Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 134

Wed, 30 Jun 2010

• 1. The Cult of Pe'or and Darwinism (Yitzchok Levine)
• 2. Re: Fw: Partnership Minyanim by Aryeh and Dov Frimer (Ira Tick)
• 3. Re: Fw: Partnership Minyanim by Aryeh and Dov Frimer (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Fw: Partnership Minyanim by Aryeh and Dov Frimer (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Fw: Partnership Minyanim by Aryeh and Dov Frimer (Ira Tick)
• 6. Rav on Women's Ordination (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 7. Re: The Cult of Pe'or and Darwinism (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 8. Chazon Ish on treifot (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Chazon Ish on treifot (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Chazon Ish on treifot (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Sheva Brachot (Chanani Sandler)
• 12. Correcting a bal korei (Zev Sero)
• 13. Dan Lekaf Zekhus (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Correcting a bal korei (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: ethics outside of Torah (David Riceman)
• 16. Pinechas and Benos Tzlafchad (Micha Berger)

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25:

3 And Israel attached itself to the Ba'al Pe'or, and the anger of God 
was stirred against Israel.

The cult of Pe'or is an illustration of the type of Darwinism that glories
in man's descent to the level of the beast, where, stripping himself of
his Divinely-given nobility, he comes to regard himself as merely a higher
species of animal.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100627/82cd7b94/attachment-0001.htm>

A few thoughts/questions:

1) As already mentioned in the article near its end, the Rambam is a
da'as yachid regarding women and serara/minui. Which is worth mentioning,
because it lends further strength to the next question:

2) How can the Rav assume the Rema's support for the minhag that women
are not shochtot is based on the Rambam?

3) Even if kabbala is seen as a siman that a given position is a "minui
kahal," since when does kabbala become an ikuvah for minui kahal? If
a woman is in a position of responsibility on the community's behalf,
such as serving on a synagogue board, serving as a shul vice-president,
treasurer or secretary, or as a mashgicha, how does the absence of kabbala
prevent her service from being considered minui? These positions should,
especially based on the distinction between gerim and women at the end
of the article, be forbidden to women.

4) When drawing a distinction between converts and women, the article
notes that women all prohibited from serving in the capacity of minui
kahal - "community wide appointments" and from being entrusted with
serara - "discretionary authority," whereas converts are barred only
from serara. If that is the case, how is it that women are permitted
to serve in any of the positions mentioned above in, since those are
indeed communal positions and were only permitted to her by the Rav
because they lacked serara. Somewhere, the definition of serara and the
Rav's distinction within the Rambam between serara and minui kahal is
not completely clear.

5) The other distinction made between gerim and women was based on the
Netziv, who proved from the acceptance of Herod as a Jewish monarch
that a ger may serve with serara if the need arrises--his convert
status does not invalidate his position. This idea is interesting,
though no actual reason was given as to why that distinction should
be made. The real problem though is the proof in its support. The idea
that Herod was "accepted" as both Jewish and as the legitimate king is
inconceivable. The people of Judea accepted Herod firstly because they
had no choice and secondly because he appeased them by refurbishing the
Temple. Herod was never accepted by the rabbis, for he was their sworn
enemy, and they both questioned and openly mocked his conversion and
his claim to royalty. "Whoever comes and says I am descended from the
House of the Hasmoneans is a [gentile] slave."

And Chazal say that Herod was a necrophiliac.

Ira Tick wrote:

> 5) The other distinction made between gerim and women was based on the
> Netziv, who proved from the acceptance of Herod as a Jewish monarch
> that a ger may serve with serara if the need arrises--his convert
> status does not invalidate his position.

Herod?!  Surely the proof is from Shmaya and Avtalyon.  (And surely the
exact same proof should suffice to justify a woman in such a position,
if the public needs her as they needed Shmaya & Avtalyon.)

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

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 07:25:42PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Herod?!  Surely the proof is from Shmaya and Avtalyon.  (And surely the
> exact same proof should suffice to justify a woman in such a position,
> if the public needs her as they needed Shmaya & Avtalyon.)

FWIW, RYBS asked R' Moshe Soloveitchik about how Shemaya veAvtalyon could
have been one of the zugos. RMS answered that he had asked his own father,
and R' Chaim answered that while they ran the Sanhedrin and voiced their
opinions, they didn't actually vote.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Someone brought to my attention the Levush, who rules that women do not
shecht out of fear of fainting.

