Volume 31 Number 14
Produced: Mon Jan 24 6:41:10 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Churban Bais Sheni
[Chaim Shapiro]
Dr Louis Jacobs
[David Kaufmann]
Eiruv
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Ma'aser Kesafim
[Jeffrey Bock]
Meat & Dairy Wait Times
[Yisrael Medad]
P'thil T'kheileth
[A.J.Gilboa]
P'til T'chelet and T'vir
[Yehoshua Kahan]
Saying 'I like ham but God forbade me'
[Boruch Merzel]
Source of Phrase (chazak chazak vinischazek )
[Mordechai]
Time Zones, Stocks, and Shabbos
[Zev Sero]
Trop marks and stressed syllables
[Alexander Heppenheimer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:27:03 EST
Subject: Churban Bais Sheni
I am looking for the earliest reference to the famous explanation for
Churban Bais Sheni [destruction of the second Temple - Mod.](Sinas
Chinam) [hatred of fellow Jews for no reason - Mod.]. Was that
explanation available immediately following the Churban? Or was the
explanation an idea that developed over time?
How did whomever first explained the Churban in this way, know his
information to be fact? Was it Ruach hakodesh [form of prophecy -
Mod.]? Mesorah [tradition - Mod.]? An in depth look at the political
and social data from the Churban era?
Chaim Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kaufmann <kaufmann@...>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:31:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Dr Louis Jacobs
>From: Alexis Rosoff <alexis@...>
>Stephen Philips wrote:
>|> Rabbi Louis Jacobs . . . has
>|> written in various of his works that he does not believe that the
>|> Torah was given by Hashem word for word to Moshe. I would therefore
>|> hesitate to recommend any of his books, especially for someone with
>|> little knowledge of the Jewish religion.
>As a reader of Dr Jacobs' books and someone who had the privilege of
>hearing him...
>He does NOT deny the divine origin of Torah and Talmud; his works were
>written in response to scientific criticism of the Bible. Someone
>expecting heresy is not going to find it in Dr Jacobs' books.
In his book The Principles of Jewish Belief, an extensive excursus on
the Rambam's thirteen principles, he most definitely DOES deny the
Divine origin of Torah. He argues forcefully for multiple authorship and
claims that Ibn Ezra hinted at editorializing of Torah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:34 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Eiruv
The eiruv is not so simple, here are some problems:
1) Many Rishonim hold that reshut harabim [public domain - Mod.] is
determend by 16 amot width only, the 2nd condition of 600,000 is not
mentioned in the Talmud.
2) If the eiruv is so simple, why did Hazal cancel Shofar & Lulav on
Shabbat.
3) Sfaradim holding by the Beit Yosef cannot use an eiruv - only a closed
city (our yishuv is fenced & is considered a Beit Yosef eiruv)
4) Most places in Israel have an eiruv. However, there are places
without one, and visiters to these places are doomed to carry as usual -
in many cases they are so used to carry on Shabbat that they don't know
that it is the eiruv that permits it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Bock <rashbi@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:16:40 PST
Subject: Ma'aser Kesafim
I asked this question and received the following response from Rabbi
Reuven Lauffer at Ohr Somayach:
I have elected to have my employer withhold money from my paycheck
(before taxes are deducted) and placed in a retirement account
(401k). This money is then invested and can be withdrawn after
retirement.
My question is: should I put aside ma'aser on the money now, with the
intention of paying ma'aser only on the increase when I withdraw it?
Or, should I not tithe this money now but rather intend to put aside
full ma'aser on the fully-grown investment when I withdraw it?
RESPONSE:
There is no problem with waiting and taking off Ma'aser when the money
actually becomes due. However, you should make a note that none of that
money has been Ma'asered.
