Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 131

Wed, 06 Jun 2007

• 1. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (Russell Levy)
• 2. Re: Wording of Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 129 -- OFF LIST (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Hebrew and Aramaic (Ilana Sober)
• 6. Re: yishuv EY (saul mashbaum)
• 7. Re: determining G-d's actions (Sarah Green)
• 8. zeicher/zecher (was: Wording of Kaddish) (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Hebrew and Aramaic (Russell Levy)
• 10. Re: What Does "Bless" Mean? (saul mashbaum)
• 11. Re: shelo osani... (D&E-H Bannett)
• 12. Re: Ashkenazic pronunciation of "HaShem" (D&E-H Bannett)
• 13. Yishuv EY (SBA)
• 14. Re: Studying Daf Yomi and complex Gmarot (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 15. "Yeshivishe Payes" (Danny Schoemann)

On 6/3/07, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  "Yarchei" BTW is Hebrew as well as Aramaic -- probably borrowed from
> Aramaic, but by the time Echad Mi Yodea was written -- it was considered a
> Hebrew word by Hebrew speakers, I'm sure.
>

Yarchei was a Hebrew word meaning month much before Aramaic became the
language spoken by Jews; the first passuk that comes to mind is Melachim I
5:8, where Tishrei is called 'Yerach haEitanim'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070604/f9b3a14b/attachment-0001.htm 

On Fri, June 1, 2007 12:34 pm, Arie Folger wrote:
: On the contrary. Neither the Ma'aseh Rav, nor RCV indicate that the
: Gra had two versions. For either of them, there only exists one
: correct reading. The one point they silently agree on, in fact, is
: that the Gra didn't repeat anything. Hence, any justification for
: repeating the word ZKhR according to two different pronounciations,
: which is justified by a unified theory cannot be the Gra's work.

I don't see the seifa.

I see the Gra created a haqpadah to say the one variant that means
"memorial, commemoration". In his day, which one the Gra held was
correct was known. There was some gramatical theory that made the Gra
believe the difference between tzeirei and segol changed the meaning
of the word. Both sides agree on that, or the machloqes would be a
non-starter.

Subsequently, the identity was lost -- with different talmidim taking
different sides. A consequence of the Gra holding there is a semantic
difference ignorance is a perceived need to do both.

Yes, saying both is new, and might be no older than the MB. It might
even by like wearing tzitzis out -- a hanhagah he endorsed in theory
but didn't do himself. But I see no other possible way of being sure
one fulfilled the deOraisa according to both the SMR's and RCV's
versions of the Gra's haqpadah.

...
: No, but (a) don't credit or blame the Gra with introducing this
: gramatically questionable theory, and (b) recognize that the theory
: is but an ex post facto justification and might not have any basis
: in fact.

Except that there was a reason why each talmid thought the Gra was
maqpid on "zecher" or "zeicher". There was a grammatical theory that
was his. We don't know what that theory was, and his talmidim's
opinions might be mesorah or might be ex post facto. The practice of
saying both, though, is a consequence of knowing a theory exists that
gives semantic content to the difference; not knowing the content of
the original theory.

: Furthermore, (c) understand that there are good reasons to disagree
: with the Ma'aseh Rav and with the MB.

Kamuvan. The question was understanding the MB, not bringing both sides.

As I said, I have problems with being chosheish for both tzedadim,
rather than following minhag Yisrael and assuming that proves one
side's theory as being correct.

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

My apologies for not reading the subject line and rejecting this email.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

 
 In fact, we can even compare and contrast a Yisakhar-Zevulun
relationship with the loss the extra need for funds implies in one's own
time available for one's own learning.
=====================================================

I've asked this question on a number of occasions (shouldn't a yeshiva
tell major philanthropists they should be doing more learning lshitat
those who say learning is 1st personal responsibility and anyone who can
should be learning full time). The general response I've gotten are yes,
in theory they should reduce the time they spend earning a living  but
they won't do it anyway.  I've yet to hear 1st person testimony that a
rosh yeshiva has said this to a major philanthropist (not said
cynically, I've wondered about this for a long time on a personal basis
as well and have asked a number of folks)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

MYG: Now, isn't "Ahavah" Lashon Kodesh, and "Hav" Aramaic, sort of
shooting holes
through this Vort?

Hava et ishti (Bereishit 29:21)
Hava li banim (Bereishit 30:1)
Hava lanu lechem, havu mikneichem (Bereishit 47: 16-17)
Hava li bracha (Shoftim 1:16)
Havu laH' (Tehillim 96)
etc...

Hav means give in both Hebrew and Aramaic. But in Aramaic it is the
most standard and common form - in Hebrew Natan is common and Hav is a
rarer variation.

