Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 102

Monday, January 15 2001

• Re: [heicha Kedusha and] Davening
• Re: [heicha Kedusha and] Davening
• RE: heicha kedusha and hazarat haShatz
• Re[2]: heicha kedusha, or similar to
• More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz
• Re: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz
• Re: Woman and learning
• Re: Woman and learning
• RE: uvash'vi'i request
• Re: Shvii ratzita bo
• uvahsvi'i ratzita (2)
• Elevators
• Ibn Ezra, Rashbam and Shabbat
• RE: parsha - chessed shelo lishma
• Re: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• Re: mayim acharonim (was "Some Thoughts on Limud Zechut")
• Re: minha without tahanun
• A source

On 11 Jan 2001, at 14:03, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
> In the first place, I was trying to be m'lamaid z'chus...

I think that's part of the point - it's a limud zchus and certainly not a din 
l'chatchila.

> secondly, incorporating the employer-employee issues ... I'm thinking more
> of the many associates and support staff in my office (w/out whom there
> would be no minyan), whose time (as I can personally testify) is often not
> their own...

Associates, as I can tell you from several years of having been one,
have a simple solution - they can always work later :-) I suspect that
the same is often true of support staff most of whom, at least when
I worked in New York, seemed to manage to get their lunch hour every
day. [I think you're in an unusual situation because IIRC you actually
have the minyan in your office, whereas others could just go "out to
lunch" and stay out for Mincha].

>>> Take the situation as RW posed it some time ago (where there may
>>> not be a minyan unless there is "heicha Kedushah"), ...

>> If people really do have the time to daven a full chazoras ha'shatz but
>> want to cop out so they can go to the store to buy something during their
>> lunch hour, does that make a sh'as ha'dchak?

> Your "straw man" isn't the situation I was referring to.

Ah, but it was the situation to which I was referring. I spent a year
working in a building in Ramat Gan where there was a large (probably
50-60 guys) Mincha minyan which made a heiche kdusha (and usually finished
Shmoneh Esrei in 3 minutes or less BTAT).

> If there will be no minyan in a given office unless it occurs at a
> particular point in the afternoon; if that minyan is exactly 10 men; and
> if, due to conflicts beyond the control of one or more minyan members, the
> minyan cannot be of duration sufficient to include full chazoras haSHaTZ
> ("ChSH"); should that minyan proceed w/out ChSH or not proceed at all?

Ain hachi nami, of course it should proceed. But how many minyanim really
have that confluence of circumstances? What circumstances are enough to
constitute a "shas ha'dchak" to make a heiche Kdusha? I suspect that if
we really start trying to work through a definition of "shas ha'dchak,"
there are an awful lot of heiche Kdusha minyanim out there that would
not qualify.

> I agree with Chana ..., and I believe the m'tzius of her comments allows
> for the daily application of "sha'as had'chak" when the situation in
> question is a daily one. That said, I reiterate my previous statements
> re what I perceive as a pervasive misapplication of OC 124:2 based
> on situations that would not pass muster if presented to the proper
> authority.

So then how are you defining shas ha'dchak? 

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

In Avodah V6 #100, CSherer replied:
>> How many ... truly fall into this category? or do they take their time
>> to be more important than time spent on t'fillo? Take the situation in
>> my office, a law firm, ... and you have a point, ...

> Why? Does sh'as ha'dchak necessarily follow from monetary loss?...I
> realize that there are New York law firms who bill partners' time at
> $1000 an hour these days....

In the first place, I was trying to be m'lamaid z'chus (pace, RavYGB
:-)); secondly, incorporating the employer-employee issues (viz.
CLuntz's earlier post), I'm thinking more of the many associates and
support staff in my office (w/out whom there would be no minyan), whose
time (as I can personally testify) is often not their own despite the
official "lunch break" they are allegedly entitled to.

>> Take the situation as RW posed it some time ago (where there may not
>> be a minyan unless there is "heicha Kedushah"), ...

> If people really do have the time to daven a full chazoras ha'shatz
> but want to cop out so they can go to the store to buy something during
> their lunch hour, does that make a sh'as ha'dchak?

