Volume 30 Number 82
Produced: Tue Jan 11 6:54:45 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Adnei Hasadeh (2)
[Dov Teichman, Warren Burstein]
Kissing Tsitsit (3)
[Yehoshua Kahan, A.J.Gilboa, A.J.Gilboa]
Mi Shebeirach for Cholim Issues
[Mordechai]
Negiah
[Russell Hendel]
Tallis during davening
[Chaim Tatel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:16:05 EST
Subject: Re: Adnei Hasadeh
Cheryl Maryles writes: << As far as their relevance in the times of
mishnayos, we must remember that the Mishnah is talking (at least in
part) of a tumas ohel issue. Therefore the creature could be extinct but
the question is very relevant if you happen to discover a dead body of
an adnei hasadeh. For example if you hold like r' Yosi who says an adnei
hasadeh transmits tumah in a tent and you assume adnei
hasadeh=Neanderthal man, then one would be tamei by going to many
natural history museums, so whether or not they are/were extinct in the
times of the Mishnah is not a factor in determining the need to be
discussed in the Mishnah.>>
As I recall the mishna in Kilaim that talks about Adnei Hasadeh is
discussing the permissibility of mating an anmal with it, and whether it
is a violation of the prohibition against interbreeding species. It
would seem far-fetched to say the mishna was discussing this in regard
to extinct Neanderthal man. Why would the laws of interbreeding
exctinct species be relevant to the mishna?
Dov Teichman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 15:11:16
Subject: Re: Adnei Hasadeh
>From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@...>
>Gerald Schroeder in his books Genesis and the big bang and the science
>of G-d discusses how adnei hasadeh might fit in to primate man. As far
>as their relevance in the times of mishnayos, we must remember that the
>Mishnah is talking (at least in part) of a tumas ohel issue. Therefore
>the creature could be extinct but the question is very relevant if you
>happen to discover a dead body of an adnei hasadeh.
But what about the first part of the Mishnah which rules that this
species is a "chaya"? What halachic consequences are there of a bone
coming from a "chaya" as opposed to some other sort of creature?
> From: Fred <fredd@...>
> According to The Ari Z"l, Adnei Hasadeh was used as an example of the
> "bridge" between vegetation and animal. His interpretation is that it is
> and animal which is stuck to the ground, and that it would die if it's
> attachment to the ground were cut.
Is Schroeder arguing with the Ari (or claiming that proto-humans had roots)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehoshua Kahan <orotzfat@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:23:36 +0200
Subject: Re: Kissing Tsitsit
In mj 30:66 Akiva Miller wrote regarding: Kissing one's Tzitzis while
reciting last paragraph of Sh'ma
> For several years, I used to kiss my tzitzis during the Sh'ma, but I
> could never understand the words:
> "v'nasnu al tzitzis -- hakanaf p'sil t'cheiles" = "they will place upon
> the tassel -- the corner is a blue thread"
> But then, one day at maariv I tried reading the Sh'ma with the proper
> trop notes, and suddenly the meaning of the words became clear:
> "v'nasnu al tzitzis hakanaf, p'sil t'cheiles" = "they will place a blue
> thread upon the corner's tassel"
> I don't kiss the tzitzis during the Sh'ma anymore. I think it's a bigger
> mitzva to get the words right.
I, too, was bothered by breaking up the "semichut" relationship between
"tzitzit" and "hakanaf". Then I looked carefully at the trop. The trop
- a "tvir" under "v'nat'nu" (which connects with what follows) and a
"tipcha" under "hakanaf" - seem to lead to the following translation:
they will place upon the corner's taseel [major pause, as indicated by
trop] a blue thread.
I therefore decided to kiss the tzitzit one word "late" - after
"hakanaf", thereby reinforcing the pause indicated by the trop. In all
the other places, neither the sense nor the trop is violated by kissing
the tzitzit immediately, so that's what I do.
Rav Berachot,
Yehoshua Kahan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 13:28:58 -0800
Subject: Kissing Tsitsit
I just came across the following enlightening tshuva in the web edition
of Eretz Hemdah's "Ask the Rabbi".
