Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 018

Monday, September 27 1999

• Re: DUI
• Re: DUI
• DM-DM: Dialogue of Rabbi Teitz and RHendel
• The Rav zt'l and Piyyut
• Bavli and Ashkenaz
• Halacha Lemoshe Misinai is not Rabbinic/Midrashic
• ISSUR TORAH in women wearing a Kittel
• GEMATRIA vs GRAMMAR
• Re: DUI
• Re: Rashi, Bavli
• Re: Rashi, Bavli
• gematria
• Re: GEMATRIA vs GRAMMAR

Agreed - but keep in mind  adults can't effectively lecture teenagers prior 
to simchat tora about the "demon rum and weed" and then hit the single malts 
in excess themselves. I'm sure there's a maamar Chazal on this but I always 
think of Emerson in this regard - "Do not say things,  what you are stands 
over you the while, and thunders so that I can not hear what you say to the 
contrary"

Gmar Tov,
Joel Rich


In a message dated 9/27/99 12:38:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<<  The alcohol and
 the general hollelus atmosphere also contributes to the use of marijuana
 and "ecstasy" r"l.
 
 In the words of a recent mailing: If this Simchas Torah is anything like the
 past several, there are going to be some more drug addicts before it is over.
 
 And there's no Simchah or Torah in that.
 
 -mi
  >>

RJR writes: adults can't effectively lecture teenagers prior to simchat tora
about the "demon rum and weed" and then hit the single malts in excess
themselves.

Certainly. I think in communities where this is an issue (and safeik piku'ach
nefesh lichumrah -- where isn't it an issue?) hard drinks shouldn't be part of
Simchas Torah.

Purim is a bigger issue, since there's an actual chiyuv to drink.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 27-Sep-99: Levi
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 44b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim II 9

This summary is long overdue--Rabbi Teitz (despite his 
busy holiday schedule) was extremely prompt in answering
me---but I had two blackouts in addition to starting a new
course and keeping up my rashi-is-simple schedule.

Let me summarize the whole set of give and take till the
present.(Although I am writing from memory (I am in 
Boston) I believe I will be as accurate and detailed as
possible).

For convenience I places headers on each thought...there
are    11 paragraphs--much of this material is new

1) THE QUESTION OF DM DM
2) VIEWS ON WHEN TORAH READERS MUST CHANGE
3) THE RDKs GRAMMATICAL STAND
4) THE ARGUMENT OF SILENCE
5) ANSWER TO ARGUMENT OF SILENCE
6) ANSWER TO RDK
7) THE SEMANTIC ARGUMENT
8) ANSWER TO SEMANTIC ARGUMENT
9) A POSSIBLE PROOF #1 FOR 2 MEANINGS (DOUBLE HAY)
10) ANSWER TO POSSIBLE PROOF
11) A POSSIBLE PROOF #2 FOR 1 MEANING

1)THE QUESTION OF DM DM (MFeldman)
=======================
The question is whether the DM in DM NKI should be
read with a PATACH or KAMATZ. The assumption
of the question is that 
	>DM+Patach = Construct = blood OF
	>DM +KAMATZ = Blood
This would lead to the following interpretations
	>DM NKI (Patach) = blood of innocent
	>DM NKI (Kamatz) = innocent blood
The question assumes that 	
	>blood of innocent vs
	>innocent blood
is a change of meaning and therefore a baal koray
who read it incorrectly would have to go back.

2) VIEWS ON WHEN TORAH 
READERS MUST CHANGE(Many authors)
=====================================
Rabbi Teitz (myself and Moshe) assume that a Torah reader
must change when there is a change in meaning.

Rabbi Bechoffer cited a Yerushalmi suggesting that no 
change must be made if the spelling of the word doesn't
change.

Rabbi Teitz (on the above Yerushalmi) asked, "Suppose he
read
	>on the day of Isaac's weaning
as
	>on the camel day of Isaac
Even though there is no change in spelling we certainly would
have to go back.

Rabbi B might agree in that case but (and this is Rabbi Teitz's
point) Rabbi B would then have to agree on going back for
blood of innocent vs innocent blood.

In passing I would 
	>invite Rabbi B to sharpen his use of this yerushalmi
	>the yerushalmi might apply to eg HEELITHA HEELAYTHA

3) THE RDK'S GRAMMATICAL STAND (RHendel)
==============================
RDK in MICHLOL, The GATE of NOUNS in the X(kamatz)Y form 
states that 
	>the construct can be with PATACH or Kamatz
The RDK gives eg AV MALKOSH (Proverb verse) as an example.

