Volume 63 Number 82
Produced: Thu, 26 Apr 18 06:30:06 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A punctuation problem (2)
[Yaakov Shachter Jonathan Tanner]
Egg Matzo
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Feminist/Talit Story?
[Joel Rich]
Removing tefillin on Chol Hamoed (2)
[Steven Oppenheimer Immanuel Burton]
Voluntary exile? (2)
[David Tzohar Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaakov Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 20,2018 at 04:01 PM
Subject: A punctuation problem
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#81):
> When Moshe Rabbeinu saw the sons of Aharon burning a sa'ir chatat
> [goat brought as a sin offering] instead of eating it (Vay.10:16),
> he became angry. He was appeased when the latter [the original
> poster is referring to Aharon -- ys] pointed out that, after the
> deaths of Nadav and Avihu, they were onanim and were prohibited from
> eating sacrifices. (This event occurred on Rosh Chodesh Nisan)
> [according to some, but not all, commentators -- ys]
>
> From his reply "Ve'achalti chatat hayom" (Vay.10:19) it is deduced
> that the chatat that was burned was the regular Rosh Chodesh one and
> not either of the two one-off dedication chata'ot brought only on
> that specific occasion, i.e. his words should be translated "How can
> I eat today's sin offering (the one brought because of the day
> rather than the inauguration ceremonies)?".
This is not pshat, and it is obvious that it is not pshat, to anyone who has an
elementary knowledge of Hebrew. The heh in "hayyitav" is vocalized with a
pattax, not a xataf pattax, and the yod has a dagesh xazaq, so it is obvious
that the heh is the heh haydi`ah, not the heh hash'elah.
"V'akhalti" is accented on the penultimate, not on the ultimate, so it is
obvious that the verb is in the perfect tense ("I ate"), not the imperfect tense
("if I were to eat").
The pshat of this verse is: I ate from the sin-offering, today, that which was
pleasing in the eyes of the Lord -- i.e., the minimum amount required
by halakha -- and burned everything else, because, considering the events that
befell me today, I had no appetite for anything more.
Anything else is drash.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Tanner <jwtanner@...>
Date: Mon, Apr 23,2018 at 08:01 PM
Subject: A punctuation problem
In response to Martin Stern (MJ 63#81):
I think there's another problem with translating "Ve'achalti chatat hayom" as
"How can I eat today's sin offering". There would be a patach rather than a
kamatz under the tet of chatat (as in Shemot 30:10).
I think derashot are not subject to the usual rules of grammar.
Jonathan Tanner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <menely2@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 20,2018 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Egg Matzo
In israel there are 2 types of egg matzos:
One looks like a matza but is baked without water.
The other are very sweet hard cookies.
All matza ashera are non-mehadrin.
The Badatz Beit Yosef will not give Pesah mehadrin hechsher to a factory that
kashers a hametz bakery. Therefore even Sefaradim who theoretically could use
these cookies, cannot do so if they use only mehadrin. Our LOR told us that he
once was a mashgiah in France in a egg matza bakery. The workers did not dry the
bowl properly and the next round was hametz gamur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, Apr 23,2018 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Feminist/Talit Story?
I believe this is the authentic version of the story told by R' S Mandel in
Jewish Action - not the "gotcha" version I've heard elsewhere.
When a group of feminists visited him and demanded that he permit them to wear
tallitot, he listened to them, showed he understood their reasoning, and
proposed that there first be a trial period during which they would wear colored
cloaks as tallitot, but without tzitzit and without reciting a berachah. He
asked them to note how they feel wearing them and to come back after two weeks
and confer with them again.
After two weeks, they reconvened, and when the Rav asked these women how they
felt, they told him how inspired they felt when wearing the cloaks. The Rav
replied that that was excellent, that they should definitely continue wearing
the cloaks and praying with kavannah, and that there was no need to wear the
tallitot with tzitzit that men wore. Most of the women accepted this response,
because the Rav treated their question with genuine respect and listened to
their grievances.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 20,2018 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Removing tefillin on Chol Hamoed
Martin Stern (MJ 63#81) asks about when to remove tefilin on Chol Hamoed for
those who have the custom to don tefilin on Chol Hamoed.
Mishnah Berurah 423:10 explains that we don't put on tefilin on Yom Tov because
Yom Tov itself is an "oht." On Rosh Chodesh, during the mussaf shemoneh esrei,
we mention the korbanot that were sacrificed and this is also considered an
"oht." The Peri Megadim writes that it is appropriate to remove the tefilin
during Uva Letziyon before Yehi Ratzon Shenishmor Chukecha. However, citing
Magen Avrohom, Mishnah Berurah writes that on Chol Hamoed which is clearly a Yom
Tov (Yom Tov Gamur), the tefilin should be removed before Hallel.
