grammar - "Rather than"-construction

I found these two sentences which seem to me to be quite similar in the translation but are constructed in a different way:

1. 
   

   魚を食べる ぐらいなら 飢えたほうがましだ
   'I rather starve than eat fish.'

   
   


2. 
   

   恥 よりも 死ぬほうがましだ。
   'To die is better than to be in shame.'

   
   

Can anybody explain about the difference? Sorry, my English isn't that good; maybe the translation of the sentences is bit poor.

Answer

まし is usually used to mean "preferable" in the "less bad" sense, i.e. you're choosing the lesser of two evils. ぐらいなら reinforces this point, i.e.

魚を食べるぐらいなら飢えたほうがましだ If I had to go as far as eating fish, starving would be less bad.

ぐらい can come after nouns as well, but with this specific nuance, it is not often used after nouns. So we could say

恥をかくぐらいなら死んだほうがましだ Dying is preferable to facing disgrace

However, if we're using the noun 恥, it would be more natural to rephrase to よりも (or よりは)

恥よりも死のほうがましだ Death is preferable to disgrace

By the way, your example sentence is comparing a noun to a verb, 恥 and 死ぬ. While maybe not exactly wrong, I feel rewriting 死ぬ to the noun 死 sounds better.

Beware that ぐらい can also be used in the opposite sense, to reinforce that something is easy or small (like "only"). In this sense, it's used after nouns as well

ちょっと待つぐらいならいい I don't mind waiting (if it's only) for a bit
ケーキ五個ぐらいなら食べられる If it's only 5 cakes, I can eat them

halacha - Given Chametz by a Guest on Pesach - how to react?

An invitation was given to someone to a Seder on Pesach and they show up with a nice, expensive bottle of Single Malt Scotch Whisky (which is unquestionably barley-based if you don't want to check the link). What Halachicly acceptable alternatives does the host have to react to such a gift at that time?

Answer

See this answer

He can accept the gift with intention not to acquire it, and discard it later.

Although it is forbidden to touch chametz on Pesach, for fear that the person will come to eat it (see Orach Chaim 446:3, and Magen Avraham 5; Mishnah Berurah 10), this applies to circumstances where there is a concern for eating the chametz. Under the circumstances, where the chametz is gift-wrapped and sealed, it is possible that this concern will not apply, and there is therefore no problem.

Even if the prohibition will apply, this is not a “formal prohibition,” and under circumstances of kavod ha-brios, where rejecting the gift will certainly cause the person in question shame, one will not have to be concerned for this.

As much as many of us like good single malts, the observance of G-d's mitzvoth are worth more than $400 (more or less).

halacha - Waiting Between Meat & Dairy According To The Geonim

It seems as though the Geonim - although disparate and diverse in their opinions on many issues - seem to be rather united on the understanding of the Gemara on the subject of waiting after meat before dairy. According to the Halakhoth Gedholoth of Rav Shimon Qayara and the Halakhoth P'suqoth of Rav Ahai Gaon - and even Rasa"g, as quoted in a now lost portion of his sidur found in an anonymous commentator from Yemen on the Ri"f - one need only wash his hands (n'ttilath yadhayim/hidaha) and cleanse the palate (qinuah ha-pe) before eating dairy after eating meat. They do not require waiting unless one decided not to wash or cleanse their palate. I have found no Gaon who argues on this point.

My question is: If the Geonic tradition is clear on this point, why did some Rishonim require one to wait no matter what?

Answer

According to this article on the Seforimblog, it was as a reaction to Karaites who were lax in regards to meat, interpreting "in its mother’s milk" as referring only to the milk of its mother.

To very briefly summarize the main points, originally, Karaites forbade meat consumption entirely (theoretically allowing only the consumption of sacrifices. In the tenth century, the trend shifted and Karaites began to eat meat, thus making their interpretation of "a kid in its mothers milk" practically relevant.

It was shortly thereafter, in the early 11th century that we find the first reference to mandatory wait between meat and milk (in Rabbenu Chananel).

He notes that this explanation of R. Chananel is presented by no less that Rabbenu Tam who writes in Sefer HaYashar (ch. 472):

ספר הישר לרבינו תם סימן תעב. כל הבשר. אמ' רב נחמן לא שנו ...פירש רב יהודאי בשאלתות שנשאלו לפניו... אבל בין בשר בהמה לגבינה בעי קינוח והדחה. והא דאמר מר עוקבא להא מילתא (חלא) בר חמרא אנא כו' היינו גבי שיהוי בלא קינוח. דהא בעי ר' יוחנן כמה ישהא כו' היינו היכא דלא קינח אבל אי קינח לא בעי שיהוי. (ובין) גבינה לבשר לא בעי קינוח כלל....ובין בשר לגבינה בעי קינוח או שיהוי... וכן מוכיח בהלכות גדולות של ברכות.... וכן עיקר. ואע"ג דר' חנינא פליג אהאי פיסקא לאו דסמכא. דהא דאורי שאינן בני דאורייתא. ובקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר.

That is, in ruling that one must wait, R. Chananel was making a fence against those who dont follow halacha.

('R. Chanina' is a typo. It should say R. Chananel).

This explanation of Rabbenu Tam is quoted by the Sefer HaManhig (12th century) as well (note that he has 'Chananel', not 'Chanina'):

ואע"פ שרבינו חננאל פליג אהאי פיסקא וכן הרב אלפאסי לאו דסמכא נינהו ולמקום שאינן בני תורה חששו ובקעא מצאו וגדרו בה גדר וכן עיקר ... כפר"ת

The article cites several other examples of stringencies to combat the Karaite heresy.

avodah zarah - What’s worse: Apikorsus or Avoda Zara?

Is it worse to be a heretic, who denies the authenticity of the Mesora, or a follower of Avoda Zarah? Are there any rabbinic sources which discuss this question?

Answer

See the Gemara Shabbos 116a

Rebbe Tarfon says that in a case where a Rodef is running to kill you, or a snake is chasing to bite you, and in order to escape you could either run and enter into a House of Idol Worship, or a House of Heretics, its better to run into the House of Idol Worship, for the Heretics know the truth and deny it, but the Idol Worshippers deny unknowingly. The Rambam in Hilchos Teffilin 1:13 writes if a min writes a Sefer Torah Teffilin or Mezuza, we burn it, but if nochri or a mumar writes it we bury it since its posul

It would seem to be from this Gemara that Heresy is inherently worse, although one could argue that this is only the case when the idol worshipers are uknowledgeable and are doing it because of "minhag avoseihem b'yedeihem". Nonetheless, we have a clear Gemarah that in a situation of Pikuach Nefesh where we transgress all mitzvos except for the three aveiros, we still pick Avoda Zara over Heresy.

history - How were girls educated during the Talmudic era?

According to the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society's article on Judaism:

Owing to the primacy of ritual in traditional Judaism, instruction of children focused on the attainment of ritual literacy as its central goal. In the Talmudic era, boys attended elementary school or studied with a tutor from the age of five, six, or seven until the age of twelve or thirteen. A network of schools operated in the Land of Israel by the second century. School children learned to read the Torah and to write; at age twelve they studied Mishnah. No formal instruction in secular courses such as mathematics, Greek, or GYMNASTICS, was included in the Jewish school curriculum in this period. Initially, the houses of study excluded children from the lower strata of society, but by the third century education was made available to children of all classes. Girls were, by and large, excluded from the elementary schools, however, though some Talmudic sources suggest that fathers taught their daughters informally.

It's this final portion (emphasis supplied) that I'm most interested in learning about. What do the Talmudic sources say and under what conditions did girls learn the Torah? Would we expect certain types of learning to be more heavily emphasized than others?

Answer

Women's Torah education in Judaism has been the subject of debate from Mishnaic times right down to the present day.

As the Mishnaic and Talmudic literature are primarily legal texts, they are more concerned with what the law is regarding women's education than discussing history.

There are a couple of primary sources that discuss the laws of women's education. The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:7) discusses the general principles by which we determine whether a commandment applies to men or women (or both):

כל מצות הבן על האב אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות וכל מצות האב על הבן אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים חייבין וכל מצות לא תעשה בין שהזמן גרמא בין שלא הזמן גרמא אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים חייבין חוץ מבל תקיף ובל תשחית ובל תטמא למתים

MISHNAH. ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE SON UPON THE FATHER, MEN ARE BOUND, BUT WOMEN ARE EXEMPT. BUT ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FATHER UPON THE SON, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN ARE BOUND. ALL AFFIRMATIVE PRECEPTS LIMITED TO TIME, MEN ARE LIABLE AND WOMEN ARE EXEMPT. BUT ALL AFFIRMATIVE PRECEPTS NOT LIMITED TO TIME ARE BINDING UPON BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. AND ALL NEGATIVE PRECEPTS, WHETHER LIMITED TO TIME OR NOT LIMITED TO TIME, ARE BINDING UPON BOTH MEN AND WOMEN; EXCEPTING, YE SHALL NOT ROUND [THE CORNERS OF YOUR HEADS], NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR [THE CORNER OF THY BEARD], AND, HE SHALL NOT DEFILE HIMSELF TO THE DEAD. (Soncino translation; capitals in original)

The Talmudic commentary to this Mishnah (Kiddushin 29a) cites a Beraisa which states:

האב חייב בבנו למולו ולפדותו וללמדו תורה ולהשיאו אשה וללמדו אומנות וי"א אף להשיטו במים רבי יהודה אומר כל שאינו מלמד את בנו אומנות מלמדו ליסטות

The father is bound in respect of his son, to circumcise, redeem, teach him Torah, take a wife for him, and teach him a craft. Some say, to teach him to swim too, R. Judah said: He who does not teach his son a craft, teaches him brigandage (Soncino translation)

The Beraisa only makes note of an obligation to teach one's son, but says nothing about teaching one's daughter.

