Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 99

Fri, 19 Aug 2016

• 1. Re: Pesukim LeShemos Anoshim (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Pesukim LeShemos Anoshim (Isaac Balbin)
• 3. Zelig (was: pesukim leshemos anashim) (elazar teitz)
• 4. Re: plurals ()
• 5. Re: Rambam omitting sources ... (Was: Re: Prophecy) (H Lampel)
• 6. Without the Torah the land is not the Land of Israel (Professor L. Levine)
• 7. Zelig (Arie Folger)
• 8. Using a Microwave for dairy and meat (Professor L. Levine)
• 9. Re: Using a Microwave for dairy and meat (Saul Guberman)

Isaac Balbin wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:

>> Chanun and Asher basically mean the same thing.

> Not sure how ?basically? fits in here

They have the same basic meaning.  Both Asher and Chanun can be translated
as "Zelik".


>> What do you mean "also"?   Selig is the German spelling.  It's pronounced
>> "Zelig".

Sorry, I meant it's pronounced "Zelik".  My point was that *nobody*
pronounces it with a samech.


> The end part it pronounced it at least two ways by Germans, but not with
> a Kuf or Gimel sound.
> Which Posuk would a German Jew use. I?ve heard Chof and Ish as the
> end pronunciations. In Gittin you?d probably need to write both.

Zelich, and Zelish?!  How does a German G become those sounds?  Those
are the sounds various dialects of German use for "ch", not for "G".
The Dutch pronounce every G like a chof, so maybe Berliners do too, but
surely not any other Germans.  And I don't see how anyone could turn it
into a shin.


Micha Berger wrote:

> FWIW, I usuallly hear the Yiddish pronounced "Zeligk" and by the more
> Polisher and Galicianisher, "Zeiligk". (These are the same people who
> make a berakhah to the "MEI-lekh ha'olam"...)
>
> I thought it was a similar phonology pattern to "bundt" -- using the
> voice for only the first part of a plosive sound.

That's exactly what it is.  In German a G at the end of a word is
pronounced K, and a D at the end of a word is pronounced T.  Thus a
phonetic transliteration would use kuf and tes, except in cases where
Yiddish pronunciation has softened them back.


> Gotta admit, not too interested in the German original, unless the
> discussion was about a /Yekke/ who was looking for the appropriate pasuq
> for his name.

The German original is interesting for two reasons:  How it would be
spelt in a German get, and to understand why it's often spelt with a gimel.
Are those who spell it with a gimel actually representing a G sound, or
are they just blindly copying the German orthography?

If someone would find the Mahari Mintz we could have a more informed
discussion but I've got about 20 other things on my plate right now.


-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

Well I typed Selig into a German pronunciation site and it gave the two versions I listed for the g in audio form

I could ask my mother in law but that would be betraying the fact that my wife is half yekke :-)
Maybe old timers at Breuers Shule will know.

_________________________________
The information contained within this email should be considered
confidential and / or privileged and is intended solely for the
addressee(s) only. It may not be copied, forwarded, printed or otherwise
disseminated to a third party to whom it is addressed without the explicit
permission of the author of the email.

If you have received this message in error, you must not copy, forward,
print, or otherwise disseminate any information contained within this email
or attachments. Please contact the sender advising that the error has
occurred and to determine the most appropriate method of disposal. Thank
you in anticipation of your cooperation.

