Volume 57 Number 02
Produced: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:59:02 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
An incorrect reference?
[Martin Stern]
eat from a vessel that was not toiveled (2)
[Martin Stern Orrin Tilevitz]
hostility
[Menachem Petrushka]
Jewish Holiday Calendar Card
[Jacob Richman]
Kaddish after Aleinu
[Mordechai]
Kadish yatom together (2)
[Carl Singer Martin Stern]
OTAM in place of ITAM
[Russell J Hendel]
Translation - Sack's Koren Siddur
[Mark Polster]
translation of Shema Yisrael
[Alexander Seinfeld]
Where do you buy Israeli children's books and videos?
[Susan Kane]
Woman saying kaddish (2)
[David Ziants Wendy Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: An incorrect reference?
The Elya Rabba (O.H.144,7) writes in the name of the Kol Bo (daf 9) 'Oy
lahem shemeisichim be'eit hatefillah ki ra'inu kamah beit haknesset nechrevu
bishvil avon zeh - Woe to those who talk during the times of davening for
we have seen many shuls destroyed because of this sin'.
I could not find this passage in my edition of the Kol Bo and then checked
in the new 4 volume Feldheim edition but the section on Hilchot Beis
Haknesset is not significantly different from mine and it is not to be found
there.
There must be a mistake in the reference. Either it is on a different page
in the Kol Bo or an early copyist may have inadvertently substituted Kol Bo
for a different Rishon in the text of the Elya Rabba.
Can anyone solve this problem?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: eat from a vessel that was not toiveled
Orrin Tilevitz wrote:
> Rambam, Hil. Maachalot Assurot [forbidden foods], XVII:5 states that the
> requirement of immersing vessels bought from a non-Jew is "midivrei sofrim"
> ["from the words of writers", apparently rabbis in this context --MOD], and he
> calls the passage in Matot a "remez" [hint]. There are those who understand
> the Rambam to mean that the requirement is solely of rabbinic origin.
The Rambam usually uses the term "midivrei sofrim" to mean a mitsvah
de'oraita (Torah as opposed to rabbinic law) that is derived by one of the
hermeneutic rules from the text rather than being explicitly stated. In his
terminology, it usually does not signify a rabbinic enactment.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: eat from a vessel that was not toiveled
Martin Stern wrote:
> The Rambam usually uses the term "midivrei sofrim" to mean a mitsvah
> de'oraita (Torah as opposed to rabbinic law) that is derived by one of the
> hermeneutic rules from the text rather than being explicitly stated. In his
> terminology, it usually does not signify a rabbinic enactment.
Arukh Hashulchan at Yoreh Deah 120 cites Rashba in Torat Habayit as
understanding Rambam to mean that it is derabanan (rabbinic only). (Alrukh
Hashulchan disagrees.)
And, to anticipate an objection (not from Martin), my point (which will be
obvious to most participants in this forum) is not that the requirement is
rabbinic, but that--in reply to the post that triggered my response-- here --as
in many, though not all areas of Jewish law-- there are respected authorities
whose opinion differs from what may conventionally be viewed as "the halacha",
leading to the possibility of a range of halachically acceptable alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menachem Petrushka <Menachem_Petrushka@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 3,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: hostility
Ari Trachtenberg wrote:
> it is quite eye-opening how hostile some (rejected) submissions are,
> either to other submitters or to the moderators.
If you think you have problems, just think about what it must feel like
to be a gabbai, especially in a shul that only has one person saying
kaddish.
Menachem Petrushka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Thu, Jul 23,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Jewish Holiday Calendar Card
Hi Everyone!
I created a new, three year, Jewish holiday calendar card which
I posted on my website for you to view, download or print.
The address is:
http://www.jr.co.il/calendar.htm
There are two image sizes and an Acrobat PDF file.
For best printed results use the Acrobat PDF file.
When printing the PDF file use the print option "fit to print margins".
If you live in Ma'ale Adumim or the Jerusalem area, the free,
laminated, magnetic version of the calendar card should be
available at the end of August.
Please share this message with your relatives and friends.
Thank you.
Shabbat Shalom,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 31,2009 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Kaddish after Aleinu
David Ziants wrote:
> Normally I daven in Ashkenazi shuls, according to my minhag, but
> occasionally I find myself going to a sephardi (aidot hamizrach) bet
> k'nesset. One thing that has become clear to me is that their custom
> is not to say kaddish yatom [Mourner's Kaddism --MOD] after alainu.
