Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 29

Tue, 09 Jan 2007

• 1. flat earth (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Maakeh (Jacob Farkas)
• 3. Re: Changing Havarah (David Cohen)
• 4. Re: Changing Havarah (David Cohen)
• 5. Arukh haShulkhan Yomi (Micha Berger)
• 6. Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (dfinch847@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Maakeh (Michael Kopinsky)
• 8. Changing havarah? (Jonathan Baker)
• 9. No Gehenom on Rosh Chodesh (SBA)
• 10. Re: Shitas R"T (Zvi Lampel)
• 11. Re: Maakeh (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Changing Havarah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Maakeh (Michael Kopinsky)
• 14. Re: Shitas R"T (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: lighting a chanukiya (Akiva Blum)

I do not understand how. Even I was able to dig up evidence that the
Ptolmeic model was accepted by Chazal in Rebbe's day. The only evidence I
found for a flat earth were R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua, two generations
before, and R Chiya, a talmid of Rebbe's (who still believed in orbits,
just around a flat earth). >>

I lost the connection between Ptoelmy (sun circling earth) and a flat earth.

Some of the gemaras that show that most of chazal understood a flat earth are:
Rava and R. Natan on Pesachim 94a
Ben Zoma on Chagigah 15a
Rabbah Bar Huna ob Baba Batra 74a (the story itself is obviously not real)
Yoma 20b

In all these cases see Rashi

Pirkei deRebbi Eleazar ch. 3:
R. Eliezer states the beams that hold up the sky are fixed in the
waters of the Ocean Sea.
The waters of the ocean sea stretch from the end of the land to the
edge of the sky.
The ends of the sky over the waters of the Ocean Sea are spread out.

All these sources picture a flat (or perhaps circular) earth with the
sky as a dome
on top reaching (or almost reaching) the earth at th ends of the arch.

Of course there is the famous machloket of Rebbe and the Chachamim whether
the goyim were right or not (both were wrong!)

R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in Chagigah 12b (see also tosfos)
see also Sanhedrin 38b on the size of Adam

-- 
Eli Turkel

>  > > Thus, if it were a yachid's store rather than a shul that had the 
> platform,
>  > > it would require a maakah. Even if people didn't normally walk on that
>  > > platform.
>  > >
>  >> > > Other things, such as scary dogs and deep pits,
>  >> > > necessitate preventative measures (not necessarily a 10 tefachim 
> fence),
>  >> > > only when they are subjectively considered dangerous.
>  > >
>  > > Midin maakah, or midin bor bereshus harabbim?
> 

R' Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> Midin maakeh.  The continuation of the pasuk says, "v'lo Sasim Damim
> b'veisecha ki yipol hanofeil mimenu."  The chinuch there also lists there
> all the halachos of shmiras haguf (mayim megulim, etc.). From my
> understanding, Bor birshus harabim is not an issur, but rather a Choshen
> Mishpat-dikke chiyuv to pay damages.  (In general, hilchos nezikin is
> monetary chiyuvim not prohibitions to damage your friend's property.  I
> believe there's piece in Kehillos Yaakov (maybe Baba Kama siman 1) where
> he says the issur of damaging your friend's stuff is lo sigzol.)

Actually the Steipler held that the Issur Hezeq is Lo Sukhal Lehisaleim 
(The lo sa'asei of Hashavas Aveidah). The Torah obligated people to save 
someone else's property from being lost, even in a scenario where that 
person did not actively cause the potential loss. This Issur includes 
actively destroying another's property.

Digging a Bor Bereshus harabim is absolutely an Issur, the Mahloqes 
Aharonim is wether it is an Issur Torah, or Issur Derabanan. The Meshekh 
Hakhmah (Vayiqra 19:14) held it was V'lifnei Iveir, the Steipler quotes 
the MH's Sevara as a source to Biur HaGRA who held that Hezeq is an 
Issur Torah, he also quotes Yad Remah in Bava Basra 26a who held that in 
addition to V'lifnei Iveir there is also a breach in V'ahavta L'reiakha 
kamokha. The Mishnah L'melekh, quoted in Qehillos Ya'aqov Bava Kama 1, 
held that digging a Bor Bereshus Harabim is only miderabanan, the issur 
being destruction of public property.

