Volume 24 Number 31
Produced: Mon Jun 3 21:51:09 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Common davening mistake - pet peeve
[Rafi Stern]
Common davening mistakes
[Yisrael Medad]
Counting Brachos
[David Riceman]
Errors in Nusach
[Ephraim Zaks]
How many Blessings can Intervene?
[Rick Turkel]
Laining Matters: 3 Answers and 1 Question
[Russell Hendel]
Postal Mail vs. Messenger
[Perry Zamek]
Slander
[Yitzchok Samet]
Stamp use
[Freda B Birnbaum]
Tefillah Errors
[Israel Pickholtz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <iitpr@...> (Rafi Stern)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 06:47:12 PDT
Subject: Re: Common davening mistake - pet peeve
>What most chazanim say, and is enforced by the traditional tunes is:
> az bikol, ra'ash gadol, adir vichazak mashmi'im kol
>By moving "mighty and strong" to a phrase that has no other subject,
>it would be read as the subject - i.e. "A Mighty and Strong One".
>
>This phraseology then becomes:
> Then in a sound, a great noise, they permit a Mighty and Strong One
> to hear a sound
>
>Who are the angels to permit Hashem or deny Hashem anything? And then,
>what is this "*A* Mighty and Strong One" -- wouldn't it read *THE*, with
>leading hei's? (As is the case in "Hakeil Hagadol Hagibor viHanorah.)
While you are probably right that the Hazan is distorting the original
text, your translation is way off. The word "permit" does not appear in
the text and neither is anyone hearing anything - only those who are
making the sounds are mentioned. As you yourself point out the
introduction of a "strong and mighty one" does not make sense either.
A correct translation of this incorrect rendition (by the Hazan) should
read:
Then in an audible voice, a great noise, awesome and powerful
they make a sound
This is also a slightly forced translation ("adir vehazak" are singular
and "mashmiim" is plural) but it is certainly better than the one
suggested by Micha Berger.
Rafi Stern
The Israel Institute of Transportation Planning and Research
Tel: 972-3-6873312, Fax: 972-3-6872196
E-mail: <iitpr@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <isrmedia@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Fri, 24 May 96 15:03:40 PDT
Subject: Common davening mistakes
1. In the Shmoneh Asrei: "lee-shai-nay" is usually slurred
and comes out "lishnay""
2. When returning the Sefer Torah: "hodo lashem" is usually
said as "hodu".
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <dr@...> (David Riceman)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:58:39 +0400
Subject: Counting Brachos
As far as I know one may not take Challah, make a Mincha, or make
Lecheanim from Trumah.
David Riceman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ephraim Zaks <ephi@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 10:04 +0300
Subject: RE: Errors in Nusach
Micha Berger <aishdas@...> wrote (#25) regarding the
subject of Chazanim's errors about the phrase from the Kedushah of
Shacharit on Shabbat: "Az BeKol Ra'ash Gadol, Adir VeChazak Mashmi'im
Kol". His problem was the placing of the pause before "Adir VeChazak"
(making it the subject of "Mashmi'im Kol" which doesn't make sense)
rather than after (making it a continuation of the list of adjectives
for "Ra'ash").
Well, I don't remember who says this, but apparently there is an
error in the NUSACH here. There are 3 places in davening where we say
the Kedushah - before Sh'ma, in Shmoneh Esrei and in U'Va LeTziyon. If
we look at the Kedushah before Sh'ma we will see something very
interesting. In the line corresponding to our one it reads as follows:
"VeHaOFANIM VECHAYOT HAKODESH BeRa'ash Gadol MitNas'im LeUmat Serafim"
We clearly see that there are no extra adjectives for "Ra'ash",
however, the subject of the sentence is Ofanim VeChayot. If we look more
closely, it is obvious what happened. In some early Siddur, it had been
written in Rashei Teivot: "Aleph - Vav - Chet" (O"Ch). Somebody
apparently couldn't figure out what that meant, so he printed it in the
Kedushah of Shmoneh Esrei as Adir VeChazak. However, it really was
supposed to mean "Ofanim VeChayot", as before Sh'ma, which also has the
same Rashei Teivot.
According to this Nusach, the pause is in fact supposed to be the
way Chazanim do it - after "Ra'ash Gadol".
* Ephraim Zaks *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rturkel@...> (Rick Turkel)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 23:23:56 -0400
Subject: Re: How many Blessings can Intervene?
