Volume 47 Number 17
Produced: Wed Mar 9 6:46:46 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Grammar Question (2)
[Ben Z. Katz, Martin Stern]
Question about American Ashkenazi pronunciation (3)
[Mordechai, Nathan Lamm, Martin Stern]
Uva l'Tziyon (5)
[Nathan Lamm, Martin Stern, Martin Stern, Martin Stern, Chaim
Tatel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:06:56 -0600
Subject: Grammar Question
2 tangential comments re Mr. Rothstein's posting on this topic.
1. The words Torah and Haftarah are not related, and thus should
probably not be spelled similarly even in English. (Torah is spelled
with a Tav and comes from the root to teach, while haftarah is related
to the word maftir, addition, and is spelled with a tet.)
2. The zeycher and zecher business gets me riled every year. There is
no serious basis for reading the verse twice, once with each
pronounciation. There is an unreferenced statement to this effect in
the Mishnah Berurah, but I believe it is based on an erroneous
understanding of what the GRA did, according to an article by Rabbi
Breur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:58:57 +0000
Subject: Grammar Question
on 6/3/05 7:11 pm, Gershon Rothstein <mocdeg@...> wrote:
> I would also like to add an additional place not mentioned in the
> monograph that we read every day in our morning prayers. In the shirah
> prayer of the morning service the words "yidmu c'aven" can mean that
> they will be like a stone (domeh meaning similar to), or that they will
> be silent like a stone (domem meaning silent). The different meaning
> depends on whether the dalet is pronounced with a sheva nach or a sheva
> nah. Since we read this every day, we should probably try to get it
> right.
Since there is a dagesh in the dalet it follows that the sheva is a
sheva na' and the word is derived from the ayin-ayin root 'damam'
meaning 'be silent'. This can also be seen in Onkelos' translation and,
as far as I can see, there are no commentators who assign the word
'yidemu' any other meaning than 'they are silent'.
If it had been from the lamed-hei root 'damah' meaning 'be similar to'
there would be no dagesh which would imply a sheva nach. However the
translation 'they are similar to a stone' would not make sense since it
gives no information as to the nature of the similarity.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:18:12 EST
Subject: Question about American Ashkenazi pronunciation
> From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
>Most American Askenazim pronounce Vov with a dot over it as "o" as in
>"go".......
>
>It seems that Polish Jews pronounced Vov with a dot over it as "Oy",
>Jews from Lubavitch pronounce it as "Ay", and I've been told that German
>Jews pronounced it as "Au".
>
>From where did this American Ashkenazi pronunciation originate? Did any
>European Askenazi communities also pronounce the Vov with a dot over it
>the way American Jews do? >>
1) The ay pronunciation was a pronunciation of many Litvaks - not just
Lubavitchers.
2) Only some German Jews (e.g. especially in northern and eastern
Germany, where the communities were of more recent origin and composed
of migrants) used the Au pronunciation. The ancient communities in
Southern and Western Germany used the 'go' pronunciation.
3) It is reported that the GR"A and various other medakdikim (including
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky z"l, in recent times) also said that the 'go' way
was the correct way.
A thorough survey of this inyan (app. thirty pages long) can be found in
the sefer 'Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz', volume I, by Rav Hamburger of
Mochon Moreshes Ashkenaz in Eretz Yisroel.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Question about American Ashkenazi pronunciation
Pronouncing a cholam (vav with a dot above) as the "o" in "go" is
Lithuanian Ashkenazic pronounication (and, I believe, all non-Ashkenazic
pronounciation as well). It seems to have spread among most American
Jews. Lately, I've been hearing many Jews from the yeshiva world begin
to pronounce it as the Polish "oy," but I can only guess as to why this
is so.
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:43:23 +0000
Subject: Question about American Ashkenazi pronunciation
on 6/3/05 4:44 pm, Frank Silbermann <fs@...> wrote:
> Most American Askenazim pronounce Vov with a dot over it as "o" as in
> "go", and Vov with a dot inside as "oo" as in "cool". This is similar
> to the Sephardi pronunciation (except that the latter are purer sounds
> rather than dipthongs).
>
> It seems that Polish Jews pronounced Vov with a dot over it as "Oy",
This was also the pronunciation throughout the former Austro-Hungarian
Empire and the Ukrainian provinces of the Tsarist state.
> Jews from Lubavitch pronounce it as "Ay",
"Ay" as in the English word "say" was the pronunciation throughout
Lithuania, including what is now called Belorus; it was not peculiar to
Lubavitch.
> and I've been told that German Jews pronounced it as "Au".
Only North German and Dutch Jews used the pronunciation "Au" or better
transcribed "Ow" as in the English word "How?", though it spread to
Frankfurt under the influence of Rav S R Hirsch who came from
Hamburg. It seems to have been a mutation from the original "O" used in
South Germany that took place relatively recently since the latter was
transmitted to England though its original Ashkenazi settlers came
predominantly from North Germany.
> From where did this American Ashkenazi pronunciation originate? Did
> any European Askenazi communities also pronounce the Vov with a dot
> over it the way American Jews do?
This South German pronunciation was also used by Ashkenazim in
Switzerland, France, Latvia and England. The original Ashkenazi
settlement of the USA in the Colonial period came predominantly from
England and was reinforced in the early nineteenth century from South
Germany, hence the pronunciation established there.
