Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 072

Tuesday, January 6 2004

• Gam zu l'tova & Bechira
• Re: Gam zu l'tova & Bechira
• Re: RHS
• 10 Tevet
• 10th of Teves being doche Shabbos
• Re: Some historical thoughts re Chanuka
• Re: RYBS conference
• Secular Law in the Torah State
• Re:
• Re: Midrash
• Re: 10 Teves doche Shabbos
• Re: RYBS conference
• Re: RYBS conference
• Re: RYBS conference
• Re: Secular Law in the Torah State
• Re: Secular Law in the Torah State
• Re: Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• Re: Mrs Katz's dilemma
• Re: Pronouncing Het (and other letters)

My 10-yr old son raised an interesting philosophical problem last night.

It was not the standard: how can it be that "everything is foreseen yet
there is freedom of choice" but:

How do we reconcile "everything is for the good" with "free will"?

At a given point in time, I am faced with choice A or B. How can it be
that if I pick A over B, that is for the good; but if I pick B over A,
that is also for the good? (If everything I do is "for the good" then
"for the good" itself loses it's meaning, no?)

This seems like a very elementary problem which I sure has been addressed.

So, nu?, help me out!

 -- 
Sholom Simon

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:43:10AM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote:
: How do we reconcile "everything is for the good" with "free will"?

First, cool kid!

Second, I addressed that recently in MmD. It's possible that not
everything is for the good. That's the position of the Or Hachaim, which
we've discussed here on a number of occasions. Another's free will can
mitigate what hashgachah I receive. Of course, since you're raising your
son with chassidish inclinations, that may not be the answer you want
to give him.

See the Machshvah Techilah section in
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/vayeishev.pdf>. I present Rashi
and the Chinuch as have the opposing (and more popular today) view.

 -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      

I recently heard R' Shlomo Pearl say, in the name of R' Moshe Bick
regarding the 1978 blizzard, that they can stay on the bus even during
Shabbos mamash because of pikuach nefesh but that they are guilty of
peshi'ah for not anticipating the delay.

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

So I've got a question that has nothing to do with dechiyat shabbat.
One of the things that 10 Tevet mourns is the translation of the Torah
into Greek. How do we square this with the clearly positive assessments
of the Greek language and the Greek translation in Megillah 8b (Mishnah)
- 9b?

The 10th of Teves cannot fall on Shabbos according to our calendar, but
if it could it would be doche Shabbos. The source is the Avudraham. It
is based on the pasuk that, in reference to the 10th of Teves, says'
be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh' - on that very day. R.Chaim Brisker explains it
in a piece in the stencils.He points out that the other fast dast days
marking the churban are referred to, in Zechariah, as occuring during a
certain month, and therefore can be pushed offf toa different day in the
month. This is also elaborated on by R.Sternbach in his Moadim U'Zmanim.

There are also aggadic explanations, of the Chasam Sofer (derashos)
and R.Shlomo Fisher in his Derashos Beis Yishai ( as related by
R.Baruch Simon in a recent parsha shiur). Basically the Chasam Sofer
says that Asarah B'Teves is in the category of ta'anis chalom, which
can be done on Shabbos because it concerns a current issue. Similarly ,
according to Chasam Sofer, since Asarah B' Teves marks the begining of
the churban process, and every dor in which the mikdash is not rebuilt
is considered as if it wqas destroyed in it, there is a judgment in
ther heavenly court every year whether to renew the churban process.
Thus even though we could not fast on Tishah B'Av if it occurred on
Shabbos because it relates to something in the past, we would fast on
Asarah B'Teves if it occurred on Shabbos, since it relates to something
in the present. R.Shlomo Fisher actually conjectures that Yosef was sold
on Asarah B'Teves, and that is what precipitated the kind of conflict
within the nation that culminated in the churban.

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:31:40AM +1100, SBA wrote:
: He says that the Chashmonoim, who were tzadikim, insisted on keeping
: mitzvos even during their wars. Therefore when - lemoshol - they had to
: eat, they spent time looking for water for netilas yodayim, they had
: to take time off war to davven 3 times a day, they had to seek Kosher
: food and similar restrictions and extra needs - all because they were
: 'Tahorim, tzadikim and oskei sorosecho'.

Isn't someone who risks the lives of himself and others when halakhah
doesn't call for it the definition of "tzadiq harebei"? What gave them
the right lismokh al haneis?

