Volume 43 Number 40
Produced: Mon Jul 12 3:20:01 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Deliberately invalid marriages (2)
[EM Teitz, Martin Stern]
Grapeseed Oil
[Yehuda Landy]
mail-jewish and sources
[Martin Stern]
Origin of the Streimel
[Mordechai]
shva nach at the start of a word? (7)
[Martin Stern, Richard Schultz, Daniel Werlin, Alex
Heppenheimer, Michael Frankel, Yehuda Landy, Shimon Lebowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: EM Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:00:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Deliberately invalid marriages
> How can "formally" stating that "Reuven" and "Shimon" are my witnesses
> disqualify "Levi" and "Yehuda"?
> And, if the formula is indeed effective, why can I not use it for evil??
> I.E. let me perform a murder, and just beforehand, state "none of you
> shall be witnesses for the deed I am about to commit"? Or, for all the
> talmudists there, "only Reuven and Shimon (my accomplices) shall be
> witnesses" ???>
The question fails to consider the difference between witnesses to
kiddushin (and gittin) on the one hand, and to the commission of sins,
on the other hand. In the latter case, the function of the witnesses is
merely to attest as to what happened. In the former case, it is their
witnessing that makes the act an act of betrothal or divorce. If a man
gives a woman a ring in private, for the sake of marriage, and they then
walk into court and state what they have done, it is meaningless. It is
the giving of the ring _in the presence of witnesses_ which makes the
act an act of betrothal. Since it is the man's act, he has the right to
choose whom he wants to be the witnesses who make it a marriage.
Murder, however, is murder however it is done; the sole function of the
witnesses is to bring to the attention of the court how, where and when
it was done -- not to make it into a valid act of murder.
(In technical terms, witnesses to a crime are "eidei raiyah." In
kiddushin and gittin, they are "eidei kiyum hadavar.")
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:19:16 +0100
Subject: Re: Deliberately invalid marriages
on 8/7/04 10:39 am, Shalom Krischer <PGMSRK@...> wrote:
> I've seen/heard this formula at many weddings over the years, and I've
> always wondered about it. How can "formally" stating that "Reuven" and
> "Shimon" are my witnesses disqualify "Levi" and "Yehuda"?
>
> And, if the formula is indeed effective, why can I not use it for evil??
> I.E. let me perform a murder, and just beforehand, state "none of you
> shall be witnesses for the deed I am about to commit"? Or, for all the
> talmudists there, "only Reuven and Shimon (my accomplices) shall be
> witnesses" ???
Shalom is confusing two completely different types of witnesses. In the
case of a marriage, they are eidei kiyyum, i.e. their witnessing effects
the marriage, just as the witnesses signing on a shtar, legal document,
validate it. Therefore the parties to the transaction can choose who
should be given this honour. In reality, failure to do so might
invalidate the whole marriage since there are usually close relatives of
the couple under the chuppah, and some will be female, on the principle
that a large group of witnesses is disqualified if but one of them is a
relative or otherwise invalidated (nimtsa echad meihem karov o pasul).
In the case of a murder, the eidim are not causing the act but only
witnessing that it took place, which is something entirely different. In
that case they have to warn the perpetrator of the nature and punishment
for his act (hatra'ah) and he must acknowledge that he understands this
(af al pi kein). Perhaps this acknowledgement is in a sense parallel to
designation but it is not dependent on the perpetrator's choice.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda Landy <nzion@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:53:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Grapeseed Oil
> Given that wine and grape juice have to be manufactured under
> appropriate supervision, does oil made from grape seeds also have to be
> made under such supervision?
> If it does need to made under supervision, it is subject to same rules as
> wine/grape juice vis-a-vis being touched or poured by a non-Jew?
> Presumably a nazir would not be allowed to consume grapeseed oil.
> Immanuel Burton.
From what I understood, while discussing this with a rabbi from the
OU, it goes like this. In order for the grape seeds not to contain any
unkosher wine, they must be totally dry. The halachic requirement is
twelve months. Nowadays however, the seeds are dried in special machines
which are comparable to twelve months. So I would say that supervision
is required to assure that the the seeds are halachicly dry, before the
production. A nazir would surely be prohibited from drinking/using the
oil.
Yehuda Landy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:26:16 +0100
Subject: Re: mail-jewish and sources
on 8/7/04 10:39 am, Shalom Krischer <PGMSRK@...> wrote:
> Now wait a minute! This is a DISCUSSION list, NOT a halachik reference.
> I hope that noone uses this list to actually pasken anything; note all
> the references to CYLOR!!!
> Might I humbly suggest that:
> 1) Supply sources when you can remember/find them
> 2) Don't attack someone who doesn't; rather ask/refute (with sources)
> when you disagree (hey, you can refute with sources even in the first
> case)
> 3) NEVER EVER FOLLOW A PSAK MADE HERE UNLESS YOU CYLOR!!!!
May I support Shalom on this point. Not everyone has sources at his/her
fingertips and to expect their provision would be excessively
restrictive. The only thing I would add is that, since we all make
mistakes from time to time, we should acknowledge them on mail jewish
when they come to light.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 07:14:16 EDT
Subject: Origin of the Streimel
> From: Tobias Robison <trobison@...>
> Can anyone refer us to images of ancient Polish dress that actually show
> hats resembling a streimel? I'm curious because I've browsed dozens of
> web pages devoted to historic Polish dress - obviously not the final
> authority on this matter - without seeing similar hats.
IIRC, I hearing Rabbi Berel Wein on a tape once say that he saw a hat
worn by 'Peter the Great', Czar of Russia, at a museum (Hermitage ?) and
that it was similar to a streimel.
