Volume 29 Number 02
Produced: Tue Jul 13 7:00:20 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
100 Kolos
[Joshua Hoffman]
A Good summary of principles of NOLAD/MUKSEH
[Alexander Heppenheimer]
Answering Questions of Police on Shabbas
[F Smiles]
Dagesh in yud
[Percy Mett]
Michl
[Percy Mett]
Mol
[Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer]
Name
[Yisrael Medad]
Names
[Mechy Frankel]
Pronunciation - Extra Yod (2)
[A.J. Gilboa, Percy Mett]
Pronunciation - Ribi and Rabi
[Shlomo Godick]
Tefillin until Musaf
[I. Harvey Poch]
TETRAGRAMMATORN=New Existence; ELOKIM=Preserve Social Structure
[Russell Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hoffman <JoshHoff@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:38:33 EDT
Subject: 100 Kolos
There is another midrash quoted in Toirah Shleima that Sarah let out 100
cries when she was told about Akeidas Yitzchak and that this is the
source of our minhag. Rav Soloveitchek zt'l used to direct the ba'al
tokeia to blow tashrat three times at the end, instead of tashrat tashat
and tarat, in order to fulfill. Tam's shita. As I heard from Rabbi
H. Reichman, the Rov's argument was that if we can blow 100 kolos for
the mother of Sisra, we can blow an extra two for Rabbeinu Tam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alexander Heppenheimer <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 20:19:39 -0600
Subject: RE: A Good summary of principles of NOLAD/MUKSEH
> Russell Hendel wrote:
>
>Rather than speculate on how to categorize these terms we can cite numerous
>examples from Yom Tov Chapter 2 which discusses the meaning of BORN:
>The following are prohibited
>
>A) 2:11--branches of wood that fell off the tree
>B) 2:3---A temple animal which developed a blemish(& is no longer holy)
>C) 2:7--fish in a house pond that requires netting (netting is permitted by
> Rambam on Yom Tov for food)
>D) 2:1--a bird that hatched
>
>In all these cases prior to Yom Tov, the objects in question--the branch on
>the tree, the temple animal that is holy, the uncaught fish, the unhatched
>bird---had a status that precluded me from thinking of using them (because
>they were attached to a tree, designated for the temple, uncaught or
>unhatched). Hence when they become usable on Yom Tov they are "BORN"--in
>other words I don't think of being able to use them till their STATUS
>and ACCESSIBILITY changes on YOM TOV.
>
>If we apply this to a fax we see that I did NOT think of the blank paper
>as being readable before YOM TOV. When the paper receives the fax its
>status changes--like a blemish on an animal or branch that falls--it is
>this changed status that makes me think of it as something readable--hence
>it is BORN and should be prohibited.
I think that there's an important difference, though: the removal of a
prohibition causes a change of halachic status (and only secondarily, of
accessibility); the removal of a practical obstacle causes only a change
of accessibility. And I would argue that it takes a change of halachic
status for an object to be considered Nolad.
Specifically: in each of the four cases you mention, the _only_ thing
preventing one from using the object for its usual purpose (eating or
kindling, as the case may be) is a prohibition (of cutting it down from
the tree on Yom Tov, etc.). The Gemara's expression for this (Shevuos
22b) is "a lion is crouching on top of it." The removal of that
prohibition confers a new status, and the creation of that new status
makes the object Nolad.
But in the case of a fax, there's no prohibition - no "lion" -
preventing one from "reading" a blank piece of paper, merely a practical
consideration. There is no change of status (or, at least, not of
halachic status) involved; therefore, it may well not be Nolad.
[In the case of an egg laid on Yom Tov: while it's true that there was
no prohibition preventing one from eating it (because one could have
slaughtered the hen), there is a change of halachic status caused by its
being laid. When the egg is still inside the chicken, it's considered a
part of the chicken, and therefore is halachically considered meat (in
that it requires salting, and that it may not be eaten with milk); once
it's laid, it doesn't require salting, and is pareve.]
Kol tuv y'all,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: F Smiles <fsmiles@...>
Subject: Answering Questions of Police on Shabbas
Shooting Attack on Shabbos raises questions?
How far does heter of "saving a life go"
Can you write down the attackers lisence plate?
