Volume 32 Number 26
Produced: Mon May 15 6:29:34 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Each word divine (2)
[Shaun Jackson, Josh Backon]
The Famous Minchat Shai on "Corrections of the Sages"
[Russell Hendel]
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Nachum versus Nochum (2)
[A.J.Gilboa, Jack Gross]
Nachum vs. Nochum
[A.J.Gilboa]
R. Ganzfried's Grammar
[Yisrael Medad]
Why we are strict on 2nd day of Yom Tov
[Russell Hendel]
Words in the Torah
[Al Silberman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shaun Jackson <shaunj@...>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:24:31 +1000
Subject: Re: Each word divine
In a book put out by the Orthodox forum 'Modern Scholarship in the Study
of Torah' reference is made by Dr B Levy that a few rabbinic writers
have suggested that people other then Moshe contributed to the
production of the Torah. In the footnotes he refers to the following
examples: Jacob ben Asher Baal ha-Turim to Vayikra 1:1, Hayim ibn Alter,
Or Ha-Hayyim to Bamidbar 33:2 and passages in Peirushei ha-Torah
le-Rabbi Yehudah he-Hasid which were censored with recommendations that
they be burnt by Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, 4.
It would be interesting to know exactly what these sources say and how
they interpret the Rambam's position. Does anyone know?
Shaun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <BACKON@...>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:11 +0300
Subject: Re: Each word divine
Regarding Rashi's comment (Genesis 18:22) quoting Breshit Rabba, see the
Siftei Chachamim on Rashi's statement: "ein ha'kavana chalila she'hosifu
..." [Heaven forbid to consider that Chazal changed the words..]. I
believe the Mizrachi (commentary) quotes something similar.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 22:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: The Famous Minchat Shai on "Corrections of the Sages"
Moshe Rudner asks about the phrase "Tikkun Sofrim" (Literally "Fixed by
the sages") which implies that Chazal corrected Torah texts. He brings
one example (cited by Rashi) where it says that "Abraham still stood
before God" while the text really means "God still stood before
Abraham". This is an example of a "Correction of the sages".
This has been discussed in the past on Mail Jewish.A very good source is
the Minchat Shai on Zecahria 2:12
>And in the explanation of the meaning "Correction of the sages" there
>are those who say that the men of the great assembly corrected the
>text. And superficially this also appears from the Midrash Yelamdaynu.
>This is also what Rabbi Nathan wrote in the ARUCH under the word CAVED....
>and this also appears to be the opinion of the Midrash Rabbah in its
>commentary on BOH (in Shmoth)...And the commentary MATNOT CEHUNAH bring
>this commentary on Genesis Rabbah Chapter 49
>
>And this explanation (that people changed the text) is not correct.
>And God forbid we should say this. But rather we can use the explanation
>supplied by the Rashbah, HALICOTH OLAM, YFAY TOAR, and Mizrachi. Their
>explanation is that the sages researched all of Tnach and found 18 verses
>which SAY one thing (eg Abraham still stood before God) but the real
>meaning seems to be the opposite (eg God still stood before Abraham)
>
>AND IT WAS THE TEXT ITSELF (the BIBLE) THAT SWITCHED LANGUAGES IN ORDER
>TO BE POLITE
Russell Jay Hendel; phd ASA <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:57:32 EDT
Subject: Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
Yosef Gilboa (v32n17) days:
<<It is possible that his deviations from the grammar of standard modern
Hebrew in the Qitzur derive from the innovative and "non-standard"
Hebrew of the Talmudic sources as well as of the posqim. To this day, we
say shlosha (or shalosh) rgalim, kos rvi`i (or rvi`it), based on
"non-standard" postbiblical Hebrew grammar.>>
I would like first to emphasize that I did not say that the author of
the "Kitzur" did not know Hebrew or erred in the Hebrew, but rather that
the book "Kitzur Shulcha Aruch" has many Hebrew errors, which could have
come from several sources. I also pointed out that they are being
corrected in new editions such as the one printed by Mosad Harav Kook.
The examples cited above such as "regel" or "kos" are known to accept
both the M and F genders (see Even Shushan and Gur who listed both the
"standard" and the "nonstandard" Hebrew of all sources including that of
the posqim), and I did not count such cases as errors -- they are
not. However I encountered the following cases in page 110 of the
Kitzur, Hebrew Publishing Company-Hilchot Chanuka, and similar error
appear in many previous editions; they copied the errors from each
other. "Layilah achat" (139:5) instead of "layilah echad," "layilah
rishonah" (139:6) instead of "layilah rishon." Laylah is only M
according to Gur and Even Shoshan. "Yihiye lo menorah" (139:5) instead
of "tihiye lo menorah." Menorah is only F according to Gur and Even
Shoshan. "Ve'yitof ha'sha'avah" (139:9) instead of "ve'titof
ha'sha'ava." Sha'avah is only F according to Gur and Even Shoshan. These
are but a few examples, not the entire list.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 13:27:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Nachum versus Nochum
> From: Daniel Katsman <hannah@...>
> I. Balbin wrote:
> Generally an unaccented
> syllable preceding a het takes a long vowel (kamats), since the het
> cannot take the dagesh that would follow a short vowel.
