Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 116

Tue, 16 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: Sodom bed [was Torah Homeschooling| (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Vayikra Moshe l'Hoshea bin Nun Yehoshua (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 3. Officiating at a Mixed Marriage (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Re: Chovav and Reuel (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Vayikra Moshe l'Hoshea bin Nun Yehoshua (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: Shelach (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 7. Re: Shelach (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Shelach (Cantor Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Shelach (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Shelach (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 11. Re: Shelach (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Yom Kippur x 2 (Jonathan Dickson)
• 13. Re: Officiating at a Mixed Marriage (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Chovav and Reuel (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 15. Re: Yom Kippur x 2 (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Shelach (Zev Sero)
• 17. Na'ar - 2 defintions (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> You are hardly the first to notice the close similarity between the 
> Procrustean bed and the Sodom bed.  The chance that this story arose 
> twice, independently, is nil.  The odds that the Greeks took it from 
> us are slight, but it is possible.  Far more likely IMO is the third 
> possibility you mentioned, that Chazal took a commonly known Greek story 
> floating around in the air of their time and used it to illustrate the 
> kind of thing that went on in Sodom.

What about the possibility that the story just might be true?  If it
is, then no explanation is needed for how it came down to the Greeks.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

>
> RMBluke: 2. Why daven only for Yehoshua? Yehoshua was probably the greatest
> of
> the meraglim, why would Moshe worry that he would sin? At the time
> that they were picked all of the Meraglim were tzadikim, why didn't
> Moshe daven for all of them?


I happened to see a Meshech Chochma on this. IIRC, he says that since
Yehoshua was the leader of the army in the battle with Amalek, the people
would give special weight to his words. They would say: If Yehoshua - who
fought Amalek and won - says we cannot conquer the land, then he must
certainly be right. Thus, for Yehoshua to fall into the eitzah of the other
meraglim would have meant certain catastrophe.

As things turned out, of course, the people seem not to have given such an
overwhelmingly great weight to Yehoshua's words when he came back with a
positive report.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/31466e4f/attachment-0001.htm>

"Vu shtait geshribben that a rabbi may not officiate at a mixed
wedding?"

That question is as illogical as asking "If Tisha b'Av falls on Rosh  
Chodesh do we say Hallel?"

A mixed wedding is not a valid chasuna, so how could a rabbi  
officiate? To ask where is the source would
be lending credibility to a mixed marriage. (I'm aware that there are  
R. rabbis who would officiate but their
status would be the same as a JP. There's certainly no validity to a  
mixed marriage anymore than 2 non Jews
who marry (as far as the halachic definition of a Jewish marriage goes).

ri

From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" _kennethgmiller@juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmil...@juno.com) 


>>Are  Chovav and Reuel the same person, or are they father and son?

....So  here's my question: What about the FIRST Yesh Omrim? How is the 
"seven names"  opinion consistent with our pasuk? How can anyone hold that 
Chovav and Reuel are  the same person, if we have a pasuk which clearly says 
they  aren't?

....Reuel was one of Yisro's names, and he suggested that perhaps  he was 
named after his father - "Reuel Jr.", as it were. If so, then Reuel was  
Tziporah's father, and ANOTHER Reuel was her grandfather, and everything  fits.

....(The specific question can be rephrased as: How is the first  view of 
Rashi in Shmos 18:1 consistent with what the Torah says explicitly in  
Bamidbar 10:29?)<<

Akiva Miller
 
 
>>>>>>
 
There are precedent for sons having the same name as the fathers  for 
generations, when you look at rulers (maybe priests too?  and  Yisro had been a 
priest).  Think of Paraoh and Avimelech,  It's at  least possible that father 
and son were both named Reuel if that was some kind  of title.
 
 
 

 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your 
fingertips. 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntu
sdown00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090615/8ea36663/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Elzufon wrote:
> I happened to see a Meshech Chochma on this. IIRC, he says that since
> Yehoshua was the leader of the army in the battle with Amalek, the people
> would give special weight to his words. They would say: If Yehoshua - who
> fought Amalek and won - says we cannot conquer the land, then he must
> certainly be right. Thus, for Yehoshua to fall into the eitzah of the other
> meraglim would have meant certain catastrophe.
>

This to me seems very difficult. If Moshe was worried why not daven
for everyone? Was Moshe doing a cost/benefit analysis of his tefila?
Did Moshe have a limiuted quota of who he could daven for?

