Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 015

Thursday, October 21 2004

• Rashi on HaPalit
• Re: Pronounciation in davening /kriah
• Re: linguistic norm
• Erratum
• Re: Fingernails and Toenails
• Chashmal or (electricity)
• Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita
• Re: R. Chaim Kanevsky [fingernails and toenails]
• Re: Fingernails and Toenails
• milchig alcohol, cows and yeast
• Re: Words and their opposites
• Re: Pronounciation in davening /kriah
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re:linguistic norm
• Re: Rashi on HaPalit
• Re: Rashi on HaPalit
• Words and their opposites
• Re: Ayzehu M'komon and Machlokess
• Re: Rashi on HaPalit
• safeik bracha
• Re: safeik bracha
• Re: safeik bracha
• Re: Rashi on HaPalit
• Re: safeik bracha
• Sanhedrin ideas
• Re: Sanhedrin ideas

 From: "H G Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>
> Does anyone explain why Rashi only brings Og as a candidate for HaPalit
> and not at least also Malach Michoel who is brought in Baal HaTurim, Pirke
> D'Rebbe Eliezer etc or both answers like Rabbenu Bachaye or Chizkuni?

Or Sichon (Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer IIRC)?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

When we lived in Philadelphia, I (through my wife, who was on the
Education Committee) complained to the local day school that if they
were teaching ashkenazis, they should at least teach the proper accent -
as while there may be questions as to consonants/vowels, they don't
extend to mil'el milra. (as I phrased it to others, the only literature
meant to be read mil'el was bialik's poetry, which they weren't going to
teach..)This was debated but rejected due to manpower issues. Rav Shmuel
Kaminetsky then invited my wife to come to davening at the Philly Yeshiva,
where they were makpid (and apparently insisted that their shliche zibur
be makpid) on proper mil'el milra. (I can't comment on current practice)

Meir Shinnar

In  Avodah V14 #14 dated 10/20/2004 _RMB_ (mailto:owner-avodah@RMB)   writes:
>:    Reading  from the Torah is
>: different because we are so makpid to transmit the  wording of the Torah
>: exactly as Hashem gave it to Moshe--which surely  includes transmitting
>: the exact pronunciation as accurately as possible.  [--old TK]

> Why do you believe there was only one pronunciation even  back then?

> Still, it would seem from MB 53 s"q 37 that Ephrayim's pronunciation
> of "siboles" is inferior. The MB seems to lump it together with the
> Ashkenazi ches and ayin as "if everyone pronounces thus, then one can
> be the Sha"tz" even if he does too.

But this happened centuries after Mattan Torah. It's not so surprising
that the shevatim, after living quite a distance from each other for
centuries, would begin to develop slightly different accents, possibly
influenced by neighboring goyim. Look at Russian and Polish Yiddish.

It is also possible that among the people of Ephraim there was a common
speech defect or lisp, not a different accent. They were closely related
to each other, after all, and also usually married women from their
own shevet, so a particular genetic problem arising in one shevet might
become common in that shevet and not in others.

I think it's a safe assumption that when the Torah was given to Moshe,
there was indeed one correct pronunciation used by everyone. Without
tape recorders, however, change over time was inevitable.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In a message dated 10/20/2004 RTK (what was she THINKING?)  wrote:
> I don't know how a biliteral instead of triliteral root theory would help
> your example of "sit" and "captive," above. If they are both shin-beis
> rather than both shin-beis-hei, what have you gained in understanding
> how the same root can mean such different things?

I am very embarrassed to find that someone using my name thinks the
root of the Hebrew word for "sit" is shin-bais-hei. Please don't write
to me to correct that mistake, I know, I know.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 10/20/2004 someone again claiming to  be RTK writes:
> In  the case of your "ram-raise" and "ram-throw" example, I once again
> don't  see where there is a biliteral shoresh or how that would help.
> "Sus  verochvo ramah vayam." That is a three-letter root there,
> reish-mem-hei.  And as for "raise" and "throw" being opposites--well it
> seems to me that  the "throw" meaning derives directly from the "raise"
> meaning.  ...

