Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 220

Thu, 16 Dec 2010

• 1. Re: bavel leadership (Arie Folger)
• 2. Slavery in the Torah (Rich Wolberg)
• 3. selling land to nonJews - response from RAL (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Hil Yesodei haTorah 5:4 (Shalom Carmy)
• 5. Re: Hil Yesodei haTorah 5:4 (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: bavel leadership (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Edges and diversity (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: bavel leadership (Ari Z. Zivotofsky)
• 9. Re: bavel leadership (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Just One HaShem in Heaven (Micha Berger)
• 11. Mi Chamocha/Mi Camocha (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 12. Re: Mi Chamocha/Mi Camocha (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Mi Chamocha/Mi Camocha (Micha Berger)

RSZN asked:

>  in re  r YL's  question , chazal  seem not  to  have  concentrated
>  on the interpersonal  aspect  of  chanuka  ie  jew  vs  jew fighting;
>  but there are no tannaim  yet  in bavel are there?   who led  the
> community  there  150 BCE?

The Gemara in Gittin, first perek, around daf heh or so, says that the
situation in Bavel improved markedly misheata Rav leBavel. So even
though there were some rabbinic leaders there, their impact was quite
limited.

I recall that this was explored by Shai Secunda in a Torah in Motion
series entitled The Talmud and Its World.

Note also that during Bayit Sheni, Bavel there was hardly an excuse to
live outside Israel, and whereas initially Bavel was like America
today, i.e. people could emigrate, but wealth and roots kept most
people from doing so [this is, in a very sensible shiur by R' Menachem
Leibtag, the meaning of the otherwise historically impossible midrash
that the sin of the Jews of Shushan was that they drank from the
keilim of the Beit haMiqdash. It's impossible, because Achashberosh
came after Koresh, and Koresh had already sent *all* the keilim to
Jerusalem, in his first year. As if to underscore this, the Gra shows
that the number of sins hinted at in Achashverosh's party corresponds
to the number of keilim Koresh sent away. I.e., he draws our attention
to the fact that the midrash was obviously meant to be understood
nonliterally, as a rebuke of those who were still in Bavel, who didn't
join 'Haggai, Zekharya, Malakhi, Ezra (who may be Malakhi), Ne'hemya,
etc. This is a recurring theme of R' Leibtag, and is beautifully
explored here: http://tinyurl.com/leibtag-on-esther ]

Over time, however, more and more people came to Israel, especially
the Torah elite. Since there was hardly an excuse left to live outside
Israel during Bayit Sheni, so the community would not have been very
learned, as the gemara cited at the beginning of this post implies.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

I found the following quite interesting in light of the legal definition of
assault, which most people are unaware of.  An assault in the law does not
involve any touching at all. Hence, the following piqued my interest: "The
basic principle is as follows: anybody who strikes his chaver is over a lav
in the Torah (and even if he raises hishand to his chaver, he is called a
rasha)." [Avodah Volume 12, Number 85 (Slavery in the Torah, #17).]

In criminal law, just raising one's hand to someone in a threatening manner
is an assault. If the person then follows through with physically striking
the individual, it then becomes a battery.  The following is the definitive
legal definition of Assault and Battery:

Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression
may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault
is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful,
or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by
an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful
or offensive touching of another.
The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or
nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential
element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault.
Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.

An "aggravated assault" would be a menacing gesture by means of a weapon.
It is legally defined as the unlawful intent or attempt to injure or cause
serious bodily harm to another. So if someone waved a gun or knife or
baseball bat, etc. at you without contact, that would be an aggravated
assault.  Once contact was made either by a bullet, knife, etc., the charge
would be an aggravated or felonious assault and battery. 

Hence,  the above statement that  "...even if he raises his hand to his chaver, he is called a rasha," fits in perfectly with the legal definition of Assault.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101215/6fcdc9f2/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein's Response to the Letter Banning Sale of Homes to
Gentiles in Israel
   Response to the Esteemed Rabbis, Signatories of the Letter Forbidding the
Sale of Homes to Gentiles in the Land of Israel
Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein
6 Tevet, 5771

[Translated from the Hebrew <http://www.kipa.co.il/now/show.asp?id=41679>

by Elli Fischer <http://adderabbi.blogspot.com/>

; the translation has not been reviewed by R. Lichtenstein]

I have read the document that you have disseminated throughout the country.
As I read your words, I was impressed enough by the dogged determination
inherent in your love of the land and your love of the nation that dwells
therein to advance your approach. However, I am concerned that in this
instance your love has affected your judgment. To say the least, it must be
asked whether this is a battle worth fighting. Aside from the judgment, the
wisdom of it seems faulty as well.

