Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 057

Wednesday, January 12 2005

• Re: Torah and Science (the sun standing still)
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping?
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping?
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Chartumim
• Is "tzefardea" a Hebrew word?
• Re: Is "tzefardea" a Hebrew word?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Mezuzah during Shema
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Re: Is "tzefardea" a Hebrew word?
• Re: Kissing tzitzis during Shema
• Re: sippur "ma'asai Qah"
• Re: Torah and Science (the sun standing still)
• Re: Mishpatim Sequence

In  Avodah V14 #56 dated 1/9/2005 RMB writes:
> As for the duty not to interpret a naarative in a manner that runs
> counter to Chazal, see the condemnation of the Ralbag made by the Maharal
> in the 2nd haqdamah to Gevuros H'. There he discusses the Ralbag which
> says that the sun did not stand still for Yehushua. Rather, Yehoshua was
> poetically prophecying that the war would end before sunset. The Ralbag
> takes this position because he doesn't believe in lema'alah min hateva
> nisim. (As opposed to the Rambam, who can't believe that Yehoshua was
> the vehicle for a greater neis than any of Moshe's.)

Rashi says (Shmos 17:12) says that when Moshe held his hands up while
B"Y were fighting Amalek, "ad bo hashemesh," that he actually kept the
sun from setting. (He did it to confuse the calculations of the Amaleki
astrologers.) This should have made the Rambam happy, giving Moshe a
neis equal to Yehoshua's. Though on second thought, it still leaves
Yehoshua's neis greater, since his is stated explicitly in the pasuk
while Moshe's is only implied. (In words--"ad bo hashemesh"--that are
susceptible to more than one interpretation.)

While we are talking about whether a neis can happen that would seem
to throw off the calendar of the whole world for all time, I recall
something that I once read but no longer remember where. Namely, that
when the sun set unexpectedly early for Yakov ("Vayifga bamakom vayalen
shom ki va hashemesh"), it sent something out of whack (Ber 28:11).
That out-of-whackness, you should excuse the imprecise terminology,
was actually corrected by Yehoshua keeping the sun up a few extra hours.

Segue to another discussion about Hashem preferring to do miracles in
a natural seeming way: This miracle of the sun has bothered me more
than any other miracle in the Torah, because I can't see any natural
side to it at all. When the Yam Suf split, a wind blew all night first.
When the mon fell, it resembled frost. True, something nutritious falling
out of the sky is a major miracle, but it still doesn't have to leave any
permanent impact on the nature of the whole world, and it does somewhat
resemble natural processes--rain, snow and dew.

But for the sun to stay up a few hours longer one day, the earth's rate
of rotation would have to slow abruptly. It seems to me that if that
happened, everything on the surface of the earth would go flying off,
like loose stuff in a car when you hit the brakes. Forward momentum.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe gravity is strong enough that everything on the
earth's surface is effectively wearing a seatbelt.

Anyway, one way or another, having the entire planet change its rotation
seems to me the biggest miracle recorded in the Torah, by far.

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

In Avodah V14 #56 dated 1/9/2005  RDE writes:
> It  appears that the gemora requires one to try and find the sin which  is
> actually causing this suffering. Only afterwards should he repent.  It
> doesn't say that if a person sees that he is suffering that he  should
> repent. It clearly requires that a person know that the suffering  is
> fully and justly deserved because of his sins...

This is talking about how a person should ideally relate to his OWN
suffering.

It does not answer the question of how we are to respond to ANOTHER
person's suffering. Maybe if the person who is suffering is on a very
high madreiga, you can say to him, "Think about what you may have done
in your life that you deserved this" and he will accept your words.
For the vast majority of people, it would be cruel and insensitive for
one person to say to another person in pain, "Well, whatever is happening
to you, I'm sure you deserve it."

When we look at other people's suffering, one person does not have a
chiyuv to be mefashpesh in ANOTHER person's ma'asim, but only in his own.
We can perhaps look at a nation as a whole that suffers calamity, and say
that there was immorality or sin there, but even then, we cannot judge
any particular individual and try to guess what his particular sin was.
Nor can we withhold compassion from friends or even from strangers, when
we see others suffering. The same Torah that tells us that suffering
comes from Above and is never random, also tells us to do what we can
to alleviate suffering. Olam chessed yibaneh.

