Avodah Mailing List

Volume 37: Number 42

Mon, 27 May 2019

• 1. Sheidim = microbes? (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 2. A unit for poetic purposes (Jay F. Shachter)
• 3. Re: Shva Na's etc. (Sholom Simon)
• 4. Selichos on BaHaB (Y. Dovid Kaye)
• 5. International Humanitarian Law in Halachah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Shva Na's etc. (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: International Humanitarian Law in Halachah (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Shva Na's etc. (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 9. Re: Shva Na's etc. (Micha Berger)

I have heard it said in the name of Rav Ahron Soloveichik (Logic of the
Heart) that some of what Chazal tell us about sheidim might refer to (or
apply to) microbes. Such as: they?re everywhere, there are far more of them
than us, they are invisible for good reason (you wouldn?t want to see them),
some are harmful while others are helpful. And that there are other kinds of
forces in the world, also called sheidim, that cause dementia etc. I?m
looking any further sources. Thanks.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190522/760a6145/attachment-0001.html>

>
> A sh'va (or, perhaps better, shva :)) is not a syllable unto itself
> (that said, poets can consider it a unit for poetic purposes, e.g. the
> 8 units in each phrase of "Y'did Nefesh"),
>

This is true, but misleading, because it implies, incorrectly, that
the poet considers a schwa to be interchangeable with a non-schwa
vowel, for the purposes of his rhythm scheme.  This may be true in
Y'did Nefesh but it is not, in general, true.  Typically a poet uses a
schwa intentionally, when his rhythm scheme demands one, and not
otherwise, as in Adon `Olam, and as in D'ror Yiqra, where each phrase
begins with exactly one schwa, followed by exactly three non-schwa
vowels (following similar forms in Arabic poetry).


                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                6424 N Whipple St
                Chicago IL  60645-4111
                        (1-773)7613784   landline
                        (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"

R Akiva Miller was asking about how to count syllables with a shva na,
and also about the chataf vowels.

My (very limited) understanding, or perception, is that:
(a) it's sort of "half" (or some smaller fraction) of a syllable; and
(b) the sound is equivalent to a chataf vowel (as well as the fact that
it's a partial syllable)

(As for "b", I once asked RSM: if the sound of a shva na and a chataf is
the same, why did ben Asher use a chataf instead of a shva na, or vice
versa in particular places: I *think* RSM responded that in some cases
it was to remind us to vocalize it, but in other cases, we don't really
know why he chose one over the other.)

(And, another tangent, someone earlier was asking about the difference
between a shuruk and a kubbutz and stated something to the effect that
there must be a difference, otherwise why would there be two ways to
write the vowel.  RSM asserted (orally, to me) that, aderaba, the sound
is exactly the same.  And then I asked the same question: why did ben
Asher choose one over the other in various places.  RSM (again, to the
best of my recollection) said something like: he preferred a shuruk when
possible, but we don't really know exactly why.  RSM, if you're reading
this, please correct me -- these are recollections from 10 years ago!)

Keitzad half of a syllable?  Think of the last pasuk in Tehillim: "kol
han*shama" . . .  is han'shama 3 syllables?  Or 4?  Or 3-1/3?  (I dunno
. . . )

-- Sholom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190522/2b0957d1/attachment-0001.html>

HaRav Elazar Meir Teitz Shlita is of course correct in his post. Indeed
many Poskim note that the minhag is to recite slichos even if one does not
fast see for example. Shut. Levushei Mordechai Tinyana 41, Shut. Rav
Eliyahu Gutmacher 50 as well as the Pri Megadim 566:1 in MZ.??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190523/3a0b1686/attachment-0001.html>

From https://www.jpost.com//Israel-News/International-humanitarian-law-in-Halacha-590408

Anyone know an argument why international law that is imposed on a
country might be halachically binding?

If the country voluntarily signed on, then it became dina demalkhusa,
and DDD. But I don't see RSYisraeli's argument (see below) WRT the
case where the UN votes in a law that one's home country not only voted
against, but chooses not to recognize.

