Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 067

Thursday, January 1 2004

• Janthina as the chilazon--new data
• Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• ama ivria-shutafus
• Re: Janthina as the chilazon--new data
• Shape of the Menorah
• Re: Avodah V12 #66
• RE: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• Re: Shape of the Menorah
• Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• Rosh Chodesh Channukah
• Chanuka lighting
• FW: FW: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• RE: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• Re: Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• Snakes Alive !
• Finding one's purpose
• Re: Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• Re: ama ivria-shutafus
• Re: ama ivria-shutafus
• Re: ama ivria-shutafus
• Ramban and geography
• Pronouncing Hei (and other letters)

The P'til Tekhelet organization believes that the chilazon is the Murex.
In contrast, Rav Herzog favored identifying chilazon with Janthina
(because its description fulfills more of the criteria found in the
gemara). However, the problem with Janthina was that it failed to yield
a fast color.

 From a recently published article by Levi Kitrossky: reprinted at
<http://www.tekhelet.com/kitrossky/tekhelet.htm>:
> Last year (2002), the Janthina theory suddenly received a boost: Dr. S.
> W. Kaplan, a biologist from Rehovot, claimed that he had managed to
> dye wool in a fast beautiful blue color by boiling wool and the dye in
> water together with a mordant. Dr. Kaplan called the color Royal Blue,
> because of its beauty.

Dr. Kaplan has a website:
<http://www.realtekhelet.com/realtekhelet_book>. In particular, I
recommend his article (click on Contents and then choose either the
Hebrew or English version) and the he'arot u'tguvot from three different
Murex-supporting rabbanim.

Does anyone have more information about Dr. Kaplan's discovery or know
of what the scientific/rabbinic community thinks of it?

Do any of you who are Murex supporters have second thoughts?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:
>>animal's suffering means absolutely nothing to him.  But when a person
>>does something for an articulable reason, and which incidentally causes
>>an animal to suffer, he is not exercising or encouraging a bad middah,
>>and there is no reason to prevent him from doing it.

> Isn't overburdening an animal assur? Even though you get benefit from it?

Is it?  Where do you find such an issur?

>>In other words, I claim that when stripping the feathers from a live
>>bird, or stuffing a goose, or cutting the head off a bird to make a
>>child's toy (not on shabbos), the pain is a davar she'eno mitkaven,
>>and in Tzaar Baalei Chayim a davar she'eno mitkaven is mutar, even if
>>it is (literally) psik resha.

> To avoid an issur of Baal Tashchis, there has to be a *legitimate*
> valid use in mind, not just a whim.

Where do you find such a distinction?  If *at this moment* the value
you get from using up the resource is greater than the value of the
resource itself, it's not bal tashchis.

> I suspect the same applies here. The question then centers around what
> are acceptable valid uses.

> (I also don't think any posek today would allow cutting the head off
> a chicken just to make a child's toy. They might not assur it, because
> "the gemara allows it", but they wouldn't tell you it's "ok" to do.)

If it's not assur then it's muttar.  As the Rema explicitly says,
it's muttar to strip the feathers off a live bird, if he has no
other feathers, even though it's so cruel that nobody would
actually do such a thing.  He doesn't say anything about how much
you have to need the feathers before it becomes muttar.  AIUI, he's
saying that as far as the din is concerned it's perfectly OK, but
people refrain because of a hergesh of middat rachmanut - yisrael
are rachmanim, bayshanim, gomlei chasadim, and naturally recoil
from doing something like this, *even though* it's completely muttar.

-- 
Zev Sero                    "I will do whatever the Americans want,
zsero@free-market.net       because I saw what happened in Iraq, and
                             I was afraid."
                                                - Muammar Gadaffi

Can an ama ivria be sold to shutafim or, because of the lack of
opportunity of yi'ud, not? Proofs would be useful.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:28:29PM +0200, Moshe Feldman wrote:
: The P'til Tekhelet organization believes that the chilazon is the Murex.
: In contrast, Rav Herzog favored identifying chilazon with Janthina
: (because its description fulfills more of the criteria found in the
: gemara)...

R' Herzog's objections to the murex were:
1- The dye is more purple than blue,
2- The murex's shell is white, and didn't fit "domeh layam".

