Volume 59 Number 59
Produced: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:26:02 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A punctuation question (3)
[Martin Stern Josh Backon]
Beschert
[Harlan Braude]
Christians and Moslems
[Joshua W. Burton]
Did Ben-Yehuda revive the Hebrew language? (2)
[Carl Singer Shayna Kravetz]
Entering a Church
[Bill Bernstein]
Halakha for Special Agents (3)
[Leah S.R. Gordon Jeanette Friedman Martin Stern]
Ribbah
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
What is the difference?
[Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: A punctuation question
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 59#57):
> Which is correct:
>
> "vehasheiv et haavodah lidvir beitecha vi-ishei yisrael, utfilatam be-ahava
> tekabel beratzon"
>
> or
>
> "vehasheiv et haavodah lidvir beitecha, vi-ishei yisrael utfilatam be-ahava
> tekabel beratzon"?
>
> The meaning is subtly different, although the only translations (Birnbaum,
> Artscroll, Adler) I've seen are according to the second punctuation:
>
> "restore the worship to the Temple, and accept willingly Israel's fire
> offerings and its prayers".
The first suggested punctuation strikes me as incorrect. I presume it is
meant to suggest the meaning:
"restore the worship and Israel's fire offerings to the Temple, and accept
willingly its prayers".
But, if that is so, the wording should surely be:
"vehasheiv et haavodah vi-ishei yisrael lidvir beitecha, utfilatam be-ahava
tekabel beratzon".
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: A punctuation question
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 59#57):
>Which is correct:
>
>"vehasheiv et haavodah lidvir beitecha vi-ishei yisrael, utfilatam be-ahava
>tekabel beratzon"
>
>or
>
>"vehasheiv et haavodah lidvir beitecha, vi-ishei yisrael utfilatam be-ahava
>tekabel beratzon"?
See Abe Katz's website: http://www.beureihatefila.com/ More specifically,
http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/2007-02-09_Tefila_Newsletter.pdf
[Abe was 3-4 grades younger than us and like us studied Biurei Hatefila with
Harav Yeshayahu Wohlgemuth z"l]
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: A punctuation question
Orrin Tilevitz asked (MJ 59#57):
> Which is correct:
>
> "vehasheiv et haavodah lidvir beitecha vi-ishei yisrael, utfilatam be-ahava
> tekabel beratzon"
>
> or
>
> "vehasheiv et haavodah lidvir beitecha, vi-ishei yisrael utfilatam be-ahava
> tekabel beratzon"?
The very last Tosafos [Talmudic commentary] in Maseches [Talmudic tractate]
M'nachos brings both opinions, and does not decide between the two. The Gr"a in
his commentary to Shulchan Aruch prefers the first version.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Beschert
In MJ 59#56, Martin Stern wrote:
> We are told that 40 days before the birth of a boy, a bat kol [heavenly
> voice] declares 'Bat ploni leploni' [so and so's daughter is to marry so
> and so] - this underlies the concept of 'beschert' [intended marital
> partners].
>
> Often young (and not so young) people come for advice to leading rabbis
> regarding their inability to find their heavenly intended partner and
> often they
> are told "you may well have met, but rejected, him/her". This raises a
> problem. If we have free will and can therefore reject our intended, what
> should happen to that person, who did not do the rejecting yet has been
> deprived of their heavenly designated spouse?
I've come to understand the Midrash differently as I've aged. Instead of
it being a Heavenly prediction, it's rather sagely advice to the neshamos.
As with all good advice, there's no guarantee it will be heeded.
But, Martin's question is more about fairness: one fool causes two to suffer.
Perhaps, then, the lesson is that the other neshama is better off married to a
non-fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua W. Burton <joshua@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Christians and Moslems
Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> writes (MJ 59#53):
> If modern Jewry does demonize Islam, I suspect that it is not because
> of their religious beliefs, but because of their political and
> military actions. Perhaps someone older than me can offer an opinion: Is it
> possible that prior to the rise of terrorism in recent decades, maybe
> we saw Moslems more as cousins than we do today?
I question the premise (that modern Jewry particularly demonizes Islam
among the Abrahamic faiths). But if it's true, it's historically silly.
Starting at the beginning of the 20c, the Odessa pogrom all by itself
killed about as many Jews as have died at Muslim hands since 2001, and
the total Jewish death toll in Russia from 1900 to 1906 is comparable to
all Muslim-against-Jew terrorism from the early Yishuv to the present.
