long time no "see", and the shofar on Shabbat

[cellio]

Neat. I've bumped into Micha again.

Micha 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?)

Comments

kiddush in shul

[magid.livejournal.com]

I thought this started sometime when visitors to a community were quite possibly eating, sleeping in the shul, so kiddush was made for them. Why they would have food but not wine is unclear to me.
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

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

My understanding as to why kiddush is in the liturgy is because there was a time that wine was expensive (well, it still is, but it used to be prohibitively so). In addition, kosher wine was not so easy to come by as it is today. Therefore, kiddush was said in shul so that everyone would have the opportunity to hear kiddush, even if they could not afford to purchase wine themselves. Consider that you would need a glass of wine Friday night and Saturday afternoon as well as a glass of wine for Havdallah, and that was prohibitive.

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

[cellio]

My understanding as to why kiddush is in the liturgy is because there was a time that wine was expensive

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

[goljerp]

though note that at least as far back as the Shulchan Aruch
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

[cellio]

Aw, you're just doing that for the spectators. :-)

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

[goljerp]

Aw, you're just doing that for the spectators. :-)

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

[goljerp]

I've forgotten a lot of details, so forgive the "genericization" in the following.

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.)