Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 38

Mon, 09 Mar 2015

• 1. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Question on the Megilla (Arie Folger)
• 3. Rambam and Geonim on Loss of Oral Laws (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 4. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 5. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Tehiyyas hameisim (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah ()
• 8. Re: Question on the Megilla ()
• 9. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah ()
• 10. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Book review: Charting the Sea of Talmud (Ben Rothke)
• 12. Re: Question on the Megilla (Zev Sero)

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:51:51PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I'm extremely confused by the value judgments and value assignments
: here. It's been my experience that the teachings of the Baalei Mesorah
: are considered just as unimpeachable as the teachings of the Gemara. In
: contrast, I would think that the findings of a Karaite or a professor
: from Harvard or Oxford are at most "interestesting"; to call it "not
: quite Torah sheBe'al Peh" seems almost heretical.

The Mesorah, as in Ben Asher (and Ben Naftali) and the notes on the side of
a Miqra'os Gedolos are Qaraite, not from "*our* Baalei Mesorah".

What gives it imprimatur in Rabbinic Judaism is the blessing it received
from the Rambam and other rishonim as being the best reconstruction of
the halachic text.

So that's fine for soferim. But there is no reason to believe that the
vowel system Ashkenazi Hebrew comes from is the one they had in mind
in Teveryah when inventing the nequdos (the symbols) we use.

For example, the vowel we call "segol", Rashi calls "patach qatan". And
in Bavli niqud, things Teveryah distinguished with patach vs segol both
were written with the same sign.

And that's not just a difference in how vowels were written, it's a
difference in writing caused by a difference in local pronunciation.

I therefore would not assume that Teveryan niqud denotes a holier
system of pronunciation than Ashkenazi norms without proof.

That said, I do try to emphasize syllables, distinguish sheva na and
sheva nach, qamatz qatan and gadol, chatufos from full vowels, etc...
My problem was with someone dismissing the alternative as objectively
wrong.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

R'Simon Montague asked, given Esther's claim that no one may enter the
palace without permission, how Haman waltzes in.

According to Rav Yaakov Meidan, Achashverosh had become a puppet king, and
Haman was the real regent, though always on his toes, knowing that the king
could regain power. Haman can waltz in because Achashverosh is in fact
subservient to him. Not even when Esther twice tries to arouse his jalousy
by inviting another man to her private lechaim, does Achashverosh man up.
Once she points her finger and says Haman hara' hazeh, Achashverosh still
doesn't act and instead leaves the scene, clueless. Only once Haman
providentially falls on Esther's bed does Achashverosh man up.

By the way, al pi his peshat, the reason why Achashverosh couldn't sleep
the night before, was that he thought Haman wanted to hang him, not
Mordechai, and suddenly recalling the Bigtan vaTeresh incident, sees in
Mordechai a possible ally.

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/024c6d14/attachment-0001.htm>

>   RM Halbertal proposes that there are three basic positions on
>      plurality in halakhah:
>
>      1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore
>         machloqesin (debates) are due to forgotten information..
>
>         He finds this opinion to be typical of many ge'onim ....
>
>      2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
>         given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds reaching
>         different conclusions. This is the Rambam's position among
>         others.
... But see Hilchos Shofar 3:2, where Rambam writes that the reason we 
blow the teruah several ways is because, due to the passage of years and 
the troubles of exile, we no longer know the authentic way. (I.e. the 
machlokess is due to forgotten information.) And here the Rambam 
differed with Rav Hai Gaon, cited by Rabbeynu Nissim on Rosh HaShannah 
34a, who says that different localities happened to choose its own way, 
each of which was valid min HaTorah. But eventually, to avoid the 
/appearance/ of there being a machlokess between different localities, 
Rebbi Avahu decreed that all localities blow all ways.

Zvi Lampel

Subject: [Avodah] Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah)

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:

    :... 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.


