Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 377

Friday, February 18 2000

• Re: What vs. Who
• Re: Siddurim
• Re[2]: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Re[4]: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re: kaddish
• Re: What vs. Who
• Re: Diyukim
• Re[2]: kaddish
• Re: "boruch HaShaim l'o'lam" (was "diyukim")
• Question
• Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Re[2]: "boruch HaShaim l'o'lam" (was "diyukim")
• Re: Question
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Re: Diyukim

What about the Rambam? how do we know when he is quoting or puting in his whole 
Torah kullo into it?

Accodring toR. Boruch Ber does that not imply that the entire gestalt of  a 
gadol ouytweights any sevoro?

What if one is not a gadol and spends 20 years learning subject X, does that too
imply his entire expertise goes into his "expert" testimony?

So for example if ploni were to study the siddur for 20 years and says nir'eh li
that this should be the nusach, w/o a rayo, does that imply that he is using the
wieght of his 20 years of devling into sources, and is making a total inductive 
decisoin based on an intutive whole which is greater than the sum of any 
individual parts might bring to bear?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: What vs. Who 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/17/2000 11:47 PM


> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:32:30 EST 
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: What vs. Who

> In a message dated 2/17/00 1:33:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<<thedistinction being made, is that when a person who is a living Torah 
makes a statement it carries the weight of the entire torah, >>

	I believe it was Rav Boruch Ber who said he is more afraid of a "nir'eh 
li" in the Rosh than of a sevoro with rayos,  because while you can 
"shlug up"  rayos,  the nir'eh li has kol haTorah kulah of the Rosh 
behind it.

Gershon

not textual research.

They ignored the tradition and went back to sources and re-interpreted how the 
siddur SHOULD read.
lmoshol the gemor says calling up women is not kavaod hatzibbur.

Now that women have beis yaakov etc. this no longer applies, so let;s ignore 
1500 years of precdent that follow that gemoro and now allow women to take 
aliyos.

Going back to original sources and going forward ignroes all the toprah and psak
that is subsequent.

Or as Dr. E Kanarfogel says, it bypasses the kur hamivchan of the halahcic 
process.

So what is to stop  Gadol X from learning shas and syaing our sifrei Torahs' are
wrong based upon this presumption.

Back to the baal hatanyo.  he takes the din of siyyum me'ein habroch very 
literally.  Taht's ok with me, but in order to change the nusahc he has to 
override EVEY GADOL who said the brocho despite his assumption.

IOW it is like saying the Rosh the Remoe, teh Maharil the Maharal and every last
rav who said the brocho the other way were sleeping and didn't rezlize that 
their siyyum was wrong all along.

Classically it is being poseil es harishonim


However a textual seacrh is different.  it says until the year 1648 everyone 
said it right but as a result of the persectuions a mistake crept into the print
and a new erroneous flawed minhag began. and rabbonim, respecting traditiontion 
let it slide, but now I can bring it backto to life.

However, if the Baa hatanyo brings sevor to bearm, why didn't someone else bring
the same sevoro?

1) sevor ain't enough for them so it shouldn't be for the baal hatanyo either.  
IOW sevor does nt override tradition

OR

2) Sevoro does override traditoin and every gado lwho ever lived idn't see a 
prolbem with the siyyum that he saw.  which means he is entitled to his opinion,
but how can WE take it seriously in light of thousans of others who did not?

Btw, I don't muster these arguments.  The convservatives and Reform have 
presentd these as justifications for THEIR changes.

The Maharil warned us about  tinkering with nusach especially the tradtional 
meolidies on RH and YK.  I wonder, was he warning that introduction of changes 
may lead us to dire consequences?

is it a historical co-incidence that major changes in nusach began on the part 
of gedolim in the 18th century and then trickled down t othe massse later?  Was 
the Maharil (andthe Remo) warning us that changes to the accpeted practices 
might undermine the authority of the nusach in general? that once we opened tha 
pandor's box of questioning that it might not end?

Was it this reason that led Rdr hirsch to insist on not dleting any yotzros 
becasue the Reform went down that path and he stubborny refused to concede even 
an inch by omitting any of the nusach?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Siddurim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/17/2000 7:37 PM


And minhag HaGra and minhag Baal HaTanya aren't the result of research? 
> 
> 
> 
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:39:42 -0500 
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: diyukim 
> 
> I think one can make  chiluk between a plain vanilla siddur and one 
> that was 
> published specifically via research, eg Baer, Birnbaum, Heidenheim. 
> 
> 
> Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: diyukim 
> 
> > What surprised me --- shocked me, even --- was that the text of 
> "our
> >  siddurim" was even mentioned at all. Why even *bother* looking at 
> the
> >  decision of the local siddur-macher when you have the holy words 
> of the 
> >  rishonim and acharonim to choose from!??! 
> >  
> 
> See also M"A O"C 46:2.
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
>

fwiw R. Schwab (as I've posted earlier) wrote that you cannot tell history as is
because it will involve loshon horo if/when it is true and you cannot fudge it 
because that would attack emes, so the best way is to avoid it.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..? 

