Volume 57 Number 48
Produced: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:28:38 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Echad Targum" (was "Aramaic")
[Andy Goldfinger]
Aramaic (3)
[Martin Stern Menashe Elyashiv Daniel Cohn]
Beer for Havdalah on Motzei Pesach
[Dr. Josh Backon]
Cameras and sensors
[Martin Stern]
Chulent pots from baker
[Martin Stern]
How much did he pay
[Robert Israel]
Invention of the Jewish People
[Martin Stern]
Middle Names (2)
[Stuart Wise Carl Singer]
Scales
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Standing at the side of the bima when saying the Haphtarah (3)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz "Baruch J. Schwartz" Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: "Echad Targum" (was "Aramaic")
We are told to read "shnei mikrah v'echad targum" (two Hebrew
Torah texts and one "targum") each week. What is the meaning of
the word "targum?"
On one hand, "Targum" refers to the Aramaic translation of the
Torah. On the other hand, the word "targum" simply means
"translation/explanation." Now, when Aramaic was the common
language, both of these meanings applied to the Aramaic
translation, but what about nowadays?
Should we follow the first meaning, and read the Aramaic text
(thereby learning authoritative interpretations of the Hebrew
text), or should we follow the second and read a translation into
a language we understand - such as English (perhaps with an
English explanation - to make sure we understand what the plain
text is saying)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Aramaic
Wendy Baker <wbaker@...> wrote:
> I have often wondered why we continue to use the
> Aramaic portions of the siddur in Aramaic, rather than translating them into
> the vernacular, as they were, obviously, originally done by putting them
> into the Aramaic. Is is just habit or is there some real reason?
The inclusion of the Targum in the Kedushah deSidra (Uva leTzion) may have
been originally an answer to Christian propaganda that the use of the words
Kadosh, kadosh kadosh was a reference to the trinity by explaining that each
had a separate reference (heaven, earth and eternity) rather than merely
translating the words.
I wrote a paper on anti-Christian polemic in the siddur in Le'ela in 1992
which is reprinted (with corrections) in my forthcoming book "A Time to
Speak" (Devora Publishing) due to be available in January.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Aramaic
Wendy asked
> I have often wondered why we continue to use the
> Aramaic portions of the siddur in Aramaic, rather than translating them
> into
> the vernacular, as they were, obviously, originally done by putting them
> into the Aramaic. Is is just habit or is there some real reason?
What will happen? Well, maybe some will stop praying for the chief Rabbi
of Iraq (Yekum Purkan) or will understand that Kol Nidrei is not an
important prayer for opening Yom Kippur, or that Kaddish has nothing to do
with the deceased. OTOH, Ka Ribon song is based on the aramaic in the
Bible. Brich Shemai slipped into Ashkenaz from the back door
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Cohn <4danielcohn@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Aramaic
> From: Yisrael Medad
...and why does the minhag of "Shnaim Mikra v'Echad Tirgum" persist?...
Personally I can say that learning SHeMoT (Shnaim Mikra v'Echad Targum) has
helped improve my Aramaic a lot, which in turn is a great help for learning
Gemara - and I hope Zohar after I'm 40 :-)
So instead of using Aramaic to better understand Hebrew, Hebrew is helping
me better understand Aramaic. The opposite of the original intent but still
good - another example of HaShem's guidance in Chazal's decision.
> From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
...why we continue to use the Aramaic portions of the siddur in Aramaic...
Regarding the siddur, I believe we should distinguish between insertions
from the Zohar (e.g. Brich Shme, KeGavna) and Aramaic prayers (e.g. Yekum
Purkan, Kaddish). As for the first category, there are mystical reasons
ascribing special power to reciting parts of the Zohar. As for the second, I
really don't have an answer other than "minhag avotenu beyadenu" (loosely
translated as "don't change time-honored traditions without a very
compelling reason").
Daniel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Beer for Havdalah on Motzei Pesach
Carl Singer asked:
>Which brings up a serious (unrelated) question -- what are the prohibitions
>re: drinking with a non-Jew?
>Here's a specific: You attending a fancy (elegant?) dinner. A kosher meal
>will be served to you. BUT there is a reception prior to dinner where wine,
>beer and cocktails are served. May you mingle? May you have a beer?
See the Aruch haShulchan Yoreh Deah Siman 114 # 9-12. Written in the late 19th
century, it rules that the prohibition of drinking SHEYCHAR (non-wine
alcoholic beverage)
with a gentile (not in a party situation) may be permitted provided
the drink is not an
expensive one like rum or PARTAR (I have no idea what this is). He
quotes the Rashba
in Torat haBayit (Bayit 5, Shaar 1) that the prohibition is a Minhag
Kedoshim (a custom of
the very pious) for a BAAL NEFESH. The Rema in Shulchan Aruch YD 114
is also lenient.
