Volume 48 Number 78
Produced: Fri Jul 1 5:01:17 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
20 Sivon
[Perets Mett]
Amen to non-live voices
[Robert Israel]
daleth/ddaleth
[Perets Mett]
gimel/jimel (2)
[ELPh Minden, Art Sapper]
Guggenheim and "yitgadel veyitkadesh"
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Looking for Source on Rabbi Soloveitchik and Vatikin
[Josh]
Orthodox
[Wendy Baker]
Paid Kaddish
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Yiddish etymology (2)
[Jeanette Friedman, N Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:08:37 +0100
Subject: 20 Sivon
Martin Stern wrote, in connection with the fast of khof Sivon:
> With the passage of time, its 'popularity' has declined as the
> remembrance of those massacres also dimmed and was overtaken by
> others.
My understanding is that in Poland (where the fast was reinstituted in
1648 - ta"ch) it did indeed remain part of the Jewish calendar until
after the WW1.
My father z"l, who grew up in Poland, mentioned on more than one
occasion that he remembered the 20th of Sivon being commemorated
(although I do not recall whether he said they fasted or said slichoth).
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Amen to non-live voices
Carl A. Singer <casinger@...> wrote:
| The story of someone answering amen to a video tape of their wedding
| brings out a new dimension this issue. We now have several different
| situations:
Technology makes several other situations possible. What about a
synthesized voice rather than a recording? A famous example is Stephen
Hawking, who "speaks" using a computer and DECtalk speech-synthesis
system. Such systems are now quite inexpensive and becoming more
common, both for disabled people and for telephone messages. So, could
one answer "Amen" to a bracha by a Jewish Stephen Hawking? What if you
call up Dial-A-Bracha? Does it make a difference if the voice is
completely synthetic or produced by concatenating recordings of phonemes
spoken by people?
Robert Israel <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:50:27 +0100
Subject: daleth/ddaleth
Mark Steiner wrote:
I hope to meet you some time--I read the daleth as thaleth when I
read the word "ehod" in the shma, because only in that way can you
elongate the daleth according to Hazal...
This illustrates beautifully the inadequacy of relying on English
transcription to represent daleth/tov rofe.
Since 'th' has two pronunciations in English the transcription "thaleth"
tells us precisely nothing (with apologies to Mark, who is trying to
make the best out of a bad job).
But why restrict yourself to English? Welsh is much better in this
respect. In Welsh 'th' always has the sound value as in 'thin'. the
sound value of 'th' in 'that' or 'then' is written 'dd'
Now you know how to pronounce 'Eisteddfod' (which incidentally features
a Shomer Shabbos choir this year).
So perhaps we should transcribe the last word of the first posuk of shma
as 'echodd' !
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ELPh Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:19:30 +0200
Subject: gimel/jimel
> From: Mark Steiner wrote:
>> In case you're wondering about Dalet rafeh, my understanding is that
>> it's pronounced like th in the word "then", though I have not met
>> anyone who makes this distinction when they read hebrew.
>
> I hope to meet you some time--I read the daleth as thaleth when I read
> the word "ehod" in the shma, because only in that way can you elongate
> the daleth according to Hazal...
Me too.
And I think, the Iraqi tradition also has kept this pronunciation,
exclusively in the "echod" of the Shma, which linguistically is a rare
phenomenon.
(A related detail: In Western Yiddish, and to this day in some Southern
German villages among non-Jews, the number 10 when counting is Yus, not
Yud. One theory says this is a remnant of a (French?) Dales refuye, but
IMHO it might be similar to the parallel forms Dales/Daled, maybe orally
only.)
ELPh Minden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <asapper@...> (Art Sapper)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:44:16 -0400
Subject: Re: gimel/jimel
Regarding these excellent postings by Joshua Hosseinof
>Tav/Thav with the th sound as in the word "thin"). In case you're
>wondering about Dalet rafeh, my understanding is that it's pronounced
>like th in the word "then", though I have not met anyone who makes this
>distinction when they read hebrew.
and by Mark Steiner
>I hope to meet you some time--I read the daleth as thaleth when I read
>the word "ehod" in the shma, because only in that way can you elongate
>the daleth according to Hazal...
