Volume 51 Number 80
Produced: Wed Mar 29 5:56:22 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Dialects vs. mispronunciation
[Mark Symons]
Hoiche Kedushah
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Jewish vs. non-Jewish calendars
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Mispronunciations
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Second Day of Yom Tov revisited
[Richard Fiedler]
Second Day of Yom Tov revisited -> Jews in Eretz Yisrael
[Richard Fiedler]
Tinok Shenishba
[Shayna Kravetz]
Two Dinim in Minyan and Counting a Mechallel Shabbos
[Tal Benschar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:02:54 +1100
Subject: Dialects vs. mispronunciation
David Mescheloff <david_mescheloff@...> wrote:
> I am always struck by those chazzanim who say, on Friday night,
> "beini u-vein bnei yisroel, osee (or oisee, it doesn't matter) l'olam".
> The way the phrasing (punctuation) comes out, to my ears it sounds like
> they're proclaiming proudly that they forever stand in the way between
> G-d and the children of Israel.
To mean that you'd have to say "ani l'olam".
Mark Symons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:31:50 EST
Subject: Hoiche Kedushah
I was asked by some for the etymology of the expression "Hoiche
Kedushah" which is used to denote a shortened davening where the silent
amidah is skipped and the ba'al tefilah starts with chazart hashatz up
to and including ata kadosh. This is done often when time is short such
as school break, airports or when minchah is started late.
Hoich in Yiddish means high, tall, loud, exalted (Weinreich, p. 641),
and in our case it means loud Kedushah. The expression itself is the
left over of a whole sentence in Yiddish meaning to start with a loud
Kedushah. I assume it was originally something like: Zu unheiben mit
hoiche kedusah.
Interestingly, this expression is used regularly in the US (I heard it
in Philadelphia and New York), but I never heard it used in Israel.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Jewish vs. non-Jewish calendars
--- <MJGerver@...> wrote:
> Hillel Markowitz writes, in v51n72,
>
> > Of course, since the chodesh was determined by eidim until the
> > destruction of the bais hamikdash, they could recalculate each month.
> > However, the gemoro says that during galus bavel, they used a fixed
> > calendar, since the beis din could not declare the chodesh by means of
> > eidim.
> Still, they would not have needed anywhere near the accuracy of the
> present fixed calendar, in order to be good for 70 years.
Yes but the gemoro and the meforshim state that the value used was
"halacha leMoshe misinai" and that beis din had the calendar from the
beginning. It was only because of the final destruction that Hillel
Sheni made the takanna to use the fixed calendar only. I doubt that they
would have called a new number culled from the nonJews as "halacha
leMoshe misinai".
An interesting point is the gemoro in Rosh Hashana and in Beitza 22b
(which is where I just learned it) that from the time of Ezra on, Elul
had never been a 30 day month. Rabbi Reisman in one of his recent
shiurim used this to point out that "Mekadesh Yisrael Ve'Hazmanim" meant
that beis din always declared the month of the chagim. They were never
*forced* into a 30 day month of Elul or Adar.
The modern group in Eretz Yisrael which always attempts to see the new
moon (I forgot the name - I saw the reference in Torah Tidbits) says
that in order to spot it, the eidim had to have exact knowledge of where
and when to look as it is very easy to miss.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Mispronunciations
I wrote:
> I think there are three categories of dialect "mispronunciation":
> (1) when the mispronunciation doesn't really change the meaning
> (amo--amei);
> (2) when it results in seeming nonsense (hi eleikainee, hi avini)
> (3) when it results in a change a meaning, to possibly blasphemous or
> comic effect (oz-eiz; the discussion of harat-haras).>
Avi Feldblum responded:
> I think it is incorrect to describe "dialect" differences in the
> consistent pronunciation of hebrew letters / vowels as
> "mispronunciation".
It is not necessarily incorrect if your frame of reference is wholly
within a different dialect. But the difference between this sort of
"mispronunciation" and the hodo/hodu type is precisely why I put the
word "mispronunciation" in quotes in my original posting.
