Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 026

Tuesday, April 24 2001

• Voss Iz Der Chilluk #8: MC vol. 2 p. 136
• RE: rishonim
• VIDC
• Gelatin
• RE: Rishonim - editions
• rishonim
• FW: Rishonim - editions
• KSA
• RE: Kula shopping
• RE: Shiras HaYam in Mikdash
• rishonim
• Re: new edition of Levush- worth buying or not?
• RE: new edition of Levush- worth buying or not?
• Re: new edition of Levush- worth buying or not? Macha'a
• minhag not to say kaddish and lack of shliach tzibbur until right before borchu
• Re: pesach chumrot (was pseach chumrot)
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #8: MC vol. 2 p. 136
• [none]
• Re: rishonim
• Re: rishonim
• lack of shliach tzibbur until right before borchu
• mizmorim added before borchu and boruch sheomar
• Re: mizmorim added before borchu and boruch sheomar
• Lehafrish Challah min ha'isa and minhag ta'us
• Re: mizmorim added before borchu and boruch sheomar

1) One possible chiluk (which may or may not be true) is in being
m'chaleik between the ptur in each case.

By the Tereifah, the petur is related directly to the tereifah (for lack
of a better word I'll call it a "petur b'etzem") so it carries over to
his shor. By the koton, it is an external petur based on time (or age).
He is only patur cause he is a koton. If he would be a godol he would
be chayav. (Unlike the Tereifah who would never be chayuv). Therefore,
the petur doesn't carry over to the shor.

2) A koton doesn't have real baalus. Therefore, the petur can't carry
over to his shor-it's not really his shor.

From: Carl Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> True. But would you agree that the Rambam is much more 
> important to halacha l'maaseh than he is to understanding the 
> Gemara? Whereas the Meiri's other contemporaries (give or take a 
> hundred years in either direction) are Rishonim we use primarily to 
> understand the Gemara and only secondarily to derive halacha l'maaseh.

I think we are going in circles here.  My original point is davka that the
Me'iri IS less important to Halacha lema'aseh because - unlike the Rambam -
because his writings were mostly out of the mainstream.

However, there is no reason according to my hashkafa to weigh the Me'iri
less in the areas of Peirush and Peshat.

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe

RMB>I was corrected in private email:
: A rotzeich who is a treifa is patur because it is not eidus rauy l'hazima

This is because the treifa is already a dead man and cannot be killed.
Therefore, testifying against the treifa is not "killing" him, hence the
eidim are unpunishable.

I.e. I think you were right the first time.

Shlomo Goldstein

[Neither is all that relevent to my chiluk. As we are docheh the chiyuv
rather than matiring it. -mi]

RSM writes that those who aseered gelatin did so because of eim mevatlin 
isuur le'chatchila. While one may argue with his learning of the Rambam 
(from which he derived this issur), that was nor R' Aharon Kotler's logic. 
He learnt that atzomos of issur are assur - normally one cannot eat them, 
true, but when they become ra'uy l'achilla they retain their status of issur.

I am writing from memory, so may err (mem-err-y: how's that for an 
etymology?) but this is readily confirmed.

It is primarily on the basis of the RAK that the osrim asser.

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

From: Stein, Aryeh E. [mailto:aes@ll-f.com]
> See the Abarbanel in his hakdama to Yirmiya, where he explains why there are
> many dikduk errors in sefer Yirmiya.  He explains (via R' Reisman) that when
> a navi hears nevuah from Hashem, the navi is not given the exact words to
> relay, only the general idea.  Since Yirmiya was not an expert in dikduk and
> couldn't express himself as well as other nevi'im ---> the many dikduk
> errors in sefer Yirmiya.

> R' Reisman noted that this Abarbanel was a da'as yachid...

Let's put it this way: it's a lot easier to accuse the printers of making
mistakes in Tosfos's dikduk than in Yirmiyahu's dikduk! <smile> 

As far as this Abarbanel goes, I didn't see it and I don't know exactly what
he meant, but here is a possible explanation:

When a prophet or mystic or poet gets a vision or a message, the critical
mind is turned off and the "Prophetic/Poetic Muse" has taken over.  What
Abarbanel might be hinting at is that there is a "Prophetic License" like a
Poetic License that speaks from feelings and emotions and therefore plays a
bit "fast and loose" with technical details such as dikduk.

