Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 058

Tuesday, August 3 2004

• Height of people in chumash
• Living in Israel requires work - not just Torah learning
• Cleaning up the world
• Re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Re:Tfillin not worn
• Re: Tfillin not worn
• Who saw the Luchos?
• tisha baav and tshuva
• Re: 9 Days Judaism Question
• minhag avoteichem
• Nacheim, Tosefet Shabbat, Hamakom on Shabbat
• Re: Storks and Tzedakah
• Re: Sanhedrin
• Sanhedrin
• Re: Sanhedrin
• Re: 9 Days Judaism Question
• Re: lecha dodi and Eli Tzion
• lecha dodi and Eli Tzion
• Re: nine days question
• Sanhedrin
• Re: nine days question

[Micha, on Areivim:]
> Let me revisit my suggestion about how Moshe Rabbeinu dressed>

I would also like to discuss the height of the people. The Gemara
implies that he was a giant. However, achronim point out that in order
for this not to be a blemish we have to assume that many of the Jews of
his generation were very tall. In that case the height of Og was not as
unusual as we think.

It was also pointed out to me that if we accept the midrash that the bed
of Og was measured by the Amah of Og and not the normal amah then Og was
a very disporportioned man. The typical person is 3-4 amot high in terms
of his personal amah. Og was much taller in terms of his personal amah.

Eli Turkel

Would appreicate some comments are the following regarding Eretz Yisroel

Sifri (Devarim #333): R' Meir said that all who dwell in Israel --
Israel will atone for his sins... He also said that all who dwell in
Israel and recite the Shema in the morning and the evening and speak
Hebrew -- will have a portion in the World to Come.

Chasam Sofer (Sukkos 36b): I heard an insight from my teacher the Haflaah
concerning the dispute between R' Shimon bar Yochair and R' Yishmael
(Berachos 35b) where the gemora concludes that many did like R' Shimon
and were not successful. He noted that they merely imitated the actions
of R' Shimon but did not in fact do exactly as he did. In fact there is
no doubt that a person who is truly motivated for the sake of G-d --
Who examines all hearts -- will definitely be successful.... I -- his
insignificant student -- want to expand his insight. It appears to me
that R' Yishmael did not apply the verse "you should gather your grain"
-- that one should work -- except for those dwelling in Israel when
the majority of Jews live there. In such a case farming itself is an
expression of the mitzva of settling the land by bringing forth its holy
fruit. For example Boaz was involved in winnowing grain because of this
mitzva. Thus a person in Israel -- who wants to exclusively learn Torah
and doesn't want to farm -- is like one who says that he doesn't want to
put on Tefilin because he is studying Torah. It is possible that this is
also true concerning all occupations which help develop society -- that
they are included in the mitzva of settling Israel. In contrast when we
are scattered amongst the nations of the world where to the degree that
we develop society we destroy our service of G-d, R' Yishmael would agree
with R' Shimon that one should only learn Torah. Concerning this we rely
on the view of R' Nehorai that he ignores every trade in the world and
only taught his son Torah -- for those living outside of Israel.

Daniel Eidensohn

Derech HaShem (2:4:8-10): When the world was divided into 70 nations,
G-d placed 70 angels to watch over them and supervise them. Thus G-d only
watches over the nations in a general manner. It is only the nation's
supervising angel which watches over it in a particular manner with the
power that G-d gave it for this purpose.... However this does not mean
that G-d is not aware of the all the details concerning each nation
-- since G-d knows everything which occurs within creation. It simply
means that He doesn't directly supervise and influence each nation in
detail... Consequently G-d has made the correction and improvement of
creation totally dependent upon the Jews. Thus in a manner of speaking
He has made His providence dependent the deeds of the Jews. Therefore
their deeds can bring forth His light which brings about change or cause
His light to be concealed and held back. In contrast the deeds of the
nations don't add or subtract from the nature of creation nor do they
cause G-d to be either more revealed or more concealed. Their deeds only
affect themselves either positively or negatively -- whether physically
or spiritually -- and they can strengthen or weaken their supervising
angel. However even though G-d does not usually involve Himself in
directly supervising the nations, it is possible that He will supervise
them in circumstances involving Jews....

It would seem from the above that it does not matter how good or bad
the goyim are.

How does the Ramchal explain the Flood, Yonah or Amalek?

Thus there should be no obligation of tikun olam in terms encouraging
the moral development of goyim?

