Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 52

Tue, 17 Mar 2009

• 1. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (SBA)
• 2. Re: superstition (Akiva Blum)
• 3. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (Zev Sero)
• 4. birchas hachamah (Eli Turkel)
• 5. The term 'erusin' (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Cheilek LeOlam Habah/Impunity/Years (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: women reading megilla (Michael Poppers)
• 8. Re: superstition (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The term 'erusin' (Micha Berger)
• 11. Gettin Drunk on Purim (harveyben...@yahoo.com)
• 12. Re: reasons for torah loopholes in dinei mamonos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] Fwd: moiser (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 14. Lashon Hora on the Dead (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 15. Re: bittul (AES)
• 16. Re: bittul (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Choshen (T6...@aol.com)
• 18. Re: Cheilek LeOlam Habah/Impunity/Years (Micha Berger)
• 19. Re: Choshen (Gershon Dubin)
• 20. Re: Choshen (Micha Berger)

From: SBA [mailto:s...@sba2.com] 
I have scanned the page from the sefer yotzros "Ron shir voshevach"
which discusses the Kallir and Talmud Yerushalmi quoting Siddur Tefila
Yeshara.
Will send upon request.
>>

Now available here:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/ronShirVashevach.pdf>

>>>>>
 

I agree with RET that this sounds like something superstitious, as does  
cutting all your nails out of order (and also making sure to gather all your  nail 
parings lest a pregnant woman step on one and miscarry) 

<<<<<<<<<

That one's different. It's in the gemora. Moed Katan 18a, reason included.

Akiva

SBA wrote:
> From: SBA [mailto:s...@sba2.com] 
> I have scanned the page from the sefer yotzros "Ron shir voshevach"
> which discusses the Kallir and Talmud Yerushalmi quoting Siddur Tefila
> Yeshara.
> Now available here:
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/ronShirVashevach.pdf>

The commentary refers to the Kallir's krovot for Hoshana Rabba, 17 Tammuz,
10 Tevet, and 9 Av, all of which have been lost, but are known not to
have had anything for Et Tzemach.

The Italian nusach (Machzor Livorno) has no krovot for Purim or Hoshana
Rabba, but does have them for 17 Tammuz, 10 Tevet, and 9 Av.  I don't
know whether they're by the Kallir, but I can say that none of them have
anything for Et Tzemach.  The ones for 17 Tammuz and 10 Tevet have a
piece for every other bracha.  The one for 9 Av has nothing from Et
Tzmeach to the end of Shmoneh Esreh. (It also includes all the kinnot
in the bracha of Veliyrushalayim, just as it includes the selichot for
all the fasts in Selach Lanu, but there's a note saying that it's better
to delay the kinnot until after shmoneh esreh, so as to minimise the
hefsek.)


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

<<One of RYR's Qs essentially was "If 'B'Tishri nivra ha'olam,' why do we say
Bircas haChamah in Nisan?" w/ his answer being (based on a Tos'fos in BT
Rosh haShanah 27) that we hold like R'Eliezer (b'Tishri) in the world of
machshavah and like R'Y'hoshua (b'Nisan) in the world of ma'aseh >>

I am not overly thrilled with the phrase world of maasseh.
First as we all know birchas hachamah is based on the length of the year of
Shmuel which is not correct.
Furthermore we then get into the science debate with virtually no scientist
taking the 5768 years literally in terms of modern day days or years

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' R Wolpe wrote: Another example: "Hallah".
It means loaf and also refers to Kind of "terumah" taken from the dough.
The mishna refers to the latter but on Shabbas most non-kohanim eat
the former while temei'im...

This is very true. It reminds me of two things. Certain minhagim have  
evolved
over the years which become halacha. Also certain minhagim have  
changed in
some manner.  The second thing that came to mind -- somewhere I remember
learning that the first 10 men to arrive for a minyan get more s'char  
than those
that follow. Hence, let's say there are a hundred men at a minyan. It  
wouldn't be
perceived as 90 minus 10 but rather 10 plus 90, indicating that the  
FIRST 10 are
on a higher level, albeit negligible.

ri

R' Harvey wrote: If someone explicitly tells Hashem that he would like  
to give up his Cheilek in Olam Haba to effectuate a desirable outcome,  
such as to Bring Moshiach,                               or to obtain  
a Refuah for someone, (or e.g., to obtain the healthy release of Gilad  
Shalit, etc), is such an arrangement valid and binding?  Such stories  
exist in Chasidic Literature...

