Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 6

Mon, 15 Oct 2007

• 1. parshas Noach question (Ilana Sober)
• 2. Tishrei/Tishri Parsha/Sedra (RallisW@aol.com)
• 3. heter mechira and zionism (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the Private Worshiper? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Dawn's Early Light (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. minhag to argue (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: Abra(ha)m Received an A+ / Gematria (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Abra(ha)m Received an A+ / Gematria (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Abra(ha)m Received an A+ / Gematria (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Dawn's Early Light (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: When was the Torah given to Moshe? [was: Resh Lakish] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. The Lecha in Lech lecha (Richard Wolpoe)

RMC: "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)"

I don't really know anything about agriculture, but I would imagine that
grapevines probably take several years to reach maturity and produce a
decent harvest of grapes.

- Ilana

-- 
Note that this is my NEW email address. The old one no longer works. Please
update your address book.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071015/01c603f6/attachment.html 

Which term is correct?
 
The seventh month is Tishrei or Tishri (Tishri is written one of the first  
slichos of Tzom Gedalyah)?
 
Is the weekly Torah portion called a Parsha (a portion of the Chumash  
dealing with a particular subject) or a Sedra?
 
If Tishri and Sedra are the proper respective terms, why are they not more  
commonly used?



************************************** 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/20071015/75421e12/attachment.htm 

<<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)>>

ROY in his recent halacha yomit points out that several of the
original opponents to heter mechira belonged to chovevei tzion. RYBS
himself was personally against heter mechira . CI although against
heter mechira used many kulot in the otzar bet din to help the
farmers. So I dont see a connection between helping Jewish farmers and
heter mechira. Even the Maharil Diskin and Badatz upheld the heter
mechira when the situation was bad enough

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, October 15, 2007 12:08 pm, R Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> This is similar to the idea I was trying to convey when I lamented
:> about the large number of people who aspire to say Berikh Shemei but
:> are already unwinding for leining (or their bein gavra legavra
:> chat). People simply don't care.
:
: Eh... some people aspire NOT to say Berikh Shemi....

Exactly who I was thinking of when I phrased it that way.

Even among those who believe one is supposed to say it, in many shuls
they aren't anyway. And so how could someone following a minhag (or
sevarah-based pesaq) to intentionally not say Berikh Shemei be
considered poreish min hatzibbur in such shuls?

...
: May be LOR should also teach the ideas behind the various minhaggim
: and we should sometimes decide for some standard, even if it isn't
: Artscroll's.

My problem with saying "we follow ArtScroll" is just that; it means
that the rav was being arbitrary (we are stocked with AS siddurim,
so...) rather than following precedent or sevara. Personally, I am
more irritated by the lack of sevara, but I accept your
generalization.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

My shul subscribes (via webcast) to the Motzaei Shabbos Navi Shiur given each week by Rabbi Yisroel Reisman. He raised an interesting question this week, but I missed the answer (or perhaps he left it unanswered). Those who would like to hear the shiur can go to http://preview.tinyurl.com/2jvhzq (There is a fee.)

The title of the shiur (which I've taken for this thread) was "Dawn's Early Light", in which he goes into various aspects of the period of time from Alos Hashachar to Sunrise, and the period from Sunset to Tzeis Hakochavim. He noted that the Gemara (Pesachim 93-94) has various discussions about how long these intervals last, but there is one constant throughout that whole sugya: It is taken for granted that however long they last, they both last for the same duration.

The unanswered question is: But that makes no sense! It is much darker at Alos Hashachar (when the entire sky is pitch black except for a tiny bit of light on the eastern horizon) and not quite so dark at Tzeis Hakochavim (when only three medium-sized stars are visible scattered across the whole sky). Using these definitions, The time from Alos to Sunrise ought to be a lot longer than the time from Sunset to Tzeis.

