Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 122

Friday, February 9 2001

• Fwd: RAV -07: "Catharsis," Part 1
• Re: shut min hashamayim
• Re: shut min hashamayim
• Re: The mechabeir's rule by majority
• Re: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• Re: RYBS on Piutim of RH and YK (from CCA Conference)
• Mun, Omer, Shabbos and Shavu'os
• RE: RYBS on Piutim of RH and YK (from CCA Conference)
• Re: Mun, Omer, Shabbos and Shavu'os
• shut min hashamayim
• Re: RYBS on Piutim of RH and YK (from CCA Conference)
• Pnei HaDor k'Pnei HaKelev
• Re: Mun, Omer, Shabbos and Shavu'os
• Re: shut min hashamayim
• Rashi Question

Another part of an excellent series.
                           Steve Brizel
                            Zeliglaw@aol.com

			      YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
		  ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
	       INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAV SOLOVEITCHIK
			     by Rav Ronnie Ziegler

			LECTURE #7: "Catharsis," Part 1

I believe that "Catharsis" is one of Rav Soloveitchik's most important
English essays, and it is likely that he also considered it as such. He
packed so many ideas into such a small space that it is hard to do justice
to this essay without simply quoting it in full. (Due to copyright laws,
of course, this cannot be done; but I urge you once again to try to read in
full all of the Rav's essays which I discuss in this series.)

Rav Soloveitchik presents a striking formulation of the Halakha's central
demand of man: live heroically. Only by living heroically can man endow his
life with transcendent meaning. However, in the Rav's reading, heroism (or
gevura) is not what we usually understand it to be. It consists primarily
of the capacity to withdraw, to overcome oneself, to purge or to purify
one's existence. In the familiar words of the Mishna (Avot 4:1): "Who is a
hero? He who conquers his desire."

HALAKHIC HEROISM

The Rav draws a sharp contrast between the Biblical (Jewish) and the classical
(Greek) understandings of heroism. Classical heroism is an aesthetic category;
it is a grand gesture designed to impress an audience, to attain renown and
thus immortality. By identifying with the image of the hero, "who dared to
do the impossible and to achieve the grandiose," disenchanted and frustrated
man could satisfy his vanity and imagine that he too shared in the reflected
glory of the hero. "The mere myth of the hero gave the aesthete endless
comfort ... hero worship is basically self-worship" (p. 42).

In contrast, Biblical heroism is neither the product of an ephemeral mood
nor is it theatrical in nature.

    "It is perhaps the central motif in our existential experience.
    It pervades the human mind steadily, and imparts to man a strange
    feeling of tranquility. The heroic person, according to our view, does
    not succumb to frenzy or excitement. Biblical heroism is not ecstatic but
    rather contemplative; not loud but hushed; not dramatic or spectacular but
    mute. The individual, instead of undertaking heroic action sporadically,
    lives constantly as a hero." (p. 42)

In practical terms, infusing all of one's life with heroism means living in
accordance with Halakha, with its perpetual dialectic of bold advance and
humble retreat (as explained both here and in "Majesty and Humility").

To take an example which I shall expand upon next week, the Rav portrays the
heroism of a bride and groom who recoil from each other when the bride sees
a speck of menstrual blood:

    "Bride and bridegroom are young, physically strong and passionately in
    love with each other. Both have patiently waited for this rendezvous to
    take place. Just one more step and their love would have been fulfilled,
    a vision realized. Suddenly the bride and groom make a movement of
    recoil. He, gallantly, like a chivalrous knight, exhibits paradoxical
    heroism. He takes his own defeat. There is no glamor attached to his
    withdrawal. The latter is not a spectacular gesture, since there are
    no witnesses to admire and laud him. The heroic act did not take place
    in the presence of jubilating crowds; no bards will sing of these two
    modest, humble young people. It happened in the sheltered privacy of
    their home, in the stillness of the night. The young man, like Jacob
    of old, makes an about-face; he retreats at the moment when fulfilment
    seems assured." (pp. 45-46)

