Volume 47 Number 86
Produced: Wed May 11 21:28:46 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Developing Halacha
[David I. Cohen]
do no harm
[Tzvi Stein]
Karaites and Purim
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Pesach preparations
[Tzvi Stein]
Pronunciation / Siddurs
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Second day Yom Tov
[Harry Weiss]
Several comments
[Lipman Phillip Minden]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:46:36 -0400
Subject: Developing Halacha
To continue my exchange with Bernie Raab:
He wrote:
>"I don't know why some respondents insist on attributing a political
>"agenda" to what I perceive to be an intellectual/historical discussion.
>OK, I will confess my *agenda* here: I was prompted to begin this
>discussion by the suggestion that was made on these pages that some may
>regard going to a ball game forbidden by halacha (chas v'shalom). Now
>this was serious. I merely pointed out that such matter's can be
>influenced or controlled by public behavior...and it took off from
>there. To continue:"
And if all the Poskim ruled that it was indeed forbidden to go to ball
games, I assume that those who follow the halachic system would stop
doing so. Certainly, in looking at the situation, any thorough Posek
would look at the activity and the fact that many God fearing Jews did
not at first blush percieve a problem with that activity ( i.e. any
issur involved was not obvious). If that is what you are alluding to,
then we agree. And if you are saying that Poskim do look for heterim in
some circumstances ( and do look at the target audience of the psak)
that too is within the frabric of the halachic decision process. But if
you are saying, that Poskim bend the halacha to fit into what people are
already doing, then I think you are going too far.
Bernie then wrote in regards to the specifics of 1 vs. 2 days of YT in
Israel:
> "David asks a few questions. I will attempt to answer, IMHO:
> * What has changed? I think a big part of the answer is that many of us
>have family in Israel with whom we stay on Y"T, rather than in
>hotels. When your son/daughter eats chametz and goes to work on the 8th
>day of Pesach, you start to ask: Isn't there another way? Shouldn't I
>be putting on t'fillin? That's when the Rav's psak of "day-and-a-half"
>was suddenly discovered.
>
> * Are more poskim now changing their opinions? You bet they are. Or
>perhaps a new generation of poskim just sees things differently. At the
>time of our first trip to Israel, 99% (not a "fact", just my impression)
>of American rabbis were paskening as our rabbi did. Today, I suspect
>the number is closer to 50%. Are they "bending to the wind"? Which
>trees survive?
>
> * ...are the students of Rav Soleveitchik no longer holding his
>so-called "day and a half" rule? See above."
When I was a student in Israel (1969) I received a psak that since I
would be there for a whole cycle of the regalim (holidays) and that I
did not have a ticket to return to the States, I should keep 1 day. By
the time Shavuot came and I had purchased a ticket back to the States, I
was told to keep 2 days. So even 35+ years ago, the issue was not so
black and white. The halacha does evolve as more and more poskim weigh
in on an issue and over time a consensus develops (was the Chacham Tzvi
ahead of his time? Only time will tell.) That's exactly what happenned
with the Rashi vs. R. Tam tefillin controversy that eventually was
resolved. that is the halachic process. But to say that the halacha
will be decided by the pressure of people wanting to only keep one day,
is to demean the process. And that's where we part company.
(And thank you for the discussion --it has helped clarify my thinking on
this topic)
Have a wonderful Shabbat and Yom Tov
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 02:31:34 -0400
Subject: Re: do no harm
>> In medicine, I will not always tell a distraught mother that
>> she gave a disease to her baby, even if it is true; certainly not
>> right away.
> Any doctor who decides for himself in this way what information to
> reveal to, and what information to conceal from, his employers, is [in
> the author opinion] unfit to practice medicine, plain and simple, and
> should hand in his license, or have it taken from him.
Well, you may be surprised to hear this, but witholding information from
patients is extremely common and accepted practice, especially with
elderly patients. It would be an interesting question if this practice
is halachically valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:39:16 +0200
Subject: Karaites and Purim
Some time ago, there was a discussion about the Karaites and Purim.
