Saturday 31 December 2016

colloquial language - Is it ok for non-japanese to refer to themselves as 僕{ぼく} and if not why?


Grammatically speaking it shouldn't be an issue, but I have heard from some people that a non-japanese using 僕{ぼく} sounds really weird. Has anyone else heard this? And if so, is there a reason?



Answer



This question frequently comes up among foreigners in Japan, especially men, as it seems there's a feeling that sticking with 私{わたし} is somehow too "textbook". It's as if using 私{わたし} is an indication of still learning, or perhaps not yet having been integrated into Japanese language and culture enough.


Men often wonder if they should use 僕{ぼく}, or 俺{おれ} instead, with the sense that 僕{ぼく} is more friendly and verges on kind of boyish and cute (where cute is a good thing in Japan). 俺{おれ} is seen as being rough and manly, but possibly too rude to use in most situations. I've even heard men boast of their ability to use 俺{おれ}, as if it were an indication of their bold nature.


Which is partly true, but I've often found when talking with foreign men about this, they focus entirely on the word and how it represents them, and not on the grammatical construct around the word when they use it.


For a somewhat extreme example, saying:



「俺{おれ}も行{い}かせて頂{いただ}けませんか。」


"Could I not also go?"




... would sound weird, regardless of who you were, because it mixes polite and and casual.


It's like, in English, saying something like "Excuse me, dude, would you mind terribly telling me the time?" Mixing "would you mind terribly" and "dude" is an awkward mix of slang and old-timey politeness, which in the end just conveys one doesn't have mastery of English (assuming the speaker isn't in an ironic context.)


If you want to use 俺{おれ} in the example above, you would say something more like:



「俺{おれ}も行{い}けねぇか?」


"Yo, can I hang with you?"



僕{ぼく} is safe for a wide variety of contexts, except for very rigid keigo. If you are able to use rigid keigo, though, you most likely know not to use 僕{ぼく}, so it's not really an issue.


Bottom line is, as a non-native Japanese speaker, 僕{ぼく} is perfectly acceptable in most situations, as Japanese will give you some slack on context since you're non-native, and it carries no connotations that make it rude. Use 俺{おれ} if you are sure that the rest of what you are saying matches. And don't be afraid of 私{わたし} when it's called for. Japanese don't have the same stigma against it that foreigners do.



It's far more important to learn when to not use a personal pronoun at all. Usually, when Japanese find 私{わたし} out of place, it's not because 僕{ぼく} or 俺{おれ} would have been better, it's more likely the case that the personal pronoun should have been dropped completely.


On a side note regarding あたし versus わたし for women, Japanese women seem perfectly comfortable with it so it is commonly used. Foreign women, however, often don't like it as they feel it smacks of a sexist construct. The argument is that it doesn't convey any more friendliness or character the way 僕{ぼく} or 俺{おれ} can. It merely conveys femininity, which some foreign women feel is unneeded in most contexts.


Hope that helps.


What does the internet slang "草生えた" mean?


I came across the term 草生えた on the internet. There wasn't much context, but it didn't seem to mean that grass was growing. Is this a slang term?


What does it mean? I couldn't find it in any of my dictionaries.



Answer



Thanks to @Chocolate, I was able to learn what this word means, which is roughly that something was funny. Here are a couple sources:



  1. http://wikiwiki.jp/himoteplus/?%C1%F0%C0%B8%A4%A8%A4%BF

  2. http://www.logsoku.com/r/livejupiter/1340676537/



Why does it mean something was funny? Well, as discussed in this question, strings of w (such as wwwwww) express laughter, like the English term "LOL". At some point, someone must have decided wwww looked like little blades of grass, so they came up with the expression 草生えた ("grew grass") to indirectly express the same thing.


wwwww-mowing bear


minhag - Customs surrounding fasting when a sefer torah falls to the floor?


Based on this question I would like to know what the earliest source for fasting when a sefer torah falls comes from? Is is true that if a person is in the room but turns away so as not to see it fall, that that person is not obligated to fast? Where does the oft quoted '40 days' come from (I would assume it is related to kabbalas hatorah, but I have no source)?




parshanut torah comment - Was Lot's Wife transformation into a Salt Pillar a miracle?


We tend to envision Lot's wife becoming a salt pillar as a (lehavdil) medusa-like sudden freezing from a normal human-organic state to a stone-cold hard mineral state.



Was this incident a miracle?



Answer



Aben Ezrah explains that she was burned by the sulfur-salt mixture that was raining down on the region. This left her as merely a pillar of salt.


This clearly implies that the fact that she and the rest of Lot's family were not getting hit by this downpour was a miracle. By looking back at the suffering of S'dom she lost the the privilege of this miracle so Hashem removed His divine protection from her and therefore she was hit.


Lot's wife becoming a salt pillar was a natural event (given the miraculous disastrous circumstances) that was prevented until then by super-natural means.


halacha - Can a single-parent father be exempt from time-bound mitzvot?


Rabbis such as Abudraham have explained a woman's exemption from positive time-bound commandments (mitzvot shehazman grama) in terms of a woman's ongoing and preliminary role in supporting her children/husband in the home (see here).


I'm wondering about single-parent fathers, in which for whatever reason, the father is alone in raising his children. Certainly, the constant mitzvah of infant-care, coupled with the burden of providing an income, must be overwhelming. I suspect this is becoming more prevalent in modern times, and I am familiar with a single-parent father who works from home in order to take care of his little children.


In such a scenario, would there be any leniency to exempt the father from certain time-bound mitzvot that might be near impossible to fulfill (i.e., praying shacharit while needing to supervise an infant)? Until such a father finds a new wife or some kind of other support system, could he be exempt like a woman in certain mitzvot?


Also, has this ever come up in rabbinic literature?




rashi - Was Rachav really just a shopkeeper?


Yehoshua 2:1:




וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מִן הַשִּׁטִּים שְׁנַיִם אֲנָשִׁים מְרַגְּלִים חֶרֶשׁ לֵאמֹר לְכוּ רְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת יְרִיחוֹ וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה וּשְׁמָהּ רָחָב וַיִּשְׁכְּבוּ שָׁמָּה



Rashi adopts the opinion of the Targum, not that she was literally a zonah, but rather:



תרגם יהונתן פונדקיתא מוכרת מיני מזונות



But later, in 2:11 and 2:15, we find that Rashi adopts the opinion of the Gemara, that Rachav was indeed an actual zonah:



ולא קמה עוד רוח באיש - אפילו לשכב עם אשה אמרו אין לך כל שר ונגיד שלא בא אל רחב הזונה ובת עשר שנים היתה כשיצאו ישראל ממצרים וזנתה כל ארבעים שנה


ותורידם בחבל בעד החלון - באותו חבל וחלון היו הנואפים עולין אליה אמרה רבונו של עולם באלו חטאתי באלו תמחול לי




Why the inconsistency?



Answer



The point in the first case is that the spies did not go to a zonah for help, but thought she was just a shopkeeper. Later, her other profession is revealed.


grammar - Meaning of 「という訳でもないのだが」


I have a question about the meaning of という訳でもないのだが in the following passage. If I'm understanding correctly 「いたからと言ってなんだ」 - 「居たからと言って何だ」 would translates something like - "even if he/she was, than what", however I can't quiet understand the whole sentence.


"Well, it's not that, (even if she was there, than what)." - fast translation.



・・・・・・それにしても、あの少女のことは綾奈も知らないのか。


先程はうまく説明できなかったが、目立つ、というより、不思議な感じがした。


まあ、いたからと言ってなんだ、という訳でもないのだが。


・・・・・・。



ちょっと後で後輩のやつにもメールで聞いてみるか。


・・・・・・本当に、いたからと言ってなんだ、というわけじゃ、ないんだけどな。



Context: The MC seems a strange girl. And now he's asking his friends if they have seen here before.



Answer





  • "~という訳ではない" is a common set phrase which corresponds to "That is not to say ~" or "That doesn't mean ~", referring to what was already stated. Using でない instead of ではない adds "not in particular" or "not really" feelings to the sentence.





  • There is another common set phrase "だから何だ?" (or "だからどうした?"), which means "so what?" It actually implies something negative -- "that's not important", "It doesn't matter", or "I don't care".




These by themselves are easy to you, aren't they?


In the sentence in question, I think you got the last half right. But maybe you read the first half of the sentence using the above knowledge, like "so what? she is not important". That would result in something like "That's not to say she is not important," or "she does matter to me," which did not match the context. (Of course, the guy who said this (twice) is actually very curious about the mysterious girl. But in that sentence, he is trying to deceive himself, saying he's not interested.)


If that's the case with you, let's stop interpreting this なんだ part as "so what?" This なんだ is not negative by itself, but should be interpreted as "it somehow matters" or "it's of some importance". The whole sentence can be understood as "That is not to say {if she was there, then it somehow matters to me}". Or to put it plainly, "I don't really care if she was there".


