Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 91

Thu, 29 May 2014

• 1. Re: Stopping after Kedushah in Yotzer Or (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Stopping after Kedushah in Yotzer Or (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Women fasting (was women wearing Tefillin) (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Wavy Shvarim and Truah (David Wacholder)
• 5. Re: Long hebrew names for stars (Samuel Svarc)
• 6. Tikkun Leil Shavuot Shiurim (Rich, Joel)
• 7. army service, females (saul newman)

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:06:27PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Could it be tha in the days of the Mishna the qedusha wasn't at all part
: of that berakha, yet?

Could be, but...

We know that Qedushah deYotzer when davening beyechidus was a subject
of debate among rishonim. No one thought it was a mesorah from the
ge'onim -- the question is whether the addition is permissable. So in
the mishnah's day (or even the Y-mi's), people weren't saying Qedushah
then when davening alone.

Walking over to someone and asking shalom is not likely to happen when
davening betzibur. I therefore still don't think it's compelling to
conclude that the mishnah implies a total absence of qedushah, only that
it wasn't said beyachid.

Given that, I don't see your conclusion as particularly muchrach. But
we could debate pointlessly whether the mishnah sounds better as assuming
the greeting would be in a davening beyachid setting, or as speaking
of a world in which Qedushah deYotzer didn't exist betzibbur either.


Qedushah deYotzer isn't said beyachid according to R' Saadia Gaon (siddur)
and the Rambam (Tefilah 7:17). The Tur quotes the Rosh "sheyachid yokhol
lomar". Note that even according to the Rosh's wording, it's a question
of permissable addition, not the original matbeia.

The BY records the machloqes and adds:
The Rashba and Rabbeinu Yerucham also permit saying it.
Mahari Abuhav says besheim R' Avraham b' haRambam that the Rambam himself
changed his mind.
The KolBo says the Rambam in a teshuvah said he changed his mind.
But the BY's bottom line is that the Zohar is against, and although the
majority permit saying Qedushah in YO beyechidus, and "nir'eh le'aniyus
da'ati.... yeish lanu litfos divrei haZohar".

And so, in the SA (OC 59:3) he notes there are two shitos, says those
who forbid saying it have a real concern, so if you're going to say it
when davening without a minyan, use trop to be clear you aren't saying
Qedushah youself, but reading pesuqim about mal'akhim saying it.

The Rama adds that the minhag of saying it has already spread to most
communities.

See http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Should_An_Individual_
Recite_Kedushah_D_Yotzer.pdf
a/k/a http://j.mp/1jpuhi1

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

RMB wrote:
> 1- ... [T]he Y-mi says that if the first chazan got as far as
> "Qadosh", the second doesn't start at the beginning of the berakha;
> instead he begins "Veha'ofanim". And if the first Chazan finished
> "Barukh Kevod" the next Chazan starts "LaKeil barukh".
> (49:15 <http://j.mp/1jDpAGY>)

> 2- But when it comes to interrupting to greet or answer a greeting,
> the beginning and end of this Qedushah do not count as "bein
> haperaqim". We have a list of bein haperaqim in the mishnah.

Could it be tha in the days of the Mishna the qedusha wasn't at all part
of that berakha, yet?

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/

RMB writes vis a vis the four minor fast days:

>Arguably at this point they're as much of a "reshus" as maariv is.

Hmm... Does that not get you into the machlokus between the Mishna Brura
(siman 106 si'if katan 4) and the Aruch HaShulchan Aruch (Orech Chaim
Hilchot Tephila siman 106 si'if 7) over whether women are obligated in
ma'ariv or not, with the Mishna Brura saying that women never adopted this
(given its reshus nature) and the Aruch HaShulchan who considers that they
are obligated in three times a day tephilla like men. I have wondered
whether this maklokus can be linked to the idea, as per Talmud Bavli Shabbat
62a of nashim am lifnei atzman.  You could perhaps argue that just because
these fasts have been accepted by bnei yisrael, that does not necessarily
mean, as per the Mishna Brura, that they have been accepted by beis Ya'akov.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

Anticipating the Daf Yomi,  "Yfeh Einayim" Rosh Hashana 33b (found in Oz
VeHadar ?Friedman Edition? Rosh Hashana),  here is a different approach to
Shevarim and Truah.  To make the line of thought easier, some opinions are
ignored. The approach is "contrarian" rather than standard.