I am really wishing that that person with my initials would stop
writing to Avodah, she is such an ignoramus. The shoresh of "raise"
is resh-vov-mem, not resh-mem-hei, how could anyone not know that???

 -Toby Katz, very  embarrassed
=============

> R' YAA Krieger required some form of kevurah for fingernails.

The g'mara does say "hakovran tzaddik." (It also says "hasorfan chasid,"
but I imagine that because of the tircha involved, he was willing, in this
matter, to settle for middas tzidkus and not strive for middas chasidus.)

EMT

From: "Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR **" <schoemann@lucent.com>
> R' Eli wrote:
>> BTW another psak from RCK was that it is better not to use the Hebrew
>> word Chashmal (electricity) since it is an angel in sefer Yechezkel.

> I have noticed that Rav Volbe shlita also never says Chashmal. He uses
> the English (Yiddish?) word instead.

IIRC the Debreciner Rav z'l, also paskens so in his Sh'ut Beer Moshe.

SBA

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> R' Eli Turkel <<< saw a recently published sefer with piskei halachot
> from R. Chaim Kanevsky, "She-elat Rav". About 400 pages long it consists
> of short questions and answers usually 1-3 words long. So the reasons
> are not always clear. >>>

> I know that there are a number of poskim who have that paskening style. I
> wonder if they're aware of how much frustation this causes to the people
> who learn their seforim. Or maybe I'm in the small minority on this?

As I previously posted, there are reports from EY that the sefer [Derech
Sicha] has been recalled. The reasons seems to be that the sefer often
portrays RCK and his psokim as puzzling and even a bit childish.
Which is VERY unfair [and totally wrong] to this unassuming gadol hador
- who has for decades completed the study of Shas Bavli, Yerushalmi,
4 chelkei SA, Safro, Sifri, Mechilta etc etc - EVERY YEAR!!!!

A visiting mesulach recently told me that his [RCK's] rebbetzen told
someone that her husband is not such a strong masmid as is her father
[Rav Elyashiv].
Why?
Because her husband - RCK - has learned the entire Shas with each of
his sons, whilst her father couldn't find the time for this...

I heard last night from a BB-er TC, that the sefer's author davvens
every morning in RCK's vosikin minyan and asks him questions regularly.
And the sefer is a result of his compilation of these rapid Q & As and
some maasiyos related by RCK.

Having said all that - I nevertheless say that for the 'types' that
frequent our lists, I am sure that they will find a lot of interesting
material and sources there.

I noticed one suggestion by RCK about a rebbeleh who had moved towns, that
it would be a mitzvah to arrange that he shoule be able to 'feer tish' in
his new location and that it comes under the din of 'sus lirkov olov'...

SBA

There's another sefer that was written after cross-examining RCK -
on Netilas Yodayim. (Forgot the name).

At the back is a list of Q&A and one that stuck in my mind was:
Q: Does one have to wash hands after trimming ones beard?
A: One may not trim ones beard.

This leaves me with the distinct impression that results of the Q&A
sessions with RCK are not meant for the general public. After all, the 2nd
half of YD 181 discusses the guidelines for trimming/cutting our beards.

- Danny

As REMT wrote already:
"The source for not discarding nails, lest they cause miscarriage,
is a g'mara in Mo'ed Katan 18a."

It's also in Niddah 17.

It's apparently not quoted by the SA (or RMBM) though the MB, Oruch
Hashulchan and Be'er Heitev bring it in OC 260.

They also mention - as the gemora does, that once the nails have been
moved from their original landing place they no longer are dangerous.

This danger does not apply to nails that were cut using ones teeth. Only
nails cut using an instrument are potentially dangerous. (ibid)

Furthermore, if one cut something else with that instrument after cutting
ones nails, then it's also no longer dangerous. (ibid)

The Beer Heitev (OC 260) brings an explanation about the miscarriage
issue, from the Tola'as Yaakov (who's that?).

"After the 1st sin, the nails that covered their bodies fell off, and
only the fingernails remained. Since it was the woman (Chava) who caused
the nail covering to come off, therefore the remains of this cover could
cause her to be punished." (If she disrespects them by trampling on them,
I assume.)

