Volume 25 Number 65
Produced: Wed Jan 1 23:16:44 1997
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Correct" Text and Pronunciation in Bireishis 9/29
[Zev Barr]
Cheese (3)
[Steven White, Michael & Bonnie Rogovin, Avi Feldblum]
Nikud of "malakh"
[Jeff Finger]
Proper Pronunciation (2)
[Lon Eisenberg, Carl Sherer]
Trup for Deut 33,16
[Russell Hendel]
Yeshiva Tuition and Faith
[Gershon Dubin]
Yeshiva Tuition and Tzedaka
[Steven White]
Yeshiva Tuitions as Tzedaka (was Extravagant Weddings)
[Carl and Adina Sherer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Barr <zevbarr@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 03:45:57 +1100
Subject: "Correct" Text and Pronunciation in Bireishis 9/29
Regarding the Breuer v Ashkenaz/Artscroll/Koren difference of the first
word of Bereshit 9:29, whether it is Vayehi or Vayihyu, I found the reply
by Mechy Frankel to be very interesting.
He states:
> As to how to pronounce it while leining - that's pretty much a
>no-brainer. Read it the way its written in your torah (undoubtedly
>"vayihi") which is not a "mistake" but reflects the consensus halakhic
>position of both the sefardim, and at least for the last few hundred
>years also the ashkenazim.
As I was the original poster I guess I have the option to press the issue
further.
If you look at Targum Onkelos, he clearly translates the word as Vayihyu
(Vahavo) in support of Breuer. (Authorized Aramaic translation of Torah by
proselyte Onkelos around 90 C.E.) Again, let us emphasize, this is the
only lettering difference that changes pronunciation and meaning of any
word in the Torah, and has only arisen from the confirmation of the one
thousand year old Aram Zovah scroll as mentioned by the Rambam,
Zev Barr
,-._|\ Zev Barr
/ Oz \ <zevbarr@...> Member, Melb PC User Group.
\_,--.x/ Phone 061 3 95236482, Fax 061 3 97732012
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steven White)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:17:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Cheese
In #62, Gershon Klavan <klavan@...> writes:
> When I was learning Yoreh Deah in Israel, I was told that in Israel today,
> (or at least a few years ago) that all cheese made in Israel used
> synthetic (non animal) rennet except for during the Pesach season. I
> would assume (probably for cost reasons) that the same is true in the USA
> but a kashrus organization would be able to give a better answer for that.
I attended a one-time shiur in Boston that said the same thing, more or
less. Moreover, this shiur said that *all* (whatever that actually
means) US-made cheeses are really fine, kashrutwise, from an ingredients
perspective, and that the only real problem with them is g'zerat g'vinat
akum.
Steven White
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael & Bonnie Rogovin <rogovin@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 00:13:42 +0000
Subject: Cheese
> From: Gershon Klavan <klavan@...>
> When I was learning Yoreh Deah in Israel, I was told that in Israel today,
> (or at least a few years ago) that all cheese made in Israel used
> synthetic (non animal) rennet except for during the Pesach season. I
> would assume (probably for cost reasons) that the same is true in the USA
> but a kashrus organization would be able to give a better answer for that.
I have heard from a reliable source with relatives who worked as
chemists for Kraft that Kraft uses only kosher (OU) enzymes in their
cheese production. Assuming this were true and one could rely on this
(although I personally would not), that would not deal with the issue of
gvinat akum/yisrael (which, btw, a rav at the OU told me, applies to
hard cheeses only). I believe that most large scale commercial
production in the US these days uses vegetable rennet or a chemical
enzyme, and in fact, there are many "rennet-less" cheeses on the market.
If these are, in fact, acceptable, it could put a big dent in the kosher
cheese market (or at least create competition to make a better product).
Michael Rogovin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 08:19:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Cheese
Michael Rogovin writes:
> I have heard from a reliable source with relatives who worked as
> chemists for Kraft that Kraft uses only kosher (OU) enzymes in their
> cheese production. Assuming this were true and one could rely on this
> (although I personally would not), that would not deal with the issue of
> gvinat akum/yisrael (which, btw, a rav at the OU told me, applies to
> hard cheeses only).
This then brings us to the interesting question of whether the decree of
Gvinat Akum [cheese of a non-Jew] is a purely kashrut question, i.e. you
cannot eat cheese that is made by a non-Jew because it may contain
non-kosher items, e.g. rennet. This would make Gvinat Akum very similar
to Chalav Akum - milk of a non-Jew. The other possibility is that there
is simply a decree not to eat the cheese of a non-Jew regardless of it's
kashrut content, similar to Bishul Akum - the cooking of a non-Jew. In
this case, the reason is to limit social contact.
