Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 153

Tue, 18 Nov 2014

• 1. Re: two consecutive shva nachs (Simon Montagu)
• 2. Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?! (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: two consecutive shva nachs (Michael Poppers)
• 4. B'tzitzis (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 5. Re: Shalshelet ()
• 6. Rabbi Lau (Eli Turkel)
• 7. two consecutive shva nachs (David and Esther Bannett)
• 8. Re: two consecutive shva nachs (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: Rabbi Lau (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Shaliach for Bircas HaGomel (Isaac Balbin)
• 11. Kevurah of Tefillin Kesheirim (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Kevurah of Tefillin Kesheirim (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: Kevurah of Tefillin Kesheirim (Saul Guberman)
• 14. Re: Kevurah of Tefillin Kesheirim (Micha Berger)

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> In my previous post, I wrote that finding a word which ends with two
> consecutive shva nachs "actually does occur in totally normal Hebrew verbs
> ... and it's not really that rare, either."
>
> Somehow, I totally missed the fact that this not only "actually does
> occur", but it is the standard form for a past tense verb in the singular
> feminine second person (in other words: "you" to one woman). I should have
> noticed this from the examples I gave, but some of them were masculine and
> that threw me off.
>

There are in fact two standard forms where this occurs. One as you say is
the singular feminine second person in the past tense; the other is the
future tense of verbs ending with the letter he, when shortened in either
the jussive form ("yaft"), or with the vav hahippuch ("vayashk"). All your
examples are from one of these two cases.


>
> Example:
> You ate: Achalta to one man, Achalt to one woman
> You said: Amarta to one man, Amart to one woman
>
> Nevertheless, my question still stands, and is now even stronger: Is it
> difficult for a native speaker of Lashon Hakodesh to pronounce two
> consecutive shva nachs? If it *is* difficult, then how did this get to be a
> basic form of the verb?


I'm not a native speaker so I can't be sure, but I can answer by "michlal
hen shom'im lav": when the first of the two letters with the shva is a
guttural, the shva becomes a patah ("shama'at bitti" not "shama`t", Ruth
2:8; "vayyihad yitro" not "vayyihd", Shemot 18:9). If the form with the
gutturals are difficult enough to pronounce that they need to be changed,
the forms without the gutturals are apparently OK.


> And if not, then what does that say about the rule that the second shva is
> supposedly *always* a shva na?


AIUI the rule applies to the second of two consecutive shvas *in the middle
of a word*. It's trumped by the rule that a shva on the last letter is
always nah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141114/66176838/attachment-0001.htm>

On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna???s 
instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, 
world Jewry started reciting Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis

On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna???s 
instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, 
world Jewry started reciting ???Gevuros Geshamim 
B???Tchiyas HaMeisim???, better known as the 
formulaic insert ???Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid Ha..."
Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a 
segol under the letter Gimmel) or is it Gashem 
(with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is the proper formula?

----------
To find out, and what the differing opinions 
depend on, read the full article 
"<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1414695053
-17656ac48a4b66524fe67a26385c2897-7358257?pa=25966476375>Insights 
Into Halacha: Geshem or 
<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1414695053
-17656ac48a4b66524fe67a26385c2897-7358257?pa=25966476375>Gashem?" 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141114/02d465c6/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V32n152, RAM asked:
> There is a well-known rule that if a word has two consecutive shvas, then
the second one must be a shva na....Am I totally mistaken about not having
two consecutive shva nachs? <
The rule (which, like other "rule"s of *diqduq*, is derived from TaNaCH) is
that when there are two *sh'va*s _prior to the end of a word_, the second
is *na'*.

P.S. What seems like a nice summary of this and similar "rule"s can be
found here: http://www.hakhel.info/archivesPublicService/GrammarSummary.pdf
.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141116/3fc35c87/attachment-0001.htm>

The bracha for putting on a tallis gadol (tallit gadol or large prayer
shawl) ends with the words "ba-tzitzis" or "ba-tzitzit" - in most
traditions. However Nusach Ari (Lubavitch) say "b'tzitzis" with a sheva
vowel. Are there any others who say it this way? Does this difference change
the meaning or kavana of the bracha?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141116/a457885e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: Avi Goldstein via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
"

>>   Cantor Wolberg  wrote:
"This sign expresses vacillation, doubt, dread or anxiety." 
 
He goes on to explain that Lot was vacillating because of his desire  to 
keep his possessions, while Yosef held back his desire to be with Lot's wife.  
This leaves the other two cases: that of Eliezer and that of Moshe during 
the  installation of the kohanim.


