Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 096

Monday, September 3 2001

• Re: Wheelchair on Shabbos
• Wheelchair on Shabbos
• RE: Wheelchair on Shabbos
• RE: Wheelchair on Shabbos
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• www.chiefrabbi.org
• barekhu
• Re: barekhu
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Bor'KHU or BORkhu (was: Barekhu)
• responses during khazarat hasha"z
• Reading Rambam
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• RE: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: TSBP to be only BP in future?
• Re: Milchemet Mitzva in the time of Yehuda HaMaccabbee
• heart transplants
• Fwd: TSBP

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 01:22:45AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: It is a fact that R. Schwab was wheeled to shul on Shabbos w/o an Eruv
: It is a fact that it was a special heter for him as Rav...

I have trouble imagining the mechanics of that pesak. How does being
rav -- presumably some issue of tzarchei tzibbur -- factor in?

-mi

>     I recall learning that it is permissible to push someone in a
> wheelchair on Shabbos even in the absence of an eruv...

I recall reading something like this in Shmiras Shabbas, by R Nuewirth?
(Or perhaps it was that a person could push himself?).  I can look it up if
someone asks me.

The main qualification was that this could not be done in a rshus harabbim.

-- Eric

Rav Aharon Soloveitchick, shlita prohibits the use of a wheelchair on shabbos.

RMF permits one to wheel oneself in a wheelchair on Shabbat as he deems the 
wheelchair to be his Beged. I will BL"N check for the Teshuvah over the 
weekend (or rather over Shabbat, for the Chaim Berliners on the list).

L'Shanah Tovah TikaTeiv V'TeiChateim
Stuart Goldstein

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 01:14:14AM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: Going through Rav Schwab's sefer (Rav Schwab on Prayer - Artscroll), I
: noticed that he states that when Moshiach comes, Torah shebeal Peh (TSBP)
: will go back to being oral only - as it was before Rebbe allowed it to be
: written down due to 'eis la'asos...' (P.358 - ayin shom ba'arichus)

R' Tzadok Hakohen argues (not by name) on R' Nosson Adler who held eis 
la'asos in this case is only a dechuyah. He holds that it is now part and 
parcel of the mitzvah of kesivas Torah to write down TSBP.

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

Let's think about some practical considerations. I admit that I am
personally inclined towards the Rambam's psak, that nature will remain
unchanged in the days of Mashiach.

1. In order to go back to a real oral torah, we have to put into geniza
ALL of the existing sefarim (and electronic versions thereof) and shut
down the entire book publishing industry. Where will we find space for
such a massive geniza?

2. Since gedolei olam will come back to life, they can transmit to
us their own works without writing anything. But not every mechaber
sefer remembers absolutely everything he writes. They will need to keep
personal notes. So will yeshiva students. We will have "megillot setarim"
once more.

I guess I'm a bit skeptical about this idea. Regarding an Et Laasot that
becomes permanent, I would argu that when TSBP was first written down, it
was intended to be temporary. But subsequent realities made it impossible
to go back to true TSBP. In the gemara, you have cases of Amoraim who
had not heard a certain Mishna. Should we go back to that situation?
Perhaps this will be Siman Alef of Shut Melech Hamashiach (will that
tshuva be written down?), whose identity we will not debate here.

Daniel

I came across this website [www.chiefrabbi.org] and found it very
worthwhile. In particular there is a series of lectures by Rabbi J Sacks
concerning the philosophical essentials of Jewish Faith that deals with
some of the issues we've discussed from time to time. If anyone reads
these and would like to critique them, I'd love to hear their comments.

SS&kvct
Joel

With regard to D Banett's thoughtful (as usual post), just some addenda:

1) In the Breuer tanach, my understanding is that he deliberately used
shva na's even when most manuscript had hataf patachs in a non gronit.
This was because he believed (as D Banett concludes) that the sole
purpose of a hataf patach is to indicate that the shva is na (and, IIRC,
the pronounciation of most shva nas according to Ben Asher was closer
to a hataf patach than our current shva, although it varied depending
on its environment and surrounding vowels). However, today, most people
pronounce a hataf patach almost identically to a patach, rather than as
veryshort, so putting in a hataf pattach would cause a greater error.
There are some cases where even R Breuer uses a hataf patach for a non
gronit(from memory, I think ofthe word u zahav in parshat breshit (about
the ara neharrim in gan eden), where there is no other way to guarantee
that the zayin is a shva na.