Torts laws are about damages, who is liable and how much, but Hezeq 
alone [with full intention of restitution] is still forbidden.

--Jacob Farkas

The Yemenite kamatz sounds much like the Ashkenazi kamatz with which
we are familiar.  Given the assertion that the current Ashkenazi
kamatz is a recent development (in relative terms), is this just a
coincidence, rather than a reflection of a common origin?

Also, I don't recall hearing this before from other Yemenites, but
there is one person whom I hear lain frequently according to his
Yemenite tradition, and he pronounces the cholam in a way that
strongly resembles the Polish "oy."  Could there be anything to this?

--D.C.

I am interested in learning more about the history of the adoption of
the Israeli pronunciation system.

I have one source that mentions in passing that the decision was made
in the 5690s (1930s CE).  Given that Modern Hebrew had already been
gaining popularity as an everyday language for a few decades before
that, does this mean that Modern-Hebrew-speaking Ashkenazim had
previously been conducting their everyday speech in "havoroh
Ashkenazis," and then suddenly changed?

Once the current prounuciation system was adopted for everyday speech,
how quickly did it become the accepted norm for liturgical use in
Israeli dati-leumi circles?  I know that Rav AY Kook was against the
change.  Did many Ashkenazim of that generation actively change the
way they davened, or was it simply that the next generation, for whom
Modern Hebrew was a first language, didn't see any reason to read
letters differently in the siddur any differently than they had been
taught to read them in other books?

I know plenty of people who came over from Europe in the 1940s and now
daven with Israeli pronunciation, but they may simply have been
copying what they already found here.  I'm interested specifically in
those who were already in Eretz Yisra'el at the the beginning of the
pronunciation shift.  Do we have any written records of anyone from
that period arguing on ideological grounds that people SHOULD change
the havarah with which they davened, in order for it to match the
havarah used for everyday conversation?

This may seem like a question more for a sociology or history list
than for Avodah, but I think that it is relevant. An argument was made
that was made that unlike other pronunciation shifts (such as American
adoption of the English "r" for "reish," for example), which happened
naturally, the shift to modern Israeli pronunciation was a deliberate
clean break, and is thus illegitimate.  My question relates to the
validity of the premise of this argument.

--D,C,

Those of us who are doing AhS yomi are now on OCh 674. Which means that in 3 weeks
or so we will be starting Yoreh Dei'ah.

Great time to start!
Kol haShoneh Halakhos beKhol Yom, Muvtach Lo sheHu ben Olam haBa!

Reserve the date: 9 Shevat / 28-Jan-2007
Yoreh Dei'ah siman 1

The Arukh haShulkhan allows you to learn/chazor all of halakhah without having
to have patience for a dry encyclopedic text by providing a touch of sevara.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/luach> for learning schedule.
(And Daf Yomi schedule, local zemanim for a number of cities, etc...)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

Earlier today I suggested that El-Al might schedule special hareidi 
flights in Gedolim would sit in first-class and issue flight-plan 
instructions to the pilots.

An Areivim poster has e-mailed me privately, stating: "[Areivem] 
moderators should not allow a statement implying gdolim offer 
instruction about things they know nothing about." Setting aside the 
broader issues of the limits of rabbinical knowledge and of what is and 
is not fair game for rabbinical responsa, I meant only that the Gedolim 
could advise the El-Al pilots on things like whether flying over 
certain landmarks (e.g., C instead of O cemetaries, burial pits for 
worn-out religious books, etc.) is issur. Some Gedolim have given such 
advice in the past. You can't expect a pilot to make such religious 
decisions himself while busily keeping a 747 airborne, especially if 
the pilot is chiloni.




David S. Finch
dfinch847@aol.com



________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

On 1/4/07, Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
> Torts laws are about damages, who is liable and how much, but Hezeq
> alone [with full intention of restitution] is still forbidden.

