Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 043

Wednesday, November 7 2001

• Re: Talmud and science
• Re: Talmud and science
• Re: Shape of the Earth
• shmira for unidentified WTC remains
• Mezuzah : Protective Amulet Or Religious Symbol?
• Achosi Hi
• Re: Achosi Hi
• Re: Micha's post on techeiles
• Re: interesting more positive explanation of 'am hadomeh lachamor'
• Re: Chasidim harishonim
• Re: ikarim
• Re: Avodah V8 #42
• Re: Talmud and Science
• Re: Talmud and science
• Fw: Grape Juice
• Re: interesting more positive explanation of 'am hadomeh lachamor'
• Matbe'ah shel Avrohom Ovinu
• Re: Pliny and blue shellfish dyeing; Re: Micha's post on techeiles
• Re: Matbe'ah shel Avrohom Ovinu
• Re: Matbe'ah shel Avrohom Ovinu

Chana Luntz wrote:
> PPS if an eight month baby is born - halachically ought he to have
> a pidyon haben? My son did, and it was not one of the questions we
> were asked.

By the time he's old enough for a pidyon haben he's survived thirty days
(miktas hayom k'kulo) and has aquired a presumption that he's viable.

David Riceman

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:37:53PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: <<down and collects statistics, it is quite possible no one noticed that
: 8th month babies are more likely to survive than 7th. >>>

: My recollection is that halacha presumed 8th month babies to be
: non-viable, but that 7th month babies *are* viable...

Which is what I tried to say as well.

:                                           either (a) they did collect
: statistics but nishtaneh hateva, or (b) the presumed non-viability of
: 8th-month babies was based on something other than statistics.

It could very well have been based on Aristotle, who believed that 7th
month babies are more viable.


On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:22:07AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: I believe the Muslims (and the Jews in Muslim countries) knew that the
: earth was spherical, e.g., the Rambam in the Guide takes it as a given.

The Greeks did. The Ptolmeic geocentric universe has the spheres going
around a spherical earth.

As the Muslims and Sepharadim were avid students of Aristotle and Plotinus,
it would be unsurprising that they would know it as well.

However, as I noted, by the days of Rebbe, we already accepted this idea.
See the machloqes on Pesachim 94b -- they argued about whether the galgal
or the mazalos move. The Ptolmeic universe, that everything orbits a
spherical earth, was a given.

Even with earlier tannaim arguing otherwise, the Ashkenazim at least
knew of the scientific theory.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Gil Student wrote:
> Of course. But that does not mean that it was the normative view,
> particularly in Ashkenazic areas where the church had tremendous influence
> over scientific pursuits.

I believe the Muslims (and the Jews in Muslim countries) knew that the
earth was spherical, e.g., the Rambam in the Guide takes it as a given.
What I don't know is whether knowledge of astronomy percolated to Jews
in Christian areas (perhaps R. Gil could check what the Ralbag said in
Milhamoth HaShem).

David Riceman

An article in today's NY Times, a synopsis of which of posted earlier to
areivim, about a group of Jewish students doing shmira for WTC remains
(according to the article it seems that they were doing shemira for a
few trucks of unidentified remains at the Medical Examiners office),
got me thinking.....

Is there a chiyuv shemirah min hadin (or al pi minhog) in such a case
or is what they are doing more symbolic? After all, if the remains
are unidentified, perhaps they do not include those of Acheinu Bnei
Yisroel in that batch.........Rov remains from there licheora are of
einom Yehudim....

Respondents may want to read the NYT story before responding to get a
better picture of the situation....

Comments?

Mordechai

re the inyan discussed here not long ago.......

B"H I finally came across the article I had recalled (with the above title, 
by Prof. Martin L. Gordon). It is in Tradition volume 16, number 4 (summer 
1977).

He addresses the phenomenon of mezuzah inspection being prescribed when 
difficulties are encountered ch"v, etc., in a very comprehensive article.

Ayin shom ba'arichus....

Mordechai

does anyone know of good mekoros discussing the three wife/sister stories
in bresihis, particularly in light of each other?

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 01:13:24PM -0500, Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut wrote:
: does anyone know of good mekoros discussing the three wife/sister stories
: in bresihis, particularly in light of each other?

Koferim take the mention of camels in Canaan in Bereishis to be an
anachronism.

