Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 381

Sunday, February 20 2000

• Bava Metzia 59 not 58
• SE Biography
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Re: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta..?
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Avodah
• Re: Rashi
• Re: Avodah
• Re: Jewish History
• Re: Re[2]: Biography, was: Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta
• Re: Avodah
• Re: Study of History
• Re: Avodah V4 #379
• Besmirching Fruhm Sociopaths
• Re: Study of History
• Diyukim
• re: Learning from history and biography (was " Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmitta")
• Re: Learning from history and biography (was " Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmit...
• Re: Learning from history and biography (was " Mabul and SE - Mah Inyan Shmit...
• Re: diyukim

The referenced Gemara is Bava Metzia 59. Sorry for the typing error

Y. Dovid Kaye

I am reading Marc Shapiro's biography of the Seridei Eish and it is
clear that he is writing a sympathetic biography of a complex gadol who
lived a tragic life in extremely difficult times.  As he mentions in the
book Rav Weinberg ZTL understood proper faith as stormy and turbulent.
Whether this book enhances one's own religious life depends on the
reader's religious sensibility.  If one sees Judaism as guidelines
enabling one to cope with a complex world through a process of growth
with perspectives sometimes changing, then reading this biography will
be a source of encouragement.  If however if one idealizes a simple
faith with perfect gedolim then he should not read it.
Sincerely,
Yosef Blau

There are tikunei sofrim where there is a chataf kamatz under the dalet
and other tikunei sofrim have a shava naah under the dalet. Tanach Breuer
has a chataf kamatz but the usual reading heard is with a shava naah.

Which is correct??
Asher Gross


On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:19:19 +0200 (IST)
> > From: <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
> > Subject: Megilas Esther -Reading the word Mordechai
> 
> <<There are different versions of how "Mordechai" is pronounced in
> Megilas Esther.
> 
> Is the correct pronunciation Mordochai or Mordachai???
> Reuven Miller(for my son-in-law R' Ashi who is a baal kriya)>>
> 
> 	I think we have hit up against the shortcomings of transliteration.I
> have read the Megila many dozens of times, and am interested in the
> proposition that there are alternate pronunciations for Mordechai.
> 	
> 	However,I cannot understand the two choices.  Can you elaborate with
> some objective terminology?
> 
> Gershon
> 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:03:23 EST TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 2/20/00 1:16:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
 
> << What are the others? >>
 
	I am still not sure here.  Some of the ideas you mention could be
subsets of seeing yad Hashem in history.   Others may not be Jewishly
valid reasons for studying history.  I am not disagreeing;  just not
sure.

Gershon

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:00:57 +0200 (IST) <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il> writes:

> There are tikunei sofrim where there is a chataf kamatz under the 
> dalet and other tikunei sofrim have a shava naah under the dalet.
Tanach 
> Breuer has a chataf kamatz but the usual reading heard is with a shava 
> naah.> 
> Which is correct??
> Asher Gross>>

	Lo ra'inu eino rayoh,  but I have truly never heard anyone say it with a
chataf kamatz.

Gershon

On 20 Feb 00, at 8:36, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:00:57 +0200 (IST) <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il> writes:
> 
> > There are tikunei sofrim where there is a chataf kamatz under the 
> > dalet and other tikunei sofrim have a shava naah under the dalet.
> Tanach 
> > Breuer has a chataf kamatz but the usual reading heard is with a shava 
> > naah.> 
> > Which is correct??
> > Asher Gross>>
> 
> 	Lo ra'inu eino rayoh,  but I have truly never heard anyone say it with a
> chataf kamatz.

I've been doing it for twenty years (based on Breuer in the Koren 
Tikkun), but I last read b'tzibur three years ago. If you or anyone 
else want to come to my wife's private megilla reading, I am sure 
she will be happy to have you. Since Taanis Esther is only the day 
of Megilla reading here in years of Purim Meshulash (like next 
year), I generally don't pause for much more than a cup of coffee 
before I read for her when I come home from shul at night. In the 
morning, I read for her as soon as possible after netz minyan 
(okay, so I drink a cup of coffee after minyan then too :-). Please 
keep in mind that we keep Purim d'Mukafim :-) 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

A week ago I posted two questions.  I only got one response to the
first and none to the second.  Now I can understand that these
questions are less interesting to most rabbis than the Diyukim in
Tefila, esp. with regards to Kedusha and other male-related portions
of Tefila,  but I and many women would love an an answer from such
learned Talmidei Chachamim as are members of this list.

