Sheetat Rema re: Aveilut B'Farhesya on Shabbat Hazzon

 originally posted July 12, 2013

The Rema's sheetah seems pashut -

Aveilut b'farhesya on Shabbat becomes a problem only or primarily when some are aveilim and when others are not. All bets are off, however, when ALL are equally aveilim!

1. The bensching for aveilim is not said on Shabbat, unless all present are aveilim, then it is recited.
2. Same with taking off shoes, when aveilim are amongst themselves they may take them off, otherwise it constitutes Aveilut b'farhesya.

Regarding various melodies, Ashkenazi melodies often reflect the season. This is analogous to Shabbat Shuvah and Shabbos hol hamoed which take on their seasonal characteristics. At Breuer's, tunes from forthcoming Yamim Nora'im are introduced as early as Shabbat Nachamu.

For example, singing L'cho Dodi to Eli Tziyyon. It's simply before Shabbat anyway, especially for those who accept Shabbat early during the summer

As far as the p'sukkim in the Haftarah read with Eichah Trop, we do this on Purim too during the reading of the Megillah. It's primarily a manifestation of the p'sukkim's sentiment.

Best Regards,
RRW

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 5

Originally published 3/8/10, 11:00 pm.
From: D&E-H Bannett dbnet@zahav.net.il
Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] (Avodah) Who First Said it?

Regarding RnTK's comment on zeikher/zekher:

I started learn to read the Torah some 75 years ago in Flatbush and was taught to read both ways. We did not repeat the entire pasuk but only the phrase "timcheh et zeikher Amalek". I don't remember if I was taught the order but, many years later, I decided to read the incorrect zekher first and then correct myself by saying zeikher the second time. Similarly, in the megilla, when the megilla has the incorrect bifneihem and laharog I read as written and then correct myself by repeating the phrase only: v'ish.... lifneihem and k'hashmid.... v'laharog. If the megilla is correct I read only once.

Anyone slightly interested in the subject should read R'Mordekhai Breuer's article. Those very interested should go directly to R' Prof Penkower's article. He gives the entire history, about 45 pages, including statistics on manuscripts from the time of ben Asher as well as customs of reading, etc.
The double reading evidently started slightly before the Hafetz Hayyim made it popular. Penkower cites a ba'al Kriah who was instructed by R' Sh'neur Zalman mi'Lublin to read twice. This R' Sh"Z died in 1902. The Mishna B'rura was printed in 1906.

I was delighted to read that R' Penkower read twice despite his indisputable proofs that zeikher is correct. A few years ago I gave a Friday night talk proving that there is absolutely no justification for double reading. On the following morning I read parashat zakhor and read zekher followed by zeikher. I too do as I was taught and do not allow myself to be confused with facts. I am overjoyed to find that I follow the derekh of the expert.

It should be pointed out that no eidah other than the Ashkenazi ever questioned the correct reading. AFAIK, Yekkes are the only Ashkenazi unaffected by the double-reading syndrome.

As to developments in Israel: One of my grandchildren told me his rosh yeshiva told him to read only once (based on Breuer). On the other hand I davenned this year at a yeshiva where in addition to reading in Abazit, Ashkenoz, Moroccan, and Yemenite they also had Parsi and what might have been Iraqi.

I have also heard a ba'al k'riah reading in mivta Ashkenazi repeat Machlas and Mochlas, and yahalom and yohalom. He told me that he was told to do so by Harav Nebenzahl. At this rate, it won't be long before we'll be hearing hundreds of p'sukim read twice.

David

Zachor: Zeicher vs.Zecher 4

Originally published 3/7/10, 8:30 PM
Reb Ira Gruscott mentions that, "Of course , what he doesn't say is that prior to and even during the lifetime of R' Y.M. Kagan z't'l, it was never a minhag to repeat....even in Yeshivas Radun."

Check Marc Shapiro's post on this.
This can be spun two ways.Either
A: it's a frum shtick with  no basis either in minhag or grammar or halakha; or
B: Orthodoxy does have a halakha that is -to quote Shapiro- "dynamic" This, of course goes to the post on your blog re: how one "feels" regarding halakha

ISG»

Look, we live in an ambiguous world!

Let's face the facts. Those who can tolerate ambiguity well,  will be fine, while those who cannot, will be frustrated, angry, railing, and dueling the windmills. Most of us fall somewhere in between! ;-)

Indeed I think "minhag Yisrael" is perhaps a poor choice of words.

What I think he was really saying is that Professor Penkower's academic analysis is irrelevant to the Halachah - one way or the other. Only a Poseiq can make that call, not a professor. As to how the Mishnah Brurah's ruling caught on fire - I do not know. I understand Lubavitch does this, and they are not known to be particularly deferential to the MB

Perhaps, as Hacham Sassoon might say: we believe in continuous revelation. Others might see the Hand of Divine Providence.

What bothers me about the Mishnah Brurah's method is that he presents the safeiq as even. It's not. And as Rabbi Noah G. has noted, a Halachic Safeiq is usually approxximately 50-50.
Here it's clearly not a 50-50. For example, I might say that Rabbenu Tam Tefillin might be 50-50, but Catholic Israel did away with that opinion.

R' Mordechai Breuer's article is brilliant on this matter. I have Professor Penkower's article but I have not yet had the pleasure to complete it.

As I understand Rav Halivni and Rabbis Feldblum and Price, we don't follow "science" when it comes to halachic practice, particularly in nusach. For example, This came up regarding "unetaneh toqef" and "kivnei maron" where Albeck and others suggest "kivnumerion" instead. R' Price dismissed this as academic and not halachic, and so subject to the shifting paradigms in science. For instance, is Pluto still a planet?

The story goes that in Breslau Seminary -

Proffessor Graetz read the Haftara with his emendation based upon science

And R' Z. Frankel apparently re-read the entire passage [iirc with brachot] to make the point that we don't emend Tanach on the basis of our scientific point of view - at least not during the liturgy

Anyway, we can safely say this:

• The Masoretes deviated from the Talmud in a number of instances.
• The Kimchi's Grammar deviated from the Tiberian grammatical system on several points.

- I believe segol is one of those areas. Anyway, as far as I know, the Kimchi's PRONOUNCED tzeire and segol the same - obviating any need for repetition. Perhaps our very hakpadah to distinguish the two vowels has led us to this safeiq, though many would claim that this is irrelevant.

'Nuff Said.

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 1

Originally published 3/3/10, 9:13 pm.
Re: Repeating to read Zachor to accommodate both Zeicher and Zecher

There are those with whom I may never agree and in particular there is this one fellow with whom I often lock horns; he sent me a private email that expresses some of my own outrage on this matter...

I think it's safe to snip out these two points:

1. The practice looks silly.
2. The practice looks ... to be huqa utelula.

When you think about it, they are almost the same point.
Here is my similar reaction in a private email to a completely different colleague.

I still think it's a bad approach, a bad precedent and a bad example. We're making Reform & Conservative frummer with regards to the Masoretic text than we Orthodox Jews are. As we play more games with it, we thereby making it appear "less holy" and more susceptible to error.

Next:
Zeicher and Zecher on steroids. ;-)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Purim II

Originally published 2/25/10, 6:18 PM.
We are now observing Parshat Zachor in Yeshivat Machmirim min Hamachmirim.

Here is the description as transcribed by the Press Corps covering the Olympic Laining Tryouts...

In a 3.5 hour long ritual, Parshat Zachor will be read sufficient times so as to cover all the Halachic bases - a kind of Spring Training for Baaeli Q'riah.

First - the entire Zachor must be read in full twice - once with Zecher and once with Zeicher
Second - every halachic permutation for the proper Torah and Masoretic text must be accommodated. 

What good is Zachor with Zecher if the sefer is not correct!? Thus Ashkenazic scrolls, Rambam Scrolls, Chabad Scrolls, Mitnagged scrolls etc. must be supplied using every version of Sta"m Ashurit EG Beth Yosef and Arizal etc.

Third - every communal pronunciation must also be accounted for

• Teimani
• Moroccan
• Syrian
• Yekke
• Spanish-Portuguese
• Litvisher
• Hungarian
• Polish
• Galician
• Romanian
• Modern Israeli
• Etc.

Must also be lained in conjunction with all of the above.

The Ritual takes about 3.5 hours to read the 3 verses enough times to satisfy everyone. The amount of otyot read accumulates to 75,000 which matches the death toll in Persia on the 13th of Adar.

After the marathon laining is over, everyone is too tired to eat so a cup of wine is consumed for kiddush, and then the community then takes its Shabbat nap, giving this yeshiva of machmirim a head start on ad d'lo yada before the rest of the world rests.

Freilichen Purim,
RRW

Ivrith - back to Fundamentals or Evolving New Styles

Originally published 5/9/08, 4:45 PM.
Dear Readers:

Here is a really interesting debate on proper Ivrith Articulation from the "Leining Group"

Enjoy
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

From: bearpecs@aol.com
Date: Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Subject: [Leining] Tiberian
To: Leining@yahoogroups.com

I think we should keep in mind that no community pronounces Hebrew just as the Tiberian Masoretes did. We need to balance the competing priorities of accurate and consistent reading on the one hand with preserving the legitimate and established minhag of communities on the other hand. In some cases (e.g. zekher/zeikher) accuracy and consistency must take precedence (although in that example it has been shown that it was not truly a reliable "minhag"); in others (e.g. thaw/tav/saf) minhag must take precedence. The goal is not to read Torah as the Tiberians did. The goal is meaningful reading that preserves grammatical and articulate Hebrew.

-Hayyim

==========================================================================================

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon jeremy.simon@nyu.edu wrote:

I would disagree. At least in term of the phonetic distinctions made, I think the goal is to come as close to Tiberian as possible without sounding odious to the congregation. From my first and second hand experience, in a modern askenazi shul, you can pronounce dagesh chazak and ayin, but not, soft gimels and dalets. Tiberian Hebrew represents the masorah that has been universally accepted, and we should strive to stay as close as possible. Of course, languages change in their phonetics, but kri'at hatorah is a specific kind of ritual performance, and so a certain degree of deviation from standard spoken Hebrew is acceptable and as it happen desirable. How else are we to make sense of the rambam's strictures on who can lein, the most famous one being that one must be able to distinguish between an ayin and an alef. Clearly, already in his time and place had been lost among routine speakers of Hebrew, and nonetheless, he felt the need to insist on in in kri'at hatorah.

- Jeremy

Leining: Is it zeikher or zekher?

Originally published 4/2/08, 11:06 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
I looked up ZECHER in the Even Shoshan Concordance - and in it I located 2 occurences of Zecher - and BOTH were proper names!

Zecher is clearly wrong. Rav Mordechai Breuer OBM has confirmed this with unassailable research While the Ma'seh Rav attests to this idea of Zecher Rav Haim Volozhiner protested this very attestation [albeit very politely]. In NO way were TWO readings ever suggested

But if safeik D'd'oraiito lehumra re: Zachor why not go all the way? [Reductio ad absurdum indeed- after all it is read around Purim time! So why not

1. Read it from BOTH a Sephardic and Ashkenaic Torah...
2. Read BOTH Scrolls with every permutation of pronunciation [e.g. litvisher, Hungarian, Yekkish, Sephardic, Yeminite etc. etc.]?

The Vilna Gaon himself made fun of multiple pairs of Tefillin as ludicrous and came up with 32-64 possible permutations. Ironically we are beginning to perpetuate such a practice in his honor. [Incidentally, this proves there MUST be a God, or else it would make no sense to practice such a minhag to honor the one who felt such permutation was unnecessary.]

One Rabbi insisted that whilst reading Ki Tetze both Zeicher and Zecher must be read TWICE, one for Shevii'i and once for Maftir! His argument? since we have changed the form [tzura] for Zachor therefore THAT becomes THE normative way to read it EVERY time we read the Torah, including Ki Tetze! No, I am not kidding; I had a bar mitzva student who HAD to do it this way!



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe

Why Have Schools Dropped the Ball re: Cantillation?

Originally published 2/10/08, 3:01 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Here is my response to a provocative post from the "Leining Group"

Soap Box time for Better chinuch:

• Why don't teachers of Humash and Tanach simply insist on reading the words with the trope from day one and teach the trope as part of the language of the Tanach?
• I think Sephardim and Teimanim do this already. FWIW, Moslems would never cite a verse from the Qur'an without its cantillation.  It's a shame we don't insist on this in our educational systems
• Also, many older editions of Siddurim and Machazorim USED to have verses from Tanach with their trope. Why was this dropped? Espeically as printing became CHEAPER
• Somewhere along the line, excellence in cantillation and diction has been dropped as priority. Why? And what can we do about it?

By way of background here is the original post:

On Feb 10, 2008 10:43 AM, myappel <myappel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Shalom Leining Group Members,

I imagine that I am not alone in thinking that the trope is really an intrinsic part of proper k'riah. There have been numerous discussions on this list regarding its role in directing proper word pronunciation, and phrase parsing. What seems to happen though, is that in the emphasis on proper k'riah and understanding, trope is deemed to be extra, and is often not taught until kids are preparing to become b'nai-mitzvah. Having taught the parasha to a number of b'nai-mitzvah, I can say that the introduction of trope at that point portrays it as a new, additional element to learn besides the actual words. I think it would be much easier if trope were taught earlier,
so children could appreciate that it really is an organic part of k'riah. I have a 6 year old son who is able to read, and has just started his study of Chumash. (He had a Chumash receiving party in school just last week.) I am inclined to start working with him on identifying trope, and showing its role in the understanding of the pesukim. Clearly though, I would approach the teaching differently than I would for a bar-mitzvah age child. My current idea is to show how the Etnachta and the Sof Pasuk, are major pauses, how that affects the meaning, and how the meshartim that lead up to these notes fill in the phrasing. This would be done with the pesukim that are being learnt in school. Any comments on this approach? Does anyone have any experience in working with early grade school-age children in teaching trope? If so, are there any other ideas that you might have about how to approach it?

Thanks,
Michael

KT,
RRW