Hezek is forbidden, but under other issurim - whether it be gezel, lo
tuchal l'his'aleim, ve'ahavta lereiacha kamocha, whatever it be.  The
mitzvah in Parshas Mishpatim of Bor is a mitzvah of tort laws, not a
religious directive.  (ie it's a mitzvah on Beis Din to judge certain
cases in a certain way, not a mitzvah on individuals.)

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> A & C Walters wrote:
> >> On the contrary, from the quote you provided it seems that they were
> >> pronounced exactly the same, and the difference was only in writing.

> > You misread. I wrote, bishmoy: "even though it seems that there is no 
> > difference between a kometz and a pasach, this is not so, in that the 
> > kometz is a higher sound and the pasach is lower"
 
> What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
> and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.

I can't read Hebrew characters here, so I don't know what phrase you
realized he was using.

Could "higher/lower" refer to higher/lower in the mouth/throat?
aw or oo are made at the front of the mouth, with the lips, while
aah is farther back, hence lower in the body.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

You learn something new every day...

The Chido in his peirush Pesach Einayim on Mesechta RH mentions
that just as neshomos are freed from Gehenom every Shabbos - so it is  
every Rosh Chodesh.

He cites the Mordechai in Arvei Pesochim, which indeed writes this.
(I suppose some will now be wishing for 3 days RCh...)

The interesting thing is that he also writes that on Yom Tov there 
is no such relief...

SBA

Wed, 3 Jan 2007 from: R. Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org

> ...I was able to dig up evidence that the
Ptolmeic model was accepted by Chazal in Rebbe's day. ... <

Care to share?

Zvi Lampel



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070105/3e522331/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 01:29:50PM -0500, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: Actually the Steipler held that the Issur Hezeq is Lo Sukhal Lehisaleim 
: (The lo sa'asei of Hashavas Aveidah)...

This is more consistant with the rishonim. The Minchas Chinukh seems to
be the only source for saying that lifnei iveir could be applied beyond
the realm of bad advice.

:                                                     the Steipler quotes 
: the MH's Sevara as a source to Biur HaGRA who held that Hezeq is an 
: Issur Torah

Why? Right after providing a different pasuq as the basis of the issur he
argues the Gra's de'Oraisa from a chiddush of the MC which runs directly
against the Sifra as quoted by Rshi (thanks RJF for confirming that).

: Digging a Bor Bereshus harabim is absolutely an Issur, the Mahloqes 
: Aharonim is wether it is an Issur Torah, or Issur Derabanan...

And, if I understand RMK's point correctly, the idiom "bor birshus
harabim" does not relate to the issur, but comes from a discussion of
paying the consequent damages. (I'm not clear on the limits of what's
called "tort law" so I'm posting this as an opportunity to be corrected.)

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:51:15PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:> To get the conversation back to the point... The two sounds were different
:> in the Ashkenazi havarah of the period.

: Were they?  When did Ashkenazim begin distinguishing them?

The question is when did Ashkenazim start distinguishing between patach
and segol. Rashi calls the segol a "patach qatan" (Bereishis 41:35). In
this he follows Bavli niqud, which uses the same symbol for patach and
segol. (As I commented in the past, I think this is a data point against
the theory about Ashkenazi halakhah pulling more from EY.)

I am still seeking where Rashi comments on the problem of saying sheim
adnus with a patach.

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:10:01PM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
: The Yemenite kamatz sounds much like the Ashkenazi kamatz with which
: we are familiar.  Given the assertion that the current Ashkenazi
: kamatz is a recent development (in relative terms), is this just a
: coincidence, rather than a reflection of a common origin?

Well, if a havarah would evolve a distinction that wasn't there before,
it's more likely to be the product of hypercorrection. Today people
borrow information from the Teimani havarah if they want to lengthen
the dalet in echad (of Shema). I therefore think that if there were a
point at which the Ashkenazi qamatz developed, I think it most likely
it would have been a conscious imitation of someone else's qamatz.
Neither coincidence nor common origin.

