Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 068

Thursday, January 1 2004

• RYBS
• Re: RYBS
• Re: RYBS
• Re: RYBS
• Re: RYBS
• Re: RYBS
• "merely as an aid"
• Re: "merely as an aid"
• Re: "merely as an aid"
• Re: "merely as an aid"
• Re: Re: "merely as an aid"
• Re: Re: 'merely as an aid'
• Re: Merely as an aid
• RE: Re: Merely as an aid
• Re: merely as an aid
• Re: Merely as an aid
• some historical thoughts re Channukah
• Re: Merely as an aid
• Piruk Massa
• Re: merely as an aid
• RE: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• Re: Differences, if any, between Jews and Goyim/Gentiles
• Pronouncing Het (and other letters)

[An entire thread bounced from Areivim. -mi]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/376140.html does it seem that all
try to mold the rav in their own image?

Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/376140.html  does it seem that
> all try to mol;d the rav in their own image?

I thought the basic question was flawed. Asking whether RYBS was
basically a philosopher who was also a RY, or a Litvisher style RY who
did philosophy on the side is a bifurcation that didn't exist in the
original.

The rebbe was too complex for the talmidim (and apparently, offspring)
so each is presenting the side with which they could better relate.
This one describes the leg like a tree trunk, this one thinks the tusk
is like a spear, this one thinks the ear is like a fan, etc...

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

"Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org> wrote:
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/376140.html  does it seem that
> all try to mol;d the rav in their own image?

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet but after a brief
look at the title and first paragraph, I tend to agree with his daughter
that the essence of RYBS was his role as Rosh Yeshiva. This does not
diminish the genius of his philosophical thought and the recognition he
had as the pre-eminent Jewish philosopher of the twentieth century. But
as I understood two of perhaps his greatest philosophic writings,
Halachic Man and Lonely Man of Faith, they were written merely an aid
to understanding the essence of Judaism in ther context of current
philosophic thought, much the same way the Rambam dealt with the
philosophic thought of his time in the Moreh Necuchim.

I also believe Charedi world misunderstood and misinterpreted him.
Many believed that the philosophy was his Ikkar, which it was most
definitely not. As his brother, RAS, in essence said in the Hespid
Shloshim, in RYBS's academic milieu the best way to teach Torah was
through the prism of philosophy. To him it was sort of an Eis Laasos.

I hope to read the rest of the article later this week.

HM

In a message dated 12/27/2003 8:35:28 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> also believe Charedi world misunderstood and misinterpreted him.
> Many believed that the philosophy was his Ikkar, which it was most
> definitely not. As his brother, RAS, in essence said in the Hespid
> Shloshim, in RYBS's academic milieu the best way to teach Torah was
> through the prism of philosophy. To him it was sort of an Eis Laasos.

Obviously this is a matter of great debate, suffice it to say that
there are those who don't agree with the eit laasot line of reasoning
and that to R'YBS philosophy was an inseperable element of Torah.The
tapes of his public discourses in which philosophy is discussed evidence
a seamless whole.

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 12/28/2003 5:46:24 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> I do not in any way doubt that his philosophy and Torah was part of a
> seemless whole. But not everyone needs to understand Torah through
> the light of current philosophical thought. One does not have to know
> Kant and Kierkegard to understnd the philosophical essence of Torah.
> I'm am convinced that RYBS's emminent grandfather, Rabbi Chaim
> Soloveichik, didn't know the philosophical thought of Kant. But I am
> equally certain that he understood the philosophical essence of the
> Torah. 

Do you think all talmidei chachamim think about philisophical issues per se?
Is it possible that a "Halachik Man" simply could just "do halacha" and not 
think in philisophical categories at all?

> But if one studies neo-kantianism, one may then need to understand
> Torah through its light. This was in part the great genius of RYBS.
> He was one of the few if not the only person who could do it. There
> may be some others who can do it now as well... in part because of
> his teachings. But none are in his rarified league.

WADR I don't think R'YBS would agree with this statement,
the logical outcome of which is that noone other than a once
in a generation(century? millenium?) type mind should study
philosophy(science?math?...)=

KT
Joel Rich

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Do you think all talmidei chachamim think about philisophical issues per se?
> Is it possible that a "Halachik Man" simply could just "do halacha" and not 
> think in philisophical categories at all?

