Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 43

Sun, 01 Mar 2009

• 1. amah size (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 2. Re: amah size (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 3. Which Is It? (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Re: Original Sin (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. The True Pshat About Two in the Wilderness with Only Enough Water for One (Meir Rabi)
• 6. Re: Friday Nighr blessings (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Sources for several wedding customs (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: Printed Ketuva: is it Kosher? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Which Is It? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Sources for several wedding customs (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Printed Ketuva: is it Kosher? (Harry Maryles)
• 12. Re: Printed Ketuva: is it Kosher? (Harry Maryles)
• 13. Re: Original Sin (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: The True Pshat About Two in the Wilderness with Only Enough Water for One (Zev Sero)
• 15. Minhagei Belz for Talleisim (Mike Miller)
• 16. Knowledge (Yitzchok Levine)
• 17. Re: Friday Nighr blessings (Michael Poppers)
• 18. Who wrote Megillas Esther? (Marty Bluke)

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/teruma/gra.html  mishkan's gold 
quantity related to dimention of the amah 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090225/1c6a8926/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:35:30 -0800
Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:

> http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/teruma/gra.html  mishkan's gold 
> quantity related to dimention of the amah 

The argument against the large Amah hinges on this point:

"The only way of resolving this contradiction with respect to the
?large cubit? is to assume that the ark cover was hollow, or that the
weight of the ark cover is not related to its external measurements.
However, there is no support for such as assumption in the literature
on the Torah."

But this is incorrect; the author missed a couple of important sources:

Ralbag [0] deals with essentially the same point as the author, that
the total gold collected would not have sufficed for the construction
of the Aron if we accept Hazal's declarations of its dimensions
literally (the author is discussing the Kapores, while Ralbag is
discussing the Aronos themselves).  Ralbag therefore concludes that
Hazal were exaggerating:

"It is impossible that the thickness of the gold Aronos was a Tefah,
as Hazal have said, since it would be impossible to complete even one
of these Aronos with this thickness with all the gold mentioned in
Pekudei that was used for the work, and this will be clear to anyone
who has studied a little geometry

But Hazal have said this to teach that these Aronos had a perceptible
thickness"

Tashbaz [1] also discusses this and other problems with the sufficiency
of the collected quantity of gold, and he proposes the *exact solution*
that the author claims has "no support ... in the literature on the
Torah":

"And with regard to the Kapores being a Tefah [thick], we can resolve
this [by proposing] that only the walls [of the Kapores] were so, but
the rest of it was thin ... in order to answer the great question of
how so little gold could have sufficed for this thickness of the
Kapores"

The notes to the Machon Yerushalayim edition of Tashbaz mention that
the work "Midos U'Mishkalos Shel Torah" [2] discusses the weight and
shape of the Kapores at length.

[0] beginning of Terumah:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19168&;pgnum=200
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19168&;pgnum=201

[1] Resp. III:70, found in the notes to the Ma'aleh Adumim edition
of Ralbag

[2] R. G. Y. Weiss, Yerushalayim 5745, Ch. 147 n. 3

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

We are taught:
Following Mattan Torah, and before the sin of the egel hazahav, the  
Jewish people were on the level of tzaddikim. Then they committed the  
sin of the Golden Calf. My question is:
If they were truly righteous (which is what tzaddikim means), then how  
could they have even considered committing such an egregious sin? If  
you want to tell me that even tzaddikim sin, then we have a  
contradiction of terms. Either they were not tzaddikim or the egel  
hazahav was really not a sin in its context. And how can that be when  
the Torah depicts it as a sin
worthy of chayav missa.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090226/9ab39f3e/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> What I find interesting is that we don't believe in
> "original sin" and yet, the cheit eitz hadaas WAS
> the original, first sin. We all have suffered its
> consequences until this very day.

Not only do we continue to suffer for it, but we even continue to atone for
it: "Another reason [why it is the woman who lights the Shabbos candles] is
that she extinguished the light of the world, that she brought death to
Adam Harishon." (Mishneh Brurah 463:12)

No, we don't give that sin the extreme weight that the Christians do, but
we're not off scot-free either. It is just one more thing that we've
inherited from our ancestors, along with various other zechusim and
negatives.

