Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 389

Tuesday, February 22 2000

• Re[2]: Diyukim
• Re[2]: besmirching frum sociopaths
• Re[2]: diyukim
• Re[3]: besmirching frum sociopaths
• Re: Lashon Hara L'Toeles (was re: SE/History)
• Re: diyuk
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Re: diyuk
• Re: Diyukim
• Re: favorite leining pauses (was "Re: Re[2]: kaddish")
• Re: diyukim
• Re[2]: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Study of History & haskalah
• Re: diyukim
• Administrivia re people leaving Avodah
• Re: Re[2]: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Maskilim
• Re: 60 minutes
• Re: besmirching frum sociopaths
• diyukim, minhag Ashkenaz

I always thought that when RYBS felt he could be machria then he would follow 
the position he thought was correct.  When he did not have any information that 
could clear up the machlokes he was machmir for both.

There is an interesting story in The Soloveitchik Heritage about when the Griz 
came to visit during WW I and RYBS started following some of his minhagim.  When
RMS saw his son repeating the words of krias shma over and over like the Griz he
told him to stop.  I think the story gave RMS's reason as bittul Torah.  
Whatever the reason, the story has RMS saying that he intentionally deviated 
from his father's and brother's derech of being very machmir.



RR Wolpoe wrote:

>>That's my impression that RYBS was different re: minhag and lomdus

It is also my impression that many in the Litvisher world made that same 
dichotomy..>>

RG Dubin wrote:

>>      I was not aware of these practices.  Is it possible that he 
distinguished his lomdus from his own personal practice?>>

RC Sherer wrote:

>>So then you think he held that LAomer and BAomer were both required? How about
Zeicher and Zecher in Ashrei (where he also held to say both)? I think that at 
least in these two cases he believed there was a safek that couldn't be 
resolved, and therefore he held we should say both.>>

If we assume that he truly believed, albeit mistakenly, that it is assur to trim
one's beard  Why should his committing certain aveiras permit him to commit 
others?

As my rebbe in yeshiva once said, "The only thing worst than being inconsistent 
is being consistently wrong."

>>Now here was a guy - convicted of crimes and sentensed to 10 years in prison -
insisting that it was "ossur" to even trim his beard, and he fought the state of
New York on this matter.>>

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

Please help me out.

Shmos 27:20: v'atao tetzaveh es bnai Yisroel

Vayikro 24:2 tzav es bnei yisroel

One has a vov hipush the other does not.  (admittedly we can also note the extra
"ato" and so I did al pi drush...)

So other than the ato, what are the implications wrt tense?

And If indeed there are such implications, might they not explain the omision of
Moshe's name as in Vayikro 24:1?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/22/2000 12:31 PM


Shlomo Godick <shlomog@mehish.co.il> wrote in v4n369:
: Another observation: the phrase "v'hisgadalti v'hiskadashti"  in 
: Yehezkel is not in the past tense, but in the future tense. 
: The vav is a vav hipuch and the two words are pronounced
: mil'ra.   So "yisgadel v'yiskadesh" is a *very* close paraphrase 
: -- more like a third person echo of the first person phrase in 
: Yehezkel.

Close, but not identical. You assume that "amar" and "vayomer" mean the 
same thing. I would not assume lashon hakodesh has such redundancies. I 
therefore think "yisgadeil" and "hisgadilti" have some subtle difference 
in meaning. More importantly in terms of the connection between the two, 
Yechezkeil and Kaddish both refer to the same messianic fulfillment.

Genesius understands the vav hahipuch to be a misnomer, and that "vayomer" 
is the past imperfect: ie "he was saying". The implication of vayomer is 
that it was over a period of time. Important, as it is grammatical support 
for the co-origin of Torah sheba'al peh.

I was told that Teimani masorah also makes a distinction. They believe that the 
tense of the text was written from the perspective of the characters in the 
naarative, not from the reader's perspective. So, "amar" means "he had already 
said", while "vayomer" is "after that, he said". Which explains the use of the 
vav for both hifuch and chibur. You are saying that it is only asid (or avar) 
from the perspective of the previous -- an attachment of sorts.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b 
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17

If we assume that he truly believed, albeit mistakenly, that it is assur to trim
one's beard  Why should his committing certain aveiras permit him to commit 
others?

As my rebbe in yeshiva once said, "The only thing worst than being inconsistent 
is being consistently wrong."

>>Now here was a guy - convicted of crimes and sentensed to 10 years in prison -
insisting that it was "ossur" to even trim his beard, and he fought the state of
New York on this matter.>>

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com<<

Perhaps it was seen as a chutzpah for a convicted drug dealer to assert his 
"pet" chumro as haclacho mamosh?

Or perhaps if he was so machmir on not cutting his beard he should have thought 
about that implication before dealing drugs?

