Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 021

Thursday, October 18 2001

• Re: Amein after Berachot
• Subject: hefsek
• Re: messiras nefesh
• Re: shofar
• Re: shofar
• RE: Of Arks and Rainbows
• Re: Of Arks and Rainbows
• Re: Subject: hefsek
• Subject: hefsek
• Re: Birchas habonim
• yuhara
• Re: Piyut terminology
• Sukkah out of this world.
• Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• Re: Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• Re: Sukka on Shmini Atzeret--Late Rishonim
• re: shofar
• Re: Birchas habonim
• Birchas habonim - by mothers
• Re: Birchas habonim
• varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family member
• Re: Subject: hefsek
• Re: messiras nefesh
• Re: WTC tragedy

SGoldstein persists:
> What do people say ...?

Would they say "Omain" in such cases if the statement was inaudible?!
Even if they did, do you really think the CC (in the BH you quoted)
was referring to such situations?!

If you have further thoughts on this matter, please send them privately
-- you or I can post a public summary, if necessary, once our discussion
is complete. Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I am curious about the nigun many shuls sing during Birchas Kohanim
: before the last word of each beracha.  When did this begin?  Why is this
: neither a hefsek in the beracha itself or in the keria from the sh"tz? 

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> It's there to give the kehillah time to say the tefillos. As to why
> /they/ aren't hefsekim -- I have no idea. 

My grandfather a"h told me that this is why they never 
sing during Birchas Kohanim in Bluzhev.

KT
Sender baruch

On 17 Oct 2001, at 11:11, SBA wrote:
> But couldn't one learn punkt farkert from this story? That one was maybe
> punished for not following the simple accepted halochos both legabei
> 'mitstaar' and not sleeping in the Sukka on SA?

Actually, despite the fact that I ate in the Sukka on SA when we lived
in chutz la'aretz, I was specifically told NOT to sleep in the Sukka
on SA. That may have had to do with the fact that I never slept in the
Sukka in the US (and the only time it was an issue here was when I was
here as a bochur and holding two days of Yom Tov). But I was told (and
I don't recall by whom) that SLEEPING in the Sukka really did look like
bal tosif and therefore should not be done.

-- Carl

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.

On 16 Oct 2001, at 13:01, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The question is what to blow during shemonei esrei.
> 1. The Rif and others give an abbreviated set with the explanation of
> tircha de-tzibbura

> I don't know how long davening took for the Rif but in my shul it was
> about 5 hours and I find it hard to believe that another few seconds of
> shofar would make a difference

I don't think it's a question of length of davening as much as it's
the tircha of trying to coordinate reaching the end of Malchuyos
(particularly), Zichronos and Shofros together with the Tzibur. In
our shul they announced "35 minutes Tfilla b'Lachash" before Tkiyos.
Imagine if you also had to concern yourself with "20 minutes to Malchuyos,
26 minutes to Zichronos and 32 minutes to Shofros!"

When I was a child, I davened on RH in a shul where the minhag was to
blow during Tfilla b'Lachash, and timing it so that you reach Malchuyos
exactly when the Baal Tkiya is going to blow is not easy.

> 2. Our custom today is blow a complete set 10 at malchiot, zichronot and
> shofrot. This is based on the Arukh who was followed by the Gra and baal
> haTanya against the SA.

> This seems to be one of several cases where most people follow the
> Gra/baal Hatanya against SA. First is it pure coindicence that these
> two seem to agree on many halachic issues against the stream or was baal
> haTanya aware of the psak of the Gra?

IIRC we have discussed before why the Gra and the Baal HaTanya actually
agree in many of their psakim (see, for instance, zman Kriyas Shma).

-- Carl

> I don't think it's a question of length of davening as much as it's the 
> tircha of trying to coordinate reaching the end of Malchuyos 
> (particularly), Zichronos and Shofros together with the Tzibur...

