Volume 61 Number 26
Produced: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:48:00 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Berov am hadrat Melekh (4)
[Martin Stern Martin Stern Gershon Dubin Chaim Casper]
Chagrin
[Yisrael Medad]
City Eruvin (2)
[Martin Stern Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Lines in the sand
[Martin Stern]
Minyan Factories
[Stu Pilichowski]
Modesty at Shabbos table
[Eli Turkel]
Modesty at the Shabbos Table (3)
[Chaim Casper Yisrael Medad Lisa Liel]
My English Hebrew Dictionary - Rosh HaShana vocabulary study sheets
[Jacob Richman]
Prioritizations in life
[Joel Rich]
Taking advantage of an obvious mistake
[Sammy Finkelman]
Type sizes in siddurim (3)
[Sam Gamoran Carl Singer Perets Mett]
When to release the tzitzit after Kriat Shema
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Berov am hadrat Melekh
David Tzohar wrote (MJ 61#25):
> Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no chova for a mourner to
> be Shatz, only that he recite kaddish yatom. The idea of a Chiyyuv,
> that mourners are obligated to lead the dovening is a relatively late
> minhag. Therefore it is obvious that it is preferable to doven in a
> large minyan, i.e. berov am, than to break up into smaller minyanim so
> that more mourners can act as shatz.
Though I agree with David's conclusion, I think he is not entirely correct
that "there is no chova for a mourner to be Shatz, only that he recite
kaddish yatom". The latter was instituted originally for minor children as a
second best to being shatz which was obviously not possible for them. This
is clear from the rules of precedence for saying kaddish among those where
only one person says each kaddish - a minor always takes precedence over an
adult (i.e. post-barmitzvah).
However, while there may not be an absolute chiyuv on a mourner to be shatz,
it is certainly considered a desirable thing for him to do so, provided the
congregation is happy to permit him. Under no circumstances can the mourner
use his "chiyuv" as a way to seize the position if he is not acceptable.
Unfortunately too many people are unaware of this point.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Berov am hadrat Melekh
Chaim Casper wrote (MJ 61#25):
> But allow me to point out that the Mishneh Brurah rules that it is
> better to daven with a minyan of 100 than a minyan of 10 precisely because of
> B'rov Am Hadrat Melekh. If so, shouldn't these impromptu minyanim be used
> only in an emergency?
and Baruch J. Schwartz wrote (MJ 61#25):
> Private minyanim, it seems, have now become a completely acceptable
> alternative to going to a Bet Knesset to daven.
Both may well be right in deprecating ad hoc minyanim but I think they have
missed the point about which I was asking. It was not whether one should
make small private minyanim but whether an existing minyan, private or even
public, should be split to accommodate the wishes of multiple aveilim to be
shatz.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Berov am hadrat Melekh
David Tzohar wrote (MJ 61#25):
> Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no chova for a mourner to be Shatz,
> only that he recite kaddish yatom. The idea of a Chiyyuv, that mourners are
> obligated to lead the dovening is a relatively late minhag.
Your correction: the original chova is to lead the davening. The only reason
there exists such an entity as "kaddish yasom" is that there were many young
yesomim (historians, help out here for the circumstances) who could not lead
davening, so they were permitted to say kaddish. As they say in yiddish, punkt
farkert.
> Therefore it is obvious that it is preferable to doven in a large minyan,
> i.e. berov am, than to break up into smaller minyanim so that more mourners
> can act as shatz.
Despite the first part of his post not being historically/halachically correct,
this part remains correct and was the intent IIANM of the original poster.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Berov am hadrat Melekh
David Tzohar in MJ 60 #25 says
> Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no chova for a mourner to be Shatz,
> only that he recite kaddish yatom. The idea of a Chiyyuv, that mourners are
> obligated to lead the dovening is a relatively late minhag.
The RaM"A in YD 376:4 says that a mourner should daven on the weekdays if he
knows how but not on Shabbat and the Yamim Tovim. The Sha"kh (376:14) and the
Pit'hei T'shuva (376:8) argue whether the avel can daven on the Yamim Nora'im
and Yom Tov. B'virkat Torah.
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Chagrin
In M-J V61#25, Chaim Casper noted (in thread "Type sizes in siddurim"):
> much to Birnbaum's chagrin <
I checked and sure enough, Birnbaum is deceased, as of 1988.
Now, there's something to be chagrined about (or, about which to be
chagrined).
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: City Eruvin
Josh Backon wrote (MJ 61#25):
> Martin Stern (MJ 61#24) mentioned the problem of an Eruv in large
> cities.
>
> The problem is definition of a public domain (reshut ha'rabim m'doraita).