ZL: "The Rambam vociferously denies this possibility. "

    R? M Bluke: In the Mishneh Torah yes, but in the Moreh Nevuchim the
    Rambam says that this is the pshat in the pasuk, He writes (Moreh
    Nevuchim 3:41): ..."Someone who cut off someone?s limb his limb will
    be cut off ... don't think we are talking about a punishment of
    payment because my goal is to explain what is written not the halacha."


ZL: In the Mishneh Torah as well (Chovel U?Mazik 2:1), the Rambam 
explains that the posuk is referring to the punishment he really 
deserves. But the Dor R?vi?i is positing something about how, 
historically, the Chachamim originally understood the halacha to be 
applied practically. Regarding this, the Rambam in the introduction to 
his Mishneh commentary emphasizes:

    We have never found a dispute arising among the sages of any era,
    from the days of Moshe to those of Rav Ashi, in which one sage would
    say that on the grounds that God said, ?Ayin tachas ayin,? we blind
    the eye of one who blinds the eye of his fellow and the other sage
    would state that the verse merely means that he is obligated to
    monetarily compensate for the loss... Such matters about all the
    mitzvos are not contested, because they were all traceable back to
    Moshe. It is concerning all such matters that the Rabbis stated,
    ?The general principles and the particulars of the entire Torah were
    spoken on Sinai?...Scriptural proofs were later brought only as a
    result of their search for the precise indication planted in the
    verse for the explanation they had received.  This is likewise the
    purpose of their Scriptural proofs concerning the identity of the
    hadas, their proofs that it is monetary compensation for eradicating
    a limb, as well as their proofs that the daughter of a kohen who is
    mentioned there is a married woman.


Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/ee406ace/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> As I wrote in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/holy-script-speech , many
> rishonim
> take the gemara
> as having a decided conclusion. It also touches on our discussion
> of the differences between the two sets of luchos:
>
>     3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final
>     opinion. The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim
>     to decide that this is the gemara's conclusion. The script was
>     always used in sacred texts. Rather, it was only popularized for
>     other writing in Ezra's day.
>
> About a question raised earlier in the blog post, the Bavli's mem
> vesamech shebeluchos beneis hayu omedim (describing ashuris) vs the
> Y-mi's ayin vetes:
>
>     The Ridvaz (Rabbi Yaakov Dovid Wilovsky; Rosh Yeshiva of Slutzk;
>     b. Kobrin, Russia 1845 -- d. Tzefas 1913), in his commentary on
>     the Yerushalmi, suggests that there is no dispute between the two
>     talmuds on this point. The first luchos were in Ashuris, and after
>     the loss of holiness caused by the Golden Calf, the second pair
>     were given in kesav Ivris. The Bavli cited a quote about the former,
>     the Yerushalmi, about the latter.
>

The Radvaz in a teshuva says the same thing

>
> In any case, it would appear that the majority opinion of amora'im and
> rishonim presume the script did not so much change as come out of hiding.
>

Rashi in a number of places understands R' Yosi literally (that Ezra
changed the ksav and it never had been used before). The Brisker Rav in
Menachos 29b assumed that the Gemara there was going like R' Yosi and also
assumed the literal interpretation of R' Yosi.  The Geonim and the Rach
also understand R' Yosi literally although they pasken against him,
although I am not sure what that even means, why do we need a psak on a
historical question?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/06931bec/attachment-0001.htm>

from an article I recently saw (actually on cloning)

The gemara brings a story that Rabbah "killed" R Zeira and then brought him
back to life.
The Aderet claims that afterwards R. Zeira was no longer a cohen. The Kli
Chendah disagrees and says that a Cohen is such because he is a descendant
of Aaron so what difference does it make that he died and came back to life.

The Levushei Mordechai asks if if R. Zeira needs to remarry his wife. Rav
Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak brings a letter from the Aderet to R. Chaim
Berlin who rejects the Aderet's claims.

R Chaim Kanevsky discusses at length someone who came back alive through a
miracle (in Siach Sadeh). He brings from the Knesset haGedolah the story of
the wife of R Chaninah ben Chaninai (Ketubot 62a) that the marriage is
still in effect. However, the Birkei Yosef is not sure.
R Chain Kanevsky brings prrofs that the marriage returns to its original
state.