It makes more sense to me that the Rema's ruling is echoing the Levush. Many
decisions in halacha, even those canonized in the Codes, are often much more
banal than is assumed by later-day analysis.

I may be biased, but I think that in spite of their genius, the chiddushim
of the Briskers in particular fit into this category of "erudite
glorification" of halacha.

This doesn't mean of course, that serara isn't a problem to contend with,
especially in the area of the rabbinate, but it does caution us to define
our terms carefully and to determine the integrity of our reasoning and of
our sources even more carefully.

Also, regarding Shemaya and Avtalyon, the article mentions Herod explicitly,
but R Chaim's answer notwithstanding, I agree with Zev that there appear to
be several worthy examples (apart from Herod, who in my mind is not). There
are such examples for women too, like Devorah or Shlomtzion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100627/cae8b351/attachment-0001.htm>

>From: Ira Tick <itick1...@gmail.com>
>A few thoughts/questions:

>1) As already mentioned in the article near its end, the Rambam is a
>da'as yachid regarding women and serara/minui. Which is worth mentioning,
>because it lends further strength to the next question:

Indeed, Rav Moshe Feinstein maintains that Rambam is a da'at Yahid. 
However, he was unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in the
Finkelstein edition of the Sifrei, Midrash Tanna'im, and Midrash Ha-Gadol. 
In addition the Ritva also maintains like the Rambam.

>2) How can the Rav assume the Rema's support for the minhag that women
>are not shochtot is based on the Rambam?

I think you should read the cited. {Shi'ur Shi'urei HaRav on Yoreh De'ah is
available for purchase here: http://www.ou.org/oupress/c
ategory/1680. The article was translated by R. Gil Stuident in this
post (http
://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-slaughterers.html)}. You will
see why the Rav is disatisfied with the other rationales (like women
fainting).

>3) Even if kabbala is seen as a siman that a given position is a "minui
>kahal," since when does kabbala become an ikuvah for minui kahal? If
>a woman is in a position of responsibility on the community's behalf,
>such as serving on a synagogue board, serving as a shul vice-president,
>treasurer or secretary, or as a mashgicha, how does the absence of kabbala
>prevent her service from being considered minui? These positions should,
>especially based on the distinction between gerim and women at the end
>of the article, be forbidden to women.

PLEASE read the shiur. As I explained, the Rav believes that since one
cannot be a Shochet without being communally certified by a recognized
authority, hence being a Shochet becomes a minui Kahal.  The required
examination/certification converts into a "an appointment over the
community" which the Rav believes the Rambam forbids for women.

>4) When drawing a distinction between converts and women, the article
>notes that women all prohibited from serving in the capacity of minui
>kahal - "community wide appointments" and from being entrusted with
>serara - "discretionary authority," whereas converts are barred only
>from serara. If that is the case, how is it that women are permitted
>to serve in any of the positions mentioned above in, since those are
>indeed communal positions and were only permitted to her by the Rav
>because they lacked serara. Somewhere, the definition of serara and the
>Rav's distinction within the Rambam between serara and minui kahal is
>not completely clear.

Please read my article again and the Rav's shiur [or R. Gil Student's
translation].  The Rav clearly distinguishes between "community wide
appointments" and Serara.  He is forced into this because women are
precluded from serving as communal dayanim, yet the Gemara indicates that a
Ger can sit on a bet din to judge gerim. Hence a ger is not assur from
minui kahal per se - only one of serara.  According to the Rav, minui kahal
or serara is assur for women;  only minui kahal of serara is assur for 
gerim. 

The Rav did not consider being a school principal a minui Kahal, because it
did not demand certification and only affected a limited population.  As
far as serara was concerned according to several poskim, the serara
prohibition does not apply when the elected individual does not enjoy
exclusive, final decision-making power.  No violation is involved,
therefore, when dealing with an appointment to a council which reaches
decisions together as a group, such as election to the Knesset (Rabbi Yosef
Kafah, Ha-isha Ve-chinukha, Amana, 5740, p. 37), a municipal Religious
Council, or to a synagogue board (Rav Soloveitchik discussed in Article). 
Likewise, a position does not qualify as serara if its holder's decisions
require the consent of a higher authoritative body.  For example, the
decisions of a school principal (such as employing or dismissing teachers)
must be approved by the board of education (Rabbi Aryeh Leib Grosenes,
Shu"t Lev Aryeh, 2:21).

