[Avodah] What does hamelech hakadosh mean?

[Marty Bluke]

The gemara in Berachos (12b) states that during the ten days of
repentence we change the nusach of the shemoneh esrei and say hamelech
hakadosh instead of hakel hakadosh as well as saying hamelech
hamishpat instead of melech ohev tzedaka umishpat. Rashi on the gemara
comments that hamelech hamishpat is grammatically incorrect, it should
be melech hamishpat and it is to be understood that way (the king of
mishpat) and basically we ignore the extra heh. The Beis Yosef
comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

Interestingly enough this is a dispute between Artscroll and Metzudah.
Artscroll in their siddurim and machzorim translate it as "the holy
king" while Metzuda translates it like this interpretation of Rashi
"the king, the holy one".

To sum up there are 2 interpretations of hamelech hakadosh

1. the king, the holy one (which is the literal translation with the
heh at the beginning of the word)
2. the holy king (the 2 words are 1 phrase) like hamelech hamishpat
the king of mishpat

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:53:49AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: ... The Beis Yosef
: comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
: yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
: understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
: titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
: standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
: like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

This is all over Hebrew. HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora -- one noun and
three adjectives, or four nouns?
Boneh Y-m could be "the Builder of Y-m" or "who is building Y-m".
HaMotzi lechem min ha'aretz

I argued in early volumes of Avodah that this is for a fundamental
philosophical reason. That lashon haqodesh intentionally treats
present-tense verbs, nouns, and adjectives as the same part of speach.

From <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n103.shtml#18> (16-Aug-2000;
I commented a while back that I'm not sure that parts of speech are as
distinct in lashon hakodesh as they are in English. The example I gave
was "haKel haGadol haGibor vihaNorah" which the Vilna Gaon takes to be
four nouns, while others seem to assume haKel is a noun and the other
three are its adjectives. My suggestion was that Hebrew is intentionally
ambiguous on this point.
There is a debate between Aristotle and Plato on the subject of
definitions. According to the former, when you call something a "horse"
you are really *describing* the object, saying that it shares a list of
properties with other "horses". A word that we consider a noun, therefore,
is merely shorthand for a list of adjectives.
Kantians would discuss whether a noun refers to the thing itself or
our perceptions of it. If the latter, then it really is a collection
of adjectives.
I'm suggesting that this ambiguity between noun and adjective in
lashon hakodesh is because it is using nouns in the Aristotilian or
Kantian-perception sense.
I would like to add that the same motivation (if real) would apply to
the ambiguity between "boneh" as a noun (builder) and as a verb (hu
boneh achshav). The issue comes up in "boneh Y'laim" vs "boneih Y'laim",
something some of us are discussing off the list. The former uses "boneh"
as a verb, the latter uses it as a noun and then reconjugates it with a
tzeirei to make it "the Builder of". But without that semichut to mean
"of", there is an underlying ambiguity causing that machlokes.
Lashon hoveh and adjectives are *supposed* to be one notion. "A is
building B" and "A is the builder of B" both state the same relationship
between A and B. English has two terms, but since Hebrew is describing
the relationship and not the pair of objects it only requires one.
It's a fundamentally different perception of reality.

Later in that thread, I noted that this continues to LhQ giving adjectives
a hei hayedi'ah along with the noun. Because it is also describable as
describing an object using a list of specifying nouns.

GCT!
-Micha

[Jay F Shachter]

Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is
grammatically incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to
be understood that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore
the extra heh. The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should
apply to hamelech hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.

That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying,
unless he had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather
than "qadosh"). "Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh
in front of both words is exactly what you would expect. "Mishpat",
in contrast, is a noun, thus you would expect the heh, as Rashi
correctly points out, only in front of the last word (e.g., "torath
nega` tzara`ath beged hatztzemer", Leviticus 13:59).

My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
heh's.


Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
jay at m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us

[Simon Montagu]

Post by Jay F Shachter
My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
heh's.

I have never hear of a vocative he. Can you give examples?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081006/b2325bee/attachment.htm>

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 10:54:29AM -0600, Jay F Shachter wrote:
: "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke at gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:53:49 +0300:
: > Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is
: > grammatically incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to
: > be understood that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore
: > the extra heh. The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should
: > apply to hamelech hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.