Oy vey.....Simcha Raz's book is inspirational....but really, is biography 
only to be for the purposes of Mussar? Why study anything? Are there other 
reasons to study biographies? Or History, for that matter?
I daresay this version of TIDE has nothing to do with a true understanding of 
the ways of the world, and it certainly does not qualify as TuM.

Jordan Hirsch

Question:  waht prevents new research from making further changes?

Or for that matter, what prevents new rreaearch from restoring it back to the 
pre-MA nusach?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

Actually the Siddur mentioned in the M"A was changed because of research into 
the Poskim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

you mean the MB itself could have a typo simlar to RYGB's recent post re: the 
Roedehlehim which had a typo?

Where does it end? <smile>

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: re: diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/18/2000 5:37 AM


Interesting coincidence... 

R' Rich Wolpoe writes that <<< MB and Birnbaum both admonish us to say 
l'eylo l'eylo in Kaddish during 10 days of Teshuvo >>> and in another 
post in the same digest, he reminds us that <<< the Gemoro already tells 
us we are not beki'im in malei and choseir. >>>

Indeed we are not baki in malei and choseir, and typographical erros make 
this sort of thing very difficult to pin down. Is anyone really sure what 
the MB held regarding the vav in "Ul'eyla" ???

In MB 682:16, he writes simply "We double 'l'eyla' during the Aseres 
Y'mei Teshuva." That is pretty vague. He might be suggesting to repeat 
the word as is, without adding the vav, but one could argue, because he 
is not really citing the text of Kaddish.

In contrast, at the end of MB 56:2, he writes quite clearly, "On the days 
when Kaddish is doubled, 'l'eyla ul'eyla'..." But that little vav could 
easily be a typo. Would that he had written somewhere in full words, 
"with a vav", as the chirik of Lizman was so explicitly mentioned. But 
alas...

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________ 
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit: 
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

I think that is 582:16

Rich Wolpoeo


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

In MB 682:16, he writes simply "We double 'l'eyla' during the Aseres 
Y'mei Teshuva." That is pretty vague. He might be suggesting to repeat 
the word as is, without adding the vav, but one could argue, because he 
is not really citing the text of Kaddish.


Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________ 
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit: 
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:26:41 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<And at Spanish Portuguese they say the following 
 Yeshi shmai rabbo mevorach.
 Lalam ulolmei almayo yitbarach.

in a manner  as to make it rhyme

now since Yitbarach is in the firstof  a list of shevachot, it seems not
to make sense to stop there in terms of phraseology...
 
Was the rhyme popularized despite ignorance

OR

Was it intentionally engineered to rhyme despite its awkward phrasing?>>


	Others have the custom to say yisborach veyishtabach...as part of the
Yehei shmei,  all the way up to brich hu.  This makes more sense than
stopping at yisborach,  as,  I believe,  the Mishna Brura points out.

Gershon

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:30:47 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<What about the Rambam? how do we know when he is quoting or puting in
his whole Torah kullo into it?>>

	If he had been a Brisker he would have used Rambam.  I think it was only
a "lemashal".

<<Accodring toR. Boruch Ber does that not imply that the entire gestalt
of  a 
gadol ouytweights any sevoro?> > 

	Yes,  exactly.
 
<<What if one is not a gadol and spends 20 years learning subject X, 
does that too imply his entire expertise goes into his "expert"
testimony?

So for example if ploni were to study the siddur for 20 years and says
nir'eh li that this should be the nusach, w/o a rayo, does that imply
that he is using the wieght of his 20 years of devling into sources, and
is making a total inductive decisoin based on an intutive whole which is
greater than the sum of any individual parts might bring to bear?>>

	Yesh lechalek.  I agree that a specialist (such as Birnbaum)   "rises
above his footnotes"   or something to that effect.  If he says something
based on the weight of his knowledge and experience,  it has much more
weight than an amateur saying something based on a specific rayoh.

	However,  and here we have come full circle,  someone like the Gra
brings expertise bechol miktzo'os haTorah to that nir'eh li.  This
definitely trumps a nir'eh li by someone whose expertise is in one area.

	Back to Gra vs. Birnbaum.

Gershon

fwiw the Roedelheim clearly states that "ono" is a nusach acheir.