Yerushalmi quoted  Rav that Tkia-Truah-Tkia is not three separated tones.
Rather, it must be one continuous blast. Due to its amalgamation into one
tone, all three Kolos become one  continuum. If any ?empty notes? were
stuck in the middle, the series would be destroyed and invalid. Therefore
[because Rav said that even the oppositional Tkios must be connected, so
ever so much more surely the Shvarim and Truah must be closely linked] ? to
make sure that all opinions were satisfied, Rabi Abahu needed three
distinct complete sets:
Tk-ShvarimTruah-Tk  (three times)
Tk-Shvarim-Tk  (three times)
Tk-Truah-Tk  (three times)

As Yefeh Einayim interprets it, according to the Tana who says ?only Truah?
,  the Shvarim must be Passul invalid. According to the Tana who says ?only
Shevarim? , then the Truah is invalid Possul. Both of those agree on one
thing ? the other one is Passul. So if they are combined in a Shvarim Truah,
those two will say that the Shvarim Truah is only half a Kosher Kol! Either
it lacks a beginning half, or it lacks an ending half. Only a third opinion
? that both Shevarim and Truah are necessary ? can say Shvarim Truah is
kosher.

If the Tekia, then the Shever, then the Truah, then the last Tkiah were all
distinct and separate, it would be enough to do only one set ? Shvarim
Truah.  Now that they are connected, they become Passul according to the
two Tana?im.  Now they must be blown by themselves.

At greater length: If the Tekia-Truah-Tekia must all be ?in one long
blast?, it must be a unit, connected by some force. That same force will
certainly suffice to combine the (more closely related)  ? Shvarim-Truah ?
into one. If only the Shvarim is real,  then the Truah portion becomes ?
eiver Hameduldal? a dead inert Kol,  beginning Shvarim is alive but the
Truah end is lifeless, invalidating the whole series. The converse applies,
that if only Truah is real, then the prior  Shvarim invalidates the
series.  According to Rav, only if Shvarim-Truah are BOTH necessary to make
a single compound Kol ? only then is Rabi Abahu?s invention kosher.
 So Yerushalmi says ? Rabi Abahu need three separate complete sets. Since
the Tekiah before and after are organically connected to the middle
,  therefore the both parts of  Shvarim Truah must be ?alive? and
valid. End result according to Yerushalmi ? three separate sets.

Without a ?silent moment? after the Tekia, how do we identify the Shvarim?
How do we identify the Truah?

Shofar is a shepherd?s version of a bugle. The high/loud notes in a bugle
are reached by varying the pressure from the diaphragm. Strong
pressure/flow makes a higher and louder note. Weaker pressure/flow makes
less volume and a lower note.  The ideal bugler and the ideal Baal Tokeia both
use variable diaphragm pressure. Without variation of pressure ? it becomes
a Tekiah, held a long time. Variable long duration blasts become Shevarim,
and shortest duration blasts become Truah. All this does not yet include
stops ? rests ? at all. It is one exhalation, with varying diaphragm
pressure. The shofar and the blower?s head remain absolutely still.

The ?ideal? continuous Shvarim and Truah are cannot be done by moving the
shofar  or the mouth. It is accomplished solely by varying the diaphragm
pressure.  WoooWoooWoooW?W?W?W?W?W?W?W?W?W?.There is a decent audio of it
on a Minhag Ashkenaz Piyut website. The beginning of each Shever feels
twice as loud as the second part.

Ramban and Catalonia Spain keeps the above protocol of the Yerushalmi,
except that after Tkia-A there is a break and before Tekia-B there is a
break. The ?force? connecting the ShvarimTruah is still just as strong. No
breath is allowed, no TuTu is allowed, only variations of
diaphragm-pressure.  The Tekiah ?must? be separate.

Ramban asks ? what does it mean (Rabeinu Chananel quoted in Tosfot) -
Shever1 Break Shever2 Break Shever3 Break? Musically one expresses by
contrast ? pianissimo is permitted  between each shever, but never a
complete stop.  This contrasts with the Truah ? whose quick waves must be
as closely following each other as possible.

All Rishonim discuss the Shever controversy, but I find no trace of its
cohort the Truah controversy. Indeed, evidence shows there never was one!!
On the Truah ? all agreed there is only a diaphragm-pressure modulation, no
TuTuTu at all.

I am being a bit provocative.  Some Rishonim do describe Truah as
TuTuTuTuTuTuTu ? tonguing ? the breath is steady but low-pressure to allow
the tongue-stops. That would indicate the ?normative? Truah.  The problem
with the TuTu is that it is not diaphragmatic ? it gets its intonation from
the tongue hitting the upper palate. That is against the principle of Shofar,
which is the deepest expression of the Soul.

