Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 421

Tue, 16 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 3. City named after G-d (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. esav (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Haym Solveitchik (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Fwd: Source for yotzeir on parasahas Zachor (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Horaas Shaah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: City named after AZ (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

 
 
In a message dated 12/15/2008, cele...@gmail.com writes:

RnTK  takes for granted that Dinah was kidnapped and raped, but there is
actually  no textual basis for these assumptions.  There is no clear
indication  that any force was involved; the word 'va'ye'a'neha is
problematic, but it  is far from clear that it implies force - see, e.g.,
the remarks of Rashi,  Ibn Ezra and Ramban.  


>>>>>
I didn't look at Ibn Ezra but there is no possible  way to read Rashi and 
Ramban and see in the word "vayena'eha" anything other  than force.  Ramban notes 
the use of the same word with the Pilegesh  BeGiv'ah.  Any reading of these 
pesukim that sees seduction rather than a  violent crime is simply perverse.  
Ramban on Ber 34:2 is long but everyone  should read it.
 
Rashi says "Vayishcav -- kedarka" and "veyena'eha -- shelo kedarka" -- very  
very plain that Shechem raped Dinah more than once and more than way -- just a 
 horrendous crime against a young girl -- and he didn't let her go after he  
violated her, either, but kept her as his prisoner.
 
To quote just a few snippets from Ramban (Chavel translation):
 
34:2. >> All forced sexual connection is called "affliction" [i.e, he  is 
taking issue with Rashi and saying front door, back door, doesn't matter,  it's 
all "inui" if forced]...Scripture thus tells -- in Dinah's praise -- that  she 
was forced, and did not consent to the prince of the country. <<
 
34:7 >>....the Canaanites were immersed in unchastity with women,  beasts, 
and males....even in the days of Abraham and Isaac, the patriarchs  feared lest 
they kill them in order to take their wives.... <<
 
34:12.  >> MOHAR UMATAN....presents which the young men send to  the maidens 
whom they marry....The reason for the conciliatory gesture is in  order that 
they willingly give her to him as a wife, as the maiden did not  consent to him 
and she steadily protested and cried.  This is the sense of  the verse "And 
he spoke comfortingly to the damsel [i.e., after raping her  repeatedly -- when 
she wouldn't stop crying].  Therefore Shechem said,  "Take me this young 
maiden to wife" as she was already in his house and in his  power, and he feared 
not her brothers because he was the prince of the  country....Now Shechem's 
great desire was because the maiden was very  beautiful.  However Scripture did 
not narrate her beauty as it did in the  case of Sarah, Rebekah and  Rachel 
because it did not want to mention that  which was to her "a stumbling block of 
iniquity (Ezekial 18:30). <<
 
Note that Shechem seems to have taken it for granted that if Yakov and his  
sons agree to the marriage, then necessarily Dinah will reconcile herself to it 
 also -- but he is not dealing with Arabs here, who force women into  
marriage.  It was already established back from the time of Rivkah  ("Nish'alah es pi 
hana'arah") that Jews do not marry off a daughter or a  sister without her 
consent.
 
 
What strikes me about Ramban is the sympathy and compassion he feels for  the 
pain suffered by this young girl.
 
One more thing about pesukim 34:25-26 -- "Shimon and Levi, THE  BROTHERS OF 
DINAH, took each man his sword and came to the city...and killed  Chamor and 
his son Shechem by the sword and they took Dinah from the house of  Shechem."  
Rashi there says that they are called "the brothers of Dinah"  there "lefi 
shemasru atzman aleha"  -- i.e., they risked their lives for  her, they put 
themselves out for her sake, more than any of the other brothers  they felt for her 
pain and risked everything to rescue her.  Rashi's words  also suggest a 
sympathy and warmth towards the brothers and their protectiveness  towards their 
sister.
 
 
And finally to quote Ramban again, 34:12 >>Scripture does not  mention what 
happened to her after her rescue from Shechem's house.  In  line with the 
simple meaning of Scripture she stayed with her brothers, "shut  up, living as 
widows" (see II Samuel 27:3) <<
 
Her life was ruined and she suffered from post-traumatic stress, and her  
brothers took care of her.  Ramban doesn't say that Shimon married Dinah  btw but 
that she lived in his home and he took care of her, and when she died  
(presumably in Egypt) he brought her body back to E'Y for burial. 

 

--Toby Katz
=============
Read  *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 



--------------------------
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081216/cb0262c6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:35:29 EST
T6...@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/15/2008, cele...@gmail.com writes:
> 
> RnTK  takes for granted that Dinah was kidnapped and raped, but there is
> actually  no textual basis for these assumptions.  There is no clear
> indication  that any force was involved; the word 'va'ye'a'neha is
> problematic, but it  is far from clear that it implies force - see, e.g.,
> the remarks of Rashi,  Ibn Ezra and Ramban.  
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> I didn't look at Ibn Ezra but there is no possible  way to read Rashi and 

Look at Ibn Ezra.

