Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 075

Wednesday, September 24 2003

• RE: B'rachos that we give our children
• Re: Halachos Not in Shulchan Aruch
• slichos saturday night/ Mincha-Menucha/ Hashgocho
• Question on the Maharsha (Chagiga daf tes) on Tefillas Hashachar
• Re: First day Slichos
• First day Slichos
• Re: Learning Hashkafa
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Takanot R' Gershom
• Re: view of the masses
• Hasgahcha Pratis etc.
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Hashgacha Pratis etc.
• Re: Fw: Re: view of the masses
• time of selichot
• Re: First Day Slichos

R' I Kasdan asked <<< In general, I would be interested in hearing about
m'koros/articles that comprehensively discuss the minhag to give b'rachos
to children. [Related m'koros will deal with the bracha of a tzaddik,
or the gemarah re: "al tehi bircas hedyot kal b'ainechah." However,
I am particularly interested in bircas av/am l' bein/bas.] >>>

While reading his post, I was tempted to suggest that the brachos which
a parent gives his child is less of a "bracha" category, and more of a
"tefilah". The parent is not actually blessing the child, but asking
HaShem to bless the child, and the mechanics are like other tefilos:
"HaShem, even if the child doesn't deserve it, please do it for me,
in the zchus of my trying to get closer to You right now."

But if that is so, then shouldn't it fall in the "personal request"
category, which is forbidden on Shabbos? And wouldn't this question also
apply to when a tzadik gives someone a bracha on Shabbos?

I know that *communal* requests (such as Birkas Kohanim) are an
exception, and are allowed on Shabbos. There must be other categories
of exceptions as well, and this parental bracha must fall into at least
one of them. Any ideas?

Akiva Miller

gil@aishdas.org wrote:
> I seem to remember the Gra having been quoted as saying that we are
> obligated to follow halachos from the Gemara, even if they are not
> brought down in the Shulchan Aruch. Does anyone know where the Gra is
> quoted as saying this? I can't remember.

> Also, can you think of any examples of halachos that are not mentioned
> in the SA but are still followed?

See Toldoth Adam chapter 6 (pp. 104 -105 in the Jer. 5747 - no publisher
named - edition).  It's not the Gra, but it's close.

David Riceman

Seth Mandel wrote:
> Does anyone know when the custom of starting slihos Saturday night
> began? Does anyone have more data points about which communities did
> it which way?

ML comments:
It may be based on the piyut "Bmotsoei menucha kidamnucha...", suggesting
Sturday night, earlier. In fact, I beleive that the minhag in some shuls
(frowned upon by poskim) of saying it at 10PM on Saturday night is based
on this minhag. Pre-dawn is not Motsoei menucha.

Re: connection between mincha and mencuha.

See Tosfos and Avudraham quoted in a side note on Pesachim 107a.

Both R. Yona ibn Gzinach and Radak wrie that menucha is form shoresh Mem
Vav Chas, like, say metsuda. They briefly consider mincha to be from nun
chas hei but reject it on the grounds that meseches m'nachos should then
be minchos, like mitsvos. Rather the shoresh is mem nun ches, like g'vaos.

It is important to keep the shroshim in mind. Some time ago I heard a
drasha that attempted to link nokev (specify) and n'keiva - a woman
who is specified. The only problem is that the latter is from kuf
beis hei or K'B'B and the latter is from nun kuf beis. (see radak,
seifer hashroshim).These are different words. This is like building an
association between a hug and a hog.

In terms of the discussion on hashgocho. Thereare two ways to understand
the idea that it is in proportion to man's relationship to G-d. The
first one is that there is a threshold under which there is no personal
hashgocho; the other is that it is always in proportion to the degree of
dveikus, and grows as one's level rises. As I recall, careful reading of
R. Bachye and the Ramban to the posuk in Vayeira "Lmaan ydaativ es asher
itsave.." reveals a machlokes about this point. In practice the latter
leaves one in the course of daily life to constantly have to figure out
whether a partucular event is hashgocho or chance.

