Volume 24 Number 26
Produced: Sun Jun 2 17:20:13 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Census Counts -- literal?
[Stan Tenen]
Common davening mistake - pet peeve
[Micha Berger]
How many Blessings can Intervene?
[Jay F Shachter]
J. D. Eisenstein
[Zvi Weiss]
Laining/Tikkunim
[Yitz Weiss]
Layning/Tikkun
[Art Werschulz]
Tefillah Errors
[Anonymous]
Unknown Rules of Laining
[Russell Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 07:46:33 -0700
Subject: Census Counts -- literal?
Avi Feldblum points out that "the text is not removed from it's simple
meaning." This is true. But, what exactly is a "simple" meaning? What
is simple to one person or situation is not so simple to another person
or another situation. In fact, whenever you try to examine more than
the most superficial meaning (superficial is not the same as simple) the
supposed "simple" meaning is no more simple than "common" sense is
common.
Without the Sod level, the simple meaning is incomplete and, if it is
represented as the whole and complete meaning, then it is in error.
This is especially true when dealing with numbers in Torah because
numbers in the ancient world had far more significance than they do
today. Today a number is a mere quantity. But in the ancient world -
including the Torah world - numbers had philosophical and spiritual
significance. Not only that, but numbers, to a mostly uneducated
public, were inherently impressive, even miraculous. So when a number
is mentioned in Torah, it may not be the quantity that it represents
that is most important. The number may represent a metaphor that
includes more important matters than mere amount - and, if that is the
case, then the actual literal amount might well be modified somewhat to
make the more important philosophical or spiritual point. This is
certainly the case with the census figures. The actual number of
persons - down to the individual - might not have mattered very much,
but the relationships expressed by the numbers could well tell us
something of greater importance.
For example: Is the most important thing about the Pentagon that it is
5-sided? Of course not. Yes, it did start out as 5-sided and it still
mostly is. But there have been additions and changes, it has many other
features, and, most importantly, hardly anyone cares that it is a 5-
sided building when they refer to it. The Pentagon means something very
different than 5-sided. This is natural. Only in recent times, among
persons who believe that only words carry meaning, have numbers been
relegated to mere counting ciphers. I believe that our sages were wiser
than this.
I believe that Torah Judaism will be far more appreciated and far more
functional in the world when issues like these are researched. I would
not lose sight of the "simple" meaning and I would not diminish
traditional studies one iota, but to exclude honest investigation of the
Sod level of Torah is, in my opinion, detrimental to all of Torah.
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Common davening mistake - pet peeve
Something that bother's me to an irrational extent is the common
phrasing of Shabbos & Yom Tov Shacharis' Kedushah.
The text should be read:
az, bikol ra'ash gadol adir vichazak, mashmi'im kol
which I would translate as:
Then, in a sound that is noisy great mighty and strong, they make heard a
sound (or, in English idiom: they make a sound)
This is the phrasing shown in Every siddur I've seen - from Artscroll to
Nusach Aleppo.
What most chazanim say, and is enforced by the traditional tunes is:
az bikol, ra'ash gadol, adir vichazak mashmi'im kol
By moving "mighty and strong" to a phrase that has no other subject,
it would be read as the subject - i.e. "A Mighty and Strong One".
This phraseology then becomes:
Then in a sound, a great noise, they permit a Mighty and Strong One
to hear a sound
Who are the angels to permit Hashem or deny Hashem anything? And then,
what is this "*A* Mighty and Strong One" -- wouldn't it read *THE*, with
leading hei's? (As is the case in "Hakeil Hagadol Hagibor viHanorah.)
But what bugs me about it is that unlike some other errors, I can't
picture a mistranslation that would justify placing a comma in the
middle of a list of adjectives.
The common "melech kel chei, ha'olamim" I assume is an attempt to say
"King, Living G-d (G-d of Life?), of all the universes (worlds?)".
Instead of the correct "King, G-d, Life Giver of the Universes".
