Volume 28 Number 65
                 Produced: Tue Jun  8  6:15:30 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying (2)
         [Alexander Heppenheimer, Chaim Wasserman]
Direction during Prayer in  Australia
         [Zev Sero]
Heh with a Dot in it
         [Percy Mett]
I -- ani and anokhi
         [Yaacov Dovid Shulman]
Kaddish after the Shmoneh Esreh of Maariv
         [Avraham Reiss]
Kaddish after the Shmoneh Esreh of Maariv, Fax on Shabbat
         [Zev Sero]
Kesev vs. Keves in Torah
         [Alan Cooper]
Pronunciation of final patached "hey"
         [Mechy Frankel]


From: Alexander Heppenheimer <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:41 -0600 
Subject: Re: Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying

David Schiffmann <das1002@...> wrote:

>How important is it, from the point of view of fulfilling the mitzvah to
>'daven' (pray), to correctly pronounce words and vowels.

It's not a "showstopper" - in other words, a person does fulfill their
minimum obligation even if they mispronounce the words, although it is
definitely preferable to pronounce them correctly. (It's noteworthy
that, as far as I know, the only place where the Shulchan Aruch or its
commentaries explain any of the rules governing sheva na and sheva nach
is in connection with reading the Shema - Orach Chaim section 61.)

On the other hand, when it comes to the Blessing of the Kohanim, the
halachah is that correct pronunciation is essential, although I think
that the commentaries consider incorrect pronunciation acceptable if
most of the people in the community speak that way (which means, for
example, that an Ashkenazi kohen can pronounce the letters ches and chaf
identically without it being an issue).

By the way, there are many other siddurim besides ArtScroll's that
indicate the sheva na, such as the Chabad siddur (Tehillas Hashem) and,
if my memory serves me correctly, the Shilo siddur. (Some of these,
though, such as Tehillas Hashem, follow a different opinion as to the
rules of sheva, which means that there are a lot of places where
ArtScroll has a sheva nach, and Tehillas Hashem, etc., have a sheva na.)
There is also a siddur published in Israel a couple of years ago, whose
title I've forgotten, which also distinguishes in print between kamatz
gadol and kamatz katan. [Probably Rinat Yisrael - Mod.]

>On a related note, how is it possilble that those who pray very fast can
>correctly pronounce the words?

Most likely, many of them don't. I remember, back when I was in
elementary school, that my teacher demonstrated this by calling up each
boy to the front of the class, having him say the silent part of
Tachanun out loud as fast as he usually would quietly, and then pointing
out the many mispronunciations that result from trying to say it too
fast. Then again, I don't think that this demonstration had much of an
effect on the class' davening habits. :-)

Kol tuv y'all,

From: Chaim Wasserman <Chaimwass@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:35:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying

David asked (Vol28#64) "How important is it, from the point of view of 
fulfilling the mitzvah to 'daven' (pray), to correctly pronounce words and 

[1] For Rambam it would be essentaial especially in the shma. Raavad
isn't as stringent if a person does not take pains to do so in the Shma.

[2] The Vilna Gaon, a master at Hebrew grammar and vocalization, was
known to insist on correct pronunciation even when he learned Torah
sheBa'al Peh like Mishnah and Gemara.

[3] IMHO if Rambam heard the manner in which ba'alay keriah were
pronouncing their words and the manner in which rebbis and morot are
mis-teaching their young charges the pronunciation of siddur and
chumash, he would have them all burned at the stake or excommunicate the
yeshiva princiupals for allowing such a situation.

[4] The voices in ashkenazic circles is so faint on this matter because
if we were to insist on correct pronunciaion we would need a major
revolution of ideas and values. It is so much easier to reform or
enhance "ritual" observances with chumros than get (frum) Jews to speeak
a language properly - any language even Lashon haKodesh. The sepharadim,
in this respect, have it made.

chaim wasserman


From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:33:48 -0400
Subject: Direction during Prayer in  Australia

> I was wondering if anyone knew the direction faced during prayer at
> various synagogues located in the following locations: (1) Moscow; (2)
> Anywhere in Australia; (3) Turkey; (4) South Africa.
> Is the direction of prayer the same as the direction of the aron kodesh?