2) In the appendix to the keter (Bar Ilan) edtion of mikraot gdolot
for yehoshua/shoftim, there is a long essay describing the problem.
They (IIIRc - it has been several years since I read it) believe that
there is a pronounciation difference, although it is quite subtle. .

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 8/31/2001 12:55:35pm EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> 2) In the appendix to the keter (Bar Ilan) edtion of mikraot gdolot
> for yehoshua/shoftim, there is a long essay describing the problem.
> They (IIIRc - it has been several years since I read it) believe that
> there is a pronounciation difference, although it is quite subtle. .

FWIW, in various German traslisterations of Chataf Patach have an A with a 
funny diacritical on top.

I can assume that at least since the 19th Century in Germany the Chataf 
Patach has been more like a patach than a Sheva albeit somewhat in between. 

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

In a message dated 8/30/2001 3:02:04pm EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> Going through Rav Schwab's sefer (Rav Schwab on Prayer - Artscroll), I 
> noticed that he states that when Moshiach comes, Torah shebeal Peh (TSBP) 
> will go back to being oral only - as it was before Rebbe allowed it to be 
> written down due to 'eis la'asos...' (P.358 - ayin shom ba'arichus)

AIUI, once A Sanhedrin is re-constituted they will be the Ikkar TSBP. See 
Rambam Mamrim 1:1 that says the original Sanhedrin was the ikkar TSBP

AIUI we would have a Bayis Sheini model, and that all TSBP since churban 
Bayis Sheini would no longer be binding. It would be like going back to year 
70 as if there were no churban.  

What we have NOW is RYBZ's interim model a provisional goverment in exile of 
sorts...

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

<From: "D. and E-H. Bannett"
I've been waiting quietly for at least one of the list's experts to supply
an answer to RYGB's question concerning the use of chataf patach in the
reish of Barekhu in the Roedelheim siddurim..... What is better than a
quote from ben Asher himself (Baer-Strack edition, Siman 14): Yesh Sofrim,
davar emet morim, v'nus'chei yesharim, bimkomot rabim korim k'gon ... and
then follows a list of words with chataf kamatz ion non-groniot... v'yesh
Sofrim acherim, ein kamatz chataf korim, v'nas'chei yesharim k'gon ...and
then the same list with sh'va alone... ukh'mohem rabim, v'ein l'davar
zeh shoresh ki im birtzon haSofrim. ...What interests us is ben Asher's
comment that the Sofrim can do as they wish. Some put in the chataf,
some don't. Both are correct! >

I would like to offer a few minor corrections and expansions to
R. bannett's fine review. (Indeed I feel i've entered a deja vu do loop as
i was similarly inspired to respond back in vol 4 when the subject came
up previously. I will be immodest enough to refer the few (but elite --
this is admittedly an acquired taste) interested readers to my note in
4:442 for some expanded remarks on the entire subject).

First a note on the Baer-Strack edition. that R. Bannett quotes from (BTW
I believe he forgot to mention that we're talking about their edition
of Diqduqei Hattamim, attributed to ben asher in the opening sentence.
which modern scholarship has questioned but in any event is one of the
oldest masoretic works around). This edition was published in 1879 and
is presently very badly dated. There have been many other manuscript
sources surfaced in the intervening years and their published girsoh,
and analysis, is considered highly m'shubosh today. I would suggest that
you might want to consult instead Dotan's scientific edition published
almost a hundred years later. Thus Rbannett's assertion that <...Note
that this Siman is in rhyme which is evidence that it is "original"
ben Asher and not interpolation of later scribes.> is in fact directly
contradicted by Dotan's analysis.

R Bannett writes: <In the archives you will find a posting on the sound
of the sh'va na' and that the T'veryan pronunciation of the sh'va na
was usually a very mild, weak "ah" sound, a slight patach sound> This
statement is partially true, but needs to be qualified. Indeed i've
already done so in my previous response (4:442) and i am quite mystified
why such a riveting response about such exciting material should have
faded from memory so quickly. In any event, when a sh'voh preceeded a
g'ronis, it took on the sound of the vowellization of the g'ronis. Before
a consonental chiriq, it took on the sound of a chiriq. In the middle of
words it was often pronounced as a noch, even following a t'nuoh g'doloh.