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

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> This is talking about how a person should ideally relate to his OWN 
> suffering. 

> It does not answer the question of how we are to respond to ANOTHER 
> person's suffering....

I did not address at all the issue you have raised and I don't see its
relevance for the fundamental issue that R' Micha has raised.

It is an accepted part of Yiddishkeit that people suffer for the sins
of others.

Rashi (Shemos 7:3) : Such indeed is the method of G-d. He brings
punishment upon the nations so that Israel may hear of it and fear Him

Jews are punished for not stopping others Jews from sinning Avos (6:2)

Children suffer and die because of the sins of their parents.Sotah (13b)
Shabbos (32b)

Wives suffer for the sins of their husbands Sotah (13b), Shabbos(32b)

Gedolei HaDor and children suffer because of the sins of the generation
Shabbos (33b)

The generation suffers for the sins of the leaders

Therefore It would seem reasonable than that any suffering should cause
reflection and repentance. The question is whether it is important to
try an ascertain the specific sin which is causing the suffering or
whether suffer should be taken as a Divine message to repent.

Daniel Eidensohn

Micha and RDE are having a discussion re taking a lesson for oneself and
examining one's deeds. I don't see the contradiction between their valid
positions. If one or both of them or someone else can explain why they're
arguing rather than agreeing that one should take a lesson from events
which more directly affect others and examine one's own past deeds with an
eye to improving one's own future deeds but that one should not examine
others' (even when those others are the ones more directly affected by
said events) past deeds, I would be most appreciative. Thanks.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:03:07AM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: Micha and RDE are having a discussion re taking a lesson for oneself and
: examining one's deeds. I don't see the contradiction between their valid
: positions. If one or both of them or someone else can explain why they're
: arguing rather than agreeing that one should take a lesson from events
: which more directly affect others and examine one's own past deeds with an
: eye to improving one's own future deeds but that one should not examine
: others' (even when those others are the ones more directly affected by
: said events) past deeds, I would be most appreciative. Thanks.

I believe RDE is arguing that we are obligated to examine others' deeds.

Whereas I'm arguing that one:
1- It is assur to examine others' deeds. Just as Elifaz.

2- Finding a causal connection mapping onesh to din is impossible,
even WRT oneself. This is the classical problem of tzadiq vera lo,
rasha vetov lo, and the concluding point of seifer Iyov.

Benei Yisrael as a corporate entity seem to be the one exception, given
the message of the tochakhos, the 2nd parashah of shema, Haazinu and
seifer Shofetim. Perhaps only while living in Eretz Yisrae'l. Part of
our being the am hanivchar is for our fate to declare His Presence.

This would also differentiate between analyzing churban bayis and
generalizing to other cases. Aside from my earlier suggestion based on R'
Love that chazal themselves struggled with the question but were left
with multiple answers because they couldn't resolve it.

3- Even if one found a cause, one would also need to know why this person
or nation got the punishment they deserve, while others thrive. IOW,
why did thise group get din and that one get rachmim?

This could well be THE question, as ain tzadiq ba'aretz asher yaaseh tov
velo yechta. This, to my mind, it the message of Berachos 5a: there is
always something you could find which is sufficient cause.

3- The purpose of examining one's own deeds is to take a lesson, ie
to be motivated to teshuvah. Not to find a cause. (Which #2 says is
impossible anyway.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
> The chartumim not only came to a spiritual conclusion, but acted on it:
> they joined the Jews. They became leaders of the eirev rav, and left
> Egypt with the Jews.

I'm not sure you answered the question, which was whether they got any
sachar. I'm not sure being head of the erev rav qualifies, although I'd
appreciate a mar'eh makom for that as well.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 1/9/2005 kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Maybe  this is better for Avodah than Mesorah, but...
> Is "tzefardea" a Hebrew  word?

> RSR Hirsch says it is a compound word, from "tzafar" and "de'ah".
> Are there any other compound words in Chumash?

> Alternatively, are there any other words on Chumash which are legitimately
> Lashon HaKodesh, yet have a five-letter root?

