Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 006

Thursday, October 2 2003

• Slichos after Shachris
• Re: time of selichot
• 'Te'kah Be'shoyfor Godoyl'
• Re: davening in place where your friends are or in a 'friendly' place - desirable ?
• Re: the story of the man who davened aleph bais
• Re: the story of the man who davened aleph bais
• Re: tehillim
• Re: tehillim
• Re: Why is Bee Honey Kosher?
• Re: driving
• Re: Not Blowing the Shofar
• Re: "...m'ri'in b'sofa" (was "source of 'Tichle..Tachel'")
• web sites on Shabbos - Star-K
• Hebrew Pronunciation
• Subject: Hebrew Pronunciation

I was wondering if there were any poskim that talk about the problem of
saying slichos before shachris, when the slichos start after sunrise.

Surely the rule of Todir should apply - and shachris would be first?

Please don't respond that slichos is "part of davening". Why? Because:
 - It's ends with Kadish Tiskabal, so it's an entity unto itself.
 - From the poskim it's clear that it was meant to be said long before
shachris, as they mention saying viduy & tachanun before day-break - which
is (currently in EY) 70 or 90 minutes before sunrise. The MB mentions
slaughtering Kaporos between slichos & shachris.
 - Why would we say the same tachanun twice in the same shacharis?
 - Even on days we skip tachanun in shachris we still say it in slichos.

Gmar Vchasimo Tova
 - Danny

R' Danny Schoemann writes (similar to what R' Michael Poopers and others
wrote, I think) <<< Hil. Taanis, OC 566:4: "The minhag is to say lots
of slichos in the brocho of Slach-Lonu, and some have the minhag not to
say slichos until after the 18 brochos, and this was how the kadmonim
were noheig in EY and it's the correct minhag." >>>

So, let's put this in perspective of our original question, which was
the proper time for selichos during Elul and AYT.

I see several possiblilities:

1) Originally, Elul/AYT was also done during Selach Lanu, but was moved
to before Shacharis for some reason.

2) Originally, Taanis/BHB had slichos before Shacharis, but was moved
to Selach Lanu for some reason.

3) Despite similar formats, Elul/AYT and Taanis/BHB developed selichos
independently of each other, and therefore are unable to shed any light
on each other.

Any guesses?

Akiva Miller

Someone, today, showed me a [poshut] pshat in our 3 x daily tefilah -
'Te'kah Be'shoyfor Godoyl' [which is based on the Posuk "ubashoyfor
godoyl yitoka' - which we mentioned in Mussaf on RH].

Vos epes 'Godoyl'?
What 'big' shofar is being referred to?

The answer comes from a Pirkei DeRebbe Eliezer
which relates that 'Eyloy shel Yitzchok' had 2 horns.

The left one was used by HKBH - when he blew shofar during Matan Torah
and theright one - which is bigger than the left, will be blown by Him
when Moshiach arrives...BBA..

 - SBA

> From: "Mishpachat Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
>  <snip>
>> davening. It is certainly the more serious in terms of Torah
>> learners [the men who are members there] and the shul is roomy and
>> I can hear very well and I can have tremendous kavana there and
>> there aren't usually any noisy kids that are allowed to disturb...

Then you wouldn't have liked Hak-heil...

From R Mordechai:
> It seems that sometimes (if not always), it is better to daven in a
> place that is not so friendly / populated by your friends.....

Just to play devil's advocate...

How much is the effectiveness of a tzibur caused by the emotional
bonds between the mispalelim? We've discussed (based on two very
different meqoros) the power of a Mi sheBeirakh in terms of making the
choleh's suffering a communal suffering. Does that work as well in an
impersonal setting?

To put it another way: To what extent is the significance of the word
"keneses" in "beis keneses"?

LAD, there are conflicting values. Yes, tefillah bekavanah is crucial.
(Which is why I forewarned RCM and RNW that I asked for a different
seat for yamim nora'im than my maqom kavu'ah so that I won't be as
tempted to talk to them. That it was a compliment, not an insult.)

However, so is the bein adam lachaveiro of being besokh ami, including
its children, its "interesting characters", and the warmth of a real
kehillah. To my mind, that is actually part of tefillah betzibbur as
well.

While kavanah is the more crucial priority, there must be some gevul. No?

