Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 100

Thu, 28 May 2009

• 1. Two Faces of Talmud Torah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. right source (Shlomo Pick)
• 3. Re: 70 nations (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: How did the Neviim Write their Sefarim? (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 5. Re: How were Levi'I'm Counted? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Mekorot for Shavuot (Saul Stokar)
• 7. Learning on Shavuos - Two Scenarios (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. eruv tavshilin (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: How were Levi'I'm Counted? (Akiva Blum)
• 10. Re: Learning on Shavuos - Two Scenarios (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: eruv tavshilin (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: eruv tavshilin (Micha Berger)
• 13. rishonim, yevamos 24a, ain mikreh..... (harveyben...@yahoo.com)
• 14. Re: rishonim, yevamos 24a, ain mikreh..... (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: neviim v. moshe; any difference in their writings?? (harveybenton@yahoo.com)
• 16. Re: neviim v. moshe; any difference in their writings?? (Micha Berger)

The Ramchal in Derech Hashem Part 4 ch. 2 paragrah 1

"The study of tora is an absolute necessity for w/o one cannot follow
the Torah' commandments..

In addition, however, Trah study is an end in itself in its own right
for it ... Perfects man.."

In my rabbinic practicum I made a drasha on Mishpatim's na'aseh V'Nishma
along those same lines (IIRC) based upon the Malbim: viz. That Na'aseh
presupposes Torah study as a "how to" manual for the na'aseh aspect;
while Nishma is the reflective, contemplative aspect of Torah learning.

Furthermore women are obligated in aspect One but not in aspect two.
All women need to learn is how to do mitzvos.

However, if a man masters the performance details of all 613 Mitzvos he
is obliged to continue learning. This would be "Nishma" learning.

Perhaps Nishma equates to lishma learning

Chag Shavuos samei'ach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

>This is not derush, but halakha, as I refer you to OH 131 :1 where there is
a mandate to make all your worldliness holy but having the proper kavanot.

>OH 131?!
Maybe 156?

neither, my mistake:  OH 231:1

Chag sameiach

Shlomo pick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090527/2f3c5ada/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 26 May 2009 22:51:09 -0500, Maxi Yedid <maxiye...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Shalom
> I heard a while back that there are two "sets" of 70 nations; one from Noach
> and one from Esav and Ishmael. Any sources on this?
>
> thanks
>
> nissim yedid

Hi Nissim.  Yes, on Breishit 11:8, where it says "Vayifetz", Breishit  
Rabbah 38 says Hashem drowned 30 of the 70 nations ("Ein 'vayifetz',  
ela 'vayetzaf'.  Hetzif aleihem ha-yam, v'hetzif shloshim mishpachot  
meihem.").  I don't remember where, but elsewhere it says that there  
were 30 new nations that came from Avraham Avinu to fill out the 70  
again.  And that it's connected to his being called Av Hamon Goyim.

That flood is probably the local Mesopotamian flood some people think  
was the source of the story of Noach.

Lisa

On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:00:55 +0200
Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Having digested what Rabbenu Yitz'haq Abarbanel writes, I wonder
> whether we know of other commentators from premodern times, who
> addressed this issue and either stated that the text of Neviim is word
> for word from prophecy, is from the prophet's own inspired expansion
> upon his prophecy, or is based on preexisting sources, selected and
> elaborated upon through prophecy (the latter being Abarbanel's idea).
> 
> IOW, do we have either a tanna demesaye'a lei, or one who refutes? Or
> is Abarbanel alone in even approaching this issue altogether?

Serendipity (or Hashgahah) - I discuss Abravanel's position (in his
introduction to Yirmiyahu) that the Biblical texts reflect the literary
competence, or lack thereof, of their respective authors, and critics
of this view, here:

http://seforim.traditiononline
.org/index.cfm/2009/5/27/Wine-Women--Song-Some-Remarks-on-Poetry--Grammar--
Part-II

or

www.kitzur.com/3ysqt

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Micha:
> Rashi could mean "how many people too young to give a machatzis
> hasheqel". Although I thought the Leviim were counted by peteq, which
> I would deduce from RKBloom's post was something I saw in HaEmeq Davar
> once. But the same answer would work either way, that the bas qol was
> only needed for those too young for the manual method.

