Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 34

Wed, 03 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: saying kaddish together (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 2. Re: saying kaddish together (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: saying kaddish together (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 5. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 6. Hilchta Lmishicha (Rich, Joel)
• 7. tehilas Hashem in shir hamaalos (Daniel Bukingolts)
• 8. Re: Kol Isha - HETER (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Kol Isha - HETER (Samuel Svarc)
• 10. Re: Kol Isha - HETER (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: Aramaic Pronunciation (David Riceman)
• 12. : Re: Women and kaddish (Chana)
• 13. Re: Dishwasher for meat and milk (Richard Wolpoe)
• 14. Re: How much is an Omer? (Arie Folger)
• 15. variations on six themes, Shmos and Bamidbar (T6...@aol.com)

RZev Sero wrote:
> Since when are 9 listeners, or any listeners at all, required for
> kaddish? AFAIK they are only required for chazarat hashatz.

RMicha Berger responded:
> ... and for a davar shebiqdushah -- including Qaddish, Barekhu, Qedushah,
> Barukh Sheim recited out loud YK night, etc...

RZS:
> Where is this found?

RMB:
> Megillah 23b

> Tur, OCh 55 lists devarim shebiqdushah.

Both the g'mara and Orach Chaim require the presence of ten adult
Jewish males. Neither requires listeners. Unlike chazaras hashatz,
which requires that at least nine people be listening to the b'rachos,
and if not, those b'rachos are close to being l'vatala (OC 124:4),
no such listening requirement is mentioned for d'varim shebik'dusha
in general, where according to one opinion, one (or more) of those in
attendance can be sleeping, and still count towards the necessary quorum.

RMB continued:
> I added Shema on YK night because it too is an out loud "barukh sheim
> kevod malkhuso..."

Why is classification of a davar shebik'dusha dependent on the volume
with which it is said? One who is davening alone cannot say Bor'chu,
even if he does so in the same undertone with which we normally say
Boruch Sheim. By the same token, one davening biychidus on YK is not
enjoined from saying Boruch Sheim aloud.

 
Rabbi Rich Wolpoe writes:
> ... the "yekke" model [which was the ashkenaz model until about 200
> years ago] (of only one person saying kaddish -- EMT) shomeia k'oneh
> works and probably best for the hiyyuv who is not saying to listen
> with kavvanah to be yotzei

To be yotzei what? The "chiyuv" is not an obligation to say kaddish;
it is to say it _for the tzibbur_, and more specifically, to be the one
to elicit the response of "Y'hei sh'mei rabba" from the tzibbur. Shomeia
k'oneh and kavvana to be yotzei are meaningless in this context.

EMT

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 06:49:20PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: Both the g'mara and Orach Chaim require the presence of ten adult
: Jewish males. Neither requires listeners. Unlike chazaras hashatz...
: no such listening requirement is mentioned for d'varim shebik'dusha
: in general...

QSA 15:7 requires 9 listeners: Im ein 9 shome'in lehasheliach tzibbur,
lo yomar kelal qaddish.... and he says that this is true of any davar
shebiqdushah. (Although only rov of a minyan have to answer.)

The SA allows counting a cheireish hamedabeir ve'eino shomea' (OC 55:8).
But the Beiur Halakhah brings the Peri Megadim who was mesupaq. More
notably, he brings the Taz (in the MB s"q 38 the Taz is discussed as well)
about whether he can be counted toward a minyan -- WRT shemoneh esrei,
not Qaddish -- because he doesn't hear the berakhos he is answering. It
would seem the MB assumes an equivalence between minyan for tefillah
and for davar shebiqdushah WRT litsening.

The MB leaves the subject as a machloqes but "harbe makimim im pesaq
haSA", citing the shul in Alexandria with its flags telling you when
to answer.

Still, the whole discussion is about whether someone who knows what
he is answering can answer, even though he is deaf. The assumption
even according to the meiqilim is that all 9 must be following along
to know where to answer -- and to get back to the original point --
must be benei chiyuvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

REMT:
> To be yotzei what? The "chiyuv" is not an obligation to say kaddish;
> it is to say it _for the tzibbur_, and more specifically, to be the one
> to elicit the response of "Y'hei sh'mei rabba" from the tzibbur. Shomeia
> k'oneh and kavvana to be yotzei are meaningless in this context.