> The following decisors ruled that a public domain must be 16 amot wide
> (about 24 feet) and 600,000 traverse it daily:
> ...
> The problem? The Rambam didn't require 600,000 people traversing the
> area but any street 16 amot wide is reshut harabim d'oraita...
>
> That's why Sefardim don't "hold by" the eruv.
>From various Talmudic passages, it is evident that town-wide eruvin were not
constructed even though it is highly unlikely that any town in those days
ever had such a large population, let alone that 600,000 people traversed it
daily. It is little wonder that "this requirement [traversal by at least 600,000
people daily --Mod.] was listed neither in the Talmud nor by Maimonides" as
Rabbi Shlomo Brody noted. If it had been accepted, it would have been possible
to set up eruvin almost everywhere.
So it seems that the alternative definition that "for any area (such as a
city street) to be characterized as a public domain, it must be uncovered,
entirely publicly owned, have a minimum width of 7.3 meters (or 9.8 meters
according to some) and allow 24-hour public access" must have been the
accepted ruling.
While those who rely on a town eruv have sources on which to rely, as Josh
lists, for those who do not have anything that they really need to carry if
they go out, its use can be problematic. Do the latter really have to bring
themselves into a situation where according to many authorities (Rambam et
al.) they are desecrating Shabbat? In essence, almost every town eruv is a
bedieved arrangement.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <gevaryahu@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 10:01 AM
Subject: City Eruvin
Josh Backon (MJ 61#25) concludes his take on the machloket of what is reshut
harabim by stating:
> That's why Sefardim don't "hold by" the eruv.
The Sefaradim do hold by an eruv built based on the Rambam's shita. It is called
the Omed merubeh, that is, the eruv relies on physical mechitzot (i.e., walls of
at least 10 tefachim high) for the majority of the eruv borders. The Ashkenazim
rely on tzurat hapetach even for an entire eruv.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 28,2012 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Lines in the sand
This article by Stewart Weiss in the Jerusalem Post Magazine (17 Aug.)
raises the problems that can arise between Orthodox and non-Orthodox members
of the same family which might be worthy of discussion on Mail Jewish. I have
had similar problems personally but I do not want to prejudice the discussion by
including them at this stage.
---
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=281454
>From the rabbi's case file: Miriam, an observant Jew, was invited to a
(non-observant) cousin's wedding in America. Happy as she was to participate
in a family simha, Miriam was concerned about the religious implications of
her attendance. The wedding was scheduled to start on a Saturday evening, a
full hour before Shabbat concluded. This would necessitate either staying at
a hotel and walking a long distance to the wedding hall for the start of the
ceremony, or waiting until Shabbat was over and then joining the function
considerably late. In addition, while her cousin had promised her that there
would be kosher "TV dinners" served on plastic-ware for her family, Miriam
felt uncomfortable that everyone else around her would be eating non-kosher,
freshly made food.
And so, after much deliberation, she decided that under the circumstances,
she would regretfully decline the invitation and wait for the video to come
out.
Miriam's family, to put it mildly, did not take this decision well.
They were shocked, even outraged. "How can you be so intolerant, so rigid,
so uncompromising?" they exclaimed. "Why can't you meet us halfway and bend
a few of your umpteen rules?" And then they hit her with the coup de grace:
"Don't you remember when we visited your home for a Shabbat last year?" they
said. "You asked us to pray at your synagogue, which necessitated us sitting
separately, and we agreed, even though that was not the style to which we
are accustomed in our home synagogue.
"And then you asked us to walk home from services, rather than drive, and so
we did. And you also requested that we not use our cell phones in your house --
not even for texting, for God's sake! And you informed us that smoking was
not allowed, even outside on your balcony. Did we not comply with every one
of your rules, despite the fact that we would have preferred otherwise? And
now you tell us that you won't go along with our needs and requests? Is
accommodation a one-way street, with you as the almighty policewoman
deciding which is the one way?!" Miriam was speechless, at a loss. Desperate
for a come-back, she tried to think of something, anything, which was taboo,
beyond limits, a deal-breaker for her cousins; some border which they, too,
could not and would not cross. But she came up empty.
THE FACT is, on a spiritual-ritual level, there are few, if any, things that
constitute an absolute "no-go" zone for many in the liberal, non-Orthodox
Jewish camp. Aside perhaps from rejecting any belief in Jesus, what "truths"
are held to be incontrovertible and sacred across the board? Certainly not
the laws of Shabbat; many temples light candles as part of Friday night
services, long after nightfall.
Certainly not kashrut; many congregations feature shrimp, even bacon at
post-prayer meals and synagogue functions. Not circumcision, not fasting on
Yom Kippur, not refraining from hametz on Passover.
