Volume 60 Number 45
Produced: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:03:23 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Additions and changes to the Amidah during the 10 days (2)
[Carl Singer Martin Stern]
Additions and changes to the Amidah during the 10 days ** Correction *
[Chaim Casper]
Alenu on RH and year-round
[Yehuda Wiesen]
Brakhah on orange Juice
[Wendy Baker]
Brakhoth with "L'*" or "Al *"
[Yaakov Shachter]
Chavivut hamitsvot
[Martin Stern]
Inyana deyoma
[Martin Stern]
Spicy Problem
[Martin Stern]
Succah Quiz
[Yisrael Medad]
T'chum Shabbos - an apology
[Martin Stern]
Zerizim makdimim (2)
[Stuart Wise Yaakov Shachter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 12,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Additions and changes to the Amidah during the 10 days
Martin Stern replied (MJ 60#44) to my query (MJ 60#43):
> AFAIK Nusach Sfard always uses the ending "Hamvaraych et Amo Yisroel
> b'Shalom" as during the rest of the year.
He is right -- Art Scroll Nusach Sfard Siddur`-- the Siddur Eitz Chaim
(1st edition May 1985) that I have inserts:
"B'sefer chaim b'racha v'shalom, oo-parnadah tovim, oo-gezayrot tovot,
yeshuot v'nechamot, n'zachar n'catayv lefanecha, anachunu v'col amcha bais
Yisroel, l'chaim tovim o'lshalom"
and then the (usual) brocha,
"Hamvaraych et Amo Yisroel b'shalom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Oct 17,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Additions and changes to the Amidah during the 10 days
Ben Katz <BKatz@...> wrote (MJ 60#44):
> The original ending of the Israeli beracha was "oseh hashalom", as attested by
> genizah fragments. In Babylonia, the ending was codifed as "hamevarech et amo
> Yisrael Bashalom".
It would seem that many of the changes we make, and to which Vilna Gaon
objected to as being meshaneh mimatbeiach shetavu chachamim [altering the
text set by Chazal], are based on the ancient Minhag Erets Yisrael, as
attested by the genizah fragments. Another example is changing "ga'al
Yisrael" to "Melekh Yisrael veGo'alo" when saying ma'aravot [piyutim
inserted in birkhot kriat shema in the evenings of Yamim Tovim].
> For Kabalistic (numerology) reasons, it was suggested to change oseh shalom at
> the end of kaddish to oseh ha-shalom between RH and YK. Because of a printing
> misunderstanding and presumably an old memory regarding the original beracha,
> the oseh hashalom became transposed to the last beracha of the amidah as well
> as to the end of the kaddish.
Such a printing misunderstanding is unlikely to be the reason for the change
since saying "oseh hashalom" at the end of sim shalom was the custom
throughout Ashkenaz long before the suggested change to kaddish and the
latter was in fact never accepted in Germany or the rest of Central / Western
Europe.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 12,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Additions and changes to the Amidah during the 10 days ** Correction *
Due to an editing mistake, my post in response to Carl Singer (MJ 60#43)
incorrectly said:
> The three Ashkenazic rabbanim [the RaMBa"M, the GR"A and the Rav, zt"l]
> listed above all said "Shalom Rav" at minhah and ma'ariv instead of "Sim
> Shalom"....
[we apologise for any error we may have made - MOD]
Actually, my submission said the opposite. I originally said that "all
three rabbanim said Sim Shalom at minhah and ma'ariv. But the reasoning in
the post is correct: Evidently, Shalom Rav is a very late addition
(1600s?--it's clear the RaMBa"M only said Sim Shalom) and so what right do
we have to change the brakhot of HaZa"L in the Amidah? And so Sim Shalom
with the brakhah "Hamevarekh et amo Yisrael" is recited year round,
including the aseret y'mei t'shuvah.
B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda Wiesen <wiesen@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 12,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Alenu on RH and year-round
It seems the ending for Alenu is different when it appears in the high
holiday amida and when it appears at the end of each service during
the year.
Why is that?
Chag sameach,
Yehuda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 12,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Brakhah on orange Juice
Martin Stern (MJ 60#44), replying to Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz (MJ 60#42),
states on the subject of brachot on orange juice
> The crucial point is whether oranges are grown primarily for their juice,
> which then gets the berachah ha'eitz and the fruit would require shehakol ,
> or for eating as fruit in which case the juice would get the berachah
> shehakol and the fruit ha'eitz.