The obligation for aveilim and yahrzeits who do not get to say their
own qaddish for the niftar can be fulfilled via shomei'a k-'ona

This obligation is aiui documented in tanna d'vei eliyahu and is
brought down EG in Kitzur SA 26 viz. The aveil has the obligation
or respinsibility to say Qaddish to be maaleh the N'shamah as per the
maaseh of R Aqiva. At least that is how I understand the sources and the
practice of asigning qaddeishim and davening. Otherwise let the Shatz
kavua do it all. And That's why an aveil iis termed a hiyyuv. I cannot
imagine what else this term means - except a hiyyuv for the amud or to
say Qaddish when he cannot get the amud!

Perhaps REMT has another understanding of the term hiyyuv or perhaps
disputes that there is such a thing to beging with.

And so, in order to accomodate y'somim who could NOT be a Shatz, qaddish
yassom was developed. If no hiyyuv why bother accomodating minor orphans?!

Everything so far is pretty clear in the Rav Hamburger article except the
shomeia k'oneh is my svara. And afaik it's used @ Breuer's by nephews
sons-in-law and others who want to say an "optional" qaddish but will
never get the chance

The kasha might be why not let y'somim be shoiemia k'oneh? I don't know
that answer.

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


will be given a Qaddish in Breuer's after the direct children are
accounted for.

Since I'm saying Qaddish for my late brother - I would have to use shomeia
k'oneh to be say qaddish on his behalf because I am not on the radar as
a Hiyyuv there, only children and the one exceptional grandchild case.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>wrote:

> You could add the Raavad saying "kefar hofiya Ruach Hakodesh beveis
> midrashenu"
>

This as well as other sources from the Raavad, as well as other sources, are
qutoted in the Hakdama of Rav Reuvein Margolias to his edition of the Shut
Min Hashomayim, to view on line point to:
*http://
www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/ruachHakodeshRRM.pdf*<;http://www.
aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/ruachHakodeshRRM.pdf>


> --
> Kol Tuv,
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100202/401ff1d1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>wrote:

> You could add the Raavad saying "kefar hofiya Ruach Hakodesh beveis
> midrashenu"
>
> This quote as well as others from the Raavad and others are brought by Rav
Reuvain Margoliyas in his Hakdama to his edition to the Sefer Shu"t Min
Hashomayim.  To view on line please point to:

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/ruachHakodeshRRM.pdf

-- 
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100202/3ccb487d/attachment-0001.htm>

The Tamud in two places (Sanhedrin 51a and Zvachim 45a) asks hilchata
lmashicha which pretty much means why come to a halachic conclusion if
there is no immediate application.  I'm looking for possible theories as to
why coming to a halachic conclusion on such issues might trouble the Talmud
(I have a few but don't want to prejudice anyone).
KT
Joel Rich



  ________________________________
As of February 22, our New York Office will be located at:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100202/f7b47836/attachment-0001.htm>

Does anybody know the source for the "tehilas Hashem..." addition to shir
hamaalos in bentching and why do many people say it is anti zionist to
include it?

Thanks,
Danny Bukingolts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100202/baa175f0/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Michael Makovi _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com) 

1) Rambam  and Tur-Shulhan Arukh link kol isha to etzba ketana and say
kol isha is  prohibited only kedei leihanot. So if there is no hana'ah
/ hirhur, then  there is no issur either.



....The only criticism I can envision is that I have  perhaps
underestimated how much hirhur and hana'ah people actually get  from
women's singing. But I personally, and many people I know, claim  to
get no hana'ah or hirhur from most women's singing.

Michael  Makovi

 
>>>>>
This is an extremely serious misrepresentation and distortion of the  
Rambam.   He does not permit kol isha, as you seem to believe.   At most you 
might take away that if you happen to overhear the cleaning lady  humming while 
she works you don't have to klap al cheit.
 

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

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100203/36028458/attachment-0001.htm>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Michael Makovi
>
> The only criticism I can envision

As Micha has demonstrated there is more here to criticize then to agree
with. How can this not be, when one so cavalierly dismisses "Ahronim" with a
wave of a pen? See the Ramban's introduction to his Milchomos for the proper
attitude (in halachic psak) to those who came before us. 

> is that I have perhaps underestimated how
> much hirhur and hana'ah people actually get from women's singing. But I
> personally, and many people I know, claim to get no hana'ah or hirhur from
> most women's singing.