Sorry, I was not clear. The Rif and other Rishonim are discussing the
shofar during the shemonei esrei of the chazan. Even then they applied
tircha detzibburah.

I noticed that R. Chaim Soloveitchik held like the Arukh that shofar
should also be blown during the private shemonei esrei. However,
in Brisk they did not do it because RCS was afarid that in a big shul
people would talk (during the silent SE on RH !!) while waiting.

KT
Eli Turkel

[From me -mi]:
> There is a famous Rashi on the words of the first verse of this week's
> parashah. "Noach was a whole man in his generation." (Ber' 6:9) Rashi
> notes two interpretations of this comment...

Very nice dvar. Only one comment/question. This may sound obvious to
everyone else, but not to me.

Why do you translate ish tzaddik tamim hayah b'dorotav as a complete
man? My daughter said she also learned it in school as shalem, but it
always seemed to me to be more accurate to translate tamim as a pure man
in his generation, as this is what Rashi is discussing -- whether he was
only pure in comparison to his surroundings or if he would have even
been praiseworthy in the time of Avraham Avinu. My copy of the linear
translation of chumash w/Rashi translates it as "Noah was a man righteous
and wholehearted", which also implies goodness and not shlaimus. I'm
not understanding exactly how the word "whole" fits in with this idea,
as he could have been wholly bad as well as wholly good.

---Rena

On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 08:52:04PM +0200, Rena Freedenberg wrote:
: Why do you translate ish tzaddik tamim hayah b'dorotav as a complete
: man? ...

Because there is no short good translation.

"Tamim" is lashon rabim for the same word used as the antonym of ba'al
mum, so I went with that.

"Tam" is also used someone who is uncomplicated -- be it the 3rd son
of the hagaddah, or someone who is uncomplicated because he is fully
committed to a single, laudable, ideal. Such as "Ya'aqov ish tam yosheiv
ohalim".

: always seemed to me to be more accurate to translate tamim as a pure man
: in his generation...

This better fits the second sense, but then makes the pasuq look like the
word was "tahor".

:                                                 "Noah was a man righteous
: and wholehearted", which also implies goodness and not shlaimus. I'm
: not understanding exactly how the word "whole" fits in with this idea,
: as he could have been wholly bad as well as wholly good.

I don't think the word "tamim" means "wholly good". Again, as per the
third son.

I like "wholehearted" as it preserves the similarity to sheleimus while
indicating the difference. I changed the web page accordingly.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>> It's there to give the kehillah time to say the tefillos. As to why
>> /they/ aren't hefsekim -- I have no idea. 

From: Sender Baruch  
> My grandfather a"h told me that this is why they never sing during
> Birchas Kohanim in Bluzhev.

Why should it be a Hefsek ? The Sh"tz may sing nigunim wherever he likes.
Even if the Kohanim have a somewhat different mandate, there are no
words in the special Nigun the Kohanim sing. As Micha pointed out, time
is needed for the Hatavat Chalomot so the alternative would be to remain
silent and wait, which IMHO, is closer to a Hefsek than singing.

As it happens, I davened in Bluzhev for several-many years and although
the "old-timers" believed the Hefsek reason, the unspoken understanding
of everyone else was that they would duchen even on Shabbat as long as
they didn't have to "waste time" saying the Ribono Shel Olam.

Stuart Goldstein

I wrote - 
"My grandfather a"h told me that this is why they never sing during
Birchas Kohanim in Bluzhev."

But my brother reminds me that what my grandfather actually said was
that they don't sing because they don't say the tephilos in between

Sorry
Sender Baruch

SBA wrote:
>I have [off-line] mentioned to RMP my bewilderment at chassidim and others 
>who do not 'bench' their children of Friday evenings. This minhag is 
>mentioned (amongst others) by RY Emden z'l saying his father [the Chacham 
>Zvi} had this practice. The Otzar Hatefilos Siddur [p 624] also brings a 
>number of sources and reasons for this. It strongly condemns those fools 
>who have a minhag shtus' in not benching their offspring calling it 'midas 
>atzlus bepituy hayetzer' etc etc.. ayen shom

I don't understand. All that you have are some late authorities who say
they have that minhag and try to give a reason for it. If someone comes
from a community that does not bentch their children on Friday evenings,
why should they have to defend their minhag? Meheicha teise that there
is a chiyuv other than some drushim?