There are similar idioms, 「どうということはない」「どうという訳ではない」「なんということはない」「なんのことはない」, etc, all of which mean "nothing special", "doesn't matter", "it's a piece of cake", etc.


frequency spectrum - Is spectral leakage due to windowing 'different' for the DTFT and DFT?


I'm currently trying to improve my foundational understanding of spectral leakage due to windowing. The more I have been reading about it, the more I'm starting to think that 'windowing spectral leakage' can mean two completely different things depending on whether you're talking about the DTFT or DFT. I'm hoping to get some confirmation/clarification on what I discuss.




  1. With regards to the DTFT, this transform is essentially the Fourier transform equivalent for a discrete signal. This transform assumes that the signal is periodic with that period being infinity. With regards to windowing, spectral leakage is induced due to the fact that you are multiplying a discrete signal $x[n]$, by some window function $w[n]$. The corresponding convolution in the frequency domain causes the spectrum of $X[f]$ to be smeared or 'leaked'.





  2. Now moving onto the DFT, the idea of spectral leakage induced by windowing seems to be a completely different concept. Unlike the DTFT, the DFT assumes the signal is periodic (with that period being less than infinity). In this context, it is often stated that spectral leakage will occur if the collected signal does not contain an integer multiple number of points to the digital frequencies contained (i.e. if you have a $3\textrm{ Hz}$ signal with sample rate $10$ samples/sec, and collect $18$ samples, you will have spectral leakage). Thus if you recorded a sinusoid at interval where it's not able to 'finish' a complete cycle, the next period will restart and there will be a discontinuity in the signal. While this makes sense that you would be inducing 'false' frequencies or leaking frequencies, it seems to be a completely different idea from the convolving concept of the DTFT.




My primary question:




  • Is 'window spectral leakage' completely dependent on context (DTFT vs DFT)?




  • Furthermore, is it safe to say that the spectral leakage induced by each case separate from one another? As in, spectral leakage from the DTFT is induced by frequency convolution, and spectral leakage from the DFT induced by the assumption of periodicity? Or is there something that ties these two things together?






Answer



The concept of spectral leakage is not dependent on the context, and it's the same thing for the DTFT as it is for the DFT. It's probably helpful to remember that the DFT of a finite length sequence equals a sampled version of the DTFT of the same sequence:


$$\begin{align}X(\omega)&=\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}x[n]e^{-jn\omega}\qquad\text{(DTFT)}\\ \tilde{X}[k]&=\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}x[n]e^{-jn\frac{2\pi k}{N}}\qquad\text{(DFT)}\end{align}$$


Obviously we have


$$\tilde{X}[k]=X\left(\frac{2\pi k}{N}\right)$$


Now assume we have two sinusoidal signals windowed with a rectangular window such that in one case there's an integer number of periods inside the window, and in the other cases there isn't:


enter image description here


In both cases we get spectral leakage due to the windowing process. However, in the first case, the samples of the DTFT computed by the DFT are all at the zeros of the DTFT (except for one sample at the sinusoid's frequency). This is not the case for the second signal. That means that in the first case the DFT doesn't "see" the spectral leakage due to the sampling process, but in the other case the spectral leakage is also visible in the DFT.



These two cases are shown in the figure below. The DTFT is shown in blue, and the corresponding DFT is in red:


enter image description here


physical chemistry - Why does radiocarbon dating only work in nonliving creatures?




I understand how carbon dating works, though I do not understand why it doesn't happen while a creature is living. Because while we are alive we still have carbon 14 in us, so shouldn't it work?




Friday 30 December 2016

literalism - Is the story of Gan Eden Literally true?


Could it be that the story of Gan Eden, Adam, Hava and the Snake is an allegory meant to teach us lessons but not a recording of an actual event?




biochemistry - What does pO2 of blood mean and why do we use it?


I understand the basic Dalton's law of partial pressures in gases. Also, Henry's law of diffusion, says, the concentration of gas dissolved in a fluid is proportional to the partial pressure above it.


So if we say that the $p(\ce{O2})$ of oxygenated blood is $\pu{100 mmHg}$, where is the free gas existing in equilibrium with dissolved gas? Does it mean that the blood has a concentration of oxygen equal to that when placed in a surrounding of $p(\ce{O2}) = \pu{100 mmHg}$? If yes, why don't we directly report in concentrations instead? Is it easier to measure?


Wikipedia also says that the Henry's law doesn't stand if the gas is reacting. But isn't oxygen reacting with the Haemoglobin?



Answer



There is a good explanation in Relating oxygen partial pressure, saturation and content: the haemoglobin–oxygen dissociation curve Breathe 2015; 11: 194–201




The partial pressure of oxygen (also known as the oxygen tension) is a concept which often causes confusion. In a mixture of gases, the total pressure is the sum of the contributions of each constituent, with the partial pressure of each individual gas representing the pressure which that gas would exert if it alone occupied the volume. In a liquid (such as blood), the partial pressure of a gas is equivalent to the partial pressure which would prevail in a gas phase in equilibrium with the liquid at the same temperature. With a mixture of gases in either the gas or liquid phase, the rate of diffusion of an individual gas is determined by the relevant gradient of its partial pressure, rather than by its concentration. While in a gas mixture, the partial pressure and concentration of each gas are directly proportional, with oxygen in blood the relationship is more complex because of its chemical combination with haemoglobin. This allows blood to carry an enormously greater concentration (content) of oxygen than, for example, water (or blood plasma). Measurement of $p_\ce{O_2}$, therefore, does not give direct information about the amount of oxygen carried by blood.



So blood $p_\ce{O_2}$ does not correspond to a particular concentration of oxygen, because the concentration of haemoglobin can vary, and most of the oxygen is bound to the heme iron.


$P_\ce{O_2}$ is the partial pressure of oxygen in a hypothetical gas phase which would make the blood oxygen and gas phase oxygen be in equilibrium.


jlpt - Difference between とあれば、にあって、とあって


Can someone please explain the difference between



  • とあれば

  • にあって

  • とあって


I've read the explanation from my 新完全マスター book but I'm afraid I don't fully understand the difference in nuance between these grammatical patterns.


Thanks




Answer




「~~あれば」= "if it is for ~~". Think of it as an emphatic form of 「なら」.



「よし[子]{こ}のためとあれば、[死]{し}んでもかまわない。」 = "I would not mind dying it it were for Yoshiko."


You can insert 「もし」 at the beginning of the sentence if you want to.


Occasionally, you will encounter the literary form 「~~とあば」. The form "--aba", instead of "--eba" is heavily used in set phrases such as 「急{いそ}がば回{まわ}れ」 ("Slow and steady wins the race.").



「~~あって」= "during ~~", "in the condition of ~~" Think of it as an emphatic form of 「に」.




「この[非常時]{ひじょうじ}にあっても、キミ子は[冷静]{れいせい}だった。」= "Even during this emergency, Kimiko was calm."



「~~あって」= "because of ~~", "due to the fact that ~~", etc. It expresses the specialness of the occasion.



「5[年]{ねん}に[一度]{いちど}のお[祭]{まつ}りとあって、[誰]{だれ}もが[興奮]{こうふん}していた。」 = "Because it was a once-in-every-five-years festival, everyone was excited."


army military war - Why G-d didn't reveal the Israelis a recipe for gunpowder?


I think that would change the balance of power dramatically and ensure fast and effortless conquer of the Promised Land.



For those (interpreters and those of you) who hold that the conquest had to be "natural", by the power of force - battles, and wars, why didn't G-d reveal the secret recipe for gunpowder?


I think in the eyes of the nations that would surely raise the Israelites in the rank of G-d's people.




halacha - Is one allowed to brush teeth on yom kippur with toothpaste without any water?



Is one allowed to brush teeth on Yom Kippur with toothpaste on a toothbrush without rinsing toothbrush before and without rinsing mouth after? What if its prescription which I would think probably makes it more dangerous to swallow? (Also would there be a difference between flavors sweet vs mint?)


On kashrut.org which is based on Rabbi Abadi it's allowed but everywhere else they say it's not/not recommended. Does anyone know of any Ashkenazic sources/poskim that allow it?




grammar - What's the meaning of "という" at the end of a sentence?


I'm reading about this grammar in my book but I don't get it. According to the book it means - そうだ and - らしい. Here is an example:


UPDATE: Full Sentence:



従来、病院といえば白い壁が基調の空間であった。 しかし、白くて冷たい壁を見ていると 人はゆううつな感じになり、不安を覚えるという。 この環境では、患者は快復への意志を高めることはできない。




It says that it is used at the end of a written sentence.



Answer



という just means what it always means. と is the quoting particle and いう means "to say". In your example sentence, maybe "It is said that..." would be a fitting translation, i.e.



従来、病院といえば白い壁が基調の空間であった。
Up to now, a hospital was thought of a space with white walls.


しかし、白くて冷たい壁を見ていると人はゆううつな感じになり、不安を覚えるという。
But by looking at a white, cold wall, it is said that people start getting depressed and feeling uneasy.


この環境では、患者は快復への意志を高めることはできない。

In this environment the patient can't increase his desire for recovery.



