Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 009

Wednesday, September 18 2002

• Re: Afar va'eifer
• Ketivah va-hatimah tovah
• RE: Esrog mehudar
• re: Esrog mehudar when Yom Tov Rishon is Shabbos
• Re: Esrog mehudar when Yom Tov Rishon is Shabbos
• Re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Esrog mehudar
• Laundry on Chol HaMoed
• Re: Gerim as shul president
• Re: Gerim as shul president
• Dr. Isaac Breuer and Rabbi Bulman
• Re: My Kabboloh for YK: Six Temidi'os
• RE: Dr. Isaac Breuer and Rabbi Bulman
• Sundry Tefillah Items
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Re: re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Kahal v'Chazan, or Chazan v'Kahal?

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
>> Ashes have value. Don't they still use cinder blocks in the US. Cinders
>> are ashes are efer.

> Did they have any use in the time of Avraham Avinu? How about in the
> time of the Beis Halevi?

They are useful as fertilizer.

David Riceman

A very basic question occurred to me recently (alas, too late for relevance 
this year...but we all have about a year now to think about it...)

Common practice has it to wish our fellows a "ketivah va-hatimah tovah" 
before Rosh Hashanah but only a "(gemar) hatimah tovah" afterwards, at 
least until Yom Kippur. No mention of Ketivah, as the assumption (unless I 
am missing something very basic) is that the ketivah was accomplished on RH 
and only the hatimah awaits YK. But going over the mekorot, I feel that 
wishing a Ketivah tovah is still in order and that at least for the 
majority of us the ketivah still waits ne`ilat sha`ar on YK.
Here are the mekorot [I hope I am missing some that others will point me 
towards, because if not the case seems to lean my way... :)]:

1. Liturgy: For the ten days between RH and YK -- until Neilah -- we daven 
"ve-khotveinu..."/U-ketov le-hayyim..." etc. We even say a piyyut on YK -- 
and *not* on RH -- that begins "HA-YOM *yikatev* be-sefer ha-zikhronot 
ha-hayim veha-mavet."

2. U-Netaneh Tokef that is said both on RH and YK includes the famous line 
"Be-RH *yikatevu* uve-yom tsom Kippur yehatemu" D. Goldschmidt explains 
this as referring to the din of the benoniyim. But he must be mistaken as 
this is actually a clear shitah in Hazal referring to "ha-kol" (see below 
3b/4a):

3. Yerushalmi RH 1:3 (57a) has a few opinions:
a. Everyone (no distinction between tsadik, rasha, or benoni or even Jew or 
non-Jew) is judged and sealed on RH
b. Everyone is judged on RH but their fate is sealed only on YK
c. Everyone is judged on RH but their fate is sealed "in its time."
d. Everyone is judged in their own (appointed) time and their fate is 
sealed in its time.
e. Individuals are constantly judged (R. Yose)
f. Kings and their public are judged every day (R. Yitshak)
g. Jews are judged during the day, non-Jews at night (R. Levi)
h. Tsadikim's and reshaim's fates are sealed on RH; benoniyim must wait 
until YK when they are *written* (and sealed?) (R.Krusp. beshem R. Yohanan)

4. Bavli RH 16a-b also a few opinions:
a. Everyone is judged on RH but their fate is sealed on YK (R. Meir; for 
brevity's sake: also R. Yehudah and Bei R. Yishmael)
b. Every man is judged each day (R. Yose)
c. Every man is judged constantly (R. Natan)
d. Tsadikim' and reshaim's fates are *written* and sealed on RH; benoniyim 
wait until YK when they  are *written* (and sealed?) (R. Krusp. beshem 
R.Yohanan)
e. Tsadikim and reshaim are written and sealed on the [Ultimate] Yom 
haDin*; benoniyim experience suffering but are eventually saved (Bet Shammai)

5. Tosefta RH 1:13 as in Bavli a-c


First I think that R. Yohanan's opinion is an "every year" understanding 
[read: derush] of Bet Shammai's Ultimate Yom HaDin statement. But even R. 
Yohanan's opinion -- the only place where a distinction is drawn between 
people based on their relative merits (not religions) -- says that tsadikim 
and reshaim are written and sealed on RH and benonyim's verdict is still 
hanging, the jury is still out, -- in short, nothing has been written until 
YK! Their "book" is still open but the scales of their qualitative [see 
Rambam below] merits still hang balanced and so no judgement is yet 
written. The Liturgy's evidence (that we say u-ketov etc until Neilah) is 
further support.

