Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 075

Thursday, June 29 2000

• Re: Nezem
• Stuffing geese
• Re: Nevi'im and Kesuvim
• minhag
• Re: minhag
• Re: Nezem
• Re: Nezem
• Re: mesorah
• Ruach Chachamim and Yerushah
• Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershon

In a message dated 6/27/00 12:11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu writes:
> In reviewing my manuscript on Shoftim, I came across a contradiction in all
> the Targumim on the translation of "nezem". In Bereishis by Eleiezer and
> Rivka and most places the Targumim render it "kodshaya", which I assume is
> a lashon of "kedeisha" as it casues attraction 

According to many the aramaic word od Kodshaya means a ring like (circle)
ornament.

>(like nezem, which Mandelcorn derives  from
>  "zamam" or muzzle, acutally likely come from "zima")

See the Ramban on Maarois Hatzoivois, Shmois 38:8 which seems only Cumoz
has the conotation of Zimah as Rashi writes (Ibid 35:22), (In addition that
Nezem is also a males Tachshit), there are some that show the Shoresh of Nun
and Zayin to allued to Gavoh hence that may be the source of Nezem likewise
of Nezer (and see the Pirush Yonoson on the Targum Yonoson on Shmois 35:22

> - but by the ma'aseh
>  ha'mishkon it is rendered "shivchin". Any ideas?

To further confuse matters compare with the Targum on Bamidbar 31:50 
a)  Tzamid = Shivchin.
b)  Etzodoh (which according to Rashi there is for the foot) = Sheirin vs. in 
Shmois 35:22 Choch (Which according to Rashi is for the hand) = Sheirin.
c)  Tzomid (Which according to Rashi there is for hand) = Shivchin vs. 
Tzmidim (Breishis 24:22 which says that it was on the hand) - Sheirin (Which 
fits with the TArgum of Choch (on hand) = Sheirin).
Vyesh Lyesheiv Kol Zeh that there are certain words that could be more 
general yet in certain places become more defined.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a previous post WRT stuffing geese I cited the following -
> See Ramoh E"H 4:7

I should have been Maarich on my citation of the Ramoh in E"H where after 
bringing the rule, that for human need there is no Issur of TB"C he concludes 
that we don't pluck feathers out of live fowl due to Achzorius (The GRA 
connects this with the Gemara in B"M when R' said Lkach Notzartoh to the 
calf), which shows that while TB"C may not be an issue, one should be careful 
as not to be an Achzer (see at length the Chinuch on the Mitzvah of Sheluach 
Hakein).
  
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
>>> *WITHIN THE ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE*, how and by whom were the books of 
>>> nevi'im and kesuvim written and edited. ...

> RAZ Zivotofsky wrote:
>> The classic work on this is by Prof. Leiman.

> Anyone want to take a stab at answering my question based on R. Leiman's book?

I was sort of surprised by the use that Leiman makes of the documentary
thesis and other modern approaches to the Bible.

Eli Turkel

Since things seem to be quiet I would like to broach a topic that has bothered
for a while. That is the attitude towards the minhag of a place. I shall
for definiteness discuss minhag Yerushalayim but that is just an example of
a wider issue.

The attitude towards minhag yerushalayim seems to vary a lot depending on the
issue.
Some examples

bringing in shabbat - fairly widely accepte to light candles early

various funeral practices - widely accepted but hard to tell since it is
    enforced by the chevra kadisha

wedding music - limited to one musician at charedi weddings
    many MO orthodox weddings have a full band.
    The origin of the minhag is not completely clear but it seems to date
    to the era of Rav Sonnenfeld hence it is associated with the old yishuv.

    It is not always so clear how old the minhag on funerals and shabbat are
    associated with the old yishuv.

It is not always so clear how old the minhag on funerals and shabbat are

shemitta - minhag yerushalayim is that food grown on Arab land is not subject
    to the laws of shemitta. On the other hand the edah hacharedit does not
    accept the kulah of CI with respect to Otzar Bet din.

Nevertheless there has been an increasing use of the psak of CI in Yerushalayim
in spite of the fact that it is against the local minhag. Groups that insist
on following the local minhag for music are willing to go against the minhag
on shemitta

size of shiurim - again minhag yerushalayim is that of R. Chaim Naeh.
    Nevertheless, many people in Yerushalayim are machmir like CI.

