Questions                       Li-Yeshuatcha Qiviti - לק"י
 Sources may include:

PLEASE SUBMIT CORRECTIONS TO ADMIN AT dev @ chayas.com

Articles:   

return to top of Questions page

return to articles page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rambam said the following:
Truth is where you find it, but if the source is questionable, you must confirm the logic of the proofs because we do not go by arguments based upon the source, but upon the logic of the proofs. So, because of this, many times we have to consider everything and do much research while with holding judgement until the end. Plus, even when we think we have found the answer, our research should be run by many experts if the answer seems to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom

return to top of Questions page

return to articles page

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amidah (davening during the repetition)

1) What should I do during the repetition of the Amidah when I can't daven
> as fast as the Tsibbur. Should I ignore his repetition (even during the
> Kedusha) and finish my own Amidah or should I pause during his repetition
> and continue after he finishes. Please tell me the Halacha al pi Dar da-i..

You should continue until the chazan reaches kedusha, then pause (preferably at the end of a brachah) and have in mind to be yotzei his kedushah while standing silently. When he finishes kedushah, continue your shmoneh esrei.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Desert & Birkath Hamazon

 2) Also, I read that the Temanim say Birkhath Hamazon after they eat the meal
> and then make a separate Mezanoth if they eat cake for dessert. Is this
> correct? If so, Do I make another brakha ahhronah after the cake too?

When eating cake or any other dessert at the end of the meal, one should make a separate brakhah on that dessert (shehakol, etz, admaa, mezonoth). Birkhath Hamazon then goes on everything that was eaten and no additional brachah should be said. In fact, there is a problem if one eats a mezonoth or any other food immediately after birkhath hamazon, especially if it was already his intention before saying birkat hamazon to eat it right away. This is a possible situation of "brahhah seh-einah tzricha - a brakhah that need not be said" (the extra brakhah on mezonoth) which would possibly be a problem of saying God's name in vain.

Although, the Rambam may have said to say Birqath Hamazon first (after clearing the table), and then to have desert.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nusahh

My friend and I are trying to compare the Mahari"s (Mori harav Yehheya Ssalahh zs"l) prayer book (known as "Eis Hhaim" / "Torath Avoth") with the Mori Yosef Qafahh zs'l prayer book (known as Siyahh Yerushalayim).
 
Although this query aims to resolve the differences between the Baladi Nusahhoth-- there is also some brief discussion below about the differences between the Syrian / Sefaradi influenced "Shammi Nusahh" --that made it's way into Yemen with the influence of the Kabalists of the 16th to 19th century. Because the subjects are all related.
 
Question: Is it true that the Mahari"s line made no apologies for adding on like Rav Qafahh zs'l did?
 
Regarding the two different Baladi traditions: both are basically the same nusahh -- however Mori Qafah's siddur contains fewer Qabalistic additions, less apologetics and is more descriptive in terms of what was in the original Nusahh of old. As to why this was the case--see below. There is no doubt that the Mahari"s zs"l meant well. But preserving historical accuracy has become a priority in today's times -- in my estimation. 
 
ANSWER:
========
Mahari"s edited his siddur around 300 years ago and after a bitter argument in the Jewish community of Tzana'a. His goal was to bring "Shalom Bait" between the groups - Shami and Baladi. The Baladi Nusah then contained no ZOHAR references at all. That's why he adopted to his "Eitz Chaim" siddur (which Torat Avoth based on) paragraphs from the Shami - like "Lecha dodi", "Barich Shame", "Bar Yochai" etc. On the other hand "Siach Yerushalaim" sticks to the ORIGINAL Masoret of the Jews of Yemen. [Site Admin. comment: however, even the Qafahh siddur uses the Mahari"s nusah (i.e.: amida and Shema) as its main component in today's siddur--which is slightly different from the original Yemenite Tiklal -that actually matched the Rambam version in the Yad exactly--according to Rabbi Yosef Qafahh zs'l]. Mori Yusef Gafech ZS'L and my father's shul , Rabbi Arusi, Rabbi Aviad and more that follow the Rabbi Qafahh zs"l Masoret - DO NOT RECITE Barich Shameh, Bar Yochai and more things. HOWEVER, these PRAYERS ARE in "Siach Yerushalaim" just because Mori Yusef was "Rodef Shalom" and allowed the people to decide for themselves. His siddur is exactly like Torat Avot, the text, with the following main differences:
A) The comments/explanations
B) Torat Avot does not have "Birchat Ha'Medina" for the State of Israel - since they claim to be "Hareidim" that do not recognize the State of Israel.
 --------------------------------   
 
Comparison of Baladi Siddurim regarding B'rich Shmeh addition:
 
"Torah Avoth"  This is what it says in Torah Avoth (minhog Maaharis) right before B'rich Sh'meh prayer. Pardon the poor vowels:

"V'omrim kol hakal yachad--V'yesh snhogu limru b'amidah a'p Mararis"

My translation: It means that they recite the "Barich Shame" standing. 

"Siyakh Yerushalayim": This is what the R. Qafahh zs'l Siddur "Siyah Yerushalyim" says before the verse in question (translated from the Hivrith)
 
"In all the ancient Tiklalim this (prayer) does not appear in this Nusach."And also in Maharis is (or perhaps was) not written"

Regarding the "Nusach" of the siddur and all "Kevar nahagu" comments - as you know , Rabbi Aroussi was in New York (he left yesterday) and I asked him your question. He had only 2 minutes for me and this is what he said to me:

1) All the additions to the original "tiklal" were done hundreds of years ago and EVEN MORI YICHYE Qafech AGREED to them. I'm not discussing here the reasons..

.2) All "Kvar nahagu" comments in "Siach Yerushalaim" were old comments that appeared in the first siddur that Mori Yoseph Gafech edited 50 years ago - "Shivat Tzion"

I have one comment about the "tiklal" that mentioned in your email numerous times. This is MY UNDERSTANDING - 1) there were many versions of the "ORIGINAL" "tiklal". The most famous were a) Maharitz, b)R' Yichye Wanna, c)R' Yichye Beshari,d) R' Shalom Shabazi. None of them was Shammie - they all were versions of the original Baladi.

More on the differences between the Shami Nusahh and the Baladi Nusahh at http://www.chayas.com/tamir.htm

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When to wear the Talith Gadhol ? 

ג,יב  [יא] אף על פי שאין אדם מחוייב לקנות טלית ולהתעטף בה, כדי שיעשה בה ציצית, אין ראוי לאדם חסיד, לפטור עצמו ממצוה זו; אלא לעולם ישתדל אדם להיות עטוף בכסות המחוייבת בציצית, כדי שיקיים מצוה זו. ובשעת התפילה, צריך להיזהר ביותר; וגנאי גדול הוא לתלמיד חכמים, שיתפלל והוא אינו עטוף בציצית.

"It is a great disgrace for a Torah scholar to pray without being wrapped in a Talith" (Mishna Tora/ Hilcoth Sitsith 3:12)

היה משאוי על ראשו, והגיע זמן התפילה--אם היה פחות מארבעת קבין--מפשילו לאחוריו, ומתפלל; היה ארבעת קבין--מניחו על גבי קרקע, ואחר כך יתפלל.  דרך כל החכמים ותלמידיהם, שלא יתפללו אלא כשהן עטופין

"It is the way for all Sages and their students to pray only when (unless) wrapped in a Talith"-- Mishnah Torah/  Sefer Ahavah / Hilcoth Tefillah/ Perek Heh/ הלכות תפילה פרק ה

------------------------------------------------
Siyah Yerushalayim Siddur Instructions / Sitsith (translation):

It is a positive commandment, that whoever has a garment with four wings (corners) in it, will walk with his fringes.