The Talmud on the next page (Kiddushin 29b) explains the Scriptural source, and demonstrates that women are not obligated to learn, teach, or be taught:

ללמדו תורה מנלן דכתיב ולמדתם אותם את בניכם והיכא דלא אגמריה אבוה מיחייב איהו למיגמר נפשיה דכתיב ולמדתם איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא דכתיב ולימדתם ולמדתם כל שמצווה ללמוד מצווה ללמד וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד אינו מצווה ללמד ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבה למילף נפשה דכתיב ולימדתם ולמדתם כל שאחרים מצווין ללמדו מצווה ללמד את עצמו וכל שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו אין מצווה ללמד את עצמו ומנין שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדה דאמר קרא ולמדתם אותם את בניכם ולא בנותיכם

‘To teach him Torah.’ How do we know it? — Because it is written. And ye shall teach them your sons. And if his father did not teach him, he must teach himself, for it is written, and ye shall study. How do we know that she [the mother] has no duty [to teach her children]? — Because it is written, we-limaddetem [and ye shall teach], [which also reads] u-lemadetem [and ye shall study]: [hence] whoever is commanded to study, is commanded to teach; whoever is not commanded to study, is not commanded to teach. And how do we know that she is not bound to teach herself? — Because it is written, we-limaddetem [and ye shall teach] — u-lema — detem [and ye shall learn]: the one whom others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach oneself; and the one whom others are not commanded to teach, is not commanded to teach oneself. How then do we know that others are not commanded to teach her? — Because it is written: ‘And ye shall teach them your sons’ — but not your daughters. (Soncino translation)

The above establishes that on a Biblical level, women are exempt from education. However, the Sages debated whether women should be taught anyway because of other factors. A Mishnah (Sotah 3:4) states:

אם יש לה זכות היתה תולה לה יש זכות תולה שנה אחת יש זכות תולה ב' שנים יש זכות תולה ג' שנים מכאן אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את בתו תורה שאם תשתה תדע שהזכות תולה לה ר"א אומר כל המלמד בתו תורה לומדה תפלות

IF SHE POSSESSED A MERIT, IT [CAUSES THE WATER] TO SUSPEND ITS EFFECT UPON HER. SOME MERIT SUSPENDS THE EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR, ANOTHER FOR TWO YEARS, AND ANOTHER FOR THREE YEARS. HENCE DECLARED BEN AZZAI, A MAN IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO TEACH HIS DAUGHTER TORAH, SO THAT IF SHE HAS TO DRINK [THE WATER OF BITTERNESS], SHE MAY KNOW THAT THE MERIT SUSPENDS ITS EFFECT. R. ELIEZER SAYS: WHOEVER TEACHES HIS DAUGHTER TORAH TEACHES HER OBSCENITY. (Soncino translation; capitals in original)

In this source we find on the one hand that some of the Sages recognized that due to certain exigencies teaching Torah to women should be a necessity, while the other Sages felt that teaching Torah to women would lead to disastrous consequences.

This latter sentiment is echoed in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 3:4) in which some of the Sages state that women's wisdom is limited to the spindle, and the Torah should be burned rather than given over to women:

מטרונה שאלה את רבי לעזר מפני מה חט אחת במעשה העגל והן מתים בה שלש מיתות אמר לה אין חכמתה של אשה אלא בפילכה דכתיב וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו אמר לו הורקנוס בנו בשביל שלא להשיבה דבר אחד מן התורה איבדת ממני שלש מאות כור מעשר בכל שנה אמר ליה ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים וכשיצתה אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי לזו דחיתה לנו מה אתה משיב

These sources seem to indicate that teaching women was encouraged by some and frowned upon by others, which may mean that some women (during certain periods) were taught, while others were not.

Another Mishnaic source about women's education appears in Nedarim (4:3). The Mishnah states:

ותורם את תרומתו ומעשרותיו לדעתו ומקריב עליו קיני זבין קיני זבות קיני יולדות חטאות ואשמות ומלמדו מדרש הלכות ואגדות אבל לא ילמדנו מקרא אבל מלמד הוא את בניו ואת בנותיו מקרא

MISHNAH. AND HE MAY SEPARATE HIS TERUMAH AND HIS TITHES WITH HIS CONSENT. HE MAY OFFER UP FOR HIM THE BIRD SACRIFICES OF ZABIM AND ZABOTH AND THE BIRD SACRIFICES OF WOMEN AFTER CHILDBIRTH, SIN-OFFERINGS AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. HE MAY TEACH HIM MIDRASH, HALACHOTH AND AGGADOTH, BUT NOT SCRIPTURE. YET HE MAY TEACH SCRIPTURE TO HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS. (Soncino translation; capitals in original)

This indicates that it was allowed, and perhaps even normal, to teach girls (at least Scripture if nothing else). However, the text of the Mishnah in Maimonides's version does not contain the words "ואת בנותיו" "and his daughters". The words are similarly absent in this early manuscript. Even if the words were not part of the Mishnah, though, the subsequent Talmudic analysis of this Mishnah assumes that girls were included.

Finally, there is a Talmudic source that explicitly mentions the education of a specific woman, and even holds her as a standard for male scholars. In Pesachim (62b) we find:

ר' שמלאי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן א"ל ניתני לי מר ספר יוחסין א"ל מהיכן את א"ל מלוד והיכן מותבך בנהרדעא א"ל אין נידונין לא ללודים ולא לנהרדעים וכל שכן דאת מלוד ומותבך בנהרדעא כפייה וארצי א"ל ניתנייה בג' ירחי שקל קלא פתק ביה א"ל ומה ברוריה דביתהו דר"מ ברתיה דר"ח בן תרדיון דתניא תלת מאה שמעתתא ביומא מג' מאה רבוותא ואפ"ה לא יצתה ידי חובתה בתלת שנין ואת אמרת בתלתא ירחי

R. Simlai came before R. Johanan [and] requested him, Let the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies. Said he to him, Whence are you? — He replied, From Lod. And where is your dwelling? In Nehardea. Said he to him, We do not discuss it either with the Lodians or with the Nehardeans, and how much more so with you, who are from Lod and live in Nehardea! But he urged him, and he consented, Let us learn it in three months, he proposed. [Thereupon] he took a clod and threw it at him, saying, If Beruriah, wife of R. Meir [and] daughter of R. Hanina b. Teradion, who studied three hundred laws from three hundred teachers in [one] day, could nevertheless not do her duty in three years, yet you propose [to do it] in three months! (Soncino translation)

While it is certainly possible, even likely, that Beruriah was the exception rather than the rule, it does at least indicate that unique women could be given an education.

The debate about women's education is still ongoing, with some streams of Judaism offering girls almost no formal (textual) Torah education, others teaching girls the same way they teach boys, and many gradations in between. As the question here seems to be about education during the Talmudic Era, the post-Talmudic sources would seem to be largely irrelevant.

---

To summarize:

There is not a tremendous amount of historical material in the Talmudic Era literature. We do see that the consensus was that women are exempt from Torah education, with a dispute as to whether they should be taught anyway. It appears that some amount of Torah education was considered lawful, and perhaps even normal, and individual women may have been heavily educated.

---

I subsequently found that a footnote in the Soncino translation of one of the above cited sources (Nedarim 35b note 4) makes almost all the points in my answer with the same citations:

From this we see that it was usual to teach the Bible to girls, in spite of the Talmudic deduction that daughters need not be educated (Kid. 30a). The opposition of R. Eliezer to teaching Torah to one's daughter (Sot. 20a: He who teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her lewdness) was probably directed against the teaching of the Oral Law, and the higher branches of study. [V. Maim. Yad. Talmud Torah, I, 13.] Yet even in respect of this, his view was not universally accepted, and Ben ‘Azzai (a.l.) regarded it as a positive duty to teach Torah to one's daughters. The context shows that the reference is to the higher knowledge of Biblical law. In point of fact, there were learned women in Talmudic times e.g., Beruriah, wife of R. Meir (Pes. 62b).

translation - Grammar of との, what is the meaning

So here in this sentence below "との" was used 2 times. What does との standfor? Can someone please explain it to me?

これまで数多くのアニメ作品とのコラボを実現してきた痛印堂には、「好きなアニメとのコラボは嬉しいけど、自分の好きなキャラクターがいない！」「メインキャラクターだけでなく違う子もお願いします！」などの声が届いており、その要望に応えるべく今回の「ガールズ＆パンツァー」痛印第2弾が実現しました。

Answer

Generally speaking:

　　〜と links to a following verb (or other predicate)
　　〜との links to a following noun (or noun equivalent)

That's generally what の does—indicates a relationship to a following noun:

　海へ　行く　　The particle へ links 海 to the following verb 行く

　海への道　　　The particle の links 海へ to the following noun 道

In English, we use word order instead of a particle:

　go [ to the sea ]
　the road [ to the sea ]

We can tell that the to-phrase relates to the verb go or to the noun road because they're next to each other. But that doesn't work in Japanese—you need to specify that it relates to a noun by adding の.

