Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 007

Thursday, October 2 2003

• Re: tefillin knots
• neilat hasandal
• Re: K'Vasikin v. Minyan (was Re: [Areivim] WTGs)
• A few vertlech for Aseres Yemei Tshuvah
• bee honey kashrut
• Re: bees' honey
• Re: bees' honey
• RE: davening in place where your friends are or in a 'friendly' place - desirable ?
• RE: davening in place where your friends are or in a 'friendly' place - desirable ?
• Re: bees' honey
• Re: K'Vasikin v. Minyan (was Re: [Areivim] WTGs)
• rambam in Israel revisited
• RE: web sites on Shabbos - Star-K
• Shofar on Shabbos RH
• Akeidat Yitz'hak
• Re: tehillim
• Re: tehillim

RMB wrote:
>(I wonder if the double-dalet qiyum of a halachah leMosheh miSinai is
>based on the implication that the din predates our use of Ashruris...)

Any websites where I can find a k'sav ivri alphabet? Is this the same
as the "Phoenician" alphabet?

Thanks,
GCT - Herschel

[We were discussing on Areivim a "new DL chumrah" of not wearing Shoresh
sandals on Yom Kippur. While the sandals are not leather, they are the
usual footwear and therefore are "meshameshes lene'ilah kol hashanah". See
<http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/view_ask.asp?id=4128>.
 -mi]

As usual, the Aruch HaShulchan (OC 614) gives an overview of the Shitot
Rishonim on neilat hasandal:

1) TUR and Mechaber 614:2: most lenient (prohibiting only shoes made
out of or covered with leather)

2) Rashi and Tosfot (on gemara in Yoma 78b): prohibiting wooden shoes

3) Baal HaMaor: anything that is "k'eyn min'al" is prohbited [l'havdil
elef alfei havdalot: sort of like, "if it looks like a duck and quacks
like a duck, it IS a duck"]

4. In s'if 4 the AH goes on to explain the Rambam ("anything not of
leather") l'chumra requiring one to feel the ground ("u'margish she'hu
yachef").

5) URGENT REQUEST OF OUR LINGUIST R. SETH: what are "kalasin" ??

6. Needless to say, the AH permits "min'al" for: choleh she'ein bo sakana;
an "isthenis" (Irving the wimp); when there is danger of a scorpion;
cold rainy weather (to shul) where they are removed and hidden;

So this latest chumra isn't just a chumra but based on a valid shitat
rishonim. For this reason I don't wear fancy Adidas rubber gym shoes
but el cheapo sneakers where you really DO feel the ground every painful
step to shul:-)

GCT
Josh

On 2 Oct 2003 at 12:24, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> ISTR RYBS holding the other way, that if faced with a choice between
> davening privately at hanetz, and davening later with a minyan, go to
> the minyan.  

I don't recall hearing that, but it's possible. 

> The Biur Halacha there adds a third factor: that one
> *normally* davens kevatikin, in which case continuing to daven thus,
> even without a minyan, is better.

Correct (at least that is how I would understand "ha'zhirin likros 
k'vasikin"). 

> I'm curious how the Mechaber gets to "mitzva min hamuvchar" - looking
> at the gemara in Brachot 9b, it's described as something the vatikin
> used to do.  It certainly would appeal to the MB, since it's "yotzei
> lechol hadeiot" in terms of zman K"S (both R' Eliezer & R' Yehoshua in
> the mishnah).  But making it a priority over minyan seems to be the
> MB's own chiddush; at least, he doesn't cite a source for it.

I don't have a Gemara in front of me right now, but the Biur Halacha 
refers to the Mishna on Brachos 22. From what I recall, there is also 
a ma'ase brought down in that Gemara about one of the Amoraim having 
read Kriyas Shma and been somech Geula l'Tfila k'vasikin, and smiling 
about it all day long.... 

 -- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

A Phat that occured to me this morning - when saying Ovinu Malkeinu.

