Volume 27 Number 08
                      Produced: Tue Oct  7  7:11:45 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Ad Shebah Rabbi Akiva
         [Gershon Dubin]
Artscroll and History - Whoops!
         [Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer]
Halachic Methodology of History
         [Ezriel Krumbein]
Mourner's Kaddish on Shabbos and Yom Tov (2)
         [Avi Feldblum, Ezriel Krumbein]
Rabbi's Psak vs Family Tradition
         [Alex Stroli]
Rosh Hashana Musaf: Shofaros
         [Akiva Miller]
The facts, Mam, nothing but the facts
         [Carl Singer]


From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:32:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Ad Shebah Rabbi Akiva

>Secondly and more specificaly, the statement "ad shebah.." is in
>reference to the section in the talmud, which recounts the story of
>Rabbi Shimon ben Amatiya (Amtina?), Pesachim 2nd chap, who was 
	Your point on Rabbi Akiva being the basis of most of the Oral Law
is well taken;  however the instance you cite is only one of about six or
seven in which the formulation "ad shebah Rabbi Akiva" is used, 
specifics on request,  so I believe that you have not really answered the
general question.



From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <sbechhof@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:33:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Artscroll and History - Whoops!

I apologize!

I mistakenly wrote that "My Uncle the Netziv" was a Targum Press /
Feldheim book. It is Targum (which I believe is normally distributed by
Feldheim, leading to my careless error), but was distributed by Artscroll.

Seeing that that is the case, it now remains then to see if indeed
Artscroll still does distribute the book. If it does not, then that would
indeed ssem to win the argument for Artscroll's critics.

[From the next message from YGB, combined by me into a single message
- Mod]

Having made the severe nistake of attributing "My Uncle the Netziv" to
Feldheim, rather than Artscroll, I felt responsible to do a web search to
see if it was still in circulation. The answer is murky. It is featured
neither on Artscroll's website or on Targum Press' website (although the
latter seems incomplete). It is, however, still being sold by Jerusalem
Books at www.shemayisrael.co.il. I assume, therefore, that Artscroll,
rather thna withdrawing it from circulation after the Lakewood Cheder
School incident, rather chose not to reprint it, just sell off their
existing stock from the first and only 1988 printing.

Once more, sorry!

Gmar Chasima Tova.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
c/o Shani Bechhofer


From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:15:45 -0700
Subject: Halachic Methodology of History

> From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
> >From: Hayim S. Hendeles <hayim@...>
> >IMHO the statement (about the Netziv reading a newspaper on Shabbat - WB)
> >*had to be deleted*. And I say this, because
> >you and I *DO NOT KNOW* what the word "newspaper" means. To some,
> >it means the New York Times, to some it means the Yated Neeman
> >(which contains the news from a Torah perspective as well as
> >numerous Divrei Torah), and to others the word "newspaper" means
> >one of these sleazy British tabloids.
> Could not the same be said about nearly every incident that might be
> included in or omitted from a biography?

	The answer is yes.  That is why it is important to hear
something in context and to know the source of a statement.  Nuance can
be very important.
	A similar situation relates to the Gra's writings on
mathematics.  The relative importance the Gra gave to secular subjects
hinges on what age he was when they were written.
	One can similarly understand this by reading today's political

Gmar Chatima Tova to all


From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 06:33:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mourner's Kaddish on Shabbos and Yom Tov

Ezriel Krumbein writes:
> Saying kaddish was set aside for mourners to give an them opportunity
> to enhance the balance sheet of the neshoma.  Since this is true if
> there is no Avel in shul someone else should say kaddish.

I believe that the generally accepted opinion among the poskim is that
only the kaddish following Alenu is considered a part of the Tefilah
(Prayer) itself, and should be said in the absence of a mourner.

Avi Feldblum

From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 13:58:49 -0700
Subject: Mourner's Kaddish on Shabbos and Yom Tov

> From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
> As far as I understand, there are two reasons why a mourner says Kaddish
> during the period of mourning.  Firstly, saying Kaddish (and leading the
> service) is a sign of mourning, and secondly the recital of Kaddish
> provides some sort of menuchah [rest] to the soul of the departed while
> it is Gehinom.
> Bearing these two reasons in mind, why does a mourner still say Kaddish
> on Shabbos and Yom Tov?  If one accepts the first reason, then he should
> not say Kaddish as there are no public signs of mourning on Shabbos or
> on Yom Tov, as witnessed by the fact that he does not lead the service on
> those days.  The second reason also does not apply on Shabbos or Yom Tov
> as souls are released from Gehinom for those days, and so no menuchah is
> required.

        I think the answer is that saying Kaddish is not a sign of
mourning.  Saying Kaddish is a zechus for the neshoma.  We generally
assume that the neshoma can use extra zechsuim durring the first 11
months.  This is directly tied to the idea of geihenom; however adding
to a neshoma's zechus need not be done only when it is in geihenom;
hence you can say kaddish on Shabbos.  Saying kaddish was set aside for
mourners to give an them opportunity to enhance the balance sheet of the
neshoma.  Since this is true if there is no Avel in shul someone else
should say kaddish.  It is preferable that the other person be someone
whose parents are not living - but - this is due to the fact that
kaddish is so closely associated to the death of a parent that we do not
want to open up to the satan.

