Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 071

Tuesday, January 6 2004

• Re: 10 Teves doche Shabbos
• Re: 10 Teves doche Shabbos
• Re: RYBS conference
• Re: RYBS conference
• Re: 10 Teves doche Shabbos
• Re: RHS
• Re: Mrs Katz's dilemma
• Re: Mrs Katz's dilemma
• 10 Teves doche Shabbos
• Re: 10 Teves doche Shabbos
• Re: Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• Re: Mrs Katz's dilemma
• Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:12:16 -0500
• Pronouncing Het (and other letters)
• Re: RHS
• Re: RYBS conference
• Re: RYBS conference
• Ramban

On 5 Jan 2004 at 9:16, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> I've heard it said that if 10 Teves could come out on Shabbos it would
> be doche Shabbos.

Abudraham. The Beis Yosef in OH 550 brings it (and kriegs on it). The 
Abudraham learns it from Yechezkel 24:2. This was a major part of R. 
Asher Weiss' shiur last Thursday night. 

 - Carl

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

[RYZirkind also sent in this reference. -mi]

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> I've heard it said that if 10 Teves could come out on Shabbos it would
> be doche Shabbos.

I believe it's a Hatham Sofer, based on that being the only one of the four
fasts whose date appears explicitly in TaNaCH.

David Riceman

From: "Eli Turkel" <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> 2. Most important Jewish philosophers in US of recent times were Heschel
> and RYBS. Both talked about tefillah and Chagim/Shabbat.

Not Mordechai Kaplan? He invented the idea of Judaism as sociology, and
introduced a whole new sect to Judaism.

> Eugene Korn argued that RYBS was not against dialogue but set
> conditions.

I've heard and read two explanations of RYBS's opposition:

1. existential - - that it's impossible to communicate outside of
"communities of faith".

2. practical - - that the Catholic Church's main intention is still
conversion of the Jews.

Any discussion about whether these are contradictory or complementary? Did
anyone mention any others?

> As a child Rambam was not close to his father because his father though he
> was not very bright.

Is there any evidence for this?

Thanks for the summary - very interesting,

David Riceman

On 5 Jan 2004 at 11:40, Eli Turkel wrote:
> In the discussion period R. Chaim Waxman challenged R. Greenberg
> mainly based on RYBS's psak that it is better to not hear shofar
> rather than hear it in a conservative shul. R. Greenberg answered that
> he thought that psak itself was horrible and he was using the spirit
> of RYBS rather than a specific psak. Furthermore, it was the job of a
> talmid to go beyond and extend his rebbe's views.

Contradicting one's Rebbe is "going beyond and extending" his views? 
That doesn't leave a whole lot that is forbidden, does it? 

 - Carl

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:32:01 -0500 "David Riceman"
<<I believe it's a Hatham Sofer, based on that being the only one of
the four fasts whose date appears explicitly in TaNaCH.>>

Fine, but the other three are not doche Shabbos??

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 5 Jan 2004 at 8:58, Eli Turkel wrote:
> His psak was that someone in that situation had an additional 25
> minutes of bein hashamiashot after shkiah to continue in the bus.
> After that time nly if there were small children in the bus and the
> driver was not Jewish could they continue. Otherwise it was required
> to get out and walk.

If you did this, would you be required to hold Rabbeinu Tam time at the
end of Shabbos? (I would think the answer would be yes).

> Everyone else felt that to leave a bus on the NJ turnpike or the road
> up to Monsey without carrying any money or identification in a
> blizzard on a friday night was pikuach nefesh. No hotel would accept
> such people and even for a healthy adult to be out all night in such
> circumstances is unacceptable.

I think "everyone else" has a distorted view of reality. Long story, but
I once got stuck on the boardwalk in Long Beach, California with no way
to get back to where I was going (I refused to drive home with someone
because I felt it was not safe). Eventually, I walked into a hotel and
the night manager let me sleep in the office overnight and then directed
me how to get back to LA in the morning - I had very little money and
no ID and he didn't ask for any money. And it wasn't even snowing. In
a snow storm, I'm sure people would at least have been allowed to fall
asleep in chairs in the lobby.

 - Carl

In message <001c01c3d32d$6cb535b0$8ef34b0c@Ricemanhome1>, David Riceman 
<driceman@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> However, this whole din is one of kavod.

