Volume 48 Number 79
Produced: Fri Jul 1 5:12:26 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Early Maariv on Yomtov
[Perets Mett]
Kiddush Levanah - Women (2)
[Shayna Kravetz, Martin Stern]
Maariv and Shavuot (2)
[Akiva Miller, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:18:19 +0100
Subject: Early Maariv on Yomtov
Orrin Tilevitz wrote:
> Also, if saying shehecheyanu ("lazman hazeh") early is a problem with
> making kiddush on yom tov early, then it would extend to making
> kiddush early on Friday night erev Rosh Hashana or Shemini Atzeret (if
> one eats in the sukkah); but as I recall, shemirat shabbat kehilchato
> does not list these as days when one may not make kiddush early.
I am puzzled how one can make kiddush before nakht on Shmini Atseres,
even if you eat in the sukka. (Irrespective of the issue with
shehecheyonu)
Surely if it is not yet nakht, there is an obligation to say
"...leisheiv basuko" before eating.. On the other one can hardly add
"...leisheiv basuko" to the kiddush of Shmini Atseres!
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:25:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Kiddush Levanah - Women
In explaining why he believes women do not say Kiddush Levanah, Martin
Stern <md.stern@...> wrote on 26 Jun 2005:
>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.
I confess that I'm a bit surprised that no one on this lively list
responded to the earlier part of this post.
If, in fact, the ShLa"H's opinion on this issue "will no doubt offend
feminist sensibilities", that is no reason for not quoting it here or
anywhere, in my opinion. We're all grown-ups here and, if the ShLa"H
said something that challenges what Martin perceives as feminist
sensibilities, we can handle it. Burying a source is /never/ helpful
for any reasoned discourse. Put it on the table and deal with it.
To turn to the substantial issue: Ot Quf in the ShLa"H's Sha'ar HaOtiyot
(Gate of Letters -- i.e., an alphabetical list of topics) concerns
itself with q:dushah (sanctity). In this lengthy section, the ShLa"H
discusses various mitzvot associated with various parts of the body and
considers kiddush levanah, which he associates with the mouth, the eyes,
and the feet. He writes (my translation, using the colon to substitute
for a shva in transliterations):
<< In the future, the moon's flaw {p:gam} will depart and the light of
the moon will be like the light of the sun and then the Great Name will
be enlarged and sanctified [yitgadal v:yitkadash shmei raba, etc.]...It
seems to me that [it is] for this reason women distance themselves
[mitrakhaqim] from this mitzvah, even though they fulfil many mandatory
mitzvot which time triggers such as shofar and lulav. But we have never
seen women fulfilling kiddush levanah, even if they are cautious to
observe [nizharot] all prayers, because the first woman triggered the
moon's flaw, i.e., Eve's sin. They distance themselves because of the
embarrassment, even though they have since found for themselves a
rectification [tiqun]. They were rectified at the [Golden] Calf where
they did not sin and did not listen to the primeval snake, i.e., the
Satan, i.e., the evil inclination, and therefore Rosh Hodesh was given
to women that they might observe it more than men. As it says in Pirkei
d'Rabbi Eliezer and is brought in the Tur Orakh Khayyim Se'if 417, Woman
is the first reason that the Leader-Astray [meisit] came into the world
and afterwards people gave him strength through the Calf and we are
still not purified, and sometimes [it is] flawed and sometimes whole.>>
{SK again} What is striking to me is the association between Eve's sin
and the diminution of the moon from its former midrashic status of
equality with the sun -- an idea completely at variance with the story
told in the gemara in which the moon is diminished before the creation
of humankind and is the instrument of its own diminution. (The talmudic
agadah also includes the perplexing notion that the qorban brought on
Rosh Hodesh is to atone for God's sin[!] in telling the moon to diminish
herself.)
>From the aspect of halachah l:ma'aseh, it is interesting to see that it
was women's choice to withdraw from the mitzvah of q:dushat ha-l:vanah,
and that they were not precluded from saying it by the rabbinical
authorities.
