Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 171

Wednesday, August 18 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Josh Hoexter <hoexter@wam.umd.edu>
Subject:
Re: Brushing teeth on shabbat


> From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
> Thosewho permit (apart from the Rav): Ktzot Hashulchan Chelek Zayin 99
> (permits even toothpaste but recommends placing the toothpaste on the
> teeth with one's fingers); 

I believe he *only* permits using one's fingers (with the toothpaste), and
forbids using a brush because of uvdin d'chol.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Repeating for vocalization change


Correction to my previous post:

The MB 142:4 says that the 'inyan is not mishtaneh when the word
mitzrim (Egyptians) is mispronounced mitzri'yim (also means
Egyptians).  I had mistakenly read mitzrayim (Egypt) instead of
mitzrim. 

If so, this is no proof to my possible suggestion (I myself am in
doubt) that 'inyan mishtaneh is more than milah mishtanah.  Query,
however, how to explain the permissive ruling regarding aharon vs.
haron.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Hebrew Language


> Noah Witty asks:
> : Could someone state what eth and eyth *mean* and then inform us
> what it
> : means to have those words besmichut.

I assume that Russell meant that es is generally connected to the
next word (with a meteg) while ais is not.  For example, at the
beginning of parshat terumah there are a whole series of es and ais
(beginning "Es hamishkan es ahalo v'es michsayhu").  

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 9:27:10 -0500
From: david.nadoff@bfkpn.com
Subject:
Shmiros


Saul Weinreb wants to start a new thread regarding shmiros,
one of his "major pet peeves." V3#164

Although we may not understand how they function and have difficulty reconciling their efficacy with some of our hashkafos, the tradition of shmiros is meyusad al hararay kedem.  Consider the following examples and sources:

1]  Tehilim 67 was revealed to both Moshe Rabaynu and Dovid Hamelech written in the shape of a menorah. Dovid Hamelech inscribed
that image on his shield and recited it before battle. Reciting that
mizmor in the shape of a menorah with the proper kavanah
is considered equivalent to lighting the menorah in the Bais Hamikdash and functions as a shmira. (Chida, quoting Maharshal, in Midbar Kedaymos; Sefer Avodas Hakodesh).

2] R. Moshe Zacuto (Ramaz), in his sefer Shorshay Hashemos, identifies numerous shemos and letter permutations that are efficacious as shmiros. (A very beautiful 2 volume edition of Shorshay Hashemos was published this year by Nezer Sharga in Yerushalayim).

3] Sefer Kedushas Levi functions as a shmira wherever it is found and promotes hamtakas hadinim. (R. Avraham Yehoshua Heshel MiApta; R. Aharon MiZitomer; Chevray Bays Din Robboh DiMunkatch). I believe
similar statements have been made about Sefer Yetzira, Sefer Raziel
(especially effective for avoiding fires) and Noam Elimelech, but I
don't know the  sources. I recall reading that Rebbe Nachman questioned or denied the efficacy of Sefer Raziel. The Rebbe of
Lubavitch advised his chasidim to keep a miniature Chitas (Chumash,
Tehilim and Tanya) in their cars as a shmira.

In addition, we are all aware from the 1st page of Shulchan Oruch
of the spiritual benefits of visualizing or gazing at shem Hashem.
Mishnoh Brurah to Siman 1 of Orach Chayim, s'eef katan 4. Granted,
this is not a matter of shmira, but many shmiros do afford visual experiences of shemos and may be beneficial in that respect.

I am not advocating the use or display of shmiros or shamos, but we,
she'ayn lonu aysek b'nistoros, should have a healthy respect for those
who do so appropriately (i.e., in a manner that does not undermine
emunah, bitachon, hishtadlus or shmiras hamitzvos, and with due
regard for their kedusha), and pray for the day that we are zocheh to learn and understand sodos haTorah.

Ksiva vchasima tova,
David Nadoff

Ksiva Vchasima Tova
David Nadoff


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
Subject:
[none]


Subject: proofs of G-d

   As Rosh haShana approaches I would be interested in hearing opinions
about various proof of G-d's existence. It would give us a chance to discuss
a positive direction and not just negative complaints.

It is generally acknowledged that there does not exist a formal proof in the 
meaning of the theory of logic.  Hence. by "proof" I mean a subjective proof 
that appeals to many people.  As such it is a completely personal approach. 
What appeals to one individual may be nonsense to the next person. I have heard 
several tapes on the subject and there are myriads of various proofs presented.

