Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 13

Wed, 07 Feb 2007

• 1. YGB - ??"? : Belated Tu b'Shvat Post (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 2. Re: Honey spoils? (Ken Bloom)
• 3. Modim Modim (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Talmud Torah (Micha Berger)
• 5. 2 unrelated questions (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Modim Modim (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Modim Modim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Modim Modim (Michael Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: 2 unrelated questions (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Modim Modim (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Modim Modim (Micha Berger)
• 12. early bird specials and ribbis (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (Zev Sero)
• 14. how many died in the Midbar each year? (Galsaba@aol.com)

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: YGB - ??"?
Post: Belated Tu b'Shvat Post
Link: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2007/02/belated-tu-bshvat-post.html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070202/11f50fd8/attachment-0001.html 

On Thursday 01 February 2007 16:04, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Just saw in Rashi Bava Metzia(38a) that honey sours and spoils. A
> quickcheck on the internet indicates that honey does not spoil. Any
> explanations?
>
>
>
> ??"? ??? ????? ?? ??/?
> ?????? - ??? ??? ??????, ??????, ?????"? ???? (??????) (???? ??) ????
> ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? (???? ??) ?????
> ?????? ??????:
>
>
> ??"? ??????? ?? ??/?
> ????? - ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??????:

Grapes ferment and become wine through the action of yeast. The 
acetobacter bacteria converts the alcohol in wine to acetic acid thus 
making vinegar.

Honey (with water added) ferments and becomes mead, through the action 
of yeast. I imagine that acetobacter can make mead turn into vinegar 
too.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070203/31340560/attachment-0001.pgp 

My chavrusa and I are currently up to Megila 25a, where we learn that 
one should not daven "Modim Modim", nor "Shma Shma", because it 
appears that the duplications are directed towards different deities, 
chas v'shalom. Rishonim and acharonim (see Orach Chaim 61:9 and 
121:2) mention that this applies whether one repeats only the first 
word, or even the entire sentence.

We are trying to understand the logic here. In modern English, one 
who says "Thank you, thank you" or "listen, listen", does so for 
emphasis, not in order to address different people. There is no 
presumption that these would be addressed to different audiences 
unless the speaker would do something to indicate that, such as 
repositioning himself so that the repeated phrase is clearly directed 
elsewhere. I would understand banning "modim modim" and "shma shma" 
if it were clearly directed at different audiences, but I have not 
seen that inside.

(In fact, even if the two Shma's *were* directed at different 
audiences, I'd still have extreme difficulty understanding the 
problem, because it would be talking about two Yisraels, not two 
HaShems. Where is the polytheism in saying Shma twice? Even if "Modim 
Modim" thanks one deity and then another deity, I just can't figure 
out why this problem even exists in the case of the Shma.)

Furthermore, Lashon HaKodesh has a clear standard of using repeated 
words to show emphasis. The repeated word often is in a different 
grammatical form than the first, but that is not always the case. In 
fact, if we are on the topic of using repeated words to suspect 
someone of heresy, can there be a clearer example than the repetition 
of Hashem's name in the 13 Midos? HaShem Himself did not shy away 
from this phrasing, despite the interpretations that the 
first "HaShem" and second "HaShem" have different connotations (such 
as HaShem before I sinned vs. HaShem after I sinned, whatever). If we 
don't worry about possible polytheistic implications there, they why 
would we worry about it when someone simply says, "Listen listen"?

My chavrusa and I suspect that this halacha (not to say "modim modim" 
or "shma shma") is based on linguistic realities which existed in the 
time of the Mishna and Gemara, but are not found in Modern American 
English, and that's why we can't understand it -- the concepts simply 
(and literally) "get lost in translation". Can anyone suggest a 
different way of understanding this topic? Or, can anyone point to a 
similar function which does exist in English?

Thank you
Akiva Miller

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:35:58PM -0000, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anybody on here articulate
: precisely why "this is so wrong I am stunned someone should actually
: propose it" and I think it is important that somebody does so.  The
: quote comes from the Mishna in Peah which we recite every morning, and
: indeed, it commences by describing various mitzvos that could be
: classified under the heading of chessed "peah, bikurim" as well as
: gimilus chassadim and ends vetalmud torah keneged kulom.  However, it
: also includes in the list, "iyun tephila" (as well as haknasas kala and
: halvias hameis). 

Aren't you conflating the two lists? The mishnay of "Eilu devarim she'ein
lahem shiur: hapei'ah vehabikurim" ends with talmud Torah. As does
the gemara of "Eilu devarim she'adam ocheil peiroseihem ba'olam hazeh
vehaqeren qayemes lo le'olam haba", but that's the one that includes
iyun tefillah.

Without rishonim, one would think the mishnah in Pei'ah is simply
saying that one can be meqayeim the mitzvah with no minimum. That's not
necessarily the chiyuv of vehagisa bo. But in any case, it's a far cry
from requiring learning above other mitzvos. And one would think that
the gemara is referring to the fact that someone who learns al menas
la'asos can do mitzvos in olam hazeh, thus giving him peiros to consume
in olam hazeh without exhausting the qeren.