>
> Is someone able to enlighten why the Ashkenazi and Sephardi customs
> different?'
The old minhag Ashkenaz, as followed in Mainz, Frankfurt a Main, etc., as
well as those who follow their minhogim today, does not say it either. Minhag
haGR"A, also omits it. So it is not a Sepharadi-Ashkenazi issue.
For an extensive and excellent treatment of this (and other related issues
re the saying of kaddish, e.g. how many kaddeishim are to be said daily),
see "Kaddish leachar 'Aleinu lishabeiach' leminhag Ashkenaz", by R. Shlomo
Chaim Aumann, in Yerushoseinu III (Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, Benei Berak 5769),
p.156-169. He discusses various minhogim related to this and their
development in various places and circles, including Ashkenaz, Sepharad, Polin,
Ar"i, and Chassidim.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 31,2009 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Kadish yatom together
There are many scenarios as noted. Two of that come to mind:
In many Yekki congregations only one person says for all those who have a
chiyuv [roughly, obligation] to say. This brought an interesting situation
in our non-yekki congregation. A guest (parent-in-law) who had a chiyuv
davened for the amud and when he heard that another congregant was saying
kaddish, so he (the guest) didn't say kaddish in keeping with his tradition.
Women frequently say kaddish from within the ezras nashim [women's section.]
A potential problem occurs when no man has a chiyuv to say kaddish --
usually in this situation we have a "designated hitter" -- a man who says
kaddish so that the congregation can respond.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Kadish yatom together
Wendy Baker wrote:
>> Martin Stern wrote:
>> In some large Ashkenazi communities like Amsterdam this problem was to some
>> extent avoided by having all the mourners go to the front of the shul and
>> say kaddish together in unison there, but most others do not do so, giving
>> rise to the cacophony commonly heard nowadays.
> This custom of standing together would raise problems for women saying
> kaddish, as they would not join the men in a group.
Personally I find the original Ashkenazi custom of only one person saying
each kaddish infinitely better than the cacophony commonly heard nowadays in
most Ashkenazi shuls where it is virtually impossible to hear anyone and
answer "Amein yehei Shmeih rabba" which is the real purpose of kaddish.
Since women are not obligated to say kaddish, they would only have the
opportunity under that system if there were no obligated male present.
Perhaps those wishing to say it should go to a Sefardi minyan where the
custom has always been for all aveilim (mourners) to say kaddish aloud in
unison, something to which they are accustomed since they say all the
prayers in that manner.
> Many shuls do now have women saying kaddish aloud, although it is not yet
> done everywhere.
Though the custom of such shuls may have some basis, it might still be a
problem of "chadash assur min hatorah (religious reform is strictly
prohibited)"!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: OTAM in place of ITAM
There is a wonderful thread on OTAM-ITAM. I just wanted to add that IN GENERAL
(not just with OTAM-ITAM) the same Biblical preposition can mean totally
different things.
I have a source on my website http://www.Rashiyomi.com/grammar.htm in which I
list a collection of grammatical Rashis. There is a section on "prepositions."
For example on several rows I show how the Hebrew connective Aleph-Lamed (EL)
even though it usually means TO can also mean ON, WITH, FOR, ABOUT etc.
The innovation on my website is to have links with best examples so you are
forced to accept these multiple meanings. Here is one of my punchy examples: in
the Biblical verse "And a woman EL her sister do not marry/take" we can NOT
translate EL as TO but must translate it as WITH.
Radack in his beautiful book ROOTS lists several examples, of prepositions
(actually connective words) with multiple disparate meanings. For example a well
known Rashi states that KI can mean BECAUSE, WHEN, IF, THAT, RATHER, PERHAPS.
Using Radack + my website one can find verses exemplifying each of these
examples; one can even find verses where the alternate translation is blatant
and forced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Polster <mp@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 31,2009 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Translation - Sack's Koren Siddur
In MJ Vol. 56, #96, Lawrence Myers wrote:
> And that is why the pointing is "v'shem" and not "b'shem"
> HaShem. Whereas in other places where the Tipcha is on
> Vayikra the next word is "b'shem"
The pointing of "v'shem" without the dagesh, is a direct (and fairly
"mechanical") consequence of the fact that the preceeding word - vayiqra -
ends in a vowel sound AND that its trup (accentuation) is a
mercha=m'sharet (conjunctive) rather than a tippecha=mafsiq (disjunctive).