We ask HKBH "Asei Lemaan Harugim al Shem Hodshecho/Tevuchim al
Yichudecho/Bo'ei Bo'eish uBamayim al Kiddush Shemecho.."

Efsher lomer bederech efsher...

That, whilst saying OM,we have been asking Hashem for many things, eg to
enter our names in 5 different 'good' books, Malei Yodeinu Mibirchosecho,
Malei Asomeinu Sovo, etc etc.

But what if, CV, Hashem doesn't want to grant us this requests??

So our answer to that is that we are told that Hashem repays Midah
keneged Moddah.
Therefore we remind Him, of all theh Kedoshim who were killed 'al
Kiddush Hashem'.
They too DIDN'T WANT to [be killed]... But still it happened. Therefore
we ask - please repay Middah Keneged Middah - and grant our requests -
even if You don't want to...

====

Noch an AYT possibilty.

Q: Why do we [at least nusach Ashkenaz] replace - during AYT 'Hamevoreich
es Amoy Yisroel Basholom with 'Oyseh Hasholom'?

A: Because as YK is not mochel 'avonos bein odom lechaveiro' unless
they make peace amongst themselves, therefore at this time of the year
Hashem 'forces' peace amongst us - rather than just bless us with it...
He is takeh "Oyseh" sholom...

[Then someone asked me today:
How is it possible that a brocho for peace - actually causes machlokes?

His answer: In those places [indeed here by us] ,where the official nusach
in shul is Ashkenaz and for Mincha "Sholom Rov" is said and the Shatz
errs and says "Sim Sholom" thus sometimes causing uproar and machlokes
by certain diehards...]

====

And a golden oldie from the Dubno Maggid, heard again today:

Q: Why do we say the last stanza of Ovinu Malkeinu quitely - in an
undertone?

A: Al pi moshol. A person goes into a store and asks for one item after
another .

When he has it all, he whispers to the storekeeper:
"Unfortunately, I can't pay for these goods immediately as I have
no money. Please extend me credit.."

Similarly here, we have asked for a whole lot of 'goodies' - but we have
no 'mitzvos and maasim tovim' to 'pay' with -
so we whisper to Hashem: "Choneinu vAneinu - ki "ein bonu maasim"...

BTW, according to poskim [IIRC] the Elyeh Rabboh], the reason we say
it quietly is becaause the other OMs are 'keneged' the Shmoneh Esreh
whilst the last one is for 'tachnun' - which is said silently.

SBA

I fail to understand the problem that some listmembers seem to be having
with rationalizing the kashrut of bee honey. The alleged problems
involve the following:
1. There is some bee enzyme mixed in with the plant nectar derivitive.
The bee enzyme itself should be non-kosher having been produced by a
non-kosher creature.

However, the amount of said saliva and other bee enzymes is miniscule
and should be batel. Those enzymes do not create the sweet product -
the concentrated nectar is already sweet. They are not comparable to
the curdling enzymes used in cheese making, which create the cheese.
 Nor should there be an issue of our buying a product containing a trief
ingredient , however miniscule, since no one has added the bee enzyme -
and the bees produced the honey for themselves and are also under no
kashrut injunctions.

2. There may be bee body parts mixed in with the raw honey which is
then cooked before being filtered.

The amount of bee body fluid extracted by the hot honey is surely
miniscule. Even if the honey company is Jewish, they did not add the
bee body parts but are merely dealing with the contaminated product
in the most practical manner - hot honey is runnier and much easier to
filter than colder honey.

Yitzchok Zlochower  

In a message dated 10/1/03 in  Avodah V12 #5 Eli Turkel <turkel@cem.tau.ac.il>
 writes:

> Subject: bees honey

>> I do not see why the arguments are flawed.
>> The bee does not produce the honey from fundamental components the way
>> milk or urine is produced. The nectar is never fully decomposed. so what
>> a few enzymes are left. why should that make it non-kosher. The honey
>> was not "produced" by the bee.

> If we artificially add enzymes from a bee to the nectar would it still
> be kosher - how about other nonkosher enzymes?
> Isn't this like davar ha-maamid?