A man will always try to be enveloped (wrapped) in a garment that [requires] fringes, in order to fulfill this miswah. And in times of prayer, one needs to be exceedingly careful ( ציצית פ"ג י"ב ). 
 
The Miswah of fringe(s) is on day [at day time]. And at the time we wear (it) during the day, will bless  "asher gidashanu bmiswuthow wisiwanu lahitatayf b'sisith" ( ציצית פ"ג חי)
It is permissible for a man to wear sisith at night between the week between the Shabboth. and therefore the majority of authority [opinion], and though that this is not our time- there is no one blessing. ( ציצית פ"ג חי)

The young person that knows [how] to drape is liable in Sisith in order educate him by the precepts.  
------------------------------------------------
 
IN OR OUT
Could you please tell me whether the Temanim (who have now adopted the custom of a Talith Qaton) wear the Sisith in or out?
 
Rabbi Kafih was asked this question at a time while I was present. According to my friends recollection, his answer was "inside" because of Yoharah. I believe that there is a difference of opinions on this matter between the Mahari"tz and Rabbi David Mishraqi (author of the Shetilei Zeitim).

---------------------------------------
Hilcoth Sisith / Simon Het / Shulhan Orach haMikitzur / Rasabi

Translation Site Admin. ban Hhaim

A man is not liable with Sisith if it is not a four cornered garments, at any rate it is good and right to wear a talith qatan all day long, this is like a big lesson, , that is to say measure length by (against) the measure (of)  width [I didn’t understand the previous line].

Besides [apart from] what is needed for him to do talith Jathol (fringed) to drape in at times of prayer at the very least. 

FOOTNOTE: according to simon Caf”dole siyf Aleph. “Whether this is also during the mincha and aravith prayers, look at chapter Nun Yud page caf “be. (SEE BELOW)

“The minhog in Yemen was for everyone  (the entire kahola) to drape the Talith –not only for during the Prayer of Shaharith, but also during Minha and Aravith, from the beginning of the prayer until the end.”

Rabbi Yaish/ Bladi

In his Temani Bet Knesset, they wear talit Jathol for all three tefilot. (According to Rasabi, it was the practictice to wear the Big Talith during all three tefiloth every day).
Rabbi Yaish says it stopped because Teimanim stopped observing mitzvot because of the strong influence of Medinat Israel. Although other have said it stopped because of the spiritual weakness of today's youth.

RABBI NACHSHONI / Bladi

"As for TALITH, as I said, large one on Shabboth but tseetseeth every day. Tseetseeth and talith worn together on Shabboth. 

Shabboth shalom. 

Wearing it inside or out


Could you please tell me whether the Temanim (who have now adopted the custom of a Talith Qaton) wear the Sisith in or out?
 
Rabbi Kafih was asked this question at a time while I was present. According to my friends recollection, his answer was "inside" because of Yoharah. I believe that there is a difference of opinions on this matter between the Mahari"tz and Rabbi David Mishraqi (author of the Shetilei Zeitim).

More on the Temani way:

The way they used to wear the Talith had to do with the place and culture at that time. They wore different clothing, Yemen's weather is not the hot humid Israel's weather, they put the Talith on their shoulder ,(they even didn't called it Talith - they called it "Shamleh". The Talith was the one they wear on Shabbat), they worked with it , they put their shopping in it, it was the cover on head from rain and sun, etc. etc...

Site Admin.ander: I can't tell if they are referring to old Talitoth in general as Shamlei or only the non-big ones?
Site Admin.ander: in Yemen
shemeryahu: He's referring to the large one
Site Admin.ander: than how do you explain this from halicoth teman
Site Admin.ander: Shamlay
On the week days--the people came back to from the Beth Knesset with the Tallitot. They didn’t have a “Tallit Qatan” (per say). Instead, they wore a black fabrick (which did have Tsitsith) to sit on and protect themselves. It is like a talith katan (but) over the shoulders (presumably on the outside of the clothes) and it served protective purposes. This was only on the weekdays. This was called the Shamlay. 

Site Admin.ander: there is a blurring of concepts here
shemeryahu: It had to be large enough to carry groceries, it had to be large enough to be used as a blanket on the ground or when one took a nap, and it had to be large enough to cover enough of the body
shemeryahu: You have to understand that Mori Yusef was writing for an audience that knew tallis gadel and tallis kasan
Site Admin.ander: SO DID WE KNOW THERE WAS ONE POINT WERE THEY DID NOT HAVE A QATAN
shemeryahu: Yes
Site Admin.ander: RIGHT
Site Admin.ander: SO when they prayed during the week
Site Admin.ander: did they cover them selves up with a bigger Talith Jathol
Site Admin.ander: over the Shamlei
Site Admin.ander: for prayer
shemeryahu: Either they wore it over the shamle or they took of the shamle indoors
Site Admin.ander: or did they just keep wearing their sweaty Shamlei for prayer
shemeryahu: "They would not leave the house unless wrapped"
Site Admin.ander: Either way, they MUST have had a seperate Talith Jathol to be worn during the week prayers
Site Admin.ander: YES?
shemeryahu: Yes
Site Admin.ander: okay.
Site Admin.ander: So when we say SHAMLEH
Site Admin.ander: the closest to an equivalent term today would be a Qatan
shemeryahu: Yes
Site Admin.ander: OKAY. This is my understanding
shemeryahu: That is why Mori Yusef used that term in Hilckhoth Temon
Site Admin.ander: but Hhaim blurs the terms together at times 
Site Admin.ander: as if a Shamlei refers to any Talith
shemeryahu: Think of it this way, the talith qathon replaced the shamle hus learas
Site Admin.ander: so here is the key question. DID THEY WEAR A SHAMLEI TO AND FROM THE SHUL ON SHABBOTH
Site Admin.ander: ?
shemeryahu: I don't think Hayim is blurring the words - remember, a lot of people don't understand minhaje Temon, so often times modern words had to be substituted
shemeryahu: I believe the answer to that is yes
Site Admin.ander: THEN THEY MUST HAVE OWNED TWO SHAMLEIS. one for the week and one for the Shabboth?
shemeryahu: No
Site Admin.ander: How can they wear a week day Shamlei on Shabboth?
shemeryahu: No
shemeryahu: I can explain my idea
Site Admin.ander: So they only relied upon the Talith Jathol on Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: that is my idea
Site Admin.ander: I don't think they used the Shamlei for Prayer
Site Admin.ander: only for utility and working
Site Admin.ander: when they prayed
Site Admin.ander: or on Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: they must have exclusively worn a Jathol
Site Admin.ander: its and relied upon that as their four corned garment as they walked
Site Admin.ander: on Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: your theory?
Site Admin.ander: Otherwise you are talking two Shamleis and two Jatholim
Site Admin.ander: thats a lot of Talitoth
shemeryahu: From what I understand, most Sefardic and Mizrahi halachic codes say that one does not wear an outergarment with four corners (and thus sisiyoth) on shaboth
Site Admin.ander: unless you want to say that undergarments don't matter
shemeryahu: The talith qathon is a European garment and wasn't worn by Sefarathim or Mizrahim
Site Admin.ander: while not praying?
Site Admin.ander: slow down
shemeryahu: Let me try to rephrase it
Site Admin.ander: when you say they didn't wear an outer garment with Fringes on the Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: you mean they only wore the one underneath?
shemeryahu: No
Site Admin.ander: 
shemeryahu: The talith qathon is fairly new for Sefarathim and Mizrahim
Site Admin.ander: and Temanim
Site Admin.ander: But in my notes to Halcoth teman, I say that the Shamlei was only worn during the week.
Site Admin.ander: In the absence of a Qatan. That would mean they only wore a nice Shaboth Talith Jathol all day
Site Admin.ander: on Shabboth
shemeryahu: Rule number one, you need to stop assuming that certain germents were universal among all Jews
shemeryahu: That is correct
shemeryahu: There is no halacha deOraitha to wear a four-cornered garment
Site Admin.ander: I agree with that
Site Admin.ander: We know that
Site Admin.ander: but they wanted to keep the Miswah
shemeryahu: Right
shemeryahu: So here is the question, at what point was the talith jathol - the one we wear in prayer - created to allow us to keep the miswa?
Site Admin.ander: I am almost positive they wore nothing but a Talith Jathol in old Yemen on Shaboth .
Site Admin.ander: wow. That's a heavy question
Site Admin.ander: hold on.
Site Admin.ander: I'll be right back
shemeryahu: The talith jathol was probably created before the taligh qathon
shemeryahu: Sure
Site Admin.ander: I am sure
Site Admin.ander: so
shemeryahu: So there is an evolution of clothing
shemeryahu: It became difficult to wear the talith jathel outside of the bh"k, in Europe, so the talith qathon was born
Site Admin.ander: so we can't (with surety) say that the Shamleh is an authentic Jewish garment any more than a Qatan
shemeryahu: We can't be 100% positive, but logic dictates that the shamle is the most accurate
Site Admin.ander: they are both Jewish garments
shemeryahu: Anything with sisiyoth is a bagath Ivri 
Site Admin.ander: Even the Temanim themselves (and the Jatholim amongst them) are saying they only developed this way in response to whether

