Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 123

Saturday, February 10 2001

• Re: Vowels, consonants, and what we accomplish
• Re: Vowels, consonants, and what we accomplish
• Re: RS"O for dreams
• What is a hefsek?
• Elevators
• Re: shut min hashamayim
• Kaddish after aleinu
• Re: Kaddish and the dead
• Re: shut min hashamayim
• Re: Rashi Question
• RE: Kaddish after aleinu
• RYBS on Piutim of RH and YK
• Re: RYBS on Piutim of RH and YK

At 03:29 PM 1/31/01 +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
>The yesod upon which the response to R. Gil's question rests is that
>"long" vowels (t'nu'a g'dola) in Aramaic function quite differently than
>"long" vowels in Hebrew....

Can you please explain all those Mappiq Heh's in Aramaic?

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

At 03:29 PM 1/31/01 +0000, R' Seth Mandel wrote:
:> The yesod upon which the response to R. Gil's question rests is that
:> "long" vowels (t'nu'a g'dola) in Aramaic function quite differently than
:> "long" vowels in Hebrew....

On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:35:48am -0600, R YG Bechhofer replied:
: Can you please explain all those Mappiq Heh's in Aramaic?

I would think the role is actually quite similar to that in Hebrew. The
difference is that the "-eihh" ending is used for lashon zachor, which
comes up far more often in tefillah than lashon nekeivah.

Or are you asking why the Hebrew "ow" becomes "-eihh" in Aramaic? RSM
is an interesting person to ask this of, since his own pronunciation
(IIRC) is pretty close to the Litvisher "cheilum". Perhaps this is a
ra'ayah lishitasam.

-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 09:53 PM 2/4/01 -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>IIUC it is said when one knows he had a dream but "Lo Yoda Mai Chazi" as is
>the Pshat in the Sugia in Brochos 55b, and see S"A O"C 130 why we say it on
>all Yomim Tovim (that would explain why in E"Y where there is Birchas Kohanim
>Bchal Yom there is no reason for it), however I was once asked why do we say
>it on the second day of Y"T in Golus, also when do Kohanim get to say it.

Why?

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

It would seem to me that we have two concepts both called a hefsek:
1- hesach hada'as, e.g. between washing and hamotzi;
2- any interruption whatsoever, e.g. between birchas hamitzvah and the
   mitzvah.

(No big chiddush here, I'm just trying to lay them out side-by-side.)

I just learned in an email (in response to a question I asked privately
about a comment made on Areivim) that the Klausenberger "interrupts"
his davening with Yiddish interjections. I am under the impression this
was common amongst chassidishe rebbeim of earlier generations.

I want to put Shema and other tephillos that are associated with separate
chiyuvim aside (such as R"H mussaf's connection to teki'as shofar). Those
are more complicated as you have to deal not only with the question of
being mafsik tefillah, but also that second mitzvah.

It's clearly not a type 1 hefsek to interject hearfelt words of tachanunim
into tephillah. We find that in Shemoneh Esrei, adding appropriate
personal thoughts appropriate to the particular berachah is considered
laudable.

I therefore think that it isn't even a type 2 hefsek. Such words are
part of the kiyum hamitzvah. The nature of tefillah is such that any
on-topic speech or thought /is/ davening. The

I would further suggest that this is a hanhagah (albeit in a language
I actually understand) we should be emulating. Note that the injunction
in the gemara as phrased as "kol ha'oseh tefillaso /keva/..." the same
shoresh as used for being kovei'ah matbei'as hatefillah. Nusach hatefillah
should be considered a /minimum/ for tefillah belachash.

Particularly those of us who suddenly get a magnetic attraction to
sefarim or parashah sheets during davening. Perhaps if one weren't as
bound to the nusach, tefillah would capture the interest it should.

What I'm suggesting is a huge burden. Aside from requiring us to actually
pay attention to what is being said, and to relate it to what is going
on to klal Yisrael and in our own sevivos and personal lives, it requires
first learning what some of the more cryptic tephillos are talking about.