Your "straw man" isn't the situation I was referring to. If there will
be no minyan in a given office unless it occurs at a particular point in
the afternoon; if that minyan is exactly 10 men; and if, due to conflicts
beyond the control of one or more minyan members, the minyan cannot be
of duration sufficient to include full chazoras haSHaTZ ("ChSH"); should
that minyan proceed w/out ChSH or not proceed at all? If the latter,
would the answer change knowing that at least one of the minyan members
would not be able to subsequently daven Mincha w/ a minyan?

> I agree with you. I have never seen a sh'as ha'dchak defined and I have
> never understood how minyanim use this heter to make a heiche kdusha on
> a daily basis (and yes, I have davened in minyanim that did so).

I agree with Chana (whose reply appears in the same digest as yours), and
I believe the m'tzius of her comments allows for the daily application
of "sha'as had'chak" when the situation in question is a daily one.
That said, I reiterate my previous statements re what I perceive as a
pervasive misapplication of OC 124:2 based on situations that would not
pass muster if presented to the proper authority.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: sethm37@hotmail.com Seth Mandel
> Basically true, but one note: The Rambam's taqqana had full shmone 'Esrei
> from beginning to end by the shatz, just that everybody davened together
> with him. That is not quite the same as abolishing hazarat hashatz. K't,

Good point. If you think about it, the Rambam was in effect combining
the private recitation and the public recitation into one dual-purpose
function.

Or iow, he is being yotzei the Arizal's point, albeit concurrently
instead of sequnetially.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe  

To my:
> Rambam and his son R' Avraham who recommended abolishing the chazarat
> hashatz and had at least partial success. Although later posekim
> reversed their decision, to this day many Sephardic shuls on Shabbat
> Mussaf have heicha kedusha and no silent shmoneh esrei.

R' GilS commented and asked:
> Fascinating.  Do you have a source for that?

First I must make a slight correction. What the Rambam and son wanted on
Shabbat, what the Sepharadim do on Shabbat Mussaf, and what the Darda'i
Teimanim do is not exactly heicha kedusha because the hazan does not
stop reading aloud at haEl hakadosh.. There is no silent shmoneh esrei
(or no sheva') and the chazan starts immediately with what we would call
chazara. He says kedusha and then continues out loud with the entire
'amida including a break for birkat kohanim. The kahal says it silently
along with him or listens,word for word, and answers amen.

And now to source. I assume that you are not asking about present practice
but about the Rambam & Son. I've read about it often, even heard names
of rabbis who stopped the custom but, at the moment, cannot remember
where. I thought of Naftali Wieder and just looked through his collected
articles on nusach hatefila. I found everything about R' Avraham ben
haRambam's ideas on tefila, seats facing front, bowing, raising arms
standing in rows, etc., everything but the hazarat hashatz. I even got
lost for a while rereading for the nth time all about Rashi not saying
atah echad v'shimkha echad in Shabbat mincha shemoneh esrei (sheva').

It is not in the Mishneh Torah because Hil. Tefila 9,3 says, quite
clearly, the opposite. And then I remembered the teshuvot haRambam. And
there it was, Hil. Tefila, Teshuvot 52 (toward the end), 53, and 55. I
still don't remember where I read the entire story of the acceptance and
opposition. If I recall or see it again, I'll report it. Maybe someone
else on the list can supply that data (R'Seth, are you there?)

K"T,
David

I promised references yesterday to the Rambam's taqqana of everyone saying
shmone 'esrei word for word together with the shliah tzibbur. I note that
Aryeh Stein has brought that Halikhos Shlomo quotes them in the footnotes.
The Rambam mentions the issue twice in his tshuvot. In Blau's edition,
#256, #258, and #291. The second is obviously an abstract of an original
tshuva which was translated into Hebrew. As usual with the Rambam's
writings, the Hebrew of the translator is awkward, and it is impossible
to be m'dayyeq anything even were we to have the full tshuva.