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pinhas: The Rambam says that one may put on whichever one wants first:  Tefilin
then Talit, or Talit then Tefilin.  R' Gafeh says that many people in
Yemen put on the Tefilin last, BUT only because they were already
wearing the Talit Gadol when they came to the shul.  Many people would
get up very early in the morning, long before z'man Tefilin, to learn
Torah.  They would put on their shamleys at home, NOT in
order to fulfil the mitzva of Tzitzit, but rather as part of their
normal clothing (malvush)--it was also earlier than z'man mitzvat
Tzitzis as well.  They would then put Tefilin on in the shul; they could
not put them on at home because the streets leading to the shuls were
not clean enough to openly wear Tefilin.

The problem we have to solve is that today we do not put on the Talit
Gadol at home as a garment as many did in Yemen.  Almost everyone puts
on BOTH the Talit and the Tefilin when they get to the shul.  So, if you
are at the shul and you have both mitzvot before you, which do you do
first?  Again, the Rambam says whichever you prefer.  What the Baladim
actually did, we have to either look in R' Gafeh's books of Sheilot
v'Tshuvot, or ask a Rav.

Tisha B'Av

Friend says:: We don't wear a tallith in the evening or morning and we don't wear taphillin in the morning. We wear taphillin and tallith at minhha.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What changes -- if any-- do we make during the ten days of Teshuva...: I.E.: Uvkhen


Friend: > I opened up my sidur tefilah (Siyakh Yerushalayim) shal YH"K, and found the prayer we say A"P R. Yusef Qafahh zs"l in the Shacharith.  There, starts with "Uvkhen yithgadash," and goes through "hamalakh hagadhosh." For both YH"K and RH"Sh, it does *not* say "yesh  nohaghim."  It is included in the tefiloth as standard fair.  That leads me to think that some Baladhim had decided to recite the "uvkhen" during the asrath yomei hateshuvah as a form of taganah (I believe that is the right word for a Rabbinic stricture?)

I think you, Pinhas, and I solved the question of whether we say
"uvkhen" in the berakhah "atah gadhosh."  The "uvkhen" is found in the amidhah for
YH"K &  RH"Sh on page shin-khag-jimmal of the weeday/Shabboth sidur.  The
concensus was that we do not say it, since it says "yesh nohaghim."

Site Admin.:

That's my take. We do not say it during the 10 days. But we do say it during the high Holy Days. 

About Birkat Hamazon, there are no adjustments during the 10 days.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shemeryahu's view:

Yesh nohaghim: Some have the tradition - this to me implies either something
Shami/Rasabi/Sharabi/Mahari"sthat found its way into the sidur, *or*
something that some Bladhiyim accepted as a form of stricture.

Nohaghu: Our tradition - this is just what it says, a Baladhi tradition
(should we assume this to mean Dor De`ah) -- [Site Admin.'s comments: see below for Pinhas's opinion which demonstrates the limitations of this term--I.E. 'nohagu' does not always represent what is found in the oldest Tikhlal.]

Nohaghim: Traditions - I believe this speaks of common Temani ones, since
every other edah has common traditions and differing ones, why would we be
any exception?

Pinhas's view:

The Siah Machzor (Yom Kippur) had no indications that Teimanim actually bowed at the saying of "Baruch Shem...." during the reading of the Avodat Kohen Gadol. Again, all these itty-bitty details have to be checked one by one either with the Mishne Torah or a Rav. bowed the first two times, but not the last times. Right or Wrong? I have no idea. Gotta learn a heck of a lot more. I cannot say that I am in complete agreement with your and Friend's assessments of the "nohagim" and "nahagu" that are sprinkled throughout the siddur. They show up preceding things that for certain are additions to the davening. Again, this truly requires going through the siddur page by page with someone who really "knows"-and I mean KNOWS- what in the world Baladi Teimanim do. I can say one thing for certain: R' Gafeh uses the word "Omrim" where there is no doubt as to what has to be said al pi Baladi. In the main siddur on page koof-yud-zayin, R' Gafeh uses the language "V'nahagu bizmanim elu lomar piyut zeh" (And the custom in these times is to say this piyut) right before L'cha Dodi. But if you read his Seder Kabalat Shabat on page koof-zayin, point Heh says clearly that in the early tiklalim there was no Kabalat Shabat! To translate "nahagu or nohagu" as "OUR tradition" is risky at best, outright incorrect at worst. You might then end up saying L'cha Dodi by mistake. Yes, it is all confusing. My best guess is that even with all the introductory sayings R' Gafeh put into the siddur (all the "nohagims" and "nohagus"), the true Baladi seder tefilah is still not clear to one who either (1) did/does not daven at a pure Baladi shul, or (2) has not digested the depths of the Gafeh Mishne Torah. I think that all of the "nohagims" and "nohagus" still apply to those who daven either Shami or some variants of Shami or Baladi. Despite what I think, however, I still have every intention of getting to the bottom of it all ASAP, b"n.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One more question... do you know the halacha about Cholev u Basar? Is it true that Temanim only wait 5 hours (not six) between them?

The Rambam says "כשש שעות"  which means approximatly 6 hours (~6), there are Poskim that says that it means 5+. I have heard that Mori Yosef said it means to be close to the end of six (>= 5 1/2 hours). but as i was told (that he said ) don't check by minutes.[Makbili, Yohai [BWIIL]

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electricity on Shabboth: Correspondence with Rabbi Yaish

WARNING: This Article Has Not Been Checked For Accuracy... In terms of R. Auerbach's actual teshuvot.
Please submit corrections to: dev @ chayas.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, this subject will not be satisfactorily resolved until a Sanhedrin rules on it.

It is MINHAG Yisrael that electricity is forbidden on the Shabbath. Before we start, I personally avoid using electricity on the Shabboth, as a matter of minhog Israel.

I have heard some Temani Rabbonim claim to legally forbid the use of lights by quoting Hilkoth Shabboth 12:2 in the Mishneh Torah. The argument says electricity is a derivative (tolda) of fire - and can be applied to filament in light bulbs (ie: in this case --heating IRON in hot water amounts to a derivative of fire).

However, I have seen this line of thinking smashed. First of all, it depends on the metal - according to Temani Mori Qafahh zs"l. Iron turns into steal when heated to great temperatures, whereas other metal does not. Also, most other metals are malleable. So this line of proof is not solid in the Site Admin's estimation.