If you look at www.realtekhelet.com, you'll notice that janthina's fit
is no less dochaq. E.g. relying on airbubbles that it uses to float to
fit the "gufo domeh ledagim", by looking similar to scales. We really
don't have any candidate that fits the description unequivically.

However, he concluded that the chilazon must be the murex because both
techeiles and non-Jewish royalty used the same source for their dyes
(Shabbos 26a and Rashi sham). And since royalty is associated bedavka
with royal purple, whose source is known (porphyra = murex), it would
be the likely candidate based on non-chazal data. That's the Aruch's
conclusion, FWIW. Purphyra also appears in the Targum of Eichah 2:17,
and it's assumed to refer to HQBH's figurative tallis. See MB 555:1,
who gives this as a maqor for not having worn (lashon avar intentional)
a tallis before chatzos on 9 beAv.

Then there's the kaleh ilan (indigo) connection.

...
: Do any of you who are Murex supporters have second thoughts?

Last, the Tif'eres Yisrael doesn't require that techeiles come from
chilazon. Any colorfast sky-blue dye (which R' Herzog does not believe
would include the Radziner dye, it's too dark) is kosher. Just that
chazal only knew of one such dye.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> As for the Chanukiah... The Makabiim made a menorah from 7 wooden spears
> (RH 24a). We're not commemorating the ideal menorah anyway.

R' Daniel Sperber, in the Chanukah volume of Minhagei Ysrael, has an
article arguing that the shipudim were not wooden spears, but short-swords
of a style that was just going out of fashion among the Greek armies.  
The hilt of the sword had a cup that would double as an oil lamp when
bivouacked - stick the sword in the ground, or in a piece of wood, and
light a wick in the cup-hilt.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

In Chumash, there is Gen. 23:16 that seems to refer to standardized
currency.

Isn't there also a midrash that states that Terakh invented coin
money (i.e. ca. 2,000 BCE). This claim would be partially supported by
Herodotus, who attributes the first coinage of money to the same place
(Lydia, in today's Turkey) but to a later era, ca. 700 BCE. Also, the
name "Terakh" has been found inscribed on cuneform tablets unearthed in
the area.
___________
Daas Books
PO Box 61166
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-566-9000
www.daasbooks.com

>> Isn't overburdening an animal assur? Even though you get
>> benefit from it?

> Is it?  Where do you find such an issur?

Shmot -- the case of your enemy's beast of burden. Many authorities
learn this as the source of TzarBalalei Chayim -- and that it is a
d'Ohrisa prohibition.

(IOW -- You have a Torah obligation to relieve your enemy's beast --
even on Shabbat.)

And if you have an obligation to relieve your *enemy's* animal (where your
enemy certainly has a need to burden his animal, and gains from it), don't
you think your obligation towards your *own* animal is at least as great?

Akiva

<<Does she need to make sure her husband is mochel every time she asks
him to take out the garbage? Can she get one blanket mechillah when she
gets married? Can she presume that marriage implies mechillah (taking
out the garbage being standard husbandly practice...>>

Why do you presume that the garbage is Mrs Cohen's? Isn't it his
garbage? (ma she'kono isha, kono baalo)

Akiva B.

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>> As for the Chanukiah... The Makabiim made a menorah from 7 wooden
>> spears (RH 24a). We're not commemorating the ideal menorah anyway.

> R' Daniel Sperber..., has an article arguing that the shipudim were ...
> short-swords of a style that was just going out of fashion among the
> Greek armies.   The hilt of the sword had a cup that would double as
> an oil lamp when bivouacked...

That makes MUCH more sense from a logistical point of view.

But from a halachic one, it doesn't work. See Menachos 28b, the
machlokes about whether the Chashmona'i menorah was made of wood (thereby
invalidating the mi'ut veribui umi'ut which would require ke'ein zahav
-- ie metal) or the shafts were iron plated with tin, later upgraded to
silver and eventually (when the funds where there) gold.

This gemara has the dimensions of the menorah. So, I can get back to my
question about why saying the menorah had straight 45deg slanted arms
or quarter-circle arms would mean the inner three lights (inner two arms
and middle pole) were further apart than the other lights.

Either of these designs would put the distance between the neiros to be
the same as the distance between where each pair of arms leaves the middle
pole. (In the straight arm case, the arms, middle pole, and level of the
neiros make an equalateral right triangle. In the quarter-circle case,
the middle pole and the level of the neiros are radii of the same circle.)