For further discussion see: ?Women in Community Leadership Roles in the
Modern Period,? Aryeh A. Frimer, In ?Afikei Yehudah - Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni
zt?l Memorial Volume,? R. Itamar Warhaftig, ed., Ariel Press: Jerusalem,
5765 (2005), pp. 330-354 (In Hebrew). HTML file available online at http://www.
daat.ac.il/daat/mishpach/maamad/nashim-2.htm.  See also ?Women in
Community Leadership Roles ? Shul Presidents? "Text and Texture" of the
Rabbinical Council of America (June 2, 2010) - available online at http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=931.<
/a>

>5) The other distinction made between gerim and women was based on the
>Netziv, who proved from the acceptance of Herod as a Jewish monarch
>that a ger may serve with serara if the need arrises--his convert
>status does not invalidate his position. This idea is interesting,
>though no actual reason was given as to why that distinction should
>be made. The real problem though is the proof in its support. The idea
>that Herod was "accepted" as both Jewish and as the legitimate king is
>inconceivable. The people of Judea accepted Herod firstly because they
>had no choice and secondly because he appeased them by refurbishing the
>Temple. Herod was never accepted by the rabbis, for he was their sworn
>enemy, and they both questioned and openly mocked his conversion and
>his claim to royalty. "Whoever comes and says I am descended from the
>House of the Hasmoneans is a [gentile] slave."  And Chazal say that 
>Herod was a necrophiliac.


Herod had a lot of bad traits, Josephus is full of his blood thirsty
escapades.  Of course Haza"l didn't like him. But all that is is irrelevant
to the question of whether his kingship was halakhically valid, and the
Netsiv says "Yes."  Look at the Netsiv for yourself. 
The Hasmoneans should not have taken the kingship, certainly not
permanently.  But it did not make them invalid Kings.	If you revolted
against them you were mored be-malkhut.   Ahav was king of Israel, yet
Eliyahu haNavi ran before his Chariot out of Kavod!!!  You may be
inappropriate yet valid.



--------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il
Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053
Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834
Cellphone: 972-54-7540761
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100628/fac1c109/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/27/2010 11:16, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25:
>
> /*The cult of Pe?or is an illustration of the type of Darwinism that glories
> in man?s descent to the level of the beast, where, stripping himself of
> his Divinely-given nobility, he comes to regard himself as merely a higher
> species of animal.
>

... which is why we need a different type of Darwinism, that which does 
not limit its world to the material, and sees man as a higher species of 
animal *plus* a Divine soul.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@tourolib.org

Access Problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

The Chazon Ish in Treifot 5:3 famously states that the list was frozen .
When you look at the actual language ( see: http://www.he
brewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&;st=&pgnum=40&hilite=
)he seems to imply that it was fluid up till then based on the reality in
each generation and that it "had to be " frozen then  - I assume because
the generations got weaker after that(see the Maharsha in Sanhedrin(?) on
the 2000 years of torah vs. ymot hamashiach)


Questions: If all the "gedolim" got together today, would they be able to
change the list?  Did each sanhedrin in the past make its own list? Why
does ruach hakodesh play a part in when reality (vs.halacha) must be fixed
?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100628/1363d78b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:58:54AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: The Chazon Ish in Treifot 5:3 famously states that the
: list was frozen . When you look at the actual language ( see:
: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&;st=&pgnum=40&hilite= )he
: seems to imply that it was fluid up till then based on the reality in
: each generation and that it "had to be " frozen then - I assume because
: the generations got weaker after that(see the Maharsha in Sanhedrin(?) on
: the 2000 years of torah vs. ymot hamashiach)

: Questions: If all the "gedolim" got together today, would they be
: able to change the list? ...

The CI defines the 2 millenia of Torah as one in which we were given
that authority. Not just the normal nisqatnu hadoros. He uses it to
explain the line between tannaim and amoraim.

Therefore, since we're not in the middle third of history anymore, that
authority simply doesn't exist, even if we could get universal consensus.
Not until the 7th millenium, it would seem.

See the discussion from back in 2001 at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CHAZON%20I
SH%20ON%20NATURE
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TEREFAH
RDE points to a second MM, CI YD 5:3.

