Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 003

Tuesday, September 10 2002

• Re: Changes in studying Hashkofa
• Re: My 9/11 Miracle, More Or Less
• Re: FW: Changing Paths, not Just Deeds
• Re: Seawood for Sechach
• Re: Why teach the other opinions?
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Pants
• Why teach the other opinions
• Pants
• Re: CY and CA
• Re: CY and CA
• Re: Lo bashamayim
• Re: TShN
• Re: liDovid Hashem Ori....not universally recited in Ellul-Tishrei
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Taz on daughter wedding present
• RE: wedding dates and halacha
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items

At 02:51 AM 9/4/02 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
...
>Are there any other sources which talk about changes in learning hashkofa
>and the rationale behind them?

I recently was listening to a tape which began with the speaker citing
of Rav Schach having interrupted a shiur klali to note that the reason
bochurim were going off the derech was that yeshivos did not teach
enough emunah, and that must change. I was very pleasantly surprised at
this "news" and was eager to herar it expanded. The speaker, however
twisted this statement into a plug for emunah peshutah (the emunah of
"The zaydes and the bobbes" - I thought my zayde and bobbeh actually
had pretty intellectual forms of emunah ;-) )! Thus, even after a plug
from Rav Schach, the inbred resistance in the mekabbel is capable of
over coming the obvious message.

Kol Tuv, Gemar Chasimah Tovah,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 03:11:35PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> RAK moots the question. Since modern conceptions of teva are
:> non-deterministic, saying that man is subject to teva doesn't 
:> deny that he is simultaneously subject to HP.

: Perhaps you could elaborate.  The way I understand RAK is that Hashem is
: subtlely influencing nature through the non-deterministic aspect of nature.

Exactly. Which means that one can be fully subject to teva and
simultaneously fully subject to HP. Teva determines the likelihood of
various outcomes, but how the die is actually rolled (to obliquely refer
to a famous Einstein quote) is a matter of HP.

: Kind of like the butterfly in Africa causing wind in America.

Off topic, but that's not necessarily non-derministic. There is a
difference between systems that are unpredictable because we can't possibly
measure everything that might have significant impact, but force a single
possible outcome and systems that allow for multiple possible outcomes.

:                                                                But certain
: aspects of nature are not really non-deterministic.  E.g., before Columbus,
: no one was sailing to America, so it wouldn't make sense for a European Jew
: to thank Hashem for having been saved from a hurricane which struck the coast
: of Florida.

Because it's about likelihoods, things can become more and more unlikely
rather than within teva vs lema'alah min hatva. A spectrum, rather than
black-and-white. How improbable an event must be before it's recognized as
lema'alah min hateva and therefore a neis nigleh depends on the bitachon
of the beholder.

R' Chanina ben Dosa, for whome everything was alike, was therefore able
to experience such nisim regularly. No outcome was so much less likely
than the other so as to affect his belief in Yad Hashem.

For most people, the odds are going to conform much closer to the middle
of the bell curve. Because anything else would startle, point out Hashem's
presence (neis = flag, after all) and therefore short-cut bechirah.


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 02:29:06PM -0400, Feldman, Mark forwarded notes
from a sichah by RALichtenstein:
: The Rambam's Hilkhot Teshuva is divided into two parts: in chapters 1-6
: he discusses a person who recognizes the sin that he has committed, and
: decides to perform teshuva. From chapter 7 onwards, the Rambam deals with
: a different type of teshuva: a person recognizes that his WAYS are evil,
: not just his deeds, and he seeks to change himself.

I suggested a similar chiluq between the two
versions of vidui found in Hilchos Teshuvah. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n005.shtml#19> and subsequent
discussion.

However, for my chiluq to work, the 2nd vidui, which is only in 3:8,
is about a theme RAL attributes to pereq 7 onwards.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:57:47PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Is seaweed kosher for sechach?  Is it considered gidulo min ha'aretz?

Is it rooted in the seabed, or not?