And OTOH this would explain how Moshe Rabbeinu's Nevuah is Davka superior in
that it did not have this emotional {almost irrational} component, and that
the Torah is Davka highly reliable not only in terms of feelings but on the
technical level too.  

IOW this is perhaps THE definitive Chiluk between aspaklaria ham'ira and
eino me'ira or ma'reh and mar'ah...

Kol Tuv,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>              The Shach says the following...
> Whenever the words of the earlier authorities are written and are famous, 
> and the later deciders disagree with them, we follow the later ones.  
> However, if we sometimes find a responsum from a great authority that was 
> never remembered in a book and others disagree with him, we do not have to 
> follow the later authorities because it is possible that they did not know 
> the words of this great authority and if they had known they would have 
> retracted their opinions...

If the Shach ZTL were alive and well I would ask him to elaborate upon the
following scenarios:

1) Kitniyos:  We know Ri MiParis thought it a Minhag Taus. Now as per the
Shach if we can come up with another Rishon's unpublished manuscript would
that permit us to dispense with this Minhag?

2) YT Sheini Shel Rosh Hashanah in EY.  If I can find an unpublished
manuscript from the Kalir era showing that only one day of YT was observed
in EY for RH, can we revise that practice?

3) Tefillin shel Rashi. Hypothetically, if we found evidence in the Cairo
Gniza that indicated Halachah keRabbeinu Tam in Tefillin, can we now change?

4) Sefer Torah.  Can we emend our Sifrei Torah based upon recently
discovered manuscripts?

5) Mechitza. If we can uncover a manuscript from Gaonim or Rishonim that
indicate they davened  in shuls w/o a mechitza could we now make mechitzos
optional?

------------------------------------------------

FWIW I privately and pointedly asked one of my professors at Bernard Revel
the following question {I'm paraphrasing}:

Q: "Given that you are revising the Yesodos of so many Halachos, how can you
still be Observant?"

A:  "The Shulchan Aruch is still binding even when founded upon a Taus.
Hopefully over time, re-thinking some of these issues may lead to better
understanding.  In the meantime, Halachah - as opposed to Lamdus or Peshat -
remains in force."  

IOW, new revisions might influence Halachah over time, but does not repeal
it.

AIUI, this Hashkafa is pretty close to the CI, that what is done is done,
even when done based upon incomplete or slightly shaky data. 

The Na'aseh - iow - Halachah lema'aseh - can remain fairly stable even in
the face of radical ideas in the realm of Nishma - i.e. our understanding.

Kol Tuv,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com (at Information Builders)
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

> FWIW, I once corrected a dikduk error in Torsos in my Gmara.  One chaver
> asked me: "who am I to correct Tosfos?"  I don't know what I said then, but
> today I would say pashut: " CV I should correct Tosfos - becuase I'm sure
> Tosfos knew dikduk. However, this error that I see I attribute  to later
> scribes of printers"

See the Abarbanel in his hakdama to Yirmiya, where he explains why there are
many dikduk errors in sefer Yirmiya.  He explains (via R' Reisman) that when
a navi hears nevuah from Hashem, the navi is not given the exact words to
relay, only the general idea.  Since Yirmiya was not an expert in dikduk and
couldn't express himself as well as other nevi'im ---> the many dikduk
errors in sefer Yirmiya.

R' Reisman noted that this Abarbanel was a da'as yachid.  Specifically, the
Malbim quotes the Abarbanel in his (the Malbim's) own hakdama to Yirmiya,
and the Malbim states that the Abarbanel was wrong:  Yirmiya did know
dikduk.  (Also, there is a more general machlokes as to whether a navi is
given the exact words of nevuah or only the basic idea.)

(Perhaps one of our next projects can be to publish a revised sefer Yirmiya
in which we "correct" all of Yirmiya's "errors." <g>.  [I put these terms in
quotes because its one thing for the _Abarbanel_ to claim that Yirmiya made
dikduk mistakes; it's something else entirely for _me_ to say such things!])


KT
Aryeh  

RRW>the KSA resisted ANY footnotes

The KSA made his OWN footnotes called P'as HaShulchan, published in some
editions.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: Chana/Heather Luntz [mailto:Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk]
> I believe there is a fourth source of chumros - having more
> time available. Chumros, in general, and especially the kind we are
> discussing, take more time than kulos. If one is both working a full
> working day in order to earn a parnasa and struggling to find time to
> learn, taking on chumras becomes out of the question. But today, more
> of our male population is not working than at any time in our history.
> That provides a large pool of people with the time to think about and
> take on chumros. 