> If the above two are both negative, I wonder if this might teach us that
> these frogs were of a species or variety which was new, and did not exist
> in Adam Harishon's time. Because if they *did* exist in Adam's time,
> then he presumably would have given them a name, and why would it be
> such an odd name?

This is an extremely excellent question. I say that because I myself
have thought about the same question for years. :- )

One of my hobbies is "collecting" words in Chumash that are not Hebrew.
Some are CLEARLY not Hebrew, like Yegar Sa'hadusa or Tzofnas Pa'anei'ach.
But others are merely questionable.

The evidence of the give-and-take between the early Jews and surrounding
cultures and societies is part of what fascinates me about foreign words
in Chumash. A related source of fascination is the hint from within the
Torah itself that a full understanding of Torah requires one to know more
than one language--specifically, to know other languages in addition to
Loshon Hakodesh.

Now some examples of possibly foreign words in Chumash that come to mind:

bedolach - a precious stone mentioned in Ber 2:12

pilegesh

chartumim, chartumei Mitzra'im 

Avrech (Rashi considers it a compound word, and says that the "rech"
part is the same as Latin rex)

mechuspas (Shmos 16:14) - a description of the mon - it was dak/thin,
it looked like kefor/frost and it was "mechuspas"--whatever that means.
Rashi has about three translations. AFAIK this is the only place in
Torah where this word appears.

chaftor - knob on the menorah

moshzor - the yerios and some of the bigdei kehuna were made out of
"shesh moshzor," i.e., linen which is....? Possible the mem is part
of the shoresh, not clear. If the shoresh is shin-zayin-resh, then
it means...what?

sachra - the opening of Aharon's me'il was bordered with something like
the opening of a sachra (Shmos 28:32). This word, ending in an aleph,
looks Aramaic. What is a sachra, does it appear anywhere else in Chumash
or Tanach?

Of course there are many proper names in Chumash, names of individuals,
nations, and places, that are not Hebrew or are possibly compound words,
but one that intrigues me is the word "Azazel." Unlike other place names,
this one does not seem to be associated with another nation, but what
does it mean?

sha'atnez

list of treif birds in Parsha Shemini includes tachmas and atalef (a bat?
not translated in ArtScroll)

list of treif creepy-crawlies includes achbar (mouse? not translated)

totafos - may be three-letter shoresh, tes-tes-peh, but what does it
mean? Rashi seems to think it's a compound word

Can't read the whole Chumash in one sitting but those are the ones I
found/remembered at short notice. Other members may have a longer list.

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

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:06:31PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2005 kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
: Maybe  this is better for Avodah than Mesorah, but...
: Is "tzefardea" a Hebrew  word?

: RSR Hirsch says it is a compound word, from "tzafar" and "de'ah".
: Are there any other compound words in Chumash?

I prefer your suggestion that they're some new species created just for
the maqa, and therefore post-date Adam's naming.

The letters "tz" "fei" and "reish" are common in the Mitzri language.
Look at "Par'oh", "Potifar" or "Tzafnas Panei'ach". Which means the word
sounds Mitzri. (Compare the sounds of "Shifrah" and "Puah" to Yocheved
and Miriam.)

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:06:31PM -0500, T613K@aol.com replied by
generalizing the question. Among her examples:
: chartumim, chartumei Mitzra'im 

Probably a proper name. Egyptologists believe that writing spread from
Khartoum (currently the capital of Sudan) across Egypt. It would therefore
make sense that the educated class of Egypt were Chartumim.

...
: Avrech (Rashi considers it a compound word, and says that the "rech"
: part is the same as Latin rex)

IE says it's a variend on "havreich", such as in see Divrei Hayamim
II 6:13.

...
: list of treif birds in Parsha Shemini includes tachmas and atalef (a bat?
: not translated in ArtScroll)

: list of treif creepy-crawlies includes achbar (mouse? not translated)

RSRHnotes a pattern of similarity between species names that start with an
ayin and the meaning of the subsequent three letters taken as a shoresh.
See the appendix to R' Matisyahu Clarke's dictionary.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> when does the cumulative error in tequfas Rav Ada add up to the point
> when the equinox is at the wrong time.