I think the ba`al U-netaneh tokef paskens like the most popular opinion 
among the three mekorot [3b and 4a]: everyone (no distinctions) is judged 
and "written up" on RH and their fate is sealed finally on YK. There is no 
indication that only benoniyim is being discussed. While Rambam [Hil 
Teshuvah 3:3] may have understood R Yohanan's opinion as final, are we 
bound to follow that belief simply because Rambam believed this? Obviously, 
others have disagreed with him...

*<Rambam [ibid] understands this as the day of death, but one may 
alternatively see this as referring to aharit hayamim.>

To justify the wish for (only) a hatimah tovah before YK by saying that we 
[follow R Yohanan's opinion and] consider each other tsadikim but see 
ourselves (only) as benoniyim, is wrong IMHO, as the mekorot refer to 
*hatimah* for tsadikim on RH !! If we (as I believe the baal Unetaneh 
tokef) believe in the opinion of R Meir et al, then 
tsadikim/reshaim/benoniyim distinctions are meaningless. We cannot have it 
both ways: either we hold like R Yohanan or R Meir (or the others) but a 
mixing of the two doesnt make sense. Or am I missing something?

Bottom line: I think the wish for a ketivah tovah (or perhaps a shikul tov) 
should be extended to YK as well (those Kabbalistically inclined may wish 
to wish this until Hoshana Rabba too).

A gutn kvitel,

Yisrael Dubitsky

I wrote on Areivim in response to R Akiva Miller:
> I don't believe that 
> any of the requirements of esrog which apply to YT Rishon 
> (e.g., missing pitom) apply to YT Sheni; so, WRT to hilchos 
> lulav, we are not pretending that YT Sheni = YT Rishon.

IOW, the reason to have a esrog mehudar on YT Sheni is the same reason
to have it on the next day--it's because of the takanah to take the
lulav on all days of Succos zeicher l'mikdash.

I just looked at MB 649 sk 50 and he notes that the reason one doesn't
make a bracha on an esrog on YT Sheni which has the psulim which are
applicable to YT Rishon is that there are some dayos that one must
treat YT Sheni like sfeikah d'yoma of YT Rishon, but according to those
who believe that there is no sfeika d'yoma really we would be making a
bracha (i.e., the lack of a bracha is because safek brachos l'hakel--in
concession to the fact that there are some poskim who view it as sfeika
dyoma).

From: Tzvi Harris [mailto:ltharris@internet-zahav.net]
> [Mishna Brura siman 649 note 35] lists borrowed (shaul) 
> and "missing"
> (chaser) as the two p'sulim that apply only on the first day. Shaul
> is because "lachem" is only on the first day. Chaser is taught from
> u'lekachtem - lekicha tama. Chaser includes a few things (nisdak,
> nital u'ktzo and a few others). He also brings a machloket regarding
> the p'sulim of "hadar" on all days besides the first.

Am I right in saying that there is a difference between whether the dinei
hadar which are me'akev and the din of hidur mitzvah to buy a nice esrog?
I reviewed S"A OC 656:1 (and quickly skimmedg the Beis Yosef and Mishnah
Brurah) and the din of spending up to a 1/3 more for a nicer esrog seems
to be connected to the general din of hiddur mitzvah (examples are brought
WRT buying a nicer shofar or sefer torah) rather than to "pri etz hadar."

So the din of hiddur mitzvah shouldn't be related to whether the psulim
of hadar apply to all days of succos.

