Volume 60 Number 53
Produced: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:16:58 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bar Elahin (2)
[Shmuel Himelstein Joshua W. Burton]
Bread over Wine Friday Night?
[Martin Stern]
Chavivut hamitsvot (2)
[Rose Landowne Chaim Casper]
Nut shells' muktzeh status
[Gershon Dubin]
Origin of the name Bryna (3)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Lisa Liel Martin Stern]
Secular courts serving ecclesiastical courts
[Immanuel Burton]
Why do we light the Channukah candles
[David Tzohar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 10,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Bar Elahin
The RCA Shabbat and Festival prayer book was published in 1960, and it
translated Bar-Elahin as a "created being."
>From what I remember of that time, the edition was shelved because of an
objection of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ZaTzaL, over that exact
translation.
Anyone who can shed more light on this?
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua W. Burton <joshua@...>
Date: Mon, Dec 12,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Bar Elahin
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> writes [MJ 60#49]:
> Because translating "bar elahin" literally "son of God" is theologically
> problematic, English translations, at least those I've seen (Art Scroll
> and Koren), translate the phrase as "angels" which, apparently, it means
> in the Book of Daniel. (Others don't say brich shmay at all for this
> reason. Interestingly enough, siddur Rinat Yisrael translates it as
> "bnai elohim.") But that presents another theological problem: if, as I
> thought we were supposed to believe, "angels" are simply agents of God,
> what is the matter with trusting them? Abraham did. Samson did.
And so did Ahab, but haShem ordered a ruach sheker (lying spirit) to put
false words in his prophets' mouths. See 1 Kings 22.
Joshua
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 10,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Bread over Wine Friday Night?
Sarah Beck <beckse@...> wrote (MJ 60#52):
> In MJ 60#51, Stu Pilichowski wrote:
>
>> This Friday night I found myself without wine or grape juice. So instead of
>> borrowing a bottle from a friend or neighbor (as I learned one is supposed to
>> do) I simply made kiddush with challah/hamotzie.
>>
>> I found a citing in the mishna brura (siman 272 sif katan 32) that says one
>> could make kiddush on bread as the preferred way / lechatchilah, if he
>> prefers bread over wine. Ever hear of such a thing?
>>
> Although I cannot speak to the halacha, among Lubavitch in Europe this
> (bread instead of wine/grape juice) was a matter of routine, according
> to a friend whose father a"h was from a Lubavitch town near Vilna.
Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...> also wrote (ibid.):
> This was our family's custom for all my formative years; on Friday
> nights, we would wash before kiddush, say the regular kiddush with
> ha-motzi replacing borei pri ha-gafen, and eat the challah
> immediately after the conclusion of the second paragraph of kiddush.
In Eastern Europe, wine was hard to get and expensive -- the nearest most
people got to it was by boiling up a few raisins! So poorer people had to
make kiddush on the challas for want of any alternative.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rose Landowne <Roselandow@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 10,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Chavivut hamitsvot
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote (MJ 60#52):
> Chazal instituted chazarat hashats for those who did not know the prayers
> well enough to be able to say them themselves (in the days before siddurim
> were widely available). Though this reason no longer applies, we are not in a
> position to abandon the custom. The shats can only recite it if 9 other
> adult males are present and paying attention, otherwise he is reciting
> brachot levatalah [to no purpose]. It is therefore suggested that every
> individual should pay attention so as to ensure this and not rely on others
> doing it.
Rabbi Riskin once gave a drasha where he spoke about Rav Soloveitchik's opinion
that chazarat hashatz is tefilat hatzibur, and not just said because of those
who don't know the prayers. In accordance with this, he holds that one must
stand as if in tefillah the whole time, with kavannah. I keep forgetting to ask
Rabbi Riskin if this also means that one doesn't say baruch hu uvaruch shmo
after each bracha, in order to be yotzei with the brachot.
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Sun, Dec 11,2011 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Chavivut hamitsvot
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote (MJ 60#52):
> Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...> wrote (MJ 60#51):
>
>> Now there is no obligation to listen to Chazeros Hashatz. If there is
>> anything it would be Kedushah and Modim. If someone, let us say, is
>> behind in the davening, they don't listen. You might say there is an
>> obligation to say Amen but that's only if you are paying attention.
