Volume 50 Number 61
Produced: Fri Dec 16 6:11:47 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aramaic
[Meir Wise]
Chanukah as a minor holiday
[Shalom Kohn]
Father and Mother as Called by Children (3)
[Bill Coleman, Abbi Adest, <ERSherer@...>]
Giving Tzedakah During Minyan
[Nathan Lamm]
Giving Tzedakah in Minyan
[Arie]
Issur Dam (was Reality, Halachic Reality, and Bugs) (2)
[Elozor Reich, Avi Feldblum]
"Minor" Holiday (3)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Bernard Raab, Janice Gelb]
Pronounciation of Aramaic
[Nathan Lamm]
Siddurim made for Eretz Yisrael (2)
[Martin Stern, Shimon Lebowitz]
Terms Clarification (wife-husband comment)
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Meirhwise@...> (Meir Wise)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:28:20 EST
Subject: Re: Aramaic
Re: Aramaic. Being a "Zeida" I forgot to add the most important point. I
was taught that the correct pronunciation in Aramaic is on the last NOT
penultimate syllable i.e tooshbechatA venechematA. In fact what we in the
yeshiva world call the "Mekhilta" of Rabbi Yishma'el academically should
be the MekhilatA (perhaps from the root k'lal or kolel meaning rule ie
hermenutic rule).
Having said this, my Rebbes of blessed memory who straddled both the
yeshiva and academic worlds did not look down on the "yeshivish"
pronounciation.
Rabbi Dr Jacobs once told me that there is evidence in the Gaonic
Literature of "taleisim" as a plural of talis and shabbosim as a plural
of Shabbat which most people would think is just ignorance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Kohn <skohn@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:17:02 -0600
Subject: Chanukah as a minor holiday
I've previously made this point on mail-jewish, so in brief:
Chanukah is certainly a "minor" holiday compared with Shabbat, Rosh
Hashanah, the three regalim, etc. Accordingly, for years I was
disturbed that the impact of Xmas was to elevate Chanukah beyond its
proper role, and that giving it that degree of importance was
inappropriate.
Some time ago, however, I recognized that at root (miracle of the oil
aside) Chanukah represents the reaffirmance of Jewish values and culture
over the dominant Hellenic culture of the times. It is therefore
precisely the proper holiday to advance as the expression of Jewish
values during the December kulturkampf, and therefore a very appropriate
medium for a declaration of Jewish identity at this time.
Shalom L. Kohn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Coleman <wbcoleman@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:49:10 -0600
Subject: Father and Mother as Called by Children
Abba and Mommy is what our daughter has always called us, don't know why
it worked out that way. As an adult, she has taken to calling me "Abs".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abbi Adest <abbi.adest@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:16:27 +0200
Subject: Re: Father and Mother as Called by Children
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
>That reminds me that my daughter has a friend who called her (paternal)
>grandparents Granny and Zeide. That's a hard one to beat.
Well, my daughter calls my parents Bubby and Grampa and my husband's
parents Safta and Zaide. I think I got you there. ;)
She calls us Imma and Abba, but we live in Israel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ERSherer@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:07:18 EST
Subject: Re: Father and Mother as Called by Children
<< That's not really an option for those of us whose fathers are named
"Abba." I wonder what Israeli kids do >>
My Israeli grandchildren call me "Grandpa" and called my late wife
"Grandma"; my daughter-in-law's parents are "Sabba" and "Savta". I
should note that my daughter-in-law is the youngest of her family, and
the names for her parents as grandparents were established long before
any of my grandchildren were born.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:39:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Giving Tzedakah During Minyan
The place before Barechu is probably during Vayevarech David (there's an
exact point I forget), where the Ari said to give Tzedaka. Ashkenazim do
it as well; some Siddurim cover all bases by saying to set aside coins
at "Poteiach et Yadecha" (I think) and then actually give them at
"Vayevarech David."