For #256 and #258, however, we have the original Arabic sh'elot and
the orginal t'shuvot. The sh'elot are clearly original because they
are long and put several issues together without a clear analysis,
and because they end with the "code phrase" that was at the end of all
sh'elot in those times: "uskharo kaful min hashamayim." The t'shuvot are
clearly original because of the analysis and the language. The Rambam is
a master stylist, and all the rishonim and early aharonim looked at his
language in the Mishne Torah with awe. Clear, concise, and almost perfect
Hebrew. His Arabic is like that, too, and I encourage all to learn to
read the Rambam in the original Arabic. Unlike the tortured customary
Hebrew translations, the Rambam's original in Perush HaMishnayot,
Sefer HaMitzvot, and Moreh Nevukhim (their accepted Hebrew names, not
the originals) is a pleasure to read. Clear language, not verbiose, not
showing off with difficult words. Easy to read, and easy to analyze. Even
R. Yosef Qafih's translation, although a great improvement over the
others, doesn't come anywhere near the original in terms of clarity
and preciseness and ease of reading (as R. Qafih zt'l would have been
the first to admit). Blau's translations are not that great either, in
these terms. So I always prefer giving the reference in the original,
and those who can should look it up there and see how a master writes.

A translation of part of the t'shuva #256:
    "We have seen proper, in accordance with the bad habits of people in
    our place and in our time, to institute the following: for Shaharit
    and Musaf on Shabbat and on Yom Tov, because of the number of people,
    and for Minha any time we are so late that I am concerned lest the
    sun set [before we finish davening], I have the shatz say the entire
    tefilla, together with qedusha, out loud. I think that there is
    [almost] nothing lost therebye, since anyone who is not baqi will
    be yotze by hearing the tefilla, and anyone who is baqi will daven
    for himself word for word together with the shatz.

    "The reason I have been forced to institute this is because the
    people do not pay attention to what the shatz is saying, but
    talk with one another, or walk [around], and the shatz ends up
    almost making a b'rakha l'vattala, since no one is listening. And
    anyone who is not baqi, after he sees talmidei hakhamim and others
    talking and spitting and not behaving like people who are davening
    [themselves] during the tefilla of the shatz, he starts behaving
    likewise. So people learn the notion that the only tefilla is the
    silent sh'mone 'esrei. There is the notion in issurim d'orayso of
    "'et la'asot laShemheferu toratekha," and this principle applies all
    the more so in the institution of tefilla. And our taqqana prevents
    hillul haShem, because [nonJews] think that we consider the tefilla
    a joke... But during the other days of the week when there are fewer
    people and they are learned, we preserve the original taqqana and
    first daven b'lahash and then b'qol ram.

    Signed, Moshe"

In #258, he says:
    "the reason [that doing it this way] is proper is as follows:during
    hazarat haShatz, everyone who has already davened starts talking or
    doing other thins, and turns away from the heikhal [i.e. mizrah],
    and coughs and spits... But if no one davens b'lahash, then those
    who are baqi daven together with the shatz the entire tefilla with
    q'dusha and those who are not baqi listen, and all bow together with
    him, and all face the hekhal.

    "Thus everyone is yotzei y'dei hova, and the tefilla is done
    correctly... and thereby will be prevented the hillul haShem that
    has spread among the goyim: namely that Jews cough and spit and talk
    during davening, since this is what they see. So this is the best
    way to do it in these times.

    Signed, Moshe"

R. Avraham his son justifies his father's taqqana against the objections
of rabbanim from other communities who heard of it, and says it was done
with the agreement of the Rambam and the G'dolei HaDor. The Radvaz brings
the Rambam in #94 of his t'shuvot and elsewhere.

My translation is also a little awkward, not like the original.

If things were this way in the Rambam's time, qal vahomer that we need
some sort of action nowadays.

Seth Mandel

Seth Mandel wrote:
> A translation of part of the t'shuva #256:
>   "We have seen proper, in accordance with the bad habits of people in our 
>   place and in our time, to institute the following: for Shaharit and 
>   Musaf on Shabbat and on Yom Tov, because of the number of people, and 
>   for Minha any time we are so late that I am concerned lest the sun set 
>   [before we finish davening], I have the shatz say the entire tefilla, 

The implication here seems to be like the Magen Avraham against the Aruch 
HaShulchan that one has to FINISH davening before the end of the zeman.

