Is this Orthodox Judaism?

In last week's English Hamodia there is a whole story printed about a Rebbitzen who neutralizes ayin hara through blei gissen that is pouring of lead. The article tells us a story about how there was a fire at a wedding and someone called up this Rebbitzen and asked her to help and she checked and found an ayin hara on the parents and then she proceeds to nullify the ayin hara in a miraculous fashion. You can read the whole article below.

What have we come to? Is this what we believe in, magic and superstition? Is this really al pi torah? This is printed in a mainstream Charedi newspaper.

No moving Jewish lips in prayer on Temple Mount, says Dichter

Can you believe this? In the Jewish state which is supposedly a democracy Jews are not allowed to even pray silently at our holiest place.

No moving Jewish lips in prayer on Temple Mount, says Dichter

"It is not possible to arrest a person for 'conversing with his maker,'" Dichter replied, using the same terminology of the MKs' letter.

"However it is possible to carry out an arrest for expressions of outward and demonstrative signs [of prayer]."

Where is that bastion of justice the Supreme Court? When it comes to the security fence, the protection of Sderot, etc. they have no problem in overruling the security forces. However suddenly here, when it is an issue relating to Judaism, the justices are silent.

Living in dangerous places

The Acharaonim discuss whether a person is allowed to put himself in a ספק סכנה to help the רבים. One of the sources they bring is the Mishna in Makos 9b which states that the killer is not allowed to leave the עיר מקלט even if the Jewish People need him even if he is the greatest General around. The Tiferes Yisrael on that Mishna asks why not? Pikuach Nefesh is דוחה everything except the big 3 aveiros, he leaves the question בצ"ע. From here the אור שמח extrapolates that a person is not chayav to put himself in a ספק סכנה to help others. The Tiferes Yisrael (and many other Acharonim) clearly argue.

The Aruch Hashulchan discusses whether he is allowed to volunteer and thinks that he can. In other words while there may be no חיוב for him to put himself in a dangerous situation he can certainly volunteer.

The Minchas Chinuch discusses the case of soldiers and war and states that since soldiers are killed in war on one hand and Hashem commanded us to fight wars on the other hand, by definition war must be exempt from the general rules of pikuach nefesh and therefore these rules don't apply.

RHS holds that we have been in a state of war with the Arabs since 1948 and therefore in EY today the situation is one of wartime and therefore we need to apply the position of the Minchas Chinuch and Pikuach Nefesh does not necessarily apply. R' Yaakov Kaminetsky made a similar comment about people living in Gush Katif (see this post More Charedi censorship):

The settlers in Gush Katif asked R' Yaakov Kamenetsky if they are allowed to live there, maybe they should move because of Pikuach Nefesh? He answered that it is a milchemes miztva (and therefore there is no halacha of pikuach nefesh like the Minchas Chinuch, my interpretation).

Based on the above, there are a number of reasons why a person can live in a dangerous place in EY.

1. According to RHS and RYK we are in the middle of a war and therefore the rules of pikuach nefesh don't apply.
2. According to many Acharonim a person is allowed to put himself in a ספק סכנה to help the רבים
3. According to the Aruch Hashulchan a person can volunteer to put himself in a ספק סכנה to help the רבים

Jonathan Rosenblum on Chareidim and Poverty

Thsi article Money Matters really surprised me. It is great that the Mishpacha magazine is delaing with this really important issue.

Here are some interesting excerpts
While the Israeli chareidi community has been largely untouched by the social pathologies associated with welfare recipients around the world, a certain “culture of dependency” – the sapping of individual initiative that accompanies long-term dependence on welfare – has not entirely passed us by.

More than twenty years ago, while returning from the levaya of the Steipler Gaon, zt”l, I asked my rosh yeshiva, why the Chazon Ish had chosen to live in Bnei Brak, rather than in the “old yishuv” of Jerusalem. He replied that the Chazon Ish felt that more than 200 years of the “chaluka” system (contributions from Jewish communities abroad) had deprived the “old yishuv” of its vitality, and he hoped to build something entirely new in the “new yishuv.” And that was before there were any government social benefits to speak of.