In a recent post R. Carmy mentioned the proof based on the Mesorah that
600,000 men (2 million people?) were present at Mount Sinai. I believe that
was first presented in the Kuzari. Several years ago I saw an expended version
from R. Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Samayach but was not able to find it again on their
web site. I personally do not find the proof very convincing. I will instead list
the proofs (in short) that I personally find more appealing.

1. Anthropic principle.

   It is well known that life exists only because many physical parameters
are within a small range that allow the universe, earth and life to exist.
The probabilty of this being coincidental is extremely small. This indicates
that there is a guiding force in the universe.

There are 2 counterarguments to this proof.
(a) there exists an infinite number of parallel independent universes.
    This cannot inherently be verified and so, in my opinion is less believable
than a belief in G-d
(b)  the fact that life exists is purely coincidental. Any other result would be
equally good. It is compared to winning the lottery where the winner thinks it is
miraculous but someone had to win. Something had to happen to the universe and
we see the results. - On the other hand I like to believe that human life and
bacterial life or no life are not equally acceptable conclusions.

Prof. Aviezer had an article on this in a recent Jewish Action. Others have written
much on the topic.

2. Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP)

   Many people from all walks of life have had experiences were they "know" facts
that they could not know in a physical way. Typical examples are the awareness
that some far-off relative died or is in trouble. When the facts are later verified
it is found that the person "knew" this information immediately after it occurred
miles away and that there was no apparent reason for this person to know that there
was a problem.
   This is not a proof of G-d but rather an indication that there is a spiritual
world that exists beyond scientific measurement.

3. Near-death Experiences (NDE)

   I just finished reading "Life After Life" by Raymond Moody. He describes many
people who "died" but recovered. They frequently describe seeing a light that made
them very confortable, going through a tunnel, seeing dead relatives and seeing
themselves outside their own bodies. All described this as "real" and not a dream
and they describe events in other rooms that they could not know about.

   In a quick search of the internet there are now many other books that describe
hundreds and thousands of such experiences. Almost all such accounts are
written by religious Xtians though there was a recent article in the Jerusalem Post
about Isreali experiences.

   Rav David Halevi (Ztl) chief rabbi of Tel Aviv has an extended teshuva in his
"aseh lecha rav" in which he points out many similarities of these stories with
Kabbalah. He further points out that since the people recovered they were all
at the first stages of life after death and so questions like Reward and Punishment
were too early to be discussed by these people.

   There is also a related field of "Past Lives" were patients describe events in
previous lives (gilgul neshamot) that can be verified and that the people would
have no way of knowing.
Over the weekend I read a book review of a book by some reform rabbi that has a 
chapter on conversations with the dead. 

4. History of the Jewish People

   I personally find the survival of the Jewish people in exile and their return
to the land of Israel unexplanable accept by miracles. As Rav Soloveitchik has
stressed under normal conditions one would expect the land of Israel to become
fully occupied and hence for the Jews to return there en-mass impossible. It would be
like the Indians reclaiming America. No matter how reasonable it is impractical.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Ma'aseh B'reishis


I don't have much new to add. I would like to avoid the old "creation vs.
evolution" debate, so I won't cite the same old list of sources that clearly
don't understand ma'aseh bireishis as time having begun less than 6 millenia
ago (see the book Confrontation if you're interested in the sources). My
point with the Rambam was not that he denied yeis mei'ayin, because he didn't.
Rather, that he said that it's possible to read the chumash that way. Which
would imply that a discussion of the p'shat of the text shouldn't revolve
around understanding yeish mei'ayin.

In summary, my basic point was that the Maharal says that we can only
approximate understanding p'shat in ma'aseh b'reishis. I therefore concluded
that the apparant p'shat that we think we understand is wrong. Which leaves
us with being content with understanding the nimshal.