This is something I have always found fascinating. It seems like a  
chutzpa to tell HaShem to take away your cheilek in O.H. If that's  
valid, then you might as well ask HaShem
to take away your cheilek in Gehinnom. The mere fact of asking HaShem  
to take away your cheilek in O.H. implies that you unequivocally  
deserve the cheilek to begin with.
That's where the chutzpa comes in. OTOH if you ask HaShem to take away  
your cheilek in Gehinnom, that is tefilla and shows how humble you are  
because you don't even
feel worthy of Gan Eden. Secondly, it would seem to me that a true  
Tzaddik would not make such a frivolous request. I believe the stories  
which exist in Chassidic literature are          parables and  
allegories.

Kol tuv.
ri

In Avodah Digest V26#50, RnCL wrote:
> In addition, the gabbai in my
husband's shul is already telling my son that if he gets some of psukei
d'zimra down pat, he can do them for the shul on shabbas morning. <
Why is that a chiddush, given that there's nothing said during p'suqei
d'zimra requiring someone to be motzi others or act as the shaliach
tzibbur.  In terms of anecdotal evidence, the gabboim of the shuls in
REMT's/my community seem intent on having boys say p'suqei d'zimra lifnei
haTeivah as a matter of chinuch (likewise for the Shabbos-morning section
of davening after the Qaddish "Tisqabal" for Musaf).

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090316/13ee7884/attachment-0001.htm>

 


I agree with RET that this sounds like something superstitious, as does
cutting all your nails out of order (and also making sure to gather all
your  nail parings lest a pregnant woman step on one and miscarry) 

<<<<<<<<<

That one's different. It's in the gemora. Moed Katan 18a, reason
included.

Akiva

============================================================
I'll B"N look more into it, but at first glance baanu lmachloket
rationalists and mystics. See:
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/03/audio-roundup-xxxii.html -4th entry
(R H' Schachter)
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.

I was asked off-list for my maqor for the assertion that Anshei Kenesses
haGedolah wrote the chasimos to the berakhos of Shemoneh Esrei. It's a
good question, so when I pulled out my notes to find it, I wanted to
share my answer with the whole chevrah

In Tamid 5:1 the tefillah of the kohanim is given as one berakhah (not
named, but R' Yehudah identifies it on Berakhos 12a as Ahavah Rabba
and Reish Laqish says Yotzeir Or), Aseres haDevarim (yes, the biblical
name, not "haDiberos"), Shema, Vehayah, Vayomer. Then three berakhos:
Emes veYatziv, Avodah, Birkhas Kohanim. And then the outgoing mishmar
would add a berakhah.

In short, then, I was wrong -- they said brikhas Avodah alone, without
the other 17.

That said, my error was because the gemara says the SHemoneh Esrei
did already exist.

Megillah 17b:
Tanya: Shim'on haPequli was mesadeir the 18 berakhos in Yavneh "al
haseiser".
R' Yochanan asks: The mishnah says 120 zeqienim uvahem qama neviim
(ie AKhG) established the 18 berakhos "al haseider". So, then, what
did Shim'on haPequli do?
Shakhechum vechazar veyasdum.

Otzar haMidrashim (Eisenstein pg 584 "tanya Shim'on haPequli") says that
"al haseider" here means "seider olam". This doesn't touch who set the
structure, but it's in my notes on that gemera. The sequence being:
    Avraham saved from Ur Kasdim - and the mal'akhim said birkhas Avos
    Yitzchaq left the Aqeidah alive - they said mechayeh hameisim
    When Yaaqov came and reached the shaarei Shamayim and was meqadeish
        sheim H' - haKel haQadosh

    Yoseif was tested by Par'oh for his wisdom (70 languages) - Atah
        chonein
    Re'uvein did teshuvah for maaseh Bilhah - haRotzeh bis-shuvah
    Yehudah veTamar - haMarbeh lisloach
    etc...

