Volume 50 Number 44
                    Produced: Tue Dec  6  5:27:20 EST 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Davening with a minyan & speed of davening
         [Carl Singer]
Horachamon Hu Yokim Lonnu
         [Immanuel Burton]
Kohein Marrying Convert - wouldn't be the first time
         [Martin Stern]
Obligation in Minyan
         [Aliza Berger]
Responsibilities of the Host (3)
         [Stuart Pilichowski, Jeanette Friedman, Avi Feldblum]
Tahanun and presence of a Hatan:  different question
         [Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]


From: <casinger@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 06:45:15 -0500
Subject: Davening with a minyan & speed of davening

It's really all a matter of personal taste and comfort zone.  The other
week when I davened at the community kolel (the one with the people with
colds - per previous posting :) I found that I wasn't comfortable -- the
speed wasn't that different from what I'm used to but this minyan had
several things going against it -- or perhaps more accurately -- I had
several reasons for not being comfortable.

1 - Strange place, I wasn't in my usual place, my usual seat, sitting
next to someone I've davened next over a period of 20+ years (in two
different cities.)

2 - Although I knew several people, the majority were strangers.  And
more stares than smiles.  That's an intangible -- some places just have
a warmth.

3 - I could bearly hear the schatz -- was I answering "amen" to the
brochas or to the "amens" -- I believe a previous discussion topic (long
ago.)  What I could hear was fine davening, not much different than what
I normally hear at "my" minyan.

4 - Again, the speed of davening -- in elapsed time was about the same
as the haskamah minyan I usually attend -- but, again, I wasn't

Similarly, I've found that if even one element of davening in my usual
venue changes, I'm again less than comfortable.  If plony who usually
davens with another minyan shows up (and of course he's a chiyav this
Shabbos) I find that he davens with too much chazonish and bravado (for
our hashkameh minyan.)  If certain guests show up and talk during
davening, I find that the tam of the minyan is diminished ....

It's all comfort and expectations.

Carl Singer 


From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:41:28 -0000
Subject: Horachamon Hu Yokim Lonnu

The Siddur that I generally use states the addition of "horachamon hy
yokim lonnu es sukas Dovid ha'nofeles" on Succos is made only on Chol
Ha'Moed, and not on the initial days of Yom Tov.  Does anyone know where
the source for this is?

Immanuel Burton.


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:57:53 +0000
Subject: Re: Kohein Marrying Convert - wouldn't be the first time

on 5/12/05 10:46 am, Mechy Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...> wrote:
> And as long as we're on the subject of giyur in general it is perhaps
> appropriate to note the unceasing trend towards more and more
> stringency, but also worth reminding ourselves t'was not always thus. In
> particular, the conversion of non-jewish spouses whose commitment to
> mitzvoh observance was not in much evidence, was nevertheless considered
> a mitzvoh by important rabbonim in the past (including the Dor Shi'v'ie,
> grand grandfather of one of our list members).  not sure whether any
> such perspectives still current - doubtless R. Teitz has more insight
> into current rabbinical practice.

Surely the underlying reason for this increasing stringency is the
increasing prevalence of Jews wishing to marry non-Jews. In previous
generations the latter were much more prejudiced against us and so less
willing to marry us unless we convert to their religion.

Also one could assume that that any applicant for conversion was to some
extent strongly motivated to become Jewish for religious reasons, even
if marriage were a factor, since Jews were disadvantaged in society even
in the more tolerant countries and actively persecuted in the less
tolerant ones.  In the USA and UK there is little disadvantage perceived
in becoming Jews by those non-Jews who wish to marry Jews, certainly not
sufficient to dissuade them. Changing circumstances must change the way
halachah is applied.

Martin Stern


From: Aliza Berger <alizadov@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:42:22 +0200
Subject: Obligation in Minyan

I had asked for personal experiences regarding the following: <<The
Mishnah Berurah states that a hatan (bridegroom) should avoid
participating in a minyan because he causes the congregation not to be
able to say tahanun.>>

I received one heartfelt private response that the author said I could
share anonymously.

"When I was engaged, my me'sader kiddushin told me that during the week
of sheva brachot i should refrain from going to minyan on the weekdays.
he gave 2 reasons: 1. so that the tzibbur could say tachanun, as per the
halakha you cited, and 2. since presumably my wife wouldn't be going
with me, at least not to the early morning shacharit i would've
attended, going to minyan would have meant being away from her.  since
he told me that it was a mitzvah to spend as much time as possible with
my wife during the week of sheva brachot, that mitzvah was docheh

"Incidentally, though, when i was speaking with another rav about this,
in the weeks leading up to my wedding, he emphatically disagreed.  he
said that i should start my married life with minyan, not with sleeping
in and davening be-yichidus.  He said that the morning after the wedding
I should be at minyan, and after minyan thereafter.  i think he was
afraid that once i didn't go to minyan for a week, i wouldn't go back.
i think my mesader kiddushin knew me better, and didn't have this

"In practice, I followed the psak of the mesader kiddushin and did not
attend minyan the day after the wedding.  But I found that I was lonely
davening be-yichudis, did not daven as well, and found myself missing
minyan.  It was rosh hodesh, which made me miss minyan even more, since
i was missing hallel, torah reading, and musaf (obviously, i said hallel
and musaf, but it wasn't the same).  I don't recall exactly what I did
for the rest of the sheva brachot week, but i think what i did was
attend any minyanim i could attend with my wife, figuring that since one
of the reasons given for not going to minyan was so as not to be away
from one's wife i could choose to go if i went with her.  when i did go,
the (appreciative) tzibbur was exempted from tachanun."