>No, it's one of kedusha; the source is "v'kidashto".

So how do you get to the idea that a kohen can be mochel? When (else)
can a kohen be mochel his kedusha? - The whole discussion started with
the idea that when a family containing kohanim got together, one should
not get the kohen even to pass the salt without being mochel - or are you
stating that the kohen cannot pass the salt altogether, which is what
a din of kedusha would imply. The only din I know where a person can
(sometimes) be mochel is when it relates to kavod.

> Several of us have
>made analogies to kavod (I myself made an anology to kavod hamelech, which
>is really a din in eima).  Obviously I thought the analogy I made justified,
>but any such analogy requires independent justification.

One of the differences about the kavod of a melech, is that a melech 
cannot be mochel his kavod, indicating that it is not the standard 
kavod, because in general a person can be mochel his kavod.

>> On that
>> basis, might it not be argued, just as you have said above, that because
>> his wife's honour is his own, his honour is his wife's?

>An eishes kohen does get kedusha by marriage; she may, for example, eat
>trumah.  Her kedusha, however, is not her husband's (she may not, for
>example, perform avodah).

Agreed. So, how do you answer the basic question - how is an eishes
kohen ever allowed to be hishtamesh b'kohen? -The question is even
more fundamental if you argue it is a din kedusha, because some of the
hishtamshus is set out in the ketuba, ie is rabbinically legislated,
so you have to find a basis on which the rabbis could institute such
requirements without breaching the halacha.

Regards
Chana
 - 
Chana Luntz

> >No, it's one of kedusha; the source is "v'kidashto".

> So how do you get to the idea that a kohen can be mochel?

Perhaps I should cite more fully the citation in my original post:

Rama (OC 128:45) "Assur l'hishtamesh b'kohen afilu bizman hazeh d'havei
k'moel bakodesh im lo shemachal al kach"

Mishna Brurah: "Sheharei neemar v'kidashto"

Admittedly there are aharonim who ask your question and come up with
your answer (see Be'er Heitev ad. loc.) but the naive reading of the
Rama is that the problem is k'moel bakodesh, i.e. kedusha, not kavod.

> The only din I know where a person
> can (sometimes) be mochel is when it relates to kavod.

Now you know another one. Kind of makes you want to post a question to
Avodah, doesn't it?

> One of the differences about the kavod of a melech, is that a melech
> cannot be mochel his kavod, indicating that it is not the standard
> kavod, because in general a person can be mochel his kavod.

I was hoping to avoid the details of this. RSM claimed that marriage
entailed a that a husband do menial labor for his wife. He deduced that
from the word "eflah" in the kesuba. I countered with an example of
someone who may not perform menial labor but may marry (melech yisrael),
thus disproving RSM's claim. Further analysis of kavod was irrelevant
to that disproof.

> So, how do you answer the basic question - how is an eishes
> kohen ever allowed to be hishtamesh b'kohen?

Here's my hypothesis, devoid of evidence (I don't have any, I'm not
withholding it). According to Tosafos (citation on request - time is
pressing tonight) the hoi polloi may disqualify a qualified kohen from
Avodah if we think he's not worthy. It follows that a kohen's reputation
is integral to his kedusha.

We have an obligation to think highly of kohanim if possible, and they
have the obligation to encourage us to think highly of them. Now kohanim
live all sorts of lives (including as day laborers, as RSM pointed
out) so they need considerable latitude to delimit their own kedusha.
That's what this halacha does by giving the kohen and no one else the
option of mehillah. It lets a kohen say "here's where I stop being a
regular guy and act so that everyone knows I'm a kohen."

>  -The question is even
> more fundamental if you argue it is a din kedusha, because some of the
> hishtamshus is set out in the ketuba, ie is rabbinically legislated,

That's one of my arguments with RSM.  Can you find an explicit example? I
don't believe there is one.

David Riceman

PS I vaguely recall that in the introductory biography of volume 8 of
Igros Moshe there's a remark about his never doing childcare. I glanced
quickly and couldn't find it, but in the unlikely event that my memory
is correct it may be relevant to your final claim.

DR

>I've heard it said that if 10 Teves could come out on Shabbos it would
>be doche Shabbos.

>Is this true, what are the sources and explanation? If not, whence
>this idea?