Rabbi Reisman did note that in many communities (including mine) the time from Alos to Sunrise is taken to be 72 minutes year-round, while the time from Sunset to Tzeis is noticeably shorter. This difference fits our understanding of how the times are defined. But this distinction seems to have eluded everyone mentioned there in Pesachim. Does anyone comment on this oddity?

Akiva Miller

From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>

<<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.>>

Inquiring mesorah-type minds would like to know which.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Joshua Meisner asked:
> 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 ... ...
> 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?

I have not been following this thread too closely, but it seems to me that gematria is base-10 NOT because of any drashos about "completeness" or whatever. Rather, gematria is based on the Torah's number system, and the Torah's number system is base-10.

This is easily seen by looking at the HEBREW version of any pasuk mentioning a number eleven or greater. (Try not to get distracted by English translations which which use other number systems, and translate the number "shiv'im" as "threescore and ten", for example.)

Akiva Miller

 
 
From: "Joshua Meisner" _jmeisner@gmail.com_ (mailto:jmeisner@gmail.com) 





>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. [--RZS]
>

<<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....
 
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



>>>>>
I didn't really understand what RZS said, to tell you the truth.   Maybe 
there is no place where the number "one hundred" is used to signify  completeness, 
but the Torah (and the Hebrew language) definitely uses base-10  arithmetic.  
Esser, esrim, shloshim, arba'im etc.
 
The number 100 and multiples of 100 seem to be commonly used in Tanach as  
nice, round numbers.  Avraham planted and reaped 100 times that year (Ber  
26:12).  Avraham's children will be in Egypt for 400 years.  The  Egyptians chased 
them with 600 chariots.  A hundred of you will chase ten  thousand of them 
(Vayikra 26:8).  Shaul wanted David to bring him a dowry  of me'ah orlos 
Pelishtim.  If a man has a hundred children....(Koheles  6:3).  In Shushan the Jews 
killed 300 men.  I could probably come up  with a hundred examples....
 
What /is/ correct is that there does not seem to be any concept in Torah of  
100% or any % -- a ratio of so many parts per one hundred.  Also there are  no 
numerals until the Arabs bring them from India, so arithmetic is clumsy and  
mostly done in your head.  So maybe that's what RZS meant.

 

--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/20071015/31d91ced/attachment.html 

On Mon, October 15, 2007 4:06 pm, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I have not been following this thread too closely, but it seems to me
: that gematria is base-10 NOT because of any drashos about
: "completeness" or whatever. Rather, gematria is based on the Torah's
: number system, and the Torah's number system is base-10.

I would have said that 10 does symbolize completion... The world is 10
Maamaros. The whole Torah is contained in 10 diberos. (One is
converted to the other via 10 diberos.) This is a theme in Avos, no?
The whole world is captured in 10 principles, then 7, then 4, then 3
-- leading us back to the opening of the book at its close (ignoring
the added pereq, which isn't mishnayos).

The fact that there are 10 numbers is in Seifer Yetzirah - combined
with the letters to make 32 gates.

10 sefiros are the sum of all spiritual forces / organizing principles.

RAM's more exoteric statement holds -- numbers are described in Tanakh
in base 10 (although "Ashtei-Asar" is an exception, it does so by
replacing the word for one, not by eliminating the concept of "ten
plus").

The same Borei who used 10 maamaros, sefiros, diberos and fingers
wrote the counts of seifer Bamidbar. Arguing which is fundamental and
led to the others is not particularly meaningful.

However, we don't find 100 that way. 40, as in 10 maamaros times 4
elements per maamar, yes. 6 x 10 for the physical world, and 7 x 10
for total completeness, also. (Although 70 also is an idiom for
"many", so misham eino ra'ayah.) But 10 x 10?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> He noted that the Gemara (Pesachim 93-94) has various discussions about
> how long these intervals last, but there is one constant throughout that
> whole sugya: It is taken for granted that however long they last, they
> both last for the same duration.

