Volume 47 Number 71
                    Produced: Wed Apr 20  4:18:48 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Artscroll Siddur (2)
         [Eitan Fiorino, Lawrence Myers]
Kaddish (4)
         [Josh Backon, Yisrael Medad, Martin Stern, Martin Stern]
Mishnaic Hebrew in benedictions (2)
         [Jay F Shachter, Mark Steiner]
Pronounciation / Siddurs
         [Akiva Miller]
Siyum and Fasting -- on Tzom Gedaliah
         [Martin Stern]
Tefillah b'tzibbur - any physical/medical limitations
         [Josh Backon]
Tircha clarification
         [Yisrael Medad]
Tircha d'Tsibbura
         [Martin Stern]


From: Eitan Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:59:13 -0400
Subject: RE: Artscroll Siddur

> From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
> From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
> > IIRC "gashem" is the pausal form of "geshem" and pausal forms are only 
> > found in Biblical Hebrew but not in Mishnaic Hebrew ("Lashon Chazal"). 
> > Thus if what is intended is a reference to a biblical verse then the
> > use of biblical Hebrew grammar would be appropriate but otherwise the 
> > language of the siddur is generally, I understand, Mishanaic Hebrew.
> Nusach Ashkenaz has
>     "Borei P'ri Ha-gafen";
> Nusach Sfarad,
>     "Borei P'ri Ha-gefen".
> -- so it appears the issue of l'shon torah vs. l'shon mishna 
> is a broad machloket.

I think Mark Steiner's erudite posting on this has addressed the issue -
the "rewriting" of the siddur was a systematic effort to replace what
were viewed as corrupt Mishanic Hebrew formulations with the more
pristine Biblical ones.  While this was pursued by folks with plenty of
respectable Orthodox credentials (and no doubt Orthodox intent as well),
there is no doubt the view of Biblical Hebrew as pristine and Rabbinic
Hebrew as corrupt developed in the milieu of the haskala (I don't mean
to imply there is mutual exclusivity between "Orthodox" and "haskala"
but those are convenient phrases to use in this context).  This took
place mainly in Germany and did not affect any other nusach (including
the Eastern European chassidic nusach Ashkenaz, called nusach sefard).

It has always been amazing to me (and a demonstration of the power of
printing) that such changes could be accepted over a short time and
could so completely obliterate a 2000 year (give or take) history of
pronounciation.  How long would it take for nusach Ashkenaz to return to
the correct Mishaic formulation if Artscroll switched its vocalization
back to the pre-haskala standard?


From: Lawrence Myers <lawrence@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:17:18 +0100
Subject: Re: Artscroll Siddur

> From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
> From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
>> IIRC "gashem" is the pausal form of "geshem" and pausal forms are
>> only found in Biblical Hebrew but not in Mishnaic Hebrew ("Lashon
>> Chazal"). Thus if what is intended is a reference to a biblical
>> verse then the use of biblical Hebrew grammar would be appropriate
>> but otherwise the language of the siddur is generally, I understand,
>> Mishanaic Hebrew.

Could someone then please explain why, in the paragraph immediately
before the Shacharit Amidah, Tzur Yisroel, in the middle of a sentence
most siddurim have the word " chinoome'choh", which is a pausal form.
Only Singers AFAIK has the non pausal form " chinoomchoh".

Lawrence Myers


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Wed,  13 Apr 2005 19:56 +0200
Subject: Re: Kaddish

See the Rema in Shulchan Aruch YOREH DEAH 376:5 (". .. nahagu lomar al
av va'em kaddish batra 12 chodesh v'chenm nahagu . . . u'lhitpalel
aravit b'motzai shabbatot, she'hu ha'zman she'chozrin ha'neshamot
l'gehinnom.  U'k'shehaben mitpallel u'm'kadesh b'rabim, podeh
aviv"). Rough translation: it's customary to say the LAST kaddish for
one's deceased parents for 12 months and for the son to *daaven* Maariv
on Motzai Shabbat (reason being that right after Shabbat is over, souls
of the deceased go back to Gehinnom and if the son prays and says
kaddish IN PUBLIC, he prevents this from happening.