Going back to the conversation with R Akiva Miller: there is no
requirement to do hiddur mitzvah for esrog. So lack thereof will not
be zilzul. Moreover, if one buys an esrog mehudar, the hiddur mitzvah
will clearly be a hiddur mitzvah of a drabbanan mitzvah rather than
of a de'oraisa mitzvah. So wouldn't it make more sense to spend one's
money doing a hiddur mitzvah of a de'oraisa mitzvah (e.g., tzedakah)?
(Unless you argue that because the rabbanan were so concerned with
zilzul YT Sheni, buying a mehudar esrog constitutes hiddur mitzvah of
lo sasur--but I think that's going a bit far.)

The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") and
the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din of zeh Keli
v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) is discussed at
length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman 26, esp. p. 119 (quote
from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei Kodesh. It would seem from his
discussion that buying a mehudar esrog has no relationship to the word
"hadar."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Tzvi Harris writes <<< [Mishna Brura siman 649 note 35] lists borrowed
(shaul) and "missing" (chaser) as the two p'sulim that apply only on
the first day. >>>

Unfortunately, that section speaks of "first day" and "other days", and
does not explicitly tell us about Yom Tov Sheni. However, elsewhere,
the Mechaber (658:6) says that on the first day, if one is giving his
lulav to a katan, he should make sure that he has already been yotzay
with it beforehand; on thqt point, the Mishna Brurah (658:23) points
out that in Chu"l, this applies on both days.

In other words, if he uses the lulav on the first day, and then gives it
as a gift to a katan so that the katan will own it and be yotzay on the
first day, then the adult will be stuck with no lulav on Yom Tov Sheni.
In Eretz Yisrael, that procedure would work fine, as the adult could
borrow it from the katan on Chol Hamoed, but it doesn't work in Chu"l.
Because Yom Tov Sheni has the same halachos as Yom Tov Rishon.

R' Moshe Feldman writes <<< The whole idea of treating YT Sheni like YT
Rishon applies to the issur melacha. I don't believe that any of the
requirements of esrog which apply to YT Rishon (e.g., missing pitom)
apply to YT Sheni; so, WRT to hilchos lulav, we are not pretending that
YT Sheni = YT Rishon. >>>

This afternoon I asked if we would apply the same logic to the Second
Seder. But now I looked it up. The Mishna Berurah (481:1) writes that
after the Second Seder, "b'vadai yesh l'hakel" to allow one to drink
non-intoxicating beverages after the fourth cup, which he does not
allow after the First Seder. The Be'er Hetev (481:3) goes even further,
calling it flat-out "mutar l'kulei alma" on the Second Night.

Even closer to the "hidur" question at hand --- I must admit, I have vague
recollections of a contemporary posek allowing grape juice l'chatchila
for the second seder, even though he would not allow it so easily for
the first. Anyone else recall something like that? And if not regarding
grape juice, does anyone make similar kulos for the shiur of matza on
the second night?

Akiva Miller

From: <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> R' Tzvi Harris writes <<< [Mishna Brura siman 649 note 35] lists borrowed
> (shaul) and "missing" (chaser) as the two p'sulim that apply only on the
> first day. >>>

> Unfortunately, that section speaks of "first day" and "other days", and
> does not explicitly tell us about Yom Tov Sheni...

When I pointed out the differences between first day and the remaining days,
I was referring to the my thinking while purchasing the daled minim.  I
wasn't thinking of yom tov sheni which requires further iyun.

Tzvi Harris
Talmon, Israel
tzvi@halachayomit.com
www.halachayomit.com

[Originally submitted to Areivim. My post didn't merit bouncing here,
but I don't think it's necessary for following this one. -mi]

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
: Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> Am I right in thinking that there's less of an inyan of hiddur for esrogim
:> when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos (so there's no day that's
:> d'oraisa)?  Can anyone supply any sources?

> Nope, but it /is/ mistabeir now that you mention it.

More than mistaber.
See the Mechaber 649:5
and SA Horav 649:19 and 21.

SBA

[Another part of the same Areivim thread, bounced here. -mi]

NOT A HIDDUR....

