukah is (kedarko bakodesh) meyashev the 
minhag ha'olam.

I have felt increasingly uncomfortable about both the tone and the tenor of
some of Rabbi Bechhofer's more trenchant comments in respect of Marc
Shapiro's book.
May I politely observe that courtesy and etiquette ought require Rabbi
Bechhofer to read the book before any further postings of his.  A repeated
disclaimer by him that he has not read it amounts, in my opinion, to a
substantial caveat in respect of his observations.

I am sorry you feel uncomfortable. Perhaps you might consider leaving
Avodah, as this type of discussion occurs here frequently.

Personally, let me note again, that I have not criticized Prof. Shapiro's
book, and have consistently limited my critiques and criticisms to the
letters published in the TuM Journal. I am not aware that my comments have
been too "trenchant." I have made them all in full cognizance that both
Prof. Shapiro and Rabbi Schachter - both of whom I admire, in different
ways - would read all comments posted here, and have attempted to be civil
at the same time as expressing my views on the letters and their
publication.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: David J Havin <djhavin@alphalink.com.au>
To: AVODAH <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 5:52 PM
Subject: To read or not to read: is that the question?


> I have felt increasingly uncomfortable about both the tone and the tenor
of
> some of Rabbi Bechhofer's more trenchant comments in respect of Marc
> Shapiro's book.
> May I politely observe that courtesy and etiquette ought require Rabbi
> Bechhofer to read the book before any further postings of his.  A repeated
> disclaimer by him that he has not read it amounts, in my opinion, to a
> substantial caveat in respect of his observations.
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Modulating Electric/Electronic Current


> "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
>
> >
> > Yet I believe (I will be chided for my laziness here, but it is from
memory)
> > that R' Moshe, as most other Poskim, is mattir, in the final analysis,
> > speaking directly to a person wearing a hearing aid. I am cc'ing RDE so
he
> > may confirm or deny this from his far superior knowledge of R' Moshe's
> > perspectives.
>
> Take a look at O.H. IV #84 &85. The first dealing with a P.A. system and
the
> second with a hearing aid. He concludes in #85 "...the cheresh in whose
ear the
> device is placed does not do any melacha and the problem  concerns the one
who
> speaks. Furthermore those who do not speak directly to the cheresh but in
> general and therefore they have no intent [for the activation of the hear
aid]
> and so it is mutar. Furthermore this is not a psik reisha because there
are many
> times that even with the hearing aid the cheresh does not listen. Only
those who
> speak directly to the cheresh does he pay attention to and also many times
when
> he is spoken to directly  he listens and it is also a psik reisha and even
if it
> weren't the intent makes it prohibited. Therefore when it is possible it
is best
> not to speak directly to him...and on those things that he asks the reply
should
> be by gestures and not by speech. And if it is impossible in this manner
in this
> case of a 6 year old girl and it is necessary to reply to her
andoccasionally by
> speech - it is not prohibited."
>
> Additionally look at O.H III #55 page 364' YD II #5 page 6 and OH IV #83
page
> 166 OH V #18 page 46
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gershon Dubin <<gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes, speaking of Baal Torah
Temima:


>>>>

<excerpt>2.  He says that the chasimas habracha on Yom Tov should really
be

"mekadesh Yisrael veChag Hasukos"  or "mekadesh Yisrael veChag
Hapesach".

  Since printers had to set type by hand,  someone abbreviated it to 

mekadesh Yisrael vehazmanim,  with the intent that the mispalel fill in

the specific blank on the specific Yom Tov.


Needless to say,  these explanations,  while interesting,  did not

resonate well with traditionally minded folks.


</excerpt><<<<<<<<


How does the Baal Torah Temina explain that in Beitzah 17a it also says
"mekadesh Yisroel vehazmanim"?


-- Eric

From SBA <sba@blaze.net.au
Subject:  Kedusha (2)

Pardon me if any of this has previously been discussed.

1) Over the years I have noticed many people (usually
Yekke/Oberlender types) bend forward - side to side -
when saying Vekoro - Zeh el Zeh - v'omar.
Does anyone have a source for this minhag?

2) I understand that Belz Chasidim (probably -  by order
of the rebbe) have recently changed the nussach from
Kakosuv al YAD neviechoh to al YEDEI neviechoh.  Any comments?

Shlomo B Abeles

RYGB writes, 
> The MB writes that the proper nusach for the brocho of She'hechiyanu 
> is (as
> is Nusah Ari) "L'zman Ha'zeh". The "Olam" continues to say as in the 
> Siddur
> (and, of course, who can argue on the Roedelheim?) "La'zman."
Is it l'zman, with a shva?  You can't have two shvaim consecutively at
the beginning of a word. It's not only bad dikduk, it's unpronouncable. 
If it's lizman, there is still a dikduk problem, because if there is a
hei hayidiyah for hazeh, there must be its equivqlent for zman as well
(i.e., lazman, not lizman).  For instance, you can't say b'sefer hazeh. 
It's either b'sefer zeh or basefer hazeh.

As for brocho ham'shuleshes, I have heard it said in the name of RYBS
that it is to be understood as though the word order was "babrocho
ham'shuleshes haksuvah baTorah". 

Other diyukim: how is the response to Borchu divided? Is it Boruch
Hashem, ham'voroch l'olam vo'ed, or is it Boruch Hashem ham'vorach,
l'olam vo'ed?  In English, blessed is G-d, who is blessed for all time,
or blessed is the blessed G-d for all time.

Also, where do the words in Modim, l'dor vador, go?  Is it magen yishenu
ata hu, l'dor vador nodeh l'cha; or is it magen yishenu ata hu l'dor
vador, nodeh l'cha etc.?  And does erev vavoker v'tzohorayim explain the
b'chol ais, or does it modify nodeh l'cha; i.e., nodeh l'cha erev vavoker
v'tzohorayim for all the things mentioned in between?
Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:00:35 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: re: Diyukim/nusach

<<IIRC RYBS held that it should be "babracha hameshuleshes batorah..." or
better yet "babracha hameshuleshes SHEbatorah....">>

	(didn't we do this a few years back?)

	Rav Hutner writes that the word grouping follows the construct in
Sanhedrin for kiddush hachodesh,  and in Megila for the number of olim
laTorah:  3,5,7  keneged birchas cohanim.

	Thus:
		Borchenu,

		Babracha hameshuleshes baTorah  (3)
		Hakesuva al yedei Moshe avdecha   (5)
		Ha'amura mipi Aharon uvanav cohanim am kedoshecha (7)

	Unfortunately,  while he promised to explain the pnimius ha'inyan to the
talmid,  that was apparently Torah sheb'al peh (which he generally
preferred,  BTW)

Gershon

PS: Welcome new poster; we treat EVERYONE with caution!

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


[ 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         ]