Volume 34 Number 94
Produced: Tue Jun 26 7:32:12 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
American and Israeli tunes
[Shmuel Himelstein]
ASHG meeting
[Seth Ness]
Baruch Ha'shem Le'olam
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Islam is not idolatry
[Mike Gerver]
Israeli vs American tunes
[Yisrael & Batya Medad]
Parve Chocolate
[Yisrael & Batya Medad]
Repetition of Words in Prayer
[Michael Poppers]
Sadducees (2)
[Barry Best, Edward Weidberg]
Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah (4)
[Michael Frankel, Menashe Elyashiv, Steven Oppenheimer, David
Glasner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:33:05 +0200
Subject: American and Israeli tunes
To say that Western European Shul music was unfamiliar to Eastern Jewry,
as surmised by Mark Steiner, seems to me to be incorrect. My father,
z"l, who was a choir director in the great Shuls of Warsaw (later in
South Africa) was using Lewandowsky's, etc., music in Warsaw in the
1920's, and I assume they were already being heard there decades before
that. If nothing else, the advent of the phonograph at the beginning of
the 1900's certainly facilitated the spread of this music, as sung by
the great Chazanim.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Ness <nesss01@...>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:13:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ASHG meeting
hi,
is anyone planning to go to the american society of human genetics meeting
in san diego, october 12-16? I was wondering how shabbat friendly these
meetings are and how accessible the various hotels and venues are?
thanks for any help.
Seth L. Ness, M.D., Ph.D. Medical Genetics Resident
Department of Human Genetics <nesss01@...>
Department of Pediatrics Ness Gadol Hayah Sham
Mount Sinai Medical Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:01:55 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Baruch Ha'shem Le'olam
I have been in a Yemenite minyan where on weekdays Shamim (they have
mostly Sefaradi customs) & Baladim (original Yemenite customs) pray
together. If the reader is a Baladi, he says the baruch etc. and the
Shamim & non-Yemenites wait quietly, if the reader is a Shami, baruch
etc. is skipped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:33:01 +0200
Subject: Islam is not idolatry
Someone forwarded to me an op-ed column on the dangers of Islamic
fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. The basic point of the column was
fine, but the author (who I think is Jewish, but not too knowledgeable
about Judaism) said some things which led me to think that he thinks
that Islam is a form of idolatry. For example, he wrote, "Jews do not
worship Allah." It is my understanding that, according to all halachic
authorities, Islam is not idolatrous, and Muslims worship the same G-d
that Jews do. I recall that the Rambam says something about this, but
don't remember where. I think it was in a letter he wrote to a Jewish
community in North Africa.
Can anyone give me specific references, in the Rambam or elsewhere, to
halachic statements on this topic? I would like to send them to the
author of the column. Please include enough information, e.g. chapter
and page numbers, exact titles of books, etc., that I can locate the
references easily. Telling me things that you vaguely remember reading
will not be so useful; I can do that myself.
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:47:42 +0300
Subject: Re: Israeli vs American tunes
Re Louise Miller <daniel@...>
commenting on Israeli vs American tunes wrote:
> (AH nim ZMIR ot bSHIRim) vs (ahNIM zih-mi-ROTE b'shirIM)
I have commented on this before.
To pronounce it properly, one should either sing or speak it this way:
An- eem = I will make pleasant
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:09:50 +0300
Subject: Parve Chocolate
Re: Joseph Mosseri <JMosseri@...>
writing to ask about Swiss Fudge Cookies, notes
> Stella D'oro said that the "soaring cost of pareve
> chocolate" was a major factor in the company's decision to make all of
> its products dairy, including the coveted Swiss Fudge cookies. Bill
> Alaria told Kosher Today that the problem was compounded by the fact
> that there were limited sources for the pareve chocolate.
I was prompted to immediately ask 'but isn't chocolate naturally parve'?
But my wife pointed out to me that cookie companies probably use already
prepared chocolate powder that contains dairy elements.
Nevertheless, why should chocolate-that-has-dairy-added be less
expensive than chocolate-without-any-additives?
Yistrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:19:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Repetition of Words in Prayer
In M-J V34#86, ILJacobson wrote:
> In other words, it's best to refrain from repeating words and verses
that are not supposed to be repeated. <
At the moderator's discretion, it's time IMHO to bring an example of
[misplaced -- again, IMHO :-)] anti-repetition zealousness. In the
k'dusha said during the Shaliach Tzibbur's reading of Mussaf for Shabbos
or for Yom Tov, you'll notice that the last word of each Biblical phrase
is repeated: -- "Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh...k'vodo"/"K'vodo malai olam..."
-- "Boruch...mim'komo"/"Mim'komo hu yifen..." but, re "Echad," most
k'hillos do the following: -- "Sh'ma, Yisroel, ...echad"/"Hu Elokainu"
Shouldn't the Shaliach Tzibbur be allowed to say "_Echad_ Hu
Elokainu..." given that we "know" he's not referring to multiple
deities? Clearly, the minhag in these k'hillos would respond, "No!" NB
that minhag Frankfurt, as practiced in "Breuer's" (Washington Heights,
NY and affiliates) and elsewhere, disagrees: the SHaTZ _does_ say "Echad
Hu Elokainu...," thus marking the response to "Sh'ma" as consistent with
the responsa to the other verses.
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Best <barry.h.best@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:53:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Sadducees
Idelle rudman wrote in mj vol. 34 #89 that the seducees were not a cult
but a priestly family.
I wonder what the source is for that (namely that the seducees were a
priestly family, I can't imagine that she is referring to the family of
tzadok who took over the high priesthood from evyatar in the time of
david, who is referred to in the haftorah of emor).
I had thought that the seducees were followers of tzadok, the disciple
of antiginous of socho, who rebelled against rabbinic athority in the
second temple era.
I know that they were composed mostly of aristocrats, which were
disproportionately priests, but I never knew that there was a family
aspect to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Weidberg <eweidberg@...>
Subject: Sadducees
Rambam in his commentary to Pirkei Avoth 1:3 states that the Sadducees
(Zadokim uBaytusim) were the followers of Zadok and Baythus, who were
wayward students of Antiganos Ish Socho. What's the source that they
were a priestly family?
Avrohom Weidberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <mechyfrankel@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:45:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah
With respect to the cyclic reappearance of this thread, the swallows
- or is it pigeons - must be returning to capistrano - suggest you check
the MJ archives. Meanwhile you could profitably check the s'fas emes's
(on g'moroh, not chumosh) very convincing riff, at least to we already
convinced, on the g'moroh's (only lichoroh for us non eighth day succoh
types) conclusion of yosiv yosvinon b'ruchei loa m'vor'chinon.
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 588-7424
<mechyfrankel@...> H: (301) 593-3949
<michael.frankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:12:13 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah
The non Succa eaters on Shemini Aseret may be relying on the Mekubalim -
as Succot & Shemini Aseret are two different kavanot - they do not mix
them (some even have Hakafot). The same for the 2nd seder night - they
count Sefira after the Seder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <oppy@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:42:59 -0400
Subject: Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah
Yossie Abramson writes:
> I have been trying for a long time to find a source to allow people to
> eat meals inside on Shmini Atzeret.
See Nitei Gavriel by Rav Gavriel Zinner ( Brooklyn ) (the volume on
Sukkot) who writes a lengthy halachic justification for the practice to
eat the Shemini Atzeret meals in the house and not in the Sukkah. He
brings many sources and suggests that the practice may even date as far
back as the time of Rashi. For those readers not familiar with the
Nitei Gavriel series, there are over 20 volumes published covering the
halachot of all the Yomim Tovim, fast days, aveilut (mourning), weddings
and other topics related to the Jewish Life Cycle.
Steven Oppenheimer, D.D.S.
