Volume 47 Number 85
                    Produced: Tue May 10 23:05:54 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Ana B'cho'ach
         [Dov Teichman]
Be'safa ve'rura
         [Russell Levy]
Eliyahu haNavi
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Great divide in religious Zionism
         [Seth Kadish]
An interesting curiosity
         [Larry Israel]
Kaddish (2)
         [Martin Stern, Janice Gelb]
Kaddish Pronunciation
         [Orrin Tilevitz]
M 'avdut L herut
         [Evan Rock]
More Divorces on Sunday
         [Yisrael & Batya Medad]
Quinoa according to different organizations
siddur - biblical/mishnaic
         [Eli Turkel]
Taharat haMet ( purification of the dead - washing )
         [David Chasman]
Tzur Yisroel
         [Lawrence Myers]


From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:34:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Ana B'cho'ach

Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> writes:

<<Brian Wiener points out an error in the Artscroll siddur at Kabbalat
Shabbat in Ana BeChoach, in the second line,

>'kabel rinat, am'cha sag'venu,'. Quite clearly, the comma should be
>after am'cha; 'kabel rinat am'cha, sag'venu'

it would seem so but I recall very, very vaguely that the poem is to be
recited always in two-word groups for a Kabbalistic reason.  I will try
to check but maybe someone else heard that?>>

The source is the Arizal as recorded in Pri Etz Chaim, and this is
brought down in Shaarei Teshuva on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim Siman 48.
In the Artscroll itself it says, "The Kabbalists teach that it should be
divided into phrases of two words each, but our translation follows the
division indicated by a simple reading of the phrases.

Dov Teichman


From: Russell Levy <russlevy@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:56:23 -0400
Subject: Be'safa ve'rura

Ira Jacobson wrote:
>I understand that there is some qabbalistic reason for grouping the
>words in pairs [in ana b'koach], regardless of their apparent meaning.
>I have no source for this claim at the moment.

Just look at the footnote in ArtScroll for their justification of their
choice of word groupings. They say it doesn't make too much grammatical
sense, but it's the way the kabbalists say to do it. In the English
translation, they use normal punctuation.


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:03:35 +0300
Subject: Re: Eliyahu haNavi

Aryeh Frimer stated the following on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:07:09 +0200:

          However, the Gemara in Eruvin 43b makes it clear that,
      according to the view that there are Techumin above 10, Eliyahu
      cannot come on Shabbat or Yom Tov.

I always thought that the reason we sing Eliyahu Hanavi on Motza'ei
Shabbat is precisely because he could not have come on Shabbat, and now
he can.

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: Seth Kadish <skadish@...>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:01:50 +0200
Subject: Great divide in religious Zionism

Ben Katz wrote movingly about divisions: "I agree with Mr. Kadish's
analysis of the 2 camps, but disagree that they need to split. There are
enough divisions already in Judaism..."

What can I say? That's exactly how I felt *before* aliyah... :-)

Seth Kadish


From: Larry Israel <VSLARRY@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 05 15:18:47 +0300
Subject: Re: An interesting curiosity

Could not the person who bought "hazaq" be called up as an added person
(aharon) after the sixth person? Or is this not allowed on this special

>  I heard in a speech that shabbos that the Ohr Someach discusses a
>  question that was brought to him from a shul where the custom was to
>  auction off all the Shishis and all of the Chazaks for the upcoming
>  year to two people. That year, like this year, Pekudei's Shishi was
>  also Chazak. Who gets the aliya?


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:40:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish

on 28/4/05 11:31 am, Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> wrote:

> Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote:
>> I think that Nachum is incorrect. Daughters are not obliged to say
>> kaddish though, according to some opinions, they are permitted to do
>> so. If they were really obligated then they should come to shul three
>> times a day to do so just like sons, or at least once to fulfil the
>> minimal requirement. It is virtually unheard of for women to do this
>> so, if he were correct, almost all women are remiss in their duties,
>> something one should be hesitant to suggest.
> *ahem* Just as a data point, I said kaddish for my mother daily for 11
> months, missing only twice, both times because the shul I attended had
> problems.

Janice is obviously an exceptional woman, I doubt if there are many like
her; I certainly have not met any. However this does not in any way
contradict what I wrote previously that women who say kaddish regularly
do so voluntarily and not as an obligation and to suggest otherwise
would be a slur on the vast majority who do not do so.