-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

R' CarlS asked:
> What happens if you try to push your way into the elevator as the
> door is starting to close? During the week, an electric eye would reopen
> the door. But on Shabbos, there should be no electric eye. Will the door
> continue to close? Or will it be forced open somehow? And if it is forced
> open, is that a grama or is it a direct chilul Shabbos?

Before the door begins to close there is a three second buzz or beep
to warn passengers to remove themselves from the door area. There is
also a sign posted at the floors stating this warning. We don't worry
about someone who knowingly interferes with closure. Despite the long
time the car stands at each floor, there can be occasional accidental
interference. There must also be a safety measure to prevent the door
from causing physical damage or a fall.

When there is a single photocell it is accompanied by a pressure
limitation on the door. If it encounters resistance to closure it either
stops or reopens. Although the photocell is disconnected, the pressure
limit remains. It is adjusted so that it will never continue to close if
the interference is removed as that would continue the chain of events
in start of car travel. To remove the accidental interferer further from
responsibility for the continuation of events, the door does not start
to reclose for at least five seconds after removal of interference.

When there is a photo curtain that detects objects along the entire height
of the door ,there is often no second safety device In this case, or In
a building with handicapped or aged passengers, e.g., senior citizens
home, the photocell or photocurtain is disconnected before the doors
open and is reconnected at the end of the three second warning beep to
make certain that nobody will be hurt. By this time passengers should
have had time to get out of the door closing path.

Little by little, RYGB is getting his request filled.

K"T,
David

I wrote:
> the author quotes the malach's answer which is never yes or no but is
> an amalgam of pesukim and rabbinic phrases (without any Aramaic, of course). 
     
RY Zirkind wrote:
> Except when quoting from Divrei Chazal, then even Aramaic is used.
     
I stand corrected.  The first two teshuvos have Aramiac phrases in them, which 
gets you thinking...

Gil Student

R' SBA wrote:
> Kaddish after Oleinu is part of seder hatefilah - and should ALWAYS
> be said - even when there is no chiyuv present.

From: "D. and E-H. Bannett" <dbnet@barak-online.net>
: It is nice to know that you agree with the Ramo whose says exactly that.

RSBA, second post:
> I agree??? I was quoting the Remoh!

RDB, cont:
: ..Today some say kaddish after a medieval song, An'im Zemirot, that
: is neither learning nor tefila, and it would not surprise me if we soon
: start to hear kaddish after ma'oz tzur....

: On the help kaddish gives to the dead, the story about R' Akiva's dream can
: be balanced a bit by the statement of R' Avraham Hanasi mi'Barcelona that
: anyone who believes that one's saying kaddish can help the dead is neither
: knowledgeable nor a chakham.

RSBA, cont:
> Is that really what RAHm'B thinks of R' Akiva!?
> I prefer not to be mekabel such a statement - otherwise we should be
> mocheh strongly on the lack of kovod to the that holy Tanna.

> I know nothing about RAHm'B but I strongly doubt that he qualifies as
> a bar plugta for RA.

RDB, second post:
: I certainly agree that the two are spaced far apart on two different
: levels. I was not comparing the gadlus of R' Akiva to that of R' Aha"N.
: I am certain that R' Avraham would not have made his comment if he was
: convinced that the story told about R' Akiva's dream was factual and
: had really emanated from R' Akiva.

My own 2 pence:
; It's a story in the gemara, even if added late in the game, it still
; means one of the Savora'im thought the story was true -- and the sevara
; worth recording.

Hereafter, R' Seth Mandel (with one interruption):
          ... ever since the discussion started about kaddish after olenu
started I have been planning (or, as some might say, plotting) to explain
the development of qaddish from the time of the rishonim until today and the
development of the different nusho'os. I have delayed starting my
discussion because it is really quite involved and long. So for those who
are interested, you can look over to Avodah, where I will start my
discussion in a couple of days b'n.

[Sorry, I pre-empted you by forwarding this slighly edited version of
the conversation there. I picked up a copy of de Sola Pool's work titled
"Kaddish" at an estate auction. I hope, iy"h to look the relevent chapter
over and summarize for the chevrah. -mi]

But, this did give me an opportunity to get started on the topic.