Indeed, almost the entire unfolding of events that resulted from the
dissemination of this letter was foreseeable and, to a large extent,
obvious. The public furor, both social and ideological, the rift that has
opened among the citizens of the state?between camps and within camps, the
op-eds in the various media outlets, the various positions, often
impassioned and overheated, the attack on the religious-Zionist rabbinate
from the right and from the left, even from Torah giants?it was all
foreseeable. One reads it and wonders what happened to the wisdom of those
who are enjoined to consider future ramifications?

It has been particularly painful for those faithful to the Torah and mitzvot
who fear for the stature and character of the state; it has upset the
spiritual leaders who work hard to make the Torah and adherence to halakha
beloved and who strive to set the State of Israel on the pillars of
tradition and ancestral heritage. This pain stems from the shortcomings that
the document manifests in precisely those areas that should have been its
strong point. The document speaks in the name Halakha, and its signatories
see themselves as its envoys and propagators.

But therein lies the problem; the prohibition of selling homes to gentiles
is presented as the exclusive halakhic position in the manner at hand, and
the voice that bursts forth from the throats of the signatories is made to
sound like the single unequivocal word of God, that is, halakha. Here one
asks, is that indeed so? Without a doubt, the position expressed in the
letter is based on rabbinic sources and a long halakhic tradition. Yet taken
as a whole, the document leaves one with the impression that its conclusions
are based on presumptions that characterize a particular?but not
exclusive?halakhic approach. This impression is generated in part by what
the document states, and no less by what the document omits. For example:

A. The first paragraph of the letter gives the impression that Rambam linked
intermarriage, selling a parcel of land to gentiles, and the desecration of
God?s name. It further implies that there is no escaping the conjunction of
these elements, and there is no way to minimize or neutralize their linkage.
However, there is no such formulation in the writings of Maimonides.

B. The concluding paragraph states that one who sells a residence to a
gentile must be excommunicated. This ruling is patently erroneous. The
excommunication discussed by the Talmud and Rishonim addresses harm to
Jewish neighbors in context of the issue of a neighbor?s right of first
refusal (dina de-bar metzra)?unrelated to the questions of lo techanem or lo
yeshvu be-artzekha, the prohibitions that set the tone of the letter.

C. Regarding that which was not said: any position or opinion that could
have been relied upon to moderate the stance taken in the letter simply does
not exist. There is no mention of Ra?avad?s position that limits the
prohibition to the seven aboriginal nations of Canaan. For some reason, the
opinion of the Tosafists?that if the gentile is willing to pay a higher
price than a Jew for the property, there is no prohibition against selling
it him?has been ignored. At the same time, the letter never addresses the
position among the Rishonim, based on Bava Batra 21a, that the prohibition
against leasing is limited to craftsmen who wish to set up shop in the
neighborhood?indicating that they were concerned about the neighbors
fleeing, not about the sanctity of the land and all it entails. The opinion
of Ramban and his disciples, that the prohibition of lo techanem does not
apply to transactions rooted in the grantor?s interests?which admittedly
relates to the granting of a gift or a favor, but may also be applicable to
the granting of a tract of land?directly contradicts the position expressed
in the letter.

D. In addition, the document is based almost exclusively on Rambam?s
position, which, as it approximates the perspectives discussed in the
Talmud, left its mark on the Shulchan Arukh. Yet every school child knows
that for whatever reason there is a wide gap between Rambam?s position and
the approach of the Tosafists. It is sufficient to leaf through the first
pages of the talmudic Tractate Avoda Zara with an eye on the prohibitions
discussed there, or through the end of the first chapter of that tractate,
to see the degree to which the Tosafists exploited every loophole and
leniency with regard to these prohibitions. For example, several Tosafists
maintained that the prohibition to lease a home to a gentile was limited to
an instance in which the gentile is expected to bring foreign gods inside. I
certainly do not wish insert myself into a dispute among giants or presume
to decide between Rambam and the Tosafists; I merely note that the required
willingness to examine approaches that would limit the prohibitions
associated with this issue, given that there are tools and materials that
enable such limitations, is completely absent from the letter.

I conclude with what should be self-evident. At stake are key questions that
involve meta-halakhic considerations. The willingness and ability to
consider and assign appropriate weight to wide-ranging components related to
halakhic content and its connection to both historical and social realities
mandates a much wider discussion. We, who dwell in the beit midrash, remain
committed to our belief and desire ?to proclaim that God is upright, my rock
in whom there is no wrong.?