Now, that is a difficult way to live and learn. The Besht, that great
popularizer, makes it much easier for an average person to lead a
spiritual life- for everything that happens is from Heaven. Rejected by
Rambabm, promoted by the Besht - an easier path to a life of devotion.

M. Levin 

I have a question that has come up in gemara shiur, which I am hoping
someone may be able to answer.

We are learning the 4th perek in Berachos (tefillas hashachar). In
the gemara on chof vav, amud alef, it quotes a pasuk from Koheles,
which states that something which is twisted cannot be fixed. This is a
reference to the one who skips tefillas shacharis or arvis b'mayzid. He
is not given the opportunity to make up for it by saying the next tefilla
twice. (In contrast to the one who accidentally misses the tefilla who
can partially compensate by reciting the next tefilla twice, although
he won't get schar for prayer b'zemana.)

The Maharsha in Chagiga (daf tes) asks: Why does the gemara mention only
shacharis and arvis but not mincha? His answer is: If a person skips
shacharis, the next opportunity to daven will be mincha (same day), and
if a person skips arvis, the next opportunity to daven will be shacharis
(same day), but if a person skips mincha, the next opportunity to daven
will be arvis (next day), so this is why one cannot compensate for a
missed mincha (because we can't daven twice to compensate for a tefilla
we skipped yesterday, only for one we skipped earlier today).

Here's the problem: The Maharsha opens by quoting the gemara, which cites
Koheles that *something which is twisted cannot be fixed,* i.e. a tefilla
skipped *b'mayzid* cannot be made up. So... why is the Maharsha now
saying that a person *can* make up for a skipped shacharis or arvis but
not mincha? If one can't make up for *any* tefilla skipped b'mayzid (per
the gemara), why does it matter if it's the same day or the next day???

Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
 --Cindy S.

The discussion somehow got transferred to Areivim, but I intend it to
remain here.

What I have found out so far:

Yekkes have always started slichos early Sunday morning, and the Breuer
community continues that tradition.

Oberlander Hungarian always started early Sunday morning.

Tzelemer and Karlin-Stolin chasidim apparently started Saturday night.
(Karlin-Stolin continues to say slichos every night about 10 PM for the
entire period.)

The large yeshivos used to start on early Sunday morning, though I know
many have changed that custom, at least in the US.

Dr. David Riceman notes that R. Meir Bar-Ilan says that the N'TziV
complained about the new-fangled custom of starting on midnight Saturday
night.

Virtually all places in America nowadays start Saturday night.

 From all of the above, it appears that starting Saturday night was
a custom that arose in only some communities in Europe during the
19th century. The question remains why the old minhog was changed.
The explanation has to jibe with the data of which communities adopted
the new custom of Saturday night.

R. SBA has advanced the possibility that Jews wanted to avoid being up
and about on the streets early Sunday morning because of the Christians.

Seth Mandel wrote:
> Does anyone know when the custom of starting slihos Saturday night
> began?
 
The Sha'arei Teshuvah O'H 581:1 brings the concept of saying before/after
midnight of Motzei Shabbos etc.

Kesiva Vachasima Tova
meir zirkind

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:30:10PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: The interesting thing about haskafa is that it is a recent conceptual
: construct; the word itself is not even found before one or two generations
: ago... A related term among Dati-Leumi is "machava". This term removes
: some of the "hashkofo's" definitiveness and finality and allows a bit
: more complexity. However, it also loses authoritativeness in the process.

R' Wolbe shares your usage of "hashkafah". It's to look over or across
a vista.

But if you take both "hashkafah" and "machshavah" as negatives, what do
you use to describe the topic of Emunos veDei'os, the Moreh, the Kuzari,
Derekh Hashem, most sifrei Maharal, etc...?

: Both terms avoid the immediacy of living Jewish and substitute
: intelelctual meandering for the skin-to-skin experience of direct
: worship....