So, one would say ha'eitz on say, a navel or temple orange, which are
primarily eaten whole, in segments, while if eating say, a Valencia or
other "juice" orange in segments one would say shehakol. This would get
tricky, particularly for children who would have to learn all the different
types of oranges.
Apples might present a similar problem, as Rome Rhode Island greenings, and,
Cortland apples in the NE of the US are primarily used for baked apples, pies,
etc, while Granny Smith, Macintosh and several others are used both for cooked
or raw eating, while some, like Delicious, Macoun, etc are primarily raw eating
apples. No apple is totally one or the other. This strikes me as extremely
complicated for figuring brachot. what a chance for disputation at the school
Bracha Bees:-)
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaakov Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 16,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Brakhoth with "L'*" or "Al *"
In MJ 60#40, responding to several earlier postings which
offered reasons for the varying forms of the benedictions that are
recited prior to performing mitzvoth, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> Rather than theorizing about which b'rachos use "L'" and which use
> "Al," it would be advisable to go through the lengthy discussion in
> the Talmud about this very point (P'sachim 7a-b), and to see as well
> the words of the commentaries on the subject. (See specifically the
> words of Tosafos, that they were unable to find a distinction that
> would explain all b'rachos.)
The above-cited poster is correct in saying that more than one scholar
of Jewish law has admitted to being unable to find any systematic
explanation for the varying forms of the benedictions that are recited
prior to performing mitzvoth. This is a most praiseworthy feat of
intellectual honesty, considering the pervasive human tendency to
perceive patterns in random data, and to persist in their belief
despite disconfirming evidence (for an excellent albeit dated review,
see H. J. Einhorn and R. M. Hogarth (1977), Confidence in Judgement:
Persistence of the illusion of validity, Psychological Review, 85,
395-416).
However, there have been scholars of Jewish law who have claimed to
discern a pattern in the data. The most prominent of these is Rambam,
who wrote in the Mishneh Torah, Sefer HaAhava, Hilkhoth Brakhoth,
Chapter 11, Paragraph 11, that when you perform a mitzva for yourself,
you recite the benediction in the form of "la`asoth", and when you
perform a mitzva for others, you recite the benediction in the form of
"'al ha`asiyya" (if you perform the mitzva both for yourself and for
others, then, according to Paragraph 14, if it is an obligatory mitzva
you recite the benediction in the form of "la`asoth", and if it is an
elective mitzva you recite the benediction in the form of "`al
ha`asiyya"). This was the theory first proposed in the above-cited
discussion in Psaxim, before it was refuted by disconfirming evidence;
Rambam, apparently, did not think that the theory had been refuted.
Thus -- according to Rambam, and possibly according to the consensus
in Psaxim, although that is less clear -- if a father circumsizes his
own son, or a slaveowner circumsizes his own slave, he recites the
benediction "limmol eth habben [or, mutatis mutandis, eth ha`eved]"
whereas if you circumsize someone on behalf of his father, or owner,
you recite the more familiar benediction "`al hammila".
It is interesting that, even though the belief in this pattern is a
minority belief -- in fact, practically speaking, it is the belief of
a single man, namely, Rambam and no one else -- it has resulted in
psaq that appears in the more normative codes of law. Thus, the
author of the Shulkhan `Arukh, in Yoreh De`ah 265:2, ruled that when
you circumcize your own son, you recite the benediction "limmol eth
habben", explicitly attributing this ruling to Rambam, thus indicating
that he personally read the gemara in Psaxim as inconclusive, but that
he deferred to Rambam's reading (the Tur Yoreh De`ah 265 also cites
the opinion of Rambam but rules that the custom is that the father
does not recite a different benediction). The Rema dissents, and
rules, like the Tur, that whether you perform the mitzva for yourself
or on behalf of others does not affect the form of the benediction.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
<jay@...>
http://m5.chicago.il.us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Oct 17,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Chavivut hamitsvot
I seem to remember seeing somewhere that one should not put down the arba
minim until after kaddish titkabal to show one's chivuv hamitsvah [love of
the mitsvah] but I cannot remember the source. Since I notice that most
people do put them away before, not just in the case of those who
say hoshanot after mussaf and might be in a hurry to get away but also after
hallel after shacharit when this consideration would not apply. I suspect
that I may be wrong. Does anyone know whether such a source exists and, if
so, what it is?
