Volume 34 Number 67
                 Produced: Tue Jun  5  6:03:17 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Another Correction/Qamats qatan
         [Meylekh Viswanath]
Ashqenazi Qomotz
         [Mark Steiner]
Kayl Maleh Rahamim
         [David Wachtel]
Pauses, Punctuation and Cantillation Rules
         [Russell Hendel]
Ps29-11: Pauses in Davening: A simple trick
         [Russell Hendel]
Question on Hebrew pronunciation
         [Frank Silbermann]
Repeating Words
         [Leah S. Gordon]
Repetition of Words in Prayer (3)
         [Ben Katz, Asher Goldstein, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Serious correction
         [Shlomo B Abeles]
Tfila Phraseology
         [Ephraim Sachs]
Torah and Archeology
         [Ben Katz]


From: Meylekh Viswanath <pviswanath@...>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:39:33 -0400
Subject: Another Correction/Qamats qatan

Many people who use havara israelit, pronounce a patakh wherever the
nekuda is a qamats (gadol or katan); some who use havara ashkenazis also
indiscriminately substitute a patakh where the nekuda is a qamats.

Normally, this is only mildly annoying (for those of us who are trying to
learn the nekudes, and have a propensity to be annoyed by such things). 
For example, in the shabes shakharis shmoyne esre, ve-samkheynu
bishuoseykho, ve-taher libeynu le-avdekho be-emes, instead of le-ovdekho
changes the meaning from "and purify our hearts to serve you" to "and
purify our hearts to your servant/slave."

However, it seems to me that this becomes a bit more problematic in the
weekday kedusha, when a person says uve-divrei kadshekho kosuv leemor,
instead of uve-divrei kodshekho kosuv leemor. I have not been able to
confirm this for sure, but it seems to me that this changes the meaning
from "and it is written in your holy words," to "and in the words of your
kadesh (male temple prostitute), it is written." 

Can someone confirm or refute this?



From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:07:28 +0300
Subject: Re: Ashqenazi Qomotz

Mechy Frankel writes: 
> The fact is that ashkenazim do not seem to have much of a living
> language tradition of hebrew outride of a literary and liturgical
> context. Thus, while I can easily imagine that a common noun, ishoh
> (woman/wife), was likely to be regularly pronounced as part of an
> absorption of hebraisms into spoken language, I find it difficult to
> imagine a common context for usage of a compound word in s'michus form
> like ishohh (mappiq) in everyday speech outside of the liturgical
> arena. And here we davka do not find any disappearance of the mappiq
> hey, as any even semi-careful ashkenazi leiner today will hit his
> mappiqs. nor I have heard any suggestion that ba'alei q'rioh of previous
> generation did not take similar care.

    Linguists usually distinguish between "whole Hebrew" (i.e. in
liturgical contexts) and "merged Hebrew" (as part of Yiddish) when
discussing the Ashkenaz reading tradition of Hebrew.  The point about
"ishoo/ishaw" has to do with whole Hebrew, or reading the Torah.  And it
is simply not true that "even semi-careful ashkenazi leiner today will
hit his mappiqs".  Go into any chassidishe or Hungarian shtibl today
(the ignoring of non-Litvak Ashkenazi traditions is fatal here, and
believe me, there are more of "them" than "us").  No mappiq's but the
ishoo/ishaw distinction.  The Holy Name "koh" (k for y) is never
pronounced "koo" (k for y) though the letter hey is never
pronounced--and we're dealing here with a shem kodesh. Modern orthodox
readers have "improved" their tradition by studying "dikduk," but even
people like me were never told by the rebbe to pronounce a mappiq he at
the end of a word, nor was I so trained when studying my Bar Mitzvah
parsha.  In linguistics, what one person does is a "mistake"; what a
million people do is a "tradition."