This is the contrapositive of RJBaker's lament that AishDas shifted from
machshavah to mussar. Why do you both assume it must be one or the other?
If someone is truly pursuing tif'eres, one must engage both intellect
and the immediacy of experience. They are not alternatives, but mutually
necessary components of the same whole.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:> Or perhaps as R' Dr. C. Soloveitchik said "Having lost the touch of his
:> presence they seek now solace in the pressure of his yoke"

: Actually my understanding was the opposite. The Bal tshuva is encouraged
: to transform or transfer his awareness of G-d's presence to an awareness
: of halacha and gemora. The theological questions get replaced with
: halachic ones.

I can take what you said two ways.

Leshevach: With the experience of yahadus, all the qushyos become
she'eilos. Experiencing Shabbos and shemiras hahalakhah in general
convinces one that answers to these philosophical questions must exist.

Legenai: The BT, trying to acculturate, is made to act like someone who
"lost the touch of His presence and is seeking now solace in the pressure
of His yoke". Because he's trying to get beyond being a newbie, the BT
gives up that idealism that brought him to yahadus!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:54:19AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Does anyone know/is there a good work out on what caused R' Gershom to
: make his takkana disallowing polygamy? Given the oft repeated position
: that Halacha defines morality, was there some non-moral(eg economic)
: basis for this takana?

I refuse to accept this given. This runs counter to the RMT I just cited
on Areivim. RYBS rejects it:
> The discussion regarding women's tefilla groups has regrettably
> focused excessively on technical issues and legalities. It has been
> framed by limited halakhic queries such as: may the participants
> forgo tefilla be-tsibbur to attend these groups? May menstruant women
> touch sifrei Torah? Undoubtedly such technical perspectives and
> narrow questions are necessary to ensure our compliance with all
> minutiae of halakha. Torah, however, consists not only of halakhic
> details, but also of halakhic values. Unfortunately the latter have
> been neglected in the discussion concerning women's tefilla groups.
> When halakha is fragmented and truncated in such a fashion, it can be
> neither interpreted nor implemented correctly.

> The approach of Rav Soloveitchik zt"l differed. The Rav's consistent
> opposition to women's tefilla groups was dictated by halakhic values,
> not halakhic details. This article attempts to elucidate the Rav's
> axiological opposition to these groups.

How does one understand the concepts of of neveilus birshus haTorah,
lifnim mishuras hadin, and Qedoshim tihyu without positing an axiology
that requires behaviors that can be set into specific rules of law
applicable to all people at all times?

Why does your question apply more to charamei Rabbeinu Gershom than
to derabbanans? Yes, once the takanah is accepted it's halachah, but
until then -- how can a din be cited as its own motivation? Does this
mean that dinim are proposed for non-moral reasons and then become a
new morality? And what about mihagim?

Also, FWIW, those who do accept this chiddush muflah, must they insist
Rabbeinu Gershom was of their camp?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:01:22 +0300 (IDT) Eli Turkel wrote:
>> RYGB writes
>>> My personal assumption is that HKB"H adjusts his relationship with
>>> the world to accord with the prevailing spirit in Am Yisroel ...
...
>> I find it astounding that Hashem would change the way he runs the world
>> to conform with the views of the masses.

To which RYGB responds: 
>I do not find it astounding (obviously) - tzaddik gozer v'HKB"H mekayem.

Is it so obvious that there is a Chazal//Rishonim-sourced concept of
"tzaddik gozer v'HKB"H mekayem" which would extend as far as to say that
He would reinvent His relationship with world based on the "gezeirah"
of a tzaddik? In other words, that the hashgacha was one way during
the time of the Rambam but changed during the time of the Besht - at
the command of the Besht!!!???

And, is the case of Choni HaMa'agel really comparable? Is "forcing His
hand" the same as having Him permanently alter His ways?

Wouldn't the latter-day authorities instead say that it is not the
honhoga of the KB"H that changed but, rather, that the honhoga was
always the same, but that the kabolah-enlightened masters had a superior
understanding of these things?

