Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 402

Tuesday, February 29 2000

• Re: More on diyyukim
• re: Facing the Truths of History
• Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
• Re[2]: Facing the Truths of History
• Re: Hagiographies
• It's good for the Jews! - Precedent
• The Siegler case - It's good for the Jews!
• Maarava (was Re: Facing the Truths of History)
• Facing the Truths of History
• Re: The Siegler case - It's good for the Jews!
• Women as Guests
• kaddish and diyyukim
• still more on diyyukim
• Re[3]: Frum Sociopaths
• kaddish and diyyukim
• re: diyukkim
• Re: kaddish and diyyukim
• Re: kaddish and diyyukim
• Re: The Siegler case - It's good for the Jews!
• Re: The ... case - It's good for the Jews!
• Re: Facing the Truths of History

How about Ame'n v/amen in Tehillim as opposed to Amen, Amen in parshas Sota?

Could it be that the vav is an alternative way of empahsizing with (perhaps) 
some subtle distincion?

There is another issue too. Even if the lomdus is correct, do we change the 
nusach hatefillo based upon research?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: More on diyyukim 
<snip>

If you misbehave, the  tokhecha in Ki Tavo states that the ger in your midst ya'
aleh 
'alekha ma'la - ma'la ve-ata tered matta - matta.  And if you will glance aside 
in your 
Chumash and look at the Targum you will see ma'la - ma'la translated into Aramai
c 
as le-eila le-eila.  So why would we say le-eila ul'eila
<snip>

--- Shlomo Godick <shlomog@mehish.co.il> wrote:
> RHM wrote: <<
> The great Centrist thinker
> and advocate of Torah u Maddah, Dr. Lamm has stated
> that the "Torah Only" view is legitimate. He, of
> course,  advocates his own view that Torah u Maddah
> is
> the correct one but does not deny the legitimacy of
> other points of view. >>
> 
> Isn't that a contradiction?   If "TuM is **the**
> correct one" then by
> definition the other views are incorrect.  How can
> an incorrect
> view have legitimacy?  (I am referring here to
> philosophical
> legitimacy  -- not to be confused with a person's
> legitimate right, in a democratic society,  to hold
> an incorrect
> view!) 

Shivim Panim LaTorah. Or to put it in the vernacular,
there's more than one way to skin a cat.  It is
possible for someone to hold that one way to acheive
Dveikus or Emes is superior to another while both ways
may be legitimate. Also, not all people are the same. 
Some may need Mada some may not. I don't think that R.
Chaim Soloveichik needed Mada to become who he was. 
OTOH, I don't think his grandson, RYBS, would've
acheived his magnitude of greatness without it. 

But my  concern deal more with respect for other
opinions, even if you disagree with them.  I don't
think there is enough of that going around. I have
heard a certain RH (a strong Agudist) say that
students of another local Yeshiva are not Bnei Torah.
Why?  Because they are a Mizrachi oriented Yeshiva.

HM

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

Sorry.  The Rambam is in Hilchos Melachim 11:4, not Yesodei HaTorah.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Shittuf (was:gezel akum)
Author:  Gil Student at 22USNYC
Date:    02/29/2000 9:18 AM


In Avodah vol 4 #369 RM Berger wrote:
     
>>On a different note, would the Rambam hold that belief a god that had human 
form is shutfus? What I really want to know is, does his issur of this belief 
include only Jews? Similarly, New Age "Qabalists" who think the Eitz Chaim is 
the form of the deity or some such warping of Kabbalah.>>
     
R. Moshe Shternbuch discusses this in his Teshuvos Vehanhagos 3:317,365.  He 
says [albeit without many sources] that believing in a god with a human form is 
NOT shituf but classic avodah zarah.  I also saw the following in the Frankel 
Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 11:4) [Yeshua HaNotzri...] "garam le'abed 
Yisrael becherev ulefazer she'eirisam ulehashpilam ulehachalif haTorah ulehatos 
rov ha'olam *la'avod elo'ah mibal'adei Hashem*."  That does not sound like 
shituf to me.

Anecdote: A 30-something BT comes to a community in NJ and looks for an 
aparmtent.

He is told we have about 300 frum families in this community 
AND there is a Young Israel too!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
But my  concern deal more with respect for other 
opinions, even if you disagree with them.  I don't 
think there is enough of that going around. I have 
heard a certain RH (a strong Agudist) say that 
students of another local Yeshiva are not Bnei Torah. 
Why?  Because they are a Mizrachi oriented Yeshiva.

