Volume 29 Number 79
Produced: Mon Sep 6 10:28:28 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues (2)
[Deborah Wenger, Micha Berger]
Dikduk: Rule of Nasog Achor (2)
[Josh Jacobson, Dr. A.J. Gilboa]
Eye for Eye
[Jonathan E. Schiff]
Fundamentals of Faith
[Ken G. Miller]
Grammar Question about a Possuq (3)
[Rick Turkel, Joseph Geretz, Dr. A.J. Gilboa]
L'David Oril v'Yishi
[Yisrael Medad]
Previous Generations
[Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Deborah Wenger <dwenger@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 99 12:55:57 -0400
Subject: 'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues
Re Mordechai's posting of various minhagim for making a "Mi Sheberach"
for cholim: I was once in a very large shul, where, when it came time to
insert the names of the cholim, the person making the Mi Sheberach would
stop and everyone would call out the names of their cholim. I was just
interested to know whether this is done anywhere else, and what the
source of the minhag is.
Shana Tova,
Deborah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:01:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues
I noticed to that the dynamic of Mi Shebeirach changed. It used to be a
means for a minyan to express their worry about someone close to
them. Now, with the advance of communications, it's more about the unity
of the Jewish people. I don't think this shift is necessarily a bad
thing, but it is a real change in what Mi Shebeirach means to us.
One idea that may whittle down the list to the point where people might
actually stay quiet. One is not permitted to make requests in Shabbos
davening, which is why we don't say the middle 13 b'rachos of the normal
Amidah on Shabbos. R' YB Soloveitchik explains that Mi Shebeirach is
except from this rule ONLY if the sick person is in a life-threatening
situation.
So, before you give the gabbai that name, think to yourself: Would I
drive this person to a hospital to get immediate help? If the answer is
"No", the Rav wouldn't permit a Mi Shebeirach either.
PS: Thanks to a number of volunteers, my Friday night siddur has been promoted
from beta to 1st Edition. It can be found at
http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml
The text of the tephillos are a reconstruction of R' YB Soloveitchik's custom,
but the commentary is my own.
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 3-Sep-99: Shishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
<micha@...> A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 32b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Jacobson <JRJ4859@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:24:43 EDT
Subject: Re: Dikduk: Rule of Nasog Achor
>Friday evening I noticed that in the first birkat Keri'at shema of
>ma'ariv, in the verse "uma'avir yom u-meivi lailah," the word "u-MEI-vi"
>is mile'eil. (That's how it appears in the following Siddurim: Rinat
>Yisrael, Tikun Meir, and Artscroll). Could so explain me why?
> Aryeh (in the galut)
This phenomenon is called "the retraction of the accent" or, in Hebrew,
"nasog akhor."
In classical Hebrew, it is inelegant to have two stressed syllables in
a row. Therefore, if a word ending with a stressed syllable is followed
by a word beginning with a stressed syllable, the stress pattern of the
first word may be altered: the stress is shifted back by one (full)
syllable. as in:
u-MEY-vi LAY-la (instead of u-mey-VI LAY-la)
ham-MO-tsi LE-khem
e-LO-hey KHE-sef
etc.
-Josh Jacobson
[Similar responses received from:
Eliezer Appleton <eappleto@...>
Rick Turkel <rturkel@...>
as well as very similar response from Aryeh Gilboa wich is included
immediately below. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. A.J. Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 21:12:57 +0300
Subject: Re: Dikduk: Rule of Nasog Achor
Shalom Arye (ba-gola),
The phenomenon, quite general in classical Hebrew, is called "nasog
axor" (x=het), i.e., "back off". This can occur when two words that are
tied together would create a "clash" of stressed syllables, i.e., when
the first is accented on the ultimate syllable and the second - on the
FIRST syllable. Then, most frequently, the accent on the first word is
pushed back to the penultimate syllable. An example that jumps to mind
is "va-yomer Elohim yhi or VAY-hi OR". The usual accentuation would
create a clash - vay-HI OR, hence the unusual accentuation to avoid it.
