User talk:Sirmylesnagopaleentheda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Sirmylesnagopaleentheda! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

You can add messages here. Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] בָּרוּךְ הַבָּא!

בָּרוּךְ הַבָּא‎ / Welcome! It is great to see more people here who know something about the Spanish and Portuguese Jews and other Sephardim! -- Olve 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hi.

1. Isolate is definitely a back-formation from isolated.

2. You might want to check this page out.

Best, JackLumber. 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that. It may be that isolated appeared first in the language, even by some centuries, but to call isolate a back-formation implies that isolated was not really a past participle form at all and that the verb was formed on the mistaken impression that it was. See my comments on "donate" and "isolate" on the "Back-formation" talk page.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Isolated became a past participle only after isolate was coined. All lexicographers (notably, OED and Webster's 3rd) regard isolate as a back-formation. JackLumber. 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I said "past participle form". The word "isolated" was clearly intended to LOOK like a past participle even if there was no verb in active use for it to be the past participle of. It was not an adjective ending in "ed" for an entirely different reason, later mistaken for a suffix. (It may be that the original adjective was "isolăte", and that that spawned "isolated" as an imaginary past participle, and then "to isolate" some centuries later.) I am not disputing your account of the history of the matter, but only whether this really counts as a back-formation in the sense defined.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it most definitely does. But burger from hamburger (as the article states) most definitely doesn't. JackLumber. 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it would, if anybody had really thought a hamburger was made of ham, but I don't think anyone did. I think it would be better if all this discussion had been on the talk page of "Back-formation" rather than on my user page, as others might wish to comment. To revert to the main topic: do you also hold that all other supine-formed verbs (see the talk page under "donate, isolate") are back-formations? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's quite a simple solution to this debate, which is, as always, to provide the sources to support the view proposed! Jack has some sources to support back-formation, though the OED also seems to say that while "isolate" might be a back-formation, it might also be from the French isoler or adapted from the Italian isolare. This is from the section published in 1900, which may have been superseded by later editions. Perhaps the article should present alternative points of view if there's doubt about the derivation. Adrian Robson 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Objection sustained. Got another example: donate and locate used to be heavily criticized by the British in C19, not just because they were barbarous Americanisms :-) but also because they were back-formations---although dictionaries say that only donate is a back-formation (from donation), while locate (allegedly) comes from Latin locatus, p.p. of loco -as -avi -atum -are. It must be noted that many of these Americanisms were not so "literate" (enthuse from enthusiasm)---not to mention pseudo-Latinate cowboy words like absquatulate or goofy derivatives like happify... JackLumber. 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Great Name

Welcome, sir, from the plain people of Ireland. I'm surprised the anti-semitism page hasn't come under much attack.--Shtove 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They do say that the Hebrew and the Gaelic are two very guttural tongues. My own contribution to the anti-semitism page is confined to the correction of some typos. If you want to see arguments about anti-semitism, there is plenty in related articles, such as those about Israel Shamir and David Duke. Incidentally, do I gather from your user page that you have also made some indecent contributions? :-) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 08:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meshumad

Dear Sir Myles, The rabbis beg to differ on your opinion. Read the treatise of Aboda Zara in the Talmud Babli. Also, Maimonides codifies "Meshumad" as the following: Two are “mešumadim”: a) the “mešumad” for only one type of transgression; and b) the “mešumad” in relation to the whole Torá. The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions], for example, to dress with [clothing made of] “ša‘atnez,” or trim [the hair in a round manner, without leaving the sideburns on the head, on each side,] the peá, making it appear as if this precept [was inexistent] void for the whole world – this is a “mešumad” in relation to such thing [i.e. the given precept]. This is, if done with the intention to provoke. [In regards to] the “mešumad” for the whole Torá, this is that who turn to the laws [as creeds] of the gentiles, when these decree religious persecutions, uniting with them, saying: “ – What gain do I have in remaining united to the People of Israel, who are humiliated and persecuted? It is better for me to unite to those whose hand is powerful!” – this is the “mešumad” for the whole Torá. [MT Book of Science, V: Chp. 3, 18]. For a sensible assessment on the Biblical and Talmudic sources regulating this position, see Foot Moore’s Judaism (Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 460 – 473.

