Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 128

Thu, 31 May 2007

• 1. Re: yishuv EY (Mike Miller)
• 2. Re: Wording of Kaddish (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Ashkenazic Pronunciation of "HaShem" (Ken Bloom)
• 4. Re: Wording of Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: yishuv EY (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 6. Re: yishuv EY (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] shelo osani ... (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: shelo osani ... (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: yishuv EY (menucha)
• 10. Re: yishuv EY (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 11. Yishuv EY (Michael Elzufon)
• 12. husband opens the Aron HaKodesh (SBA)
• 13. Re: Baal Nefesh (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: R' Unna on Kol Isha (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Torah study vs.Other contributions to society (Micha Berger)

On 5/30/07, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
>> While of course neither denies the importance of
>> mitzvot in building EY both express their hakorat hatov to those
>> that actually built the land with their physical labor
>
> I can understand that.
> And so, no doubt we should have similar hakoras hatov for today's
> physical laborers, eg, Arabs, Thais and Romanians etc, who continue
>  to build the land for us - decades after the chilonim have given up
> on this hard slog.

You are correct. However, the overwhelming majority of the foreign
workers who are building up much of modern EY are doing so for pay.
The original chilonim, like the original RZ, came out of a spirit of
wanting to work, of wanting to build.

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

RMB wrote:
> Why? The idea behind the change is specific to the pair of words
> "yisgadal vayisqadash". The later "tisqabal" isn't an idiom whose
> origin in nevu'ah warrants being pointed to by a shift in language.

Mima nafshakh. If yitgadal is proper Hebrew, there is no need to change it. 
If, however, it isn't proper Hebrew, neither is titqabal. And finally, if 
yitgadal and yatgadeil are different valid Hebrew forms, then one should 
apply the same analytical rules to decide whether the grammer dictates 
reading titqabeil rather than tiqabal. In fact, that was a reason why one 
siddur did exactly that, changing the -als to -eils. Interestingly enough, 
the suggestion that -al is wrong antedates the Gra.

More info available on 
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/01/perils-of-ignoring-precedent.html

> I am perfectly fine assuming that when the Gra's talmidim argue about
> what he did and give diqduq reasons for their tzedadim, that the
> difference actually comes from the rebbe. Yes, it could be a
> post-facto explanation by the talmidim. I would agree it's not
> muchrach, merely an assumption.

Eh, it is hardly convincing that such is anything but a post facto explanation 
by the synthesizers of the talmidim.

> But behind that assumption:
> (1) Why would it matter to R' Chaim Vilozhiner so much that the seifer
> had it wrong?

You are referring to RCV's opposition to the Sefer Ma'aseh Rav's statement 
that the Gra read zekher (with twice segol). (I just added that for search 
engine wielding posterity;-)). Or are you referring to what RCV might have 
written about qaddish, which I ignore? (oplease elucidate me)

If the former: Because RCV knew that the Gra didn't pronounce zeikher in such 
a strange fashion. RCV wanted to avoid the theory popularized by the MB, that 
there are two words, zeikher and zekher, and we need to read both into the 
text by repeating the whole matter.

> and
> (2) Is it /that/ less powerful of an argument besheim RCV, anyway?

Nisht farshtanden.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 04:40:49 am Minden wrote:
> > How did those Ashkenazim who don't normally use Israeli
> > pronunciation come to pronounce the last syllable of "HaShem" as a
> > segol and not a tzeire?
>
> It's in a closed syllable, where in most cases you don't have a
> difference between segol and tzeire. I think in closed syllables,
> tzeire was never diphthongised in Ashkenazzi Hebrew except in the
> most formal stratum, that is in laaying, and even there I'm not sure
> it's older than 150 or years.
>
> There are exceptions even in non-formal environments like with Hebrew
> everyday words in Yiddish, where there *is* a diphthong for some
> reason. These exceptions concern words like 'chein' (never "chenn"),
> for instance.

The pronunciation rules for the placement of long versus short vowels 
are affected by whether a syllable is open or closed, and by whether 
it's emphasized or not. A closed syllable usually has a short vowel 
unless it's emphasized, in which case it can have a long vowel. Most 
likely these considerations are coming into play with the 
dipthongization of tzeire.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070530/f4cbda5c/attachment-0001.pgp 

On Wed, May 30, 2007 3:56 pm, Arie Folger wrote:
: Mima nafshakh. If yitgadal is proper Hebrew, there is no need to
: change it....