All shuls that I have seen in Australia have the aron kodesh facing
either North or West (Israel is WNW), so the second question doesn't

A greater question can be asked about NY, where many shuls are built
with the aron kodesh facing in all sorts of directions.  I have seen
four shuls within about a block in Borough Park, with the aronot facing
in four different directions!  I have never seen a shul in which people
turn away from the aron to pray towards Israel, even though it seems
clear in Shulchan Aruch and the major commentaries that that is exactly
what one is meant to do.

BTW, the most interesting shul I've seen is the one at the university on
Har Hatzofim, where the aron is off to one side, and the front of the
shul is a floor-to-ceiling window looking straight down onto the Har
Habayit!  Obviously in that shul the direction of prayer would be toward
the window, not the aron.


From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon,  7 Jun 1999 18:28:26 +03d0
Subject: Re: Heh with a Dot in it

Michael Poppers wrote:
>I can think of two off-hand (although I thought of each one as a dogaish
>rather than a mappik): (a) in the k'riah during Chag haPessach, Parshas
>Emor (Lev. 23:17): "to'vi'ooh" -- the aleph in "ooh" is noted as
>"d'gushah"; and (b) in the davening, last verse of the "u'vo l'Tziyon"
>paragraph: "v'ya'dir" -- the aleph in "ya" has a dogaish.

I believe this is incorrect. What was meant presumably is that the dalet of
v'ya-dir has a dogesh as it follows the shvo-nokh on the aleph.

>(FWIW, my HS
>rebbe, Rav Danziger sh'l'y't'a', made a point of pronouncing the latter
>instance's aleph as if, indeed, it was consonantal -- I don't know if he

Not becuase it has a dogesh but becuase of the shvo-=nokh so that it is
said as  a glottal stop.

the other dogesh-in-an-alef may be found in Iyov (Job) in the word ru-u
(reysh,dogesh-alef, vov)

Perets Mett


From: Yaacov Dovid Shulman <Yacovdavid@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:20:59 EDT
Subject: I -- ani and anokhi

Does anyone know of why Tanach uses two forms of the word "I"--ani and anokhi?

Yaacov Dovid Shulman


From: Avraham Reiss <areiss@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:02:19 +0300
Subject: Re: Kaddish after the Shmoneh Esreh of Maariv


Regarding the following question from RYEHOSHUA:

Can the chazzan begin the kaddish after the shmoneh esreh of maariv,
even when there are not yet 10 men who have completed shmoneh esreh?  If
so, what are the minimum amount of men that need to be able to respond
before the sheliach tzibbur can begin the kaddish?

This came up in our shiur recently; the Kaddish can be said when there are
6 people who will respond. The other 4 can still be davening. 

 Avraham Reiss


From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:45:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Kaddish after the Shmoneh Esreh of Maariv, Fax on Shabbat

<RYehoshua@...> wrote:
>  A: Can the chazzan begin the kaddish after the shmoneh esreh of maariv,
> even when there are not yet 10 men who have completed shmoneh esreh?  If
> so, what are the minimum amount of men that need to be able to respond
> before the sheliach tzibbur can begin the kaddish?

As far as I know, the only requirement there ever is for saying kaddish
is that a minyan be present in the room.  They don't have to answer, or
even hear, the kaddish (otherwise those with soft voices would not be
allowed to say it).  Again AFAIK the only requirement for some number of
answerers applies to the chazan's repetition of the Amida, which he does
*on behalf of a congregation*, and therefore he must have a congregation
praying with him, on behalf of whom he is saying it; i.e. a minyan
paying attention to his repetition, of whom a majority were saying some
part of the silent Amidah at the same time (e.g. the 6th person started
a few seconds before the 1st person finished).  But kaddish and barechu
(and technically kedusha, though since kedusha is part of the repetition
this is a moot point), are not done on behalf of a congregation, but
merely require a minyan's presence in the room, so AFAIK one can go to
the amud and daven maariv without being accompanied by *anyone*, so long
as there's a minyan present.

>  B: Can one send a fax to Israel on Friday afternoon knowing that it
> will arrive there on Shabbat; can the receiver read the fax or is this
> an issue of nolad?

