Volume 29 Number 94
Produced: Mon Nov 1 5:28:48 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
American/Hebrew pronunciation
[Geoffrey Shisler]
Mapik in Aramaic (3)
[Kenneth G Miller, Mark Steiner, Aaron-Joseph Gilboa]
Origin of the Word "Pareve" (2)
[Yosef Gilboa, Yisrael Medad]
PARDES
[Bill Bernstein]
Shtut/Shoot
[Chuna Avruhm Singer]
The Text of the Bible
[Andrea Penkower Rosen]
Titles in Calling up to an Aliyah (2)
[Eliyahu & Sarah Shiffman, Rick Turkel]
Titles in Calling up to an Aliyah - "Chover" Title
[Samson Bechhofer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoffrey Shisler <geoffrey@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:13:39 +0100
Subject: American/Hebrew pronunciation
In mljewish 29:92 Jonathan Grodzinski writes:
>Why is American transliteration of Hebrew a mixture of Ashkenaz and
>Sefard pronounciatiation? The original writer says "haChaver" (Sefard)
>not "" (Ashkenaz), and "" which is a mixture of
>"" (Sefard) and "" (Ashkenaz).
>Just to be pedantic, its not "haChaver" nor "", its ""
>and "heChasan".
I'm delighted that Jonathan's raised this point again as it's one that I
feel strongly about. (Incidentally it's not "heChasan". It's either
"heChatan" or "heChoson."!)
I have raised it before and the only answer I got is that 'That's how we
pronounce Hebrew in America.' Well, that may be so, but that doesn't
make it right!
I'm also puzzled by the Bilbul (confusion) that's found in some
Siddurim. I've just been through one well-known one and found, amongst
many other examples:
** "Bris Milah" - which should either be "Brit Milah" or "Bris Miloh".
** Kabbalas Shabbos - which can't be proper Hebrew by anyone's
reckoning. It's either "Kabbalat Shabbat" or "Kabbolas Shabbos."
** "Berachos" - which must either be "Berachot" or "Berochos."
** "Akdamus" which is either "Akdamut" or "Akdomus".
The inconsistency in this Siddur is also incomprehensible. We get
"Shmini Atseres" (Ashkenazi) but "Lachah Dodi" (Sephardi).
"Zemiros" (Ashkenazi) but "Menucha veSimcha" (Sephardi)
"Eishes Chayil" (Ashkenazi) but "Pesukei Dezimrah" (Sephardi)
"Hoshanos " (Ashkenazi) but "Hakafah" (Sephardi)
..... and so on and so on. While both versions are perfectly correct, I
can't see any justification whatsoever for mixing them up in the same
Siddur. To the average Jew this can only be totally baffling.
Surely a Siddur is the most important self-educational tool that we
have. There are many Jews who don't go to Shiurim and know little about
the finer points of Yiddishkeit - but they do go regularly to Shul. For
such people we have to very careful indeed about what we put into their
hands.
I don't have a problem with a 'new' pronunciation, after all, Rabbi
Akiva probably wouldn't be able to comprehend the way that I read
Hebrew. If Americans are deliberately taught to mix up Ashkenazi and
Sephardi and they want to create a 'new' pronunciation (Bilbuli?) - then
let's have the rules so that we can see that they're being consistent.
In my view, the discussion that took place on one of these lists about
whether we should say "Morid HaGeshem" or "Morid HaGashem" (or
"HaGoshem), pales into insignificance when compared with some of the
examples mentioned above. Teachers have a responsibility to teach their
pupils to read Hebrew accurately. You either read Ashkenazi (which
includes any of its known and hallowed variants) or Sepharadi (or one of
equally known and hallowed variants - and that includes the now
universally accepted Modern Israeli pronunciation). To wilfully and
indiscriminately muddle them up is a travesty of the language.
It's not difficult to read Hebrew properly. It just needs care and
attention.