 From <http://www.torah.org/learning/yomtov/asarabteves/vol1no63.html>

"The Aruch HaShulchan [549] concludes that we fast on this day because
it marks the beginning of our sorrows - the first event in a chain which
resulted in the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and
the exile of the nation of Israel. In the event that it were possible
for this day to fall out on Shabbos (which it can not, because of
our calendar system), there are authorities which said that we would
still fast, although fasting on the Shabbos day is forbidden. Why would
we nevertheless fast? We would fast because the words used by G-d to
describe the events to the prophet Yechezkel were the same words used
in conjunction with the description of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of
the year, on which we fast even if the day falls out on the Shabbos:
the words "On this very day" "B'etzem hayom hazeh.""

Also see <http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/timeless-patterns/22.htm>
where the following is written:

"Since, as stated above, the fast of the Tenth of Teves commemorates
the beginning of the process of Jerusalem's destruction, its impact is
of broader scope than is the impact of the other commemorative fasts."

One citation is Avudraham, Hilchos Taaniyos, which is cited by the B"Y
(OH 550).

I looked at the B"Y, and he adds, "I don't know where this comes from."
The Darchei Moshe has a sentence on this, too, but I'm afraid I can't
figure it out.

 - Sholom

On 5 Jan 2004 at 14:34, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:32:01 -0500 "David Riceman"
> <<I believe it's a Hatham Sofer, based on that being the only one of
> the four fasts whose date appears explicitly in TaNaCH.>>

> Fine, but the other three are not doche Shabbos??

Correct, they are not. The Abudraham tries to learn this because it says
"B'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh" in Yechezkel 24:2.

Rav Weiss said that the Abudraham had two chiddushim here:

1. That Asara b'Teves isn't nidche, which he learns from a pasuk which
lichora isn't going on Asara b'Teves, but on the date on which the walls
of Yerushalayim were surrounded (and he certainly could not be doresh a
gzeira shava with the "etzem ha'yom ha'zeh" that's written by Yom Kippur
because the Abudraham could not be mamtzi a gzeira shava by himself).

2. That Oneg Shabbos - which is min ha'Torah (although IIRC he questioned
whether ONEG Shabbos is min ha'Torah later in the shiur - I don't have
time to go through the whole shiur right now and check) should be nidche
for a tzom which is clearly d'Rabbanan.

Rav Weiss said that lichora there's a better question on the Abudraham -
he contradicts both Rashi (Megilla 5a) and the Rambam (Ta'aniyos 5:5). He
also contradicts the Ibn Ezra (the author of "Ki Esmera Shabbos" where
it says "Al kein l'his'anos bo al pi n'vonov assur m'lvad Yom Kippur
avonie"), although one could answer that by saying that the Ibn Ezra
was talking about our fixed calendar where Asara b'Teves cannot fall
on Shabbos.

Rav Weiss brought a teirutz for the Abudraham to explain Rashi (Sho'el
u'Meishiv Kamma 3:179), where he said that Rashi is talking about a time
of "lo milchama lo shalom" where (Rosh HaShana 18b) "ratzu mis'anin,
ratzu lo mis'anim" and that the Abudraham is talking about after Klal
Yisrael took the four tzomos on themselves, and therefore in the Abudraham
the tzomos are already a chova. But Rav Weiss felt that it was dachuk to
'invent' such a machlokes, and even if we learn in Rashi like the Sho'el
u'Meishiv suggests, it still says "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh" and therefore,
why should the fast be nidche to another day as opposed to not fasting
altogether the year that Asara b'Teves falls on Shabbos.

He then brought a makor for the Abudraham from the Ohr Sameyach
Ta'aniyos 5:6 who brings the Gemara in Eruvin 40b where it is asked
from Rav Huna whether a "bar bei rav" one should be mashlim a ta'anis
on Erev Shabbos. Why is the question there about a ta'anis yachid and
not about a ta'anis tzibur? The only ta'anis tzibur that can come out
on Erev Shabbos is Asara b'Teves. If Asara b'Teves is doche Shabbos,
then it is clear why the Gemara doesn't need to ask about it on Erev
Shabbos and therefore asks from ta'anis yachid. But if Asara b'Teves
were not doche Shabbos, then why would the Gemara ask about a Ta'anis
Yachid and not about a Ta'anis Tzibur?