Yalqut Shim'oni (Shemu'el I "vatispallel chanah") says the 18 berakhos
dates back to Chanah! It says she says 18 berakhos, but then seems to
step back by identifying these "berakhos" with 18 phrases from her
tefillah:
    Ramah qarni BaH' = Avos
    H' meimis umchayeh
    Ain Qadosh KaH'

    Ki Keil Dei'os H'
    Venikhshalim azru chayil = haRotzeh bis-shuvah
    Morid Sheol Vaya'al = haMarbeh lisloach
    samachti biyshu'asekha = Go'el Yisrael
    Meiqim mei'afar dal = Rofei cholim
    Sevei'im belechem = Mevareikh hashanhim
    raglei chasidav yishmor = Meqabeitz nidchei amo Yisrael
    H' yadin afsei eretz = Oheiv tzedaqah umishpat
    Uresha'im bachoshekh yidmu = Makhnia' zeidim
    Vayitein us lemalko = bonei Y-m
    vayarem qeren meshikho = es tzemach David
    ve'ein Tzur ke'Elokeinu = Shomeia' tefillah

    Al tarbu tedabru gabohah = she'Osekha levadkha beyir'ah na'avod
    Yatza ataq mipikhem = haTov shimkha uLekha na'eh lehodoso
    veyitein oz lemalkhuso = Shalom

(Note the chasimah to Retzei according to the the Yalqut!)

So, I concluded that Chana came upon the list of topics, AKhG liked
it enough to set the chasimos of the 18 actual berakhos to it, and in
Yavneh they restored this structure.

RYBaer lists how the structure fell apart during bayis sheini.
    When we search deeper into what is written about Shmona Esrei in
    order to find the truth, we discover that it was a long standing
    practice within Judaism from the time that Jews became a nation to
    pray three times a day but not the exact Shemona Esrei that we recite
    today. Instead each person would recite what he felt in his heart;
    what his body and soul would want to express. That was the practice
    until the Jews returned to Israel after their exile to Babylonia
    at the time of the Great Assembly which then composed the Brachot;
    the Tephilot, the Kedushot and the Havdalot. They also composed
    18 individual Brachot to act as the Tefila which could be recited
    by anyone who wanted to recite the prayers with words that were
    appropriate and refined. But the initial purpose in composing these
    18 Brachot was not to establish a fixed text for everyone. From
    the beginning the 18 Brachot were composed for those who were not
    fluent in the language and who could not organize their prayers on
    their own in an appropriate manner. Over time, circumstances led to
    there being peace in Israel. In the time of the Hashmonaim, the Jews
    lived comfortably and discontinued the practice to recite certain
    Brachot. In particular, they discontinued reciting the Brachot that
    spoke of breaking the yoke of Exile like R'Aiy B'Onyainu; Hashiva
    Shoftainu and similar ones. Little by little the number of Brachot
    that were being recited dwindled until none of the Brachot were
    recited and they were forgotten. The Beit Din of Rabban Gamliel in
    Yavneh, 12 years after the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash had to
    re-compose the Shemona Esrei. They added one more Bracha in opposition
    to the Heretics. The prayer then became a prayer of 19 Brachot.
    They did not change the name of the prayer because they wanted the
    name to be the same as it was when it was originally named by the
    men of the Great Assembly. This prayer as it was established by
    the Beit Din of Rabban Gamliel was accepted by all of Judaism to
    be recited in accordance with its text. It became a rule that was
    never to be changed.

So, where did my error come from? The Tosefta says that the Nevi'im
shebiY-m established 24 areas of Israel, and Jews from each area
would be associated with a corresponding mishmar. Based on the pasuq,
"Tzav es BY ve'amarta aleihem, 'es qorbani lachmi...'" How can BY bring
a tamid? So, the mishnah (Taanis 4:1,3) talks about their leining maaseh
bereishis. Taanis 27b says "shehayu mispallelim al qorban acheihem
sheyisqabeil beratzon". This is the gemara that concludes that today,
tefillah is instead of qorbanos.

It's a jump, but what I was remembering was the possibility not that the
mishmar of kohanim said 18, but the mishmar of BY did.

So, it's not a clear Chazal that said it, and I even misremembered who I
theorized AkH wrote it for!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

But WRT eruv or challah, there is no problem of "yatza shemah ba'ir
'mequdeshes', mequdeshes" (Gittin 88b). This was mentioned in the
Nitei Gavriel, as quoted by RYG at the top of the discussion.

One would have to prove that lashon benei adam is the criterion here,
so that the current usage of "eirusin" doesn't create a qol of being
"mequdeshes". I think you can, but it does make the case far less
trivial than simply wanting to resist language drift.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

RWolberg: 
We know that certain things are said tongue in cheek. Many things that? 
are written are not to be taken literally, and I believe this is one? 
of them.? I find it hard to accept that one will be taken to task and???
punished because he didn't get drunk on Purim.