And while I see R Aviner's point, that we want reciprocity, and I see how
it can have enough weight to justify bending din in the ways mishum eivah
can. But that's for the country to decide. I don't see it as grounds for
saying -- nor does RDA say -- that it could make the law halachically
binding on me even if my host country rejected that law.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             submission to truth, and what results?


The Jerusalem Post - Israel News
May 23 2019 | Iyar, 18, 5779

International humanitarian law in Halacha
By Shlomo Brody
May 23, 2019 08:29

One of the biggest questions in contemporary jurisprudence relates to the
relationship of national jurisdiction and international law. Given the
growth of international treaties and bodies to enforce those agreements,
jurists are increasingly challenged how local laws may be impacted by
international standards.

This question has also been asked by Jewish legal decisors regarding how
Halacha might be impacted by such norms. We'll try to sketch some of the
broader approaches taken in this ongoing conversation, particularly as
they relate to the laws of war.

International law generally comprises two types of norms: those agreed to
by multinational treaties and those established by customary practice. The
former include, most famously, the various Hague and Geneva conventions
regarding warfare, while the latter include many norms regulating maritime
practices, for example.

When a country has formally signed a given agreement, it is readily
understandable that its own laws should encompass those norms. When it
does not formally consent, however, it is more difficult to understand why
it should relent on its own sovereignty and accept standards imposed by
others. This broader issue engages many scholars and remains a critical
point of contention amongst jurists.

Within Jewish legal circles, one of the first scholars to address this
question was Rabbi Hayim Hirshenzon (1857-1935). While a figure of
minimal influence in his time, Hirshenzon remains a fascinating figure
because he addressed many of the challenges posed by the political and
moral developments of the modern era.

Following the bloodshed of World War I, he supported the founding of
the League of Nations as a method of peacefully resolving international
disputes. This included the adoption of ethical standards, including
the Hague Conventions, that were intended to tame wartime behavior.

Hirshenzon believed that Jews were obligated to follow such standards,
even in cases when they were not signers of such covenants. This was,
in part, because it would be a desecration of God's name (hillul Hashem)
for Jews not to support progressing toward a better civilization. When
Jews signed covenants, they were further bound to uphold them even when
its provisions were not endorsed by Jewish law.

As precedent, he cited a remarkable case in the Talmud which describes
how the Jewish people suffered because King Saul had violated a covenant
with the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites demanded that, to make amends for
this breach, seven of Saul's children be handed over to be killed. King
David remarkably agreed to these demands, which the Talmudic sages
condoned because it was a sanctification of God's name to show that the
Jewish people upheld their promises! International agreements, Hirshenzon
concluded, are therefore binding, even when they demand acts that would
otherwise be prohibited.

A more moderate model was suggested by Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli. While
arguing that Jewish law imposed few restrictions on wartime behavior,
he asserted that Israel would be bound by the regulations agreed upon by
the nations of the world. This was because Jewish law accepted the notion
that "the land of the kingdom is the law." While this principle normally
demands observing laws within a given country, Yisraeli broadly applied
it to intergovernmental institutions. Accordingly, if the nations of
the world would ban warfare - and hold to that agreement - then Jewish
law would prohibit such wars. Yet in the absence of such agreements
(or actual observance of the agreed-upon restrictions), Jewish law would
not impose such restrictions.

MANY RECENT scholars, including Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, have argued that the
international community's failure to uniformly enforce its rules - and
worse, its inordinate targeting of Israel for censure while hypocritically
remaining silent in the face of human rights abuses by Israel's enemies
and others around the world - entirely undermines any possible halachic
recognition of international law.

This is for two reasons: firstly, because the premise of treaties
is reciprocity. If one side is not committed to fighting by the
agreed-upon rules, then the other side is no longer bound to those
restrictions. Moreover, the unfair application of the rules is legally
analogous to a state discriminately imposing taxes on one sector of
the population. Ultimately, this is a form of extortion or theft, and
the discriminated-against population would not be obligated to follow
such rules. So, too, when the world gives disproportionate scrutiny to
Israel's behavior, it reflects a bias that undermines the legitimacy of
the entire system.

Perhaps for that reason, a better model might be to see international
law as an external challenge that can be compared to Jewish law. In this
model, international standards deemed worthy of emulation still do not
become obligatory; instead, a challenge is posed for decisors to search
Jewish law and find internal precedents for observing these values.

