Nissan vs. Tishrei

The RH liturgy states: "Hayom harat olam"
Heirayon = conception NOT birth.

And so the reasoning goes that the world was conceived in Tishrei and created in Nissan"


Rambam's son Rav Avraham cautioned us to neither be too literal nor too cynical regarding Aggadah.



Illustrative digression

If I were to say charcoal = diamonds a literalists would lug worthless charcoal to 47th street and expect to make a huge profit.


Scoffers would say: charcoal = diamonds?! That's outrageous!

Wise people would say:

Hmmm what's the point? Can't be literal. Then after delving into it they would realize that where there's charcoal there be diamonds (at least potentially)

End of digression]



Michdi Let's see. The first mishnah in Rosh Hashanah lists 4 New Years. So both Nissan and Tishrei are already enshrined as New Years. The question about conception and birth must have some symbolic lesson. I don't know what was originally meant. Here is a shot at it anyway.



The physical universe in the northern hemisphere is reborn every Spring. It is no wonder that Christians observe springtime as resurrection time. Mother Nature is doing it simultaneously! So physical (RE)birth is springtime



Autumn is a time of harvest, of completion, of impending winter hibernation. It is a time of taking stock financially and also spiritually. The autumn New Year is not about birth, but of reflection, and introspection.



Now map it out

Autumn = Tishrei = conception = intropsection


Spring = Nissan = birth= = rebirth

Tishrei the world was conceived because it entered "God's Mind" metaporically speaking

In Nissan evidence exists of physical creation or re-creation.


The words of the wise Hazal can be cryptic. Being overly literal misses the point; and. scoffing also misses the point.


Zissen Pesach

RRW

Links to Passover Kashrut Websites

Originally published 3/15/10, 7:00 pm.
See this link to the OU Passover Website for information on Passover Products and Procedures:

http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/passover

OK

http://www.ok.org/

Kof-K

http://www.kof-k.org/facts.php

Star K
http://www.star-k.org/cons-pesach-flash.htm

Kashrut.org

http://www.kashrut.org/forum/search.asp?keyword=passover


Zissen Pesach,
RRW

HHH - Matzah - Difficulty with Sephradic Practice

Originally published 3/14/10, 9:00 pm.

Some [all?] Sephardim do not make Hamotzi on Matzah EXCEPT on Passover since they do not consider it LECHEM but LECHEM ONI. 

The problem? The Mishnah/Haggadah containing the [so-called] four-questions equates the year 'round eating of Hametz with Matza. This, in turn, presupposes that they are equally valid for kevia's S'eduha all year round. 

I actually heard this quoted from a Sephardic Hacham.

And FWIW - the concept that Lechem Happanim was made from matzah seems to support the Matzah=Lechem equation, too.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe

Ilu Kerivanu lifnei Har Sinai - the Questions

We have ruminated about this many times at our Seder. In 2007 I was privileged to make a short drasha {homily} on the 2nd Day of Passover at Netivot Shalom in Teaneck, NJ.

1. Can it be true that had God taken us out of Egypt only to abandon us either at the shore of the Red Sea or in the Desert without provision that it would have really been enough?
2. What is the purpose of stating The list of Dayyeinu and THEN summarizing them with "Kammah Ma'alot Tovot" - i.e.How many advantages... etc."?
3. What is the point of God bringing us "CLOSE to Sinai" without giving us the Torah? Isn't the entire point of Sinai the Giving of the Torah?! Clue: Consult the Haftarot associated with the Readings of Torah on Yithro and Shavuot

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

Rosh and Rif - How Scientific Method Can Inform Traditional Learning

And so it's a given that yeshivot traditionally learn things on the daf that often include:

• The Rif
• The Ran [or Nimukei Yosef] on the Rif

And the Rosh

But most yeshivah bachurs do not realize that generally speaking the Talmud Text embedded within the Rosh is actually the text of the Rif. And therefore, that the Rosh essentially is an expanded Rif - as contrasted to an external commentary such as the Ran.