Off the top of my head, here's a defense. Shabbos is not a time for
bakashos. Hence, we don't say avinu malkeinu, the weekday shemoneh esreh
and, at least in minhag HaGra, harachamans in birkas hamazon.

Gil Student

>> "I heard from Rav Mordechai regarding his great grandfather, the Gaon Rav
>> Dovid zt"l, that he slept in the sukkah one leil shemini atzerres when
>> it was extremely cold and from this he became ill with a lung infection.
>> Within six days, he had died. Rav Moshe saw this as messiras nefesh for
>> the mitzva and saw it as an example to himself l'hakpid al zeh".

> But couldn't one learn punkt farkert from this story? That one was maybe
> punished for not following the simple accepted halochos both legabei
> 'mitstaar' and not sleeping in the Sukka on SA?

> And would a Mr Average (I am not asking questions about gedolei yisroel
> doing their own thing) get a s'char or onesh for risking his life for
> a mitzva that he is really potur from doing?

In fact in daf yomi we see that they were willing to put people in
cherem for doing deeds that are not usually done except when the person
was exceptionally known as a chasid. Thus, IMHO, any gadol who takes on
unusual chumrot has to take on himself that he as that level of piety
that yuhara does not apply.

I continually read (especially in gedolim books) about all sorts of
chumrot that gedolim did go against standard practice.

The most famous is several gedolim in EY who kept a second day of yomtov
with regard to not doing melacha. I have heard other chumrot involving
questionable shatnez even when pikuach nefesh was involved. Others have
kept some of the customs in the Gemara that are based on segulot that
have generally fallen into disuse.

Eli Turkel

Just to add a bit to the Yotzer, Ofan, Zulas, Krovetz....already
mentioned: The piyyutim between the ofan and zulat are called M'ora
and Ahava. And, ignoring the Kol rina vishua of the Krovetz, they were
usually called k'rovos.

K"T,
David

Concerning the many postings that mentioned the "fact" that the brakha
on the sukka is usually made only when eating and quote from pos'kim
that this is the custom of "kol ha'olam":

There are still older generation Yemenites who follow their ancient
customs, usually 'al pi haRambam. When they visit my sukka, they stop
in the doorway and make a leisheiv basukkah. No connection with eating.
They say simply that the start of "living" in the sukka takes place on
entering and the brakha is oveir la'asiya.

K"T,
David

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> Unfortunately, the Nitei Gavriel and the Minhog Yisruel Toyro are part
> of the problem.

The problem is the minhag - not the seforim that try to explain it.

> They blithely...

"blithely"??
They bring all sources pro and con. Isn't that darko shel Torah
and something that any self-respecting mechaber would do?

>                       ...quote the minority sources that ate at
> night in the house, but in the sukka during the day, as support for
> the chasidishe custom of not eating in the sukka at all.

They bring the pro sources as well, even though there really is no need
for that as it a clear halocho in shas uposkim.

> If you look up their sources you will see this is the case. I will be
> charitable and say that they did not read their sources 
> carefully; anyone who did would be guilty of spreading falsehoods.

The NG actually in his 12 page tsuva sub-heads it by stating that
the minhag of not eating in the Sukka is "neged psak hagemoro
mefureshes...v'chen posak haRif, Rambam, Tur, SA and al pi kabolo.

So he cannot be accused of hiding anything but rather doing his best to
explain the minhag.

