Volume 34 Number 99
Produced: Mon Jul 2 17:16:40 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ein Navi Be`iro (2)
[Ira L. Jacobson, Shlomo B Abeles]
Islam is not idolatry
[Andy Goldfinger]
Nusach Sfard used in Israel vs. Outside
[Aliza Berger]
"Orthodox"
[A. Seinfeld]
Oyev, Ohev, Loshen HaKoydesh, Dray Kup lay grammarians, etc
[Shlomo B Abeles]
Poetic Interpretation of Prayer
[Russell Hendel]
Proper Accentuation
[Chaim Wasserman]
Renovating
[Miriam]
Salvation, Redemption and Deliverance
[Len Mansky]
Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah
[Shalom Kohn]
Tisha b'Av
[Yehoshua Berkowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:22:36 +0300
Subject: Re: Ein Navi Be`iro
Mark Steiner wrote in mail-jewish Vol. 34 #93 Digest:
>It is not impossible that the proverb, "ein navi be`iro" or whatever is
>actually a Medrash which was never written down in the collections of
>the Oral Law available.
I may have indeed come upon a Jewish source, II Kings 6:19. The
Malbim's commentary refers to this as not being the prophet's city. I
must say that I have a bit of difficulty understanding just what he
means.
Can someone add?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo B Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:49:40 +1000
Subject: Re: Ein Navi Be`iro
I have a sefer "Me'at Tseri" (by Rav Yosef Zvi Heilprin-Halpert z'l HYD
Rav of Shomkut, Rumania) who says that this saying is brought in Tshuvos
Chasam Sofer (CH.M. 22): "V'omru Chazal Ein Novi L'Iro".
He also quotes the sefer of R'Yosef Yaavetz - known as the chosid -
migolei Sfarad who brings this b'shem Chazal (Pirkei Ovos 3.15).
SHLOMO B ABELES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:09:07 -0400
Subject: Islam is not idolatry
Mike Gerver asks for information to send to the author of an article who
claimed Islam is idolatrous and that "Jews do not worship All-h."
[hyphen added].
Bostoner Chassidim have the custom of singing, at the Pesach Seder, a
(loose) translation of Echad Mi Yodayah into Arabic. It is called
"Wachad All-h" (Wachad in Arabic means "one"). On the transliterated
song sheets that the Bostoner Rebbe distribues, to the best of my
memory, All-h is spelled with a hyphen, indicating that this is a name
of G-d. Indeed, I believe that the word All-h is not a proper name, but
a cognate of E-l, which simply means G-d. {Could some Arabic scholar
confirm this?]. Hence, Jews do indeed worship to All-h.
-- Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aliza Berger <aliza@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:47:50 +0200
Subject: Nusach Sfard used in Israel vs. Outside
The thread about tunes reminds me of another question: Why, among modern
and Centrist Orthodox Ashkenazi people, does nusach sfard seem to be
more popular in Israel than nusach ashkenaz, while in the US it is the
other way round? (I can't speak for any other countries.) I have heard 2
explanations but wonder if anyone can add or elaborate. Or correct me if
I am wrong. (1) I don't remember this explanation very clearly, but it's
something about that more Hungarians moved to Israel than to elsewhere
(2) People picked this up from nusach achid in the Israeli army. This
doesn't seem so likely to me -- I think the traditions go back farther
than that.
Also, what are you supposed to do (e.g., what do you say for the first
sentence of kedusha) when the minyan is using a nusach that is not yours?
Aliza Berger
Technical Publications Department, Mercury Interactive
Tel. 972-3-539-9170 (internal extension: 2170)
e-mail: <aliza@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A. Seinfeld <aseinfeld@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:23:14 -0700
Subject: Re: "Orthodox"
Ortho = correct
dox = belief
The reform first used it sarcastically, as in "Oh, you're so Orthodox!" and
the traditionalists, said, "Well, yes, that's true..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo B Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:47:10 +1000
Subject: Oyev, Ohev, Loshen HaKoydesh, Dray Kup lay grammarians, etc
From: Andrew Klafter
> From: SBA <sba@...>
> <<From: Meylekh Viswanath <pviswanath@...>
> >Just wanted to point out that the standard Yiddish pronounciation of a
> >word like "oyheiv yisroel" is, indeed, "oyev yisroel."
>
> But we davven in Loshon Hakodesh and not in Yiddish...
No, <pviswanath@...> is correct.