However if the drink is being SOLD in a store, then one doesn't drink
it with non-Jews.
In addition, all this holds when here is **NO** partying. However, in
a party situation
(MESIBA) then it would be prohibited.
So IMHO, it wouldn't be permitted to imbibe even beer at an office
cocktail party.
Incidentally, I'm sort of amazed that he includes cognac in the list
of non-wine alcoholic
drinks that are prohibited because of "expense". I was under the
impression that it was
prohibited because it was derived from wine !!
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Cameras and sensors
Ben Katz <BKatz@...> wrote:
> The other problem with the Chazon Ish's understanding is: why wouldn't closing
> a door be "boneh" (building) a wall?
So long as the door is attached by its hinges, shutting it is not considered
building.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Chulent pots from baker
On Thu, Nov 26,2009, Stephen Phillips <admin@...> wrote:
>> I think that in Chapter 343 of Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Rabbi Schneur Zalman
>> objects to wine being given to children on a regular basis at Kiddush in
>> Shul on Friday night because children might become accustomed to this.
>
> And yet such is the custom in many many Shuls, especially in those that belong
> to the United Synagogue (the Orthodox one in the UK, not the Conservative one
> in the USA).
This was always the custom among Western Ashkenazim. Tosafot try to justify
on the grounds that poor people used to eat in shul thus making it kiddush
bemakom seudah even though even in their time this no longer was the
practice.
Despite suggestions to the contrary by the Masorti movement, the (Orthodox
UK) United Synagogue has not been taken over by Lubavitch, so one would not
expect the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav to be followed by it.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 02:01 AM
Subject: How much did he pay
> Shmuel Himelstein wrote
>> Cave of Machpelah), it was sold to him by Efron the Hittite for what seems
>> to be "trifling" sum of money, a "mere" 400 Shekels of silver. Of course
>> the "trifling amount" would be a term used by any seller trying to sell
>> something. However, to get an idea of the actual value involved, I
>> remember that the Hertz Chumash mentioned that the average YEARLY income of
>> workers at that time was between six to eight Shekels. Thus the "trifling
>> amount" was something like fifty years' earnings of an average person.
Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
> Does any money record exist from Avraham's time? Or is this based on later
> sources, and as today, silver value changes all the time. Work wages also change.
I don't know where Hertz gets his number.
Avraham may have been a contemporary of Hammurabi, king of Babylon (who
might be the "Amraphel melekh Shinar" mentioned in the Torah).
Hammurabi's Code (see e.g. )
specifies a day labourer's wage as 5 gerahs per day from the New Year to
the fifth month and 6 gerahs per day from the sixth month to the end of
the year. As we know, a shekel is 20 gerahs. So at that rate, a
Babylonian day labourer working every day of the year would earn a bit
more than 100 shekels in a year.
Robert Israel <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Invention of the Jewish People
Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...> wrote:
> I am disturbed about the book "Invention of the Jewish People," by a Tel
> Aviv U Professor Shlomo Sand. I have read that it has been discredited.
> What if what he says has some truth to it?
All conspiracy theories have an element of plausibility in them or everybody
would see through them and I do not doubt that the same is true of Professor
Sand's ideas.
> However, what is the response to the assertions that there is no proof
> of the historical events that we hold to be true? I have more than a passing
> interest in archaeological finds that help support our history, but there is
> so much that doesn't. Why would Hashem leave no obvious remnants of events as
> a testimony to what the Jewish people experienced?
The most one would expect from archaeological finds is that they confirm the
general background to Biblical events, for example the mode of land sale
described in the Torah as used by Ephron being similar to that recorded in
contemporary documents. It is highly unlikely that archaeologists would find
the actual deed of sale - that sort of confirmation of Biblical events would
be so unexpected as to raise the suspicion that they were forgeries!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Middle Names
While the two explanations are interesting, I want to clarify, I meant two
Hebrew names: I have a a friend whose name is Chaim Dovid but everyone calls
him Dovid, another Yisroel Moshe who goes by Moshe, and a relative Yosef
Moshe who also goes by Moshe. I also tend to hear this usage more with male
names than female names.
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Middle Names
Interesting both recent responses re: middle name clarify that one name
is/was chol and one is/was kodesh.
My Father, ztl, was named Berl (chol) and Dov (kodesh) -- a common pairing.