> On 18 Aug 2016, at 9:43 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> 
> Isaac Balbin wrote:
>> Zev Sero wrote:
> 
>>> Chanun and Asher basically mean the same thing.
> 
>> Not sure how ?basically? fits in here
> 
> They have the same basic meaning.  Both Asher and Chanun can be translated
> as "Zelik".
> 
> 
>>> What do you mean "also"?   Selig is the German spelling.  It's pronounced
>>> "Zelig".
> 
> Sorry, I meant it's pronounced "Zelik".  My point was that *nobody*
> pronounces it with a samech.
> 
> 
>> The end part it pronounced it at least two ways by Germans, but not with
>> a Kuf or Gimel sound.
>> Which Posuk would a German Jew use. I?ve heard Chof and Ish as the
>> end pronunciations. In Gittin you?d probably need to write both.
> 
> Zelich, and Zelish?!  How does a German G become those sounds?  Those
> are the sounds various dialects of German use for "ch", not for "G".
> The Dutch pronounce every G like a chof, so maybe Berliners do too, but
> surely not any other Germans.  And I don't see how anyone could turn it
> into a shin.
> 
> 
> Micha Berger wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, I usuallly hear the Yiddish pronounced "Zeligk" and by the more
>> Polisher and Galicianisher, "Zeiligk". (These are the same people who
>> make a berakhah to the "MEI-lekh ha'olam"...)
>> 
>> I thought it was a similar phonology pattern to "bundt" -- using the
>> voice for only the first part of a plosive sound.
> 
> That's exactly what it is.  In German a G at the end of a word is
> pronounced K, and a D at the end of a word is pronounced T.  Thus a
> phonetic transliteration would use kuf and tes, except in cases where
> Yiddish pronunciation has softened them back.
> 
> 
>> Gotta admit, not too interested in the German original, unless the
>> discussion was about a /Yekke/ who was looking for the appropriate pasuq
>> for his name.
> 
> The German original is interesting for two reasons:  How it would be
> spelt in a German get, and to understand why it's often spelt with a gimel.
> Are those who spell it with a gimel actually representing a G sound, or
> are they just blindly copying the German orthography?
> 
> If someone would find the Mahari Mintz we could have a more informed
> discussion but I've got about 20 other things on my plate right now.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
> z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
>                       words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
>                       when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160818/5f90478a/attachment-0001.htm>

>> Whilst it certainly sounded like Zelik when said, it is most commonly
>> written with the Gimmel.

>As I explained, that's because in German it's spelt with a G.  But since
>Yiddish no longer slavishly follows German spelling, that should be
>irrelevant.   And even when it was fashionable to pretend to be writing
>German, halocho seems not to have taken any notice, and the first spelling
>given in the Beis Shmuel is with a kuf.

     In Oholei Sheim, by thr Ba'al Kitzur Shulchan Aruch -- a sefer devoted
exclusively to sheimos gittin and the one most commonly used, he writes
that the default spelling is with a gimel unless the individual writes it
with a kuf.  Likewise the Get M'kushar (R. Arye Leib Zinz), who writes that
the German pronunciation is with a kuf, but "bimdinos eilu" it is
pronounced with a gimel, and should be written thus, absent evidence to the
contrary in a particular case.  Halacha l'ma'ase, this is what is done.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160818/c2fe27b9/attachment-0001.htm>

 
In a message dated 8/18/2016 3:55:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
famil...@actcom.net.il writes:

Sorry--I  just realized that that was probably a little obscure.  What I
meant  is that the word ends with a yud (benoni), so in the plural should be
with  two yudim.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters 

 
>>>>>
 
 
You are being logical and grammatical, but that's not common usage.   No 
one says "beinoni'im," everyone says "beinonim."
 
I'm pretty sure the same is true of Tanach words like "Tzidoni"  -- I  
think the plural is Tzidonim even if maybe logically it should be  "Tzidoni'im."
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


-------------------------------------------------------------------


 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160818/0eb3c692/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/16/2016 4:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:43:03PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
>: Any matter that Rebbi considered closed, he recorded as a stam mishna
>: (despite our knowing from other sources that it was originally a matter
>: of dispute). When he recorded his own opinion together with an opposing
>: one, whether that of an individual or a rabbim, it was before a formal
>: vote was taken, and he still hoped to convince the other side.

> SO he didn't hold of yachid verabbim halakhah kerabbim, which renders
> many mishnayos to be discussions of settled halakhos?

Maharatz Chayos explains (Ateres Zvi, 7) that the klal of yachid v'rabbim
halacha k'rabbim rabbim's does not render the halachos settled. Beis Din
(or maybe better the Av Beis Din) may see more strength to a yachid's
stand and settle the halacha accordingly (as in mishna 5). When the
[Av?] Beis Din does not see one side a stronger than the other, and it
decides that it is time to take a vote (for example, all sides agree they
fully presented their cases) then nimnu v'gamru, the matter is voted upon
and the majority wins.When Rebbi was able to present what he considered
to be a closed issue (his real goal, as per Rambam), he presented it
as a stam mishna. With the other mishnayos presenting different sides,
including yachid v'rabbim, he was describing the tentative state of
affairs before the official [Av?] beis Din decision, such as through an
official nimnu v'gamru.