V'al kulom the NG in the main body of his sefer (Chapter 83:1) states
clearly that in ChL one eats in the Sukka both night and day using - in
his notes - the SA as his source and only there mentions minhag chasidim
who don't.

> <It seems that the most serious source for this minhag is the Korban
> Nesanel although the practice was known well before his time.>

> The Korbon N'sanel was not m'haddesh a minhog, or paskening against the
> SA and R'Mo. His explanation is mufrakh minneh uveh, bimhilo of his kovod,
> since he mentions EY as well as Bovel.

According to the NG there is a dispute on pshat in the KN with the Meshiv
Tzedek [by RZ Hacohen] using it as a rayoh for the 'no's'.

> <IIRC there is some mention of half in the sukka and half in the house>

> Not in the early sources,

NG brings this minhag from Rav Eizik Tirno who writes that although
this is not mentioned anywhere - "...avol li (=RET) nireh rayoh berura
miMidrash Tanchuma Parshas Pinchos... "

NG says however, that Taz and MA reject this (...as does RSM...)

And - I just noticed this - NG quotes - that well known chossid <g> -
the Oruch Hashulchon (668:5) - which seems to explain minhag chasidm -
ayin shom..

>                        ...unless you mean at night in the house and
> during the day in the sukka (again, only a minority, with no support
> from the Posqim).

But you do admit (Modeh bemiktzas...?) that there was a minority -
which simply proves that even befores Chasidus - it wasn't so clear cut
(ie that all meals were in the Sukka).

And that is, LAD, what the NG (and similarly Minhag Yisroel Torah) is
trying to prove - that it is not simply a Ch/M difference. After all,
the Tur brings this minhag and even though he concludes 'veino minhag',
it clearly shows that it existed. (And RSM is the last person who needs
to be told that Sefer Hapardes leRashi, Machzor Vitri, Maharil etc were
prior to the BaShT.)

Incidentally, amongst the approx dozen pre-chasidus seforim mentioned in
NG quoting this minhag - he includes the Revid Hazohov which mentions
'Maaseh deRashi Rosh Mishpachtenu' as a reason for not eating there at
night. (I think that RSM previously claimed that to be a fairy tale?)

(NG also quotes the Hakdomo to Kikoyon deYonah and seems to infer that
he did not eat in the Sukkah on SA - at all (?). If correct, then AFAIK,
that is the only source for a 'total ban'.)

SBA

Unfortunately, R. SBA misunderstood my complaint. I was not complaining
about the existence of the chasidisher minhog, althogh it is against
shas and poskim, nor was I accusing the Nitei Gavriel and Minhog Yisruel
Toyro of ignoring the SA and poskim that the minhog is wrong. What I did
say is that the effect of the Nitei Gavriel and Minhog YT is to spread
misinformation about the source of the minhog.

I have said and will say again: there was an old minority practice,
condemned by the Poskim, among some families and groups not to eat in
the Sukka the night of Shmini Atzeres. I never claimed that was a fairy
tale. The minhog was around at the time of Rashi and mentioned by his
talmidim, and although they do not attribute the minhog to Rashi, other
later sources claim that Rashi did follow that custom.

What IS a fairy tale is that that custom is the source of the chasidisher
minhog of not eating in the sukka at all, either in the night or the day
(except for possibly making kiddush in the day). All the early sources
who bring the custom stress that the whole purpose of not eating at
night in the sukka was to make a hefsek SO THAT you can eat there during
the day. I do not write to these lists to vilify or justify minhogim.
I write to explain certain issues and correct misconceptions about Torah,
ki hi hayyenu. The guilt of the NG and MYT is that they bring the old
minhog as a justification of the chasidisher minhog, and that is not
the case. Either through oversight or through not carefully checking
the sources, they are spreading misinformation. I never accused them
of supporting or not supporting the minhog, and whether they condemn
it or not is not my concern. The Orukh Hashulkhan is a separate issue.
As is well known, he was a Litvak but served as rov in a Lyubaviche town.
He tries to find sources and justify all chasidishe minhogim that he is
aware of.

