Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 028

Friday, October 8 1999

• Re: ke-vatikin
• Re: Torah Codes -- Article
• women 'poskim'
• Re: mapik heh
• Mapik
• Kevasikin vs. Tzibur
• Re: Rav Kook and messianism
• Re: The Demise of Mizrachi?
• Re: The Demise of Mizrachi?
• Re: mapik heh
• Re: The Demise of Mizrachi?
• Re: Mapik in Aramaic
• Adjectives and Nouns (was kodshecha - kodsh'cha)
• Re: Torah Codes -- [latest "Statistical Science"] Article
• Re: Mapic in Aramaic
• Re: The Demise of Mizrachi?
• Re: Mapic in Aramaic
• Re: Torah Codes -- [latest "Statistical Science"] Article

Granting that there is a heter to choose k'vatikin over davening with a
minyan, does the heter also imply that one is patur from kriyas hatorah
and musaf with a minyan?  Is one even required to hear chazaras hash'tz
with a minyan.
Yaakov Klerman (who davened all of Succot k'vatikin WITH a minyan at
Brisk in Chicago)

The article in Slate is about an article written primarily by a man named
Brendan McKay. McKay has been active on soc.culture.jewish on the subject,
and I've emailed with him extensively. I therefore feel qualified to make
some comments on rebutting his rebuttal.

McKay makes two primary points:

1- Data tuning alone could account for the effect.

   Dr. McKay found mistakes in the Rabbi and yahrtzeit data Wintzum and Rips
   et al collected from Encyclopedia liG'dolei Yisrael. The rules for data
   selection were chosen by Prof Diaconis as a prerequisite for publishing
   an earlier version of their paper in PNAS.

   McKay then picked data with no preconditions, and was therefore
   (unsuprisingly) able to find a set that produces more impressive results
   in a Hebrew translation of War and Peace than they do in B'reishis.
   That's basically picking the lottery numbers to match your friend's ticket
   and then using his winnings to "prove" he is lucky.

   The irony is the data was corrected to more exactly follow the rules
   (which, as I said, were designed by an editor unwilling to risk
   the respectability of his journal -- not the authors), the results are
   slightly MORE impressive. It's therefore hard to argue that the data was
   tuned for the results.

   On the grounds of this McKay effectively wrote in a recent issue of
   Statistical Science that Rips did cook data to produce the desired
   results. Rips retains a lawyer to see if a libel suit is warranted.
   Certainly the later findings, with mistakes in data corrected, should
   prove the point.

2- We've already argued lower critical issues on this list. Suffice it to
  say that McKay et al see the changing of the text as being a disproof, as
  the current text does better than earlier, supposedly more reliable ones.
  (I'm not sure who's measuring reliability.)

  We can trivially invoke "the mystical approach", and the problem
  evaporates. Yes, codes are a (pretty much) a new thing for this era --
  the Torah didn't therefore need to have them until now.

The truth is, McKay has had the results he just published for a while. Wintzum
and Rips each have rebuttals. (Which is where I learned that the data set they
used was less ideal than some others proposed.) Since the thrust of McKay's
article is that the original authors were dishonest, things get pretty heated.
I find it interesting that McKay did not publish the next round -- a third
layer of rebuttals.

I have my own problems with the whole code thing. (A simple example: Why
B'reishis and not the other 4 books?) However, I would not be swayed by Dr.
McKay's article.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Oct-99: Chamishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 49b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim II 15

please see the article in the jewish week on the newly graduated poskot on
taharat hamishpacha.

Q--   granted that the psak of these women will not be acceptable in the
yeshiva world, would it be in the MO world?

There is no difference in the pronunciation of the letters and the
t'nuoth between Hebrew and Aramaic, including the letter heh.  The mapik
is *not* a dagesh chazak, as seems to have been assumed; heh can not take
a dagesh. Rather, it is used to denote that the heh  is not serving as a
nach nireh, its usual function at the end of a word, but is to be
pronounced.  In the middle of a word, such a sign is unnecessary, since
the t'nuah is an indication to pronounce the heh. When there is no
t'nuah, it is not pronounced if there is no sh'va (e.g., P'du[h]tzur),
and is pronounced if there is a sh'va (e.g., k'mahpechath).
Elazar M. Teitz

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

>In my experience, Ashkenazi pronounciation is not as exact as Sefaradi,
>and I'm not surprized that you normally don't hear people being medakdek
>in mapik heh.
	What I   **meant**   was not that I don't hear dikduk of saying a mapik;
   I meant saying Aramaic words with a mapik.   I am still not convinced
that the "dot" in the heh is meant to be pronounced the same as a mapik
in Hebrew.