I spoke with another Temani Rav about this. He said that it could not possibly be a minhog (as some - including me - claim).
It is Halacha ! But again, his basis (proof) remained unstated.

No one can make a law on this. Rather, we can only figure out how it the law does or does not apply to electricity.

Today, the majority of Temani Poskim (as well as most of the world) holds that Electricity --at the least - is d'Rabbonim (prohibited) or perhaps even D'oraitha (prohibited) for MANY different reasons. However, their authority to rule on this matter is waning, until such time as a legitimate, recognized Sanhedrin accurately addresses it. I also investigated this with dionim from the Ashkenaz folks --some of who claim it under another one of the 39 forbidden labors ("makeh be patish" - completing a manufactured product --driving a nail into wood). Even after reading r. Auerbach's "demonstration" of how this does not apply, I think many have indeed COME UP with examples (even outlandish ones) that show it can indeed apply.

At this time, the arguments that electricity is fire, nolad, boneh or makeh be patish (or a derrivate of them) remains unconvincing to me; however, I keep away from electricity as Minhog Yisrael.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPLORATIONS into possible applications:

Makeh be Patish... driving a nail into wood to finish a product is one of the 39 Malachoth. The Mishnah Berura compares it to taking the extra strings off of a button that you just sowed onto your jacket. It involved finishing or completing. This is a very strong way to show that lights are forbidden b'Shabboth--and this has nothing to do with arguing it is fire.

Although Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo pp. 69-73) and Rabbi Yaakov Breisch (Chelkat Yaakov 1:53) strongly disagree. They argue that since an appliance is designed to be frequently turned on and off, that action cannot be categorized as ma'keh bepatish. Moreover, they state that it is accepted that an action is considered to be ma'keh bepatish only when that final act is permanent or involves great effort. But, since one does not ordinarily intend to turn on an appliance permanently and since turning on an appliance does not involve great effort, this action cannot be considered as violating ma'keh bepatish. The majority of authorities agree that ma'keh bepatish cannot be the source of the prohibition to turn on electrical appliances.31 

However, I once brought this objection to a Chasidic Rav / scholar in America--before I even knew that r. Auerbach argued this way. He objected by stating that it doesn't work that way- and it is still a violation of makeh bepatish. Let's say some one plans to build a house (usually a permanent structure) --and then to tear it down right afterwards (for whatever reason)... He is still not permitted to bang in the final nail. At least according to this rav--who clearly disagrees with r Auerbach..Although I thought it had more to do with the intent here.

Others that have discussed this issue with Rav Halperin (author of 'Shabbot and Electricity') who says it is certainly forbidden, either as a form of 'building', according to the opinion of the Chazon Ish, or as 'nolad' according to the opinion of the Beit Yitzchak, or for both reasons.

Even Rabbi Zalman Auerbach --who argues there is no toldah of aish, boneh, or nolad (or makeh b'patish) still held (as far as I've been told) that it was against halacha (or at least minhog) to use electricity.

Fire is a chemical reaction that causes a release into a plasma.

Site Admin. Quoting another Rav (ZAK) regarding the use of Shinoy:

Site Admin.: Anything that is Biblically prohibitted like lighting a fire or the other--liable for capital punishment -- is only liable if done with Makshovah (intent for that purpose)
Site Admin.: Regarding the taking of food from a fridge (by opening the door) when the light is going to come on. I don't need the light or don't want the light. Then what? 
Site Admin.: So Biblically speaking it is not a capital offense because I am not opening for that purpose. BUT the Rabbis prohibited any secondary melacha if it will always happen
Site Admin.: even if not intended.
Site Admin.: A Rabbinic stricture is Prohibited but there is no punishment if you do it
Site Admin.: Electricity (according to some) is an extension of burning or boneh (circuitry is 'building' something)
Site Admin.: Another example: sometimes there is more allowance for the Tzibbur.
Site Admin.: If I used the Elbow to do something in a particular situation--I may be POTER
Site Admin.: If there is no tolda of aish or boneh... electricity could be considered a minhag.

About Sparks that sometimes appear *like* fire when turning on a light- from an engineer

It is electrical discharge.
Like static electrical discharge is not fire.
It is dielectric breakdown and ionization of the gas between the two differential potentials to create a path for the charge to flow.
Not fire
Fire produces plasma, but is plasma fire?
Hmmm...
I would say WORK is a process of energy transfer, and that is why fire is malakha
Plasma is just a state of matter.
Fire is a chemical reaction known as combustion.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amidah: How to Stand

Site Admin.: what about Amidah Stance --anything special there.
Friend says:: head looking down with hands (or arms) over chest with right intertwines over left.
Site Admin.: the whole time?
Friend says:: yes
Site Admin.: head looking down whole time?
Friend says:: yes

In Otzar HaGeonim Tractate Berakhot 12b (pg 34) Rabbi Hayei Gaon explains the word Hhizra (from the Sugya at hand) to be one of the types of thorn bushes indigenous to his area in babylonia. His contention is that in their parts they still speak aramaic and that the word has not changed although in Arabic it is pronounced with a Heh instead of a Hhet (with no difference in meaning). He goes on to discribe (with illustrations) how this thorn bows and describes a bow of the head (curling of the neck). He adds that in the Sugya at hand that the lenient of opinions is simply a simple nod of the head. This is exactly wht Rabbi Kafih explained. So one would not FULLY bow all the way down as is done in today's amidah. Only the neck was curled down.
 
Regarding the hand over hand: One would be hard pressed to explain this as simply one hand over another. The sugya deals with Teffillin being next to the heart and therefore would be quite awkward with a hand over hand over the heart. Furthermore, the Rambam uses the word Kefutin (Keshurin - tied/intertwined) he does not say intertwine the fingers --how would one intertwine his hands if not by crossing his arms over his torso (heart)?

Hayei Gaon is quoted by other Rishonim such as the Rosh. (Sheelot Veteshuvot) Avkat Rochel of Rabbi Yosef Karo also seems to side with this point. The change that came about that makes people think today that they need to curl there entire back seems to be kabbalistic in origin and does not necessariy comply with the Talmud. Some Aharonim suggested doing both the back and neck bend to fulfill the both opinions.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Preservation of an Ancient Fruit

According to the Rambam (Mose Maimonides), subbing a lemon for an ethrog (pronounced esrog by Askhenaz Jews) is forbidden on Jewish festival of Sukkoth. Only Yemenite ethrogs, according to Rabbis Yusef Kafihh zs"l and Yizhak Ratzhabi, are sure to be from non-grafted trees in OUR (these) TIMES. They consider (only) Yemenite ethrogs kasher for fulfilling the commandment (cf. Rabbi Y. Kafih, ibid., p. 587; Rabbi Y. Ratzhabi, Yemenite Shulkhan Arukh ha-Mekitzar on Orakh Chaim, chap. 3, 117.8). Here is the translation to English in the Mikitsur Shulkhan Arukh:  

"All the ethrogim in our times have a worry of being grafted with lemon, except for the Yemenite ethrog, which is all meat, without any juice. Thus, there is no taking another kind of ethrog."

Here is a link to the Hebrew original. The same concepts also appear in the writings of rabbi Yusef Kafih zt"l. This is a unanimous Yemenite opinion.

Interestingly enough, qualifying requirements (IE: signs of an ethrog) are mentioned in the Gamara. However, I do not understand why the Rambam doesn't mention them in his Mishneh Torah. Then again, I don't think he lists any way to determine the Ethrog.