Yitzchok Zirkind first appeared to limit the inability to understand to
the concept of yeish mei'ayin. In a more recent post he includes "Seder of
things as not understood". Which would imply a broader inability. I need
more clarification of how Yitzchok understands the Maharal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Aug-99: Revi'i, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 358:10-16
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 24b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 13


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:31:23 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Chazal and Technology


Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:20:52 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Chazal and Advanced Technology


The problem with this is also removing the Ikkar that HKB"H can make 
miracles, the Rambam in his self defense about Techiyas Hameisim says clearly 
that he didn't elaborate on this as this is purely Miracle, which one must 
believe in.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind<<

Question: were these miracles among those creatd bein hashmoshos on the first 
Friday?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:29:55 -0400
From: "Richard Friedman" <rfriedma@os.dhhs.gov>
Subject:
M'shaneh et ha'inyan


	Moshe Feldman asks how to explain the statement of the Bi'ur Halacha 
that "the difference between mitzrayim (with one yud) and mitzreeyeem (with 
two yuds) is not mishaneh et ha'inyan."  Can't one explain this by 
vocalizing the statement differently, so that what it asserts is irrelevant 
is the difference between "_mitzrim_" (with one yud, but meaning "the 
Egyptians," as opposed to "mitzrayim" meaning "Egypt") and "mitzriyim" (two 
yuds, but also meaning "the Egyptians")?   If I were serving as gabbai, and 
the text said "mitzriyim," I would correct a ba'al kri'a who said 
"mitzrayim," but not one who said "mitzrim."

		Richard Friedman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:16:14 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
Re: Midgets criticizing Giants


Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:
<<
I am having great difficulty dealing with the righteous
condemnation of various gedolim by members of our group. Aside
from the serious question of whether there is any heter for
such public pronouncements - I find them rather distasteful and
unpleasant to read. They stand in strong distinction to the
majority of postings which inform and uplift and/or raise
important concerns on a wide variety of topics. I'd like to
propose a rule governing these condemnations.

No criticism of a recognized gadol can be made - unless it is
based upon reliable statements from a major talmid chochim.

If I am informed that Rav Soleveitchik or Rav Hutner had
strongly condemned Rebbe X for his conduct - I have learned
something of value. If I read, however, that a chaver of this
group - feels that certain gedolim are a disgrace to the
profession - I have learned nothing of value. If there are no
public pronouncements denouncing that particular gadol - that
must mean that our rebbes and rosh yeshivos must have felt that
condemnations should not be made. The insistence of being more
zealous than our Teachers - is itself one of the major reasons
for the continuing disputes of Klal Yisroel.

The above does not mean that I am against criticizing gedolim
c.v.. Chazon Ish supposedly said that one can only speak lashon
haRah about the errors of a genuine gadol. There is no to'eles
about saying bad things about someone who does not determine
the nature of yiddishkeit. But at the same time there is no
to'eles of  condemnations  - which have no basis in the
pronouncements of gedolim. We are all midgets. First find a
gadol whose shoulder you can stand on.
>>

I assume that you're referring to implied criticism of the Munkatcher Rav.

While your proposal has some merit, I do have some problems with it.

First, I know that it is often the case that gedolim often do not criticise
other gedolim publicly, sometimes for personal reasons, other times for
political reasons.  For example, Rav Lichtenstein, in his yeshivah, has on a
number of occasions directly or obliquely criticised Rav Shach.  It is also
rumored that Rav S. Z. Auerbach was not happy with the strident tones
emanating from Rav Shach.  However, these were never public statements (in
newspapers, public lectures, and the like).  50 years from now, these muted
criticisms of Rav Shach will have disappeared from history, having never
been recorded.  Does this mean that writers 50 years from now should not
criticise Rav Shach?

Second, sometimes it is obvious from statements of gedolim that they would
have criticised other gedolim.  For example, Rav Soloveitchik is reputed to
have said that the Holocaust proves the falsity of the concept of da'at
torah.  Presumably, he would have criticised those gedolim who, on the eve
of the Holocaust, promised their followers that no harm would befall them
(see the story mentioned by--I think--Dr. Moshe Sokolov in the volume put
out by the Orthodox Forum).

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:14:48 -0400
From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
Subject:
re: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos of the Season


From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
<<But every person is different, every mitzvah is different, and every
<<esrog is different. So I want to share with you all something which turns
<<*me* on. I had been pondering this ever since this thread started, and
<<now the time is ripe for me to say that I feel MORE of this "connection"
<<from the pre-approved sets than when I go to pick it myself. 

I agree wholeheartedly that the kashrus and Choshen Mishpat issues are real. 
However I've heard people also include the convenience as a reason.
And personally, when I went that route I felt that laziness did play (too large) 
a part in my decision. 

