Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 432

Wed, 24 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: women lighting candles (menucha)
• 2. Kaddesh after Kiddush Levana... (Harvey Benton)
• 3. Security Cameras & Sattelites on Shabbas (Harvey Benton)
• 4. Fwd: Maoz Tsur (SBA Gmail)
• 5. Re: women lighting candles (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. TIDE Education in Lithuania (Yitzchok Levine)
• 7. Re: women lighting candles (Jesse Abelman)
• 8. Re: women lighting candles (Arie Folger)
• 9. 'Al Hanisim (Jonathan Baker)
• 10. Re: Kaddesh after Kiddush Levana... (Zev Sero)
• 11. Priorities in halacha (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Madoff scandal (T6...@aol.com)

Sorry, I don't happen to have a "women's Shulchan Aruch", but I did find 
some of these halachot in the "men's".
if you miss a candle you have to light for the rest of your life - Rema  
OC 263,1
Shabbat comes in when you light candles Mishna Brura sham 50
Not to touch a sefer Torah when nidda- Rema  OC 88.1

these may be topics over which there are other opinions but it's pretty 
sad if men have never heard of them.....
menucha

>On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:04:45AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>: I've often half-jokingly claimed that there is a separate women's Shulchan
>: Aruch, written by and for women, completely independent of the men's SA.
>: This is the SA where it is written that dirt is chometzdik, that Shabbat
>: comes in when you say the bracha on the candles, that if you miss lighting
>: one week you have to add a candle for the rest of your life, not to touch
>: a sefer torah while niddah, and a lot of other things that men have never
>: heard of.  
>  
>

After Kiddush Levana, people (if there is a minyan) say Kaddesh.? My
question is: how many people actually have to have said the Kiddush Levana
for it to be valid to say Kaddesh afterwards???? 
I have asked several people but have been unable to get a straight answer.?
What I was told, is that the Kaddesh is actually said on the Aleinu, which
is said after the Kiddush Levana.? And that at the minimum, there needs to
be 6 (out of the minyan's 10) that needs to say Aleinu.....
This doesn't answer the original ? however...... Any clarification would be helpful.... A Freilichin Chanukah... 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/99d0d05f/attachment-0001.htm>

Are we allowed to go outside on Shabbas if a Sattelite is overhead
(or even may be overhead)... it records our movements ... If it is allowed,
then would being on a conference-call on Shabbas be permitted? (if the call
was initiated before Shabbas, and all one did was talk on it??)

From what I
understand the Wall Cam at the Western Wall
is turned off because of (not) recording people on Shabbas/Yom Tov....
what about being recorded by Sattelites, Cameras on the Street and/or
Cameras in front of Banks, Federal Buildings, etc. ???
I was told the issue is one of Psik Reisha DeLo Neicha Lei, but that it is still a Psik Reisha...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/6d1fefc7/attachment-0001.htm>

From: SBA Gmail sba...@gmail.com
 I noticed  last week's Dushinsky Torah newsletter mention that in the verse
'Yevanim', the correct version in "uminosar kankanim" is "NAASOH (with a
kometz) neis lashoshanim".I have always said and heard it as NAASEH (with a
segol)....So I checked Artscroll, Otzar Hatefillos and Avodas Yisroel (Baer)
and all have it with the kometz.

So my question is, is this a charedi/chassidish common error, or do others
also say it thus?
>>>

Reply from THE man...
  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mandel, Seth <mand...@ou.org>
R SBA, please post in my name.