I certainly agree that the availability of time plays a role in the
proliferation of chumros.  However, I wouldn't consider this a *cause* of
chumros, so much as providing a breeding ground for the actual causes of
chumros.  

Related to what you mention is another cause of chumros: when yeshiva
bochrim go through a sugya, they like to take some practical nafka mina with
them into their real life.  For example, if one learns the sugyah of kiddush
b'makom seudah and then faces the reality of the shul kiddush, which is
arguably not b'makom seudah (if seudah means pas), it is reasonable to make
kiddush again when one sits down for lunch.  Takes a bit more time (and
that's where Chana's point comes in), but in effect, it's part of learning.
Some chumrahs actually force you to review the sugyah each time you perform
them; I view that as a plus.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
> It was posted that the Gem. RH 31a records Shiras HaYam in mikdash.  I
> didn't find it.  Help please.

(Soon after writing HaZIV LaCH, the gemara says:) 
B'minchasa d'shabasa ma hayu omrim?  Amar R. Yochanan: Az Yashir
u'Michamocha v'As Yashir.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
> MISHNA: The MEHARTZACH (R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes) brings a few cases of early
> mishnayot: "Harbeh mishnayot hayu sdurim bizman habayit" [Yoma 53];
> "harbeh mishnayot ba'u eleinu mizman kadmon me'od" [Erchin 13]; also
> mentions "adayin mizman knesset hagedola nisdera" [Yevamot 9].

Lehavdil, much of Jacob Neusner's work on the Mishnah consists in
classifying them as to which were written before 70, which between
70 and 135 (churban and Bar Kochba), and which after 135 - those being
the seminal events in the Tannaitic period.  The Churban for restoring
the galus situation of the Anshe Knesses haGedolah and before, Bar Kochba
for confirming that it was (semi) permanent, unlike the earlier 70-year
galus.
 
> RAMBAM:I have a sefer at home called Kuntrus Klalei haRambam by R. Yaakov
> Chaim Sofer. He quotes many sources that state that the Rambam didn't
> write anything in the Yad without a source from Chazal (quotes: Yad Sofer
> Chelek Bet 31; Brit Yaakov 152; Knesset Chaim 87; Zera Chaim 10; Yechi
> Yosef 180; Ner Yehuda 266; Zechut Yitzchak Chelek Aluf 21]. In fact, the
> Rambam "ein darko l'shanot milshon hamishna v'hatalmud af lo oht achat"
> [Brit Yaakov 117].

Kehos (the Lubavitch publisher) has a book called Mekorei haRambam ro
something like that, which claims to have sources in Talmud and other
earlier sources for each psak in the Yad.  It doesn't have an author's
name, so I assume it was some kind of group effort.

> > To me it is not simply a black-and-white matter of authenticity.  We can
> > KNOW the Me'iri is authentic and still consider it Halachically obscure
> > (think of the Levush nowadays!) 

It's also textually obscure.  While his explanations are fairly clear,
his attributions seem to be written in a kind of code.  Nobody is mentioned
by name, but rather by some kind of kinui that he had for each "the teacher
the great teacher, the genius," etc.  Is there some kind of list that 
decodes his kinuyim?
 
> The Levush was reprinted here recently (complete with mekoros). 7 
> volume set, very well done. If anyone is interested, you can write 
> me off the list. 

What is the relationship of the Levushe Srad on the SA to the Levush?
For example, I wanted to find the reasons behind the Ashkenazi order
to the Hoshanos on Sukkos.  The MB and others pointed to the Levush.
I didn't have access to a Levush, but the Levushei Srad in the SA OH
had the explanation.  Is it someone later bringing the explanations 
of the Levush onto the SA page?

> The Levush was reprinted here recently (complete with mekoros). 7 
> volume set, very well done

There is an old story that goes back to the Gra that the Shaagas Aryeh became 
famous after he apologized to all of the Rishonim and Achararonim upon whom 
he asked very strong kashes. When did this happen? When a seforim shranl 
loaded with seforim fell upon him when he was in his 90s. However, the one 
sefer that he deie not apologize to was the Levush because the Shaagas Aryeh 
and many other Acharonim felt that there were no mkoros for many of his 
psakim and svaros ( so heard on a tape from RHS). 
    Therefore, why purchase the sefer?
                    Steve Brizel
                    Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com [mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
> There is an old story that goes back to the Gra that the Shaagas Aryeh became 
> famous after he apologized to all of the Rishonim and Achararonim upon whom 
> he asked very strong kashes. When did this happen?   .... However, the one 
> sefer that he deie not apologize to was the Levush because the Shaagas Aryeh 
> and many other Acharonim felt that there were no mkoros for many of his 
> psakim and svaros ( so heard on a tape from RHS). 
>     Therefore, why purchase the sefer?