Gmar Chasima Tova to all


From: Alex Stroli <stroli@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rabbi's Psak vs Family Tradition

Whereas I agree in principle with Carl Singer's premise that one ought to
go to one's local Rabbi, there are such things as specific family
traditions that are based upon the geographical ancestry of one's family.

A simple example would be using live chickens for Kapparot. Whereas, a
great many people rely upon their Rabbeim who tell them about the
importance of using a chicken for Kapparot, our own Shul Rabbi made it
very very clear about his vehement opposition to using chickens. He
cited the original Mechaber of the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Yoseph Caro,
(my ancestor) who stated that using chickens is tantamount to following
'Darkei Emori'.

Now does that mean that anyone who uses chickens, (apparently today
there are a large number of Chassidim, Litvaks, Yekes) is now guilty of
emulating 'Darkei Emori'?

Bevirkat Gemar Chasima Tova,
Alex Stroli


From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:12:27 EDT
Subject: Rosh Hashana Musaf: Shofaros

While I was saying Musaf on Rosh Hashana, I noticed a couple of
interesting things. They're probably related, but I don't know. I wonder
if anyone else ever noticed these points or if anything is written about
them. They both concern the sixth of that prayer's nine blessings, that
of Shofaros. The theme of that blessing concerns the shofar-blowing of
Rosh Hashana, and various other shofars which have been blown in the past
and future.

(1) Throughout that blessing, the words "tekiah" or "teruah" *could* be
used to imply the idea of a shofar even without explicitly mentioning the
shofar. But in actuality, it virtually always uses phrases like "kol
hashofar" (the sound of the shofar) or "t'ka b'shofar" (blow the shofar),
where "the sound" or "blow" might have sufficed. That's not surprising,
considering that the section is entitled "Shofaros". What DID surprise me
is that after the text made such a point of mentioning the shofar so
explicitly, the final closing of the blessing does not! "Baruch Atah
Hashem, shome'a kol teruas amo Yisrael b'rachamim. -- Blessed are You
Hashem, Who hears the sound of the teruah of His people Israel with
mercy." I admit that the word "teruah" implies that the sound came from a
shofar, but isn't it odd that of all places, the conclusion of the
blessing -- which normally contains that blessing's very essence -- would
mention the shofar only by implication?

(2) The structure of that conclusion also seems odd. "Shome'a kol teruas
amo" "Who hears the sound of the teruah of His people" Why does it say
"the sound of the teruah", when the teruah is itself the sound of the
shofar? Wouldn't "shome'a teruas amo" have meant the same thing? Why was
the word "kol" added?

Here is my wild-guess answer to both questions: We often hear that the
sound of the Shofar is a cry and a wail, which will wake us up and
inspire us to repent. But in addition, "... the shofar is the instrument
through which the remembrance of the Jewish people is brought before
G-d... The unmusical piercing blast of the shofar symbolizes the
inarticulate cry from the heart of a Jew who has strayed far from G-d's
path... [Artscroll Machzor, p 430] The blast of the shofar is merely a
symbol. The main thing is the cry of the Jewish heart. And *that* is the
real subject of the blessing in Musaf: "Blessed are You Hashem, Who hears
the sound of the His people Israel crying, with mercy."

May we all succeed in harnessing the power of this week, for the gates of
Heaven never close to tears, and may we all merit to be sealed in the
Book of Life for a good new year.

Akiva Miller

[PS: I am aware that this blessing does contain a few instances of the
words "tekiah" or "teruah" which are not immediately followed by the word
"shofar". However, in every such case, either the word "shofar" or the
name of some other musical instrument can be found nearby, making it
clear what produced that sound. The blessing's conclusion stands in stark
contrast to its main text, for the conclusion does not mention any
instrument whatsoever, other than His people Israel.]


From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 97 01:05:21 UT
Subject: The facts, Mam, nothing but the facts

The following is unsubstantiated opinion -- also unrevised!

History should be told in its entirety, as accurately as possible.  The
facts and nothing but.  Uncertainty, must be so labeled.  In contrast,
commentary and interpretation are just that and should also be labeled
as such.

The key problem is who decides what to edit (delete or add)  

It's not barely 50 years after the Churban Europe and we already see
flourishing revisionist history.  When we open the floodgates of
revisionism then we walk an untenable path where everything is subject
to revision and nothing is subject to 100% belief.

The inference that reading a Newspaper on Shabbos (dependent on which
paper it was) is somehow traif or unbefitting a Gadol is ridiculous.
Who are we to judge!

Similarly, photos of certain noted Torah personalities have been touched
up to add a yarmulke.  Why?  Is someone hiding something?  Is there
anything to hide?  Do we wish to keep from confusing kinderlach who
might see the picture?

Is today's world we seem hell bent (no pun?) on image and gloss.

To assess a Gadol by whether or what newspaper he read on Shabbos is
missing the point beyond absurdity.  Similarly, as to the color of the
suit he wore or whether or not he wore a yarmulke when studying in a
secular university (or that he studied in a secular university ....)

Gut Shabbos


End of Volume 27 Issue 8