Volume 55 Number 38
Produced: Thu Aug 9 5:47:36 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum]
Assimilation
[Dr. Ben Katz]
Dikduk question
[Leah-Perl]
"Harachaman" in bentsching (2)
[David Ziants, Martin Stern]
Shva na or shva nach in artscroll (5)
[Mark Symons, Brian Wiener, Immanuel Burton, Joshua Hosseinof,
Michael Frankel]
Using someone else's property
[Meir]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007
Subject: Administrivia
Just a quick note, that submissions sent in for mail jewish to the
shamash address, if the listproc does not recognize you as a subscriber,
you will get a message asking you to confirm that you have sent that
message, before I see it. This is part of the Shamash anti-spam
effort. Because we are a public list, I get a lot of spam directed to
the list (which I get rid of so you do not see it). The most recent
version of the software allows to distinguish the confirm option between
member and non-member, so that option has been turned on.
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:35:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Assimilation
>From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> > On the other hand, in Israel, your kids will actually understand every
> > single word in their siddur, and almost every word in their Tanakh,
> > Rashi, Ramban, and the Shulchan Aruch. Now, that's value for your
> > money!
>
>There is a slight problem in that modern Hebrew usage is not always the
>same as that in mediaeval texts and this can lead to misunderstandings.
This is more than a slight problem. All you have to do is look at
Rinat Yisrael for all the sidur Hebrew Rabbi Tal had to "translate" into
modern Hebrew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah-Perl <leahperl@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:57:40 -0400
Subject: Dikduk question
Can anyone explain the term "segholation" in plain English? Am I
correct in understanding closed and open syllables to mean stressed and
unstressed?
Is there a book on didkduk that can help me fill my gaps?
Thanks!
Leah-Perl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:21:01 +0300
Subject: Re: "Harachaman" in bentsching
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
> This past Shabbos, after bentsching (i.e. birchat HaMazon for my
> Sephardi friends) at the house we were invited to, the woman of the
> house said to me "you bentsching gives away your age!"
>
> I asked her what she meant, and she pointed out that I said a short
> "Harachaman" for the Ba'al and Ba'alas HaBayis while my son said a much
> longer one. She commented that people of our generation (i.e. old guys)
> say the short one but that the new generation is generally saying the
> longer one.
>
> I never noticed this. Is it true? Is it limited to our community
> (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) or is it going on around the world. If it is
> true, how has it come about?
The older generations have a tendency to do things the way they always
did it whereas the younger generations are not afraid to re-adopt long
lost customs. Many more birkonim ("bentschers") have this prayer
included for guests to say, than was in the past. Thus a young person
with such a birkon is happy to add this extra prayer for his/her host,
whereas an older person will make do with the version he/she has always
said.
The source of the prayer is Berachot 46A and quoted in the Shulchan
Aruch - Orech Chayim 201:1
The version I have in front of me (actually two versions one for the man
and one for the lady) is quoted in Siddur "Tephilat Kol Peh"- nusach
ashkenaz of Eshkol press, and (the man one) starts "yehi ratzon sh'lo
nevosh ba'al habayit...", i.e. without "harachaman". The prayer here is
printed immediately before "harachaman hoo y'varech et ba'al
habayit...". In many birkonim it is ambiguous of exactly where one
should say this prayer, as it is printed in a side margin.
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:07:55 +0100
Subject: "Harachaman" in bentsching
The "longer one" to which Andy is referring is not strictly a
"Harachaman" at all but a tefillah starting "Yehi ratson ..." which is
mentioned in the Gemara (Berakhot 46a) as a prayer for the host to be
said by a guest. It is found in the Shulchan Arukh O.H. 201 and is part
of the standard text used by Sefardim. It seems, however, to have fallen
into disuse among Ashkenazim but was 'revived' by the Mishnah Berurah
who recommended its use, which might explain its use by those who have
been to a yeshivah.