As R' Micha himself pointed out, the length of the solar year that is
implied by the Rav Adda system is about 6.7 minutes LONGER than the
actual length of the tropical year. Hence, the average "solar date"
on which any given day in the Jewish calendar will fall gets LATER by
one day every 216 years. Thus, there is certainly no danger of Pesach
slipping back before the equinox.

Rather, the result of this drift is that we have some "unnecessary"
shanim me`ubarot, such as this year, 5765. Shushan Purim (March 25)
will be 5 days after the equinox (March 20), meaning that it "could
have been" Pesach. Note that in the time of Rav Adda, when everything
was about 7 days earlier in the solar year, this would not have been
the case even in a year like this (the latest in the 19-year cycle),
and the extra month would have been "necessary."

Obviously, this is not inherently a problem, since after all, beit din
used to make a shanah me`uberet for other, weather-related reasons,
besides the actual date in the solar year. While those reasons are,
ba-`avonoteinu ha-rabim, not practically relevant nowadays, the fact
that that they used to be employed shows that the Torah does not require
Nisan to be the first month whose majority is after the equinox.

The only question, then, is how late Nisan can be allowed to get before
it is no longer considered Aviv. Even if the answer is that not even
the last day of Nisan can be allowed to be after the summer solstice,
that's something that we don't have to worry about for about 9,000 more
years, and I really hope that it's no longer an issue by then!

 -D.C.

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:56:45PM -0500, David Cohen wrote:
: The only question, then, is how late Nisan can be allowed to get before it
: is no longer considered Aviv...

As already posted, Rashi seems to say that the spring equinox must be
in either Adar II or the first half of Nissan. Rashi and Tosafos debate
the viability of it being on the 15th of Nissan.

So, the first time the equinox drifts into Adar in a shanah she'einah
me'uberes, the calendar failed.

-mi

In Avodah V14#54, RDBannett wrote:
> From looking at and/or holding it developed into kissing, spread
> from tzitzit to t'fillin, but, AFAIK, not to galloping home to mezuzot
> beitekha.

However, not everyone kisses a m'zuza (and see SA YD 285:2) -- perhaps
that type of kissing, too, is a "recent" development?

> What aroused my interest many years ago was that most people seemed to
> kiss three times on the word tzitzit. The second time I heard them say 'al
> tzitzit, then interrupt while kissing, after which they announce a new
> phrase beginning hakanaf....

> BTW, kissing on the words tzitzit is evidently relatively new and
> probably a mistake. 18th century sources speak of kissing three times
> but not on the words tzitzit. People saw some chakhamim kissing three
> times and decided that it must be on the word tzitzit, which it wasn't.

I have a weekday-shacharis practice of one kissing set per parsha,
kissing the t'filin when they are mentioned in each of the first two
parshiyos and raising the tzitzis in front of the eyes & kissing them at
the one mention in the 3rd parsha which is graced with a primary mafsiq,
just before "ur-isem oso." Any historical mention of this particular
practice? Thanks.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
> My Q is why are you two apparently talking past each other.  I don't 
> understand why you two are arguing when your positions are correct and 
> consistent with one another.  Are you two quibbling on what 
> y'fashpaish means?  Seems to me that we should be taking a lesson from 
> current events -- do you disagree? -- and that we should use the 
> opportunity to examine our own past deeds -- does Micha disagree? -- 
> but that we should not attempt to examine or question others' deeds, 
> even when those others are the ones more directly affected by those 
> events -- do you disagree?

You are correct that we both view current events as a critical source
of information about our spiritual state. The point of disagreement is
simply whether we should view events as tied to a specific sin and thus it
is critical to understand what we are actually doing wrong - or whether
events are just a message "time to repent". If the latter - there is no
real concern with what happened. If we are shocked then we should channel
that shock into improving ourselves. However according to my understanding -
if the suffering came about because we are being intolerant of each
other as the Netziv states in the beginning of Bereishis - accepting
more chumras of hilchos Shabbos is not the appropriate response.

The Chofetz Chaim explained this with an interesting moshul. In the
beginning of Yeshaya, the prophet notes that the Jews are covered from
head to toe with wounds from G-d's punishments. The Chofetz Chaim notes
that when we want to make a horse go faster we hit it. The response of
a horse to pain is to do what it has been doing - but more intensely. A
Jew is supposed to stop and think in response to suffering. It could be
his entire approach to Torah is in need of change. Learning more Torah,
saying more Tehillim etc might not be the message that G-d is sending.
The Chofetz Chaim is saying that generic repenting or intensifying what
we have been doing is the wrong response to suffering.

