Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 022

Wednesday, November 3 2004

• Ma'aras haMachpeilah
• Changing halacha -intergenerational conflicts
• Requesting this List to List Machshava Classics
• Re: Besamim Rosh
• RE: Asking questions
• Re: Aliyot origins
• Re: Businessmen v. consumers?
• Aliyot origins
• Re: LECTURE #3: TORAH AND SCIENCE
• RE: Re: Sakranus
• Re: Asking questions
• Re: Aliyot origins
• Zohar and its authors
• Re: Zohar and its authors
• Re: Fwd: LECTURE #3: TORAH AND SCIENCE
• Re: Zohar Forgery?
• Re: Fwd: LECTURE #3: TORAH AND SCIENCE
• Re: Zohar and its authors
• RE: Josephus and etrog
• Re Yishmael

I found the following while researching for a vort on this week's
parashah.

Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria, the son of Franz Joseph visited
Palestine a few years before his death in 1989. Here was his reaction
to Ma'aras haMachpeilah, as recounted in his memoirs and translated R'
Aharon Soloveitchik, in The Warmth and the Light:

"Upon reaching Hebron I immediately went to the cave of Machpela. There
I was overwhelmed at the realization that my feet stood at the sepulcher
of the saintly Hebrew Patriarchs. Involuntarily, I knelt down, lifted
my hands toward heaven, and with tears streaming from my eyes, I said,
"Holy Patriarch Abraham: You who was proclaimed thousands of years ago
'Prince of God' by Ephron the Hittite, whose offer of a burial ground
for your dead princess, you declined, open your eyes and observe the lot
of your ten million children dispersed and scattered among all lands,
persecuted and oppressed by tyrants and murderers, hated and hounded by
cruel foes, they, your children, can find no resting place even for money.

"Fearful and sad is the lot and the life of your children, holy Abraham. I
will endeavor with all my power to help your unfortunate children when
I ascend the throne of Austria."

Sidenote, and perhaps gilding the lily:

Prince Rudolph died of what was labeled by some a suicide, and others --
including his mother -- an assination, before taking the throne. This
lead to the line switching to Archduke Ferdinand's father, and so has
much to do with the start of WWI. It is interesting to note that this
oheiv Yisra'el's death had a role in the rise of the Nazis y"sh. It
may show that the Ribbono shel olam prepared the makka slowly, waiting,
"hoping"....

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

>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
>retains and the present Israeli approach. Secondly to 
>identify significant changes that have occurred between 
>recent generations i.e., 1) 30-50's, 2) 60-80's, 3)90-
>present - in both America and Israel.

While I indeed understand the problem, I would not have thought what you
ask for is going to provide a solution, even if any or all of us could
come up with a slew of examples. Because examples plucked out of the air,
that may or may not be what the parents are doing, and may or may not
be what the daughter is uncomfortable with, are not going to help matters.

What you rather need is to obtain from the daughter (or the parents)
a list of those halachas that the daughter, based on what her school
has told her, believes that the parents are violating (vis a vis shabbas
or otherwise).

Then you need to look at those halachas and for those halachas find
authoritative sources which allow for lenient views. I would be surprised
if, once we have a list of say around 5-10 examples (if the daughter is
truly able to come up with that many, if she is not, it may help put the
matter into perspective, by pointing out the extent of hilchos shabbas and
the small number of problems she is able to find), that we could not find
reasons why it might be legitimate to be makil. You then need to select
one or two cases based on what the girl is herself providing, and give a
proper insight into the full breadth of the halachic literature on such
topics (even just tracking through the halacha from the gemora through
the rishonim and achronim and the inevitable machlokusim will give a
sense of breadth that counteracts the black and white absoluteness of
much of halacha teaching fed to girls in your standard school). It is
likely then to become obvious that what her school is providing is just
a very limited perspective on halacha. But I don't think you can work
the other way around.

Regards
Chana

Dear Chevra:

I am seeking to create a list of classics of Mussar, Machsava, Hashkafa,
Philosophy etc. The ideal goal is to create an on-going limud in machshava
that would be apporporiate for Smicha students over a 3-4 year period
with the assignment of finishing one major component per semester.