Seth Mandel

On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:25:11PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: I was thinking about this question on Yom Tov: Since we in galus sit in
: the sukka on day 1 of Shimini Atzeres then why do we not defer Geshem
: to day 2 - iow Simchas Torah?

Wouldn't it be for the same reason we don't defer for the returning
olei regel -- because it's shevach, not baqashah?

As for the idea of mentioning rain at a time when it would be an insult
to our sitting in the Succah... I'm sure the Master would prefer His
servant not be chayav in Succah on Sh"A.

-mi

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< The Rif and others give an abbreviated set with
the explanation of tircha de-tzibbura. I don't know how long davening
took for the Rif but in my shul it was about 5 hours and I find it hard
to believe that another few seconds of shofar would make a difference >>>

Was the Rif talking about shofar during the silent tefila? If so, then
the tircha might not be related to what time people would get home,
but the difficulty of timing the silent tefila at a speed which would
reach the tekios at the appropriate spot.

All else being equal (which, of course, its not) I much prefer saying
the Rosh Hashana Musaf at my own speed, not caring what the rest of the
shul is up to, rather than trying to end my Malchuyos at the same time
as the Tokea.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 10/17/2001 5:55:22pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> I don't understand. All that you have are some late authorities who say
> they have that minhag and try to give a reason for it. If someone comes
> from a community that does not bentch their children on Friday evenings,
> why should they have to defend their minhag? Meheicha teise that there
> is a chiyuv other than some drushim?

Once I was struggling to explain that Breuer's does not say Avinu Malkeinu
on Ta'anis Tzibbur - they say it only on 10 dyas of Teshuva

My friend was looking for a specific reason why Breue'rs omitted it
instead of presuming - as I did - that they never saw a chiyyuv in the
first place.

Point? Many many people are conditioned by prevailing minhaggim to
presume they are universal w/o even thinking there may be competing
models of when to do or say X - unless they have been exposed to it.

Or IOW, most people will not realize what is universal and what is peculiar 
unless and until they move in for at least a year with a kehilla that does 
things quite diffrerently.
 
Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> My wife picked up the Yekke minhag of BOTH parents bentching the kids
> from her sister who is married to a Yekke. I'm not sure if there is any
> halachic reason behind the minhag.

I have heard about Yekkes doing this.

The KSA [131:16] writes that it is a minhag for both fathers and mothers 
to bentch their children on Erev YK. 
But I don't know of any mother who actually does so.

SBA

SBA wrote:
>Chacham Zvi, RY Emden, Maavar Yabok (etc -I don't have the seforim with
>me at the moment) are indeed authorities - but I doubt if they invented 
>this minhag. It has probably been around for a long long time.

It is certainly not surprising that the Chacham Tzvi and RY Emden had the 
same minhag since they were father and son.

>(Didn't Yaakov Ovinu say - Becho yevorech Yisroel...)

Every Friday night?

>The OH and RYE siddurim bring reasons - aderaba - davka beShabbos.

I looked up the Otzar HeTefillos and let's face it, these are ex post facto 
reasons.  One that struck me was that because of the stress of the week we 
are likely to curse our children so on Shabbos and Yom Tov, when we are 
happy, we bless them.  Come on.  This is obviously an attempt to justify a 
minhag (and there's nothing wrong with that).  RY Emden seems to just say 
"there's a big inyan" without discussing it.  He was probably referring to 
something kabbalistic, which then leaves me surprised that the Yekkishe 
community still does it.

Gil Student

I would like to raise the issue of the neiros lit right before Shabbos
(usually by women) in Jewish homes....

The old minhog IIRC, AFAIK, is that two neiros are lit - one each kineged
Zochor and Shomor.

Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
one candle for each child.

