Volume 31 Number 07
Produced: Wed Jan 19 20:21:52 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Adnei Hasadeh
[Warren Burstein]
Fasting for a bad Dream
[Jeanette Friedman]
Modim
[Jack Gross]
Poskim
[Gershon Dubin]
P'thil T'kheileth
[Perets Mett]
Saying 'I like ham but God forbade me'
[Rena Freedenberg]
Ta`ame ha-miqra and stressed syllables
[A.J.Gilboa]
Torah leMoshe MiSinai - Argument by AUTHORITY vs by FACT
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Washing for the Shmorg (was Mezonos Rolls)
[Carl M. Sherer]
Wet food (was: Mayim Achronim)
[Zev Sero]
Whisky
[Steve White]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:40:32
Subject: Re: Adnei Hasadeh
Dov Teichman cites the Bartenura that the Adnei Hasadeh is attached to
the ground via its navel (I looked at the Bartenura when this discussion
started, it didn't sound like a Neanderthal to me, or like anything
else), and the Tiferet Yisrael that it is extinct. I don't see how the
Bartenura could be describing Neanderthals or any other simian or
hominid (or any animal, for that matter), extant or extinct - if there
ever was a creature attached to the ground through an umbilical cord it
is unknown today as it was to the Tiferet Yisrael.
The Bartenura also describes how the Adnei Hasadeh is hunted, and the
sound it makes when killed. Are we to understand that these facts were
recalled from the time before the Neanderthal became extinct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:13:03 EST
Subject: Fasting for a bad Dream
<< That is the only time, other than Yom Kippur and a bad dream that we
are allowed to fast on SHabbos. >>
If you have a nightmare you fast on Shabbos? I thought I knew alot, but
this is a new one on me. Can someone please explain?
Jeanette Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: 18 Jan 00 16:50:50 EST
Subject: Modim
1. A question on Modim deRabbanan, recited by cong. while the Sheliach
Tzibor [Leader, cantor] says "Modim ..." in repetition of tefillah:
Isn't the phrase "Ken techayyeinu (or tehonneinu) ...", as a *request*,
out of place in the bracha devoted to Hoddah [Acknowledgement /
Gratitute]. Has anyone seen the Q. raised in the literature?
2. An observation: The 2 places where the cong. chimes in with the
Sh.Tz. -- viz. the third and penult berachos, Kedushshah and Hodaah --
are the only 2 places where the subject is *we* (Nekaddesh, Modim
anachnu) rather than "Thou".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:24:31 -0500
Subject: Poskim
Carl Singer writes: <<I think it's also important to point out that at
least in Eretz Yisroel, and maybe in larger communities in chu"l
(outside of Israel) as well, where you daven has become more and more a
matter of convenience,>>
<<In fact, most of the shuls in my neighborhood do not have "shul
Rabbis" in the sense that Americans (at least) think of them.>>
Definitely the case in Flatbush ir hakodesh. I myself daven in
about six different shuls each week (not counting mincha in the office).
Which is "your shul" or "your rabbi"? Possibly one of those, possibly
none of the above.
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:12:25 +0000
Subject: P'thil T'kheileth
Yehoshua Kahan wrote (mail-jewish Vol. 30 #82 Digest):
>I, too, was bothered by breaking up the "semichut" relationship between
>"tzitzit" and "hakanaf". Then I looked carefully at the trop. The trop
>- a "tvir" under "v'nat'nu" (which connects with what follows) and a
>"tipcha" under "hakanaf" - seem to lead to the following translation:
>they will place upon the corner's taseel [major pause, as indicated by
>trop] a blue thread.
Undoubtedly a slip of the pen.
tvir is a ta'am hamafsik (a disjunctive trop); the commas are as
follows:
v'noth'nu, al tsitsith hakonof, p'thil t'kheileth
...tvir ...meir'kho tip'kho ...meir'kho siluk
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rena Freedenberg <free@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:35:39 +0200
Subject: Saying 'I like ham but God forbade me'
> With regard to the famous teaching of Rav Elazar ben Azaryah, brought in
> Rashi in the end of parshas Kedoshim (VaYikra 20:26) from the Sifra,
> etc., that a person should not say that Pork is disgusting to me -
> rather, I would like to eat it, but my father in heaven commanded me not
> to, which was recently brought up here...