Eli Turkel

If someone is a bar hachi, as many in Yerushalayim are, should they not be 
allowed to follow their own psak, at least privately?

Gil Student

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> According to many the aramaic word od Kodshaya means a ring like
> (circle)  ornament. 
> 

What does that have to do with kodesh?

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:02:26AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: most places the Targumim render it "kodshaya", which I assume is a lashon of
: "kedeisha" as it casues attraction (like nezem, which Mandelcorn derives from
: "zamam" or muzzle, acutally likely come from "zima") - but by the ma'aseh
: ha'mishkon it is rendered "shivchin". Any ideas?

According to the BDB, /nzm/ is an unknown root. However, a "nezem" is cognate
to the Syriac which means "nosering". The primary meaning is therefore
not related to rings worn on fingers. BDB has that definition as well, but
asserts that such usage would always be accompanied by a modifier stating
it's not the normal kind.

In R' Matisyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary, /nzm/ is described as being
a phonetic cognate of /n-sh-m/. Like a neshimah, /nzm/ refers to something
that moves back-and-forth, it dangles. Again, primarily an ear- or nosering.

Turning to /n-sh-m/, we find that aside from the phonetic metaroot, it is
part of a progression of related roots including /sh-v-m/ (to place), and
/sh-m-m/ (to lay waste). Going back across the sh-z bridge, we get a whole
new perspective to "ka'asher zamam la'asos". Zimah also fits in this family.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Jun-00: Levi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 07:53:59PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Though this is the opinion of RYBS it is disagreed by many.

Aside from RAY Kook (who I mentioned already), this includes RYBS's talmid,
R' Herschel Schachter -- who does rely on scientific theories about the 
identity of the chilazon and techeiles. Atypical.

: 1: The opinion of the Beis Halevi is not clear. In the version brought
:    by the Razhiner...'

This doesn't have that much halachic import, as it merely shifts the owner
of the position from R' Chaim to R' Moshe Soloveitchik and the Brisker Rav,
who believed such was R' Caim's objection.

: 4. R. Akiva brought proof to the word totafot from the Africans.

Good question from a well known gemara. I'm curious to know RYBS's answer.
Perhaps there is a difference between proof and reconstruction. In the
case of totafos, we knew the conclusion -- because R' Akiva wore tephillin.
The question was how to match a word to the meaning.

: 5. The question of the middle vav is not much a of a proof.
:    The vav of gachon is too far off from the middle to justify by
:    a few malei and chaser since the days of Chazal.

I don't think that's relevent. The point is that R' Yosef wouldn't check
because malei and chaseir makes any count only an approximation. And that
R' Chaim would still have us not check now that we are beki'im. The fact
that had R' Yosef checked he would have had bigger problems is another issue.

:    Numerous answers as to what the gemara means have been suggested.

No matter what it meant, if it included all the letters of the Torah, a
few vuvs and yuds would change the center. And if it didn't R' Yosef's words
are hard to understand.

For example, one opinion is that the vuv of gachon is the middle abnormal
letter (small / big / split) in the Torah. Which it is. But was R' Yosef
actually saying we aren't careful about the presence of a semivowel that
is written large or small -- or the vuv in "shalom" in Parashas Pin'chas???

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Jun-00: Levi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

The gemara in kiddushin 17b says that a ger whose children converts should not 
give his converted children an inheritance in his property, not because it is 
forbidden but because "lo nochah ruach chachamim heimenah".  [There is a 
machlokes Rashi/Tosafos whether this applies only to a ger who was horaso shelo 
bikdushah or only to a ger who was horaso bikdushah]

I can't remember the exact daf but the gemara in Yeish Nochlin says that one 
should not give a matanah mechayim and effectively undo all of the halachos of 
inheritance also because "lo nochah ruach chachamim heimenah".

Why were chachamim so interested in the halachos of inheritance that they 
disallowed many "loopholes" to get around the halachos?  Why didn't they assur 
them outright?  Do we see this lashon of "lo nochah ruach chachamim heimenah" 
anywhere else?

Gil Student

Can any one provide some information on the reasons for the Cherem
d'Rabbeinu Gershon?  I was having a conversation about this, and I recall
that R. Bleich once said that it was based entirely on economic
considerations.  Does anyone have any information?  Thanks

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]