The Keren Ora (Sota 34a) answers both questions as follows:

Moshe did not know that the Meraglim would sin. Rather he knew that
the mission would be a serious challenge and the that yetzer hara
would try very hard to entrap them and cause them to sin. Therefore he
davened that they should succeed.

If so why did Moshe only daven for Yehoshua? He answers based on the
Arizal as follows. Each Nasi represented a shevet and therefore the
neshama of the progenitor of the shevet was with the Nasi on the trip.
Moshe thought that would protect them and therefore he did not see the
need to daven for them. However, Yehoshua was from Efraim and
therefore had no progenitor to protect him (you can still ask why
didn't Efraim's neshama come?) as the pasuk puts Menashe and Yosef
together so Yosef went with Gadi ben Susi from Menashe and not
Yehoshua. Therefore Moshe davened specifically for Yehoshua so that he
would have different protection.

RRW: The story in the Haftara are the Tiqqun and redemption for the Torah
Portion..

Especially when you realize that the situation of fear and trembling of the
Canaanites that Rachav described had been going on for forty years - since
yetziat Mitzrayim. It was already the case at the time of Parshat Shlach!

The spies in Parshat Shlach apparently did not speak with any actual
Canaanites. They toured much of the land and would seem to have done a very
thorough job, but they missed the ikkar. OTOH, the spies in Sefer Yehoshua
didn't manage to see much of anything except the inside of Rachav's house
and the top of her roof - but that was all they needed for their mission to
be successful.

So much of what we see depends on where we look - and on what we are looking
for.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/f702c355/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 06:31:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: What I find interesting and somewhat ironic though, is that Yehoshua  
: was one of the m'raglim (albeit with a positive report) dispatched by  
: Moshe to scout the land and was
: certainly aware of the error (theologically speaking) and the tragic  
: outcome. Nevertheless, four decades later, we have a second mission  
: where he implements the same strategy to gather intelligence about the  
: Land.

OTOH, who did he pick? The successful merageil from last time around -
Kaleiv, and a known zealot for HQBH - Pinechas.

Also, on the question of why did Yehoshua get a berakhah and not the
other meraglim, and why Kaleiv succeeded without one, another answer:

The naar in the Eldad uMeidad story was Yehoshua, who was upset that
they were prophesying Moshe's petirah. We see therefore that Yehoshua
had a strong emotional investment in Moshe's survival. Therefore he had
negios for believing we weren't ready to conquer Kenaan yet, as that
would prolong his rebbe's life.

You can complete the mussar shmuess about negios and emotional shochad
on your own.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

What I find interesting and somewhat ironic though, is that Yehoshua  
was one of the m'raglim (albeit with a positive report) dispatched by  
Moshe to scout the land and was
certainly aware of the error (theologically speaking) and the tragic  
outcome. Nevertheless, four decades later, we have a second mission  
where he implements the same strategy to gather intelligence about the  
Land.
ri


On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:04 AM, Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:

> RRW: The story in the Haftara are the Tiqqun and redemption for the  
> Torah Portion..
>
> Especially when you realize that the situation of fear and trembling  
> of the Canaanites that Rachav described had been going on for forty  
> years - since yetziat Mitzrayim. It was already the case at the time  
> of Parshat Shlach!
>
> The spies in Parshat Shlach apparently did not speak with any actual  
> Canaanites. They toured much of the land and would seem to have done  
> a very thorough job, but they missed the ikkar. OTOH, the spies in  
> Sefer Yehoshua didn't manage to see much of anything except the  
> inside of Rachav's house and the top of her roof - but that was all  
> they needed for their mission to be successful.
>
> So much of what we see depends on where we look - and on what we are  
> looking for.
>
> - Ilana

Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:

> The spies in Parshat Shlach apparently did not speak with any actual 
> Canaanites. They toured much of the land and would seem to have done a 
> very thorough job, but they missed the ikkar. OTOH, the spies in Sefer 
> Yehoshua didn't manage to see much of anything except the inside of 
> Rachav's house and the top of her roof - but that was all they needed 
> for their mission to be successful.

Actually both did their jobs properly.   The problem is that these
people forgot what their job was.  Malbim points out that the name
we give these people, "meraglim", is a misnomer.  Nowhere in the Torah
are they called that.  And it's not as if this was a word that didn't
exist at the time; Yosef accused his brothers of being "meraglim",
Moshe sent people "leragel et Ya`azer", and Yehoshua sent "meraglei
cheresh".  It's not an accident these people are called "tarim" and
not "meraglim", because they were *not* spies, they were tourists.