Not all Talmidei Chachim maybe, but I believe that all GREAT Talmidei
Chachamim do. To be a Gadol one must understand the philosophical
underpinnings of one's beliefs. I am not saying that it preoccupies all
or even most of their trime. But it is a necessary componenet of there
understanding of Judaism. Do you not think that R. Chaim or R. Hutner or
R Ahron Kotler or R. moshe Feinstein understood Jewish philosophy? There
may not have been complete agreement amongst then but they certainly
had philosophical beliefs.

>>  But if one studies neo-kantianism, one may then need to understand
>>  Torah through its light. This was in part the great genius of RYBS.
>>  He was one of the few if not the only person who could do it. There
>>  may be some others who can do it now as well... in part because of
>>  his teachings. But none are in his rarified league.

> WADR I don't think R'YBS would agree with this statement,
> the logical outcome of which is that noone other than a once
> in a generation(century? millenium?) type mind should study
> philosophy(science?math?...)

Not that no one should, but that no one has to. But for those who have
the "great questions" ...RYBS was there. And in his environment many did.

I feel a bit of a disadvantege and somewhat out of my league talking about
RYBS. I never met him and only know him from my limited understanding
of the two great philosophic works that I read, R. Rakeffet's book on
the Rav, his sister's book, from his reputation, friends of mine who
had him as a Rebbe, and a tiny bit from some of his Torah that I've
seen. The opinions I expressed in the present thread are based on that,
and on what his brother RAS said at the Hespid Shloshim.

HM

> twentieth century. But as I understood two of perhaps his greatest
> philosophic writings, Halachic Man and Lonely Man of Faith, they were
> written merely an aid to understanding the essence of Judaism in ther
> context of current philosophic thought, much the same way the Rambam
> dealt with the philosophic thought of his time in the Moreh Necuchim.

I must take exception to the term "merely." Maran haRav took general
philosophy very seriously, and lamented more than once, in his
conversations with me that he had not had the time to contribute more
to general philosophy, by which he meant philosophy of science and
epistemology.

That given his limited time, he gave priority not only to Talmud Torah
(which goes without saying) but to the task of building up the Orthodox
community ("tsorkhei tsibbur" in the Rav's private vocabulary) underscores
his sense of priorities. But in making that choice he was really giving
up something valuable to him.

I am basing myself on private conversations over a period of almost
ten years, late in the Rav's career, when age and infirmity forced
him to measure out his time and energy even more carefully than in his
youth. Yet I suspect that anyone reading the major works, and examining
the public record, would arrive at pretty much the same conclusion.

Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
> I must take exception to the term "merely." Maran haRav took general
> philosophy very seriously, and lamented more than once, in his
> conversations with me that he had not had the time to contribute more to
> general philosophy, by which he meant philosophy of science and epistemology.

> That given his limited time, he gave priority not only to Talmud Torah
> (which goes without saying) but to the task of building up the Orthodox
> community ("tsorkhei tsibbur" in the Rav's private vocabulary) underscores
> his sense of priorities. But in making that choice he was really giving up
> something valuable to him.

I have absolutely no doubt that RYBS felt that way. ...And I retract the
word "merely". It seems to me that the philosophic thought expressed
in the two works I mentioned focused on the philosophic centrality of
Halacha as the synthesis between cognitive man and homo-religiosus... and
Emunah as the ultimate and necessarily individual mindset.

But as you say he prioritized his time putting the dissemintion of his
Torah knowledge first and Tzorchei Tzibur second. As I indicated, this
does not diminish his stature as the twentieth century's greatest Jewish
philosopher. It is indeed too bad that he could not realize his wish to
contibute even more to the philosophy of science and epistemology. But
it does underscore where he placed philosophy. It got the bronze
medal. Dissemination of his Torah got the gold.

I believe that amongst the many misunderstndings about RYBS during his
lifetime was the belief on the part of some of his contemporaries, that
he put general philosophy ahead of Torah. This, as his brother RAS stated,
was incorrect.

HM

> I have absolutely no doubt that RYBS felt that way. ...And I retract
> the word "merely". It seems to me that the philosophic thought
> expressed in the two works I mentioned focused on the philosophic
> centrality of Halacha as the synthesis between cognitive man and
> homo-religiosus... and Emunah as the ultimate and necessarily
> individual mindset. 

> But as you say he prioritized his time putting the dissemintion of
> his Torah knowledge first and Tzorchei Tzibur second. As I indicated,
> this does not diminish his stature as the twentieth century's
> greatest Jewish philosopher....