>
> I have wondered why one doesn't hear of this being done nowadays, by
> gedolim and / or regular folks, e.g. when they pass a McDonald's (though
> one shouldn't tarry there perhaps, lest they inhale the aroma of
> 'treife'). I don't recall seeing / hearing it being done - either now or
> in past. Why is such a well - known teaching seemingly disregarded by
> many observant Jews?
Because this teaching does NOT mean that you must stand outside of every
McTreif and say the above sentence, it means that the preferred hashkafa
is to feel that you would otherwise wish to eat lobster/ham/whatever,
but that you only abstain because Hashem says so, not because it
wouldn't taste good, smell good, you don't think it's healthy, etc. In
other words, if we only do what WE in our finite thinking think is best,
then we might, chas v'sholom, come to think that we know better than
Hashem. If we say that "gee, that lobster smells wonderful" but we only
do what Hashem orders us to, then we are saying that we follow Hashem's
logic instead of our own.
Hope that explains it a bit better.
---Rena
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:36:30 -0800
Subject: Re: Ta`ame ha-miqra and stressed syllables
This issue is discussed in Mordechai Breuer's excellent book "Ta`ame
Ha-miqra". I will try to answer briefly.
The symbols for the five t`amim that you mention, plus the ta`am ytiv,
can be interpreted ambiguously since each one looks identical (or almost
so) to one of the other t`amim.
Pashta looks like qadma
ytiv looks like mahpach
the tlisha gdola and qtana look the same (except for the little tail
that was added by the printers to create a distinction - in the old
manuscripts, both tlishot are represented by a circle with no tail)
zarqa and sgol look identical to two t`amim that appear only in three of
the books of the tana"ch - 'iyov, mishle and thillim.
In all these pairs, the two t`amim are functionally distinct, i.e, one
is disjunctive (e.g., pashta, indicating a pause, and one is
conjunctive, e.g., qadma, indicating NO pause. In order to transmit the
correct masoretic phrasing, it is essential that this distiction be
preserved. This means that, for some of these t`amim, the additional
function of indicating the position of the stress is lost. Doubling
these t`amim, e.g., "tre pashtin", is a helpful device for giving us
both the identity of the ta`am and the stress information. Why some
excellent humashim, such as Breuer's edition, do this only for the
pashta but not for the tlishot, the zarqa or the sgol, is not clear to
me.
I should mention two more points -
In carefully edited humashim (e.g., Breuer, Qoren), the positions of the
t`amim ytiv, pashta, zarqa, sgol and the tlishot are not centered
directly above (or below) the letter but slightly to the right of the
first letter or slightly to the left of the last letter. This presumably
reminds the reader that he should not depend on the position of the
ta`am to give the stress information.
In some humashim (e.g., the Qoren Tana"ch), there are distinctive shapes
for pashta (thicker at the top) and qadma (thicker at the base), yetiv
(closed triangle) and mahpach (triangle open on the right), as an
additional aid to the reader. This may not be obvious in the reduced
formats but is quite clear in the full-sized tana"ch.
Yosef Gilboa`
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:21:40 EST
Subject: Torah leMoshe MiSinai - Argument by AUTHORITY vs by FACT
Russell Hendel suggests (v30#99) that his arguments are based on
facts. The problem I have with his approach is methodological. An
explanation has to fit ALL the facts and be consistent.