Gil Student

At 07:39 PM 1/11/01 +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>I heard an answer this morning. The Maggid Shiur for the Daf shiur,
>Rabbi Leibel Shapiro, brought in the name of the Likutei Sichos
>(unfortunately, he did not say where and I don't own the sefer) that a
>woman who facilitates her husband's learning IS a metzuvah v'osa. He
>proves this based on a Ran at the beginning of HaIsh M'Kadeish (I
>forget the d"h, but it's the last one on 16a in the Rif dapin) who asks
>why not only is it "mitzva bo yoser m'b'shlucho," but also "mitzva ba
>yoser m'b'shlucha." Lichora the woman has no tzivuy in pirya v'rivya,
>let alone in Kiddushin. The Ran holds there that by facilitating her
>husband fulfilling pirya v'rivya, she becomes like, and gets schar like,
>a metzuvah v'osa. The Likutei Sichos argues that the same thing applies
>to a woman who helps her husband in Talmud Torah.

I got stuck on this this very morning - RHM cornered me in shiur over a 
makor for the zechus of facilitation being tantamount to metzuveh v'oseh. 
My answer was that it is based on the Yisaschar/Zevulun concept - but that 
too needs a ra'ayah. Alternately I explained it based on Gadol ha'Me'aseh. 
But, in any event that would give it global applicability, not just husband 
and/or children.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> The Ran holds there that by facilitating her husband fulfilling pirya
> v'rivya, she becomes like, and gets schar like a metzuvah v'osa. The
> Likutei Sichos argues that the same thing applies to a woman who helps
> her husband in Talmud Torah.

That Ran is explaining how the halacha of 'bo yoseir mibishlucho' applies
to a women as well as a man. How do you know she gets schar like a metuveh
- her schar could be that of aino metzuveh, but since she is facilitating
a metzuveh the rule of mitzvah bah yoseir mibishlucha applies? (Side
thought: would you extend the rule of mitzva bo yoseir mibishlucho to
a hechsher mitzva?)

Sota 21 anyway is a special din in zechus for sota. A women is metzuveh
v'oseh on miztvos, but those don't qualify as adequete zechus. The
shakla v'tarya by Torah is that you would think she is aino metzuvah and
therefore the zechus Torah is insufficient, kah mashma lan that by waiting
for her husband she has sufficient zechus even b'toras aino metzuveh.

-Chaim B.

David Bannett
> IIRC, Seligman Baer, a Yekke who thinks our tefilot should make sense,
> chooses the ve-hash'vi'i nusach without going into all my analysis above
> but stating that it is from R"D Abudarham and is correct.

 
FWIW
Some Yekke tefillos DO have v'hashvi'i - and some do not. V'hashvi'i
can often be found in the tefillos in the back of the old Roedelheim
Chumashim. Some Yekkes themselves have discussed the two versions as
more-or-less two equally valid nuschaos.

Shabbat Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

Michael Poppers wrote:
> For the record, I was thinking of the phrase in Mussaf...but I do now
> realize that AB and, thus, you were actually thinking of the phrase in
> Shacharis. Thanks for providing ms. evidence -- I don't recall Baer saying
> anything re the phrase in Mussaf (and I do recall that his siddur lists
> "v'ha-sh'vi-i" there) but will, b'li neder, see if he says anything re the
> phrase in Shacharis. Something tells me there's room to use "uvash'vi-i"
> in Shacharis (i.e. that a chiluk can be made)...

Yes, I started off from shaharit, but I'm afraid that it does not hold up
to well for musaf, either. I discussed in my previous post the paragraph
of "v'lo n'tatto" and noted that it was said in Musaf by the Rambam. So
let's now discuss the paragraph of "yism'hu b'malkhutkha":

R. 'Amram Gaon has it in Musaf, but it ends "'am m'qadd'shei
sh'vi'i kullam yisb'u v'yit'ann'gu mittuvakh." No evidence about
"uva.." vs. "v'ha.." R. Sa'adya Gaon has it in Musaf, but it ends
"um'qadd'shei sh'vi'i kullam yit'ann'gu v'yisb'u mittuvakh." No evidence.