According to Shemu'el, the arms came out of 1 tefach wide kaftorim. It
could have been anywhere from the top of the kaftor to the bottom,
with the middle being most intuitive but not muchrach. Then of course,
the arms themselves had thickness. Translating his distances from the
floor to distances from the top, we get: First pair: 5.5 tefachim (ie
anywhere from 5 to 6, vechein lehalan) Second pair: 7.5 tefachim Third
pair: 9.5 tefachim

Even with the innermost pair leaving from the top of the kaftorim,
it would be 5 tefachim away from the top -- and therefore their neiros
would be 5 tefachim from the middle. If even, the next pair would have
to be 10 tefachim from the middle, ie departing 10 tefachim from the top,
well out of range.

According to Rav, there were 10 tefachim from where the outermost arms
departed the center to the top. He might be in agreement with Shemuel,
and assumes the bottom/outside surface of the arm matched the bottom of
the kaftor. Or, if not, Rav might have had the arms evenly spaced.

Thus I finally understand RSM's conclusion. It doesn't fit Shemu'el,
and probably not Rav either.

Does this mean that a different curve was used, or that there was a
quarter circle followed by some straight length?

I ask because the Encylopedia LaMishkan veMiqdash gives a ta'am hamitzvah
to the round arms (amongst others), likening them to astronomical
orbits. The orbits are actually oval.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905      It is two who look in the same direction.

In a message dated 12/30/2003 2:00:56 PM EST, akiva@atwood.co.il writes:
> Shmot -- the case of your enemy's beast of burden. Many authorities
> learn this as the source of TzarBalalei Chayim -- and that it is a
> d'Ohrisa prohibition.

What if you found an ownerless animal wandering around with a heavy burden
(for arguement sake let's say it was something that landed on him)? If
the requirement of prika is based on teaching you a lesson of aiding
even your enemy, then it wouldn't apply. (or put differently-is there
a chiyuv on me to act if I see an ownerless non threatening animal with
a pin stuck in it's paw) Perhaps this chiluk is why not all learn tzar
baalei chaim from here.

KT
Joel

Does anyone know a source for only taking out one Sefer Torah on a
weekday Rosh Chodesh Channukah? I frequently daven in a minyan where
nearly every year this is heatedly discussed. A number of people insist
that it's "tircha d'tziburo" to use two Sifray Torah, although on other
occasions where one is required to lein from two seforim they do. This
goes against the Gemorah Megilah 29b and Shulchan Oruch, nor have I
seen this anywhere else. (I've checked). I vehemently protest when this
happens and as a result sometimes they use one S"T and sometimes two. Is
there any source for this, in a rishon or acharon or minhag? The minyan's
official minhag is Belz, and the founders were from Hungary.

Pinchas M. Berlowitz

RGS:
>There is a machlokes among the poskim whether you can be yotzei from
>someone lighting at your house if you are in another city or country. R'
>Hershel Schachter (BeIkvei HaTzon ch. 20) and the Minchas Yitzchak (vol. 7
>no. 46) suggest that one cannot be yotzei while others are more lenient.
>Thus, if you are up in the sky while your wife is lighting Chanukah
>candles it is questionable whether you are yotzei from her lighting.

Not quite m'dukdak...

I don't have access to RHS' sfarim, but the Minchas Yitzchok is only
concerned if the one being yotzei is not yet at the correct day of Chanuka
as home.  But it is pashut that one CAN have the wife light for him while he
is in the air, etc.

Shlomo Goldstein

INTRO: I forwarded the discussion to R' David Sears, a friend who just
published "The Vision of Eden: Animal welfare and vegetarianism in
Jewish Law and Mysticism" (an excellent overview of the subject, BTW --
he presents all the issues and discusses both sides' positions).

His reply follows:

>>>animal's suffering means absolutely nothing to him. But when a person
>>>does something for an articulable reason, and which incidentally causes
>>>an animal to suffer, he is not exercising or encouraging a bad middah,
>>>and there is no reason to prevent him from doing it.

"No reason?" So why do Chazal allow one to be mevatel a kli on Shabbos
to rescue an animal in distress? Or to milk a cow on Shabbos to relieve
her distress? Just to teach "middos tovos?"

