Volume 47 Number 65
                    Produced: Wed Apr 13  7:16:50 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Additions / Changes during leap year davening (2)
         [Aharon Fischman, Nathan Lamm]
Correct the Reader
         [Menashe Elyashiv]
Developing Halacha
         [Carl Singer]
The Great Divide - further comment on
         [Miriam Weed]
Historical Truth
         [Nathan Lamm]
Kaddish (2)
         [Yisrael Medad, Nathan Lamm]
Multiple Megillah Readings
         [Carl Singer]
Name question
         [Gershon Dubin]
Tefillah b'tzibbur- any physical/medical limitations
         [Dr. Howard Berlin]
Tircha d'Tzibbur (2)
         [Ben Katz, Yisrael Medad]


From: Aharon Fischman <afischman@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:30:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Additions / Changes during leap year davening

Carl Singer <casinger@...> wrote
> During this morning's Rosh Chodesh Musaf the Art Scroll Siddur in the
> paragraph that begins --- Chadaysh Aleinu Ets HaChodesh Hazeh --- notes
> the addition of the phrase --- vLeChaprat Pasha --- during leap years.
> Any insights into this and other leap year modifications -- also, how
> universal are these?

Growing up in Elizabeth, i remember Rav P.M. Teitz told the minyan that
U'lechaparat Pasha should be said in a leap year up to and including
Adar II - after Adar II it need not be said since the leap year was now
over (Ha'Chodesh Ha'Zeh Rosh Chodshim)...

From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Additions / Changes during leap year davening

One question I had was, shouldn't "LeChaparat Pasha" be said for twelve
months? The siddur says Tishrei to Adar Bet only, or maybe Tishrei to
Tishrei. The latter makes more sense to me, but Nisan to Adar Bet makes
even more sense.


From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:01:10 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Correct the Reader

I read Megilat Esther at home for women. I state before the reading that
my wife or daughter is the sole correcter, and they do correct a few


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:11:15 -0400
Subject: Developing Halacha

Perhaps one needs to distinguish between changes in community / local
standards and developing halacha.  In a religious world united by nearly
instant communications yet separated by various cultural and historic
roots (AND without any single governing body / decision maker) things
change erratically and slowly.

It was noted that the first reaction to change is usually negative --
probably a good thing -- change should be a thoughtful process.

I'll avoid re-hashing the maykel / machmir discussions, but it seems
that machmir is the politically "safe" alternative.

While on this topic -- it was noted (and I don't recall the source) that
a local Rabbi should be well versed in the laws of Shabbos -- because,
obviously, on Shabbos he can't call to get a psak from his Rebbe.

Taking this one step further has anyone seen any discussions that
distinguish between "instant" situations and "thoughtful" ones.  That is
situations where one must in the moment decide what to do or not to do
[say, witnessing a car accident on Shabbos] vs. situations where one has
the opportunity to think, study, and / or ask [say, a non-emergent
medical decision.]

Carl Singer


From: Miriam Weed <miriam.w@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:01:00 +0200
Subject: RE: The Great Divide - further comment on

I am a new subscriber to mail-jewish, and I subscribed after reading
through a couple of the most recent volumes of archived material (in
fact, I've gone back to the beginning and am now up to Volume 10).  Just
to give a little background, I'm originally from Baltimore and have
lived in Israel for thirteen and a half years now.  My family and I
currently live in Ramat Beit Shemesh.

While several posters, including Shmuel Himelstein, have pretty much
summed up my feelings regarding the Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut issue, I do
have something to add.

Whether or not someone actually says Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut, especially
with a bracha, is not particularly important to me.  While I am
comfortable relying on the psakim of those who are in favor, I can
understand a purely halachik decision-making process that results in a
reluctance to institute the saying of Hallel.  What I have always had a
problem with is the attendant refusal to acknowledge gratitude to Hashem
for the creation of an opportunity to develop a Jewish government in
Eretz Yisrael for the first time in two millennium!  In fact, I believe
that this refusal to recognize this opportunity as positive has led to
the failure to assume responsibility for making the most of this
opportunity.  Just think where we could have been by now if all the
energy expended on fighting appreciation of the State of Israel had been
channeled into trying to deal with the halachik and hashkafic challenges
inherent in molding a political entity in the modern world.  While I
therefore feel that, even on its own terms, the Hareidi community has
missed a valuable opportunity (I, too, am horrified at what has been
done to tear people away from Torah by various government authorities at
certain points in Israeli history, but this is totally irrelevant to the
point I am making - if you want Israel to have a different character,
you have get involved), I agree with Shmuel that at least they have been

It is indeed true that some of the most vocal supporters of the State of
Israel have been living a lie.  I ought not to be completely surprised
by this fact, for I have long felt that the right wing (politically)
"national religious" leadership have also missed many opportunities to
shape this country and may have focused on narrow political issues to
the exclusion of innumerable pressing social/religious needs.  Most
notable is the fact that so many people from Eidot HaMizrach who by
nature could be aligned with the NRP wound up being affiliated with a
political party (Shas) that has more in common with the Ashkenazic
Hareidi worldview than with that of its constituents.  I do not think
that it is coincidental that the NRP's leadership includes strong
components of a population whose lifestyle and outlook is almost
identical with that of the Hareidi world except for it's policy on "the
Medina" [State of Israel].)  It seems that on the most basic level, the
only real different was that this group believed firmly that the
founding of the State of Israel was indeed the beginning of Mashiach and
that this was the only reason we should be grateful to Hashem for the
creation of the state.  Now that at least some parts of this group have
begun to doubt that we are on an express train to Mashiach, they have
decided that they erred all these years in expressing gratitude for
Israel; sorry, Hashem, we made a mistake, we don't want a state anymore.