Likewise, in your example, 好きなアニメと needs の to relate to the following noun, コラボ. In English we could just say "collaboration [ with 〜 ]", but in Japanese you need to add の.

halacha - Torah - as a source of ritual impurity

During the Second Temple period, Torah scroll was considered to be a source of ritual impurity? Today this is not the case. When did this halakha change?

molecules - Stereo Isomerism - syn/anti

I was studying the types of stereo-isomerism E-Z, Cis-Trans and then I come across syn-anti stereo-isomerism this one is giving me a bit of fight in understanding, especially where lone pairs are taken into consideration.How do classify the molecules with lone pairs in consideration as syn and anti Please help me out here!

Answer

Use of the terms "syn" and "anti" to describe the geometry about double bonds is no longer encouraged, but you'll still come across it, particularly in older articles. Syn and anti are identical to Z(usammen) and E(ntgegen) and were often used to describe the geometry about carbon-nitrogen double bonds. In such cases, the lone pair of electrons is given the lowest priority and the sequence rule applied as usual. For example, in the following N-methyl imines, the imine on the left has the highest priority group attached to the carbon in the double bond (ethyl) on the same side as the highest priority group attached to the nitrogen in the double bond (the methyl has higher priority than the lone pair). Therefore the molecule is the syn isomer (but would now be called the Z isomer).

By the same reasoning, the molecule on the right is the anti of E isomer. Again, the key point is that the lone pair has a lower priority than any atom.

history - Which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel was it who was martyred?

The Ten Martyrs liturgy describes Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest and Raban [=nasi or "chief rabbi"] Shimon ben Gamliel as killed by the Romans at the same time. Rabbi Yishmael served as cohen gadol in the Temple's last years (~70 CE), and was killed some times afterwards.

If my understanding of the period is correct, around the year 60-something, it was Raban Gamliel who was nasi, but he fled Jerusalem for Yavneh, leaving Raban Yochanan ben Zakai as emergency (acting?) nassi; Raban Yochanan ben Zakai led the people during the destruction, including negotiating for Raban Gamliel's safety. It seems that a few decades later (the "classic" Mishnaic period), Raban Yochanan has given back his title; Raban Gamliel is nasi in Yavneh; and Rabbi Akiva (who had been a young barely-literate man around the year 70) has just emerged as a scholar.

So who was this Raban Shimon ben Gamliel who was martyred sometime between oh, 70 and 100 CE? Raban Gamliel's father? He would have been an old man, and a retired nasi. Is that right?

Answer

The most widespread opinion is that it was indeed the first Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (father of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh), and that the Romans killed him (along with R' Yishmael) during, or shortly after, the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash - i.e., around 3830 (70 CE). The chronology of the nesi'im, then, would be something like this:

• Rabban Gamliel Hazaken (d. around 3810 / 50 CE)


• Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (martyred in 3830 / 70 CE)


• Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai (acting nassi, d. around 3835 / 75 CE)


• Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh (d. around 3880 / 120 CE)

The problem with this is that all of the other eight of the Ten Martyrs were contemporaries of R' Gamliel of Yavneh or of his son, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II, and were killed during Hadrian's persecutions in the aftermath of Bar Kochba's revolt (in the 3890s / 130s CE). Accordingly, the usual explanation is that the liturgy (or actually, the midrash on which it's based) is historiosophical rather than historical: it puts these ten Sages together in order to make a point (about the terrible consequences of the sale of Yosef, and so that we should mourn them more deeply), but not to say that they actually lived at the same time.

However, R' Y.I. Halevi (Doros Harishonim) argues, based on various lines of evidence, that the first of the Ten Martyrs should in fact be R' Shimon ben HaSegan rather than R' Shimon ben Gamliel. (He claims that the substitution arose by misreading רשב"ג for רשבהס"ג.) The second, he says, is not R' Yishmael Kohen Gadol but rather his grandson, also named R' Yishmael, the colleague (and frequent disputant) of R' Akiva. This indeed then places all ten of these Sages in the same time period.

(R' Halevi does allow that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I didn't survive the siege of Jerusalem, since after all he was still alive at the beginning of the revolt - Josephus refers to him serving as nassi - yet Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai didn't ask Vespasian to save his life. He claims, then, that either Rabban Shimon died a natural death, or that he was killed by one of the Zealot factions who were fighting each other for control of the city.)

historical figures - Did Cain and Hevel have דעת?

Kayin and Hevel were born before Adam and Chava sinned and ate from the Tree of Knowledge. (See Rashi to 4:1.)

Did Kayin and Hevel ever receive the understanding that their parents got from the fruit?

If not, how did they know to being sacrifices? And what about when Kayin admits that he sinned killing Hevel?

calendar - Splitting Sefira Mourning Practices According to Rav Moshe Feinstein

People hold of the restrictions of the seven-week omer period (shaving and listening to music, for example) at various times: some hold approximately the first five weeks; others, approximately the last five weeks. I heard in a shiur that Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that one can hold by both periods of the omer for different prohibitions. One half for shaving and the other for music. Where can it be found in his teshuvos?

sources mekorot - A woman's singing voice when there are other singing voices

There is a famous Teshuva of the Sridei Aish, Rabbi Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg, that permits one to hear kol isha (a women's singing voice) when there are other people singing.

Where is this Teshuva exactly? Is it if even a number of women are singing or only if it's a woman's voice together with a man's voice?

digital communications - Processing OBPSK as OQPSK

I'm trying to create and process an OBPSK signal, which, as I understand it, transmits even bits on one axis and the odd bits on the opposite axis, resulting in a constellation with 4 unique points. OBPSK seems to be somewhat rare, and a lot of software doesn't have functions to handle it. I created it (if I understand it correctly) by modulating the even and odd bits as BPSK separately, and rotating one of them by 90 degrees. However, with 4 constellation points, it seems similar to QPSK, or more specifically OQPSK, which is common with software having built in functions for modulation, etc. Is there some way to process OPSK, perhaps with some sort of transformation and/or change in data rate, as OQPSK?

passover seder hagada - Why isn't the bracha "Al Achillat Matzah" said before eating the Afikoman?

Follow up to this answer. Excerpt (my bolding, here):

According to Rashi and the Rashbam: The main Matza and Maror were eaten right at the end together with the kezayit piece of Pesach lamb/kid in the time of the Beis Hamikdosh, and no Matza or Maror was eaten beforehand. So nowadays the pesach is not availlable and the marror is no longer a Mitzva Deoraisa, so the Afikomen at the end is a representation of the actual Matzas Mitzva which accompanied the Pesach offering. This is why Rashi and the Rashbam say Pesachim 119b: אין מפטירין אחר מצה אפיקומן - שצריך לאכול מצה בגמר הסעודה זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח וזו היא מצה הבצועה שאנו אוכלין באחרונה לשם חובת מצה אותה שלאחר אכילה - The Afikomen should be eaten as the main Mitzva of Matza on Seder night as a rememberance to the Matza that was eaten together with the Pesach Offering at the end of the meal al hasova (i.e not being stuffed but almost full).

If, according to this opinion the Afikoman is the "main" mitzvah of matzah eating, why isn't the barcha al achilat matzah made then instead of together with the hamotzi before Shulchan Orech? Or, is it just a question that we are not following Rashi's / Rashbam"s opinion for some reason? If so, why not?

appliances - Can I use a Keurig coffee machine if someone else has used a non-kosher "pod"?

My office has a Keurig machine. They work by inserting small plastic cups, called "pods", that contain coffee or other items. As I understand the machine's mechanism, hot water drips through the pod and comes out a spout at the bottom of the pod.

Some in the office may be inserting non-kosher hot chocolate pods. Does this make the machine non-kosher or can I just wipe the spout before I use it?

Answer

So the issue is two fold: Do the contents of the pod forbid equipment, and does the process of brewing the coffee create an issue.

I have spoken with a Rabbi who is active in Kosher certification about this issue in the past. He was machmir about it (especially in my context where the hot chocolate wouldn't be Cholov Yisroel, so there was no question of the actual contents of the pod) even with regards to flavored pods, as he has seen non-Kosher flavors that are not Bottul.

Basically the main question was in the metal pin where hot water flows down into the pod to brew the coffee. His opinion was that if you could change/Kasher that pin [it is not a user serviceable part, so only try this on a machine you own] then it would be OK.

If I understood him correctly, then he is saying the pin is an Irrui MiKli Rishon - the flow of water is flowing from the heat source through the pin and touching the non-Kosher. However, once the water is in the pod, it is already a Kli Sheini, and so subsequent flow is not an issue. (Of course any residue would have to be cleaned if the pin wasn't an issue).

Others, however, may be more lenient on the matter (it seems that the OU would be included in those others - and I recognize some of the leniencies as things the Rabbi I asked simply doesn't go for). So it not an open and shut case, and is something that requires a specific question to your own Rabbi.

halacha - Using a sled on Shabbos

Assuming that there is a reliable eruv, are there any halachic issues with sledding on Shabbos?

grammar - "verb+ものです" has an additional meaning?

I am trying to remember if the following sentences have the meaning of "it is a custom/habit."

(1)「日本では、家に入る前に、靴を脱ぐものです。」
(2)「日本業界では、自己紹介をする時に、名刺を交換するものです。」
(3)「日本社会において、３月の１４日に、男は女の子にチョコを上げるものです。」

(1) "Taking one's shoes off before entering a house is something they do in Japan."
(2) "In a formal business situation in Japan, people always exchange business cards when they do their self-introduction."

(3) "In Japan, on March 14, men give chocolate to women."

I am trying to think of how to say "something is a habit". Has anyone seen this grammatical structure (verb+ものです。), or something similar, that has my desired meaning? At the least, I am 97% sure I've heard the sentence "家に入る前に、靴を脱ぐものです".

Answer

These are grammatically correct, but perhaps 「～ものです」 is stronger than you might think. Especially I think the third example is too strong; it's something like "Every guy is expected to give chocolates..."

White Day in Japan is not that obligatory, so I'd recommend 「日本社会では、3月14日に、男性が女性にチョコをプレゼントする（という）習慣があります。」

(BTW, あげる is usually written in hiragana when it means "to give." And giving chocolates on White Day is rather uncommon.)

halacha - Does an improperly slaughtered animal render the Shochet impure?

In Vayikra 11:39 it says:

לט. וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִיא לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:‏

39) If an animal that you [normally] eat, dies, one who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening.

If a shochet improperly slaughters the animal, does the same thing apply? Is the shochet now Tamai?

This might not apply these days, but if it does make the shochet impure, what would happen if he improperly slaughtered a Korban in the Beis Hamikdash, would he have to leave the Beis Hamikdash until the evening?

Or does the dead animal only impart impurity if it dies on its own, not if it was killed?

Answer

An improperly slaughtered kosher  animal becomes a nevela. This is apparent from the term which appears several times in the Mishna (e.g. Chulin 6:2) and poskim:

השוחט ונתנבלה בידו (one who slaughters and as a result the animal becomes a nevela)

This ruling can also be deduced from this Mishna (Chulin 2:4) which comes to teach about nevelot and treifot:

כלל אמר רבי ישבב משום רבי יהושע, כל שנפסלה בשחיטתה - נבלה

---

This tumah is transferred through touch or carrying. The shochet is therefore likely to become tameh, but can remain tahor.

---

Dealing with a nevela in Beit HaMikdash is probably similar to dealing with a sheretz as described in the last mishna of Masechet Iruvin.

thermodynamics - Why can't a reaction go to completion?

What is the reason for why an exergonic reaction would still have some remaining reactants (or an endergonic reaction to have any products)? The explanation given on this page (see Chemical reactions and mixing) is that there is a Gibbs free energy change caused by the entropy change by mixing; therefore, it is always energetically favorable to have at least some of each.

At another page (see Dissociation of weak acids) on the site, the explanation as to why weak acids (with positive $\Delta G^{\circ}$ for reaction with water) dissociate at all seems to be that some molecules do have the energy required for the reaction, analogous to molecules overcoming activation energy in the context of kinetics.

Are these two explanations equivalent? The first one is a macroscopic view that involves entropy of the whole system; the second one involves the distribution of speeds of the molecules themselves.

Answer

You alluded to the answer when you mention activation energy. Kinetically the equilibrium constant is $K_e = k_f/k_b$ where $k_f$ and $k_b$ are the forward are reverse reaction rate constants in the reaction $\ce{A <=> B}$. The reason that there is a finite and not zero back reaction rate constant, is that the activation barrier going B to A is not infinitely high. Quite the opposite in fact and while larger than the barrier A to B, (if the reaction is exothermic), may nevertheless be of such a magnitude that the products can return to reactants and thus an equilibrium is established. In this case molecules are continually transforming between one another. The ratio of concentrations at equilibrium is the equilibrium constant.

The reason that the activation barrier can be surmounted is that there is a Boltzmann distribution of energies in all molecules and this means that the number of molecules in either A or B with energy $E_i$ is given by $n_i=n_0\exp(-E_i/(k_BT))$. This is the Boltzmann distribution for molecules with energy $E_i$ and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.

The total number of molecules of type A is given by the sum of those in each level $E_i$ from level 0 to the maximum energy level, which is $$\frac{n_A}{n_0}=\sum_i \exp(-E^A_i/(k_BT))$$

The equation for molecules of type B with energy $E^B_i$ is $$\frac{n_B}{n_0}=\sum_i \exp(-(E^B_i+\Delta E_0)/(k_BT))=\sum_i \exp(-E^B_i/(k_BT))\exp(-\Delta E_0/(k_BT))$$

where $\Delta E_0$ is the difference in energy between the lowest levels of A and B.

At equilibrium the constant K is the ratio of the two concentrations which is therefore the same as the ratio of the two populations and is

$$K=\frac{Z_A}{Z_B}\exp(-\Delta E_0/(k_BT))$$ where Z represents the summations and are called the partition functions. This equation represents the equilibrium constant in terms of the molecules energy levels.

The reason that there is a Boltzmann distribution, but a fixed energy at a give temperature, is that by far the the most likely way of populating a range of energy levels is according to the Boltzmann distribution. In fact the chance of having a Boltzmann distribution is greater than all other possible ways added together.

In classical thermodynamic terms, a plot of free energy G vs extent of reaction $\zeta$ (zeta) which ranges from 0 (entirely A) to 1 (entirely B), has a minimum at some intermediate value of $\zeta$ and this value naturally depends on the particular reaction. The minimum value is where the reaction is at equilibrium and at the minimum the slope of G vs. $\zeta$ is zero which is also when $(\partial G/\partial \zeta)_{T,P} = 0$.

The minimum in G occurs because the entropy term $-TS$ has a minimum as the mole fraction of B increases (at constant T). Initially it is the entropy of A alone in solution, but at equilibrium is a mixture of A and B. If the reaction goes entirely to B then the entropy is that of B alone. The entropy of a mixture is naturally greater than that of one species thus $-TS$ has a minimum vs. $\zeta$.

If $dn_A$ and $dn_B$ of A and B molecules react the the infinitesimal change in zeta is $d\zeta = dn_A-dn_B$. The total change in free energy is $dG=\mu_Adn_A+\mu_Bdn_B$ where $\mu$ is the chemical potential or the free energy / mole. From these two equations the change in free energy of the reaction is $$dG=(\mu_b-\mu_A)d\zeta$$ The reaction proceeds until $(\partial G/\partial \zeta)_{T,P} = 0$ and thus to proceed further expressions for the chemical potential are needed. For a perfect gas $\mu=\mu^0+RT\ln(p) $ thus $$(\partial G/\partial \zeta)_{T,P} = \mu^0_B-\mu^0_A+RT\ln\frac{p_B}{p_A}$$ which can be recast as $$(\partial G/\partial \zeta)_{T,P} = \Delta G^0+RT\ln\frac{p_B}{p_A}$$ and at equilibrium as the derivative is zero $$\Delta G^0=-RT\ln\frac{p_B}{p_A}=-RT\ln K_p$$ which connect the equilibrium constant ($K_P$ for the gas phase reaction), with the free energy.

---

Edit:

Notes: The shape of the plot of G vs. extent of reaction can be shown by considering a general reaction of the form $\ce{A + B <=> 2C }$ . The Gibbs function is then $$G = n_a\mu_a + n_b\mu_b + n_c\mu_c $$ for $n_i$ moles of species i with chemical potential $\mu_i$. If we assume that the reaction is one of perfect gases then at total pressure P and with mole fraction x, the chemical potential of species i is $$\mu _i = \mu_i^0+RT\ln(P)+RT\ln(x_i) $$ where $\mu_i^0$ is a function of temperature only. G can now be written as $$G= n_a\mu_a^0 + n_b\mu_b^0 + n_c\mu_c^0+RT\ln(P)+RT(n_a\ln(x_a) +n_b\ln(x_b)+n_c\ln(x_c) )$$ If we assume that the total pressure is 1 atm. then the $RT\ln(P)=0$ and can be removed from the equation. Using the relationship between number of moles $n_a=n_b$ and $n_c=2(1-n_a)$ gives $$G= n_a(\mu_a^0 + \mu_b^0-2\mu_c^0) + 2\mu_c^0 + 2RT(n_a\ln(n_a/2) +(1-n_a)\ln(1-n_a) )$$ The $\mu^0$ are the properties of the pure components so do not change during the course of the reaction which means that G is a function of $n_a$ only.

A plot of $G(n_a)-G(0)$ vs. $n_a$ is shown below.

Plotting this way gives a value of zero when $n=0$, which is the condition should all reactants be converted into product, point S. The equilibrium value is at point E. The energy T-R is that due to mixing reactants and R-E that extra energy of mixing when C is formed. The dashed diagonal line is $n_a(\mu_a^0 + \mu_b^0- 2\mu_c^0)$ which is how the reaction would behave if no entropy of mixing is included.

The important point is that there is a minimum in the free energy curve because the creation of a mixture is an irreversible process and this mixing produces a decrease in free energy.

The equilibrium constant is calculated using $-RT\ln(K_p)=2\mu_c^0-\mu_a^0-\mu_b^0$

parshanut torah comment - Question about the actions of Pinchas when he killed Zimri

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 82A), while relating the story of Pinchas killing Zimri, tells us the following:

"And Phineas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it." (Bamidbar 25:7) Now, what did he see? — Rab said: He saw what was happening and remembered the halachah, and said to him, 'O great-uncle! did you not teach us this on thy descent from Mount Sinai: He who cohabits with a heathen woman is punished by zealots?' He replied. 'He who reads the letter, let him be the agent [to carry out its instructions]'.

According to the Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Biah 12:4), the laws of "He who cohabits with a heathen woman is punished by zealots" is Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai (Sinaitic Law), and support for this can be derived from Pinchas' slaying of Zimri. _{^{(I interpret this to mean that we learn the particulars of the Sinaitic Law from the story of Pinchas [e.g. this law only applies if it is committed in public]. I could be wrong.)}}

In Halacha 5, the Rambam says that "If the zealous person comes to ask permission from the court to slay him, they do not instruct him [to], even if this takes place at the time [of relations]."

The Chidushei HaRim says (English translation here) that the reason for this is a zealot is someone who reacts to a situation instantly and takes immediate action. Pausing to ask Beit Din what to do shows that he is not a true zealot.

So my question is:

Why wasn't Pinchas asking Moshe "'O great-uncle! did you not teach us this on thy descent from Mount Sinai: He who cohabits with a heathen woman is punished by zealots?'" considered asking Beit Din what to do? Doesn't Pinchas stopping to ask Moshe about the law take him out of the catagory of zealot?

Also, if the Beit Din does not tell someone to go and kill the sinner, why does Moshe tell Pinchas "He who reads the letter, let him be the agent [to carry out its instructions]"? Wasn't that Beit Din ruling that Pinchas should kill Zimri?

Answer

The Chidushei HaRan in Sanhedrin gives two answers (I hope I'm translating correctly):

1. 
   

   Pinchas wasn't asking what the law was, and Moshe wasn't answering him. Moshe said "let he who read the letter be the agent". He was saying that I'm not telling you the halacha, but if zealotry is required here, you're the best man for the job.

   
   
   


2. 
   

   Moshe Rabbeinu was not trying to put the matter in the hands of zealots. Rather, he was hinting to Pinchas on a one time basis (Ho'ra'at Sha'ah) what needed to be done to end the plague.

   
   

---

Just to further flesh this out with some thoughts I had, inspired in part by various answers given to this question:

Q: Wasn't Pinchas asking "didn't you teach us..." make him not a zealot?

A: The Gemara relates that when Zimri came and challenged Moshe, saying "is this Midyanite woman permitted to me, and if you say no, how could you marry a Midyanite woman?", Moshe forgot the Halacha. The correct protocol when correcting a father or teacher, one should not say "You're wrong". Instead, they should say "Didn't we learn such and such?".

Since Pinchas saw that Moshe had forgotted the Halacha (and apparently Pinchas himself had forgotten it until right then, as the Gemara says "He saw what happened and remembered the Halacha"), we could say that he wasn't asking what the Halacha was, he was reminding Moshe what the Halacha was in a respectful and halachically correct manner. Perhaps this is why Rashi (Bamidbar 25:7) does not phrase what Pinchas said to Moshe as a question.

Perhaps we can then say this is what the Chidushei HaRim is saying. If someone comes to Beit Din to ask permission to kill the sinner, this shows he is not a true zealot. But reminding someone of the halacha does not make him not-a-zealot. (However, this still leaves us with the Chidushei HaRim apparently contradicting himself, since right before that he seems to emphasize that Pinchas was asking Moshe whether he should do it or not.)

Also, perhaps we can differentiate between asking Beit Din for confirmation that he learned the halacha correctly (which Pinchas did), and asking Beit Din if he has permission to carry out the halacha (which the Rambam says Beit Din does not give him).

And by answering back, "He who reads the letter, let him be the agent [to carry out its instructions]", Moshe wasn't directly answering the question, since the Halacha is "Ain Morin Lo" (as the Ran said).

halacha - The Great War in Contemporary Acharonic Thought

I've recently acquired a book (rather a large pamphlet) about the Great War (1914-18) entitled "The War and the Bible" by HG. Enelow (then head of the Reform Temple Emanu-el in NYC). However, this fails to deliver a wider theological profile, bearing –as it does– the stamp of one of the least traditional Jewish communities of its day.

However, as the Great War (an area of my own personal interest) affected much of world Jewry (from the communities of Germany, Poland, Russia, France, Italy, and the UK on one hand to the Maghribi and Mizrachi communities of North Africa and the Middle East on the other) it seemed more than plausible for rabbanim and chachamim to have discussed its hashkafic and halachic significance in its day.

What are the opinions of contemporary* acharonim on the Great War?

---

*Contempary is here used to refer to contemporaneousness to the events, rather than the current day.

shabbat - Creating songs in your head (lyrics and melodies) on Shaabath

What I've noticed is that when there is not too much to talk about with haShem, I get kinda 'hyper'. In this state I like to go a bit primal and just shout out some noises, do some clapping and stuff like that. I was playing with a few words in Russian and came up with a nice little tune while clapping and adjusting certain rhymes, rythmic patterns and structures. It was Shaabath, saturday at dusk.

I'd like to know whether creating something mentally (be it music, plans, creative thoughts and so on) and then (after Shaabath) transforming it into the physical realm (like writing down the lyrics, composing the tune) is a melacha. Is creating in/ working with your head considered melacha?

halacha - Can you steal someone's aveirah item?

In order to prevent another Jew from sinning are you allowed to steal the item he uses to sin with? For example assuming it is assur to smoke (Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer 17:21) can I steal another Jew's cigarettes to prevent him from smoking?

Answer

1) Rav Sternbuch in Tshuvos V'hanhagos chelek 1:368 answers a question very similar to this one. The questioner(a Bal Tshuvah) asks if he can damage his parents television.

The Rav answers that this is a machlokes between The Ketzos and the Nesivos in Choshen Mishpat siman 3(which discusses forcing someone to keep mitzvos).The Ketzos holds that the power of forcing someone to keep the mitzvos was only given to Beis din while the Nesivos holds it is on every individual. He writes that it seems even if one holds that it is on every individual still in order to take away someones money one needs a beis din ,and in many instances if one acts alone it can push the recipient even further away from mitzvos. He brings a gemara in berachos where someone acted in such a way and he brings the story with Rachel stealing the terafim which would imply that one can damage a sinful thing.

He ends off by saying that one should ask his Rav as every case is different,and the two proofs given the end of the story shows that maybe it shouldn't have been done.

2) The Be'er Moshe 1:60:10 towards the end writes about a case where a son should not get his father cigarettes if his father wants them or wants him to go buy. However , he writes:

אבל לילך ולהצניע" או לגנבו מאביו כרי שלא יהי׳ לו הסיגארעט להעלות עשן, בזה אני עדיין נבוך ולא ברירא לי ויותר נראה שלא יעשה כן"

"but to go and hid or steal from his father in order he doesn't smoke ,it is not clear to me but it seems that it is better not to."

3) Rav Nebontzol in his Kuntres Hanhagos writes if one is in a room with someone who has inappropriate pictures he can take them down without permission.

4) This is a very interesting case brought by Business halacha institute where a rebbi takes a mp5 player from student. http://www.businesshalacha.com/articles/educational-damage

blessing - Specialized Al Hamichya for Eretz yIsrael "Al Michyatah" על מחייתה

We all know the special suffix for Eretz yIsrael products גפנה - "gafna" פירותיה - "peirotiha". Yesterday I saw על מחייתה "Al michyatah" in an Ashkenazi bencher, but I haven't seen that anywhere else in Ashkeazi nusach.

Anyone have a source for this?

Answer

The source for the custom to say "על מחייתה" on grain from Eretz Yisroel is brought in Birkey Yosef (OC 208:10) from the Kaftor Veferach (chapter 10) and the Agudah. See here and here for more details.

It's also brought in Tosfos R"i Chosid (printed in the sefer Bracha Meshuleshes pg. 44), Shu"t Haleket (vol. 2 Siman 55), and quoted in Yad Efrayim (OC 208), Pe'as Hashulchan (Hilchos Eretz Yisroel Siman 2 Ois 14), Mekor Chaim (Chavos Yair OC 208), Chochmas Adam (Sharey Tzedek 11:10) and Ben Ish Chai Parshas Ma'aseh. This is the nusach printed in many Sefardi siddurim (additional sources taken from here).

grammar - function of the particle も in 「~も辞さない」

I came across the sentence「訴訟も辞さない」in a book today and even though I am able to understand its meaning, I can't figure out the actual function of も in this case.

I looked into my grammar dictionary and the most satisfying definition I got was "も: a marker which indicates emphasis", but I'm not convinced it's the right one.

Should I just think it as a whole with 「辞さない」？　I know it's a phrase used to express one's willingness to do something, but is it used with any other particle ?

Thank you for you answers in advance.

Also, I can provide context if needed.

Answer

I think the も here is this:

1⃣ 係助詞 3-㋑動詞の連用形や動作性名詞に付き、打消しの語と呼応して、強い否定の意を表す。「思いもよらぬ話」「返事もしない」(デジタル大辞泉)

So the も indicates emphasis, used with a negative phrase.

I think this も is usually translated as "even":

• 訴訟を辞さない wouldn't hesitate to file a lawsuit; willing to bring a lawsuit


• 訴訟も辞さない wouldn't even hesitate to file a lawsuit; willing to bring even a lawsuit

Sources that discuss reasons for the prohibition on suicide

What are a few (as many as possible) sources in the Gemara and cases in Tanach that deal with why one is not allowed to take his/her own life?

Answer

There is no direct prohibition of suicide in the Bible. The Gemara (Bava Kama 91b) derives its prohibition by exegesis on the verse: "and surely your blood of your lives will I require" (Genesis 9: 5), interpreted as: "I will require your blood if you yourselves shed it."

see also Bereishis Rabba 34:13

There are two famous cases of suicide in Tanach, Saul and Samson:

Saul’s suicide (I Samuel 31: 4-5) is not criticized by Chazal, and on the contrary, the Midrash (34:13) states explicitly that he did not sin, indicating that it was permitted for him to take his own life. Why is this so? The Yam Shel Shlomo suggests two possible reasons.

• 
  

  One is that Shaul was concerned that his falling into the hands of the enemy would have provoked the Jewish fighters into an impossible assault against the enemy camp, potentially costing thousands of lives. The Yam Shel Shlomo thus writes that it is permitted to give up one’s life for the purpose of saving other Jewish lives.

  
  


• 
  

  Another reason he suggests is that the falling of the anointed King of Israel into enemy hands constitutes a grave desecration of Hashem’s Name, and for this purpose it was permitted for Shaul to take his own life.

  
  


• 
  

  A third suggested explanation, which is from the Yefei To’ar (commentary to Midrash) and the Radak (Shmuel 31:4), is that the case of Shaul was special because he had been told by Shmuel that the enemy would not spare his life. Because of the certainty that he would die shortly, and given the special circumstances, it was permitted for him to take his own life.

  
  

Similarly, Shimshon’s suicide (Shoftim 16: 30), in which he brought down a building on himself and his Philistine tormentors, is defended on the grounds that it constituted an act of kiddush Hashem, “sanctification of the Divine Name,” in the face of heathen mockery of the G-d of Israel.

See here, here and there for the sources of the above text and more references.

set phrases - Is it proper to thank waitstaff, cashiers, etc. for their service?

In my Japanese class we were taught that one does not need to thank a cashier when they check you out or a server when they bring you your meal, but I always feel awkward remaining silent. Was my sensei wrong? Specifically:

• What is the usual exchange between customer and cashier when paying for an item?


• What is the usual exchange when a waiter brings you your food?


• When leaving a restaurant, is it appropriate to say ごちそうさまでした? 美味しかったです? ありがとうございました?

python - Finding Reference Audio Signal in Test Audio Signal and Cropping Accordingly

As seen in the diagram, below I have a reference audio and a test audio. I want to find at what part of the test clip the reference audio be heard. Once, that is found I want to crop the test file from the point where the match begins and the point where the match ends. How can I do this matching and cropping of audio signals using Python? Some code will be of help.

The diagram below(from wiki) is for illustration purposes only

My audio clips: Reference audio: africaChirp Test audio: Africa

I want to find the time in seconds at which africaChirp appears in Africa. africaChirp was cropped from the source file, Africa, found here.

I have also included my code to show my progress:

import numpy as np
#import librosa
import logging
from scipy.io import wavfile




rate2,test = wavfile.read('africa.wav')

#indices
testStart  = 6000;
testEnd    = 200000;

refStart   = testStart + 11000;
refEnd     = refStart + 2000 - 1;


testSig=test[testStart:testEnd]
refSig=test[refStart:refEnd]

refStartRel=refStart-testStart+1
refEndRel=refEnd-testStart+1

no_samples_test=testSig.shape[0]
no_samples_ref=refSig.shape[0]

xcorr=np.zeros((no_samples_test-no_samples_ref+1,1))

xcorr_norr=np.zeros((no_samples_test-no_samples_ref+1,1))


refSig_norm= np.linalg.norm(refSig)
#print(xcorr.shape[1])
for i in range(1,xcorr.shape[0]):
    testSig_samples=testSig[i:(i+no_samples_ref)]
    xcorr[i]=np.sum(np.multiply(testSig_samples,refSig))
#    norrFilt=(filt-np.mean(filt))/(np.std(filt))
    linalgnorm=np.linalg.norm(testSig_samples)

    xcorr_norr[i]=xcorr[i]/np.multiply(refSig_norm,linalgnorm)

xcorr_max_id=np.max(np.abs(xcorr_norr))

print(xcorr_max_id)

Answer

If you have a reference signal you want to find in a different signal then your model matches almost perfectly (Up to the environment the signal to be found is in) to Matched Filter.

So basically you need to do cross correlation between the Test Signal and the Reference Signal.
Find the point of maximum correlation and create a cropping zone around it according to the length of the reference signal.

Update

I downloaded the files and wrote a MATLAB Code to do the task of finding a reference signal within a signal.
I generated an equivalent test case by cropping 14,000 samples from the Song File - Toto - Africa as the Test Signal and from them cropped 2,000 samples as the Reference Signal.

Matched Filter in the case above must be tweaked to normalize different volume levels in the signal.
Hence the correct way to so is Matched Filter which is normalized by the Norm of the sections being cross correlated (This is actually correlation in Statistics).

The the result it as following:

As can be seen, the algorithm detects the exact starting index of the reference signal.
Pay attention that the classic cross correlation yields the wrong answer as it is being tricked by higher volume levels of the test signal.
When we take care of different volume level by the normalization then the maximum correlation happens exactly where it should.

The MATLAB code is available at my Signal Processing StackExchange Question 50003 - GitHub Repository.

What are we supposed to do about losing an hour of Purim this year?

With the help of the One Who Makes Times Change, we have merited to discuss, in previous years, various aspects of Jewish Law and Custom related to the changing of clocks for Daylight Saving Time^:).

This year (5777/2017), those of us who live in the US^{^.^} face a special conundrum: we will be moving the clocks forward on Purim itself! If I understand this correctly, that means that we're going to lose an hour of Purim, which seems to directly contradict the rule "When Adar enters, Joy increases".

What modifications to the practices of Daylight Saving Time and/or Purim practices are recommended for resolving this conundrum?

---

<sup>:) And these are they:
- Is Daylight Saving Time a Mitzvah DeOraitha or Takkanah DeRabanan?
- Daylight Saving Time - forward or backward?
- Announcing the clock change in English?
- Seeking texts of all prayers associated with the clock change</sup>

^{^.^ OK, Most of the US.}

---

acid base - Buffer Capacity Calculation

I know buffer capacity is the following: $$β=\frac{Δ(\ce{H+})}{Δ(\mathrm{pH})}$$ specifically the amount of acid/base that needs to be added to change pH by 1 unit.

1. 
   
   

   If I have data about how pH of a protein has changed upon adding specific amounts of acid, how do I calculate buffer capacity?

   
   


2. 
   

   Is there any reason why the change in pH needs to be 1? If I calculate how much acid needs to be added for the pH to change by 1.1, can this be scaled to determine amount of acid needed to change pH by 1?

   
   

Answer

The buffer capacity of a weak acid-conjugate base buffer is defined as the number of moles of strong acid needed to change the $\ce{pH}$ by 1 unit. $$\beta = \frac{\mathrm{d}[A]}{\mathrm{dpH}} $$ and the acid is present as $$[A]= \frac{K_\mathrm{w}}{[\ce{H+}]}-[\ce{H+}] +\frac{C_\mathrm{B}K_\mathrm{a}}{[\ce{H+}]+K_\mathrm{a}}$$ where $K_\mathrm{w}$ is the water ionization equilibrium constant, $10^{-14} $, $K_\mathrm{a}$ is the acid dissociation constant, and $C_\mathrm{B}$ is the total concentration of buffer. You assume that your protein is the weak acid. Change $\ce{pH}$ to $\ce{pH}=-\log_{10}([\ce{H+}])$ to differentiate or use the product rule. You should then find that $$\beta = 2.303\left[ \frac{k_\mathrm{w}}{[\ce{H+}]}+[\ce{H+}] +\frac{C_\mathrm{B}K_\mathrm{a}[\ce{H+}]}{([\ce{H+}]+\ce{K_\mathrm{a}})^2}\right]$$ you can then plot $\beta$ vs $\ce{pH}$ and from this you should be able to find what you want.

usage - Does the (USA) English metaphor "Unable to see the forest for the trees" keep its meaning if translated verbatim into Japanese?

The phrase "Unable to see the forest for the trees" implies one is too entangled in a situation to understand what is transpiring from a larger context, and thus, unable to determine the correct course of action.

I'd like to know whether a native Japanese hearer: 1. told this phrase in Japanese would interpret it to have the same meaning? 2. would accept the word 森 to mean a very large amount of information?

Answer

In my 故事ことわざ辞典、「木を見て森を見ず」　is from English phrase "You cannot see the woods for the trees".

And regarding plural form, 「木」　can mean many trees in Japanese, since Japanese grammar does not always have plural form.

And also In 国語辞典、explanation of 「木を見て森を見ず」 is

一本一本の木に目を奪われて全体の森を見ない意から

using 一本一本の木, which means each tree instead of 一本の木 (one tree).

So, 「木を見て森を見ず」 might be verbatim translation of "Unable to see the forest for the trees" in Japanese.

How do window size, sample rate influence FFT pitch estimation?

I am trying to create a pitch-detection program which extracts the frequencies of peaks in a power spectrum obtained from an FFT (fftpack). I am extracting the peak frequencies from my spectrum using Quinn's First Estimator to interpolate between bin numbers. This scheme seems to work well under certain conditions. For example, using a rectangular window function with a window size of 1024 and a sample rate of 16000, my algorithm correctly identifies the frequency of a pure A440 tone as 440.06 with a second partial frequency of 880.1. However, under other conditions, it produces inaccurate results. If I change the sample rate (e.g to 8000) or the window size (e.g. to 2048), it still correctly identifies the first partial as 440, but the second partial is somewhere around 892. The problem becomes even worse for inharmonic tones like those produced by a guitar or piano.

My general question is: In what way do the sample rate, window size, and window function affect frequency estimation of FFT peaks? My assumption was that simply increasing the resolution of the spectrum would increase the accuracy of peak frequency estimation, but this is clearly not my experience (zero padding also does not help). I am also assuming that the choice of window function will not have much effect because spectral leakage should not change the peak location (though, now that I think about it, spectral leakage could potentially influence the interpolated frequency estimate if the magnitudes of bins adjacent to the peak are artificially increased by leakage from other peaks...).

Any thoughts?

Answer

1. Use a Gaussian window - the Fourier transform of a Gaussian is a Gaussian


2. Log-scale the spectrum to emphasize peaks and turn the Gaussian peaks into parabolic peaks


3. Use parabolic interpolation to find the true peaks.

Note that, as mentioned in §D.1, the Gaussian window transform magnitude is precisely a parabola on a dB scale. As a result, quadratic spectral peak interpolation is exact under the Gaussian window. Of course, we must somehow remove the infinitely long tails of the Gaussian window in practice, but this does not cause much deviation from a parabola, as shown in Fig.3.30.

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/sasp/Quadratic_Interpolation_Spectral_Peaks.html

I estimate 1000.000004 Hz for a 1000 Hz waveform this way: https://gist.github.com/255291#file_parabolic.py

If you're having trouble, plot the spectrum and use your eyes to see why it's not working.

grammar constructions - Could you please explain the use of passive voice in the following sentences?

I would like you to help me to understand this grammar pattern （Nに）Vれる presented in Nihongo Sou Matome JLPT N3 (Pg.14). I'm not able to understand why the passive voice is used in the example sentences.

1. 友達の赤ちゃんを抱っこしたら、泣かれてしまった。

Why is 泣く in passive form? If 友達の赤ちゃん was the one who cried, then shouldn't it be 泣いてしまった?

2. 雨に降られて、服が濡れてしまいました。

My literal translation of this would be: "Something was fallen by the rain and the clothes got soaked." It doesn't make sense...

Again, why is the passive form used?

3. 父に死なれて、大学を続けられなくなりました。

My literal translation of this would be: "(I or somebody) was died/killed by my father, and could not continue university."

If it's my father who died and it's me who could not continue university, wouldn't it be better to say 父が死んだから、大学を続けられなくなりました。 or something like this.

I really don't understand the use of the passive form in these 3 cases.

Could you please explain this to me and give some more examples to grasp the use of this kind of strange passive?

Thank you so much in advance for your help!

reading comprehension - Subject confusion or mistranslation of 無難

A scientist is investigating a mysterious hole in the ground. His experiments have failed and I think he's a bit sulky. He then says:

「埋めてしまいなさい」
Fill it in.

Then the narration goes:

わからないことは、なくしてしまうのが無難だった。

My literal translation of this is "It was safe to get rid of something he didn't understand.", but that doesn't make much sense at all.

First of all I'm unsure of the subject of わかる. Is it the scientist or is or is it a generic "things one doesn't understand"?

Is this statement the narrator's belief, the scientists belief, or what the narrator thought the scientists would think?

With any combination of the above thoughts I still can't make a sentence that really seems to fit the context. Maybe I've translated 無難 wrongly?

Such a simple sentence, but I'm so confused.

Answer

I think the most natural sentence in this context would be:

わからないものは、なかったことにしてしまうのが無難だった

This means "The low-risk choice here was to pretend this mysterious thing never existed".

This is a bit different from

わからないことは、なくしてしまうのが無難だった。

First, the use of こと rather than もの means the author is including related things to the hole (it's a bit like home vs. house). They are still talking about the hole, but not only about the physical hole.

Second, they use なくしてしまう instead of なかったことにしてしまう. The difference is the former means "eliminate the thing", whereas the latter means "pretend it never existed". I guess it depends whether you think a hole can be eliminated completely by filling it in, or it's just hidden from view.
My guess is the author uses the former because the scientists' desire is to "kill" the hole - eliminate it. And they think they can do that by filling it in. I'm guessing the story goes, "scientists go home thinking they have successfully eliminated the hole and any related danger or creature or what have you, but it turns out filling the hole doesn't eliminate the hole at all".

This storyline is also strongly suggested by the use of 無難 because it's often used to mean "A low-risk choice that turns out to be wrong (the actor should have confronted the problem rather than taking the easy way out)".

As to whose belief it is, I think it's describing the scientists' belief.

Buffer formation in weak acid/strong base titration?

I'm a little confused about what happens when you titrate a weak acid or base. For example, let's say that you are trying to titrate a weak acid. Based on this question, it seems like the weak acid isn't initially a buffer. But, as you begin to add strong base, conjugate base is created from the reaction between the weak acid and strong base. Does this mean that a buffer is created from the titration?

Answer

I think that the above diagram will explain a lot of your questions.

it seems like the weak acid isn't initially a buffer

That is correct as to form a buffer you need a solution containing a weak acid and its conjugate weak base. So in the example above, initially the solution only contains acetic acid ($\ce{CH3COOH}$, but its conjugate base, acetate $\ce{CH3COO^{-}}$, is not present.

But, as you begin to add strong base, conjugate base is created from the reaction between the weak acid and strong base

That is absolutely correct. For example, in the above diagram the reaction that is occurring when you titrate the acetic acid with sodium hydroxide is: $$\ce{CH3COOH + NaOH -> CH3COO- + Na+ + H2O}$$

Now as you begin to titrate the acid, its conjugate base starts to form. This is supported by the fact that the pH doesn't really change when more $\ce{NaOH}$ is added to the solution.

To form an effective buffer solution you need roughly equal concentrations of the acid and conjugate base, hence that is why it says it is a buffer when half of the acid is titrated. However anywhere near that region can be considered as a buffer. Generally a solution is a buffer if the pH is within +/- 1 of its pKa. So for acetic acid, a buffer will have a pH between 3.76 and 5.76.

Does this mean that a buffer is created from the titration?

Yes, a buffer is created. However is doesn't stay as a buffer for long. As I mentioned above, when the ration of the concentration of acid and the conjugate base becomes too high or too low, it won't be a buffer. That is evident as when more $\ce{NaOH}$ is added to the buffer, the concentration of the conjugate base becomes much greater than the concentration of the acid, resulting in the pH to increase dramatically.

verbs - 〜たいと思う -- What does this mean?

I'm experiencing a little confusion with the verb form meaning "to want", and am a little confused as to how to say "would like to" instead. In Japanese, are the two meanings combined into the ending 〜たい? I've had language partners before say, for example, 「東京に行きたいと思う」and this was translated to, "I would like to go to Tokyo" by our messenger's in-app translator. Is this also acceptable to say?

meaning - Nuances of: ふっと、ふと、ひょっこり、 どっと、 さっさ、不意 に、唐突、突然、急に and いきなり。

I'm reading a beginner book and noticed that the author uses a lot of different words that translate to suddenly or abruptly which is interesting, so I have been trying to figure out the differences in between them.

I have included some words I looked up and their supposed nuances but I'm not 100% sure they are correct so confirmation would be appreciated.

ふっと,　?
ひょっこり,　?
どっと,　?
ふと,　Focuses on the aspect that something was unintentional
不意に、ふいに、?
さっさ,　?
唐突,　とうとつ,　Only of human behavior
突然,　とつぜん,　Spontaneously / Instantly
急に,　きゅうに,　Fast paced change of events. (no surprise element, not instant)
いきなり,　Immediately / Without Warning*

*: In the sense of immediately being/doing something with no intermediate, such as:
I got stuck on the first question. (No in-between step)
He jumped in the pool and immediately began drowning. (No in-between step)

If anyone can elaborate or confirm it would be much appreciated. ^_^

Edit: Added ふっと, 不意に,　ひょっこり,　どっと,　さっさ.

Answer

I think that this is a very interesting question, and I will try to line out the results of what I found out in this answer.

I think that it is important that we first differentiate between what is onomatopoeia and what is still written or was originally derived from kanji. The former have more of a feeling-like explanation and the latter have some interpretation room. Lastly, I will cover the words on your list that do not immediately carry the meaning of abruptness or unexpectedness (i.e. words I feel should not be in this list). Note, not all words have clear distinctions there are overlaps between their use cases.

Disclaimer: I will mostly aggregate information and mostly trust my sources if I think they make sense (i.e. I do not require any academic degree behind claims). Additionally I will add personal opinion and disclaim this appropriately, so read with this in mind since I am no native. Furhermore, note that your (and my) list is not extensive with respect to words that you listed, but you probably listed most of the important ones already. Finally, do not forget that there are worlds between spoken and written Japanese, I will outline the things as researched and exemplified by written Japanese. For spoken Japanese the explanations of Kimi Tanaka are certainly enough.

Onomatopoeia

Let us first tackle the words that (probably) originate from a feeling with respect to the pronunciation. Some of the nuances in this section might be harder to understand, since this is mostly dependent on your feeling for the language.

• 
  

  ひょっこり - the ひょ transmits a certain aloofness or lightness that is implicit in the pronunctiation. So a certain event came up in a ひょっと light way, without you expecting it. Let us consider some example sentences (all from here, emphasis theirs):

  
  

  
  

  [...]ひょっこり訪ねて来た小学時代の同級生[...] (太宰治「嘘」青空文庫)

  
  

  すると、八ヵ月目かにです、娘がひょっこり戻ってきました。(小林多喜二「疵」青空文庫)

  
  

  そこへ兄きがひょっこり帰って来た。(森鴎外「里芋の芽と不動の目」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  we see that the word is mostly associated to people or objects appearing unexpectedly on visiting terms, i.e. they just lightly come over without any pretext or anything (the lightness is important for nuance).

  
  
  


• 
  

  ふっと - This word carries the notion of breeziness that Kimi Tanaka outlined in his answer and is also well explained here. It is used for things that suddenly disappear and appear without reason. Like the movement of air. Not many good example sentences exist, but consider those from here (emphasis mine)

  
  

  
  

  夜中にふっと目が覚める

  
  

  ふっと名案が浮かんだ

  
  

  ふっと見えなくなる (from here)

  
  

  
  

  I think it is apparent why ふっと fits well here.

  
  

Meanings stemming from 漢字

Let us now get to the words that can be rewritten in 漢字 and try to derive their nuance from the signs used and confirm our findings in example sentences. Note, that not all words have their meaning that are still in direct relation with the signs, in these cases I just leave out the explanation as it is purely historical and unrelated to the question.

• 
  

  不図{ふと} -　the second character is usually used to hint at a meaning like planning or thinking over something. Thus by extension it just is used in relation to something one doesn't particularly feel the need to think over and thus comes to mind without one expecting it. This is exactly the notion Kimi Tanaka explained

  
  

  
  

  ところが今朝は如何なる吉日か、私は不図四十年前に、金博士から聞いた疑問の民族の名を思い出したのであった。(海野十三, from here, emphasis mine)

  
  

  ふと灯りが消える (from here, emphasis mine)

  
  

  
  
  

  They are not events that come and go like a breeze, but also not events that you expected to happen anytime soon or ever.

  
  


• 
  

  不意{ふい}に - you probably already know 意 from 意味, 意識 or others. It always has this meaning of in mind or in general something connected to you being mentally prepared for something as expressed by Kimi Tanaka. Consider the following examples from here (emphasis theirs)

  
  

  
  

  それが今不意に目の前へ、日の光りを透かした雲のような、あるいは猫柳の花のような銀鼠の姿を現したのである。(芥川竜之介「お時儀」青空文庫)

  
  

  私が茶の間で夕刊を読んでいたら、不意にあなたのお名前が放送せられ、つづいてあなたのお声が。(太宰治「きりぎりす」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  Personally, I would say that there is a slight difference between 不意 and 不図 in that the former feels like the event that happened is more lightweight and the latter is a more important event. Like while I was reading the evening newspaper I suddenly heard your name read out on the radio (that is the example sentence for 不意). While the sudden turning off of the lights (as in the example sentence for 不図) is of more direct personal consequence. This might just be me, most people would probably use them interchangeably.

  
  



• 
  

  唐突{とうとつ} - the description from Kimi Tanaka is again mostly correct it seems, as is supported here and here. It is used when there was a certain flow to a speech or movement of an object which is suddenly interrupted and changed. I think this needs to be more or less active, so a light cannot 唐突に go dark as it can ふと go dark, even though it is a continuous action. Let's look at some examples from here (emphasis theirs):

  
  

  
  

  Ｍは唐突とこんなことを尋ねた。(芥川竜之介「海のほとり」青空文庫)

  
  

  爺は、彫刻のように堅くなったが、「あッはッはッ。」　唐突に笑出した。(泉鏡花「燈明之巻」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  This should be straightforward to get a feeling for.

  
  


• 
  

  突然{とつぜん} - this describes the unexpected starting of motion or flow of speech (i.e. in general some action). The difference to 唐突 is that this does not require that some flow is broken, but that a new one starts. The example given here illustrates this well: You would say a parked car 突然 dashes off, but wouldn't say 唐突, as it just starts movement. Let's again look at some examples of usage from here (emphasis theirs)

  
  
  

  
  

  誰か外へ来たと見えて、戸を叩く音が、突然荒々しく聞え始めました。 (芥川竜之介「アグニの神」青空文庫)

  
  

  それは女の姿がその明るい電灯の光を突然遮ったためだった。(梶井基次郎「ある崖上の感情」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  It shall be noted that I think that 突然 is the most widely used suddenly-word and that it probably is misused a lot if you want to go hard-core on the definitions and origins of the words.

  
  


• 
  

  急{きゅう}に - I fear I will disagree with Kimi Tanaka here (at least on the literary side). This answer explains really well how I feel about the difference between 急に and 突然. It basically says that 急に is used for more normal surprising things, like ''急に I have become hungry'' or ''急に I have gotten another appointment and need to leave''. On the other hand, 突然 is used for really surprising things like ''突然に it started raining men''. You cannot interchange those two words in these 3 examples. Some easy examples are given on the nlpt preparation site

  
  

  
  

  授業中に、急に眠くなりました。

  
  
  

  
  


• 
  

  行{い}き成{な}り - This is very close in meaning to 急に and 突然 and for all intents and purposes it is used interchangeably and Japanese people will not be able to tell you what the differences between them is. Apart from the one outlined above there is a research paper from Nagoya University researching exactly the difference of these three words. It's very detailed and giving examples for very detailed nuances. As this answer is already long enough, I am not going to paraphrase it into this answer here, but be my guest and read it through, it is interesting to see all the example sentences.

  
  


• 
  

  突如{とつじょ} - is very similar to the previous 3 but mostly literary (i.e. you will probably never hear this word in spoken Japanese). You cannot use it interchangeably though, as something like 突如の出来事 just sounds weird while 突然の出来事 is fine. In books you will mostly see it as 突如として, as documented here and here. Furthermore, one can argue that 突如 is more for encounters the narrator didn't expect but somebody prepared while 突然 can also be used for more random things like rain.

  
  

Examples that shouldn't be in the list (in my opinion)

• どっと - I think you meant とっとと which derives from 「疾疾と」（とくとくと） and means (as the characters indicate) something like quick.


• さっさと - This derives from 「颯々」（さつさつ and basically signifies the blowing of the wind (which makes さーさー sounds in the trees). So you use it to say somebody should hurry (like the wind). Both this and the previous word are similar, their difference being elucidated in the link and not subject of this question.

Okay, sorry for this long answer. I got carried away, if this is too much written text just tell me, I'll mend it as good as I can. I just want you to know that for most situations these nuances are not important in spoken Japanese. And the examples I gave you are from over 50 years ago mostly (mostly the big Japanese writers). Japanese people today think that Japanese is very old-fashioned. So don't go learning these nuances and words expecting everybody to understand them. Even in written Japanese these Nuances come fairly naturally, so don't worry too much.

verbs - と言います vs．と言われています

I'm playing The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past（ゼルダの伝説：神々のトライフォース）and this sentence came up (spoken by one of the 7 maidens):

ハイリアの民は、ふしぎな力を
あやつることが、できたと言います。

I think this means "It is said that the Hylian people could harness/manipulate a mysterious power.". Why did they use と言います instead of と言われています? I thought that's how you'd indicate a myth or some widely-believed story.

Answer

The difference is very subtle, but there is a difference. With と言います, it sounds as if the myth is actually true or people somehow believe it. With と言われています, it sounds as if it is an actual myth. There is no rule that says you must use と言われています when indicating a myth.

I've never played the game, but you can probably infer that the maiden actually believes the myth and she is informing the player about it. That's at least the impression I get with と言います, but again, the difference is very subtle. It makes sense with either way.

halacha - May one write with a pencil or marker in the margins of a sefer Torah?

As a Ba'al Kri'ah (Torah reader), I sometimes find it difficult to locate the start of an aliyah (reading) on Shabbat, esp. in parshiot Vayetze and Miketz where both of these are one contiguous parsha (paragraph) with no breaks.

Would one be allowed (before Shabbat, of course) to mark in the side margin where the aliyot are located?

I've see sofrim sometimes mark in pencil something in the margin that indicates the place for a correction or some serial number that they need for their records (I guess when scanning). So, I'm uncertain if there is an exception for sofrim in certain occasions and, whether only an erasable marking may be used (like an erasable marker or pencil) or may one use a permanent marker as well?

Answer

The sefer Piskei Teshuvos (OC 32:12-13) writes that l'chatchila one should not write anything on the margins (or anywhere else) of the sefer torah. If one did write something, even a sofer marking a mistake, he should erase it.

However, as he writes there, b'dieved it would not be a problem.