> Ramban and see in the word "vayena'eha" anything other  than force.  Ramban notes 
> the use of the same word with the Pilegesh  BeGiv'ah.  Any reading of these 
> pesukim that sees seduction rather than a  violent crime is simply perverse.  
> Ramban on Ber 34:2 is long but everyone  should read it.
>  
> Rashi says "Vayishcav -- kedarka" and "veyena'eha -- shelo kedarka" -- very  
> very plain that Shechem raped Dinah more than once and more than way -- just a 

Not plain at all.  More than one way, certainly.  Rape, unclear.

>  horrendous crime against a young girl -- and he didn't let her go after he  
> violated her, either, but kept her as his prisoner.

Says you.  What's the textual evidence?  As I mentioned, the Torah
merely states "va'yedaber al lev ha'na'ara", and makes no mention of
her response. 

> To quote just a few snippets from Ramban (Chavel translation):

...

Of course Ramban maintains that she was raped.  It's Rashi and Ibn Ezra
who don't say anything about rape.

> One more thing about pesukim 34:25-26 -- "Shimon and Levi, THE  BROTHERS OF 
> DINAH, took each man his sword and came to the city...and killed  Chamor and 
> his son Shechem by the sword and they took Dinah from the house of  Shechem."  
> Rashi there says that they are called "the brothers of Dinah"  there "lefi 
> shemasru atzman aleha"  -- i.e., they risked their lives for  her, they put 
> themselves out for her sake, more than any of the other brothers  they felt for her 
> pain and risked everything to rescue her.  Rashi's words  also suggest a 
> sympathy and warmth towards the brothers and their protectiveness  towards their 
> sister.

Certainly, but brothers can feel protective and supportive of sisters
who succumb to seduction and the blandishments of attractive, powerful
men, and not just to victims of rape.

> And finally to quote Ramban again, 34:12 >>Scripture does not  mention what 

You have ignored the Medrashim I cited.

> --Toby Katz

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

In the thread titled "City named after AZ", R' Dov Kay asked:
> When I was a teenager, I visited the city of Christchurch
> in New Zealand.  Should enunciation of the name of this
> city be forbidden? Does the fact that it has become the
> name of a city make a difference?

There is a similar question which I've wondered about for a very long time.
The above question pushed me to send this post, but I just couldn't bring
myself to use that title, which is why I've changed the subject line to
"City named after G-d".

At several points in Sefer Bereshis -- mostly this past week in Vayishlach
-- we encounter a place whose name is "Beis El". This is clearly written as
two words. My question: Is the second of those words kodesh, or is it chol?
If there would be a serious error in writing it, would a sofer be allowed
to erase it, or would he be required to cut it out and keep it intact, like
with other sheimos?

On the one hand, one could argue that it is merely part of the name of the
place. On the other hand, it sure *looks* like G-d's name, given that it is
spelled the same, is pronounced the same, and truth to tell, the place
*was* named after Him.

(Disclaimer: I must admit that beyond my curiosity, I do have an ulterior
motive for asking this question. Namely: If "Beis El" is a new name and
therefore chol, then there is certainly no problem with new names like
Yisrael and Eliyahu, despite what some people might think.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw1mBffsFOeLEOrRk2D9asrZohD4oDQmq1hxIBcDLX3Cjndt4/

<<I learned that today - listening to a CD of a Parsha Shiur which was given
nightly by Reb Yankele zt'l, the Pshevorsker rebbe in Antwerp.
He expresses great astonishment at this Rashbam.
1) Because the Rashbam usually goes for posheter pshat, and
2) What is the Rashbam's source for this?>>

In terms of (2) why assume Rashbam had a source? His usual approach
is to assume that chazal's approach was not pshat but was still Halacha.
The most famous example being his explanation that according to Bereshit
the day comes before the night which has no source in Chazal.

Obviously Rashbam here assumes that Esav being a good guy is pshat.
As Micha points out the phrase "ish" usually does not mean soldiers
but rather important people. Furthermore, he did kiss Yaakov.

Admittedly this is not the strongest of cases, but that seems to be the
approach of Rashbam.

As our rabbi said it is important to distinguish between the pesukim and
Rashi's interpretaion. Rashi has become so accepted that frequently
we assume that what Rashi says is explicit in the Torah

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> from a review of Haym Soloveitchik's recent book on
> Yayin Nesech
>
> Historians commonly think that the early Jewish community in Ashkenaz
> received its traditions from the Land of Israel. Soloveitchik
> questions this assumption and demonstrates that halakhic traditions
> also reached Ashkenaz from Babylonia. But there is still no serious
> question about the fact that the liturgy of the Land of Israel had a
> decisive influence on the prayers and blessings. If one asks how the
> traditions made their way to Germany - whether originally from Babylon
> or from Palestine - the answer is, via international trade. From the
> palaces of the German emperors (in Aachen and Ingleheim), merchants
> and emissaries were dispatched to every part of the world, from China
> and India to Byzantium and Babylonia, the Land of Israel, Libya,
> Alexandria and Yemen. Perhaps of particular interest is the fact that
> the oldest known copy of Rashi?s commentaries is a Yemenite manuscript
> from 1192, commentary on the Talmudic tractate of Baba Metzi'a.
>
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044713.html
>