> It seems to me that since Adam Harishon and Chava had no
> precedent in history (obviously) about sin, how could they
> really comprehend the nature of sin, and its gravity, never
> having even seen another case nor experienced anything like
> it. In addition, the mitzvah of not eating from the tree
> was a chok. It would seem a pretty difficult way to begin
> life by being given a chok without ever having the slightest
> idea of a rational mitzvah or a mishpat. Anyone agree?

Excellent questions, but they don't really bother me much. I'll explain why.

There are a LOT of things about Adam that I don't understand. I started to
write that his understanding of the world was much deeper and stronger than
that of anyone since. But that's not really accurate. Rather, his
understanding of the world was of an entirely different nature than
everyone else's, so much so that any comparison is undefined. Imagine - he
understood the nature of each animal so well that he could give each one
its perfect name!

Imagine, waking up to be the first person to ever live. With no parents to
teach him, he rose as a fully-developed adult. How did he learn to walk?
How did he learn to talk? How did he choose what each word meant? Adam was
not merely the first human. If I remember correctly, the malachim were
unsure whether he was a human or a god.

I don't know how he knew all these things. But he clearly did know them. I
don't see much of a jump from Adam's knowing all that, to expecting him to
understand the concept of sin. When the Creator speaks in audible tones,
and says "Don't eat that!", it is a command which he should obey.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click now to find the perfect Christmas lights for your decorations!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsLp6ciefTb8wDlrEbutcQbvCskCdhAJY24qJusOTFnSGuGJbpGeeE/

 

It is clear from the Gemara [and Rashi] of Bava Metzia 62a that according to
Rebbi Akivah the rule of ChaYecha KodMim DOES NOT always apply. In some
situations Rebbi Akiva Paskens that the water MUST be shared and both should
perish.

 

What is that case?

 

 

 

Meir Rabi

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090226/ff00199a/attachment-0001.htm>

I had written that the Torah Temimah, in Parshas Naso, page 82, wrote
> that the Gra gave a bracha to the Noda B'Yehuda at his
> wedding with only one hand, because using two hands is
> done only for Birkas Kohanim.

I strongly suspect that the Noda B'Yehuda was not the subject of that
story. The person is actually identified by the Torah Temimah as
"heh-gimel-mem resh-yud-ches Landau Moreh Tzedek d'Vilna". My wild guess at
the abbreviations was that it stood for "Hagaon Moreinu Rav Yechezkel"
(with the ches being part of Yechezkel rather than a second name).

Although the Nodeh B'Yehuda is most famous his work in Prague, I figured
that perhaps he was also the rav of Vilna for a while, and that he was the
person referred to by the Torah Temimah. However I have been assured that
he was not ever the rav of Vilna; the Torah Temimah's story must have been
about someone else.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click to find the right international program for you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsPRsUl9AqUJansWnoVfk2QxhaI1zE9ldRJggBCCXNAKxNs5JowhFm/

A friend asked if anyone knows the sources of the following customs:

1) The custom that seems to have developed over the last 6 years or so (or
more?) of the bride and groom blessing their friends at the wedding
2) The custom of summoning the deceased to join the couple under the chupa.
(Someone told me it's from the Zohar. I can look that up but does anyone
know of another source?)
3) The custom of the groom wrapping the tallit around the bride after he
makes the shehechayanu on it. Someone told me it's a "Carlebach" thing (the
part where they go totally under the tallit, like hidden); I suspect there's
some Sephardi influence there as well.

Anyone have any source information about the above? Please write the group 
and cc  t...@wholefamily.com.

Thanks

Ben 

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I think the question had more to do with why that last quph
> (or the entire word "veqanina") had to be done at the wedding.
> The reason is mechzei keshaqra if it's not done at the time
> of the qinyan, not the vailidity of the kesuvah.

"Veqanina" is more of a mechzei keshaqra than "amar lah... hevi li l'intu" ???