BTW, if your thesis is indeed correct, is there then any such thing as 
Hypocracy?

How about the fellow who shoots his parents and pleads for mercy as an orphan? 
after all is he not now an orphan, should we not afford him the special 
deference accorded to orphans?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 

On 21 Feb 00, at 19:08, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/21/00 6:01:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> 
> << 
>  Oops :-) It should be obvious from the rest of the post that I meant
>  to say that a statement which has a toeles for a significant public,
>  but not for all (who hear it), would be oiver on lashon hara.
>   >>
> So in our case of a child molester, no public statement could ever be
> made since some who would not be affected by it would hear? Even at
> the cost of the individual moving to another town and molesting again?
> Would the result be different if a bet din convened (even without
> power to punish?)

Assuming with 100% certainty that s/he is a child molester, IMHO 
(I'm not a posek) s/he would not be an oseh ma'aseh amcha, and 
therefore Hilchos Lashon Hara would not apply.

If there is a maaseh beis din, I believe that is specifically permitted 
to be published (I will bli neder try to look that up tonight).

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In Avodah 4#380, GDubin wrote:
> In aleinu,  we say "ki lecha tichra kol berech tishava kol lashon".   If
the word lecha ends in a heh (actual or virtual),  this removes the dagesh
from the beged kefes following. <
My first reaction is that the dagesh kal doesn't disappear
merely because the end of the previous word was "open."
I'm no expert in dikduk, so this reaction may simply
be incorrect from a grammatical perspective; even if
it's not, it is apparently not universally held.  I will note
that I've come across a number of conflicts between
the Roedelheim-print Tikkun and the Koren-print
TaNaCh (with the latter not listing d'gaishim that
are listed in the former) re this issue.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 4#381, GDubin replied:
> Lo ra'inu eino rayoh,  but I have truly never heard anyone say it with a
chataf kamatz. <
You have truly never attended "Breuer's" on the night or day of Purim :-).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:53:00 -0500 MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

<<You have truly never attended "Breuer's" on the night or day of Purim
:-).>>

	Guilty as charged.
Gershon

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:52:51 -0500 MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

<<My first reaction is that the dagesh kal doesn't disappear merely
because the end of the previous word was "open." I'm no expert in dikduk,
so this reaction may simply be incorrect from a grammatical perspective;
even if it's not, it is apparently not universally held>>

	My recollection is that it is.  Other than the conflicts you've named, 
do you have a more explicit source?

	In the spirit of upcoming Purim,  I am resigned to this difference
(sichra vs. tichra) to be leshitasam of don mina umina or don mina ve'uki
be (ve?)'asra.

Gershon

But if you leave it as "they", then the sentence becomes difficult.
Presumably "they" are all celestial beings, including the serafim.  So
how can the serafim be "misnasim l'umas" themselves?

The bracha "yotzeir ha'm'oros" before Sh'ma specifically mentions
chayos and ofanim as being "misnasim l'umas serafim".

As Rav Elazar Teitz pointed out to me in a separate post, the psukim in
Yehezkel clearly identify the chayos and ofanim as the mashmi'ei kol.

KT,
Shlomo Godick



----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Shlomo Godick <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Cc: Avodah List <avodah@aishdas.org>; Rabbi Y. H. Henkin
<henkin@surfree.net.il>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: Diyukim


> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:33:26PM +0200, Shlomo Godick wrote:
> : he asked me: where is the subject of the sentence?  Where is
> : the antecedent?  Who is mashmi'im kol?
>
> "Kesheim shemakdishim oso *bishmei marom*". After establishing that we're
> describing tzeva'os Hashayim, isn't "they" enough?
>
> -mi
>
> --
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
> micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
> http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 115b
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 17
>

R Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote me in private email,
but he gave me reshus to share it with the list. The following is the original
email as well as my reply.

RMP:
: In Avodah 4#380, MBerger wrote:
: > R' Dovid Willig taught me to lein for my bar mitzvah. The parashah was
: Peenichas. <

: Actually, it's Pee'*n'*chas...but I know what you meant (i.e. we agree that
: it's *not* "Pinchas").  A few years after I caught the attention of a few
: listeners daring to pronounce the t'nuah g'dolah as a separate syllable
: (two more proper-noun examples: the oldest son of Moshe Rabbainu and one of
: Laivi ben Ya'akov's sons [hint: for both, it's "gai..."]), I'm still
: waiting for other ba'alai k'riah to break what seem to me
: eminently-breakable bad habits re pronunciation :-).

MB:
} I don't catch your transliteration scheme. I'd have pronounced it Pee-ni-chas
} (dashes between syllables), chirik malei followed by sh'va na.