So I am reposting both questions:

1) In a recent lecture, the rabbi told us that most people (i.e. jews)
connect to Hashem via Midat HaDin (many times this is actually
unconcously).

He also said that it is possible to connect via Midat HaRahamim, and
that women especially should do so as it is more suited for them.

I would love to hear some comments, explanations and sources for the
above information.


2)  Rabbi Hess ZT"L (Israel) in a lecture describing the various
categories of Midrashim in the G'mara stated that one category were
Shabbat afternoon D'rashot, which many women would come to hear.

Is there any book that has actually "marked" which D'rashot are
relevant to the category (besides the ones about Rav Meir and the
candles, etc.)?

As both questions have to do with Avodat Hashem, I understand that
they are within the charter of Avodah and I would greatly appreciate a
response.

Thank you for your time and patience.


Shoshana L. Boublil

In a message dated 2/20/00 1:16:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>   A related observation:  Rashi in parashas Bereishis,  in several places,
>   says that he is only interested in pshat.  He abandons this protestation
>  fairly soon,  and he mentions many medrashim throughout Chumash which are
>  not strictly pshat.  Has anyone else noticed this?  Any thoughts?
>  
The L. Rebbe has many Sichos on this.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I would think women are more associated with middas ha'din - although it is
impossible and incoorect, in my opinion, to apply kabbalistic typologies to
individual personalities, on the whole middas ha'din or gevurah is
associated with women. This Rabbis seems to have been basing his talk on
kabbalistic terminology, so the question is what his basis might be.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@zahav.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 9:18 AM
Subject: Avodah


> 1) In a recent lecture, the rabbi told us that most people (i.e. jews)
> connect to Hashem via Midat HaDin (many times this is actually
> unconcously).
>
> He also said that it is possible to connect via Midat HaRahamim, and
> that women especially should do so as it is more suited for them.
>
> I would love to hear some comments, explanations and sources for the
> above information.
>

In a message dated 2/18/00 7:38:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
rabbij@rabbijablon.com writes:

> Not only do I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment of reading a book 
> allegedly banned by some to the right

So does that make it Lhach'is or Ltei'ovoin :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/18/00 12:43:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> I recall that the TB said if not for the torah we could learn tzinus from a 
> cat, etc.

Eiruvin 100b.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/20/00 10:18:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
toramada@zahav.net.il writes:

<< 
 1) In a recent lecture, the rabbi told us that most people (i.e. jews)
 connect to Hashem via Midat HaDin (many times this is actually
 unconcously).
 
 He also said that it is possible to connect via Midat HaRahamim, and
 that women especially should do so as it is more suited for them.
 
 I would love to hear some comments, explanations and sources for the
 above information. >>

Perhaps the speaker is being sensitive to the word Rachamim and its 
relationship to the word "Rechem." Woman, whose relationship to the children 
they bear is visceral, immediate, and perhaps more intimate are closer to the 
merciful aspect of Gods relationship to us. 
Din requires more objectivity, detachment. 
Or perhaps the speaker is thinking of the prototypical mother praying for her 
children, Rachel, who succeeds in calling on Gods mercy.

Just a thought.

Jordan Hirsch
  

Harry Maryles writes that the study of history presents a dilemma. Well of 
course, history can only be seen in through the eyes of the beholder. And all 
sorts of  beholders - especially those who believe that their vision of 
history is the only vision of truth - labor to be certain that history is 
written and perpetuated within the parameters of their vision and cognition.

For instance: the fact (note that I do not use the word truth) is that 
immediately after the rise of the state of Israel the foremost spokesman for 
Aguas Yisroel in Israel and a member of the Kenesset used the words 
repeaatedly that the era was a time of "atchalta digeulah" and "reshit 
tzemichat ge'ulateinu". Of course, the official party line was to deny this 
as being false and a case of political "motzi shem ra". Then the transcripts 
of his speeches, when published, indicated that the official party line was 
factually not true and the fact was that he did speak repeatedly in those 
terms.