I would invite those that know how various of the reshonim and achronim
(early and late commentators) have stood on this issue.
Avi Feldblum
<feldblum@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jfinger@...> (Jeff Finger)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:48:46 -0800
Subject: Nikud of "malakh"
The nikud of "malakh" (third-person, singular, masculine, past tense
of the root mem-lamed-khaf in binyan "kal") in the mikra brings up a
question:
One would expect the nikud to be kamatz-patakh, and perhaps for
there to be a kamatz-kamatz form when the word is at a hefsek,
that is, sof-pasuk or etnakhta. However, in Tehillim "malakh"
appears as kamatz-kamatz once on a revi'a, once on a zarka, and
twice on a tipkha(*?). All four of the places are noted with an
asterisk and the note "kulo kamatz". What's going on here?
Tipkha?* - The symbol falls *before* the first nikud of the word, and it
seems that in tehillim, tipkha is commonly preceded by a
munakh (!) Can someone shed some light on this? [See
also Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 13, page 1332, the last
paragraph, on the subject of trope in tehillim.]
HYPOTHESIS: (1) The kamatz-kamatz forms appearing at sof-pasuk and
etnakhta do so because of the hefsek.
(2) The four places in tehillim where kamatz-kamatz exists are
considered to be hefsekim, as well.
But, this brings up the question, what constitutes a hefsek in tehillim?
Examples of kamatz-kamatz:
Shmuel Bet' Bet-10 Etnakhta
Shmuel Bet' Heh-4 Sof-pasuk
Melakhim Alef' Alef-18 Etnakhta
Melakhim Alef' Yud-Dalet 19 Etnakhta
Tehillim Tsadi-gimel 1 Zarka (kulo kamatz)
Tehillim Tsadi-vav 10 Revi'a (kulo kamatz)
Tehillim Tsadi-zayin 1 Tipkha?* (kulo kamatz)
Tehillim Tsadi-tet 1 Tipkha?* (kulo kamatz)
Divrei HaYamim Alef Tet-zayin 31 Sof-pasuk
Thanks,
Itzhak "Jeff" Finger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 07:36:25 +0000
Subject: Proper Pronunciation
I can appreciate the concept of pronunciation according to messorah
(tradition), but not when it is clearly incorrect:
1. pronouncing a milra` (stress on last syllable) as mil`el (stress on
penultimate syllable), a common mistake in so-called Ashkenzic
pronunciation
2. pronouncing 'aleph as `ayin and `ayin as 'aleph (the halakhah is
that such a sheliah zibur [prayer leader] is disqualified), also typical
of so-called Ashkenazic pronunciation
3. adding yods (that are not written) after waws (oy, oy, oy!) [Where
does this come from?]
Lon Eisenberg Motorola Israel, Ltd. Phone:+972 3 5658422 Fax:+972 3 5658424
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 22:52:27 +0000
Subject: Proper Pronunciation
Berl Nadler writes:
> On the question of proper havara, I once had the privilege of
> hearing the Rav (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik)speak about the
> question of the proper havara in the context of a shiur in masechet
> nedarim(Boston,late 1970s).
>
> While the Rav also stressed the significance of mesora (as do Rav
> Yosef and Rav Moshe) he was of the view that one should use the
> havara first learnt in childhood (girsa d'yankusa) and with which
> one was most comfortable. In this context he gave the example of his
> Israeli grandchildren who ,properly in his view, used havara
> sefaradit for tefila even thou he couldn't necessarily understand
> what they were saying. Yet, he thought it was entirely appropriate
> for them to use this havara.
I don't doubt for a minute that you heard the Rav zt"l say what you
quote above, but I can tell you for a fact that much of his progeny
here in Israel does use havara Ashkenazis. Last year I had occasion
to attend the Bar Mitzva of Meshulam Zushe Twersky, who is the Rav's
great grandson. He read in Ashkenazis (although that *could* be
attributed to the fact that the shul in which the Bar Mitzva took
place was one in which everyone davens in Ashkenazis - see below).
At the Kiddush at the Twersky home after davening, I heard R. Moshe
Lichtenstein, the Rav's grandson who has lived here for many years
(probably one of the Israeli grandchildren you refer to above) make
Kiddush for himself in Ashkenazis.
