Volume 24 Number 21
                       Produced: Tue May 28 21:30:37 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

A Thought On Matan Torah
         [Merril Weiner]
Common Tefillah Errors
         [Ira Y Rabin]
Correction about Yerushalmi
         [Hadassa Cooper]
Holding a mountain over Jews...  and Goyim to??
         [Yosey Goldstein]
Kadma in the blessings for the Haphtara
         [Larry Rosler]
Kel Malei when Tachanun is not said
         [Jerrold Landau]
Leining, Trop and Tikun
         [Gershon Dubin]
Tikun and other related topics
         [Mark H Narwa]


From: Merril Weiner <Merril_Weiner/CAM/<Lotus.LOTUS@...>
Date: 28 May 96 18:15:09 EDT
Subject: Re: A Thought On Matan Torah

Russell Hendel posed the following seeming contradiction:

> SOURCE 1: States that God had to place Har Sinai over us and threaten to kill
> us before we accepted the Torah.

> SOURCE 2: States that God went to all the nations and offered them the Torah.
> One nation refused because of the murder laws, one nation refused because of
> the adultery laws etc.  However we accepted the Torah.

This last Shavu'ot I heard Rav Naftoli Horowitz of Boston (son of the
Bostoner Rebbe) give over two explanations.  The one I like is something
like the following (please forgive my summarization for any

With each of the other nations, the nation asked what was in the Torah
and G-d replied with one of the 10 commandments which was that nation
had difficulties with.  Eisav complained that they could not follow the
commandment not to murder because it was their nature to murder.
Yishmael refused the Torah because it was their nature to steal.  The
descendants of Lot (I forget which nation) had trouble with banning
adultery since that is how their nation was founded.

However, the Jews response was, "we will do and we will understand."
That is our nature.  To do and to understand.

HaShem was not satisfied with this response since all of the other
nations had problems with laws that were against their nature.  How
could He be certain that we would follow all the laws of the Torah, even
those which are against our nature?

HaShem therefore placed Har Sinai over our heads to ensure that not only
would we accept the Torah, but that we would do that which was against
our nature as well.

Rav Naftoli then encouraged everybody to go against their nature and
pull an all-nighter.

(BTW, Rav Naftoli did apply this theory briefly to homosexuality which
people are now considering "their nature".)

Again, I apologize for the brevity and possible inaccuracies of this

-Menachem Weiner (Merril Weiner)


From: <irabin@...> (Ira Y Rabin)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 13:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Common Tefillah Errors

	This is in regard to Martin Penn's comment about how we don't
correct balley t'fhilah for thier mistakes, while we correct Balley
kriah for every phrasing mistake. Besides the well known examples he
brings I have noticed many more and will show some examples.

Melech kel chey, Haolamim (instead of melech kel, chey haolamim)
ki kel melech gadol v'kadosh aTAH (instead of ATah)
leayLAH (instead of leAYlah in kaddish)
lecha anu shira, b'simcha rabba v'amru chulam (instead of lecha anu shira 
b'simcha rabba, v'amru chulam)
Hashem oz, l'amo yeetain (instead of Hashem, oz l'amo yeetain
v'yishlach lechol avonam (instead of v'yislach) 

And many many many more. Not only do balley t'fhilah make these mistakes
which puts our davening on the language level of slang, but we have also
made davening into a show by inserting popular tunes like d'vakus tunes
instead of using proper nusach. If A bal kriah made all these phrasing
or accnet mistakes, or if he sang a tune to leyning instead of using
troupe we would all jump on him- why then do we tolerate it for
davening? The words of davening are just as important, and what troupe
is to leyning, nusach is to davening.  Ivdu es hasshem b'simcha does not
give us the leeway to sing anything we want. Getting up to leyn and
daven for the amud properly takes years of preparation, training, and

respectfully submitted,

Ira Rabin


From: Hadassa Cooper <hershco@...>
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 09:22:26 +1000
Subject: Correction about Yerushalmi

I would like to make a correction. In my previous posting, I wrote that
the custom of placing greenery on Shavuot is mentioned in the
Yerushalmi. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest mention of the
custom is in the Maharil, based on a midrash.


From: Yosey Goldstein <JOE-G@...>
Date: Mon, 27 May 96 12:35:48 EDT
Subject: Holding a mountain over Jews...  and Goyim to??

