Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 021

Sunday, April 28 2002

• Re: Segulos
• considerations re accepting / taking position of Shat"z
• Re: shatz
• Re: shatz
• RE: segulot
• "kuntres"
• Re: Natural law and halacha
• Emor / blasphemer
• Re: Zohar 'Hadash
• Shaimos (was: who is R. Zishe Heschel)
• Re: Shaimos (was: who is R. Zishe Heschel)
• Re: Shaimos
• Re: Shaimos
• RE: Shaimos
• Re: Shaimos
• Re: considerations re accepting / taking position of Shat"z
• RE: Zohar 'Hadash
• RE: Shaimos
• Re: Zohar 'Hadash
• [none]
• Mila/Mohel/Meila

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:04:59AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:>: This is the thread that RAM tried to get started. Not everything
:>: unnatural is classified as kishuf, but some things are...

I replied:
:> Ah, but you were arguing that nothing (except perhaps neis) is
:> unnatural. So what's this?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:35:12AM -0400, David Riceman replied:
: It is your terminology.

I don't understand your answer. According to you, my definitions of
segulah and qishuf describe things that no ba'al mesorah believed in.
I asked you if this is true, and you agreed.

So, how did we get to "some things" that are "unnatural [are] classified
as kishuf"?

:> Not all movement. For example, they don't study the motivations
:> and psychology of human water drawers either.

: But they do study the physiology of how humans draw water. Since you have
: been claiming that sheidim are not physical I have given you an example
: of a physical effect they perform. I would think that physicists would
: be particularly interested in a non-physical being which can draw water.

Then let me be more specific: Scientists don't study the motivations
caused by the souls of the human water drawer. They study the physical
effects, but intentionally exclude from pervue any possibile non-physical
causes -- and therefore don't even study their details.

They might be interested in it, but their system excludes the possibility
from their toolbox ab initio. But this is too far off topic.

:>: But remember when you chided RAF for taking sides in the machloketh
:>: rishonim about the existence of sheidim...

:> I'm trying to cast their ideas into the garments of 21st century
:> science. To say it can't be done is to assume those ideas aren't
:> Torah or that modern science is further from emes than Aristotle's
:> was.

: That was also RAF's motivation.

But his result was to take sides. In particular, to avoid the side for
whom there is a question to resolve. Just as it looks to me you're doing.

:>: Doesn't the Rambam say...

:> You mean rabbi "there is no segulah or real kishuf"? Aren't we trying
:> to explain the /other/ shitah?

: You missed my explanatory posting.  Ayyein sham.

Eifo? If I missed it, I don't know what your "sham" is. Please forward
in private email, since I'm probably alone in missing it.

I'm arguing here that using the Rambam in your answer is conceding that
my qushya is an upshlug. (Ecactly what I "chided" RAF for.) That there
is no place for segulos or qishuf in modern science, and therefore the
shitah that says they are subjective or illusion must be the right one.

:> theurgy is the art of doing the will of God, thaumaturgy is trying to
:> get God to do man's will. I would identify the latter with kishuf --
:> in ADDITION to idolatry.

: Now we're back to the transistor problem.

Only becaause you're denying the existance of metaphysical cause. To
you, the chaqira between qishuf and segulah is identical to that between
qishuf and teva. And so, elements of teva that force a cetain result,
i.e. technology, would unfortunately become qishuf.

I'm arguing that teva is ours to play with -- "veqivshuhah". "Veha'aretz
nasan livnei adam" consistutes explicite reshus. The kishuf question is
only once one in playing with non-aretz.

				      ---

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 09:19:32PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
:                                  Acc. to Rambam, the psi'hah for childbirth 
: may not make any sense....

Yes, according to the Rambam the question doesn't exist.

: Turn back to my complete post; you will see that I used Rambam's position to 
: force you to fit segulot according to the 
: believers-in-black-magic-who-aren't-convinced-by-science shittah. Rambam was 
: cited to demonstrate what the result of going down Science Avenue is....

And yet, the Rambam didn't win. Even (as you mention) the Gra and RSRH
(as you didn't but as who mentions the Gra's rejection in his articulation
of his own in 19 Letters) reject the Rambam's choosing what was then
theory over ma'amarei chazal.