Josh Backon

From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:40:40 +0200
Subject: Kaddish

Today I spoke with two Rabbis I am familiar with and asking them
regarding our recent discussion, one said the chiyuv is Kaddish and the
other, the davening.  After a discussion, we all came to the conclusion
that saying Kaddish and davening as the Shaliach Tzibbur need not
dovetail.  Kaddish should be said and Chazarat HaShatz should be said.
If the Kaddish-sayer is a problematic Shatz, the congregation takes
precedence and he should yield to someone who can properly daven and he
is relegated to just a Kaddish-sayer, with no other demands.

Yisrael Medad

From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:57:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish

on 13/4/05 12:16 pm, Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote:
> Let me attempt once again to summarize my approach to the question of
> Kaddish as it evolved from the original posting.
> The Kaddish, I think, was originally intended to serve as a prayer in
> which a certain congregational climax was achieved - mass participation
> in affirming God's benevolence, kindness, etc. through faith.
> thus, it was selected to serve for orphans, primarily under-aged, as the
> most appropriate prayer for them to say with full joining in by the
> adults.
> But now, over maybe 1800 years or so, it has gained the status of a "din
> through minhag" (my formulation) and, as my thinking goes, its
> recitation takes primacy over a davening which could cause trouble for
> the congregation.

I may have not made myself clear when I wrote that the main chiyuv is to
be sheliach tsibbur and kaddish was only a substitute introduced for
minor children. As the halakhah is today the adult aveil also says

Someone with a speech defect which disturbs others or whose voice is
inaudible, or someone who davens too fast or too slow for that
particular congregation, is automatically disqualified.

Whatever the person might feel is his chiyuv, the primary qualification
for being sheliach tsibbur is to be merutseh letsibbur - acceptable to
the congregation. Any person with a modicum of sense will not make an
issue of this and try to force himself on it.

If he does not qualify, he must be satisfied with saying kaddish for
which, strictly speaking, he fulfils his obligation by saying one a day.

Martin Stern

From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:10:22 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish

on 13/4/05 12:16 pm, Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...> wrote:

> Without disputing Mr. Stern's overall point in the slightest, it should
> be pointed out that there is a well-established tradition, at least
> among Lithuanian Ashkenazim, of kaddish (with a minyan) being
> "available" and perhaps even mandatory for daughters as well.

I think that Nachum is incorrect. Daughters are not obliged to say
kaddish though, according to some opinions, they are permitted to do
so. If they were really obligated then they should come to shul three
times a day to do so just like sons, or at least once to fulfil the
minimal requirement. It is virtually unheard of for women to do this so,
if he were correct, almost all women are remiss in their duties,
something one should be hesitant to suggest.

This whole overemphasis on kaddish is based on kabbalistic concepts
which give rise, in those not fully versed in such matters, to
superstitions. As far as halakhah is concerned, greater merit is accrued
to the deceased parent by good deeds which cause people to admire the
son's or daughter's conduct and comment that they must have learned it
from their parent.

Martin Stern


From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:32:44 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mishnaic Hebrew in benedictions

from mail.jewish v47n62:
> > IIRC "gashem" is the pausal form of "geshem" and pausal forms are only
> > found in Biblical Hebrew but not in Mishnaic Hebrew ("Lashon Chazal").
> > ... the language of the siddur is generally, I understand,
> > Mishanaic Hebrew.
> 	I think this remark is a bull's eye, every word is right.  If
> you look at the Kaufmann Codex (an ancient vocalized Mishnah) you will
> find the blessing, "boreh pri hagefen" (not "gofen"), the same
> phenomenon............................... The "vaye`tar yitzhak"
> siddur "Biblicized" this to gashem, and Baer followed him.
> ......................................................................
> 	A remark about the sefaradim (or "Mizrahi" Jews).  Often what
> look like discrepancies between their siddur and the Ashkenaz are
> actually the result of the European Jewish Enlightenment (haskalah)
> -- the Sefaradi siddurim did not undergo Biblicization.  Hence, they
> have "geshem," "gefen," even at the end of a sentence.

How does the author of the above quote pronounce the last word of the
benediction over bread (which is clearly a reference to Psalms 104:14 --
in which the pausal form of the word appears -- but not a direct quote
of that verse)?

Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
Chicago IL  60645-4111
<jay@...>; http://m5.chi.il.us:8080

From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:31:30 +0300
Subject: RE: Mishnaic Hebrew in benedictions

I assume I am the one referred to in Jay's question.  But I don't
understand the question--the word ha-aretz appears 978 times in the
Tanakh, there is no form ha-eretz in Biblical Hebrew.  So Mishnaic
Hebrew chooses this form also, as in Kaufmann Codex Berakhot Chapter 6
"ha-motzi lehem min ha-aretz."

I think the question should be generalized--how do you pronounce a word
in a benediction when (a) BH has a pausal form that differs from the
nonpausal; (b) the word is a quotation from the Bible; (c) the word
appears at the end of a sentence?

And, in any case, I did not advocate "turning the clock back" and
changing all the "gafen"s to "gefen", or the "gashem"s to "geshem"s; my
post was historical only.

Mark Steiner


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:55:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Pronounciation / Siddurs

Carl Singer asked <<< No siddur in my collection has any variant on the
spelling of the first two words of kaddish -- nonetheless it seems quite
common for people to pronounce those words with a long "a" --
Yis-ka-dale v' Yis-ka-daysh -- any insights? >>>

Mishna Brura 56:2 makes many comments about how Kaddish is to be
said. The very first of them is to use the long "a". His reasoning is
that it should be pronounced as a Hebrew word, and the short "a" is an
Aramaic pronunciation. (Many other authorities disagree.)

Another point he makes is that the first word is spelled with a gimel,
not a kuf, so it should be pronounced "yisgadayl" not "yiskadayl".

Akiva Miller


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:41:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Siyum and Fasting -- on Tzom Gedaliah

on 13/4/05 12:05 pm, Robert A. Book <rbook@...> wrote:
> According to the current Daf Yomi schedule, the Siyum for Masechta
> Shabbos falls on Tzom Gedaliah.  This leads to the question: which
> takes precedence, the fast or the feast?

I think Robert may be in error. According to my Daf Yomi calendar, we
complete Massekhet Shabbat on 2nd day Rosh Hashanah not Tsom Gedaliah.

However, even if he were correct, I do not see any conflict between the
siyum and fasting on Tsom Gedaliah or, for that matter, any other
fast. One simply makes the siyum after nightfall when the fast is
over. As far as Daf Yomi is concerned we treat the day as being from
rising in the morning until retiring at night just as we do not make a
new birkhat hatorah when learning after nightfall but rely on the one
made in the morning.

Martin Stern


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Wed,  13 Apr 2005 20:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Tefillah b'tzibbur - any physical/medical limitations

This is discussed in the Aruch haShulchan ORACH CHAYIM 53 #9 who brings
two opinions: the MEHARSHAL who prohibits someone with a physical defect
[and one of the defects listed by the Aruch haShulchan is "chiger
b'raglav"] to be the Shaliach Tzibbur; vs. the Zohar, the SHELAH, and
the Alya Rabba who permit.

On the other hand from a literal reading of what the baal Aruch
haShulchan writes in OC 53 # 18, (that a Shatz must STAND), it's
somewhat confusing.

Josh Backon


From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:05 +0200
Subject: Tircha clarification

A clarification is needed here.
I wrote:

>if non-children say it, i.e. parents and siblings, then obviously the
> saying of Kaddish has altered its status and maybe now is a Halacha
> rather than a custom.

and Martin responded:

> As far as I am aware the obligation of saying kaddish only applies to
> sons of the deceased and, if he leaves no sons, there is no obligation
> for anyone to say kaddish.
> true.

but it is common that orphans who do not say Kaddish ask/hire/ whatever
others to say the Kaddish.  that's what I was referring to above.


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:18:50 +0100
Subject: Tircha d'Tsibbura

on 13/4/05 12:16 pm, Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote:

> I have no Smicha so all I can say is that I would think that
> today, in terms of "din", if an Avel can't daven, he should at least say
> Kaddish.  if davening would be a Chiyuv rather than as custom, and he
> can't daven as Shaliach Tzibbur then what is his status - a "minus"
> mitzva or neutral?  What is to be preferred - a Kaddish or a lousy
> davening?

He still says kaddish even if he acts as sheliach tsibbur so this is not
an either/or situation, he can do both. On the other hand, if he can't
daven to the satisfaction of the congregation, he can't be sheliach
tsibbur. This is no more a minus for him than someone who does not own a
field being unable to set aside peah.

Martin Stern


End of Volume 47 Issue 71