> I see it as having little more value than the fun childrens song that
> uses hebrew words that phonetically sound like English words (he is
> she and who is he).
Please explain why pointing out dialectic differences must have "value"
beyond that of an intellectual exercise. But it actually does: the
existence of these differences and their effects on meaning inform the
discussion - an open issue in poskim - about whether someone using one
dialect may layn or be sheliach tzibur in a minyan of predominantly a
different dialect and, if so, which foreign dialects are acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Fiedler <richardfiedler@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:25:55 +0200
Subject: Re: Second Day of Yom Tov revisited
(Rabbi) Meir Henoch Hakohen Wise wrote:
> I would like to testify that when I and other rabbis and rabbinical
> students visited Moscow and Petersburg in the 70s we found no-one who
> was expert in the Jewish calender as a result of the ban on Jewish
> education which commenced in 1918!
I first would question if their problem was really that they wanted to
observe a Hag but didn't know the correct day and could not find a way
of learning it.
Second I don't believe it would be possible to do an exhaustive search
of the existence of anyone who knew the dates of the holidays in the
70's in Russia.
But more important the situation that developed in Russia hostile to the
Jews could have in the past had developed in Aretz Yisrael yet no one
had the hava mina that residents of Eretz Yisrael should observe two
days of Yom Tov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Fiedler <richardfiedler@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:24:22 +0200
Subject: Second Day of Yom Tov revisited -> Jews in Eretz Yisrael
Yakir wrote:
Reading the Ramba"m (Sefer HaMitzvot - Positive 153) indicates
that if there were no Jews in Israel the calendar would not simply
be "undefined" but there would be no way to celebrate any Yamim
Tovim, Roshei Chodashim etc etc.
Also - "Am Yisrael" would be considered to have ceased to exist !
(Please insert "Heaven forbid" "Chas v'Sholom" liberally in the
above).
I certainly agree with the literal application of "Chas v'Sholom". But
I don't understand why no Jews in Israel would imply that ""Am Yisrael"
would be considered to have ceased to exist !"
In fact it is my contention that if indeed the admonition of Beitzah 4b:
'Be careful to keep the custom of your ancestors because a time may come
when there are anti-religious persecutions, and all will be confused.' is
talking about "anti-religious persecutions in Eretz Yisrael" and not as
is presumed in Hutz L'Aretz one can better understand the Rambam - per
your citation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:33:56 -0400
Subject: Tinok Shenishba
After Tsvi Lieber <tlieber@...> wrote:
>> The closest parallel is the opinion that reform and
>> conservative marriages are not considered to be acceptable halachically.
>> This may be viewed as terrible in its philosophic implications but on
>> the other hand, in the case of children of extramarital affairs or
>> children of remarriages without a get for the first reform/conservative
>> marriage, it may very well prevent the possibility of mamzerut.
>
Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> replied:
>I hope I am misunderstanding this response: do you really mean to be
>implying that Reform and Conservative Jews are more likely to have
>extramarital affairs? Also, for your information, Conservative rabbis
>are absolutely forbidden by the movement to perform a second marriage
>without a religious divorce.
I suppose Tsvi Lieber will speak for himself but I did not read his
response as in any way suggesting that R or C Jews are more likely to
commit adultery. Only that, /if/ they do, there is an obvious halachic
solution to avoid the issues of mamzerut.
While it is true that a Conservative rabbi will not officiate at a
remarriage in which one party has not gotten a get, a Reform rabbi will,
as they accept the civil divorce as sufficient. Thus, marriage #1 could
be in any stream of Judaism and, if marriage #2 is in a Reform context,
the problem of marriage #1's persistence can arise. If marriage #1 was
Orthodox, the problem of children from marriage #2 is much more
difficult to solve than if it was either Conservative or Reform.
As for the "terrible...philosophic implications" to which Tsvi Lieber
alludes, I suspect that it's not so much that the non-Orthodox have less
respect for their marriage vows, as that the Orthodox will be seen to
have less respect for marriage vows taken in non-halachic contexts.
