Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 99

Mon, 06 Dec 2021

• 1. Re: Prayer in Temple Times (David Cohen)
• 2. Re: titanu (You let us wander) (elazar teitz)
• 3. Repeating during davening (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Fwd: Haftorah of VaYeshev (Baruch Kelman)
• 5. kavod sefer torah (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Repeating during davening (allan.en...@mail.gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Repeating during davening (Akiva Miller)

It looks like R' Heshy Zelcer's article in Hakirah was published a year
before Prof. Uri Ehrlich's book "Tefilat haAmida shel Yemot haChol," which
uses Geniza fragments to reconstruct different "branches" of both Minhag EY
and Minhag Bavel.  In most cases, the nusachim that are in widespread use
today (by Sefaradim and Ashkenazim) are pretty similar to various branches
of Minhag Bavel (which was, indeed, as R' Micha speculated, more verbose
than Minhag EY).

Prof. Shumlamit Elizur has made the case that the original Shmoneh Esrei
(the one that took the "chasidim harishonim" an hour to say) was
significantly longer than either of those, and that what we are used to
saying nowadays is actually the condensed version, the "me'ein shmoneh
esrei" referred to by R' Yehoshua and R' Akiva in the mishna.  This would
be consistent with the view of Rav (Berachos 29a) that "me'ein shmoneh
esrei" refers to a condensed version of each beracha, rather than the view
of Shemuel that it refers to a combined beracha of "Havinenu."

Chanukah sameach,
D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20211129/d231c711/attachment-0001.html>

 RJoel Rich commented, "I always wondered what titanu (you let us wander)
was doing at the end of the al cheits."

RZev Sero responded, "Isn't it  usually translated as 'We have led others
astray'?"

"You let us wander," a translation I have seen only in ArtScroll
publications, is from the Chayei Adam at the end of Klal 143, where he
explains titanu as "shehinachta osanu al b'chiraseinu lihyos to'im."  All
others translate it as cited by RZS.

Aside from the difficulty of "You let us wander" not being confession to an
aveira, it would seem that the CA's interpretation is open to question on
grammatical grounds.  The root for "wander" is tav-ayin-hei, while "leading
astray" has the root tav-ayin-tav-ayin, as in Yaakov's argument to Rivka in
B'reishis 27:12; and it is the latter root which appears in the Viduy. (I
claim no expertise in dikduk, and have no idea of how to express "You let
us wander" in a single word, but it would seem that there is no place in
such a word for the second ayin.)

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20211129/e053fed2/attachment-0001.html>

.
I would like to learn more about the halachos of repeating words, phrases,
etc, during davening. I get mixed signals from different situations, and
I'm searching for some clarity.

At one extreme, I have been told many times over the decades that I am
wrong to double the refrain "Lecha Dodi" between the stanzas. (I am only
referring to situations where the tune being sung lends itself to repeating
that line. Some tunes don't.) These people don't seem to have a problem
with doubling it at the very beginning or the very end, but they are
emphatic that the line "Lecha Dodi" should be sung only once between the
intermediate stanzas, even if the tune is a slow and lengthy one. These
people would prefer to sing nonsense words like "la la la" or "ai ai ai"
than to use the words that were written specifically for that tefila. I
can't imagine what the problem might be, given that it isn't a pasuk of any
kind, and doesn't have Hashem's name.

At the other extreme, Tehillim 118 was written by David Hamelech and became
part of Hallel. At some point prior to the writing of the Mishna, some
adopted the practice of repeating certain parts of this Tehillim. This is
mentioned in the Mishna  on Sukkah 38a and is repeated in Gemara Pesachim
119a. They even mention some specific amoraim, and which pesukim they chose
to double. Those gemaras, and Shulchan Aruch 422:3, all say that each
community should maintain its practice of repeating or not repeating.

I am amazed! We have a mitzva here, which is preceded by a bracha, and
followed by a bracha, and we interrupt it with extra psukim which were not
required. Some might point out that "min b'mino aino chotzetz", so there's
no real hefsek, but that would also apply in many other cases of repeating
during the tefilah, wouldn't it?

I am even more surprised by how our current practice butchers pasuk 118:25.
- We say the first half (which contains Hashem's Name) twice, and then we
say the second half (which *also* contains Hashem's Name!) twice. Many
people (including myself, until someone pointed it out to me decades ago)
are not very familiar with Sefer Tehillim, and know this pasuk only from
their recital of Hallel, and are shocked to find that this is a single
broken-up pasuk, and *not* two very short, separate pesukim.

I *am* aware that Rashi (Sukkah 38a) analyzes the structure of Perek 118,
and shows how the first 20 pesukim are repetitious, while the last 9 are
not, and this is why those pesukim were doubled. However, this only
explains why they *wanted* to double those pesukim; it fails to explain why
they were *allowed* to double them. After all, isn't it obvious that Dovid
Hamelech *chose* to write the first 20 pesukim in one style and the last 9
in another style? Why are we dissatisfied with this?

