usage - Does the particle "を" (wo) have a special use when at the end of a sentence?

I thought the character "を" (wo) was only used for the particle whose only job was to indicate the direct object of a verb.

But today I saw it at the end of an exclamation on a sign I think on a shop:

西部に活力を!!

So what job is を doing here?

Answer

It's still the object marker. The sentence is just not finished and the verb is implied.

(there was a question mentioning suspended sentences but I cannot find it for the moment)

Anyway it's often used:

フォースと共{とも}にあらんことを

May the force be with you!

Additionally it gives some kind of propaganda feeling to the sentence.

grammar dikduk - Why is there a custom to join "Hashem" and "Elokenu" together in the line Al Taazvenu in Shema Kolenu in Selichot

In Shema Kolenu, based on the Posuk in Psalms 38:22 we say the phrase:

Al Taazvenu Hashem Elokenu Al tirchak mimenu | Don't leave us Hashem Our God Don't distance yourself from us.

The interesting thing is that, although it seems many people have a custom whilst reciting this phrase to join the words Hashem and Our God together and put a comma after the word God (and, indeed, there are Siddurim that have a comma at this point in the text), this appears to be incorrect. When one checks the Posuk that the phrase is based upon in the Tehillim, there is a break after the word Hashem, and the phrase Our God is part of the next clause.

The way most people seem to have a custom to say it:

Don't leave us Hashem Our God; don't distance yourself from us.

The (seemingly) correct way, following the verse:

Don't leave us Hashem; Our God don't distance yourself from us.

I always thought people were just ignorant of the fact that that it is not joined in the Posuk. But when I heard a Choshuve Rov daven for the Amud and he said that together, I had to ask him what is the Pshat. He told me that he knows that it is not the correct way according to the Posuk, but he has a minhag to say it like that, and that it might possibly come from Muncatch. He could offer no further details.

Can you tell me when this Minhag started and who started it?

Can you tell me why this Minhag started?
Or have you got another reason to judge favourably the thousands of Yidden who otherwise seem to be reading it wrong?

halacha - Certified vs. Uncertified Costco Salmon

Salmon is generally considered by kashruth authorities to be distinctively identifiable as kosher from the appearance of the flesh. Nonetheless, I've noticed that the local Costco sells (side by side) certified kosher and uncertified, fresh, precut, packaged, farmed salmon. What, if any, are the halachic advantages of buying salmon certified as kosher, rather than cheaper and/or fresher uncertified fresh salmon, from Costco? Is there a halachic concern, even in the current allergen-conscious age, that a mass producer of salmon (such as the one supplying Costco) would be using equipment contaminated with nonkosher species such as shellfish?

Answer

R Sholem Fishbane, the Executive Director of the Associated Kashrus Organizations (AKO), an umbrella group of major kosher-certifying agencies and the and the Kashruth Administrator of the CRC kosher supervising agency spoke to the Headlines podcast about this.

At 1h43m here he explains salmon can be purchased without supervision. He says "at most, to be truly machmir you can do shifshuf (rubbing) of the place which was cut". He explains there is no need to remove a klipa of fish since there is no blia (absorption). He speaks of fresh salmon being cut in front of you with knives that were possibly used to cut non-kosher fish. Once you accept the ruling of the OU (which you quote in your question) that pink-looking fish is kosher, then I don't see a difference between freshly cut and packaged.

But don't take my word for it ...

OU Kosher writes

The factories which produce both wild and farmed salmon produce copious amount of fish every day, and even if there was a non-kosher product cut with the same knife, the non-kosher residue on the knife would be wiped off on the first few pieces of fish cut with that knife. Those fish would be mixed in with thousands (or tens of thousands) of other salmon, which would be perfectly clean of residue, and become nullified (batul). The Shulchan Aruch (YD 96:4) rules in the case of lemonade and salted fish that all of the product is permitted, despite the non-kosher knives involved. The Rama explains this is due to the large amount of product cut with the same knife.

