Volume 29 Number 34
Produced: Mon Aug 2 6:08:48 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Treading water" during prayer and Toch Ke-dei Dibbur
[Eli Hoffmann]
A Good summary of principles of NOLAD/MUKSEH
[Chana/Heather Luntz]
Ashkenazic minhag
[Eli Clark]
More confusion on Mukseh
[Russell Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Hoffmann <hoffmann@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:48:12 -0400
Subject: "Treading water" during prayer and Toch Ke-dei Dibbur
>David Schiffman writes:
>> My question is, let's say you've just said a word in the 'amidah' [the
>> main silent prayer] that you think was incorrect, but you're not sure
>> what the correct word should have been.
>> for example, you might say:
>> "Baruch ata adonai eloheinu melech ha olam, hamachazir"
>> and then you realise that you are perhaps saying the wrong blessing.
>> According to the idea that saying one word quickly after the 'mistaken'
>> word means it's as if you hadn't said the 'mistaken' word, could you
>> simply say this mistaken word (in the above case, 'hamachazir') to
>> yourself again and again, until you work out what you should say next,
>> thereby 'buying time' (treading water, so to speak) to work out what you
>> should say - because if you were to stop altogether, you'd have to start
>> again (unless I am mistaken), and then you'd have said a blessing in
>> vain.
See also Mail Jewish 29:21 for Carl Sherer's answer - he quotes from Sefer
Ishei Yisrael...
I looked this din up in that sefer, and indeed, his treatment of Toch
Ke-dei Dibbur is (IMHO) lacking.
Firstly, I'll assume that the Shoel of this question mistakenly asked
<<< for example, you might say: "Baruch ata adonai ***eloheinu melech ha
olam,*** hamachazir"...>>> for alas there is no Malchus to any of the
Shmone Esrei berachos.
Secondly, with regard to his intriguing concept of "treading water" to
keep the Toch Ke-dei Dibbur going, I believe that that would give his
"mistake" a din of "MEIZID" (a mistake made with intent), in which case
HE MUST RESTART SHEMONA ESREI (Shulchan Aruch 114:7 - M"B 119:113). So
it doesn't seem like much of an eitzah.
As far as if one does indeed remember the correct berachah Toch Ke-dei
Dibbur (so that "treading" is unnecessary - this is the point upon which
Ishei Yisrael is unclear) ---- He CAN correct his berachah with the
correct words TKD ---- see Shulchan Aruch (O"H 487:1 -- with regard to
someone who said "Mekadeish HaShabbos and remembered TKD that it was Y"T
and not Shabbos, he can correct it). See also M"B (59:6 -- with regard
to switching haMaariv Aravim and Yotzer haMeoros). See also Biur
Halachah (209 -- with regard to switching Borei P'ri haEitz with another
berachah).
Now -- what if he already started the next berachah before realizing
that he made a mistake in the previous one? (Eg. he said Mekadeish
haShabbos on Y"T, began Retzei, then realized). See Biur Halachah (487
d"h Toch) who quotes Pri Megadim that EVEN IN SUCH A CASE it is ok to go
back and say "Mekadeish Yisrael ve-ha-Zemanim"! Biur Halachah there
however disagrees vehemently.
What, however, should one do if he is UNSURE what he should have said,
and is worried that TKD will pass over without his having corrected his
mistake (this seems to have been the original q. for which the
"treading" idea was invented)?
Perhaps --- he could "correct" his mistake by saying "Lamdeini Chukecha"
TKD of his mistake, which would "cancel" his berachah for all intents,
at which point he could relaxedly consider what he's supposed to be
saying, and begin again "Baruch..." when he's ready. BUT -- I don't
think it'll work. I believe "Lamdeini" is only good when one has said
"Baruch Ata Hashem..." without having finished, but if you already
finished the berachah incorrectly, it won't help. (See MB 114:20
w. regard to someone who said BA"H and remembered he said "Morid
haGeshem"instead of "Morid haTal" --- and he has said BA"H but HAS NOT
SAID "Mechayei haMeisim" -- he can correct it by concluding "Lamdeini
Chukecha". --- Unless we could differentiate between an incorrect
berachah (which COULD be corrected w. Lamdeini) and a correct berachah
(could NOT)...)
[BTW -- the idea of "Lamdeini Chukecha" is that BA"H Lamdeini Chukecha
is a COMPLETE PAKUK in Tehillim (119) - so that his words will not be
considered a Berachah le-Vatalah.]
It is also important to note that the idea of "correcting" TKD only
works if he "tripped with his tongue" --- namely that he wanted to say
the correct berachah but slipped. If he (mistakenly) wanted to say the
incorrect berachah (eg. "I'm holding by Mevareich haShanim now,
right... BA"H Mevareich haShanim... whoops, I was supposed to say Goel
Yisrael... 'Goel Yisrael') it doesn't work. (See Shulchan Aruch ch. 46
and 209)
Thanks for bearing with me in this rather lengthy discourse. I feel,
however, that the time invested is well spent - as this is quite a
common occurence.