"It is said that" is quite close to the nuance of らしい or そうだ, like your textbook points out.


ionic compounds - What is the meaning of "superionic"?


I see the term "superionic" applied to high pressure water in articles like Giant planets may host superionic water, but I don't understand what the term really means.


How is "superionic" distinguished from simply "ionic"?



Why does the article refer to hydrogen "atoms", which would imply that they are neutral, as opposed to protons or hydronium or some other actual ion?




experimental chemistry - How do I control the negative temperature in an experiment?



If one were to adjust the positive temperature in an experiment, they would use a heating plate, or a stovetop.


How would one adjust negative temperatures in an experiment? (Not keeping the temperature constant, but decreasing and increasing the temperature at my will in specific amounts).


What I tried so far: "Spraying" liquid nitrogen at my work surface until it cools to the desired temperature. It is really inaccurate though.



Answer



Peltier element


Here's another idea: it's quite practical to pump heat just by passing electrical current through a device, which is usually just a plate with two wires:


Peltier element


I just love these things.


What's especially cool about them is that by simply reversing the current you reverse the heat flow! This just begs for a trivial control loop via thermocouple feedback.


A quick google query reveals commercial offers of heat baths built on this promising whopping 0.01 °C precision of regulation!



The elements are easily available in electronics shops, so with a good power supply it wouldn't be too hard to build your own low-cost precision heat bath.


Hope that helps!


Raman Spectra of Toluene


enter image description here


This is the raman spectra of Toluene I obtained while working at my lab using a raman spectrometer with laser of 532 nm wavelength. Well, I am a physics student, but I want to know how information about vibrational modes and functional groups are inferred from the raman spectra, let's say from this spectra of Toluene. It would be of great help, since I am very curious about this spectroscopy method. I know physics part of raman spectroscopy, but really struggling with its application part.



Answer




Chemists have tables and tables and tables that correlate functional groups to numbers.


For example: http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/hanson/Spectroscopy/IR/IRfrequencies.html


If we see a number on the graph, a certain type of functional group may be present. The sharp one at 3056 tells me aromatic hydrogen. The 2919 is the benzylic hyrodgens. Since I'm a synthesis guy, knowing the exact types of vibrations occurring there was never important to me.


Be warned, chasing every peak is normally quite frustrating. Vastly more important is normally the overall look for comparison with a known compound, which is sort of a molecular finger print.


grammar - だけ + two questions



A Does だけ replaces any particles or do I have to combine every particle with だけ? e.g. だけを、だけが、だけに ...


B How does the meaning of a sentence change when I put dake behind a noun or before a verb?




  1. だけ in combination with a verb: 私は日本の本をだけ読む。




  2. だけ in combination with a noun: 私は日本の本だけを読む。





Both sentences have the same meaning, right? And only the word order changed? Can I always choose whether to put だけ behind the noun or in front of the verb?




halacha - Agnostic Jew serving as the tenth for a minyan


I remember reading a responsum on the issue of agnostic Jew's serving as the tenth for a minyan, but do not remember the outcome. Does anyone know the rule?


Also, do we count, as the tenth man, a tinok shenishbah and one who does not understand the prayers at all?





  • If it is permitted, would it be different for a lower level of chiyuve (obligation) for a minyan such as Maariv?




  • If it is forbidden, would it be different for a higher level of chiyuve for a minyan such as Zimun, or someone who has a chiyuve for kaddish.





Answer



Sam gave this source in a comment last year, but no-one ever came to post an answer, so i'll do that now...


In Igrot Moshe OC 1:23, he paskens that בשעת הדחק - in an emergency, someone who is publicly Mechallel Shabbat can be counted for a minyan, to say Barchu, Kadish, and Kedusha. However, for Torah reading, it is more important to have 10 religious Jews.


halacha - Tzedakah Commission


Is someone who is collecting Tzedakah (charity) allowed to take a commission for his/herself? And if so:



  • Is there a source for the permissibility of such commissions?

  • Is there a maximum percentage allowed?




Answer



There's an oral tradition from R' Yaakov Kaminetsky that a tzedaka can have up to 49.9% of its costs as overhead, and still count as tzedaka vis-a-vis your tithing money.


Based on that, I've heard that some charity collectors do in fact take a commission (it sounds like that's just the reality, I don't know if anyone's ever asked about its propriety or disclosure requirements), and as long as the majority of the funds wind up in the right place, it's still considered charity.


Of course, you have every right to ask where your money is going, and if you'd rather contribute to something lower-overhead, that's your prerogative.


There's some evidence from the Cairo Geniza that in the times of the Rambam, a large chunk of the "holy fund" charity was going to "scholars and officials", and less than 50% was going to actual poor people. It's suggested that this influenced Rambam's view, which yells and screams at such a practice.


Thursday 29 December 2016

shabbat - Drinking Water During "Shalosh Seudos"


Someone told me that one is not allowed to drink plain water during the third meal of Shabbos (Seudah Shelishit). (or at least that there is a minhag not to).


Is this true? And if so, what is the source of the minhag?




Answer



There is such a minhag, but the language of the Rema in 291:2 is:



Some say that it is forbidden to drink water between mincha and maariv on shabbos because that is when the souls return to purgatory (reasoning needed?). Therefore, one should not eat seudah shlishis between mincha and maariv, rather he should eat it before mincha.


Yet some say it is better to daven mincha first, and such is the custom in all of these provinces. But one should not drink water from the rivers (reasoning needed?), but in the house it is permitted, and certainly other drinks are permitted.


Some say that it is only forbidden within the 12 months [following the death] of one's father or mother.


And some say that the restriction of drinking water is only on erev shabbos (reasoning needed?)



We see two things from the Rema:




  • The concern is not during "shalosh seudos", but between mincha and maariv time

  • The Rema is all for having water during shalosh seudos even during this time. The issue he contends with is the trade off between eating the meal + drinking water during this time and eating a meal + drinking the water before davening.


The Aruch haShulchan reads the Rema as 2 opinions: Eat before mincha and eat after mincha. The rest of the Rema is supporting opinions for eating/drinking after mincha- it's only from rivers, it's only water, some say it's only for an avel, some say it's only on Friday eve.


purification - Removal of calcium from calcium-ammonium nitrate?


I am interested in model rocketry, and need to produce small quantities of pottasium nitrate. For this process I need ammonium nitrate, but I only have calcium ammonium nitrate. Is there a simple process for removing the calcium?




halacha - How come Sepharadim say "Boreh peri haGEFen" but "Shelo Asani AVed"


I think Hacham Ovadia has a footnote in Hazon Ovadia on Pesach (and probably elsewhere) in which he discusses why we don't use the pausal form of gafen instead of gefen. He writes (if i remember correctly) that "amen" is really the end of the statement and not gefen. Shouldn't the same apply to the beracha in Bircot HashShachar where we say "shelo asani aved"? Shouldn't it be "eved"? All the siddurim I've seen have "aved". If you hear someone say each beracha are you not supposed to amen? plus, neither is really DEPENDENT on other people more than the other one?



Answer



Your answer is in your question. "Shelo Asani Aved" does not really have "amen" included as part of the bracha. The bracha is meant to be said to yourself, and you are not supposed to be saying it for others. (which would assume an "amen" as part of the bracha)


To lay this out more clearly.


For wine said over kiddush, the custom is for the leader to say the bracha, and for everyone else to have fulfilled the obligation of the bracha by them saying "Amen". The "Amen" is therefore intended to be part of the bracha.


For the morning blessings, originally, each person would say the brachot to themselves as they got ready during the morning. Depending on the shul you go to, you might have a person saying all the brachot and people responding Amen, or the congregation may not say the brachot communually at all. Thefore, "amen" can not be part of the bracha, as it may or may not be responded to, even when other people are around to hear it.


halacha - Saying Brachos near a bathroom



We know that saying brachos in a bathroom is Assur. Would the same halacha apply regarding saying them near a bathroom with the door open ?


this doesn't seem to answer the question ?!




halacha - Why is Rosh Chodesh sometimes TWO days?


Why for certain months of the year do we celebrate the festival of Rosh Chodesh for two days while on other Roshei Chadashim we have one day of Rosh Chodesh?




Why is Gaussian noise called so?



Can you please explain: why is a specific type of noise called "Gaussian noise"? Why is it relevant to call it Gaussian? Please, explain in layman's terms.




organic chemistry - reaction of diketone with ammonium carbonate at 100-115 degree celsius



Please explain what reaction is this and what are the products of reagent $\ce{(NH4)2CO3}$ at 100-115 C with ketone.




history - XX century Aliyah, State of Israel, and righteousness of the Jews


(please excuse if the title does not capture the question. Feel free to edit)


On the one hand, during the first half of the XX century, a significant number of Jews returned to the land of Israel (something it seems to be called Aliyah). Then, immediately after the WWII, the State of Israel is created.



On the other hand, it is a constant theme throughout the Tanach that the Jews prosper in the land of Israel when they adore G-d and remain loyal to the covenant/law, and are dispersed from the land when they adore other gods and do not remain loyal to the covenant/law.


