Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 376

Friday, February 18 2000

• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Rochester
• dykuk
• Re: kaddish
• What vs. Who
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• R' Weinberg's Letters (fwd)
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• re: diyukim
• Re: Avodah V4 #371
• Re: Diyukim
• Re: kaddish

In a message dated 2/17/00 9:35:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< , like R' Simcha Raz's "A
 Tzaddik in Our Time" - the archetype of the type of biography that should be
 written.
  >>

Oy vey.....Simcha Raz's book is inspirational....but really, is biography 
only to be for the purposes of Mussar? Why study anything? Are there other 
reasons to study biographies? Or History, for that matter?
I daresay this version of TIDE has nothing to do with a true understanding of 
the ways of the world, and it certainly does not qualify as TuM.

Jordan Hirsch

In a message dated 2/17/00 8:56:05 PM US Central Standard Time, 
TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:

<< Oy vey.....Simcha Raz's book is inspirational....but really, is biography 
 only to be for the purposes of Mussar? Why study anything? Are there other 
 reasons to study biographies? Or History, for that matter?
 I daresay this version of TIDE has nothing to do with a true understanding 
of 
 the ways of the world, and it certainly does not qualify as TuM.
  >>

I agree, up to a point. The best biography stretches the imagination and 
enables the reader to see the subject, and the subject's times, in deep and 
unexpected ways. At this level biography is as much an artform as it is a 
branch of history -- and to that extent has as much to do with poetry or 
painting than it does with common notions of Derech Eretz or Madda. This is 
true even when the biography reveals enormous scholarship. (Two examples come 
to mind, neither of which, alas, has anything to do with Judaism: Barbara 
Tuchman's book on General Joseph Stilwell, and Ellmann's biography of James 
Joyce.) 

I'm awaiting my copy of R'Marc's biography of the SE, and would hope that it 
invokes a comparison with books like these. (RYGB can read my copy next.) I'm 
also waiting for someone to write a really serious biography of RYBS that 
chronicles the events of his life and mind on an intellectual level that 
approaches RYBS's own. I'd pay dearly for that book.

David Finch 

Also if there are any listmembers in Rochester NY or familiar with
Rochester NY I would appreciating speaking with you off-list.

Another example of  changes introduced by the Lubavitcher Rebbeim is (a) 
prior to the Frierdiker Rebbe Minhag Lubavitch was similar to the other
chassidim with respect to not saying Tachanun on Yahrtzeits of Tzaddikim;
 (b) the minhag not to say Selichos after Tzom Gedalia in Tishrei with
the exception of Yom Kippur;  (c) at minimum Tehillim by the day of the
month and Shabbos Mevarchim (although this particular minhag IMHO could
use some fortification).  If the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zatzal said to add
Baruch Hashem Leolam or to add Yotzeros for the four Parshiyos or to
recite Yerovo as the  haftorah for Shabbos Hagodol we would do so -- the
minhag of the Rebbeim is not to.   

Vis-a-vis the changing of one's minhag or the changing of the minhag of
the makom the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zatzal was very clear to both prospective
Chassidim and to sheluchim that if one changes one's minhag they should
assume it to be a permanent change -- that is why we are cautious that
like encouraging beard growth and having folks adopt Rabbeinu Tam
Tefillin or don't make folks change their Tefillin to the script of  the
Ari.  In fact one reason why the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zatzal spoke out very
clearly on Jews not moving out of particular neighborhoods in the 1960's
and 1970's was the potential that yidden would be forced to daven in
shuls with a different nusach and different minhagim than their own.     

Gershon Dubin wrote:


>         The Sefaradim,  I believe,  say "amen" instead of Brich hu,  per psak of
> Maran.


Yes.




>         They,  or at least the Syrian Jews whose nusach I have heard,  have
> their own responsive answer:  they say "yehe shelama raba", followed by
> a lot more "Sim Shalom" type of nouns,  shezava,  purkana, I can't hear
> them at the speed they say them.


Probably because they're hurrying to keep up with the Ashkenazim.