HM

In a message dated 2/29/00 8:57:00 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< The problem is that there is no real funding for any publishing ventures -
 hagiographical or biographical, scholarly or popular - available. The
 overwhelming majority of Jewish publishing - save for a select few funded by
 Artscroll - is of the nature of the secular "vanity press." This afflicts me
 personally, as I would love to research and write more, but can only pursue
 such endeavors as a very small sideline activity, as they do not produce any
 income, and, aderaba, require personal expenditure. >>

The problem is the concept of "Jewish publishing." There are legitimate 
secular publishing outlets (e.g., smaller university presses) that would look 
seriously at a well-prepared English-language manuscript on an important 
aspect of Jewish history, law, or biography. They'd only expect to sell a 
couple of thousand copies in the first place, mostly to libraries. If the 
manuscript is good enough, the publisher would overlook (and perhaps never 
even be aware of) the sort of mini-sectarian debate the author's views might 
trigger. Or maybe the publisher would welcome the debate, since it sells more 
books. (Professor Shapiro is likely planning a vacation to the Bahamas on the 
profits he made from book sales to members of the Avodah line.) 

Most of us can only dream of publishing a book good enough for publishing 
outlets like these. RYGB could write such a book, however, on any number of 
subjects. I'd buy a bunch and give them to my friends. I'd even send one to a 
Hollywood script writers' agent I know, who might be able to line up a fat 
movie deal. 

David Finch

This begs the question: how bound are poskim to respecting mesorah and precedent
vs. making their own original interpretations?

Is it really THAT different than switching from three matzos at the seder to two
based upon a new insight that overlooks what previous genertions acutally did?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
 My friend was told by a prominent Dayan in the States that the Dayan does not 
understand from where Rav Moshe and Rav Henkin derived such a Halacha. After 
all, he said, the Mishna in Gittin lists specific reasons why a man may divorce 
his wife. Lulei d'mistefina, I would say that IMVHO it seems to me that this 
Dayan and others who think that way misunderstood the Gemara on that Mishna (the
last sugya in Gittin), and may need to rethink their views before being cholek 
on Gdolei Oilam who were mesader gittin in Europe before the likes of R. Chaim 
Ozer and R. Elchanan HY"D and other members of the Dor Deah. V'chaval al 
d'avdan.

-- Carl

From: aviva fee <aviva613@hotmail.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:50 AM
Subject: The Siegler case - It's good for the Jews!

<< Am I the only one who thinks that the Siegler case is good for
everyone.>>

	While exposing problems with batei din may have its advantages,  it is
hard to imagine any good coming of this being plastered all over the
secular newspapers,  or batei din being regulated by the government.  Not
to mention the chillul Hashem involved.  I don't advocate ignoring the
problems,  but this is yatza secharo behefsedo.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:52:47 +0200
From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: Maarava (was Re: Facing the Truths of History)

<<There's DuParc's for one>>

	And Bet Shulamit for another?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:19:08 -0500
From: "Zuckerman, Jeffrey I." <JZuckerman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Facing the Truths of History

<<RGD writes that the RW "do not deny that RSRH had a valid
approach."  Is this unambiguously correct, or is it a (or the) RW
position
that RSRH's approach was valid only in his time, and is not valid today>>

	A, not the.

<<RCS writes that "Maarava graduates are accepted at nearly every fine
Yeshiva Kdosha in the country.">>

	My understanding is that nobody is accepted to Ponovezh if they have any
secular education. This includes bogrim,  Americans,  baalei teshuva, 
etc. So if my information is correct,  Ponevez is an anomaly in those
terms.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:42:02PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 	While exposing problems with batei din may have its advantages,  it is
: hard to imagine any good coming of this being plastered all over the
: secular newspapers,  or batei din being regulated by the government.

As I see it, the question is which is more evil: 

1- The chillul Hashem of having our dirty laundry exposed to the public plus
   the threat that batei din will be hobbled in doing their job, or
   
2- The chillul Hashem of this going on in private, thereby alienating Jews
   from O, and letting numerous batei din continue not doing their job AND
   hurting more people along the way.