Just as we have pretty well-defined Halacha curricuula for Smicha, a
Machshava curriculm would be a perfect supllemtn and this is THE list
to create such a collection.

The list of complete texts is not too difficult to name and I've received
help from distinguished members off-line such as Dr. Shinnar. Also,
Yeshivas Beth Moseh in Scranton has excllecent selections fom Kuzari,
Rambam, Chovos Hlevavos, Ramchal etc. Even if you don't like their
translation, at least you have a list of sources to investigate.

What I need help is making a list of "EXCERPTS" that are also classic.

Here are several illustrative examples.

For Rashi on Chumash I would use the very first Rashi! I am seeking a
list of about 9 more..

For RambaN on Chumash I would select the Ramban on K'doshim Tihyu.
I would like at least 4-5 more

For Sefer Hachinuch - the Mitzva of Sh'viras Etzem comes to mind wherein
the Chinuch outlines his hashkofo on Mitzvos. I would love 2-5 more.

While Dayan Grunfeld's Intro to Chobreb is great, nevertheless I would
like to add about 3-4 selections from the Sefer Horeb itself.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

R D S Leiman gave a shiur on the authenticity of this sefer many
years ago. He noted that many Gdolei Acharonim assumed that the sefer
was authentic as to its contents because of the bakcground of the
author. However, once the author became unmasked as a maskil and a close
inquiry into the text showed that his "conclusions" were influenced by
this fact, other Gdoeli Acharonim such as CS and Avnei Nezer wasted no
time in condemning the sefer and even going so far as to state that they
would burn it on YK that fell on Shabbos because it filled the requirment
of a Sefer Torah Sksav al yidei min. It remains a mystery why the sefer
is considered a valid snif kal dihu of any sort today.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

R. Daniel Eidensohn quoted the following:  
> *Rav Chaim Brisker****(MeAtiki Shemuah): *Some ask how it is possible to
> ask question about the Torah? They answer that in fact one can not ask
> critical questions but can only raise questions rhetorically in order to
> present the answers...  In truth the entire basis of our permission to
> ask questions and analyze the Torah is because the Torah was given in
> this manner that questioning and analysis are critical to comprehending
> the depths of the Torah. Therefore the question is itself made part of
> the Torah. Consequently if a question is valid then both the question
> and the answer are inherently part of the Torah itself. However if the
> question is not itself Torah than in truth it is prohibited to ask the
> question since the material is written in the Torah and therefore one
> must accept what is written without any questions....

Is this denigration of unanswered questions limited to Torah She-Bi-Ktav?
Surely the numerous "taiku's" and "kashya's" in the Gemara, and "tzorich
iyun" etc. in other rishonim and acharonim, suggest that unanswered
questions are a staple of Torah discourse.

Also, it would seem that the problem is not the question per se, but
its formulation. There is a difference between "how could this be?" and
"what is this trying to teach me."

Finally, on the subject of Akeida, if there were only two verses,
wouldn't Avraham have been justified in asking "which should I follow?"

Are others on the list equally troubled by the notion -- attributed to
Rav Chaim, no less -- that "questioning is prohibited"?

Shalom L. Kohn
Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood LLP
skohn@sidley.com 

In a message dated 11/1/2004 12:00:13pm EST, joseph.mosseri@verizon.net writes:
> What is the origin for the aliyot in each perashah as we know it today?
> How decided where each aliyah would begin and end?
> Where is it 1st recorded?
> Are these stops universal or are there other traditions and if so why?

IIRC the aliyos for Ha'azinu are either in the TB Megilla or in Soferim.  

And FWIW There are differing customs re: certan aliyos especially in
parshas breishis.

Otherwise there is a pretty strong consensus...

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: 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.

If the price differential exceeds 1/6 (ie 16-2/3%), the sale wouldn't be
valid. However, whether that implies a lifnim mishuras hadin to stick
to market value without any overpricing on the part of the storeowner,
it doesn't mean that there is no value to sticking with the man if he
isn't / can't afford to be a machmir.

...
: 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?
...
: 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.

1- I would think that halakhah is concerned with the wellfare of both.
Which takes precedent probably should involve which one's needs are
greater. Or is that too rational?