And on this basis, wish to dispute a 'derasha'? I can't fathom the mindset,
is stating it politely.

KT,
MSS

>> So if there is no hana'ah / hirhur, then there is no issur either.
>>
>> Michael Makovi

> Arguably, it is more accurate to define kedei leihanot as:
> Only if there is no shred of desire to find hana'ah, even if that desire
> remains unfulfilled.
>
> R' Micha

That seems fair.

But, I don't want to quibble on exactly what hirhur / hana'ah is,
because if you really pushed me into a corner, I'd have to say the
fear of hirhur / hana'ah is that it will lead to illicit
relationships. If so, then I'd say that a man ought to be able to use
pornographic photographs of deceased women, since there's no fear
he'll have relations with them. But I'm not going to make that
argument, because I think it's going too far, regardless of how
formally logical it is. It'd be a "scoundrel with the license of the
Torah".

So I don't want to argue too much on exactly what hirhur / hana'ah is.

But R' Micha's statement seems fair, that illicit hirhur / hana'ah
includes even the mere attempt to find hirhur / hana'ah, even if that
attempt fails. If someone bought a pornographic magazine and opened it
up, only to find that it is devoted to some strange fetish that he
doesn't share, then I'd say he might still have violated an issur,
even though he never succeeded in getting the desired hirhur /
hana'ah.

>> 4) The Jewish communities of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Syria,
>> Germany, and Cochin were historically lenient....
>>
>> Michael Makovi

> Which proves nothing. You would need to show that they historically
> weren't being yelled at, despite violating the pesaq of their own
> community's rishonim. Most Litvisher women didn't cover their hair, but
> no one was pasqining it's okay. Just that it wasn't a battle they could
> win.
>
> R' Micha

Which is precisely why I combined both halakhic and historical
examples. If I brought only halakhah, then I could be blamed for being
hypertextual and ignoring historic minhag. If I brought only
historical anecdotes, then one could reply as you just did, that it
was a battle the rabbis chose not to fight. But the combination of
two, I think, is far sturdier and far less assailable.

Furthermore, some of these anecdotes of mine actually involve rabbis
themselves listening to kol isha, so it's difficult to say the rabbis
merely chose not to fight the battle. As the Egyptian testimony of
mine says, the rabbis of Egypt used Umm Kalthoum's tunes in the
synagogue, even though they knew exactly where they came from! I think
it's fair to say that this is an actual implicit permission to listen
to her.

> And RYYW [ = Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg] was only meiqil because
> it was to inspire kids who would
> otherwise seek clubs not particular to promoting Yahadus! You keep on
> invoking him, but RYYW didn't buy into any of your arguments except
> where there was a conflicting mitzvah involved!
>
> R' Micha

That's true, but it's not the whole truth. Rabbi Weinberg first
established that:
1) Kol isha is mutar when hirhur / hana'ah is absent
2) Here ( = mixed-sex youth groups and Shabbat zemirot) there is no
hirhur / hana'ah

Only then did Rabbi Weinberg invoke the Mordekai's eit la'asot lashem,
to be lenient in kol isha for the sake of saving the Torah.

And even then, Rabbi Weinberg said it wasn't really an eit la'asot
lashem anyway, since, he said, he had already established the
technical permissibility.

For Rabbi Weinberg, the need to "inspire kids who would otherwise seek
clubs not particular to promoting Yahadus" was a secondary
consideration. By the time he invoked that argument, he had already
proved the technical permissibility of what he was coming to permit.

Michael Makovi

Yosef Skolnick wrote:
> Rabbi Frank in the intro to the white germorah grammar book has a long 
> discussion about this.  He says that there are a few trends of thought 
> wrt to aramaic grammer and the locations of the nekudos.  So it 
> actually depends on which school of thought you are speaking about.
Not only that; it depends on which dialect of Aramaic you want.  Aramaic 
split analogously to Latin, and for essentially the same reasons.  Jews 
used at least three different dialects in the Rabbinic period.  In the 
sixties Franz Rosenthal published a four volume set called "An Aramaic 
Handbook" with detailed examples of several dialects.

David Riceman

> From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
> 
> > Rav Ovadia has paskened that women can say kaddish for their parents
> > if there are no sons to say it, however they shouldn't say it in a
> beit knesset.