My question is - if people jump to take the easy/no effort route in Mitzvos is 
it then any surprise that that we feel less of a "connection"? 

<<I gently lay it down on the table,and I open the package with emotions similar
<<to those when I check my lottery ticket against the winners list. How straight
<< is the lulav that Hashem sent me? How round is the esrog in my hand? How 
<<meshulash are these hadasim?

And what happens if l'maaseh you don't like the esrog/lulav etc? How does that 
affect the mitzvah?

kvct
Sender Baruch


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:16:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Shmiros


On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:

> 1] Tehilim 67 was revealed to both Moshe Rabaynu and Dovid Hamelech
> written in the shape of a menorah. Dovid Hamelech inscribed that image
> on his shield and recited it before battle. Reciting that mizmor in the
> shape of a menorah with the proper kavanah is considered equivalent to
> lighting the menorah in the Bais Hamikdash and functions as a shmira.
> (Chida, quoting Maharshal, in Midbar Kedaymos; Sefer Avodas Hakodesh). 
> 

Is there any earlier source for this assertion? It would seem that there
should be some mesorah going back earlier than the Chida, even the
Maharshal.

> 2] R. Moshe Zacuto (Ramaz), in his sefer Shorshay Hashemos, identifies
> numerous shemos and letter permutations that are efficacious as shmiros.
> (A very beautiful 2 volume edition of Shorshay Hashemos was published
> this year by Nezer Sharga in Yerushalayim). 
> 

Perhaps this is by saying them with kavvana, or even written b'kavvana -
but the mopdern shemiros are photo-offsets,

> 3] Sefer Kedushas Levi functions as a shmira wherever it is found and
> promotes hamtakas hadinim. (R. Avraham Yehoshua Heshel MiApta; R. Aharon
> MiZitomer; Chevray Bays Din Robboh DiMunkatch). I believe similar
> statements have been made about Sefer Yetzira, Sefer Raziel (especially
> effective for avoiding fires) and Noam Elimelech, but I don't know the
> sources. I recall reading that Rebbe Nachman questioned or denied the
> efficacy of Sefer Raziel. The Rebbe of Lubavitch advised his chasidim to
> keep a miniature Chitas (Chumash, Tehilim and Tanya) in their cars as a
> shmira. 
> 

It would, of course, be interesting to run an empirical study on this.
But, if the Kedushas Levi or Chitas is a shemira, why not a volume of
Shas, or a Chumash without the Ta"s?

> I am not advocating the use or display of shmiros or shamos, but we,
> she'ayn lonu aysek b'nistoros, should have a healthy respect for those
> who do so appropriately (i.e., in a manner that does not undermine
> emunah, bitachon, hishtadlus or shmiras hamitzvos, and with due regard
> for their kedusha), and pray for the day that we are zocheh to learn and
> understand sodos haTorah. 
>

I agree fully. Nevertheless, lilmod anachnu tzrichin, so it would be nice
to determine parameters etc. 

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:54:08 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
criticizing gedolim(2)


Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:
<<
I am having great difficulty dealing with the righteous
condemnation of various gedolim by members of our group. Aside
from the serious question of whether there is any heter for
such public pronouncements - I find them rather distasteful and
unpleasant to read. They stand in strong distinction to the
majority of postings which inform and uplift and/or raise
important concerns on a wide variety of topics. I'd like to
propose a rule governing these condemnations.

No criticism of a recognized gadol can be made - unless it is
based upon reliable statements from a major talmid chochim.

If I am informed that Rav Soleveitchik or Rav Hutner had
strongly condemned Rebbe X for his conduct - I have learned
something of value. If I read, however, that a chaver of this
group - feels that certain gedolim are a disgrace to the
profession - I have learned nothing of value. If there are no
public pronouncements denouncing that particular gadol - that
must mean that our rebbes and rosh yeshivos must have felt that
condemnations should not be made. The insistence of being more
zealous than our Teachers - is itself one of the major reasons
for the continuing disputes of Klal Yisroel.

