Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 320

Sun, 07 Sep 2008

• 1. Ki Teitzei "NOT STRICTLY FOR THE BIRDS" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Moshe Shulman)
• 3. Re: Geirut (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Geirut (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Y'fas to'ar, etc. (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Dov Kay)
• 7. Dove and Turtledove (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Geirut (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: What Happened to following the Rov (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Tehillim during Ellul - A modified system (Richard Wolpoe)

> THE MOTHER BIRD
> This is considered to be the easiest mitzvah in the Torah. It costs  
> no money, requires no preparation, and takes a minimal effort. If  
> one happens to come upon a bird's nest in the wild and desires to  
> take the eggs or the chicks, he must first shoo away the mother and  
> then take the eggs or chicks.

> The concept is that even in the animal world, there exists motherly  
> feelings (which Rabbi Hirsch refers to as "the noblest profession in  
> the world"), and the Torah wants us to be sensitive to these  
> feelings. We may not cause the mother anguish by taking her  
> offspring before her eyes. God wants people to be merciful. If we  
> are sensitive to the feelings of a bird, then it should follow that  
> we would be even more sensitive to the feelings of a human being.

> The reward for this mitzvah is long life. The only other positive  
> mitzvah which the Torah specifies the same reward, is kibud av  
> va'aim -- which is considered one of the most difficult mitzvahs.  
> From the fact that the easiest and hardest mitzvah both receive the  
> same reward, we realize that the reward for mitzvahs or the  
> punishment for aveiros is beyond our ability to rate.

ri

> We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but  
> have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers.  
>                           Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

At 09:09 PM 9/6/2008, you wrote:
>From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@sibson.com>
>This is quite true. If the shul or Kehilah to which you belong says it,
>then you should also, if not , then don't. I follow minhag Tzanz, and so
>I don't say it. But if I am in another shul where it is the custom to
>say it and I am the baal tephilah, then I do also so as not to violate
>the minhag hamokom. If you have no minhag, then do what it says in
>Shulchan Aruch.

>Moshe Shulman
>===========================
>And if you are not the baal tfilla?

I don't say it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

In a message dated 9/6/2008, Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk writes:
>>I just wanted to comment on this statement of RTK's. Because there
is an assumption here - which is that the person seeking to convert
wants to become a Jew. Now in Israel that is likely to be pretty much
true (as they want everything that comes with being a Jew in Israel).
However in Chutz L'aretz, surprisingly often I suspect that it is
actually not true. <<

When my husband was the rabbi of the Orthodox shul in Chattanooga, there
was just this situation. We had members of our shul whose son was engaged
to a non-Jewish woman, and these members wanted my husband to convert
the non-Jewish fiancee. She was very open and honest in saying that
she was prepared to convert to make her in-laws happy, but she didn't
believe in G-d and had no intention of actually practicing any religion.

In the minds of the young man's parents, an Orthodox conversion would
make their daughter-in-law Jewish and it didn't matter to them if
she didn't actually practice Judaism -- their own son didn't either.
(The parents themselves were somewhat traditional, the mother keeping
more than the father -- she lit candles, kept kosher -- but not really an
observant family.) They didn't at all grasp the concept of a convert
having to accept mitzvos -- what we've been callin KOM in these pages.
They didn't think of conversion as a life-long commitment to behave a
certain way forever. They thought of it as a rite that is done once
and for all -- like a baby's bris -- and then you don't have to worry
about it anymore.

Obviously I think my husband was right halachically and as a matter of
policy, but I am wondering whether, in R'n CL's mind, those parents
were actually right halachically. Does she think that my husband
should have done such a conversion? Had he done so, would this young
woman actually be halachically Jewish? The young couple went to the
C rabbi, and he performed the conversion and the marriage. Our shul
lost what could have been a very fine atheist pork-eating Jewish
family, well-educated and affluent. Was that the wrong decision?
If I understand what RCL has been saying, the failure to accept KOM
would not invalidate a conversion. But what about the fact that the
young woman really didn't care whether she was a Jew or not -- had no
special desire to be a Jew? Just wanted to marry her guy and please
her in-laws? Would that invalidate the conversion?