I disagree. Perhaps the Gra was saying make a point of switching it to
be very specifically in Hebrew rather than say words that could be
taken as Aramaic. IOW, la'afuqei Aramit and any other language rather
than point being to say it in Lh"Q. But this is less important to me
than my next point.

: If, however, it isn't proper Hebrew, neither is titqabal....

But what's wrong with that? Tisqabal tzelosehon is supposed to be in
Aramaic. It's only the first two words that parallel the nevu'ah in
Yechezqeil, and therefore the only words for which we would have any
motivation to leave Aramaic.

: Interestingly enough,
: the suggestion that -al is wrong antedates the Gra.

Not surprised. I would think there would be meqoros, often rare, (and
sometimes limited by the best he could do with his access to girsa'os)
for all of his changes to minhag Yisrael. Not merely sevara with not
even a da'as yachid predating the norm. Otherwise, the Gra would be
diverging in practice from his own shitah about how pesaq works.

:> But behind that assumption:
:> (1) Why would it matter to R' Chaim Vilozhiner so much that the
:> seifer had it wrong?

: You are referring to RCV's opposition to the Sefer Ma'aseh Rav's
: statement that the Gra read zekher (with twice segol). ... Or...

The first. (I wasn't under the impression RCV opposed the switch of
vowels in Qaddish.)

: If the former: Because RCV knew that the Gra didn't pronounce zeikher
: in such a strange fashion. RCV wanted to avoid the theory popularized
: by the MB, that there are two words, zeikher and zekher, and we need
: to read both into the text by repeating the whole matter.
...

Did the theory exist yet? No, it was created by the fact that the
author of the SMR and RCV both thought enough about which the Gra said
to try to remember what he did. RCV went further and decided was worth
disputing in writing. That kind of significance given to a detail does
imply the Gra probably considered it important.

As I said, not muchrach by a long shot, but does lend real credibility
to the MB's lomdus.

:> and
:> (2) Is it /that/ less powerful of an argument besheim RCV, anyway?

: Nisht farshtanden.

Whether the distinction between zekher and zeikher was made by the Gra
or by a machloqes the SMR and RCV, it still points out a valid issue.
I have problems with not pasqening either way and doing both, but
that's on the principle of how I think pesaq ought to work, unrelated
to the originator. The question of who first made the chiluq is
theoretical, and doesn't weaken the motivation by all that much.


Note that earlier today RELPhM argued on the thread about "Hashem" in
Ashkenaz (rather than "Hasheim") that both segol and tzeirei were
pronounced /e/ in a closed syllable. (We certainly hear it in some
havaros in the reverse, open syllables as /A/ -- "meilekh" for
"melekh".) "So I'm not sure how the SMR and RCV could debate based on
recollections of which the Gra said / had the qorei say.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 Subject: Re: [Avodah] yishuv EY
> To: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>, "avodah" <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <1ce601c7a2da$cef680a0$0301010a@sbaws1nnv993q7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original

> So, how do they explain the posuk 'vatovou vatetamu es artzi' ?

Last I heard, many rabbis used this pasuk to refer to those who live their 
lives in Chutz La'aretz, but when they are dead (Avi Avot HaTum'ah) - that's 
when they remember Israel and come to be buried here.

If there was any kind of source and truth to the idea that fearing sins 
would exempt one from coming to Israel, rabbis, from Rambam to the GR"A, 
including Sh"A and others, wouldn't state categorically that a woman/man can 
force their spouse to make Aliyah.

BTW, Rav Zeira that was quoted has an interesting tale connected to him and 
Israel.

His rabbi, Rav Yehuda, was concerned with going to Israel.  Despite this R' 
Zeira made Aliyah from Bavel.

In fact, it was about him that it was said "Ama Peziza".  The story is that 
when R' Zeira reached the river, the ferry had just left, and he had to wait 
for it to return to carry him across.

Rav Zeira didn't wait.  He jumped in the river and swam across.

When asked why, he said: Moshe Rabeinu wasn't Zocheh to come to Israel b/c 
of a sin he did.  Who can guarantee that while waiting for the ferry I 
wouldn't commit a sin and forfit the right to enter Israel?!