The above does not mean that I am against criticizing gedolim
c.v.. Chazon Ish supposedly said that one can only speak lashon
haRah about the errors of a genuine gadol. There is no to'eles
about saying bad things about someone who does not determine
the nature of yiddishkeit. But at the same time there is no
to'eles of  condemnations  - which have no basis in the
pronouncements of gedolim. We are all midgets. First find a
gadol whose shoulder you can stand on.
>>

I assume that you're referring to implied criticism of the Munkatcher Rav.
Does lashon hara apply to criticism of the deceased?  I thought not (though
I would appreciate a source for this).  Why not say that because of hilchot
lashon hara gedolim were more reticent about criticizing other gedolim
during their lifetimes than after their deaths?  

Also, in connection to the comments I made in my prior post, I think that
there may very well be a good reason for gedolim of one grouping (A) not to
criticize those of another grouping (B):  By making such a criticism, gadol
A may imply that he finds fault with the entire group B.  Certainly,
followers of Rav Soloveitchik are offended when then the Rav is criticized
because they believe that such criticism ultimately targets them as well.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:27:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu>
Subject:
Wagner's music


reb shlomo commented "If I am not mistaken, Mehta is Indian (i.e., from
India) and not Jewish. He is, however, the musical director of the Israel
Philharmonic Orchestra."
you arecorrect, this correction was mentioned to me offline, and it is my
mistake.  i thought he wasreffering to mehta.  I once met a Jewish woman
with the name Mehta.  that plus the israel philharmonic led me to think
that he
wasjewish. sorry for the error.
shaul weinreb


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:18:46 -0400
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Re: Satmar and Klausenburg, one more reply to DDG


DDG writes:
<Mechy, Mechy, Mechy. You're still not getting it. And you're usually so
quick on the uptake. Ancestor. The Satmarer Rebbe was not (repeat, not) your
ancestor. (Or have I still failed to penetrate the intricacies of your
family tree?) >  
That's for sure.  I can't quite figure it out myself what with the various
convoluted, involuted,  (some unkind misnageid might add here, devolouted,
but that would be a cheap play for laughs) marrying in that goes on in these
sorts of families.  (and kindly skip the obvious one-liners such an opening
provides).  but you do have  a minor genealogical point there.  Change the
word ancestor in the offending paragraph to "relative".

< Recall that this whole discussion got underway when Rabbi Bechhofer (I
think that we are having this disucssion in public largely for his
amusement) >
At least he's still amused.  Just imagine if one of our allegory chit chats
went public.

<suggested that since you were mi-bais the Satmarer Rebbe or something to
that effect, you might have something to contribute about any possible
minute changes in the nuances of the Satmarer's attitude toward the Zionists
and their collaborators pre- and post-Holocaust (as if there could be any
nuances in thermonuclear warfare)> 
Now you want nuance? I can only infer that you were never a devotee of
Herman Kahn, out of the classical big think era in my biz.  And next you're
gonna tell me that you never went to see Dr. Strangelove. 

<. <<< (BTW, I fear there is an error in that footnote which asserted that
the satmar rebbe during this period was living in satmar without yet having
assumed an official position there. In fact, the future satmar rov (for he
was not just a chassidic rebbe but the town's elected chief rabbi) was at
this time living in Ourshvah. where he was serving in official capacity as
chief rabbi. After a few more years there he moved to Carolyi , again as the
chief rabbi. He didn't actually return to Satmar until 1934. - where he had
indeed lived for a few years at a much earlier time as a younger avreich -
when his older brother the atzei chaim inherited the real family job in
Sighet - and was clearly subservient to the then satmar rov, R. Y. Greenwald
.. there was also another quite brief interlude in satmar during his ourshvah
rabbonus in a WWI retreat). >>> I appreciate your careful reading of my
footnoes, but now I'm really upset with you. Why didn't you point this out
when I showed you the article before(!) it went to press? Hmph. >
oops. what can I say,  I blew it. Just noticed it now - though as I recall I
did correct at least one other footnote for you, though I don't recall
whether that section survived the editor's grim reaping. 