Professor Irving Agus makes the point quite clearly.  R. Meshullan ben
Klonymous of Lucca, Italy migrated to Ashkenzz and brought the EY litrugy
with him, This is obviosu from the fact that this family dominates the
piyyutim on the High Holidays.  The rest of Core ASehkanzic Piyyutim include
a heavy dose of Kallir who was embraced by Ashkenazim and largely rejected
by Sephardim. Kallir is consiered w/o a dbout from EY and a big influence
upon the liturgy, although Yosi Ben Yosi and others did preceded him.

In general, Ashkenazim looked up to the Northern Italian community which as
ostensibly rooted in EY not Bavel.

There is no doubt that there was a also heavy  Bavilonian Influence, [e.g.
Yekum Purkan].  And from what I can tell it centered upon Rashi. The School
of Rashi produced both Siddur Rashi and Machzor Vitri.  Rashi was AISI
heavily influenced by The Babylonian Tradition in General. E.G. he opposes a
bracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, just like Sephardim.

See I. Ta Shma's quote of Or Zaru'a in his hakdam to Minhag Ashekanz
Hakadmon.

Parenthetically we can now date Kallir to have lived circa 580 CE, but this
is another thread.

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081215/46322bdc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> I was asked to ask the chevrah the following:
> : (Aside from Sefer Otzer HaTefilos' derash) what is the source for the
> : Yotzer of parashas Zachor to say that Esav sold his birthright for a
> : cup of wine alone (stanza starting "Zachor HaDichui") rather than the
> : standard explanation of lentils ?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>

The plain text never mentions a quid pro quo of Bechora for lentils.  It
merely juxtaposes the 2.  This is like saying:
Let's sit down to eat an dtalk business.

The meal is not necesarily a quid pro quo for the business. Perhaps it is
merelya venue for negotiation, much like a lot of busines is done today on
golf courses.  Now wouldn't it  be silly to say if 2 CEO's made a merger at
a golf course that the golf-ball was the consideration for the merge?!

And so the plain text states that Esav gave away the Bechora for free.  His
gluttony was focused upon satisfying his appetite and the Bechora was
merfely discarded, not swapped.  Maybe the lentils or the golf ball would
form a kinyan ch'lippin but certainly not a true quid pro quo.

I have been promoting this view for years and finally my LOR said this at
Shalosh Sheudos in the name of the Sipporno. But as a ba'al q'ria, it is
jsut the plain read of the tex w/o any embelishment

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081216/634a46da/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>wrote:

>  One often hears Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) being labeled a Horaas Shaah.
> RSRH did what he did because of the times that he lived in. However,  TIDE
> is really not the "true" Torah way.
>
> Rabbi Shelomo Danziger  turns things around. On page 106 of his essay *Rav
> S.R. Hirsch -His TIDE Ideology, * he writes
>
> "We should go our own way, convinced of the correctness and relevance of
> TIDE as the ideal Torah system, as the l'Chatchilah. We should promote it as
> such *vigorously, *no less aggressively than the nonHirschian Yeshiva
> world and Chassidic groups, who see themselves as l'Chatchilah and others
> as b'dieved. We may respectfully grant the usefulness, and indeed, the
> hidden blessing of the non-Hirschian approach as a Horaas Shaah."
>
> May I suggest that you read the entire essay at
> http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/danziger_tide.pdf before
> commenting?
>
> Yitzchok Levine
>

AIUI, Rav Schwab shifted, too. Originally he thought it was a hora'as sho'oh
but later accepted TIDE as a lechatchila.

Certainly R. Y. Breuer considered it a lechatchilah all along.

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081216/2e9c1068/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Simon Montagu wrote:
> I remember once an announcement in Oxford shul including
> directions to the location of a meeting. Rather than
> mention the name of the college they said something like
> "The third turning on the right after you-know-who
> you-know-what".

And yet, I don't know of anyone who refrains from pronouncing the name of that month between Sivan and Av.

I was going to ask if anyone can define the cutoff point between the objectionable and the acceptable, and then I saw that R' Zev Sero wrote:

> The chiddush here is that it's not actually an AZ at all;
> it's a college that was named for a building that was named
> for an AZ.  And yet people try to avoid naming it, because
> it just doesn't feel right.

I suspect the answer is in his last line there: It just doesn't feel right.
Nowadays, no one relates "Tamuz" to avodah zara, but queasiness over
"Christchurch" doesn't surprise me a bit. "El Salvador" probably depends on
one's familiarity with the Spanish language.

Could it be that we're dealing with a social issue, and not a halachic one?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on getting an MBA, $200K/ year potential.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw1UV4OYoErkYPrgPvZIWIZowtrguvhZfL2TzLKdj5WiC9Ezo/


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 421
***************************************

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..."