-mi

On 6 Jan 2004 at 10:16, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 7. The Rav claimed his students had an intellectual attitude to
> Yiddishkeit and not enough emotional. It was pointed out that in many
> of today's yeshivot the exact opposite is true. There is emotion but
> not enough interest in the deep gemara learning.

This is a very curious comment coming from someone whom we would all
classify as "Brisker." Any more details?

 - Carl

In a message dated 1/5/2004 10:07:59 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I believe that's why Sanhedrin lokin shelo kedin and they
> maintained a kippah. They had the power to punish even when there
> was no chiyuv to punish.

R RJ posted
> Interesting question is how and when did the Sanhedrin get this
> power and  how, if at all, did it coordinate with the melech's power
> to maintain social  order? ...

I would say that the tsibur has a power to vest extra-legal powers in
an office, be it king or sanhedrin. We find that at the end of the first
chapter of Yehoshua and in mishpat hamelekh.

If the eidah mentioned in the torah refers to a sanhedrin - "eidah
shofetes and eida matsleles" - this may also be the source.

M. Levin

In a message dated 1/6/2004 9:53:41 AM EST, sober@pathcom.com writes:
>> Interesting question is how and when did the Sanhedrin get this
>> power and  how, if at all, did it coordinate with the melech's power
>> to maintain social  order? ...

> The Drashot HaRan raises this question. He gives two possible answers:

Which Drasha?

KT
Joel

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 06:22:01PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: 3. Who says the medrash is meant literally? That He literally went around
: and asked each nation if it wanted the Torah? Maybe the whole meaning of
: the medrash is precisely: Hashem didn't give Yishmael the Torah because
: He knew they were ganavim, didn't give Esav the Torah because He knew
: they were rotzchim, etc.

This is the point I was trying to make, that the future nisayon of their
keeping mitzvas Sukkah is no more problematic than any other nisayon.

The medrash (found in Yalqut Shim'oni) is odder than that. To remind people
of the details: To Edom, HQBH answers "lo sirtzach", to Amon and Mo'av "lo
sin'af" and to Yishma'el, "lo signov". Each in turn replies "But the essence
of our people is ... our forefather ..."

1- Note that Hashem names three mitzvos benei Noach! So even without
accepting the Torah, the chiyuvim still apply. So how does the answer
address what they were really asking?

2- Why does Hashem name their one "special" sin? Does someone who is trying
to be mekareiv a kohein who is intermarried start with dinei yuchsin? Was
Hashem trying to set them up for failure?

In <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/lechLicha.shtml> I propose the following:
> By comparing this medrash to the opening pasuk in this week's parshah,
> we can get a better understanding of the point of the story.

> "Hashem said to Avram, 'Go for yourself from your homeland, from your
> birthplace and from your father's house to the land which I will show
> you'." (12:1) The first sentence recorded in the Torah of the Jewish
> mission on earth is a commandment for Avram to leave his home and
> his father.

> Avram didn't say, "I can't worship G-d because my very substance his
> idolatry, because my father, Terach, manufactures idols". Hashem orders
> Avram to leave the culture that made him, to leave his father's sphere
> of influence, and he does.
....
> Is man a creature of fate or of destiny? Is his future foretold, etched
> in rock, unchangeable? Or can he rebuild himself into something greater
> than he was?

(BTW, compare: "etched in stone" with "cheirus al haluchos".)

> Clearly the Torah insists on the latter. The very key to accepting the
> Torah is to be committed to use its ideas and its mitzvos to improve
> and to grow.

> This was the failing ascribed to the other nations in the medrash. They
> saw a given flaw in their national character as their substance,
> immutable. Hashem wasn't asking them about a particular prohibition, but
> about their commitment to leave their "father's house". If they do not
> believe they can change, what purpose can getting the Torah serve them?

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:10:36PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer replied
to the same paragraph by RnTK:
: This ties in with the idea that midos are to some extent innate.
: While one can work on his midos, they cannot be taught. Rachmanim,
: bayshanim v'gomlei chasadim is part of the very nature of a Jew, and
: not of a goy. But in each case, they can be worked on and refined.

Only to a very small extent. There is derekh, innate propensities, and
hergel that modifies them. See the Gra on Mishlei 4:24 (translated at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n243.shtml#10>). "Palei ma'agal
raglekha, vikhol derakhekha yikonu".

What this may say is that Yehudim are born baishanim, rachmanim and
gomlei chasadim, but it can't guarantee we will stay that way. (Despite
aggadic stories in which someone is assumed to be a false geir because
he lacks one of these middos -- and then the rav is proven correct.)