THE ABSURD

One of the prerequisites for halakhic heroism is the ability occasionally to
overcome one's pragmatic, utilitarian, success-oriented judgment. This is
what, borrowing a phrase from Kierkegaard, the Rav refers to as the "leap
into the absurd." By "absurd" he does not mean ridiculous or irrational,
but rather non-rational or meta- rational. As we noted in "Majesty and
Humility," part of the ethic of humility is recognizing the limitations of
one's intellect and accepting the dictates of a higher authority which we
cannot always understand. (The Rav stresses in "The Lonely Man of Faith"
that the fact that we cannot understand all of God's dictates does not mean
that they lack reasons or that they are not beneficial to us.)

Our commitment to religion is total, embracing all aspects of our existence
(of which the intellectual is but one). It is based not on rational assent to
various propositions, but rather on a basic, pre-rational and super-rational
experience of God. It is this that gives us the courage to confront daunting
opposition, as Ya'akov did in his nocturnal struggle with a mysterious foe,
and as the Jewish People have throughout our existence. It also gives us the
strength to recoil at the very edge of victory, just as Ya'akov paradoxically
freed his foe after having overcome him.

THE MEANING OF CATHARSIS

We are now in a position to appreciate the irony implicit in the Rav's choice
of a title for this essay. "Catharsis" is a Greek term denoting purifying or
purging (as when one purges gold of its impurities in a crucible). In his
"Poetics," Aristotle defined the function of tragedy as catharsis of the
emotions of terror and pity. Man is often troubled; he is full of anxieties
which interfere with his social success. When he watches a tragic drama at
the theater, he releases these emotions in a controlled and safe environment,
emerging from the experience cleansed.

Although the Rav does not directly compare his notion of catharsis with that
of Aristotle, the contrast is staggering (and certainly intentional). For the
Rav, catharsis is not the passive response of a theatergoer but an active and
demanding way of life. It is designed to attain not equanimity but redemption,
to produce not an arrogant patrician but a sanctified personality balancing
majesty and humility. While Greek tragedy teaches that man is an object acted
upon by random forces and suffering an inexorable fate, Judaic catharsis is
a means for man, as a subject, to connect himself actively to a higher destiny.

REDEFINITION

In contrast to the Rav's redefinition of catharsis, his redefinition of
heroism is more subtle. He begins by presenting gevura as military victory,
then gradually changes our understanding of it to include bold action taken
contrary to pragmatic reasoning, and ends up by defining it as the paradoxical
strength to withdraw, not to consummate victory.

This is a good example of a common phenomenon in Rav Soloveitchik's writings.
He takes loaded terms which carry positive connotations in the ears of
modern man - e.g. heroism, boldness, creativity, mastery, autonomy - and
shows that they are really demanded by Judaism. These terms would seem to
many to be the very antithesis of Jewish religiosity, which they perceive
as being conservative to the point of ossification, and submissive to
the point of slavishness. So what is the Rav doing when he applies these
epithets to halakhic life? One of two things: either 1) informing us that
these qualities, as we commonly understand them, are actually Jewish values;
or 2) reinterpreting them (sometimes subtly) and showing us that the new
understanding is part of Judaism. Clearly, we have here an instance of the
second type. For the Rav, there is more heroism in humility than in majesty.

Why, then, does he use the term "heroic"? Again, there are two possibilities.

1) This could be a pedagogical device geared to make halakhic life more
attractive to modern man - we have positive associations with the word
"heroic," so we will be attracted to something described this way.
Eventually, we will come to appreciate the values inherent in the new
definition of heroism.

2) He is uncovering a deeper or more authentic meaning of the term. At the
core of the concept of heroism (or creativity, autonomy, etc.), there is a
powerful idea which, over the generations, has been covered with layers of
dross. If we remove some of our preconceived notions, if we perceive things
within a framework of kedusha and avodatHashem, then we will behold the
positive root of the idea in its pristine purity. Or, perhaps, in another
formulation: the idea itself is neutral and can be turned in better or worse
directions depending on the surrounding framework within which we see it.

I leave it to the reader to decide which possibility is most applicable here.

