quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:
What copyright laws when it comes to Torah? And why add superflous letters? Can you explain the issue at hand?

My dear Sam,

First, allow me to show you two examples of differences between the Yemenite text of Maimonides' "Code of Jewish Law," and that of our regular printed texts of Maimonides' "Code of Jewish Law."

• (Seder Ahava, H. Sefer Torah, ch. 8, Sefer Eleh Ha-Devarim)
The Yemenite Ms.
צורת שירת האזינו - כל שטה ושטה יש באמצעה ריוח אחד כצורת הפרשה הסתומה, ונמצאת כל שטה חלוקה לשתים, וכותבין אותה בשבע וששים שטות. ואלו הן התבות שבראש כל שטה ושטה (Translation)
"The form of the Song Ha-Azinu – Every line has at its center a space, similar to the section which is Closed. We find, [therefore], that each line is parted into two [halves], and they write it on sixty-seven lines. And these are the words at the beginning of each line…"

The Printed Texts:
צורת שירת האזינו כל שיטה ושיטה יש באמצע ריוח אחד כצורת הפרשה הסתומה. ונמצא כל שיטה חלוקה לשתים, וכותבין אותה בשבעים שיטות ואלו הן התבות שבראש כל שיטה ושיטה

(Translation)

"The form of the Song Ha-Azinu – Every line has at its center a space, similar to the section which is Closed. We find, [therefore], that each line is parted into two [halves], and they write it on seventy lines. And these are the words at the beginning of each line…"
-----------------------------------------------
• (Seder Ahava, H. Berachoth, ch.6 vs.3)
The Yemenite Ms.
כל את המלח צריך נטילת ידים באחרונה שמא יש בו מלח סדומית

(Translation)

[If] one has weighed salt, he requires a hand washing at the end, lest there be in it the salt of Sodom…"

The Printed Texts:
כל פת שהמלח בו צריך נטילת ידים באחרונה שמא יש בו מלח סדומית

(Translation)

"All bread where salt [is served] with it, one requires a hand washing at the end, lest there be in it the salt of Sodom…"
_______________________________________________

Sam, these are just two examples, but there are many other differences. Generally speaking, the texts of Maimonides shown on-line by "Machon Mamre" are the same as the Yemenite texts. The only difference being that their text include superfluous letters. Example:
They write in Hilkoth Sefer Torah, ch. 8, on the book "Devorim:"
כל שיטה ושיטה, יש באמצעה ריוח
Whereas, Rabbi Yoseph Qafih's Yemenite manuscript has:
כל שטה ושטה יש באמצעה ריוח

Of course, these letters do not change the meaning of the text.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
Generally speaking, the texts of Maimonides shown on-line by "Machon Mamre" are the same as the Yemenite texts. The only difference being that their text include superfluous letters. Example:
They write in Hilkoth Sefer Torah, ch. 8, on the book "Devorim:"
כל שיטה ושיטה, יש באמצעה ריוח
Whereas, Rabbi Yoseph Qafih's Yemenite manuscript has:
כל שטה ושטה יש באמצעה ריוח

Of course, these letters do not change the meaning of the text.

That's what you call a "superfluous" letter? Perhaps it is there to help with the pronunciation.

Please access the private message I sent you.

Kol Tuv.

quote:

Originally posted by Jacob Lessard:
To bring in another question. My wife and I were wondering about the Halacha regarding a woman singing behind a mekhitza when her voice could be heard but she could not be seen?

She often finds it frustrating that we men will sing and dance freely on our side of the mekhitza but the women's section seems a bit dead.

Well, since as mentioned above, that a woman's singing is "ervah", and it is only reserved for her husband mainly, so for her to sing in public even behind the mechitzah, would mean that other males would hear her and that would be forbidden.

Jacob, I'd like to welcome you to the Global Yeshiva.

David Ben-Abraham, but what are the copyright laws involved?

B"H
Sam
I have noticed all throughout the on-line texts that they consistently make use of additional letters not found in the Yemenite manuscript of Rabbi Yoseph Qafih ("Mishne Torah" of Rambam), for the on-line texts have דויד instead of דוד. They have בוודאי instead of בודאי. They have יינשאו instead of ינשאו.
Now since the Yemenite handwritten manuscript of Rambam's "Yad" was found only in Yemen (and it is agreed that the Yemenite texts went untouched by the censor), those who made copies from it in Israel by taking the newly printed texts published by Rabbi Yoseph Qafih, did so from books that had copyright restrictions. The aforesaid on-line texts, as their authors will admit, have been taken from a Yemenite manuscript. So, why the differences in spelling? It has been assumed that the changes in spelling were made in order not to infringe upon copyright laws.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

B"H

quote:

That's what you call a "superfluous" letter? Perhaps it is there to help with the pronunciation.

