Volume 13 Number 39
Produced: Wed Jun 1 17:39:26 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Child Custody
[Rabbi Freundel]
Codes and Belief
[David Curwin]
Differences in Ashkenaz
[Danny Skaist]
Et vs Ait (2)
[Aleeza Esther Berger, Danny Weiss]
Flat and Round Earth
[David Kaufmann ]
G'dolim and ruach hakodesh
[Joel Goldberg]
Hebrew Standard
[Pinchus Laufer]
Lesbianism
["Joseph M. Winiarz"]
Sechvi
[Mike Gerver]
Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharat Hamishpacha
[Michael Broyde]
The IIA
[Mitch Berger]
Yeshaya 28:14
[Tsiel Ohayon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Dialectic@...> (Rabbi Freundel)
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 16:44:11 -0400
Subject: Child Custody
On the question of child custody several points
1. custody is a rights concept halachik relationships with children is a
responsibilities concept
2. As such best interest of children including religious upbringing is the
determining factor
3. if all things are equal the majority opinion is children under 6 to the
mother, children over 6- boys to the father girls to the mother
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <6524dcurw@...> (David Curwin)
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 20:35:57 -0400
Subject: Codes and Belief
My Rosh Yeshiva, Rav David Bigman of Yeshivat HaKibbutz HaDati, when
asked about the codes in the Torah, said to discuss codes or patterns in
the Torah was like to say that Stephen Hawking is a great chess player.
It may be true, but so what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 09:12:43 -0400
Subject: Differences in Ashkenaz
>Anthony Waller
>(1) Can anyone add to this list?
"Shir Shel Yom" (psalm of the day) on shabbat is said in Israel
following the kaddish after the readers repetition, not at the end of
davening. (the kids have a very short turn.) (the Gra's shir shel yom,
on holidays, is said at the end however)
In general I have noticed, following the Rinat Yisrael siddurim, that
Ashkanaz In Israel is like s'fared in NY, and S'fared in Israel is like
Nusach Ha'ri (Chabad).
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 17:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Et vs Ait
"et" (es) is used when the et is connected to the following word by a
maqqef (hyphen); "Ait" (ais) is used when it is not. Israel Yeivin, in
*Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah* says that since either "et" or "ait"
is acceptable gramatically, it must be musical (accent, or trop) requirements
which cause et in some places and ait in others. He brings the example:
(p. 233) Lev 25:5 ait sefiach ketsirkha lo toktsor v'et---invei nezirekha
lo tivtsor
These are two parallel phrases, so why the et-makkef in one and the ait
in the other? This is because the cantillation is different in the two
phrases. (munach mapach pashta on the first 3 words, and merkha tipcha on
the words et--invei nezirekha. The makkef is often used to connect 2 words
so as to be able to use fewer cantillations. For trop purposes,
et--invei is one word.)
Aliza Berger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <danny@...> (Danny Weiss)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 14:19:03 -500 (EDT)
Subject: Et vs Ait
Gedalyah Berger writes:
[There were several others who also sent in about the same reply as the
one that got used from Gedalyah:
<LANDAU@...> (Jerrold Landau)
Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
<mberger@...> (Mitch Berger)
Ed Bruckstein <bruckstn@...>
witkin avi <msavi@...>
<umeth@...> (Uri Meth)
Yechezkel Schatz <lpschatz@...>
adds:
Any word attatched to one or more words proceeding it, is by definition
unaccentuated (bilti mut'am). When a "closed" syllable (havara s'gura -
meaning it ends with a consonant, like the word et) is unaccentuated,
then it is "menukad" (vowelled) with a "tenuah ketana" (in this case a
seggol as opposed to a tzeire).
Mod.]
> "Ais" is used when the word stands alone and has its own "trop" [musical
> note]. "Es" is used when the word is attached to the next word with a
> makaf [hyphen]; in these cases the word usually does not have its own
> trop, except for an occasional qadma.
This is indeed true, that et has no associated trop and ais does, but
only begs the question as to why the particular noun got et or ait. In
fact, I would state that it is the reverse, once you know that a noun is
getting ET, you know that it will have to be grammatically linked to the
noun (denoted by a makaf [hyphen] in most printed texts) and will not
get its own trop. Conversely, if that noun is getting AIT, you know that
it will have its own trop.
Now, the question for the grammarians is, what determines whether a noun
gets et or ait. I assume that this applies to Biblical Hebrew only, since
I have never seen any other texts employing AIT.
Danny Weiss, MD
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kaufmann <david@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 08:40:30 -0400
Subject: Flat and Round Earth
In reply to Dr. Sam Juni's comments about micro-organisms, spontaneous
generation, etc., just a note: most scholars and educated people
throughout the centuries (probably since the beginnings of astronomy)
recognized the earth was round. (Certainly since the time of the early
Greek scientists.) The size was in question (hence Columbus). It is an
(urban) myth that everyone believed the earth was flat - only the
ignorant did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <goldberg@...> (Joel Goldberg)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 02:36:33 -0400
Subject: G'dolim and ruach hakodesh
<Dialectic@...> (Rabbi Freundel) writes:
> There is much confusion about the claim of Ruach hakodesh that
> supposedly adheres to Gedolim. .... It cannot mean
> infallibility or Ramban for example couldn't argue with Rashi who had
> previously spoken "infallebly". The best definition I have ever seen
> comes from a tosefos in I believe Berachot (I will attempt to find the
> exact cite) That speaks of this in terms of an intuition that leads the
> Gadol to the appropriate source as he is deliberating the question under
> consideration.