We tell ourselves that poverty in the chareidi world is a function of our commitment to Torah learning. And to a large extent that is true. But there are large pockets of endemic poverty in our world that have little to do with Torah learning. The majority of those who descend on every affluent Torah community abroad are not in full-time learning nor do their efforts allow them much time for Torah study.
...
A disconnect between effort and family income, which is one effect of government benefits, creates a sense of entitlement to even those things that would have been considered unimaginable luxuries one or two generations ago, including an apartment for every newlywed couple. Even in families struggling to make basic ends meet, it is not uncommon to find a number of children with their own cell phone and family cell phone bills of a thousand shekels or more per month. In supermarkets catering to the cost-conscious chareidi consumer, one still sees shopping carts piled high with soft drinks and junk food that are not only unhealthy but costly.

Poverty is exacting a terrible toll on the Israeli chareidi community. The government has an important role to play in reducing the deepening despair. But so do we as individuals and as a community.

Living with people who are a little different

Here is a really good article about how people should live with people who are a little different from them. Like-minded neighbors

Learning Torah tonight (eve of Dec 25th) - Nittel Nacht

Many Chasidim have a Minhag not to learn Torah tonight (Nittel Nacht). It is pretty clear that the real reason for this was that it was very dangerous for Jews to leave their house that night for fear of being attacked. Therefore, they could not go to the Beis Medrash to learn. Until very recently Seforim were very expensive and most people did not have private seforim available in their house to learn from. Therefore, the minhag evolved not to learn Torah. Today this would seem to be a Minhag Shtus, there is no real reason for a person to refrain from learning Torah. All the other rationalizations that I have seen are to be blunt very weak:

• The Torah learned should not serve as a merit for Jesus's soul


• As a sign of Aveilus


• There is a tremendous כח הטומאה that night


• ...

I will be learning tonight like every other night.

Why aren't there 9 days of Chanukka?

See this post from years back Why aren't there 9 days of Chanukka?

Great Chanuka treat

Should Diaspora Jews have a say about the fate of Jerusalem?

The Israeli government (including the current one) has always said no. On most issues I agree with this. If you don't live in the country and share the risks and sacrifices then you don't have a say.

However, Jerusalem is different. Jerusalem is something that all Jews have prayed for for generations. It is the spiritual capital of Judaism. Therefore, I think that all Jews should have a say as to the fate of Jerusalem. We can learn from Yasser Arafat, who at Camp David, said that he could not give the Western Wall to Israel, because Jerusalem belongs to the entire Muslim nation, so he first must go to Cairo and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and ask them for permission. Jerusalem certainly belongs to the entire Jewish nation and therefore Olmert has no right to give it away.

Will Annapolis succeed?

Bernard Lewis (professor emeritus at Princeton) has a brilliant article about the chances of success for the Annapolis conference.

The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.
...
Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.
...
A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question.
...
In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation
...
Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Until the Arabs accept Israel as a Jewish state there is nothing to talk about. Nothing that has happened recently has changed in terms of their accepting Israel, rather the tactics have changed. Why is it so hard for the leaders of Israel to see this?

This is why organizations like Peace Now are so misguided. They claim that if Israel really wanted to make peace then peace would happen. Unfortunately, they are sadly mistaken. As Bernard Lewis said, If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed, if the other side doesn't want to make peace then peace will not happen. As Professor Robert Auman said The very act of running crazedly after the longed-for peace is precisely that which distances it from us.

Only decisive, unambiguous victory for one side or the other can end a long, bitter conflict. Until Israel learns this there will never be peace. Organizations like Peace Now not only don't bring peace now, but like Neville Chamberlain, actually encourage the other side to continue the battle.

Hashgocha Pratis, what does it mean?

I recently saw someone make the following statement on Avoda.

I have heard from a reliable source, in the name of Dayan Abramsky, that "today, anyone who does not believe in the Baal Shem Tov's shita in hashgacha pratis [i.e. the one that the Chinuch rejected] is an apikores".

Here is the opinion that the Chinuch rejected.

Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 169:

There are sects among mankind who maintain that Divine providence controls all the matters of this world… that when a leaf falls from a tree, He decreed that it would fall…. This approach is far-removed from the intellect.

In other words anyone who doesn't believe what the Chinuch called far-removed from the intellect is an apikorsus. Anyone who doesn't believe that everything that happens (even the most insignificant thing like a leaf falling from a tree) is decreed from heaven is an apikorsus.