And, therefore, the issue then becomes whether we are obligated to
respect that claim?

BTW, try doing a Bar Ilan search for the above aphorism.

Dovid Hojda

RYGB wrote: "Sevara. Hashem would not allow so many people to have a
mistaken belief and not change his hanhogo as a result."

How do you reconcile such an "assumption" w/ Malachi 2:6 (See also Rambam
Yesodei HaTorah 1:11) ?

wac

> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>:> Or perhaps as R' Dr. C. Soloveitchik said "Having lost the touch of his
>:> presence they seek now solace in the pressure of his yoke"

>: Actually my understanding was the opposite. The Bal tshuva is encouraged
>: to transform or transfer his awareness of G-d's presence to an awareness
>: of halacha and gemora. The theological questions get replaced with
>: halachic ones.

> I can take what you said two ways.

> Leshevach: With the experience of yahadus, all the qushyos become
> she'eilos. Experiencing Shabbos and shemiras hahalakhah in general
> convinces one that answers to these philosophical questions must exist.

> Legenai: The BT, trying to acculturate, is made to act like someone who
> "lost the touch of His presence and is seeking now solace in the pressure
> of His yoke". Because he's trying to get beyond being a newbie, the BT
> gives up that idealism that brought him to yahadus!

Actually both interpretations are correct. The issue is whether one is encouraged
not to devote time to these issues - because a real Jew learns gemora or because
thinking of these issues shows that your Yiddishkeit is shaky and it is time to
get past doubt.

One of R' Bulman's concerns in having his own community was to legitimize
continued searching for both groups. To put the issue in a different context - do
"real" talmidei chochimim spend significant time on internet discussion groups
trying to clarify hashkofa issues? What would the average rosh yeshiva think of
his talmidim discussing the issues found in this forum instead of learning
gemora? They used to say that if R' Itzele Peterburgher hadn't wasted his time
with mussar he would have been a much bigger gadol.

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

[Micha:]
> Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>Since there is such a solid nonchasidic consensus that hashgocha
>>protis is a function of spiritual level - why insist that the
>>contrary chassidic point of view needs to be accepted? ...

> Is there solid consensus? Amongst rishonim, and earlier acharonim,
>  perhaps. But amongst those after the Besh"t's chiddush -- even
> non-chassidim? Certainly mussar bought into it, and from there to
> other Litvaks (cf REED). There is a general lack of consensus over
> which non-Besht opinion even amongst the sources that you cited. In
> fact, amongst later voices, only the Meshech Chochmah is unequivicably
> in the Rambam's camp. More so, many (perhaps even most) rishonim and
> early acharonim DO posit a universal HP for people. It's WRT domeim,
> tzomei'ach and chai that the Besh"t really broke new ground.

We are in agreement that 1) at least up till the time of the early
achronim there was a basic consensus concerning hashgocha protis. 2)
the major chidush of the Besht concerns HP for non-man.

>If I'm struggling with an inyan emunah, I can take it on two levels:
>a theoretical discussion of one or various shitos, or an existential
>discussion of how I find meaning in my life. Which existential answer I
>come to in the latter role is similarly hard to modify by will. It will be
>whichever I find plausible, whether the reason for my being at home with
>the idea is philosophical argument or accident of educational history.

>The theoretical discussion is not complete without the Besh"t's shitah;
>and for most contemporary O Jews (including the majority of those
>reading this live or off a web search), the existential question can't
>be addressed at all if we neglect it.

Are you saying that since the Besht's view exists no one can ignore it?
Similarly if I am discussing tzitzum or minhagim I can not ignore any
shitah which some valid group hold? But since chassidus is not part
of my mesorah - why do I personally have to mention their views in
any discussion I have on the subject? We have the Minchas Elazar who
prohibited studying the non Beshtian view! My original assertion is that
Prof Levi or any other Jew need not include hashkofic positions of
other groups while R' Bechhofer insisted that Prof Levi had no right
to present a view that ignored the Besht. - at least in this issue.