>   For that matter,
> halkhah keBeis Hillel also closed the discussion in numerous mishnayos
> before Rebbe's day.

So in such cases the reason for recording the minority shittah and Beis
Shammai's shittah is the one given in Mishna 6. It was a shittah that
people were known or suspected to hold onto despite it being formally
rejected, so Rebbi preserved it as evidence against them.

>:> So then how does he qualify as sof hora'ah?

>: He doesn't. Rebbi and Rebbi Nosson were Sof Mishnah. Only Rav Ashi and
>: Ravina were Sof Hora'ah (BM 86a).

> Exactly... R Ashi and Ravina record machloqesin, meaning -- according
> to the Rambam -- that he didn't considered these halakhos closed. So
> how did the Rambam also hold that they were sof hora'ah?

The Rambam held that the reason Rav Ashi and Ravina included machlokesin
was different from the reason that Rebbi did. Again, the Rambam
distinguises between what Rebbi meant to do by composing the Mishna ,
and what Rav Ashi and Ravina meant to do by composing the Gemara. Rebbi
with his Mishnah meant to record how the pesak stood at his time and
in his opinion. It was not written to delve into the reasoning, so one
would expect just one opinion to be recorded, and special considerations
need to be introduced to explain why more than one opinion is presented
. The Gemora, on the other hand, was written to analyze the Mishna and
delve into the reasoning behind the shittos (plus other issues not taken
up in the Mishna). For that purpose, it is natural that one records
machlokessin even when the pesak is closed. Rav Ashi and Ravina were
the final word on the facts and considerations to be entertained.

As I wrote:
:>   If they're giving hora'ah,
:> and hora'ah is supposed to look like Mishnah Torah, why didn't Rav Ashina
:> and Ravina write the Rif rather than shas?

No one said Hor'a'a is supposed to look specifically like Mishneh Torah
vs. Rif vs Gemara. It can be presented in different forms. Rambam said
that his purpose is to provide final pesak, following Rebbi's approach
in the Mishneh, with the difference that all the issues of the MIshna
and Gemara were already settled by Rambam's time, so there is no reason
for him to record past disputes.

>: The Mishna was not meant for hora'ah; only the Gemora was...

> What do you mean by "hora'ah"? Rebbe clearly intended to pasqen.

> But in any case, we are talking about hora'ah.

You're right, my response, "The Mishna was not meant for hora'ah;
only the Gemora was..." doesn't make sense. Hora'a includes, primarily
so, pesak, as you say. Rav Ashi and Ravina continued Rebbi's mission of
recording pesak, and were the "sof" of that effort, finalizing the pesak,
something that Rebbi did not do. In addition, they also did somethng else
Rebbi did not do: They put into a girsa the analyses behind the shittos,
something that heretofore was maintained orally and without a universally
fixed girsa.

....
>: You'd have to bring me specific examples to illustrate this alleged
>: dispute between Rambam and most rishonim. And again, I'd like tounderstand
>: what you meant by rishonim using "pieces" to "invent" or
>: "construct" halachos in a way different from how the Rambam does so.
>: Can you give any specific examples of pesak contrasting Rambam's with
>: the alleged dominant position? ...

> Do you agree with RMH, though, that they do described what machloqes and
> pesaq are in very different ways? He provides translations and citations.
...

Bli nedder I'll respond to the above separately.

Zvi Lampel

The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Devarim 4:5


5 See! I have taught you statutes and [social] ordinances as God, my
God, made it my duty, so that you may act accordingly in the midst of
the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.


You see that I have taught you statutes and social ordinances in accordance
with God's command, so that you should observe them in the land
you are about to enter.