As Amos Israel-Vleeschhouwer has argued, this model may explain, for
example, the attempt of figures like Israel's first Ashkenazi chief rabbi,
Rabbi Isaac Herzog, to assert that minority groups should receive equal
status under Israeli law. Similarly, one could suggest that the attempts
of figures like Rabbi Shlomo Goren to argue that Jewish law prohibits
targeting noncombatants, in spite of the biblical passages that seem to
indicate otherwise, were attempts to bring Jewish norms into line with
contemporary moral beliefs.

The disadvantage of such an approach is that it may create situations in
which decisors appear to force-read a given text. The distinct advantage,
however, is that it gives Jews the impetus to derive new ideas from our
own authoritative texts.

Especially given the shaky status of international law, this may be the
best path for Judaism to continue to develop a rich moral discourse.

--
The writer is the director of the Tikvah Overseas Students Institute,
a postdoctoral fellow at Bar-Ilan University Law School, and the
author of A Guide to the Complex: Contemporary Halakhic Debates.
Facebook.com/RabbiShlomoBrody

Copyright ? 2018 Jpost Inc. All rights reserved

On Sun, May 19, at 1:39am EDT, R Michael Poppers wrote:
: ..                                         Last and not least, RSS z'l'
: is quoted <https://www.artscroll.com/Books/9781578195121.html> as
: advocating the "generally-accepted" l'shon CHaZAL of "shelo asani goy"
: as opposed to the "shelo asani nachri" emendation of a few grammarians
: (naming Heidenheim and Baer and leaving the 3rd name to the imagination) or
: "she'asani Yisrael".

It is unclear what nusach Chazal was, before censorship. Shu"t Zekher
Yehosef 1:13 prefers "shelo asani nakhri" on the grounds that that
was the gemara's original girsa.

"Shelo asani nakhri" is also the nusach some of the Gra's students record
as his nusach. Because "umi ke'amkha Yisrael goy echad ba'aretz" -- we
are a goy.

I think the change, for those who see "nakhri" as a change rather than a
restoration, is part of the same O Maskilim "correcting" Nusach Ashkenaz
in general to leshon Tanakh.

"Goy" as "[member of another] nation", rather than simply "nation"
starts with Chazal.

...
: RAM indicated a preference for "b*rachos" over "brachos", but I
: think he should reconsider (and I believe he did after our conversation).
: A sh'va (or, perhaps better, shva :)) is not a syllable unto itself
: (that said, poets can consider it a unit for poetic purposes, e.g. the
: 8 units in each phrase of "Y'did Nefesh"), but emphasizing a shva na',
: e.g. "b'rachos", could turn it into a chiriq...

True, so don't emphasize it. I don't think Hebrew is supposed to have
any consonant blends, including the /br/ you would end up with.

Maybe I should write it "b'rakhos", rather than "berakhos", but I wouldn't
write "brakhos", that just seems wrong.


On Wed, May 22, at 10:47pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote:
: (b) the sound is equivalent to a chataf vowel (as well as the fact that
: it's a partial syllable)

Grammatically, chataf vowel is a kind of sheva nach.

That's how he can be either Mordechai or Mordochai (with a chataf-qamatz
under the dalet). But a chataf under a dalet is a grammatical oddity.
Maybe it's because the name "Mordochai" is borrowed from Persian?

As for sound:
: (As for "b", I once asked RSM: if the sound of a shva na and a chataf is
: the same, why did ben Asher use a chataf instead of a shva na, or vice
: versa in particular places: I think RSM responded that in some cases
: it was to remind us to vocalize it, but in other cases, we don't really
: know why he chose one over the other.)

I dont' think that's true. A schwa can get a range of "colorings" based
on what vowel is nearby. I thought that was why a geronit that can't take
a sheva nach will be written with a chataf version of the adjacent nequdah.

Wiki gives an example which matches my perception: he'emid, where the "'e" is
an ayin with a chataf segol -- because your mouth can most readily repeat
the segol that was under the hei.