The time which Maryles mentioned when "My Uncle The Netziv" having to be 
sanitized by a Lakewood Cheder School who distributed the English version of 
the book is simply a desire to calm the restless spirit of the natives. The 
thinking went something like this: How dare the NeTZiV, rosh yeshivah par 
excellence, be associated in some positive way with the reshoim of all times, 
the modern maskilim?! If we allow that to be spread then we have to give 
honor or at least credence to any branch of Toirah-thinking that dilutes 
Toirah with, let's say, secular learning or any other modern "ism". Such 
would be a brutal slap in the face of Reb Aharon Kotleer zatzal. Didn't he 
give his life for "milchamto shel Toirah" in America? And look what he built!!

Now, this can all be derived from the letter that the Cheder School sent out 
in the book's recall in which the school's executive director wrote (I quote) 
"Regretfully the book you recently received, entitled 'My Uncle The Netziv,' 
....does not correctly portray the Netziv, his hashkofos, kedusha adn yiras 
shomayim as related to us by his revered talmidim, the ones who knew him 
best." (end quote)

And so we see here two views of the NeTZiv in history: one by a nephew who 
despite the fact that he is talmid chochom par excelence (author of Torah 
Temimah) he does not know as well as his "revered talmidim". The counter 
evidence to this is a statement (quite falacious) that the NeTZiV wrote to 
his son, Rav Chaim Berlin, (I quote again) 'regarding his decision to close 
the doors of the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva rather than introducing secular 
studies into its program." (end quote)

As anyone who has studied the sources of that period can readily conclude the 
NeTZiV closed the yeshiva when the Russian authorities insisted on curtailing 
the hours of Torah learning that was the accepted norm in the yeshiva and 
during those hours have the students study secular subjects. That the NeTZiV 
refused to accept. In fact, the yeshiva had an annex where at night after the 
Yeshivah seder secular matters could be learned like the Russian language. To 
argue
that the NeTZiV close the Yeshiva rather than have secular studies introduced 
is a statement which is a double entendre that creates in the mind of the 
reader a certain scenario which is just not factual. But, it certainly 
conforms with those who want to divorce secular studies from any yeshivah 
setting. Like in the old days, before hashkalah and its "reshoim".

So, should history be shunned and not studied. Certainly not. It should be 
read and studied with the understanding that history must be read with the 
clear understanding of the bias and agenda of the writer. And there are 
scores of examples that I can cite, but not for now.

Rav Shamson Rephael Hirsch didn't want his she'eilos u'teshuvos published 
posthumously simply because, as I understabnd the matter, the answers may 
have been applicable at that time for those specific indivivuals and 
communities alone. Should he have written something that did not conform to 
the broadly accepted hashkofos that we generations later have gleaned from 
his writings, does that mean his answers are not the REAL Samson Raphael 
Hirsch?!

History is open to revision. Some revisionists simply distort the facts to 
fit their contemporary needs. Rare is the historian who can sift through the 
ashes of time to be able to reconstruct what actually happened.

Just is short tangential postscript. It is so human to want to cast our 
spiritual greats in heroes in our mold. For this take a look at all the 
children's publications about our Ovos - say Avrohom Ovinu and Moshe 
Rabeeinu. Every illustration will cast them in the image of fathers, 
grandfathers, rebbes and the like who can be seen walking the streets of Boro 
Park, Mea Shearim or Bene Braq. Tell me, is this historical accuracy? Or, is 
this a case of a child not being able to conceive of anything other than 
Avrohom and Moshe being dressed in any other manner?  Vehameivin yovin...

chaim wasserman

Harry Maryles wrote (V4 #379) <<  We must  take great care in expressing our 
historical biases  lest we besmirch someone unitentionally and make  Judaism 
seem less than the beautiful thing that it is,  by taking our Jewish spritual 
heroes and belittleing  them in the public eye. >>

Would the same thinking apply to otherwise very frum personalities who emerge 
as sociopaths in one area of their life? Like, child molestors who are 
popular and effective rebbes and educators?

On 20 Feb 00, at 13:24, Chaimwass@aol.com wrote:

> Harry Maryles wrote (V4 #379) <<  We must  take great care in expressing our 
> historical biases  lest we besmirch someone unitentionally and make  Judaism 
> seem less than the beautiful thing that it is,  by taking our Jewish spritual 
> heroes and belittleing  them in the public eye. >>
> 
> Would the same thinking apply to otherwise very frum personalities who emerge 
> as sociopaths in one area of their life? Like, child molestors who are 
> popular and effective rebbes and educators?
> 
> 

I think it depends on whether there is a toeles to the besmirching. 
Besmirching someone after their death as a child molester (even if 
true) strikes me as generally being Lashon Hara without a toeles 
and forbidden. Quietly warning someone that they may want to find 
a different Rebbe to tutor their son privately would (IMHO - I have no 
smicha) definitely be mutar. In between, I would certainly be 
hesitant to "go public" with that kind of information without 
consulting a competent posek. 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 20 Feb 00, at 13:10, Chaimwass@aol.com wrote:

> Rav Shamson Rephael Hirsch didn't want his she'eilos u'teshuvos published 
> posthumously simply because, as I understabnd the matter, the answers may 
> have been applicable at that time for those specific indivivuals and 
> communities alone. Should he have written something that did not conform to 
> the broadly accepted hashkofos that we generations later have gleaned from 
> his writings, does that mean his answers are not the REAL Samson Raphael 
> Hirsch?!

Funny you should mention this. I am reading RSRH's Artscroll 
biography at the moment (IMHO it's one of the better and more 
honest biographies, meticulously footnoted and written by a family 
member), and just last night I read that most of the tshuvos were 
accidentally burned by one of his daughters who thought 
(mistakenly - according to the book) that was his wish. Most of the 
tshuvos that survived were (according to the book) published in 
Shemesh Marpeh in 1992. Is the burning myth or fact? Anyone 
know?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

RMicha Berger wrote: <<
Let's not forget my pet peeve. The commas in
    Az bikol, ra'ash gadol, adir vichazak mashmi'im kol...
make no sense. It should be
    Az, bikol ra'ash gadol adir vichazak, mashmi'im kol...
>>

I spoke to a member of our minyan who is an impressive talmid
chacham, baal dikduk, and yekke to boot!   He told me he heard
(does not remember where from) that the phrase "adir v'chazak"
was not written out fully but rather as a rashei teivos: av"c.  Then
he asked me: where is the subject of the sentence?  Where is
the antecedent?  Who is mashmi'im kol?  And sure ehough, while
one could say that "angels" are implicitly understood, the subject
of the sentence is not explicitly mentioned, yet in the indirect object 
(l'umas s'rafim) a specific type of angel is mentioned.   The answer: 
the acronym av"c did not really mean "adir v'chazak", but rather
"ofanim v'chayos", but was misinterpreted by the tzibbur.
It should have read:

"Az b'kol ra'ash gadol, ofanim v'chayos mashmi'im kol,
misnas'im l'umas s'rafim, l'umasam m'shab'chim v'omrim."

(He emphasizes that he is not suggesting reverting back to this
nusach -- it's too late, "adir v'chazak" has become the accepted
nussach.)
   
He also contends that there should be no pause between 
"m'shuleshes" and "batorah" for the following reason:
If there were a pause, the sentence structure would be very 
disjointed, with "ham'shuleshes" modifying "bracha", 
"ha-ksuva" modifiying "torah", and then "mipi Aharon" going
back and modifying "bracha".   Without that  pause, all three 
of the adjectival phrases modify "bracha".

He also holds that there should be a pause between "onu"
and "v'omru", for the simple reason that nowhere in the Torah
is there an example of a single quotation split in half by the phrase
indicating the speaker (as in R' Micha's example:
"Go to your room", I yelled at my kids, "and clean it up!").


Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

RDFinch wrote: <<
Irony. Inconsistency. Paradox. The infinite complexity of human emotions
when
pitted against the challenges of seeking Holiness. Loss. Pain. Spiritual
confusion. Despair.  >>

Well-written fiction could arguably evoke these literary effects even better
than accurately-written history/biography, without the halachic pitfalls of
l'shon ha-ra.   Even "sanitized" ArtScroll biographies  can successfully
elicit many of the above.

What is the unique, crucial contribution of non-sanitized history/biography
that could possibly justify violating (or taking the risk of possibly
violating) the precepts of l'shon ha-ra?

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

In a message dated 2/20/00 2:41:48 PM US Central Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< What is the unique, crucial contribution of non-sanitized history/biography
 that could possibly justify violating (or taking the risk of possibly
 violating) the precepts of l'shon ha-ra?
  >>

Truth.

David Finch

In a message dated 2/20/00 3:41:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< 
 What is the unique, crucial contribution of non-sanitized history/biography
 that could possibly justify violating (or taking the risk of possibly
 violating) the precepts of l'shon ha-ra?
 
 Kol tuv,
 Shlomo Godick
  >>
ziyuf hatora?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

I planned to keep out of this discussion but, after reading many postings and not 
seeing some of the things that came to my mind, I am finally letting my yetzer hara 
take over and am joining in.

For many years I sit in shul in a seat behind a litvak rosh yeshiva who claims to be 
noheg al pi ha-GR"A. We have an enjoyable game of seeing if he can find a 
justification whenever I discover any inconsistency.  It started some forty years ago 
when I saw a sloping mezuza on his front door (although inside the house all mezuzas 
are erect) and then found he used three matzos on Pesach.  Some years ago, I made 
him happy when I announced to him that I had decided that I would soon change to 
saying yitgadel with a tzeireh.  He asked, why soon, why not now?  I answered that I 
would start as soon as we reached parashat Va'etchanen.  I'm still waiting. 

True, the patach  is the Aramaic form and the tzeireh is not. But both the patach and 
the tzeira forms  are  Hebrew and the Torah itself uses them interchangeably.  In the 
Chumash we have  vayitapak (vayomer simu lachem), behitvada' Yosef, va'etchanan 
el H', vayit'anaf HaShem, and va'etnapal lifnei H' (twice). There are also four with a 
kamatz.  All ten are good Hebrew usage.  

There are also 21 examples of tzeireh usage in the Chumash: vayitchabeh ha'adam, 
lo yakhol lehitapek, vayitpalel, vayitnaker, vayit'chazek, etc..

The only source for the existence of a Hebrew form of kaddish is that the Gemara in 
two places in Brakhot uses the term "yehei shemo hagadol" (Note the sign of the 
times: yehei in Aramaic rather than yehi in Hebrew)  Yehei shmei rabba is used four 
times in Brakhot, Shabbat and Sukka. We assume the Gemara is referring to kaddish 
although this is not explicit as kaddish is not mentioned at all.   The Gemara's 
translation shows that rabba is Aramaic for gadol.  But the Tur and other sources 
point out that the pair of terms yitgadal veyitkadash is a paraphrase of vehitgadilti 
vehitkadishti from Yehezkel and that is why we use that word pair rather than yitrabba 
veyitkadash. (See the commentary in Tzlota d'Avraham.)

The chirik in  gadilti - kadishti does not signify the use of a tzeireh when there is no 
suffix. A suffix after the  tzeireh would change it more usually to a patach 
e.g.,hafetz-hafatzti, histader-histadarti (except lamed-hei roots)

And to historical background:

R' Shlomo Tal in his book that explains his choice of nusach for his Rinat Yisrael 
siddurim states that all old sources have patach.

R' Wolf Heidenheim, also pro-patach, states close to two hundred years ago in the 
introduction to his Roedelheim Machzorim that he chooses "ancient nus'chaot 
(kadmoniot) that are correct and verified by the clear fundamentals of language" and 
that "words like titbarakh and yitbarakh and similar forms have patachim in all ancient 
manuscripts and old printings  that can be shown to be correct."

R' Yaakov me-Emden states, "yitgadal, yitkadash and also yitbarakh are all with 
patach - and not with a tzeireh as innovated by RZ"H". 