Alternatively are you asserting that since percentage wise the majority
of observant Jews hold by the Besht's view of HP - I have no right to
ignore this view since it is like a bas kol has pronounced that this is
THE view of Jewish Hashkofa?

The first view is what range of existing views do I have to acknowledge -
the second is an insistence that there is only one correct view and it
belongs with the majority.

I assume you agree with me that there is a world of difference between
these two positions. R' Bechhoffer seems to subscribe to the latter.
Even if I acknowledge the range - which Prof Levi did - am I prohibited
from expressing an interpretation which is not identical with the pshat
of the Besht - again R' Bechoffer's assertion.

>In a later post, R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

>>From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
>><sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>

>>>My personal assumption is that HKB"H adjusts his relationship with
>>>the world to accord with the prevailing spirit in Am Yisroel...

>>I personally find this assertion rather astounding. Do you have any
>>sources which are consistent with this approach?

>While I find this a pretty big chiddush too, its parallel to "tzadiq
>gozeir veH' meqayim" takes the edge off any astonishment.

Again we are in agreement that this is a major chidush. Assuming for
the moment that it is a extenstion of tzadik gozer - what if my tzadik
is not gozer? Do I have to acknowledge the reality of your tzadik's
gezeros? This is similar to the question of halacha. In my community -
do I have to be concerned with the psakim of a different group?

While I am generally sympathetic to your formulation of the issue - I
think it is not really a general issue but rather a specific consequence
of the hasidic revolution. Thus one can not generalize from the present
discussion to other areas which don't involve a conflict between the
chassidic and misnagdic positions.

                     Daniel Eidensohn

Yosef G. and Shani M. Bechhofer wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Warren Cinamon wrote:
>>To my mind, the real question,
>>(as is indicated by the sources you quote along w/ those quoted by Levi
>>and the many others) is what gives an individual the right to state
>>that the "current perspective" is different than that of the Gedolei
>>HaMesorah? RYGB does not seem to contest the fact that the position Levi
>>says is held by many "early authorities" is in fact the one maintained by
>>these Baalei HaMEsorah... 

>Your comments ignore the fact that Chassidus possesses many great
>scholars, bnei aliyah, yere'ei shomayim and perhaps even ba'alei ruach
>ha'kodesh who were oleh ha'shomayma (as in the Besht's letter to R'
>Gershon Kitover). One cannot "mach avek" there positions. Reb Tzadok
>alone is a force to contend with that cannot be ignored, and there are
>many Gedolei Chassidus who were aware of the shittos of the Rishonim
>and rejected them. Summah aleinu l'havin lammah.

I think we need to differentiate between 1) a group having many great
people and therefore they are deserving of respect and 2) because a group
has so many great people I must submit to their superiority or at least
not disagree with them.

The issue is my ability to maintain my hashkofa, nusach tefila, minhagim
etc., in the face of another group of people which possesses some
(or even many) high level people. Perhaps we are simply disagreeing
what "mach avek" means. For example R' Tzadok apparently has a greater
status amongst litvaks. Do Lubavticher's take him into consideration? As
far as I know - chassidic groups do not survey the range of hashkofic
alternatives before make assertions. Thus it is not really the issue
of dismissing the opinion of great people. It is a question of to what
degree am I allowed to make public pronouncements which disagree with
a widely accepted position - even though I have a very clear mesora to
rely upon. Do I have to switch to nusach sefard because the majority
of people in my neighborhood daven sefard? Do I have to adopt minhagim
simply because they are from the Arizal? A reasonable extension of your
argument is depicted in the fact that I was once called an apikorus by
a Lubavitch friend - as we stood in the entrance of 770. His logic was
"Since it is known that in each generation there is one tzadik who has
the greatest kesher to G-d. Since it is beyond dispute that the Rebbe
is that tzadik and you refuse to accept him as your rebbe (i.e., become
a Lubavticher). You are thereby rejecting the proper kesher to G-d. You
are an apikorus!" Am I similarly an apikorus for not accepting the views
of the Besht that are against my mesorah?

