Volume 51 Number 07
Produced: Tue Jan 17 5:36:36 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aveilut for parent
[Gershon Dubin]
Descent from Noakh
[Meylekh Viswanath]
Forbidden Thoughts
[Tzvi Stein]
Is it Tzedukah?
[Carl Singer]
The meaning of 'sic' (6)
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu, Leah S. Gordon, Barry S Bank, David
Charlap, Gilad J. Gevaryahu, David Feiler]
Sexist Terminology
[Tzvi Stein]
TAPS at funerals
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:11:55 GMT
Subject: Aveilut for parent
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
>My questions were:
>1. The 7 and 30 day aveilut both have sources in Tanach. I was unable
>to find any for the 12 month. Is this correct? If so, why the
>difference?
Correct 7&30 are halachos; 12 months is minhag.
>2. Is the extended aveilut a rule of aveilut or kavod for the parent
>(which page does HKB"H give you a check mark in his record book?) - if
>it's aveilut, why is it different from others that we must mourn & why
>12 months? If kavod, where does the 12 months come from?
Kavod; the mefarshim explain that one can have more than one
brother,sister,child, even spouse, but parents are irreplaceable. 12
months comes from the judgement in Gehinom which the child tries to save
the parent from by kaddish, davening and other good deeds.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meylekh Viswanath <pvviswanath@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:29:13 -0500
Subject: Descent from Noakh
Russell Hendel clarifies regarding the 7 mitsves bney noyekh in
mail.jewish v51n04:
> (a) Rambam, Laws of Kings clearly states that for a Non Jew to merit
> the hereafter he must a1) observe the Noachide laws and a2) observe
> them BECAUSE they were prophetically given. If he observes them simply
> because they make sense he has a share in this world but not the next.
> (In passing the Noachide laws were not given to Noach! They were
> given to Adam!)
The issue that troubled me, primarily, was that David Charlap's original
assertion seemed to require me to believe in a specific interpretation
of the creation story; Russell's interpretation of the creation story
absolves me of this requirement. However, I do have a couple of further
questions, that are not clear from Russell's clarification above:
(a) According to the Rambam, do non-Jews need to believe that the 7
mitsves were given to Adam? Or is it enough that they believe that the
mitsves were given by God? (I am not sure that the requirement of
prophecy, per se, is restrictive. After all, according to the Rambam,
all prophets (except Moshe Rabbeynu) communicated with God in dreams.
So, the requirement to believe that the 7 mitsves were transmitted
prophetically doesn't seem different from the requirement to believe
that they were given by God.) (b) What exactly, do Jews have to believe
from Bereyshis? Do we have to believe the exact sequence of generations
from Adam forward? Do we have to believe the details of the Flood? The
Tower of Babel? The chronology of all the events, post-Adam?
Meylekh Viswanath
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:24:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Forbidden Thoughts
> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
> (b) REBBE-STUDENT ADVICE: It follows that a student asking his Rebbe for
> advice on impure thoughts SHOULD be told to intensify his study of
> Torah. He should not be told not to think impure thoughts!
Well... the prescription of studying Torah to eliminate impure thoughts
does not seem to always work. I was studying full-time in yeshiva at
the time I asked about this!
Incidentally, the minimization of contact with the opposite sex (which
is supposed to be an advantage of full-time yeshiva learning and living)
did not seem to help me either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <casinger@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:52:04 -0500
Subject: Is it Tzedukah?
Whereas I used to get phone calls and visits from Rebbaim who were
seeking funds for their own yeshivas, it's apparently become a business.
Today, professional, paid solicitors who are not associated with the
tzedukah in question are now calling -- I thought so based on their
patter, and this was verified by a friend so tells me that this is the
case and that they get as much as 50% of donation -- my question is
given that I know that a percentage of the money goes to a professional
solicitor not to the tzedukah -- what portion of my donation can I
consider as tzedukah (for purposes of meiser?)