Yehe shelama raba min shemaya, haiim vesava' vishu'a venehama veshezava
urfu'a ugula usliha vechapara verevah vehazala, lanu ulchol-amo
Yisra'el, ve'imru amen.


> Then,  at some point when the chazan is
> about to say "verevach"  the kahal chimes in with him, much as we do for
> brich hu.

Not everyone does it. I'm not sure who does, and who doesn't, though. I
always wait just a microsecond for it. In my minyan, we have an
Egyptian, an Iraqi, an Iranian, and a Buchari who all say verevah, and a
Syrian who doesn't. Go figure.


---sam

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:32:30 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: What vs. Who
 
> In a message dated 2/17/00 1:33:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<<thedistinction being made, is that when a person who is a living Torah
makes a statement it carries the weight of the entire torah, >>

	I believe it was Rav Boruch Ber who said he is more afraid of a "nir'eh
li" in the Rosh than of a sevoro with rayos,  because while you can
"shlug up"  rayos,  the nir'eh li has kol haTorah kulah of the Rosh
behind it.

Gershon

Re; CDRG, SE, letters, RJJ Schachter

Since nobody seems to have brought material from R' Schachter's
explanation as to why he published the letters in evidence, 
let me summarize a few points:

1) To RYGB's objection that the letters shower nastiness on
Gedolim and frumme yidden, much of that material was already
known in the Seridei Eish and elsewhere:
 Sridei Eish 2:8 (how haredim concentrate on their narrow world while
   neglecting their children's future), 2:14 (how haredim are too 
   self-centered, ignoring the problems affecting all Israel)
 Sefer Shragai (Eliav & Refael, J'lem 1982) p 275: (he bemoans
   the "rama'im tzevu`im" who are medakdek in rituals, but advance
   their program by intimidation and gossip, who have no mussar
   or manners, etc.)  RJJS says that this particular published
   letter says far nastier things than were said in any of Marc
   Shapiro's letters.
 Letters in Hama'ayan and Hapardes, one of which is published by
   Poalei Agudat Yisrael, in a similar vein.

1a) He brings also the essay in Lifrakim where RYYW expresses
pain at the rules of gezel akum and other laws about aakum.

2) To RYGB's trumpeting of the cause of CDRG, RJJS holds that it
may not apply in this case.  He brings several teshuvot that indicate
that CDRG only applies when a code phrase is written on a letter:
VPGI"N DRGM"H (uforetz geder yishcano nachash derabenu gershom m'or
hagolah).  Without this statement of "This letter is confidential,"
CDRG does not apply. (R' Yaakov Hagiz, Shut Halachot Ketanot 1:59, R'
Haim Falaggi,  Shut Hikekei Lev, YD #49, based on Shiltei haGiborim
Shavuot Rif-page 17a; R' Moshe ben Habib, Shut Kol Gadol 1:102)   These
latter sources apply CDRG only to one who *opens* a letter, not to one
who reads an *already opened* letter.  He brings another teshuvah from
R' Hagiz  (Shut H"K 1:173).  He wonders if he's reading too much into
the statements in all thes teshuvot about "opening" letters, but he
doesn't think so.  He also cites the inconclusive conclusion on your
tape on Opening Other People's Mail to the effect that it is not
clear that any of these rules apply to the dead.  Furthermore, there
was no removal from private domain to public, as the letters were
already in the JTS library.

2a) He intentionally leaves aside the question of the authenticity
of the mail clause of CDRG, noting several dozen articles that deal
with the question, and noting that it is not attested in the Machzor 
Vitry version of CDRG.

You really should read R' Schachter's whole presentation of the CDRG
question.  He does cite the Encyclopedia Talmudit article extensively,
but has other sources that disagree with your understanding.