--Toby  Katz
=============

From: "Chana Luntz" <Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
>I think that the earlier generations didn't list KOM as a >requirement
for gerus because it literally did not occur to them that >somebody who
was not born a Jew would approach a court and say, "I am >not presently
a Jew but I want to become one, al me-nas to be a porek >ol, a rasha,
a sinner, or a tinok shenishba." [--TK]

>>But your premise is false - because there are cases, discussed cases
in the gemora, about somebody coming to the court without necessarily
any intention to keep all the mitzvos - such as the case of the fellow
who came to Hillel and said he wanted to convert on condition he could
be Kohen Gadol....

And then there is the case being discussed between RMB and RMS in the
Rambam, about the wives of Shimshon and Shlomo HaMelech....

And then there is the case of the Kusim whose conversions were very
dubious and debated.....<<

My understanding of the case of the fellow who came to Hillel and said
he wanted to convert on condition he could be Kohen Gadol was that
Hillel accepted him /as a candidate/ for conversion, as a student, on
the assumption that after he taught him Torah, the fellow would then
realize on his own that his demand was ridiculous (but would still want
to go ahead and convert).

In the other cases you mention there is an element of coercion involved,
where the wives of Shimshon and of Shlomo were either forced to convert
or given strong inducements to do so. The same is with the Cusim
(who if I am not mistaken are the same as the Shomronim/Samaritans) --
and precisely because their conversions were coerced (and also because
they never totally gave up the practices of their former A'Z religion),
their status as Jews was /always/ questioned and they were /never/
fully accepted. That was the point, just BTW, of the "Good Samaritan"
story in the NT -- that Jews always thought the Samaritans were "bad"
and kept them at arm's length and never fully accepted them, but Yoshke
accepted them and showed how the despised Samaritans could be better
than the "real" Jews.

You didn't mention the similar case of the Idumeans (Edomim) of the
second BHM'K era, out of whose ranks came Herod. They likewise were
forced to convert to Judaism and their status as Jews was always under
a cloud. One of the reasons Herod beautified the BHM'K was to gain
acceptance from the Jews as a "for real, honest to goodness real boy"!
-- oh wait, that was Pinocchio -- well, as a real Jew. Of course his
bloody massacres of Jewish leaders and talmidei chachamim didn't help
his acceptance project much.

Anyway, I think the question of the halachic status of somebody who
was forced or compelled to convert to Judaism is somewhat different
from the question of somebody who comes to a bais din for conversion
on a purely voluntary basis -- and either states openly "I won't keep
mitzvos" or has mental reservations when saying "I accept the mitzvos."
I am actually not sure whether the coerced convert is more or less likely
to be considered a halachic Jew than a pure [but insincere] volunteer.

--Toby  Katz
=============

The following has always bothered me and let me explain why... 
(following the text and commentaries)

11. and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire  
her, you may take [her] for yourself as a wife.
[and you desire her,] you may take [her] for yourself as a wife. [Not  
that you are commanded to take this woman as a wife,] but Scripture  
[in permitting this marriage] is speaking only against the evil  
inclination [, which drives him to desire her]. For if the Holy One,  
blessed is He, would not permit her to him, he would take her  
illicitly. [Tanchuma 1]

13. And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from upon  
herself, and stay in your house, and weep for her father and her  
mother for a full month. After that, you may be intimate with her and  
possess her, and she will be a wife for you.
and weep for her father and her mother. Why is all this necessary? So  
that an Israelite woman [i.e., this man?s Jewish wife] should be  
happy, and this [gentile captive woman] should be grief-stricken, an  
Israelite woman should be dressed up, and this one should make herself  
repulsive. ? [Sifrei 21:11]

The explanation of pasuk 11 that if God did not permit her to him, he  
would then take her illicitly, flies in the face of the whole point of  
Torah. We are given the yetzer tov and the yetzer ra and are  
constantly challenged with overcoming the latter. With the reasoning  
given, why not allow adulterous relationships when a man comes across  
a beautiful woman. Why not allow eating treif if one is overcome by a  
delicious looking steak?  I don't mean to sound facetious, but is  
there anyone out there who understands my point?  We have so many  
mitzvot that can be rationalized the same way.