> Eli Turkel

By definition an enzyme is a catalyst, something that speeds up (or
makes possible) a chemical process but does not become part of the final
product. If you had a substance (let's call it "nectar") whose chemical
composition was ABC, the enzyme might be something like a typist or a
deus ex machina that changes the chemical composition to ACB ("honey")
but does not itself become part of the final product. There is no ABCD.
Often an enzyme can work even if present in minute amounts, much less than
one part in sixty. I realize that mitzad kashrus one is not allowed to
add a treif substance on purpose to food, even if it is less than 1/60,
so we have to fall back on gezeiras hakasuv to allow the bee to do it
for us. But the fact remains that the final product is biochemically
just a rearrangement of the original substance--it really is not something
new like milk being produced from grass.

Coincidentally or providentially, while all this is being discussed
on Avodah, there is a terrific and very informative article about this
very subject in the current Kashrus Kurrents published by the Star-K.
The article is by Rabbi Dovid Heber. My apologies if someone has already
mentioned this article.

--GCT
Toby Katz

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 Toby wrote:
> By definition an enzyme is a catalyst, something that speeds up (or
> makes possible) a chemical process but does not become part of the final
> product....
> Often an enzyme can work even if present in minute amounts, much less than
> one part in sixty.I realize that mitzad kashrus one is not allowed to
> add a treif substance on purpose to food, even if it is less than 1/60,
> so we have to fall back on gezeiras hakasuv to allow the bee to do it
> for us.But the fact remains that the final product is biochemically just
> a rearrangement of the original substance--it really is not something
> new like milk being produced from grass.

While I agree with what Toby wrote it is still not clear why (without the
pasuk) it would be any different than adding enzymes to make ice cream
or today adding enzymes to make hard cheese when the enzyme comes from a
non-kosher source. In all cases it is a minute amount and itself is not
an important ingredient. I know RMF has a teshuva about ice creams and
davar ha-maamid but seems to allow only bidieved once it is made but not
le-chatchila. So even according to this the question would be whether one
could le-chatchila artificially add bee's enzyme to nectar to make honey.

GCT
Eli Turkel

>>> 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...

Hmmm. I'm curious. Does it say in chumash or in the mefarshim anywhere
that the children brought to hakheil were noisy, rotten screaming brats
whose parents not only never taught them to be quiet when Torah was
being read but gave them pekalach filled with noisy, crunchy food so
that others could not hear even when they weren't screaming?

>> 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?

Let me explain something that will make it a bit easier for you to
understand the situation I'm speaking of. In our city, even though there
are a number of shuls, everyone knows who you're talking about if you're
doing a misheberach for anyone living in the city. Therefore, it doesn't
matter which shul you're davening in for that purpose. We live in a place
that is both a city and a small town where everyone knows everything that
goes on, meaning that you don't have to be best friends with someone to
be acquainted with them. Caring about a tzibbur only requires being part
of the tzibbur, not being best friends with everyone in shul.

When I said that shul Y is less friendly than shul X, that doesn't mean
that those in Y are all strangers and it does not mean that they are not
all part of the same tzibbur in the same city. Less friendly has to do
with people giving effusive greetings and speaking to you socially and
being your close friends.

Another point here is that in a shul where it is more social, it is much
more of a problem for gabbaim to "keep order" as they are too afraid to
tell people to take noisy, disruptive children out of the shul because
they don't want to insult anyone. I would also have the same problem --
I could not tell people to leave shul with their kids if they are my
closest friends.

This year I went for one night only [second night RH] to shul X. During
the shmoneh esray a group of several children of early elementary
school age [under 9, but in elementary school already] started running
around shrieking at the top of their lungs RIGHT IN THE EZRAS NASHIM
--DURING THE SHMONEH ESRAY MIND YOU. Now, I don't know about how you
would have felt, but my kavana was destroyed. Absolutely destroyed. I
turned around to glare at them and the mother got to them within about 2
minutes and got them out of there, and I finally started davening again,
but it didn't matter. It ruined my davening. So what about the mother?
She is a friend of mine and one of my chavrusas. What am I going to say
to her? Nothing. I just don't daven in that shul when I can help it.

