Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 35

Tue, 03 Mar 2015

• 1. different ways of pronouncing hebrew (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: different ways of pronouncing hebrew (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Tehiyyas hameisim (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Tehiyyas hameisim (Noam Stadlan)
• 9. Re: Tehiyyas hameisim (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. different ways of pronouncing Hebrew (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (David Wacholder)
• 12. Re: Tehiyyas hameisim (Zev Sero)

<<What are you talking about?  By Mattan Torah Hebrew was already there!
You can only be quoting people who claim the Torah was written later,
and therefore we can't give their opinions any credence. >>

what the script was at Matan Torah is a disagreement in the gemara.
What is clear is that every surviving documents is in the old (phonetician)
alphabet and shows a progression of the written letters over the ages.

For some information on ancient Hebrew see
http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Tor
ah-Commentaries/Metaphors-in-the-Torah-The-Ancient-Language-of-Paleo-Hebrew
-392631

He notes that many of the sites discussing ancient Hebrew are Xtian sites

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150302/68311008/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/01/2015 01:47 PM, via Avodah wrote:

>> But note that the very same Yalkut then says that in fact Hashem provided
>> Moshe with the raw material from which he could fashion the new luchos!
>> The implication, it seems to me, is that the second luchos were also not
>> physical sapphire but the same "maaseh-Elokim stuff" from which Hashem
>> made the first ones.

> There seem to be dueling midrashim here.  You say the luchos were not
> made of anything physical, yet IIRC Rashi says Moshe Rabbeinu became
> wealthy from the sapphire stones that were the pesoles when he carved
> the [square?] luchos from the one big sapphire chunk he started with.

These are not duelling medroshim, they are the very same medrash.  This
medrash says that the material of the first luchos was made by Hashem,
and that same medrash says that when Hashem told Moshe to carve new
luchos He created a mine of the same stuff under Moshe's tent, and told
Moshe to "keep the change".   So the sapphires that made Moshe rich were
of this unearthly manufacture.  (PS: I can't imagine that he sold them
for gold or silver, because why would he need those?  What would he do
with them?  I imagine that he simply kept them as his treasure, and thus
was by definition a wealthy man.)


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On 03/02/2015 07:23 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>>> What are you talking about?  By Mattan Torah Hebrew was already there!

>> You can only be quoting people who claim the Torah was written later,
>> and therefore we can't give their opinions any credence.

> what the script was at Matan Torah is a disagreement in the gemara.
> What is clear is that every surviving documents is in the old
> (phonetician) alphabet and shows a progression of the written letters
> over the ages.

What has that got to do with the language?  We are required to believe
that the Torah we have is the exact same text that was given to Moshe
Rabbenu, so the language must have existed by then.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>  R'Zev Sero wrote:

> It is absolutely peshat.   Having learnt the Rashi (as you surely did)
> how can you possibly read it any other way?  He demonstrates clearly how
> this is impossible.

I hope that you would agree that the Targum gives peshat. Guess what, the
Targum translates ayin tachas ayin, literally, as eina chalaf eina. Is the
Targum giving an "impossible" peshat?

>> If it was peshat why would the genera at the beginning of Hachovel
>> ask "amay, ayin tachas ayin kasav rachmana?"

> First of all, since when does the gemara deal in peshat?   The gemara's
> stock in trade is drush.  Second, it could be that the person who proposes
> a hava amina that gets rejected didn't think the whole thing through in the
> first place.  Someone may have seen the words, taken them literally, and
> rushed to ask a question, without first reading the whole paragraph and
> seeing what it means.

If the only peshat in the pasuk was money as you say and it was impossible
to read it any other way, why would the Gemara even have a hava amina that
anyone would read the pasuk literally? According to you it is "impossible"
too read it any other way. Not only that but the Gemara gives 10 different
answers to explain why it refers to money, clearly it wasn't that simple.

>>  In fact, the Dor
>> Revii says that it could be that at one time in history the Chachamim
>> understood the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin literally and only later did
>> Chazal darshen that it is money.

> I am not responsible for what the Dor Revii (whoever that is) wrote or
> didn't write.   All I know is that the meaning of the pasuk is plain,
> and Rashi's explanation is irrefutable.