In a message dated 08/01/2004 12:21:45 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> "Even though they say in the name of the Chazon Ish zt"l that the issur
> of boneh and soser applies even when the electricity is not operating,
> nevertheless, from a letter from the Chazon Ish which I have in my
> possession, it does not seem that way [lo machma ken]." 

So if the timer for a socket is off I could plug in a lamp that is in
the on position?

KT
Joel Rich

On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 11:35 -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Along these lines, I found an interesting note in the Shmiras Shabbos
> K'Hilchasa yesterday. In 13:28, he writes "When the electric current
> is interrupted, it is mutar to take the plug out of the socket (or do
> a similar action with the switch) so that the light will not come back
> on when the current starts flowing again...."

and what about the opposite way? if you have a 2 switch mechanism,
such that one is a timer that controls the current and the other is what
actually is one the lamp can you turn the lamp switch on while the timer
is off?

In response to what I wrote
> On the contrary, tefillin is the classic mitzva chiyuvit....
> Not putting on tefillin is a bitul mitzvat aseh. There most certainly
> is an issur in non-performance.
> 
RMB wrote
<snip>
>Do you wear one of the candidates for techeiles? If not, may I
>ask why not? After all, according to your position, it's a chance that's
>you're being oqeir mitzvah beyadayim, and therefore a safeiq de'Oraisa
>of violating a chiyuv as strict as milah...

RMB' surmise that I do not wear tcheilet is correct. OTOH, both
my sons do. Paradoxically, I am very comfortable with both
positions. I would not be surprised if there are many on this
list who do not wear tcheilet, and whose sons and/or s-i-l do.

This may be a fruitful subject for areivim.

However, I respectfully submit that RMB's direct inquiry as to my personal
halachic practice is not completely appropriate on avoda.

I'm not the least bit offended by the question, but what I do is
not relevant to the discussion.

IMO it would have been more appropriate to couch the question in more
general terms:
Can you (SM) justify not wearing tcheilet? After all, according to
your position...

On the avodah level, I do not understand how not wearing tcheilet is
being (possibly) oqeir mitzvah beyadayim. One does not have to wear
a talit katan at all; if he does, hatcheilet eino meakev et halavan,
and one fulfills the mitzva, at the very least on the minimal level,
with lavan alone. Am I missing something?

The fundamental problem with this discussion is that there is not a
section in the Rambam or SA "Hilchot mesirat nefesh". It is hard to
define clear halachic guidelines for "how much" mesirat nefesh one must
have to do mitzvot. In normal times, there are clear halachic strictures
against endangering oneself in order to do a mitzva. Pikuah nefesh is
docheh both issurim and chiyuvim. The Chochmat Adam is emphatic that it is
absolutely forbidden to perform a brit if there is a doubt that the child
is healthy enough to undergo the procedure. He writes of a shocking case
when the parents insisted on performing a brit on a sickly child, claiming
"the merit of the mitzva will protect the child"; the child died, r"l,
shortly after the brit. The CA makes it clear that the parents' "mesirat
nesfesh" was entirely misguided in this case, and constituted a grave sin.

OTOH, in times of shmad, Jews displayed incredible courage in performing
mitzvot at tremendous personal risk. The stories of mitzvot done in the
ghettos and camps during the shoah are well known. "Lomdut" as to whether
the mitzvot involved were mitzvot quyumiot or chiyuviot, d'oraita or
d'rabbanan, is virtually irrelevant in light of the impossible conditions
that obtained. Can we say that someone who endangered himself to light
Chanuka candles in a camp acted improperly?

I do not think that we will go far by trying to quantify and categorize
criteria for mesirat nefesh.

Saul Mashbaum

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:09:43AM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: On the avodah level, I do not understand how not wearing tcheilet is
: being (possibly) oqeir mitzvah beyadayim. One does not have to wear
: a talit katan at all; if he does, hatcheilet eino meakev et halavan,
: and one fulfills the mitzva, at the very least on the minimal level,
: with lavan alone. Am I missing something?

Tzitzis is an odd case, in that one can fulfil lavan or techeiles alone,
even though they only count as one of the 613. But the "einha me'aqeves"
means you're yotzei lavan, it doesn't mean you don't need to fulfil
techeiles whenever possible. When it's not possible, and there is no
aqiras mitzvah -- oneis Rachmanah patrei -- yes, better to be yotzei
lavan than neither.

Something along these lines has been going through the rumor mill
attributed to R' Herschel Schachter. I am not sure RHS actually said
it, though.