Similar to Chazi (common in Aramaic, rare in Hebrew where the common
form is Ra'ah).

- Ilana
-- 
Note that this is my NEW email address. The old one will be
deactivated in August. Please update your address book.

RMBerger wrote
>>Time differs from space in that you have more volition over your motion in space than in time.

Not strictly on topic, but a nice drasha on this subject, is the following, which I heard many years ago from Rav Fabian Schonfeld:

It is well known that machshevet chutz lizmano by korbanot is much more stringent than  machshevet chutz limkomo. It's not obvious why this should be.
There are those who claim that for various reasons they find it difficult to fully observe the mitzvot in the community in which they find themselves, particularly if it is a community with very few religious people "Being religious is fine for New York, but unfeasible here in Broken Knee, Arkansas" they would say. The mitzvot are chutz limkomo. 
OTOH, some people say that being religious was fine for their grandparents, many years ago, but is irrelevant nowadays. The mitzvot are chutz lizmano.
The latter position is obviously far more  negative than the former.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070604/4501d019/attachment.html 

I believe it is the Sefer haTodaah where I saw this. I don't know where it is now, so I am writing from very old memory, and I may not have it all accurate, so please correct me. (Of course he probably brings it from  Midroshim). Anyhow, after most of his sons were born, Yishai began to worry that Boaz was not in fact allowed to marry Rus.  He then decided to take a shifcha (which would be permitted to a ben-Moavis even if a Moavis was asurah).  I am not sure if he divorced his wife, maybe only separated from her.  His wife decided to fool him and pretended to be the shifcha somehow.  Neither Yishai nor the brothers knew about this and therefore they thought Dovid's birth was highly questionable.  Therefore when Shmuel came and asked to see Yishai's sons they showed him all the others & he had to ask if there was another.  Dovid, the outcast, was out with the sheep.

As I recall, The Sefer Hatodaah explains that all the strange and seemingly somewhat inappropriate events (all the way back to Yehudah and Tamar) were to hide the light of Moshiach and confuse the Satan.

(By the way, I think ahavah-hav is from Michtav Me'Eliyahu).


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070604/5871fa46/attachment.htm 

Micha Berger wrote:

> Yes, saying both is new, and might be no older than the MB.

It's older than the MB.  Lubavitchers say both, and even have a specific
minhag as to the order (in Ki Teitzei zeicher is first, in Beshalach
zecher is first), and they're unlikely to have got the minhag from the MB.

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

On 6/3/07, Moshe Yehuda Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Going off on a tangent (but still keeping to the subject line) I recently
> saw someone write something about love, that "Ahavah" comes from the root
> "Hav," give, so that giving leads to loving, etc., etc. (I think this is
> well known - I've certainly heard it before, though I can't recall a
> Mekor.)
> Now, isn't "Ahavah" Lashon Kodesh, and "Hav" Aramaic, sort of shooting
> holes
> through this Vort?


Here too we have the word 'hav' in  Tanach --  See Shoftim 1:15 (it doesn't
seem  the same as 'hava nitchakma' or  'hava nivneh lanu', which may be
something else, I'm not sure): "hava li bracha" -- Give me a bracha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070604/6f87d70d/attachment-0001.html 

REShevin wrote:
> I have a more basic question. What is the nature of "brocha/blessing"
> that we do to or for Hashem and His works, and ask that He do to or
> for us?
> We may be thanking Him when we are prosperous, healthy, productive, etc.,
> but He is certainly not thanking us when He "blesses" us.
> Conversely, He grants us our needs, but we definitely aren't doing the
> same for Him.

A "must read" on the subject of the nature of brachot is "HaBrachot
b'Yahadut" by RYBS, in Yemei Zikaron, pp 29-57.

I think it's fair to say that a small part of the essential theme of
this lengthy and profound treatment of this subject is as follows:

The basic idea of bracha is fertility, expansion, and rejuvenation,
as when Hashem *blessed* man and woman and said "p'ru urvu". Not only
is the physical world fertile, but so is the spiritual. While HKBK has
willed it that man be a partner in the perfection of the world, He is
clearly the source of all shefa. Our brachot are an acknowledgement of
Hashem as the source of all that is good, both physical and spiritual,
in the world; His brachot allow man, and nature, to be fertile

RYBS addresses the question asked, in what sense can we say that Hashem
blesses us and we bless Him, on the face of it two completely different
concepts, at length. Ayen sham.

Saul Mashbaum

Re: <<Nusach Sefard has (in shacharis) "Nakdishach v'naaritzach",
conforming with the sefardim. They do say "ham'shalsh'lim lecha kedusha".
I can't remember whether Sefardim say lecha or lach there.>>

Sefaradim do say leKHA kedusha - followed by 'al yad neviAKH.