} Yet another pet peeve: they're tzitzees, not tzeetzis (both "i"s intended to
} be chirik chaseir).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In my long posting concerning patach vs. tzeireh in kaddish I seem to have omitted 
the most obvious historical point.  No Sefaradi nusach, whether from Afghanistan, 
Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, or Italy ever heard of the tzeireh form. 
 

They, and the Yemenites as well, have also never heard of  zeicher-zecher. None of 
them ever even dreamed of the super-weirdity of Yisasekhar in Vayetzei or up to 
Pinehas.  Doesn't it seem that the Ashkenazim have developed, in the last few 
hundred years, a tendency for aberrations and ignoring clear and unquestioned 
mesorot?  Comments welcomed.

K"T,
D.

And also, while some Baalei Krio may slur the pronounciation, some lisetners 
might "slur" their hearing and not even notice the chataf komatz...

And fwiw, I was taught in Day School that a chataf kmoatz is in between a full 
kamotz and a shevo na, although I think in KAJ and other places is is pronounced
more closely to a full komatz.

This "in-between" position - which I readily concede might not be widely 
accepted - might also help to further explain the confusion.  IOW, what to ME is
my best attempt at a chataf komatz might easily be perceived by others as shevo 
na.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Megilas Esther -  Reading the word Mordechai 



In Avodah 4#381, GDubin replied:
> Lo ra'inu eino rayoh,  but I have truly never heard anyone say it with a 
chataf kamatz. <
You have truly never attended "Breuer's" on the night or day of Purim :-).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

as per Shipor's bio of SE, the  recomended making peace with "conservative" 
maskilim...

Questions:
1) Just what is THE psul of the haskallah?
2) Could one be shomeir Mitzvos and still be a maskil?
3) Were modern institutions in Eastern Europe such as Tachkemoni "accepted" in 
frum circles?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

<snip>
I recently read "My Uncle the Netziv" and appreciated the presentation 
of the maskilim as a non-monolithic group, some of whom were even 
shomrei torah u-mitzvos and ma'aritzei talmidei chachamim.
I personally found impressive the Netziv's ability to conduct a dialogue 
with some of the more moderate maskilim, without compromising any
of his own principles. 
<snip>
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

RMBerger wrote: <<
Genesius understands the vav hahipuch to be a misnomer, and that "vayomer"
is the past imperfect: ie "he was saying". >>

Yes, I've heard that linguistic observation that in Hebrew there is no
past or future tense per se, only perfect tense and imperfect (or
continuous) tense, where perfect usually implies the past (but not
always), and imperfect usually implies the future (but not always).
(I am a bit out of my depth here -- maybe the list's grammarians
could elaborate?)

If "vayomer" is the past imperfect, then what is "v'hisgadilti"  -- future
perfect? How would you translate it: "I shall have been magnified"?
Does that make sense in context?

RMBerger also wrote: <<
Close, but not identical. You assume that "amar" and "vayomer" mean the
same thing. I would not assume lashon hakodesh has such redundancies. >>

Why do you assume that stylistic redundancy is foreign to lashon
hakodesh?  Must stylistic variations have strict semantic utility?  Isn't it
enough that they add beauty to the Torah?  (I am speaking on the pshat
level; on the drash level, it is clear that Chazal darshened the
variations.)

<<The implication of vayomer is
that it was over a period of time. Important, as it is grammatical support
for the co-origin of Torah sheba'al peh.  >>

This sounds interesting, aval lo yarad'ti l'sof da'atcha.  Could you
elaborate?

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

We've had a number of members leave in the past couple of days, so I asked
each for feedback as to why. One question I asked in particular about was
moderation, as Avodah is the only unmoderated email discussion I know of.

Here's some comments (all of them cut-and-pasted from former members' emails):

1- the lack of moderation is only part of it
2- the careless way many people quote previous posts
3- rampant use of roshei taivos
4- my honest belief that many of the topics are above my head
5- It really is too much effort for me, and I just just don't enjoy it any
   more.

To some extent, Avodah can't be all things to all people. If we want to be
a chevrah, that is best served by not being moderated. Also, the content
and difficulty can't be tuned to everybody.

However, I've written numerous times about the excessive quoting and the
RURT (rampant use of roshei taivos <grin>). I'm hoping that if people see
these issues irritate to the point of contributing to people's decision to
leave, perhaps things will improve.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:25:34 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
 
<<This "in-between" position - which I readily concede might not be
widely 
> accepted - might also help to further explain the confusion.  IOW, 
what to ME is
> my best attempt at a chataf komatz might easily be perceived by  others
as shevo na.>>

	Complicated,  of course,  by the position of the Minchas Shai in Lech
Lecha on chatafim in general.