As most Jews today are outright Shabbat desecrators, it follows most Jews are in the status of "Meshumadim."

Also, I will share with you a recent response I made to Hakham Oliveira regarding the status of "Meshumad:"

As for the question of "meshumad", as it relates to those who believe in the "Kabbalah" [medieval Jewish mystical lore begun in France 12th c.], this does not make them into meshumadim, since there is absolutely no problem in believing about reincarnations or not, having [or not having] understanding about the superior worlds as sefirot. If the person believes in the thirteen principles -- and the former is not included [in the thirteen principles] -- he's a Jew, and not a meshumad. If he believes in banalities that are not outright desecrations of the Toráh, we cannot consider them as minim, and much less as meshumadim. Because of this, [people] like rabbi Iossef de Efraim Caro, as rabbi Menashé ben Israel, as rabbi Ia'aqob Sasportas, among others, are kesherim.

The term "meshumad" is applied for two cases: a) For a person who left one of the precepts, [this one] is a meshumad for one of two things in the Toráh, and the Sages call them Meshumad leMisswáh Ahat, or leDabar Min haDebarim, or lidbar Midiberehem. b) For a person who left the whole Toráh deliberately. This included those who admit another form of faith, and I do not mean "Cabalismo", but Christianity, Islam or similar, which are declared denials of the Toráh and its truth. This [meshumad] is called Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh.

Some [rabbis] pretend to include the Anusim in this [category], due to the fact that they chose to remain in their places of origin in moments when they could flee. It is clear these are rare cases, but it cannot be taken into account. For the cases of kiddushin and gerushin, if they were any, this can help for defense against such people [this in reference to contemporary ignorant rabbis who may consider Anusim as Mamzerim; case which cannot be applied because the kiddushin of Anusim could not be valid, as they were Shabbat desecrators, and therefore their witnesses invalid too. Having no valid witnesses, no valid kiddushin can be performed]. Not that the Anusim are really Meshumadim. This only [is used] as a strategy concerning the halakháh.

Hence, herr Einstein was a Meshumad. Best Regards. --Dramirezg 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles:

I think there is a problem with semantics. Firstly, the category of "mumar" does not exists in Jewish Law [meaning all the sanctioned texts of rabbinic tradition, limitation that does not include whatever has been written from the time of the Ge'onim to our days]. Maimonides does not use it, nor any responsa Sefaradi until the appearance of the Tosafot. "Mumar" seems to have been a word invented by the Ashkenazim as a legal category during the medieval ages in their tradition of the Tosafot, and from whom the Maran Iossef Caro picks it for his Shulkhan Arukh, but I still have to research the veracity of this question.

Secondly, if you were to read more carefully, the way RaMbaM breaks "Meshumad" down is in the following order:

1. the Meshumad who transgresses any of the commandments.

2. the Meshumad who transgresses the whole Toráh

Of the Meshumadim who transgress any of the commandments, Maimonides' codification separates those who casually or intentionally transgress any particular comandment (The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions]). And then he identifies those Meshumadim who do it out with the intention to provoke. Hakham Oliveira gives us these categories too.

Then we have the Meshumadim for the whole Toráh [Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh], of whom Maimonides says there are those who purposely leave the whole Toráh, to turn to different laws; note that he does not mention "conversion" to another religion. In Jewish thinking, Law does not mean only the Written Law, but also the Oral Law. One cannot be without the other.

In this last category of Meshumadim we can include the "Reform" Jews as they have denied rabbinic tradition. "Conservative" Jews are in the first category, as they only break certain commandments without abandoning rabbinic tradition in toto.