- Danny

Perhaps someone might wish to comment on the exchange below, which has
to do with alcohol being deemed milchig.

I thought the concern for the origin of alcohol is a chumrah of chomets
on Pesach only, in principle the yeast organisms that consume the sugar
and produce alcohol are really like miniature cows that eat chomets food
and produce kosher LePesach milk.

Your analogy about cows making milk is actually not accurate.
Fermentation involves a stock material, lactose (milk sugar) with a yeast
added. The yeast consume the lactose and produce ethanol. This is a direct
relationship. Cows eat, the food goes through a digestion process, and
milk is produced via a metabolic process that is not necessarily directly
linked to the particular food source that the cow consumed. There is a set
of machinery in between the feed and the product, milk. In a fermentation
system, there is nothing between the lactose and the end product.

Mlevinmd@aol.com stated the following on Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:58:16 -0400:
>. There are many words that have the same root but mean different
>things. That does not fit with the 3 theory that purports to explain
>how every shoresh is unique and unlike another. The 2 letter root theory
>does not attempt to make this claim.

Arabic, for example, has two "het"s and three "ayin"s. Thus, two Hebrew
words with seemingly identical roots may have two different "het"s and
hence be unrelated. Similarly for "ayin"s.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org
Fax: ++1-619-639-8172

RMS wrote:
> When we lived in Philadelphia, I (through my wife, who was on the
> Education Committee) complained to the local day school that if they
> were teaching ashkenazis, they should at least teach the proper accent -

My very words. (We just have different perceptions of what is proper, I'm  
afraid. This is not ironic.)

> as while there may be questions as to consonants/vowels, they don't
> extend to mil'el milra. (as I phrased it to others, the only literature
> meant to be read mil'el was bialik's poetry, which they weren't going to
> teach.)

Whimsy Bialik invented this mei-ayin?
(Not that the modern secularists developed the idea that everything has
to be stressed as if it was a posuk from tenach, or even more millera,
considering the numerous incidents of words that have variable stress
depending on the words following and anteceding. No, they took this over
from German Christians, who always knew better in things Jewish than the
corrupted objects of their ethnological interest.)

KT,
Lipman Phillip Minden
[ 8~)>

R' ELPM wrote:<< I also feel I can't answer omein after a broche directed
to Eddie Neu.>>

In my shul there is a rav and talmid chakham who, when a ba'al tefila,
consistently directs b'rakhot to Adi Noy.

There is company here, in Israel, named Adi Noy that manufacturers towels
and linens. I haven't seen their ads lately. The reason might be that
I don't read newspapers very much. It also might be that I should have
written "there was a company"

If the company went bankrupt and no longer exists, is that an argument
to permit answering amen?

k"t,
David

Re: difference between leining and davening.

One thing that always surprises me is the Teimani sof-pasuk tune which
wiggles up and down a few times on the last syllable and makes every
mileil last word in a sentence sound milra'. Surprises, but not annoys.

What annoys lately is the rapidly spreading custom of those who daven
in Israeli-Sefaradic Hebrew to pronounce shem-Hashem in Ashkenazic. I
don't believe that prayer requires any particular dialect or accent
but it should be lashon tzecha, that is consistent in its dialect,
conventional usage, and make sense grammatically.

S'faradic-Israeli Hebrew is an acceptable dialect and in it the word is
Adonai. Ashkenazi dialect is just as acceptable and in it the word is
Adonoi, or Adoinoi, or Adeinoi.

One who feels the need to use the word Adonoi and thus differentiate
between a patach and a kamatz, should use Ashkenazi pronunciation in his
entire davening. One davening in S'faradic pronunciation should use the
proper S'faradic pronunciation of the name of God.

When RSZA was asked whether it is proper to mix the Adonoi into
otherwise s'faradic davening, his answer was, "Are you hinting that
all the S'faradim do not pronounce the name of God properly?" (possibly
a paraphrasing).

It is permitted to read the Megilla in translation but it is not
translated (for reading in shul) because there are words that cannot
be translated and one cannot be yotzei y'dei chova when reading in a
mixture of languages. Why should davening in a mixture of "languages"
be different.(BTW, I've often wondered why nobody sees a problem in
the fact that in the Hebrew Megilla there are Persian words. Have the
Achashtranim undergone giyyur and become Hebrew.)