I still don't understand the difference. Modern g'dolim (Rabbis Tendler
and Bleich are my favourite example) can be on opposite sides of an
issue. Has one been lead by ruach hakodesh to the appropriate source
and the other not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <plaufer@...> (Pinchus Laufer)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 15:35:14 -0400
Subject: Hebrew Standard
Since this has been raised perhaps some MJers can help me out. My
daughter is learning Hebrew in one of the local schools in their version
of modern hebrew. (It varies from school to school). I myself was
raised on yeshivish ashkenazish pronunciation. I have become accustomed
to patach=kamatz; tav=sav; etc. But there are 2 developments that are
new to me (and were backed up by the Israelis who are on temporary
postings in the US): (1) the tzeirei (..) has bitten the dust - it is
now taught as identical to the segol (an eh sound), and (2) the accent
on words seems to have shifted to the first syllable almost uniformly.
Is this "standard"? What does that mean for reading the torah?
Thank You,
Pinchus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph M. Winiarz" <100274.1301@...>
Date: 01 Jun 94 14:39:21 EDT
Subject: Lesbianism
Regarding Dr. Juni's inquiry see Tur Even Haezer 20; Rambam Isurai Biah
21:8. The Tur, as well as the Rishonim on the Gemara cited in the Beit
Yosef, define "nashim mesalselot" in terms of specific acts.
Interestingly, the Torat Cohanim cited by the Tur and Rambam as the
souce of the prohibition (I confess that I haven't yet looked at the
source) define the issur in terms of the relationship ("men marrying men
and women marrying women"). I don't pretend to know if that fact has
any halachic significance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 4:03:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Sechvi
Regarding the question raised in v12n75 or whether the original meaning
of this word was "heart" or "rooster," Brown, Driver and Briggs' "Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament" agrees that "sechvi" meaning
"rooster" is a relatively late foreign loan word, or at least one of the
sources they quote says that. As to the meaning in Job 38:36, they are
rather uncertain, since that is the only place it appears in Tanach.
From its spelling, they speculate that it may be related to the Aramaic
root samekh-kaph-aleph, which means "look out" or "hope", for reasons
that aren't clear to me they also suggest that it means "celestial
phenomenon" or "meteor", but I don't see how those meanings fit the
context in Job, where it is usually translated "heart."
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Broyde <RELMB@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 11:56:20 -0400
Subject: Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharat Hamishpacha
I have seen a number of people advance the proposition that one who
obseves Shabbos, Kashrus and Taharas hamishpacha is "religious." I am a
little uncomfortable with that listing, as is does not correspond to
anything other than modern American sociology (and even that I am not
sure of.). The first one clearly comes from numerious gemerot and the
second one has its clear origins in YD 119:1. I do not see any general
halachic source to use observance of taharat hamishpacha as a benchmark.
Please do not misunderstand this as minimizing its observance; however,
I do not think that the halachic tradition of measuring who is "in the
system" and "who is not" on a general level ever included this specific
issur and not other issurai torah punished by karet. Indeed, when the
concept of *achecha bamitzvot* (your companion in observance) is used, I
have never seen niddah laws lists as part of that test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mberger@...> (Mitch Berger)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 08:40:27 -0400
Subject: The IIA
I already followed up, and got an IIA account. They didn't ask me for a
credit card or anything. I faxed a request, and they mailed me back
particulars (phone number, user id, starting password to be changed
later). It is a UNIX box (SunOS to be exact), but they have a menu
system for the novice that gives you mail, UseNet, World Wide Web, ftp,
archie, and gopher.
I haven't had any problem - on the contrary, I am very satisfied. Of
course, it's only been two weeks.
The only strings attached I've seen is:
1- They are considering charging for telnet usage. I don't know if this is
to telnet in from another machine, or telnet-ing out. (Telnet is a utility
for using the net to log in to a remote site as though you were on a
terminal.)
2- They spend a lot of effort trying to sell you their sponsor phone company,
complete with a special deal on 800 access.
Micha Berger Ron Arad, Zechariah Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Yehudah Katz:
<mberger@...> May the Omnipresent have mercy on them and take them from
(212) 464-6565 restraint to openness, from dark to light, from slavery
(201) 916-0287 to salvation.
[Other comments that IIA is (or may be) a legitimate organization were
received from:
Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
<esafern@...> (Eric Safern)
Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ohayon@...> (Tsiel Ohayon)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 02:36:30 -0400
Subject: Yeshaya 28:14
>>Yeshayah 28 : 14 - 16:
^^^^^^^
>Did it strike you that the DOP was signed in Wash on Sep 28th which was on
>14 Tishre in Israel. (7 hours later) ^^
>^^
The DOP was signed on Sept 13, which should be the 27 or 28 of Elul.
Tsiel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 39