But he's doche this because the Gemara in Rosh HaShana 21a says that
in the times of Rava they were still m'kadeish al pi ha'r'iya and Rabba
the son of Rav Huna was older than Rava, so certainly in Rav Huna's time
they were m'kadesh al pi ha'r'iya and therefore we cannot say that Asara
b'Teves was the only fast that could come out on Shabbos.

Bli neder more later....

 - Carl

R"n Ilana Sober asked several questions, including <<< ... I'm not
sure where in the sources we have a paradigm of marriage where the
wife/husband relationship is analogous to master/servant, in that order.
(Feel free to enlighten me.) So why should a husband performing general
household duties be perceived as serving his wife ... >>>

I think what she is asking (and if she's not, then *I'll* ask it) is this:
If Mrs. Cohen asks her husband to perform a general household task, that
would *not* be a problem in V'Kidashto, because she not asking for him
to do it for *her*. Rather, she is pointing out (teaching him, if you
prefer) something that he needs to do for *his* benefit. It is *his*
house, and she is simply alerting him to his own needs.

Asking him to pass the salt is still in the problem area, but as others
have pointed out, his acceptance of the terms of her Kesuba ("k'hilchos
guvrin y'huda'in") would seem to cover that.

Akiva Miller

From: "Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org>
> it is forbidden to make use of a talmid chochom, presumably because
> of the honor due to his Torah, not because he may or may not hold any
> official position.

From: "David Riceman" <>
> I'm unfamiliar with this prohibition ... Can you cite a source so that
> I can look it up?

I found one paragraph in KSA and another in SA Harav.
Not too much detail there.

SBA

[R Joel Rich:]
> In a message dated 1/5/2004 10:07:59 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>> I believe that's why Sanhedrin lokin shelo kedin and they
>> maintained a kippah. They had the power to punish even when there
>> was no chiyuv to punish.

> Interesting question is how and when did the Sanhedrin get this
> power and  how, if at all, did it coordinate with the melech's power
> to maintain social  order? The Maharatz chiyut writes about the
> powers but it's never been clear to me  how they interacted.

The Drashot HaRan raises this question. He gives two possible answers:

1) When there is a melech, then he has the power to enforce the
supplementary justice system (which he can delegate to the Sanhedrin if he
wants). When there is no melech, then the Sanhedrin administers both Torah
law and the supplementary tikkun as necessary for that time and society.

2) Alternatively, if I understand correctly, the Sanhedrin is responsible
for both the primary absolute Torah system, and the supplementary tikkun
k'fi tzorech hasha'ah - but only for bein adam l'makom. For mitzvot bein
adam l'chaveiro, only the melech can administer the supplementary system.

 - Ilana

Thank you very much R. Seth Mandel for your discussion in Avodah 12:68
of the pronunciation of the Het and of linguistics and pronunciation in
general. It was for me, and I suspect for many others, a most necessary
and useful corrective.

I, of course, regret being the conduit for (or originator of)
misinformation regarding pronunciation, including its mechanics.
It might have been better had I kept my involvement to filling in the
blanks in a description of the essay in Rav Hamburger's Shorshei Minhag
Ashkenaz on the pronunciation of the Cholem and either ignored further
remarks concerning the Chof/Khaf and the Ches/Het or kept my response
to a minimum instead of introducing the Echad/Ehad pronunciation topic.
The one bright light is that it served as an invitation for you to join
the discussion.

After reading your remarks, though, I am left with a few questions that
I hope you will consider.

1. The lesson I drew from Rav Steinwurzel and that I thought Rav
Blumenkrantz was also dealing with, at least in part, is that the
preferred pronunciation of Ehad results from the Het (in its Sephardic
incarnation) being extended and simultaneously enunciated with the Kamatz
vowel ("E-hhhh/aaaa-d").

Is that physically possible and, to the extent that you are aware,
halachically correct?

You explained that
> An Ashk'naz khof and a S'faradi het are both
> fricatives, differing in the place of articulation. One cannot use
> either to hum a song, since both are voiceless, but one can say khhhhhh
> - - without a vowel - for as long as one's breath holds out ....
> One can also pronounce a het for that long.
> But a khof is a velar, pronounced near or at the place where a /k/ and a
> /g/ are articulated; het is a pharyngeal.

