Volume 47 Number 51
Produced: Thu Apr 7 6:14:00 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Artscroll and "truth"
[Immanuel Burton]
Artscroll Siddur
[Harry Weiss]
Ashamnu Translation
[Jack Gross]
Checking Labels
[Harold Greenberg]
History of Jerusalem
[David Deutsch]
Interesting Talmudic passage
[Elozor Reich]
Karaites
[Martin Stern]
Karaites in the Holocaust
[Nathan Lamm]
Kedoshah/Kedushah
[Jack Gross]
le'hashem haaretz umloah
[Joshua Hosseinof]
Lubavitch and shtreimel
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Siddurim
[Ben Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:52:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Artscroll and "truth"
> With the utmost respect to R. Schwab, his purported advice to
> ArtScroll "if it brings yiras shamayim, print it even if it's not
> true. If it doesn't, don't print it even if it is true" seems
> short-sighted.
Was this advice really given? What about "mi'dvar sheker tirchok"
["distance yourself from a false word"] (Exodus 23:7)?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Artscroll Siddur
> From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
> This is a good point; however, Artscroll violates it itself. The
> Hebrew version gives many "nusach acher"s in the notes (among the
> verse sources), which is unobtrusive and fine. However, newer versions
> of the English versions actually present "Gashem" as an alternate
> reading to "Geshem" in the text itself, which is quite obtrusive and,
> if I recall correctly, quite incorrect as well. I wonder what caused
> the change.
Gashem is correct according to Igros Moshe. That may be the reason they
added the alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:29:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Ashamnu Translation
Jonathan Baker wrote:
> ...
>> The Artscroll Siddur (1984 edition) correctly translates Ti'ta'nu as "we
>> have led others astray" using the verb letataya as it is used in the
>> passuk "vehayiti be'einav k'metataya" ([...] as a trickster).
>
>> However in the Artscroll Yom Kippur Machzor (1986) and the Artscroll
>> Selichot (1992) the word is translated as "You have let us go astray"
>> which seems incorrect.
>
>Not necessarily incorrect. It follows the translation in the Chayei
>Adam. "You have left us to our free choice to stray".
>...
"You have left us to our free choice to stray" as a translation of
ti`ta`nu _is_ necessarily incorrect.
Bottom line: What is the subject of the verb ti`ta`nu -- we, he, or You?
- It cannot be "You" - That would require "ti`ta`tanu" (as I noted
earlier), with a third Tav, following the root; the second Tav is the
3rd letter of a 4-letter root (Tav Ayin Tav Ayin).
- It cannot be "he" (-nu indicating Us as direct object) - to whom would
the "he" refer in the context of a direct confession addressed to G-d
(tavo l'faneya...)?
- That leaves "we" ("We have acted deceitfully"; -nu indicating We as
subject), which is consistent with the form of the 23 preceding verb
elements of the vidui.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harold Greenberg <harold.greenberg@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:56:59 +0300
Subject: Checking Labels
My wife gave me the job of checking the labels on all the canned goods
in our pantry in preparation for Pesach. I made three piles-
1) not kosher for Pesach
2) kosher for Pesach but containing kitniot - if we get rabbinic
approval we will eat them on the Shabbat immediately before the Seder
when the house is kosher for Pesach.
3) kosher for Pesach
However, on a can of green pitted manzanillo olives I found 2 hashgahot-
a) on the left side - OU P - kosher LePesach mihadrin
b) on the right side - HaBaDaTZ Haedah Haharedit Yerushalyim - only for
days of the year and not Pesach
Can anyone suggest into which pile to put the manzanillo olives?
Harold Hershel Zvi Greenberg
P. O. Box 8263
Eilat on the Re(e)d Sea, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david.s.deutsch@...> (David Deutsch)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:39:41 +0100
Subject: History of Jerusalem
>There is a recently- issued book, coffeee-table size, on the history of
>Jerusalem, that in 30 seconds I found two major errors in. Don't
>recall the name at the moment.