The Sephardic Halacha Center writes

In the case of a large-scale factory that processes only kosher fish with skin (such as a facility that packages salmon), the Aharonim are lenient and do not require the utensils to be certified kosher, as the possibility that they were used for a non-kosher items is remote, and even in such a case the small amount of non-kosher residue would be nullified in the vast amount of kosher fish that are being processed.

Of course, consult your rabbi before implementing anything you learn here.

number - Echad Ushloshim Umeya?

Who knows one hundred thirty-one?

Please cite/link your sources, if possible. At some point at least twenty-four hours from now, I will:

• 
  

  Upvote all interesting answers.

  
  
  


• 
  

  Accept the best answer.

  
  


• 
  

  Go on to the next number.

  
  

Answer

The first and last letters of the first four chapters of Tehillim add up to 131, which is also the numerical value of סמאל (the angel of evil). We therefore say these four chapters on Yom Kippur night, so that G-d save us from inadvertent uncleanness on this holy day.

(Pri Eitz Chaim, Yom Hakippurim 2)

Various later commentators point out that the sum of the relevant letters is actually only 126. Possible answers include:

• that we also add the ה of the word האיש (the second word of the first chapter);


• that we add the number of chapters themselves, plus one for the overall count (כולל);


• that we add the number of letters in the word בברית, which the Arizal says (and which R' Shneur Zalman cites in his siddur) as the vocalization of Hashem's name to have in mind while reciting these chapters.

(Shaar Hakollel 42:13)

ashkenazi - What does the munach say?

I'm asking according to Ashkenazi leining. The trop mark i have trouble with is the munach. It has two different sounds - a sort of "shaky" sound when it's on its own, and a sort of nothing sound when it is in the middle of a sequence.

A sequence goes like this: מהפך פשטא מנח זקף-קטן; מֵרְכָ֥א טִפְּחָ֖א מֻנַּ֣ח אֶתְנַחְתָּ֑א; מֻנַּ֣ח רְבִ֗יע.

A standalone munach looks something like: מֻנַּ֣ח | מֻנַּ֣ח רְבִ֗יע; מֻנַּ֣ח מֻנַּ֣ח פָּזֵ֡ר.

Those are all easy.

My problem is with something like this: מַהְפַּ֤ך פַּשְׁטָא֙ מֻנַּ֣ח מֻנַּ֣ח זָקֵף-קָטָ֔ן. How do you pronounce each munach? Sometimes i pronounce them both as if they are in the sequence; sometimes i'll make the first on its own and the second connected to the קטן.

How about this one? מֵרְכָ֥א מֻנַּ֣ח אֶתְנַחְתָּ֑א. That's pretty confusing for me.

Or מֻנַּ֣ח זַרְקָא֮ מֻנַּ֣ח מֻנַּ֣ח סֶגּוֹל֒?

מֻנַּ֣ח | רְבִ֗יע. Do i treat the munach as on its own, because of the psik, or is the psik just so i don't slur the words, and the trop is connected?

Answer

The only time the munnaḥ gets the shaky trope is when it's a munnaḥ-legarmeh, which visually looks like a munnaḥ followed by a p'siq. The munnaḥ-legarmeh is a "טעם מפסיק" (a disjunctive accent), whereas the normal munnaḥ is a "טעם משרת" (a conjunctive accent), so it makes sense to give the shaky trope only to the munnaḥ-legarmeh. See any tiqqun for a list of disjunctive and conjunctive tropes.

In the sequence munnaḥ | revi'a, munnaḥ | munnaḥ revi'a, or munnaḥ | darga munnaḥ revi'a, the first munnaḥ is always munnaḥ-legarmeh (and hence disjunctive), and the second (if it's present) is a normal munnaḥ (and hence conjunctive). The only exception is Isaiah 42:5, where the m'sora q'tanna indicates otherwise (and indeed indicates that this exception is unique).