Most payet/zmiros have significant grammaical errors that crept in over
time. Some are close to k'fira, as in Koh Ribbon; some are gross, the
equivalent to saying in English "he am want a apples," like "v'se'orev
l'fonekho", and some are relatively minor, such as the confusion of past and
present in Maoz Tsur.  If peoplle did not hear it from the ShaTz every day,
they went home and made mistakes.  Very few siddurim were reviewed by
Talmidei Chachomim.  Similarly the Targum Onqelus printed in Ashkenaz
siddurim
Morenu vRabbenu Arthur Scroll Shleeeta has allowed only minor corrections
under the copout "our sainted ancestors used siddurim with these mistakes,
so who are we to change,"  no matter that they use the mistaken
"corrections" introduced by various grammarians against rabbinic opposition
in the late 18th and the 19th Centuries. These grammarians fixed some things
and ruined others, but did not introduce changes to payet or zmiros.
Best would be to go back to the olb mss. used before print, but that would
never fly, because a) it would be the end of sfard and chabad changes (the
nusach of the Ari is different than either), and b) early Ashkenaz used
qomatz and pasach interchangeably, and also tzeire and segol, which would
bring down the wrath of most grammarians, who are ignorant of history and
linguistics.
I do sound like a Gnostic, but that is the fate baz'man hazzeh of people who
know linguistics and are serious about the dictum of the Kabbala to be
careful about what you say in prayer or similar dicta from other Rishonim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/08ed1efc/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" _kennethgmiller@juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmil...@juno.com) 

>>  MB 675:9 quotes the Olas Shmuel that "although by us, each one lights by  
himself, nevertheless a woman does not have to light because they are merely  
tafel to the men (havayan rak tefeilos la'anashim). If they want to light, 
they  do say the brachos, because it is like other mitzvos aseh shehazman grama 
that  they can say brachos on. When the man is not home, the woman should 
light,  because she *is* obligated, and *with* a bracha -- and not by having a 
child  light."


....I find it particularly noteworthy that he invokes the  concept of 
"mitzvos aseh shehazman grama" and the (Ashkenazi) psak that women  *do* say the 
brachos on such mitzvos. This seems to contradict his own admission  that women 
*are* obligated on their own. <<

 

Akiva Miller
 
 
>>>>
He didn't say they are obligated "on their own" -- you  added those words.   
He just said women are obligated and are yotzei  with their husbands' 
lighting.  It seems to me exactly the same as saying  kiddush on Shabbos.  I don't see 
where your problem is or why you think  there is a contradiction in the MB. 
You created the contradiction by adding  the words "on their own."  I guess you 
thought those words were implied  when he said "women are obligated" but 
that's not correct.  A woman can  either be yotzei with her husband's kiddush on 
Shabbos or she can make her own  if she doesn't want to wait until he comes 
home from shul.  The  facts that she is 1. obligated in kiddush and 2. yotzei 
with another person's  kiddush are not a contradiction.
 
--Toby Katz
=========



**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/2e905073/attachment-0001.htm>

Not long ago I sent out an email about the establishment of TIDE 
schools in Lithuania during WW I. I learned about this from reading 
the book Ish Yehudi, a biography of Rav Joseph Tzvi Carlebach, 
written by his son Rav Shlomo Carlebach, former mashgiach of Yeshiva 
Rabbi Chaim Berlin. I posted the section of the book that deals with 
this topic at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/carlebach/tide_lita.pdf

The December 2008 issue of the Jewish Observer contains a review of 
Ish Yehudi written by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer.  The Editor of 
the JO wrote an "introduction" to this review. In part he wrote

"This essay extracts from the book under review details of the manner 
in which educational methodologies of the great German school of 
Torah im Derech Eretz were being introduced to be employed in the 
Lithuanian Yavneh and the Polish Bais Yaakov school networks to 
combat the problems of the day. This review has been reviewed by 
gedolei Torah and roshei yeshivos,  who confirmed the picture drawn 
by Rabbi Carlebach in his new work, and who encouraged us to put his 
"new" historical insights before our readership."

The article describes how Rav Carlebach set up TIDE schools in 
certain parts of Lithuania.

"The Yavneh system [these were TIDE schools - YL] was the main 
Orthodox school system in the shortlived independent republic of 
Lithuania. In the milieu created by this modern state, the 
old-fashioned cheder became extinct."