AIUI the bas kol gets around the objectivity problem but not the gulgoles
problem


Artscroll Sapirstein plus the simple mashmaus is that Moshe going into
the tents would be a breach of tznius

So bas kol was needed to help out only with the "nursing" babies AIUI.
Or maybe toddlers, too.

My difficulty is simple, we do not count heads as a matter of halacha.
Now if a mal'ach handed a petek for each baby - fine! But AIUI counting
via bas kol is STILL counting heads! Of course yeish lechaleik - but
it still bothers me

Lemashal if a census taker got the Mommy's Kol instead of a bas kol
isn't this still counting heads?

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Attached are the mekorot I prepared for a shiur on Shavuot eve on the
subject of Anus Rachmana Patrei, centered on the famous chakira of the Atvan
Deoraita as well as Chelkat Yoav.

Saul Stokar
Raanana

[They are placed under <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/shavuos/>.

Happy 3,321st anniversary! (*)
-Micha
*) Give or take 168... ]

Below are two scenarios for learning on the first day of Shavuous. 
Before anyone jumps on me for suggesting the second scenario, let's 
keep in mind that according to the ArtScroll Shavuous Machzor, 
"Although the custom of remaining awake the entire night of Shavuous 
was first recorded almost two millennia ago, it was observed only by 
small groups of scholars. Widespread acceptance of this custom was 
not realized until about four hundred years ago, when it was 
popularized by the scholars and kabbalists of Tzefas, ..."

Scenario 1  - The Common Practice Today

One waits to Tzeis to daven Maariv (or perhaps 10 minutes or more 
before so that Kiddush is made at home after Tzeis), goes home to eat 
and then returns to shul at midnight. One stays up all night and 
davens Vo'Sikin around 4:45 AM, returns home, goes to sleep, and gets 
up in the early afternoon for a Seuda (Let's say the Seudah begins at 
12:30 PM).

Scenario 2 -  One davens Maariv early (or even at or before Tzeis) 
and goes to sleep after the evening meal. One then gets up at about 
4:30 and davens Vo'Sikin, returns home around 7, makes Kiddush and 
then learns until the Seudah at 12:30.

My experience with Scenario 1 is that most people are too tired to 
really concentrate on learning from midnight until davening. One 
often sees people dozing off, chatting, walking around, 
etc.,  particularly after 3 AM. Scenario 1 allows for 4 and 3/4 of 
learning time.

In Scenario 2 one has 5 hours of learning time, assuming you finish 
eating at 7:30 AM, and one is rested. Hence, one has 5 hours of time 
to learn, there is no socializing ,and one should be able to 
concentrate better than someone who stayed up all night.

Which do you feel is preferable?


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090528/695038ce/attachment-0001.htm>

If one is eating out all meals and doesnt need to cook is there any purpose
in making an eruv tavhsilin (beracha levatala?)
exteme case would be one going to a hotel

-- 
Eli Turkel

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] How were Levi'I'm Counted?

> peteq, which I
> would deduce from RKBloom's post was something I saw in HaEmeq Davar
> once. But the same answer would work either way, that the bas qol was
> only needed for those too young for the manual method.
> 

Why would anyone be too young? Do you have write your own name and personally
put the peteq in the box? Could you not do it by proxy?

Akiva

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:14:37AM -0400, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: Scenario 1  - The Common Practice Today
: One waits to Tzeis to daven Maariv (or perhaps 10 minutes or more 
: before so that Kiddush is made at home after Tzeis), goes home to eat 
: and then returns to shul at midnight. One stays up all night and 
: davens Vo'Sikin around 4:45 AM, returns home, goes to sleep, and gets 
: up in the early afternoon for a Seuda (Let's say the Seudah begins at 
: 12:30 PM).

The common practice today comes from Tiqun Leil Chatzos once being
an actual tiqun (as it still is among many Chassidim and Sepharadim),
like Tiqun Chatzos. A particular ritual to be done at a particular time.

The generalization into "learn whatever you want" is a Litvisher thing.
Judging from how the AhS speaks of TLS as being a minhag chassidus
(lower case ches), the dating of Litvaks learning Shavuos night can't
be much before the turn of the 20th cent.

