In Response to the Yeshivish-ists: Two Samples of Yeshivish

The following two samples lead me to ask: Is it necessary to communicate like this in Yeshivish? Are these people getting their point across?

Sample 1: A Torah Discussion from Shema Yisrael Discussion Forums

1) If a drop of milk falls onto a kli, it is a sofek how far it will spread. 2) A sofek Rabim is a sofek to the whole generation, a sofek yachid is where there are some people who are knolagable about the sofek. 3) We are meikil in a sofek rabim in that it can be combined with a second sofek to make a sofek s'feka thereby permitting something which may have otherwise been forbidden. 4) We are machmir in a sofek yachid because the facts are knowable; we simply haven't ascertained them. 5) We need 60 times 61 minus a bit to mevatel the drop (and not just 60 times 60) because 1. The drop spreads in the wall to osser (a little less than) 60 times itself. That plus the drop make a little less than 61. 2. This 61 ossurs 60 times itself. 3. Thus we need 60 times (a little less than) 61 to mevatel the drop. 6) Because of the sofek yachid, we have to be choshesh for the worst-case scenario when a drop of milk falls onto a meat pot. Thus when the drop falls on the raikan we assume the drop spreads up to 60 times itself in the raikan area -- thereby making the largest issur of ChaNaN in the kli.

Sample 2: The Gettysburg Address in YESHIVISH TRANSLATION:

Be'erech a yoivel and a half ago, the meyasdim shtelled avek on this makom a naiya malchus with thekavana that no one should have bailus over their chaver, and on this yesoid that everyone has the zelba zchusim. We're holding by a geferliche machloikes being machria if this medina, or an andere medina made in the same oifen and with the same machshovos, can have a kiyum. We are all mitztaref on the daled amos where a chalois of that machloikes happened in order to be mechabed the soldiers who dinged zich with each other. We are here to be koiveia chotsh a chelek of that karka as a kever for the bekavodike soldiers who were moiser nefesh and were niftar to give a chiyus to our nation. Yashrus is mechayev us to do this... Lemaise, hagam the velt won't be goires or machshiv what we speak out here, it's zicher not shayach for them to forget what they tued uf here. We are mechuyav to be meshabed ourselves to the melocha in which these soldiers made a haschala--that vibalt they were moiser nefesh for this eisek, we must be mamash torud in it--that we are all mekabel on ourselves to be moisif on their peula so that their maisim should not be a bracha levatulla-- that Hashem should give the gantze oilam a naiya bren for cheirus-- that a nation that shtams by the oilam, by the oilam, by the oilam, will blaib fest ahd oilam.

Weiser, Chaim M. 1995. The First Dictionary of Yeshivish. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, P. xxxiii.

Rambam on Divine Attributes in Prayer: The Limits of Human Power

One should also not add to the enumeration of Hashem’s attributes in the Shemoneh Esreh and say: ha’el ha’gadol ha’gibor v’ha’nora he’chazak v’ha’amitz v’ha’izuz, the great, mighty and awesome God, strong, brave and powerful. It is beyond human ability to fully praise God, except to say what Moshe said. (Tefillah 9:7)

This Rambam follows the Gemara:
A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honored. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law (Devarim 10:17) and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him? (Berakhos 33b)