The Rambam has it by shaharit, but it ends "'am m'qadd'shei sh'vi'i." No
evidence.

So now we're back to the Roqeah. With the same caveats as before, R.
Hershler's edition has (this time trumpet flourish rather than drum
roll!): "uvash'vi'i ratzita bbo v'qiddashto"!

Again I rest my case, again with the invitation to my superior, R. David,
to come in and quibble (pretty soon we'll be calling him father superior,
or abbot, abba in Hebrew, a term of respect).

And again I am not trying to cast any aspersions on any nusah of
v'hash'vi'i. I am just noting that not only is uvash'vi'i attested in the
oldest sources, it is the ONLY nusah attested in the oldest sources. But
the sources for it are very limited: nothing in either R. Sa'adya or
the Rambam, one mention in R. 'Amram Gaon; only the Roqeah has it is
both places. So both the Rambam and R. Sa'adya had not problem with
the language.

Our task is to figure out what "uvash'vi'i ratzita bbo" really means. I
am sure that had I asked RYBS, he would have had an answer ready, as he
did for anything anyone ever asked him about davening; he had considered
all the issues long before. But alas, I never thought to ask, and never
was present if someone else asked. Haval d'avdin udla mishtak'khin.

Seth Mandel

R. David Bannett wrote:
> R' Michael's request is my command. The Sepharadim have ve-ha-sh'vi'i
> and most Ashkenazim uvash'vi'i. The paragraph starts by talking about
> 'am Yisrael. They are shomerei Shabbat, kor'ei 'oneg, an 'am mekad'shei
> sh'vi'i. In other words we are the best...>

R. David, [abbot?] has focused on why hash'vi'i makes more sense. As
I said, I have not quarrel with that, but first we have to understand
the older form. The Abudarham is not one of the earliest sources, and
he often "emends" the nusah, or chooses a rare variant, that makes more
sense to him.

[You will find the same with the bah -- bo -- bam issue. The earliest
sources do not have all three, IIRC.]

R David wrote:
> So, IMHO, the score at this moment is Sefardim =1, Ashkenazim = 0.

Say rather, late Sefaradim =1, early sources = 0, and then you will make
clear that you are preferring a later reading because it make sense. I
accept your caveat that one should not change the nusah if it can be
understood; I believe that "uva..," although more difficult, can be
understood.

Also, as I noted yesterday, the 3 mss. of R. 'Amram Gaon's siddur that
have "uva.." come from 3 different venues: Spain, northern France (read
Ashkenaz) and Italy (although R. Y. Dubitsky has noted that the one from
Italy, from 1504, does not show standard Italian nusah. So it was not
just Ashkenazim.

R. David:
> We are now waiting for R' Seth to had his two cents

I am always happy to oblige, but must demur here. R. David's two cents
are probably tzamud lamadad, and so still worth it. My two cents have
gone down with inflation and are only worth a ha'penny at most.

S'S, K'T,
Seth

I noticed in am old Intercom that RDB is an expert on the question of 
Elevators and Shabbos. This is one of my weaker areas of understnding in 
Technology and Halocho - might we get some explanation, please?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

What I know about the Rashabm's missing parts, is that it was actually
missing, but in some other ktav yad the writer had a couple of pages left,
so he started copying the rashbam, and that is what we have in the begining
of Bereshit.

Amihai

C1A1Brown@aol.com
> The Netziv writes that even though the servents of Pharoah accompanied
> Yosef on the trip to bury Ya'akov out of respect for Yosef, not out of a
> desire to be mechabed Ya'akov, still gemilus chasadim is rewarded afilu
> shelo lishma (Harchev Davar 50:7).

> Isn't this against the gemara in R"H 4a that for an akum shelo lishma
> by tzedaka doesn't work?

IIRC the case in RH 4a is "heal me on the condition I give tzedakkah"
For a Jew the presumption is that the tzedakkah is unconditional, iow he
will give regardless of the results.
However, for a Gentile, he will give ONLY if he is healed.