For a full discussion of the various pronunciations of the cholem see
Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz vol. 1, pp. 233 - 264.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Uva l'Tziyon
The line "Titen emet l'Ya'akov, chesed l'Avraham" is likewise a pasuk,
from Michah. Perhaps the Navi meant only to refer to the attributes of
those two avot, and so Yitzchak was omitted.
As a side point, a rebbe of mine once pointed out that while Avraham
certainly shows chesed, it seems as if Yitzchak seldom shows "gevura"
and Yaakov seldom shows "emet." Clearly, the attributes of the Avot are
deeper than a superifical understanding of their life stories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:53:31 +0000
Subject: Uva l'Tziyon
on 6/3/05 5:09 pm, Israel Caspi <icaspi@...> wrote:
> First of all, thanks to David and Martin who so eruditely answered my
> question about the formulation "...Avraham, Yitzchak v'Yisrael..." in
> Uva l'Tziyon. I have 2 follow-up questions: a little further on in Uva
> l'Tziyon we say: "Titen emet l'Ya'akov, chesed l'Avraham." Why is
> Yitzchak not included? And why is the order reversed (Ya'akov before
> Avraham)?
It is a verse in Michah 7.20 which we also say at Tashlikh. Yitschak
represents 'din' which it would not have been appropriate to mention in
the context of the prophet's message there.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:43:38 +0000
Subject: Uva l'Tziyon
As a follow up to Israel's enquiries, it might be interesting to
consider that Uva l'Tziyon was composed as an answer to some of the
claims of the Judeo-Christians.
The two initial verses (Is. 59,20-21) are an affirmation that Mashiach
will come when we do teshuvah, a promise which will never be
revoked. This is a direct challenge to Paul's mistranslation (Romans
11,26-27) that "the redeemer will come from (as opposed to 'to') Zion
and will remove ungodliness from Jacob (as opposed to 'and to those who
return from sin from among Jacob). And this is my covenant with them
'when I take away their sins' (not in the original)" which forms the
basis of his doctrine of original sin and vicarious atonement.
The verse 'veHu rachum', which we say at least 4 times on weekdays, is a
further assertion that G-d forgives penitents and so there is no need
for any sacrificial offering to redeem from some inherited primaeval sin
of Adam.
The inclusion of the Aramaic Targum on the Kedushah is also meant as an
answer to their claim that the three words 'kadosh' refer to the Trinity
by explaining the true significance of the repetition.
The concluding verse (Is. 42,21) 'It pleased HaShem for the sake of its
[Israel's] righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious" stresses
the eternal validity of the Torah. It is understood as explaining the
multiplicity of mitsvot as being for our benefit in that it gives us
more opportunities to do HaShem's will. This is an answer to the
Christian attack on 'The Law' by claiming that this multiplicity made
its followers more likely to be guilty of transgression from which its
abolition in their new dispensation was meant to liberate mankind.
Putting this collection of verses at the end of shacharit on weekdays
(Aleinu etc. were added much later) may have been designed to arm the
ordinary Jew with some key answers to the missionary propaganda of the
Judeo-Christian sectarians who might confront them in the course of the
day.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:56:47 +0000
Subject: Uva l'Tziyon
on 6/3/05 5:09 pm, Israel Caspi <icaspi@...> wrote:
> I have 2 follow-up questions: a little further on in Uva
> l'Tziyon we say: "Titen emet l'Ya'akov, chesed l'Avraham." Why is
> Yitzchak not included?
In a previous posting I suggested a kabbalistic answer. Thinking it over
again, I would suggest an alternative one on the lines of remez.
Perhaps the prophet Michah (7,20) is hinting here to the Jewish approach
to the non-Jewish world which is very different from that of missionary
religions like Christianity and Islam. While, like them, we consider
that our belief system represents the ultimate metaphysical truth, we do
not consider it necessary for all mankind to accept it, only to behave
in a moral manner. "Titen emet l'Ya'akov" implies that "truth" may be
given specifically to the Jewish people whereas "Chesed l'Avraham"
kindness was given to Avraham who, as a "father of a multutude of
nations", here symbolises the whole of humanity.
This would tie in with another of Michah's prophecies (4, 1-5):
"But in the end of days, the mountain of the house of HaShem will be
established at the top of the mountains and be exalted over the hills,
and all peoples will flow to it. Many nations will come and say 'let us
go up to the mountain of HaShem, to the house of the G-d of Jacob, and
He will teach us His ways and we shall walk in His paths, for the Torah
will issue from Tsion and the word of HaShem from Yerushalayim - they
will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning
hooks, nation will not lift up sword against nation neither will they
learn war any more - For all peoples will walk in the name of their god
but we shall walk in the name of HaShem our G-d for ever."
He seems to be saying here that, even in the Messianic era, other
nations will follow their ancestral religions, even if they be in error,
only acknowledging the supremacy of HaShem and conduct themselves
according to His moral dictates.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Uva l'Tziyon
Israel Caspi wrote:
> First of all, thanks to David and Martin who so eruditely answered my
> question about the formulation "...Avraham, Yitzchak v'Yisrael..." in
> Uva l'Tziyon. I have 2 follow-up questions: a little further on in Uva
> l'Tziyon we say: "Titen emet l'Ya'akov, chesed l'Avraham." Why is
> Yitzchak not included? And why is the order reversed (Ya'akov before
> Avraham)?
I wondered this years ago. The only answer I could find from the
meforshim (commentators) was the Yitzchak is included in the line:
"asher nishbata la'avoseinu mimei kedem." (That You promised our
forefathers from the early days."
I find this answer rather forced, but haven't found anything better, yet.
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 17
