Volume 34 Number 89
                 Produced: Fri Jun 22  6:08:56 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

American and Israeli Tunes
         [Mark Steiner]
Baruch HaShem L'Olam
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Is learning Grammar Being Nitpicky
         [Russell Hendel]
Pause in HaShem Oz  L'Amo Yiten
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Rambam NOT Orthodox.
         [Idelle Rudman]
Repetition in Prayer
         [Yisrael & Batya Medad]
Repetition of Words in Prayer
         [Ben Katz]
Skipping Baruch HaShem L'Olam in an Ashekenazi Shul
         [Andrew Klafter]


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:56:06 +0300
Subject: Re: American and Israeli Tunes

    I believe that melodies in Israeli synagogues were brought here by
the "yekkes" (German Jews).  Many of these melodies were composed in the
19th century by composers, such as Lewandowsky or Japhet.  Hence
American Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe would not know them.


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:54:47 +0300
Subject: Re: Baruch HaShem L'Olam

In mail-jewish Vol. 34 #80 Digest, I quoted Rabbi Geoffrey L. Shisler:
> >The Dayan was very angry since, as he said, that man had deprived him of
> >TWO Berachot - one his own, and the other the Amen at the end of that of
> >the person leading the service.
And I contrasted this with the case in which
>. . . the sheliah tzibbur, would recite BHL, which he (and some pretty 
>posqim) regards a hefseq.  And . . . he may be reciting a berakhah 
>she'einah tzerikha, if not something even more serious.

And i suggested that, based on safeq berakhot lequla,  perhaps one is 
required *not* to recite it.

To which our moderator stated:

>I do not think I understand Ira's questions. As this was occuring in the
>Dayan's shul, where he is clearly the Moreh D'Asrah (Rabbinic Authority),
>if he has given p'sak on these issues, there are no uncertainties here. It
>would seem to me that your choices are to follow his p'sak if one is
>acting publically in his local.

Avi makes an interesting point.  However, as I had stated in an earlier
posting, *my* choice--since I have received a p'saq on this subject from
a learned poseq that under such circumstances I should not pray before
the `amud--would be *not* to be the prayer leader.  And to fulfill my
obligation as a mourner by studying mishnayot.

Another choice, as was offered to me by a New York rabbi when I was
visiting and praying in his synagogue, would be for me to be the prayer
leader, and the rabbi (or someone else) would finish off the Baruch
HaShem L'Olam blessing, after which I would continue with half-qaddish.

I might note that the latter solution would be valid only for
Ashkenazim, who say most prayers silently and only the "signatures"
aloud, but it would not work (very smoothly, at least) in a Sefaradi
synagogue, where the prayer leader recites nearly everything aloud.  On
the other hand, since Sefaradim do not, in any event, recite the Baruch
HaShem L'Olam blessing, there would be no difficulty in practice.

The moderator's remark does raise an interesting question.  If my minhag
(and that of the Vilna Gaon and the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch, among
others) holds that reciting a particular blessing is a hefseq, while the
local mara d'atra holds that it is not, would that mara d'atra indeed
rule (if asked) that *I* must go against *my* minhag, which my own poseq
has ruled that I must not violate?



From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Is learning Grammar Being Nitpicky

Nachum Klafter in v34n69 raises the issue of whether we are
becoming nitpicky

< I think you guys are taking this a little to far.

"Bless us with the blessing, the three-fold blessing in the Torah, which
was written by Your servant Moses."

That isn't an intellligible sentence?

I know a bit of Hebrew grammer, myself, and I urge those others of you
who know grammer to be sparing in your criticisms and choose your
battles--lest those who are ignorant of grammer catch on to how nitpicky
and nerdy we really are, and give a pitchon peh (translation: pischoyn
pai) to justify neglect of the proper study of the Hebrew language.
Some of these postings are becoming more annoying than the problems they
intend to correct. >

I vehemently disagree with Nachum. THe whole purpose of Grammar
when properly studied is to find a handful of rules which facilitate
the proper understanding and pronunciation of speech and prevent

On my Rashi website I try and make people appreciate grammar by
providing lists of similar verses where each rule applies. I 
think such an approach would work here also: Nachum is correct that
the issue is not how to pronounce a sentence of prayer. But by 
showing many similar sentences we begin to appreciate what the
grammar accomplishes. I think such an endeavor is worthwhile and
part of Talmud Torah. 