 Rav Chaim Shmulevitz in Sichos Mussar says it even more bluntly. Rav
Yochanon ben Zakkai - the savior of Torah - is crying on his death bed.
His students can't understand why this spiritual giant should be afraid
of death. He answers that he is simply afraid that he might be going to
Gehinom. Says Rav Chaim. It is relatively easy to keep the Torah. The hard
part is Avodas HaShem. G-d demands of each of us to do our specific manner
of Avodas HaShem - if we get it wrong we go to Gehinom. Even Rav Yochanon
ben Zakkai didn't know he had succeeded until the last moment when he
was informed that Chezkiayu was coming to accompany him to Gan Eden.

A generic response to suffering is not only incorrect but it can be
a danger to your spiritual health. Learning another hour of gemora to
atone might be inappropriate when you should be instead learning with
your kids or doing chesed with your wife. As Rav Yisroel Salanter noted
that focusing on adding restrictions and condemning things as heresy is
less productive spiritual than focusing on the positive.

[Email #2. -mi]

Micha Berger wrote:
>I believe RDE is arguing that we are obligated to examine others' deeds.

>Whereas I'm arguing that one:
>1- It is assur to examine others' deeds. Just as Elifaz.

At this point I am rather puzzled. I never stated that searching for the 
cause of suffering - whether it is your own or that of others - means 
finding how someone else has sinned. Such an idea is also not contained 
in any of the sources I have cited. They all indicate that a person must 
examine his own behavior because  something that he is doing has caused 
the suffering.

Daniel Eidensohn

I thank R"n Toby for her great list.

Most of the items on it are things which I could easily explain as being
"new" in some way, and thus a new word had to be formed to describe it.
This is why the frogs attracted my attention over Shabbos: If Adam
Harishon supposedly named *all* the animals, then I figured that the
tzefardea must have been a new variety, or we need some other explanation
for the odd word.

Alas, it totally slipped my mind that so many other animals are mentioned
in Chumash, and I want to explicitly thank RTK for pointing out the
list in Parshas Shmini, which includes the atalef, sal'am, chargol, and
achbar, which pretty clearly (to me at least) have four-lettered roots.
And probably a few others too.

So I guess there's really nothing so special about the tzfardea after
all. They're just another example to be used in discussions about four-
and five-letter roots (like shaatnetz).

Akiva Miller

>>I kiss the lavan of my tzitzis after "ve'asu lahem tzitzis", and "al
>>tzitzis hakanaf" (not in the middle of the semichut!), the maybe-techeiles
>>after "pesil techeiles", and the entire tassle after the third occurrence
>>of the word "tzitzis", "emes", and right before putting them
>>down.

>Okay, not to question the common minhag Yisroel, but please explain
>the following:
>1) If logic follows, why do you not kiss the mezuzah when you say "al mezuzos"?

I would imagine:
a. Because the poskim don't mention it.
b. Because the SA (61:1) paskens it must be said with kavana, Eima,
Yira, Retet and Zi'a - not walking around. Imagine the entire minyan
making a bee line for the mezuzah...
c. A shul doesn't need a mezuza - so in essence the question becomes
irrelevant, in theory.

>2) What about the halacha (in MB IIRC) that the 4 tzitzis are supposed
>to be pointing in four directions? 

SA OC 8:4, BTW.

> This is brought as the reason for the Atara, that the same corners
> should always point in the same direction. I would think that logic would
> dictate that this is especially important during the recital of Shema,
> making holding the tzitzis improper.

Bingo! SA 61:25: "...when saying ur'isem oso you should feel
("yemashmesh") the 2 tzitzis in front of you! (See 24:5)".

A peek at 24:2 says: "Hold your T in your left hand during Shma." (No
mention of front/back) 24:4 RMO: "Some kiss them when looking at them -
Chivuv mitzva (B"Y)." 24:5 "When looking at T look at the 2 front ones -
they have a total of 10 knots corresponding to the Havayot - and 16
strings+10 knots=26 (YKVK)"

Short answer:
"Everybody" "knows" that at you collect your 4 Ts at "m'Arba Kanfos"
and you kiss them 3 times at the words T.
You can find this in the Kitzur SA 17:7 - though he doesn't say "4". I
can't find it in the SA or MB.

