![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioMicha was a regular on the Usenet group soc.culture.jewish[.moderated]. For all I know he still is; my feed for this group is highly flaky and I don't read it any more. We got into some interesting discussions back then (we're talking four year ago now), and this resulted in my flying out to spend a Shabbat with his (Orthodox) family. It was a fascinating experience in many ways. (I wrote a huge journal entry about it. I wrote lots of huge entries back then...)
But then my feed got flaky, and Usenet continued to descend to new depths, and we lost touch. Recently some of the "old regulars" started a mailing list for discussions among members of different movements, and when I heard about it I signed up. I noticed that Micha was there but didn't make direct contact.
After I posted something last week he sent me mail saying, basically, "long time no see". So we've been catching up. Nifty. I wasn't really even sure he would even remember me. I get the impression that he does a lot of what I call "Orthodox outreach", and I figured I was just another person passing through to him. (For all that we exchanged long, deep email for a while.)
So now we're arguing (on the list) about the ban on blowing the shofar if Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbat. Ah, it feels good to be home. :-)
(The issue is that we are commanded to hear the shofar on Rosh Hashana, except the rabbis ruled that if RH is on Shabbat we don't do this. Why? Because of the prohibition on carrying things in the public domain on Shabbat -- if we blow shofar on Shabbat, then someone might be tempted to carry one and that would be bad, and even having one that lives at the synagogue is not adequate. My counter-argument: if it's about carrying, then why do we permit the use of any object during Shabbat services? We read from a Torah scroll, make kiddush with a kiddush cup, use siddurim (prayer books), etc, and someone could be tempted to carry these items from outside the building. Yet it is sufficient to set items aside that belong to the synagogue and live there, so why not also the shofar?)
Humh.
Date: 2002-08-29 09:06 pm (UTC)Re: Humh.
Date: 2002-08-30 05:37 am (UTC)On the other hand, when's the last time you heard a shofar service that could be described as "musical"? :-) I mean, it's a big loud noise that gets people's attention, and I suppose you can argue that it has pitch and is thus music, but...
Re: Humh.
Date: 2002-08-30 02:26 pm (UTC)Now, the blasts in the Shofar service aren't as musical, but they do have a certain recognizable melody (as well as rhythm).
(no subject)
Date: 2002-08-29 10:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-08-30 05:17 am (UTC)Well, the easy way is to find someone who you trust, and just do what they do without thinking. But, in my opinion, that's cheating. There are often multiple acceptable positions on any issue, and anyone who says that things are always clear cut is seriously oversimplifiying.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-08-30 05:44 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-08-30 06:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-08-30 05:24 am (UTC)Interesting point. But at the time the decisions were being made, individuals probably didn't have Torah scrolls or siddurim. Making kiddush in shul is a more recent practice, I think, so wouldn't have been on the radar. But people apparently had their own shofars.
My opinion: The service is long enough on a Rosh Hashannah that falls on Shabbat without the shofar service. Since in the Conservative Movement, R.H. is a two day festival (even in Israel), one will get a chance to hear Shofar on at least one day. So I'm not upset about the decision. (If Reform only does one day of R.H., then I can see that being more of a problem...)
Now, my niggling question: why don't we say the Rosh Chodesh (new month) liturgy on Rosh Hashannah? It is Rosh Chodesh, but we don't do it. Why?
(no subject)
Date: 2002-08-30 05:44 am (UTC)I've been to Conservative (second-day) RH services. They took about three and a half hours. That same shul's Shabbat service is about two and a half, so an extra hour didn't surprise me that much. (In both cases, by the time we get to musaf I'm starting to feel tedium -- didn't we just do all these prayers? Yes, I know, musaf is an extra (full) service so you have to go through the shared text again... but I have trouble connecting with it.)
My (Reform) congregation's RH service is usually about two and a half hours, and of course drops musaf. It always includes shofar, using a shofar that's been sitting there on the bima since before Yom Tov. (Shabbat service is about two hours.)
(In all cases I'm talking about the morning service, of course.)
kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-08-30 06:04 am (UTC)I wonder if some of the reason it's stayed in most shul's davening is to make sure people hear kiddush, even if they're not going to do it at home?
Re: kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-08-30 06:25 am (UTC)Just my two cents...I can find sources if you want, but I think that's the basic reasoning.