Eliyahu Hoffmann
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/<Heather@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:41:08 +0100
Subject: A Good summary of principles of NOLAD/MUKSEH
In message <19990705111552.7740.qmail@...>, Russell
Hendel <rhendel@...> writes:
>>(Rambam Yom Tov 1:17) There is a prohibition on Yom Tov that does not
>>exist on Shabbath---the Prohibition of MUKSEH. The sages prohibited MUKSEH
>>on Yom Tov because Yom Tov is less severe than Shabbath and people might
>>treat it lightly--therefore the sages added these extra prohibitions.
Please note that while this is the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam (ie
he poskens like Rabbi Yehuda in the gemorra relation to Yom Tov, (who
had a far more extensive concept of muktza), while poskening like rabbi
Shimon of the gemorra on shabbas (who only hold that things are muktza
in extreme cases (some of which Carl Sherer enumerated in a recent
post), this is not the position taken by Rashi, the Ri and Rabanu Tam
who posken like Rabbi Shimon both for Shabbas and yom tov and this is
brought by the Rema in Orech Chaim siman 495 si'if 4 (ie in general, it
is not the position for Ashkenazim). There is one exception to this
rule, in that Rabbanu Tam poskens like Rabbi Yehuda in relation to nolad
(both on shabbas and on yom tov), and the Rema brings the Rabbanu Tam in
that siman - stating "and there are those who permit mutzta even on yom
tov (the Tur in the name of the poskim) but nolad is assur according to
their words [l'divreihem] even on shabbat.
Thus, in theory, there is a difference in position between Sephardim and
Ashkenazim in relation to mutza on yom tov (this is confirmed by the Kaf
Hachaim who notes that most Ashkenazim do not distinguish, - although he
records that eg in the place of the Levush they used to keep as the
Sephardim do).
In relation to nolad though, I would quote to you the Aruch HaSHulchan
on Orech Chaim siman 308:6 (hilchos shabbas):
"It is a well known matter that in all of masechta shabbas, Rabbi Yehuda
and Rabbi Shimon argue in muktza and nolad, with Rabbi Yehuda forbidding
and Rabbi SHimon permitting, and the halacha was fixed like rabbi
shimon, and according to the Rif and the Rambam and the majority of the
poskim also with nolad they established it like rabbi Shimon and
therefore the Rambam does not record the issur nolad at all in shabbat,
and so writes the Tur in siman 495 and on yom tov he was machmir more
than on shabbas in muktza but when rabbanu Tam disagreed to say that the
halacha is not like rabbi Shimon except in muktza, but in nolad the
halacha is like rabbi Yehuda (until there his words) and all our rabbis
didn't hold so and so we see the Tur and the SHulchan Aruch in these
simanim from this siman until siman 313 in which they speak on issues of
muktza they do not recall nolad at all and further we see in siman 320
he writes the din of the juice of fruit and assurs it due to the gezera
that you will come to squeeze it see there and he didn't bring the
reason of nolad and so at the beginning of siman 322 where he writes
about an egg that is born on shabbat, that it is assur for the reason of
preparation (hachana) like that which it written there, but the reason
of nolad he didn't assur and this is because we establish it like rabbi
Shimon but for nolad gamur that is a new thing [davar chadash] that
never was in the world in any manner [kol ikar] Rabbi Shimon agrees that
it is assur".
>Rather than speculate on how to categorize these terms we can cite numerous
>examples from Yom Tov Chapter 2 which discusses the meaning of BORN:
>The following are prohibited
>
>A) 2:11--branches of wood that fell off the tree
>B) 2:3---A temple animal which developed a blemish(& is no longer holy)
>C) 2:7--fish in a house pond that requires netting (netting is permitted by
> Rambam on Yom Tov for food)
>D) 2:1--a bird that hatched
>
>In all these cases prior to Yom Tov, the objects in question--the branch on
>the tree, the temple animal that is holy, the uncaught fish, the unhatched
>bird---had a status that precluded me from thinking of using them (because
>they were attached to a tree, designated for the temple, uncaught or
>unhatched). Hence when they become usable on Yom Tov they are "BORN"--in
>other words I don't think of being able to use them till their STATUS
>and ACCESSIBILITY changes on YOM TOV.
As can clearly be seen from the Aruch HaShulchan above, the
categorisation of nolad used by the Rambam in relation to Yom Tov is
that of Rabbi Yehuda (as that is the way he poskens) - and not rabbi
Shimon. That means that - if you reject Rabbanu Tam, then neither for
Ashkenazim or Sephardim are these kinds of nolad applicable for shabbas
(the fax case we were discussing).
>
>If we apply this to a fax we see that I did NOT think of the blank paper
>as being readable before YOM TOV. When the paper receives the fax its
>status changes--like a blemish on an animal or branch that falls--it is
>this changed status that makes me think of it as something readable--hence
>it is BORN and should be prohibited.
What you either have to say is that you hold like Rabbanu Tam against
rov poskim (and the Aruch HaShulchan) and posken like Rabbi Yehuda on
shabbas, or that the fax case is more machmir than the general run of
the mill Rabbi Yehuda form of nolad, but falls into the exceptional
nolad case of "davar chadash".