Another noteworthy aspect of Rav Soloveitchik's writing is his ability to
reveal striking new meanings in familiar sources, often by simply placing
them within a new frame of reference. For example, the Rav bases his thesis
in this essay on Rabbinic maxims such as, "The commandments were given to
purge mankind" (Bereishit Rabba, 44) and "Who is a hero? He who conquers
his desire" (Avot 4:1). But we had never really understood these aphorisms
in quite this way before. Sometimes, after hearing the Rav's explanation,
it is hard to imagine how we had previously understood these sayings.

[Yet another innovative aspect of the Rav's writing is the way he reshapes
our understanding of various mitzvot through his unforgettable descriptions
of their emotional components. We will deal with this in lectures #9 and #10.]

RETREAT FOR THE SAKE OF ADVANCE?

Let us return briefly to a question we raised in the last shiur. Is the
halakhic dialectic one of advance- retreat-advance, or one of advance ending in
retreat? Once again, we find differing indications of the Rav's position. On
page 43 he talks of a two-part dialectic, while on the very next page he
discusses a three-stage dialectic. His statement that "[M]an is called,
following the movement of withdrawal, to advance once again, toward full
victory" (p. 46), stands in stark contrast to his statement in "Majesty and
Humility" that "defeat is built into the very structure of victory ... there
is, in fact, no total victory; man is finite, so is his victory" (p. 36).

Although "Catharsis" does, overall, stress the importance of the third
stage of resuming the forward march, it nevertheless ends on a note
highlighting retreat: "He hath showed thee, man, what is good, and what
doth the Lord require of thee, but to move forward boldly, to triumph
over and subdue thy environment, and to retreat humbly when victory is
within thy grasp" (p. 54). As I stressed last week, this duality in the
Rav's approach does not reflect confusion but rather a dialectic within
his concept of defeat.

CATHARSIS IN DAILY LIFE

Dividing our "total existential experience" into four realms (the
aesthetic-hedonic, emotional, intellectual and religious), Rav
Soloveitchik shows how catharsis applies to each. This section of the
essay is particularly fascinating not only because we can directly apply
it to our daily lives, but because the Rav provides powerful examples of
catharsis in each realm. The themes developed here recur throughout the
Rav's writings, testifying to their importance in his mind. Therefore,
we will devote the next several lectures to the catharsis of these four
realms, and to important issues raised by this discussion.

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

Have you seen this sefer inside? I was wondering whether he gives reasons
for his psak or does it just say:
    Q1:xxxxxxx
    A1: yes(min hashamayim) w/o explanation

KT
Joel

Joel Rich wrote:
> Have you seen this sefer inside? I was wondering whether he gives reasons for 
> his psak or does it just say:
>    Q1:xxxxxxx
>    A1: yes(min hashamayim) w/o explanation

Generally, the author quotes the malach's answer which is never yes or no but is
an amalgam of pesukim and rabbinic phrases (without any Aramaic, of course).  
The author then sometimes explains what he thinks the malach meant.  There are a
few times where he had to ask the malach the question repeatedly because he did 
not understand the answer.  The book sells for $7.50 at Eichler's.

Gil Student

On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: Along this idea, Urbach quotes an interesting Kuzari.  The Kuzari (3:41) says 
: that chachamim and nevi'im are not included in the issur of bal tosif.

Not really. I take him to mean that diRabbanans and setting a single
p'sak halachah isn't included.

:                I'm not sure how well he proved this point.
: to say that we are allowed to pasken based on a nevu'ah.

He also includes kohanim. It would seem that he isn't necessarily
referring to nevu'ah, as kohanim get special billing too, but rely on
chachmah alone. I think the Rihal was depicting the likely situation of
a kohein or navi being a rav, reserving the term chacham for those who
were stam rabbanim with no other reason for kavod.

Note the context -- the chaveir is assuring the melech that the Karaim
are wrong, that "bal tosif" and "lo bashamayim hi" doesn't mandate each
person to interpret the Torah for themselves. He therefore points out
that the chumash tells us to go to the kohein, navi, and beis din --
sources of central authority.