Question - If I recite Shema "early" in order to recited it on time and
recite the rest of the prayers later, must I kiss the tzitzit and
tefillin both times?
Author: Eretz hemdah Staff, Question ID: 38552896-32055
Responsum - One is never obligated to kiss the tzitzit and tefillin.
Those who do kiss the tzitzit and tefillin do so to indicate their love
for these mitzvot.
In fact, however, whether to hold the tzitzit while reciting the Shema
was a controversy between the Geonim of Babylonia and the Geonim of
Israel. The former objected vehemently to holding the tzitzit.
Either Rav Hai Gaon or Rav Natronai Gaon wrote about holding the tzitzit
(let alone kissing them):
This is neither the way of scholars nor of students, but the way [of
those who wish to show] false religiosity. Since one has examined his
tzitzit when he put on his tallit, why should he hold them afterward?
Moreover, when he reaches "and bind them for a sign upon your hand," he
should hold the tefillin; and when he reaches "and write them on the
doorposts of your house," he should hold the mezuzah.(1)
Sperber cites other sources to show that the Gaonim of Israel approved
of holding the tzitzit when reciting the Shema.(2)
1) Cited by Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, Volume 2, Jerusalem: Mosad
Harav Kook, 5751 (1991). Pp. 87-88. Since this text comes from a
secondary source, there is a dispute among scholars whether it is the
opinion of Rav Hai Gaon or Rav Natronai Gaon.
2) Ibid., Pp. 89-90
Here is another example of an "issur" that passed into a "heter" and is
today regarded by some as a "mitzvat `ase"!
Yosef
P.S. From the context it seems that the remarks about holding the
tfillin and the mzuza were meant in a rhetorical sense. "If you are such
a tzaddiq that you hold the tsitsit when you mention them in qriat
shma`, why not hold the tfillin and the mzuza as well?" In fact, holding
or touching the tfillin has also become a common practice, as one can
see from the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 15:18:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Kissing Tsitsit
Yisrael Medad wrote -
> I would suggest that you are off the mark. I reviewed the new sefer
> "Ishei Yisrael" (I'm impressed by its over 700 pages). He quotes the
> Mishneh Brurah, Kaf HaChayim, Arukh HaShulchan, Shut B'tzel HaChochma,
> Leket HaKemach, Makor HaChayim and others. The only "interruption" not
> permitted during the Recitation of the Sh'ma is conversation and even
> that in an unnecessary sense, sometimes in between paragraphs amd
> sometimes in the midst of them. Without being exhaustive - one can hint
> or suggest with movement of hands or eyes. One can write a note. One
> should stand if one's father or Rav enters the synagogue during the
> recitation. One can say "assuta" to a sneeze or even answer "amen" to
> the belssings of Ha-kel hakadosh" or "shomei'ah t'fila" and even urinate
> but after washing hands, no bracha (see the Mishnah Brurah, 23 to
> Chapter Samech-vav where most of the above is mentioned).
I think we are on non-intersecting paths. While you are referring to
"hefseq", in the sense of "digression", I am referring to "pisuq" in the
sense of punctuation and phrasing. While I am no expert on the subject
of what does or does not constitute a permissible hefseq during qri'at
shma` (between parshiyot?, between psuqim? in the middle of a pasuq at a
major disjunctive ta`am, e.g., etnahta, zaqef? in the middle of a pasuq
at a conjunctive ta`am?) one does not need to be an expert to understand
the need for proper phrasing of the text, as reflected in ta`ame
ha-miqra, in order not to turn qri'at shma` into (has v-shalom) qri`at
shma`. About hefseq, are you saying that any of the posqim that you
quoted actually recommend purposeful interruption of qri'at shma`? It
certainly seems more likely that they are referring to situations
arising that are beyond our control.
Yosef
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:59:33 EST
Subject: Mi Shebeirach for Cholim Issues
It has been interesting seeing all the comment on this topic. I would
like to make a few additional points.
