Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 020

Monday, November 1 2004

• RE: Josephus and etrog
• re:Zohar
• Re: Zohar Forgery?
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Haftarah
• re: Haftarah
• Re: Intergenerational conflicts and Hilchos Shabbos
• Sakranus
• Re: Age of the Universe
• From: afolger@aishdas.org
• Re: your mail
• LECTURE #3: TORAH AND SCIENCE
• Seeking Midrashic source that one should not favor one child over other children
• Businessmen v. consumers?
• Berakhah for Misas Resha'im
• Yishmael
• On Parshas Vayeiro.
• Re: your mail
• Re: Yishmael

I separated the following into paragraphs to make it easier to follow:

>  (Re: From Mlevinmd@aol.com:
>> Here Josephus says that the Jews use citrons (Esrog) on Succos. However
>> in Ant. 3.245 he says that it is perseia, an avocado like fruit. Also
>> in Ant. 13.372 he says that it is a citron):

> Posted by: moshe.feldman@gmail.com on Oct 29, 2004:
>  From my father, Dr. Louis Feldman, professor of Classical Languages at YU:

> If you will look at my edition of Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1-4,
> published by E.J.Brill, 2000, paperback version 2004, p. 301, on Ant.
> 3.245, I cite the Septuagint's translation of pri etz hadar (Lev. 23:30)
> as karpon xulon horaion, i.e. seasonable fruit of a tree.

Then not, as stated above, as a "perseia."

>I cite Jacob N.
> Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Toephta and
> Halakhic Midrashim [Hebrew], ed. Ezra Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Magnes,
> 1957) 347-348, who notes the apparent contradiction between Ant. 3.245
> and 13.372.

What contradiction? The term "seasonable fruit of a tree," the translation
of p'ri etz haddar," and citron (esrog)? That's not a contradiction! The
Torah sheh b'al peh teaches that the esrog is the payrush of "p'ri
etz haddar."

> Epstein concludes that Josephus is using two different
> sources but felt no contradiction. He suggests that perhaps in case the
> Israelites did not find a citron they could bring another type of fruit,
> inasmuch as the Bible does not specify the fruit.

If I'm reading this right, Epstein seems unaware that the esrog is the
payrush of the more general term, "p'ri etz hadar."

>But, we may add, why the persea, the fruit of a tree that grows in Egypt?

I don't get it. Who mentioned the persea?

Zvi Lampel

M. Berger writes, 
> Had RMdL tried convincing them of an entire section of Torah that he
> alone knew about, wouldn't the chachamim of that generation have made
> a similar objection? Rather, it is more plausible that something along
> the lines of either the existance of the Zohar or the majority of the
> ideas in the Zohar was already yadu'ah.

This ignores history. At the time that RMdL published it, the zohar
was far from accepted. In fact we have contemorary testimony that RMdL
forged it.

Furthermore, the Zohar even post-RMdl was not fully accepted, there
are many that did not accept parts or even the whole. It is really
only a very recent phenomenon that we accept the Zohar as Torah MiSini.
In fact I am hesitant to even write this becuase so many now accept it and
consider it Torah MiSinai I realize that this may not be palpable to many.

The fact that R. Ashlag in his introduction says that RmDl was not
comepent enough to write it himself is a rather old argument, many of
the people cited by Tishby in my original post deal with how RMdL could
or could not have written it.

Again, if one wants actaully read the entirity of sources on this matter
and therefore have some understanding --- read Tishby in hebrew, Mishnat
HaZohar or in English Wisdom of the Zohar.

=====
Dan Rabinowitz
rwdnick@yahoo.com

R' Micha wrote:
<<Note that Teimanim, who had no mesorah akin to the idea of the Zohar
did summarily reject it outright.>>

It is only the Darda'i who reject the Zohar. Any person who has
paid shiv'a calls on Teimanim knows that there is usually a group
of men who sit for hours reading zohar, and out loud. My neighbor,
Mori Sholem Naggar, z"l, when he had trouble sleeping at night used
to recite Zohar by heart. He sometimes alternated and recited Rambam
Mishne Torah or Tehillim. That he knew the entire chumash with nikkud,
metagim and t'amim by heart is fairly obvious. And haftarot as well,
and, of course, all with the appropriate Targum.