Add to the mix intermarriages, same-sex weddings, the excision of God (and,
at one time, Israel) from many prayer books along with the re-ordering of
the Jewish calendar so as to schedule holidays when they are most convenient
for the masses, and you start to get the picture.
A close friend in the liberal rabbinate (some of my best friends are
non-Orthodox) told me that a colleague of his once stood up at a certain
rabbinical convention and asked the presidium, only half in jest: "Short of
having illicit relations with the sisterhood president on the bima during
services, what would a rabbi have to do in order to be thrown out of our
organization and have his ordination revoked?" In the Orthodox world, there
are ritual red lines, rules that cannot be broken except for life-and-death
considerations -- and sometimes not even then. These responsibilities and
restrictions define the discipline and Divine dimensions of a lifestyle that
answers to a higher calling, beyond the whims and wants of mortal man. It is
what gives power and potency to one's Judaism and what transforms it from a
culture, a club or a casual hobby into a serious, 24/7 pursuit of meaning in
an otherwise senseless, chaotic universe.
My sainted rabbis often defined one of the primary rabbinic challenges as
the search for avenues -- within the halachic framework -- that make life
spiritually satisfying yet eminently livable in a normal, modern,
cosmopolitan world. Yet at the same time, there must be a limit, a line
beyond which we cannot go. Precisely defining these lines can be a tricky
business, to be sure, but however one does ultimately define them, to exceed
the boundaries is to step off into the void of endless, spiritually empty
space. Just where the slippery slope becomes dangerous is hard to say, but
once on it, the plunge is precipitous.
So, while we recognize that others may allow themselves a healthy amount of
carte blanche, Orthodox Jews must be able to say "Ad kan v'lo yoter -- until
here, but no further" when the situation demands.
As anyone who has fathered (or mothered) a child knows all too well, there
is a constant clash between parenting and permissiveness.
Giving in every time to the childs wants and desires may provide some
short-term relief, but it ultimately deprives the child of a framework that
sets limits and develops a strong sense of self-control. On a spiritual
level, our "Father" in Heaven makes these same demands upon His earthly
children, all for our own benefit.
I often wish that our government here in Israel was, in a sense, "more
Orthodox." I wish we held certain principles to be inviolate and immutable.
That when we said we would not speak with terrorists, let alone negotiate
our future with them, we would not capitulate.
That when our courts sentence a bloodthirsty barbarian to six life sentences
for destroying a dozen young lives, he (or she, as in the case of Ahlam
Tamimi, the devilish planner of the Sbarro bombing) does not walk out as a
free person after serving but a fraction of the sentence. That when we
trumpet Israel as a paradigm of religious freedom, we extend that same
privilege to Jews wishing to pray on the Temple Mount as well. That when we
sign a "peace" treaty with our neighbors, we insist on their scrupulous
compliance, doing more than just shrugging our shoulders when the terms are
violated. That campaign promises become sacred vows, and pledges to care for
society are more than just lip service.
It is not easy to hold fast to ones convictions when it would be so much
more convenient to humor this cousin, or please that faction. It takes a lot
of will and faith to withstand the pressure. But, in the end, adhering to
principles builds character and instills trust. And sticking to ones guns
helps to prevent an all-out shooting war from ever starting in the first
place.
Oh, and as for our beleaguered Miriam and her search for her cousin's red
line? It all turned out OK in the end. She discovered that her cousin was a
confirmed vegan, who, when invited to Miriam's home for what turned out to
be a family barbecue, suddenly began to see things from a completely
different perspective.
The writer is director of the Jewish Outreach Center of Raanana and a
Raanana city councilman; www.rabbistewartweiss.com; <jocmtv@...>
---
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stu Pilichowski <cshmuel@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Minyan Factories
I apologize if Carl Singer (MJ 61#25) found my tone (MJ 61#24) too harsh.
I tried simply to display my displeasure at what I consider the negative
aspects of a minyan factory - I characterize it as "cookie-cutter davening."
Now, that's just my generalized negative attitude even though the
participants are observing the mitzvah of tefillah b'tzibur 100%.
The danger, I think, is that after a while even with the best of intentions,
the beauty of tefillah, the kavanah and divuk with [attachment to --Mod.] HKBH
lessens and fades ... rachmanah litzlan (G-d forbid).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Modesty at Shabbos table
Martin Stern (MJ 61#23) invited comments on Rabbi Dovid Meustadt's halacha sheet
where he wrote:
> Consequently, if a married lady with uncovered hair is sitting at your
> Shabbos table, Kiddush may not be recited. This halacha applies to ones own
> wife, sister, mother, daughter and granddaughter as well.