The fact that you're wearing a 4 cornered garment is a choice makes the
problem worse. After all, if techeiles is available and you *choose*
to wear something without it, there is real aqira involved. You could
have chosen not to enter within the chiyuv.

And in a case of safeiq, you chose to enter a safeiq of ignoring a chiyuv.

Leshitasekha, ignoring a chiyuv is a mesiras nefesh worthy problem,
so I found this to be inconsistancy.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

Over Shabbos a question came up regarding the Luchos? Who, besides
Moshe, saw either the Luchos Rishonos or Shniyos? If they were put away
immediately after they were carved, did anyone, in Moshe's generation
or later, ever see them?

["Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>:]
> Rav Freifeld told me in the name of Rav Hutner that one is allowed to
> learn seforim on Tisha b'Av which help correct those sins which caused
> the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.

Given that the Chaftez Chaim Heritage Foundation and OU videos focus on
chesed they would seem to agree with this psak.
Nevertheless IMHO the emphasis of tisha ba-av is aveilut and not teshuva.
I believe RYBS once said that even though a piyut on asarah haregu
malchut is said on both tisha ba-av and yom kippur they are intrinsically
different. On Tisha Ba-av it is said as avelut like the other piyutim
on destructions. On yom kiipur it it is said as misah of tzaddikim is
a kapparah.

Certainly one would not include include in kinnot a piyut something
whose motivation is teshuvah rather mourning.

Eli Turkel

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/21/2004 11:49:48 PM EDT, ykaganoff@yahoo.com writes:
>> On a related question, do you feel a need to have a "message" from the
>> three weeks, the nine days & tisha b'av, whether that message be about
>> Teshuva or Jewish unity, or sinas chinam. Or does the act of remembering
>> and mourning sufficient?

> The premise of the fast as per Rambam and Mishnah Brura is as a
> preapration to doing Tshuvah....

But can one skip the preparation and go right to the teshuvah?

-mi

> The
> language 'minhag avoteichem' comes from the letter sent by the Sanhedrin
> to the Jews of Bavel, when the calendar was instituted.

This is an assumption. There is nothing in the gemara that connects this
to the establishment of a fixed calendar. In fact there is nowhere in
Shas that the establishment of a fixed calendar is mentioned. Further it
was never fixed in our sense of a computer program since many centuries
there were still arguments between R. Saadyah Gaon and the Gaon of EY
over details.

Furthermore, many sugyot in shas that deal with the second day of yomtov
are confusing since it is never clear what the status of the 2nd day of
tomtov in Bavel was and we know that is gradually changed and was not
institued in one blow by Hillel II. BTW many rishonim seem to be very
confused who Hillel II was and when he lived as all sorts of descriptions
of Hillel II are given.

Eli Turkel

RabbiRichWolpoe wrote:
> I think that the Rosenfeld Kinos has A new version of nacheim but I
> think he {i.e. Rosenfeld composed it as oppposed to R. Avodia Yosef.

I am assuming the reference to R' Ovadia Yosef is a typo and he meant
R' Shlomo Goren. R"OY has a teshuvah where he decries any attempt to
change the wording of nacheim. He uses very harsh language to describe
what he feels is the current state of Yerushalayim which he believes
requires aveilut.

In terms of tosefet Shabbat - there is a teshuvah of the Koshoglover Rebbe
(Eretz Zvi (Frommer)) where he explains that since 'everybody' comes
to shul before shekiah to daven minchah - they have effectively stopped
doing melacha - and even without any declaration have accepeted tosefet
shabbat. This is somewhat strange since these very people are about to
daven minchah shel chol on tosefet shabbat, but he does not feel that
that is a problem. (I will attempt to find the exact teshuvah tonight).

Regarding saying "hamakom" after Lecha Dodi. The Pnei Baruch notes
that originally the Hazzan would say "tze'u lekrat ha'avel" and then
people would respond. Something to this effect is still practiced in KAJ
(Breuer's), but I usually cannot make out the entire phrase. He thinks
that that is the problem and not saying "hamakom."

There should be no problem saying Hamakom on shabbat and I am assuming
the only problem is the public nature of this nechamah. The Tur cites
his father that there was a minhag that after shul all the congregants
would walk the avel back to his home and sit with him there for a little
while. As such, I do not think there is any problem with the tzibbur
performing nechama bepharhesya. Furthermore, the Tur also describes
how in the Beit Hamikdash there was a special enterance for aveilim,
so that people could greet them with divrei nechamah.

