Volume 38 Number 69
Produced: Sun Feb 23 17:03:31 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bialik
[Mark Steiner]
Kashrut Question
[Andy Goldfinger]
Lo Sisgodedu
[Mark Steiner]
Mishloach Manot
[Carl Singer]
Nun Hafuchah - Terminal Nun OVERTURNS meanings;Indicates Intensity
[Russell J Hendel]
Pasuk for Name
[Robert Israel]
Quote from the Rav
[Shlomo Pick]
Rav Ezra NaNavi
[Moshe Bach]
Shabbat Shalom
[Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:43:10 +0200
Subject: Re: Bialik
As for Bialik:
The meter of his poems is according to the Ashkenazic reading
tradition (when millions of people make a mistake, linguists call it a
"reading tradition"). Thus, the natural way to read his poem is:
ha-CHA-moh mey-ROYSH-ho i-LO-noys nis-TAL-koh etc.
This is exactly the meter (3/4) to which this poem was set to music
and is sung this way even in Israel (the meter, of course, not the
vowels).
"Haktikvah" is also sung in the "Ashkenazic" meter even in Israel"
KOL od ba-LAY-vav pe-NI-ma etc.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:14:21 -0500
Subject: Kashrut Question
Yitzchak Moran asks, in v38n63
> When folks were pioneering during the westward expansion of the US
> (and in other earlier times in history, presumably), and there isn't
> a kosher butcher along, what was done to ensure kosher meat? Did the
> pioneers bring along their own kosher animals which they then
> slaughtered themselves? Does anyone have any info?
If I remember correctly, Harry Golden, in one of his books, says that
American Indians referred to iteneratnt peddlers as "egg eaters." The
reason he gives is that most of the peddlers were Jewish, and they were
constantly looking for eggs to eat since they couldn't get kosher meat.
Apparently, a number of thes peddlers eventually settled down and opened
general stores, which turned into large Jewish owned department store
chains.
-- Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:40:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Lo Sisgodedu
<<Mark Steiner in v38n63 makes the following comments
>This "psak" on lo sisgodedu does not apply anywhere else
> but the Land of Israel.
Why? Rambam (Laws of Idolatry 12:14) makes it clear that the prohibition
of LO SISGODEDU(Dt14-01) applies to making two Bait Dins in ONE city
(Independent of Israel of not). In The Book of Commandments (Negative
Prohibition #45) Rambam also states this. >>
All I meant was that the specific "psak" on wearing tefillin on hol
hamoed is valid for the Land of Israel, not because of its primacy, but
because, as I wrote in my previous posting, there is only one "minhag"
here--since the "yishuv" was founding by three different groups
(disciples of the Vilna Gaon, chassidim, sefardim) who, whatever their
many disagreements in practice, happen to agree that tefillin are NOT to
be worn on Hol Hamoed. Consequently, it is strictly forbidden for a
visitor to don tefillin publicly during Hol Hamoed here--he should do it
(if at all) in his hotel room.
Obviously, the prohibition of lo sisgodedu itself applies
everywhere.
By the way, does anyone have information on the practice of a famous
rav to fall on his LEFT side during tahanun in the morning, despite his
wearing tefillin on that side, even if everybody else was doing the
opposite?
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 06:05:10 EST
Subject: Re: Mishloach Manot
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
I'm also on another Jewish list, and when I recently mentioned
that mishloach manot should be parve, because it's part of the
meal, there was great surprise. Can someone please give me
halachik backing.
From a practical standpoint mishloach manot that we've gotten from
individuals (as opposed to the "group" baskets) has always been labeled
-- but I recall getting fleishig (meat) items such as soup, etc., from
some rather pious and knowledgable people.
From the "group" perspective having on occasion helped buy for and / or
"stuff" the baskets -- meat was banned and all milchigs (dairy) was
required to be Cholov Yisraoel. -- Figuring that we'd never get it
right re: multiple meat hashgochas and there are some in the community
who would insist on Cholov Yisroael.
I, too, would be curious to hear an halachakic discussion.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:02:45 -0500
Subject: Nun Hafuchah - Terminal Nun OVERTURNS meanings;Indicates Intensity
Ben Katz answering Alex Heppenheimer in v38n65 continues the discussion
about the NUN HAFUCHAH and cites several learned studies. I have a
different approach which is presented on the Rashi website and
summarized below(With further details)
First: One strong source of Mesorah details are the marginal notes that
occur both on the side and bottom of good Chumashim. These marginal
notes contain no mention of the NUN hafuchah. Similarly, the codexes
that we rely on such as the Leningrad codex do not have the NUN
hafuchah. Therefore it would appear that there is no reason to believe
there was ever a NUN hafuchah and it would be preferable to reinterpret
Rashi IF that is possible.
My basis for reinterpretation of Rashi comes from a Rav Hirsch on
Ex21-18. The normal Hebrew word for dispute is YaReeVu but Ex21-18
contains YeReeVuN with a TERMINAL NUN. Rav Hirsch explains that a
TERMINAL NUN indicates an INTENSITY. Using the semantic-model approach I
advocated in my 1980 Tradition article on Peshat & Derash I would
summarize Rav Hirsch as follows: Ki YaReeVu means WHEN PEOPLE DISAGREE
while Ki YaReeVuN means WHEN PEOPLE FIGHT. Here, FIGHTING is considered
an intense form of DISAGREE and is indicated by the terminal NUN.
Other examples on NUN=INTENSE are presented on the Rashi website such as
ZIKARON (Memorial-Memory), GICHON (Raging rapids-Goring). Applying this
to Gn11-32 I would simply say that CHR means ANGER while CHARN means
INTENSE ANGER. So Terach who lived after the massive destructions of the
flood and Babel named his son after the INTENSE(NUN) ANGER that had come
to the world
We have one thing left: We simply must translate Rashis NUN HAFUCHAH as
the OVERTURNING NUN since the terminal NUN OVERTURNS the meaning of the
word and makes it more intense.