It's black letter law that `you are not commanded that your inanimate
objects rest' (i ata metzuveh al shevitat kelim); this was an argument
between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, which occupies most of the 1st
chapter of Shabbat, and the law, as always, follows Bet Hillel.  So if
it's not Shabbat for you, and you are 100% permitted to operate a fax
machine, then it shouldn't matter at all where the machine is located,
because even if it's in a place where the holiness of Shabbat is present,
it's no different than setting a timer before Shabbat to operate the
machine on Shabbat, which Bet Hillel clearly permits.

As for nolad, what exactly is being created that didn't exist before?
The paper was in the machine before Shabbat, and so was the ink; the
only thing that wasn't there before Shabbat were the words, which are
intangible.  If words were subject to nolad, it would be forbidden to
speak on Shabbat, or to benefit by hearing new words of Torah!  The
gemara tells us that Yosef the demon transmitted the Torah being taught
in one city to another on Shabbat, and while the gemara worries about
the implications of Yosef's having travelled beyond the Shabbat boundary
to bring the teachings, it doesn't worry at all about these teachings
not having existed before Shabbat.  Today the fax machine can be our
Yosef Shidda, and transmit what was said in the batei midrash in America
to those in Israel, and from Israel to Australia.


From: Alan Cooper <amcooper@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:59:02
Subject: Re: Kesev vs. Keves in Torah

>From: Michael Feldstein <MIKE38CT@...>
>there are several times in the karbanot that the term for a one-year-old
>male lamb is mentioned.  certain times the word keves is used; other
>times the word kesev is used.  to the best of my knowledge, the words
>are interchangeable and there is no difference between the two.
>however, the difference in the words does beg the question.  has anyone
>ever heard any explanation as to why keves is used in certain sections
>to describe a male lamb, and kesev in others?

While Rashi and Ibn Ezra consider these to be millot mehuppachot
(interchangeable words, like simla and salma, "garment"), other
commentators disagree.  See the Pa`neach raza on Leviticus 3:7 (p. 3a),
where the author claims that kesavim are large animals, and kevasim
small ones.  The issue is discussed in detail in Wertheimer's Bei'ur
shemot ha-nirdafim (a standard reference for questions of this sort),
pp. 192-93.

Alan Cooper


From: Mechy Frankel <Michael.Frankel@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:12:58 -0400 
Subject: Pronunciation of final patached "hey"

A number of respondents have alluded to a required insertion of an alef
ginuvoh before the final gutteral hey in the pronunciation of god's name
(after the paradigm of lu'ach"), i.e. suggesting "elo'ah" rather than
"elo'ha" generally and allegedly mistakenly employed by the great

Thus R. Schultz: < One case where
the mappiq *does* make a difference -- and one that is almost universally
not pronounced correctly -- is the word "eloah" (God).  The root is
aleph-lamedh-heh, and the patach under the heh is a "furtive patach">\
and R. Rubinoff <Also note: a final hay with a mappik and a patach under it
should *not*be pronounced "ha".  This is still a final hay that comes after
the vowel, just as a patach under a final chet is prounounced before the
chet (i.e. "ach" rather than "cha">
and Y. Poch: etter, not after, as in "luach".  The most common occurrence of
a heh in this case is the word "elo'ah" at the end of the second paragraph
of Hallel.

Let me demur from this building consensus.  I note that Minchas Shai
discussed the general deployment of the alef ginuvoh in the third? posuq
when he first encounters the word "roqi'ah".  He rather specifically notes
its use with a final patached ayin or ches.  He also rather specifically
does not cite its use for a final patached hey.  (hope I got that right -
I'm doing this from memory at work).  While those fixated on "elo'ah" may
reject such admittedly ex silencio argumentation, I find it persuasive - at
least as a take on Minchas Shai's position on the matter.   Since supposed
"rules" of grammatical employment are essentially nothing more than an
attempt to capture a living practice in newly described patterns, one has
long learned never to be surprised by "charigim". The reality of the
language existed long before the advent of sefardi grammarians' invention of
the dreaded diqduq.  Maybe the living oral tradition of our untutored masses
have gotten this one right. 

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
<michael.frankel@...>		H: (301) 593-3949 


End of Volume 28 Issue 65