First, let me note that it may be more accurate to describe the  shalshelet
as a chain that holds one back (as my Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Yechiel  Perr, has
explained it)....  <<
 
 
>>>>
What I have learned is that the very sound of the  shalsheles -- the 
repeated wavering back and forth -- represents hesitation and  ambivalence.  
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141116/002e0ee5/attachment-0001.htm>

I spent shabbat with a group together with Rabbi Lau, chief rabbi of Israel.

1) He reiterated the improvements made this year to the "heter mechira"
They found an Arab who said that he was willing to keep the 7 mitzvot of
Bnei Noach. When asked why not convert to Judaism. He replied that he found
the total mitzvot to hard to keep, After further questioning a bet din when
through the procedure of "convertin" him to a Ger Toshav.
The lands for the heter mechirah were "sold" to him whih overcomed the
problem of "lo techanem"

In addition someone met with each farmer to explain the various options
(a) leaving the land fallow (b) Otzar Bet din (c) planting in greenhouses
not directly connected to the ground (d) heter mechirah.
This ocercomes the problem that farmers are signing a document that they
dont understand (gemirat daat)
(c) All farmers sign a commitment that planting will be done by nonJews as
demanded by Rav Kook
(d) from previous years the contract is betwteen the farmer and the Ger
Toshav eliminating any "shaliach ledvar averah"

2) In a dvar Torah he presented several midrashim (and Zohar chadash) that
talk about a "fifth malchut" after the standard four (Bavel, Persia,
Greece, Edom=Rome=Xtianity). This 5th kingdom would be Ishmael (Arabs).
This kingdom would be especially cruel but in the end their downfall would
lead to the Messiah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141116/ad75d78a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/16/2014 07:38 AM, via Avodah wrote:
> rule is so well-known that it has a famous exception, namely the words
> "shtei" and "shnei"

The exception to the rule that the sh'va in the first letter of a word is
na' applies only to shtei in all its forms. I never heard of it applying
to sh'nei.

One possible reason for the exception, accepted by some grammarians,
is that the feminine form of sh'nayim should be shintayim. Omission of
the nun causes a tashlum dagesh in the tav. The dagesh in the tav makes
the sh'va before it into a nach.

 From this exception to the rule we learn an important rule: Once we've
invented rules they can affect pronunciaton of a language. This rule
applies very strongly to sh'va na' and nach.

bivrakha,
David

Offlist, a very learned listmember who prefers to remain anonymous
asked me:
> As to your question: a better one, I think, is -- why is the
> sh'va necessary at all? How would we pronounce, say, neift, if
> there were no sh'va under the tes? Would it not be the same?

And in fact, don't the great majority of Hebrew words end with a
unvoweled consonant? It is as if those words have an implied sh'va nach
on that final consonant. If so, then perhaps the question to ask is:
Why is this case different? Why does this case require the final sh'va
to be *explicit*?

Actually, it seems to me that there are three cases where the final
consonant has an explicit sh'va:

1) The case at hand, where the next-to-last consonant has a sh'va,
it seems that if the next letter gets a sh'va, then it must be explicit.

2) Where the final letter is a khaf, and it has a sh'va, the sh'va must
be explicit. (Examples: melech, baruch)

3) Where the final letter has a dagesh, and it has a sh'va, the sh'va
must be explicit. (Example: the common "aht", meaning single feminine
"you"; also "vayichad" in Shemos 18:9)

Why do these cases need an explicit sh'va? I do not know, but could it
possibly be to indicate that the letter is not silent? Please note that
in a post to Mesorah on 19 Oct 2008, R' Seth Mandel wrote:
> The absence of a vowel (including the shva sign) would indicate
> that the consonantal letter is not pronounced.  That is the way
> the Tiberian punctuation indicates silent letters, such as the sin
> in Yissokhor or the yod in the third person masculine singular
> pronominal ending for plural nouns (which is not pronounced -oyw)
> or the second person masculine singular pronominal ending for
> plural nouns (which is not pronounced -eikho).

Another common example of that rule is the aleph in "y'roo", in "y'ru
es Hashem k'doshav".

If so, I suppose it might be possible that if the final sh'va were left
implicit (that is, if it were not printed explicitly) then we might think
that the letter is a silent one. I really doubt this (because we don't
seem worried about it in the great majority of Hebrew words which have
no vowel on the final consonant), but I mention it merely in the hope
that it might give someone an idea.

After writing the above, I found several exceptions to this exceptional
occurrence. The fairly common words "vayar" (he saw) and "chet" (sin)
have an explicit sh'va on the next-to-last consonant, and then the final
consonant is unvoweled (or, if you prefer, has an implicit sh'va). It
also appears in the less-common words "shav" (false, such as in Shemos
23:1) and "gai" (valley, such as in Devarim 3:29).

