Volume 38 Number 56
                 Produced: Thu Feb 13  5:02:34 US/Eastern 2003


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Familiar Form
         [Michael Kahn]
Hebrew Reading Comprehension
         [Aliza Fischman]
Kol Dodi Dofeik
         [Elazar M Teitz]
Lo Sisgod'du
         [Ira Bauman]
Misheberach for a Sick Person
         [Danny Skaist]
no formal discourse in Yiddish?
         [Shlomo & Syma Spiro]
Obstructing Access To Private Property / Inconsiderate Parking.
         [Immanuel Burton]
Pasuk for Name
         [Saul Mashbaum]
Pasuk for name
         [Alex Heppenheimer]
Pasuk for name L-B
         [Zev Sero]
Second-person pronoun
         [Zev Sero]
Terach Minyanim
         [Yehonatan and Randy Chipman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:13:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Familiar Form

>In languages that make the distinction, God is always addressed in the
>familiar form.

I disagree. In brachos we address Hashem in what^s called
nochach/direct and nistar/indirect. Thus we say Baruch ata Blessed are
you, direct, Hashem, indirect. I think the Rishonim say this point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Aliza Fischman <fisch.chips@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:10:18 -0500
Subject: Hebrew Reading Comprehension

Does anyone out there know of websites, aside from www.e-chinuch.org,
where I could find downloadable Hebrew reading comprehension worksheets
for a 4th grade day school student I am tutoring?  E-Chinuch is
wonderful, but I have used everything on there already.

Thank you so much,

Aliza Fischman
<fisch.chips@...>
www.alluregraphics.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:21:10 -0500
Subject: Kol Dodi Dofeik

         In a recent posting, "Kol dodi dofek" was translated as "The
voice of my beloved knocks."

        I think, however, that it is a mistranslation.  The word "kol"
has two meanings in Hebrew: "voice" and "sound."  The translation should
probably be "the sound is of my beloved, knocking."  This is indicated
by (a) the fact that a voice does not knock, and (b) the ta'amei hamikra
(cantillation marks), which indicate a pause after the word "kol," so
that it is not "kol dodi," which would indeed be "my beloved's voice,"
but "kol / dodi dofeik,." which is "the sound of," followed by "my
beloved is knocking."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 22:50:37 EST
Subject: Lo Sisgod'du

      Is anyone aware of a compilation or sources on what must be done
      by the individual different than his own native nusach (eg of
      possibilities kedusha,kaddish,tachanun...). Anything on preference
      on davening with a minyan of one's own nusach (eg at the kotel
      must/should I wait for a ashkenazic mincha if a sfardi one is
      starting)

One obvious example to me is the "tefillin on Chol hamoed" subject.The
controversy stems from the issue whether the prohibition of work on chol
hamoed is enough to give chol hamoed an Os (sign), as is the case with
shabbos and yom tov.  The Rosh, his rebbe the Maharam of Rotenberg, the
Mordechai, sefer HaTerumah and the Tosafist known as the RI, all say to
put on tefillin.  The Rashba, the Baalei Halachos Gedolos, the Raabad
all say no.  The Beis Yosef says no and the Ramoh says yes without a
brachah.  The Aruch Hashulchan says that although one should do as his
custom dictates, people davening in one minyan should conform to one way
or the other.  The principle here is Lo Sisgod'du, loosely meaning
"fragmentation".

I spent a Pesach in a hotel whereby a fellow yekke and myself were the
only ones to don tefillin.  As we sat next to each other we were
surprised to find several yeshiva bochurim, on the instruction of their
rebbe, isolating us on all 4 sides from the rest of the shul with
portable mechitzot that had been used for the ezras noshim.  We were
upset to say the least but when we protested we were told Lo Sisgod'du.
In our shul and probably most shuls, where the congregants are more
heterogenous than in the yeshiva, there seeems to be a lot more
tolerance and less of an insistence of Lo Sisgod'du.  Anybody have other
experiences?