Can you call police on phone to tell them you have information?
Can you refuse to answer questions because it is shabbas?
f smiles
www.613.org
Largest Archive of Jewish Sound on the net. 1000 hours and growing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:42:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Dagesh in yud
Eliyahu Shiffman asks:
>Does anyone know what the function is/was of a dagesh in a yud? And is
>my name correctly pronounced Eliyahu or Eliahu? (The yud has a dagesh
>in it.)
Irrespective of the dogesh in the yud, the name is pronounced eli-yohu
with a consonantal yud. The yud has a komats vowel.
The corresponding version in English is Elijah, where the j comes in
place of the yud in Hebrew.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:42:23 +0100
Subject: Michl
Yossi Geretz wrote:
>Yes, but the comparison of Michal to Michl (or Mechl) is an erroneous
>comparison since Michal is Lashon Kodesh (e.g. Michal bas Shaul), while
>Michl (or Mechl) is a Yiddishization of the Lashon Kodesh Michael.
I was merely pointing out that Michl was used a male name, not that it came
from the same source.
But I don't believe that the Yiddish name Michl is connected to Michoel.
Firstly the latter name was hardly used in Eastern Europe. But, more to the
point, Michl is the Yiddish equivalent of Yechiel, not of Michoel.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer <sbechhof@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:09:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Mol
Why in the first pasul of Devarim is the proper pronunciation: "Mol" and
note "Mul"?
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
<ygb@...>, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Subject: Name
>From: Sanford R. Silverstein <Sandyeye@...>
>Has anyone heard of the name AMISSA given to a girl. Is it a variation of the
>word for truth?
No. It doesn't appear in any books & concordances I have.
But in Yiddish, mis has the connotation of unfortunate as in "miskeit".
Maybe someone misinterpreted. :-)
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mechy Frankel <Michael.Frankel@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:08:06 -0400
Subject: Names
Y. Geretz wrote:
<Yes, but the comparison of Michal to Michl (or Mechl) is an erroneous
comparison since Michal is Lashon Kodesh (e.g. Michal bas Shaul), while
Michl (or Mechl) is a Yiddishization of the Lashon Kodesh Michael.>
gotta agree with that one.
yichiel mechel frankel W: (703) 325-1277)
<michael.frankel@...> H: (301) 593-3949)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J. Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 11:06:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Pronunciation - Extra Yod
> From: Chaim Wasserman <Chaimwass@...>
> Peretz Mett began his informative message with the words " The journal
> Mevakshei Toiro" which for me presents a facsinating problem. It there a
> "yod" (or "yud") in that word Torira? For, indeed, eastern European
> pronunciation would acknowledge that this is the correct pronunciation -
> as if there were a yod in the word.
>
> But, if that is the case what does one do with the word "goy" as in
> "shelo osani goy." That word has a yod following the cholam to be
> certain that it is pronounced as "goy".
>
> How, then, can one justify a pronunciuation of Toirah, Oilom, Goirol,
> Halochois, Dibrois, Moishe, Eloikim, Adoi-noi (that would have to be
> spelled aleph / dalet / yod for the oi sound / nun / and yod) where
> there is no yod in any of these words at the cholam. What is the
> halochoh when one adds a letter to a word during the reading of the
> Torah.
I am certainly no expert on the subject, but I can assure you that the
issue of the "correct" pronunciation of the vowel sounds (and, indeed,
the consonants) in our language is far from simple. As the writer must
be aware, among various Ashkenazim, the sound of the xolam ranges over
'ei' (Lithuanian) 'ow' (German) 'oy' (Polish, Russian) 'o' (American?),
not to speak of the variations within various groups of Yemenite Jews
and among the various Sefaradi communities. Who is to say which is
"correct"? Who can claim that "his" tradition is older, better, more
"authentic"?
One must also take into account the fact that the "Tiberian" system of
indicating vowels (commonly called 'niqqud' because of the use of dots)
is not the only system that we know of. There were Babylonian and
Palestinian systems (with fewer vowel signs) in use before the (8th?)
Century "naqdanim" of Tiberias invented the current system. Presumably
there were also various traditions of sounding the vowels and the
consonants in various places and at various times. A related issue, the
"correct" musical interpretation of the tropes (ta`ame ha-miqra), is
equally complex. Suffice it to say that there are many different
traditions for pronouncing and for chanting the holy texts. I don't know
of any clearcut evidence pointing to any one of these traditions being
more "correct" than any of the others.
