Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 170

Tue, 11 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: Grammar question in Mikeitz (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: re Goebekli Tepe (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: mesorah (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: Vayeishev (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: "Learning" Mathematics (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 7. chanukah (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: chanukah (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Rambam's Shiitah on Allegorizing Pesukim, Was: Re Goebekli Tepe (h Lampel)
• 10. Re: chanukah (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: G'neivas Daas? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Grammar question in Mikeitz (Micha Berger)

 
From:  Lisa Liel <_lisa@starways.net_ (mailto:l...@starways.net) >

>> In  Genesis 41:6, it says:

/V'hiney sheva shibolim, dakot u-shdufot kadim,  tzomchot achareihen/

In Genesis 41:23, it says:

/V'hiney sheva  shibolim, tznumot dakot shdufot kadim, tzomchot achareihem/

So... why  the masculine ending at the end of that verse, when shibolim
is otherwise  feminine throughout? 
Any ideas?  <<

Lisa




>>>>>>
Yes, I have an idea that the Chumash is not particular about masculine vs  
feminine endings in plural feminine words.  I don't think you can attach  
too much significance to that.
 
Cf  Bamidbar 27:7 
 
Ken bnos Tzelofchad dovros nason titen LAHEM achuzas nachalah besoch achei  
AVIHEM veha'avarta es nachalas AVIHEN lahen.  
 
Also see Bamidbar 36:6
 
latov BE'EINEIHEM tiheyenah lenashim ach lemishpachas mateh AVIHEM  
tiheyenah lenashim
 
and 36:11-12
 
vatiheyenah bnos Tzelafchad livnei DODEIHEN lenashim....vatehi nachalasan  
al mateh mishpachas AVIHEN
 
--Toby Katz
=============



-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121209/1901ab3b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Does the fact that the law was originally tied to an empirical
> fact mean that we are supposed to keep it tied to that fact?
> Or does the fact that it's law mean that it is supposed to
> evolve as the culture and psyche of the people it governs
> evolve?

and in a later post:

> IOW, it's okay if the law doesn't accurately track the size of
> an olive because kezayis is a halachic shiur, not a botanical
> statement. The minimum food required to be okhel has changed.
> So what if actual olives didn't?

Are you suggesting that in each generation, the shiur is connected to the olives of THAT generation? If not, what did you mean by "evolve"?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Veteran Home Loans
Apply for VA Loans with competitive interest rates at Military.com.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50c5d89452a3c58944e79st02vuc

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> I just went to a talk about techelet. The speaker pointed out
> that techelet is different since we are discussing no mesorah
> versus science and not things like shibbolet shual=oats which
> is mesorah vs science.
>
> Nevertheless he mentioned that in talking to many rabbis they
> utterly refused to listen to any argument not based on earlier
> Torah sciences and stated that any scientific sources were
> meaningless

I'm not clear on what distinction is being made here. It seems to me that
techelet and shibbolet shual are very much in the same category. About
both, the essential question is: "Is this thing (murex, oats) the exact
same thing that Chazal identified, or is it merely very similar?" In other
words, the question is all about Mesorah, and I don't see how science works
into it at all.

These are very different from kezayis, which has (as far as I know) and
uninterrupted Mesorah (at least in the Mediterranean, if not in Ashkenaz),
although archaeology has a voice on whether or not their size has changed.
They are also very different than kinnim, where today's science is very
negative regarding spontaneous generation of *any* species.

In what way is "shibbolet shual=oats" a question of mesorah vs science?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Veteran Home Loans
Apply for VA Loans with competitive interest rates at Military.com.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50c5faa7dc52f7aa74e48st01vuc

Cantor Wolberg wrote:

> How is it that Jacob, one of the three Ovos, went against
> halacha and indicated he would definitely be grieving
> excessively? ... The answer that is most reasonable is that
> you cannot legislate emotion -- or I should say, you could
> legislate emotion but it cannot be enforced. In other words,
> how can one tell a parent that after 30 days (or a year), that
> they cannot grieve or mourn any more. To tell someone who is
> devastated, torn apart, depressed, etc. that life must go on and
> you can't grieve any more is not realistic. Some people are able
> to turn it on and off but the majority of people grieve in their
> own way and own time frame. ... I personally know parents who
> have lost a child and they never "got over it" and did grieve
> and mourn the rest of their lives.