The Gamara writes: The ethrog is described as the only tree in which the fruit and the tree have the same taste. In addition, the ethrog is considered unique in that the fruit will stay on the tree past its "season" and continue to grow and thrive year-round.
This supports the identification of the Temani ethrog over others (in today's times), as ONLY the Temani ethrog's dry (non-juicy/fleshy) ethrog tastes like the bark of an ethrog tree. I have personally verified that the Temani ethrog does indeed taste like the bark of the tree. It seems impossible that the fruit of other types (claiming to be ethrogim) could also pass this test, as they are composed of juice.

Regarding this subject, one Temani Rav (referenced below), who is an expert in this subject, used Rashi (a non-Temani source) as one of his collaborating sources. He said as follows:

"First of all, we hold by sources derived from the Mishna and Gamara --first and foremost. When one sees the undeniable facts presented in front of their eyes, there can be no denying the validity of our claim. Here are the facts: In Daf Lamed Waw (amood aleph) of Mishnah Sukka (in the section dealing with kosher signs found in an ethrog): A Rabbi (I believe Rabba) is asking a question. The subject is in regards to the signs of treifah that are found in an animal (cow). According to Jewish Law, if one of the lungs (simponot = pipes) of an animal are black, is it still kosher? Also, if the pipes are rotted, is it still kosher? The answer to both is that the lungs must have chambers to be kosher (they can’t be black and they must be in tact). Otherwise they are posul."

According to this commentary, the Gamara (itself) makes a comparison between the ethrog and an animal -- in terms of kashruth. Rashi explains that the chambers where the seeds are located inside of an ethrog are thus compared (ie: equal) to the chambers inside of the lungs. In order to understand this point, one really needs to study the detailed ethrog pictures that are referenced on this page. Then, they need to compare it to the chambers (pipes) inside of a cow's lungs. This is one of many places where the Yemenites agree with Rashi.

According to this Temani rav: "This description is so convincing that many in the Ashkenaz world have dropped their own minhogim (regarding the pureness of their ethrogim) in favor of the Temanim."

This is not a slap against the Gadolei Israel of yesterday. On the contrary, this is a scolding of today's current ethrog industry.

The Chosem Sofer further explains one Gamara (I believe discussed in Orach Chayim 207) as follows: He says that if one finds juice or lemon-like flesh, it is not an ethrog al pi Torah. Thus, it can not be eaten raw (which brings up a halachic doubt on the ethrog). Whereas, the Temani ethrogim are considered kosher for raw consumption.  

When one looks at the majority of fruit being sold as ethrogim (today), the chambers (pipes) are either broken or not in tact. Or they are so thin, the continuity of the chambers is questionable. This is a very serious matter. Not so with Temani ethrogim:

Picture of "unbroken" ethrog chambers/ pipes

The incredibly thick nature of the Yemenite ethrog almost always makes this a non-issue. In the seven years I have examined these ethrogim, I have never seen broken or rotted chambers/pipes. Many Ashkenazim, who are super strict about any contact with things like kitnioth (kitnius), have thus switched over to the Teman ethrogim. The ethrog issue is as just as severe (or more) as issues like kitnioth.

Another reported sign of grafted ethrogim is that many do not have any seeds inside them. And the ones that do, look like lemon seeds.

Bottom line, there is a serious chashash over today’s ethrogim. When my rav sells an ethrog, Heaven forbid someone should make a brakha l’tal (blessing in vain). Today, most manufactures set up Shomrim and checkers to make sure the trees are not being grafted. But this does absolutely nothing to make sure the seeds didn't come from grafted trees.

I have posted (ethrog vs. hakava) pictures to back up every single letter I am typing. These pictures show the differences I am speaking about. See below.

I had the privilege of meeting rabbi Shalom Ghoori in NY last Sukkoth. He is considered a leading expert on ethrogim in the NY area. Many great rabbis that he knows, who followed their father's traditions (on ethrog types) since arriving in America, have slowly come over to the evidence against today's grafting industry. He was able to explain to me a few techniques on how to tell a grafted ethrog from a non-grafted one (besides what is already written above). He has dealt with people in both the lemon and ethrog industries for many years.

He said that the ethrogim that had seed growth that was circular was a sign of non-grafted ethrogim. This is in contrast to one-sided seed growth. Although both the lemon and ethrog appear to have circular seed growth, the circle of growth is more apparent in the ethrog (where every chamber has a seed).

Upon further research, I think the rav was specifically referring to the fact that non-grafted citrons have seeds that lie longitudinally (i.e. parallel to the long axis), while in the murkav (grafts) the seeds lie latitudinally (horizontally).

See the picture of seed grow here: http://www.chayas.com/ethrogim/MVC-002F.JPG

Also (as mentioned above), the chambers on the non-grafted ethrogim were clear and in tact--much like a cow's glatt-kosher lungs. I have taken the liberty to take photos of one them. See here: http://www.chayas.com/ethrogim/MVC-024F.JPG

There are a few other ways to identify grafted fruit. I have done my best to remember these "tricks" below. However, this if coming from years ago.

Another identifying mark used to identify a grafted ethrog is a pronounced/protruding stem crown. I've also heard that spots on the stem are a sign of grafted types. Although I have not been able to verify this. He said this was the quick test without looking inside. If I remember correctly, he said that lemon-grafted stems have tiny dark dots and a slightly obtruding crown whereas non-grafted species do not.

Here are pictures of a non-grafted types: http://www.chayas.com/ethrogim/MVC-009F.JPG
http://www.chayas.com/ethrogim/MVC-014F.JPG

COMPARISON CHART OF TODAY'S ETHROGIM
 http://www.chayas.com/ethrogpage.htm

I am in the process of acquiring other types of "ethrogim" from different friends of mine to complete the comparison. I'll keep you informed.

Also: In pereq Zion of הלכות שופר סוכה לולב , the RAMBAM is very specific about describing each of the four species. At the end of pereq ז verse ה , the RAMBAM writes the following:

ה ארבעה מינין אלו--מצוה אחת הן, ומעכבין זה את זה; וכולן נקראים מצות לולב. ואין פוחתין מהן, ואין מוסיפין עליהן; ואם לא נמצא אחד מהן, אין מביאים תחתיו מין אחר הדומה לו.

["One may not diminish from them or add to them. If one of the species can not be found, a similar species may not be substituted for it"]

According to the Miqitsur Shulkhan Arukh (referenced above) and rabbi Yosef Qafah's (zt") note in the siddur, that ethrogim did not have fleshy juice. This was one way the sages were able to tell lemons from ethrogim. They were very particular about this. There is also a source about the way and place in which the seeds group inside the ethrog.

Bottom line: According to the Miqitsur Shulkhan Orach, all of today's (so-called) ethrogim are in doubt. Apparently, they could be grafted onto lemons. This is the fear.

Based on these factors, the majority of Temani Rabbonim have ruled that in today's times, "grafted" (or mixed) ethrogim are thus subbed and unfit for the miswah. Only Temani ethrohgim have avoided this snag.

Ethroghim of a mixed variety (ie: that contain any kind of lemon species) are forbidden on Sukkoth. Only Yemenite ethrogs, according to Morenu (Mori Qafahh zs"l) and Yizhak Ratzhabi  are sure to be from non-grafted trees. They consider such ethrogs kasher for fulfilling the commandment (cf. Rabbi Y. Qafahh, ibid., p. 587; Rabbi Y. Ratzhabi, Shulhan Arukh ha-Mekutzar, 3, 117.). It's a shame that in today's times, mahadar miswah has overrode the need to accurately and properly fulfill the Miswah. By the way, someone pointed out a Gamara - that the size of the ethrog has little (if anything) to do with Mehadar Miswah--as is widely accepted today.

1. Due to the fact that the fruit must be whole and not missing a piece (chaser), the grafted etrog is considered as coming from partially from each fruit and therefore not complete.

2. Possibly the identity of a fruit is determined by the trunk of the tree on which it appears, meaning that a grafted etrog is not even considered to be an etrog but rather a lemon.