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101215/f1e46ab7/attachment-0001.htm>

[An offshoot of an Areivim discussion that touched on this source,
and questioned whether it was actually in the original. -micha]

"If he can save himself and flee from the rule of wicked king and does
not do this, he is like a dog returning to his vomit and is considered a
deliberate idolator and is expelled from the world to come and descends
to the lowest level of Gehinom."

1. In the Frankel Rambam this addendum to Yesodei haTorah 5:4 is reported
as that of some printings and MSS.

Did the Rambam write this? All I can note is Rambam does not use the word
"Gehinom" anywhere else in the Mishne Torah, as far as I know, nor does
he speak of being "expelled from Olam haBa." To anyone who has studied
Hil Teshuva 8, this language is a bit suspicious.

2. Authenticity aside, what does this mean? In the body of the Halakha,
Rambam says that under certain circumstances one is obligated to give
up his life rather than transgress certain mitzvot. Such a person has
desecrated G-d's Name but does not incur punishment because he or she
did so under duress.

Now the addendum continues: If he can avoid violating the commandment
by escaping from the scene of coercion, but nevertheless remains there,
then he is like a dog returning to his vomit and so forth.

It is clear that, according to the addendum, a person who continues to
observe these mitzvot, despite the wicked government, is not obligated
to flee.

3. If the addendum is not the Rambam's, one may speculate on its
provenance. During the 16th century it became possible for Jews trapped
in the Iberian peninsula, who had adopted Christianity, to leave the
country. Many deferred leaving, thinking there would be enough time to
revert to Judaism later on, continuing to engage in Christian practice
in the meantime. (See Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto,
inter alia). The author of the addendum may have wished to stress the
absolute obligation to flee at the earliest opportunity rather than
delay departure.

Whether this speculation is correct depends on the provenance of the MSS.

From: "Shalom Carmy" <ca...@yu.edu>
> 3. If the addendum is not the Rambam's, one may speculate on its
> provenance. During the 16th century it became possible for Jews
> trapped in the Iberian peninsula, who had adopted Christianity, to
> leave the country. Many deferred leaving, thinking there would be
> enough time to revert to Judaism later on, continuing to engage in
> Christian practice in the meantime. (See Yerushalmi, From Spanish
> Court to Italian Ghetto, inter alia). The author of the addendum may
> have wished to stress the absolute obligation to flee at the
> earliest opportunity rather than delay departure.

> Whether this speculation is correct depends on the provenance of the
> MSS.

I have to admit I found the language strange (not that I am claiming to be 
Rambam expert in any way shape or form). Are there any other instances where 
people feel that text was added into the Rambam?

Ben

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Note also that during Bayit Sheni, Bavel there was hardly an excuse to
: live outside Israel, and whereas initially Bavel was like America
: today, i.e. people could emigrate, but wealth and roots kept most
: people from doing so...

Some, like Hillel (who was born there) and Shammai (who left EY), had
more positive reasons for staying in Bavel.

There was learning in Bavel. Given how Hillel floored the Benei Beseira
when he made Aliyah, and his friend Shammai ended up heading the Sanhedrin
when Hillel was appointed nasi, there are grounds to suggest learning
opportunities that exceeded those of Israel.

Admittedly, Hillel and Shammai were around a century later.

Learning in Sura began with a beis medrash established by Yechezqeil.
When Rav got there, 700 years later, went to Sura he did so because there
already was some learning there. It would be less accurate to say Rava
founded Yeshivas Sura as much as upgraded it to amora caliber.

As R' Wein (admittedly not the most critical historian) would often to
note, there was a Yeshiva in Baghdad called Yeshiva Sura that claimed to
be the direct continuation of THE Sura. It was closed by the Baath Party
in 1958. At over 2600 years duration, that would make it the longest
functioning institution in human history.

Point being -- either way, learning in Bavel was alive and well during
the Chanukah period.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
uax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:46:28AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: Note:  In monoculture, the edge of the field is razed to prevent this
: diversity as it interferes with modern growing methods and calculations. 

: In the lecture this was related to Mitzvat Pe'ah - leaving the corners (part
: of the edge) of the field to the poor. This is actually an area of abundance
: [there is a higher yield at the edge than in the center of the field]
: created by Hashem, and so Hashem gives part of the edge to the poor.

Also, Y-mi Mes' Kelaim is about how to define boundries between fields,
vinyards, or vegetables in your garden. How much gap is needed, how many
plots can one fit into a fixed area.

One commonly used device is the rosh tor -- having the corner of one field
come up to the side of another.