The explanation of pasuk 13 seems equally irrational. Firstly, a woman  
is taken against her will, and then we're being so thoughtful by  
allowing her to cry for her parents a whole month. Then, he can be  
intimate with her. The commentary continues to say that the Jewish  
woman should be happy?!  Give me a break. This is totally irrational  
and both women (the captive and his wife) are objects and are being  
used.

I would like to ask the women reading this if they would be happy if  
their husbands acted in such a manner?

ri

RTY wrote: <<This is exactly the kind of situation where da'as Torah
comes into play... But you should not say you're leaving it out because you
have a better understanding and knowledge of what is right and proper than
all the other poskim. I know you don't mean it that way but it sounds
arrogant.>>

I don't know what daas Torah has to do with it.   It's a question of minhag
and halacha.  If a posek, no matter how great, is unfamiliar with the
origins of a custom, his ruling on the propriety or otherwise of that
custom is not authoritative (cf the Aroch HaShulchan's ruling regarding
electricity on YT, where I think most would agree that this greatest of
poskim erred because he misunderstood the technology).	If this sounds
arrogant, so be it.  

<<I would not follow modern academic scholars in preference to da'as
Torah, especially since one may well have reason to suspect that most such
academics NEVER say L'Dovid Hashem Ori or any other perek of Tehillim.
Their devotion to pure halacha may well be doubted.>>

My practice is to be m'kabel es ho-emes mimishe'omro.  I don't know why you
suspect that the devotion of most academics who have dealt with this issue
to "pure halacha" (whatever you mean by that) is doubtful.  Some might
construe that as a slur on fine yirei shomayim.  I do. And anyway, it is
not only "professors" and academics who have dealt with the origins of this
custom.

<<Although you wrote that you are 'following one set of poskim against others' the only posek you actually named was Rav Emden>>

As others have pointed out, there is a slew of chassidic Rebbes who davka
did not say this kapitel in Elul owing to its attribution to the Chemdas
Yomim (see Y. Levy, Minhag Yisroel Torah, vol 3, p.66).  I believe the
author is a Satmarer chossid, in case that makes it more persuasive.  Also,
the Vilna Gaon didn't say it (Maaseh Rav).  Minhag Frankfurt is not to say
it.

Nobody is arguing that this kapitel is not beautiful.  We are discussing
the custom of saying it as part of the seder haTefillah.  I, for one, am
leery of any changes to the seder haTefillah.  However, when I am a
shaliach tzibbur, I do say it.	I also do not advertise my omission of this
kapital when davenen as part of a tzibbur.  What do think I am, arrogant or
something?

Ultimately, I think our disagreement boils down to the efficacy of
"time-hallowing".  R. M. Feinstein politely questioned the propriety of the
wholesale abandoning of nusach Ashkenaz in favour of nusach Sefard, thereby
permitting a nusach Sefard davener to "revert" to nusach Ashkenaz.  Many
would say that this change has been time-hallowed, a claim that even I
cannot seriously dismiss.  Sometimes, a misnagid just has to admit when
he's beat.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay 

I am curius to know if these two birds - Torim and Benei Yonna were given
to offer while they were the same size. Torim used to be brought for a
Korban while they were adult. Benei Yonna - only when they were young.
Because an adult Tor (Turtledove) is smaller than a Yonnah (Dove), then
they may be the same size (weight) where they were offererd to Korban.
(I think that an adult Yonnah is about 3/4 pound, while adult Tor is 1/3 
pound)
Anybody knows?

galsaba

RTK writes:

> Obviously I think my husband was right halachically and as a 
> matter of policy, but I am wondering whether, in R'n CL's 
> mind, those parents were actually right halachically.  Does 
> she think that my husband should have done such a conversion? 

No.

>  Had he done so, would this young woman actually be 
> halachically Jewish?

No, even according to the most lenient opinions.  As far as I can make
out, there are two different forms of lenient position out there, but
this person seems to have failed both of these tests. 