    Jonathan Baker        |  Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
    jjbaker@panix.com     |  Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
  New web page, featuring Rambam Resources: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/

----- Original Message -----
From: <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:15 PM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence


>
> Re; CDRG, SE, letters, RJJ Schachter
>
> Since nobody seems to have brought material from R' Schachter's
> explanation as to why he published the letters in evidence,
> let me summarize a few points:
>
> 1) To RYGB's objection that the letters shower nastiness on
> Gedolim and frumme yidden, much of that material was already
> known in the Seridei Eish and elsewhere:
>  Sridei Eish 2:8 (how haredim concentrate on their narrow world while
>    neglecting their children's future), 2:14 (how haredim are too
>    self-centered, ignoring the problems affecting all Israel)

These letters in the Seridei Eish are not at all comparable to those here.

>  Sefer Shragai (Eliav & Refael, J'lem 1982) p 275: (he bemoans
>    the "rama'im tzevu`im" who are medakdek in rituals, but advance
>    their program by intimidation and gossip, who have no mussar
>    or manners, etc.)  RJJS says that this particular published
>    letter says far nastier things than were said in any of Marc
>    Shapiro's letters.

Right, and Shragai had no right to publish that letter either. I had seen
Shragai - who made a whole book out of private letters sent him by Gedolei
Yisroel - a great chutzpa, if not outright aveira - before these letters,
and hit the roof then as well. Two wrongs do not make a right.

>  Letters in Hama'ayan and Hapardes, one of which is published by
>    Poalei Agudat Yisrael, in a similar vein.
>

Kana"l. The letters in Ha'Ma'ayan, BTW, were collected, if I recall
correctly, by a certain Melech Shapiro...

> 1a) He brings also the essay in Lifrakim where RYYW expresses
> pain at the rules of gezel akum and other laws about aakum.
>

Kana"l. Bottom line: The letters published with the permission of the SE are
nothing like these, and the volatile letters published without permission
cannot be construed as a legitimate basis for allowing the publication of
more volatile letters without permission!

> 2) To RYGB's trumpeting of the cause of CDRG, RJJS holds that it
> may not apply in this case.  He brings several teshuvot that indicate

Key words: "May not".

> that CDRG only applies when a code phrase is written on a letter:
> VPGI"N DRGM"H (uforetz geder yishcano nachash derabenu gershom m'or
> hagolah).  Without this statement of "This letter is confidential,"
> CDRG does not apply. (R' Yaakov Hagiz, Shut Halachot Ketanot 1:59, R'
> Haim Falaggi,  Shut Hikekei Lev, YD #49, based on Shiltei haGiborim
> Shavuot Rif-page 17a; R' Moshe ben Habib, Shut Kol Gadol 1:102)   These
> latter sources apply CDRG only to one who *opens* a letter, not to one
> who reads an *already opened* letter.  He brings another teshuvah from
> R' Hagiz  (Shut H"K 1:173).  He wonders if he's reading too much into
> the statements in all thes teshuvot about "opening" letters, but he
> doesn't think so.  He also cites the inconclusive conclusion on your
> tape on Opening Other People's Mail to the effect that it is not
> clear that any of these rules apply to the dead.  Furthermore, there
> was no removal from private domain to public, as the letters were
> already in the JTS library.
>

Again: "Inconclusive".

The last statement is absolutley incorrect, as they were in a restricted
area, out of bounds to the general public.

> 2a) He intentionally leaves aside the question of the authenticity
> of the mail clause of CDRG, noting several dozen articles that deal
> with the question, and noting that it is not attested in the Machzor
> Vitry version of CDRG.
>

Right, but it is in other Rishonim.

Kol zeh ach l'mosar. It is not my intention to claim that the TuM Journal
should be put in Cherem because they transgressed CDRG. The parameters of
that CDRG, as described in the Rishonim and Acharonim, while they may not
technically apply with precision to this case, apply to it morally and
ethically.

> You really should read R' Schachter's whole presentation of the CDRG
> question.  He does cite the Encyclopedia Talmudit article extensively,
> but has other sources that disagree with your understanding.
>

I did.

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

I wasn't aware that I was trying to qualify for TuM :-).

I do believe this is TIDE.