And we have numerous examples of "maaseh rav" where Gedolei Yisrael
intervened to save animals in distress lifnim mishuras ha-din --
indicating that although there may not be a chiyuv to do so, it is
nevertheless a mitzvah if one so chooses. See Rav Yitzchak Eliyahu
Stern's Nefesh Kol Chai, 1:6, note 19; and my Vision of Eden pp. 64
(note 7), 214-222.

>> Isn't overburdening an animal assur? Even though you get benefit from
>> it?

> Is it? Where do you find such an issur?

Sefer Chassidim 666. I'm sure there are other mekoros, too, but I don't
have time to look them up.

>>>In other words, I claim that when stripping the feathers from a live
>>>bird, or stuffing a goose, or cutting the head off a bird to make a
>>>child's toy (not on shabbos), the pain is a davar she'eno mitkaven,
>>>and in Tzaar Baalei Chayim a davar she'eno mitkaven is mutar, even if
>>>it is (literally) psik resha.

Yes, according to the Pri Megadim. However, the Beis Dovid kriegs on
the klal of davar she'eno miskhaven b'tzaar baalei chaim, as does the
Butchatcher Rov in Da'as Kedoshim.

Even according those who agree with the Pri Megadim, etc., this does not
mean that the chumrah of the Ramoh means nothing. In fact, the Ramoh's
language is very strong!

>> To avoid an issur of Baal Tashchis, there has to be a *legitimate*
>> valid use in mind, not just a whim.

> Where do you find such a distinction?

See VOE, p. 69, note 27. Rav Kook states this explicitly in his Chazon
Ha-Tzimchonut Vi-ha-shalom, 1. Again, there are other mekoros, but I am
extremely limited for time and can't look them up. Sorry.

> If *at this moment* the value
> you get from using up the resource is greater than the value of the
> resource itself, it's not bal tashchis.

Poskim are less subjective about this. E.g. Rav Chaim HaLevy of Haifa's
teshuvah re. tzorech chiyuni and killing animals for their furs by
painful means. See VOE, p. 88.

>> I suspect the same applies here. The question then centers around what
>> are acceptable valid uses.

>> (I also don't think any posek today would allow cutting the head off
>> a chicken just to make a child's toy. They might not assur it, because
>> "the gemara allows it", but they wouldn't tell you it's "ok" to do.)

> If it's not assur then it's muttar. As the Rema explicitly says,
> it's muttar to strip the feathers off a live bird, if he has no
> other feathers, even though it's so cruel that nobody would
> actually do such a thing. He doesn't say anything about how much
> you have to need the feathers before it becomes muttar. AIUI, he's
> saying that as far as the din is concerned it's perfectly OK, but
> people refrain because of a hergesh of middat rachmanut - yisrael
> are rachmanim, bayshanim, gomlei chasadim, and naturally recoil
> from doing something like this, *even though* it's completely muttar.

He is telling us something more -- that we should behave in a manner of
lifnim mishuras hadin re. tz'b'ch because animals are sentient creatures
(as the Rambam states in context of shechitah as a humane form of
slaughter; also cf. the Ramak in Tomer Devorah). This klal is invoked
by various meforshim on the Gemorah that tells of Rebbi's onesh biyedai
Shomayim after speaking uncompassionately to the calf (Bava Metzia 85a);
see VOE, pp. 92-93, et passim.

Hope this is of some help. If you need more specific mekoros, please
let me know and I will try to do some more research when I have a chance.

Best regards
DS

[#mail #2. -mi]

PS: I just received this quote from a friend, unrelated to your email!

The purpose of the mitzvah [of bal tashchis] is to teach us to love that
which is good and worthwhile and to cling to it, so that good becomes
a part of us, and we avoid all that is evil and destructive. This is
the way of the righteous and those who improve society, who love peace
and rejoice in the good in people, and bring them closer to Torah:
that nothing, not even a grain of mustard, should be lost to the world,
that they should regret any loss or destruction that they see, and if
possible prevent any destruction that they can. Not so are the wicked,
who are like demons that rejoice in the destruction of the world, and
they thus destroy themselves. (Sefer Ha-Chinuch, Mitzvah 529)

>>> Anything that is for an actual purpose, rather than for the sake of 
>>> torturing the animal, or pure laziness, is not included in the issur

>>> of Tzaar Baalei Chayim.

>> Isn't overburdening an animal assur? Even though you get
>> benefit from it?