(In passing the RDK suggests in the noun form X(patach)Y that
DM might belong to EITHER the patach or kamatz forms)

It follows that according to RDK the difference between DM NKI
with PATACH or KAMATZ would not exist...therefore a Baal
KORAY would NOT go back.


4) THE ARGUMENT OF SILENCE (RHendel)
==========================
The argument of silence proceeds as follows.

4a) Rashi (and other mefarshim) make a point
on commenting in textual forms that could mean
something else with a light change. Some examples
are

>Rashi comments on the difference between 
BAH accent (coming vs had come)

>Rashi comments on the difference between BINAH
accent (to understand vs understand--verse in Job)

>Rashi comments eg on punctuation of HAY eg(
HAACHAYCHEM...it is a rhetorical HAY but is 
punctuated with a patach vs the usual Chataf
patach).

>Rashi comments on the verse "Fulfill the week for
this one (Rachel and Leah by Jacob and Laban)"
pointing out it is SheVua vs SHAVUA.

Many more examples exist. Similarly MINCHAT SHAI
and many other comment on textual form when meaning
COULD be affected

4b) BUT...there is no commentary on the verses with
DM (no one...not rashi, ibn ezra, etc)

4c) Hence we conclude that Rashi does not regard
the DM DM difference as significant SINCE if he did
he would have to comment.

The novel point here is that the argument is from
what Rashi does NOT comment on vs an explicit
statement of his

5) ANSWER TO ARGUMENT OF SILENCE (Rabbi Teitz)
==================================
Rabbi Teitz argues that notwithstanding the above rule
that Rashi comments on ambiguous verses nevertheless 
since IN ANY EVENT there is ambiguity in the verse (after
all DESPITE the RDKs claim, DM could still mean (even
according to the radack) EITHER "innocent blood" vs
"blood of an innocent")--it therefore follows that Rashi
or SOMEONE ***should*** have said something (because
the verse **is*** ambiguous).

It therefore follows that the argument of silence cannot be
used to prove one way or the other

(In passing...it would emerge from the above analysis
of Rabbi Teitz that what he is saying is that we don't
fully understand the Phenomena of Rashi's silence..when
is Rashi silent on a verse form?).

6) ANSWER TO RDK(RTeitz, RHendel)
=================
I provided a statistical analysis of all occurences of DM.

---all construct states are ALWAYS patach
---all non construct states are ALWAYS kamatz
---except when the phrase has NKI or HNKI Then
DM could be patach or Kamatz.

Rabbi Teitz basically claims that because of the above
anomaly it follows that EVEN if USUALLY constructs could
be patach and kamatz we need not follow the RDKs principle
here because the examples seem to go out of their way to
say DM NKI is different than other occurences of DM (I am
rephrasing Rabbi Teitz's original argument in a way that I
believe makes it stronger...he of course is free to correct)


7) THE SEMANTIC ARGUMENT (RHendel)
=========================
At this point I raised a new argument which I will call
the semantic argument. Basically I claim that there is
an intrinsic difference between phrases like
	>red blood
	>innocent blood

For when I say 
	>red blood
the REDness is an Attribute of the blood itself. That is blood 
can be red.

But when I say
	>innocent blood
the INNOCENCE is not an attribute of the blood itself. For
blood is not innocent or not innocent. Rather
	>innocent blood 
means
	>blood FROM a person WHO was innocent.

BUT the above analysis then shows that that 
	>innocent blood
	>blood of an innocent person
BOTH have the same meaning. They both mean BLOOD
OF AN INNOCENT PERSON.

It would follow that since there is no difference in meaning
the Baal Koray should not go back.

A further supportive point to this semantic argument is
that INNOCENT BLOOD is an English Concept that
does not really occur in Tnach. There is no reason therefore
to assume that the verse COULD mean INNOCENT BLOOD

This would also answer why Rashi is silent. The only 
ambiguity is from the point of view of the English language
and Rashi was unaware of this ambiguity and therefore
did not respond to it (was silent).

8) ANSWER TO SEMANTIC ARGUMENT (Rabbi Teitz)
===============================
I unfortunately am not totally clear on Rabbi Teitz's answer

Basically Rabbi Teitz argues that 
	>innocent blood
	>blood of an innocent
may be the
	>same concept
but are not the
	>same meaning
(If I understand Rabbi Teitz his point is that INNOCENT
BLOOD is a FIGURATIVE USE of INNOCENCE which
involves the same concept as BLOOD OF AN INNOCENT.)

