Volume 28 Number 70
Produced: Thu Jun 10 6:52:16 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Avos 4:28 questions
[Michael Poppers]
Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying
[Herschel Ainspan]
Mapik heh; direction of prayer
[Joel Rich]
Mechitza Question
[Micha Berger]
Patah Genuva and Mappiq Heh
[Moshe J. Bernstein]
Pronunciation and speed of praying
[Deborah Wenger]
Pronunciation of final patached "hey" (2)
[Alexander Heppenheimer, Shlomo Godick]
Shomer Shabbar Residencies
[Fischman, Aharon A, ALSVC]
Which Direction Jerusalem
[Joseph Tabory]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:27:53 -0400
Subject: Avos 4:28 questions
To paraphrase from the Mishna in Avos 4:28, three actions/concepts
"motzi'im es ha'adam min ha'olam [lit., remove a person from the world]";
these three are "kavod [lit., honor]," "ta'avah [lit., lust]," and "kin'ah
[lit., envy]." As yet another example of a threesome in Avos, this Mishna
implies the question
(a) Why these three?
It seems to me that one common thread is their mental nature, another the
negative manner in which these words are [first] used in the Torah. OTOH,
this perek speaks more than once on the proper application of "kavod,"
while it seems to be silent re the other two. (FWIW, the near-equality of
"kavod kin'ah ta'avah" and "motzi es ha'adam" in g'matria may also hint at
something -- perhaps an expert in that d'rash methodology can help reveal
some understanding.) Also, the formulation "motzi es ha'adam" sounds very
familiar, which leads to my second question:
(b) Where do ChaZaL (our Sages, may their recollection be a blessing
for us) use the "motzi'im es ha'adam" terminology?
Any sources, pointers, etc., as well as your general comments, would be
greatly appreciated...and a good Shabbos to all!
Michael Poppers
Elizabeth, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Herschel Ainspan <ainspan@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:05:57 -0400
Subject: Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying
> However, let's not forget that the Mehaber writes that one who
>pronounces 'aleph like `ayin or `ayin like 'aleph is disqualified as the
>sheliah zibor, and not even the Remah argues. I've always found it
>interesting how this halakha is disregarded.
See the Mishna Brura there 53:12(37), who says that if the tzibbur all
pronounce alef and ayin this way then such a person can serve as shliach
tzibbur.
Kol tuv. -Herschel Ainspan (<ainspan@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <Joelirich@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:57:20 EDT
Subject: Re: Mapik heh; direction of prayer
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
>lamed/holem - heh/patach is *not* "eloha" (unless, perhaps, you're
>Hawaiian), but rather "eloah" with the final heh pronounced *after* the
>patach.
I would like to add to this the fact that this word is
pronounced with the accent on the lamed rather than on the final, mapik
heh.
Ideally, one should face in the direction of Yerushalayim, i.e.,
>south in Moscow and Turkey, west in Australia and north in South Africa.
>However, if the 'aron qodesh is in another direction, the presence of
>sifrei torah takes precedence and one faces the 'aron qodesh.
This has been discussed in MJ in the past. The halacha is that
one faces the direction of Yerushalayim, NOT the direction of the aron
or the sifrei Torah if the two directions differ. Do you have a source
for your assertion to the contrary?
Gershon
>>
It's not quite that simple
see:baba batra 25b re: facing south
divrei chamudot 68 on the rosh in brachot re: not having back to aron
mishna brura hilchot tfila 84:9,10 re: not turning in a different
direction from all others(even though should face east) similarly aruch
hashulchan
Kol Tuv
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 07:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mechitza Question
In v28n67, From: Carl Sherer <csherer@...> writes:
: I think the earliest source for Mechitza is the Mishna in the last
: Chapter of Succa, which describes the Simchas Beis HaShoeva in
: the Beis HaMikdash.
That gemara could actually be used as a source that mechitzos are NOT
required for prayer. After all, they put one up for the simchas heis
hasho'eivah (SBhS), when there was undo levity. But they took it down as
soon as refular services resumed!
BTW, R' Moshe held that this mechitza was d'Oraisa. It's assur to add to
the structure of the Temple beyond Hashem's instruction. Therefore, it
must have been part of the Divine design. However, since it can be
assembled on need, the need didn't arise on a regular basis until SBhS.
If there weren't so many authorities in the fray who didn't suggest
this, I would have thought the mechitzah is as old as construction of
the first Temple. Sh'lomo built a separate azarah (courtyard), the
Ezras Yisrael, where women were excluded. Men worshipped in an area
where there were no women.
: R. Moshe held that the
: mechitza need only come up to the level of the women's shoulders.
: Rav Moshe's tshuva is in Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:39. The
: Satmar Rav zt"l held that ... the mechitza must
: be taller than the women's height.
This is an interesting argument. Down to the halachah's basics, it need
only be 3 tefachim (10" or so) high. R' Moshe and the Satmar Rebbe were
arguing about preserving the spirit of the halachah, not the halachah
itself. Lifnim mishuras hadin (beyond the limits of the law)
territory. Or perhaps, since "kidoshim tihyu" (you shall be holy)
requires some acceptance of going beyond the limits of the din, they're
not arguing about the halachos of tephillah (prayer) but of kidoshim
tihyu.
