Volume 62 Number 63
Produced: Mon, 15 Feb 16 01:49:48 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Beginning chazarat hashatz
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Haftarat Mishpatim (3)
[Daniel Geretz Martin Stern Arthur G. Sapper]
Jumping Back Chazzan
[Yisrael Medad]
Kohanim & divorcees (was:There are times when it is difficult to be a (2)
[Perets Mett Elazar M. Teitz]
Open (holy) books (2)
[Yisrael Medad Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sun, Feb 14,2016 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Beginning chazarat hashatz
Further to my previous post (MJ 62#62) here are some references:
Arukh Hashulchan 124:8 states that the shatz begins when "rov hatzibur" have finished
davening.
Kitzur Shulchan Arukh 20:2 and Chayei Adam 29:1 state that at least 9 individuals must
be answering "amen" because otherwise chazarat hashatz is close to a beracha levatala.
(Since one davening the amida can't answer "amen", this necessitates their having
finished.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Geretz <daniel.geretz@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 11,2016 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Haftarat Mishpatim
Susan Kane wrote regarding the variant spelling of Yitzchak in Yirmiyahu 33:26,
(MJ 62#62):
> It's hard to believe that there could be a scribal error in the name of one
> of the patriarchs and of course, changing the root of a name changes its
> meaning.
This variant spelling also appears in Tehillim 105:9, made famous of
course by being included as part of the naming of a baby boy at his
bris. Also cf. Kohelet 3:4.
Not a trained linguist, so this is guesswork. My first inclination would
be to say that these are cognates, but perhaps it's a matter of
evolution of the pronunciation of the same word (or a word meaning
approximately the same thing) resulting in a variant spelling. A quick
check of my concordance indicates that the tzade-chet-kuf root is used
almost exclusively in the Torah (one or two exceptions) and the
sin-chet-kuf root is used exclusively in Nach. (Interesting to note that
some communities of Sephardic ancestry pronounce the tzade very close to
an "S" sound.)
If you heard Shakespeare's works read and pronounced the way English was
pronounced when he wrote his works, you probably would have a hard time
understanding it.
Probably I should be bothered by the inconsistent spelling, but then I
remind myself that the rules of Hebrew grammar etc. are derived from
Tanach and not the other way round, so when there are exceptions to the
rule it doesn't mean that the Tanach is wrong - it just means that the
rules of grammar derived from it are not robust enough to explain all
cases (nor do they necessarily need to be).
Daniel Geretz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Haftarat Mishpatim
Susan Kane wrote (MJ 62#62):
> In the last line of the haftarah for Mishpatim (Yirmiyahu 33:26), Yitzchak is
> spelled yud-sin-chet-kuf rather than yud-tsaddik-chet-kuf. I did a double
> take and looked at the commentary but saw no reference for this.
>
> It's hard to believe that there could be a scribal error in the name of one
> of the patriarchs and of course, changing the root of a name changes its
> meaning.
This form of the name is actually found elsewhere as well (Amos 7:9 and 7:16
and Tehillim 105:9). The two roots tsaddik-chet-kuf and sin-chet-kuf both
mean the same - 'laugh' - as Redak points out in his comments on Yirmeyahu
and Amos. Probably they reflect variant dialect usages like that of the
people of Ephraim, who were unable to pronounce a 'shin' and substituted a
'sin' (Shoftim 12:5-6). It would appear that in Biblical times, the
distinction between them must have been considerably less than at present
since in Tehillim 119 (161-168), they are mixed as if all the verses start
with the same letter.
Such variability of sibilants is reflected in our current pronunciation of a
'sin' exactly the same as a 'samekh' , which must go back over a millennium
as is evidenced by Kalir's use of the former for the latter in many of his
acrostics - in contrast to the usage in Tehillim.
> Explanation? I'm hoping it's something deep ...
