Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 94

Thu, 21 May 2009

• 1. Illu keir'vanu lifnei Har Sinai... (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 3. Re: Simchas Yom Tov (Zev Sero)
• 4. Elu Ovrin -peshat (Gershon Dubin)
• 5. Re: Closing of the Volozhin Yeshiva (Michael Poppers)
• 6. Re: Mordechai and Esther (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Mordechai and Esther (Lisa Liel)
• 8. [Areivim] Pidyonei Bechoreho (Doron Beckerman)
• 9. Minhag to stand for Haftara of Merkava (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Minhag to stand for Haftara of Merkava (Gershon Dubin)
• 11. forums for pesak (Shlomo Pick)
• 12. Re: Mordechai and Esther (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 13. Re: forums for pesak (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: forums for pesak (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: forums for pesak (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Targumim from Sinai (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Illu keir'vanu lifnei Har Sinai... (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Targumim from Sinai (Zev Sero)

In dayyeinu we recite
"Illu keirvanu lifnei Har Sinai V'lo nassan lanu es haTorah - dayyeinu!"

Q1 Isn't the whole purpose of Maamad Har Sinai to get the Torah, not to
simply arrive at a destination?

Q2. The late Leo Weiss once asked me: "[Given the same Torah readings]
what's the connection between the haftara of Yisro and the Haftara
of Shavuos?"

Given: The Mihsnah Brura (494:4) states a minhag that anyone silently
reading the Haftara along with the Maftir should stand while reciting
it due to its honor."

Q3. What is this great honor accorded to this Haftara of Shavuos?

[Note a Litvak answers multiple questions with a single answer:-)]

Take this single approach...

The approach to Sinai was about revelation of G-d's Presence - a national,
societal encounter with The Shechina. Therefore:

1 Just being at Sinai elevated the entire nation to the level of prophecy
2. The Haftara of Yisro is the revelation of G-d to Yeshaya, similarly
the Haftara of Shavuos is the revelation of G-d to )echezkel. NB:
Both donate a passuk into the daily Qedusha
3. When encountering the Shechina one stands as per Abbaye re: Qiddush
Levana. So the encounter of Shechinah and Yechezkel (Ma'aseh Merkava)
triggers standning

Note that even the Haftara themes omit the mitzva component of Ma'amad
Har Sinai in favor of the Revelation Component! Spirituality trumping
legalism?

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
"Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

...

> really done something.  Whereas here in England, or even in Israel, you rush
> through dinner, which is far too late for one to really be able to eat
> (achila gassa really springs to mind) you get maybe an hour or two of

Why does eating late imply achila gasa?  On the contrary, one would
generally be hungrier than if he'd eaten earlier.  Do you mean that
because of the lateness of the meal people are eating before Yom Tov?

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

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Implicit, don't impose humros on others, just be machmir upon oneself (legabei orach chayyim etc.)

It's an explicit mishneh: "shehoyu machmirin al atzmon umekilin al kol
yisroel".


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

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com

<<Meforshim seem to struggle on the exact meaning of &quot;elu ovrin&quot; (mishna
Pesachim 3:1) Some read it as if it were Ma'avirin (as meaning these we
are meva'er min ho'olam&quot;

I propose a simple read:
Read it  as if it said
&quot;[AL] elu ovrin&quot;  referring to being over bal yei'ra'eh.
(NB: one need not change the girsa, just the havvanah).

Q:  Am I mechavein to anyone else on this?

It just seems too simple to not have been said already>>
Rashi.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
You have a right to seek justice!  Click here to find experienced lawyers across the USA.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTOhjWaepVOyEAo0PUS6bpS6p0CZHSSDxcSu0Num9ndRmAsX3tpvUE/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090520/dd91c56d/attachment-0001.htm>

From "History of Yeshivot in Lithuania..." by Dr. L. Eckman (additions in
brackets are mine), pp. 39-40:
"As Rabbi [NTzY]Berlin aged, he wanted to bring in his son[,] Rabbi Chaim
Berlin, to head the Yeshiva. This time, the students objected to the
appointment of Rabbi Chaim Berlin. A number of these students went to the
Tsarist Minister of Education, informing him that the Yeshiva is not in
compliance with the orders of the government in matters of secular
education.<16> In the month of Shevat, 1892, the Tsarist government ordered
the closing of the Yeshiva, and ordered its students to disperse and return
to their respective cities within three days...."
___
<16> "Mosdoth Torah B'Europa b'binyanam U'vehurbanam" by Samuel K. Mirsky,
p.74
---
I've FWDed Avodah Digest V26#93 to Dr. Eckman and am bcc:ing him on this
message.