While it is true that het does not accept a dagesh, the preceding
unaccented syllable may have a patah. "ha-hodesh ha-ze lachem ..." is
one familiar example that comes to mind but here are thousands of other
examples. (In this respect, het is differs from other so-called guttural
consonants in Hebrew.)
The paradigm for nahum (with patah) is illustrated in the familiar
"shlosh esre middot" - "el rahum v-hannun". Note that in "hannun", the
initial het has a patah and it is followed by a nun with a dagesh hazaq.
In "rahum", however, the resh still has a patah, although the het has no
dagesh. "Rahum" and "hanun" with qamatz are also correct forms and they
appear in the Even-Shoshan dictionary. With patah, the meaning is
"source of (or master of) mercy or grace". With qamatz, it is the
passive form, meaning the object or recipient of mercy or grace. Carried
over to the "nahum" issue, the form with patah means "source of
comfort", the form with qamatz would mean "comforted one".
While the name Nohum may be an "Ashkenazic invention", it is certainly
far from an erroneous Yiddish reading of a patah as a qamatz. Clearly it
is a grammatical re-interpretation of the name Nahum, so as to make it
more appropriate for modest people who might feel uncomfortable about
using one of the attributes of God as their name.
> Nonetheless, Hanokh Yalon, who vocalized the Albeck mishnayot, considers
> Nohum with a kamats to be an Ashkenazic invention, in the same way that
> the words "tonis" (ta'anit) or "omud" (ammud) developed a kamats in
> Yiddish to replace the original pattah. (See Introduction to Seder
> Zera'im, page 21.)
> Daniel Katsman
> Petah Tikva
Yosef Gilboa
Rehovot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:32:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Nachum versus Nochum
Daniel Katsman wrote: Although Nahum in Tanakh is written
with a pattah (the one time the name
appears), this may be an irregular form.
Not at all. Consider the adjective Rahum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 19:35:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Nachum vs. Nochum
My teacher, (a Litvak and a careful grammarian) R. Nahum Bronznick,
writes his name with a qamatz, notwithstanding the fact that the only
occurrences in the Tanach are with a patah. I believe his reasoning is
that Nahum, like Hanun, means the Source of comfort or the Source of
mercy, whereas, spelled with a qamatz, the meaning is "the object of
comfort" or "the object of mercy", namely, in the passive voice. Since
it is more appropriate for us ordinary humans to hope to be the
comforted ones but have no pretensions about being the Source of all
comfort, we change the biblical spelling accordingly. Of course, in
Sefardic pronunciation, we hear no difference, but in Ashkenazic
pronunciation, it then becomes Nohum instead of Nahum.
Yosef Gilboa
Rehovot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 15:16:02 +0200
Subject: R. Ganzfried's Grammar
> It is
>possible that his deviations from the grammar of standard modern Hebrew
>in the Qitzur derive from the innovative and "non-standard" Hebrew of
>the Talmudic sources as well as of the posqim. To this day, we say
>shlosha (or shalosh) rgalim, kos rvi`i (or rvi`it), based on
>"non-standard" postbiblical Hebrew grammar.
>Yosef Gilboa
>Rehovot
who are the "we" who thus say?
but in any case, once you write it down, the mistakes and errors shouldn't
be there.
Yisrael Medad
www.imw.org.il
ISRAEL
Tel.: 972-2-6236425 | Fax: 972-2-6236426
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:58:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Why we are strict on 2nd day of Yom Tov
Ed Norin asks in Mail Jewish Volume 32 number 18
<< The last day of Passover is only a Rabbinic Yom Tov in our day of a fix
calendar. There is also the general rule of suffiq (questions) on a
Rabbinic mitzvah, we should go lenient. If that is true, why do we wait
as late to end the eighth day of Passover as we wait to end Shabbot?
Shouldn't we end this day about 20 minutes earlier? >>
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question
"Why do we say blessings on the 2nd day of Yom Tov (since it is doubtful
and we should not say blessings when we have a doubt).
The talmud answers that Chazal deliberately gave "Treatment as if it had
certain Biblical status" to the 2nd day of Yom Tov "in order that people
should not make fun of it".