: Scenario 2 -  One davens Maariv early (or even at or before Tzeis) 
: and goes to sleep after the evening meal. One then gets up at about 
: 4:30 and davens Vo'Sikin, returns home around 7, makes Kiddush and 
: then learns until the Seudah at 12:30.

: My experience with Scenario 1 is that most people are too tired to 
: really concentrate on learning from midnight until davening...

Again, this is a Litvisher approach -- how much learning can one
accomplish? If the whole point is experiential, there is value to
having the once a year all night marathon. Even if less is learned,
it makes more of an emotional roshem (qiyum shebaleiv). The person is
more likely to be left after Shavuos with a greater feeling of qabbalas
haTorah and rededication.

Besides, a qitniyos avoider shouldn't start start 2nd-guessing minhagim.
If you want to argue that it's not actually your minhag, that I could
"hear", but that's a different argument than the one you're making.


That said, until my sons had that preteen and teen need to "make it the
'whole' night" and also needed a chavrusah, I followed scenario 2.
Because falling asleep in front of a gemara at 2am is neither good
learning nor good experientially.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:14:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If one is eating out all meals and doesnt need to cook is there any purpose
: in making an eruv tavhsilin (beracha levatala?)

The berakhah is on the mitzvah of making an eruv. In order for your
question to stand, you would have to argue that an eruv that isn't used
isn't an eruv, and thus there is no mitzvah. Interestingly, this seems
to be assumed -- and I don't see why.

What is a machloqes rishonim is whether or not it's possible not to
rely on the eruv. After all, someone is boing to have to bentch licht.
The SA 527:19 quotes two opinions about whether the hadlaqah requires
eruv. In the BY he concludes that the Rambam omits neir Shabbos from the
formula (Yom Tov 6:8) because it doesn't require coverage by an eruv.
OTOH, Tosafos (Beitzah 22a) and the Rosh (2:16) do require an eruv for
hadlaqas neiros.

(BTW, the MB 402:17 quotes the Maharshal who holds that eruv tavshilin
includes folding your tallis on Friday.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

I forgot to add the Shemiras Shabbos keHilchasah's conclusion (44:12) --
make the eruv without a berakhah, safeiq berakhos lehaqeil.

So the answer to RET's question is "yes", at least we're choshedim for
berakhah levatalah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Re: our recent discussions of Chet Reuvein K?Pshuto or not. 
From: Critique of Rabbi Jeremy Weider's "When the Torah Doesn't Mean What it Says" 
http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-ra
bbi-jeremy-weiders-when.html
R. Sadia Gaon: 
?.Emunos v?Deos 7:2. But although this passage cited is directly relevant,
I believe the presentation of the Gaon?s position was incomplete and
understated. The Gaon was very much an opponent of allegorizing scripture.
While Rabbi Weider almost takes it for granted that halachic passages not
be taken allegorically, the Gaon sees this as a very real potential risk
once allegorical interpretation is allowed to replace the simple meaning,
and its application to narratives is an additional concern, ?if this kind
of interpretation is necessary for the legal section of Scripture, it must
likewise apply to the narrative portion.? (E.D. 7:4)?..[snip] 
The equivocal language of Genesis 3:20 where Eve is called the ?Mother of
all Living? was certainly not understood by its original audience as
indicating all living species descended from Eve, and this is made clear by
the context. Likewise the description of God as a ?devouring fire? found in
Deuteronomy 4:24 is a more or less clear example of figurative speech and
would have been understood as such by its original audience?....
Rambam: 
Moreh Nevuchim II:25. 
[5] In the absence of being compelled otherwise, ?we take the Bible literally? (ibid). 
Rashba: 
While Saadia Gaon reserves allegorical interpretation for when observation
or reason prevents one from accepting the simple meaning, and the Rambam
rejects allegorical interpretation when there is an equally plausible
explanation which preserves the simple meaning, the Rashba seems to allow
allegorical interpretation to uproot the simple meaning of the text
whenever one is confronted with a conflict with ?science?? [hb: footnote 7:
See Chidushei HaRashba, Perushei HaHagados, Mosad HaRav Kook edition page
102.]? [snip] 
?.The Rashba contends that when a scientific position conflicts with a
tradition (kabalah) we follow the tradition and do not interpret the
passage allegorically.[8].? Ibid page 104. 
Ramban: 
The Ramban in his commentary on the Torah criticizes the Rambam (which is
cited with approval by the Ribash[10]) for saying that certain encounters
with angels which the Patriarch?s experienced had really occurred in
dreams. [hb: footnote 10; See Menachem Kellner?s translation, Rabbi Isaac
Bar Sheshet?s Responsum Concerning the Study of Greek Philosophy, Tradition
Vol. 15 (Fall 1975), pages 110-118.] 
The Meiri: 
The Meiri has three classifications of Scripture with respect to
allegorical interpretation, those which must be interpreted only
allegorically, those which can have an additional allegorical meaning, and
those which may not be interpreted allegorically at all. The Meiri includes
the creation of the world in the latter category which is forbidden to
interpret allegorically.[12] [hb: footnote 12; Beis HaBechira 3:11, cited
in Interpretation and Allegory, page 205.] 

