Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 4

Mon, 15 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: How Bitter Can A Month Be? Bittersweet. (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Abra(ha)m Received an A+ / Gematria (Joshua Meisner)
• 3. Re: When was the Torah given to Moshe? [was: Resh Lakish] (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: When was the Torah given to Moshe? [was: Resh Lakish] (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Abra(ha)m Received An A+ (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 7. tower of bavel (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Reish Lakish (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 9. parshas Noach question (M Cohen)
• 10. minhag to argue (Jonathan Baker)
• 11. Re: German siddur questions (Elliott Shevin)
• 12. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (Elliott Shevin)
• 13. Re: "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh" (Richard Wolpoe)

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> I've seen this explanation before -- there was an article about it in 
> Jewish Action, a few years ago -- but it does raise some questions.  
> Akkadian is a cognate language to Hebrew, a Semitic language, but most 
> of the other names of the Hebrew months seem to be Babylonian names -- 
> not Semitic.

Akkadian was the language of Bavel and Ashur.  All the month names
come from Akkadian.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

R' Zev Sero wrote:

 There's no natural law that implies 100 as
> a universal divisor, it's just something people started doing, because
> it makes calculations easy given the Indian numeric system that we use
> today.  I know of no source in the Torah or TSBP for such a convention,
> and I don't believe that one existed in those days, among either Jews
> or goyim.
>
> Nor can I think of anywhere where 100 is used to imply completeness.
> On the contrary, we have other numbers that are used to mean shleimus,
> especially 60.
>

Being that the original discussion was based on a gematria, it's worthwhile
to note that that gematria utilizes a base-10 system in which units of 10
represent levels of completion, i.e., (10^0)x, (10^1)x, and (10^2)x.  For
argument's sake, one could as easily conceive a base-7 gematria system in
which the values are 1,2...7,14,21...49, 98, etc.  This being the case, if
one doesn't have a problem darshening one's own gematria, one shouldn't have
a problem with adopting the base-10 convention, either.

Given RZS' observation that powers of 10 are nowhere else used to imply
completeness, though,  it is quite curious that the system of gematria
should be set up in this fashion.  Why is this the case?

- Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/b317fc01/attachment-0001.htm 

T613K@aol.com wrote:
 
> What I was wondering was, when and where did Moshe Rabbeinu receive the 
> whole Torah?   If he received it on Har Sinai, did he come down from the 
> mountain carrying, not only two slabs of stone, but also a whole sefer 
> Torah?!  Or did he receive part of it on Har Sinai (minus everything 
> that happened after Ma'amad Har Sinai) and bring down a lighter, smaller 
> scroll to which he later added as events occurred?  Or did he receive 
> both the Written and Oral Torah orally and transcribe the Written Torah 
> from memory after he came down from the mountain?  And again, was it the 
> whole Torah that he wrote all at once, including events that were yet to 
> occur, or only the Torah up to the point of Ma'amad Har Sinai, adding to 
> it later as events unfolded?
>  
> BTW I know that there are two opinions about the end of the Torah, 
> describing Moshe's death -- an opinion that he wrote those pesukim 
> prophetically and an opinion that they were written by Yehoshu after 
> Moshe's death.   Can someone please provide me with the exact quotes and 
> who says which opinion?  And again, if these verses were written by 
> Moshe -- when did he write them?  On Har Sinai, or right after he came 
> down from Har Sinai, or shortly before his death?

AFAIK there is no question that the Torah was not written down until
the day before Moshe's death.  Nor AFAIK does anyone hold that the
actual text of the Torah as we have it was given earlier than that
date.  The question is only when he was taught the laws that are in
the Torah.  IOW when Moshe came down from the Mountain he knew either
a) all the 613 mitzvos, including that of writing a sefer torah,
which isn't written until the end of Devarim; or b) only the mitzvos
that are written in Sefer Shemos.  But either way, the text of our
five chumashim was only dictated to him before his death.