All this seems pretty reasonable to me, except that I'm unsure about the initial presumption: Is it truly forbidden to grieve too long?

I have always felt that the halachos and minhagim of aveilus are designed
to promote both a healthy grieving period and also a healthy recovery from
it. And surely one should not cut corners by ending one's aveilus earlier
than prescribed. But exactly what - if anything - is wrong with continuing
for longer than prescribed?

For example, suppose one's son died, and much later he is invited to a
simcha. If he responds by saying, "I can't go. I'm still in availus for my
son," that would be an improper distortion of halacha. But suppose he
responds with, "I'm sorry. I'm not in the mood. I still haven't gotten over
my son's passing." We might say that he is emotionally unhealthy and
*needs* to attend the simcha as part of a normalization process -- But has
he actually violated any halachos or minhagim?

To those who would answer, "Yes, it is actually forbidden to do so," please
answer this: What is the shiur? At what point does extended grief become
forbidden? To my knowledge, aveilus for a child is totally over after
shloshim; are you saying that a person who avoids a simcha on Day 32 has
violated the halacha?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Veteran Home Loans
Apply for VA Loans with competitive interest rates at Military.com.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50c5d76372f6957636cf7st04vuc

Prof. Levine asked:

> However, I fail to understand why Israeli yeshivas, even the
> Chareidi ones, do not teach enough mathematics so that their
> talmidim can study the sefer Ayil Me'Shulash and incorporate
> its study into their curriculum. Clearly the GRA felt that the
> study of these topics in mathematics was important,  so why
> don't the yeshivas today?

This is a great example of why I don't like labels. "Chareidi" is far too
wide a brush to paint with. There are many varied curricula even within the
"Chareidi" world.

For example, many have a "Gemara ?ber alles" approach to Limudei Kodesh,
and if they choose not to spend much time on topics like Halacha and
Siddur, it should be obvious why Ayil Meshulash isn't even on their radar.
As for those who DO spend time on topics like Halacha and Siddur, I would
expect that they teach math well also, and even if they don't use Ayil
Meshulash as a text, they probably bring Hilchos Eruvin or Onaah
(overcharging) into their mathematics classes.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Veteran Home Loans
Apply for VA Loans with competitive interest rates at Military.com.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50c5daf648e8e5af60b98st02vuc

On the aggadita front...

On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 07:25:20PM -0800, martin brody wrote:
: I don't usually listen to what he has to say, but this is an important
: statement for Jewish fundamentalists.

: "If you fight revealed science, you are going to lose your children"

: As the Rambam said, accept the truth from wherever the source.

I'm not saying that we reject science. I'm saying we live with the
question in suspension, trusting each source of information enough to
believe we have a real question that we don't know how to answer yet.

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 08:40:38PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: This is not a new question, it's been around for a long time already. See  
: for example wikipedia re prehistoric art:
: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_art#Palaeolithic_era>
...
: Possible approaches have also been suggested many times, including, if  
: memory serves, here on Avodah. [1] One approach is the one you suggest, that  
: homo sapiens were around for a long time but Adam was the first man -- i.e., 
: he  was the first with a soul. "There were 974 generations before Adam" -- 
: whatever  that means...

This answer in particular doesn't work as smoothly with Goebekli Tepe.
It's difficult to explain what the nishmas chaim is in a way that still
allows a homo sap without one to be capable of art. And maybe it's not
art; maybe it's purely instructional or something.

But it's hard bordering on impossible to do the same with religion. If
homo sap already had man's thirst for meaning, what then is being added
with a soul?

That was my intent in reraising the question with this example.

...
: I consider the idea of deliberately planted fossils of creatures that never 
: lived [#4 above] to be a kind of deliberate deception that I just can't 
: believe  our Creator would perpetrate...

