Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 118

Friday, February 2 2001

• Re: dateline s'feiqos - logically compelling CI?
• Hebrew -- Aramaic
• Re: Hebrew -- Aramaic
• Re: dateline s'feiqos - logically compelling CI?
• Re: Elevators
• prompting kohanim by dukhaning
• Re: prompting kohanim by dukhaning
• Re: prompting kohanim by dukhaning
• Re: prompting kohanim by dukhaning
• Re: New Square
• KADDISH AFTE OLEINU
• Kaddish after Oleinu
• Re: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• Hilchos Mamrim and what is a minhag
• Re: KADDISH AFTE OLEINU

RYGB has expressed his strong preference for the CI p'saq which is his
right. He has also expressed his strong conviction that it is the most
"logically compelling" which is his subjective shiqqul had'daas, but it
is one which I do not share. My own shiqqul had'daas concludes that the
CI actually introduces an extraordinary chiddush (deformable lines),
which, though helpful enough, can hardly be called (imho) compelling
in the face of equally rational alternatives. Additionally, the CI's
assertion that all of the rishonim -- including the oft cited in this
matter Y'sod Olom -- agree with the position of the Ba'al HamMoh'or and
Kuzari is nothing short of startling. at the very least it's a radical
departure from the kif'shuto wording of the other rishonim as well as
the poshut understanding of these rishonim by every other acharon, both
early and late, and is quite hard to swallow. and while q'tanim such
as ourselves certainly acknowledge the extraordinary power of pilpul
(the good kind) of a unique lamdon like CI to argue his case, we should
all recognize how extraordinary it is to call it "logically compelling".

Perhaps even the normally high regard we may hold for RYGB's powers of
deductive ratiocination is too measured, and he is operating on a logical
plane opaque to me (to mix my metaphors) and -- much more importantly --
the acharonim, but not to CI.

As a helpful summary of some of the shittos I offer the following list;
all measurements are understood as longitude offset to the east of
jerusalem.

They are mostly gleaned from the sefer by r. leib blum that I referenced
previously (note: some of the odder sounding p'soqim ultimately stem
from different opinions and deductive chains of reasoning associated
with fixing the "original" day of b'reishis when the heavenly orbs were
"hung" and where their position might have fallen relative to jerusalem-
 As mentioned previously, CI would not agree with the following table,
arguing instead that "all" of the rishonim are like the kuzari and RZH)

Rishonim:
R. Sa'adiah Gaon (quoted in Tashbetz): 114 deg, 7 minutes
R. Yehudoh Halevi (Kuzari): 90 deg
R. Zerachiah Halevi (Ba'al HamMoh'or): 90 deg
Rambam: 114 deg
Ra'avad: 87.5 deg
R. Avrohom bar Chiyoh HanNosih (Ha'ibbur): 113 deg, 154 min
R. Yitzchoq HanNosih (quoted in Y'sod Olaom): approximately 114 deg
R. Yitzchoq Hayisroeli (Y'sod Olom): 113 deg
R. Ishtori HapParrchi (Kaftor Voferach): 113 deg
R. Shimshon b. Tzemach Duran (Tashbetz): 114 deg 7 min

note: i have cited only one version of each rishon's p'saq. its actually
far more complicated as there are disputes among the acharonim (besides
the CI) about the proper derivation of the position of a number of these
rishonim. thus there are a number of different interpretations of the
kuzari's position and the rambam has also been counted in the 90 deg club.

Acharonim:
R. Yitzchoq b Moshe Halevi (Chesev Ho'eifod): 112 deg
R. Chaim Vital (sefer HatT'khunoh): 112 deg
R. Chaim Zimmerman (Agan HasSahar): 90 deg
R. Chaim Dinkels (Sod N'qudoh D'ttlosoh): 90 deg
R. A. Karelitz -- CI, (Qunt'ros 18 Sho'os): 90 deg (deformed)
R. Dovid Shapiro (B'nei tzion): 142 deg (slanted)
R. Menchem Kasher (Kav HatTa'arich Hayisroeli): there is no dateline
mi'd'oraisoh. but we need one, so arbitrarily pick 144 deg46 min (jagged)
i.e the secular international date line, for convenience sake.
R. Binyomin Rabinowits-Teomim (HapPardes): 155 deg 6 min
R Leib Blum (N'qudoh d'isgaliah): 155 deg 47.5 min
R. Yichiel Mechel Tokachinsky (Hayomom): 180 deg (deformed)
R. Mordechai Tzvi Halevi( Divrei Chachomim): 180 deg
R. Ya'acov Emden (Mor U'qitzioh), R. Pesach Frank, many Chassidishe rebbes
and many others: There is no date line. simply accept the minhog hammoqom.