Since then I found, at
http://groups.msn.com/KaraiteJudaismDefended/messages.msnw that they do
observe Purim, but always in Adar I.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 02:28:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Pesach preparations
> From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
> In reviewing the rules for Pesach preparation this year, the following
> questions occurred to me (to which I don't know the answer):
> 1. Regarding all of the things that are done on Shabbat morning up
> until the time for eating chametz -- cleaning up, disposing of the last
> crumbs of chametz and the statement of biur chametz -- why aren't they
> forbidden as preparation on Shabbat for the next day?
You are not preparing for the next day... you are preparing for the
period of time when chometz is assur, which is later that very same day
(Shabbat).
> 2. One of the recommended ways to dispose of the last crumbs of chametz
> eaten on Shabbat is to flush them down the toilet. In an place where
> there is no eruv, why is that not considered hotza'ah? (For that
> matter, the same question exists on every Shabbat for flushing the
> toilet or even just for running water which goes down the drain.)
Hotaz'ah requires taking from a private domain to a public doman (or
vice versa). The underground pipe is not a public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:30:10 +0300
Subject: Re: Pronunciation / Siddurs
Regarding the vocalization of the Qaddish, at 12:38 20-04-05 +0300, I
stated the following:
This MB 56:2 is based on the Gra's contention in Ma`ase Rav that
these words are Hebrew, which he bases on "vehisgadilti
vehisqadishti," in Ezekiel 38:23.
It has been pointed out to me privately that this was not accurate. The
Mishna Berura's basis for the pronunciation of the first two words in
qaddish was not attributed to the Gra. Rather, Sha`ar Hatziyyun cites
the Pri Megadim and not the Ma`aseh Rav.
A bit of research shows that the Pri Megadim cites R"Z Henau as the
source of this vocalization.
R"Z Henau's Sha`arei Tefila (1725, Yesnitz), paragraph 213, states that
"tisgadeil" is the Hebrew form (relating to elsewhere in the prayers),
while his hagahot (Hagahot RZ"H) in his Siddur Bet Tefila, note 34,
states that the dalet and the resh in yisgadal veyisqadash are vocalized
with tzere.
Nowhere does the Mishna Berura, the Pri Megadim or R"Z Henau connect
this with "vehisgadilti vehisqadishti." Rather, that seems to have been
the Gra's innovation.
Regarding RZ"H's comment that "tisgadeil" is the correct Hebrew form
rather than "tisgadal," that is inaccurate; both forms are correct.
Note that he makes no reference to whether his conception of correctness
refers to Biblical, Mishnaic or later Hebrew.
I leave it to the interested reader to determine whether the Pri
Megadim, who was an approximate contemporary of the Gra, was aware of
the Gra's derivation.
While I acknowledge my error of attribution, I believe that the rest of
my comments are valid.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 21:28:04 -0700
Subject: Second day Yom Tov
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
>>Rav Dov Lior . . . told me that "mei-ikar hadin" the halacha is like
>>the Hacham Zvi, (that the obligation of 1 or 2 days YomTov depends on
>>where you are now, not where you came from). . . . Because "some
>>achronim differ" (in Rav Lior's words) he recommends not doing de'oraita
>>prohibitions on the ostensible 2nd day YT. He was emphatic that no one
>>should daven in Israel a YT davening on the second day."
>Then may we assume that he would be equally emphatic that no one outside
>of Israel should daven a weekday davening on the second day? If not,
>what's the difference?
The Place I was this Pesach had Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet as scholar in
residence. He said he was told the above Psak by Rav YB Soleveitchik
and that is what he followed. I saw him daven the Yom Tov davening on
the second day (inlcuding Mussaf on the 8th day). He did say he made
concession which was putting on tefflilin on the 8th day saying that if
it was Yom Tov that it was just an ornament and if no if was for the
Mitzvah of tefillin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lipman Phillip Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:09:01 +0200
Subject: Several comments
Dear list members,
gut moued!
I'm in the middle of reading a revovo of e-mails after moving and
struggling with ADSL, so please excuse the brevity in some of the
following remarks - there are not meant to be apodictical.