By the way, what do Sepharadim, 'Yekkes', Oberlanders, Yemenites, other
eidos do? Light just two or add for each child?

Anyway, I have observed among some noshim whose mother lit only two
neiros, that they have changed / abandoned that minhog and add an
additional neir per child, leading to a group of neiros instead of two.

I think that it may be due (at least in part - directly and / or
indirectly) to Lubavitch / hassidic influence.

A few questions and comments -

1) Have others observed the same phenomenon? How widespread is it?

2) Does the adding of more candles not denigrate / eliminate the zochor
vishomor symbolism?

3) Are people allowed to change / abandon their ancestral minhog just
because they may think that 'more candles look nicer', or something of
the sort?

4) I think / suspect that increased affluence, the modern consumer
economy, easy availability of inexpensive packaged products, etc.,
making the addition of neiros easier, definitely is playing a role here.

5) Also perhaps involved is the common belief that 'more is better' -
in contrast to the Jewish teaching that 'kol hamosif goreia'.

Comments please.....

Mordechai

On 18 Oct 01, at 3:39, stugold@juno.com wrote:
> Why should it be a Hefsek ? The Sh"tz may sing nigunim wherever he likes.
> Even if the Kohanim have a somewhat different mandate, there are no
> words in the special Nigun the Kohanim sing. As Micha pointed out, time
> is needed for the Hatavat Chalomot so the alternative would be to remain
> silent and wait, which IMHO, is closer to a Hefsek than singing.

I think when he said that they don't sing he meant that the Kehilla 
also does not say the tfilla (for hatavat chalom or parnassa as the 
case may be).

-- 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.

On the subject of R' Dovid Feinstein, who became ill and died from
sleeping in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres, and his son R' Moshe Feinstein,
who took this as a positive example of mesiras nefesh --

R' SBA asked <<< But couldn't one learn punkt farkert from this story?
That one was maybe punished for not following the simple accepted halochos
both legabei 'mitstaar' and not sleeping in the Sukka on SA? >>>

I had written a post making exactly that same point. But before hitting
"send", I thought about it some more, and realized that I drew the wrong
conclusions from this story.

One who goes to the sukkah in the rain is a chasid shoteh, but in the
cold one can wear extra coats. If one feels comfortable enough -- and
this is a very subjective thing, not quantifiable like rain -- then one
goes to the sukkah. Just because R' Dovid *caught* a cold doesn't mean
that he *felt* the cold. It is reasonable to presume (and, I believe,
we are *required* to presume) that if R' Dovid felt the cold to be a
health concern, then he would have gone inside.

Similarly, the story as related in Avodah does *not* say that R' Moshe
learned from this that one should be willing to literally give his life
for the mitzvah of sleeping in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres. That would
be absurd. I think the story can be understood as teaching that one should
be willing to put up with the cold for the mitzvah, no more than that.

Personally, I try to eat nothing outside the sukkah on the first seven
days. And sometimes I get pretty hungry. But my feeling for the mitzvah
of sukkah is such that I am willing to put up with *some* hunger for
the sake of the mitzvah. But sometimes there is no sukkah available,
and the hunger starts interfering with Simchas Yom Tov, and when I reach
that point I eat (mutar foods, of course) as needed. This, I suspect,
is the lesson to learn from R' Dovid. Not to go crazy or ill, but to be
willing to put up with some discomfort.

Akiva Miller

Various people have been writing things like:

<<< The conclusion that God caused (Has veShalom) the WTC atrocity to
happen makes a mockery of E-l rachum veHanun... >>>
<<< But to say that He had nothing to do with it is to deny Hashem's
hashgacha in this world, >>>
<<< The other two pesukim you bring to help you, are also proofs farkert. >>>

I've been trying to follow this discussion, but I've gotten very lost.
I'm wondering if the differences of opinion might be slight or
nonexistent. If the participants might take a moment to summarize and
restate their positions, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]