We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.

Hot answers tagged

22

I don't see it as a "punishment" any more than one is punished by having to read Shakespeare in his Elizabethan English, rather than in an "updated" text. It's not because the language is sacred, it's because that's the one that it was written in. After all, every translation is a commentary; are you really satisfied with limiting yourself to those composed ...


18

Jastrow says it indicates the subjunctive mood. If so, in Gen. 26:10, כִּזְעֵיר פּוֹן שְׁכֵיב means "he almost had lain" as opposed to "he almost lay"; in Gen. 31:27, וְשַׁלַּחְתָּךְ פּוֹן means "I'd have sent you" as opposed to "I sent you"; in Num. 22:29, אִלּוּ פּוֹן אִית חַרְבָּא means "if there were a sword" as opposed to "if there is a sword"; and in ...


16

Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chayos (assuming he falls under your definition of "Orthodox") discusses this in the opening section of his Iggeres Bikores. At first astounded at where Rashi conjures this information given that the implication of the gemara is that a targum existed only as far back as the time of Ezra, he concludes that perhaps what Rashi (and others ...


14

Grammatically, I guess "nafkei minah" would have to be the correct plural if there are two practical differences emerging from one distinction, or "nafkei minayhu" if they're completely disjoint. (See Avodah Zarah 28b and Shabbos 23b, respectively, although in neither place is the expression being used in the sense of "a practical difference or outcome.") ...


12

(Moved from comment section): The word קא indicates that the action is on-going or in the state of being done. It corresponds to the English prefix a-, which used to be used much more frequently but now is uncommon in the English of the northern United States yet it is still very common in the English of the southern United States. Here are some examples ...


11

I posed this question to a tenured professor, whose PhD was in Aramaic Biblical Exegesis, and who is a published expert on several Semitic languages. This is what he wrote (edited for brevity; it was over several email exchanges over several months): Nafka minnah means the "thing that come out from it" The plural will therefore ought be "the things that ...


11

According to Tiferes Yisroel the gemara was redacted multiple times by Ravina and Rav Ashi. The reformatted the words to make them more contemporary. The Masechtos they didn't get around to have uncommon words. But apparently even they didn't pull off a complete switcharoo. Over those centuries Latin and other languages were interpolated. But no complete ...


9

The Tosafot there (Shabbat 12b) writes that only the angel Gavriel knows Aramaic. This is probably the angel that taught Maran. EDIT: I found a Ros"h in Berachot 2:2 that says it's not that they don't understand Aramaic, it simply is not favorable in their eyes. The Maadanei Yom Tov (note 7) ask a question that I won't bring up, but I will bring down what ...


8

In Aramaic, the suffix "ey h" means "his." In this context, the antecedent is God.


8

The entire prayer, except for the last line, is in Aramaic. צלי, צלא, or צלו are different constructs of the word meaning "pray". צלותהון means "their prayers". As for the root, I believe it is likely correct that it is צלא, though a part of me wants to go digging in my old Aramaic text books to rule out the possibility that it is צלי. I have never heard ...


8

As I learned in the various Aramaic language classes I took in Revel, the yud in these cases is silent, and only exists to show the plurality. The parallel is to Hebrew, where the yud appears after the segol, but is also entirely unpronounced. For example in אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, it is to be pronounced avotecha, not avoteycha.


7

The correct translation of Nafka Minah is not 'practical differences'. It is 'comes out from it'. The reason this has evolves as slang for 'practical differences' is because people used to ask each other after a certain logic or din has been applied, what comes out from it i.e. what is the practical difference with that logic/din added. However whether only ...


7

In my Yeshiva experience I have always heard Nafkah Minahs (or Minot). Example: "Really? So what are the Nafkah Minahs" But I must say that usage of this plural form is rare.


7

Not a comprehensive answer, but some sources indicate that Aramaic (לשון תרגום) has its own unique spiritual significance. (See Maggid Meisharim, Toldos, re:kaddish and, for a general discussion of Aramaic,מאמר קדמות הזהר להרד"ל, ענף החמישי.)


7

From the Ohr Somayach "Ask the Rabbi" site: We see evidence that Adam spoke Hebrew because he gave Eve two names, each of which makes sense only in Hebrew. He called her isha (woman) because "she was taken from ish (man)," and he called her Chava (Eve) because "she was to be Mother of all chai (life)." The very name Adam is from the Hebrew word ...


7

I'm not sure what you mean by "peley", but I imagine that the phrase you are hearing as "navamina" is actually "hava amina," which means "what one would have thought". For example, the Gemara might state a fact that seems obvious, and the person leading the shiur might ask, "What's the hava amina?" In other words, why did the gemara have to say that? What ...