Biographies can contain more factual material - like those of R' Eliezer
Silver and R' Bernard Revel by R' Rakkefet, that of RSRH by R' Klugman, that
of R' Yaakov Kamenetsky by R' Rosenblum; and the new one of R' Joseph
Breuer.

But, if they do not also inspire a la "A Tzaddik in Our Time", from a
Torah-true viewpoint, they have failed. RAEKaplan has an essay on a related
point: "Keitzad Historia Nilmedes". He says that history must be learnt with
the cognizance and stress of yad Hashem.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <TROMBAEDU@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?


> In a message dated 2/17/00 9:35:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>
> << , like R' Simcha Raz's "A
>  Tzaddik in Our Time" - the archetype of the type of biography that should
be
>  written.
>   >>
>
> Oy vey.....Simcha Raz's book is inspirational....but really, is biography
> only to be for the purposes of Mussar? Why study anything? Are there other
> reasons to study biographies? Or History, for that matter?
> I daresay this version of TIDE has nothing to do with a true understanding
of
> the ways of the world, and it certainly does not qualify as TuM.
>
> Jordan Hirsch
>

I really do not understand what is bothering some of you about my qualms,
other than that perhaps you are new subscribers. Here is a post that
appeared on Avodah not too long ago, penned by Prof. Shapiro, with which I
am in perfect agreement.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: R' Weinberg's Letters

The following is from a non-subscriber. Sorry for the abrupt ending, I
think we can guess the rest of the sentence. 

-mi

Two people have forwarded to me things that appeared on this list re. the
publication of Rabbi Weinberg's letters and the article by Rabbi Schacter.
Since I am intimately involved in this I thought I should let everyone
know what happened, because I am sure that there is going to be a lot of
untrue things put forward about this (misstatements of fact seem to be
endemic to these sorts of lists) 

Let me begin by saying that I find R. Schacter's article quite strange. He
says that he is prepared to agree that he erred in publishing the article
and by the end he apologizes for doing so. But the entire article is a
justification for the publication. Go figure. 

Let me also say that in my work I have no ax to grind, am not interested
in Orthodox religious politics, and really am oblivious to these issues.
This explains why I was quite surprised that there was controversy at the
appearance of the article, which I first heard some time after its
appearance from R. Moshe Kolodny of Aguda Archives, and a few days after
that from R. Schacter. 

Since everything I have ever written is "pure" scholarship, without any
agenda (e. g., to support so-called Modern Orthodoxy, strengthen it
against the "right" etc. etc.) it really never mattered to me where to
publish the article. I presumably could have put it in a journal like
Modern Judaism, and R. Weingort himself told me that he had no objections
to me publishing letters in English in an academic journal. 

I met R. Schacter in Paris, told him that I had some very interesting
letters. He said to send them to him and after seeing them wrote me that
they were very important and should appear in TUMJ. I now learn that
certain important people read them ahead of time and gave a go-ahead.
Obviously he was a little hesitant, but I'm sure never expected such a
controversy.  When the controversy started, he told me that it was his
decision to publish them and he would write an article explaining the
decision. Whatever the merits of his article, R. Schacter is completely
intellectually honest (in addition to his many other fine qualities). I
think that as a leader of the Orthodox community he is truly hurt when he
sees the purposeful rewriting of history that goes on in his community
Myself, being somewhat of an outsider, I don't share his sense of outrage.
R. Weingort wrote to me (I know him for many years) very upset. He told me
that he never intended, when he agreed that I publish them in English,
that they appear in TUMJ which is read by yeshiva people. He only meant a
"pure" academic journal. I wrote to him and apologized, and said that I
would not publish any more such controversial letters, although in my
biography I would discuss them. He agreed with me that discussing them in
a biography doesn't have the affect as actually reading them. As I said
above, I was totally surprised by the response. Maybe I should read Yated
-- I would be more sensitive to these things

However, this episode has caused me to wonder whether halakhic Jews can
really be historians and tell the truth, and I think maybe R. Schwab and
others are actually representing Jewish law when they call for censorship.
Let me explain. 