R' Zalman Hanau whose works were written in the 1720's and early 1730's, made 
many innovations in Hebrew grammar. He was one of those, together with the 
Vaye'tar Yitzhak, R' Yitzhak Satanov, who followed him, who wanted to purify the 
Hebrew of the siddur making it more  Biblical.  
This was the time when final nuns were changed to mems, -akh endings to -ekha, 
she'nishtalkha to ha'shelucha, etc.   Yaakov Emden opposed RZ"H also on reading 
'aseret hadibrot with ta'am tachton and the GR"A did not accept his tenu'a kala and 
pronunciation of the sheva merahef. Heidenheim himself remarks that he was much 
influenced by Vaye'tar Yitzhak and it was Baer - Avodat Yisrael who later changed 
shelucha back to nishtalkha while it has remained in Roedelheim machzorim.

.  The "Ateret Yerushalayim" siddur put out by a group supervised by R' Hayyim 
Kanievsky and with the aid of R' Ya'akov Idelstein and R' Yehoshua Neuvirt includes 
marei mekomot from the GR"A by R' Moshe Ehrentreu. On the kaddish he brings the 
Ma'aseh Rav as the source for Kir'utei and for the omission of the word veyit'halal. 
But, instead of Ma'aseh Rav, he gives the Mishnah Berurah as the source for yitgadel 
vyitkadesh!  Does anyone have any information or ideas on this??  IIRC, Ma'aseh Rav 
is not only pro-tzeireh but bases it on Rashi (in Likkutei Pardes) who MR quotes as 
saying that the first two words are Hebrew (not  that they have a tzeireh). 

BT"W all ten words of praise are Hebrew, not only the first two but the other eight, 
from yitbarakh to yithalal, as well. Many Hebrew roots are shared by Aramaic. They 
were undoubtedly understood by Jewish speakers of Aramaic

It seems that the tzeira was introduced before the GR"A (who was born in 1720) and 
by an innovator, RZ"H. Despite his brilliance, many of whose grammatical changes 
and rules were not accepted in his time and are not accepted by scholars today.


ne'ima kedosha or kedusha kulam k'echad:

The Yemenite nusach (Baladi - Tikhlal)  is "uve'ne'ima tehora" which parallels neima 
kedosha and indicates that we have a description of the ne'ima. The Mahrari"tz in Etz 
Hayyim, 'al atar, points out that the gematria of b'safa verura is lashon hakodesh (800 
= 801?!!) which tends to back up that it b'safa berura is two-word phrase not 
connected to the ne'ima. This does not mean I recommend changing your nusach. I 
still say kedusha kulam k'echad, Not that it is correct, but it  has a meaning and close 
to a thousand years of tradition from Rashi's time (Pardes of Machzor Vitry??). 

Leila - leila:  And while we are in the Tikhlal, the Yemenites say leila - leila not uleila 
and they say it all year not just on 'aseret yemei teshuva.

And to add a few more connection - separation distortions:

When taking out the sefer the hazan usually calls out: Gadlu laShem iti, uneromema, 
- shmo yachdav.  Neromema by itself means nothing nor does shmo yachdav. I 
almost never hear the correct: uneromema shmo, yachdav.

To balance it, when putting the sefer back one hears: Yehalelu et shem Hashem, ki 
nisgav, - shmo levado.  Do you hear nisgav shemo joined together very often?

And on Thursday morning in shir shel yom how often do you hear umitzur devash, - 
asbi'eka.  It should certainly be: umitzur, - devash asbi'eka. 
But then, most nights you hear ohev 'amo, - Yisrael, the Jews like themselves,  
instead of ohev, - 'amo Yisrael, God likes us. The Sefaradim are better off because 
they say ohev et 'amo which makes a bit of a natural break.  And let's not forget those 
who don't pronounce the hei which results, for those with strict Ashkenazi choilem, in 
the interesting comment on HKB"H,  Oiy'ev 'amo Yisrael.

she'yerachem HaShem 'al 'amo.  And that's enuff or more than enuff for today.

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


[ 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         ]