Unless they're there for reasons other than "to test us". Since every
natural event is the product (at least statistically) of prior events,
perhaps nature today is impossible without seeding the universe (and
this planet in particular) with everything it would have had had it
emerged naturally.

On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 06:41:00PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: Ward, I think RMB misunderstands the rambam - the issue is not merely
: whether Malachim can be physically seen -- but that Prophetic visions do
: not occur with the recipient awake (except for Moshe rabbenu).- therefore,
: all the stories with Malachim aren't merely occuring in reality with
: invisible players - but are not occuring in physical reality....if the
: story is of a malach talking with Avraham during an episode - Avraham
: is not awake during that time....

I didn't state my own opinion of what the Rambam meant, though. I cited
the Abarbanel's answer (in his commentary on the Moreh) to the Ramban.

I also do not know what being awake has to do with whether the events
seen actually occured or not. Plenty of things happen around me, and even
to me, while I'm sleeping, I assume the same is true for the prophetic
state of awareness as well.

But this is a digression. My point was that the Rambam cites R' Chiya
as his source. One therefore cannot give this as a case where the Rambam
diverged from accepted intepretation in order to reflect a philosophical
conclusion.

(Really, in order to maintain his identification of the Torah's concept
of mal'akh with the pure unattached intellects, forms without substance,
of Aristo's metaphysics. That's not a proven conclusion; it's just the
Rambam's assumption that he should make the two systems coincide as much
as possible.)

...
: Yes, the rambam felt real conflicts are impossible - but the mechanism
: of allegory was how to address the issue. No -he did not need explicit
: authority within the mesora for reinterpretation - he is explicit about
: that in ma'amar techiyat hametim. Yes, there are limits - but they are
: not your limits..

But I listed cases in Moreh cheileq 2, peraqim 5, 11, 26 (which is
a continuation of our very discussion), 27, 28, the citation of R'
Chiya about mal'akhim and sight in 42 and 67 to show that the Rambam
does require consistency with existing interpretation. How many times
must the Rambam say "consisten with our prophets and sages" in order
for us to conclude that he always requires consistency with Chazal's
(those sages, no?) interpretations?




On the halachic side...

Here I'm making an additional argument. It's not just a conflict of
sources of truth. Here we truly have non-overlapping magesteria. Science
is trying to tell us how the empirical world works, when it is running
as per the usual patterns. Halakhah is a legal process. Nothing about
finding out how the world works, or even facts. Laws aren't facts.
So, when it comes to halakhah, I don't have two conflicting sources of
knowledge that give me results that don't add up. They can't conflict.

On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 06:41:00PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: No - there is no significant difference - if we can truly determine
: the size of hazal's olives - it becomes a data point for the halachic
: process -which then has to justify why the switch.

: You are viewing "mesora" as not about objective truth - but only a
: tradition about the truth whose value is independent of whether it is
: true or not....

Neither. I am viewing halakhah as a law, nothing about truth.

...
: The issue of whether the Gemara reflects original intent of the Mishnah
: is an old debate - but at least we have accepted the authority of the
: Gemara independently of the Mishnah. There is no such clear acceptance of
: rishonim/acharonim when there is objective evidence that they were wrong.
...

I disagree. The Greater Shulchan Arukh's rulings are at least as widely
accepted as the gemara was at the end of the geonic period. And it's
reflected in every semichah bechinah.

...
: RMB's position is no longer interested in what rashi thought - but what
: other rishonim and achronim thought he thought.....

We might be interested, on a hypothetical level. But on a lemaaseh
level, halakhah kebasrai; we care more about how the flow of halakhah
ran through Rashi to us than Rashi's position itself.


On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 02:43:42PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 9/12/2012 9:09 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> In the case of kezayit, Chazal were referring to a specific size. 
>> The reason that size has inflated is not philosophical.  It's
>> simply that later authorities in places where olives weren't
>> available didn't know what Chazal meant.  So they did the best
>> they could.