The other question is "keneged"? Keneged the other mitzvos she'adam ocheil
peiroseihem, or all other 612? If the latter, how can is be keneged
611 mitzvos and Shabbos, if Shabbos is keneged kulam -- the other 611
plus talmud Torah? Similarly, yishuv EY and tzitzis are also called
keneged kulam. The idiom is either a guzmah, or we need to know in what
particular way are they equal. Torah could be equal the other 612 in a
different way than the other three. But then we need to know what way
to know if it should mean there are times (which times? always?) men
should be choosing Torah over other mitzvos.

And on Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:30:43AM -0000, RnCL wrote:
:> So how do you learn pshat in 'vetalmud torah keneged kulom"?

: Well the halachic sources when quoting the reference phrase it slightly
: differently and add a critical word "shikul", which does rather suggest
: we are talking about heavenly scales rather than earthly doings - eg the
: language of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 246 si'if 18) "talmud
: torah shikul kneged kol hamitzvos" ...

But I thought the mishnah said I can't know secharan shel mitzvos, and
thus can't choose a chamurah over a qulah.

:                   And the nose keliim, as well as referring to your
: mishna, also refer back to the gemora in kiddushin 40b in which they
: were asked which is greater talmud torah or ma'asim and while Rabbi
: Tarfon said ma'asim, rabbi Akiva said talmud torah because talmud torah
: brings lyade ma'asim.  Note also that from Megila 3a that in order to
: hear the megila, the cohanim etc are mevatel from the avodah, and in
: order to do the avodah, one is mevatel from talmud torah so as kal
: vchomer one is mevatel talmud torah....

Which implies that keneged kulam in our context is that it have more
peiros for olam hazeh, because it's mevi'ah liydei ma'aseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

1. Anyone know of a source for the custom of a muzinka(sp?) - the dance
when a last child is married off?

2. The gemara in horiyot 2b describes ben zoma as a talmid raui lhoraah.
The commentaries discuss why he never got smicha even though there was
none like him in torah. The beer sheva says it's because he died young..
Is anyone aware of a source that someone would not be eligible for
smicha, even thought he was gamir vsavir (knows and can use logic to
apply) simply due to age?  If so, how did "harei ani kben shivim shanah"
work for an 18 year old?

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070205/6a8e9269/attachment.html 

From: <kennethgmiller@juno.com>

> My chavrusa and I are currently up to Megila 25a, where we learn that
> one should not daven "Modim Modim", nor "Shma Shma", because it
> appears that the duplications are directed towards different deities,
> chas v'shalom.
<snip>
> My chavrusa and I suspect that this halacha (not to say "modim modim"
> or "shma shma") is based on linguistic realities which existed in the
> time of the Mishna and Gemara, but are not found in Modern American
> English, and that's why we can't understand it -- the concepts simply
> (and literally) "get lost in translation". Can anyone suggest a
> different way of understanding this topic?

How about this: the Rambam in the beginning of Maamar Tehiyyath Hameithim 
says that trinitarians misinterpreted the pasuk shma, which mentions God 
thrice, to be evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.  It could be that 
dualists had their own drashoth which involved shma and modim.  Certainly we 
find Hazal occasionally engaging in drashoth specifically against dualism, 
e.g., "im tzedek ashirah, im mishpat ashira", "k'sheim shemvarchim al 
hatovah kach mevarchim al hara'ah."

In that case what you're missing is not a grammatical construction, it's a 
polemical context.

David Riceman 

On Mon, February 5, 2007 8:19 am, R David Riceman wrote:
: How about this: the Rambam in the beginning of Maamar Tehiyyath Hameithim
: says that trinitarians misinterpreted the pasuk shma, which mentions God
: thrice, to be evidence for the doctrine of the trinity....

j4j still uses that one.

I tried getting an LOR to assur the usual tune for "Vene'emar, 'vehayah H'
lemelekh...'" since it repeats "ushemo" three times and then says that it
equals one. Meaning: I tried getting the LOR to assur it for that reason
because I simply hate the tune. <g> IIRC, I got the idea from R' Zev Sero,
either via scj or mail-jewish (or both).

And to this very day, there are qehillos that don't say "barukh Hu uvarukh
shemo" because the Sabbatians were very gung-ho about answering "barukh hu,
varukh shemo" which has the gematria of Shabtai Tzevi.

(Granikim don't say it because the only "Hu" one can give a berakhah to is
"Shemo". Once one distinguishes between the two, "Hu" refers to the Ein Sof,
for Whom the concept of berakhah is meaningless.)

: In that case what you're missing is not a grammatical construction, it's a
: polemical context.

Does that work is the opposition didn't grab onto it first? Xians have a
motivation to read their own religion into a verse. Zoroastrians, the big
dualist religion of Bavel from around Koreish until Islam's invasion, have
their own scripture.

It would seem by implication that there were Jews who tried reading dualism
into their "Judaism". That there were dualists who used something much like
the Perushi siddur. Otherwise, why would "Modim Modim" sound like a dualist?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 2/6/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> (Granikim don't say it because the only "Hu" one can give a berakhah to is
> "Shemo". Once one distinguishes between the two, "Hu" refers to the Ein Sof,
> for Whom the concept of berakhah is meaningless.)