Perhaps the issur of aveilut bepharhesya is only upon the avel, but not
the mourner.

Even if one were to disagree with this, there is a Shach (someplace in
Hil. Avelut) who says that the only things that are assur for an avel
to do bepharhesya on Shabbat are those of shiv'ah alone. The avel must
still practice all nihugei aveilut of shloshim and 12 months on shabbat.
Therefore the avel may go to shul on shabbat not having shaven, since
it is a din of 30 not 7. Similarly, one may greet the avel with hamakom
throughout the 12 months, and therefore, there should be no problem
doing so on Shabbat according to this Shach.

At 05:31 PM 7/25/2004 +0300, [R Nosson Slifkin] wrote:
>Anyway, the question goes, if the stork
>is such a tzaddik, why is it treif? The answer, reportedly given by
>the Radzhiner Rebbe, is that the stork is only kind to its own kind,
>not to other species.

This is form the first Radzyner Rebbe, known as the Izhbitzer, and is 
brought down in Mei HaShiloach.

>This idea is very widely beloved and repeated,
>but without going into the scientific aspects

Could you? I am interested in the scientific aspects, as well. Feel free
to e-mail me directly at mendel@case.edu if you prefer.

>> They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

> Do you have any source to support your contention? The Ramban (Sefer
> HaMitzvos 153) clearly rejects it as does Kuzari (3:39).>>

Rosh Hashana 31a-b lists the ten exiles of the Sanhedrin, from Lishkat
Hagazit all the way to Tverya; note that at every step of the way it's
still called a Sanhedrin.

Yes, the absence of a Sanhedrin-Sitting-in-Lishkat-Hagazit did have
a significant effect on the functioning of the legal system. With no
Sanhedrin-Sitting-in-LhG, no bet din, anywhere, had the obligation to
execute the death penalty. So I suppose it's not out of the question
to suppose that the right to make new derashot also depends on a
Sanhedrin-sitting-in-LhG. But note that the obligation to execute the
death penalty went away as soon as the Sanhedrin moved out of the LhG,
even though it only moved a few dozen metres, if that, and it comprised
all of the same people who had sat in the LhG.

But now we are to suppose that another power, that to make new derashot,
depends not on a SSiLhG, but on the continued life of chachamim who had
lived at a time when there was a SSiLhG. Note that the theory propsed
is not that the chachamim who sat in LhG may make derashot for as long
as they live, while other chachamim may not; R Akiva never sat in LhGa,
and yet he certainly made new derashot. Instead, IIUC, the theory is that
R Akiva had this power because in his day there were chachamim who had
sat in LhG, or perhaps that in his day there were chachamim who were
alive at a time when there was a SSiLhG. What source do we have for
anything analogous to such a criterion?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

RZS:
> They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

RDE:
> Do you have any source to support your contention? The Ramban (Sefer
> HaMitzvos 153) clearly rejects it as does Kuzari (3:39).

I found the Ramban in Asin but the Kuzari I didn't find. The Rambam in
Hil Kiddush haChodesh 5:3 seems to agree with RZS.

Shlomo Goldstein

S Goldstein wrote:
>RZS:
>>They *had* a bona fide Sanhedrin, all the way until Hillel II.

>RDE:
>>Do you have any source to support your contention? The Ramban (Sefer
>>HaMitzvos 153) clearly rejects it as does Kuzari (3:39).

>I found the Ramban in Asin but the Kuzari I didn't find. The Rambam in
>Hil Kiddush haChodesh 5:3 seems to agree with RZS.

