Volume 48 Number 67
Produced: Mon Jun 27 5:22:02 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Breaks in Hoidu
[Perets Mett]
Brissed (was: Brit and Kippot)
[Mike Gerver]
Chillul Shabbos Minimization
[Mike Gerver]
Covering Torah with mantle
[Aaron Lerner]
Headgear for Bris
[Perets Mett]
Kiddush Levanah - Women (3)
[Eliezer Wenger, Perets Mett, Martin Stern]
Minyan and Sources
[Chana Luntz]
What the sha"tz says aloud
[Jack Gross]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:32:34 +0100
Subject: Breaks in Hoidu
Yisroel Medad wrote:
> For example, I grew up hearing that in the section of Shacharit
> beginning with Hodu lashem kir'u bishmo, the Chazan/Shatz would recite
> aloud from v'imru hoshi'ainu for two p'sukim, then again starting at
> hasehm tzvakot for three p'sukim and then the concluding two p'sukim
> but I'm in the minority and most just recite at the conclusion.
The widespread custom among chasidim is to break Hoidu as follows:
1) roimemu....
2) hashem hoshio...
3) yehi chadekho hashem ...
4) the last posuk....
(The first part of Hoidu until, but not including , roimemu is a single
passage from divrei hayomim. The rest is a collection of pesukim.)
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:01:38 EDT
Subject: Brissed (was: Brit and Kippot)
Yitzhok Jayson writes, in v48n63,
I have seen the practice of tying a kippa to the head of a baby
being brissed. Is anyone aware of the significance of this is
minhag, halacha or gemara?
I don't know the significance of this practice, but I think a "mazel tov"
is in order for giving birth to a new word, "brissed," which is evidently
the past participle of a new verb, "to bris." At least I've never seen it
used before. Have you (or anyone on this list) seen it used by someone
else? I'll have to keep it in mind the next time I play Scrabble...
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:49:59 EDT
Subject: Chillul Shabbos Minimization
David I. Cohen writes, in v48n63,
As an aside, Tzomet also developed a "shabbat pen" for MD's to use
for whatever writing they have to do on Shabbat. I am not sure of
the principle employed.
I believe it uses an ink which fades away in a day or two, so has to be
copied after Shabbat if a more permanent record is desired.
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Lerner <lerner@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:41:33 -0400
Subject: Covering Torah with mantle
It's been my experience when receiving an aliyah to the Torah that the
gabbai will remove the mantle that covers the Torah prior to my making
the first bracha, and then cover the Torah again when I finish making
the concluding bracha. Recently I have observed a gabbai who re-covers
the Torah immediately after the Torah reader concludes my portion (i.e.
before I have started saying the concluding bracha).
Is there any halachic preference regarding when to re-cover the Torah?
Aaron Lerner
Silver Spring, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:14:57 +0100
Subject: Headgear for Bris
Yitzhok Jayson wrote:
> I have seen the practice of tying a kippa to the head of a baby being
> brissed. Is anyone aware of the significance of this is minhag,
> halacha or gemara ?
I have known at least one mohel who would remove any headgear the baby
was wearing. He didn't want it falling off during the proceedings.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliezer Wenger <ewenger@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:14:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Kiddush Levanah - Women
Aliza Berger <alizadov@...> asked for sources < In many
communities, women do say it. Martin, please provide sources so we can
begin to discuss it on the list. I will provide sources when and if I
get any time.>
For starters, see Vol. 1 of Ha"Isha vwHamitzvos by Rabbi Elyokim
Ellinson ob"m pg 142 where he states that women do not say Kiddush
levono. When I get a chance, I will quote what he says and his sources,
unless someone else beats me to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:20:00 +0100
Subject: Kiddush Levanah - Women
Aliza Berger-Cooper, PhD wrote:
> Martin Stern indicated that women do not say it.