Here endeth my actual knowledge and here beginneth my speculation:
This may actually also be why the same reasoning does not apply to a kiddush cup as it does to a shofar. The kiddush cup was probably simply housed in the synagogue (whereas, most people probably had their own shofarim), and there was less likelihood that someone would be tempted to carry one into the shul. In addition, the argument that adding this element to the service would enable people to hear kiddush who would not otherwise be able to fulfill that mitzvah, would likely override any other argument.
(I had a more coherent thought there, but it seems to not have come out the way I intended...oh well)
Re: kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-08-30 07:13 am (UTC)Good point, though note that at least as far back as the Shulchan Aruch it's been permitted to make kiddush over the challah if you don't have wine. (I can't remember the details of making kiddush over a non-wine drink. I know of a minyan that makes morning kiddush over Scotch, but I don't know if, say, Coke is permitted. I'm 99% certain that plain water is never permitted.)
This discussion reminds me of a story -- I think Chassidic but I'm not sure -- that I once heard. I've forgotten a lot of details, so forgive the "genericization" in the following.
A poor man once came to Rabbi SomeoneFamous shortly before Pesach and asked for a gift of 2 UnitOfMoney so that he could buy milk to have at his seder. The rabbi gave him 50 UnitOfMoney and told him to buy wine. After the man left, the rabbi's wife said "Why did you give him so much? 10 UnitOfMoney would have been enough for even very good wine." The rabbi replied that if the man's original intention was to drink milk, then clearly wine was not his only need and the larger amount would permit him to buy meat for the festive meal. (This was part of a lesson on chessed/tzedakah, about how just giving someone what he asks for isn't necessarily sufficient. We have to look beyond the question and try to help him meet his real needs, including the ones he isn't asking about explicitly.)
Re: kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-08-30 03:08 pm (UTC)The Shulchan Aruch? That's not that old. Medieval. (looks it up quickly...) Joe Karo was 1488-1575, and I seem to remember it being written towards the end of his life. (His earlier work was better). And remember that actual Ashkenazi Jews don't follow the Shulchan Aruch, despite what they might say. They follow the later Ashkenazic commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (where it's followed at all). (So, for those folks keeping score at home: we've got people following medieval commentaries on a medieval code of law based on various rulings and customs, many of which ultimately hark back to the Talmud, which was redacted around 1000 years previously (about 500 CE), which in turn expands on the Mishnah which was finalized circa 300 years prior to that (about 200 CE), which in turn is based on an oral tradition... But wait, I forgot to say that there are really two versions of the Talmud; the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud. Obviously the Babylonian Talmud is the one that's considered more authoritative. They're actually identical, except for where they are radically different.)
What was that someone said about complicated? :-)
Re: kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-08-30 03:27 pm (UTC)Yes, I know that Shulchan Aruch is late by us. It still seems to carry some ambiguous level of authority, though, and I figured that a 500-year-old tradition of permission to say kiddush over challah could be relevant.
Re: kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-09-01 07:03 am (UTC)Guilty as charged. :-)
I wouldn't have been able to pull out the dates off the top of my head, but I did mention I was looking stuff up... but then I couldn't stop!
Re: kiddush in shul
Date: 2002-08-30 03:14 pm (UTC)So you should've attributed it to the Genericer Rebbe. And in Chasidic tales, you've just got to use Kopeks and Rubles. (Unless they're about the Bostoner Rebbe, for obvious reasons.)
RH davening
Date: 2002-08-30 06:18 am (UTC)Musaf fits in better for me mentally because it's part of the usual Shabbat davening, part of what makes Shabbat different from weekdays, just in extra-long size. OTOH, there are some piyyutim-like things on RH that just go on far too long.
Re: RH davening
Date: 2002-08-30 03:24 pm (UTC)Ah, yes. The Piyyutim...
I should've gone to the class that my Rabbi was giving on the poetic liturgy of the days of awe, but I was unavoidably busy all the days so far. So you're not going to get a defense of them from me...
In my opinion, they were a medieval fad, but not a major problem... until the modern Machsors (prayer books for the high holidays). Because then the prayer book publishers put them all in, even if each individual community only did one or two of the set. So then people started doing them all, because they were all there...
Some modern prayer books (e.g. the Harlow Machsor) deal with this by removing some (fine with me), and by removing the english translations of others (not fine with me). But that's another discussion. Maybe I'll talk with him this year about it... but probably not, since he goes to a different minyan in my shul. (That one uses the Bokser, actually...) And the fact that I'm a lot shyer in person.
fixed liturgy
Date: 2002-09-01 09:23 am (UTC)My understanding is that this is basically the history of the siddur in general, not just the machzor. (Siddur: prayer book. Machzor: siddur for the high holy days specifically.) Services have gotten longer over the centuries as publishers added optional parts and congregations adopted them as mandatory.