-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      

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:32:01 -0500 "David Riceman"

>> I believe it's a Hatham Sofer, based on that being the only one of
>> the four fasts whose date appears explicitly in TaNaCH.

> Fine, but the other three are not doche Shabbos??

Yechezkel 24:2 says "be'etzem hayom hazeh", thus emphasising the
importance of the actual date.

It's an interesting idea, since it's only theoretical, and therefore
the only meaning of the shita is to emphasise the importance of this
fast, and to invite thinking about reasons why it's so important; but
I greatly suspect that if it were a practical question, nobody would
pasken that way.

-- 
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

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:44:17PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> 7. The Rav claimed his students had an intellectual attitude to
:> Yiddishkeit and not enough emotional. It was pointed out that in many
:> of today's yeshivot the exact opposite is true. There is emotion but
:> not enough interest in the deep gemara learning.

: This is a very curious comment coming from someone whom we would all
: classify as "Brisker." Any more details?

"We would all"? I already went on record both on mail-jewish and here
with the opinion that RYBS was /not/ a classic Brisker. His limud Torah
was bederekh Brisk, at least in his regular shi'urim (as opposed to
public speechs). But a true "Ish haHalakhah" never would have taken the
step back to write a book like "Ish haHalakhah". His publications and
public speeches used Brisker chaqiros to frame answers to the more
Telzer question of "Why?" He wasn't satisfied only studying Brisk's "How?"
of halakhic mechanics.

The point RET reported is discussed at length in the 10th shi'ur
from RRZiegler in his YHE email list. RSBrizel posted it here at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n139.shtml#12>.

Recall also that RYBS characterized RCBrisker's role as rav being
primarily in the realm of chessed. Perhaps we tend to confuse Brisker
Torah with Brisker lifestyle.

-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      

> The point
> was made that although RYBS set guidelines for the RCA in practice there
> has been no connections between the RCA and the Church since that time
> on any official level

IIRC, the RCA has a standing committee on this issue which is chaired by
R Fabian Schonfeld. RFS freely consults with R D Berger on these issues .

[Email #2. -mi]

>  One should not rely on his psak to individuals since he frequently
> gave contradictory piskei halakhah depending on the person's background
> and other criteria

Specific examples of opposing psak on the same issue to different talmidim
? Please specify. If this is the case, then neither the allegedly RW
RY nor the LW can claim that RYBS was truly "their"own rebbe or a posek
for MO. Although this has also been discussed ad infinitum on this list,
one can legitimately raise the argument that the proponents of multiple
psak for different people by the same posek have created a revisionist
picture to avoid the portrait set forth by RAL and RHS that RYBS was a
primarily a RY and secondarily a philosopher.

[Email #3. -mi]

> Need to integrate RYBS gemara shiurim with his philosophy. Kriyat Shema
> is discussed at length in Worship of the Heart

Look also in Al HaTeshuvah in which RYBS focuses on the halachic and
emotional aspects of Krias Shma, Nedarim, Teshuvah, Vidui, Tefilah and
Aveilus based upon a classical Brisker chiluk between maaseh hamiztva
and kiyum hamitzva and issur cheftza and issur gavra.

[Email #4. -mi]

> RYBS
> also objected strongly to R. Rackman and attempted changes in Halacha
> based on "new" types of life.

Yup. Listen to the 1975 shiur re Gerus on this issue. If you listen
to the first 30 minutes of the shiur, you will hear RYBS vehemently
rejecting this approach.

[Email #5. -mi]

> The Rav claimed his students had an intellectual attitude to
> Yiddishkeit and not enough emotional

See R Genack's comments re the shiur on Tanya in Onset.

[Email #6. -mi]

> If one claims it from wool and the other from linen than there
> is no basis for splitting the tallit. Similarly for discussions with
> groups Jewish or gentile that don't accept the basis of Torah MiSinai

Fascinating use of one of the hardest sugyos in Shas to illustrate how
we should approach communal issues. IOW, work together as long as no
issues present themselves that challenge each group's core values. Check
out the Five Drashos in which RYBS pointed out that Eliezer and Yishmael
accompanied Avraham and Issac on the journey to the Akedah, but not on
Har HaBayis because it was a matter of Kodesh kodashim with which only
Avraham and Issac and their 20th and 21st Century descendants could and
should be entrusted.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In a message dated 1/6/2004 12:34:47 PM EST, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
> On 6 Jan 2004 at 10:16, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> 7. The Rav claimed his students had an intellectual attitude to
>> Yiddishkeit and not enough emotional. It was pointed out that in many
>> of today's yeshivot the exact opposite is true. There is emotion but
>> not enough interest in the deep gemara learning.