2- The gemara in Megillah fits RnTK's analysis as well. An abundant crop
allows the farmer to make money without gouging. Everyone wins.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

From: "JosephMosseri" <>
> What is the origin for the aliyot in each perashah as we know it today?
> How decided where each aliyah would begin and end?
> Where is it 1st recorded?
> Are these stops universal or are there other traditions and if so why?

The 'sheni', shlishi' etc stops are, AFAIK, not halocho.
[Except for Haazinu].

IIRC, the Minchas Elozor z'l writes that they were made up by a melamed.
He has quite a few different stops - as details in Darkei Chayim Vesholom.

Also chumoshim are not all the same about this.

SBA

RJR pointed us to a shiur by R Chaim Navon, which read (in part):
...
>      A third approach makes no attempt to reinterpret the
> Torah  or  to raise doubts about the validity of science.
> Rather,  it argues that the Torah and science  relate  to
> two  entirely different realms. Science generates  facts,
> religion teaches us values and commandments. Therefore, a
> priori,  there can be no clash between them. When science
> tries  to  teach  us  values,  it  is  overstepping   its
> boundaries;  and when religion appears to be teaching  us
> facts, there must be some misunderstanding.
...
>       According to the position presented here, there  is
> no conflict between Torah and science, for the Torah does
> not  pretend  to provide us with scientific  information.
> This  position  is  relevant not  only  to  the  apparent
> contradictions   between  the  Torah  and   the   natural
> sciences,  but  also  to the contradictions  between  the
> plain sense of Scripture and our knowledge of history, in
> the  spirit of what Chazal said: "Iyyov never existed and
> had  never been created." Much ink has been spilled  over
> the  camels that are mentioned in Scripture. The book  of
> Bereishit describes our patriarchs riding camels. Scholars
> and  Rabbis have been arguing for decades whether or  not
> camels  had  already been domesticated in the patriarchal
> period.  According  to the position presented  here,  the
> question  is  totally irrelevant. Perhaps the  patriarchs
> never really rode on camels, but on donkeys or on oxen or
> on  winged horses, or perhaps they traveled on foot.  Who
> cares?  God, for various reasons connected to the Torah's
> influence upon the generation in which it had been  given
> and  upon later generations, preferred to write that  the
> patriarchs  rode  on camels. Within Scripture's  internal
> historical system, this is not an anachronistic  failing.
> The comparison with real history is out of place, for  we
> are  talking about two entirely different systems,  which
> do not presume to parallel each other.

>       Dr. Yisrael Rosenson brings another example that is
> relevant  to the present discussion. Rosenson relates  to
> the  objection  raised by biblical scholars  against  the
> story  of the fall of the walls of Jericho, the truth  of
> which  archeology has been unable to verify.  Scripture's
> objective, argues Rosenson, is not to provide  a  precise
> historical   description  of  Jericho's   fortifications.
> Scripture's  aim  here  is to portray  a  nomadic  people
> standing  outside a settled and fortified  city,  and  to
> describe their experiences and feelings:

>    From  this perspective, it is not the "archeological"
>    presence  of the wall that is important, and it  makes
>    no  difference whether we are dealing with  an  actual
>    wall  or with a city that was protected in some  other
>    manner.  The  point  is that the wall  symbolizes  the
>    significant  urban settlement that faced  the  nomadic
>    people. (Y. Rosenson, Al Atar 7 (2000), p. 144)[5]

>       We  are  not dealing here with a "lie," God forbid,
> just as  the creation story in Bereishit is not a  "lie,"
> even according to Rav Kook who maintains that it may  not
> correspond   precisely  to  the  events   that   actually
> transpired....

I am amazed. His he really saying that the stories in the Torah have deeper
meaning to the exclusion of any claim of historicity? Isn't that myth? And
once one speaks about Avraham's camels in terms of myth, why not question
Avraham himself? Or ma'amad har Sinai -- which would seemingly justify true
kefirah?

Abdicating the Torah's say in anything but axiological and theological
questions rapidly leads ad absurdum.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Sources: 

I looked at the index of the Michtav m'Eliyahu. In the 1st volume (pg
132) and the 3rd (pg 178), in reference to the posuk v'lo sosuru he
mentions sakranus.

