Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 431

Monday, March 13 2000

• The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Wife-Beating - humor alert
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Yom Hashoah v'Ha'Gevurah
• The Pope Asks Forgiveness
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Re: Yom Hashoah v'Ha'Gevurah
• RE: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Re[2]: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Re: science and halacha
• Re: Ayin Tachas Ayin
• The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
• Sheva, Chataf and Mordechai
• Re: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)

> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:22:09 +0200
> From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> Subject: RE: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
> 
> > Of course there
> > was Chorban in Europe.  But it seems to me that the RW
> > is always looking for away to separate itself from the
> > rest of the Jewish world.
> 
> The Torah world already has a time for mourning -- Av. The early state
> refused the suggestion of establishing Holocaust Memorial Day during the
> Nine days -- and decided on the day they keep today. Davka.

IIRC the early State also refused the Rabbanut's urging to make 
the Holocaust Memorial Day on Asara b'Teves, which is still known 
as Yom HaKaddish HaClali. They opted for 27 Nisan, because it 
was the day of the fall of the Warsaw Ghetto. Holocaust Memorial 
Day is officially known as Yom HaShoa ve'haGvura in Hebrew, 
because it is supposed to "celebrate" the uprising in the Warsaw 
Ghetto. In light of the eventual outcome R"L, it seems to me that 
it's a little incongruous to celebrate anything having to do with the 
Holocaust.

-- 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.

I'm not sure of the problem. Every morning we get and we each try to be first 
one to the Bathroom...

Sometimes I beat my wife and sometimes she beats me!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

R. Schwab - and I would guess other "rw'ers" - hold that Tisha B'av is THE day 
to commemorate the observence of the holocast.  That the shoah is a direct 
result of the events of that day, the meraglim the churban, etc.

E.g. R. Phillip Lazowsky of Bloomfield, CT - not a rw'er published a holocost 
haggadah. IIRC he is a survivor from Lita.  Even tho' he personally suffered 
thru the holocost and ppublished on it - still matintained that it was a part of
the continuing anti-Semitism that plagued Europe for Centuriedd and was  only 
the most serious and oustides pogrom of a series of pogroms.

IOW I don't think this is fair. "RW'ers" apparently feel that the issue is 
properly addressed as part of a larger problem, and that the specific 
catastrophe need not have a unique commemoration.  Seems a reasonable 
alternative - no?  And after all.  R. Schwab coined a kino for the Churban in 
Europe, it's not like he ignored it?!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


Sidebar: It has always been a pet peeve of mine that 
the RW refuses to participate with rest of the Jewish 
world in Holocaust rememberance ceremonies. They even 
refuse to refer to the Holocaust as "the Holocaust". 
It's always Churban Europe.  What's the problem?  Why 
not refer to it as everyone else does? Of course there 
was Chorban in Europe.  But it seems to me that the RW 
is always looking for away to separate itself from the 
rest of the Jewish world.  It's as if they are saying 
that because somebody not Frum coined the phrase 
"Holocaust" they are not going to use it because they 
do not want to be considered a part of the greater 
Jewish community.   That is... since they are not Bnei 
Torah,  they refuse to use the word Holocaust lest they 
Ch V.  become associated even in the slightest way with 
non Bnei Torah.



HM

In a message dated 3/13/00 11:32:22 AM US Central Standard Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< Wouldn't eating treif do that as well? A nice shrimp dinner after a JNF
 fundraiser?
  >>

JNF (or JUF, or UJC, or whatever they call themselves these days) has been 
kosher for a long time. 

There are other ways we could show solidarity with the Church, should for 
some unfathomable reason we might think it necessary. Rosh Yeshivot could 
wear red yalmulkes, just like the Pope. Those who have semicha could wear 
white clerical collars, as rabbis do (or until recently did) in England. In 
fact, we're somewhat closer to the Church than we might at first think. The 
Last Supper was a seder spiced with intrigue and double-crossing. Admit it: 
When Jewish families sit down for a seder, there's also intrigue and 
double-crossing (and whining and jealously and other forms of intrafamily 
unhappiness), although not nearly as melodramatic as the New Testament 
describes. We all know of the neglected younger daughter who mumbles, "This 
is it, I've had it, this is the last seder I'll ever attend with *these* 
ungrateful people." The last seder: The Last Supper.

