Volume 24 Number 47
                       Produced: Sun Jun 23  9:57:35 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Bracha over Cornbread
         [Jacob Lewis]
Davening Errors
         [Percy Mett]
Davening errors etc.
         [Chaim Schild]
Davening Mistakes
         [Melvyn Chernick]
Errors in Tefilla-beracha meshuleshet ba'Torah
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Faxes on Shabbes/Yom Tov
         [Barry Best]
Jerusalem, Jerusalem
         [Meyer Rafael]
Lo Adu Rosh
         [Steve White]
One More Davening Mistake
         [Gershon Dubin]
Rechabites (bnei Yisro)
         [Avraham Husarsky]
         [Lon Eisenberg]
Slander of Groups
         [Yitzchok Samet]
Yated's assertion on R. Goren and mamzerim
         [Shaul & Aviva Ceder]
Yayin or Shechar for kiddush?
         [David Charlap]


From: <Krukshank@...> (Jacob Lewis)
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 00:25:15 -0400
Subject: Bracha over Cornbread

Can one say a Motzi over cornbread? In one place I looked, maize was listed
as one of the five grains which make "real" bread. In another place (Shulchan
Aruch?), maize was replace by rye. Please don't reply by saying ask your LOR,
as we are without one until Rosh Hashanah :(

Jacob Lewis


From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:48:01 +0100
Subject: Davening Errors

 Yisrael Medad posted the following:
>the final Shabbat morning song is "an-eem z'mirot"
>and not "anim zm'irot". "An-eem" = I will make pleasant.

I don't understand what he is saying. One thing is sure - the same vowel
appears in both words, so if it is an-eem it must also be z'meeroth. But
on whose authority do we say that an-im is an error?

Perets Mett                             * Tel: +44 181 455 9449
5 Golders Manor Drive                   * 
London                                  * INTERNET: <P.Mett@...>
NW11 9HU England                         


From: <SCHILDH@...> (Chaim Schild)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Davening errors etc.

here's my favorite. The minhag at "every" shul is that the chazan does
the nusach of the shul. I have seen several times in several places
(chabad-and-ashkenaz, sephardic-and-ashkenaz) where the Chazan gets
up there and WHILE LOOKING IN the shul's siddur, READS HIS OWN (and
different) nusach during the repetition of the Amidah...not just vowel
changes but whole pasukim while "staring" at the siddur below him.


From: <chernick@...> (Melvyn Chernick)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Davening Mistakes

May I add my favorite mistake to the roster?

Probably because of the popular melody, almost everyone (and I've heard 
this in both Ashkenazi & Spehardi synagogues) says, *Va'ani tefilati, 
lekha Hashem* etc. Thius doesn't make sense. The phrasing should be, 
*Va-ani tefilati'  lekha Hashem* etc.
 Melvyn Chernick


From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 15:17:32 -0400
Subject: Errors in Tefilla-beracha meshuleshet ba'Torah

Eli Turkel in MJ 24#42 says:

>2.  In the repetition of the Amidah by the Chazan in the Birkhat Cohanim
>    The phrase should be "borchenu ba-beracha ha-meshu-leshet  ---
>    ba-torah ha-ketuva al ye-de Moshe avadekha". It is a three-fold
>    blessing.
>    Many chazzanim put the word ha-meshu-leshet with the second part which 
>    would indicate that the priestly blessing appears three times in the 
>    Torah which it does not.   
>    In the book "The Encylopedia of Jewish Prayer" by Macy Nulman he
>    brings in the name of Rav Soloveitchik the change to
>    "borchenu ba-beracha ha-meshu-leshet --- ha-ketuva ba-torah ..."
>    i.e switching the order of the words ha-ketuva  and ba-torah meaning
>    with the threefold blessing, that is written in the Torah by Moshe.

This issue of: where to put the punctuation in "ba'berach ha'meshuleshet
ba'Torah ha'ketuva... is far from being simple. Both sides have enough
authority to rely upon, and it should not be included with the list of
errata complied by the group. Strangely enough, the meaning does not
change either way!

The first question is what is the meaning of "beracha meshuleshet"? 