Given the latter, can the former be understood in terms of some significant "repentance" and turn to righteousness by the Jews in terms of loyalty to G-d and his covenant/law?




grammar - I am struggling with the sometimes conflicting uses of 先


Rikaisama's definition of 先 includes meanings like previous; prior; former; some time ago. However it also includes meanings such as front; ahead; the future; destination. I am struggling to make sense of when to apply each meaning since it seems to me that they are pretty much the two sides of the same coin in one word. There's also 先に which can mean before; earlier than / ahead; beyond, among others.


I've noticed that if the meaning has to do with the past, the subsequent verb is in the past tense. This is a good starting point, but it doesn't always help me. Am I forced to learn each usage of 先 individually or is there some "rule" to the word that would help me identify it's meanings in different contexts?


Thank you in advance.




words - What does the とは mean in this phrase?


I'm pretty new to Japanese and I have a question.


So I know this is supposed to be something like "he differs from his former self" but I can't really make sense of what とは is supposed to mean in this particular situation:



彼は昔の彼とは違う




Answer



This is just a case of acting as emphasis. The is used with 違う to say that something is different than something else



AはBと違う → A is different than/from B




Adding the is placing the focus on the relationship ( and 昔の彼), not the analysis of the relationship (違う).




  • 彼は昔の彼と違う → He is different than his former self (neutral statement)

  • 彼は昔の彼とは違う → As for him and his former self, they differ



Fundamentally, they mean the same thing. The difference is the focus. Don't know if I'm explaining that well. Take a look at this related question. It does a good job explaining in-depth how adding to another particle affects the meaning.


What is the difference between “に” and “には”?



Wednesday 28 December 2016

halacha - What sin(s) would be involved if a married man slept with another woman?


If a married Jewish man had an extramarital relationship with a woman who was not in the category of arayos or issurei biah, what, if any, sins would he have committed, and to what, if any, punishment would he be theoretically subject?


Which of these would also apply if he were unmarried?


If it matters, let's say he is an Ashkenazi.


Related: Punishment for Polygamy


Does Judaism permit sexual relationships outside of marriage?




grammar - Meaning of 過去形の動詞 +「[上]{うえ}で」


Lately, I've been wondering about the meaning of a past tense verb connected to 上で, like in the 3 examples below:



両親とよく相談した上で、留学することにした。


家を買う場合は、十分調べた上で、決めた方がいい。


よく考えた上で、返事をするつもりだ。




What's the meaning of 過去形の動詞+上で ?



Answer



It means "after doing 〜". Almost like 〜てから.




  • 両親とよく相談した上で、留学することにした。 → After discussing it with my parents, I decided that I'll study abroad.

  • 家を買う場合は、十分調べた上で、決めた方がいい。 → When you buy a house, you should choose (it) after doing sufficient research.

  • よく考えた上で、返事をするつもりだ。 → I intend to reply after careful consideration.





There is some other nuance I believe, but I'll have to look it up later. The nuance to it is that the second action is performed based on the result of the first action (as @TokyoNagoya mentioned). With 〜てから, no such relationship is required, meaning that it simply indicates temporal order. For example



○ 昼食を食べてから銀行に行く → "I'll go to the bank after I eat lunch" → Going to the bank doesn't depend on me eating lunch; simply states the order of what I'm doing.
?/× 昼食を食べた上で銀行に行く → It introduces a dependency for going to the bank on eating lunch. Almost like "As a result of eating lunch, I'll go to the bank." Doesn't make much sense.



thermodynamics - Safe endothermic reaction that gets below freezing?


I have a project/idea I am working on but I am only 14 years old and I need some help.


I'm looking for an endothermic reaction that gets below freezing, but the chemicals before the reaction and after the reaction is over are safe to touch and safe for the environment. The reaction can be harmful to plant life, but only for a short time before it decays or whatever needs to happen for it to be safe. I do not want it to have long term effects.


Additionally, two important parts are that these substances need to be easy to obtain and need to not to be a fertilizer.




wedding - How is "Jerusalem" pronounced when reading a Ketubah?


"Jerusalem" is spelled the same way in Hebrew and Aramaic (if you ignore the vowels); but in Hebrew it's pronounced "Yerushalayim", and in Aramaic it's pronounced "Yerushleim" (as it appears in the Akdamut.)


The text of the Ketubah is primarily Aramaic; so when reading a Ketubah in Jerusalem, do you pronounce the city's name the Hebrew way (as we're used to) or the Aramaic way? And why?



Answer



I asked Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz; he said as everyone calls it Yerushalayim, that's how it's pronounced (the Hebrew way).


materials - If you put two blocks of an element together, why don't they bond?


Say you have two lumps or blocks of an element, like lithium for example, say in the form of two bars.


Why, when you bring the two bars together so that they touch each other, do they not instantly bond with each other forming one larger bar or block? We can weld elements together so they 'stick' to each other, but what is the process that actually causes two like elements to bond together? Why do we need to 'weld' two bars together - why don't they just bond on their own?




halacha - What beracha does one recite upon meeting the US President?


Resulting from this Mi Yodeya question, the references in the question indicate that one does not recite "she-natan michvodo le-vasar ve-dam" upon meeting a non-Jewish head of state of a limited government, such as the President of the USA.


What beracha should be recited in this situation?


It seems to me that the same reasoning and answer would apply to the head of state of any limited government.



Answer




The prevailing practice is to say the bracha but without the name of God. So skip the parentheses of



baruch (ata Hashem elokeinu melech haOlam) she-natan michvodo le-vasar ve-dam



The Artscroll siddur says we don't do the full blessing (with the name of God) because he's democratically-elected, term-limited, and the like; the Tzitz Eliezer holds similarly.


Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef and the Piksei Teshuvot feel that the president is powerful enough to warrant the bracha; however, Nivchar MiKesef OC3 holds that no matter how powerful, if the ruler is going out as a commoner, you can't say the bracha as where's the royal pomp and circumstance? Therefore if the President is visiting a foreign country, "just wearing a suit like any commoner", with a non-showy security detail, Rabbi Yosef advises playing it safe and saying it without the name of God.


However, that same responsum of the Nivchar MiKesef that requires some pomp and circumstance also implies that seeing the royal residence meets that condition. So if you extended Rabbi Yosef's line of reasoning, you would probably conclude that meeting the President at the White House would get the full bracha with the name of God.


Practically, though, between the questions of both pomp and power, it seems the common practice is to say it without the name of God.


parshanut torah comment - What was the composition of Yaakov's two camps?


In Parshat Vayishlach Yaakov divides his group into two camps so that if one is attacked the other might escape. How did he divide people between them? Did Leah go in one and Rachel in the other, for example? How were his children divided? Were they equal camps, or was the idea that he could position a battle-ready camp to protect a camp containing all the weaker people?


Later when he meets Esav an order is given, but that seems to be one ordered procession, not two separate groups.



Answer



The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l states (Likkutei Sichos, vol. 15, p. 269), based on his analysis of the relevant verses, that the one camp contained Yaakov's livestock and the people responsible for taking care of them, while the other contained his family.


The point of this, the Rebbe explains, was that Yaakov was preparing for his prayer, in which he would, so to speak, "remind" Hashem of His promises of safety for him and his descendants. But Hashem had never guaranteed that Yaakov's wealth would be preserved! So he first separated his family from his goods, saying, "If the one camp [containing my possessions] will be destroyed, then the other camp [with my wives and children] will definitely be saved (והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה) - because, Hashem, You have promised that You will be with me..."



halacha - Is there a concern regarding the kashrut of microorganisms?


Since I have seen many religious people drink fresh spring water, I assume that there is no concern regarding the kashrut of microorganisms in the water such as hydra and paramecia, among other similar creatures.


Similarly, certain products such as probiotics, commonly present in yogurt, contain bacteria. Some oral vaccines (It's been a while since I got the Sabin vaccine - I assume they still use it) contain viri. I assume that here, too, there is no concern regarding kashrut.



Why was there no concern considering that these are living "species"? Are they in its own non-animal category? Does the Talmud or other source discuss these? If so, where?



Answer



This issue is the one behind the famous New York City non-Kosher water scandal. Basically, the issue is that there are tiny crustaceans in NYC tap water.


The Star-K gives a nice overview of the issue. In short, everybody agrees that if a micro-organism is too small to be seen without magnification, it does not cause any kashrut issue. On the other-hand, if you can see a small crustacean floating in your water, it is obviously not kosher.


The issue under debate in the New York case is over crustaceans that are large enough to be seen, but so small that they just appear to be white specks in the water. You wouldn't be able to tell what they are without magnification. In that case, there is a machloket over whether this causes a kashrut issue. As a result, at least the Star-K and the OU require tap water in New York City to be filtered.


halacha - Washing Hands post Funeral


What is the proper way to wash after a Funeral or a visit to the Cemetery?



Answer



The Shulchan Aruch O.C. 4:18 brings a mixed list of things that require "washing". Some require water for Ruach Raa, others for cleanliness preceding davening, etc. The S.A. there brings an opinion to wash after walking among the dead (a cemetery).