   Russell Hendel seems to find a contradiction in the two Midrashim
that discuss the order of the Jews accepting Torah. Looking at the
Midrashim I do not see it. First the Midrash says that G-D offered his
Torah to every nation in the world and for various reasons they declined
G-d's offer. (They wanted to murder, commit adultery etc.) Then G-d
Offered the Torah to the Jews and they accepted. Another Chazal tells us
in the Gemmorah in Shabbos that G-D held a mountain over the heads of
the Jews before the revelation on Sinai. Apparently Mr. Hendell assumed
that the Jews did not accept the Torah until AFTER the mountain was held
over them. This is not true. As soon as G-d offered the Jews the Torah
they accepted it with the words, NAASEH VENISHMA" We will do and we will
listen. After that Hashem placed the mountain over their heads. Why
after they accepted the Torah was there a need to place the mountain
over their heads? Excellent question! That question is dealt with by
many commentaries. Tosefos in Shabbos brings a Medrash Tanchuma that
says the Jews willingly accepted the written Torah But the ORAL Torah,
That they did not want to accept and that was where they needed forcing.
There are many other answers to this question, but this is sufficient
for this forum.

   As far as Mr. Hendell's assertion that the Jew's refused the Torah at
first and then AFTER being coerced they accepted the Torah is not even
close to being true. There is no proof to such an idea. In fact the very
famous Gemmorah in the beginning of Avoda Zorah says that in the future
days when Moshiach comes Hashem will have an entire dialogue with the
nations of the earth. They will say to G-d why didn't you place a
mountain over us and force us to accept the Torah? (Just as he "forced"
the Jews) And Hashem will answer them, Did you say "NAASEH VENISHMA?"
i.e. the Jews were not coerced until AFTER they willingly accepted the

Hope this clears things up


From: Larry Rosler <lr@...>
Date: Tue, 28 May 96 14:33:30 PDT
Subject: Kadma in the blessings for the Haphtara

> From: Israel Pickholtz <rotem@...>
> From: Barry Best <bbest@...>
> >Not only baalay k'riah, but many if not most people mistakenly read the
> >"Baruch" in the b'rachah before the haftorah as though it had a pashta.
> >It should be read with a kadmah.
> As a matter of fact - since you already brought up the subject - the
> construction generally printed for the berachot has no other like it in
> Tanach.  The only time we ever have two pashta (in this case on "H-shem"
> and on "E'") on the same zaqef is when they are proceded by a revi'a.
> The ta'amim on the berach should probably be
> 	kadma  ve'azla revi'a, pashta   munnakh   zaqef
> 	baruch   atta  H-shem, Elokeinu  melech   ha'olam

Another interesting aspect of the trope for this b'rakhah is that
despite the apparent two complete b'rakhot (asher bahar bin'vi'im tovim
.... and ha-boher ba-Torah ...), there is really only one.  The first
ends in etnahta, not sof posuk, and the congregation responds "amen"
only after both have been read.

This follows the general pattern in t'fillah (introduction with Shem and
Malkhut, then siyyum without), but in t'fillah there is usually much
separation between the two parts. (For example, between "yotzer or ..."
and "yotzer ha-m'orot," or in the Avot in the Amidah.)

I don't know of any other b'rakhot with assigned trope (e.g., m'gillot).
Look how much richness there is in this one!

Larry Rosler

PS (only marginally related to the above): Can anyone say whether the
final b'rakhah AFTER the Haftarah reading should read "yitborekh" or
"yitborakh" and explain why?  My guess is that "yitborakh" is an
incorrect analogy from Aramaic (as in the Kaddish), but I'd appreciate a
reply from someone learned in this area.  Thanks in advance.  LR


From: <landau@...> (Jerrold Landau)
Date: Tue, 28 May 96 09:19:43 EDT
Subject: Kel Malei when Tachanun is not said

A recent poster made note of the fact that she was at a wedding, where
Kel Malei was recited during the chuppa in memory of the bride's father,
who had passed away.  Since the day of the wedding is a day when no
Tachanun is said, she questions the appropriateness of Kel Malei.  I
have never heard of a minhag of reciting Kel Malei on the day of the
wedding, although I have certainly heard of the minhag of visiting the
graves of deceased parents prior to the wedding, or perhaps even on the
day of the wedding prior to the chuppa.  However, in any case, the
connection between no Tachanun and no Kel Malei Rachamim has several
exceptions.  On the last days of Yamim Tovim, during Yizkor, Kel Malei
is recited.  As well, during funerals on days when Tachanun is not
recited, I have noticed that although Tzidduk Hadin is omitted, Kel
Malei is generally recited (I am not sure if this is universal, but it
has been the case in all funerals that I have attended).