Talmud Yerushalmi says that it is Berach Meshuleshet since it is Shalosh
berachot, and indeed, accordingly, we say 'Amen' after each section of
the three. (Sota 33:1)

Abudarham gives two explanations: 1. for the three avot, and 2. for the
three pesukim which compose the birchat kohanim. _Abudarham ha'shalem_
(Jerusalem, 1959) pp. 115-116. His opinion is (if I read him correctly)
that a pause comes after Torah and it is based on a quote which stops
after the word 'Torah'.

No one suggested that the expression "barcheinu ba'beracha
ha'mushuleshet ba'Torah" should mean that it is mentioned three times in
the Torah, it is a rather three parts blessing mention in the Torah.

I reviewed about 20 siddurim and Machzorim to find out if there is a
consensus as to where to place the pause. The majority of my
unscientific sample suggetes that a comma should be placed after the
Torah, this is followed by a second group that put no punctuation at
all, and followed by the smallest group that placed a comma after
meshuleshet. One Gr"a Siddur from Yerushalyim has it both ways (i.e., a
comma after meshuleshet and a period after Torah).

Gilad J. Gevaryahu

P.S. In order not to diminish the list of errors I'll add one. In 'shir
shel yom' for Thursday, the ending should be "va'ya'achileihu michelev
chitah, umitzur, devash asbiechah". However, most chazanim combine the
"mitzur devash" together, and thus feed the people from a honey-rock
rather a miraculous feeding honey from a regular rock.


From: Barry Best <bbest@...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 10:32:00 EDT
Subject: Re: Faxes on Shabbes/Yom Tov

With regard to receiving faxes on Shabbes/Yom Tov and problems of
Baitzah SheNolad BiYom Tov (an egg layed on Yom Tov).  A recent poster
seemed to diparage this comparison because of some technological

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the issue is not one of electricity
or the fax being "reformulated"; it is simply that since the fax was not
in existence prior to the beginning of Shabbes or Yom Tov, the receiver
could not have "prepared" it for use in keeping with the principal of
Hachanah D'Rabbah in Baitzah.


From: Meyer Rafael <M.Rafael@...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:10:24 +1000
Subject: Jerusalem, Jerusalem

>Yes, it is apparently true that the US gov't., in accord with its
>interpretation of international law, does not regard Jerusalem as part
>of Israel.  Imagine how I felt when I went to the US Consulate in
>Jerusalem and had something stamped "Jerusalem, Jerusalem".  The US does
>not regard even PRE-67 (ie, West, or "New City") Jerusalem as part of
>Israel.  Silly me, I thought that when I moved to Jerusalem, I was
>moving to Israel.  While I know that our claim to Jerusalem is
>registered with a Higher Authority than the US State Department, it
>still makes me crazy.

This is not new. The US State Department has been playing this game for 
a long time (well before Oslo). I recently noted with interest that
Malcolm Rifkind (Rivkind?) the British Foreign Minister has been even
more explicit about this saying that 
in the view of the British government the Israeli occupation of
*western* Jerusalem is de facto and not de jure! While the view of the
British or United States governments hardly matters to me, we see how
much the Jewish claim to Jerusalem depends on "Higher Authority".

Meyer Rafael



From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:28:44 -0400
Subject: Lo Adu Rosh

In #36, Lou Raymon writes:

> Steve White and Jerrold Landau both claim (in v24.32) that when Rosh
>  Chodesh is declared by a Bet Din, the rule of Lo Adu Rosh (Rosh HaShana
>  cannot fall out on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday) will not apply.
>  Is that really the case?  The reasons for the rule apply both to times
>  with the Beit HaMikdash, and to times without it.  For example, to avoid
>  a 2 day delay in burying the dead, Yom Kippur may not fall on Friday or
>  Sunday (the D and U of Adu).  This reason has nothing to do with the
>  Beit HaMikdash.  It is certainly in the Beit Din's power to ignore
>  witnesses who come on an "inconvenient" day.

Lou is right -- the Bet Din certainly can continue to abide by "Lo Ad''u" if
it chooses.  However, it need not do that if it does not want, thus making it
**possible** for Sukkot to fall on motzai Shabbat, which is the only point
that was being made.



From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 11:12:00 -0400
Subject: One More Davening Mistake

       Many people when they say the name of Hashem are not careful to
use the proper nikud and use a shva or chirik in place of a cholam.
They then say adeenoy instead of the proper name of Hashem.  I read the
Torah this morning and had a Cohen bimkom Levi, so I had to hear this
mistake 16 times!