The Darda'im are a fairly new "reform" group who followed the Rambam more
strictly as well as rejected Zohar and much mysticism as not authentic
Torah. The movement was founded in San'a by the grandfather of R' Yosef
Kafach, ztz"l.

k"t,
David 

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:00PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Back on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org:
:> RAK invokes RYmA to insert time before the 6 days. He then identifies
:> this time with the time science requires. But that places the yetzirah
:> of objects ahead of day one! The Ramban (and therefore presumably RYmA)
:> would not set the formation of currently existing tzurah before the 6
:> days, that being the definition of the pereq.

: If I'm reading Rabbi Berger's comment correctly, he is challenging
: RAKaplan's understanding of the mekubal, RYmA....
: Apparently, RMB accepts the fact that R. Kahn, he and I are forced to
: take precarious positions sometimes...

Unfortunately, I wasn't sufficiently clear. I do not cahllenge RAK's
understanding of a mequbal. RAK was a learned teacher of the subject,
I only know a few scraps. I asked a question, and did not think my
question was an upshlug. Meisivei, not tiyuvta.

Perhaps my question is a ra'ayah to REED's position that the Ramban
holds that the 6 days of bereishis, while being 6 literal days are both
that time is far more complex than we're able to perceive. After all,
if the same duration can be 6 days and the subsequent 6 millenia, can't
they also be the previous 15 billion years? Or perhaps not.

I'm not forced to take any position on the subject, as I am convinced
by the Maharal's argument that no position I can understand is anything
but an oversimplification to the point of meaninglessness.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

>What is the halakhic distinction vis a vis hiyuv between keri'at ha-Torah
>and Haftarah? Is there a level of difference, both from the reader's
>perspective as well as from the Kahal's? 

Well, a quick peek at OC 284 and the MB sheds some light on the subject.

Torah reading was instituted by Moshe Rabbeinu.

Haftarah was a takanah after a gezeira when Torah reading was
forbidden. (ibid)

The reason this post caught my attention was not so much to show off my
ability to look up a MB :-)

What struck me was the difference between our 2 worlds. While I grimly
recall the lax atmosphere you described, since davening in EY in a
Yeshivishe minyan I had all but forgotten.

Here the Haftara is read in a klaf, as it should be (ibid) and the Ba'al
Koreh gets corrected the same way he does during leining.

Since there is NO shmoozing in shule, the noise level remains the same
for both. You may find this hard to believe, but we don't even have
anybody to enforce this.

However, kids under Bar Mitzva do get to read the Haftara (as allowed
ibid) - though it can take them weeks to prepare.

HTH
 - Danny

>> However, kids under Bar Mitzva do get to read the Haftara (as allowed  
>> ibid) - though it can take them weeks to prepare.

>>Ashrei ho-ish. This all sounds very "Ashkenez-Ashkenez", aka yekkish. 

I wish. Not only is it a far cry from a Yekkish minyan, they even complain
about my Yekkish pronunciation, though they enjoy the tunes. :-)

>>Does the klaf have nicked and tropp?

Not a chance! Looks identical to a Sefer Torah. This makes finding the
place a work of art. In Yechezkel it can take a while to locate the
correct "Ben Adam". The trick is to match the final words of a parsha. I
usually roll the relevant Novi to the correct place on Friday mornings,
when I won't have an audience. :-)

>>And, while we're at it (or should I post to Avodah?) - has anyone ever  
>>seen somebody receiving mafter who just was one of the 7 keruem?

1. This actually is an Avoda thread - my mistake.

2. Never seen it done besides for Simchat Torah when it was sold "too
late" or the buyer forgot to inform the recipient. It's not really
allowed, as per OC 282:5 unless nobody else can read the maftir (or
knows the correct tune on Shabbat Chazon).

>>What is the order of koved (sounds like Legion of Honour) for the aliyes  
>>in your shuls?