Basically he says that curiosity was created to instil a "thirst" to learn
Torah. This is the power that enables one to learn in depth - b'iyun.

However the evil inclination uses this power of curiosity to urge one
to try everything at least once, e.g. forbidden foods, AZ, minus, etc.

In the 2nd volume on pg 143 he says that it was curiosity that caused Adam
(the 1st) to sin.

I don't have the other volume(s).

A look in the Jastrow pointed me to Breishis Rabbo 18:2. There haShem is
"thinking out loud" saying he wouldn't make Chava from Adam's eyes so
that she wouldn't be curious (sakranit). However the plan "misfired as
it says in Yeshaya, etc.

 - Danny

Kohn, Shalom wrote:
>Is this denigration of unanswered questions limited to Torah She-Bi-Ktav?
>Surely the numerous "taiku's" and "kashya's" in the Gemara, and "tzorich
>iyun" etc. in other rishonim and acharonim, suggest that unanswered
>questions are a staple of Torah discourse.

Rosh (Sukkah 10a #15):The gemora typically only asks a question that it
can answer

Daniel Eidensohn

When I davened at R' Matis Blum's (Torah Lada'as) minyan, we stopped
in different locations than those in the chumash.

I forget who explained the reason to me, whether it was RMB or R' Seth
Mandel, but the explanation was that the stops we find in our chumashim
are from the Sepharadi mesorah. The first published chumash was published
in Soncino, and other editions used earlier ones as reference.

While for most parshiyos the minyan simply did what was in the chumash,
for Ha'azinu, where there are problems stopping in the shirah in the
wrong places, we followed Ashkenazi pesaq.

I guess we should be happy that the Ashkenazi mesorah for haftaros wasn't
similarly lost.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Those of us who wish to affirm that the basic text of the Zohar dates back
to Chazal must answer in detail my teacher Professor Philip Alexander's
criticism that the text mixes Western and Eastern Aramaic and therefore
cannot be the work of authors living in EY alone but must also include
Babylonian sources or by a later author. This opinion by probably the
world's leading academic scholar of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts,
gives support to the Moses De Leon as author theory as by the Middle Ages,
Aramaic had in fact developed from its western and eastern forms to its
'mixed' formulation.

Z.Yaakov Wise, MA, PGCE, School of Arts, Histories Cultures, University
of Manchester, UK

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:26:21AM +0000, Yaakov Wise wrote:
: Those of us who wish to affirm that the basic text of the Zohar dates back
: to Chazal...
: criticism that the text mixes Western and Eastern Aramaic and therefore
: cannot be the work of authors living in EY alone but must also include
: Babylonian sources or by a later author....

Asked and answered. "*Basic* test of the Zohar" means that there is
acknowledgement of later changes and redaction. Something that produced
text other than the basic one.

BTW, it was already acknowledged, that Scholem made too much of a deal
given the number of examples. It's exceptional, not the norm, of the
Zohar's language.

-mi

> I am amazed. His he really saying that the stories in the Torah have deeper
> meaning to the exclusion of any claim of historicity? 

Of course they have deeper meaning -- the "historical event" is the 
level of pshat, leaving remes, drosh, and sod...

> Isn't that myth? And once one speaks about Avraham's camels in terms of 
> Myth, why not question Avraham himself? Or ma'amad har Sinai -- which
> would seemingly justify true kefirah?

"Myth" does NOT equal "not historically true" -- a historical event can, 
and often does, take on the status of a myth.

Akiva

RRW wrote:
> What if the body of the book was "emes" but the attirubtions were "phony"
> or what is called pseudopegrphic? would that make the book a forgerie?

> EG Let's say that some sugya is attributed to R. Shimon bar Yochai but
> was really not his, yet nevertheless conformed to Kabblistic tradition ...

Again, this is kind of RYE's point.

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:> I am amazed. His he really saying that the stories in the Torah have deeper
:> meaning to the exclusion of any claim of historicity? 

: Of course they have deeper meaning -- the "historical event" is the 
: level of pshat, leaving remes, drosh, and sod...