As an example of my approach in v34n67 I had two postings in
which I show that the punctuation issue is similar to a cantillation issue
of using the approach of Ex04-29 vs Ex05-01. Similarly I cite
the cantillations on Ps29-11. In short every sentence of prayer
and every issue of grammar corresponds to many many verses in 
many many lists. 

(In passing, as someone who learned Grammar in Chevruta with Nachum
I can testify that active research for lists of examples goes along
way to make grammar enjoyable)

Hope this helps

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.Com/mj.htm;my Mail Jewish ARCHIVES


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:03:48 +0300
Subject: Re: Pause in HaShem Oz  L'Amo Yiten

Andrew Klafter wrote in mail-jewish Vol. 34 #78 Digest:

Quoting Russel Hendel:
> > >My favorite davening example is Ps29:11 which SHOULD be translated:
> > >God: He will give strength to his nation:
> > >God: He will bless his nation with peace
> > >
> > >(The point is that translating "God will bless...." is incorrect)

And quoting me:
> >          And I find it difficult to understand how Russel differentiates
> > between the meanings of "G-d will . . . " and "G-d: He will . . ."  In
> > a grammar class, WADR, I suspect that the teacher would correct the former
> > to make it into the latter.
> >          Or am I missing something?
Andrew says:
>Yes, you are missing something.
>It's the difference between these sentences:
>(1) RUSSEL! He's a good guy! vs. (2) Russel is a good guy.
>[Since I know Russel very well, I can tetify that both (1) and (2) are
>correct, but (1) is more appropriate].
>The first sentence is much more dramatic.  It is actually an exclamation
>followed by a complete sentence.

I think it is very touching that you show your loyalty to the fellow who 
you know to be a "good guy."

While I agree that there may indeed by a slight difference in the emphasis 
between the complete sentence--on the one hand--and the sentence fragment 
followed by a sentence--on the other hand--I do not find this translation 

The fact that the equivalent of the single-sentence translation seems to be 
used wherever I have checked may be dismissed as "what do they know?" or 
something like that.  However, one should check the preceding verse, Psalmi 
29:10.  You would need an awful lot of vebal acrobatics to translate it in 
the same fashion as Russel translates verse 11.  Hashem lamabul yashav 
cannot be "G-d! He sat enthroned even during the Flood."   Rather, common 
sense would dictate: "G-d sat enthroned (unchanged and unshaken, in the 
words of SR Hirsch) [even] during the Flood," or something similar.

And since verse 11 is constructed in similar fashion, logic dictates (and I 
am happy to note that the Ibn Ezra` agrees with me <g>) that the 
translation be on the order of ". . . May The L-ord bless his people with 


                 IRA L. JACOBSON


From: Idelle Rudman <rudmani@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rambam NOT Orthodox.

The term "Orthodox" to distinguish those Jews who maintained the
traditional beliefs and rituals from those who changed, came into use in
the nineteeth century. It is not applicable prior to that time period.
Therefore, not only was the Rambam not Orthodox, neither was the Vilna
Gaon.  The terms came into use to distinguish between the different
streams of religious Jewish belief.

The term used for Judaism to identify traditional Jewish belief in
contra-distinction to the the Karaite movement is Rabbinite.  This term
describes Judaism that looks to its rabbinate to lead, to deal with the
halakhic issues basing their decisions on the Oral Law, the Talmud.  The
latter, as already described, was rejected by the Karaites.  Therefore,
the term "Orthodox" as defining a distinction between Karaites and
Rabbinites is invalid. 

The Sadducees were not a cult, but a priestly family descended from the
high priest, Zadok.  The high priesthood was maintained by that family,
and their great power was rooted in their position.  They maintained that
the cornerstone of the Law was in the Written Law, and not the Oral Law.
This, of course, distinguished this sect from the Pharisees, who were the
teachers and scholars, the Tana'im and Amora'im of the Talmud.  The
Karaites were not directly influenced by the Sadducees, but some elements
of the latter movement remained current, as well as other sectarian
practices, and these were incorporated by the Karaites.    

The legendary story of the origins of Anan ben David can be found in an
article in the Encyclopedia Judaica.  There are very few hard facts known
about his origin. 

