Volume 51 Number 82
                    Produced: Sun Apr  2  9:04:35 EDT 2006

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Chazaras Hashatz (2)
         [Martin Stern, Harlan Braude]
delayed remarriage "to be expected"? (2)
         [Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz, Leah S. Gordon]
Dialects vs. mispronunciation (2)
         [David Prins, David Mescheloff]
Hiking on Shabbat (2)
         [Mike Gerver, I. Balbin]
Hoiche Kedushah
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
"Hoiche Kedushah"
         [Joel Rich]
Jewish Calendar
         [Matthew Pearlman]
Jews in Eretz Yisrael (2)
         [Yakir, Avi Feldblum]
Second Day of Yom Tov revisited
         [Shimon Lebowitz]


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:28:26 +0000
Subject: Chazaras Hashatz

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:04:55 -0500 <hlsesq@...> (Hyman Schaffer) wrote:
>   In recent times, it is no longer unusual to hear the shaliach tzibbur
> say Hashem s'fosai tiftach and yihiyu l'ratzon out loud during chazoras
> hashatz. The shulchan aruch and ramoh in OC 123:6 write concerning
> whether the shatz should say these psukim (with at least the GRA
> concluding that he should say both during the chazoras hashatz), but it
> is unclear whether the intent is that they should be said aloud as any
> other part of the chazoras hashatz (seemingly in accord with the view of
> the gemara that they are part of the tefilla) or should be said in an
> undertone.

I believe that it is the general custom of Sefardim to say these psukim
aloud as I have noticed whenever I have davenned in a minyan with a
Sefardi shats.

Martin Stern

From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:42:49 -0500
Subject: RE: Chazaras Hashatz

Amusingly, in my town the Rabbi of one minhag Ashkenaz synagogue stated
quite clearly from the pulpit that the shliach tzibbur is to say the
phrases out loud, while the Rabbi of another minhag Ashkenaz synagogue
announced with equal clarity from the pulpit that the shliach tibbur is
to recite these phrases in an undertone.

There are several variations in the davening between the minhag Ashkenaz
synagogues in this town so that one must be on one's toes to remember
(or even be aware of) which custom(s) to observe when serving as shliach


From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:53:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: delayed remarriage "to be expected"?

> From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
> Why in the world would it "be expected" that she remain unmarried?? 
> It seems that someone waiting anxiously for a divorce would want to
> remarry relatively quickly (assuming she found someone she liked).
> --Leah

It sounded as if he made the assumption that someone who had that much
trouble, as well as someone who has to take care of young children,
would be extra cautious.  Thus, she would take longer than someone
without children and/or had not had the difficulties spoken of in her
previous marriage.

Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water

From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:38:58 -0800
Subject: Re: delayed remarriage "to be expected"?

Ah, that makes a lot of sense; thank you!



From: David Prins <prins@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:27:52 +1100
Subject: Dialects vs. mispronunciation

The Parasha of Tazria presents a particular difficulty in Torah reading
in that the word with letters "heh vav aleph" appears frequently, and
can be pronounced hu or hi.  Its meaning is different in both cases.

The immediately surrounding words are not always helpful.  For example
there are instances of both "nega tzaraat hu" (where the hu refers to
the nega - as in 13:3) and "nega tzaraat hi" (where the hi refers to the
tzaraat - as in 13:27).

If a reader has a dialect where both are sounded "hi", does that mean
that the Torah reader has a much easier job, or is he still obligated to
know the difference between the two vowels?  The listener presumably
cannot tell whether the reader has in mind the correct or incorrect
vowel; does this matter?  Is having in mind the wrong vowel a
mispronunciation, even if the listener cannot detect it as such?

From: David Mescheloff <david_mescheloff@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dialects vs. mispronunciation

David Mescheloff <david_mescheloff@...>  wrote:
> I am always struck by those chazzanim who say, on Friday night,
> "beini u-vein bnei yisroel, osee (or oisee, it doesn't matter) l'olam".
> The way the phrasing (punctuation) comes out, to my ears it sounds like
> they're proclaiming proudly that they forever stand in the way between
> G-d and the children of Israel.