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:52:43 EST
Subject: The meaning of 'sic'
Leah S. Gordon MJv51n04 writes:
>>Shoshana Ziskind writes:
>>I find it very distressing to see a [sic] after a quote from our
>>sages. In fact I only included it in the subject line since it was
>>there before.
>Perhaps I wasn't clear about using 'sic' after a quote. I meant it in
>the generally accepted meaning of the notation, i.e. short for 'sicut'
>in the Latin, meaning 'it was just like this in the original quote
>[whether or not I agree with it here]'. This is not at all distressing;
>why would it be?
But this is not the generally accepted meaning of "Sic".
<<Sic ("so," "thus," "in this manner") may be inserted in brackets,
following a word misspelled or wrongly used in the original. (Note that
sic is a complete word, not an abbreviation, and therefore takes no
period.)>> Sources: _The Chicago Manual of Style_ 13th edition, 1982 p.
297 section 10.51.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:05:47 -0800
Subject: Re: The meaning of 'sic'
> But this is not the generally accepted meaning of "Sic". <<Sic
> ("so," "thus," "in this manner") may be inserted in brackets,
> following a word misspelled or wrongly used in the original. (Note
> that sic is a complete word, not an abbreviation, and therefore
> takes no period.)>> Sources: _The Chicago Manual of Style_ 13th
> edition, 1982 p. 297 section 10.51.
> Gilad J. Gevaryahu
While it is true that sources disagree on whether the editorial mark
'sic' is the original word from Latin or an abbreviation for 'sicut', I
believe that my point still stands. For instance, Webster's 9th New
Collegiate Dictionary (1991):
"sic...(ca 1859): intentionally so written -- used after a printed word
or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to
indicate that it exactly reproduces an original"
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry S Bank <bsbank@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:22:54 GMT
Subject: The meaning of 'sic'
My understanding is that "[sic]" is used when there is an obvious error
in the quotation (misspelling, poor grammar, inaccurate quote of the
original) and the person quoting wants the reader to know that s/he did
not make the mistake but, as Leah correctly states, "it was just like
this in the original quote." To the best of my knowledge, "[sic]" has
nothing to do with one's agreement or disagreement with the content of
the quotation.
--Barry S. Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:54:42 -0500
Subject: Re: The meaning of 'sic'
Usually, the "sic" annotation is used when a quote has a spelling or
grammatical error, in order to indicate to the reader that the error is
in the original source, and was not introduced by the editor.
I don't think I've ever seen this used as a disclaimer (that the editor
doesn't necessarily agree with the concept expressed in the quote.)
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:23:53 EST
Subject: The meaning of 'sic'
Leah S. R. Gordon writes:
>While it is true that sources disagree on whether the editorial mark
>'sic' is the original word from Latin or an abbreviation for 'sicut',
>I believe that my point still stands. For instance, Webster's 9th New
>Collegiate Dictionary (1991):
>"sic...(ca 1859): intentionally so written -- used after a printed word
>or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to
>indicate that it exactly reproduces an original"
Not so. I think that the meaning of "sic" even in the above quote was
taken out of context. Sic means that the word/expression is quoted
exactly as in the original source, and that the current writer points
out that the error in the original is not his, or points out to
something unusual in the original quote. To wit:
<<The bracketed, italicized word sic (Latin 'thus') is used to signal
that a peculiarity occurs in the original and therefore is not an error
of your own. A misspelling, for instance, could be marked this way>>
Source:_The Random House Handbook_ Frederick Crews, 1984 p.332.
<< Sic, adv. Latin. So; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote
that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect
has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim.>> Source:
_The Random House Dictionary of the English Language_, 2nd edition,
Unabridged, 1983, p. 1775. <<Sic (L.) Thus:--sometimes inserted in a
quotation or passage [sic], to note that an expression, misspelling, or
the like, is just as it is given>> Source: _Webster's New International
Dictionary of the English Language_, 1923, p. 1951.
