Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 189

Wed, 16 Sep 2009

• 1. RH/sour/sharp/bitter (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 2. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Re: RH/sour/sharp/bitter (Micha Berger)
• 4. RHS/Dairy (martin brody)
• 5. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: RH/sour/sharp/bitter (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: moshe and losing one's temper; 2 blamees... (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: who is to blame??; re:moshe rabeinu and Eretz Yisrael???? (Micha Berger)
• 10. RHS and dairy (Eli Turkel)
• 11. shofar on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: shofar on shabbat (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Why "Tashlich" and not Hashlachah? (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: RHS/Dairy (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Micha Berger)

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/09/rosh-hashana-sour-bitter-sh
arp-foods.html
an interesting discussion of the sources  on what actually was the minhag 
to withhold from RH, and  how long into tishri that minhag applies.
maybe a charif sweet  chutney is not problematic....

i wonder also if it is becoming more prevalent to  bring back the  simanim 
of the gmara. i know chabad only does apple/honey, but i have a feeling 
more people are resuming the other  simanim.

one can envision  3  seder plates---  pesach , RH , and  tu bishvat....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090915/e9d3504f/attachment-0001.htm>

> Actually, does anyone know what RDJHH's [ = R' Dr. J. H. Hertz] philosophy was? (That question
> is /not/ rhetorical.
> R' Micha

Generally, I'd say he falls into a left-wing Modern Orthodox, YCT,
more or less. In many of his essays, he uses "Postive-Historical" and
"Orthodox" interchangeably, since, in his time, right-wing
Conservatism (which most of JTS's professors of Talmud were) and
Enlightened Orthodoxy were still quite close. We might recall also
that Congregation Shearith Israel - with whom JTS's Sabato Morais was
associated - helped found both the OU and JTS.

Hertz refers to his greatest influences as being:
--- His own father, who learned in Hildesheimer's (apparently not
getting smiha, being referred to as "Mr." in his obituary)
--- Alexander Kohut (referred to by Hertz as "German-American scholars")
--- Sabato Moraise (referred to by Hertz as "Sephardic scholars")

I'd advise seeing Meirovich, Harvey. "Reclaiming Chief Rabbi Hertz as
a Conservative Jew," Conservative Judaism 46/4 (1994).

That essay copiously footnotes from across the Hertzian corpus,
documenting his various positions, including:
--- A positive-historical view of the Oral Law, that halakhah can
evolve with time - aside from often offering a peshat that differs
from Hazal's midrashei halakhah, Hertz apparently also supported
various tena'im in kiddushin and gittin, etc. I'm personally not sure,
but I'd wager that he'd have a lot of general agreements with Rabbis
Eliezer Berkovits and Emanuel Rackman and Benzion Uziel and Haim David
Halevi, if I may generalize.
--- His constant endorsement of Schechter and JTS until the end of his days
--- His holding Biblical Criticism to be "higher antisemitism", as per Schechter
--- His staunch Maimonidean rationalism and universalism. Hertz's
views on Kabbalah are somewhat hard to precisely pin down; in his two
essays on Kabbalah in Sermons, Addresses, and Studies, Hertz tries to
show that mysticism has Biblical roots, but all the same, he decries
gematria and belief in demons and such as primitive diseases of the
human mind. Generally, I'd say that his understanding of Kabbalah is
very historical and academic - in the Scholem sense - and while he
occasionally would use Kabbalistic metaphors, he generally holds by
very Maimonidean positions. For example, regarding Pharaoh's heart
being hardened, he explains that when G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart, it
really means that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and G-d hardened it
only insofar as He created all natural law, including the
psychological law that anger and pride make one stubborn. In his essay
on the Fall of Man in his Pentateuch, Rabbi Hertz - like Rabbi Dr. Leo
Adler's The Biblical View of Man (a very Hirschian book - see the
translator's appendix) - reinterprets the midrashim of the snake
injecting venom and Sinai being the tavlin for the yetzer hara as
referring not to Jew but to mankind in general. Rabbi Hertz is very
comfortable using ancient Near Eastern culture and literature to shed
light on the Tanakh, an approach anathemous to Rav Hirsch but finding
much approval in Rav Kook. (Rav Kook bases this on the idea that
prophecy is given in accordance with the prophet's own abilities to
receive. He uses this to explain how the Torah could be similar to the
Code of Hammurabi - Rav Kook says that whatever cultural elements
could be uplifted, the Torah preferred to keep them and sanctify them,
rather than to reject them. Cf. how Rav Kook, following Rambam,
suggests that the Garden of Eden could be a metaphor, explaining that
the lesson is more important than the history, and that G-d knew when
it was better to either craft new legends or reuse old ones in order
to achieve His pedagogic ends.)