He essentially contradicts himself since later he says that a woman should
cover her hair inside her own home based on a Zohar. In fact there seem to
be gemarot that contradict this. Since in fact many women who do cover
their hair don't do this in their own home it is difficult to believe that
it creates a problem for kiddush.
Since it is a well known fact that the wives of many gedolim in the
previous century did not cover their hair they obviously did not feel that
saying kiddush was a problem.
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 28,2012 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Modesty at the Shabbos Table
Martin Stern (MJ 61#24) quoted Doniel Neustadt who concluded that kiddush may
not be recited at the Shabbat or Yom Tov table if there is a married woman with an
uncovered head.
Halakhically, there are numerous sources that would reject R' Neustadt's
position, among them the Arukh Hashulkhan, who ruled that a women's uncovered
head is not ervah and hence, I would add, these women could have kiddush made
while they are standing/sitting at the table. There are others who also reject
this position that a woman's uncovered head is ervah, but ayloo v'ayloo divrei
E-lokim hayyim.....
In other words, if Rabbi Neustadt won't make kiddush for you, come to my house
and I will make kiddush for you. The social aspect is what bothers me more. If
one looks at the pictures of the Agudas Yisroel and its functions in the
1920-1960s, one sees a large plethora of frum, shomeret shabbat, shomeret
taharat mishpahah women who did not cover their heads. Does that mean the women
of that generation were not what we call religious? Their husbands made kiddush
every Friday night and no one thought the worst of it. So why is it a problem
today?
B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 28,2012 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Modesty at the Shabbos Table
Martin invites comments on Rabbi Doniel Neustadt's views (MJ 61#23).
As I am unfamiliar with this Rabbi, may I ask in what country he resided
and in what century?
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Modesty at the Shabbos Table
Frank Silbermann wrote (MJ 61#24):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#23):
>> I thought the latest issue of Weekly Halacha Discussion by Rabbi Doniel
>> Neustadt (Ki Teitsei) ... Many theories have been postulated as to why
>> some women, although meticulous in the observance of other mitzvos,
>> are lax in regard to covering their hair. Some do not cover their hair at all
>> and others do so only partially. It must be stressed that this practice is
>> roundly condemned by all poskim. There are no halachic authorities
>> who permit a married woman to leave her hair uncovered.
> This is only true if one limits the definition of "poskim" and "halachic
> authorities" to rabbis widely praised by the haredi community who have
> published tshuvot or halachic codes dealing with this subject.
>
> It is not true if the terms "poskim" and "halachic authorities" include less
> famous local Orthodox rabbis or even famous ones who did not publish their
> tshuvot.
I have to disagree. When I was living in Efrat in the late 90s, Rabbi
Shlomo Riskin (who I don't think anyone is going to accuse of being
chareidi) had an article in a local paper in which he made it abundantly
clear that married women have to cover their hair. Period. And of
course, a lot of people got hysterical over it and basically said, "Who
are you (the Chief Rabbi of Efrat) to tell us such a thing?" It isn't
that there are poskim who permit; there aren't. It's that laypeople
find ways to permit it for themselves.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 28,2012 at 08:01 PM
Subject: My English Hebrew Dictionary - Rosh HaShana vocabulary study sheets
Hi Everyone!
I just added Rosh HaShana vocabulary study sheets to
My English Hebrew Dictionary.
The first study sheet is located at:
http://www.english-hebrew-dictionary.com/rosh-hashana-1.htm
Use the arrow icons on the top of the page to go to the other sheets.
To view the list of all the words on the site, visit:
http://www.english-hebrew-dictionary.com/sitemap.htm
Please forward this message to anyone that may be interested
in learning Hebrew. Thanks!
Have a good day,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Prioritizations in life
The recent discussions on Benching gomel, Berov am hadrat Melekh, Going FROM the
Bet Midrash TO the Shul and Minyan Factories were very interesting in a number
of ways.
R' Baruch Simon (R"Y RIETS) often mentions at the beginning of one of his
halacha l'maaseh (practical halacha) series how important it is to understand
the development of the particular halacha from the Talmud on in order to pasken.
IMHO this is especially true when conflicting priorities come into play in the
real world.
An example of understanding the sources from the gomel discussion:
"The origin of this law is the Tur who makes no mention of the requirement
for the one reciting the blessing to have kavana to be motzee the listener."
I'd think that one might be interested to know that the source gemara (Brachot
54b) actually deals with a case of someone being exempted by another's statement
of thanks (let alone bracha).