He later fasted to forget Torah Chutz La'aretz...

Rav Zeira was apparently more concerned about sins he might do in chutz 
L'aretz which would prevent him from making aliyah, and he had no concerns 
about any sins he might perform in Israel.  Food for thought.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:

>> So, how do they explain the posuk 'vatovou vatetamu es artzi' ?
> 
> Last I heard, many rabbis used this pasuk to refer to those who live their 
> lives in Chutz La'aretz, but when they are dead (Avi Avot HaTum'ah) - that's 
> when they remember Israel and come to be buried here.

Who would those rabbis be, and what gives them the right to use the
pasuk in such a way?


> If there was any kind of source and truth to the idea that fearing sins 
> would exempt one from coming to Israel, rabbis, from Rambam to the GR"A, 
> including Sh"A and others, wouldn't state categorically that a woman/man can 
> force their spouse to make Aliyah.

"If there was any kind of source and truth"?  What about all the sources
RSBA has just quoted, starting with R Chaim Cohen and the Sefer Charedim?
I'm sure RAYK and all those others who encouraged aliyah have ways of
dealing with these sources, but you can't just dismiss them as irrelevant.


> BTW, Rav Zeira that was quoted has an interesting tale connected to him
> and Israel.   His rabbi, Rav Yehuda, was concerned with going to Israel.
> Despite this R' Zeira made Aliyah from Bavel.

And who says that he was right?  The Rambam rules halacha lemaaseh that
it's forbidden to leave Bavel for EY, and I'm not aware of anyone who
rules differently.  (The Jews who left in 1949 were in a status of
pikuach nefesh.  In any case, though I have no proof, I'm sure that any
reason which overrides the prohibition against leaving EY would apply
equally to Bavel.)


> He later fasted to forget Torah Chutz La'aretz...

Did he?  Or did he fast in penance for his sin of leaving Bavel, and
forgot Torat Chu"l as a result of his fasting?


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

R' Minden asked:
> Why oskha and not osakh (m.)? Is oskha even a word
> (of the same language that uses 'hamaqom' for God)?

Yes, it is indeed such a word. It appears in several places, such as 
Parshas T'rumah (25:9) -- "k'chol asher Ani mar'eh os'cha..."

(Found by the search engine at http://www.mechon-mamre.org  I was 
unable to find anything useful in Mandelkern's concordance.)

Akiva Miller

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:25:27AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Minden asked:
:> Why oskha and not osakh (m.)? Is oskha even a word
:> (of the same language that uses 'hamaqom' for God)?

: Yes, it is indeed such a word. It appears in several places, such as 
: Parshas T'rumah (25:9) -- "k'chol asher Ani mar'eh os'cha..."

If I may explain the question, as I understood it...

RElphM takes for granted that we realized that "HaMaqom" is lashon
chazal, not found in Tanakh. "Lekha" is lashon Tanakh. In lashon chazal,
the word even for masculine is "lakh".

Thus the question why someone would use "lekha" in the matbei'ah we use
for nichum aveilim, since "HaMaqom yenacheim" must be in a dialect of
Hebrew in which "lakh" is the proper usage.

Well, there are two dialects of Hebrew which do use both "HaMaqom"
and "lekha" -- Abazit and modern liturgical Ashkenazis. We may open the
berakhah "Modim anakhnu Lakh", but a short while later we say "nodeh Lekha
unsapeir tehilasekha .. beyadekha", rather than "nodeh Lakh unsapeir
tehilasakh", and then the berakhah switches back to "pequdos Lakh".
But in general, "-kha" wins the Ashkenazi popularity contest. (As opposed
to Sepharad's "qadsheinu bemitzvotakh, vetein chelqeinu betoratakh,
sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamach nafsheinu biyshuasakh".)

Liturgical Ashkenazi is the product of hypercorrection of the siddur to
conform to Tanakh, and thus the result of an error, but I do not hear
a call for us to switch our siddurim back.