Paying in cash to avoid sales tax creates a situation of mitzvah haba'ah
ba'aveirah. Even by the most restrictive definitions of dina demalchusah
dinah, a tax fairly applied to both Jews and non-Jews is included.

CYLOR, but I'm pretty sure a person could pasul their whole set this
way.

-mi

On 17 Sep 2002 at 19:58, Micha Berger wrote:
> Paying in cash to avoid sales tax creates a situation of mitzvah
> haba'ah ba'aveirah. Even by the most restrictive definitions of dina
> demalchusah dinah, a tax fairly applied to both Jews and non-Jews is
> included.
> 
> CYLOR, but I'm pretty sure a person could pasul their whole set this
> way.

Wouldn't that depend on whose liability the tax is? Here, the tax is 
always the merchant's liability (to the extent that you are assumed 
to have quoted it in the price unless you say otherwise). Of course, 
here sales of Arba Minim are exempt from tax, so we solve that 
problem.... 

-- Carl

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 02:27:25AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: Wouldn't that depend on whose liability the tax is? Here, the tax is 
: always the merchant's liability...

Not so simple. It's "lachem", but how does this avoid haba'ah
ba'aveirah?

Second, lifnei iveir.

-mi

On 18 Sep 2002 at 11:28, Micha Berger wrote:
> : Wouldn't that depend on whose liability the tax is? Here, the tax is 
> : always the merchant's liability...
> 
> Not so simple. It's "lachem", but how does this avoid haba'ah
> ba'aveirah?

It's the seller's aveirah, not mine. He's not relieved from his 
obligation to pay taxes by collecting in cash. 

Besides, mitzva ha'ba'a b'aveira means that my very act of fulfilling 
the mitzva is itself an aveira. The only way that happens with arba 
minim is if when I pick them up to fulfill the mitzva, I am koneh 
them by gezel. If I stole them in advance, the mitzva isn't ba'a 
b'aveira. In fact, there may not even be a lachem problem because I 
may have been koneh by yiush (not that I'm suggesting doing this chas 
v'shalom, but it may be argued that I fulfill the mitzva). In any 
event, my being koneh the esrog from a socher who will not pay taxes 
on it has no effect on my kinyan. 

> Second, lifnei iveir.

Nope. Mesayeah at worst. If he doesn't sell it to me, he'll sell it 
to someone else. Besides, if it's mesayeah then, it's mesayeah all 
year any time I buy something from someone who is cheating on his 
taxes. That would imply a much higher level of checking into 
merchants' business practices than is even close to the norm anywhere 
that I know.  

-- Carl

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 03:33:36PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Besides, mitzva ha'ba'a b'aveira means that my very act of fulfilling 
: the mitzva is itself an aveira...

That's asei docheh lav.

It's when the mitzvah could never have been done had the aveirah not
been.

The case of the ganav having a kinyan on the esrog (through yi'ush)
and thereby having "velaqachtem lakhem" is on 30a. Still pasul qua
mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah -- even though the geneivah is over with
a while ago.

:> Second, lifnei iveir.

: Nope. Mesayeah at worst. If he doesn't sell it to me, he'll sell it 
: to someone else...

Only in the really unlikely situation that he sells out his
stock. Otherwise, the number of times he rips off the gov't
is one per customer.

: year any time I buy something from someone who is cheating on his 
: taxes. That would imply a much higher level of checking into 
: merchants' business practices than is even close to the norm anywhere 
: that I know.  

Or relying on a chezkas kashrus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

We are planning to have many guests over yom-yov, first days and last,
more than the # of sheets and towels we have.

Are there contemporary teshuvos and opinions that deal with linen and
towel laundry on chol HaMoed b'Zman HaZeh?

Thanks,
Raffy Davidovich

In a message dated 8/22/2002 5:26:51pm EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> See Rambam Hil. Melachim 1:4.  The halacha is learned from the din that one
> cannot have a melech who is a ger, and this is expanded to all positions of
> authority (even the person who is appointed to oversee irrigation 
> ditches!).
> This halacha is derived from Yevamos 45b and Kiddushin 76b.