What is your mekor for this?  It fits with ideas expressed in Nefesh
Hachaim, but RCV does not say this mefurash.  Is it in Maaseh Rav
somewhere?

From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>

<Is anyone aware of a source that someone would not be eligible for
smicha, even thought he was gamir vsavir (knows and can use logic to
apply) simply due to age?>

See Lee Levine, "The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity", 
pp.139-145.

David Riceman 

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

> It would seem by implication that there were Jews who tried reading 
> dualism
> into their "Judaism". That there were dualists who used something much 
> like
> the Perushi siddur. Otherwise, why would "Modim Modim" sound like a 
> dualist?

Yes, there were Jewish Gnostics.

David Riceman 

On Tue, February 6, 2007 7:15 am, R Michael Kopinsky asked about my comment:
:> (Granikim don't say it because the only "Hu" one can give a berakhah to is
:> "Shemo". Once one distinguishes between the two, "Hu" refers to the Ein Sof,
:> for Whom the concept of berakhah is meaningless.)

: What is your mekor for this?

RHSchachter's discussion of RYBS's position (it is usually said, except for
hefseiq when trying to be yotzei their berakhah). Perhaps one of the chevrah
who own RHS's sefarim can let us know if it appears in print.

RJBaker once posted on mail-jewish a reference to R Bezalel Naor,
"Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism" on the Sabbatean gematria of 814. I see he also
mentions the Gra connection, but as an "alternative theory". Perhaps he will
chime in.

In that exchange, a "Seinfeld" asserted the position that the Gra's problem
was that one ran the risk of talking over part of the Chazan's berakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

My son wants to go to a camp this summer which offers discounts if you 
register (and pay) early.  I asked the camp director why there wasn't a 
ribbis problem.  He told me he'd spoken to a posek years before and been 
told it was OK, though he didn't recall why(!)  Can anyone provide the 
missing explanation?

David Riceman 

David Riceman wrote:
> My son wants to go to a camp this summer which offers discounts if you 
> register (and pay) early.  I asked the camp director why there wasn't a 
> ribbis problem.  He told me he'd spoken to a posek years before and been 
> told it was OK, though he didn't recall why(!)  Can anyone provide the 
> missing explanation?

Because there is no prohibition on discounts for paying early.  The
prohibition is only on surcharges for paying late.  What matters is
when is the usual time that payment is due.  To take a trivial example,
one pays for a bus or train at the beginning of the journey, but for a
taxi at the end.  If a bus company offered people the choice to pay at
the end of the trip, for 5% extra, that would be ribbis, whereas if a
taxi offered a 5% discount for paying at the beginning, that would be
perfectly OK.

There is a heter-iska-like arrangement that is based on this din.
Suppose that you would like $100K of my money, and I would like to
earn $10K a year.  In the absence of the halacha of ribbis, I would
lend you the money at 10%.  But we can't do this, so we need an
arrangement that is not a loan, but gives each of us effectively
what we want.  Now suppose you have a property whose market rent is
$1250 a month, or $15K a year.  If someone were to rent this for 20
years, paying each month on time, that would come to $300K.  I sign
a 20 year lease, and in return for my agreement to pay the entire
rent in advance, you agree to give me a 2/3 discount, so I pay you
$100K.   I then put the property on the rental market, earning $1250
a month.  The lease also stipulates that at any time you can cancel
the lease, and refund the unused portion of the rent, pro rata.
Suppose you are ready to "repay the loan" after a year.  Since my
effective rent is $5K a year ($100K / 20), you pay me $95K and
regain possession of the building.  In the course of that year I got
$15K in rent, so I end up with $110K, exactly what I would have
ended up with had we done this as an illegal loan.

But, like a heter iska, this resemblance to a loan depends on
everything going according to plan.  The differences from a loan
emerge when things go awry.  If the building burns down then you,
as landlord, must supply me with an equivalent building or refund
my rent; so far it still resembles the outcome of a loan, unlike
the traditional heter iska, where if the business fails I lose my
money.  But suppose the building is in perfect condition but I fail
to find a tenant, and it sits empty for a time; that's my problem,
not yours, and I end up losing my "interest", or even my "principal".

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Reading Ta'anit Daf 30, I do not understand how many died each year.
I read Mefarshim that calculated simple.  60 Ribbo / 40 years = 1.5 Ribbo a 
year = 1,500.
Then I read Tossafot that says 21,000.  Where can I find one?

One of the explanations I heard is that the 40 years are calculated from 
leaving Egypt. As the spies were sent on the second year, and the gezera was made 
thirs year, then we have 38 years left.  The last one was forgiven, now 37.  9 
years out of the 40 Tish'sh B'Av fell on Shabbat, and as they were not 
allowed to dig graves on Shabbat, we have 37 - 9 = 28 years.
28 years x 21,000 = 588,000.
630,000 left Egypt.  630K - 588K=24,000.
24,000 /  28 years = 860 , and this is the "protrot" that Tosafot talks about.

Am I right?

thanks,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070207/78c46151/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 13
**************************************

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

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

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

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