Volume 62 Number 64
Produced: Thu, 25 Feb 16 01:56:49 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Artscroll: II Samuel vs. I Chronicles
[Alan Wiener]
Beginning chazarat hashatz
[Martin Stern]
Concubinage Relationship (from: Kohanim & divorcees:There are times wh
[Susan Buxfield]
Greetings on a Yahrzeit
[David Olivestone]
Haftarat Mishpatim (2)
[Irwin Weiss Russell Hendel]
Of samech, tsadeh, and shin/sin (was Haftarat Mishpatim) (2)
[Martin Stern Jack Gross]
Saying an extra kaddish unnecessarily (3)
[Yisrael Medad Martin Stern Michael Rogovin]
Tircha d'Tzibbura (was Open (holy) books) (2)
[Martin Stern Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Wiener <ajwiener@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Artscroll: II Samuel vs. I Chronicles
Most siddurim, except Artscroll, trace the source of the phrase "u-mi ke-amecha
yisrael" in the Shabbat Mincha Amida directly to I Chronicles 17:21.
Artscroll appears to prefer an approximate source cf. II Samuel 7:23 - "u-mi
ke-amecha ke-yisrael".
Is there a problem with the source in I Chronicles?
Alan Wiener
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Feb 15,2016 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Beginning chazarat hashatz
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 62#63):
> Arukh Hashulchan 124:8 states that the shatz begins when "rov hatzibur" have
> finished davening.
However, he also continues that "it is proper to wait for those who daven every
word - neither at excessive length nor excessively fast - therefore in most
places one waits for the rav whom one presumes will not extend his davening
because of tircha d'tzibbura [bothering the public] but one does not wait for
those who daven at excessive length even if they are the town's most important
people ... the basic principle is that tircha d'tzibbura is the main
consideration ..."
> Kitzur Shulchan Arukh 20:2 and Chayei Adam 29:1 state that at least 9
> individuals must be answering "amen" because otherwise chazarat hashatz is
> close to a beracha levatala. (Since one davening the amida can't answer
> "amen", this necessitates their having finished.)
I always understood that those who relied on rov minyan, i.e. 6, assumed that if
6 have finished, and stepped back, a further 4 would be saying Elokai netsor and
therefore would be able to answer "amen", or at least kedushah. For those who
rely on this leniency, the shatz is recommended to stipulate mentally that, if
there are not as yet 9 to answer him, his repetition should be a tefillat
nedavah [additional voluntary prayer], which should get round Orrin's reservations.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 17,2016 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Concubinage Relationship (from: Kohanim & divorcees:There are times wh
Moreinu HaRav Elazar M. Teitz wrote (MJ 62#63):
> Aside from the legality of the concubinage relationship being hotly
> debated, with the majority opinion holding that it is not permitted, it could
> certainly not be done in the manner suggested. Jewish law states that if a
> couple declare themselves to be husband and wife, and there are no kosher
> witnesses to the contrary, it is to be presumed that they are indeed married,
> to the extent that when capital punishment was applicable (as it is not
> today, in the absence of qualified judges), it would have been administered if
> adultery were committed, and corporal punishment, were it still applicable
> (which it is not, for the same reason) would be administered where called
> for, such as with a kohein and a divorcee. Thus, the only manner in which
> concubinage could be utilized - even according to the minority who say it is
> permitted - would be for the couple to make it obvious that they are _not_
> husband and wife. They can not have their desires and the respectability
> of being considered married, because the latter negates the permissibility of
> the former.
Since usage of "majority" and "minority" requires a finite countable number of
opinions within a specific reference, the assertion of Moreinu HaRav Elazar M.
Teitz that the "the majority opinion holding that it is not permitted" would
appear tenuous given that there seems to be little dispute in the sources in
both Rambam's Sefer HaNashim perek 1 and Even HaEzer 26 provided that the three
issues of "Meyuchedet, Tovelet and Niv'alah LeShem Pilagshut" are fulfilled.
>From the above sources:
1. The objections of the Tur and his father, the Rosh, was the presumption that
the girl would be afraid to immerse.
2. The Rambam's unnecessary addition of "Leshem Zenut" after stating "Bo'el LeLo
Kiddushin" suggests that "Bo'el" for a different reason would be permitted.
3. That the Rambam maintains violators should be whipped is hotly contested
since a rapist only has to pay a monetary fine.
4. That the Rambam had the Bavli version of "Pilegesh LeLo Kiddushin" is proved
with reference to Sefer HaMelachim.
5. The Rambam's insistence that Pilagesh was only permitted for kings appears to
have no basis.
6. Later multiple non-derogratory references to Pilagshim long after David's
Beth Din Takana implies general non-acceptance.
That the Ramban at the end of his Responsa maintains that "if the heter would be
known there would be pritzut and be'ilut niddot" suggests that a pilagshut
relation should be initiated without "Bells & Whistles" and certainly without a
civil marriage or any other intimation of private marriage to belie the
possibility of even "Eidut Goyim".