BTW, are we forced to say that that was on the very last day possible,
Friday 6th Adar 2490?  And that on that day he wrote 13 copies?  Or is
it possible that the dictation started several days or weeks earlier,
some time after Rosh Chodesh Shevat, which makes his feat of safrus
slightly less formidable, though I don't know any sofer who could write
13 sifrei torah in less than 4 years!


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
 
R' Zev Sero writes:

>>The question is only when he was taught the laws that are  in
the Torah.  IOW when Moshe came down from the Mountain he knew  either
a) all the 613 mitzvos, including that of writing a sefer  torah,
which isn't written until the end of Devarim; or b) only the  mitzvos
that are written in Sefer Shemos.  But either way, the text of  our
five chumashim was only dictated to him before his  death.<<






>>>>>
Thank you.
 
But we always speak of Matan Torah as having taken place on Har  Sinai -- as 
if Moshe was given the whole Torah on Har Sinai.  Anyway, the  idea that Moshe 
was taught the laws on Har Sinai -- not the entire text of the  Chumash -- 
does fit in with that.
 


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



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/4045a442/attachment-0001.html 

 


Or ten perdec, or a thousand permil, or twelve perdoz, or any other
divisor one wishes to use.  There's no natural law that implies 100 as a
universal divisor, it's just something people started doing, because it
makes calculations easy given the Indian numeric system that we use
today.  I know of no source in the Torah or TSBP for such a convention,
and I don't believe that one existed in those days, among either Jews or
goyim.

Nor can I think of anywhere where 100 is used to imply completeness.
On the contrary, we have other numbers that are used to mean shleimus,
especially 60.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this
Court's
===================================================================
Which days - biblical or Talmudic?
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.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:18:53AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: (1) The Torah nowhere refers to Shavuos as "atzeres." It is the Talmud
: which does, and which uses the unmodified term to refer exclusively
: to Shavuos.

<Doesn't the relevence of that observation depend on whether tefillos
are written in leshon Tanakh or leshon Chazal?>

     Not when it is in response to a proof being adduced from the Torah's use of the term.

EMT

 

According to simple pshat all mankind lived in Bavel until the tower
of Bavel and following
dispersion. According to the standard chronology this occurred shortly
before the year 2000
from creation i.e. some 3800 years ago.

1. Noach, Shem, Ever, Abraham were all alive no one seemed to have any influence
especially since everyone there was a descendent of Noach (and Shem?)

2. Avraham goes to Canaan some 25 years later. At that time Ur, and most
of mesoptamia and Caanan and Eygpt is well populated with kings and
major governments etc. According to the parsha this all occurred
within an exceeding short time.

In general were there any people in EY before the dispersion?

3. The usual question of secular records that indicate dynasties older
than 3800 years old
some in the middle east and some far away.

Thanks

-- 
Eli Turkel

This addressed his "as well as", but RJR raises a good point.

It seemed obvious to me that different people find this "eilu" vs that"eilu" because of their own lives and kishronos. However, take thisidea to far and one ends up with the heresy of the Historical School --that Torah is created by personal need and expediency.

Saying personal negius would determine which aspect of amitah shel Torahone most readily sees is different than saying that the negius /replace/the search for emes. But drawing the line between them is non-trivial.

Tir'u baTov!-Micha

iirc R" HS has said that to say that R'YBSs and the S'Rs positions on the heter mchira were related to their positions on zionism is  (i don't remember if he said apikorsus or just wrong)

ktjoel 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.

someone asked me the following very simple question - and I don't have an
answer for them.

1. Rashi says that the first thing that Noach did after leaving the ark was
to plant the vineyard
2. Rashi says that as a result of the drinking and actions of cham, he
cursed cham's 4th son k'naan
3. even though k'naan had relations in the ark, lo shamanu that he had
children there.  The yotzei hatevah were only Noach and sons and wives.
(although I did find some that say that k'naan was actually the first son,
and was born as they left the ark)

question - where did k'naan come from?

it would appear that we are incorrect in assuming that the planting/etc
occurred shortly after leaving the ark

(and yet its difficult to say that Noah sat around for several yrs doing
nothing, and then finally when he decided to plant incorrectly planted a
vineyard first)


if you have seen anything on this, pls let me know where to look

thanks,
Mordechai Cohen




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/e316d107/attachment.htm 

RnTK:
> My husband davened in a shul once where an argument erupted over whether to  
> do X or Y (something that comes up every year).  He asked them, "Don't you  
> remember what you did last year?  What is the minhag of the shul?"   They 
> replied, "The minhag of the shul is to argue about this every  year."