HB: The exact loshon found in the Gemarra (Megillah 7B) >>MeChayev
Inish LeVsumei BePuria<< is brought down in Shulchan Aruch (O.C.
695:2) and Kitzur SA (142:6).? Kitzur SA Prefaces the Gemmara's Loshon by
>>Chiyvo Raboteinu Zichronam Livracha LeHishtaker Bayayin.... so,
while the meforshim debate the exact applicabity and obligations re:
Getting Drunk on Purim, to say that the Gemmara's statement was made tounge
in cheek (and not as a tzivuey) I believe is incorrect and a misnomer. 

Further, immediately following the Gemarra's statement re: Getting Drunk on
Purim, comes the episode of Rabbah and R. Zeira, followed by another
chiyuuv discussion.? Namely, that one does not fulfill his obligation for a
seudah if it is done at night.? If the obligation to get drunk on Purim was
made tounge in cheek, then why not say the same thing about that
obligation?? (read: not consistent).
HB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090316/7abce9fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, March 15, 2009 2:39 pm, R M Cohen wrote:
: Does anyone know of possible explanations for these peturim in dinei
: mamonos?

Perhaps it's a raayah to the Ran (Derashos haRan #11) who says that
maintaining society is the job of the melekh. The role of halakhah and
Sanhedrin is entirely that of redemption; it only falls to them to
maintain an orderly society when the melekh isn't around. It changes
the whole concept of Choshein Mishpat, IMHO, to be speaking of how to
become a chaver rather than directly about monetary fairness.
(Although being fair is part of being a chaveir.) Again, *perhaps*.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:31:53 +0000
Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com> wrote [on Avodah, cited with
permission]:

> I meant to add, the Mishna Baba Basra 2/3 suggests that neighbours can
> prevent the opening of a store due to the noise of shoppers disturbing their
> sleep. Whether the 'chatzeir' mentioned in the mishna is analogous to an
> avenue in Boro Park is moot, but there could well be grounds for neighbours
> to object.

Note that the Sanzer Rav and the Pinsker Rav both argue that these
Halachos only apply to situations involving shared property, such as a
hazer or mavui, but not to the case of mere neighbors.

The Sanzer Rav:

"And that which MK"T has written that [the plaintiff] can protest
because of the noise, noone has ever had considered the possibility that
in such a case a neighbor may protest against his fellow who is neither
in the same hazer nor the same mavui, but a mere neighbor, that he can
say "I cannot sleep", and this is the custom in all Israel, that one
builds a house adjacent to his neighbor's and he constructs many
entrances within his property, and his neighbor cannot compel him and
claim that he is increasing the number of residents and that he
therefore cannot sleep"

Resp. Divre Haim HM I, end of #17:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=914&;pgnum=596

The Pinsker Rav:

Resp. Zekan Aharon II:137 (translation is left as an exercise for the
reader):

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=834&;pgnum=229

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

On Areivim, someone contended:
> I don't think Lashon Hara applies to the dead.

What about Berachos 19a, Hamesaper Achar Mitasan Shel Talmidei Chachamim
Nofel B'Gehennom? (See Maharasha, CA, earlier in the Sugya not like the
Aruch brought in the margin. The context of the Sugya also seems not like
the Aruch, and Maharsha seems to learn that Rashi is consistent with
Maharsha's own position.) The Medubar in that Areivim discussion might have
had other issues, but I believe Les Man D'palig that he was a TC.

KT,
MYG

>>>I assume that if we know that a piece of treif meat fell in a pot with
60 kosher pieces many people would forgo the steak even though
halachically it is kosher because of bittul. There are even shitot
that one can eat all 61 pieces (not at once) since each is a safek.
Again I assume many would forgo that privelege.>>>

======================================

R' Reisman discussed this a few weeks ago during his navi shiur.  He
said that there was a machlokes, with the Pischei Teshuvah holding
that if one wishes to be machmir, it is commendable, and the Toras
H'Asham holding that if someone is machmir in a situation where there
is no machlokes about whether it is permissible to eat or not, it is
apikorsus to be machmir.