Those that oppose do so either with reference to the Yerushalmi (Pilegesh
BeKiddushin) or for moralistic reasons.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Olivestone <david@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 24,2016 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Greetings on a Yahrzeit
How come Jewish communities in different countries have developed different
expressions to use when greeting someone who has a yahrzeit that day?
In North America, people say: May the neshamah have an aliyah,"(that is, may
the soul of the departed one move up a notch in heaven).
In England they say, "I wish you long life," (some use the Hebrew, arichat
yamim).
In Israel, people generally don't say anything at all, except for Yekkes who
say, "Ad bi'at ha-go'el," (something like: looking forward to the coming of
the Redeemer).
David Olivestone
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Mon, Feb 15,2016 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Haftarat Mishpatim
Susan Kane wrote (MJ 62#62):
> In the last line of the haftarah for Mishpatim (Yirmiyahu 33:26), Yitzchak is
> spelled yud-sin-chet-kuf rather than yud-tsaddik-chet-kuf. I did a double
> take and looked at the commentary but saw no reference for this.
>
> It's hard to believe that there could be a scribal error in the name of one
> of the patriarchs and of course, changing the root of a name changes its
> meaning.
In the sefer Nefutzot Yehuda, in addition to thoughtful comments about
scribal variations and pronunciations, the explanation is given as follows:
Yitzchak represents Midat HaDin. Since it was this that was responsible for the
destruction of the temples and our exiles, the Tanach hints that, eventually,
Midat HaDin will be dropped in favor of Midat HaRachamim in the time of
redemption. Since the redemption consists of four stages, as alluded to by the
four terms of geulah in Shemot 6, and by the four cups drunk during the Pesach
seder, therefore, four times in Tanach, the name Yitchak is changed to Yischak.
(Yermiyahu 33:26, Amos 7:9, 7:16, Tehillim 105:9.) This is to show that
eventually, the TZurot (Spelled with the TZ of Yitzchak) of the Jews in their
exiles will turn around into the Sason v'simcha (Spelled with the Sin of
Yischak) of their redemption.
Irwin Weiss
Baltimore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <RHendel@...>
Date: Sun, Feb 21,2016 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Haftarat Mishpatim
Susan Kane wrote (MJ 62#62):
> In the last line of the haftarah for Mishpatim (Yirmiyahu 33:26), Yitzchak is
> spelled yud-sin-chet-kuf rather than yud-tsaddik-chet-kuf. I did a double
> take and looked at the commentary but saw no reference for this.
I would like to argue that this is a deliberate misspelling with intent to
nuance subtleties via the literary technique of the pun. This is only a posting
so I sketch ideas and give a reference.
I actually wrote a paper on metaplasmus, the technical name used to describe
"deliberate" misspellings to convey intended exegetical information. See my
article "Biblical Puns", Jewish Bible Quarterly, 34(3), 2006 or visit
Rashiyomi.com/puns.pdf.
In the article, I show that even in secular circles there is controversy on
whether puns are really there, in the text, intended by the author, or
whether they are homily, read into the text by the reader.
A contribution of my article is to emphasize the use of statistics in
determining statistical intent. Let us examine.
Yitzchak, the name of the 2nd of the patriarchs, means "He will (have the
last) laugh" While both YiTzChak and YiSchak indicate "last laugh" but the
Tzade version is a stronger letter than the Samech version; it indicates
intensity, not just laughter but mockery.
We now have a simple explanation of the three verses where Yischak occurs,
Jer 33:26, Amos 7:9&16. These verses both discuss redemption from the exile. So
indeed, at our redemption we will have the last laugh, after millennia of
abuse, murder and torture we will reclaim Israel and have sovereignty and
have the last laugh.
But because of all the pain of the exiles, it will be more a smile and soft
laugh not a mockery. After being tortured in the exile we might win in the
end but we won't be mocking anybody; it is enough we just smile (soft laugh)
at them.
More can be said. This is only a posting. I just wanted to show that
misspellings like this can be deliberate, can be intended by the author, and
can give nuances that are part of the Peshat, the simple meaning of the text.
I hope this example (and my article) inspires others to reread certain
Midrashim in a new light.
Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D, A.S.A;
Rashiyomi.com;
<rhendel@...>;
Dept of Math, Towson University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Feb 15,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Of samech, tsadeh, and shin/sin (was Haftarat Mishpatim)
Daniel Geretz wrote (MJ 62#63):
> Interesting to note that some communities of Sephardic ancestry pronounce the
> tzade very close to an "S" sound.
Possibly this reflects the pronunciation of the equivalent Arabic letter 'sad'
which is much more like an 's' than the way Ashkenazim pronounce the 'tsaddi'.