I don't want a chazan who isn't even trying to think about the simple
meaning of the words. If someone can explain to me what the typical
chazan thinks he's saying, I'd appreciate it.
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3448 days!
<AishDas@...> (16-Oct-86 - 1-May-96)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jay@...> (Jay F Shachter)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:24:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: How many Blessings can Intervene?
I have a followup to my own posting, in which I asked people to
construct the maximum number of benedictions which can intervene between
reciting a benediction over food and consuming said food.
First, I have to correct an obvious typographical error. I wrote about
a festival eve that falls on Friday night. Obviously I meant a festival
eve that falls on Saturday night.
(I actually tried to fix this by sending our moderator a corrected
version of the article, but it was too late. Our moderator, with his
characteristic lightning-fast responsiveness, had already posted the
flawed original.)
Second, I found a ninth benediction for the qiddush scenario -- the
benediction of "hallah". I'm rather embarrassed that I didn't think of
it earlier.
Also, for those of you who can't think of a way you can be eating
sacrificial bread on a Saturday night, I am changing the sacrificial
bread to the showbread.
Here is the scenario: a farmer grew some grain and gave some of it as
Truma to a Kohen, or a Kohenet, or the mother of a Kohen. The person
who received the Truma grain then made flour from it, and dough from the
flour, at which point she separated Hallah from the dough, and gave it
to a Kohen. This Kohen donated the Hallah to the Temple, where it was
baked into the showbread. The following Saturday night, which happened
to be the eve of Sukkot, the showbread was used for Qiddush by a priest
who had no wine. We have nine benedictions in this scenario (I am
unsure whether the benedictions marked with an asterisk are in the right
order, because I can't find them in my prayerbook).
1) hammotzi lehem min ha'arets
2*) asher qiddshanu biqdushato shel 'Aharon vtsivvanu le'ekhol truma
3*) asher qiddshanu biqdushato shel 'Aharon vtsivvanu le'ekhol halla
4*) asher qiddshanu biqdushato shel 'Aharon vtsivvanu le'ekhol et
lehem happanim [I think there should be an "'et" in that benediction]
5) mqaddesh yisra'el vhazzmannim
6) bore' m'orey ha'esh
7) hammavdil beyn qodesh lqodesh
8) asher qiddshanu bmitsvotav vtsivvanu leyshev bassukka
9) sheheheyanu vqiyymanu vhiggi`anu lazzman hazzeh
I don't want anyone to tell me that the first night of Sukkot can't be
on a Saturday night, because it isn't true.
It doesn't seem plausible, though, that you can get as many benedictions
out of qiddush as you can get out of the consummation of a marriage,
where you start out with seven benedictions free of charge. There ought
to be something creative you can do with the marriage scenario that
gives you more benedictions, but I can't think what it could be.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-312)7613784
<jay@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:55:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: J. D. Eisenstein
> From: <Gideon_Miller@...> (Gideon Miller)
> In MJ vol. 23 #82, Asher Breatross requested information on
> J.D. Eisenstein and his works. I have always admired his works- I have
> tried to get my hands on a copy of my favorite, Otzer Vicuchim, a
> collection of Judeo-Christian polemics, for many years. Once, in the
> Yeshiva University Library, I came across a book of his entitled
> "Commentary on the Bible", published after his death by his grandson,
> Ira. While I have always been impressed with his prolific and eclectic
> style, I have found dissappointment in some of his interpretations. One
> such interpretation is in the aforementioned work, where he states that
> Moshe wrote Bereishis from historic scrolls that had been passed down
While I have not seen the "Commentary", I recall coming across
Midrashim that stated that while in Mitzrayim (Egypt), the Jews *did*
have some sort of Traditional material that they were able to study and
keep up their faith with. Perhaps, this was what the "Commentary" was
referring to... Not that Moshe did not receive the Instructions from G-d
but that part of those instructions -- as received from G-d -- to make
those "scrolls" an officila part of Torah Shebichsav -- i.e., that G-d
(in effect) dictated (or redictated) the material that the Jews already
had....