< Now, providing ostensible legal basis to sustain this attack on
R.Glasner's fitness to assume the job was the "pisaq din" of Mikhailovitch,
where, again organized by R. Lichtenstein, a self constiuted "bais din"
issued a "pisaq" that shuls which had such german language diroshos were
assur to enter into (this was the first in a list of nine other chato'im -
bimah in center, weddings in shul, choirs, etc. i.e the range of Hungarian
yeihorig ve'all ya'avors). This pisaq din was circulated and endorsed by
seventy one (get it) hungarian rabbonim amongst the most prominent being my
great great grandfather, the Yeitiv Lev (R. zalman leib teitelbaum) of
Sighet . >>> Would you by chance happen to have a list of the signatories. I
would be curious to see if any of my own non-Glasner ancestors were
signatories.
Don't have all of them, but I do have twenty eight.  Mostly guys you
wouldn't have heard of, unless one of them is your non-Glasner ancestor.
ziqeini the yeitiv leiv seems to me the most prominent though R. Menachem
mendel panait (son of the mareh yechezqel)  from Daj was another worthy of
highlighting. No need to bore everybody,  I can give you the full list off
line.   What is interesting is how many recognized gidolim didn't sign,
though asked.  in particular, R. Moshe Shick, the Chasam Sofer's pre-eminent
student and hungarian halochic authority refused to sign.  though after it
had been disseminated the maharam shick did not feel that it could be
over-ruled.

 <<< This pisaq was issued in 1866, not coincidentally the same year R.
Glasner assumed the Klosenberg job and thus should also be considered as my
ancestor's contribution to the campaign against R.Avrohom Glasner. >>> Well,
this is pretty mild stuff. It obviously had no effect on the outcome. R.
Avrohom got the job.> 
 never suggested he didn't. hard to quantify the relative strength or
mildness from this distance.  But you asked me to cite chapter and verse,
not rate the viciousness or lethality factors.

< Following up the above, Rabbi Bechhofer wrote: <<< As usual, fascinating
history. Could I ask, however, please, to have my memory refreshed? The
Kastner train, if my dim recollection serves, was the subject of the book
"Perfidy". But I recall little more. How were the Klausenberger and Satmerer
involved? >>> Yes that is the Kastner train, except that there was more than
one train, since not everyone was released at the same time.>
Actually there was one train, and then two others.  Everybody (Klausenberger
and Satmarer were merely fellow passengers) more or less got on the train
together in Budapest (in June or July) which then headed for Austria.  The
train was then diverted to Bergen Belsen ostensibly because of lack of room
in the wait camp in Austria.  Subsequently there were two releases - a group
of 318 in October, followed by a final 1300 or so in December.

< Subsequently, there were charges that Kastner had in fact collaborated
with Eichmann for his own benefit, was interested in saving only his family
and cronies, and could, if he and his colleagues had cared to, saved many
more. This, of course, dovetails with the account of the supposed Zionist
political interest in increasing the number of martyrs for the cause
provided by Rabbi Weismandl.> 
While R. Weissmandl indeed is the current source for the letter written by
the zionist functionary (nathan somebody I think,  would have to check). It
needs to be emphasized that, a) despite teves' slanderous, inaccurate, and
agenda driven attack, R. Weissmandl  was an odom of great ne'emonus, b) R.
Weismandl mentioned that the letter was originally opened in the presence of
others, some of whom were alive when some of the brouhaha broke out and
could easily have been interviewed for corroboration, which nobody bothered
to do, and c)   R. Weismandl himself didn't actually take it as evilly, or
make as big a deal of it,  as the cast put on it by segev. I.e. looking at
R. Weismandl'e description (Min Hameitzar) he didn't take it as a zionist
hope that anybody would get killed and the whole matter was mentioned kind
of en passant.  You should really discuss this further with R. Sanders who
is a big R. Weismandl fan and boqi.

<in the 1950s to a famous libel suit brought by Kastner, then a sub-cabinet
official in the Israeli government, against the author of a pamphlet making
these accusations. The lower court found that Kastner had not been libeled,
a crushing blow to Kastner, the government and the Zionist establishment.
The decision was reversed on appeal, but the suspicion of a political fix
tainted the appelate decision. Shortly thereafter, Kastner was assasinated
in broad daylight while walking on the street in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.>
Actually, he was assassinated before the reversal by the supreme court, and
thus didn't live to realize his legal vindication.