As per the SA, I assume. As a Levi I have never paid much attention. :-)

 - Danny

> I was just asked for help by a distraught parent. Her daughter is now
> studying halacha intensely in Israel and has decided that her American
> raised mother and father (who have lived in Israel for 20 years) have
> not been keeping Shabbos properly. The problem is to list legitimate
> differences between American halacha of 20 years ago that the mother

Here are a few examples :
1) wearing a shmotteh on top of a hat during a storm- at least a machlokes
as to whether the shmotteh is is an ohel or is merely batel to the hat
2) carrying in an eruv approved by RMF if your teachers learn that
a Reshus Harabim is 15 amos wide like the Rambam and that a Tzuras
HaPesach cannot create a Reshus Hayahid as per the view of the Rishonim
quoted by MB In BH.
3) placing cold food on the blech when you get home from shul
4) stirring soup with ladle 
5) kli rsihon vs kli sheni vs kli shlishi for coffee and tea and use of
tea bags and instant coffee
6) placing cholent in crockpot or on blech in uncooked fashion or not
even maacal ben drusai as of candle lighting time
7) use of blech or crockpot without regulation of source of heat

These are just a few issues that some parents may not have reviewed over
the years. The question is whether the parents reliance on meikil views
is within the ballpark on a daas yachid or yechidim lhakel or whether
such practices are completely problematic from the view of a Moreh Horah.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

I was asked:
> I am doing project on the middah of Sakranus - Curiousity. I wondered if
> anyone could inform me of some sources and possibly some insights of their
> own.

To which I replied:
: Fascinating. I can't think of any, as it never crossed my mind to work
: on this middah (in my case, its excess). Would it be okay if I forwarded
: your email to the Avodah discussion group?

He replied:
: yes you can.
: rabbi dessler discusses it and a few of the balei mussar of late

So, I'm asking the chevrah for suggestions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Schweitzer

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Perhaps my question is a ra'ayah to REED's position that the Ramban
> holds that the 6 days of bereishis, while being 6 literal days are both
> that time is far more complex than we're able to perceive. After all,
> if the same duration can be 6 days and the subsequent 6 millenia, can't
> they also be the previous 15 billion years? Or perhaps not.

> I'm not forced to take any position on the subject, as I am convinced
> by the Maharal's argument that no position I can understand is anything
> but an oversimplification to the point of meaninglessness.

The bottom line is that it is unclear at best. To not take a position
is to admit that it is unclear. That is my view as well. My problem is
with the absolutists on either side of the issue. IMO one has to accept
the validity of observable data. If not then one cannot believe in the
existence of material existence. And that is a perfectly legitimate
approach in Emunah. If one subscribes to the Berkelian concept of all
existence as spiritual ... and that the material world is ultimately
unprovable, one can accept the premise that the world was created to
look old. Why not? One can even say that there was no material creation
at all and that everything exists only in the mind of God. The creation
was a spiritual... All... is spiritual and the Briah is spiritual as
well. We only ...THINK... we live in a material world. It is an Olam
Hasheker in the ultimate sense of the world... the proverbial "Prosdor"
to the Olam HaEmes.

But if one believes that there is material existence then observable
data cannot simply be dismissed. It must be dealt with. This what RAK
succeeded in doing. That one can dispute his analysis is immaterial.
As long as his view is based on a legitimate... even if not universally
accepted... understanding of classical sources, that is enough.

On the question of how much of RAK or similar approaches I actually
understand with my limited knowledge of both Torah and science...
that is a problem for me to work out and is one reason I say that I am
ultimately unclear as to the truth of creation. I do not really know
what happened. I am not even sure if it is possible to really know. But
I do not condemn the pursuit of truth. I applaud it. There is no reason
not to search for the truth as long as one does so without any bias.

The core of my own beliefs is based strongly on Mesorah. I cannot
conceive of a people who have been so strongly persecuted yet surviving,
even thriving and contributing so much to humankind both materially
and spiritually to this day against all odds. The sheer volume of
written works written by the finest minds in human history, and a shared
unwavering loyalty to a set of core beliefs that have remained unchanged
in thousands of years... is very persuasive to me.
This strongly indicates a hasgacha pratis of keeping God's people on
track and therefore ultimately rejects any and all claims to any kind
of "new revelations" by other religions. But that does not stop me from
pondering the great questions. Those questions exist whether I ponder
them or not. Ignoring them won't make them go away.