RDS writes:
> Actually R' Shlomo Ganzfried paskened so almost 200 years ago in the
> KSA 26:20:


> "A daughter may not say Kaddish in shul, though some say that if they
> want to make a Minyan in her home so she can recite it, they are
> allowed to. Others forbid it."
> 
> I don't have a SA handy, but I suspect that RSG based this Halocho too
> on the SA or it's commentators.
> 
It is in a Be'er Heitev Orech Chaim siman 132 letter 5.  It is based on a
Knesset Yechezkel that ultimately seems to source in a Shvut Ya'akov (and
arguably on Teshuva Me'ahava).

It is the position I call the "half way house" in my Women and Kaddish talk
I have been giving to a few Rosh Chodesh groups recently.

The three positions on women saying kaddish are:

a) No - Chavot Ya'ir and others, R Meir Lau is of this school, as is, I
would note, was Rav Uziel;

b) The half way house; - ie in the house but not in the Shul;

c) Yes (so long as she says it from behind the mechitza) mostly American
poskim - R EY Henkin (as further supported and defended by his grandson RYH
Henkin), RYBS, Rav Aharon Soleveitchik, and by implication Rav Moshe (Rav
Moshe has a throw away line in one of his teshuvos which indicates that he
regards it as pretty normal for a woman to come to shul to say kaddish, the
issue being is a mechitza necessary if she only comes occasionally) but also
some more modern Israelis - eg Rav Shaul Yisraeli.  

Getting back to this Halacha Yomit from ROY's yeshiva though, it is
interesting to note that the Yalkut Yosef (chelek 7 siman 23 si'if 11) says
No in any circumstance, based on the Chovot Yai'r so this appears to be
another gap opening up between the Yalkut Yosef and the Halacha Yomit (and
possibly ROY's later teshuvos).

Unfortunately this Halacha Yomit is very short, and I would like to see a
fuller  version of the teshuva (it may be in some volumes of ROY's teshuvos
I don't have access to, like the tenth volume).  What there is of this in
the Halacha Yomit is somewhat surprising, as while he indeed mentions the
Shvut Ya'akov, he bases the prohibition on saying in shul fundamentally on
the Teshuva Me'ahava.  Now indeed the Teshuva Me'ahava does say this, but if
you read the full teshuva it is clear that the Teshuva Me'ahava is flatly
opposed to women being in shul in any circumstance whatsoever (and this
includes girl children of any age, he is extremely critical of fathers who
bring their minor daughters to shul).  Now it is indeed possible that what
the Teshuva Me'ahava is talking about is a shul without a mechitza (he is
talking about the shul in Prague, and while that does indeed have a women's
section, it is so walled off from the men's section that it is hard to see
it being described as part of the shul proper and I imagine the minor
daughters were being brought into the main shul) [and note that one of the
arguments of RYH Henkin is that a lot of the nay sayers were talking about
shuls that didn't have mechitzos, so that women to say kaddish needed to
come in to the back of the men's section] - but his (ie the Teshuva
Me'ahava's) language is very graphic about the absolute prohibition of a
woman being in shul, whether she says something or not.

To base a prohibition on saying kaddish in Shul fundamentally on the Teshuva
Me'ahava would seem to suggest support for the concomitant stance of the
Teshuva Me'ahava that women should not be in shul at all.

> - Danny

Regards

Chana

I am just reading the ROY teshuva... Yabia Omer 10:4
he  seems to construs SA 95:4 as a lechatchila There is ZERO doubt in my
mind that this is strictly b'diavad What the SA is saying in context of the
previous s'if are both "hudcha" not "madichin"  The SA is saying in the 2
cases no damage has been done and the dishes are muttar NOT the process.
This is an obvious read even disregarding the Shach citation of hag'ala to
prove this from Orach Hayyim

What SA is saying is that just as the case in 3 no harm is done, So it is
also true if eifer preceeds the dishes into the water.  Zehu pashut While
Taz shach and GRA shrei against this m"chabeir as unfounded,  I think the SA
has a point b"diavad.

I find it a great tzrich Iyyun to construe this as a l'chatchilah.  Just
because m'chaeir sticks a muttar at the end does NOT mean the process is
Muttar, just the keilim!

linguistically and philogolically the m'chabeir WOULD/SHOULD/COULD have said
Madicihin beyorah she'var nasnu eifer b'socho
OR
Muttar l'hadi'ach...