Let's say in doing research on a sage I discovered that he had an affair
or that he spent time in jail in his youth. Presumably, in a biography
this should be included, but I think it is clearly a violation of the laws
of lashon hara. I guess the case can be made that if these events have no
impact on the sage's future life, even from the standpoint of history
there is no need to record them as this will needlessly tarnish him to
destroy someone, However, most historians would no doubt say that this is
a judgment that has to be left to the reader (note the controversy over
the Arendt-Heidegger letters and the recent Koestler biography). From a
halakhic standpoint, even if this fact was well known at the time, it
can't be repeated today, since today people don't know it and especially
since it can be assumed he repented. (I say this as someone who knows more
"dirt" about certain great sages than he ever wanted to know, all gathered
from written sources! Is it "listening" to lashon hara to read something?)
This is one problem with writing true history. 

Or let's say I discover that a rabbinic sage was a Nazi collaborator (I
have not!). On the one hand you could say that this action ipso facto
removes him from gadol status and since he did a terrible thing it must be
revealed so that no one respects him anymore (uprooting wickedness is a
positive thing).  Or you can say that he must have repented later and
thereofore to reveal it is a violation. In this case however, all
historians will agree that it must be revealed. What does Jewish law say?
If he is respected in the community, and has lived a good life for 40
years, presumably it is forbidden to reveal this. Thus, one cannot write a
good biography of this person. Ergo, true history cannot be written by
halakhic Jews. 

Getting back to the first case. Let's say this well-known rabbinic figure
had a child out of wedlock (there is such a case) and throughout his life
had a close relationship with the child, or alternatively abandoned the
child and refused to support it. These facts certainly say something about
the person's character and it is impossible to write a biography without
taking them into account. But would Jewish law permit one to? 

There has yet to be an article discussing how one can write history within
halakhic bounds. If I discover something negative about a person, which
was well known in its time, and thus not lashon hara to repeat 100 years
ago, but is today forgotten, according to Jewish law it probably cannot be
repeated today. How then can one write history truthfully, exposing the
flaws as well as showing the good? Presumably you can't, which is why
Artscroll chooses to only focus on the good. It is not just that they are
interested in creating hagiographa, but they are no doubt concerned with
halakhic strictures. 

I don't know where this ends? Presumably it would be forbidden to write a
biography of R. Jacob Emden because one would have to discuss all the
things he did and said and anyone who does this will come off thinking he
is totally mad or thinking that R. Eybschuetz is a total low-life.
Religously speaking, both of these are presumably not acceptable outcomes.
So is it any surprise that the "Orthodox historian" will ignore the entire
dispute? 

Or take the controversy about the Rivash some years ago. Who gave
permission for it to be revealed what the Rivash during the Inquisition.
Or who gave permission for the letter of the Netziv criticizing R. Reines
to be published? Is it even permissible to publish R. Emden's polemical
sefarim or attacks on the hasidim, or to write about what certain gedolim
did in persecuting the hasidim (for anyone today who reads it will
probably judge them poorly). When do you say that a certain figures
actions cause him to lose the protection of halakhah. I would think this
would apply to a repeated pattern of behavior, although some might say
even one such Clintonesqu outrage would be enough to expose him. 

History is about reporting the truth and interpreting it. If I discover
that a certain gadol -- actually why do I keep mentioning gadol, even if I
discover about a regular guy -- that he was involved in some event which
reflects poorly on him, it seems that it is forbidden to report it. And if
it is already publicly reported, then how can one interpret it, and cast
judgments, which is also forbidden. How then can one do history? Maybe one
cannot? Let's take the story of the Belzer rebbe and assume the worst,
what is the halakhic rationale for repeating the story? The rebbe was a
gadol and even if he erred in the worst way, or even if you think he
"sinned", mustn't one assume that he did teshuvah, so why tarnish his
reputation? From a religious standpoint, the Haredi position makes perfect
sense, although it is of course not history. 

A long time ago I told a leading Orthodox historian that the article he
should write is how can halakhic Jews write history without falling into
lashon hara. I am still waiting. 