On the other hand, I notice many people do rush to take the arba minim
before the end of chazarat hashats, when one should be concentrating on what
the shats is saying, and, what to me seems even less justifiable, make the
berachah on it then. Can anyone suggest a limud zekhut [ex post facto
justification] for what seems to be a widespread custom?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Oct 17,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Inyana deyoma
There are quite a lot of minor variations in the wording of the korbanot
mussaf (Bam.29, 12-34) for the various days of Succot. I have seen
explanations for many of them (niskah/niskeihem/nesakheha, kamishpat/kamishpatam
and seir/seir izzim) but there was one that struck me on Sunday, the 4th
day of Succot: it says "minchatam" instead of "uminchatam" as on all the
other days. I have not seen any explanation for this variation. Can anyone
supply one?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Oct 17,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Spicy Problem
Haim Snyder <haimsny@...> wrote (MJ 60#44):
> Martin Stern asked (MJ 60#43):
>> In the Talmudic passage Pitum haketoret (Keritot 6a, TJ Yoma 4,5),
>> included in the siddur, there is a list of the 11 spices that composed the
>> incense used in the Beit Hamikdash. They appear basically to be listed
>> in decreasing weights except for the last two which are reversed. Has anyone
>> seen any explanation of this apparent anomaly?"
>
> A friend of mine pointed out that the item which is apparently out of
> order is the bark of the Kosht and, therefore, immediately succeeds it.
Since we do not really know for certain precisely what all the 11 spices
are, I do not find this explanation convincing unless there should be a
source for this identification of the kilufah. At most, it must be something
peeled like mace (Steinsalz) or a bark like (but obviously not the same as)
cinnamon. Can anyone provide any further information?
AFAIK ketsia and kinnamon, if they are indeed cassia and cinnamon which
seems likely on etymological grounds, are also derived from the same tree
or, at least, very similar ones which would then require closer
juxtaposition as well according to Haim's friend's reasoning.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 16,2011 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Succah Quiz
Q. When is a succha kosher only during the Shabbat of the Chag but is
not kosher davka on the Chag itself?
A. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Zmanim, 4:10 -
"Should a person place s'chach over an alleyway which possesses a
lechi [a post at its entrance to show it is separate from the public domain] or
a well which possesses pasim [four L-shaped 'wall segments' forming the corners
of a square around the well to indicate it is enclosed as a private domain], it
is considered a kosher sukkah only on the Sabbath of the festival. Since this
lechi and these pasim are considered to be partitions with regard to the Sabbath
laws, they are also considered to be partitions with regard to the laws of sukkah".
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Oct 17,2011 at 02:01 AM
Subject: T'chum Shabbos - an apology
In MJ 60#43, I wrote:
> The problem of muktseh items pales into insignificance when compared to the
> problem of having gone chutz letchum [outside the area permitted on Shabbat
> - 1000 amot, approximately 1500 feet but consult your LOR, from the last
> house in town].
As was pointed out to me off-line by someone who wished to remain anonymous,
this was an error and should have read:
"the problem of having gone chutz letchum [outside the area permitted on
Shabbat - 2000 amot, approximately 3000 feet but consult your LOR, from the
last house in town]."
I must apologise for not checking more carefully before sending the posting.
[We also apologise for not having spotted the mistake - MOD]
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 16,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Zerizim makdimim
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 6043):
> There is an old custom to start shacharit 5 minutes earlier on the day after
> Yom Kippur in order to show that we are now zerizim makdimim - more eager in
> our avodat Hashem [service of the Almighty].
What a curious custom. I've heard it, and know a few places that do it, but
does it really accomplish that? I daven at the first possible minyan
every day. Doesn't that show zerizus? Maybe the custom should be that people
who normally daven later should go to an earlier minyan. That would really
show zerizus. Five minutes sounds like lip service.
S. Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaakov Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Tue, Oct 18,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Zerizim makdimim
In MJ 60#43, Martin Stern wrote:
> There is an old custom to start shacharit 5 minutes earlier on the
> day after Yom Kippur in order to show that we are now zerizim
> makdimim - more eager in our avodat Hashem [service of the
> Almighty].
>
> I noticed today (Sunday after YK) that our first minyan was rather
> depleted and many of the regular attenders seem to have gone to the
> later one. Are they fulfilling this custom because it also started
> 5 minutes earlier than its regular time?
It may be that these Jews would prefer to worship at the later minyan
every day of the year, but they do not do so, for fear that other Jews
will judge them harshly. The day after Yom Kippur, however, is the
one day of the year when they know that their fellow Jews will not be
scrutinizing them, and seeking to find fault with them.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
<jay@...>
http://m5.chicago.il.us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 45