Those are the proper forumlations for a l"chatchila. Rather the M'chabeir is
saying post facto MUTTAR meaning no damage has been done

Illustration:
One would say a kli sheini that contained milk and meat together is MUTTAR
Would anyone allow cooking it l'chatchila in a kli sheini? I think not!  The
citation from hag'alah supports this

I will BEH question the mechanics of how a dishwasher works later.  Maybe in
Israel they work differently than in the USA. '

I will BEH this Teshuva further.

A case for zeh achar zeh could be made. RMF has already done so under
certain conditions


Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100203/28bf1449/attachment-0001.htm>

R'nTK wrote:
> 1.  Avraham pays 400 shekels for Me'aras Hamachpela and the
> shekels  are defined as "over lasocher." (Ber. 23:16).   The pasuk
> doesn't just  say Avraham "paid" 400 shekels, it says he "weighed
> out" 400 shekels, so you  know he paid top dollar.

Just a tangential point: Of course he weighed it, as minted coins with
standard valuation were not invented yet. Silver, gold or brass was
paid in weight. KNLAD.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Is Mu?ammar Al-Qadhafi Jewish
* After the Tefillin Terror Scare
* Der schwierige Nachlass
* Was ist Bitach?n (Zuversicht)?
* Endlich ein Mass Gerechtigkeit
* The Oldest Holy Places
* Videovortrag: Tehillim als Gebet

There's a cluster of themes that come together in Sefer Shmos and again in  
Sefer Bamidbar.  It struck me last year when I was reviewing the parshios  
in Bamidbar and I made a mental note to look at it more closely when it came 
 around again in Sefer Shmos, and here we are.  I'll list the common  
elements of the cluster and then go into them a little bit, and I hope the  
members of this august body will have some insights into why these elements come  
together now and then again.
 
The elements are 1. yearning for the food in Egypt    2.  man  (mannah)   
3. slav (pheasants)  4. Moshe's  father-in-law    5.  Moshe's wife      6.  
Moshe's burden is too great and others are appointed to lighten his  load .
 
The above list is the order in which the elements appear in Sefer  Shmos.  
 
 
In Sefer Bamidbar  (P' Beha'aloscha) the order is 
1.  Moshe's father-in-law   2. yearning for the food in  Egypt      3. the 
mannah     4.  Moshe's burden shared  5.  slav  6.  Moshe's  wife.
 
 
Now to get a little bit more specific -- compare and contrast.  
 
=> 1.  P' Beshalach 15:3 -- the B'Y complain, "If only we had died  in 
Egypt where we sat on the fleshpots and ate bread to satiety."   This happened 
on the fifteenth day of the second month (Iyar) of  their FIRST year, just 
two months after they left  Egypt.
 
=> 2 and 3:  P' Beshalach -- Hashem tells Moshe he is going to rain  bread 
from heaven and also says (16:12) "In the evening you will eat meat and in  
the morning you will be satisfied with bread" and then He brings first the 
slav  (16:13) and then the mannah (16:13 ff.)  No anger or punishment is  
associated with the slav and B'Y seem to eat it only that one time, that  one 
evening, before they ever have any mannah.  The mannah can be baked or  
cooked (16:23).  It is round like a coriander seed, it is white, and it  tastes 
like a wafer (tzapichas) in honey (16:31).
 
Then there are a couple of other things -- the lack of water, Moshe hitting 
 the rock, Amalek attacking them at Rephidim.  Then
 
=> 4. Beginning of P' Yisro -- Moshe's father-in-law, the minister  of 
Midian, comes to the desert.  His name is Yisro.  He brings with  him
=> 5. Moshe's wife, Tzipporah (and their two sons).
 
He rejoices at the wonderful things that have happened to B'Y, he is  
treated with great honor, and he notices 
 
=> 6. that Moshe is overburdened with people coming to him all day long  
with questions and problems and court cases.  He suggests a solution,  namely, 
that leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties and  
leaders of tens be appointed to share the burden. (18:21-22).  Moshe takes  his 
advice, and Yisro goes home.  The next thing that happens is that in  the 
third month after leaving Egypt, B'Y travel from Rephidim to Midbar Sinai  
(Shmos 19:1-2).
 
