Volume 34 Number 79
                 Produced: Fri Jun 15  7:09:29 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Another Correction/Qamats qatan
         [Rick Turkel]
English translations of Ibn `Ezra on the Xumashim
         [Jay F [Yaakov] Shachter]
         [Michael Frankel]
Oyev, Ohev, Loshen HaKoydesh, Dray Kup lay grammarians, etc.
         [Andrew Klafter]
         [Mark Steiner]
Two types of the letter lamed
         [Dani Wassner]


From: Rick Turkel <rturkel@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:22:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Another Correction/Qamats qatan

Meylekh Viswanath <pviswanath@...> wrote in mail.jewish 34#77:

>I am aware that the nominative form is 'qodeish.'  What about the form,
>"your qodeish," however?  Since there is a change of stress, the vowel
>becomes shorter, and (I imagined) becomes a patakh.
			.  .  .
>I would still like to find out what a noun with the same mishqal as
>qadeish, i.e. patakh, tseyre, would be inflected when a possessive
>suffix is added.

	According to "Luach Hashemot Hashalem" by Dr. Shaul Barkali
(Reuven Mass, Jerusalem, 1964), your qadeish becomes qedeishekha (where
the first and 3rd "e" each represent sheva na`.  The declension (for
lack of a better term) is analogous to that of 'avel, but with an
initial sheva na` instead of a chataf-patach.

	Hope this helps.

Rick Turkel      (___  _____  _  _  _  _  __     _  ___   _   _  _  ___
<rturkel@...>      )     |   |  \  )  |/  \ ein |navi| be|iro\__)    |
<rturkel@...>    /      |  _| __)/   | ___)    | ___|_  |  _(  \    |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money.    Ko rano | rani, u jamu pada.


From: Jay F [Yaakov] Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:33:56 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: English translations of Ibn `Ezra on the Xumashim

Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...> wrote on Sun, 13 May 2001:
> >From: Saul Davis <sdavis@...>
> >BTW if anyone has difficulty with an Ibn Ezra tell me, I can see what
> >the Mehoqeqey Yehuda says and fax the appropriate page.
> There have been hundreds of supercommentaries on IE because his style is
> so terse, his grammatical points quite technical and his astrological
> comments based on medieval concepts.  I am not familiar with the 2 in Mr.
> Davis' chumash, but there was a 14th century commentary by Yosef Bonfils
> that was well known and reprinted many years ago (it is now out of print).

    > The English Ibn Ezra available on Bereshit, Shemot (the long commentary)
    > and Bamidbar [sic., "Bemidbar" is meant] is excellent and explains
    > many of the difficulties in the Ibn Ezra.               <===

> The Hebrew edition by Wiser published by Mosad Harav Kook is a
> classic and extremely helpful (and also out of print unfortunately,
> altho it was abridged for the new Torat Chayim mikraot Gedolot
> published by Mosad harav Kook).

As it happens, the 2 commentaries in Mr Davis's xumash with which Dr
Katz is unfamiliar -- collectively known as the "Mexoqeqey Yehuda" --
are more than anything else the basis for the Wiser notes which Dr Katz
lauds.  Wiser almost invariably sides with the Mexoqeqey Yehuda when
there is disagreement among the supercommentaries.

But notice the highlighted excerpt from Dr Katz's posting: "The English
Ibn Ezra ... on Bereshit, Shemot ... and Bemidbar".  This is a
remarkable passage!  In fact, Ktav is the publisher of the English
translations of Ibn `Ezra's commentary on Vayyiqra and Devarim.  They
are excellent.  They are more than excellent.  I cannot praise them
enough.  They are the best books that have ever been written in the
world.  And that includes Moby-Dick and Gone With The Wind.

Published in 1986, Ktav's translation of Ibn `Ezra's commentary on
Vayyiqra was the first translation, into any language, of any of Ibn
`Ezra's commentaries on any of the books of the Torah.  For a completing
touch of irony, both the Vayyiqra and Devarim translations, on their
title pages, acknowledge the Mexoqeqey Yehuda as the translator's
primary commentary on the text.