Idelle Rudman, MLS, MA, Librarian		    tel: 212-213-2230 x119 
Touro College, Women's Division                     fax: 212-689-3515
Graduate School of Jewish Studies	            <rudmani@...>
160 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY  10016


From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:51:16 +0300
Subject: Repetition in Prayer

Thanks for Baruch Schwartz's reminder of Ishay Yisrael which I keep in my
seat box.
As for Kedusha, I find myself either humming or la-da-da-ing
or spending a long time on one word for the Carlebach "Mimkomecha" 
when I lead the service
which actually throws off some of the congregation who don't mind
a repeated word here or there and can't figure how I fit it all in.
Hallel is another story too.

Yisrael Medad


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:15:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Repetition of Words in Prayer

>>3. In Megilat Esther there are several words which are read twice, with
>>a sight different pronunciation (I don't know if the repetition of words
>>in Esther is universal).
>This is done for making sure that the correct meaning is conveyed, out
>of doubt for which is the correct one.  This is totally at variance with
>stating "Barukh shenatan Tora Tora, Barukh shenatan Tora Tora," which
>can clearly be understood in a way that distorts the basis of the Jewish
>religion, that there is one G-d.
>>4."Lezecher" "lezeicher" in parashat Zachor is repeated by some (Some
>>rabbanim prohibit this repetition).
>(Actually, the lamed is not pronounced in either case <g>.)  Some
>rabbanim repeat the entire pasuq.  And then they repeat the entire
>reading in accordance with the various traditions of all present, since
>this reading is regarded as a Tora-mandated reading.  The way it is done
>(and the way I myself do it), by repeating the entire pasuq, is that if
>zeikher is correct, then the first time the pasuq is read fulfils the
>obligation.  And if zekher is correct, then the second reading of the
>pasuq replaces the first, just as when the ba`al qeriya makes an error
>and has to repeat the pasuq.

        I have two, related, tangential questions re the above discussion
(after all, what good is a conversation, or a discussion group, without
tangents?).  I will start with the latter comment, because I have researched
that issue more, but they really are the same question.
        I have no idea as to the basis for repeating "zecher" and "zaycher"
in parashat zachor.  I know that the mishna berura says that some say it
twice because of a doubt as to how it is pronounced, and because it is a
d'orayta reading, but I have no idea where he got the idea that there was
any doubt as to the correct vocalization of the word. There is no masoretic
note on the verse in any chumas that I have checked, nor does Norzi (the
minchat shai, who is very concerned about pronounciation) make any comment.
So, if anyone has a SOURCE FOR THE UNCERTAINTY, I would be much obliged (and
enlightened).  I have a similar question re the repetitions in Esther, re
the source of the uncertainty.
Kol tuv.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226


From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:48 -0400
Subject: Skipping Baruch HaShem L'Olam in an Ashekenazi Shul

 Rabbi Geoffrey L. Shisler wrote in mail-jewish Vol. 34 #76 Digest:
> >I clearly recall one evening when a visitor led the service for Ma'ariv,
> >omitted Baruch HaShem L'Olam, and went straight on to the Chatzi
> >Kaddish.
> >
> >The Dayan was very angry since, as he said, that man had deprived him of
> >TWO Berachot - one his own, and the other the Amen at the end of that of
> >the person leading the service.

 From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
> Let us compare this with the situation of the sheliah tzibbur, who, if the
> opposite took place, would recite BHL, which he (and some pretty weighty
> posqim) regards a hefseq.  And not only does he make this hefseq, but he
> may be reciting a berakhah she'einah tzerikha, if not something even more
> serious....
> And what about safeq berakhot lequla?  Since there is not unanimity that
> the berakha is required or perhaps one is required *not* to recite it.

 From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
> I do not think I understand Ira's questions. As this was occuring in the
> Dayan's shul, where he is clearly the Moreh D'Asrah (Rabbinic Authority),
> if he has given p'sak on these issues, there are no uncertainties here. It
> would seem to me that your choices are to follow his p'sak if one is
> acting publically in his local.

Presumably, the guest did not know that the Dayan had adjudicated in
such a manner, nor that he would be upset about being denied his
'blessings.'  Therefore, Ira's question relates to the mindset of the
guest shaliach haTzibbur before he began the ma'ariv service.

As I have said, my own posek has instructed me not to say this blessing
when I am a shaliach tzibbur in an nusach ashkenaz shul.  However, I
wait silently after shomer amo yisrael l'ad, and do not start kaddish
until after the tzibbur has completed their bracha.

Furthermore, from the conduct of the sh'tz in the case in question
above, it sounds like he was accustomed to dovening in a shul where BHL
is not said at all.  Otherwise, why would not give the congregation an
oppportunity to complete the bracha?


End of Volume 34 Issue 89