(This was not an original thought. Listmember Rav E.M. Teitz wrote this and much more in Avodah 23:171.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Lower your HR expense and increase your profit.  Click here for free info.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHOydjnqoGOA5keQdf91cE6tiUJmOSiN68nb6h8mxQu1wXfKTTx4U/

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> We are taught: 
> Following Mattan Torah, and before the sin of the egel hazahav, the 
> Jewish people were on the level of /tzaddikim/.

If you mean that they were tzadikim by the Tanya's definition, what is
your source?  If they were merely "tzadik badin", innocent in judgment,
all that means is that their previous sins were all forgiven and they
had not yet committed any new ones.  In that sense every ger emerges
from the mikveh a tzadik; but very few stay that way.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:59:11AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: A friend asked if anyone knows the sources of the following customs:
: 1) The custom that seems to have developed over the last 6 years or so (or
: more?) of the bride and groom blessing their friends at the wedding

I wonder about the permissability of this one. Yes, it's an eis ratzon
and all that. But eilu devarim... vehachnasas kallah.... Is this really
the right time to ask her to leave her own joy and share in the pain of
her friends who haven't found anyone yet?

...
: 3) The custom of the groom wrapping the tallit around the bride after he
: makes the shehechayanu on it. Someone told me it's a "Carlebach" thing (the
: part where they go totally under the tallit, like hidden); I suspect there's
: some Sephardi influence there as well.

As well as Yekkish. RSC might have been leveraging his ancestors' minhag
for how the couple hear sheva berakhos under the chuppah. Sepharadim do
it as well, but given RSC's origins, I more suspect some Yekki
influence.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
Danny Schoemann wrote:
> While watching a Mesader Kidushin painstakingly fill out 2(!) copies
> of a Ketuva, I started wondering.  Would it be OK to have the entire
> document pre-printed; including the names, places and dates?
> Is there some reason why everything but the signatures are not prepared
beforehand?

Indeed it is OK, and there is a service <http://kesuba.org> that will do
it for you, all but the signatures and the foot of the kuf in
"vekanina".
===============================
?
Not only is what R' Zev says true - one does not even need the word Kanina
to be missing the Kuf. It can all be pre-printed. What makes the shtar
valid is the signature of the Eidim. Or the handing over of it by the groom
to the bride witnessed by Eidim (Eidei Mesirah Karti).
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090226/2fa910e1/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

I think the question had more to do with why that last quph (or the
entire word "veqanina") had to be done at the wedding.

The reason is mechzei keshaqra if it's not done at the time of the
qinyan, not the vailidity of the kesuvah. Tannaim too.


?
=============================
?
As I indicated in my last comment.?the Kuf?is not Me-akev. The whole idea
behind leaving the kuf out is that the Eidim are supposed to witness the
Kinayn Sudar that Chasan makes on the Kesuba. Once that happens the Kuf is
filled in. But there is no Shtar w/o Eidim. (Eidm Chasumim Al HaShatr
Naaseh K'Mi Shenechkaru B'Bes Din.). It is the Eidm that validate it and
nothing more.
?
I discussed this with RAS's, son - R' Eliyahu -?who is a Baki in all his father's?Teshuvos and he corroborated this.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090226/bc63a0da/attachment-0001.htm>

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Cantor Wolberg wrote:

>> What I find interesting is that we don't believe in
>> "original sin" and yet, the cheit eitz hadaas WAS
>> the original, first sin. We all have suffered its
>> consequences until this very day.

> No, we don't give that sin the extreme weight that the Christians do,
> but we're not off scot-free either. It is just one more thing that
> we've inherited from our ancestors, along with various other zechusim
> and negatives.

AIUI, and as I've explained it to Xians, we believe that the Fall
affected only the body and not the soul.  As a result of the Fall, the
body is subject to suffering, decay, and ultimately death; that is
undeniable.  But the "neshama shenatata bi tehora hi"; the neshama is
not Fallen, and comes into the world needing no salvation, other than
whatever private cheshbon it accumulated in previous incarnations.
Therefore we are not born into a sort of spiritual peonage, and have no
need for a Saviour.   *That* is what the Fall means to Xians, and in
that sense we don't believe in it; but the mere fact that it happened
and had permanent consequences, that we do believe.