Because mekoros have finally been printed.

Now that the mekoros for the Levush have been published, maybe the Shaagas
Aryeh will finally apologize!

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> However, the one 
> sefer that he deie not apologize to was the Levush because the Shaagas Aryeh 
> and many other Acharonim felt that there were no mkoros for many of his 
> psakim and svaros (so heard on a tape from RHS). 
>     Therefore, why purchase the sefer?

IMHO a Bakashas Mchila from the Lvush is in place!


> Now that the mekoros for the Levush have been published, maybe the Shaagas
> Aryeh will finally apologize!

I am troubled by this statement as well, have we become Shfot Hashoftim R"L.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 06:42:54PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote to
Areivim:
:       The Yeshiva in Passaic davens the same way. No shliach 
: tzibur until Yishtabach/Shochen Ad. MO/RW? Maybe. Except in 
: Israel I don't think there's a shliach tzibur before Yishtabach in 
: most of the DL shuls either. Certainly not in the Yeshivas.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> replied there:
> Beis Medrash Latorah, the Passaic Community Kollel, also has no sha"tz
> until Yishtabach. (But then, both were founded by the same person.)

> But I think it's a simple yeshiva thing. Not yeshivish, but the practive
> in yeshivos in particular. Once one has enough aveilim that the value
> of the extra kaddishin is greater than the value of being able to daven
> at one's own speed, the hanhagah will evaporate.

I believe the practice is not just (if at all) one of convenience. There
is more to it than that. The old minhag Ashkenaz is to have no kadish as
part of seder hatefilah before Yishtabach. Old Ashkenaz siddurim don't
have kaddish after braisa d'Ribi Yishmoel (of 13 middos shehaTorah
nidreshes bohen [tangent - a thought just came to me - are those 13
middos somehow kineged the 13 midos harachamim? How about this - Hashem
says {kivayaochol} to Klal Yisroel - im ata taamol bihasholosh esreh
shelochem, ani eeseh hashlosh esreh sheli] nor after Mizmor shir Chanukas
(which itself doesn't appear in old Ashkenaz siddurim). R. Mandel recently
briefly stated that saying mizmor shir chanukas before boruch sheamar
is al pi kabolah. To be more precise, siddur Eizor Eliyohu says that
both of the above are introductions al pi the haAR"I (adoneinu Rabbi
Yitzchok according to what I was taught-btw, how many were taught other
interpretations of that acronym?).

Anyway, perhaps part of the reason why certain Ashkenaz minyonim - in
yeshivas and elsewhere - are not sending up chazonim before yishtabach,
is because if chazonim would be up there, there would be a temptation
of people wanting to say kaddish before boruch sheamar that some say
that are not part of the old minhog Ashkenaz.

Also, perhaps, nireh laaniyus daati, that there is / was a resistance
in nusach Ashkenaz to adding new prayers and additional kaddeishim such
as the above pre boruch sheamar two. This resistance to multiplicity of
kaddeishim can be seen perhaps also in the old Ashkenazic custom (which is
now unfortunately almost disappeared it seems) that only one person says
kaddish at a time, not several people at once (the Sepharadic custom).

I believe Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l also wrote against 'ribbui kaddeishim' .
More recitations are not necessarily better. Tov miat bikavanah meharbos
bilo kavanah.

Mordechai

R' Carl Sherer wrote: <<< My wife actually found pasta(!) in the store
which had Shmura Matza Meal rather than regular (hashgacha - Star-K).
This is the first time I can recall seeing anything with this type of
hashgacha. >>>

This would be a perfect example of where the insistence/preference for
Shmura matza is based on the shmura having a smaller chashash chometz,
and not on any mitzvas achilas matza that might exist past the seder
(because cooked matza meal is posul for achilas matza).

Akiva Miller

This is a great VIDC, because the Ohr Samei'ach gives a R' Shimondike 
yishuv, and many of you were mechavein to the Brisker R' Elchonon 2:39. 
RCPS gives another answer, we'll get there, and there is a great Hungarian 
answer in the wings, based on the shitta that the TE brings down that when 
your wife R"L isa treifah, you are already permitted to marry her sister.