: That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying,
: unless he had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather
: than "qadosh"). "Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh
: in front of both words is exactly what you would expect....

It would seem I was unclear earlier, so let me try again.

Any Hebrew adjective can be taken as a noun, particularly with a hei
hayedi'ah. HaGadol would be "the great ..." (adj) or as "the Great One".
It could be seen as a consequence of diqduq making pronouns optional.
Even present tense verbs are nouns. "Hamoleikh meiHodu ve'ad Qush --
the one who ruled from Hudo to Qush."

Thus, HaMelekh haQadosh is equally "the Holy King" and "the King, the
Holy One". Just as the gemara describes HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora
as for descriptions of G-d, not a noun and three adjectives.

I would argue that you find the BY mystifying only because you're
dividing parts of speach in a discussion of a language that doesn't
have distinct parts of speach in those roles.

I also argued this is a philosophical point. In the Semitic
worldview, there is no distinction between attribute and
essence. To be more specific, it's not a world of things connected
by relationships, but of things defined by the relationships in
which they participate. The essence is the set of attributes. See
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml , where I
argue this notion explains issues as diverse as why the mishnah isn't
organized as cleanly as the Mishnah Torah, the lack of Law of Excluded
middle in halachic logic, etc... On the topic of grammar...

A man who is currently building is a builder. One can't separate who he
is from what he does. Also, this lack of distinction between essence
and accidental attributes is why any attribute can become a noun for
the thing.

...
: My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
: appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
: article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
: one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
: heh's.

Sidenote defining "vocative" for people who didn't look it up: In the
sentence, "I need you to go to the store, Eli", the name "Eli" is being
used in the vocative case.

To answer R' Simon Montagu's question, see Shemu'el I 26:22, "Hinei
chanis, hamelekh -- here is a spear, O king." (The kesiv has "hachanis --
the spear.") And yes, the old-English "O" is usually used to denote the
vocative in translating these things. Although, in "Ana Hashem hoshi'ah
na" the vocatrive case has no prefix, I guess because the tetragrammaton
is a proper name.

It would give an interesting peshat in berakhos. RCVolzhiner (NhC II)
explains the shift from second to third person during the course of a
berakhah in mystical terms. That the speaker is descending the path of the
shefa "behind" the bread he is about to eat, going from closeness to G-d
(2nd person) to distance (3rd). This gives a more prosaic explanation. We
are saying "BA"H EM"H, O One Who brings out bread from the earth."

However, it would mean that those with a hei and those with "asher"
are very different in grammar. One puts the chasimah in vocative case,
describing the One to Whom we address the berakhah, the other sort has
a chasimah describing Hashem EM"H.

GCT!
-Micha

[Simon Montagu]

Post by Jay F Shachter
My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
heh's.

I have never hear of a vocative he. Can you give examples?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081006/b2325bee/attachment-0001.htm>

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 10:54:29AM -0600, Jay F Shachter wrote:
: "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke at gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:53:49 +0300:
: > Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is
: > grammatically incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to
: > be understood that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore
: > the extra heh. The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should
: > apply to hamelech hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.

: That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying,
: unless he had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather
: than "qadosh"). "Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh
: in front of both words is exactly what you would expect....

It would seem I was unclear earlier, so let me try again.

Any Hebrew adjective can be taken as a noun, particularly with a hei
hayedi'ah. HaGadol would be "the great ..." (adj) or as "the Great One".
It could be seen as a consequence of diqduq making pronouns optional.
Even present tense verbs are nouns. "Hamoleikh meiHodu ve'ad Qush --
the one who ruled from Hudo to Qush."

Thus, HaMelekh haQadosh is equally "the Holy King" and "the King, the
Holy One". Just as the gemara describes HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora
as for descriptions of G-d, not a noun and three adjectives.

I would argue that you find the BY mystifying only because you're
dividing parts of speach in a discussion of a language that doesn't
have distinct parts of speach in those roles.

I also argued this is a philosophical point. In the Semitic
worldview, there is no distinction between attribute and
essence. To be more specific, it's not a world of things connected
by relationships, but of things defined by the relationships in
which they participate. The essence is the set of attributes. See
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml , where I
argue this notion explains issues as diverse as why the mishnah isn't
organized as cleanly as the Mishnah Torah, the lack of Law of Excluded
middle in halachic logic, etc... On the topic of grammar...