  The young couple went to the C rabbi, 
> and he performed the conversion and the marriage.  Our shul 
> lost what could have been a very fine atheist pork-eating 
> Jewish family, well-educated and affluent.  Was that the 
> wrong decision?  If I understand what RCL has been saying, 
> the failure to accept KOM would not invalidate a conversion.  
> But what about the fact that the young woman really didn't 
> care whether she was a Jew or not -- had no special desire to 
> be a Jew?  Just wanted to marry her guy and please her 
> in-laws?  Would that invalidate the conversion?

As I understand it there are two lenient positions out there (different
from each other) which are based on a different understanding of KOM
from that of Bechoros 30b:

A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain fundamentals.  What
these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.

B) the person does not have to demonstrate a fidelity to mitzvos, only a
desire to join the Jewish people and become a Jew, but this woman does
not fall within this category either.

Plus there is a third - that goes like this:

C) While the majority opinion, as encompassed in the Shulchan Aruch, is
that some form of KOM is required for adults - and whatever that means,
it would seem that this woman could not fall with any definition of it,
not even A) or B) above, which are the most lenient there are, there are
rishonic positions that hold that no KOM is required at all, only mila
and tevila.  And we know that in a sha'as hadchak, we can rely on
minority opinions.  The catestrophic loss of the majority of world Jewry
to intermarriage constitutes such a sha'as hadchak and therefore, in
order to stem the tide, and at least keep the children Jewish for at
least a generation or two more (by which time Moshiach may have come, or
the kiruv professionals may have reached them) one therefore should
perform the conversion and rely on the minority positions.

Now, while theoretically I can understand the halachic basis for such an
argument, I can't see anybody then going on to say that this is the kind
of decision (ie the solution to the current crisis, if crisis indeed it
is), being to rely on minority opinions and to perform the conversion as
the kind of decision to be made independently by a local Rav in
Chatanooga.  It is the sort of decision that *maybe* the gadol hador
could make.  But, no disrespect to your husband, but I am afraid I
suspect your husband does not fall within that category.

I personally, I confess, don't buy argument C) at all, certainly not in
the case of intermarriage within Chutz L'Aretz.  That, I confess,
probably stems from my tendency to prefer quality over quantity (an
argument I have had with the odd Lubavitcher over the years).  I fully
recognise that there are two sides to that debate, but that tends me
against any argument that a) the loss of significant numbers of
completely noncommitted Jews into the general population in Chutz
L'Aretz is quite the crisis that some people make it out to be; and b)
having a few more dubious Jews achieves anything at all.  If anything, I
think taking such approach will lead to a dilution of quality, and at
most a temporary respite.  And if anything I think this will militate
against quality.  People often take the easy way out unless it is made
impossible, and only then are prepared to contemplate doing more (even
though they are often glad that they have been made to do so after the
event).

However, there is a variant of argument C) in play in the context of the
Israeli situation - and I confess, while I am not sure if it is correct,
I can see a lot more to it than I can to the argument in relation to
Chutz L'Aretz intermarriage.  Firstly, in the case within Israel, I can
see the risk that within a few generations, we just may not be able to
work out who is a Jew at all, if these people are not converted (far
less true in the Chutz L'Aretz case, as people who do not convert much
more rarely go undercover - it happens, as Lakewood can tell you, but
much less so).  Secondly, in most cases in Israel, I believe that one of
A) or B) applies even without needing to go to a form of C) - so you are
only relying on C) as a bolstering argument.  And, of course, a variant
of C) does appear to have been articulated by Rav Goren, Rav Uzziel, Rav
Berkowitz and others along with their other arguments.

But this is all just me personally, what I think is more critical is to
understand all of opinions within the debate, and to understand that
matters are not nearly as clear cut and straightforward as one might
think.

> --Toby Katz

Regards

Chana

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I have no idea why you object to calling a kelal a soft rule, but that's
> a silly topic to dwell on. I meant that the rule is soft in contrast to
> hard-and-fast rules that if violated take you outside the realm of pesaq.
> ..

ein hachi nami, I guess a KLAL and soft-rule can indeed be equivalent.

Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:
> Interesting debate which reminds me of what R' Asher Weiss said about
> being a posek - Sometimes a posek must just use his best judgment
> (svarat halev, hargashat halev) and it's hard to draw a clear line
> between logic, emotions, intuition and thoughts. The posek needs a lot
> of siyata d'shmaya.