Of course, much of the controversy about Yom Hashoah on 27th of Nissan
(which I am sure has been beaten to death in this forum at one point or
another) centers on the fact that it is supposedly inappropriate to
recite Kel Malei Rachamim during the month of Nissan (a month of no
Tachanun).  However, less than a week before (on the 22 of Nissan
outside of Israel, or on the 21 of Nissan in Israel), Kel Malei was
recited on a day, which aside from being a no Tachanun day, was a full
fledged Yom Tov.  I have always been bothered by this inconsistent
application of the no Tachanun / no Kel Malei Rachamim connection in
this case.

This posting offers no categorical conclusion, but at least it should be
evident that nothing so abnormal was done by reciting Kel Malei during
the chuppa.

Jerrold Landau


From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Sun, 26 May 96 12:18:00 -0400
Subject: Leining, Trop and Tikun

> very difficult to switch over, but I found the print clearer and the
> trope much more accurate.  The downside is that if you are first
	I've been leining probably at least as long as you and started
with the same tikun. However, because that tikun had many mistakes, many
of which would be obvious to an experienced baal kriah but cause
problems for a novice, my father had me use a separate chumash.  I
therefore never switched and am still using the same old one (or a newer
one borrowed from one of my sons) I also recommend to anyone I teach to
use a separate chumash; your explanation is an additional reason to do
so.  To me, the worst part of that tikun was that it didn't have the
name of the parasha on top of the page (since corrected).
	Now a mistake that I haven't seen mentioned: in the haftorah for
yisro, first posuk in the second half, the word yerushalayim is missing
(tikun side).

> davening.  Two quick examples from Shemoneh Esreh:
> 1) In R'zeh.  How many people pause after V'Eshay Yisrael instead of
> before?
> 2) In Birchat Kohanim.  How many people pause after BaTorah instead
> of before?
> Very different, and improper, meanings.  
	There are opinions that the proper place to pause is, in fact,
after v'eshay yisrael, giving the meaning that we ask Hashem to return
the avodah and the eshay yisrael to the Bais Hamikdosh.
 I have also heard an explanation of birchas kohanim based on the
grouping that you call improper, that points out that following the word
"borchenu" (bless us), and continuing up to but not including "ko-amur",
the words are phrased in groups of 3,5,7 corresponding to the number of
words in each of the 3 brochos of birchas kohanim.
	Even if you are sure that the mistake is an absolute one, I'm
not sure you should correct the Baal Tefilah in public, as he is not
being motzi anyone any more.  You should definitely do so in private.
Here's a *very* common mistake: in uva letzion: vatisaeini ruach
**vo**eshma.  Many many people say **ve**eshma which changes the
meaning.  I have corrected innumerable people (privately) on that.

> In one of the postings on this subject someone mentioned a book
> written in English that he found to be very good.  I can't seem to find
> that post now.  
	The Glory of Torah Reading (l'tiferes hakriah) by Maurice Gellis
and Dennis Gribetz.  The address inside is Maurice Gellis, 36 Albert
Drive, Monsey 10952.  The telephone number given is 914 425-5356, but
the book was published in 1982 and I don't know if the information is
still correct or if it was reprinted.

<gershon.dubin@...>        |
http://www.medtechnet.com/~dubinG   |


From: <DANIEL_D.NARWA@...> (Mark H Narwa)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 20:12:22, -0500
Subject: Re: Tikun and other related topics

I find that the best Tikun to study from, is the old blue Tikun l'Korim
from Ktav Publishing, copyright 1946.

I have been layning for 21 years.  Over the years I have written notes
in the margins, highlighted "problem" phrases, circled difficult words,
added notes where they were missing and corrected dikduk.  After all
these years of doing this, I now have in my opinion a "perfect" Tikun.

After I do all my studying from this (above mentioned) Tikun, I do a
review on Thursday and Friday night from a brand new copy of the Tikun
l'Korim with no added notes of my own.

Is anyone out there interested in starting an association for Baalei
Keriah?  There is one for Rabbis and for Chazzanim so why not one for
Baalei Keriah?  I think it could be very beneficial and educational for
those who read Torah on a regular basis.  We could have membership, our
own newsletter (which members could contribute articles to), a yearly
convention and helpful information to share with one another, etc.

[mj-baalei_keriah? - Mod.]

I would like to hear some feedback on this idea.

Thank you.

Daniel D. Narwa (DANIEL D. <NARWA@...>)


End of Volume 24 Issue 21