The Mishna Berura there (39) says that the only area that absolutely requires 3x/hand is when one wakes up, but that some are strict by cemeteries (and tashmish and perhaps bathrooms).


I don't know of any source that requires a cup except by morning tefila and bread.


So while everyone is waiting for the single cup, I walk to the faucet and alternate my hands 3x each under the water.


navi prophets - Did Rashi have nevuah?


I've heard that nevuah ended about 2000 years ago when the last neviim died. But I've also heard that Rashi had some kind of nevuah. If he didn't, then how could Rashi know so much hidden knowledge about the Torah without nevuah? Did nevuah actually end?



Answer



Unfortunately, indeed we do not have prophets today, and Chazal say that the last prophets were Hagai, Zecharia and Malachi.


Rashi's momentous perush on most of the Bible and most of the gemara speak for themselves, however here are a few quotes (loose translations by me, except for the last Rashi) about his special work (this list can go on forever):


The Shla:




כי בכל דיבור ודיבור של רש"י יש בו נסתרים, עניינים מופלאים, כי חיבר החיבור שלו ברוח הקודש.‏

Because each and every word by Rashi contains hidden and wonderful things, as he composed his perush with Ruach HaKodesh.



The Chida:



ומכלל הדברים נראה שרש"י כתב פרושו ע"פ הסוד ויש בדבריו רזין עילאין ולכן התענה תרי"ג תעניות ומשה רבנו עליו השלום אמר לו אשריך וכו'.‏

And it seems that Rashi wrote his commentary based on the Torah Secrets (sod), and it contains heavenly secrets (razin ilain), and therefore he fasted 613 fasts, and Moshe Rabbenu said to him 'well done' (ashrecha).



Or HaChayim (BeMidbar 26, 16):



ורש"י ז"ל רוח הקודש הופיע בו...‏




Rabbi Nachman of Breslev:



שרש"י זכרונו לברכה הוא כמו אחיה של התורה הקדושה...‏

That Rashi z"l is like the brother of the holy Torah.



Rabbi Menachem ben Zerach, Tzeda LaDerech:



ושרתה רה"ק על רבינו שלמה וגברה ידו בגמ' וחבר פירושים על הבבלי בלשון צח וקצר אשר לפניו לא קם כמוהו ואלמלא הוא נשתכחה דרך הבבלי מישראל.‏

And Ruach HaKodesh lay on Rabbenu Shelomo and his hand was strong in the gemara, and he composed commentaries on the Bavli in a short and clear tongue, and there was no one like him before, and without him the Bavli would have been forgotten from the people of Israel.



And we can conclude with Rashi on himself:




ואני לא היה לי לא רב ולא עוזר בכל הבנין הזה אלא כמו שהראוני מן השמים

And I had no teacher or aid concerning this entire edifice; only as they showed me from heaven.



history - What Egyptian/Greek text was Ibn Ezra consulting for his commentary on the name "Moshe"?


Ibn Ezra suggests that Pharaoh's daughter, who spoke Egyptian, most likely called the baby Monios, the Egyptian word for drawn; the Torah translated into Hebrew as "Moshe." He then writes that he knows this Egyptian word because of some agricultural text containing several languages, including Egyptian.


As the Rosetta Stone wouldn't be rediscovered for another 700 years ... what text was Ibn Ezra using?




Answer



The ibn Ezra is almost certainly referring to the Nabatean Agriculture, a work that was widely cited by many rishonim (medieval authorities), most notably the Rambam. (Ibn Ezra appears to have erroneously believed that the work was originally written in Egyptian.)


grammar - "Te-form" versus "masu-stem + して" (消しているうちに versus 消ししているうちに)



Is there any difference between 消して and 消しして in the following sentences?


For example,



A: 手紙を書いては消し、書いては消ししているうちに、朝になってしまった。


B: 手紙を書いては消し、書いては消しているうちに、朝になってしまった。




Answer



A (te-form) + は + B (masu-form) is a common pattern that describes someone repeatedly/habitually does B right after A as a paired action. See: 〜しては is this a grammar pattern? This set is often repeated for emphasis: A ては B、A ては B.



  • 幼い頃、よく泣いては母親を困らせていた。

    When I was young I always cried and annoyed my mother.


Interestingly, AてはB as a whole sometimes behaves like a long noun phrase, like so:



  • 食【く】っては寝【ね】生活をする live idly (do nothing but eating and sleeping)

  • 食っちゃ寝、食っちゃ寝生活をする (emphasized)

  • 作っては壊し連続で、まったく完成しない。

  • 家に帰っては呼び出され、休む暇がない。
    Because I am called right after returning home many times, I have no time to rest.

  • 映画を見てはブログに感想を書き、3年続けました。



And it can even take another する as if AてはB were a long suru-verb!



  • 冬休みの間は、食っちゃ寝、食っちゃ寝していました。

  • 稼いでは使い、稼いでは使いしていたら、お金は貯まらないよ。


Of course you cannot usually say 寝する nor 使いする.


I feel AてはB tends to be treated like a noun especially when two verbs are short and commonly paired; e.g., 食っては寝, 書いては消し, 打っては走り, 作っては壊し, ちぎっては投げ.


Tuesday 27 December 2016

history - Author of Nishmat kol chai


Who is the author of the prayer "Nishmat kol chai" which is said on Shabbat, Yom Tov, and during the great Hallel at the Seder?



Answer



For an In depth discussion of this and many other such topics Listen to this Lecture http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/726352/Dr.%20Shnayer%20Leiman/Jewish%20Perspectives%20on%20Early%20Christianity:%20Toldot%20Yeshu


The lecture is an attempt to show that Toldot Yeshu is a much older text than it's first appearance in the 1700s. It explains there that when the Rashi says that the "Romani" have no language, have no alphabet, and other people write their books, he is referring to the idea that R. Shimon set up Latin as the Christian language, created the Christian Bible and otherwise created Christianity to make sure that Jews would not be drawn to it.


The Toldot Yeshu also claims that Nishmat Kol Chai was written by R. Shimon as well. (R. Shimon being Peter)


The Lecturer makes an empahtic point that this is just one Jewish tradition, but that there are others that disagree with it. His main focus was that the tradition is an old one.



halacha - Is downloading pirated music stealing?


Either way, it should be frowned upon as not a nice thing to do, but would it actually be assur?




halacha - Punishment for Polygamy


This question does a great job of explaining the concept of polygamy in Jewish law and normative practice, past and present.


My question is:


What if a married (let's say Ashkenazi) Jewish man, married a (heretofore) single Jewish woman?


What punishment(s) does he incur?




minhag - Birkat Kohanim in Mussaf on Simchas Torah?


MB 669 seif koton 17 says in the name of the Levush that the custom is that the Kohanim do not bless the people at Mussaf on Simchas Torah because there is a likelihood that the kohanim may be intoxicated. MB quotes the custom in Prague based on the Elyoh Raboh that the Kohanim do bless the people on Simchas Torah.


The likelihood of intoxication is present, I suggest, in Eretz Yisroel on Shmini Atzeres. The custom in Israel is that the Kohanim do bless the people at Mussaf on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah as long as they have not drunk a shiur of intoxicating beverage. Is the custom in Israel an extension of the Elyoh Raboh’s position or are there other sources?



Answer



I'm not sure the Elya Rabba really has a 'position'. He writes (669:20):



פה פראג נוהגים לעלות במוסף, רק בבית הכנסת פנחס נוהגים בשחרית כמ"ש המנהגים [הל' שמיני עצרת]:‏
Here in Prague the custom is to go up at Musaf, except in the Pinchas Synagogue they only go up at Shacharit.



He is just observing the custom in the different synagogues in his town. As the whole discussion is just based on the custom, what's relevant for Israel is Israel's custom. R Yechiel Michal Tuccinsky codified many of the customs in the Land of Israel in his Sefer Eretz Yisrael. He writes (2:5) that the custom in Israel is to warn the Kohanim not to drink alcohol in the morning on Simchat Torah, and that those who listen, may perform Birkat Kohanim. And that is what they do.



halacha - Stepping Back Before Amidah


Why do people step back three steps before the Amidah (as mentioned here in Mishnah Berurah, S'if Katan Gimmel) if the Gemarah only mentions stepping three steps forward? Is there a kabbalistic source or is it just practical and not really a requirement (as the Mishnah Berurah quotes from E.R.)?



Answer



Sefer Ben Ish Hai Year 1 Parashat B'Shallah Ot 3(Quoting from the translation by R' Shmuel Hiley under the auspices of R' Yaakov Hillel and published by Yeshivat Ahavat Shalom 5765):




There is a reason for taking three steps backwards in the Qabbalah, but the simple explanation for the custom is in order to recall the three miles which the Israelites retreated from Mount Sinai, (from fear, upon hearing G-d's voice), before they returned and were given the Torah.