> Olives were unknown in Spain, Egypt, EY, and Turkey?

Maybe. But do we know they're the same breed? And that differences in
farming or breeding didn't radically change their size?

Until we found olive remains at Masada and used them as a basis, I
don't think we had a way to know our measures were drifting.

(And do we mean a kezayis before or after churban bayis or Beitar? Israeli
fertility dropped off suddenly and noticably. Mostly before Rebbe's day,
but R' Preida's orchard was a holdout from the good old days. Y-mi Peah
7:3, 33a. Could be midrashic metaphor, but given the increase in quality
of produce seen in the 20th cent, I'm not inclined to assume so.)


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:40:35PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: Are you suggesting that in each generation, the shiur is connected to
: the olives of THAT generation? If not, what did you mean by "evolve"?

I mean that it's okay for the law itself to evolve. It's okay for the
minimum shiur defining akhila to be different than 2,000 years ago, for
us to still use the word "kezayis" to refer to that shiur, and for us
to know that it wasn't actually the size of their zeisim (and therefore
of their shiur).

BTW, R' Chaim Volozhiner said one should use a contemporary olive. I
don't know if that's because he assumed these things didn't change,
or because he felt that the shiur should change along with the average
olive.


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 03:06:21PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: I'm not clear on what distinction is being made here. It seems
: to me that techelet and shibbolet shual are very much in the same
: category. About both, the essential question is: "Is this thing (murex,
: oats) the exact same thing that Chazal identified, or is it merely very
: similar?" In other words, the question is all about Mesorah, and I don't
: see how science works into it at all.

The difference is that we don't have Rashi suggesting what a chilazon is,
and centuries of people relying on that identification. We have silence
on the halachic process side. So, the theory based on archeological data
isn't being used in an attempt to repeal accepted halakhah.

However, if shiboles shual isn't oats, then one is overturning the law
as ruled by Rashi, the Arukh and others, and ratified by centuries of
people who relied on them. OTOH, one is in agreement with the Rambam.
The question then becomes, does that matter WRT changing law.

If this were on the aggadic front, I would simply say shiboles shual
aren't oats, what the Rambam saw on the mesoretic side is confirmed on the
empirical side, and life goes on. But it's not. It's a discussion of law.

So, we have three cases:

1- The range of accepted values for a kezayis is consistently above the
historical value. Halakhah contradicts empirical findings. (Assuming for
a moment that we can say that enough time and neglect has gone by for R'
Chaim Volozhiner's shitah to be off the table as a rejected daas yachid.)

2- There is a machloqes rishonim about what may be used for matzah,
and the empirical data argues against the more accepted position. But
multiple shitos are followed today even without discussing how oats are
unlike the 4 known minim (which the rishonim in question must have also
known, so I find that point weak) or that they weren't grown in EY until
much later (which they may not have).

3- The mesorah is silent about the identity of the chilazon, beyond some
vague and frankly possibly contradictory descriptions. We have a theory
based on empirical findings suggesting one identification. But unlike
the other 2 cases, there is no conflicting pesaq halakhah that we would
be repealing.

As we know from our discussion of murex dyed tzitzis, R' Chaim Volozhiner
didn't even believe in the role of empirical findings in the third case.
I would think that al achas kamah vekamah he would ignore it when it
conflicts accepted pesaq. (Whether universally accepted -- case 1, or
even locally accepted by the sho'el's community -- case 2.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

A historical question:

The usual date for the rededication of the Temple is 165 BCE.
However Menelaus was nominally high priest from 171 to 161 BCE

Note that the war did not end with the dedication of the of the Temple.
Menelaus was also vying for the chief priesthood. Alcimus attempted to tear
down the wall of the court of the inner Temple. Thus, it seems that the
Hellenizers had power later even within the Temple areas. The major battle
against Nicanor happened after 165.  Jonathan the youngest brother of Judah
Maccabee wasnt appointed high priest until many years later.

If so who lit the "pach hashemen" ?


