Volume 48 Number 84
                    Produced: Tue Jul  5  6:25:42 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Amen to non-live voices (2)
         [I M Fuchs, I M Fuchs]
Answering from the hallway
         [I M Fuchs]
Kaddish - One a day
         [Joel Rich]
Kaddish at a minyan you're not davening with (2)
         [Stephen Phillips, Martin Stern]
Kiddush Levanah - Women (2)
         [Stuart Pilichowski, Aliza Berger]
Lo Tachmod (Don't Covet)
         [I M Fuchs]
More on VaYaPiLU and Language---4 Approaches
         [Russell J Hendel]


From: <ISSARM@...> (I M Fuchs)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:31:54 EDT
Subject: Amen to non-live voices

Eli Turkel writes: 
> (Volume 48 Number 73) Rabbi Zelig Epstein (Rosh Yeshiva, Shaar
> Hatorah, Queens), probably one of the senior Rosh Yeshivos in the US
> today, has ruled that one answers amen to brachos on videos. I learned
> this from the disconcerting vision . . .

No offence at all meant to R' Turkel, but I would ask Rabbi Epstein,
indeed one of the senior Rosh Yeshivos in the US today, before a p'sak
is attributed to him.  I believe others (perhaps Rav Moshe) have ruled
to the contrary and I think s'vara sides with R' Turkel.


From: <ISSARM@...> (I M Fuchs)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 22:56:33 EDT
Subject: Amen to non-live voices

Janice Gelb writes that (Volume 48 Number 72) Aharon Fischman wrote:
> Sitting in bed at 2:00 AM we found ourselves reflexively responding at
> the appropriate points in the service asking ourselves afterwards if
> there is any halachik need or prohibition to participate in such a
> situation.  I know that one is not yotzei [fulfill the obligation of]
> the Megilla via phone but does any chiyuv [religious requirement] still
> exist to answer Amen?

I was very happy to see her extensive research on the subject.  The
sources were very helpful.  (I mentioned Rav Moshe in a previous post.)

But I think that live -- albeit reproduced voices -- are different from
recorded ones.  The former (at least according to some authorities) is,
as Ms. Gelb writes, a direct result of the speaker's voice, which itself
is actually sound waves generated by his speech.

Recorded voice -- which I believe was the issue at hand -- is not the
same.  The human generator is not here.  The "generator" in the video,
tape, MP3, etc., is purely mechanical, magnetic, electric, etc.  This
would likely result in a different p'sak.  The sources as quoted by Ms.
Gelb would not seem to apply in the cases in question.



From: <ISSARM@...> (I M Fuchs)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 22:53:35 EDT
Subject: Answering from the hallway

I remember teaching the very same Kitzur Shulchan Aruch mentioned by
Carl Singer (Volume 48 Number 72).  I seem to remember, however, that
there is a difference between a place set aside specifically for tefilos
and, say, ones home, a catering hall, or some other makeshift minyan

I would have to check out, but I think that in an established shul, one
may be able to include those, say in the ezras noshim, to "make the
minyan".  (Answering amen, etc., is not a problem even for one who is
walking outside the shul in the street -- assuming the area permits
him/her to say the words).  In a makeshift/temporary shul, all 10 men
must be in the same room.  (In just such a situation, a simple archway
may be considered a separate room.)  This problem arises often, and
deserves a proper and thorough look in to the sources.  I have not done
so recently and am quoting from memory -- this cannot be relied on for


[Note: mail-jewish is NEVER to be relied on for p'sak. This is a forum
for discussing ideas, including issues of p'sak halacha, but any
practical p'sak should be coming from your local halachic
authority. Mod.]


From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:20:56 -0400 
Subject: Kaddish - One a day

> Why should Mike have done so since it is not necessary to say more than
> one kaddish a day and he had said at least one that morning?
> Martin Stern

I've heard this mentioned before, the only source I could find was a
tshuva by R' Moshe explaining why you could have a number of people pay
a shamash:-) to say kaddish since he'd say at least 1 a day for each
person.  Any earlier/other source?