HB: it seems to me that the most conservative of the Rishonim mentioned
above, would suggest not interpreting halacha and/or scriptural directives
allegorically.? What then should we do with: scriptural commands to: 1.
give 40 lashes (not 39) 2. count omer 50 days (not 49) 3. ayin tachas ayin,
shein tachas shein literally?(not mammon); 4. eat matzah 6 days v. 7 days;
5.?not outside on shabbas (a la karaites). 6. lo tevashel gdi b'cheilev imo
(without any attendant milk/meat prohibitions besides for the specific ones
mentioned in the Torah), etc?????

?

?

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090526/92b3c73d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:55:34AM -0700, harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
: it seems to me that the most conservative of the Rishonim mentioned
: above, would suggest not interpreting halacha and/or scriptural directives
: allegorically.? What then should we do with: scriptural commands to:
: 1. give 40 lashes (not 39)
: 2. count omer 50 days (not 49)

But also sheva shabasos, so this one is more complicated anyway. I
already gave the Maadanei Yom Tov's answer to 49 vs 50 -- on 49 days
you're cointing time since day 0. Including day 0, there are 50 days.
(He then makes a chiluq between day 0 the year of yetzi'as Mitzrayim and
in subsequent years. Since YM was at midnight, the 15th couldn't be one
of the temimos. Therefore, the 50 days started one day later.)

: 3. ayin tachas ayin, shein tachas shein literally?(not mammon);
: 4. eat matzah 6 days v. 7 days;
: 5.?not outside on shabbas (a la karaites).
: 6. lo tevashel gdi b'cheilev imo...

1- Derashah isn't allegory. Your question is prima facea absurd because
EVERY rishon accepts the validity of derashos. So how can raising a
discussion amongst rishonim about what parts of Tanakh are metaphoric
possibly be a question on derashos?

2- The morality of ayin tachas ayin stands kepeshuto -- as the very same
rishonim point out. Peshat is a mussar lesson, and is not ignorable. RRW
and I discussed this just last week. Similarly other taamei hamitzvos
and peshat in the pasuq.

See RSRH on lo sevasheil gedi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

reference to discussion of Abarbanel Comments as brought down by Arie Folger. 
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/Balak.htm

Moshe wrote his book and the portion of Balaam. He also wrote the book
of Job ( Bava Basra 14b-15a) [1].
Moshe wrote the Pentateuch and went back ans wrote the book of
Balaam (Yerushalmi Sota (5,6).

hb: the article by Meir Levin brings down the Ritva, Torah Sheleima,
Shela, etc.,

>>. Ritva ad. loc. suggests that there was in existence a Book of
Balaam of which Chazal were aware but which was not included in the
canon and did not survive. This is in itself not surprising for Tanach
itself mentions dozens of works that we no longer possess, i.e. Book of
Yashar, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah etc [2]. Presumably, the lost
Book of Balaam documented the story or the prophecies of Balaam in
greater detail than the Chumash.

This answer also apparently assumes that canonization was not automatic;
just because Moshe wrote a book does not mean that it is a part of
Scripture or must be preserved.

This answer is also offered by Drashos Ibn Shab, p. 47 and cited by the
Shelah (p. 66) in the name of R.Menachem Tsioni. This answer is supported
by a textual variant quoted in Dikdukei Sofrim that reads "Book of
Balaam" instead of "portion of Balaam".

hb: see below re: possible Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (no specific reference is given for the sefer mentioned; if anyone has this
sefer and/or Meir Levin's (author of the article) e-mail, please
contact me).