The footnote to this sentence says:

Heard from Reb Zalman Alpert, shlita,  in the name of Rabbi Tuvia 
Lasdun.  Reb Zalman also related to me in the name of his own rebbi, 
Rabbi Shimon Romm, that the vibrant young Orthodoxy that flourished 
in independent Lithuania between the wars was known as "Kovno 
Orthodoxy" (A similar Orthodoxy existed in Latvia.) It was anchored 
by the yeshivos of Slabodka, Telshe, Kelm and Ponovezh and the 
gedolei Torah that the yeshivas produced, but in the larger community 
outside the yeshivos it was dominated by ba'alei battim and movements 
such as the Agudah. The rav of Kovno, Rabbi Avrohom Dovber 
Kahana-Shapira was recognized as the leader of this Lithuanian 
Orthodoxy. By contrast, in the part of Lithuania (Minsk, Slutzk, 
Bobruisk and east) that was annexed by the USSR, religion was banned. 
Only Chabad managed to maintain limited, underground Jewish 
education. The part of Lithuania (ViIna, Lomza, Bialystok, and Brisk) 
that was annexed by Poland was also not as affected by the Torah im 
Derech Eretz influence. By the outbreak of the Second World War, with 
the exception of the talmidim of the great yeshivos (and a relatively 
nascent network of schools founded by talmidim of Novaradok), the 
youth of this region had been lost to Orthodoxy. Only the Chassidim 
of the region - Chabad, Slonim and Karlin-Stolin - fared somewhat 
better. Indicative of this trend is the fact that in 1936, Rabbi 
Elazar Menachem Mon Shach took a position as rosh yeshiva in the 
Karliner yeshiva in Luninets.

The article also says:

"With the approval of gedolei Torah, Rabbi Carlebach founded a 
Gymnasium (the European term for an academic high school), based on 
the German Torah im Derech Eretz model. Rabbi Carlebach brought in 
highly qualified teachers from Germany to assist in the venture. 
Among them was Dr. Leo Deutschlander, who later became famous for his 
enormous contribution to the Bais Yaakov school system. The school 
became known popularly as the Carlebach Gymnasium. By its third year 
of existence, it enrolled one thousand boys and girls in separate 
schools. Its remarkable accomplishments made a deep impression on the 
gedolim in Lithuania, particularly on the Rosh Hayeshiva of the great 
yeshiva of Telshe, Rabbi Yosef Leib Bloch. Rabbi Bloch invited Dr. 
Deutschlander, in collaboration with Rabbi Carlebach, to found the 
network of similar schools that came to be known as 'Yavneh.'

"The network included separate teachers' seminaries for men and women 
in Kovno, Gymnasiums in Kovno, Telshe, and Ponovezh, and 
approximately one hundred elementary schools - all of which brought 
the chinuch methodology of 'Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Yavneh 
was intertwined with Zeirei Agudas Yisroel, and it was mostly the 
idealistic Agudist young men and women who served as the leaders and 
teachers of the Yavneh system.

"Leafing through the extraordinarily impressive pages of Hane'eman 
also impresses upon one the extent to which the Lithuanian yeshiva 
world embraced elements of the German Jewish derech."

All of this flies in the face of what I have been told, namely, that 
Lithuanian gedolim were opposed to the study of virtually all secular 
subjects, period. It is indeed true that in almost all of the yeshiva 
gedolos there were no formal secular subjects taught. However, during 
this period both Lithuanian boys and girls attended elementary and 
high schools that included both limudei kodesh and limudei chol, just 
as most of our youth do today!


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/6e9c25af/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:24 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>  From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" kennethgmil...@juno.com
>
> >> MB 675:9 quotes the Olas Shmuel that "although by us, each one lights by
> himself, nevertheless a woman does not have to light because they are merely
> tafel to the men (havayan rak tefeilos la'anashim). If they want to light,
> they do say the brachos, because it is like other mitzvos aseh shehazman
> grama that they can say brachos on. When the man is not home, the woman
> should light, because she *is* obligated, and *with* a bracha -- and not by
> having a child light."
>
>
> ....I find it particularly noteworthy that he invokes the concept of
> "mitzvos aseh shehazman grama" and the (Ashkenazi) psak that women *do* say
> the brachos on such mitzvos. This seems to contradict his own admission that
> women *are* obligated on their own. <<
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
> >>>>
> He didn't say they are obligated "on their own" -- you added those words.
> He just said women are obligated and are yotzei with their husbands'
> lighting.  It seems to me exactly the same as saying kiddush on Shabbos.  I
> don't see where your problem is or why you think there is a contradiction in
> the MB. You created the contradiction by adding the words "on their own."  I
> guess you thought those words were implied when he said "women are
> obligated" but that's not correct.  A woman can either be yotzei with her
> husband's kiddush on Shabbos or she can make her own if she doesn't want to
> wait until he comes home from shul.  The facts that she is 1. obligated in
> kiddush and 2. yotzei with another person's kiddush are not a contradiction.
>
> --Toby Katz
> =========
>