People frequently ask me YOU THINK ThAT IS PESHAT? WHO GAVE YOU THE
RIGHT TO REINTERPRET RASHI? WHAT IS BOTHERING YOU THAT YOU GIVE
TRANSLATIONS LIKE THIS?. The answer is simple: There is no Masoretic
ground to assume there was an upside down nun. Hence I think it
preferable to interpret HAFUCHAH as OVERTURNING (in function) rather
than OVERTURNING IN FORM(upside down).
Hope the above clarifies this important question
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/gn02-11a.htm
http://yahoo.groups.com/group/RashiYomi_Job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Pasuk for Name
> From: <soferim@...>
>> From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
>>Disturbingly, some combinations (samech-aleph, for example) do
>> not have a pasuk; hopefully, there are no names for such combinations.
>Unfortunately, there are people who cannot say a passuk for their names
>because of this--my daughter's name is samech-aleph-shin-aleph and we
>have yet to find any passuk for her to say. The Nachalat Shiva and the
>Ezer L'Yitchak list an additional 7 female name groups, all samech-aleph
>names, but no male samech-aleph names.
The book "Psok Li Shimkha" by Dov Rosen lists Tehillim 112:8: "Samukh
libo lo yira" (not a complete pasuk, though). It lists three male
samech-aleph names: Sava, Sira and Safra.
Robert Israel <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Pick <picksh@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:28:19 +0200
Subject: Quote from the Rav
On pages 187-188 in Dr. Arnold Lustiger's newest publication, Derashot
HaRav: Selected Lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, he relates the
following:
Maimonides in Moreh Nevukhim writes that an angel comes and wakes up the
Jew in the middle of the night and asks him:
Would you like to learn the entire Babylonian Talmud? The man replies,
"Of course." Jerusalem Talmud? Certainly. Safra, Sifri, Tosefta?
Definitely. All seven wisdoms? Yes. Do you really want all this? Of
course - who wouldn't? So wake up, turn on the light and start learning!
The Jew replies, "No, I am lazy."
I have not found this in the Guide, nor do I expect to find it there.
1. Can someone prove me wrong?
2. Is there any other source for this story or some similar one?
You can write me offline, but I presume that some readers may be
interested in the source so it may be worthwhile to answer online.
[Following the original submission, I received a second submission from
Shlomo. Mod]
I received the following answer to my enquiry:
I suspect that the Soloveitchik passage is a paraphrase on the Guide I
34, where HaRambam wrote:
"Now if you would awaken a man - even though he were the dullest of all
people - as one awakens a sleeping individual, and if you were to ask him
whether he desires at that moment to have knowledge of the heavenly
spheres...he would undoubtedly answer you in the affirmative" (Pines
translation, pp. 73-74).
At the end of this passage it turns out that the man is indeed too lazy
to make the effort the study requires.
Nor Pines, neither any other translator mention this is based on a
similar paragraph so I guess HaRambam did not rely on any source for this
story, yet maybe afterwards he was misquoted.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gitit Holzman
dept. of Jewish Thought
Ben-Gurion University
it sounds good to me. the Rav probably "translated" it into lithuanian
yeshiva terms for purposes of his drasha and audience.
yours
shlomo pick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Bach <moshe.bach@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:04:40 +0200
Subject: Rav Ezra NaNavi
Hi. To all those learning Daf Yomi, please note the last Tosafot on Sh'vuot
25a. Who is Rav Ezra HaNavi (the prophet)?
maury (moshe) bach
(+972) 4-865-5845, inet 8-465-5845
<mbach@...>, moshe.bach@intel.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:14:29 +0200
Subject: Re: Shabbat Shalom
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> stated:
In response to Gilads scholarly explanation of Shabbat Shalom
(v38n63) what would be wrong with a simple suggestion that Shabbat
is adjectival. Thus Shalom is an abbreviation of PEACE ONTO YOU
hence Shabbath Shalom would be an abbreviation of SHABBATH PEACE
ONTO YOU.
In answer to the question (although it was lacking a question mark), the
only thing wrong with this thought grammatically is that the word
shabbat is written with a patah under the bet, thus indicating
unambiguously that it is the possessive form, leading to the inescapable
translation of Sabbath of peace. In other words, two nouns.
Yisrael Dubitsky <yidubitsky@...> stated:
the critical edition of Bialik's poems (edited by Dan Miron, Tel
Aviv: Devir, 2000) at vol. 3, p. 181-185 has the poem and a short
bibliographical essay on it. The poem most definitely has
"shabbat shalom u-mevorakh."
This would have been even more helpful had Mr. Dubitsky identified the
name of the poem, since "Sefer Hashabbat," (c 1936, published 1958) also
published by Devir for Bialik's Agudat `Oneg Shabbat, and dedicated to
his memory, has Bialik's poem "Shabbat Hamalka" on p 351f, in which the
second stanza contains the lines "Shabbat shalom uverakha/Shabbat shalom
umenuha."
And sure enough, the word shabbat is vocalized patah shin, patah bet,
thav, indicating the nismakh, or possessive form.
The issue of the phrase was the subject of an article by N.
Berggreen in *Leshonenu La-Am* 24 (1972-73) 3-7 [see the reader
responses to that on pp. 146-148, esp. that of Prof. SY
Friedman], reprinted in LL 34 (1982-83) 144-148 [and responded to
in by T. Preschel in LL 35 (1983-84): 63].
I think that we would all appreciate a summary of this article and the
responses.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 38 Issue 69