Obber. Rabbosai, mir daf kuken innerveinig und zen loshon ho''Rambam! (that 
means: one must look inside and see the Rambam's language).
"V'ein tzerichin misa" - what does that mean? Very strange. Be medayyek,,,

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

As far as permitting newly discovered grains, by claiming they were not
in the historical prohibition of kitniyot, i suggest reviewing the tshuva
of Chatam Sofer, O.C. # 121.

Stuart fischman

"Wolpoe, Richard" wrote:
> If the Shach ZTL were alive and well I would ask him to elaborate upon the
> following scenarios:
...
> 3) Tefillin shel Rashi. Hypothetically, if we found evidence in the Cairo
> Gniza that indicated Halachah keRabbeinu Tam in Tefillin, can we now change?

See the Rambam's tshuva to Chachmei Lunel.  He changed his mind about this
question based on the old tefillin he saw in EY.

David Riceman

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> Kehos (the Lubavitch publisher) has a book called Mekorei haRambam ro 
> something like that, which claims to have sources in Talmud and other earlier 
> sources for each psak in the Yad.  It doesn't have an author's name, so I 
> assume it was some kind of group effort.

R. Chaim Kaniefsky also wrote a similar book. However, the Frankel edition
of the Rambam pretty much made those books useless because its Mekoros
Vetziyunim does the same. I don't know that it needs to be said that
many of the mekoros for the Rambam are from the Yerushalmi or midrashim
that were lost. R. Menachem Mendel Kasher wrote a book called HaRambam
vehaMechilta deRashbi that shows this.

Gil Student

Phyllostac@aol:
> I believe the practice is not just (if at all) one of convenience. There
> is more to it than that. The old minhag Ashkenaz is to have no kadish as
> part of seder hatefilah before Yishtabach. Old Ashkenaz siddurim don't
> have kaddish after braisa d'Ribi Yishmoel.                   ... R. Mandel
> recently briefly stated that saying mizmor shir chanukas before boruch
> sheamar is al pi kabolah. To be more precise, siddur Eizor Eliyohu says
> that both of the above are introductions al pi the haAR"I.

> I believe Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l also wrote against 'ribbui kaddeishim'.
> More recitations are not necessarily better. Tov miat bikavanah meharbos
> bilo kavanah.

R. Mordechai is mostly right. The first two qaddishes in davening are late
innovations; look at the Tur and the SA who first mention qaddish by
Yishtabbah. I will go into this in more detail b'n in my posts on qaddish.
And it is certainly true that all of the g'dolim of previous times opposed
the customs of avelim seeking to say qaddish multiple times. Before RMF you
could quote the Orukh HaShulkhon and before him others.

However, there is one point here that seems to have been missed. This is
one of the minhogim of the Vilner Gaon that were adopted by virtually all
yeshivas. In the Ma'ase Rav he says that the ShaTz doesn't start until
yishtabbah. Not only did all the European yeshivos follow it, but the
talmidim of the Gro also made this standard in most Ashk'naz minyonim in EY
(explaining what R. Carl says), even though, like most Gro minhogim, in
America it is seen only in some yeshivas. This was one of the few things
that the Gro instituted in his minyan (as opposed to what he did personally)
that was against standard Ashk'naz practice. At least as far as I am aware
from citations of late rishonim and early aharonim, standard Ashk'naz shuls
had a ShaTz from birkhos hashahar who also read p'suqei d'zimra with the
qohol, usually responsively. There are many sources in the rishonim,
including the Rambam, for the Gro's minhog, but it was against standard
Ashk'naz practice in his day. The reason may be that he wanted to
discourage the saying of Mizmor Shir hanukkas and the qaddishes after it and
after qorbonos, i.e. precisely to uphold the older Ashk'naz custom; this has
been suggested not just by me but by several rabbonim, including R. Tuvia
Goldstein.