That essay is copiously footnoted, and contains a fantastic wealth of
historical data. I'd say, however, that the ultimate thesis of that
essay - viz. to show that Rabbi Hertz was a Conservative - is a
failure. I will elaborate, quoting what I wrote at
http://shimshonit.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/tzniut-adventure-gr
ade-1/#comment-593

I just read an essay trying to prove that Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz was a
Conservative, as the term is understood today. Now, the essay was
quite learned; the author copiously cited Rabbi Hertz?s Pentateuch,
showing his view of Biblical Criticism (viewing Wellhaussen as an
anti-Semite who wanted to make the Torah be post-Exilic in order to
say that original authentic Judaism, like Christianity, was
antinomian), support of the concept of evolution in halakhah and
progressive-revelation in the Oral Law, and Maimonidean rationalism in
his moralization of Judaism (eschewing all Kabbalism, appealing to
late 19-century and early 20th century Germanic rationalism). The
essay also showed how Rabbi Hertz?s views followed from those of his
teachers, Alexander Kohut and Sabato Morais at JTS, and how Rabbi
Hertz, to his dying day, heaped praise upon JTS and its faculty
(especially Solomon Schechter).

But while the essay was brilliant from a technical historical
standpoint, its ultimate thesis I think was a failure. If Rabbi Hertz
was a Conservative for believing in the evolution of halakhah and the
Oral Law, then so were:
? Rabbi Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin (a renowned Hasidic master);
? Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner (a traditional old-school dayan in
Klausenberg, Hungary);
? Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits;
? Rabbis Benzion Uziel and Haim David Halevi, both traditional Turkish
Judeo-Spanish rabbis who never attended yeshiva.
? Arguably, Rambam, whose philosophy of the Oral law Glasner relies on.

The essay also wanted to say Rabbi Hertz was Conservative because of
his positive attitude towards Solomon Schechter. But as Professor Marc
Shapiro notes in another essay (?Sociology and Halakhah? in Tradition
? the title says it all, on how sociology as much as ideology shapes
denominationalism), Rav Kook referred to Schechter as ?rabbi?.
Similarly, the essay about Hertz remarked how Rabbi Hertz considered
Zacharias Frankel, the founder of Positive-Historical Judaism (the
precursor to Conservative) to be a rabbi in good standing, whereas
Rabbis S. R. Hirsch and Esriel Hildsheimer, the foremost figures in
German Neo-Orthodoxy, considered Frankel a heretic. But, as Professor
Shapiro shows (op. cit.), Rabbis D. Z. Hoffmann and Yehiel Weinberg,
Hildsheimer?s direct successors, considered Frankel to be a kosher
rabbi! So if Rabbi Hertz was Conservative for supporting Frankel, so
were Hoffmann and Weinberg! (We might note that Weinberg is even cited
reverentially in Eastern-European Lithuanian Haredi circles. So
apparently, the Haredim are all Conservative as well!)

The essay again tried to show that Rabbi Hertz was Conservative
because he was president of Jews? College in Britain and favorably
compared it to JTS. But we might note that the principal of Jews?
College rabbinic school, Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, received his smiha
from?Rav Kook!

Then, the essay noted that Sabato Morais, Rabbi Hertz?s revered and
oft-cited teacher (Rabbi Hertz called him his ?patriarch?) doubted
whether the Third Temple would have animal sacrifices, thereby
attempting to impugn the Orthodoxy of both Morais and Hertz. But as we
all know, Rav Kook (as well as many Orthodox authorities cited in
Professor Marc Shapiro?s The Limits of Orthodox Theology, chapter on
eternity of the Torah) also thought that the Third Temple would have
only vegetal offerings!

So for every single piece of evidence adduced to show Rabbi Hertz was
Conservative, a multitude of unquestionably Orthodox rabbis are
impugned as well. Heck, Rav Kook is already Conservative three times
over!

Sofo shel davar: be very careful when dealing with denominational
labels. If Rabbi Hertz was Conservative, so were:
? Several Eastern European scions of traditional yeshivot (Glasner and
Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin);
? The entire Turkish/Greek school of Judaism;
? Half of the German Neo-Orthodox school (Hoffmann and Weinberg, in
contrast to Hirsch and Hildsheimer);
? Rav Kook.
That?s a pretty wide brush to be painting with!