The Rihal does refer to nevu'ah and bas kol as part of the divine assurance
that the Sanhedrin wouldn't err. He suggests siyata dishmaya in reaching
a p'sak via chochmah -- not relying on nevu'ah directly.

Which add importance to RJR's <Joelirich@aol.com> post of Thu, Feb 08, 2001
at 09:29:56AM -0500:
: Have you seen this sefer inside? I was wondering whether he gives reasons
: for his psak or does it just say:
:     Q1:xxxxxxx
:     A1: yes(min hashamayim) w/o explanation

If he gives reasons, then perhaps the role of chalomos was limited to
endorsment, not creation, of the p'sak.

I refer people back to my summary the of opinions listed by the Encyc.
Talmudit in <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n087.shtml#02>).
The problem is balancing paskening against R' Eliezer's nissim and bas
kol to hold like R' Yehoshua and the Chachamim, with following the
bas kol that said "vihalachah kibeis Hillel". Of the shitos quoted,
Tosafos (Eiruvin 6b) may be saying what I'm suggesting here.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 01:08:19PM -0500, David Glasner wrote:
: > A second possibility is that they actually have parallel issues to those
: > between different generations' Sanhedrin, but we don't hold like Hil
: > Mamrim 2:1-3. The Tif'eres Yisrael is choleik with the Rambam. (Can
: > he? <grin> Self-reference games aside, I assume the TY has his makor
: > as well.)

: Since Mamrim 2:1-3 is halakhah but not halakhah l'ma'aseh...

You are taking as a given the denial of the hypothetical under discussion.

The second possiblity I'm entertaining is is that the current authority
of a poseik is a derivative of that of Sanhedrin, at least to the extent
that inter-poseik issues are parallel to inter-Sanhedrin ones.

This is only possible if we are also assuming that we would not (in theory)
hold like the Rambam WRT machlokes Sanhedrin, and therefore do not hold
with the parallel p'sak lima'aseh.

: > A third possibility is that machlokesin between poskim does NOT parallel
: > that between Sanhedrinin. This would be choleik with the Maharetz Chayos,
: > who uses the concept of Sanhedrin to define era borders.
: 
: What you are leaving out of the discussion is that the Mishnah and the
: Gemara have become a sort of ersatz Sanhedrin...

According to one set of opinions about their authority.

It would not explain why many of us consider the S"A and its nosei keilim
to be of comparable authority.

:>                         That the Sanhedrin's role WRT din is the same
:> as their role WRT purchasing korbanos hatzibbur or kiddush levanah --
:> they are acting as representatives of the kahal.

: I think that was somebody speculating about the Dor Revi'i.  It seems to
: me like quite a stretch.

That the idea is a stretch, or that it's a stretch to attribute the idea
to the DR?

The post you were replying to was an attempt to include every shitah
raised so far (that wasn't disproven by the Kesef Mishnah); not a
single mahalach.

:> I would like to add now that this would imply that without a Sanhedrin
:> the matter devolves back to the tzibbur, and that a p'sak backed by
:> consensus DOES have the same authority of that made by a Sanhedrin.

: Again a stretch. The idea of makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgadeir bo
: certainly seems to run counter to the idea that a consensus not backed by
: an explicit halakhic decision by an authoritative body (i.e., Sanhedrin
: or the Talmud) is irrevocable.

But according to the Maharetz Chayos, the authority of the Talmud /is/
that consensus! This is the same assumption I pointed out above. one
school of thought attributes the power of epoch-making books (i.e. the
mishnah, talmud bavli, and S"A/mapa) to consensus. In which case,
I would not consider it a stretch to say that this consensus has the
same source of authority.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:15:55PM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
: What is upad?  It reminds us of the ephod, the garment of the Kohen
: Gadol.  The verb form appears twice...
...
: Thus l'shefet, for judgment, not for working out guilt or innocence - God
: will judge us by what we did.

Since we're talking about the eiphod, which is mechapeir for hirhurim
shebaleiv, one would think that the image is that of HKBH judging us
on our thoughts, not our deeds.