Neither is "good news for the Jews". However, if we have to choose evils...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Feb-00: Shelishi, Vayakhel
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 2a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

fwiw I once gave a drosho like this....

why does Rosh Hashono have so many threes (malhuyos zichronos shofros, shevorim 
etc.) and Pesachc fours (arbo leshonos of geulo, four sons) etc.

Answer: On RH the three corresponds to avos. The mitzvos of RH are primarily in 
shul - that is the domain of avos  - eg Shofar, Mussaf, etc.

Pesach the four corresponds to imahos. the miztovs hayom - seder, matzo, marror,
arbo kossos are mostly home which is the domain of imahos.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Women as Guests 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/28/2000 8:33 PM


In a message dated 2/28/00 1:40:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, DFinchPC@aol.com 
writes:

> Why does a shul provide a man 
>  seeking such sanctuary with a "home," but a woman only with a guest room, 
>  sort of like a Jewish Motel 6? 

Everything is relative, the women is the Akeres Habayis, the Shul is 
secondary to her role in Judaisim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

As to tichra'  or sichra':  In the Torah we have authoritative sources as to 
pronunciation of words.  The rules of dikduk were made up by examining the otiot, 
nikkud, ta'amin, zakhar and nekeiva, singular and plural of the words in the Torah and 
discerning  usage. Rules of grammar were made up from the findings.  Different 
grammarians often have different rules.

Sometimes our keriah follows these rules of grammar. Very often the Torah does not 
agree with the rules.  Sometimes exceptions are the rule.

In the siddur or in any other book, there is no authoritative standard version (except 
for quotes from Tanakh).  All we have is so-called rules of grammar.  Some siddurim 
put a line above each sheva na' according to the shita of RZ"Hanau.  (Interesting that 
they use the symbol for rafeh to indicate this.)  Other siddurim state clearly that they 
do not agree with RZ"H.  In modern usage it is no longer customary to put a rafeh 
after AVY"H. So, in the siddur, when not a quote, IMHO (whatever that is worth), you 
should feel free to pick whatever shita feels right for you or is traditional in the group to 
which you belong.

Melodies in kaddish not only cause people to get shaaaaamen. The person saying 
kaddish asks the kahal to say amen by commanding them, "Imru Amen" after he 
completes each paragraph.  True, we would know to say amen even without his 
command.  But what about the hazanim who end up with a fancy ve-imeru and stop. 
They leave ignorant me wondering what they want us to say.  The Sh"A tells the kahal 
not to answer until the hazan has finished.  Didn't it forgot to tell us that he shouldn't 
finish ve-imru without telling if we are to say "Amen"  "Halleluyah", or "Drink Coca 
Cola".

 Yes, I had the flu shot. Evidently a berakha levatala. But who knows what I would 
have had without the shot. Anyway, I'm almost over it but still taking it easy at the 
computer

A number of postings questioned the rules of the bege"d kefe"t being rafa after an 
open syllable i.e., one ending in a vowel.   As an old time ba'al koreh, my hobby the 
mesorah. I don't know too much about dikduk as such, but only as it is reflected or 
discussed by ba'alei mesorah.  In dikduk, the latest developments are the most 
authoritative, with mesorah probably the older sources. So I go with the old:

Ben Asher wrote, over a thousand years ago, as per Baer-Strack edition of Dikdukei 
Hata'amim (freely paraphrased and summarized by me without the rhyme and without 
all the examples): "The letters AVY"H (at the end of a word) are followed by rafah (in 
the initial beged-kefet of the succeeding word) except for Mapik, Mafsik, and Atei 
me-rachik."  A few hundred years later a fourth mevatel termed Dechik was usually 
added. And now to the meanings of the four terms.

Mafsik:  When the previous word has a ta'am mafsik the beged-kefet following it is 
sufficiently separated from the previous to cancel the rafeh rule after AVY"H.

Mapik:  When the letters VY"H are pronounced as consonants, the rafeh is cancelled. 
In other words, the first word no longer ends with an open syllable and no reason to 
follow with a rafeh.  This rule doesn't apply to Alef but only to the other three letters.

 The consonantal V is pronounced as v (or w) and not as u.

The consonantal H actually has a physical mapik (dot) in it and the hei is pronounced, 
and at the end of the word. The patach vowel under it is always pronounced before 
the  hei. (More on this, upon request, if someone is interested and if I have the time to 
spend at it).