When I was in Park Slope, I almost saw this kind of thing develop.
There was one vowel in leining that each year became an argument 
between the rabbi and the baal kriah - a chataf-patach that was kinda
hard to pronounce as a patach, and generally slipped into a schwa.

The rabbi would stop the baal kriah and have him reread it as a patach;
the baal kriah, feeling he had done it right the first time, wouldn't want
to, which would draw others in checking chumash texts.  I think part of
the problem was that some chumashim had a plain patach (always ah), and
some had a chataf-patach.  And the baal-kriah, who was a dikduk-geek, 
knew that chataf-patach can be legally pronounced either as a patach or
as a schwa.

This argument happened 2-3 years in a row, then we moved away; I don't
know if the baal kriah has yet convinced the rabbi.

Also, if I have details wrong, I know he won't hesitate to correct me.

* * * 

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

R. Richard Wolpoe writes:> > 3) (Google translation: From the evening of the 59th Day after Tekufas Tishrei,> > either on the 5th Or 6 December fall until Pesach is here, "Tal Umattar"> > turned on.)> > We all know that in Chu"l you start saying v'sein tal umattar on the 4th> > or 5th of December. Why does this siddur say the 5th or 6th?> > R. Michael Poppers replies:> > It means the EVE [i.e ma'ariv] before the 5th of 6th.> Just to reconcile the note with R. Poppers' comment: is it possible the note is found in Shacharis? Thus no problem--tal umattar would have been said starting the previous night, the 4th or 5th. Elly
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!? Play Star Shuffle:? the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/597d48d1/attachment.html 

Rn. Toby Katz writes: > Of course tevillah is a mitzva in the sense that once you became nidah, if > you are a married woman and if you want to be with your husband, you have to > go to the mikva. But you had no chiyuv to become nidah or to be married....>  And sukkah is a mitvah if you're not too infirm to perform it--but you didn't have a chiyv to be healthy (only to *strive* to be healthy). Providing a get is a mitzvah--but you didn't have a chiyuv to get into an unhappy marriage.> Whoever first said, "There are two mitzvos that are performed with the > entire body" had in mind this definition of mitzva: an obligation incumbent upon > everyone. (Or, incumbent upon every Jewish man, to be more precise.)It doesn't make sense to me to rule out any mitzvah simply because it's situational; an awful lot of them are. Is there a source for your assertion? Elly
_________________________________________________________________
Boo!?Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/367887c9/attachment.htm 

On 10/14/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:18:53AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> : (1) The Torah nowhere refers to Shavuos as "atzeres." It is the Talmud
> : which does, and which uses the unmodified term to refer exclusively
> : to Shavuos.
>
> Doesn't the relevence of that observation depend on whether tefillos
> are written in leshon Tanakh or leshon Chazal?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> _______________________________________________
>

lav Davka because my comments and the Rema's wer resricted to a given
passage and not based upon global rules. Rema is saying - aisi -that THIS
paragraph is using lashon Tanach, he is not making a sweeping
generalization. [davar halomeid mei'inyono]

so you cannot bring a  Rabbinical Term where  Rema is saying it must conform
to a Biblical Term.  Othre pasages might not have that  restriction

IF YOUR WERE RIGHT: then
hag matzos would be   Pesach,
Shavuos      would be  Atzeres
Sukkos        would be  Hag

 The use of Hag Hamatzos is a tip off to lashon Tanach.

Rema AISI is dirsregarding broad concepts that other modern Rabbis like to
impose and is being sensitive to the text QUA THE TEXT.







-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/077a9c65/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 4
*************************************

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..."