R' Reisman then quoted the Bnei Yissaschar (regarding the situation of
a piece of treif meat that falls into a pot with sixty kosher pieces
of meat) that the piece of treif meat had a "nitzutz kedusha" in it
and it was meant to be eaten - and it is a mitzva to davka eat that
piece of meat (with the rest of the meat).

R' Reisman mentioned that, while there is an inyan not to eat a piece
of food about which a shaila was asked, that is only when there is a
machlokes about the permissibility of the food - not in the situation
above where the halacha is 100% clear and unequivocal that a piece of
treif meat that falls into a pot of sixty kosher pieces of meat is
permissible.

KT,
Aryeh

RET wrote on Mon Feb 16, 12:14 PST:
:I assume that if we know that a piece of treif meat fell in a pot with
: 60 kosher pieces many people would forgo the steak even though
: halachically it is kosher because of bittul. There are even shitot
: that one can eat all 61 pieces (not at once) since each is a safek.
: Again I assume many would forgo that privelege.

I believe this is mistaken. The reality is far more meiqil.

In the usual case of bitul 1/60, you can definitely eat them all. After
all, the gemara's case is a stew -- an inseparable mixture!

The textbook case of what I think RET is thinking of is one piece of
issur falling into two pieces of heter, Chullin 99b-100a. The gemara
rules out gid hanasheh because it's a beryah bifnei atzmah and isn't
batel berov. Also, neveilah, which is re'uyah lehikabeid. Therefore
implying that other issurim would be beteilim berov.

Tosafos (Chullin 100a), Tosafos Rid (BB 31b), Rashba (seen in the BY YD
109) hold that they are only mutar if eaten at separate times.

The Rosh (Chullin ad loc, 7:37) says they can even be eaten at once.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

 
 


From:  Yitzhak Grossman _celejar@gmail.com_ (mailto:cele...@gmail.com) 

> A Hebrew  word can't have come from Arabic.   It may be cognate to an
>  Arabic word, both deriving from a common ancestor.... [--RZS]

This  past Shabbas, my father happened to mention Rashi's comment on the
word  'yizah' (Shemos 28:28):

"lashon nituk, ve'lashon Arvi hu, ke'divrei  Dunash ben Labrat"



....I wondered: how
can Rashi claim that  this is an Arabic loan word, if Arabic was not yet
invented!  I  checked Dunash, and sure enough, that is *not* what he
actually  says:


....So he is merely saying that it is a cognate of the  similar Arabic 
form....




>>>>>
 
 
There are many places where Rashi seems to assume that not all the words in  
the Torah are Hebrew words, but that some are borrowed from other languages 
(or  are cognate to words in other languages).
 
Three examples of Rashi assuming certain words to have come from other  
languages (or to be cognate to words in other languages) come to  mind:
 
 
1. Bereishis 41:43   re Yosef, "Vayikra'u lefanav Avrech."   Rashi on the 
word "Avrech" quotes Targum, making it two words, Av Rech -- Father  (or Advisor) 
of the King.  Rashi goes on to say that in Aramaic (some texts  have 
"beloshon Romi" i.e., in Latin) the word "Rech" means king.  Cf the  word "Rex" which 
is "king" in Latin.
 
2. Devarim 6:8 "Vehayu letotafos bein einecha" -- Rashi says that they're  
called totafos because there are four parshios, and "Tat" beKaspi shetayim,  
"Pas" beAfriki shetayim -- i.e, Tat is "two" in the Caspian language and Pas is  
"two" in the African language, and two plus two makes four.
 
3. Devarim 3:9 (not as good an example, because here the pasuk itself  /says/ 
that it's not a Hebrew word): "Tzidonim yikra'u leChermon 'Sirion'  
veha'Emori yikra'u lo 'Senir' " where Rashi says that the Emori called Mt.  Chermon by 
the name "Senir" because it has snow on it and "Senir hu  sheleg beloshon 
Ashkenaz" i.e., Senir is snow in German.  (ArtScroll  has a note that in modern 
German the word for snow is "schnee" but that old  German may have had an "r" at 
the end of the word.)
 
Personally I don't find any of Rashi's etymologies convincing but what I do  
find fascinating is the fact that Rashi had this linguistic interest and  
curiosity, had at least a passing familiarity with a number of languages, that  he 
was intellectually curious enough to seek out the meanings of words in the  
Torah by reference to other languages, and that he was quite comfortable with  
the idea that some words in the Torah were foreign words and not Hebrew.   To 
add a little editorial of my own here, I will say that one of the  things that 
make Rashi so delightful is this intellectual  curiosity and the way he picks 
up facts and stories and bits of  information from here, there and everywhere 
and weaves them into his commentary  with this sort of fresh-eyed wonder and 
openness.
 