Joel Rich


From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:19:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish at a minyan you're not davening with

> From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
> I am glad to hear, though, that an avel is only really required to say
> one kaddish a day. The only day that I missed saying kaddish completely,
> when I was an avel, was the day we made aliyah. There was no time for a
> ma'ariv minyan before our flight left from Kennedy airport--we barely
> made that flight, after packing all night and all morning, and missing
> two El Al flights from Newark--and El Al was very fussy about not
> allowing a minyan in the back of the plane for shacharit. And I couldn't
> find a mincha minyan at Ben Gurion, after we landed late in the
> afternoon, and couldn't go to Raanana right away since we had to go
> through the aliyah paperwork at the airport. But I didn't feel too bad
> about it, since, as someone said when I told him this story, "Ha-osek
> be-mitzvah, patur mi-mitzvah," one who is engaged in one mitzvah is
> exempt from other mitzvot.

The Yalkut Yosef (admittedly a Sefardi Sefer) writes that learning Torah
for the Ilui Nishmas HaMeis (elevation of the Soul of the deceased) is
better than saying Kaddish. So in such circumstances as you describe, it
can't do any harm to learn a schtikel Torah.

Stephen Phillips

From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:25:51 +0100
Subject: Kaddish at a minyan you're not davening with

on 4/7/05 8:57 am, <MJGerver@...> at MJGerver@aol.com wrote:
> But in any case, I think most aveilim feel, psychologically, that the
> more (halachically sanctioned) kaddishes they say, the
> better. Certainly most aveilim feel bad if they miss saying kaddish
> altogether for mincha, even though they already said kaddish at
> shacharit that morning. I certainly did.

I regret that I must disagree with Mike on the desirability of
maximising the number of kaddeishim one says. The basis for this opinion
is the idea that each kaddish raises the niftar further out of
Gehennom. Saying extra ones must imply that one is of the opinion that
the niftar is extremely deep mired there, which is hardly a way of
honouring their memory.

> I think it's not a bad thing for aveilim to feel this way, since, if
> nothing else, it gets them to make more effort to daven every tefillah
> with a minyan.

On this point, I would agree with the proviso that the priority should
be the davenning as a whole rather than merely saying kaddish.

> And most aveilim will try to stick around for a little learning after
> shacharit, or after mincha, to get in an extra kaddish
> derabbanan. That's not a bad thing, either.

Any extra learning is to be encouraged but one must get one's priorities
right, one should be saying kaddish after learning not 'learning' (in
effect rattling off a mishnah with no real attempt at understanding it,
as happens in some shuls) in order to say kaddish.

Martin Stern


From: Stuart Pilichowski <cshmuel@...>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:22:04 +0000
Subject: re: Kiddush Levanah - Women

Just curious: what were the logistics of this "mixed" crowd for kiddush

Men and women standing together side by side outside under the stars or
seperate and off to the side......

Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion, Israel

From: Aliza Berger <alizadov@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:21:47 +0200
Subject: Kiddush Levanah - Women

Stuart Pilichowski asks:
<what were the logistics of this "mixed" crowd for kiddush levana?

Men and women were separate. 

I have said kiddush levanah outside Orthodox synagogues in the US and in
Israel, and no one ever stopped me. If I am the only woman, I just stand
off to the side and skip the "shalom aleichem" part.

Aliza Berger-Cooper, PhD
English Editing: www.editing-proofreading.com
Statistics Consulting: www.statistics-help.com


From: <ISSARM@...> (I M Fuchs)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 22:01:54 EDT
Subject: Lo Tachmod (Don't Covet)

Mark Symons writes (Volume 48 Number 73):

>  I always thought that lo tachmod was not wanting a specific object
> THAT BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE.  I am allowed to want a beautiful
> chanukiyah for example . . .