But the ShLa"H himself notes the difficulty in his argument: namely,
that women are specially charged with observing Rosh Hodesh because of
their stalwart resistance to the Eigel. He also refers to women's
special relationship to Rosh Hodesh in his comments on Masechet P:sachim
and (of course!) on Parshat B:reishit and Bo (drawing numerous parallels
between women and the moon, and Israel and the moon). So we have the
peculiar situation in which, on the one hand, women are specifically not
hallowing the moon's appearance since it is a reminder of Eve's error;
on the other, women are specifically hallowing the new moon since it is
a reminder of their resistance to the sin of the Eigel.
Kol tuv from
Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:48:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Kiddush Levanah - Women
on 30/6/05 7:25 pm, Shayna Kravetz at <skravetz@...> wrote:
> If, in fact, the ShLa"H's opinion on this issue "will no doubt offend
> feminist sensibilities", that is no reason for not quoting it here or
> anywhere, in my opinion. We're all grown-ups here and, if the ShLa"H
> said something that challenges what Martin perceives as feminist
> sensibilities, we can handle it. Burying a source is /never/ helpful
> for any reasoned discourse. Put it on the table and deal with it.
I did not bury the source, I merely did not quote it explicitly. Anyone
who wished was at liberty to look it up and comment as Shayna has
done. Probably if I had put it forward I would have been accused of
being anti-feminist. Now that Shayna has chosen to do so, we can
proceed.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:32:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Maariv and Shavuot
Orrin Tilevitz wrote <<< Perhaps I am missing something. According to
what I understand to be the position, expressed on this list, that
davening Maariv early does not cause one to bring in shabbat early (say,
soon after plag hamincha), by what halachic act does one bring in
shabbat early? I had always thought it was either maariv or mizmor shir
leyom hashabbat, and if it's the latter, then obviously davening maariv
is irrelevant. If it's the subjective act of accepting shabbat, could I
really drive home from shul before shkia after Friday night maariv? >>>
I did suggest that it might be possible to daven Maariv on Friday after
Plag without accepting Shabbos. But Orrin has missed two critical
points. The first is that this is only for a person who explicitly had
in mind not to accept Shabbos; a person who says Maariv or Mizmor Shir
without this explicit intention *does* accept Shabbos by doing so. The
second is that I was wrong; I even pointed out that Shulchan Aruch
263:11 mentions this particular case and says that "if an individual
went and said the Shabbos prayers on Friday afternoon, he has accepted
Shabbos and is forbidden to do melacha, even if he says that he does not
want to accept Shabbos".
He continued: <<< Also, if saying shehecheyanu ("lazman hazeh") early is
a problem with making kiddush on yom tov early, then it would extend to
making kiddush early on Friday night erev Rosh Hashana or Shemini
Atzeret (if one eats in the sukkah); but as I recall, shemirat shabbat
kehilchato does not list these as days when one may not make kiddush
early. >>>
Yes, I agree with your logic here. And Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa 46:8
(based on Mishne Brura 668:7 and Shaar Hatziun 668:12) does say that on
Shmini Atzeres, one should not make kiddush before the night.
Note that the logic used there, regarding Shmini Atzeres, seems to have
nothing to do with Shehechiyanu, nor even with the Kiddush or
Tefilah. It is because of the sukkah (if you're in the house, such as in
Israel or you're chassidic) or because of the bracha on the sukkah (if
you're outside Israel and eating in the Sukkah). In other words: After
dark, there's no bracha on the sukkah, and you know where to eat. But
prior to dark you don't know what to do, so you have to wait until dark.
What is most relevant to our discussion is: (1) there seems to be no
problem davening maariv before dark, and (2) if one has indeed davened
maariv before dark and thereby accepted the kedusha of Yom Tov on
himself (since we saw above that it is not possible to daven maariv
without accepting the new day) that does not seem to relieve him of his
Sukkos obligations. This is a fundamentally critical point to the proper
understanding of Shmini Atzeres.
