Volume 45 Number 03
Produced: Mon Sep 27 23:42:48 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aleinu after Mincha
[Martin Stern]
Blessing on a Hurricane
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
[I. Balbin]
Coffee
[I. Balbin]
Dairy Bread
[Andrew Marks]
Glassware
[Carl Singer]
High Holiday Services
[Ben Z. Katz]
Immanence and Transcendence
[Naomi Graetz]
Kiddush Customs
[Bill Bernstein]
New Chumra?
[David Ziants]
Regarding the Madonna Discussion
[Janice Gelb]
Third Person (2)
[Ben Z. Katz, Joseph Tabory]
Yemenite customs- No repetition of Amida
[Mike Gerver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:41:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Aleinu after Mincha
on 27/9/04 1:09 am, Lawrence Myers <lawrence@...> wrote:
> I think this was the original practice of the United Synagogue in
> London UK. I believe the early editions of the Singers Siddur and all
> editions of the Routledge Machzor omit Aleynu after Mincha.
For purposes of Ashkenazi Jewish custom, England was, like the Hungarian
Oberland, Denmark etc., essentially an extension of that of North and
East Germany as stated in the foundation document of the London Great
Synagogue Similarly, Holland, Alsace, Switzerland and North Italy
etc. were 'branches' of that of South and West Germany.
In my shul which does not have a break on Yom Kippur we do not say
aleinu at all until after Ma'ariv on Motsa'ei YK. Is this also the case
in other English shuls?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:03:36 GMT
Subject: RE: Blessing on a Hurricane
Several halachic points are raised by Medads posting v44n99 on the
blessing for a hurricane.
First of all if the person blessing has sustained damage he might have
to make up to 3 blessings: a) Whose might fills the world (Over the
hurricane); b) Blessed be God the True Judge (in case the person has
sustained damage); (c) Who has made for me a miracle in this place (If
(s)he survived a direct hit).
Second: I question whether under ANY circumstances we should make WHO
CREATES THE WONDERS OF CREATION on hurricanes.
A revu of situations clearly shows that CREATES THE WONDERS OF CREATION
are said on SIGHTS such as great oceans, mountains etc By contrast the
sister blessing WHOSE MIGHT FILLS THE WORLD is stated on manifestations
of ENERGY such as earthquakes, falling meteors, lightning. Considering
the fact that the power of a hurricane surpasses the power of an atomic
bomb I cant imagine any circumstance under we would say anything other
than WHOSE MIGHT FILLS THE WORLD.
I didn't lookup all the sources in Medad's posting...but if indeed there
are sources to the contrary I think it would be proper-- prior to
following them--to inquire how these sources deal with the two blessinbs
WHO CREATES THE WONDERS OF CREATION vs WHOSE MIGHT FILLS THE WORLD.
Russell Jay Hendel;http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:34:29 +1000
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
> From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the problem of tikroves avoda
> zara.
> I once had a Hindu colleague who told me that both her mother and her
> mother-in-law, whenever they cooked, took a bit out of the food and
> offered it to the gods.
I do not have any understanding why this would ever be considered
a problem of Tikroves.
Even if we assume that they take the bit out and give it directly to the
getchke in their living room, what does this have to do with the rest of
the food?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:34:29 +1000
Subject: Re: Coffee
> From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
>> From: David Prins <prins@...>
>> Do not use a coffee machine; non-kosher hot drinks found in the same
>> machine probably go down the same pipe.
>
> I assume he means a coffee machine which does indeed serve other
> beverages. Many coffee machines serve only coffee.
If they use ground coffee, how do you account for the Kashrus of the
ground coffee.
Apparently, some establishments grind coffee using the same equipment as
for non kosher (flavoured ground coffee).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Marks <machmir@...>
Subject: Re: Dairy Bread
> From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
> 6. Those who wish to be machmir by refarining from eating dairy bread
> -- tavo aleihem b'racha; those who do buy and eat dairy bread for
> the reason(s) stated above -- yesh al mi lismoch.
With all due respect, without a major posek poskening that [the marking
on the wrapper is sufficient to permit <Mod>] dairy bread as an option,
I'm not sure that one has al mi lismoch in the face of a g'zeras
chochomim.