> This is a very curious comment coming from someone whom we would all
> classify as "Brisker." Any more details?

If you are referring to the R'YBS statement and not Eli's, it is clearly
true. If you want to cry a little (lot?) there's a section in "The Rav"
Book 2 (I don't have it here) where excerpts from a number of public
shiurim where R'YBS bemoaned his inability to transmit Torat Imecha-
the emotional/ experiential component he felt so essential to a Torah
life. You can also find references to this in "Memories of a Giant".
IMHO he seems to have felt a double pain - his inability to transmit
something so vital and his living in a generation that did not value
this element as he did.

KT
Joel (tear in my eye) Rich

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:00:39AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: R RJ posted
:> Interesting question is how and when did the Sanhedrin get this
:> power and  how, if at all, did it coordinate with the melech's power
:> to maintain social  order? ...

: I would say that the tsibur has a power to vest extra-legal powers in
: an office, be it king or sanhedrin. We find that at the end of the first
: chapter of Yehoshua and in mishpat hamelekh.

Besides, we find by qorbanos hatzibbur and hilkhos Qiddush haChodesh that
the authority of Sanhedrin derives from its role as a representative of
the eidah. Perhaps no real vesting needs to apply.

But I thought the issue here was the din of "bi'arta hara miqirbekha",
and/or something parallel to the chiyuv on Benei Noach to create legal
and penal systems for an orderly society.

-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      

In a message dated 1/6/2004 12:34:56 PM EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> I would say that the tsibur has a power to vest extra-legal powers in
> an office, be it king or sanhedrin. We find that at the end of the first
> chapter of Yehoshua and in mishpat hamelekh.

This is the Maharatz chiyut explanation for the source of the Kings
power and also some limitations on the power

KT
Joel

From: "Kenneth G Miller" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> R"n Ilana Sober asked several questions...
> I think what she is asking (and if she's not, then *I'll* ask it) is this:
> If Mrs. Cohen asks her husband to perform a general household task, that
> would *not* be a problem in V'Kidashto, because she not asking for him
> to do it for *her*. Rather, she is pointing out (teaching him, if you
> prefer) something that he needs to do for *his* benefit. It is *his*
> house, and she is simply alerting him to his own needs.

There seem to be two sets of questions here.  My primary interest in
raising the topic is to understand the concept and mechanics of mehillah in
this context.

Picking Mrs. Cohen as an example seems to have been a mistake, however,
since RSM is worried about her husband bullying her, and we've been lead
into a long digression about the duties of a husband to his wife.  RIS's
suggestion may solve RSM's problem (but see the discussion near the
beginning of the thread); it doesn't address mine.

David Riceman

Sorry, I didn't realise that this issue was being (had been) discussed
on Avodah, and some of what I say may well have already been said,
but anyway:

In message <000701c3d3e0$262f1260$46f14b0c@Ricemanhome1>, David Riceman 
<driceman@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Perhaps I should cite more fully the citation in my original post:

>Rama (OC 128:45) "Assur l'hishtamesh b'kohen afilu bizman hazeh d'havei
>k'moel bakodesh im lo shemachal al kach"

>Mishna Brurah: "Sheharei neemar v'kidashto"

>Admittedly there are aharonim who ask your question and come up with your
>answer (see Be'er Heitev ad. loc.) but the naive reading of the Rama is that
>the problem is k'moel bakodesh, i.e. kedusha, not kavod.

Lets go back a bit further. The reference to giving priority to a kohen
in terms of reading first from the Torah and benching is found in Nedarim
62ab, where the proof text is given as "v'kidashto".

Tosphos holds that this is an asmachta, see Chulin 97a d'h "v'chayavo",
but the Rambam seems to see it as a d'orisa as he brings it as mitzvah
32 in Sefer Hamitzvos. He starts that mitzvah by saying "hi shetizvanu
l'kaved zara shel aharon ....."

In fact, whether you hold it is d'orisa or d'rabanan, the proof text in
Nedarim is only brought vis a vis the cohanim because they first wanted
to prove that a talmid chacham may ask for his business to be attended to
first. And they prove it by reference to the fact that just as a cohen
receives his portion first so should a talmid chacham. And then they
have to prove where it says that a cohen receives his portion first,
hence the reference to kidashto.