However, in order to avoid contradiction between science (using the
term broadly) and Torah by assigning them non-overlapping domains,
one needs my seifah -- "to the exclusion of any claim of historicity".

:> Isn't that myth? And once one speaks about Avraham's camels in terms of 
:> Myth, why not question Avraham himself? Or ma'amad har Sinai -- which
:> would seemingly justify true kefirah?

: "Myth" does NOT equal "not historically true" -- a historical event can, 
: and often does, take on the status of a myth.

True, but again, the devar Torah abdicates the ability to determine which
of the Torah's naaratives are history, and which not -- leaving that
determination to archeologists.

The article mentions the issue of Avraham's camels, which comes up in
this week's parashah. Allegedly (and some archeologists have reopened
the question) camels didn't reach Kena'an in the avos's day. RCN is
willing to say:
> The book of Bereshit describes our patriarchs riding camels. Scholars
> and Rabbis have been arguing for decades whether or not camels had
> already been domesticated in the patriarchal period. According to the
> position presented here, the question is totally irrelevant. Perhaps
> the patriarchs never really rode on camels, but on donkeys or on oxen or
> on winged horses, or perhaps they traveled on foot. Who cares? God, for
> various reasons connected to the Torah's influence upon the generation
> in which it had been given and upon later generations, preferred to
> write that the patriarchs rode on camels. Within Scripture's internal
> historical system, this is not an anachronistic failing. The comparison
> with real history is out of place, for we are talking about two entirely
> different systems, which do not presume to parallel each other.

If naaratives are about "the Torah's influence upon the generation in
which it had been given and upon later generations" *to the exclusion
of any assertion of historicity* then, as I wrote, it gets ad absurdum.
The same reasoning would work for more critical naaratives. And if not,
then the Torah is making claims that overlap in domain to those
of science.


Tangent: However, it could very well be that Avraham was unique in having
camels in Kena'an. I repeated this idea of R' Jack Love's in Avodah's
early days. There are three times an av hides his wife claiming "achosi
hi". It is only when Avraham does so in Mitzrayim that the subsequent
payoff includes camels. Camels were in Egypt at the time lekhol hadei'os.

When Eliezer brings camels to Besu'el's in this week's parashah, the
camels would have been notably Avraham's, being the dromedaries of Egypt
rather than the bactrians they would have seen on occasion coming from
the east.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 10:26 +0000, Yaakov Wise wrote:
> Those of us who wish to affirm that the basic text of the Zohar dates back
> to Chazal must answer in detail my teacher Professor Philip Alexander's
> criticism that the text mixes Western and Eastern Aramaic and therefore
> cannot be the work of authors living in EY alone but must also include
> Babylonian sources or by a later author. This opinion by probably the
> world's leading academic scholar of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts,
> gives support to the Moses De Leon as author theory as by the Middle Ages,
> Aramaic had in fact developed from its western and eastern forms to its
> 'mixed' formulation.

Isn't a similiar question asked against the Torah. i.e. there are
words in the torah that we don't see being used in other writings till
much later in history, which would date the torah to a later time then
we'd want.

One can't answer it like the Zohar (that it was a modified version of
the actual thing) as that would go against the Rambam.

I don't know how to answer the question.

Originally, R. Levin wrote:
>> 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):

I sent a reply from my father, Dr. Louis H. Feldman:
> 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. 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.

R. Lampel asks:
> 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."
> 
You misunderstood. The term "seasonable fruit of a tree" was used by the
Septuagint, not by Josephus. The contradiction in Josephus (as noted in
the original question by R. Levin) is that in one place he refers to a
citron while in another he refers to a perseia.

My father, Dr. Louis Feldman, adds the following:

Dear Zvi,
	There is reason to think that Josephus knew the Septuagint,
since he quotes at length (Antiquities 12.11-118) the account of the
translation that is found in the Letter of Aristeas, but there is some
doubt that he used the Septuagint at any given point (see my Josephus's
Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 26-31). There is some reason to
think that he knew the Torah sheh be'al peh (see pp. 65-73). Josephus
(Antiquities 1.17) promises his readers that he will set forth the
precise details of the Scriptures and that he will not add anything to
or subtract anything from the Scriptures.
   Philo does not mention the word ""kitron" or the word "persea."
	All good wishes.
	Louis Feldman

R'Mechy F wrote re: that letters that have no nikkud are not pronounced
> ah tis true tis true. however there is one exception. and that is the
> curious minhog amongst some ba'alei q'rioh (AKA bal koirais) to pronounce
> the name of yisokhor as "yisos'khor" -- ...