Compare this to Avraham and Haran in the fire

Avraham's faith was unconditional, he emerged unscathed
Haran's faith was contingent on who wins, Avraham or Nimrod, so Haran
gets burned.

Here Egyptians did a chessed, it was not lesheim Yaakov avinu, but there
chessed stands up. They did not do a conditional tzedakkah

Perhaps, when you combine the idea of tzedakkah tatzil mimaves you can
explain this as ONLY unconditional, sinker tzedakkah tatzil mimaves.
So indeed the Egyptians had a zchus but NOT a protective zchus.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

David Glasner wrote:
> Yes, and Sanhedrin is not bound by the drashot of an earlier Sanhedrin and is 
> authorized to change the halakhah by changing the relevant drashah.  Isn't 
> that what happened when Ruth was allowed to marry Boaz based on Moavi, v'lo 
> Moavit?

Micha Berger wrote:
> LAD, this is lima'aseh what happened. Boaz was able to coin a hekesh -- Moavi 
> vilo Moavis requires already knowing that only male Amonim were chotei and 
> that Amoni and Moavi are referred to in the same pasuk.

The Netziv on this week's parshah discusses what happened with Boaz and
the derashah. In his Hercheiv Davar to 49:10, the Netziv says that during
the times of the Shoftim, the main makom Torah was in Beis Lechem (in the
tribe of Yehudah). However, during Elimelech's time (i.e. Ruth's time),
many of the talmidei chachamim there were deficient in their learning,
which is why Boaz had to point out to them the already existing derashah
that they did not know.

The Netziv further says that the nevu'ah in Micha 5:1-3 (2-4) is a
recording of an ancient tochachah from Boaz's time about the event.

Gil Student

In Avodah V6 #100, MFeldman responded:
> But that's exactly my point. Tosfos may hold that [the chov of mayim
> acharonim, hereafter "M.A.," is really but an aitzah tovah --MP], but
> that contradicts the gemara which mentions not only the issue of melach
> sdomis but also brings a pasuk "ki shem Hashem ekra-- elu mayim rishonim,
> havu godel leilokenu--elu mayim achronim."

No doubt, you meant "v'hiskadishtem...vih-yeesem k'doshim" (BT B'rachos
53b), and, on the contrary, Tosfos are consistent in explaining that
this d'rashah is merely an asmachta (see their words in BT Chulin 105a)
-- quite sensible a position, when you consider (a) the lack of equality
between the mitzva of mayim rishonim, due to considerations of taharah,
and the chov of M.A., apparently due to something else; and (b) that
this posuk (just like, e.g., the posuk you mentioned) is actually used
for another d'rashah (see BT Yoma 39a and its codification by RaMBaM)
-- and see no irreconcilable contradiction between their mesorah and the
BT. The M'chabair, by dint of quoting BT Chulin in OC 181:1 and [almost
word for word!] Tosfos on BT B'rachos in OC 181:10, apparently saw no
contradiction, either, which reinforces the point that the BT Chulin
"chov" may have a tzad l'hakail when compared to "mitzva," while...

> The rishonim other than Tosfos understand this din as a takkanah
> drabbanan--as hachanah (cleanliness) for bentching. As Dr. Chaim
> Soloveitchik pointed out, people ate with their hands until the late
> Middle Ages.

...other rishonim (e.g. RaShY) may very well disagree and see "chov" as
unquestionably of stronger import than "mitzva." Speaking of hachanah,
keep in mind that the BT B'rachos d'rashah doesn't stop w/ M.A. -- perhaps
said people also rubbed their hands with shemen after M.A. and prior
to bentching, but all those makpid today on M.A. certainly don't! It's
noteworthy that R'Nachman b. Yitzchak, in a statement situated before
the d'rashah, never heard of "Rabbis Zila-ai, Ziva-ai, and Zuhama,"
with said three "names" apparently representative (if the third "name"
is any guide) of soilings to be removed from the hands via M.A. --
Tosfos (who lived prior to the "late Middle Ages," no? :-)) may consider
M.A. as unnecessary as shemen, since said soilings are no longer a normal
consequence of eating.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
-----
P.S. Yes, Moshe, I'm still quite interested in seeing what DrCS had to
say on the subject.