The Rambam explains this mashal in Moreh Nevukhim:
Consider, first, how repulsive and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never' have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages," The Torah speaks in the language of men," the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law. Subsequently, the men of the Great Synagogue, who were prophets, introduced these expressions also into the prayer, but we should not on that account use [in our prayers] any other attributes of God. The principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two reasons for our employing those phrases in our prayers : first, they occur in the Pentateuch; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have copied them from the Pentateuch to recite them in our prayers: how then could we approve of the use of those numerous attributes! You also learn from this that we ought not to mention and employ ill our prayers all the attributes we find applied to God in the books of the Prophetq: for he does not say," Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them, we should not have been able to use them": but he adds another condition-" and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward and established their use in the prayer," because only for that reason are we allowed to use them in our prayers. We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an offence if applied to a human being; for those persons have no knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts-which should at least be explained-to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, partly contain such folly and absurdity that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God. Were it not that 1 pitied the authors for their defects. And did not wish to injure them, I should have cited some passages to show you their mistakes; besides, the fault of their compositions is obvious to all intelligent persons. You must consider it, and think thus : If slander and libel is a great sin, how much greater is the sin of those who speak with looseness of tongue in reference to God, and describe Him by attributes which are far below Him; and I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the foolish man that recites them. Men, however, who understand the fault of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed, according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are applied:" And the children of Israel used words that were not right against the Lord their God" (2 Kings xvii. 9): and" utter error against the Lord" (Isa. =ii. 6). If you are of those who regard the honour of their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what they say, and still less compose such prayers. knowing how great is the offence of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being. There is no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of God with the view of magnifying Him in your thoughts, or to go beyond the limits which the men of the Great Synagogue have introduced in the prayers and in the blessings, for this is sufficient for all purposes, and even more than Sufficient, as Rabbi Haninah said. Other attributes, such as occur in the books of the Prophets, may be uttered when we meet with them in reading those books; but we must bear in mind what has already been explained, that they are
either attributes of God's actions, or expressions implying the negation of the opposite. This likewise should not be divulged to the multitude; but a reflection of this kind is fitted for the few only who believe that the glorification of God does not consist in uttering that which is not to be uttered, but in reflecting on that on which man should reflect.

We Will now conclude our exposition of the wise words of R. Haninah. He does not employ any such simile as:" A king who possesses millions of gold denarii, and is praised as having hundreds" : for this would imply that God's perfections, although more perfect than those ascribed to man are still of the same kind: but this is not the case, as has been proved. The excellence of the simile consists in the words: who possesses golden denarii, and is praised as having silver denarii" this implies that these attributes, though perfections as regards ourselves, are not such as regards God; in reference to Him they would all be defects, as is distinctly suggested in the remark," Is this not an offence to Him ?" '
(Moreh I,59)

I always suspected that there is also anti-Islamic polemic here because the Muslims list a hundred attributes of God.

Rambam on Yiddish, Yeshivish and Other Jewish Languages

When the Jewish people were exiled in the days of wicked Nevuchadnezzar, they mixed with Persians, Greeks and other nationalities. Children were born to them in foreign lands. The language of these children was confused, a mixture of many languages. They were unable to express themselves adequately and accurately in any one language, as it is written: “Their children spoke half in the tongue of Ashdod; they could not speak Hebrew, nor any foreign tongue” (Nechemiah 13:24). When anyone of them prayed, his Hebrew vocabulary was too limited to express his needs or to praise God without mixing Hebrew with other languages. When Ezra and his Beis Din took notice of this they instituted the Shemonah Esreh in their present order: the first contain praise to God; the last three thanksgiving; the intermediate blessings contain petitions for the most essential needs of the individual and the community. They were to be set on everyone’s lips and learned… (Tefillah 1:4).

The development of Jewish languages as a result of galus is a very interesting topic that sheds light on different levels of assimilation and acculturation in various places at different times.

The Gemara in Jewish Aramaic is probably the best example of a Jewish language that comes close to Hebrew in lasting importance for all time.

Judeo-Arabic probably comes next in holiness because of the many classic works of the Geonim and Rishonim that were written by R. Saadia Gaon, and classics like Chovos ha’Levavos, Kuzari, Moreh Nevukhim and Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sefer ha’Mitzvos and many Teshuvos and letters.

Ladino was used to write Me’am Lo’ez. Yiddish, on the other hand, was not used as the language for any classic seforim.

What distinguishes all of these Jewish languages from Yeshivish is the fact that they were all written in Hebrew letters. Until modern times -- and the level of acculturation to non-Jewish culture that came with it -- Jews did not think of writing in a goyish alphabet. Other alphabets were foreign to them and not for Jews even when they used the vernacular of the country in which they lived for speech. This tells something about the acculturated nature of Yeshivish that I think many would like to ignore or deny.

The Rambam’s remarks are a sad commentary on our times: “The language of these children is confused, a mixture of many languages. They are unable to express themselves adequately and accurately in any one language.”

In ancient times this produced something positive: The Shemonah Esreh. In modern times we have yet to see what hasgacha pratis will bring about that is positive from the current cultural environment.

Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav: Is There a Connection Between Shofar and Sukkah v’Lulav?