If not, wouldn't the teshuvos written WRT Gush Katif's hydroponics and
hilchos terumah uma'aseros apply?

-mi

>For example, in most of
>the EY Charedi community, people do not open bottles on Shabbos. I
>remember when my daughter was in elementary school,

It might be noted that this problem has been solved by Tempo (Pepsi Cola 
and such) in recent years by providing a special technique for sealing 
bottles where removing the cap does not create a keli.  Such bottles are 
sold only in religious neighborhoods, by the way.

---------------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 08:39:22AM +0300, Carl Sherer wrote:
:> ... I can hold that I strongly disagree with the lenient opinion, and
:> think that it is based on a mistaken understanding of the gmara/SA,
:> and rule (for anyone who will ask me or follow my shitta) that it is
:> completely forbidden, and try to convince everyone else that it is assur.

: Isn't that the same thing as saying it's not a legitimate shita?

This touches on an issue I mentioned once on Areivim.

Lekhol hadei'os, Eilu va'Eilu has limits. Someone promoting polytheism
is certainly beyond them.

But if you take Eilu va'Eilu to assert a plurality of truths or at least
halachically valid pisqei halachah, then the limits of Eilu va'Eilu
are themselves subject to EvE.

A more extreme case of this paradox is when one shitah (e.g. classical
Chabad, or in the realm of halachah -- RMF) rejects pluralism legamrei.
How does one believe that one of the many valid perspectives in Torah
is one that says that the notion of many valid perspectives is itself
not Torah?

But even if it's simply X accepting Y within its defintion of EvE,
but Y doesn't accept X. What does this say about X's beliefs: that
they believe that there is a valid shitah that says theirs is not
only a different shitah, it isn't even a valid shitah.

As I wrote then:
> Go wrap your brain around that. I failed.

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:43:38AM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: It is the last case which should be used as the model - the issue is not
: whether one agrees with the halachic reasoning behind RMF's heter for ChC,
: it is precisely the fact that one recognizes that the posek involved has
: "halachic weight"....

(Never mind what the case was...) Doesn't appealing to the poseiq's
halachic weight beg the question? After all, how do we judge his
weightiness aside from the acceptability of the pesaqim -- which
is the very thing you are trying to determine that "weight" to 
help you decide!

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 08:47:42AM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: 1) First, there does seem to be a category of rav/psak viewed as
: "infallible" in the sense that even though I don't follow him, and
: may think him mistaken, his community is allowed to follow him without
: question - the category of kvar hora zaken...

Because the question is halachah vs non-halachah, not right vs wrong.
Once he makes it to "zaqein" (in the sense of this idiom) then his word
is definitionally halachah. He can't be "wrong" because his pesaq is
what /makes/ it "right" -- for his qehillah.

: [Let] me give a concrete example. There is an eruv that is kasher by some
: standards of a noted posek x who was machshir the eruv, and another
: rav Y, also a noted posekviews the eruv as completely passul, and that
: there may even be a reshut harabbim dorayta within the eruv. Rav Y and
: his followers may try to convince the followers of rav x of the error of
: their ways. Should rav Y treat those who carry in the eruv befarhesya as
: being mehallel shabbat befarhesya? ...

This case is actually harder than the original. I asserted above that
EvE has to have limits. One thing we ought agree upon is that qefirah,
apiqursus and shemad are beyond those limits. Willfull chillul Shabbos
is in the same parashah as "someone promoting polytheism". Here it's not
willfull, but we're still closer to the edge than any tzeni'us question.

I think there are MUCH tighter limits then the ikkarim. The halachic
process evolves based on the halachic process. So, not only can an
individual pesaq be right or wrong, using the history of how some
community got to where it is, you can determine if their methodology is
right or wrong.

You need the history to determine if the process used at time T is
justified in terms of T-1. Showing that it's justified in terms of itself
is circular.