All of his secular paperwork when he came to America (he was already an
adult) lists only "Berl", but when called for an aliyah, etc., was ONLY
"Dov" - never any combination or permutation.
Today it seems to me that I hear many people with chol-kodesh names called
to the Torah, etc., with both names.
That is they are called "Tzvi Hersh" or "Menachem Mendel" -- not "Tzvi"
or "Menachem"
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 1,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Scales
> From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
>> The current dapim (pages) of Baba Basra (a tractate of the Talmud) that are
>> being studied daily deal with honesty in using weights and measures.
>> Part of the discussion deals with balance scales. The gemara (Talmud) gives
>> dimensions to use for those scales used for weighing heavy things, such as iron,
>> and light things, such as wool. It specifies (recommends?) smaller dimensions
>> for the light things and larger dimensions for the heavy ones. Thus, a scale
>> for weighing iron should have a beam length longer than one for weighing
>> wool. I would have expected the opposite - that light things need a more
>> sensitive scale and hence one with a longer beam. Does anyone have any insight
>> that can help me here?
> From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
> While of course Andy is correct that you would get a more precise measure
> of anything (therefore a higher percentage precision dafka for lighter
> things) with a longer beam, I think that they may have wanted a longer
> beam so they could use the same counterweights for both balances.
>
> Since you have conservation of torque (Fxd), a heavier object with a
> shorter beam will have similar torque to a lighter object with a longer
> beam. I guess I'm assuming the location of the fulcrum is not variable
> for these balances, and I guess I'm also assuming that the beam length
> variation Andy refers to, is on the side withOUT the stuff to be measured.
Actually, if I read the gemoro correctly, the beam length was actually
the same on both sides of the fulcrum. It appears that the longer beam
length on heavier objects was related to the larger arc of travel for
the larger scale. That is, the pans of the larger scale had to be
farther off the ground. I read the gemoro as stating that the larger
scale had to be able to show a difference more easily. That is, a one
pound (for example) difference on a slab of meat is a much lower
percentage of the total weight. Thus, the balance had to be larger in
order to show that difference. If the finer scales had longer beams,
they would have been too sensitive and would not have been able to be
balanced properly using the standard weights of that type of product.
Of course, this is just my attempt at a logical analysis of the subject.
--
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<SabbaHillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7637/544/640/SabbaHillel.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 26,2009 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Standing at the side of the bima when saying the Haphtarah
> From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
> I have for many years sometimes seen the person who says the Haphtarah
> [portion of the prophets read after the reading of the Torah] on Shabbat
> standing at the side of the bima, rather than at the front. Not everyone
> seems to do it this way, but it does seem to be common practice by many.
> (Standing this way is not something I have really done myself in the
> past and in any case I am not a big Haphtarah sayer.)
>...
> One reason I was told that one does not want to stand with ones back to
> the Sepher Torah which is typically being held by someone sitting on the
> bench at the back of bima. Are there any other reasons?
This is the reason givien at our shul for doing this. I do not recall
any specific reference as "this is the way we do it". Even if there
were no specific references, it would be the custom of our shul. I
think that this is similar to reason that people do not turn their
backs on the aron kodeh (holy ark). Since there is a Torah still in
the ark and one behind you, then you stand to the side so that you are
not turning your back on either.
--
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<SabbaHillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Baruch J. Schwartz" <schwrtz@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 30,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Standing at the side of the bima when saying the Haphtarah
David Ziants (<dziants@...>) asked about standing at the side of the bima when
saying the Haftarah. I will admit I have not looked into this in detail, but I
would be very surprised to learn that this is anything but a recent chumra. I
have been honored with the reading of the haftarah once or twice in a shul where
this is practiced, and of course I followed the local custom despite my
discomfort regarding such innovations. The opposite has also occurred: young and
ostensibly knowledgeable people have been asked to read the haftarah in our shul
and have attempted to move to one side or the other of the bima, contrary to
long-established practice and local custom. We certainly do not allow this; we
politely but unambiguously ask the person to stand in the center of the bima. I
believe that people should know that they must abide by the customs of the shul
or politely decline the honor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 30,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Standing at the side of the bima when saying the Haphtarah
David Ziants
> One reason I was told that one does not want to stand with ones back to the
> Sepher Torah which is typically being held by someone sitting on the bench at
> the back of bima. Are there any other reasons?
So as not to appear to be reading from the sefer torah. BTW some have a
practice of only reading from a tanach rather than a sefer hahaftarot so as to
mimic to the extent possible the original custom.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 57 Issue 48