I suspect that some research into the etymology of the word streimel
(and other words, such as spodik, kapoteh, bekeshe, etc.) would also
shed some light.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:52:58 +0100
Subject: Re: shva nach at the start of a word?
on 8/7/04 10:12 am, Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...> wrote:
> On the pasuk 62:12 "Achat diber Elokim, shtayim zu shama`ti", there is
> an asterisk on the word shtayim. At the bottom of the page the note says
> "shva nach".
>
> I was always under the impression that one of the really basic
> differences between how English and Hebrew sound, is that while English
> allows a shva nach to start a word ('b' in black, 'c' in clean, etc)
> Hebrew *always* uses a shva na` (Sh-ma`, etc.)
If I am not much mistaken shtayim (and for that matter its grammatical
variants shnayim etc.) is an exception to this general rule banning
consonantal clusters.
While on this subject, I would like to mention an amusing incident that
happened to me many years ago. I had to wait some time for a bus in
Jerusalem so I went into a nearby branch of Steimatsky to browse for a
few minutes. By chance I was in the philosophy section and noticed that
there were a large number of books by someone whose name in Hebrew was
spelled alef-peh-lamed-tet-vav-nun which I read as Appleton. I assumed
at the time that this must be some modern English philosopher of whom I
was unaware and thought no more about it. Only years later did I realise
that this was an example of the way Hebrew avoids initial consonantal
clusters in words borrowed from other languages by prefixing an alef,
changing Platon (the accusative in Greek of the more familiar nominative
form Plato) to Af-laton!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:54:08 +0300
Subject: shva nach at the start of a word?
According to the textbook we used in college (Lambdin's _Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew_), the "shtay" and "shtayyim" are the only exceptions to
the rule that a word cannot begin with a shva nach (a "silent" shwa,
i.e. with a diphthong). If the word were to begin with a shva na` (a
"sounded" shwa), then the tav following would have to appear without a
daghesh. Since the tav *does* have a daghesh, that means that the shva
preceding it must be silent. What surprises me is that of all the
occurrences of "shtayim" or "shtay" that appear in the siddur, only that
one should have been deemed worthy of such a footnote.
Richard Schultz
<schultr@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Werlin <Daniel.Werlin@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 10:43:22 -0400
Subject: shva nach at the start of a word?
You are correct, Hebrew words, at least Biblical Hebrew words, always
begin with a sh'va nah. However, as always, there are exceptions :) The
only exception to this rule of which I am aware has to do with the word
for "two" and its derivatives.
Hence, you have shnayim, shtayim, shnei and shtei, instead of sh'nayim,
sh'tayim, sh'nei and sh'tei. This is how I was taught to lein (although
the Simanim tikkun does not, apparently, have the same minag).
I was given the following reason: the word for "two" originally began
with another letter, probably an aleph, and was pronounced something
like "ashtayim". The shin ended a closed syllable, and so didn't take a
sh'va nah. Being a weak letter, though, the aleph eventually fell off.
However, as a sort of phonetic fossil, the shin retains the
characteristics it had as part of a closed syllable. I do not know if
or where either this practice or this theory has been put to paper.
Dan Werlin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: shva nach at the start of a word?
There are two major opinions on what to do with "shtayim" and its
derivatives (shtei, shteihem, etc.) so that they don't violate this
rule. One school of thought makes the sheva under the shin a sheva na,
so the words are pronounced "shetayim," "shetei," etc. (Though this
violates another rule of Hebrew grammar, which says that a sheva na is
never followed by a dageshed letter.) The other - which is the opinion
that the author of this footnote follows - is that it's a sheva nach,
but that the usual rule is accomodated by inserting a prosthetic aleph
before the word ("eshtayim," "eshtei," etc.). See Minchas Shai to
Bereishis 4:19, who cites Radak as advocating the latter opinion. This
was also previously discussed in MJ, and Mechy Frankel posted some
sources on both sides of the issue
(http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v28/mj_v28i79.html#CXT).
(Incidentally, the second approach is similar to the way that Chazal
formed Hebrew words from foreign roots that begin with consonant
clusters, such as "aspaklaria" from Latin "specularium.")
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:18:36 -0400
Subject: Re: shva nach at the start of a word?
yup. it's noch, despite the so-called first letter "rule". see e.g.
yeivin's "intro to the tiberian masorah" where this is also mentioned
and as i recall, yeivin asserts that it is so specified by the tiberian
ba'alei mesorah, though i don't recall yeivin provided a footnote to
precisely where. it is glaringly obvious in any event that there is
something out of kilter with the word, since - were the first sh'voh
actually a noh according to the usual rule - one would be hard pressed
to understand why there is a dogeish in the following letter-tof. a
suggestion by somebody in the last century was that it should be
pronounced, or perhaps used to be pronounced, as though there were a
"helping" precedent aleph, i.e. ish-taim.
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 845-2357
<Michael.frankel@...> H: (301) 593-3949
<mfrankel@...>
<michaeljfrankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda Landy <nzion@...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:57:55 +0200
Subject: Re: shva nach at the start of a word?
Basically you are correct, but the word sh'tayim is an exception
to the rule and indeed begins with sh'va vach. I once read an
explanation that the original word was esh'tayim. Either way the dagesh
in the Tav shows that the sh'va under the Shin must be nach.
Yehuda Landy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:04:35 +0200
Subject: Re: shva nach at the start of a word?
> Basically you are correct, but the word sh'tayim is an exception
> to the rule and indeed begins with sh'va vach.
It is "AN exception", or "THE exception"? Meaning, are there other
words in Hebrew that have this strange characteristic, or is this word
unique in the whole language?
Thanks,
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 43 Issue 40