Volume 38 Number 23
Produced: Tue Jan 7 6:09:35 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Baby Naming
[Batya Medad]
Cooking for Shabbat
[Carl Singer]
Heimish?
[Louise Miller]
List of Tzedaka Catagories
[Batya Medad]
Morphing letters (2)
[Robert Tolchin, Ira L. Jacobson]
Rashi's gravesite
[Harold Greenberg]
serious MO speakers wanted
[Mordechai Horowitz]
Signs and unilateral statements
[Carl Singer]
Standing for Chassen and Kalah
[Ari Y. Weintraub]
Transliterations
[Louise Miller]
Two questions about Musaf
[Ezriel Krumbein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 06:50:52 +0200
Subject: Re: Baby Naming
I would appreciate any information, sources, or perspective on
"baby naming"; in particular on the custom of naming babies after
other people. Some specific questions I have in mind include:
When naming a
The Ashkenaz custom is to name after dead people, but one must be
careful if the death was early or particularly tragic. There are many
horrific stories of "history repeating itself." My neighbor's brother
was named after an uncle killed at the age of 44 in the Holocaust. Her
brother was killed in an army accident at the age of 22, and another
brother named his son with the same name. Not long ago that young man
at the age of 22 was killed in a freak accident. There are many stories
like that.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:56:01 EST
Subject: Re: Cooking for Shabbat
From: Sidney Gottesman <sidneyg@...>
In the course of a response to Russell Hendel, Anonymous writes,
"a pot can be put up right before Shabbos, to cook on Shabbos, if
it is completely raw".
Expressing no opinion on the underlying discussion re: Nolad,
unless I have misunderstood the coment, I find it at odds with
Shimirat Shabbat Chilchata Chapter 1 Paragraph 63.
I was waiting from someone with more authority to respond to the initial
posting -- but the initial posting re: food -- needs some clarification.
There is the standard of achilos drusah -- food cooked to the point that
a fugitive (on the lam) would eat it. That is the food needs to be at
least to this point prior to Shabbos.
Others hold that you CAN put raw meat into the chulent right before
Shabbos based on the premise that noone will be eating it until the next
day.
Carl Singer
To: <mail-jewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <daniel@...> (Louise Miller)
Subject: Heimish?
OK, I have a question for the New Yorkers on the list. I have been
reading the Jewish Press off and on for many years, and I have seen
something very recently that puzzles me.
In ads for companies such as car services (ie taxi companies,) they
describe their drivers as "heimish."
Heimish means "home-like" in the nice meaning of "makes you feel at
home." I have heard of shuls described as heimish, restaurants
described as heimish, but people?
Is this being used as a new code word for "frum?" (religiously
observant.)
Louise Miller
La Jolla, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 06:41:33 +0200
Subject: Re: List of Tzedaka Catagories
The list of categories could go on --
No mention of any support of "yishuv haartz" in any form, even MDA,
ZAKA, Yad Sarah, Ezer Metzion, etc. those totally pikuach nefesh. (You
can leave out the "political" where you see it, but even before you get
to the Torani, there are some very worthy types of charities in Israel.)
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Tolchin <tolchin@...>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:06:08 -0500
Subject: Morphing letters
The interchangability of alef, heh, vav and yud that Ira quotes the
Radaq as having noted has to do with an attribute of Semitic languages,
which include Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as Arabic.
This attribute is very formalized in Arabic. There is a letter called
"alif maksura", which means "tied up alef" (notice the shoresh [root]
'knot' in there--in Hebrew it's "kesher"). This alif maksura is a
strange creature. It looks very much like the final form of the Arabic
letter "ya" which is equivalent to the Hebrew yud, except that it does
not have the two dots that the ya has. It only appears at the end of
words. However, when a suffix is added to a word that ends in alif
maksura, the alif maksura disappears and a ya appears in its place.
Here's an example in Arabic: the word "ila" (spelled: alif / lam/ alif
maksura) means to/towards, just like the Hebrew "el" (spelled: alef /
lamed). If one wants to say "to us", which requires adding the suffix
"na" (equivalent to the Hebrew "nu"), the word becomes "ilayna"
(spelled: alif / lam / ya / nin / alif).
So, right there is an example of an interchange between alefs and yuds,
notice also that what is an alef in Arabic (the 'na' ending for first
person plural) is a vav in Hebrew (the 'nu' ending).