This incidentally involves a NOVELTY (Chidush) of Rabbi
Teitz. For example suppose a baal koray read
	>AL AYIN HAMAYIM vs
	>AL AYN HAMAYIM
Then the meaning (and spelling is the same)---the eye shaped
well of water. Hence Rabbi Bechoffer (Yerushalmi) and myself
would not make the Baal koray go back. BUT...(perhaps) Rabbi
Teitz would make him go back since although the concepts of
	>AYIN HAMAYIM vs
	>AYN  HAMAYIM 
are the same, the exact meanings (translations) are different.

9) A POSSIBLE PROOF #1 FOR 2 
MEANINGS (DOUBLE HAY) (Rabbi Teitz)
================================================
Part of the semantic argument was the assertion that 
	>INNOCENT BLOOD
never occurs anyplace in Tnach.

Rabbi Teitz claims the verse
	>HDM HNKI
means 
	>THE INNOCENT BLOOD

Let us review the argument. If I have a 
	>noun (like BALL) and an
	>adjective  like RED
then I could say
	>a red ball (CDUR ADOM)
However If I wanted to say
	>The red ball
then hebrew grammar requires the insertion of 2 hays
	>Hcdur Hadom

In other words, whenever we have a sequence
	>H Noun  H Adj
it should be interpreted as 
	> THE <noun> with attribute <adjective>
for example THE BALL THAT IS RED (Or the RED BALL)

Consequently HDM HNKI (end of shoftim) clearly points to an
interpretation of THE INNOCENT BLOOD.

10) ANSWER TO POSSIBLE PROOF (RHendel)
=============================
I responded to this argument by the counterassertion that
	>H Noun H Adj
COULD also mean 
	> THE <noun> OF the <adjective>

Unfortunately there are very few examples in Tnach (Rabbi Teitz's
answer) and it is possible to deal with these differently. The best
proof I found is 
	>H ChaNith HaMeLeCh  (Shmuel)
This does not mean
	>The regal sword 
but rather means
	>The sword of the King 
(Perhaps it means his favorite sword)
(Rabbi Teitz's response was that this is Kri-Ktiv though I 
don't see why that should matter)

Since our emails I have found 1-2 more ("The altar of Copper/Wood"---
one can tell from the form of ALTAR=MIZBAYACH whether it is
intended as construct or not).


11) A POSSIBLE PROOF #2 FOR 1 MEANING(Hendel)
==========================================
There is a verse that Menasheh spilled MUCH
	>DM NKI
till he filled Jerusalem with blood

Now, IF DM NKI meant he spilled alot of innocent blood
this would make sense.

But if DM NKI means the BLOOD OF INNOCENT then
the verse should have used the plural
	>Menasheh spillled much DM NKIIM

Doesn't this prove that DM NKI means INNOCENT BLOOD
and therefore the concept DOES OCCUR in TNACH?

But the RDK on the spot DOES TRANSLATE this verse as
	>MNSH spilled much BLOOD OF AN INNOCENT
since he cites a maamar chazal that the verse refers to
the killing of his son in law YESHAYAHU (and we have
precedents for translating 
	>SPILLED ALOT OF BLOOD=Killed an important person

Putting everything together, Chazal and RDK went out of their
way to translate this verse as BLOOD OF AN INNOCENT PERSON
(Namely Yeshayahu). No mefaresh mentions the possibility
that we are talking about INNOCENT BLOOD.


I believe the above accurately summarizes the arguments, sources
and positions to date

Personally I am going to try and find out when patach vs kamatz
is used in two letter nouns.

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; RJHEndel@Juno.COm
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Since RJH and I sat in many of the same shiurim in which the Rav zt'l
discussed piyyut, I won't deny that he occasionally voiced objections to
this or that piyyut.I was referring to piyyut, per se which he
(especially on Shaharit of Yom Kippur) saw as expressing the
quintessence of the Qedushat HaYom.

Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf 
Department of Talmud
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, Israel

I would like to suggest a different way of looking at this issue.

1)	There is no doubt that by the tenth century, the Bavli was seen by
Hakhme Derom Italya and Franco-Germany (esp Germany) as more than a
study book. Rather, as Ta-Shema and Grossman both point out, the early
Sages of Ashkenaz viewed Tannaitic literature ( Mishnah, Tosefta,
Baraita etc) as the bottom line of Halakhic truth. The Bavli was the
premier interpreter of the Tannaim, but by no means the only one. Hence,
as I point out in a forthcoming article, the preponderance of citations
from Tannaitic sources ( where, as Grossman notes, better and clearer
statements of Amoraim are available) This changes in the third quarter
of the eleventh century when the Bavli becomes THE arbiter of halakhic
truth and THE binding interpreter of the Tannaim.

2) The fact that Tosafot cites a Yerushalmi which is not in our text is
common. There were all sorts of Palestinian collections floating around
which were known as 'Yerushalmi.' Prof Yaakov Zussman of Hebrew U has
done alot of work on this and published a long fragment of such a
collection in a journal called Qobez al Yad.

Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf 
Department of Talmud
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, Israel

In answer to Joel Rich, Halacha Lemoshe misinai

--is not rabbinic

--is never the subject of halachic midrash

For example you will find NO midrash proving tefilin
must be black, or one shin is 3 pointed vs 4 pointed etc

The list of HLM occurs in Rambam, intro to mishna.

Gzayrah Shavehs are a separate problem

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

The prohibition of not wearing gender specific clothing
applies to exactly that...clothing that is specifcially designed
for specific genders.

The FUNCTIONAL REASON for a kittle is 
>to remind us of the day of death
>to resemble angels
>to remind us of purity
Since all these apply equally to men/women there
couldn't be an issur

(Note my assumption: I hold that FUNCTION not USAGE creates
the issur...perhaps there is a teshuva of an acharon that 
overrides me on this that I am unaware of)

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Allow me to respond to Rabbi Bechoffers 3 arguments

As can be seen from the time of the emails he really did
not read my postings (which is unfair). I would appreciate
it if he at least read them (summary comments are below)
I reiterate, I don't see how Rabbi B can get out of the 
arguments below (showing grammatical vs gematria
derivations) and therefore we agree
 

1) If you read my posting you will find that I DID explain
the SUCCOTH SUCCOTH shittah.

According to R Hirsch in a collective noun
	>deficient spellings mean not all parts are there
	>full spellings mean all parts are there

So
	>Scth (spelled deficiently) means 3 walled vs 4 walled
	(ie 3 walls means not all walls were there. In passing
	the same applies to KRNOTH==deficient spelling 
	means you don't have to sprinkle on all of them)

I explicitly state that 
	>the other side went by the KRI (which is full and hence
	requires 4 walls).

Please read the above explanation of Rav hirsch and please read
my ENTIRE posting.

If you accept Rav Hirsch's explanation then WE AGREE THAT 
GEMATRIAS are not used.

2) Very simply if the verse says 
	>her michah and her libation (singular)
then it refers to ONE libation.

If the verse says 
	>her michah and her libationS( plural)
then it refers to 2 libations (water and oil).

In other words 
	>it is not the extra letters that cause the drash 
	(word games)
but
	>the grammatical significance of the extra
	letter implying plural---and plurality means 2

Again if you accept this argument (rav hirsch() then you
agree that it is grammar not gematria that determines 
halacha. (the other EXTRA letters are explained in my
posting...note my point ...the midrash is not learned
from a juxtaposition of extra letters but rather from
the grammatical significance of the extra plural)

3) If you hold that ANYBODY holds that GEMATRIA is a MEANS
of EXEGESIS then it follows that if the gematria of any verse
means FREE MAMZARIM or FREE AGUNOTH then I can
legitimately do that.

This is absurd (Even you must agree to this). There is no
rational way I know of to blanketly hold that Gematria can
be used as a means of midrash.

In addition to reading my posting (perhaps I didn't explain
myself clearly) you can look up Rav Hirsch on the verses
in question.

I will be happy to look up SHABBATH 70a but let us slow
down first and see where we stand on the 2 examples on
the table (only then should we go forward)

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In Brooklyn the D.A. has sent a letter to the clergy about problem
drinking on Simchat Torah.
Moadim L'Simcha
Saul

"A Message from THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY"
I urge rabbis, parents and leaders in synagogues and yeshivos to
carefully monitor the serving of alcohol to minors during the Simchas
Torah festivities.  It is easy for young people to overestimate their
capacity
for alcohol and become very ill from alcohol poisoning.  In addition,
serving alcoholic beverages to anyone under 21 years of age is illegal.
According to the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependency,
105,000 Americans die annually from alcohol-related causes which include
everything from falls to alcohol poisoning to drunk driving accidents to
cirrhosis of the liver.
Alcohol lowers inhibitions and impairs judgment which can lead to risky
behaviors.  Alcohol also hinders coordination, slows reaction time,
dulls senses, and blocks memory functions.  While I am not concerned
about motor vehicle use on Simchat Torah, I am concerned that a
youngster might, for instance, misjudge the speed of oncoming traffic
while crossing streets.

Have a joyous yom tov!

Charles Hynes
District Attorney of Kings County"
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I miswrote:
: I only noticed one example of rationalizing current practice: T (as well as
: Rashi) invoke the Rosh on the number of knots for tzitzis.

Obviously (as someone graciously pointed out to me privately) Tosafos and Rashi
do NOT invoke the Rosh, as he postdates them.

When I last learned the subject, I noticed that Rashi and Tosafos merely ignore
the problem of one knot per chuliah, whereas the Rosh gives a reason why this
would be a non-issue in tzitzis that are lavan only. The Rosh therefore reaches
the same conclusion as R and T -- 5 knots as per the Medrash Tanchumah (Korach
12). I wrote in my notes that perhaps R and T held like the Rosh.

In trying to write quickly, the idea "probably invoke the Rosh's rationale"
became "invoke the Rosh".

Sorry for any confusion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 27-Sep-99: Levi
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 44b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim II 9

Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> I miswrote:
> : I only noticed one example of rationalizing current practice: T (as well as
> : Rashi) invoke the Rosh on the number of knots for tzitzis.


Not to point out your errors by reposting them, but this is where the bit I
want to address happens to be.

Out of curiousity; what beracha do those of you who have t'cheilet say when you
put on your talit? I was in a shiur by R' Meir Mazuz (which has since been
released on a 6 tape set called Tefilat Shaharit K'Hilchatah which I highly 
recommend) in which he mentioned that when we have t'cheilet again the beracha
will change from l'hitatef betzitzit (shva) to l'hitatef batzitzit (patah).

Acyually, now that I ask, I realize that I don't even know which beracha
Ashkenazim say anyway, and if it would be any different with or without t'cheilet.

Thanks.


---sam

BTW, The Rokeach al haTorah lists gematria as one of the shivim panim
letorah and he precedes the list with the statement "ve'ashrei hachacham
hayodeia lehavin bo... 


YGB

On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 rjhendel@juno.com wrote:

> 1) If you read my posting you will find that I DID explain the SUCCOTH
> SUCCOTH shittah. 
> 
> According to R Hirsch in a collective noun
> 	>deficient spellings mean not all parts are there
> 	>full spellings mean all parts are there
> 
> So
> 	>Scth (spelled deficiently) means 3 walled vs 4 walled
> 	(ie 3 walls means not all walls were there. In passing
> 	the same applies to KRNOTH==deficient spelling 
> 	means you don't have to sprinkle on all of them)
> 
> I explicitly state that 
> 	>the other side went by the KRI (which is full and hence
> 	requires 4 walls).
> 
> Please read the above explanation of Rav hirsch and please read my
> ENTIRE posting. 
> 
> If you accept Rav Hirsch's explanation then WE AGREE THAT GEMATRIAS are
> not used. 
> 

Firstly, this is not a gematria.

Secondly, RSRH is not a Rishon. The Gemara itself seems to plainly base
itself on Mikra and Masores.

1. Does RSRH specifically discuss this Gemara?
2. How does he deal with the Gemara's dichotomy between Mikra/Masorah - to
the exclusion of any other explanation?

> 2) Very simply if the verse says 
> 	>her michah and her libation (singular)
> then it refers to ONE libation.
> 
> If the verse says 
> 	>her michah and her libationS( plural)
> then it refers to 2 libations (water and oil).
> 

That is another derasha - "niskeihem" as referring to two libations,
distinct from the "mayim" derasha.

> 3) If you hold that ANYBODY holds that GEMATRIA is a MEANS of EXEGESIS
> then it follows that if the gematria of any verse means FREE MAMZARIM or
> FREE AGUNOTH then I can legitimately do that. 
> 

Correct, in theory - but not, for you, in practice, as you are not a
Tanna, nor even an Amora, and therefore cannot engage in Halachic Medrash.
Sorry.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]