A man who is currently building is a builder. One can't separate who he
is from what he does. Also, this lack of distinction between essence
and accidental attributes is why any attribute can become a noun for
the thing.

...
: My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
: appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
: article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
: one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
: heh's.

Sidenote defining "vocative" for people who didn't look it up: In the
sentence, "I need you to go to the store, Eli", the name "Eli" is being
used in the vocative case.

To answer R' Simon Montagu's question, see Shemu'el I 26:22, "Hinei
chanis, hamelekh -- here is a spear, O king." (The kesiv has "hachanis --
the spear.") And yes, the old-English "O" is usually used to denote the
vocative in translating these things. Although, in "Ana Hashem hoshi'ah
na" the vocatrive case has no prefix, I guess because the tetragrammaton
is a proper name.

It would give an interesting peshat in berakhos. RCVolzhiner (NhC II)
explains the shift from second to third person during the course of a
berakhah in mystical terms. That the speaker is descending the path of the
shefa "behind" the bread he is about to eat, going from closeness to G-d
(2nd person) to distance (3rd). This gives a more prosaic explanation. We
are saying "BA"H EM"H, O One Who brings out bread from the earth."

However, it would mean that those with a hei and those with "asher"
are very different in grammar. One puts the chasimah in vocative case,
describing the One to Whom we address the berakhah, the other sort has
a chasimah describing Hashem EM"H.

GCT!
-Micha

[Simon Montagu]

Post by Jay F Shachter
My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
heh's.

I have never hear of a vocative he. Can you give examples?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081006/b2325bee/attachment-0002.htm>

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 10:54:29AM -0600, Jay F Shachter wrote:
: "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke at gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:53:49 +0300:
: > Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is
: > grammatically incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to
: > be understood that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore
: > the extra heh. The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should
: > apply to hamelech hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.

: That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying,
: unless he had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather
: than "qadosh"). "Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh
: in front of both words is exactly what you would expect....

It would seem I was unclear earlier, so let me try again.

Any Hebrew adjective can be taken as a noun, particularly with a hei
hayedi'ah. HaGadol would be "the great ..." (adj) or as "the Great One".
It could be seen as a consequence of diqduq making pronouns optional.
Even present tense verbs are nouns. "Hamoleikh meiHodu ve'ad Qush --
the one who ruled from Hudo to Qush."

Thus, HaMelekh haQadosh is equally "the Holy King" and "the King, the
Holy One". Just as the gemara describes HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora
as for descriptions of G-d, not a noun and three adjectives.

I would argue that you find the BY mystifying only because you're
dividing parts of speach in a discussion of a language that doesn't
have distinct parts of speach in those roles.

I also argued this is a philosophical point. In the Semitic
worldview, there is no distinction between attribute and
essence. To be more specific, it's not a world of things connected
by relationships, but of things defined by the relationships in
which they participate. The essence is the set of attributes. See
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml , where I
argue this notion explains issues as diverse as why the mishnah isn't
organized as cleanly as the Mishnah Torah, the lack of Law of Excluded
middle in halachic logic, etc... On the topic of grammar...

A man who is currently building is a builder. One can't separate who he
is from what he does. Also, this lack of distinction between essence
and accidental attributes is why any attribute can become a noun for
the thing.

...
: My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
: appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
: article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
: one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
: heh's.

Sidenote defining "vocative" for people who didn't look it up: In the
sentence, "I need you to go to the store, Eli", the name "Eli" is being
used in the vocative case.

To answer R' Simon Montagu's question, see Shemu'el I 26:22, "Hinei
chanis, hamelekh -- here is a spear, O king." (The kesiv has "hachanis --
the spear.") And yes, the old-English "O" is usually used to denote the
vocative in translating these things. Although, in "Ana Hashem hoshi'ah
na" the vocatrive case has no prefix, I guess because the tetragrammaton
is a proper name.

It would give an interesting peshat in berakhos. RCVolzhiner (NhC II)
explains the shift from second to third person during the course of a
berakhah in mystical terms. That the speaker is descending the path of the
shefa "behind" the bread he is about to eat, going from closeness to G-d
(2nd person) to distance (3rd). This gives a more prosaic explanation. We
are saying "BA"H EM"H, O One Who brings out bread from the earth."