As I shall talk about in my later posts, qaddish goes back as far as all of
our t'fillos do. The geonim mention qaddish, and it is in all the earliest
texts of t'fillo. But the connection between qaddish and avelus is not so
clear cut. If you look in the geonim or read the Rambam, you will find no
mention at all of an avel ever saying qaddish. It is kind of puzzling for
Jews nowadays, when qaddish is perhaps the most widely recognized sign of
avelus.

The connection first appears in early Ashkenaz. The Kol Bo mentions of the
custom of letting a yosom say qaddish on Shabbos morning after pittum
haQ'tores, and says that this custom appears to be a correct one, based on
"ma shenimtza baHaggada," what is mentioned in aggadic material. He does
not specify where. He tells the story that once R. Ploni (not R. Akiva, he
does not mention any name) saw a man in the forest gathering wood... (rest of
story as standard), and the person told him, "No one can save me [from my
punishment], except that if my son would say one qaddish or say the haftoro
[I would be saved]." The Kol Bo continues that from here the custom
developed of the son of the deceased saying the qaddish basro (the last
qaddish) all twelve months and also saying the haftoro, and that some also
daven every motzaei shabbos because that is the time that the r'sho'im
return to gehinnom and this may help them. That is the end of what the Kol
Bo has to say.

It is a matter of some discussion among later rabbonim where this medrash
actually comes from. The Rivash quotes the inyan in his t'shuvos and says
maybe it is the Tanhuma (it is in our editions) or Sifri (it's not). R.
Bahya says it's in massekhes Kallo (it isn't in all texts). The Or Zarua
says in the name of his rebbi the Roqeah that it is from the Tano D'vei
Eliyahu Rabbo. (It's not, but it is in the Zuto, see below). The Beis
Yosef found it in the Zohar, and the R'mo quotes all of these suppositions
and facts, probably indicating that the medrash itself was of questionable
authorship.

Let me repeat: there is no question that many rishonim knew of the existance
of some medrash about the issue, but no one seemed to know exactly where it
came from. And the versions that we have vary in several significant
issues.

Let me quote the story as told in Tano D'vei Eliyahu Zuto (Ch. 17), where it
is quoted together with the story of the boy who was captured and taken to
Rome with his humash Breshis. He was thrown in jail and the book put in the
library. Later the Emperor became ill and asked for a book and they brought
this one and no one could read it until they brought the boy who hugged it
and kissed it and read it to the Emperor and explained it. The Emperor
immediately stood up and kissed the boy and bestowed riches on him. (See
there for more details; this is just to give the background of how the story
we are concerned with is brought in). TDEZ continues: and this is a qal
vahomer: if this happened to a boy who had only learned humash Breshis, 'al
ahas kammo vokhammo for someone who learns kol haTorah kulloh... Amar R.
Yohanan ben Zakkai: once I was walking along and I met a man gathering wood,
and I spoke to him, but he did not respond. Then he came to me and said,
"Rebbi, I am a dead man, not alive." I said, "If you are dead, what do you
need this wood for?" He said, "I and my friend engaged in sin in my house,
and when I got here I was sentenced to burning. When I collect the wood,
they burn my friend, and when he collects the wood, they burn me." I said,
"How long will your sentence last?" He said, "When I arrived here I left my
wife pregnant, and I know she is pregnant with a boy. Please take care of
him from the time he is born until, when he is five, take him to the teacher
to learn, because when he says 'Bar'khu et haShem haM'vorakh,' then I will
be released from the din of gehinnom."

Note: R. Yohanan ben Zakkai, not R. Akiva. And Bar'khu, not qaddish or the
haftoro.