[I was going to end the above paragraph by writing "... of Shmini
Atzeres outside Israel", but the question of saying Kiddush before dark
exists even inside Israel!]
Consider this, for example: (This paragraph is from an Outside Israel
perspective, where Shmini Atzeres and Simchas Torah are two separate
days.) The halacha of Second Day Yom Tov is so strong that it relieves
us of our obligation of tefillin on Simchas Torah, even though one might
argue that we "know" that it's not "really" Yom Tov and we ought to be
fulfilling that Torah obligation. Yet, this *same* halacha obligates us
to eat in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeres, even though one might argue that
we "know" that it's not "really" Sukkos any more. (Even among those who
don't eat in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeres outside Israel, they accept
that the halacha of Second Day Yom Tov *does* create such an obligation,
but they have various ways of getting around that obligation.)
Therefore, because of the special relationship of Sukkos and Shmini
Atzeres, I suspect that it might be best to exclude it from this
discussion, as it introduces too many outside factors. Let's focus on
Tefila, Kiddush, and Havdala.
One last point: I have no idea why Orrin referred to kiddush on Rosh
Hashana. My understanding is that the first night of Rosh Hashana,
together with the seventh night of Pesach, are the only two days in
which there is absolutely no problem at all with starting Yom Tov
early. Orrin, do you know of a problem that I haven't heard of? Please
share!
Thanks to all,
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:08:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Maariv and Shavuot
>From: "<kennethgmiller@...>" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
>OFFLIST, but feel free to quote me
OK thanks. Since I have your permission I will send a copy to the list
as the conclusions which I reach below would seem to apply to the
general subject.
>-- "Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz" <sabba.hillel@...> wrote:
>> Since the bracha of "mekadesh Hashabos" is called kedusha hayom, it
>> would appear that this bracha (Who santifies the Shabbos) in the
>> present tense is indeed explicitly accepting the sanctity of the day.
>> Thus, it cannot be said unless the sanctification has already taken
>> place.
> I don't see why we should attach any significance to what the bracha is
> *called*. As regards the *content* of the bracha, I don't see where
> Havdala (either in Shmoneh Esreh or Al HaKos) is any less "present
> tense" than Kiddush (in Amidah or Al HaKos).
> Your points about saing Kabalas Shabbos are valid, *IF* one does say
> it. All my questions relate to one who is trying to *avoid* accepting
> Shabbos early.
>Akiva Miller
However, you made the point about someone who would theoretically be
able to drive back from shul before the zman on Shabbos. I think that
this is a case of "lo shchiach" (does not occur) since someone who is in
shul would be there to daven.
There are people who go to the early minyon for mincha, but go to a
later minyon for kabbalos shabbos. I do not think that one could daven
ma'ariv without first having said kabbalos shabbos.
Similarly, I think that on Yom Tov, the kedushas hayom is considered an
acceptance. Similarly, I had thought that the psak was that Ata
Chonantanu was considered the same as Hamavdil as far as doing melacha
was concerned. Thus, I had never heard about being able to daven
ma'ariv before the actual end of Shabbos.
Of course, I should note that it is impossible to make havdalah before
the end of Shabbos because it involves a melacha (lighting a fire) and
the bracha of boreh me'orei ha'eish is an explicit statement as well.
Even Rav Moshe, who says that the wife does not have to accept shabbos
until she lights candles, does not say that the husband has not accepted
Shabbos (or Yom Tov) by davening kabbalos shabbos/ma'ariv. Those who
say that she must accept Shabbos at the time that the tzibbur davens
would say that the davening is acceptance as well.
I would say that someone who wishes to avoid accepting shabbos early has
to go to a later minyon. Note that there are those who say that even
davening alone is not good enough if there is no minyon in the community
that accepts Shabbos at the later time.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 79