Interestingly enough, Rodelshim  does NOT birin ONO in the prviate oshamnu ONLY 
in the public

which leads me to believe IF RYBS says waht you say, he perhaps was referring to
a minhag to read it one way privately and the other way publicly which is in 
fact hinted at by the Rodelshim by its omission of the nusach ahceir in the 
private amido

IIRC artaschool omits Ono.

and fwiw the Lewandowski piece we sing is scored to Ono and not to Elokieinu 
veilokei avoiseinu.

now as far as asying both, if RYBS meant to saay both at the same tmie, it would
be simliar to those who are emsayem al pi nusach safard BOTH bishomeicho and 
b'rov oz v'shalom, even tho' it seems that these were alternate versions of the 
brocho and lich'ora mutually exclusive

Similarly nusach ashkenaz was shomei tefilas macho Yisroel berachamim and nusach
ba'al hataoya is simply shomei tefilas kol peh which lich'orah got merged in 
nusach sefar as ki shoemeia tefilas kol peh acmho yisroel.

Nusach Ari says ahavat olam both in shacharis and arbit while nusach arkenaz 
switches off between ahavos olam and ahavo rabbo.  similary Ari always says Sim 
sholom and Ahskenwaz switches between sim sholom and shalom rav.

Perhaps again the rav said do both but not necessarily at the same time but to 
be yotzei both nuschaso switch off.

And while I see that alpeh nun alpeh is easily mistaken for aleph vov aleph it 
is not clear to me which one  came first (assuming only one is correct).

The easy choice is aleph vov alpeh because there are lots othem in yomim noraim 
davening, then gain that could be how alpeh vov alpeh got picked by mistake too.
 So the same pattern can work in either direction.

Bottom line, if RYBS said to say both, did he mean at the same time or 
alternating?

richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



	It may be easy to see,  but IIRC,  RYBS didn't.  Maybe someone remembers 
better than I do,  but I believe he spoke several times in Teshuva 
drashas concerning the word ana in vidui.  I believe he held that you 
have to say both E"V"A,  and ana.  Anyone recall?

	So I ask again,  is it restoration or emendation?  It isn't always 
clear,  even if it appears so,  even if Birnbaum or anyone else says it 
is.

Gershon

right I agree taht stoppiing at yitborach is not good phrasing.

The question I ahve is how di this stop evolve?  Was it a popular stop evolved 
out of people's dssire to rhyme but baseless in the fact it makes little sense

OR

Ddi it have the approval of chachomim to make it rhyme either out of a sens of 
peoteci license or as a mnemonic device to help people memorize it, or perhaps 
out of interactive response in which the khal is defacto prompting the chazan 
and between the two together they co-operatively complete the prhase.

This co-operative prhasing is  -imho- the device used in ashkenaz to complete 
the phrase shemi dekudsho brich hu. Micha pointed out tht by rights it is indeed
one long phrase, therefore how can it be chopped into two?

My best answer is that there is a pattern of responsive devices and that the 
chazan saying shemi dekusho becomes a prompt for the brich hu repsonse which 
after all is simlar to boruch hu response (see hertz on borch she'amor)

Now of coruse there is the possilbity wrt to birch hu that ashkenaz is davka 
mesayeim with the Chazan in order to aovid the amen that sefard says.  This 
device of finishing simultaneously can get a khal out of saying a dubious amen. 
but there are a few problems with this model

1) this device is used mostly by sefard not ashkenez.
2) what is so subious about htis amen - there is no hefsek

If you see the Roedelheim on YK you will see that there are dozens of piyyutim 
recited responsively,  The chaazan is srompting the tzibbur.

It is also commmon in minhag  Polin to end the repsonse with melech elyon even 
tho' it is tehcnically the first 2 words fo the next strophe.  which is another 
case of the khal prompting the chazan.  If the khal on occasion prompts the 
chazan by leading in with the firts word or 2 of the next strophe then yisborach
might be similar.

richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: kaddish 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/18/2000 9:41 AM


On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:26:41 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<And at Spanish Portuguese they say the following 
 Yeshi shmai rabbo mevorach.
 Lalam ulolmei almayo yitbarach.

in a manner  as to make it rhyme

now since Yitbarach is in the firstof  a list of shevachot, it seems not 
to make sense to stop there in terms of phraseology...

Was the rhyme popularized despite ignorance

OR

Was it intentionally engineered to rhyme despite its awkward phrasing?>>


	Others have the custom to say yisborach veyishtabach...as part of the 
Yehei shmei,  all the way up to brich hu.  This makes more sense than 
stopping at yisborach,  as,  I believe,  the Mishna Brura points out.

Gershon

In Avodah 4#375, RWolpoe posted:
> While Baer and others call Boruch Hashem a g'eulo arichto, I like to call
it a tefillo arichto and show that (based upon this logic) that it is
actually moveing the tefillo a step close rather than stretchign teh g'eulo
a step longer <
An interesting thought...but wouldn't Kaddish be [more of] a hefsek within
a "*t'filla* arichta"?  (One could compare and contrast with the various
opinions on shofar blowing within the RH M/Z/Sh Amidah.)  A second, more
minor point: shouldn't we then stand for *all* of "boruch HaShaim" (I
picked up the habit, while davening in "Breuer's," to stand starting with
"yir'u ainainu," but I think most people only stand for Kaddish)?