The bottom line is, that I am increasingly concerned by the fact that
everyone seems to know what Hashem wants.  This is not the same as
knowing what we ought to do; that's what the halachic process is all
about.  But there seems to be an increasing reluctance to admit that
some things may be muttar (permitted), that is, neither forbidden nor
mandatory.  This ties in with some old discussions as to whether there
are areas that are outside of halacha.  Well, surprise, surprise, I
think both sides of the argument are correct.  While Torah/halacha has
something to say about everything, that doesn't mean it always tells us
what to do.  Think about it for a while.

I hope to hear from you all soon.

Miriam Weed


From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Historical Truth

It should be pointed out that R. Schwab's essay (in one of his collected
writings volumes) does not deal with the 70-year "Babylonian exile"-
secular historians are in agreement that that's pretty much how long it
lasted. Rather, he deals with the Persian period as a whole: Did it
begin in c.380 or 535 BCE?  The latter is accepted history; the former
is what Chazal say based on admitteduly ambiguous pesukim in Daniel
(unlike the 70 years of exile, which are explicit in Nevi'im).


From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:13:57 +0200
Subject: Kaddish

Let me attempt once again to summarize my approach to the question of
Kaddish as it evolved from the original posting.

The Kaddish, I think, was originally intended to serve as a prayer in
which a certain congregational climax was achieved - mass participation
in affirming God's benevolence, kindness, etc. through faith.

thus, it was selected to serve for orphans, primarily under-aged, as the
most appropriate prayer for them to say with full joining in by the

But now, over maybe 1800 years or so, it has gained the status of a "din
through minhag" (my formulation) and, as my thinking goes, its
recitation takes primacy over a davening which could cause trouble for
the congregation.

Yisrael Medad

From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Kaddish

Martin Stern writes:

"As far as I am aware the obligation of saying kaddish only applies to
sons of the deceased and, if he leaves no sons, there is no obligation
for anyone to say kaddish...As the sifrei halachah put it good deeds,
which are also available to daughters..."

Without disputing Mr. Stern's overall point in the slightest, it should
be pointed out that there is a well-established tradition, at least
among Lithuanian Ashkenazim, of kaddish (with a minyan) being
"available" and perhaps even mandatory for daughters as well.

Nachum Lamm


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:46:51 -0400
Subject: Multiple Megillah Readings

Not cultural, but practical -- with very young children, etc., multiple
readings allow the wife and husband who choose to do so to alternate
child care responsibilities so each can attend a reading.  When each
reading is accompanied by davening then there's nothing that dictates
that the men go to the first one / the women to the second.

As an aside -- in every community that I've lived in arrangements have
been made for private readings for those who are homebound.

Carl Singer


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:15:43 GMT
Subject: Name question

Does anyone know the origin of the name "Pessel" or Pessie?  Sources
would be appreciated as well; cracks about idols will be politely



From: Dr. Howard Berlin <w3hb@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Tefillah b'tzibbur- any physical/medical limitations

Are there any physical or medical limitations that would prohibit
someone from being a tefillah b'tzibbur for mincha/maariv services?

For example, I understand that it is customary to offer one who has a
yahrzeit the honor of Tefillah b'tzibbur. Suppose that person has a
physical/medical limitation that prevents him from standing for most the
entire service (or requires a wheelchair) and he normally davens
sitting. Is there any prohibition such that this person cannot act as a
tefillah b'tzibbur? If so, what is the source?

Dr. Howard M. Berlin, W3HB


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:21:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Tircha d'Tzibbur

>From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
>2 - One statement made was that the chiuv is only to say Kaddish -- I
>thought there is a precedence re: davening for the amud and that one
>could assert their "status."

         I believe the chiyuv to daven came from a time when ONLY the
chazan said the kaddish.  then it made sense to prioritize who was going
to be the chazan.  as someone who just finished saying kaddish,
unfortunately, i can tell you that it is not only a tircha detziburah,
but a tircha deyachid, since I did not necessarily wish to daven so
often, and felt I was "hogging" the spotlight for no good reason, when
there were others who wished to daven and could undoubtedly do at least
as good a job.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>

From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:33:57 +0200
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbur

Martin Stern responds and asks:

> Why should they [the Rabbi and the Gabbai] be in dispute?

they need not be.  all I noted was the quality of boldness.  Sometimes
it is a personal trait, not power or knowledge that overcomes such a
problem as a person who can't recognize the damage he is doing to the
minyan, in the case before us.  To fix things up in a schule dispute,
sometimes the Rav can be too strict or the Gabbai doesn't carry enough

> This is manifestly incorrect. The main chiyuv is to be sheliach tsibbur

again, I have no Smicha so all I can say is that I would think that
today, in terms of "din", if an Avel can't daven, he should at least say
Kaddish.  if davening would be a Chiyuv rather than as custom, and he
can't daven as Shaliach Tzibbur then what is his status - a "minus"
mitzva or neutral?  What is to be preferred - a Kaddish or a lousy

Yisrael Medad


End of Volume 47 Issue 65