 The Y is considered a consonant when it changes the sound of the last vowel such 
as o becoming oi in goy or shem Adonus, ah to ai in alai or shem Adanut, ui as in 
ratzui or galui.  It does not apply with tzeireh and chirik. There the yud is an em 
ha-keria that might lengthen the vowel but the syllable is still considered open. 

I can't resist putting in the following "aside": 
Proof of above:  The Torah says benei Vinyamin, not Binyamin, bnei Gad (without 
dagesh) etc.,etc.,(when the first word doesn't have a ta'am mafsik).  So how does one 
explain the new custom, mikarov ba, of separating non-existent deveikim?  In tefila 
one hears those who think they are being medakdek carefully enunciate, "Eloheiyy 
Yitzhak vEiloheiyy Ya'akov".  In kri'at HaTorah we hear "beneiyy Yisrael".   To 
mekayem the mitzva of "lehafrid bein hadeveikim", is it proper to first  insert a 
non-existent consonant that we can then separate from an already existing similar 
one?

Back to the subject:
Dechik and atei mei-rachik: These two are similar. To me they are weirdies and I can 
never remember all the details. To make it worse, sometimes the two terms are 
switched by modern grammarians.  Basically and very much oversimplified:  When 
there is a single vowel or syllable between the accent on the first word and the 
following connected second word, said second word being a short word or one with 
accent on first syllable and also with initial beged-kefet, that intermediate syllable is 
considered to be squeezed, dachuk, and, to save it from the metzuka, the rafeh rule is 
cancelled. (got it all in one sentence!)  When there are two vowels caught in the 
middle and the right details (see below), it is called atei mei-rahik. What I called 
dechik, some modern grammarians call  atei meirachik. Further, one of these two 
terms can apply when the initial letter is not not beged-kefet and the dagesh it 
causes to be put in is a dagesh chazak, e.g., yih'yeh-lo (dagesh in lamed)

 Some of the details that determine when the rule works:.  When there is a makaf 
joining the words,and when there isn't. When it applies only when the first word ends 
in a kamatz and not other vowels, when second word starts with bet-bet, kaf-kaf, 
bet-mem, bet pei, first word is mah, etc., etc. 

 The result of this whole mess is expressions in the Torah like ve-a'ida Bam (not 
Vam) va-'avadekha Ba'u, yih'yeh Bo, and all the similar expressions where Minchat 
Sha"i, R' Shlomo Dubno, or R' Shlomo Netter comment, "mi-din dachik" or "atei 
mei-rachik" or sometimes, "neged din dachik".

Is it all clear, or did I succeed only in making it more confusing?

u-mei-inyan le-inyan b'oto inyan:

R'M Poppers asked about degeishim that appear in Heidenheim-Roedelheim but not 
in Koren, or Breuer. These differences are not connected with the above story.  
Heidenheim followed the 'Ein Hakoreh of YeHaV"I (R' Yekutiel Hakohen ben Yehuda of 
Prague, 13th goyishe century) who is known for over-dageshing and over-meteging. 
Heidenheim states numerous times in his comments on 'Ein Hakoreh that he prefers 
the kevi'a of YeHV"I on a word over all the other opinions  He put degeishim after a 
sheva nach in words like ne'lam, va-ye'sor (et rikhbo but not oto l'eineihem). ye'sham 
to point out that the words are not ne'elam, ye'esor, ye'esham with sheva na'.  Koren, 
who generally follows Heidenheim, did not in this point (tartei mashma') and  well as a 
few others. Breuer follows the majority rule and not Heidenheim. Menahem Cohen's 
new Tanakh al pi haKeter also does not have the extra degeishim and has even less 
metagim than Dubno or Breuer.

D.


 

 .

If he were only letaiavon he would not be a real sociopath.

For the sake of illustration, just assume that he was a real all-around 
low-life.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Frum Sociopaths 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/25/2000 9:58 AM


RWalpoe wrote (V4#393)
"Irmember that drug dealer who would not trim a beard?  For 
those of you who thought his frumkeit re: the beard was sincere, 
I would suggest that this is the kind of "con" a sociopath uses to 
take in the naive and the unsuspecting. IOW it's frumkeit for show. 
and in the back alleys this same guy is dealing drugs."

I would think that this behavior is l'tei'avon (money).