David Finch

The Rabbanut here suggested that 10 b"Tevet be the official day of
"zecher hashoah" [and indeed, many shuls here do this on 10 b"Tevet].
The Israelis, however, made the day of the Warsaw Rebellion as their
Yom Hashoah v'ha'Gevurah (with the emphasis on the physical uprising).
When I think of *gevurah*, I think of Jews blowing shofar in the barracks
of Auschwitz, building minute, tiny but kosher sukkas; women attempting
to light a candle in their barracks erev shabbat. That brings tears to my
eyes. That shows real *gevurah*.

Josh

I'd like to see someone challenge the pope to "put his money where his
mouth is" and have the Vatican and other church libraries and archives
give back all the priceless manuscipts, seforim, sifrei Torah and
Judaica they confiscated andystole from the Jews over  the centuries.

Avrohom Weidberg

In a message dated 3/13/00 1:10:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 IOW I don't think this is fair. "RW'ers" apparently feel that the issue is 
 properly addressed as part of a larger problem, and that the specific 
 catastrophe need not have a unique commemoration.  Seems a reasonable 
 alternative - no?  And after all.  R. Schwab coined a kino for the Churban 
in 
 Europe, it's not like he ignored it?!
 
 Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
 
  >>
in your formulation, the question in my mind is are we yotzeh scharo bhefsado 
- if it's simply a matter of "need not" , do we do more harm than good by 
choosing to differentiate ourselves on this issue?  I suppose part of the 
answer may be based on more general hashkafic differences.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

In a message dated 3/13/00 1:23:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il writes:

<< 
 When I think of *gevurah*, I think of Jews blowing shofar in the barracks
 of Auschwitz, building minute, tiny but kosher sukkas; women attempting
 to light a candle in their barracks erev shabbat. That brings tears to my
 eyes. That shows real *gevurah*.
 
 Josh
 
  >>
Clearly yes, but I don't think we should trivialize(I"m not saying that's 
what you did) the mesirat nefesh shown for klal Yisrael by our non-religious 
brothers who fought with the partisans and led the Warsaw uprising

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

> - if it's simply a matter of "need not" , do we do more harm
> than good by
> choosing to differentiate ourselves on this issue?  I suppose
> part of the
> answer may be based on more general hashkafic differences.

Another part of the problem is the very *christian* way so many Holocaust
memorial services are run.

I attended one about 20 years ago (in the Mid-west) where the "Rabbi" said
"Let us bow our heads and pray..." at which point about a third of the
survivors attending the service walked out.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

good point.

But who separated from whom?


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

 IOW I don't think this is fair. "RW'ers" apparently feel that the issue is 
 properly addressed as part of a larger problem, and that the specific 
 catastrophe need not have a unique commemoration.  Seems a reasonable 
 alternative - no?  And after all.  R. Schwab coined a kino for the Churban 
in 
 Europe, it's not like he ignored it?!

 Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

  >>
in your formulation, the question in my mind is are we yotzeh scharo bhefsado 
- if it's simply a matter of "need not" , do we do more harm than good by 
choosing to differentiate ourselves on this issue?  I suppose part of the 
answer may be based on more general hashkafic differences.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

>From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: science and halacha

>But metaphysical curse does not sound like rov- it sounds like something
that >must be found in every case (and neither was that my understanding of
chazaka >- the whole point was that there are no treifas that live for
longer than 12 >months).

Whether or not a metaphysical curse must be found in every case is a
philosophical point about which we can only speculate. However, a chazaka is
quite similar to a Rov, although its implications can be more far-reaching,
as one could be motzi mamon through chazaka, but not through a simple Rov.

I believe that the chazaka works the following way: For instance,  A person
claims X and has no other proof that he is telling the truth, we don't
believe him because chazaka Y tells me that people don't normally act in
that fashion. He says that he repaid the loan the day after he borrowed the
money, 28 days before he had to; we don't believe him because it is a
chazaka that people don't normally repay debts before they are due. If he
brought a signed and dated receipt to back up his claim along with two live
witnesses, then, of course he is believed, despite the chazaka. The chazaka
only shifts the burden of proof.