"v-la-xoshech QA-ra LAY-la" is another example. But there are hundreds,
nay thousands of examples in the tanach and the tfilla.
Shana Tova.
Yosef
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan E. Schiff <Jschiff139@...>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:48:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Eye for Eye
I have a question. I have seen many commentaries, including those here
that refer to the so-called law of retaliation that interpret this as
creating an action for damages in tort. I didn't seriously question
that (not being a scholar) until I saw something that puzzled me.
The Code of Hammurabi, has similar provisions, although much more
detailed. I am pasting in just a few of the relevant verses:
"195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken."
My questions are (assuming this translation is accurate), is this too a
tort damages remedy couched in poetic terms as has been asserted is the
meaning of the Biblical text? Is there a connection between the two
sources but with a changed meaning in the Biblical text. Reading the
English, it does appear that it is supposed to be taken literally. Why
would the Biblical text be worded similarly if it is meant to denote
something very different?
Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this?
Jonathan E. Schiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken G. Miller <kgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:38:49 -0400
Subject: re: Fundamentals of Faith
In MJ 29:76, Yitzchok Zlochower wrote: <<< Resurrection is, at best, only
hinted at in the torah, but is a necessary article of belief. Without
resurrection of the dead, G-D's supervision of the world could not be truly
considered just. Those who suffered and died young never had the chance to
develop their potential in this world. The benefits that they may have in
the world of souls can not erase this fundamental injustice. Only by
bringing them back in this physical world under the more ideal conditions
that will ultimately exist can they truly grow, and only then will justice
be fully served. >>>
Sorry, but I just don't see the logic here. How do we know how much
potential each individual has? How dare we accuse G-d of being unjust when
young people die? It is enough that the Articles of Belief (by whatever
fomulation one prefers) includes a provision for some kind of reward and
punishment. Why does it need to specify details of that reward?
And if the Articles of Belief do include those details, then why is it not
mentioned in the Torah more explicitly? Mr. Zlochower's answer is that <<<
This idea of resurrection and the nature of the torah obligations of
resurrected people is too shadowy and paradoxical a state for the torah to
dwell on. The torah is meant as a guide for flesh and blood people with all
their built in emotions and urges. >>>
This is extremely difficult to understand in light of how the Torah *does*
attempt to describe the universe's creation, with all its shadowy paradoxes.
Why should the universe's end be any different?
Have a good year,
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Turkel <rturkel@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Grammar Question about a Possuq
Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...> asked:
>In "Ki Tavo", when talking about bringing the first fruits and giving
>them to the priest, the possuq begins:
>
>"weleQAH hakoHEN haTEna' ...". The "correct" grammar should be:
>
>"weleQAH hakoHEN eth haTEna' ...". No commentators say anything about
>it. Does anyone have an explanation?
Not a good one, but this is hardly a hapax legomenon (one-time
occurrence) in Tanakh; there are dozens, probably hundreds, of examples
of violated rules of diqduq throughout. An example that is inyana
deyoma: in Psalms 27 (Ledavid H' 'ori...), pasuq 5: "besuko" has two
problems, (1) it is written with a he' instead of a vav; and, to my mind
a far greater problem, (2) the "proper" form should be "besukato." Did
David Hamelekh flunk Diqduq 101? :-)
Just my NIS 0.085-worth.
Please allow me the luxury of using this opportunity to ask
forgiveness of anyone I may have offended with something I wrote, and to
wish the entire mail.jewish community and their families a ketiva
vechatima tova, a tzom qal, and a chag sameach.
