Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 155

Thu, 19 Jul 2007

• 1. Re: Adakm vs. ish (Eli Linas)
• 2. When was the last korban? (Yisrael Medad)
• 3. Re: kesuvah (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: When was the last korban? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Fw: [Areivim] A Picture Perfect Friday Night (Micha Berger)
• 6. YGB - ??"? : Audio of a Shiur I gave last night to a Machsom l'Fi group (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 7. First class and second class (economy) travel - in the Midbar (SBA)
• 8. Re: First class and second class (economy) travel - in the Midbar (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Re: First class and second class (economy) travel - in the Midbar (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: First class and second class (economy) travel - in theMidbar (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: First class and second class (economy) travel - in theMidbar (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: kesuvah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: kamztah and bar-kamztah (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: First class and second class (economy) travel - in theMidbar (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Kid Goat (was kesuvah) (Moshe Y. Gluck)

At 11:49 PM 7/16/2007, you wrote:
> > Anybody have any yedios about the difference between adam and ish
> > (aside from Meir Shapiro's arvus vort)? Please give mekoros?
>
>Ish includes non Jews, whereas Adam is specifically about Jews. Drashot
>abound, but IIRC it is nicely covered in Encyclopedia haTalmudit.
>--
>Arie Folger


                                                                                 Bs"d
Thanks for the idea. As far as E h'T, I actually already looked there 
and didn't come up with anything. However, I did come across a very 
helpful (and long!) Malbim on Vayikra 1:2

Eli

I just realized I have Meir Meisels' book, "Pesach K'Hilchato".  It was
published in the late summer of 1967 and is a 157 page treatise basically
advocating the renewal of the Pesach sacrifice.

He claims that the story of the disguised Nochri of Psachim 3A and Rabi
Yehudah ben B'tairah took place after the Churban as well as the story of
Antonius and Rabi in Yerushalmi Megillah 1:11.  He quotes Ashtori HaParchi,
Chapt. 6, as hearing that Yehiel of Paris was pro-Korban Pesach, a few more
sources that others here have mentioned and more, and then finishes with Rav
Tzvi Pesach Frank.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070718/71bea88c/attachment-0001.htm 

RAM wrote:
> Yes, they do have the right to do the get now and do the financial
> negotiations later. My fear is that the wife may be unduly pressured
> into accepting this, and unreasonably forfeiting her kesuba as a
> result.
>
> It seems to me that a more appropriate procedure would be for her to
> receive the kesuba (however much that might be in today's money) at
> the time the get is given, and count it as a partial payment towards
> whatever other money might be due to her later.

I  see a different problem. If the couple waits until after the finances are 
done, the husband may either withhold the get to get even with his wife, or 
use it to regain some of the financial assets. Furthermore, in some cases, 
there is a mitzvah to get the get as soon as possible in order to avoid niuf 
with an eishes ish. However, the ba'alei din have the right to wait with the 
get until financial issues are dealt with.

BTW, considering how large divorce settlements can get, I am not much bothered 
by the woman losing out her "extra" 200 zequqim from the ketubah in the 
process. I might not be alone in this. Nowadays the ketubah is more important 
inasmuch as the obligations during the marriage and if the woman becomes 
widowed, are concerned.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Wed, July 18, 2007 2:06 pm, Yisrael Medad wrote:
: He claims that the story of the disguised Nochri of Psachim 3A and
: Rabi Yehudah ben B'tairah took place after the Churban as well as the
: story of Antonius and Rabi in Yerushalmi Megillah 1:11....

Hillel was handed the title by the benei Beseira. That would make R'
Yehudah ben Beseira old enough to have been a leading figure in the
Sanhedrin at the time Hillel returned to EY. The churban was a century
later (Shabbos 15a) -- Hillel, R Shim'on, R Gamliel haZaqein, R
Shim'on ben Gamliel, and R' Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Rebbi, OTOH, would have to be after the churban. R' Aqiva died around
135 CE, the days of Hadrian y"sh and the demise of the Bar Kochva
rebellion. That means (taking his amazing longevity as historical) he
would have started teaching in 95CE. After churban bayis. Add to that
R' Meir and Rebbe.... That discussion /had/ to be after churban bayis.


In 130 CE Hadrian had Turnus Rufus plow over Har haBayis. This makes
it onto the list of 5 tragedies of 9 beAv. Why? I mean it's bad, but
is it in the same league as the meraglim, the two churbanos, and the
fall of Beitar (which one roman source claimed was the murder of
580,000 people, aside from the concomitant hopes of immediate
ge'ulah)?

One theory is that the plowing refers to making a pomerium, the furrow
that marks the border of a Roman city -- a symbolic act of turning Y-m
into Aelona Capitolina.

But Chazal refer to Har haBayis.

Others associate it with a first step, the ground was being prepared
for building a temple to Zeus. But Antiochus's similar desecration
isn't listed.

This is before Bar Kochva could have possibly started a third bayis --
the plowing was in 130, he came to power in 132 CE.

But if we assume that until Hadrian took control of the har, at least
occasional offering of qorbanos were possible, then the plowing marks
the final end of qorbanos as a form of avodas Hashem for almost two
millenia.