Also note the dialectic (resolved or not?) of picturing Hashem as putting
on a tool for kapparah in order l'shafeit. A fusion of rachamim and din.

: v'tzuvah chok v'lo natzar

: God gave Adam *one* mitzva, but he wasn't able to keep even that one
: mitzva, he couldn't constrain himself from violating the only mitzva
: he had.

One mitzvah? Well, one could argue that the 6 of the mitzvos B'nei Noach
that Adam recieved were given to him after his expulsion. However, what
about piryah virivyah, kibbush ha'aretz, and "li'avdah ulshamrah".

BTW, RSRH in "19 Letters", understands li'avdah ulshamrah to refer to
chessed and din, respectively. That man was called to follow HKBH's
synthesis in his pursuit of tov. If so, these two words are pretty
encompassing.

: God looked down the generations and found that the Avot were one
: day to spring forth from Adam.  The merit of the Avot then served
: as the ransom for Adam's life, and Adam's life was spared...

What happened to "ba'asher hu sham"? Is that only litzad rachamim?
Unlike zechus avos (which in itself is a question to be meyasheiv
with tzidduk hadin) here we're speaking of zechus that didn't even
exist yet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I think this week's parashah lends meaning to korban omer. Omer is kind
of unique in being named after a shi'ur, not its function (shelamim,
chatas, etc...)

Perhaps our attention is being called to the fact that it's the amount of
mun that a person was able to collect for one day. IOW, omer, like mun,
is a statement that parnassah is from HKBH.

Another indication of that is that one may not eat chaddash. This could
be a manifestation of the same klal that lead to birchos hanehenin -- that
until we acknowledge the Yad Hashem, the object isn't really ours to use.

(I made a similar point about the need for acknowledging Yad Hashem first
when noting the difference between terumah and ma'aser as treated by
the Chinuch. Terumah, being about Yad Hashem, needs no shi'ur and must
come first. Ma'aser, being about supporting the Levi so that he can
economically afford to serve, insures a more fair distribution of wealth,
and can only be after one accepts ownership from HKBH.)

Shevisas Shabbos is introduced in Parashas haMun. We're stressing shevisas
Shabbos as an act of getting what one needs from HKBH, without hishtadlus.

The parallel WRT omer would be Shavuos in its guise as Chag haBikkurim,
where we too speak of Yad Hashem in having land to farm and a crop to
bring. However, the "zero hishtadlus" idea doesn't carry over. Suggestions
welcome.



R' Ezra Bick, in his email shiur, makes an interesting point. Unlike in
Marah, where the Torah makes a point of saying they demanded water because
there was none, here it doesn't say there was no food. REB suggests that
they were worried al ha'asid -- that their current supplies wouldn't
hold out as long as needed.

It made me think: how often to we all borrow problems, worrying about
things that may never come to fruition?

-mi

PS: I am transliterating mun with a "u" even though I usually reserve
"u" for shuruk/melupum/kubutz and use "a" ambiguously for kamatz and
patach. Simple reason: "man" and "haman" are both taken. People involved
in one of the "Rashi question" threads might want to rethink their
transliteration of "anoos", because what's being used also coincides
with an English word.

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Micha Berger:
: What happened to "ba'asher hu sham"? Is that only litzad rachamim?

Vayifen ko vacho vayare ki ein ish...
Bepashtus Ba'asher hu sham is only if the future is worse not if it better

KT
Rich Wolpoe

On 8 Feb 2001, at 12:26, Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Ezra Bick...                                            suggests that
> they were worried al ha'asid -- that their current supplies wouldn't
> hold out as long as needed.
> It made me think: how often to we all borrow problems, worrying about
> things that may never come to fruition?

The Gemara at the beginning of today's Daf shiur (the bottom of Sotah 48b) 
says something similar - that one who has food and worries about tomorrow 
is "m'ktanei amana." The Gemara today considers all of us ktanei amana....

