Volume 56 Number 70 
      Produced: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:57:06 EDT

Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Actions to Hasten Moshiach (2)
    [Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz  Alex Heppenheimer]
    [Lisa Liel]
Correction please 
    [ Tzvi Roszler]
Edot Hamizrach Musaf for Festivals 
    [Alex Heppenheimer]
Paro's dream -- Dakos vs Daros? 
    [Frank Silbermann]
The Adas Yeshurun of Manchester 
    [Meir Wise]
The name of the Amora Plimo 
    [Martin Stern]
The way we pray for T'chiyat HaMaitim 
    [David Ziants]
Wearing a Kipa at Work 
    [Carl Singer]
What "triggers" Kaddish D'Rabbanim 
    [Harry Weiss]


From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 3,2009 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Actions to Hasten Moshiach

Note the examples that I gave. Unlike the examples of "reductio ad
absurdum" that you gave, I was pointing out what could be a legitimate
reason. The argument between the Chozeh of Lublin and Der Yid would
have been whether or not the actions were a permissible example of
hishtadlus or an impermissible over-reaction.  Another example would
be the fact that Yirmiyahu gave a nevua to surrender to
Nevuchadnetzar. Since I am not anywhere near the level of the Torah
giants, I cannot say which one would have been correct or not, given
the circumstances of those times. All we can do is see what happened
in the world and that Napolean lost and the Mashiach is still not
here.  We cannot even try to connect those two facts in any way.

It is like asking why Hashem allowed Hitler (Yemach Shmo) to reach the
success that he did before being stopped. We can speculate all that we
want, but we cannot know until we can go up to the two of them and
*ask* what they were thinking.  For that to occur, we will have to
wait for techiyas hameisim (bimheirah beyameinu).

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

From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 4,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Actions to Hasten Moshiach

It's great to have Mail-Jewish back! Thanks to Avi and all of the new

In MJ 56:68, Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...> wrote:

> Isn't this opening a can of worms? If the Choser of Lublin thought
> Napoleon would hasten Moshiach, people who thought Hitler would bring
> Moshiach would support him, in one way or another. The Choser was
> definitely using Kaballah to do that and Der Yid was against it and
> told him so. So you see where this kind of thinking can lead...do we
> hasten the Moshiach if we support Ahmedinejad? Are we going to be like
> evangelicals waiting for the rapture?

Napoleon was certainly a dictator, but after all, he was neither
killing Jews nor threatening to do so. In fact, on the surface at
least, he was a philo-Semite. So the comparison to Hitler and
Ahmadenijad doesn't seem to hold water.

The concern about Napoleon, from a Jewish perspective, was a
longer-range one: whether his support for emancipation, enlightenment,
etc., would be (as the common expression goes) "good for the Jews" or
not. I'm not familiar with what the Yid Hakadosh said on the subject,
but yes, there were other chassidic leaders of the period (notably R'
Shneur Zalman of Liadi) who indeed saw the danger to Jewry that would
result from a Napoleonic victory and worked to prevent that from
happening. The Chozeh (there's no R in his title, by the way -
"chozeh" means "seer"), though, was perfectly entitled to disagree
with them - whether because he evaluated the situation differently and
felt that indeed Napoleon's policies were not inimical to Jewish life,
or because he figured that if supporting Napoleon would bring
Moshiach, then the longer-term concerns would be irrelevant. Either
way, there was no _current_ danger to offset against the expected
future gain of Moshiach's arrival (may it be soon!)

Kol tuv,


From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 4,2009 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Calendar

On Sun, May 31,2009 at 08:01 PM, Michael Gerver <mjgerver@...> wrote:
>One interesting consequence of Ptolemy's eclipse data is that, if 
>you assume the observations are accurate, it can be used to disprove 
>the theory of the "missing 135 years" implicit in the chronology of 
>Seder Olam, since the timing of the eclipses in Ptolemy's raw data 
>is given in terms of the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings, and 
>the chronology of Seder Olam would be inconsistent with the eclipse 
>data if there were even 20 minutes missing, let alone 135 years. 
>However, you can find conspiracy theories online, which hold that 
>the text of Ptolemy's Almagest was doctored by evil secular humanists, etc.

That's a bit of a strawman you're knocking down there.  Professor 
Robert R. Newton, who wrote _The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy_ claimed 
on mathematical grounds that Ptolemy faked his observations to make 
them fit.  Sort of like shooting an arrow into a wall and then 
painting a bullseye around it.  There were people in my high school 
biology class who did the same thing with their lab results.  It's 
not that unusual, and it hardly requires "evil secular humanists".

Also, it's 166 years; not 135.



From:  Tzvi Roszler <TzviR@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 4,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Correction please

In the past few weeks I noticed comments from the "CHOSER" of
Lublin. Please correct me if I am wrong.  I believe the word should be
THE CHOZEH = The seer of Lublin. Who is correct? thank you.