We also don't believe in Hell, or that as little as one aveira would
be enough to send someone there.  We believe it *is* possible to be
justified by the Law, because aveirot can be a) outweighed by mitzvot;
b) forgiven through teshuvah; c) atoned for by suffering or Purgatory.
Therefore Xians are wrong in supposing that a near-unattainable
perfection is required, and therefore that justification by the Law
is a mug's game.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Meir Rabi wrote:
 
> It is clear from the Gemara [and Rashi] of Bava Metzia 62a that 
> according to Rebbi Akivah the rule of ChaYecha KodMim DOES NOT always 
> apply. In some situations Rebbi Akiva Paskens that the water MUST be 
> shared and both should perish.

The obvious answer is when the water belongs to both.  But surely that's
too obvious to ask, and I can't find a less obvious answer in the sugya.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

From http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/G
eneral+News/30998/Belz+Dayonim+Shlita+Discuss+Shatnez+Talleisim.html:

Quote:

> The Belzer Beis Din instructed Rav Mordechai Brisk to seek out a factory in Eretz Yisrael suitable to manufacture the talleisim in
> accordance to Belz specifications and under the Machzikei Hadas hechsher.

> The beis din expressed the hope that they will soon succeed closing a deal with a factory in Eretz Yisrael that will comply with the
> halachic and traditional Belz stringencies and manufacture talleisim in accordance to minhagei Belz in compliance to the strictest
> halachic dictates, thereby eliminating the need for imports as has been the case in the past.

Does anyone know what different minhagim Belz have from "standard" ashkenazim?

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

In RSRH's commentary on Shemos 25:39 there is a 
long explanation dealing with the significance of 
the Menorah.  Towards the end of this Rav Hirsch writes:

All knowledge of the world must lead to the perception of God?s
existence and work in the world, and to the perception of the world as
derived from God. All knowledge of the Torah must lead to the fear of
God, to man?s knowledge and awareness of his own personal relationship
with God, to the desire to be a servant of God in the world He
has created.

Otherwise, the germs of deeds that should build the world and
eternity ? germs hidden in man?s capacity to make free decisions and
to act ? will lie dormant. The seeds will degenerate, and the noblest
and godliest qualities in man will remain unborn, because all his wisdom
and understanding, counsel and strength, will lack the vivifying and
guiding spirit of God.

The spirit of God dwells only where all wisdom and understanding
culminate in knowledge of God, and all counsel and strength culminate
in the fear of God; where knowledge of God and the fear of God admit
the spirit of God to fructify human counsel and strength; where counsel
and strength are offered (by the knowledge and fear of God) to the
spirit of God, in order to attain life.

Daas HaShem v'Yiras HaShem are the ?petals? which 
cause God?s fructifying and vivifying
spirit to rest on the seeds which produce the resolutions and powers
of human action. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090226/6d2de2d0/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest V26#42, RAM wrote:
> I found some sources for this in "Sefer Shema Beni / A Halachic 
> Compendium on the laws of Child Rearing" by Rabbi Dovid Weinberger. He 
> writes:
>> Even older children, including married children, should receive brochos 
>> from their parents.
> His sources include:
> - Maavar Yabok 43.
> - Yesodei Yeshurun, section "Kiddush", that one should use both hands.
> - Pachad Yitzchak note 2, pg 54 - to use one hand for a single child, but 
> both hands for a married son.
> - Shu"t Be'er Moshe vol 4, #125 - that the Yaave"tz says to use both 
> hands.
> - Torah Temimah, Naso -- that the Gr"a used only one hand, to avoid 
> appearing like Birkas Kohanim.
> Of those seforim, I have only the last one, and it seems to be slightly 
> off-topic....