> Is it?  Where do you find such an issur?

I recall learning that it's assur to put 2 oxen on the same yoke if they
have different strengths. And isn't it assur to muzzle an animal when
it's working? Aren't these restrictions to prevent us from causing ANY
tza'ar to animals, despite the fact that it's for "an actual purpose"
(to use the terminology from above)?

Avi Burstein

On 30 Dec 2003 at 14:37, Akiva Blum wrote:
>> Does she need to make sure her husband is mochel every time she asks
>> him to take out the garbage? ...

> Why do you presume that the garbage is Mrs Cohen's? Isn't it his
> garbage? (ma she'kono isha, kono baalo)

Ain hachi nami. But if it bothers her but doesn't bother him, you 
would have the same problem. 

 - Carl

The London Times Newspaper (30 Dec 2003) includes a report and photograph
of a giant python captured and now in an Indonesian zoo. It is said to
measure 49ft in length and weigh 985 lbs (447kg) and is 50% larger than
any previously known snake.

The Gemoro ( Nedorim 25 and Shevuos 59) discusses the possibilty of a
snake being (as big/ probably as thick) as Koros Beis Habad, the main
beams of an olive or wine press. The sugya goes on to talk about snakes
which are "Toruf" or not. Rashi translates this word meaning either
spotty or patchy.

I have never understood this Gemoro properly. Are any of our readers
herpetoligists and can explain it. I can't envisage a wine press with
pillars as thick as this specimin.

ER

I wrote to Areivim:
> The centrality of purpose is a major theme in "7 Habits of Highly
> Successful People"....

I should have added a particular pe'ulah Covey recommends trying. The
Passaic va'ad tried it with much success.

Picture your own levayah. Not to be morbid about it, but to focus in
particular on the hespeidim. Imagine the room while people are
speaking, what they choose to say, what various people react to.

What is it you want to accomplish in life? Yes, every Jew takes part
in the "mission statement" of our people, but what nequdos do you
consider central to your own avodah? This excercise (part of Habit #2,
"begin with the end in mind" for those who own the book) certainly
helps you identify those things.

Now, put them in your day planner. These goals ought to be reflect in
daily activity. Otherwise, r"l, life can become something that happens
while you're out taking care of something else.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905

From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> "assur l'hishtamesh b'kohen ... im lo machal al kach" (OH 128:45)

> The Biur Halacha cites an opinion that fellow kohanim are permitted,
> so that at family gatherings they can ask each other to pass the salt
> without varifying mechillah in advance.

> I'm curious, however, about Mrs. Cohen....

Halakhically this is not an issue. In the k'subba he has specifically
written "va'ana 'eflah v'oqir v'ezun va'afarnes yatikhi ... k'hilkhot
guvrin y'udain..." "I shall serve, honor, support and sustain you
as Jewish men do" [to their wives.] This is more than a m'hila on his
kovod; this is a contractual obligation that requires him to do for his
wife as Jewish men do for their wives. Thus the rules that apply are
the rules that apply to all Jewish couples, where the wife is obliged
to honor her husband and the husband is obliged to respect his wife
(as is specified in the G'moro and in the rishonim and paskened by the
Rambam in Hil. Ishut Chap. 15). If the wife wanted the husband to do
something really demeaning that is not in accordance with the rules of
Jewish marriage, then the problem of using either a kohen or a talmid
chochom would then come back into effect.

Seth Mandel

In a message dated 12/29/03 10:09:14 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Can an ama ivria be sold to shutafim or, because of the lack of
> opportunity of yi'ud, not? Proofs would be useful.

See Tzafnas Paneiach on the Possuk in Mishpotim.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:07:59 EST Yzkd@aol.com writes:
> See Tzafnas Paneiach on the Possuk in Mishpotim.

Can you help me out, don't know if I can put my hands on one very easily.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 12/31/2003 8:04:32 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Can you help me out, don't know if I can put my hands on one very easily.

Here it is. See especially note #10
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/tpMishpatim.jpg>

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

The Ramban on Bereshit 35:16 discusses the location of kever Rachel.
After presented several explanations he states that now that he is in
Israel he saw that it is very close to Bethlehem.

He then discusses why Rachel was not buried in the town and states that
Yaakov wanted to bury her in what would be the section of the tribe of
Benjamin and that the kever is on the way to Bet El in Binyamin.