In shul Y such a thing would never occur because the people there may
be less friendly but they train their children never to do such things.

When people get together for the serious purpose of petitioning Hashem
[or coronating him in the case of RH] they do not have to be your best
friends and it is better if they are not in many cases.

 ---Rena

I'm controlling myself... it's "those 10 days" but of course I feel the
way you do.:-)

I'll simply add that
> but it didn't matter. It ruined my davening
is someting I can relate to.

That said, it's simply a nisayon. I'm sure greater people than myself
would be able to forget about it and continue with full concentration.

I've been working on a neighbour's suggestion to raise my tolerance level.
The mere presence of a kid no longer bothers me. Even kids walking quietly
around don't bother me (much). The ultimate is to be able to ignore the
shul being ripped apart at hgh volume.... but as I said, we're still in
"those 10 days."

With wishes for a meaningful fast,
- Danny

In a message dated 10/2/03 3:51:27 AM EDT, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> While I agree with what Toby wrote it is still not clear why
> (without the pasuk) it would be any different than adding
> enzymes to make ice cream or today adding enzymes to make hard cheese
> when the enzyme comes from a non-kosher source. ...

Without the pasuk honey would not be any different than adding enzymes
to other foods; it seems to me that honey is permitted only because the
Torah specifically says it is.

>  So even according to this the question would be
> whether one could le-chatchila artificially add bee's enzyme
> to nectar to make honey.

It seems to me that you could not artificially add bees' enzyme to nectar,
but someone more knowledgeable than I am could answer that definitively.
Other than as a purely theoretical exercise, there is no need to
have an answer to this question, since there is no possible scenario
under which we would WANT to make honey from nectar without using bees.
Can you imagine the sheer work involved in gathering those teensy bits of
nectar from dozens of flowers just to make a teaspoon of honey? I for
one am very grateful that bees are able and willing to do that work.
A jar of honey would cost thousands of dollars if humans had to do it.

 --GCT
Toby Katz

(Moving to Avodah - really, I don't see why the WTG thread isn't there
as well, since it's all about halacha and meta-halacha)

RCS: 
> On 2 Oct 2003 at 10:21, Jonathan Baker wrote:

>> Lots of things in tefillah balance priorities.  E.g., minyan vs.
>> davening hanetz, where minyan takes precedence according to most.

> Sources? The Biur Halacha 58:1 s"v u'Mitzva Min HaMuvchar is quite 
> explicit that davening k'vasikin is preferable, and everyone I know 
> who davens k'vasikin regularly relies on that Biur Halacha (including 
> me at least 10-12 times over the last four months). 

ISTR RYBS holding the other way, that if faced with a choice between
davening privately at hanetz, and davening later with a minyan, go to the
minyan. The Biur Halacha there adds a third factor: that one *normally*
davens kevatikin, in which case continuing to daven thus, even without
a minyan, is better.

I'm curious how the Mechaber gets to "mitzva min hamuvchar" - looking
at the gemara in Brachot 9b, it's described as something the vatikin
used to do. It certainly would appeal to the MB, since it's "yotzei
lechol hadeiot" in terms of zman K"S (both R' Eliezer & R' Yehoshua in
the mishnah). But making it a priority over minyan seems to be the MB's
own chiddush; at least, he doesn't cite a source for it.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Good Morning, and gemar vachasima tova to you all.

A while back R' Seth posted some very interesting material regarding
the Rambam in Israel, including the fact that
<snip>
"The place of the Rambam's actual qever is unknown; what is currently
called his qever was "revealed" by miraculous means by the Ari."
<snip>

I noticed that my Artscroll machzor including Rabbeinu Yona's yesodei
hateshuva, and explained in the comments how Rabbeinu Yona traveled to
various communities on his way to Israel to the rambam's kever.