As such, the pointing of the word "v'shem", as opposed to "b'shem" tells
us nothing more about how to understand the phrasing of the verse than
does the trup itself, since the pointing in question is a direct
consequence of that trup. If the mechanism of reversing the mercha and
tippecha (raised as a possibility by Martin Stern) were in force here, the
correct READING of the verse would still have been "Vayiqra v'shem /
Hashem", even if the correct INTERPRETATION of the verse were Vayiqra /
b'shem Hashem.
More generally, several correspondents on this thread have assumed that
the phrasing indicated by the trup definitively answers the question of
how to understand the verse. I would note that although the phrasing of a
verse indicated by the trup presumptively indicates the correct
interpretation of the verse (as in fact seems to be so in this case),
there are numerous instances where the interpretation offered by at least
some commentaries contradicts the phrasing indicated by the trup. One
example - at Deut. 26:5, "Arami (pashta=disjunctive) / ovaid avi", Rashi
and Targum both understand the verse as "the Aramean (i.e. Lavan) wished
to destroy my father", which is consistent with the phrasing indicated by
the trup. However, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Sforno all understand the verse
as "my father (i.e. either Avraham or Yaaqov) was a wandering Aramean"
which would have required the disjunctive pashta to appear on the word
"ovaid" rather than "Arami" - thus in the view of these commentaries the
trup here is not dispositive. This phenomenon of the occasional divergence
between the correct READING (i.e. the trup) and the correct INTERPRETATION
of verses is discussed at some length by R' Breuer, zt"l, in Section 3 of
his book on Ta'amei HaMiqra (Hotzaat Michlala Yerushalayim, 1982), as well
as by S.D. Luzzatto in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Torah.
Kol tuv,
Mark Polster
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alexander Seinfeld <seinfeld@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 3,2009 at 01:01 AM
Subject: translation of Shema Yisrael
Thank you, Arnie, for your creative insights to the Shema.
Both Rashi and the GR"A note that this verb (SHMA) has three specific
meanings in Torah:
1. Acquiring information with the ears
2. Understanding
3. Accepting (including doing); I prefer the term internalizing.
By the way, English isn't so different. Meaning #2: "I'm sure you understand
the point, but are you really hearing me?" Meaning #3: We say to children,
"Thank you for being such a good listener!" when we praise them for doing
something.
Apropos this thread, although I hesitate to toot my own horn, I would like
to share the simcha of announcing a new book - The Art of Kavana, released a
few weeks ago by Devorah Publishing (should be in your local Jewish
bookstore). If you are familiar with my previous book, the Art of Amazement,
then you will recognize this new book. It is very similar, but aimed at a
more traditional reader. In Chapter 6, I delve deeply into the Shema's
translation, the practice of using it in a meditative way and its meaning
within greater contexts, including:
1. Love (in our liturgy it is, after all, sandwiched between two statements
on love, from above downward ("bocher b'amo Yisrael b'ahava") and from below
upward ("v'ahavta'))
2. Jewish mission of revealing Hashem's oneness
Includes extensive endnotes and index.
Alexander Seinfeld
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Kane <suekane@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 1,2009 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Where do you buy Israeli children's books and videos?
I'm sure there are many options now to buy online and I was wondering
which sites were people's favorites.
Susan Kane
Boston, MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Woman saying kaddish
Recent discussion:
>> Many shuls do now have women saying kaddish aloud, although it is not yet
>> done everywhere.
>>
>
> Though the custom of such shuls may have some basis, it might still be a
> problem of "chadash assur min hatorah (religious reform is strictly
> prohibited)"!
I think Rav Yitzchak Shila"t from the Yeshiva here, Birkat Moshe, says
that a woman should only say kaddish if there is also a man saying, and
then she should follow along with the man in a modest fashion.
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 2,2009 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Woman saying kaddish
David Ziants wrote:
> I think Rav Yitzchak Shila"t from the Yeshiva here, Birkat Moshe, says that a
> woman should only say kaddish if there is also a man saying, and then she
> should follow along with the man in a modest fashion.
There is no uniformity on this issue. I have encountered shuls where
women can be the only ones reciting kaddish and others where it is
expected that they say it along with a man so could not say it if there
were no male mourners. Of course, there has to be a minyan of males
available. In women's davening groups Kaddish is not said, as well as
Keducha and Barchu, but where a minyan exists, the minhag [custom --mod] varies.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 57 Issue 2