So it seems to me that the whole issue is intrinsically bound up with
kavod, notwithstanding the reference to v'kidushto.

Not that I think these concepts are necessarily so far away, as the
reason for giving kavod to talmidei chachamim is because of the Torah
they have learned. There are reasons tamidei chachamim are referred
to as klei kadosh, - ie they are vessels for kedusha, and is for that
reason that kavod is given.

The basic difference would seem to be that the cohen is intrinsically
kodesh, while a talmid chacham has acquired his kedusha, (but note
that he then takes precedence over a kohen) {Note to RTK, the Minchas
Chinuch agrees with you about a talmid chacham taking precedence over
a talmida chachama, based on the reason you cite, but he also dismisses
the possibility of there being a real talmida chachama, saying that it
just can't apply - and therefore perforce he understands the position
of the Sefer Hachinuch that the halacha (which is about standing for
the aged and talmidei chachamim) applies to both men and women to be
referring only to that part to do with age when he refers to women,
and not to a talmida chachama)

Note also that Rama does not say that being hishtamesh b'kohen it actually
being moel bakodesh, just that it is k'moel bakodesh.

>> One of the differences about the kavod of a melech, is that a melech
>> cannot be mochel his kavod, indicating that it is not the standard
>> kavod, because in general a person can be mochel his kavod.

>I was hoping to avoid the details of this.  RSM claimed that marriage
>entailed a that a husband do menial labor for his wife.  He deduced that
>from the word "eflah" in the kesuba.  I countered with an example of someone
>who may not perform menial labor but may marry (melech yisrael), thus
>disproving RSM's claim.  Further analysis of kavod was irrelevant to that
>disproof.

Well, I am not sure this quite works. I suspect that RSM would concede
that the obligation in the ketuba to do menial labour is only in
circumstances where the person was not able to finance somebody else to
do it (pay the butler and the maid, shall we say).

But a king is not allowed to ever be poor (see Horayos 9a) so he will
always have the alternative of paying somebody else to do the labour.
However, a kohen (who is not a kohen gadol, the same din prohibiting
aniyus relates to a kohen gadol) may indeed be poor, and hence may not
have the other alternative of financing others available.

>> So, how do you answer the basic question - how is an eishes
>> kohen ever allowed to be hishtamesh b'kohen?

>  Here's my hypothesis, devoid of evidence (I don't have any, I'm not
>withholding it).  According to Tosafos (citation on request - time is
>pressing tonight) the hoi polloi may disqualify a qualified kohen from
>Avodah if we think he's not worthy.  It follows that a kohen's reputation is
>integral to his kedusha.
>  We have an obligation to think highly of kohanim if possible, and they
>have the obligation to encourage us to think highly of them.  Now kohanim
>live all sorts of lives (including as day laborers, as RSM pointed out) so
>they need considerable latitude to delimit their own kedusha.  That's what
>this halacha does by giving the kohen and no one else the option of
>mehillah.  It lets a kohen say "here's where I stop being a regular guy and
>act so that everyone knows I'm a kohen."

Well but you still run into the basic problem raised by the Taz, that
the same din of kedusha is involved when a cohen marries a gerusha,
and why do we not say that he can be mochel on that?

You have to posit some distinction between this and that. It is not
that hard if the pasuk is only an asmuchta (because the din gerusha is a
d'orisa). But it is harder if it is a d'orisa, as per the Rambam, unless
you understand, as the Rambam seems to, that the essence of this part of
the din kedusha is kavod, (or alternatively that kavod is always about
kidusha - you could even try saying that for kibud av v'am, actually,
although you may not need to, but only that the kavod of a kohen and
the kavod of a talmid chacham are linked in this way).

Which, after all, seems to be what you are saying anyway, because
"thinking highly of kohanim" translated into halacha is kavod, and
delimiting it is about being able to be mochel, so I think you are
getting back to the same idea.

>David Riceman
>PS  I vaguely recall that in the introductory biography of volume 8 of Igros
>Moshe there's a remark about his never doing childcare.  I glanced quickly
>and couldn't find it, but in the unlikely event that my memory is correct it
>may be relevant to your final claim.

But there are stories in the gemora of famous rabbonim being found on all
fours bouncing children on their backs, which is about as unkovodic as
it comes, so I don't think that can be the reason (if in fact this was
true about RMF).