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

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


 
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219850974x1201371016/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID<
/a>
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090317/8be25c5f/attachment-0001.htm>

I find the whole concept of fungibility of sechar va'onesh problematic a
priori and inconsistent with Chazal. And yet, many stories about gadol
XYZ foregoing the sechar of a mitzvah (eg as payment for the esrog with
which he could do it), etc...

A priori -- where is the middas hadin?

As for Chazal, every mitzvah and every cheit is accounted for. If sechar
were fungible, then there would be no need -- Hashem could just sum it up
and pay the difference.

Then there's the whole notion of ba'asher hu sham, chai gever al
chata'av, etc... which associate sechar va'onesh *causally* to the
impact the pe'ulah has on the po'el.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - George Elliot

What you should be aware of is that the two etymologies that you credit Rashi with are Gemoras.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com


____________________________________________________________
New to Digital Photography? Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTDvmPi03UF1eiDpRzGUfozNF22hiuN4JxeCX1dokuPLcP1yNzxuFK/

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:09:27AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Three examples of Rashi assuming certain words to have come from other  
: languages (or to be cognate to words in other languages) come to  mind:

Definitely not "come from other languages"! Rashi on Bereishis 1:11
reads "'Safah achas' - leshon haqodesh."

Clearly Rashi felt the bilbul leshonos was incomplete, leaving traces
of similarities in some words from the original leshon haqodesh.

: 1. Bereishis 41:43   re Yosef, "Vayikra'u lefanav Avrech."   Rashi on the 
: word "Avrech" quotes Targum, making it two words, Av Rech -- Father  (or Advisor) 
: of the King.  Rashi goes on to say that in Aramaic (some texts  have 
: "beloshon Romi" i.e., in Latin) the word "Rech" means king. Cf the
: word "Rex" which is "king" in Latin.

"Belashon Romi" is far more likely. If Rashi confused the Latin "x"
(which started out as a digraph for "cs") with the Greek "xi", he would
think it makes a khaf sound. OTOH, in Aramaic, "rakh" is as in "rakh
hanimol", not royalty.

: 2. Devarim 6:8 "Vehayu letotafos bein einecha" -- Rashi says that they're  
: called totafos because there are four parshios, and "Tat" beKaspi shetayim,  
: "Pas" beAfriki shetayim -- i.e, Tat is "two" in the Caspian language and Pas
: is  "two" in the African language, and two plus two makes four.

This is a gemara (Sanhedrin 4b). It doesn't start with Rashi.

There are two "Caspian languages". In both Kazakh and Kirghiz, the
languages called "Caspian" today, the word for two is "eki". (Both
similar to the Turkic "iki".) Nothing like "tat", making it unlikely
to be a reference to any language from that family. In Georgian (where
there is a region called Caspi), it's "iri".

"Africi" isn't African, it's Carthagian in particular -- the area the
Romans called "Africa". Phoenicians. Canaanites. A language likely to
be influenced by LhQ.

I wouldn't be surprised if "Caspi" is also something semitic, thus
justifying Chazal's assumption that it has similarities to Hebrew. Maybe
some prople south of the Caspian Sea.

: 3. Devarim 3:9 (not as good an example, because here the pasuk itself  /says/ 
: that it's not a Hebrew word): "Tzidonim yikra'u leChermon 'Sirion'  
: veha'Emori yikra'u lo 'Senir'" where Rashi says that the Emori called Mt. Chermon by
: the name "Senir" because it has snow on it and "Senir hu  sheleg beloshon 
: Ashkenaz" i.e., Senir is snow in German.  (ArtScroll  has a note that in modern 
: German the word for snow is "schnee" but that old  German may have had an "r" at 
: the end of the word.)

He also mentions "the language of Canaan". Philologos
<http://www.forward.com/articles/5583/> suggests that because of Yosifon,
Rashi probably believed that the Slavs descended from the *slaves* of
Canaan -- and thus related to the Emori. And in Russian and Ukrainian,
the word is "sner" and "snir", respectively.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 52
**************************************

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..."