There are a few other instances of munnaḥ-legarmeh not subservient to revi'a (or to another munnaḥ-legarmeh, itself subservient to revi'a):

Lev 10:6, Lev 21:10, and Ruth 1:2. In place of a t'lisha-qetanna before geresh (yet still a disjunctive): Gen 28:9, 1 Sam 14:3 (second one), 1 Sam 14:47, 2 Sam 13:32, 2 Kings 18:17, Isa 36:2, Jer 4:19, Jer 38:11, Jer 40:11, Ezek 9:2, Hag 2:12, and 2 Chron 26:15. R. Breuer's Ta'amei HaMiqra adds the following, before pazer: Neh 8:7 and Dan 3:2.

A few words on the exceptions: in Lev 10:6, Lev 21:10, and Ruth 1:2, the munnaḥ is preceded by a mercha, which is not normal for the pashta that follows (we'd expect another munnaḥ), but is normal for a munnaḥ-legarmeh. In the second set of exceptions, we expect a t'lisha-q'tanna, and thus there must have been an upgrade (where a normally conjunctive ta'am gets replaced by a disjunctive one), and it becomes munnaḥ-legarmeh. In 2 Kings 18:17, we see the expected conjunctive mercha before the munnach-legarmei (the Aleppo Codex has the expected mercha in Isa 36:2). In Neh 8:7, we have the expected mercha. In Dan 3:2, however, it seems like it could go either way (as munnaḥ is the normal conjunctive of pazer).

As to your examples:

munnaḥ munnaḥ pazer -- will always be normal munaḥs.

mahpaḥ pashta munnaḥ munnaḥ zaqef-qaton & munnaḥ zarqa munnaḥ munnaḥ segol -- both munnaḥs are normal munnachs, and sound identical, ie. each the same as if there were only one munnaḥ there.

mercha munnaḥ etnaḥta -- does not appear in Chumash; perhaps you meant tipḥa munnaḥ etnaḥta, whereupon in this case also the munnaḥ would be a normal munnaḥ.

The only place I've seen where some do a shaky trope on a munnaḥ that isn't a munnaḥ-legarmeh is: munnaḥ mahpaḥ pashta zaqef-qaton, and similar. I believe (and it seems that Joshua Jacobson also believes) that this would incorrect, as this munnaḥ is a conjunctive trope, and should lead in to the mahpaḥ which leads in to the pashta, instead of standing on its own.

---

_{The above is based on Rabbi Mordechai Breuer's Ta'amei HaMiqra, as well as William Wickes' work on trope, with additional sources from Chanting the Hebrew Bible by Joshua Jacobson. Major h/t to DoubleAA for corrections and additions.}

words - Is there P in japanese

I have been wondering if Japanese language include letter P. I have actually seen words like Pan in Japanese which means bread, but then I found out it was borrowed from Spanish. Then is there any Japanese words (not borrowed from other languages) or verbs has letter P?

Sorry for my English, am still learning...

inorganic chemistry - Is KF the most ionic compound?

I saw somewhere (can't recall where) that KF is the most ionic compound. I expected CsF. Does the greater polarizability of Cs allow it to more easily form covalent bonds compared to K? Does this overcome the fact that K being in n = 4 should bond better with F in n = 2?

Answer

Yes, this is a subtle thing.

Using the Pauling electronegativities, one would expect CsF to have the larger electronegativity difference (3.2). So in principal, it should be "more ionic."

Unfortunately, an ionic bond requires separating charge, so $\ce{Cs+F-}$. The problem is that $\ce{Cs+}$ is much larger than $\ce{K+}$ and so the dipole moment for a fully ionic $\ce{Cs+F-}$ would be much larger.

We find that the charge isn't fully separated, likely because of the need to stabilize the large dipole moment.

So some people plot a curve of "% ionic character" as determined by the actual dipole moment vs. the expected dipole moment (i.e, full charge separation). We find that this curve reaches a limit ~75-85% ionic character.

IIRC, I think on that basis LiF is more Ionic than KF.

For more, I really like Bruce Robinson's lecture notes: http://courses.washington.edu/bhrchem/c152/Lec23.pdf via the Internet Archive