Volume 22 Number 99
Produced: Sun Jan 28 22:18:28 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Anachronisms in Halacha (2)
[Avraham Husarsky, Edwin Frankel]
Change in P'sak
[Steve White]
Change of Chazzan/Kaddish
[Perry Zamek]
Correcting Torah readers - Kamenetzky minhag.
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Dinosaurs and Chinuch
[Asher Breatross]
Jews Before Matan Torah
[Carl Sherer]
Switching Chazanim Midstream
[Wendy Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Husarsky <ahuz@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 18:34:44 PST
Subject: Anachronisms in Halacha
>From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
>> it is important not to be anachronistic regarding halacha. what was
>> decided by a rov during a certain period of chazal, may not have been
>> the way it was practiced by everyone prior to that. an example is the
>> opinion that holds that the currect practices of shofar blowing combine
>> a number of different variants that were extant within the land of
>> israel at that time.
>Although this may not have been the poster's intent, this statement
>strikes me as being dangerous because I think it would justify "changing
>Halacha to suit the times" as many of our brethren would like to do. To
It was never my intention to justify the above. My point was that halacha
DOES change and the way you put the chicken on the plata this coming friday
night may not have been the way Chizkiyahu Hamelech did during his time (see
Feldblum answ. below to shofar issue). The genius of great posek such as
Rav Moshe is that they are sensitive to differences of opinion, changing
circumstances as well as "takana shekhal lo yachol la'amod bo" when issuing
a psak or clarification. Unfortunately this is sorely lacking today, both
in the realm of halacha, as well as theOlogy. as for the shofar issue, Mr.
Feldblum made my point, so i have nothing to add, except to thank him for
the source, having not known its specific location.
Name: Avraham Husarsky
E-mail: <ahuz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <frankele@...> (Edwin Frankel)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:17:08 -0100
Subject: Re: Anachronisms in Halacha
>From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
>Another poster writes:
>> it is important not to be anachronistic regarding halacha. what was
>> decided by a rov during a certain period of chazal, may not have been
>> the way it was practiced by everyone prior to that. an example is the
>> opinion that holds that the currect practices of shofar blowing combine
>> a number of different variants that were extant within the land of
>> israel at that time.
>
>Although this may not have been the poster's intent, this statement
>strikes me as being dangerous because I think it would justify "changing
>Halacha to suit the times" as many of our brethren would like to do. To
>take the poster's example, the reason the shofar blowing custom combines
>several variants is because which variant was the correct one has been
>forgotten and therefore all of the variants were adopted to ensure that
>at least the correct one will be one of the ones practiced. To go from
>that to a statement that we can generally assume that psak varies from
>generation to generation strikes me as a step down a slippery slope.
I'm not clear as to what the problem is. I have for years enjoyed
studying of sheelot and teshuvot. One of the clear factors in every well
written one is that they cite the different halachic standards that were
understood from generation to generation.
I am with you, I don't think halacha changes. However, our
understanding of its complexities does. This is evident in the works of
the Chofetz Chayim, the Oruch Hashulchan and most recently of Rav
Ovadiah Yosef. In fact, I have never read a teshuva that did not cite
other views, often from contemporary and prior thinkers. Difficult
questions need to be pondered. How much background and training must
one possess before being qualified to respond to halachic questions?
What must a posek demonstrate in order for his statements to carry
weight.
I believe that it is not commitment to halacha that seperates Jewish
ideological groups today, but the manner in which they would respond to
the two questions I have posed.
Ed Frankel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:00:51 -0500
Subject: Change in P'sak
In #89, Carl Sherer writes:
>Although this may not have been the poster's intent, this statement
>strikes me as being dangerous because I think it would justify "changing
>Halacha to suit the times" as many of our brethren would like to do.
> [portion deleted] ... To go from
>that to a statement that we can generally assume that psak varies from
>generation to generation strikes me as a step down a slippery slope.
I'd like to venture down the slippery slope, just a little, not, ch''v
"to change Halacha to suit the times," but rather to ask whether a given
Rav's p'sak halacha is always well applied to the circumstances. For
example, the p'sak one gives to a poor, 65-year-old widow with no
children is likely to be different in many cases than the p'sak one
gives to a 20-year-old unmarried yeshiva bochur in good health.
