Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 141

Fri, 04 Nov 2016

• 1. Re: Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study ()
• 3. Re: Swaying During Prayer and Torah Study (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Coca Cola (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: One Of The Things Specifically Mentioned (jay)
• 7. Geshem or Gashem?! (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. Re: Geshem or Gashem?! (Mandel, Seth)
• 9. Re: Geshem or Gashem?! (Micha Berger)
• 10. Faith and Doubt (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Geshem or Gashem?! (Mandel, Seth)

On 11/2/2016 7:05 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> Please see the article at
> http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg

Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is 
extremely wearying.  Swaying actually makes it easier.

Lisa

 


From: Professor L. Levine  llev...@stevens.edu

>> Please see the article at  http://tinyurl.com/zxu88bg

WADR to the author, he mixes up several  different things. Shockling is
not the same as swaying.....

Rabbi Dr.  Seth Mandel






>>>>>
 
Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on 
 a continuum.
 
 

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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161102/51ef369c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 3:58pm EDT, RnTK replied to RSM:
:> WADR to the author, he mixes up several  different things. Shockling is
:> not the same as swaying.....

: Shuckeling and swaying are not two different things, they are two points on 
: a continuum.

Not really, because as Lisa wrote at 9:04pm +0200:
: Physically speaking, standing still for extended periods of time is
: extremely wearying.  Swaying actually makes it easier.

Swaying is actually less work than standing still, whereas shukling is an
action that has the potential to distract.

Or as I noted earlier, to help the davener work himself up. 

I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
:> If they say that Coca Cola is okay and that is a guarded secret...
: 
: Oh, but a rabbi _did_ see the formula, and even got the company to
: change it!!
: 
: See, e.g., http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kashering_Coke.
: html

To quote, though:

        At the time, Rabbi [Tobias] Geffen did not know that the formula for
        Coca-Cola is a closely guarded trade secret; however, once Rabbi
        Geffen inquired, the Coca-Cola Company made a corporate decision to
        allow him access to the list of ingredients in Coke’s secret
        formula provided he swore to keep them in utter secrecy. Geffen
        agreed to the terms. The company did not tell Geffen the exact
        proportions of each ingredient, but just gave him a list of contents
        by name.

To be precise, he did not get the formula, which would include quantities,
or how they are mixed (eg order, any use of heat, etc...) Just the
list of what went in.

(In other countries, the local plant may use a different sweeter -- as
we in the US know from KLP and Mexican Coke -- and may change quantity.
Water supply can also change flavor.)

As a thread, this would go on Areivim. I just figured it would likely
remain this one post and not worth the switchover.

FWIW, RTG had them switch from using glycerin derive from beef tallow
to a vegetable source.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:46:09AM -0600, jay wrote:
: Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari.

To expand that reference, 2:80:

    79. Al-Khazari: I should like to ask whether thou knowest the reason
    why Jews move to and fro when reading the Bible?

    80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural
    heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the
    subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons
    read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one
    volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them
    was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage,
    and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and
    sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then
    it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating,
    which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book,
    either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down
    to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore,
    no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the
    importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven
    principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

> The minhag of shockling is one of the things specifically mentioned
> as a chiddush of the Chasidim.

> Rabbi Dr. ...

Not by anyone who has read The Kuzari.

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

________________________________
From: Insights Into Halacha <ysp...@ohr.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM
To: Professor L. Levine
Subject: Geshem or Gashem?!




On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas HaMeis

On Shmini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction and codified by the
Shulchan Aruch, world Jewry started reciting "Gevuros Geshamim B'Tchiyas
HaMeisim", better known as the formulaic insert "Mashiv HaRuach U'Morid
Ha..."
Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter
Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which is
the proper formula?

________________________________

To find out, and what the differing opinions depend on, read the full
article "Insights Into Halacha: Geshem or Gashem?<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/10500?id=68062.450.1.4964aa1c964aa7
3d6370adab9d810d8f>" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just
ask.

Y. Spitz

Yerushalayim
ysp...@ohr.edu<mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>







<https://madmimi.com/?>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161103/b7656c34/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Insights Into Halacha <ysp...@ohr.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:57 PM
To: Professor L. Levine
...
> Well, what is the next word? Is it Geshem (with a segol under the letter
> Gimmel) or is it Gashem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel)? Which
> is the proper formula?
...
> Y. Spitz
> Yerushalayim
> ysp...@ohr.edu

Far be it for me to stick my head in among all these poskim.

I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I
have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem.
I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts.

In addition, for those interested in what the acharonim said, RYBS said
in the name of his father that R. Chaim Brisker said geshem.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:21:59PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote:
: I can only attest to facts: All the all ms. Ashkenaz siddurim that I
: have seen (about 30) from the years before printing all have geshem.
: I am not claiming what is right or wrong, I am just pointing to the facts.

So, we were recently discussing "the likes of R' Zalman Hanau and other
grammarians who impacted editions of the siddur, and whose chiddushim
weren't always without controversy" (to quote RAFolger).

IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of
the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh
(LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in
"modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word
would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein
chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The
word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent.

Also Sepharad has "sheAtah" where contemporary Ashkenaz has the
"corrected" "shaAtah".