 -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

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> I am quite aware of the moral of the story. It is as you state. But
> I reject the premise that an Am HaAretz can out acheive a Talmid
> Chachamin the area of holiness. This would suggest that a Chazan Ish
> can be outdone by Mr. Yossele Pundrick Am HaAretz as long as his
> Kavanos are greater...

But how likely is it that his kavanos are greater? Tagging on the name
of some famous talmud chacham has little weight to the debate, as
talmidei chachamim aren't famous for being well learned people who are
shomerei Torah by rote or culture.

You're comparing only half the apple with the orange. All else being
equal, it's better to daven with kavanah. When things aren't equal,
can that inequality be outweighed by kavanah? I don't know why you
assume the answer is "no".

> Intensity and desire are not enough.

Neither is cold accuracy.

> The BSHT should have told the Am HaAretz that "He should daven
> B'Laz...not say the Aleph Beis.

Good question, but doesn't address your problem with the story. After
all, he wouldn't be saying the matbei'ah if he were davening in
Yiddish. (Given the state of printed texts, he wouldn't be saying a
translation, either.)

 -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

In a message dated 10/1/03 9:39:15 AM EDT, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> The BSHT should have told the Am HaAretz that "He should daven
> B'Laz...not say the Aleph Beis. 

Thanks, I'm sure that at this very moment the Besht is kicking himself in the 
Yeshiva Shel Maalah and saying, "Oy, where was Reb Harry when I needed him?"

GCT
Toby Katz

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> The story is only tangentially about deveikus and certainly does NOT
> imply that the purpose of davening is to achieve deveikus, or that
> deveikus without davening is a worthy goal, let alone preferable to
> actually davening.

> The story is a chassidishe story, which you all seem to be overlooking
> completely. Its point is that in the eyes of Heaven a simple person
> may be much more "valuable" so to speak than the shul big shot, and no
> one has the right to look down at another person and assume that he is
> better than that person. A person who is a big T'C and who understands
> every word of the davening has not necessarily achieved a higher madreiga
> in the eyes of G-d than an am ha'aretz who longs to serve Hashem.

I am quite aware of the moral of the story. It is as you state. But I
reject the premise that an Am HaAretz can out acheive a Talmid
Chachamin the area of holiness. This would suggest that a Chazan Ish
can be outdone by Mr. Yossele Pundrick Am HaAretz as long as his
Kavanos are greater. In fact this is what the BSHT was saying in
essecnce because when he told his Chasisdim that it was through the
intensity of the Am HaAretz's "Aleph Bais" that they would ALL be
saved. I assume he included himself.

In no way can I accept this. I am reminded of a story about the
Brisker Rav. When a Gvir, Am HaAretz wanted to speak to him one time,
The Brisker Rav made him wait until he finished speaking in learning
with another Talmid Chacham. The Gvir waited patiently over this
lengthy discussion trying to understand the Divrei Torah. After quite
a long wait, the Brisker Rav finished his discourse and turned to
thie Gvir who had waited so patiently. Before the Gvir started to
discuss the matter about which he came, he said to the Brisker Rav I
didn't really understand what you were saying but I listened to every
word. Will I at least get Schar for that? The Brisker Rav answered:
None, whatsoever!

Intensity and desire are not enough.

The BSHT should have told the Am HaAretz that "He should daven B'Laz...not
say the Aleph Beis.

[Email #2. -mi]

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Because the chiddush is that there is hope for ignoramii, anyone can
> redeem himself. Not that tefillah with kavanah is better than that
> without -- what's the need for a story to underscore /that/?

What was the point of telling him to recite the hebrew alphabet? Why
not simply say to what is on his heart in his own vernacular? Why make
him look foolish in the eyes of the other Chasidim? I think the answer
is that the BSHT believed that cohernece is irrelavant. It's almost as
if... the more incoherent, the better.

...
> Still, (Tekias Shofar is) wordless, and it's part of the din of
> mussaf. I'm not arguing
> based on ta'am, but on those two simple points of metzi'us.
> Therefore your
> whole bit about shofar being choq is off the point.

Ye, I will admit that the Seder Tekiaos are seen as a sort of
representation of a crying as is indicated by the Techina U'sekabel
B'Rachamim U'veratzon Seder... (one of the following: Shofros, Malchios,
and Zichronos)... at the end of each Seder Tekiah. But I doubt that it
is anything more than symbolic. If they were truly Techinos then why do
we not say Seder Techinosenu?

