Volume 27: Number 69
Wed, 10 Mar 2010
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Tal Moshe Zwecker" <tal.zwec...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:45:51 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] timtum halev
I was discussing this with someone and he claimed that there is a teshuva
that holds that someone who purchsed tefillin with a hachsher that later
turned out to be posul would be considered to have fulfilled mitzvas
tefillin, anyway here know shuts enough to agree or disagree? Sounds wrong
to me.
Anyway he offered what seemed to be an open and shut proof, the heart of a
behayma. We know it can be kashered and eaten, no one disagrees that its
still kashe lishikcha. Olives are another example I thought of.
In other words just because something is heter does not mean it cannot be spiritually damaging
Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022
eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list to keep updated about new projects here:
http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100309/96d0dd29/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:02:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Who First Said It? 6
RZS:
> At any rate, now that I've looked at this Chok Yaacov I can better
> answer your original question: who first forbade matza ashira on Erev
> Pesach? The Chok Yaacov, after first making the same suggestion as
> the AHS ("ve'efshar dekavanas harav..."), then quotes the Maharil (Hil'
> Shabbos Hagodol) and the Hagohos SMaK (siman 219) that issur applies
> also on EP, becaues the reason is chashash chimutz, and says that this
> is in fact what the Ramo meant ("ve'achar zeh nimshach harav").
> So the answer (until a better one comes up) is the Maharil and the Smak.
Yasher Koach. That is AFAIK the earliest source - the Maharil. I have to
check the Smaq [I lent my Tu-SA out and I cannot check this Hoq Yaaqov
but I have seen it]
However the Derech Hayyim [by the N'sivos] is mattir until the 10th hour
as per RT. And it's unlikely he's ruling against Rema!
So it's shayach we're following Maharil but as per
Noda Beehuda
Shaarei T'shuva 484
AhS 484:5
And
Derech Hahayyim
There is no issur at the 4th hour at all, and probably not until the 10th.
The follow up question w/b besides this one lishna in Hoq Yaaqov what's
the next explicit source after Rema? But we can leave this offlist
The point is, the Rema is [mis]read to mean an issur of matzah Ahsira on
Erev Pesach but it's unlikely that's his kavvanah because of his silence
in SA 471:2 and the posqim listed who side with this read.
As such, since we don't know this minhag is for certain, it makes sense
to follow RT WRT shaleshudas - ein safeiq re: the minhag motzi the vaday
practice of RT
Plus, I was taught in Halachic metholodgy that maaseh d'rav or uvda d'Rav
trumps a simple p'saq, since actaully eating something is stronger than
voicing an opinion.
> You're the one spinning for all you're worth, creating a chiluk
> between EP and P with no basis *whatsoever*.
OY VAY! Not only do 4 posqim present a hiluq it's intuitively obvious?
I still don't see how pesach=erev pesach other than RZS is gozeir this
al pee da'ato! [See Ba'al Hamaor. Below]
Even posit a d'oraisso of tashbisu where is the d'oraisso of achila ?!
Aderabba ba'al hamaor posits that EP achila is a qiyyum of Tashbeesu!
So we have no evidence to expand the minhag - except broad construction
An authoritiarian attempt to make a syag on a d'rabbanan instead of the
slightly more libertaran s'yag on only a d'oraisso etc.
What Zev is REALLY saying, since we do it the sources must agree to it.
Absent the hard evidence - how can we be sure? Absent that Hoq Yaaqov
and the Maharil we'd be better off doing hard-headed analysis than
wishful dochaq's!
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: "Tal Moshe Zwecker" <tal.zwec...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:42:33 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] timtum halev
As far as I understand it timtum halev means that one's insight and intellect found in the heart are stuffed up and blocked up
So that Rambam in his letter about ressurrection tells those who have
doubts about it that they must have eaten non kosher meat and that is why
they have problems with emunah
I cannot see any connection to Bal Tashchis, there is no timtum halev there
There maybe sensitivity to wanton destruction, but it doesnt damage your spiritual understanding or emunah the way treif meat does
You are what you eat
In addition throwing out food that you cannot eat due to kashrus reasons is not Bal Tashchis
Thanks
Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022
eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list to keep updated about new projects here:
http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100310/e49cf3bd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:58:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] timtum halev
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:42:33AM +0200, Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
: As far as I understand it timtum halev means that one's insight and
: intellect found in the heart are stuffed up and blocked up
So, if I understand you correctly...