...
: There are of course additional issues that Israel teaches the nations -
: including the most important - Emunah BaHashem.  It is the belief in Hashem
: and the Torah which has maintained Israel when all the other
: agriculture-cultures have slowly but surely been lost. Not just the
: Persians, Greeks and Romans that are usually mentioned in such discourses.
: The loss has continued over the centuries, with the destruction of the
: chinampas system of the Aztecs by the Spanish .... In India, an ancient
: successful agricultural
: system known as Vedic agriculture  is also disappearing...

In general, the emunah of someone who lives in an urban space, who
associates chagim with going to shul, who lives by a clock, has a very
different character than the emunah of a farmer who wakes and sleeps
with the sun, whose workflow is also with the natural rhythm of the
year, whose chag ha'asif is a real chag ha'asif and that colors his
perception of commemorating the midbar, etc... All the moreso in EY,
where the water supply is so rain dependent.

Then HQBH sticks us at the crossroads of three continents, so that
anything we learn from the Torah could be spread across the world as
rapidly as possible.

And, r"l, every time the classical empires clashed, we ended up in the
dispute -- Mitzrayim vs Ashur, Paras vs the Greeks, the Saleucids vs
the Ptolmeys, Rome vs the Greek Empires... And each brought its galus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

did hillel do most of his learning in Bavel?
he is called a talmid of Shmaya and Avtalyon who were nasi and av beis 
din and thus living in EY.

Micha Berger wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
>: Note also that during Bayit Sheni, Bavel there was hardly an excuse to
>: live outside Israel, and whereas initially Bavel was like America
>: today, i.e. people could emigrate, but wealth and roots kept most
>: people from doing so...
>
>Some, like Hillel (who was born there) and Shammai (who left EY), had
>more positive reasons for staying in Bavel.
>
>There was learning in Bavel. Given how Hillel floored the Benei Beseira
>when he made Aliyah, 
>  
>

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:07:50AM +0200, Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:
>> There was learning in Bavel. Given how Hillel floored the Benei Beseira
>> when he made Aliyah,  ...

> did hillel do most of his learning in Bavel?
> he is called a talmid of Shmaya and Avtalyon who were nasi and av beis  
> din and thus living in EY.

But that may be more shalsheles hamesorah -- they led after Shemayah
veAvtalyon, so the time they spent learning under them is emphasized
when we discuss how their mesorah links back to Moshe.

I based my argument as implied in the sentence. Hillel didn't wow
the Sanhedrin until his return from Bavel. I therefore figured it
was something he learned in Bavel. Trying to reconstruct his life,
I get that he was born in Bavel and moved to EY to learn under
S&A at age 40 (although the mishnah could be using a code age, not a
biographical detail, it was that /kind/ of age). He then moved back to
Bavel where he did some more learning until the event where he
succeeds the Benei Beseira.

Alternatively, he learned under S&A a very short time. Then they passed
away when Hillel was still considered a newcomer. I find that less
plausible, because "keshe'alah" sounds a lot more immediate (the time
has to include the whole freezing on the roof story).

The Benei Beseira are themselves a historical enigma. Their leadership
of the Sanhedrin would seem to be a short historical iterregnum between
the zugos.

In any case, my reconstruction appears to be peshat in Sukkah 20a. Reish
Laqish says "hareini kaparas R' Chiya uvanav" and then explains why he
accords R' Chiya (or as the Y-mi and Medrash Rabba call him, "R' Chiya
Raba") such respect. The first time the Torah was forgotten from Israel,
Ezra came up from Bavel and reestablished it, when it was forgotten again,
Hillel haBavli came up and reestablished it, and when it was forgotten,
R' Chiya and his sons came up [also from Bavel] and established it.

Which would seem to imply that EY needed Hillel. Not that EY was the
center of learning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:26:22PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 2:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>                                                  In any case, it still
>> my point that "Hashem is everywhere" was logically enough coined by a
>> chassid, for whom Immanence is given more emphasis than Transcendance
>> in daily avodah.

> I'm not so sure about that.  L chassidus is primarily about transcending
> that gap (and the laws of logic which dictate its existence) and bringing
> the Transcendent (Sovev Kol Almin) into this world where it logically
> can't exist.  That the purpose of the whole creation was to transcend
> this gap, and create for Him (i.e. as He really is) a residence davka
> in the physical world, which is impossible.

The dispute about the nature of tzimtzum is a -- and possibly THE --
philosophical point of departure between the Gra and Chassidus.

L's notion of Immanence is so intense, you take "ein od milvado"
fully literally. In L "Hashem is everywhere" -- literally, that's
what "everywhere" /is/, and the notion that it's a distinct concept
is illusion. No?