When one begins to deal with chazakas that testify as to mankind's basic
nature, one gets into a very sticky area, as Rabbi Rackman found out. There
is a fascinating and important sefer entitled "Hishtanut HaTevaim B'Halacha"
that lists many examples where The Rabbonim have attempted to deal with the
halachic implications of some seeming discrepancies between the observable
reality of our time vs that of the time of the Gemara, especially where the
halacha is stated in accordance with a reality that we no longer see. The
Gemara says that a baby that is born during the eighth month of pregnancy
will not survive. This has implications as to whether we may violate the
Sabbath for this baby's sake. We, however, see that eight-month babies
survive quite nicely.  How would this  affect Hilchos Shabbos for us? How do
we account for this discrepancy? Are we free to simply look around and then
declare that nature has changed and that we can therefore toss the chazaka
out the window? Who gets to decide that? What are the parameters?

Suffice to say, this is a  VERY delicate area.

Rav Soloveitchik seems to be saying that the curse that was given to Chava
set something very fundamental into female nature that CANNOT change, unlike
some other aspects of nature, which very well could.

Therefore, a woman who claims that she would never have married X had she
known Z about him, must show some additional proof that she is saying the
truth, beyond her own words, if she is to be believed.

There are situations where fault Z is so intolerable, however, that we can
assume that ANY woman would rather be single than deal with this particular
flaw. (Rav Moshe, I believe, cites the man's total inability to have
intimate relations as an example of the latter). The argument is only about
those flaws that we would say that Most women would be ready to tolerate,
but THIS woman says that she cannot. Either she has a particular problem
with Z that most other women would not have or, I would guess, she could try
and prove that she has less of a problem with being single than most other
women AND she can somehow prove that she is the exception. (The last point
is pure speculation on my part).

The problem with Rabbi Rackman is his coming out and saying that we, in our
times, have the right to simply declare the chazaka null and void and no
longer applicable to the Majority.

I would appreciate anyone's correcting me if I am wrong.

David Hojda

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Ayin Tachas Ayin


On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:38:28AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: R. Gorelick asked us,"If ayin tachas ayin as after all kessef, what
prompted
: the Torah to use the literal term which is after all so harsh?".

:Doesn't this assume that the understanding that it's kessef is a derashah,
:and not mipi hashmua? I understood the Rambam's point to be that fiscal
:payment is a translation of "tachas" found elsewhere, and we know from the
:people who first heard the words which meaning of "tachas" is intended
here.
:IOW, according to the Rambam it *is* the literal meaning of the term, or at
:least, one of them.

See Perush HaSeforno, with the footnotes by Rav Yehudah Cooperman.

RH Maryles wrote:

>>Sidebar: It has always been a pet peeve of mine that the RW refuses to 
participate with rest of the Jewish world in Holocaust rememberance ceremonies. 
They even refuse to refer to the Holocaust as "the Holocaust".  It's always 
Churban Europe.  What's the problem?  Why not refer to it as everyone else does?
Of course there was Chorban in Europe.  But it seems to me that the RW is always
looking for away to separate itself from the rest of the Jewish world.  It's as 
if they are saying that because somebody not Frum coined the phrase "Holocaust" 
they are not going to use it because they do not want to be considered a part of
the greater Jewish community.   That is... since they are not Bnei Torah,  they 
refuse to use the word Holocaust lest they Ch V.  become associated even in the 
slightest way with non Bnei Torah.>>

Frankly, I think the RW are the only Jews who have managed to avoid Holocaust 
worship.  I've seen it with the non-frum and somewhat with modern orthodox also.
The Holocaust is repeatedly emphasized and remembered as if it was the most 
important event in Jewish history.  What about mattan Torah?  Why is so much 
money spent on Holocaust museums when yeshivas and day schools are starving for 
funds?  The statistics are scary of the importance the Holocaust plays in Jewish
identity and frankly, self-pity and victim mentality aside, that is not the way 
to attract or sustain serious avodas Hashem.

I'm at the point where I was so overloaded in my (not so frum) youth with 
Holocaust memorials, plays, speeches, presentations, etc. that I now avoid them 
at all cost. Few things could make me run faster than a Yom HaShoah 
presentation.  I settle for reading a little about it on Tisha B'av.