100%.

Let me add what I hinted at--there were not two but three competing
claims on the Rav: Torah, "wisdom" and communal commitment (with "training
rabbis" belonging to the first and the third). That Torah came first is
obvious; the prioritizing had to do with his commitment to the third.
vd"l.

Harry Maryles wrote:
>As I indicated, this does not diminish his stature
>as the twentieth century's greatest Jewish philosopher.

I'm not a philosopher and most of my Jewish education comes from students
of RYBS, but calling him the "20th century's greatest Jewish philosopher"
seems to me like a questionable and all-too-casual description.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Harry Maryles wrote:
>>As I indicated, this does not diminish his stature
>>as the twentieth century's greatest Jewish philosopher.

> I'm not a philosopher and most of my Jewish education comes from students
> of RYBS, but calling him the "20th century's greatest Jewish philosopher"
> seems to me like a questionable and all-too-casual description.

I should have qualified my statement by adding the word Orthodox. I am
not a philosopher either but it wouldn't suprise me if he were considered
to be not only the foremost Orthodox Jewish philosopher but amongst the
greatest of Jewish philosophers of the twentieth centuty as well. Within
Orthodoxy, can you name anyone else who even comes close? The only other
person who comes to mind is Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz, someone I studied under
(4 college courses) and IMHO he is a distant second. But it isn't me who
gives RYBS that appelation. It is somewhat universally accepted even
amongst even secular scholars. I believe he is widely studied amongst
even non Orthodox Jewish institutions of higher learning. I know for a
fact that JTS studies his works.

HM

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Define "philosophy"? What about R' Tzadoq, Pachad Yitzchoq or RAYK? Do
> they count even though they don't explicitly reference secular sources?

I think so.

RYBS had the ability to compare and contrast... converge and diverge with
secular philosophies whereas the abovementioned could not. But lack of
ability to compare does not mean that one lacks a coherent philosophy. It
only means that it may not be as fully expressed as someone like RYBS
whose philosophical base knowledge learned at the University of Berlin
enabled him to develop his own philosphical thought to much greater
hieghts.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing. The more the merrier.

HM

> I'm not a philosopher and most of my Jewish education comes from students
> of RYBS, but calling him the "20th century's greatest Jewish philosopher"

Obviously, we are not dealing with philosophers who happen to be Jewish
such as Trotsky or Buber. Compare the writings of RYBS with RY Hutner or R
Kook , Zicronam Lvracha or Lhavdil, R D AJ Heschel. IMHO, the intellectual
sweep and total pride and lack of apology for the allegedly "outmoded"
Halachic system in the writings of RYBS is unparalleled by any of his
contemporaries. R Y Hutner , R Kook, and the SR ZTl were unquestionably
Gdolim in Machshavah but also were more Kabbalistic in a non Kabbalistic
age. RYBS was confronting Kant and existential thoughts .

One could make the case that RYBS and R Kook, R Hutner and the SR
represented a 20th Century version of the Maimondean Controversy. IMHO,
the parallels are there with respect to the use of philosophy and
different world views et al as well as the documented and thoroughly well
discussed RW attititudes toward RIETS/ YU /OU that flowed from this view
as well.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Just two names to consider: Franz Rosensweig and Emanuel Levinas

I don't know who was a greater philosopher or if two great philosophers
can even be compared in such a fashion. I was just pointing out that
we tend to favor those who have influenced us, sometimes but not always
unfairly.

Although Micha did bring up an interesting question of who is a
philosopher. I think Fackenheim says that it is someone who addresses
the questions of life within the framework of the Western philosophical
tradition. If you accept that definition then Rav Hutner and Rav Kook
were probably great thinkers but not philosophers.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

RHM writes: 
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote: 
>> Define "philosophy"? What about R' Tzadoq, Pachad Yitzchoq 
>> r RAYK? Do they count even though they don't explicitly 
>> reference secular sources? 

> I think so. 

> RYBS had the ability to compare and contrast... converge and 
> diverge with secular philosophies whereas the abovementioned 
> could not. 

Rav Kook unquestionably knew secular (eg Kantian) philosophy and referred
to it in his writings (even if he didn't do it by way of page numbers
and specific references). There is no question in my mind that in terms
of Orthodox Jewish philosophy (or, for that matter, Jewish philosophy)
RAYK gives RYBS a run for his money.