Against that ? there should have been a hue and cry regarding the Truah!
Instead ? we have silence, Peace and not one controversy!  On the balance,
this lack of controversy is very worrisome! It tends to confirm to me that
all the Rishonim had the W?W?W?W?W?W?W?W?W?W? Truah.  Since there was no
adversary, we have no dialectic about it.

This is my intro to the Ramban?s Shvarim Truah and ShvarrimTruah.  We have
accurate accounts of it due to the ~1287 Geirush of most of  Spanish Jews.
A group of the Ramban?s disciples invaded Provence, and began arguing
against all the Me?iri?s Provence customs.  Me?iri was more than happy to
take up the challenge. He wrote the extraordinary Magein Avot, which
glorified the customs of both Sfarad and Provence. The first piece
discusses whether there should be Amein or K-ei-L Melech Ne?eman before
Shma.  Me?iri gleefully quotes their every line of argument, and brings all
the great Rabbis of Provence to justify both sides keeping the status quo.

What of Rabeinu Chananel of  North Africa? What of Marseille (Sefer Ha?Itur)
on the Riviera? What of MontPelier and Lunel and Perpignon? How did the
Raabad break out the Shevarim?

Ten sons of Haman ? are hung up one tree ? need Neshimah Achas to be
disposed of in one quickly. The sooner they hang the quicker the Geulah.
Since when is the long plaintive Shevarim the Ten Sons of Haman? Take a
nice long Shever/cry, catch your breath, another long Shever/cry, catch your
breath, another long Shever/cry. If the Shever is long enough, you will
need to take a breath.

Each Shever is a broken piece of pottery, Shevarim is plural, multiple
broken shards, disconnected, not connected to any other sound.  The Itur of
Marseille expressed this ?ultimate pain of the soul? centuries before.
After each cry ? when one can cry no longer - one inhales ? to be able to
cry again. Repeated in a pattern three times, these are Shevarim ? a
trifecta of broken shards. Each begins with tongue, and requires a breath
after it.  Toooo Breath Toooo Breath Toooo Breath. All this breathing takes
time, making the Shevarim longer on the clock than its equivalent Truah.
Topologically - | | | showing the disconnects. The Truah would be one radio
wave high frequency. Tekiah would be _____________  . That is more or less
the Geonim?s diagram. The brief pressure blasts of the Truah contrast with
the long strong steady resounding sound of the ideal Tekia.

Ramban claims that his Shevarim comes from the Yerushalmi ? one  three-capped
wave, as in Kabala terms Tkiah is Chessed, as opposed to both Shvarim and
Truah which represent Gvurah.

 The Rabeinu Chanan?eil broken Shvarim traveled easily from Qeiruwan to
Provence.  Thanks to the Me?iri, we have extensive descriptions of the
arguments for each.

Until now Rabi Abahu?s creation, the Shvarim Truah, began in Yerushalmi as
one unit.  Some say that Yerushalmi Minhag transferred to Southern Italy,
and migrated North to Lucca and from there arrived in Mainz and Worms on
the Rhine River in Germany.  RAViYaH, the famous Possek, seems to have no
strong feelings about the Rabeinu Chananeil broken Shevarim. He instructed
his Baal Tokei?a to be briefer with eachShever, so that a breath would only
be needed after the last Shever. Thus Rabeinu Tam will be satisfied, as
there was a breath before the Truah; Still since the ?pause? was out of
necessity, it should still be valid according to Yerushalmi?s approach.  With
longer duration of each Shever,  even a breath after each one would have
been acceptable to him. IMHO the Shevarim was ? one three capped wave, ?
Neshima Achas?, breath, and the Truah nine times WWWW.  That matches the
genuine Ashkenaz Minhag ? practiced in Washington Heights today, and in
Amsterdam.  Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz writes about it, without any theory.
His fence-sitting yes/no Neshimah ends up as  advocated by the Mishna Brura.