This kind of statement boggles the mind. Most of the Rishonim including both the Rambam and the Ramban hold like the Chinuch. They state explicitly that except for exceptional tzadikkim everyone is exposed to (chance) מקרה. The amount of hashgocha a person has is directly related to how close they are to Hashem. The average person is very much exposed to chance (the forces of nature etc.).

Interestingly enough this also comes up in this week's parsha (וישב).

When the brothers are planning on killing Yosef, Reuven saves him by suggesting to throw him into the pit. The mefarshim ask what did Reuven accomplish, the pit was very dangerous (full of snakes, etc.), even life threatening. The אור החיים and the אלשיך both answer as follows. A person has בחירה חפשית and therefore the brothers could kill Yosef even if he was not supposed to die. However, animals since they have no בחירה חפשית cannot kill someone if he is not supposed to die. In other words, בחירה חפשית trumps hashgocha pratis. A person can be killed even though there was no gezera on him to die. The Netziv gives this answer as well, however he qualifies it by saying that this only applies to someone who is not a צדיק גמור, but a צדיק גמור cannot be harmed even through בחירה חפשית (as both the Rambam and the Ramban say that the closer a person is to Hashem the more hashgacha they have).

Believe it or not people defend the original statement (anyone who does not believe in the Baal Shem Tov's shita in hashgacha pratis is an apikores) as follows.

Many rishonim lived before the discovery of the Zohar, and all lived before the AriZal and the Baal Shem Tov, so they were missing information. The AriZal was taught by Eliyahu Hanavi, and the Baal Shem Tov by Achiyah Hashiloni, and therefore knew things that had been completely forgotten in previous generations.

In my mind this is very dangerous if not apikorsus. This destroys the whole idea of the mesora. What happened to לא בשמים היא? How can we believe that the Rishonim מפיהם אנו חיים for life and death issues could be so mistaken on such a fundamental issue? How can we think that they were missing such a vital chunk of the mesora?

It is also based on "chassidishe maases". Was the Baal Shem Tov really taught by Ahiyah Hashiloni? The Gra and all those who opposed (and still oppose) chasidus obviously did not think so.

In any case the fact is that many Acharonim after the Ari and the Besht agreed with the Rishonim.

The Meshech Chochma( Shemos 13:9)writes:

Divine Providence is manifest for each Jew according to his spiritual level as the Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim (3:18): Divine Providence is not equal for everyone but rather is proportional to their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine Providence for the prophets is extremely powerful each according to their level of prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly is according to their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and the rebels lacking spirituality are in essence in the same category as animals... This concept that Divine Providence is proportional to spiritual level is one of foundations of Judaism...

The Meshech Chochma died less then a hundred years ago, did he not know the Ari and the Besht?

What is even more interesting is that the Or Hachaim Hakadosh was a Kabbalist after the Ari and he still says what he says in this week's parsha (see above). The Alshich was a talmid of the Ari, and the Netziv bases this idea on the Zohar. They didn't know the Ari's shita?

This is historical revisionism at it's worst.

I think that the Besht's shita has been accepted in the last 50 years for the following reasons:
1. It is theologically simple. It is a very black and white answer which fits into the current Charedi mindset and it promotes emuna peshuta
2. It is as the Chinuch wrote far-removed from the intellect, which fits the current anti-intellectual climate
3. It fits very well with a Torah only mindset. If everything (even a leaf falling) is from Hashem then Torah only makes a lot of sense. Everything else doesn't count anyway.

Now Olmert is giving them armored vehicles

Believe it or not Olmert is giving the PA armored cars. PM agrees to give PA 25 armored cars. Every day that passes he sinks to a new low. It was bad enough to give them automatic weapons and ammunition but armored cars? Does anyone have a doubt that these will be used against Israel? It is amazing how the 1990's is repeating itself right before our eyes, I feel like I am in the movie Groundhog Day. A peace conference that has no chance at succeeding. Concession after concession to the Palestinians. Giving the PA weapons to "fight" terror. We tried all of these in the 1990's and they all blew up in our faces. Why can't we learn from history?