Mark Symons replied:
> To mean that you'd have to say "ani l'olam".

In Hebrew poetic writing there is often an understood verb.  In this
case, the "verb" "hee" in "ot hee" having been removed, all
possibilities are open - of course you can supply the missing verb in
such a way as to make sense of the phrase that's been garbled; indeed,
that's probably the nice thing to do and the most considerate way to go
about it.  However, in my multitude of sins, I find that once the phrase
has been garbled I imagine supplying a missing verb like "timtza", which
fits fine with - "between Me and the Children of Israel you will find me
always getting in the way".  There are numerous possibilities in more
than one direction.  Somehow I think the best solution is for chazzanim
to say "os hee" or "ot hee" or some other phrasing that makes it clear
what one means - "it is an eternal sign" - which is what the text itself
makes clear.  

Chodesh Tov!  


From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:27:01 EST
Subject: Hiking on Shabbat

I. Balbin writes, in v51n81,

      I'm not aware that hiking on Shabbos is permitted, irrespective of
      Eiruvin considerations.

What would be the issue? People go for walks on Shabbat afternoon all
the time, not to mention walking to shul, which for a lot of people is
more than a 4000 amot walk within a town. If you mean going on an
energetic hike and working up a sweat, I agree with you. That's not what
I meant when I said "go for a hike." Maybe I should have said "go for
walk" or "go on a tiul." You probably wouldn't work up a sweat on a
hike/walk if you weren't carrying a backpack, and if you were going at a
leisurely pace in order to stretch out your 8000 amot round trip.

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel

From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:14:45 +1100
Subject: Re: Hiking on Shabbat

There is of course an infraction of Shelo Yehei HiLuchecho B'Chol
K'HiLuchecho B'Shabbos (Ones "mode of walking" on Shabbos should be
different from the week) . This is of course based on a Pasuk in Nach.

To take a Shabbos walk is indeed a good thing. It would by definition be
leisurely and modest and any exertion would be an unintended by product.

In our city, since the introduction of an Eruv (which is a good thing) I
have noticed an increase in the number of people who a) walk for
exercise, b) dress for a walk for exercise all on Shabbos (including
running/walking with their Dog, and yes, I know there are ways of
holding a leash such that walking with a Dog is permitted according to
Shmiras Shabbos.

I do think though that going on a long walk (unless it's for a specific
Dvar Mitzvah) is something that should be referred to a Rov.  Yes, some
will say a long walk is a Mitzvah :-) especially after a decent Poilishe
Chulent, but whilst exercise is certainly in fulfilment of such, it
isn't something one should do on Shabbos, with intent.


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:56:55 +0200
Subject: Re:  Hoiche Kedushah

<Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu) stated in mail-jewish Vol. 51 #80

      I was asked by some for the etymology of the expression
      "Hoiche Kedushah"
      Interestingly, this expression is used regularly in the US (I
      heard it in Philadelphia and New York), but I never heard it
      used in Israel.

Right.  In Israel we call it heicheh kedeesheh.

IRA L. JACOBSON         

From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:25:47 -0500
Subject: "Hoiche Kedushah"

> I was asked by some for the etymology of the expression "Hoiche
> Kedushah" which is used to denote a shortened davening where the silent
> amidah is skipped and the ba'al tefilah starts with chazart hashatz up
> to and including ata kadosh. This is done often when time is short such
> as school break, airports or when minchah is started late.
> Gilad J. Gevaryahu

While I agree sociologically with your observation, other than the last
case (true lack of halachik time left) can you find a halachik source
that allows for not saying the full chazarat hashatz?