Gershon

On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> These seems strange to me as missing much of the yomtov davening but I
> have never looked into it. 

>Nevertheless, that is the halacha. In the sefer "Ha'Tefilla b'Tzibbur"
now
>replaced by the later edition "Ha'Tefilla k'Hilchasa", RSZA is cited as
>having advanced the possibility that kevi'us does not even mean every
>day, but perhaps even once a month - i.e., if that time of month rolls
>around again and you have no minyan to attend, you may daven k'vasikin
>b'yechidus.
	The preference for davening kevasikin over davening later betzibur
extends to krias shema and tefila.  I don't see why he had to miss hallel
and hoshanos.  There is a gentelman in our weekly Shabbos minyan who
comes to us after davening shacharis kevasikin, to hear krias hatorah and
daven musaf (the kevasikin minyan provides both).  Someone with the
mesiras nefesh to always daven kevasikin should be able to take that
extra step.

Gershon

Shoshanah Boublil <toramada@netvision.net.il> writes (v4n26):
: As someone who lives in Israel and is very involved in the orthodox life here
: in general, and with those who look to Rav Kook's philosophy for guidelines
: in our lives -- the issue is _not_ "bringing mashi'ach". The issue is
: being ready for when Mashiach comes - whenver that may be.

L'havdil, in Marx's thought, communism was a necessary consequence of how
history progresses. Somehow, the Bolsheviks took that supposed inevitability
and made it an imperative.

There's a big difference between R' Kook's belief that secular Zionism would
inevitably unfold into teshuvah and moshiach and believing that one is supposed
to bring moshiach. Being prepared makes sense. However, I don't remember
R' Kook giving a particular timeline. Everyone is supposed to believe moshiach
could come in our lifetimes. R' Kook just provides an explanation as to how,
thereby giving a holiness to the State.


Another thought about "bringing moshiach" (there's a kamatz katan under the
mem, no?). "Al kein nikaveh" clearly states that we are to work toward the
messianic age. However, I don't think that historically this was seen as
THE tachlis for keeping mitzvos. Perhaps part of the greater goal, or a happy
side-effect. In most hashkafos, it's more inwardly focussed; as RYGB has said
here (and I've repeated ad nauseum), that is usually seen as d'veikus or
temimus. Changing one's relationship with G-d or one's self.

Perhaps this is one of the issues that make Lubavitcher's Moshiach campaign
seem so alien, even in the days before a particular messianic figure was
chosen. RMMS changed observance in the Lubavitch community from being centered
on d'veikus through an intellectual attachment to being centered on "al kein
nikaveh".

I'm not asserting this shift is wrong, just that it's very alien.

: Once the State was established a new phase began. Again -- this is _not_
: out of any kind of belief that we are "bringing Mashiach" (with all the
: bad conotations) but rather that we are preparing for it. So RZ has taken
: up the continuation of settling Israel, planting it; renewing the Shmitta;
: organizing ma'ser sheni; etc.

I'm missing something. These are all chiyuvim that are encumbant on anyone
living in biblical Israel (very arguably not in much of the Negev). What's
the connection to bringing or being prepared for moshiach?

: Rav Yisrael Ariel, after the fall of Yamit, chose to prepare the Keilim for
: the Beit HaMikdash. Again -- not b/c he believes that _this_ will hasten,
: but rather following the guidelines set down by King David of preparing for
: when the Mashiach comes.

Again, isn't "vi'asu li mikdash" a chiyuv lidoros? I know we are told we won't
succeed until moshiach comes, however, what's the heter not to try? If nothing
else, we'd be following David haMelech's lead, preparing for Sh'lomo's bayis.