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/20090520/272014fc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:06:27 -0400, Saul Guberman  
<saulguber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Yitzhak Grossman  wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of speculation out there that Mordechai and Esther derive
> > from Marduk and Ishtar, but a quick googling indicates that it is just
> > that - speculation.  There seems to be no actual evidence for the
> > hypothesis, and some scholars reject it, e.g.:
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=RxYXAAAAYAAJ&;;printsec=titlepage#PPA77,M1
> >
> > Anyone know anything interesting about this?
> >
>
> Per Rabbi Menchem Leibtag:
> http://www.tanach.org/purim.htm
>   The name Mordechai is probably the most provocative word in the entire
> Megilla for it stems from the name of the Babylonian deity -Marduk (see II
> Kings 25:27 & Yeshayahu 39:1!).

Esther is similar.  Chazal say that Esther is Ayelet HaShachar (Yoma  
29a), which means the Morning Star.  The Morning Star and Evening Star  
are both the planet Venus, at different points in its movement, and  
the Babylonians called Venus Ishtar.

Chazal also identify Mordechai Bilshan in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7 as  
Mordechai from the book of Esther (Megillah 16b).  While there's  
certainly no way for us to know for certain what Mordechai and Esther  
were called, the names Marduk Belshunu and Edeset Ishtar are not  
uncommon.  The first means "Marduk is their lord", and there are many  
records of men called Belshunu from the Persian period.  One was even  
a governor of the province the Persians called "Beyond the River",  
which referred to Syria and Israel.  There was a Belshunu as well who  
was the governor of Babylon for a time during that period.

The name Belshunu was probably a common one for Jews.  There's a  
Babylonian inscription that refers to a Jew named Hanun son of  
Belshunu  
(http://www.archive.org/stream/jewsinbabyloniai00d
aicuoft/jewsinbabyloniai00daicuoft_djvu.txt):

"Bel-shu-nu, father of Hanun, 87: i. Also a very frequent Babylonian name.
It is a shortened name ; see Tallqvist, 1. c, p. 43. Its meaning is :  
' (This or that god is) their lord.' The name ???? (Ezra ii. 2 ; Neh.  
vii. 7) is identical with Belshunu."

Edeset Ishtar means "the renewal of Ishtar/Venus", and is a name that  
refers to Venus alternating between morning star and evening star.   
Edeset is cognate to the Hebrew "chadash", and when the Megillah  
refers to Esther as ???? ??? ????, this might have been her full  
Babylonian name.

Lastly, Chazal seem to indicate that Mordechai's Hebrew name was  
Petachiah (Menahot 65a).

And yes, it's all conjecture and speculation, but how can it be  
otherwise?  The issue is that it's speculation based on sound  
linguistic grounds.

Lisa

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:02:12 EDT, T6...@aol.com wrote:

> In Areivim Digest V14 #251 dated 3/18/2005 RMB writes:
> > As I've written on Avodah, IMHO, Esther was named for Ishtar,
> > and Mordechai for her consort, Marduk (Ishtar = Asheirah; Marduk =
> > Baal/El). As we know, each also had Jewish names. How is this mutar? As
> > I also wrote on Avodah, I'm not sure. However, this is nearly the same
> > time as the adoption of Tamuz as a month name.
>
> Fascinating, but I doubt that Mordechai and Esther were named "for"
> Persian gods. Rather, just as Peter, Paul and Mary have become popular
> names in America--so that there are now Jewish Peters, Pauls and Marys
> who are not named "for" the figures in the Xian Bible--so Mordechai and
> Esther must have been common Persian names. And just as many American
> Jews have both English and Hebrew names, so Mordechai and Esther had
> Persian and Hebrew names.

The name Dennis comes from Dionysus, Greek deity of wine and  
drunkenness.  The Yiddish Feivush or Feivel comes from the Greek  
Phoebus, which was a poetic name for Apollo, their deity of the sun.   
That's why you see Shraga Feivel a lot; they have the same basic  
meaning of fire.  But we can even go back earlier than Mordechai and  
Esther.  Shamgar ben Anat.  Anat was a Canaanite goddess.  And the  
name Ehud is Sumerian for House of Shamash (E.UD), where Shamash was  
their sun deity.

There's an Orthodox rabbi whose last name is Christianson, if I'm not  
mistaken.