A more interesting (to me) inquiry re date lines, would be the case of
two travelers starting off on different sides of (anybody's version)
of a date line (at least for those acharonim who believe in date lines)
who each, staying on his/her side of the line, made their way to the north
pole. would they ever share the same shabbos, even though co-located?.

Mechy Frankel H: (301) 593-3949
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com W: (703) 588-7424
michael.frankel@osd.mil

RSM wrote in length about the "Hebrewazation" of Aramaic, especially in
Kaddish.
What about Yitgadal Ve'Yitkadash? What is the correct aramailc
pronunciation?

Amihai.

On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:51:49PM +0200, Amihai Bannett wrote:
: What about Yitgadal Ve'Yitkadash? What is the correct aramailc
: pronunciation?

This has been broached on Avodah (v3n367 - 364) before, but with our
newer arrivals, it's worth re-asking.

The first question is whether "Yisgadal yiYiskadash" is supposed to be
said in Aramaic at all. The Mishnah B'rurah cites the Gaon as saying
that they should be said in Hebrew, as per Yechezkeil's "Hisgadalti
viHiskadashti". The MB therefore tells you to use a tzeirei --
"yisgaddeil".

R' Raffy Davidovich pointed that in Aramaic the shoresh RBH is more
likely than GDL, again arguing in favor of Hebrew.

HOWEVER, as R"D Bannet noted, both "yigaddeil" and "yisgadal" are
acceptable Hebrew. So, how does the MB make the leap to say the Gra
implies a tzeirei?

Perhaps the MB's point is that the Gra's telling you to switch to Hebrew
to refer to the passuk is meaningless if it's with a patach. The Hebrew
and the Aramaic would be identical, so what kind of indication is the
Gra asking you to make?

We never found a reason for the Chabad minhag of "yibareich" or for
the nusach "yis-halleil", though. RSM's assertion of Hebaization is
quite reasonable.

Note: Granikim wouldn't say "yis-hallal" or "yis-halleil", as they only
say 7 leshonos, not 8. (Perhaps to connote teva, rather than lima'alah
min hatevah. 8 leshonos might be a shtikl "Hallel bichol yom".) When we
last discussed /that/ point (v5n111 - 117), RSM pointed out that RYBS
was similarly noheig to omit it, and I since ammended Ashirah Lashem
accordingly (including the above possible sevara as a footnote).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

At 07:45 PM 1/31/01 -0800, Michael Frankel wrote:
>RYGB has expressed ...     his strong conviction that it is the most
>"logically compelling" which is his subjective shiqqul had'daas, but it
>is one which I do not share. My own shiqqul had'daas concludes that the
>CI actually introduces an extraordinary chiddush (deformable lines),
>which, though helpful enough, can hardly be called (imho) compelling
>in the face of equally rational alternatives. Additionally, the CI's

When I call the CI logically compelling, I mean his position that the HIDL 
is 90d e of Y-m, as opposed to RYMT's 180d e. One can argue with the CI 
about the bisecting land masses issue, as, of course, the Brisker Rav and 
R' Chaim Zimmerman did - and, according to whom, as I have mentioned, Jews 
in Australia and other places would be considered Mechalelei Shabbos. To 
me, the skirting landmasses sevoro is logical, but, I agree, not 
halachically compelling.

>assertion that all of the rishonim -- including the oft cited in this
>matter Y'sod Olom -- agree with the position of the Ba'al HamMoh'or and
>Kuzari is nothing short of startling...           while q'tanim such
>as ourselves certainly acknowledge the extraordinary power of pilpul
>(the good kind) of a unique lamdon like CI to argue his case, we should
>all recognize how extraordinary it is to call it "logically compelling".

I do not possess a Yesod Olam, but having read both RYMT's Sefer Ha'Yomom 
and the CI's Kuntres Yud Ches Sho'os, I am certainly not convinced that the 
Yesod Olam is in line with RYMT. At best, he is ambiguous. Which leaves us 
with the unambiguous Rishonim.

>Perhaps even the normally high regard we may hold for RYGB's powers of
>deductive ratiocination is too measured, and he is operating on a logical
>plane opaque to me (to mix my metaphors) and -- much more importantly --
>the acharonim, but not to CI.

Well, who can ask for better company? Hopefully someday you will join the 
CI and myself in the rarefied atmosphere in which we function :-)  .

>As a helpful summary of some of the shittos I offer the following list;
>all measurements are understood as longitude offset to the east of
>jerusalem.
>
>They are mostly gleaned from the sefer by r. leib blum...
>Rishonim:
...
>Rambam: 114 deg
...