This subject has been mentioned often in the Mesorah list and can be found
in the archives. This curious "minhag" has absolutely no basis. It is
against ALL of the masoretic sources. There is no question that Yissakhar
is pronounced the same way in the entire Tanakh and according to ben
Ashermand probably ben Naftali as well,it is pronounced Yis-sakhar.

There are two opinions as to the pronunciation. As stated in both R' Hai
Gaon and Sefer Hahilufin of R' Mishael ben Uzziel, one is Yis-sakhar,
the other is Yish-sakhar. The latter opinion was not accepted despite
the fact that is closer to what Leah said at his naming.

There are also two opinions as to the nikkud, both with the same
pronunciation, Yis-sakhar. Ben Asher put the kamatz under the first first
sin (shin smalit) and also a dagesh in the same sin, thus doubling it
and then put no nikkud in the second sin, thus omitting it. Ben Naftali
put a sh'va nach in the first sin and the kamatz in the second sin. Both
shittot nikkud sound the same, Yis-sakhar

All the hilufin record minor changes in pronunciation as heard by the
different ba'alei mesorah. They note things like meteg or no meteg,
kamatz or patach, segol or tzeireh, mil'eil or milra'. As pronunciation
when reading the Torah is something Jews were very careful about,
it is obvious that none of the hilufin could show that there were two
very different sounding ways to read a word.
Yissakhar and Yisaskhar (or Yisasekhar if they learned dikduk in school)
do not sound alike and it is impossible that both readings could have
existed.

It appears that in later years, in noting the ben Naftali nikkud, someone
reversed the order of the shva and kamatz in the two shinim to create
a new and weird sounding name for the gentleman.

At some time around 1700, a smart Jew made up a cute vort. One of
Yissakhar's sons was named Yov. In a later listing the son's name
is given as Yashuv. It seems that, upon arrival in Egypt, Yissakhar
discovered that Yov was the name of an Egyptian god. A nice Jewish boy
shouldn't have the name of an avodah zara,so his father changed his name
from Yov to Yashuv. But from where did he get the added shin? Just as
Yehoshua got his yud and sh'va and Avraham and Sarah got their hei's,
Yissakhar took the extra shin from his own name.

This story shows that Yissakhar agreed with all the ba'alei mesora as he
accepted ben-Asher's nikkud which made an unused shin available to him.
However, before the name change, he might have used ben-Naftali's nikkud
which uses both shinim.

The letter borrowing is a cute story, but not a reason to change the
reading of the Torah from the way it was read accepted for well over
a thousand years (if not longer) and deviate from the decision of all
the accepted sources. Upon the appearance of the incorrect reading, the
ba'alei mesorah objected vigorously (R' Shlomo Dubno, R' Wolf Heidenheim,
R' Shlomo Netter) and it did not spread beyond very limited circles.

In the last generation or so, it has suddenly started to spread, and
mostly in litvishe yeshivas. No other eida ever heard of it. If they
would read ben-Naftali's nikkud in Vayetzei nobody would notice as the
pronunciation is the same. Unfortunately, they adopted the completely
impossible nikkud that came about after the position switching of the
shva and kamatz under ben-Naftali's two shins.

Before somebody corrects me, I'll point out that Sefer Hahilufin and
R' Hai Gaon have slightly different version of the yichus of the two
pronunciations. Sefer Hahilufin says that ben-Naftali said Yis-sakhar
and R' Moshe ben Mocha said Yish-sakhar, Hai Gaon says that ben Naftali
said Yish and Moshe Mocha said Yis. Not that it matters, because, after
all, both were rejected and in the entireTorah the name is written and
pronounced in all its occurrences according to ben Asher. Or should be.

Well, I got that off my mind.

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         ]