Volume 57 Number 27 
      Produced: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:01:49 EDT

Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

A Special Prayer on behalf of Gilad Shalit for Rosh HaShanah 
    [Yael Levine]
Candle Lighting (4)
    [Batya Medad  david guttmann  Harry Weiss  Michael Engel]
Candle lighting and other timing issues 
    [Michael Frankel]
Diversity of minhag 
    [Martin Stern]
Forbidden Fruit (and Vegetables) 
mispelling Hebrew 
    [Michael Kahn]
Photos of the Jewish Bloggers Convention 
    [Jacob Richman]
tevilas kelim 
    [Rabbi Meir Wise]
Viddui (Confession) (3)
    [Russell J Hendel  Elazar M. Teitz  <chips@...>]
Viddui (Confession) - Intent 
    [Saul Newmn]


From: Yael Levine <ylevine@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 15,2009 at 03:01 AM
Subject: A Special Prayer on behalf of Gilad Shalit for Rosh HaShanah

We all hope and pray that Gilad Shalit will return safely before Rosh Ha-Shanah. However, if our hope does not yet come true, Rosh Ha-Shanah is a most appropriate time to pray on his behalf in shul. 
To this end, I have composed a special prayer.  
The Hebrew text of the prayer, and the sources upon which the prayer is based are posted on several websites. See 
The prayer is also posted on www.gilad.org - the official website. However, it is necessary to be signed up to access the page. 
Below is an English translation of the prayer.
You are urged to further distribute the material.
Shanah Tova,
Yael Levine
A Prayer of Behalf of Gilad Shalit

To be Recited in the Synagogue
On Rosh Ha-Shanah

Yael Levine

Our Father, Our King, God who becomes appeased through compassion, consider favorably with Your Kindness on this Day of Remembrance, Gilad, son of Aviva and Noam Shalit, who has been taken into captivity by the enemy.
Who is like You, Merciful Father, Who recalls His creatures mercifully for life. Remember him for life, O King Who desires life, and redeem and release him soon from his confinement, as it is written: "To rescue prisoners from confinement, from the dungeon those who sit in darkness" (Isaiah 42, 7).
Please, O gracious and compassionate King, who apportions life for all the living, may the cry of the prisoner come before You, and may the biblical verse be fulfilled in him: "To proclaim release to the captives, liberation to the imprisoned" (Isaiah. 61, 1), as well as the Scripture: "God releases the bound" (Psalms 146, 7).
Have compassion on Your handiwork, and extend kindness to Gilad, son of Aviva and Noam Shalit, on this Day of Judgment. Our God and the God of our forefathers, remember him with a favorable memory before You, and visit him with a recollection of salvation and mercy, by the merit of Joseph, who was discharged from prison on Rosh ha-Shanah and by the merits of Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah who were frequented on Rosh ha-Shanah; and because this entire holy congregation is praying on his behalf that he return safely soon. Amen, so may it be Your will.


From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Candle Lighting

> One example which puzzled us is "licht benching"; why didn't it become
> "candle blessing"?"
The Hebrew term is hadlakat neirot, candle-lighting.
Hebrew predates Yiddish.


From: david guttmann <david.guttman@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Candle Lighting

R.Ira wrote:
>A common error.  That should be Hanetz.

  I was thinking from "Nun Tzadi Tzadi" like Henetzu Harimonim. Which means
flowering and could be a derivative belashon [in the language of --MOD] Mishna
to the sun rising. I do not think the word Hanetz is found in tanach in this
context. But you are probably right as Rambam in Hilchot Kryat shema uses Hanetz
hachama at all times. 

David Guttmann

From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Candle Lighting

> A clarification:  I was addressing the original question, "One example 
> which
> puzzled us is "licht benching"; why didn't it become "candle blessing"?"
The problem is that it is the wrong question being asked.  Going back to 
Talmudic times the term used is Hadlakat Neirot, which means candle 
lighting, so the real question is why did Yiddish get it as Lict Bentiching. 
A off the cuff guess may be that it is that because the Yiddish word for 
light and Candle is both licht so it could be Licht lictzen for candle 
lighting which would be a bit confusing.

From: Michael Engel <michael11694@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 14,2009 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Candle Lighting

In our home and in the chassidic milieu in which I grew up candle  
lighting was referred to as "lecht tzindin" and not "licht bentchin".   
We don't, after all, bless the candles. We bless God who gave us the  
mitzvah of lighting the candles.

Michael Engel


From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 14,2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Candle lighting and other timing issues

David Guttmann stated in mail-jewish Vol.57 #24 Digest:
>Rambam in a Teshuvah (Blau 255) was asked about the exact time of 
>Netz Hachama. 

Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>:
> A common error. That should be Hanetz.
this has been recycled a few times.  it would seem - kaufmann codex - that both
heneitz and honeitz are equally attested usage.  see mail jewish vol 57 #17 for
more detail.  also, language usage evolves.  at what point does common usage
over generations by the majority of language practitioners cease being a
"mistake" and assume the aspect of a hypercorrect affectation?  go tell r. moshe
and others that he is abusing the language (which perhaps he was).  i
occasionally encounter this phenomenon in leining (or been guilty of it myself).