In which case, "osekha" would be consistent with the siddur.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

See Yerushalmi kilaim 9,3



Zev Sero wrote:
Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:

>>>, how do they explain the pasuk 'vatovou vatetamu es artzi' ?
>>>      
>>>
>>Last I heard, many rabbis used this pasuk to refer to those who live their 
>>lives in Chutz La'aretz, but when they are dead (Avi Avot HaTum'ah) - that's 
>>when they remember Israel and come to be buried here.
>>    
>>
>Who would those rabbis be, and what gives them the right to use the
>pasuk in such a way?
>  
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070531/146282a1/attachment.html 

From: menucha
Subject: Re: [Avodah] yishuv EY

See Yerushalmi kilaim 9,3

Zev Sero wrote:
>>Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>>, how do they explain the pasuk 'vatovou vatetamu es artzi' ?

>>Last I heard, many rabbis used this pasuk to refer to those who live their
>>lives in Chutz La'aretz, but when they are dead (Avi Avot HaTum'ah) - 
>>that's
>>when they remember Israel and come to be buried here.

>Who would those rabbis be, and what gives them the right to use the
>pasuk in such a way?

As Rn' Menuchaa wrote -- Chazal in the G'mara are the source of this 
opinion.

For further discussion of this source (and others) you can see the following 
article:

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sde_chem/malhi-4.htm

"The Mitzva of Settling Israel from a Historical Perspective" by Yirmiyahu 
Malachi, from Sde Chemed 5754 7-8.

Find the word "kilayim" to go directly to the discussion on this topic. (The 
article is in Hebrew)

Shoshana L. Boublil



 

>>. While of course neither denies the importance of
mitzvot in building EY both express their hakorat hatov to those
that actually built the land with their physical labor
..

I can understand that.
And so, no doubt we should have similar hakoras hatov for today's
physical laborers, eg, Arabs, Thais and Romanians etc, who continue
 to build the land for us - decades after the chilonim have given up
on this hard slog. **

[[MJE]] Is this to demand hakarath hatov for these goyim or to deny it
to hilonim? 

From: Zev Sero <>
Katz, Steve wrote:
> There is a well-known "/_Segula_/" that when a woman is expecting a
> child, her husband opens the Aron HaKodesh for Keriat HaTorah as a sign
> that she should have an easier time in delivering her baby.

Is there *any* source for this?

In addition to sources given by R'Aryeh Stein in diest 23:466,
the Likutei Maharich mentions it from the Sefer Zechirah (which I am
told is from a Rishon - possibly the Roke'ach) and the Avodas Hakodesh
and adds 'veyesh lo semach al pi sod'.

The Minhag Yisroel Torah also cites the Chida in Moreh B'Etzba 3:90.

However, in the 'Hashmottess' of MYT [vol 3] it has a real 'chiddush'  -
quoting Kuntres Birchas Efrayim by R' Efrayim Segal
[ABD Koyl, niftar shnas 5591]:

"Bonay, lo sishkechu lehanhig hakabala me'adonenu haRashba - shemotzosi
kosuv bishmoy - sheyargil ha'odom be'eis she'ishtoy me'uberes,
likach pesichas aron hakodesh mechodesh hashvei'i vo'eilech
BESHIR ANIM ZEMIROS, ulehagid tefilah asher yosim Hashem befiv,
veyihyeh leratzon.."

Thus it seems that while Pesicha to Krias hatorah is recommended from the
9th month onwards, Pesicha for Anim Zemiros should be done from the 7th 
month...

SBA

On Wed, May 30, 2007 11:43 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I've been doing some research on this for a group I learn with. I
: noticed that while the gemara uses it sparingly (4 times or so) Rashi
: defines it as chassid which is used with much greater frequency. This
: got me to thinking as to why the gemara would use 2 terms for the same
: concept (if indeed this is the case). Any derech to an insight or an
: actual insight would be appreciated.

The MB's use of "ba'al nefesh yachmir" was a recurring theme here a
number of times. I would be surprised if combing the archive wouldn't
turn something up.

See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=B#BAAL%20NEFESH>
and subsequent entries as well as "Mishnah Berurah and Ba'al Nefesh
Yachmir" at <http://tinyurl.com/jzvqy>.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, May 29, 2007 10:07 am, R Chaim G Steinmetz wrote:
: In that tshuva he forbids kol isha of an ervah, he only permits (or
: rather more precisely - says there is no chiyuv macho'oh concerning)
: girls that are not ervah....