This same sort of interchange happens in Hebrew, but in Hebrew many of
the same words that in Arabic have alif maksura changing to ya are heh
changing to yud. Consider, for example, the verb "ra'ah" (resh / alef /
heh) meaning "to see". To make the past tense, it is necessary to add
suffixes ("ti", "ta", "nu", and "oo"). The heh becomes a yud, so that,
for example, "I saw" is "ra'eetee" (spelled: resh / alef / yud / tav /
yud). The same happens with other verbs ending with heh.
Incidentally, in Arabic "I saw" is "ra'aytu" (spelled: ra / alif / ya /
ta / waw), and the root is "ra'a" (spelled ra / alif / alif maksura).
Put this all together, and you have illustrations of a tendency of
Semitic languages to interchange the alef, yud, heh, and vav.
I don't know whether the Radaq was thinking of it in this way. It is
possible that he just perceived a pattern of such interchanges.
Regarding the letter ain, I can't imagine how it would be interchanged
with these other letters. The ain has a distinct guttural sound in all
these languages (except modern Hebrew that chose to overlook it and
Ashkenazi Hebrew which lost it due to extended presence in countries
where that sound was never heard). But ain and alef are interchangeable
in Yiddish, which is a whole new subject...
>>I am wondering if anyone has an idea as to why "Hadad" is spelled >>in
two different ways in the very same pasuk, once "Hadad" and >>once
"Adad" - even if in Hebrew alef, hey, ayin can be >>interchangeable,
isnt it more than a bit strange to change the >>spelling, [especially of
a NAME which would logically seem to defy >>kri and ktiv and such
issues], intra-pasuk!? [the pasuk is in >>Melachim I, 11/17.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 07:39:24 +0200
Subject: Re: Morphing letters
At 22:06 04/01/03 -0500, Robert Tolchin stated:
But ain and alef are interchangeable in Yiddish, which is a
whole new subject..
As I understand it, the `ayin and 'alef are used in Yiddish as
replacements for the (segol) and (patah or qamatz), respectively. They
are thus not at all interchangeable.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harold Greenberg <harold.greenberg@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:48:20 +0200
Subject: Rashi's gravesite
Based on the Harvard Students' Guide which states that Rashi is buried
in Worms, Germany, I visited the town. The Tourist Office had numerous
posters with big magen davids on them posted around the town,
recommending a visit to the oldest Jewish cemetery in Europe and Rashi's
Yeshiva. At the cemetery I did not find Rashi's grave - rather, the
grave of Meir of Rothenberg. At Rashi's Yeshiva (see Encyclopedia
Judaica - volume 16, page 644) there is a museum with a very
knowledgeable non-Jewish staff - I was told that Rashi's grave is not
known.
Zvi Greenberg
Eilat, Israel
<harold.greenberg@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Horowitz <mordechai@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:58:28 -0800
Subject: serious MO speakers wanted
My Rabbi asked me to think of a list of good MO speakers we could bring
in as a scholar in residence.. I'm looking for speakers who could
emphasize the idea to a community that being MO does not mean not being
committed to halacha. Any suggestions for good speakers (if you have
contact information or know app what they charge that would be helpful
too)
Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:22:54 EST
Subject: Re: Signs and unilateral statements
From: Reuven Miller <millerr@...>
I think it is a lot simpler in the shul/yeshiva/mikvah.
It is a precondition that you accept when you come it. It you
don't agree you are not obligated to enter. Your coming in is
your agreement that you "mafkir" what ever you leave there.
I disagree -- it's a unilateral statement -- not an agreement.
The sign would need to be posted outside the building and, possibly, if
time is of the essence, I would need to be informed ahead of time to I
could choose alternatives. If my son's yeshiva one morning posts a
sign, for example, that children may not bring their own snacks, but
must buy them from the (new) school canteen. It's not a done deal -- my
son showing up in school (or my allowing him to go to school) doesn't
imply a tacit agreement. It may take time for me to evaluate the
situation, seek alternatives, etc.
Similarly, I show up in shule on Shabbos morning and there's a sign
inside that proclaims that anyone davening in this shule agrees to
________ fill in the blank
(examples: donate money to Carl Singer, not send their children to XYZ
school, not patronize the local bagel store.) There's no two-sided
agreement.