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In a message dated Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:36:13pm EST, Micha Berger
<micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> The Rihal does refer to nevu'ah and bas kol as part of the divine assurance
> that the Sanhedrin wouldn't err. He suggests siyata dishmaya in reaching
> a p'sak via chochmah -- not relying on nevu'ah directly.

> Which add importance to RJR's <Joelirich@aol.com> post of Thu, Feb 08, 2001
> at 09:29:56AM -0500:
>: Have you seen this sefer inside? I was wondering whether he gives reasons
>: for his psak or does it just say ... A1: yes(min hashamayim) w/o explanation

> If he gives reasons, then perhaps the role of chalomos was limited to
> endorsment, not creation, of the p'sak.

That's what I was hoping to say but R' Gil's response seems to shut :-) it down

KT
Joel

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:03:54PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Vayifen ko vacho vayare ki ein ish...
: Bepashtus Ba'asher hu sham is only if the future is worse not if it better

I have a totally different havanah of that medrash. Now that you remimded
me, we can apply it here too.

The Mitzri in question ends up dead. There are no new descendents asid
for Moshe Rabbeinu to look at. So what does this medrash mean?

I mentioned R' Jack Love's opinion of existance as being a thought of
G-d back in v4n152. (When we discussed Gila Atwood's signature line "We
are pixels in G-d's imagination.") R' Love concludes from this something
akin to the multi-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics. Since
HKBH can think of every possibility at once, they all exist.

A ra'ayah that RJL brings to this shitah is this very question. If you
say that every possibility co-exists, then Moshe Rabbeinu could have seen
the children that exist in other versions of the future. His bechirah
was then in deciding which of those paths to follow.

I offered a simpler p'shat. Moshe Rabbeinu looked at the Mitzri's ba'asher
hu sham -- what potential did he have then and there. The Mitzri as he
was then lacked the kisharon to produce worthwhile offspring.

By similar reasoning, Adam could have been saved because then and there
he had the kisharon to lay the seeds for an Avraham Avinu.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In the Daf Shiur this morning, R. Meir Schwab of Denver brought a beautiful 
and appropriate peirush of the above phrase.

He said that when a dog goes out walking with its master, the dog typically 
walks ahead, but turns around constantly to make sure the master is 
following. Rav Schwab said that in "ikvisa d'Mshicha" (the period about which 
it is said that "pnei ha'dor k'pnei ha'kelev") leaders will not be capable of 
leading, but rather they will turn around to make sure the people are following 
by constant resort to polls. 

This reminded me of an article I read about former President Clinton and how 
the only aide with regular access to him was his pollster. I suppose one 
could argue that the opposite was true here in Israel for the last nineteen 
months - the leaders ran away without paying attention to what the people 
wanted, but like a dog that runs away from its master, they have been forced 
to turn around and come back because they cannot proceed alone. In any 
event, the people were not following.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 2/8/01 12:36:54pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I think this week's parashah lends meaning to korban omer. Omer is kind
> of unique in being named after a shi'ur, not its function (shelamim,
> chatas, etc...)

It is also called "Minchas Bikurim" Vayikra 2:14, note also the Shtei 
Halechem (Bshabos Nitnah Torah, Kol Iska Dshabata Koful)

>  R' Ezra Bick, in his email shiur, makes an interesting point. Unlike in
>  Marah, where the Torah makes a point of saying they demanded water because
>  there was none, here it doesn't say there was no food. REB suggests that
>  they were worried al ha'asid -- that their current supplies wouldn't
>  hold out as long as needed.

See Rashi 16:8

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/8/01 12:36:04pm EST, Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> the author quotes the malach's answer which is never yes or no but is
> an amalgam of pesukim and rabbinic phrases (without any Aramaic, of course). 

Except when quoting from Divrei Chazal, then even Aramaic is used.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Yechasumu is only one word as Rashi explains there

        1.  Rashi explains that yechasyumu is the same as yechasum. 
Yechasum is itself a hybrid word,  yechasu osam.

        2.  Noch besser,  even leshitascha,  why didn't Rashi make his
observation on the earlier posuk,  yocheleimo kakash?


Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]