This might be a case of preserving the original Hebrew pronunciation or, perhaps
more likely, reflects the more general linguistic phenomenon: that speakers tend
to transfer the phonetic and phonological patterns of their main language to any
secondary language they use. The latter would explain the loss of the gutturals,
chet and ayin, by many Ashkenazim, whose vernacular does not have such
consonants leading them to substitute khaf and alef repectively, and their
tendency to shift the word stress backwards as is done in many European languages.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jacobbgross@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 16,2016 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Of samech, tsadeh, and shin/sin (was Haftarat Mishpatim)
Following on from the discussion of the spelling of Yitzchak / Yischak (MJ 62#63):
Compare the sequence of Yud through Tav in our alef-bet with the sequence
JKLMNOPQRST in the Latin alphabet.
1. The overall order of these 13 Hebrew letters is maintained.
2. The consonant Ayin is replaced by a vowel. (Latin does not have "guttural"
letters: Hebrew has no vowel letters)
3. Samech is skipped.
4. Tsadeh is skipped.
5. The place of Shin/sin is occupied by a letter (S) whose shape appears to be
derived from our Tsadeh. (Perhaps they rejected the Shin shape, as too similar
to the W that was eventually appended)
It seems clear that, to their ear, the three symbols in Hebrew all corresponded
closely to their S sound, so two of the three were adjudged redundant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Saying an extra kaddish unnecessarily
Immanuel Burton writes (MJ 62#62):
> On the subject of unnecessary extra recital of kaddish, I have often
> wondered about the kaddish between the Psalm of the Day and the recital
> of Le'Dovid Hashem Ori (Psalm 27) between Rosh Chodesh Ellul and Hoshana
> Raba (or Shemini Atzeres). If kaddish serves as a divider between
> different parts of the service, what function is this kaddish serving?"
In my Ramat Shmuel Shiloh minyan and in many others I have attended, the
congregation simply recites that second Psalm, as well as the Rosh Chodesh
addition, Barechi Nafshi, in a run-on, without an interrupting Kaddish,
again so as to prevent a Tircha D'Tzibbura (consternation and bother). On
the other hand, during a shiva week when Michtam L'David is added, the
mourner is provided respect and that extra Kaddish is recited.
--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Saying an extra kaddish unnecessarily
Immanuel Burton wrote (MJ 62#62):
> On the subject of unnecessary extra recital of kaddish, I have often
> wondered about the kaddish between the Psalm of the Day and the recital
> of Le'Dovid Hashem Ori (Psalm 27) between Rosh Chodesh Ellul and Hoshana
> Raba (or Shemini Atzeres). If kaddish serves as a divider between
> different parts of the service, what function is this kaddish serving?
Perhaps there is a difference between this and saying kaddish between the
Shir shel Yom and Barechi nafshi on Rosh Chodesh. The latter might be more
questionable since Barechi nafshi is the shir shel yom for Rosh Chodesh and
some poskim hold that it replaces that of the particular day, which is then
omitted entirely. To accommodate this view, the two should be said together
with no interruption and kaddish should be said after finishing both.
On the other hand, Le'David Hashem Ori and, for that matter, Mizmor Shir
Chanukat Habayit on Chanukah have no connection with the korbanot brought
on those days and were not sung by the Leviim in the Beit Hamikdash, so an
intervening kaddish might be justified.
Martin Stern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <michael@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Saying an extra kaddish unnecessarily
Immanuel Burton wrote (MJ 62#62):
> It is quite possible to have a bris ceremony or say kiddush levanah
> independently of daveningSince aleinu and kaddish would be said after a
> stand-alone bris, maybe no distinction is made when a bris is held immediately
> after a prayer service? This doesn't answer the question why the bris isn't
> then incorporated into the davenning by being held before Aleinu.
I think the answer is straightforward: not everyone who comes to shacharit can
or wants to stay for the milah ceremony. They may not know the family, have to
get to work, etc. They want to complete davening with the tzibur. They may
include people saying kaddish. It would be a tircha, I would think, to tell them
that if they want to say kaddish after aleinu to stay for the brit milah. If it
was a special minyan just for the family and invited guests then I imagine they
would not say aleinu until the end.
Michael Rogovin
<michael@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Feb 15,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbura (was Open (holy) books)
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 62#63):
> Tircha d'Tzibbura [causing the public consternation and bother] is not really
> attended to properly, as noted by Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 62#62) mentioning an
> "invariably the 9th person is dawdling". He, IMHO, is causing a tircha
> d'tzibbura.
I think Yisrael is being a bit hard on this gentleman who is probably unaware
that everyone is waiting for him. However, if he is a regular attendant at
Orrin's minyan and always causes this hold-up, someone should speak to him and
ask him, as tactfully as possible, if he could possibly help by speeding up a
little.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, Feb 22,2016 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbura (was Open (holy) books)
Yisrael Medad (MJ 62#63) wrote:
> Tircha d'Tzibbura [causing the public consternation and bother] is not really
> attended to properly, as noted by Orrin Tilevitz mentioning an "invariably
> the 9th person is dawdling". He, IMHO, is causing a tircha d'tzibbura.
Reuven asks Shimon, "Why does the Rav always take so long to finish davening,"
to which Shimon answers, "Maybe he says every word."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 64