Add in the Christian-against-Jew pogroms of 1917, and the butcher's bill
rises into the high five figures, eclipsing all 20c and 21c terrorism,
Israel's many wars, and the antisemitic farhuds of 1941 and 1948-53 in
Arab lands, all combined. All that in one Christian country, in fifteen
years, mostly by spontaneous popular action without a strong government
to orchestrate the slaughter. Now, let angry Christians get their act
together under an iron leader, and -- well, we know that story.
Here is a lovely juxtaposition of Muslim vs. Christian persecution of
the Jews, both in Eretz Yisrael and only a generation apart. If anything has
changed in our era, the record of the last century doesn't prove it.
"Economic conditions in Jerusalem were rather harsh, and the yeshiva
often issued urgent appeals for aid. Besides, there were frequent
acts of oppression on the part of the Muslim authorities. Very often
special heavy taxes were imposed, which aggravated the already
precarious situation of both the yeshiva and the Jewish population
of Jerusalem. It must be remembered that taxation in Jerusalem was
probably different from that found in other parts of the Muslim world.
It seems that Jews there had to pay a comprehensive lump sum for the
whole Jewish population of the city, regardless of its numbers. When
the population decreased as a result of wars and Bedouin upheavals,
the burden on each individual became heavier. In such situations the
yeshiva was forced to borrow money, against heavy interest, from
wealthy Muslims. When the time of repayment arrived, Jewish notables
were in danger of being imprisoned, as the yeshiva was not in a
position to accumulate the funds it had to return. In some cases
people were actually incarcerated and it took a great deal of effort
to collect the funds necessary for their release."
(Moshe Gil, "A History of Palestine, 634-1099", talking about the mid-11c)
"Our men followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as
the temple of Solomon, and there there was such a slaughter that our
men were up to their ankles in the enemy's blood. . . .The emir who
commanded the tower of David surrendered to the Count and opened the
gate where pilgrims used to pay tribute. Entering the city, our
pilgrims pursued and killed the Saracens [i.e., Jews and Muslims] up
to the temple of Solomon. There the Saracens assembled and resisted
fiercely all day, so that the whole temple flowed with their blood.
At last the pagans [again, this means us] were overcome and our men
seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them
alive as they saw fit. On the roof of the temple there was a great
crowd of pagans of both sexes, to whom Tancred and Gaston de Beert
gave their banners (to provide them with protection) . Then the
crusaders scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver,
horses and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards
our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the sepulchre of
our Saviour Jesus and there discharged their debt to Him."
(contemporary eyewitness account of the capture of Jerusalem, 1099)
Both shameful persecutions, yes. But can you spot the difference?
Joshua
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Did Ben-Yehuda revive the Hebrew language?
Two brief asides.
The common story is that Eliezer Ben-Yehuda revived the language and labeled
items in his home so that his son, Ben-Zion (Itmar Ben Avi) would learn
Hebrew in this manner.
(1) I recall in Summer camp during the 1950's singing "Eliezer Ben Yehudah
mishugah" - either a light hearted jest at those who doubted that he could
revive the USE of the Hebrew language - it wasn't until 1920 after Ben Yehudah's
return to Palestine after WW-I, that the British included Hebrew as an
official language.
(2) I wanted to point out that Rebbetzin Tamar de Sola Pool was the first
child in modern times to speak Hebrew. As the story goes her family were
neighbors with the Ben Yehudahs and she was a bit older and apparently
learned more quickly.
The following extracts from the Jewish Women's Archives may be of interest:
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/pool-tamar-de-sola
Tamar de Sola Pool was born on August 4, 1890, in Jerusalem, to Rabbi Chaim
Hirschenson, originally of Safed, and Eva (Cohen) Hirschenson. The
Hirschenson family immigrated to the United States in 1904, settling in New
Jersey, where Rabbi Hirschenson became a congregational rabbi. As supporters
of Eliezer Ben Yehuda's efforts to revive the Hebrew language, the
Hirschensons decided to converse with their children only in Hebrew, even
while living in the United States.
In 1913, Tamar graduated from Hunter College, where she studied Latin,
Greek, and French.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Did Ben-Yehuda revive the Hebrew language?
In reply to a note from Martin Stern in MJ 59#57:
>Leah Aharoni <leah25@...> wrote (MJ 59#56):
>
>> In recent months I've come across several examples of Israeli scholarship
>> claiming Modern "Israeli" to be a distinct language from Hebrew (you can
>> read my take on that here: http://aqtext.com/blog/hebrew_or_israeli/)
>
> Having read Leah's take, I think she has a valid point. All languages evolve
> and eventually older versions become unintelligible to modern speakers.