Jay F Shachter <jay@...> wrote, in regard to his scenario for
maximized intervening blessings:
>I don't want anyone to tell me that the first night of Sukkot can't be
>on a Saturday night, because it isn't true.
I'm sorry to have to disappoint him, but here goes:
One of the more interesting features of the Jewish calendar as fixed by
Hillel is summarized in the phrase, "lo' bd"u pesach velo' 'ad"u rosh,"
which means that the first day of Pesach cannot fall on Monday,
Wednesday or Friday, nor can the first day of Rosh Hashanah fall on
Sunday, Wednesday or Friday. Without going into the reasons for this
curiosity, let it suffice to say that Sukkot always falls two weeks to
the day after Rosh Hashanah; since the latter cannot fall on Sunday,
neither can the former.
[Similar note sent in by Jeff Fischer - <rabbi_gabbai@...> Mod]
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
<rturkel@...>)oh.us| | \ ) |/ \ | | | \__) |
<rturkel@...> / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano rani | u jamu pada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 16:13:01 -0400
Subject: Laining Matters: 3 Answers and 1 Question
BEST TIKUN: My brother-in-law suggests a version of the blue tikkun put
out by distibutor IM HASEFER (718 877 0047), printed by Noble Book Press
Corp (the "blue Tikkun" I am use to is made by KTAV) with Typography by
Simcha Graphics Associates (718 854 4830). This TIKKUN has both the
"Torah" and "non Torah" side in kesav ashurith, the only difference
being the presence of punctuation and teamim.
TWO PASHTAHS (cf [Rosler, V24 #11 who asserts that the Beracha before
the Haftorah has two pashtahs before a zakef). But two Pashtahs before a
Zakef are common...see in this weeks past parshah (Nasoh) "Veamar el
haishah (pashtah #1) im los shachav ish (pashtah #2) othach (zakef)".
Also see the (traditional) explanation of the "rules" for alternating
reviah-pasthat before a zakef in Breuer's book (either addition)...2
pasthats followed by a zakef are ok is the second one does not rule over
a compound phrase(there are various subrules which i cannot get into
here...but there are sufficient examples and counterexamples in the
book).
KADMAH vs PASHTAH: I was happy to see that many other baal keriah
observe the difference. My own personal custon when you have a "kadmah
mahpach pashtah munach koton" is to "make believe" that I am going to
say a "kadmah veazlah"(that way the kadmah comes out like a real
kadmah). I then switch back to mahpach. Also I always say the kadmah
mahpach pashtah in one phrase, pause, and then say the munach koton in
one phrase and pause---I believe this is proper (even though many Baal
Keriah say mahpach pashtah munach koton *all* in one phrase)
CORRECTING NOTE MISTAKES: If one looks back over the last dozen issues
carefully one sees that my original question (with further support from
other readers)....what happens in sentences like "He is a women, a
virgin should he take" or "No! Do work "....of correcting meaning errors
when the trope have been changed still exists. While I agree with what
has been pointed out...that we don't *always* know meaning, I think the
two examples just given have a blatant error and should be changed (or
perhaps there is a halachic principle I don't yet know).
Russell Hendel, Ph.d. ASA, rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jerusalem@...> (Perry Zamek)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 19:53:19 +0300
Subject: Postal Mail vs. Messenger
Robert Book discusses the story of the Chafetz Chayyim quoted by Russell
Hendel. I would like to suggest that the discussion of the Chaftez Chayyim's
actions could be made clearer if we were to "emend" Russell's version, and
say that the Chafetz Chayyim tore up the stamps when he *sent* a letter with
a traveller, even though he was initially going to send it by mail. The
reason for sending by messenger -- the slowness of the mail system, coupled
with the fact that the traveller was going to the letter's destination
anyway ("zeh neheneh, ve'zeh aino haser" -- one benefits, while the other
loses nothing thereby). The Chafetz Chayyim, having "withdrawn" his letter
from the system (not from a legal point of view, since it had not been sent
yet), did not wish to deprive the government of its "rightful" dues, so he
tore up the stamp. As Russell correctly points out, this is lifnim mishurat
hadin.
