particle に - Why is に used in 料理によく使います?

この野菜{やさい}はきれいな赤い色をしているので、料理{りょうり}によく使います。

why using に in this phrase

料理によく使います

halacha - How can a person visualize the Churban Bais HaMikdash?

It is now thousands of years since the Churban Bais HaMikdash. Many Jews feel very comfortable in their surroundings. How can a person help themselves visualize and understand the great loss of the Bais HaMikdash?

grammar dikduk - Difference in Nikkud for לא כי in Torah and Mishna

The phrase "Lo Ki" occurs in Tanach (Genesis 18, 15):

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ׀ לֹ֖א כִּ֥י צָחָֽקְתְּ׃

and in Mishna:

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא חֲצִי בָצָל גָּדוֹל (Trumot 2, 5)
אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא (Shekalim 1, 4)
וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא בְסֶלַע לָקָה (Baba Kama 3, 11)

I noted that all Menakedim (patented grammarians) write "כי" in Mishnayot and not "כּי". But in the verse, there is a Daguesh.

Starting the study of "שער אותיות או"י" in Sefer Hamichlol, my astonishment is growing. It seems as if the aleph of Lo is mute and the Kaf need a Daguesh Chazak.

I don't know what the difference is between the verse and the Mishnayot. But I am sure that the menakedim know. I need an explanation.

Answer

I will try to combine translation and cantilation analysis. The answer of @DoubleAA is of hight level. Without his help, I could not find the verse in Melachim and understand. But my conclusion, following Rashi in Vayera and the Targum on Melachim is different. For this reason, let me formulate my own response.

1. 
   

   The first verse in Vayera (Genesis 18, 15):

   
   

   
   

   וַתְּכַחֵ֨שׁ שָׂרָ֧ה | לֵאמֹ֛ר לֹ֥א צָחַ֖קְתִּי כִּ֣י | יָרֵ֑אָה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר | לֹ֖א כִּ֥י צָחָֽקְתְּ:‏

   
   
   

   
   Rashi translates "כי = אלא" INSTEAD in English. and the disjunctive trop Tifcha bellow the "לא", the conjunctive trop bellow the "כי" (mercha) are appropriate to Rashi's translation.Lo; ki tsachakt. No, instead you did laugh.


2. 
   

   A second verse in Vayera

   
   

   
   

   וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ לֹּ֔א כִּ֥י בָֽרְח֖וֹב נָלִֽין: ‏

   
   

   
   is similar.
   

   The verse in Melachim I 3, 22

   
   

   
   
   

   וַתֹּאמֶר֩ הָאִשָּׁ֨ה הָאַחֶ֜רֶת לֹ֣א כִ֗י בְּנִ֤י הַחַי֙ וּבְנֵ֣ךְ הַמֵּ֔ת וְזֹ֤את אֹמֶ֙רֶת֙ לֹ֣א כִ֔י בְּנֵ֥ךְ הַמֵּ֖ת וּבְנִ֣י הֶחָ֑י וַתְּדַבֵּ֖רְנָה לִפְנֵ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ: ‏

   
   

   
   According to the Targum: Lo chen (= RIGHT)! --> You are not right! (It seems that this Chi do not corresponding to one of the 4 translations that Rashi repeated often in Tora's commentary)
   Beni hachai, --> my son is the live. The trop bellow the "לא" is conjunctive (munach) and up to the "כי" is disjunctive (revia). Lo chi; Beni hachai. --> This is not true, my son is the live.


3. 
   

   In Mishnayot

   
   

   
   

   לא כי אלא

   
   

   
   We have the word Ela after chi, so, Ki/ Chi do not be synomim of Ela. consequently the best translation is "right, true". You are not right, instead ... . Therefore the disjunctive trop is bellow the chi: Lo chi; ela.

The Lo chi is a current example of "בגד כפת" after "או'י". The last word is monosyllabic. The word stress is on the Chi. So as in a word bisyllabic Lochi "לאכי" milera, the cantilation of the lamed holam is not ralented, the "כ" is Rafe.
After time, I found in shorashim from RY ben G'anach Ki is Ken or Beemet. here

organic chemistry - Constitutional isomers of cis-1,2-dibromocyclopentane

The following is a problem from Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry by McMurry.

Draw two constitutional isomers of cis-1,2-dibromocyclopentane.

I don't get how there can be constitutional isomers for the above-mentioned compound. Constitutional isomers must have different connections. The question specifies everything including the spatial arrangement.

Answer

If I understood you correctly, your objection is to the relative cis- designation in the name of the compound. As far as I can tell, the use of any stereochemical designation within the context of that question is either deliberately misleading, incorrect, or simply pointless. Per the definition of constitutional isomerism, the only criteria that the two molecules in your answer must satisfy is that they have (a) the same molecular formula, and (b) different structural connectivity. Stereochemistry, whether relative or absolute, is totally irrelevant. Note the wording in the IUPAC Gold Book entry for constitution (emphasis mine):

The description of the identity and connectivity (and corresponding bond multiplicities) of the atoms in a molecular entity (omitting any distinction arising from their spatial arrangement).