I am completely confused. According to the Gemara the border between
Binyamin and Tehudah is Jerusalem with most of the Bet Hamikdash being
in Binyamin. I assume that means that north of Jerusalem is Binyamin
and south is Yehuda. Hence, Kever Rachel near Bethlehem is still in
Yehuda. Furthermore, Bet El is north of Jerusalem (and in Binyamin) and so
I did not understand what the Ramban meant by the kever being near Bet El.

Since, this is all based on his personal observations it can not be
attributed to mistakes about where these locations are.

Any help is appreciated.

BTW others have asked the question that in Vayechi Ramban seems to accept
the position of where Kever Rachel is that uses the shitot he rejected
in 35:16.

kol tuv,
p.s. I know the articles about the southern and northern possibilities
and this issue is not discussed there

-- Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 01/01/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

    A number of list members have written in Areivim Digest 12:189
concerning aspects of my 12/28 posting (and corrections).  Please pardon my
delay in responding as well as the length of this response.  The following
is based on my own readings and the usual caveats apply, including, of
course, the warning to consult YLOR.

    (1) R. Jonathan Baker brought up
> dhe issue of pronouncing the daleth - which dhe MB points
> out in OH 61 sk 18 should be pronounced twice as long as dhe hheth.

    He asks:
> Do R' Steinwurzel and R' Blumenkrantz say anything on dhat point?
> ****  So it sounds like it
> should be E-hh-hh-hh-a-dh-dh-dh-dh-dh-dh.  Which depends on pronouncing
> dhe daleth as "dh" or our soft "th" sound, as the Yemenites do.

    The column by Rav Blumenkrantz concerning the proper Kavanos and
pronunciation of the Ches in Echad from which I quoted a part did not deal
with the Daled/daleth (or is it dhaledh/thaleth?!).  It would be to our
advantage if someone in his community brought the issue to his attention so
that he could enlighten us as to his views on its pronunciation in Echad.
    It should be noted, though, that the column appears to have dealt with
the pronunciation of the Ashkenazi Ches for, in analyzing the pronunciation
of letters, Rav Blumenkrantz wrote, in part:
    "The pronunciation of every letter of the Aleph Bais is accomplished by
including two components.  The sound of the letter itself cannot be
pronounced.  Put your lips together and try to make the sound of the bais,
without adding any additional sounds to it.  Nothing comes out.  Now, add
the second part, which is the Aleph.  The Bais can now be heard as Ba.  You
could add a Segol to the Aleph and get the sound Be.  ****  The second
component, the aleph, helps you pronounce the letter.  If you wanted to draw
out the sound of the Bais, one would assume that he would say Baaaa.
However, it is not the Bais that is being sustained, but rather the Aleph.
The consonant sound cannot be drawn out."

    IMHO the discussion of pronunciation of consonants would have been
different if the Sephardic pronunciation of the Ches were being considered,
and the ability of both Ashkenazim and Sephardim to draw out the Hei was
noted.
    On the other hand, Rav Steinwurzel's comment concerned the recognized
ability to pronounce and draw out the guttural Ches in its Sephardic
pronunciation.  I have no recollection of Rav Steinwurzel discussing the
Daled and, as he died over a decade ago, a loss still keenly felt, it is
impossible to ask for his guidance on that subject.
    As to the MB in OH 61(18), he is quoting the Magen Avraham who cites the
Migdal Oz on this point.  The MB ends by saying that others, including the
Gr"a, hold that the Ches should not be drawn out but that all of the Kavanos
should be concentrated on the Daled [my rendition].  Rav Aviel Orenstein's
translation has: "... should have all this in mind when he pronounces the
letter [Daled]."  In 61(21) the MB writes that one should not overly stress
the Daled to make it appear that it is punctuated with a Sh'va or a Tzerei
but should enunciate it with a "Peh Yafeh", which R. Orenstein translates,
"that one should enunciate it distinctly with his mouth."  See Ba'er Heiteiv
61(8), citing Bach, Magen Avraham, and Pri Chadash.

     (2) R. E.M. Teitz raises two issues.  The first is:
> why can one not
> equally sustain the Ashkenazic pronunciation of the Ches (i.e., as a
> chof)?  The "ch" sound can certainly be sustained indefinitely.