So, I'm against ta'aroives. Didn't Chazal agree with me on such "mixed
davening" when they decided that "Ham'numar pasul"

k"t.
David 

In a message dated 10/19/2004 2:41:37pm EDT, hgschild@hotmail.com writes:
> Does anyone explain why Rashi only brings Og as a candidate for HaPalit
> and not at least also Malach Michoel who is brought in Baal HaTurim,
> Pirke D'Rebbe Eliezer etc or both answers like Rabbenu Bachaye or
> Chizkuni?

I fail to understand the question, is Rashi a collection of Midroshim? he
clearly starts here by saying "Lfi Pshutoi" even when he finds need to
add Pshat because of question of the term "Polit" he still sticks with
the same name, so that there is no Machlokes in this part.

RGD adds:
>>>Or Sichon (Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer IIRC)?<<<

In addition to the above. I didn't see it in PDR"E 27 (are you referring
to the fact that Sichon is Og's brother and that Cham covered up his
wifes relation with their father by having relations in the Teiva?,
but he wasen't born before the Mabul so the term "Polit" would not fit).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[In reply to the previous. -mi]

I haven't seen the PDRE in a LONG time, but IIRC he also "hung on"
to the teiva.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In Avodah V14 #13 dated 10/19/2004 Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
>The problem of words that have the same shoresh but different meanings
>is a broader one - it includes the many examples of words that sound
>the same but mean different things. An example would be Ram to raise and
>ram to throw, shv to sit and shv to capture.

Posted by: laser@ieee.org
> Here the roots are not identical, are they?
> Resh vav mem vs resh mem heh. Yod shin vav vs shin vav heh.

This would seem to justify the triliteral-root theory and disprove the
biliteral-root theory. As if that needed to be justified.

Yes, I do understand that the roots are not identical; farthermore,
the stress is different (Rama1 b'yom vs. ydeinu r!ama in Haa'zinu). My
pont is that this is very complex and confusing and constantly breaks
down - its predicitve power is poor. Besides, many achronim liked the
two letter root theory more. Rashi does not hold of a three letter root
theory. He therefore does not employ it. He seems to hold that a word can
be either have a three or two root shoresh, see Gur Arye parshas Chukas
(and many other places)on the word nida. Others who hold a two letter
theory include R. Hirsh, Malbim in the 3rd or 4th item in Ayeles Hashachar
and Menachem in the Intro to Machberes. All of them have specific twists
in their views.

There was a thread on this at avodah by the name Missing nun in Feb. 2003,
ayen sham. I quote apost from that time. BTW, I think that the sefer
yetsirah also holds a 2 word theory. All objects are composed of
combinations of letters. Here is an excerpt from Ch.2

    Seven doubles: Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh, Resh, Tav which are to be
    pronounced in two tongues: Bet, Vet, Gimel, Ghimel, Dalet, Dhalet,
    Kaf, Khaf, Peh, Feh, Resh, Rhesh, Tav, Thav, a pattern of hard and
    soft, strong and weak. The doubles represent the contraries. The
    opposite of life is death, the opposite of peace is evil, the opposite
    of wisdom is foolishness, the opposite of wealth is poverty, the
    opposite of fruitfulness is barrenness, the opposite of grace is
    ugliness, the opposite of dominion is slavery.

    ¶ 4. Twelve simples: He, Vav, Zayin; Het, Tet, Yod; Lamed, Nun,
    Samech; Ayin, Tsadeh, Qof. He engraved them, hewed them, tested them,
    weighed them, and exchanged them. How did He combine them? Two stones
    build two houses. Three stones build six houses. Four stones build
    twenty-four houses. Five stones build one hundred twenty houses. Six
    stones build seven hundred twenty houses. Seven stones build five
    thousand forty houses. Thenceforth, go out and calculate what the
    mouth is unable to say and what the ear is unable to hear.