3. Because the fruit consists partially of a lemon, using it for the mitzvah entails adding an additional species, which violates the prohibition of bal tosif (adding onto mitzvot).

4. Interspecies grafting of any kind is a biblical prohibition, and using the progeny of an illicit act for a mitzvah is "repugnant to God."

NOTE: Prof. Eliezer Goldschmidt says that (in his assessment) there is simply no way to tell if an etrog today is a descendent of a grafted tree or one that naturally cross pollinated years ago. This type of thinking assumes that all of today's ethrogim must be grafted or mixed in some way. Also, he appears to believe there is no significant difference in DNA between "ethrogim" today.

In the end, we obviously respect the good professor's opinion. However, we strongly disagree with his assessment. He apparently tried to prove (scientifically) that the majority of DNA is the determining factor in species. Halachically, this doesn't hold up. This isn't a DNA situation over here. If there is no subbing, you can't play with the DNA at all. This is part of a much larger subject that leads into books about genes, cloning, hybrids and other stuff. Genetic diversity (what we call un surety) also places a role in this. There are many scientific sites that explore the scientific angle (of genetic diversity in citrus) in great detail.

CONCLUSION

In our conclusion, all of the above pictures and studies prove that there is a clear and discernable difference between the Temani ethrog and others, especially when compared to lemons. Therefore, only the Temani ethrog (when purchased from a reliable and trusted source) can be relied upon as a pure citron.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talith Qatan Continued

Friend says:: when we get to israel, if I do something that is not according to the ancient tradition of the jews of yemen, you will have to correct me
Site Admin.ander: VICE VERSE
Friend says:: I saw some pictures of some wearing the qatan as well as the jadhol
Friend says:: in old pictures from yemen
Site Admin.ander: VERY VERY few wore a Qatan. But the Shamlei accomplished the same thing as the qatan
Site Admin.ander: by the way, I read that the Shamlei wasn't alway black. Sometimes it was black and white stripes
Friend says:: the qatan is optional if you wear the jadhol
Site Admin.ander: THATS what i think! (but it is not so simple)
Friend says:: but since a lot of people don't wear the jadhol all the time now like they should, they suggest that at least everyone should wear the qatan all the time now
Site Admin.ander: The local Rav here had no problem with me wearing a Jathol all day. His only problem is with my lack of a Qatan on Shabboth
Friend says:: well, rasabi (shulchan Orach) suggests to wear a qatan all the time even on Shabboth
Friend says:: if you don't wear a jadhol at all times every day
Site Admin.ander: WELL THEN. I will have to get a DIFFERENT PAIR for Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: because the Temanim were very big on seperating garments from the week / or the Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: I need two Talitoth Qatanim
Site Admin.ander: I only have one now
Site Admin.ander: for the week
Site Admin.ander: so in the mean time
Friend says:: just wear both on Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: My Talith qatan that I have now is a week day garment
Friend says:: ok
Friend says:: sounds good
Site Admin.ander: Halicoth Teman is big on seperating the week from the Shabboth
Site Admin.ander: Although the Rav here challanged me on this saying: Do you also change your Kippa
Friend says:: if you were in a teymani congregation, the only time they might say something to you is if you had neither on at some time
Site Admin.ander: So I've designated one kippa for Shabboth and one for the week
Site Admin.ander: I don't care about real underclothing though
Friend says:: by the way, I think that if you don't wear the jadhol all the time every day, they would then challenge you not to wear it in the bathroom
Friend says:: and then they would say that you are not wearing anything while in the bathroom, so therefore on Shabboth you should wear both
Site Admin.ander: BUT. I still wear some type of arba ganfotth Garment all the time in the bathroom anyway
Friend says:: this is what they told me
Friend says:: :
Friend says:: if you wear the jadhol at all times every day even not during prayer, you can wear it into the bathroom
Friend says:: if not, you cannot
Site Admin.ander: But how does this apply to Shabboth--where there are clearly different garments--one for the week and one for the Shabboth.
Friend says:: and if you cannot, you must be wearing a qatan when you take off the jadhol to go in
Friend says:: and to wear the qatan in the bathroom, you have to wear it every day all the time
Site Admin.ander: OR don't go to the Bathroom --he hee
Site Admin.ander: But what does wearing it every day have to do with the practices on Shabboth?
Site Admin.ander: I don't get it

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aleinu

--- Look in Siah Yerushalayim. Bottom of pages 68,101,134. The only place I see where Gafeh does not say flat out that Aleinu is not said is after Shacharit of Shabbat (page 213)
--- To get the real answer regarding Aleinu, you have to go look in the Mishne Tora.
--- In general, Gafeh said that Borchu and Aleinu were not found in any tiklalim at the end of weekday Shacharit or Maariv (chol or Shabbat).
--- I don't know about the yomim tovim.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is my translation of the very top of Halicoth Teman "Kipur" (http://www.chayas.com/kippur.pdf ) regarding your question. Please check my translation as I did it very quickly.
 
"(There is an) ancient tradition (of) kiporath, and during the past there was a tradition to make kiporoth with an animal --kever (long ago) nahogu (our tradition) was to make Kiporoth with (flowers)--with species (of) plants. [Refer to footnote number 1]. Aph al pi chan--we Temani Jews do not accept this minhog."
----------------------------------------
Rosh haShanah section mentions that there was no Tashlich in Yemen.
 
Site Admin. 

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rosh HaShanah Seder

Many of the instructions and traditions in the sidur "Torat Avoth" and/or the Rasabi's law code--are different from the Maimonidean (Rav Qafahh zs"l -Dor Dai) rite. For example: the types of foods served at the seder are different. The Simonim of Dor Dai do not include Fish head or Apple in the honey. Refer to Halicoth Temani for details. 

If I have it right (after the bread)--the Dor Daim say the aytz first on the dates --like everyone -- (thereby changing the order listed by R. Qafahh zs"l--which is okay to do after hamosi) and then eat the dates and THEN say Yehi Rason AFTER eating it. Then they eat the other aytz foods and say the appropriate Yehi Rasons for each one. Then they procede to the Adamah foods. Always saying one bracha for each category of foods and then eating it. The Yehi Rason appears to come afterward eating it-- although Rasabi lists is right before the bracha.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayim Ahronim after meal?

Of course - before and after. The "after" (Mayim Ahhronim) is more important, specifically the one that makes the "Zimun".- see Mishna Brachot and Rambam. The Rambam mentions having enough water to fully wash both hands--while aiming the fingers down so the water drips off. Perhaps this insures that all the salt will be removed from our finger tips.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"TIKLAL"

Hhaim : "Tiklal" was the name of the old/ancient/original/Baladi siddur. The Yemenite Jews did not use the word siddur. There were no siddurim for every one. The typical "Kaniss" had ONE "TIKLAL" for the entire "Mitpalelim". They all pray by heart. There was a shame to use a book/siddur...

The word "TIKLAL" is an Arabic word that means EVERYTHING/INCLUSIVE - The "TIKLAL" includes everything for every day of the year - "Chol", Shabbat, Chagim, Rosh Hashana, Kippur etc - all in one.

Someone else comments: The QaafiH siddurim I have seen do not represent the version of the old
manuscripts of either MT or the tiklaal, but rather the compromised "baladi" version of the latter-day MahariS, which is MOSTLY very late additions some of which went according to the customs of the new qabbalah.  But Mori Qafahh usually points this out in his Siyahh Yerushalayim sidur. The real original tiklaal needs only one small volume for the whole year, for it is lacking in this needless bloat. My opinion is that we will never know what the true source of RMBM's siddur is, but I hope the coming Rav Shabse Frankel edition of the Book of Love will settle some of the disputes on the minor details of that book according to the majority of Yemenite manuscripts. I clearly subscribe, however, to Mori Yusef's theory that the Yeminite manuscripts are the best and the "autographed" manuscript is full of so many unique errors of surprising (from the viewpoint of RMBM's style) addition and subtraction that I think that its scribe/proofreader was not to be trusted.