("Sha-" is not only specific to LT, it's only used from the historical
period from seifer Yehodhua through Shemu'el. The Torah only has the full
"asher", no prefix; and later sifrei Tanakh have "she-". I have noted
this fact as counter-evidence for Document Theory. The Torah is written
in an older Hebrew than Nakh.)

So the whole "geshem" vs "gashem" thing is really about the weight
of the pause afterward. If "mashiv haruach, umorid hageshem" is
just one item in a continuing list, then the pause wouldn't justify
elongating to a qamatz -- "gashem".

But in LC, even with a pause, the word would be "geshem".

So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should
be "gashem" until after the RZH et al.

So, for someoene determined not to be poreish min hatzibbur to role
back to LC, evidence from before the switch wouldn't prove anything.
Such a person would need to deduce whether or not there was a pause;
IOW, whether to translate the LC "geshem" of the siddur up to 1700
into LT "gashem" or "geshem".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             There's only one corner of the universe
mi...@aishdas.org        you can be certain of improving,
http://www.aishdas.org   and that's your own self.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Aldous Huxley

R' Riskin repeated a brilliant observation by R Moshe Besdin. (H/T
Mosaic Magazine.) I think it says a lot about what it means to have
a life of faith despite having periods of doubt.

Quoting from <http://j.mp/2ekffiv> (on blogs.timesofisrael.com):

   ...
   Noah didn't enter the ark until the water literally pushed him in.
   Rashi's phrase that "he believed and he didn't believe" is really
   another way of describing an agnostic who remains in the state of his
   uncertainty; he believes and doesn't believe. Noah is therefore
   described by Rashi as the first agnostic.

   The second Biblical agnostic appears in the guise of Haran...

   Haran is present at the trial and takes the position of having no
   position. He remains on the sidelines thinking that if Nimrod's furnace
   will prove hotter than Abramas flesh, he will side with the king; but
   if Abram survives the fire, then it would be clear that Abramas God is
   more powerful than Nimrodas gods, and he will throw in his lot with his
   brother.

   Only after Abram emerges unscathed, is Haran ready to rally behind his
   brother. He confidently enters the fiery furnace (literally: Ur
   Kasdim), but no miracles await him. Haran burns to death.

   Is it not strange that the fate of the two agnostics should be so
   diifferent? We read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet not only
   does he survive the Flood, he turns into one of the central figures of
   human history. He is even termed arighteousa in the Bible.

   In contrast, Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abraham, hovers on the
   edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death for his lack of
   faith. Why is Haranas agnosticism considered so much worse than Noahas?

   Rabbi Moshe Besdin, zal, explained that while Noah and Haran shared
   uncertainty about God, there was a vast difference between them. Noah,
   despite his doubts, nevertheless build the ark, pounding away for 120
   years, even suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric
   persistence. Noah may not have entered the ark until the rains
   began -- but he did not wait for the Flood before obeying the divine
   command to build an ark!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:57 PM
> IIUC, and I am not sure I do, Said grammarians "fixed" the diqduq of
> the siddur by making it conform to their opinions about Leshon Tanakh
> (LT). Before then, most tefillos were in Leshon Chazal (LC). As in
> "modim anachnu Lakh". In LT, "lakh" is only used for femine, and the word
> would be "Lekha". Which is how we end up with Sepharadim saying "vesein
> chelqeinu beToratakh", but Ashkenazim are now saying "beSorasekha". The
> word "beSorasekha" was "corrected" in Ashkenaz in the early 18th cent.
...
> So there wouldn't have been a discussion about whether the word should
> be "gashem" until after the RZH et al.

Generally correct, but oversimplified.

Anshei K'nesset haG'dolah, when they composed the original nusach, did
much of it in L'shon Chazal, the Hebrew that they spoke. However, they
all knew T'NaKh by heart those days, and so the lashon of the T'NaKh
echoes behind everything, and in many cases whole phrases are lifted
from the T'NaKh.

As in Modim: the words are lifted from Divrei haYamim that we say in
P'suqei d'Zimrah;

"Ve`Atah Eloqeinu modim anakhnu Lakh" [transliteration mine. -mb]

So the form lakh here is actually LT! In L'shon Chazal, it would have
been "Modim anu Lakh". [t-lit mine, again. -mb]

But yes, all the ms Ashk'naz siddurim have -akh in most places where it
is not a quotation from the T'NaKh.

I am writing an article about this, and the more I learn, the less I
realize I know. But Zalman Hanau was never afflicted by such doubts.
His books evidence someone who thought he had figured out the Truth that
no one else knew, and so he did not hesitate to change anything he found
that did not meat his theories.

In today's Jewish world, no one in the O. community. would pay attention
to such a person. The irony came about because the printers, who,
as some have noted are actually the poskei haDor, wanted to make sure
their siddur could say "NEW AND IMPROVED" so that everyone who had a
siddur would buy the new one. The only way they could do that was by
hiring "experts in dikduk" to "correct" any "mistakes" in the siddur.
ZH's theories swept the world of grammarians, and so thenceforth printed
editions mostly followed ZH's own "Beit T'fillah" published first in
Leipzig in 1725, despite the fact that many rabbonim of the time objected
to it and the fact that it turned out some of the haskamot were forged.
And his theories became so ingrained later that even signs of sh'wa nach
and na' were added to follow his theories, including, as has been noted,
in the current printings of the Chabad Siddur.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel



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



_______________________________________________
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.)