R Tzadoq? What were his dates? I clearly thought he was earlier than
it would appear from this exchange that he was (how much of the 20th
century did he embrace?).

Regards
Chana

In a message dated 12/30/2003 1:10:36 PM EST, areivim-owner@aishdas.org writes:
> Why the "Lhavdil"?

>> also were more Kabbalistic in a non Kabbalistic age. RYBS was 
>> confronting Kant and existential thoughts.

> So was Heschel.

IMHO, if you read their works, RYBS views the world completely thru
halachic terms and rejoiced at the halachist's almost exploration of the
abstract and non practical. See , Halachic Man, especially a footnote
wherein RYBS lists Minchas Chinuch and Keren Orah among others whose
works deal with halachos that have no "practical application". Neither R
Heschel's writings nor public postures or views towards CJ are indicative
of this effort.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

Last week , I had the pleasure of hearing a shiur/lecture on the origins
and background of Channukah by R D David Berger. Here are some of the
issues that were discussed during the shiur:
1) Neither Maccabbes I , II nor Josephus mention the Channukkah story
with regard to the Hasmonean revolt or the vessel of oil.
2) The Rambam and Ramban have widely varying views on the merits of
the Hasmoneans serving as rulers, even in the absence of any other
worthy rulers.
3)Is the miracle of the oil emphasized at the expense of the military
victory, and why?

R D Berger pointed out that the editor of Maccabbees I included no miracle
stories . Maccabees II, in its present form, is a combination of a pre
existing 5 volume work that was not preserved in its form. Maccabbes
II included numerous miracle stories , albeit not Channukah. Josephus'
background as a traitor was well documented. R D Berger pointed out that
Chazal had a different tradition than the authors of Maccabbees I and
II. In the Q and A that ensued, I suggested that perhaps the miltary and
religious basis of Channukah was simply too politically incorrect for it
to have been included by Josephus or the earlier authors of Maccabees
I and II. R D Berger pointed out that the inclusion of Channukkah by
Chazal in the face of other historical sources that made no mention was
irrrelevant because Chazal's Mesorah in this area governed. I would be
remiss if I did not indicate that R D Berger was also skeptical of the
assertion that Rabbeinu HaKadosh failed to include Channukah in the
Mishnah because he was a descendant from King David. R D Berger also
stressed that secular Zionists used the military aspects of Channukah
in a very secular way in songs well known to frum Jews such as "Mi
Yimalel". Comments?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il>
>> as Trotsky or Buber. Compare    the writings of RYBS with RY 
>> Hutner or R Kook, Zicronam Lvracha or Lhavdil, R D AJ Heschel. 

> Why the "Lhavdil"?

Well, he did put some things in some of his books about non-standard
theories of revelation, although I wonder to what extent that was put
in to appease certain elements.

>> also were more Kabbalistic in a non Kabbalistic age. RYBS was 
>> confronting Kant and existential thoughts .

> So was Heschel.

And R' Kook. See Benjamin Ish-Shalom's intellectual biography of R'
Kook. It's part of why I decided to try reading Kant - because it's
the starting point of so much TwenCen Jewish philosophy: Isaac Breuer,
R' Kook, the Rav, ybl"ch our listmod Micha.

Regarding whether we are required to unload a heavy burden (Piruk Massa)
from an anonymous (ownerless) animal, see the Minchat Chinuch 80 #2 d"h
u'm'vuar kahn. b'shas.

Josh

Chana Luntz <Chana@kolsassoon.net> wrote:
> Rav Kook unquestionably knew secular (eg Kantian) philosophy and referred
> to it in his writings (even if he didn't do it by way of page numbers
> and specific references). There is no question in my mind that in terms
> of Orthodox Jewish philosophy (or, for that matter, Jewish philosophy)
> RAYK gives RYBS a run for his money.

I do not question the brilliance of RAYK. I also do not doubt that he
knew about Kantian thought. It is a matter of degree of knowledge. It is
likely that RAYK new about it in a more general way whereas RYBS read
Kant, knew and thoroughly understood Kantian thought, as well as the
philosophy of other tangential philosophers. RYBS was better equiopped
to deal more specifically with thses issues than RAYK.

One does not have to be as intimately familiar with a philosophy to
express legitimate opinions on it. I am a great example of expressing
such opinions. But the better one understands it, the more legitimate
is the response.