And it's not just me.  I think it's a generational thing (for the record I'm 
27).  The Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com) is having quite
a bit of success with the non-self-pity attitude.  Check out their mission 
statement.  It seems that the RW was ahead of their time.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

RJ Rich wrote:

>>PS Do Bnai Noach have a concept of tshuva(is there any specific "halachik 
value")? Clearly there is an overarching ethical one.>>

I've seen acharonim talk about it (I'm not sure where) but I never understood 
the question.  Didn't the people in Nineveh do teshuvah?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:26:53 -0800 (PST)
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)

<<My question is this: What if anything are we as a Torah society to make
of this?>>

	I think Rabbi Lau was on target by saying that it was a nice move,  but
nowhere near enough.  I don't think it is in our interest to tell the
Pope how and when to apologize;  all we have in our power is to react
with the understanding that we represent not ourselves,  but the
generations who have truly suffered at the hands of Christian kindness. 
We cannot really accept anything less than what RHM calls "klappen al
cheit" which is not going to happen.  

	That said,  what is the nafka mina lema'aseh?  How does the adequacy or
inadequacy of the Pope's apology make any difference in how we lead our
lives?

	The same question was raised at the time that the Church decided to
absolve us of deicide.  The reaction of the Orthodox community,  as I
recall,  was a big yawn.    

<<Sidebar: It has always been a pet peeve of mine that the RW refuses to
participate with rest of the Jewish world in Holocaust rememberance
ceremonies.>>

	The short answer to the first question is that we don't remember the way
nonOrthodox Jews remember.  For example,  the biggest hazkara for
Holocaust victims is held in Temple Emanuel in New York.    I have never
been there,  but I imagine that even if the ceremony were held on neutral
territory,  it would be extremely uncomfortable for Orthodox attendees. 
Should we go against our principles (and those of a large number of the
victims) and attend?  Or should we do some (zero order) austritt and have
our own hazkoros?   My inlaws never attend hazkoros for their
"landsleit".  Why?  Because they're held in treife restaurants.  Who's
the divisive one?

	The secular establishment,  Israeli or American,   has co-opted the
"Holocaust",  from yom hashoah,  on a day that is osur behesped
uvetaanis,  to Holocaust studies,  to Holocaust museums that in the main
do not reflect the way of life that was lost,  (because in their minds
that was a "good" outcome of the H-t.)

	Saying kinos for Churban Europe on Tisha b'Av is much more appropriate
and in halachic context.  Do they?  Would they?  Who's the divisive one?

<<They even refuse to refer to the Holocaust as "the Holocaust".  It's
always Churban Europe.  What's the problem?  Why not refer to it as
everyone else does?>>

	(My sidebar:  who is "they"? and who is everyone else?)

	This harks back to an article in the Jewish Observer many years ago by
Rav Hutner z"l.  In one of the few articles he wrote for the JO,  he made
the point that calling it "Holocaust" or "Shoah" implies that it was a
unique phenomenon in Jewish history.  Of course it was unique in terms of
scale,  but in concept not that different from other persecutions in our
history.   Calling it a name which implies that it was a one time
catastrophe removes the obligation of acknowledging that as much as we
don't understand,  there is a mechanism of mipnei chata'einu galinu
me'artzenu in operation here.  It also opens the door to "never again"
ism with its component of prikas ol.

	The usage in the "RW"  (can we drop this narishkeit already?) stems from
that article.  You can agree or disagree,  but it is done with a
cheshbon,  based upon this godol's analysis,  not as a petty way of being
different.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

 R' RWolpoe, myriads might have been interested in rivevot.  I don't think that interest 
applies even to those few list members named Mordekhai.
However, for the few interested, I kept my word and give you below my take on the 
subject of Mordekhai with all the lemmas and prerequisites.  For taking up so much 
space, I ask for forgiveness from mi- and from those who will just scroll through 
rapidly, .

When they don't ignore the sheva na' completely, most Ashkenazim pronounce 
it as a mild e (eh) sound. Americans, who tend to lengthen vowels or make them 
diphthongs, sometimes make it a slight i (ee) sound. For example: tov mi-od or even 
mi-yod with a non-existent y.  I've also heard  be-reshis or bi-reshis boro H' es 
hashomayim vi-Yes ho'oretz  (On hearing vi-yes I usually mumble to myself, No, not 
yes!  If I hear vi-yet, my comment is, Not yet!).

