Volume 49 Number 24
Produced: Wed Jul 27 5:27:45 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Family splitting for summer
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
gederot (g'derot) vs. gedarim (g'darim) (3)
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu, Ira L. Jacobson, Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Kaddish Minhag Chabad (2)
[Harry Weiss, <jf@...>]
More on Hitpael
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Qaddish Pronunciation
[Ira L. Jacobson]
The state of Jewish Religous Education
[Frank Silbermann]
Teachers who throw kids out of class/Jewish educational systems
[Bernard Raab]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <Sabba.Hillel@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:34:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Family splitting for summer
> From: Eliezer Wenger <ewenger@...>
> 3) Thirdly, was this not done during the Sholosh Regolim when we were
> blessed with the Beis HaMikdash and the adult males were required to go
> to Yerusholayim and it was only on Succos after the Shmittah year (once
> in every 21 Yomim Tovim) that the women and children also had to be
> there for Hakhel.
From the way the situation is written (such as the halacha of a father
taking a child to the Bais Hamikdash), it seems that the families did go
to Yerushalayim for the Yomim Tovim (especially Pesach). See the
discussions about people leaving the farms empty and mal'achim
protecting them as well.
Also the discussions about the Olei Regel seem to imply that it was full
families and not just the men who went.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore."
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:45:50 EDT
Subject: gederot (g'derot) vs. gedarim (g'darim)
Ira L. Jacobson (MJv49n22) states:
<< g'darim for themselves (ie, "fences");
I thought fences were gedeirot.>>
According to Gur and Even Shoshan dictionaries both pluralities, that is
g'derot and g'darim are correct. The Biblical plurality is only G'derot
(e.g., Bamidbar 32:16,24,36) whereas the Tosefta has already G'darim
(Sota [Lieberman] 7:16).
Whereas the Bible is talking about physical fences (e.g., g'derot tzon),
that is barriers to stop movement, Chazal formed g'darim to imply
virtual fences (e.g., g'darim shel chachmim). I did not verify this
distinction in every use, but a spot check suggest that these two
spelling in fact indicate two different meaning.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:45:40 +0300
Subject: Re: gederot (g'derot) vs. gedarim (g'darim)
At 11:45 26-07-05 -0400, <Gevaryahu@...> stated the following:
According to Gur and Even Shoshan dictionaries both
pluralities, that is g'derot and g'darim are correct.
My Even Shoshan and Bahat-Meshor have two words, gader (fence; qamatz
segol) and geder (definition; segol segol).
The plural of fence is gederot. The plural of definition is gederim
(with a tzere).
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:47:16 EDT
Subject: Re: gederot (g'derot) vs. gedarim (g'darim)
I wrote:
According to Gur and Even Shoshan dictionaries both
pluralities, that is g'derot and g'darim are correct.
To which Ira Jacobson replied:
> My Even Shoshan and Bahat-Meshor have two words, gader (fence; qamatz
> segol) and geder (definition; segol segol).
>
> The plural of fence is gederot. The plural of definition is gederim
> (with a tzere).
Even Shoshan Hamilon Hechdash, Jerusalem, 1983 has only one gader (with
kamatz tzere), no different gader in neither the musaphim nor in the
milu'im.
Grozovsky-Yelin dictionary of 1919 and 1926 and Gur dictionary of 1947
has only one gader (with kamatz tzere),
Meir Medan, Mealeph ad tav: Milon Ivri Shimushi, Tel-Aviv, 1969, P. 78,
also has only one gader (with kamatz tzere).
Baruch Krupnik, Milon Ivri Chadash, Tel-Aviv, 1936, P. 51, has only one
gader (with kamatz tzere).
The only dictionary in my collection that gives both gader (with kamatz
tzere) and geder (with segol segol) is Yaakov Prost, Milon Ivri Chadash
meIvrirt lePolanit uleGermanit,, Levov, 1912, and this is a rather
archaic.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:08:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Kaddish Minhag Chabad
>From: Eliezer Wenger <ewenger@...>
>In the last few issues the subject of the number of Kaddeishim said
>according to Mingah Chabad has been discussed, i.e. 16, 17, 18. Let me
>try to clarify the issue. The present day custom is that when a mourner
>serves as a Chazan for all three Tefillos he is able to say 17
>Kaddeishim as follows:
You left out the Chatzi Kaddish before the Amidah of Maariv making 18.
