Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 202

Mon, 22 Nov 2010

• 1. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Harry Weiss)
• 2. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Zev Sero)
• 5. days (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 6. Re: Answered tefilot (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Contents of Avodah on Atifas Talis (Yishmealim) and the Gra (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Murder? (Micha Berger)
• 9. changing tune in lecha dodi (The Goldmeiers)
• 10. changing tune in lecha dodi (Gershon Dubin)
• 11. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Goldmeier)
• 13. The MB and Spiders (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Contents of Avodah on Atifas Talis (Yishmealim) and the Gra (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: changing tune in lecha dodi (Gershon Dubin)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Zev Sero wrote:

> On 22/11/2010 12:57 AM, Harry Weiss wrote:
>
>> I remember a shiur of Kosher tidbits on OU Radio  a while back that
>> addressed the Turkey issue (among others) and mentioned that besides the
>> simanim and the fact that it has been eaten for hundreds of years there is
>> one other factor.  There  was an Amora brought that claimed to be familiar
>> with all of the prohibited species of fowl.  Since he obviously could not
>> have been familiar with Turkey, that would indicate that it was not a
>> prohibited species.
>
> But that proves too much -- it would apply equally to all New World
> species (as well as those of Australia, the Pacific, etc.)
>
You are right it would prove too much.  That is why simanim are also 
needed.  There are probably a number of fowl that are included in each 
one of the prohibited species.  Between the two, there may be sufficient 
data, especially if there is suffcient similarity to another kosher 
species.


>

Harry J. Weiss
hjwe...@panix.com

On 22/11/2010 12:57 AM, Harry Weiss wrote:
> I remember a shiur of Kosher tidbits on OU Radio  a while back that
> addressed the Turkey issue (among others) and mentioned that besides the
> simanim and the fact that it has been eaten for hundreds of years there is
> one other factor.  There  was an Amora brought that claimed to be familiar
> with all of the prohibited species of fowl.  Since he obviously could not
> have been familiar with Turkey, that would indicate that it was not a
> prohibited species.

But that proves too much -- it would apply equally to all New World
species (as well as those of Australia, the Pacific, etc.)

On 22/11/2010 4:25 AM, david guttmann wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> Back to Moshe Rabbeinu.  That is the premise of the whole business of
>> requiring a mesorah for birds.

> See Rambam Ma'achalot Assurot 1:15 that a Baki Baminin Ubeshmotehen - an
> ornithological expert who can identify the birds as to their names-   does
> not require bedika and therefore Simanim and he establishes the Mesora as
> per the end of the Halacha - vene'eman Hatzayad ...

Baki bishmotehen must by definition go back to Moshe.  The only way
one could possibly know what a bird was called in Moshe's time is by
that knowledge being passed down a chain of "rabbi tzayad".  There's
no physical evidence that can show what a bird's name was in a dialect
spoken thousands of years ago.

> Next Halacha continues that one who is not an ornithological expert checks
> the simanim the Chachamim (not Moshe) established.

Yes.  The Rambam holds that mesorah is *not* necessary.  Today we
pasken otherwise.

On 22/11/2010 9:12 AM, Harry Weiss wrote:
>>> There was an Amora brought that claimed to be familiar
>>> with all of the prohibited species of fowl. Since he obviously could not
>>> have been familiar with Turkey, that would indicate that it was not a
>>> prohibited species.

>> But that proves too much -- it would apply equally to all New World
>> species (as well as those of Australia, the Pacific, etc.)

> You are right it would prove too much. That is why simanim are also needed.

How so?  If we know for a fact that all the treife species were known
in Bavel, then any species unknown in Bavel must by definition be
kosher, even if it has simanei tum'ah.   And yet this can't be so.

> There are probably a number of fowl that are included in each one of the
> prohibited species.

Exactly.  And once we've established there is a single tamei species
in the New World, how can we point to any species and say with certainty
that it isn't also tamei?  And yet it's inconceivable to say that
turkey is tamei.  This is the conundrum.  Any solution *must* account
for both of these considerations, which means any solution is not going
to be neat and simple.

>  Between the two, there may be sufficient data, especially if there
>  is suffcient similarity to another kosher species.

This is essentially a relaxation of the strict mesorah position.
Which is a perfectly valid thing to do; don't forget that the strict
requirement for a mesorah is not the only position among the rishonim;
the ultimate answer has to be that despite our claiming to pasken
strictly for mesorah, we don't really.  And yet once we say that
openly, it seems to become necessary that we pin down exactly what
we do pasken, and once we do that we will inevitably find other
exceptions that will demand dealing with.

For instance, we *know* beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that
peacocks are kosher.  All the traditional concerns about using names
don't apply.  We know there is no other species anywhere in the world
that could be the bird we know was eaten, not only by Chazal, but by
Italian Jews as late as the 19th century.  The Zivchei Tzedek even
drew us a picture and coloured it in with his own hand, and there is
no other bird he could have meant.  And yet I don't think there's a
rov anywhere in the world today who will permit it.  Why?  Once we
acknowledge that we don't really hold of a strict requirement for
mesorah, the ban on peacock becomes insupportable.

And what about birds with conflicting mesoros, such as storks?  Just
because a consensus developed in the middle ages not to eat them,
why should that preclude the matter from being reopened, once we know
exactly what it is that we hold about the kashrus of birds?  Perhaps,
after all, those rishonim with the mesorah of eating them were right?
The major reason not to reopen the question is precisely that we
don't know, or at least don't articulate, what it is that we hold.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 22/11/2010 10:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> There is no mention of Yom haDin, just of Yom Hashem. The notion that
> would need explanation would be your assumption that they're identical.
> Or even that Yom haDin was a day -- I would think it's shorter.

It's Yom Hashem Hagadol Vehanora.  What other day could that mean *but*
Yom Hadin?  And it needn't take up the whole day, but that is the Day
of Judgement; it certainly needn't take *more* than a day.


>>>>> Or a more significant example to our case, in Bereishis 2:4, the creation
>>>>> era is called a yom -- "beyom asos H' E-lokim eretz veshamayim" --
>>>>> not 7 of them!
>
>>>> Doesn't that mean the first day?
>
>>> It means the period in time that included "asos Hashem shamayim va'aretz"
>>> and "vayitzer H' E-lokim es ha'adam"
>
>> Rashi explicitly says otherwise.
>
> Rashi on 2:1 explicitly says that "kulam nivera'u barishon". Nothing
> about a given day.

Come, now.  His comment is on "*beyom* asos Hashem", and he says
"*limdecha* shekulam nivre'u barishon".  *This teaches you* that
everything was really created on the first day, not on the subsequent
five days.  What teaches you this?  The word "beyom".  In other words
Rashi takes this "beyom" absolutely literally.  It does not mean even
as little as a week, let alone any longer period.  If "yom" could mean
a longer period, then this whole Rashi makes no sense, and how does he
know things weren't really created on the six days, as perek 1 seems
to say?  Why, throughout perek 1, does he keep telling us that all
these things were already created on the first day and were merely put
in place later?


> In fact, taken very literally, Rashi is saying that
> everything was created at the start of the week, as he says on 1:14
> about the me'oros, "they were created since yom 1, and on the 4th [yom]
> it was commanded on them to hand in the raqia'".

Exactly.  And how does he know this?  Because of this "beyom", which
you claim means the whole week!



> For that matter, on which yom were shamayim va'aretz created? IOW,
> does yom echad begin with "bereishis bara E-lokim", or with "veha'aretz
> haysah"? Is 1:1 an introduction, telling you that shamayim va'aretz,
> whose creation is described in full from 1:2-1:3 (including the creation
> of Shabbos), was in the beginnning of?

Rashi already handled that one.  The main pshat is that this pasuk is
about the *purpose* of the whole creation, not its timing; and if that
doesn't sit well then the secondary pshat is that it means that the
next pasuk ("vehaaretz haysa tohu vavohu") happened at the beginning of
the creation of shamayim va'aretz.  Rashi absolutely rejects the idea
that 1:1 tells us when shamayim va'aretz were created.


> But in any case, returning to the first sentence of the previous
> paragraph: There is nothing in Rashi that says that the yom in which
> shamayim va'aretz were made was not the yom in which the story happens.
> In fact, since the pasuq in question says, roughly, "Here's a story of
> something that happens in the yom in which heaven and earth was created",
> is would take some work to say that it happens on a different yom. And
> if 1:1 is an introductory overview, then 2:1 is saying maaseh bereishis
> took a yom.

Sorry, you are distorting the Rashi beyond any recognition.  Rashi
couldn't be any clearer: "beyom asos" means the first day and only the
first day, to the specific exclusion of the rest of the yemei bereshis.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 22/11/2010 10:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:25:06AM -0500, david guttmann wrote:
> : RZS wrote:
> :>  Back to Moshe Rabbeinu.  That is the premise of the whole business of
> :>  requiring a mesorah for birds.
>
> To reply to RZS's point... The Torah lists treif birds. What one would
> need a mesorah for back to MRAH would be which birds are treif. See SA YD
> 82:1 "... ela manah minim temei'im bilvad, ushe'ar minei ha'of mutarim".
> Continuing in the next siman, bediqa is needed because of a lack of
> expertise in knowing what those 24 minim temei'im include.

Which would itself be a mesorah dating back to Moshe.  That comprehensive
mesorah, of being able to recognise all 24 birds *and all their subspecies*
*and varieties*, would have been impossible to transmit, unless one lived
in an area where all of these hundreds or thousands of birds were to be
found.  If emus are tamei, as they surely are, then nobody has had this
mesorah since Dor Hamidbar died out.   The alternative is a negative
mesorah; one of the dor hamidbar taught his son that when Moshe showed us
all the tamei birds, a chicken wasn't one of them.  We may not know
exactly what the duchifas was, but it wasn't a chicken.  And that mesorah
got passed down through the ages.   (The Karaites, who deny that there is
any such thing as a mesorah to Moshe, nevertheless claimed that duchifas
means chicken; how they could know this without a mesorah to Moshe is a
mystery.)


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

RET:  "This whole discussion of the meaning of days is not of our
concern and is a stupid discussion. Who is anyone to change
pshat based on things which we are not enjoined to know

see
R. Aharon Schechter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO01hVfDFjI&;feature=related"

Stupid?!?  Is that an argument, or, indeed, is that an appropriate word to
use in civilized discourse?  In any event, I'm not aware that R. Schechter
has the final say on these matters.  Those who follow him might not want to
participate in this discussion or even read the postings on it.  That, of
course, is their prerogative. But there are other positions within the
halachic community that see things differently from R. Schechter on these
matters, and for those in the Avodah community who follow leaders who take
those positions, the discussion is anything but stupid.

Joseph Kaplan  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101122/6f505404/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6:18am EST this morning, I wrote:
: But doesn't the vav before veNo'ah group her with Makhlah and Chaglah,
: Milkah and Tirtzah in a second group? I seem to recall that there was
: a medrash explaining why the daughters were split into two lists.

RRW sent me a stronger example (Vayiqra 23:40):
    peri eitz hadar
    kapos temarim
    va'anaf eitz avos
    ve'arvei nachal
The Levush uses the vav placement lehalakhah, to explain why the lulav,
hadasim and aravos go together, but the esrog is not tied with them.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

After reading my earlier comment on this thread someone asked me if I
could point to some literature "on the Gra's and Reb Chaim Voloshiner's
approach to anything and everything." In truth, I had very little to
say about what the Gra actually holds, and instead wrote about the Ari's
teachings behind the common customs we discussed.

Micha thought it would be worth turning into a group effort. To begin
the discussion:

Regarding R' Chayim Volozhin's teachings, the answer is easy: Nefesh
haChayim.

Regarding commentaries on the siddur, some great works are:
Netiv Bina
Tzelota deAvraham
Otzar haTefillot

I also recommend R' Barry Freundel's writings.

Minhag Yisrael Torah should cover some of the common, but commonly
misunderstood, customs.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle fr G"tt?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:19:30PM +0100, R Arie Folger replied to
RHM:
:> Is there no ethical problem with a wealthy person having a better
:> chance at surviving a disease because of his wealth? Shouldn't
:> health care be blind to wealth?

: But isn't that already the case with the fact that wealthier people
: buy better healthcare and generally get more care? Unless Obamacare
: happens (not to belittle the problems, but it surely will be more
: equitable, though at a price).

I wasn't going to take this confession public, but RHM said he didn't
understand why, and then I got this in my Google Reader and simply
couldn't dismiss the "coincidence"; it seems Someone wants to push the
issue. So, here it is...

    Alshich - Why Didn't Hashem Didn't Choose Communism
    from Revach L'Neshama
    http://revach.net/article.php?id=4834

    Dovid HaMelech asks Hashem (Tehilim 61:8) according to the Medrash
    Tanchuma, "Yeisheiv Olam Lifnei Elokim", let all humanity live on
    equal footing before you Hashem. Why should there be poor people
    and rich people? Can Hashem not ensure that everyone has the same
    amount? Hashem answered him "Chesed VeEmes Man Yintzruhu", then who
    will perform Chesed?

    The world is about Chesed and in an equal world, Chesed opportunities
    are few and far between. Surely there is a rhyme and reason why some
    people are poor and some are rich. This has to do with each person
    individually and his mission in life. However says the Alshich
    (Behar 25:35), Hashem could have made life difficult for the Ani
    in other ways. The reason he chose to inflict him with poverty is
    strictly for the benefit of the people with money who are capable
    of helping him out.

    So next time a poor person asks you for help do not judge him. Do not
    give him the look that says "I worked for my money and what exactly do
    you do besides shnorr". If it weren't for you he wouldn't be a begging
    either. This is all about you and it is your big opportunity. The
    Ani will not be any better or worse off whether you answer or reject
    his plea for assistance. You will!

I must confess that something similar to the dilemma RHM raises and RAF
widens the scope of has made me sympathetic to those Pale of Settlement
Jews -- including Qibbutz haDati -- who embraced Communism. My father
recalls madrichim in Bnei Akiva preaching Communism. For that matter,
the days when people thought of the qibbutznik in his kova tembl whenever
you discussed the "typical Israel" ran well into my lifetime. If only
Communism would work.... We today know that it doesn't with the aid
of hindsight.

But sometimes I wonder if capitalism is like eishes yefas to'ar --
a concesssion to human imperfection.

The Alshich is being used in Revach L'Neshamah to say that Hashem doesn't
want Communism because it would rob us of opportunities for chessed. I
would argue the exact reverse: He doesn't want Communism because we lack
the level of chessed orientation necessary for it to work.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I know many people do this, regardless of MO vs Chareidi leanings.
Personally, if the chazan has the kehilla "rockin" with the tune, I hate
the disruption changing the tune creates.

Regardless, My Rov recently made a statement that he wants to insists ALL
chazanim to change the tune and he dislikes it when a chazan doesn't.
he says, "it's become minhag Yisroel" to change the tune. Now my rov
is generally a nationally respected rov and poseik. When I questioned
him about the status of this strange behavior, he replied, yes, it is
now minhag yisroel and I hate it when the chazan doesn't change the tune.

So, my question to you all is, minhag yisroel? do ALL of you change
the tune? Is this early onset? (ok, just kidding on that one)

Thanks
Shaya Goldmeier 

I asked Rav Dovid Cohen about the origins of this "custom" and he had no idea if there was any.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101122/0579b1e9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:57:41PM -0600, The Goldmeiers wrote:
> Regardless, My Rov recently made a statement that he wants to insists ALL
> chazanim to change the tune and he dislikes it when a chazan doesn't.
> he says, "it's become minhag Yisroel" to change the tune...

I think in practice, it's pretty close to universal. That has been my
observation listening to minyanim from numerous eidot at the kotel.
There are some holdouts, but not many.

As for the origin, bemechilas kevod toras R' Dovid Cohen, I think it
has a basis.

There is a minhag Frankfurt-am-Main to sing one tune for the beginning to
His'oreri -- using one tune for Shamor and Liqras Shabbos (about Shabbos)
as well as for the verses about galus.

Then they switched to a happy tune for *His'oreri*, when the piyut starts
discussing the Ge'ulah.

And then for the return to discussing Shabbos in Bo'i veShalom they
would *switch back*.

Not exactly the same minhag, but the beginning of the idea.

To my mind this must be connected to the Chassidishe minhag, which is
to use a slow tune for the first verses, and a lively / happy one for
the last 4. The only question would be why His'oreri is not considered
among the nechamah. Admittedly, it's a major one.

Second, this is a piyut written in Tzefas that has 10 stanzas (if you
count the initial use of the chorus as a stanza) and is written for
Shabbos. I am not an authority on qabbalah, but I would be surprised to
learn that there is no motivation based on the Eitz Chayim for changing
tunes after 6 stanzas, the sefiros related to the work-weak.


While we're on the subject of new minhagei Yisrael... My own minhag
is to only do a full hishtachavayah for the Avodah, not the Aleinu on
either RH or YK. At this point, though, I haven't seen a minyan where
keeping this minhag wouldn't raise perishah min hatzibbur problems.
Has my minhag become trumped by a new minhag Yisrael, or are there still
shuls out there who do things as my grandfather a"h did?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

I remember that a while back there was an article analyzing this issue 
in the Mishpacha's Kolmus edition. There was a source for it, and the 
custom is "ancient", I just dont remember the source or when/how it began.

Kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

On 22/11/2010 10:57 PM, The Goldmeiers wrote:
>
> So, my question to you all is, minhag yisroel? do ALL of you change
> the tune? Is this early onset? (ok, just kidding on that one)
>
> Thanks
> Shaya Goldmeier 

At 11:01 AM 11/22/2010, R. Micha wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:49:35PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> > The following is from today's Hakhel Email Bulletin:
> >> 1.  The Mishna Berura notes that there is a misconception among some
> >> that spiders can be dangerous to humans and that killing them is
> >> permissible on Shabbos.  This, he writes, is not true, and they are
> >> not to be treated as snakes or scorpions.

