Volume 36 Number 78
Produced: Mon Jul 22 23:38:40 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
additions to Oleinu, role of Ar"i in shaping the modern siddur, etc.
[Mordechai]
Earth Revolving ARound Sun
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Elokanu velokay
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Melody for Chapter 3 of Eichah (2)
[Elazar M. Teitz, Gershon Dubin]
Modesty and the Ari's comments (2)
[Gershon Dubin, Meir Shinnar]
Neheneh Memelechas Akum
[.cp.]
power chair for shabbos
[Elisha Kobre]
Starting Devarim Sheni at Eicha
[Mark Symons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:06:56 EDT
Subject: additions to Oleinu, role of Ar"i in shaping the modern siddur, etc.
<<From: <Shalomoz@...> (Shalom Ozarowski)
Following the recent discussion on "extra psukim" after shir hamaalot,
i'm curious if anyone knows reasons/sources for saying al tira and other
psukim after aleinu.>>
The Oleinu prayer (originally from the 'malchiyos' portion of musaf of
rosh hashonoh and later added at conclusion of prayers year round
[despite an amusing {hassidic?} tale that implies the reverse, stating
that Oleinu complained to Hashem that it wasn't treated properly, being
recited quickly / routinely at the end of davening, when some people are
rushing / on the way out, in response to which Hashem mollified it by
saying that on rosh hashono it would be said with much more attention /
kavonnoh and would be in the center of the tefillos]), concludes at
'kakosuv bisorosecho Hashem yimloch liolom voed' (this is evident from
examination of old siddurim, as well as the fact that it ends there on
rosh hashono - when people left it's form unchanged evidently, perhaps
because it is within shemoneh esreh then). The following pesukim
sometimes said by some are later additions. They seem to be comprised of
two distinct parts - 1) vine'emar, vihoyo Hashem limelech al kol
haaretz...... This was added al pi the Ar"i (source - note in siddur
'Eizor Eliyohu, which omits it, since it was not in the original nusach
Ashkenaz) and 2) Al tira....(I am not certain if this addition was from
the Ar"i or from another source). A note in siddur Avodas Yisroel of Rav
Dr. Seligman Baer states that they were added according to sefer
'zichron tzion', on the basis of Midrash Esther which tells of Mordechai
hatzaddik meeting three youngsters, asking them to recite their psukim,
upon which each one recited one of the three pesukim. I say that they
are two distinct parts, as they are printed separately.
This, as well as the recent discussion about shir shel yom revi'i (and
perhaps that re Kabbolas Shabbos and Tehillas Hashem), when examined
together, shows the significant influence of the Ar"i and other
mekubbolim on the development of the siddur in the last few
centuries. Other examples of recitations added in this time frame al pi
kabbolo (based on Kabbolah), to many (but not all) siddurim, are 'berich
shemei...', a passage from the Zohar, before the Torah reading (not
recited by german Jewish congregations and some others, but recited by
numerous congregations), and 'mizmor shir chanukas habayis liDovid...'
before boruch sheomar...' (omitted by those who follow the original form
of nusach Ashkenaz - see e.g. siddurim Avodas Yisroel, Eizor Eliyohu) in
shacharis. Parenthetically, all the above cases involve
additions. Perhaps additions are easier to introduce than substitutions
or omissions - especially if they are first introduced as optional, for
the extra - pious, and just gradually, over time, filter down to the
masses.
I hope to soon see the work by Dr. Moshe Halamish (haKabbolah
bi-tefiloh, be-halocho uveminhog) mentioned by Yisrael Meidad in his
recent post, as I suspect that it may contain much to add to my
knowledge in this area.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 02:50:24 -0400
Subject: RE: Earth Revolving ARound Sun
Danny in mjv36n72 stated
>>>
In a letter to the Lubavitcher Rebbi, he was asked whether the sun goes
around the earth. He answered (I paraphrase) that in Quantum physics
there is a rule that anytime we see A going aroud B we MUST accept that
B also goes around A. Therefore only someone who is still stuck in
Newtonian Physics will not accept that the sun does indeed revolve
around the earth.