WADR to this R' Blum, the 114d (the number, BTW, proposed by R' Shlomo 
Goren, but I assume he was considered too "treif" to make the list of 
Acharonim below) is not the position of the Rambam et al on the HIDL, and 
is actually a derivation from the point at which they place the geographic 
center of the Eurasian landmass. Thus, of course, the CI remains correct in 
his assertion. And, there certainly is no clearcut Rishon of RYMT's 
opinion. I once asked R' Ahaon Soloveitchik - who is inclined to RYMT's 
position but is machmir like the CI as well - how he can hold that way, as 
the only Rishonim who weigh in on the issue are unabashedly CI'niks. His 
enlightening response - as I understood it - is that in the Brisker 
perspective not all Rishonim are considered to be in the category that 
mandates adherence to their Halachic positions - thus, in this area, 
leaving Acharonim free to be mechaddeish.

>Acharonim: ...

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

At 10:10 PM 1/31/01 +0200, D. and E-H. Bannett wrote:
>There are probably hundreds of elevators approved by the Makhon....
>       In the past most hi-rise buildings with high-speed, "elegant"
>elevators were in office buildings that are not used on Shabbat. I use the
>elegant word "elegant" for elevators with complicated computer control,
>accurate and continuous weighing of passengers. continuous electronic
>measurement of speed and distance travelled etc., etc. In other words
>plenty of problems for me to solve.

Got it.

So when do we start learning about the problems and the solutions?

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

Gershon Dubin:
> The minhag of prompting the kohanim word by word does not seem to have
> been done in the time of the Gemara, according to my understanding of
> today's daf. When did it start?

In addition to R. Y Zirkind's references, I would note that the Rambam
treats prompting as d'Orayso, derived from "amor lahem." There is a
discussion about where the Rambam gets this from, but that does not
affect his position. The Rambam apparently does not see a problem
with the g'moro, either. Although he does not address your issue, in a
T'shuva he discusses another question related to position of his that
seemed strange to some of his readers. To wit, he holds that the Shatz
calls out kohanim, not someone else, in the middle of hazoras haShatz
(and according to the Rambam, you do not say bor'khenu bab'rokho etc. in
such a situation). When asked whether this does not constitute a hefseq
in hazoras haShatz (as Tosfos leans towards, IIRC), he says it does not,
and refers to the G'moro in Sota (not as a proof, just in discussing
the issue). The implication is that he is fully cognizant of what the
g'moro says, but does not consider it a qashyo on his positions regarding
dukhaning (not a raayo, but an implication).

Seth

> Gershon Dubin:
> > The minhag of prompting the kohanim word by word does not seem to have
> > been done in the time of the Gemara, according to my understanding of
> > today's daf. When did it start?

I missed the response. Upon asking the same question, it was noted to me
that the MB cites a Sifri

Mei'inyan l'inyan b'oso inyan, seems from Tosafos that the RS"O for dreams
should not be said unless you have an actual dream for which you are
asking correction.

And, I am not at all sure what the heter to say that beautiful YH"R for
"shalom" might be.

In EY, where these are not said, is that because of practical or Gr"o type
reasons?

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

RYGB wrote:
     
> Mei'inyan l'inyan b'oso inyan, seems from Tosafos that the RS"O for dreams 
> should not be said unless you have an actual dream for which you are asking 
> correction.

I believe the Maharsha says the exact opposite.  If you know that you had a 
dream then you do hatavas chalom.  RS"O is for the dreams you do not know about.
     
Gil Student

RYGB wrote:
>> Mei'inyan l'inyan b'oso inyan, seems from Tosafos that the RS"O for dreams
>> should not be said unless you have an actual dream for which you are asking
>> correction.

At 06:19 PM 2/1/01 -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
>I believe the Maharsha says the exact opposite.  If you know that you had a
>dream then you do hatavas chalom.  RS"O is for the dreams you do not know 
>about.

1. That does not fit into the nusach of the RS"O.

2. That does not fit into the lashon of Tosafos.

Tz"I (=Tzarich Iyun).

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

On 1 Feb 01, at 16:21, Micha Berger wrote [on Areivim]:
> A question I'd like to see discussed on Avodah is whether pidyon shevuyim
> includes people who broke the law....

I don't recall where I saw this, but isn't it the case that there is no 
inyan of pidyon shvuyim so long as the person involved broke an 
objective, uniformly applied law, and their punishment is in line with 
an objective standard of punishment? IIRC Pollard only became an 
issue of pidyon shvuyim because his punishment is so out of 
proportion to others convicted of similar crimes.

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

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.

[From Areivim... -mi]

IIRC (I don't have the seforim here) Kaddish after Oleinu is part of
seder hatefilah - and should ALWAYS be said - even when there is no
chiyuv present.

[Later RSBA added:]

OC 132:2 in the Remoh.

SBA

From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
> Kaddish after Oleinu is part of seder hatefilah - and should ALWAYS be
> said - even when there is no chiyuv present.