The Rambam's was one possible result. We generally believe that when
ma'amrei chazal contradict observation, some way to be mehasheiv them
must exist.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 28th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (413) 403-9905          domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:23:03 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: shatz

Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/23/2002:
> According to halacha someone requested to be chazan should refuse 2
> times and accept only on the third time.
> I have great difficulties with this....

I wish to thank R. ET for bringing up this matter.

I have thought of this previously. It is something that is not only
theoretical, but of practical importance as well.

Perhaps the pivotal question here is - what is the reason for this
(that a person is supposed to initially turn down an offer to be Shat"z)
(anyone have the mareh mokom / mokor for it btw?) ?

If the reason is because of humility, then efshar yeish lomar, that when
one knows that as an outcome of qualified people refusing, someone who is
not raui / worthy (who will not refuse), will get the post (e.g. someone
who will not daven properly - not pronounce things properly, not follow
proper nusach, or daven at excessive speed come to mind as examples)
instead, one could / should forego this in order to avert a greater
problem (and either agree right away, or even, if necessary, not wait
to be asked - at least under certain conditions - if no conflict would
be caused by this, etc.).

The best thing is when the gabbai uses his head and asks people who are
raui and likely to be open to the request.

A good gabbai requires wisdom, skill, tact, memory, etc., and can
contribute greatly to the success of a minyan / tzibbur.

Mordechai

In a message dated 4/24/02 3:57:49pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Thus, may be that halakhah is the result of minhag hamakom of toshvei haaretz 
> terem bau bnei Yisrael lagur sham, and is thus (if I am right) definitely not 

See Bava Metzia 87a, Pssachim 86b.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 4/24/02 3:57:55pm EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> M'sarvin l'katan v'ain m'sarvin l'gadol. This sounds like an argument for
> the gabbai being a talmid chacham - at least in shuls where people know
> the halacha well enough to know that they're supposed to refuse twice.

But not to big of a Talmid Chochom because then it would require Ein
Msarvin Lgodol :-)

On a more serious note, please see the Eishel Avrohom O"C Simon 53,
for exemptions to this rule.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

> theurgy is the art of doing the will of God, thaumaturgy is trying to
> get God to do man's will. I would identify the latter with kishuf --
> in ADDITION to idolatry. AZ itself includes more than idolatry anyway.
> This would explain why one may not use pesuqim for refu'ah.

Yet there *are* "segulot" widely practiced in frum circles that attempt
to convince God to do man's will -- saying tehillim, for example, for
a person who is seriously ill.

How to distinguish between them? One difference is "y'hi Ratzon" --
that the outcome *we* desire should be God's will.

Akiva

After the point in Bava Basra when "kahn mes Rashi", when Tosfos refer to
"the kuntres", whom does he mean?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 4/24/02 3:56:52pm EDT, Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:
> For instance, he mentioned that is a diabetic dies because he fails or
> ignores to take his insulin, that would be a function of the natural law
> taking its cours. Other examples mentioned included the use of illegal
> drugs and sexual promiscuity.


FWIW:
Other examples of Elokim/Din 
1) Grabbing Live Electrical Wires and getting elotrocuted
2) Being exposed to high levels of nuclear radiation

By way of extension:

3) Going into the Ohel Moed w/o benefit of a proper ktores -- e.g. Nadav
and Avihu were "radiated" to death by insufficient insulation. Hence
the need for ktores for Kohen Gadol to enter on YK

4) Uzah grabbing at the Aron Kadosh was also exposed and unprotected.

IOW, Din can be any physical manifestation of power such as electrical or
nuclear or forms of kdusha in which a person is insufficiently insultated

Kapparah - OTOH - is related to kopher - insultatoin such as re: Teivas
Noach - v'chafarto osah....

IOW AISI, Nadav and Avihu and Uzah were not Killed by spcific an Act of
G-d but rather by being exposed w/o proper insulation to ptontially fatal
"radiation". Tragic in that HKBH did not save them but not necessarily
an expression of G-d's anger as was the case with Korach, Dassan And
Aviran who merited a briah to swallow them.

Dying at the ends of Elokim is natural and passive on the part of HKBH
in that he did not protect. A case when HKBH DID protect was Yosef in
the pit full of snakes and scorpions.

Thus Nadav and Avhu were either
A) not at the level of Yosef - and the aggdetia explains how and why -
 or
B) they WERE on that madreiga but "blew it" at Ma'amad Har Sinai
"Vayechezu Elokim" and HKBH did not choose to repeat that protection or
them a 2nd time.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Anyone have any ideas as to why the story of the blashphemer appears where
it appears in sefer Vayikra?

-- Sholom

RMB wrote:
> Mah beinayhu? In earlier conversations on Avodah, I took it as a given
> that RYE was saying the same thing you call "Moshe Idel's 'hiddush".
> That's how I read it.

> Both are saying that the core of the Zohar is a tradition from RShBY,
> but there was much accretion by the time it got published.

IIUC, you are wrong on both counts. They are not connecting Zohar to RSBY,
merely to ancient traditions. Also, they are not claiming that Zohar is
mostly RSBY's content, merely that it wasn't created out of thin air,
which is CS's idea of were RMIShTDL took it from. It is unmistakeable
that there are 'hiddushim in Zohar that are suspiciously found in earlier
writings of RMIShTDL but nowhere else. Likewise there are many references
that are obviously not ancient but rather the product of 13th century
phylosophy scholarship and other then current disciplines. Only the
main ideas and some more (which is quite a lot, anybody studying Zohar
be'iyun will discover quickly that a more limited number of main ideas
is behind much of the work, with much of the rest elaborations thereon)
are supposedly ancient, whereas the rest is supposedly not so ancient
(read: from RMIShTDL).

Also, in the same vein, we can investigate the rest of the written
record and learn quite a bit. GS dated the sefer haBahir (attributed to
rav Ne'hunya ben haKaneh) to 12th Centruy France and assumed it was a
development from the (by now partly reconstructed by rav Margulies who
edited the Zohar for Mossad haRav Kook) sefer haRazim, which GS dated
to the 7th Century. Idel would probably state (but I have no definite
knowledge WRT to his position on these works) that it was authored then,
but the central ideas that are in sefer haBahir but not in sefer haRazim
are older than 12th century France.

IOW, Idel shows that there was a continuous massorah of sod, but
doesn't claim that all of sod or all of Zohar for that matter, is the
product of that massorah. Rather, just as nowadays there is a large
responsa and mussar literature that contains a lot of 'hiddushim, so
does Zohar. Does that mean that the 'hiddushim are invalid? No, but it
doesn't mean they are true either. Investigate (or follow the experts)
and let the buyer beware.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

[Conversation bounced from Areivim. -mi]

R' Elazar M Teitz wrote:
> Artscroll's booklets were up to their usual standards, with one jarring
> "hiddur" -- every sheim shomayim was changed: daled instead of hei in
> sheim Havayah, "shakai," "keil," etc. Since the booklet is sheimos anyway,
> as it quotes many p'sukim of T'hillim in their entirety, what was gained
> by the changes, other than to confuse the less knowledgeable?

R' Reisman ("RYR") quoted R' Pam, zt"l, on this issue.  R' Pam was once
asked at a Torah Umesorah convention what rebbeim/teachers should do with
all of their test papers, homework, etc.  There is so much of these kinds of
papers that are produced on a regular basis; must they all be placed in
shaimos??

R' Pam answered that, so long as the shaim Hashem was not written on these
papers, they may be thrown away (respectfully, wrapped in a plastic bag).
Pesukim and divrei torah do not have any inherent kedusha unless they were
written with such a specific intent.  There is a presumption that homework
sheets (and, I suppose, all of the weekly parsha sheets that are produced by
various institutions) are written/produced with the idea that a) they not be
considered shaimos and b) that they can be thrown away.

I suppose this analysis would apply equally to the booklets produced by
Artscroll for the BY asifa.

(RYR also discussed on the same tape the inyan of not writing out one's
complete name if the name contains the shaim Hashem in it (such as Aryeh or
Gedalyah - instead of writing the final letter "Hay", writing a
dash/shtrechel).  

(RYR quoted from two or three sources that conclude that there is absolutely
no problem with writing out the complete name.  However, R' Pam told RYR
that using the dash/shtrechel is a long-standing minhag yisroel and should
not (necessarily) be abandoned.

(Using the severa mentioned above (that a person's intent can determine
whether a writing has kedusha or not), RYR suggested (b'derech drush), that
if a person (with the name of Gedalyah, for example) writes his name without
thinking, then go ahead and write out the complete name.  However, if a
person, as he's writing his name, realizes that he is a Tzelem Elokim and
that the shaim Hashem is "in him/in his name", he should not write out the
complete name and instead use a dash/shtrechel.)

KT
Arye_ 

<grin>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 12:12:15PM -0400, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
: R' Pam answered that, so long as the shaim Hashem was not written on these
: papers, they may be thrown away (respectfully, wrapped in a plastic bag).

Way back when, around 20 years ago, I asked R Matis Blum ("Torah Lodaas")
about the proper culling of the collection of TL weeklies in my house.
As should be unsurprising given the name TL, RMB is a talmid of R' Pam's.
RMB said that the same thing can be done with old parashah sheets.

However, I know of several shuls that stopped carrying parashah sheets
because the sheimos were piling up, causing a mess and cost to the shul.
When I asked a few of the affected LORs about it, including R' Yonasan
Sachs, he held they did/ought have kevurah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 28th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (413) 403-9905          domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?

> R' Pam answered that, so long as the shaim Hashem was not written on these
> papers, they may be thrown away (respectfully, wrapped in a plastic bag).
> Pesukim and divrei torah do not have any inherent kedusha unless they were
> written with such a specific intent.  There is a presumption that homework
> sheets (and, I suppose, all of the weekly parsha sheets that are produced by
> various institutions) are written/produced with the idea that a) they not be
> considered shaimos and b) that they can be thrown away.

Here is a better heter. At last year's TU Convention, R. Shmuel
Kaminetzky quoted his father as ruling that any papers with Torah on them
that are not bound for permanent use do NOT have kedushas sefer, and are
therefore not shaimos. They may be discarded in a respectful manner.
R. Svei asked, "Even if they contain the Shem Havaya?" And R. Shmuel
replied, "Yes, even if they contain the Shem Havaya."

Now we just have to ask Artscroll what their kavana was...

Kol tuv,
Elozor

The Minchas Yitzchak has a teshuvah on this regarding newspapers with
divrei Torah. He says that since they were printed with the intent
of being thrown out, they have no kedushah and may be thrown out.
My former rav, R. Mordechai Marcus, thought this was very shver.

Gil Student

Rav Gustman a"h used to joke that vatimolai ha'oretz chomas referred to
shaimos - ChoMaS = (roshai taivos) Chumoshim, Machzoirim, Sedurim.

kt
sk

RMB wrote:
> However, I know of several shuls that stopped carrying parashah sheets
> because the sheimos were piling up, causing a mess and cost to the shul.
> When I asked a few of the affected LORs about it, including R' Yonasan
> Sachs, he held they did/ought have kevurah.

Quite a while back I remember having heard that some group was trying
to organize recycling for such half shemot, since they don't (acc. to
most opinions) need kvurah, but merely have acquired some status (which
is why those who discard them would to do so respectfully). The recycled
paper was to be used for printing sfarim. This would also be a solution
to discarding any sefer that doesn't contain shemot.

Anybody heard about this?

Arie

On 26 Apr 2002 at 0:13, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps the pivotal question here is - what is the reason for this
> (that a person is supposed to initially turn down an offer to be Shat"z)
> (anyone have the mareh mokom / mokor for it btw?) ?

Brachos 34a (the Mishna and the first part of the Gemara).

See also Rashi at the beginning of Breishis 19.

-- Carl

mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

From: Arie Folger [mailto:afolger@ymail.yu.edu]
> Only the main ideas and some more ...
> are supposedly ancient, whereas the rest is supposedly not so ancient
> (read: from RMIShTDL).

Which works of Idel (or others) actually identify which main ideas
of the Zohar are supposedly ancient? For example, is the concept
of gigulim ancient? Is there any way to really know? While you can
determine that certain ideas are directly from RMIShTDL (because they
appear in no work before his), it is possible that other ideas may have
been accepted in kabbalistic circles during the prior century or two
but are not truly ancient.

> Also, in the same vein, we can investigate the rest of the written
> record and learn quite a bit. GS dated the sefer haBahir (attributed to
> rav Ne'hunya ben haKaneh) to 12th Centruy France and assumed it was a
> development from the (by now partly reconstructed by rav Margulies who
> edited the Zohar for Mossad haRav Kook) sefer haRazim, which GS dated
> to the 7th Century. Idel would probably state (but I have no definite
> knowledge WRT to his position on these works) that it was authored then,
> but the central ideas that are in sefer haBahir but not in sefer haRazim
> are older than 12th century France.

R Yitzchak Blau, in his article in the most recent Torah U'Madda Journal,
notes that the oldest text affirming the concept of gilgul is the
Sefer Ha-Bahir. Does this mean that since it's in that sefer but not
in Sefer HaRazim, it is possibly older than 12th century but not older
than 7th century? Or, is it possible that the author of Sefer HaRazim
felt that this idea should be kept secret and not disseminated?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Arie Folger [mailto:afolger@ymail.yu.edu]
> Quite a while back I remember having heard that some group was trying
> to organize recycling for such half shemot, since they don't (acc. to
> most opinions) need kvurah, but merely have acquired some status (which
> is why those who discard them would to do so respectfully). 
> The recycled paper was to be used for printing sfarim. 

Am I right in suggesting that even having such parsha sheets recycled
in the general recycling system (in municipalities which recycle) is
probably more respectful than just wrapping them in a plastic bag and
throwing them in the garbage. After all, they probably pop out of the
plastic bags when they are compressed in sanitation trucks.

Chakira: do we just have to be respectful towards these papers when we
throw them away, or must we ensure that they come to a respectful end?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Reb Feldman, Mark wrote:
> Which works of Idel (or others) actually identify which main ideas of the
> Zohar are supposedly ancient?

I read only one of Idel's books, and their is a lot of stuff there. The book 
is called "Kabbalah, new perspectives".  I will now quickly write what I 
remember, but beware, I haven't learned or studied kabbalah in 3 years.

>  For example, is the concept of gigulim
> ancient?
There are three topics here: survival of the soul possibly coupled with 
physical reincarnation in the future (ancient, basically t'hiyat hameitim),
repeated reincarnation of a single soul, nowadys, into another human body 
(disputable. rav Sa'adyah Gaon says it's import, but it may be ancient. The 
record is spotty), transmigration of souls into animals and a many souls 
combining to enter various human bodies, so that one's soul can have a 
shoresh neshamah from many sources (innovatino of the Ari).

>  Is there any way to really know?  While you can determine that
> certain ideas are directly from RMIShTDL (because they appear in no work
> before his), it is possible that other ideas may have been accepted in
> kabbalistic circles during the prior century or two but are not truly
> ancient.
Yes. Both Scholem and Idel discuss this. Since Idel recognizes the nature of 
Sod and its verbal transmittal, he will have less definite answers, but even 
he has some stuff on this. (otherwise academics would be out of business in 
this field. Just say everything was always there and orally transmited, 
period. Then again, they can start asking why it was gradually written down).

Scholem's argument that when a certain tradition is attributed to gilui 
Eliyahu of rav Avraham Av Beit Din or the Ari, that it is clearly an 
innovation, rings true. Of course, if the source is indeed gilui Eliyahu (and 
we can start another thread on defining what GE is), then innovations are 
even better than ordinary 'hiddushim of very erudite gedolim.

> R Yitzchak Blau, in his article in the most recent Torah U'Madda Journal,
> notes that the oldest text affirming the concept of gilgul is the Sefer
> Ha-Bahir.  Does this mean that since it's in that sefer but not in Sefer
> HaRazim, it is possibly older than 12th century but not older than 7th
> century?  Or, is it possible that the author of Sefer HaRazim felt that
> this idea should be kept secret and not disseminated?

We don't have a good version of Sefer haRazim. It was reconstructed by rav 
Margulies, but may be missing sections or have alien material in it. It is 
possible that gilgul was discussed in ShR, or maybe not. Also, Scholem's 
impression that ShB is 12th century is not accepted by all. About 3 years 
ago, I spoke to Elliott Wolfson of NYU who told me he entertains the 
possibility that ShB we have is itself a corrupted (meaning material got 
lost) version of a larger, older work. At any rate, I believe that since RSG 
said gilgulim were Hindu import, belief in them must not have been extremely 
widespread at the time. If I am right, we may still speculate whether belief 
in gilgulim was not very widespread at the time of RSG because it was sod or 
because it was of recent import.

Note also, even though RSG rejects gilgulim, and even though they may not be 
as ancient as claimed, it could still be a plausible element of the life of 
the soul. Thus, some could claim ased on phylosophical speculation that 
gilgulim happen, even without a source, and we could still accept them based 
on that premise. However, _if_ _so_, halakhah leMosheh miSinai they are not.

Rethoricl question: why do I think that RSG's rejection of gilgulim shows 
belief in them was not very widespread?

A: I once read a paper that compared several commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah (I 
believe the paper is in French and published in Revue des Etude Juive, in the 
sole volume I own), and the author showed that RSG's commentary stood out 
because it demystified the text, explaining it as a philosophical treatise. 
In that commentary, RSG goes on to explain that SY, being in mishnaic Hebrew, 
was of Tannaitic origin, and not, as some claimed, from Avraham Avinu. The 
author then asked, since RSG was an unconventional thinker and rejected the 
most obvious way to interpret SY, namely as a mystical treatise, and instead 
turned it into a philosophical work, why did he bother? It wasn't so special 
a work once he explained that it wasn't attributed to AA, couldn't he say it 
was written by some mystic in the days of the mishnah and write a 
freestanding philosophical treatise instead? The author's speculative answer 
was that SY was widely accepted as a holy book, so RSG couldn't just reject 
it, and instead interpreted it away.

Now, you can disagree with that author and say RSG wanted to add a layer of 
significance, not supplant it. I can't answer to that, as I have never 
merited to understand even one layer of SY in its entirety, far less several 
commentaries and the ability to understand whether or not they are mutually 
exclusive.

That said, I appreciate the author's suggestino that RSG new what fights to 
pick. Since RSG chose to fight WRT gilgulim, I ssume he perceived he had a 
fighting chance to convince a significant number of people.

Git Shabbes,

Arie Folger

The question was asked, "Do I say a 'shehechyonu' (despite it being
Sefira)?"

Why is it assumed by many that Shehecheyanu should not be said during
S'firah?  I think it's a case of a false mah matzinu: the Three Weeks
have a prohibition against weddings and haircuts and S'firah has a
restriction on weddings and haircuts; just as the Three Weeks is a time
not to say Shehecheyanu, so too S'firah is a time not to say
Shehecheyanu.

It is not so.  In the Three Weeks, we refrain because we do not celebrate
our being alive baz'man hazeh, this season of puranus, when we must
commemorate the continued churban habayis.  The same does not apply to
S'firah.  It is explicit in the MB, 493:2, that Shehechayanu may be said.

Elazar M. Teitz

The question was asked about the source of the word mohel, if the root
is m-l.

The Biblical Hebrew root is m-l. However, in many Aramaic dialects the
root was mhl. In the Targum, gzr is normally used to translate m-l, but
the word m'hulta (= Hebrew mila) is found several times. In the G'moro,
mhl is the standard form; Aramaic has no root m-l. In L'shon Hazal, they
used mhl, as one of the many Hebrew words there that were taken from the
spoken Aramaic. And although we find the root m-l occasionally in L'shon
Hazal, it is clear that mhl is dominant. A word like "circumsizer,"
which was new to L'shon Hazal and not Biblical, would have been formed
from the root mhl, yielding mohel. This is not a late development,
but attested in L'shon Hazal.

As far as mhl meaning mixing in Hebrew: just remember that the root
appears only once in one form, as sov'ekh mahul bammayim. To be sure,
this word existed, but I don't know how commonly it was used even in
Biblical times.

To a related root: the word meila is only present in the g'moro as mimmela
"of itself, by itself." The supposed root mela does not exist (although
there are other words that would be like it, like mila for silk, and
even a mela for a kind of tree). Some grammarians have speculated that
it comes from the Hebrew me'eleha, but that remains conjecture.
There is a word meile in Yiddish, an interjection meaning "don't worry"
or similar. It serves as an interjection, and is well known to Yiddish
speakers, and thus used by the modern Hebrew writers (like Ahad Ha'am,
Mendele Moykher S'forim, Brenner) in their Hebrew, under the assumption
that it is a Hebrew word, and is now used in modern Hebrew. But it is
only used as an interjection, no other forms appear, and I have not seen a
convincing proposal for an etymology from the Talmudic mimmeila. However,
no one seems to know a derivation from German or Slavic languages, and
strange things have happened in to words (witness 'ad k'shehu becoming
'akhshav in L'shon Hazal).

In other words, I don't know.

Anyone care to ask R. Philologos if he knows?

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


[ 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         ]