>> Too many people not doing so maybe could be a problem for the minyan.
>
> Chazal instituted chazarat hashats for those who did not know the prayers
> well enough to be able to say them themselves (in the days before siddurim
> were widely available). Though this reason no longer applies, we are not in a
> position to abandon the custom.
There is a third view. R' Chaim Soloveitchik (Rabbi Joseph Dov
Soloveitchik's grandfather) learned from Rosh Hashannah 34B that there
are two kinds of tefilah:
(i) tefilah b'zibbur (the private Amidah) and
(ii) tefilat ha'zibbur (the repetition of the Amidah or the Amidah of the
community).
Just as one is required to stand at attention during the private Amidah without
engaging in private conversation, so too must one stand at attention and
concentrate on every word recited by the shaliah zibbur without engaging in
private conversation. Not only is the shaliah zibbur saying the prayer on
behalf of those who cannot say it, he is also saying it on behalf of the
community as a whole. In other words, he is the spokesman for the community,
articulating the needs and requests of the community as a whole.
Now the Mishneh Brurah (124:17) says that one should not learn or say
tehillim or talk during hazarat hashatz, rather, one should concentrate on
what the shaliah zibbur is saying. I once saw the MB say (though I
couldn't find it while writing this note) that one does not need to stand
at attention during the repetition (the only exception being if once sits
within 4 amot [approximately 6 - 8 feet - MOD] of the shaliah zibbur -- see
124:20) but that nonetheless, one had to pay attention and answer Amen to every
brakhah of the shaliah zibbur. I always felt though I had no concrete proof
that this ruling of the MB that one could sit was in response to Reb Chaim's
concept that one had to stand at attention during the repetition. Either way,
both required everyone in the room to pay attention to the shaliah zibbur.
Finally, a haver of mine who learns during hazarat hashatz once said to me
that the Arukh Hashulhan allows learning during the repetition as some
would otherwise engage in talking. I couldn't find the Arukh Hashulhan
saying this (neither could my friend). Does anyone know if and where the
Arukh Hashulhan says this?
B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 10,2011 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Nut shells' muktzeh status
Shalom Krischer <Shalom_Krischer@...> wrote (MJ 60#52):
> the Gemara definitely allows for the use of stones that have been prepared
> before Shabbos for their use on Shabbos
Correct. If one set aside nutshells to be used for some purpose (as the stones
were, in the example you gave), they would not be muktza. However, there was no
setting aside of anything; the shells are going to be discarded and not used
for any purpose. As such, the heter of setting aside stones does not apply.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 9,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Origin of the name Bryna
The Gaelic, Irish, originated version means "Strong" according to
http://www.babynames.com/name/BRYNA
Welsh means Hill according to
http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Bryna.html
According to http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Bryna:
*Bryna* \b-ry-na\ as a girl's name is a variant of
*Breena*<http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Breena>,
*Brianna* <http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Brianna> (Irish, Gaelic,
Celtic) and *Brina*
<http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Brina>(Slavic), and the
meaning of Bryna is "high, noble, exalted; defender".
According to
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Reform-Judaism-950/meaning-yiddish-name.htm
The name Breina, and many variants such as BREINDEL:YIDDISH FOR BRAUNE
(BROWN) or from BRUNHILD: German for fighter in armor, BRINA -brown or from
Slavic, meaning protector or, finally, BRYNA, a variant of BRUNE. The name
may also stem from BRIAN, Celtic or Gaelic, meaning strength or nobly-born
or one who is eloquent.
The base transliteration should be bais raish yud nun hei
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 9,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Origin of the name Bryna
Shoshana Charnoff<info@...> wrote (MJ 60#52):
> Does anyone know what the source of the Yiddish name "Bryna" is? Also, what
> would be the Hebrew equivalent?
If I'm not mistaken, it comes from Breina or Breindel, meaning brunette.