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Mon, Apr 23,2018 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Removing tefillin on Chol Hamoed
In response to Martin Stern (MJ 63#81):
I wrote about this in MJ 28#66, back in June 1999
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v28/mj_v28i66.html#CUG
In summary, the Shulchan Aruch writes in Hilchos Tephillin in 25:13 that
tephillin are removed before Musaf on Rosh Chodesh. The reason that tephillin
are taken off before Musaf is on account of the Kedushah in the repetition of
the Musaf that starts with the words "Keser yitnu lecho", and it is
inappropriate to say this while wearing the keser [crown] of tephillin. I'm not
sure why this reason applies in those communities where this Kedushah is not said.
The Rema notes that this is also the procedure for Chol Ha'Moed but the
reasoning on Chol Ha'moed is slightly different.
One does not wear tephillin on Shabbos or Yom Tov because those days are
considered to be an "os", a sign, and wearing tephillin, which are also called a
'sign', on those days would be tantamount to saying that the sign of Shabbos or
Yom Tov is insufficient, which would be disrespectful of Shabbos or Yom Tov. It
now boils down to whether Chol Ha'moed is considered to be a sign. (Suggesting
that tephillin are removed before Hallel on Succos so as not to be barrier
between one's hands and the esrog would seem to be a red herring.)
Rabbeinu Asher explains (Mo'ed Katan 19a) that things that count as a sign are a
cessation of work on Shabbos, by eating matza on Pesach, and dwelling in a
tabernacle on Succos. According to this, Chol Ha'moed is not a sign, because the
Torah does not require a cessation of work on those days. The sign of matza
applies only on the first day of Pesach, as that's the only time when one is
obligated by the Torah to eat matza, whereas the sign of a tabernacle applies
for the whole of Succos, as the Torah requires one to dwell in a tabernacle for
the full seven days. The tephillin are removed prior to the part of davenning
which addresses the sign of the day, which is Hallel on Succos, but Musaf on Pesach.
It does seem to be the case that everyone is agreement that on the first
weekday day (outside EY) of Chol Ha'moed Pesach tephillin are kept on until
after leining, as the Torah portion on that day is two of the sections contained
within the tephillin - Kadeish and Vehaya ki yeviacha.
Chok Yaakov (490:2) records the custom of taking tephillin off before
Musaf on all days of Chol Ha'moed Pesach. This custom is based on a report by
Rabbeinu Asher (Hilchos Tephillin) to the effect that Rabbi Yochanan would keep
his tephillin on until Musaf on the day of Chol Ha'moed Pesach on which the
leining was two of the sections contained within the tephillin, and would do so
on all the other days of Chol Ha'moed Pesach in order no to show less respect
for those days.
So, the logic seems to be that on Chol Ha'Moed Pesach one keeps one's tephillin
on until Musaf, but on Chol Ha'Moed Succos one takes them off before Hallel, and
indeed this is my personal custom. I have yet to determine why the widespread
custom seems to be to take them off on Pesach before Hallel other than on the
third day, but have come to recognise that just because something is logical
doesn't mean that people are going to do it!
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Sun, Apr 22,2018 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Voluntary exile?
Brothers I have great news for you. There is no exile, it ended 70 years ago
with the establishment of the State of Israel. There is a diaspora made up of
those who either cannot (and are therefore "anusim") or will not make aliya
(mezidim).
I do not understand how Orthodox Jews can be content to sit on the sidelines and
watch the redemption of the Jewish people in its land besiyatta deshmaya. The
Chareidim including Chabad may feel "spiritual exile" and of course the Mashiach
has not come yet. But we are on the way. In the words of Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook
ZTZ"L, we are already in the time of "metziatta degeula" (the MIDST of
Redemption). I refer you all to his book Torat Eretz Yisrael which has come out
in English translation.
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Apr 24,2018 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Voluntary exile?
Mark Symons wrote (MJ 63#81):
> In response to Martin Stern (MJ 63#80):
>
> To me, 'Umipnei chataeinu galinu meiartzeinu' means 'Because of our sins as a
> people, we, as a people, were exiled from our land', 2000 years ago.
> Especially as it goes on to say 'and (therefore) can no longer go up to appear
> at the Temple', rather than saying 'we can no longer live in The Land',
> because the fact is that some of us do live there, and others of us could move
> there but choose not to. But it's about what happened to the nation, and the
> ongoing ramifications for the nation, rather than individuals within the
> nation.
Of course Mark is correct which is why I queried this as being 'mechze keshikra
[appear to be a lie]' rather than 'shikra mamash [an outright lie]'
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 82