And that is without a question on the same scale as the other tragedies.

Tziyon bemishpat tipadeh, veshaveha bitzdaqah,
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, July 14, 2007 11:35 pm, SBA wrote:
: People shouldn't drive on Shabbos, but if they drive to shul instead
: of to the movies that's surely a good thing;

: I wonder if this is accepted by all - that mitzva habo be'aveireh is
: preferable to aveireh habo be'aveirah..??

I would think it involves a discussion of aveirah lishmah. It seems to
me driving to shul by a tinoq shenishba qualifies.

I therefore CC-ed RYGB, who has a developed theory about the
Izhibitzer shitah on aveirah lishmah and has a more than passing
contact with Chabad.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: YGB - ??"?
Post: Audio of a Shiur I gave last night to a Machsom l'Fi group
Link:
http://rygb.blogspot.com/2007/07/audio-of-shiur-i-gave-last-night-to.html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070718/f7ce8806/attachment.html 

First occurrence of first and second class travel?

Baal Haturim, Devorim 1:31: dh 'Bechol Haderech asher Halachtem':

"...loshon rabim, shelo hoyo haderech lekulon beshoveh, eloh lechol 
echod ve'echod lefi mah shehoyo tzorich - hoyo ha'anan noseh oso - 
yesh bagovoha veyesh benomuch..." 
(source Sifri - which IIRC mentions 7 'classes')

SBA

There were also three classes of meal service. See Yoma 75a:

Three verses are written [Num. xv. 9]: "When the dew fell upon the camp in
the night the manna fell upon it"; and [Ex. xvi. 4]: "The people shall go
out, and gather"; and [Num. xi. 8]: "The people went about, and gathered
it." How shall the three verses be reconciled? This is meant: For the
upright [tzaddikim], the manna came down at the door of their tents; for the
general [beinonim] , they went out and found it; the wicked [resha`im] had
to seek it, till they found it. In Exodus it is written, "bread from heaven
"; and [Num. xi. 4], "made cakes of it "; and [ibid.] "ground it." How shall
these be reconciled? For the righteous, there was bread ready; as for the
general, they made cakes of the flour; and the wicked had to grind it

(quoting from the online translation at
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom13.htm to save time. Not intended as
a blanket endorsement or recommendation of that translation)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070719/8a7a4913/attachment.htm 

On Thu, July 19, 2007 4:58 am, SBA wrote:
: First occurrence of first and second class travel?
: Baal Haturim, Devorim 1:31: dh 'Bechol Haderech asher Halachtem':
: "...loshon rabim, shelo hoyo haderech lekulon beshoveh, eloh lechol
: echod ve'echod lefi mah shehoyo tzorich - hoyo ha'anan noseh oso -
: yesh bagovoha veyesh benomuch..."
: (source Sifri - which IIRC mentions 7 'classes')

Except that the key words are "shehaya tzarikh" -- it's not service
graded by how you much you paid (sekhar) but by what you need.

In Economy, you get something averaged out for what most people need
given the money they want to spend. Therefore the food is served to
the group at one specific time. Individual attention to what you need
is First Class treatment.

The difference is that Hashem knows sometimes one needs hardship,
whereas an airline just tries to give you what you think you need (and
thus, usually, what you want).

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 


	
	
	 
	This is meant: For the upright [tzaddikim], the manna came down
at the door of their tents;  
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
	 
	For just them or for their families and dependents as well?
	
	KT
	Joel Rich 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070719/5a8eaa2f/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, July 19, 2007 11:14 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> This is meant: For the upright [tzaddikim], the manna came down
:> at the door of their tents;

: For just them or for their families and dependents as well?

Is there any reason not to assume the location of the mon depended on
the zekhus of whomever went to collect it (rather than the consumer)?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Tue, July 17, 2007 7:50 am, Arie Folger wrote:
:> ... and why doesn't this reduce it to an aspachta [asmachta --AF]?

: Because the ketubah isn't only about what the wife will get when she
: gets a get (puns intended), but both the support owed while married
: and the maintenance owed after her husband dies.

First, let me think you for your honesty, admitting to that pun being
intentional. The idiom "no pun intended" seems to really mean "pun
intended". But getting to the point...

A single codicil on a kesuvah can make the whole shetar an asmachta.
This is the problem with the Leiberman clause. Which is not only
restricted to covering the case of divorce, but only to the case of
civil divorce with no get forthcoming -- a very rare resolution of the
contract.

I therefore fail to understand your answer.


On Tue, July 17, 2007 9:26 am, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Probably the amounts were sufficient to cover the ketubah.  Were you
: married in Galut or Israel?  In Israel, they often put realistic
: amounts on the ketubah (as a tosefet); in Galut, statutory amounts
: (200 zuz, 200 zekukim).

Just because of the season, I will nit-pick: Galus isn't a place, it's
a metaphysical state. Galus Yavan was entirely within the period of
Bayis Sheini. Galus is galus haShechinah, hesteir Panim, etc...

I think you meant "golah".

