Volume 17 Number 14
                       Produced: Fri Dec  9  1:11:07 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Carrying Guns on Shabbath
         [Lon Eisenberg]
Generational Declines
         [Alan Ash]
Incorrect cantilation (ta`amim)
         [Richard Friedman]
Mechitza - Origin
         [Robert Israel]
Removing char marks from glass
         [David Charlap]
Torah reading - corrections
         [Janice Gelb]
Yaacov and Yisroel
         [Mitchel Berger]
Yaakov marrying two sisters
         [Michael J Broyde]
Yaakov vs. Yisroel
         [Aryeh Blaut]


From: <eisenbrg@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 18:18:13 IST
Subject: Carrying Guns on Shabbath

I just want to add one point to this discussion:
If there is an `eruv, there really is no major problem to worry about.  Yes,
a gun is mukzeh, but it is a "kli shemelahto leissur" [an item whose
normal use is probhited on Shabbath], which may be moved when needed for
its place or itself.  If you need to patrol (or protect yourself), then you
need it for itself.  The real pikuah nefesh [life preserving] issues come up
when there is no `eruv.


From: <AASH@...> (Alan Ash)
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 20:49:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Generational Declines

elad rosin writes on nov.21 
>the misconception that we in this day are on a level of our great sages and
>are entitled to our opinion of halacha.

Our torah is a living torah. What if our great sages were to say that since
they were not as gadol as moshe rabenu they cannot posek where would we be ?
Today we have at our fingertips the knowledge of science & the technological
advances that can help us define halacha and update it to be living in our
times. Our torah is growing and applicable to every generation otherwise
after a few generations it will become ancient (god forbid).

alan ash .  


From: Richard Friedman <RF@...>
Date: 08 Dec 1994 11:54:11 GMT
Subject: Incorrect cantilation (ta`amim)

Lon Eisenberg, responding to Aleeza Berger, says in part that, "3.
Incorrect cantilation (ta`amim) may often needs correction, since it is
equivalent to punctuation and inflection, which can often change the
meaning."  This makes eminent sense, but some specifics would be helpful.

One that arises frequently, since it is read each of the Shalosh Regalim,
is Deut. 16:6: "l'shachen shmo sham."  This triplet of words appears
several times; in most, it means "to cause His name to dwell there," and
the t'amim support this phrasing:  e.g., Deut. 12:11 (mahpach, pashta,
katon), 14:23 (munah, munah, r'vi'a), 16:11 (mercha, tipcha, sof pasuk);
cf. 14:24.  However, the trop on 16:6 is zakef katon, t'vir, followed by
"tizbah (mercha) et-hapesah (tipcha) ba'arev (etnahta)."  And the
translation is "... to cause His name to dwell; _there_ you must offer the
paschal sacrifice in the evening."  In other words, the word "sham" in
_this_ verse goes with the _succeeding_ words, not with the preceding ones.
I believe that when the ba'al korei reads so as to link the "sham" with the
preceding words, even though all of the words are pronounced correctly,
this is enough of an error to warrant correction, and I have done so (to
the puzzlement of the baal korei).

But how far to take this?  There are many places where relatively minor
trop errors (less blatant than misplacing the sof pasuk, or even the
etnahta) can suggest a meaning shift.  One of the studies of Nehama
Leibowitz, ShLITA, analyzes the difference between phrasing Ex. 20:2 as
"Anochi, Adoshem Elokeicha" (as the trop does) and phrasing it as "Anochi
Adoshem, Elokeicha."  As I recall, she suggests that the former phrasing
means roughly, "Let me introduce myself: I am the Lord your God," while the
latter one means roughly, "I, Whom you already know as Adoshem, am to be
your God."  As I recall, she indicates that, trop to the contrary
notwithstanding, the latter phrasing makes more sense, and she adduces
commentaries in support of it.  Other examples of meaning distinctions
suggested by relatively fine trop distinctions appear in the work of Mech'l
Perlman, Z"L.

A fine trop error that is very common is the misplacement of the tipcha.
Sometimes the phrasing suggested by the erroneous placement sounds merely
silly to the attuned listener, but does not create any potential ambiguity.
But see Ex. 34:5 -- "vayikra (mercha) b'shem (tipcha) Adoshem (sof pasuk),"
and contrast the possible marking (tipcha, mercha, sof pasuk).  A free
translation of the former would be, "... he (i.e., Moses) called by name on
God" (i.e., he called on God by name); a free translation of the latter
would be, "... he called on the name of God."  Which gabbai out there would
correct this error?


From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 17:14:15 -0800
Subject: Re: Mechitza - Origin

Here's the full bibliographic info on the book mentioned by Aliza Berger 
in vol. 17 #13:

TITLE:       Women leaders in the ancient synagogue : inscriptional evidence 
               and background issues / by Bernadette J. Brooten. 
NAMES:       Brooten, Bernadette J.
SOURCE:      Chico, Calif. : Scholars Press, c1982.
DESCRIPTION: x, 281 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. 
SERIES:      Brown Judaic studies ; no. 36
SUBJECTS:    Women in Judaism - History.
             Synagogues - Organization and administration - History.
             Jews - History - 168 B.C.-135 A.D.
             Jews - History - 70-638.
NOTES:       Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

Robert Israel                            <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics             
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Y4


From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 19:10:31 EST
Subject: Removing char marks from glass

<zohar@...> (Mimi Zohar) writes:
>My son received an oil chanukia this year.  The glasses got burn
>stains on them.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to remove the
>burn stains?  Or do you simply buy replacements each year?