I believe that I read somewhere that Iraqi Jews distinguish between
dalet degusha and dalet rafeh, and pronounce the dalet rafeh as the /th/
in "then."
For those who might wish to distinguish between the two in their
davening - especially when saying Shema (for the precisely correct
reason noted by Mr. Steiner, and confirmed to me by the knowledgeable
son of a professor of Semitic languages) - it is important to follow the
distinction noted by Mr. Hosseinoff and Mr. Steiner: The sound of the
dalet rafeh (the /th/ in "then") is an voiced /th/, not the unvoiced
/th/, i.e., the /th/ in "thin" (represented by thav in Hebrew).
Voiced /th/ and unvoiced /th/ are very different sounds, and in many
languages are represented by different letters. For example, Greek uses
the letter theta to represent the unvoiced /th/ and the delta to
represent the voiced /th/. Place your fingers on your Adam's apple and
you'll feel vibration when pronouncing the voiced sound but not the
unvoiced. This distinction may be difficult for English speakers to
draw because English uses the same letter combination ("th") to
represent both the voiced and unvoiced /th/ sounds (although Old English
used the letter "thorn" to represent the unvoiced sound).
And now for a question: Does anyone know if any scholar of Hebrew has
stated that the use by Hebrew of the shift in word ending from thav to
daleth refuah to distinguish between masculine and feminine (e.g., from
ehad (masculine) to ehath (feminine)) is really a shift between voiced
and unvoiced /th/, and that this is additional evidence (as if any more
were needed) that the original sound of the undageshed tav was unvoiced
/th/?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:41:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Guggenheim and "yitgadel veyitkadesh"
> Yes, this is discussed in The Scholar's Hagada by Guggenheim (a truly
> fantastiic piece of scholarship that will enhance almost anyone's
> seder). He claims that those who say "yitgadel veyitkadesh shme raba"
> are actually making the preposterous and theologically problematic
> statement "may His great name magnify and sancify itself" rather than
> what is intended, "may His great name be made great and sanctified.">
Guggenheim must have broad shoulders indeed to label as a "preposterous
and theologically problematic statement" a reading dictated by the
Vilner Gaon, who I imagine was no less knowledgeable than he about the
meaning of Aramaic words. However, the Aramaic meaning is irrelevant:
the Gaon's reason for saying -deil and -deish instead of -dal and -dash
is because he says the words in question are Hebrew, and not
Aramaic. (Ma'asei Rav, #54.) (In the interests of full disclosure, I
say -dal and -dash; not because of the meaning, but because that was the
virtually universally accepted pronunciation until approximately 40 or
50 years ago.)
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Shuanoach@...> (Josh)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:51:17 EDT
Subject: Looking for Source on Rabbi Soloveitchik and Vatikin
I recall hearing/reading that when Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik was younger
he would daven vatikin every morning biyichidus (w/o a minyan), but in
later years he began davening later with a minyan. Does anyone know of
written sources where I can find this?
josh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Orthodox
> I grew up in a very traditional (rabbi was Orthodox) Conservative
> shul, and I had no idea what kashrut or Shabbat or most chaggim were.
> When we moved, we joined an Orthodox shul, and we didn't have to add
> any mitzvot to do so. By attending the synagogue youth activities I
> became religious. My mother was very active in the shul, and was
> Sisterhood President a number of years without having to be shomeret
> Shabbat.
> Batya
Batya's personal accont here points out how important it is for shuls to
be open to accepting members who may not "measure up" to the observance
levels of most of the congegation, or of what the congregation holds is
proper. Had her parents not been accepted by the Orthodox shul as
members, who knows were Batya would be today:-) In addition, that shul
had the beneift of a hard working volunteer in her mother who was never
observant, but was a great boon to the orgaization.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:55 -0400
Subject: Paid Kaddish
>Certainly people have a right to attempt to earn money in many
>different ways. Several organizations, perhaps catering to people with
>no living progeny offer "perpetual kaddish" for a fee or endowment.