> BTW, iirc the gemara sites halacha lmaaseh as being the best source
> (i.e. it was not just taught in the beit medrash but resulted from an
> actual situation and psak).  If so, how do those who favor the MB over
> the AH"S explain it?

Micha thinks I am advocating an algorithmic psaq. Not quite

Here is what I am advocating:
An objective approahc or process to psaq.
I am not demanding a uniform RESULT

You can see this manifest between the BY, the SA and the Rema.  Do you know
the single most common sources for the Rema?  It is the BY. yet he is
frequrntly arguing with the SA's resultes But they are debating within THE
SAME BOX!

This is confirmed by the Levush,. The Levush actaully came up wiht a 3rd set
of decissions using ONLY the BY and the Rema.  [The hagahos on the Levush
added some material from OUTSIDE THE BOX]

AISI, their was a kind of Chasima at the time of the SA/Rema. You hardly
ever see nos'ei keilim going back to Talmud of early Rsihonim  except as
background.  Debates on the girsa'os are pretty much settled, even if the
settlement is an greement to disagree.  The early issues are settled and
psaw has moved on.

This is a BIG difference between a page in the Tur and a page in the SA.
Just look at the 2 and see what era is being discussed.

So I could come up with a porgramm of WHAT SOURCES to research but still not
dictate the results of that research. So the algorithm would only be re: the
proces not the conclusion AISI.

Now VERY difficult cases or brand new cases are starting from outside the
Box. The new technologies re: petrie dish and fertizlization etc. blazes new
trails that will need a bit of originality.

But sometimes posqim just state things from out there in left field [or more
likely RIGHT field!]

===================================================================
Re: Huerisitcs:

Using GOOGLE I cam up with the following and I I interpsrsed some comments

Definitions of *heuristics* on the Web:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:heuristics&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

> Of or relating to exploratory problem-solving techniques that utilize
> self-educating techniques (as the evaluation of feedback) to improve ...
> www.tekies.com/Glossary.h
> tm<;http://www.google.com/url?sa
> =X&;start=0&oi=define&q=http://www.tekies.com/Gl
> ossary.htm&;usg=AFQjCNEgat03sabKc5bcpuvN39_NPaZFVw>
> A rule-based method of identifying new viruses. This method of scanning
> does not rely on specific virus signatures. The advantage of the heuristic
> scan is that it is not fooled by a new variant of an existing virus.
> However, it might occasionally report suspicious code in normal programs.
> ...
> viruscenter.zks.freedom.net/html/glossary.html
> A problem-solving technique in which the most appropriate solution is
> selected using rules. Interfaces using heuristics may perform different ...
> acypher.com/wwid/BackMatter/Glossary.html

This one is not bad

> The set of skills for organizing information at the source for effective
> transmission. cf Mnemonics The set of skills for organizing information ...
> siliclone.tripod.com/books/history/H111.html
> The informal, judgmental knowledge of an application area that constitutes
> the "rules of good judgment" in the field. ...
> services.eliteral.com/glossary/decision-support-systems-glossary.php
> rules of thumb or very simple guidelines used by consumers to simplify and
> expedite their decisions in choosing among alternatives; eg, buy the least
> expensive brand or buy the product that sponsors a favorite baseball team's
> telecasts.
> promoprof.babson.edu/Glossary/h/GlossaryH.htm
> Guidelines that a system administrator uses to intervene where the
> two-phase commit or abort would otherwise fail.

> www.ncsa.u
> iuc.edu/UserInfo/Resources/Hardware/IBMp690/IBM/usr/share/man/info/en_
> US/a_doc_lib/aixuser/glossary/H.htm
> Any of various problem-solving techniques that involve the use of
> subjective knowledge, hunches, trial-and-error, rule-of-thumb, and other
> such informal but generally accurate methods.

This is the kind of Psaq I oppose: "Subjective hunches".  If a poseiq is
stuck he should reserach for hours and not shoot from the hip.