R Chaim Berlin and the Steipler bring the gemara on Sanhedrin 90b that when
Aaron comes back to life he will retain his original yichus for Terumah and
the Midrash Tanchuma claims that he will not need any new inauguration (see
however Ramban in sefer hamitzvot).

In any case the consensus of the achronim os against the Aderet and insist
that the Cohen status survives the return to life and also that there is no
need for a new marriage.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/3156e9ac/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Zev Sero via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


> The Netziv in Haamek Davar,  states explicitly that the first luchos
> had the text written in Yisro  and the additional text from Vaeschanan
> was Torah She Baal Peh, and then  the second luchos included the
> additions from Vaeschanan, and were  therefore in some respects
> greater. [--R' Marty Bluke]

>>So  what does he do with the Torah's explicit statement that the second
luchos  were "kamichtav harishon"?   In any case, surely you are aware
that  Haamek Davar is not universally regarded as an authority whose words
must be  taken into account.<<

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


>>>>
 
Moshe told the Egyptians that Hashem was going to kill the firstborn  
"kechatzos halayla" which according to Rashi means, "around midnight" -- not  
exactly at midnight.  (In actuality the firstborn were killed "bechatzos  
halayla" -- exactly at midnight.)  So "kamichtav harishon" could well  mean, 
"approximately the same as the first."
 
If the second luchos did not have the additional text, then what do you do  
with "shamor vezachor"?  It's all very well to say "shamor vezachor bedibur 
 echad" -- Hashem said both words simultaneously.  But is there a way to  
/write/ both words simultaneously on the luchos in the same space without  
adding anything?
 
I would also like to comment on this comment:  "surely you are aware  that 
Haamek Davar is not universally regarded as an authority whose words must  
be taken into account."
 
Once you say that so-and-so "is not universally regarded as an authority"  
-- a statement that applies to almost all meforshim and sources -- you  
don't need any further argument about anything, and Avodah can go into sleep  
mode.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/709c52c2/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Simon Montagu via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>>  This occured to me  tonight (Shushan Purim):

If "All the king's servants, and the people of  the king's provinces, do
know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall  come unto the king into
the inner court, who is not called, there is one law  for him, that he be
put to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out  the golden
sceptre, that he may live" (Esther 4:11), how does Haman just  waltz into
Ahasuerus and say "'There is a certain people scattered abroad  and
dispersed among the people" etc. etc? (3:8) without any formalities  with
the golden sceptre? <<




>>>>>
 
I have also long wondered about this -- what about all the king's  
advisors, what about his servants who opened the curtains on his four-poster bed  
and who helped him get dressed and who served his food?  Did he  generally 
spend his days all alone, with everyone afraid to walk in?   When the maid came 
in with the chicken platter, did she tzitter outside the door  wondering if 
she was going to die that day?   Did no one ever approach  him until he 
roared, "I'm hungry!  Send the wench in here!"?  But  in Haman's case it's not 
really so much of a question.  At the  beginning of Perek Gimmel it says 
that Achashverosh promoted Haman to a position  higher than all the other 
ministers and then it says everyone had to bow down to  Haman.  Presumably Haman 
saw the king every day or nearly every day.
 
When Haman came after hours (as RZS pointed out) he didn't "just waltz  in" 
but hung around the courtyard waiting to be noticed and to be ushered in to 
 the king's presence.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/d9d13d18/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Marty Bluke via Avodah _avodah@lists.aishdas.org_ 
(mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org) 


>  What happened to the idea
> that the Torah shebe'al peh was given together  with the Torah shebichsav,
> and the latter cannot be understood without  the former?
...
> So, not to forget the question we started with, how  could the Dor Revii 
say
> that the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin was  originally taken literally, and
> only later did Chazal change it?! If he  really did say that. [--TK]

This goes back to a very fundamental  question, what did Moshe get at Har
Sinai. R' Micha Berger wrote the  following a while back:

RM Halbertal proposes that there  are three basic positions on
plurality in  halakhah:

1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai,  and therefore
machloqesin (debates) are due to  forgotten  information....