Thus you have been presented with a fact that is important for your
calling and for the significance of these laws, and that sets you and these
laws apart from all other laws and nations: You are the only nation in the
world that possessed laws before it possessed a land of its own. Furthermore,
these laws are the only laws that are not intended as a means for
building up a national existence and for achieving national independence
and prosperity deriving from the national land. Rather, these laws are the
sole end for which you were given all of the above. Every other nation
becomes a nation through its land, and afterward it creates laws for its
land. You, by contrast, became a nation through the Torah, and you received
a land for [the sake of observing] the Torah.

The laws of all other nations are the product of the nation's unique
character - engendered by its land - and of the changing needs of the
nation's development. But your lawgiver, the man from whose hands you
received your Law, has never even seen your land, never set foot on it. He
merely transmitted to you the Law, and his grave in the wilderness is the
Divine seal on the Law that he, the lawgiver, transmitted; his grave attests
that this Law is eternal and immutable.

The laws of the Torah are absolute, whereas you and your land are
conditional. The laws of the Torah do not change in accordance with

changes in your fortunes or in the fortunes of your land. Rather, your
fortunes and the fortunes of your land change in accordance with the
extent to which you are faithful to the laws of the Torah. With the Torah

in your arms, you now stand on the border of the land you are to enter,
in order that you may there observe the Torah in its entirety. With the
Torah in your arms, you will be temporarily exiled from the Land, but
again and again you will stand as a nation whose whole purpose is to live
for the observance of this Torah. Thus shall you await the moment when
you will be able once again to enter the Land, which was given to you so
that you may observe the Torah in its entirety. You are the people of the
Torah, not the people of the Land; the land is the Land of the Torah, and
without Torah the land is not the Land of Israel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160818/2dcc55cf/attachment-0001.htm>

Since some august Ovedim seem confused about some aspects of Zelig and of
German, here is some additional info:
Zelig is written Selig in German and indeed means something like Chanun or
Asher. According to RMBerger in a long past issue of Avoda, it is the
origin of the word silly, the common denominator meaning blessed/bliss.

No, RIB, the G in Selig is not pronounced almost like a khaf; that's Dutch,
not German. In German, it is a hard G, or, depending on the word and the
area, a K.

The S of Selig is obviously pronounced Z, as that's how a single source
followed by a vowel is pronounced I'm German.

Whether to transliterate the financial G as Gimmel of Quf would possibly
depend on where one was and hence how it is pronounced.

Trivia: the German equivalent of zikhrono livrakha is seligen Andenken,
literally of blessed memory. We use it in our publications.

Kol tuv,
--
Mit freundlichen Gr??en,
Yours sincerely,

Arie Folger
Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160819/dca9d0fd/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomis.


Q. I have heard that one may use the same microwave oven for dairy and
meat, since the food is heated by microwave radiation and not with fire and
the walls don't really get hot. Is this correct?


A. If a microwave oven was used to cook a dairy food, it should no longer
be used for meat, and vice versa (unless kashered - to be discussed in a
future Halacha Yomis). There are two ways that heating a dairy food in a
microwave will make it dairy. If the food is placed directly on the surface
of the microwave, once it becomes too hot to touch (yad soledes bo), which
is approximately 120?F, ta'am (taste) of the food will be absorbed into
that surface. This is true, even if the surface that the food is resting on
does not get hot. Furthermore, if a dairy food is heated in an open
container, even though there is no direct contact between the food and the
microwave surface, it will also become dairy, once the food gives off
steam. The steam that emanates from a dairy food has the same status as the
food itself. Because microwave radiation heats the water molecules in the
food, a lot of steam is quickly generated. The hot steam is absorbed into
all the surfaces of the microwave,
  even those that are not hot.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160819/61ca76a4/attachment-0001.htm>

The star-K has a different psak.
http://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appl
iances/489/microwaving-in-the-workplace/

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote:
> The following is from today's OU Halacha Yomis.

>  Q. I have heard that one may use the same microwave oven for dairy and
> meat, since the food is heated by microwave radiation and not with fire and
> the walls don't really get hot. Is this correct?  

> A. If a microwave oven was used to cook a dairy food, it should no longer
> be used for meat, and vice versa (unless  kashered -- to be discussed in
> a future Halacha Yomis)...


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)