<<Sic, Lat. so, thus,... generally italicized and in brackets, used to
call attention to wrong or doubtful but is quoted verbatim and
literatim; also, loosely, to express a writer's surprise at some
statement &c, which he is quoting>> Source: _Webster Universal
Dictionary_, 1968, p. 1373.
<<Sic is used to show or emphasize the fact that something has been
copied just as it is in the original. Sic, italicized and set in
brackets, is used to mark ar error in quoted matter...>> Source: The
World Book Dictionary_, 1969, p. 1918.
<<Sic. adv. (Lat.=so.) Thus, so (A word often used within brackets in
quoting, in order to call attention to the fact that the word or words
are quoted exactly and literarly. It is generally used to indicate that
there is or seems to be a mistake in the original, or to express a
difference of opinion, or contempt).>> _Universal Dictionary of the
English Language_,vol. IV,1896, p. 4261.
<<Sic Lat. thus. This word is sometimes used in quoting from others with
a view to call attention; as, the author states that "there are 4000
different words [sic] in Arabic for the word 'camel.'" The word sic is
here introduced to show the quotation has be rightly given.>> _A
Dictionary of the English Language_ Springfield, MA, 1881, p. 1226.
<<sic, adv. (L.) thus; it is so: in a quotation, used within brackets in
order to call attention to the fact that the quotation is literally
given, though containing an error or a misstatement; as whom [sic] do
men say that I am?>> _Webster New Twentieth Century Dictionary,
Unabridged, 2nd Edition, 1973, p. 1684.
<<sic, adv. So; thus; sometimes inserted in brackets after something
quoted, to indicate that the quotation is literal, and that, in the
opinion of the one making the insertion, what immediately preceded is
questionable or incorrect, [<L].>> Source: Funk & Wagnalls _New
Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language_, NY,
1978, p. 1166. <<Sic, adv. 1887. [L. sic so, thus.] A parenthetical
insertion used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call
attention to something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to
guard against the supposition of misquotation. >> _The Oxford Universal
Dictionary_, Oxford, 1955, p. 1887.
It is clear from the above 9 full size dictionaries, spanning from the
1880s to the 1980s what is the generally accepted meaning of the term
"sic." I think that a "Collegiate Dictionary" could at time mislead.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Feiler <dfeiler@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:08:47 -0500
Subject: The meaning of 'sic'
According to the American Heritage Dictionary and, I believe, in
accordance with normal usage, the word "sic" is used to indicate that a
quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional
spelling, has been retained in its original form. Therefore using sic
after a Torah or Chazal quote is extremely distressing. Journalists
typically use sic to indicate that their quoted source has a poor
command of the language (spoken or written)
David Feiler
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:53:42 -0500
Subject: Sexist Terminology
By coincidence with this discussion, I had occasion to attend an
"egalatarian" service recently. I later checked with my rabbi (one of
those "retroactive shailos" that I'm sure rabbis love) and we both came
to the conclusion that I could have done a better job of thinking things
through and avoiding the situation.
Anyway, one thing that struck me about it was how much harder it was to
follow than a regular Orthodox service, because the prayer leader was
constantly changing the text to remove any "sexist" references. This
was not as easy as it may seem... a fair amount of creativity was
involved. For example, sometimes the 3rd person, "He", refering to
Hashem, was changed to You which required more of the sentence to be
changed for consistency.
Since I am not used to davening in English to begin with, added to the
fact that there was quite a lot of "skipping" going on, the whole thing
was quite distracting and jarring. It seemed a bit ironic, because one
would expect such a "non-traaditional" service to me more "accessible"
than a traditional one and it seemed quite the contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:30:15 -0500
Subject: TAPS at funerals
Specific question -- any halachic rulings re: TAPS at funerals?
General question -- What funeral-related customs prevail within
non-European Jewish communities?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 7