Ira Bauman

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:43:39 +0200 
Subject: Misheberach for a Sick Person

<<From: <HLSesq@...>
Third:Can anyone explain why the avot listed are these seven and not,
eg, the "ushpizin seven" ? >>

Chabad does use the "ushpizin 7" in the misheberach for a sick person. 

danny

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shlomo & Syma Spiro <spiro@...>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:29:39 +0200
Subject: no formal discourse in Yiddish?

BSD, 5 Adar I, Feb 7

Did somebody write that there was no formal l personal pronoun in
Yiddish?  Of course there is.  It is ihr, ( like vous in French and sie
in German).  We were taught when we were kids that in addressing and
stranger or an elderly person we should use ihr and not du. Du is a
presumptuous familiarity.  With respect to parents, we used du, but
always prefaced it with Tateh or Mameh as and expression of respect.

And for rabbis, it was always in the third person Will the rabbi have
tea?  As a matter of fact the older generation used to joke, because the
younger generation always used du and not ihr, that they were missing
one month in the calelndar, Iyar ( ihr).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:50:52 +0000
Subject: Obstructing Access To Private Property / Inconsiderate Parking.

Under English Law, if one parks one's car across someone's driveway such
that they cannot access their own property from the public road, one is
not causing an obstruction (within the meaning of the Law) and the
police will not come to remove one's car.  If, however, one parks such
that the owner of the driveway cannot get his car out of his driveway
and onto the public road, then one is causing an obstruction and the
police will remove one's vehicle.  In other words, one is only causing
an obstruction in the eyes of the Law when blocking someone's access TO
the public road and not FROM the public road.

What, however, is the Halachah with regards to obstructing someone's
access to their own property in this manner?  I would assume that there
would be a Derech Eretz aspect, but would this also come under the
injunction to love one's neighbour as oneself?  Or is there another
Halachah one can apply?

While on the subject of inconsiderate parking, are there any Halachos
(apart from dina de'malchusa dina [the law of the land is the law] or
loving one's neighbour as oneself) applicable to the following
scenarios:

(1) Illegal parking, i.e. where there are parking restrictions,
especially when to do so causes an obstruction to free-flowing traffic.
There is one intersection I used to drive through on my way to work
where traffic was quite free-flowing unless someone had parked
illegally, in which case it could take up to 10 minutes to get through
that intersection!

(2) Stopping in the middle of the road to let passengers in or out of
one's car, or to load or unload goods.  This is a frequent occurence in
the part of London where I live, and, given the narrow streets typical
of that part of London, blocks the entire road in both directions.  This
behaviour is also sometimes exacerbated by people stopping in the middle
of the road when there is an adequate space at the side of the road for
them to pull into and so not block the road.

(3) Double parking such that the person who has parked legally is
blocked in and cannot leave.  This has happened to me twice, both times
by people of frum appearance.  On the first occasion the driver
justified herself to me by saying that she couldn't find anywhere nearer
to park to the shop she wanted to go (quite why her being lazy meant
that I and my three friends had to hang around waiting for her to come
back is beyond me), and on the second occasion the driver told me not to
be chutzpadik when I asked him why he'd blocked me in.

Immanuel Burton.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:44:44 +0200
Subject: Pasuk for Name

> Hi, does anyone know the pasuk for the name (that you say at the end of
> the Shmoneh Esrey) for a name that begins with a Lamed and ends with a
> Bet/Vet?  Like the name Lev or Leib....

The most comprehensive list of psukim for names is in the siddur Tfilat
Shai, published by Feldheim. All 484 (22 x 22) possible combinations of
first and last letters are listed, along with corresponding
psukim. Disturbingly, some combinations (samech-aleph, for example) do
not have a pasuk; hopefully, there are no names for such combinations.

The pasuk for lamed - bet is Tehillim 33,19.