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <aliw@...> (Arie)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:19:38 +0200
Subject: Re: Giving Tzedakah in Minyan
in MJ 50/58, Shmuel Himelstein wrote:
>Before Barechu (I'm not exactly sure at which point)
i would assume that the point before barechu, as for ashkenazim, is in
vayevarech david at "veha'osher veha'kavod"
arie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elozor Reich <lreich@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:19:03 -0000
Subject: Issur Dam (was Reality, Halachic Reality, and Bugs)
From: Robert Rubinoff <rubinoff@...>
> From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
> > Halachic reality is different from scientific reality.
> The blood that is removed by salting and soaking is only prohibited
> Rabinnically. (It's the blood that comes out when the animal is
> slaughtered that is prohibited by the Torah.) And when the Rabbis
> prohibited it, they excluded any blood that might remain after the
> soaking/salting process was done. So (assuming there wasn't a problem
> with how the meat was processed) the meat in question may in fact have
> had blood in it, and it was halachically considered blood, just not
> *prohibited* blood.
I have to say that Robert Rubinoff's "correction" is in error.
The Halachic position is clearly as follows.
a) The blood that comes out when the animal is slaughtered is prohibited
by the Torah and, bemayzid, incurs the serious penalty of Kares.
b) Other animal blood which is extracted or exudes from meat IS
prohibited by the Torah and, bemayzid, incurs the lesser penalty of
Malkus.
c) Extracted blood which is boiled (Dam shebishloi) is only Rabbinically
prohibited.
d) Blood which is inside meat, which has not been extracted or moved (by
salting the surface) is completely permitted. One may, therefore, eat
raw meat which has never been salted, provided the surface blood has
been washed off.
e) During salting and after the end of salting other juices, known as
Mohel, come out besides the blood. Thus Ari Trachtenberg's Mashgicha was
correct in her statement as any competent Baal Halocho would have known.
Elozor Reich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <avi@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:19:03 -0000
Subject: Issur Dam (was Reality, Halachic Reality, and Bugs)
I have two questions, one for anyone who knows, one more directly to
Elozer's point "e" above.
1) Following standard halachic melecha (salting), what is the physical
reality concerning any remaining blood? If one does a chemical
analysis of the remaining liquid that may come out of the meat
following the process, does one find any blood?
2) For Elozer, in point "e" are you asserting that the mohel that comes
out is not chemically equivalent to blood? If it is shown that it is
chemically equivalent to blood, are you stating that it would be
halachicaly forbidden?
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:41:43 -0500
Subject: Re: "Minor" Holiday
A number of people have commented by Chanukah as a minor holiday, citing
proof such as the relatively small number of rituals and rabbinic
references associated with it.
However, if we take as a given that we do not really know the order of
importance of mitzvot, one could argue that this lack of reference puts
Chanukah above all other holidays, which require a complex set of
distinct rituals to clarify their importance.
In some ways, Chanukah represents our recognition of G-d's benificient
and public intervention in our world (like the creation of the state of
Israel, I would argue) ... this is no "minor" mitzva.
Ari Trachtenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:13:12 -0500
Subject: "Minor" Holiday
>From: Art Sapper:
> It was also so late in developing that one group of Indian Jews, and
>all Ethiopian Jews, never heard of it. In Europe, its observance was
>low-key. It rose in public attention only because it falls at about
>the same time as Christmas.
Two years ago, my wife and I took a kosher tour of India, the first four
days of which were to occur on the last four days of Chanukah. The tour
operator assured us that the tour leader would be lighting Chanukah
candles every night. I checked with our LOR and he assured me that our
obligation would be completely fulfilled with his lighting in our
presence and our responding with "Amen". As a result, and in keeping
with our determination to travel "light", we did not bring our own
Chanukia.
It turned out that the group broke down roughly as follows: one-third
orthodox, one-third conservative, and one-third Reform or just
non-observant (by our standard) Jews. Interesting fact no. 1: About half
the orthodox, basically all the conservative, and none of the
non-observant had their own Chanukiot. From which we concluded (from
this admitedly small sample) that for conservative American Jews,
Chanukah is an "important" holiday. Interesting fact no. 2: In India,
where signs of Christmas are almost non-existent, Chanukah observance by
Indian Jews is very low-key. Although the synagogue was festooned with
outdoor lights (said to be a legacy of the British, who apparently broke
out the outdoor lights on public buildings for all national holidays),
it was our impression that candle-lighting was more a synagogue function
than a home ceremony. Definitely not a holiday to make a dent in Indian
conciousness, although one cannot conclude too much in this regard since
Indian Jews are and always were a miniscule minority in a vast country.
b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: "Minor" Holiday
Bruce Abrams <bruce_abrams@...> wrote:
> Since Christmas is a very major holiday on the Christian calendar, the
> overblown commercialism of the festival is understandable, although
> still inappropriate (according to most Christian religious leaders).