I don't think there is much of significance on the level of peshat [surface
meaning] but there is an interesting comment brought in the Artscroll
Tehillim (105:9, cf. the parallel verse in I Divrei Hayamim 16:16) in the
name of the Chazah Zion that the difference in value of the gematrias of sin
(300) and tsaddi (90) is 210 and that the two verses only differ in this one
point alludes to Yitzhak's joy that the years of bondage of his descendants
in Egypt were reduced to 210.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur G. Sapper <asapper@...>
Date: Sun, Feb 14,2016 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Haftarat Mishpatim
Susan Kane (MJ 62#62), re: Haftarat Mishpatim, asks why Yitzchak is spelled yud-
sin-chet-qoof in Yirm'yahu 33:26 rather than yud-tzadi-chet-qoof.
The answer is that it is not quite a scribal error but a variation in transcription
caused by the great similarity of the ancient pronunciations of sin and tzadi. In
ancient times, tzadi may have been pronounced as (to use International Phonetic
Alphabet symbols) a pharyngealized /ts/ or as [s], a voiceless pharyngealized
alveolar fricative, the latter of which survives amongst Yemenite Jews and other
Jews from the Middle East. The ancient pronunciation of tzadi was so close to the s
sound in sin that Hebrew speakers and scribes often confused them. Thus, we have
the tzadi-sin substitution not only in Yirm'yahu 33:26 but also Amos 7:9 and 7:16
and T'hillim 105:9.
Moreover, many ancient Hebrew word spellings essentially used tzadi and samech or
sin interchangeably. The verb to laugh (the root of Yitzchak) was spelled both with
sin and tzadi; to exult (alas) was spelled with sin or tzadi, and even zayin; to
hide (sawfan) was spelled with samech, tzadi and sin; to scratch (sarat) was spelled
with samech or tzadi. To refine metals with fire was tzaraf, but to burn with fire
was saraf with a sin. There are many more examples.
Today, many Jews do not realize the ancient similarity in pronunciations of tzadi
and sin (and also samech) because Modern Hebrew speakers use a pronunciation of
tzadi distinctly different from the ancient one and that used still today by
Mizrachi Jews and Arabic speakers. The Modern Hebrew tzadi sounds like the tz sound
used in German and Yiddish, and may well have been influenced by them, although some
theorize that the Ashkenazi pronunciation may have been a development of an ancient
/ts/ pronunciation.
Interestingly, in the early years of the twentieth century, when the Hebrew Language
Institute was making its recommendations for the pronunciations to be used in Modern
Hebrew, the decision was made to recommend the Ashkenazi pronunciation of tzadi
precisely because it was so different from the Mizrachi Jewish pronunciation that
the distinction between sin and tzadi could be clearly heard, as it is in Israel
today. Among the arguments made then (for example, by the academician Israel Eitan)
was that Jewish children in Eretz Yisroel who came from Mizrachi homes had shown
difficulty distinguishing between tzadi and sin (and tzadi and samech). In the
Zikhronot Va'ad Ha'Lashon of 1912/1913, he argued in part (translation courtesy of
my son-in-law, Rabbi Dovid Brotsky):
---
The difference between a samech and a tzadi would be very narrow and our brethren
coming here from Europe would never properly grasp it, and certainly not those in
exile. Experience has already shown us that specifically the Sephardic children
often confuse and mix up samech with tzadi in their writing. For example, saddik,
sarah, besel, instead of tzaddik, tzarah, and betzel (onion). If so, it's not wise
for us to do anything other than to establish here the Ashkenazic pronunciation of
the letter (tz), which adds for us a new clarity/distinction that no other letter is
similar to in our aleph bais. In this way, it will truly be easier on the written
word, and also we enrich our language with a new sound.
---
There is in Israel today a rabbi who urges that all corruptions that have worked
their way into Hebrew pronunciation be eradicated, including the use of the
Ashkenazi tzadi. Rabbi David Bar Hayyim of Jerusalem has posted several videos on
Hebrew pronunciation on YouTube, and you can see his arguments there (and hear how
he would pronounce the tzadi). He argues that the Ashkenazi pronunciation of the
tzadi was not authentic, that it was corrupted by galut and exposure to
German/Yiddish, and that, although the Academy's decision to use the Ashkenazi was
driven by concern that Jews would confuse the sound of the tzadi (pronounced as the
Mizrachi do) with the sound of other letters, the sounds are so distinct that they
would not, in fact, be confused.