***

A totally unrelated question but relevent to the case at hand is the
fact that we're discussing Beis Yaaqov education. Assuming that one only
teaches girls pragmatic halachah, ought one teach the range of EvE?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

> It is my understanding that even RMF Matirs pants on women with the
> following conditions:
> I did not see a Teshuvah by RMF but I have been told by reliable people
> that this is his Shitah .

There have been a number of references to poskim who permit women to
wear pants - in particular Rav Ovadiya Yosef and now Rav Moshe.

I would really appreciate knowing the source of such pronouncements. The
one Tshuva (Yabiya Omer (6 YD 14) I found of Rav Yosef addressing the
issue concerns "Which is worse - a mini skirt or pants?" He concludes that
mini skirts are worse. I don't see that as a hetair to wear pants. Now
we have another pronouncement that Rav Moshe permitted pants - I was
not able to find such tshuva in the Igros. If Rav Moshe in fact poskened
on the issue I would assume it was in a similar context to that of Rav
Yosef. [Names of the reliable people who have testified to the existence
of a hetair would be greatly appreciated along with their telephone
numbers].Thus according to the evidence I have seen neither would be
considered the source of a hetair to wear pants.

Rabbi Bleich has a discussion of the issue in volume II of Contemporary
Halachic Problems. He notes that there are two issues in the literature 1)
"Does the wearing of such attire involve a transgression of the biblical
prophibition "A woman shall not wear men's apparel..." 2) Does such garb
violate halachic norms of feminine modesty?..."Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi
Hadaya do not view the wearing of slacks as a violation of the prohibition
against donning male attire. Nevertheless, both decry the wearing of
slacks by women ...they maintain that wearing such garb constitutes
a breach of feminine modesty, particularly if the slacks or pants are
tight-fitting in nature.....Similarly argues Rabbi Yosef, miniskirts
are more objectionable attire than are slacks although both are immodest
dress. [A review in Journal of Halacha 1982 v4 also concludes"It should
be noted that Rav Ovadia Yosef does not permit the wearing of slacks by
virtue of questions of modesty and gentile practies. The question posed to
him was a 'lesser of two evils' situation in a school setting where girls
would otherwise attend in far less appropriate skirts and dresses".]
Ohr Someach February 18, 1995 Issue #56 Says that Rabbi Scheinberg
permits wearing pants if a knee length skirt is worn over them.

Apparently some poskim permit pants when there are no men present since
their is no problem of tznius.

For those who have been asserting the existence of major poskim who
permit pants, please provide the names and references of those poskim who
in fact say that there are no halachic objects to women wearing pants
(rather than it is not as bad as mini skirts or that it can be worn
under a knee length skirt).

        Daniel Eidensohn

From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
<<with regard to pants, which you cited as one example that some view
as completely assur, Rav Ellinson (I don't have access here at work)
cites several reasonably heavy duty poskim permitting pants, including
(IIRC -please correct me) Rav Ovadya Yosef, and I believe that Rav
Lichtenstein (again - from memory - anyone with current knowledge?).>>

ROY PREFERS pants to miniskirts, AIUI. He is not matir pants a priori.
You have no firm knowledge about Rav Lichtenstein's opinion.

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
<<I did not see a Teshuvah by RMF but I have been told by reliable people
that this is his Shitah .>>

Given no source so far besides listmembers' memories, on what basis do
you posit several heavy duty poskim permitting?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

 From reading R. Meir Shinnar's posts, one gets the impression that Rav
Ovadya permits pants lechatchila. This is not accurate. Rav Ovadya
was asked about girls who were willing to wear a miniskirt or pants,
but not a skirt of the proper length. Are pants preferable to a
miniskirt? His answer was yes. Saying that bediavad situation A is
preferable to bediavad situation B is not the same as being mattir
situation A lechatchila.

Daniel Schiffman

On Sept 6-02 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote [to Areivim]:
>...Yes, someone can't simply start drinking ChC if he didn't in the past 
>-- not without hataras nedarim. THAT'S TRUE FOR ANY CHUMRAH, NO?

I respectfully disagree.