Shmaya and Avtalyon??

Shanah Tovah
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:31:04AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> See Rambam Hil. Melachim 1:4.  The halacha is learned from the din that one
:> cannot have a melech who is a ger, and this is expanded to all positions of
:> authority...

: Shmaya and Avtalyon??

This was discussed earlier in the thread, RDE tranlated a paragraph
of IM. See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n083.shtml#05>.
Rav Moshe holds that someone appointed by acclamation is different.
(Same answer RMF suggests for Devorah.)

Alternatively, it was a "maqom she'i efshar", as provem by Mes. Avos's
including them in the chain of mesorah. There was simply no one else
fit to lead.


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Since we now have R' Bulman's daughter as a prominent poster to Areivim,
I think it is apropos to ask her to expands on an intriguing line in
the JO devoted to her father's memory in which R' Bulman was linked to
Dr. Breuer.

I have written on Dr. Breuer, one of my several "heroes," both here and
in the JO. I am interested in reading:

1. How R' Bulman came to Dr. Breuer's thought?

2. How R' Bulman's community was a fulfillment of Dr. Breuer's ideology?

3. Whether R' Bulman accepted and/or disseminated Dr. Breuer's thought
about matters other than Yishuv EY per se?

Thanks!

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

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:50:56PM -0400, R' YGB wrote (re-ordered):
: One of my correspondents, Reb F"B Silverman from Atlanta, mentioned to
: me that the six mitzvos temidi'oscan form a box.

: Below: Yichud Hashem - to make Hashem Melech al kol *ha'aretz*

Besheim H' E-lokei Yisrael...

: Right: Ahavas Hashem

Miymini Micha'el

: Left: Yiras Hashem

Umismoli Gavri'el

: Front: Lo Sasuru acharei levavchem v'acharei eineichem - watch where
: you're going and how you are watching!

Milfanai Uri'el

: Back: Ein Od Me'lvado: The net result of contemplating the above five,
: and the ramification left in their wake.

Umei'acharai Refa'el

: Above: Emunah in Hashem

Ve'al roshi Shechinas Kel.

: Anyone want to make an appropriate mnemonic device to hang on a rear-view
: mirror? Might be an idea for someone like the CC Heritage Foundation!

I'm not sure I want to get into the Kemei'os or Shevisi business.

Someone might accuse us of Sabbatian allusions... (vehameivin yitzchaq)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> I have written on Dr. Breuer, one of my several "heroes," both here and
> in the JO. I am interested in reading:
> 1. How R' Bulman came to Dr. Breuer's thought?
...

If anyone has the e-mail address of Rabbi Menachem Zupnick it might be worth
forwarding this to him for comment.

Stuart Klagsbrun
Credit Manager
AGT seven

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Contrast the begining of the berachah "ufischon peh lamyachalim lach"
> with the quote in question "ve'olasah tikpatz pihah".

Did you mean to connect this to din hamelech?  If so, I lost you.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:42:30PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: 2. I do not understand how one understands the first beracha of Shemoneh 
: Esrei without at least a rudimentary knowledge of the 
: gedulah-gevurah-norah/chesed-gevurah-tiferes triad.

A feature of Hebrew is that the line between noun and adjective is
blurry. "HaKel haGadol haGibbor veHanorah" can not only be taken as "the
Great, Mighty and Awesome G-d" it can also be "the G-d, the Great One,
the Mighty One and the Awesome One".

(This is in addition to the blurriness between noun and verb [lashon
hoveh]. "Boneh" is both "builder" and "builds". But I can't think of a
situation where a word could be taken all three ways at once.)

RYGB takes it as a given that this spells out a triad (of adjectives).
The Gra, however, understands it to be a quadruplet (of nouns). The
entire first berachah he understands as repetitions of these four-fold
theme first spelled out by Mosheh Rabbeinu.

I go through his peshat at length in appendix A in
<http://www.aishdas.org/siddur_pg.pdf>.