Aliza here again - What I was trying to get at in asking for experiences
was exactly this: the conflict a regular minyan-goer would feel when
suddenly they are not supposed to go. Clearly some people have strong
feelings that their kavanah is improved in a minyan. Similarly, Arie

"hey - i admit that my reason is a selfish one - i feel that when i
daven b'yechidut i have much less kavana and my davening just is not
real. doesn't HKB"H "deserve" that we should daven in the most
kavana-inducing atmosphere possible ? don't we owe it to ourselves ? can
ANYONE out there in mj-land honestly say that he davens better at

Aliza here again - I understand the sentiment and confess that I
personally also have more kavanah in a group setting. But not everyone
does. For example, my husband says he has more kavanah at home, because
the minyan goes too fast. I may be carping -- and I recognize that Arie
admitted he is being selfish -- but I would still like to point out that
it could be argued that according to this viewpoint, apparently wives
are expected to be able to have appropriate kavanah at home, and their
husbands do not even give them the option of going to minyan and thus
having more kavanah (except perhaps on shabbat morning). The husbands
feel they have done their duty by both attending to the family and
attending minyan. It would not occur to them to stay at home and have
the wife go to minyan instead. (If any people on the list do actually do
this, please write in about it.) This could be described as a double
standard. I also suspect (can anyone confirm or disconfirm?) that many
women don't bring up the issue with their husbands even though it
bothers them.

I suggest that perhaps it would be worthwhile for regular minyan-goers
to work on being able to have kavanah not in a minyan as well. A minyan
is not available 100% of the time. It also could be nice for small
children to see their father, not just their mother, praying at home
sometimes - I recall this from mornings in my childhood. Also, if I may
say so, it gives a taste of how the other half (i.e., women) lives.

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


From: Stuart Pilichowski <cshmuel@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:40:47 +0000
Subject: re: Responsibilities of the Host

I had a Rebbe as far back as 30 years ago that yelled at us for being
too "chinyuki" or medayek when we went into too too much detail with
certain halachot.

Certainly ritual is holy and vital, but to such an extent? Is it really
an "obligation" for the host to walk a few steps accompanying his
visitor the same way it's an obligation to recite Shema?

And nuch besser - Are we now putting it in the same category?

Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion, Israel

From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:35:15 EST
Subject: Responsibilities of the Host

      Is anyone aware of published discussions on what the requirements
      of the host are when the host is being visited due to the host
      being ill [a choleh] ? For instance, is the host automatically
      free of the requirement to accompany the visitor a few steps when
      the visitor leaves?

Of course. No ill person is expected to climb out of bed or stand up from
a chair for a minhag that many people don't even know exists. Why would
someone who is being mevaker cholim even dare to expect such a thing, and
why would the sick person feel compelled to do so? Why is that even an


From: Avi Feldblum <avi@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005
Subject: Responsibilities of the Host

I find the responses to this question disappointing. There appears to be
a negative response to this, since it sounds like people have never
heard of this behaviour in the past. If that is true, I think that is

As I understand the origin of the custom, it comes from the behaviour of
Avraham following the incident of the three individuals / angels
visiting him. So the question of whether one should accompany ones guest
by at least a few steps in case where the guest has come to visit him as
a bikur cholim visit, the origin of the practice is from such a

At the same time, I would think it is obvious that if the illness is
such that the person is confined to bed, this does not apply. Avraham
was mobile, prepared food for the guests etc.

I remember that my zaida zt"l, Rav Yolles, was very makpid (careful)
with this practice. As a community rov, he had many visitors and he
would always try and accompany them out of the house. When he was well
into his ninties, and it was very difficult for him to manage the stairs
from his study to the front door, he would only accompany them to the
top of the stairs, but it bothered him that he was not able to
accompany them out the door.

I fear that in our current society, with the increasing hustle and
bustle, our focus on "Internet time" for everything, some of these
practices of the previous generations are being lost. I think we are
significantly poorer for that.

Rather than focus on whether this is a practice or a halachic
requirement, I would like to see more people focus on being stringent in
these type of practices, that I think have a significant impact on how
one interacts with one's fellow Jew, than on the average "chumrah" being
discovered in parts of our community.

Avi Feldblum


From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:02:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Tahanun and presence of a Hatan:  different question

>From: Rise Goldstein <rbgoldstein@...>
>My understanding, which may or may not be correct, is that tahanun *is*
>said in the presence of a second- (or third-, or higher-order) time
>hatan, even if the kallah he has just married is a first-time bride.
>First, is this understanding of halachah lema'aseh (the way things are
>actually done) correct?
>Second, if I understand the halachah correctly, what does this reflect
>about the sociohalachic "status" of second or higher-order wives, even
>or perhaps especially when the wives in question are marrying for the
>first time?

This is a general comment that I have been told and not a specific
halachic reference (as I do not have seforim with me).  The actions of a
tzibbur when a chasan is present, reflect the staus of that chasan.
Thus, even if tachanun were to be said in the presence of a chasan who
has married again, it would not reflect on the bride but only on the

I have also been told that there is a difference between a chasan who
has married a second time and a chasan who has remarried (that is
divorced and then remarried his original wife).

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 50 Issue 44