It's not the only source (see my next paragraph) which is "off-topic."
In the RProfDS article RAM noted (again, the URL is
<http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/vayechi/sper.html>), note the
language (presumably a translation :)) of the "Pachad Yitzchaq" quote:

<< I have seen some fastidious people who do not bless *their disciples*
{emphasis mine --MP} with both hands, and say that it should be done
thus so as not to mix mercy with strict judgment. I, however, used to
bless those who were married with both hands, one for him and the other
for his wife, and bachelors with one hand. >>

(Granted, the "note 2" may be the aspect speaking of married *children* -- 
unfortunately, the edition of PY which RProfDS mentions does not appear to 
be available at HebrewBooks.org [and I couldn't find the text in question 
within the "PY HaShaleim" which *is* at that site].  Perhaps we should 
contact RProfDS?  [Also see next paragraph -- could it be that RProfDS was 
merely relying on the Yesodei Yeshurun reference?!])

I'm sorry, but I see less of a relationship between the Rebbe-talmid
relationship and the minhag of Bircas haBanim (BhB) which I thought we
were discussing than between BhB and RSG's example of Ya'aqov Avinu on
his deathbed, and I already expressed my opinion to RSG re that latter
example :). Perhaps we should take a step back and consider the archetypes
of b'rachos and of s'michos yad in the Torah -- hopefully, we can agree
that many, if not all, contribute something to the discussion of BhB but
aren't similar enough for us to draw concrete conclusions about BhB (like
whether n'giah is hutrah or d'chuyah :) and/or whether it even entered
into the original definition of the custom as brought down by RYE <for
those who didn't take my advice and [re]visit Avodah v8, at least read
RSBA's brief post at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n020.shtml#06 >
and others [as you'll soon see re MY if you keep reading this post...]).

Re the three other sources noted by RDW as per RAM:
- "Maavar Yabok 43" apparently refers to Chapter 43 of the Sifsei R'nanos 
section of MY (pp. 390ff. in the HebrewBooks.org older-printing [circa 
1626 CE] PDF available via http://hebrewbooks.org/11774 , or go to 
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11774&;pgnum=390 ).  Allow me to 
translate its very first words: "They say in Pereq 'Gidul Banim': 'When a 
man places his hand on the head of the *minor child* {emphasis mine --MP}, 
....'"  'nuf said 'bout that source (but I encourage everyone to read 
further, as the author talks about specifically blessing one's children, 
whether sons or daughters, on leil Shabbos, and there certainly is more of 
interest even to those who are not m'qubbalim...) -- I saw nothing in it 
re married children.

- 'Yesodei Yeshurun, section "Kiddush"' refers to a contemporary
(specifically, 20th c. CE) publication, the relevant section of which
can be found in Vol. 3/6 (published 1958), the Shabbos-specific
volume (pp. 204ff. in the HebrewBooks.org PDF available via
http://hebrewbooks.org/4173 , or go to
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=4173&;pgnum=204&hilite= ).
The author indeed writes (as a "yeish nohagin") about the father blessing
even married sons -- once again, allow me to translate: "...and some have
the custom to bless the married son with both hands, on behalf of him and
his wife, and the unmarried son with one hand [source: Pachad Yitzchaq
Os Beis Daf Nun-Daled]." On the same page, he notes many other aspects
of BhB -- by all means, ayin sham. I find it interesting that the noted
source sounds awfully like RProfDS's noted source -- thing is, PY is an
encyclopedia, so "Os Beis" would seemingly refer to the letter Beis,
not to a note 2! yet in the PY editions I looked at, there aren't 54
"Beis"-related pages, there isn't a numbered p.54 referring to a word
starting with the letter "beis" or to any topic related to BhB, and I
could find no entry related to BhB!