Rabbi Geoffrey Shisler
Bournemouth (Orthodox) Hebrew Congregation
UK <RavGeoff@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:51:40 EST
Subject: re: Mapik in Aramaic
In MJ 29:93, Gershon Dubin asked <<< This morning someone davened for the
amud who stressed the mapik hehs in kaddish, which I had never heard
before. Does anyone know (sources?) if the correct pronunciation of a
mapik heh in Aramaic (yehe shmeh, di vro chiruseh, me'asar beis
shchinteh, etc.) is the same as in Hebrew? >>>
Mishnah B'rurah 56:2 has many comments about the proper pronunciation of
various phrases in Kaddish. About 2/3 of the way through it, regarding
the phrase "y'heh shmeh raba", he writes:
<<< Sh'meh (shin-mem-heh) without a yod, and also without a mappik-heh
[Taz] and from the words of the Pri Megadim it's mashma that it's better
to say it with the mappik-heh. >>>
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:14:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Mapik in Aramaic
On the mapik he in Aramaic--I can related to you what I believe I heard
years ago from a noted linguist:
It depends, of course, what dialect of Aramaic you are talking about.
For the dialect of the kaddish, which is said to be that of the
Babylonian Talmud, there is no such thing as a mapiq. The mapiq in the
siddurim is inserted by analogy to Biblical Aramaic, incorrectly. Hence
there is nothing to pronounce.
Again, I add that this is my best recollection.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron-Joseph Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:06:02 +0200
Subject: Re: Mapik in Aramaic
It stands to reason that the mapiq should do what its name suggests,
i.e., to bring out or to express. In Hebrew, the mapiq directs our
attention to the fact that the final "he" is not there to indicate a
vowel ('em ha-qri'a) but as a full-fledged consonant. In the Aramaic, it
stands to reason that this is the same: the word "shmeh" means HIS name,
where the final 'he' is a consonant and therefore should be
sounded. Likewise "kir`uteh" means "according to HIS will. Etc......
So, if you take the trouble to pronounce consonantal 'he' at the end of
a word like "yvulah" in qri'at shma`, you should do likewise in qaddish.
Yosef Gilboa
Rhovot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yosef Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:07:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Origin of the Word "Pareve"
> David Curwin asked:
> > Does anyone know the origin of the word "pareve"?
I have heard the following explanation from my teacher, Ha-rav Nachum
Bronznick (now of Jerusalem):
The word parve is a Yiddish contraction of "pri" (Heb., fruit) and "vie"
(Yiddish from German "wie", as or like). I.e. pri-ve = parve, fruitlike,
neither milk nor meat.
Yosef Gilboa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 19:36:28 +0200
Subject: Origin of the Word "Pareve"
Oh my! The word Parveh there relates to "animal skins". You're in an
etymological mess ;>)
Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...> wrote:
> There was a chamber in the Bais Hamikdash (Holy Temple) called the Bais
> HaPareve (the Pareve chamber). This chamber was half in the Ezras
> Kohanim and half in the Ezras Yisrael, 'neither here nor there' so to
> speak. Therefore, the term Pareve has come to mean neither meat nor
> dairy. (Sometimes Pareve is also used to mean 'neutral' in other
> contexts as well.)
Further to the mistaken identity:
it was the Beit Hamoked that was open both to the inner
courtyard and the outer courtyard, to allow an exit for a
Kohen who had become impure.
As for the Office of Parveh, see Rambam, Avodah, Hilchot Beit Habechirah,
Chapt. V, Para. 17 - that the Office was where they treated the skins of
the sacrificed animals (which would make it a "meaty" place).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:55:52 -0500
Subject: PARDES
Does anyone have any sources for PARDES as the elements of Torah
interpretation? I.E. what is "pshat" "drosh" "remez" "sod"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chuna Avruhm Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:38:08 EDT
Subject: Re: Shtut/Shoot
[The term Shtut R'av had been questioned, so here is Chuna Avruhm's
clarification. (also I liked his story included, which rings very true
to me) Mod.]
Indeed it is Yiddish (forgive me, but English is my 2nd language -- or is it
3rd chronologically :)
The Shtut R'av is indeed a term specific to a community or city Rabbi.
Friend's who've heard the following story, will forgive me for repeating
it here, but it touches on what once was the normative way of Jewish
communal living:
Many, many years ago my dear Mother was attending a Telshe Yeshiva Dinner in
Cleveland. (It seems that an uncle of mine was an honoree.) Sitting way in
the back of the hall she heard the dais introduced, including Rav Sorotzkin
(Z"L) the revered Rosh Yeshiva. The name sounded familiar to her, so she
asked someone at her table if they'd go up to the dais and inquire if this
Rav Sorotzkin knew of a Rabbi by the same name in Ludtzk (not Lodz!) her
home town -- and perhaps if he know her family (supply her maiden name.)