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

Indeed I heard Beshim R. Schwab that v'imru amen: is an imperative a tzivuy from
the Shatz to the the kehal to say amen.
And therefore to jump in with amen after v'imru is premature

I am guessing that a limud zchus might be based upon that old time structure of 
the interactive co-operative responsive model that the chazan sets up the kahal,
and the kahal finishes the phrase.  This perhaps is not so much  a justifiction,
rather an explanation of how a quite valid process might have been taken too 
far.

If we are makpid on this,then it would behoove the Shatz to musically leave his 
amen suspended so that the k'hal will complete the musical phrase and not repeat
it.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: kaddish and diyyukim 
<snip>

Melodies in kaddish not only cause people to get shaaaaamen. The person saying 
kaddish asks the kahal to say amen by commanding them, "Imru Amen" after he 
completes each paragraph.  True, we would know to say amen even without his 
command.  But what about the hazanim who end up with a fancy ve-imeru and stop. 
They leave ignorant me wondering what they want us to say.  The Sh"A tells the k
ahal 
not to answer until the hazan has finished.  Didn't it forgot to tell us that 
heshouldn't 
finish ve-imru without telling if we are to say "Amen"  "Halleluyah", or "Drink 
Coca 
Cola".

I believe Birnbaum  concurs that: 
1) we are MODEH - erev vovoker vetzohoraim and
2) the nisecho are bechol eis.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: re: diyukkim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/25/2000 4:27 PM


Here's one more diyuk that I recently saw (from R' SZ Auerbach):  Near the 
end of Modim in Shemona Esrai, we say "V''al nifl'oesecha v'tovosecha 
shebechol ais erev v'voker v'tzahariyim ha'tov...."  According to Artscroll, 
there is a period/pause after "v'tzahariyim."

According to R' SZA, the phrase "erev v'voker v'tzahariyim" relates back to 
"Nodeh l'cha, oo'nasaper t'hilasecha..." and does not relate to "shebechol 
ais"     

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is the "right" way 
<g>....all I am doing is pointing out what RSZA held.


Kol tuv and Gut Shabbos,
Aryeh

q: If there is no minyan present we do not say Kaddish. But is there an
issur to do so?

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 2/29/00 6:01:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> q: If there is no minyan present we do not say Kaddish. But is there an
>  issur to do so?
>  

See O"C 55.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

We all agree this is a very bidieved situation, and certainly, it would have 
been better if things could have been handled out side of the framework of 
the NY Times, et al.  But given that we have collectively shot ourselves in 
the foot, this is the logical outcome.

/af



>From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
>To: avodah@aishdas.org
>CC: aviva613@hotmail.com
>Subject: The Siegler case - It's good for the Jews!
>Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:42:02 -0500
>
>From: aviva fee <aviva613@hotmail.com>
>To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
>Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:50 AM
>Subject: The Siegler case - It's good for the Jews!
>
><< Am I the only one who thinks that the Siegler case is good for
>everyone.>>
>
>	While exposing problems with batei din may have its advantages,  it is
>hard to imagine any good coming of this being plastered all over the
>secular newspapers,  or batei din being regulated by the government.  Not
>to mention the chillul Hashem involved.  I don't advocate ignoring the
>problems,  but this is yatza secharo behefsedo.
>
>Gershon
>gershon.dubin@juno.com

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

> We all agree this is a very bidieved situation, and certainly, it would 
have 
>  been better if things could have been handled out side of the framework of 
>  the NY Times, et al.  But given that we have collectively shot ourselves 
in 
>  the foot, this is the logical outcome.
>  
The Chasam Sofer says that even though that Amoleik only had power over those 
that the cloud ejected nonetheless this became Milchama L'Hashem MIdor Doi, 
Ain Shmee Sholeim Vein Kisee Sholeim, as even those that Onon Poleit that is 
all between one Jew and another but that a Goy should touch a Jew ?!!!

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On 29 Feb 00, at 15:49, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> 	My understanding is that nobody is accepted to Ponovezh if they have any
> secular education. This includes bogrim,  Americans,  baalei teshuva, 
> etc. So if my information is correct,  Ponevez is an anomaly in those
> terms.

That is the general rule. But to every rule there is an exception. 
There was a boy four and a half years ago who was accepted to 
Ponevezh despite the fact that he had gone to Shalavim for high 
school. Unfortunately, he was killed in a terrorist attack outside of 
Kiryat Arba (where his family lived) a few days after he was 
accepted. HY"D. The levaya even started from Ponevezh....

-- 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

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


[ 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         ]