I also found a reference from RYGB in 1998, and there he says "I believe
we discussed it here before"!
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n042.shtml#17

See the threads at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/geti
ndex.cgi?section=S#SEVARA%20VS%20PASUK%20EMPIRICAL%20EVIDENCE%20VS%20PROOF<
/a>
and
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/get
index.cgi?section=K#KAL%20VACHOMER%20AND%20EMPIRICAL%20EVIDENCE%20VS%20PROO
F

What I found entertaining is who RYGB was replying to... The archive
identifies a "<Joelir...@aol.com>"...

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

 


Micha-The CI defines the 2 millenia of Torah as one in which we were given
that authority. Not just the normal nisqatnu hadoros. He uses it to explain
the line between tannaim and amoraim.

Therefore, since we're not in the middle third of history anymore, that authority simply doesn't exist, even if we could get universal consensus.
Not until the 7th millenium, it would seem.
==========================================
Me-Yes but the Maharsha (I'll get the direct site at home) is pretty clear
iirc that  it's not that the last 2000 aren't torah, it's an additional
feature.  Also R'HS often states that the only line between the tannaim and
amoraim is a self-imposed one (i.e. not required by halacha) whereas the
line between amoraim and later is required because of the lack of a
gathering/consensus  thereafter.  Thus my question (iirc R'HS  also says
the Rabbis should all get together and talk about whether stainless steel
is bolea and poleit)

I also hadn't realized that the CI implies that the reality might  have
changed over time prior to the list freeze - so it really sounds like the
list couldn't have been a halacha moshe misinai (which is how it was
initially explained to me 1000 years ago)

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

What I found entertaining is who RYGB was replying to... The archive identifies a "<Joelir...@aol.com>"...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--------------------------------------------------



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.

Since there is a halacha to "bentch" on a Kos Shel Bracha, why do we call
it?"Sheva Brachot" if there are really only six Brachot that are associated
with the occasion? 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100628/0cfb37f1/attachment-0001.htm>

On areivim, Dov Kaiser wrote:
> R. Meir G. Rabi wrote:
 
>> I believe that it was Reb Yakov who said that it makes no sense to 
>> correct the BaAl Koreh which may or does humiliate him and is an Issur 
>> DeOraysa, for the purposes of gaining a Takanah DeRabbanan.

> Drifting into Avodah territory, do you know where R. Yaakov said this, 
> as it contradicts a pretty clear Rema in OH, 142 that we do correct 
> mistakes that change the meaning of the words (contra the Manhig, who is 
> concerned about embarrassing the baal korei)?

Actually not contra the Manhig; the Ramo actually paskens *according* to
the Manhig, as he's understood by the BY and most other poskim, i.e. that
he's talking only about mistakes that don't change the meaning.  Only the
Bach understands him to be talking about all mistakes, and pretty much
only the Bach paskens that way, that a baal koreh should never be corrected
or made to go back.   (The Chayei Adam and the Biur Halacha say that if
the mistake was not realised until after leining was already over, so that
correcting it would require reopening the sefer torah and making new
brachos, then we can rely on the Bach.)

The opinion contra the Manhig is the Rambam, who holds that one must
correct for *every* mistake, even if it doesn't affect the meaning; and
that is the way the Tur and the BY pasken.

(Thanks to a discussion on Mahpach a few days ago, I just looked up all
of these.)

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

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:28:56AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
> Dan lechaf zechus only means that you assume whatever standards they
> keep they keep to the best of their ability.  It doesn't tell you
> what those standards are, or how able they are to keep them.

Maqor?

I think it would include assuming their standards are in compliance with
an acceptable pesaq. (Acceptible for them, eg not that a Sepharadi must
assume an Ashkenazi would only eat Bet Yosef meat.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:06:59AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Drifting into Avodah territory, do you know where R. Yaakov said this,  
>> as it contradicts a pretty clear Rema in OH, 142 that we do correct  
>> mistakes that change the meaning of the words...

> Actually not contra the Manhig; the Ramo actually paskens *according* to
> the Manhig, as he's understood by the BY and most other poskim, i.e. that
> he's talking only about mistakes that don't change the meaning...

In practice, we're more meiqil than that, and only those that both don't
change the meaning AND the local norm is to be maqpid about.