Remember she was barely 14 when the war broke out and 14 year old girls had
little contact with Rabbaim.
The Rosh Yeshiva left the dais and quickly came to her table to give her a
Greis (Yiddish for "greeting") -- The Rosh Yeshiva was known as the "Lutzker
Rav" by many.
Uht iz a Shtut Rav! (Yiddish, for "This is a community Rabbi!) Answering
Shailas and Tzuvahs may be a "technical" part of the job. Loving and
respecting every Jew in the community / and in turn being loved and
respected by every Jew in the community -- that's the definition to this old
gray head.
Carl (or Chuna Avruhm) Singer (or Zynger in Polish)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrea Penkower Rosen <apr@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:24:05 -0400
Subject: The Text of the Bible
For those of you who have inquired, Dr. Jordan S. Penkower of Bar Ilan
University's Bible faculty, has just come out with a revised and expanded
second edition of "The Text of the Bible: the Early Editions of the Printed
Bible".
Please contact me directly via e-mail if you are interested in further
information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eliyahu & Sarah Shiffman <shiffman@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:26:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Titles in Calling up to an Aliyah
Neil Parks <nparks@...> wrote:
>An additional question along the same line: When a Bar-Mitzvah boy is
>called up, the usual title is "HaBochur Ha-Bar Mitzvah".
>Wouldn't "HaBochur Bar Mitzvah" make more sense?
My guess is that neither of the above are correct. It should be
"HaBochur Bar HaMitzvah", in the same way that, in L'cha Dodi, we say
"Beit ha-Lachmi," not "Ha-Beit Lachmi."
Eliyahu Shiffman
[Same comment also submitted by: Daniel Katsman
<hannah@...>. Mod]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Turkel <rturkel@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Titles in Calling up to an Aliyah
I'd like to thank Reb Mordechai (<Phyllostac@...>) for his
lengthy discussion in m.j 29#89 of the use of titles in calling people
up for an `aliya to the Torah. As a gabbai, I can appreciate this as an
issue for discussion.
The minyan in which I gabbinate is fairly informal, and the only
people for whom titles are used are rabbanim, chazzanim, chatanim and
bnei mitzvah. "Chaver" is an unknown to me (not being familiar with the
German tradition), and sounds like something out of the kibbutz-dati
movement. :-)
As for "habachur," the meaning of the root bet-chet-resh is
indeed "choose," but the dictionary meaning of the noun "bachur" is
"(male) youth" and is commonly used for unmarried males. Past the age
of about twenty, though, I agree with Mordechai that it's somewhat
disrespectful, kind of like referring to a grown woman as a "girl."
Sometimes no title is better than an inappropriate one that offends the
person to whom it is applied.
Regarding the comment of Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...> in m.j
29#92, citing his rosh yeshiva saying something like "'Hey, you' is just
not the way we call people to the Torah," I'd like to disagree, with all
due respect. Calling someone up by his name is hardly analogous to
"Hey, you." To my mind, using "Reb" for anyone lacking another, more
appropriate title is more like "Hey, you" than no title at all; in
Yiddish, "Reb Yid" is the way you address someone whose name you don't
know.
Just my NIS 0.09-worth.
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
<rturkel@...> ) | | \ ) |/ \ ein |navi| be|iro\__) |
<rturkel@...> / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano | rani, u jamu pada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Samson Bechhofer <SBechhof@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:02:43 -0400
Subject: Titles in Calling up to an Aliyah - "Chover" Title
Re. Paul Shaviv's post of 10/26, the Breuer's Kehilla in New York
continues the tradition of according the title "chover" to its lay
members. During the early days of the Kehilla (40s and 50s) a young man
received the title at his wedding from the Rav (so noted in the Kesubo)
if his wife covered her hair and he was known to be Kove'ah Itim
LaTorah. Later on, as more young men attended Yeshivos and practically
all young women covered their hair, the title became an automatic, with
the caveat that if the Rav of the Kehilla wasn't the Mesader Kiddushin,
you weren't going to receive the title upon your marriage.
The Rav of the Kehilla has the option of giving the title to respected
older men, usually on the occasion of their 60th or 70th birthday, or
the marriage of a child or grandchild, provided the man's wife covers
her hair.
Samson R. Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 29 Issue 94