When I was a talmid in his Yeshiva, I asked Rav Aaron Lichtenstein,
the Rav's son-in-law, about changing havara. The context in which I
asked the question was that I was to leyin the Megilla for one of the
minyanim on Purim, and I had always leyined in Ashkenazis. He said
that when one is davening for oneself or if the tzibur does not mind,
one should follow the rule of "al titosh toras emecha" (do not
abandon your mother's teachings) and read the way one's father does.
But when one is davening or leyining for a tzibur (congregation) and
the tzibur asks that you read in the havara that you normally do not
read in, you are both permitted and required to read in that havara,
or to cede the amud.
When we made aliya, and as each of my children has started school
since we made aliya (so far only three of my children are in school),
I told my children that they would be taught havara Sephardit in
school, but nevertheless I would prefer that they daven in havara
Ashkenazis. Nevertheless, I would not be makpid (strict) with them
about it. My eldest daughter davens in havara Sephardit, while my
two sons both daven in perfect Litvish Ashkenazis.
-- Carl Sherer
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Carl and Adina Sherer
<sherer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:13:27 -0500
Subject: Trup for Deut 33,16
Ovadiah Dubin's inquiry on the trup in Deut 33,16 can be answered by
analogous trup in Psalms 46,5. There are two ways of looking at this verse
If Psalms 46,5 had said [Palgay Nahar Yesamchu Ir Hashem]
(The tributaries of the river) (will make happy the city of G-d)
then the trup would break up the verse as shown by the parenthesis (munach
tipchah followed by munach ethnachtah).
However Psalms 46,5 really says [Nahar, Plagauv Yesamchu Hashem]
(The river:) ({Its tributaries} {make happy the city of G-d})
and the trup separates river (with a Revii) from the rest of the verse.
The general rule is: Trup DO NOT break up a construct state (..of..) but
trup DO break up words that are in opposition or parenthetical afterthought.
Some well known examples from the daily davening are
Ps 33:18 (..G-ds eyes are on those who fear him) (who wait for mercy)
Ps 146:3 (Don't depend on wealthy people) (men who have no salvation)
Ps 98:5 (Sing to G-d on the Lyre) (On the lyre & with melodious voice)
Returning to Deut 33,16: If the verse had said: [Rson Shochn Seneh]
(The will) (of He who dwells in the thornbush)
Then the trup would NOT breakup the construct state "He who dwells in the bush"
Since however the verse actually says: [Rson Shocni Seneh]
(The will of My dweller) (--by the thornbush)
then the trup DOES breakup the parenthetical afterthought "by the thornbush".
Although the grammatical construction of the verse is rare and therefore
people are not used to it nevertheless GIVEN this construction the trup are
correct.
I am indebted to (MJ) Rabbi Daniel Wasserman of Pittsburgh (also an
excellent Baal Koray) for a delightful conversation we had in Succoth of
95 from which the content of this posting was derived.
Russell Hendel, Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:06:04 PST
Subject: Re: Yeshiva Tuition and Faith
>According to this, why do Yeshivos charge more tuition to some and give
>a "break" to others based on financial considerations ? Shouldn't
>everyone pay the exact same amount, if everyone gets it back ?
To paraphrase a story, the *Yeshivos* would be more than
willing. Requiring a parent to have the necessary bitachon to agree to
such an arrangement is much harder for hard pressed Yeshiva
administrators than just agreeing to a little less tuition.
Gerson
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steven White)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:52:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Yeshiva Tuition and Tzedaka
In #61, Chaim Stern <Chaim_Stern@...> writes (from July):
> > Dr. Twersky says that the "problem" of the high yeshiva tuition bills is
> > not a real problem because it is charity and we are guaranteed that
> > G-d will repay whatever we spend on charity.
>
> This statement is found in the Gemorah, where it says that whatever
> money you spend to teach your son Torah, you'll get back.
Does this mean that I can use the money I have set aside for tzedaka to
pay my children's yeshiva tuition?
Steven
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:38:15 +0000
Subject: Yeshiva Tuitions as Tzedaka (was Extravagant Weddings)
Eli Turkel writes:
> 2. Dr. Twersky says that the "problem" of the high yeshiva tuition bills is
> not a real problem because it is charity and we are guaranteed that
> G-d will repay whatever we spend on charity. With that attitude we
> should raise the tuition at most yeshivas and pay the rebbes a salary
> they can really live on.
Is this correct? I always understood that the only part of Yeshiva
tuition that could be "deducted" as Tzedaka (charity) is the
difference between what one actually pays in tuition and the lowest
amount that anyone else is being charged (presumably excluding
teachers whose children are allowed to attend for free in lieu of
part of their salary).
-- Carl Sherer
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Carl and Adina Sherer
<sherer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 25 Issue 65