The Dor Revii was a Hungarian Rav R' Glastner who lived before WWII and
wrote an important sefer on Chullin. Just because you don't know who he is
doesn't mean that you can simply dismiss his opinion.

> Reinterpreting and contradicting are two very different things.

Again, Chazal's explanation of Reuvens actions with Bilha CONTRADICT the
text of the pasuk. The pasuk states black on white that Reuven slept with
Bilha while Chazal say that he did not sin.

> That is how they say they are interpreting it.  They *quote the pasuk*
> and say "this is what it means".   They're not saying it's the pshat,
> but they are saying it's the drash.  But they *say what they are doing*.
> How can you compare that to *contradicting* pesukim which they do *not*
> reinterpret?   How can you claim they are reinterpreting those pesukim
> without them saying so?

I don't understand what you are talking about. The Medrash in Shemos is
darshening a pasuk like every other medrash.

>>> The bottom line is that the Medrash there states explicitly that
>> Moshe wrote the second luchos

> No, it does not explicitly say so.  The reisha seems to suggest it, but the
> seifa backs away from it, and quotes a pasuk that explicitly says
> otherwise.
> And the same medrash gives several other explanations that either say
> explicitly
> or take for granted that Moshe didn't write them.

The reisha doesnt suggest it, it states it black on white "aval hashniyim
k'sov ata", in other words you would rather create a contradiction from the
beginning to the end of the medrash instead of admitting that there could
be an opinion that Moshe wrote the second luchos.

>  and the Gemara in Bava Kama (55a)
>> according to many mefarshim is discussing the question of whether the
>> second luchos matched the first, and concludes that they didn't,
>> these are facts, everything else is simply obfuscation.

> We have an explicit pasuk that they did match.  If the gemara wanted to
> reinterpret that pasuk it could have done so, but it didn't.  So there's
> a kasha on the gemara.  That doesn't justify ignoring the pasuk.

In other words, the Gemara disagrees with your position so ignore it.

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: It certainly is not peshat. If it was peshat why would the genera at the
: beginning of Hachovel ask "amay, ayin tachas ayin kasav rachmana?", what
: was the gemaras question if the simple peshat in the pasuk is money? In
: fact, the Dor Revii says that it could be that at one time in history the
: Chachamim understood the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin literally and only later
: did Chazal darshen that it is money.

Sidenote: It shows how much list demographics has changed that someone
can respond, Who is the Dor Revii?" The "Dor Shevi'i" as I would call
R' Dovid Glasner, was one of the founding members of Avodah. And as an
active advocate of his famous great-grandfather's Torah, the D4's was
a frequently-discussed shitah.

R' Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the Dor Revi'i:
    English wiki (more contant): http://j.mp/1EaHkC0
    Hebrew wiki (better links): http://j.mp/1wEit8Z

As for an earlier source positing that derashos may have been discovered
later, see Rus Rabba (H/T the Malbim), that "'Moavi' velo Moavis" was not
darshened yet until Boaz. And that Peloni's fear was kind of rational --
what would he do if the next beis din overturns the ruling?

One of RZLampel's pet questions is understanding the nature of derashah,
so I'm CC-ing him. Here in particular, it's a bit interesting: OT1H,
we have a Chazal telling us that either a specific derashah was not made
OTOH, we have a fundamental machloqes tannaim about how to group derashos
into a system -- whether Hillel's 7, R' Yishmael's 13, R' Aqiva's...

So, it's hard to say the specific derashah is miSinai (although I did
sguggest two ways) and it's hard to say the system for deriving derashos
is miSinai. So what do we say? And yet, a derashah produces a din
deOraisa -- it's no asmachata be'alma.

Well, we could understand the Rus Rabba as either:
a- A specific derashah was not passed down from Moshe to the beis din
   that used it, theyu found the anomoly and turned it into halakhah
   entirely in a later generation.

Well, this is subject to the above dilemma, so I don't know what to do
with it. But the next two possibilies escape the problem:

b- Moshe was made consciously aware of the existence of the derashah as
   a textual oddity, but it was left to a beis din to find the din implied.
c- MRAH was even given the din, but it was left to each beis din to decide
   whether or not to "turn it on" lehalakhah lemaaseh.

Both of which would fit the medrash.