The M'noras HaMa'or quotes the more standard version: it was R. Akiva, and
the person told him he was a tax collector and he used to favor the rich and
kill the poor, and I had my way with an engaged girl on Yom Kippur. R.
Akiva asked, "Is there any escape for you?" He said, "... I heard them saying
that if he had a son who would stand up [as Shatz] in the tzibbur and say
bar'khu. But I have no son, but I left my wife pregnant, and I don't know
if she had a boy or a girl, and even if a boy, who would teach him." R.
Akiva found out his wife's name and where he was from, and went looking for
the town. When he found it he asked where the man's house was, and the
people said "May his bones rot in Gehinnom." He asked after the wife, they
said "May her name and memory be blotted out." He asked after the son, and
they said "he is not circumsized and they wouldn't even give him a bris."
So R. Akiva took the boy and tried to teach him, but he wouldn't absorb
anything until R. Akiva had fasted for 40 days. Then he taught the boy alef
beis and took him to his house and taught him to bentsh and to say qrias
Sh'ma' and to daven, and he put him up [at the omud] in shul and he said
bar'khu. Then they released the man from his punishment...

The version in the Zohar says the person told R. Akiva that the son should
say the haftoro. And they released him when the son served as Shatz and
said bar'khu.

This is enough for now. But the point I wanted to make is even though this
medrash is known to many, if not all, rishonim, there is no unanimity about
a) who the Rabbi was in the story, and b) what the son had to do to gain the
father's release. The common demonimator in all is that the son has to
serve as the leader of the tzibbur, but it is not clear for what: haftoro,
bar'khu, qaddish, Shatz.

That is why R' Avraham Hanasi mi'Barcelona could say that anyone who
believes that one's saying kaddish can help the dead is neither
knowledgeable nor a chakham. The custom came from Ashkenaz, and RAHmB
probably had heard about it, but knew nothing about it from the Talmud
(neither Talmud mentions the whole inyan). He may not have known of the
medrash (it was not in old editions of the standard medrashim), it was
aggad'ta, not halokho, and even if he did know of it, it may have been
interpreted as meaning that the only way to save the father is to have the
son learn and be oseq in mitzvos.

Best regards,
Seth Mandel

RDB:
> I certainly agree that the two are spaced far apart on two different
> levels. I was not comparing the gadlus of R' Akiva to that of R' Aha"N.
> I am certain that R' Avraham would not have made his comment if he was
> convinced that the story told about R' Akiva's dream was factual and
> had really emanated from R' Akiva.

Compare to the issue of halacha k'basra'a.  Tos. Rid (as pointe out by Dr
Leiman) bases this on the concept of a dwarf standing on the shoulders of a
giant.  I.e., even though I'm rishonim k'malachim anu k'vnei adam, we pasken
k'basra'a because they understood the words of those who came earlier.

Here, RAHaN knew what RAkiva said.  Obviously RAHaN believed that RA should
not be interpreted literally.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 2/9/01 9:09:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

>  The first two teshuvos have Aramiac phrases in them, which 
>  gets you thinking..

This together with the fact that the Magid Meishorim also has Aramaic, is 
basis of Svara that Malochim of Msivte D'rakia do understand (at least) Torah 
terms even in Aramaic.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/9/01 7:54:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

> From: Yzkd@aol.com
>  > Yechasumu is only one word as Rashi explains there
>  
>          1.  Rashi explains that yechasyumu is the same as yechasum. 
>  Yechasum is itself a hybrid word,  yechasu osam.

However any ploral is Osom, no Chidush, (vs. Dabroi that is brought in Rashi, 
which means speak *to* him, not speak him as Yochalaimoi.) 
>  
>          2.  Noch besser,  even leshitascha,  why didn't Rashi make his
>  observation on the earlier posuk,  yocheleimo kakash?
>  
The Chiddush here is Tismalei "Meihem" vs. Tochal "Oisoi" (the same Nkudah as 
above), likewise Nosata *Le* vs. Nosata *Oisee*.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Seth Mandel:
: The connection first appears in early Ashkenaz. The Kol Bo ...
:                       tells the story that once R. Ploni (not R. Akiva, he
: does not mention any name) saw a man in the forest gathering wood... (rest of
: story as standard), and the person told him, "No one can save me [from my
: punishment], except that if my son would say one qaddish or say the haftoro
: [I would be saved]." ...