Mark Steiner


From: David Wachtel <Dawachtel@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:25:08 -0700
Subject: Kayl Maleh Rahamim

Over Yom Tov, I noticed that the text for "Kayl Maleh Rahamim" was
recited differently by different people around me depending on the
siddur they were using. I was hoping someone could shed light on the
variations in Kayl Maleh Rahamim between the nusach of "al kanfei
hashechinah" and "tahat kanfei hashechinah". The Artscroll siddurim and
mahzorim all had "AL" and some other peoples personal mahzorim had
"TAHAT".  It was suggested to me that "al" is a reference to "al kanfei
nesharim" but it seems to me that the term "tahat" is more appropriate
for following the phrase "hamzeh menuha nehonah".  To the best of my
knowledge, the only reference to "al kanfei hashechinah" is in the
midrash where Moshe Rabbenu is transported for burial four mil between
the territory of shevet Reuven and shevet Dan.  Everywhere else that the
phrase kanfei hashechinah is used in a protective sense (The Bar-Ilan CD
shows 317 cases) the wording is tahat kanfei hashechinah.

David Wachtel


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:48:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Pauses, Punctuation and Cantillation Rules

Ira Jacobson in v34n62 writes about the phrase in Kaddish
>"hu ya'ase shalom aleinu, v'al kol yisrael" 

>The Mehaber and the Mishna Berura perhaps also understood the reasoning,
>and in Siman 123, paragraph 1, the SA tells us that aleinu goes with
>shalom, when the one who recites it is facing to the left, and the bows
>forward to end with v`al kol . . .

>The MB in sa`if qatan 5, ageres and even points to (and rejects) the
>erroneous way that some people join aleinu with v'al kol Yisrael.

I would just like to supplement his remark with a classic distinction
about cantillations brought by Breuer in his book:
* Ex04-29 is cantillated < Vayelech Moshe, Aharon >
* Ex05-01 is cantillated < Bau, Moshe & Aaron >

This corresponds to the two methods of sentence interpretation mentined
by Ira: Ex04-29 reads that MOSES CAME TO PHAROH, with AARON TAGGING

This is a general issue in Cantillations thruought the Bible. Thus Iras
observations can be reformulated as < We use the Ex04-29 method vs the
Ex05-01 method in punctuating this like of Kaddish > (There are other
issues here such as punctuating to allow breathing for long phrases but
this will suffice for now)

Russell Hendel; VISIT MY MJ ARCHIVES http://www.RashiYomi.Com/mj.htm


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Ps29-11: Pauses in Davening: A simple trick

Bernie Horowitz in v34n55 mentions some verses in the davening that are
pronounced contrary to punctuation requirements.

I would just like to add that familiarity with the Cantillations could
avoid this problem. The rules for cantillations in Psalms are rather
easy (PROVIDED you are only interested in where to PAUSE).

* The following are major pauses: Ethnachta, Sof Possok
* The following are secondary pauses: 
  All Revia; Oleh VeYored,Tipchah,Shaleshelt, Pazer

This covers 95% of the cases (Technically there are 3 types of Revia but
that need not concern a person only interested in PAUSES).

My favorite davening example is Ps29:11 which SHOULD be translated:
God: He will give strength to his nation: 
God: He will bless his nation with peace

(The point is that translating "God will bless...." is incorrect)

Hope this helps
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d., A.S.A
Visit my Mail-Jewish archives at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/mj.htm


From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:48:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Question on Hebrew pronunciation

Speaking of Hebrew pronunciation of Torah and brachas, I was wondering
-- why do so many people pronounce Ah-DOH-* in brachas as *h-DEE-noi?

Frank Silbermann


From: Leah S. Gordon <lsgordon@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:58:07 -0700
Subject: Repeating Words

>"no-repetition" rule, with a (very) few exceptions for some popular
>melodies. This is a practice which started when there was only one

I have observed this as well.  How is it that this "no repetition" rule
came into such prominence?  I ask because surely it is a fairly new

I base this assertion on:
1. the fact that in Hallel, we are supposed to repeat certain phrases,
which must be because that's how the prayers were sung traditionally,
2. the fact that many, many 'traditional' European melodies for parts of
the service (especially for High Holidays) are 'supposed' to repeat.

--Leah Gordon


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:51:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Repetition of Words in Prayer

>>In the same vein, we have important halakhic decisors forbidding the
>>repetition of words in prayers written without repetition, and most
>>particularly when a biblical verse is involved.  Many hazzanim and
>>shelihei tzibbur observe this rule in the breach.  And in modern times,
>>Harav Shelomo Goren used to "drive his hazzanim crazy" by insisting that
>>they desist from such a practice.