> from generation to generation. That is not exactly the tradition I was
> taught in Yeshiva day school. Another questionable interpretation that
> a friend showed me, is in his Otzer Haminhagim. In discussing the four
> death penalties carried out by Bais Din, he twists a phrase " zo mitzvas
> haniskalin" from Sanhedrin 7:1 to mean that R' Shimon held there were
> only three types of punishment. The misreading is "Neusneresque". The
I do not have his Otzar Minhagim -- but I have seen it... Given the
ratehr straightforward discussion in the Gemara about the *4* modes of
execution, it is more than a bit surprising that Eisenstein would repsent
soemthing that appears so at variance with our Gemara... Perhaps, there
was a misunderstanding of what Eisenstein wrote??
> above examples, as well the path taken by his decendants, has left me
> skeptical about Eisenstein's own background and affiliation.
It is not necessarily fair or proper to categorize someone because of
the choices that his children chose to make.....
--Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <YitzW@...> (Yitz Weiss)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 23:06:33 -0400
Subject: Laining/Tikkunim
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve Albert who recommended preparing
laining from two different tikkunim. I do the same. I find it easier to
remember the trop from year to year if I don't associate it with a
particular location in the column. My favorite tikkun is the "Tikkun
LaKorim" put out by Mishor in Bnei Brak. It has an incredibly clear
printing.
Yitz Weiss
<YitzW@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 09:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Layning/Tikkun
Hi all.
Let me mention another mistake in the blue (Ktav) Tikkun: Look at
Devarim 21:19, in parshat Ki Tavo. On the *Torah scroll* side, you'll
see that the "tav" that ends "tashchit" is a "heh". The side with
vowels and trop is OK on this one.
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: <agw@...><a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 96 14:08:00 EDT
Subject: RE: Tefillah Errors
A common mistake in davening is made when we return the Torah to the ark.
After the Chazzan says "Yehalelu", the congregation should say "HODO al
eretz v'shamayim" (His glory is on earth and in heavan). It surprises
me to hear how many learned people say "HODU". (We should acknowledge
him on earth and in heavan).
While we must acknowledge G-d on earth, we do not have access to heavan
to acknowledge Him there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 15:48:31 -0400
Subject: Unknown Rules of Laining
A common fallacy is to assume that
THEORY 1: The SOLE purpose of the Teamim is to create pauses where the
MEANING requires it.
As many excellent books (written by religious people) on Teamim point
out (e.g. Breuer, Taamay Hamikrah, now in its second edition) the real
purpose is
THEORY 2: Teamim have 2 purposes:
To indicate pauses in MEANING
To create either pauses for breathing or combine small phrases into one.
In response to several comments on Teamim in MJ let us examine a verse
quoted [Pickholtz, V23 #96 also see V24 #12] in Exodus 3:15. VAYOMER
HASHEM OD (And God said further (to Moses).
There are *Three* possible ways to read the verse:
Version 1: Vayomer (pause) Hashem OD
Version 2: Vayomer Hasem (pause) OD
Version 3: Vayomer Hashem Od (with no pause anywhere)
The rules of the Teamim are very clear...A telishah ketanah has a status
of a "liason" punctuation (while a Telishah Gedolah has a status of a
pause). Therefore Versions 1 and 2 are *both* incorrect while version 3
is correct. Personally, I find it difficult not to pause after a
Telisah ketanah (because of the way it is chanted in our practice) so I
deliberately phrase all three words together (the technical musical term
is I believe Legato referring to a slur of different notes).
It is incidentally an unsolved problem with a rich literature as to how
the two purposes of Teamim (meaning pause, breathing pause and small
phrase combinations) work in unison.
While the above discussion is technical it raises the highly
nontechnical question of when we allow an explanation to contradict the
sense of the Teamim (on this there is a rich but varied
literature...unfortunately I have never seen it gathered in one place
nor have I ever seen discussion of "what is right" or which rishonim
believe what).
I of course welcome comments on sources for "how to use teammim in your
daily Tenach learning"
Russell Hendel, rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 24 Issue 26