HM

Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:
>>> 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.

Certainly that is the source of Tzaar Baalei Chayim, and I was well aware
of that passuk when I wrote the above, but where does it say that you
may not overburden the animal? All it says is that if you come across an
animal *crouching under its load*, i.e. it's not moving and in distress,
*and* you have no reason not to help it out except hatred for its owner,
or pure laziness, then you must help unload it. But the claim here
was that there is an issur to overburden an animal in the first place,
even when you get a benefit, which means that it's not so overburdened
that it can't move, and I don't see how you can derive such an issur
from this passuk, or from anywhere else.

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

Tzaar Baalei Chayim does not override issurei shabbat. See the law about
an animal that falls into a hole on shabbat. If you can refuse to help it
because it's beneath your dignity, then you can certainly do so because
it's shabbat. Which supports my point, that Tzaar Baalei Chayim is
about having an animal suffer *for no reason*, which is midat achzariut.

 > 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?

For your own animal you don't need a mitzvah - you want the animal
reloaded properly so it can move. The mitzvah is davka when you get
no benefit from helping the animal, and would rather see it stay there,
you still have to help. The same applies to Bal Tashchit: it's hard to
conceive of a case of Bal Tashchit with your own property; if you want
to use up your property for some purpose, then obviously the value you
get from that use is greater than what you would get from any other use,
so it's permitted. The Torah tells us Bal Taschit davka when you are
in a position where you are legitimately using someone else's property,
and you have no incentive to be prudent and use it efficiently - you
have no reason to use the cheap trees rather than the expensive ones.
Then the Torah says that if the cheap trees are just as good for your
purpose you must use them, and leave the expensive ones alone.

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

> There is a well known Gemara in AZ wherein HaShem offered the Torah to all
> of the nations of the world who rejected it for various reasons. We all
> know the answer of Klal Yisrael. If there are such inherent differences
> between Jews and Gentiles, why did HaShem offer the nations of the
> world the Torah in the first instance ?

IOW, HaShem engaged in a sham process and knew all along that the nations
of the world would not accept it? A sort of massive process of elimination
ala a multiple choice test? How does Bchirah Chafshis and Naaseh vNishma
work according to this logic?

I don't have an answer. However, here is an analagous situation that
also warrants some explication or "taon birur." Compare the process
involved with the Kabbalas Luchos Rishonim ( public, lightning, imposed
almost under penalty of death, etc ) with the Kabbalas Luchos Shniyos (
private, self imposed, greatest act of teshuvah for the worst possible
transgression) . In addition , there is a huge discussion as to whether
the generation that had left Egypt and received the Torah was the on
the highest spiritual level because they witnessed the 10 Plagues, the
parting of the Red Sea and Kabbalas HaTorah or a generation that was
one step removed from the 49th level of ritual impurity, and unable to
translate the enormity of the events that had happened to them . If you
study many of the Mfarshim on these parts of Chumash and the Haggadah,
IMHO, there is a strong and healthy tension and ambiguity between the
exodus from Egypt, the selection of the Jewish people as the Chosen
People and the acceptance of the Torah . There is always a background
question of how worthy was this generation of all of the above, either
despite or because of its prior behavior, not per se because of the Bris
Avos. If the Bris Avos was sufficient, one can strongly argue that the
Bris Sinai was either superfluos or totaly unneccessary. These issues
warrant a lot of discussion. However, IMHO, neither the Grama book nor
the attempts to defend it by others not on this list , as opposed to
the listmembers, have addressed these fundamental ikarim of Jewish belief.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In Avodah #67, R. Joseph Lauer writes:
<The following is based on my own readings and the usual caveats apply,
including, of course, the warning to consult YLOR.>

Assuming, of course, that said LOR knows something about the issue. I
have decried in the past the assumption that because someone is a talmid
chochom that he necessarily knows something about writing a Sefer Torah,
for example, or how make kosher klaf. Any competent LOR has familiarity
with the basic halokhos of Sta'M, of course, but everyone will sure admit
that that does not mean that he knows how to write a ST. Any competent LOR
has familiarity with some basic rules of Hebrew, but that does not mean
he knows them in detail, or indeed understands much about linguistics.