Rabbi Love noted an interesting twist: the one time the story occured
in Mitzrayim is the one time the gifts included camels. As they were
not indigenous to where Avraham was going, they were certainly valuable
animals.

So, of course Rivka was able to tell that the camels were Avrahams (even
if we do not posit the presence of muzzles) -- almost no one else from
Canaan had camels.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I hope it was clear I was joking when I said...

> R' Micha wrote:
>>Today, even given recent discussion here, the same is not true. The
>>usability of murex does not threaten communal unity.

> "Threaten communal unity" - seems a bit late for that!

I forgot to put in the :) . I did not mean to imply that murex
techeiles wearers had already threatened community unity, chas
v'shalom. I was referring to the sad state of affairs today where there
is so little achdus - what community unity do we have left these days
to be threatened? I would say that community unity is threatened far
more by people who refuse to consider murex because it comes from the
(take your pick) YU or MO or Gush or whatever crowd. People who wear
murex techeiles are showing a great love for an important mitzvah.
For all the issues I have with the validity of the position (and some
of the unintentional implications some find in the writings), I think
they deserve admiration and should be an inspiration for all of us to
improve our love of mitzvos. I certainly have been motivated by them,
and owe them a great debt for this.

mendel

If you look carefully, the derasha of "im hadomeh lachamor" is only said
in regard to slaves. Yishmael was the son of Hagar who was Avraham's
shifchah (R. Kasher quotes a midrash that says this explicitly).
The derasha about all Gentiles is from "besar chamorim besaram" which
is a different issue.

My take on this is that the derasha is telling us that slaves are a
person's property for doing work just like a donkey. Ever hear the phrase
"work like a mule"? That's what slaves do.

Regarding the second derasha, I have something written up at
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/man2.html.

Gil Student

Someone informed me of a Rabbenu Yona on a RIF in Brachot 4a: "teida
she'hatfila atzmo hayu mevatlin gedolei hachachamim mipnei ha'limud,
kemo shematzinu she'reb shimon ben yochai lo haya mitpalel ela m'shana
l'shana, v'reb yehuda hanassi mi'chodesh l'chodesh, k'dei shelo yitbatlu
mi'toratam.......".

Josh

R' Micha wrote <<In Syria, most ma'aminim believe in the eser sephiros. In
Baladi Teimani communities, he would be considered a kofeir!>>

R' Micha, I think you meant Darda'i Teimani. They are the anti mystics.
In my experience, the Baladi read as much Zohar as the Shami.

KT, 
David

On Tuesday 06 November 2001 14:22,  Phyllostac@aol.com wrote
> re why would Avrohom be issuing coins if he was not a King / ruler
> - - in the past issuing of currency was not always a governmental
> function. Avrohom was a pioneer of sorts in this area I think.

> re why the coins were made without images - perhaps the technology wasn't
> too advanced then or it would be too expensive that way.

I am not learning daf yomi at present, and do not know the gemara in
question (sorry no gemara within reach )-:)

Anyway, I recall that archaeologists are of the opinion that coins were
not yet being minted in Avraham Avinu's days, and that we must understand
sheqel as a fixed weight. In order to evaluate the archaeologists'
opinion, I wonder whether it would be straightforward enough to explain
the gemarra as saying something else. I.e. it is not about actual minting
as much as the fact that Avraham abstained from behaviour that lead
later rulers to put (their) images on coins.
Coins denote independence (good) but were also used to spread avodah
zarah, the romans were quite adept at advertising the cult of the
emperor. Were hazal trying to show the distance between Avraham and the
emperor or procurator?

Finally, you mention that Avraham was not a king. Well, the authors of
Atlas da'at miqra (Hebrew), I believe Dr. Yehudah Elitzur is one of them,
claim that Avraham was kind of a king. He commanded a large army. They
choose for the simple pshat rather than Rashi's suggestion of the maamar
'hazal that the 318 'hanikhim were all Eliezer himself. Instead thay
opine that 'hanikhim are archers, and that for every archer, there must
have been several infantrymen. This last assumption is quite reasonable,
although the list shal surely judge on this matter. Anyway, knowing
that Avraham commanded a large army, and that kings were dying to marry
his "sister" (they could have imported a Scandinavian shiksa, could
they? Even if those shiksa's were not as beautiful as Sarah imenu, it
would have been much easier to already have imported them. Furthermore,
Sarah was not very young, and women tended to marry very, very young
in those days, which would mean that importing a shiksa would have been
much more likely if not for additional considerations such as Avraham's
diplomatic standing.), that kings wanted to enter into peace treaties
with him, and that he was very wealthy, they conclude that he must have
been a [nomdic] king of sorts.

Following in their speculative footsteps, I have opined in a class I
gave that the rteason why the gezeirat arb'a meot shanah starts with the
life of Yitzhak Avinu, is that he seems only to have residual power of
Avraham, but nowhere nearly as much of it. Avimelekh is much more eager
to enter into a treaty with Avraham (im tishkor li ulenini ulenekhdi)
than with Yitzhak, whose sole contact with Avimelekh is in Gerar and
to restore the wells his father dug, which, by the way, had been stolen
by Avimelekh's servants possibly because they did not fear Yitzhak. The
Torah tells us a lot less about Yitzhak as a main protagonist than about
Avraham and about Ya'akov.

So to recap, Atlas Da'at Miqra opines (in the intro) that Avraham was
sort of a king, and I opine that Yitzhak lost much of that power, which
why it is appropriate to say that the 400 years of shi'bud be-eretz lo
lahem starts with Yitzhak's birth.

Reactions welcome.

Arie Folger

This is one case where my only expertise on this subject is that I
gave birth to twins in the eight month.

That said (they were born Motza'ei Shabbat) the issues that were
discussed with the doctors (San Francisco University Medical Center)
was that at a certain date (based on the babies' ultrasounds) their
lungs should be developed enough that they wouldn't need incubators.
This date was at the border between the eight month and ninth month.

Other discussions on this subject with other mothers, who told of
their experiences 20-50 years ago, supplied the universal wisdom that
a 7th month baby was known to be under-developed and needing special
care while a 9th month baby was usually fine.

8th month babies range from under-developed to close to fully
developed and one of the major problems is identifying the baby's
situation.  This is even more complicated b/c some kids develop some
of their systems at different rates than others.

So, an 8th month baby, in the past, was usually either under-treated
compared with what the baby needed, the wrong system was given
extra-support, or the baby made it despite everything.

Again, this is anecdotal evidence, but apparently Chazal's view of 8
month babies was still shared by many mothers 20 years ago, and from
what my friends tell me -- even to this day.

All I can say is that B"H my daughters are now doing Sheirut Le'umi in
Jerusalem <G>.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On 6 Nov 2001, at 13:06, Chana Luntz wrote:
>         I wasn't (still aren't) sure at what point the baby is regarded
> as viable and the muzta restriction lifted.  My best guess would have
> been that the same month used for pidyon haben would be the defining
> test - but it wasn't clear to me that that ought to be the case.

AFAIK that is correct - once a month has gone by, no distinction is 
made between a baby born in the 8th month and a baby born in the 
9th month.

> Yes, but at what point is the chazaka lifted - one week, two weeks,
> three weeks, all its life?  

At the end of one month. 

>> But the metzius that the baby lived 
>> to be a month should be oiker the chazaka and cause us to treat 
>> that baby like any other. 

> So are you saying that for each shabbas up to a month the baby should be
> muktza, but that after a month it would not?  

Correct, at least as the halacha was in the time of the Gemara. 

>                                               An alternative might be
> when it went into the nineth month (which for an eight month baby would
> be before the pidyon haben).  On the other hand, maybe for a normal baby
> we need a month to see that it is not a nefel, for a baby with a
> presumed status of nefel we need longer.

I don't think it's a presumed status. I think it's a chazaka based on
a rov and once you are oiker the chazaka one month out, there is no
difference between a baby that was born in the 8th month and one that
was born in the 9th month.

Mazal tov on the Pidyon HaBen (I realize that's belated). They're rare
these days.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Can anybody help clarify this issue.
I've studied the halakhot of Yayin Nesekh and Setam Yenam in the Gemara,
Rambam, Tour, Bet Yosef, and numerous commentators  and I can not seem to
find any source for the current practice in the kashrut arena to forbid any
grape derived products. Be they juice, flavoring, coloring, etc..

What gives?
What is this based upon?

Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri

From:   gil_student@hotmail.com (Gil Student)
> If you look carefully, the derasha of "im hadomeh lachamor" is only said in 
> regard to slaves....
> My take on this is that the derasha is telling us that slaves are a person's 
> property for doing work just like a donkey.  Ever hear the phrase "work like 
> a mule"?  That's what slaves do.

So it is 'im hadomeh lachamor' and not 'am hadomeh lachamor'?

If that expression is used for avodim knaaniyim, perhaps that does
not necessarily totally argue with / contradict the vort I mentioned,
because eved kinaani is chayav in mitzvos keisha - so they are also like
a bridge between Yehudim and einam Yehudim.

Also, re donkeys - I have been looking at the new beautiful sefer by R.
Nosson Slifkin (www.zooTorah.com) based on Perek Shira ('Nature’s
Song : An elucidation of Perek Shirah, the ancient Midrash that lists
the philosophical and ethical lessons of the Natural World') and in
the section on the shira of a donkey, he brings a Zohar that speaks
favorably of a donkey in that it submits to it's burden, doesn't kick
it's master like other animals do and is the symbol of total subjugation
(among other things).

By the way, Yeyasheir kochachem to listmembers RAA & RGA for their
important contributions to the sefer.

Mordechai

From: "Eli Turkel" <Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu>
> Can someone explain the recent daf yomi on the coins of avraham avinu
> that had zaken, zakena on one side and naar,naarah on the other side.
> Why would avraham be issuing coins? He was not king of any place?

As Tosfos says b'shem the Midrash (P' Lech-Lecho):
"V'agadlo shemecho - sheyetze lo monitin b'olom".
(Actually the Midrash Rabba darshens this from "Ve'escho l'goy godol...")
The Midrash talks of 4 people who issued coins, AO, Yehoshua, Dovid
Hamelech and Mordechai.

> According to tosaphot they only had words on the two sides and no pictures
> - sounds like it is easy to forge.

Didn't the value of their coins go by the weight of the precious
metal used for its minting?

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> re why the coins were made without images - perhaps the technology wasn't
> too advanced then or it would be too expensive that way.

Tosfos write that zokon uz'keno etc means that the words were used and not
images as it is ossur to depict "tsuras odom".
On the same page in describing Matbe'a shel Yerusholayim - which the Gemoro
describes as having Dovid uShlomo on one side and Yerusholayim IHK on the
other, Rashi writes similarly - that it was only in words.
(see coin - depicted as per Rashi's depiction - as #6 at the site mentioned
further)
********
Some months ago the London Jewish Tribune published 2 interesting letters
fom Doniel Hool of Bnei Brak who heard the following from Rav Elfenbine
of Har Nof. (Anyone here know him?)

Rav Elfenbine had a friend who once met the gaon and tzaddik Rav Michoel
Ber Weissmandl z'l in the NY State Library.

RMBW explained his purpose of the visit there as follows:

Tosfos in Bovo Kamo 97b discusses the gemoro which states that Avrohom
Ovinu had a coin with 'bochur ubesulah' on one side and 'zoken u'z'keino'
on the other - and says that the coin did not depict the faces of these
on either side - but rather that the coin used those words.

RMBW continued, that for centuries maskilim and reformers have quoted
this Tosfos as proof of how ridiculous one can become in believing
Torah tradition. After all, everyone knows that ancient coins depicted
faces and it is laughable to say that it only had words - simply on the
assumption that AO kept Halocho.

"Now look at this!" continued RMBW, showing a recent copy of a prestigious
archaeological journal, and read out aloud:

"Earlier this month a strange coin was found near the origins of the
biblical town said to be the dwelling place of Abraham. Most interesting
is the fact that no pictures appear on the coin, only the enigmatic words
"Bochur Besula" on one side and "Zoken Zekena" on the other"

RMBW beamed to his astounded listener as he showed him a photograph of
the coin ion the journal...

The writer also mentions a web address:
http://www.imj.org.il/coins/learn.html
where they have this under
Nummi Abrahami - The "Coin" of Abraham

"...The Talmud and Midrash attribute the invention of coins to Abraham,
Joshua, David, and Mordechai. In these sources, the coins of Abraham are
described as depicting an old man and woman on one side, and a youth and
maiden on the other. Centuries later, coins of Abraham were produced by
forgers who derived their inspiration from the traditional Jewish texts.
However, instead of bearing actual human images, the fantasized coins are
inscribed with the phrases "old man" (identified as Abraham by the initial
"A" [aleph]) and "old woman" (identified as Sarah by the initial "S"
[shin]) on one side, and "youth" (identified as Isaac by the initial "I"
[yud]) and "maiden" (identified as Rebecca by the initial "R" [reish]) on
the other. (It's obvious that this writer did not see the abovementioned
Tosfos - SBA) An illustration of a so-called coin of Abraham is included
in the book by Johann Philipp Odelem..."

Also see:
http://www.imj.org.il/coins/abraham.html

[It may be worthwhile to print out these pages to show children and
talmidim.]

Shlomo B Abeles

On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 10:46:09AM -0800, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Today, even given recent discussion here, the same is not true. The
:> usability of murex does not threaten communal unity.

: I do not find this whole argument very convincing...
:          it is clear that one cannot use the public appearance of techelet
: as a measure of its acceptance.

Good, because the argument you find unconvining is close to 180deg from
the one I was trying to make.

I was trying to say that if a reluctance to wear maybe-techeiles was
because of issues of agudos agudos, that reluctance should no longer be
an issue. Therefore there is one less hefsed in wearing it mishum safeik.

As for why this change occured, I think there are a number of factors.

First, we live in a generation where people still hold by the minhagim
of the old country, and not by current community. So, no one expects
communal uniformity, and no one thinks that a lack of uniformity indicates
a lack of communal membership. (Whether this changes, and there emerges
a minhag Bet Shemesh or minhag New York, will be seen. ChV we are in NY
long enough to evolve one...)

Second, we live in a culture that values personal autonomy and letting
each person do there own thing. To some extent that assimilated even
into our communities. We are perfectly content living in kehillos where
each person does his own shtik together.


On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:59:50AM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
: I have to agree that the discovery of the ability to make blue dye
: from murex is indeed significant...
: However, just as we have now discovered how to dye blue from murex,
: who knows what other secrets of dyeing blue will yet be discovered.
: This is hardly sufficient proof...

 From Sefunei Temunei Chol [the Radziner addresses what he calls the 2nd
taanah] (translation from
<http://israelvisit.co.il/beged-ivri/techelet/Sefunei.htm>):
> And furthermore it is understood from the words of our sages of blessed
> memory that the techelet regarding that which the Torah has enjoined
> us must retain its original beauty and not fade in color, this can be
> learned from the passage in Exodus 28 where it is written 'completely
> techelet'. And when this color fades it is not completely techelet. And
> as Rabbi Chanina the son of Rabbi Gamliel expounded regarding a blemish
> which makes it inadequate for use (Menachot 42b). And even though Rabbi
> Yohanon the son of Dahavai disagrees there and says that even the second
> appearance of the color of techelet is fit for use, that means only
> at the begining of the dyeing process, but once it has been dyed for
> the Mitzvah and then it fades and continues to get lighter in color
> so then certainly it is not considered to be completely techelet and
> it must retain its original beauty and not change. For if its color is
> not one that retains its original beauty and does change then certainly
> it is not fit for use as soon as it begins to fade from its original
> color and changes. Therefore when the Torah states completelytechelet
> then certainly it means that it must retain its original beauty and
> not change. For the techelet of the tzitzith is learned out from the
> techelet of the priestly garments, for all techelet mentioned in the
> Torah must retain its original beauty and not change. Therefore the
> sages of blessed memory needed the chilazon that was known to them,
> for the color of techelet from any other species does not retain its
> original beauty and fades.

> This being so that the necessity of the Hillazon in the Techelet is
> not dependent on a passage in the Torah or the strict letter of the
> law or a law without reason (Halachah), but rather is derived and
> based on the theory that the color should remain in its state of
> beauty and be unchangeable; this being true, if after searching we
> would be able to find the blood of any kind of Hillazon that would
> enable us to properly dye the color of Techelet which would retain
> its original beauty and would not fade, then certainly we would be
> able to fulfill the commandment of Techelet without any doubt. For
> what is the difference if the sage of blessed memory were insistent
> on one particular Hillazon that was known specifically, we must say
> that it was understood by Chazal, our sages of blessed memory, that
> there is no other Hillazon in the world or for that matter any other
> creature that can be used to dye the Techelet in a way that its color
> would retain the original beauty and would not fade. Therefore the
> Hillazon we have found is the very same Hillazon that the sages of
> blessed memory intended; for we see that we are able to dye with its
> blood the color of Techelet and it's color retain the original beauty
> and does not fade. And if this is a different Hillazon or creature
> than the one our sages of blessed memory spoke of we still must say
> that Chazal were not insistent on one particular kind of Hillazon
> that was known specifically but rather the law is that all type of
> Hillazon and snails that would enable us to dye with their blood the
> color of Techelet and would retain its original beauty and not fade
> is permissible, but to exclude the Hillazon which is not permissible,
> that it is that which grows (vegetable) or is inanimate, for the
> essence of the necessity of the Hillazon for Techelet is not based on
> a law without reason but rather is specifically based on the reason
> that the color will retain its original beauty and will not fade.

> A proof for all this can be derived from the section in Tractate
> Menachot 42b. R. Itzhak the son of R. Yehudah used to test it (the
> Techelet) thus: He used to mix together liquid alum, juice of fenugreek,
> and urine of a forty day old child (or that had been kept for 40 days)
> and soak (The blue thread in it overnight until the morning, if the
> color faded it is invalid but if not it is valid. Now if the necessity
> of the Molusc in the Techelet is derived from a specific passage or is
> the Halacha (law) that it is a specific kind of Molusc that is known
> then what good is the test for even if it does not fade in color and
> is known that the color is not Klai Ilan (imitation techelet) perhaps
> the color is from the blood of a different Molusc and not the same
> Molusc that the Torah is stringent about. But surely the reason for
> the necessity of the Hillazon in the Techelet is derived from careful
> reasoning and theory as is mentioned above that the color should retain
> its original beauty and not fade away and therefore the test is an
> effective one, for even if theSages of blessed memory were stringent
> regarding one particular Molusc that exists because in any other
> species of Molusc the color fades and does not retain its original
> beauty then the test proves that this is the Molusc which the Sages
> of blessed memory spoke of. And if this color comes from a different
> Molusc that the sage did not speak of we must say that the Sage of
> blessed memory did not specify one particular kind of Hillazon that
> was known specifically as we mentioned before. Therefore the second
> objection is rejected and with G-d's help will be further clarified
> with the rejection of the third objection.

This also addresses RMS's closing question:
: Why would someone choose to use murex trunculus derived indigo blue as
: a fake techeiles instead of plant indigo blue?

The Radziner argues that any underwater invertebrate which makes a dye
that fits the description of techeiles is kosher.

This is also the grounds for suggesting that if we apply the Radziner
Rebbe's shitos to what we know today about the cuttlefish dye and the
murex dye, the latter fits his criteria for kashrus but not the former.

Of course, that is our application of what he said, not what the Baal
Techeiles said or even would have said. It is only what I would say,
given his positions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> As Tosfos says b'shem the Midrash (P' Lech-Lecho):
> "V'agadlo shemecho - sheyetze lo monitin b'olom".
> (Actually the Midrash Rabba darshens this from "Ve'escho l'goy godol...")
> The Midrash talks of 4 people who issued coins, AO, Yehoshua,
> Dovid Hamelech and Mordechai.

This makes the question worse. I assume Mordechai would be killed if
Achashverosh knew he was putting out coins as that is clearly a sign
of rebellion.

When Bar Kochba rebelled against the Romans one of the first things he
did was to issue his own coins.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 11/7/2001 12:08:11pm EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> This makes the question worse. I assume Mordechai would be killed if
> Achashverosh knew he was putting out coins as that is clearly a sign
> of rebellion.
> When Bar Kochba rebelled against the Romans one of the first things he
> did was to issue his own coins.

Maybe Rome was more makpid than was Persia?
Rome IIRC was a highly centralized dictroship, while Persia was run as
a much looser confederation. That is why Persia tolerated Jews better,
except for the Anti-Semitic Haman. Rome OTOH did not hate Jews per se,
they just hated ANYONE who did not conform...

IIRC the ability of Persia to overthrow Babylonia was largely because
it offered greater indepndence to the vassal states than did Babylonia.

The Greeks were tolerant until Anitochus IV.

Rome was somewhat tolerant but not after the Republic was replaced by
the Empire.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

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


[ 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         ]