As in the problem with defining mamzeirus lefi R' Aqiva, I wonder what
class of ervah is included. It's noot that "according to many nida
is also considered ervah but rather the level of issur defines a
graduated scale. No?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, May 27, 2007 12:19 pm, R Doron Beckerman wrote:
: RMB
:> I am befuddled by the amount of attention we're giving Megillah
:> 16b. After all, Mordechai himself, the subject of the discussion,
:> chose hatzalas hefashos. ... "Rov echav", most of Anshei Keneses
:> haGedolah : approved to the point of not thinking less of him. <<

: But yet again you focus on that part of the Gemara and not on the one
: immediately following where the Navi himself places Mordechai further
: down the list! ...

No, I disagree over that is the sort order of the list. In what way is
he further behind. The pasuq tells you it's ratzui, not zechus. I am
using the reisha to explain the context assumed by the seifa, which
then makes the seifa totally unrelated to what you're trying to prove.

: As I quoted, the "Rif' on the Ein Yaakov says that this Gemara is
: to show that *Hashem Himself* agreed with those Miut Sanhedrin!
:
:
:
:>> Clearly, the Taz holds our gemara is not prescriptive.

: No, it is clear that he does, since he proves his reading from the
: fact that Ezra did not go up until Baruch Ben Neriyah died, from
: which the Gemara there proves, similar to our issue, that Ezra did
: the right thing, and anyone in the same position should choose TT
: over Binyan BHM"K, and, similarly, over Hatzalas Nefashos, if others
: will do it.

But the Taz, like the rest of us, do not tell you to start learning
rather than save lives. The halakhah is about interrupting learning if
someone else could do it. When the subject is not that of
interruption, hakol modim one chooses hatzalas nefashos. The Taz
"merely" says the sechar is greater if you're in a position where you
should make the other choice.

:> The Chasam Sofer (parashas Zachor, pg 193) writes that Mordechai
:> got the job of hatzalas nefashos because HQBH valued his learning
:> less. That's why Hashem put him in a place where his Torah study was
: interrupted, rather than doing the same to theirs. And when Anshei
: Kenesses haGedolah saw this, they demoted him one level.
:
: Sure, if Hashem PUTS you in a situation where you will have your Torah
: study interrupted to be Matzil Nefesh, you have to do it!

The CS was answering the Taz's question, and saying that the demotion
had to to with Hashem choosing his bitul over another's and not
because he made the wrong choice.

:: We are told not to follow his Derech for *the multitudes* (*Harbeh*
:: Assu etc.), but the Biur Halachah (156) says that there are
:: individuals who can...
:
:> Nu, so that answers the BH's opinion of the Gra or what he would
:> think of the CI, if either really did live "ivory tower Torah"...
:> It says little about what anyone else should be doing....

: It means that one who CAN do so, should! And its not just the BH, it
: is the Nefesh HaChaim and the Brisker Rav who say the same. R'
: Nehorai said that he will not teach his son any trade, only Torah,
: since he wanted his son to follow the path of RSHB"Y.
How can you take a statement about yechidei segulah and turn it into a
lifestyle? Particularly when the gemara is quite clear that it doesn't
work and shouldn't be used as a lifestyle for the non-gedolim of this
world. If you're the generation's RSBY...

About the mishnah in avos...:
: The equivalent to being Mezalzel in Lulav and not
: taking it on Succos is seeing someone dying when you have the
: herewithal to help him and you don't do it because you are earning
: more points (if you would know that to be true) learning than saving
: the person. That he is obligated to do.

The mishnah "hevei zahir" doesn't say "when the two conflict". Rather,
be as careful in your hatzalas nefashos as you learning. Or even in
your esrog as your learning. The mishnah seems to be a clear statement
about not prioritizing.

As for your parenthetic "(if you would know that to be true)", the
seifa of the mishnah spells out that it's not true. You can't know the
sechar of a mitzvah. Any argument based on the idea that Torah being
consistently the greater sechar choice is simply soseir the mishnah.

...
: Someone who can learn but does not, rather chooses to become a Zaka
: worker, is not following any Halachah.

Actually, what I see is that a person who interrupts learning to be an
EMT or Zaka worker is not following halakhah. If he goes to class at
times other than his seider, he is not. However, if he is a RSBY, then
he ought to be lifnim mishuras hadin learning toraso umnaso and not
planning other activities. But only those yechidim, and that's not
even an issur lehalakhah, but an "ought".

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 128
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."