Volume 20 Number 51
Produced: Tue Jul 18 23:54:08 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Handicappers (sic)
[David Charlap]
Handicappers/Short People/Children and Mezuzos
[Warren Burstein]
Kitana "Mikudeshet"
[Yeshaya Halevi]
Marrying off Daughters
[the Cheshire Cat]
Names
[Orin d Golubtchik]
Proper Pronunciation
[Janice Gelb]
Roshei Tayvot
[M E Lando]
Shiluach Ha'kan
[Moishe Halibard]
Spelling
[Richard Friedman]
Yom Tov Sheni - Its Geographic Limits
[Shmuel Himelstein (n)]
Zohar and Authenticity
[M. Linetsky]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 16:28:09 EDT
Subject: Handicappers (sic)
David Griboff <TKISG02%<EZMAIL@...> writes:
>However, on a much more serious note, it should be said that those who
>are bound to wheelchairs would be highly insulted by the term
>'handicapped'. Many of those confined to wheelchairs lead highly
>productive lives and do not consider themselves as 'handicapped' - I
>believe they prefer the term, 'physically challenged'.
>
>We, as Jews, are always very sensitive to the types of phrases used to
>describe us. The least we can do is be sensitive to others who may also
>find certain names and phrases offensive.
Agreed, but let's find out some facts before going off half-cocked to
join the PC bandwagon. I was recently at a party where lots of people
were blind. They didn't appreciate people coming up with creative
euphamisms for "blind". (They also don't like outside organizations
inventing things (like beeping traffic lights) that make life 20 times
worse than before (by not letting them hear the traffic)).
In other words, while you should go around using offensive language, I'd
want to first find out if the language is actually offensive. This means
by actually meeting some of these people, not by watching TV programs
where only the loudest protesters are heard.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 16:25:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Handicappers/Short People/Children and Mezuzos
According to my dicitonary a handicapper is either a person who assigns
handicaps in a sports competition or one who predicts the result of a
competition. I think that we are discussing handicapped people here,
no?
|warren@ an Anglo-Saxon." -- Stuart Schoffman
/ nysernet.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CHIHAL@...> (Yeshaya Halevi)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 18:52:58 -0400
Subject: Kitana "Mikudeshet"
Don't put your money where your mouth is. Put your son there.
Put far more respectfully, but still seriously, would any of the
respected rabbis who have said the 11-year-old girl who is a victim of
her father's claim he has betrothed her to a stranger back up their
opinion she is not an ayshet eesh (married woman) by announcing their
willingness to engage their own son to her?
Even if that rabbi's son and this girl never do stand under a hupa
(wedding canopy), merely announcing such a stance will do more to free
her from an intolerable life, and simultaneously create a kidush Hashem
(sanctification of God's name), than any other thing I have read since
this tragedy began.
<Chihal@...> (Yeshaya Halevi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: the Cheshire Cat <alanacat@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 09:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Marrying off Daughters
>From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
>In any event, the condition of not marrying off one's daughter can also
>change an outcome that is automatic. If a man has relations with girl 12
>or under against her will, he is obligated to marry her. The only way this
>obligation can be fulfilled is if the girl's father marries her off.
I wonder if this is so. Is the requirement that the girl be married off
right away? If not, then the father could wait until the girl was old
enough to marry herself off> In that case, the obligation would have
been fulfilled and the father would not have had to marry her off. (Of
course, it would also be beneficial to the girl, who might not want to
marry her rapist, and SHE is under no requirement to marry HIM). This
would seem especially relevant if the girl was, for example, four, which
is old enough that she is considered too old to have her "virginity"
regenerate, but obviously too young to marry.
Alana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orin d Golubtchik <ogolubtc@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 13:16:22 EDT
Subject: Names
In continuing with the recent discussion of names - I hope that someone
can help me out with the following question. We know that we do not
name a child with the same name as it's parents (presumably because of
ayin hara) - my question is how strictly do we hold to this:
some examples - a mother is named Shoshana - can she name her daughter
Vered or Reizel (Hebrew and Yiddish words that also mean rose)? How
about names that mean other types of flowers ? In other words do we
look at the meaning of the name (I realize that many names are simply
names ('a rose is a rose is a rose') and this does not apply) or the
actual name itself in determining what names can be used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <janiceg@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:42:10 -0700
Subject: Proper Pronunciation
In mail-jewish Vol. 20 #41, Art Werschulz asked a question about
last week's Torah reading. Below is an answer from a member of my shul,
Monica Devens (<mdevens@...>), a local expert on grammar:
> Pronunciation #1: itach. (Aleph/chirik, tav/kamatz, chaf sofit/shva).
> Source: Mikraot Gdolot, ArtScroll Chumash.
>
> Pronunciation #2: it'cha. (Aleph/chirik, tav/shva na, chaf sofit/kamatz).
> Source: Michael Bar-Lev's "Baal HaKriah". AFAIK, the shva na is
> unusual here; isn't it usually a shva nach?
>
> Pronunciation #3: itacha. (Aleph/chirk, tav/kamatz, chaf sofit/kamatz).
> The accent is on the second syllable. Source: Hertz chumash. FWIW, I
> don't know of any other place where this particular pronunciation
> occurs; OTOH, I don't claim exhaustive knowledge.
>
> Two questions:
>
> (1) Does anybody have definite knowledge of this word's pronunciation?
> Please back this up with evidence as to why it should be
> pronounced that way as opposed to the other ways.
>
> (2) Does anybody know of other disagreements of pronunciation between
> commonly-used chumashim or Torah-readers' guides?
The pronunciation of this word should be /itach/. First, I trust the
Biblia Hebraica as a source, and that's what one finds. I have yet to
find a typo in the BHS. Second, if you check the Even-Shoshan
concordance, you will see Numbers 18:19 as an entry under /itach/.