Mechy Frankel


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Diversity of minhag

Daniel Wells wrote:
>> Unfortunately those from the latter ("Poland-Lithuania") who consider
>> themselves as following Minhag Ashkenaz often do not recognise this diversity
>> and tend to try to impose their version of it on the remnants of Ashkenaz
>> proper.
> I wouldn't be surprised that what you consider as Polen Jews consider their
> version of Ashkenaz as 'proper'!

Unfortunately Daniel has misinterpreted the word 'proper' that I had used.
Perhaps it is a literary UK usage with which he is unfamiliar.  There was no
implication that the minhagim of Ashkenazim from Poland-Lithuania were in
any way improper merely that they did not live in Germany and the
surrounding lands that followed its customs from which they differed in some
slight details.

> Not only as I pointed out in my previous post that there is no one standard
> what constitutes Minhag Ashkenaz but even in what Martin defines as Ashkenaz
> Proper (which is not necessarily today's national state of Germany and
> certainly not UK's Manchester) there were divergent minhagim between
> Frankfurt, Hamburg and Berlin.

This was the reason I used the term "Ashkenaz proper" rather than Germany to
indicate the Western Ashkenazi tradition and ethos as opposed to that of
"Poland-Lithuania", itself a rather loose term that includes, inter alia,
what is now Belorus and Ukraine. Perhaps I should use the term "former Holy
Roman Empire and its western offshoots" but that would be just as unclear to
most people.
> And I wouldn't be surprised if Adass Yeshurun Synagogue of Manchester even
> before the current change had influences NOT attributable 'Ashkenaz Proper'.

I am not aware of these but, no doubt, there may have been some small
changes over the last 70 years which were integrated organically (and
therefore unnoticed) into the shul's general ethos, something that happens
everywhere. What caused the present problem was the abrupt change in certain
practices without proper attempts to persuade those likely to be unhappy
about them of their desirability and the high handed manner with which the
latter were treated.

This campaign would appear to be continuing and the few remaining "old"
members seem to be under pressure to leave so that within a short time the
shul can be expected to have a completely altered membership. Some have
suggested that the name should be changed so that it becomes clear that it
is a new entity with no real connection with the previous congregation
called Adass Yeshurun.
Martin Stern


From: S.Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 15,2009 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Forbidden Fruit (and Vegetables)

I must admit that I am increasingly confounded by some of our practices. 
In the realm of kashrus, technically all fruits and vegetables are kosher,  
and yet in practice we are urged to avoid some because of infestation.  
Strawberries and figs are offenders among the fruit, and the likes of  brussels 
sprouts and asparagus present problems.
My question is this:  What was the point of Hashem creating these  produce 
if they are basically off limits to us? 


From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 14,2009 at 12:01 AM
Subject: mispelling Hebrew

<<Did those people spell Shabat with a samach on purpose to show not like
Maskilim (lahotzi milibam), or accidentally, out of ignorance of the

It was done on purpose as though it were following the "rules" for
Yiddish spelling, and
thereby to deny the Divine origin of the word.  

Shabbos would be spelled, for instance, Shin Aleph (Yiddish rule for the
"o" as in hot sound), 
beis, ayin (Yiddish rule for the "e" as in bed sound), samech, samech for
terminal position "s"



From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Photos of the Jewish Bloggers Convention

Hi Everyone!

Today, September 13, 2009, I participated in the International
Jewish Bloggers Convention in Jerusalem. It was great seeing
in person all the people I met on the Internet.

I posted 178 photos of the convention online at:

The 178 photos have, also, been uploaded to Facebook for 
name tagging. You can access the Facebook album at:

At the convetion I gave a workshop about marketing on Facebook.
For those that missed it, the presentation is available online at:

Enjoy the photos and presentation.

Shana Tova,


From: Rabbi Meir Wise <Meirhwise@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 06:01 PM
Subject: tevilas kelim

Yes I seemed to have confused Rav Avraham Yosef Ash with Rav Yaakov  
Yosef Ash. Perhaps they were related. Strange that they both ended up  
in New York.

But leaving the "tofel" aside does anyone have an opinion on the  
actual psak?

Rav Meir Henoch Hakohen Wise (no relation to the gavad of the eida  
despite his claims!)


From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Viddui (Confession)

The following comment was recently made:
> ...Because of this I never do private confession in the plural (since I consider
> it prohibited based on the above).

    One should not decide questions of Jewish law and practice without first
consulting the words of the poskim [halachic decisors].  This is especially true
when concluding that generations upon generations of Jews, including the most
outstanding tzaddikim [men of piety] and g'dolei Torah [Torah greats]  
were guilty of sinning repeatedly -- and on Yom Kippur, no less.   

     In point of fact, the halacha specifically states that since the text of
vidduy is said by everyone, it is considered as part of the nusach hat'fillah
[the text of prayer], and that therefore it may be said in the plural,  
and whether or not it applies to the individual.