Similarly the requirement for the crowd to answer and doing it by Torah reading
- the former first appears in the Rambam and is unsourced, the latter may be an
enactment of the Rambam's requirement that the sayer stand "amongst" the
responders.
In any event, when you come to issues like davening in a shul versus home,
splitting the minyan, davening in a "factory", imho you are basically lost
unless you have some sense of where the preferences come from and how strong
they are. Failing this, imho, all too often the response is "libi omer li" (my
heart tells me) this is the right thing. All too often imho this "heartfelt"
response is an emotional one not grounded in an understanding of the ratzon
Hashem. Bottom line rule I've tried to use is when facing these situations,
when I haven't studied the issue and haven't sought rabbinic counsel, is keep my
mouth closed and then study and seek counsel. Hopefully the next time it happens
I can say something intelligent based on serious insight from those who know.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 28,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Taking advantage of an obvious mistake
Carl Singer wrote (MJ 61#22):
> My first question is, is there a Kinyan -- a contract? The merchant by
> tagging an item at $500 has stated his or her price. The $50 payment does
> not suffice. If one knowingly takes the item at the $50 price is one therefore
> stealing (I know this may seem harsh)?
> My second question is rather obvious, if the mistake had been in the other
> direction -- say a $50 item ringing up at $500 -- what would the purchaser
> do upon later discovering this error? Understanding, of course, that the
> halacha may not be "symmetrical."
I think the explanation for the halacha about this is that the laws
about a mistake by a merchant are not the same as those about theft,
but are the same as those about returning a lost object.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Gamoran <SGamoran@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Type sizes in siddurim
I am not a printer by trade but I think that some of the hodgepodge of type
sizes has to do with reuse of existing printing plates/images. This is a
holdover from the pre-computer typesetting era and likely to disappear with time.
Regards,
Sam Gamoran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Type sizes in siddurim
Stuart Wise (MJ 61#25) writes:
> I found it equally irritating that some siddurim would not repeat certain
> tefilos, and instead refer to a page number where it can be found. That I
> imagine had more to do with saving on printing costs.
In one specific instance that I know of the "Prayer Book, for Jewish
Personnel in the Armed Forces of the United States"
which is provided by "The Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy of the National
Jewish Welfare Board"
Weekday Mincha is 1 page long (with lots of white space), as follows:
Psalm 145, pp. 72-74
Half Kaddish, p. 70
Amidah, pp. 48-70
Reader's Kaddish, p. 80
"Aleinu", p. 82
Mourner's Kaddish, p. 86
These six references to other pages (links?) complete the full services.
Similarly, Shabbos Mincha is a page and one half long, with the only text
that of "Atah Echad ...." printed. Everything else involves links to other
prayers or portions of the Shabbos Mussaf Amidah.
Yom Tov Mincha is less than half a page -- consisting of a list of 10
links to other pages in the Siddur.
Carl A. Singer, Ph.D.
Colonel, U.S. Army Retired
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Type sizes in siddurim
Stuart Wise (MJ 61#25) wrote:
> I think you will find that in the past 25 years or so, there has been a
> great effort to standardize the font size, even though older versions
> continue to be reprinted with the different sizes. Why they varied in the
> first place, I don't know but it seems as if the prayers regarded as more
> important were larger, maybe to make it easier for people who had vision
> problems, or just to distinguish them for their importance, while those
> recited less often were relegated to smaller type.
(and others wrote similarly)
If only that were true.
There seems to be no correlation between type size and "importance".
I have just opened a typical sidur at Kabolas Shabos.
Lechu Neraneno is printed in large bold
Shiru lashem in a smaller type
Hashem moloch large (not bold)
Mizmor shiru lashem small
Hashem Moloch large
They are all equally significant, so why the change in type size?
In Maariv, the first brocho (maariv arovim) is larger than the second (Ahavas
olom). Why?
In Shmone Esre, Ato Kidashto is bold-is it more important than the rest of
Shmone Esre?
I find this totally haphazard and a distraction.
As far as people with vision problems is concerned, my mother observes that the
occasional additions - Yaale veyovo, al hanisim - whose text people might be
less familiar with are printed smaller than the surrounding text, when they
should really be larger.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 29,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: When to release the tzitzit after Kriat Shema
Yisrael Medad (MJ 61#25) is to be congratulated on his lucid exposition of
the obscure kabbalistic reason why one releases the tzitzit when one reaches
the word "l'ad".
Unfortunately this does not answer Steven Oppenheimer's original question
(MJ 61#21), which was at which of the two mentions of "l'ad" this should be
done.
Perhaps he can re-examine his more recondite sources and provide an
explanation for those of us who are not privy to such esoteric matters.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 26