Kuzari(3:39): Our law is linked to the ordination given to Moshe on Sinai
or sprung "from the place which the L-rd shall chose (Is 2:3) "for from
Zion goes forth the Law and the world of G-d form Jerusalem. Its mediators
were the judges, overseers, priests and the members of Sanhedrin. It is
incumbent upon us to obey the Judge appointed for the time being as it
is written "Or to the judge who will be in those daysג€¦and thou shall
inquire and they shall tell you the sentence of judgment and you shall
do according to the world which they tell youג€¦from the place which G-d
shall chooseג€¦and you shall take heed to do according to all they teach
you (Devarim 17:9). Further:ג€ The man who does presumptuously not to
listen to the priestג€¦this man shall die and you shall remove the evil
from your midst". Disobedience to the priest or judge is placed on a
par with the gravest transgressions in the words: "You shall remove the
evil from your midst" This concludes with the words: And all the people
shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously". This refers to the
time when the order of the temple service and the Sanhedrin and the
sections of the Levites who completed the organization were still intact
and the divine influence was undeniably among them either in the form of
prophecy or inspiration as was the case during the second temple. Among
these person no agreement or convention was possible. In a similar manner
arose the duty of reading the book of Esther on Purim and the ordination
of Chanukah and we can say "he who has commanded us to read the Megila"
and "to kindle the light of Chanukah" or "to complete" or "to read"
the hallel, "to wash the hands", "the ordination of the eiruv" and the
like. HAD OUR TRADITIONAL CUSTOMS ARISEN AFTER THE EXILE, THEY COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN CALLED BY THIS NAME, NOR WOULD THEY REQUIRE A BLESSING,
BUT THERE WOULD BE A REGULATION OR RATHER A CUSTOM. The bulk of our laws
however derives it origins from Moshe as an "ordination given to Moshe
from Sinai"...

Margenisa Tova (Shoresh 1:5) asserts that the Rambam's position is that
lo sasur only applies to the Sanhedrin in the Temple and not for any
other Sanhedrin. This is also the view of the Yereim #398.

[Email #2 -mi]

Zev Sero wrote:
> Rosh Hashana 31a-b lists the ten exiles of the Sanhedrin, from Lishkat
> Hagazit all the way to Tverya; note that at every step of the way it's
> still called a Sanhedrin. 

The name of Sanhedrin doesn't prove that it had the status of Sanhedrin. 
For example we find in Kesubos 49b that what we call Takanos Usha - 
presumably by the Sanhedrin of Usha are not necessarily accepted as 
halacha. If you insist that the Sanhedrin at Usha had the status of 
Sanhedrin - how could a later court - which obviously is not greater  in 
chochma or minyan reject the Takanos of Usha? Furthermore there is no 
indication that the discussion in the gemora are in fact discussion of a 
Sanhedrin rather than a yeshiva or beis medrash. The Meiri in his Sefer 
HaKabbala - intro to Avos - describes these as beis medrash or gathering 
of sages. It would seem that the name Sanhedrin was at most an asmachta 
as  it lacked the power of Sanhedrin. If in fact the deliberations were 
from Sanhedrin than there would be no reason why the Kesef Mishna as 
well as the Rambam indicate authority was because of the acceptance of 
the people.

> Yes, the absence of a Sanhedrin-Sitting-in-Lishkat-Hagazit did have
> a significant effect on the functioning of the legal system. With no
> Sanhedrin-Sitting-in-LhG, no bet din, anywhere, had the obligation to
> execute the death penalty. So I suppose it's not out of the question
> to suppose that the right to make new derashot also depends on a
> Sanhedrin-sitting-in-LhG. But note that the obligation to execute the
> death penalty went away as soon as the Sanhedrin moved out of the LhG,
> even though it only moved a few dozen metres, if that, and it comprised
> all of the same people who had sat in the LhG. 

Ramban specifically says the status of Sanhedrin ended when it left the 
Temple

> But now we are to suppose that another power, that to make new derashot,
> depends not on a SSiLhG, but on the continued life of chachamim who had
> lived at a time when there was a SSiLhG. Note that the theory propsed
> is not that the chachamim who sat in LhG may make derashot for as long
> as they live, while other chachamim may not; R Akiva never sat in LhGa,
> and yet he certainly made new derashot. Instead, IIUC, the theory is that
> R Akiva had this power because in his day there were chachamim who had
> sat in LhG, or perhaps that in his day there were chachamim who were
> alive at a time when there was a SSiLhG. What source do we have for
> anything analogous to such a criterion?

What is your source for this theory and whose theory is it?

Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 8/2/2004 2:25:10 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>> The premise of the fast as per Rambam and Mishnah Brura is as a
>> preapration to doing Tshuvah....

> But can one skip the preparation and go right to the teshuvah?

No.

But if the purpose of the fast is to MOURN then it makes sense to NOT
learn just as an aveil does not learn

OTOH if the purpose is to do Tshuva then the issur on learning is
difficult at best to understand.

And if that is so then the Rambam and MB et. al. need to explain this
apparent difficulty away - or to concede that Tshuva is not the ikkar
but rather aveilus.. etc.