My dear friend, Yisroel,
Yes, this is what I meant by "superfluous letters." You must realise that the Yemenites are a very conservative people, and are not quick to make changes in the text - no matter how small! For this reason, they have preserved many anecdotes about men and people no longer found with other communities because of the censor in Christian Europe.

About your note, I sent you a private message. Did you get it?
Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Of course, these letters do not change the meaning of the text.

While I do not yet know the full significance, I recall that we found a significant difference right in the beginning of Parshas Noach where a yud and a vav were substituted.

Given the attention which the gemara (kiddushin around daf 30 I think) puts to computing the middle letter, and certainly Torah codes, indicate that the specifics of every letter, even those which Rashi tells us are spelled defectively, is very significant.

And I think we have a principle that anyone who doubts even one letter of the written Torah being passed down authentically is given sharp criticism.

Aish's Discovery seminar I recall reported that in our history there were approximately 9 letters in dispute according to the various traditions for how to write a Sefer Torah, and since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, fragments of sefer Torah's from ancient times were found which resolved all of these such discrepencies.

Thus to have any dispute in our time over what letter should be written at any spot in a Chumash passuk is quite a red flag.

B"H
My friend, Rob,
I think it should be pointed out that there is a BIG difference between altering the text written in the Torah and altering the text written in rabbinic books! One of the Sages would always warn the scribes by telling them to be careful about their work, since by altering one letter from G-d's holy Torah, he may "destroy" the word. He was expounding from a pasuk in Jeremiah, "Im Lo Berithi Yomam We-Lailla, Huqoth Shommayim We-aretz Lo Samteem." Paraphrased: "If my covenant (i.e. Torah) were not continuous, both day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have sustained."

Yemenite Jews have always followed the Massorah (Tradition of Writing the Divine Law) which was bequeathed unto them from Aaron Ben-Asher, in the Aleppo Codex of the Bible, or what is also known as "Keter Aram Tzova." Maimonides writes (H. Sepher Torah, 8:4) that Ben-Asher was the sole authority whom all Jews relied upon in his day, because of his having established an accurate tradition of the words of the Law which was given to us at Sinai. This tradition has about fourteen changes, in comparison to what we see today in the printed texts of the Torah. This has often led to no small confusion.
To our great dismay and consternation, much of the Aleppo Codex's section of the Torah was destroyed by fire in December of 1947 C.E. Only portions of Devorim and those books of the Prophets (excluding Kings) and the Ketuvim (Hagiography) were preserved. However, a second codex of the Bible, known as the Leningrad B 19a Codex, has been preserved intact. It, too, contains the proofread texts of Aaron Ben-Asher, written in Egypt in the year 1009 C.E., after Ben-Asher's death. Some of the Bibles printed for the IDF and given out to all new recruits are based after the Leningrad Manuscript.
If anyone here is interested in learning more about the Yemenite Massorah, he may write me at the following e-mail:
Davidbena2@walla.com

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Quote "Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
It’s prohibited to sing in front of men (that is not her father, brother, son, husband (when she’s not a Nidah.) This is considered immodest and especially one is not allowed to say things of Torah or prayers when he hears woman singing.



You're saying that it is forbidden for a husband to hear his wife sing when she is NOT a niddah"

No, I said he’s allowed to listen to his wife when she’s not a Nidah (it was from the list of exceptions.)

Quote "What's the difference whether she is or not, she is still his wife?"

This is based on YD 195:7 that you shouldn’t see the places on your wife that are usually covered while she’s a Niddah. The Poskim (including Rav Moshe YD 2:75) that would be included singing, since it’s also something that shouldn’t be exposed to others, so it shouldn’t be exposed to the husband during Niddah.

quote:

A woman is not expected to be modest in dress and speech for her own sake

This is incorrect. A woman is required to be modest even for herself. I recommend the book 'Inside/Outside' by Gila Manolson. It will dispel the myth that the only reason women must dress modestly is to 'keep the men in check'.

B"H
I would emphatically have to agree with Gila!! Jewish women are expected to be modest, even for their own sake. We have an example of one Jewish mother at the time of the Temple who raised five sons who all served as High Priests in Israel! When asked, how did she do this, it was retorted that she never walked within her own house with her head uncovered. Now everyone knows that sons have no physical attraction towards their mothers, and that she was permitted unto her husband anyway. So what she did, she did out of modesty strictly for the sake of modesty alone!