:-)
 - Danny

In my preface to last night's Elizabeth-community "L'ma'an Achai vRayoi"
(LAV) T'hilim shiur, entitled "Making Waves: the 'nature' of water
in Sefer T'hilim," I spoke about the posuq which entered my mind [and
wouldn't leave!] after one of the driving forces behind LAV suggested
I tailor the shiur to the recent events in Asia: "lo omus ki echyeh
va'asapair ma'asai Qah." This posuq spoke to me not only on an individual
basis (as per the grammatical number and the immediate chapter-118
context) but also on a communal/national level, primarily because it
utilizes the SPR verb [it could have said something like "va'ahallail"],
which evoked for me many comparisons to sippur y'tziyas Mitzrayim (like
ma'asai [and the continual remaking of] B'raishis, a seminal event which
we are bidden to not only recall but also see ourselves as part of).
If anyone can point me to prior discussion of such a point and/or wants to
comment on the possible connection, I would be most appreciative. Thanks.

All the best from Michael

T613K@aol.com Posted on Jan 10, 2005: 
> In  Avodah V14 #56 dated 1/9/2005 RMB writes:
>> ...Rambam ... can't believe that Yehoshua was
>> the vehicle for a greater neis than any of Moshe's.)

> Rashi says (Shmos 17:12) says that when Moshe held his hands up while
> B"Y were fighting Amalek, "ad bo hashemesh," that he actually kept the
> sun from setting. (He did it to confuse the calculations of the Amaleki
> astrologers.) This should have made the Rambam happy, giving Moshe a
> neis equal to Yehoshua's.... 

Actually, Rambam holds that the great component of Moshe's neis
vs. Joshua's was in its being publicly witnessed by the entire nation:

MN(II:35)XXXV

    The general distinction between the wonders of Moses and those of
    other prophets is this: The wonders wrought by prophets, or for
    them, are witnessed by a few individuals.... Scripture, therefore,
    declares that no prophet will ever, like Moses, do signs publicly in
    the presence of friend and enemy, of his followers and his opponents;
    this is the meaning of the words:" And there arose not a prophet since
    in Israel like unto Moses, etc., in all the signs and the wonders,
    etc., in the sight of all Israel." ... We must not be misled by
    the account that the light of the sun stood still certain hours for
    Joshua, when" he said in the sight of Israel," etc. (josh. x. 12):
    for it is not said there" in the sight of all Israel," as is said
    in reference to Moses.

Another approach I've seen taken is that the truly apparent-to-earth
ceasing of the sun's movement was caused by atmospheric changes involving
bending lightwaves. I.e., just as to earth the sun is actually seen as
revolving, on that day to earth it was actually seen as stopping.

> While we are talking about whether a neis can happen that would seem
> to throw off the calendar of the whole world for all time ...I can't see any natural side to it at all.... 

Perhaps we can say it's not that they saw anything actively
happening--like a view from space of the earth's rotation slowing down;
so maybe the natural side of it is that sometimes people just seem to
feel like "it's been a long day."

Zvi Lampel

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> posted on 8 Jan 2005:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:55:24PM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>: ...In parashas Mishpatim... The cases are going from the most grave ways of
>: depriving another's life to the less grave, in the categories of damage
>: done to (a) man, (b) animal, (c) vegetation, and (d) inanimate objects.

> ZGG.

Thanks!

> ....
> : If I'm not mistaken, the popular view is that the "man animal,
> : vegetable, mineral" (or ba'al chai medaber, ba'al chai, chai and do'mame)
> : classification was coined by the Greek philosophers...

> RMB:
> ...Add that to the historian priding himself on
> skepticism adding up to a contrarian attitude toward the Notri tradition
> -- as well as ours, before the Notzrim branched off from Yahadus.

And of course, that historian will surely conclude that since this
classification is undoubtedly of Greek origin, we have incontrovertible
proof that parshas Mishpattim was composed no earlier than Hypocrates!

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]