Lisa

>> PS. What I did notice in that Teshuva, was (the Satmar Rebbe) asking (re
the Kina "Eli
Zion") :
"Alei zivchei semideho uPidyonei Bechoreho".
Why bewail Pidyon Bechorim which continues even after the destruction of the
BHMK?
<SNIP>

His answer is that since the Churban our Kohanim are not guaranteed
meyuchosim. <<

The Brisker Rov answered that this is a reference to Leviyim murdered - they
were the Peduyei Bechorim in the Midbar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090521/37f8ff6d/attachment-0001.htm>

The Mishna Brura mentions this Minhag

Has anyone seen it in practice?

Is there a reason that some kehlllos ignore this Minhag?

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I always stand (can't lein sitting down).  Helps you stay awake also.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Get your fix. Click here for reliable handyman services!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
41/fc/BLSrjpTQdGHtFZ05RC3uZ21DOto72Neq3dh7UpwPDx1s11MocwF6sPIEErG/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090521/8acb5938/attachment-0001.htm>

Off list someone suggested discuss how to deal with the issue of the
need for an earlier minyan on Shavuot especially the issue of za'ar had
been raised.

I think that the following ground rules should be in place.

When one calls for changes in orthodox practices beause of za'ar and
related issues in a public forum, you eventually get aliyot for women,
maharit's for men and women, you get Conservative hechsherim who are
more interested in public ethics than kashrus, you get other great things.

Rav Moshe zt"l was opposed to teshuvot in journals because they are not
for the public forums. If one has a ta'anah, and a good one at that,
so in such a case that person should quietly go to a poseik or posekim,
explain the situation, and let them go about it in their own. However, one
doesn't start a campaign to change an existing minhag mandated by the MB,
especially in a public forum. you go to the rav or rabbonim who have the
responsiblity to see what the issues are, take them into consideration,
and then let them make the decision. they may decide to pass the buck
to even higher authorities, especially when issues of za'ar, venerable
minhag, public policy, etc. are concerned.

However, when one begins to make a public issue out of it, in effect
you will start looking for that friendly posek which itself is becoming
an issue.

I may have sounded off in my last posting but sometimes such a geshrei
is necessary to wake people up to the implications of campaigns on behalf
of za'ar habriyot, which every authoritative poseq in reality takes into
account. Sometimes the posek's response is not to one's liking, but as
I reiterate, the true poseq, the gedolei hador veposekim are indeed
sensitive to all these issues, and again there is no need for books,
agendas or campaigns, to move them.

shlomo pick

On Thu, 21 May 2009 15:56:10 +0100
Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

...

> Esther is similar.  Chazal say that Esther is Ayelet HaShachar (Yoma  
> 29a), which means the Morning Star.  The Morning Star and Evening Star  

An interesting and suggestive point, although it is by no means obvious
that the Biblical (Psalms 22:1) "ayeles ha'shahar" means Morning Star,
and Hazal in Yoma give no indication that they understood it so.  Meiri
gives several interpretations of of the phrase, one of which is indeed
to the morning star ("estella matinal", as the foreign language
speakers call it:

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/meiritehilim/meiritehilim05.pdf

...

> And yes, it's all conjecture and speculation, but how can it be  
> otherwise?  The issue is that it's speculation based on sound  
> linguistic grounds.

Very interesting, thanks.

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

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:44:02PM +0300, Shlomo Pick wrote:
: When one calls for changes in orthodox practices beause of za'ar and
: related issues in a public forum, you eventually get aliyot for women,
: maharit's for men and women, you get Conservative hechsherim who are
: more interested in public ethics than kashrus, you get other great things.

Well, except that a number of these things are misrepresented, and others
you're just assuming are a problem which is just begging the question.

E.g. I see nothing wrong with Hekhsher Tzedek in principle, it exists
IN ADDITION to kashrus. (In practice, it appears to be some politicallly
liberal C rabbi's attempt to define a notion of labor relations that isn't
necessarily grounded in anything Jewish.) Similarly, the Tav haYosher
offered by Uri L'Tzedek (a group of YCT students), or the Tev Chevrati
in Israel. Both appear to be more like dina demalkhusa dina audits,
but is that so terrible? (Is DDD less of a halachic issue than na"t bar
na"t of owf bechalav?)

I have no problem with yoatzot. Lehefech -- their availability has
a proven record of increasing shemiras taharas mashipachah. But your
argument would apply to them no less than a mahari"t.

I think the problem I have with RMM's presentation of RMAngel's
description of R' Uzziel's approach (somewhere along that chain) is the
conflation of a number of very different types of chessed within din.