<"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.">

This is incorrect on several points. He may have gotten his ideas from
reading some rishonim or acharonim who did not use modern lingusitic
terminology. In particular:

1. Consonant may be stops or fricatives or affricates or nasals or liquids
(or some other categories that do not occur in English or Hebrew). Stops,
by definition, cannot be prolonged, because they are defined as sounds
produced by stopping the flow of air. Fricatives or affricates or nasals,
again by definition, can be continued - not indefinitely, but as long
as one's breath holds out. So to make a statement that "every letter of
the Aleph Bais is accomplished by including two components. The sound
of the letter itself cannot be pronounced" is false. He chose a stop,
/b/, but had he chosen an fricative sibilant everyone would realize that
what he is saying is not true: one can pronounce /s/ or /sh/, a hissing
sound (sibilant) for as long as one's breath holds out _without_ any
vowel sound. Similarly a nasal consonant, like /m/, can be prolonged:
one can hum an entire song without opening ones lips.

Even stops, however, can be prolonged. One cannot, of course, use
them to hum a song, since the passage of breath is blocked. But all
rishonim and acharonim agree that a consonant with a dagesh chazaq is
pronounced as a geminated consonant. This is relevant to the fallacious
assumption that one cannot prolong the pronunciation of the dalet
in ehad without pronouncing it as a an affricate (/th/ as in the word
"this" is not exactly how the Teimanim pronounce it, but is close enough
for discussion). One can pronounce the dalet as a geminated consonant,
and still have enough time to focus on different directions, if that
is one's shitta: try saying ehaddddd. It is not normal speech, but it
can be done, and so did many rabbonim from Europe. (I will not here get
into the machloqes rishonim and acharonim about whether the halokho means
really that the word or its letters should be prolonged in pronunciation,
or whether it means that they should be said slowly enough for people to
focus on the meaning, or indeed the machloqesn about what the required
meanings are).

2. What the above quotation means is that consonants are normally
pronounced with a vowel: you normally do not say just /s/, even though you
can make the sound. It is not true, however, that a vowel means adding
an aleph. An aleph is a consonant in its own right, with its own sound,
even though that is not pronounced in most Ashk'naz reading. So for the
statement to be true, it must be emended to read "Now, add the second
part, which is the vowel. The Bais can now be heard as Ba (or bi or bu
or bo or be). **** The second component, the vowel, helps you pronounce
the letter." An aleph does not help you pronounce another letter any
more that a shin does.

Both of these points are equally true whatever pronunciation of Hebrew
or indeed whatever language one is speaking.

<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.>

This is also not true. An Ashk'naz khof and a S'faradi het are both
fricatives, differing in the place of articulation. One cannot use
either to hum a song, since both are voiceless, but one can say khhhhhh
- without a vowel - for as long as one's breath holds out (normally
somewhere in the range of 10 seconds, depending on how loudly you are
saying things, although if you take a deep breath and conserve it you
might get to 20 seconds). One can also pronounce a het for that long.
But a khof is a velar, pronounced near or at the place where a /k/ and a
/g/ are articulated; het is a pharyngeal. Since Yiddish and German did
not have pharyngeals, the het and 'ayin both disappeared in Ashk'naz
pronunciation; the het being combined with the khof and the 'ayin being
combined with the aleph.

The ET is quoted as saying <most Jews ["rov Yisrael"] do not distinguish
between the strong and weak versions of these letters [gimel and dalet],
citing the Magen Avos of the RaShBeTz 53 and 54 (which I have not seen).>

The ET is talking about most Jews in EY, who have adopted the Ashk'nazic
pronunciation of consonants and the S'faradi vowels. 100 years ago, the
statement was true of all Ashk'nazic communities, untrue of most S'faradi
communities, and not true of any Teimani community. The statement by
the RsShBeTz is also not true of all Jewish communities, not because the
RaShBeTz, ch'v, was ignorant, but because there was no rishon or acharon
until very modern times who knew of all the Jewish communities. The Rambam
knew little of Ashk'naz Jewry. Rabbeinu Tam knew almost nothing about
S'faradi Jewry. The Rosh, who knew about both, did not know much about
Jews in Islamic countries (i.e. the S'faradi he knew about was Christian
Spain), and knew nothing about Yemenite Jewry. This does not mean that
they were not eminent poskim, but it does mean that statement made by any
of them about "most Jews" have to be taken with a large grain of salt. To
be accurate, it should be understood as "most Jews of which I know."

Seth Mandel

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


[ 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         ]