This factoid is better know in the scientific ["Wissenshaft" or Hochmat Yisrae'l] community than in the Yeshivish Community. One of my colleagues - whose PhD is on the Rif - is most aware of this phenomenon

But many are not aware of this. And so how can this awareness matter?

The sefer M'irat Einayim - who may be the premier commentary on Shulchan Aruch * - states that Halachah follows the Rif EXCEPT when Tosafot disagrees. And now you have the bedrock of Ashkneazic methodology in p'saq.

But this SM"A is not really saying anything new or radical! To a great extent the Rosh and the Mordechai incorporated this very premise into their commentaries on the Halachah. It is a pre-supposition that guides them - for the most part.

The Scientific Component here can show us how the Rishonim viewed Shas better than the less disciplined techniques of seeing Rosh as just commenting without a methodology,

The Ran - who is also a major player in P'saq - employs this technique too - albeit to a lesser extent.

The pure, pristine Rif was a bigger player amongst early Rishonim. But later Rishonim and early Acharonim have mostly filtered the Rif through the prisms of Ran, Rosh, and Mordechai. And this factoid shows the technique that is common to the three.

The Rema seems to primarily favour the Mordechai, but a quick review will show Rosh and Ran as major players, too.

EG Tosafot argues for women's right to recite brachot on EG Shofar, Sukkah, Lulav.
But it's the Ran's formulation and authority that is cited by Beth Yosef and Rema as supporting this P'saq.

As we see from this Scientifically informed view, that Shas was used rarely as the direct source of Halachah - rather it was filtered by the Posqim first

I hope this helps

* How the SM"A became a premier commentary on the SA

The SA was seen by the Levush as simply too brief to be a primary Halachic text.
The L'vush added a "qitzur Beth Yosef" approach. For a generation or so the L'vush largely supplanted the SA

The SM"A took the same approach to the SA by supplementing it with a "mini-BY". He became the first major commentary on the SA and restored the SA to primacy over the L'vush. W/O nosei Keilim, the SA might have sank into the background of the Halachic Universe.

KT
RRW

Scaling Down from the Heights

The story goes that the Vilna Gaon [GRA] required that his students learn the entire Masechta BEFORE attending his Gmara Shiur.

That kind of demand is unrealistic for most Talmidim today.

However, isn't it reasonable to scale down that lofty requirement to have the Students learn all the Mishnayot of the entire Masechta first?
A fairly in depth look at the Mishnayot will take a lot less time than covering every Daf in the Gmara itself, yet, nevertheless, yield a fairly substantial subset anyway

KT
RRW

Controversy in Canada over Promotion of Israel

A significant controversy emerged in Canada, during the past week, regarding a video and website that were developed by CIJA, a Jewish organization with connections to Federation and UIA, to promote Israel. This campaign was specifically launched to coincide with a coordinated event held on many college campuses in the country entitled "Israel Apartheid Week" which, as evidenced by the title, is intended to attack Israel. The problem many members of the Jewish community have with the video is that it uses obvious sexual innuendo with a focus on oral sex to get across its message. The question is whether this is an appropriate way to promote Israel.

While I am reluctant to direct readers to the actual material under discussion, I recognize that it would be necessary to view this video and website to gain an appreciation for the controversy and critique. I no longer, though, have the url for this video which was shown on youtube. The url for the website, though, is http://sizedoesntmatter.ca and I think from the name itself you can see the problem. It would seem that the video itself is also no longer available on the website.

In any event, I have commented on this matter in my column in the Jewish Tribune and I invite you to read my thoughts on the matter at http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201003092737/Unity-and-standards-do-matter.html.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Four Stated Goals of the Mishnah Brurah

What was the point for R Israel Meir Kagan Z"L for publishing the Mishnah Brurah?