Dina and Yosef

In last week's parsha (ויצא) we have the story of the birth of Dina. Rashi there comments (based on the Medrash) that Leah understood that she was pregnant with a boy and if she had another boy then Rachel would only have 1 of the shevatim, therefore she davened and Hashem made a miracle and turned the baby into a girl, Dina.

There are a number of problems with this Rashi as well as with the whole story of Dina.

In Parshas ויגש, the Torah writes when it lists the descendents of Yaakov, ואת דינה בתו. Rashi comments (based on the Gemara in Nidda) that we see that the Torah calls Dina the daughter of Yaakov to show us that the father is responsible for having a daughter. The Maharsha there asks, what is the proof from Dina, after all Dina started off as a boy (per the medrash in ויצא) and therefore how can any proof be brought from Dina?

Another problem that comes up in Parshas Vayigash is that Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk ושאול בן הכנענית, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. The obvious question is how could Shimon marry Dina, his full sister? Even though there is a machlokes whether the shevatim had the status of klal yisrael and had to keep all the mitzvos, they certaionly had to keep the 7 mitzvos of בני נח, and one of those is arayos which prohibits them to marry their sister from their mother.

Both the Tur and the Maharsha answer based on the תרגום יונתן in ויצא. The תרגום יונתן explains the birth of Dina as follows. Both Leah and Rachel were pregnant, Leah was pregnant with Yosef and Rachel with Dina and miraculously the fetuses were switched. Therefore, Dina was always a girl and the proof from the pasuk (that the man is responsible for girls) is fine because Yaakov caused Dina to be a girl. Also, since Yosef and Dina were switched, על פי הלכה Leah was not Dina's mother, rather Rachel was and a בן נח is allowed to marry his sister from his father.

This Tur however, raises another question, what about Yosef? Who על פי הלכה is considered to be his mother? If it is Leah, then what good was the נס? Rachel still ended up with only 1 of the shevatim. Therefore we need to differentiate and say that both Dina and Yosef were Rachel's children.

When we consider how the halacha determines who the the mother of a baby is there are 3 possible alternatives:
1. Whoever conceives the child
2. Wherever the fetus is 40 days after conception (as until then it is considered מיא בעלמא and for example you are allowed to daven for the sex of the child)
3. Whoever gives birth

We see that the Tur cannot hold from 1 because even though Yosef was conceived by Leah he is considered Rachel's son. The Tur cannot hold from 3 either as the Tur holds that Dina was considered Rachel's daughter even though Leah gave birth to her. It would seem that the Tur holds like option 2.

With this we can say the following about Yosef. Leah was pregnant with Yosef but it was before 40 days while Rachel was pregnant with Dina and it was after 40 days. Therefore when they switched Yosef was less then 40 days so he was considered Rachel's son as on day 40 he was in Rachel's womb, while Dina had already passed day 40 in Rachel's womb so she was considered Rachel's daughter even though Leah gave birth to her.

It turns out according to the Tur that Rachel was the mother of both Dina and Yosef.

This Tur clearly has ramifications l'halacha with regards to surrogate mothers etc.

Yated Neeman - Anyone who criticizes us is criticizing the Gedolim

A short time ago Yated Neeman printed a nasty caricature criticizing Shas. They were heavily criticized by Shas as well as by some in the Ashkenazi Charedi community. Last week Yated Neeman fired back. They wrote the following editorial(translated from the original Hebrew):

The written and pictorial rebuke that was printed in Yated Neeman against the other party (Shas), is not a result of the capriciousness of the editors and writers. rather it is a direct command from our spiritual leaders (the Vaad Haruchani) whose every action is guided by the Gedolei Hador ... and they approve every word written and every caricature printed. They decide when to be silent and when to attack. They also decide the strength and type of criticism.
...
Therefore any criticism of the newspaper no matter who the person is, is not directed at the editors of the paper but rather at the spiritual leaders of the paper which have at their head the Gedolim.
...
Everyone who criticizes the paper whatever their title is cannot be considered part of the camp of those who are faithful to the Gedolim. ... the simply cannot be considered as part of the Torah camp.


Below you can see the Mishapcha's take on the whole story.

When did the malachim come to Avraham about the birth of Yitzchak?

The Gemara in Rosh Hashana (11a) seems to say that they came on Sukkos (or according to Tosafos 2 days before Sukkos) and that is when the whole story at the beginning of this weeks parsha (וירא) happened.

