<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1255"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body dir="ltr" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Elliott Shevin wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My own rav (Eliezer Cohen of Oak Park, MI) invoked a psak that nefilas
apaim should be done wherever one is davening, Yerushalayim or not,
sefer torah or not (and, I presume, makom kavuah or not). The logic is
simple: you're not petitioning a sefer torah; you're petitioning HKBH,
Who is everywhere.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Zev Sero replied:
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">What's his basis for such a psak? His own sevara?
(See Rema OC 131:2, ultimately based on Yehoshua 7:6).</pre></blockquote></pre>
<br>
I note that Rav Soloveitchik had the custom to do Nefilat Apayim even
when there was no Sefer Torah. [Nefesh HaRav p. 134]. Rav Schachter
there cites the Taz 131:5. This is a free summary of the Taz:<br>
<br>
The Rokeach wrote that there is Nefilat Apayim only where there is a
Sefer Torah. The Bet Yosef wrote on this that if it is a tradition we
accept it, but if it is a teaching there is response. The Taz proposes
that the response is as follows - The Rokeach uses as support the verse
from Yehoshua where Yehoshua falls "before God". ie there is only
Nefilat Apayim before God where there is a Sefer Torah. However, the
Taz says that there is a verse in Shoftim 20:26 where the people cry
and do Teshuva "before God" - and we cannot say that crying applies
only where there is a Sefer Torah! Thus we can reject the proof.
Additionally, it is implicit in the Rosh cited in the Bet Yosef later
on the fact that an important person can do Nefilat Apayim even in
their own home - so we see that Nefilat Apayim applies at home, and we
cannot assume there was a Sefer Torah.<br>
However, the Taz concludes that the Rama rules like the Rokeach.<br>
<br>
The Aruch HaShulchan 131:10 questions the Taz, as the verse from
Shoftim does not mention the Aron, unlike the verse from Yehoshua.
However the Aruch HaShulchan notes that the main source for Nefilat
Apayim is from Moshe (Devarim 9:18), and there was no Aron there. And
if you want to say that Moshe encountered the Divine Presence - so do
we encounter the Divine Presence everywhere we daven, irrespective of
whether there is a Sefer Torah. <br>
Thus the Aruch HaShulchan brings the same logic - although he concludes
that the regular minhag is like the Rokeach as ruled by the Rama.<br>
<br>
So we see there is a counter-opinion.<br>
<br>
(The verse is of course the source for R' Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky,
as brought in his Sefarim, that the whole of Yerushalayim is "before
God".)<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">Danny Schoemann added:
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of the
Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din of a ST,
and that's what we rely on nowadays."
The MB doesn't mention this possibility. </pre>
</blockquote></pre>
The MB does bring this possibility in 131:11 - he notes that the Eliya
Rabbah and Derekh Hahayim say that there is no Nefilat Apayim without a
Sefer Torah, even in the presence of other books. But he notes that
others disagree
(brought in his sources as the Olat Tamid, Sheyurei Knesset Gedola and
with the Magen Giborim's agreement).<br>
<br>
Jason Moser<br>
</body>
</html>