An interesting story about how RYBS handled this issue: he wanted his shul
to follow the Gro in this, but knew the balebatim expected a ShaTz for
p'suqei d'zimra, which also serves the function of letting late comers know
where the tzibbur is up to (you go to a yeshiva in EY on shabbos, everyone
is "up to" something else). So RYBS instituted that a young boy, preferably
well below bar mitzva, would serve as the ShaTz during p'suqei d'zimra on
shabbos and yontev, and he would stand at the bima, not the omud. This
would let everyone stay together, but it would also inculcate the knowledge
that this was not a full-fledged job for a ShaTz, just like putting the
ShaTz by the bima during qabbolas shabbos. Furthermore, it served the
purposes of hinnukh well, giving boys who were not ready to be real Sh'lihei
Tzibbur a chance to practice, much like many shuls do with An'im Z'miros.
Of course, by RYBS, we didn't say An'im Z'miros every shabbos (as is the
general custom in yeshivos), and even if we had I am doubtful whether RYBS
would have let a little boy say Shir haKavod, where there is no p'shat, only
sod.

Seth Mandel

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> The brokhos of p'suqei d'zimra are specifically on "shirei Dovid ben
> Yishai." This issue is raised by rishonim both in regard to how can Az
> Yashir be included in the brokhos...                             and
> whether any t'hillim that are said should not be included in the b'rokhos...
...
> For that reason, in Boston [RYBS] had us say Mimma'amaqim before yishtabbah
> or nishmas. That also prevents Mimma'amaqim from being a hesfeq between
> yishtabbah and yotzer, which the Rambam apparently does not consider to
> be a problem.

Can one not say that shir hamaalos mimaamakim is different as it is not a 
shir, rather more like a psalm of beseeching? Who says that all 'kapitlach' 
of Tehillim are classified as / called shir? 

Of course, I would say that the best way is not to recite these additions 
that were not part of nusach Ashkenaz originally - sticking with the minhog 
yoshon saves one from problems.

Mordechai

SM:
>  As RYBS pointed out, the common minhag Ashk'naz is a tartei d'satrei:
>  we include all the extra kappitlekh of shabbos inside the b'rokhos,
>  but when it comes to kappitlekh added 'al pi qabbolo, Mimma'amaqim on
>  Aseres Y'mei T'shuva, and Mizmor Shir Hanukkas HaBayis, we say them
>  outside the b'rokhos.

Mordechai:
>Can one not say that shir hamaalos mimaamakim is different as it is not a
>shir, rather more like a psalm of beseeching? Who says that all 'kapitlach'
>of Tehillim are classified as / called shir?

Please, R. Mordechai.  Dovid haMelekh himself called this one a shir!    Try 
your hilluqim elsewhere.  P'suqei d'zimrah on shabbos include psalms of 
beseeching as well as what you (but not Hazal) would classify as shir.  As I 
have said before, shir in Hazal and in the T'Nakh means a poem, not a song, 
and not a praise.

The fact is that the Ari added the kapitel to Nusah Sefard, and to Nusah 
Sefarad alone, where there was no tartei d'satrei.  The problems came, like 
with many things in nusah haAri, when people tried to graft them on to Nusah 
Ashk'naz, which the Ari did NOT daven.

Seth Mandel

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> In Y"D 328:1, the S"A's nusach for the berachah on hafrashas challah is
> "lehafrish terumah", while the Rama has "lehafrish challah". The Gra (sham)
> attributes the SA's shitah to loyalty to the lashon of the Torah, "reishis
> arisoseichem chalah tarimu terumah". While the Rama's berachah is in
> the lashon of Chazal.

A different thread discussed "minhag and minhag ta'us" - a famous minhag
(ta'us-?) is the bracha on hafroshos challah.
As RMB pointed out the Mechaber and Rama argue whether the bracha is
"lehafrish challah" or "lehafrish terumah" and we are noheg to add "min
ha'isa". The Taz doesn't understand why ladies added this detail -yet
everybody is noheg to say it.

mmb

RSM writes:
: The brokhos of p'suqei d'zimra are specifically on "shirei Dovid ben
: Yishai." This issue is raised by rishonim ...
: whether any t'hillim that are said should not be included in the b'rokhos...

The berachah of Yishtabach itself says it's on "shiros vesibechos
David..." (I just noted the semichus, "vesishbechos", not
"vesishbachos"). Baruch She'amar doesn't mention shiros at all in its
chasimah! It's on "Melech mehullal batishbachos" -- the verbs are hallel
and shevach.

I therefore could use more explanation of the shitah that would only
include shiros.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Come to the AishDas Yom Iyun on Avodas Hashem
micha@aishdas.org            Sunday,  April 29th 2001,  12:00 - 2:00pm  in
<http://www.aishdas.org>     Kew Gardens Hills, Queens NY!  For more info,
(973) 916-0287               see <http://www.aishdas.org/yomiyun.html>.

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


[ 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         ]