That is the basis for what is now known as "shitat Rabbenu Tam", that
TzHK is at the end of "a walk of 4 mil" (whatever that means) from sunset,
just as AHS is a the beginning of "a walk of 4 mil" before sunrise,
and all shorter shiurim that are mentioned take place at the end of
this period, not at its beginning.  According to this shita, TzHK means
not three stars but "tzeit KOL hakochavim".

The shita of the geonim is that the definition of AHS is the first light,
when nearly all the stars are still visible, while the definition of TzHK
is the first darkness, when nearly all the stars are still invisible,
or "kaasher yesh adayin or hayom ketzat".   According to this view, the
TzHK discussed in Pesachim is not the halachic TzHK but merely the
astronomical time that corresponds to AHS, when all the stars are out,
and has no halachic significance.


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

On 10/15/07, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>
> T613K@aol.com wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > *
> > *
> > **


Disclaimer:  The following is merely a thought, an idea.

If one were to completely set aside what Hazal said - then what would you
say?
I would posit that as per the end of BehhikosAY,  X amount of Torah was
given at Sinai
and as per Ki Savo another chunk [viz. Bamidar and Devarim] as given at Ohel
Mo'ed at Avvos Mo'av   And yes Ohel Mo'ed might inlcude parshas Vayikra.

Well let's see, can this peshat be fit into the words of Hazal?  Not without
the help of a BIG shoe-horn! Nevertheless there could be a slight opening
here.

As per Ramban, The Kedusha of Sinai was transferred TO the Ohel Mo'eid.





  So now look at it THIS way.

Hashem gives entire Torah at Sinai.  The entirety of this Torah is NOT given
directly to Moshe at that time, rather Hashem transmits the
software/firmware into Ohel Mo'ed.  All of Torah that had been in shomayyim
has been taken  down from the mountain, but not all of it is known. [hence
questions re: Pesach Sheini and Bnos Zlofchod.]  The transfer of Torah
continues during the Arvos Mo'ab experience unilt by Moshe's death the
corpus is complete.

Bifurcate:  Matan Torah is 100% at Sinai From HKBH.  Transmission is
complete and much of it is it zip files or as a software Oracle

For those who have seen Superman I the Movie, Jor-el Talks to his Son Kal-el
based upon pre-recorded modules of Chrystal. Jor-el himself has exit ted,
but he created an  oracle for future consultation.


Kabbalas Torah is now an on-going process of taking stuff from 120 days and
night at Sinai plus further downloading by Moshe from the MiBein Hakeruvim.
This was password protected from others doing the same download?

and Is it possible that Moshe did not download ALL of Torah?

Well maybe Moshe JUST downloaded the 5 humashim but the havayos of Abbeye
and Rava are downloaded later.  Hence continuous revelation. But continuous
Revelation is not Hashem continuing to REVEAL new Torah, it is merely WE are
accessing more of the original download.  This dovetails with the Gmara in
Brachos that says all Megillos etc. are also miSinai. This also answers how
a G'zeria Shava could be between Humash and Megillah.


It also answer how could thee be bechira.  The download had not yet been
deciphered or accessed as of yet.It could also accomodate that Yerushalayyim
was chosen at Sinai and that Z'man Skimchaseinu referred to Binyan Beis
haMikdash at Sinai, but was not known yet.

It would also explain how the AriZal downloaded NEW Torah w/o resorting to
tradition.

But then again this is ONLY an idea.


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/20071015/814bf5ae/attachment.htm 

Why is this lecha such a "redundancy"?
There are other examples such as
shalch lecha
kach lecha
hishamer lecha
v'safarta lecha
etc. etc.

It appears taht pashut Ivris uses this as a simple direct or indirect
object.   Therefore it appears to me that the lecha is being used as a
"straw man" to make a nice Drasha.  And there is after all  really a LOT of
nice Torah on this [see Ba'al haturim for several nice  ones.} But the
peshat seems to  work as it is w/o any difficulty.

Then again we learn halachos from ulkachtem lachem...


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/b671d193/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 6
*************************************

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..."