: Keitzad half of a syllable? Think of the last pasuk in Tehillim: "kol
: han shama"... is han'shama 3 syllables? Or 4? Or 3-1/3? (I dunno
: ...)

This was new to me. When looking up the wiki example, I think the author
says something similar. They have "he'emid" syllabified as "he-emid", only
two syllables.

I would have said he-`e-mid, a short but distinct middle syllable.

There are two things making the syllable short, or leshitas Wikipedia
(and as you wrote above), part of the next syllable: the letter will
(almost) always be a geronit, AND the vowel itself is.

So even if this new-to-me idea is correct, I wouldn't apply it to
b'rakhos.

BTW, RMP, what would you do with "v'hoda'os"? /vh/ doesn't blend; you
can't say vav and hei without a vowel in between. (I guess you can fully
combine them into a single aspirated /wh/, given a waw instead of a vav.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             submission to truth, and what results?

The whole question doesn't begin, because there is no such thing as 
binding international law in the sense that national laws are considered 
binding.

The UN *cannot* "vote in a law".   The UN is not a world government or a 
legislature; it is simply a club for sovereign countries to talk to each 
other and negotiate voluntary agreements among themselves.   Even under 
its own rules, the only body that can make "binding" resolutions is the 
Security Council, and only those resolutions adopted under Chapter 7; 
but even those are only binding because UN members agree to be bound by 
them.

Treaties are binding only to the extent that countries agree to be bound 
by them; a country can repudiate it at will.  The main reason not to is 
that it will then not get the benefits that were the reason it agreed to 
the treaty in the first place.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

What, if any, significance does the meseg in the AS have? They are 
really tiny. I hadn't even noticed them until a couple of days ago.

The siddurim that have been recommended to me are mostly out of print. 
One that I think is in print is the Siddur Vilna. What about the new 
(Hebrew only) Koren siddur? I am not happy with it either, since in the 
Heb-Eng Sacks siddur is says to say Hallel with a bracha on YhA, but I 
am not sure what is a graver sin - changing Goy to Nochri or directing 
the davener to say Hallel with a bracha on YhA.

KT, GS,

YGB

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:36:00AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: What, if any, significance does the meseg in the AS have? They are
: really tiny. I hadn't even noticed them until a couple of days ago.

They mark emphasized syllables. They, like everyone else, seem to only
denote those that would avoid mistakes they think are common.

And, diqduq is not ArtScroll's highest priority. So I wouldn't assume
one /should/ be relying on the opinion they chose.

A confusion is that sometimes a meseg is a real meseg, there since
the Baalei Mesorah marked up the text with trop symbols. Which gets
confusing in their text for Qeri'as Shema.

From my list of rules:

> ' Mordechai Breuer's version of R' Elyahu Bachur's rules gimel - hei:

> ei:   sheva following a meseg (but not every meseg is still printed in
>       the text, nor is every meseg in the text from the originals)
>       (Raza"h's rule vuv)
>       (exceptions: 1. meseg between patach and yud-sheva (e.g. "vayhi",
>       "vaynahageihu"),
>       2. meseg on chirik or segol of binyan hispa'el (e.g.
>       "mishtachavim", "esnahalah")

: The siddurim that have been recommended to me are mostly out of
: print...

Both of the siddurim I suggested, Simanim and Ezor Eliyahu, are
in print. Simanim, with the helpful floating text in the margine,
is even comparatively inexpensive.

: the new (Hebrew only) Koren siddur? I am not happy with it either,
: since in the Heb-Eng Sacks siddur is says to say Hallel with a
: bracha on YhA, but I am not sure what is a graver sin - changing Goy
: to Nochri or directing the davener to say Hallel with a bracha on
: YhA.

If you are bothered by changing goy to nakhri then you really need an
Ezor Eliyahu, which will tell you every change in girsa from the norms
since the invention of the printing press.

But they don't have all of them. Get used to "vesein chelqeinu beSorasakh,
sabe'einu mituvakh, samach kafsheinu biyshu'asakh", numerous "shaAtah"s
turning back into "sheAtah", etc..

Evolution in the siddur is the norm. You can't go crazy about any
one change. (As long as it's not as big as a berakhah levatalah.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 34th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                and maintain a stable relationship?


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)