FWIW, Rabbi J. Adlers' lecture at last sunday's CCA conference - as reported
by Jon Baker - echoes this sentiment. RYBS interpreted Kalir's Reshus for
the Chazzan as follows:
As we daven on RH/YK we are in effect rescuing our ancestors, and when we
encourage our children to do likewise we can rescue ourselves. 

KT
Rich Wolpoe 

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>: What is upad?  It reminds us of the ephod, the garment of the Kohen
>: Gadol.  The verb form appears twice...
>: Thus l'shefet, for judgment, not for working out guilt or innocence - God
>: will judge us by what we did.
 
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:15:55PM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
> Since we're talking about the eiphod, which is mechapeir for hirhurim
> shebaleiv, one would think that the image is that of HKBH judging us
> on our thoughts, not our deeds.

See response to third section.
 
>: v'tzuvah chok v'lo natzar
 
>: God gave Adam *one* mitzva, but he wasn't able to keep even that one
>: mitzva, he couldn't constrain himself from violating the only mitzva
>: he had.
 
> One mitzvah? Well, one could argue that the 6 of the mitzvos B'nei Noach
> that Adam recieved were given to him after his expulsion. However, what
> about piryah virivyah, kibbush ha'aretz, and "li'avdah ulshamrah".

We don't include piryah virivyah and kibbush ha'aretz in the 7 mitzvot
bnei Noach, do we?  Anyway, it was the one mitzva he *could* have followed.
That first day, he was locked up in the Garden, so he wasn't koveishing
any aretz, and he was there for one day, so there weren't nine months
for gestation - piryah virivyah doesn't mean "you shall sleep with a woman",
it means "you shall have children" - the mitzvah hasn't happened yet until
she gives birth.

I tend to think of piryah virivyah (which is only mandated on Jews?) and
kibbush haaretz (which isn't really mandated on anyone?) as more of
existential imperatives, than actual commands.  When God hands out the
punishments for eating the fruit, are they mitzvot (she shall look up
to him, she shall look down at the snake), or are they existential
imperatives (per the Rav's understanding of this stuff WRT tav lemeisav
tan du)?  Is "she shall give birth in pain" a mitzva forbidding the 
use of anesthesia during delivery, or is it an existential statement 
about human physiology as designed by God?  "You will strike him in
the head" - a mitzva to kill snakes?  Or a description of how humans
will henceforth react to snakes?
 
>: God looked down the generations and found that the Avot were one
>: day to spring forth from Adam.  The merit of the Avot then served
>: as the ransom for Adam's life, and Adam's life was spared...
 
> What happened to "ba'asher hu sham"? Is that only litzad rachamim?
> Unlike zechus avos (which in itself is a question to be meyasheiv
> with tzidduk hadin) here we're speaking of zechus that didn't even
> exist yet.

I'll just say to you what R' Adler said to the fellow who asked
"how can this beis din say that we're all bishegagah, when in the
vidui we say 'zadnu'?" 

The reply: "Ein shoalim al hadrash."  Of course you can disagree,
but it doesn't take away from the point.

On 9 Feb 01, at 10:44, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
> I tend to think of piryah virivyah (which is only mandated on Jews?) and
> kibbush haaretz (which isn't really mandated on anyone?) as more of
> existential imperatives, than actual commands.  

Certainly when Adam and Chava were in Gan Eden they were brachos and
existential imperatives. The mitzva of pirya v'rivya was given only
after the Mabul.

> When God hands out the
> punishments for eating the fruit, are they mitzvot (she shall look up
> to him, she shall look down at the snake), or are they existential
> imperatives (per the Rav's understanding of this stuff WRT tav lemeisav
> tan du)?  

They are existential imperatives. "B'Zeas Apecha Tochal Lechem" is
a punishment. I once heard it explained thus. When man was supposed
to be immortal, he didn't need to work. When he became mortal, one of
the consequences was that boredom was created. What do we worry about
when someone retires? We worry that R"L because they no longer have the
imperative to get up and go to work in the morning, they become bored
and fall apart. Working is a necessity so that you have something to
occupy your time and are not bored.

-- Carl

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

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


[ 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         ]