1- Timtum haleiv can occur even if someone followed hilkhos birur, but
happened to eat food that was lemaaseh treif.
2- Timrum haleiv refers to processes that impact one's bechirah.
Don't you see my problem with this?
Now it turns out that someone will become a worse person through no
fault of his own?!
Here's a startiling example... 2 chatichos cheilev and one of shuman,
but you don't know which is which. They are mutar. Even one after the
other. According to the Rosh -- even cooked together and eaten together.
It's NOT about acceptable risk. The risk of cheilev, and thus according
to all my respondants of timtum haleiv, is 100%. And yet, it's mutar.
So again I ask -- how could the RBSO and Chazal tell you it's okay to
eat something that causes timtum. And conversely -- what does "assur"
mean if not "don't do this -- it causes spiritual harm"?
FWIW, I think the question of whether the cheftzah of the mezuzah
protects beyond the protection of the maaseh mitzvah is part of the
machloqes between the Chassidim and Misnagdim. (Or whether the cheftzah
of cheilev is metamteim beyond the issur of eating it.) As I said when
I re-awakened the topic this time around, the Nefesh haChaim is quite
clear. Only neshamos of people combine the kochos of all the olamos, and
therefore the only way maaseh can impact higher olamos is via its impact
on a neshmah. Something a person can't be aware of doesn't fit his system.
Or REED's, who sees metaphysical effects in relativistic terms -- a
person's fate is a consequence of his spiritual "frame of reference".
Even neis vs teva is a matter of how the soul looks at the reality.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "Tal Moshe Zwecker" <tal.zwec...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:29:58 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] timtum halev
I found this from an earlier Post on Avoda 15:38
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n038.shtml
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:18:12 +0300
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feld...@gmail.com>
Subject: Timtum Ha'lev in situations where food is muttar me'ikar ha'din
cases where poskim said that something is muttar to eat but nevertheless
is metamtem es ha'lev:
a) SA Y.D. 91:7: a Jewish baby technically is allowed to nurse from a
non-Jewess, but should not do so because of timtum ha'lev.
b) Tzitz Eliezer 18:70 one is permitted to feed a sick person nonkosher
food, but it is better to be mechalel Shabbos for him rather than to
feed him nonkosher food because the latter is metamtem es halev.
In fact, in my Bar Ilan CD search I found that Mishne Halachos 16:137
specifically states that even where something is muttar to eat because
of bittul b'rov, nevertheless, one may be machmir not to eat it because
of timtum ha'lev. (To quote the Hebrew: "L'inyan bittul b'rov . . .im
hu yodea she'hadavar muttar ela she'eino rotzeh l'ochlo mishum davar
ha'tamei . . . harei hu metamtem es ha'lev . . ., harei hu oseh davar
tov b'ma she'eino ochel, keivan she'hu poresh atzmo mi'tzad teva ha'issur
she'hu metamtem es ha'lev, lo m'ta'am she'hu assur min ha'torah.")
When we learned Yoreh De'ah, my chavrusa and I theorized that Minhag
Ashkenaz was to be much more machmir than dina d'gemara because of the
fear of timtum ha'lev.
Also, I think that this ties into the machlokes of whether rov causes
issur to change into heter, or just is a hanhaga allowing us to eat
the food. Nifka mina: if a piece of issur is mixed with two pieces of
heter, is one person allowed to eat all three pieces? See discussion in
Beis Yosef Y.D. 109 summarizing the views of Rosh (yes), Rashba (yes,
but not together, just one after the other) and SeMaG--based on Tosfos
(no, because then it is definite that he eat an issur). Ramo paskens
that l'chatchila we are machmir.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022
eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list to keep updated about new projects here:
http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:23:50 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] timtum halev
<<As evidence for this, consider the situations where, because the issur
is chashuv (example: a beriyah), Chazal said that it is never batel, even
though by all normal halachos of taaruvos, it should indeed be batel. In
such cases, I suggest, when Chazal said "it's too chashuv to be batel",
what they meant was "it's so chashuv that the timtum of eating it is
even worse than the timtum of discarding it.">>
Combining 2 threads where does timtum halev first appear? Is it in chazal?
<<Halachah might mattir A dilutted issur BUT
Certain individuals are more [spiritually] sensitive and NEED to be
machmir upon themselves even then >>
The original question was whether such an approach is mentioned in poskim
that it is preferable to not eat a mixture that contains treif food
that is batel
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:21:08 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] S'char vs. Sh'mira & P. Sh'mini
This p'shetl is a bit radical so please beware...