>>>>
The above quote of the Rebbe has elements of truth but requires some
clarification.
If ALL I see are two particles of equal mass moving about each other I
have no way of knowing that say A revolves around B vs B revolves around
A.
But there are two situations where it becomes meaningful to say that B
revolves around A and NOT vice versa.
If one of the objects, say A, is massively heavier than the other then
we SHOULD say B revolves around A. A simple case would be that I FALL
TOWARDS EARTH (You wouldnt say that the EARTH FALLS TOWARDS ME) The
reason for this is that the amount of motion made by A is miniscule
while B moves significantly.
A second situation occurs when there is one massive object, call it A,
and several smaller objects. In such a case all physicists would agree
to regard A as the primary reference frame. For example the 9 planets
revolve around the sun (It does not become useful to say that each
planet and sun revolve around each other). Similarly 6 billion people
live on the earth (You dont say that each person and earth revolve
around each other).
The Rebbes comments have relevance to very small perturbations in motion
(One of the triumphs of relativity theory was explaining these small
perturbations). But for dealing with the macro situation of the whole
system it definitely is preferred to say that the sun or earth is the
resting frame since they hardly move.
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:43:48 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Elokanu velokay
Here is a case of two minhagim merged into a new but perhaps incorrect
minhag. S. Himmelstein posted that there should be no differnce between
weekday and Shabbat on saying Elokanu velokay. On the other hand, in all
old Sefaradic mahzorim, Elokanu..resay na... does not appear at all.
Someone added it, and over the years almost all the new mahzorim printed
it. On one Hag on Shabbat the Shaliah Sibbur who used a reprinted old
mahzor did not say Elokanu, everyone "corrected" him, I assume that he
felt that he had a mistake in his mahzor, and of course no one would
listen to me when I explained that his mahzor is more correct than
theirs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <remt@...> (Elazar M. Teitz)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:48:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Melody for Chapter 3 of Eichah
I too grew up with the special tune to the third chapter, which my
father z"l always read, but the impression I have from conversations
with other ba'alei k'riah is that it is the exception, rather than the
rule.
As for Israel, the reason is simple: since Eichah is read from a
parchment, with the b'rachah of "al mikra m'gillah," the rules of
reading apply, and there should be no substitution of tunes other than
the ta'amim, as is the case with every other public reading. Indeed,
Rav Chaim Na'eh used to read it with ta'amim at night, but in the
morning (where it is read without a b'rachah, unlike the evening
reading, and often not from a parchment), he would read it with the tune
rather than the ta'amim.
On the topic of public demonstration of affection for one's spouse, the
story is related that the Netziv was in attendance at a wedding where
the bride and groom kissed publicly, whereupon the Netziv walked out.
When he was asked what aws wrong, since they *were* husband and wife, he
responded, " 'L'einei kol Yisrael' is the end of Torah."
Elazar M. Teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 01:08:58 -0400
Subject: Melody for Chapter 3 of Eichah
From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
<<Does anyone know of the origins of this special tune, and whether my
experience is typical or a statistical fluke?>>
I don't know if your experience or mine is a fluke, but as a
baal keria for nearly forty years, I've never heard of this tune.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 01:13:25 -0400
Subject: Modesty and the Ari's comments
From: <Chidekel@...> (Meir Shinnar)
<<Rather than being a plain issur, this has many qualifications:
1) It is a yesh omrin - not necessarily the psak>>
Yesh omrim in the Rema with no conflicting opinion is usually
halacha.
<<2) deeyn linhog one should not behave - is quite different than assur
linhog - it is forbidden to behave - it seems quite similar to the
Nimuke Yosef's version of a good advice>>
I don't agree with the diyuk.
<<3) Applies only if one has not yet fulfilled pru urvu (having
children)>>
Where'd you get this from?