Within his own Haqdamah he states 4 reasons


1 [starts with "ach"]The Shulchan Aruch w/o Tur is a Sefer Hatum. Thus his goal is to make the SA more intelligible.

2 [Sibba sh'niyya] Rabbu haDei'os in the SA. It is hard to pinpoint the correct p'saq given the diversity of opinions.

3 [Od Ra'itti v'hitbonanti] The Ba'er Heitev was out-of-date [obsolescent] and the Mishnah Brurah provided a more up-to-date version of the Ba'ir Hetev.

4 [Zot Od v'Acheret]People have to look hither, thither, and Yon amongst numerous acharonim to find the p'saq. The MB collates them for you providing an anthology of resources and coming to a conclusion.

One might say that #3 - viz. giving more sheetot - conflicts with #4 - I.E.. settling the issue.

If one's goal is to have a clear-cut answer, then a Kitzur SA, Chayei Adam approach is best, give a singular p'saq.

If one's goal is to have a menu from which to select, then a Beth Yosef survey approach is best.

I would think Posqim would prefer the latter. They need the flexibility to tailor a solution depending upon the circumstances.

And I would guess the average baal habayyit or student might prefer the former.

KT
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 3

Zeicher vs. Zecher on Steroids

I attended a Bar Mitzvah on Parshat Ki Teitze. There, the BM boy repeated zecher-zeicher twice
• Once for sh'vii
• Once for maftir

I found this strange. The entire Rationale for the Mishnah Brurah's requirement of repeating this - is predicated upon the premise that Zachor is d'oraitto! That does not apply to Ki Teitze.

Also it would be simple to accomodate Zecher/Zeicher by doing one way during sh'vii and the other way during Maftir! Win-win! After all the Passuq was being repeated anyway.

I asked the local Rav. He claimed that once MB changed the tzurah of how to lain this passage, it gets changed across the board in the same tzurah. I found this incredulous! Would the MB ever have made that suggestion? Seems far-fetched indeed.

But we do see that Halachah or Minhag evolves even twice in several generations. First for Zachor alone and then for Ki Teitze.

Zeicher vs. Zecher on Steroids - INDEED ;-)

KT
RRW

Results of Poll on: The Halachic Process

In our last poll, we inquired:


POLL: The Halachic Process

Which statements resonate with you?

A) There is but a single Halachah. It is the posseiq's job to determine Hashem's will and to strive to bring about universal conformity to that r'tzon Hashem. Poskim, as such, should communicate to present a single unified conclusion.

B) Halachah is complex. Each poseiq sorts out the sources as best as he can and presents what he believes is the correct conclusion. As such, there may be competing answers to a given question and this is the accepted reality of psak.

C) Halachah is only a means to an end. Whatever promotes the greatest level of "frumkeit" should be advocated by all, in order to engender higher levels of observance

D) Halachah should be tailored to the asker. For example, certain people should be permitted to eat ice cream and coffee in certain unsupervised establishments, and to rely upon hazaqah. From others - more should be expected. Each case merits a unique tailored answer.

E) Halachah is about communal standards. The important thing as a Halachic society is that all within the community should be on the same page as to kashrut, Shabbat etc. So that people can visit and dine with each other freely w/o fear of practices that deviate from communal norms.

Your Responses (total 10)

Option A - 10% (1)
Option B - 80% (8)
Option C - 10% (1)
Option D - 50% (5)
Option E - 30% (3)


Comments
Rabbi Hecht
It would seem that the vast majority of respondents to this poll understand the Halachic system for what it is -- a system of thought that applies variant principles and ideas in the determination of God's directive to us. It is hazy but intentionally so -- for God wanted us to think, investigate and analyze in the determination of His Will. The further issue for this vast majority would seem to have been how to include the specific circumstances in this determination. There is the objective, theoretical determination of what one believes to be the law and then there is the question of this determination in specific circumstances -- when the one asking is poor, when the answer will affect the community. There would seem to be Halachic issues in this regard as well and the disagreement in regard to how we answer these questions seems to have surfaced within this poll as well.

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 2

Posted with permission from the author.

This post speaks for itself. -RRW


«Re zeicher and zecher.

My brother-in-law, Prof. Jordan Penkower of Br Ilan University wrote an extensive article proving that the correct pronunciation is zeicher. It's way beyond my expertise although Jordan acknowledged as a leading expert in Bible studies, Jewish manuscripts etc.

I asked a member of my shul, who is also an expert in this field and who often is the ba'al korey on Parshat Zachor, if he had read the article. he said he had and that Jordan was "absolutely" correct. So I asked him (as Jordan had asked me to) whether he would read it only that way (zeicher) on Parshat Zachor. "Of course not," he replied; "what do facts have to do with minhag Yisrael?" And sure enough, he read it both ways.

Joseph Kaplan»

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

Sh'qalim and Zachor

Question:

When do we read BOTH Parshat Sh'qalim and Parshat Zachor on the very same Shabbat?

Answer

We just had this! When Tetzaveh is Zachor - the most common case - we read Sh'qalim at Mincha time.

RRW

When is "muttar" l'chatchila? And when is it b'di'avad?

See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Dei'ah 69:4

The SA ends with "Muttar"

How does the SA mean this?

Does the SA Mean
It is l'chatchila Muttar to salt only one side of a piece of meat?

OR

Does the SA Mean
B'di'avad it's Muttar to use a piece of meat that has been salted on only one side?

The key here is the position or juxtaposition of the term "Muttar"

KT
RRW

Kol haMoseif Gorei'a

Purim morning - a young man who likes to daven a really long Sh'moneh Esrai missed the M'gilla reading at his minyan because he was still davening.

IMHO this is classic Moseif that is Gorei'a

Given "M'vatlin h'oavdoah liqriat m'gillah", maybe he could have cut his davening and kavvanah to finish by the end of laining? After all isn't this a classic application of m'vatlin ho'avodah?


Frelichen Purim
RRW

Re: Is Parshat Zachor d'Oraitto? - 2

See the Aruch haShulchan
Orach Chaim 685:6

And see the new edition with fn to Mishna Brura notes 4 and 5

Kaf Hachaim esp. #33
[Vol. 8 p. 156]

Citing Talmud Bavli Megillah 18a

«Therefore [as per Rabbenu Hannanel on the Talmud there] both reader and listener need to intend to fulfill the positive commandment of the Torah»

Also see Kitzur SA 140:3. Quoting SA, Rema et al.

Next Post - a digression based upon 2 philosophies of P'saq.

KT
RRW

Is Parshat Zachor d'Oraitto? - 1

Actually this would be better phrased as:

"What Is the disposition of Parshat Zachor as per Shas and Posqim?"

Let's Start with Sources - Part 1:

See the texts in the Mishnah Brurah

SA O"Ch 685:7
Some say "Zachor" is d'oraitto.
Be'er Hagolah 10
Source: Tosafot Brachot 13

Ba'er Hetev 2 quibbles over Parshat Parah
He also quotes. Tosafot shantz that no other Q'riat Hatorah is d'oraitto other than Zachor

Quoting Magen Avraham - Also Parshat Zachor with 10 is more important than Megillat Esther...

Mishnah Brura 14
"And we learn in the Gmara that Zachor must be "amira mitoch hasefer b'libo"

Next post BEH
Positions of
Kaf Hachayyim
Aruch Hashulchan
Kitzur SA

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Many Paths One Peak

There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but once the pinnacle has been reached, the perspective is the same for all

And so
Who says that advanced science and advanced spirituality will diverge? Maybe at the top they CONVERGE, and all will be seen to clearly emanate from the same Maqor - the Creator Blessed Be He Who Created both Maaseh Breisheet and Maaseh Merqavah

KT
RRW