"Believing" in the God of Israel does not save either of them from the classification of "Meshumad". A kasher Jew cannot have a "belief" without "action".

There is an underlying current in all this, that eventhough the Jew may have been raised as a 'am aress, it does not exempt him from performing the misswot, specially if he has every opportunity to do so. A lot of Jews today know that driving in Shabbat is wrong, eventhough they were raised accustomed to it. They cannot be classified as 'am aress in this particular instance, or can they?

By the way, the Sages recommended us not to mingle into 'am aress:

“‘am haress are despicable, and their wives such as vermin, and to their daughters one must apply the verse, ‘Cursed be those who lie with all kinds of beasts!’” (Deut. 27:21). [M. Pesahim, 49a]

The implications of a Torah transgressor are several. As you had mentioned, one of them is that they cannot be witnesses ('ed), but also that they are classified "as gentiles" (ke goy) or worst than gentiles. Not that they are actually gentiles [their biological right as Jews is not cancelled], but that they are not kesherim (like gentiles) to be used in Jewish ritual, for example, be counted for minyan. Read the following responsa from early 20th c.:

4. Haham Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad [“Ben Ish Hai”], teshuvot Rav Pe’alim, vol. 3, Orah-Hayyim 12
A question from the city of Shanghai, with regard to a person who publicly desecrates the Shabbat by performing work for himself and for others: can he be counted for a minyan, and can he be called up to the Torah...
And also: if such persons who are ineligible to be counted for a minyan want to say kaddish, are they permitted to do so? And [if they do so] should others answer “Amen”?
Teshuva: Any Jew who publicly desecrates the Shabbat, i.e., performs work [m’lakha] in the presence of ten Jews, has the status of a Gentile, and does not count for a minyan. And not only if ten were present, but even if he desecrated [the Shabbat] in a public place where his actions become known to many, is regarded as having desecrated publicly.... From the way the question is phrased it is clear that this person performs these acts in a publicly visible place and he realized that it would become known, so that even if ten were not present he is regarded as a Gentile. And it is also clear that he does so usually, on every Shabbat, and his actions are known to all.
Thus, the person you are asking about, because he publicly desecrates the Shabbat, cannot be counted as constituting ten for kaddish or for kedusha and similar matters […]
Therefore, [you should ensure that] there should be present ten persons, besides him. And do so in a manner that it is not obvious nor noticed by him, lest there be hatred and enmity, or lest he be driven further away [from religious observance]. For the joining together [for minyan] is done in synagogue, where many are present, and you shall covertly make an effort that ten kosher persons will be present besides those who are unfit, and you will easily be able to do so.
However, with regard to calling him up to the Torah, if he will not be called up to the Torah he will notice this, and this will cause hatred and enmity, and there is concern that he might be driven further away [from religious observance] – especially in these times. However, this can be averted… by calling him up after the obligatory number have already been called up. And if the congregation sees that there are hatred and enmity and quarrels if he is not called up at the beginning on Shabbat and on Festivals, so, call him up for one of the obligatory ‘aliyyot, but make sure that when the next person is called up, the reader begins to read from the place that the previous one began [….]
And what you asked, if the ineligible persons who do not count for minyan want to say kaddish, what should be done, and should the congregation answer “Amen” after them ?
Teshuva: They cannot recite kaddish in a manner that causes the obligation of the public to be fulfilled. However, to avert hatred and enmity and quarrels, you should not prevent them from reciting kaddish, and you should not say to them: “Your kaddish is useless”. Rather, allow them to recite kaddish. But, the hazan should recite kaddish along with them, to fulfill the obligation of the public. Thus, the public will have their obligation fulfilled by the kaddish of the hazan, and answer “Amen” to the kaddish of the hazan, and they [= the ineligibles] will not notice this and thus hatred will not be born. Because, you will follow this custom all year round: the hazan will recite kaddish together with whoever says kaddish, even though they are ‘kosher’ – so that when such ineligibles happen to say kaddish this will not be noticeable in anything [unusual] the hazan does, because it will be his custom to always say kaddish.
{trans. Prof. Zvi Zohar, at Bar Ilan Univ.}

The way rabbis get around this halakháh today, the loophole, is that if they do not prescence the Jew breaking a misswáh, they assume they are kasher for minyan. Albeit, knowing that it is public knowledge, they bent backwards to the limits of this permisibility.