<<is now understood as being clear psak affecting behavior that most of
us would not characterize as hiba yetera - great affection, such as
holding hands.>>
I said at the outset that I would not get involved in what is
considered appropriate or not and whether or not that depends on the
surrounding society. Suffice it to say that we should not stoop to
adapting the commonplaces of modern society as appropriate for our
behavior, even to the extent of what is considered undue chiba in
public.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Chidekel@...> (Meir Shinnar)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:40:51 EDT
Subject: Modesty and the Ari's comments
RGD responded to my post about modesty as follows
>Yesh omrim in the Rema with no conflicting opinion is usually halacha.
This is a controversy - see Sde Hemed volume 9 p. 169]
With regard to my issue that deeyn linhog - one should not behave -does not
mean that it is assur (forbidden) _ RGD disagrees with my reading. Let me
prove my point without going into the difference between deeyn linhog and
assur linhog (one should not behave and it is forbidden to behave) one goes
back to the Nimuke Yosef (the original source) his language is as follows
shaminam mehagada (sic) zu derech eretz sheeyno rauy linhog im ishto
bechayotze badvarim hallalu mipne acherim
We learn from this tale appropriate behavior that one should not behave
with his wife in these matters before others.
The Rema in Darche Moshe on the Tur (Even Haezer 21), brings down the
precise language of the Nimuke Yosef and refers to him - clearly the
Nimuke Yosef is explicitly the Rama's source.
Therefore, when he brings down language in the Mapa on the shulchan
aruch, yesh omrin deeyn linhog afilu im ishto - the yesh omrim is
clearly the Nimuke Yosef, and the question is whether there is a
substantial difference between deeyn linhog and deeyn rauy linhog - that
one should nt behave and that it is not proper to behave - I don't see
the substantial difference, and the Aruch Hashulchan also brings down
sheeyn rauy lehitnaheg - that it is not appropriate to behave - the
language of the Nimuke Yosef. While RGD might argue that the Aruch
Hashulchan disagrees with the Rema, it seems simpler to suppose that he
is merely explaining it.
lastly, his question about the fact that I said that the rema only
applied it after the couple had children, this was based on a probable
textual error in my edition of the rama - the case brought down was
leayen bereshe im yesh lo banim - to examine his head if he had children
- which I interpreted as a limitation. I think that this is most likely
a misprint, and it should read leayen bereshe im yesh lo kinim - examine
his head if he had lice - which is the prototypical example of intimate
behavior not to be done publicly - I wonder if others have better
printings where this change is actually found (I believe RE Turkel also
had the same reading as I, was puzzled, and then proposed the change in
the text)
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Neheneh Memelechas Akum
hmm, i thought this only applied when the only way a goy could
accomplish something he was contracted to do was on Shabos. example:
tellling a woker on Friday evening something has to be done by saturday
night.
Otherwise, going to a goy in a street and telling him that the TV volume
is on high but you can't turn it off becuase it is a holy day would be
forbidden to do.
In addition, many of the shtetl's in old Europe would have been michalel
Shabos since they had Shabos Goy to stoke the coals, etc. Not even old
Europe, I recall someone from Philadelphia who grew up there in '20s
telling about the Shabos Goy and the things done via him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elisha Kobre <kobre@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: power chair for shabbos
Hi,
I am a long time subscriber of mail-jewish and first just want to
express my appreciation to the listmanager and everyone for this
wonderful list.
I am a wheelchair user and some time back there was a discussion about
power (or electric) wheelchairs modified for use on shabbos. I
understand that this is done by an organization named Tzomet in
Israel. Does anyone have the contact info for this organization ?
Elisha Kobre
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Subject: Starting Devarim Sheni at Eicha
There is a minhag not to start the second aliya of parashat Devarim with
the verse beginning Eicha. Some Chumashim (eg Koren, ArtScroll) reflect
this by having Sheni marked at the previous pasuk. However, many others
do have Sheni marked at Eicha. I have heard that some Baale Kriya do
finish Rishon at the end of the pasuk before Eicha, but start Sheni by
repeating that pasuk. Is there a basis for that practice?
Mark Symons
Melbourne, Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 36 Issue 78