But, neither help understand the story of Moshe's visit to Rabbi Aqiva's
shiur. Because the gemara implies that R' Aqiva made valid derashos that
were not given to Moshe, even in the form of being given both 49 derakhim
letamei -- 49 letaheir. At least, not given to Moshe in retail. The idea
that Moshe was given the rules by which R' Aqiva worked is implied by
HQBH's nechamah to him.

And yet there are fundamental machloqesin about how to group the individual
derashos into rules. So as we noted, it makes it hard to say R' Aqiva's
valid derashos came from rule that Moshe received.

It's like we're forced to say Moshe was given eilu va'eilu even on the
meta level of the laws of derashah, nevermind the derashos and dinim
themselves.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

One thing you learn early on in graph theory is that the straightness of
a line made of a collection of arcs connecting nodes depends on the
diagram, not the graph itself. But that didn't likely make much sense
to most of you.

Language is a tree. We could take any language of today, draw a straight
line up from it to the first language, and draw all the other languages
as branching off from it.

On a smaller scale, I am sure there are people in Italy who think of Latin
as ancient Italian. But are they more right than the Spaniards who consider
Latin to be ancient Spanish, and Italian the offshoot -- perhaps even the
archaic off-shoot? And what would a French person say of this discussion?

Each is taking the tree, which is a kind of graph, and drawing it so
that their own ancestral line is the straight line, and the other two are
offshoots.

Perhaps it doesn't really work with Italian, Spanish and French.

But Leshon haQodesh evolved. There is no "she-" prefix in Chumash.
Yehoshua through the early Melakhim use "sha-", and later we get the
current "she-". At some point it forked, with Jewish and Samaritan
offshoots, one losing its qedushah.

But what about before Matan Torah? Is it wrong to call the proto-Canaanite
an earlier form of Leshon haQodesh but no less a holder of the title
than Yechezqeil's Hebrew? Just because Phoenician split off and lost
its qedushah? Or before that, Aramaic?

This isn't a different tree of languages than the linguists discuss, I am
"just" pulling our own ancestral line and drawing it as the straight one,
with everone else as offshoots.

But it has implication. That there was qedushah to the language of Adam
that assisted him in acheiving his own qedushah that was preserved in
Hebrew (at least however late of a Hebrew you consider to still be LhQ),
that was not preserved by the others.

And in reality, that's the only difference between the generation of
languages as wikipedia makes me believe is taught in academia, and the
message of the story of Dor haHaflagah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

RAM:

<<because you're explicitly asking about the ramifications of one 
particular shita, rather than asking what you in particular should do.>>

True, but let's push this a little with a claim of "kim li".  Let's say 
that, while I'm on the heart-lung machine, my son does a ma'aseh hazakah 
on my house (e.g. he removes and rehangs an outside door) and then sells 
it to a third party.

When the question comes to BD the third party has possession and he and 
my son claim "kim li" like the position that a person on a heart-lung 
machine is dead.  And therefore, as the heir, my son has the right to 
sell the house.

Now RAM doesn't directly address this question, but I think he hints 
that sale of inherited assets should be construed as rental during the 
period of death, which ends when it ends.  I don't know how that 
solution would affect the ice cream in my freezer, but let's consider 
houses.

The real tehiyyas hameisim comes, my parents are happily living in EY, 
and after a few days they realize that this business of "or hahamah 
yihyeh shivasayyim" is making the temperature intolerable, and it hasn't 
even reached equilibrium yet!

Parenthetically - - does anyone know what the equilibrium temperature 
would be? How does it compare to the effect of a nuclear bomb? Is Iran's 
hope of nuking Israel merely a means of producing the conditions of the 
Messianic era?

Hoping that the effects of the sun in Hutz LaAretz are unchanged, my 
parents recall RAM's psak that they still own a house in Massachusetts.  
Others overheating in EY do the same and the housing market crashes 
worldwide.

So I suspect that reversible death doesn't sit well with the laws of 
inheritance.

David Riceman

First and most importantly refuah shelamah.