Tosafos and other Rishonim are bothered by a number of questions:
1. The medrash tanchuma (quoted by Rashi on Chumash) contradicts the Gemara and says that the whole story happened on Pesach
2. The pasuk at the end of Parshal Lech Lecha (right after Hashem commands Avraham to do a bris mila) says that Sarah will have a baby "למועד הזה לשנה אחרת". If Avraham's bris was right before Succos (on YK according to Tosafos) and Yitzchak was born on Pesach how is that "לשנה אחרת" it is the same year.

Tosafos and the Ritva answer that the gemara here is according to R' Yehoshua and the medrash is like R' Eliezer. According to R' Yehoshua that the world was created in Nissan, the story happened on Succos and the next Pesach is in the next year. However, according to R' Eliezer that the world was created in Tishrei, the story could not have happened on Succos, because Pesach is in the same year, therefore it happened on Pesach like the Medrash.

This is very difficult because the Gemara in Rosh Hashana is detailing all the נפקא מינא and machlokes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer based on when the world was created. If Tosafos is right why didn't the gemara list this as well?

The Maharsha has a different p'shat and tries to reconcile the Medrash and the Gemara as follows:
The Gemara and Medrash don't conflict they are talking about different things. The pasuk in לך לך that says "למועד הזה לשנה אחרת", happened on Pesach. The malachim came on Pesach. However, when Hashem asks Avraham why Sarah laughed and then says "למועד אשוב אליך" that happened in Tishrei on Succos. This answers the contradiction but raises additional questions.

It is very difficult to read the pesukim this way. The malachim come on Pesach and tell Avraham that he will have a son and Sarah laughs. Six months later on Succos Hashem comes back and asks Avraham why Sarah laughed and promises again that he will have a son on pesach. Then the story shifts back to the malachim leaving on Pesach and Avraham arguing with Hashem about S'dom. You have a very strange shift in time from Pesach to Sukkos, back to Pesach.

According to the Maharsha the Gemara in Rosh Hashana by פקידה is also very difficult. The Gemara says that Sara was נפקדה on Rosh Hashana. Yet, the malachim came on Pesach and told Avraham that he would have a son, when was the pekida? It would seem that it was 9 months before (the Rosh Hashana before). However, Sarah did not actually become pregnant until after the next Succos (as the Gemara says), over a year after the pekida! The Maharsha answers that even though on Pesach the malachim told Sara that she would have a baby,the pekida (the gezera that she would get pregnant) was only 5 months later on Rosh Hashana. IMHO, this is very difficult. The malachim are bringing a message from hashem on Pesach that she will have a baby next Pesach. She is going to have a baby, Hashem said so. Therefore what on earth does the pekida on Rosh Hashana mean? It already happened on pesach that she is going to have a baby.

In fact, the Maharasha refers you to a Tosafos in Bava Kama 92a (ד"ה כאשר) who makes exactly this point. Tosafos asks, if the malachim came on Pesach how could the pekida be later on Rosh Hashana? Tosafos answers the pekida was not that she would become pregnant but rather that the pregnancy and birth would be easy. Tosafos is explicitly against the Maharsha.

Tosafos's (Bava Kama) answer is also very difficult. The gemara says that 3 women were nifkad on Rosh Hashana (Sara, Rachel, and Chana). By Rachel, the pasuk says explicitly that Hashem remembered her (זכירה) and ויפתח את רחמה. The pasuk explicitly states that the pekida was with regards to getting pregnant. Since the gemara equates the 3 women (and learns them out 1 from the other) the pekida by Sarah must be the same thing, regarding getting pregnant and therefore how can Tosafos say that the pekida was with regards to having an easy pregnancy and birth.

When was the ברית בין הבתרים?

If you just read parshas לך לך you would think that first Hashem told Avraham to go to Eretz Yisroel, then came the story with לוט etc, and then came the ברית בין הבתרים. However, the Rishonim point out that if we take a closer look at the chronology we see that this is not true.