I suspect it is significant that these all have alef as the final
letter. If the final sh'va is needed to show that a letter is not silent,
that ink would be wasted on the alef, which is already silent anyway. So
now the question seems rather strong: In Vayera 21:19, the word "vatashk"
has a sh'va under the final letter, which is a koof. If that sh'va were
not printed, would we really think to leave the koof silent, like the
"seen" in Yisachar?

[Email #2.]

Postscript:

I wrote that there are (at least) three cases where the final consonant
has an explicit sh'va. For the first two (where last two consonants both
have a sh'va [such as "vatashk"], or where the last consonant is a khaf
without dagesh [such as "derech"]) then I suppose it is possible that
the sh'va might be needed to show that the consonant is not silent.

But for the third case, where the final consonant has a dagesh [such as
the very common "aht"), I cannot imagine that the sh'va would be needed
for this reason, because the dagesh *already* calls attention to the
stressed pronunciation.

Akiva Miller

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> 2) In a dvar Torah he presented several midrashim? (and Zohar
> chadash) that talk about a "fifth malchut" after the standard four
> (Bavel, Persia, Greece, Edom=Rome=Xtianity). This 5th kingdom would
> be Ishmael (Arabs). This kingdom would be especially cruel but in
> the end their downfall would lead to the Messiah

Is there any chance that he made a connection to the the Sefer's Fifth Cup, and the pasuk of Ve'heveisi? I'd love to hear that!

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Heavy rains mean flooding
Anywhere it rains it can flood. Learn your risk. Get flood insurance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/546912a25a47c12a25037st04vuc

I had a distressed but relieved mother who asked me to bench Gomel for her
son who was in a serious accident. It appears the son may not feel the
importance of such but the mother has convinced him that someone could say
it on his behalf 

She rang me from Israel and asked if I'd do it. I knew of the Ramo and also
know this isn't a regular bircas hanehenin, as it is a chovo. In the end
the Rabonim I spoke to were against the idea. I believe R Yehuda Herzl
Henkin wrote something on this topic in Assia.

Has anyone faced this question

???? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141117/f01e4de5/attachment-0001.htm>

When a niftar's blood is on his tefillin, are the tefillin buried, or
does their qedushah intervene?

I see multiple possibilities here: One might say one buries the tefillin,
or that the kelavim are removed first, or that only the retzu'os, or
only the retzuos beyond those used for the deOraisa, or not even the
retzuos are buried.

Also, if any of the tefillin are not buried, does one remove the blood
from them for quvurah in ways that risk pasuling the batim or the black
of the retzu'os?

Hashem yizkireim letovah, veyinqom dam avadav hashafuch.
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

R' Micha Berger asked a question which, b'avonoseinu harabim, seems to have become l'maaseh:

> When a niftar's blood is on his tefillin, are the tefillin
> buried, or does their qedushah intervene?

I am under the impression that burial is an appropriate method of disposal
for tefillin, and if so, I don't understand the question. Simply bury the
tefillin with the niftar, no?

On the other hand, if the family would prefer to retain the tefillin for
whatever reason, a good question could be how to do so while giving a
proper burial to the blood.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/546b6fcf977886fcf568bst02vuc

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> When a niftar's blood is on his tefillin, are the tefillin buried, or
> does their qedushah intervene?

Blood should be able to be taken off the batim.  The blood would sit on top
of the paint.  The retzuos are very porous, especially the under side.  It
is probably easier to just bury them as is.  Also, in a case of murder, the
victim should be buried "as is", so that Hashem Yikom Damo!

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:10pm GMT, R Akiva Miller wrote:
: I am under the impression that burial is an appropriate method of
: disposal for tefillin, and if so, I don't understand the question. Simply
: bury the tefillin with the niftar, no?

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:09am EST, R Saul Guberman wrote:
:                                       ...  Also, in a case of murder, the
: victim should be buried "as is", so that Hashem Yikom Damo!

I had asked because I wasn't sure it was permissible to bury a *kosher*
and still technically usable pair of tefillin. Neither RAM nor RSG seem
to think there is a problem.

I know that "lo sa'asu kein Lashem E-lokeichem" prohibited the wanton
destruction of sifrei qodesh that is appropriate for texts of AZ. So, I
would still be happier a maqor to justify assuming that the tefillin may
be buried. Burial is the appropriate method of disposal for tefillin,
but I'm not sure minhagim or even dinim about burying people override
the halakhos of how tefillin must be treated.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm


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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)