And actually, it seems to be that the p'sak a single, given individual
gets from a single, individual rav could change depending on the changes
in his individual situation over the course of his life. And if that
person has to ask a new question and get a new answer, he shouldn't feel
that he is acting suboptimally -- he's getting the best answer to the
best question he can pose now. I don't think there's a problem in
re-asking a question if circumstances change -- not by psak-shopping,
but by sticking with your own rav.
And even if one concedes that the p'sak could change, I would argue that
sometimes the boundaries change, too. It's just that changes to the
right are incorporated, while changes to the left are (lately)
challenged.
Example:
A couple of years ago, while doing research on use of Egg Matza on Erev
Pesach that falls on Shabbat, I learned that in the Bet Yosef and the
Ram''a, it is taken for granted that people will use their _chametz_
pots that day, that they will cook _real_ chametz for the first two
meals, and that the only change they really make (aside from eating the
day seudah early) is that they are sure to use chametz that doesn't
stick, so the pot can be *wiped out* -- because you can't really wash
the pot on Shabbat -- and put away. Today, I don't think anyone would
dream of that. Their chametz utensils that day will be scrubbed clean
and put away well before Shabbat; people may actually *go away from the
table to eat challah*, and then come back to a completely kosher
l'pesach meal in kosher l'pesach utensils. (Mishna Brura largely
assumes this paradigm.) Now, I can't possibly say this is wrong. I can
say it's a change over time. Why?
I believe we generally follow the Chazon Ish in measuring shiurim of
matza for the seder. Well, you know what? I've never met anyone who is
not an adult male having no gastric problems who could comfortably eat
2.5 shiurim of 7 x 4 inches (18 x 10 cm?) each without feeling sick.
(No flames from women, please. I really hope you can. Nobody in my
family or my immediate circle of friends can, that's all.) My wife --
who really does have to eat egg matza on Pesach, because she's pretty
intolerant of regular matza anyway -- has a terribly difficult time even
with 2.5 x (two or three mouthfuls) of shmura matza at seder. She does
that, of course, but 2.5 x 7" x 4"? Forget about it! My question is
not, ch''v to question that p'sak, but to ask critically: do we know
that the Chazon Ish really meant that shiur for everyone, or might he
have meant it only for his young, healthy yeshiva bochrim? And even if
in that case, he meant everyone, do we always examine the _question_ as
well as the _answer_ in looking up responsa?
So, frankly, while _halacha_ does _not_ change from generation to
generation, I would state in no uncertain terms that p'sak halacha
certainly does, and we will learn more Torah by understanding the
conditions under which that can and does happen.
Anybody have any thoughts?
Steve White, reminding you there are only ten chametzdike weeks left
'till Pesach!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jmarksmn@...> (Perry Zamek)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 17:52:26 +0200
Subject: Change of Chazzan/Kaddish
In v22n90, Shmuel Himelstein asked:
>why is that that the change [of chazzan] takes place before the end of
>Pesukei D'zimra? Without checking out the sources, I wonder if it might
>be because of the Kaddish following Yishtabach, which might need to be
>said by the person who concludes Pesukei D'zimra.
Without having the Mishnah Berurah with me at work, I recall that the
Kaddish, in any situation, is attached to that which comes before it,
and cannot be recited on its own. This has a number of practical
applications:
1) In the case where the Chazan on Rosh CHodesh or Chanuka is an Avel
(Mourner), he does not lead the Hallel, but steps aside for another
member of the congregation to do so. The Kaddish that follows the
Hallel, however, is recited by the original Chazzan, i.e. the one who
recited the Shmoneh Esreh.
2) In a similar vein, if the minyan leaves before the end of the
repetition of the Shmoneh Esreh, the Kaddish Shalem (Titkabel) is still
recited, even if a minyan is absent. This is because it is seen as an
extension of the Tefilla (i.e. Shmoneh Esreh).
3) If I recall correctly, Ashrei is recited at Mincha in order to be
able to recited Half-Kaddish prior to the Shmoneh Esreh. (I don't think
this is in the Mishnah Berurah where the previous cases are referred
to.)