All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos!) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I recently attended part of a session of a regional
Aguda convention.  The only speaker I heard, a
well-known rabbi and pedagogue, brought out a
forcefull dvar Torah, based on "Ephraim umenashe
cereuven vshimon yihyu li." His theme was how we must
be just like our ancestors, i.e., there should be no
"yeridas hadoros." He then triumphantly proclaimed, at
length, that this is what Aguda stands for.

Question: The unstated implication is that Aguda
stands for this proposition to the exclusion of other
groups.  Is this the case?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:55:50 EST
> From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?

<<Oy vey.....Simcha Raz's book is inspirational....but really, is
biography only to be for the purposes of Mussar? Why study anything? Are
there other reasons to study biographies? Or History, for that matter?>>

	OK,  I'll bite. What are the other reasons,  besides 'zechor yemos olam'
 i.e.,  learning from the history or biography?

Gershon

1) my tefillo arichta is not so solid.  let's say kaddish is mafsik betwen BH - 
which is hte old tefillah and the amido which is the new modern version <smile>

2) Standing for BH . A freind who was minhag Italki stood. I heard the 
following:
a) we should stand because it is after all a kitzur amido with 18 hazkoros
b) we shold davka sit in order to show it is NOT an amido

Believe it or not, I think this is simlar ot tzur mishelo and benching.

The question is tzur mishelo yotzei so some davka sing it w/o saying Hasehm's 
name.  soem davk eat AFTER it, etc. in order to demonstrate we are NOT done 
eating therefroe we need to bench.

I am guessing that given that we do say amido, the minhag to sit might be to 
show we do not wish to be yotzei tefillo anymore with BG. Im kein than those who
say skip it (Gra nd Baal hatanyo) may be saying mimah nafshoch, if you are not 
yotzei amido anymore, then it is one big hefsek. so skip it!

OTOH, one can say. look minhag avoseinu beyodeinu we still say it AND we add on 
the amido too.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: "boruch HaShaim l'o'lam" (was "diyukim") 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/18/2000 9:58 AM



In Avodah 4#375, RWolpoe posted:
> While Baer and others call Boruch Hashem a g'eulo arichto, I like to call 
it a tefillo arichto and show that (based upon this logic) that it is 
actually moveing the tefillo a step close rather than stretchign teh g'eulo 
a step longer <
An interesting thought...but wouldn't Kaddish be [more of] a hefsek within 
a "*t'filla* arichta"?  (One could compare and contrast with the various 
opinions on shofar blowing within the RH M/Z/Sh Amidah.)  A second, more 
minor point: shouldn't we then stand for *all* of "boruch HaShaim" (I 
picked up the habit, while davening in "Breuer's," to stand starting with 
"yir'u ainainu," but I think most people only stand for Kaddish)?

All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos!) from 
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Qustion to your qusetion...

Do you refer to the Agudah as orinigally constituted or to the Agudah as it has 
presently evolved?

fwiw Marc Shapiro's book on the SE discusses in passing as to how the Agudah 
evolved away from the original goals of its founders R. Rosenheim, etc.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Question 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/18/2000 10:18 AM


I recently attended part of a session of a regional 
Aguda convention.  The only speaker I heard, a 
well-known rabbi and pedagogue, brought out a 
forcefull dvar Torah, based on "Ephraim umenashe 
cereuven vshimon yihyu li." His theme was how we must 
be just like our ancestors, i.e., there should be no 
"yeridas hadoros." He then triumphantly proclaimed, at 
length, that this is what Aguda stands for.

Question: The unstated implication is that Aguda 
stands for this proposition to the exclusion of other 
groups.  Is this the case?


__________________________________________________ 
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. 
http://im.yahoo.com

In a message dated 2/18/00 9:15:48 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< OK,  I'll bite. What are the other reasons,  besides 'zechor yemos olam'
  i.e.,  learning from the history or biography?
  >>

Irony. Inconsistency. Paradox. The infinite complexity of human emotions when 
pitted against the challenges of seeking Holiness. Loss. Pain. Spiritual 
confusion. Despair.

The Book of Job is a biography of sorts. All these aspects of existence are 
packed into it, powerfully and poetically. If biography of that quality is 
good enough for Scripture, why isn't it good enough for the life stories of 
Gedolim?

David Finch

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:49:14 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Bottom line, if RYBS said to say both, did he mean at the same time or
alternating?>>
	
	It was not RYBS's style, AFAIK,   to do things to be yotze lechol
hadei'os. He decided what was right and went with it.

Gershon

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]