Joel Rich


From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:54:37 +0100
Subject: Jewish Calendar

Abe Brot noted 

> After the disbandment of the Sanhedrin, our present calendar was
> developed to replace the method of visual sightings. The present
> calendar makes no effort to simulate the previous method of moon
> sightings. The present calendar places the first day of Rosh-Hashana
> very near the molad of Tishrei (without considering the four dechiot)
> and then lets the remaining months fall as they will. In practice, this
> means that the first night of each month generally precedes the first
> sighting of the new crescent by one or two nights. This means that if
> the Sanhedrin was re-established (may it be in our time), and we
> returned to the system of crescent sightings, Rosh-Hodesh would
> generally be 1 to 2 nights later than indicated by our present
> calendar.

Interesting evidence of this is cited by Sacha Stern in his book "Time
and process in ancient Judaism" (p70 note 29) where he notes that the
Talmud Bavli (Sanhedrin 41b and paskened as halacha by the Rambam) in
the name of the Nehardeans holds that we can say birkat hachodesh until
the 16th of the month; whereas the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 13d) in
the name of the Rabbis of Caesarea holds that we can say up to the 14th
of the month.

Both these sources hold that these are the dates of the full moon. The
implication is that the Yerushalmi quote is an earlier source where the
new moon was set by sightings (and hence occurred when the moon was
actually visible a little after the molad) whereas the Bavli quote is
later when the new moon was set by mathematical calculation of the



From: Yakir <yakirhd@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:34:10 +0200
Subject: re: Jews in Eretz Yisrael

Richard Fiedler:
- I certainly agree with the literal application of "Chas v'Sholom". But
- I don't understand why no Jews in Israel would imply that ""Am Yisrael"
- would be considered to have ceased to exist !"
- In fact it is my contention that if indeed the admonition of Beitzah 4b:
- Be careful to keep the custom of your ancestors because a time may come
- when there are anti-religious persecutions, and all will be confused.' is
- talking about "anti-religious persecutions in Eretz Yisrael" and not as
- is presumed in Hutz L'Aretz one can better understand the Rambam - per
- your citation.

I am not sure I followed that.

However my original statement was based on the very simple implication
(inferrral) of the Ramba"m:

"If we assume, for example, that Bnei Yisrael would be absent from Eretz
Yisrael - G-d would never never do this for He has already promised not
to wipe out completely or uproot the remnant of the Nation, ..."

This is mentioned in the context of a situation where there are
certainly Jews in Chutz La'aretz.  Thus, according to the Ramba"m, the
absence of Jews from Israel (Land of) constitutes complete destruction
of the Jewish People.

From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006
Subject: re: Jews in Eretz Yisrael

The one item I would question is whether your inferrance that "remnant
of the Nation" refers to the Jewish People whereever they are is
correct. If indeed, "remnant of the Nation" is to be understood as the
remnant of the Jewish People still living in Eretz Yisrael, then the
quote from the Rambam makes clear sense to me, but does not have the
implication you are claiming. The Rambam is saying that there needs to
be Jews living in Eretz Yisrael for the institution of "kidush
hachodesh" even via the calendar to be viable (if I remember correctly
what the subject was about) and we have a guarentee from Hashem that he
will never allow there not be Jews in Eretz Yisrael, either by
distruction of the remaining population living in the land or by that
remaining population being exiled from the land.

If the above is correct, there is no implication that can be inferred
from the Rambam that the absence of all Jews from the land of Israel
would constitute the distruction of the "Jewish People".



From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:18:41 +0200
Subject: Re: Second Day of Yom Tov revisited

> But more important the situation that developed in Russia hostile to
> the Jews could have in the past had developed in Aretz Yisrael yet no
> one had the hava mina that residents of Eretz Yisrael should observe
> two days of Yom Tov.

I recently read an article on this topic, from which I unfortunately
cannot quote specifics, as it was in the bet midrash of my son's
yeshiva, several hours away from here.

>From what I remember, there is a wideranging disagreement among the
rishonim on what exactly decides where people keep 2 days of yomtov, and
that the Rambam IIRC definitely holds that there are places in Eretz
Yisrael that *do* keep two days.

If this is the case, and I assume those more learned will know the
details, then there is far *more* than a "hava amina" for residents of
E.Y. to keep 2 days.



End of Volume 51 Issue 82