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


From: <hoozy@...> (Avraham Husarsky)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 19:11:32 msd
Subject: Rechabites (bnei Yisro)

>From: Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund <sgutfreund@...>
>Does anyone know something more about the present day Rechabites
>(children of Yisro). It is mentioned briefly in the Hirsh Chumash that
>an English missionary (Dr. Wolff) found Rechabites living in Mecca in
>Arabia in 1828. That they speak Arabic and a little Hebrew, and number
>about 60,000.  It also says that this Dr. Wolff credits them with
>observing a pure form of the Mosaic Law, meaning only Torah
>Shb'ksav. (That's Wolff's description, not mine!).

i don't know about rechabites, but i think that the druse in israel, 
lebanon and syria who follow a secretive offshoot of the islamic religion 
believe that they are descended from jethro, or at least worship him as 
their prophet.  there is a grave at nebi shueib in the lower galillee which 
is a holy sight for the druse as they believe it to be the resting place of 
jethro.  they have a big once a year get together there during the spring.

Name: Avraham Husarsky         
E-mail: <hoozy@...>, ahuz@netvision.net.il


From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 11:50:23 +0000
Subject: Refrigerators

Dr. Barak Greenfield wrote (in mj v24n43):
>Therefore, if opening the refrigerator on shabbat
>will definitely cause the motor to turn on, it is prohibited (p'sik
>reisha d'nicha lei), because a human being was the causal factor behind
>the forbidden activity.

But opening the refrigerator does not directly cause the motor to go on;
perhaps it influences the thermostat, causing it to go on sooner than it
otherwise would have (gerammah), but this is not pesiq reishah.  In any
case, I fail to understand allowing it to be opened only when the motor
is running (unless you also allow closing it only when the motor stops
running, since closing it while the motor is running will probably cause
it to stop running sooner).  Similarly (as was mentioned by someone in a
previous post), to be consistent, you should then also not be allowed to
open the door of your house (to go in or out) when the heater or air
conditioner is not running (or close it when it is running), since that
also affects the thermostat of the heating/cooling system.

Lon Eisenberg   Motorola Israel, Ltd.  Phone:+972 3 5659578 Fax:+972 3 5658205


From: Yitzchok Samet <samet@...>
Date: 5 Jun 96 13:56:00 -0400
Subject: Slander of Groups

Eli Turkel writes:
>  Esther Posen writes
>  >> I find it ridiculous to slander whole groups of "boys" and  "girls" in a
>  >> forum like this. ...
>  The Chafetz Chaim in his laws of "Lashon ha-ra" explicitly lists
> slandering whole groups as being prohibited. So it much worse than just
> being ridiculous.

I agree with Esther that such stereotyping is foolish, and untrue and
with Eli that it is literally traif.

Yes, the author was well-intentioned, and this forum's goal of Torah
discourse is noble, but the original submission was hopelessly tainted
by lashon ha-ra and,  IMO, no amount of rationalization can justify
circulating such submissions.

Perhaps we can seek solutions to unpleasant social problems by discussing   
individual  cases - without suggesting that they plague or even reflect   
upon entire groups or communities (especially when they don't).

Yitzchok Samet


From: Shaul & Aviva Ceder <ceder@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 17:58:01 PDT
Subject: Yated's assertion on R. Goren and mamzerim

Several years ago, in an editorial, Yated Ne'eman claimed that, since Rabbi 
Shlomo Goren z"l, in his capacity as Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, 
incorrectly judged the Langer children to be kosher (not mamzerim) in 1972, 
they did indeed die prematurely. Does anyone know of a source which would 
either confirm or refute that assertion?

Name: Shaul and Aviva Ceder
E-mail: <ceder@...>


From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 12:09:43 EDT
Subject: Yayin or Shechar for kiddush?

I've been following this "Grape Juice" thread for a while, and a question
comes to mind.

I remember learning that kiddush required "Yayin shechar" - alcoholic
wine.  What I didn't learn (and I didn't think to ask at the time) was
which is more important than the other.  The wine or the alcohol?

For instance, suppose you have no wine for kiddush, but you do have
grape juice and beer.  Which should you use?  If the overriding concern
is yayin, then the grape juice.  If shechar, the beer.  (Nobody suggest
mixing the two together.  I can't imagine anyone drinking such a


End of Volume 24 Issue 47