1) We DON"T doven in Loshen HaKoydesh ....which refers to the Hebrew of
TANAKH, and not to the rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic found in our siddurim.
2) Loshen HaKoydesh is defined by its grammar and vocabulary-not its
pronunciation. Loshen HaKoydesh is no longer a spoken language.
.....it is inappropriate to call an authentic regional accent "incorrect."
3) OYEV is NOT a Yiddish word, it is a Hebrew word. However, native
Yiddish speakers would probably read OHEV in a way which sounds similar
to OYEV. ......There are plenty of other word pairs which are
homonyms or near antonyms in modern Hebrew
but not in Ashkenazi-Yiddish speaker's Hebrew.
4) There are certain things which the halakha requires very precise
pronunciation of words, e.g. Krias HaTorah, Krias Shema. Shemona Esrai
is not in the same category, so relax a little.
=============
I can't relax about this one. And whilst your pshetel about Loshon
Hakodesh may have merit (I am not completely convinced..), that is where
there may be a slight change of meaning in a word (I can't think of an
example at the moment).
But where the pronunciation comes out the exact opposite of what the
word is - and we are referring to Hashem - no way Jose...
To say on Hashem (CV) "oyev" amo yisroel - is very, very wrong. And
even more so when we are actually trying to say "oheiv" amo yisroel. (I
don't know if this is considered 'chiruf vegiduf" - but it definitely
should be corrected.)
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Poetic Interpretation of Prayer
Ira Jacobson in v34n88 continues the thread (with responses by me,
him, and Nachum) on how emphasis is achieved in Psalmic literature.
Ira basically asks "If Ps29:10 is translated as GOD SAT ENTRHONED
DURING THE FLOOD then shouldnt Ps29:11,have a parallel construction
of GOD WILL GIVE HIS PEOPLE STRENGTH".
I accept Iras position that Parallel structure is important in
understanding Psalms. But if Ira will look, this WHOLE PSALM (Not
one verse) is constructed in a way to create Emphasis. Here is my take
---
BRING TO GOD -- sons of the might -- BRING TO GOD honor and strength
Gods Voice is on the WATER--God roared--(IT IS) GOD! on the many WATERs
(IT IS) GODS VOICE with strength (IT IS) GODS VOICE with splendor
(IT IS) GODS VOICE that shatters cedars; God shattered the Lebanite cedars
---
The whole Psalm continues this way. Notice the CONTINUAL use of
REPETITIVE phrases and the continual use of placing God syntactically
first in the verse (It could have just said SONS OF THE MIGHTY BRING
TO GOD HONOR & STRENGTH or GOD SHATTERED THE LEBANITE CEDARS WITH
HIS VOICE WHICH IS STRONG AND SPLENDID.) It is this breakup of ordinary
sentences into repeating fragments that assures us that a translation
with an emphasis on (IT IS) GOD is the intention of the Psalmist.
The cantillations also break up Ps29:11 that way: IT IS GOD: He will
give his people strength.
Finally besides the argument of parallel style, and cantillations
we can use Iras own example which supports my translation grammatically
Compare that VAYAYSHEV HASHEM BAMABUL would be translated
as GOD SAT ENTRHONED BY THE FLOOD. But a reversal of normal VERB-SUBJECT
order--HASHEM LAMABUL YASHAV--justifies a translation of (IT IS) GOD
WHO SAT ENTHRONED AT THE FLOOD.
In summary these 3 items together -- (a) verb-subject order (b)
cantillations (c) breakup of sentences with repetitive phrases --
that justifies a translation with an emphasis (IT IS) GOD
In passing, Leona Kroll recently mentioned how no one learns Nach
anymore. I was privileged not only to learn Nach (at Yeshiva Flatbush)
but I was fortunate to learn Nach from Rabbi Amnon Haramati(who is
still alive) who always emphasized and taught us the poetic component
of Nachian passages.
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D.;A.S.A.
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/mj.htm VISIT MY MAIL JEWISH ARCHIVES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Wasserman <Chaimwass@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:07:13 EDT
Subject: Proper Accentuation
<< One can infer that in 1877 it was still common for Polish Ashkenazim
to sing this particular song with correct Sephardi
accentuation. Somewhere between then and 1965, the Ashkenazim almost
entirely dropped that accentuation. >>
This conclusion is not compelling. One may also convincingly say that
Abraham Baer - a German Ashkenazi - "cleaned up" the tune opting for
correct grammatical application of the words to the tune. Much like
modern Israeli chazzanim and choral directors do today.