OK let's start with Acharei Mos
What's "v'lo yamus" imply?
Here's my p'shetl
Coming into the proximity of the Qodshei Qodshim - requires protection
For Aharon - that meant a proper Q'tores - while
An improper Qktores - even b'shogeig - could have left the KG w/o his
"radiation suit" and thereby be exposed to an overwhelming dose and risk
death. Not due to a transgression, but - rather like an electician with a
leaky rubber glove - the shock is overhwelming.
Thus with Nadav and Avihu they were consumed primarily because their
ersatz Q'tores failed to protect them [and thus Aharon was commanded
how to avoid such a catastrophe]
And as for Uzah - in Haftara of Sh'mini - aisi he wasn't punished so
much as overwhelmed by the Qkdusha and lacked protection.
Bottom line - AISI it's not "punishment" it's consequences. Like a
kid sticking his finger in an exposed socket. Hashem is not punishing
the child.
We have been fixated with seeing din as punishment. Din sometimes is teva,
and electicity, radtiation, high places all entail physical risk.
------------------------
While Anus Rachmanah patreih - yet the risk of exposure is real.
EG Would the passuq of v'ra'u kol amei ho'oretz work with passul t'fillin?
Perhaps not. Not because of sin! Rather the protective suit has a
unknown leak.
The s'char mitzvah OTOH still exists because HKBH is mitztareif machshavah
l'maaseh, but the reality remains that the associated spiritual power
has a leak, or an incomplete circuit etc.
Story
There is a maaseh with the Hassam Sofer pointing out that Yennem's m'zuzah
was upside down, and that he could remotely know that via Kabbalah.
Now Yennem might have been an anus or a shogeig, I don't know - nor
imho is it relevant. The point is that on the spiritual plane the
ramifications were thus - that CS could detect it.
ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:27:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Dog Food For Pesach
Referred from Areivim:
Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 04:00 PM 3/9/2010, Z. Sero wrote:
>> This may also be the time to remind people that no cat or dog food (at
>> least in my experience) is more than ta'aroves chometz, and therefore
>> (since is is not "maachal bnei adam hab'ri'im") it may be used on Pesach.
> See http://www.caryn.com/holiday/passover/passover_petfood.html
> See the listing of both cat and dog foods endorsed by the CRC for Pesach!
> See also
> http://www.crcweb.org/Passover%202009/Passover%20Foods
> %20for%20Your%20Pets.pdf
> See also
> http://www.examiner.com/x-6704-Cats-Examiner~y200
> 9m4d2-Feeding-cats-during-Passover
> While these sites are from 2009, I doubt that much has changed.
I am familiar with these claims that are made every year. I'm not
familiar with their halachic basis. As far as I can tell from Shulchan
Aruch, any mixture of chametz (which I take to mean less than 50%)
which is not eaten by normal people, even if it is perfectly edible,
may be owned and used on Pesach. I wonder how the compilers of these
lists have overlooked what appears to be an open se'if in SA (442:4;
see also SA Harav 442:22).
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:11:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Dog Food For Pesach
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:27:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: I am familiar with these claims that are made every year. I'm not
: familiar with their halachic basis. As far as I can tell from Shulchan
: Aruch, any mixture of chametz (which I take to mean less than 50%)
: which is not eaten by normal people, even if it is perfectly edible,
: may be owned and used on Pesach...
I wonder if the problem is that many of the kinds of kibble aren't
actually less than 50% wheat and water, and it's a difference in
metzi'us issue.
(Hopefully the dog food is ra'ui la'akhilas kelev.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:05:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] timtum halev
Also, I think that this ties into the machlokes of whether rov causes issur
to change into heter, or just is a hanhaga allowing us to eat the food.
Nifka mina: if a piece of issur is mixed with two pieces of heter, is one
person allowed to eat all three pieces? See discussion in Beis Yosef Y.D.
109 summarizing the views of Rosh (yes), Rashba (yes, but not together,
just one after the other) and SeMaG--based on Tosfos (no, because then it
is definite that he eat an issur). Ramo paskens that l'chatchila we are
machmir.
=======================
Lvush y'd 109:1 says the reason to throw one away is because hkb"h will ensure that was the treif one (a la behemtan shel tzodikim)
See also radvaz 1:480 on those who were machmir on safek orlah in israel
"karov etzli shechatu al nafsham" (I couldn't help but think of this in the
last shmitta year)
The mishneh halachot 7:104 deals with the 1/60-mentio8ns bnei yisachar on
raising the sparks & ties to whether issur is nehepach, concludes you
can't not eat due to saing it's not kosher but can not eat due to possible
timtum.