:> How much money (in modern currency) is the kesuvah supposed to be,
:> anyway?

: Some sources say "enough for food and clothing [not shelter,
: apparently] for a year", which might be, say, $5000?

: The weights of silver translate to: 200 zuz, 11.5 oz. troy, 200
: zekukim, 115 oz. troy.

I understand your translation from zuz to dollars, given the price of
silver.

Here's something from a discussion we had on scjm in Apr '00:

The zuz is a unit of currency found often in the Talmud, there it is
assumed to be identical to the silver dinar, both being 1/4 of a sela
or 1/2 of a shekel. (A gold dinar is worth 25 silver dinar.)

- A zuz was day's wages for unskilled labor (Bava Basra 86b).
- 4 zuz was a more typical person's day's wages (BM 76a)
- A wife is permitted to demand a minimum of 1/6 of a zuz a week for
personal luxuries.
- 200 zuz is a young bride's kesuvah, 100 is a  widow's.
- 200 zuz was also the poverty line (Peu'ah 8:8, Sotah 21b), in terms
of who can take gleanings for the poor

Some more metrics on the going buying power of a zuz:
- 1,000 zuz (250 sela) would buy a house of a field (BM 48a)
- 3 sela (12 zuz) would buy a beged le'oreg.

And of course a kid goat is 2 zuzei.

So, 200 zuz is exactly poverty level; well below norm, even below
minimum wage, below an average year's income.

Here is my problem: Since 200 zuz is a shiur for getting leqet
shikhechah upei'ah means that 200 zuz is associated with buying food,
and doesn't necessarily cover clothing. Or were people collecting LSP
and selling some of it to buy their other needs?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, July 15, 2007 4:04 am, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: The Jews on the contrary always act without thinking of the
: consequences (see last Tosafot Gittin 65b).... In the last two
: stories the Jews start up with the Romans over minor customs that
: certainly are not within "yehareg ve-al ya-aovor".

Except that besha'as hashemad, you can't even cave in on shoelace
color, no? Is that because one is hiding Jewish identity, or because
in times of shemad, every hanhagah is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor?

On Sun, July 15, 2007 9:12 am, Rich, R Joel wrote:
: There's a similar issue where the Roman's sent 2 emissaries to
: determine whether the torah was biased against non-Jews.  They were
: taught all of torah and found 2 examples but decided not to report.
: Why didn't chazal simply leave these out? IIRC R'Bleich explained
: that ziyuf hatora must override pikuach nefesh even on this scale...

RZbA wasn't avoiding ziyuf haTorah, he was avoiding a shema yomeru
that would be mezayeif. RZbA wasn't simply unthinkingly machmir. He
was over-thinkingly machmir, worried for the wrong things.

And besides, how would that be anvanuso?

It would seem his problem was inappropriate modesty. The simple take
that he was afraid to take a stand. Judging from his words, it was a
fear of being an inadvertent machti. But perhaps R' Gamliel is saying
he came up with seemingly valid explanations of behavior that had a
flawed underlying motivation.

On Tue, July 17, 2007 8:02 am, RAMkennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' SBA asked [in reply to RJR, above]:
:> What about all the changes made by the chachomim involved with
:> translating the Septuagent

: The answer I've heard to this is that the Septuagint changes were not
: severe enough to count as ziyuf. See the sugya in Megilla 9a-9b. It
: seems to me that they simply included the perush as part of the
: translation. A good example of this was translating "vaychal bayom
: hashvii" as "He completed on the sixth day and rested on the seventh
: day."

Is ziyuf haTorah limited to misrepresenting halakhah? Or perhaps
misreprestenting TSBP? In either case, it would explain why the
emendations to the translation in Targum LXX.

Or we could just explore the impossibility of exact translations, in
which case the question is how loose a translation can be and still
count as not modifying. I think this is slightly more extreme than
RAM's notion that they put TSBP into the TSPK; I'm adding the point
that it is altogether impossible to do otherwise -- one can't
translate TSBK without entering TSBP territory.

But I'm curious about the halakhah of ziyuf, and if it requires a
nafqa mina lema'aseh to fall under the issur.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 


On Thu, July 19, 2007 11:14 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> This is meant: For the upright [tzaddikim], the manna came down :> at
the door of their tents;

: For just them or for their families and dependents as well?

Is there any reason not to assume the location of the mon depended on
the zekhus of whomever went to collect it (rather than the consumer)?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi
========================================
Is it clear that an unmarried son couldn't get it for his dad?
KT
Joel
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' MB quoting scjm:
And of course a kid goat is 2 zuzei.



Actually, I don't know if that is so Pashut - see Berachos 44b, where the
Gemara refers to a "Gadya Bar Zuza," and Rashi explains that it's talking
about a kid goat that is "Shamein V'tov, She'shaveh Zuz." What the
significance of the Hagaddah's goat being worth two Zuz is relative to this
Gemara (as my BIL, Meir HaKohen Friedland, pointed out when we were learning
this) escapes me. (if the kid goat is Klal Yisroel, maybe the RBSO
overpaid?)

KT,
MYG



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 155
***************************************

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..."