>
> Despite this, so long as it is be remembered that some words have
> changed their meaning in the transition Biblical to Mishnaic to Mediaeval
> to Modern Hebrew misunderstandings can be avoided, just as Modern English
> readers have to remember that Shakespeare's usage differs from the
> present-day one, e.g. his use of the word 'want' to mean 'need' unlike its
> current meaning of 'desire'.
I seem to remember that Martin lives in the UK, so his example threw
me off. I know from English acquaintances that 'want' in the sense
of 'need' is alive and well in the UK. It is still possible to hear
people in the UK say, "The lawn wants cutting" when they mean that
the grass needs to be mown, or "This salad wants dressing" when they
mean that the salad needs more vinaigrette.
On the larger point, I think that the changes between Biblical and
Modern Hebrew are less divisive than those that English undergoes
when one crosses the Atlantic (for example), and they should still be
identifiable as one language. You can put your luggage in the boot
in England, but you can't in North America. Modern Hebrew also has a
broader vocabulary than Biblical Hebrew but then you won't find
'carageenan', 'polypropylene', 'helicopter' or 'internet' in
Shakespeare either.
If the issue is mutual comprehensibility (and I agree this is a good
defining point), the grammar and the skeleton of the vocabulary have
remained largely the same over the centuries. A modern Israeli should
be able to read a passage of Tanach or a poem by ibn Gabirol without
difficulty, once any specific words are explained. As one whose
experience of Hebrew has included relatively little modern spoken
Hebrew, I am constantly amused when what I think of as terms from the
korbanot (offerings) turn up in Hebrew recipes.
Kol tuv from
Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Bernstein <billbernstein@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Entering a Church
I have followed this thread with a little more interest than other
threads. I have spent almost all my adult life among Christians, often
working and becoming friends with them. Thus it is amusing to see a
discussion of whether Christianity today is idol worship based on
sources that are 1000 years old.
Today Christianity in the U.S. encompasses both Fred Phelps and the Westboro
Baptist Church (largely considered meshugoyim) and the gay-ordaining
Presbyterian church (USA) (also considered meshugoyim is some circles). Making
generalizations about a religion with such diverse views is, imo, an
oversimplification.
Further, pace Chana Luntz, people in the U.S. find their polling places
in churches fairly often. In Nashville we have a very large number of
churches, some with seating capacities in the thousands. As such they
are often the only facility available for meetings, etc. Thus they are
frequent locales for schools (not affiliated with the church btw), book
clubs, weight watchers meetings, concerts, and a host of other things
not remotely religious in nature.
Finally while Christianity may have some strange ideas about G-d, if I
were to open a Chumash and show one of them the opening of Bereishis,
the story of the Exodus, or the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai and
ask, do you believe this? I am sure I would get an affirmative answer.
It is hard to reconcile that with avodah zora.
Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 15,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Halakha for Special Agents
With regard to women using sexuality in pro-Israel missions, Orrin Tilevitz
writes (MJ 59#55):
> As to Yisrael Medad's post (MJ 59#53) on Rav Schvat and honeypot missions,
> my daughter, who had Rav Schvat as a teacher, reports:
>
> "He had a student who was approached by the Mossad for this purpose several
> years ago. We had a shiur on how hatzalat am yisrael trumps pretty much
> everything, and he used the Yael, Yehudit and Esther stories as proof. At
> the time however, he paskened that it was better for a non-religious girl
> to do it than a religious one. His reasoning was that the secular girl would
> probably sleep around anyway, and this way she would at least get a mitzvah
> for it."
I find this post offensive, and here is why:
1. Please do not use the word "girl" to mean a grown woman. It is
considered demeaning to women as adults. Anyone old enough to be a Mossad
agent is old enough to be called an adult.
2. Please do not equate, (or perpetuate this idea if it was not your own),
the voluntary sex life of a random person, with the extremely-dangerous,
sort-of-make-yourself-a-sexual-harassment-victim, nature of a sexuality
spy/sting mission. This is not some hot flirtatious movie; it is a young
woman taking her own life in her hands as she uses all tools at her disposal
while dealing with extremely unsavory characters. Imagine how awful that
must be, to let some terrorist handle you in the most private way; maybe
he's physically dirty; maybe it's just that you know the whole time he would
just as soon kill you if he knew your identity. How totally disgusting and
demeaning. And not to mention the risk of disease and pregnancy.... I am
betting Hamas members aren't the most gentlemanly when it comes to condom
use.
3. Please do not assume that a "secular girl," whatever that means, would be
likely to "sleep around," whatever that means. It is likely that a less
religious woman might have a sequence of monogamous sexual relationships, if
we go by statistical reality. This is hardly worthy of such a general
libel.