: Israel was divided into 24 regions, named using the names from the Mishnah,
: and 24 Roshei Mishmarot, who had all passed the DNA testing, were named.
: Pamphlets were handed out calling for every Cohen and Levi in Israel
: LeHitpaked.

I find two things interesting. The first, falling back on geographic division
instead of waiting until families can be identified. Mishmaros may just be
something we can't do -- much like nachalos -- without nevu'ah. And, unlike
nachalah, there's no system mapping Kohanic familial ties to geography.

The second is the presumption that DNA testing of kohanim should be
halachically relevant.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Oct-99: Shishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 50a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

RHM writes (v3n26):
: But the ever present "move to the right" was on the
: march. And over the years Mizrachi shrank and Agudah
: grew.

This merely shifts the question: Is Mizrachi inherently more right-wing
than Agudah? I think I'm one of many in my generation who live in right-wing
social groups yet still believe Torah im Derech Eretz, or Torah uMaddah, Torah
va'Avodah, or some other variant. There are plenty of people who believe
in TIDE-like ideals yet choose the society that doesn't have Orthodoxy-lite
as one of its norms, and therefore (from a pragmatic point of view, regardless
of the ideal) tends to promote kulah shopping.

Similarly, the RCA participated in the "shift to the right", as has the YU
beis medrash (judging from how it appears on admittedly very little recent
exposure). And, judging from some local politics, the NCYI did to some extent
as well.

Why didn't Mizrachi? That would have at least diminished their decline. Someone
ought to be the body for right-wing-mod-O. We're big enough to warrant one.
The niche is there, if they'd have taken it.

: R. Aaron was not about to let this sale go through and allow a Buddhist
: missionary group a foothold in a still heavily concentrated Jewish
: area. ... R. Aaron, being a lawyer, knew that there was legal ground to
: nulify the sale. If it was indeed true that the Mizrachi leadership didn't
: know, then it was a Mekach Taus. ... R. Aaron's passive resistance was met
: by Mizrachi literally carrying him out of the building. In the end the sale
: went through without allowing R. Aaron to even try to nullify the sale.

This deserves its own conversation. I don't understand R' Aharon's reaction.
It's far more mild than I'd expect. If he's concerned about possible Sh'mad,
then why worry about points of American law? If a vadaus of sh'mad warrant
yaharog vi'al ya'avor, I would think allowing missionaries into a Jewish
neighborhood should be met by far more than protests and sit-ins.

From "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>:
: Maybe the most important question is whether the next generation is raised
: in the derech of the previous

I don't think, in the US at least, that this is likely. The Yeshiva velt
produces so many mechanchim it needs to export them to other communities.
Around here, more than half of the teachers in local mod-O day schools don't
believe in mod-O ideals.

I heard two friends of mine talking in shul. One teaches in a mod-O HS, the
other in the local RZ grade school. It was the Shabbos before Yom Ha'Atzma'ut
and they were deciding how to "handle the subject". How can their students
miss reading their attitude? How are they ever going to learn an attitude
of Yom Ha'Atzma'ut as a day of religious dignificance?

(To clarify: I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't have such significance.
However, it's a critical issue for those who want to perpetuate RZ in America.
Personally, I think we need to maximize the number of d'rachim that exist,
regardless of which one makes the most sense to me -- IOW best fits me as an
individual. The 20th century has an environment of individualism. People need
a wide menu of options if observant Judaism is going to meet their needs. R'
Dessler even recommends picking and choosing elements of different streams
of thought.)

:                          ONe thing lacking is the equivalent of a MOetzet
: gdolim  as in the Aguda or R Ovadia spheres. there are no wall posters of
: rosheiyeshiva  of MO.     Maybe that is the telling fact.....

Mod-O is more about gedulah than Gedolim. We've spoken about the supposed dirth
of mod-O gedolim repeatedly in the past. In truth, if we're going to count the
Roshei Yeshiva of any Yeshiva above some certain size, or every poseik who
fields calls of poskim who field calls from local Rabbis (ie 3rd tier), we
probably would find that the dirth is an illusion.