RDB: <But how did ben Asher himself want RYGB to pronounce Barekhu?> As
to how Ben Asher would have wanted us to pronounce things (and set aside
for the moment that nobody does -- or should -- lein according to the
directions of the ba'alei mesoroh.) R. Bannett quotes lines indicating
that the non-guttural chatafs were put in as optional devices, according
to the style and whim of the individual sof'rim and so there is clearly no
right or wrong associated with it. R. Bannett also recalls that, in this
connection, the question of "mordochai" was thrashed through previously.
i would only add the following addendum to remarks I made previously
(4:442) on this subject. the very quote that R. bannett brings down from
diqduqei hattaamim which articulates the optional nature of the chataf,
specifically mentions mord'chai (i.e. no chataf) as the preference of
some sof'rim, i.e either is fine. How more authentic a source can we get.

As for the specific question which precipitated this go-round,
the appearance of the chataf in bor'khu in the roedelheim siddur,
This is a red harring (or considering the source, make that a pickled
liverwust). As R. banett has remarked the chataf accompanying a sh'voh
noh is quite optional.
 The real question is why that sh'voh under the reish is considered noh
at all. Here we may again draw upon diqduqei hattamim which specifically
discusses the B-R-Kaf verbs. (shaar 21). In short, if the accent (and
taam) appears on the final syllable (as it most often does), the sh'voh
under the reish is noh (as in roedelheim and indeed all other siddurim
which mark the noh (at least according to their own determinations),
including artscroll, and the chataf is quite optional. However, when the
accent is retracted -- appearing under the beis and before the reish, the
sh'voh is indeed noch (as it is in divrei hayyomim 1, 29:20, or yirmiyoh
4:2)and of course no chataf is possible. The printers of siddurim,
it seems to me have pretty arbitrarily decided to embrace the noh with
the accent on the last syllable (bor'KHU) as opposed to the noch version
(BORkhu) but there does not seem to be any compelling reason to pick one
choice over the other as both forms are attested in tanach. So don't go
correcting the ba'al t'filoh on that one.

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

In many adut hamizrach minyans, people say things during the repetition
of the Amidah; things like l'bracha when the SZ says morid hatal.

Given that the SA explicitly says that during the repetition one is to
say nothing except amen, kedushah etc, what is the source for saying
these phrases?

> I'm not too sure that in a world in which science was "natural philosophy"
> there was a clear difference between empirical observations and a priori
> propositions. They were all postulates. Certainly the opening of cheilek
> beis of the Moreh mixes the two into a single list.

> What I'm suggesting is that in that worldview "scientific theory"
> and "philosophical stance" weren't clearly divisible concepts. Is the
> separation of essence vs attribute the former or the latter?

But when the Rambam gets down to work with these postulates, when
he discusses the existence of G-d and creation ex nihilo, he is very
much aware of the distinctions between logic and scientific theory and
observation. The unclarity is viewed by many of Rambam's contemporary
academic students as deliberate, and as evidence that Rambam was skeptical
about the capacities of reason, that he valued the insights of philosophy
at some level, but was committed to what some of the commentators call
"mysticism" at the deepest level.

In a message dated 8/31/01 12:55:16pm EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> R' Tzadok Hakohen argues (not by name) on R' Nosson Adler who held eis 
> la'asos in this case is only a dechuyah. He holds that it is now part and 
> parcel of the mitzvah of kesivas Torah to write down TSBP.
 
By what mechanism did R' Tadok understad that this become part of a mitzvah 
duraita?

SS
Joel

> AIUI, once A Sanhedrin is re-constituted they will be the Ikkar TSBP. See
> Rambam Mamrim 1:1 that says the original Sanhedrin was the ikkar TSBP

> AIUI we would have a Bayis Sheini model, and that all TSBP since churban
> Bayis Sheini would no longer be binding. It would be like going back to year
> 70 as if there were no churban.

But the quote is discussing two separate issues. If the newly
re-constructed Sanhedrin becomes the ikkar TSBP, why would that indicate
that their rulings would be only oral? Where is it written that even
if all psak since Bayis Shani were no longer binding we would have only
oral ruling by the Sanhedrin when it is reconstructed?