Tzvi Roszler


From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 4,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Edot Hamizrach Musaf for Festivals

In MJ 56:68, Mark Symons <msymons@...> wrote:

>I was recently very surprised to discover that in nusach Edot
>Hamizrach for musaf for shalosh regalim (in the siddur that I have
>anyway), the specific quotes from the Torah of the specific musaf
>sacrifices are not mentioned - as they are in Ashkenaz/Sefarad/Ari -
>(neither do "minchatam v'niskeihem" get a mention). Instead, the
>wording is simply "et musaf yom ......  hazeh, naaseh v'nakriv
>l'fanecha b'ahavah k'mitzvat r'tzonach, k'mo shekatavta aleinu
>b'toratach, al y'dei moshe avdach".  There the section ends, and the
>paragraph beginning "elokeinu veilokei avoteinu, melech rachaman"
>This is not the case for musaf for Shabbat (when not during a chag),
>nor for musaf Rosh Chodesh, when the specific korbanot are mentioned.
>Any ideas why?

The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 35a) says that all one needs to say in Musaf
is the phrase "uvetoratcha katuv leimor" (or, I suppose, some
variation thereof). But the Rishonim disagree what this is referring
to. Rashi there, and Rambam (end of Sefer Ahavah, in his Nusach
Hatefillah), say that it means that one doesn't need to recite the
verses detailing the korbanos, just to state that they are mentioned
in the Torah. On the other hand, Rashi cites his teachers, who say
that it means that one can substitute this phrase for the ten verses
each of Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros in Musaf of Rosh Hashanah.
(Rabbeinu Tam, in Tosafos loc. cit. s.v. Ileima, adds that according
to this view one most certainly does have to recite the verses
detailing the korbanos, since they are replacing the actual

So Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard, and Ari follow the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam
and always say the verses of the korbanos. As for Edot Hamizrach, my
guess is that with Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, where there's no
variation in the korbanos from one time to the next, there's no
difficulty in saying the actual verses, so they go ahead and do so;
but with the festivals, there's more of a possibility of confusion
(which would result in "dover shekarim" - saying a patent falsehood,
such as saying on Pesach that we're commanded to bring the offerings
of Sukkos), and so they rely on the Rambam's opinion and omit the
verses altogether.

Kol tuv,


From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 3,2009 at 05:32 PM
Subject: Paro's dream -- Dakos vs Daros?

The English translation speaks of seven thin stalks, and seven thin cows.  The
Hebrew seems to vary randomly between using the word "dakoth" and "rakoth" --
both of which are translated as "thin".  Other than the suggestion that an
original source had "typos" (daled and raesh look very similar), can anyone
explain why the word changes?

Frank Silbermann,  Memphis, Tennessee


From: Meir Wise <meirhwise@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 3,2009 at 05:34 PM
Subject: The Adas Yeshurun of Manchester

I was born in Manchester in 1956 and am a properly ordained rabbi ( by 
Chief Rabbis Jakobovits, Sacks, Dayan Kaplin, Rabbis Turetsky, Leperer 
and others - Lithuanians, Poles and Yekkes and English born!) You can 
imagine that I have been biting my tongue for weeks reading the 
correspondence about Manchester as I do not hasten to write about these 
things. However David Ansbacher goes too far and I cannot keep silent 
any more.

People might recall that when Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu ( " a world 
famous dayan" ?) was appointed as Av Bet Din in Manchester he didn't 
have semicha. In fact he was pointedly refered to as "Mr Ehrentreu" by 
the lady head of the Representative Council who wanted to berate him 
for not attending the communal yom atzmaut service! So he flew to 
Jerusalem and asked Reb Velvel (the Griz) to write one for him which he 
did on the spot.
It should be noted the Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef in his responsa does 
not require people who have been called rabbi for years and are 
accepted as such to produce certificates. Many bearded sages came from 
Yemen and other countries without papers and Chacham Ovadiah did not 
want them to be so insulted.
Also since when has it been forbidden for a synagogue rabbi to be 
teaching torah in the afternoon, morning or evening or even through the 
night? Isnt that his main job? Isn't that what the word rabbi means? Or 
am I missing something?

As far as the Adas is concern. Yes it was founded by Yekkes many years 
ago but it is a failing shul. There are no pure shuls in Manchester (or 
London for that matter) any more - they are all mixed and should try to 
be inclusive. It is not ideal according to halachah but then travel and 
(Jewish) intermarriage was rare in those days. My grandparents davvened 
in the "Telz and Kovno Shtiebel" in Harris Street - the last bastion of 
the Litvaks!