Michael Makovi

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:37:36AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: i wonder also if it is becoming more prevalent to  bring back the  simanim 
: of the gmara. i know chabad only does apple/honey, but i have a feeling 
: more people are resuming the other  simanim.

I think it is, and for a simple reason -- the world shrunk, and many
more things can be affordably imported.

There is also a trend in some circles toward new simanim. We discussed
here before the half a raisin on celery wrapped in lettuce (let us have
a raise in salary). Another, posted on scjm by Wendy Baker (RJJB's
mother) was to use thin noodle (the kind generally used in lokshin soup)
for a yehi ratzon for success in one's diet. (I guess NOT Atkins <g>.)

This make about as much sense as carrots did the first generations they
were used, relying on a Yiddish pun on "merrin" (carrot / more). The
only real difference is the rise of the liberal movements that make us
shy away from creative new ritualizing.

: one can envision  3  seder plates---  pesach , RH , and  tu bishvat....

R' Yaakov Emden branded Chemdas haYamim a Sabbatean text, attributing it
to Nathan of Gaza (the Elijah figure in Shabbetai Tzevi's court). Current
academic consensus agrees that it reflects a Sabbatean slant. Chemdas
haYamim includes a text which is the origin of the Tu biShvat seder,
called (the text, not the seder) "Peri Eitz Hadar". It is also the source
for saying LeDavid twice a day this time a year.

We discussed this last February, when RMCohen wanted to find a copy of
Peri Eitz Hadar and why it only says to drink 2 cups but modern guides
say 4.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TU%20BI%20SHV
AT%20SEDER

Sociologically speaking, I find people using the word "seider" for RH
dinner. That said, having a list of rituals with no particular *order*
can't really be called a *seder*.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

martin brody wrote:

> The fact that many aged cows may be diseased etc., RHS still seems
> to be ignoring Rov. The vast majority of milking cows are young and
> healthy.

How do you know, without shechting a representative sample and checking?

--
Zev Sero "

Because cows  have a chazaka of kashrus.


Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090915/eb59cf28/attachment-0001.htm>

> A positive-historical view of the Oral Law, that halakhah can
> evolve with time - aside from often offering a peshat that differs
> from Hazal's midrashei halakhah
>
> me

A random example pops into my head:

Regarding extending interest to a gentile, Rabbi Hertz draws a
distinction between nokhri and toshav, saying that the Torah permits
extending interest to a nokhri - which he explains as being a
non-Jewish foreign merchant - and forbids extending it to a toshav -
which he explains as meaning a ger toshav. Hertz explains that if the
Biblical Jews were to conduct international trade, the foreign
gentiles (nokhri) would surely charge us interest, and so, for the
sake of equity, it is only fair that we can charge them back. But with
gentiles living in Israel (toshav), he says, living among us, it is
only proper that Jew and gentile be equal, with charging interest
being forbidden regardless. He then perfunctorily notes that the
Talmud explains differently, and that it holds that extending interest
is technically permitted but highly frowned upon.

In Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein's The Jewish Way of Life, Rabbi Epstein
offers an identical Biblical explanation - i.e. between nokhri and
toshav, with the exact same explanation as Hertz and even citing the
Hertz Pentateuch - and then he notes (citing the Talmud more copiously
than Rabbi Hertz did) that the Talmud, not aware of this distinction
in definition of nokhri and toshav, was not sure of how to resolve the
apparent contradiction (i.e. permitted to a nokhri but not to a
toshav, which is indeed a contradiction if one takes both to mean
"gentile" stam), and proposed two okimtas:
1) To give interest to a gentile is permitted, to take interest from
him is forbidden - a gentile can "bite" a Jew, but a Jew cannot "bite"
a gentile;
2) To give and take to and from a gentile is permitted - i.e. each can
bite the other - but only in case of dire economic need.
Rabbi Epstein then notes that Tosafot relied on the second, and Rabbi
Epstein adds that really, we today ought to follow the Talmudic
prohibition of interest with a gentile, but old habits are hard to
break, he says.

(I'm sorry - I'd offer quotations and page numbers, but my library is
packed away in my cramped living conditions.)