These two volumes are surely available wherever quality books are sold.
If you want to bypass the quality bookstore and buy them from the
publisher, I notice that, a few weeks ago, someone was actually
permitted by the moderator to post a Ktav book-ordering form onto
mail-jewish.  If you still have the back issue you can print out the
order form and fill it in with the correct title.

I am, as far as I know, in no way related to Avraham ibn `Ezra.

			Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
			6424 N Whipple St, Chicago IL  60645-4111


From: Michael Frankel <mechyfrankel@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:10:46 -0700
Subject: Mappiq

Mark Steiner writes:. <" For completeness, I'll mention that the same
phenomenon occurs with the patax genuvah and the letter `ayin. The patax
"under" the `ayin (and it is not really under it in the mss.) is
pronounced first, the `ayin last. Of course, for those who don't
pronounce the `ayin at all, there's no difference--but that's a whole
new subject. Mark Steiner >

Well, not exactly - at least not "for completeness". In truth the rule
of the patach g'nuvoh (or aleph g'nuvoh) applies not just for hey and
ayin but to any final patached guttural..  See minchas shai at the
beginning of b'reishis at the first appearance of the word "roqiah".
I'm sure that dr steiner did not mean to exclude common usage words
ending in ches (xet?) such as ray'ach (smell) from this rule.

To clarify a bit. "mappiq", in this context, means to bring out the sound.
 In fact the sources speak of any sounded letter (not just final hey) as
"muppoq".  What distinguished final sounded mappiq hey, is the
additional dot sign (in the manuscripts usually inserted in the hey at a
different height than employed for a dogeish) because of the increased
interpretational ambiguity for a hey in this position.  (actually its
even more confusing since i can point to instances where the masoretic
literature refer to a letter with a sh'voh noh as a muppoq, in contrast
to a hey with a sh'voh noch which is called a "loa muppoq" - the exact
opposite of the more common usage today which would consider the latter
case a muppoq).

In any event, while the example of govo'ah with aleph g'nuvoh as cited
by dr steiner (another common example which might be cited is the
frequent mispronunciation of el'o'ah - not el'o'ha) certainly falls in
this category, it is but one example of a much broader class of mappiq
letters.  In any event, while interesting it strays from the point in
contention - which specifically focused on the alleged loss of the
mappiq hey at end of words amongst ashkenazi leiners.  It is my
experience that this is not so, while dr steiner has repeated an
assertion that it is.  Since this is a matter of ground truth and does
not lend itself to resolution by cogent argumentation, I again solicit
the list readership who may frequent shtibels to report on observed
practice.  But the observed loss of some mappiq forms by ashkenazim
(such as the common ayin with sh'voh noch) or the retention of others
does not really bear on the specific mappiq issue at hand.

<.The Sefaradim actually pronounce the word "gavowah", the w being the
historical pronunciation of a waw (vov).>

yes and no. historically anyway, "w" when the vov  (waw?) is dogeished,,
"v" just like an ashkenazi vais, when it isnot (i.e rofeh).  However,
I don't know what current sefardic or yemenite practice is. 

Mechy Frankel                   W: (703) 588-7424
<mechyfrankel@...>    H: (301) 593-3949


From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:04:30 -0400
Subject: Oyev, Ohev, Loshen HaKoydesh, Dray Kup lay grammarians, etc.

> From: SBA <sba@...>
> <<From: Meylekh Viswanath <pviswanath@...>
> >Just wanted to point out that the standard Yiddish pronounciation of a
> >word like "oyheiv yisroel" is, indeed, "oyev yisroel."  Hence, at least
> >as far as Yiddish speakers are concerned, this just happens to be a case
> >of two words pronounced similarly, but with vastly different >>
> But we davven in Loshon Hakodesh and not in Yiddish...
> And another one often heard in places where the pronunciation is in
> 'Galicianish' or 'Polish/Hungarian' chassidish (eg 'Booreech' for
> 'Boruch') - one often hears "BoorEEch" Oleynu instead of "BoorEYch"
> Oleinu...

No, <pviswanath@...> is correct.