Kol tuv and a freilichen and kosher Pesach.
Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tal Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:17:26 -0500
Subject: Two Dinim in Minyan and Counting a Mechallel Shabbos
"I have, in my posting, mentioned in passing two functions of minyan:
kiddush hashem (as in kedusha) and tefillah betzibbur (praying with a
community). R. Moshe has a very controversial teshuva, where he
distinguishes between these two functions. "
Mark Steiner's post inspired me to write about this topic, which is more
complex than most of the posters have allowed.
1. There is a Teshuvas ha Rambam which states that one may NOT count
Karaites to a minyan. This is the very same Rambam who came up with the
famous categorization of "Tinok she Nishbah" and applied it children who
are raised in the Karaite "faith" (for lack of a better term), so it
would appear that that category does not, by itself, resolve the
problem. The Rambam also bases this psak on a very cryptic reason -- he
cites a Mishna in Eruvin that "mi she eino modeh be eiruv eino mitztaref
le eruv" -- whomever does not accept the rabbinic concept of an Eruv
cannot be joined into an Eruv. (The Sadducees at the time of Chazal
were the principle group at issue.) The connection between that halakha
in Eruvin and minyan is not apparent.
2. Rav Moshe Feinstein also has a cryptic statement in one of his
teshuvas. There is a Machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos in Megillah
about saying a davar she be kedusha which requires ten. Rashi holds
that even if nine have already davened, if one person arrives late he
can say kaddish, barchu, etc. Tosafos, however, maintains that one
requires that at least the majority of the minyan be made up of those
who have not yet davened. (The Rambam holds like Tosafos). The
Shulchan Arukh states that lechatchila we require that at least six have
not davened, but b'dieved we rely on Rashi and permit even one person
who has not yet davened to say kaddish and borchu before nine who have
already davened.
Rav Moshe Feinstein's psak indicates that the counting of the mechallel
Shabbos is dependent upon this view of Rashi, which we only accept
bedieved. Why this should be so is not immediately obvious.
3. I once gave a shiur on this topic where I suggested that the
explanation to both issues is the same thing. As Mark Steiner wrote, a
kiddush Hashem may simply be the act of an individual who is doing that
act BEFORE a minyan of ten. (Think of a person who is giving up his
life al kiddush Hashem in a yehareg v'al yaavor situation. While a
minyan needs to be present, clearly only that individual is doing a
kiddush Hashem.) This is the paradigm followed by Rashi -- a statement
of kedushah BEFORE a minyan.
But sometimes, the halakha requires a TSIRUF -- a combination of people
for a particular purpose. This can be a public prayer or creation of an
Eruv -- a combination of the domains of the various householders in that
area. The Mishna in Eruvin tells us that if one does not accept the
halakhic obligation or concept for which the group is combining, then
one cannot join that group. That is why the Rambam -- who holds like
Tosafos that one requires a combination of a tsibbur, of whom the
majority need to be obligated in davening -- did not permit counting
Karaites to a minyan.
4. R. Moshe Feinstein apparently held that for a davar she be kedushah,
lechatchila a tsiruf is required, bedieved, like Rashi, it is not. For
other halakhos -- notably tefilla be tsibbur -- a tsiruf IS required.
That seems to make perfect sense -- tefilla be tsibbur does not mean the
tefilla of ten people who happen to be together -- it is the
collectively communal prayer. For that, one needs a joining into the
community and the halakha of "mi she eino modeh be eiruv eino mitztaref
le eruv" would apply.
5. I should point out one other thing. The halakha of "tinok she
nishba" is not a magic talisman that dispenses with all halakhic issues.
The Teshuvas ha Rambam I quoted proves that one can be a "tinok she
nishba" and yet there are still halakhic issues. Tinok she nishba, in
its most basic conception, means the person has a din of an anus -- he
is under duress and not culpable for his actions. The person may
therefore not be responsible for his sins. He may still lack certain
positive requirements -- like "modeh be Eruv" -- which certain halakhos
require.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 80