Ashkenazic pronunciations, Rav Henkin reminded us, are "damaged" and
"imperfect". Part of pronunciation, of course, is accentuation
Chaim Wasserman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Miriam <Danmim@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:08:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Renovating
Is there a makor that suggest that when renovating a home one cannot
close up an existing window?
Miriam
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Len Mansky <Len613@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:38:28 EDT
Subject: Salvation, Redemption and Deliverance
The terms, g'ulah and y'shuah, generally translated as redemption and
salvation, are both used hundreds of times in the Tanakh as well as many
times in the tefillah. The Amidah has separate blessings for each.
Redemption conventionally means in exchange for compensation, or release
from captivity or other obligation. Salvation means being saved from
danger or destruction.
I would appreciate elaboration, and differentiation, of these terms
(plus the related term, delverance) in Jewish philosophy.
Todah,
Len Mansky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Kohn <skohn@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:14:33 -0500
Subject: Shemini Atzeret and the Sukkah
Without having researched the subject in the secondary literature, and
as someone who follows the custom of not eating in the Sukkah on Shmini
Atzeret, here is the analysis I once previously offered:
1. The Gemarah's statement that we sit in the Sukkah and not make a
bracha is notable because it is a different rule than the usual safekah
d'yoma [doubt of days], where we do make a bracha (e.g., such as kiddush
on the seocnd day of Yom Tov). In the latter circumstance, as with
other rabbinical rules (e.g. Purim Megillah etc.) we can say
"ve'tzivanu" [and G-d commanded us] on the basis of the rule that G-d
commanded us to listen to the rabbis. The fact, therefore, that the
rabbis chose not to require a bracha to sit in the Sukkah on Shmini
Atzeret is therefore instructive that this mitzvah is not like the usual
"doubt of the day" mitzvot. Why not? I favor the answer, given by
certain posters citing the Targum, that Shmini Atzeret is a time to
return into the home, and therefore it is inconsistent to sit in the
Sukkah. This is also the idea in the medrash that unlike the 70
sacrificed bullocks during the rest of Sukkot for the other nations, the
single bullock sacrifice on Shmini Atzeret is a private celebration
between Hashem and Israel. Making a break as to Shmini Atzeret is
therefore the core of that holiday.
2. How do we reconcile the gemarah? Probably in terms of the gemarah's
own question of whether sitting in the Sukkah is ba'al tosif [adding to
the commandments], and its response that people sometime sit in a sukkah
other than on Sukkot because it is pleasant to do so. In our climates,
and in current social practice, people do not sit in sukkot as a general
rule. Thus, we can say that the prohibition of ba'al tosif would apply
today if we sat in a Sukkah, so the gemara's conclusion would not be
binding. This reconciliation would allow us to observe the custom of
not sitting in the sukkah, which is commended by the considerations in
the previous paragraph.
3. There is more to this from a kabbalistic standpoint, in that Sukkot
is the holiday of the galut [exile] (the shechina is present in the
sukkah, as we are exiled from our homes). The protypical Jew of the
galut is Yaakov, who was successful during his exiles with Laban and in
Egypt. Shimini Atzeret is also the day of coming into the home,
symbolizing the redemption from Galut. It is also the day of Yaakov's
bris, inasmuch as he was born on the first day of Sukkot -- i.e., the
redemption from galut is the day on which the galut Jew, Yaakov, entered
into the covenant. Given this, we can understand the reluctance of the
Chassidic masters to sit in the sukkah, because it undermines hopes for
the geulah (redemption).
4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, may the geulah be hastened for all of
us, including those who sit in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeret....
SLK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehoshua Berkowitz <RYehoshua@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:52:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Tisha b'Av
I would be curious to hear how other shuls are handling this year's
Tisha b' Av concerns, as the fast begins on Motzei Shabbat.
Are the Rabbanim asking members to bring their sneakers in before
shabbat? Are they encouraging everyone to eat shalosh seudot at home
and then return to shul to daven maariv? Will there be a beak between
maariv and the reading of eicha to give everyone a chance to get to
shul?
If your shul has already come up with some guidelines, I am sure others
would like to hear what they are and your reaction to them. Perhaps you
have a better solution to the various concerns and problems.
Yehoshua Berkowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 34 Issue 99