1- In a previous iteration a couple of months back, I mentioned a
distinction between whose chessed. There is the demand of chessed from
the sho'el, such as R' Uzziel requiring a man to pay child care for
his non-Jewish offspring. Then there is the demand of chessed from the
meishiv, such as allowing women to do semichah on their qorban.

This is akin to what I said about our instinct about needing a hechsher
to check nat bar nat of owf bechalav, but no parallel instinct about a
hechsher auditing DDD. Keeping this distinction is also why I would put
Tav haYosher (demanding chessed from the sho'el) in a different box
than the concept of mahara"t (doing chessed for the sho'eles).

2- I already mentioned in this iteration the role of formal legal concepts
that reflect chessed. The chessed that halakhah demands from the poseiq
to have compassion on the sho'eil isn't a watering down of the process,
but actually framed in *formal* legal terms.

If I accidentally treif up grandma's heirloom china, I might be told I
can rely on ben yomah for which the same mistake on a cheap mug would
get a pesaq of "throw it out". (Not "might", that's exactly what my
rav told me when he told me to donate the mug to the company kitchen.)
Hefsed merubah is a halachic principle. As is kavod haberiyos. By being
formal principles, they are brought within the formal halachic process.
One isn't shlepping or bending the process to reach a conclusion based
on chessed.

As I wrote, it's not that halakhah is middas hadin which is then tempered
by chessed, halakhah, the formal process we call din, is the actual
means of fusion. As RYBS put it, halakhah is the tool for navigating
the dialectics of life. Not a side in one of those dialectics.

About this, on motza"sh, May 09, 2009 at 11:41pm IDT, Michael Makovi wrote:
: According to Rabbi Berkovits, hesed/ahavah would be extra-halachic
: insofar as it is not part of the formal halacha. But it'd still be
: internal to halacha insofar as it plays a role in halachic
: decision-making.
...
: So we'd perhaps have three layers:
: 1) formal halacha, according to the technical logic and sources
: 2) hesed/ahava, external to formal halacha, but internal to halacha in
: general....
: 3) anything totally not part of halacha, at all; irrelevant to halacha,
: bichlal
...
: Anyway, my point was, that I've lost count of how many times Orthodox
: polemicists have criticized the Conservative interpretation of Beit
: Hillel's victory, viz. "they were lenient". Since Rabbi Halevy said
: exactly this, I thought it notable...

RAF replied to that post of RMM's on Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:58pm CET:
: I write the following with great hesitation, R'HDhL was a great TC and
: yerei shamayim.

: Nonetheless, by now, you might understand why R'HDhL isn't always part
: of consensus and some people squirm when thinking of some of his
: famous quotes...

R' Berkowitz's position is a little more complex, as he in general
loosened the line between halakhah and ethics, never allowing the
underlying values to be fully divorced from the formalized law. (And in
fact the tragedy of writing down TSBP was, to his mind, the resulting
exagerated rigidity compared to deciding behavior based on the ethics
themselves.)

But in any case, I would reject these three layers. Rather:
1- Deciisions that can be made solely on technical formal halakhah
2- Those that the formal process allows leeway into which the poseiq
   puts in
    2a- Appeal of non-muchrach formal consideration (I like the Ritva's
        sevara, e.g.)
    2b- mimeticism
    2c- considerations of what is right (yi'rah, chessed, ahavavah,
        his own understanding of the taam hamitzvah, etc...)
3- Irrelevencies, not quite an actual layer at all

That triangle of considerations I wrote of 2 years ago is here as 2a-2c.
Notice that what you think it right to demand of the sho'el, the
chessed/ahavah that went into this discussion, is just one element in a
whole constellation of aggadic considerations. All of which only comes
to play AFTER formal considerations were complete and no one solution
is compelled.

Conceptually after, not necessarily chronologically. The LOR could start
with a "can I allow him to do X?" but the lack of alternative on level
1 would make 2c irrelevent.

The second one allows that to slip, I have to join RAF's discomfort
at having to explain why those who hold such opinions don't fit the
O mainstream. In RCDhL's case, I'm not even sure that's true. Due
to the conflations I describe above, I believe RMM is attributing (or
quoting someone who is attributing) more to RCDhL than he said. In a day
where layer 2 is dominated with 2a non-muchrach formal considerations,
such Brisker chumros, or Yekkish 2b mimeticism, or Chassidish-style
use of taamei hamitzvos for 2c aggadic-value tie-breaking, RCDhL is
advocating one remember the role of chessed in determining the formally
indeterminate case.