If someone thought that ChC was assur min-ha-din and then asked his
posek who told him that he was mistaken as to the etzem din, surely
that's a taut by that individual.

See YD:214: A chumrah must be knowingly undertaken by an individual
or a community as a seyag u-perishut not because of an error in the
understanding of the Halachah. Similarly (CM:25:2-Bach) if a new
Rav decides to pasken le-hachmir OR le-hakeil as to a din about which
there was a machloket for which the previous community Rav had paskened
differently, he may do so.

IIUC, the case might be different if someone drank "CY", not because he
believed such to be a chiyuv but as a siyag.

Gemar chatimah tovah.
KT
Eliyahu

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 05:56:15PM -0400, Allen Gerstl wrote:
: >...Yes, someone can't simply start drinking ChC if he didn't in the past 
: >-- not without hataras nedarim. THAT'S TRUE FOR ANY CHUMRAH, NO?

: I respectfully disagree.

: If someone thought that ChC was assur min-ha-din and then asked his
: posek who told him that he was mistaken as to the etzem din, surely
: that's a taut by that individual.

We don't argue.

I simply didn't think of that situation. As my last line presumes, he
was doing it qua chumrah. (Be that as lifnim mishuras hadin, or with
the awareness that he could have followed a different shuras hadin.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

IIRC, there are instances where we say Divrei Kabbala ( i.e Navi )
KDivrei Torah Dami. Could this be one of those instances?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/zechus.pdf>, RGS cites the Rambam
on Avos 1:6.

The Rambam appears to discuss three groups of people:
    Adam bilti yadua' etzlekha, she'einkha yodeia' im hu tzadiq o
    rashah -- don oso litov.

    Adam sheyadua' shehu tzadiq - there is a chiyuv of DLZ (Shevu'os 30a
    considers it a lav with a chiyuv malkos)

    Adam sheyadua' shehu rasha' - one is obligated to think the worst until
    proven otherwise.

The Rambam then returns to "adam bilti yadua'", and again says it's appropriate
derekh chassidus ladun LZ.

RGS asks about the common understanding that the Rambam is making
four categories: tzadiq, beinoni, rasha' and unknown. IIUC, he assumes
the openining and closing cases are identical, as both are "adam bilti
yadua'", and the assumption that the Rambam addresses the beinoni because
tzadiq, beinoni and rasha' are his triplet of categories in Hil' Teshuvah.

However the Rambam generally isn't redundant, nor does the lashon tzivui
"don oso" sound like the "minhag chassidus" with which he closes. Third,
RGS's peshat leaves the Rambam not covering all the cases; and in fact,
not addressing the beinoni that is the largest of the classes of people
about which one might judge!

I would therefore suggest that "adam bilti yadua' etzlekha, she'einkha
yodeia' im hu tzadiq o rashah" is someone you don't know. However, the
final "adam bilti yadua'" is a beinoni -- a man with no reputation of
being a tzaddiq or a rasha' (in contrast to the previous two cases).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

The have noticed the following in postings:

1. Some say it Shaharit and Minha
2 Some Shaharit and Ma'ariv
3. Some only at Shaharit
4. Some not at all.

Let me add:

5. Sefaradim do not add it during Ellul-Tishrei. But, many of them say
it all year either after mincha or before ma'ariv.

6. In the Slonima rebbe's siddur, (Reb Avraham of S.) it does not appear
after weekday Shaharit. It does appear after Mincha, weekday and Shabbat.

Lest one think it was omitted in Shaharit by printer's error, it appears
after Shabbat Shaharit with the comment that it is added on Shabbatot
from Rosh Hodesh Ellul to Sh"'Atz.

And on the question of sources of not to be marbeh b'kaddishim, the title
of O"H. siman 55 in the Arukh Hashulhan is "Dinei Kaddish V'lo KL'harbot
b'Kaddishim". One must read beyond the title to find the reasons and
the limits.