We have known for years that a person's bodily functions can persist
normally after extended periods of lack of circulation/heart beat.  Despite
some claiming to define death by cessation of circulation, there is no
source that I know of  who would define someone who recovers all function
after extended lack of circulation(or asystole) as dead.  That is why there
is no set accepted waiting period after cessation of circulation before
someone is declared dead.  Some one is declared dead only after the
cessation of circulation has produced some other effect.  And the proof
that they weren't dead is when they regain function.  This is why defining
life and death by the presence or absence of circulation/heart beat makes
no sense what so ever given the achievements of modern medicine.  You can
have no circulation but everyone agrees you are alive, and have circulation
but everyone agrees you are dead.   I would add that those who decided to
transform circulation into 'vital motion' have yet to give any details as
to how to find it.(Hakirah 18)

To your specific point-  Rav JD Bleich in his discussion of heart
transplants and artificial hearts goes into an extended discussion of
whether someone with a heart transplant has to remarry etc. and concludes
that you do not, there is no issue of yerushah, etc. and it is not a
problem.  It is a very interesting though theoretical tour of instances of
resurrection including the currently topical story of Rabba and R. Zeira.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150302/2c4262c4/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David Riceman wrote:

> ... let's push this a little with a claim of "kim li".  Let's say
> that, while I'm on the heart-lung machine, my son does a ma'aseh
> hazakah on my house (e.g. he removes and rehangs an outside door)
> and then sells it to a third party.
>
> When the question comes to BD the third party has possession and
> he and my son claim "kim li" like the position that a person on a
> heart-lung machine is dead.  And therefore, as the heir, my son
> has the right to sell the house.
>
> Now RAM doesn't directly address this question, but I think he
> hints that sale of inherited assets should be construed as
> rental during the period of death, which ends when it ends. ...
> ...

Nope, I didn't mean to hint at anything like that. My actual guess is that
a revived person would not reacquire anything at all. He'd own nothing but
his kever and tachrichim. Anything more than that would lead to an
untenable situation: If the 3rd-party purchaser would have to surrender
property to the original owner, who lost ownership for the flimsy reason
that he happened to pass away, then the real estate lawyers and title
search companies will have a field day, trying to determine who the very
first owner was -- the one who took it from hefker -- because perhaps he
will reclaim it when *he* is revived!

> So I suspect that reversible death doesn't sit well with the laws
> of inheritance.

Not just the laws of inheritance - imagine what it does to family law. I
suppose an ordinary kohen could remarry his widow, but what of a kohen
gadol? What if a woman marries another man while he first husband is dead;
what happens when he wakes up? Can a man marry his wife's sister in the
interim? These are just a few of the wacky scenarios that could arise.

But for some reason, I haven't seen any discussion of these question. I'd
like to think that this is because it has been taking place among the upper
echelons of the poskim, and I'm simply not privy to it (and rightly so).
This entire topic may sound to many like science fiction, but there are
many shailos of that genre which *have* been actively discussed before
they've become l'maaseh. Examples include transplanted fetuses and similar
questions of parenthood, or mitzvos in outer space (which was discussed
long before Ilan Ramon a"h actually asked the shailah l'maaseh).

Going back to RDR's post, I suspect that he engineered his question of the
house sale in order to use the "kim li", which works even if (or,
"precisely because") we *don't* know what the halacha is. But there are
plenty of non-financial situations where one must be cautious about not
knowing what the halacha is. The simplest that comes to my mind is whether
the revived person and spouse can continue to live together as a married
couple, or whether there is room to be machmir that the open-heart surgery
severed that relationship and a new kiddushin is required.

R' David, my bracha is that in a couple of months, you'll be healthy enough to report back to us!

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Skin Tightening For Men
Reduce The Look of Saggy Skin and Wrinkles, without Leaving Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54f4fb4b212af7b4b043bst01vuc

<<That doesn't mean Avraham invented it!   I don't know why we would suppose
such a thing.

Of course Yaacov and his sons spoke Hebrew (which is how the interpreter,
Menashe, knew it).  But who says the Kenaanim spoke it? >>

I am confused don't these contradict each other?

My position is:
Hebrew was the private family language of Avraham and his family.
I can't tell when it originated but it seems that Lavan did not know (or at
least use) it.

As such Avraham and family communicated with the outside world in
Aramaic/Canaanite.
Aramaic at least being not that different from Hebrew. The language spoken
in Canaan was a semitic language (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages ) independent of any
genealogy.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150303/7aede6a1/attachment-0001.htm>

Replying to the various voices individually  is beyond my power. The Rinna
- combined voice - is awesome.