        My impression seems to be that most Orthodox shuls today try not to
repeat words, in what I term "neuvaux Orthodox" i.e. the move to the right,
which, as you can tell from my tone, I disgree with.  While I agree that one
could make a halachic argument for not repeating words in the kedusha, what
possible harm is there in repeating "bei ana rachitz"?  I was pleased, a few
years ago, when our shul (a "non-repeater") brought in -- as a shabat treat
-- two chazanim from the Jerusalem Great Synagogue, and the repetitions
abounded.  I also defy any one to find a shul that can sing "vayhe be-nesoah
ha-aron" without a repetition.  Traditional melodies have inspired centuries
of shul goers, and it seems to me, should not be easily dismissed, esp.
since there are still some of us who enjoy a bit of chazanut.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226

From: Asher Goldstein <mzieashr@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:45:25 +0200
Subject: Repetition of Words in Prayer

My "minyan" in Haifa does--or at least used to--make a big deal of this,
with a lot of tsk-tsking whenever a shaliah tzibbur tried to be a hazan.
When one of the main anti-repeat leaders left the community and as the
"minyan" has aged, I've noticed slighlty more tolerance, or at least no
outright rudeness, whenever there is a guest hazan who does not know our
custom.  The non-repeating stance is, I presume, one of the reasons we
were called "the tzaddikim."

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahem@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:05:56 -0400
Subject: RE: Repetition of Words in Prayer

>From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
>Most (or all) shuls in Silver Spring, Maryland strictly adhere to a
>"no-repetition" rule, with a (very) few exceptions for some popular
>melodies. This is a practice which started when there was only one
>orthodox shul in the Washington suburbs (Shomrai Emunah) and grew with
>the community as members branched out and formed new shuls. Now that we
>no longer live in Silver Spring, it's very jarring and upsetting to hear
>a chazzan repeat words or phrases. I'd be very interested to hear if
>other shuls make an issue of it these days.

My shul in Baltimore is makpid on the no repetition rule as well.  We
decided on this when we first founded the shul 25 years ago
(approximately) and have maintained it ever since.  It does indeed sound
jarring when attending a shul that repeats especially at the end of
aleinu (u'shmo, u'shmo, u'shmo echad).

Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz - <sabbahem@...>


From: Shlomo B Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:27:37 +1000
Subject: Serious correction

I think the worst offenders are those, who instead of "Melech OYHEIV
Tzedoko Umishpot", say "OYEV" (!)  and similarly instead of "OYHEIV Amo
Yisroel" - also say "OYEV".

Shlomo B Abeles


From: Ephraim Sachs <ephi@...>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:07:56 +0200
Subject: Tfila Phraseology

> Barchenu Babracha, Hameshuleshet Batorah, (instead of the correct:
> Barchenu Babracha Hameshuleshet, Batorah Haketuvah al Yedei Moshe
> Avdecha)

This is also problematic. The second half, Batorah HaKetuvah etc. isn't
referring to anything. In fact, it's hard to thing of anywhere one can
place the comma and still get an intelligible sentence.

And here's a correction which I've heard, though it is definitely
arguable.  In the Modim part of the Amida, we say "Nodeh L'cha U'Nsaper
Tehilatecha Al..." which is followed by a long list of things which we
are thankful for, ending with "V'Al Nifl'otecha V'Tovotecha Sheb'chol
Ait, Erev Vavoker V'Tzahorayim".

Is Erev, Boker and Tzahorayim a specification of the components of
Sheb'chol Ait which is the time when Nifl'otecha occurs, which doesn't
make much sense since Sheb'chol Ait means ALL the time, so why then
confine it to evening, morning and afternoon?

Or is it referring to the beginning of the (long) sentence, stating the
time when we shall "Nodeh L'cha etc." which makes more sense, since
these are the times when we pray Shacharit, Mincha and Arvit.

Ephraim Sachs


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:51:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Torah and Archeology

>Ozzie Orbach asks, in v34n47,
>> Does anyone know of an archeology book that supports the torah's view of
>> how the jewish people developed into a nation?  Ozzie Orbach

A good book on Biblical archeology is the one by Paul and Dever.  And to
amplify the comments by Mike Gerver, one can't expect an archeology book
to support one view or another.  If you approach data already knowing
what the answer is, there is no need to examine the data.  And it is not
the Torah's view of anything that is challenged by archeological
findings -- it is more the description of the conquest as presented in

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226


End of Volume 34 Issue 67