    As noted in my original posting, the Ches and the Chof were not
pronounced the same and are not pronounced the same by many Jews.  I
question whether the "ch" sound of the Chof can be sustained indefinitely,
which was the point made by both Rav Blumenkrantz and Rav Steinwurzel.  If
the Chof is pronounced as a Chof, then trying to extend it results in the
extension of the vowel, not the Chof.  IMHO, if one believes that he or she
is successfully pronouncing an extended Ashkenazi Chof with a vowel, he or
she is actually pronouncing a Sephardic Ches or something close to it.  (At
this point all who may still be reading this essay should clear their
throats and experiment with pronunciations of Chof, Ches, and Hei with a
Kamatz and other vowels, and arrive at their own conclusions.)
    Furthermore, as noted in 12 Encyclopedia Talmudit at 451, which
discusses the pronunciation of the Ches and its similarity to the Hei, the
Ches should not be pronounced as the Chof, referencing Sefer Yosif Ometz 21,
"which brings a number of proofs that the pronunciation of the Ches and the
Chof are not the same" [my translation].  (Rav Hamburger's Gedolei haDoros
al Mishmar Minhag Ashkenaz, p. 68, cites the statement of the Yosif Ometz of
Frankfurt (22) that the Ashkenazim of Germany of his day (1570-1637) had
properly maintained the pronunciation of the Ches while the Jews of Poland
had not.)  See also 5 ET at 37 and 6 ET at 509 for brief discussions of the
pronunciation of the Gimmel and the Daled, respectively, including with
regard to Kriyas Shema.  Both articles note that in our day most Jews ["rov
Yisrael"] do not distinguish between the strong and weak versions of these
letters, citing the Magen Avos of the RaShBeTz 53 and 54 (which I have not
seen).  A note discusses the Yemenite pronunciation of the strong Gimmel.
    It should be noted that the Chachamim took these pronunciation issues
seriously.  While the Bavli (Megillah 24b) states that men of Beis Shean,
Haifa, and Tivonin were excluded from leading the prayers due to their
pronouncing Aleph as Ayin and Ayin as Aleph, the Yerushalmi (Megillah 2:4)
states that the exclusion also resulted from their pronouncing Hei as Ches
and Ches as Hei.  No mention is made, though, about confusing the Chof with
the Ches.  Many have also heard that Rav Nosson Adler, the Chasam Sofer, and
other Ashkenazi Gedolim consulted with Sephardim to learn the pronunciation
of letters in order to properly pronounce them when saying Kriyas Shema.

     Rav Teitz's second issue is:
>         I'm also troubled by the parenthetic phrase "is not yotzei."
>  The din is that one should extend the ches; is there any opinion that it
>  is m'akeiv?  If so, then we're all in trouble, since the same halachah
>  says to extend the dalet of echad, and except for the Teimanim,
>  who pronounce the dalet r'fuyah as the th in "this," we all say a d
>  sound, which is totally incapable of extension.

>         It should also be noted that the Gr"a is of the opinion that the
>  ches should not be extended at all, only the dalet.

R. Micha Berger wrote in response that there are those who "say
'Echadh-dh-dh'", which I assume is the Yemenite pronunciation and in
accordance with the stricture to not make it appear that the Daled is
punctuated with a Sh'va or a Tzerei.

The bottom line seems to be that one is Yotzei Kriyas Shema despite not
pronouncing the letters in the preferred manner that we have discussed,
as well as in other respects. See OH 62(1), and, among others, the Aishel
Avraham, MB, and Aruch HaShulchan thereon.

My memory of the long-ago shiur by Rav Steinwurzel ztz"l includes the
use of the words "is not yotzei". (Of course, I hope that my memory
has not failed!) The shiur may have been in connection with the
Gemara in Berachos 13-15 (although it could have been connected with
Megillah 17a-b). In Berachos the issue of being Yotzei Lechatchilah
or Bedi'eved is discussed and the result appears to be enshrined in
OH 62(1). My understanding of Rav Steinwurzel's statement was that if
one believed that he or she was accomplishing the pronunciation of the
Ches in Echad in the preferred manner when pronouncing an Ashkenazi Ches,
one was mistaken. This did not mean that one was not Yotzei Kriyas Shema,
an entirely different matter, as shown by the Gemara and OH 62(1).

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


[ 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         ]