Sincerely,
David

R'David
is it possible that her covering her head at home taught her sons that being tznius is normal and not burdinsome.
If the first thing I did when I come home at the end of the day is rip off my tzitzis and yarmulke as if they were on fire and exclaim "now that i am home i don't need that burden" i would expect that to have a negative impact on my children's appreciation of living a life of mitvos.

MK - very powerful point, I dont cover my hair at home, and I rush to take off my sheitel, but mostly because its not the most comfortable thing to wear after a long day at work...is it really going to make a difference if I rush home to take off my sheitel just to put on a snood in its place, they are still going to see that mommy doesnt like wearing a sheitel at hoome.

the point is tsnius
the previous example was a woman that said 5 of her sons became kohen gadol because she covered her head at home. no mention of a sheitle.
if you cover your head at home as well as in public in a way that is tsnius and especially in a way that your children are able to see the this a normal thing and that in all your observance of mitvos it is not burdensome but in fact a simcha to be tsniusdig, and shomer torah u'mitvos your children will grow up believing that this is the right thing to do.

quote:

rip off my tzitzis and yarmulke as if they were on fire

Any thoughts as to why we quickly remove our tefillin before mussaf on Rosh Chodesh? and must remove them before Hallel for those who wear them on Chol HaMoed?

Does anyone give an indication that this in any way indicating that tefillin are chas v'shalom burdensome?

quote:

Originally posted by MK Fink:
the point is tsnius...if you cover your head at home as well as in public in a way that is tsnius and especially in a way that your children are able to see the this a normal thing and that in all your observance of mitvos it is not burdensome but in fact a simcha to be tsniusdig, and shomer torah u'mitvos your children will grow up believing that this is the right thing to do.

I agree! The teaching about the woman who raised five sons, all of whom served as High Priests, is found in different Midrashic Literatures. In "Pisikta de-Rav Kahana," it asks why she had merited such honour. She replied: "Because the ceiling-rafters of her house have never seen the hairs of her head." This would imply that even what the rabbis permit to be shown outside the sheitel(less than a "tefach" or handbreadth) was still observed by her with utmost stringency, and every single hair upon her head was completely covered over.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

hown outside the sheitel(less than a "tefach"

Is that what the halacha states?

My understanding was that many modern orthdox women seem to intentionally show a ring of exactly 2" of hair all around underneath a small hat.

Does the halacha really permit nearly 4"?

Does the halacha describe this as permissible only after the fact? Or that one may even intend to show?

B"H
Rob,
I wasn't quoting any pages from Halacha, but rather only the Gemara in Berakhoth 24a, where there it says, "A woman's hair is tantamount to her nakedness." (This is the opinion of Rav Shesheth.) Before this statement, Rav Mari had asked Rav Pappa about a man's pubic hair, if it were permitted to recite Qiryath Shema' when such hairs protruded from a hole in his clothes. (RASHI) The reply was that such hairs do not invalidate one's recital of Qiryath Shema'. Immediately following this, we find a statement by Rabbi Yitzhaq, who says "A handbreadth [of uncovered hair] is tantamount to a woman's nakedness." (Note that the brackets fill-in what was not stated explicitly in the text, but is rather implied.) This was countered by a statement that even to gaze upon a married woman's little finger was as if he had peered into her privy place, so why was Rabbi Yitzhaq so adamant about looking upon a woman's uncovered hair? A reply is then given, namely, that Rabbi Yitzhaq referred to the uncovered hairs of a man's own wife, and that when he comes to recite Qiryath Shema' he cannot do so without his wife first covering-up such hairs.

Usually, when a teaching in the Gemara is determined to be Halacha, it is marked as such by "Ain Mishpat" with a reference to the Halacha in one of the poskim. In this case, there is no "tziyyoun," which would imply that this is Halachah. It may or may not be.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

hown outside the sheitel(less than a "tefach"

Is that what the halacha states?

My understanding was that many modern orthdox women seem to intentionally show a ring of exactly 2" of hair all around underneath a small hat.

Does the halacha really permit nearly 4"?

Does the halacha describe this as permissible only after the fact? Or that one may even intend to show?

R
i believe that what you are referring to as halacha is the psak of r'Moshe Feinstein, Z'LB
while this is accepted practice by MO, it is certainly not acceptable in other kehilos. for psak halacha you need to have a psak from an appropriate rav. not to say that you, and all of us should not learn r'Moshe wrote, and show appropriate koved. but there are other considerations. minhag hamokom amongst them.
mkf

quote:

We have an example of one Jewish mother at the time of the Temple who raised five sons who all served as High Priests in Israel!

This is a bit difficult to understand, since there can be only one High Priest at a time. So having all her five sons serving as High Priests in her lifetime, must mean that they all (or at least 4 of them) died during her lifetime. What reward is that?