It better serves Klal Israel to deal with these questions directly
and honestly to reconcile them with our Mesorah as much as possible.
In those instances that one cannot resolve an apparent conflict, one
must simply remain with a question, if one is to be intellectually
honest. To simply say our Mesorah is right and a scientific fact is
wrong is to blind oneself to reality and is intellectually dishonest.
Better to say, yes there seems to be a conflict and to admit that one has
no answer... yet! That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist as I believe
it must. It simply means that either we don't yet have all the facts
or that we do not completely understand the Mesorah. If this leaves
one with questions... that's fine. One can be a complete Maimon and
have questions. As long as at the core one knows that there...IS... an
answer. We just don't know it...yet. To say one’s current understanding
of science trumps Mesorah brings one arrogantly close to Apikurus.

But to say that one's personal understanding of Mesorah is so accurate
that an obvious scientific fact is discounted is foolish.

HM

RMB wrote:
> I would like to propose a parallel to the "Kuzari Proof...
> Had RMdL tried convincing them of an entire section of Torah that he
> alone knew about, wouldn't the chachamim of that generation have made
> a similar objection? Rather, it is more plausible that something along
> the lines of either the existance of the Zohar or the majority of the
> ideas in the Zohar was already yadu'ah.

Three issues with your reasoning:
a) the Zohar isn't that big of a 'hidush when you realize that much
of its content was already common fare in the days of RMdL. The Zohar
should be seen as an extension of Gerona/Castillian Kabbalah, and not
as a revolution
b) we know that there was much opposition to the Zohar, so we know that
as far as there was 'hiddush in it, it was contested and only accepted
over time
c) I saw with my own eyes sources cited in Zohar which we do not have,
but which are worked out without citing a previous source by RMdL in
his Hebrew writings, published before he published the Zohar (perhaps as
much as 20 years, the number stuck in my head, although I can't give that
figure with certainty). So, while RMdL said that he had the Zohar for a
long time in his possession, he was "quoting" from it without referrencing
it, a strange practice, indeed, understanding that quoting an ancient
source is a good way to support your point in our tradition. One could
resolve this problem by stating that RMdL wasn't willing to divulge his
ancient source in his more youthful days, but I don't think that this
argument is credible; I am sure it would have been argued very early
on, had this been the case (in fact, RMdL would have told us something
about it).

AFAIR, RYE didn't say that much of the Zohar was ancient enough to come
from RSBY, but that some of the Zohar came from then. This is likely
true and that is the period where IIRC Idel places the Heikhalot/Merkavah
traditions recorded in the Zohar. Nobody in his right mind disputes that
the Zohar contains older traditions, older than the Bahir (the Zohar
does quote the Bahir, as "Yerushalmi"). The question is only how much
RMdL added of his own pen, and how old the older traditions are.

What the Kuzari's "proof" shows, is that Rambam was probably not so
right with his extreme rationalism, and that Kabbalah contains a lot more
material more compatible with 'Hazal than some rationalist Mamonideans
(including me in a previous state of greater ignorance) would want us
to believe. This is, however, not to be seen as a blanket endorsement
of all things emanating (pun intended) from the Zohar and related,
subsequent works. I am simply not knowledgable enough to want to make
public comments about this here and now. I haven't seriously learned
Zohar in several years, espescially since coming to Basle. I sooner
answer kashrut questions ("is glucose/caffeine/tartaric/mallic/citric
acid kosher?") nowadays.

Arie Folger

On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 02:26:13PM -0600, afolger@aishdas.org wrote:
:> I would like to propose a parallel to the "Kuzari Proof...
:> Had RMdL tried convincing them of an entire section of Torah that he
:> alone knew about, wouldn't the chachamim of that generation have made
:> a similar objection? Rather, it is more plausible that something along
:> the lines of either the existance of the Zohar or the majority of the
:> ideas in the Zohar was already yadu'ah.

: Three issues with your reasoning:
: a) the Zohar isn't that big of a 'hidush when you realize that much
: of its content was already common fare in the days of RMdL. The Zohar
: should be seen as an extension of Gerona/Castillian Kabbalah, and not
: as a revolution

Far from being an issue with my reasoning, it's the point being
proved! Either way, the Zohar can't be viewed as a discontinuity in the
mesorah. The ideas in the book couldn't be novel. So how significant
is the age of the text itself? The question has been distilled of its
nafqa mina lema'aseh.

-mi

A  perennial Avodah favorite addressed on the Gush VBM.