This whole issue brings up the issue of splitting up into numerous small
minyanim to give every Avel the chance to be Shlaich Tzibur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jf@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:24:01 +0200
Subject: Re: Kaddish Minhag Chabad
You can add to that list of Kaddishim the half kaddish after Shemoneh
Esray at ma'ariv of Motz'ay Shabbos
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:52:32 +0300
Subject: Re: More on Hitpael
Russell J Hendel stated on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:10:09 -0400:
RE: The thread on the meaning of hitpael. Several additional
points can be made. As Ira pointed out, it may very well be that
Modern Hebrew does use hitpael a certain way. I however wasnt
changing any ground rules.
I disagree, but there is no point in following this up.
First the Hitpael of Gadal and Kadash occurs in Ezekiel. I think
it clear that the opening words of the Aramaic Kaddish come from
an almost identical Hebrew verse in Ezekiel 38:23.
That vehisgadilti vehisqadishti appears in Ezekiel I have already
stated. But what leads to the conclusion that the first two words of
qaddish must be "yisgadal veyisqadash" continues to escape me.
Particularly since both the person and the tense have been modified in
the transition. A much clearer example of a biblical Hebrew expression
finding its way into the qaddish is ma`ala ma`ala [Deut 28:43], which is
translated to the Aramaic "le`ela le`ela" in the qaddish. Hence, why
would anyone hold that some Hebrew words must get into qaddish in a
Biblical Hebrew form, while there can be no doubt that other Hebrew
words get translated to Aramaic?
Regarding the use of the tzere under the dalet in the first two words of
qaddish, the mishna Berura cites the Pri Megadim. The Pri Megadim cites
R"Z Henau as the source of this vocalization.
R"Z Henau's Sha`arei Tefila (1725, Yasnitz), paragraph 213, states that
"tisgadeil" is the Hebrew form (relating to elsewhere in the prayers),
while the hagahot (Hagahot RZ"H) in his Siddur Bet Tefila, note 34,
state that the dalet in yisgadal veyisqadash is vocalized with tzere.
Nowhere does the Mishna Berura, the Pri Megadim or R"Z Henau connect
this with "vehisgadilti vehisqadishti." Rather, that seems to have been
the Gra's innovation.
Regarding RZ"H's comment that "tisgadeil" is the correct Hebrew form
rather than "tisgadal," that is inaccurate; both forms are correct.
Note that he makes no reference to whether his conception of correctness
refers to Biblical, Mishnaic or later Hebrew.
Second: There may be thousands of hitpael uses in Modern Hebrew
but there are less than 3 dozen biblical roots that occur in the
Hitpael (stats like this surprise people). The idea of justifying
a theory of what Hitpael means from less than 3 dozen examples
justifies the assertion that we may not fully understand the
hitpael and perhaps we must modify our ideas.
Of course; you have changed the ground rules by limiting your universe
to biblical hitpa`el. As I have noted peviuolsy. The binyan is used in
all Hebrews, and for something approaching 1000 different roots. And
the meanings are wide and varied.
Thirdly: I have already indicated that calling something "Derush"
is an emotional not an intellectual statement. It does not allow
discussion. So allow me to defend Ira by articulating WHY he
thinks what I say is derush and then answer him.
WADR, I do not understand why you choose to tell me why I think what I
think. On the other hand, I have no objection to your ASKING me.
We could pursue this with other examples: Right now I simply wish
to show that much of grammar has the homiletic feel and we need to
sit down to argue logically.
Sure, why not. Let us just recognize what we are doing.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:54:29 +0300
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...> commented on Wed, 29 Jun 2005
07:47:24 -0400:
. . . The Scholar's Hagada by Guggenheim (a truly fantastiic piece
of scholarship that will enhance almost anyone's seder). He
claims that those who say "yitgadel veyitkadesh shme raba" are
actually making the [...] statement "may His great name magnify
and sancify itself" rather than what is intended, "may His great
name be made great and sanctified."
This would almost sound convincing until one recalls that a Hebrew-only
prayer, the qedusha of Shabbat and Yomtov shaharit, has tisgadel
vesiskadesh (or tithjadal wethithqadash), and there is no reflexive
("itself") meaning associated.
