Volume 36 Number 79
Produced: Wed Jul 24 0:56:30 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
3rd Perek Of Eychah
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Additions to Oleinu,
[Seth Mandel]
Artcroll
[Idelle Rudman]
card operated locks
[Bernard Raab]
Carrying ID on Shabbos (2)
[Carl Singer, Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA)]
Fertility Drugs Mandatory?
[Gil Student]
Havdolah after Shabbos Chazon
[Alan Friedenberg]
Temperatures
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Travel Information Request: Brussels.
[Immanuel Burton]
A trop question
[Alfred Silberman]
Two bachelors in the same room
[Shlomo Godick]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 02:51:31 -0400
Subject: RE: 3rd Perek Of Eychah
Richard Schultz in v36n71 asks about the special tune for the 3rd
chapter of Aychah.
Here is what I know
* I have not heard a special tune. Rather every set of 3 verses
(beginning with the same letter) is read as ONE VERSE--(the end-verse
cantillation is changed to a ZAKEF or ETHNACH). All other cantillations
are preserved.
* I have noticed that chapters with small or repeating verses tend to
have customs of special cantillations. Here are a few examples -- The 8
repeated journeys in Behaalothechah are redd in the Shirah cantillation
-- the several dozen journeys in Masay are read in the Shirah
cantillation AND THEY ARE GROUPED IN GROUPS OF 2
-- The small verses in Eychah 3 are read as one verse. (GROUPS OF 3)
* My own opinion (without support in texts) is that an (incorrect)
custom arose with small or repeating verses (in short anything that
could cause boredom) to hasten the reading by combining verses or
making them sound more interesting.
I still follow all the above customs (Because I have found no source to
support my opinions). But if my theory is correct then we should NOT
follow the above customs since we have a clear law that all verses which
Moses did not divide we should not divide (and vice versa).
Therefore I would be very interested in historical informaion
confirming, denying or offering alternatives to the above
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rahsiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Mandel <sethm37@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:55:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Additions to Oleinu,
Actually, R. Mordechai, in old nusach Ashknaz Oleinu ended ul'ol'mei 'ad
timlokh b'khovod.
As to the question of R. Shalomo:
In old nusach Ashk'naz, long before the idea of saying the shir shel yom
had arisen, the shacharis service ended with Qaddish Tisqabbal, followed
by kappitel 83, followed by several psukim from T'hillim. The Mahzor
Vitri and other compositions by Rashi's talmidim list some 13-15 psukim
said this way after kappitel 83. At that time, Oleinu was not said by
the tzibbur, but by each individual before/as he left shul.
When Oleinu became part of the tzibbur's tefilla and started being
printed and with the disappearance of the saying of Chaper 83 every day,
printers nevertheless continued to print some of the psukim that had
been said as a vestigial appendage after Oleinu. Shir shel yom, being a
late addition, follows both of these in standard siddurim.
Some old communities (IIRC, Frankfurt and Vien) continued to say
kappitel 83 on some days, but originally it was said every day.
Seth Mandel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Idelle Rudman <rudman@...>
Subject: Artcroll
Have been following this thread, but this is my first opportunity to
respond. (Busy packing for sabbatical year in Jslm.)
Translation IS interpretation, and anyone thinking differently does not
have proper command of the original language of the text. Those of us
using Nechama Leibovitz studies on Parshat ha-Shavua know how she worked
to bring out the true sense of the text. She often cites
Buber-Rosenzweig in the original German as an example of translators
trying to find as true a meaning as possible. ArtScroll makes no such
claims. The introduction to each volume states clearly the source for
the interpretation, almost always Rashi. They have a valid right to
translate in this manner, and it is up to the reader to judge if that is
the most appropriate. However, that is only possible if the reader has
a means by which to judge.
Therefore, I suggest that any serious student stop complaining and
assemble a small library of translations. This library should also
include a good dictionary and a concordance, for finding other uses of a
word with the same root. Then there is a valid basis for comparison.
These tools can be used most effectively if they are accompanied by the
knowledge of Hebrew. I cannot remember any posting that discussed
knowledge of the language as a prerequisite for understanding the text.
That does not mean that translations do not have a place, they certainly
do. But a translation should be used as only one part of textual study.
Since much of Tanakh is written as poetry, this is especially
meaningful.
Shir ha-Shirim is an unusual case in point. There is a wonderful parable
told by the Dubno Magid. Some maskilim came to him to argue about the
literal meaning of this text versus the use allegory on the part of
chazal, who did not approve of this method of interpretation for any
other cannonized text. He told the following parable:
A man was going to a fair, and his wife asked him to buy a special
pot that she needed for cookng noodles. She told him to look for a
sieve. He returned with no pot. He explained that he looked for such a
pot, but was only shown one that was full of holes, so he refused to buy
it. His wife berated him, saying that by definition, a sieve is a pot
full of holes, and needs the holes for its function.
The Magid said that the same is true of Shir ha-Shirim. The true
meaning of the text IS the allegory. So that is the standard
translation. However, it is instructive to read Rav Kook and other
mystics, and note how they combined the allegorical with the literal
meaning, and were comfortable with both.
Idelle Rudman, MLS, MA (formerly Judaica Librarian of Touro College)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:30 -0400
Subject: Re: card operated locks
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
>While the completion of a circuit may be drabanan, there is also the
>issue of the light that turns on to indicate that the key has/has not
>been accepted. Some forms of light are considered by some drabanan
>(flourescents for example) but as far as I know, everyone agrees that
>incandecent bulbs are eish. I do not know if these lights are diodes,
>and if they are what the status of led lights is.