We have clear eidut, however, as to the pronunciation of the sheva na'  in  previous 
times.  Not only Aharon Ben Asher himself, but, after him, also Ben Bila'am, Hayyuj, 
Yosef Kimchi, Rada"k, Ibn Ezra and others, describe its sound or sounds. (BTW they 
don't always agree with modern usage as to which sheva'im are na'im.)  They say 
that in most words the sheva na' has a faint a (ah) sound ( some said e (eh) sound) 
and, if there is a meteg, a slightly stronger a sound. When the sheva is followed by a 
yud it has a faint i sound.  When followed by alef, hei, chet, 'ayin it has a tint of the 
vowel under that following letter.  For example, bi-yom, geshamim bi-'itam, tishmu-oo 
el mitzvotai. The command See! is: re-eh, ri-i, or ru-oo.   (Prof. Morag (z"l) discusses 
the sheva pronunciation in Enc. Judaica Vol 13 "Pronunciation".)

In all these words, the sheva is not a normal vowel sound but a  weak, mild, tint of the 
respective vowel, just a faint hint of the vowel sound.  Some sources speak of the 
normal sheva na' without meteg having a patach-katan, which might mean an e (eh) 
sound. One must remember that the difference between the patach and segol is not 
too clear. In all the sources written before the name segol came into use, it was called 
a patach katan.  In the nikkud Bavli there is no separate segol symbol, the patach is 
used for both.  The different pronunciations of the sheva' described above were 
preserved by the Yemenites to this day in kri'at haTorah and one can still hear an old 
Yemenite tell of his 'aliya to Aratz Yisroel. (They call the segol symbol patach-segol 
and the sound is somewhere between the two.)

In most eidot, this differentiation between sheva sounds died out.  R' Shlomo Almoli 
(circa 1500), after detailing the different sounds, states 
that the differences are vanishing and "In most places, all shevas are read as a segol".

In some words, especially with gutturals, letters and sounds may be elided, slurred or 
distorted by sloppy speakers. To prevent this, Ben Asher (or others before him as 
well) saw a need to point out when the sheva'im in syllables in danger of elision  were 
na'im.  This was done by placing an appropriate vowel sign next to the sheva na'.  In 
most words the sheva had a slight "a" sound. Hataf-patach is, therefore, the most 
common reminder that the sheva is na'.  In the fewer cases where the sheva had a 
tint of e or o vowel sounds, they put a hataf segol or hataf-kamatz.  Although 
hataf-hiriks are not usually marked, there are five of them marked in the Keter. I don't 
remember ever reading of a hataf shuruk in a text but remember that one is shown in 
a written mesorah, I think the chet in hamechulal.  Also, a shortened  or weak shuruk 
often becomes o as when Uziel becomes ha-ozieli (accent on i not on the oz).

So, the hataf is  basically a sheva na' and the little mark to the left of the sheva was 
put there primarily to keep one from ignoring, slurring or skipping over it and the 
adjoining weak consonants.  There is some evidence that the chataf accomplishes its 
function not just by preventing weakness but by strengthening (corrective 
discrimination?).  The terms used are leharchiv or liftoach, but these same terms are 
sometimes used to indicate that a sheva is na'.

Over the years, the reminder of a weak sound or its slight strengthening has become 
emphasis.  Not only has the chataf become a full vowel nowadays but sometimes an 
emphasized or accented one rather than the chatuf state it should be in.

We sometimes hear in Acharei-Mot, ve-tiHAro ve-kidesho. but the difference, if any, 
between the sheva of the hei and that of the dalet is minor.  Even in Ben Asher's time 
the gutturals were being elided. The main purpose of the chataf in the hei is to keep 
one from reading ve-tiro. Torah readers say bachAmisha asar, shor va-CHAmor, 
emphasizing the chataf that is only a sheva na' more than the full patach before it. 
This list is called Avodah, the 'ayin usually pronounced with a full patach and, if said 
milera', with secondary accent as well. 

Ashkenazim who read with Israeli, so-called sefaradi, style, when proud that they 
recognize a hataf or a kamatz katan, will say ha-OZieli or haKOdashim, kol 
hashome-a' yiTZAchak li, luKOcha zot.  They are emphasizing what should be chatuf. 
Yekkes are especially far gone. They say BorAkhu es Hashem, hallAluyo, tzolAlu 
ka-auferes, koNAnu yodekho,  etc. (The capitals signify a strong syllable not the main 
accent of the word.) 