Do you know the srouce of that story?

thanks
elly
 --
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent <http://www.EngineeringIntent.com>
<EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com>

> 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?

The answer seems obvious to me. If the din for a website owned by one
person is that Shabbos refers to the time that it is Shabbos where the
owner is, then if you and I owned a website jointly that does on-line
sales, it would have to be shut down both during your Shabbos and mine.

 ---Rena 

Regarding my post to Areivim about going to listen to a shofar being blown
on Shabbes. A chaveir (Myronw2@aol.com - thanks) sent me 4 references:
>1. See Ir ha-Kodesh ve-ha-Mikdash (588:4) for the entire episode regarding 
>R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger.

I couldn't locate the sefer. Apparently RAYS is the author of the mussar
sefer Lev haIvri, which our shul does have (in the catalogue) but was
not on its shelf.

>2. See Moadim u'Zmanim (Vol. 6:8) about a similar episode that happened 
>recently in Jerusalem -- and the instigator died prematurely.

The MuZ actually brings down most of the 1st story:
"In the year 5642 (1881) the Gaon RAYS zt"l blew shofar on RH on
Shabbes. In the sefer Ir ha-Kodesh ve-ha-Mikdash it's related that
the GRY Salanter zt"l said that when asked, he paskens not to blow,
but doesn't hold it against (l'Ar'er) somebody who goes to hear the
Tekios. In truth the Adere"s zt"l said that if he blew again he himself
would go and listen from behind the wall. Implied is the great urge to
fulfil the mitzvah - which was not uprooted entirely when RH falls on
Shabbes. This needs great research..."

>3. (+ 4.) See Shu"t Har Tzvi (O"C Vol. 2:88) and Mikraei Kodesh (Yamim 
>Noraim 32) that one is mekayem a mitzvah by blowing illegally (or
>listening to an illegal blowing) on Shabbos.

The problem, of course, is finding somebody to blow. Going against the
takono not to blow is discussed in the above references - and no heter
is provided, to say the least.

Interestingly, one of the above sources discusses why it's not To'e
Bidvar Mitzva - carrying in order to fulfil a mitzvah. From a diyuk in
the Rambam he proves that the takono was to prevent somebody who studied
shofar blowing before RH from going to his Rav after having blown - to
double check that he blew properly. Since he's already done the mitzvah
he's no longer To'e Bidvar Mitzva.

This answers the question I had as to why we're worried that somebody
would wait until RH to learn how to blow the shofar. If he doesn't
know by then, he would simply go to somebody who knows how to blow,
and who presumably would be more likely to have a shofar at home that
the non-blower.

Gmar Vechasima Tova
 - Danny

Somebody (was it RMB) posted an answer to the question how come
Avraham listened to the angel telling him not to slaughter the lad,
and subsequently took a ram and offered him, considering that God had
commanded him to do otherwise. The answer posted was that God never told
Avraham to slaughter Yitz'hak, but rather veha'alehu sham le'olah. Thus,
having put his son on the altar, he had already fulfilled his duty,
and the angel's subsequent command did not contradict God's command.

I find that answer problematic. Throughout the 14 chapter of Zva'him,
ha'alaah is considered to mean burning, as in the question whetehr
there still is a prohibition of ha'alaah be'hutz after the meat has
become charred.

Furthermore, God didn't just command ha'alehu 'al mizbea'h, but ha'alehu
sham le'olah. We all know that 'olah is a technical term that invariably
(in the context of sacrifices) means a burnt offering. So, rabotai,
do you have a better suggestion.

I come no further than Rashi's suggestion that God couldn't have meant
for Yitz'hak to be killed, since He promised Avraham ki beYitz'hak yiqare
lekha zar'a.

Gmar 'hatimah tovah,
Arie Folger

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> 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.)