For example, even though Ashkenazim never took mile'eil vs milera off the
books, we don't make a baal qeri'ah go back for them. And Rashi comments
on BA'ah vs ba'AH having difference tenses. Or ve'aCHALta (and you ate)
vs ve'achalTA (vav yahipuch -- you will eat). And degeishos -- there
are baalei qeriah who are careful to say "ishahh" for "her husband",
but would we correct one who didn't and thus spoke of "a woman" in error?

Nit: The term is either "qorei", "baal qeri'ah", or the Yiddish
"balkoirei" (no ayin pause between the patach's). A "baal qorei" would
be the qorei's husband.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMB (citing RET):

<<

:  The[re] is
: controversy about the
: extent of patent/copyright law in halacha...

This is the Shoel uMeishiv's position (see 1:44). He holds that (1)
there is ownership of ideas because of common morality, and (2) that
barring a qinyan, that ownership is eternal, as halakhah recognizes
eternal baalus. Even if secular law sets a horizon for copyright, the
SuM argues that we would be required beyond that -- so we're not just
talking about dina demalkhusa. As you write, it's based upon the notion
that we are obligated to keep contemporary morality. Not just should,
but must do so.

 >>
I'm puzzled by this (perhaps some lawyer on the list will correct me if 
I'm wrong).  AIUI copyright applies not to ideas, but to their 
expression, and patents apply, not to abstract ideas, but to their 
embodiment in a "device" (which causes my boss no end of headaches).  
What word does the SU use for "idea", and in what context does he 
express his opinion? It certainly doesn't seem to exemplify common 
morality as I observe it.

David Riceman

Two very different thoughts. The first I wondered about ever since learning
Yehoshua -- how did Pinechas haKohein have a nachalah?

The second is about an archaological find that pausibly points to the descendents
of two of benos Tzelafachad.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov


: Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:36:28 +0200
: From: Shabbat BeShabbato <shabbat.beshabb...@gmail.com>
: Subject: Shabbat-B'Shabbato ? Parshat Pinchas
: To: d...@zomet.org

:         No 1330: 21 Tammuz 5770 (3 July 2010)

: INSIGHTS FOR THE SHABBAT TABLE
: by Bar-on Dasberg

: Can a Kohen Receive a Heritage?

: There are various interpretations about exactly what G-d promised Pinchas as
: a reward, "And he and his children after him will have a covenant of eternal
: priesthood" [Bamidbar 25:13]. After all, the priesthood had already been
: promised to Aharon and his children in any case.

: Here is a novel explanation. Throughout the Tanach, the memorial that a
: person leaves after his death is that his descendents continue to live at
: the site of his heritage. An exception to this rule is the tribe of Levi,
: who do not have their own heritage, but "G-d... is their heritage" [Yehoshua
: 13:33]. However, in the last verse in Yehoshua it is written, "And Elazar
: Ben Aharon died, and he was buried in the hill of his son Pinchas, which was
: given to him on the Mountain of Efraim" [24:33]. How did Pinchas, a Kohen,
: become the owner of a hill?

: Most of the covenants in the Tanach involve two subjects: descendents and
: the land. And the "covenant of eternal priesthood" means that his children
: will be given a heritage, as opposed to the other Kohanim, who have a
: promise of an eternal "covenant of salt" [Bamidbar 18:19]. This latter has
: no link to agricultural products ? that is, no land is involved. This is
: reminiscent of the verse, "Sulfur and salt burned the entire land, nothing
: can be planted, nothing will grow, and grass will never grow there" [Devarim
: 29:22].
...
: Where was the Heritage of Tzlofchad's Daughters?

: The remains at Shomron include some clay tablets containing ancient shipping
: documentation. Two areas that are mentioned in these documents are called
: "Noa" and "Chogla" ? the names of two of the daughters of Tzlofchad. The
: possibility that the heritage of the daughters is in the Shomron, to the
: west of the Jordan River, corresponds to what is written, "the daughters of
: Menasheh received a heritage among his sons, and the land of Gilad was given
: to the remaining children of Menasheh" [Yehoshua 17:6].

: Perhaps this was a direct result of what happened earlier, "And Machala,
: Tirza, Chogla, Milka, and Noa ? the daughters of Tzlofchad ? married their
: cousins" [Bamidbar 36:11]. The family ties between the two sides of the
: Jordan made sure that the inhabitants of Gilad would not become separated
: from the rest of the nation.
...
: SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
: distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
: published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
: of the National Religious Party.
:     Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
: To subscribe, write to d...@zomet.org.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 134
***************************************

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..."