> biopharminternational.findpharma.com/biopharm/article/articleDetail.jsp
> Strategies that people use to solve problems.
> www.geocities.com/chingpascal/glossory.htm
> A Simple rule of Thumb; technique that works in practice most of the time.
> (Hill Climbing)
> www.bryansaunders.net/ccu/binf/
> A heuristic is a method to help to solve a problem, commonly informal. It
> is particularly used for a method that often rapidly leads to a solution ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristics

The last one is fine. The BY and Rema basically did this.  I do not know why
every poseiq does not set up a method and use it - and ONLY deviate in the
exceptoinal case.

Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Meir Rabi <meirabi@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>  Rashi explains DivRey RiVos BishO'Recha, Devarim 17:8, matters subject to
> dispute as a dispute between the Sages some saying permitted and others
> prohibited etc. Since the matter is unresolved it is taken to Ym for
> resolution at the Sanhedrin. Why is it not resolved through the regular
> system of voting and following the majority?

> This is how the Siforno explains the Passuk and this seems to be far closer
> to the Poshet Peshat.

AIUI the Sefer hachinuch to Mispatim says [or really suggests] that we still
follow ROV.  We don't need a formal voting process. And if the case is too
close to call then it stands [like a Teiku] as a still ongoing debate.

There are gazilloins of sources out ther to support this, but the 2 vs. 3
matzah deate is useful because the BY states Rov [no his words] to overrule
his Rf/Rambam default and the Kaf Hachayyim echoes this with Rov Ahcarhonim
against the GRA's opbjection.  So the same case has 2 posqim of 2 era's
inovking the same over-rdiing principle.

I would humbly suggest that anyone engaging in this debate see the sources
inside including BY, GRA, Kar Hachayyim etc.  You can even add the Gmara,
Rif, Rambam and Rosh [I have not seeen the Rosh inside yet myself].

This principle is ALSO importatn because ROV here trumsp the plain read of
the Sugya in Shas.  Which hearkens to the Tanu ahnai that Rov STILL trumps
even over Bavli.

I will be BEH teaching Hilchos Bassr Behcalav.  There is another example of
this re: Bishul of Bassar bechalav derabbanan.  The Bach [Tur YD 87]
correctly reads Rav Ashi as saying this is ASSUR miderabbanna., but posqim
have rejected that issur and have been mattir bishul of a bassr bechalav
derabban from at least the Rambam forward [despite the Bach showing the
Rambam otherwise]  The Rtaionale is given by the Maggid Mishnah sham.

A quick look at the Be'er hagloah on YD 87  lists about 13 sources including
teh Bartenura who really holds like the stright read of Rav Ashi and the
Bach. But it is possible that the BehG was not citing THAT apsect.

-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

        This is quite true. If the shul or Kehilah to which you belong
        says it, then you should also, if not , then don't. I follow
        minhag Tzanz, and so I don't say it. But if I am in another shul
        where it is the custom to say it and I am the baal tephilah,
        then I do also so as not to violate the minhag hamokom. If you
        have no minhag, then do what it says in Shulchan Aruch.

        Moshe Shulman    
        ===========================
        And if you are not the baal tfilla?

I don't say it. 

Moshe Shulman    
=========================================
Which raises the question of when one follows the tzibbur (e.g. iiuc
public things like they are saying aleinu) and when not (you daven
ashkenaz and they sfard psukei dzimra).  One issue would seem to be
tacchanin.

KT
Joel Rich

 Posqim - including Mishnah Brura advocate reciting Tehillim twice during
Ellul. In fact by doing kappitlach 10 a day, one can finish Tehillm twice;
and the total of 300 chapters represents the G'matriya of "kapper"

But 10 chapters a days is a tad unwieldy. Because they vary in size so much,
any day that includes kappitel 119 would be onerous.

Tehillim is Already divided into a 30-day plan. So the simple technique I
have subscribed to is as follows:

   1. Ellul do ONE cycle of Tehillim using the existing monthly cycle
   2. During the 10 Days of Teshuva, use the 7 days of non YomTov and o the
   weekly cycle. Thus, e.g. this year, on Tzom Gedalyah you do the Yom Rishon
   section edning on Erev YK with the Yom Shevi'i section.
   3. If you have time you can divided RH & YK and do a 3rd cycle

-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 320
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."