1) We DON"T doven in Loshen HaKoydesh (LShWN HQWDSh for you academics--
is that really easier to understand?!), which refers to the Hebrew of
TANAKH, and not to the rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic found in our

2) Loshen HaKoydesh is defined by its grammar and vocabulary-not its
pronunciation.  Loshen HaKoydesh is no longer a spoken language.
Migration of Yiddin since the 1st Temple was destroyed has resulted in
such wide variation in pronunciation, presumably based on the vernacular
of the Jews in their exile locations, that it is inappropriate to call
an authentic regional accent "incorrect."

3) OYEV is NOT a Yiddish word, it is a Hebrew word.  However, native
Yiddish speakers would probably read OHEV in a way which sounds similar
to OYEV.  I.e., in certain regions they would be homonyms, or
near-homonyms.  Yes it is awkward that they are also antonyms.
Nevertheless, if this is the regional accent with which someone grew up
hearing tefillot, why wouldn't it be acceptable?  There are plenty of
other word pairs which are homonyms or near antonyms in modern Hebrew
but not in Ashkenazi-Yiddish speaker's Hebrew.

4) There are certain things which the halakha requires very precise
pronunciation of words, e.g. Krias HaTorah, Krias Shema.  Shemona Esrai
is not in the same category, so relax a little.

5) The 15 or so mailjewish subscribers who have taken upon themselves
the admirable hiddur-mitzvah of sending me twice-weekly corrections of
my English misspellings or typographical errors by private email can
overlook my spelling of "Loshen HaKoydesh".  I am using that
idiosynchratic spelling to make a point.  Otherwise, your machos are
welcome (and are perhaps worthy of a paper on obsessional neurosis).

-Gut Voch (ShBWA ThB), Nachum

(ps-how do you guys transliterate the Ayin, and Aleph?)


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:32:20 +0300
Subject: Re: Qemotz

    The discussion about the mappiq obscured the original reason that I
brought the subject up.  Namely, I asserted, based on research done by
my brother that there is are two qemotzim in many if not most
Ashekenazic reading traditions (roughly, the non-Litvak ones) from the
Ukraine to Holland.  The distinction is not identical to the so-called
qametz gadol/qatan distinction in the Sefaradic tradition.  In the
Ashkenazi (non-Litvak) traditions, the oo qametz is with an open
syllable, and the o qametz is with a closed syllable (e.g. oodom)--this
is the Galician pronunciation; the Dutch one is slightly different, but
using the same rules.

    In syllables closed by a mappiq he, such is ishah 'her man, husband'
the qometz is pronounced o, not oo, even among the vast majority of
Ashkenazim who do not pronounce the mappiq he.  Instead of looking at
Torah readers, consider the average shaliach tzibbur, who is not called
upon to be "medakdek" etc.  I heard a mincha today by a chassidishe
shaliach tzibbur; relative to his tradition, he was pretty accurate, but
he didn't pronounce a single mappiq he.  On the other hand, the name of
Hashem "koh" (k instead of y) he pronounced as a closed syllable,
i.e. qometz=o, not oo.  Other qemotzim in open syllables he pronounced
as in "yisrooayl", "booreekh."  The shaliach tzibbur pronounces as he
was taught by the rebbe or teacher, not as theoretically one should
pronounce it from dikduk books.  And he preserves the two qemotzim
(which is not in any dikiduk book) better than the mappiq he (which is).
This is the mark of an ancient tradition.

Mark Steiner


From: Dani Wassner <dani@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:13:31 +0200
Subject: Two types of the letter lamed

A few years ago I was in Siberia to take camps on behalf of the Jewish
Agency. Whilst there I was introduced to a very old, non-religious man
who told me that before WWII he had been religious and had in fact been
the rabbi of the community. We conversed in Hebrew (although his was
very unusual). He asked me all sorts of questions about Judaism and
halacha today and seemed to be very knowledgable.

The one question that intrigued me was when he asked whether people
distinguish their pronounciation of the two types of "lameds". Until
then, I did not know that such a thing existed.

Anyone else heard of this?

Dani Wassner


End of Volume 34 Issue 79