However, it would mean that those with a hei and those with "asher"
are very different in grammar. One puts the chasimah in vocative case,
describing the One to Whom we address the berakhah, the other sort has
a chasimah describing Hashem EM"H.

GCT!
-Micha

[Arie Folger]

In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?

It stands to reason that we do stay standing, and in fact, we did. But by the
way, Qedushah is always interspersed with comments, such as "Kevodo
male 'olam, mesharetav shoalim zeh lazeh a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-yeh..." When
saying those piyutim, we are essentially expanding upon those comments,
preparing ourselves more for the actual most central statements of the
entire 'hazarat hashatz: "qadosh, qadosh, qadosh haShem..." and "barukh kevod
haShem mimqomo."

[Marty Bluke]

The gemara in Berachos (12b) states that during the ten days of
repentence we change the nusach of the shemoneh esrei and say hamelech
hakadosh instead of hakel hakadosh as well as saying hamelech
hamishpat instead of melech ohev tzedaka umishpat. Rashi on the gemara
comments that hamelech hamishpat is grammatically incorrect, it should
be melech hamishpat and it is to be understood that way (the king of
mishpat) and basically we ignore the extra heh. The Beis Yosef
comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

Interestingly enough this is a dispute between Artscroll and Metzudah.
Artscroll in their siddurim and machzorim translate it as "the holy
king" while Metzuda translates it like this interpretation of Rashi
"the king, the holy one".

To sum up there are 2 interpretations of hamelech hakadosh

1. the king, the holy one (which is the literal translation with the
heh at the beginning of the word)
2. the holy king (the 2 words are 1 phrase) like hamelech hamishpat
the king of mishpat

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:53:49AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: ... The Beis Yosef
: comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
: yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
: understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
: titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
: standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
: like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

This is all over Hebrew. HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora -- one noun and
three adjectives, or four nouns?
Boneh Y-m could be "the Builder of Y-m" or "who is building Y-m".
HaMotzi lechem min ha'aretz

I argued in early volumes of Avodah that this is for a fundamental
philosophical reason. That lashon haqodesh intentionally treats
present-tense verbs, nouns, and adjectives as the same part of speach.

From <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n103.shtml#18> (16-Aug-2000;
I commented a while back that I'm not sure that parts of speech are as
distinct in lashon hakodesh as they are in English. The example I gave
was "haKel haGadol haGibor vihaNorah" which the Vilna Gaon takes to be
four nouns, while others seem to assume haKel is a noun and the other
three are its adjectives. My suggestion was that Hebrew is intentionally
ambiguous on this point.
There is a debate between Aristotle and Plato on the subject of
definitions. According to the former, when you call something a "horse"
you are really *describing* the object, saying that it shares a list of
properties with other "horses". A word that we consider a noun, therefore,
is merely shorthand for a list of adjectives.
Kantians would discuss whether a noun refers to the thing itself or
our perceptions of it. If the latter, then it really is a collection
of adjectives.
I'm suggesting that this ambiguity between noun and adjective in
lashon hakodesh is because it is using nouns in the Aristotilian or
Kantian-perception sense.
I would like to add that the same motivation (if real) would apply to
the ambiguity between "boneh" as a noun (builder) and as a verb (hu
boneh achshav). The issue comes up in "boneh Y'laim" vs "boneih Y'laim",
something some of us are discussing off the list. The former uses "boneh"
as a verb, the latter uses it as a noun and then reconjugates it with a
tzeirei to make it "the Builder of". But without that semichut to mean
"of", there is an underlying ambiguity causing that machlokes.
Lashon hoveh and adjectives are *supposed* to be one notion. "A is
building B" and "A is the builder of B" both state the same relationship
between A and B. English has two terms, but since Hebrew is describing
the relationship and not the pair of objects it only requires one.
It's a fundamentally different perception of reality.

Later in that thread, I noted that this continues to LhQ giving adjectives
a hei hayedi'ah along with the noun. Because it is also describable as
describing an object using a list of specifying nouns.

GCT!
-Micha

[SBA]

Did you notice how wealth and parnoso seem to be allotted special status on
the Yomim Noroim, with special bits and pieces added for this purpose?

Eg, saying Ledovid Mizmor after Maariv and the following Tefila for Parnoso
(from the Chida) - that most Machzorim include.