> > I sent the following to the editor of this bulletin.
> > WADR to the MB, please see
> > http://www.termite.com/spider-identification.html ...

>But in practice, the odds of anyone one of us finding a dangerous
>spider in our homes and needing to kill it on Shabbos is minimal...

Here is what today's Hakhel Email Bulletin says about this issue.

Special Note One: In a note last Erev Shabbos, we pointed out that
spiders are not considered to be dangerous and are not put into the
dangerous snake and scorpion category, which would allow them to be
killed on Shabbos. Rather, the Chofetz Chaim teaches, one can cover
the food so that the spiders stay away (or try to remove the spider webs
during Erev Shabbos cleaning). A reader cautioned that while this may be
true of the traditional house spider, his research indicates that there
are several other kinds of spiders who are quite dangerous -- including
the Brown Recluse Spider, Black Widow Spider, Mouse Spider, and Black
House Spider. Accordingly, one should consult with his Rav as to how
to treat insects and creatures with which he is not otherwise familiar.
Of course, if there is doubt as to Pikuach Nefesh one always immediately
errs to the side of saving his life.

YL

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:46:17PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Regarding R' Chayim Volozhin's teachings, the answer is easy: Nefesh
: haChayim.

As for the Gra, RMTreibitz gravitates to the 10 kelalim
<http://www.hashkafacircle.com/Asarah_Klalim.pdf> and the Leshem's
haQdamos uShe'arim, which he discusses in the shiur series at
http://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/category/vilna-gaon-shiurim/
and
http://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/category/leshem/
respectively.

I would add Even Sheleimah, which is where you see how Tenu'as haMussar
will eventually grow out of the Gra's thought.

: Regarding commentaries on the siddur, some great works are:
: Netiv Bina
: Tzelota deAvraham
: Otzar haTefillot
: 
: I also recommend R' Barry Freundel's writings.

R' Aharon Lopiansky compiled the Aliyas Eliyahu and Maasanei Asher
siddurim, and the Machzor Miqra'ei Qodesh for yamim nora'im. I own
Aliyas Eliyahu, named for haBachur Eliyahu Lopiansky a"h. It's a
critical edition, trying to reproduce the nusach before all the 19th
cent innovations. (Although after the grammarians shifted our diqduq from
Mishnaic to Biblical Hebrew.) Minhag haGra is noted, but not in the main
text. Tefillos lifted from Tanakh (Tehillim, As Yashir, etc...) are in
their own font.

More on topic than that, RALopiansky also compiled a collection of
rishonim on the siddur, pulling from those like the Avudraham and the
Ri ben Yaqar who wrote on the siddur explicitly, as well as quoting
peirushim on the pesuqim and maamarei Chazal that appear in the siddur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:27:19AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> To reply to RZS's point... The Torah lists treif birds. What one would
>> need a mesorah for back to MRAH would be which birds are treif. See SA YD
>> 82:1 "... ela manah minim temei'im bilvad, ushe'ar minei ha'of mutarim".
>> Continuing in the next siman, bediqa is needed because of a lack of
>> expertise in knowing what those 24 minim temei'im include.
>
> Which would itself be a mesorah dating back to Moshe....

As to which is treif, not which are kosher. Meaning that the default if
you match the simanim is that it's kosher, unless you have a mesorah to
rule it out.

Very different than saying one only eats birds that have a mesorah they
are kosher.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org

<<As for the origin, bemechilas kevod toras R' Dovid Cohen, I think it
has a basis.>>
So, the basis is

<<There is a minhag Frankfurt-am-Main to sing one tune for the beginning to
His'oreri -- using one tune for Shamor and Liqras Shabbos (about Shabbos)
as well as for the verses about galus.

Then they switched to a happy tune for *His'oreri*, when the piyut starts
discussing the Ge'ulah.

And then for the return to discussing Shabbos in Bo'i veShalom they
would *switch back*.>>
I needn't say it, because you did:

<<Not exactly the same minhag, but the beginning of the idea.>>

Then,  instead of a mekor, you give a sevara:

<<Second, this is a piyut written in Tzefas that has 10 stanzas (if you
count the initial use of the chorus as a stanza) and is written for
Shabbos. I am not an authority on qabbalah, but I would be surprised to
learn that there is no motivation based on the Eitz Chayim for changing
tunes after 6 stanzas, the sefiros related to the work-weak>>
The sevara is, just that, a sevara.  Plus a mekor for a different minhag.
A mekor for the minhag at hand is still missing.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20101122/b3d77d34/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 202
***************************************

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..."