Volume 41 Number 16 Produced: Mon Nov 10 6:30:59 US/Eastern 2003 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: ACH=MOST OF || Methodology in Biblical exegesis [Russell J Hendel] Breast self-exam [Anonymous] Changing text of Biblical verses [Akiva Miller] Children in Restaurants [Batya Medad] Frum Jews in College [Natan Berry] Mammography far from foolproof [c.halevi] Minhag to wear long Peyos [Gil Student] Wearing Pants [Israel Caspi] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:46:34 -0500 Subject: ACH=MOST OF || Methodology in Biblical exegesis I was really excited about Anonymous's post concerning my thesis that the Hebrew Biblical word ACH means MOST OF as in USUALLY (most of the time), PROBABLY (most of the time), FREQUENTLY (Most of the time) or simply MOST OF. Anonymous allowed me to solve a difficult Rashi that had been bothering me for 5 years. First some sources for those who are just tuning in. My article on Pshat and Derash (URL below) contains the basic idea that ACH means USUALLY with 3 examples. A basic thesis of my article was that Biblical translation could be enhanced by using culturally comparable examples in English. Like Anonymous I was curious whether this principle applied to all verses. There are 41-42 Torah instances of ACH---with 17 Rashis on them. Statistics and examples of translations may be found on the Rashi website at the 2nd URL below. Allow me now to cite my original 3 examples and the 3 verses that Anonymous considers counter-examples (1) MOST OF Noach remained in the ark (RASHI: MOST OF Noach but not the part of him bit off by the lion for serving his dinner late). (2) You will be happy MOST OF YOM TOV (RASHI: MOST OF Yom Tov, but not on the first night). (3) Avimelech, after seeing Isaac PLAYING with Rivkah, whom he claimed was his sister, cynically commented - You claimed she was your sister, but she is PROBABLY your wife. (4) The following animals are USUALLY not eaten because they have only one of the signs of cloven hoofs or chewing the cud (RASHI/SIFRE/RAMBAM--USUALLY Not eaten....but eg an unkosher pig that was born (in a Jews presence) to a kosher cow COULD (theoretically) be eaten..similarly a kosher animal given birth to by a non-kosher animal cannot be eaten). Upon reviewing Anonymous' examples I found that in most verses ACH precedes the verb (and hence denotes usually or most of). However in the following 2 verses ACH precedes the noun and this changes the emphasis somewhat though the basic idea is the same: (5) USUALLY it is the Sabbaths that you observe (RASHI: USUALLY...observe Sabbath not the Temple; So eg you dont construct the Temple on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath Sacrifice can be brought in the Temple even on Sabbath--thus for the Sabbath sacrifice we observe the Temple laws not the Sabbath laws(hence the word USUALLY)). (6) Recall the Jews did not believe that God could deliver Israel to them. The Jews started to rebel.Joshua and Calev said God could deliver it. They continued...USUALLY your rebellions are not against God (TORAH SHLAYMAH(paraphrased): That is: if you must rebel, rebel against Moses and Aaron not God...most rebellions in the wilderness were against Moses/Aaron not God) Note how example 5 sheds light on a complex Rashi-Ramban controversy on the nuances of Ach. I could say more but I would like to take up the general question brought up by Anonymous: If Russell (or anyone) brings forward a new English translation, then how do we test it? Does one counterexample refute it? If the example usually works should it be accepted (especially when the traditional translations in English dont work)? In my article I ironically point out that the translation ACH=USUALLY is consistent with Talmudic derash and makes them the simple meaning of the text while the traditional translation ACH=ONLY is inconsistent with derash. But is consistency with Derash a criteria for good translation. I think all these questions sorely deserve a thread Too often I see on mail-jewish and elsewhere a good idea shot down because of one counter-example EVEN THOUGH the idea is correct and solves more problems than it causes. (There was some cynicism in Anonymous' post--->Or does ACH=USUALLY only work MOST OF THE TIME<. Actually it works all the time but EVEN if it worked most of the time I think there would be validity to it). Respectfully Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anonymous Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:14:05 -0500 Subject: Breast self-exam Rise Goldstein writes: > there is NO convincing scientific evidence that breast self-exam > reduces breast cancer mortality. Despite the lack of evidence > supporting it, health care providers, at least in the U.S., continue to > "push" self-exam on women as if it were a strongly validated life-saving > measure. As well, certain breast cancer survivors continue to offer > emotionally wrenching testimonials to the same effect. > > (Please note that my remark here is in no way meant, G-d forbid, to > denigrate the experience of breast cancer survivors. However, what MAY > be true in a limited number of individual cases does not necessarily > translate into appropriate across-the-board recommendations for "good > practice.") Dr. Goldstein is right that there is no published evidence that monthly self-examination reduces mortality. However, as the old chicken-soup joke goes, "it couldn't hurt." I am one of those "limited individual cases" where self-examination made all the difference. My local mikvah has instructions for self-examination posted in all shower rooms - it's a good reminder to do the self-exam every month at about the same time of the month. That's how I found my breast cancer - only a week after I had received a clean bill of health from my gynecologist and months before my next scheduled mammogram. It turned out to be a very fast-growing malignancy, but B"H, because I was diligent in self-examination, I found it when it was still Stage 1 and my prognosis is good. I know a number of other women who will tell the same story. I therefore urge all women to continue self-examination and report any problems, no matter how small, to their doctors as soon as possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:41:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Changing text of Biblical verses Ben Katz wrote: <<< In the siddur, many pesukim are altered from the singular to the plural, to make them more appropriate in the congregational setting. Altering for the feminine to make it more appropriate for the setting (to me at least) is no different. >>> I agree, and simply want to point out that a good example of this is the "Shma Kolenu" section said in Selichos and on Yom Kippur. Not everyone says all the verses, but of the eight verses which appear in the Artscroll Yom Kippur Machzor, seven of them are singular in the original Tanach, but plural in the Machzor. (That's from Amareinu to Kee L'cha inclusive, for those who want to check.) Akiva Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:55:56 +0200 Subject: Re: Children in Restaurants >are being to harsh on frum children. Our kids behavior in restaurants is >certainly no worse and often is often much better that that of their >gentile and non frum cohorts. A big difference is the family size. One or two obnoxious kids with parents are easier to ignore than the same two parents trying to control a half a dozen active kids. Remember that restaurant meals take longer--ordering, waiting, etc--than a meal at home. Even the line at the pizza place can be too long, and the kids can be out of control before the slices are cool enough to eat. Batya ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Natan Berry <nberry@...> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:36:41 -0500 Subject: Frum Jews in College I wanted to share a website with the olam. I started an online discussion board for frum Jews in college, where people can share their views, experience's, questions they get asked from non-Jews, dealing with pressure from yeshivas/seminaries, etc etc. The URL is: http://www.topshot.com/phpBB2 Thanks! Natan Berry <nberry@...> http://tiger.towson.edu/~nberry1 Yahoo! Msgr "aishelrocks" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:49:27 -0600 Subject: Mammography far from foolproof Shalom, All: Discussing breast self-examination, epidemiologist Rise Goldstein says >>there is NO convincing scientific evidence that breast self-exam reduces breast cancer mortality<< and also states >> Mammography as a means to lower breast cancer mortality is well supported in the scientific literature for women ages 50 and older, at least up to about age 70 or 75 or so<< I know that there are many false readings with self-exams, but please be aware there are false readings with mammography too. I speak from family experience. My wife recently detected a lump that a mammogram said was benign. An MRI and subsequent needle biopsy proved it was malignant. Because she caught it before it had metastasisized beyond too many lymph nodes, her breast cancer prognosis is good. Do not rely on mammograms alone. Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi <halevi@...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gil Student <gil_student@...> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 20:18:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Re: Minhag to wear long Peyos Dovid wrote: >where did the minhag to wear long peyos hanging ones, come from? R' Yosef Qafih in his Ketavim, vol. 3 p. 1424 traces the custom back to the First Temple era, although I find that claim hard to believe. >if someone started to wear such peyos for some time and decided to stop >does he need atoras nedarim. This is unclear to me. I see no reason why it should even be a hanhagah tovah, which would mean that there is no need for hataras nedarim. But ask your posek for halachah le-ma'aseh. Gil Student ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...> Subject: Wearing Pants A number of writers, like Chaim Tatel, responded to my question about the modesty of pants for men by pointing out that "Hashem commanded Kohanim to wear pants in the mishkan specifically for this reason. See Shemos 28:42-44: 'And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs [yereichaim] they shall reach...'" These linen breeches (mich-n'say bahd), as the verse itself says, reached only down to the thigh. So, at best they are shorts. And when considering that these shorts were worn under a tunic and a robe, they are in fact underpants, their function being to modestly cover the Kohen's "nakedness" even if viewed from below. Otherwise these breeches would not be seen at all. Several male writers responded to the question I asked about whether, from a woman's point of view, pants are a more modest type of clothing then the old fashioned robe (which was the original attire for men). They quoted what they thought women think or what others had written about what women would think. But no women wrote in to express their thoughts. So we are still left with men speaking for women. On the subject of woman wearing slacks, mail-jewish readers may find Rabbi J. David Bleich's review, in one of his books on Contemporary Halachah (I think Volume II), to be of interest. He even refers to one source which mentions the uncondemned fashion of the Jewish women of that time to wear a kind of harem pants. Also of interest on this subject is the following, quoted from: "Women and Mitzvot (Book II - Modesty)" by Rabbi Eliakim G. Elinson, with an approbation from the [then] Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Ovadia Yossef); published by The World Zionist Organization, Department of Religious Education in the Diaspora, Jerusalem, 5741 (1981): "Our rabbinical leaders agree that, in practice, this fashion [women wearing slacks] should be discouraged. But they disagree as to whether or not there is a formal violation of the halachah. According to some rabbis, a woman who wears slacks is violating a Torah prohibition which is covered by the prohibition regarding "Masculine Objects On Women and Men Wearing Women's Garments." But it is difficult to support this opinion using the principles delineated above and it seems that these rabbis are basing their opinion on other than formal halachic considerations. Rather, it is an expression of their aversion to the social phenomena and tendencies which it reflects. Indeed, it is the opinion of the majority of rabbinical leaders that women are not barred from wearing slacks because of the prohibition regarding "Masculine Objects On Women and Men Wearing Women's Garments." And this conclusion is based on three considerations: A. There is a substantial difference in the cut of women's and men's trousers (it may be that this consideration does not apply to jeans); B. The practice [of women wearing slacks] has become common and is widely accepted (it may be that this consideration does not apply to more traditional groups which have resisted the breakdown of their standards in this sphere, i.e., to the extent that they can be considered to be self-contained "localities"); C. Women who wear slacks do not not necessarily intend to emulate men; often they wear slacks for reasons other than fashion or appearance (this applies especially to work clothes, when dressing for hikes, for sports activities or during cold weather). In any event, some of our rabbinic leaders take exception to the phenomenon of Jewish women wearing slacks and have called on them to stop this practice. Their opinion is based on considerations of modesty. In particular, they focus on the physical aspect - slacks accentuate the legs and other areas of the body. But this evaluation seems to be overly subjective and dependant upon the cut of the slacks. Moreover, the same objections can validly be leveled at other articles of women's clothing, not just slacks." ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 41 Issue 16