However, I don't see how this is telling about the solidity of the community.
It's more a statement about how they relate to role models.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Oct-99: Shishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 50a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> Mod-O is more about gedulah than Gedolim. We've spoken about the
> supposed dirth of mod-O gedolim repeatedly in the past. In truth, if
> we're going to count the Roshei Yeshiva of any Yeshiva above some
> certain size, or every poseik who fields calls of poskim who field calls
> from local Rabbis (ie 3rd tier), we probably would find that the dirth
> is an illusion. 

I am not sure about your "in truth" statement here.

But, be that as it may, it seems to me that there is a problem that
afflicts any ideology or movement that pins itself monolithically on a
single major (towering and charismatic) leader: Be it the RZ's and RAYK; 
the Lubavitchers and the Rebbe, the MO's and RYBS, or, to the extent that
this has occurred, the Bnei Brakkers and Rav Schach.

I think RHM is on to something: The vibrancy of the American Agudah may
have much to do with its historically diffuse leadership.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Elazar M Teitz wrote:


> There is no difference in the pronunciation of the letters and the
> t'nuoth between Hebrew and Aramaic, including the letter heh. 


Thank you very much.


> The mapik
> is *not* a dagesh chazak, as seems to have been assumed; heh can not take
> a dagesh. Rather, it is used to denote that the heh  is not serving as a
> nach nireh, its usual function at the end of a word, but is to be
> pronounced.



Again, thank you. I had assumed it to be a dagesh hazak, since it would
perform the same function to cause the heh to be pronounced. But the heh
is an ot geronit, and so, as you say, doesn't get a dagesh. I took the
exception to be on the dagesh hazak being allowed IF the heh is at the end
of the word and needs to be pronounced. But you say it's not actually a
dagesh with the function thereof, but just a marker that has the
appearance of a dagesh? Interesting.

Thank you.


---sam

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" 
> But, be that as it may, it seems to me that there is a problem that
> afflicts any ideology or movement that pins itself monolithically
> on a
> single major (towering and charismatic) leader: Be it the RZ's and
> RAYK; 
> the Lubavitchers and the Rebbe, the MO's and RYBS, or, to the
> extent that
> this has occurred, the Bnei Brakkers and Rav Schach.
> 
> I think RHM is on to something: The vibrancy of the American Agudah
> may
> have much to do with its historically diffuse leadership.

I fear that you have applied the Agudah model to MO and therefore
found the latter wanting.  Agudists look to "top-rank" gedolim for
the answers to all their questions.  Therefore, it is important to
have a diffuse leadership.  MO, in contrast, gives much more power
both laypeople and second-tier rabbis.  For better or worse, rabbis
such as Rabbi Riskin or Rabbi Rackman had no problem in adopting
positions different from their "leader"--Rabbi Soloveitchik.  As a
result, RYBS did not stifle creativity or diversity (in addition to
the fact that he preferred to let others make their own decision in
all but a few areas which he deemed crucial).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

In Avodah 4#27, GDubin wrote:
>>
This morning someone davened for the amud who stressed the mapik hehs in
kaddish,  which I had never heard before.  Does anyone know (sources?) if
the correct pronunciation of a mapik heh in Aramaic (yehe shmeh,  di vro
chiruseh,  me'asar beis shchinteh,  etc.) is the same as in Hebrew? <<
....and SOminsky responded:
> I was just telling someone this morning that Aramaic dikduk is confusing
for me, and I rely on what I hear and then apply the rules that I know and
see how they fit. <
....and their comments trigger my asking y'all why we should assume that
Aramaic dikduk is that different than the grammatical rules we've deduced
from the use of loshon HaKodesh, e.g. if the latter's rules indicate that,
re whether the last syllable is considered "open" or "closed" and the
ramifications of the answer for its pronunciation, a mapik-haih "close"s
the syllable, why shouldn't the former's rules also indicate thus?  If we,
indeed, should not be making such an assumption, I would reverse GDubin's
question: is there a source which indicates that Aramaic does *not* follow
Hebrew in this matter?