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Jun-99: Revi'i, Sh'lach
<micha@...> A"H O"Ch 325:18-24
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 93a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe J. Bernstein <mjbrnstn@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Patah Genuva and Mappiq Heh
my old friend mechy frankel is correct to point to the Minhat Shai at
Bereshit 1:3 raqia as not including words with mappiq heh in his
discussion of the correct pronunciation of that patah. but i don't think
that we should infer from that omission that consonantal heh at the end
of a word is not treated the same way as het or ayin.
what Minhat Shai is discussing there is the question of what sound
precedes the patah (since syllables apparently have to begin with
consonants): is it a very weak aleph or is it the consonantal aspect of
the vowel which precedes it, y for hiriq and tzere, w for holam and
shuruq? like everything else interesting, it appears to be a
mahloqet. do you say ko'ah, ru'ah, re'ah, hivti'ah, nose'a` or kowah,
ruwah, reyah, hivtiyah, noseya` (sorry, no dots under the hets).
i can see no reason for gavoah or hitmahmeah not belonging to the same
category despite Minhat Shai's not mentioning them in the discussion;
there simply may be so few examples with final heh that he doesn't
mention them. Gesenius, Grammar, 22f, makes the same assumption and
lists forms with het, ayin and heh together.
moshe bernstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Deborah Wenger <dwenger@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 99 08:16:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronunciation and speed of praying
In Vol.28 #65, Chaim Wasserman wrote:
>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.
This is a most excellent point, for all the melamdim out there! My
elementary and high-school experiences (though MANY years ago) certainly
bear this out. When we were first learning to read Hebrew in the first
grade, our teacher would test our "speed reading" by picking a paragraph
from the davening and seeing who could do it fastest; true, accuracy
counted, but the "prize" went to the one who could do it accurately AND
quickly. In high school, we were given a specific amount of time before
classes started in which to daven. When the bell rang, davening was over
- no questions asked. I can recall instances in which girls were stopped
in the middle of Shemoneh Esrei when the bell rang. If this didn't
encourage speed-davening, I don't know what does! I certainly hope that
things have changed since I was in school, although after listening to
some kids daven these days, I'm not sure...
Deborah Wenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alexander Heppenheimer <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:50:34 -0600
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of final patached "hey"
Mechy Frankel <Michael.Frankel@...> wrote:
>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.
But bear in mind - to go back to the proper pronunciation of the
mappik-hei itself, which is what started this whole thread - that the
mappik is there to tell us to pronounce the hei, since otherwise we
would think that it is silent like the hei at the end of "Torah." Now,
if the patach is supposed to follow the hei (making the word "eloha,"
for example), then why would we need a mappik? Even without it, we would
know that the hei is to be sounded, since it has a vowel. (Consider the
word "verohbam" - Tehillim 90:10 - where no mappik is needed in the hei,
because the fact that it has a sheva - though it's a sheva nach - makes
it obvious that it is to be sounded.) Only if the hei does in fact
follow the vowel - making it the last sound of the word - does it make
sense that we'd need the mappik to tell us to pronounce it, unlike most
final heis.
Kol tuv y'all,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Godick <shlomog@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:52:26 +0300
Subject: re: Pronunciation of final patached "hey"
Mechy Frankel wrote: <<
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
unwashed.
.....
Maybe the living oral tradition of our untutored masses
have gotten this one right. >>
The only trouble is, the "untutored masses" pronounce the word "elo'HA",
with the accent on the last syllable. This is clearly wrong, unless we
assume the "living oral tradition" has a feminist view of the Deity. No
one would argue that the masculine form of the word for "tall" should be
pronounced "g'voHA". Or that the person lifting up the Sefer Torah be
referred to as a "magbi'HA" (all accented syllables are capitalized). If
the "untutored masses" have gotten the accented syllable wrong, then why
should their pronunciation of the final patached mapik heh be considered
any more reliable? (By the way, in all occurrences of elo'ah in the
Torah that I can recall, the trop places the accent on the penultimate
syllable (mil'el)).
Even if it is claimed that the "living oral tradition" pronounces the
word "eLO'ha, with a correct mil'el accent, this still does not square
with the accepted pronunciation of the words gaVOa(h), magBIa(h), and
l'hitmahME'a(h), in which the heh is either aspirated after the aleph
gnuva or not heard at all. I for one have never heard anyone - whether
he hails from the untutored masses or from the tutored elite - pronounce
the above words gaVOha, magBIha, or l'hitmahMEha.
The final patached mapik heh is a very rare example of alef gnuva, while
the final chet or ayin is quite common. So the inference from Minchat
Shai's silence on the mapik heh is not all that convincing.
I personally think that the reason for the mispronunciation of eLO'ah is
that the word is almost always encountered in the plural form (the
sacred eloKIM or the profane eloHIM), and the singular form is
relatively rare. So the pronunciation of the singular is "copied" from
the plural pronunciation, with the heh pronounced immediately after the
cholam and as part of an accented syllable. In contrast, words such as
gaVO'ah and magBI'ah are quite commonly encountered in the singular
form, so they are accented properly and the heh is either pronounced
after the aleph gnuva or not at all.
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
Rechasim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fischman, Aharon A, ALSVC <afischman@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:20:55 -0400
Subject: Shomer Shabbar Residencies
There is a shomer Shabbat Residency at Program UMDNJ in Newark NJ.
Aharon Fischman
<afischman@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:54:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Which Direction Jerusalem
I don't have it in front of me but I think that there is a responsa of
the Hatam Sofer about a cemetery that was planned in the wrong direction
as people should be buried with their feet pointing towrards
Jerusalem. To the best of my memory, he responded that people could
travel two ways to Jerusalem, east and then south or south to Italy and
then east so that both directions were suitable. But it is reasonable to
assume that prayers do not have to take land routes so a direct line to
Jerusalem is the correct way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 28 Issue 70