4) In some shules, if the Rabbi holds a drasha after the Sefer Torah is
returned to the Ark (on Shabbat/Chag), the Chazzan repeats the verse
"Hashivenu Hashem elecha etc.) before reciting the Half-Kaddish before
Musaf.
There is one question I have: the Gesher haChayyim suggests that the
Kaddish after Kriat HaTorah is the prerogative of a mourner, and he has
the right to recite it instead of the Baal Koreh/last person
called-up. If so, it would *seem* that there is no text recited by the
mourner prior to the Kaddish, and therefore it seems to be an exception
to the rule. Possible answer: Torah reading is a communal obligation,
and participation, even without reciting the words, is
sufficient. Comments?
Perry Zamek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 13:54:46 -0500
Subject: Correcting Torah readers - Kamenetzky minhag.
I was asked by several MJ readers to clarify the minhag of the
correction of Torah readers by Rav Yaacov Kamenetzky. I found that quite
often legends develop around giants (e.g., Rav Yaacov Kamenetzky) which
have little to do with reality.
I spoke today (Jan. 23, 1996) to Rabbi Sholom Kamenetzky, a grandson of
Rav Yaacov Kamenetzky. He contacted R. Shalom Rosengarten, the ba'al
keriah of R. Yaacov for about 5 years in the late 60s early 70s and
R. Yosef Herman who was involved with the keriah, both from Monsey, New
York.
Both stated that in the synagogue of R. Yaacov there was a little
problem of correcting ba'alei keriah since the ba'alei keriah were very
good, but problem arose sometimes when a Bar Mitzvah boy read. Therefore
they instituted that the Bar Mitzvah boy must be tested well ahead of
his Torah reading to make sure that he was adequately prepared. [A good
idea for all of us].
Rav Yaacov Kamenetzky did not correct mistakes unless the mistakes
changed the meaning, and he even scolded (privately after the tefilah)
people who made trivial and meaningless corrections, as he felt that it
was unnecessary and constituted tircha detziburah (i.e., burdensome on
the congregation) and a burden on the reader.
R. Mordechai Kamenetzky (also a grandson and a MJ member) wrote to me
that Rav Yaacov "did not hold of repeating the last Posuk in Ki Saitzia,
(zecher & zaicher) only those words!" and that was also mentioned by the
ba'al keriah above.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ash@...> (Asher Breatross)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 09:21:40 -0500
Subject: Dinosaurs and Chinuch
My son attends a school where his English teacher is prohibited from
teaching the class about dinosaurs, even if he presents it in a Torah
framework. I plan to complain to the administration about it but in
order to give my letter some substance I am looking for sources that
have considered the subject of dinosaurs vis a vis the age of the world
from a Torah perspective. If anyone can provide sources it is
appreciated. (I vaguely recall that the Tiferes Yisrael in his Perush
on Mishnayes has a discussion about this but I cannot remember where it
is located. If anyone knows this source it would be appreciated.)
[I don't remember where it is, but I do remember hearing about it. It is
not in the actual Perush, but is an included Drasha he gave. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 8:57:59 IST
Subject: Jews Before Matan Torah
Ari Shapiro writes:
> The Ramban in Parshas Emor by the Megadef says that from the
> time Avraham came into the Bris (covenant) with God he and his
> descendents had the status of Jews.
One small nit to pick - I believe that the Ramban's view is that the
Avos and their pre-matan Torah descendants had the status of Jews only
while they were in Eretz Yisrael. I believe I heard that brought down
in the name of the Meshech Chachma but I can't find it there at the
moment.
-- Carl Sherer
Adina and Carl Sherer
You can reach us both at:
NEW ADDRESS: <sherer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Switching Chazanim Midstream
In regard to switching Chazonim , the same thing occurs at the end of
Shabbat Shacharit. The Musaf Chazan begings with Yekan, Purkan after
the Torah and Haftorah readings. He also says the Kaddish for the
Shacharit service as the Shacarit Chazan says the P'sukei D'Zimrah
Kaddish. This has long puzzled me.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 22 Issue 99