LED stands for "Light Emitting Diode" and these tiny lights in door
locks and many other devices are indeed diodes. If flourescent lights
are derabanan, then LED's would fit the same category since light is
derived from electron energy-level transitions in both cases. There is
an irony in making this analysis in this way, however: The light from a
fire (real "eish") comes from two sources: 1. light from energy-level
transitions in the burning material, and 2. thermal emission from the
heated gas and fuel (like glowing hot wood or coal). An incandescent
bulb provides light by source no. 2 alone, while the light from a
flourescent bulb or an LED is purely from source no. 1.
So what is eish if not actually fire? It appears that previous analyses
have focused on the element of heat, so that the incandecent bulb is
judged to be eish, while the other "cool" lights are judged to be asur
derabanan. If one focuses on the physical processes which produce the
visible radiation, however, then both could be judged to be d'oraisa
(biblical). But there is a another possibility: If eish is defined as
light derived from combustion, then neither incandescent, nor
flourescent, nor LED light would properly be d'oraisa.
Which is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:22:32 EDT
Subject: Carrying ID on Shabbos
This is not an halachik response.
There are various ID holders that you can wear (usually around your neck
or like a shoulder holster -- under your shirt / blouse.) Since the
last thing you want to do is loose your passport (for example) when out
of the country -- they are probably a worthwhile investment 7 days /
week.
In a similar vein -- I know several people who drive to shule erev
Shabbos and either lock their wallets in their car or place them
somewhere in the shule. Should one's car be stolen, or broken in to, or
the shule entered, the stolen wallet compounds the problem -- especially
in light of identify theft, etc. I have a wallet with a separate,
removal bifold for my drivers license and military ID. I leave the bulk
of my wallet at home over Shabbos.
Now where did I leave my car keys :)
Kol Tov
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA) <EStieglitz@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:41:53 -0400
Subject: RE: Carrying ID on Shabbos
Carl,
What type of holder allows one to halachically "wear" your ID on
Shabbat. I have a type of wallet for my passport that is worn around
the neck as you describe above, but I never imagined that it was
permissible to use this on Shabbat.
If these types of items are in fact permissible on Shabbat, what is one
allowed to place in them besides an ID? (i.e. keys, etc.)
/EJS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gil Student <gil_student@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:50:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Fertility Drugs Mandatory?
As a follow-up to my earlier post, R. David M. Feldman responded (via
his son Daniel) that he did not mean to imply that anyone has an
obligation to use fertility drugs. I discussed this with my LOR over
Shabbos and he does not think that anyone has an obligation to go beyond
natural means. This is even more-so considering the financial and
psychological expense that these procedures can entail.
Gil Student
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Friedenberg <elshpen@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Havdolah after Shabbos Chazon
We use beer, although a Rav at a local shule pointed out that you can
make Havdolah on grape juice and give it to a child to drink. (He did
state that the child should be old enough to know about the concept of a
bracha, but not old enough to understand the concepts behind the nine
days.) If need be, and there is no young child, you may drink the grape
juice yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:11:45 +0400
Subject: Temperatures
I just read that doctors have just shown that the average temperature of
humans is 98.2 degrees Fahrenheit and not the 98.6 degrees established
(mistakenly) by a doctor in 1868, and which came through unexamined for
over 130 years. (Examination has shown this was simply an error!)
Now, I know that there are certain Piskei Halachah regarding the
permissibility of taking medicine on Shabbat, and which specify certain
temperatures as justifying the taking of medicines.
Should this new information affect these Piskei Halachah?
Shmuel Himelstein
P.S. I always thought my average temperature was lower than normal. I'm
happy to learn I'm normal after all (at least in this particular aspect...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:19:31 +0100
Subject: Travel Information Request: Brussels.
All being well I will be in Brussels for four days on Chol Ha'Moed Succos
with a colleague.
Does anyone know of any communal/public Succahs in which we will be
able to eat at least some of our meals?
Many thanks for any information that anyone can provide.
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alfred Silberman <alfred.silberman@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:40:42 -0400
Subject: A trop question
I would like to find out the provenance of the following custom, if
anyone has any idea how it came about and how widespread it is. I assume
it is not universal.
In my circles (Chassidish Hungarian but I know it's more widespread than
that) the occurrence of a Munax followed by a Mahpakh or a Merekha
occassions a special way of singing the Munax which seems to convert it
from a Meshares (conjunctive accent) to a low level Mafsiq (sort of like
a Pazer or Telisha Gedolah).
A prominent case of this is in the next to last pasuq of the Leining of
Rosh Chodesh (Bamidbar 28:14) where people seem to sing along the word
Zoth.
BTW - There are 120 occurrences of the sequence Munax, Mahpakh and 37
instances of the sequence Munax, Merekha in the Torah. The first few are
at Bereishis 1:12, 2:3, 4:23, 4:25, 7:2, 11:6, 13:14, 18:10, 19:22,
20:6, 21:10, 26:8, 26:9. The conjunction Ki seems to be a good candidate
for this sequence when it has an accent.
Moshe Silberman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Godick <Shlomog@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:54:48 +0200
Subject: RE: Two bachelors in the same room
Shmuel Himelstein wrote: <<
For all those who question the propriety of having two bachelors sleep
in the same room, I have but one question: what do you think the
sleeping arrangements are in most Yeshivah dormitories (except those
which have three or more males in the same room)? >>
Interestingly, many (if not most) Israeli yeshivot have a policy of
three or more bachurim per room, for this very reason (in addition to
the economic considerations).
Shlomo Godick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 36 Issue 79