>:> Actually, the did. I reiterate: you're confusing tefillah with tachanunim
>:> by calling both "praying".

Avinu Malkenu P'sach Shaarei Shomayim L'Sfilosenu. Is this not really
talking about Techhinos? It calls it Tefilos. Tefilah is the larger
category containing Techinos as well as Hodaos and Shevachos.

>: It behooves his teachers to teach him how to pray rather than to encourage
>: him to cry incoherently.

> It does. Who say they didn't? However, if he approached the Besh"T erev YK,
> it's a little late for that.

I repeat what I said above:
What was the point of telling him to recite the hebrew alphabet? Why not
simply tell him to say what is on his heart in his own vernacular? Why
make him look foolish in the eyes of the other Chasidim? I think the
answer is that the BSHT believed that coherence is irrelevant. It's
almost as if... the more incoherent, the better.

>: I submit that this is all the proof I need to show that the primary
>: purpose of prayer is designed to either praise God or beesech Him for
>: help since this is how Chazal constructed Shmoneh Esreh.

> However, tefillah is an excercise in how one ought to praise, make
> requests, or thank G-d. If it were actual requests, for example, wouldn't
> it relate to the actual needs we're facing, and change as our lives
> do?

So you think that when one has sincere requests of God the best way to
ask is to recite Tehilim?

> Second, if it were an actual request, it wouldn't work. G-d won't give
> you anything more or less than what you deserve no matter how much or
> how little you beg Him.

One of the benefits of prayer is that it DOES give you an opportunity
to change your destiny. If you deserve punishment for Aveiros and it
was about to be so decreed on RH, it is through Teshuva, Tzedakah,
and ...TEFILA... that we can avert the severe decree.

> And, if it really were communication, why wouldn't it include non-verbal
> communication? Your argument makes things worse for your conclusion, not
> better. I'm saying that tachanunim can be non-verbal, but tefillah must
> be the fixed matbei'ah. Your version of tefillah is closer to my
> tachanunim.

I repeat:
Avinu Malkenu P'sach Shaarei Shomayim L'Sfilosenu. Is this not really
talking about Techinos? It calls it Tefilos.

> In which case, why would /any/ means of making your needs known not qualify
> as a qiyum. And if crying the alef-beis because that's the only way you
> can think of to say "I need to be closer to YOu" is all you can do, how
> did you /not/ just justify doing it?

Because it wasn't the best way. Alef-beis  was an answer to a
question: What DO you know?! The BSHT would have done better not to
answer a question with a question but to say, Daven in your own
vernacular.

HM

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:45:26PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: What was the point of telling him to recite the hebrew alphabet?...

This is a good question, and has nothing to do with the question of
whether heartfelt communion with G-d should outweigh exact fulfilment
of tefillah with proper text, although less heartfelt.

: It's almost as if... the more incoherent, the better.

That's your own projection. I wouldn't make it.

:> Therefore your
:> whole bit about shofar being choq is off the point.

: Ye, I will admit that the Seder Tekiaos are seen as a sort of
: representation of a crying as is indicated by the Techina U'sekabel
: B'Rachamim U'veratzon Seder... (one of the following: Shofros, Malchios,
: and Zichronos)... at the end of each Seder Tekiah. But I doubt that it
: is anything more than symbolic. If they were truly Techinos then why do
: we not say Seder Techinosenu?

For the same reason why we don't say "seder tefilaseinu", perhaps?

You're also confusing the issues of tefillah vs tachanunim and tze'aqah
vs ze'aqah. Shofar is part of *tefillas* mussaf, and is part of a
fixed seder.

:>:> Actually, the did. I reiterate: you're confusing tefillah with tachanunim
:>:> by calling both "praying".

: Avinu Malkenu P'sach Shaarei Shomayim L'Sfilosenu. Is this not really
: talking about Techhinos? It calls it Tefilos. Tefilah is the larger
: category containing Techinos as well as Hodaos and Shevachos.

Perhaps, although then you're arguing with the Gra's terminology. But even
if so, how does change the validity of this ignorant person's heartfelt
alef-beis? If there is a role for simple emotional connection, how does
the terminology change anything?