Although I agreed with R. Bar Hayyim in nearly every detail of his arguments about
other letters (such as the ayin), I have not completed my researches into the tzadi
and have therefore in my mind withheld so far agreement with him on that point. It
appears to this point that, perhaps contrary to R. Bar Hayyim's assertion, the
Academy's decision was supported by both actual confusion among contemporary
Mizrachi children and actual confusion among the ancients, an instance of which was
helpfully pointed out by Ms. Kane. That actual confusion so far argues against R.
Bar Hayyim with respect to the tzadi.
For those interested in hearing what may have been the ancient pronunciation of
tzadi, here is a link to a sound file representing the [s] that may have been
original and was preserved by Yemenite Jews and some Mizrachi Jews from the Middle
East:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_pharyngealized_alveolar_sibilant.ogg .
Judge for yourself how close it is to sin and samech.
Art Sapper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 01:01 AM
Subject: Jumping Back Chazzan
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 62#62):
> I know that on the Yamim Noraim (High holy days) when the chazzan needs to
> back up for korim (bowing to the ground) during the repetition of the Amidah,
> he jumps back to make room.
That may be a practice in some synagogues. In Ramat Shmuel Shiloh, and in other
synagogues, a shtender is placed in front of the chazzan for his Amidah
repetition between him and the bima and so, when the time comes to prostrate,
the shtender is removed to the side leaving the chazzan all the room required
without recourse to acrobatics.
--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Kohanim & divorcees (was:There are times when it is difficult to be a
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 62#62):
>
> However, if this were not the case, would any boys born from such a union be
> kohanim since the prohibition, which would result in their disqualification, is
> for a kohen to marry such ladies, rather than to consort with them outside
> marriage? Though the latter might be prohibited for all Jews, the consequent
> challal status might not apply since the union is not one from which kohanim
> specifically are barred.
>
> Similarly would any daughters be permitted to marry kohanim?
>
> Can anyone shed light on these matters?
There is no doubt that the offspring of a kohen and a divorcee, or a kohen and a
giyores, are chalolim.
See Shulchon Oruch Even Hoezer 7:12, 7:14.
Likewise the woman is rendered a chalolo as a result of the union with a kohen.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, Feb 14,2016 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Kohanim & divorcees (was:There are times when it is difficult to be a
Elanit Z Rothschild Jakabovics wrote (MJ 62#61):
> I've heard of plenty of kohanim who have each gone to great lengths to get his
> fiancee's previous marriage annulled so that he could marry her.
Having a marriage annulled, especially one performed by an Orthodox rabbi, is
extremely difficult. A marriage cannot, strictly speaking, be annulled; it must be
shown that halachically, there was no marriage to begin with. Generally, this can
be done in only one of two ways: either by showing that the original marriage was
not properly performed (e.g., if the woman was still married to a previous
husband, or if there were no halachically acceptable witnesses to the ceremony) or
in a case of misrepresentation (such as an undisclosed drug addiction).
It is highly unlikely for an Orthodox rabbi to be so careless as to use improper
witnesses (which means either not fully Torah-observant, or related to one of the
parties or to each other). Even in such a case, if they lived together as husband
and wife in a Jewish neighborhood, according to some opinions, the marriage can
become binding by virtue of their very living together as husband and wife.
As to misrepresentation, it would be valid grounds only if the misled party left as
soon as the misrepresentation became known, which indicates that had s/he known of
the condition, the marriage would never have been entered into. However, if the
couple stayed together for a while in the hopes of "working things out," it rules
out the misrepresentation as grounds for declaring the marriage as never having
taken place.
There is a greater chance that the husband can be shown not to be a kohein than to
establish the invalidity of the marriage.