Hence, any molecule with the formula $\ce{C5H8Br2}$ that differs in connectivity from a cyclopentane with two vicinal bromine atoms should be a valid answer. Two such isomers are given by simply permuting the positions of the bromines (i.e., 1,1-dibromocyclopentane and 1,3-dibromocyclopentane). Of course, there are numerous other possible answers.

organic chemistry - Please explain the mechanism of Cannizzaro's reaction

I did not completely understand the mechanism of Cannizzaro's reaction, especially the rate determining step i.e. the hydride transfer step, and the effect of electron withdrawing substituents on this step. Like, I was taught that the intermediate which donates hydride, would donate hydride more readily when electron donating substituents were attached to carbon atom with the outgoing hydrogen atom, as they would increase electron density on that carbon, and therefore create a "pushing" effect on the outgoing hydride. But in all the questions I have attempted, the answer says that electron WITHDRAWING substituents facilitate hydride transfer. Please tell how the electron withdrawing substituents affect the hydride transfer, and why. Also, please explain how to determine the products of a crossed Cannizzaro's reaction. Do we determine them using the concepts of the RDS,or otherwise?

halacha - Can I change my mind after I fill out a tzedaka form?

If I fill out an online submission form for charity, including the amount I wish to contribute, and then before I click submit I decide I don't want to give the money, is that considered reneging on a pledge to charity?

I suppose the same could be asked about if I fill out a check and then change my mind before I mail it.

Answer

Yes. It is considered reneging on a pledge. In fact, as soon as one decides mentally that he will make a gift to charity, he must do so.

Rema YD 258:13 says:

הגה: אם חשב בלבו ליתן איזה דבר לצדקה חייב לקיים מחשבתו ואין צריך אמירה אלא דאם אמר היו כופין אותו לקיים (מרדכי פ"ק דקדושין ובפ"ק דב"ב ובהגהות ובמהרי"ק שורש קפ"ה ומה"ר פרץ ובהגהות סמ"ק ורא"ש פ"ק דתענית) וי"א דאם לא הוציא בפיו אינו כלום (הרא"ש כלל י"ג) והעיקר כסברא הראשונה (ועיין בחושן המשפט סי' רי"ב):

My loose translation: If one thought in his heart to give something to charity he must fulfill his thought, and we do not require him saying it, except that if he says it we [can] force him to fulfill. And some say if he did not say it, it is nothing. And the primary view is like the first opinion.

By the way, I recall a YU rabbi (I forgot which one) specifically mentioning your case of the check which was not yet mailed, and him saying that he must give the money.

As always ask a Rabbi.

grammar - Why do we have to use ている form of 思う with third person subject

I've read from many grammar books that when we are talking about a third people thinking about something, we must use 思っている, and it means "think" instead of "be thinking". For example:

• スミスさんは日本の物価は高いと思っている is correct


• スミスさんは日本の物価は高いと思う　　 is considered incorrect

I've tried to find the reason, however, any documents I could find states only the rule without explanation. I really wish to know if there are any grammatical or cultural reasons for this.

Answer

There are a few verbs that do this. It's not just 思う but also 考える.

I tried coming up with an English parallel but after a few goes decided that they don't work. The source difference as I see it is that the Japanese language has a stricter account of philosophy of mind that works from the idea that we don't have access to the thoughts and feelings of others.

Thus, in Japanese, Verbs about people's thought processes and other things that are somewhat opaque to observes work a little differently than things that are openly apparent (e.g. kicking a ball).

It's a little Wittgenstinian, but there's really a difference in meanings between:

I feel sad

I think we should have no nuclear weapons

--

He feels sad

He thinks we should have no nuclear weapons

In the former case, the normal interpretation with mental verbs is that you cannot be wrong as you are expressing with the sentence your thoughts. In the latter, what we mean is that someone appears to have that thought, feeling, or emotion, because we don't have direct access to these things.

Why does this block 思う but not 思っている. I think Darius's example to a near-duplicate is great on that point. The instant duration of the simple verb form is different than the ~ている form which expresses of a duration. Also, his answer explains why the past tenses are different.

With your example pair, we can say both in English. But the meaning of the word "thinks" if we render your sentence in English means that Smith makes the judgment that Japan has high prices.

---

I found this explanation:

「と思う」は,もっぱら発話時における話者自身の命題に対する蓋然的判断を表す。したがって,「と思う」 が文末に現れている文は主語が一人称に限られる。なお,「思っている」のようなテイル形や「思っ た/て いる らしい」のようにタ形やテイル形にムードが後接している場合は,他者の思考内容を表すことも可能 となるため,人称制限が無くなる。この場合の「思っている」などは本動詞的に用いられ,文全体は一般的 な引用構文となる。

このように,「~と思う」は,発話時における話者の命題に対する態度を示すという点において「だろう」...

The relevant point is that the dictionary form indicates the speaker's view at the 発話時 (moment of utterance). Assuming you don't have access to other people's thoughts instantly, you need to use a stative construction to express what is inside their heads and inaccessible.