Cross fertilization is also possible.

Along similar lines... Is the banana curl long peiah common among some
Ashkenazi qehilos and among some Teimanim argue common origin, conscious
immitation, or cultural cross-fertilization? In this case, I think that
concept of long peios is from common ancestry, but the style is simply
a common solution to the same aesthetic and pragmatic problem.

: Also, I don't recall hearing this before from other Yemenites, but
: there is one person whom I hear lain frequently according to his
: Yemenite tradition, and he pronounces the cholam in a way that
: strongly resembles the Polish "oy."  Could there be anything to this?

R' Seth Mandel reported that some Teimani communities pronounce
the cholam closer to the Litvish /oe/ (which I can attest is his own
pronunciation). Perhaps that's what your friend is doing, or some cross
between /oe/ and the /o/ sound he hears from his peers.

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:22:02PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
:> What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
:> and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.

: I can't read Hebrew characters here, so I don't know what phrase you
: realized he was using.

It's a discussion of mivta, and descirbes "tenu'ah haqamatz gevohah
va'elyhonah". Doesn't that have to mean accoustically higher?

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On 1/6/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> And, if I understand RMK's point correctly, the idiom "bor birshus
> harabim" does not relate to the issur, but comes from a discussion of
> paying the consequent damages. (I'm not clear on the limits of what's
> called "tort law" so I'm posting this as an opportunity to be corrected.)

Correct.  (Of course, common usage has expanded bor birshus harabbim to a
broader sense, but halachically it is more limited.)

According to Wikipedia, "Tort is a legal term that means civil wrong, as
opposed to a criminal wrong."  According to that hagdara, tort law is what
the Torah includes in the mitzvos of Bor, etc, which are mitzvos on Beis
Din, as opposed to Lo Sigzol or Lo Suchal L'his'aleim, which are mitzvos
on individuals.

It seems a parallel conversation is going on on mail-jewish. A number of
people pointed me to <http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v53/mj_v53i57.html#CMD>,
a pretty encyclopedic post by R' Mechy Frankel.

I would also point you to R' Alex Heppenheimer's reply at
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v53/mj_v53i63.html#CNQ>.

Proper netiquette is to reply to their posts on mail-jewish, the forum on which
they were posted. But since people here are obviously interested in the topic,
I thought those of us who do not read mail-jewish (e.g. those to busy running a
different list) would appreciate knowing it's there.

(And if anyone can explain to me how people who belong to both lists decide what
to post to which, I would greatly appreciate it. Kindly email me privately at
<micha@aishdas.org>.)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

RETurkel wrote:
>That does not necessarily mean a chanukiya. There are
>opinions that lighting a chanukiya began only at the end of the
>second Temple days. Until then they relied on the Menorah in
>the Temple. That explains why Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel can
>argue about the order of lighting. It still was not settled almost
>22 years after Chanukah.
>Josephus does not seem to be aware of lighting chanukiyot.
>Since it was meant to be done outside to publicize the miracle it
>seems strange than a historian of the times looking into reasons
>was not aware of the custom. However if the custom
>just began at the time of the destruction it would explain why
>it still was not widespread and why the details were being argued.

The gemorah, Rosh Hashono 18b, is discussing whether megillas taanis is
botul, and attempts to bring a proof from that one may not fast on chanukah
after churban habayis. The gemorah says:
Rav Yosef said, chanukah is different that there is the mitzva. Abaye said
to him, so it should be botul and it's mitzva should be botul [ i.e. if
megilas taanis is botul and chanukah loses it's special status, the mitzva
which is the cause of that special status should also finish]. Instead said
Rav Yosef, chanukah is different that the neis is publicised. Rashi - it was
already revealed to all yisroel through that which they kept it's mitzvos.

We see from this gemorah that:
1) The mitzvos of chanukah were kept during the second temple period.
2) They were widely kept.

It still needs to be explained how Chazal were mataken a mitzva that no one
had to keep for hundreds of years, and only after the churban. What were
they thinking?



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 22, Issue 29
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."