The assumptions behind that one paragraph are frankly mind-boggling and
extremely damaging to women - Jewish women!!
Anyway, isn't it better, in the case of a pikuach-nefesh [lifesaving]
mitzvah, that would seem to be forbidden, for the obviously religious to do
it? I remember reading that if you have to drive someone to the hospital on
shabbat, some say you should try to be subtle, but others say you should
wear your full frummie garb so everyone will know, that is a person who
would only do it for pikuach-nefesh, and it is right to do so!
The "let the slutty secular do it" attitude is so horrible at least partly
because it shows contempt for anyone outside of the Orthodox milieu. If
this unpleasant pikuach-nefesh job is permitted, it is permitted. Good luck
finding someone to take the job.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 15,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Halakha for Special Agents
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 59#55):
> Yael, Yehudit and Esther stories as proof. At the time however, he paskened
> that it was better for a non-religious girl to do it than a religious one.
> His reasoning was that the secular girl would probably sleep around anyway,
> and this way she would at least get a mitzvah for it.
And if you believe that, there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. I will try
to control my language here and make it less obscene than the idea expressed by
this rabbi in Israel who says better to use non-frum girls to give sex to
Israel's enemies.
His kind of reasoning shows exactly how much some so-called frum rabbis (he
especially) hate women. What he is saying, is that all non-frum people have no
morals. That is outrageous. That is disgusting and prejudiced.
People who think like this rabbi and believe he is a valid posek are in serious
trouble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Oct 16,2010 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Halakha for Special Agents
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 59#55):
> As to Yisrael Medad's post (MJ 59#53) on Rav Schvat and honeypot missions, my
> daughter, who had Rav Schvat as a teacher, reports:
>
> "He had a student who was approached by the Mossad for this purpose several
> years ago. We had a shiur on how hatzalat am yisrael trumps pretty much
> everything, and he used the Yael, Yehudit and Esther stories as proof. At the
> time however, he paskened that it was better for a non-religious girl to do it
> than a religious one. His reasoning was that the secular girl would probably
> sleep around anyway, and this way she would at least get a mitzvah for it."
I find it difficult to believe that any reputable rav would have paskened
that a Jewish woman should deliberately lure a non-Jew into a sexual
encounter as halachah lema'asseh [a ruling for a practical situation].
In all probability Orrin's daughter must have misunderstood Rav Schvat whom
I assume was talking about where a woman is confronted with a non-Jew who
wishes to have sexual relations with her and the question is whether she is
obliged to accept martyrdom rather than submit to him. Chazal say of Esther,
when she was in such a situation, "karka olam hava" [she was like the soil
of the earth, i.e. passive], and could not be held blameworthy. This contrasts
with the case of a male ordered to have sexual relations on pain of death
where yehareig ve'al ya'avor [rather accept martyrdom] would apply.
I also doubt if he actually paskened that it was better for a non-religious
girl to do it. Probably he merely suggested that a religious girl should avoid
such situations whereas a non-religious might be less inhibited.
It is well known that students' reports of what their teacher said can be
notoriously inaccurate so one might have to take Orrin's daughter's report with
a large pinch of salt.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <gevaryahu@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Ribbah
Leah Aharoni (MJ 59#56) wrote:
> Also, I am looking for the location of the Tosfot which serves as the
> anecdotal etymology of the Hebrew word "riba" - jam. The story goes that
> Ben Yehuda misread a Tosfot "ma riba minei mirkahat?" as "Mai riba? Minei
> mirkahat." Any input on the veracity of this story would also be appreciated.
Gur (Yehudah Gur, Milon Ivri, Tel-Aviv, 1947, p.938) suggested that source for
the word Ribbah is "R. Yosi omer te'afenah ribba" (Menachot 50a) based on Rashi
there. He gives an additional possibility that it is based on Arabic Resh, Vav, Bet.
Even Shoshan (Avraham Even Shoshan, Hamilon Hechadash, Jerusalem, 1983, p. 1247)
suggests that the word stems from the Arabic murbarb and rub.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 17,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: What is the difference?
Martin Stern asked (MJ 59#57):
> I wonder if anyone can explain why we say "Mah nishtanah halaylah
> hazeh ..." when laylah is a masculine noun and so the verb should be
> "nishtaneh"?
If the verb is in the hitpa`el past tense, then in NORMAL (biblical)
conjugation it would be hishtana (m) and hishtanta (f). In the
present, it would be mishtana (m) and mishtanet (f).
The replacement of the "he" by the "nun" in the past tense occurs in
later Hebrew. Some claim that the meaning of this form is actually
nif`al or pi`el.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 59