Do I have to accept the view of R' Levi Yitzchok Berdeichever - that
the Gra was sentenced to the choice of gehinom or learning chassidus
and he chose gehinom? Do I have to accept the view of the Novominsker
Rebbe that the Gra's opposition to chassidus was ma'aseh Satan?

In sum what exactly are the parameters of rejecting or ignoring the
views of big people when they go against my mesorah?

>>I suppose then what I am saying is - in the same way we would not simply
>>choose the halachik position based on what is popular or makes us feel
>>good - we must not do the same - despite that it may be the "current
>>perspective - in the area of hashkafa. I think this is a very important
>>point - One that deserves further discussion.

>Halachah requires hachro'oh. This issue doies not.

Why doesn't hashkofa (or hashgacha protis) require hachro'oh? How do
I determine what to teach my children or students? How do I know what
to think about my life? How do I react to happiness or suffering? A
person who accepts every position in essence believes in nothing.
Hashgocha protis is the foundation of bitachon and reward and punishment.
Why isn't hachro'oh required?!

Daniel Eidensohn

At 12:52 PM 9/24/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>I do think that your suggestion is untenable: Wouldn't Rav
>Tzoddok et al apply their theory to their understanding of historical
>events that took place in Chumash or Nach, for instance? If so, then they
>are saying that hoshgacha protis applied back then, unlike Rambam et al
>who say otherwise.

Reb Tzadok would argue that any individual. mentioned in Tanach was
worthy of hashgochoh protis regardless.

YGB

In volume 6 of Noraot haRav (237-270) RYBS discusses selichos at
nighttime.

"Though nowadays, it is customary to recite Selichos in the morning,
prior to Shacharis, there is no precedence for this procedure. It is
wrong. Selichos should should be recited at night and concluded at night
or with daybreak"

see eicha 2:19 - kumi roni ba-layla le-rosh ashmoros

He does not discuss psak but I would guess that given the choice between
12:30 or 1am after midnight or 7am before Scharis that RYBS would choose
the after midnight choice. Preferably he says explicitly that "Selichos
should terminate at daybreak"

(note sefardim indeed start selichos early - In Israel I have heard of
times between 3:30am and 5:30am).

He stresses that prayer generally is not at night except for shemoneh
esre of Maariv which is a lower lever than Scharis or Mincha. Similarly,
Birchat Kriyat Shema at night are abbreviated version of the morning ones.

night time is reserved for learning torah nor for tefillah !!
tehillim is not recited before midnight.
chassidim don't say le-dovid hashen ori ve-yishi at night.

selichos is the exception to this rule. originally selichot was several
hours however much of the geonic works were lost and abbreviated.

selichos is an expression of tefillah at night. "roni ba-layla" normally
is about learning but from now until yom kippur it is re-interpreted as
tefillah and not Torah.

Torah at night = selichos

Hence, selichos should not be said in the daytime. He brings a custom
of Ukranian chassidim to say selichot after maariv.

tefilla = greatness of man
selichos = worthlessness of man

man is not great at night it is a time of anxiety and loneliness and
so night is not appropriate for tefilla but is appropriate for 
selichot. On the other hand daytime is appropriate for tefilla but 
not for selichot.

one should not add to the 3 prayers of each day - selichot is the 
exception to this rule. prayer and selichot are part of teshuva.