There is one Halachic point that might be relevant here. In a general sense,
a kinyan (acquisition) takes place through the purchaser/acquirer carrying
out one of the relevant actions -- lifting, pulling, pushing, etc. In all of
these cases, the person transferring the goods to another needs nothing but
"gemirat ha-da'at" -- intention. However, generally speaking, in Halacha
intention alone does not cause a kinyan to take place (devarim shebalev --
matters in the heart/mind -- are not binding). From the point of view of a
person who lives his whole life "lifnim mishurat hadin", it may be that
gemirat ha-da'at *is* binding.
As an aside, it is interesting to consider the term "lifnim mishurat hadin"
(literally -- within the line of the law), and its English parallel, "beyond
the letter of the law."
As an analogy, imagine a field with a circular fenced-off section in the
middle. One standing outside the fence refers to the part within the fence
as "beyond the fence". One standing inside the fence, on the other hand, is
"within".
So, too, in respect of "lifnim mishurat hadin". The fence is the law itself
("Make a fence for the Torah" -- Avot 1:1). Within the fence is "lifnim
mishurat hadin": if that is one's normal position, then the term "lifnim"
(within) is appropriate. If, however, one's "normal" position is "outside",
then the appropriate expression is "beyond (the letter of) the law".
Note: I don't want people to extrapolate too much from the analogy -- I used
it purely as a model to express the difference between the two apparently
equivalent expressions.
Perry Zamek | A Jew should hold his head high.
Peretz ben | "Even in poverty a Hebrew is a prince...
Avraham | Crowned with David's Crown" -- Jabotinsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchok Samet <samet@...>
Date: 3 Jun 96 16:14:00 -0400
Subject: Slander
Eli Turkel writes:
> Esther Posen writes
> >> I find it ridiculous to slander whole groups of "boys" and
> >> "girls" in a forum like this. ...
> The Chafetz Chaim in his laws of "Lashon ha-ra" explicitly lists
> slandering whole groups as being prohibited. So it much worse than
> just being ridiculous.
I agree with Esther and Eli. The characterizations which sparked their
remarks are shallow, inaccurate, and above all, slanderous and damaging
to entire groups. I fail to see how the noble goal of Torah discourse
creates a heter (halachic loophole) to distribute or read submisssions
containing loshan hara and rechilus.
Yitzchok Samet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 14:55:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Stamp use
Robert A. Book asks, re the story about the Chafetz Chayim who
> > would tear up a stamp when ever a messenger would bring him a letter in
> > order not to deprive the Russian government of the revenue they should
> > have received (had mail vs a messenger) been used. Clearly this is
> > Lifnim meshurah hadin.
>
> I've heard this story before and one thing about it has always bothered
> me. If the mail had been used, the Russion government would have
> received the revenue (via the stamp) in exchange for performing the
> service of delivering the letter. If they did not perform that service
> (but a messenger did) it would seem that they would not be entitled to
> that revenue -- Although the messenger would of course be entitled to
> charge for the service he or she provided.
Wasn't the issue that the stamp had inadvertently not been cancelled,
not that a messenger had delivered it? In that case, the government HAD
delivered the service. (One reason the U.S. post office doesn't like it
if you scotch tape over the stamps is that they might be protected from
cancellation and used again... if someone takes the trouble to soak them
off.)
Freda Birnbaum, <fbb6@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Pickholtz <rotem@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 07:38:21 +0300
Subject: Re: Tefillah Errors
Micha Berger wrote:
>What most chazanim say, and is enforced by the traditional tunes is:
> az bikol, ra'ash gadol, adir vichazak mashmi'im kol
>By moving "mighty and strong" to a phrase that has no other subject,
>it would be read as the subject - i.e. "A Mighty and Strong One".
>...
>
>But what bugs me about it is that unlike some other errors, I can't
>picture a mistranslation that would justify placing a comma in the
>middle of a list of adjectives.
It's probably the rhyme, like the mistaken:
hamelech ya'aneinu beyom kor'einu and
asher kiddeshanu bemitvotav vetzivanu
and a few others I forget just now.
>The common "melech kel chei, ha'olamim" I assume is an attempt to say
>"King, Living G-d (G-d of Life?), of all the universes (worlds?)".
>Instead of the correct "King, G-d, Life Giver of the Universes".
That's probably the natural tendency to balance the number of
syllables. (A reason, not an excuse.)
>I don't want a chazan who isn't even trying to think about the simple
>meaning of the words.
AMEN!!
Israel Pickholtz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 24 Issue 31