Thus, you differentiate between these fricatives, the Ashk'naz khof (and
presumably the S'faradi khof) being a velar, and the het a pharyngeal.
However, while stating that "one can say khhhhhh - - without a vowel -
for as long as one's breath holds out", you did not state whether khhhhhh
or the pharyngeal Het could be drawn out with a vowel.

Experience, for what it is worth, indicates that the dual sounding can
be done with a Hei as in a long "Haw" while keeping the breath flowing
out of the throat. The Sephardic Het, which I have heard, also keeps
the breath flowing out of the throat and is a step away from that Hei.
Experience, again for what it is worth, indicates to me that the dual
sounding can be done with a Sephardic Het while keeping the breath
flowing out of the throat.

Baldly put, is the Ashkenazi Ches-Chof unpronounceable simultaneously
with a vowel, and is the Sephardic Het pronounceable simultaneously with
a vowel (as "E-hhhh/aaaa-d")? And if the "ch" sound of the Het (in its
Sephardic incarnation) can be extended with vowels, is that what the
pronunciation of Ehad requires?

2. You state that there is a
> fallacious assumption that one cannot prolong the pronunciation of the
> dalet in ehad without pronouncing it as a an affricate (/th/ as in the
> word "this" is not exactly how the Teimanim pronounce it, but is close
> enough for discussion). One can pronounce the dalet as a geminated
> consonant, and still have enough time to focus on different directions, if
> that is one's shitta: try saying ehaddddd. It is not normal speech, but it
> can be done, and so did many rabbonim from Europe.

Is that suggested geminated pronunciation ("ehaddddd") in accord with the
stricture of MB 61(21) and others that one should not overly stress the
Daled to make it appear that it is punctuated with a Sh'va or a Tzerei but
should enunciate it with a "Peh Yafeh" (which, as I noted, R. Orenstein
translates, "that one should enunciate it distinctly with his mouth.")?
If not, may it be suggested to those who wish to follow the MB, and are
there authorities who expressly deny the need to avoid the appearance
that the Daled is punctuated with a Sh'va or a Tzerei? (Perhaps this is
one of the areas of dispute to which you parenthetically adverted.)

    Again, many thanks!
    Joseph I. Lauer

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:56:04 +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>> His psak was that someone in that situation had an additional 25
>> minutes of bein hashamiashot after shkiah to continue in the bus.
>> After that time nly if there were small children in the bus and the
>> driver was not Jewish could they continue. Otherwise it was required
>> to get out and walk.

> If you did this, would you be required to hold Rabbeinu Tam time at
> the end of Shabbos? (I would think the answer would be yes).

I understood this had nothing to do with Rabbenu Tam. It was "bein
hashmashot" according to many poskim. According to Rabbenu Tam this
would still be day.

He stressed that 25 minutes was in NY. He suspected that in Israel it
would be less.

In fact many modern day poskim in Israel allow one to daven minchah
bedieved up to some 12-18 minutes after shekiah also based on ben shamshot

 -- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/01/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:44:35 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>> Eugene Korn argued that RYBS was not against dialogue but set
>> conditions.

> I've heard and read two explanations of RYBS's opposition:

> 1. existential - - that it's impossible to communicate outside of
> "communities of faith".

> 2. practical - - that the Catholic Church's main intention is still
> conversion of the Jews.

> Any discussion about whether these are contradictory or
> complementary? Did  anyone mention any others?

There was an extensive discussion of these issues as there was an entire
session devoted to the topic.
Korn's argument was that (2) no longer applies. - again for the catholic
church not RW protestants.

For (1) everyone including the catholic on the board agreed that there
was no purpose in debating theology. The question was more of having
"official" meetings to discuss affairs of mutual interest. The point
was made that although RYBS set guidelines for the RCA in practice there
has been no connections between the RCA and the Church since that time
on any official level.
His argument was that there was a need for a formal setting rather than
the technical meeting of the Agudah over specific issues.

>> As a child Rambam was not close to his father because his father
>> though he  was not very bright.

> Is there any evidence for this?