The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah is divided into fourteen books according to subjects or classes of laws. For example, the laws of Shabbos and the annual holidays that fall in different seasons and times of the year are in Sefer Zemanim, the Book of Seasons. Each book is further divided into sections of halakhos. In the case of Sefer Zemanim, those sections are Hilkhos Shabbos, Hilkhos Eruvin, Hilkhos Hamez u-Mazah, Hilkhos Shofar Sukkah v'Lulav, etc.

Why did the Rambam combine the laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav into one set of halakhos?
Shofar is a mitzvah on Rosh Hashanah and ostensibly has no connection to yetzias mitzrayim. Sukkah is connected to yetzias mitzrayim and the agricultural aspect of the shalosh regalim as the chag ha’asif, the harvest festival. Lulav is perfomed on Sukkos and hence fits with Sukkos. But what is the connection between Shofar, on one hand, and Sukkah and Lulav, on the other hand?

Discussions in my Sukkah came up with the following answers:

1. There is no connection, but, the Rambam preferred to group them together rather than leave them as singletons
2. They are connected by the fact that they are mitzvos aseh, positive commandments, that occur in Tishrei
3. There are eight chapters in Hilkhos Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav corresponding to the eight days of Sukkos when Shmini Atzeres is included. The Rambam discusses the simcha shel ahava component of Shmini Atzeres in the eighth chapter of Hilkhos Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav

Rav Dovid Cohen says the connection is the celebration of success on Sukkos with Lulav on being forgiven during the y’mei ha’din of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This is based on the Midrash Tehilllim 17.

Yom Kippur: Why is it Called God’s Name Day

Yom Kippur is sometimes called Gottes Namen, God’s Name, Day. Some of the reasons offered for this name are:
1 -The Kohen Gadol pronounced the shem ha-meforash as part of the avodah
2 - We conclude with yichud Hashem reciting Hashem hu ha’Elokim, seven times.

Rav Dovid Cohen offered another explanation. The Ramban says the Bnei Yisrael lost knowledge of the Names, shemos, of Hashem at the chet ha-‘egel, the sin of the Golden Calf. At mattan Torah God provided them with weapons i.e. shemos to protect themselves against pestilence and the angel of death. Death would have been conquered as in the time of Adam before he sinned in the Garden of Eden when there was no death.

Va’yis’natzlu v’nei Yisrael es ‘ed’yam mei’har choreiv.
And the people of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb (Shemos 33:6)

The Ramban on this pasuk is based on the Midrash:
R. Simeon b. Yohai said: [They stripped themselves of] the belts with which He had girded them (Shemos Rabbah 45:2).

BEHOLD, I SEND AN ANGEL BEFORE THEE (XXIII, 20). Thus it is written, I said: Ye are godlike beings (Ps. LXXXII, 6). Had Israel waited for Moses and not perpetrated that act, there would have been no exile, neither would the Angel of Death have had any power over them. And thus it says, And the writing was the writing of God, graven (haruth) upon the tables (Ex. XXXII, 16). What is the meaning of ’haruth’? R. Judah and R. Nehemiah each explained it. R. Judah says: Free (heruth) from captivity; and R. Nehemiah says: Free from the Angel of Death. When Israel exclaimed: ’All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and hearken’ (ib. XXIV, 7), the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ' If I gave but one commandment to Adam, that he might fulfill it, and I made him equal to the ministering angels,- for it says, Behold, the man was as one of us (Gen. III, 22) --how much more so should those who practise and fulfill all the six hundred and thirteen commandments-not to mention their general principles, details, and minutiae-- be deserving of eternal life?’ This is the meaning of And from Mattanah to Nahaliel--nahalu (Num. XXI, 19)4; for they had inherited [through the Torah, given as a gift], from God eternal life. As soon, however, as they said, ’This is thy god, O Israel’ (Ex. XXXII, 4), death came upon them. God said: ‘You have followed the course of Adam who did not withstand his trials for more than three hours, and at nine hours death was decreed upon him. “ I said: Ye are godlike beings,” but since you have followed the footsteps of Adam, Nevertheless ye shall die like men. (Shemos Rabbah 32:1)

The Ramban says, that Yisrael accepted death upon themselves as punishment in repentance and remorse for their sin with the Golden Calf.

Yisrael’s voluntary acceptance of death by giving up the power of the shemos to protect them was part of their teshuvah. The second luchos given on Yom Kippur is a sign that their teshuvah was accepted. Hence, the connection to Yom Kippur and the shemos of Hashem on God’s Name Day – Gottes Namen.