Same with that extra tefila added to "AM Kosveinu besefer parnoso
vechalkolo".

And even more so, the option (1 of 3) of asking for 'ashirus muflag' -
while the Chazan says "Ahyei" during the Kedusha of Mussaf.

On that last one, I'd like to know how anyone can actually complete that
Tefilla at the same time. Seems far too long for me to fit in - while the
Chazan says one word.

And what about the other options?
"Ruach Hakodesh"? Wow!
Is it really that easy??
Same question is for option3 'banim tzadikim'.

It would be interesting to from anyone who knows more about all this.

In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?
==

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in this?

GCT

SBA

[Jay F Shachter]

Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is
grammatically incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to
be understood that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore
the extra heh. The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should
apply to hamelech hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.

That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying,
unless he had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather
than "qadosh"). "Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh
in front of both words is exactly what you would expect. "Mishpat",
in contrast, is a noun, thus you would expect the heh, as Rashi
correctly points out, only in front of the last word (e.g., "torath
nega` tzara`ath beged hatztzemer", Leviticus 13:59).

My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
heh's.


Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
jay at m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us

[T613K]

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in this? <<

GCT

SBA
IIRC ArtScroll translates "lachash" as "prayer" but I think it also has the connotation of a whisper. "He answers whispered prayers, the prayers no one hears."


--Toby Katz
GCT
=============






**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081004/3bf942c2/attachment-0001.htm>

[Cantor Wolberg]

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in
this? <<

As Toby pointed out the connotation of a whisper leads me to the
metaphor that He answers the prayers of the vulnerable -- the orphan
and the widow, etc. -- those people
who don't have the strength to utter more than a whisper.

ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081005/f79a0ddb/attachment-0001.htm>

[Arie Folger]

In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?

It stands to reason that we do stay standing, and in fact, we did. But by the
way, Qedushah is always interspersed with comments, such as "Kevodo
male 'olam, mesharetav shoalim zeh lazeh a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-yeh..." When
saying those piyutim, we are essentially expanding upon those comments,
preparing ourselves more for the actual most central statements of the
entire 'hazarat hashatz: "qadosh, qadosh, qadosh haShem..." and "barukh kevod
haShem mimqomo."

[Marty Bluke]

The gemara in Berachos (12b) states that during the ten days of
repentence we change the nusach of the shemoneh esrei and say hamelech
hakadosh instead of hakel hakadosh as well as saying hamelech
hamishpat instead of melech ohev tzedaka umishpat. Rashi on the gemara
comments that hamelech hamishpat is grammatically incorrect, it should
be melech hamishpat and it is to be understood that way (the king of
mishpat) and basically we ignore the extra heh. The Beis Yosef
comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

Interestingly enough this is a dispute between Artscroll and Metzudah.
Artscroll in their siddurim and machzorim translate it as "the holy
king" while Metzuda translates it like this interpretation of Rashi
"the king, the holy one".

To sum up there are 2 interpretations of hamelech hakadosh

1. the king, the holy one (which is the literal translation with the
heh at the beginning of the word)
2. the holy king (the 2 words are 1 phrase) like hamelech hamishpat
the king of mishpat

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:53:49AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: ... The Beis Yosef
: comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech hakadosh and
: yet Rashi doesn't say anything. He quotes some who say that Rashi
: understood that hamelech hakadosh should be understood as 2 separate
: titles, the translation would be "the king, the holy one". The
: standard translation is "the holy king" (the 2 words are 1 phrase)
: like hamelech hamishpat the king of mishpat.

This is all over Hebrew. HaKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora -- one noun and
three adjectives, or four nouns?
Boneh Y-m could be "the Builder of Y-m" or "who is building Y-m".
HaMotzi lechem min ha'aretz

I argued in early volumes of Avodah that this is for a fundamental
philosophical reason. That lashon haqodesh intentionally treats
present-tense verbs, nouns, and adjectives as the same part of speach.

From <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n103.shtml#18> (16-Aug-2000;
I commented a while back that I'm not sure that parts of speech are as
distinct in lashon hakodesh as they are in English. The example I gave
was "haKel haGadol haGibor vihaNorah" which the Vilna Gaon takes to be
four nouns, while others seem to assume haKel is a noun and the other
three are its adjectives. My suggestion was that Hebrew is intentionally
ambiguous on this point.
There is a debate between Aristotle and Plato on the subject of
definitions. According to the former, when you call something a "horse"
you are really *describing* the object, saying that it shares a list of
properties with other "horses". A word that we consider a noun, therefore,
is merely shorthand for a list of adjectives.
Kantians would discuss whether a noun refers to the thing itself or
our perceptions of it. If the latter, then it really is a collection
of adjectives.
I'm suggesting that this ambiguity between noun and adjective in
lashon hakodesh is because it is using nouns in the Aristotilian or
Kantian-perception sense.
I would like to add that the same motivation (if real) would apply to
the ambiguity between "boneh" as a noun (builder) and as a verb (hu
boneh achshav). The issue comes up in "boneh Y'laim" vs "boneih Y'laim",
something some of us are discussing off the list. The former uses "boneh"
as a verb, the latter uses it as a noun and then reconjugates it with a
tzeirei to make it "the Builder of". But without that semichut to mean
"of", there is an underlying ambiguity causing that machlokes.
Lashon hoveh and adjectives are *supposed* to be one notion. "A is
building B" and "A is the builder of B" both state the same relationship
between A and B. English has two terms, but since Hebrew is describing
the relationship and not the pair of objects it only requires one.
It's a fundamentally different perception of reality.

Later in that thread, I noted that this continues to LhQ giving adjectives
a hei hayedi'ah along with the noun. Because it is also describable as
describing an object using a list of specifying nouns.

GCT!
-Micha

[SBA]

Did you notice how wealth and parnoso seem to be allotted special status on
the Yomim Noroim, with special bits and pieces added for this purpose?

Eg, saying Ledovid Mizmor after Maariv and the following Tefila for Parnoso
(from the Chida) - that most Machzorim include.

Same with that extra tefila added to "AM Kosveinu besefer parnoso
vechalkolo".

And even more so, the option (1 of 3) of asking for 'ashirus muflag' -
while the Chazan says "Ahyei" during the Kedusha of Mussaf.

On that last one, I'd like to know how anyone can actually complete that
Tefilla at the same time. Seems far too long for me to fit in - while the
Chazan says one word.

And what about the other options?
"Ruach Hakodesh"? Wow!
Is it really that easy??
Same question is for option3 'banim tzadikim'.

It would be interesting to from anyone who knows more about all this.

In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?
==

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in this?

GCT

SBA

[Jay F Shachter]

Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is
grammatically incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to
be understood that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore
the extra heh. The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should
apply to hamelech hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.

That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying,
unless he had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather
than "qadosh"). "Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh
in front of both words is exactly what you would expect. "Mishpat",
in contrast, is a noun, thus you would expect the heh, as Rashi
correctly points out, only in front of the last word (e.g., "torath
nega` tzara`ath beged hatztzemer", Leviticus 13:59).

My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it
appears in direct address, that the second heh is the definite
article, of which (as in all construct forms) you would expect only
one, whereas the first heh is the vocative heh. This account for both
heh's.


Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
jay at m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us

[T613K]

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in this? <<

GCT

SBA
IIRC ArtScroll translates "lachash" as "prayer" but I think it also has the connotation of a whisper. "He answers whispered prayers, the prayers no one hears."


--Toby Katz
GCT
=============






**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081004/3bf942c2/attachment-0002.htm>

[Cantor Wolberg]

"Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in
this? <<

As Toby pointed out the connotation of a whisper leads me to the
metaphor that He answers the prayers of the vulnerable -- the orphan
and the widow, etc. -- those people
who don't have the strength to utter more than a whisper.

ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081005/f79a0ddb/attachment-0002.htm>

[Arie Folger]

In our shul on RH we break up the Mussaf Kedusha - by saying the piyutim in
the Machzor. (We also do it on YK - even for Shacris).
Does anyone know if the tzibbur has to remain standing while the piyut is
said (seeing it is mid-Kedusha)?

It stands to reason that we do stay standing, and in fact, we did. But by the
way, Qedushah is always interspersed with comments, such as "Kevodo
male 'olam, mesharetav shoalim zeh lazeh a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-yeh..." When
saying those piyutim, we are essentially expanding upon those comments,
preparing ourselves more for the actual most central statements of the
entire 'hazarat hashatz: "qadosh, qadosh, qadosh haShem..." and "barukh kevod
haShem mimqomo."