They were sent to tour the land and come back with a report of what
it was like, so that the people would want to go there.  Thus they
were well-known politicians, carefully chosen for balance among the
shevatim, like a congressional fact-finding mission that's balanced
by region.  There was no secret about them, and they had no reason to
speak to the people, since the people were not expected to be part of
the landscape after the conquest.  All they had to report on was what
sort of people they were, i.e. did they appear to be prosperous and
healthy.  As for military secrets, these people had no expertise and
wouldn't know what to look for.

Meraglim, OTOH, are not named; on the contrary, their identity is
always a state secret!  They are sent in small teams, not 12 together,
and they are chosen for their expertise, not their tribal distribution.
They go in the dead of night, and return to report in secret.

When the tourists came back and reported "tovah ha'aretz me'od me'od"
they were doing their job; had they found it not to be so good, or
good only for some shevatim and not others, they would have been
obligated to be honest and say so.  "But there is no irrigation, as
we are used to, and the farmers depend on rain."   "But there are
parts that are cold and high up, and white stuff falls out of the sky
in the winter."  "But there is nowhere suitable for growing tropical
fruit."   What they had *no* business doing was commenting on the
strength of the people and the extent of their fortifications, and
expressing a decidedly *non-expert* opinion that conquest would be
impossible.   From "efes ki az ha'am", they deviated from their terms
of reference, and acted *as if* they were meraglim, which they were
not; they were out of their depth and didn't know it.

Moshe's and Yehoshua's meraglim, OTOH, weren't sent to look at the
scenery; they were unnamed secret agents, with military knowledge,
sent to find out about the enemy's defenses, and what weaknesses
the enemy might have.   If they had learned that "az ha'am" and
come to the sober professional conclusion that the invasion could
not succeed, it would have been their duty to come back and say so,
so that the commander would have the necessary intelligence and
could formulate his plans accordingly.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

CW: "Nevertheless, four decades later, we have a second mission where he
implements the same strategy to gather intelligence about the Land."

Not exactly the same strategy.

The first group was a relatively large military delegation who traveled the
entire country. It is not clear exactly how they avoided interacting with
the Canaanites - according to Rashi, G-d deliberately brought about enough
deaths that everyone was involved in mourning and didn't pay attention to
them.

The second delegation was two spies who came in "cheresh" - either secretly,
or disguised as pedlars of earthenware pots. Their mission seems to have
been more limited and focused from the outset. They gathered intelligence
just by talking to Rachav (although they presumably intended to do some more
extensive spying as well, if they had not been found out).

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/22ac99f2/attachment-0001.htm>

> OTOH, who did he pick? The successful merageil from last time around -
> Kaleiv, and a known zealot for HQBH - Pinechas.
> - Micha

But this is ONLY al pi midrash!

My LOR growing up -R Wm. Cohen (not the senator!) - Darshened thusly:

The meraglim in the parshah were bigshots, public figures who went
"spying" with a lot of fanfare. (And probably ego, too)

Yehoshua learned this lesson. Regardless of the names, they were
sent privately, anonymously, and therefore may indeed have had zero
ego involvement!

Beqitzur: This is the tiqqun and the lesson learned.  

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

The kushiya, why did Moshe send out piblic figures anyway? I saw a long
d'var Torah on this many years ago and BEH I will post it later

Hint: what verb(s) describes Moshe's agents in Shelach? In Huqqas?
In Devarim?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In chu'l, we have two days of every chag. Generally, the reason for this is
sfeika d'yuma (exceptions being Rosh Hashana, where it's yuma arichta, and
Shavuot, where the date was never in doubt because of sfira, but the second
day was instituted because of lo plug).

My question is, why is there no second day Yom Kippur? The usual answer to
this is because people can't fast two days, but if that's the case, why not
at least have an issur melacha on 11th Tishri? Or perhaps allow people to
eat after nightfall on the 11th, because of pikuach nefesh, and then
(having removed the risk) require them to fast for the rest of the 11th?

I'm hesitant to suggest this, because I'm worried someone will apply the
well-known contemporary halachic principle of "koach d'isura adif" and
we'll see a new takana before long :-), but can anyone explain why it's not
the case?

kol tuv

Jonny Dickson


Save paper ..... think before you print.

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



The Sunday Times Best Companies to Work For 2009

Adelaide House, London Bridge, London EC4R 9HA, UK
DX 92 London/Chancery Lane
t: +44 (0)20 7760 1000  f: +44 (0)20 7760 1111  w: www.blplaw.com 

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


 
This email and the information it contains are confidential and may be
privileged, if you have received this email in error please notify us
immediately. You should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any other person. 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore Berwin Leighton
Paisner LLP does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this
message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect
the message may have  been intercepted or amended, please call the sender. 