It is a fact that the Talmud says in Kiddushin 30a that the middle of
the Torah in letters is in fact not in the middle. Russell suggested
that each one of the cases has a purpose as he has shown from
Rashi. Well, Rashi uses Midrashim to explain the full & deficiency cases
and not the other way around. The Midrashic literature often starts with
an anomaly in the text to develop an idea. The Talmud states also (id.)
that the middle of the Torah in words is also off, and it is consistent
with the first statement. Russell suggests that it is the middle of
"double words," but he lacks Masoretic proofs that anyone in history
every explained it that way -- and it is inconsistent with the other
middle. The Talmud would have brought up this answer if is existed, and
therefore his finding that it happened to be in the middle of double
words is a coincidental. In fact the three Sifrei Torah in the Azara, as
previously posted in MJ from Masechet Sofrim, is consistent with my
explanation of Kiddushin 30a. The Talmud (id.) also says that the middle
of the Torah in psukim is also off, and it is consistent with the prior
two "middles." Russell did not address this one yet. R. Moshe ruled
based on this one the teshuvah which I quoted in my prior posting on
this issue. I (and others) have shown that many Gedolei Dor (luminaries)
of prior generations understood the Talmud in this way, and this is
understood to be the peshat of the Kiddushin 30a.
Russell suggests that we accept his Midrashim (or should I say pilpulim)
as facts. They are not.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:20:25 +0200
Subject: Washing for the Shmorg (was Mezonos Rolls)
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz writes:
> What I have done for some time is to wash before the smorg with the
> express intention that it is to be considered one meal with two
> different parts. As far as I know, you are still taking part in the
> seudas mitzvah and can bentch with the mezuman since that was your
> original intention. I consider it similar to a shul banquet where on
> washes, starts the meal, watches a video or hears speeches, then
> continues the meal and benches with the group.
What about the issue of hefsek in places (like New York) where the
shmorg is traditionally before the chupa? Unlike your shul banquet, not
only are you stopping your meal, you are also getting up and leaving the
place where you started eating and not immediately going to eat
elsewhere. To me that at least may be a hefsek that requires you to
bentch and then wash a second time after the chupa.
If you hold that this is not a hefsek, then what do you do when Erev
Pesach comes out on Shabbos and in order to get in a third meal with
motzi before zman achilas chometz (the time after which it is forbidden
to eat chametz on Erev Pesach - generally between 9:00 and 10:00 A.M. in
most cities), some people eat a meal, bentch, walk around the block and
wash and eat another meal. Do you hold that is not a hefsek and
therefore the bentching (and by extension the subsequent washing and
haMotzi) is a bracha l'vatola (an unnecessary blessing)? Unless you
daven at netz (sunrise) you are unlikely to have more than half an hour
between meals - probably about the time most chupas take.
Carl M. Sherer
mailto:<cmsherer@...> or mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son, Baruch Yosef ben
Adina Batya among the sick of Israel. Thank you very much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:46:04 -0500
Subject: Wet food (was: Mayim Achronim)
Anthony S Fiorino <fiorino_anthony@...> wrote:
>certainly, our custom today is not to wash on wet vegetables any other
>time of the year.
I'm not familiar with this `our custom' to which Eitan refers;
which communities have this custom of eating wet food (which is
usually eaten with the hands) without washing?
[I'll have to admit that all the places I've been in appear to be in
Eitan's communities, as I've never seen the custom to wash similar to
the washing for bread on wet vegetables. I'd be really interested to
hear of communities or groups that do so. Mod.]
Zev Sero Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day;
<zsero@...> set him on fire and he'll be warm for the
rest of his life. - Ankh-Morpork proverb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve White <StevenJ81@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:04:40 EST
Subject: Re: Whisky
In v 30 #91 Mark Steiner writes:
> Note that wine cannot nullify (mevatel) yayn nesekh in any amount
> (Avoda Zara 63)--so bitul can be applied only for whisky.
Well, no, it could applied to any beverage that is not classified as
wine. Which makes me wonder: Why do people seem to think that liqueurs
require 1:60 bitul instead of 1:6? I keep hearing that's why liqueurs
require kashrut supervision. Does anyone really think that Kahlua has
more than one part in six of grape ingredient?
Steven White
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 31 Issue 7