Ch.4

    Par 4. Twenty-two letters: He carved them, hewed them, refined them,
    weighed them, and combined them, and He made of them the entire
    creation and everything to be created in the future. How did He
    test them? Alef with all and all with Alef, Bet with all and all
    with Bet, Gimel with all and all with Gimel, and they all return
    again and again, and they emanate through two hundred and thirty-one
    gates. All the words and all the creatures emanate from One Name.

    Par 5. He created reality from Tohu [Tav-He-Vav] and made His
    existence out of His nothingness, and He hewed great pillars from
    the intangible air.

If you think of the 2 letter theory as simply 2 letters you will be
unable to create too many words. This is Ibn Ezra's proof for the three
root theory. From the above passage it seems that many words have letters
that are not visibly present. If I recall that is what the Raavad suggests
in his commentary to sefer Yetsira.

We now return to the idea that certain roots contain letters that drop
out, the same idea that is used in the 3 letter root theory to explain
why yod, hei, vav and nun drop out. The first three imply the idea of
G-dliness surreptitiously present in words; I do not know how to explain
dropping nun, except that word nefila starts with nun.

M. Levin

micha@aishdas.org Posted on: Oct 20, 2004: 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:19:22PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>: [T]he Ra'ah [states] that this perek [Ayzehu M'komon] was
>: chosen in the morning prayers as representative of mishnayos because
>: "sheh-perek zeh ayn bo machlokess, v'hi mishnah berurah l'Mosheh
>: mi'Sinai,"--"this perek is not disputed against (or, "there is no dispute
>: recorded in it"), and it is a clear mishnah [given] to Mosheh mi-Sinai."

RMB:
> Is this "merely" leshevakh this particular pereq, or is this implying
> something about machloqes? Can we deduce from this that the Ra'ah et
> al would not consider the "wrong" side of a machloqes to be T"T, and
> therefore wouldn't serve the role within tefillah?

Nah. It's shevach. Learning shittas Bes Shammai is certaily talmud
Torah.(No documentation offerable now.) But this does show some recognized
conceptual aspect of superiority of a law that's known to be exactly as
it was when it was transmitted by Hashem to Moshe Rabbeynu, over a law
determined by Sanhedrin after debate (even if every one of the particular
examples chosen does not truly represent such a law--see my post about
two machlokos over halachos in the first and last mishnayos in the perek.)

ZL: 
>: He doesn't quite say that the way we know it's a "mishnah berurah
>: l'Mosheh mi'Sinai" is through the fact that it contains no machlokess,
>: although the inference is reasonable.

RMB:
> If the Ra'ah holds like the Rambam, a lack of possibility of machloqes
> and HlMmS are identical sets of dinim.

Yes, that's why I wrote it's a reasonable inference.

But Rabbi Wolpoe's (IINM)question still stands: How do we know (or, how
did HaRambam know) when a lack of a machlokos over a halachah recorded
in tannaitic works is the result of an early Great Sanhedrin's vote
after drashic debate, or the result of it being an intact payrush shel
hamitzvah given by Hashem to Moshe?

(Incidentally, the Rambam applies his teaching not only to technical HLMS,
which he defines as purely oral laws that cannot have bona fide drashos
backing them up, but also to any payrushay hamitzvos Hahsem gave to Moshe,
with an accompanying drash or with the yedia that there IS such a remez
planted for it in the p'sukim, waiting to be discovered.)

Zvi Lampel

In a message dated 10/21/2004 11:48:15am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> I haven't seen the PDRE in a LONG time, but IIRC he also "hung on"
> to the teiva.

While RDG is correct that there is an opinion that he was saved
by hanging, That Deioh is the Tos. Al Asar in the Gemara Nidah 61a
<http://www.e-daf.com/resize.asp?path=C:\web\edaf\Nidah\61a.gif> who
says that nonetheless he is not the Polit, and see MaHaRShA there who
questions this opinion and brings the Medrosh which I quoted. As for the
PDRE in 23 he says " Vayishoeir Ach Noach Vasher Etoy Bateiva *vChutz*
mOg Melech Haboshon..." and does not mention Sichon.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

we all know that there's a concept if there's a safeik to say a bracha
or not, we don't say it.