One of Rabbi Aroussi's Talmidim: The discrepancies between the two texts may be attributed to differences in the Yemenite custom of today and what may have been the Nusah of some takalil in the past. The Siddur published by Mechon Moshe (edited by Rabbi Kafih) is not an attempt at producing a Siddur that is Nusah HaRambam, rather  a Siddur that reflects the most accepted Nusah of Yemen. The minute differences are not all that great. In addition, a siddur that does not reflect the needs of a community will be nothing more than a scientific study. Making the Siddur practical helps to establish standards and Shalom within the community.

Site Admin.s comments:  There are minor (negligible) differences in the wording of the Qedusha and Amidah in today's Temani Siddurim when compared with the Rambam nusah (which is actually the Temani Tikalhl of old). Here are a few examples: (ie: 'Siyah Yerushalayim's' Qadusha section of the Amida has kvotho wahotho  -- as compared with 'kvotho wajuthlo' in the Yad). Also, according to the Yad (Mishna Tora), the amida ends with the paragraph "Sim shalom hen wahessed". That last thing one should say is "baruch ata H' hameborech eth amo beshalom". 

Friend comments: According to the Yad: "Elohai nesor leshoni," and "oseh shalom" are not mentioned in the Yad.

Site Admin: I'll give the final word to Mori Qafahh zs"l:

Selected Writings of Rabbi Yosef Qafih, of blessed memory

 Excerpt from Journal "Sinai," pub. by Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem, Tammuz 5718,

from article entitled "HaRambam wegaluth Teman," pg. 261

"I have heard from the old men that there is a tradition with the Jews of Yemen which says that the prayer version that Maimonides wrote in his book, the Yad HaHazaqa, he received from the Jews of Yemen, at his clear & absolute knowledge of the fact that the Jews of Yemen had preserved with utmost zeal the ancient most rendition of the prayer, and that its style was clean of all additions and innovations which the scholars of Babylonia, the wise men of Spain, and the Rabbis of Ashkenaz have made and inserted within their prayers throughout the generations which preceded Maimonides as well as during his lifetime. Proof of which, and a thing which lends support to this tradition, can be found in several places whereby Maimonides mentions, in a transient manner, a certain section taken from the prayers, which he then writes in a version unlike that used in his composition (i.e. the Mishne Torah, or what is also called, Yad HaHazaqa). For example: In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Berachoth chapter 5, he wrote that in the benediction made during the rainy season [the blessing is] 'Bless over us' (Heb. ברך עלינו), while in the book Yad [HaHazaqa] he did not write this version."

 

המקור:  "שמעתי מזקנים שמסורת בידי יהודי תימן שנוסח התפלה שכתב הרמב"ם בספרו היד החזקה קיבל אותו מידי יהודי תימן בידעו ידיעה ברורה שיהודי תימן שמרו מאוד על נוסח התפלה העתיק ביותר ושנוסחתם היתה נקייה מכל ההוספות והתיקונים שתיקנו והוסיפו בנוסח התפילה גאוני בבל, חכמי ספרד ורבני אשכנז במשך הדורות שקדמו להרמב"ם ובזמנו. סמך וסעד למסורת זו יש להביא מכמה מקומות כשהרמב"ם מזכיר איזה קטע מן התפילה דרך אגב שהוא כותב נוסח שלא כתבו בחיבורו. לדוגמא: בפירוש המשניות, ברכות פרק ה', כתב שברכת השנים בימות הגשמים ,ברך עלינו, ובספר היד לא כתב נוסח זה."  ("סיני," שנת תשי"ח)

(Excerpt from Rabbi Yoseph Kappah's edition of Rambam's Mishne 
Torah, Vol. II, end, Preface to Prayer Version used by Maimonides)

"Wherefore it seems that the matter is, indeed, as the tradition 
bequethed unto us by our forefathers, from generations long-past, 
that the Prayer version which is before us Maimonides received from 
the Jews of Yemen, (whose mutual correspondence [is well-known by 
all, and] needs no further proof), since it has shown itself with 
infallible proofs to be pure and clean from the emendments made by 
the Geonim as also their [so-called] perfections; and there is not 
to be found in it the improvements made by the Savants of Spain, 
neither the proofreadings made by the cantors of Ashkenaz; Just as 
Maharitz wrote in [his] Questions & Responsa, 'Pe'ulath Sadiq,' Vol. 
I, responsum # 48, that it has been received as an oral tradition 
that all of our practices with regard to our prayers are very old, 
nearly from the days of the destruction of the [first] Temple. Let 
him look there [at his response]. Now, by this, all of those 
speculations have disappeared that [once] centered around the source 
of that version which is before us. It seems to me that in every 
place where our Rabbi (Maimonides) wrote, 'The people have it as a 
custom,' [or] 'They have it as a custom to read,' [or] 'Some of the 
people practice,' [or] 'They have it as a custom in our cities,' 
[etc.], these are the things that our Rabbi (Maimonides) brought 
down by his own volution, as being [part of] his own custom. He 
added them, and incorporated them into that prayer which he received 
from the Jews of Yemen. Likewise, the Jews of Yemen reciprocated 
that same kindness, and just as he received from them, so too did 
they receive from him and they inserted them and [permanently] fixed 
them in their own Prayer books. Now they are practiced by us even to 
this day, save only [a few] small things about which I have already 
commented that they have opted to hold on to the ancient custom of 
their fathers …"

 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ABOUT THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE TIKHL

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

Rambi2.pdf

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hhanuka at the conclusion of Shabboth

Hhanuka Lighting Times:

On Sat night, it is Yemenite custom to light the menorah first (before Havdala)... and then to light the Havdala candle--being sure to wait enough time for the Shabboth to leave.  I don't know how this compares to RAMBAM.

REGARDING FRIDAY NIGHT: the Siahh siddur says: "it is our tradition to light the Shabboth light and after to light for Hhanukah". So I guess we keep in mind to light an addition (Hhanukah) flame (just before sundown) as we light for Shabboth

We say full Hallel by Shahharith during the week days of Hhanuka from beginning to end.

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the Rooster 

Regarding the question of when we say the Brakha about the rooster - according to Rabenu (Rambam), Mori, and we Dar Daim (while rest of Yemenites don't)... if there is no rooster crowing --we don't make a Bracha. This is our practice today. This is just the same as if there's no apple to eat then there is no Bracha to bless (or in Halacha words, 'Bracha is done Over La'Asiyata', meaning one should always bless before doing the actual deed for which he is blessing for). According to all other Poskin (as far as I know, but for sure Maran) dawn blessings are different and even with no rooster they can be blessed (all of them, therefore usually they are blessed in the Bet Knesseth, claimed specifically by Rabenu to be a mistake!). Also, we say : who gives the rooster that ability to understand (read as lahavin-not lahavhhin) between day and night. Our wording is different then most siddurim : "who gives the rooster understanding". Some people say "gives the heart understanding" based on Rebbenu Asher's commentary to Brachoth.

Talmid of r. Arusi comments:

Chances are that the older and more popular custom in Yemen was the reciting of all Berachot together after one dressed and was on his way out to synagogue. This is clearly a simpler way of doing things. I have no opinion as to when people washed their hands, however if they studied Torah prior to going to synagogue then they washed prior to Birchot Hatorah. Rabbi Amram Korah in his "Sea'arat Teiman" makes a very good point, which Rabbi Kafih would may very well have agreed with. Why would the Rambam write

(Tefilla 7,9) "The Custom among the people in most of the cities/towns is to recite all of the blessings one after another in the synagogue whether they are obligated in the particular Beracha or not. This is a mistake, one should not make a Beracha unless they are obligated to."