KT
Joel Rich

<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/bereishit/03bereishit.htm>

              LECTURE #3: TORAH AND SCIENCE

The opening chapter of Bereishit describes the creation of the
universe. In this lecture, we shall examine the degree to which this
description should be viewed as a precise scientific account of the
events. This question arises wherever there is a clash between the plain
sense of Scripture and modern scientific findings.
...

I recall a Midrash that we can learn from the story of Yaakov and Yosef
that one should not favor one child over the others. Can anyone provide
the citation or at least provide the exact language of the Midrash?

Thanks.
Moshe

On Areivim, we recently discussed various issues about shopping at
large presumably-non-Jewish supermarkets because of their low prices, or
whether we should pay higher prices to support smaller Jewish groceries.
One of the critical factors, for example, was the exact degree of the
price differential -- where the supermarket is only 2% cheaper than the
grocery, you might have a different feeling than where it is 20% cheaper.

R'SBA pretty much cut to the core of the question by asking
> Lechoreh AIUI we are discussing whose interests come first - the
> consumers or the shopkeepers?

He then brought a Midrash that he recently saw, supporting the idea that
consumer interests come first:

> I noticed a Midrash Rabbah last week [Lech Lecho 39:11] where the
> Midrash says that [even] the ships on the sea didn't sink in the zechus
> of Avrohom Ovinu.

> The Midrash asks "Hayitochen, AO's zechus should ensure yayin nesech
> [that the ships carry] for the world?

> The Midrash explains, that when there is a shortage of wine [non-kosher],
> the goyim will buy kosher wine - thus pushing up the price for Jews. If,
> however, there is a glut of yayin nesech, all wine prices drop - including
> kosher wine!

> Now IMHO, if Chazal were concerned for the shopkeepers making good
> profits, would those ships not have sunk?

Ad caan R'SBA's demonstration that Chazal were concerned more for the
customers than the shopkeepers.

Coincidentally enough, I came across a gemara last week which seems to
support this same idea.

In Shmoneh Esreh, the ninth bracha, "Barech Alenu", is generally
understood as being for parnassa. The text of the bracha refers to the
"tvuah" and the weather. My presumption had always been that the bracha
was written for an agricultural society, and that the request is for an
abundant crop, so that the farmer could feed his family and even have
some extra to sell.

But the gemara in Megilla 17b, near the bottom, if I'm understanding
it correctly, actually says something very different. Yes, the bracha
is asking for an abundant crop. But *not* because such a crop would be
good for the farmer. The gemara there refers to Tehillim 10:15, and says
that this bracha is a tefilah against price-gougers.

In other words, we want an abundant crop not because it would give
large profits to the farmers, but because it would give low prices to
the customers!

I have brought this thread to Avodah in the hope that some other
listmembers might offer other citations which take sides between the
businessman and the consumer.

Akiva Miller

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> One person asked if the berakhah can be said when Arafat's death is
> announced, That person asked:
>> I have a halachik problem. If this is confirmed do I say "Shehechiyanu"
>> or "Hatov vehamativ"?

Should anyone be saying a brocho before knowing for certain that Arafat's
replacement won't be a bigger rasha than him?

SBA

Can someone explain why the tzeirei in the word Yishmael [and Yizrael]
is under the ayin rather than the alef?

SBA

During krias haTorah [OK, bein gavreh legavreh] someone asked, what
was the purpose of the RBSO informing AO about the planned destruction
of Sodom -seeing that AO couldn't save them anyway? Why upset him for
no reason?

Then someone showed us the Daas Zekeinim miBT which explains this and
the following pesukim beautifully. Ayen shom.

==

There is a story about someone once asking the SR z'l why he doesn't
do, as is known about the Kedushas Levi z'l, to be melamed zechus on
baalei aveireh?

The SR replied: "How do you know what I do privately?' [ie - he certainly
was mispallel and mevakesh for all of Klall Yisroel]. IIRC, the rebbe
discusses this in the VM and shows that the KL himself also publicly
mussared Yidden.

I bring this as a hakdomo to a vertel repeated in last weeks
Antwerp weekly "Shabbas beSgabbato" newsletter [to subscribe:
shabato@antwerpen.be] in the name of the SR.

On Vayashkeim Avrohom Baboyker - the gemoro in Chulin 91 teaches that a
TC should not venture out alone at night. Tosfos explains that Avrohom
waited until morning to be mispallel on Sodom.