7

Aramaic is actually one of the biblical languages (Daniel, Ezra/Nehemia) and even has words in the Pentateuch (e.g. "ygar sahadutha" by the treaty of Lavan and Yaakov). The Maharal interprets the unique significance of Aramaic and advocates that shnayim mikra v'echad targum specifically employ Targum Onkelos for this reason. (In seeming contrast, the gemara ...


7

It literally means "that I am afraid." "לולא דמסתפינא"--"were it not that I am afraid" is a common rabbinic phrase typically signaling a novel interpretation which the author is not confident enough in to overturn precedent with. The root is "ספי," meaning "fear." The suffix "נא" with the prefix "דמ" means "that I am." "ת" is because the construction is ...


7

Radak says that the verse (except the initial "tell them thus") is what Jeremiah was telling the Jews outside Israel to tell the Gentiles there — which would of course be in Aramaic. And the "tell them thus" is in Aramaic to keep the entire verse one language. He doesn't comment on the issue of 25:27.


6

I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but I believe that the answer I am about to provide is the truth. Let's take a step back for a second and a re-think this question of languages in general. There are vaguely, three reasons why we pray in Hebrew rather than the language we are born into. 1a. It's the Language of Gd and the supernatural. 2a. It's ...


6

Based on the question and answer brought in the Chaim Ad Olam (by Yaakov Chaim Sofer), we can say two things: “vehilchoso” is brought to exclude ("לאפוקי‬") other opinions. it tells us that this one opinion is an obligation, you don't have two equally valid options. Rashi (Chulin 49A) says that the Gemara decided what the Halacha was. Meaning, there was an ...


6

I am rather surprised at the answers here. There is nothing wrong with learning gemoro in English. But the fact is, it was written in Aramaic. Anyone who has learned meforshim will tell you that each word is 'counted'. There are no superfluous words. Every word contains a chiddush! No one can write like that today, so the English translation is not like the ...


6

This is found in Shaarei Teshuva ch. 84 לרבינו האי ז"ל וששאלתם צורב"א מרבנן הוא כמו צרב'ת השחין דבר חם המתחמם באשה של תורה האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח אורייתיה קא מרתחא ליה שנאמר הלא כה דברי כאש ד"א צורבא מרבנן קשה בערבי קורין לחטים הקשות חנטא צריבא (צ"ל מנוגה) (מובהק) נגדו בערו גחלי אש ותרגם מזיו יקריה מבהקין גרסינן בשקלים תבוא מארה לאשה שיש לה בעל ואינה ...


6

I don't know if this will satisfy you but your siddur is following what the Arizal says to do, brought by the Mishnah Berurah. Rema 51:7 וְכוֹפְלִין פָּסוּק כָּל הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ לְפִי שֶׁהוּא סוֹף פְּסוּקֵי דְּזִמְרָה (טוּר) וְכֵן פָּסוּק ה' יִמְלֹךְ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד (אַבּוּדַרְהַם)‏ And we say the verse "And we shall praise Hashem" at ...


5

והלכתא Vehilchasa This term is used by the Amora himself to indicate what the law is even though he personally holds of the opposing opinion. If the Gemara itself was stating what the law was , then it would state " this is the law even though it contradicts the Amora". Look in the Rosh in Avoda Zara Fifth Perek #34 . Yad Malachi 252. Instruction: 1. ...


5

Considering that both the current Sephardi and Ashkenazi rites came from the Siddur Rav Amram Gaon a copy of his siddur with Haggada was printed in 1921. According to various sources Jewish Viritual Library Jewish Agency There was no codified nusach before then. So that would make Rav Amram Gaon the codefier of the Haggadah and his Hagadah written around ...


5

The root of the word is צלי, which means "to turn" or "incline", and which has the sense of "pray" in many passages. For the former, see the Targum on Psalm 102:12 (where it corresponds to the Hebrew word of root נטה), and for the latter see Targum Onkelos on Genesis 12:8 (where it corresponds to the Hebrew word of root קרא). When it means "pray", it is ...


5

My fellow yeshiva bachur studied Aramaic intensely, and could hold a fluent conversation (if he had anybody to speak with). He said it should be אוֹרִייַתָא.


5

See the Aruch on the entry for פרק, which cites תהילים קלו:כד : וי*פרק*נו מצרינו "And hath delivered us from our adversaries" Thus, the word is not Aramaic.


5

The Maharal Teferes Yisroel 65 says that the meaning of Onkelos from Sinai is that the content and meaning of the Targum is in accordance with the tradition from the prophets and not his own innovation. It seems very difficult to understand Rashi as intending anything else, since Rashi writes: אונקלוס תרגם לשון מוקש. ואני אומר שלא חש לדקדק בלשון ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible