Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 017

Sunday, October 24 2004

• The evolution of Hebrew
• Re: The evolution of Hebrew
• Fwd: Words and their opposites
• Re:linguistic norm
• besamim rosh
• Re: Ayzehu M'komon and Machlokess
• Rashi on HaPalit
• Re: safeik bracha
• Re: besamim rosh
• re: The evolution of Hebrew
• Re: The evolution of Hebrew
• Josephus
• Cutting short pesukim
• Ben Hamelech vHanazir
• Four not Two, and Other Sanhedrin Stuff
• Va'avorcho mevorchecho
• Re: Pronunciation
• kiddush nusach
• Re: kiddush nusach
• Re: Pronounciation
• Re: Four not Two, and Other Sanhedrin Stuff
• Re: Four not Two, and Other Sanhedrin Stuff

[Micha:]
> Even on an island with no contact with people who speak other languages,
> a language evolves. How would it stay frozen for millenia?

> What if the Ribbono shel olam set everything up so that the language of
> creation would emerge by evolution at the right time to have the right
> vehicle for relaying the Torah when we got to Sinai?

Not necessary. When you have a written scripture and everyone reads it
and studies it all the time, it retards the development of dialects
substantially. This is the case with standrd written Arabic that has
remained much more the same langauge than any other over 1000+ years
bse of the Koran.

M. Levin

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:36:09AM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: > Even on an island with no contact with people who speak other languages,
: > a language evolves. How would it stay frozen for millenia?

: > What if the Ribbono shel olam set everything up so that the language of
: > creation would emerge by evolution at the right time to have the right
: > vehicle for relaying the Torah when we got to Sinai?
: 
: Not necessary. When you have a written scripture and everyone reads it
: and studies it all the time, it retards the development of dialects
: substantially....

(Retards, not eliminates. The sanctification of Arabic in Islam has
more to do with it than the Qur'an. After all, Chazal's Hebrew isn't
the Tana"kh's!)

However, was that the vase between Adam and Sinai? This effect would
have nothing to do with the likelihood that Hashem spoke to Adam in
biblical Hebrew.

:-)BBii!
-mi

Mlevinmd@aol.com stated the following on Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:58:16 -0400:
>>There are many words that have the same root but mean different
>>things. That does not fit with the 3 theory that purports to explain
>>how every shoresh is unique and unlike another. The 2 letter root theory
>>does not attempt to make this claim.

> Arabic, for example, has two "het"s and three "ayin"s. Thus, two Hebrew
> words with seemingly identical roots may have two different "het"s and
> hence be unrelated. Similarly for "ayin"s.

I am certainly aware of the current theories (also for zain and shin
and tsadi) that relate this to words in Sumemrian, Akkadian etc and
try to show that in proto-semitic there were two different words with
different sounds but that they evolved into the same sounds. We also know
that there were different sounds for the same letter but all of that is
highly conjectural.This exactly is my problem. As a planned language,
the traditionl view is that Hebrew was created and given by Hashem.
Otherwise, if you leave it to vagaries of development and change, the
enterprise of drash is much weakened. I remind all that the language
of Tanach does not show much progression over almost a 1000 years,
if you accept traditional dating of all books (as we must but that's
another discussion).

One must therefore, look for another explanation. Two letter root theory
is a good place to start.

M. Levin

Re: difference between leining and davening.

[RDB:]
> One thing that always surprises me is the Teimani sof-pasuk tune which
> wiggles up and down a few times on the last syllable and makes every
> mileil last word in a sentence sound milra'. Surprises, but not annoys.

What annoys lately is the rapidly spreading custom of those who daven
in Israeli-Sefaradic Hebrew to pronounce shem-Hashem in Ashkenazic. I
don't believe that prayer requires any particular dialect or accent
but it should be lashon tzecha, that is consistent in its dialect,
conventional usage, and make sense grammatically.

I recall reading that this is old Iraqi pronounciation. Every kamta is
an ah except in the ado-shem, where it is an Oh.

M. levin

Over simchat torah, I noticed that the Artscroll Siddur cites the Besamim
Rosh for the reasons behind dancing on simchat torah.  Since I was vaguely
aware that Besamim Rosh was a forged work, and wanted to learn more about
it, I searched online, and found that although there is general agreement
that it is forged, there seems to be dispute regarding whether it has any
weight in the halakhic processs nonetheless.  This was alluded to before
on Avodah with Eli Clark's comment in Avodah V2 #82 that "By analogy, a
number of gedolim remain willing to cite the Besamim Rosh, although its
provenance is dubious."  I'll give a few quick examples below of the
debate among rabbanim that I found just searching online, but I guess my
questions are:

1. Why give any halakhic weight to a forged work,
2. What is the basis for deciding whether a forged work has weight or not
in deciding halakha
3. Were the Besamim Rosh to have been cited by a rov who didn't realize it
was forged and thought it represented the Rosh's position, what would be
the status of a psak he made based upon it be?
4. To what extent can modern scholarship be used to ascertain whether and
to what extent it was forged?

Any responses would be much appreciated.

Sammy Groner

Appendix: Some contradictory sources regarding the status of besamim rosh:

According to Rabbi Michael Broyde, (see
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/maternity_notes.html), Besamim Rosh has no
valid precedential or intellectual weight.

"The first discussion on this topic among the latter commentaries is found
in Teshuvot Besamim Rosh no. 340. This responsum is not dealt with in this
article, since all scholars agree that the Besamim Rosh is a forged work
and offers no valid precedential or intellectual support in Jewish law.
For a complete review of the history of the Besamim Rosh, see A. Jacobs,
Theology in the Responsa 347-52 (1975) where the exact details of the
forged nature of the Besamim Rosh are discussed."

But Rabbi Yitchok Breitowitz seems to give it such weight, (see
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/suicide.html), before dismissing its
arguments as having been rejected in a particular instance.

" ... At the other extreme, there is the opinion of the Besamim Rosh [a
collection of responsa originally attributed to the illustrious Rabbi
Asher of 14th Century Germany and Spain but which has been shown to be the
later work of a far less eminent authority] who adduces from Saul that if
one is in a terminal condition, i.e., death is imminent, and one is
suffering unbearable pain or anticipates such pain (Saul feared both being
tortured and humiliated), one is allowed to take one's life. The Besamim
Rosh's approach would indeed lend support to some of the Kevorkian
suicides though not all since many of the "victims" were not in terminal
states and could have lived relatively pain-free. In any case, it must be
emphasized that Besamim Rosh's position has unequivocally been rejected by
the overwhelming majority of halachic literature and indeed, by the bitter
crucible of Jewish history and experience.

According to Rabbi Alfred Cohen, writing in Journal of Halacha &
Contemporary Society XXXVIII; Fall 1999 - Sukkot 5760 (see
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/cohen-1.htm) only "at least
some" of the teshuvot were not written by the Rosh:

"[footnote] 53. Tzitz Eliezer, section 10, 25:26:6. He cites the Terumat
HaDeshen 102, Rashi to Yevamot 49a, Minchat Chinuch 203, Birkei Yosef Even
HaEzer 17, and others. It is noteworthy that this question is also
discussed in Teshuvot Besamim Rosh, ibid, but not quoted by Rav
Waldenberg. Possibly this is due to the problematic authorship of Besamim
Rosh which, although attributed to the Rosh, who lived in the 13-14
century, could not have been written by him. Or at least, some of the
responsa were not written by the Rosh as a case in point, the one at issue
here mentions an opinion of the Noda Biyehuda, who lived in the eighteenth
century!"

I also found a number of times that divrei torah on shemayisrael.co.il
cited the Besamim Rosh, without any indication that it was a forgery. 
See, for example, a shiur by Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld, Kollel
Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof at
http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-030.htm and
"Thoughts on the Weekly Parshah by HaRav Eliezer Chrysler
Formerly Rav of Mercaz Ahavat Torah, Johannesburg" at
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/chrysler/archives/succos64.htm

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: This can be found in the Mishnah Berurah, Biur Haytave, Biur HaGra and
: Beis Yosef on Orach Chaim (50), citing the Ra'ah, that this perek was
: chosen in the morning prayers as representative of mishnayos because
: "sheh-perek zeh ayn bo machlokess, v'hi mishnah berurah l'Mosheh
: mi'Sinai,"--"this perek is not disputed against (or, "there is no dispute
: recorded in it"), and it is a clear mishnah [given] to Mosheh mi-Sinai."

To re-iterate my earlier point: Lo ra'inu machlokes does not PROVE that
there was never a machlokes.

It only proves that at the time of the redaction of the mishnah there
was no machlokes or no machlokes that Rebbe recrorded. It's really tough
to prove a point using the absence of something iow lo ra'inu eino raya.

Now if the Gmara SAID that we have a Masroah that this Mishnah is
undisputed misinai that is another matter. However, for Rishonim or
Acharonim to PRESUME that lack of machlokes is inidicative of miSinai
is an extrapolation. That is because yesh leyashev that any pre-existing
machlokes might have been previously resolved.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

Rashi always follows as close to pshata as he can. The limud here is from
the hei-the definite article of the word palit. It is closer to pshat
to say that it refers to Og who is from Refaim and involved in the war
of the 4 vs.5 kings (who struck Refaim...) than to refer it to Michoel
who is not mentioned anywhere. It is also why Rashi does not interpret
as in Niddah 61 (I think, don't have it here) that Og is called palit
bse he escaped from the waters of the mabul but that he escaped form
the war of which we had just spoken.

M. Levin.

I had commented on the following:
>> We eliminate the berakhah on sukkah because it is gorei'ah from Shemini
>> Atzeres. Sitting in the Sukkah without a berakhah could be construed
>> (with generous creativity, in some climates) as simply wanting to enjoy
>> the outdoors.

>If that were the case, then we would be permitted to sit in the Sukka
>in EY on Shemini Atzeret-Simhat Tora. But we are not!

To which Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> added:
>True, without the safeiq Sukkos, it would be ba'al tosif.

Without nitpicking, it would be BAL TOSIF.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org
Fax: ++1-619-639-8172

[R Sammy Groner:]
> 1. Why give any halakhic weight to a forged work,
> 2. What is the basis for deciding whether a forged work has weight or not
> in deciding halakha
> 3. Were the Besamim Rosh to have been cited by a rov who didn't realize  
> it
> was forged and thought it represented the Rosh's position, what would be
> the status of a psak he made based upon it be?
> 4. To what extent can modern scholarship be used to ascertain whether and
> to what extent it was forged?

> Any responses would be much appreciated.

I second the appreciation for responses, and as well answers to the same  
questions regarding the Seifer Hazouhar. I'm aware that this is more  
delicate, and details are different. Are there opinions holding yes, it is  
only 700 years old, but the author (Moushe de Leon or not) had knowledge  
of sod matters?

GV,
Lipman Phillip Minden

In the thread "linguistic norm", R"n Toby Katz wrote <<< I think it's a
safe assumption that when the Torah was given to Moshe, there was indeed
one correct pronunciation used by everyone. Without tape recorders,
however, change over time was inevitable. >>>

Opening the current thread, R' Micha Berger responded: <<< All you need
is a single vocabulary and grammar. It needn't sound the same for the
same sentence to mean the same to all. >>>

It might be interesting to see Rav Moshe Feinstein's views on the topic
of the original pronunciation, found in Igros Moshe, OC 3:5.

He starts off pointing out that chalitzah is pasul if not said in
Lashon HaKodesh, and that if the yevam and/or yevamah are unable to
say it so, then the beis din teaches them how. But we have never heard
of a case where the beis din teaches them to do it in all the variant
pronunciations, nor have we heard of a case where the chalitza of one
community was considered pasul by another community. Therefore, Rav Moshe
concludes, it is "mistaber" that all pronunciations are "kasherin l'dina".

On the other hand, he also says that it is *not* "mistaber" that multiple
pronunciations were used prior to Churban Rishon.

He resolves the apparent contradiction above in the middle of the first
paragraph. If I understand it correctly, he says that "each pronunciation
*is* Lashon HaKodesh, even though only one is the *true* one. If a large
kahal reads the letters and words with the nekudos of Lashon HaKodesh
with a kavua [permanent? established?] pronunciation, then it too *is*
Lashon HaKodesh, even though it is different from the pronunciation
which they had spoken and with which the Torah was given."

He then mentions that this applies not only to the differences between
Ashkenaz and Sefarad, but also to the differences between Lita, Poland,
and Hungary. He says that this is because of the natural development of
languages, and he does refers to these differences as "shibushim".

I -- and I suppose some other listmembers too -- wish that Rav Moshe had
given specific examples of "how far is too far", IOW, some examples of
"shibushim" which are so distant that they render a pronunciation to be
pasul. But he did not do so. He could easily have mentioned the confusion
between mil'el and mil'ra which some listmembers have pointed to, or
difficulty with shin and sin which already appears in Navi. But he did
not do this either. Which leads me to believe that he really does accept
all such variants as kosher.

In the second paragraph, he begins by saying that it would indeed be
best to daven in the true version of Lashon HaKodesh, the one with which
the Torah was given. (Is it significant that he defines "true version"
this way, and not as the version with which the universe was created,
or the version which Avraham Avinu spoke? I dunno. Anyone for another
spinoff thread?)

He continues: "But we don't know which is the true pronunciation, so one
is not allowed to change from how his ancestors davened, since according
to their kabala, their pronunciation was the true one, and how can one
change to a pronunciation which is not true according to the kabala of
his ancestors?" (Is it significant that he uses the word "kabala" and not
"minhag"?) And so he concludes that "in our places, where we daven and
say all the brachos, and read the Torah in the Ashkenaz pronunciation,
it is assur to change to the Sefard pronunciation."

Again, I and some other listmembers might wish that Rav Moshe might
have discussed the idea that while some of the differences among the
pronunciations are in the indeterminate category, other differences
might be demonstrably and objectively wrong. I certainly think that some
listmembers have tried to make such claims about certain pronunciations.
But he did not suggest such a thing. It could well be that Rav Moshe
really did accept all pronunciations as valid, even those which might
make some of us cringe.

But not all poskim agree with Rav Moshe. As I recall, the Chazon Ish felt
that even Sefardim should pronounce HaShem's name with "-noi" at the end.
I wonder if he would say the same about the other kamatzes in Chalitza
or in Birkas Kohanim.

Akiva Miller

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 09:08:47PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: On the other hand, he also says that it is *not* "mistaber" that multiple
: pronunciations were used prior to Churban Rishon.

Wasn't seifer Shofetim prior to churban bayis rishon? What window of time
was RMF speaking of?

Gut Voch!
-mi

FWIW, I thought I'd mention that Josephus (Antiquities 13.13.5) writes,
"As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a
festival [I suspect the orginal rendition came from the term "Chag,"
the specific reference to Succos--ZL], which was then celebrated, when
he stood upon the alter, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose
upon him and pelted him with citrons--the laws of the Jews required
that at the feast [? maybe festival?] of tabernacles everyone should
have branches of the palm tree and citron tree...."


Can someone help me out with the following?

Here Josephus says that the Jews use citrons (Esrog) on Succos. However
in Ant. 3.245 he says that it is perseia, an avocado like fruit. Also
in Ant. 13.372 he says that it is a citron.

Any ideas? I know this is nitpicking and outside strictly speaking of
Talmud Torah but any ideas?

M. Levin

As is well known, there is a principle of kol pasuk dlo paskei Moshe anan
lo paskinan. This comes up in several places, such as kiddush Friday night
etc. Why is this principle so widely disregarded in piyutim where pieces
of pesukim are costantly compbined and recombined. F.e.,hashem melech,
hashem moloch, . hashm imloch?

M. Levin

A new edition of the fascinating work Ben Hamelech V Hanazir has been
published and can be found in stores. This rhymed poetic work supposedly
translated by R. Avraham ben Chisdai from an Arabic translation of a
Greek work is set in India and tells a story in rhymed prose and poetic
interruptions of a King who banished the nezirim as well as all pain and
sufffering from his kingdom so that his only son not join the movement of
nezirim. Of course the son eventually finds out about death and despises
life. A nazir comes to him and has a long give and take about the futility
of life and pleasure and that one must love want and suffering instead
and become a nazir, which appears to be some kind of a wandering monk.

This book was a favourite of the Novarodokers and I first made an
acquiantance with it among them 20+ years ago. This editions is an offset
but without an introduction about Arabic poetry forms.

All in all a fascinating and very different work.

Can anyone provide some background on who wrote it and what other
parallels in Torah literature exist with such a message.

Thank you, 
M. Levin

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Pardon my ignorance, but for those who don't hold from the Rambam's
: chiddush of restarting smicha, how do they assume Sanhedrin will be
: reconstituted in order to recognize mashiach etc?

RMB:
> If one accepts "hinei Anochi sholei'ach lakhem es Eliyah
> hanavi..."kemashma'o, there will be a musmach available to continue the
> origina chain. It's interesting that the Rambam, the only rishon I know
> of as taking this pasuq metaphorically, is also the only one I know of
> who offers a second way to restore semichah.

Actually there are at least 4 ways to restore it, two of which have been
tried. Most people are familiar with rambam's suggestion and the failed
attempt attempt by R. Yaacov Beirab in the 1530's based on concurrence
by chakhmei eretz yisroel (by the way, chutzies didn't and don't count).
However ridbaz on yad hachazoqoh -- while rejecting rambam's suggestion --
offers three other options. One, already noted by RMicha, would rely on
Eliyohu Hannovih. No.2 would have the moshiach himself as the revitalizing
musmokh, while no.3 would rely on finding an already existing musmokh
and using him. And if you're wondering just where such a musmokh might
be hanging out these days, ridbaz has an answer -- the ten lost tribes
undoubtedly have a musmoch or two they could lend us -- and all we have
to do is find them.

Quixotic as this last suggestion sounds, it was actually attempted by
some talmidei HagGra in 1830 who thought they had hard information
on the location of the lost tribes (some days march off one of the
caravan trails to Mecca) based on writings of Eldad HadDani and other
"witnesses". Letters were written, monies raised, and an expedition
dispatched etc. (you can read more about it in Aryeh Morgenstern's
"G'uloh B'derekh Hattevoh: Talmidei HagGra B'EY 1810-1840) Also not to
worry about shailos like how could the 10 tribes preserve real s'mikhoh
in chutz lo'oretz -- asked and answered. Anyway, this was all part of the
pervasive messianic fervor which attended the Gra's Kollel P'rushim up
to 1840, and whose memories have, with good reason, since been surpressed.

And as long as we're talking about Sanhedrin I'll make a few other
remarks. I was bemused by the vehemence of the opposition expressed by
some list members. Ziyyuf hattorah? Execute a Zoqein mamre? Aw c'mon
fellas -- gimme a break. You can't blame anybody for trying. Let me
also dispel the false notion that every member of the Sanhedrin has to
be on the A team. The Sanhedrin's origins are a bit murky and certainly
evolved over time but it was undoubtedly around for at least 600 years
and probably more. For at least half that time it had representation
from groups other than the A-team, notably including Saducees, who only
disappear as an organized element in the Sanhedrin and elsewhere with in
the yavneh era. And even post yavneh there were g'dolim on the Sanhedrin
who weren't of the same rank as g'dolim off it (read Allon). I suspect
those involved in the current effort (about which I know precisely
nothing) should be more acceptable than the tz'duqqim, so lighten up a
bit and let the marketplace of ideas do its job.

One poster also made a number of specific historical assertions with
which I'd like to note my disagreement. Thus:
<<Briefly.. Semicha came to an end, not merely because of persecuiton,
but because it was not distributed widely...but in Bavel.. the Torah
was permanently diminished in monetary matters. No one even considered
making an effort to rejuvenate the semicha, although Bavel had enormous
Torah scolarship..In fact, Semicha was allowed to die out altogether,
rather than be maintained in anything but a lechathila manner.>>

Nah. First of all, bavel never had authority to do q'nosos (I assume
this was the intent of the poster's note, since there was never any
dimunition of the authority of Babylonian musmokhim in monetary matters)
-- and yes, there were certainly Babylonian musmokhim (who receive their
s'mikhoh = hetter horo'oh) from the reish golusoh. so there was never
any need to "rejuvenate" a s'mikhoh in amoraic bovel. And it disappeared
not because it wasn't widely distributed but due to the persecutions
leading to closure of the institutions in EY and bovel which approved its
grant. Individual musmokhim in EY had long since given up their right to
masmikh without the nosih's concurrence. (later on the g'onim in bovel
insisted thast their s'mikhoh was still good.)

<<The undisputed foremost Torah authority in the world was in Eretz
Yisrael -- viz., R. Yosef Karo >>
Nah. He was still a younger man, though certainly a TC of note. Even in
his own town at that time R Y. Beirav was certainly ranked higher. And
even if that were true how could you possibly know?

<< -- and R. Yaakov Beirav organized a formal poll of Torah scholars to
grant him semicha. Although the attempt was fairly successful...>>

Nah again. This is certainly not the motive for R Berav's attempt and
is factually inaccurate. It was R. Beirav himself who was the first
musmokh. There was a failed second round where he attempted to confer
s'mikhoh on two other z'qeinim, and only after all that did he turn to a
younger group of scholars, including R. Karo, who accepted it from him.
You might want to read Jacob Katz's reconstruction of this event in
his collection "Halokhoh V'qabboloh". It would seem that the motive for
R. Beirav was not to take care of R. Karo but was part of the messianic
fervor of his own (post Spanish Expulsion) dor.

<<and is part of the reason why the SHulhan Arukh is THE authoritatiive 
halakha sefer for most of klal yisrael, the..>>
Absolutely not. R. Karo's s'mikhoh had almost no resonance.

Mechy Frankel
Michael.frankel@osd.mil
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

Someone asked me on Shabbos why it doesn't say 've'avoreich mevorachecho'?

I looked up the usual meforshim but couldn't really see anyone explain
this. Maybe someone here can help?

SBA 

RMS wrote:
> While there is no question that the daily pronounciation of ivrit  
> outside of tanach (and ? leining) was ashkeNAzis rather than ashkenaZIS,  
> there is very little literature that I am aware, and for sure that is in  
> common use, that was written to be pronounced that way (and which loses  
> much of its ta'am when pronounced in sefardi hebrew - as bialik) before  
> late 19th and 20 century - and therefore yes, the only literature that  
> is meant to be read that way is Bialik (and similar poets).

I see what you mean. One circumstance would support this, but make the
observation less meaningful, i. e. that only slowly did Hebrew develop
rhyme and rhythm patterns comparable to European vernacular languages.
Nevertheless, you can find evidence for a general mil-eil pronunciation
much earlier through misspellings in the unstressed syllable (at the
same time indicating that unstressed vowels changed to a single central
vowel) including hypercorrect forms (like until today people write and
say "mikvA" for mikve) and through rhymes with words that are mil-eil
in all times and traditions.

In a rush, I had a look at a sefer from 5457 (1697/8, letza'ari only a
photocopy), the Seifer Shirei yehude, containing two piyutem. I found
inside the rhythmical, rhymed text
a) 'mishne gemoro' (mishne with a segol)
b) 'selo' ryhming with 'kolo' (which is difficult anyway: the rhyme is
only in the last syllable, but the stress obviously on the penultimate).

> While the German Christians may have believed that all Hebrew should be  
> biblical, it is wrong (and quite polemical and requires a mecha'a - just  
> because they believed it, or even if one can show that some maskilim  
> took it over from them, doesn't mean that they are the sole origin) to  
> assume that the notion that all liturgical hebrew should be pronounced  
> as biblical hebrew comes from them.

I didn't mean to polemise. I explicitly don't hold everybody who thinks so
is following the German Christians chv"sh, not then and not today. (Also
I referred to modern secularists.) In fact, even in the 19th century, the
influence of the latter is only one out of many factors contributing to
the notion(s) of what is correct Hebrew. And I always try to differentiate
between the strive for a correct Hebrew and what might be described
as popular purism, partly under the influence of ignorance, undeserved
inferiority complexes and non-Torah ideology. I haven't encountered the
second type on arvm/avodah ever since I was zouche to participate.

Menoi hadouresh sheloumou tomed,
Lipman Phillip Minden
[ 8~)>

i remember reading a piece by rav menachem mendel kasher about why we can
say vayehi erev vayehi voker yom hashishi in kiddush, despite the problem
of kol psuka delo pasak moshe. I can't seem to recall where i saw it.
does anyone know where this is?

y.l.

I don't know the source from RMMK, but there's a teshuva of the Ben Ish
Hai in Rav Pe'alim Helek 1, OH 11 on the subject. He brings the Hatam
Sofer b'shem the Magen Giborim b'shem the Yachin uVoaz that an etnah is
considered psak moshe.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:12:30AM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: While the German Christians may have believed that all Hebrew should
: be biblical, it is wrong ...                                       to
: assume that the notion that all liturgical hebrew should be pronounced
: as biblical hebrew comes from them - while there is an awareness of the
: difference between leshon chachamim and leshon mikra in the rishonim,
: there is clearly an awareness that the pronounciation rules should follow
: tanach - as in most hebrew grammars and perushim, even those that address
: piyutim, of the middle ages.

So, does one say "-akh" or "-kha" for "your (masc.)? "She-atah" or
"sha-atah"? (Although I invented a post-facto kavanah for the 2nd.)

-mi

In a message dated 10/24/2004 12:05:45pm EDT, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com
writes:
> One, already noted by RMicha, would rely on Eliyohu Hannovih. No.2 would
> have the moshiach himself as the revitalizing musmokh >>

How would eliyahu be able to reintroduce smicha? This isn't an example
of a navi coming to establish a fact (e.g. who has a pure lineage for
kohen). Why would we suspect that smicha could be restarted by a Navi,
could it have been given in the past by one? Doesn't recognition of a
navi/moshiach require a bet din of smuchin?

KT
Joel Rich

On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:39:30PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: How would eliyahu be able to reintroduce smicha? This isn't an example
: of a navi coming to establish a fact ...

No, it's an example of a musmach coming to give semichah.

According to the Rambam's chain of ba'alei mesorah, Eliyahu hanavi was
the link after Achiyah. In which case, he had true semichah. Nothing to
do with his also being a navi.

-mi

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


[ 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         ]