It is not that difficult to understand that birth has a higher quality
of nolad than the above examples (we tend to think of the birth of a
baby as something pretty miraculous). However, it seems to me hard to
say that a fax fits into that case, rather than into the lesser nolad
cases of Rabbi Yehuda.
Kind Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Clark <clarke@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:55:00 -0400
Subject: Ashkenazic minhag
From: Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
>I NEVER said they were or were not pre-Rishonic. What I DID say was
>they offer were completely indpendent of the Bavli. I'll stick to that
>point.
Oh. According to the archives, what you said was: "Unless one can show
that early ashkenazim were lenient re: the nine days, I would assume
that its roots are pre-Rishonic, and not a late-breaking chumro."
In my response, I took issue with adopting such a blanket assumption. I
still do. Moreover, the earliest references to abstaining from meat
during the nine days (as opposed to erev Tish'a be-Av) are from the
Rishonim. In most circles, this would generally be considered pretty
good evidence. But you write:
>As far as antecedents, I think the nature of oral mesorah is that they
>wer unpblished so how can anyone possibly document the undocumented?
How indeed. But this logic is self-defeating. For if there is no
documentation of this oral mesorah, then how do we know it existed?
>Analogy: Since there are no documented references to the Zohar or a
>Medrash of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, therefore the Zohar as published
>must have sprung forth from the inventive mind of R. M. De Leone.
Forgive me, but I consider the analogy poor. The academic ascription of
authorship of the Zohar is based on far more than the absence of
references before the 13th century. It is based on exhaustive
linguistic and lexicographic evidence, strong similarities to other
works by de Leon, and the use of terminology and concepts that are
Medieval in origin.
>As far as age goes, I would refer you to the Ashkenaz liturgy which has
>dozens if not hundreds of piyyutim authored by R. Eliezer Hakalir,
>Piyytim largely ignored by the Sefardic tradition. So in terms of
>documentary evidence, may I suggest that Minhag Ashkenaz stems from
>Kalir's time forward. I'll let you choose when to date Kalir, and also
>to realize that he was probably recording what was largely accepted
>tradition as opposed to innovating anything.
I admit I do not understand what Kalir has to do with this. As you
indicate, no one is certain exactly when he lived. But aside from this,
the fact that cerrtain Ashkenazic piyyutim may pre-date the Rishonim
does not prove that other aspects of Ashkenazic practice are just as
old. Many Ashkenazic minhagim developed in response to the
circumstances Jews encountered in Germany or, lo alenu, the catastrophes
that befell them there. Indeed, many aspects of Ashkenazic liturgy
developed in the time of Rishonim, as Yisrael Medad has just
demonstrated ably in his recent post about Yizkor. Another example, off
the top of my head, is the Ashkenazic practice of reciting "Kel Melekh
Ne'eman," which began in medieval times, as described by Y. Ta-Shema in
his work, Minhag Ashkenaz ha-Kadmon (Ancient German Custom).
Kol tuv,
Eli Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: More confusion on Mukseh
I just wanted to make some further clarifying comments on Mukseh answering
Alex(V29n02) and Dan (V28n93).(See below for details on their questions)
Dan's question can simply be answered by noting that Chazal (and Rambam)
use the same term MUKSEH to refer to TWO different laws: In Shabbath
Chap 24-26 it refers to rabbinic laws designed to make the Shabbath
atmosphere/activities different than weekday activities. By contrast, in
Yom Tov 1:17-21 and Yom Tov 2 Mukseh refers to things that are BORN which
the Rabbis prohibited on Yom Tov.
The Rambams' language explicitly notes Dan's confusion
>>There are things prohibited on Yom Tov but NOT on Shabbath like Muksheh
>>which is prohibited on Yom Tov and not on Shabbath because Yom Tov is
>>lighter than Shabbath they prohibited Muksheh so that people should not
>>belittle Yom Tov.
But even though the Rambam appears to say that it is prohibited on Yom
Tov but not on Shabbath the Rambam then says explicitly in 1:19 that
>>we prohibit BORN Eggs on EVERY Shabbath because they are prohibited
>>on Shabbaths that fall after Yom Tov (So it shouldn't appear that
>>we prepare from Yom Tov to Shabbath
To answer Alex's question note that AcCORDING TO THE RAMBAM removal of
"access" alone creates a born status (even if the halachic status did not
change). Indeed,the Rambam's position is that >>If a pregnant chicken damaged
you only collect from its BODY but not from its EGG since its EGG is not
considered PART OF ITS BODY<<(Damages 9:1). I therefore question Alex's
position that the RAMBAM holds that an egg needs salting and is fleshig
while in its mothers womb. In other words the BIRTH of the egg changes the
EGGS ACCESSABILITY but not its HALACHIC STATUS.
Also the Rambam doesn't appear to prohibit taking fish from a pond on Yom Tov
as HUNTING but only prohibits it because of Mukseh (See Magid
Mishnah on YomTov 2:7)---since the fish are not accessible without taking
them out they are therefore considered BORN when I take them out. There
halachic status however did not change.
Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
rjhendel@ juno com
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 29 Issue 34