BTW-why wouldn't one who is worried about timtum demand checking for miyut sheino matzui?
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.
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:01:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] is lox kosher
Eli Turkel wrote:
>> Most lox and nova is from farmed salmon anyway.
>
> Of course if the package carried an OU or OK you have no way of
> telling the source of the salmon.
I think if it's from wild salmon it will say so on the package, since
this is a selling point.
> Can one rely on rov? is there timtum halev?
I'd say yes and yes. One can rely on rov, but *if* one happened to
eat one of these things, *and* it's not a kosher tolaat, *then* there
will be timtum halev. But this depends on the discussion going on
now on Avodah, to which I've redirected this message.
However, with lox and smoked salmon there's another reason to be
lenient: it's sliced thin, so it should be easy to see the things if
they're there.
> BTW is was not clear why farmed fish are different. Do this tolaim not
> appear in commercial fisheries?
No, they don't. There's nowhere for them to come from. The whole
problem started when someone looked up the science on these things
and realised that not only aren't they spontaneously generated inside
the fish's flesh, as Chazal and the poskim undoubtedly thought they
were, but they don't even originate in the kosher fish at all; they
start as eggs laid inside a mammal, are excreted with its faeces,
hatch in sea water, are eaten by shellfish, the shellfish are then
eaten by kosher fish, the worms migrate from the gut to the flesh,
coil themselves up and create a cyst around themselves, and wait for
the fish to be eaten by a mammal. So unless you're feeding your
farmed fish wild-caught crustaceans from waters where mammals are
excreting, you're not going to have these things in your fish.
> Also if one doesn't rely on practically all the major kashrut
> organizations in the US for the kashrut of fish how can one rely on
> them for other items. perhaps the assembly line had some fish in a
> previous run. Certainly one couldnt eat in an OU/OK/Chaf-K
> restaurant where fish is cooked
The whole fish doesn't become assur just because of a tiny little
worm inside it! The worm remains assur, but none of its taam will be
in the kelim in which the fish was cooked (because it's inside a cyst
buried in the flesh), and even if it were it would be batel. I'd
say that even if one takes the daat ha'osrim, one could cook a fish
and then carefully flake it looking for these worms in their cysts,
remove them, and then eat the flaked fish (perhaps as a "salad" with
mayo), relying on the taam of the worms to be batel.
Linguistic PS: "Lox" is nowadays often misused to refer to smoked
salmon or nova. Nova is smoked. Lox is not smoked, it's salt-cured.
As one of my friends says, "Save the lox. Nova difference."
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:11:17 -0600
Subject: [Avodah] Re: Yehoshua and Yehonasan
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:46:29 -0500, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>The niqud we see in siddurim for the sheim Havayah is that of sheim
>Adnus, with the minor alteration of putting a sheva under the yud
>instead of a chataf patach. (Not sure if that's because the printer
>thought that a chataf patach under a yud looks weird, or because it
>would widen the word -- a sheva fits under the yud better.) This is
>standard practice for q'ri ukesiv, to place the niqud for the q'ri.
>
>BUT, if the vowels of the first two letters weren't sheva and
>cholam, why would Yehoshua and Yehonasan as they are?
>
>That's assuming, of course, that the suffix version is more likely
>to be modified: Yoshiyahu, Eliyahu....
A counter-argument would be that ancient Assyrian and Babylonian
inscriptions transcribe names like Yehoram as Yau-ram and Yehudah as
Yaudi. The letter heh is dropped in Akkadian, and this suggests that
the suffix version is closer to the correct pronunciation of the Shem Havaya.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:57:47 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yehoshua and Yehonasan
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:11:17AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: >BUT, if the vowels of the first two letters weren't sheva and
: >cholam, why would Yehoshua and Yehonasan as they are?
: >That's assuming, of course, that the suffix version is more likely
: >to be modified: Yoshiyahu, Eliyahu....
: A counter-argument would be that ancient Assyrian and Babylonian
: inscriptions transcribe names like Yehoram as Yau-ram and Yehudah as
: Yaudi. The letter heh is dropped in Akkadian, and this suggests that
: the suffix version is closer to the correct pronunciation of the Shem
: Havaya.