1) R' Schwab
R' Schwab was a German Jew, not even from Eastern Germany or Hungary,
and to a certain degree represented TIDE, but he learned in Eastern
yeshives and, in my impression, was very much influenced by the then
still emerging modern (chareidi) thinking.
History and truth: The alternative to doctoring on the one hand and
loshen hore on the other is not to engage in the field at all. Who is
forcing you to either slander or falsify? (But may I add that I'm
finishing a book in Jewish history at the moment?)
2) geshem vs. gashem/goshem
To my own astonishment, some Mishna MSS have more pausal forms than one
would presume. (And less forms of former pausal forms in context such as
nilchOmu for nilchemu.)
Ha-aretz is not a question of pausal vs. context form, though related;
it is rather dependent on the article. BTW, Biblicisers invented sho-ato
for she-ato.
Brain Wiener is right: If the version isn't un-imo, but uvin-imo with
the preposition "be" (in this case -v-), we have a noun. This doesn't
decide the following word or phrase, though.
Another important thing is to realise that R' Shabse Sofer was a very
learned man, but he wasn't free of grammatical ideology and innovated a
lot of things according to his understanding of language and its
history.
I mentioned this in another place - not only "chasidim" were or are
against Satanov, a talmid of the Gr"o called him "ousou roshe
ve-epikoures miSatanov".
Penultimate stress: Not only prof. Bar-Asher holds thus but also other
leading linguists, though there are others who disagree. A supporting
factor is that not few Mizrachi communities pronounce whole classes of
words like that (e. g. Iraq: shOmrim etc.) As with many questions of
loshen koudesh, loshen chachomim and Ivrit, this is a very touchy issue,
and difficult to discuss objectively with many people (not here,
luckily).
3) Kaddish yosem
The traditional "ovel parts" - kaddish, oring (davening) before the omed
either all or from lamenatzeiach on, and the second kaddish uborchu -
all are on the level of minneg, beyond this there is no chiyev. There
are many recent changes in Minneg Polen, such as the introduction of
psukem at the end of Oleine, Shir hayiched and Shir hakoved, or Mizmor
shir lachanukas habayis - all exclusively for Kaddish -, as well as
kaddish after korbones. (Shir shel yom is a bit older, instead of the
daily part of Sefer Tillem, but the kaddish afterwards is more recent.)
I think the three kapitels Tillem after Maarev also belong in this. The
latest innovation, against which even Eastern European poskim spoke, was
that several aveilem say kaddish at the same time (and I should put "at
the same time" in quotation marks...) Also it seems to me that in the
Eastern minneg, aveilim may ore before the omed on days when no tachnun
is said. (The opposite extreme is Minneg Worms where tachnun is already
said right after Iserchag shel Pesach still in Nisen, but the ovel isn't
admitted to the omed until Iyer, IIRC.)
4) Kaddish - yisgadal or yisgadeil
The question if the first words of Kaddish are Aramaic or Hebrew is
irrelevant. Yisgadal veyiskadash is identical in Aramaic and Hebrew (l.
chachomim), only Biblical Hebrew has yisgadeil. Couldn't find Kaddish in
my Tenach.
5) "chinumecho" in Tzur yisro-eil
Lawrence Myers asked:
> 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 correct form is kenou-amoch, anyway, but answers might be:
a) Gou-aleinu starts a new sentence, so the pausal form is justifiable.
b) Those who introduced the pausal (and Biblical) form hadn't yet
introduced the Gou-aleinu phrase, which appears in the Eastern minneg
(and mediaeval France), but not in the West, where the broche continues
with the chasime (boruch ato...) (This answer is not very probable.)
KT,
Lipman Phillip Minden
[From second email. Mod.]
I just realised that what I wrote (late) last night in point 5b didn't
make much sense. One would have to assess a caesurea before "yehudo
veyisro-eil". The change from traditional "kenou-amoch" to "chin-umecho"
instead of "chin-umcho" might have been an over-Biblicisation,
overshooting the mark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 86