>The book is "Heaven Touches Earth" by David Rossof
>Publisher is Guardian Press,Jerusalem
This book is an excellent read with something for everyone. As with all
such literature, it is worth reading the introduction before making any
assumptions. BTW what are these 'major' errors?
David
E Mail: <dsd3543@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elozor Reich <lreich@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:42:57 +0100
Subject: Interesting Talmudic passage
>From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
>
>In the Talmud Yerushalmi, Ketubot Chap. 2, Halachah 6, there is a
>discussion about women who had been taken captive and who might
>therefore be forbidden to Kohanim. The Talmud suggests that they be sent
>back to Eretz Yisrael, from where they had evidently been abducted, but
>they must be escorted on the way by two men to prevent their being left
>alone, for that would disqualify them from marrying Kohanim. One of the
>rabbis then asked: 'How about the fact that they had been left alone
>after their abduction?' Shouldn't that be enough to disqualify them from
>marrying Kohanim? R' Abba b. Ba replied: 'Had these been your daughters,
>would you have said the same thing?'
Reb Shmuel
See the same story in Bavli, Ketubot 23a & connection with an earlier
(amora) Shmuel, whose grandson became the Ger, Isur, whose riches were
acquired on his death by Rava.
Since, at least nowadays, the name Issur is a kinui for Yisroel;, I have
wondered whether it was customary in those times for converts to adopt
the name Yisroel/Issur.
Elozor Reich, Manchester
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:33:59 +0100
Subject: Karaites
on 6/4/05 11:56 am, Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> wrote:
> Historically, the Karaites in Lithuania were not killed by the Nazis in
> World War II as they claimed they were of a different religion than the
> Jewish religion.
I think that Shmuel is in error here. As far as I am aware they claimed
to follow the true Jewish religion, unlike the Rabbanites whom they
accused of perverting it, but not to be of the same race. This was
accepted by the Nazis since it fitted into their perverted definition of
who was a Jew. Incidentally the Nazis also did not send Aryan converts
with no Jewish ancestry, such as Baron von Mannstein, to the death camps
either, though they did try to pressure them to abandon their religious
faith.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 05:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Karaites in the Holocaust
Shmuel Himelstein wrote:
"Historically, the Karaites in Lithuania were not killed by the Nazis in
World War II as they claimed they were of a different religion than the
Jewish religion."
I doubt that would have helped them- remember that the Nazis even killed
converts to Christianity. What actually happened is that the Nazis asked
non-Karaite rabbanim and scholars from Vilna whether the Karaites were
Jews; those consulted, knowing full well why the Nazis were asking,
answered in the negative and thus saved those Karaites' lives. (I
believe many Karaites in some areas were killed, however.) Halakhically
(and historically), the answer should probably have been "yes," but this
wasn't the time to be giving halakhically correct answers.
I happen to find this action one of the noblest ones in Jewish history:
These "Rabbanites," knowing what fate awaited them- and precisely
because of that fact- in one of their last acts saved their historic
enemies.
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:36:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Kedoshah/Kedushah
Another Rishon apparently in the K'dosha camp:
The Ritv"a, on the subject of saying kedusha d'Yotzer absent a minyan,
suggests one say "...onim v'om'rim b'yirah Kadosh. v'ha-ofanim ...".
As the footnotes indicate there, that parses well with K'dosha, but not
with K'dushsha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:10:31 -0400
Subject: le'hashem haaretz umloah
In Mail-Jewish v47n48 Ira Jacobson wrote:
> But don't we actually say "la'adon" rather than "ladon"? With no suffix
> at the end of the word, of course.
> I offer no opinion on how one would pronounce the tetragrammaton with a
> lamed affixed.