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

In a message dated 7/29/2004 9:20:45 PM EDT, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> The local rabbi here said that the "tune" of eli tzion is not a mournful
> tune and so is part of the nechama of the end of kinot. The words of eli
> tzion are mournful but not the tune (the rabbi is also a musician). Hence,
> it is indeed appropriate for singing even on shabbat.

> Besides lecho dodi I have seen seen the minhag of singing shir hamaalot
> before bentching on shbbat Chazon to the tune of eli tzion. In this case
> it is definitely shabbat and the other answers don't apply.

I have heard several rabbis say that the Eli Tziyon tune is not mournful
but hopeful.
Well you cannot prove music by its taste. One music expert told me that
Mozart's 40th in d minor is an example of how joyful music can be in a
minor key and another explained that Mozart was crying throughout the
piece so there is no explaining taste.

Do a reality chekc. Assuming that Eli tziyyon was writen for Eli tziyyon
than read the words. are they hopeful or desparate?

Next: Is the use of this melody in Mussaf re: the Beis hamikdahs hopeful
or mournful?

Of course claiming that the Eli Tziyon melody is NOT mournful will rid us
of many potential contradictions, but I really think that this approach
is itself questionable

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 8/1/2004 10:30:54 AM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> I'm a bit hesitant to continue this to its logical conclusion, but,
> oh well, here goes ---
> Many shuls get to Mizmor Shir long after shkia, yet they do say the Nichum
> Avelim at that point. What is the justification for this? My guess is
> that since this is not really a melacha, and is not even a geder of a
> melacha, and involves nothing more than dibbur, it is okay. If that is
> the logic which is used, would it be okay to daven a weekday mincha in
> that time slot?

Here is a theory:

This is probably Bein Hashmashos and Bein Hashmashos probably mutar
in anything that is not a d'orraiso or a Shvus that is really close to
a drorraiso

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

From: eli turkel <>
> The local rabbi here said that the "tune" of eli tzion is not a mournful
> tune and so is part of the nechama of the end of kinot. The words of eli
> tzion are mournful but not the tune (the rabbi is also a musician). Hence,
> it is indeed appropriate for singing even on shabbat.

As a rayah to that theory, in Tikkun Chatzos, the last kinoh is Uroh No,
[which is divrei nechomo] is also said in the same niggun as Eli Tziyon.

As cheder boys here, we had an Ob rebbe who said TC with us every day
during the 3 weeks. Similarly in the Nitra Yeshiva in Mt Kisco.

These days we only say it on Tisha B'ov before the midday-Mincha..

[Is TC said elsewhere these days?]

SBA
sba@sba2.com

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> If so, then What about the haftarah of Chazon sung to the Eichah 
> tune?
> Does that constitute Aveilus befarhesyah on Shabbos, too? If not,
> why not?

There are many kehillos, primarly - but not limited to - Chassidim,
that say the haftorah in a regular tune. So was also the minhog of the
Chazon Ish.

Chaim Gershon Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

> Zev Sero wrote, quoting someone else?:
>> But now we are to suppose that another power, that to make new derashot,
>> depends not on a SSiLhG, but on the continued life of chachamim who had
>> lived at a time when there was a SSiLhG.

The idea that the power to make new drashos ended with the Sanhedrin must
be modified to say that the halachos resulting from such drahsos became
obligatory upon all of Klal Yisrael--which is not an issue of power to
make drashos, but of the authority of Sanhedrin. As far as the ability
to assert a halachic opinion based upon creative drash, we even find
an Amora doing so. (The drasha-generated halacha was, however, still
subject to approval by rov chachamimn). Viz.:(from Dynamics of Dispute,
of course, pp. 257-259): Bava Metsia 54b, where Abbaye solves an ibaya
through a gezeyra shavva.

Uh oh ... a gezeyra shavva?! Okay, maybe this indicates he had a kabballa
from Sanhaedrin. Need to find another example...

Zvi Lampel

> Lekha Dodi isn't said on Shabbos -- except when you're running late
> and it's said after sheki'ah. Would those who offered that answer say
> that in such a minyan one can't use a mournful tune for it? Also, do
> people in such a situation not say "Hamakom"; for that matter, do
> aveilim enter earlier?

According to RSZA, we accept shabbos *not* when Psalm 92 is recited,
but rather when the tzibbur proclaims "Bo-ie Challah, Bo-ie Challah" -
this is our welcoming shabbos. I do not know when RSZA said "Hamakom."

KT
Aryeh

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


[ 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         ]