The SR asks, why didn't AO simply take along 2 of his servants and
mispallel the night before?

The SR suggests that AO in his tefilos had to be melamed zechus on the
Anshei Sodom - and defending reshoim should only be done 'beinoi
levein koinoi'.
Thus, he couldn't do this in front of his servants who would have gotten
the idea that maybe the reshoim of Sodom are not so bad after all..

Therefore he waited until morning when he could be mispallel alone -
and others won't hear his 'defences' for the Anshei Sodom.

[He adds, that similarly in our days, after the holocaust, we should,
just like AO did regarding Sodom, be melamed zechus on poshim, but davka
privately - to the RBSO. However, publicly, there is a chiyuv to censure
and denounce baalei aveireh...

SBA

Micha Berger wrote:
>Far from being an issue with my reasoning, it's the point being
>proved! Either way, the Zohar can't be viewed as a discontinuity in the
>mesorah. The ideas in the book couldn't be novel. So how significant
>is the age of the text itself? The question has been distilled of its
>nafqa mina lema'aseh.

You might want to consider Mishnas Chachomim of Rav Moshe Chagis -
the major opponent of the Ramchal. On page 46a #333 he says the following:

"This that you find that our sages say that Avraham observed the
entire Torah even Eiruv Tavshilin is only in the manner which I have
written in my first introduction to Eileh HaMitzvos. Everything was
revealed to Avraham as Chazal state on the verse "G-d said Can I conceal
anything from Avraham". In order to shut the mouths of those critics who
consider us to be idiots who naively believe everything - G-d forbid to
describe this wise and understanding nation in that manner - we need to
understand the words of Chazal concerning the verse "Luchos" refers to
Ten Commandments, Torah refers to Chumash, Mitzvos refers to Mishna,
"which I wrote" refers to Neviim and Kesuvim, to teach - refers to
Gemora - from which we learn that all these were given on Sinai to Moshe.
To assert that it means that Moshe received it exactly as we have written
down today is a blatant falsehood. That is because we know that prior
to R' Yehuda HaNassi it was prohibited to write down the Oral Law.
Therefore we must obviously understand this statemetnent that it was
revealed to Moshe as being in an oral manner every generation and its
expounders and everything that a talmid vatik would ask in the future.
The majority of the information being transmitted orally according to our
mesora. All of the information being transmtited and validated in a manner
that we dont't have any doubts about it as I have previously explained.

#334 "The same processes applies to the awesome composition - the
Zohar. There is no doubt that its essence was taught by RShimon bar
Yochai and his chaveirim. Therefore whoever questions the validity of
the Zohar is like one who doubts the Shechina..."

This is essentially the position of Rav Yaakov Emden - I have his sefer.
Of interest is that Prof Moshe Idel - talmid muvhak of Prof Gershon
Shalom - eloquently criticizes his teacher for being too text based
in his criticism of the Zohar and not acknowledging the essential
oral nature of the Zohar in particular and Kabbalah in general.
[Kabbalah:New Persepctives].

Daniel Eidensohn

R'SBA questions: <<Can someone explain why the tzeirei in the word
Yishmael [and Yizrael] is under the ayin rather than the alef?>>

Because the alef is not pronounced. Other examples with alef: b'reishit,
Daniel, haRuveni, rosh.

For over a thousand years, the accepted tradition is that any letter
without nikkud is not pronounced (except for the final letter in a word).

In krei uketiv, the nikkud is that of the krei and has no connection
with the letters. The letters that are to be read with the nikkud are
in the margin. the best example is, of course, shem Hashem which has the
nikkud of Adonai. Ignorant translators used that nikkud with the letters
in the text to invent the English name. When the krei of the same four
letters is Elokim, the nikkud is also of Elokim

In k'tiv v'lo krei, the letters are written without nikkud. In reading,
the entire word is omitted.

In krei v'lo k'tiv the vowels appear in the text without letters. The
letters are in the margin.

The first Tanakh to break the rules is the Koren edition. In their
great fear that someone will read shem Hashem with the printed letters
(and wrong vowels)_ they print shem Hashem without nikkud. If we were
to follow the old custom or rules, the shem should then not be read!

k"t,
David

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


[ 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         ]