Rabeinu Tam strongly believed that the Shevarim and Teruah must be two
distinct and independent notes, as Rabi Abahu never meant them to be a
unified unit.  They should be kept as quarantined from each other as a
Tekiah is from the Shevarim!  As long as they are totally separate, an
improper ?Kol? is just not counted as a Chatzitza.  Maharil (1340-1420)
famously came up with  the extreme Long-Pause between the individuated
Shevarim and its far neighbor the individuated Truah.  His Shevarim is the
wavy Shevarim of  Yerushalmi, then the Matkia calls out Truah, then the
Baal Tokeia blows the wavy Truah. The Shevarim is every bit as distant from
the prior Tekia, as the Shevarim is distant from the Trua. Of course, the
end of the Trua is distant from the beginning of the Tekia.  That is the
Maharil?s Two Neshimos! Neshima?s sole purpose is ? to totally separate
notes.  Shvarim and Truah are not at all allowed to appear unified.

Provence?s broken Shevarim were fractions of the Shevarim; they had no
special need for an extra long break before the Truah, it was already
there.  They paid no particular attention to the post-Shvarim  Neshima. They
were just happy that Rabeinu Tam and Rashi both allowed Neshimos when
needed.  That reduced their isolation.

Beis Yosef was born in Spain, then was Rav in Turkey and Tzfas.  His
Spanish paradigm makes the broken Shevarim impossible to fathom. He  forces
 the Itur out of the broken Shevarim camp.  Retreating tactically from the
Ramban, making unity of the Poskim, he says that even two Neshimos is just
a very short pause, which can serve both sides.  Our TooTooToo Shevarim does
not allow a complete breath before the secondShever.  The same Too tongued
separation becomes Neshima Achas. The normative Truah is T-T-T.

For Shtei Neshimos,  before the Truah an inhalation is added. Only the Baal-
Tokeia knows clearly the amount of hesitation he used. Thus even the Shtei
Neshimos we use is ambiguous.

The Maharil himself, beyond a doubt, was not vacillating! He wanted
absolute individuation and complete  distancing between the end of his wavy
Shevarim and the beginning of his wavy Truah.
First call out Tekiah ? TU------.
  Then  call out Shevarim, [WuuWuuWuu]
 then call out Truah TWWWWWWWWW.
then final Tekia TU-----.

A long Tekia cannot be subdivided, as it is one long stable note. The
opposite applies to a Shvarim and Truah. Each Shever must have a musical
impression of a cry, and so should each Truah.  Shever with no contour,
plain flat,  just an abbreviated Tekiah, should not be valid. This is
discussed here and there in Poskim.

Extending that, for the same reasons, a Truah?s every Kol should have some
quick crying action.  What is the proof? According to the Tanna Rabi Yehudah
, Tekia Truah Tekia Achas Hi ? it is one long undifferentiated blast. How
do we know it is not a long Tekiah? Because ? the Truah has a tune of short
cries, which identifies it!

-- 
David Wacholder
Email: dwachol...@gmail.com
dwachol...@optonline.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140527/17274fb6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, lreich via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>  According to the Talmud in Brochos 32b there are
> 1064,340,000,000,000,000 stars in the
>
> universe, that is a *19* digit number, over a miillion trillion.
>
> Current astronmical guesstimates of the number of stars in the "Observable
> Universe"
>
> give a *24* digit number.
> (A distance of 46 billion light years is a current postulate of the size
> of the Observable Universe)
>
> Since every star has an individual name "Lekulom Shaymos Yikro"
>  and there are only 22
>
> letters in Aleph-Beth, there must be many stars with long and very long
> names.
>
> A quick calculation of permutations shows that for the Talmud's number we
> need names
>
> of up to fifteen letters !
>
> If we calculate for the astronomer's current guess, we have to go up to 24
> letters.
>

As anyone ever looked at what outside sources of the same time period said
in reference to the amount of stars?

While I have no idea, and would welcome any corrections, it seems to me
that logically the astronomers of that time period would have answered the
question of "How many stars are there?" based on what was visible to them,
giving them a far lower number by multiple orders of magnitude.

If this assumption is correct, and empirical observation is ruled out as a
source, this would indicate that some other source was the basis of the
statement.

KT,
MSS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140527/5c79dc6f/attachment-0001.htm>

I'd be interested in hearing what new/interesting/outstanding  topics
shiurim were given for tikkun leil Shavuot, and if maareh mkomot were
available (fax,scan etc.)
If you could summarize that would be great but even just sending topic and/or maareh mkomot would be of interest.
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.

http://www.jpost.com/Defen
se/Rabbinical-association-says-permissible-in-Jewish-law-for-women-to-enlis
t-to-IDF-354648

the article/comments imply  2 reasons for assuring  ---kli gever;  and
 abizrayu d'giluyi arayos.

i assume that these rabbis disagree with  the metzius of the latter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140529/9e71c76a/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)