Saul Mashbaum

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Pasuk for name

I believe that the "standard" one used by people named Leib is Tehillim
33:19: "Lehatzil mimaves nafsham, ulechayosam bara'av."

Some other possible ones (leaving out really long verses, as well as
those with negative connotations, such as verses where the Jewish People
are castigated for their sins) might be Bereishit 27:9, Shemot 4:5,
Devarim 29:12, or - possibly - Shir Hashirim 6:12. (Rashi explains that
verse as a rueful reminiscence about the conditions which led to our
subjugation to Rome. However, the Midrash sees this verse as the
surprised reaction of the Jewish People to their sudden elevation.)

[There's a very useful program called Tanach Plus -
http://www.jewishsoftware.com/products/336.asp - which, among other
things, allows you to search for verses beginning and ending with
certain letters. I found all of the above citations using this program.]

Kol tuv,
Alex

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Zev Sero <Zev.Sero@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:04:59 -0700 
Subject: Re: Pasuk for name L-B

Try Shir HaShirim 6:12, or Bereshit 27:9.  There's also Tehilim 14:1,
but that isn't very nice.

Zev Sero
<zsero@...>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Zev Sero <Zev.Sero@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:05:25 -0700 
Subject: Second-person pronoun

Ben Katz <bkatz@...> wrote:
>  I have always been amazed that Yiddish, unlike German, does not
> have a polite form. 

Not true.  The familiar form is `du', and the polite form is `ir'.  This
is so not only in Yiddish dialects that also use `ir' for the
second-person plural, but also in those dialects where the second-
person plural is `etz'; in these dialects `ir' is used exclusively for
the singular polite form.

It is unfortunate that too many children with a partial knowledge of
Yiddish sound like chutzpeniaks when they go around du-ing people who
are much older than them!

> One even addressed one's parent with the familiar second person, not
> the third person.

Of course.  To the best of my knowledge, in every language that has
polite and familiar forms of the second-person pronoun, a parent is
addressed in the familiar.

Jay F Shachter <jay@...> wrote:

> In languages that make the distinction, Gd is always addressed in the
> familiar form.  

This is so today, but where did this tradition come from?
According to http://www.lcms.org/oldwor/LHP/Transprin.htm
    One of the great contributions of Luther's translation of the
    Bible was to use the familiar form du for Gd. Though to be sure
    Gd is the great King, he need not be addressed with the formal Sie,
    used for earthly superiors; rather, He is to be addressed as our
    heavenly Father, in the terms used for our closest, most intimate
    relationships. As Luther says in the catechism, "Gd would by these
    words tenderly invite us to believe that He is our true Father,
    and that we are His true children, so that we may with all boldness
    and confidence as Him as dear children ask their dear father."

    Though there was earlier precedent in using the familiar form in
    addressing Gd in prayer, Luther's use of the second person pronoun
    to convey the close relationship that Gd has with His people was
    adopted by all other vernacular translations. This includes the
    English Authorized (King James) Version, which employs "thee" and
    "thou" to refer to Gd.

Zev Sero
<zsero@...>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 23:46:49 +0200
Subject: re: Terach Minyanim

      About the various profound delvings into the matter of the "Terah
minyanim":

As I'm the one who began this whole thread by using the term, I must
interject to say that, while theoretically the term could be used to
refer to avodah zarah, in fact the term is used in a jocular way to
refer to a weekday minyanim of good, Orthodox Jews who daven so early
that they finsih before sunrise.

    I might add that the use of the term is to my mind perhaps a bit
cruel and insensitive, insulting as it does those who daven early.  Such
people usually do so because they have to leave for work early and have
no other real option for tefillah betzibbur, plus perhaps a smattering
of elderly retirees who rose early their whole working lives and are
used to it, and anyway can't sleep.  As it happens, there is definite
halakhic justifuaction, rooted in a sugya in the gemara and poskim, for
davening early when necessary.

   Yehonatan Chipman

----------------------------------------------------------------------


End of Volume 38 Issue 56