I think that R' Symons may be correct.  I have not looked into the
sources who might compare and contrast lo sachmod and the prohibition of
kin'ah.  But I have seen that kin'ah is wanting what the other has --
stemming from the belief that it rightfully belongs to me which is
really a "dis-belief" that HaShem runs the world, that there can be
something lacking in its justice.  Compare to kin'ah (ka'noyis) where
the ka'noy will fight to put things in their proper place.  He believes
ultimately justice must be served, and he wants to be part of that
process.  Both "know" things are not in their right place.  One says he
determines what is the right place, while the other says HaShem
determines it.



From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:27:38 -0400
Subject: More on VaYaPiLU and Language---4 Approaches

Michael Poppers in his recent posting correctly reminded me that my
explanation of the Hebrew root Ayin-Pay-Lamed in Nu14-44a is in fact due
to Rav Hirsch (Who connects Ayin-Pay-Lamed with Aleph-Pay-Lamed). I
myself was not fully satisfied with this explanation so I wrote up a
different one. In developing my ideas I reviewed 4 approaches to meaning
of Biblical words

I should emphasize that these 4 approaches happen when a word occurs
rarely (as Ayin Pay Lamed which only occurs 14 times). Many Biblical
roots occur rarely and it may therefore be worthwhile to see the
different approaches available. I find the following 4 useful

1) RaDacK--Radack explains that APL means HIGH and/or HEMORROIDS. The
meaning HIGH occurs in several verses (e.g. 2C33-14, Ne11-21 Nu14-44a)
where it refers to fortresses or military campaigns in high
places. Radacks approach is simple: Radack allows a rare root to have
multiple meanings (HIGH and HEMORROIDS); Radack infers meaning from
context (If many verses speak about APL fortresses high up then APL
means HIGH)

2) Rashi frequently (though not in this case) seeks a unifying meaning
to one root. Also Rashi seeks meaning based on FUNCTION vs FORM.  So
Radack sees HIGH in the many verses with FORTRESSES; by contrast Rashi
sees STRONGHOLD(the FUNCTION / PURPOSE of a fortress)

3) Rav Hirsch focused on familys of roots related by similar sounding
letters. WHile many people criticize Rav Hirsch it should be remembered
that everyone agrees that eg words like KEVES vs KESEV mean the same
thing. Rav Hirsch's contribution was to CONSISTENTLY apply this rule. In
this case APL with an ayin is related to APL with an Aleph. We infer the
meaning of THICK, HARD (thick things are hard) from which we get both
HEMORROIDS (hard) and HARD/THICK military formations.

4) I introduced a method in my article PESHAT and DERASH(Tradition,
1980) (found at http://www.rashiyomi.com/rashi.pdf) known as INTUITIVE
SEMANTIC MODELS.  Quite simply this means finding a CONCEPT in another
language whose nuances match both the meanings and midrashim on the
words. Such a concept is a SEMANTIC MODEL.  The argument for this
approach is that most of us have a very rich semantic background in
English; by contrast our Hebrew semantic background is poor. Hence the
proper approach to biblical meaning is thru semantic models.

Examining the 3 usages of Ayin-Pay-Lamed I found the concept of
IMPENETRABLE to be "just right". (a) A STRONGHOLD or HIGH FORTRESS is an
IMPENETRABLE position.  (b) HEMORROIDS **feel** IMPENETRABLE. Language
does allow naming words by how they **feel** (vs how they **are**):
examples might be HARDship, inFLAMMation, etc.(c) Nu14-44a would mean
that the Jews decided to repent...they therefore ascended the mountains
and created a standard IMPENETRABLE position (e.g. trenches etc). The
url http://www.Rashiyomi.com/nu21-06a.htm contains verses with Ayin Pay
lamed as well as roots named by feeling.

There 4 approaches may also be viewed as defining the issues when
determining the meaning of a biblical word. The issues include a) single
vs multiple meanings b) emphasis on form vs function c) related roots
with similar nuances d) the nuances associated with the verses as
indicated in the Midrash.

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/


End of Volume 48 Issue 84