<oppy@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:11:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah
In his book, Dor Dorim, my grandfather R. Akiva Glasner, son and
successor of the Dor Revi'i (about whom see www.dorrevii.org or
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4) discusses the practice of eating in the
home on Shemini Atzeret. The minhag to eat in the home on the night of
Shemini Atzeret and then to eat in the sukkah during the day is
mentioned (and rejected) as early as the Tur. So the minhag is a very
old one and has survived despite the best efforts of a united front of
mainstream poskim to stamp it out. But the minhag even on a superficial
level seems to make sense and ultimately the mainstream position does
not rely on any good s'vara but rather invokes the seemingly
authoritative statement in the Gemara meitav yatvinan b'rukhi lo
m'varkhinan, we sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret without reciting a
blessing on the sukkah. However, a careful analysis of the sugya raises
many problems on how that conclusion follows from the shakla v'tarya of
the sugya.
To go through my grandfather's discussion of the sugya and the many
difficulties would take up too much time and space, so I will just
summarize briefly the other elements of his discussion. First, note the
inherent tension in the holiday of Shemini Atzeret, which is at once a
regel biphnei atzmah and in some sense the eighth day of Sukkot. If it
is not the eighth day of sukkot, then what is it the eighth day of?
Secondly, what is the meaning of "Atzeret" in the context of this
holiday? My grandfather refers to the Targum (attributed to) Yonatan
ben Uziel at the end of poroshat pinhas. The Targum reads (more or
less) as follows: b'yoma t'mina'a t'hevun k'nishtin b'hedva min
matilkhon l'vateikhon (on the eighth day you should joyfully gather
yourselves in from your sukkot into your homes). According to the
Targum Yonatan, therefore, the greater holiday of sukkot consists of an
eight-day cycle. The first part consists of the seven days of the
narrow holiday of sukkot in which we leave our homes (dirat k'va) and
enter into the sukkah (dirat arai). The last day conludes the entire
cycle with our symbolic return from the dirat k'va into the dirat arai.
That is the mahut of Shemini Atzeret. Atzeret refers to the act of
being gathered (k'nishtin) from outside our homes back into our homes.
The two senses (one encompassing and one limite) of "sukkot" are
analogous to the senses of, for example, "day" which can refer either to
a complete 24-hour cycle or to the daylight portion of the cycle to the
exclusion of the non-daylight portion of the cycle. There are many
other words that have such two-fold meanings.
Thus, according to the Targum Yonatan, there is a hov d'oraita, a
biblical obligation, to return back into the home on Shemini Atzeret.
Thus, if one follows the mainstream p'sak, one is nullifying a hov
d'oraita. This is not a bal tosiph issue or even a tatri d'satri issue
as the minhag to eat indoors is sometimes rationalized. If the entire
point of the holiday is the symbolic return into the home, then there is
a much deeper problem than simply bal tosiph or tatri d'satri.
My grandfather then refers to a sugya in the Yerushalmi which records a
dispute between (I think) Rav and R. Joshua ben Levi concerning how one
may permissibly eat in the sukkah (presumably in Eretz Yisrael) on
Shemini Atzeret. One holds that it is enough to make kiddush inside the
home first while the other holds that one must invalidate the sukkah.
It is possible to interpret this dispute as a dispute about the Targum
Yonatan, but it is also possible to reconcile both opinions with the
Targum Yonatan as well if we assume that the second opinion requires
both making kiddush in the home and invalidating the sukkah. At any
rate, relying on this Yerushalmi, my grandfather understands the sugya
in the Bavli to be referring only to what to do on the day of Shemini
Atzeret. However, according to (at least one opinion and perhaps both
opinions) in the Yerushalmi, one is obligated to make kiddush in the
home on the night of Shemini Atzeret to fulfill the d'oraita obligation
to return to the dirat k'va on Shemini Atzeret before going back out to
eat in the sukkah. Interpreting the Bavli in that way also eliminates
many of the internal difficulties in the sugya that are difficult to
explain otherwise. Of course, there is still a question why one would
not make kiddush in the home on the night of Shemini Atzeret and then go
back into the sukkah for the meal. But except on the first night of
Sukkot there is no obligation to return to the sukkah once one has
permissibly (say because of inclement weather) made kiddush in the home.
So, although one may go back into the sukkah on the night of Shemini
Atzeret after fulfilling the obligation to return to the dirat k'va by
making kiddush in the home, one is at that point halakhically allowed to
remain in the home for the rest of the night.
David Glasner
<dglasner@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 34 Issue 94