- "Shu"t Be'er Moshe vol 4, #125" (if it's "Yesodei Yeshurun," shouldn't
the transliteration be "Bei'er Moshe"? :)) is another contemporary source.
 My first assumption was that "#125" referred to Siman 125, but the SHuT
there (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14710&;pgnum=468&hilite=)
seems totally unrelated to BhB. I then checked p.125 -- also no
relationship to our topic. I then checked the same two possibilities
for Vol 3, as Vol.s 3 and 4 are in the same PDF -- nope and nope -- and
the same two possibilities (where extant) in the other six volumes --
nope and nope. Seems like either the cite has a typo re the particular
sh'eilah or it refers to the SHuT of an author other than RMStern --
HebrewBooks.org had a few such s'farim available, but I couldn't find
anything relevant.

In summary, one contemporary source referring to fathers blessing married
sons which takes its lead from an older source whose text must be Out
There Somewhere but eluded me. The sources for fathers blessing minor
children are available for perusal and of older vintage (and RSBA may
not be the only one to note that the author of Seifer "Ma'avar Yaboq,"
RAB'rachia, is at least a contemporary of, if not slightly older than,
the "Chacham Tzvi," RYEmden's father, whom RSBA spoke of in that Avodah
v8 post).

Shabbas Shalom/A guten Shabbes and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

At first glance the answer seems obvious, Mordechai as it says in the
Megilla. In fact Rashi comments on the pasuk, "Vayichtov Mordechai" -
that Mordechai wrote the Megilla AS WE HAVE IT. However, the Gemara in
Bava Basra seems to contradict this. The Gemara there details who
wrote each one of the 24 sefarim of Tanach. The Gemara says  that the
Anshei Knesset Hagedola wrote: Yechezkel, Trei Asar, Daniel, and
Esther. Rashi explains that all of these happened in chutz laaretz and
lo nitna nevua likasev b'chutz laaretz. Therefore the Anshei Knesset
Hagedola wrote them later in Israel.

So who wrote Megilas Esther? Mordechai or the Anshei Knesset Hagedola?
In truth, Mordechai was a member of the Anshei Knesset Hagedola
however that doesn't help us for 2 reasons:

1. The Anshei Knesset Hagedola did not yet exist at the time of Purim,
it was only created after the second beis hamikdash was built
2. Mordechai wrote the Megilla in Shushan and as Rashi explained Nevua
cannot be written outside of Israel. The whole reason why the Anshei
Knesset Hagedola wrote these seforim is specifically because the
events occured in chu"l and they needed to be written in Israel.

The Brisker Rav has a fascinating answer. The Rambam in Hilchos
Megilla leaves out certain dinim (ibud lishma, the way to write the 10
sons of Haman, etc.). On the other hand, the Megilla has other dinim
that are the same as a sefer torah that don't apply to other kesuvim.
The Brisker Rav explains that there are 2 dinim of Megilla.

1. Megilla as a sefer/letter that was written by Mordechai right after
Purim. This did not have the status of being part of Tanach. At that
time the Chachamim created a chiyuv to read that sefer that Mordechai
wrote
2. Megilla as part of Tanach.

Based on this he explains why the Rambam left out certain dinim and
included certain dinim.

What comes out is that according to the Brisker Rav, Megillas Esther
was written twice. The first time, in Shushan by Mordechai, it was not
part of Tanach and had no kedusha. However, this is the sefer that we
are chayav to read on Purim. Later in Israel the Anshei Knesset
Hagedola rewrote the sefer and included it as part of Tanach.

What does it mean that the Anshei Knesset Hagedola wrote the sefer in
Israel . The simple understanding of the Gemara in Bava Basra is that
they actually rewrote the whole sefer ???? ???? as Rashi explicitly
writes that they wrote the seforim in Israel. What is amazing is that
the Anshei Knesset Hagedola wrote ???? ???? the exact same thing word
for word as what Mordechai wrote in Shushan. The chiyuv to read the
Megilla is what Mordechai wrote in Shushan and we only have 1 version.

To summarize, according to the Brisker Rav Megillas Esther was written
twice. Firt it was written right after the events in Shushan by
Moredechai. This sefer is what we are commanded to read on Purim.
Years later, the Anshei Knesset Hagedola convened and rewrote the
sefer b'ruach hakodesh and made it part of Tanach.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 43
**************************************

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..."