(Unlike the case of R' Uzziel, who was talking about the demand of
chessed from the sho'el.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

> I may have sounded off in my last posting but sometimes such a geshrei
> is necessary to wake people up to the implications of campaigns on behalf
> of za'ar habriyot, which every authoritative poseq in reality takes into
> account. Sometimes the posek's response is not to one's liking, but as
> I reiterate, the true poseq, the gedolei hador veposekim are indeed
> sensitive to all these issues, and again there is no need for books,
> agendas or campaigns, to move them.
> shlomo pick

I get Shlomo's point

But the idea of davening maariv (arvis) late on shavuous night that
I could not even get the rabbi-Chaplain of a nursing home to budge.
Even though the MB himself would have probably made an exception!

The protest AISI is NOT against the minhag of davening late per se,
it's about making it MISINAI as the exclusive option! It's like davening
early is like wearing Rabbeinu Tam tefillin INSTEAD of Rashi Tefillin.
It's as if the early option, even though supported by AhS, MGA, and aiui
RYDS has been written off the books somehow....

I think that's the thrust of the complaint AISI.

Erev shabbos we have 3 different zmanim for qabbalas shabbos! Why not
have TWO for ma'ariv on shavuous - viz.
1 after shkia?
2 after tzeis?

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

About RMF not liking the notion of teshuvos written in journals...

I'm missing something: How many people read Hebrew halachic journals
who wouldn't read IM? Are you sure he meant journals rather than
popularist magazines? If so, please explain.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Zev Sero answered R Simon
Montague:
: >1) Is there an earlier source?

: The gemara in Megillah takes it back at least as far as Ezra.

Isn't this an echoing of the shitah that the Torah was regiven in
Ashuris and Aramis in the days of Ezra, but was originally given
to Moshe in Ivri and LhQ (Sanhedrin 21b)?

I don't see the "at least as far as" if this is so.

I also find a meta-issue interesting. When it comes to halakhah, we
would assume it's a machloqes. When it comes to aggadia we ask:
: >2) How can this be reconciled with the gemara in Megilla?

Maybe we can't? There is already a machloqes about kesav which is
already linked to language in Sanhedrin -- why assum they can be
reconciled? Maybe this is a machloqes?

However, RSMontague's stance WRT aggadita is the usual one. I just
wonder why.

:> 3) Does it include Yonatan BU and Yerushalmi, or only Onkelos?

: If by Targum YBU you mean on Nevi'im, then quite possibly..

Since Nakh is not miSinai, how can a targum on them be? You seem to
be confusing the question of whether the attribution is accurate with
whether the attributed author was actually the author or the transcriber.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 07:36:57PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Note that even the Haftara themes omit the mitzva component of Ma'amad
: Har Sinai in favor of the Revelation Component! Spirituality trumping
: legalism?

Well, that fits what I wrote a couple of days ago that peshat yeilds
mussar, whereas derashah yeilds halakhah, and to generalize therefore,
Nakh, which has no derashah is a collection of Mussar ("Prophetic
Judaism").

Also, while Dayeinu mentions that the Chassidishe experience of just
being at Har Sinai would have been enough, lemaaseh HQBH didn't stop
there. He provided both the experience of national nevu'ah AND matan
Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507       reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Zev Sero answered R Simon
> Montague:
> : >1) Is there an earlier source?
> 
> : The gemara in Megillah takes it back at least as far as Ezra.
> 
> Isn't this an echoing of the shitah that the Torah was regiven in
> Ashuris and Aramis in the days of Ezra, but was originally given
> to Moshe in Ivri and LhQ (Sanhedrin 21b)?

I don't see any reason to suppose so.  The pasuk which is the basis
for the gemara in Megillah is not cited in Sanhedrin, so why should
they be related?   Moshe explained the Torah in 70 languages, and I
see no reason to suppose that Unkelus was not (at least based on)
the Aramaic version.  (I assume Aramaic evolved somewhat in the
1400-odd years between Moshe and Unkelus, and that Unkelus wrote in
contemporary language.  Being a prince, he would have had a good
education and would have spoken an "Oxford" Aramaic.)




> I also find a meta-issue interesting. When it comes to halakhah, we
> would assume it's a machloqes.

Not if we didn't have to.  It's a basic rule of interpreting gemara
that we don't multiply machlokes.   Sort of like Ockham's Law.


> :> 3) Does it include Yonatan BU and Yerushalmi, or only Onkelos?
> 
> : If by Targum YBU you mean on Nevi'im, then quite possibly..
> 
> Since Nakh is not miSinai, how can a targum on them be? 

Good point.


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 94
**************************************

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..."