Further: If some had the minhag to double the pesukim while others had the
minhag to read it straight through (as both the Mishna and Mechaber say),
then it seems clear to me that the original Takana to recite these perakim
as Hallel did *not* require any doubling at all. If so, then I have to
wonder about the first people, chronologically, who decided to start
doubling the pesukim. Was there any opposition from traditionalists? Did
anyone suggest that it is a hefsek? Did they have different standards for
"forbidden repetition" than we have?

Having discussed the refrain of Lecha Dodi and the doubled pesukim of
Hallel, I will now mention some other parts of davening where many shuls
repeat words, and offer my thoughts about them.

On Shabbos and Yom Tov, when the Sefer Torah is removed from the Aron
Kodesh, many shuls sing as follows: "Baruch shenasan Torah, Torah. Baruch
shenasan, Torah, Torah, l'amo Yisrael bik'dushaso." This is not a pasuk,
and it does not have Hashem's Name, and in those regards I see no objection
to repeating. But I have heard some object on the grounds that it sounds
like we have two competing Torahs, and it is therefore similar to the
famous prohibition of saying "Modim Modim", which sounds like he is praying
to two gods, chalilah. On the other hand, some might respond that we *do*
have two Torahs: one Sheb'ksav and one Sheb'al Peh.

The same could be said about the immediately previous line, which is often
sung as, "Kee mitzion taytzay Sorah. Kee mitzion taytzay Sorah,
ud'var Hashem miYrushalayim." But this one has the additional problems of
being a pasuk (or more accurately, a partial pasuk; see Yeshaya 2:3) and
containing Hashem's Name. However, the repeated phrase is meaningful on its
own, and doesn't have the Name. So I do not see how these problems make it
more problematic than Tehillim 118:25 in Hallel.

When shuls sing the last line of Avinu Malkenu, they often sing as follows:
"Avinu Malkenu, chaneinu vaaneinu. Avinu Malkenu, chaneinu vaaneinu ki ain
banu maasim. Aseh imanu tzedaka vachesed. Aseh imanu tzedaka vachesed
v'hoshiaynu," Each of those phrases is meaningful. Is their sum total
significantly different than how it appears in the siddur?

When the Sefer Torah is put back on Shabbos and Yom Tov, many shuls sing
"Etz Chaim Hee" with a tune that ends with: "Hashivenu Hashem, aylecha
v'nashuva. Chadesh! Chadesh yameinu! Chadesh yameinu k'kedem!" This is
another case of a real pasuk, complete with Hashem's Name, and it is being
split up in ways different than originally written. But little or nothing
is being lost from the meaning of the words; I could argue that the
extension of "chadesh" to two words, and then to three, even *amplifies*
the power of the phrases. But I don't know the halachos of breaking up a
pasuk, and that's part of this entire question.

Many shuls sing the last line of Aleinu: "V'haya Hashem l'melech al kol
haaretz, bayom hahoo, bayom hahoo yihyeh Hashem echad, ushmo, ushmo, ushmo
echad." Beside the problems of this being a pasuk, and containing Hashem's
name (twice!), I personally don't see much (if any) rhetorical value in
these repetitions. Others might disagree, but whereas the examples above
have somewhat solemn tunes and the repeated words give weight to the
context, this last line of Alenu has an upbeat singsong tune, and I just
don't hear any enhancement at all.

Does anyone know of any seforim who explain the details of these
situations? Rav Moshe Feinstein does have a teshuva on this (Igros Moshe
Orach Chayim 2:22), but he writes specifically about Chazaras Hashatz and
Birchos Krias Shema, and all my examples are from elsewhere. (If anyone is
curious, his first paragraph there gives many examples of specific ways
that chazanim mangle the Chazaras Hashatz.) He does mention the gemara
about Hallel, and he suggests that in those places where Hallel was said
without doubling those last pesukim, there would be a "kepeida" against
doubling them. But it seems to me that if so, then it would have been
problematic to start doubling to begin with, and he does not discuss this.

I will close by giving some examples to demonstrate how repeating a word or
phrase can enhance the meaning of a pasuk:

Yeshaya 6:3 might have been "Kadosh Hashem Tz'vakos", but instead it says
"Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Hashem Tz'vakos"
Tehillim 115:14 might have been "Yosef Hashem aleichem v'al bneichem" but
instead it says "Yosef Hashem aleichem, aleichem v'al bneichem"
Tehillim 116:16 might have been "Ana Hashem kee ani avd'cha ben amasecha"
but instead it says "Ana Hashem kee ani avdecha, ani avd'cha ben amasecha"
In each of these, there's not much of a change in meaning, yet it is more
meaning*ful*. I see "Chadesh! Chadesh yameinu! Chadesh yameinu k'kedem!" in
the same light.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can suggest places to learn more about this,
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20211129/5aa6f02d/attachment-0001.html>

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mitchell Morgenstern <mitchellamorgenst...@gmail.com>



Boruch - do you have a group that you can ask my question to and come up
with an answer.  I have an answer, but I want to see what others say.