My question is, what's the reason behind sitting in the sukkah on shmini
atzeret, but not saying a leishev ba'sukah (presumambly b/c of safeik)
but we do say a shechianu.

shouldn't there also be a safeik to say a shechianu? Is shecianu a
fundamentally different type of bracha so that safeik doesn't apply to it?

I'm wondering as never seen a discussion on it. Would the same question
apply to the first (and last) night of chag in regards to things like
kiddush?

Furthermore, the above question only deals w/ safeik to say or not to
say a bracha. What about if one has a safeik which bracha to say (for
instance shmini atzeret, shouldn't there be a safeik if it's sukkot or
shmini atzeret?)

just things I was wondering about over simchat torah and couldn't find
anything in shul dealing w/ it, and a "Simcha"'s recent blog posting
reminded me of it.

In a message dated 10/21/04 2:53:05pm EDT, spotter@cs.columbia.edu writes:
> My question is, what's the reason behind sitting in the sukkah on shmini
> atzeret, but not saying a leishev ba'sukah (presumambly b/c of safeik)
> but we do say a shechianu.

shouldn't there also be a safeik to say a shechianu? Is shecianu a
fundamentally different type of bracha so that safeik doesn't apply to
it? Shmini Atzeres is a Regel Bifnei Atzmoi WRT 6 things PZR KSB, which
includes that it merits Shecheyanu. (OTOH Shehecheyonu IS fundamentally
different but that is not an issue here.)

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:27:44PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
: My question is, what's the reason behind sitting in the sukkah on shmini
: atzeret, but not saying a leishev ba'sukah (presumambly b/c of safeik)
: but we do say a shechianu.

Your "presumably" is in error. We make birkhos hamitzvah on Yom Tov sheini
in general: matzah and marror during the 2nd seider, Hallel on the final
day of Yom Tov.

We eliminate the berakhah on sukkah because it is gorei'ah from Shemini
Atzeres. Sitting in the Sukkah without a berakhah could be construed
(with generous creativity, in some climates) as simply wanting to enjoy
the outdoors. The 4 minim, for which there is no parallel argument,
is eliminated despite the safeiq de'Oraisa for this reason.

This is why people who don't make a leisheiv basukkah on linah during
Sukkos will not sleep in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres. And why the Gra,
who made a berakhah every time he was about to enter a Sukkah for any
reason during Sukkos, did.

I wonder if there is a difference between we who are fulfilling a
derabbanan to preserve the memory of a safeiq and those who were actually
experiencing it. You could argue that this derbanan is what's zocheh the
berakhah. Bizman habayis, what did Jews in Bavel do for birkhos hamitzvah?

And lem'aseh while we say shehechiyanu, we try to provide a new fruit
so as to give a non-YTS kavanah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

To be percise Tos. does not say how he was saved and one could try to
learn that the MaHaRShA reconciles the Tos with the Midrash (also brought
in Rabbeinu Bichaye), and yet Tos. calls also Sichon a Polit and chooses
to bring proof that it is not Sichon.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/21/04 3:20:25pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> And lem'aseh while we say shehechiyanu, we try to provide a new fruit
> so as to give a non-YTS kavanah.

On Shmini Atzeres we use a new fruit? even YTS of Golus the 2nd day of
Pessach Shvuos an Sukkos we don't need a new fruit, only Rosh Hashana
which has the issue of both days being one Kdusha.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Pardon my ignorance, but for those who don't hold from the Rambam's
chiddush of restarting smicha, how do they assume Sanhedrin will be
reconstituted in order to recognize mashiach etc?

KT
Joel Rich

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:45:36PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Pardon my ignorance, but for those who don't hold from the Rambam's
: chiddush of restarting smicha, how do they assume Sanhedrin will be
: reconstituted in order to recognize mashiach etc?

If one accepts "hinei Anochi sholei'ach lakhem es Eliyah hanavi..."
kemashma'o, there will be a musmach available to continue the origina
chain. It's interesting that the Rambam, the only rishon I know of as
taking this pasuq metaphorically, is also the only one I know of who
offers a second way to restore semichah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

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


[ 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         ]