Although Maimonides seems to be stating the Talmudic custom in halachot 3,4,5 etc...  He is only saying in Halacha 9 that he feels that the saying of a Beracha that one is not required to say is a Beracha LeVatala. Not that reciting the blessing a little bit later after the act is a problem. (Hence, many communities, have one reciting the Berachot and everyone answering amen which does not necessarily constitute a Beracha Levatala for those answering Amen - it might create a problem for the person reciting the Berachot).

So you see, the Rambam acknowledges the custom of his time and probably that which preceded his time by many years. Chances are, that the situation was quite similar in Yemen. Washing of the hands immediately upon waking or close to it is a different issue, which by the way was more or less practiced by in a similar matter by all.

Rabbi Arussi's approach in most matters for most people is for one to practice Judaism in a very stable fashion and as much in line with acceptable practices of today. Thus he would suggest to you to follow the Maharitz' opinion in this case, which keeps pretty much in line with the mainstream of Judaism today as well as holding true to the Rambam's comment of not reciting Berachot on things one is not obligated in.

Site Admin. comment:

But there is the common way and then there was/ is the ideal way -- in my humble
opinion--which would be to say the brakhoth right before you do it--and then do it right away.

It is actually easier for me to say each brakha as i am doing it hen to say it
as I am walking to the B"K. Once you try it, it makes perfect sense (IE: to
say zokayf kefufim as you stand or oter Yisrael b'tiferath as you put the
kippa on your head or the blessing for rubbing your eyes)... 

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elokai haneshoma / Modeh Ani

Also, according to Rabenu one should start with EloKai haneshama and that's
> what we were taught since our childhood, though lots of people including
> Yemenite ones do start with Modeh Ani upon wake-up and there's nothing
> wrong, even according to Rabenu, about adding additional Tephila's.

The Maran wrote in his Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 46, item # 1, that when one awakens from his sleep, he should say, "E-lohai.
Neshamah, etc." (My G-d, the soul that thou hast given me, etc.)

In Yemen, the practice was somewhat different, viz., to make use of a slightly different version: "E-lohai. Haneshamah, etc." (My G-d, the soul that thou hast given me, etc.)

Site Admin. - Shalom,

I asked Rav Arussi about your question and his definite answer was ' Just

davin by the Sidur', so I guess you would have to follow your Sidur

directions.

Site Admin. Comments: The siddur starts with Modeh Ani (which is the mainstream Mahari's practice).  However, I start my morning al pi Rambam
by mentioning haShem's name first with Elokai haNeshoma. Also, I am not rushing to wash my hands either.  Nowadays, most Temani Rabbonim
are pushing people to adapt the mainstream Mahari's ways of holding--even if they are Qafahh folks. I think this is a mistake-to move farther away
from the Rambam's way of holding. But I am nobody.

 

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LQ"Y ---  לק"י

IMPORTANT Question. PLEASE HELP. How can the Rambam say in one place that purity of hands (   טהרת  הידים ) is one of the five things that prevents a person from praying (see Hilkoth Tefilah 4:1 - הלכות תפלה ד) and yet tell us it is okay to rub our eyes and say a morning blessing regarding the eyes like פוקח עיוורים or even to say "Elokai nashama" (אל-י נשמה) while still lying in our bed-- if we are still tumah after sleeping. Although I do see in Barakhoth 1:9, that the Rambam says that a person who who is ritually impure is permitted to say all the blessings. Please help me to clear up this contradiction.

Afterall, the Rambam says that we should do the action right after the blessing. We are not supposed to delay. So how can we rub our eyes if we are tumah? Are we not Tumah in the morning. And meanwhile the Rambam is mentioning that we should always wash before amidah and shema (although I can't find the verse)…

Also, could you tell me a bit about RAMBAM verses current Temani Practice--especially as our hands may have been busy (according to Tohorot 7:8).

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Thanks, Site Admin. Site Admin.

TALMID ONE: Like you said, washing hands is required prior to davenning and NOT
blessing. There is no requirement for washing right after blessing with no
delays. On the other hand, like for all other blessings, Rambam requires
'Over la-asiyatan' i.e. blessing should be just before the actual deed. So,
'Pokeya Ivrim' blessing should be while on bed just before actually opening
your eyes with no linkage to washing hands as one can bless while being
'Tameh' (just like in the 'Miquveh').
This is exactly how we behave actually. The only difference I know of is
that while Rambam requires washing before every Tefila, we are actually
washing w/bless only before Shahrit, while before Minha & Arvit we just
wash w/o blessing.
TALMID TWO:

I don't know exactly where to begin...

 
Tuma'a Vetehara went out roughly after the time of the Beit HaMikdash. The Tehara that the Rambam is speaking of is not necessarily ritual impurity (which has everything to do with the soul - according to the Rambam). This sort of Tehara has more to do with cleanliness and ritual cleanliness. Others see this "tumaa" as a spirit that exists on the hands after sleep or a stay in the lavatory. The Rambam sees it as a function of "roaming hands" (especially when one is asleep). 
 
The Tefilla that the Rambam speaks about that requires hand washing is the Amidah prayer. Shema'a also requires this washing as does any study one might do when one wakes up. Thus, the blessings recited when one wakes up do not require any sort of washing according to the Rambam and will not harm the eyes.
 
Vis-a-vis the custom among Yemenites, it varies. There are those that will practice as the Rambam states, those that follow the Mahari"tz and those that will follow other customs. The Rambam mentions the more widespread custom but states that he doesn't see this as the right way.
 
I hope this answers your question? I need to go home now. I will not be back till Sunday...
 
Regards,

SOMEONE ELSE RESPONDS: I think that your friend here is mislead by the word "prayer", and seems to
think that anything that is in the prayer-book has to be a prayer, a common
enough thought; no, he does not say that, but he implies it.

NOTE: this is the classical example where current Orthodox practice is
totally out of line with Hz"l and Shulhhan Arukh (code of Jewish Law) , not to mention our blessed MT. [Site Admin. comment: this is a debatable statment]

That is, the Talmud says to say "Elohay hanashamah shennattatah bi Tehorah. . ." when one awakens 
before opening his eyes, and that is what is written both in MT (Mishna Torah) and Shulhhan Arukh  (Talmudic sources).

However, according to most of Orthodox Judaism, on the other hand, he actually says "modeh ani lefanekhah . . ." 
(I give thanks before Thee . . .) without mentioning God at all, let alone saying one of His holy names the first
thing on waking. What is supposed to be said immediately on waking is delayed until after going to the bathroom
and doing a ritual hand washing.

The excuse for Judaism's 'new custom' in disregard of Jewish law is a supposed prohibition to mention God's names 
before a ritual hand washing, which contradicts not only our ancient holy texts but also an express provision in the
Shulhhan `Arukh Code (o"H 4,23), which is often said to be the guide for Orthodox Judaism today.  In short, instead
of mentioning God first (as is required), one mentions oneself first (perhaps as an unintentional expression of the very
modern non-Torah thought that the individual person, the "ego", is more important than God).

back to questions

R. Gafeh zs"l

Return to articles

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hagadda: "JoEl Yisrael" vs "JoAwl Yisrael"

One friend notes:

> In Mori Yusef's nosaH for MT, he has ga'al, which we originally used in
> the haggadah; but then on shabbath when reading Frankel's notes, I noted
> that F. says that MT has go'el in all but one Yemenite manuscript, which
> happens to agree with the standard Baladi text, too.  So now it is
> go'el/Who redeems instead of ga'al/Who has redeemed.

Site Admin. Comments: I went home after work and triple checked the Torath Avoth (Mahari"s / Eys Hhayim al