Many of the Ashkenaz lekhas are changes from lakhs made in the 1700's in
an attempt to make the siddur sound more Biblical. It is done mostly where
there is not a big hefsek. R' Zalman Henne and R' Yitzhak Satanov were
leaders in this field and Heidenheim/Roedelheim and then Avodat Yisrael
accepted most of these "corrections" followed by other Ashkenaz siddurim.

David

Re: << I have seen it argued that this is a remnant of an earlier
Ashkenazic pronunciation, which was similar to the Sephardi one.
Also cited was the word "p'shat", which we ought to pronounce "p'shot".

And many others. In Yiddish one says yam for the sea, not yom. and
we talk of a "stam" mishneh instead of "se-som" mishnoh. (sh'va na'
in first letter and, therefore, no dagesh in the tav).

One does hear both mistama and mistoma. But in Ashkenasic pronunciation
it should be mis-se-somo (dagesh in samakh as make-up for missing nun,
sh'va na', tav rafa and k'matzim).

Languages are funny.

David

From: "Dov Kay" <>
implication drawn by some is that one who is sinful, ie everyone,
>>

Everyone is a baal aveireh? Can you compare a choteh umachteh/mumar
lehachis etc to an average JoeBlow who may be over some issur - beshogeg  or 
even bemezid - but then 3 times daily begs for forgiveness - Selach Lanu??

>>>The counter-argument raised by others has been that if yishuv
EY is a mitzva, what justification is there to refrain from it?

Simple. Because for a  baal aveireh - it is no mitzva.
Making kiddush is a mitzva. But not if you use yayin nesech.

One cannot be mekayem mitzvas shofar or lulav with varieties
 that Chazal say are not kosher.

>>As a point of comparison, I was thinking of Gerus.  Jews have more mitzvos
than non-Jews, with the consequence that the stakes are higher and we are
more liable to punishment.  However, ..we welcome genuine gerim..
>>

Correct. You said it: "genuine gerim". And so too EY welcomes 'genuine 
Yidden'.

BTW, have you noticed how many non-genuine 'gerim' have been imported to
Israel in the past years by the 'non-genuine Yidden'?

And before the ususal galaxy of defenders/melamdei zechus of kofrim
(zionist ones only - of course) jump on me, let me clarify that by genuine 
Yid,
I am not disputing any 'halachic' Jew's status as being 100% halachically
Jewish,   but rather the fact that their day-to-day lifestyle is far from
what the Torah expects..

>>Entry into the palace of the King should certainly not be undertaken
without the requisite awe but, for all that, who would not want choose a
palace over a slum?

We weren't talking about 'want' but rather what is the view of the rishonim
and achronim.

SBA

On 6/4/07, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RSB wrote:
> > This masechet is filled with complex issues; issues which raise serious
> > moral and halachic implications.  Issues that should truly be dealt with
> > intensively and not during the 30+ minutes assigned to Daf Yomi.
>
> Typically, a DY shiur takes an hour.

Most DY shiurim I have seen in Chu"l are an hour, though I am aware of
shiurim that take 25-30 minutes.  In Israel, many DY shiurim are 30
minutes.  (Or is it just that in Israel I'm more familiar with DY shiurim
in Yeshiva, where people have more background?)

KT,
Michael

Somebody asked on Areivim about Yeshivishe Payes [sic].

Lately there's been a growing trend to tuck some hair behind your
ears; either as a Zeicher to Payesor as a public declaration that
you're an Am Ha'Aretz.

The Mishna in Makos 3:5 and commentators there explain the halachic
boundaries of Payos.
SA YD 181 ("Kippa") codifies it.
Mishna Brura repeats it in the Biur Halocho at the end of 251.

There's no hair on your forehead. There's none behind your ears. The
hair in between that space are the Payes - all the way to the bottom
of your skull (where your jawbone is connected)

So Payes exist in this triangle: the top "corner" of your forehead -
top of your ear - bottom of your skull.

This entire area has the same Din. The question is what is the Din -
and there are various opinions:
- You shouldn't cut any hair in that area. Once it grows below that
area you may trim it. (Must trim it - Arizal [BLY, SA YD])

- You may not cut it too short. Never figured out what too short
is.Various unclear explanations.

You obviously may not use a razor on that area - it's more stringent
than the beard area.

Everything else is "fashion"; tucking behind the ear vs. let it hand
loose; curling them...

Oxymoron:
- Untrimmed beard & trimmed Payes.
- Payes behind ear and trimmed Sideburns

Hope that gives a starting point for your research,

- Danny


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 131
***************************************

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..."