> In many communities, women do say it. Martin, please provide sources
Mogein Avrohom 426
PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:31:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Kiddush Levanah - Women
on 26/6/05 3:09 pm, Aliza Berger <alizadov@...> wrote:
> Martin Stern indicated that women do not say it.
Aliza has misquoted me. In m-j 48#57, I wrote:
>> Also, as far as I am aware, the custom based on kabbalistic reasons is that
>> women do not say it at all.
> In many communities, women do say it. Martin, please provide sources
> so we can begin to discuss it on the list. I will provide sources when
> and if I get any time.
I do not claim to be aware of every custom of every community. However
the source would appear to be the Shelah, sha'ar ha'otiyot, ot kuf where
he states (over 400 years ago) "we have never seen women perform this
mitsvah even those who are particular to say all the tephillot". He
posits a reason which will no doubt offend feminist sensibilities for
this avoidance which I therefore shall not quote but which anyone
interested can read for themselves. I believe there is a teshuvah in the
Minchat Yitschak, halachah lema'aseh, on this but I do not have access
to it - perhaps someone else can provide the information.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:32:29 +0100
Subject: Minyan and Sources
Mark Steiner <marksa@...> writes:
> A talmid hakham reminded me at a wedding last night that
>R. Moshe z"l referred to the story of the Spies (meraglim) to derive
>Halakhic conclusions about a subject of discussion on mail-jewish,
>namely the concept of a minyan--conclusions not previous noticed in the
>poskim. The law that we need a minyan of 10 for davar shebikdushah and
>for a tzibbur is derived from our parasha, Shlach, from the verse which
>calls the meraglim "`edah ra`ah," meaning the 10 spies, not counting
>Yehoshua and Kalev. R. Moshe points out that these 10 were not exactly
>tzaddikim, in fact they could be called heretics, and yet they still
>define kiddush hashem, meaning, that a davar shebikdusha can be
>performed BEFORE them. (If this is correct, you can count them for a
>minyan to say kedusha, kaddish, etc.--and this has nothing to do with
>the status of these people "today.")
I think you are missing a critical step in the analysis. There are two
questions at stake here:
A) can you count a rasha [evil doer] as part of a minyan (questionable);
and
B) can you count a non-Jew as part of a minyan (clearly not).
Rav Moshe uses the episode of the spies (in Iggeros Moshe Chelek aleph
siman 23) to permit A), the counting of evil doers as part of a minyan
(and it might be that many others would go along with that).
However, there is a further problem with people and their status today.
That is the fact that a mechallel shabbas b'farhesia [a public sabbath
violator] is specifically defined by the gemora and the Rambam and the
Shulchan Aruch and the Mishna Brura and the Aruch HaShulchan (and many,
many in between) as having the status of a non Jew, thus falling into
category B).
Now the straightforward reading of the teshuva might seem to suggest
that Rav Moshe is using the same technique to deal with category B vis a
vis minyan as he did with category A. That is, he goes to some lengths
to show that the spies could be considered to be koferim [heretics]
against Hashem, and that even if they did do teshuva later, this was not
at the time they were described as an "edah ra'ah" [evil congregation]
(see the follow-on teshuva in Iggeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek gimmel,
siman 14) So perhaps he could be said to be saying that really the
correct characterisation of the spies was as a mumar for idolatry and
since a mumar for idolatry is also described as having the status of a
non Jew, since in the case of the spies, despite their status they were
counted for the minyan, a public sabbath violator would also be counted
for a minyan.
The problem I have with this analysis is that, it seems to me, this
would mean that Rav Moshe is coming out against Tosphos in Hullin 14b,
the Ran in his chiddushim and others who hold that the first time, one
does not have the technical status of a mumar - See the various
discussions among the meforshim on this on Yoreh Deah siman 2 si'if 5,
eg in the Shach si'fi katan 17 and R' Akiva Eiger there). Since the
spies only had this one sin, one has to hold like those that during the
course of the very sin, one still gets the status of a non Jew (eg, the
first time that somebody shechts on shabbas in public, is that very
first shechita kosher or not - Tosphos says it is still kosher and the
person at that time is not a mumar, because at the time of that first
shechita, they do not yet have the status of public sabbath violator,
only after they finished, making only the next shechita treif. But one
would have to disagree with this to make our modern public sabbath
violator, who is a habitual violator, analogous with the spies).