This is them crux of my issue with the story. saying the Aleph Bais
because this is all the Am HaAretz "knew". I submit that knowing the
Aleph Bais is less "Kavananess" (for lack of a better word at the moment)
than Davening B'Laz. To me this shows that intensity was important and
the vehicle for that intensity was irrelevant to him. ...which would
explain saying Tehillim w/o understnding a word of it. We might as well
say Aleph Bais ourselves instead of Tehillim.

[Email #2. -mi]

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>:> Therefore your
>:> whole bit about shofar being choq is off the point.

>: Yes, 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?

Right. Tekios are technically neiter Teffilos nor Techinos. They are
simply symbolicm utilized in that sense by the the authors of the Techina
at the end of each Seder Tekiah.

>: 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.

> 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?

This is precisely the logic that is used to justify WTGs. Just substitute
women for the phrase "ignorant person" and the phrase "women praying
at a WTG" for the word aleph-bais. Is the intensity and intention what
God wants of us all that is required? If so, who care what the source
of that is, whether it is feminism for WTGs or intensity of feeling for
the ignoramus, as long as it brings you closer to God it should be enough.

I don't think so. I submit that when R. Chaim Brisker told his young son
not to say Piyutim along with the Shatz post Maariv on RH but instead,
to open up a Gemmarah, he was basicly saying the same thing I am. He
must have viewed saying those Piutim as a near waste of time.

>: 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).

Another great argument for WTGs... whatever causes the best emotional
attachment.

>: 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.

It was an assertion with a quote. I quoted the famous end portion of
Unesaneh Tokef: Teshuva Tfilla and Tzedakah Maavirin Es Roeh HaG'zerah.

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

True, which does not change what I said.

>: 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.

I am not saying anything about the value of cold rote Tefillah. I am only
trying to point out the insufficiency of heartfelt babbling (reciting
the ABCs in hebrew).

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

If you are reffering to my refference to Avinu Malkenu, that wasn't my
point. I was only trying to point out that Techinos are INCLUDED in the
definition of Teffilos. You seemed to be saying that they are seperate
and distinct from each other.

HM

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:06:38AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: This is them crux of my issue with the story. saying the Aleph Bais
: because this is all the Am HaAretz "knew"....

Then why are you picking on the difference between their following din
vs his "connecting"?

You actually raise two issues. I only addressed the other, because this
one has me equally stumped.

:>: 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?

: Right. Tekios are technically neiter Teffilos nor Techinos. They are
: simply symbolicm utilized in that sense by the the authors of the Techina
: at the end of each Seder Tekiah.

I don't know how you get that from what I said or you said.

However, I brought shofar as an example of emotional connection without
words. Techinos are with words, your own words. Tefillos are with words,
the words of who you want to be.

Whether the Gra's statement that tefillos and techinos are different things
rules out a second broader used of the word tefillah is tangential (and not
particularly interesting to me).

: > 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?

: This is precisely the logic that is used to justify WTGs. Just substitute
: women for the phrase "ignorant person" and the phrase "women praying
: at a WTG" for the word aleph-bais...

An ignorant person is non-ideal. As is the informed person who could have
davened with more kavanah than he did.

The story compares two non-ideals. The guy who does his best is on far
better footing than someone who does more, but it's far from his best.
The ignorant peasant acheived more deveiqus because he tried harder.

I don't see why this generated such shock.

Nor the comparison between an i efshar and an efshar.

(As opposed to the conversation to which you refer, which went in circles,
this seems to go in ever widening spirals.)

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

: True, which does not change what I said.

You said the primary point of tefillah was to make requests of G-d.
Now you agree that it's to make oneself a requester of G-d. As opposed
to techinah, which is a different route to deveiqus.

: I am not saying anything about the value of cold rote Tefillah...

That was the very opening of this conversation -- one person didn't
follow halachah but had kavanah, everyone else followed halachah but
overly be rote.

You asked how it's possible that their non-ideal davening could be
worth less, as though halachah didn't matter. Then, as though what
you're saying doesn't matter. So, I countered with tevhinos, that have
no specific halachos of text, and ze'aqah which has no text.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

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


[ 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         ]