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121210/b780c27c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/10/2012 2:31 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The usual date for the rededication of the Temple is 165 BCE.
> However Menelaus was nominally high priest from 171 to 161 BCE
...
>               The major battle against Nicanor happened after 165. 
> Jonathan the youngest brother of Judah Maccabee wasnt appointed high 
> priest until many years later.

> If so who lit the "pach hashemen" ?

Obviously, those dates aren't correct.

Lisa

RMB has cc'd me, as a past participant in discussions on this topic
(going back at least a decade!), the latest resumption. Most of the
points raised are repeats, and I don't want to simply repeat mine once
again. However, I would like to respond to a dubious claim that RMS has
repeatedly made that I don't believe has been addressed yet. This claim
invokes the Rambam's Ma'amar Techias HaMeisim as a justification for
RE-interpreting pesukim as allegorical, even where all Chazal understood
them to be historical (or, more broadly, interpreting scripture in a
way contradicting how it had been interpreted by all Chazal) based upon
allegedly undeniable facts heretofore unknown.

RMS to RMB (Sat, 8 Dec 2012 18:41:00 -- 0500):
> Yes, the rambam felt real conflicts are impossible -- but the mechanism
> of allegory was how to address the issue. No -- he did not need explicit
> authority within the mesora for reinterpretation -- he is explicit about
> that in ma'amar techiyat hametim. Yes, there are limits -- but they are
> not your limits..

The passage RMS is referring to is Rambam's Ma'amar Techias HaMeisim
discussion of Isaiah's (11:6, 65:25) "wolf, leopard and lion dwelling
and grazing with the lamb, etc.," (KPCH p. 360) where he maintains it
is not literally referring to animals, but metaphorically to the Jews
living securely among the gentiles.

Despite RMS's assertions, the Rambam is simply not discussing
RE-interpretation (i.e., interpreting the passage in a way contradicting
how it had been interpreted by Chazal). And quite the contrary to
RMS's take, the Rambam's defense of this interpretation is on the very
basis that this was not his own innovation, but the true, original
interpretation Chazal held, as indicated by their expressed principles
as well as by the pesukim themselves, and consequently embraced by
prior commentators.

 

In more detail, the Rambam makes the following 5 points, in the following
sequence:

1. Previous commentators have already said that these verses are referring
to the gentiles and Jews

2. The context of the pesukim show this is so:

(a) The end of the passage (which states that the subjects of the passage
will be "filled with knowledge of Hashem") shows that it not talking about
animals. Here is where the Rambam brings in the point about seichel --
but it is not as RSM represents it: The Rambam says that in view of
Chazal who teach us that post-Creation, including Moshiach's days,
Hashem will not change nature, seichel tells us the foolishness in
thinking thatlions will suddenly realize that it is improper to devour
animals, will do teshuva, and begin to nourish themselves with grains.
The use of seichel is in applying the principles Chazal outlined, not
in rejecting their interpretations and "re-interpreting" the pesukim
otherwise. Unfortunately, RMS imposes upon the Rambam's Iggress Techias
HaMeisim's strong language about the need for "seichel," a sense unrelated
to the way the Rambam presented it, and represses the Rambam's expressed
subordination to Chazal.

Rambam (p. 367 and MN 2:29) bases the above attitude not only upon
Shmuel's famous declaration that nature will continue its course in
Moshiach's days. He also bases it upon Chazal's over-arching rule
(Brachos 59a, Sanhedrin 101a) that post-Creation, Hashem will not make
new creations -- a topic he enlarges upon in the last chapter of his
Shemoneh Perakim. (Incidentally, a non-extant passage in Breishis Rabbah
cited by the Radak gives this as the reason for saying that rainbows
existed before Noach, a shittah followed by Rav Saadia Gaon and later
by the Ramban among others.)

(b) Elsewhere (Mishneh Torah, Hlichos Melachim 12:1), the Rambam points
out that Yirmiahu (5:6) explicitly refers to the gentiles metaphorically
as "the wolf" and "the leopard" and that Isaiah is utilizing the same
metaphor.