Two members have posted that R. Reisman gave a limmud zekhus on chasidim
who don't say tahanun for minha. He said, according to both posts, that
by minha people are rushed and don't have proper kavvono. To quote one:
> Basically, he explained that tachanun represents our total and complete
> submission to HKBH, and, if done improperly/insincerely, one is chayiv
> misa (in some way).

Kol hakavod to R. Reisman for his limmud zekhus. RYBS used to do the
same thing. But it is important to realize it is only a limmud zekhus,
and has nothing to do with the reasons for the custom.

1) tefilla also needs kavvono. The gemoro says, and the Rambam paskens
l'halokho, that if you cannot daven with kavvono, you do not daven; the
Rambam says even three days if one cannot concentrate then he should
not daven. Tosfos says we let him daven anyway, because who's to say
that if he waits he will have kavvono, and nowadays most people don't
have much kavvono anyway. Notice Tosfos does not say that "however,
he should not say tahanun"; and Tosfos is talking about a person who
does NOT have kavvono. As a matter of fact, there is no old source at
all that tahanun needs more kavvono than tefilla. None.

2) I totally reject any implication that the chassidic rebbes did
not have kavvono when davening minha. I don't know about R. Reisman,
but I have witnessed some of the old-time chasidic rebbes from Europe,
and kavvono and d'vekus is what they excelled at. The chasidim, too,
were uplifted in the presence of their Rebbe; those who merited davening
minha with their Rebbe viewed this as an opportunity not to be missed,
and concentrated mightily on having kavvono. I have witnessed this by Gor,
by Vizhnitz, by Lyubavitch, and by a couple of others. You didn't have a
problem of people talking during hazoras hashatz in the rebbe's m'hitza,
either; everone was on their best behavior. I'm sure R. Y. Zirkind can
testify this was so for those lucky enough to daven with the Lyubavitcher
Rebbe; I'm sure RSBA can testify about this regarding others. BUT they
did not say tahanun by minha (I am excepting Lyubavich from this part),
and the reason was that they davened late. Even the Rogachover davened
late and did not say tahanun.

3) The whole reason that Chasidim davvened late was because the rebbe
had to prepare himself for having the right kavvonos. This was not
an insignificant matter to the real old-time chasidim. The kavvonos
according to the Ari in davening sh'mone 'esrei are many and complicated,
and woe unto he who has the wrong kavvono in the wrong place. He can end
up doing tremendous damage, just as much as one who has the right kavvonos
can do tremendous good according to qabbolo. The rebbes in Europe used
to get up early in the morning, chop a hole in the ice in the winter
to do t'vila, and sit for an hour or so concentrating, and they made
similar preparations (on a smaller scale) for minha. The rebbes took
their responsibilities seriously: the chasidim depended on them to have
the right kavvono in the right places, since it was much too complicated
for the average person. To imply that the rebbes didn't say tahanun
because they held they didn't have the proper kavvono is simply ludicrous.

So it remains just a limmud zekhus for the chasidim who changed their
minhag and now daven bizman but don't say tahanun because their forebears
never said tahanun by minha. As I said yesterday, the chasidim of yore
had sufficient reason for not saying it: they davened late l'khathilla,
precisely because they held it was crucially important to have kavvono,
and didn't say tahanun because of the issue of being m'qatzetz
ban'ti'os. That IS mentioned in qabbolo and by the chasidic sources;
any idea that tahanun requires more kavvono than tefilla is not, and
would be soundly rejected by the m'qubbolim.

Seth Mandel

						Bs"d
Anyone have a source for the expression: "u'teshu'as (or "teshu'as) Hashem 
k'heref eyin"? I searched the Torah CD Library, and looked in the m'chlol, 
with no success. Anyone have Bar-Ilan, or any other resources they could 
check? I need it ASAP. Thanks a lot.

Eli 

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


[ 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         ]