:> However, tefillah is an excercise in how one ought to praise, make
:> requests, or thank G-d. If it were actual requests, for example, wouldn't
:> it relate to the actual needs we're facing, and change as our lives
:> do?

: So you think that when one has sincere requests of God the best way to
: ask is to recite Tehilim?

I don't see any connection between the two. The best way to ask is
combining a natural request, together with tefillah, together with
whatever causes the best emotional attachment (assuming it's neither of
those two).

:> Second, if it were an actual request, it wouldn't work. G-d won't give
:> you anything more or less than what you deserve no matter how much or
:> how little you beg Him.

: One of the benefits of prayer is that it DOES give you an opportunity
: to change your destiny....

You make an assertion with no explanation.

Yes, tefillah changes destiny because it changes the destined. Just as
RSRH and RYBS explain it.

: Avinu Malkenu P'sach Shaarei Shomayim L'Sfilosenu. Is this not really
: talking about Techinos? It calls it Tefilos.

Where do you see me deny the role of tefillah? I question the relative
value of cold rote tefillah in comparison to heartfelt techinah, but
that doesn't uproot the value of tefillah altogether.

And where do you see in a tefillah said right after shemoneh esrei about
accepting our tefillos a rejection of the concept of techinah?

 -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      

R Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> Just which of thesematerials, other than the enzymes, are produced
> by the  bee?  And what are the halakhic implications?

Can there be halachic implications? This is something chazal were sure
enough of to think it could be darshened from a pasuq. It's well
within the period of hora'ah.

It's totally unlike questioning the identification of oats or
horseradish.

I would be asking what's the shiur of change after which something is
considered min hatamei? Milk is beyond that shiur, honey apparently
isn't. Regardless of the accuracy of chazal's explanation for the din,
we know what was written in seifer Shofertim, we know the maskanah.

 -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

I don't really understand Rabbi Zirkind's response yet, but at least my
ignorance has become more sophisticated. I'll start by summarizing what
I think I know, and then list some questions.

The basic source is HM 427 (there are only 426 Simanim in the Tur and Beis
Yosef, 427 is composed of citations from H. Rotzeah). In 8 he says that
removing any michshol is a kiyum of the mitzvath aseh of v'nishmartem
m'od l'nafshoseichem. I was pleased to notice that I was m'chavein to
the Minchath Hinuch, who also wonders whether this is a real mitzvah or
an asmachta b'alma (the fancy edition of the MH cites acharonim who take
both ends of the argument). In either case

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
<<My point was that in the Possuk there is no distiction between himself
and someone else and both are included in the Lav of Vlo Sosim Domim
Bivesecha, so whatever would be included (as to the different opinions
mentioned in the text I faxed) would also be Tolui on others.>>

But this seems not to apply since the Rambam/Mehabeir has deliberately
made a transition from the issur of lo Sossim in 1-7 to the asseh of
v'nishmartem in 8. He seems blatantly to imply that the lav doesn't
apply in the general case of michshol.

Next in 9-10 the Rambam/Mehabeir introduces a series of issurim d'rabbanan
of dangerous activities. Again I seem to have been m'chavein: the asseh
d'oraytha is hassaras michshol, and the issurim d'rabbanan are activities.

RYK has convinced me that death is included as well as injury, both from
<<Rashi on the source in the Gemara Bava Kama 91b that it is talking
about Sakanas Nfoshos not money>>

and the lashon of 7-9 ("rauy sheyichshol bah adam v'yamus", "sakanas
nefashos").

Now the questions: Is there a general issur d'rabbanan of doing dangerous
actions, or are only those things specifcally listed assur?

The SA (it's in Orah Hayyim, H. Birchas HaGomel) cites a machlokes
Ashkenazim vs. Sfardim whether kol hadrachim b'chezkas sakkanah bazman
hazeh, but even though RYZ knows of people who travel only l'dvar mitzvah
(and I have a vague recollection of hearing the same from other sources)
I found no halachic source for such bahavior (admittedly I made only
a very casual search).

RYZ writes
<<in what is derech haolom and proffesions since there is no Issur on
oneself then it is not included in Shmiras Haguf>>

implying that derech haolam, even if it in inherently dangerous, is
muttar. I'm fairly sure he's right, but I would be happier with an
explicit source.