> To get topical, this leads into the LR's answer to the BY's famous
> question why Chanukah lasts eight days and not seven: The miracle of
> Chanukah was that the oil was normal physical olive oil, and burned at
> the normal rate for such oil, and no more oil was being created, and yet
> it lasted eight days.  Most miracles break the physical laws of our
> universe, but this one broke the logical law that ought to bind all
> possible universes, Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction...

What about makkas dam?

The Maharal makes this kind of paradox an inherent feature of the concept
of neis.

BTW, since QM, Aristo's Kaw of Non-Contradiction went out the
window when dealing with scales where uncertainty is a factor. See
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog>. So, it needn't be a
part of all possible universes, it's not really even part of this one,
except that on the visible scale, the logic the beri'ah really uses
degenerates into a bivalent logic.

> But we're really over-analysing this.  The song was written to accompany
> a story for children about how Hashem is always watching us, even if
> nobody else is.  It's there to teach a practical lesson, not high-flying
> concepts of theology.

My point wasn't to analyze the song, but to use the song to analyze the
culture that produced it.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:08:26AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
:> There are two seeming conflicts that most O Jews are taught in preschool
:> and never think about long enough to notice that there is an apparent
:> conflict to address....

: When I read this paragraph, I tried to anticipate which two conflicted
: ideas you'd be referring to. The paradox that I came up with was:
: 1) HaShem is in heaven
: 2) HeShem created heaven

I spelled out what I was referring to "Hashem is everywhere" vs "Hashem
is in Shamayim" (implying: as opposed to here).

:> A number of us suggested that from day 1, "shamayim" was a general concept
:> that had two existing instances. As I put it, "shamayim" is very plausibly
:> translated "there-ness" -- and both the sky / space and the spiritual
:> heaven are unreachable "There"s.

: I would resolve it by saying that the two meanings of "shamayim" are:
: 1) The metaphysical world which is unreachable by us, yet still a
: creation of Hashem's.
: 2) Everything beyond our physical world, including both the metaphysical
: world and HaShem Himself.

What about "ve'of ye'ofeif al ha'aretz, al penei reqia hashamayim" (Ber'
1:20), "vayechusu kol haharim hagevorim asher tachas kol hashamayim" (7:19),
or "ve'ad of hashamayim" (ibid v. 23). Don't those cases mean physical sky?

I lumped together your meanings.

: (Words *can* have these double meanings, such as "yad", which can mean
: either the arm as a whole or just the hand.)

I don't believe that of the Torah's Hebrew. Rather, words can have a
general meaning that can lead to having two common uses. Not that
HQBH would use a word ambiguously, but a word may be emphasizing a point
that is broader than any one English or Abazi"t (Mod Heb) equivalent.

Thus, yad means the effector organ, which is sometimes the hand,
sometimes the hand with the arm, and later in the mishnah evolves into
also meaning control "yado al hatachtonah".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

The recent discussion of the pronunciation of 'emes' leads me to suspect 
that the expertise is out there to answer a question that has been bugging 
me for years: 

Why do we say "Mi Chamocha ba'eilim HaShem" 
but say "Mi Camocha n'edar baKodesh". In other words, why is there a dagesh 
in the first letter of the second kaf-mem-kaf-heh, but not in the first? 

Thanks, 

steve 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101216/5d18e990/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/12/2010 3:57 PM, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:

> Why do we say "Mi Chamocha ba'eilim HaShem"
> but say "Mi Camocha n'edar baKodesh". In other words, why is there a dagesh
> in the first letter of the second kaf-mem-kaf-heh, but not in the first?

So that it shouldn't sound like "Hashem Micha".

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

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 08:57:41PM +0000, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
: Why do we say "Mi Chamocha ba'eilim HaShem" 
: but say "Mi Camocha n'edar baKodesh". In other words, why is there a dagesh 
: in the first letter of the second kaf-mem-kaf-heh, but not in the first? 

There are those who would say the second should be read as though it
were "mikkamokha", with no pause between the words. A dageish means the
letter closes the previous syllable as well as starting the next. So, it
would make the kaf the end of the syllable that begins "mi". Similarly,
"mah tovu" (tes degushah) should be pronounced "mattovu". Or in Ashrei "od
yehallelukha sela" (samekh degushah) would be read "yehallelukhassela".

But that just shows this is not unique, it doesn't answer your question.

The BY says that this exception to the rule is to not create something
that sounds like "ba'elim Hashem Mikhah", and thus creating a reference
that would sound lauditory to pesel Mikhah.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 220
***************************************

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..."