I only wish I could be as well expressed and fascinating as the posters
have been.


RZS brought proofs that the both Luchos One and Luchos Two shared the same
wording, and were actually both were specifically written by Hashem?s own
hand, upon the same Heavenly Sapphire. As both are entirely true, and there
can be but ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, they would tend to be identical.

I freely grant that RZS deepened my understanding of the problems involved.
The Emes LYaakov agrees that the Luchos both contained the same wording,
through the Kri Ksiv Sod Pshat instrumentation (sic ).  I judge it short of
the RZS?s clean slate.  Still, the approach ? at least without adding ? is
much in the tradition of Defensive Warfare. Indeed the highest level of
Total verbatim precision is maintained, but the theoretical gain does not
easily bear fruit. The Double Luchos is not legible without guidance. We
end up with the same two similar texts.



Yalkut Shimoni on Ki Tisa ? taken as a whole ? expresses well the paradoxes
and singularities of these various questions. Note that I am not sanguine
that conventional answers in simply expressed concrete terms is even
possible.



Where  conventional Greek philosophy fails, Maharal will find grist for his
Higher Level language. In fact, the Maharal Tiferes Yisrael 43-45 gives an
extremely articulate expression of the problems and solutions. What follows
is my own interpretation, though influenced by others. [No counter-punches
included here]



The character pieces are perfect here. Ibn Ezra is mocked as totally
outside looking in rationalist.  Hashem can multi-task. Hashem can orally
function as a 3-piece speaker ? saying both simultaneously.  Thus the IE
question ? in Maharal is trivialized. For the majority of Chilufim ? proper
wording for equivalent exchanges ? Stereo Speakers and ? as hinted in terms
of lettering ? stereo texts of whatever wondrous sorts. No limit to how
many.



Entire Dvarim is in Moshe Rabeinu?s language ? paraphrasing dominates. Will
Torah dynamics ? which functioned in Midbar ? will it be viable and genuine
? in Eretz Yisrael?  Let Moshe illustrate that Hashem?s Presence can be
reached even in this case, that case. After the Eigel ? we need to mention
Hashem Elokeinu ? Hashem?s focused protection of us ? is totally worthy to
trust our lives to. That kind of year round presence and trust ? was
experienced until the Chet, and is still available to them.



The Luchos alone are mano a mano ? direct address in second person singular
? in full quotation marks. The first two statements ? cannot suffer an
intermediary at all, only Hashem can say ? I and I only am your security!!
Luchos are Hashem mentioning First Person ? Anochi, Al Panayy. That is
direct language of Parental identity, with the children given the intrinsic
choice ? take it or leave it.





Chazal represents Higher Truth, from spiritual Heavens. Ibn Ezra dares to
suggest that Zachor and Shamor are synonymous ? exchangeable. Maharal
quotes  Chzal?s rules that Shamor ? must be a Negative Command, Zachor ?
must be a Positive Command. These two opposites ? end of 44 ? prove that no
Unitary Luchos can be pondered. Rather ? in Chazal logic ? one Heaven-Down
message in Luchos One, separate Earth-implentation leverage in Luchos Two.



The rule of Three ? Giver, receiver, connection, applies. The Highest
Purity demands responding to the High Truth, with fewer concessions to
embattled earthly dynamics.
The Second Luchos eschew that idealism,? to some extent ?and instead Luchos
Shniyos attempts to show how to apply it in the real world, grouping it and
resolving ambiguities. So the Dvarim Luchos ?  must be different and more
portable. They conclusively include Tov ? Fail-Safe mechanisms for the
devoted Nation. It is optimized to connect with the Spiritual connectors of
the Material World, where they provide usable portals for journeying
further into the upper heavenly areas.

-- 
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150303/91a232b0/attachment-0001.htm>

See Ba'er Hetev EH 17:1 who paskens about the reverse case -- a married
woman who dies and is revived -- that her marriage remains valid, and she
doesn't need new kidushin.   He doesn't discuss the case where the husband
died and was revived.   (He does pasken that the wives of Eliyahu and RYBL
are no longer married, but the Maharshal disagrees.)


Also see this discussion:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=27956&;rid=4049

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name


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



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


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


**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)