Avrohom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:29:52 -0400
Subject: Glassware
> I don't think that it had to do with expense.
The kosher nursing / rehab home in Cleveland used (one set of) glassware
[this was about 45 years ago as I recall] I believe a primary reason was
simplicity and the reduction of possible kashruth errors -- both by the
nursing home staff and by the various residents.
I imagine today that paper or plastic disposable plates and flatware
accomplish a similar objectives.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Subject: Re: High Holiday Services
>BTW, in the pizmon (daily hymn with a refrain) Horeita derech t'shuva on
>Tzom Gedalia I noticed a reference to Ahab having done t'shuva. Does
>anyone know if this is referred to in tanach? If not, what is the
>source?
>Mark Symons
of course it is not in tanach
in goldschmidt's edition of the selichot he gives the ref. as pirkay
derabi eliezer 43
BTW there are also references in piyutim to angel's names and midrashim
not otherwise known - presumably from lost collections of midrashim
kol tuv
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <graetz@...> (Naomi Graetz)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:19:17 +0530
Subject: Immanence and Transcendence
I agree with Bernard Katz who writes that the switch between second and
third person "was intentional, i.e., that the authors who first
formulated these blessings (the men of the Great Assembly) knew exactly
what they were doing, and that their aim was to emphasize an important
theological point: the use of the second person underscores God's
immanence while the use of the third person His transcendence.
I would like to relate to the High Holiday prayer (piyyut) anu amecha
(we are your people) from the Yom Kippur Makhzor where we use atta (the
second person singular). In modern day usage atta implies a sense of
closeness and even familiarity. There is also the Buberian I-Thou sense
of the word, that is an ongoing dialogue between friends: God is close
to me and thus is addressed as atta, Thou. One could argue that atta is
transcendent, but then we are stuck in a perpetual state of
inequality. But the implied meaning of atta, which can convey the
mystical consciousness of God's presence, is that of addressing God as
if God is standing before us. The rabbis connected the habit of
beginning a blessing with "baruch atta adonai..." Blessed are you, Lord,
with the verse "I am ever mindful of being in the Lord's Presence."
(Ps. 16:8). The very incantatory structure built on the repetition of
annu/atta (we/you) can be understood as giving richer and deeper
consciousness each time it is repeated. The climax in the last verse of
the piyyut is the mutual pledging of covenant and closeness between God
and man: "We are pledged to You and You are pledged to us." It is
important to keep this idea of atta in order to achieve this sense of
reciprocity.
Moreover, as some modern Jewish theologians have pointed out, it is
precisely the atta which expresses God's immanence. Though God is
transcendental, our worship makes God immanent. God's immanence depends
on us. If there is no God to be addressed in the atta form, prayer will
not make sense. God is both transcendent and immanent. If God were only
transcendent, we would indeed have no relationship with God except as
God's subjects. If God were only immanent we might as well worship
Nature. It is the tension and constant give and take of the two which
account for the moving nature of the classic Hebrew liturgy.
Naomi Graetz, author of Unlocking the Garden: A Feminist Jewish Look at
the Bible, Midrash and God (Gorgias Press, forthcoming, 2005).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <billbernstein@...> (Bill Bernstein)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:41:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Kiddush Customs
<<Those with the opposite custom might see it as a chovah for one person
to make kiddush for the whole assembly because of 'berov am hadrat
Melekh" and therefore consider the alternative as assur (prohibited)
because of a possible berakhah levatalah.>>
Someone who is willing to view his host's actions as "assur" probably
has no business eating out at other people's homes.
I find the whole discussion funny in one way and sad in another. People
come to my house or I go to theirs and I am well aware of different
minhagim and their reasons. I am perfectly willing to accomodate just
about any of them. I would expect the same, more or less, of my host.
I certainly would not expect that my minhag will be labeled "assur." It
is a sad state when we have come to where our social relations require
piskei halakha.
Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:47:52 +0200
Subject: New Chumra?
Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> asked concerning a packet of
Shabbat toilet paper (tissue), made in Israel, that is marked that it is
from a Shomer Shabbat company, and that has Shabbat spelled out Shin,
Dash, Bet, Dash, Tav. <<<<< I know that the dash is sometimes used
between the letters Alef and Lammed to avoid spelling out God's name,
but can anyone give me a logical reason for the dash in the word
"Shabbat" above? >>>>>
I am afraid that I cannot answer this question definitely, but have a
suggestion which creates a paradox.
It should be noted that the place one comes across these packets is
often in the lavatory (Americans call bathroom).
Suggestion:
If Shabbat were spelt in full, one would be stating a halacha in full
text that a factory ought to be shomer shabbat, or alternatively one
ought to not use products that come from a factory that is not shomer
shabbat. Stating halachot in the lavatory, as we know, is forbidden. By
putting the dash, one is alleviating this issur (forbidden act). Maybe
the dash is to remind us not to think about this, there.
Paradox:
By putting the dash, are we not putting a temptation to us who think
about halacha, to think about issues like this in the wrong place?
David Ziants
<dziants@...>
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Regarding the Madonna Discussion
[I usually do not pass on jokes, links etc to the list, but i really
liked this one, so I'm bending my rule. Avi]
Thought y'all might enjoy this cartoon:
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040923/greenberg21.gif
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:11:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Third Person
In Biblical grammar, there are switches from 2nd to 3rd person all the
time. i do not believe they are all of theological consequence; it is
characteristic of Biblical narrative. perhaps chazal were consciously
or unconscoiusly imitating biblical style when they formulated the
pattern for berachot.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:38:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Third Person
Actually, the construction of the blessing is not such a grammatic
anomaly. This type of statement ("you, who has"; "has" is third person)
appears a number of types in the Bible. One of the most well known is
'roni, akarah, lo yaladah" (instead of "lo yaladt"). This point has been
made in a Hebrew grammar book by Yizchak Perez.
Scholars have suggested that the blessing formula may be historically
explained as a desire of the Rabbis to inject an I-You relationship into
the biblical form of blessing. Except for two cases of second person
blessings in the Bible (one in Tehillim and one in Divrey hayamim), the
biblical form is always "baruch hashem asher...". both the biblical and
the rabbinic form appear in blessings found in Qumran (including
consistent second person blessings).
Joseph Tabory
Jerusalem,95404
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:28:20 EDT
Subject: Yemenite customs- No repetition of Amida
Ira Jacobson writes, in v44n99,
I belive it is a Baladi custom for all weekday minha prayers. Or
so it seems, since I have seen this on a mid-day minha in a Baladi
synagogue.
This gives rise to an interesting phenomenon at workplace mincha
minyanim in Israel (which is where most Israelis daven mincha, certainly
during the winter). These minyanim typically include about equal numbers
of Ashkenazim who mostly daven nusach sephard, and people who daven
eidut mizrach (including nusach Baladi). And, to avoid wasting their
employers' time, the Ashkenazim typically daven with a hekeh kedushah,
i.e. the shliach tzibur starts the shmoneh esreh out loud, everyone says
kedushah together, and then the shliach tzibbur continues silently with
"atah chonen..." while the rest of the tzibur begins the shmoneh esreh
silently from the beginning. But I have noticed that those who daven
eidut mizrach (judging by which siddur they are using) will start
davening silently together with the shliach tzibbur when he begins the
shmoneh esreh, and continue silently with "atah chonen..." after the
kedushah. In other words, they interpret the Ashkenazi hekeh kedushah as
a Baladi skipping of the repetition of the shmoneh esreh! At least I
think that's what's going on. Maybe someone can offer another
explanation.
By the way, I recently davened at a workplace mincha minyan at the
Ministry of Justice (where I was taking the patent bar exam), and
noticed that, unlike most mincha minyanim at private companies, people
there took their time and davened a full mincha with a repetition of the
shmoneh esreh. Perhaps in a civil service position, there is less of a
halachic concern about wasting the employer's time. Maybe there is a
halachic presumption that the employer, i.e. the Israel public, is
mochel them to daven a full mincha.
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 3