In Dikdukel Ha-ta'amim (B+S, p. 14), Ben Asher's comment on the hataf-kametz is 
that here are soferim, who, have proper nusach and in many places, read a 
hataf-kamatz (kamatz-hataf (hatuf?) korim) such as va-niftocha, shim'o'a, 
va-eshmo'a, ve-nikro-a ve-shem, ve-nizro'a zara, ...<snip>.., Mordokhai, le-Mordokhai, 
Kohat...<snip> .. and many others (the letter "o" indicates the chataf, a weak o sound). 
And there are other soferim who do not read a kamatz-hatuf, and [have] proper 
nusach, such as va-niftecha, shime'a, ...nikre-a  Mordekhai... (listing all the same 
words with sheva alone). And he then adds: ve-ein le-davar zeh shoresh ki im bir'tzon 
ha-soferim.

As Ben Asher wrote korim and not kotevim, it could indicate that the soferim who 
heard the reading of a stronger sheva wrote what they heard as a hataf and those 
who heard a weaker one wrote a sheva alone.  The last line, however, that there is no 
basis for the two ways of notation (or reading?) seems to indicate that there is no 
difference in pronunciation between the two notations and that the soferim have free 
choice whether or not to give warning in weak syllables. There was certainly nothing 
more than a barely distinguishable difference in sound between the two notations. 

The Keter has many more hatafim than other manuscripts especially in words without 
gutturals.  Most mss available to the Minchat Sha"i were not marbeh be-hatafim so he 
usually states that the word is written with a sheva levad.  In most cases, he was 
probably indicating the preferred way to write the nikkud and was not referring to 
pronunciation.  

I was asked why R' MBreuer omits the non-guttural chatafim that are in the Keter.  
Breuer did much of his work before he had access to the Keter. He used the same 
method for the Tanakh that the RaMa"H (with a hei, not alef) did for the chumash, 
namely, took a collection of the most accurate texts and decided the girsa by majority 
rule.  Our text of the sefer Torah today is the result of the Rama"h's kevi'ah with a few 
corrections by Meiri, Ohr Torah and Minhat Sha"i.  Breuer took a number of the best 
manuscripts plus the Ben Hayyim mikraot gedolot of Venetzia, RF"U - 1525-6 and the 
written mesorot and made a majority rule Tanakh. He discovered that it was 
practically identical with the Keter and with the Yemenite text. Breuer also showed 
that the text of the famous Leningrad codex, that to the "scientific" researchers 
proved that the Jewish text had  inaccurate spelling, was one of the poorest of the 
mss. In the chumash alone there are some 200 differences in spelling from the 
"normal" masoretic chumash, the Breuer and the Keter. The "normal" chumash has 
nine known spelling differences from the Breuer and the Keter

Breuer, as a Yekki who probably heard BorAkhu and hallAluyah in his youth, is perhaps 
more sensitive than others to the making of the chatafim into full vowels and then 
even accenting them more than other vowels. Except for gutturals where everyone 
marks chatafim, Breuer decided that he would not abet this mispronunciation and 
encourage making sheva'im into full vowels.  So Breuer doesn't put in hatafim. The 
Keter does. Pronunciation difference? Probably none or barely detectable

Which sof-sof brings us to Mordekhai. 
As I wrote in a previous posting,  Heidenheim and those following him, Keter-MCohen 
and Breuer have the chataf-kamatz in the dalet.  It also appears with a chataf and the 
notation "tamid", i.e., all occurrences, in R' Ya'akov Sapir's list of words verified from 
the Keter. 

 My opinion, that of a hobbyist not a ba'al miktzoa', is that the presence or absence of 
the chataf makes no, or very little, difference in pronunciation of Mordekhai but 
reminds us that this sheva has a slight "o" tint rather than the usual "a" tint.  The 
unusual thing is that there is no grammatical need for this. There is no sound difficult 
to pronounce, no guttural, no weak letter following the sheva. The sheva should have 
a normal patach  "a" tint.  Even if the chaf were a weak letter which allows the 
following vowel to influence the sheva, my computer says that Mordekhai appears 33 
times with a patach under the khaf and only 11 times with a kamatz.  There are 
examples, with gutturals, where a normal chataf patach is used instead of the less 
usual kamatz or shuruk Shima'a tefilat Hashem, mentioned in Dikdukei Hata'amim as 
one where some soferim put a chataf kamatz, has a chataf-patach in the Keter.  In 
kabbalat Shabbat, we all read neharot yimcha'u-khaf, not yimchu-oo as it would be if 
the hataf-patach was not there. (Please, not yimCHA-u).