1) Some people seem to be operating with the premise that if a name is
recited aloud by the gabbai in the mi shebeirach, it means that that
choleh (sick person) was not included in the communal prayers and
received no benefit from them. This is not correct. A person whose name
is not specifically mentioned is included anyway in the mi shebeirach -
via the words 'bisoch shear cholei Yisroel' (among the other sick of
Israel). If one realizes this, one seemingly would not got overly upset
if every choleh they knew was not specifically mentioned in the mi
shebeirach. Additionally, the 'refoainu' prayer in the shmoneh esreh is
in plural language - meaning that it includes other sick people - even
those not known / thought of by the petitioner at the time of prayer.
Granted that a case could presumably be made that it is better to
mention a sick person specifically, by name - but people should realize
that if that is not done, the sick person is still included in the
communal prayers!
2) If the list of cholim drags on too long - in addition to other
drawbacks that this has - as mentioned to date - this could also lead
other (non - involved) members of the minyan to start talking or get
involved in things not related to the mi shebeirach. This could lead to
(at times) less people (possibly even less than a minyan at times -
thereby perhaps forfeiting the power of the minyan) answering amen at
the end of the mi shebeirach - which begs the question - what was
ultimately gained if the power of the tzibbur was lost / significantly
diminished in this way?
Are the people who are (in a praiseworthy manner) concerned about the
sick of Israel, also making sure that the congregation is following the
mi shebeirach and answering amen at it's conclusion?
3) I still am wondering why (as I recall) in the past, the predominant
text of the mi shebeirach was ' me shebeirach....hu yirapeh [he should
heal]...' (as brought in siddur 'Otzar HaTefilos') while now, I seem to
hear 'mi shebeirach.....he YIVAREICH viyirapeh' [he should bless & heal]
(as in some more recent siddurim, e.g. Artscroll). Is it just that
someone decided to add on to the blessing and thought it would be nice
to add 'yivareich'? If so, we know that 'kol hamosif goraya' (whoever
adds, diminishes). Being that the theme of this prayer is for healing of
the sick, why is the blessing part added? If someone is, G-d forbid,
sick, what are they hoping and praying for at that time - a blessing or
their health? I would think that priority # 1 for them is their
health. What good is blessing and money without health? Also - even if
'yivareich viyirapeh' is a legitimate text - why is yivareich placed
before yirapeh?
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 20:30:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: Negiah
I seem to have been misquoted in my posting on negiah. Allow me to
clarify
Gitelle Rapoport v30n43 cites me as stating
<even the Rambam would agree that Leviticus 18:6 explicitly
classifies Negiah as a Biblical prohibition.> She then asks why
Negiah=handshakes is Biblical?
But this is cutting my citation in the middle of a sentence. The whole
citation reads
>eg Rambam who holds that kissing and hugging is Biblically prohibited
>(because of Lev 18:6). For even the Rambam would agree thatLev 18:6
>explicitly classifies Negiah as a Biblical prohibition whose goal is to
>prevent other Biblical prohibitions--ie Negiah is a Biblical'fence'.)
Gitelles comments about touching being a sign of reassurance were
answered in a later issue by other posters.
Joseph Gretz (v30n42) takes me to task for assuming that Chazal or the
Torah made the fence of Negiah to prevent going further. Joseph points
out that a 'fence' simply means that we are SOMETIMES worried about
further activity.
I agree with Joseph's comment. My point was that the fence of Negiah is
NOT only to sometimes prevent IMMEDIATE further behavior but rather the
fence of negiah was also to prevent LONG TERM further behavior. In other
words when we talk about negiah the emphasis should not only be about
what might happen today but what might happen several years down the
road
Russell Hendel; Math;Towson; <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Subject: Tallis during davening
When I was in yeshiva in the early seventies, the Rabbis and kollel men
wore their taleisim over their heads during davening. The Shulchan Aruch
says this is proper.
When I first came back home, the only men who covered their heads were
the Rabbi and teachers of the Academy. I asked a frum man in shul why he
didn't cover his head, and he responded that he didn't feel he was on
that level and didn't think it would be proper.
Now I am in a "modern" shul. I see [many] people covering their
heads. It would seem to me that this is a form of "yuherah."
Comments, please.
Thanks,
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 82