3. There is no explicit statement from Chazal that this particular posuk
is meant non-literally. However, Chazal has provided us with the principle
that in understanding the intent of pesukim, one should avoid explaining
them as describing changes of nature, unless such is the obvious meaning
of the pesukim. (The other side of the coin is as the Rambam states in
Moreh Nevuchim 2:25, that one should not do the absurd and allegorize
away pesukim that obviously do speak of miraculous occurrences.)

(RMS ignores the fact that the Rambam, in character, is basing himself
on Chazal referring to the specific principle a literal reading of the
posuk concerns. He then takes the first part of the above and broadens
it to assert that the Rambam took license to carte blanche allegorize
pesukim--even to the extent of dismissing a consensus of Chazal that
they are meant literally. And he then extends this to anywhere the
discovery of new information allegedly disproves Chazal's take. As RMS
expressed his interpretation of the Rambam in November, 2010, "...[in]
any apparent conflict... we must rethink our initial understanding of
the two sources to reconcile them -- and therefore, there becomes a TORAH
reason to allegorize...). This is not at all what the Rambam says here,
and in fact it contradicts what he does say.

In Hilchos Melachim (12:2) the Rambam states his principle more
concisely. Referring to the exact sequence of events related to Moshiach's
coming, such as when the war of Gog U'Magog will occur, and whether
Eliyahu will be the prophet that announces him, he writes:

"No human can know how all these and other such matters will occur,
and how they will be, until they will be. For these matters are hidden
by the prophets; and the Sages, as well, outside ofwhat is compelled by
the pesukim, have no kaballah about these things. This is why there are
disagreements about these things...One need only believe and yearn for
Moshiach's coming in general."

The Rambam is saying here that assigning an exclusively allegorical
meaning to a posuk is valid when doing so is consistent with, and called
for by, Chazal and their principles (which include specific approaches
towards peshat, and reason and logic accessible to the original readers
and Chazal). RE-interpreting a posuk in an allegorical or any other
sense in which it contradicts a consensus of Chazal is illegitimate.

(The Rambam does not address, and from all evidence did not think
possible, the notion that a newly introduced, exclusively allegorical
reading of pesukim could be compelled by new information that had been
inaccessible to the original readers of the pesukim and/or Chazal.
Presumably, he held that Hashem would not have deceived generations of
Jews since Moses in such a way.)

4. It is clear from pesukim and Chazal that the prophets often spoke
in metaphor.

5. It is also possible that animal behavior will indeed be modified
to be more peaceful in a limited, natural way. -- Limited, that is,
by extent and/or location, as the posuk itself limits its description
of the future animals' changed behavior, even if meant literally, to
the mountains of Jerusalem.


Back on November 30, 2010(Re: [Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood 
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section
=L#LOCAL%20NONGLOBAL%20OR%20GLOBAL%20FLOOD>) 
in response to RMS' assertion that
>> ...one  of the TORAH reason that I (and I think many
>> rishonim) subscribe to is that ...[in] any apparent
>> conflict... we must rethink our initial understanding of the two
>> sources to reconcile them - and therefore, there becomes a TORAH
>> reason to allegorize...

I wrote:
> I am interested in seeing an example of a rishon who, based on
> new information, changed, or posited that we should change, the
> traditional/conventional way of understanding the basic nature of any
> Torah narratives from historical to allegorical. As far as I can see,
> any rishon who posits that a particular narrative is meant allegorically
> maintains that this was the way Chazal understood it all along.

As of yet, RMS has not provided such a source. The Rambam's Ma'amar
Techias HaMeism clearly is not one.

 -- Zvi Lampel

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 2:31 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> The usual date for the rededication of the Temple is 165 BCE.
>> However Menelaus was nominally high priest from 171 to 161 BCE
...
>>               The major battle against Nicanor happened after 165. 
>> Jonathan the youngest brother of Judah Maccabee wasnt appointed high 
>> priest until many years later.

>> If so who lit the "pach hashemen"?

> Obviously, those dates aren't correct.

