Volume 49 Number 42
Produced: Mon Aug 8 6:01:13 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aveil as Unwanted Sheliach Tzibur
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Competing with free
[Tobias Robison]
getting hold of a Nordlicht tape in Israel?
[Lawrence Feldman]
Institut Asher, Bex (Switzerland)
[Bernard Geller]
Qaddish Pronunciation (5)
[Ira L. Jacobson, Martin Stern, Ira L. Jacobson, Martin Stern,
Ira L. Jacobson]
story re. minyan during WWI truce - sources?
[Lawrence Feldman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Aveil as Unwanted Sheliach Tzibur
A man came to shul this morning (Shabbat Rosh Chodesh Av). He comes to
our shul once every few years and, so far as I know, makes no financial
contributions to it. He asked for maftir because he had yahrzeit. I
(the gabbai) assented. At some point, he told me that he was also
davening musaf because he had yahrzeit; he did not ask permission.
Having nobody better, I did not object. He proceeded to rattle through
musaf at top speed, pretty much ignoring the shalosh regalim nusach and
also ignoring our attempts to sing, as is the custom in our shul,
passages like mizmor ledavid, eitz chaim he and aleinu.
This prompted me to do some research. As I read the Mishnah Berura,
siman 53, s.k. 59-61, with one exception, an aveil - which would include
a yahrzeit-- has no right to be sheliach tzibur if I, the gabbai - who
normally has the authority, on behalf of the shul, to select the
sheliach tzibur - want someone else, even someone with no "chiyuv". The
one exception is maariv. See also, particularly on the exception,
Fuchs, "Hatefila Betzibur" (1978), 10:12, fn. 21,where he seems to say
that an aveil has an absolute right to daven maariv even if the shul
does not want him to and even if he cannot daven properly. (The Mishnah
Berura is less certain on this point.) Is this right? If so, I could
have stopped this guy--this could happen again in another three years--,
and an aveil has no right to walk into a shul and expect to be a
sheliach tzibur if there are no other aveilim; but if someone like him
were to show up on, say, erev Rosh Hashana or erev Yom Kippur and demand
to be sheliach tzibur because he has yahrzeit (this is my nightmare; do
not say nobody would do this), would I be obligated to permit it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tobias Robison <tobyr21@...>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:54:19 -0400
Subject: Competing with free
Jeanette Friedman wrote:
> No one can compete with free.
To which David Charlap replied:
> Not at all true. When there are free products, the commercial products
> must be of higher quality (or have a perception of higher quality) in
> order to compete. But that is not the same as your claim that everybody
> must go out of of business when free alternatives come into existence.
In many cases the free (or almost free) product overwhelms the
competition. All "Free" has to do is to lower competitor's sales enough
so that their fixed overhead kills their profit margin.(That's what
happens when one-too-many kosher restaurants open in an area. If the new
restauarant draws even a decent curious crowd for awhile, one or more of
the others will no longer make a profit on their smaller customer base.)
Here's a well-known case where giving away a product destroyed an
industry. When Microsoft started giving away its "Project" program (to
help manage projects), project management software was a highly
competetive field with about three major vendors and many minor ones
selling products for $250 to $550. Microsoft Project was a very weak
offering initially, but its existence greatly curtailed sales.
Microsoft started selling Project for about $150 as they improved it.
The competing companies mostly disappeared. Competiton in this field is
now a niche market and most people use Microsoft Project, although in
many ways Project is not as good as the competitors it drove away so
long ago. (I believe Microsoft Project now lists for about $300, and it
has at least one respected open source competitor, called Open
Workbench.)
- Tobias D. Robison
Princeton, NJ USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Feldman <lpf1836@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 04:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: getting hold of a Nordlicht tape in Israel?