Sincerely,


Marc Shapiro

P. S. Is it permissible to repeat certain terrible things said by the
Satmar rebbe or the Munkatcher (e. g,. that R. Kook was a heretic, that
the Holocaust was a punishment for Zionism)? The rebbes certainly wanted
them publicized but if you repeat them people will regard these two as
hateful people and this will lead to lashon hara and disrespect. So
paradoxically, perhaps it is precisedly because of respect for this
individuals that one should never repeat what they said, which is the eact
opposite of the reason usually given for not repeating. 

While on the topic of the Munkatcher, let me just say that despite his
heated rhetoric, he was very friendly with R. Weinberg even though they
disagreed on everything. R. Weinberg was one of the guests of honor at the
great Munkatch wedding in

In a message dated 2/17/00 11:52:04 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< RAEKaplan has an essay on a related
 point: "Keitzad Historia Nilmedes". He says that history must be learnt with
 the cognizance and stress of yad Hashem. >>

Certainly. But the biographer must present the facts from which such 
cognizance and stress may be derived. Any honest biography of any person will 
remind the reader of yad Hashem. All lives do, right?

David Finch

Interesting coincidence... 

R' Rich Wolpoe writes that <<< MB and Birnbaum both admonish us to say
l'eylo l'eylo in Kaddish during 10 days of Teshuvo >>> and in another
post in the same digest, he reminds us that <<< the Gemoro already tells
us we are not beki'im in malei and choseir. >>>

Indeed we are not baki in malei and choseir, and typographical erros make
this sort of thing very difficult to pin down. Is anyone really sure what
the MB held regarding the vav in "Ul'eyla" ???

In MB 682:16, he writes simply "We double 'l'eyla' during the Aseres
Y'mei Teshuva." That is pretty vague. He might be suggesting to repeat
the word as is, without adding the vav, but one could argue, because he
is not really citing the text of Kaddish.

In contrast, at the end of MB 56:2, he writes quite clearly, "On the days
when Kaddish is doubled, 'l'eyla ul'eyla'..." But that little vav could
easily be a typo. Would that he had written somewhere in full words,
"with a vav", as the chirik of Lizman was so explicitly mentioned. But
alas...

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
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.

Where is new book -Family Redeemed-  available?
Is it  available in Israel?
A Etzion

Is there a source that tells you it isn't so easy?

EG, the Gra speculated that the siyyum of Oseh Hashelom was transposed from Oseh
Hashelom bimromov.  What was his criteria?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

	So I ask again,  is it restoration or emendation?  It isn't always 
clear,  even if it appears so,  even if Birnbaum or anyone else says it 
is.

Gershon

And at Spanish Portuguese they say the following 

Yeshi shmai rabbo mevorach.

Lalam ulolmei almayo yitbarach.

in a manner  as to make it rhyme

now since Yitbarach is in the firstof  a list of shevachot, it seems  not to 
make sense to stop there in terms of phraseology...

Was the rhyme popularized despite ignorance

OR

Was it intentionally engineered to rhyme despite its awkward phrasing?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com






______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: kaddish 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/17/2000 7:38 PM


Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:19:00 -0500 
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re[2]: kaddish 

<<When we see the kaddish as an interactive responsive function - and 
after all it requires a minyan so listeners are presumed to be part of 
this function  -then it begins to make more sense.>>

<<I think that Birnbaum  makes some statement to the effect that the main 
goal of the kaddish is to elicit the response yehai shmai rabbo.  Im 
kein, elicting a Brich Hu becomes a type of secondary goal>>

	The Sefaradim,  I believe,  say "amen" instead of Brich hu,  per psak of 
Maran.  

	They,  or at least the Syrian Jews whose nusach I have heard,  have 
their own responsive answer:  they say "yehe shelama raba",  followed by 
a lot more "Sim Shalom" type of nouns,  shezava,  purkana, I can't hear 
them at the speed they say them. Then,  at some point when the chazan is 
about to say "verevach"  the kahal chimes in with him, much as we do for 
brich hu.

Gershon

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


[ 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         ]