Volume 60 Number 48
Produced: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:57:08 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Another conundrum (2)
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Express Kedusha (3)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz David E Cohen]
Mourner's Kaddish
[Frank Silbermann]
New punctuation in Retsei? (4)
[Mark Steiner Michael Frankel Shimon Lebowitz Haim Snyder]
Sim Shalom at Mincha on Shabbos
[Elazar M. Teitz]
The solution to a conundrum
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 15,2011 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Another conundrum
Perets Mett <p.mett00@...> wrote (MJ 60#47):
> This past Chol Hamoed Succos, what mlocho was permitted for a ben chuts
> loorets (diaspora resident) but forbidden to a ben Erets Yisroel (resident of
> Erets Yisroel)?
Preparing for Shabbat Bereshit. Ben Erets Israel cannot, because Friday
following Shemini Aseret is a weekday. Ben Huts La'arets can because of 2
days of Yom Tov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 15,2011 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Another conundrum
In answer to Perets Mett's conundrum (MJ 60#47):
Could it be cooking the eruv tavshilin?
Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 14,2011 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Express Kedusha
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 60#47):
> The aveil [mourner] who has therefore been the sheliach tzibur at shachrit the
> last few months in my shul rattles through kedusha at the same frantic pace he
> does through chazarat hashatz, saying the entire thing aloud without pausing
> to let the rest of us answer "kadosh", "boruch" and "yimloch".
>
> Obviously that is wrong. (It seems to be an error of overcorrection.) Can
> someone point me to a source that explicitly says so? One can derive it by
> implication from the relevant section of the shulchan arukh (it's towards the
> end of the first volume of the mishna berura) which talks about "answering,"
> but I'd like some source that explicitly says "the sheliach tzibur should
> wait until the congregation answers." (This fellow has smicha, BTW.)
I asked my Rabbi, who just spoke about this, and he said that it is
specifically dealt with in a sefer called "Ishai Yisrael" around page
254 or so. This deals with the laws of saying kedusha and explicitly
says that the chazan must wait until the congregation finishes and the
congregation must answer only after the chazan finishes. He said that
he believes that this sefer was published 15 years ago and has been
very well accepted. The author is still active in Eretz Yisroel and is
relatively young.
As I recall, this is actually a case of a bracha levatala (or using
the shem hashem levatala).
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David E Cohen <ddcohen@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 15,2011 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Express Kedusha
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 60#47):
>> the sheliach tzibur ... saying the entire thing aloud without pausing to
>> let the rest of us answer "kadosh", "boruch" and "yimloch"...
>> Obviously that is wrong.
If I understand correctly, the issue at hand is that the shatz is saying
the pesukim of kedushah together with the tzibbur rather than repeating
them after the tzibbur says them. There is a discussion of that issue in
Section 2 of the article found at
http://www.vbm-torah.org/halakha/chazan2.htm .
Quick summary: R' Moshe Feinstein would agree that the practice of this shatz is
wrong, but the shatz is doing it correctly according to the Rambam.
-- D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 17,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Express kedusha
Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 60#47) was wondering about sources that require the Shat"z to
wait for the Tzibbur to say Kedusha and then respond out loud.
The Shulchan Aruch O. Ch. 125:1 says the Tzibbur must answer the Shat"z
when reciting Kedusha.
Iggerot Moshe O. Ch. 3:4 specifically says that the Shat"z must wait for
the Tzibbur to finish saying each part of the Kedusha and then the Shat"z
must say it out loud so that he may help the people who are still davening
Shemoneh Esrei fulfill their obligation to answer Kedusha. While they
cannot answer Kedusha if they are still in the middle of reciting Shemonah
Esrei, they can meet their obligation through Shome'a Ke'oneh (hearing is
tantamount to reciting). Furthermore, since Trai Kolai Lo Mistama'ei (one
cannot clearly hear when more than one person is speaking), the Shat"z must
wait until the Tzibbur finishes before repeating the different parts of
Kedusha out loud. The person who is relying on the Shat"z to help him
fulfill his obligation cannot fulfill his obligation by listening to his
fellow davener standing next to him, rules Rav Moshe, unless he made
arrangements with him in advance - and that is not practical. So the
Shat"z is the one responsible for being motzee the people still praying
Shemoneh Esrei and the Shat"z must wait for the Tzibbur and repeat each
portion of the Kedusha clearly and out loud.
Perhaps, after reading the Iggerot Moshe responsum, the speedy Shat"z in
question will reconsider his approach. Divrei Chachamim BeNachat Nishmai'm.
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 14,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Mourner's Kaddish
The mourner's kaddish begins in Aramaic. But this line, which continues in Aramaic:
Y'hei sh'lama raba min sh'maya (May there be abundant peace from Heaven)
suddenly switches to Hebrew:
v'chayim aleinu v'al kol yis'ra'eil v'im'ru Amein (and life upon us and upon all
Israel. Now say: Amein)
I understand that a text or prayer written in a vernacular may well contain
many Hebrew terms embedded within -- but why would a prayer just suddenly
switch from one language to another in mid-sentence?
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 14,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: New punctuation in Retsei?
Martin Stern remarks (MJ 60#47):
> Earlier editions of Artscroll, like most siddurim, had the following
> punctuation in Retsei:
>
> " ... vehasheiv et ha'avodah lidvir beitecha. v'ishei Yisrael utefillatam
> be'ahava tekabeil beratson ..."
>
> which it translated as:
>
> " ... and restore the service to the Holy of Holies of Your Temple. The
> fire-offerings of Israel and their prayer accept with love and favour ..."