G'mar Hatima Tova,
David

<<The beginning of zichronos is read well as a statement that on RH HKB"H
reviews the curse of history from beginning to end and how each individual
is playing his role in this process of promoting G-d's masterplan.>>

The way I saw it described is Malchiyos=Hashem's omnipotence.
Zichronos=His choosing to act based upon our actions, good or bad.
Shofaros=ultimate limit on zichronos, as in peshuta le'achareha.

<<May we be zocheh to identify points of contribution for the coming
year!>>

        Amen!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:51:10PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: The way I saw it described is Malchiyos=Hashem's omnipotence.
: Zichronos=His choosing to act based upon our actions, good or bad.
: Shofaros=ultimate limit on zichronos, as in peshuta le'achareha.

I had thought of it as:
Malchiyos: accepting his meluchah belashon hoveh
Zichronos: belashon avar
Shofaros: belashon asid

More to the point, the current moment is a product of causes that lay
in the past, and exists to build toward goals that lay in the future.
Attributing First Cause and Ultimate Purpose to HQBH is the importance
of Zichronos and Shofaros. Malchiyos, is then the effect of that.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

RDE:
> Concerning the degree to which we can utilize post Sinaitic revelations
> for halacha I just came across and interesting explanation of the
> gemora Kesubos 52b which extends the Chida's analysis in Shem Hagedolim
> concerning Rabbeinu Yaakov HaChasid.

Please note that the Chida had a FIRST explanation.  The Chida claims that
the Rambam and Ramban would kill Rav Yaakov HaChassid as a navi sheker.  He
notes that the Raavad disagrees with the Rambam.

> The Taz (E.H. 113) explains ...
> The Taz understands that the gemora by saying "it is also doreissa"
> resolves this problem by saying that the Torah also has concern for
> daughters and therefore it is not a Torah principle that the daughters
> are ignored. It proves this from a verse in Yirmiyahu - even though it
> is only navi is still the expression of ratzon HaShem - which states
> that a father should marry off both sons and daughters.

The Taz does NOT ask how can a verse in Navi represent d'oraissa.
Presumably the navi is revealing Torah sheb'al peh(until his generation).
The Taz does NOT  say the navi is "ratzon Hashem".  Rather he says it is
"eitza tova" and not din.

> Thus the term doreissa means something learned from the Torah **and**
> that which is ratzon HaShem. The latter can be learned from the prophets
> and other sources (e.g., bas kol, ruach hakodesh and even commonsense).

I see no basis for this conclusion from the Taz.  The Chida also does not
bring this Taz.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: Abe Goldstein <asg2037@yahoo.com>
> And if she has a vest Haguf, something happens two days before the
> vest comes, it still doesn't help us set up a Zman hachasunah. Unless
> she has a vest T'remus Hadeshen that she never get's her vest before
> a 20 day hafloga. So once she get's her vest, on a very short notice
> (2 1/2 weeks) you have to order a hall print invitations, mail out the
> invitations, and wiat for return cards (where applicable).

In the case in the example, she never has less than 30 day haflaga.
Onna Beinonit was set b/c it is an almost universal time.

As to the Chaveir who asked: I teach brides of all Eidot, including
"Ashkenaz" and "Sephard". It should be noted that when it comes to
these issues, it has to do with the individual bride and not where her
grandparents came from.

> <<Second, I have asked various doctors who are involved in fertility and
> know the halacha and they agreed that the majority of women do have some
> kind of VK, though they may be complex. As an example, I know of a bride
> whose VK was a cycle of 24-27-27 days that repeated itself>>

> Could you please name the VK with this cycle. (dilug , sirug, hafloga,
> chodesh ...).

Murkav. That's why I asked a Rav Mumcheh for confirmation in this case
<g>. Though it's actually a type of haflaga.

(cont. below):

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
[del]
>> When I said that this is "Veset HaGuff" -- she didn't know what I was
>> talking about, she had never heard about "Veset HaGuff" (I sent her to
>> her Rabbi to confirm this).

> Not all Rabbanim hold that Vesset HaGuff applies today, when most people
> are not aware of their bodies to the degree needed.