Hashem tells Avraham by the ברית בין הבתרים that his descendents will be in golus 400 years. Rashi points out that we were only in Egypt 210 years and therefore explains based on the medrashim that the 400 years started with the birth of Yitzchak. However, the Torah says in Parshas Bo that we were in Egypt 430 years. Rashi there explains (again based on medrashim) that the extra 30 years is from the ברית בין הבתרים, in other words the ברית בין הבתרים was 30 years before Yitzchak was born. We know that Yitzchak was born when Avraham was 100 years old which means that ברית בין הבתרים had to be 30 years earlier when Avraham was 70. However, at the beginning of parshas לך לך the Torah tells us that Avraham was 75 years old when he left Charan. This means that לך לך had to be 5 years after the ברית בין הבתרים. Tosafos in Shabbos 10b makes this calculation and says this is what happened. Avraham came to EY when he was 70 and went through the ברית בין הבתרים, and then he returned to Charan for 5 years until Hashem told him לך לך.

The question we have now is why is the Torah written this way? What is the lesson we are supposed to learn from the way the Torah ordered things? Tosafos points out the discrepancy but doesn't explain why.

War between Shas and Degel Hatorah

Yated Neeman on Friday printed a very nasty caricature about Shas on Friday.


This may lead to a full blown war between the Sefardi and Ashkanezi Charedim.

Not one, not two, not three, but four criminal investigations ...

have now been started against Prime Minister Olmert.

I know that many times an investigation is started and does not lead to an indictment and an indictment does not always lead to a conviction. However, when there are 4 criminal investigations against the PM there is a problem. Where there is smoke there is fire.

Now we have a situation where the PM has 4 criminal investigations against him plus the Winograd Commission and he is going to Annapolis to have a fire sale of pieces of Israel to the Palestinians. What mandate can he possibly have? In any other sane democracy Olmert would have either resigned or have been forced out of office long ago.

Abu Mazen's demands for the Palestinian state

In a television interview, Abbas said the Palestinians want to establish a state on 6,205 square kilometers of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It was the first time he has given a precise number for the amount of land he is seeking.

"We have 6,205 square kilometers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," Abbas told Palestine TV. "We want it as it is."

According to Palestinian negotiating documents obtained by The Associated Press, the Palestinian demands include all of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, east Jerusalem and small areas along the West Bank frontier that were considered no-man's land before the Six-Day War.

He wants everything and more. What everyone fails to point out is that in on June 3, 1967 there was no passage from Gaza to the West Bank, so he not only wants the 1967 borders but he wants more, a passage from Gaza to the West Bank. He also wants small areas along the West Bank frontier that were considered no-man's land before the Six-Day War.

This is a non-starter even for Olmert and the left.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

The biggest joke is that anyone believes Abu Mazen can actually deliver something. The man is not even in control of Ramallah let alone Gaza. Any agreement with him isn't worth the paper that it is printed on because there is no way for him to enforce it or abide by it.

Understanding davening: Geshem or Gashem

We all just started saying משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם, should we say geshem or gashem? R' Yaakov Kamenetsky says that it should be geshem. He explains as follows. When you have 2 סגול at the end of a word, when that word is the end of a sentence or has a hard stop (אתנחתא) the first סגול becomes a קמץ, for example derech becomes darech. Therefore for משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם we need to see if there is a stop after גשם or not by analyzing the second beracha of שמונה עשרה.

The second beracha is גבורות and starts with the ultimate גבורה, resurrection of the dead, then continues on to more mundane matters and then concludes with resurrection of the dead.

The initial phrase אתה גבור לעולם ה' מחיה מתים אתה רב להושיע is the introduction with states the ultimtae גבורה, resurrection of the dead. Then we have משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם and then מכלכל חיים ... סומך נופלים רופא חולים etc., all more mundane physical things. It is clear that משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם belongs with these physical matters, and not with תחיית המתים. Therefore there should be no stop after משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם but rather it continues right into מכלכל חיים. If so, then the word should be pronounced geshem and not gashem.

If this is correct how did so many people come to say gashem? The answer is that in תפילת גשם the chazan says ואתה הוא ה' אלוקינו משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם and there he says gashem because it is the end of a sentence. Since people hear the chazan say gashem in תפילת גשם they assumed that that was the correct pronunciation in davening as well.

RHS brings down in Nefesh Harav that RYBS also said geshem, I believe for a similar reason.