  >>>>>
     If Reb. Akiva Miller doesn't mind me jumping in here, this is very
different case from Kiddush on shabbat.  In that case, she has an obligation
to say kiddush, which she fufils through the principle of Shom'ea ke-Oneh.
Any adult male can fufil his obligation in the same manner.  This is true
for most (maybe all, but I don't know that for a fact) verbal mitzvot,
including brachot, tefilah and Krias shm'a.

    Channukah is totally different animal, as it is a non-verbal mitzvah.
Not only that, but it is not an individual mitzvah, the Mitzvah is "ner Ish
u-Beito."  Right before citing the teshuva of the Olas-Shumel, MB says
explictly that either husband or wife can fufill this obligation for the
household, so long as the other household members are present and hear the
blessings.  He then goes on to quote the teshuva, which is not about
fufilling the obligation, but about the ashkenazic custom of fulfilling
Mehadrin minhamehadrin by having every adult member of the household light.
He excludes women, because they are tafel to the men, but permits them to
say a bracha if they choose,as with other mitzvot mitvot aseh she-hazman
grama,as said before.

 What's strange about this, I think, is that none of it is on the level of
basic obligation.  We're talking about how to do Mehadrin min ha-mehadrin
here.  Invoking the fact that women can make a bracha on mitzvat aseh
she-hazman grama in which they are not obligated an explanation for why they
can make a bracha here is strange.  Her obligation is fufulled by her
husband, sure.  So are the obligations of all her adult sons at home, but
they still make a bracha on their menorahs for Mehadrin min ha-Mehadrin.

  What I think is happening is this: In terms of membership in the
household, the wife (or all women?  Does this apply to unmarried adult
daughters too?  Unclear.) is not a separate member for mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin candlelighting purposes, she counts with her husband.  But if
this is the case, then Olas Shmuel is stuck.  Because that means that when
women DO decide to light candles with their families, they shouldn't make a
bracha.  After all, they don't count for Mehadrin min ha-mehadrin at all.
(By this logic, women lighting neither adds nor subtracts hidur, I think.)
But he knows that women make a bracha in this case.  So he treats it like
Mitzvot aseh she-hazman grama where they have no obligation, but they are
fufulling it anyway, even though what it really is is Hidur mitzvat aseh
she-hazman grama, in which she doesn't contribute to the hiddur, but may
make the bracha anyway.

  Frankly, I don't find this very compelling, but I understand why he takes
this approach. He's stuck.  Women are obviously obligated, but equally
obviously don't participate in Mehadrin min Ha-mehadrin.  However, when they
do, they bless.  So this is his explanation.

          Jesse A.

>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo
> Mail. Try it now<http://www.aol.com/?optin=
> new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025>
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081224/20c548d2/attachment-0001.htm>

R. Zev Sero wrote:
> : I've often half-jokingly claimed that there is a separate women's
> : Shulchan Aruch, written by and for women, completely independent of the
> : men's SA. This is the SA where it is written that dirt is chometzdik,
> : that Shabbat comes in when you say the bracha on the candles, that if you
> : miss lighting one week you have to add a candle for the rest of your
> : life, not to touch a sefer torah while niddah, and a lot of other things
> : that men have never heard of. ?Women learned halacha from their mothers
> : and grandmothers, not from their fathers, so there was some divergent
> : development. ?A very feminist view, actually.

RMB
> No joke, not even half. Isn't this why Chazal take "shema beni musar
> avikha ve'al titosh toras imekha" and say "al tiqri 'imekha' ela
> 'umaskha'"? The Torah of the am, the cultural observations, what the
> Gra"ch (R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik) got MO Jews calling "mimeticism" is
> largely transmitted by our mothers.