Martin Stern

From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Kaddish

I did not suggest that it was an obligation. My response was to your
statement that "it is virtually unheard of for women to do this." Also,
thanks for the compliment but I am sure I am not the only woman who has
taken on this obligation due to the absence or disinterest of male

-- Janice


From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Kaddish Pronunciation

A couple of weeks ago someone said that he knew of no siddur that
punctuated the second paragraph of kaddish with a tzeire (e.g.,
yitbareich).  The siddur edited by A. Hyman Charlap, first published in
the U.S. about 90 years ago, and in wide use in Young Israel-type shuls
(at least pre Art-Scroll) in the original or pirated versions, has, for
selected kaddishim only, "yitbareich veyishtabach veyitpa'eir

Incidentally, in the Kol Bo machzorim originally published decades ago
by Hebrew Publishing Co. and in wide circulation, the second paragraph
after hotza'at hatorah reads "al hakol yitgadal veyitkadash veyishtabach
vetyitpa'eir veyitromeim"


From: Evan Rock <theevanrock@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: M 'avdut L herut

Some have argued that the expression "M'avdut L herut" is a strong hint
that Ha Qadosh Barukh Hoo prefers the consevative parties in Israel (
old Herut) over the left wing (old 'Avodah) and that national redemption
will be brought closer with society moving from Avodah to Herut!!!


From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:20:48 +0200
Subject: More Divorces on Sunday

Leah Gordon wrote:
>I strongly suspect that this is not unlike the way we get more mail on
>Mondays, and even more after a postal holiday.  Surely, all the mail
>[divorce cases] that would have piled up on the holiday, is pushed off
>to the next business day!

possibly.  but, of course, divorce files in Israel are not opened by
mail; one must come in personally.  if Rav Eliyahu is correct, then
something must have happened over Shabbat that caused the proverbial
"camel's back" to break, rather than midweek.  the difference is the
Shabbat and the potentiality for increased family friction.

Yisrael Medad


From: <larry@...> <larry@lennhoff.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:37:04 -0400
Subject: Quinoa according to different organizations

>From http://oukosher.org/index.php/passover/passover_faqs/
Is quinoa kosher for Passover? 

While Quinoa is not one of the five grains that can create Chametz (wheat,
oat, barley, spelt and rye); and Quinoa is not grown in the same vicinity
as the grains mentioned above, the processing of Quinoa is generally done
at the same location where they process wheat flour as well. It is highly
doubtful that they clean the mills effectively between grains. The concern
of wheat flour finding its way in the Quinoa flour would be a serious one. 

It is possible to prepare this product for Passover but we have not heard
as yet of any enterprising company doing so. 

>From http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/PAlerts/
The following Passover alert is from Chicago Rabbinical Council on April
17, 2005. 

In regard to quinoa, the brands that are acceptable for Pesach are
Ancient Harvest and Trader Joe's, both only with the "half moon
K". Other brands may be made in plants that also process chometz.

The following Passover alert is from Kosher Overseers and OK Laboratories
on April 6, 2005. 

Quinoa bearing the Kosher Overseers symbol is usable for Passover without
Passover designation. 
Quinoa bearing the OK symbol is produced in a chometz containing facilty.

The previous alert can be cited with the URL:

Finally http://kosherquest.org/index.asp?theaction=newproducts

Pesach 5765 April 19, 2005 
Quinoa is fine for Ashkenazim to use from a plant that only produces
quinoa. Ancient Harvest found at Whole Foods stores and Trader Joes quinoa
are both reliable certified by the Half Moon K. 

Moed Tov


From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:12:32 +0300
Subject: siddur - biblical/mishnaic

> the "rewriting" of the siddur was a systematic effort to replace what
> were viewed as corrupt Mishanic Hebrew formulations with the more
> pristine Biblical ones. >

Rav Soloveitchik has noted in a different context that the names of all
holidays in the tefillah are their Biblical names (chag ha-matzot) and
never their mishnaic names.  Thus in the tefillah "atzeret" is used with
regard to Shimin atzeret and not Shavuot as it is used in the gemara.

moadim le-simchah
Eli Turkel


From: David Chasman <chasman@...>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:35:14 -0400
Subject: Taharat haMet ( purification of the dead - washing )

Is anyone out there aware of any articles tracing the history of this
ritual ?


From: Lawrence Myers <lawrm@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:43:14 +0100
Subject: Re: Tzur Yisroel

From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
>Lawrence Myers <lawrence@...> wrote:
>> Could someone then please explain why, in the paragraph immediately
>> before the Shacharit Amidah, Tzur Yisroel, in the middle of a sentence
>> most siddurim have the word " chinoome'choh", which is a pausal
>> form. Only Singers AFAIK has the non pausal form "chinoomchoh".

> The new version of the C siddur "Sim Shalom" has "chinoom'chah".  I
> have yet to meet *anybody* who uses that pronunciation.

This is very interesting, since I have just discovered that the latest
edition of Singers has changed to "chinoome'choh".

      Shabbat Shalom
      Chag Sameach
      Lawrence Myers


End of Volume 47 Issue 85