>>>The other suggestion was made by a recent author in a work printed in
the town of Satmar . He suggested that Moshe wrote an account of the
events in the portion of Bilaam in a separate work. Later, the Men of
the Great Assembly inserted it into the Torah. R. Kasher rejects this
on ideological grounds for it contradicts the Rambam's 13 principle of
faith.

[Email #2. -mi]

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
Arie Folger wrote:
> Thus, according to Abarbanel, we could say that one major difference
> between the Pentateuch and Nakh is that the former was not based on
> earlier sources, but on a direct and complete prophecy from HQBH to
> Moshe, while the latter is the product of a prophecy to include a
> selection of preexisting stories coming from several disparate sources
> (at least twO. the annals of Israel and those of Judah).
?
hb: our chumash contains pre-Moshe stories and accounts of various
things. We also know that the "torah" was studied prior to Har Sinai
(like in the yeshiva of sheim v'eiver). Any chance that "stories" or
ancient scrolls were included in Bereishis that were handed down form
Adam Harishon onwards as part of the "Torah tradition"?

Reb Eidensohn wrote:
There are medrashim that Moshe had sefer Bereishis prior to Sinai,
there is also reference to sefer Milchemes HaShem Ramban (Bamidbar
21:13-14): The simple meaning of the expression in the book of the wars
of the Eternal (Bamidbar 21:14) is that there were wise men in those
generations who used to write down the history of great wars, for such
was the custom in all generations. These authors were called moshlim
(they speak in parables v27;29) because they wrote in them their books
by means of provers and figures of speech, and when there were victories
which they considered wonderful, they ascribed those wars to G-d, to Whom
they are in truth to be attributed. Now the victory of Sihon over Moab
was marvellous in their eyes (Psalms 118:21) therefore they wrote it
down in a book speaking of it in figurative langues...and writing abut
it in a proverb...Thus when Sihon captured the cities of Moab those
who wrote in parables recorded in the book which thy are called the
"wars of the Eternal" Eth Vahev b'suphah...Thus Scripture is bringing
a proof from the book of "the Wars of the Eternal" that Arnon is on the
border of moab and was forbidden to Israel to capture (Devarim 2:9) wheas
the brooks and all the slopes as far as Arnon they were allowed to take
for Sihon had captured from the king of Moab all his land until Arnon,
but not Arnn itself....

hb: does that mean that Moshe Rabeinu A" Hashalom, included an ancient
scroll or various texts into the Chumash as we now have it?? If so 1:
why do we teach our children (and read in the Rambam) that all of the
Torah was received by Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai? 2. If Moshe included the
Scroll (or Scrolls/teachings, etc., ) was it re-written for inclusion in
the Chumash al pi Dvar Hashem, to be included exactly as Hashem wanted
it to be?? 3. Were any of these writings written with Ruach Hakodesh
and/or Nevuah? 4. If not, do we/should we accord them the same chashivus
as the parts of the Torah explicitly written by Moshe Rabeinu (al pi Dvar
Hashem)???? 5. Would there be any halachic importance to reading/writing
parts of the Torah that may not have come from Moshe Rabeinu?? E.G. not
having to re-read those parts if missed during keriah, etc???

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:12:33PM -0700, harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
: hb: does that mean that Moshe Rabeinu A" Hashalom, included an ancient
: scroll or various texts into the Chumash as we now have it...

No, it means the RBSO did!

And that's the essence of the answer to your question. Neviim interpreted
visions -- they weren't capable of the kind of communication necessary
to receive a book from HQBH.

It is possible (and within the mesorah) to assert that parts of the
Torah are redactions from earlier works -- if one assumes that it was
"al pi Hashem beyad Mosheh". Not that MRA"H did it in a manner the least
bit comparable to sifrei nevu'ah.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_torah.html> by RGStudent.
He lists megillos mentioned by name in the Chumash that were written
by earlier nevi'im or by Mosheh himself. Eldad uMeidad are described
in the pasuq as being among those authors (Bamidbar 11:26).


I don't think this is what he himself believes, just an efshar lomar
for someone who finds the issues that led to the Document Hypothesis
compelling.

(He also suggests that the stories we find in midrashim could be the
legacy of the texts that didn't make it into HQBH's redaction.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 100
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."