     Indeed, changing the text might render the person a poreish min hatzibbur
[one who separates himself from the public] -- and that is indeed sinful conduct.


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Viddui (Confession)

In my response to my long and detailed posting with many sources on why I say
the confesion at the end of the Shmoneh Esray in singular and ONLY on those sins
applicable (if any) and basically use a correct confession template (rather than
just saying 'on sins involving...) Joe asked "Did you (A) come up with this
procedure by my own logic or (B) are there earlier halachic sources to say it
this way"

I was a bit confused at this question at first. AFter all I spent a whole
posting doing nothing but citing sources. So I think what Joe is really asking
is "(C) Is there an EXPLICIT halachic source to say it this way." 

So now we have three questions A,B,C enumerated above. We also have an implicit
question: (D) If your answer to (C) is no even if the answer to (B) is yes then
why do you do it. OK: Enough questions. Let me answer it.

Answer to A: This is easy. A person does not have a right with his own logic,
unaided by sources to override customs and source based practices. So the answer
to A is NO - I did not use my own logic. Nor do I support the rights of others
to so do.

Answer to B: This is also easy. I cited numerous sources which make my position
very reasonable. (Upon reading your note I went back and read the rambam (I dont
have any commentaries with me). Rambam Teshuva 1:2 and 2:9-11 explicitly says
the following a) There is PERSONAL and COMMUNAL repentance (Though some might
argue he is talking about placement of the prayer not about different prayers
but) b) TWICE the Rambam uses the language 'this is the main part of confession'
- but the two formulations are different! So I conclude that one is the COMMUNAL
repentance while the other is the INDIVIDUAL repentance c) the Rambam at least
is very explicit that what individuals say after a shmoneh esray IS a
fulfillment of the commandment of confession ...but then 1:2 kicks in and the
Rambam seems to be requiring that this be said.  d) I dont have all commentaries
here...but 1:2 talks about mentioning the sin....I seem to remember the golden
calf as an example (perhaps that is in the KEsef Mishneh I will check (and if it
is not so will get back).

Note: Even some who disagree with me have conceded that my arguments would prove
that IN ADDITION to the shmoneh esray the individual MUST ALSO say the
individual confession as listed in 1:2 and which has certain characteristics
such as specification, statement of embarassment etc. 

Answer to C: I have heard that 90% of all religious questions are not found
explicitly in books but must be inferred. SO I dont know that we NEED an
explicit source.

But if you want the closest to a source here it is:
Rambam Prayer 2:6 - talks about the weekly shmoneh esray as HEADINGS for needs.
I believe the original implication is that you should say these blessings and
then add anything extra (We do this in the prayer for sick people). The Aruch
Hashulchan advices against overusing this.

Rambam Teshuva 1:2 speaks about a specific TEMPLATE which is the STANDARD SOURCE
and differs from the communal standard source (See ibid 2:9-11).

Rambam Teshuva 2:9-11 explicitly says that the recital after the shmoneh esray
is a fulfillment of the commandment of confession which in 1:2 he explains means
saying a particular template. The particular template requires SPECIFIZING the
sin and several other things not found in the COMMUNAL template.

Answer to D: Good question. The strong answer is roughly this: The usual
argument is "You are not sure...so follow customs..." Here however there is a
serious problem of slander. I cited a very serious source that a person cannot
go around saying "I have unclean lips and the nation has unclean lips". So to
recap I have no trouble with the chazan saying this. But I have trouble with
saying something that violates a very severe law. There are other problems: It
is cheap and insulting to say e.g. WE killed PLEASE forgive us. What kind of
repentance is that? If a person committed a murder then HE should confess and
stop acting like everyone does this.

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

From: <chips@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 13,2009 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Viddui (Confession)

Joseph Kaplan wrote:
> Russell Jay Hendel makes a very detailed argument why he says the Al
> Chets in the singular and omits several that he believes don't apply
> to him.  I'm curious.  Can he cite any halachic sources who say this
> is the proper way of saying the viddui?  Also, does he know of any
> siddur, modern or ancient, that has the viddui in the singular, or
> which include instructions to omit those that do not apply?  I guess
> what I'm really asking is this:  I have never heard anyone else do
> what Russell does.

I have a two part answer for this, both incomplete unfortunately.
This is not an original Russel argument - my 10th grade Rebbe told us that
if we felt that something did not apply or if something was an issue that
we were not sorry for, to skip it or to skip the viddui of making false

As for going to singular, I do recall seeing a version of viddui in the
singular in print, but don't recall where and it may have been a viddui
that one was saying for themselves and not as part of any prayer.



From: Saul Newmn <Saul.Z.Newman@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 14,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Viddui (Confession) - Intent

in re  vidui,  what  to say , and  which kavanot  to have,   see 
bottom of  page  3 ,  on the kavvana  needed to be  yotze the mitva  of 
tshuva, according to rav  elyashiv

> it does not suffice to merely say the viduy, rather we must resolve and 
> regret, aside from the yom kippur viduy, to properly fulfill his obligations 
> of teshuvah
[quote added from source by MOD]


End of Volume 57 Issue 27