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
<rturkel@...>)oh.us| | \ ) |/ \ ein |navi| be|iro\__) |
<rturkel@...> / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano rani | u jamu pada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:13:14 -0400
Subject: Grammar Question about a Possuq
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be a Dikduk (grammar) expert. However I had
the following thought. Maybe someone can confirm or disprove this.
the word Es serves to emphasize the article which it precedes. Thus,
both haTena and Es haTena mean 'the basket', however Es haTenah places a
bit more emphasis. (I compare this to English where we have two forms of
article identification, 'a basket' and 'the basket'. In Lashon Kodesh,
we have three forms, Tenah - a basket, haTenah - the basket, and Es
haTena - THE basket.)
Perhaps, since the Bikurim (first fruits) are the Ikar (primary
importance) and the basket is the Tafel (lesser importance - the basket
simply serves as a container for the Bikurim), the Pasuk specifically
uses haTena, rather than Es haTenah, in order to place less emphasis on
the basket.
Kol Tuv,
Kesiva V'Chasima Tova,
Yossi Geretz
(<jgeretz@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. A.J. Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 01:55:53 +0300
Subject: Re: Grammar Question about a Possuq
"V-laqax ha-kohen ha-tene" is unexceptional and is therefore not noted
as an exception by the commentators. The use of "et" consistently before
a direct object is perhaps the norm in the majority of cases but counter
examples abound in the Tanach. I might add that David Ben-Gurion made a
mighty effort to erase the use of "et" from modern Hebrew in this
grammatical context.
Remember, grammatical "rules" are nothing more than a post facto
attempt to analyze the workings of a language. If a "rule" covers 90% of
cases, it is generally accepted as a reasonably good description of the
way things are. This does not give us the right to insist that the 10%
of cases that fell outside the "rule" must be erroneous. It is our
grammar that is imperfect in its description of the language not t'other
way round.
Just think of the second section of qri'at shma`: v-natati mtar artschem
b-`ito yore u-malqosh. Why not "ET mtar artschem"?
Or, in ki tavo if you prefer: 28:12 "la-tet mtar artscha b-`ito" etc.
etc. etc. and hudreds of other examples.
Shana Tova.
Yosef Gilboa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 20:50:59 +0300
Subject: L'David Oril v'Yishi
Re: Sid Gordon who wrote -
>I feel that those who determined that L'david should be said twice a day
>and not three times had a reason for doing so, and we should not be so
>quick to "cover all bases" by saying it at shacharit, mincha, and
>maariv. Does anyone have any comments on this question?
Yes, I do. Obviously the Chazan has not said it at Mincha if he recites
it at Ma'ariv so he's not saying it thrice. The congregant, if he's
recited it at Mincha will also not repeat, so he's not said it thrice.
So what's the problem?
[I think the problem is when you combine different days where you do
different customs, e.g.:
Sunday - Ma'ariv
Monday - Mincha
Tuesday - Ma'ariv
So on the halachic day that goes from Sunday Ma'ariv to Monday Mincha
you have said L'David three times, and on the halachic day that goes
from Monday Ma'ariv to Tuesday Mincha you only say it once. Mod]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <Joelirich@...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:05:10 EDT
Subject: Re: Previous Generations
<<
Dr. Meir Shinnar writes that "My father's rav, who was a dayan from Austria
and later came to America, complained about what he called the am
aratzim (ignorami) who thought the normal activities of life - going to
the opera and going to the beach - were assur." I find this statement
coming from a rav and dayan to be most perplexing. In view of the large
number of written sources who say just that, how would a rav and dayan
slander so many rabbonim by calling them "am aratzim"?
Levi Reisman >>
I'd be interested in seeing the written sources. I'm reminded of a
Yeshiva student who told me that the issur of going mixed swimming was
being in the same water as a woman (which to me meant you could never
swim in the ocean:-)). There are many prohibitions in Judaism and some
of them may occur with greater or less frequency at the beach or at the
opera, but keep in mind that it is those prohibitions to be concerned
about, not the act of being at the beach or the opera (unless you
include the beach and the opera as being a complete waste of time and
prohibited under the omnibus don't waste time rule - of course this is a
very gray area)
Ketiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 29 Issue 79