Thanks. Although one could argue the reverse too... (Not saying I /am/,
just trying to look at every angle.)
Now that you gave a reason for Yoshiyahu, Eliyahu, Mikhayahu, Yirmiyahu,
etc... that makes sense, the question about the origin of the prefix
version is stronger. Perhaps Eliyahu et al are named with the non-Hebrew
cognate. You said it's Assyrian, and all the people I thought of lived
in that end of Israel.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:45:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Dog Food For Pesach
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:27:43PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : I am familiar with these claims that are made every year. I'm not
> : familiar with their halachic basis. As far as I can tell from Shulchan
> : Aruch, any mixture of chametz (which I take to mean less than 50%)
> : which is not eaten by normal people, even if it is perfectly edible,
> : may be owned and used on Pesach...
>
> I wonder if the problem is that many of the kinds of kibble aren't
> actually less than 50% wheat and water, and it's a difference in
> metzi'us issue.
Next time you're at the supermarket go look at the various brands of
cat and dog food, and see if you can find one that lists a grain as one
of the first two or three ingredients. I have never seen such a thing,
and I can't imagine that one could exist, because cats and dogs are
primarily carnivores.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:22:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Dog Food For Pesach
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:45:28AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >I wonder if the problem is that many of the kinds of kibble aren't
: >actually less than 50% wheat and water, and it's a difference in
: >metzi'us issue.
: Next time you're at the supermarket go look at the various brands of
: cat and dog food, and see if you can find one that lists a grain as one
: of the first two or three ingredients...
First find one that lists each of the kinds of chunks in the mix, and
then we can discuss it. For that matter, we're talking about dough, not
wheat -- do they list the water content?
Are you assuming that easily sorted items, like the red kibble from the
brown, still combine as a taaroves?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:11:41 -0600
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yehoshua and Yehonasan
At 10:57 AM 3/10/2010, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:11:17AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>: >BUT, if the vowels of the first two letters weren't sheva and
>: >cholam, why would Yehoshua and Yehonasan as they are?
>
>: >That's assuming, of course, that the suffix version is more likely
>: >to be modified: Yoshiyahu, Eliyahu....
>
>: A counter-argument would be that ancient Assyrian and Babylonian
>: inscriptions transcribe names like Yehoram as Yau-ram and Yehudah as
>: Yaudi. The letter heh is dropped in Akkadian, and this suggests that
>: the suffix version is closer to the correct pronunciation of the Shem
>: Havaya.
>
>Thanks. Although one could argue the reverse too... (Not saying I
>/am/, just trying to look at every angle.)
>
>Now that you gave a reason for Yoshiyahu, Eliyahu, Mikhayahu,
>Yirmiyahu, etc... that makes sense, the question about the origin of
>the prefix version is stronger. Perhaps Eliyahu et al are named with
>the non-Hebrew cognate. You said it's Assyrian, and all the people I
>thought of lived in that end of Israel.
I was probably unclear, sorry. The Assyrians mention people in
Israel with names like those, such as Yau-Ahaz of Yaudi
(http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChXII.htm), who even if he was king
of a northern Yaudi, was still located in the region of Israel. The
Assyrians merely transcribed his name. Granted, there were uses of
the name in the north (Mesopotamia) as well, such as Il-yau
(Eliyahu), but there's no record of Assyrians or Babylonians ever
worshipping a deity by that name. Just us.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:27:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yehoshua and Yehonasan
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: I was probably unclear, sorry...
As moderator, I want to draw attention to this very kavod-dik alternative
to "you don't understand" or the usual we see in discussion fora like
ours.
Thank you.
: The Assyrians mention people in
: Israel with names like those, such as Yau-Ahaz of Yaudi
: (http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChXII.htm), who even if he was king
: of a northern Yaudi, was still located in the region of Israel. The
: Assyrians merely transcribed his name. Granted, there were uses of
: the name in the north (Mesopotamia) as well, such as Il-yau
: (Eliyahu), but there's no record of Assyrians or Babylonians ever
: worshipping a deity by that name. Just us.
Understood. I don't know how that changes my point. It just "frums up"
Yirmiyahu's parents.
Perhaps -- and again, I'm just trying to see if your proof has flaws and
not asserting they exist -- the northern part of EY used the non-Hebrew
variant of sheim havayah in their names, but Nun and Shaul did not. (Or
their wives; naming in early Tanakh was more frequently by mother than
father.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 69
**************************************
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..."