Interestingly, RYBS claims that selichot underwent a change through
the generations which is wrong. However, since it has been accepted by
generations of Jews it is acceptable. The central portion of selichot
are the 13 middot.
components of selichot:
1. compilation of pesukkim - mainly tehillim
   helplessness of man, G-d is merciful and forgives man, G-d's majesty

example: Shomea Tefilla adecha kol basar yavou ... ke-dalim u-kerashim
dafaknu delatecha.

we bang on G-d's door like paupers, we are a lowly creature.
However, the selicha is baiscally a weave of verses from tehillim,
Yirmiyahu and all Tanach into a new whole piece. one does not feel the
joining of distinct fragments

there were more recitations of pesukkim that have disappeared but remain
in old manuscripts

2. in selichot singular is converted to plural
example: hashem boker tishma kolenu ...
pasuk (tehillim 5:4) has koli noy kolenu

in shema kolenu - al tashlichenu melefanecha ..
pasuk tehillim 51:13 has tashlichani 
(indicates that personally he changes the selicha back to singular
whenever it appears thus in a pasuk). Tashbetz defends the change and
brings an example
refenu hashem ve-nerafeh
(yirmiyahu - refeni hashem ve-erafeh).

selichot = shemonei esre
shomei tefillah recited on yom kippur in maariv but not during the
day. The reason is that it is praise which is a necessary component
of tefillah. At night where there is no shemonei esre selichos needs
a seprate introduction of shevach. During the day selichot is part of
shemonei esre and so does not need a seprate introduction of shevach.
shomea refiilah = equivalent to first 3 berachot of shemone esre

3. vidiui and 13 middot

4. short prayers
anenu hashem anenu - these can be traced back to the second bet hamikdash
- similarly "aseh lemaan amitecha" may have been said when they marched
with the lulav around the mizbeach

piyutim are much later replaced the compilation of pesukim (remnants
still appear)

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 09/24/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On Wednesday 24 September 2003 02:28, Avodah wrote:
> R' Seth Mandel wrote:
>>  From the R'Mo, as well as the way he states the minhog in Darkhei Moshe,
>> it is clear that on the first day, slichos were recited in "ashmores
>> haboqer," just as they were on the other day. Nor do any of the nos'ei
>> kelim mention the custom of doing it late Saturday night. And for that
>> reason, the acharonim don't even mention here the issue of not doing it
>> before hatzos (the source of which is qabbolo), since it apparently was
>> not done at night, but rather in the pre-morning hours.

As I already pointed out on Areivim, the minhag in Basel is to say slichot in 
the morning even on the first day. Today, I checked the Maharil, and he 
states that the minhag is to say slichot in the morning. I will check a 
unicode textfile snippet to all interested. So, the minhag of saying them 
specifically in the morning is quite old. (but perhaps nobody thought about 
saying them at night, which is why the issue is not explicitly discussed.)

Reb David Cohen wrote:
> In this electrically lit age, when many people would find it hard to wake
> up for selichos in ashmores haboker, it is common to recite selichos after
> dawn, before shacharis. On the first day, however, this would make us
> unable to recite the pizmon of "BeMotzaei Menuchah," which, besides the
> opening line, contains a number of references (e.g. "beza'akasam be'od
> layil") to the fact that it is night. Hence, according to my guess,
> the custom of doing it late Saturday night, which most people (though
> not all!) find easier than waking up in ashmores haboker, the only
> possible alternative.

Nope. Same pizmon has reference to getting up in the morning. Bemotzaei 
menu'hah seems to mean Sunday, not necessarily erev Sunday.

The Rödelheim sli'hot, minhag Elzas, states:
Retzeh 'atiratam be'amdam baleilot/she'eh na tfilatam beratzon keqorban tamid 
ve'olot/ tarem nisekha 'oseh gedolot/lishmo'ah el harinah ve-el hatefilah.

Now perhaps you get up at night, from your long Shabbes shluf; I tend to get 
up from that nap before min'hah (actually, I rarely sleep more than an hour 
on Shabbat afternoon, so I'd get up at around 3pm). Hence, I'd have 
difficulty stating I am 'omed baleilot for sli'hot.

Note that others changed the language to read be'amdam bemakhelot, probably to 
solve this nagging issue about saying something which doesn't square with 
reality in those communities.

Ktivah ve'hatimah tovah,

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

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


[ 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         ]