One of the reasons that this seems a bit unlikely to me at least for a long
time after the coming of Moshiach is that for at least a certain amount of
time, especially if we hold by Rambam's writings on the process of Geula, is
that the bria is not supposed to miraculously change and you will have quite
a lot of ba'alei tshuva who are not going to be capable of passing anything
down orally and you would have to have enough people who are capable of
*Accurately* passing down this huge volume of oral material to the next
generation(s). This sounds suspiciously like why there was an ait la'asot in
the first place...

I think that you will be able to get psak by e-mail or internet when the
Sanhedrin is reconstructed. :-)

-Rena

Mordechai wrote:
>Also, it is stated in Sorei Hameioh by R. Y.L. Maimon that R. Nosson
>Adler (rebbe of the Chasam Sofer) used to write some type of cryptic
>dots to help him remember TSBP for the same reason, instead of regular
>notes.

When R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes finished his Toras Nevi'im, he sent a personal 
copy to the Chasam Sofer.  In the introduction, the Maharatz Chajes wrote 
that he knew that some hateful people would write criticisms of his book but 
that he only wrote his book with proper kavanos.  In the Chasam Sofer's 
reply to the Maharatz Chajes which included hasagos, published in the back 
of Toras Nevi'im with a rejoinder and in Shu"t Chasam Sofer O"C 208 (the 
last teshuvah), the Chasam Sofer writes that the heter to write down TSBP is 
only if it is done with the proper kavanos.  Someone who writes down TSBP 
with improper kavanos, such as those the Maharatz Chajes was expecting to 
attack him, violate a biblical prohibition of writing down TSBP.  [I did not 
see any veiled implication that either the Maharatz Chajes or the Chasam 
Sofer had improper intentions.]

This seems to work well with the report about R. Nosson Adler, the Chasam 
Sofer's rebbe.

Gil Student

In a message dated 8/31/2001 12:55:44pm EDT, qumran@optonline.net  writes:
> 1. In order to go back to a real oral torah, we have to put into geniza
> ALL of the existing sefarim (and electronic versions thereof) and shut
> down the entire book publishing industry. Where will we find space for
> such a massive geniza?

> 2. Since gedolei olam will come back to life, they can transmit to
> us their own works without writing anything. But not every mechaber
> sefer remembers absolutely everything he writes. They will need to keep
> personal notes. So will yeshiva students. We will have "megillot setarim"
> once more.

AIUI,  these books will no longer be AUTHORITATIVE TSBP. They might become 
mnemonic guides, but the authority will reside in Beis Din Hagadol not in 
texts. Or IOW it's not that the books will disappear, rather that they will 
be superseded by a newly constituted institution {i.e. the Sanhedrin}  which 
might or might not rely on publishing.  IOW maybe printed texts will not be 
superceded by Oral Texts but by cyber texts <smile>.

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

Rabbanit Boublil wrote:
>a) If this is a Milchemet Mitzva -- why would anyone be sent home?
>b) If it was halacha to send them home -- why did he wait till the battle 
>of Emaus and he didn't send them home before the previous battles?

The rav of my shul, R. Yisrael Hirsch, quoted the book of Maccabees over 
Shabbos and implied that he had studied it be'iyun.  So after ma'ariv I 
asked him this question.

He offered two possible answers.  One was that, since this was not for 
kibush Eretz Yisrael, this was not a milchemes mitzvah.  The land was 
already conquered.  Granted, there was a mitzvah of self-defense.  But this 
might only have been a mitzvah of pikuach nefesh, and not one of milchemes 
mitzvah.  I added that there was not even a need of self-defense because the 
Greeks did not necessarily want to kill anyone.

The second answer, and the one that he thought was better, is that this was 
a milchemes mitzvah and the chasanim etc. did not need to be sent home.  
However, this was one of many symbolic acts that the Chashmonaim did to 
raise the profile of Torah and make sure that everyone knew what they were 
fighting for.  It was an attempt to highlight that these soldiers were 
fighting for Torah values.

Gil Student

I was told this morning that some time ago Rav Tendler retracted his
position regarding brain death and the possiblity of allowing heart
transplants.

Is this true?

I was doing some research and found the gemora in temurah 14a of great
interest. Unless I'm missing something(quite likely the case) it seems
clear that the issue of not writing down TSBP was still controversial
in the time of the amoraim. This would seem to be against the school of
thought that the issur was hutra. Comments?

Kt
Joel

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


[ 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         ]