If one wants to check a dictionary, then Even-Shoshan confirms one's
suspicions by noting that the hitpa`el of qof dalet shin has four
meanings, of which one is reflexive (tiher et `atzmo) and three are not
(na`asa qadosh, hitkonen, ne'esar bahana'a). None of these is identical
to any of the meanings of the verb in the nif`al, by the way. No
theological problem that I can see.
Eitan replied on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:59:16 -0400:
I ascribed to him [Guggenheim ] the opinion that using the
reflexive tense created a statement that was both absurd and
theologically problematic.
I hope that Prof. Guggenheim did not refer to a reflexive tense.
we find versions of the Qaddish in which the rabbinic subjunctive
yitgaddal "may (His great name) be magnified" is chaged into
Biblical reflexive (t-passive) yitgaddel "(His great Name) will
magnify itself.")
I have already pointed out that this is not accurate. One should
recall, for example, that an authentic Hebrew-language prayer, qedusha
of Shabbat and Yomtov shaharit, has tisgadel vesiskadesh (or tithjadal
wethithqadash), and there is no reflexive meaning associated. I would
similarly be interested in an explanation of why "yitgaddal " is
regarded as subjunctive, while "yitgaddel" is considered to be
reflexive.
In Hebrew, Even-Shoshan confirms one's suspicions by noting that the
hitpa`el of qof dalet shin has four meanings, of which one is reflexive
(tiheir et `atzmo) and two are not (na`asa qadosh, ne'esar bahana'a).
None of these is identical to any of the meanings of the verb in the
nif`al (paasive), by the way. There is thus no theological problem that
I can see.
Nor in Aramaic. Aramaic has three reflexive **forms**, 'itp'el,
'itpa`al, and itaf`al. The one that interests us at present is
'itpa`al, which has both passive and reflexive meanings. Thus, both in
Hebrew and in Aramaic, the so-called reflexive binyanim have both
reflexive and passive connotations.
An example of the reflexive sense in Aramaic of the root qof dalet shin
is in itqad'shat (Nedarim 50a), she betrothed herself.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:37:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: The state of Jewish Religous Education
Carl A. Singer <casinger@...> V49 N23:
> Today there are many Jewish schools that have Lemudi Kodesh teachers
> who really know their stuff but have no formal training, licensing
> or degrees (discounting watered down degrees from certain dubious
> institutions) in how to teach it. This model seems to work in colleges
> and universities -- but is it really effective for your children?
>From what I've read, people don't learn how to teach in secular schools
of education, either. New public school teachers say that they learned
what they know about teaching during their apprenticeship -- when they
were thrown into the classroom unprepared (and perhaps assigned a senior
teacher from whom to seek advice).
Not that we'd _want_ to use today's public school teacher-training as a
model -- New York City public schools are certainly not what they were
forty or fifty years ago.
Frank Silbermann New Orleans, Louisiana fs2eecs.tulane.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:46:42 -0400
Subject: Teachers who throw kids out of class/Jewish educational systems
>From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
>Some of my teachers, especially the men, if they didn't have a real
>answer to a real question, made the student feel like they committed a
>major crime for asking and then threw them out of class, so they could
>spend the rest of the time hanging out in the hallways or bathrooms--and
>then gave them daleds or worse and called their parents to tell the
>parents that this kid needs a beating.
My older brother would regularly get hit by one of his rebbeim in a
charedi yeshiva. Too bad for him, but it kept me from having to go
there. Believe it or not, this sort of thing is not limited to
yeshivos. I was once thrown out of a college class, accompanied by a
string of invectives and insults, for asking a question in all
innocence. This was in an advanced elective in my major field, and led
me to consider changing majors, since I could not even understand what
it was that the instructor was so angry about. Plus, this sort of
behavior seemed completely bizarre in the physical sciences. After much
soul-searching and discussions with my parents, I decided to continue
with my major. I got a C in that class, the lowest ever in my major
field, and in graduate school I learned the cause of his consternation:
the point he was teaching was wrong, and my question could not be
answered without his admitting it.
If a college student could be as devastated as I was, I cannot imagine
the damage done to an elementary school student by this kind of teacher
abuse. Does it still go on?
b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 24