Gershon

<<<I recently read "My Uncle the Netziv" and appreciated the presentation
of the maskilim as a non-monolithic group, some of whom were even
shomrei torah u-mitzvos and ma'aritzei talmidei chachamim.>>>


The son-in-law of the Ktzot Hachoshen (and the one who got his Sfarim 
published) was a Maskil.

                        -As heard on the R' Berel Wein History series


Moshe
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

--- Danny Schoemann <dannys@dorotree.com> wrote:
> > The hate that secular society has for
> > religious society is enormous.
> 
> I've been wanting to comment on this since last
> night, and I
> see that others have done so already. I would like
> to add
> from personal experience.
> 
> Over the past 6 years I've worked in various places
> in Eretz
> Yisroel where chilonim were the dominant force and
> majority.
> 
> I am easily identifiable as a chariedi with beard,
> payos and
> black kippa. Not only have I never been prejudiced
> against
> in the work place - despite the fact that I'm
> experienced
> but not qualified for the jobs I applied for - I
> find people
> have a special respect / affinity for frum people.
> 
> Certain chiloni ex-colleagues of mine even take the
> time to
> regularly keep in touch - despite the fact that I
> don't have
> the time or energy to reciprocate.
> 
> This secular - religious "war" is a figment of the
> imagination of the media who (for some reason the
> eludes me)
> would like to see such a war.
> 
> I'll add that on the streets I have occasionally
> been the
> target of "Jewish anti-Semitism" but I think it's a
> [shrinking] fringe element - and not a woe of
> Israeli
> society at large.

Perhaps your personality exhudes warmth and a
welcoming, tolerantn attitude.  I think personal
experience is not a good barometer for the state of
affairs in the Holy Land. The politics of Tommy Lapid
and his ilk are politics of hate and his Shinui party
entire platform is anti religious. I would hardly call
Lapid and all who voted for him and his cohorts "a
figment of the imagination". And it isn't just Shinui.
What about Shulamit Aloni's Meretz?  What about the
Yossi Balins of the world? Barak campaigned on a
platform of drafting  Charedi Yeshiva students,
remember? 

I think there is a real problem.  I'm not saying every
NON religious person in Israel is ANTI religious. 
Perhaps it is only a minority of Chilonim.  But I
think it is likely a siginficantly large minority.

HM  
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 09:53:06AM -0500,
> richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> : FWIW, when my wife worked for the Attorney
> General, a "frum" sociopath - 
> : convicted of drug dealing, etc. - insisted on not
> trimming his beard in
> : prison. 
> 
> Then there's the story/legend of the two Belzer
> chassidim charged with
> fraud and tax evasion. The Rebbe told them they may
> NOT appear in court
> in levush, long payos and beards.

I was told by an aquaintance of mine who does chesed
work in NY stae prisons that there is a minyan of
"frum" sociopaths in prison, one of whom was convicted
of murdering his wife for insurance money.  I believe
he is the bal Koreh.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Short answer and all if this is my opinion from a quasi-hstorical perpsective 

imho Ashkenazim should distinguish between Minhag/Mesorah which does include 
things like Kalir and Kitniyos

And

The habit of being machmir which is often based upon either pilpul or mussar.
The pilpul is an attempt to reconcile a minhag with a text that might not be 
based upon the same premise.  The mussar basis is a device that promotes being 
yotzei lechol hadeios

My favorite poseik who (imho) respects the tension of both minhag and clear 
analytical thinking is the Aruch Hashulchan

His style is somewhat encyclopedic and loosely resembles the Beit Yosef and the 
Kaf haChaim;  he traces the halachah in chronological order by poseik.

fwiw, I was not aware that RYBS in practice tried to be yotzei lechol hadeios.  
My impression  was - until recent  posts - that he promotoed deicisive analysis 
that cut both ways.  So did the AH in many ways.

A full treatment would take weeks of discussion...

One illustration of "chumro" over minhag.  It used to be thjat even though 
peanuts were kitniyos, peanute oil was ok for Pesach.  I would recommend seeing 
the disctincition between a peanut as a legume b'ein, as opposed to peanut oili 
which can never be made into flour.  To me this preserves the minhag as 
originally intended, without adding on a layer of chumro

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: diyukim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    12/27/2002 12:38 PM


In my long posting concerning patach vs. tzeireh in kaddish I seem to have omitt
ed 
the most obvious historical point.  No Sefaradi nusach, whether from Afghanistan
, 
Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, or Italy ever heard of the tze
ireh form. 


They, and the Yemenites as well, have also never heard of  zeicher-zecher. None 
of 
them ever even dreamed of the super-weirdity of Yisasekhar in Vayetzei or up to 
Pinehas.  Doesn't it seem that the Ashkenazim have developed, in the last few 
hundred years, a tendency for aberrations and ignoring clear and unquestioned 
mesorot?  Comments welcomed.

K"T,
D.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]