Best Regards. --Dramirezg 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles,

The context that Maimonides uses "laws of the gentiles" has to do with everything outside Jewish tradition as formulated by the rabbis, which comprehends the Written and Oral tradition. Therefore, anything outside this realm is considered "gentile." It is also important to note that Maimonides is giving us a summary of the Talmudic discussion, one that ocurrs within the definitions of the halakhot themselves. There is more than what meets the eye and splitting hairs he does not touch upon this particular codification, but noticible as one reads along his opus.

The context he uses "laws of the gentiles" is anything outside rabbinic tradition. It could be Islam, Christianity, Communism, Free-enterprise Capitalism, etc. On itself it could be anything regarding the action of adopting ways and customs outside what the rabbis formulated for proper Jewish behavior.

If for example, we live in a country where is common to drive on Shabbat, and therefore some Jew thinks is OK to drive on Shabbat, as every body does it, then the rabbis consider this as "turning to the laws of gentiles." There is no need to formally recant Judaism; when it comes to breaking the Shabbat, as long as the Jew does it, he has recanted Judaism privately; if did he it in front of ten (kasher) Jewish witnesses, he has recanted in public; if everybody knows (Jew or non-Jew) that he does it, then this too is considered public knowledge.

The context in which Hakham Hayyim develops his teshubah follows the lines of the discussion of meshumadim, and anyone familiar with the discussion knows this. He does not have to say outright the word "meshumad." Anyone familiar with the halakháh knows he's speaking about a "meshumad." It is obvious from the nature of the discussion.

As it comes to the particular melakhot of Shabbat [where making fire and transporting in public are two concerns to the act of driving a car], the melakháh of making fire is de'oraita and punishable by hayab karet (death); the melakháh of transporting something in public is miderabbanan and it is punishable by hayab malkhot (wips). It is not just a "simple non-observance" as you put it, particularly when knowing that Shabbat is one of the two of the signs of the covenant (the other is circumcision). The observance of Shabbat not only upholds the giving of the Toráh at harSinai, but it also is witness to the cornerstone of Judaism, which is creation ex-nihilo. Breaking the Shabbat -- even if the Jew "believes" in the Shabbat -- leads to denying harSinai and creation ex-nihilo ever happened.

And with all due respect, this discussion is everybit relevant to the discussion of "anusim," as we are discussing what qualifies someone as a Jew who is kasher, and a Jew who is pasul. The determination of who is kasher or pasul revolves on the issue of Jewish behavior, otherwise also referred to as "observance." "Conversion to another religion" is only peripheral to the rabbinic concern, and only important if done out of conviction or out of coercion of some kind. The initial rabbinic concern is one of the behavior of the Jewish individual.

You should know that the rabbis considered the "anusim" kasher, meaning they were kasher witnesses, therefore their weddings and testimonies valid, and so there was their wine and shekhitáh. This happened as long as the rabbis knew they were shomer Shabbat, shomer Kashrut, shomer Tefilah, etc., to the best of the posibilities; despite they had to go to Church, take a Eucharist, eat pork or recite Hail Mary in front of the priests or other Old Christians and apostate Jews (minim). The conversion by force -- and their coerced public non-Jewish behavior -- does not alter the kasher status of the Jew.

It is also important to note that of those forced converts, if they knew that they would lapse into non-observance on their own volition, the rabbis would call them meshumadim.

Lastly, of those Jews who converted to Catholicism out of conviction, as it was the case of Abner de Burgos, the rabbis called them minim.

All these issues are evident in the rabbinical responsa of Spanish rabbis from 1391 to 1492. Some of which you can view in the Hebrew original at www.judaismo-iberico.org.

I think there is an initial confusion with the notion of "Shemad" as perceived today. However, when we review the minutae of Talmudic discusssions, and the attitude of the rabbis up to the present century, you will realize that the notion of "meshumad" as "convert to another religion" is imprecise. Best Regards. --Dramirezg 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stubsensor

Hi, please read Wikipedia:Stub. The relevant portions:

Stubs are Wikipedia entries that have not yet received substantial attention from the editors of Wikipedia, and do not yet contain sufficient information on their subject matter. In other words, they are short or insufficient pieces of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's usefulness. The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles. Anyone can complete a stub.

An article that is lacking information is not a stub - stubs are short. Syrian Jews is not short by any means. The correct tag is now {{expand}}. Triddle 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain and has been used as the source for many other Wikipedia articles. There is even a category for such articles. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning retracted. My apologies for the mistake. Ironically I made the same mistake with contributions from the Catholic Encyclopedia a few days ago! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You had me worried! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ades.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ades.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish and Portuguese Jews

Interesting to read your contributions to the S&P Jews page -- I've grown up in the tradition (Lauderdale Rd) and am interested to see the high level of discussion and information available about it online. Perhaps we can add some links to music archives on the Wikipedia page too since I know of several online but don't have the URLs to hand right now.

--

I have just discovered your contributions to the "Sephardic Judaism" page. Hazak uBarukh! As for Spanish and Portuguese Jews, the entry still needs quite a bit of work. I am saddened that I have apparantly insulted Olve and have driven him away from the article. I have fixed up the Pipe Organ section - I just hope that it is agreeable. I still do not think it should be there at all. Guedalia D'Montenegro 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bevis Marks Synagogue

Good work. --Dweller 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baqashot

Dear Sir, My name is Joseph Mosseri and I live in New York. I am a Sefaradi of Egyptian/Syrian heritage and I was directed to the Wikipedia article on Baqashot by my friend David Betesh. I see that you were a major contributor to this article and I'd like to find out more about what you wrote concerning the history of Halabi Baqashot in Jerusalem.

"The Syrian tradition was introduced to Jerusalem by Raphael Altaras, who came to that city from Aleppo in 1845 and founded a Baqashot circle at the Kehal Tsiyon synagogue. In this way the custom of Baqashot became part of the mainstream Jerusalem Sephardic tradition. Another important influence was Jacob Ades (1857-1925), who immigrated to Jerusalem in 1895 and introduced the tradition to the Persian and Bukharan communities. The main centre of the tradition today is the Ades synagogue in Naִhlaot, where the leading spirit was Shaul Aboud, a pupil of Moshe Ashear."

Also do you have the books of Altaras and Burla that are mentioned in the bibliography?

Thanks, JMosseri 12:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I got these details from an article by Seroussi on the "Piyut" website (http://www.piyut.org.il/articles/259.html). I do not possess the books you mention, but there is a very nice man at http://www.virtualgeula.com who can do reprints of any book in the JNUL that is no longer in copyright.
I was at the Ades synagogue for baqashot a couple of weeks ago: quite an experience! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Myles, Thanks for the information. I've been to the piyut site hundreds of times but for some reason I never noticed this article there. This article like most of Seroussi's other writtings on music is very comprehensive and enlightning. Thank you once again for sharing this information with me. Joseph Mosseri JMosseri 12:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)JMosseriJMosseri 12:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote request

Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 70.49.86.196 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Moves

Hi, I have just seen that I had removed your request while correcting my own. Sorry, this was not wanted (I can't remember to have deleted something - a little bit strange). Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 16:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/r/User_talk%7ESirmylesnagopaleentheda_d728.html"