> When (mostly) non-Orthodox Jews blow up the scale of Chanukah to match
> the over blown commercialism of Christmas, it is inappropriate not only
> in the same way that Christmas commercialism is, but more so in that
> Chanukah doesn't occupy the relative stature (on our calendar) that
> Christmas does(on their calendar).
Given the existence in many US cities of public menorah lightings
organized by Chabad, you can't really tie this one solely to the
non-Orthodox :->
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:44:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Pronounciation of Aramaic
Part of the issue here is that as Aramaic is virtually a dead language
(at least among most Jews), "correct" pronounciation has become, to an
extent, what is commonly used. This may be why R' Goldschmidt uses
"Gemara loshen" pronounciation.
A good way to see this is to compare how Artscroll and R' Steinsaltz
differ in adding nekudot to Gemara. Artscroll is quite accurate as
regards Aramaic dikduk, but admittedly often "errs" on the side of
"Yeshiva Aramaic." R' Steinsaltz, on the other hand, is extremely
exact. He, for example, points the word for "yes" correctly as "Ayn." In
Yeshivot, the word is pronounced "In," perhaps to avoid confusion with
the Hebrew "Ayn," which means "none." I believe Artscroll uses the
latter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:32:56 +0000
Subject: Siddurim made for Eretz Yisrael
on 15/12/05 10:56 am, Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> wrote:
> Another difference in Ashkenaz Siddurim (not in Sefard) is that at
> Shabbat Minchah in Eretz Yisrael in the last blessing of the Amidah we
> say "Sim Shalom" while in the Golah it is "Shalom Rav."
This is also the West German minhag (Minhag HaRinus) used to this day in
Alsace, Switzerland etc.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:04:03 +0200
Subject: Re: Siddurim made for Eretz Yisrael
Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...> wrote:
> The nusach is also different, oddly enough (Eretz Yisrael Ashkenaz
> vs. Chutz L'Aretz Ashkenaz). I never devlved into it completely, but I
> heard the Gr"a was a factor in these differences. The differences I
> remember off the top of my head are Sim Shalom vs. Shalom Rav for Shabbo
> Mincha Shemone Esrei; long version of the Bircas HaChodesh Bracha; and
> saying Ein Kelokeinu at the end of Shacharis.
I admit that there is a common minhag Ashkenaz in Eretz Yisrael to say
Sim Shalom at mincha on Shabbat, but as I understand the comments in the
"Siddur Vilna" (I don't have one available to quote authorship or
scholarship) the Gr"a was in favor of Shalom Rav.
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:44:28 +0000
Subject: Terms Clarification (wife-husband comment)
on 15/12/05 10:56 am, Leah S. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
> There are plenty of Jewish husbands out there who value their wives'
> spiritual/religious obligations. If they send/encourage those wives to
> minyan, it is not fair to characterize such as "wives making their
> husbands stay home so that they [the wives] can go to minyan".
> By the way, I don't like how even after reams of M.J discussion about
> obligations, implications, differing opinions, personal stories of psak,
> nuances, etc., people just still make these blanket statements about
> "the Torah's stance" [on women vs. men or on homosexuality, for that
> matter]. There is rarely one "stance" halakhically for all cases.
Leah is correct in general terms but on these two particular matters,
despite several postings to the contrary, the Torah's stance is fairly
clear. Women have NO obligation whatsoever to daven with a minyan
whereas men do at some level, the nature of which was the original
subject of discussion. Therefore it is absolutely wrong for a man not to
daven with a minyan solely so that his wife may do so. It is also quite
clear that the Torah prohibits sodomy.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 61