Does anyone know where in Israel I can listen to (copy?) a Nordlicht
tape? Specifically, I am interested in a Shiur given by Rav Soloveitchik
z"l at Moriah on Tractate Berachot 32b. Pls respond to
<dovgreen@...>
Lawrence Feldman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Geller <bgeller@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:18:57 +0000 (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch)
Subject: Institut Asher, Bex (Switzerland)
I studied in the Jewish Institut Asher in Bex from 1957 till 1958. This
Institut was very famous. He gave to the jewish world many Talmidei
'Ha'hamim. He had the only mikva of the region.
Does somebody know the history of the Institut or can give me the adress
of a person or of an institution where I can find this history?
Thank you in advance.
Bernard Geller
<bgeller@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:25:25 +0300
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
At 16:57 02-08-05 +0100, Martin Stern stated the following:
> The word aqar does not mean 'move' but 'uproot' and, in the passage in
> Shabbat 63b, "navach bah kalba veit'aqar veladah - a dog barked at her
> and her foetus WAS UPROOTED i.e. aborted", it'aqar would seem to have
> a passive rather than reflexive meaning.
> It seems fairly obvious that in this context 'uproot' makes sense but
> I cannot see how one can translate the passage if it means
> 'move'. Perhaps Ira can explain.
Vav lamed dalet means child or embryo or fetus.
`Ayin qof resh means to move (as here, or example: `aqar et raglav) or
to uproot (as on Shabbat 132b).
In fact, Soncino translates this passage near the top of Shabbat 63b as
"The dog barked at her, [whereupon] her child moved [from its place]."
Whether you understand valad as child or fetus, the meaning that he
moved himself is clear.
Another example: istatar, she hid herself, as in Sota 2b.
I hereby withdraw from this interchange.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:23:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
on 5/8/05 9:25 am, Ira L. Jacobson at <laser@...> wrote:
> Vav lamed dalet means child or embryo or fetus.
In the passage in Shabbat 63b, velad seems almost certainly to refer to
an unborn child.
> `Ayin qof resh means to move (as here, or example: `aqar et raglav) or to
> uproot (as on Shabbat 132b).
The meaning move is clearly secondary. In the phrase 'aqar et raglav' it
is being used in the sense of 'picking up his feet'.
> In fact, Soncino translates this passage near the top of Shabbat 63b
> as "The dog barked at her, [whereupon] her child moved [from its
> place]." Whether you understand valad as child or fetus, the meaning
> that he moved himself is clear.
Soncino is often not an entirely reliable translation. If the passage is
talking about an unborn child, the normal understanding would be that it
was uprooted, i.e miscarried, as R. Adin Steinsalz seems to translate
it. Ira's translation lands us up with difficult theological problems
as to the independent viability of unborn children and whether they can
take independent action, something which might be an interesting new
discussion.
> Another example: istatar, she hid herself, as in Sota 2b.
This seems to a much better example.
It seems that the passive versions of each binyan in Aramaic is formed
from the corresponding active one by appending the prefix aleph-tav,
unlike Hebrew which has a niph'al, with a prefixed nun, from the kal, or
uses vowel changes to form a pu'al from the pi'el and hoph'al from the
hiph'il. In unpointed texts all these three Aramaic passives would look
alike and can only be distinguished from context. I do not doubt that
sometimes one of these is used in a reflexive sense, my sole concern was
that Ira chose examples which do not clearly have this meaning. There
seems to be no binyan in Aramaic corresponding to the Hebrew hitpa'el
which may have led some contributors to assume that it has no reflexive
at all. The hitpa'el in later Hebrew, probably under Aramaic influence,
is used in a passive sense which may be a further source of this
confusion.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:48:53 +0300
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
At 11:23 05-08-05 +0100, Martin Stern stated the following:
> Soncino is often not an entirely reliable translation. If the passage
> is talking about an unborn child, the normal understanding would be
> that it was uprooted, i.e miscarried, as R. Adin Steinsalz seems to
> translate it.
Sorry, but Harav Steinsalz translates it`aqar as ne`eqar.