I therefore think it more likely that the way Rav Moshe gets to take a
modern day public sabbath violator out of category B) and put them into
category A) is using the same analysis vis a vis minyan that he used
regarding other halachic areas where this comes up, as set out in
Iggeros Moshe, Orech Chaim, Chelek aleph, siman 33.
There he argues (in the second to last paragraph) against a public
sabbath violator today having the status of a non Jew, by focussing on
the difference between b'farhesia [in public] and in private. Why, he
asks, is it that somebody who violates the sabbath in public is
considered like a non Jew, and in private not (when from other areas of
halacha one would think that private behaviour should be worse than
public behaviour)? The answer he gives is that the reason why a sabbath
violator is considered like an idolator, is because he is doing an act
denying Hashem (relying on the Rashi in Chullin 5a). Now, in private,
unless the person states that in fact they are doing the act in order to
deny Hashem, we rest on their chezkas kashrus and do not presume it, ie
we presume they are doing it l'ta'avon {ie they are acting contrary to
halacha because their desires have overwhelmed them] However, in public,
it is not the individual's intention that matters, but how the public
will interpret it, and since traditionally the public would interpret it
to be a violation of Hashem, it did not matter what the person in fact
intended if he did it publicly.
However, he says, today, when it is well known that people generally
violate shabbas for monetary reasons or because their desires have
overwhelmed them, the modern public no longer interprets it as a denial
of Hashem, and hence a public sabbath desecrator is in no different
position from the violator of any other halacha. So it would only be
(as in the private case) that if the person made it clear he was doing
it in order to deny Hashem would such an act bring him within the
categorisation of a non Jew.
Now this second line of reasoning is in direct contradiction to the
position of the Aruch HaShulchan, who states emphatically that when it
comes to sabbath observance, it does not matter whether it is done
l'ta'avon or l'hachis, the status of the individual in question is still
that of a non Jew if done in public - a position that would have seemed
prima facie to be uncontroversial based on the sources.
But, as has been stated on this list before, Rav Moshe had no
compunction with disagreeing with the achronim like the Aruch Hashulchan
(and in fact earlier on in this teshuva in Orech Chaim chelek aleph
siman 33, he admits that the position taken further up is "against our
rabbis the achronim" [kneged daas rabotainu haachronim] and yet he has
no problem holding that that is the halacha).
Either way it is indeed an extraordinary interpretation. At least the
Aruch L'Ner's idea that the modern day non religious are like a tinuk
she'nishba [a child captured and who grew up amongst non Jews and hence
who does not know better] has a halachic history, even if it would
appear to never have been historically applied in such a generous way as
it is today. But Rav Moshe's positions do seem to be breathtakingly
original.
Shavuah tov
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:52:38 -0400
Subject: Re: What the sha"tz says aloud
Rav Henkin z"l wrote that among Bnei Ashkenaz, where the Sha"tz no
longer says the entire beracha aloud, he should at least recite the
minimal nusach of the beracha aloud so that "bdi'avad" the congregants
would be yotzei by listening to that portion. In other words, the shatz
remains responsible to say the bracha on behalf of congregants who need
that service, not just to keep them on the same page. (Note that there
are cases of safek (doubt) where the individual has no choice but to
listen to the shatz in order to fulfill his possible obligation.)
Accordingly, he wrote that in shacharis the shatz should say the pesicha
"Baruch ... es hakol" at the beginning of Yozter Or.
If memory serves, he also said that at the end of the bracha he should
start at least from "hamechadesh btuvo" (which is a declarative "me'ein
hachasima"), not just from "Or chadash" (which is an added
supplication); and similarly elsewhere in Shacharis and Arvis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 67