But what if some women feel [without reference to feminist thought, for 
example R'n Rayna Batya Berlin well over a century ago] that some of these 
halakhot pessuqot in the very special, unwritten women's Shul'han 'Arukh, at 
variance with codified halakhah, is too heavy or otherwise unpleasant to bear. 
She feels slighted when all the men get le'hem mishneh at the table, but the 
women don't, same for the "mayim machroinem wasser" that is passed around 
among the men, but not the women, or by the fact that menorot are made 
available to all the male guest, but not the female guest. Will you say that 
the earlier way is the "righter" way, and that she is wrong, that  we will 
perhaps, begrundgingly tolerate her modernishe antics, or will we say that she 
has all the right in the world to feel upset.

Note that the issue here isn't what her motivation is to want to take on an 
additional practice, but the assumption of society around her that she has no 
relationship to the things mentioned, In the case of mayim machroinem wasser 
it is particularly egrerious, as it is not a matter of mitzvah, but sakanah, 
ve'hamira sakanta me-issurei.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

From: "Larry Israel" <larry.isr...@weizmann.ac.il>
> Both in the standing prayer and in grace after meals some places
> have 'Al hanism' and some have v'al hanisim. Some of the Ashkenazic
> siddurim I have had it one way; some the other. The (two) Sephardic
> (East European, not Oriental) ones had V'al hanisim.
>  
> Now without getting into halachic questions, it seem that stylistically
> V'al is more correct, as it is preceded by a string of V'als and
> followed by a V'al. Is there a good reason why all siddurim don't
> use V'al?

Baer notes that almost all old siddurim, both Ashkenazic and Sphardic,
don't use V'al, but Al.  He notes that even those few commentators (Mateh
Moshe and a couple of others) who add the Vav only do so in Benching, where
there is a string of V'als.  In Shmoneh Esreh, though, the string of V'als
is broken by Hatov ki lo calu rachamecha vehamerachem ki lo tamu chasadecha.

Siddur Eizor Eliyahu similarly notes that only two sources say V'al, but
all old siddurim say Al,  and uses Al both for benching and 18.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Harvey Benton wrote:
> After Kiddush Levana, people (if there is a minyan) say Kaddesh.  My 
> question is: how many people actually have to have said the Kiddush 
> Levana for it to be valid to say Kaddesh afterwards??? 

It would seem to me that there's no need for anyone but the person
saying kaddish to have said it, and that it's entirely OK for one
person who has said kiddush levana to gather 9 others just for his
kaddish, just as people do with borchu. 


-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

From R' Aviner:

Q: Is it an obligation to have a silver chanukiyah?
A: The basic mitzvah is that any material is suitable for a chanukiyah,
but like all mitzvot, one can embellish the mitzvah (hiddur mitzvah).
Therefore, a silver chanukiyah is proper. But the Pele Yoetz writes that
even better than what is "proper" is what is "preferable": such as
giving the extra money to the poor.



KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081224/44c331b2/attachment-0001.htm>

 

>> He was arrested on Dec. 11 at his Manhattan apartment and charged  with 
securities fraud, turned in the night before by his sons after he told them  his 
entire business was ?a giant Ponzi scheme.? <<
 
_ht
tp://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20madoff.html?_r=1&;th=&
;adxnnl=1&em
c=th&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1229836491-//LZCxBf7hAUknRcDlv2/A_ 
(ht
tp://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20madoff.html?_r=1&;th=&
;adxnnl=1&emc=th&pagewanted
=all&adxnnlx=1229836491-//LZCxBf7hAUknRcDlv2/A) 
 
or
 
_http://tinyurl.com/82rbfy_ (http://tinyurl.com/82rbfy) 


I wonder what the chevra think about Madoff's sons turning him in?   He's a 
major criminal so they did the right thing?  Dina demalchusa?   Or mesira?  
What about kibud av?   What should a person  do if he finds out that his father 
is a goniff?  Minor tax  cheat?  major investment fraud?  
 
PS Is this a hashkafic or a halachic question?  I don't know.   But my 
visceral reaction was:  his own kids turned him in?!  That's  disgusting!
 


--Toby Katz
=============
Read  *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 





--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081224/b71b0525/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 432
***************************************

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..."