There is an interesting discussion of this subject in Heinrich
Guggenheimer's "The Scholar's Haggadah" (Jason Aronson, 1998) pp.360-2.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:22:16 +1000
Subject: Shva na or shva nach in artscroll
> David Curwin wrote
> Someone recently pointed out to me that different versions of the
> Artscroll siddur have different markings for the shva under the first
> bet in u-v-shachb'cha in Shma. Some have a shva nach (I think the older
> ones) and some have a shva na (the newer ones). The other siddurim who
> distinguish between the two types of shva (including the Simanim siddur
> and chumash) all have a shva nach.
>
> Anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in Artscroll here?
Vav with a shuruk is a long vowel, and therefore when not accented is
generally followed by a sh'va na. However when this vav occurs at the
beginning of a word - as a conjunctive or conversive (tense-changing)
vav - it is actually replacing what would otherwise have been a sh'va,
but the following letter precludes this, when it is a bet, vav, mem, peh
(BooMF or BooMaF) or has a sh'va itself. In this case, most authorities
regard the shuruk effectively as a short vowel, therefore the sh'va that
follows it is nach. But there is an opinion that says that an exception
to this exception is when the vav has a meteg, which is the case in
u-v-shochb'cha, and the following sh'va becomes na.
Mark Symons
Melbourne Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Wiener <brian@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:54:49 +1000
Subject: RE: Shva na or shva nach in artscroll
There is a kamatz katan uner the shin, making it 'UV'SHOCHBECHA, and not as
written. WIDR this is a point that has been raised many times previously
here.
Brian Wiener
Melbourne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:01:35 +0100
Subject: RE: Shva na or shva nach in artscroll
> Someone recently pointed out to me that different versions of the
> Artscroll siddur have different markings for the shva under the first
> bet in u-v-shachb'cha in Shma. Some have a shva nach (I think the
> older ones) and some have a shva na (the newer ones). The other
> siddurim who distinguish between the two types of shva (including the
> Simanim siddur and chumash) all have a shva nach.
The new edition of the Singer's Siddur marks this particular shva as a
shva na, whereas in general they (and ArtScroll and the Tikkun Simanim)
marks a shva after "u'" [what I call "u' shvas"] at the beginning of a
word as a shva nach.
I was actually involved with the new Singer's Siddur, and was assigned
the task of reading through the Hebrew text and (amongst other things)
identifying which shva's are na and which are nach. I initially marked
the "u' shvas" as na, but was informed that the decision to follow
ArtScroll in this respect had been made, and that such shvas should be
nach.
> This type of a sheva after a shuruk arising from a vav hachibbur
> is a matter of dispute among the ba'alei dikduk. Obviously Artscroll
> changed its mind at some stage and adopted the opinion of the G'ra.
This doesn't explain the exception for the word "u-v-shachbe'cha" in the
Shema.
In the Ashkenazi ArtScroll Siddur that I looked in, they state that they
have followed the rules of the Vilna Gaon and Rabbi Yaakov Emden in
identifying which shvas are na and which are nach. A short while later
I came across a Siddur Ha'Gra, and, sure enough, in the introduction
there are the shva rules. However, the introduction was not written by
the Vilna Gaon himself, but by someone else completely. So, where in
the Vilna Gaon's writings do the rules appear?
My reasoning in marking the "u' shvas" as na are as follows:
The shuruk is a syllable in its own right. This can be proved from the
word "u'va'yom" ["and on the day"]. The Hebrew for "on the day" is
"ba'yom", with a dagesh in the bet. The addition of the shuruk at the
beginning has caused the bet to lose its dagesh. This must be because
the bet follows on from an open syllable, which the shuruk is. A shva
at the beginning of a syllable is a shva na. Therefore, when a shva
follows a shuruk at the beginning of a word, it's a shva na as it's at
the beginning of a new syllable.
I actually have two questions with this reasoning:
(1) What other explanation is there for the bet in "u'va'yom" losing
its dagesh?
(2) Is a shuruk that is a vav ha'chibbur different from other types of
shuruk?