Sam then wrote:
> As regards the heh in kaddish, apparently it does the same in Aramaic as
in Hebrew....While [R'Mazuz] doesn't mention such a rule specifically, that
the dagesh hazak has the same effect in Aramaic that it does in Hebrew, he
does say the words "Yehei Shemei-he Raba" with the heh sounding like that,
hanging off the word, while discussing the 5 ceriot. <
Just to rephrase my point, I would think that the first (and, perhaps,
only) k'lal in Aramaic grammar is that it follows the grammatical rules of
loshon HaKodesh, after which exceptions can be noted.  If I'm right, one
wouldn't expect R'Mazuz to note a similarity between Aramaic and Hebrew, as
such is the default rule -- perhaps, Sam, you could confirm this with him?

Best wishes for a wonderful Shabbos from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ (where Rabbi EMTeitz makes a point of
pronouncing the Aramaic mapik-haih words the same way he pronounces the
Hebrew mapik-haih words!)

I wrote <<< Someone suggested to me that adjectives -- like
"kodsh'cha"... : Now, I'll admit that some of the above might really be
nouns... >>>

I totally agree with R Micha, that <<< I'm inclined to say that pinning
down whether "haGadol" is a noun or an adjective is artificial. I think
the distinction is only important to us as speakers of western languages
(including modern Hebrew), and is not critical to parsing or
understanding words in biblical or mishnaic Hebrew. >>>

The distinctions we make in "western languages" are difficult or
impossible to apply to Lashon Hakodesh, and that's why I added the
disclaimer about *some* of the examples possibly being nouns. The fact
is, I had a lot of trouble finding examples that I had confidence
labelling as adjectives, causing an inordinate number of those examples
to be based on the word "kodesh".

Initially, I felt that "kodesh" was a clear example of an adjective,
contrasted to the noun form which would be "k'dushah". But the truth is
that "kodesh" is occassionally used as a noun, as in the phrases "he
entered the Kodesh", or "he entered the Kodesh Hakadashim". (...
presuming, of course, that categories like "noun" and "adjective" are
meaningful in these contexts.)

Ultimately, we can say that since it is kodsh'cha in Yom Tov Kiddush, and
it is kodsh'cha in those other examples, it therefore doesn't matter
whether it is an adjective or not -- We have still proven which vowel
should appear in Kiddush.

Those who find this post interesting are advised to check out the Gemara,
Brachos 38a-38b, which discusses the text of the b'racha on bread. It is
not an easy peiece to translate into modern grammatical concepts. It
discusses the words "motzi" and "hamotzi", and the best sense I can make
of it, is that the gemara understands one to be future tense, and the
other in present tense. In contrast, most moderns would call "motzi" a
present-tense verb, and "hamotzi" some other part of speech (a
verb-noun?).

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

> Anyone interested in the statistical validity of the Torah codes is
advised to read an article describing a rebuttal paper to the famous
paper by Eliyahu Rips regarding the codes.  The article is at:
http://www.slate.com/Features/codedebunk/codedebunk.asp <
Thanks for the advisement.  "Anyone interested" will doubtless know that
McKay et al. have been arguing with Rips et al. since the publication of
the 1994 paper and that the points in their rebuttal paper, which were
previously published in other forums (e.g. the SCJ newsgroup), have in turn
been rebutted.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I want to ask an even more extreme question than Michael Poppers'.

Is Aramaic dikduk even important? Okay, Hebrew is Lashon haKodesh, there are
depths and nuances, most of which even modernized versions (by which I'm
including Mishnaic Hebrew) haven't eliminated. "V'romamtanu mikol halshonos".

Aramaic's only sanctity is in its association with the Jewish people, as
a vehicle in which we studied and taught Torah, lived halachic lifestyles,
etc... Wouldn't Aramaic as its spoken have more kedushah than Aramaic as it
ought to be spoken? The same could be said, albeit IMHO to a lesser extent,
of Yiddish. Which Yiddish would you consider holier: The "incorrect" form
you could find in Torah journals, or the grammatically correct language
promoted by YIVO?

That said, I didn't break new ground on this in my siddur. Everyone else
assumes Hebrew grammar rules for kamatz katan and sh'va nach for kaddish,
so I did too.