I've removed similar stains from glass candle holders using Comet
cleanser.  (Any other bleach-derived cleanser might work as well.)
Use it with a non-abrasive scouring pad (like Scotch's NeverScratch
pad.)  Get the glass and the pad soaking wet.  The apply some cleanser
directly to the pad and scrub on the burn marks.  The marks come out
after about a minute of scrubbing.

I've found that ordinary dish soap will not work.

-- David


From: <Janice.Gelb@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:27:11 +0800
Subject: Re: Torah reading - corrections

In Vol. 17 #10 Digest, Lon Eisenberg says:
> 3. Incorrect cantilation (ta`amim) may often needs correction, since it is
> equivalent to punctuation and inflection, which can often change the meaning.

I have been told that gabbais only need to correct cantillation on an
incorrectend of verse or end of aliyah cantillation.

Another aspect to this subject I'd like to raise is what to do if
you have a reader who doesn't seem to be able to "hear" certain
corrections. For example, we have an otherwise good ba'al koreh who
often doesn't seem to be able pronounce a shva (for example,
"b'chodesh" and "bachodesh" are both pronounced "bachodesh"). Despite
the gabbai'im correcting him, he still repeats the same incorrect
sound. Does this disqualify him as a ba'al koreh?  Also, should the
gabbai'im repeatedly correct the same type of mistake and interrupt the
reading even if they know he will not be able to "hear" the correction
and correctly reproduce it?

Janice Gelb                  | The only connection Sun has with this      
<janiceg@...>   | message is the return address. 


From: Mitchel Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 08:24:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Yaacov and Yisroel

On the subject of the third forefather's name, let me just reprint
exerpts from something I got off Lubavitch's machine. (L'Chaim,
Vayishlach '94 "Living with the Times")

.... "Not Jacob shall your name any more be called, but Israel, for
you have striven with G-d and with men, and prevailed."

.... Jews are referred to as both servants of G-d and as G-d's sons. As
"servants," they are called "Jacob"--"Hearken unto Me, Jacob my
servant." As "sons," they are called "Israel"--"My son, My firstborn,

The difference between a servant and a son is obvious. When a son
fulfills his father's wishes, he does so happily and out of love. A
servant, however, is not necessarily overjoyed at the opportunity to
carry out his master's command, quite frequently doing so only because
he has no choice in the matter.

.... A Jew can pray, learn Torah, observe the mitzvot and serve his
Father like a son, or he can perform the very same actions without joy,
like a servant serves his Master. When a Jew stands on the level of
"Israel," he willingly fulfills his Father's commands, experiencing no
inner conflict with the Evil Inclination. When, however, a Jew is on
the level of "Jacob," it means he is forced to grapple with the Evil
Inclination in order to properly fulfill his Master's command, quite
frequently doing so only out of a sense of obligation and submission.

Obviously, the level of "Israel" is the one toward which we all strive,
yet one cannot reach this level without first passing through the level
of "Jacob."...

This is also one reason why, even after Jacob received the name Israel,
he is sometimes referred to in the Torah by his old name. For although
the level of "Israel" is superior, the level of "Jacob" is nonetheless
a necessary component in the spiritual life of the Jew.

Adapted from the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe


From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 22:22:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Yaakov marrying two sisters

One of the letter writers in explaining the conduct Yaakov in marrying 
two sisters stated that this was permissible because the avot were 
considered benai noach, to whom this conduct is permissible.  Whether the 
avot were bnei noach or not is a major dispute among the authoroties (see 
for example, Encyclopedia Talmudit, Avot).  Those authoroties who ruled 
Yaakov to have the status of a full Jew defend this conduct by noting 
that Rachel and Leah have the status of converts to Judaism, and torah 
law does not prohibit a person from marrying two sisters both of whom 
converted to Judasism (indeed, it is unclear to me if that is 
rabbinically prohibited either, except for cherem derabbenu gershom, 
which has nothing to do with sisters).


From: Aryeh Blaut <ny000592@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 20:44:02 -0800
Subject: Re: Yaakov vs. Yisroel

>>From: Yehuda Harper <jrh@...>
>Jay Bailey writes:
>>A couple weeks ago we read that Yaakov's name is changed to Yisrael,
>>first by the angel, and then by G-d himself in a separate "discussion".
>>And yet for the next 2 parshiyot, he is refered to as Yisrael and Yaakov
>>interchangably.  There seems to be no rhyme or reason, peculiarly 
>>un-Torah-esque :)  What use Yaakov any more at all?

Ya'akov and Yisrael are used back and forth depending on the roll he 
plays at that part of the story.  The times that will refer to the 
future nation, he is called Yisrael.  At the times in which he is the 
person, he is called Ya'akov.

>A related question:  G-d changed Avraham's name from Avram to Avraham.  Its
>assur to call him Avram.  Yet, we say "Avraham, Yitzchak, V'Yaakov" instead
>of saying "...V'Yisroel."  Why is it assur to call one of the patriarchs by
>him former name but OK to call another by his?  This was a question at
>shalos seudos at my shul a couple of shabboses ago; but nobody was able to
>answer is satisfactorily.

When Hashem changed Avraham's name, He gave a reason:  You (Avraham) 
will be the father of many nations.  His former name represented someone 
who was a different person, so to speak.

Hashem also named Yitzchak.

Ya'akov was told of his upcoming name change after he was victorious in 
his fight.  The fight was symbolic of future struggles with the 
non-Jewish nations.  Therefore, flip - flopping his name.

I'm sure I saw this someplace in preparing for teaching these Parshiyos, 
but I don't remember the sources.



End of Volume 17 Issue 14