Shabbos Morning:

At 8:45 AM left to go to Chabad of East Lakeview, a six mile walk.  Thought
about the Shiur I would give and the time flew by.  Arrived in Shul at
10:45 AM, in the middle of Leining.  I leined the Haftorah in Amos which
starts with the following Pasuk from Amos 2:6:

????? ?????? ???????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????
????????????????? ???? ????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????
??????????? ??????????? ???????????

?For (the) three sins (I could forgive) Israel, but for four I will not
forgive, because they sold the justice of a  righteous man for silver and
cheated the poor for a pair shoes.?


The Gutnick Chumash says ?This Haftorah alludes to the sale of Yosef who
was sold for silver by his brothers.  The Haftorah is a harsh rebuke by the
Prophet Amos for the sins of the Jewish people during the reign of King
Yarovam II (8th century BCE).?

*Is the linkage of this Pasuk in Amos only superficial or is it on a deeper
level.  Is it  an indictment of the ten brothers who sold Yosef and by this
linkage is the understanding that they sold Yosef without justice? As
Targum Yonason Ben Uziel says, ?And the Midianite men, masters of business,
passed by; and they drew and brought up Joseph out of the pit, and sold
Joseph to the Arabians for twenty mahin of silver; ?which were used to
purchase sandals?. And they brought Joseph to Mizraim.?*



????? ?????? ?? ????? ????:??

... (?????? ?"? ?"?) "?????? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ???" ? ?? ??? ????
??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ?????: "?? ???? ???? ???? ??????
????? ?????".

???? ???? ????? ????? (????????, ???? ??????? 444):

??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? (???? ?"?) "????? ??? ?????
????? ???? ??? ????" ? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????, ???? ??? ?' ?????
?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???: ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????, ???? ?? ????? ??? ????.
???? ??: ???? ??? ???: ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????, ????? "?????? ?? ????
?????? ???" ????? "?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????", ???? ?? ???? ???
?? ???? ???????, ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????, "????? ?????" ? ????
?????.

Mitchell A. Morgenstern
mitchellamorgenst...@gmail.com

773-647-8097
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20211201/59a05446/attachment-0001.html>

The Tzitz Eliezer (12:40) outlines (what I thought to be) normative psak in
kavod sefer torah, that people should go to kiss the sefer torah and not
vice versa. He calls upon the Rabbis to educate their communities who will
be happy to follow. So why is this not done? (Me - more so in outside
minyanim where the sefer is on the table and then is walked around back to
the table?)
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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20211201/23d13dc7/attachment-0001.html>

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 06:30, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> I would like to learn more about the halachos of repeating words, phrases,
> etc, during davening. I get mixed signals from different situations, and
> I'm searching for some clarity.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and that's not an infrequent occurrence) but there
are two reasons to be concerned about repetition.

a) Where the words repeated are the problem, and the concern is the
suspicion (or the actuality) of Avoda Zara.or Shituf (eg Modim Modim).

b) In a part of davening where repetition would be considered a Hafsakah.

> At one extreme, I have been told many times over the decades that I am
> wrong to double the refrain "Lecha Dodi" between the stanzas. ...

I can't see that there's any problem with repetition during Lecha Dodi,
Eitz Chayim, Avinu Malkeinu etc, because neither of the issues above are
contravened. Also, although we colloquially refer to everything printed in
the siddur as 'Tefilla' (regardless of how recently it appeared there, or
whether it in fact has any proper place there) that term strictly refers
only to the Amidah, which leads people to sometimes be misled by sources
which refer to 'Tefilla'.

This would be why R' Moshe's teshuva refers specifically to Chazaras
Hashatz and Birchos Krias Shema.

> At the other extreme, Tehillim 118 was written by David Hamelech and
> became part of Hallel. At some point prior to the writing of the Mishna,
> some adopted the practice of repeating certain parts of this Tehillim...

As to the Hallel issue, had the Gemara not mandated the repetitions, they
would surely be a problem for the reasons you state, ie reason (b) above.
It would seem obvious that if anyone would repeat other parts of Hallel
where Chazal did not require it, it would indeed be wrong. And as to the
repetition of part of a passuk (Ana H' etc), I've asked that question on
Avodah and elsewhere before, and have never received a satisfactory
response.

ADE

.
R' Allan Engel wrote:
> As to the Hallel issue, had the Gemara not mandated the repetitions, they
> would surely be a problem for the reasons you state ...

In this context, I think "sanctioned" would be a better word than
"mandated". From what I can tell, the Mishna on Sukkah 38a (and Gemara on
Pesachim 119a-b) did not mandate the original idea of repeating pesukim of
Hallel.

It does make an observation about existing minhagim, and it does mandate
that the places which have the minhag of repeating should repeat, and the
places that have the minhag of saying it straight should say it straight.
Which leaves me wondering by whose authority the minhag started, of saying
it differently than how David Hamelech wrote it.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20211206/2d31c347/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)