I believe this answer would apply to Ed's question also
Russell Jay Hendel; PHd ASA; <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Al Silberman <alfred.silberman@...>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 09:49:10 -0400
Subject: Words in the Torah
I am presenting the following data on the number of words in each Parsha
because I don't know how easily available it is.
I have computed the number of words in the Torah using two totally
independent methods. Several years ago I generated a database - based on
Davka's Judaica Library - which has each word in Tanakh tagged with its
numerical sequence from the start of Bereishis. However, this database
did not agree with the number given by Even-Shoshan in his Concordance.
Since I did not have the database used for that computation I could not
determine where the discrepancies were.
I recently obtained the electronic rendition of the Leningrad Codex
(BHS). This version was very thoroughly reviewed and is an electronic
reproduction of the written version. (While there are some questions
regarding this - it is this version which I have in electronic form.) I
manipulated this database to provide me with a similar database of words
tagged with its numerical sequence.
Both of these databases assume that words joined by a maqaph are
different words.
Comparing these two electronic versions I ended up with six (6)
differences between them. Analyzing these differences resulted in the
following reasons for the discrepancy:
1. I had accidentally deleted a word from the Torah in my database
(Et of Et Ye`ush in Bereishis 36 : 5 part of a Qerei / Kethiv).
2. BHS has the name Tzurishadday as two words instead of one in two
places
(Bamidbar 2 : 12 and Bamidbar 10 : 19).
3. BHS has the name Pedahtzur as two words instead of one in two places
(Bamidbar 7 : 54 and Bamidbar 10 : 23).
4. BHS has the word HalShem as two words instead of one in Devarim 32 :
6.
All other words and counts were in agreement between these two totally
independent databases.
I have available a text file which contains every word from the eBHS on
a separate line along with its tagged word number. The words are in the
special character coding used in the electronic version and includes all
vowels and accent signs. This can be imported into Excel or other
spreadsheet program for any desired manipulations. Anyone interested can
request it from me and I can make it available in ZIP form.
I would be grateful if someone can supply me with the differences that
exist between this eBHS and the Torahs as they are prevalently written
today (especially differences in the Accents).
These are the results - (for the Torahs prevalent today):
Total number of words = 79,980
Bereishith 20,614
Shemoth 16,714
VayYiqra' 11,950
Bemidbar 16,408
Devarim 14,294
The Parsha breakdown is as follows (giving sequence number of the first
word of the Parsha):
Bereishith 1
Noax 1,932
Lekh 3,793
VayYeira' 5,480
XayYei Sarah 7,565
Toldoth 8,967
VayYeitzei' 10,399
VayYishlax 12,421
VayYeishev 14,397
MiqQeitz 15,955
VayYigash 17,977
Vayxi 19,457
Shemoth 20,615 1
Va'eira' 22,379 1,765
Bo' 24,127 3,513
Beshalax 25,782 5,168
Yithro 27,463 6,849
Mishpatim 28,568 7,954
Terumah 30,030 9,416
Tetzaveh 31,175 10,561
Ki Thisa' 32,587 11,973
VayYaqheil 34,589 13,975
Pequdeiy 36,147 15,533
VayYiqra' 37,329 1
Tzav 39,002 1,674
Shemini 40,355 3,027
Tazri'a 41,593 4,265
Metzora` 42,603 5,275
'axrei 43,877 6,549
Qedoshim 45,047 7,719
'emor 45,915 8,587
Behar 47,529 10,201
Bexiqothay 48,266 10,938
Bemidbar 49,279 1
Naso' 51,102 1,824
Behalothekha 53,366 4,088
Shelax 55,206 5,928
Qorax 56,746 7,468
Xuqath 58,155 8,877
Balaq 59,400 10,122
Pinxas 60,855 11,577
Mattoth 62,742 13,464
Mas`eiy 64,226 14,948
Devarim 65,687 1
Va'ethxanan 67,235 1,549
`eiqev 69,113 3,427
Re'eih 70,860 5,174
Shoftim 72,792 7,106
Ki Thetzei' 74,315 8,629
Ki Thavo' 75,897 10,211
Nitzavim 77,644 11,958
VayYeilekh 78,301 12,615
Ha'azinu 78,854 13,168
Berakha 79,468 13,782
Since the total number of words is even, the middle is composed of words
39,990 and 39,991. These are in VayYiqra 8:15. The words are Yatzaq and
the following El.
It is possible that words connected by maqaph are to be counted as one
word. It is easy to calculate the total number of words and the middle
on this basis using the electronic BHS database. However, I do not have
a list of differences between the Leningrad Codex as represented in the
eBHS and the current prevalent usage so I cannot easily determine this
at present.
Moshe Silberman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 26