This poses a particular problem (IMO) in the Amidah, which was supposed to be prayer from the heart, extemporaneous, around a specified set of themes. Originally, only the chatimot (the closing "baruch atah..." sentences that sum up the theme of the paragraph) were specified [1]; now we have set text for all of it. Except that the Amidah is supposed to contain non-fixed prayer, so people now have to add that at the end. Somewhere along the line someone set out a suggested form for this prayer, which is now in all the siddurim, which means it's fixed... which means we have to add new non-fixed prayer after that now...
I approve of the Reform movement's goal of thinning down all of these acretions to get back to he core service. Unfortunately, sometimes they cut out parts that really are supposed to be part of the core, which is frustrating.
I have heard that the earliest known siddur dates to the ninth or tenth century, but so far as I know no one has published a facsimile. (If anyone has written up its contents, I don't know where to look for it.) I'd love to know what was in that siddur!
[1] In the mishna to tractate Berachot, which also cautions us not to make our prayer fixed.
almost forgot
Date: 2002-08-30 06:52 am (UTC)I've wondered the same thing. The closest thing I've ever gotten to an answer, and it's pretty unsatisfactory, is that Rosh Hashana is a special Rosh Chodesh, so its liturgy displaces the regular Rosh-Chodesh liturgy. I guess the idea is that you'd be honoring the new month twice if you did both, or something like that. (This is just me guessing, though.)
Re: almost forgot
Date: 2002-08-30 02:30 pm (UTC)Another reason not to blow on Shabbat
Date: 2002-09-01 07:14 am (UTC)Re: Another reason not to blow on Shabbat
Date: 2002-09-01 09:03 am (UTC)?! That's a new one on me. I'm curious about the supporting argument.
Re: Another reason not to blow on Shabbat
Date: 2002-09-02 07:39 am (UTC)This is from Seasons of our Joy, Paperback edition (first published in 1990) ISBN 0-8070-3611-0
On Page 5, Waskow writes: (about not blowing the Shofar on Shabbat):
Context request
Date: 2002-09-01 05:24 pm (UTC)kiddush
minyan
davening (this seems to be a noun; is there a verb "to daven"?)
Mishnah
Re: Context request
Date: 2002-09-01 09:07 pm (UTC)Kiddush: a blessing that we say (over wine) to sanctify Shabbat or a holiday. This is called "making kiddush". We are required to do this at home, at the beginning of meals on those days (once in the evening and once in the morning). It is often also recited in the synagogue as part of services, but that doesn't excuse you from the requirement to do it at home.
Minyan: technically, the group of 10 men (if you're Orthodox) or 10 men and/or women (if you're Reform -- Conservative is split) that is required in order to hold certain parts of a service. Colloquially, "minyan" also refers to the service, as in "minyan tonight is at 7:30".
Observant (male) Jews (female too in liberal Judaism) are expected to pray a fixed liturgy three times a day. These services are called "ma'ariv" (evening), "shacharit" (morning), and "mincha" (the afternoon service; the word "mincha" actually means something different, but it's come to mean this as well). The first service is the evening one because the day begins at sundown. (Because "and it was evening and morning, the Nth day".)
Davening: saying the (fixed) service. Often equated with "praying", but one can pray "from the heart" and privately, and "davening" refers to the fixed liturgy (the three services I mentioned above).
Mishnah: the earliest part of the Talmud; the written form of the oral law. There are two types of law, written law (Torah) and oral law. Around the year 200 CE there was a real danger that the oral law would be lost, due to persecution (mainly from Rome), so the sages of the time wrote it down. Later sages augmented it; the earlier part is called the Mishnah and the later part is called the Gemara, collectively the Talmud.
The shofar, by the way, is the ram's horn. It is sounded almost every morning during the month before Rosh Hashana, and during Rosh Hashana services as well. However, this is omitted on Shabbat because carrying things from a private place into the public space (or back) is one of the forbidden types of labor on Shabbat, and the sages worried that if someone forgot to take the shofar to the synagogue before Shabbat he might carry it on Shabbat. Rather than risking that sin, they banned blowing the shofar on Shabbat. (A secondary concern is the prohibition of playing musical instruments on Shabbat.)
The argument I brought up is that if we worry about someone carrying a shofar on Shabbat, why don't we worry about him carrying the kiddush cup (the cup that holds the wine)? Others commenting here have pointed out some reasons that this is a different case.