Rashi puts the story of Yisro as taking place a few months later, right  
after Yom Kippur, but a straightforward reading puts it in the second month  
after they leave Egypt, before Matan Torah.
 
 
*************
 
OK now on over to Sefer Bamidbar, P' Beha'aloscha.
 
In the SECOND year, in the second month, on the 20th day of the month  -- 
exactly one year after the above events -- B'Y left Midbar Sinai and traveled 
 to Midbar Paran (Bamidbar 10:11-12).  All of a sudden,
 
=> 1.  Moshe said to his father-in-law, "We are now traveling  to the land 
that Hashem promised us, come with us."  His father-in-law is  still a 
Midianite but now he is named Chovav.  ((10:29)    (Yes, yes, I know that Rashi 
says he had seven different names, but I'm  just looking at the plain pesukim 
right now.)   Chovav answers, "No,  I'm going home" and Moshe again says, 
"Stay with us" and the upshot is not  stated -- did he leave or did he stay?  
One big question of course is, if  he left a year ago how come he is back 
now??  Where did he come from all of  a sudden?  He never left?  (But the 
pasuk in Shmos states plainly  that he left.)   He left and came back?  He now 
left again or now  he stayed....?  
 
=> 2.  The people yearn for Egypt but now it's not so much the B'Y  as the 
"Asafsuf" (= the erav rav?) complaining, "Who will feed us meat?  We  
remember the fish we ate in Egypt, the cucumbers and watermelons and onions and  
garlic.   We have nothing to eat except this infernal mannah, we are  sick of 
mannah!"  (11:1-6)
 
=> 3.  The mannah is round like coriander seeds, its color is like  
bedolach, it can be ground or pounded, it can be cooked or made into cakes, and  it 
tastes like dough (leshad?) in oil.  (11:7)
 
=> 4.  Moshe says, "How am I supposed to feed all these  people?!  The 
burden is just too much for me!"  and Hashem says, "Take  seventy elders and I 
will give them some of  your spirit and they will  share your burden." 
(11:11-17)
 
=> 5.  "You are going to eat meat all right!  Until it comes  out of your 
noses!"  Thirty days straight of slav!  So much slav  arrived carried on the 
wind that it was piled two amos high (three feet high?)  but people choked 
on it and died while eating it.   This is not like  the gentle, unremarkable 
one-time slav of P' Beshalach, this is a plague of  slav, Hashem is very 
angry.  (Bamidbar  11:18-22 and 11:31-35).   (In between Hashem telling Moshe 
He is going to bring slav, and the actual  arrival of the slav, there's a 
section interposed about Eldad and Medad  prophesying in the camp.   That's 
really connected to the seventy  zekenim appointed to ease Moshe's burden.)
 
=> 6.  Moshe's wife.  She is an isha Kushis and something  about her upsets 
Miriam and Aharon.(12:1)
 
Well, that's it, folks.  All very curious.
 
**********
 
Needless to say, I am not interested in any Wellhausian type speculations  
about variations of the same story.  But I do wonder why these elements  
come together, in the first year and again in the second year after Yetzias  
Mitzrayim?  
 
It may be that some things happened only once -- e.g., Yisro/Chovav may  
have visited only once, and the conversation recorded in Bamidbar may simply 
be  an elaboration of the conversation that happened in S' Shmos.  
 
Other things almost certainly are recorded out of order, ein mukdam  
ume'uchar and all that.  Other things must have happened twice, e.g., the  slav.  
Other things that seem related are actually totally different  things, e.g., 
Moshe being burdened with having to judge all the people who  wanted  to 
learn Torah and get halachic decisions, vs Moshe being burdened  by having to 
provide sustenance to a nation of chronic grumblers.  The  solutions were 
different, one suggested by Yisro (leaders of thousands etc) the  other 
dictated by Hashem (70 elders).   
 
But it seems like there is a network of themes that the Torah means to  
connect.
 
Food, pheasant, father-in-law, burdens of Moshe.....
 
Speaking of food, there are cooking shows where contestants are given a  
basket of ingredients and have to come up with a tasty dish, and the best one  
wins.  So I have given you a basket of six ingredients -- see what you can  
make of it.  Thank you.
 
 

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


--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100203/790f7bb4/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 34
**************************************

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..."