So on account of popular demand, the Kabbalistic sources(though notably most simply discuss that actual Kavvanot). I am starting with the Shemen Sasson on the Siddur HaRaShaSh mostly because he lists all of the other sources in Kitvei HaAri, and books up to his point in time(there are only the Ben Ish Hai's works and the Simchat Kohen that discuss it after him). Another primary source is Sha'ar HaKavvanot starting toward the end of 28b. Then there is the way it all plays out in the Siddur HaRaShaSh(Rav Yedidiya Raphael Abulafia wrote this one but that is another story), and continued on the page after.


In short essentially our three steps back is symbolic(for lack of a better word) of drawing down various spiritual energies so that we can lift up(with our three steps forward) other spiritual energies from the lower worlds. It actually coincides nicely with the piece from Pri Eitz Haim I quoted in the earlier answer.


If all of this is very confusing(if its not you are an absolute genius) don't worry. It is precisely the study of this in all of its intricacies that keep Kabbalists so busy. Rav Kaduri used to say that it takes a person, at minimum, 15 years of study and practice through use of the Siddur before they truly understand it.


organic chemistry - How do I name a molecule with a compound substituent?


I added a branch to the example shown in the textbook. What do you do when your longest carbon chain has a $\ce{CH2Cl}$ attached to a certain carbon?


Previously the book treated it as a methyl group and a halogen but my modification changes the length of the longest carbon chain so how do I name this molecule?


enter image description here


I think it is named 5-chloromethylheptan-3-ol.



Answer




The given compound includes the characteristic group $\ce{-OH}$, which is expressed as suffix ‘ol’. Since there is only one suffix, the order of seniority of suffixes is not relevant in this case. Functional suffixes are always attached to the name of the parent structure. Note that alcohols are named by attaching the suffix ‘ol’ to the name of the parent structure, with elision of the final letter ‘e’ in the parent structure, if present.


When there is a choice among acyclic parent structures, a principal chain must be chosen. The current version of Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry – IUPAC Recommendations and Preferred Names 2013 (Blue Book) stipulates various criteria for the selection of the principal chain. The first relevant criterion in this case provides that the principal chain has the greater number of skeletal atoms; i.e., the principal chain is the longest chain. The longest chain in the given structure has seven skeletal atoms; i.e., it is a ‘heptane’.


In addition to the characteristic group $\ce{-OH}$, the parent structure has another substituent ($\ce{-CH2-Cl}$), which is expressed as the substitutive prefix ‘chloromethyl’. Note that parentheses are used around such compound prefixes.


Finally, the current IUPAC recommendations stipulate various criteria for the assignment of locants when several structural features appear in a compound. In particular, the order of seniority provides that low locants are given first to the principal characteristic group (here: ol) before low locants are given to prefixes (here: chloromethyl).


Therefore, the resulting name is 5-(chloromethyl)heptan-3-ol.


5-(chloromethyl)heptan-3-ol


inorganic chemistry - Hydrolysis products of chlorides of group 15


$\ce{NCl3}$ on hydrolysis produces $\ce{NH4OH}$ and $\ce{HOCl}$.



$\ce{PCl_3}$ when hydrolyzed produces $\ce{P(OH)3}$ i.e. $\ce{H3PO3}$.


$\ce{AsCl_3}$ when hydrolyzed produces $\ce{As(OH)3}$.


However when $\ce{SbCl3}$ or $\ce{BiCl3}$ are hydrolyzed they produce $\ce{SbOCl}$ and $\ce{BiOCl}$ respectively.


Why are the products so widely varying ? How can we explain the reactions theoretically ?



Answer




  1. Nitrogen trichloride


Nitrogen trichloride is quite unstable and hydrolyse easily:


$$\ce{NCl3 + 3 H2O → NH3 + 3 HOCl~~~~~~~~(1)}$$



$$\ce{NH3 + H2O -> NH4OH~~~~~~~(2)}$$


$$\ce{NCl3 + 4H2O -> NH4OH + HOCl~~~~~~~(1) +(2)}$$



  1. Phosphorus trichloride


$$\ce{PCl3 + 3H2O → H3PO3 + 3HCl}$$



  1. Arsenic trichloride


$$\ce{AsCl3 + 3 H2O → As(OH)3 + 3 HCl~~~~~~~~(1)}$$



This is the first and main reaction of hydrolysis of arsenic chloride to form arsenous acid. But other species (arsenite ions) like $\ce{[AsO(OH)2]−}$ and $\ce{[AsO2(OH)]^2−}$ also exist in solution and are the conjugated bases.


$$\ce{AsCl3 + 4H2O ⇄ H[As(OH)4] + 3HCl~~~~~~~(2)}$$


$$\ce{AsCl3 + 2H2O ⇄ HAsO2 + 3HCl~~~~~~~~~(3)}$$


And at last aresnic trichloride fully hydrolyse to form arsenic(III) oxide


$$\ce{2AsCl3 + 3H2O → As2O3 + 6HCl~~~~~~~~~~(4)}$$



  1. Antimony trichloride


$$\ce{SbCl3 + H2O → SbOCl + 2HCl~~~~~~~~(1)}$$


With more water it forms $\ce{Sb4O5Cl2}$ which on heating to 460° forms $\ce{Sb8O11Cl2}$.



$$\ce{SbCl3 + H2O ⇄ Sb(OH)Cl2 + HCl~~~~~~~(2)}$$


$$\ce{4SbCl3 + 5H2O ->[50 C] Sb4O5Cl2 + 10HCl~~~~~~~(3)}$$


Final reaction to form antimony trioxide.


$$\ce{2SbCl3 + 3H2O ->[\Delta] Sb2O3 + 6HCl~~~~~~~~~~(4)}$$


Note that speculation on the composition of antimony oxychloride has been raised. Some say it is a mixture of antimony trioxide and antimony trichloride.



  1. Bismuth tricloride


$$\ce{BiCl3 + H2O -> BiOCl + 2HCl~~~~~~~~(1)}$$


Main reaction to form bismuth oxychloride. Further hydrolysis yield and intermediate monohydrate $\ce{BiCl3.H2O}$.



$$\ce{BiCl3 + H2O(vap) ->[50 C] BiCl3.H2O~~~~~~~~(2)}$$


$$\ce{$$BiCl3 + 2H2O → Bi(OH)2Cl + 2HCl~~~~~~~~~(3)}$$


Explaination


Now, you may been be wondering that hydrolysis of nitrogen and phosphorus yield one product but that of arsenic, antimony and bismuth yield 3 or 4 products. This is because of presence of vacant d or f orbitals where electrons can reside easily. For this reason, $\ce{Sb^3+, Bi^3+}$ solvate in aqueous solution to form antimonyl or bismuthyl ($\ce{SbO+, BiO+}$) and other species like $\ce{[Bi6O4(OH)4]^6+, [Bi6(OH)12]^6+ , [Bi(H2O)9]^3+}$ and similar antimony ions. Other factors also play role like relativistic effects, lanthanoid contraction, inert pair effect etc.


malchut royalty - Why did the people want a king?


Why did the people want a king? Why couldn't they just find another shofet ("judge"-ruler, as in the book of Judges)? Can't also shofets lead in battle (Joshua, et al.)?



Answer



The people wanted a king so that they could more closely resemble the other nations (Sh'muel I, 8:5,20; Radak ad loc.). This motivation made their desire for a king contemptible (Sanhedrin 20b; Sh'muel I, 8:7-8; cf. D'varim 17:14-15), despite the fact that, according to some opinions, there is a biblical obligation to appoint a king (see the dispute in Sanhedrin 20b; Rambam Hil. M'lachim 1:1 follows the view that it is an obligation).


The Ramban comments (D'varim 17:14) that although the verses in D'varim indicate a command to appoint a king, the verse merely predicts that the people would want to be like the other nations. Such a desire is not part of the command to appoint a king, nor is it praiseworthy.


The Talmud (ibid.) notes that the passage in Sh'muel I indicates competing motives in asking for a king; the elders properly requested a powerful authority figure to replace Sh'muel and judge the people after Sh'muel's own sons proved unworthy (8:5), while the masses (whom the Talmud calls "ignoramuses") erred in wanting a king to judge them and lead them in battle so that they would be more like the other nations (8:19-20).*


The general question of why a king might have been considered more suitable than a shofeit (loosely translated as "judge") for waging war is a good one. See the Abarbanel's introduction to Shoftim, where he enumerates five similarities (perhaps not all undisputed) between a king and a shofeit, including their leadership roles in battle and their command authority over all Jews. This question deserves an extensive treatment. Briefly, I think one approach is that judges did not always have the practical ability to unite all the tribes behind them in war. Two examples of this are Devorah (Shoftim 5:14-18) and Gid'on (ibid. 7:23). An annointed central figure would have undisputed authority among all Israel, and would thus be better suited to organizing the entire nation's efforts in battle.