It is also of interest to quote Rabbi Hermann Adler's essay "Can Jews
be Patriots?", http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Littell%27s_Li
ving_Age/Volume_137/Issue_1769/Can_Jews_be_Patriots%3F
Rabbi Adler is apparently not aware of the technical meanings of
nokhri and toshav that Hertz and Epstein rely on, but his explanation
comes out pretty much the same regardless:

<<Quote>>
The statement has been made that according to the Mosaic law it was
only forbidden to lend the Israelite at a usurious rate, but that no
prohibition of this nature existed with respect to the non-Israelite.
This opinion is sought to be supported by a verse in Deuteronomy
(23:20) which is translated in the authorized version, "Unto a
stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt
not lend upon usury." The error is, that neshech is supposed to be
synonymous with usury in the present for acceptation of the term. The
word, like usury in old English, simply means interest - any
compensation whatever paid for the use of money. Accordingly the
passage should be rendered: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon
interest, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest."
With respect to the Israelite it was prohibited both to take and to
give any interest whatever, for it was clearly the design of the
Mosaic legislation to prevent the few growing rich at the expense of
the many, and to maintain the simple primitive conditions of
self-reliant, self-contained industrial support by agriculture and
handicrafts, credit being regarded as an evil and a humiliation to the
borrower. "Thou shalt lend to many nations, but shalt not borrow,"
(Deuteronomy 28:12) is a blessing which sufficiently indicates the
advantage of an internal commerce free from internal credit and
indebtedness. Had the Israelites been allowed to lend to one another
at interest, their lands would have been encumbered, and their
energies as agriculturists would have been crippled. This happened in
Athens and in Rome, where all the landed property gradually fell into
the hands of the rich, and where the poor were so oppressed by the
debts they owed the landowners that a social revolution ensued. The
like condition of things even now exists in India. But this danger
could not arise from lending to the foreigner. It was found necessary
since the earliest times of the Hebrew commonwealth to carry on some
commerce with neighboring countries, in order to exchange the surplus
of their own produce for the commodities of other lands. Solomon sent
to Hiram, king of Tyre, to purchase sandalwood and sycamore for the
construction of the temple. Thus, also, if an Israelite possessed any
capital or produce which he could not utilize in his own country, he
had a right to demand from a member of a foreign state some
compensation for the use of the money or produce lent to him, and if
the foreigner applied that capital to commercial enterprise no Mosaic
principle was infringed by charging him interest. This permission,
however, only applied to sums borrowed for mercantile purposes. When
the Gentile needed the loan of money, not commerce, but for his
subsistence, the Mosaic law made no difference between him and the
Hebrew. "And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his hand faileth with
thee, then thou shalt relieve him; yea, though he be a stranger and
sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him or
increase; but fear thy God." (Leviticus 25:35f). Yes, this "tribal"
law, which we are told "sanctioned a difference of principle between
the rule of dealing with a Hebrew and that of dealing with a
stranger," did not allow the Jew to make any distinction between the
Israelite and the Gentile in the exercise of philanthropy. He was
bidden to visit the sick among the non-Israelites, to relieve their
poor, and to bury their dead, even as those of his own people for he
was bound to walk in the ways of his Lord, "who is good to all, whose
tender mercies are over all his works." (Talmud. Gittin, p. 61; and
Maimonides, Kings, ch. x., p. 12.)
<<End quote>>

Rabbi Adler did not explain based on the terms nokhri and toshav, but
his explanation comes out exactly the same. He says that lending on
interest is permitted to the non-Jewish foreign merchant (which is how
Hertz and Epstein define nokhri), but not permitted to the Israeli
gentile (which is how Hertz and Epstein explain toshav). But Adler
does not note at all that the Talmud differs.

Michael makovi

Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> 
> http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/09/rosh-hashana-sour
> -bitter-sharp-foods.html 
> 
> an interesting discussion of the sources  on what actually was the 
> minhag  to withhold from RH

The entire discussion is premised on a careless mistranslation; the
source he gives for a minhag of avoiding sour foods simply does not
say or imply anything of the kind.  Until we establish a basis for
avoiding sour foods, there's no point in discussing how limited or
extended it might be.


> i wonder also if it is becoming more prevalent to  bring back the 
>  simanim of the gmara. i know chabad only does apple/honey, but i
> have a feeling more people are resuming the other  simanim.