Yosef Gilboa
P.S. There is, of course, the injunction "v'al titosh torat imecha"
which has been used in halachic discussions to suggest that one should
always follow his family traditions in such matters. In Israel, thanks
to the miracle of 'mizzug galuyot', things are not so simple, since
Hebrew is both the Holy Tongue and the language of our everyday speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:42:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Pronunciation - Extra Yod
It is certainly true that Eastern European pronuciation of the choilom
(or cheilom) means that the word goy has the same sounding vowel as
toiro; but I think Mr Wasserman is mistaken in assuming we have a yud
sound in our choilom. The vowel is a diphthong. On the contrary our
problem is that we are unable pronounce the yud in words like 'goy'
because the y sound is assimilated to the vowel -oi-. This is not a
unique phenomenon. Most people are unable to sound any yud which appears
after a tseirei. (Unless you argue that the yud after a tseirei is part
of the vowel, whereas the yud after a choilom is consonantal. But what
do you do with a yud after segoil - certainly not pronounced as in
vethechezeno.)
>How, then, can one justify a pronunciuation of Toirah, Oilom, Goirol,
>Halochois, Dibrois, Moishe, Eloikim, Adoi-noi (that would have to be
>spelled aleph / dalet / yod for the oi sound / nun / and yod) where
>there is no yod in any of these words at the cholam. What is the
>halochoh when one adds a letter to a word during the reading of the
>Torah.
As stated earlier, this poses no problem as the choilom sound does not
include a consonantal yud.
There is an issue though with the -noy at the end of the name ADNY which
many people nowadays pronounce as a choilom - incorrectly. Eastern
European custom is to pronounce this as a komats followed by a yud -
sorry but I can't make this clear in writing!
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Godick <shlomog@...>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:02:25 +0200
Subject: Pronunciation - Ribi and Rabi
The fate of the chirik in Polish pronunciation reminds me of something I
saw recently in the Sephardic liturgy:
"aneinu elaha d'ribi meir aneinu"
What is the grammatically correct form: "ribi" or "rabi"? Or is "ribi"
correct in Aramaic only, with "rabi" being correct for Hebrew? If
"ribi" is the correct pronunciation, how did the corrupted pronunciation
achieve nearly complete dominance in usage?
Any grammarians out there who can help me with this one?
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: I. Harvey Poch <af945@...>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Tefillin until Musaf
Although my own minhag is to not wear tefillin on Xol haMo'ed, many of
the mispallelim in our shul do. The prevailing minhag is to take the
tefillin off before Hallel on all days of Xol haMo'ed except for the one
day of Xol haMo'ed Pesach when the keri'as haTorah makes reference to
tefillin (usually the first day, I think). On this day only, and for that
reason only, tefillin are worn until after the Torah is put away.
I. Harvey Poch (8-)>
<af945@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:59:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: TETRAGRAMMATORN=New Existence; ELOKIM=Preserve Social Structure
I recently cited the distinction "TETRAGRAMMATON=God with Attribute of
Mercy" while "ELOKIM=God with attribute of Justice." Yitzchak Zlochower
in v29n84 citing verses such as Dt32:36 ("When God Judges his nation")--
criticized this distinction.
But this distinction (Mercy-Justice) is not my own but occurs frequently
in Talmudic literature. I cited it as a convenience. A more precise
explanation is given already by Rav Hirsch who formulates as follows:
ELOKIM denotes God in his capacity to preserve the present structure of
the world like ELOKIM=JUDGE who preserves the present social-civil
structures
The TETRAGRAMMATON from the ROOT HYH=To exist, denotes God in his
capacity to create new existences. Usually these new existences
counteract existing evil and hence show Gods mercy. In a verse like
Dt32:36 it denotes God creating a new punishment (to get people to
repent-so there is an aspect of mercy).
This formulation (NEW vs STRUCTURE corresponds somewhat to Yitzchaks'
own formulation (PERSONAL vs god Belonging to a nation).
Russell Jay Hendel; PHd ASA <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 29 Issue 2