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

Joseph I. Lauer wrote:
> 1. The lesson I drew from Rav Steinwurzel and that I thought Rav
> Blumenkrantz was also dealing with, at least in part, is that the
> preferred pronunciation of Ehad results from the Het (in its Sephardic
> incarnation) being extended and simultaneously enunciated with the Kamatz
> vowel ("E-hhhh/aaaa-d").

> Is that physically possible and, to the extent that you are aware,
> halachically correct?

> Experience, for what it is worth, indicates that the dual sounding can
> be done with a Hei as in a long "Haw" while keeping the breath flowing
> out of the throat. The Sephardic Het, which I have heard, also keeps
> the breath flowing out of the throat and is a step away from that Hei.
> Experience, again for what it is worth, indicates to me that the dual
> sounding can be done with a Sephardic Het while keeping the breath
> flowing out of the throat.

> Baldly put, is the Ashkenazi Ches-Chof unpronounceable simultaneously
> with a vowel, and is the Sephardic Het pronounceable simultaneously
> with a vowel (as "E-hhhh/aaaa-d")? And if the "ch" sound of the Het
> (in its Sephardic incarnation) can be extended with vowels, is that what
> the pronunciation of Ehad requires?

It is physically impossible for human beings to pronounce a vowel
simultaneously with a het, he, khaf, samekh/sin, or fe. All of those
consonants are voiceless, i.e. the vocal chords are not vibrating.
Consonants (in English and Hebrew, at least) are always voiced. It is
theoretically possible to pronounce some vowels while saying an 'ayin,
the voiced counterpart of a het, but extremely difficult and is not done
in practice.

Of course, for those who can say zakhor and shamor simultaneously,
saying the qomatz simultaneously with the het should be no problem.
When you say <that the dual sounding can be done with a Hei as in a long
"Haw"> you probably are referring to pronouncing a prolonged he followed
by an /aw/ sound; if you voice the he, it will no longer be a he or
an /h/ sound; if you unvoice the vowel, it will no longer be a vowel.
Anyone who tries can say khhhhhhaaaaaaaw (with an Ashk'naz khaf) just
as well as he can say hhhhhhaaaaaaaw (with a S'faradi het or a he), or,
indeed, sssssssaaaaaaaw.

I have no intention to weigh in with my view of what is halakhically
correct. Exactly what is proper is not clear from the g'moro (just that
you should be ma'arikh in the word); I know several different opinions
among rishonim and acharonim about the exact way it is done, so who am I
to stick my head among the big movers and shakers? I can only tell you
what is possible and what is impossible, and how the masorah describes
the rules.

> Is that suggested geminated pronunciation ("ehaddddd") in accord with the
> stricture of MB 61(21) and others 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, as I noted, R. Orenstein
> translates, "that one should enunciate it distinctly with his mouth.")?
> If not, may it be suggested to those who wish to follow the MB, and are
> there authorities who expressly deny the need to avoid the appearance
> that the Daled is punctuated with a Sh'va or a Tzerei? (Perhaps this is
> one of the areas of dispute to which you parenthetically adverted.)

One must read the MB in context. He is commenting on the SA that says
"yadgish b'dalet shelo t'he k'resh," i.e. not a flap sound like many
or most English speakers do in a word like writer/rider. The MB is just
cautioning that one should not stress it so much that he pronounces it
ehadddde: the normally tendency for the people prolonging the dalet is
to put a vowel afterwards. If one is does not put a vowel following the
dalet, the MB's warning has been heeded. After all, the M'habber said
in the previous s'if that "ya'arikh b'dalet," and the MB quotes no one
who disagrees with that. I assure you that the MB was not pronouncing
the dalet like an English /th/ or a Teimani soft tav.

I appreciate the efforts of people to pronounce ehad correctly. However,
there are lots of other words to be pronounced correctly in Sh'ma'.
Even if one is unable to properly pronounce the 'ayins and het's, one
can still properly pronounce the dagesh hazaq in consonants. (For those
who don't know diqduq, it is very simple: every dagesh following a vowel
[i.e. not a sh'va or not at the beginning of a word] indicates that
the letter is to be pronounced as a geminate consonant, i.e. doubled.)
One can combine the words as indicated by the trop. And one can pronounce
the aleph properly, as a glottal stop (the sound in uh-uh, American
slang for no). I have heard many people performing vocal somersaults
on the first posuq who somehow forget that the rest of q'rias Sh'ma"
is also to be said carefully l'khatt'hilla.

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         ]