Best regards from Jerusalem,
Rabbi Reuven Lauffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 18:33:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Meat & Dairy Wait Times
I'm sure this has been discussed before but nevertheless, can anyone
direct me to some recent literature regarding the wait times between
meat and dairy, their various practicioners and any other relevant
customs. It could be a private posting too.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:41:24 -0800
Subject: Re: P'thil T'kheileth
> From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
> 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
Just to add a fine point -
Perets is correct in stating that tvir is disjunctive but, in the
widely accepted classification of the disjunctive t`amim, tvir is one
rank below tipha. Frequently, then, especially when the tvir is followed
directly by a tipha, it loses its "stopping power" (cf. pashta followed
directly by zaqef). This may be a fine point, but the use of "modern"
punctuation does not convey the subordinate nature of the tvir relative
to the tipha. All commas look alike.
In any case, Yehoshu`a Kahn's point is absolutely correct. There is
certainly no pause indicated between the word "tsitsit" and "kanaf". The
only major disjunctive before the silluq (sof-pasuq) is the tipha.
Yosef Gilboa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehoshua Kahan <orotzfat@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:29:15 +0200
Subject: P'til T'chelet and T'vir
Perets Mett was very generous in attributing my assertion that the trope
under "hakanaf" in B'midbar 15:38 is a "tvir" to a slip of the pen -
more like a slip of the mind - I just hummed/sang it to myself, and
wrote "t'vir" in full confidence! Thanks for the correction.
Which brings me to another point I've been wanted to broach. Yes, it is
true, "tvir" is a "mafsik" - a disjunctive trop. But, as far as I
recall learning, it is a low-level disjunctive, while a "tipcha" is a
high-level disjunctive. Thus, when compared to a "tipcha", a "tvir" is
effectively conjunctive. What I mean is this: nowadays, very few, if
any, ba'alei kriyah realize the various levels of disjunction and
conjunction in their reading by appropriate length pauses. At best, a
fine ba'al k'riyah will pause briefly for "etnachta", perhaps also, and
even more briefly, for "segol", "tipcha", "zakef". No one pauses for
"t'vir" because they trying to make it disjunctive. However, what DOES
happen is that, because of the manner in which the Ashkenazic traditions
sets the "t'vir" to music, it almost inevitably becomes the major pause
in its phrase, relegating the "tipcha" to second place at best. There
are examples of how this phrasing sets the meaning of a passuk on its
head in almost every passuk, ,but let me give the example which should
set any argument to rest:
In Parashat Nitzavim, the nations, upon surveying the wreckage of the
land, inquire why Hashem acted in such a fashion toward the land, and
ask (Devarim 29:23) ..."meh chori ha'af hagadol hazeh". The term "chori
af" - heat of the nose - is a standard expression of the Tanach
indicating anger. It is in "semichut" form, and "chori" is the lead
noun, which any subsequent adjective must match. How would one say
"great anger"? "chori af gadol", where we would utilize the trope the
keep the adjective - "gadol" - close to "af" - the lead noun, the one
being modified. And, in fact, that's what is done: "t'vir" under
"chori", "tipcha" under "hagadol", "silluk" under "hazeh". The phrasing
then should be: "meh chori ha'af hagadol (pause) hazeh", which
translates, literally, as "what is this great heat of the nose"
(meaning: "What's this great anger (about)?"). However, because we
(Ashkenazim, at least) sing "t'vir" long, the phrasing usually sounds
like this: "meh chori (pause generated by long "t'vir") ha'af hagadol
hazeh"! Which translates as "what is the heat of THIS GREAT NOSE!!"
Now, I know we are just now reading about Hashem's great arm, and next
Shabbat we'll read of Hashem's great voice, but "great nose"?
As mentioned, this is just one example of how I find myself driven crazy
by otherwise excellent ba'alei kriyah, who pause for the "t'vir" because
the music says so!
Rav Berachot,
Yehoshua Kahan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Boruch Merzel <BoJoM@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 14:54:40 EST
Subject: Re: Saying 'I like ham but God forbade me'
In replying to Rena Freeberg's inquiry as to why observant Jews do not
say aloud: "I like ham but G*d forbade Me" Mordecai <Phyllostac@...>
comments:
<< My problem with that explanation is that the teaching specifically
seems to say that a person should express this opinion vocally. It
doesn't say 'al Yachshov adam ....aval yachshov' (a person shouldn't
think this way, rather the other way), rather 'Al yomar adam...aval
yomar...' (a person shouldn't say...but should say...). The wording
seems to indicate that this is something that should be said - not
merely thought.>>
The word yomar is very often used to mean to "think", or to have intent,
in the sense of saying something to oneself. This is a very commmon
usage in the Talmud. The best known (and first) use of the word "ahmor"
(to say) in this sense is found in Exodus 2:14 where Moshe is challenged
by one of the 2 Jews (Dasan & Aviram) who were fighting: "Hal-hor'geni
atah OMER" . ..."Do you INTEND to kill me as you did the Egyptian?"