This email has been checked for potential computer viruses using Messagelabs technology.

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


An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/1ae246f9/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
>> "Vu shtait geshribben that a rabbi may not officiate at a mixed
>> wedding?"
> 
> That question is as illogical as asking "If Tisha b'Av falls on Rosh 
> Chodesh do we say Hallel?"
> 
> A mixed wedding is not a valid chasuna, so how could a rabbi officiate?
>  To ask where is the source would be lending credibility to a mixed
> marriage.

And yet it is a valid legal and social act - at least valid enough to
trigger the issur of "lo titchaten bam".

 
> (I'm aware that there are R. rabbis who would officiate but their
> status would be the same as a JP.

And the question is where it is written that one may not do so.
My answer is that it's written under the rubric of "mesayea` yedei
ovrei avera", and there's no reason to expect every conceivable
avera, and every conceivable way of assisting in one, to be listed
somewhere.   It's not written anywhere "don't eat ham, and don't
eat bacon, nor shall you eat pork chops"; "Ve'et hachazir" is enough
to cover all of them.


> There's certainly no validity to a mixed marriage anymore than
> 2 non Jews who marry (as far as the halachic definition of a Jewish
> marriage goes).

The marriage of two non-Jews certainly does have halachic validity;
the wife becomes an eshet ish.  And a rabbi is absolutely permitted
to perform or supervise at a ceremony to make it so: I even know one
non-Jewish couple who were married under a chupah by an Orthodox rabbi!
I couldn't make it, so I don't know exactly how different it was from
a standard chupah, but if I were to do it I'd probably just omit the
shem umalchus from the brachot, and replace "kedat moshe veyisrael"
with "keminhag kol ha'amim".  And translate it all to English.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RnTK: There are precedent for sons having the same name as the fathers for
generations, when you look at rulers (maybe priests too?  and Yisro had been
a priest).  Think of Paraoh and Avimelech,  It's at least possible that
father and son were both named Reuel if that was some kind of title.

Friend of God? Shepherd of God? Either one would be appropriate for a
priest, although I'm not sure where the vav comes in.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090616/d49a06df/attachment-0001.htm>

Jonathan Dickson wrote:
 
> My question is, why is there no second day Yom Kippur? The usual answer 
> to this is because people can't fast two days, but if that's the case, 
> why not at least have an issur melacha on 11th Tishri? Or perhaps allow 
> people to eat after nightfall on the 11th, because of pikuach nefesh, 
> and then (having removed the risk) require them to fast for the rest of 
> the 11th?

We only keep yom tov sheni because the same Sanhedrin that established
the fixed calendar ordered us to continue the custom of our ancestors.
Our ancestors in Bavel didn't keep two days of Yom Kippur because of
the sakana in fasting for two days, so we have no reason to do so either.
Nevertheless, the Maharil (quoted by the Ramo) seems to suggest that
there were substantial numbers of people who did fast the second day,
enough that it's worth discussing what they should do if there's a
minyan of them!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> What I find interesting and somewhat ironic though, is that Yehoshua was 
> one of the m'raglim (albeit with a positive report) dispatched by Moshe 
> to scout the land and was
> certainly aware of the error (theologically speaking) and the tragic 
> outcome. Nevertheless, four decades later, we have a second mission 
> where he implements the same strategy to gather intelligence about the 
> Land.

No, he doesn't.   He sends actual spies, secret agents whose names
are not revealed, whom he chooses for their expertise, and trusts to
report to him *in secret* on the enemy's military position and what
weaknesses might be exploited.  That's the way this sort of thing has
been done since warfare was first invented.   It has nothing in common
with the political junket described in this week's sedra.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

> The naar in the Eldad uMeidad story was Yehoshua,

Tangentially;
The primary defintion of Na'ar is "youth"

However, I saw (many years ago) a second defintion meaning secondary
person; or lieutenant.

EG Re: Avraham: "ushnei ne'arav ito." Yet neither Yishma'el nor Eliezer
were young, merely they held inferior posistions to Avraham. IOW they
were ne'arav juxtaposed to their master.

Benidan didan Yehoshua was relatively a "na'ar" to Moshe, but not a
Na'ar in the absolute sense.

(Sorry, I forgot who said it first)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 116
***************************************

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..."