I have always wondered about this. Based on the famous Rabbi Akiva
story of the orphans' kadduish allowing the father to enter heaven, why
would a kaddish said by anyone other than a child be of any value to the
deceased?
If the kaddish-sayer is paid from the assets of the deceased, say in a
case where here are no children, I can understand that it might have a
connection, but I don't get the usual case where the kids just pay
someone instead. Where's the compelling reason to make the huge leap,
that the actions of one person can affect the heavenly treatment of
another?
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:53:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Yiddish etymology
> Thanks to Noyekh Miller, I am now aware that the word "shtadlan"
> has a far longer and more distinguished history than the early
> 20th century Zionist pleaders, and was in fact used to describe a
> semi-official emissary of the Jewish community to the local or
> regional governments of medieval Poland. Which makes it all the
> more likely to be based on the Yiddish word for State, which is
> "Shtat", which is almost certainly derived from the German
> "Staat".
> Still think this is an "aynredinish"?
A shtadlan has ALWAYS been a "court Jew" who is the obsequious fixer for
the sake of his fellow Jews and kisses the hand of the ruling parties in
the local area, esp. in Europe. This has nothing to do with Zionism, and
everything to do with being a Galut Jew. This is not an aynredinish,
this is history.
jeanette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: N Miller <nmiller@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:47:57 -0400
Subject: Yiddish etymology
Bernard Raab and I must be descended from the same line of akshonim. He
writes:
> Thanks to Noyekh Miller, I am now aware that the word "shtadlan" has a
> far longer and more distinguished history than the early 20th century
> Zionist pleaders, and was in fact used to describe a semi-official
> emissary of the Jewish community to the local or regional governments of
> medieval Poland. Which makes it all the more likely to be based on the
> Yiddish word for State, which is "Shtat", which is almost certainly
> derived from the German "Staat".
This thread began when I expressed some doubts as to the Germanic
origins of shtadlan from the non-existent shtaatlan. Those doubts have
been strengthened and having said everything on the subject that I want
to say, I end with these words.
The Yiddish word for state is _not_ shtat. It never has been shtat. It
is melukhe. (I may as well correct here an error that BR made in an
earlier post (48#59) when he was kind enough to improve on my use of
melukhe to write: "..the Yiddish word for country is based on the Hebrew
"mamlacha" (I assume that's what you meant)..". No, the word I meant
was the word I used: melukhe. Had I wanted to say country I would have
written medine (land, country, province--such as the medines in
Akhashvereses melukhe when he was doing business with the shtadlan
Mordkhe). Have Yiddish dictionaries gone out of style?
The original meaning of melukhe is kingdom or realm and like these two
English words has come to signify the far more complex structure of the
nation-state. However, unlike English or French which also use 'state',
Yiddish doesn't. To put it more technically, where some languages make
important distinctions between institutions (the state, kinship,
capitalism)and structures (government, family, banks) Yiddish does
not--at least, nit in this case. For many years, for instance,
Soviet-era Jewish theaters and schools used melukhe in their names. In
later years melukhe was replaced by regirung (government). Not shtat.
Why not shtat? I don't know. It's a Yiddish word (my uninformed guess
is that it's recent) and is used as I've already said to designate such
entities as New York State, Wyoming, etc. Those aside, you will not see
or hear the word shtat in a Yiddish sentence from one century to the
next. I could do some idle speculating here about political philosophy
and why the concept of the state didn't attract any attention but I
won't.
In short and in conclusion: shtadlan has utterly and absolutely nothing
to do with the German Staat. The shtadlan has been a feature of Jewish
life for many centuries and in many countries. BH has not given us one
single attestable fact to support his fantasy.
> Still think this is an "aynredinish"?
You betcha.
Noyekh Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 78