Otherwise, why doesn't R' Chanina's criticism of his student's long
list of adjectives (Berachos 33b) not apply to us? The Gra's answer:
because our formula is pulled ENTIRELY from chumash.

Your reference to chesed-gevurah-tif'eres doesn't work in his peshat.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 11:32:37PM +0200, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
:> 3. In Sim Shalom, the list of seven qualities - Toras Chaim etc. -
:> represents the lower seven sefiros>>

: And what would a Sefaradic kabbalist say about this. They do not say
: Toras chaim etc. The Sefaradic siddur has instead: Torah v'hayyim,
: ahavah vachesed and does not repeat chayyim again later in the list.

: So they have eight qualities. What sefirot do they represent?

Or, perhaps the machloqes is over whether they parallel sefiros or
something else altogether?

Or whether shalom is the qedushah that inheres in teva (7, and the
lower spheros in particular) or is lema'alah min hateva (8).

(Along similar lines, the machloqes over whether there are 8 leshonos of
shevach or 7 in qaddish, while there are certainly 8 in ya'aleh veyavo.)

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:22:03PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: First, I was taking exception to RYGB's statement: "It is not a new
: system! It is as old as the seven days of Creation." That goes far
: beyond RAF's original post dealing with "reading into...even though...not
: mu'hrakh." My point is that those who criticize the claim that kabbalah
: is ancient would say that there is no indication of the sephirotic system
: in the tefillos, despite the existence of vayevarech david.

Let's spell the real debate here out.

The question isn't whether or not the sefiros are refered to in dvening.

It's whether or not the sefiros were a late addition grafted on to
the Torah. Because if you believe the model was, then any presence
in tefillah poses a challenge, and needs to be rebutted.

The question isn't all that black-and-white.

When R' Saadia Gaon or the Rambam used Aritotilian concepts to explain
ideas in the Torah, they weren't really grafting new ideas on. (Okay,
many -- including the Gra and RSRH thought the Rambam was, but let's
take the other shitah for the moment.)

They were using a model that explains features that already there,
given a new way of looking at old material.

Even if the 10 sefiros didn't date back to a sefer written by Avraham
Avinu (a point I don't want to go on record as conceding), they do --
in the opinion of many, many, ba'alei mesorah -- well describe and give
a unifying order to things that do.

That's what I was saying about David haMelech's ru'ach haqodesh.

Whether or not he was thinking in terms of 10 sefiros, he was thinking
about something that later generations modeled using those sefiros. The
correspondance should still be there, intentionally or because it's
inherent in the topic under discussion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Micha Berger wrote:
>Not so simple. It's "lachem", but how does this avoid haba'ah
>ba'aveirah?
>Second, lifnei iveir.

See Sukkah 30a-b and Orach Chaim 649:1. One can be yotzei the mitzvah even
on the first day if one buys a stolen min (as long as it is after ye'ush).
I don't see why a min for which the merchant is not paying sales tax is
any different.

Gil Student

In Avodah V10 #8, Akiva Miller wrote:
> Offline, Rav Elazar Teitz pointed out to me a third approach as well,
> that being to take a single work of poetry, and for the chazan and kahal
> to alternate stanzas or verses. This is often done with Tehillim (I've
> seen German shuls say Kabalas Shabbos this way) and just about everyone
> I know says An'im Z'miros in this pattern.

I would categorize An-eem Z'miros as style#2 (Chazzan says A, Kahal
responds with B) rather than consider it any more singular a work
(more accurately, a non-repetitive work) of poetry than the piyutim
mentioned under style#2 (to which I would add "any 'pizmon' listed in
S'lichos") which happen to have repeating motifs, but the bottom line
is the same: Kahal responds to Chazzan, not vice versa. As you noted,
German shuls like KAJ have the Chazzan saying verses#1, 3, ... of each
kapitel in saider Kabbolas Shabbos, but it's not an "alternating" style
that crosses kapitel boundaries -- even if the Chazzan says the last
verse of a kapitel, he says verse#1 of the next one.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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         ]