>
> Newer editions have altered the punctuation to:
>
> " ... vehasheiv et ha'avodah lidvir beitecha v'ishei Yisrael. utefillatam
> be'ahava tekabeil beratson ..."
Both versions are found in the Tosafot to Menahot 110a d"h umikhael.
Here is another source: Seder R. Amram Gaon, tefillat minha, implies without
any doubt that the "earlier" editions of Artscroll are historically earlier.
He gives a version of the "avoda" prayer that actually begins not with
retzei but with v'ishei Yisrael.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 15,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: New punctuation in Retsei?
In reply to Martin Stern <md.stern@...> (MJ 60#47):
Martin's Stern's acute attention to detail has been a real eye opener, causing
me to view the Art Scroll enterprise with newer and more respectful perspective.
It now seems glaringly obvious that Art Scroll's primary intent here is to
offer, with a spare elegance, a learned commentary on linguistic and grammatical
propriety. As both the old and new versions now begin with "and", Art Scroll
is clearly seizing a teaching moment to emphasize to the reader that any
sentence at all may begin with a conjunction. Realizing that misguided fealty
to the tyrannical diktat of Strunk and White's Elements of Style (in this case -
Thou shalt not begin a sentence with a conjunction) was as misplaced as S&W's
grammatical prejudices were both arbitrary and stupid and have unnaturally
constrained the creative impulses of generations of college students, they have
chosen to protest S&W's unjustified assault on linguistic truth with a
demonstration of acceptable usage in continuous employment since the Middle
Ages.
And to think, some of us thought that linguistic doctrine was part of
an intellectual corpus quite foreign to a narrow Art Scroll knowledge base.
Unfortunately, one can be too subtle, so Mr. Stern's vigilance is to be
congratulated for highlighting this bold declaration here.
Mechy Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, Nov 16,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: New punctuation in Retsei?
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> asked (MJ 60#47):
> However, I don't understand why there is any problem with the original
> punctuation which should be understood as referring to the restoration of
> the Temple when sacrifices will again be brought together with our prayers....
>
> Any comments?
>
The two readings are apparently both valid but are based on differing
versions of an aggada at the end of Menachot. See the final tosafot
on Menachot 110a starting "uMichael".
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 17,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: New punctuation in Retsei?
In MJ 60 #47, Martin Stern queried about the punctuation in Retsei
pointing out that the location of the period is either between "dvir
beitecha" and "v'ishei yisrael" or between "v'ishei yisrael"and
"utfilatam", particularly the change in the position in various editions
of the Artscroll siddur.
First, it should be noted that Tosefot, in Menuhot 101 a, claim that
both are valid.
Both the G"Ra and Rabbi Soloveitchik prefer the latter , indicating that
the items before the period are those that are not performed today, due
to destruction of the Temple and what follows is the prayer that we are
capable of saying even without the Temple.
A friend of mine pointed out that grammatically there is a possible
problem with this punctuation, since one would have expected it to read
"'v'et ishei yisrael"t be consistent with "et haavoda". Somehow, I think
that the G"Ra and Rabbi Soloveitchik were sufficiently knowledgeable
regarding grammar not to have preferred a version which isn't
grammatically correct.
As to the reason for the change in Artscroll, it may have been the
result of publication of Mahzorim with commentary from the teachings of
Rabbi Soloveitchik which brought his opinion to the attention of a
broader audience.
--
Regards,
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 14,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Sim Shalom at Mincha on Shabbos
Rabbi Chaim Casper wrote (MJ 60#46):
> In MJ 60#44, I wrote that the GR"A said Sim Shalom for minhah and ma'ariv
> (instead of Shalom Rav). After being questioned about it and researching
> it, I have concluded that this post was wrong. The GR"A said Sim Shalom
> for minhah on Shabbat afternoon only; the other six daily minhahs and all
> seven ma'arivs were concluded by the GR"A with Shalom Rav (see the Siddur
> HaGR"A).
The sefer called Siddur HaGR"A was not authored by the GR"A. Indeed, in many
places, its text of the t'fillos [prayers] is not in keeping with what the GR"A
held. A quick glance showed the following examples where the siddur does not
follow the GR"A::
he did not say Mizmor Shir Chanukas Habayis in Shacharis;
he did not say the pasuk "Ki Sheim Hashem Ekra" at Mincha and Mussaf;
he held that Shomeir Yisraeil was said at Tachanun only on fast days;
he said, not Morid hatal, but Mashiv haruach umorid hatal;
his ending for the third b'racha of Birkat Hamazon was "Bonei Y'rushalayim,"
omitting the word "b'rachamav."
Thus, the appearance therein of Sim Shalom at mincha of Shabbos is no proof that
the GR"A said it.
In fact, a siddur was published about a decade ago, entitled Eizor Eliyahu,
which seeks to reconstruct how the GR"A actually davened. It is the work of
experts and is buttressed with sources for virtually all of the changes from
the familiar to us. It contends that the GR"A said Shalom Rav at mincha on
Shabbos and that the custom of the P'rushim (those following his customs in
Israel) was, in this instance, derived from the S'faradim, as were several other
of their customs, such as the daily recital of Ein Keilokeinu at the end of
Shacharis.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 15,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: The solution to a conundrum
I wrote (MJ 60#46):
> Here is another conundrum:
>
> What activity is prohibited on Chol Hamoed but permitted on Shabbat and Yom
> Tov?
Since I have had several offline queries, this is the solution:
Work done by a non-Jewish contractor (not an employee paid for his time)
doing building work on one's property when it is chuts letchum and no Jew
can get there on Shabbat or Yom Tov, i.e. no marit ayin is possible. On Chol
Hamoed there is no restriction on travel so marit ayin is a problem.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 48