As to whether mapik is pronounced as per Hebrew (never mind whether it should
be in the same places): Why stop there? How do we know a patach or a gimel
has the same sound? Im kein, ein ladavar sof. A dotted hei means the hei
is pronounced, and not part of the closing vowel. I think we can assume
that the same holds for the Hebrew orthography of Aramaic -- otherwise it
wouldn't have been called "mapik hei", and wouldn't have been marked with
something the mesorah uses otherwise.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Oct-99: Shishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 50a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 10/8/99 10:39:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 I fear that you have applied the Agudah model to MO and therefore
 found the latter wanting.  Agudists look to "top-rank" gedolim for
 the answers to all their questions.  Therefore, it is important to
 have a diffuse leadership.  MO, in contrast, gives much more power
 both laypeople and second-tier rabbis.  For better or worse, rabbis
 such as Rabbi Riskin or Rabbi Rackman had no problem in adopting
 positions different from their "leader"--Rabbi Soloveitchik.  As a
 result, RYBS did not stifle creativity or diversity (in addition to
 the fact that he preferred to let others make their own decision in
 all but a few areas which he deemed crucial).
 
 Kol tuv,
 Moshe
  >>
I'm not sure what you meant by "as a result". I understood that L'chatchila 
RYBS felt that the creativity and individual choice approach was to be 
encouraged.

SS
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:


> Is Aramaic dikduk even important? Okay, Hebrew is Lashon haKodesh, there are
> depths and nuances, most of which even modernized versions (by which I'm
> including Mishnaic Hebrew) haven't eliminated. "V'romamtanu mikol halshonos".


But at least here, it is important. Was Kaddish written in Aramaic, or
translated from Hebrew? Major disagreement. But it's part of our tefila,
and should be said properly, no?




> Aramaic's only sanctity is in its association with the Jewish people, as
> a vehicle in which we studied and taught Torah, lived halachic lifestyles,
> etc...



What about selichot?

I was taught that we don't say the Aramaic parts of tefila without
a minyan because the malachim can't understand them, and can't deliver
them un-understood, so we need the power of a minyan to get them through.
It seems to me that there's some importance to them beyond a throwaway
"transmittal language". 


> Wouldn't Aramaic as its spoken have more kedushah than Aramaic as it
> ought to be spoken? The same could be said, albeit IMHO to a lesser extent,
> of Yiddish. Which Yiddish would you consider holier: The "incorrect" form
> you could find in Torah journals, or the grammatically correct language
> promoted by YIVO?


I wouldn't even compare them. It has as much relevance as asking which is
better, American or British accented English? It may be a language in
which people speak words of Torah, but it is not kadosh in and of itself.

I find the Ben Ish Hai most telling when he writes that Kabbalistic works
may not be translated into any language other than Hebrew (assuming
they're written in Aramaic).



> 
> That said, I didn't break new ground on this in my siddur. Everyone else
> assumes Hebrew grammar rules for kamatz katan and sh'va nach for kaddish,
> so I did too.
> 
> As to whether mapik is pronounced as per Hebrew (never mind whether it should
> be in the same places): Why stop there? How do we know a patach or a gimel
> has the same sound? 


We don't, which bothers me. I fear that our Aramaic, written in the ktav
intended for Ivrit, may suffer much as our transliteration of Ivrit into
English letters does. How do you write a gimmel refuyah in English?

We use the letters that sound closest, and hope the reader knows enough to
fill in the missing bits and correct what's obviously not quite right.
Ever heard a Syrian say "Shabbat"? What I write is not what you'd hear.


> Im kein, ein ladavar sof. A dotted hei means the hei
> is pronounced, and not part of the closing vowel. I think we can assume
> that the same holds for the Hebrew orthography of Aramaic -- otherwise it
> wouldn't have been called "mapik hei", and wouldn't have been marked with
> something the mesorah uses otherwise.


Hopefully.



---sam

Where can that rebuttal be found?  In the Witzum torahcodes website?

--- Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the advisement.  "Anyone interested" will doubtless know
> that
> McKay et al. have been arguing with Rips et al. since the
> publication of
> the 1994 paper and that the points in their rebuttal paper, which
> were
> previously published in other forums (e.g. the SCJ newsgroup), have
> in turn
> been rebutted.
> 
> All the best from
> Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
> 
> 
> 


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]