< The explanation, of course, is that the Satmarer Rebbe did not want to be
saved by Kastner and at first refused emphatically all entreaties that he be
saved by the Zionists. It was only because the deceased father of Kastner's
assistant appeared to the assistant in a dream and instructed him to save
the Rebbe at all costs that the Rebbe finally deigned to allow himself to be
saved by the forces of darkness. The truthfulness of this (by now well-known
and widely accepted) narrative has been questioned by some scoffers who for
some reason keep asking for independent (i.e., non-Satmar supplied) evidence
supporting the official version>
That is indeed the story circulating in the chasidic camp.  Abraham Fuchs,
chronicler of the hungarian veldt, also records the insistence of charedi
Budapest circles who, as significant contributors to the desperate fund
raising enterprise, conditioned their participation on condition that the
rebbe join the shi'aris hapileitoh. 


Mechy Frankel				H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil			W: (703) 325-1277


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:19:01 -0400
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Re: Repeating for vocalization change, ashqenazis really speak si fard


<Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:11:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Moshe Feldman
<moshe_feldman@yahoo.com
<http://be8-mail.zdnetmail.com:80/32161848702207840934982298/ab_mailto_froma
b.femail?wholemail=moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: Repeating for
vocalization change "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com
<http://be8-mail.zdnetmail.com:80/32161848702207840934982298/ab_mailto_froma
b.femail?wholemail=jjbaker@panix.com>> wrote: <<But he thought it did change
the meaning: dam naki would be "innocent blood", per the Kaplan chumash
(which has dam, like the Massorah), while dom naki (per Onkelos) is rendered
by, e.g., Mendelssohn, and New JPS, as "dom shel naki" - "blood of an
innocent." Are they both nouns, or is one a noun and one an adjective? That
seems to be the difference. Onkelos renders it "dom zacai", while Targum
Yerushalmi has "adam zacai". >> Question: What is the definition of mishaneh
et ha'inyan, for which we cause a ba'al koreh to repeat what he read (see OC
142)? Does it mean (1) that the meaning of words changes (here, it clearly
does), or (2) that the concept/idea is changed (here, I'm not so sure--is
there ultimately any difference between innocent blood and blood of an
innocent)? Kol tuv, Moshe >
And from REC: <I would also add that I spoke once with a person who often
served as a ba'al keri'ah in the "Shtieblach" in the Katamon neighborhood of
Yerushalayim, and he told me that he was once corrected by R. Aharon
Lichtestein for reading dam (with a patach) instead of dom (with a kamatz),
or vice versa. Kol tuv> 


I have a somewhat different angle on this dam-dom stuff.  First, there
should not be the slightest doubt in anybody's mind that they mean different
things - being mishaneh the inyon depending on whether noqi is a
adjectivally adjunct to dam, or an independent noun.   But yet I am misupoq
that we ought, in principle, require a baal qoreih to repeat here.  And that
is because of the peculiarities of modern ashqenazic hebrew.  It is well
known for instance that spoken ashqenazic hebrew in fact sounded
suspiciously like sephardic hebrew through the better part of the middle
ages. And thus our "hard core" ashqenazim actually pronounced a qometz like
a patatch (see e.g.  rashi's evidently confused gloss to the inyon of "omein
chatufoh" in meseches Birochos).  This  "sefardi" heritage has never been
eradicated from spoken ashqenazic during subsequent linguistic evolution and
a vestigial presence is part and parcel of ashqenazi hebrew today,
everywhere it is actually used.  In particular this shows up in many words
of the "dam" paradigm. Thus the universal ashqenazi pronunciation of word
like "kilal" u'firat", "yam", "dam"  (when is the last time one of you
ba'alei qirioh was offered the "yod" by the gabai rather than the "yad")
not "mistakes" at all but vestigial survivors of an earlier sefardi-like
reality which was never actually replaced (despite the fulminations of shul
midaqdiqim).  Since we do not "correct" communally accepted pronunciations
when they do not originate in a simple misreading  - a yemenite leiner
doesn't sound much like anybody else and I've always suspected that the
torahs that some of my polisher-heritage  friends read from have extra yuds,
but we let it go - I would call into question the suggestion that dam-dom is
a correctible mistake. R. Lichtenstein, as quoted li'eil by REC, apparently
would not.

Noah Witty remarks:  <Could someone state what eth and eyth +ACo-mean+ACo-
and then inform us what it means to have those words besmichut. >
Not sure what you mean.  There is no inyon of simichus here. ais is
generally used when  the word receives ha'tomoh, i.e is stressed by a trope
sign.  es when un-troped.  

Mechy Frankel				H: (301) 593-3949
Michael.frankel@dtra.mil			W: (703) 325-1277


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >