We read Kohelet either on the Shabbos Chol Hamoed of Sukkos or Shemini Atzeres.
Why do we specifically read this on Sukkos? What is the connection between Sukkos and Koheles?
Sunday, June 23, 2019
pronunciation - How to refer to kana verbally
In the English alphabet, each letter has a pronunciation (or many) as well as a name (that is used when referring to the letter as an entity, when spelling, etc.). As far as I know, in Japanese, the kana have a pronunciation only and each kana's name is its pronunciation.
So my question is, "How do you verbally refer to a specific kana in Japanese?"
Specifically, I'm particularly interested in how to refer to ん (given that it represents a nasal sound and has no pronunciation by itself) and を (given that it sounds the same as お).
For example, how would one speak the following sentence:
「ん」と「を」の[読み方]{よみかた}は何{なん}ですか？
How do you read "ん" and "を"?
By the way, if the above sentence is not grammatical or unnatural, please correct me.
Answer
We usually call individual hiragana by its pronunciation. If it can be confusing, we can clarify that we're talking about hiraganas by saying, for example, "ひらがなの「あ」".
When we have to confirm that there is no mistake, we use words that include a certain hiragana. For example, we say "りんごの「り」". There is a standardized way to do this in radio communication. This is the same technique as we use to orally tell kanjis.
As you mentioned, 「を」 is special since it has same pronunciation as 「お」. There are various ways to refer to 「を」. I have heard "わ[行]{ぎょう}の「を」" and "くっつきの「を」". See Japanese Wikipedia article of を for more examples.
However, 「ん」 is not such a special hiragana, in that we can distinguish 「ん」 and others with pronunciation. Saying "ひらがなの「ん」" is enough.
「ん」と「を」の[読み方]{よみかた}は[何]{なん}ですか？
How do you read "ん" and "を"?
I'd say:
ひらがなの、「ん」とわ行の「を」ってどう[読]{よ}めばいいんですか？
I used the techniques described above to refer to 「ん」 and 「を」.
"読み方は何ですか" is not wrong but it sounds like asking "What is the way to pronounce ...?". In this case asking "How ...?" is better, so I use the word どう that means "how."
Also, どう読めばいい（ん）ですか is more natural than どう読みますか. いい means "good" or "correct", so it sounds like "How to pronounce correctly ...?", which matches the context.
Does Rambam include the Oral Torah in his eighth principle?
When Rambam says that a principle of faith is that the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moshe, does he include both written and oral Torah, or only the written Torah?
If the former, to what extent? Since he speaks of the Torah that we now have, it cannot mean the Oral Torah in an abstract sense, but, it seems to me, must include some redaction currently in our possession. Does he mean the entire Talmud? Only the Mishnah?
Answer
The Rambam, towards the end of his commentary to Sanhedrin 10:1, explicitly mentions the oral Torah.
... Similarly, the transmitted explanation of the Torah was also received from G-d. This is what we do nowadays with the forms of the sukah, lulav, shofar, tzitzis, tefilin, etc., which are the exact same forms that G-d gave to Mosheh. ...
messiah - Who is Armilus?
We are told (Ben Ish Chai year 2 miketz, and others...) that Mashiach ben Yosef will fall in the hands of Armilus HaRasha. Some poskim (see ילקוט יוסף תפילה ב הערות נוסחאות התפלה והברכות) who even say we need to pray in our Amidah that MBY will not die at the hands of Armilus. I even saw in a footnote (of מושגים תלמודיים גוג ומגוג) that Gog is Armilus.
Do we know anything else about this seemingly important (albeit evil) character? Please bring sources!
particles - 「X」と「Y」と - how does the second と affect the sentence?
I've seen some titles like this, for example an episode of an anime series that was called 敵{てき}と味方{みかた}と, or a manga that was called エルフと少年{しょうねん}と. I'm curious, how does the second と affect those sentences, what would change if they were removed? Would it make any sense to translate them as "X and Y and..." or would that be nonsensical?
Answer
I've seen this usage once in awhile, and haven't felt any difference in the meaning, but I did a search in Japanese to see what I could find.
This (you may need to set EUC encoding to view this properly) is a pretty long treatment on the subject in Japanese, but the summary is that originally this final と was used, but at present this is omitted most of the time. There are some situations where it can be natural to leave it in, and others where it is best to remove it.
Near the end of the post, it is mentioned that in some cases the final と may possibly be used to give a feeling of both parties doing something together or doing something mutually. Though it is acknowledged this is the opinion the author of that post.
Also, there is talk about how sometimes it is better to add と when it helps avoid confusion, as in the phrase "私とあなたの父との関係". Without the last と、technically that can be viewed as "私" and "あなたの父の関係” as opposed to the relationship of "私” and "あなたの父”.
I'd be curious to hear the opinion of native speakers, but my feeling is that for people learning Japanese as a second language it's usually best to just omit the final と.
Because of the above interpretation, I would generally translate the pattern as just "X and Y". "X and Y and" would be incorrect.
Edit: I apologize for originally including the improper link. I just fixed it. On my browser (Safari), I had to manually select "EUC" encoding to be able to view it.
grammar - How to know if ～たら is hypothetical or temporal
I encountered the following sentence in the chapter introducing conditionals from the online grammar guide Imabi.
休んだら、元気になった
When I rested, I got better.
Earlier, the article explained that たら can have either a hypothetical or a temporal meaning. When the verb in the main clause is in the non-past form, this is not an issue since the たら verb hasn't happened yet either way. To illustrate my meaning, take the following.
帰ったら、食べる。
When I go home, I'll eat. OR If I go home, I'll eat.
Regardless of which one is correct (most likely the first one), the action of "go home" has not yet happened.
However, in the case when the main verb is in the past (た形), I'm wondering if whether or not the conditional verb happened is clear or not. In other words, is the following translation possible?
休んだら、元気になった
If I had rested, I would have gotten better.
If not, how could the type of conditional above be translated?
And
If the main clause had a different subject than the conditional clause, would anything in the answer change? I'm only asking this because I have a feeling that a sentence like 「本を読んであげたら、弟が喜びました」where the speaker would be speculating about someone other than himself would change things (ignore this if it is too unclear).
Source: Imabi - 第109課: Conditionals I: The Particles と, なら(ば), たら, & ば
Answer
「休んだら、元気になった。」
「本を読んであげたら、弟が喜びました。」
I would interpret them as...
"When I rested, I got better."
"When I read a book for my little brother, he was delighted."
(In these examples, the たら verb happened and caused the main verb)
If I wanted to say:
"If I had rested, I would have gotten better."
"If I had read a book for my little brother, he would have been delighted."
I would say like...
「休んだら(or休んでいたら)、元気になったのに / なっただろうに / なっただろう（なあ） / なっただろうけど。 etc...」
「本を読んであげたら(orあげていたら)、弟が喜んだのに / 喜んだでしょうに / 喜んだでしょう / 喜んだでしょうけど。 etc...」
(In these examples, the たら has a hypothetical meaning)
In the examples below, the たら verb has not yet happened:
「休んだら元気になるよ / 元気になるだろう。」
If you rest, you will get better.
「本を読んであげたら、弟が喜びますよ / 喜ぶでしょう。」
If you read a book for your little brother, he will be delighted.
hashkafah philosophy - If voting doesn't do anything, should one vote?
All translations below are my own.
Shlomo HaMelech tells us (Mishlei 21:1):
פלגי מים לב מלך ביד יהוה על כל אשר יחפץ יטנו
[Like] streams of water is the heart of a king in the hand of Hashem: toward whatever He wants He turns it.
The commentators seem to understand this to mean that Hashem influences world policy through the leaders of the world. Take, for instance, the Ralbag:
כי פעולות המלך ומחשבותיו הם מוגבלות מהש''י והוא כמו שליח הש''י במה שיעשהו מדבר המלכות
...for the actions of the king and his thoughts originated from Hashem, blessed be He. He is like an agent of Hashem, blessed be He, in that which he does through his power of kingship...
You can debate all you want whether a president is considered a king. But it's completely irrelevant. If the statement is that it's ultimately Hashem dictating policy, then whichever candidate gets elected will do the same policies. Or, if you have a hard time swallowing that Trump will keep Obamacare or Hillary will build a wall, then perhaps you could say that Hashem will influence the election to elect His desired candidate with His desired policies. Either way, the effect is the same: Why should I be voting tomorrow if my vote doesn't matter? According to the first formulation, whoever wins the election will enact the same policies. According to the second formulation, you can't beat Hashem at rigging the elections. (Go tell that to Trump.)
According to Wikipedia, there were 235,248,000-odd eligible voters in the 2012 election, under 130,000,000 of which actually voted. No matter how you slice these facts, my individual vote is pointless. Even in a vote of 100,000 people my vote doesn't make such a big difference: certainly in a vote of over 1000% that size does it not make a difference.
Please don't tell me "If everyone followed that logic we wouldn't have anyone voting." That may very well be true. But until that point my vote doesn't matter. When the numbers change then we can knock this point off the list. Our country will probably be in deep trouble at that point as well.
So, then, if my vote doesn't count any more than a grain of sand on the beach, why should I bother doing my hishtadlus? It's not called hishtadlus if it doesn't matter what I choose. The choice, then, of whether to vote is the same as the choice of who to vote for. Regardless of my decision, the result will be the same.
In summary, then, should I vote, if from a hashkafic perspective it seems pointless?
Edit: There are several good points raised in the answers, but none of them satisfactorily answer the question. To clarify, I'm looking for an answer that not only satisfactorily explains why I have to vote but also why I have to vote for an actual candidate rather than Mickey Mouse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)