*According to this approach, the phrasing of the elders "שִׂימָה לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ כְּכָל הַגּוֹיִם" may be taken as explanatory, while the phrasing of the masses "וְהָיִינוּ גַם אֲנַחְנוּ כְּכָל הַגּוֹיִם... וְנִלְחַם אֶת מִלְחֲמֹתֵנוּ" suggests a desire to imitate the other nations as well as a lack of faith in the Almighty's ability to lead them to military victory. Alternatively, as perhaps suggested by the negative response to the original request, the first request "שִׂימָה לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ כְּכָל הַגּוֹיִם" may have come from the people as well as from the elders, and the elders might not have been the ones who stated any comparison with other nations.


blessing - What should you do if you accidentally talk between Al Netilas Yadayim and Hamotzi?


Assuming one has the minhag not to speak between netilas yadayim and hamotzi...What should one do if one accidentally speaks during this time?


Should one wash again? With or without a blessing? --Or should one just go straight to HaMotzi?


If the third, is there any kind of (immediate) tikkun one can do?


...I'm wondering because it just happened to me.



Related: Hefsek between netilat yadayim and hamotzi



Answer



Even according to the custom of avoiding interrupting between washing and the blessing of HaMotzi, one need not wash again if one spoke or otherwise interrupted as long as the person remained mindful to keep their hands clean during the interim (Mishna B'rura 166:6, English translation):



דע דעיקר דין תכיפה המוזכר בסימן זה הוא רק מצוה לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד אפילו שהה הרבה או הפסיק בינתים אין צריך לחזור וליטול ידיו כל שלא הסיח דעתו בינתים משמירת ידיו



Translation:



Know that the essence of the law of immediacy that is mentioned in this section of the Shulchan Aruch is only for the ideal (l'chatchila) way to perform the mitzva. However, after the fact, even if he waited a lot or interrupted, he does not need to go back and wash his hands again so long as his attention did not lapse from guarding his hands in the meanwhile.




halacha - 7 Seas or The Great Ocean?


Seeing the ocean warrants the recital of a blessing. (Assume for this question like the opinions that the proper bracha is שעשה את הים הגדול as opposed to עושה מעשה בראשית.) It is only recited if one has not seen the ocean in 30 days. (Shulchan Aruch OC 224:13 and 228:1 and Mishna Berura there)


Do the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans count as separate for the purposes of the 30 day break between sightings necessary to warrant a new blessing?



Answer



Shu"t Bitzel Hahochma (R' Betzalel Stern) deals with a similar issue In Vol. 2 Siman 14. He discusses whether one should make a second beracha on the Mediterranean if he made one (within 30 days) on the ocean. He concludes that since they require the same beracha (according to him) and they are connected, a second beracha is not recited.



לפימש"כ לעיל (סי' י"ב אות ד' ה' י"ד) דהעיקר לברך בין על ראיית ים התיכון ובין על ראיית האוקינוס, שעשה את הים הגדול כדעת הכנה"ג ולהקת פוסקים העומדים בשיטתו ולזה הסכים גם הגאון הראבד"ק דעיה"ק ירושלים ת"ו (עיי' סי' י"ג), נראה פשוט דכיון דברכת שניהם שוה, בברכת שעשה את היה"ג, שבירך על ים התיכון פטר גם ברכת ים אוקינוס. ואף שהוא נוסע כמה ימים בים התיכון לפני שמגיע לאוקינוס ונמצא הפסק רב והיסח הדעת בין הברכה לראית האוקינוס, לענ"ד ז"א דלדידהו כיון שברכת שניהם שוה והם מחוברים יחד נחשבים כים אחד (עיי' סי' י"ב אות ו'), וממילא כיון שראה קצהו האחד ובירך עליו, כבר נפטר כל ל' יום מלברך עוד על ראייתו ואפי' כשהוא רואה אח"כ קצהו האחר של הים, ואפילו אם הי' בינתיים ביבשה, כל שהוא תוך ל' יום מראית הים בפעם האחרונה הרי הוא פטור מלברך עוד, ולכן גם כאשר יגיע לאוקינוס א"צ לברך.‏




I would assume that similarly here, since the Atlantic and Pacific share a beracha (according to everyone) and are connected, he would rule that one would not recite a second beracha.


sources mekorot - Parents teaching children or children teaching parents?


Regarding והגדת לבנך, and you shall tell to your children (Shemos 13:8), on Pesach night:


1) What is the mitzvah of והגדת לבנך and how does one fulfill it according to halacha?


2a) Why do yeshivos give out divrei torah to children to say at the Seider, if the mitzvah of Pesach night is והגדת לבנך?



2b) Are there any poskim that oppose yeshivos giving out divrei torah to children to say at the Seider? If there are, who are they?



Answer



Your question has various aspects, but as they are all related, I hope that my answer addresses all the items in some fashion.


Q1 - You may want to read Ohr HaChaim's commentray on the verse you cited. While not directly indicating what the halacha is, he implies that from the wording, the concept is that the parents should tell the story of Pesach at night specifically when Matzah and Maror are in front of him. Keep in mind that there was no concept of a "Seder" at the time the Torah was given. What is also apparent from the placement of the verse, is that the previous verse says that you should eat Matzah for seven days, and a key phrase in this verse (the one you cited) is "ba'avur zeh" - because of THIS - meaning it is an answer to why we eat Matzah - at least, immediately. Rash"i also explains that this is an answer to the wicked son, a concept developed later, as the 4 sons are part of the Seder.


Now, to answer the rest of your questions - you raise a valid point, and this has been addressed in the past. I refer you to this article . Within it, he mentions these points:



  • Citing Mishnah Pesachim, 10th Chapter, it says:



When the second cup of wine is poured, it is expected that the child, curious about what has transpired, will begin questioning. If the child is not aware enough to notice the differences, his father is to prod him with a series of observations – “Look at how different tonight is from all other nights!” The continuation of the Mishnaic description states that the father should teach his child according to the child's ability to understand, and suggests that the teaching begin with an exploration of how bad things were before they got better. Finally, the Mishnah adds that part of the seder should include an expounding of the Torah portion beginning with the description of the wandering Aramean.



Let us consider what preparation this child had for this event. Was the child trained in advance to memorize a series of questions he would perform for the assembled? Apparently not, as the Mishnah seems to suggest that the questions are spontaneous. In fact, there is no fixed text for the questions the child asks, only for the father whose child has failed to notice the changes at the table.



So, it seems clear that you are correct that the commandment is for the parents to teach children and not in reverse.


The author suggests the following:



Creating a contemporary educational program for the seder needs to focus on the parents as much as on the children, restoring the parent's role as a key transmitter of an oral tradition, and should account for the essentially non-text component of the evening. In the younger grades, model seders should be held for parents, and not their children. Educational packets should present parents with the tools for leading a seder which positions the children at the center of an inquisitive process directed by the parents; as their children grow, parents need to be taught how to encourage their children to ask more substantive questions.



I also recommend reading the related blog to the article, as some of the writers offer supplemental ideas. In one of the emails, the author of the article adds this story:



I have been told that in the late Forties and Fifties Rav Avigdor Miller would tell the members of his Shul that they should make sure at the Seder to listen to what their children had learned in yeshiva. During those years the majority of the members of his Shul did not have extensive yeshiva educations.



On the other hand, a grandson of his told me that at his Seder Rav Miller would go through the Haggadah, and focus on explaining only a few key points. When a grandchild would say "My rebbe said," Rav Miller would smile and say, "Let's wait until later to hear what he said." He would then move on, continuing the Haggadah narrative. The grandson told me that he never recalled "later" coming.



In summary - you raised an important question, and I hope the article addresses your concerns. With that, wishes for a Happy and educational Pesach.


Monday 26 December 2016

halacha - Why do most of the shuls in Manhattan face the wrong direction?


As a first time visitor to Manhattan, I was very surprised to see that most shuls (with a few notable exceptions) are facing roughly south-south-west. This is nowhere near the direction to face Jerusalem, whether you hold by a "flat-earth" Rhumb line (east) or a Great Circle line (north-east) - see here for explanation.


I'm intrigued to know what the historical reasons are for this, when by shifting the Aron Hakodesh 90 degrees to the left they could have come very close to the Rhumb line direction, at ESE? And if it's because the buildings on the grid are typically elongated along the SSW-NNE axis, and it's better feng shui/practical layout to have the Aron on a narrow wall, then why choose to face SSW over NNE, when NNE is very close to the Great Circle direction, and is at least somewhat closer to the Rhumb line?




Passive form of 逃げる: 逃げられた vs. 逃げられる


I was reading in Basic Japanese Grammar Dictionary about the passive voice, and it says that you use ~られる form to conjugate verbs. (p33)


So [逃]{に}げる would be 逃げられる, ok.


But it is used other form, like in this example on the book:



山田さんは奥さんに逃げられた
(Mr. Yamada's wife ran away from him)




逃げる -> 逃げられた


What form is correct?


What are the differences if both are correct (逃げられる and 逃げられた)?


What is this form called?



Answer



Pretty simply, 逃げられた is the past tense of 逃げられる (or past-passive form of 逃げる).