2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds  reaching
different  conclusions. ...

3- Constitutive: The poseiq (halachic decisor)  doesn't discover
what's correct halakhah. Rather,  part of the definition of
"correct" is the  poseiq's say-so; Hashem gave them the power to
decide and define law....

The Dor Revii is going with #2 above like the Rambam that not  everything
was given to Moshe Rabenu at Har Sinai and the Chachamim of every  dor have
the right to darshen the pesukim as they see fit. 

 
>>>>>
 
I don't  know exactly what the Rambam said but I'm sure he didn't say  the 
chachamim can make up the Torah as they see fit, new in every  generation.
 
Certain kinds of halacha were forgotten and had to be reconstructed, and  
others were takanos of the chachamim -- e.g., pruzbul, muktza.  The kind  
that might be forgotten and need to be reconstructed would be halachos that 
were  only hinted at in the written Torah, and that had not been practiced in 
years,  or centuries, by the time the Tanaim and Amoraim started trying to 
reconstruct  them -- e.g., details of the avodah in the long-destroyed BHMK.
 
Something as basic and straightforward as ayin tachas ayin -- monetary  
recompense for intentional injury --  is just not the kind of law that  would 
be forgotten.  It's also not the kind of halacha that could be  changed 
arbitrarily by the chachamim at will.  Once you want to make a case  that any and 
all laws of the Torah can be arbitrarily re-legislated in every  
generation, you are in the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, declaring that the  
Constitution has no objective meaning and no permanence but is only an object of 
 nostalgic affection.  This is exactly what the Reform and Conservative  
rabbis say about our Constitution, the Torah.
 
BTW many years ago I heard a lecture from a scholar who said your #3 above  
-- "It's not that Chazal remembered or reconstituted and taught the  
halacha objectively, it's that whatever they said ipso facto  /became/ the 
halacha, and if they had said something different, then  /that/ would have been the 
halacha" -- and when I repeated it to a certain  talmid chacham, he said 
about the scholar, "He's an apikores."
 
--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/c63fd365/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 03:41:12PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: > In any case, it would appear that the majority opinion of amora'im and
: > rishonim presume the script did not so much change as come out of hiding.

: Rashi in a number of places understands R' Yosi literally (that Ezra
: changed the ksav and it never had been used before). The Brisker Rav in
: Menachos 29b assumed that the Gemara there was going like R' Yosi and also
: assumed the literal interpretation of R' Yosi.  The Geonim and the Rach
: also understand R' Yosi literally although they pasken against him,
: although I am not sure what that even means, why do we need a psak on a
: historical question?

The question of whether Ashuris was in use for sacred writing but not used
by the masses isn't between whether R' Yosi literally vs non-literally,
but whether they hold like R' Yosi or the majority of the amoraim who
give the third opinion.

In any case the pesaq *may* be on the qedushah of a seifer Torah written in
Kesav Ivri. With the presumption that R' Yosi would treat it identically
to one written in Ashuris, and the other opinions not. Just hunting "out
loud" for a nafqa mina lemaaseh.

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

*Charting the Sea of Talmud* is an interesting book.  The author Dr. Israel
Ury, a physicist by training, , has created a system of visual methods for
easier understanding and summarization of Talmudic discussions, conclusions
and laws.


My review of the book is here:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-charting-the-sea-of-talmud
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/f6b0ef83/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/08/2015 02:29 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> I have also long wondered about this -- what about all the king's
> advisors, what about his servants who opened the curtains on his
> four-poster bed and who helped him get dressed and who served his
> food?

Servants are traditionally regarded as non-existent, and thus go anywhere
without knocking on doors.  People with servants are trained not to see them.

-- 
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


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



_______________________________________________
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.)