As I said, this discourse has become tedious. I find it less of a jump
in faith to understand that a fetus moved (as fetuses are wont to do)
than that the woman miscarried. My wife says that loud noises made the
baby (fetus, that is) jump. Please ask your wife if she never
experienced a fetus moving.
> It seems that the passive versions of each binyan in Aramaic is formed
> from the corresponding active one by appending the prefix aleph-tav,
> unlike Hebrew which has a niph'al, with a prefixed nun, from the kal,
> or uses vowel changes to form a pu'al from the pi'el and hoph'al from
> the hiph'il.
OK. Aramaic also has a pu`al, as in shitrei me'uhar; and a hof`al, as
in muhzaq. These are not all that prevalent, but they do exist.
To summarize, I maintained that, contrary to a cited professorial
opinion, that both Hebrew and Aramaic have reflexive binyanim, in which
the meanings are sometimes passive and sometimes reflexive. Thus, the
argument advanced in those circles--to the effect that certain words in
qaddish must be in one language because they would not make sense in the
other language--seems to be inaccurate.
> In unpointed texts all these three Aramaic passives would look alike
> and can only be distinguished from context. I do not doubt that
> sometimes one of these is used in a reflexive sense
QED.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:37:23 +0100
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
on 5/8/05 5:48 am, Ira L. Jacobson at <laser@...> wrote:
> Sorry, but Harav Steinsalz translates it`aqar as ne`eqar.
which is niph'al, i.e. passive, as I said.
> I find it less of a jump in faith to understand that a fetus moved (as
> fetuses are wont to do) than that the woman miscarried. My wife says
> that loud noises made the baby (fetus, that is) jump. Please ask your
> wife if she never experienced a fetus moving.
Ne'eqar is also used to mean miscarry. If the foetus merely moved that
would hardly merit mention but if the woman miscarried that would be
significant.
> OK. Aramaic also has a pu`al, as in shitrei me'uhar; and a hof`al, as
> in muhzaq. These are not all that prevalent, but they do exist.
If I am not much mistaken, only the participles of these binyanim are
found in Aramaic.
> To summarize, I maintained that, contrary to a cited professorial
> opinion, that both Hebrew and Aramaic have reflexive binyanim, in
> which the meanings are sometimes passive and sometimes
> reflexive. Thus, the argument advanced in those circles--to the effect
> that certain words in qaddish must be in one language because they
> would not make sense in the other language--seems to be inaccurate.
I never disagreed with Ira on this point, only on the specific examples
which he called reflexive but which I think are better rendered as
passive. As I wrote, the same binyanim are used for both in Aramaic and,
through its influence, in Mishnaic Hebrew, and only context can
establish which is meant.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:09:49 +0300
Subject: Re: Qaddish Pronunciation
At 14:37 05-08-05 +0100, Martin Stern stated the following:
> Ne'eqar is also used to mean miscarry. If the foetus merely moved that
> would hardly merit mention but if the woman miscarried that would be
> significant.
I have found no indication of miscarrying as a translation of `ayin qof
resh--not directly. Perhaps as an extension of detachment, but abortion
does not appear as a translation in any of the dictionaries I have used,
neither Hebrew nor Jastrow.
Nor does a perfunctory search of the Gemara turn up any use of ne`eqar
(28 instances) as meaning abortion. (I looked only for that particular
word and not any inflections, so I may have missed something. But I
don't think so and welcome any counterexamples.)
In fact, the Hebrew Language Academy gives 19 definitions for that root,
and neither abortion nor miscarriage is mentioned.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Feldman <lpf1836@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: story re. minyan during WWI truce - sources?
The is a famous short story about the trench warfare during WWI. During
a lull in the fighting some French soldiers approached the German lines
under the white flag. There was someone who needed a Minyan for
Kaddish. Jews got out from both sides of the trenches and made a Minyan
and then returned to their respective trenches. I was wondering if
anyone knew the name, author, or where I could find a copy of that story
(short story anthology, etc.) Pls respond to <dovgreen@...>
Lawrence Feldman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 42