This is interesting. Are you saying that it is better to push hormones
on unsuspecting girls than to investigate whether the young bride has an
unusual VK? In any case, religious jewish women are taught to be aware
of their body, as part of their halachic requirements as such.

(cont. below):

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>> First, that the PILL, in various combinations, is being pushed on girls
>> without sufficient medical investigation (some girls aren't even asked
>> their medical background), and without warning the girls about possible
>> side effects or long term effects. The idea of the Segula of pregnancy
>> on the wedding night is not even discussed with the women.

> According to the Rambam Ishus 10:2 Chupas Niddah is not valid chupah. The
> chassidic world especially - but not exclusively - is concerned for the
> Rambam's position and it is not an issue of convenience or embarrassment

Then at least some attempt should be made to use the halachic
possibilities for setting the wedding, and much more supervision
and caring should be employed before a young bride is given pills.
She certainly shouldn't be swallowing them in ignorance of what she's
taking and what it could do to her.

Shoshana L. Boublil

RYGB wrote:
> 3. In Sim Shalom, the list of seven qualities - Toras Chaim etc. -
> represents the lower seven sefiros in the state of hamtakkah (having
> been sweetened) via the process of bestowing shalom.

Doesn't the lashon of sim shalom predate by several centuries any public
mention of Sephirot, and (assuming you read sefer Yetzirah as refering
to the Sephirotic system as explained by the kabbalists, at least)
predates any discussion of hamtaqah?

Even not accepting the academic view of kabbalah, but instead positting
that the kabbalistic knowledge base was well known and accepted at the
time of the Mishnah, and even before, even so one could not fail to see
that other ancient tefillot do not allude to this cosmogony, as it is
undoubtedly sitrei Torah.

Then again, may be I am wrong. Do you know of other instances where
ancient tefillot may allude to the Sephirotic cosmogony? (reading into
a tefillah such references, even though they are not mu'hrakh, is ok,
as I am not trying to prove or disprove the antiquity of kabbalah of the
Zohar, but rather the applicability of such peirush - whether ir not it
is prevalent.

I must thank you very much for points 1 and 2, issues I was wondering
about.

Gmar 'hassieneh toyveh,
Arie Folger

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
> 1. In Retzesi on "v'hashev es ha'avodah l'dvir beiseischa v'ishei
> Yisrael u'tefilassam tekkabbbel b'ratzon." there is a pitched battle
> as to whether the comma/period goes "v'hashev es ha'avodah l'dvir
> beiseischa. V'ishei Yisrael u'tefilassam tekkabbbel b'ratzon." as I
> have always said or "v'hashev es ha'avodah l'dvir beiseischa v'ishei
> Yisrael. U'tefilassam tekkabbbel b'ratzon." Interestingly, there is a
> machlokes on 1. What Ishei means. 2. Whether Michoel being makriv the
> nefashos of thetzaddikim is a good thing or not.

Are you raising more/different points than those described in the Mishna
Berurah (120:1) ?

Has anyone ever discussed the difference between the Nusach of "Avinu
Malkeinu Nikom Nikmas Dam Avadecha HaShafuch" (Sfard) vs. "...Nikom
L'AINAINU Nikmas Dam ..." (Ashkenaz)? Yet, in Av HaRachamim said on
most Shabbosos, both have the Nusach "Yivoda BaGoyim L'Ainainu Nikmas
Dam Avodov HaShafuch". To further complicate it, the Nusach Ashkenaz
Av HaRachamim earlier states: "Shi'Ar Tzadikei Olam, V'YIKOM Nikmas Dam
Avodov" WITHOUT L'Ainainu, whereas Nusach Sfard has "Shi'Ar Tzadikei Olam,
V'YINKOM L'Ainainu Nikmas Dam Avodov". Some add in the word "B'Yameinu"
before L'Ainainu on Yom Tov that falls on Shabbos.

KY
Stuart Goldstein  
G'mar Chasimah Tovah !

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


[ 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         ]