Volume 49 Number 33
Produced: Wed Aug 3 5:58:24 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aramaic
[Akiva Miller]
Candle Lighting After Childbirth.
[Immanuel Burton]
Licensing of teachers in Jewish schools
[Josh Backon]
Pidyon haBen (3)
[Stephen Phillips, Elazar M. Teitz, Allan Lehmann]
Polygamy (2)
[Frank Silbermann, Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Pressure to Get Married (3)
[Martin Stern, Elazar M. Teitz, Russell Jay Hendel]
Qaddish Pronunciation (5)
[Martin Stern, Ira L. Jacobson, Martin Stern, Ira L. Jacobson,
Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:48:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Aramaic
Richard Schultz wrote <<< I would opine that it is not actually
necessary to understand Aramaic grammar that well in order to understand
the Talmud. The Talmud, if you look at it carefully, isn't really
written *in* Aramaic -- it's a collection of Hebrew texts strung
together with Aramaic connecting words. If you learn the meanings of
the Aramaic connecting words, you've learned a good portion of all of
the Aramaic you need to understand the structure of the Talmudic
arguments. >>>
First of all, please note the use of the words "good portion" in the
last sentence there. I would interpret that to mean that even
Mr. Schultz would agree that a fuller understanding of Aramaic would
yield a better understanding of the arguments.
But even beyond that, I feel that his post would apply, at the very
most, ONLY to that portion of the Talmud which can be described as
"arguments". There is also a wealth of Talmud which consists of
*stories*. (And, by the way, many of the arguments center on the details
of a story.) My experience is that the story portions are particularly
difficult to understand without a good understanding of Aramaic, because
they use many ordinary conversational words which are unfamiliar to the
person who relies on his knowledge of the argument-type words.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:51:38 +0100
Subject: Candle Lighting After Childbirth.
A colleague of mine told me that she has heard of a custom for a woman
NOT to light Shabbos candles on the first Friday night after giving
birth.
Has anyone heard of this custom and its reason?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:18 +0300
Subject: Licensing of teachers in Jewish schools
Check the website www.nationalboardoflicense.org for licensing and
credentialing of teachers in Jewish schools.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:27:54 +0100
Subject: Re: Pidyon haBen
> From: <Danmim@...>
> Does a Jewish man married to a geyoras [convert] and has a son who is
> the first born to mother and father need a pidyon haben? Can you quote
> sources?
Yes - see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, Siman 305 Seif 20.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 20:38:21 GMT
Subject: re: Pidyon haBen
Not only is there an obligation in the case mentioned. If a woman
who is pregnant with her first child converts, and it is a boy, that
child is required to have a pidyon haben. This is mentioned in Yoreh
Deiah 305:20.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allan Lehmann <alehmann@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:41:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Pidyon haBen
Yes:
Shlhan Arukh Yorah Deah 305:20:
"A freed bondwoman or a gentile who converted while pregnant and gave
birth, even though they conceived not in sanctity, since they gave birth
in sanctity. there is obligation (to redeem), as it is writtten "peter
rehem beyisrael (an opening of the womb in Israel)" and this is "peter
rehem beyisrael (an opening of the womb in Israel)."
Allan Lehmann
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 08:47:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Polygamy
Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...> V49 N30:
> ... I believe that in 1948, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate outlawed
> polygamy for both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (and others), and since
> there was no dissent in the Jewish community, it became binding
> WORLDWIDE as part of accepted halachic process. [emphasis added --
> f.s.]
There have always been a number of haredi groups that did not recognize
the State of Israel. Wouldn't one expect them to _ignore_ the rulings
of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (except in the sense that one obeys
Israeli law just as one obeys the secular law in any country)?
When did the halachic process impose upon these groups an obligation to
accept any halachic opinion of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate that they do
not promptly publicly repudiate?
Might not some Sephardic Jewish communities outside Israel simply have
ignored the decision of the Israel's Chief Rabbinate, assuming that the
ruling applied only in Israel?
Frank Silbermann New Orleans, Louisiana <fs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:22 EDT
Subject: Polygamy
Nathan Lamm (MJv49n30) stated:
> However, I believe that in 1948, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate outlawed
> polygamy for both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (and others), and since
> there was no dissent in the Jewish community, it became binding
> worldwide as part of accepted halachic process. Does anyone have more
> details on this? I've also seen conflicting reports of whether or not
> this decree allowed those already in polygamous relationships to
> remain so.
Polygamy is prohibited under Israeli law, but an exception allows the
highest religious authority (Chief Rabbis for Jews, etc.) to permit
exceptions. Thus the Chief Rabbis in the past (both need to agree)
sanctioned second wives to Sefaradim in some rare cases. There are
several Jewish families in Israel with two wives. Israel also allowed
Yemenites (and others?) who came to Israel with both wives to continue
the bigamous relationship. About 20 years ago there was a big article
about it in one of the Israeli weekend editions.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:33:37 +0100
Subject: RE: Pressure to Get Married
on 2/8/05 10:42 am, Russell Jay Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote:
> Additionally (to everything else said) there is a Biblical prohibition
> of COVETING which the Rambam (Murder Chapter 1) defines as a prohibition
> of PRESSURING SOMEONE into BUYING SOMETHING (even if the price is right
> and even if no force is used and even if he consents).