The rabbis of the talmud simply meant that our sole INTENT in abstaining
from non-kosher food should be to serve G*d's inscrutable will.
Boruch Merzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:26:43 EST
Subject: Source of Phrase (chazak chazak vinischazek )
Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@...> wrote -
<< While the Chazak chazak part does appear to be universal, I'm not
sure that the standing part is universal. >>
I believe that German - Jewish Congregations (e.g. Khal Adas Jeshurun
[KAJ] of Washington Heights, NYC) say only Chazak vinischazeik - not
chazak chazak - based on a verse in Samuel 2 , 10 : 9. Certified
'Yekkes' - please confirm. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:03:29 -0500
Subject: Re:Time Zones, Stocks, and Shabbos
Chaim <chaim@...> wrote:
>I'm living in Israel and trade USA stocks using a brokerage account in
>the USA. I've started opening stop-loss orders to sell which are Good
>'till Cancelled. My question is, do I have to cancel all my orders every
>Friday before Shabbos?
I don't see why. You're not causing a Jew to do work on Shabbat - for
him it isn't Shabbat. It seems to me to be much the same as asking a
Jew to do something for you after you've brought in Shabbat but before
he has done so, which AFAIK is permitted. And if it's OK to get a Jew
to do it, then it must surely be OK to have a goy do it!
The problem that some people raise in the opposite case (sending a fax
when it's not Shabbat for you but it is for the recipient) is that *you*
are doing the work, and the work is being done on Shabbat. My answer to
that is that this is exactly like setting a timer before Shabbat to do
work on Shabbat - if the work is considered to be performed in the
recipient's time zone then ipso facto you are not in fact doing the
work, the fax machine is, and the law follows Bet Hillel that `you are
not commanded that inanimate objects should rest' (i ata metzuve al
shevitat kelim).
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: Alexander Heppenheimer <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:16:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Trop marks and stressed syllables
In MJ 31:4, Bernard Horowitz asked:
<<Here is a question I have often wondered about. With the exception of
five trop symbols (Pashta, zarka, segol, tlisha ktana and tlisha gdola),
the location of the trop tells us which syllable is the stressed
syllable.
<snip>
My question is, why are these five different in this regard? Is there a
reason that these alone cannot be relied on for determining the proper
pronunciation of the word? >>
When I learned how to lain, it was explained to me as follows:
Pashta - resembles Kadma, so by putting Pashta always on the last letter
(specifically, on the leftmost edge of that letter), we can easily
differentiate them - which is important not only for the difference in
melody, but because a Pashta signifies a break in meaning from the next
word (comparable to a punctuation mark in English), while a Kadma tells
us that this word and the next word are connected syntactically.
Zarka - resembles a trop mark used in Tehillim, Mishlei, and Iyov,
called Tzinoris, which is a connector. Since Zarka is a separator, they
wanted to fully differentiate them. (There is actually another trop used
in those three books, called Tzinor, which is like Zarka in being a
separator and appearing on the last letter.)
Segol - if it could appear anywhere in the word, could possibly be
mistaken for the three dots that appear together when a letter with a
cholam vowel (a cholam chaser, that is - just the dot, without the
accompanying Vov) is followed by a letter with a Zakef Katan, which
looks like a colon.
Telisha Ketanah and Telisha Gedolah - in old manuscripts, were often
written without their "tails" - just as circles; so putting one at one
end of a word and the other at the other end helps differentiate
them. (Again, it makes for a syntactic difference as well, because
Telisha Gedolah is a separator and Telisha Ketanah is a connector.)
Kol tuv y'all,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 31 Issue 14