On this matter, Martin Stern also wrote (MJ 62#62):
> I have also heard of a case where a kohen wished to marry a divorcee (or
> possibly a convert - I don't remember the details) and went to many Batei
> Din around the world to find some way to permit it. Most were unable to help
> him but, apparently, one did suggest, off the record, that the couple marry
> civilly and then settle in a place where they were hitherto unknown and
> would therefore be accepted as being halachically married - effectively the
> concubinage relationship suggested by the late Rav Getsel Ellinson to which
> I referred (MJ 62#61).
Aside from the legality of the concubinage relationship being hotly debated, with
the majority opinion holding that it is not permitted, it could certainly not be
done in the manner suggested. Jewish law states that if a couple declare themselves
to be husband and wife, and there are no kosher witnesses to the contrary,
it is to be presumed that they are indeed married, to the extent that when capital
punishment was applicable (as it is not today, in the absence of qualified judges),
it would have been administered if adultery were committed, and corporal punishment,
were it still applicable (which it is not, for the same reason) would be
administered where called for, such as with a kohein and a divorcee. Thus, the only
manner in which concubinage could be utilized - even according to the minority who
say it is permitted - would be for the couple to make it obvious that they are _not_
husband and wife. They can not have their desires and the respectability of being
considered married, because the latter negates the permissibility of the former.
Martin continued:
> I believe that the lady was beyond childbearing age, otherwise there might have
> been halachic problems with any offspring. Perhaps the Beit Din only made their
> suggestion because of this but, in the absence of precise knowledge of their
> reasoning, that would be entirely speculative.
> However, if this were not the case, would any boys born from such a union be
> kohanim since the prohibition, which would result in their disqualification, is
> for a kohen to marry such ladies, rather than to consort with them outside
> marriage? Though the latter might be prohibited for all Jews, the consequent
> challal status might not apply since the union is not one from which kohanim
> specifically are barred.
> Similarly would any daughters be permitted to marry kohanim?
The question is explicitly discussed, in the Talmud (Kiddushin 77a) and in halacha
(Shulchan Aruch Even haEzer 7:12). Although punishment to the parties is limited to
cohabitation during marriage, the offsprings' status of chalal - the males not being
kohanim, the females being prohibited to a kohein - applies even if the conception
was extramarital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Open (holy) books
Joel Rich asks (MJ 62#62):
> I've noticed in some shuls during kriat hatorah (torah reading) that the
> shatz (chazzan) leaves his siddur open at ashrei for his eventual return. I'm
> curious if this is a generally-accepted practice (and of course why).
Before I repeat the Shmonei Esreh when leading the congregation in prayer
(chazarat hashatz), I will open my private siddur to the section 'Vayomer David
el Gad' in the Tachanun and leave it in the first row directly behind me so I
don't have to waste the congregation's time looking for it but can just sit down
and recite.
Tircha d'Tzibbura [causing the public consternation and bother] is not really
attended to properly, as noted by Orrin Tilevitz mentioning an "invariably
the 9th person is dawdling". He, IMHO, is causing a tircha d'tzibbura.
--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 12,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Open (holy) books
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 62#62):
> Commentaries on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 277:1 discuss the practice of not
> leaving a sefer (holy book) open when not using it (there are exceptions).
> I've noticed in some shuls during kriat hatorah (torah reading) the shatz
> (chazzan) leaves his siddur open at ashrei for his eventual return. I'm
> curious if this is a generally accepted practice (and of course why).
The Arukh Hashulkhan (Yoreh Deah 277:2) writes that leaving a sefer open for
a short while, such as when going to fetch another sefer from the bookcase
or, even, if one has to go out to relieve oneself, is permissible.
This is presumably the basis for the mentioned shatz's custom, though it
would seem to be stretching the concept of 'a short while' to its limit.
The Minhag Yisrael Torah writes (Yoreh Deah 246:44 p.217) that it is
permissible if not doing so would cause unnecessary delays, but that would
not seem to apply, as the shatz could easily find the place if he left a
marker in the siddur on the stender [reader's desk].
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 63