The only reason I can see for the hataf kamatz in Mordekhai is: It is a name. That is 
the way that particular name is pronounced.  All are familiar with the probability that 
Mordekhai and Esther are symbolic names similar to the Bavli gods Marduk and 
Ishtar.  At home, Esther was called by her Hebrew name Hadassah. Marduk or Mardok 
might be the origin of the need for the unusual tint of the hataf.  I have read that 
Mordekhai in Persian means small man.  True or not, that could be a reaction to the 
impropriety of Bavli names of strange gods shelo yishama' 'al pikha.

In any event, there is a hataf-kamatz. .And, please, do not read it as MorDOkhai.  It is 
chatuf, not accented, not emphasized. 

TVShLB"'O

And most important of all, Purim Sameach to the list and all 'am Yisrael.

David

One of the bigest problems with this situation is that the Pope/Church is
the only one who knowns precisely what sins were committed.  We do not
actually know the depths of the offenses done us since the Vatican refuses
to open up its archives.  They hold the most accurate records of the
Inquisition, other forced conversions, and other offenses committed against
us in the name of god.  The Pope wants us to forgive that which he fails to
ennumerate.  I find that to be an immoral apology.

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 3:28 PM
Subject: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)


> > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:26:53 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: The Holocaust and the Pope (and the RW)
>
> <<My question is this: What if anything are we as a Torah society to make
> of this?>>
>
> I think Rabbi Lau was on target by saying that it was a nice move,  but
> nowhere near enough.  I don't think it is in our interest to tell the
> Pope how and when to apologize;  all we have in our power is to react
> with the understanding that we represent not ourselves,  but the
> generations who have truly suffered at the hands of Christian kindness.
> We cannot really accept anything less than what RHM calls "klappen al
> cheit" which is not going to happen.
>
> That said,  what is the nafka mina lema'aseh?  How does the adequacy or
> inadequacy of the Pope's apology make any difference in how we lead our
> lives?
>
> The same question was raised at the time that the Church decided to
> absolve us of deicide.  The reaction of the Orthodox community,  as I
> recall,  was a big yawn.
>
> <<Sidebar: It has always been a pet peeve of mine that the RW refuses to
> participate with rest of the Jewish world in Holocaust rememberance
> ceremonies.>>
>
> The short answer to the first question is that we don't remember the way
> nonOrthodox Jews remember.  For example,  the biggest hazkara for
> Holocaust victims is held in Temple Emanuel in New York.    I have never
> been there,  but I imagine that even if the ceremony were held on neutral
> territory,  it would be extremely uncomfortable for Orthodox attendees.
> Should we go against our principles (and those of a large number of the
> victims) and attend?  Or should we do some (zero order) austritt and have
> our own hazkoros?   My inlaws never attend hazkoros for their
> "landsleit".  Why?  Because they're held in treife restaurants.  Who's
> the divisive one?
>
> The secular establishment,  Israeli or American,   has co-opted the
> "Holocaust",  from yom hashoah,  on a day that is osur behesped
> uvetaanis,  to Holocaust studies,  to Holocaust museums that in the main
> do not reflect the way of life that was lost,  (because in their minds
> that was a "good" outcome of the H-t.)
>
> Saying kinos for Churban Europe on Tisha b'Av is much more appropriate
> and in halachic context.  Do they?  Would they?  Who's the divisive one?
>
> <<They even refuse to refer to the Holocaust as "the Holocaust".  It's
> always Churban Europe.  What's the problem?  Why not refer to it as
> everyone else does?>>
>
> (My sidebar:  who is "they"? and who is everyone else?)
>
> This harks back to an article in the Jewish Observer many years ago by
> Rav Hutner z"l.  In one of the few articles he wrote for the JO,  he made
> the point that calling it "Holocaust" or "Shoah" implies that it was a
> unique phenomenon in Jewish history.  Of course it was unique in terms of
> scale,  but in concept not that different from other persecutions in our
> history.   Calling it a name which implies that it was a one time
> catastrophe removes the obligation of acknowledging that as much as we
> don't understand,  there is a mechanism of mipnei chata'einu galinu
> me'artzenu in operation here.  It also opens the door to "never again"
> ism with its component of prikas ol.
>
> The usage in the "RW"  (can we drop this narishkeit already?) stems from
> that article.  You can agree or disagree,  but it is done with a
> cheshbon,  based upon this godol's analysis,  not as a petty way of being
> different.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]