In Hebrew, a lot of people use Bracha, just because of the sound. Or
Rina (b'rina). I don't think the Hebrew for brown lends itself well to
names.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 10,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Origin of the name Bryna
Shoshana Charnoff <info@...> wrote (MJ 60#52):
> Does anyone know what the source of the Yiddish name "Bryna" is? Also, what
> would be the Hebrew equivalent?
The name dictionaries I have consulted state that it derives from the
Yiddish/German Brune meaning brown, i.e. a brunette, and suggest the Hebrew
equivalents Chumah or Chumit, but I have never heard of anyone with those names.
Martin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Sun, Dec 11,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Secular courts serving ecclesiastical courts
In MJ 60#52 it was written in response to my posting in MJ 60#51:
> Once the BD has given permission for the case to be taken to the civil
> courts for enforcement, it is considered to be public knowledge, so the laws
> of lashon hara do not apply. Furthermore, somebody who refuses to obey the
> ruling of a Beit Din before whom he had agreed the case should be heard is
> called a rasha [wicked person]. For such people, publicising their wickedness
> is permitted and may even be a mitsvah if it puts pressure on them to change
> their attitude and accept the ruling.
I have a few questions about this:
(1) With regard to the matter being considered public knowledge once
the Beth Din has given permission for the case to be taken to the civil
courts for enforcement, it's considered public knowledge where exactly?
Would it be permissable for someone in Australia to tell me, on the
other side of the world, about a similar case when I have no need
whatsoever to know about the parties concerned?
(2) Has the matter really become public knowledge, or is it merely
publicly accessible knowledge? For example, a story in a newspaper
could be considered public knowledge, but does that mean it's okay to go
to a newspaper archive that's open to the public (e.g. the British
Library Newspapers Archive in Colindale, London, UK), browse through it
to find stories about a certain person, and then start talking about
it? That knowledge may be publicly accessible, but if it's
insufficiently recent it might not be public knowledge.
(3) If someone has done something that has become public knowledge,
does that mean it's permitted to talk about forever more and keep the
story alive? How are they suppose to overcome the matter if they have
true remorse, compensated for any harm they've done to others, etc?
(4) If publicising someone's wickedness is not going to make them
change their attitude and accept the ruling, may one still publicise
their wickedness?
(5) Just because it is permitted to say something about someone, does
that mean one should? How is telling someone in another country the
names of the parties involved a "should"? From a character-development
point of view, isn't it better to stop and think about whether one
should reveal the identity of someone rather than plunge ahead with an
"it's permitted therefore it's okay" attitude? The original story that
started this thread was more about a Beth Din referring a ruling to a
civil court for enforcement, rather than about the case that was brought
before the Beth Din. In this particular discussion, I don't see how
revealing the identity of the parties involved is relevant.
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 10,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Why do we light the Channukah candles
In MJ 60#52 Yisrael Medad asked:
> So,the lighting is to cause light to be seen and that is the commandment,
> not necessarily the act in and of itself?
There are two issues here. First what is the commandment? Second, what are
the conditions under which the commandment is performed so that it is
considered valid?
The commandment is "hadlakah osah mitzvah" -- the lighting itself is the
commandment. However, since the halacha tells us that the reason for the
commandment is "pirsumei nissa" (proclaiming the miracle), certain conditions
must exist so that there will at least be a possibility of someone seeing the
candles. Therefore the channukiya must be lit in a place where normally it will
not be extinguished by the wind and there must be enough oil for the candles to
be lit for half an hour after dark and in a place where there is a possibility
of someone seeing it either outside or in the house (see Shulchan Aruch -
Mishnah Berurah for detaills).
However, if all of these conditions are met and, after lighting, the candles go
out, one is still considered to have performed the mitzvah. The principle is
hadlakah osah mitzvah kavta ain zakuk la (the lighting is the mitzvah and if
they go out we do not need to light them again). In this case, one would light
them again but without a beracha.
It is interesting, I think, that the mitzvot of pirsumei nissa are all
Rabbinical - lighting the channuka candles, reading the megilla and the four
cups of wine in the seder. I would add perhaps hallel on yom ha'atzmaut.
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 53