Meikar hadin there are only 7 kaddeishim in the davening of a regular day 
(kineged the verse in Tehillim 'sheva bayom hilalticha' ) - I believe the 
breakdown for a regular weekday is as follows -  three in shacharis (after 
yishtabach, shmoneh esreh and uva litzion), two in mincha (before  shmoneh 
esreh and after tachanun) and two in maariv (before and after shmoneh esreh).
Other kaddeishim are not 'meikar hadin' and are later additions added for 
various reasons by some, e.g. 'kaddish yosom' because at certain periods 
there were many aveilim (e.g. after gzieiros tach vatat, other massacres....) 
and not everyone could daven for the amud (ikkar / optimum thing recommended 
for an aveil) so a separate additional 'kaddish yosom' was instituted, e.g. 
after aleinu, as I recall. 

Mordechai

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:06:44PM -0500, David Glasner wrote:
: Again I say: Mamrim is not halakhah l'ma'aseh.  The question is how do we
: explain the difference between halakhah l'ma'aseh and the p'sak of the 
: Rambam.  See the Dor Revi'i.

Yes, this has been the question since day 1. To recap:

First, RGS and I tried to argue that the Rambam was misunderstood,
giving the right to be choleik with an earlier BD gadol mimenu bichachmah
uvminyan only WRT new dinim created via derashos and sevaros. After all,
they can't WRT repealing dinim diRabbanan. So why not place resolving
chilukei dei'os, IOW, interpreting the law rather than legislating, along
with diRabbanans in Hil Mamrim 2:2-3?

This would imply that the Rambam's p'sak WRT Sanhedrin parallels what's
being done bizman hazah, where the inyan isn't derashos and we assume
niskatnu hadoros -- at least when crossing certain historical lines.

So, we had a long discussion about when each of the halachos in the
Rambam apply. Kind of silly that it went on so long, as it was summarily
resolved when the Kesef Mishnah was cited placing p'sak in existing din
in Mamrim 2:1, thereby permitting a later Sanhedrin to reopen a machlokes.
So, I'll refrain from summarizing here.

I therefore suggested that perhaps not claiming the right to argue with
poskim of earlier eras started out being voluntary, but by today it could
be minhag Yisrael. And therefore a contemporary poseik isn't permitted
to argue with a rishon. This would seem to be the shitah of the CI, albeit
he might hold it's still voluntary.

A second possibility is that they actually have parallel issues to those
between different generations' Sanhedrin, but we don't hold like Hil
Mamrim 2:1-3. The Tif'eres Yisrael is choleik with the Rambam. (Can
he? <grin> Self-reference games aside, I assume the TY has his makor
as well.)

A third possibility is that machlokesin between poskim does NOT parallel
that between Sanhedrinin. This would be choleik with the Maharetz Chayos,
who uses the concept of Sanhedrin to define era borders.

We should also review the similar conversation in v1n51 - v2n21
("authority of the Mishnah" and "revising the Dor Revi'i" and many other
subject lines) or so, involving when the mishnah was physically written
down and if that would affect the DR's shitah.

Back then it was suggested (I thought besheim the DR, but I can't find
it in the archive) that the authority of Sanhedrin derives from the
consensus of the kahal. That the Sanhedrin's role WRT din is the same
as their role WRT purchasing korbanos hatzibbur or kiddush levanah --
they are acting as representatives of the kahal.

I would like to add now that this would imply that without a Sanhedrin
the matter devolves back to the tzibbur, and that a p'sak backed by
consensus DOES have the same authority of that made by a Sanhedrin.


I invite comments if I misrepresented or under-represented someone's
view.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

While looking at Rambam Mamrim 2:1-3 yet again for this post, I was
reminded of something R' Chaim Brown pointed out to me.

I made a comment similar to RSM's recent statement in v6n117:
: Minhag means custom. It was customary in shuls for everyone to sit, and
: even to talk. The PM decries it, as may we all, but it was customary. You
: seem to define minhag as only something that someone can find a
: justification for. That's not what the word means.

After seeing the Rambam, it would appear that such IS the meaning of
the word, at least when used as halachic jargon. 2:1 opens "Beis din
shegazru gezeirah o tiknu takanah vehinhigu minhag..." IOW, BD has a
role in the creation of minhagim.

To get this to fit the meaning of the word, I suggested that the Rambam's
"hinhigu" is talking about ratifying what was customary. RCB had assumed
that it's something rabbanim suggested ought to become customary, which
better fits the words.

In either case, I think there is more going on here than I grasped because
I just noticed that the Rambam switches from "O tikinu" to "VEhinhigu".
From "or" to "and". Ideas?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated Fri, 2 Feb 2001 7:42:38am EST, "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
writes:
: Kaddish after Oleinu is part of seder hatefilah - and should ALWAYS
: be said - even when there is no chiyuv present.

IIRC doesn't he mention that this is because there could be chiyuvim
who can't be the shatz and this was instituted for them? I've seen both
practices, is anyone aware of any later tshuvot on this?

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


[ 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         ]