I have seen Siddurim that mark the "u' shvas" as shva na.
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:44:56 -0400
Subject: RE: Shva na or shva nach in artscroll
> Someone recently pointed out to me that different versions of the
> Artscroll siddur have different markings for the shva under the first
> bet in u-v-shachb'cha in Shma. Some have a shva nach (I think the
> older ones) and some have a shva na (the newer ones). The other
> siddurim who distinguish between the two types of shva (including the
> Simanim siddur and chumash) all have a shva nach.
> Anyone know the reason for the inconsistency in Artscroll here?
It is in fact an inconsistent inconsistency. Checking my collection of
Artscroll Siddurim, I see the 1983 Siddur "Preview" edition has no line
over the "vet" of Uvshochbecha indicating that it is a Sheva Nach. A
1986 Artscroll Machzor also is printed the same way. A 1991 Artscroll
Machzor, and 1996 Artscroll Siddurim, all have a clearly handwritten
line over the "vet" of Uvshochbecha to indicate a Sheva Na. But the
inconsistency is that they did not put a line over the "vet" of
"Uvlechtecha" or "Uvkumecha" which are in the same Pasuk! All of the
Sefardi Siddurim I have that distinguish sheva na/nach (Ish Matzliach,
Vezarach Hashemesh, and others) indicate that the "vet" in these words
should be Sheva Nach as Artscroll had originally printed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:52:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Shva na or shva nach in artscroll
> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:49:25
> This type of a sheva after a shuruk arising from a vav hachibbur is a
> matter of dispute among the ba'alei dikduk. Obviously Artscroll
> changed its mind at some stage and adopted the opinion of the G'ra.
Didn't know that ArtScroll did that. That's interesting (interesting?
omigawd - BUZZZZ/needs-to get-a-life alert siren). But the Gra opinion
is supposedly a noch, which would make it the "older" one. I confess I
have never understood this determination which I've seen expressed in a
chibbur attributed to the Gra.
The problem is that adopting that grammatical shitoh plunges one
willy-nilly into another (and quite unnecessary) diqduqal conundrum. If
the sh'voh following the connective vov is indeed a noch, we should have
every right to expect the third letter, should it happen to be one of
the BGTKFT, should take a dogeish qal. But it doesn't. ever. (at least
I think so from many years of admittedly casual and episodic scanning.)
So what to do about that. Some would have you believe that there is a
whole new category of sh'voh (the "m'racheif") invented solely to fill
in such anomalies. The alternative for those who persist in believing
it's a noch is to shrug one's shoulders. But the much simpler solution,
that accords with the invariable lack of a dogeish qal in the third
letter is simply to assume it's a noh. Occam's razor and all that.
Of course language doesn't have to follow "rules" which are later
systematizations/attempts to codify in universal patterns pre-existing
reality. If it doesn't fit, it's the fault of the "rule", not of reality.
So perhaps the shoulder shrugging answer is as good as any. But something
within the human condition seeks to impose patterns. So I go with noh.
Mechy Frankel
<michael.frankel@...>
<michaeljfrankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <meirman@...> (Meir)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:43:39 -0400
Subject: Using someone else's property
Say my 16 y.o. son goes to the baseball field at the local public junior
high, with a few friends his age, and no one else is around and he finds
a batting helmet on the ground near home plate. They brought a bat and
baseball and gloves, but didn't think or didn't remember to bring or
didn't own a batting helmet. May he use the one he finds there?
Would it be different if it were a Jewish school and the only kids who
could have left it behind were Jewish? Would it be different if it were
a non-Jewish boy who was at a) a public or b) a Jewish school to play
and wanted to use a helmet he found there?
Although they didn't exist when I was little, except maybe in the pros,
now a batting helmet is considered a very good idea to avoid head
injuries.
How does this compare to using someone's tfillin, if you were
unexpectedly away from home or if you forgot to bring yours, if you knew
nothing about the owner except that he wasn't there, and there were no
other spare sets?
Meir
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 55 Issue 38