Is Russel sure that he has understood the Rambam correctly? I could not
find the reference he gives but I would imagine that the Rambam speaks
of PRESSURING SOMEONE into SELLING (not BUYING) SOMETHING so the analogy
would be inappropriate. Perhaps Russel could quote the Rambam in full to
clear up the matter.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:00:49 GMT
Subject: Pressure to Get Married
The comment was made that "there is a Biblical prohibition of
COVETING which the Rambam (Murder Chapter 1) defines as a prohibition of
PRESSURING SOMEONE into BUYING SOMETHING(even if the price is right and
even if no force is used and even if he consents)."
There is no such Rambam and no such halacha. In the Laws of
Robbery (not Murder, where coveting is nowhere mentioned), the Rambam
defines the prohibition of coveting as pressuring someone into _selling_
something. By what stretch of the imagination and what torture of the
language does coveting include pressuring someone to buy?
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:35:59 GMT
Subject: RE: Pressure to Get Married
Martin STern wrote me with three valid concerns connected with my recent
citation of the Rambam that pressuring someone to get married is a
violation of the Biblical prohibition of COVETING.
1st) I incorrectly cited Rambam Murder Chapter 1. The correct citation
is THEFT AND LOSSES, Chapter 1 Paragraph 10 (Citation below)
2nd) The fact that Martin could not find it led me to realize that there
are two Biblical prohibitions: LO TITHAVEH and LO TACHMOD. BOth of these
can be translated as COVETING but in Jewish law they have different
meanings (One is a prohibition of plotting to get something while the
other is a prohibition for pestering to buy)
3rd) Martin asked for citations. Normally I dont clutter up cyberspace
with citations. But because of the confusion mentioned in item 2 above
and because this is an important topic (from what I hear some shadchanim
may be in violation!!) and because, as Martin points out, MARRIAGE is
not normally thought of as BUYING I think it very appropriate to cite
the full language
It is interesting that MARRIAGE is only mentioned by one of the
prohibitions(But why not extend it to the other). Also the Rambam speaks
about lusting after a married vs a single woman. I think however the
passage is clear and it applies to single women but let the reader
decide for themselves,the point being that Jewish law classifies the ACT
of marriage as an act of ACQUISTION (Kinyan)to which the laws of
commercial acquisition apply (in addition to further laws of marriage)
Again I emphasize that this could influence our methods of shachanim.
Citation THEFT 1:10, 1:9 (Reversed order) Whoever COVETS (LUSTS/DESIRES)
the house or the wife and utensils of his friend and all similar things
from the things that are potentially buyable from him, as soon as he
thinks in his heart how can I buy this thing from him, and his heart is
seduced (obsessed?) in the matter--(at that point)he violates a negative
prohibition, THOU SHALL NOT COVET (Dt 5:17). Coveting is an act of the
heart only.
Whoever COVETS (Chamad)male or female servants or the house and utensils
of his friend or any item that can be purchased from him,and he
pressured him with friends and pestered him until he takes it---even
though he paid him a huge amount, nevertheless, he violates a negative
prohibition LO TACHMOD Ex20:13, Dt05-17. There are no lashes on this
prohibition because there is no act. The prohibition is only violated if
the object is actually taken as it says: and you chamad money and gold
and take for yourself (Dt07-25)
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:04:29 +0100
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
on 2/8/05 10:10 am, Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...> wrote:
>> [itqad'shat (Nedarim 50a)] cannot be a reflexive formation since nobody,
>> can be betrothed to themself. The phrase "she betrothed herself"
>> must be understood as meaning "she caused herself to be betrothed".
>
> The Soncino translation has it as: "The daughter of Kalba Shebu'a
> betrothed herself to R. Akiba. When her father heard thereof, he vowed
> that she was not to benefit from aught of his property."
>
> Perhaps "to cause oneself" to do something is a true reflexive usage.
The term reflexive refers to where the object of the action of the verb
is its subject e.g "He killed himself".
In this case, it does not even mean "to cause oneself to do something"
since the subject of the word betroth must be male and the object
female, so here it must mean "to cause oneself to be the object of
someone else's 'doing'"
The English translation is using the phrase "betrothed herself"
idiomatically to avoid the rather cumbersome "caused herself to be
betrothed" and this is not reflexive.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:21:52 +0300
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
At 12:04 02-08-05 +0100, Martin Stern stated the following:
>> Perhaps "to cause oneself" to do something is a true reflexive usage.
> The term reflexive refers to where the object of the action of the
> verb is its subject e.g "He killed himself".
> ... (see above)
Let us then leave this disagreement, since there is no lack of examples
where the reflexive form in Aramaic has a reflexive meaning. That was
indeed the starting point; in reaction to a professorial claim that
there is no reflexive in Aramaic.
Please consider it`aqar, moved himself, on Shabbat 63b.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:20:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
on 2/8/05 1:21 pm, Ira L. Jacobson at <laser@...> wrote:
>Please consider it`aqar, moved himself, on Shabbat 63b.
The word aqar does not mean 'move' but 'uproot' and, in the passage in
Shabbat 63b, "navach bah kalba veit'aqar veladah - a dog barked at her
and her foetus WAS UPROOTED i.e. aborted", it'aqar would seem to have a
passive rather than reflexive meaning.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:53:57 +0300
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
If my only source were Jastrow I might have to agree.
But I must get to Sderot while the army is still letting us.
More later b"n.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:57:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
It seems fairly obvious that in this context 'uproot' makes sense but I
cannot see how one can translate the passage if it means 'move'. Perhaps
Ira can explain.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 33