Is there an issur of endangering others? The Mehabbeir excised from the
Rambam he cited all the examples of endangering others. 427:10 can cut
both ways, but l'aniyus daati, coupled with my previous sentence, it
offers at least a little support that the Mehabbeir thought there isn't.

RYZ cited above believes there's an issur of endangering others if and
only if it's assur to endanger one's self. I questioned his proof above.
I also wonder about activities which endanger others but not one's self
(e.g. polluting with allergenic substances).

David Riceman

Danny Schoemann wrote:
> My host on 2nd night RH showed me a tshuva of Rav PZ Frank
> zt"l. Apparently there was a certain Rav Shlezinger who held it was
> muttar to blow shofar on shabbes in Yerusholayim, and he did.

This isn't crazy at all. The sevara is that while gezeiros apply even
when their reason do not, when the gezeirah is not to do a mitzvah we
assume that Chazal included a provision that when the reason no longer
applies neither does the gezeirah. If so, if there is no reshus ha-rabim
de-oraisa today then we should all blow shofar and certainly in places
where there is an eiruv. See the Biur Halachah 303:18 sv. ve-hashta
who leaves the question open why we do not blow shofar on Shabbos.

Gil Student

[Coalesced from an Areivim post and subsequent private dialogue.  --MP]

In Areivim V12 #6, CSherer wrote:
> The Gemara says "Kol shana she'ain m'ri'in b'tchilasa, m'ri'in
> b'sofa." The Aruch LaNer writes in his sefer Minchas Ani that he did a
> cheshbon and R"L every time that the first day of Rosh HaShanna was on
> Shabbos, something bad happened towards the end of the year....

Where is that sugya? I'm wondering whether CHaZaL explicitly recognized
the spiritual risk in preventing the c'lal from fulfilling a mitzva
d'oraysa other than in, apparently, this one place (e.g. did they
talk about not taking lulav bam'dinah on the first day when it's
Shabbos causing problems down the road?)...and I'm also wondering
whether there's a different reading for that sugya, especially
when we _are_ "m'ri'in bitchilasa" if you consider RhSh a yoma
arichta, never mind that aspects like undoubtedly saying Birchas
Shehecheyanu (whether it be shofar or lulav or another mitzva -- see
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v30/mj_v30i02.html#CR re the Aruch
LaNer's own opinion on sukkah) indicate that the mitzva is seemingly
being properly fulfilled at its earliest opportunity.

CGSteinmetz replied:
> See RH 16b and Tos. there.

I replied:
Thanks! Tos'fos being just one opinion, I guess others are entitled
to a different one, but their note seems to be a proper reading of
R'Yitzchak's amirah.

In Areivim Digest V12 #7, TKatz replied:
=------------------------------=
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:35:33 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject: Re: not blowing shofar on Shabbos [was: source of "Tichle..Tachel"]
Message-ID: <130.25ad83b4.2ca9b955@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/29/03  "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il> 
writes:
> But here's a sobering thought from R. Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin's pre-
> Slichos musar: The Gemara says "Kol shana she'ain m'ri'in b'tchilasa, 
> m'ri'in b'sofa." The Aruch LaNer writes in his sefer Minchas Ani that 
> he did a cheshbon and R"L every time that the first day of Rosh 
> HaShanna was on Shabbos, something bad happened towards the end of 
> the year....

> So daven hard between now and Yom Kippur.... 

Trying to find "something bad toward the end of the year" is like shooting
fish in a barrel. "Something bad" happens every day of every year,
somewhere in the world, depending how broadly you define "something bad."
It's like reading newspaper horoscopes, if you try to find something to
fit the prediction, you always will.

It's hard to understand this idea that if you don't blow shofar on Shabbos
something bad will happen. It flies in the face of what we know about
obeying the halacha in general, Chazal in particular. I don't know if
that Gemara is referring to every year in which Rosh Hashana falls on a
Shabbos, or whether it is referring to years in which people don't blow
shofar for some other reason--maybe because they've lost their faith
and no longer keep mitzvos.

Of course there is never a year in which this happens to all of Klal
Yisrael at the same time. Does the "m'ri'in b'sofa" refer to all of Klal
Yisrael, or to those Jews who don't blow/hear shofar?