The translation of the dates into "modern" dates is immaterial. What
is clear freom the few sources we have is that the original conquest
of Jerusalem was some 3 years after the Temple was defiled. The battles
continued for some 20 more years and Jonathan became high priest towards
the end as part of the setllement with the Syrian-Greeks.

So for many years after the dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees
the formal high priest was some Hellenizer appointed by Antiochus and
his successors.

Even without this at the discussion Judah was still alive. Was he
appointed as high priest? Was Jonathan considered high priest by the
Jews many years before his "official" appointment.

On a different point "Al HaNissim" starts with Mattisyahu be Yochanan
Cohen Gadol. The commentaries discuss whether Mattisyahu or Yochanan
was cohen gadol.

However, the family lived in Modiin not in Jerusalem. It seems unlikely
that either Matitisyahu or Yochanan were high priests

kol tuv
Eli Turkel

On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 10:52:40PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: I read an article recently about photography...
:               The client would be very impressed and would leave feeling
: that he was getting his money's worth - with that many lights the
: photographer must really know what he's doing. The trick was, that the
: photographer would set one or two lights to illuminate the subject...
:        The eye can't tell the difference, so it looked like he used all the
: lights for the same shot, but in actuality most of the lights were there
: just for show. 
: 
: So, here's the question - is this G'neivas Daas? On the one hand, he's
: making himself look really good through this artifice - on the other, his
: pictures are the ultimate judge of his skill. If they came out in such a way
: that his client is happy, is it a problem that he made himself look good
: like this?

It's assur to sell non-kosher meat to a nakhri under the pretense that
it's kosher. (Chulin 94a)

That's also zeh neheneh vezeh lo chaseir.

The SA (CM 228:6) says (among many other things) that a seller must
disclose a defect in the product. The Sma (s"q 7) explains that this
is anything which would impact a buyer's decision, even if it is not
onaas mamon, ie it does not change the item's real value.

I would think your case would also qualify, albeit in the reverse --
a maalah, not a chisaron.

I seem to remember a clearer case about claiming a maalah the product
didn't really have, that it would be onaah to claim an item was from
some place that is known for making such things, even though the price
is being sold on its own merits. But I couldn't chase down that memory
to a mar'eh maqom.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 11:40:23PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Yes, I have an idea that the Chumash is not particular about masculine vs  
: feminine endings in plural feminine words.  I don't think you can attach  
: too much significance to that.

Maybe not al derekh peshat. However, the Torah is omnisignificant; every
bending of the rules is there for a reason. Possibly derashah, though.
(I assume Rn Toby didn't intend to imply otherwise, but since I was replying
anyway, I figured I would throw that in.)


: Cf  Bamidbar 27:7 
: Ken bnos Tzelofchad dovros nason titen LAHEM achuzas nachalah besoch achei  
: AVIHEM veha'avarta es nachalas AVIHEN lahen.  
: Also see Bamidbar 36:6 ...
: and 36:11-12 ...

Perhaps when referring to their assertiveness the plural is lashon zakhor,
and when referring to their receiving (nachalah), it reverts to neqeivah.

I'm thinking of the repeated q'ri ukesiv on the naar[ah] me'orasah
(Devarim 22:23-29) Although I never understood how that derashah works
for the naarah who was raped in the field, since we conclude it was
indeed rape, and not a woman in touch with her masculine side.

What if I continue playing this game and apply the idea to Lisa's
original case...

On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 11:40:23PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> In  Genesis 41:6, it says:
> V'hiney sheva shibolim, dakot u-shdufot kadim,  tzomchot achareihen

> In Genesis 41:23, it says:
> V'hiney sheva  shibolim, tznumot dakot shdufot kadim, tzomchot achareihem

Perhaps Par'oh was deducing something not in the original dream. His
retelling would imply that the sheaves representing the years of plenty
did not produce seed usable in the subsequent years. Thus "achareihem",
speaking of the healthy sheaves in infertile masculine.

And then Yoseif reverses this change, because his entire pitaron is
based on saving from the years of plenty to have during the famine.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 170
***************************************

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..."