Actually, there is a rule for when the prefix letters of Mem, Shin, Heh,
Vav, Kaf, Lamed, or Bet appear in conjunction with either the Adonay or
Elohim name of G-d. The rule is known by the mnemonic "MoSHeH motsee,
VeKaLeV machnis" - meaning with the prefix letters Mem, Shin, and Heh,
the alef at the beginning of G-d's name has it's own vowel, such as
Me'Adonay, Ha'Elohim, She'Adonay. But when the prefix is the letter
Vav, Kaf, Lamed, or Bet, then the alef at the beginning of G-d's name
gets no vowel and is for all intents and purposes not there. Thus we
have VAdonay not Va'Adonay, LAdonay not La'Adonay, LElohim not
Le'Elohim, KAdonay not Ka'Adonay, and BElohim, not Be'Elohim. See the
song Ein KElohenu which is said at the end of Musaf on Shabbat. The
case of BElohim occurs many times in Tehillim including 3:3, 44:9, 56:5,
56:11, 56:12, 60:14, 62:8, 63:8, 63:12, 78:7, 78:19, 78:22, and 108:14.
Like any rule of course there are exceptions such as Tehillim 86:8 which
is Ba'Elohim and Shmot 22:19 which is La'Elohim, but the exceptions are
very few.
(I have avoided using a hyphen in the hebrew names of G-d above since we
are discussing specificaly the pronunciation and I did not want the
hyphen to interfere with how people understand what pronunciation is
intended.)
In regards to the phrase "le'Hashem haaretz umloah" one can argue it
both ways. One the one hand we can look to the seder ha'avodah of Yom
Kippur which describes the two goats where one of them is declared by
the Kohen Gadol to be "La'Shem". On the other hand we find the phrase
in Tehillim 36:6 - "behashamayim chasdecha" which is an unusual
formulation of "in the heavens" because it should have just been
"bashamayim", but clearly it was chosen to preserve the Heh of
hashamayim. So one could make the same argument here and say that the
phrase should be pronounced "le'Hashem haaretz umloah".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:30:15 -0400
Subject: Lubavitch and shtreimel
>2. There was no official headgear at the time for Lubavitcher chassidim:
>most commonly people wore straw hats, fedoras, or "kaskets" (Russian
>caps), and a spodik would have been a rare sight indeed, probably due to
>the cost. So there couldn't have been any edict cancelling the wearing
>of spodiks for the chassidim.
Nitpicking over whether it was a shtreimel or a spodik is
disingenuous. All Rebbe's (and many chassiddim) wore some type of fur
hat on Shabbat and Yom Tov, until the last Lubavitcher Rebbe decided not
to.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:36:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Siddurim
>From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
>"Now Baer's siddur does have the above reading (Uvinimah kedoshah),
>which appears to be the old German minhag, as opposed to the
>Polish/Eastern European (and Sephardi) variation which appears to be
>taking over here (in Eretz Yisroel)."
> [snip]
>I have the feeling that what is really behind Baer's preference for
>kedosha is his "Biblicizing" tendency--his tendency to delegitimize
>Mishnaic Hebrew and to institute Biblical Hebrew phrases in place of MH.
>In BH, kedusha of course does not mean the prayer ("kadosh, kadosh,
>kadosh" etc.), but "sanctity."
This is not the entire reason. The phrase "neimah kedosha"
means "sacred melody". Those who use "kedusha" have to put a comma
befiore it and translate "neimah" as "sweetness", which is incorrect.
Also, as Tal pointed out in his accompanying volume to Rinat Yisrael,
anyone with an ear for poetry can hear the cadence in the following:
nachat ruach/safah berurah/neimah kedosha; the comma ruins that as well.
>In summation, much of what is in Baer (and hence :Singer) is not the
>original German minhag at all, but emendations of the text without real
>authority and with scant knowledge of "leshon hakhamim." I cite as a
>final example, Baer's "lehanniah tefillin" (patah) rather than "lehoniah
>tefillin" (kometz), which is a real hutzpah, since the Shulhan Arukh
>goes out of its way to say that the former is wrong.
I hate to disagree with Dr. Steiner (again), but why is the
Shulchan Aruch the arbiter of grammar? My grandfather mispronounced a
lot of Hebrew. As pious as he was, I do not believe I am under any
obligation to continue to do so. He also never went to yeshivah. Does
that make it my family minhag not to?
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 51