On this same theme, R' Ari Kahn posted a beautiful dvar Torah before Rosh
Hashana, maybe too close to yom tov for a lot of people to have seen it.
It is in Avodah V12 #1.

GCT
Toby Katz

Here is a small part of RAK's post in Avodah:
<<snipped -- see Avodah V12 #1  --MP>>

> In the current Kashrus Kurrents, put out by the Star-K, there is a
> question and answer column by Rabbi Tzvi Rosen. In a little box at the
> top it says, "All answers are based on psak of Rabbi Moshe Heinemann,
> shlita." Here is one of the questions:

> Q: On Shabbos does an observant Jew have to close a web site that is
> selling products on line?

> A: Yes. As in the case of regular business transactions, no electronic
> business transactions may be made on Shabbos or Yom Tov on a web site
> belonging to a shomer Shabbos businessman. The web site may remain
> open for information purposes, if the shopping cart on the web site
> is shut down. The time Shabbos and Yom Tov begins is determined by the
> entrepreneur's geographic location.

Thus according to R' Rosen we have the answers to two questions that
were raised on Avodah. One was whether an informational web site like
Aishdas needs to be shut down on Shabbos. The answer seems to be no,
it can remain open. The second question was what determines when
it is Shabbos--since it is Shabbos SOMEWHERE for 48 hours (I think).
The answer is that the geographic location of the owner of the web site
determines when it is Shabbos.

The only other question I have--just to make it more complicated--is,
what if the business web site is owned by two partners who live in
different time zones or even in different countries?

GCT
Toby Katz

From: gil@aishdas.org
> I grilled my paternal grandmother over RH about exactly how she spoke
> Hebrew and Yiddish in the alter heim (where she and my grandfather grew
> up) and, to my surprise, it was not as I had thought. Let's just say
> that Shea is an appropriate nickname for my son, Yehoshua.

> Le-halachah ve-lo le-ma'aseh, what obligation do I have to daven with
> the Hebrew pronunciation that my great-grandfather used if I was never
> taught that way by my parents?

I don't know if you can rely on what your grandmother said. Things
in Europe change quite frequently. While, my father z"l davened with a
regular Ashkenaz pronunciation, he spoke Yiddish with more of Galicianish
type pronunciation as was mostly spoken in Hungary.

My uncle says my grandfather and great grandfather who spent much of their
youth in Pressburg spoke with more of a regular Ashkenaz proncuation. The
difference was due to the change in borders after WWI and my father
learning in a Chassidishe Yeshivah.

People moved around from country to country and often picked up the
pronunciation of the new community. This was especially true of the
younger generations. How many Israelis do you know that daven in Askenaz
Ha'avarah, despite their family having come from Europe.

The question is how far do you go back, and if you do switch haavarah
would it force you to think about the pronunciation rather than the
content and thus lessen your kavanah.

Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com

From: gil@aishdas.org
> I grilled my paternal grandmother over RH about exactly how she spoke
> Hebrew and Yiddish in the alter heim (where she and my grandfather grew
> up) and, to my surprise, it was not as I had thought. Let's just say
> that Shea is an appropriate nickname for my son, Yehoshua.

> Le-halachah ve-lo le-ma'aseh, what obligation do I have to daven with
> the Hebrew pronunciation that my great-grandfather used if I was never
> taught that way by my parents?

I am reminded of a famous teshuvoh of Rav Moshe (RMF) z"l, who, when asked
if someone from a hassidic background (who grew up davening the hassidic
'nusach sefard') can daven / 'switch to' nusach Ashkenaz, paskened that
they may do so, even though people normally are not supposed to change
their minhogim. IIRC, the reason given was that since the original
family custom of the Ashkenazim who populate the hassidic movement was
to daven nusach Ashkenaz, prior to the hassidic movement coming and
abandoning that for 'nusach sefard', therefore, this person, by going
back to nusach Ashkenaz, was actually going back to his earlier roots
of previous past generations, rather than deviating from such.

Perhaps we can use similar logic in this case.

If your great-grandfather (ggf) used a certain pronunciation, but it
was different than what his ggf or his ggf's ggf used, and you want
to do what your ggf's ggf did, rather than follow your ggf, esp. when
there are grounds to argue that the earlier way was more correct, then
licheora there should be no problem.

Mordechai

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


[ 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         ]