For godan/consonant-stem verbs:



  • 笑う plain/dictionary form "to laugh"

  • 笑われる passive form "to be laughed at"


  • 笑われた past-passive form "was laughed at"

  • 笑います polite/masu form "to laugh"

  • 笑われました polite past-passive form "was laughed at"


For ichidan/vowel-stem verbs:



  • 閉じる plain/dictionary form "to close"

  • 閉じられる passive form "to be closed"

  • 閉じられた past-passive form "was closed"

  • 閉じます polite/masu form "to close"


  • 閉じられました polite past-passive form "was closed"


EDIT: I don't think this is advanced at all. (ら)れる conjugates just like normal ichidan/vowel-stem verbs, so you don't need a special chart for this. If you know how to conjugate normal ichidan verbs such as 折れる and 疲れる, you know how to conjugate (ら)れる, too. (Actually, monolingual dictionaries lists (ら)れる as a distinct "auxiliary verb", not a "form" of a verb.) I think you already know this, but 逃げられる is an example of 'sufferer passive' explained in the link in the comment section.


physical chemistry - Chemical properties of isotopes


I've always heard that different isotopes of the same element have exactly the same chemical properties.


But for example, I've read that some compounds which have hydrogen atoms interchanged by deuterium become odorless (this is one of the arguments for the vibrational theory of olfaction).



A 2001 study by Haffenden et al. showed humans able to distinguish benzaldehyde from its deuterated version. In addition, tests with animals have shown fish and insects able to distinguish isotopes by smell



So, are there any situations in which neutrons do matter (besides nuclear decays)?


Addendum 2013/10/28


Another curious effect is that water is slightly blue, due to vibration. But heavy water is not.




Heavy water is colorless because all of its corresponding vibrational transitions are shifted to lower energy by the increase in isotope mass. For example the H2O band at 760 nm is shifted to approximately 1000 nm in D2O.



enter image description here


(Left: tube if filled with (light) water. Right: empty tube.)




chanuka - What is the appropriate use of the shamash on an oil menora?


It seems that with wax candle menoras, the shamash is generally lit first and used to light the other candles, but with an oil menora this is not possible. So should you light the shamash before the other oil lamps, or after? And what should you use instead of the shamash to light all the oil lamps?



Answer



One of the purposes of the shamash is to ensure that there is light in the vicinity of the menora other than that of the menora itself. That way, if someone reads near the menora, their reading won't be [exclusively] by the light of the menora's lights, so they won't be making mundane use of those lights, which is forbidden, since they're supposed to serve exclusively for the mitzva.


I think you light the shamash first, so that there's always such coverage when the menora lights are lit.


To accomplish the actual lighting, use a candle, a piece of pasta, a sparkler, or some other device that will safely hold a flame long enough to light the menora.


pentateuch chumash - Potential issue with Theory on Divine Origins of Judaism?



The core of a theory is that since Judaism is based on events witnessed by something like 3,000,000 Jews, it is true, while other religions rely on an individual or a few individuals who experienced a supernatural event that they then spread word of (which could be an uncheckable lie).


There are many more details dealing with potential issues discussed in an article by Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen and in this video where he gives a thorough lecture on the subject.


I was reading a portion of Kings II when I came to the life of King Josiah. According to the annotations of my ArtScroll Stone Edition Tanakh, there was a severe lack of Torah knowledge during this time because of what King Manasseh, Josiah's grandfather, had done. He had been bent on getting rid of all traces of Judaism from his society and filling it with idolatry. The Tanakh even says how the downfall of Judah into exile was directly caused by his actions. Not even Josiah's amazing attempts to right everything was enough. The Tanakh says there was no King like Josiah who followed the LORD with all his heart, soul and more. But that's getting ahead of myself.


The issue comes from what sparked this change in Josiah. When he was 8 years old, he began seeking the God of his forefathers (II Chronicles 34). When he was 12 he began purging the land of idols. When he was 18 he sent his scribe Shafan to the temple, and while there to take care of some business, Shafan received the scroll of the covenant (The Torah), which had been found by the high priest. Shafan read the scroll to Josiah, who then proceeded to rend his garments. He got word from a prophetess who said the punishment for Israel's misdeeds would come no matter what, but he still went and did his best to get rid of idolatry and return the Torah and Judaism to Judah.


So the potential issue here is, in the theory explained by Rabbi Kelemen above, one condition is that there is no person who fits as the seed who planted the Torah into the group of people who forgot who they were and became known as Jews.


He calls this person "Fred" in his article, just for example's sake. Here's an excerpt:



Fred could explain things, again with a smart (uncheckable) lie, claiming that God spoke to him alone and revealed the Torah’s long-lost text and the story of its original revelation at Mount Sinai. Indeed, most modern skeptics gravitate toward a theory like this.


A major problem with this theory is we’ve never heard of Fred or his heroic resurrection of Judaism. Certainly one of the most significant events in Jewish history would have been the fumble, when world Jewry forgot they were the three million prophets, and the recovery, when Fred reminded the Jews about the national prophecy at Mount Sinai. Yet in an otherwise comprehensive Jewish history we find no mention of such a claim.




He even mentions the issue of Josiah (Yoshiyahu):



(Occasionally people try to pin the title “Fred” on minor players like Hilkeyahu, Shafan, or Yoshiyahu. At best, such attempts are forced and ask the reader to interpret texts with crowbar and mallet in hand. They also require shamefully contrived rationalizations attempting to explain (a) why not one Biblical verse explicitly mentions the key point that the Jews forgot about the Torah and “Fred” reintroduced them to it, and (b) why the name of the second most important Jewish hero (next to Moses) appears in the Bible less often than the names “Pharaoh,” “Yeravam,” and “Haman.”)



I'm not sure that this sufficiently addresses the issue. Josiah is very obviously distressed and the scroll itself is obviously the Torah. (The section in II Chronicles directly says it's the Torah). Josiah began his fight against idolatry before he read the Torah, so he obviously knew that idolatry was forbidden. My guess is this was from an oral tradition. He sought God and found some answers. Then, when he read the source of it all and realized what the punishments for these sins were, he was distressed. He proceeded to gather all of Judah and Benjamin and read the scroll in front of them, making them accept the words again. In other words, it was like accepting the covenant again. This is what it seems like to me. The population was Torah ignorant and someone brought it to them again and had them accept it.


Josiah seems like someone who could fit in the "Fred" role.


I love this explanation for the truth of the Torah, but this issue has been bothering me for a while. If any of my fellow Jews can give any informed input, it would be appreciated.




Should the input of a Kalman filter always be a signal and its derivative?


I always see the Kalman filter used with such input data. For example, the inputs are commonly a position and the correspondent velocity:


$$ (x, \dfrac{dx}{dt}) $$


In my case, I only have 2D positions and angles at each sample time:



$$ P_i(x_i, y_i) \qquad \text{and} \qquad (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3) $$


Should I compute velocities for each point and for each angle to be able to fit the Kalman framework?



Answer



A state variable and its derivative are often included as inputs to a Kalman filter, but this is not required. The essence of the Kalman framework is that the system in question has some internal state that you are trying to estimate. You estimate those state variables based on your measurements of that system's observables over time. In many cases, you can't directly measure the state that you're interested in estimating, but if you know a relationship between your measurements and the internal state variables, you can use the Kalman framework for your problem.


There is a good example of this on the Wikipedia page. In that example, 1-dimensional linear motion of an object is considered. The object's state variables consist of its position versus time and its velocity on the one-dimensional line of movement. The example assumes that the only observable is the object's position versus time; its velocity is not observed directly. Therefore, the filter structure "infers" the velocity estimate based on the position measurements and the known relationship between velocity and position (i.e. $\dot{x_k} \approx \frac{(x_k - x_{k-1})}{\Delta t}$ if acceleration is assumed to be slowly-varying).


Sunday 25 December 2016

halacha - Bracha for the transit of Venus?


Venus is transiting today for the last time until 2117 (or 5878, if you prefer). Is there a specific bracha that should be made upon witnessing this spectacular event?



Answer




A quick search of discussions on the web seems to point to there being no particular bracha and that Oseh Ma'aseh B'reishit is not called for, for a solar eclipse. As a kal vachomer, I would say that if there is nothing said for the still infrequent but more spectacular solar eclipse, then for the transit, why would there be? This site suggests other textual options at least as it relates to lunar eclipses -- and the kal vachomer could work from there with those psukim being said for other events.


tzibur community - How important is it for everyone to revolve the bima 7 times on Simchas Torah?


I recall hearing from Rabbi Hershel Shachter that for Hoshanos, you're really supposed to go around the bima (and seven times on Hoshana Rabba); he said if you were davening at home, you should in fact walk around the table in the room.


What about the "hakafos" in Simchas Torah (okay there are still a few minyans out there that do hakafos like on hoshanos -- just march around the room once and move on) -- they take the Torahs around seven times, but usually I've seen most of the people just stay around the dance space. Are they supposed to follow the Torahs around 7 times too?




readings - Appending 内 to a company name is read ない or うち?

For example, if I say マイクロソフト内のパートナーシップは強いです, is the 内 here read as うち or ない? Answer 「内」 in the form: 「Proper Noun + 内」 is always read 「ない...