People from outside Manchester should refrain from insulting the 
community ( for which they cannot repent according to the Rambam). It 
is a growing, warm, vibrant and welcoming community and if not dragging 
out the davening by including piyyutim, yotzrot, maarovot which few can 
get their tongues around and fewer understand then so be it. Or does 
Martin Stern want them to finish on Rosh Hashanah at 5pm and go on to 
mincha like the Sassover Shtieble in Golders Green. Anyway what 
happened to the status quo pre-ante - those later additions do not 
occur in the Machzor Vitry or the Maharil (the oldest versions or the 
nusach ashkenaz) not to mention the fact that Rashi , The Tosefos, the 
Maharam MiRottenburg, The Or Zarua and the Rosh never said them!

By the way neither the Manchester nor the London Beth Din are 
independent bodies. Many great rabbis (Rav Babad, Rav Turetsky, Rav 
Nocum Rabinovitch etc etc ) refused to sit on them or abide by their 
rulings. (Even Dayan Abramsky only agreed to join in order to stop 
people eating neveilos and treifos and asked his wife if she was 
prepared to run a cafe if he had to resign!!!) Especially the London 
Beth Din whose "Av Beth Din" has a theoretical veto even over a 
majority of the dayyanim! Even in Manchester nobody knows how or why 
rabbis are invited to sit on the Beth Din and from personal experience 
I can testify that as soon as they get a difficult case they throw 
their hands up and withdraw.

Rabbi Meir Wise (London on the way to Israel)


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 4,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: The name of the Amora Plimo

On Tue, Jun 2,2009, Yisroel Israel <arzei@...> wrote:

> Do take a look at the Boaz No 3 in Pesachim Perek 10 Mishanah 8, where
> he states Chazal when adopting foreign e.g. Greek words, first
> "Judaised" them altering the word and it's reading.

Thanks for the reference. When I looked at it I could not see what Yisroel
says it says. Is it possible that the reference is incorrect?

However the comments I had hoped to get were on the plausibility or
otherwise of my suggested etymology of the name Plimo deriving from

Martin Stern


From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 4,2009 at 03:01 AM
Subject: The way we pray for T'chiyat HaMaitim

Today (Wednesday 4th Sivan) being Shloshim for my mother Sarah bat Yaakov, I
would like this posting and any discussion that might arise because of it to be
l'iluy nishmata [the elevation of her soul].

During my interactions of the last month with different people, the subject of
praying for t'chiyat hamaitim [resurrection of the dead] occasionally arose. 
This prompted me to think about the issue, because this is one of the
fundamentals of our faith, and appears in our amida as part of the central theme
of the second b'racha.

The first three b'rachot of the amida are shevach [praise], the middle b'rachot
(during the week) are bakashot [requests], and the last three hoda'a [thanks]. 
What puzzles me is that T'chiyat HaMaitim appears as a praise and not as a
bakasha, unlike the other and earlier stages of ge'ula [redemption].  [I] look
forward to receiving feedback from people on this list, on why it might be.

I also did my own little analysis of this, and would also like to hear opinions
on what I present, and whether these ideas are in chazal (and where):

Each of the first two b'rachot has two sub-themes:
A) Avot [forefathers] -> Geula [redemption]
B) Sustenance of Life -> Resurrection of Dead

The requests section of the shmoneh esreh is concerned about the "here
and now (and future)" of this world, which starts off with personal
sustenance issues and then continues to matters appertaining to worldly
redemption. (Then finishes off with the plea "sh'ma kolainu" for

Avot is the beginning of our history and techiyat hametim is the end of our
history when the world will reach perfection. These ideas are axiomatic. We do
not need to request them because they are respectively the start and the
destination of our existence.

In the bakashot, we pray for what is in the middle.  Because of the avot, we can
pray for ge'ula in the bakashot.  We also pray in the bakashot that we are
granted what is needed for our sustenance and it is from sustenance (spiritual
as well as physical) [that] we have techiyat hamaitim.

Thus we do not have to mention Avot in our requests as we have already
given the praise that the avot [are] the *source* of our ge'ula, nor do we
have to mention techiyat hamaitim as we already gave praise that this is the
ultimate purpose in history and will come from the sustenance of life that we do

David Ziants
Ma'ale Adumim, Israel


From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 3,2009 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Wearing a Kipa at Work

Perhaps it's a sign of the times.
Here we are discussing wearing a Kippah at Work,  when only two generations
ago there were Yiddin who had to wrestle with finding a new job every Sunday
because they would be fired for not working on Shabbos.  Or having to use
depilatories to remove their beards in order to maintain employment.


From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 3,2009 at 05:34 PM
Subject: What "triggers" Kaddish D'Rabbanim

In many Chabad shuls they say half of the last mishnah in Mikvaot 
(Machat....) followed by Rabbi Chananiah ben Akashiah Omer and a Kaddish 

I think I heard it is the Rabbi Channaniah ben Akashia that triggers the 
Kaddish DeRabbanan, so whatever is learned should qualify if it is followed 
by Rabbi Chananiah. 


End of Volume 56 Issue 70