Take a more time critical issue -- a woman showing up at a mikveh. A
sign stating that any left behind items will be discarded the next
morning, may be unreasonable to many and they are not agreeing -- they
are being coerced and have not time to seek an alternative.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Y. Weintraub <aweintra@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 01:40:36 -0500
Subject: RE: Standing for Chassen and Kalah
I found a short related discussion in the sefer "Minhag Yisroel Torah"
(R' Yosef Lewy, New York, 1997) (Chelek 4:Page 214). In discussing the
sheva brochos said during the shivas y'mei mishteh (seven festive days
following the wedding), he brings down the minhag to say the brochos
while seated, and adds (translation mine):
"Although the birkas chasanim should be said while standing...the
brochos said during the meal are said while seated so as not to trouble
the guests [who are presumably seated]. There are those that say (yesh
omrim) that the action of the assembled depends upon the chosson and
kallah - at the chuppah everyone stands in honor of the chosson and
kallah who are standing, and therefore at the meal we sit in honor of
the chosson and kallah who are seated. This is quoted in the S'dei
Chemed (Ma'areches Brochos, Siman 3 Os 10), who queries the custom in
his city that everyone sits while the chosson and kallah stand..."
Although this does not relate directly to the question of standing for
the bride and groom as they walk to the chuppa (which I did not see
discussed in this sefer in a quick skim over the relevant sections), it
is nevertheless relevant.
First, we see that R' Elazar Teitz's theory that one should stand at the
time of the sheva brachos during the chuppah does have a source in the
sforim, although his reasoning of davar shebikdusha is not used as the
reason (perhaps a separate thread discussing the need to stand for davar
shebikdusha would be appropriate at this time). Furthermore, we see that
even in the time of the Sdei Chemed, people would sit at the chuppah, so
to say that chairs are an American invention is possibly erroneous (in
fact, based on this, one could probably say that standing for the
chuppah is an Israeli/19-20th century Europe invention and we in America
have been "machzir davar l'yoshno" (returned the practice to its
original manner)).
KT,
Ari
To: <mail-jewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <daniel@...> (Louise Miller)
Subject: Re: Transliterations
My favorite transliteration is how my sister's name comes out in
Spanish. "Jane"
Give up? Chana.
Louise Miller
La Jolla, (pronounced Lah Hoya,) CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:35:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Two questions about Musaf
>From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
> 1) Is one permitted to daven Musaf before sunrise, as one may do with
>Shaharit if one is in a hurry to get to work, set out on a journey, etc?
> 2) A second question, that actually happened to me a while ago: If
>one arrives in shul late on a Rosh Hodesh ... should one daven Musaf
>with a minyan and Shaharit be-yehidut
I have not found a source that discusses davening Musaf before sunrise.
It would seem to me that it would follow the same rules as Shacharis.
Meaning, it would depend on the urgency to daven then and the ability to
daven later. Clearly one does not have to wait for zman Musaf since we
never do that. But I do not see why one should not be required to wait
for neitz even though they did not do that for Shacharis. Unless of
course the same needs apply.
The second question on what to do if the minyan is davening Musaf and
you have yet to daven Shacharis. Igros Moshe Volume 4 section 68
suggests to achieve tefilah bitzibur that one daven Shacharis with the
minyan when they are saying Musaf and Musaf with the chazzan during
chazoras haShatz. The Beir Yitzchak allows one to switch the order of
Musaf and Shacharis to daven with the tzibur. This is a common issue in
the US where women tend to arrive at shul late and may be up to
Shacharis when the minyan is saying Musaf. Both sources are quoted in
Priority in Prayer by Rabbi Feinhandler chapter 14 item 4 footnotes 7,8.
A sefer which I highly recommend for its clarity and covering these
issues. I also found the same info in Tefila KiHalacha by Rabbi
Yitzchak Yaakov Fuchs.chapter 3 section 59 notes 132-134. According to
the Ram"a O"H 286:1 if the order of Shacharis and Musaf were reversed
one is still yotzey. See also Eshai Yisroel (I'm not sure how to spell
the author's last name in English) chapter 36 section 87 notes 203-205
for more sources.
By the way what is the origin of the term "Terah minyanim" ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 38 Issue 23