Resuming?  When did they drop it?  The series of yehi ratzons printed
in siddurim would seem to indicate that they never did.  As for Chabad,
all the Sefer Minhagim says is that they don't do the yehi ratzons for
simanim other than the apple, because that's the only one the Alter
Rebbe included in his siddur, but in my experience they certainly do
at least some of the other simanim, such as dates and pomegranates.
Some others were probably not available in certain areas; for instance,
I wonder whether fenugreek was known in Russia.

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

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 02:01:58PM -0400, Mandel, Seth wrote:
: This new data provides additional support to my central hypothesis, that
: the branches of the menorah were neither semi-circular nor straight.
: Indeed, this depiction is remarkably similar to the only other
: representation we have from the time the Bet haMiqdash was standing,
: and there is no possible way to reconcile these depictions with the
: theory that the branches were straight.

I don't really see the question. Straight branches would require an 11th
daily neis in the BHMQ, as 24 kt gold would bend. I would deduce from
the absence of this item from the list of nissim that the menorah had
a shape that better distributed the stress on a soft metal. Something
close to parabolic.

But I think it merits repeating that this is a historical debate.
Lehalakhah, wouldn't any of these designs be kasher lechat-chilah,
if physically possible?

The problem with reading too much into this depiction is that the
menorah is on top of a square and between two jugs that are as tall as
from the bottom of the square to the top of the menorah. If this were
THE menorah, why are the jugs larger than it? That's neither to physical
scale, nor proportionate to importance. Unless the site had something to
do with providing oil for the menorah, and the menorah was there to show
why the jugs are important. Was Migdal, near Teverya, a place from which
oil was obtained?

See
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32796641/displaymode/1176/rstry/32797473/
for a copy of the photo handed out by the Israeli Antiquities Authority.

I also notice that while not much is shown WRT kaftor vaferach, the
gevi'os appear to me nested and toward the end of each branch.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 08:54:18PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: neither answer imo answers the question as to why Hashem Explicitly
: blames moshe and then in devarim, moshe blames bnei yisrael. How can
: there be two different blamees for the same episode...

Why not? An event can have numerous causes, and why can't more than one
cause be a wrong choice made by someone?

For that matter, Moshe's non-entry impacted both MRAH and the BY, and
therefore we *need* to justify why each deserved that negative outcome.

In Devarim, Moshe is instructing BY how to live as a nation in our land.
Therefore, he is explaining to them why they didn't merit having him
lead them in.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

The medrash about the small aleph and comparing it to Bil'am's "vayiqar"
(Bamidbar 23:4) is Vayiqra Rabba 1:13.

The Ohr haChaim Shemos 34:29 is where I probably saw the bit about the
extra ink and the qarnei hod. I have a feeling my problem was that the
OhC is near Rashi on my Miqraos Gedolos page.

But, he doesn't connect the extra ink to that saved in reducing the size
of the alef. Rather, it's the missing yud before the vav in "anav mikol
adam" (Bamidbar 12:3). The OhC's point is about anavah causing the hod,
which would be true for vayiqar/ra as well.

However, it is starting to look like a phantom maamar Chazal, even if I
did find RMEliyahu repeating it...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

Just to stress again. R Schacter's opinions on dairy are his personal chumrot
and not halacha. He is one of the poskim for the OU which gives hechsherim
for dairy products.

-- 
Eli Turkel

The gemara Bavli quotes the gezerah of Rabbah that one cannot blow shofar on
shabbat perhaps one will go to a "baki" to learn how to blow the shofar and will
carry either 4 amot in reshut harabim or between reshut hayachid and reshut
harabim

It seems very strange that we should worry about someone just starting
to learn how
to blow shofar on Rosh Hashana. Perhaps the one supposed to blow got sick
at the last minute but it still is farf fetched

Interestingly Rambam (Shofar 2:6) replaces this by the more realistic fear that
the blower of the shofar would go to someone else (eg to a hospital) carrying
the shofar on shabbat.

Also interestingly SA gives the reason of the gemara and not Rambam.

Given either reason it is still not clear to me why  Chazal (R
Yochanan ben Zakai)
would stop the mitzvah for all Jews and similarly for lulav on shabbat
for a rather
flimsy reason. Especially difficult if succot or RH is only one day.

MB already points out that since we no longer have a reshut harabim except for
very restricted areas this is more "flimsy"
I read that R. Akiva Shlessinger wanted to institute shofar in the old city
of Jerusalem when RH fell on a shabbat (about 1905)  This combined the
shitot that there
no reshut harabim and the abam that the prohibition does not apply to the
mikdash which includes the (walled) city of Jerusalem and the shita of the
Rif that allows shofar in front of an important bet din whuch he convened.
I understand he had haskamot from R. Salant and other gedolim in Jerusalem.
However, 'kanaim" came and prevented him from carrying out his plans and he
only blew shofar in his private home.