I had never heard of this before - I was hoping someone on the list had
more information

[Email #2. -mi]

some other remarks on RYBS conference

1. The idea of requiring a master's degree with semicha (is it still
true?) was Rav Soloveitchik's

2. RYBS gave a shiur in Stern he was in favor of women learning but not
Women tefillah (complicated issue)

3. One should not rely on his psak to individuals since he frequently
gave contradictory piskei halakhah depending on the person's background
and other criteria

4. Job - before the Holocaust interpretations concentrating on Job's sin;
after the Holocaust most thinkers refused to justify the deep punishment
of Job based on the in of others Suffering is meant to teach a lesson
rather than being punishment

RYBS (Kol Dodi Dofek) written shortly after WWII was a transition figure
suffering can elevate and mend. Cohen stressed yissurim me-ahava. Norman
Lamm said there could be suffering without sin

For RYBS each individual was a complete entity - brit geulah there was
a discussion of differences between RYBS and R. Kook in their attitudes
towards the individual vs the society

5. Need to integrate RYBS gemara shiurim with his philosophy. Kriyat Shema
is discussed at length in Worship of the Heart however it appeared much
earlier in Iggrot Hagrid (from RYBS youth) as a purely halachic discussion

6. In discussing Chanukah RYBS discussed the historical background
in great detail (in some shiur). Some occasionally history was also
important to him. However, he objected to a historical attitude towards
learbing and so would object to the Revadim approach to the Gemara. RYBS
got along with R. Feldblum in YU until one student started trouble. RYBS
also objected strongly to R. Rackman and attempted changes in Halacha
based on "new" types of life.

7. The Rav claimed his students had an intellectual attitude to
Yiddishkeit and not enough emotional. It was pointed out that in many
of today's yeshivot the exact opposite is true. There is emotion but
not enough interest in the deep gemara learning.

8. "Shnayim Ochazim Be-Tallit" makes sense only if both sides agree it is
a tallit. If one claims it from wool and the other from linen than there
is no basis for splitting the tallit. Similarly for discussions with
groups Jewish or gentile that don't accept the basis of Torah MiSinai.

 -- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 05/01/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Does RAT recall what RAL said at the conference ? WAR to R Greenberg
and R Korn, their remarks neither appear to be born out by the
historical record nor the views of others such as R D David Berger
who are also aware of and involved with ecumenical type forums. There
is also zero proof that RYBS either modified his views on entering a
shul without a mechitza or on the deviationist nature of R and C. IMO,
the inclusion of RYG and R Korn on these issues was an exercise in LW &
PC revisionism. (Full disclosure time: I take a great deal of pride in
the fact that I have RYBS's published works both in Chiddushei Torah and
Philosphy in my library. In addition, I have access to a set of shiurim
that were made available to the public by R Nordlicht.) Notwithstanding
the reluctance of RAL and RHS to dally in the philosophy of RYBS, IMO,
their respective opinions as to the legacy of RYBS should carry more
weight than the other speakers at this well meant conference. In fact,
if you listen to RYBS's 1975 shiur on Gerus to the RIETS alumni, RYBS
himself mentioned that he has been a rebbe or a RY for the greater part
of his adult life, as opposed to a Jewish philosopher. At least RAL and
Dr Tova Lichtenstein were there to refute these comments and to expressly
state in Haaretz that RYBS primarily was a RY and secondarily a Jewish
philosopher, albeit a great one.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 4 Jan 2004 at 2:57, Micha Berger wrote:
>> For the very reasons you raise, the Ramban could be construed as
>> proof  that in his day, the one known as THE "Beis Lechem" was not the
>> one we  think of today.

Carl wrote:
> Then how do you understand the Ramban at the end of Sefer Dvarim
> (after the Peirush) where he accepts Rashi's view on the location of
> Kever Rachel?

I think the various Bethlehem's were in the days of the Tanach. By the
time of the Ramban there was probably only "the" Bethlehem and Ramban
says that Kever Rachel is within one mil (1 km) of the the town.

It is well known that Ramban in Va-yechi (this weeks parsha) contradicts
what he said earlier and seems to accept Rashi and the medrash that they
passed kever Rachel on the way to Bavel going to exile.

An interesting story from the RYBS conf. Someone quoted that Twersky
(s-i-l of RYBS) once gave a theis topic on the Ramban to some
student. After several years he was still not finished. He called in
the student and said he thought that the student would never finish.
The trouble with the student was that he was too frum and felt he had
to answer every contradiction and that frequently could not be done

 -- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 06/01/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

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


[ 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         ]