Third, this is the normal form of /itcha/ when in pausal position, such
as sof pasuk. Fourth, you will notice in the Even-Shoshan concordance,
and I would hazard to guess any reference book you could choose, that
there is no such word as /itacha/, *ever*.
The shva in /itcha/ is always na, that is, there is always a dagesh in
the tav, thus, technically, /'ittecha/. Were it a nax, one would expect
/'itka/, which a dagesh in the kaf. Or have I misunderstood the
question here?
There are *many* disagreements, as you called them, between commonly
used sources for readers. IMHO, these are not disagreements, they are
typos. In particular, the Hertz and the Tikkun are poorly set and
poorly printed books, and there are many missing vowels, impossible to
read vowels, incorrect vowels. You name it, it happens. Generally when
I am in doubt, I check the BHS. The Artscroll Humash seems to have
exceedingly few typos, as does the 5-volume linear Rashi. It did
however happen to me once that 3 of my humashim had one thing, and two
another, and both were possible grammatical readings!
Hope this helps. Monica Devens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M E Lando <landom1@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 09:26:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Roshei Tayvot
I was under the impression that the moderator saw to it that
unfamiliar hebrew terms are translated and initials spelled out. A
recent posting by Seth Ness on the Bombay Shabbat Busses refers to UTJ's
tomeikh kahalacha. I am unfamiliar with the reference UTJ. Help please.
Mordechai E. Lando ha'm'chu'na Yukum
[UTJ is the Union of Traditional Judaism, which is a break-away from the
Conservative movement, maintaining a much more traditional point of
view. If someone from UTJ would like to give a more accurate description
of the UTJ in 10-30 lines, I would be happy to post it. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <halibard@...> (Moishe Halibard)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:58:54 +0200 (WET)
Subject: Shiluach Ha'kan
I don't recall the conclusion about shiluach ha'kan after the discussions
here on mail-jewish, so this week I had a sha'ala.
There was a pigeon nest on our kitchen bulcony, and two white eggs were
laid in it, each about half the size of a chicken's egg. I asked R.Avrohom
Shapira, Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav, and former chief rabbi, if I could
do shiluach hakan, and he said no, because it was mezuman( ie. it
does not satisfy the condition of 'chancing upon' in the Torah). As it was,
the next morning I saw that some animal had killed the eggs,
so it was too late even if there had been a mitzva to be done.
It was sure unpleasant clearing up all the mess!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Friedman <RF@...>
Date: 07 Jul 1995 10:46:10 GMT
Subject: Spelling
Art Werschulz asked (MJ 20:41) about the proper spelling and
pronunciation for the last word in Num. 18:19. The Tanach I have at
work (small format Cassuto ed.) has "itach" (Art's #2, agreeing with
Mikraot G'dolot). I would check a Koren ed., but it's at home. I
should think that "itach" would be right, it being the normal
vocalization of such a word at the sof pasuk, and I find "itacha" (Art's
#3, agreeing with the Hertz) strange, but I'm no expert.
I'm curious why the gabbaim corrected him when he read "it'cha" and
their texts said "itacha." I thought the rule was that gabbaim should
correct only when the discrepancy makes a difference in meaning, and if
"itacha" means anything, doesn't it mean the same as "it'cha" (or
"itach")?
Speaking of fine points of spelling that make a difference in
meaning, I'd like to hear more about Shabbat "busses." Is this allowed
with persons who are not immediate relatives? :-)
Richard Friedman
<rf@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein (n) <himelstein@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 19:19:23 GMT
Subject: Yom Tov Sheni - Its Geographic Limits
According to Rabbi Yerachmiel David Fried, in his _Yom Tov Sheni
Kehilchato_, the following stipulations apply regarding one or two days of
Yom Tov:
a) Transjordan and all the settled areas in the Negev today keep one day.
b) The city of Gaza - one day.
c) North of Eretz Israel, up to Tyre and Sidon (now in Lebanon) - one day.
d) Eilat - I quote: "The city of Eilat and its environs, there are those
who say that its law is as Eretz Israel in regard to the second day of Yom
Tov, and there are those who say that it is considered like Chutz La'aretz
(i.e., one must keep a second day), and there are those say that one must
keep the Chumrot ("stringencies") of both places." The three views are
(respectively) of Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Zatzal; Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,
Zatzal; and Rav Elyashiv, Shlita (other rabbis are also quoted in regard to
each viewpoint).
Shmuel Himelstein
Phone: 972-2-864712 Fax 972-2-862041
<himelstein@...> (that's JerONE not Jer-L)
Jerusalem, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 81920562%<TAONODE@...> (M. Linetsky)
Date: Thu 06 Jul 1995 09:22 ET
Subject: Zohar and Authenticity
There are more problems with the Zohar linguistically besides what appears to
be terminollogy shaped by Greek philosophy. When I was in tenth grade, I
opened the Zohar by chance and was perpelexed by the fact that the Aramaic
wass not all of one period. Of course, I knew nothing of the contraversy and
assumed that perhaps my understanding of the developement of the Aramaic
language was not correct. Anachronisms, by the way, are found in the Aramaic
of Daniel where forms that would appear to belong to later periods appear
side-by-side with archaic ones. On these grounds there were those that
considered Daniel, G-d forbid, to be a forgery. It is easy to see their
reason. However, I believe that our understanding of the developement of the
Aramaic language is not entirely complete! It may be that because of thiss,
the mainstream judaism accepts the Zohar as authentic dispite the conspicous
anachronisms. It is also hard to percieve that De leon could have authored
a work of such depth!
Michael Linetsky CSU Betar/TAGAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 20 Issue 51