For some reason the practice was never continued even though it was only
super-righists that imposed there will against the haskama of gedolim.


-- 
Eli Turkel

RET
> The gemara Bavli quotes the gezerah of Rabbah that one cannot blow
> shofar on shabbat perhaps one will go to a "baki" to learn how to blow
> the shofar

2 pedantic quibbles

1 Big quibble
The issur predates Rabbah! AIUI Rabbah makes no gzeira at all - rather
he gives his rationale for the pre-existing g'zeira. The Talmud does
buy that Rationale!

> and will
> carry either 4 amot in reshut harabim or between reshut hayachid and
> reshut harabim

2 smaller quibble:
That is Rambam's spin about reshus hayachid

However, Tosafos is more literal and says 4 amos in reshus harabbim

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> A colleague was bewildered and asked me:
>> Why do we call Tashlich "Tashlich" and not "Hashlachah?"
>> EG Kappros, hoshanos, hakafos are all nouns.

Because Hashlacha would indicate we throw something, like, eh sins,
into the water, and other such nonsense, which have no relationship to
the holy practice of Tashlikh. It's bad enough that people think it is
about throwing sins into the water, there is no need to sustain this
naarishkeit by calling the holy ritual by that name.

There are many reasons given for Tashlikh, and they all revolve around
the notion of confronting our insignificance and sinfulness, and G"d's
greatness, majesty, etc.

By the way, since someone is bound to mention that the text used (I
mean the original text of 3 verses, not the pages and pages of largely
rather recent additions, about which printers believe kol hamarbeh
harei zeh meshubo'h) mentions vetshlikh bimtzulot yam kol 'hatotam.
Well, if you think about it, it is a prayer we speak, wherein we ask
*G"d* to cast away our sins, i.e. to forgive us. However, we have no
more the ability to throw our sins into the water than the fish have
the ability to eat and digest them without desert.

Of course, this nonsesical idea of throwing the sins to the fish (why
not to the birds?) clearly appeals a lot to hoi paloi who find it much
easier than actually working on one's self improvement, repenting and
mending one's relationship to G"d.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Educating Children About the Evil of Nazism
* Complex Memories ? the Notion of ?? ????
* Judentum und westliche Gesellschaft im Einklang
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service

Micha Berger wrote:

> I don't really see the question. Straight branches would require an 11th
> daily neis in the BHMQ, as 24 kt gold would bend. I would deduce from
> the absence of this item from the list of nissim that the menorah had
> a shape that better distributed the stress on a soft metal. Something
> close to parabolic.

Was the menorah made from 24 Kt gold?  When were the refining techniques
for obtaining pure gold invented?  AIUI, naturally occurring gold is
about 22 Kt; did the ancients even know that this was not "zahav tahor"
and that it was possible to extract the silver from it and increase its
purity?

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

martin brody wrote:
> martin brody wrote:

>>> The fact that many aged cows may be diseased etc., RHS still seems
>>> to be ignoring Rov. The vast majority of milking cows are young and
>>> healthy.
 
>> How do you know, without shechting a representative sample and checking?
 
> Because cows  have a chazaka of kashrus.

Indeed they do, but what has that got to do with rov?  Each cow has
its own chezkat kashrut, until some event occurs to destroy that
chazakah; but that has nothing to do with the status of the majority
of cows.  Neither you nor I nor RHS know the status of the majority of
dairy cows, either in aggregate or at any particular age.  All we know
is that by the end of their working life there appears to be a large
majority of treifos, *if* the samples examined are representative and
statistically significant; at what stage these treifos developed, who
can say?

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

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:27:00PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Was the menorah made from 24 Kt gold?  When were the refining techniques
: for obtaining pure gold invented?  AIUI, naturally occurring gold is
: about 22 Kt; did the ancients even know that this was not "zahav tahor"
: and that it was possible to extract the silver from it and increase its
: purity?

If "zahav tahor" meant the same thing as pure gold did to the Mitzriim,
then it's around 23-1/2 Kt or better. Rating of gold by purity was
started in the 12th dynasty, usually dated as 1991-1802 BCE, around 400
years before the usual dating of yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 189
***************************************

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..."